In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2. The anti-Epicurean tradition before Plutarch 2.1. timocrates 2.1.1. If timocrates undoubtedly occupies a special place in the rich history of anti-Epicurean polemical literature, this is not because he brought forward the best arguments against the philosophy of his previous master, nor even because he was his first opponent (Eudoxus of Cnidus and his followers at Cyzicus were probably earlier). No, he holds his prominent place mainly due to two reasons. First of all, as D. Sedley has convincingly argued1 , timocrates’ criticism has exerted a strong and lasting influence on later generations . Elements that can probably be traced back to his campaign of slander indeed prove to return again and again in later anti-Epicurean polemics . there is, however, also a second reason why timocrates occupies such an important place among the opponents of Epicurus. his criticism was particularly purposeful and aimed at the very heart of the Epicurean way of life. As will appear from the rest of this chapter, there was perhaps nobody who caused as much trouble to Epicurus as timocrates. If this claim indeed holds true, it is worthwhile to reopen the debate on the course and content of the whole polemic. It is well-known of course that timocrates first endorsed Epicurus’ view, and only later came into conflict with his younger brother Metrodorus, whereupon he left the school. According to Cicero (nat. deor. 1,113), the conflict focused on the Epicurean doctrine of pleasure. R. Philippson2 has tried to reach a more detailed reconstruction and discerned three main points of disagreement: [1] timocrates denied that the good should entirely be measured by sensual pleasure, [2] he was convinced that a philosopher should practise rhetoric and engage in politics, and [3] he also adopted a heterodox position in the domain of physics. From this general philosophical position could be inferred that timocrates was influenced by Epicurus’ own teacher Nausiphanes. however, Philippson’s hypothesis is not without problems. his detailed reconstruction almost entirely rests on the notorious fragment from a letter of Metrodorus to his brother (fr. 41 K.) concerning the need to gratify the belly rather than saving the Greeks. But this fragment in all probability dates from the period before the rift3 , and should be understood against the psychotherapeutic background of Epicurean Seelenheilung. Accordingly, the passage should not be regarded as Metrodorus’ polemic against the opposite view of timoc1 (1976), esp. 127-132. 2 (1936), 1268-1269. 3 Cf. A. Angeli (1993), 14. 44 The anti-Epicurean tradition before Plutarch rates, but as a radical confirmation of the truly Epicurean perspective. Its original context was most likely protreptic, rather than polemic. the direct consequence of this interpretation is of course that the fragment as such contains no direct information about timocrates’ own view, nor about the influence of Nausiphanes4 . Epicurus’ political view is also under discussion in another fragment from a letter to timocrates. Unfortunately, the fragment just breaks off when the topic of a withdrawal from the multitude (ὑποστολὴν λαοῦ) comes up (Philodemus , Πραγματεῖαι col. xii, 12 Sp.5 ). According to L. Spina6 and A. Angeli7 , the fragment should be dated in the period when the relations between timocrates and his community are gradually deteriorating, but still before the final rift. this is not impossible, although it is perhaps more likely that it goes back even earlier. Just before, indeed, timocrates is urged to support others (col. xii, 1-9 M.), for then he would present himself as useful and benevolent (col. xii, 10-11 M.). Now it would have been quite undiplomatic to bother timocrates with such a direct question at a moment when mutual communication began to become difficult. Both fragments, then, contain no information regarding timocrates’ philosophical position at the moment of the conflict, nor about his motivations or about the influence of another philosophical school. the only conclusion to which they can lead is that timocrates was acquainted with Epicurus ’ main doctrines. this result is hardly impressive, to be sure: of course he did, since he was for several years a full member of the Epicurean community . yet, this evident knowledge is extremely important for a correct understanding of timocrates’ polemical approach. Indeed, the fact that timocrates knew Epicurus’ doctrine first hand, even more, that he himself lived for years as an Epicurean and was thus familiar with the concrete praxis of Epicurean philosophy from the inside, thoroughly conditioned his polemic and enabled him to become such a formidable opponent of Epicurus. 2.1.2. First of...

Share