Eikas cheers to all our readers! To members of Society of Friends of Epicurus, Eikas of February is officially our Gregorian-calendar Hegemon Day, which celebrates the birth of the first Epicurean in history. Epicurus of Samos elaborated a fully natural cosmology based on atomism, paved the way for our modern Western scientific worldview, and taught his friends an ethics that consisted in learning the art of living correctly, pleasantly, justly, and prudently. We invite our readers to learn more about our Hegemon by studying his own Code of Ethics: the Kyriai Doxai and the Epistle to Menoeceus.
Lucian of Samosata is poetically a “spirit of laughter” among our ancestors. He was at one and the same time an artist, an engaging storyteller, a clown, a satirist, and a comedian. Lucian practiced VS 41 when he chose to live with laughter, and to impart laughter while being true to the Kyriai Doxai. In portion 47 of Alexander the Oracle Monger, a satirical novel from the 2nd Century of Common Era, Lucian of Samosata gives a full book review of the Kyriai Doxai.
In this connection Alexander once made himself supremely ridiculous. Coming across Epicurus’s Accepted Maxims, the most admirable of his books, as you know, with its terse presentment of his wise conclusions, he brought it into the middle of the market-place, there burned it on a fig-wood fire for the sins of its author, and cast its ashes into the sea. He issued an oracle on the occasion: The dotard’s maxims to the flames be given.
The fellow had no conception of the blessings conferred by that book upon its readers, of the peace, tranquillity, and independence of mind it produces, of the protection it gives against terrors, phantoms, and marvels, vain hopes and inordinate desires, of the judgment and candor that it fosters, or of its true purging of the spirit, not with torches and squills and such rubbish, but with right reason, truth, and frankness.
Lucian says many things in this small passage, and I’d like to highlight ten assertions that he makes–in part because Epicureans have always been known for concise speech, and his choice of words looks like the product of a careful editorial process.
- That whoever insults or burns the Kyriai Doxai is “supremely ridiculous” (worth laughing at). This is how a laughing philosopher praises the Doxai.
- That Kyriai Doxai is the most admirable of Epicurus’ books.
- He chose the words “as you know”. This implies that Celsus (to whom he is writing the novel) already “knows” these things about the Kyriai Doxai, and we may infer that Celsus must have either been an Epicurean, or that they perhaps had studied the Kyriai Doxai together. In Laertius, Book Ten, we read that a sage will give public lectures, but only upon request. Lucian may have been applying this same logic to his Epicurean testimony. By mentioning that Celsus specifically requested the work, he sought to excuse himself from the accusation of preaching in public, and/or of being a demagogue (since Epicurus forbids public preaching). I believe that the mention of Celsus in this manner may have been a way to certify his fulfillment of the rules on passive recruitment. In this way, he is applying the Laertian loophole (of work being produced “upon request”) to his own missionary work, creating an analogy between public lectures and comedic literature. This analogy is appropriate, in my view, and in fact we have discussed it in our own Koinonia, and concluded that we consider it valid (that both lectures and written works produced by invitation fulfill the rules of the founders concerning passive recruitment). If he is indeed applying some form of the Laertian standard, then Lucian is aware that he’s engaging in missionary work when writing this.
- Lucian mentions the “terse presentment of wise conclusions”–this means clear, concise, to the point, polished, sparing. Philodemus of Gadara also praised Epicurean writings’ conciseness, precision and clarity.
- Lucian says that the Doxai confers blessings upon its readers, and goes on to mention them. It is here that he creates a depiction of Kyriai Doxai as a dynamic force within the psyche of students, and in the circle of friends that study together.
- Among these blessings, he mentions peace and tranquility, a claim which could be justified by Doxai 1-4, 6, 17, 35, and many others.
- He mentions the independence of mind KD produces, a claim which could be justified by our recent meleta on KD 14.
- He mentions protection, or in some translations liberation, specifically, from five named evils. The five evils mentioned by Lucian are “terrors, apparitions, portents, vain hopes, and extravagant cravings”. In other translations, I’ve seen them numbered as: “terrors, phantoms, and marvels, vain hopes and inordinate desires”. Concerning terrors and apparitions, these claims are justified by KD 1, 2, 10-14, and others. Vain hopes are destroyed in KD 2, 21, and 7, among others. Concerning portents or omens, this claim is justified by KD 16. These evils can be divided into two types: specific types of fears and specific types of unnatural desires. Lucian’s five evils remind me of the four “roots of all evil” in Diogenes’ Wall.
- Lucian says Kyriai Doxai fosters judgment and candor (open and honest expression).
- The term “TRUE purging” (sometimes translated as “purifying”) reminds me of the philosophical religiosity and spirituality espoused by Empedocles in his “Purifications”. Here, however, Lucian is using the term to differentiate Epicurus from the main character in Alexander the Oracle Monger, which is a parody of a false prophet and charlatan. He is saying that, unlike this charlatan, Epicurus does indeed truly purify the understanding by straight thinking (which I believe refers to the clarity bestowed by the canon, Doxai 22-25), and by Truthfulness and Frankness / Parrhesia.
Some translations of this passage use the verbs “create, engender, develop, liberate and purify”–all creative, life-affirming, and sustaining verbs. These actions are attributed to the Kyriai Doxai, and give the impression of the Kyriai Doxai as an active, dynamic force in the psyches of the readers. We have no way of knowing whether Lucian is writing his own testimony, or whether he is co-editing this with Celsus or another Epicurean Guide or mentor, but this does not affect how thought-provoking this passage is.
Lucian’s testimony concerning Epicurean philosophy does not end there. On Epicurus himself, Lucian wrote earlier in the same work:
[17] And at this point, my dear Celsus, we may, if we will be candid, make some allowance for these Paphlagonians and Pontics. The poor uneducated ‘fat-heads’ might well be taken in when they handled the serpent—a privilege conceded to all who choose—and saw in that dim light its head with the mouth that opened and shut. It was an occasion for a Democritus, nay, for an Epicurus or a Metrodorus, perhaps, a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by skepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility.
… [25] A time came when a number of sensible people began to shake off their intoxication and combine against him, chief among them the numerous Epicureans; in the cities, the imposture with all its theatrical accessories began to be seen through. It was now that he resorted to a measure of intimidation; he proclaimed that Pontus was overrun with atheists and Christians, who presumed to spread the most scandalous reports concerning him. He exhorted Pontus, as it valued the God’s favor, to stone these men. Touching Epicurus, he gave the following response. An inquirer had asked how Epicurus fared in Hades, and was told: Of slime is his bed, And his fetters of lead.
The prosperity of the oracle is perhaps not so wonderful, when one learns what sensible, intelligent questions were in fashion with its votaries. Well, it was war to the knife between him and Epicurus, and no wonder. What fitter enemy for a charlatan who patronized miracles and hated truth, than the thinker who had grasped the nature of things and was in solitary possession of that truth? As for the Platonists, Stoics, Pythagoreans, they were his good friends; he had no quarrel with them. But the unmitigated Epicurus, as he used to call him, could not but be hateful to him, treating all such pretensions as absurd and puerile…
Notice here the assertion that Epicurus alone was in solitary possession of the truth about the nature of things. That the entire novel was written in solidarity with the numerous Epicureans that he also mentions in this passage is confirmed towards the end of the novel:
[61] My object, dear friend, in making this small selection from a great mass of material has been twofold. First, I was willing to oblige a friend and comrade who is for me the pattern of wisdom, sincerity, good humor, justice, tranquillity, and geniality. But secondly I was still more concerned (a preference which you will be very far from resenting) to strike a blow for Epicurus, that great man whose holiness and divinity of nature were not shams, who alone had and imparted true insight into the good, and who brought deliverance to all that consorted with him. Yet I think casual readers too may find my essay not unserviceable, since it is not only destructive, but, for men of sense, constructive also.
Here, Lucian again emphasizes that Epicurus was alone among the philosophers in terms of not being a sham, being truly holy, benefiting others, and having true insight and knowledge. Lucian is clear, emphatic, and unequivocal in all his statements about both Epicurus and his Principal Doctrines. Based on the reading of these passages, it seems to me that Celsus must have been a fellow Epicurean, because
- as Lucian mentions early in the text, Celsus requested the collection of jokes, perhaps mixed with this defense of Epicurus–with the added benefit that in this way, Lucian evades breaking the Epicurean community’s rules against preaching in public when uninvited, and
- Alexander the Oracle Monger was put into writing as a token of friendship between two Epicureans of the Second Century of Common Era, when Christians had become a visible minority and Epicureans were numerous in what is today Western Turkey. Lucian says “as you know” when praising the Kyriai Doxai, and “you will be very far from resenting” (that Lucian is striking a blow for Epicurus). These expressions indicate that Lucian and Celsus either studied philosophy together, or celebrated Eikas together, or in some other way had enjoyed Epicurean camaraderie. The dedication to Celsus makes me imagine that they had such sweet friendship, having spent innumerable hours laughing together at these things, that the compilation of jokes and stories was a testament of their fruitful and happy friendship in some way. Writing this work rendered immortal some of the best parts of their friendship. Their friendship and their laughter practice still benefits all the future generations who have since enjoyed reading “Alexander the Oracle Monger”.
Lucian is writing a comedy, but suddenly and emphatically he wants the reader to know that he is serious about Epicurus and the Kyriai Doxai. Lucian’s Epicurean testimony is a serious moment in the midst of a comedic work, although it’s entirely relevant and woven with ease into the rest of the narrative. For all these reasons, I see Lucian of Samosata as a great role model in placing before the eyes the practice of the laughing philosophers that is found in VS 41: at one and the same time, Lucian laughs, uses his talent to entertain friends, and finds his voice as a philosopher.
One must laugh and seek wisdom and tend to one’s home life and use one’s other goods, and always recount the pronouncements of true philosophy. – Epicurean Saying 41
This Month’s Literary Updates:
Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life is a book review of a new friendly introductory book by Emily Austin
“Living for Pleasure: an Epicurean Guide to Life”: a SoFE Book Review
Boys and men are lonelier than ever. What can we do about it.
Further Reading:
