Tag Archives: epicurus

Happy Hegemon Day: the Five Lucretian Hymns to the Hegemon

Happy Eikas and Welcome to year 2,366 of Epicurus! Today we celebrate the birth of Epicurus according to Hellenion.org’s Attic calendar and also the Gregorian calendar (because his birthday coincides in both this year).

Literary Updates:

November 2024 Eikas – Theoxenia: a Practice of Epicurean Hospitality

December 2024 Eikas – Nature Must Not Be Forced

Epicurean Gamikós (“Matrimonial”) Script – our friend Nate gives a version of Epicurean liturgical guidelines for a wedding ceremony. This reminded me of an essay I wrote many moons ago titled An Epicurean Approach to Secularizing Rites of Passage, where I argue that we are able to preserve the utility of ceremony while purging it from supernatural claims by articulating the benefit of the ceremony in terms of social contract

In this essay, I will evaluate Epicurean soteriology in Lucretius by surveying the five Lucretian hymns to the Hegemon and looking for themes and patterns in them.

The Five Lucretian Hymns to the Hegemon

Liber Primvs

In verses 61-79 of the first book by Lucretius, we first see a Promethean depiction of Epicurus as Liberator from the oppression of religion, whose terrors spark an angry zest in the Hegemon. He is hailed as a “conqueror” who gained the secrets of the study of nature for the benefit of mortals, and who

reports
What things can rise to being, what cannot,
And by what law to each its scope prescribed,
Its boundary stone that clings so deep in Time.
Wherefore Religion now is under foot,
And us his victory now exalts to heaven.

These last two verses are often quoted as part of the “mysteries” related to the meleta portion of Epicurus’ Epistle to Menoeceus, where Epicurus says we will live like immortals if we practice philosophy correctly. The verses in Latin are:

quare religio pedibus
subiecta vicissim opteritur,
nos exaequat victoria caelo.

The poem from Liber Primvs precedes the tale of Iphianassa, who was sacrificed by her own father to the Goddess Diana, so that part of the context of this initial poem (as I discussed in Mahsa Amini: the new Iphianassa) is that religion cannot be trusted to provide a social contract or a sense of morality or right, and that (as our third Scholarch Polystratus argued adamantly in one of his scrolls) without the scientific study of nature, our pursuit of these things is in vain.

The Iphianassa portion closes with a formula that is often used by modern Epicureans online whenever they create memes to criticize religious tyranny: tantum religio potuit suadere malorum, which translates as “so much of evil could religion prompt”.

Liber Tertivs

Liber Secvndvs does not have an opening poem in praise of Epicurus. Instead, it praises the salvific power of philosophy when it invites us to the study of nature so that we will not be trembling in fear of the unknown and speaks to us of the well-walled fortress of the wise (templa sapientorum).

In the first verse of Liber Tertivs, we continue to see the juxtaposition of darkness (tenebris) and light (lumen), which we also encountered in Liber Secvndvs, which paints Epicurus as a figure of Enlightenment. This is one of the recurrent themes in Lucretian hymns: the battle between darkness or ignorance and light or wisdom. The poem later refers to Epicurus as the fatherly Founder of the School in this way:

Our father thou,
And finder-out of truth, and thou to us
Suppliest a father’s precepts; and from out
Those scriven leaves of thine, renowned soul
(Like bees that sip of all in flowery wolds),
We feed upon thy golden sayings all-
Golden, and ever worthiest endless life.
For soon as ever thy planning thought that sprang
From god-like mind begins its loud proclaim
Of nature’s courses, terrors of the brain
Asunder flee, the ramparts of the world
Dispart away, and through the void entire
I see the movements of the universe.

For context, the ktistes (founder, usually of a city, dynasty, or association) was one of the types of figures who enjoyed the status of a Greek hero among their followers. These types of culture heroes often were recipients of a cult and, as public benefactors, were considered worthy of piety by their descendants. Epicurus has become, to the Koinonia or community of philosopher-friends, an embodiment of what Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra calls their “chief organizing idea”.

Liber Tertivs in general deals with the nature of the soul / mind, and Epicurus is here praised for having a god-like mind. Also, notice that Lucretius here praises the Aurea Dicta (golden precepts) of Epicurus, a subject that we will turn to later in this essay.

After the Aurea Dicta verse, Epicurus is celebrated as a type of polytheistic prophet, a revealer of the tranquil Epicurean gods. Lucretius gives us a poetic epiphany of these gods and their environment, proclaiming that this aspect of Epicurus’ doctrine produces (as intended) god-like trembling awe (terror) and pleasure (divina voluptas) in Lucretius, an awe that is not fear-based but blissful.

Liber Qvartvs

The Fourth Book continues the theme of Epicurus as a Revealer. It says that something new is being inspired, given, new fountains are springing forth and fresh flowers. I wonder if Nietzsche intended to weave Lucretian intertextuality in Thus Spake Zarathustra (portion 25) when he mentioned old fountains bursting forth again. Lucretius again takes up the theme of light and darkness and of enlightened salvation from dreadful religion, saying

since I teach concerning mighty things,
And go right on to loose from round the mind
The tightened coils of dread religion;
Next, since, concerning themes so dark, I frame
Song so pellucid, touching all throughout
Even with the Muses’ charm

The Copley translation (my favorite) of verses 8-9 says: “I turn the bright light of my verse on darkness, painting it all with poetry“. Epicurus and Lucretius both present themselves as Enlighteners and as propagators of the scientific enlightenment.

One further detail I wish to point to here: in the Opening of the First Book of the poem I have previously noticed a Zoroastrian influence (via Empedocles) in Lucretius, where he juxtaposes Venus (peace or concord, pleasure) and Mars (conflict, discord) as two great cosmic ethical forces–see the Love and Strife section of my essay on Empedocles. The verse that refers to “loose from round the mind the tightened coils of dread religion” (religionum animum nodis exsolvere pergo) reminds me of the kushti (cord) that Zoroastrians wear, by which they “bind” themselves to their magical religion, and of the more sinister akedah (binding, and later unbinding) of Isaac by Abraham, who nearly sacrificed his own son to his god.

This, plus the theme in Liber Primvs of liberating humans from religion so that it is trampled underfoot and we are heaven’s equals, helps us to understand Lucretian soteriology in more detail. Lucretius places Epicurus as a symbol or point of reference within history and within the evolution of thought as a similar paradigm shift as other salvific figures: after Epicurus’s Promethean revelations, humans did not need to live in fear of gods anymore, since he healed our souls and prepared us to live pleasantly and correctly. When we compare this with salvific claims made about other figures, we see that Jesus saved people from having to follow Jewish law, and Buddha and Zoroaster both saved people in their culture from animal sacrifices and other practices that they deemed unethical or superstitious. Epicurus, from his own place in history, saved people from fear-based polytheistic practices and refined polytheism, purging it from superstition and providing a prototype for a new, emancipated and enlightened type of human being and a new spirituality. There is a break with the past, and a new and updated type of human being is now possible.

In the latter part of the hymn in Liber Qvartvs, Lucretius reveals himself as a healer. Lucretius is imparting a dose of medicine and shows us how mortals can participate in Epicurus’ soul-healing activity.

I too (since this my doctrine seems
In general somewhat woeful unto those
Who’ve had it not in hand, and since the crowd
Starts back from it in horror) have desired
To expound our doctrine unto thee in song
Soft-speaking and Pierian, and, as ’twere,
To touch it with sweet honey of the Muse-
If by such method haply I might hold
The mind of thee upon these lines of ours,
Till thou dost learn the nature of all things
And understandest their utility.

Liber Qvintvs

This book provides one of the most useful hymns in our investigation of Epicurean salvation. In this book, Epicurus is revealed and proclaimed a god, and his apotheosis and soteriology is justified.

… a god was he,-
Hear me, illustrious Memmius- a god;
Who first and chief found out that plan of life
Which now is called philosophy, and who
By cunning craft, out of such mighty waves,
Out of such mighty darkness, moored life
In havens so serene, in light so clear.
Compare those old discoveries divine
Of others …

Lucretius then compares Epicurus to the other gods and argues that Epicurus did more for us than they, and so we should be more thankful to him.The other gods were credited with slaying mythical monsters whose existence none have ever witnessed, or with providing useful cultural gifts like wine and weaving that men could have done without. Epicurus, on the other hand, is credited with providing necessary goods for salvation. He is credited with giving humans:

a pure heart (puro pectore, verse 18)
sweet consolations that soothe the souls of men (verses 20-21)
purging the heart of lust and fears (verses 45-46), pride, greed, wantonness, debaucheries and sloth (verses 47-48)
expelling these things from the soul with words, not weapons (dictis, non armis)

As a tangent, we may compare all the evils that Lucretius says Epicurus purged from our hearts with the salvific claims in Lucian’s 10 Assertions on Kyriai Doxai.

Furthermore, the other Gods are demystified and made natural in Book Five, and Lucretius denies that they are truly responsible for the “gifts” they are said to bestow (except in the curious case of Venus, which has been discussed before and deserves a separate essay). The claims of this hymn are part of the larger aim within Liber Qvintvs‘ of demystifying Greek gods and cultural heroes, but Lucretius also elevates mortals like Epicurus to divine status, demonstrating how with the help of philosophy we can be heaven’s equals.

O shall it not be seemly him
To dignify by ranking with the gods?
And all the more since he was wont to give,
Concerning the immortal gods themselves,
Many pronouncements with a tongue divine,
And to unfold by his pronouncements all
The nature of the world.

Liber Sextus

The claims about Epicurus in Book Six, again, mirror Lucian’s claims. Lucretius says that “only truth poured from his lips” (Copley’s translation of veridico), while Lucian says that “he alone knew and imparted truth”. Lucretius says that his god-like revelations have carried his fame to heaven. He then gives a parable which compares the souls of men to punctured jars that are made whole by philosophy so that they may contain the pleasures that nature easily makes available to men.

So he,
The master, then by his truth-speaking words,
Purged the breasts of men, and set the bounds
Of lust and terror, and exhibited
The supreme good whither we all endeavour,
And showed the path whereby we might arrive
Thereunto by a little cross-cut straight

Notice that the salvific power is attributed, specifically, to the words of Epicurus, which is what Philodemus also does in his scroll On Music. This hymn speaks of godlike revelations and depicts the Hegemon as the healer of the soul. This is another theme we often see in other salvific figures, like Buddha and Jesus.

How does polytheism evolve as a result of Epicurus’ apotheosis? Does this represent a move towards pantheism, or panentheism, or towards a type of religious naturalism? My book review of How one can be a god partially answers this. The divine powers and attributes are drawn down to the earthly realm in Lucretius, rather than projected toward heaven, and Lucretius treats Epicurus himself as the prototype of immanent divinity. In the poem, Lucretian Gods are symbols tied to techniques to help us awaken certain spiritual potentials. Since Lucretian Divinity is immanent (remember that Venus, too, is said to “pulsate in the souls of men” in Liber Primvs), we must ex-press them (press them out of our souls), e-voke them (call them out from our souls) rather than in-voke them from the outside.

Personalist vs. Healing Logos Attribution

When we study the salvific theory of the Epicureans, we see two tendencies of attribution: in Lucretius we see a marked tendency to attribute salvific power to the Hegemon, the founder, Epicurus. This is the personalist attribution, although he also mentions “aurea dicta” (golden words) and the power of the healing words of the Hegemon as well.

Philodemus, in his scroll On Music, mentions that music only has healing powers if it contains the words of correct philosophy because it is those words that contain the healing potential, and so his therapeutic approach is logocentric. This is the non-personalist or healing logos approach to salvation, which attributes salvific powers to the words rather than the person uttering them.

In Lucian we see a praise of both Epicurus and his Kyriai Doxai: he endorsed both the personalist and the healing word model of salvation. The two tendencies of attribution are not mutually exclusive, however, the choice of one or the other might reflect the personality or tendencies or values of the person and might be justified with different arguments.

Lucretius focuses on the personalist attribution, which tells me that he feels comfortable with devotional traditions and exercises, that he sees them as serving some kind of important function in the psyche. Arguments in favor of personifying deity and choosing personal conceptions of spirituality rather than abstract ones exist in traditions that focus on devotion, like the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage of Hinduism. In general, the argument I’ve heard from that lineage (which expound on passages from the scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam) is that humans find it easier to relate to a Person than to an abstraction. The personalist attribution is based on the theory that the psyche has a social set of faculties and functions, that it seeks to relate to an other self, and that it learns to relate to others by playing or rehearsing loving relationships. Play behavior also serves educational purposes in other species: we see cubs and kittens playing to learn social hierarchy, stalking behavior, and other important skills that will be later useful. Hindus refer to the playful pastimes of Krishna as “lila” (divine play).

Perhaps the issue of personal versus impersonal attribution of salvific power can be understood in terms of different types of Epicureans with different constitutions, some more social than others or more willing to take up external points of reference, or as attempts to develop different faculties of the soul.

Conclusion

In this essay I’ve tried to compile and evaluate some of the soteriological claims made and parables used by Lucretius in De rerum natura, particularly in the five hymns that he dedicates to the Hegemon, where Lucretius makes attributions to Epicurus as a Revealer of cosmic truths, a Healer of souls, a Promethean Savior of humanity from religious oppression and disinformation, a Liberator, and a deified mortal. We also see a pattern of presenting Epicurus as a scientific Enlightener who sheds his light upon darkness, and we see that Lucretius participates in these salvific activities by virtue of his poem and his efforts to propagate philosophy.

Epicurus and his Followers

“You toil, men, at worthless tasks, and in your greed
For gain you start quarrels and wars:
But nature’s wealth has its limits,
Though empty judgment treads a limitless path.
So heard the wise son of Neocles, either from the Muses,
Or from the holy tripod of Pytho”
— Athenaeus

Epicurus’ early life

Epicurus, son of Neocles, was born in 341 BC in an Athenian settlement on the island of Samos, in the Aegean Sea. One ancient biography mentions that he was of aristocratic birth although it is also stated that his father was a school teacher, a modest profession. He started practicing philosophy at an early age, either 12 or 14. According to one source, he turned to philosophy because of his dissatisfaction with the origin myths presented in Hesiod. Epicurus had three brothers, Neocles, Chaeredemus and Aristobulus, with whom he was close, and encouraged them to join him in the practice of philosophy.

The period in which he lived was a time of major change in the Greek world, with the aftermath of Alexander the Great’s conquests. Alexander’s death led to a major succession crisis where power hungry military leaders competed for control through political maneuvering and warfare. As a result of the chaos, Epicurus had to leave Samos and ended up living in Colophon, off the Ionian coast (today Turkey), after completing his military service.

Epicurus recruits his disciples

After sustaining himself financially for some time as a school teacher, his father’s profession, and studying philosophy with different teachers, he opened his first philosophical school in Mytilene, in the island of Lesbos, at the age of 32. It is there that he would make his first major encounter, that of Hermarchus, the son of a poor man and originally a student of rhetoric. Hermarchus would become an important figure in the Epicurean school and eventually Epicurus’ successor.

Epicurus later moved to Lampsacus, in the Hellespont (today called the Dardanelles, in Turkey) where he became very successful and met someone else who would play an important role in his life: Metrodurus–sometimes referred to as a “second Epicurus”–who could be considered as Epicurus’ best friend. He would have wanted Metrodorus to be his successor but he died before Epicurus, who took care of his surviving children. The traditional celebration of the Eikas feast on the 20th of each month is dedicated to both Epicurus and Metrodurus who together embody the values of friendship, autarchy, etc.

Another important encounter at Lampsacus was that of the mathematician Polyaenus, who was known for his friendliness to everyone, including philosophical rivals. Together, Epicurus, Metrodorus, Hermarchus and Polyaenus are considered the 4 founders of the Epicurean school and their writings were considered canonical by later Epicureans. While Epicurus, the head of the school, was referred to as the Hegemon, Metrodorus, Hermarchus and Polyaenus were the kathegemones (Leaders, or Guides).

Other important individuals from Lampsacus to join the school were Idomeneus, Leonteus and his wife Themista, Colotes and Metrodurus’ brother, Timocrates, and sister, Batis. Idomeneus became one of the important leaders of the school. Born in a rich aristocratic family, he was heavily involved in politics; though it seems he eventually abandoned that career to dedicate himself more fully to philosophy. He married Metrodurus’ sister, Batis. Eventually, Epicurus and many of his followers moved near Athens to found the philosophical school that would be known as the Garden. Idomeneus, along with Leonteus, stayed behind in Lampsacus to lead the Epicurean school there. Over time, Epicurean communities would multiply around the Mediterranean world.

The Garden was known for accepting women amongst its ranks as intellectual equals. Other than Themista, another important female member was Leontion, who was either Metrodorus’ wife or mistress. She might have been a hetaera, a term often translated as “courtesan”, though what exactly this means is unclear, and the term might have been used in a derogatory manner to criticize an educated woman with more freedom than was considered normal for the time. We know of at least one treatise that she wrote. Other women who joined the Garden were Mammarion, Hedia, Erotion and Nicidion, who might also have been hetaerae.

Slaves also practiced philosophy with Epicurus, the most famous of whom was Mys, Epicurus’ servant. Two centuries later, Philodemus would still be telling many stories of how kind Epicurus was to his slave Mys (“Mouse”), whom he manumitted in his Final Will, and who seems to have been treated perhaps as a type of adopted son by Epicurus. Therefore, we might imagine Mys (sometimes spelled Mus, and pronounced like “Muse”) as a much more important and dignified figure than we may expect from his social status: he was a trusted and available hand, was always treated respectfully and kindly by the Hegemon, and may have been the one in charge of ensuring service and hospitality to guests at the Garden (as reported by Seneca), or in charge of managing the kitchen.

Epicurus’ character

One member would end up dissenting from the Garden, Timocrates the brother of Metrodorus. This led to a public back and forth between Timocrates and Metrodurus, who remained faithful to Epicurus. The reason for Timocrates’ departure is not clear, but his dissention would lead to the spread of rumors which would seriously hurt the reputation of Epicurean community. The tradition of anti-Epicurean slander would continue over the centuries, including the publication of scandalous letters falsely attributed to Epicurus. Regarding the rumors, it should be noted that the rivalry between philosophical schools in those times were just as petty as polemics between politicians or celebrities are today.

According to the ancient biographer Diogenes Laertius, those spreading rumors about Epicurus and his friends were “out of their minds”, and he praises Epicurus for “his gratitude to his parents, his generosity to his brothers, his gentleness to his servants” as well as his “piety towards the gods and devotion to his native land”. He adds: “For it was on account of his exceptional honesty that he did not engage in public life at all”. Even Epicurus’ rivals recognized that he was loyal to his friends and practiced moderation, and Plutarch–who more than once mocked the affection that the Epicurean Friends had for each other–elsewhere admitted admiration (perhaps envy?) for having been such loyal, caring Friends to each other. Epicurus rarely left his homeland even in times of war and one time used food rations to keep the members of his school from starving during a siege. He is said to have been content with eating just bread and water and adding a little bit of cheese was considered a luxury which he enjoyed. Epicurus and his friends took care of each other when they were sick and honored those who died.

Epicurus died in 270 BC from stone blockage of his urinary tract. It was a slow and painful death but according to the tradition Epicurus remained cheerful due to the good memories of his life with his friends. According to his deathbed letter to Idomeneus:

“Passing a delightful day, which will also be the last of my life, I write you this note. Dysentery and an inability to urinate have occasioned the worst possible sufferings. But the counterweight to all this is the joy in my heart when I remember our conversations. I beseech you, in light of how admirably, from childhood, you have stood by me and by philosophy, to keep watch over Metrodorus’ children”.

Our Hegemon

Honoring a sage is itself a great good to the one who honors. – Vatican Sayings

Epicurus of Samos, our cheerful Hegemon (Leader) whose name means Ally or Friend, was born in the Greek city of Samos and lived between the years 341 and 270 Before Common Era. During his life, he founded a noble philosophical tradition that bears his name, the details of which you will find in these pages.

Epicurus is truly a spiritual Ally to all humanists who seek to apply philosophy and science to the pursuit of wisdom and happiness. 2,300 years ago, he was among the first to propose the idea of the atom, he recommended wholesome association, favored science over superstition, taught a temperate form of hedonism where desires were to be kept under control, and brought the treasure of his science of happiness to thousands of followers who honored him as their founding hero who liberated them from false idols and from ignorance.

His schools, known as Gardens, were oases of cultivation, learning and serenity that flourished for over 700 years. After the calamities of the Dark Ages, the philosophy flourished again during the Renaissance and influenced enlightenment thinkers. Centuries later, Thomas Jefferson declared himself an Epicurean, left the fingerprints of the philosophy in the Declaration of Independence, and even cultivated his own Garden.

Recent translations of papyri near Pompeii written by ancient Roman teachers, as well as the current trend away from organized religion, have renewed interest in the philosophy. Contemporary Epicureans exist in many countries. The Society of Friends of Epicurus continues the teaching mission of the Gardens and seeks to experiment with replicating the ancient practice of Epicureanism and to update it in light of centuries of philosophical discourse and scientific insight.

In a world filled with anxiety and frivolous instant gratification, the simple life of an Epicurean is not for everyone. If you feel inspired to benefit from these teachings, welcome home! Count yourself among the Friends!