Philosophia,

THE ETHICAL 48,IMPLICATIONS

2018, pp. 195-204
OF EPICURUS’ THEOLOGY 195

THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS

OF EPICURUS’ THEOLOGY

From its beginnings, Ancient Philosophy has questioned the relationship

between man and the divine, in different ways, according to each thinker1.
In the following pages we intend to analyse the original contribution that an
ancient theology, the Epicurean theology, offers to this complex and rich
tradition of thought. First of all, it is necessary to say that Epicurus’ thinking on
this subject is profoundly different from the philosophical formulations both
before and after2: it is, in a certain sense, unique, and this is, perhaps, also one of
the reasons why he was at the centre of multiple attacks and accusations.
The necessary starting point of this study is the reaffirmation of an
«element», demonstrated by many scholars: despite traditional claims to the

1. For the Presocratics, cf. W. Jaeger, Die Theologie der früher griechischen Denker, Stuttgart,
Kohlhammer, 1953. For the Sophists, and in particular for Protagoras, O. Gigon, Il libro Sugli
dei di Protagora, Rivista di storia della filosofia, 40, 1985, pp. 419-448, and, more recently, M.
Corradi, Il Peri Theon di Protagora. Un nuovo tentativo di ricostruzione, Maia, 69, 2017, pp.
444-469. For Socrates, M. Narcy, La religion de Socrates dans le Mémorables de Xénophon
and G. Giannantoni, La religiosità di Socrate secondo Platone, in G. Giannantoni – M. Narcy
(eds), Lezioni Socratiche, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 1997, pp. 15-28 and pp. 97-120. For Antisthenes, A.
Brancacci, La théologie d’Antisthène, Philosophia. Yearbook of the Research Centre for Greek
Philosophy at the Academy of Athens, 15-16, 1985-1986, pp. 218-230. For Plato, A. Bortolotti,
La religione nel pensiero di Platone dai primi dialoghi al Fedro, Firenze, Olschki, 1986, and Id.
La religione nel pensiero di Platone dalla Repubblica agli ultimi scritti, Firenze, Olschki, 1991;
and also G. Van Riel, Plato’s gods, Farnham, Ashgate, 2013. For a broader historical outlook, see
D. Babut, La religion des philosophes grecs, de Thalès aux stoïciens, Paris, PUF, 1974. More in
general, for an overview of the relations between religion and philosophy in Ancient Greece, see
the interesting remarks of E. Moutsopoulos, De quelques thématiques déterminantes relatives
à la religion grecque antique, Kernos, 15, 2002, pp. 13-17.
2. Epicurus himself considered his philosophy as completely different from the other.
Furthermore, although several sources claim that Epicurus was disciple of different
philosophers (such as, for example, Pamphilus and Nausiphanes), he introduced himself as an
autodidaktos. On the latter aspect, cf. M. Erler, Autodidact and Student. On the Relationship
of Authority and Autonomy in Epicurus and Epicurean Tradition, in J. Fish – K.R. Sanders
(eds), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, Cambridge, CUP, 2011, pp. 9-28. On the
teachers of Epicurus, see now the remarks of D. De Sanctis, Questione di stile: osservazioni
sul linguaggio e sulla comunicazione del sapere nelle lettere maggiori di Epicuro, in D.
De Sanctis – E. Spinelli – M. Tulli – F. Verde (eds), Questioni epicuree, Sankt Augustin,
Academia, 2015, pp. 55-73, especially pp. 55-58.
196 ST. MECCI

contrary3, Epicurus was not an atheist philosopher4. The philosopher of Samos

not only believes that the gods exist, but he also claims that this is an evident
(enarges) knowledge (gnōsis)5. Furthermore, as it results from ancient sources
certainly trustworthy, he argued bitterly against atheistic thinkers, considering
them «fools» and comparing them to «drunkards»6. Although Epicurus does
not set out this notion in a complete and detailed manner in the preserved
works, he clearly believes that men’s knowledge of gods can be produced in
different ways7. But the premise of his analysis is always the fact that the gods
are living beings (zōa), composed of atoms, emitting eidola, which reach, in
different ways, the minds of men8.
However, here our attention is focused, more than on the ways in which
men know the divine –and on the Epicurean arguments aimed at proving

3. Traditions present in Antiquity as well as in Modernity. Indeed, this accusation must

have been present already at the time of Epicurus, as shown in a passage from the Letter
to Menoeceus (123), on which cf. G. Giannantoni, Epicuro e l’ateismo antico, in Id. - M.
Gigante (eds), Epicureismo greco e romano. Atti del Congresso internazionale, Napoli, 19-
26 maggio 1993, 3 voll., Napoli, Bibliopolis, 1996, vol. I, pp. 21-63, in particular p. 41. Well
known is the polemic of Posidonius, reported by Cicero (De Natura Deorum I 44.123),
which contains those accusations of atheism that are present throughout Antiquity, and even
beyond. On the accusations of Posidonius, cf. D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus: On Piety, Part I.
Critical Text with Commentary, Oxford, OUP, 1996, p. 352. More generally, a collection of
ancient sources that consider Epicurus an atheist can be found in M. Winiarczyk, Wer galt im
Altertum als Atheist, Philologus, 128, 1984, pp. 157-183, pp. 168-170. On the tradition present
in Modernity, cf. the short but interesting, analysis by D. Obbink, The Atheism of Epicurus,
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30, 1989, pp. 187-223, here p. 187 n. 2. Unless otherwise
indicated, all translations of Epicurus used in these pages are from P. Mensch (transl.), Lives
of the Eminent Philosophers: Diogenes Laertius, Oxford, OUP, 2018, based on the most recent
Greek edition from Tiziano Dorandi: Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers,
Cambridge-New York, CUP, 2013.
4. Cf. A.-J. Festugière, Épicure et ses dieux, Paris, PUF, 1946 and G. Arrighetti (ed.),
Epicuro: Opere, Torino, Einaudi, 1973 (first ed. 1960), pp. 536-537; more recently, H. Essler,
Glückselig und unsterblich: Epikureische Theologie bei Cicero und Philodem, Basel, Schwabe,
2011, F. Verde, Epicuro, Roma, Carocci, 2013, pp. 146-157, and E. Piergiacomi, Storia delle antiche
teologie atomiste, Roma, SUE, 2017, pp. 49-115. A recent attempt to consider Epicurus an atheist
was made by A. Long – D. N. Sedley (eds), The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 (vols), Cambridge,
CUP, 1987, vol. I, p. 145. But cf. also D. Obbink, ‘All Gods are true’ in Epicurus, in D. Frede – A.
Laks (eds), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology. Its Background and Aftermath,
Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp. 183-221, and D. N. Sedley, Epicurus’ Theological Innatism, in J. Fish - K.
R. Sanders (eds), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, op. cit., pp. 29-52. On this perspective, see
the criticisms formulated by J. Mansfeld, Aspects of Epicurean Theology, Mnemosyne, 46, 1993,
pp. 172-210, and D. Babut, Sur les dieux d’Épicure, Elenchos, 26, 2005, pp. 79-110.
5. As Epicurus writes clearly in the Letter to Menoeceus (123): «For gods exist, and the
knowledge of them is evident».
6. Philodemus, De Pietate col. 19.523-533 Obbink, where it is written that Epicurus ex-
pressed these contents in his Peri Physeōs book XII.
7. As pointed out by G. Giannantoni, Epicuro e l’ateismo antico, op. cit., p. 27.
8. For the various ways in which eidola reach human minds, and, in general, for the analy-
sis of certain problematic aspects of the knowledge of the gods, see D. Konstan, Epicurus on
the Gods, in J. Fish – K. R. Sanders (eds), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, op. cit., pp.
53-71, especially pp. 59-69.
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF EPICURUS’ THEOLOGY 197

his existence9–, rather on the weight of theology in Epicurus’ thought, and

on the question whether the gods can play any role in human life. Indeed,
although the divine is not denied, it seems to be placed almost outside of
human existence. One could even say, to use the words of Cicero (De
Natura Deorum I 30.85), that, although Epicurus reaffirms the existence of
the divinity in words (verbis) in order to avoid being accused of atheism,
actually eliminates it (re sustulisse)10.
As is known, in the Epicurean system, a profound distance between
the human and the divine worlds can be observed, and indeed there seems
to be no connection between the two11. Indeed, the gods, who live in the
intermundia, or metakosmia, do not intervene in any way in the life of man,
but they are totally disinterested12. For Epicurus, the divine is characterized
by two essential properties: immortality and bliss13. Especially in virtue of
the latter, the Epicurean gods can also be defined as “inactive”, because, as
Epicurus says in the Letter to Herodotus (77), «troubles, anxieties, anger and
partiality are incompatible with bliss, but have origin in weakness, fear and
dependence on neighbours»14. For this reason, Epicurean divinities can do
nothing but eternally enjoy their condition, which can be considered as the
highest expression of bliss. In this sense, it is correct to say that the divinities
are in a perennial state of katastematic pleasure, which is identified, more
generally, with happiness itself15. Indeed, it is important to remember that
Epicurus, unlike other hedonistic philosophers of Antiquity, such as the
Cyrenaics16, considers the absence of pain, the katastematic pleasure, as the

9. On this issue, see now E. Piergiacomi, Storia delle antiche teologie atomiste, op. cit., pp. 50-60.
10. On Cicero’s testimony on the Epicurean theology, see S. Maso, Capire e dissentire:
Cicerone e la filosofia di Epicuro, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 2008, pp. 113-142, and H. Essler,
Cicero’s Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology, in J. Fish – K. Sanders (eds), Epicurus and
the Epicurean Tradition, op. cit., pp. 129-151.
11. The only connection can be constituted by the divine eidola that come to the human
minds, but even this emission does not represent a deliberate action of the gods: they are pas-
sive in this process and, therefore, continue to be inactive. I thank dr. Steve McCarthy, who
has called my attention to this aspect.
12. In this regard, it may be useful to note how the term apronoēsia (lack of divine
providence) was coined and used in the controversies between Hellenistic schools during the
third and second centuries. It indicated the Epicurean theological position; on this point see the
observations of M. Isnardi Parente (ed.), Epicuro. Opere, Torino, UTET, 1983, p. 344 n. 1.
13. Cf. Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus, 123: «The gods exist, imperishable and blessed».
14. The translation is mine. On this passage, see F. Verde (ed.), Epicuro. Epistola a Erodo-
to, introd. di E. Spinelli, Roma, Carocci, 2010, pp. 221-224.
15. Cf. also Cicero, De Finibus I 37-38. For a more detailed exposition of this aspect, see
E. Piergiacomi, Storia delle antiche teologie atomiste, op. cit., pp. 103-112.
16. On the other hand, it is well known how the Cyrenaics, in particular Anniceris, harshly
criticised the Epicurean school precisely for the different conception of the pleasure: on
this polemic see G. Giannantoni (ed.), I Cirenaici, Firenze, Sansoni, 1958, in particular pp.
101-108, and Id., Socratis et Socraticorum requiae, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 1990, vol. IV, pp. 185-
187. On the differences between Epicurean and Cyrenaic hedonism see also D. Wolfsdorf,
Pleasure in Ancient Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, CUP, 2013, pp. 144-181, and V. Tsouna,
198 ST. MECCI

most authentic and primary pleasure. The other kind of hēdonē, the kinetic
one, occurs later and constitutes a sort of variatio of authentic pleasure
(katastematic)17.
In this sense, the divine is the representation of happiness according to
the philosophy of Epicurus. Therefore, the philosopher of Samos, far from
diminishing the importance of the divine, places it as the highest example of
a happy, indeed blessed entity. Such bliss, however, as has been mentioned,
presupposes an absolute lack of activity, which, if it did not exist, would in
fact constitute, for Epicurus, a debasement of the divine nature. Indeed,
the divine can never abandon its state of eternal bliss (makariotēs)18. To be
concerned for mankind, to listen, eventually, to their prayers, would also
bring disturbance to the world of the gods, who, by their very nature, cannot
accept these feelings, which would disturb their serenity (galēnē).
In this way there seems to be a sort of mutual disinterest between men
and gods: in fact, on the one hand, deities do not take care of man’s life in
any way, because this would go against their essence; on the other hand, for
men themselves it makes no sense to turn to such gods. Therefore, even if
men are convinced of the existence of gods, they have no relationship with
these gods. In this way, they live, in practice, as if the gods were not there.
This aspect seems to confirm the previously mentioned sentence of Cicero,
whereby the philosopher of Samos, although affirming them in words (verbis),
eliminated, de facto, the gods. What has been said, however, is in contradiction
with many texts by Epicurus, in which, instead, we can find an explicit mention
of a certain role of god, above all in the ethical sphere, in reference to the
achievement of happiness by man.
At first, and on a more superficial level, it is correct to say that the exact
knowledge of divine nature, whereby deities do not suffer any passion or
take any action, is the first step on the path towards eudaimonia. In order
to be happy, man, must realize that nothing is really to be feared, not even
death19. For this reason, Epicurean philosophy can be understood, in the

Cyrenaics and Epicureans on Pleasure and the Good Life: The Original Debate and Its
Later Revivals, in S. Weisser – N. Thaler (eds), Strategies of Polemics in Greek and Roman
Philosophy, Leiden, Brill, 2016, pp. 113-149
17. Cf. C. Diano, Scritti epicurei, Firenze, Olschki, 1974, pp. 38-41, and, more recently, F.
Verde, Epicuro, op. cit., pp. 172-176.
18. In this aspect of the Epicurean theology we can clearly observe the distance between
Epicurus and the Platonic Timaeus, where God carries out a central activity in the formation
of a kosmos: indeed, even the idea of a god who simply orders natural phenomena is
rejected by Epicurus. Therefore, the theological conception of the Stoics is criticised by later
Epicureans: cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum I 20. 52, where the Stoic god is defined as a deus
laboriosissimus. More in general, another passage from De Natura Deorum (I 8-9.18-23)
provides a clear exposition of Epicurean criticisms of both Platonic and Stoic positions: on
this subject, cf. M. Isnardi Parente (ed.), Epicuro, op. cit., pp. 391-393, and, more generally,
D. Sedley, Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, Berkeley, University of California Press,
2007, pp. 139-150.
19. Cf. at least the second Sovran Maxim, which states very clearly: « Death is nothing
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF EPICURUS’ THEOLOGY 199

first instance, as an attempt at liberating man from the fears20 that afflict and
force him to remain in a state of perennial unhappiness. The first of these
fears –and the one that we want to analyse here– is represented by the so-
called deisidaimonia, translatable as «superstition». Because of this feeling,
man is at the mercy, so to speak, of any divine ira or gratia. The foolish man,
imagining that gods can intervene in his life, thinks he must constantly pray
or make sacrifices to the divine world, in order only to drive away any divine
punishments from himself and his loved ones21. Epicurus considers this fear
one of the main obstacles for the achievement of happiness and one of the
greatest worries. In this sense, it is not surprising to read an explication of
this theme both in the first part of the Letter to Menoeceus, and in the first
Sovran Maxim. The latter, which constitutes the first sentence of the so-called
Tetrapharmakos, reaffirms that «the blessed and immortal has no troubles
himself and causes none for anyone else; hence he has nothing to do with
resentments and partisanship; for all such impulses are a sign of weakness».
Therefore, man has nothing to hope for, but above all nothing to fear:
such a conception of the divine is, for Epicurus, the only one capable of
freeing man from deisidaimonia. This word can be translated as superstition,
but we can underline that, ad litteram, it indicates «fear of the divine».
In this sense, then, in this new and original vision of the divinity, it is not
difficult to understand how gods can have beneficial effect on human life.
Indeed, the very nature of divinities can help man to reach eudaimonia,
which is, as is well known, the authentic and unique end of philosophy22.

to us. For what has been dissolved has no feeling; and what has no feeling is nothing to us».
But see also the more detailed discussion that we read in the Letter to Menoeceus, 124-125.
On this theme cf. J. Warren, Facing Death: Epicurus and his Critics, Oxford, OUP, 2006,
and the interesting remarks of A. Brancacci, Amicizia e filosofia in Epicuro, in this issue of
Philosophia. Yearbook of the Research Centre for Greek Philosophy of the Academy of Athens,
pp. 205-222, especially pp. 220-222.
20. Cf. Id. ibid., p. 218: «Nessuna filosofia, forse, ha tematizzato il tema del phobos,
della paura, come quella di Epicuro». On this issue, see especially M. Gigante, Philosophia
medicans in Filodemo, Cronache Ercolanesi, 5, 1975, pp. 53-61, and M. Erler, Philologia
Medicans. La lettura delle opere di Epicuro nella sua Scuola, in G. Giannantoni – M.
Gigante (eds), Epicureismo greco e romano, op. cit., pp. 513-526, p. 513: «Nella terapia
dell’anima, Epicuro vede un compito essenziale della sua filosofia. È opportuno rimuovere
la paura degli dèi, la paura della morte, la paura dell’ignoto. Per questa via si può portare
l’uomo alla pace dell’anima».
21. A lively representation of the ‘deisidaimōn’ is offered, in a non-Epicurean context,
by Theophrastus in his Characters XVI. Furthermore, one of Plutarch’s works is dedicated
to superstition: for a short introduction to this book, cf. F. C. Babbitt (ed.), Plutarch. Moralia,
Volume II: How to Profit by One’s Enemies. On Having Many Friends. Chance. Virtue and
Vice. Letter of Condolence to Apollonius. Advice About Keeping Well. Advice to Bride and
Groom. The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men. Superstition, Cambridge, Harvard University
Press, 1928, pp. 450-453; for a presentation of the notion of deisidaimonia in Antiquity, see
also G. Lozza, Plutarco. De Superstitione, Milano, Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1980, pp. 8-15.
22. As it is clearly written at the beginning of the Letter to Menoeceus (122): «And he who
says that it is either too early or too late to study philosophy resembles one who says that it
200 ST. MECCI

In addition, it must be observed how the gods, in the Epicurean system,

have a different role, and perhaps more central, than that outlined in the
previous pages. Many important testimonies seem to outline a certain
influence of the divine in human life, even within the limits imposed by
the Epicurean vision of theos. In particular, it is possible to observe this
aspect in the last lines of the Letter to Menoeceus (135), where Epicurus
affirms: «Adopt these and related practices day and night, and in company
with a person like yourself, and you will never be disturbed by a dream or
vision, but will live like a god among men. For a man living in the midst of
immortal blessings resembles no mortal creature».
Therefore, although the gods cannot have any active role, the notion of
divinity itself is not eliminated, but it has, however, a paradigmatic function,
representing an important element in Epicurean philosophy. The Epicurean
words show clearly that man can strive, through the continuous exercise
of philosophy, to achieve a happiness that is in no way inferior to that of
the divine. As Vatican Saying 33 also states: «The cry of the flesh: not to be
hungry, not to be thirsty, not to be cold. If someone has these things and
hopes to have them in the future, he would rival even Zeus in happiness»23.
Man, if he follows the dictates of Epicurean philosophy, can reach a
happiness more than human, and that makes him –in a sense certainly
analogical, but not for this reason irrational or unfounded– «divine». This
is precisely one of the reasons why Lucretius, in his De Rerum Natura (V
8), refers to Epicurus as a god (deus)24. Indeed, the philosopher of Samos
lived in a wise and just way, therefore happy, and so led an existence not
unlike that of a deus. In this case, it is clear how Epicurus develops, even
with the due and obvious distinction, the theory of homoiosis theoi, which,
formulated in Theaetetus (176b), was very much present in the Platonic
tradition, especially in the Middle Platonism25. The aim of philosophy
consists also for Epicurus in the assimilation to god and, in this specific case,
to his condition, devoid of worries and pains26.
However, a clear difference between the happiness of the sophoi and

is too early or too late to pursue happiness». For this aspect, central but not unique in the
Epicurean philosophy, see M. Isnardi Parente, La dottrina di Epicuro e il ‘carattere pratico’
della filosofia ellenistica, Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia, 33, 1978, pp. 3-29, pp. 17-29.
23. The translation is mine.
24. For this aspect, and more generally, for an analysis of the Lucretius’ praise of Epicurus,
see M. R. Gale, Myth and Poetry in Lucretius, Cambridge, CUP, 1994, pp. 76-80, and, above all,
M. Erler, Epicurus as deus mortalis: Homoiosis Theoi and Epicurean Self-Cultivation, in D.
Frede – A. Laks (eds), Traditions of Theology. Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background
and Aftermath, Leiden-Boston-Köln, Brill, 2002, pp. 159-181, pp. 167-181.
25. For the importance of this concept in the Middle Platonism, see now A. Linguiti,
L’etica medioplatonica, in M. Bonazzi – P. Donini – F. Ferrari (eds), Sistema, Tradizioni,
Esegesi. Il Medioplatonismo, Rivista di Storia della Filosofia, 70, 2015, pp. 359-379, especially
pp. 359-365.
26. This aspect is clearly illustrated by M. Erler, Epicurus as deus mortalis, op. cit., pp.
159-181.
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF EPICURUS’ THEOLOGY 201

that proper to the gods exists: for man the acquisition of a blessed condition
is the result of a cognitive process, which requires effort and a continuous
struggle against fears and vain desires. On the contrary, divine happiness
is immediate, effortless and perennial. The gods must not even «hope» to
continue to remain in the state of bliss, as happens to men: they are always
in this condition, without any effort. Another difference is also constituted
by the fact that gods are immortal and incorruptible (aphtharsia), thanks
to their special atomic configuration27. Instead, the human condition is
different: they are destined to grow old and die. Indeed, it is useful to
remember that, for Epicurus, there is no life beyond death: on the contrary,
this opinion, in his perspective, represents only another mythos capable of
making man scared and anguished28.
Therefore, from an ethical point of view, when man thinks correctly
of the gods, he can contemplate a perfect model from which to draw
inspiration and understand what authentic happiness is. Divinity thus has a
peculiar position in the Epicurean system, presenting itself as a paradeigma
to be followed and as the maximum expression of bliss. In the same way,
the Epicurean sophos, since he has achieved happiness not dissimilar from
that of the gods, constitutes an example for other men. For this reason, it
is possible to notice that we can find, in the Epicurean system, not only the
presence of the notion of homoiosis theoi, but also of homoiosis sophoi.
Indeed, the wise man represent the living and visible representation of the
achievement of happiness29. And, as Michael Erler rightly points out, «nella
comunità degli epicurei il ricordo di membri esemplati, della loro vita e
soprattutto della loro morte è ineludibile»30. The veneration of the sage is
considered an important moment in the process of achieving happiness.

27. On this issue, see the important and difficult testimony of Cicero, De Natura Deorum
(I 18, 49). On this passage, and more in general on a brief exposition of this aspect of the
Epicurean theology, see E. Spinelli, Senza teodicea: critiche epicuree e argomentazioni
pirroniane, in D. De Sanctis – E. Spinelli – M. Tulli – F. Verde (eds), Questioni epicuree, op.
cit., pp. 213-234, particularly pp. 213-216.
28. Cf., in the Epicurean tradition, Lucretius, De Rerum Natura III 830-1094: on this
passage see F. Giancotti (ed.), Tito Lucrezio Caro. La Natura, Milano, Garzanti, 1994,
pp. 480-481. But see also E. Piergiacomi, Sugli dèi tutori di giustizia. La critica epicurea al
giudizio dell’Ade del Gorgia di Platone, in F. De Luise (ed.), Legittimazione del potere,
autorità della legge: un dibattito antico, Trento, Università degli Studi di Trento, 2016, pp. 223-
257, which analyses the controversy present in another Epicurean, Diogenes of Oenoanda,
against the myths that we can read in Plato, in particular in the final part of Gorgias.
29. Cf. Philodemus, De Pietate, col. 71.2043-2058 Obbink. On this issue, see the interesting
remarks present in J. E. Heβler (ed.), Epikur. Brief an Menoikeus, Schwabe, Basel 2014, pp.
329-333, and also the considerations of W. Schmid, Epikur, in Reallexikon für Antike und
Christentum, vol. 5, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1962, pp. 681-819, pp. 746-747: «Als Teilhaber an
der Göttlichkeit der Theoi Soteres hat Epikur das göttliche Leben in seiner eigenen Person
verwiklicht und ist eben dadurch zum Soter der in seiner Nachfolge Stehenden, seine
Lebensform Nachahmenden geworden».
30. M. Erler, La sacralizzazione di Socrate e di Epicuro, in M. Beretta – F. Citti – A.
Iannucci (eds), Il Culto di Epicuro. Testi, Iconografia e Paesaggio, Firenze, Olschki, 2014, pp.
202 ST. MECCI

At the same time, Epicurus can rethink, and certainly reinterpret, activities
such as prayer or participation in religious ceremonies. Thus, for example, to
pray in righteous manner means to observe, with reason (logos), the blessed
nature of the divine; in this way, the act becomes beneficial within the human
path towards the achievement of happiness. This is expressed in a clear and
evident way not only in the testimonies of Lucretius (De Rerum Natura VI
68-78) and Cicero (De Natura Deorum I 19.49)31, but also in Oxyrhynchus
Papyrus 215, which represents a fundamental document for the reconstruction
of Epicurean theology32. This text –or in any case what is preserved– is
attributable, albeit in a hypothetical way, to Epicurus himself33. It deals, in a
simple and clear way, precisely with the attitude that the Epicurean sophos
must hold in the face of the practices of common religiosity. The proposed
solution does not consist in the categorical rejection of these, but in a criticism
of the mental attitude that usually characterizes the faithful. This makes these
activities useless and even harmful. In fact, when praying, one must be aware
of the nature of gods, so as not to attribute to them any interest in human
lives. Traditional cultural practices, if not supported by a correct prolēpsis of
divinity, instead lead man to entertain a relationship with the gods definable
as «mercantile»34. Indeed, one expects from the gods a reward or a punishment
according to the relative appropriateness of the sacrifices and prayers offered
to them. But these same activities, once freed from false beliefs, can represent
an important part in achieving human eudaimonia, showing men the divine
makariotēs. And, in this sense, in POxy. 215 (col. II 1-2) it is affirmed that even
the traditional religious practices can constitute for men a moment of benefit
(therapeutikon) and gratification (kekharismenon).
In this regard, another important source is constituted by Atticus (apud
Eus., PE XV 5 7 = 385 Us.), who claims that, according to Epicurus, deities
can directly benefit men, because their better emanations are «contributory
causes» (paraitiai) of many goods. The divinities, even though they don’t carry

1-13, p. 4. On the cult of Epicurus in the Garden, see M. Capasso, Comunità senza rivolta.
Quattri saggi sull’Epicureismo, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 1987, pp. 25-37, D. Clay, The Cults
of Epicurus, in Id., Paradosis and Survival: Three Chapters in the History of Epicurean
Philosophy, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1998, pp. 75-102, and F. Longo
Auricchio, Il Culto di Epicuro. Testi e studi: qualche aggiornamento, in M. Beretta – F. Citti
– A. Iannucci (eds), Il Culto di Epicuro, op. cit., pp. 39-64.
31. On these sources, and more in general on the role of the worship in the Epicurean
philosophy, cf. E. Piergiacomi, A che serve venerarlo, se dio non fa nulla? Epicuro e il piacere
della preghiera, Bollettino della Società Filosofica Italiana, 208, 2013, pp. 19-28.
32. For a clear presentation of this Papyrus, see D. Obbink, Sulla religiosità e il culto
popolare (POxy 215), in AA.VV., Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini. Testi e lessico nei
papiri di cultura greca e latina, Parte I: Autori Noti, Vol. 1, Firenze, Olschki, 1992, pp. 167-191,
in particular pp. 178-191.
33. Cf. Id., ibid., p. 190: «Non vi è nulla che escluda la paternità di Epicuro» and pp. 188-
191 for the discussion of the different theories about the probable author of this writing.
34. J. Salem, Les Atomistes de l’Antiquité. Démocrite. Épicure. Lucrèce, Paris, Flammarion,
2013, p. 136.
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF EPICURUS’ THEOLOGY 203

out any activity, only by their presence, through their eidola, are a model and a
help for man, showing what authentic happiness is. The sophos, when he prays
or puts his thought to the divinities in a righteous manner, can obtain great
moral benefit and teaching, although the gods continue to remain inactive and
do not intervene directly in human life. In this sense, it is worth noting that,
in a very correct way, in Atticus’ text we do not find the expression «causes»
(aitiai), since the Epicurean gods cannot intervene actively and directly in
human life, but, more correctly, it is used the word paraitiai35.
Therefore, while it is usually believed that the Epicurean system
marginalizes or completely eliminates the role of gods and, consequently,
the traditional religious and cultural practices, on the contrary it seems to
establish a new relationship between men and divinities. In Epicurean
theology, the possibility of an unhealthy relationship between man and god
is eliminated from the very beginning. Thus, for example, the typical feelings
of fear towards the divine are avoided: these can disturb man and, above
all, make him unhappy. In conclusion, Epicurus, with his vision of divinities,
unique in the Greek religious tradition, and of all the philosophical systems
of Antiquity, leads neither to atheism nor to crypto-atheism, that is total
disinterest in the divine, but to a healthy relationship with the divinities.
This new relationship does not eliminate the traditional prayers and rites,
rethought by Epicurus in a manner and perspective strictly in line with his
philosophy. In this way, the gods represent the image of complete happiness.
This image represents an important stimulus for men, because it shows the
true purpose of human life: all humans36 continue to live a mortal life, but
they can achieve a bliss comparable to that of the immortal gods.

Stefano Mecci
(Roma)

35. On Atticus’ testimony, see F. Verde, Epicuro, op. cit., p. 156.

36. As it is well known and as show some famous passages present in Diog. Laert. (X 6-7),
the Epicurean school, and consequently his philosophy, is open to everybody. On this issue, see
the clear exposition of M. Isnardi Parente, Epicuro, op. cit., pp. 55-67. For this reason, Epicurus
pays attention to his writing style in order to be understood by all different types of readers,
as it is clearly written at the beginning of the Letter to Herodotus (35-37). On this interesting
topic, cf. M. Tulli, L’epitome di Epicuro e la trasmissione del sapere nel medioplatonismo, in M.
Erler (ed), Epikureismus in der späten Republik und der Kaiserzeit. Akten der 2. Tagung der
Karl und Gertrud Abel Stiftung vom. 30 September–3 Oktober 1998 im Würzburg, Stuttgart,
Franz Steiner, 2000, pp. 109-121; D. Delattre, Un modèle magistral d’écriture didactique: la
Lettre à Hérodote d’Epicure, in S. Cerasuolo (ed.), Mathesis e Mneme: Studi in memoria di
Marcello Gigante, vol. I, Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Filologia Classica «Francesco
Arnaldi» dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, 2004, pp. 149-169; and
G. Arrighetti, Forme della comunicazione in Epicuro, in M. Erler – J. E. Heβler (eds),
Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongress der Gesellschaft
für antike Philosophie 2010, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, 2013, pp. 315-338.
I wish to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Aldo Brancacci for his always generous
and helpful remarks. I also thank Prof. Francesco Verde and Dr Enrico Piergiacomi for their
204 ST. MECCI

ΟΙ ΗΘΙΚΕΣ ΣΥΝΕΠΕΙΕΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΚΟΥΡΕΙΑΣ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑΣ

Περίληψη

Στὴν παροῦσα ἐργασία θὰ διερευνήσω τὶς ἠθικὲς συνέπειες τῆς ἐπικούρειας θεολο-
γίας. Ἀφετηρία αὐτῆς τῆς μελέτης ἀποτελεῖ ἡ παραδοχὴ ὅτι ὁ Ἐπίκουρος δὲν εἶναι
ἕνας ἄθεος, παρὰ τὶς σχετικὲς μαρτυρίες ἀρκετῶν πηγῶν γιὰ τὸ ἀντίθετο. Ἡ πα-
ραπάνω κατηγορία προέρχεται ἀπὸ μία συγκεκριμένη θεωρία σχετικὰ μὲ τὴ φύση
τῶν θεῶν, χαρακτηριστικὴ τῆς ἐπικούρειας φιλοσοφίας καὶ μοναδικὴ σὲ ὅλη τὴν ἀρ-
χαιότητα. Πράγματι, σύμφωνα μὲ τὸν Ἐπίκουρο οἱ θεοὶ ζοῦν ξεχωριστὰ ἀπὸ τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους καὶ δὲν ἐπεμβαίνουν στὰ ἀνθρώπινα πράγματα. Γι’ αὐτὸν τὸν λόγο,
πολλοὶ συγγραφεῖς, ὄχι μόνο τῆς ἀρχαιότητας, ἱσχυρίζονται πὼς ἡ ἐπικούρεια φιλο-
σοφία εἶναι ἀθεϊστική, ἢ τουλάχιστον κρυφο-αθεϊστική.
Ἀπεναντίας, μὲ τὴν ἐργασία αὐτήν θὰ δείξω ὅτι οἱ θεοὶ δὲν ἐξαφανίζονται οὔτε
βγαίνουν στὸ περιθώριο ἀπὸ τὸν Ἐπίκουρο, ἀλλὰ εἶναι σημαντικοὶ γιὰ τὴν ζωὴ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, παρὰ τὸ ὅτι ἐξακολουθοῦν νὰ παραμένουν ἀδρανεῖς. Πρῶτον, ἡ γνώση
τῆς ἀληθινῆς φύσης τῶν θεῶν ἐλευθερώνει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀπὸ τὸν φόβο γιὰ τὸ
θεῖο (δεισιδαιμονία), ὁ ὁποῖος καὶ ἀποτελεῖ βασικὴ πηγὴ τῆς ἀνθρώπινης δυστυχίας.
Δεύτερον, οἱ θεοὶ ἀποτελοῦν παράδειγμα γιὰ τὸν ἀνθρωπο, ἐπειδὴ ἀκριβῶς δεί-
χνουν τί εἶναι ἡ αὐθεντικὴ εὐτυχία. Ἔτσι, καθίσταται δυνατὸ νὰ παρατηρήσουμε
πώς ἡ πλατωνικὴ θεωρία τῆς ὁμοίωσις θεῷ ἐπανερμηνεύεται στὸ πλαίσιο τῆς ἐπι-
κούρειας θεολογίας, καί, ταυτοχρόνως, τὴν παρουσία τῆς συγκεκριμένης ἔννοιας
ὁμοίωσις σοφῷ στὸ σύστημα αὐτό.
Συνεπῶς, οἱ θεοὶ παίζουν κεντρικὸ ρόλο στὴ ζωὴ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ συγκεκρι-
μένα στὴν ἀναζήτησή του τῆς εὐτυχίας. Μὲ αὐτὸν τὸν τρόπο ὁ Ἐπίκουρος μπορεῖ
καὶ ἐπανερμηνεύει ἐπίσης τὶς παραδοσιακὲς θρησκευτικὲς καὶ πολιτισμικὲς πρακτι-
κές: αὐτὲς οἱ πρακτικὲς μποροῦν νὰ φανοῦν χρήσιμες, καθὼς βοηθοῦν τοὺς ἀνθρώ-
πους νὰ παρατηροῦν, μέσῳ τοῦ λόγου, τὴν θεία μακαριότητα.

Stefano Mecci
(μτφρ. Δάφνη Αργύρη)

comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper; and Dr Silvia Gullino for
her insightful suggestions. Finally, I thank Dr Steve McCarthy who discussed parts of my
argument with me and checked my english.