phaeacian dido lost pleasures of an epicurean intertext

8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 1/12

PAMELA GORDON GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 189

~

Phaeacian Dido:Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext

cXo.;V0:1:OVyap [1~ (PPOVtl-l0U~ (lVO:l q;o:to:xo:~,

Ot [1a),o: <plf-at dol EJEOt<JlV, O~ ~ No:u<Jlxao: <pY)Otv.

Eratosthenes'

I t i s impossi ble for Phaeaci ans not t o be pruden t.s ince they are very dear to the gods. as Nausikaa says.

An Epicurean phi losopher named Diodorus who committed suicide inthe mid

fi rs t c en tu ry CE repor ted ly chose as h is la st words the penu lt imat e decl ara tion of

Virgil's Dido: vixi, et quem dedera cursumfortuna pcregi I have l ived, and

1 have run the course that fortune granted, Aen. 4 .653). Alt hough Seneca ( to

whom we owe the story) depicts Diodorus as a good philosopher who died with a

cl ea r consc ience a fte r a li fe o f Epicurean t ranqu ill it y, o ther con temporari es seem

to have pro te st ed that i n choos ing sui ci de, Diodorus had v io la ted Epicurus ' own

teachings (de v ita beata 19) . Diodorus' quo tat ion of Virg il , however , s igna led

more than a dramat ic f inal ex it; it was al so a ges tu re t oward a complex Epi curean

tr ad it ion . Diodorus had an Epicurean precedent o f sor ts in Dido.

Commentators since antiquity have remarked that Virgil's Dido espouses

an in termit ten tly Epi curean out look in the face of Aeneas ' s imi lar ly imper fe ctStoicism.' Several recent articles have gone beyond previous statements of

For support g ra nt ed t o t hi s r es ea rc h, r am g rat ef ul to th e Amer ic an Coun cil o f Lear ned S oc iet ies _ th e

Hall Center for the Humanitie~. and the Sabbatical program of Ihe University of Kan~as. r would

al so Jik e to th an k J ulia Ga is scr , Ha ro ld Was hin gto n. TarJ ~ elch, my s tudenf s. :md fhe anonymous

r ef er ee s and Chai r o f t he Edi to ri al Boa rd f or Classica AlIlh{lfify. Thi :- .essay is dedicated to thememory of my nephew, friend, and mentor Tommy Ulrich.

I . Er ato sth en es ( ca. 2 85 -· 194 ), who s uccee ded Apoll oni us Rhocliuo as head of the library at

Ale xandri a, quo te d by Athenacus DeipJ1 sophistoe .16e.

2. For Virgilian citations and bibliography see Pca~t' 935 and Dyson 1996.

© 1998 BYTHE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERStTY OF CALIFORNIA.

ISSN 0278-6656(P); 1067-8344 Ie) .

I

I

1

this issue by asserting Ihat Dido's apparenl Epicureanism and the Epicurean

atmosphere of her court are couched not just in the traditional language of

the Garden of Ep icu rus, but in speci fic all y Lucret ian t erms .' Th is essay-whil e

resisting the impulse to cla im Virgi l for e ither the Stoa or the Garden-proposes

that there i s an even r icher and more per sis tent Epicurean presence inte rtwined

with the Dido ep isode. Although Virgil ian quo tat ions o f Lucret iu s p rovide the

most obvious references to Epicureanism, too narrow a focus on the traces of

the de I entll1 nalUra obscures important resonances with Virgi l' s more obvious

mode ls : t he Odvssev and Apollonius' A/gonalllica. Revers ion to Homer and

Apollonius Rhodius, however, does not dim the Epicurean aura around Dido.

Rather. what I wish to show is that the reader who keeps in mind the Homeric

cont ext is a reader even more convinced of t he p resence in Virgil 's Car thage of the

v ir tues (or -in the eyes of some reade rs -t he v ic es ) o f t he authen ti c Ep icu rean .

At p lay here is t he me rg ing of two trad it ions. F ir st . t he re is t he well -known

s to ry of Odysseus among the Phaeac ians ad. 6-12), long recognized as the

mos t fundamen tal o f t he many Homer ic el emen ts in Virgi l' s depi cti on of Aenea s'

soj ou rn with Dido. Also pre sen t. howeve r, is a par ticula r t ype of pos t- cla ss ica l

Homeric interpretation. In revisit ing Homer, the Aeneid also revisits traditional

ways of reading Homer, including approaches that view the Iliad and Odyssey

as harbingers of the wisdom of the Hellenistic philosophical schools. Thus the

Dido episode resonat es not only with Odysseus' l and ing in Phaeac ia (and i ts post

Homeric l iterary descendants), but a lso with a later (and curre ll lly uncelebra led)

phi losophical or pora-philosophicall radi tion that associa tes Ihe Phaeacians with

the phi losophy of Epicurus.

PHAEACIA. ODYSSEUS. AND AN EPICUREAN PALIMPSEST

Today the tradi tion of referring to Epicureans as Phaeacians is famil iar to

few peopl e who a re not wel l acquainted with the backroads and s ides tr eet s o f t he

Ep icu rean tr ad it ion. but t he formula had wide currency in ant iqui ty .' Although it s

most unambiguous s ta temen ts appear on the margins o f the c la ss ica l canon, once

those sources are known it is diflicult to miss the presence of an Epicurus the

Phaeacian cliche in better known authors such as Lucretius. Philodemus, Horace,

Seneca, Plutarch. Athenaeus, and-as I proposc here-Virgil. To start with the

3. Reccl1l t reatments or Lucretian language in VirgiJ s Dido episode include: Hardie 1986,

Hamilton 1993, Lyne 1994, ami Dyson 1996. C1' . a lso B rown 1987: 142. Farrell 1997: 234-35

demonst ra le s Iha l. V irgi l a ls o l Is es Luc re tj an l anguage 10 present <In Epi cure an poi nt or view in the

e piso de o f Nis u.> ;, a nd Eu ry al us in AeJl. 9 . Vir~i 1' s deb t fo Lucr etiu s i n g ene ral h as of course longbeen recognized.

4. For a s hort list or anc ie n I sourc es t ha t a ssoc ia te t he P lwea ci ans spe ci fkal ly wit h Epi cure ans,

see Bignone t 936: 269-70. DeWill 1954: 365 (note 12 to ehap. 4) and Bumere 1956:319-21 e it e t he

s ame tex is. Rec en t ar tic les th at m en tio n th e Ph aeaci an /Ep ic ur ean t rad iti on i nclu de S id er an d Asmisin Obbink 1995.



190 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17/No. 2/0ctober 1998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 191

mos t obvious example, and one that is hosti Ie to Epicurus: the cliche figures

conspicuously in a work cal led Homeric Questions by a certa in Heracli tus (second

or th ird cen tury CE; not to beconfused with the famous Ion ian phil osopher ). There

Herac li tu s, whose goa l i s to defend Homer against t he cr it ic ism of bo th Plat o and

Epicurus , re fer s de ris ively to Epicurus a s the Phaeacian phi losopher , t he farme r

of pleasure in his secre t gardens (0 oE cp<x[Ol~pLAO(Jor;>oe;Errlxoupoe;, 6 1:'lje;

~oov~e; EVWle; lo[me; x~rrme; YEwpyoe;, 79.2)5

Heraclitus also sheds some light on the apparent origins of the cliche. for

he makes it clear that Epicurus has been dubbed a Phaeacian not simply

because Epicurus (as a Hel lenist ic phi losopher who praised the vir tues of pleasure)

seemed to be vaguely s imi lar to t he Phaeaci ans (who were generall y regarded a s

a rchetypal hedonis ts ). ' Heracl itu s revea ls t hat t he supposed connec ti on i s i n fac t

more prec ise: there was an es tabli shed tr ad it ion of read ing Odysseus' p ro fessed

appreciat ion of Phaeacian pleasures Od. 9 .5 -11) as an Ep icu rean man ife st o.

Odyss eus delivers his famous declaration, of course, at the Phaeacian banquet

soon after his rescue by the princes s Naus ikaa. After years of war, and years of

wandering through inhuman realms Odysseus declares:

ou yap EY lYE1:[ CPl)I..LL:EAOe;X<XpLE(J1:EpOVVOlL

~ih' EurppOauvl) flEv Exn x<X1:aO~I..LOVrr<xv

o<Xl1:UflOVEe;' crva O lfl<X1:'rxoucX~WV1:<XLrmoou

~flEvm i:~dl)e;, rrOlpaoE rrA~eWat 1:pcXrrE~OlL

aC1:oux<xl xpnwv, flEeU 0' EXxpl)1:~pOe;crcpuaa6lv

OlVOXOOe;popEnat x<xlEyxdn OErrcXWaL'

WU1:0 1:[flOLXcXnLawv Evl cppwlv ELon<XLdVOlL.Od.9.5-11

J maint ain t he re is no telos more p le as ing than when good chee r f il ls a ll

the people, and gues ts sitting side by side throughout the halls listen to

the bard, and the tables are loaded with bread and meat, and a s teward

drawing wine from the bowl brings it around to fill our cups . To my mind

this (felos) is something most beautiful.

In Homer, telos should be an innocen t enough word (here mean ing s imply ful fil l

men t, o r conc lusi on ) , bu t i n la te r C lassic al and Hell en is tic Greek the word had

become the shared propelty of the philosophical schools.' Thus generations of

readers took the Homeric passage as Odysseus ' statement of the purpose of life

(felos in i ts later sense), and a tradi tion known to Heracli tus c la imed that Epicurus

himself had stolen his phi losophy of pleasure direc tly from the mouth of Odysseus.

Herac lit us sugges ts that Epicurus s tol e f rom Homer unknowingly ; adet ai l headds

not to exonerat e Epicurus, but to i ntens ify t he charge by imply ing that Ep icu rus

5. For text, see Buffiere 1962.

6 . On Phaeacians as hedonis ts : Pla to Republic 3.390a-b (a passage that also cites Od. 9.5-11)

and Athenaeus DeiI' . 12.53Ia-b (Od. 9.5-11).

7 . See Ambros e 1965 .

was ignorant of Homer: p ' ouX1 xcLt1:au8' a flOVOlt<{lpl(p rrapEO(uXEVOllaxpD)e;

cryvo~aOle; rrOlp''OI..L~POUXEXAO<jJEV:And is it not true that the only things he

offered the world were shameful unwit ting thefts from Homer~ s

For Heraclitus . who approves neither of the Garden nor of Odysseus' pro

f essed ' ·phil osophy . it is obv ious that Odysseus had exper ienced far g rea ter

moments (as hero al Troy, as invader of Thrace. as a man who had been to the

underworld and back, e tc .) and ispraising Phaeacia simply out of a need toingrat i

a te himself with his rescuers. ' Thus Heracli tus concludes, sarcast ical ly: Epicurus

mi st ook Odyssean l ies for the purpose of l if e and pl ant ed them in h is bl essed gar

dens (1:au1:a 'tOLe;aEflvOle;xf,rrme; EflcpU1:El)aOle;.9.10: cf. 79.2). Similarcriticislll

o f Ep icu rus' af fi nit ie s with Odysseus and the Phaeaci ans appear s i n the work of

Athenaeus ( fl. ca . 200 CE) . who a tt ribut es th is a ssessmen t o f the Garden to Mega

cleides (DeipnosophisTae 12.513 a-e). Iii A new twist to this discourse appears in

Lucian's (or pseudo-Lucian's) Parasite, where acharacter named Simon contends

that Epi curus s to le h is p ro fe ssed idea l o f p le asure f rom Homer but never pur sued

it. Instead of enjoying the life of a parasite among the Phaeacians , Epicurus

S imon asser ts -conce rned h imsel f with i ncessant inqu ir ie s i nt o the shape of the

ear th . t he in fi nit y o f t he un iver se. and the exis tence of t he gods (Parasite II .

Moving back in t ime f rom the era o f Heracl itu s and Athenaeus . one sees t hat

the Epicurus the Phaeacian cliche spelled out by Heracli tus is one of Plutarch' s

f avor it e anti -Ep icu rean put-downs. P lu ta rch (ca. 50 - ca. 120 CE) never expl ai ns

t he Ep icu rean/Phaeac ian equat ion. but r ecogn iti on of t he formula is e ssen ti al to

an apprec ia ti on of the rhetor ic al force o f h is On the Fact that Epicurt ls Actuallv

Makes a PleasanT Life Impossible = Non Posse). The centr al a rgument o f t his

polemic is that the Epicurean l ife is i ronically unpleasant because the Epicureans

have given up everything valuable-from heroic acts toal l intel lectual endeavors.

i ncl ud ing reading- fo r t he mindl ess pur su it o f sensual p le asures . Thi s i so f course

a gross misrepresenta tion or Epicurean hedonism (see Epicurus, Ep. Men. 132),

but objectivity regarding the Garden is not Plutarch's strong poin\. Thus in the

midst of p rai se fo r t he p le asure s one takes i n re ading grea t au thors l ike Ari sto tl e

and Homer, Plutarch scotTs:

Who would take grea ter p le asure i n ea ti ng and dri nk ing Phaeac ian fare

than in following Odys seus' tale of his journey~ Who would find more

pleasure in going to bed with the most beautiful woman than in stayingup l at e wit h the s to rie s Xenophon wro te abou t Panthei a. o r Aris tobu lus

about Timocle ia , or Theopompus about Thebe? But they [the Epicureans]

8. The logic of Heraclitus' vitriol does not stand upto translation. Buf fi er e ]962: 86 translates:

Lc peu qu' il a l ai sse a u m onde, i l r aU e nco re qu i l ra il impudemr ne nt v ol e ~ lHome re , sa ns I e

savoir:

9 . C f. P s. P lut ar ch s say O il h e L~I( a nd P oe tr y o f H om er 150 . For d is cu ss ion o f Odyss eu s

speech see Most 1989.

1 0. Ther e i s. how ev er , a l l eas t o~le Homer ic schol ion ( to d 9 .28) tha t c ites Epicurus'

borrowing from Homer with approval. See Dindorr 1855: 408.



192 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17/No 2/0ctober ]998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 193

bani sh a ll t hese p le asure s f rom the mind (psvche), and they even bani sh

the pleasures that come from mathematics.

(Non Posse I093c)

In the first rhetorica l quest ion quoted here, Plutarch opposes Phaeacian feast ing to

heroic poetry and offers the implied answer that only an ignorant ti,icurean would

rate parties over l iterature. A more l iteral t ransla tion of Plutarch s text muddies

t he message but r eveal s t hat t he ques ti on must be an in ter tex tual r ej oinder : Who

would ea t whi le hunger ing and drink whi le t hir st ing the s tu ff o f t he Phaeac ians

with more p lea su re than he would fol low Odysseus ta le o f h is j ou rney? (- el e;

0 av (.pCtyOtnsLVWVxed nLOtOL<.jJ<0V:21 <I>euCtxuw~oLOV1] OLEAElOt:0VOoucraEule;

anoAoyov 1:~e; nACtvY)e;;on Posse I093c ). I under st and the awkwardne ss o f th is

language as an example of what Michael Riffa terre has cal led agrammatica li tes, ·

t ex tual r ippl es o r anomal ies th llt can serve as c lues t o lost in ter tex ts (Ri f fat err e

]981: 5). Not necessari ly. a mat ter of grammatical error , an ungrammatical ity

can be a shi ft in s ty le. syn tax, or r eg is ter that al er ts one toan a ll us ion or quo ta ti on.

Thus I t ake the obtrus ive par ti ci pl es ( hunger ing and thi rs ti ng ) a s s igns that

P lu tarch is quot ing or par ro ting a lost Ep icu rean text, possi bl y one that asse rt ed

the d if fe rence between the pl easure o f d ri nk ing whi le t hir st y and the p le asure o f

quenched thirst (cf . dejin. 2 .9 ), o rperhaps one tha t p rocl aimed tha t food and dri nk

provide genuine p lea su re only to the hungry and th ir sty (cf . Ep. Men. 131). Theodd and appa ren tly a ll us ive p lj rase the s tu ff o f t he Phaeac ians (Ta <I>cuCtxwv)

a lso sounds li ke the ves tige o f some o ther t ex t( s) .

The l ack of sub tle ty in Plu tarch s i nte rtextual engagement wit h Phaeaci a, a s

wel l as his condemnat ion of the supposedly Phaeacian pleasures of the Epicureans,

i seven cl ea rer el sewhere. At t he beg inn ing of t he Non Posse, Plutarch s mingling

of the Homeric with the Epicurean goes beyond making the Epicureans the

perpetual d inner gues ts o f the Phaeaci ans . For Plu ta rch, the Phaeaci an sensibi l ity

is so closely aligned with the Epicurean that the words of the Phaeacian king

Alcinous can be merged with those of Epicurus as though both were official

spokesmen for the Garden . Thus in the open ing chap te rs o f t he Non Posse, Plutarch

cuts and pastes Homeric and Epicurean quota tions into one ersatz Epicurean voice

that shou ts in hexamet er s spli ced with p rose : 'No brave boxers we, ' or orators,

o r le ader s o f the peopl e, o r mag is tr at es , 'bu( always dear to us is (he banquet'

and every pleasing stirring of the flesh that is sent up to give some pleasure

and delight to the mind (ou yap nUY[1CtXOtflEV a[1u[10VEe;OUOEp~1:OpEe;000E

npocr1:Ct1:Olt~[16)VOUOEcrpXOV1:Ee;,d 0 ~[1lVoaLe;1:E PlAT)xal nacra Ota crapxoe;

im1:Epn~e; xlvT)crte;E'P' ~oov~v nva xal xapav <.jJ\)x~e;vanE[1no[1EvT), ]087b). The

iwo hexamet er l ines ( it al ici zed in my transl at ion) i n th is maca roni c Epicurean

11. P lu tar ch s se co nd r heto ri cal q ues tio n, wh ic h imp li es t hat h is a udi en ce s hou ld a gr ee whole

heartedly that love stories are better than sex, is highly unu su al. Pl utar ch as ser ts th ro ughout th e

Non Posse and elsewhere in the Mnra ia t ha I th e Ep ic ur ean s in du lg e i n i nter co ur se f req uen tly , a n

as ser tio n t hat is a t o dd s w ith L ucr eti us ~DRN4.1 030-1287) an d o the r Ep icu rean tex ts. S ee Br en nan

1996.

quo tat ion come f rom a speech by Alc inous that was rega rded in an ti qu it y (as the

Homeric schol ia reveal) as a notorious avowal ofPhaeacian sensual ity: No brave

boxers or wrestlers are we, but at fast racing-by foot or by ship-we are the best.

and always dear tous are the banquet , the cithara . dances. changes of c lothes, warm

baths, and OUf beds· Od 8 .246-49). Between the quo ted hexame ter s Plut arch

has appa rent ly i nser ted h is own ed ito ri al r ema rk, and the third quo tat ion seems to

be an otherwise unattested fragment of Epicurus. Plutarch s hosti le c it ing of this

Epicurean· text r evea ls i n a nutshe ll what P lu tarch and so many o ther s found

most threatening about the Garden: the Epicureans professed hedonism (which

Plu tarch d is to rt s i nto sensual ism) and the ideal Ep icu rean s withdrawal f rom the

turmoil o f pub li c l ife s truck outs ider s a s t an tamount t o a who le sa le repudia ti on

of masculine prerogatives and responsibilities. 1.1

It is difficult to s ay whether the tradition of associating the Garden with

Phaeacia was hos ti le f rom it s incep tion, o r whethe r Plu tarch and Heracli tu s are

d is to rti ng a tr ad it ion that was init ial ly f ri endly to the Garden . Norman DeWi tt ,

the well-known (if controvers ial) scholar of the Garden, once claimed that it

was Epicurus himself who first added Odysseus speech on the lelos to the

Epicurean canon (DeWit t 1954: 73-74). But u lt imat ely it i s i rr el evan t whe the r

t he compar ison between Phaeac ians and Epicureans was f ir st voi ced by hos til e

outsiders, by Epicurus ipse, or by l at er Epicureans . Once the formula becomes

ane s tabli shed way of r id iculi ng the Garden , t he t ask of l ate r Ep icu reans i s t o al ignthemse lves for o r agains t Phaeacia . In o ther words , t he af fron ted Ep icu rean must

e ither r eje ct t he Phaeac ian · s te reo type a s an un just l ampoon of the Garden , o r

,embrace the s lu r and de fend Phaeacian p lea su res . One Epi curean ta ct ic wou ld

be to ci te Phaeac ia as anexemplum not o f l uxur ious l iv ing but o f peace, goodwil l.

and friendly communion. Such an interpretat ion of the Epicurus the Phaeacian

tradition is recorded by Seneca, who complains that all of the philos ophical

schools, inc luding the Garden, f ind their models in Homer:

Nam modo Sto icum il ium faciunt , v ir tu tem solam proban tem et volup

tates refugientem et ab honesto ne inmorta li ta ti s quidem pretio receden

tem, modo Epicu reum, l audant em sta tum quie ta e c iv ita ti s et i nte r con

vivia cantusque vitam exigent is, modo Peripatet icum tria bonorum genera

inducen tem , modo Academicum. omnia ince rta di cen tem . Adpa ret n ih il

horum esse in i ll o, quia omnia sun t. I st a en im in ter se d issi den t.

(Epistles 88.5)

For sometimes they make him [Homer] a S toic, who approves only of

v ir tue and shuns p le asures and refuses t o g ive up honor even at t he p ric e

of immortality; sometimes they make him an Epicurean. who praises

the condition of a citizenry at peaee that lives a life of symposia and

songs ; somet imes they make h im a Peri pat eti c, who cl assi fi es t he good

12. See Usener 433 and 552. On pleasure and the mind cf. DRN 2.18-19.

13. See Gordon forthcoming. Plutarch and others in the anti-Epicurean and anti-Phaeacian

camps of course overlook the l ines abOtILracing and ship far ing



9 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17INo 2/0ctober 1998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 195

in three ways ; and sometimes they make him an Academic, who holds

t hat eve ry th ing i s unce rta in. I t i sobvious that none of t hese phi l osophi es

i s i n Homer, s ince they al l ar e. For t hey a re mutual ly exc lus ive.

Seneca write as though an Epicurean or Epicurean-friendly interpretation of

the Phaeacia connection (one that highlights peace and conviviality, with no

sugges tion of excess) were a commonplace in the first century CEo I imagine

that the tradition Seneca knew linked the Garden w ith the groves and gardens

of Phaeacia Od 6.321-22; 7.112-33) and extol led both as utopian communities

that offered safe harbor on the fringes of a dangerous world. The Epicurean

position was neither monolithic nor static, however. Lucretius, for example.

f irmly rej ect s t he Phaeac ian aes theti c, i ncl uding the golden s tat ue s t hat adorn the

Phaeacian palace and the cithara that accompanies the banquets there . Lucre tius '

unambiguous pos iti on on Phaeaci a appears in t he famous proem to Book 2 .where

he pronounces certa in pleasures as unnecessary:

e rgo corpoream ad naturam pauca v idemus

e sse opus omnino, quae demant cumque dolo rem.

del ic ias quoque uti mul tas substernere possin .

gra tius interdum neque natura ipsa requiri t,

s i non aurea sun t iuvenum simulac ra per aedes

lampadas igniferas manibus ret inentia dextr is,

lumina nocturnis epulis ut suppenditentur,

nec domus argen to fulget au roque ren ide t

nee citharae reboant laqueata aurataque templa.

cum tamen inte r se p ros t ra ti i n g ramine molli

p ropt er aquae r ivum sub ramis arbori s al tae

non magnis opibus iucunde corpora curant.

praeser ti m cum tempes ta s a rr idet et ann i

tempora conspergunt vir idantis f10ribus herbas.

DRN 2.20-33)

Thus we see how few things are at all necessary to satisfy our bodily

nature-jus t enough to remove our pain-and so to provide us with many

de light s. Nor does nature f rom t ime to t ime requ ir e anything more p le as

ing; even i f t he re a re nogo lden s ta tues o fboys throughout t he house hold

ing f ir e-bea ring l amps inhand to furni sh li gh t for nigh tt ime banque ts , and

the house doe s not g low with s ilveror g le am with gold , and nopanel ed and

g il ded beams echo with the lyre. never thel ess, s tr etched ou t i n g roups on

the sof t g rass nea r a s tre am of wat er under t he branches o f a ta ll t ree . peo

ple happi ly take refreshment a tno great cost, especia lly when the weather

is love ly and the season of the year spr ink les the g reen grass wit h f lowe rs .

Readers ofthe Odyssey should recognize that Lucre tius ' survey of needless extrav

agances is no random l is t, but a d ir ec t a ll us ion to par ticula r Phaeaci an p le asure s.

The description of the golden statues DRN 2.27-29) is a close paraphrase of

Odyssey 7 .100-102, whe re Homer's lamp-bear ing golden boys p rovide li gh t

L

for Phaeaci an d ine rs . In add it ion . t he gold . t he s ilver . t he paneli ng . and the ly re

reflect a composite of the dining scene described at the beginning of OdYsse\ 9

and the Phaeaci an pal ace a s Odysseus f ir st beholds it Od 7.81-99). Although

it seems to me that the commentaries miss the broader import of this Phaea

cian intertex . most note the unusually close rendering of Homer's words

in DRN 2 .24-26 and many reader s have recogn iz ed in Lucreti us ' descr ip ti on

of unnecessary luxury the sett ing in which Odysseus addressed King Alc inous

on the Ie/os

Thus Lucretius declines to sit at the Phaeacian table and settles his ideal

Epicureans on the grass outside where they will be just as happy, weather

pe rmi tti ng . Not a ll f ir st- cen tu ry Ep icu reans, however . were so concerned about

distinguishing Phaeacian from Epicurean pleasures. The other eminent Epicurean

philosopher-poet of that era, Philodemus (ca. 110 - ca. 40J:l5 BCE), writes

admir ingly (and perhaps apologe ti cal ly ) o f Phaeaci a in h is schol ar ly work and

p layful ly accepts t he Ep icu rean /Phaeac ian c liche in a poem to Piso (consu l i n 58

BCE). This poem invi te s Piso for a modes t mea l i ncel eb ra ti on of Ep icu rus day

(the twent ie th of the month): II

::'<UplOVEl~ Al1:~Vas X::'<AleXO::'<,plh::'<1:s IIda(ov,

E~ EVeX1:l]~E'hSl l-louaocplA~~ E1:<XpO~

ElxeXo<xoElrrvl~0)v EVl::.<vaLOv· d 0' cirroAdlfsl~

ou6<X1:::'<x<x1 BpOl..llou XlOYSVij rrp67tomv,

cin' E1:eXpou~ ol.pEl rr<xvaAl')6E<X~,cin' EmxovaTi

(]J<Xl~X(OVyall]~ rrouAU I-ls;,lXp61:sp<x.

~v os rrocs (Jl:pEtjJTI~ x<x1 E~ ~I-lE::'<~0i..lI-l::'<1:::'<,Idawv,

i:i~OI-lEVEX All:ij~ ElxeXo<xITlOCEpl]V.

Epigram 27. Sider Pal .Anth. 11.44 22 Gow and Page.

Tomor row, ' f riend Pi so , your mus ic al comrade drags you to hi s modes t

digs

at three in the afternoon.

f eeding you a t your annual v is it t o the Twen ti et h. I fyou wil l m iss udde rs

and Bromian wine mis ell bouleilles in Chios.

yet you will see faithful comrades . yet you w ill hem' things far sweeterthan

the land of the Phaeacians.

1 4. P ur pl e d ye l at er a c at ch wo rd f or e xc es s) i s l es s r ec og ni za bl e a s a p ec ul ia rl y P ha ea ci an

a cc ou te rm en t, b ut t he s up er fl uo us p ur pl e c ov er le ts L uc re ti us s pu rn s i n t he n ex t l in e a s n o m or e

helpful to the sick than a plebeian cover; DRN 2,34-36) a lso recal l Arete 's purple wool and the

purple bedding provided to Odysseus by the Phaeacians on his nrst n ig ht a ft er was hi ng u p o n t he ir

shores 0 336-38 . Purple dye isalso abundal l i n V ir gi l s C ar th ag e f e. g. ] . 70 0 a nd 1 1. 72 -7 5) , whe re

it seems to henot only Phaeacian but typici3l1y Tyrian.

15. See Bailey 1947: 802 on line 2.25. See also Gale 1994: III, who does note the Epicurean/Phaeacian tradition.

1 6. On E pi cu ru < b ir th da y a nd t he . mo nt hl y E pi cu re an g at he ri ng s. s ee S id er 1 99 7: l 56 .

17. Transl<ltion by S ie le r 1 99 7: 1 52 : e ar li er t ra ns la ti on a ls o i n Obb in k ] 9 9 5: 4 7.



96 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume niNo. 2/0ctober 1998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 97

And if you ever turn an eye to us too, Piso, instead of a modest feast weshal l l ead a r icher one.

Here Phi lodemus deftly redeems the Phaeacian/Epicurean stereotype by refusing

to align the Phaeacians with luxury or exces s, linking them instead with poetry

and the most basic Epicurean pleasures. Thus the Phaeacian pleasures emphasized

by Plu ta rch (wine and food) are rep la ced with two c ruci al Phaeaci an p le asures

also lauded by Odysseus in his telos speech: f ri endship and l is tening to the bard.As David Sider puts it. the reference to the Phaeacians promises Piso that he

will r ece ive the combined p le asures o f poet ry and Epicu rean companions .

(No paradox is implied here: the widespread mis conception that poetry and the

Garden a re in tr in si cal ly incompat ib le has more roo ts in anti -Ep icu rean pol emic

than in Epicurean doubts about l iterature.j1 Phi lodemus' tone is more defensive

in h is e ssay On the Good King According to Homer, which is also addressed to

Piso. There Phi lodemus defends Demodocus' cho ic e o f the (of ten condemned)

story of Ares and Aphrodite, prais es AJcinous as a good king who knows how to

ach ieve peace. and chall enges the hackneyed noti on of the a ll egedly la zy. e ff et e,

and self-indulgent Phaeacian.'o

Horace takes yet another approach. Scholarly posit ions on Horace' s a tt itudes

toward Epicureanism are diverse, depending as they do upon each reader's

est imat ion of the poet' s sinceri ty, tone , and ironic sel f-effacement . Readers of

a ll persuasions. however. should recognize t races of the Epicurus the Phaeacian

tradi tion inthree poems of the first book of Horace' s Epistles. In my reading, these

epistles meet the s lur head on by affirming s ardonically that the Epicureans are

indeed a herd of well-fed and s elf-indulgent Phaeacians: Horace should know.

for he is one of them.

First, one poem contrasts the Stoic models that can be learned from Homer

with the baser and (impl ic it ly) Epicurean models that Horace and his friends

prefer:

nos numerus sumus e t f ruge s consumere nat i,

sponsi Penelopae, nebulones. Alcinoique

in cute curanda plus aequo opera ta iuventus,

cui pulchrum fuit in medios dormire dies et

ad strepitum citharae cessantem ducere somnum.

Epistles 1.2.27-3J)

We' re mere numbers, s imple ea te rs of e ar th 's subst ance.

18. Sider 1995:47.

19. See d is cu ss ion bel ow and C lay 1995, Asmis 1995, S ider 1995, and Wigodsky 1995 i nObbink 1995.

20. See Asmi s 1991 : 37 and 41. and S ider SO. Jufresa 1982 (which I know only from Sider 's

reference argues that the Good King pr ese nt s t he Pha ea ci an s as t he mod el o f a Ut op ia n Epi cu re an

community (Sider 1997: 1601.

2 . Trans la tion byFuchs 1977: 54.

...

we are Penelope' s wasteful sui tors and Aleinous' s

young men . i ndecen tly busy a t g rooming the ir h ide s.

A good l if e to t hem meant snoozing unt il af ternoon .

enjoy ing a l azy s leep. l ul led by a ci tha ra.

The Ep icu rean Phil odemus a lso fi nds some th ing to admire in the hab its of Pene

lope' s sui tors. but I take the sui tors ' presence here as Horat ian embel lishment of

anti-Epicurean polemic.E lsewhe re in the same book , a poem ost ensi bly abou t t he search for a ba thing

spot with amenities asks whether a particular location offers fine sea food and

game: so Ican thence return home fat , and asa Phaeacian pil/gl/is /Iti/lde dOl/n/ln

passim Phaeaxque rel er ti . Epist les 1.15.24). Confi rmat ion that fat Phaeacians

with well tended hides (cf. in CUTecurallda in EpiSTles 1.2.29) are Epicurean

doppelgangers appears a t Ihe end of another epist le :

me p inguem e t n it idum bene curat a cut e v ises

cum r idere vole s Epicuri de g rege porcum.

(1.4.15-16)

Come and s ee me, your fat, s leek friend with the shiny hide.

a pig from Epicurus 's herd. if you ever want a laugh.

For Horace, the Phaeacian tradi tion is r ipe for appropria tion, as are other currentsof an ti-Ep icurean d iscour se . Even h is refe rence to Phaeaci an grooming habi ts

cu te cU/ ll nd a.I .2. 29 ; be ne u ra ta cu te. 1.4.15-16) sounds like a travesty of

Lucretius' corpora ,U/ lIllt ( they take refreshment or at tend the body, DRN

2.3 j). a phrase Lucretius uses inhis acclamation of Epicurean (and, inthe context ,

non-Phaeaci an ) p lea su res . While Horace professedly a li gns h is poet ic per sona

with a vers ion of Epicureani sm based on the sort of lampoon l at er epit omized by

Plutarch. his tone' marks these references to the Garden as t ransparent distort ions

of Epicurean hedonism. Anyone conversant with Epicureanism knows that it

values spiritual or cerebral pleasures over the physical, once essential bodilyneeds ( food and she lt er ) have been me l. '4

The observant reader would also be aware that the tradition of ridiculing

the supposedly Ep icu rean -li ke Phaeaci ans (and so the Phaeaci an -l ike Epicure

ans ) for rejecting literature and indulging instead in wine and food also dis

torts the Homeric passage, for the singer of tales at the Phaeacian table is cru

cial to Odysseus' statement of what is kallistoll (very/most beaut iful ). Signifi

c an tly . Ep icurean (and Epicu rean -f riend ly ) sources that r efer t o t he Phaeac ian

Epicurean equation acknowledge the presence of the lyre or cithara (emblem

22. See Asmis 1991: 38.

23. Tr nslat ion by Fuchs 1977: 56.

24. See Diog. Laer . (10.137). who contras ts pleasures of the body a .p~ and a0JI.HX)with the

greater pleasures of themind orspirit ~I)X.~), a reporllhat isconsislenl wilh Epicurus Ep lcn 32

For d is cus si on se e Gos li ng a nd T ay lo r 19 82 : 349~54 and Long 1986 .



198 CLASS1CAL ANTlQUITY Volume 17 /No. 2/0ctober ] 998 GORDON: Phaeaeial1 Dido 199

of bolh epic and lyric genres) in the Phaeacian realm. Thus Seneca refers

to sympos ia and songs Epist/es 88.5) , and the musical or muse-loving

Phi lodemus ( - 'ouaocptAr , Epigram 27. Sider) stresses poetics over comestibles.

Even Lucretius is protective of Phaeacian pleasures; although the proem to

Book 2 presents Phaeacian pleasures as unnecessary, i t nei ther exaggerates

nor excoriates them, and the echoing cithara is included in the Phaeacjan vi

gnette. Horace, too. retains the cithara in his sardonic glance at the Phaea

ci ans and sui to rs ( alt hough for t hem the c it hara i s the accompanimen t for s leep.

not poetry). Turning to Virgil. we notice the cithara at the table in Dido's

Carthage.

PHAEACIAN DIDO

Reader s have long been awa re that Dido makes her f ir st en trance in the Aeneid

as Nausikaa. princess of Phaeacia (cf. Aulus Gellius 9. 9). That is to say, Dido's

f ir st appea rance in the Aeneid ( jus t before she agrees t o he lp the shipwrecked

Aenea s) echoes closely the descr ip ti on of Nausikaa on the Phaeaci an shore ( just

before she agrees to help the shipwrecked Odysseus); both are compared to

Art emis /Diana surrounded by her nymphs and both embody the beauty, s tr eng th ,

and sel f-possession of the goddess Aen. 1.498-504 and Od. 6.102-109). Dido's

entr ance . however . is on ly the beg inning of her Phaeaci an pas t.Of t he many s trands o f poeti c t rad iti on that merge and in ter twine in Virgil 's

Dido, t he Phaeacian s tr ands a re the most. d iverse and yet t he most pers is tent.

As commenta tor s (bo th anci en t and mode rn ) have not ed , Dido at moments l ooks

l ike Naus ikaa, s tands in for Aret e, and speaks l ike Alc inous. ' Dido' s banquet

for the T ro jans reca ll s t he Phaeac ian banquet hos ted by Nausikaa 's parent s, and

when Aeneas t el ls h is s to ry there Aen. 2-3), he is fol lowing Odysseus' precedent

(Od. 9-12). lopas , the bard at Dido's table, has affinities with the Phaeacian

bard Demodocus.27 And as though it were not enough that Venus herself also

p lays Nausikaa when she meet s Aeneas near the shore s o f Dido's Car thage Aen.

1 .327-29 and Od. 6.149-52; Aen. 1 .338-41 and Od. 6.194-96). and stands in

for t he l itt le g ir l (Athena ) who assis ts Odysseus in Phaeaci a Aen. 1.315 and Od.

7. ]4-77), Venus' departure from Aeneas in that scene also ges tures toward the

s to ry of Ares and Aphrodit e as sung by the Phaeaci an Demodocus ; li ke Aphrodi te

i n t he Phaeaci an s to ry , Venus f li ts away to Cyprus whe re she can en joy the incense

25. On Dido\ multiplicity in general see Hexter 1992. espcL'ially p.337.

26. See Aulus Gel lius 9.9 . Knauer 1964: 174 and passim. Clausen 1987: 15-26, Hardie 1986

passIm. My summary here focuses on the correspondences between Virgi lian characters and their

antecedents; also relev;mt to the Phaeacia/Carthage analogy afe the storms, invocations, and wrecks

at sea that preceded the respective heroes' arrivals; and the shade-filled, prosperous landscapes thatreeei ve them.

e7. See Hardie 1986: 60-66.

li t for her by the Paphians (Am. 1.415-17 and Od. 8.362-66). The goddesses

in bo th scenes conceal the hero with mis t so tha t he can make h is way safely to h is

r escuer (Aeneas to Dido: Odysseus to Nausikaa' s mother Are te ). Like Alcinous in

the Odvssey, Dido alTe rs he r gues t safe pa ssage. o r. al te rnat ive ly, the opti on to

stay Aen. 1.569-74: Od. 7 .311-24) . Woven in with these Homer ic s tr ands i s t he

memory of an earlier reincarnation of Nausikaa: the young Medea of Apollonius'

Argonautiea. Apol lonius ' ta le o f Medea' s d iv inely-orches tr ated love for Jason

(who al so makes h is way to Medea enshrouded in mi st ) a sser ts it se lf f requen tly i n

the Aeneid, especially in Book 4, which Servius described asentirely Apollonian. )

Medea isof course no Phaeacian, and yet the Phaeacians themselves playa crucial

role in t he AI~~onautiea. Here it i s important t o recal l that the notor ious cave that

p rovides she lt er t o Dido and Aeneas (before their supernatural wedding) bear s

an obvious res emblance to the nuptial cave of Medea and Jason. 1 The lat ter are

married, of course. among the Phaeacians.

Thus it is signilkanl that Dido's patently Homeric palace (Dyson 1996:

208) is not just Homeric, but Phaeacian (Od. 7.100-102). Lucretius had al

ready responded to the Epicurus the Phaeacian t radi tion by explici tly banishing

gold, s ilver, ornate paneling, and other Phaeacian luxuries from the ideal Epi

curean gathering (2.23-28). In a move that epitomizes a certain mode of Vir

gilian/Lucretian intertextuality, the Aeneid r ei nscr ibes such luxur ie s i nt o the

Epicurean/Phaeacian world, echoing the very language Lucretius had us ed toassert tha t Epicureans prefer simple picnics over Phaeacian banquets: fit strepitus

teetis uoccmque per amp/a uo/utant atria; de/ endentlychni /aqnearibfls aure;;; /

il1cel1siet IlOctemfiammisfunalia uincunt. A roar arises in the hall and they send

the ir voic es echoing th rough the great pala ce ; burning l amps hang f rom the go ld

paneled beams and torches conquer the night with their blaze Aen.1.725-27;

DRN 2 .24-28) . Even the lyre t he bardlopas p lays is golden Aen.1.741-42).

Thus in the Dido epis ode the basic Homeric context is mediated through

more than one Hel lenist ic prism: Apollonius' Phaeacians participate in a complex

Ep icurean inte rtext. Virgil ian inte rtextuali ty , however , bea rs no resemblance

to the cu t- and-pas te approach of Plu ta rch . Unl ike Plu tarch' s mocking pas ti che

of Homeric and Epicurean texts, which serves to foreclose a favorable view

of the Garden's affinities with Phaeacia, Virgil's intertextual modes open up

the interpretive options . At first glance the reader might suspect that V irgil is

28. On Venus as Nausikaa, Athena inScheria, and Demodocus ' Aphrodi te . see Knauer 19f i4:

158-63. Knauer points out that Aeneas' comparison of his (disguised) mother to Diana recal ls

Oclysscu:-.·comparison of N:.lUsikaato Artemis (1964: 159 n. I).

29. tofUs h ie l iber { l { / lI sl (l {W ; e .H dt raTio Apu /onii. Insome respects the.character Medea may

also bea precursor of the Homeric Nausikaa; cf. Reece 1993: 109-10. On Virgi l s mingl ing of the

Homeric with the Apollonian see Clausen 1987.30. Cf. Clousen 1987: 23-25.

31. On Virgi l' s habit ofquot ing LlH;ret ius in alien conlexts Jnd somel imes even reversing his

Epicurean wisdom, see Hardie 1986passim.



200 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17 /No. 2/0ctober ] 998 GOR ON Phaeacian Dido 201

simply tapping into the prevail ing ant i-Epicurean discourse , thus aligning himself

with a t rad it ion exemplif ied by Plut arch s la te r condemnat ion of t he Epicureans

as decadent, womanish. and dangerous sensualists. The fact that Dido is an

East erne r, and that t he mos t cl iched of her ba rbar ian at tri bu te s over lap with

her Phaeaci an el ements , add to this impre ss ion . . Other , more s in is te r Homer ic

elements in D ido s ancestry-Calypso, Circe, the Cyclops-would also support

such a read ing, especia ll y s ince those a spect s emerge graduall y, a s t hough they

were lurking under a Phaeacian veneer. Interestingly enough, one of the most

s in is te r ( and ost ens ib ly non-Phaeaci an ) Homer ic e lements o f Aeneid 4 circles

back to Phaeac ia : when Dido curses Aenea s, her mal ed ict ion echoe s the par ting

shot hurled at Odys seus by Polyphemus Aen. 4.612-29; Od. 9.528-35). In

Homer the Cyc lope s have a vague connec tion with the Phaeaci ans Od. 7.205

206) and are the Phaeacians fonner neighbors Od 6.3-6), a proximity the

Aeneid recalls by placing the Cyclops epis ode temporally and spatially near

the Carthage episode (see Qui n t 1989: 120-23). Thus the appearance of the

Epicurean/Phaeacian equat ion in the Aeneid would seem to support a reading of

the epic that champions Aeneas over Dido, Stoicism over Epicureanism. Rome

over A frica and the East. . And yet when we recall that the Garden itself is not

univoca l r egard ing the Phaeaci ans another possib ili ty emerge s: perhaps Virgi s

overturning of Lucretius rejec tion of the alleged connect ion between the Garden

and Phaeac ia does no t condemn Epicu rean ism but s imply al igns Dido with a le ssaustere (but not debased) Epicurean tradi tion.

PRUDENCE AND PLEASURE

Whether Ep icurus li ved to hea r h imsel f compared unfavorab ly to the Phaea

cians or not, it is certain that Epicurus did res pond to derogatory ass essments of

Ep icu rean p lea su re . In the Letter to Menoeceus Epicurus explains that-contrary

to the c la ims of adve rsar ie s-Ep icu rean p le asure s go hand in hand with phronesis

( wisdom or prudence ) . This passage is especia lly resonant with the Epicurus

the Phaeacian tr ad it ion , even i f i t c an serve as an actual r esponse to the charge

only for those who read out o fo rder , tu rn ing to Ep icurus f rom Plu ta rch or Herac li

tu s. Thus Epicurus re sponds in advance to the cl aim lha t the doc tr ine o f pl easure

he stole from Odysseus is moral ly bankrupt and thus deeply unpleasant :

So when we say that pleasure is the end te/os) we do not mean the

pleasures of degenerates and pleasures that consist in carnal indulgence,

32. On Dido and Eastern stereotypes see Hexter 1992. The tecta laquafla of Dido s palace afC

an especially r ich allusion: in addition to having Phaeacian associations t R 2.28 such paneling

wa s al so c on si de re d T ro ja n or b ar ba ri an f or s our ce s s ee D yso n 19 96 ).

3 3. F or t he c la im t hat Vi rg il s Di do d em on st ra te s t he o bv io us e rr or s o f E pi cu re an ism s ee F ee ne y

1991: 171-72 and Dyson t996. For support of the idea that Virgi l s depic tion of Dido is f riendly

tothe Garden see Wil liams 1983: 210 -13 and Mellingholr-Bourgerie 1990.

as s ome as sume (out of ignorance or because they disagree. or becaus e

they misapprehend us), but we mean the abs ence of pain in the body and

the absence of d is tr ess i n t he spir it I s.\ che). For i t i s nei ther continuous

dri nk ing par tie s nor carnal i ndu lgence inboys and women or fi sh o r o ther

offerings of the rich table that produce a pleasant l ife, but sober reasoning

and searching out reasons for selection and avoidance, and banishing

the sor ts o f r eceived opin ions that c ause the great es t d is tu rbance of t he

spirit. The source of all these things and the greatest good is prudence phronesis). Thus prudence i seven more valuabl e t han phi losophy . for al l

t he res t o f t he v ir tues spri ng f rom prudence. whi ch t eaches us that i t i s not

possi bl e to l ive pl easan tl y wit hout l ivi ng pruden tly and honorab ly and

justly, nor to live a life of prudence, honor. and justice without living

p lea sant ly . For v ir tues are naturall y par t o f a p lea sant l if e. and a p lea san t

l ife is inseparable from them.

Ep. Men. 131-32)

Turning f rom Epicu rus to Eratost hene s ( the Alexandr ian schola r quot ed in

the epigraph to this essay; cf. n. I), we see that Eratosthenes too is on the de

fens ive. The myth ic al Phaeaci ans may s tr ike some readers as unl ikely obje ct s o f

rebuke, but as far as we know, Eratosthenes favorable opinion of the prudence

of Homer s Phaeacians was not the majority view at any time in antiquity; the

norm- --even before t he founding of the Garden-was to accuse the Phaeac ians o findolence. sloth, and loose morals.) Thus Eratosthenes assertion ( II is impos

sible for Phaeacians not to be prudent, since they are very dear to the gods, as

Nausikaa says ) is a f ragmen tary rebut tal to t he dominan l r eading of the Phaiakis.

Although bringing Eratosthenes reading of Homer to bear on the Epicurean tra

d iti on may be a case of anachronis ti c i nt er tex tua lit y. Erat os thenes cl aim has a

role to play in . the dialogue with Epicurus . We know that Eratosthenes s tudied

phi losophy in Athens whi le the Garden was in i ts second generati on, and so pre

sumably knew of EpicurusJ But even if Eratosthenes himsel I had no knowledge

of an early version of the Epicurus the Phaeacian tradition, his adducing of

Homer ic t ex ts to p rove that the Phaeaci ans are v ir tuous wou ld have in teres ted

Epicurean reader s. Athenaeus ( to whom we owe the quot ati on of E ratos thenes)

reports that Eratoslhenes cal ls other witnesses besides Nausikaa; he also corrects

t he ma inst ream t rad iti on on the words o f Odysseus. Accord ing to E ratos thenes ,

t he true t ex t o f Odysseus speech on the te/os is explicit about the decency of

the Phaeacians. In Eratosthenes version Odysseus proclaims:

34. This may explain in pari why the del ightful Nausikaa has such a dismal e~lrly Nachlcben:

although anoptimistic rC<.Idermight expect her to have inspired happier heroines. Nau~ikaa hecame

the model ins tead for murderous or : -iuicida l abandoned women. For a concise survey of 3nc iem

c ommentary on P haeaci ans see Heubeck 1988: 341. For rece nt asse ssments of the Phaeacians

friendliness (or hostility) see C rnes 1993and Reecc 19Y3.

35. A lthough Era tosthenes was reputed to have cri ticized some of the ear ly Stoics we know

nothing about his attitude toward the Garden. Cr. Pfeiffer 1968: [52-70.



202 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17 INo 2/0ctober 1998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 3

00 yap i :yeS)YE , [ <P1) flLtA.o~ xC(pusmEpov ElVaL

~ Cl e' i :u<ppocruv1) flEV EXTI xC(x6'1)'o~ cXrroucr1)~,

0c(L'Ufl6vE~ 0' cXva 0(0flC( cXxoua~0N(c(L cXOLOOU

Quoted by Athenaeus Deipn. 1.16d.

[mainta in t here is no telos more p lea si ng than when there is euphrosvne.

and basene ss is absent, and gue st s s it ti ng s ide by s ide th roughou t the ha1 .1sl is ten to the ba rd

Eratos thenes glosse s h is unort hodox reading baseness i sabsen t'· by exp la in ing

that the baseness or evi l tha t Odysseus speaks of here is recklessness or

lack of prudence (aphrosvne). The word euphrosyne (wh ich [ rende red a s good

chee r when I t ransl ated the canoni cal t ex t o f Odyssey 9.6) takes on a new tone

here because Eratost henes ' u se o f t he cognat e aphrosyne i nh is g loss makes cl ear

that he takes euphrosyne not simply as good cheer but more l itera1.1yas good

thinking, or right thinking. In other words, Eratosthenes is implicitly drawing

a connect ion between euphrosyne and the rel at ed word phronesis ( wisdom or

prudence ) .' · Far from being dissolute , Era tosthenes' Phaeacians are paradigms

of moral probity.

Turning back to Virgil. we see that the Dido episode too can be read as a

revis ion of the tradition that was hostile to Phaeacia. Readers from diverse eras

have que st ioned the f riend li ness o f the Phaeac ians , and Athena' s and Nausikaa 'swarnings to Odysseus Od 7.32-33 and 6.274) are echoed by Venus' fear that

t he hero's hos ts a re not t rustwor thy (Aen. 1.661). At her firs t meeting with the

Trojans , however , Dido exp la ins that t he Car thag in ians ' war iness i s due to their

vulnerable posit ion as recent exi les (Aen. 1 .563). When thus accoun ting for her

apparen t la ck of hospi ta li ty, she welcomes the Troj ans in f ri endly l anguage that

has right ly been recognized as both Epicurean and Lucretian: solvile corde metwn,

Teucr i, secludi te curas (Aen. l.562) . .7 After this. the Trojans of course receive fu1.1

wel come and suf fe r none of t he appa ren t l apse s in hospi ta li ty that Odysseus had

me t wit h in Phaeac ia . We see a lso that t he song ofl opas has something in common

with Eratost henes ' r e- re ad ing (o r re-wr it ing) o f Homer. As many commenta to rs

have noted, the text is strewn with s ignposts that lead us to see lopas in part as a

new Demodocus. the bard of the Phaeacian banquet . And yet the Aeneid replaces

Demodocus' noto ri ous song (no to ri ous in anti qu it y, that i s) abou t the love a ffai r

o f Ares and Aphrodi te with a qua si-Lucreti an song of natural phi losophy. As

36. The Homeric scholiasts also consider this interpretation of euphrosyne. Ironically. e/l-

phrosyne i s a wor d th at a lat er Ep ic ur ean tr ad it io n u se s to r ef er La sp ecif ic ~.t1 ly car nal p leas ur es. S ee

Diogenes of Oeno3nda, Smith fragment 10. col. 4.

37. Dyson: 205.

38. See e spec ia ll y Segal 1971. Hardie 1986, and Dyson 1996.

39. On the moral probity of Jopas' song. cf. Servills ad Aen. 1.742: bene philosophica

imrodl/citur cWltile/l£/ ill cOllvivio reg;nae adlwc costae. The Iopas passage is also heilvy with

in te rt ex tu al re jo in der s: Vir gi l ex cis es an e rot ic p ass ag e th at Lu cr eti us h<1dhig hlig hte d i n t he p ro em

IIII

I

t hough to bes tow au thor ia l approva l on lopa s' words , the t ex t he re echoes not only

Luc ret iu s, but Virgil 's own echoe s o f Lucret iu s i n the Gcolgics.'o Meanwhile , as

host of the banquet Dido is the paradigm not only of Epicurean friendliness and

hospitality. but also a model of Phaeacian/Epicurean piety and prudence: she

has just made a libation to the gods. but barely tas tes the wine (Acl/. 1.736-37).

Dido's t emperance is especi al ly not ic eab le s ince Venus had sugge st ed that wine

has a role to play in Dido's downfall Ael/ 1.686). As in the Epicurean tradi tion

exempli fied by Phi lodemus, and in the Phaeacian-friendly t radi tion exempli fied

by Eratos thenes , t he p le asure in a Phaeaci an banquet has l it tle t o do wilh the wine

or the food (which receives little attention in the Virgilian scene), but much to

do with friendship, good cheer-or right thinking-and the bard.

A lthough Dido foregoes the wine, she of cours e quenches her thirst with

a dangerous poison: love ( /ongumque bibebat amorem, Ael /. 1.749). Since

Venus and Juno have contrived to send Amor to Dido, s ome readers take Dido's

subsequent downfal l as Virgi lian condemnat ion of Dido's later cryplo-Epicurean

assertion that the gods do not meddle in human lives (scil icet is super is labor

est , eo cura quietos sol /ictat , Surely this toil concerns the gods, this concern

troubles their repose [uttered with apparent sarcasm], Ael/ 4 .379-80) . And yet

a convinced Epicurean might read Dido's demise not as confirmation that her

Epicurean noti ons a re wrong, but as ful fi llment o f Lucreti us ' warnings agains t

the horrible perils of erotic love. In other words: if Ihe divine machinery of theAeneid can be said to prove Ep icu rus wrong , the de sc rip tion of Dido's pa ss ion can

be said to p rove Luc ret iu s right.41 Cer ta in ly Ihe l anguage tha t descr ibes Dido's

love-sickness is s trongly evocative of the attack agains t passion in Book 4 of

Lucretius' de rerum natura. As commentators have noted, Dido's sleeplessness

as described in the opening of Book 4 (Ael/. 4. 1. 5) is the result of worry or

disturbance, ,a condition that Epicurus calls tarache, and that Lucret iu s cal ls

cura.. Thus the vocabulary of Dido's insomnia conllrms the repeated theme of

Lucretius' polemic against erotic love: pass ion is bound to result in such cura,

and thus deprives the would-be phi losopher of Epicurean ataraxia (tranquillity).

Furt hermore, Lucreti us (notor ious ly ) descr ibe s l ove and sex as a sor t o f wound

(uull/us, DRN 4.1049, 1070, 1120); the very image with which Book 4 of the

Aeneid opens: uull1us alit uel/is ( she feeds the wound with her blood, Aen.

4.2; cf. uiuit sub pectore uulnus, t he wound survives i n her b re as t, Aen. 4.67).

Even Virgil 's descr ip ti on ofDido 's obsession with the image and voic e of Aenea s

(Aen. 4.83-84) evokes Lucretius' des cription of the role of simulacra (images)

10 DRN Book 1. v·:hich in turn geslUres toward the Phaeacian story by depicting Mars in the anns

ofVenlis.

~O. See Hardi e 1986: 33-51. S ee al so Gale 1994: 30-0 I Segal 1971 stresses the un-Roman.

effeminate <1spects of Topus. thus drawing attention to material for an anti-Phaeacian and anti

Epi cure~m readi ng of t hi s pas sa ge .

4]. Cf . Dyso n 1996 : 204, who d es cr ib es D id o as a Lu cr et ian exemplwl1 malum.42. Brown 1987: 142 and Hamilton 1993: 24~.



204 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume I7 No 2 0ctober 1998 GOR ON Phaeacian Dido 205

and the sound of the lover s name in the arousal of lovers DRN 4.1061-62).

Thus although Venus and Juno have been described at work behind the scenes,

both the symptoms and the mechanic s o f Dido s passi on are Lucreti an .

Once Dido is stricken with love, the Phaeacian intertext (except as it is

med iat ed -i n more s in is ter f ashion -t hrough Apollonius Medea) s lip s away.

Dido lose s al l re semblance to the v irginal Nausikaa , al ong with her p rospect s for

Epicurean tranquillity.

LOST IN THE JNTERTEXT

Although r am convinced tha t the long- stand ing tr ad it ion of read ing Homer

as a font of Hellenis tic philosophical wisdom informs Virgil s reworking of the

epics, 1 do not mean to reduce the Aeneid t o an a llegory on Sto ic and Epicu rean

world views, or even to assert that the play of Epicurean versus Stoic values is

the main theme of the Dido episode. My far simpler claim is that attention to

the Phaeac ian l ineage of Dido demons tr at es t hat her Epicurean connect ions are

deeper, more varied, and more sophis ticated than has hitherto been noted. In

fact. the tradition that ass ociates the Garden with Phaeacia s eems to me to have

such an undeniabJ e presence in the Dido episode as to require an explanation of

why i t was not r ed iscovered by n inete en th -centu ry source cr iti cism. I have th re e

answers tothis quest ion. and wil l dispense quickly with the first by acknowledgingmy own traditional training as a Class icis t. S ince it was my acquaintance with

n inet eenth -c en tu ry phi lo logy tha t led me to not ic e t he Epicurean implic ati ons o f

Dido s Phaeac ian connec ti ons in the f ir st p la ce, I ol ler th is par ti cu lar s lant on Dido

a s a l at e a rr ival . ove rlooked though i t was dur ing the heyday of source c rit ic ism.

The second answer has todo with the eff icacy of the vocabulary of inter textual

i ty. Cri tics have complained that the adopt ion of the terminology of inter textuali ty

by schol ar s o f li te rat ure merely g ives a new veneer t o o ld methods (hence the par

ody by Genette 1992: 82). Now that the shine has in any case worn off, il

seems a good t ime simply to assert tha t inter textual is an especia lly apt epi thet

for the art of the Aeneid a poem tha t weaves toge ther and reshapes a p ro fusion

of traditions (literary and extra-literary) and yet whos e surface is somehow not

e laborat e but auste re. The l anguage o j i nte rtextuaJ ity a lso happens to be ap

propria te to a discussion of a long-standing paraphi losophical t radi tion involving

a ser ies o f Homeric al lu si ons and anti -Ep icu rean misreadings . Thus the inquir -

43. Hamil ton 1993: 250.

4 4. Al l l it era ry c ri ti cs , f or ce nt ur ie s, hav e bee n p roducing m el at cxt w it hout k nowing i l. ··

They 'l l know it a., o f t om or row: what a ~t<lggcring disclosure and invaluahle promotion. I thank

you on their behalf. From Genctte s interview of him~elf in the conclus ion of h Archifl Xl All

IIroduciion (1992: 82).

45. On Virgilian intertex tualily seeespecially Clausen] 987. Conte 1986, Farrell 1991 and 1997.

and Lyne 1994. COlltc's term for the typical ly V irgi lian inter textua l mode is integra tive a llus ion

(1986: 69).

ing reader s tarts to think not in terms of origins and imitations. but in terms of

overlapping retorts, rereadings, and rejoinders from all sides. The fact Ihat Virgi l

seems not to have taken the Epicurus the Phaeacian formula from any particular

text makes intertextual ity even more pertinent here. for inter textuali ty since

Kristeva has acknow ledged the presence not only of literal texts within texts.

but al so the presence of c li ches , o f la te r t radit ions , and of peculi ar tr ansla tions .

To bring the author of the text more openly into this discussion: the concept

of intertextuality helps one conceive of Virgil in a great dialogue not jus t w ith

Homer. Apo llonius . Lucreti us , and Ep icu rus ( to pa ss over so many o ther sources

o f Virgil s i nspir ati on ), but wit h generati ons o f f ri ends and foes o f t he Garden .

who in tu rn a re engaged in spi rit ed di alogue with Homer and Epi cu rus, and their

friends and enemies.

My third answer circles back to the epigraph to this essay and to a theme

that r ecu rs th roughou t: Ihe Ep icurus the Phaeaci an c liche has been ignored

largely because the dominanl tradition (in Greek and Roman antiquity as well

as in nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship) is hos tile to the Garden.

Ep icu reans and Phaeaci ans al ike have been r id iculed a s g lu tt ons, sensual is ts ,

and philanderers. The philosophy of the Garden has been treated not only as

ef feminat e and anti -in tel lec tual. but as downr ight dange rous . This supposed

emasculat ing potential of the Garden is latent inthe j ibes of larbas, who quest ions

the mascu lin ity o fAeneas and h is men semivim comitaru 4.215) and in Mercury srebuke of Aeneas for bui lding a pret ty city and subordinating himself toa woman

pulchramqlle uxorius IIrhem 4.266). Virgil s exact location in this tradition is

difficult to pin down: readers who place V irgil s quarely on the s ide of imperium

will l ine h im up agains t t he Garden. but o ther s will demur .

Michael R if la ter re has a rgued for a p ragmat ic engagement wit h a science of

intertextuality. the purpose of which is to uncover the true mess age of a text.

Notions of intertextuality that are more akin to the Bakhtinian approach lirst

a rt icu lat ed by Kri st eva, however , s tr ess the polvphonv and hereroglossia of any

t ex t that con ta ins echoe s of ea rli er texts . Int erpreta tions o f Virgi l s Aeneid are

notorious ly diverse, and my own conviction is that one can appeal to Virgil s

a llusions toearl ier texts to argue (with equal success) e ither for or against Virgi lian

sympathy for an Epicurean point of view. When reading Virgil it seems more

appropr ia te to a sser t (wi th Bar the s) Iha t p lu ra lit y is i nheren t i n textual it y. and (at

t he r isk o f p romoti ng a cl iche) that the poem i s t he ques ti on. minus the answer .

Such seems to be the s tance of R. O. A. M. Lyne s most recent discus sion of the

last lines ofAelleid 4 . where the descri pt ion of Dido s death meshes per fec tl y wit h

Lucretian exposit ions of Epicurean bel ief:

46. See , e .g . . R ifTa te rre ]9~7: I:: .

47. The Text' plurality dOt;~s nO depend on the ambigui ty of i ts contents. bul rathe r on wha t

could becalled the slcrcographic plurality of lhe ,-,ignificrs thi:ll wcave it.' Roland B<lnhes. From

Work toText. in Barthes 1986.



206 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17/No. 2/0ctober 1998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 2117

48. Lyne 1994 : 196 .

49. See Lyne 1994: 196 .

50. Dyson 1996: 219.

I . On V ir gi li an a mb ig ui ty a nd v ar io us i nt er pr et at io ns o f D id o s d ea th , s ee Pakell 1994.

52. See Perkell 1994. especially 66-67 for another way to account for Virgilian complexity

and ambiguity: it is the characters wirhin theepic who express contradictory interpretations of the

a ct io n. P ar ti cu la r r ea de rs m ay b e i n cl in ed t o a cc ep t a p ar ti cu la r c ha ra ct er s v ie w e ve n if the poel

Wilhholds explicit endorsement.

And a tonce a ll t he hea t and l ife s lipped away and receded into the winds .

As Lyne makes clear, the final description of Dido s death evokes Lucretius

descriptions of the soul s dissipation into air at death DRN 3.128-29,3.214

15, 3.400-401, and 3.455-56) and thus aligns the narrator-for the moment atle as t-wi th t he Garden. For some reader s, t hi s Lucreti an in ter tex t, an int er tex t

that subverts s ome of our certainties (as Lyne puts it) will s tand as Virgil s

la st word on Dido s Ep icu rean l ean ings. Those reader s may then take Dido s

ghostly re-appearance in the underworld as a sort of illusion, or even as the

il lu sory ful fil lment of Dido s t hrea t t o haunt Aenea s. Other s, howeve r, may

agree with the claim that Dido s re-appearance in the underworld constitutes a

f inal undermin ing of Dido s Ep icu rean ism that l eaves no doub t. ·

For many reader s the Aeneid is , on the contrary. a poem of doubt that knows

no simple resolut ions.51 My own convict ion isthat the complex intertextual modes

of the Aeneid expand i ts capacity to present mul tiple viewpoints. This brings me

again to thai last s cene of Dido s, where a bewildered Aeneas catches a glimpse

of her shade Aen. 6.469-74). For most readers of the Aeneid this passage

echoes the moment in the Odyssey when Odysseus spo ts Ajax in the underworld

Od. 11.563-64). Thus the Virgilian pas sage poignantly evokes the grief and

loss expressed in the Homeric pre-text, while exploiting the Homeric reader s

untroubled allegiance with Odyss eus. And yet here as elsewhere in the Aeneid

the d ir ec t Homer ic a llu si on i s only one of many in ter tex tual s tr at a. Layered over

th is r eference to Odysseus and Ajax a re the verd ic ts passed on Odysseus by la te r

generations. Despite the Stoic tradition of idealizing Odysseus, the centuries

before Virgil had also seen generations of poets and philosophers who knew

Odysseus p rima ril y as a notor ious l ia r and chea t who had not on ly brough t abou t

the death of Ajax, but had engineered or assisted in the murders of Iphigenia,

Astyanax. Polyxena, and Palamedes . The reader of the Aeneid who recalls not

only the Odyssey but the Ulixes of Book 2 of the Aeneid-or the Enripidean

or post-Homeric Odysseus in general-knows why Ajax, like Dido, does not

look back.

omnis e t una

dilapsus calor a tque in uentos uita recessi t.(4.704-705)

DIODORUS EPILOGUE: A PLEA FOR PLURALITY

Although Plu ta rch li ked to mainta in t hat Epicureans a re t oo depraved to read

books, one can imagine various Epicurean responses to the Aeneid including

Epicurean readings that accep t Dido as a wor thy rep re sen tat ive o f t he Garden .

Such hypotheti ca l Ep icu rean reader s might pi ty Aenea s not on ly for hi s f ail ure to

accept the refuge of Phaeacian/Epicurean harbors, but a lso for his subsequent zeal

for bloodshed and revenge. An Epicurean attuned to the Phaeacian/Epicureantradi tion might a lso understand Aeneas delivery from the storm before Carthage

as anobvious allusion tothe saving wisdom ofthe Garden. Salvation from troubled

seas is a pervasive Epicurean metaphor: witness Lucretius on Epicurus:

quique per artem

fluct ibus e tantis vitam tantisque tenebris

i n t am t ranqu il lo e t t am c la ra luce locavit .

DRN 5 .10-13 ; c f. DRN2.1ff.

who through ski ll

r escued li fe f rom such grea t wave s and darkness

and placed it in such calm and in such clear light.

An Epicu rean reader migh t take Aenea s depart ure f rom Dido not as an e scape

from danger but as precise ly i ts opposite.Such an interpretation of Virgil may seem as eccentric as Eratosthenes

Phaeacian-friendly interpretat ion of Homer ..· And yet perhaps eccentr ic ity is to

be expected of the Epicurean; contexts in which Epicurean perspectives conform

the majority position are certainly rare. Eccentric or not. a stray fragment

of an Epicurean reading of Virgil in which the Epicurean identifies with Dido

survives in Seneca s reference to Diodorus the Epicurean de vi la heala 19, cited

a t Ihe beginning of t his e ssay ). Diodorus is o therwise unknown, and i t i sd i ffi cul t

to appraise Seneca s claim that Diodorus quoted D ido before slitting his own

throat. The imperfectly contextualized tale projects a complex and arresting

image: a male Epicurean philos opher. presumably Greek, quotes in Latin

knife in hand-the exit speech of Virgil s Carthaginian queen. S eneca makes

clear, however, that D ido s words have a particular resonance for him. and

apparently-for D iodorus. For Seneca, Dido s words are not merely Virgilian

or tragic in a general sense. Rather: for Seneca, Dido s Vixi ( I have l ived ,

and [ have run the course that fortune granted ) is emblematic of the type of

respectable, austere Epicureanism that he often admired. Although Seneca s

works contain hars h ridicule of the Garden thai corresponds closely with the

53. For d if fering v iews on lhe Epicu rean : lI 1d /o rS toi c ramif icat ions o f A en c: ls k il ling o fTurnu s.

see Galinsky 198R, Putnam 1990. Erler 1992, and Fowler 1997.

5 4. I n S en ec a s a ne cd ot e, e ve n D io do ru s h im se lf r ef er s t o h is E pi cu rc :l n l if e a s J l if e l iv ed i n

a safe harbor de lI;W he fa J 9 ..



208 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17/No. 2 /0ctober 1998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 9

anti -Ep icu rean rhe tor ic p romoted by Cicero and Plu ta rch ( see Gordon 1997 and

Gordon for thcoming). Seneca occa siona ll y acknowledges that t he s tereotype of

the effeminate and debauched Epicurean is misleading: authent ic Epicureanism is

actually virwous, upright . and austere (sancta; recta; trist ia. de i ta beata 13).

In fact . S .eneca quo te s Virgil 's Dido (Aen. 4 .653) in a l le as t th re e d if ferent

works (de vita beata 19, de beneficiis 5.17.5, and Epistles 12.9) . Each t ime he

quo tes her wit h approval , and each time with impli cit ( and some times exp li ci t)

acknowledgment oft .he Epicurean content of her words: vixi, e t qllem dederat Cllrslimfortlina peregi, I have li ved, and I have run the course t hat . for tune gran t.ed .

In Epistle 12.8-9, Seneca men tions to h is addressee Lucil iu s t he d isso lut e l if e o f

Pacuvius (a v ic e-governor o f Syr ia under T iber ius) , who al leged ly ended h is d in

ner s wit .h mock funerals in whi ch a tt endant s ca rr ied him t .obed s inging in Greek

He has lived his life (~E~(6nCtL). Seneca proposes Dido's words as a more

seemly a lt erna ti ve. no t. j us t fo r Pacuv ius, but for himsel f and h is reader (s ): Let .

u sdo f rom agood mot. ive (conscientia) what .he d id f rom a bad one : l et ussay a s we

go happi ly and joyfully tooUl' sleep: vixi, et quem dederat cllrsamfortuna peregi.

(Seneca seems to use the word sleep here bot .h l it .e ra lly and met .aphorical ly. bot .h

of night.ly rest and of death.) Nor does Seneca ignore the fact Ihat Dido's words

a re a p re lude t.o sui cide. Aft er quo ti ng Dido. Seneca c it es Epicurus on suic ide: I t

i sbad to li ve unde r cons tr ain t: but there is no const rai nt to l ive under const .r ai nt .

S ince Seneca quo te s Ep icu rus in La tin rat.her t han in the orig inal Greek, and

s ince t .heor ig inal text is l os t. ( fo r a remnan t see Sent. Vat . 9), i t i s difficult to know

where the quot.at .ion ends and where Seneca' s interpret .a tion begins. but Seneca' s

epist. le continues: Many short, simple paths to freedom are open to us. Let. us

thank god that no one can be held in life. We may spurn the const.raints them

selves. At. this point Seneca ant ic ipates Lucil ius' response: Epicaf l/s, inqllis,

dixit , Quid t ibi cum alieno? ( 'Epicurus said that. ' you say; 'What are you doing

wit .h another 's p roper ty?' ) . Seneca responds : What is t rue i s mine. and ends

the let ter wit .h t .heassert ion that. t .hebest ideas are shared property.

Dido' s th ird appearance in Seneca occur s i n h is leng thy med ita tion on ingrat .

it.ude in On Benefits. From t .hecont ex t i t i s obv ious that Dido here i san exemplum

of the sor t o f g rat efulness t.hat ordinary peopl e l ack:

Who dies without complaint? Who dares to say in the end: ) have

li ved , and I have run the course t hat for tune gran ted ? Who dies wit hout

rebelling, without wailing? Yet not to be satisfied with the time one has

had (praeterito tempore) is t o be an ingrat e.

(Ben. 5.17.5)

The broader context of this passage in the argument. of On Ben~fits also makes

cl ea r that Seneca a ligns Dido's grati tude with the wisdom of Epicurus , who t aught

55. For commentary on Seneca's quotation of Dido in de vita be010 and Ep. 12. see Gorier 1996.

I •

t hat one ough t to begra teful for one' s pas t good for tune (praeterita bona. Bel/.

3 .4 .1 ). and that an inc re ase in t ime does not increa se p lea su re (ef . Ben. 5.17.6-7

and Epicurus Principal Doctrine 19). Seneca' s account of Epicl ll 'us' teachings on

gra ti tude i s confi rmed in par t by Ep icu rus' r ef erence to the ag ing ph il osopher 's

gratitude (charis) for past.experience IEp. Men. 122), but) suspect that Seueca is

a lso thinking of Lucretius ' personified ' Nat ll l' e, who denounces the ingra ti tude

of foo li sh mort al s who do not .want t o d ie IDRN 3.931-77)-

This context als o suggests t. hat Seneca unders tands D ido's declaration at

Aeneid 4.653 ast .hewords of the proverbia l Epicurean who leaves l ife as a sat isfied

guest (at I,I( /llis vitae COlllliua. DRN 3.938). Another proverbia l guest . Odysseus

among t.he Phaeacians, may be latent in that. image. The notion that the true

Ep icu rean face s dea t.h with equan imi ty and even happine ss is no t. made exp li ci t

in t.he canon ic al t ex ts o f Ep icu rus, but. i s ce rta inl y presen t i n o ther Epicurean

sources. In a saying att ributed to Metrodorus (another founding member of the

Garden), the sage says he will leave life singing that he has lived well (EV

~E,Bl(,nctt. Sent. Vat . 47) , and the second-cen tu ry Diogenes o f Oenoanda seems

to make a similar declara t.ion (Smith fr. 3). The Epicurean tradi tion also att ributes

composure and happiness 10 t he dy ing Epicurus (Diog . Lae rt . 10 .15-16) . Thus

in Seneca 's r ead ing, Dido's l as t words a re a decl arati on of cont en tment t hat e arn

her a place among t .heEpicurean worthies.

To return to Diodorus : Seneca does not explain why Diodorus has chosen t.odie . What isc lear isthat Diodorus iscontent. with the years hehas spent . at anchor

in t he safe ty o f t he Garden' s met aphor ica l ha rbor s ( il le inter im beatus ac plenus

bona consc ientia reddidil si bi te st imonium v ita excedens laudav itque aeta tis i n

pOrlu etad ancoram actae quietem: de vita beata 19). Although some of Diodoms'

det rac tor s held that sui ci de was unaccep tab le t o Ep icu rus, Seneca' s a sser ti on t .o

the contrary demo,nstrates his c lose famil iari ty with the texts of EpicUl'uS (whom

he quot.es-in translation-in Epistle 12.10, as mentioned above). Fundamental

t .o Epicureanism, c lea rly , i s the not ion that l if e o ffer s many p leasures even when

adversit.y exisls (Ep. Men. 126-27). Thus Epicurus is s aid to have claimed that

a sage would not commit suicide simply because of the loss of vision (Diog.

Laert . 10.119). and Lucretius r idicules the fol ly of someone who commits suicide

because ofa fear ofdeath. This does not mean, however, tha t t .heGarden prohibi ted

sui ci de (c f. C ice ro TlIsc. 5.118). In fact, Diodorus ' emulation of Dido and

Seneca's citing of Epicurus in Epistles 12.9 sugge st t hat Seneca and Diodorus

read Dido' s sui ci de as anact that was bo th d igni fied and Epicurean. The dominan t

t rad iti on may v iew Epicurean heroi sm as an oxymoron, but Seneca and Diodorus

56. Cf. i f g row DR N 3.937: illJ;ral II 3 .9 34 . Lu cr et iu s w as n ot n ece ss ar il y f ollowin g a lo st tex t

of EpicllrllS.

57. See Rosenbaum 1990: 22 for <l r ecen t s ketc h o f wh<:ll h e ca lls t he o bs cu re b ut si gn it1 ca nt

Epi cu rean idea o f complete l iv ing

58. I v iew th e mis rep res en ta tio n o f Ep ic ur ean doctr in e as a r es ult o f th e e xag ger ate d St oic/E pi

curean dichotomy



21 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 17 /No, 2/0ctober 1998 GORDON: Phaeacian Dido 211

are dissenters from the majority view, Whether they are also perverse readers of

Virgil remains an open issue,

Uni versi ty o f Kansas

pgordon@falcon,cc,ukans,edu

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ambrose, Z , Phi li p, 1965. The Homer ic Telos , Glofla 43: 38-62,

Asmis, Elizabeth, 1991. Phi lodemus Poctic Theory and On rhe Good King A ccording

/0 Homer. CIAIIIIO: 1-45,

---, 1995, Epicurean Poetics. TnObbink 1995, 15-34,

Bai ley, Cyr il . 1926, Epicl lms: The Exlan/ Remains. Oxford,

---, 1947, Lllcrel ius: De Rerum Na/ura, Oxford,

Barthes, Roland, 1986, The Ruslle q/, Language. Trans. Richard Howard, New York,

Bignone, Enore, 1936, L'ArislO/ele perdl llO e laformazionef ilosof ica de EpiC/o'O, Vol . I ,Florence,

Braund, Susanna Mor ton, 1997, V irgi l and the cosmos : Re li gi ous and Phi losoph ical

Ideas. In Martindale 1997,

Brennan, Tad, 1996, Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Chi ldren. CP 91: 346-52,

Buffiere, Felix, 1956, Les my/hes d'Homerl e/la pensee grecqlle, Paris,

---, cd. 1962, Heraclile: Allegories d'Homere. Paris,

Carnes, JefTrey S , 1993, With F ri ends L ike These: Understanding the Mythi c Back-ground of Homer s Phaiakians, Ramus 22: I 03- 15.

Clausen, Wendell. 1987, -{he Aeneid and Ihe 7i'adi/ ion o/' Hel lenisl ic Poelry, Berkeley,

DeWit t, Norman, 1954, Epicurus and His Phi losophy, Minneapolis,

Dindorf , Wilhelm, eel . J 855, Scho ia Graeca in Homeri Odvsseam, Vol . I , Oxford,

Dyson, Jul ia, 1996, Dido the Epicurean, CIAnI 15: 203 -2 I ,

Erler, M, 1992. Der Zorn des Heiden, Philodems De Ira und Vergils Konzept des

Zorns in del Aeneis, Gra;er Beilriige 18: 103-26,

Farrell, Joseph, 1991, Ver8i l: , Gcor8ics and l ite Tradi lions 0/ Anc il n / E pi c: The A rlo/ '

Allusion in Li/erar fiislOry, Oxford,

1997, The V irgi li an [nter text . [n The Cambridge COl i/ pan ion Virgil,

Cambridge,

Fowler, D, p, 1997, Epicurean Anger. [nSusanna Morton Braund and Chr istopher Gil l,

eds., The Pas si ol ls i n Roman Though l and L il erarure, 16-35, Cambridge,

Fuchs, Jacob, trans, 1977, Horace:, SOIires and Episl les, Norton,

Gale, Mon ica R, 1994, MVlh and Poelry in Lucre/ius , Camhridge,Gal insky, Karl . 1988. The Anger o f Aeneas. AlP 109: 321-48,

---, 1996, Augusran Cullure, Princeton,

Genetle, Gerard. 1992, The ArchilexI: An [nlroduc/ion, Trans, Jane E, Lewin, Berkeley,

Gordon, Pamela, 1997, Epicureanism, In Encyclopedia of' C lassical Phi losophy,

Greenwood.

Forthcoming, Remembering the Garden: The Trouble with Women in the

Schoo l o f Epi cu rl ls . [n John F it zgerald, G lenn Hol land, and Di rk Obbink , edsPhilodel17l1s and his New Testamenl [ 10 rid, Lciden.

Gor ie r. Woldemar . 1996, D idu und Seneca l iher Gi li ck und VOll endung , MllselllllHeh'eliCIIIII 53: 160-69,

Gos li ng , . I, C. B . .and C. C .W, Taylnr . 1982 , The Greeh 011Pleasllre. Oxford,

Hamil ton, Col in I . M , 1993, D ido, T it yos and Prometheus, CQ 43: 249-54,

Hardie, Phi lip R, 1986. ViIXii:, Ameid: COSIIIOSalld 111 ,rilllll, Oxfurd,

Hexter, Ralph, 1992, Sidonian Dido, In Ralph Hexter and Daniel Selden, cds . .

If/nova/ions (~rAn/iqu;ly. New York

Heubeek, A I f red, S tephan ie West , and J . B. Ha inswor th , 1988 , A COOIII/('III01T 011

HOlller:-- Od\'ss .\', Vol. I, Oxford,Ju fresa, M, 1982 , I I m il a dei Feaci i n F il odemo, La Regiolle sol /errata dol V i'SIII 'i / ,

SllIdi e Prospel/i. 509-18, Alt i del Convegno Inlernazionale, 11-15 Novemher 1979.

Naples,

Knauer Georg J 964 Dh A enei s / lnd Home r: S tl /d if / J :: .u r p oe t se hc n T l; chl li k VcrS;ls

11/./1Listell del' Homer;.itale ;1/ del' Acne;s GOllingen

Lamberton, Robert. and .I, .I, Keaney, eds, 1992, HOl li er 's A ll ei el ll R eaders: The

Hcrl1lclIclll;CS (~f Greek Epic Earliest ExegeTes. Princeton

Long, A, A, 1986. Pleasure and Social Uti li ly : The Vinues of Being Epicurean. Aspecls

de 10 philosophil hellellislique, Geneva,

---. 1992, Sloic Readings of Homcr, In Lamberlon and Keaney 1992,41-66.

Lyne, R, 0, A, M, 1994, Vergil s Aelleid: Subvers ion by Inter texl llal ity: Catul lus

66,39-40 and Other Examples, Greece alld Rome 41 187-204.

Martindale, Charles, 1997, The Combridge Compan ion 10V irgil , Cambridge,

MellinghoIT-Bourgerie, Viviane, 1990, Les i nce rt il udcs de V irgi le : Con/ ril , 'i on s p i

~·uri{, e.\' ( I f a t he g ;e de / 'E ll ri ide. BrusselsMost . G lenn, 1989, The Strue ill re and Func ti on o f Odysseus Apologoi. TAPA 119:

15-30,

Obbink, Dirk, eel . 1995, Philodemusand Poelry: Poelic Theorvand Prauice inLl lcretius ,

Phi/odemu.\', and Horace. Oxford,

Pease,Arthur Stanley, 1935, Publi Velgi i Maroni,,' Aeneidos: Liber Qnartlls, Camhridge,Mass,

Perkell , Chr is tine, 1994, Ambigui ty and Irony: The Last Resono Helios 21: 63-74.

Pfeifl er, Rudolf. 1968, Hislon' of C lassical Scholarship: Fmm Ihe Be8innings 10 Ihe End

o/, Ihe Hel lenisl ic A8e. Oxford.

Pu tnam, Michael . 1990, Anger, B li ndness , and Insigh t i n V irgi l s Aene id . Apeiron

23: 7-40,

Quint . David. 1989, Voices of Resistance: Thc Epic Curse and Camoes s AdamaslOr.

Representalions 27: 111-41,

Rilblerre, Michael . 1981, L lnler texle Ineonnu, Lil/eralure 41: 4-7,

Semiolics (l/,Poelry. 1987, Bloomington,Rosenbaulll, Stephen E. 1990, Epicuru, on Plcasure and the Complete Life. The Monisl

73: 21-41.

Sega l. Charl es . 1971, The Song o f Topas in the Aeneid. Hermes 99: 336-49,

Sider , David, 1995a, Epicurean Poetics: Response and Dialogue. In Obbink 1995,35-41.

1995b , The Epi cu rean Phi losopher as Hel leni st ic Poe t. I n Obh ink 1995 ,

42-57,

Wigodsky, Michae l. 1995, The A ll eged Impossibi li ty of Phi losoph ical Poe tr y. I n

Obbink 1995,58-68,

phaeacian dido lost pleasures of an epicurean intertext

Documents