phaeacian dido lost pleasures of an epicurean intertext
TRANSCRIPT
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.
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 2/12
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.
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 3/12
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
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 4/12
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.
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 5/12
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 .
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 6/12
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.
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 7/12
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.
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 8/12
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~.
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 9/12
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.
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 10/12
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 ..
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 11/12
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
8/13/2019 Phaeacian Dido Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phaeacian-dido-lost-pleasures-of-an-epicurean-intertext 12/12
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,