On Frank Criticism

Philodemus’s Περὶ παρρησίας (in Latin, De libertate dicendi; On Frank Criticism) belongs to a group of Philodemus’s works on ethics. This was the part of philosophy that attracted him most. Other books on this subject include a major work on vices and virtues in ten books, a vast inquiry into passions, and toward the end of his life a work on death. This last contained personal reflections but showed that Philodemus never lost his Epicurean serenity, even in the face of mortality. The Περὶ παρρησίας was written when the philosopher was young and wanted to meaningfully express his debt to his teacher Zeno. It originated as lecture notes he had taken in Athens. In this case, therefore, Philodemus is our student, and from that vantage point we will inspect the notes he took. The titles of papyri 1003, 1389, and 1471 from Herculaneum indicate that those texts also derived from ek ton Zenonos scholon (ἐκ τῶν Ζήνωνος σχολῶν).⁸ Other works too seem to have to do with Zeno’s school.

The Peri Parrhesias is usually called a treatise or a handbook but is rather a notebook, a collection of annotations that Philodemus based on his teacher’s lectures. The true voice of Zeno or of his class appears in the questions and answers. The unusually long subscription at the end of the roll that contains it (P.Herc. 107) says, “Among books composed in an abbreviated way; on characters and types of life, from the lectures of Zeno.” It seems therefore that the comparatively short work is what remains of a longer ethical treatment.⁹ It was not unusual to take down notes during philosophical lectures, as we have seen. Philodemus was very devoted to Epicurus and to his intermediary Zeno, who probably was the most important Epicurean philosopher after Epicurus himself. This papyrus is not the only one to contain notes of Philodemus. Some of Philodemus’s works are also transcripts of lectures of Zeno and other philosophers. In On Signs (P.Herc. 1065), for example, Philodemus put together a few sets of notes: his own notes on a lecture of Zeno as well as transcripts of a different lecture of Zeno that had been taken down by Bromius, a fellow pupil.¹⁰

The papyrus roll of Peri Parrhesias (P.Herc. 1471) was found in very lacunose condition, and its startling loss of continuity should be attributed to its deteriorated state. A short history of the publication of this fragmentary roll, though, is necessary to explain why scholars struggled to resolve a text that is incomplete and consists of fragments whose order cannot be established with certainty. Only recently did definite improvements occur. The mediocre edition of Olivieri was adapted by a team of scholars (Konstan et al. 1998, ii) in preparing their translation of the text, which provoked much criticism because no attempt was made to order the fragments or to consult the original papyrus in Naples.¹¹ In addition, the translation itself leaves much to be desired. In 2004 Michael White revisited the question of the text and with the aid of multispectral images gave a lucid description of the situation; in 2009 he made new observations on the roll.¹² In two articles Daniel Delattre considered the order of fragments and columns.¹³ His conclusions agree with those of White, although the two scholars were not in contact. This provides some assurance that the decipherment of the papyrus and the order of the columns is correct. Delattre also published a short but comprehensive work on the papyri of Philodemus in the Villa dei Papiri in 2006 that is still very useful and balanced in his criticism of the author.¹⁴

Daniel Delattre is also working on the Greek text and translation of the fragments that he has put in order. While he has worked on the multispectral images and on the disegni for many years, his work remains unpublished. However, with great generosity, he has shared his Greek text, translation, and interpretation with me, and I have compared the Greek and the French translations.¹⁵ This serves as an important example where further work will be necessary to prepare a good edition of this exciting but difficult papyrus roll.¹⁶

Hypomnematikon

Before looking at the Περὶ παρρησίας in some detail, we need to consider an intriguing issue, amply discussed by scholars, which might have a further impact on our view of the functioning of the school.¹⁷The papyrologist Holger Essler recognized four steps in writing a literary text.¹⁸ In the first, an ancient writer would read his sources and write notes or annotate interesting passages in them, which he would put together without concern for order. Next, the author or his assistant would order and connect the notes to produce a first draft, called hypomnema. This running text would still need stylistic embellishments and a formal presentation. Third, therefore, the author would reconsider the ensemble with a critical eye, clarify obscure points, refine the presentation, and introduce rhetorical adornments. The result was the final version that could be handed to scribes and reproduced in multiple copies. Some of the rolls found in Herculaneum present a distinct typology. Some are written with care, while the handwriting of others leaves something to be desired. These rolls have led to the formulation of the hypothesis that the former belonged to texts that were published, while the others circulated freely but only in the school.

A number of these works have the title hypomnematikon, which is a rare term that denotes, as discussed elsewhere, the form in which some literary works in the Greek and Roman world, especially in late antiquity, were disseminated in drafts.¹⁹ Usually an author produced a work that he either left unfinished or chose not to edit, with the intention of avoiding its circulation among the general public. As in the case of Arrian, however, other people, sometimes collaborators, obtained the text and disseminated it. Then the author, who was not ready to make this work public, denounced the appropriation. At other times it was the author himself who produced and disseminated a book that was incomplete and abridged but was meant to reach friends, acquaintances, or students. Galen, in a commentary on a work of Hippocrates, makes a sharp distinction between complete work (syggrammata) and incomplete, which he calls hypomnematika. This distinction has some weight with regard to what follows.²⁰

Guglielmo Cavallo, examining rolls in the Villa bearing the title hypomnematika and others without it, remarked that the former presented a handwriting considerably different from the latter as well as irregular margins, corrections, additions between the lines and in the top margin, and transposition of parts. He therefore advanced the hypothesis that these texts (the hypomnematika) were destined to have a limited circulation in the school. I think that these papyri have much in common with some autograph texts written by teachers and students of rhetoric that were not formal copies, were not penned by scribes, and originated in schools.²¹David Blank’s conclusion, however, is that the term hypomnematikon (together with hypomnema) did not serve to designate a version of a work that was not finished, but instead distinguished texts (often shorter) that were basically identical. The term was a reference to a genre, and a scribe had the option to add it or not to a roll as he was requested to produce copies of varying degrees of formality. In discussing this view Tiziano Dorandi took up the question from the beginning, basically following Cavallo’s opinion but accepting in the end Blank’s view that those books were not incomplete.²² They had particular characteristics that needed to be explained but were complete rolls that had been conceived as such. They were not formal texts written in clear and elegant characters but complete copies with some shortcomings destined to have a limited circulation within the school.

Philodemus had a strong respect and affection for his master Zeno, who was regarded as the epitome of the wise man and was the head of the school in Athens. He took down some lectures, produced some works deriving from them when he was there, and then completed them after he left. In Athens he started his important text On Rhetoric, which supposedly amounted to at least ten books and is regarded as both educational and political. It points to the conditions of rhetoric and whether or not it was an art. Philodemus’s aim was to defend Zeno from attacks of other Epicureans, who claimed that rhetoric was not an art. While Philodemus argued that forensic and political rhetoric were not an art, he did regard sophistic and epideictic oratory as an art and argued that rhetoric disappointed its young proponents because it could not make good politicians out of them.

The first three books of On Rhetoric contain additions and corrections and bear the title hypomnematika. They could be compositions or copies of lectures. Dorandi concluded that these books, which were complete, were meant to circulate within the school. It appears that Philodemus had a special and privileged relationship with the library. If all these works were completed before Philodemus arrived in Italy, he may have used them in teaching. All these copies, moreover, were kept there, even after Philodemus had died, indicating that an interest in the school remained. Some may have been commentaries on traditional works, as we will see in the schools of Didymus and Olympiodorus. The identification of some texts with the title hypomnematikon will reappear in late antiquity in the commentaries to Aristotle of the Neoplatonic philosophers, which we will take into account subsequently. Some of them, including Ammonius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus, and Simplicius, called some works of Aristotle hypomnematika in the sense of personal copies not meant to be disseminated widely.²³ According to Ammonius, a new text derived from an ensemble of general notes and observations taken from ancient books. In this he was not very far from Lucian. He considered texts that included only the principal points to be hypomnematika.

One question remains: who made these formal and informal copies, some of which were transcripts of the lectures of Zeno and others which were Philodemus’s own compositions? Was this task considered the exclusive prerogative of scribes with different handwriting, according to their abilities? It is possible to venture an opinion. Some of the rolls with corrections and additions might have been recorded by students at the school and not by professionals. In this way some of the copies were twice removed from Zeno’s lectures. We do not know what Philodemus did with his transcripts from the actual lectures. Did he deposit these rolls only with the intention to preserve them at the Villa, or did he use them to lecture again, wishing that his students could hear Zeno’s own words?

Among the papyri that were better preserved and could be more easily dated, Guglielmo Cavallo commented on the differences between those written by uneven hands and those with competent handwriting.²⁴ It seems plausible that, as Philodemus communicated Zeno’s lectures to his students, his words were taken down by various students, who perhaps compared their versions and corrected errors and omissions. More uncertainty remains, though, about the person who wrote the version in expert handwriting. He could have been a scribe or even a very competent pupil to whom the philosopher had assigned this task. What is clear, in any case, is that these texts ultimately derived from the annotations of Philodemus.

The prior observations are significant because they allow us to glance a bit at Philodemus’s classes. The informal copies of lectures that the philosopher had taken in Athens circulated among the students and might have been read, studied, and copied again when young men cared to have individual texts. Alternatively, students recorded them dal vivo. Cavallo has discovered a large number of different hands among the manuscripts, which might occasion various hypotheses.

The Text of Peri Parrhesias

An outline of the structure of col. 154–181 provides an overview of how the text was ordered, making it possible to identify a continuous narrative and avoid chopping up the text too much. This has never been done before and allows one to see the various arguments strung together in a rational way.²⁵ The questions addressed to Zeno, somewhat abbreviated, will be in bold. Thus one can listen to the voices in the class. We have questions from interlocutors (students and others), Zeno’s responses, and Philodemus taking down the text and delivering it to his own class.²⁶ The question and answer of Point 6 (col. 181, the end of the papyrus) suggests that Philodemus was aware of the difficulties raised by the practice of frank criticism but accepted it and supported it.

1. (155–157, 160). A question to Zeno which he answers. Should we submit no one to frank criticism? This for sure deprives them of the goods that the criticism brings, which is so important. It is always good when friendship is present, but it is essential to use the group with some caution.
2. (162, 163). Will the sage tell his friends about what concerns him when he is the subject of parrhesia? If he does that, on the one hand he is guilty of egocentrism, but on the other Epicurus approved of that.
3. (165, end of 169). What to do if the sage, thinking incorrectly, administered frank criticism to those who were not guilty of anything bad? Does this damage frank criticism? No, it does not impair it.
4. (172, 174). Will he use frank criticism for those who cannot stand it? The teacher knows what is good for the youth who is agreeable and friendly toward his friend. The students are aware that the life in the community will be strengthened. He will use frank criticism several times on those who disobey.
5. (178). How should we treat those who are angry with the sage because of his frank criticism? If their anger can be tolerated, his own anger will not be full of hate. He knows that it is natural for young people to shake the yoke.
6. (181). How can we understand if the one who seems to approve the method is sincere or not? We have to pay attention to the situation to see if someone is an impostor, but sometimes he can be trusted. Those who are pretending need to be investigated (fr. 88).

Due to the fragmentary status of the papyrus, it is difficult to establish the order of the large fragments and to place the innumerable small ones.²⁷ It is possible to see in the text a continuous treatment of the topic in all its aspects and come to firm general conclusions regarding its pedagogic methods, but not in great detail. Judging from features like words of encouragement, teachers’ tirades, mortification of individuals, frequent invective, and students’ lamentations, rhetoric pervades Peri Parrhesias. One also has to consider an additional factor— when Zeno fielded questions from his audience, his lectures were filtered through both a live performance and the notes taken by the philosopher.

On reading the text, one can perceive questions and answers that enliven it and set it apart from a regular philosophical essay. Some of these are direct questions, while others are indirect and introduced by “if,” but all testify to a reality of teaching and learning, as we shall see in the other texts we will examine.²⁸ The many repetitions may also be attributed to its nature: points were hammered in over and over, rendering them so effective that even after centuries the modern reader can feel Zeno’s arguments, insistence, and refrain. These characteristics are typical of notes taken down from lectures that were not really emended. They transmit the rhythm of a class where students asked for clarifications and asked to return to points treated before. In some respects, in any case, the description of the pedagogical methods implied by Peri Parrhesias may cause some surprise, and the protestations of the teacher-sages and the bewilderment of the students appear authentic.

This text, which was written two hundred years after Epicurus, has been considered from many points of view. Studies have centered on the concept of friendship that is stressed frequently, on students’ confessions, on the existence of different schools of thought concerning punishment or in any case of other philosophical schools, on the psychagogue’s method of exhortation, and, consequently, on its similarities to Paul’s methods of conversion.²⁹ It was also studied as an example of the care for moral conscience that existed in Epicureanism two centuries after the life of Epicurus: conscience was developed through confession and criticism. Most importantly, in his notes Philodemus wanted to communicate the arguments of his master Zeno regarding the views of the Garden of Epicurus on parrhesia, a fundamental concept for the school. In the text, there are still visible traces of allusions by Philodemus to Epicurean rivals of Zeno. Parrhesia involved the courage and attempt to speak freely for the improvement of another. It especially concerned the relationship between teachers and students but also had a broader role. On Frank Criticism is not only a pedagogic text but also regards a way of establishing bonds of friendship and loyalty among Epicureans in general and the members of the school in particular. Frank speech was also a political virtue that citizens needed to practice in the Assembly in order to fulfill their roles, and the concept of freedom of speech distinguished free men from slaves. For Philodemus, however, the traditional political connotation was lost. The philosopher’s self-control, lack of fear, knowledge of human sentiments, and moral freedom permitted him to exercise parrhesia as a means to discharge his duty to improve his comrades and students. This rigorous practice should not acquire negative connotations of rivalry or jealous competition. Frank speech within the group was an expression of friendship and served to better other people. It had to be accepted with gratitude. “He will not consider a slanderer one who desires that his friend obtain correction, since he is not such, but he will consider him a friend of friendship, for he understands exactly the difference between these. If instead he cannot distinguish, he will call a friend even a friend of vice.”³⁰

Most interestingly, Glenn Holland has shown that Lucian extended parrhesia beyond philosophical circles to indicate satirical attacks among the educated public.³¹ The idea of parrhesia was usually connected with Cynics and Stoics as well as with the practice of diatribe. Epictetus associated it with the Cynics in Diss. 3.22.94, but Arrian’s mention in the letter to Gellius is more meaningful and personal. In it he lists Epictetus’s “frankness of speech” as one of the reasons why he treasured Epictetus’s message.³² Part II pointed to the reasons for which the philosopher could exercise frank speech with impunity. Epictetus practiced his harsh criticism not only with his students but with others too, such as visitors. His moral superiority, self-control, and freedom from any fear, including the fear of death, gave him the right to speak freely and to accuse his students. While in the Discourses one can see a rigorous application of parrhesia directed at students, criticism of young men toward their peers is almost absent, and much vain boasting, together with some solidarity with one’s classmates, can be seen circulating in class. A much later example of frank criticism is reported by the philosopher Marinus,³³ who destroyed his two commentaries on Plato after receiving sharp criticism from the philosopher Isidorus. Isidorus exercised parrhesia here, but its effects were painful and drastic, and for us regrettable. Marinus should not have burned his books.

We are first in Athens, where Zeno is lecturing to his audience, and then in Naples with Philodemus. Parts of the roll put into relief the general setting of administering parrhesia; other passages point to the situation of the teacher-sages who are in charge of that, and others again show the reactions of the students. Before inspecting Peri Parrhesias to look at the educational methods applied and the ethical principles that governed them, I would like to see if we find traces of the further instruction that was imparted. Gregory Snyder remarked that in the work of Philodemus the background noise of the classroom has been removed, and On Frank Criticism contains almost nothing that points directly to the substance of instruction.³⁴ A few references, however, are still visible beneath a text that has a completely different agenda. Though On Frank Criticism insists on truthfulness, openness, and moral instruction but also refers to coercion and a lack of trust, here and there it contains some veiled allusions to activities that were not simply ethical. So far, commentators have not paid attention to these but instead have concentrated on self-disclosure, suppression of flattery, and criticism of peers.

Among the fragments of On Frank Criticism that might refer to pedagogy, fr. 10 presents a teacher “practicing the art.” We are also told immediately after that at times he only practiced frankness so that students would pay attention. It appears that the two activities are distinct. Epicurus’s text may have been involved.³⁵ Another fragment (3) mentions “memorizing.”³⁶ Epicurus insisted that all his pupils should study and memorize summaries and epitomes of the most significant Epicurean conclusions. In this way, a young man could see the entire structure of the system. The problem was, however, that in this way the student did not use his rationality and imbibed ready-made philosophy. This injunction was directed not only at those who did not stay for the length of the instruction but also at those who did. An allusion to “not believing the gods” attributes that to Epicurus (fr. 6). Epicurus was opposed not to a belief in the gods but to the idea that they watched human conduct. This was the origin of a reproaching conscience. Col. IXa mentions toil: “Weakness or [dislike] for toil has befallen him and are the causes for which he has reasoned [falsely].” The word ponos in reference to schoolwork and apathetic behavior and issues of laziness and insufficient dedication to studies appear in some educational texts.³⁷ In Col. XIVb the students explore a topic and its causes, after which the class “moves on from the larger issues” to “other things.” Lastly Col. XXa brings an interesting issue to the fore. It presents weaker students who recognize that they “are surpassed only in regard to theoretical arguments” but are acceptable concerning character and judgment. It seems that the school taught the philosophy of predecessors and how to reform one’s personality. We are in an Epicurean context, but the observation corresponds to what we have noticed with Epictetus, Musonius, and other Stoics. Ethical issues had priority over theoretical ones, which were introduced later and to a limited extent. From texts and knowledge people should not derive a vain belief in themselves but should aim at improving their conduct.

Moving now to frank criticism itself, it is clear that the new fragments of the roll studied by Daniel Delattre show a preponderance of passages regarding the teacher-sages. Some contain admonitions to them to apply parrhesia correctly and follow the rules. Others point to important issues in their conduct. They stress that the sage has to pay extreme attention not to be wrong and unjust. While sometimes he will catch a guilty person in the very act, at other times he will have to use his reason and intuition.

In a volume on the ethics of Philodemus, Voula Tsouna has concentrated on the Peri Parrhesias in an attempt to make sense of the whole text.³⁸ In 2007, of course, this scholar could consider only the Greek fragments and the translation that were included in the 1998 publication and could not base her assessment on the new text put together by Daniel Delattre and its interpretation. She concentrated on the fragments that illuminated the position of the teacher-sage versus that of a student. As I said, the text has survived as an ensemble of short fragments that constitute about half of the original papyrus.³⁹ Thanks to Daniel Delattre more fragments are now at our disposal. We should discuss if those teachers who used disputable methods of chastising were really enlightened figures as was claimed. Several fragments hint at educators who appear confused, violent, unforgiving, and vengeful. Does the text convey an altogether optimistic view of ancient education? According to Tsouna, “The method of parrhesia represents a pragmatic as well as optimistic approach to human fallibility and to the possibility of correction and salvation.”⁴⁰ Most likely this is true only in theory. The Epicureans and Zeno had devised a system of moral education that could work if it was applied correctly. Of course, most often educational practices implicitly aim to improve pupils’ knowledge and moral progress, but the ways to achieve that need to be taken into account to obtain a balanced view.

Peri Parrhesias offers many elements of discontinuity. As we examine some of the passages that concern the teacher-sages, we are confronted with only a few that praise them indiscriminately and laud the subtle ways in which they conduct their inquiries. Frank criticism is called an “artistry” that was difficult to exercise (fr. 666). Students’ criticism touches the teachers in a superficial way, and the latter’s position of power seems at first unassailable. Little that happens is shown from young men’s point of view. Most often, we see their comportment through the admonitions of a superior power and through Zeno and Philodemus. They govern the narrative and appear very conscious of the pitfalls implied in the practice and the cracks in the whole edifice.

Can we imagine that those passages became part of the Peri Parrhesias at the very beginning, when the practice had been recently instituted and Zeno wanted to make it known to other Epicureans? Can we suppose that Zeno delivered his lectures to a public ignorant of the phenomenon? In my opinion, the Peri Parrhesias was delivered when the practice was established to a degree and some people contemplated questionable elements. Zeno and other Epicureans had seen Epicurus’s recommendations for a thorough cleansing of the conscience. Some were utterly loyal to the philosopher, but others were perplexed and maybe hoped for changes and even a removal of frank criticism. The text is replete with warnings, which came only after parrhesia was administrated, was put to the test, and people became aware of undesirable effects. The negative sides of the practice are reflected sharply in the composition of the text. When Zeno pointed to the innumerable pitfalls inherent in the power of the teacher-sages, he was referring to a current practice that was working only to a point. Examples of bad behavior, violence, arrogance, admonishments that could be friendly or biting, self-consciousness, timidity, cowardice, and unjust display of force had probably become part of common experience. “An optimistic approach to correction and salvation” had been perhaps at the origin of frank criticism, but the picture that the text transmits is now replete with doubts and distrust that are reflected in the admonitions.

It seems that the application of frank criticism was done in public in front of several people. The practice is justified by the approval of Epicurus: “We will obey Epicurus who has dictated our life choices” (col. 151). And in col. 156: “We know that Heracleides was praised because he had denounced his faults to Epicurus since he considered the accusations coming from the revelation of his faults secondary to its helpfulness. Polyaenus was a man who went to visit Epicurus, when Apollonides proved his nonchalance.”⁴¹ “He (Epicurus) launched some accusations against Apollonides” (col. 180).⁴²

The practice of parrhesia consisted of the denunciation of one’s faults; it had to be made not only by students but also sometimes by teacher-sages in the presence of an audience. After that, the subject had to reform his behavior. It was a difficult practice; a few times the text mentions “bites,” wounds, and piercing accusations. The following passage, however, gives a general account of frank criticism. It stands close to the beginning of the roll and gives a glowing view of parrhesia, where the sage is presented as a savior of the young man who will assist him in everything. We will see that other fragments will show less enthusiasm from the students and will sow doubts about the behavior of some sages. The practice was not always smooth and done with kindness. Sometimes the treatment was sharp, and violence against those who did not pass the test occurred. We can venture that the question may have sounded rhetorical, even to the participants who were aware of some opposition.

The student must immediately express his faults, that is, his weak points, to the sage. He considers this man as his unique guide in terms of right reason, regards him as his only savior, and speaks of him saying “this man follows my steps.”⁴³ He has entrusted himself to him to be cured. How could it happen that he is not ready to show him those of his faults that require a treatment?

We are told that the practice could not take place before people who were there by chance; that is, only those belonging to the school could be present. A few passages show that the audience did not entirely agree with this rule. Some of the people who were present were not in favor and hesitated to approve it openly. Zeno in Athens and Philodemus in Athens and Naples confronted other groups of dissenting Epicureans, and these fragments likely allude to them.

And there, in front of friends, while a great number of them are hesitant, he (the sage) will persist in frank criticism, and again in the opposite way. And with some who do not need it, he will omit the admonition before people who are there by chance, he will not, even when among those who are present someone was lost or was left on the side without care.⁴⁴ … And although he (i.e., the student) disobeyed earlier disdaining the reproach as foreign to himself, later he will obey the rebuke. He will be afflicted by passions that make one conceited and arrogant and constitute an obstacle, but when he is free, he will pay heed. And as he encountered passions that distort one, now he will not encounter them anymore. (Col. 173)

A curious fragment shows that during frank criticism some people who were in love were very fond of chatting about their passions, as those close to them shied away from that kind of talk. Anger and severity were in proportion to an error, whether it was major or mild. In the latter case, when the fault was bearable, a milder kind of criticism and punishment had to be inflicted. “Toward those who were stronger than the tender ones and more in need of treatment … he will employ the harsh form of frankness” (fr. 7). And again, he will criticize severely those who are stronger and presumably arrogant and sure of themselves:

Most often the teacher will practice the art in such a way. But sometimes he will also practice frank criticism, even if there were risks because he believed that students would not obey. He will criticize with passion those who are extremely strong both by nature and because they are successful. (fr. 10)⁴⁵

A fragment may refer to the rejection of non-Epicurean methods and knowledge, that is, to a different type of philosophical education or a student’s previous notions (rhetoric) before he encountered philosophy. It mentions spitting out bad, disgusting food and nourishing oneself with good. Laziness and procrastination (argia and anabolai) elicit an aggressive response from the teacher, even though we do not know the details.⁴⁶

There were apparently definite rules that the teacher-sage had to respect, even though he sometimes tried to evade them, and they were there to prevent abuses. The teacher-sage should try not to express personal reasons for disliking the method or some persons. To justify his behavior with students, he should point to the fact that he too would have to confess.⁴⁷ Not all teachers were well qualified for the practice, but some were better than others.

He should not start from personal grievances as happens to most scholars⁴⁸ and should not practice frank criticism with arrogance and excessive fervor … despising and denigrating… . When they are angry, they remind the others that they themselves have to stand frank criticism often and will tolerate remonstrances from others…. It is shameful to restrain from hurling to the teachers and only to them everything that concerns them, since this did not regard the preparation of the gifts.⁴⁹ … When (the teachers) are under the judgment of the same people, if these do not like them or are unable to correct them or will not be able to persuade those who are better than them instead of someone who does not have any fault, who care for them, who is better and knows how to heal them … And even this is accompanied by “bites” beyond the fact that they will receive beautiful recompenses.

And again, in a different part of the roll, speaking of the treatment that the student will receive by a sage or one of his classmates, the sage “should not do that continuously and to everyone, should not mention every fault whatever it is and not in the presence of people who have nothing to do with the affair and not in an excessive way but with compassion and no violence” (col. 160).

The concept that frank criticism needed to be repeated (several times) when it has been unsuccessful is stressed in two fragments (col. 171 and 172). It is compared to the behavior of a doctor who insists on purging when he has not attained any results.

If the horse trainers accept not to be obeyed by their horses,⁵⁰ the sage, who is a trainer of men, cannot tolerate the disobedience of a young man when he is excessive… . He will use a harsh, frank criticism and in fact it will be effective in this way but sometimes in the opposite way. In any case, since frank criticism sometimes has been effective once, he will try a second time and perhaps even a third. And if the young man has refused to obey when he was in the midst of his passion, now that it has diminished, he will change.

The practice appeared implacable and relentless. It would continue, even if no results take place initially. Compared to the horse trainer, the teacher-trainer did not tolerate disobedience. It appears that when frank criticism was applied several times, an interval elapsed between occurrences to give the young man the possibility to reform his behavior.

Some of the young men are very irritated, even if they are dressed with the Greek garb. They find difficult to accept what the man says when practicing frank criticism. Since this is an occasion for people to laugh at them, they cannot dare listen to a schoolmate with good will… . (col. 137) It is not only that he calumniates us, but we want to avoid blushing out of shame. (col. 157)

In this passage, another reason students were opposed to the practice is stated. They felt self-conscious and resented the possible reactions of others. Besides the pain they might suffer, they felt that the bystanders and their classmates did not listen to the accusations with goodwill and that they might become an object of ridicule.

Other fragments look at the way the sage should administer frank criticism:

Every fault should be addressed after examining it with attention. Some people have reproached them directly because of the affection they feel for them and some of these reproaches were strong because of their ignorance… . We do not think that the sage will make mistakes if he has an awareness of the perfection of the argument and also of caution. But it is possible that he will commit mistakes in applying frank criticism if he does not wait for the end⁵¹ and does not leave aside things that cannot be always imputed to the man. (col. 163) … If he finds in the act those who are in love or have certain vices but using reasonable probabilities to reach a judgment. On the other hand, if the actions that aim at success do not have the result that he really hoped for, even when plausible chances derive especially from reasonable probabilities it is necessary, even by agreement, to reach an accord because reason demands to treat the issue deeply.⁵²

Several fragments admonish the sage and try to guide him on a road that is fraught with problems, accidents, prevarication, and even hate.

They [the students] regard the fact that they have to submit to the despotic power of other men intolerable … and difficult to endure… . If the rebuke is not very similar to that of a sage and a philosopher; if the sage has overlooked one of the misdeeds, we do not refuse to blame him. But we think that it is not correct that he [the student] would be indicted purely and simply on all charges, even though he has acted badly only once.⁵³

The Epicurean community was isolated from the rest of the world, with students insulated from their original families, and adopted an expectation that teachers were supposed to ignore students’ life circumstances for the instruction to be successful (fr. 8).⁵⁴ The usual pedagogic practice in antiquity, however, was for teachers to communicate with families. In the school of Epictetus, the young men’s living conditions, social backgrounds, and affection for those at home were well in view.⁵⁵ In the Garden of Epicurus, teachers were detached from their pupils to create a void around them. That void could stimulate students to learn and possibly make them more able to tolerate. Teachers were also uninterested in how students would fare later in life (fr. 21). Thus a pupil had to refrain from confronting a teacher with his own affairs and had to concentrate solely on his instruction (fr. 39). And yet life intruded and could not be ignored. There was not only philosophy. Some students apparently took more than average care of their bodies. These beautifying measures were considered shameful when a doctor had not ordered them.⁵⁶ Students were prone to disobedience when they were in the midst of intense (erotic) passions and appetites distorted their feelings; they felt strong and invincible (65–66).⁵⁷ Teachers were watching the signs and were ready to act, even when they were not sure (col. 166).

The sage was not able to convince people that he would benefit them in all circumstances… . There are occasions when the student will abandon philosophy and, perhaps, he will hate the sage in some way. And if sometimes he submits to frank criticism, it will not be useful to him because he has decided that it will not benefit him.

Students were encouraged to apply frank criticism to schoolmates: “Although many good things result from friendship, there is nothing better than having one to whom one will say what is in one’s heart and who will listen when one speaks.”⁵⁸ But students’ reactions could be mixed. It could happen that some of them ran to the teachers to ingratiate themselves. To show their goodwill they reported what a friend had said or done against them (fr. 52). A student who was censured by young men in the same position found their criticism more painful than when he was corrected by a teacher and would suspect envy or scorn from “contemptible” fellow students. In those cases, trust would become lack of trust. Frank criticism was not useful because the young man suspected his classmate and hid his secrets.

The classmates surely know all the good qualities that we possess and they present themselves to correct them and in that case frank criticism is not useful at all… . The youth who does not give a report to the most special of his friends is clearly trying to hide his faults and that one who has little secrets will not have more because, as everyone knows, nothing passes unnoticed. (col. 147)⁵⁹

Distrust of the teacher-sage and his systems is very noticeable. The Epicurean Lucretius, who was a contemporary of Philodemus, adds his voice to those who upheld a strong discipline, showing how to mortify his patron Memmius with harsh words. Memmius was apparently indifferent to a mention of the death of Epicurus, leading Lucretius not only to attack his resistance at the idea of dying in the future but to say that in any case he seemed already dead. Memmius wasted his life in sleeping and dreaming, and his mind was plagued by vain terrors. “You cannot discover what is your pain, poor drunken wretch, oppressed as you are by many cares on all sides, as you wonder drifting with uncertain mind.”⁶⁰ This is a grim rebuke.

It is often remarked that On Frank Criticism testifies to two different manners of punishment advocated by two currents of Epicurean thought: harsh castigation or gentle rebuke.⁶¹ It is impossible, however, to identify the specific names of proponents of the harsh system of correction, and no text mentions such a dispute unequivocally. I wonder, therefore, whether there was in fact such a stark difference within the Epicurean school, or whether On Frank Criticism attests simply to natural reactions to and by students with challenging dispositions. Educators in antiquity used both methods of correction.⁶² Harsh discipline was common in education in the Greek and Roman world, both then and later. Libanius’s letters and orations advocate both methods, often refraining from harshness and preferring to inspire a sense of reverence into the students, but at times using words of anger and violently throwing students out of the class.⁶³

What the text of Peri Parrhesias clearly shows is that besides its proponents there were others who entertained some doubts, particularly because the teacher-sages might insist on punishment when their measures were excessive and counterproductive. In Philodemus’s text both types of correction appear at random, administered by different types of teachers and applied to students of different temperaments. One passage (Col. IIIb) juxtaposes two teachers of different dispositions, attributing their methods to their personal natures: “One teacher is irascible and snappish toward everyone, while another is always mild; one speaks frankly about everything in a good way, but another does so deficiently on some matter.” The irascible philosopher contradicted his philosophic upbringing. Falling into ignorance, he appeared unwilling to accept his mistakes and insisted on a harmful practice. He would have used gentle and convincing arguments at the beginning, but then his anger prevailed in the face of a lack of success. We do not know how large the community was; it may have included a limited number of students so that a multiplicity of teachers was not necessary. Friendship was central to all relations. One wonders whether at times we are seeing the same teacher reacting differently to different situations and showing a gamut of reactions, as is suggested by the following fragment. When “he is not disappointed in some people or indicating very vehemently his own annoyance, he will not, as he speaks, forget ‘dearest’ and ‘sweetest’ and similar things” (fr. 14).

The text shows that frank criticism was administered at the beginning with goodwill and amiable words, using the language of friendship. The sage had two different attitudes toward a student. If the teacher-sage felt that he was not seriously deficient, he approached the pupil with a friendly attitude. If the teacher-sage was dissatisfied with the pupil, he became aggressive. Fr. 21 mentions malediction, insults, and madness. The deficient teacher, in any case, was supposed to submit to the criticism of others in the community. And yet every time the pupil was urged to put himself in the teacher’s hands.

There could be consequences, as an interesting fragment reveals, such as that students would be enticed to leave the school by certain men who would take them away: “Men who are charlatans divert many, seizing them after some stress and enchanting them with their subtle kindness” (fr. 60), a passage that recalls Epictetus.⁶⁴It is unclear who these men were. Perhaps they were teachers of rhetoric, who could offer pupils a competing type of education, or perhaps they were non-Epicurean philosophers. The first case is more likely because, as we have seen, some distressed students felt they had to abandon philosophy (col. 166). We have seen that, in Musonius’s and Epictetus’s times, many people, including parents, disliked philosophical education on the grounds that it was theoretical and did not open many doors in the future. This is what a student laments: “He does not labor over how one will fare in life” (fr. 21).

It is when harsh criticism is meted out without reason that students’ voices rang loudest, manifesting an open frustration that comes alive many centuries later and that differs from simple descriptions in educational texts. Here we witness an aggressive attack on personal dignity:

He says: “If I did not err, (the sage) is going to say that I deserve frank criticism now that he came upon me.” Unless, by Zeus, fear does not make him say: “In fact yesterday I have not erred at all, I say. But I committed [a mistake] of my own will as many young people do and for this I have to be whipped.” (col. 171)⁶⁵

At this point the text conveys the sense of outrage of the young man who felt mistreated. Among those students in need of treatment, some were able to correct themselves, but others felt that the punishment was unjust. “Their stubborn persistence gives them trouble and the fact that they are not aware of their errors and, though they reproach others, that they believe that for the most part they have not erred.”⁶⁶ Not all students had to receive frank criticism. Teachers were not infallible, and they might have at times administered frank criticism even when no mistakes were committed. What to do with some teachers who throw “maledictions and insults” through madness (fr. 21)? We are told that sharp frankness in fact bears a similarity to insult.

Medicine and Philosophy

Central to Epicurean doctrine was the belief that sickness of the soul needed to be cured. The analogy of medicine and philosophy was used quite frequently. There was an open asymmetry between the sick needing a cure and the doctor providing it and between the active doctor and the passive man afflicted by disease. Epicurus states that philosophy was hopeless when it did not help a diseased soul, just as an art of medicine that did not cure bodily suffering could not have any use.⁶⁷ The analogy of medicine and philosophy was not only a metaphor but also was a strong tool, because an understanding of it brought a philosopher to search for ways to cure the soul and inspired the sick to undergo treatment for the cure. Thus the central interest of philosophy became taking care of diseased humanity. The idea that curing the illness of the soul was analogous to using medicine to prevail over bodily sickness was old and present already in Homer.⁶⁸

In Epicurean philosophy, the philosopher became a diagnostician who developed a cure, starting from signs like the doctor and interpreting them for the benefit of the sick “… even if he recognizes that the student had not committed any wrongs. It is more or less as if a doctor, judging from probable signs, gave a patient in need another purge and then, since he was wrong in interpreting the signs, refrained forever from purging again this man when he had another disease; exactly for this reason he will use again parrhesia.”⁶⁹ In this case the teacher had an advantage over the physician. When the signs of misbehavior were not sufficient to make a sure diagnosis, by submitting the student to frank criticism he would have sure proofs.⁷⁰

Peri Parrhesias shows that the Garden was a therapeutic community. The patient had to ask the philosopher for help, and the latter listened and planned a remedy. Like a doctor, the philosopher had to develop the type of cure and find the ways in which it became effective. Yet doctors, like philosophers, were not infallible. With the Stoics and Epictetus in particular, the cure was devised through an accurate observation of a pupil, but with Epicurus curing the individual was insufficient; the whole community had to derive an advantage. The Epicurean teacher had to observe symptoms that plagued humanity, such as anger, vanity, arrogance, insolence, flattery, and other negative traits. All the members of the community participated in the correction and development of the pupil. Though it was him and not the community that was the center of observation, the student had to be aware of the welfare of humanity. For the Stoic philosophers, the pupil was the protagonist of the dialogues, and the confrontations in Epictetus’s Discourses were always between one single pupil and the philosopher. The latter started from signs of indifference, laziness, and misbehavior and determined an individual therapy just as the physician used fever and other symptoms to beat the disease. The Epicureans especially condemned flattery as the opposite of trustworthiness and considered it a communal danger because of the confusion it created when trying to identify faults. In theory, a teacher should not attack the personality of a pupil as it appears in Peri Parrhesias. Errors of a pupil differed in terms of magnitude, and the cure differed from case to case as the doctor reacted to various illnesses. As a doctor could not apply the same method indiscriminately, the philosopher needed to be flexible when treating particular faults. Anger and severity were in proportion to an error, whether it was major or mild. In the latter case, when the fault was bearable, a milder kind of criticism and punishment would be inflicted. “Toward those who were stronger than the tender ones and more in need of treatment … he will employ the harsh form of frankness” (fr. 7). And again, he would criticize severely those who are stronger and presumably arrogant and sure of themselves. “Most often the teacher will practice the art in such a way. But sometimes he will also practice frank criticism, even if there were risks, because he believed that students would not obey. He will criticize with passion those who are extremely strong both by nature and because they are successful” (fr. 10).⁷¹

The analogy of medicine with philosophy existed in all Hellenistic schools and later was particularly stressed by the Stoics.⁷² As we have seen, Epictetus uses it frequently.⁷³ He remarks that sometimes patients entrusted their body to a physician, begged him to give them a cure, and were serene in front of pain and death so that the doctor-philosopher could help and guide them. More often the reality was complicated. In rebuking an ambitious student who planned to open a school of philosophy, Epictetus remarks that the lad put his hand to an inappropriate task. He intended to open a medical office (iatreion) without knowing the art profoundly. He was in possession of drugs, yet not only did he not know how to use them, he also never made an effort to learn (3.21.20). A school of philosophy was a hospital, but those who entered should not expect to feel pleasure when they left. Instead, they would get out in pain (3.23.30). Philosophers advised those who were looking for a new beginning to leave their country and not fall back into old habits (3.16.11–12). In the same way, doctors advised the patient with a chronic disease to find a different climate, but the advice was not always followed.

Epictetus remarks that teachers did not invite people to lectures, just as doctors did not offer their services to those who did not call them (3.23.27). There is no information in Philodemus’s work regarding how the students joined the community. Did they choose to embark on philosophical education out of youthful enthusiasm? Did they experience parents’ resistance? Certainly, it seems that they encountered some disillusionment. Help was available but success could be difficult to attain. Parrhesia was a flexible method used to punish actual errors of the moment, not to predict future outcomes. Likewise, a doctor had to decide case by case, but the physician’s task was easier than that of the philosopher, who had to confront and diagnose defects of the soul that might be invisible. A question to which Zeno responds is what to do if the teacher-sage is wrong and applies parrhesia with no need (col. 170). This seems to be a dominant issue in the text. The doctor who read the signs wrongly purged a patient twice and then, aware of the mistake, refrained from purging the same man suffering from a different malady. Both the doctor and the philosopher, however, could misread the signs because of their ignorance of the circumstances and the character of the pupil. Like the doctor, moreover, a teacher could act irrationally. As Epictetus remarks, the good surgeon counseled a patient and invited him to undergo surgery but there were also bad and inexperienced surgeons.

The “therapy” implicit in the much later text of Epictetus’s Discourses reminds one of the students’ treatments in Philodemus’s work. But a clear difference should be noticed. In both works, the relation between a student and a teacher is at the center, but in Philodemus the whole community is affected. In Epictetus, moreover, the voice of the pupils is mostly silenced. Although in one passage, tears and a runny nose accompany the harsh denunciations of the teacher, in most cases we can only imagine students’ reactions, if there were any. Epictetus was entirely aware of the fact that some students regretted leaving their home and families and missed a system of education based on easy-to-follow rules. Yet his harshness was apparently justified by their seeming indifference, and their voices of protest were suffocated. It is possible that Arrian was not interested in those conflicts that had caused the teacher’s rage. In the letter to Gellius, Arrian manifests his desire to communicate to others the philosopher’s frank speech, one of the reasons why he admired Epictetus, but one cannot rule out that the philosopher’s authority had stifled any dissent so that only the philosopher’s voice was audible.

Philodemus’s notes succeed in transmitting some of the realities of learning and the sacrifice and suffering for its sake. The fact that in Athens he had seen that type of paideia in action and recorded lectures at which he was present gives vividness to his notes. One wonders if he knew that type of education from close up, if he had been subjected to it, and if he completely approved of it. It is likely that he did and that he was sincere. There were such people “who do not speak from their entire heart but rather by forming an image of themselves that they are truly lovers of frankness, but when the rebuke comes, they have their pretense exposed” (ekkoptein, cut out). In col. 181 (fr. 94), Zeno replies to someone who had asked him how to recognize an impostor. After some surveillance, however, if this person manifested friendship, he could be forgiven.

There were positive aspects of parrhesia, especially the courage to speak freely to improve oneself and others and its connection to friendship. A philosopher who practiced it would acquire the right of frank speaking, along with the duty to apply it, because of his superior morality and personal freedom. The transmitted doctrine was only Epicurean, and students were not exposed to other doctrines in Athens and in Italy, where individuals were saturated with Epicurean principles without having the possibility to debate rationally alternative views. On the contrary, Stoic education admitted the possibility of consulting the works of predecessors in order to have a complete view of philosophy.

Peri Parrhesias, on the other hand, testifies that the practice involved some danger, to the point that students sometimes felt that they were the subject of violence, enmity, and rancor. It is clear that their self-esteem was greatly diminished, and some realized that philosophy was not their calling. Some of the passages reveal that they had lost their confidence and felt insignificant. They admitted rather humbly that the teacher-sages might be brighter than they and so that they had to accept the maltreatment. “Sometimes they believed that their teachers were misled, punishing them when they had not erred, or they had disregarded some of the things that even a wise man disregards or that they are more intelligent when they do not like them or hate them or envy them” (col. XXIa). The student was aware that the teacher had abused his authority but tried to justify the instructor’s actions with inculcated concepts, such as the superior intelligence of the sages.⁷⁴ The latter were then absolved, even when possessed by hate and envy.

Richard Sorabji, in a powerful and wide-ranging publication, inquired about the various views on moral conscience and included Peri Parrhesias.⁷⁵ He looked at the roles the Greeks and Romans played versus Christian views. The idea of awareness of knowledge of oneself was well expressed in the verb suneidenai, with a reflexive pronoun in the dative.⁷⁶ Epicurus had a view of self-awareness of one’s faults that led to fear and punishment, and much later Christians adopted a concept of confessions and penitence. Plato often presented Socrates as aware of a daimon, a spirit who advised him. Epicurus also developed an idea of watchers contributing to the individual’s reform. The Stoics and Epictetus derived their concept of a guardian from him. We have seen that Epictetus had a strong belief in Zeus, who was able to oversee all the world and all humanity. In Discourse 1.14 Epictetus shows that Zeus included conscience as something present in every man. In one of his solo dialogues, he maintains that each man has within himself a daimon as a guardian to whom he was supposed to listen and obey.⁷⁷ In On Frank Criticism students and teachers must confess their faults. Criticism was accompanied by corporal punishment, ridicule, and mortification. Anxiety, fear, and revulsion for the irascible teacher were palpable here. In theory this system of education could have positive results when the teacher-sages were monitored closely. In practice this appears a closed, almost suffocating world.

Philodemus did not just repeat the lessons of his predecessors but manifested himself as a man of significant literary culture. He was far from being averse to traditional paideia. He had an authentic interest in, and knowledge of, literature, and his poetic epigrams achieved considerable distinction.⁷⁸ He believed that an Epicurean had to know not only contemporary texts but also the classical works of poetry, rhetoric, and philosophy.⁷⁹ Some training in reading and writing was available, and people were encouraged to take advantage of it and reach a level of competence.⁸⁰ The literary references in On Frank Criticism are few, yet they are present: Homer, some mythology, such as the labors of Heracles, and little more. Another of Philodemus’s works, The Good King According to Homer, regards situations based on Homeric texts with an impressive quantity of exact references unusual in most literary texts. The work addresses Calpurnius Piso and in essence is political, pointing not only to the positive aspects in the Homeric texts that a politician must consider but also to the negative ones. It was meant to be useful to a consul and senator in difficult times. Some of the characteristics of a government, according to Homer, could even be regarded as detrimental to the consideration of the good conduct and power of a sovereign. Though scholars have regarded On the Good King According to Homer as a text meant to strengthen Philodemus’s relation with Piso, the philosopher also puts in relief virtues and vices observed by a good Epicurean.⁸¹ A powerful man had strong obligations and could not ignore a difficult reality. In this moment, however, Philodemus does not lose his basically optimistic outlook. A brief consideration of a beautiful epigram may complete a view of the philosopher as a man interested in poetry and the cultural heritage of the Greeks. In Anthologia Palatina 11.41 he presents his life at a moment when he was turning thirty-seven and looking at the future with dismay. His existence was like a papyrus roll that was slowly losing its columns. Desire still inflamed him, but the madness was going to cease, so that the female figure of the moment would be its koronis, the beautiful sign at the end of a text on papyrus.⁸²

It is difficult to assess properly the originality of Philodemus as a philosopher because details of Epicurean activity before him are not well known. Moreover, his statements that some of his works derived from the lectures of Zeno are problematic from this point of view, because it is uncertain how much of his work comes directly from his master. However, one cannot deny his vast and diverse production and his enthusiastic admiration for Epicurus. His bond with his old teacher Zeno, even beyond death, is evident from his desire to take with himself the lectures that he had recorded. Philodemus was a clear and systematic philosopher who arranged his works according to categories and perhaps from the beginning had devised a plan on how to proceed. He was also a sensitive man who respected the works of others even though he engaged with alternative views, and his polemical works attacking rivals are not numerous.⁸³ Deeply convinced of the validity of Epicurus’s doctrine, he was aware of his role in transmitting it at the end of the Republic and the beginning of the principate.

1. See the comprehensive introduction to the subject by Longo Auricchio et al. 2020.

2. Many are now housed in Naples, in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

3. See Sider 2005. The numerous attempts to unroll the carbonized volumes started in the eighteenth century with Father Piaggio, a genius technician who constructed a useful machine that was used by modern scholars like Richard Janko and David Blank.

4. Philodemus was born in 110 BCE and died circa 30 BCE. At that time Piso was about thirty years old.

5. The papyri in the cases (capsae) were in worse condition than the others because of water. My first visit to the villa was about twenty years ago. The archaeologist who took me around said that some of the cases were transported on the seacoast and found on the beach. That showed, he said, that books were considered more valuable than people.

6. If he surely did that.

7. There was, for example, a work titled On Epicurus and another that consisted of Epicurean memoirs.

8. Del Mastro 2004, 34–35.

9. The text was found in Herculaneum; see Fitzgerald et al. 2004, 78.

10. See Obbink 2004.

11. Cf. note 1. At the same time, this translation of a difficult text is still useful, since nothing was done from 1914 to 1998. It has raised interest in the papyrus.

12. White 2004, 2009.

13. Delattre 2010 studied the roll and its reconstruction. See also Delattre 2015.

14. See Delattre 2006. I thank Daniel Delattre for sending me this work, especially because the book is no longer in print. It derived from lectures at the University of Liège.

15. I have translated into English the French notes of Delattre and will use my translation when citing passages. Delattre’s French translation covers col. 135–181, that is, the readable part of Olivieri-Konstan. When possible, I have maintained the numbering of the fragments in the 1998 text, but sometimes I will cite fragments that were not in that edition or were present there but much abbreviated. I will also include in the translation passages that contain conjectures and try to follow their sense. In my translation I will not include many parentheses and dots because this is a preliminary edition and for the sake of convenience.

16. Dirk Obbink and Giovanni Indelli promised some time ago a new edition that so far has not materialized.

17. See Cavallo et al. 1983 and Blank 1998. Dorandi (2007, 66–81) examined the question in its entirety from the beginning, providing some conclusion of the debate. It is necessary to follow this debate in detail because of its relevance. I will consider the views of these scholars adding to the discussion.

18. Essler 2017.

19. Cribiore 2019.

20. Galen, In Hipp. artic comm. III 32 (XVIIIA, pp. 529, 13–530, 2 Kühn).

21. See Cribiore 2019, 13–16. Among them there are, for example, P. Oxy. XLV 3135 and 3136 with meletai, that is, rhetorical exercises. Consider also a medical text, P.Lond.Lit. 165, the Anonymus Londiniensis.

22. Delattre 2006 also subscribes to this view.

23. Dorandi 2007, 68–70; Ammonius, In Cat.3.13; Olympiodorus, In Cat. 21–35.

24. So, for example, he has identified at least eight writers engaged in making copies of On Rhetoric.

25. I am using the structure devised by Delattre. The structure in Konstan et al. 1998: 8–10 is manifestly wrong.

26. In what follows I will identify as col. the chapters in Delattre, and as fr. those in the 1998 publication.

27. See the reconstruction of Delattre 2010.

28. Issues of this kind emerged from Epictetus. I will discuss the existence of questions and answers with regard to the commentaries of Didymus and Olympiodorus.

29. Glad 1995.

30. Col. 157 D. (Konstan et al. 1998).

31. See Holland 2004.

32. See Part III. See also Epictetus fr. 36: “Freedom of speech cannot be taken away.”

33. Marinus succeeded Proclus as the head of the school in Athens in 485. Damascius, Vita Isidori fr. 90 Zintzen; Edwards 2000, 55–57. Cf. Cribiore 1999, 280.

34. Snyder 2000, 59–60.

35. It is possible, however, that here the text refers to the art of medicine.

36. The reading is by Gigante 1975, 55n41.

37. Cf. numerous examples in Libanius.

38. Tsouna 2007, altogether a valuable book.

39. According to Delattre (2010) there are about a hundred fragments. Most consist of a few lines; those longer than that are very rare.

40. “It has humanitarian and philanthropic dimensions, involving as it does elements of empathy, compassion, and forgiveness.” Tsouna 2007, 103.

41. Apollonides and Polyaenus cannot be identified. Heracleides was perhaps Heracleides of Pontus.

42. The text mentions again Epicurus in fr. about Leontheus, who was against belief in the gods.

43. Col. 146. A reference to Odysseus following Diomedes, Il. 10.246–247.

44. Probably a confused young man.

45. Those students may have been there for long and progressed in their knowledge. Cf. also fr. 7: frank criticism will intensify with them because “they are hardly changing, even when they are shouted at.”

46. Col. Va. Fr. 18. Another interpretation could be that the student is spitting out the parrhesia “just like food that repels.” He is not content with the food and assistance that he has received and tries to abuse the sage. See also my discussion of Epictetus in part II.

47. I am putting together parts of three adjacent fragments, col. 143, 144, and 145, with col. 150.

48. Maybe “cultivated people.”

49. These were the “goods” that an allegiance to Epicurus would bring.

50. Students were sometimes called poloi, young horses.

51. This may mean that the sage interrupted the student and did not let him finish. He was impatient and abrupt.

52. A combination of col. 161, 166, and 164.

53. Col. 140–141.

54. I use the singular to refer to instructors. Fr. 45 seems to point to the existence of some assistant teachers called kathegetai, like in Egypt.

55. Cicero exercised control over his son studying rhetoric in Athens. In the fourth century Libanius shows instances when families were in Antioch to supervise students. He also wrote to them regularly to inform them of progress in conduct and issues of learning. Cf. Cribiore 2007a.

56. We can guess massages, or excessive exercises. It is unclear where these distractions took place. Were they part of the life in the community or when the young men returned home for a period?

57. Compare Libanius on aidoia (private parts) in Or. 3. His students had great interest in love affairs.

58. See fr. 28. This applies to teachers and classmates.

59. A condemnation of the one who hides his secrets occurs in fr. 41–42.

60. De rerum natura 3.1040–1050.

61. See Glad 1995, 123–24; Konstan et al. 1998, 11–12.

62. Cribiore 2001b, 65–73.

63. Or. 2.20, where Libanius asserts that he is gentle with students and does not have a cane to beat them; Or. 58.1 and 38, where he asserts that he has refrained from beating and flogging them on the grounds that that treatment obtains the opposite effect. He prefers to convince them with argument and not with the lash (Or. 3.15), where the maximum punishment for a student is to be thrown out of the class. Only in Ep. 1330.3, addressed to a father, he contemplates the possibility of beating an idle student.

64. Cf. Epictetus 1.22.18; the man with rings perhaps was just someone deriding philosophy. In Lucian many philosophers are described as “charlatans.” It is possible that here there is an allusion to other philosophers.

65. Cf. about the sage in fr. 9: “He will also sometimes transfer to himself an error that occurred in his youth.” In Dobbin 1998 aneton, referring to “error,” should not be translated as “intemperate.” This is an error of “relaxation” that the young teacher made when he was young and loosened up.

66. Col XVb.

67. Epicurus 221 Us.

68. See Nussbaum 1994, 49. Nussbaum explores the analogy of philosophy and medicine throughout her book. She wonders if this idea was more developed in the Garden than in Epicurus himself, though of course Epicurus’s words have been transmitted only in part (116).

69. Delattre has put together in col. 171 two previous fragments (86 and 64).

70. Col. 170 (fr. 64 K).

71. Or because they had belonged to the community and had progressed in education.

72. See, e.g., Plutarch, Mor. On the Education of Children 7d–e. Plutarch regards philosophy as the most important discipline that should be at the center of education.

73. I will document only a few occurrences of this analogy.

74. In Col. XVIa, however, “the most intelligent reproach their pupils gently and to their liking but for the most part they are rebuked sharply.”

75. Sorabji 2014a. Here I am following Sorabji’s book.

76. Sorabji (2014a, 25) makes an important correction in fr. 67, reading syneidesis “conscience” in place of synoidesis “swelling.”

77. Epictetus 1.14.11–15. The Stoics had argued for the same idea. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 41.2, where the sacer spiritus is observator and custos.

78. Sider 1997.

79. See Angeli 1988, 61–70.

80. Snyder 2000, 57–60, on the basis of P. Herc. 1005.

81. See Philodemus’s approval of Homer in Fish 2022.

82. See Sider 1997, 72–78 no. 4. Xanthippe appears in a cycle containing poems 1–8. She evokes Socrates’s wife and represents an ideal image of marital love that is far from being negative. The koronis was a beautiful, decorative sign at the end of a literary papyrus text.

83. Or at least he did not attack his contemporaries but only philosophers of the past.