Abstract

Many fragments and testimonies in Usener’s collection, Epicurea, come from ancient Christian sources. This essay explores Patristic interest in Epicureanism, which is often critical, and sometimes imprecise or distorted, but tangible. It shows how the fading away of the availability and use of good sources on Epicureanism, along with the disappearance of the Epicurean school itself, brought about a progressive impoverishment and hostility among Christian authors with respect to Epicurus and Epicureanism. A comparison between the representation of Epicureanism in Acts or Clement, or still in Nazianzen or Ambrose, on one side, and, on the other, authors like Jerome or even Isidore of Seville is telling. Not only did appreciation for at least some sides of Epicureanism (clearly present in the author of Acts, Clement, Bardaisan, and Nazianzen) disappear, but even anti-Epicurean polemic became more and more stereotyped, crass hedonism and atheism being its main focuses, with scarce ground in Epicurean theory in both cases. The distortions surrounding the charge of hedonism were still clear to Nazianzen; as for the falsity of the charge of atheism, which was alive already in pre-Christian philosophical debate, the certainly Hellenized author of Acts was arguably aware of it, as is suggested by Paul’s Areopagus speech, which is here carefully analysed. It is suggested that both Paul’s Athenian speech in Acts and Seneca may have referred to the same tenets of Epicurean theology.