Raffaella Cribiore (NYU)
The Villa dei Papiri revealed an extraordinary Epicurean library that attested to the activity of the Garden of Epicurus. It contained a great quantity of volumes written by the Epicurean Philodemus that testify to his own incredible scholarly activity. In this paper I will talk about a work called Peri Parrhesias (in Latin, De libertate dicendi; On Frank Criticism) that belongs to a group of Philodemus’ works on ethics. The Περὶ παρρησίας was written when the philosopher was young and wanted to meaningfully express his debt to his teacher Zeno in Athens who probably was the most important Epicurean philosopher after Epicurus himself. It originated as lecture notes he had taken in Athens. It is usually called a treatise or a handbook but is rather a collection of annotations that Philodemus based on his teacher’s lectures.
The papyrus roll of Περὶ παρρησίας (P. Herc. 1471) was found in a very lacunose condition. The mediocre edition of Oliver in 1914 was adapted by a team of scholars (Konstan et alii) in preparing the 1998 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. Several scholars have tried to improve on the text. As of now, Daniel Delattre is working on the Greek text and translation of the fragments that he sent me images, generously giving me permission to use them. The new fragments 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. I intend to discuss whether those teachers who used disputable methods of chastising were really enlightened figures as it was claimed in 2007 by Voula Tsouna-Mckirahan in a volume on the Ethics of Philodemus. Several fragments hint at educators who appear confused, violent, unforgiving, and vengeful. In my opinion the text does not convey an optimistic view of ancient education.
I argue that those passages could not have become part of the peri parrhesias at the very beginning. In my opinion, the peri parrhesias was delivered when the practice was established to a degree and some people contemplated questionable elements. The text is replete with warnings, and I think that they came at a fait accompli, after parrhesia was put to the test, and people became aware of undesirable effects. Its practice consisted of the denunciation of one’s faults that not only students had to make but sometimes also teacher-sages in the presence of an audience. After that the subject had to reform his behavior. It was a difficult practice and a few times the text mentions “bites,” wounds, and piercing accusations. I will go through some passages that show that students had to submit to the despotic power of the sage-teachers to the point that some abandoned philosophy.