A discovered inscription 45ish odd years ago on a column, apparently six extant lines to add to the Corpus.

Among several new inscriptions from Apamea on the Orontes in Syria published in 1973 by Jean-Paul Rey-Coquais2 is one which is of considerable interest to students of Epicureanism. Carved on a reused column, it was discovered east of the Great Colonnade3 by Kamel Ch?had?, who at the time was Inspector of Antiquities in the province of Ham?h. It was deeply embedded in the ground, upside down. Only the last six lines were visible, and the first of these is severely worn. The letters are generally 4 cm. high, but much smaller letters occur four times (lines 3, 6); the interlinear spaces are 2 cm.; and the length of the lines is about 55 cm. Alternate lines are indented — lines 2 and 4 one space, 6 four spaces. Letter-forms include alongated alpha (the second oblique stroke extending above the apex) and the rounded forms of epsilon, sigma, and omega (A?CO) — forms popular in the Roman period. After the “head” of the last letter of AYP in line 3 is what I originally took to be a small sigma, but Rey-Coquais assures me that it is in fact an inverted S marking the abbreviated form.4

The recovered text is as follows

(I had a god damn impossible time trying to copy and paste the text, I assume it was because of the PDF viewer I used makes it not possible to copy unicode text?)

our inscription proves that Epicureanism in Syria did not come to an end in the first century B.C. What the inscription proves is what one would in any case have expected, not only because the philosophy had been well established in that country for a long time, but also because we know that it continued to have a considerable following in other parts of the Greco-Roman world. For example, in Asia Minor there was a lively Epicurean presence in the second century A.D., as is evidenced by (inter alia) Lucian’s Alexander, in which the Epicureans are represented as the chief opponents of the false prophet of Abonouteichos, and the massive inscription set up by the Epicurean Diogenes of Oinoanda,32 and one could reasonably assume that the situation in Syria was no different.

he first Syrian Epicurean of distinction known to us is Basilides of Tyre, the fifth head of the Epicurean school in Athens.13 He was scholarch from 201/200 B.C. until his death in c. 175 B.C.14 175 B.C. was the year in which the Seleucid king Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) began his twelve-year reign, during which the Epicurean philosopher Philonides is said to have succeeded in converting him after bombarding him with scores of specially composed treatises.15 Philonides continued as court philosopher under Demetrius I (Soter) of Syria, who reigned 162–150 B.C. Alexander Balas, pretended son of Antiochus IV, who succeeded Demetrius I as king of Syria (150–145 B.C.), after defeating him in a battle in which Demetrius was killed, favoured the Stoics, but nevertheless welcomed the presence at court of the Epicurean philosopher Diogenes of Seleuceia on the Tigris.16 Unfortunately for Diogenes the boy-king Antiochus VI (Epiphanes Dionysus), son of Alexander, was less welcoming and ordered his throat to be cut.17 Maybe Diogenes almost deserved his bad end, because his character and behaviour, if accurately reported, did not reflect well on his school.18

The philosophies for which Apamea is best known are Stoicism, Neopythagoreanism, and Neo platonism: both Posidonius (c. 135-c. 51 B.C.), unique among the Stoics for the extraordinary range of his interests and knowledge, and Numenius (second half of the second century A.D.), a Neopythagorean who exercised strong influence on Plotinus and Neoplatonism, were natives of the place, and the celebrated Neoplatonist Iamblichus (A.D. c. 250-c. 326), though born in Chalcis in Coele Syria,11 taught in Apamea. The news that there was an Epicurean community in the city under the Roman Empire is interesting, but not at all surprising, for Epicureanism had been well established in Syria in the first two centuries B.C.12

The inscription cannot be precisely dated. The find-place of the piece of column, which, as I have mentioned, had been reused, is of no assistance whatsoever. …... But the lettering, whether one considers points of detail7 or its overall appearance, does not seem to require a date later than the second or third century A.D. I consider a date as late as the reign of Julian highly improbable. By then Epicureanism was probably virtually extinct,8 and in this connection it is to be noted that Julian himself says that by his time most of Epicurus’ works had perished (Ep. 89b Bidez, 301c~d). P

In 1, Rey-Coquais’ ?rci would not give the required sense, whereas ek/e?, is just what is wanted (see LSJ s.v. keXevgk;, KEXEva[ia, ejkeXevgk;, and Lampe s.v. k?Xevgi?,). The god’s instructions will have been conveyed in an oracular response: for oracles of Bel, identified with Zeus, at Apamea, see Dio Cassius 79.8.5–6, quoting the responses which Septimius Severus received both before and after he became Emperor, Dio Cassius 79.40.4, quoting the response received by Macrinus, and the bilingual (Greek and Latin) inscription on an altar discovered at Vasio (Vaison).6

Below is a spectacular account of history, the roman emperors, a wife of one, and the place she played in exalting Epicureanism.

Epicurean fortunes throughout the Empire are likely to have been assisted by events in the second and third decades of the second century A.D. Trajan’s wife, Pompeia Plotina, widely respected for her upright behaviour, dignity, and lack of ostentation, was, at any rate in the last years of her life, an Epicurean. In A.D. 121, four years after Trajan’s death and shortly before she herself died, she successfully requested Hadrian to favour the Epicurean school in Athens by freeing it from the restriction that the scholarch must be a Roman citizen.33 Her adherence to Epicureanism is likely to have benefited Syrian Epicureans at least as much as Epicureans elsewhere, because Syria was very much at the centre of events in the last years of Trajan’s reign and at the time of Hadrian’s accession. Trajan arrived in Syria early in A.D. 114, at the beginning of his Parthian campaign, and left Hadrian there as governor. Plotina too remained in Syria, and, although it is possible that she did not make public her adherence to Epicureanism while Trajan was alive, she may well have had some discreet contacts with local Epicureans. When Trajan, on his way back to Rome, died at Selinus in Cilicia on or about 8th August A.D. 117, with Plotina at his bedside, Hadrian was in Antioch, and it was there that despatches reached him on 9th and 11th August. The first despatch informed him that Trajan had adopted him as his son and successor; the second informed him that Trajan was dead. On the same day that the news of Trajan’s death was received, Hadrian was saluted as emperor by the eastern army, which Trajan had left under his command. Allegations that Plotina took advantage of Trajan’s illness and death to arrange a succession which was contrary to his intention are most unlikely to be true: Trajan, to whom Hadrian was nearest male relative, and who had entrusted the army in Syria to him, can hardly have had anyone else in mind. But at the very least Plotina encouraged the formal adoption of Hadrian by her dying husband, and, since his illness prevented him from writing, it was she who signed the adoption document. The relationship between Hadrian and Plotina was already a very close one — much closer than that between him and Trajan -, and this bond can only have been strengthened by the events at Selinus. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Hadrian, once he had become emperor, demonstrated his special affection and veneration for her: he honoured her on coins, and, when news of her death reached him at Nemausus (N?mes) in A.D. 121/122, he commemorated her with a temple there and both Trajan and her with a temple in Rome. There can be no doubt that the Epicureans, both in Athens and elsewhere, including Syria, would have been grieved to learn of her death, and it would be surprising if they did not find ways to commemorate her. Although, as we have seen, the nomen Aurelius may mean that our inscription is to be dated after A.D. 163, a Hadrianic date for it cannot be ruled out, and one must leave open the intriguing possibility that the dedication ordered by Bel and made by the head of the Epicurean school in Apamea was in honour of Plotina. What a pity that the beginning of the inscription is lost!

For how long the Epicurean communities in Syria continued in existence we do not know, but it is likely that in the third century A.D. they experienced severe decline. Christianity expanded rapidly, and, whilst pagan beliefs were not ousted by it (least of all in Apamea, which was less receptive of new ideas and influences than Antioch),40 the predominant philosophy was Neoplatonism, one of whose chief exponents was, as we have seen, Iamblichus of Apamea. It is improbable that our inscription is much later than about A.D. 250, and it may well belong to the second century A.D., when Epicureanism in the Roman Empire, Syria included, was probably at its peak.

That duties would Aurelius Belius Philippus have been expected to perform in his capacity as leader of the Epicureans in Apamea? Presumably his chief duty would have been to ensure that Epicurean doctrines were faithfully followed49 and made available as widely and effectively as possible in the locality. The recruitment of new followers and the instruction of those who had been recruited will have been prime concerns for the local school, and the leader will have participated in these activities as well as organised them.50 He will have presided over the celebration of events in the Epicurean calendar such as the founder’s birthday.51 His responsibilities will certainly have been administrative as well as philosophical, educational, and pastoral, and his administrative duties will have been concerned not only with the internal affairs of the school in Apamea, but also with relations with other Epicurean communities: just as the Epicurean inscription at Oinoanda reveals that Diogenes, who divided his time between his home-city in northern Lycia and Rhodes, was in touch with Epicurean communities in Athens, Thebes, and (Euboean) Chalcis,52 so we may suppose that the Epicureans in Apamea maintained epistolary and personal contacts both with the school in Athens and with Epicurean communities elsewhere in Syria (e.g. in Antioch) and perhaps further afield (e.g. in Tarsus).

As ?kx?oxo?, Aurelius Belius Philippus is certain to have had some financial responsibilities too. The early Epicurean community in Athens received regular financial support from Epicureans living elsewhere. We have a passage of a letter from Epicurus to Idomeneus, requesting such support.53 From a passage of another letter54 we learn that a subscription (cuvia?i?) of 120 drachmas per annum was expected of outside members, and there are several other references to the subscription.55 Subscriptions to the school in Athens in the early years were perhaps expected of Epicurean communities elsewhere,

as well as of individuals. I know of no evidence that such subscriptions were levied in later times, but, even if, as seems likely, the Apamean Epicureans were not expected, either individually or collectively, to send regular contributions to the school in Athens in the time of Aurelius Belius Philippus, it may be confidently assumed that they would have been asked to pay subscriptions in support of local activities and for the maintenance of any property which the Apamean school may have owned. Even if my tentative suggestion that the dedication ordered by Bel was in honour of Plotina is incorrect, it is possible that whatever it was that Aurelius Belius Philippus dedicated was paid for, at least in part, by the Epicurean community — a circumstance which would help to explain why his position as head of the Epicureans in Apamea, as well as his priesthood, is mentioned.

IV. Should an orthodox Epicurean have been priest of Bel?

The Epicureans have often been represented, if not as atheists and enemies of religion, as attaching little importance to the gods and their worship. However, Epicurus not only accepted the existence of the gods, but also attached great importance to them, and he believed firmly in the value of religion, which he wished to reform, not abolish.58 Although, in his view, the gods did not create the world and have no desire or power to intervene in its affairs, but live lives of perfect self-sufficiency, peace, and happiness in the spaces between the infinite number of worlds in the universe, our minds are able to receive, both when we are awake and especially when we are asleep, the images (e??cotax, simulacra) which flow from their anthropomorphic bodies59 and convey to us something of their tranquillity and

beauty; and although no god can ever be influenced by prayer or sacrifice, the wise man will participate in traditional acts of worship, because, provided that people are not handicapped by traditional misconceptions of the divine nature, such participation will make it easier for them to receive the images.60 Epicurus himself piously performed the traditional acts of worship, sacrificing to the gods, praying to them, and celebrating their festivals.61 He thought that festivals bring one closest to the gods.62 It is almost certain that he had even been initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries.63 So our Apamean friend could certainly worship Bel and still be an orthodox Epicurean. But what about his priesthood? Would the master have approved of that? Although there is no extant pronouncement of Epicurus specifically discouraging his followers from accepting priesthoods, one supposes that his advice to persons about to become priests would usually, if not always, have been “don’t!”. It is likely that he would have raised two objections. In the first place, although he might have conceded that priests, if they had a true (Epicurean) conception of the gods whom they served, would be particularly well placed to get close to them, he would probably have felt that this advantage was outweighed by the disadvantage that they would be publicly promoting, even if not privately adopting, a false vn?Xr\\\f\(; about the nature of the gods, as beings who intervene in human affairs and are to be feared.64 His second objection would have been that holding a priesthood would not

Although Epicurus and his followers liked to compare their own pronouncements to those of oracles or to say that they spoke more reliably than oracles,75 they emphatically rejected prophecy and all forms of divination.76 If Philidas and Aurelius Belius Philippus had been challenged by fellow-Epicureans to justify their combination of offices, no doubt their response would have been along the lines that, while they believed in the existence of the gods whom they served and found their service to them spiritually beneficial, they did not believe that the oracles really expressed the will of Apollo or Bel, and that it was better, both for the Epicurean community and for the community at large, that these influential priestly offices should be held by rational Epicureans rather than by persons in the grip of superstitious beliefs; and if the Apamea inscription related to some matter which was to the benefit of the Epicurean school, the dedicator would have had an especially strong argument in favour of his decision to put pragmatism before principles.