The short introduction of the editors gives the purpose of this collection: to update the perspectives of contemporary philosophical historiography concerning the evolution of the Epicurean school. From Diogenes Laertius to Philodemus, from Cicero to Seneca, these ten studies take into account the main areas of Epicurus' original doctrine (in particular theology, politics and ethics) and also the relative development of both Greece and Rome, offering to the scientific community an up-to-date tool, from a critical and a methodological point of view. There is a precise and rich bibliography, an analytical index of subjects and an index of textual references.

In the first chapter, ‘Autodidact and Student’, M. Erler takes stock of the philosophical criticism in the inner evolution of the Epicurean school. Erler's considerations clearly show the error of perspective of those who apply the anachronistic concept of ‘originality’ to Epicureanism. Erler samples the ultra-conservative policy or the tendency to change of several philosophical schools and then analyses the inner changes of Epicurus' thought and the contributions given by Greek epigones and Roman philosophers. Erler tries to knock off the rough edges from the prejudice about the monolithic nature of Epicureanism and uncovers the convective motions that were floating through this doctrine from the beginning.

D. Sedley, ‘Epicurus’ Theological Innatism', deals with a transversal theme in Epicurus' philosophy, innatism, with a particular focus on theology. Sedley carefully examines the testimonies of Epicurus, Philodemus (On piety), Cicero (De natura deorum) and Lucretius. This textual analysis, centred on the keyword ‘prolepsis’, develops in several directions: philosophical, lexical and historical. Particular weight is given to Cicero, whose testimony, traditionally treated unfairly, helps better to understand the intricate concept of prolepsis in both its ethical and theological acceptation. The conclusions of this paper, even respecting the structural immanentism of Epicurean gnoseology, appear to solve a considerable part of the misunderstandings of modern critics, thanks perhaps to the rigour of the interpretation of Epicurean lexicon.

As in a Hegelian progression, D. Konstan, ‘Epicurus on the Gods’, antithetically counters the result of Sedley's theory and reasserts the traditional materialism of the Garden speaking about the concrete existence of the gods for Epicurus' followers. Konstan's demonstration is focussed first on the indestructibility of divine atoms and then returns to the controversial prolepsis. The paper proceeds progressively and through hypothesis exclusion, with detailed attention to the testimonies of Lucretius and Philodemus. In the examination of the Epicurean prolepsis there are – once again – several inputs from Cicero's texts and there is a remarkable lexical accuracy even about the linguistic differences of Latin philosophical language.

Almost in continuity with the purposes of the first paper, F., ‘Not all Politicians are Sisyphus: what Roman Epicureans Were Taught about Politics’, aims to show the inner changes in Epicurus' school about politics, social engagement and military involvement. F. builds a pattern of the Epicurean politician, predominantly on the basis of Lucretius' and Philodemus' texts (especially with relation to On the Good King) and some historical Greek and Latin texts. The analysis of Cicero's position could perhaps appear too focussed on the misdirections, without a correct consideration of the structural complexity of Cicero's Epicurean testimony. This paper is distinguished by a scrupulous analysis of the critical literature (from the nineteenth century to contemporary critics) and careful lexical attention (especially for Latin terms, as in the case of inane p. 80). From F.'s words it emerges that the ‘Romanisation’ of Epicureanism involved a transformation over and above mere translation, with a strong philosophical penetration.

D. Armstrong, ‘Epicurean Virtues, Epicurean Friendship: Cicero vs the Herculaneum Papyri’, announces at the beginning the dichotomy that characterises his analysis of Epicurean friendship: Cicero's literary testimonies (primarily the first book of the De finibus) and the documentary evidence of Herculaneum papyri, in particular the papyri of Philodemus' works (On Choices and Avoidance, On rhetoric, etc.). Armstrong defines the particular role of friendship – similar to a religious mystery – among Epicurean virtues, explaining the inevitable risks of obscurity of this element, often coloured with Stoic influences. On the one hand he focusses his attention on some passages of Philodemus' treatises and, on the other hand, he looks for evidence of a strong misunderstanding in the Roman interpretation of Cicero. Regarding the epistles between the Arpinate and Cassius, it has to be noted that even nowadays clear philosophical evidence is hard to find (cf. the recent contributions of L. Canfora and G. Garbarino).Footnote ¹ Armstrong then corrects some passages not yet fully understood in Cicero's De finibus about friendship, taking advantage of Philodemus' texts like looking through a corrective lense.

The seventh paper, ‘Cicero's Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology’, by H. Essler, continues a major debate about the Quellenforschung of Cicero's philosophical works, in this case the De nat. deorum and its Epicurean section. Essler structures his study in a detailed comparison between large parts of the first book of Nat. D. and the obscure On the Gods of Philodemus, with some mention of Lucretius' testimony. Even if the valuable expertise of the papyrologist helps the author in unravelling the difficult testimonies of Philodemus, the triangle Epicurus–Philodemus–Cicero seems in any case nebulous and resistant to univocal interpretation; especially in the case of the deep prejudices against Cicero's Epicurean texts, the individuation of a doxographical pattern in the De nat. deorum and some similarities with Philodemus' On the Gods cannot exhaust a centuries-old querelle about Cicero's sources, but, on the contrary, helps us face its complexity.

The contributions of E. Asmis and V. Tsouna constitute a harmonic pair that examines the features of Epicurean anger. Asmis, ‘The Necessity of Anger in Philodemus’ On Anger', endeavours to humanise the figure of the Epicurean sage, whose ataraxia seems to come into contact with an emotion unrelated to Epicurean ethics. The convincing and detailed analysis of Philodemus' On Anger links this work to Epicurus' own texts and, at the same time, reconstructs the philosophical debate where the treatise was situated; Asmis's method proceeds by precise lexical explications that conciliate both Epicurean originality and the inner evolution of the doctrine, even without excluding a possible Stoic hybridisation. Asmis makes comparison not only with Stoicism but also with Aristotle and Roman philosophical testimonies, managing to subdivide and clarify each classification of anger.

Tsouna, ‘Philodemus, Seneca and Plutarch on Anger’, examines the same topic as the previous paper with an analytical and systematic method. This thematic study, starting from Philodemus' work, enucleates the main philosophical elements of the treatise and accurately breaks down its structure, showing the respective dialectics compared with other schools. The same process is repeated in Seneca's and Plutarch's works on anger: Tsouna points out several suppositions about the relationships between these treatises. Even though not all these relationships seem altogether convincing, this study constitutes at any rate a valuable exercise in style.

The final paper by S., ‘Philodemus and the Fear of Premature Death’, investigates the fragments of Philodemus' On death, with a method not dissimilar to the one adopted with anger in the other studies of this collection: the main focus is to overcome prejudices against Epicurean immunity to emotions and reveal several directions of innovation in the psychology of the Garden. In a fresh, dialogic and keen style, S. distinguishes the different types of fear related to death, concentrating on early death. After a short survey on the philosophical connections with Aristotelism and Stoicism, he focusses on Epicurus' and Philodemus' texts, proposing an accomplished reflection about Epicurean ethics and its summum bonum: the fibre of the Epicurean sage and the resilience of his happiness appear, according to this analysis, less invincible but perhaps also more human.