Editing Gaius Cassius Longinus (section)

==Epicureanism==
"Among that select band of philosophers who have managed to change the world," writes [[David Sedley]], "it would be hard to find a pair with a higher public profile than Brutus and Cassius – brothers-in-law, fellow-assassins, and [[William Shakespeare|Shakespearian]] heroes," adding that "it may not even be widely known that they ''were'' philosophers."<ref>[[David Sedley]], "The [[Ethics]] of Brutus and Cassius," ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 87 (1997) 41–53.</ref>

Like Brutus, whose [[Stoicism|Stoic]] proclivities are widely assumed but who is more accurately described as an [[Antiochus of Ascalon|Antiochean Platonist]], Cassius exercised a long and serious interest in philosophy. His early philosophical commitments are hazy, though [[D.R. Shackleton Bailey]] thought that a remark by Cicero<ref>Cicero, ''Ad familiares'' [http://www.attalus.org/translate/cassius.html#15.16 xv.16.3].</ref> indicates a youthful adherence to the [[Platonic Academy|Academy]].<ref>As cited by Miriam Griffin, "Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome," in ''Philosophia togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).</ref> Sometime between 48 and 45 BC, however, Cassius famously converted to the school of thought founded by [[Epicurus]]. Although Epicurus advocated a withdrawal from politics, at Rome his philosophy was made to accommodate the careers of many prominent men in public life, among them Caesar's father-in-law, [[Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (consul 58 BC)|Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus]].<ref>For a survey of Roman Epicureans active in politics, see [[Arnaldo Momigliano]], review of ''Science and Politics in the Ancient World'' by Benjamin Farrington (London 1939), in ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 31 (1941), pp. 151–157.</ref> [[Arnaldo Momigliano]] called Cassius' conversion a "conspicuous date in the history of Roman [[Epicureanism]]," a choice made not to enjoy the pleasures of the [[Epicureanism#History|Garden]], but to provide a philosophical justification for assassinating a tyrant.<ref>Momigliano, ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 31 (1941), p. 151.</ref>

Cicero associates Cassius's new Epicureanism with a willingness to seek peace in the aftermath of the [[Caesar's civil war|civil war between Caesar and Pompeius]].<ref>Miriam Griffin, "The Intellectual Developments of the Ciceronian Age," in ''The Cambridge Ancient History'' (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 726 [https://books.google.com/books?id=3yUkzNLiY4oC&dq=%22Cassius%27+conversion%22&pg=PA726 online.]</ref> [[Miriam Griffin]] dates his conversion to as early as 48 BC, after he had fought on the side of Pompeius at the [[Battle of Pharsalus]] but decided to come home instead of joining the last holdouts of the [[civil war]] in [[Africa Province|Africa]].<ref>''Spe pacis et odio civilis sanguinis'' ("with a hope of peace and a hatred of shedding blood in civil war"), Cicero, ''Ad fam''. [http://www.attalus.org/translate/cassius.html#15.15 xv.15.1]; Miriam Griffin, "Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome," in ''Philosophia togata'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).</ref> Momigliano placed it in 46 BC, based on a letter by Cicero to Cassius dated January 45.<ref>For a quotation of the Epicurean passage in this letter, see article on the philosopher [[Catius#Sources|Catius]].</ref> Shackleton Bailey points to a date of two or three years earlier.<ref>[[D.R. Shackleton Bailey]], ''Cicero Epistulae ad familiares'', vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 378 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Fp487vO6Hs4C&dq=%22Cassius%27+conversion%22&pg=PA378 online], in a note to one of Cicero's letters to Cassius (''Ad fam''. [http://www.attalus.org/translate/cassius.html#15.17 xv.17.4]), pointing to evidence he believed Momigliano had overlooked.</ref>

The dating bears on, but is not essential to, the question of whether Cassius justified the murder of Caesar on Epicurean grounds. Griffin argues that his intellectual pursuits, like those of other Romans, may be entirely removed from any practical application in the realm of politics.<ref>Miriam Griffin, "Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome," in ''Philosophia togata'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), particularly citing [[Plutarch]], ''Caesar'' [https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html#66 66.2] on a lack of philosophical justification for killing Caesar: Cassius is said to commit the act despite his devotion to Epicurus.</ref> Romans of the Late Republic who can be identified as Epicureans are more often found among the supporters of Caesar, and often literally in his camp. Momigliano argued, however, that many of those who opposed Caesar's dictatorship bore no personal animus toward him, and [[Republicanism]] was more congenial to the Epicurean way of life than [[Roman dictator|dictatorship]]. The Roman concept of ''[[libertas]]'' had been integrated into [[Greek philosophy|Greek philosophical studies]], and though Epicurus' theory of the political governance admitted various forms of government based on consent, including but not limited to [[democracy]], a tyrannical state was regarded by Roman Epicureans as incompatible with the [[Summum bonum|highest good]] of pleasure, defined as freedom from pain. Tyranny also threatened the Epicurean value of ''[[parrhesia]]'' (παρρησία), "truthful speaking," and the movement toward [[Imperial cult (ancient Rome)|deifying]] Caesar offended Epicurean belief in abstract gods who lead an ideal existence removed from mortal affairs.<ref>Arnaldo Momigliano, ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 31 (1941), pp. 151–157. Summary of Cassius's Epicureanism also in David Sedley, "The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius," ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 87 (1997), p. 41.</ref>

Momigliano saw Cassius as moving from an initial Epicurean orthodoxy, which emphasised disinterest in matters not of vice and virtue, and [[ataraxia|detachment]], to a "heroic Epicureanism."<ref name="Momigliano, 1941 p. 157">Momigliano, ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 31 (1941), p. 157.</ref> For Cassius, virtue was active. In a letter to Cicero, he wrote:

{{cquote|I hope that people will understand that for all, cruelty exists in proportion to hatred, and goodness and clemency in proportion to love, and evil men most seek out and crave the things which accrue to good men. It's hard to persuade people that ‘the good is desirable for its own sake'; but it's both true and creditable that pleasure and tranquility are obtained by virtue, justice, and the good. Epicurus himself, from whom all your [[Catius|Catii]] and [[Amafinius|Amafinii]]<ref>[[Catius]] and [[Amafinius]] were Epicurean philosophers known for their popularizing approach and criticized by Cicero for their dumbed-down [[prose]] style.</ref> take their leave as poor interpreters of his words, says ‘there is no living pleasantly without living a good and just life.'<ref>''Ad familiares'' [http://www.attalus.org/translate/cassius.html#15.19 xv.19]; Shackleton Bailey's Latin text of this letter is available [https://books.google.com/books?id=Fp487vO6Hs4C&dq=%22Non+mehercule+in+hac+mea+peregrinatione%22&pg=PA61 online.]</ref>}}

Sedley agrees that the conversion of Cassius should be dated to 48, when Cassius stopped resisting Caesar, and finds it unlikely that Epicureanism was a sufficient or primary motivation for his later decision to take violent action against the dictator. Rather, Cassius would have had to reconcile his intention with his philosophical views. Cicero provides evidence<ref>Cicero, ''De republica'' [http://attalus.org/translate/republic1a.html#10 1.10].</ref> that Epicureans recognized circumstances when direct action was justified in a political crisis. In the quotation above, Cassius explicitly rejects the idea that morality is  good to be chosen for its own sake; morality, as a means of achieving pleasure and ''[[ataraxia]]'', is not inherently superior to the removal of political anxieties.<ref>David Sedley, "The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius," ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 87 (1997), pp. 41 and 46–47.</ref>

The inconsistencies between traditional Epicureanism and an active approach to securing freedom ultimately could not be resolved, and during the [[Roman Empire|Empire]], the philosophy of political opposition tended to be Stoic. This circumstance, Momigliano argues, helps explain why historians of the Imperial era found Cassius more difficult to understand than Brutus, and less admirable.<ref name="Momigliano, 1941 p. 157"/>