CASTNER, CATHERINE J., Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Deities? , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.51 

Epicurean Hetairai 
As Dedicants to Healing Deities? 

Catherine J. Castner 

SEVEN WOMEN appear in the various sources as members of his 
School during the lifetime of Epicurus. All seven are stated to 
have been hetairai. It is a striking fact, but never discussed, that 

names of four of these hetairai are found in contemporary inscrip­
tions! The four made dedications to healing gods at about the time 
the School was founded or soon after. The correspondences between 
the epigraphical and literary sources may be shown as follows: 

Inscriptions 
IC If2 1534.27 

IC II2 1534.41 

SEC XVI 300.6 
SEC XVI 300.9 
SEC XVI 300.12 

NLKioLOl! 
'HoELa 
Bot-oLOl! 

Literary sources 
Philodemos, P.Hercul. 1oo5.v. 
15-16; Timokrates in Diog. 
Laert. 10.7 
Timokrates; Plut. Mor. 1089c, 
10970 
Timokrates; Plut. 10970 
(as above) 
Plut. 109702 

In addition, the literary sources list as living with Epicurus and mem­
bers of his School the following women: Demetria (Phld., P.Hercul. 
1005.v.16-17), Erotion (Timokrates in Diog.Laert. 10.7), and Leon­
tion 00.4, and also, because of her intellectual prowess, in other 
writers).3 

I The coincidences of names in literary and inscriptional evidence were first noticed 
by Professor Sterling Dow, who proposed the identification of dedicants with hetairai 
and suggested that I investigate the possibility and its implications. Although F. Bech­
tel, Die atfische Frauennamen (Gottingen 1902) 66, suggested that the Mammarion of 
IG 112 1534.27 was the Epicurean hetaira, there has been no subsequent discussion 
even of this identification. 

2 For the Herculaneum papyrus see F. Sbordone, Phi/ademi adversus Saphistas (Naples 
1947) 89, 137-39. Epicurean material will be cited by the numbering of G. Arrighetti, 
Epicura Opere2 (Turin 1973), with references to Diogenes' Life added where appro­
priate. The comment of Timokrates (10.7) that the four hetairai lived with Epicurus 
and Metrodorus is excluded by Arrighetti from the Life and placed instead with the 
fragments of the letters (101). 

3 We possess some further information about women associated with the School. 
Leontion married Metrodorus; they had a son and daughter. Themista and her husband 

51 



CASTNER, CATHERINE J., Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Deities? , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.51 

52 EPICUREAN HETAIRAI AS DEDICANTS? 

In both inscriptions Epicurean names occur in close proximity to 
one another. This implies that the women dedicated in sequence or in 
a group. These coincidences raise a fundamental question, first recog­
nized by Sterling Dow. Are the dedicants named in these inventories 
in fact the Epicurean hetairai? Or were Epicurus' teachings regarding 
the gods (specifically their lack of interest and intervention in human 
affairs) so rigidly followed by members of the School that such dedi­
cations would have been unthinkable? 

The evidence of the inscriptions is clear with respect to the names 
themselves. IG lIZ 1534 is an inventory from the Asklepieion on the 
South Slope of the Akropolis. It preserves most of the record for 
more than two decades, and is now positively dated to the last quar­
ter of the fourth century B.C.4 The dedications in question were made 
in 30110. The text of line 27 survives as follows: [---]EV & Ma~~[&]­
PWV a[vE8'71KE---1. Lines 40-41 are' better preserved~ the part which 
concerns us reads 1-1-1- I- : &~ a[vE8'71KEV]tHBELa. SEG XVI 300 is a 
partial inventory of dedications to Amphiaraos at Oropos. M. T 
Mitsos published the inscription and, on the basis of the style of its 
lettering, dated it to the first half of the third century B.C.5 Lines 6, 
9, and 12-13 read as follows: 

[---] nmlov- NI.KLBwv nmlov· 
[---nmi]ov· <HBELa nmlov· SEW nm[lov]· 
[---Ka]AAI.CT'TW ocp8aA~lx;· BotBwv ocp8a[~lx;'---] 

Of the four women in question, two possessed rare names. Of the 
four names Hedeia is the most common~ in later years another 
woman of this name made dedications to Asklepios, recorded in IG 
lIZ 1534.201, 262, 265, 287. Boidion is only moderately uncommon~ a 
preliminary search reveals ten occurrences. The name Mammarion, 
though of a familiar type,6 is otherwise unknown in Attica. Nikidion 
occurs as the name of a Salaminian married to an Athenian (IG 112 
10204, dated to the second century B.C.), but no other instance is 

Leonteus, both of Lampsakos, lived in Lampsakos; she may never have come to 
Athens. The name Themista is not known in Attica. The other women associated by 
family relationships with Epicurus or the Kepos are: Khairestrate, his mother; Batis, 
sister of Metrodorus, wife of Idomeneus; Sande, mother of Batis; Danae, daughter of 
Leontion. In a study of Epicurus and the Kepos which we hope to publish, S. Dow will 
re-edit the relevant passages in the Philodemos papyri; the orthography given above 
conforms to the results of this study. 

4 See W. K. Pritchett and B. D. Meritt, The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens (Cam­
bridge [Mass.] 1940) 47-73, 76. 

6 ArchEph 1953-54 II 161 and fig. 2. 
6 L. Robert, Hellenica 6 (1948) 90. 



CASTNER, CATHERINE J., Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Deities? , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.51 

CATHERINE 1. CASTNER 53 

known. The rarity in Attica of these two latter names at least leads 
naturally to the suspicion that the correspondence between literary 
and inscriptional evidence is more than coincidence. 

Epicurus' philosophy denied divine interest or intervention in hu­
man affairs. Should we view the coincidences of names as mere coinci­
dence, on the grounds that Epicurus would never have permitted such 
activity? Or could the hetairai of his School have made these dedica­
tions? If the latter is the case, their behavior demands explanation. 

Among the abundant testimony on Epicurus' beliefs about the 
gods is the first Sovereign Maxim (5.1), that the divine "is never 
constrained by anger or favor." A similar denial occurs in the cynical 
comment "if god listened to the prayers of men, all men would 
quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against 
one another."7 Epicurus warns Menoeceus (4.123) that the gods are 
not such as the many believe them to be. A purported letter of Epi­
curus to an unknown friend warns, "only be careful that you do not 
permit any admixture of fear of the gods or of the supposition that in 
acting as you do you are winning the favor of the gods."8 Belief in 
divine apathy was a fundamental tenet of Epicurean theology; the 
many surviving statements to this effect need not be adduced here. 

Yet Epicurean piety appears to have observed a fine distinction. 
Although Epicurus, in accordance with the teachings just noted, ex­
pected no benefits from worship other than a general increase in 
spiritual well-being, he advised participation in traditional religious 
forms. Epicurus himself respected the Feast of Pitchers and the 
Mysteries.9 Philodemos attests in llEpi EV(J"E/3ELaS (93) that Epicurus 
loyally observed the traditional feasts and sacrifices. He even pre­
scribed that the wise man EiKova~ TE ava8~(J"E/.,v (1.121b [Diog.Laert. 
10.120]). Various exhortations to Epicurean piety survive. The same 
work of Philodemos quotes Epicurus (114): 

Let us at least sacrifice piously and rightly where it is customary, 
and let us do all things rightly according to the laws, not troubling 
ourselves with common beliefs in what concerns the noblest and 
holiest of beings. Further let us be free of any charge in regard to 
their opinion. For thus can one live in conformity with nature. 

7 Gnom.cod.Par. 1168 f. 11Y; c. Bailey, Epicurus, the Extant Remains (Oxford 1926) 
134 (omitted from Arrighetti). 

8 P.Oxy. II 215.902-04; H. Diels, "Ein epikureisches Fragment tiber Gotterver­
ehrung," SitzBerlin 1916,886-909. 

993; A.-J. Festugiere, Epicurus and his Gods (Oxford 1955) 53 states that Epicurus 
here refers to himself. But since the letter (to Phyrson) concerns a certain Theodotus, 
it is not absolutely clear that Epicurus is not referring to this person. 



CASTNER, CATHERINE J., Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Deities? , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.51 

54 EPICUREAN HETAIRAI AS DEDICANTS? 

In contrast to this ideal is the excessively superstitious religious 
activity which Lucretius (5.1198-1202) claims is not true piety: wor­
shipping stones, prostrating oneself before altars, sprinkling altars 
with animal blood, and making vows. 

Epicurean piety was not, then, contradictory in nature; as Hadzsits 
summarizes the attitude, "Sacrifices might properly continue-not, 
however, as a means of influencing or of assisting deity, but more 
nearly as an expression of admiration for divinity. "10 For Epicurus, 
the gods' tranquillity was an ideal which men must attempt to imi­
tate. Despite his prescription about dedication of images, Epicurus did 
not intend that one expect anything in return for the dedication. And 
although the dedication of TV1TUx by Nikidion and Hedeia might fall 
into the category of approved dedications, Hedeia's four drachmai 
cannot be construed as anything but solicitation of the god's inter­
vention. Examination of the nature and procedures of the healing 
cults, moreover, shows that the dedicants could not, in theory, have 
participated in them while maintaining Epicurus' standards of piety. 
Any votive offerings to Asklepios and Amphiaraos implied an ex­
pectation of reciprocity. 

Ancient writers (e.g., Aristophanes, in whose Plutus [633-747] 
Asklepios cured the blind god) and inscriptional evidence from the 
cult sanctuaries, especially those in Attica and Epidaurus, have left us 
abundant descriptions of the activities at the shrines. l1 A sufferer 
went to the temple (at Oropos one paid an entrance fee), 12 bathed, 
offered sacrifices,13 and went to sleep in the temple. During the 
patient's incubation, the god (or rather the priest and his assistant in 
disguise) appeared to him and healed the disease or advised a certain 
treatment. After waking cured, the patient had to pay a thank-offer­
ing for the cure: a cock was the private citizen's common offering (c! 
PI. Phd. 118A). 

The gifts listed in the inventories which include our inscriptions 
were votive offerings, promised in hopes of cures. The god at times 
even participated in the process of the vow, stipulating a certain 
offering. IG IV2 121.68-70 relates that a boy came to the temple and 
the god himself asked what his offering would be: "What will you 
give me if I cure you?" "Ten dice," the boy answered. Another time 

10 G. D. Hadzsits, "Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans," TAPA 39 (1908) 87. 
11 See Emma 1. and Ludwig Edelstein, Asc/epius, a Collection and Interpretation q( the 

Testimonies (Baltimore 1945). 
12 See A. Petropoulou, GRBS 22 (1981) 39-63. 
13 According to Paus. 1.34.5, Amphiaraos expected his visitors to sleep in the skin of 

a sacrificial animal. 



CASTNER, CATHERINE J., Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Deities? , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.51 

CATHERINE 1. CASTNER 55 

(121.33-41) the god ordered an unbeliever to dedicate a silver sow in 
memory of her folly. The general atmosphere of the healing cults 
should be obvious from these examples. Hardly any other aspect of 
Greek rite involved more hope of reciprocity and divine intervention, 
more expectation of quid pro quo, as each worshipper vowed an 
offering on condition that the god lay hands upon his body or inter­
vene in the medical sense. We must conclude that these cults will 
have been repugnant to Epicurus. 

Nothing suggests that Epicurus, who suffered from ill health all his 
life, excepted the healing cults from his condemnation of traditional 
theology. He wrote a work on disease (1.28), and Metrodorus wrote 
one on Epicurus' ill health and another against the physicians (1.21), 
but all these are lost. Health of the body was a requisite for living the 
600d life. In addition, to judge from the extant fragments, Epicurus 
was fond of the comparison of spiritual trouble to physical sickness, 
and of philosophy to medicine.14 Several fragments testify to the sever­
ity of Epicurus' final illness; nowhere do we find approving or critical 
mention of healing cults, although during an illness he is said to have 
discussed philosophy and declined to entrust himself to the customary 
insolence of physicians (259). This accords well with the fragments of a 
letter to Idomeneus in which Epicurus declares that the severe pain of 
his illness is balanced by the joys of philosophical conversation (52). 
He felt that all physical suffering was endurable, as "that which causes 
acute pain has short duration, and that which endures long in the flesh 
causes but mild pain" (6.4). Among the attributes of the wise man is 
the ability to bear disease with fortitude (133). The frequency and in­
tensity of his own illnesses do not seem to have led Epicurus to con­
done healing cults or even the 'scientific' medicine of the physicians. 

Their gender would hardly have exempted these women from ex­
posure or expected adherence to the master's precepts. No explicit 
statement assures us that those women whose names coincide with 
the dedicators in the inscriptions were full members of the School. In 
fact, we are not certain how the School defined membership, but 
those who attended the monthly banquets were in all probability 
members. Rist seems sensible in deducing from evidence in Philo­
demos that women were full members, in accepting the tradition of 
Hedeia's origin from Cyzicus, and in concluding that she and the 
other female followers except Leontion were part of the migration 
Epicurus led out of Asia Minor.15 Rist also reasonably distinguishes 

14 Examples of such analogies are abundant, e.g., 247 and 216. 
15 J. M. Rist, Epicurus: an Introduction (Cambridge 1972) 7-10. 



CASTNER, CATHERINE J., Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Deities? , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.51 

56 EPICUREAN HETAIRAI AS DEDICANTS? 

Leontion as an Athenian who joined the School after its relocation at 
Athens. Leontion was surely a full member, for Epicurus made her 
president of the School for a day.16 A hetaira of unusual education, 
she refuted Theophrastus in a book and wrote excellent AtticP In 
view of the School's reputation for coercing loyaltyI8 and the literary 
mentions of the hetairai as closely associated with Epicurus and with 
members of the School, it seems likely that these other women as 
well attended the banquets and were members. 

The dates of the inscriptions might be thought to allow the pos­
sibility that the women made the dedications before they accepted the 
teachings of Epicurus. The dedications to Asklepios were made in 
301/0; there is greater latitude in dating those to Amphiaraos, which 
might have been made at any time from the end of the fourth cen­
tury to around 250 B.C. The School was founded in 304, according to 
Ariston (1.14 [Diog.Laert. 10.15]). But if the women were Ionian 
courtesans who came from Lampsakos with Epicurus and many of 
the original members, they would have been aware of his feelings 
about superstition at the time of the dedications. 

If we cannot support the identifications with evidence that Epicurus 
would have approved the practices of the healing cults or that women 
associates were excused from the School's rules of conduct, we can 
support them by appealing to evidence of Epicurus' attitude towards 
errant students. Once the women had made the dedications, they 
would have found indulgence and forgiveness on the return to the 
Kepos. Such a conclusion is supported by fragments of Philodemos' 
nEpt 7TapP'YIul.at;.19 From these we learn that the spirit of CPLAI.a ex­
tended to correction of disciples' misdemeanors. Correction was not 
to be applied for all offenses; it was to be applied sympathetically and 
without insult or abuse.20 Even those members of the School more 
advanced in reasoning than the students-and possibly hetairai other 
than Leontion belonged in this group-were allowed to make mis­
takes from time to time.21 

16 C. Jensen, "Ein neuer Brief Epikurs," AbhGottingen N.S. III 5 (I933) 12ff, 45ff: 
Asklepios reassures Epicurus against Timokrates' criticism of his appointment of Leon­
tion to this office (the letter is apparently from Epicurus to Idomeneus on the subject 
of pride). (f. Festugiere (supra n.9) 43 n.18. 

17 Cic. Nat.D. 1.93, Orat. 151~ Plin. HN prae.f. 29. 
18 E.g., Sen. Ep. 25.5, sicfac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus. 
19 Ed. A. Olivieri (Leipzig 1914). (r the analysis by N. W. De Witt, "Organization 

and Procedure in Epicurean Groups," CP 31 (I936) 205-11. Although De Witt's 
conclusions on the organization of Epicurean groups have not found wide acceptance, 
the fragments are clear in their urging of forgiveness and indulgence for errant pupils. 

20 79.4-11 Olivieri; De Witt (supra n.19) 209. 
21 56.1-3 Olivieri; De Witt (supra n.19) 208-09. 



CASTNER, CATHERINE J., Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Deities? , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.51 

CATHERINE 1. CASTNER 57 

In sum, it would be naive to reject the proposed identifications on 
the grounds that Epicurean theology was in principle at odds with the 
practices of the healing sanctuaries. These cults surely embodied for 
Epicurus the worst aspects of traditional religion. But the realistic 
assumption is that deviations from the path to wisdom were ex­
pected, that Epicureans who contemplated error knew that indulgence 
and sympathetic correction would await them. The latitude in the 
circumstances surrounding the dedications and in the Epicurean phi­
losophy itself allows acceptance of the identifications.22 

THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

December, 1981 

22 A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Classical Asso­
ciation of the Middle West and South, 3 April 1981. I am extremely grateful to Pro­
fessor Dow for his inspiration and help at every stage of the paper's preparation. I wish 
also to thank an anonymous reader for GRBS whose suggestions have improved the 
paper.