The Garden vs. The Porch: Why Tyrants Feared the Stoics but Loved the Epicureans
By Adel Elsherif
 |
| The Garden vs. The Porch |
In the modern world, Stoicism is often marketed as a tool for personal productivity and "inner peace." But if we look at the 2nd Century CE, we find a much more radical story. Philosophy wasn't just a hobby; it was a political stance that could get you killed—or make you a favorite of the palace
1. Epicurus: The "Ruler-Friendly" Philosopher
Epicurus taught a policy of withdrawal. His famous advice was lathe biōsas—"live in obscurity." He believed that public life, politics, and the pursuit of fame were disturbances to the soul’s primary goal: Ataraxia (mental peace) and Aponia (the absence of physical pain).
For a ruler or a tyrant, Epicureanism was the "safe" philosophy. An emperor never had to worry about an Epicurean starting a revolution because they prioritized their own tranquility over social change.
2. A Case Study in Favor: Empress Plotina and the Epicureans
A perfect example of this "ruler-friendly" relationship occurred in 121 CE. Plotina, the widow of Emperor Trajan, was a devoted patroness of the Epicurean school in Athens.
A legal problem had arisen: by law, the head of the Epicurean school could only appoint a successor using a will written in Latin. This meant the best Greek candidates were excluded. Plotina used her immense imperial influence to write to Emperor Hadrian, asking for a special exemption so the school could choose their leaders in either Greek or Latin.
Hadrian granted the favor immediately.
While the Stoics were often viewed with suspicion for their "stubborn" principles, the Epicureans were busy securing legal loopholes through their high-society connections.
They didn't want to challenge the power of the Emperor; they wanted to use it to protect their private "Garden."
3. Stoicism: The Brave Opposition
Unlike the Epicureans, the Stoics were often hated by rulers. Why? Because the Stoic goal was not "tranquility," but Virtue.
To a Stoic, Virtue is doing everything good and right, regardless of the consequences. While they valued Wisdom and Justice, their ultimate aim was to imitate the benevolent nature and the Logos (the rational order of the universe).
This made them dangerous to tyrants because:
-Duty over Comfort: A Stoic would stand up for the truth even if it caused them physical harm.
- Social Responsibility: They believed in a "Social Duty" to the world-city (Cosmopolis).
- Defiance of Fear: If a tyrant threatened a Stoic with death, the Stoic viewed death as an "indifferent." You cannot control a person who is not afraid to die for the sake of what is right.
4. Radical Inclusivity
Despite their different political stances, both schools were revolutionary. Unlike the early days of Plato’s Academy, which was often reserved for the elite, the Stoics and Epicureans opened their doors to slaves, women, and the poor. They believed that the capacity for reason was a universal human trait, not a privilege of the upper class.
5. The Modern Misconception
Many people today claim to be "Stoics," but they are actually searching for Epicurean tranquility. They want to be "unbothered" by the world.
But true Stoicism isn't about finding an "Inner Citadel" to hide in; it’s about building a fortress in your mind so you can go out and fight for justice without breaking. Tranquility is a byproduct of doing what is right; it is not the goal itself.
The Mutiny: Avidius Cassius vs. Marcus Aurelius
While Marcus Aurelius was fighting a grueling war on the northern frontier, a rumor spread that he was dying. Avidius Cassius, the Governor of Syria, immediately declared himself Emperor.
1. The Epicurean Connection
As we discussed, the head of the Epicurean school at the time was a man named Avidius Heliodorus. Historians believe he was the father of the rebel general, Avidius Cassius.
The Conflict of Character: Cassius was a "hard" man—he was famous for his strict, often brutal discipline. He likely viewed Marcus Aurelius’s Stoic kindness and "philosopher-king" approach as weak.
The "Ruler-Friendly" Legacy: If Cassius was raised with Epicurean pragmatism, he may have believed that the Aponia (stability/lack of chaos) of the Empire required a "strongman" rather than a philosopher who spent his time meditating on the Logos.
2. The Stoic Response to Betrayal
The way Marcus Aurelius handled this mutiny is the ultimate proof of your point: Stoicism is about doing the right thing even when it hurts.
Most emperors would have responded with rage and a bloody purge.
Marcus, however, addressed his soldiers and expressed sadness, not for the lost power, but because he had lost a friend. He famously said he wished Cassius could be captured alive so he could forgive him and show the world that a Stoic could handle civil war with mercy.
3. The Tragic End
Before Marcus could reach him, Cassius was assassinated by his own officers. When his severed head was brought to Marcus, the Emperor refused to look at it and ordered it to be buried. He then burned Cassius’s private papers without reading them, so he wouldn't be tempted to punish the other conspirators.
