Alcaeus and Philiscus
two Epicurean philosophers expelled from Rome
Alcaeus and Philiscus (or Alcius and Philiscus; fl. 2nd century BC) were two Epicurean philosophers who were expelled from Rome in either 173 BC or 154 BC.
Athenaeus states that the expulsion occurred during the consulship of Lucius Postumius. This can either refer to the Lucius Postumius who was consul in 173 BC or the Lucius Postumius who was consul in 154 BC. Aelian states that they were expelled "because they had introduced the younger generation to many unnatural pleasures." This may just be a hostile remark which originated from an anti-Epicurean source, but it is also possible that this was the charge laid against them. Roman law in this period permitted the expulsion (relegatio) of any undesired person from Rome by magisterial decree, and it was often used to remove undesirable foreigners from the city. In 161 BC some teachers of rhetoric and philosophy had been expelled from the city. In 155 BC, a celebrated embassy of philosophers, consisting of Carneades (Academic), Diogenes (Stoic) and Critolaus (Peripatetic), had been sent from Athens to Rome where their teachings caused a sensation, and they were forced to leave. If Alcaeus and Philiscus were expelled from the city in 154 BC, then it would have been just one year after this event.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Alcaeus and Philiscus” as two Epicurean philosophers expelled from Rome. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as two Epicurean philosophers expelled from Rome. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 2, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q4712901.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Alcaeus and Philiscus”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Alcaeus and Philiscus primary sources, Alcaeus and Philiscus archive and Alcaeus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Alcaeus and Philiscus”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Alcaeus and Philiscus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.