I am not well disposed toward this book because I gather the author is religiously based, but I see that he talks about the use of the term translated as "leisure" in Aristotle and Plato, so I thought I would mention it here. I found a copy and read a couple of chapters including this citation to Plato:
But the Gods, taking pity on human beings -
a race born to labor - gave them regularly
recurring divine festivals, as a means of
refreshment from their fatigue; they gave
them the Muses, and Apollo and Dionysus as
the leaders of the Muses, to the end that,
after refreshing themselves in the company of
the Gods, they might return to an upright
posture.
- Plato
The parts that I have read are fairly interesting in the way that they examine the Greek attitude toward leisure, and given that I think in modern usage "leisure" is considered to be a lightweight term, the book might have some worthwhile material.
What struck me as most interesting was his analysis of the background of the term, and it's possible some of the analysis might be helpful here even though the book itself does not mention Epicurus and is probably Epicurean-unfriendly in its overall worldview.
I note that the original is in German and the book seems to be well regarded
This is not a very helpful post as I didn't get as far in reading it as I would have liked, but to the extent it might be helpful in explaining the ancient Greek/Roman attitude toward "leisure" it might contain some worthwhile data.
... one of these foundations is leisure. We can read it in the first chapter of Aristotle’s
Metaphysics. And the very history of the meaning of the word bears
a similar message. The Greek word for leisure (σχoλη´) is the origin
of Latin scola, German Schule, English school. The name for the
institutions of education and learning means ”leisure”.
Of course, the original meaning of the concept of ”leisure” has
practically been forgotten in today’s leisure–less culture of ”total
work”: in order to win our way to a real understanding of leisure,
we must confront the contradiction that rises from our overemphasis
on the world of work. ”One does not only work in order to live,
but one lives for the sake of one’s work,” this statement, quoted by
Max Weber, makes immediate sense to us, and appeals to current
opinion. It is difficult for us to see how in fact it turns the order of
things upside-down.
And what would be our response to another statement? ”We
work in order to be at leisure.” Would we hesitate to say thet here
the world is really turned upside-down? Doesn’t this statement ap-
pear almost imorral to the man and woman of the world of ”total
work”? Is it not an attack on the basic principles of human society?
Now, I have not merely constructed a sentence to prove a point.
The statement was actually made - by Aristotle2
. Yes, Aristotle: the sober, industrious realist, and the fact that he said it, gives the state-
ment special significance. What he says in a more literal translation
would be: ”We are not–at–leisure in order to be–at–leisure.” For the
Greeks, ”not–leisure” was the word for the world of everyday work;
and not only to indicate its ”hustle and bustle,” but the work itself.
The Greek language had only this negative term for it (´α−σχoλ´ια),
as did Latin (neg-otium, ”not–leisure”).
The context not only of this sentence but also of another one fromAristotle’s Politics (stating that the ”pivot” around which everything turns is leisure) shows that these notions were not considered
extraordinary, but only self-evident: the Greeks would probably not
have understood our maxims about ”work for the sake of work”.