Cicero on the Epicurean Gods

8/14/2019 Cicero on the Epicurean Gods

1/6

Cicero on the Epicurean GodsAuthor(s): John MassonSource: The Classical Review, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Jun., 1902), pp. 277-281Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/695473Accessed: 25/10/2008 06:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/695473?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/695473?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/6

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.HE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 27777

INTERROGATIVE COMMANDS.NTERROGATIVE COMMANDS.

hibitive. This notion of a prohibitivetxr/ with future indicative (Goodwin, M.T.? 70) is certainly untenable, and cannotbe supported by ?bvXdET,E-Kal-,uy-fiovk~(recrOe(' you will take-care-and-not-wish ') Dem.Aristocr. ? 117, and the similar sentencein Lysias, Or. 29 ? 13 (Bekker 19): withwhich may be compared Gorg. 510 d, ~rvaaYV Tpotrov ?yd? {eya ovva3tfJtv *Kal 0?iEfL geaoiKOt;

I come back to the explanation-as ovfJL??l


3/6

278 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

corrupt texts bearing on Epicurean theologymust be taken into account. I hope erelong to discuss the subject in

full elsewhere.Epicurus must have treated the subject of

theGods

atlength

but,evidently,

ina way

which too much taxed the patience of hisopponents, who may have some excuse fornot thoroughly grasping his point of view.Light was first thrown on the subject bySchoemann in his admirable paper

'On the

Theology of E,picurus,'x and Mr. Mayor inhis excellent commentary on Cicero's DeNatura Deoruw has grappled fairly andfully with all the difficulties of the questionand has left the subject much clearer thanhe found it.

Lachelier's theory is based upon a passage

of Cicero which is so vague in expressionthat the interpretation is almost hopelesslydifficult. Schoemann says that Cicero him-self could not have understood what hewrote here. All scholars agree that Cicerois here translating from a Greek original.It appears to me certain that he is notmerely translating but also attempting tocondense and give the gist of a passagewhich baffled his understanding or, probably,which he grudged taking the pains to under-stand. He begins by referring sarcastically

to Epicurus'sdefinition

of theDivine nature

as one too subtle for an average mind tounderstand and apologises for the briefnesswith which he is going to set it forth.Probably every clause of his Latin repre-sents a sentence at least in the Greek.Cotta, the Academic critic, referring to theDivine images, says If you yourselves whodefeted he doctrine understood it, I shouldthen be ashamed to say Ido not understandit' (? 109).

Thus Cicero warns us broadlyenough that his account of the subject mustbe eceived with caution.

The passage runs: IIaec quamquam etinventa sunt acutius et dicta subtilius abEpicuro, quam t quivis

a possit agnoscere,2tamen fretus intelligentia vestra disserobrevius quam causa desiderat. Epicurusautem, qui

res occultas et penitus abditasnon modo viderit animo, sed etiam sictractet, ut manu, docet earn esse vim etnaturam eorum, ut primnum non ensu, sedmente cernatur, nec oliditate quadam nequeeademr~ d numerum sit,3 ut ea, quae llepropter irmitatem o''epe'tvia ppellat' sed,

1De Epicuri Theologia, puscula, ol. iv. pp. 336-359. Hirzel also discusses the subject with his

usual cuteness,'

Untersuchungen zuCicero's hilo-sophischenchriften,' Part I. 1877.

Not too hard for anyone to understand' but'for very one,' i.e. for the average person.3 Mayornserts the words adem., .sit.

imaginibus similitudine et transitione4 per-ceptis, cum infinita simillimarum ,magi,Jumseries5 ex innumerabilib,Js indlviduis exsistatet ad nos6 affluat, cum7 maximis voluptatibusin eas

imaginesmentem

intentam infixamquenostram intellegentiam capere, quae sit etbeata natura et aeternas (De Nat. D. I. 49).

The careless scribes who altered ad nosfirst to ad eos and then to ad deos havecalled forth much wasted ingenuity.

The conclusion is forced upon me thatCicero has confused the word crxaTa whichhe found in his original in the sense ' theDivine bodies' with o'(~[xara in its commonsense, 'atoms.' He repeats this misunder-standing later at ? 105 where Cotta, thecritic of the Academy, repeats his opponent'sdefinition of the Divine being, before criti-cising it, in the same order as at ? 49, whilein his final clause mens nostra confirms usin reading ad nos.

Sic enim dicebas speciem Dei percipicogitatione, non sensu, nee esse in ea ullamsoliditatem neque eandem ad numerum per-manere, eamque esse ejus visionem ut simi-litudine et transitione cernatur, neque de-ficiat unquam ex infinitis corporibus imiliumaccessio, ex eoque fieri ut in haec intentamens nostra beatam illam naturam et sem-

piternam putet.(Similitudine and transitione imply theword maginum which must be supplied withsimilium.)

How could imagines be produced from'atoms'? Imagines can only come from a'thing,' here a form in human shape. Is itpossible that the text at ? 49 has becomecorrupt and that for ex innumerabilibus in-dividuis we ought to read ex innumerabilibuscorporibus divinis, the words divinus andiodividuus being at times confused in theMSS..? Immediately after this passage (in? 50) Cicero shews that the number of

4Transitione. The context would seem torequirecontinuatione, aontinued eries' rather han trans-itione. It s only the continued tream of mageswhich an cause perception: singly, these imagesare mperceptible. See Lucr. v. 87-9: 104-9:256f.

5 he MSS. ead species. I ollow Brieger's x-cellentmendation hich seems almost required byaffluat. ee Mayor's ote. If Cicero wrote species,itwould only be in keeping with the vagueness fthe hole passage.

6 TheMSS. have deos: ne or two eos. The cor-rection sdue to Lambihus.

7Giussani hanges cum to turn and makeshisword the beginning of a new sentence (Studi

Lucreziani, . 259).8 Schoemanneads quae sit et beatae naturae etaeternae: ut the words as they stand give thenecessary eaning: what that being s which is atoncelessedand eternal.'


4/6

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 279

immortal beings is as countless as that ofmortals. It is more probable that we haveto deal at ? 49 with a careless translationthan with a corruption, but it seems not too

bold to say that Cicero's Greek originalthere had 'from the countless Divine bodies.'Doubtless the never-ceasing flow of Divineimages presupposes an infinity of matter,but it presupposes still more directly aninfinite number of Gods.

Epicurus uses the word ,rTepejuvLa o denote' solid bodies.'1 It could not be applied, forexample, to the E[3coXawhich are films, havingcomparatively no depth. Scott says 'Theclause (ut ea quae ille propter firmitatemtrTEpElvta ppellat) would seem to assert thatthe Gods are of the nature of E[o)Xa atherthan of tangible bodies or are surfaces ratherthan solids. And this agrees perfectly withwhat we are told elsewhere about the quasi-corpus of the Gods.' He then quotes Cotta'ssaying that the Divine bodies have nihilconcreti, nihil solidi. nihil expressi, nihileminentis (? 75) and says that other con-temptuous references by opponents (e.g.I. 123 lineamentis dumtaxat extremis, nonhabitu solido: II. 59 monogrammos deos,' Gods in outline': de Div. II. 40, deos per-lucidos et perflabiles) all suggest beings

having shape or outline, but not bulk.' Theaim of such sarcastic references is by ex-aggeration to make the Gods of Epicurus abutt for ridicule: they cannot be takenliterally and used for evidence. If the bodiesof the Gods must not be called ' solid,' it isnot because they are 'films,' but becausetheir texture is too ethereal.

Scott explains the passage thus: 'TheGods, though material, are not firm andsolid like the gross bodies of men and visiblethings, but of a far finer texture. Theyhave not numerical or material but onlyformal identity; in other words, the matterof which they are composed, instead of re-maining fixed and identically the samethrough a finite space of time, as is the casewith visible and tangible objects, is per-petually passing away to be replaced by freshmatter, the form or arrangement of matteralone remaining unchanged. They areformed by perpetual successions of "images"or material films, of precisely similar form,which, having arisen (in some unexplainedway) out of the infinite atoms dispersed

through the universe, stream toa

sort offocus and there, by their meeting constitutefor a moment, the being of the gods: thenstreaming away again in all directions, theypass into the (material) mind of man.'

1 Diog. L. x. 50.

Scott, following Hirzel, quotes fromAristotle to shew that 'nee ad numerumrepresents the Greek Kar' aptO/ov as opposedto Kaz' eT8os. The former phrase denotes a

thing which is permanently the same in itsmaterial substance, like the pond, as opposedto that which changes in matter but remainsthe same in form alone (?avro Kaz' Es8os) likethe river. The Divine body is like theriver.

The images which form the Divine bodiesarise out of infinite matter 'in some unex-plained way,' says Lachelier. Mr. Scottsays, ' Ne clear explanation of the origin ofthe images can be given.' The images pass' from the places where they take their riseto the point where by their meeting theyconstitute, for a moment, the Divine beingand from that point again to the humanmind.' But, before all else, it is necessaryfor the proof of such a theory to explainhow the images come into being. Accordingto Epicurus no 'image' can be producedfrom anything but a 'thing' or compoundsubstance (res): atoms can never, even ifinfinite in number produce an image inhuman form except through the medium ofa human being.

How can we reconcile such fanciful

abstractions as these with the harmlessEpicurean gods who enjoy all good things andconstantly meditate on their own happiness ?Lucretius states that ' Nature supplies allthe needs of the gods' in the intermundia.Philodemus asserts that they require anduse food; statements which cannot wellapply to bodies which are mere superficies.How can beings whose body is merely surfacewithout bulk continue to throw off in suchconstant streams those Divine images which,however rare, are still material ~ Whyshould the focuses at which the imagesmeet have the power to generate a Divinebody in human likeness from matter which,the next moment is flying from them in theshape of Divine images What use havesuch phantoms as these, who have no indi-vidual existence or personality, for speechand philosophic converse, which Philodemusinsists they enjoy ? Again, had Scott'snotion been true, is it likely that not one ofthe many critics who make merry overEpicurus's theology would have exploitedthese Deities-in-flux on the humorous side ?

But the whole theory insults the ingenuityof Epicurus who could easily, if put to it,have devised something far more plausible.Epicurus was the last man to have thoughtto satisfy the human craving for Gods whomay be worshipped with mere abstractions


5/6

280 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

of this kind, Scott has said,'

All that wefind mi Lucretius is an unfulfilled promise totreat the subject later, as though he hadpostponed it from a consciousness of itsdifficulty.'

Nowonder he feels it necessary

to add the comment that ' Lucretius had notas yet carefully studied or fully understoodthe Epicurean doctrine of the Divine Nature.'

One objection is sufficient by itself todiscredit Scott and Giussani's theory: itannihilates one central doctrine of Epicurean-ism. To Epicurus the flow of the Divineimages into our minds is proof positive thatGods exist. But if the Divine images arise' in some unexplained way ' from the atoms,why should they not flow directly into ourminds ? Why assume at all that they first

meet together and form Divine bodies . Onthis theory the images cease to be a proofthat Gods exist. They could only prove theexistence

of-images.Thus

Epicurus'swhole theology falls to the ground.Brieger's wide knowledge of Epicurean

doctrine enables him to criticise Giussanishrewdly

here. Brieger, however, acceptshis view inpart.' Giussani,' he says, ' com-

pares the Divine body to a waterfall, theappearance of which remains the same whilethe water forming it changes every moment.

A Beingexisting

inthis fashion is immortal,

if the influx of homogeneous matter doesnot cease, for every interruption of thatwhich subsists in a constant 'Becoming' iswithout enduring effect, 'like a shot firedinto a waterfall.' That such Beings canexist is testified by Philodemus ~repivae,Betas-Gomperz, Hercul.

Stud. p. 110. So farGiussani is undoubtedly right.'l The en-tence of Philodemus referred to is quiteinsufficient o justify such astatement: theinterpretations extorted from it differ verywidely; its meaning is simply a riddle.2

This and other fragments of Philodemussuggest thatEpicureanism

had developed anew erminology since its founder's day.

Another passage in Diog. L.,X. 139 isalso more or less corrupt and almost asvague and difficult to understand as thatinCicero. It is a slipshod comment of hisownwhich Diogenes adds after the first ofthe KvptaL 3o6at.evaAAois 8e c 7oTr Os 0Eovbs kdy7) Oeop7rojvs,3

x Jahresb.uber class. Alt. 1900, p.5.2Scott's ersion, made y dint of transpositions,

&c., aybe found

in.

ofPhil. p.

232:that of

Giussani, ho does not adopt hese changes, t StudiLucrez. . 261. (Giussani's &o~rXe;iraL eems amisprint).

Gassendi eads ov pf,...&S 5e and translatesthus:Aliis vero n locis ait Deos non sensu sed)mente erni ipsosque non (soliditate quadam) on-

ovs /Jev [ov /z~r Schoemann] KaT' aptOf[zoYV6q?T(iras, OU's 8e [TVwreTors 8o Schoemann]Kara o61aodteclav c n7ys ovvexovs ewlppVor?oS 'vO6 o[oHv &So'oy/ f 'rc To7 a6 a7roT?Tek?rEo-/vovs

av0p(oTro?tSdLs.4It looks as if both Cicero and Diogenes had

been puzzled by the same original and hadboth tried to give its drift in brief. Theslovenly-worded sentence has been sup-posed to mean that Epicurus believed intwo classes of gods. Usener, somewhatarbitrarily, omits it as a scholion. Schoe-mann's brilliant emendation yvroo-ovs isbased on the principle that the human mindcan apprehend the Gods because the sub-stance of both is the same, namely the finestatoms: it would mean that the Gods ' arediscerned by the mind owing to the likenessof their substance.'

Mayor accepts the passage as genuine andthinks it may refer to an esoteric and anexoteric Epicurean theology so that 'wemay apparently assume that Epicurus him-self or some of his followers acknowledgeda divinity of a more spiritual type, distinctfrom those in the intermundia. An atten-tive consideration of Cicero's languageforces on the reader the conclusion thatthere were two distinct systems of theology

recognised inthe

Epicurean school, one of amore soteric nature, taken mainly from theirgreat authority, Democritus, the other moresuited to the popular belief: which twosystems have, not unnaturally, been con-founded together by Cicero.'5

There s, however, no reliable evidence forany such esoteric Epicurean theology.

sistenteis aut (distinctione) numerabileis, verum-tamen imilitudine quasi hominiformeis, propteraffluxum continentem maginum ad exhibendummenti ostrae alem naturam omparatarum. Hirzel

(p. 3)reads otis

p...ots

be and understands he wordsas eferring n the one hand to the rue Gods whodwell n the intermundia nd, on he other, to heDivine mages. We know that Democritus did tosome xtent regard the Divine eN,w\a as having acertain ndependent xistence. It may bedue toaremembrance f Democritus hat Cicero n two oc-casionspeaks as if, for themoment, he regarded heflying ivine images as equivalent toDeity and aseternal De Nat. Deorum, . 109 and ii. 76), butHirzel uts an xtreme strain upon these mereallusions. Cicero knows well that the EpicureanGodsare ltogether utside he world.

4Schoemann xplains rir ab~b &roTeeXea~levovstomean he same thing as Cotta's words n Cicero?49 luentium frequenter ransitione visionem fieriut

mtultis una videattar.He adds

Nam ecte e~rl rbaQbUsc. a&ro'eAeo.o] a]roTehe?o'Qa ici poterant ~t&e~'A;a quorum tfectus (hoc est enim afroTe'Aefo'a)ulus idemque esset ut orma divina humanae nonabsimilisa&Opw~roeeiws) animo nsinuaretur (p. 357).OnCicero, De Nat.Deorum, i. ? 49, p. 148and 147note).


6/6

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.HE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 28181

Until we can find the original whichCicero so hastily summarised, we shallprobably never understand either howEpicurus conceived the material being of

his Gods or what Cicero meant in ? 49.That passage, as it stands, is a slough

Until we can find the original whichCicero so hastily summarised, we shallprobably never understand either howEpicurus conceived the material being of

his Gods or what Cicero meant in ? 49.That passage, as it stands, is a slough

in which ingenious explanations withoutnumber have merely been swallowed up.

In another article I hope to discussGiussani's view.

JOHN MASSON.

in which ingenious explanations withoutnumber have merely been swallowed up.

In another article I hope to discussGiussani's view.

JOHN MASSON.

VIRGIL AND CALPURNIUS.IRGIL AND CALPURNIUS.

Verg. georg. iii 400-403.

quod surgente die mulsere horisque diurnis,nocte premunt; quod iam tenebris et sole

cadente,sub lucem exportant calathis (adit oppida

pastor),aut parco sale contiogunt hiemique

reponunt.

This reading of u. 402 was first attackedby Scaliger on Catull. 61 219: ' omniumpoetarum principem ita interrupte cure suisparenthesibus loquentem faciunt, ne in iureapud grammaticum tribunal soloecismipostuletur. atqui una litterula mutandagermanam Vergilii lectionem effeceris:

sub lucem exportans calathis adit oppidapastor.'

It is indiscreet of Conington to quote indefence Aen. i 150 ' furor arma ministrat 'and to say that it is ' similarly thrown in toaccount for what has just been said':'adit oppida pastor' does not account forwhat .has just been said, but amplifies it,which is not the office of parenthesis; andAen. i 150 'iamque faces et saxa uolant(furor arma ministrat) ' is a telling contrastand a good example of parenthesisappropriately used. The change of -ns to

-nt is easy everywhere (Ribbeck prol. pp.255 sq. cites Aen. iii 527, 651, viii 45, ix130, x 417, 540, 696) and was here theeasier for premunt standing above; andexportans is now actually found in thescholia Berneasia and is admitted into thetext by WVagner, Ribbeck, and Haupt.

It amends the language, but the sense itdoes not amend. 'The morning's milk ismade into cheese at night': so far so good.

'The

evening'smilk '-now we are

goingto

hear that the evening's milk is made intocheese at some other time, or that it is notmade into cheese-'the evening's milk iseither carried to town at daybreak in baskets

or else salted and put by for the winter.'

Verg. georg. iii 400-403.


cadente,sub lucem exportant calathis (adit oppida

pastor),aut parco sale contiogunt hiemique

reponunt.

This reading of u. 402 was first attackedby Scaliger on Catull. 61 219: ' omniumpoetarum principem ita interrupte cure suisparenthesibus loquentem faciunt, ne in iureapud grammaticum tribunal soloecismipostuletur. atqui una litterula mutandagermanam Vergilii lectionem effeceris:

sub lucem exportans calathis adit oppidapastor.'

It is indiscreet of Conington to quote indefence Aen. i 150 ' furor arma ministrat 'and to say that it is ' similarly thrown in toaccount for what has just been said':'adit oppida pastor' does not account forwhat .has just been said, but amplifies it,which is not the office of parenthesis; andAen. i 150 'iamque faces et saxa uolant(furor arma ministrat) ' is a telling contrastand a good example of parenthesisappropriately used. The change of -ns to

-nt is easy everywhere (Ribbeck prol. pp.255 sq. cites Aen. iii 527, 651, viii 45, ix130, x 417, 540, 696) and was here theeasier for premunt standing above; andexportans is now actually found in thescholia Berneasia and is admitted into thetext by WVagner, Ribbeck, and Haupt.

It amends the language, but the sense itdoes not amend. 'The morning's milk ismade into cheese at night': so far so good.

'The

evening'smilk '-now we are

goingto

hear that the evening's milk is made intocheese at some other time, or that it is notmade into cheese-'the evening's milk iseither carried to town at daybreak in baskets

or else salted and put by for the winter.'

But the stuff men carry in baskets and saltfor the winter is cheese, not milk; so itappears that the evening's milk as well as

the morning's (they do not get much sleepin this dairy) is made into cheese at night.Was it then simply in order to turn roundand laugh at us that you led us to supposethe contrary ? But to proceed: you havenow told us that the cheese from the even-ing's milk is sold or salted: what are we toinfer about the cheese from the morning'smilk ? The natural inference is that some-thing else becomes of it; and if so we shouldlike to know what. But you are so playfulto-day that we dare not draw the naturalinference, for fear you should turn roundand laugh at us again: perhaps we had bestassume that there is no difference in destina-tion, as there seemingly was none in manu-facture, between these two batches of cheesewhich you so carefully distinguish. Thisis didactic poetry: ' he morning's milk ismade into cheese at night (never mind whatafterwards becomes of it); the evening'smilk (never mind what happens in theinterval) is carried to town next. morning incheese-baskets or salted for winter eating.''The horse has four legs; the mare has two

ears and a tail'.I do not know if it was Fea in 1799 whofirst proposed the amended punctuation


cadente,sub lucem: exportans calathis adit oppida

pastor,aut parco sale contingunt hiemique

reponunt.

i.e. 'quod mane mulsere, nocte premunt;

quod uesperi mulsere,sub

lucem premunt:caseum partim uendunt partim hiemireponunt.' The omission of mulsere in 401gives the reader fair warning that premuntwill be omitted in 402; there is no inequalityin the singular 'exportans adit oppida

But the stuff men carry in baskets and saltfor the winter is cheese, not milk; so itappears that the evening's milk as well as

the morning's (they do not get much sleepin this dairy) is made into cheese at night.Was it then simply in order to turn roundand laugh at us that you led us to supposethe contrary ? But to proceed: you havenow told us that the cheese from the even-ing's milk is sold or salted: what are we toinfer about the cheese from the morning'smilk ? The natural inference is that some-thing else becomes of it; and if so we shouldlike to know what. But you are so playfulto-day that we dare not draw the naturalinference, for fear you should turn roundand laugh at us again: perhaps we had bestassume that there is no difference in destina-tion, as there seemingly was none in manu-facture, between these two batches of cheesewhich you so carefully distinguish. Thisis didactic poetry: ' he morning's milk ismade into cheese at night (never mind whatafterwards becomes of it); the evening'smilk (never mind what happens in theinterval) is carried to town next. morning incheese-baskets or salted for winter eating.''The horse has four legs; the mare has two

ears and a tail'.I do not know if it was Fea in 1799 whofirst proposed the amended punctuation


cadente,sub lucem: exportans calathis adit oppida

pastor,aut parco sale contingunt hiemique

reponunt.

i.e. 'quod mane mulsere, nocte premunt;

quod uesperi mulsere,sub

lucem premunt:caseum partim uendunt partim hiemireponunt.' The omission of mulsere in 401gives the reader fair warning that premuntwill be omitted in 402; there is no inequalityin the singular 'exportans adit oppida

Cicero on the Epicurean Gods

Documents

Transcript of Cicero on the Epicurean Gods