Chapter IX

At the very beginning of this inquiry it was emphasised that its theme would in the main be the religious views of the upper class, and within this sphere again especially the views of those circles which were in close touch with philosophy. The reason for this is of course in the first place that only in such circles can we expect to find expressed a point of view approaching to positive atheism. But we may assuredly go further than this. We shall hardly be too bold in asserting that the free-thinking of philosophically educated men in reality had very slight influence on the great mass of the population. Philosophy did not penetrate so far, and whatever degree of perception we estimate the masses to have had of the fact that the upper layer of society regarded the popular faith with critical eyes—and in the long run it could not be concealed—we cannot fail to recognise that religious development among the ancients did not tend towards atheism. Important changes took place in ancient religion during the Hellenistic Age and the time of the Roman Empire, but their causes were of a social and national kind, and, if we confine ourselves to paganism, they only led to certain gods going out of fashion and others coming in. The utmost we can assert is that a certain weakening of the religious life may have been widely prevalent during the time of transition between the two ages—the transition falls at somewhat different dates in the eastern and western part of the Empire—but that weakening was soon overcome.

Now the peculiar result of this investigation of the state of religion among the upper classes seems to me to be this: the curve of intensity of religious feeling which conjecture leads us to draw through the spiritual life of the ancients as a whole, that same curve, but more distinct and sharply accentuated, is found again in the relations of the upper classes to the popular faith. Towards the close of the fifth century it looks as if the cultured classes that formed the centre of Greek intellectual life were outgrowing the ancient religion. The reaction which set in with Socrates and Plato certainly checked this movement, but it did not stop it. Cynics, Peripatetics, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, in spite of their widely differing points of view, were all entirely unable to share the religious ideas of their countrymen in the form in which they were cast in the national religion. However many allowances they made, their attitude towards the popular faith was critical, and on important points they denied it. It is against the background thus resulting from ancient philosophy’s treatment of ancient religion that we must view such phenomena as Polybius, Cicero, and Pliny the Elder, if we wish to understand their full significance.

On the other hand, it is certain that this was not the view that conquered in the end among the educated classes in antiquity. The lower we come down in the Empire the more evident does the positive relation of the upper class to the gods of the popular faith become. Some few examples have already been mentioned in the preceding pages. In philosophy the whole movement finds its typical expression in demonology, which during the later Empire reigned undisputed in the one or two schools that still retained any vitality. It is significant that its source was the earlier Platonism, with its very conservative attitude towards popular belief, and that it was taken over by the later Stoic school, which inaugurated the general religious reaction in philosophy. And it is no less significant that demonology was swallowed whole by the monotheistic religion which superseded ancient paganism, and for more than a thousand years was the recognised explanation of the nature thereof.

In accordance with the line of development here sketched, the inquiry has of necessity been focused on two main points: Sophistic and the Hellenistic Age. Now it is of peculiar interest to note what small traces of pure atheism can after all be found here, in spite of all criticism of the popular faith. We have surmised its presence among a few prominent personalities in fifth-century Athens; we have found evidence of its extension in the same place in the period immediately following; and in the time of transition between the fourth and third centuries we have thought it likely that it existed among a very few philosophers, of whom none are in the first rank. Everywhere else we find adjustments, in part very serious and real concessions, to popular belief. Not to mention the attitude towards worship, which was only hostile in one sect of slight importance: the assumption of the divinity of the heavenly bodies which was common to the Academics, Peripatetics, and Stoics is really in principle an acknowledgement of the popular faith, whose conception of the gods was actually borrowed and applied, not to some philosophical abstraction, but to individual and concrete natural objects. The anthropomorphic gods of the Epicureans point in the same direction. In spite of their profound difference from the beings that were worshipped and believed in by the ordinary Greek, they are in complete harmony with the opinion on which all polytheism is based: that there are individual beings of a higher order than man. And though the Stoics in theory confined their acknowledgment of this doctrine to the heavenly bodies, in practice—even if we disregard demonology—they consistently brought it to bear upon the anthropomorphic gods, in direct continuation of the Socratic reaction against the atheistic tendencies of Sophistic.

If now we ask ourselves what may be the cause of this peculiar dualism in the relationship of ancient thought to religion, though admitting the highly complex nature of the problem, we can scarcely avoid recognising a certain principle. Ancient thought outgrew the ancient popular faith; that is beyond doubt. Hence its critical attitude. But it never outgrew that supernaturalist view which was the foundation of the popular faith. Hence its concessions to the popular faith, even when it was most critical, and its final surrender thereunto. And that it never outgrew the foundation of the popular faith is connected with its whole conception of nature and especially with its conception of the universe. We cannot indeed deny that the ancients had a certain feeling that nature was regulated by laws, but they only made imperfect attempts at a mechanical theory of nature in which this regulation of the world by law was carried through in principle, and with one brilliant exception they adhered implicitly to the geocentric conception of the universe. We may, I think, venture to assert with good reason that on such assumptions the philosophers of antiquity could not advance further than they did. In other words, on the given hypotheses the supernaturalist view was the correct one, the one that was most probable, and therefore that on which people finally agreed. A few chosen spirits may at any time by intuition, without any strictly scientific foundation, emancipate themselves entirely from religious errors; this also happened among the ancients, and on the first occasion was not unconnected with an enormous advance in the conception of nature. But it is certain that the views of an entire age are always decisively conditioned by its knowledge and interpretation of the universe surrounding it, and cannot in principle be emancipated therefrom.

Seen from this point of view, our brief sketch of the attitude of posterity towards the religion of the pagan world will also not be without interest. If, after isolated advances during the mighty awakening of the Renaissance, it is not until the transition from the seventeenth to the eighteenth century that we find the modern atheistic conception of the nature of the gods of the ancients established in principle and consistently applied, we can scarcely avoid connecting this fact with the advance of natural science in the seventeenth century, and not least with the victory of the heliocentric system. After the close of antiquity the pagan gods had receded to a distance, practically speaking, because they were not worshipped any more. No one troubled himself about them. But in theory one had got no further, _i.e._ no advance had been made on the ancients, and no advance could be made as long as supernaturalism was adhered to in connexion with the ancient view of the universe. Through monotheism the notions of the divinity of the sun, moon and planets had certainly been got rid of, but not so the notion of the world—_i.e._ the globe enclosed within the firmament—as filled with personal beings of a higher order than man; and even the duty of turning the spheres to which the heavenly bodies were believed to be fastened was—quite consistently—assigned to some of these beings. As long as such notions were in operation, not only were there no grounds for denying the reality of the pagan gods, but there was every reason to assume it. So far we may rightly say that it was Copernicus, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Kepler and Newton that did away with the traditional conception of ancient paganism.

Natural science, however, furnishes only the negative result that the gods of polytheism are not what they are said to be: real beings of a higher order than man. To reveal what they are, other knowledge is required. This was not attained until long after the revival of natural science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The vacillation in the eighteenth century between various theories of the explanation of the nature of ancient polytheism—theories which were all false, though not equally false—is in this respect significant enough; likewise the gradual progress which characterises research in the nineteenth century, and which may be indicated by such names as Heyne, Buttmann, K. O. Müller, Lobeck, Mannhardt, Rohde, and Usener, to mention only some of the most important and omitting those still alive. Viewed in this light the development sketched here within a narrowly restricted field is typical of the course of European intellectual history from antiquity down to our day.

NOTES

Of Atheism in Antiquity as defined here no treatment is known to me; but there exist an older and a newer book that deal with the question within a wider compass. The first of these is Krische, _Die theologischen Lehren der griechischen Denker_ (Göttingen, 1840); it is chiefly concerned with the philosophical conceptions of deity, but it touches also on the relations of philosophers to popular religion. The second is Decharme, _La critique des traditions religieuses chez les Grecs_ (Paris, 1904); it is not fertile in new points of view, but it has suggested several details which I might else have overlooked. Such books as Caird, _The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers_ (Glasgow, 1904), or Moon, _Religious Thought of the Greeks_ (Cambridge, Mass., 1919), barely touch on the relation to popular belief; of Louis, _Les doctrines religieuses des philosophes grecs_, I have not been able to make use. I regret that Poul Helms, _The Conception of God in Greek Philosophy_ (Danish, in _Studier for Sprog-og Oldtidsforskning_, No. 115), was not published until my essay was already in the press. General works on Atheism are indicated in Aveling’s article, “Atheism,” in the _Catholic Encyclopædia_, vol. ii., but none of them seem to be found at Copenhagen. In the _Dictionary of Religion and Ethics_, ii., there is a detailed article on Atheism in its relation to different religions; the section treating of Antiquity is written by Pearson, but is meagre. Works like Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, and Gomperz, _Griechische Denker_, contain accounts of the attitude of philosophers (Gomperz also includes others) towards popular belief; of these books I have of course made use throughout, but they are not referred to in the following notes except on special occasion. Scattered remarks and small monographs on details are naturally to be found in plenty. Where I have met with such and found something useful in them, or where I express dissent from them, I have noticed it; but I have not aimed at exhausting the literature on my subject. On the other hand I have tried to make myself completely acquainted with the first-hand material, wherever it gave a direct support for assuming Atheism, and to take my own view of it. In many cases, however, the argumentation has had to be indirect: it has been necessary to draw inferences from what an author does not say in a certain connexion when he might be expected to say it, or what he generally and throughout avoids mentioning, or from his general manner and peculiarities in his way of speaking of the gods. In such cases I have often had to be content with my previous knowledge and my general impression of the facts; but then I have as a rule made use of the important modern literature on the subject. In working out the sketch of the ideas after the end of Antiquity, I have been almost without any guidance in modern literature. I have accordingly had to try, on the basis of a superficial acquaintance with some of the chief types, to form for myself, as best I might, some idea of the course of the evolution; but I have not been able to go systematically through the immense material, however fruitful such a research appeared to be. In the meantime, between the publication of my Danish essay and this translation, there has appeared a work by Mr. Gruppe, _Geschichte der klassischen Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1921). My task in writing my last chapters would have been much easier if I could have made use of Mr. Gruppe’s learned and comprehensive treatment of the subject; but it would not have been superfluous, for Mr. Gruppe deals principally with the history of classical mythology, not with the history of the belief in the gods of antiquity. So I have ventured to let my sketch stand as it is, only reducing some of the notes (which I had on purpose made rather full, to aid others who might pursue the subject) by referring to Mr. Gruppe instead of to the sources themselves.

For kindly helping me to find my bearings in out-of-the-way parts of my subject, I am indebted to my colleagues F. Buhl, I.L. Heiberg, I.C. Jacobsen and Kr. Nyrop, as well as to Prof. Martin P. Nilsson in Lund.

P. 1. Definition of Atheism: see the article in the _Catholic Encycl._ vol. ii.

P. 5. Atheism: see Murray, _New Engl. Dict._, under Atheism and -ism. The word seems to have come up in the Renaissance.

P. 6. Criminal Law at Athens: see Lipsius, _Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren_, i. p. 358.—The definition in Aristotle, _de virt. et vit._ 7, p. 1251_a_, has, I think, no legal foundation.

P. 9. On the legal foundation for the trials of Christians, see Mommsen, _Der Religionsfreuel nach römischem Recht_ (_Ges. Schr._ iii. p. 389).—Mommsen goes too far, I think, in supposing a legal foundation for the trials of Christians; above all, I do not believe that the defection from the Roman religion was ever considered as maiestas in the technical sense of the word, the more so as it is certain that, after the earliest period, no difference was made in the treatment of citizens and aliens.

P. 13. Lists of atheists: Cicero, _de nat. deor._ 1. 1, 2 (comp. 1. 23, 26). Sext. Emp. _hypotyp._ 3. 213; _adv. math._ 9. 50. Aelian, _v.h._ 2. 31; _de nat. an._ 6. 40.—The predicate _atheos_ is once applied to Anaxagoras by a Christian author (Irenaeus: see Diels, _Vorsokr._ 46, A 113; compare also Marcellinus, _vit. Thuc._, see below, note on p. 29). Of such isolated cases I have taken no account.

P. 16. On the dualism in the Greek conception of the nature of gods see Nägelsbach, _Hom. Theol._ p. 11.—Pindar: _Ol._ 1. 28, 9. 35; _Pyth._ 3. 27.

P. 17. Xenophanes: Einhorn, _Zeit- und Streitfragen der modernen Xenophanesforschung_ (_Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos._ xxxi.).

P. 18. Xenophanes’s age: Diels, _Vorsokr._ 11, B 8.—His criticism of Homer and Hesiod: _ibid._ 11, 12.—Titans and Giants: _ibid._ 1. 22.—Criticism of Anthropomorphism: _ibid._ 14-16.—Divination: Cic. _de div._ 1. 3, 5.

P. 19. On Xenophanes’s conception of God, comp. _Vorsokr._ 11, B 23-26; on the identification of God with the universe: _Vorsokr._ 11, A 30, 31, 33-36.—Cicero: _de div._ 1. 3, 5.

P. 21. For Xenophanes’s theology, comp. Freudenthal, _Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos._ i. p. 322, and Zeller’s criticism, _ibid._ p. 524. Agreeing with Freudenthal: Decharme, p. 46; Campbell, _Religion in Greek Literature_, p. 293.

P. 21. Parmenides does not even appear to have designated his “Being” as God (Zeller, i. p. 563).

P. 23. In the eighteenth century people discussed diffusely the question whether Thales was an atheist (of course in the sense in which the word was taken at that time); comp. Tennemann, _Gesch. d. Philos._ i. pp. 62 and 422. Tennemann remarks quite truly that the question is put wrongly.

P. 24. Thales: Diels, _Vorsokr._ 1, A 22-23.—Attitude of Democritus towards popular belief: _Vorsokr._ 55, A 74-79; comp. 116, 117; B 166, and also B 30. Diels, _Ueber den Dämonenglauben des D._ (_Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos._ 1894, p. 154).

P. 25. Trial of Anaxagoras: _Vorsokr._ 46, A 1, 17, 18, 19.

P. 26. Ram’s head: _Vorsokr._ 46, A 16.

P. 27. Geffcken (in _Hermes_, 42, p. 127) has tried to make out something about a criticism of popular belief by Anaxagoras from some passages in Aristophanes (_Nub._ 398) and Lucian (_Tim._ 10, etc.), but I do not think he has succeeded.—Pericles a free-thinker: Plut. _Pericl._ 6 and 38; comp. Decharme, p. 160.—Personality of Anaxagoras: _Vorsokr._ 46, A 30 (Aristotle, _Eud. Ethics_, A 4, p. 1215_b_, 6).

P. 28. Herodotus: 8, 77.—Sophocles: _Oed. rex._ 498, 863.—Diopeithes: Plut. _Pericl._ 32 (_Vorsokr._ 46, A 17).—Thucydides: Classen in the preface to his 3rd ed., p. lvii.

P. 29. Thucydides, a disciple of Anaxagoras: Marcellinus, _vit. Thuc._ 22.—Generally Thucydides is thought to have been more conservative in his religious opinions than I consider probable; see Classen, _loc. cit._; Decharme, p. 83; Gertz in his preface to the Danish translation of Thucydides, p. xxvii.—Hippo: _Vorsokr._ 26, A 4, 6, 8, 9; B 2, 3.

P. 30. Aristotle: _Vorsokr._ 26, A 7.—Diogenes an atheist: Aelian, _v.h._ 2, 31.—The air his god: _Vorsokr._ 51, A 8 (he thought that Homer identified Zeus with the air, and approved of this as οὐ μυθικῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς εἰρημενον); B 5, 7, 8.—Allusions to his doctrines by Aristophanes: _Nub._ 225, 828 (_Vorsokr._ 51, C 1, 2).

P. 31. A chief representative of the naïvely critical view of natural phenomena is for us Herodotus. The _locus classicus_ is vii. 129; comp. Gomperz, _Griech. Denker_, i. p. 208; Heiberg, _Festskrift til Ussing_ (Copenhagen, 1900), p. 91; Decharme, p. 69.—Principal passages about Diagoras: Sext. Emp. _adv. math._ 9, 53; Suidas, art. _Diagoras II._; schol. Aristoph. _Nub._ 830 (the legend); Suidas, art. _Diagoras I._; Aristoph. _Av._ 1071 with schol.; schol. Aristoph. _Ran._ 320; [Lysias] vi. 17; Diod. xiii. 16 (the decree); Philodem. _de piet._ p. 89 Gomp. (comments of Aristoxenus); Aelian, _v.h._ ii. 22 (legislation at Mantinea).—Wilamowitz (_Textgesch. d. Lyr._ p. 80) has tried to save the tradition by supposing that the _acme_ of Diagoras has been put too early. Comp. also his remarks, _Griech. Verskunst._ p. 426, where he has taken up the question again with reference to my treatment of it. As he has now conceded the possibility of referring the legislation to the earlier date, the difference between us is really very slight, and it is of course possible, perhaps even probable, that the acme of the poet has been antedated.—Aristoph. _Av._ 1071: “On this very day it is made public, that if one of you kills Diagoras from Melos, he shall have a talent, and if one kills one of the dead tyrants, he shall have a talent.” The parallel between the two decrees, of which the latter is of course an invention of Aristophanes, would be without point if the decree against Diagoras was not as futile as the decree against the tyrants (_i.e._ the sons of Peisistratus, who had been dead some three-quarters of a century), that is, if it did not come many years too late.—Wilamowitz (_Griech. Verskunst, loc. cit._) takes the sense to be: “You will not get hold of Diagoras any more than you did of the tyrants.” But this, besides being somewhat pointless, does not agree so well as my explanation with the introductory words: “On this very day.” On the other hand, I never meant to imply that Diagoras was dead in 415, but only that his offence was an old one—just as that of Protagoras probably was (see p. 39).

P. 39. Trial of Protagoras: _Vorsokr._ 74, A 1-4, 23; the passage referring to the gods: _ibid._ B 4.—Plato: _Theaet._ p. 162_d_ (_Vorsokr._ 74, A 23).

P. 41. Distinction between belief and knowledge by Protagoras: Gomperz, _Griech. Denker_, i. p. 359.

P. 42. Prodicus: _Vorsokr._ 77, B 5. Comp. Norvin, _Allegorien i den græske Philosophi_ (_Edda_, 1919), p. 82. I cannot, however, quite adopt Norvin’s view of the theory of Protagoras.

P. 44. Critias: _Vorsokr._ 81, B 25.—W. Nestle, _Jahrbb. f. Philol._ xi. (1903), pp. 81 and 178, gives an exhaustive treatment of the subject, but I cannot share his view of it.

P. 46. Euripides: _Suppl._ 201.—Moschion: _Trag. Fragm._ ed. Nauck (2nd ed.), p. 813.—Plato: _Rep._ ii. 369b.

P. 47. Democritus: Reinhardt in _Hermes_, xlvii (1912), p. 503 In spite of Wilamowitz’s objections (in his _Platon_, ii. p. 214), I still consider it probable that Plato alludes to a philosophical theory.—Protagoras on the original state: _Vorsokr._ 74, B 8_b_.

P. 48. Euripides: _Electra, 737_ (Euripides does not believe in the tale that the sun reversed its course on account of Thyestes’s fraud against Atreus, and then adds: “Fables that terrify men are a profit to the worship of the gods”).—Aristotle: _Metaph._ A 8, 1074_b_; see text, p. 85.—Polybius: vi. 56; see text pp. 90 and 114.—Plato’s _Gorgias_, p. 482 and foll.

P. 49.—Callicles: see _e.g._ Wilamowitz, _Platon_, i. p. 208.

P. 50.—Thrasymachus: Plato, _Rep._ i. pp. 338_c_, 343_a_; comp. also ii. p. 358_b_. His remark on Providence (_Vorsokr._ 78, B 8) runs thus: “The gods do not see the things that are done among men; if they did, they would not overlook the greatest human good, justice. For we find that men do not follow it.” Comp. text, p. 61.—Diagoras as Critias’s source: Nestle, _Jahrbb._, 1903, p. 101.

P. 51. Euripides: see W. Nestle, _Euripides_ (Stuttgart, 1901) pp. 51-152. Here, too, the material is set forth exhaustively; the results seem to me inadmissible. Browning’s theory (_The Ring and the Book_, x. 1661 foll.) that Euripides did believe in the existence of the gods, but did not believe them to be perfect, is a possible, perhaps even a probable, explanation of many of his utterances; but it will hardly fit all of them. I have examined the question in an essay, “Browning om Euripides” in my _Udvalgte Afhandlinger_, p. 55.

P. 52. Gods identified with the Elements: _Bacch._ 274; fragm. 839. 877, 941 (Nestle, p. 153).

P. 53. Polemic against sophists: Nestle, p. 206.—_Bellerophon_: fragm. 286.

P. 54. “If the gods——”: fragm. 292, 7.

P. 55. _Melanippe_: fragm. 480. The words are said to have given offence at the rehearsal, so that Euripides altered them at the production of the play (Plut. _Amat._ ch. 13).—Aeschylus: _Agam._ 160.—Aristophanes: _Thesmoph._ 450.—In the _Frogs_, 892, Euripides prays to the Ether and other abstractions, not to the gods.—_Clouds_: 1371.

P. 56. Plato: _Republ._ viii. p. 568a.—Quotation from _Melanippe_: Plut. _Amat._ 13.

P. 57. Aristophanes and Naturalism: see note to p. 30.

P. 58. Denial of the gods in the _Clouds_, 247, 367, 380, 423, 627, 817, 825, 1232.—Moral of the piece: 1452-1510.—In Aristophanes’s own travesties of the gods, scholars have found evidence for a weakening of popular belief, but this is certainly wrong; comp. Decharme, p. 109.—Words like “believe” and “belief” do not cover the Greek word νομίζειν, which signifies at once “believe” and “be in the habit,” “use habitually,” so that it covers both belief and worship—an ambiguity that is characteristic of Greek religion.—Xenophon: _Memorab._ i. 1; _Apol. Socr._ 10 and foll.

P. 59. Plato: _Apol._ p. 24_b_ (the indictment); 26_b_ (the refutation).

P. 60. Aristodemus: Xenoph. _Memor._ i. 4.—Cinesias: Decharme, p. 135.—The Hermocopidae: Decharme, p. 152. Beloch, _Hist. of Greece_, ii. 1, p. 360, has another explanation. To my argument it is of no consequence what special motive is assigned for the crime, as long as it is a political one.

P. 61. Plato on impiety: _Laws_, x. p. 886b; comp. xii. p. 967_a_. Curiously enough, the same tripartition of the wrong attitude towards the gods occurs already in the _Republic_, ii. p. 365_d_, where it is introduced incidentally as well known and a matter of course.

P. 62. Euripides: _e.g._ _Hecuba_, 488; _Suppl._ 608.—Reference to Anaxagoras: _Laws_, x. p. 886_d_; to Sophistic, 889_b_.

P. 65. Plato in the _Apology_: p. 19_c_.—Socrates’s _daimonion_ a proof of _asebeia_: Xenoph. _Memorab._ i. 1, 2; _Apol_. _Socr._ 12; Plato, _Apol._ p. 31_d_.

P. 66. Accusation of teaching the doctrine of Anaxagoras: Plato, _Apol._ p. 26_d_; comp. Xenoph. _Memor._ i. 1, 10.—Plato’s defence of Socrates: _Apol._ p. 27_a_.

P. 67. Xenophon’s defence of Socrates: _Memor._ i. 1, 2; 6 foll., 10 foll.—Teleological view of nature: Xenoph. _Memor._ i. 4; iv. 3.—On the religious standpoint of Socrates, comp. my _Udvalgte Afhandlinger_, p. 38.

P. 68. Plato’s _Apology_, p. 21_d_, 23_a_ and _f_, etc.—The gods all-knowing: _Odyss._ iv. 379 and 468; comp. Nägelsbach, _Hom. Theol._ p. 18; _Nachhom. Theol._ p. 23.

P. 69. The gods just: Nägelsbach, _Hom. Theol._ p. 297; _Nachhom. Theol._ p. 27.

P. 71. The relation between early religious thought and Delphi has been explained correctly by Sam Wide, _Einleit. in die Altertumswissensch._, ii. p. 221; comp. also I. L. Heiberg in _Tilskueren_, 1919, ii. p. 44.—Honours shown to Pindar at Delphi: schol. Pind. ed. Drachm. i. p. 2, 14; 5, 6. Pausan, x. 24. 5.

P. 72. Plato on the Delphic Oracle: _Apol._ p. 20_e_. On the following comp. I. L. Heiberg, _loc. cit._ p. 45.—Socrates on his _daimonion_: Plato, _Apol._ p. 31_c_.

P. 74. Antisthenes: Ritter, _Hist. philos. Gr.__9_ 285.—On the later Cynics, especially Diogenes, see Diog. Laert. vi. 105 (the gods are in need of nothing); Julian, _Or._ vi. p. 199_b_ (Diogenes did not worship the gods).

P. 75. Cyrenaics: Diog. Laert. ii. 91.—Date of Theodorus: Diog. Laert. ii. 101, 103; his book on the gods: Diog. Laert. ii. 97, Sext. Emp. _adv. math._ ix. 55; his trial: Diog. Laert. ii. 101.

P. 76. Theodorus’s book used by Epicurus: Diog. Laert. ii. 97.—Zeller: _Philos. d. Griechen_, ii. 1, p. 925.—Euthyphron: see especially p. 14_b_ foll.

P. 77. Criticism of Mythology in the _Republic_: ii. p. 377_b_ foll.; worship presupposed: _e.g._ iii. p. 415_e_; v. p. 459_e_, 461_a_, 468_d_, 469_a_, 470_a_; vii. p. 540_b_; reference to the Oracle: iv. p. 427_b_.—_Timaeus_: p. 40_d_ foll.—_Laws_, rules of worship: vi. p. 759_a_, vii. p. 967_a_ and elsewhere, x. p. 909_d_; capital punishment for atheists: x. p. 909_a_. Comp. above, on p. 61.

P. 78. Atheism a sin of youth: _Laws_, x. p. 888_a_.—Goodness and truth of the gods: _Republ._ ii. p. 379_a_, 380_d_, 382_a_.—Belief in Providence: _Laws_, x. p. 885_c_, etc.; _Republ._ x. p. 612_e_; _Apol._ p. 41_d_.

P. 79. _Laws_, x. p. 888_d_, 893_b_ foll., especially 899_c-d_; comp. also xii. p. 967_a-c._—_Timaeus_: p. 40_d-f_. Comp. _Laws_, xii. p. 948_b_.

P. 80. The gods in the _Republic_, ii. p. 380_d_. This passage, taken together with Plato’s general treatment of popular belief, might lead to the hypothesis that it was Plato’s doctrine of ideas rather than the rationalism of his youth that brought about strained relations between his thought and popular belief. I incline to think that such is the case; but there is a long step even from such a state of things to downright atheism, and the stress Plato always laid on the belief in Providence is a strong argument in favour of his belief in the gods, for he could never make his ideas act in the capacity of Providence.—The gods as creators of mankind: _Timaeus_, p. 41_a_ foll.

P. 81. Xenocrates: the exposition of his doctrine given in the text is based upon Heinze’s _Xenokrates_ (Leipzig, 1892).

P. 83. Trial of Aristotle: Diog. Laert. v. 5; Athen. xv. p. 696.—The writings of Aristotle that have come down to us are almost all of them compositions for the use of his disciples, and were not accessible to the general public during his lifetime.

P. 84. On the religious views of Aristotle see in general Zeller, ii. 2, p. 787 (Engl. transl. ii. p. 325); where the references to his writings are given in full. In the following I indicate only a few passages of special interest.—Discussion of worship precluded: _Top._ A, xi. p. 105_a_, 5.—Aristotle’s Will: _Diog_. Laert. v. 15.—The gods as determining the limits of the human: _e.g._ _Nic. Eth._ K, viii. p. 1178b, 33: “(the wise) will also be in need of outward prosperity, as he is (only) a man.”—Reservations in speaking of the gods, _e.g._ _Nic. Eth._ K, ix. p. 1179_a_, 13: “he who is active in accordance with reason ... must also be supposed to be the most beloved of the gods; for if the gods trouble themselves about human affairs—_and that they do so is generally taken for granted_—it must be probable that they take pleasure in what is best and most nearly related to themselves (_and that must be the reason_), and that they reward those who love and honour this most highly,” etc. The passage is typical both of the hypothetical way of speaking, and of the twist in the direction of Aristotle’s own conception of the deity (whose essence is reason); also of the Socratic manner of dealing with the gods.

P. 85. The passage quoted is from the _Metaphysics_, A viii. p. 1074_a_, 38. Comp. _Metaph._ B, ii. p. 997_b_, 8; iv. p. 1000_a_, 9.

P. 86. Theophrastus: Diog. Laert. v. 37.

P. 87. Strato: Diels, _Ueber das physikal. System des S., Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad._, 1893, p. 101.—His god the same as nature: _Cic. de nat. deor._ i. 35.

P. 89. On the history of Hellenistic religion, see Wendland, _Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen z. Judentum u. Christentum_ (Tübingen, 1907).

P. 90. The passage quoted is Polyb. vi. 56, 6.

P. 92. On the Tyche-Religion, see Nägelsbach, _Nachhom. Theologie_, p. 153; Lehrs, _Populäre Aufsätze_, p. 153; Rohde, _Griech. Roman_, p. 267 (1st ed.); Wendland, p. 59.—Thucydides: see Classen in the introduction to his (3rd) edition, pp. lvii-lix, where all the material is collected. A conclusive passage is vii. 36, 6, where Thuc. makes the bigoted Nicias before a decisive battle express the hope that “Fortune” will favour the Athenians.—Demosthenes’s dream: _Aeschin._ iii. 77.—Demosthenes on Tyche: _Olynth._ ii. 22; _de cor._ 252.

P. 93. Demosthenes and the Pythia: _Aesch._ iii. 130. Comp. _ibid._ 68, 131, 152; Plutarch, _Dem._ 20.—Demetrius of Phalerum: Polyb. xxix. 21.—Temples of Tyche: Roscher, _Mythol. Lex._, art. _Fortuna_.

P. 94. Tyche mistress of the gods: _Trag. adesp. fragm._ 506, Nauck; [Dio Chrys.] lxiv. p. 331 R.—Polybius: i. 1; iii. 5, 7.—The reservations against Tyche as a principle for the explaining of historical facts, and the twisting of the notion in the direction of Providence found in certain passages in Polybius, do not concern us here; they are probably due to the Stoic influence he underwent during his stay at Rome. Comp. below, on p. 114, and see Cuntz, _Polybios_ (Leipzig, 1902), p. 43.—Pliny: ii. 22 foll.

P. 95. Tyche in the novels: Rohde, _Griech. Rom._ p. 280.

P. 97. Strabo: xvii. p. 813.—Plutarch: _de def. or._ 5 and 7.

P. 98. The Aetolians at Dium: Polyb. iv. 62; at Dodona, iv. 67; Philip at Thermon, v. 9; Dicaearchus, xviii. 54.—Decay of Roman worship: Wissowa, _Religion u. Kultus d. Römer_, p. 70 (2nd ed.). To this work I must refer for indications of the sources; but the polemic in the text is chiefly directed against Wissowa.

P. 99. Ennius: comp. below, p. 112.

P. 100. Varro: in Augustine, _de civ. Dei_, vi. 2.

P. 103. Theology of the Stoics: Zeller, iii. 1, p. 309-45.

P. 104. Demonology of the Stoics: Heinze, _Xenokrates_, p. 96.

P. 105. Epicurus’s theology: Zeller, iii. 1, pp. 427-38. Comp. Schwartz, _Charakterköpfe_, ii. p. 43.

P. 106. Epicurus’s doctrine of the eternity of the gods criticised: Cic. _de nat. deor._ i. 68 foll.

P. 107. The Sceptics: Zeller, iii. 1, pp. 507 and 521.

P. 109. Diogenes: see note on p. 74.—Bion: Diog. Laert. iv. 52 and 54.

P. 110. Menippos: R. Helm, _Lukian u. Menipp_ (Leipzig and Berlin, 1906).

P. 111. Euhemerus: Jacoby in Pauly-Wissowa’s _Realencyclop._, art. “Euemeros”; Wendland, _Hellenist. Kultur_, p. 70.—Euhemerism before Euhemerus: Lobeck, _Aglaophamus_, p. 9; Wendland, p. 67.

P. 112. A Danish scholar, Dr. J. P. Jacobsen (_Afhandlinger og Artikler_, p. 490), seems to think that Euhemerus’s theory was influenced by the worship of heroes. But there is nothing to show that Euhemerus supposed his gods to have continued their existence after their death, though this would have been in accordance with Greek belief even in the Hellenistic period; he seems rather to have insisted that they were worshipped as gods during their lifetime (comp. Jacoby, _loc. cit._).

P. 114. Euhemerism in Polybius: xxxiv. 2; comp. x. 10, 11.—Relapse into orthodoxy: xxxvii. 9 (the decisive passage); xxxix. 19, 2 (concluding prayer to the gods); xviii. 54, 7-10; xxiii. 10, 14 (the gods punish impiety; comp. xxxvii. 9, 16). There is a marked contrast between such passages and the way Polybius speaks of Philip’s destruction of the sanctuary at Thermon; he blames it severely, but merely on political, not on religious grounds (v. 9-12). Orthodox utterances in the older portions of the work (i. 84, 10; x. 2, 7) may be due to that accommodation to popular belief which Polybius himself acknowledges as justifiable (xvi. 12, 9), but also to later revision.—Influence of Stoicism: Hirzel, _Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philos. Schriften_, ii. p. 841.

P. 115. Cicero’s Stoicism in his philosophy of religion: _de nat. deor._ iii. 40, 95.

P. 116. Sanctuary to Tullia: Cic. _ad Att._ xii. 18 foll.; several of the letters (23, 25, 35, 36) show that Atticus disapproved of the idea, and that Cicero himself was conscious that it was unworthy of him.

P. 117. Euhemeristic defence: _fragm. consol._ 14, 15.—Augustus’s reorganisation of the cults: Wissowa, _Religion u. Kultus d. Römer_, p. 73. Recent scholars, especially when treating of Virgil (Heinze, _Vergils ep. Technik_, 3rd ed. p. 291; Norden, _Aeneis_, vi. 2nd ed. pp. 314, 318, 362), speak of the reform of Augustus as if it involved a real revulsion of feeling in his contemporaries. This is in my opinion a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Virgil’s religious views: _Catal. v., Georgics_, ii. 458.

P. 118. Pliny: _hist. nat._ ii. 1-27. The passages translated are §§ 14 and 27.

P. 122. Seneca: fragm. 31-39, Haase.—Stoic polemic against atheism: Epictetus, _diss._ ii. 20, 21; comp. Marcus Aurelius, vi. 44.—Later Cynicism: Zeller, iii. 1, p. 763.—Oenomaus: only preserved in excerpts by Euseb. _praep. evang._ 5-6 (a separate edition is wanted).—His polemic directed against the priests: Euseb. 5, p. 213_c_; comp. Oenomaus himself, _ibid._ 6, p. 256_d_.

P. 123. Lucian: see Christ, _Gesch. d. griech. Litt._ ii. 2, p. 550 (5th ed.), and R. Helm, _Lukian u. Menipp_ (see note to p. 110).

P. 124. Timon: ch. x.

P. 126. On Lucian’s caution in attacking the really popular gods, see Wilamowitz, in _Kultur d. Gegenwart_, i. 8, p. 248.—The Jews atheists: Harnack, _Der Vorwurf d. Atheismus in den 3 ersten Jahrh_. (_Texte u. Unters._, N.F., xiii. 4), p. 3.

P. 127. I have met with no comprehensive treatment of Jewish and Christian polemic against Paganism; Geffcken, _Zwei griech. Apologeten_ (Leipzig, 1907), is chiefly concerned with investigations into the sources. I shall therefore indicate the principal passages on which my treatment is based.—Polemic against images in the Old Testament: Isaiah 44.10 etc.; in later literature: Epistle of Jeremiah; Wisdom of Solomon 13 foll.; Philo, _de decal._ 65 foll., etc.—Euhemerism: Wisdom of Solomon 14.15; Epistle of Aristeas, 135; Sibyll. iii. 547, 554, 723.—Elements and celestial bodies: Wisdom of Solomon 13; Philo, _de decal._ 52 foll.—The tenacity of tradition is apparent from the fact that even Maimonides in his treatise of idolatry deals only with star-worship and image-worship. I know the treatise only from the Latin translation by D. Voss (in G. I. Voss’s _Opera_, vol. v.).—Demons: Deuteron. 32.17; Psalms 106.37; add (according to LXX.) Isaiah 65.11; Psalms 96.5. Later writers: Enoch 19.99, 7; Baruch 4.7. Such passages as Jub. 22, 17 or Sibyll. prooem. 22 are possibly Euhemeristic.—Fallen angels: Enoch, 19.—Philo’s demonology: _de gig._ 6-18, etc.

P. 128. St. Paul: 1 Cor. 10.20; comp. 8.4 and Rom. 1.23.

P. 129. Image-worship and demon-worship not conciliated: _e.g._ Tertull. _Apologet._ 10-15 and 22-23, comp. 27.—Jewish demonology: Bousset, _Religion d. Judentums_, p. 326 (1st ed.).—Fallen angels: _e.g._ Athenag. 24 foll.; Augustine, _Enchir._ 9, 28 foll.; _de civ. Dei_, viii. 22.

P. 130. Euhemerism in the Apologists: _e.g._ Augustine, _de civ. Dei_, ii. 10; vi. 7; vii. 18 and 33; viii. 26.—Euhemerism and demonology combined: _e.g._ Augustine, _de civ. Dei_, ii. 10; vii. 35; comp. vii. 28 fin.—Worship of the heavenly bodies: _e.g._ Aristid. 3 foll.; Augustine, _de civ. Dei_, vii. 29 foll.

P. 131. Paganism a delusion caused by demons: Thomas Aq. _Summa theol._ P. ii. 2, Q. 94, art. 4; comp. below, note on p. 135.

P. 133. For the following sketch I have found valuable material in Gedike’s essay, _Ueber die mannigfaltigen Hypothesen z. Erklärung d. Mythologie_ (_Verm. Schriften_, Berlin, 1801, p. 61).

P. 134. Milton: _Paradise Lost_, i. 506. The theory that the pagan oracles fell mute at the rise of Christianity is also found in Milton, _Hymn on the Morning of Christ’s Nativity_, st. xviii. foll.

P. 135. G. I. Voss; _De Theologia Gentili_, lib. i. (published, 1642)—Voss’s view is in the main that idolatry as a whole is the work of the Devil. What is worshipped is partly the heavenly bodies, partly demons, partly (and principally) dead men; most of the ancient gods are identified with persons from the Old Testament. Demon-worship is dealt with in ch. 6; it is proved among other things by the true predictions of the oracles. Individual Greek deities are identified with demons in ch. 7, in a context where oracles are dealt with. On older works of the same tendency, see below, note on p. 140; on Natalis Comes, _ibid._ A fuller treatment of Voss’s theories is found in Gruppe’s work, § 25.—Thomas Aquinas: _Summa theol._ P. ii. 2, Q. 94, art. 4; comp. also Q. 122, art. 2.—Dante: Sommo Giove for God, _Purg._ vi. 118; his devils: Charon, _Inf._ iii. 82 (109 expressly designated as “dimonio”); Minos, _Inf._ v. 4; Geryon, _Inf._ xviii. (there are more of the same kind).—“Dei falsi e bugiardi”: _Inf._ i. 72. (Plutus, who appears as a devil in _Inf._ vii. was probably taken by Dante for an antique god; but the name may also be a classicising translation of Mammon.)

P. 136. Mediaeval epic poets: Nyrop, _Den oldfranske Heltedigtning_, p. 255 and 260; Dernedde, _Ueber die den altfranzös. Dichtern bekannten Stoffe aus dem Altertum_ (Diss. Götting. 1887).—Confusion of ancient and Christian elements: Dernedde, p. 10; the gods are devils: Dernedde, pp. 85, 88.—Euhemerism: Dernedde, p. 4.—I have tried to get a first-hand impression of the way the gods are treated by the old French epic poets, but the material is too large, and indexes suited to the purpose are wanting. The paganism of the original is taken over naïvely, _e.g._, by Veldeke, _Eneidt_, i. 45, 169.—On magic I have consulted Horst’s _Dämonomagie_ (Frankf. 1818); and his _Zauber-Bibliothek_ (Mainz, 1821-26); Schindler, _Der Aberglaube des Mittelalters_ (Breslau, 1858); Maury, _La magie et l’astrologie dans l’antiquité et au moyen âge_ (Paris, 1860). These authors all agree that mediaeval magic is dependent on antiquity, but that the pagan gods are superseded by devils (or the Devil). The connexion in substance with antiquity, on which Maury specially insists, is certain enough, but does not concern us here, where the question is about the theory. In the _Zauber-Bibl._ i. p. 137 (in the treatise _Pneumatologia vera et occulta_), the snake Python is put down among the demons, with the remark that Apollo was called after it.—Magic formulae with antique gods: Heim, _Incantamenta magica_ (in the _Neue Jahrbb. f. Philologie_, Suppl. xix. 1893, p. 557; I owe this reference to the kindness of my colleague, Prof. Groenbeck). Pradel, _Religionsgesch. Vers. u. __ Vorarb._ iii., has collected prayers and magic formulae from Italy and Greece; they do not contain names of antique gods.

P. 137. Acosta: Joseph de Acosta, _Historia naturale e morale delle Indie_, Venice, 1596. I have used this Italian translation; the original work appeared in 1590.—Demons at work in oracles: bk. v. ch. 9; in magic: ch. 25.

P. 138. Demon in Brazil: Voss, _Theol. Gent._ i. ch. 8.—Pagan worship in the Florentine and Roman Academies: Voigt, _Wiederbelebung d. klass. Altertums_, ii. p. 239 (2nd ed.); Hettner, _Ital. Studien_, p. 174.—On the conception of the antique gods in the earlier Middle Ages, see Gruppe, § 4.—Thomas Aquinas: _Summa theol._ P. ii. 2, Q. 94, art. 4.—Curious and typical of the mediaeval way of reasoning is the idea of seeking prototypes of the Christian history of salvation in pagan mythology. See v. Eicken, _Gesch. u. System d. mittelalt. Weltanschauung_ (Stuttg. 1887), p. 648, and (with more detail) F. Piper, _Mythologie u. Symbolik d. christl. Kunst_ (Weimar, 1847-51), i. p. 143; comp. also Gruppe, § 8 foll. Good instances are the myths in the _Speculum humanae salvationis_, chs. 3 and 24.

P. 139. On Hebraism in general, see Gruppe, § 19 and § 24 foll.; on Huet, § 28. Nevertheless, Huet operates with demonology in connexion with the oracles (_Dem. evang._ ii. 9, 34, 4).

P. 140. On Natalis Comes, see Gruppe, § 19. In bk. i. ch. 7, Natalis Comes gives an account of the origin of antiquity’s conceptions of the gods; it has quite a naturalistic turn. Nevertheless, we find in ch. 16 a remark which shows that he embraced demonology in its crudest form; compare also the theory set forth in ch. 10. His interpretations of myths are collected in bk. x.—On Bacon, see Gruppe, § 22. Typhoeus-myth: introduct. to _De sapientia veterum._—Alchemistic interpretations: Gedike, _Verm. Schriften_, p. 78; Gruppe, § 30. Of the works quoted by Gedike, I have consulted Faber’s _Panchymicum_ (Frankf. 1651) and Toll’s Fortuita (Amsterd. 1687). Faber has only some remarks on the matter in bk. i. ch. 5; by Toll the alchemistic interpretation is carried through. Gedike quotes, moreover, a work by Suarez de Salazar, which must date from the sixteenth century; according to Jöcher (iv. 1913) it only exists in MS., and I do not know where Gedike got his reference.—Thomas: _Summa_, P. ii. 2, Q. 172, arts. 5 and 6.

P. 141. Demonology as explanation of the oracles: see van Dale, _De oraculis_, p. 430 (Amsterd. 1700); he quotes numerous treatises from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I have glanced at Moebius, _De oraculorum ethnicorum origine_, etc. (Leipzig, 1656).—Caelius Rhodiginus: _Lectionum antiq._ (Leyden, 1516), lib. ii. cap. 12; comp. Gruppe, § 15.—Caelius Calcagninus: _Oraculorum liber_ (in his _Opera_, Basle, 1544, p. 640). The little dialogue is not very easy to understand; it is evidently a satire on contemporary credulity; but that Caelius completely rejected divination seems to be assumed also by G. I. Voss, _Theol. Gent._ i. 6.—Machiavelli: _Discorsi_, i. 56.—Van Dale: _De oraculis gentilium_ (1st ed. Amsterd. 1683); _De idololatria_ (Amsterd. 1696). Difficulties with the biblical accounts of demons: _De idol._, dedication.—Fontenelle: _Histoire des oracles_ (Paris, 1687). The little book has an amusing preface, in which Fontenelle with naïve complacency (and with a sharp eye for van Dale’s deficiencies of style) gives an account of his popularisation of the learned work. On Fontenelle and the answer by the Jesuit, Balthus, see for further details Banier, _La mythologie et les fables expliquées par l’histoire_ (Paris, 1738), bk. iii. ch. 1. Van Dale’s book itself had called forth an answer by Moebius (included in the edition of 1690 of his work, _de orac. ethn. orig._).—On the influence exercised by van Dale and Fontenelle on the succeeding mythologists, see Gruppe, § 34.—Banier: see Gruppe, § 35.

P. 143. Vico: _Scienza nuova_ (Milan, 1853), p. 168 (bk. ii. in the section, Della metafisica poetica); political allegories, _e.g._ p. 309 (in the Canone mitologico). Comp. Gruppe, § 44.—Banier: in the work indicated above, bk. i. ch. 5.

P. 144. On the mythological theories of the eighteenth century, comp. Gruppe, § 36 foll.; on Bryant, § 40; on Dupuis, § 41.—Polemic against Euhemerism from the standpoint of nature-symbolism: de la Barre, _Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la religion en Grèce_, in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscr._ xxiv. (1749; the treatise had already been communicated in 1737 and 1738); a posthumous continuation in _Mém._ xxix. (1770) gives an idea of de la Barre’s own point of view, which was not a little in advance of his time. Comp. Gruppe, § 37.

P. 145. A good survey of modern investigations in the field of the history of ancient religion is given by Sam Wide in the _Einleit. in die Altertumswissensch._ ii.; here also remarks on the mythology of older times. The later part of Gruppe’s work contains a very full treatment of the subject.

INDEX

Absolute definitions of the divine, 16, 19, 68, 69, 82, 88.

Academics, 149.

Academy, later, 108, 114.

Acosta, 137, 139, 141.

Aelian, 121.

Aeneid (mediaeval), 136.

Aeschines, 93.

Aeschylus, 54, 55.

Aetolians, 97, 98.

Alchemistic explanation of Paganism, 140.

Alcibiades, 60.

Alexander the Great, 93, 112.

Allegorical interpretation, 104, 113, 139, 140, 143, 144.

American Paganism, 137, 139, 141.

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, 7, 13, 25-29, 30, 31, 40, 62, 63, 66, 124.

Anaximenes, 30.

Angelology, 129.

Anthropomorphism, 14, 18, 19, 69.

Antisthenes, 13, 74, 109.

Apologists, 128, 130, 132, 139.

Arcissewsky, 138.

Aristides the Apologist, 129.

Aristides Rhetor, 121.

Aristodemus, 60, 62.

Aristophanes, 30, 32, 33, 39, 55, 56-58, 65.
_Birds_, 32.
_Clouds_, 30, 55, 56-58
_Frogs_, 55.

Aristotle, 13, 30, 32, 46, 83-87, 104, 113.
_Ethics_, 84.
_Metaphysics_, 85-86.
_Politics_, 84.

Aristoxenus, 32, 33.

Asclepius, 111, 121, 126.

_Asebeia_, 6, 7, 8.

Aspasia, 27.

Atheism (and Atheist) defined, 1;
rare in antiquity, 2, 133;
of recent origin, 2, 143;
origin of the words, 5;
lists of atheists, 13;
punishable by death in Plato’s _Laws_, 77;
sin of youth, 78.

Athene, 74.

Athens, its treatment of atheism, 6-8, 9, 12, 25, 39, 65 foll., 74, 75,
83, 86;
its view of sophistic, 58-59.

_Atheos_ (_atheoi_), 2, 10, 13, 14, 19, 23, 29, 43, 75, 110.

_Atheotes_, 2.

Augustine, St., 129, 135.

Augustus, 117;
religious reaction of, 100, 113, 117, 120.

Aurelius, Marcus, 11, 121.

Bacon, Francis (_De Sap. Vet._) 140.

Banier, 142, 143.

Bible, 130, 142.

Bion, 13, 109.

Brazil, 138.

Bruno, Giordano, 151.

Bryant, 144.

Buttmann, 152.

Caelius Calcagninus, 141.

Caelius Rhodiginus, 141.

Callicles, 48 foll., 63.

Carlyle, 112.

Carneades, 8, 108.

Cassander of Macedonia, 111.

Charon, 135.

Christianity, 126, 128-32.

Christians, their atheism, 9;
prosecutions of, 10;
demonology, 83.

Cicero, 19, 105, 114-17, 147.
_Nature of the Gods_, 115.
_On the State_, 115.
_On the Laws_, 115.
_De consolatione_, 116.

Cinesias, 60.

Copernicus, 151.

Critias, 13, 44-50.
_Sisyphus_, 44 f., 114.

Criticism of popular religion, 16, 17, 19, 35 foll., 74, 78, 82, 84, 88,
90, 99, 104, 109, 110, 122, 124-26.

Cuthites, 144.

Cynics, 74, 109-10, 122, 124, 147.

Cyrenaics, 75.

_Daimonion_ of Socrates, 65, 66, 72-73.

van Dale, 141-42.

Dante, 135.

Deisidaimon, 75.

Demeter, 42, 43, 81.

Demetrius of Phalerum, 75, 93.
_On Tyche_, 93.

Democritus, 24, 42, 43, 44, 47, 52.

Demonology, 81-83, 105, 113, 127-32, 134-42, 148, 149.

Demosthenes, 92-93, 96.

Devil, 132, 137, 139, 141, 144.

Diagoras of Melos, 13, 31-34, 39, 50.
_Apopyrgizontes logoi_, 32, 33.

Dicaearchus, 98.

Diodorus Siculus, 112.

Diogenes of Apollonia, 13, 29-30, 57.

Diogenes the Cynic, 109.

Dionysus, 42, 43.

Diopeithes, 28.

Dioscuri, 124.

Dium, 98.

Divination, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28, 40, 97, 114, 131, 135, 137, 140-42.
Comp. Oracle.

Dodona, 98, 141.

Dogmatics, 108.

Domitian, 11.

Dupuis, 144.

Elements, divine, 23, 24, 30, 52 foll., 57, 81, 103, 127.

Eleusinian Mysteries, 32, 33, 40, 60.

Ennius, 99, 112.

Epicureans, Epicurus, 13, 76, 80, 83, 105-7, 113, 147, 149.

Euhemerus, Euhemerism, 13, 110-12, 113, 114, 117, 127, 130, 136, 137, 139,
140, 142, 143, 144.

Euripides, 16, 17, 21, 45, 46, 48, 51-56, 62.
_Bellerophon_, 53.
_Melanippe_, 55, 56.

Fallen angels, 128, 129, 130.

Florentine Academy, 138.

Foreign gods, 70, 89, 103.

Fontenelle, 142.

Geocentric view, 150.

Geryon, 135.

Giants, 18.

Gorgias, 37.

Hades, 81.

Heavenly bodies, 2, 20, 22, 25, 43, 62, 66, 79, 80, 81, 84, 87, 104, 127,
128, 130, 137, 139, 144, 149, 151.

Heavenly phenomena, 22.

Hebraism, 139, 143, 144.

Hecataeus of Abdera, 112.

Heliocentric view, 151.

Hellenistic philosophy, 94, 103-10, 119.

Hephaestus, 42, 43.

Heracles, 74, 111.

Hercules, 136.

Herder, 145.

Hermae, 40, 60.

Hermes, 124.

Hermias, 83.

Herodotus, 28, 29.

Hesiod, 16, 18.

Heyne, 152.

Hippo of Rhegium, 13, 29-30.

Holy War, 96.

Homer, 16, 18, 43, 68, 106.

Horace, 117.

Huet, 139.

Hylozoism, 23.

Ideas, Platonic, 80.

Idolatry attacked, 123.
See also Image Worship.

Ignorance, Socratic, 68.

Image Worship, 127, 128, 131-37.

Jews, their atheism, 9, 126.

Josephus, 128.

Judaism, 126, 127-28, 129.

Juno Regina, 136.

Jupiter (in Dante), 135;
(in the Thebaïs,) 136.

Jupiter-priest, 100.

Kepler, 151.

Kronos, 111.

Lampon, 26.

Lobeck, 152.

Lucian, 110, 123-26.
_Timon_, 124.
_Dialogues of the Gods_, 125.

Lucretius, 106.

Luna Jovis filia, 136.

Macedonia, 93.

Machiavelli, 141.

Magic, 136-37.

Mannhardt, 152.

Mantinea, constitution of, 32.

Marcus Aurelius, 11, 121.

Mediaeval epic poets, 136.

Megarians, 74, 107.

Menippus of Gadara, 110.

Mexico, 137.

Middle Ages, 133, 135-39.

Milton (_Paradise Lost_), 134, 135, 141.

Minos, 135.

Miracles, pagan, 131, 132.

Modesty, religions, 55, 70, 73.

Moschion, 46.

Moses and his sister, 139.

Monotheism, 9, 12, 23, 74, 80, 83, 127 foll., 139, 148, 151.

Müller, K. O., 152.

Natalis Comes, 139 foll.

Naturalism, Ionian, 21, 22-25, 30-31, 52, 57.

Negroes, 18.

Neo-Platonists, 83, 121.

Neo-Pythagoreans, 83, 121.

Nero, 11.

Newton, 151.

Nile, 42.

_Nomos_ (and _Physis_), 35, 36, 38, 63, 74.

Nymphs, 136.

Oenomaus (_The Swindlers Unmasked_), 122-23, 126.

Old Testament, 127, 129.

Oracle of Ammon, 97; oracles of Boeotia, 97;
Delphic Oracle, 28, 60, 67, 68, 71, 72, 77, 93, 96, 97, 123, 141;
decay of oracles, 96-97;
oracles explained by priestly fraud, 123, 141-42.
Ovid, 117.

Paganism of Antiquity, its character, 15.

Panchaia, 111.

Parmenides, 21.

Pantheism, 20, 23, 103, 119, 122, 127.

Paul, St., 128.

Pericles, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 124.

Peripatetics, 147, 149.

Peru, 137.

Pheidias, 27.

Philip III. of Macedonia, 96.

Philip V. of Macedonia, 97-98.

Philo, 128.

Phocians, 96.

_Physis_ (and _Nomos_), 35, 36, 63, 74.

Pindar, 16, 17, 52, 71.

Plato, 13, 39, 48, 49, 50, 56, 59, 61-63, 65, 66, 72, 76-81, 82, 84, 113,
147.
_Apology_, 59, 65, 66, 68, 72, 78, 79.
_Euthyphron_, 67, 76.
_Gorgias_, 48 foll., 63, 77.
_Laws_, 61 foll., 77, 78, 79, 80.
_Republic_, 50, 56, 77, 78.
_Symposium_, 82.
_Timaeus_, 77, 79, 80.

Platonism, 148.

Plethon, 138.

Pliny the Elder, 94, 95, 118, 147.

Plutarch (_de def. orac._), 97.

Polybius, 48, 90-91, 94, 99, 113-14, 147;
Stoicism in P., 114.

Pomponazzi (_De Incantat._), 141.

Poseidon, 42, 81.

Poseidonius, 104.

Prodicus of Ceos, 13, 42-44, 104.

Protagoras of Abdera, 13, 39-42, 47.
_On the Gods_, 39 foll.
_Original State_, 47.

Providence, 60, 61, 78, 105, 118, 122.

Pythia, 93.

Reaction, religious, of second century, 120-21, 125;
of Augustus, see Augustus.

Reinterpretation of the conceptions of the gods, 2.
See also Allegorical interpretation.

Religion a political invention, 47, 114.

Religious thought, early, of Greece, 16-17, 52, 54, 55, 69-70, 71, 84, 88,
98, 107.

Renaissance, 133, 138, 139 foll., 141.

Rohde, 152.

Roman Academy, 138.

Roman religion, 90, 99-100, 101-2.

Roman State-worship, decay of, 98-103.

Romance of Troy, 136.

Romances, 95-96.

Rome’s treatment of atheism, 8-11.

Rousseau, 145.

Scepticism, 107-8, 114, 147.

Schoolmen, 135.

Seneca, 110, 122.

Sibylline books, 97.

Sisyphus, 45, 48.

Socrates, 7, 13, 40, 46, 49, 56, 58, 64-73, 84, 107, 147. See also
_Daimonion_ of S.

Socratic philosophy, 64, 87, 149.

Socratic Schools, 73, 87-88.

Sol invictus, 136.

Solon, 16.

Sophistic, 35-38, 57, 64, 87, 104, 148, 149.

Sophocles, 28, 54.

Stilpo, 13, 74, 108.

Stoics, 83, 103-5, 113, 118, 119, 121-22, 147, 148, 149.

Strabo, 97.

Strato, 87, 108.

Suetonius, 121.

Supernaturalism, 149-51.

Superstition, 75, 90, 102, 123, 126.

Tapuis, 138.

Thales, 24.

Thebaïs (mediaeval), 136.

Theodicy (Socratic), 67.

Theodoras, 13, 75-76, 108, 109.
_On the Gods_, 75.

Theophrastus, 13, 86.

Thermon, 98.

Thomas Aquinas, 131, 135, 138, 139, 140.

Thracians, 18.

Thrasymachus, 50, 62.

Thucydides (the historian), 28-29, 92, 94.

Thucydides (the statesman), 26.

Tiberius, 118.

Tisiphone, 136.

Titans, 18.

Tolerance in antiquity, 9, 11.

Trajan, 11.

Tullia, 116.

Tyche, 91-96, 118.

Typhoeus, 140.

Uranos, 111.

Usener, 152.

Valerius Maximus, 118.

Varro, 100, 110.

Vico (_Scienza Nuova_), 143.

Violation of sanctuaries, 40, 60, 97, 100.

Virgil, 117.

Voss, G. I., 135, 138, 141.

Wisdom of Solomon, 128.

Worship rejected, 9-13, 60, 74, 77, 84, 109, 123, 125.

Xenocrates, 81-82, 105, 113, 129.

Xenophanes of Colophon, 13, 17-21, 52, 56.

Xenophon, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67.
_Memorab._ 58, 60.
_Apology_, 58.

Zeller, 76, 79.

Zeno of Elea, 21.

Zeus, 16, 22, 30, 43, 55, 57, 58, 81, 105, 111, 124.

FOOTNOTES

1 This was written before the appearance of Mr. Gruppe’s work,
_Geschichte der klassischen Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_.
Compare _infra_, p. 154.