CHAPTER IX_Atheism in Pagan Antiquity

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.