CHAP. XVIII. A. Criticism of the gods and the popular faith. CHAPTER XVIII. VIEWS OF EPICURUS ON RELIGION. THOROUGHLY satisfied with the results of his own enquiries into nature, Epicurus hoped by his view of the causes of things not only to displace the superstitions of a polytheistic worship, but also to uproot the prejudice in favour of Providence. In fact, these two objects were placed by him on exactly the same footing. So absurd did he consider the popular notions respecting the Gods, that not content with blaming those who attacked them he believed it impious to acquiesce in them. Religion being, according to Lucretius, the cause of the greatest evils, he who dethrones it to make way for rational views of nature deserves praise as having overcome the most dangerous enemy of mankind. All the language of Epi 1 Ding. x. 123: oious d'avтoùs [τοὺς θεοὺς] οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς οἵους νομίζουσιν. ἀπεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεούς ἀναιρῶν ἀλλ' ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας θεοῖς προσάπτων. Cic. Ν. D. i. 16, 42. In terris oppressa gravi sub relligione, Quæ caput a coli regionibus ostendebat Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, &c. ib. 101: 2 iii. 14; vi. 49; and, specially, Tantum relligio potuit suadere i. 62: Humana ante oculos fœde cum malorum. Conf. Epic. in Diog. 81, vita jaceret XVIII. curus in disparagement of the art of poetry applies CHAP. in a still higher degree to the religious errors fostered by poetry. Belief in Providence is not one whit better than the popular faith. This belief is also included in the category of romance;2 and the doctrine of fatalism, which was the Stoic form for the same belief, was denounced as even worse than the popular faith. For how, asks the Epicurean, could divine Providence have created a world in which evil abounds, in which virtue often fares ill, whilst vice is triumphant? How could a world have been made for the sake of man, when man can only inhabit a very small portion of it? How could nature be intended to promote man's well-being when it so often imperils his life and labour, and sends him into the world more helpless than any animal? How can we form a conception of beings ruling over an infinite universe, and everywhere present to administer everything in every place? What could have induced these beings to create a world, and how and whence could. they have known how to create it, had not nature supplied them with an example? In fine, how could God be the happy Being He must be if the 1 Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 4: [Επίκουρος] ἅπασαν ὁμοῦ ποιητικὴν ὥσπερ ἀλεθριον μύθων θέλεαρ ἀφοσιούμενος. Ibid. e. 75. 2 Plut. Def. Orac. 19: 'ETκουρείων δὲ χλευασμοὺς καὶ γέλωτας οὔτι φοβητέον οἷς τολμῶσι χρῆσθαι καὶ κατὰ τῆς προνοίας μūloν aνтην ȧτокаλoûνтES. N. P. Suav. Viv. 21, 2: diaßáλλovTes τὴν πρόνοιαν ὥσπερ παισὶν Εμπουσαν ἢ Ποινὴν αλιτηριώδη καὶ TрayıkǹV Èπiyeypaμμévny. In Cic. 3 Lucr. v. 196; ii. 1090; Plut. 4 7, 8. Lucr. v. 165; Plut. Plac. i. CHAP. XVIII. B. The gods ac cording to Epicurus. (1) Rea sons for his belief. whole burden of caring for all things and all events lies upon Him, or He is swayed to and fro together with the body of the world? Or how could we feel any other feeling but that of fear in the presence of such a God? 2 3 With the denial of the popular Gods, the denial of demons, of course, goes hand in hand, and, together with Providence, the need of prayer and of prophecy is at the same time refuted. All these notions, according to Epicurus, are the result of ignorance and fear. Pictures seen in dreams have been confounded with real existences; regularity of motion in the heavenly bodies has been mistaken by the ignorant for the work of God; events which accidentally happened in combination with others have been regarded as portents; terrific natural phenomena, storms and earthquakes, have engendered in men's minds the fear of higher powers. Fear is therefore the basis of religion; and, on the other hand, freedom from fear is the primary object aimed at by philosophy. Nevertheless, Epicurus was unwilling to renounce belief in the Gods, nor is it credible that this un De An. 46. Lucr. v. 1159-1238; iv. 33; vi. 49; Sext. Math. ix. 25; vi. 19; Diog. 98; 115. This view is especially prominent in Lucretius. Conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 21, 10; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54. 8 He drew up separate treatises Tepi Dewy and Teρì dσióTηTOS. Diog. 27; Cic. N. D. i. 41, 115; Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 21, 11. willingness was simply a yielding to popular opinion.' The language used by the Epicureans certainly gives the impression of sincerity; and the time was past when avowed atheism was attended with danger. Atheism would have been as readily condoned in the time of Epicurus as the deism which denied most unreservedly the popular faith. It is, however, possible to trace the causes which led Epicurus to believe that there are Gods. There was first the general diffusion of a belief in Gods which appeared to him to establish the truth of this belief, and hence he declared the existence of Gods to be something directly certain, and grounded on a primary notion (πρόληψις).2 Moreover, with his materialistic theory of knowledge he no doubt supposed that our conviction of the existence of Gods was due to sensations derived from atom-pictures, Democritus having already deduced the belief in Gods 3 from such pictures. And in addition to these theoretical reasons, Epicurus had also another, half æsthetical, half 1 Posidonius, in Cic. N. D. i. 44, 123; 30, 85; iii. 1, 3; Plut. 2 Epic. in Diog. 123: Geol μèv γάρ εἰσι· ἐναργὴς μὲν γάρ ἐστιν AUTŵy yvwσis. The Epicurean in Cic. N. D. i. 16, 43: Solus enim [Epicurus] vidit, primum esse Deos quod in omnium animis eorum notionem impressisset ipsa natura. Quæ est enim gens aut quod genus hominum quod non habeat sine doctrina anticipationem quandam Deorum? quam appellat πρόληψιν Epicurus, &c. These statements must, however, be received with some caution. In support of this view, see CHAP. XVIII. CHAP. XVIII. (2) Nature of the Epicurean gods. religious: the wish to see his ideal of happiness realised in the person of the Gods,' and it is this ideal which decides the character of all his notions respecting the Gods. His Gods are therefore, throughout, human beings. Such beings are alone known as the Gods of religious belief, or, as Epicurus expresses it, such beings alone come before us in those pictures of the Gods which present themselves to our minds, sometimes in sleep, sometimes when we are awake. flection, too, convinces us that the human form is the most beautiful, that to it alone reason belongs, and that it is the most appropriate form for perfectly happy beings. Epicurus even went so far as to attribute to the Gods difference of sex.3 At the same time everything must be cast off which is not appropriate to a divine being. Re The two essential characteristics of the Gods, according to Epicurus, are immortality and perfect happiness. Both of these characteristics would be impaired if we were to attribute to the bodies of the Gods the Diog. 121. Cic. N. D. i. 17, 45: Si nihil aliud quæreremus, nisi ut Deos pie coleremus et ut superstitione liberaremur, satis erat dictum: nam et præstans Deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et æterna esset et beatissima et metus omnis a vi atque ira Deorum pulsus esset. Ibid. 20, 56: We do not fear the Gods, et pie sancteque colimus naturam excellentem atque praestantem. Ibid. 41, 115. Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 3: Epicurus denied all connection of God with the world, but, at the same time, would have him honoured as a father, propter majestatem ejus eximiam singularemque na turam. Cic. N. D. i. 18, 46; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 218; Plut. Ph. Phil. i. 7, 18 (Stob. i. 66); Phædr. Fragm. col. 7; Metrodorus, repì aio@ntŵv, col. 10; col. 16, 21. 3 Cic. N. D. i. 34, 95. Epic. in Diog. 123: πрŵтоY μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων . . . μηδὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσω ATTE, K.T.λ. Cic. N. D. i. 17, 45; 19, 51; Lucr. ii. 646; v. 165. |