Velleius From On The Nature Of The Gods

Cicero (Latin): [18] Tum Velleius fidenter sane, ut solent isti, nihil tam verens, quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur, tamquam modo ex deorum concilio et ex Epicuri intermundiis descendisset, "Audite" inquit "non futtilis commenticiasque sententias, non opificem aedificatoremque mundi Platonis de Timaeo deum, nec anum fatidicam Stoicorum Pronoeam, quam Latine licet Providentiam dicere, neque vero mundum ipsum animo et sensibus praeditum, rutundum, ardentem, volubilem deum, portenta et miracula non disserentium philosophorum, sed somniantium.

[19] Quibus enim oculis animi intueri potuit vester Plato fabricam illam tanti operis, qua construi a deo atque aedificari mundum facit; quae molitio, quae ferramenta, qui vectes, quae machinae, qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt; quem ad modum autem oboedire et parere voluntati architecti aer, ignis, aqua, terra potuerunt; unde vero ortae illae quinque formae, ex quibus reliqua formantur, apte cadentes ad animum afficiendum pariendosque sensus? Longum est ad omnia, quae talia sunt, ut optata magis quam inventa videantur;

[20] sed illa palmaris, quod, qui non modo natum mundum introduxerit, sed etiam manu paene factum, is eum dixerit fore sempiternum. Hunc censes primis, ut dicitur, labris gustasse physiologiam, id est naturae rationem, qui quicquam, quod ortum sit, putet aeternum esse posse? Quae est enim coagmentatio non dissolubilis, aut quid est, cuius principium aliquod sit, nihil sit extremum? Pronoea vero si vestra est, Lucili, eadem, requiro, quae paulo ante, ministros, machinas, omnem totius operis dissignationem atque apparatum; sin alia est, cur mortalem fecerit mundum, non, quem ad modum Platonicus deus, sempiternum.

Yonge: ... Do not attend, says he, to these idle and imaginary tales; nor to the operator and builder of the World, the God of Plato’s Timæus; nor to the old prophetic dame, the Pronoia of the Stoics, which the Latins call Providence; nor to that round, that burning, revolving deity, the World, endowed with sense and understanding; the prodigies and wonders, not of inquisitive philosophers, but of dreamers!

For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be modelled and built by God? What materials, what tools, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the air, fire, water, and earth pay obedience and submit to the will of the architect? From whence arose those five forms, of which the rest were composed, so aptly contributing to frame the mind and produce the senses? It is tedious to go through all, as they are of such a sort that they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered.

But, what is more remarkable, he gives us a world which has been not only created, but, if I may so say, in a manner formed with hands, and yet he says it is eternal. Do you conceive him to have the least skill in natural philosophy who is capable of thinking anything to be everlasting that had a beginning? For what can possibly ever have been put together which cannot be dissolved again? Or what is there that had a beginning which will not have an end? If your Providence, Lucilius, is the same as Plato’s God, I ask you, as before, who were the assistants, what were the engines, what was the plan and preparation of the whole work? If it is not the same, then why did she make the world mortal, and not everlasting, like Plato’s God?

Brooks: ... Listen, he said, to no groundless and fanciful beliefs; no fabricator and builder of the world, like the god from Plato’s Timæus; no prophetic beldame like the πρόνοια of the Stoics (whom in our own language we may call providence); no world itself, either, endowed with mind and sensation, a round and glowing and whirling deity,—the prodigies and marvels of philosophers who do not reason but dream. Why, by what manner of means could Plato, your pet authority, have beheld the construction of this great work, the construction with which he represents the world asbeing put together and built by God? How was so vast a fabric set about? What were the tools, and levers, and machines, and agents employed in it? On the other hand how could air, fire, water, and earth have been obedient and submissive to the architect’s will? And whence did those five forms arise from which the other elements are formed, and which are so conveniently adapted for affecting the mind, and producing sensation?

It would be tedious to remark upon all his theories, which have more the appearance of day dreams than of ascertained results, but the prize instance is the following: he represented the world not merely as having come into existence, but as having been almost turned out by hand, and yet asserted that it would be everlasting. Now do you think that a man like this, who thinks that anything that has come into being can be eternal, has put, as the saying is, even the surface of his lips tophysiologia,in other words, to natural philosophy? For is there any agglomeration that cannot be dissolved, or anything that, having a beginning, has not also an end? As for your πρόνοια, Lucilius, if it is the same as the power we have been discussing, I ask, as I did just now, for the agents, machines, and all the planning and ordering of the entirework. If, on the other hand, it is something different, I ask why it made the world liable to perish, instead of making it everlasting, as was done by the god of Plato.

American: ... I am not going to talk to you about doctrines that are mere baseless figments of the imagination, such as the artisan and world-building god of Plato's Timaeus, or that old hag of a fortune-teller the Stoics call Providence. Nor am I going to tell you that the world is endowed with a mind and senses of its own, or that the sun is a spherical, rotating god of burning fire. These are the marvels and monstrosities of philosophers who do not reason but dream.

What power of mental vision enabled Plato to see the vast and elaborate architectural process which, as he makes out, the deity adopted in building the structure of the universe? What method of engineering was employed? What tools and levers and derricks? What agents carried out so vast an undertaking? And how were air, fire, water and earth enabled to obey and execute the will of the architect? How did the five regular solids, which they say are the basis of all other forms of matter, come into existence so conveniently adapted to make impressions on our minds and produce sensations?

It would be a lengthy task to remark upon every detail of a system that seems more the result of idle theorizing than of real research. But the prize example is that Plato, who represented the world not merely as having had an origin but even as almost made by hand, also declared that it will exist forever. Can you suppose that a man can have even dipped into natural philosophy if he imagines that anything that has come into being can be eternal? What composite whole is not capable of dissolution? What thing is there that has a beginning but not an end? As for your Stoic Providence, Lucilius, if it is the same thing as Plato's creator I repeat my previous questions. What were its agents and instruments? How was the entire undertaking planned out and carried through? If on the contrary your Providence is something different, I ask why it made the world mortal rather than everlasting as did Plato's divine creator?

Cicero (Latin): [21] Ab utroque autem sciscitor, cur mundi aedificatores repente exstiterint, innumerabilia saecla dormierint; non enim, si mundus nullus erat, saecla non erant (saecla nunc dico non ea, quae dierum noctiumque numero annuis cursibus conficiuntur; nam fateor ea sine mundi conversione effici non potuisse; sed fuit quaedam ab infinito tempore aeternitas, quam nulla circumscriptio temporum metiebatur, spatio tamen qualis ea fuerit intellegi potest, quod ne in cogitationem quidem cadit, ut fuerit tempus aliquod, nullum cum tempus esset) —

[22] isto igitur tam inmenso spatio, quaero, Balbe, cur Pronoea vestra cessaverit. Laboremne fugiebat? At iste nec attingit deum nec erat ullus, cum omnes naturae numini divino, caelum, ignes, terrae, maria, parerent. Quid autem erat, quod concupisceret deus mundum signis et luminibus tamquam aedilis ornare? Si, ut [deus] ipse melius habitaret, antea videlicet tempore infinito in tenebris tamquam in gurgustio habitaverat. Post autem: varietatene eum delectari putamus, qua caelum et terras exornatas videmus? Quae ista potest esse oblectatio deo? Quae si esset, non ea tam diu carere potuisset.

[23] An haec, ut fere dicitis, hominum causa a deo constituta sunt? Sapientiumne? Propter paucos igitur tanta est rerum facta molitio. An stultorum? At primum causa non fuit, cur de inprobis bene mereretur; deinde quid est adsecutus, cum omnes stulti sint sine dubio miserrimi, maxime quod stulti sunt (miserius enim stultitia quid possumus dicere), deinde quod ita multa sunt incommoda in vita, ut ea sapientes commodorum conpensatione leniant, stulti nec vitare venientia possint nec ferre praesentia.

Yonge: But I would demand of you both, why these world-builders started up so suddenly, and lay dormant for so many ages? For we are not to conclude that, if there was no world, there were therefore no ages. I do not now speak of such ages as are finished by a certain number of days and nights in annual courses; for I acknowledge that those could not be without the revolution of the world; but there was a certain eternity from infinite time, not measured by any circumscription of seasons; but how that was in space we cannot understand, because we cannot possibly have even the slightest idea of time before time was. I desire, therefore, to know, Balbus, why this Providence of yours was idle for such an immense space of time? Did she avoid labor? But that could have no effect on the Deity; nor could there be any labor, since all nature, air, fire, earth, and water would obey the divine essence. What was it that incited the Deity to act the part of an ædile, to illuminate and decorate the world? If it was in order that God might be the better accommodated in his habitation, then he must have been dwelling an infinite length of time before in darkness as in a dungeon. But do we imagine that he was afterward delighted with that variety with which we see the heaven and earth adorned? What entertainment could that be to the Deity? If it was any, he would not have been without it so long.

Or were these things made, as you almost assert, by God for the sake of men? Was it for the wise? If so, then this great design was adopted for the sake of a very small number. Or for the sake of fools? First of all, there was no reason why God should consult the advantage of the wicked; and, further, what could be his object in doing so, since all fools are, without doubt, the most miserable of men, chiefly because they are fools? For what can we pronounce more deplorable than folly? Besides, there are many inconveniences in life which the wise can learn to think lightly of by dwelling rather on the advantages which they receive; but which fools are unable to avoid when they are coming, or to bear when they are come.

Brooks: And from both of you I inquire why these powers suddenly appeared as constructors of the world, and why for innumerable ages they were asleep, for it does not follow, if there was no world, that there were no ages. By ages I do not now mean those that are made up of a number of days and nights by means of the yearly revolutions, for I acknowledge that ages in that sense could not have been attained without a rotatory movement of the heavens, but from infinitely far back there has existed an eternity, the nature of which in point of extent can be conceived, though it was not measured by periods of time.

I ask, then, Balbus, why during that limitless extent of time your πρόνοια refrained from action. Was it labour that it shunned? But God was not affected by that, nor was there any, since all the elements, the air of heaven, the bodies composed of fire, the lands, and seas, were obedient to the divine will. What reason, again, was there why God should be desirous of decking the world, like an ædile, with figures and lights?

If he did so in order that he himself might be better lodged, it is clear that for an infinite amount of time previously he had been living in all the darkness of a hovel. And do we regard him as afterwards deriving pleasure from the diversity with which we see heaven and earth adorned? What delight can that be to God? And if it were a delight, he would not have been able to go without it for so long. Or was this universe, as your school is accustomed to assert, established by God for the sake of men? Does that mean for the sake of wise men? In that case it was on behalf of but a small number that so vast a work was constructed. Or was it for the sake of the foolish? In the first place there was no reason why God should do a kindness to the bad, and in the second place what did he effect, seeing that the lot of all the foolish is undoubtedly a most miserable one? The chief reason for this is the fact that they are foolish, for what can we name as being more miserable than folly? and the second is the fact that there are so many ills in life that, while the wise alleviate them by a balance of good, the foolish can neither avoid their approach nor endure their presence.

American: And I would put to both of you the question, why did these deities suddenly awake into activity as world-builders after countless ages of sleep? For though the world did not exist, it does not follow that ages did not exist. By ages I mean not periods made up of a number of days and nights in annual courses, for in this sense I admit ages could not have been produced without the circular motion of the firmament. But from the infinite past there has existed an eternity not measured by limited divisions of time, but of a nature intelligible in terms of extension, since it is inconceivable that there was ever a time when time did not exist. Well then, Balbus, what I ask is, why did your Providence remain idle all through that extent of time of which you speak? Was it in order to avoid fatigue?

But divinity cannot know fatigue, and there was no fatigue in question, since all the elements, sky, fire, earth, and sea, were supposedly obedient to the divine will.

Why should a divinity take a fancy to decorate the firmament with figures and illuminations, like a public works director?

If it was to embellish his own lodging, then it seems that he had previously been dwelling for an infinite time in a dark and gloomy hovel!

Are we to suppose that afterwards the varied beauties which we see adorning earth and sky have afforded him pleasure? How can a god take pleasure in things of this sort?

And if he did he could not have dispensed with it so long. Or were these beauties designed for the sake of men as your Stoic school usually maintains?

Was it designed for the sake of wise men? If so, all this vast effort of construction took place on account of only a handful of people.

Was it designed for the sake of fools then?

But in the first place there was no reason for a god to do a service to the wicked. Secondly what good did he do? All fools are beyond question extremely miserable precisely because they are fools. For what is more miserable than folly? In the second place there are so many troubles in life that although wise men can alleviate them by balancing against them life's advantages, fools can neither avoid the approach of troubles nor endure their presence.

Cicero (Latin): Qui vero mundum ipsum animantem sapientemque esse dixerunt, nullo modo viderunt animi natura intellegentis in quam figuram cadere posset. De quo dicam equidem paulo post, nunc autem hactenus:

[24] Admirabor eorum tarditatem, qui animantem inmortalem et eundem beatum rutundum esse velint, quod ea forma neget ullam esse pulchriorem Plato: At mihi vel cylindri vel quadrati vel coni vel pyramidis videtur esse formosior. Quae vero vita tribuitur isti rutundo deo? Nempe ut ea celeritate contorqueatur, cui par nulla ne cogitari quidem possit; in qua non video, ubinam mens constans et vita beata possit insistere. Quodque in nostro corpore, si minima ex parte significetur, molestum sit, cur hoc idem non habeatur molestum in deo? Terra enim profecto, quoniam mundi pars est, pars est etiam dei; atqui terrae maxumas regiones inhabitabilis atque incultas videmus, quod pars earum adpulsu solis exarserit, pars obriguerit nive pruinaque longinquo solis abscessu; quae, si mundus est deus, quoniam mundi partes sunt, dei membra partim ardentia partim refrigerata ducenda sunt.

[25] Atque haec quidem vestra, Lucili; qualia vero * est, ab ultimo repetam superiorum. Thales enim Milesius, qui primus de talibus rebus quaesivit, aquam dixit esse initium rerum, deum autem eam mentem, quae ex aqua cuncta fingeret: si dei possunt esse sine sensu; et mentem cur aquae adiunxit, si ipsa mens constare potest vacans corpore? Anaximandri autem opinio est nativos esse deos longis intervallis orientis occidentisque, eosque innumerabilis esse mundos. Sed nos deum nisi sempiternum intellegere qui possumus?

[26] Post Anaximenes aera deum statuit, eumque gigni esseque inmensum et infinitum et semper in motu: quasi aut aer sine ulla forma deus esse possit, cum praesertim deum not modo aliqua, sed pulcherrima specie deceat esse, aut non omne, quod ortum sit, mortalitas consequatur.

Yonge: They who affirm the world to be an animated and intelligent being have by no means discovered the nature of the mind, nor are able to conceive in what form that essence can exist; but of that I shall speak more hereafter. At present I must express my surprise at the weakness of those who endeavor to make it out to be not only animated and immortal, but likewise happy, and round, because Plato says that is the most beautiful form; whereas I think a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid more beautiful. But what life do they attribute to that round Deity? Truly it is a being whirled about with a celerity to which nothing can be even conceived by the imagination as equal; nor can I imagine how a settled mind and happy life can consist in such motion, the least degree of which would be troublesome to us. Why, therefore, should it not be considered troublesome also to the Deity? For the earth itself, as it is part of the world, is part also of the Deity. We see vast tracts of land barren and uninhabitable; some, because they are scorched by the too near approach of the sun; others, because they are bound up with frost and snow, through the great distance which the sun is from them. Therefore, if the world is a Deity, as these are parts of the world, some of the Deity’s limbs must be said to be scorched, and some frozen.

These are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?

It was Anaximander’s opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?

Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?

Brooks: As for those who declared that the world itself was animate and wise, they were far from understanding to what kind of figure it is possible for the quality of rational intelligence to belong, a point on which I will myself speak a little later. For the present I will not go farther than to express my astonishment at the dulness of those who represent an animate being, that is immortal and also blessed, as round, because Plato says that there is no shape more beautiful than that.Yet I find more beauty in the shape either of a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid. And what kind of life is assigned to this round divinity? Why, a kind which consists in his being whirled along at a rate of speed, the like of which cannot even be conceived, and in which I do not see where a foothold can be found for a steadfast mind and blessed life. Why, again, should not that be considered painful in the case of God, which would be painful if it were evidenced to the slightest extent in our own bodies? For the earth, since it is a part of the world, is also of course a part of God. But we see vast tracts of the earth uninhabitable and uncultivated, some through being parched by the beating of the sun’s rays, and others through being bound with snow and frost owing to the distance to which the sun withdraws from them; and these, if the world is God, must, since they are parts of the world, be respectively described as glowing and frozen members of God!

These, Lucilius, are the beliefs of your school, but to show what their character is I will retrace them from their farthest source in the past. Thales, then, of Miletus, who was the first to inquire into such subjects, said that water was the first principle of things, and that God was the mind that created everything from water. Now if there can be divinity without sensation, why did he mention mind in addition to water? On the other hand, if mind can exist by itself apart from matter, why did he mention water in addition to mind? Anaximander’s opinion is that the gods have come intobeing, emerging and disappearing at far distant intervals in the form of innumerable worlds; but how can we conceive of God except as immortal? Anaximenes, who lived later, declared that air was God, that it had come into existence, and that it was unmeasured, infinite, and always in motion; as though air could be God when it is without form, especially when we consider that it is fitting that God should possess not merely some kind of form, but the most beautiful, or as though mortality did not overtake everything that has known a beginning.

American: On the other hand, those who say that the world is itself endowed with life and wisdom have failed entirely to see what shape such an intelligent living being could conceivably possess. I will touch on this a little later. For the present I will confine myself to expressing my surprise at their stupidity in holding that a blessed and immortal being is of a spherical shape. And they do so merely on the ground that Plato pronounces a sphere to be the most beautiful of all figures! For my own part I myself prefer the appearance of a cylinder or a cube or a cone or a pyramid over a sphere!

Further, what mode of existence is assigned to their spherical deity? Why, they say he is in a state of rotation, spinning round with a velocity that surpasses all powers of conception. But it is beyond my ability to see what room there can be in such an existence for steadfastness of mind and for happiness. Why would a condition that is painful in the human body, if even the smallest part of it is so affected, be supposed to be painless for a deity. Clearly the Earth, being a part of the world, is also a part of such a god.

Even further, we see that vast portions of the earth's surface are uninhabitable deserts, being either scorched by the sun's closeness or frost-bound and covered with snow due to the sun's remoteness. But if the world is god, then these parts of the world must be regarded as limbs of god, and these limbs must therefore undergo extremes of heat and cold as well.

So much, Lucilius, for the doctrines of your school!

To show what the older systems are like, I will trace their history from your predecessors. Thales of Miletus, who was the first to investigate these matters, said that water was the first principle of things, and that god was the mind that molded all things out of water. Supposing that gods can exist without sensation, why did he make mind out of water, if mind can exist by itself without a body?

Anaximander held that the gods are not everlasting but are born and perish after long intervals of time, and that the gods are worlds which are countless in number. But how can we conceive of a god except as living forever?

Next, Anaximenes held that the air is god, that it has a beginning in time, that it is immeasurable and infinite in extent, and is always in motion. But can formless air be a god, especially seeing that it is proper to god to possess not merely some random shape, but the most beautiful shape? Or can air be a god if it had a beginning? Can anything that had a beginning not necessarily be mortal?

Cicero (Latin): Inde Anaxagoras, qui accepit ab Anaximene disciplinam, primus omnium rerum discriptionem et modum mentis infinitae vi ac ratione dissignari et confici voluit. In quo non vidit neque motum sensu iunctum et [in] continentem infinito ullum esse posse, neque sensum omnino, quo non ipsa natura pulsa sentiret. Deinde si mentem istam quasi animal aliquod voluit esse, erit aliquid interius, ex quo illud animal nominetur; quid autem interius mente: cingatur igitur corpore externo;

[27] quod quoniam non placet, aperta simplexque mens nulla re adiuncta, quae sentire possit, fugere intellegentiae nostrae vim et notionem videtur. Crotoniates autem Alcmaeo, qui soli et lunae reliquisque sideribus animoque praeterea divinitatem dedit, non sensit sese mortalibus rebus inmortalitatem dare. Nam Pythagoras, qui censuit animum esse per naturam rerum omnem intentum et commeantem, ex quo nostri animi carperentur, non vidit distractione humanorum animorum discerpi et lacerari deum, et cum miseri animi essent, quod plerisque contingeret, tum dei partem esse miseram, quod fieri non potest.

[28] Cur autem quicquam ignoraret animus hominis, si esset deus? Quo modo porro deus iste, si nihil esset nisi animus, aut infixus aut infusus esset in mundo? Tum Xenophanes, qui mente adiuncta omne praeterea, quod esset infinitum, deum voluit esse, de ipsa mente item reprehendetur ut ceteri, de infinitate autem vehementius, in qua nihil neque sentiens neque coniunctum potest esse. Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium quiddam: coronae similem efficit (stephanen appellat) continentem ardorum lucis orbem, qui cingit caelum, quem appellat deum; in quo neque figuram divinam neque sensum quisquam suspicari potest. Multaque eiusdem monstra, quippe qui bellum, qui discordiam, qui cupiditatem ceteraque generis eiusdem ad deum revocet, quae vel morbo vel somno vel oblivione vel vetustate delentur; eademque de sideribus, quae reprehensa in alio iam in hoc omittantur.

Yonge: Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.

Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.

Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?

Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.

Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

Brooks: Next Anaxagoras, who derived his system from Anaximenes, was the first to hold that the order and measure of all things was planned and accomplished by the power and intelligence of an infinite mind, in saying which he failed to see that there can be no activity joined with, and allied to, sensation in what is infinite, and no sensation at all in anything that does not feel through its own nature being acted upon. In the next place, if he intended this mind of his to be some kind of living thing, there will be some inner part on the strength of which it may be called living; but there is no part more inward than mind; let mind, therefore, be surrounded with an outer body. Since he objects to this, what we get is pure, unbodied mind, with nothing added by means of which it may be able to receive sensation, a state of things which seems to surpass the powers of conception possessed by man’s understanding. Alcmæo of Croton, who assigned divinity to the sun, and moon, and other heavenly bodies, and also to thesoul, was unaware that he was endowing the perishable with immortality. As for Pythagoras, who held that the whole nature of things was traversed and permeated by a soul, from which our own souls are taken, he failed to see that by this division into human souls the divine soul was rent and lacerated, and that when the human souls experienced pain, as most of them would, a portion of the divine soul also suffered, which is impossible. Why, moreover, should the human soul, if it were God, be ignorant of anything? and how, again, would this God, if he were nothing but soul, be either implanted in the universe, or infused into it? Then Xenophanes, who held that the infinite sum of things, combined with mind, constituted divinity, is subject, on the score of mind itself, to the same censure as the others, and to severer censure on the score of infinity, in which there can be no sensation and no connection with anything external.

As to Parmenides, he evolves an imaginary something resembling a crown (his word for it is στεϕάνη), a bright ring of unbroken fire which girds the sky, and which he calls God, but in which no one can look for a divine form or for sensation. He is the parent, too, of many other extravagances, for he ranks under the head of divinity war, and strife, and desire, and the other principles of the same kind, which are liable to be brought to an end alike by illness, sleep,forgetfulness, or old age; he makes also the same claim in the case of the stars, but as that has been censured in another it need not now be dwelt upon in him.

American: Anaxagoras, the successor of Anaximenes, was the first to hold that the orderly disposition of the universe is designed and perfected by the rational power of an infinite mind.

But in saying this he failed to see that there can be no such thing as sentient and continuous activity in that which is infinite. This is because sensation in general can only occur when a subject becomes aware of something else by the impact of a sensation from somewhere else.

Further, if Anaxagoras intended his infinite mind to be a definite living creature, it must have some inner principle of life to justify the name. But mind is itself the innermost principle. Mind therefore must have an outer clothing of body. But Anaxagoras will not allow this, even though a mind naked and simple, without any material addition to serve as an organ of sensation, eludes the capacity of our understanding.

Alcmaeon of Croton, who attributed divinity to the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies, and also to the soul, did not perceive that he was bestowing immortality on things that are mortal.

Pythagoras, who believed that the entire substance of the universe is penetrated and pervaded by a soul, of which our souls are fragments, failed to notice that this severance of the souls of men from the world-soul means the dismemberment and rending asunder of god. And if this were true, then when their souls are unhappy, as happens to most men, a portion of god would be unhappy, which is impossible.

Further, if the soul of man is divine, why is it not omniscient? If the Pythagorean god is pure soul, how is he implanted in or diffused throughout the world?

Next, Xenophanes endowed the universe itself with mind, and held that because it is infinite the universe is god. His view of mind is as open to objection as that of the rest. However on the subject of infinity he incurs still more severe criticism, for the infinite can have no sensation or contact with anything outside itself.

As for Parmenides, he invented a purely fanciful god resembling a crown and named it Stephanie — an unbroken ring of glowing lights encircling the sky. But no one can imagine this to possess divine form or sensation. He also had many other absurd notions. He deified war, strife, lust, and the like, things which can be destroyed by disease or sleep or forgetfulness or lapse of time. He also deified the stars, but this view has been criticized already and need not be dealt with again.

Cicero (Latin): [29] Empedocles autem multa alia peccans in deorum opinione turpissume labitur. Quattuor enim naturas, ex quibus omnia constare censet, divinas esse vult; quas et nasci et extingui perspicuum est et sensu omni carere. Nec vero Protagoras, qui sese negat omnino de deis habere, quod liqueat, sint, non sint qualesve sint, quicquam videtur de natura deorum suspicari. Quid Democritus, qui tum imagines eorumque circumitus in deorum numero refert, tum illam naturam, quae imagines fundat ac mittat, tum sententiam intellegentiamque nostram, nonne in maximo errore versatur? Cum idem omnino, quia nihil semper suo statu maneat, neget esse quicquam sempiternum, nonne deum omnino ita tollit, ut nullam opinionem eius reliquam faciat? Quid aer, quo Diogenes Apolloniates utitur deo, quem sensum habere potest aut quam formam dei?

[30] Iam de Platonis inconstantia longum est dicere, qui in Timaeo patrem huius mundi nominari neget posse, in Legum autem libris, quid sit omnino deus, anquiri oportere non censeat. Quod vero sine corpore ullo deum vult esse (ut Graeci dicunt asomaton), id, quale esse possit, intellegi non potest: careat enim sensu necesse est, careat etiam prudentia, careat voluptate; quae omnia una cum deorum notione conprehendimus. Idem et in Timaeo dicit et in Legibus et mundum deum esse et caelum et astra et terram et animos et eos, quos maiorum institutis accepimus. Quae et per se sunt falsa perspicue et inter se vehementer repugnantia.

[31] Atque etiam Xenophon paucioribus verbis eadem fere peccat; facit enim in his, quae a Socrate dicta rettulit, Socratem disputantem formam dei quaeri non oportere, eundemque et solem et animum deum dicere, et modo unum, tum autem plures deos; quae sunt isdem in erratis fere quibus ea, quae de Platone dicimus.

Yonge: Empedocles, who erred in many things, is most grossly mistaken in his notion of the Gods. He lays down four natures as divine, from which he thinks that all things were made. Yet it is evident that they have a beginning, that they decay, and that they are void of all sense.

Protagoras did not seem to have any idea of the real nature of the Gods; for he acknowledged that he was altogether ignorant whether there are or are not any, or what they are.

What shall I say of Democritus, who classes our images of objects, and their orbs, in the number of the Gods; as he does that principle through which those images appear and have their influence? He deifies likewise our knowledge and understanding. Is he not involved in a very great error? And because nothing continues always in the same state, he denies that anything is everlasting, does he not thereby entirely destroy the Deity, and make it impossible to form any opinion of him?

Diogenes of Apollonia looks upon the air to be a Deity. But what sense can the air have? or what divine form can be attributed to it?

It would be tedious to show the uncertainty of Plato’s opinion; for, in his Timæus, he denies the propriety of asserting that there is one great father or creator of the world; and, in his book of Laws, he thinks we ought not to make too strict an inquiry into the nature of the Deity. And as for his statement when he asserts that God is a being without any body—what the Greeks call ἀσώματος—it is certainly quite unintelligible how that theory can possibly be true; for such a God must then necessarily be destitute of sense, prudence, and pleasure; all which things are comprehended in our notion of the Gods. He likewise asserts in his Timæus, and in his Laws, that the world, the heavens, the stars, the mind, and those Gods which are delivered down to us from our ancestors, constitute the Deity. These opinions, taken separately, are apparently false; and, together, are directly inconsistent with each other.

Xenophon has committed almost the same mistakes, but in fewer words. In those sayings which he has related of Socrates, he introduces him disputing the lawfulness of inquiring into the form of the Deity, and makes him assert the sun and the mind to be Deities: he represents him likewise as affirming the being of one God only, and at another time of many; which are errors of almost the same kind which I before took notice of in Plato.

Brooks: Empedocles, in addition to many other blunders, goes most discreditably astray in his conception of the gods, for he would have the four natural elements, from which he believes that all things are compounded, to be divine, though it is clear that these come into being, and suffer extinction, and lack all sensation. Nor does Protagoras, who denies absolutely the possession of any definite conviction as to their existence, non-existence, or character, seem to have the faintest conception of the divine nature. As for Democritus, when at one moment he reckons among the number of the gods the images of things and their revolutions, at another the natural power that disperses these images and sends them forth, and at another our own apprehension and intelligence, is he not involved in the greatest error? And when he further declares positively that nothing is eternal, because nothing remains perpetually in the self-same state, does he not do away with divinity with a completeness which leaves no idea of it remaining? Then again, how can air, which Diogenes of Apollonia represents as being God, possess sensation or divine form? In the inconsistency of Plato we come to a subject which it would be tedious to discuss. He says in the Timæus that the father of this world cannot be named, and also lays down in the books of the Lawsthat no inquiry at all ought to be made into the nature of God, and yet both in the Timæus and the Laws he attributes divinity to the world, the sky, the stars, the earth, the souls of men, and the deities that we have received from the religious system of our forefathers, views which are clearly false in themselves and in direct opposition to each other. As to his belief that God exists without a body of any kind, that he is, as the Greeks say, ἀσώματος, it is impossible to conceive what such a condition could be like, for he must then be without sensation, forethought, and pleasure, all of which qualities we embrace in our idea of God. Xenophon, too, makes in fewer words very much the same mistakes. In the record that he has given of the sayings of Socrates he represents Socrates as arguing that the form of God ought not to be made a subject of inquiry, and at the same time asserting the divinity both of the sun and of the soul, and as speaking of God at one moment in the singular, and at another in the plural, which statements are involved in pretty much the same error as those which we quoted from Plato.

American: Empedocles, among many other blunders, comes to grief most disgracefully in his theology. He assigns divinity to the four substances which in his system are the constituent elements of the universe, even though clearly these substances both come into and pass out of existence and are entirely devoid of sensation.

Protagoras declares he has no clear views whatsoever about whether the gods exist or not, or what they are like, and so he seems to have no notion at all of a divine nature.

As for Democritus, in what a maze of error is he involved! At one moment Democritus ranks his roving images as gods. At another he ranks as gods the substance that emits and radiates these images. Then again he says that god is the scientific intelligence of man! At the same time he denied immutability and therefore eternity to everything whatsoever, and this surely involves a repudiation of deity so absolute as to leave remaining no possible conception of a divine being!

Diogenes of Apollonia makes air a god, but how can air have sensation or divinity in any shape?

The inconsistencies of Plato are a long story.

In the Timaeus, Plato says that it is impossible to name the father of the universe. In the Laws, Plato dismisses all inquiry into the nature of god. Separately, Plato holds that god is entirely incorporeal, but an incorporeal divinity is inconceivable. An incorporeal deity would necessarily be incapable of sensation, and also of practical wisdom, and of pleasure, as all of these attributes are essential to our conception of a god. Yet both in the Timaeus and the Laws Plato says that the world, the sky, the stars, the earth, and our souls are gods, in addition to those gods in whom we have been taught to believe by ancestral tradition. But it is obvious that these propositions are both inherently false and mutually contradictory.

Xenophon commits almost the same errors, but he uses fewer words. In his book of the sayings of Socrates, Xenophon represents Socrates as arguing that it is wrong to inquire about the form of god, but he also has Socrates saying that both the sun and the soul are god, and as speaking at one moment of a single god and at another of several. These utterances involve almost the same mistakes as do those which we quoted from Plato.

Cicero (Latin): [32] Atque etiam Antisthenes in eo libro, qui physicus inscribitur popularis, deos multos, naturalem unum esse dicens tollit vim et naturam deorum. Nec multo secus Speusippus Platonem avunculum subsequens et vim quandam dicens, qua omnia regantur, eamque animalem, evellere ex animis conatur cognitionem deorum.

[33] Aristotelesque in tertio de philosophia libro multa turbat a magistro suo Platone dissentiens; modo enim menti tribuit omnem divinitatem, modo mundum ipsum deum dicit esse, modo alium quendam praeficit mundo eique eas partis tribuit, ut replicatione quadam mundi motum regat atque tueatur, tum caeli ardorem deum dicit esse non intellegens caelum mundi esse partem, quem alio loco ipse designarit deum, quo modo autem caeli divinus ille sensus in celeritate tanta conservari potest? Ubi deinde illi tot dii, si numeramus etiam caelum deum? Cum autem sine corpore idem vult esse deum, omni illum sensu privat, etiam prudentia, quo porro modo mundus moveri carens corpore aut quo modo semper se movens esse quietus et beatus potest?

[34] Nec vero eius condiscipulus Xenocrates in hoc genere prudentior est, cuius in libris, qui sunt de natura deorum, nulla species divina describitur; deos enim octo esse dicit, quinque eos, qui in stellis vagis nominantur, unum, qui ex omnibus sideribus, quae infixa caelo sint, ex dispersis quasi membris simplex sit putandus deus, septimum solem adiungit octavamque lunam; qui, quo sensu beati esse possint, intellegi non potest. Ex eadem Platonis schola Ponticus Heraclides puerilibus fabulis refersit libros, et tamen modo mundum, tum mentem divinam esse putat, errantibus etiam stellis divinitatem tribuit sensuque deum privat et eius formam mutabilem esse vult, eodemque in libro rursus terram et caelum refert in deos.

[35] Nec vero Theophrasti inconstantia ferenda est; modo enim menti divinum tribuit principatum, modo caelo, tum autem signis sideribusque caelestibus. Nec audiendus eius auditor Strato, is, qui physicus appellatur, qui omnem vim divinam in natura sitam esse censet, quae causas gignendi, augendi, minuendi habeat, sed careat omni et sensu et figura.

Yonge: Antisthenes, in his book called the Natural Philosopher, says that there are many national and one natural Deity; but by this saying he destroys the power and nature of the Gods. Speusippus is not much less in the wrong; who, following his uncle Plato, says that a certain incorporeal power governs everything; by which he endeavors to root out of our minds the knowledge of the Gods.

Aristotle, in his third book of Philosophy, confounds many things together, as the rest have done; but he does not differ from his master Plato. At one time he attributes all divinity to the mind, at another he asserts that the world is God. Soon afterward he makes some other essence preside over the world, and gives it those faculties by which, with certain revolutions, he may govern and preserve the motion of it. Then he asserts the heat of the firmament to be God; not perceiving the firmament to be part of the world, which in another place he had described as God. How can that divine sense of the firmament be preserved in so rapid a motion? And where do the multitude of Gods dwell, if heaven itself is a Deity? But when this philosopher says that God is without a body, he makes him an irrational and insensible being. Besides, how can the world move itself, if it wants a body? Or how, if it is in perpetual self-motion, can it be easy and happy?

Xenocrates, his fellow-pupil, does not appear much wiser on this head, for in his books concerning the nature of the Gods no divine form is described; but he says the number of them is eight. Five are moving planets; the sixth is contained in all the fixed stars; which, dispersed, are so many several members, but, considered together, are one single Deity; the seventh is the sun; and the eighth the moon. But in what sense they can possibly be happy is not easy to be understood.

From the same school of Plato, Heraclides of Pontus stuffed his books with puerile tales. Sometimes he thinks the world a Deity, at other times the mind. He attributes divinity likewise to the wandering stars. He deprives the Deity of sense, and makes his form mutable; and, in the same book again, he makes earth and heaven Deities.

The unsteadiness of Theophrastus is equally intolerable. At one time he attributes a divine prerogative to the mind; at another, to the firmament; at another, to the stars and celestial constellations.

Nor is his disciple Strato, who is called the naturalist, any more worthy to be regarded; for he thinks that the divine power is diffused through nature, which is the cause of birth, increase, and diminution, but that it has no sense nor form.

Brooks: Antisthenes, again, destroys the significance and essential nature of the gods when he declares in the work entitled “On Natural Philosophy,” that there are many gods believed in by the people, but only one that is known to nature. Nor is Speusippus far different; following in the steps of Plato, who was his uncle, he attempts to wrest from our minds our knowledge of the gods by describing the deity as a kind of living energy, by which all things are directed. Aristotle gives a most confused account, on the same lines as his master, in the third book of his treatise“On Philosophy,” where at one moment he ascribes absolute divinity to mind, at another represents the world itself as divine, at another places the world under the dominion of some other power, to which he assigns the function of guiding and preserving, by means of a kind of retrograde movement, the world’s motion, and at another speaks of the ethereal heaven as God, not understanding that the heaven is a part of that world to which he has himself given the title of God elsewhere. How, moreover, could the divine consciousness of the heaven be maintained when moving at such speed? and where will a place be found for the great number of other gods, if we also count the heaven as God? When he further declares that God is incorporeal, he deprives him of all consciousness, and also of forethought; besides, if God has no body, how can he be moved? on the other hand, if he is constantly in motion, how can he know peace and happiness? Nor is any more discernment in these matters shown by Aristotle’s fellow-pupil Xenocrates, in whose books on the nature of the gods there is no description of a divine form. His account is that there are eight gods, five whom we name in naming the wandering stars, and one formed from all the fixed stars that are in the sky, as though from a number of scattered limbs, whom we are to regard as a single god; for a seventh he adds the sun, and for an eighth the moon,—but how these deitiescan be conscious of happiness it is impossible to conceive. Heraclides of Pontus, who also belongs to Plato’s school, filled his books with childish stories, and believes at one moment in the divinity of the world, and at another in the divinity of mind; and he also assigns divinity to the wandering stars, thus depriving God of feeling and representing his form as variable, and yet again in the same book he enrols earth and sky among the gods. The inconsistency of Theophrastus is equally insufferable; in one place he ascribes sovereign divinity to mind, in another to the sky, and in another to the stars and constellations of the heavens. Nor does his pupil Strato, who is called the natural philosopher, deserve to be listened to; he holds that all divine force is resident in nature, which contains, he says, the principles of birth, increase, and decay, but which lacks, as we could remind him, all sensation and form.

American: Antisthenes, in his book entitled The Natural Philosopher, says that while there are many gods of popular belief, there is one god in nature. This deprives divinity of all meaning or substance.

Similarly Speusippus, following his uncle Plato, speaks of a certain force that governs all things and is endowed with life. As a result Speucippus does his best to root out the notion of deity from our minds altogether.

Aristotle, in the third book of his philosophy, has a great many confused notions consistent with the doctrines of his teacher Plato. At one moment Aristotle assigns divinity exclusively to the intellect, at another he says that the world itself is a god. At another time Aristotle puts some other being over the world, and assigns to this being the role of regulating and sustaining the motion of the world by means of a sort of inverse rotation. Aristotle then says that the celestial heat is god, failing to remember that the heavens are a part of that world which elsewhere he himself had entitled god.

But how could the divine consciousness which Aristotle assigns to the heavens persist in a state of such rapid motion? Where moreover are all the gods of accepted belief, if we count the heavens also as a god? Again, in maintaining that god is incorporeal, Aristotle robs god entirely of sensation and also of wisdom.

Further, how is motion possible for an incorporeal being? On the other hand, if god is always in motion, how can he enjoy tranquility and bliss? Nor was Aristotle's fellow-pupil Xenocrates any wiser on this subject. The volumes by Xenocrates on the Nature of the Gods give no intelligible account of the divine form, for he states that there are eight gods. Xenocrates says that five gods inhabit the planets and are in motion, and another god consists of all the fixed stars which are to be regarded as separate members constituting a single deity. As a seventh god Xenocrates adds the sun, and as an eighth the moon. But what sensation of bliss these beings can enjoy is impossible to conceive.

Heraclides of Pontas, another member of the school of Plato, filled volume after volume with childish fictions. At one moment he deems the world to be a divinity, but at another moment he says that intellect is divine. He also assigns divinity to the planets, and holds that the deity is devoid of sensation and is changeable in form. At another place in the same volume Heraclides reckons earth and sky to be gods.

Theophrastus also is intolerably inconsistent. At one moment he assigns divine pre-eminence to mind, at another to the heavens, and then again to the constellations and stars. Nor is his pupil, Strato, who is called the Natural Philosopher, worthy of attention. In Strato's view the sole repository of divine power is nature, which contains in itself the causes of birth, growth, and decay, but he also says that nature is entirely devoid of sensation and of form.

Cicero (Latin): [36] Zeno autem, ut iam ad vestros, Balbe, veniam, naturalem legem divinam esse censet, eamque vim obtinere recta imperantem prohibentemque contraria. Quam legem quo modo efficiat animantem intellegere non possumus; deum autem animantem certe volumus esse, atque hic idem alio loco aethera deum dicit: si intellegi potest nihil sentiens deus, qui numquam nobis occurrit neque in precibus neque in optatis neque in votis. Aliis autem libris rationem quandam per omnium naturam rerum pertinentem vi divina esse adfectam putat. Idem astris hoc idem tribuit, tum annis mensibus annorumque mutationibus. Cum vero Hesiodi Theogoniam, id est originem deorum, interpretatur, tollit omnino usitatas perceptasque cognitiones deorum; neque enim Iovem neque Iunonem neque Vestam neque quemquam, qui ita appelletur, in deorum habet numero, sed rebus inanimis atque mutis per quandam significationem haec docet tributa nomina.

[37] Cuius discipuli Aristonis non minus magno in errore sententiast, qui neque formam dei intellegi posse censeat neque in dis sensum esse dicat dubitetque omnino, deus animans necne sit. Cleanthes autem, qui Zenonem audivit una cum eo, quem proxime nominavi, tum ipsum mundum deum dicit esse, tum totius naturae menti atque animo tribuit hoc nomen, tum ultimum et altissimum atque undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cingentem atque conplexum ardorem, qui aether nominetar, certissimum deum iudicat; idemque quasi delirans in his libris, quos scripsit contra voluptatem, tum fingit formam quandam et speciem deorum, tum divinitatem omnem tribuit astris, tum nihil ratione censet esse divinius. Ita fit, ut deus ille, quem mente noscimus atque in animi notione tamquam in vestigio volumus reponere, nusquam prorsus appareat.

Yonge: Zeno (to come to your Stoic sect, Balbus) thinks the law of nature to be the divinity, and that it has the power to force us to what is right, and to restrain us from what is wrong. How this law can be an animated being I cannot conceive; but that God is so we would certainly maintain. The same person says, in another place, that the sky is God; but can we possibly conceive that God is a being insensible, deaf to our prayers, our wishes, and our vows, and wholly unconnected with us? In other books he thinks there is a certain rational essence pervading all nature, indued with divine efficacy. He attributes the same power to the stars, to the years, to the months, and to the seasons. In his interpretation of Hesiod’s Theogony, he entirely destroys the established notions of the Gods; for he excludes Jupiter, Juno, and Vesta, and those esteemed divine, from the number of them; but his doctrine is that these are names which by some kind of allusion are given to mute and inanimate beings. The sentiments of his disciple Aristo are not less erroneous. He thought it impossible to conceive the form of the Deity, and asserts that the Gods are destitute of sense; and he is entirely dubious whether the Deity is an animated being or not.

Cleanthes, who next comes under my notice, a disciple of Zeno at the same time with Aristo, in one place says that the world is God; in another, he attributes divinity to the mind and spirit of universal nature; then he asserts that the most remote, the highest, the all-surrounding, the all-enclosing and embracing heat, which is called the sky, is most certainly the Deity. In the books he wrote against pleasure, in which he seems to be raving, he imagines the Gods to have a certain form and shape; then he ascribes all divinity to the stars; and, lastly, he thinks nothing more divine than reason. So that this God, whom we know mentally and in the speculations of our minds, from which traces we receive our impression, has at last actually no visible form at all.

Brooks: Zeno is of opinion, to come now to your school, Balbus, that the law of nature is divine, and that it fulfils its function by enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong; we cannot understand, however, how he makes this law animate, which nevertheless is what we undoubtedly require God to be. He also speaks elsewhere of æther as God, if that is a conceivable God which is without feeling, and which never presents itself to us at the time of prayers, or petitions, or vows; in other works he supposes a certain reason that pervades the whole nature of things, to be endowed with divine power, and this attribute of divinity he further assigns to the stars, and also to the years, the months, and the different seasons of the year. But it is when he interprets Hesiod’s θεογονία, or “birthof the gods,” that he simply puts an end to the ordinary, well-apprehended ideas on the subject of the gods, for he does not include in their number either Jupiter, or Juno, or Vesta, or any one similarly addressed, but declares that these names were assigned with some sort of allegorical meaning to mute and inanimate objects. No less erroneous are the opinions of Zeno’s pupil Aristo, who holds that no form of God is conceivable, and denies him sensation, and is in a state of complete uncertainty as to whether he is, or is not, animate. Cleanthes, who studied under Zeno at the same time as the last-named writer, asserts at one moment that the world itself is God, at another bestows that title upon the mind and intelligence of nature as a whole, and at another finds an undoubted God in the farthest and highest fiery element, called by him æther, which extends in a circle on every hand, surrounding and enclosing the universe on the outside. In the volumes, moreover, which contain his inditement of pleasure, he seems to take leave of his senses, for in one place he delineates a kind of divine form and aspect, in another he ascribes divinity in its fullest sense to the stars, and in another declares that there is nothing so divine as reason, the result of which is that nowhere at all is that god disclosed whom our minds make known to us, and whom we wish to make correspond with the ideal in our soul, as though with an imprinted outline of himself.

American: Lastly, Balbus, I come to your Stoic school. Zeno's view is that the law of nature is divine, and that its function is to command what is right and to forbid what is wrong. How Zeno makes out this law to be alive passes beyond comprehension, as we undoubtedly expect god to be a living being. In another passage Zeno declares that the aether is god, as if there were any meaning in a god without sensation, which would be a form that no god presents itself to us when we offer up our prayers and supplications and make our vows.

In other books, Zeno holds the view that Reason pervades all nature and is possessed of divine power. He likewise attributes the same power to the stars, and at another time to the years, the months, and the seasons.

Further, in his interpretation of Hesiod's book on the Origin of the Gods, Zeno does away with the customary ideas of the gods altogether. There, Zeno does not reckon either Jupiter, Juno, or Vesta to be gods, or any being that bears a personal name, but instead teaches that these names have been assigned allegorically to dumb and lifeless things.

Zeno's pupil Aristo holds equally mistaken views. Aristo thinks that the form of the deity cannot be comprehended, and he denies the gods have sensation. In fact, Aristo is uncertain whether a god is a living being at all.

Cleanthes, who attended Zeno's lectures at the same time as Aristo, sometimes says that the world itself is god, but at another time he gives this name to the mind and soul of the universe. At still another time, Cleanthes decides that the most unquestionable deity is a remote all-surrounding fiery atmosphere he calls aether, which encircles and embraces the universe on its outer side at an exceedingly lofty altitude. Elsewhere, in the books that he wrote to argue against hedonism, Cleanthes babbles as if he were demented, at one time imagining gods of some definite shape and form, at another time assigning full divinity to the stars, and at yet another time pronouncing that nothing is more divine than reason.

The result is that a god which we can apprehend by our intelligence, and which we desire to make correspond with a mental concept in the same way that a seal matches its impression, has utterly and entirely vanished.

Cicero (Latin): [38] At Persaeus eiusdem Zenonis auditor eos esse habitos deos, a quibus aliqua magna utilitas ad vitae cultum esset inventa, ipsasque res utiles et salutares deorum esse vocabulis nuncupatas, ut ne hoc quidem diceretilla inventa esse deorum, sed ipsa divina; quo quid absurdius quam aut res sordidas atque deformis deorum honore adficere aut homines iam morte deletos reponere in deos, quorum omnis cultus esset futurus in luctu.

[39] Iam vero Chrysippus, qui Stoicorum somniorum vaferrumus habetur interpres, magnam turbam congregat ignotorum deorum, atque ita ignotorum, ut eos ne coniectura quidem informare possimus, cum mens nostra quidvis videatur cogitatione posse depingere. Ait enim vim divinam in ratione esse positam et in universae naturae animo atque mente, ipsumque mundum deum dicit esse et eius animi fusionem universam, tum eius ipsius principatum, qui in mente et ratione versetur, communemque rerum naturam universam atque omnia continentem, tum fatalem +umbram et necessitatem rerum futurarum, ignem praeterea et eum, quem ante dixi, aethera, tum ea, quae natura fluerent atque manarent, ut et aquam et terram et aera, solem, lunam, sidera universitatemque rerum, qua omnia continerentur, atque etiam homines eos, qui inmortalitatem essent consecuti.

[40] Idemque disputat aethera esse eum, quem homines Iovem appellarent, quique aer per maria manaret, eum esse Neptunum, terramque eam esse, quae Ceres diceretur, similique ratione persequitur vocabula reliquorum deorum. Idemque etiam legis perpetuae et aeternae vim, quae quasi dux vitae et magistra officiorum sit, Iovem dicit esse, eandemque fatalem necessinatem appellat sempiternam rerum futurarum veritatem; quorum nihil tale est, ut in eo vis divina inesse videatur.

[41] Et haec quidem in primo libro de natura deorum; in secundo autem volt Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea, quae ipse primo libro de deis inmortalibus dixerit, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati quidem sint, Stoici fuisse videantur. Quem Diogenes Babylonius consequens in eo libro, qui inscribitur de Minerva, partum Iovis ortumque virginis ad physiologiam traducens deiungit a fabula.

Yonge: Persæus, another disciple of Zeno, says that they who have made discoveries advantageous to the life of man should be esteemed as Gods; and the very things, he says, which are healthful and beneficial have derived their names from those of the Gods; so that he thinks it not sufficient to call them the discoveries of Gods, but he urges that they themselves should be deemed divine. What can be more absurd than to ascribe divine honors to sordid and deformed things; or to place among the Gods men who are dead and mixed with the dust, to whose memory all the respect that could be paid would be but mourning for their loss?

Chrysippus, who is looked upon as the most subtle interpreter of the dreams of the Stoics, has mustered up a numerous band of unknown Gods; and so unknown that we are not able to form any idea about them, though our mind seems capable of framing any image to itself in its thoughts. For he says that the divine power is placed in reason, and in the spirit and mind of universal nature; that the world, with a universal effusion of its spirit, is God; that the superior part of that spirit, which is the mind and reason, is the great principle of nature, containing and preserving the chain of all things; that the divinity is the power of fate, and the necessity of future events. He deifies fire also, and what I before called the ethereal spirit, and those elements which naturally proceed from it—water, earth, and air. He attributes divinity to the sun, moon, stars, and universal space, the grand container of all things, and to those men likewise who have obtained immortality. He maintains the sky to be what men call Jupiter; the air, which pervades the sea, to be Neptune; and the earth, Ceres. In like manner he goes through the names of the other Deities. He says that Jupiter is that immutable and eternal law which guides and directs us in our manners; and this he calls fatal necessity, the everlasting verity of future events. But none of these are of such a nature as to seem to carry any indication of divine virtue in them. These are the doctrines contained in his first book of the Nature of the Gods. In the second, he endeavors to accommodate the fables of Orpheus, Musæus, Hesiod, and Homer to what he has advanced in the first, in order that the most ancient poets, who never dreamed of these things, may seem to have been Stoics. Diogenes the Babylonian was a follower of the doctrine of Chrysippus; and in that book which he wrote, entitled “A Treatise concerning Minerva,” he separates the account of Jupiter’s bringing-forth, and the birth of that virgin, from the fabulous, and reduces it to a natural construction.

Brooks: Persæus, who also was a pupil of Zeno, says that it was men who had discovered some great aid to civilisation that were regarded as gods, and that the names of divinities were also bestowed upon actual material objects of use and profit, so that he is not even contentto describe these as the creations of God, but makes out that they are themselves divine. Yet what can compare with the absurdity either of endowing mean and unshapely objects with the honours of divinity, or of ranking among the gods men already cut off by death, whose worship would have had to consist entirely in mourning? We come next to Chrysippus, who is considered the most skilful exponent of the fantastic notions of the Stoics, and who gathers together a large band of deities so utterly removed from knowledge that, although our mind seems able to picture in imagination anything whatever, we cannot even form an idea of them by conjecture. For he tells us that divine power resides in reason and in the soul and mind of nature taken as a whole, and then again he declares that the world itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul, then that it is this same world’s guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality which embraces all existence, then the foreordained might and necessity of the future, then fire and the principle of æther that we have mentioned before, then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air, then the sun, the moon, the stars, the universal existence in which all things are contained, and also those human beings who have attained immortality. He further maintains that æther is that which men call Jove, and that the air which permeates the seas is Neptune, and that the earth is what is known by the name of Ceres, and he treats in similar style the titles of the other gods. He also identifies Jove with the power of uninterrupted, eternal law, the guide of life, asit may be called, and mistress of duty, which he also describes as fore-ordained necessity and the eternal truth of the future, though none of these qualities are such as to give an appearance of divine power being resident in them. All this is in his first book on the nature of the gods; in the second his aim is to harmonise the stories of Orpheus, Musæus, Hesiod, and Homer with what he has himself said on the subject of the immortal gods in the first book, so that even the oldest poets, who had not so much as a conception of such things, are made to seem to have been Stoics. Diogenes of Babylon follows in his steps in the work entitledDe Minerva,where he removes from mythology the travail of Jupiter, and birth of the maiden goddess, and transfers them to natural philosophy.

American: Persaeus, another pupil of Zeno, says that men have deified those persons who have made some discovery of special utility for civilization, and that useful and health-giving things have themselves been called by divine names. Perseus does not say that these were discoveries of the gods, but speaks of these discoveries themselves as divine. But what could be more ridiculous than to award divine honors to sordid and deformed things, or to give the rank of gods to men who are now dead and gone, and for whom worship could only take the form of lamentation?

Chrysippus, who is looked upon as the most skillful interpreter of the Stoic dreams, musters an enormous mob of unknown gods. These gods are so utterly unknown that even imagination cannot guess at their form and nature, even though to the Stoics our minds appear capable of visualizing anything. Chrysippus says that divine power resides in reason. and in the soul and mind of the universe. He calls the world itself a god, and he says that world's all-pervasive soul is god. At other times he says that the guiding principle of the soul which operates through intellect and reason to be god, and at other times he calls god the common and all-embracing nature of things.

Chysippus also calls the power of Fate, and the Necessity that governs future events, to be god. Besides these, he calls the fire that I previously termed aether a god. Chrysippus also calls all fluid and soluble substances, such as water, earth, air, the sun, moon, stars, and the all-embracing unity of things a god. Even those human beings who have attained immortality he calls gods.

Chrysippus also argues that the god whom men call Jupiter is the aether, and that Neptune is the air which permeates the sea. He says that the earth is the goddess called Ceres, and he deals in the same way with the whole series of the names of the gods. He also identifies Jupiter with the mighty Law, everlasting and eternal, which is our guide and instructor in duty. He gives that duty the name of Necessity or Fate, and calls it the Everlasting Truth of future events. However none of these conceptions is of such a nature as can be deemed to possess divinity. All this is contained in his first book on the Nature of the Gods.

In Chrysippus' second book on the gods, he aims at reconciling the myths of Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod, and Homer with his own theology as explained in book one. Chrysippus alleges that even the earliest poets of antiquity, who had no notion of these doctrines, were really Stoics. In this he is followed by Diogenes of Babylon, who in his book entitled Minerva rationalizes the myth of the birth of the virgin goddess from Jove by explaining it as an allegory of the processes of nature.

Cicero (Latin): [42] Exposui fere non philosophorum iudicia, sed delirantium somnia. Nec enim multo absurdiora sunt ea, quae poetarum vocibus fusa ipsa suavitate nocuerunt, qui et ira inflammatos et libidine furentis induxerunt deos feceruntque, ut eorum bella, proelia, pugnas, vulnera videremus, odia, praeterea discidia, discordias, ortus, interitus, querellas, lamentationes, effusas in omni intemperantia libidines, adulteria, vincula, cum humano genere concubitus mortalisque ex inmortali procreatos.

[43] Cum poetarum autem errore coniungere licet portenta magorum Aegyptiorumque in eodem genere dementiam, tum etiam vulgi opiniones, quae in maxima inconstantia, veritatis ignoratione versantur. Ea qui consideret, quam inconsulte ac temere dicantur, venerari Epicurum et in eorum ipsorum numero, de quibus haec quaestio est, habere debeat. Solus enim vidit primum esse deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem inpressisset ipsa natura. Quae est ennim gens aut quod genus hominum, quod non habeat sine doctrina anticipationem quandam deorum, quam appellat prolempsin Epicurus, id est anteceptam animo rei quandam informationem, sine qua nec intellegi quicquam nec quaeri nec disputari potest. Quoius rationis vim atque utilitatem ex illo caelesti Epicuri de regula et iudicio volumine accepimus.

Yonge: Thus far have I been rather exposing the dreams of dotards than giving the opinions of philosophers. Not much more absurd than these are the fables of the poets, who owe all their power of doing harm to the sweetness of their language; who have represented the Gods as enraged with anger and inflamed with lust; who have brought before our eyes their wars, battles, combats, wounds; their hatreds, dissensions, discords, births, deaths, complaints, and lamentations; their indulgences in all kinds of intemperance; their adulteries; their chains; their amours with mortals, and mortals begotten by immortals. To these idle and ridiculous flights of the poets we may add the prodigious stories invented by the Magi, and by the Egyptians also, which were of the same nature, together with the extravagant notions of the multitude at all times, who, from total ignorance of the truth, are always fluctuating in uncertainty.

Now, whoever reflects on the rashness and absurdity of these tenets must inevitably entertain the highest respect and veneration for Epicurus, and perhaps even rank him in the number of those beings who are the subject of this dispute; for he alone first founded the idea of the existence of the Gods on the impression which nature herself hath made on the minds of all men. For what nation, what people are there, who have not, without any learning, a natural idea, or prenotion, of a Deity? Epicurus calls this prolepsis; that is, an antecedent conception of the fact in the mind, without which nothing can be understood, inquired after, or discoursed on; the force and advantage of which reasoning we receive from that celestial volume of Epicurus concerning the Rule and Judgment of Things.

Brooks: I have been setting forth what are more like the ravings of madmen than the judgments of philosophers. In fact, there is not much more absurdity in the utterances, the very attractiveness of which has been the cause of harm, that have been poured forth by the poets, when they have introduced the gods inflamed with anger and furious with desire, and have made us behold their wars, battles, contests, and wounds, their enmities, moreover, and feuds, and discords, their births and deaths, their complaints and lamentations, their passions expending themselves in unmeasured licence, their adulteries, their imprisonments, their unions with mankind, and the generation of a mortal progeny from an immortal being. And with the mistaken notions of the poets may be classed the extravagances of the magi, the delusions entertained on the same subject by the Egyptians, and also the beliefsof the common people, which from ignorance of the truth are involved in the greatest inconsistency.

Any one who should reflect how unthinkingly and recklessly these ideas are advanced, ought to reverence Epicurus and place him among the number of those very beings that form the subject of this inquiry, for it was he alone who perceived, in the first place, the fact of the existence of the gods from the idea of them which nature herself had implanted in all men’s minds. For what nation or race of men is there that does not possess, independently of instruction, a certain preconception of them? It is this which Epicurus calls by the name of πρόληψις, that is, a certain idea of a thing formed by the mind beforehand, without which nothing can be understood, or investigated, or discussed; and we have learnt the purport and advantage of this exercise of the reason from that divine volume of his upon criterion and judgment.

American: I have now given a rough account of what are more like the dreams of madmen than the considered opinions of philosophers. They are only a little less absurd than the outpourings of the poets, which have also been harmful due to the charm of their style. The poets have represented the gods as inflamed by anger and maddened by lust, and have displayed to our gaze their wars and battles, their fights and wounds, their hatreds, enmities and quarrels. The poets have talked of the births and deaths of gods, their complaints and lamentations, the utter and unbridled license of their passions, their adulteries and imprisonments, their unions with human beings, and the birth of mortal children from immortal parents. With the errors of the poets may be classed the monstrous doctrines of the magi and the insane mythology of Egypt, and also the popular beliefs, which are a mass of inconsistencies sprung from ignorance.

Anyone reflecting on the baseless and irrational character of these doctrines ought to regard Epicurus with reverence, and to rank him as one of the very gods about whom we are inquiring. For Epicurus alone perceived, first, that the gods exist because nature herself has imprinted a conception of them on the minds of all mankind. For what nation or what tribe of men is there that does not possess without being taught some preconception of the gods? Such notions Epicurus designates by the word prolepsis, that is, a sort of preconceived mental picture of a thing, without which nothing can be understood or investigated or discussed. The force and value of this explanation we learn about in that work of genius, Epicurus' Rule or Standard of Judgment.

Cicero (Latin): [44] Quod igitur fundamentum huius quaestionis est, id praeclare iactum videtis. Cum enim non instituto aliquo aut more aut lege sit opinio constituta maneatque ad unum omnium firma consensio, intellegi necesse est esse deos, quoniam insitas eorum vel potius innatas cognitiones habemus; de quo autem omnium natura consentit, id verum esse necesse est; esse igitur deos confitendum est. Quod quoniam fere constat inter omnis non philosophos solum, sed etiam indoctos, fatemur constare illud etiam, hanc nos habere sive anticipationem, ut ante dixi, sive praenotionem deorum (sunt enim rebus novis nova ponenda nomina, ut Epicurus ipse prolempsin appellavit, quam antea nemo eo verbo nominarat) —

[45] hanc igitur habemus, ut deos beatos et inmortales putemus. Quae enim nobis natura informationem ipsorum deorum dedit, eadem insculpsit in mentibus, ut eos aeternos et beatos haberemus. Quod si ita est, vere eita illa sententia est ab Epicuro, quod beatum aeternumque sit, id nec habere ipsum negotii quicquam nec exhibere alteri, itaque neque ira neque gratia teneri, quod, quae talia essent, inbecilla essent omnia. Si nihil aliud quaereremus, nisi ut deos pie coleremus et ut superstitione liberaremur, satis erat dictum; nam et praestans deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et aeterna esset et beatissima (habet enim venerationem iustam, quicquid excellit), et metus omnis a vi atque ira deorum pulsus esset; intellegitur enim a beata inmortalique natura et iram et gratiam segregari; quibus remotis nullos a superis inpendere metus. Sed ad hanc confirmandam opinionem anquirit animus et formam et vitam et actionem mentis atque agitationem in deo.

Yonge: Here, then, you see the foundation of this question clearly laid; for since it is the constant and universal opinion of mankind, independent of education, custom, or law, that there are Gods, it must necessarily follow that this knowledge is implanted in our minds, or, rather, innate in us. That opinion respecting which there is a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly be true; therefore it must be allowed that there are Gods; for in this we have the concurrence, not only of almost all philosophers, but likewise of the ignorant and illiterate. It must be also confessed that the point is established that we have naturally this idea, as I said before, or prenotion, of the existence of the Gods. As new things require new names, so that prenotion was called prolepsis by Epicurus; an appellation never used before. On the same principle of reasoning, we think that the Gods are happy and immortal; for that nature which hath assured us that there are Gods has likewise imprinted in our minds the knowledge of their immortality and felicity; and if so, what Epicurus hath declared in these words is true: “That which is eternally happy cannot be burdened with any labor itself, nor can it impose any labor on another; nor can it be influenced by resentment or favor: because things which are liable to such feelings must be weak and frail.” We have said enough to prove that we should worship the Gods with piety, and without superstition, if that were the only question.

For the superior and excellent nature of the Gods requires a pious adoration from men, because it is possessed of immortality and the most exalted felicity; for whatever excels has a right to veneration, and all fear of the power and anger of the Gods should be banished; for we must understand that anger and affection are inconsistent with the nature of a happy and immortal being. These apprehensions being removed, no dread of the superior powers remains. To confirm this opinion, our curiosity leads us to inquire into the form and life and action of the intellect and spirit of the Deity.

Brooks: You see, then, that what constitutes the foundation of this inquiry is excellently well laid, for since the belief in question was determined by no ordinance, or custom, or law, and since a steadfast unanimity continues to prevail amongst all men without exception, it must be understood that the gods exist. For we have ideas of them implanted, or rather innate, within us, and as that upon which the nature of all men is agreed must needs be true, their existence must be acknowledged. Since their existence is pretty universally admitted not only among philosophers but also among those who are not philosophers, let us own that the following fact is also generally allowed, namely, that we possess a “preconception,” to use my former word, or “previous notion” of the gods (new designations that have to be employed when the objects of designation are new, just as Epicurus himself applied the term πρόληψις to what no one had described by that name before)—we possess, I say, a preconception which makes us think of them as blessed and immortal. For nature that gave us the idea of gods as such, has also engraved in our minds the conviction that they are blessed and eternal. If that is so, there was truth in the doctrine put forward by Epicurus, that what is blessed and eternal knows no trouble itself, and causes none to others, and is therefore unaffected by anger or favour, since, as he said, anything that is so affected is marked by weakness. Enough would have now been said, if our aim were only to worship the gods with piety, and to be freed from superstition, for a divine nature of this exalted kind, being eternal and supremely blessed, would receive the pious worship of mankind (everything that is of surpassing excellence inspiring a just reverence), and also all fear arising from the violence and anger of the gods would have been dispelled, now that it is understood that anger and favour have no place in a blessed and immortal nature, and that, when those feelings have been removed, no terrors threaten us from the powers above. However, in order to confirm this belief, the mind looks for form in God, and for active life, and the working of intelligence.

American: Here, then, you see that the foundation of our inquiry has been well and truly laid. For the belief in the gods has not been established by authority, custom, or law, but rests on the constant and universal opinion of mankind. The existence of gods is a necessary inference given that we possess an instinctive or rather an innate preconception of them. A belief which all men by nature share must necessarily be considered truthful, so it must be admitted that gods exist. This truth is almost universally accepted not only among philosophers but also among the unlearned. We must therefore admit it to be true that we possess a preconception, as I called it above, or in other words a prior notion of the gods. Here we are bound to employ a novel term to denote a novel idea, just as Epicurus himself employed the word prolepsis in a sense in which no one had ever used it before.

We have then a preconception of such a nature that we believe the gods to be blessed and immortal. For Nature, which bestowed upon us this idea of the gods, also engraved on our minds the belief that gods are eternal and blessed. Given that this is so, the famous maxim of Epicurus explains that that which is blessed and eternal can neither know trouble itself nor cause trouble to another, and accordingly cannot feel either anger or favor, since all such things belong only to the weak.

If we sought to attain nothing else beside piety in worshipping the gods and freedom from superstition, what I have already said would be sufficient. This would be enough to ensure the exalted nature of the gods, both eternal and supremely blessed, would receive man's pious worship, for what is highest commands the reverence that is its due. Further, this view banishes all fear of divine power or divine anger, since it is understood that anger and favor alike are excluded from the nature of a being that is both blessed and immortal. Once these fears are eliminated we are no longer menaced by fear about any power above.

But the mind strives to strengthen this belief by trying to discover the form of a god, the mode of its activity, and the operation of its intelligence.

Cicero (Latin): [46] Ac de forma quidem partim natura nos admonet, partim ratio docet. Nam a natura habemus omnes omnium gentium speciem nullam aliam nisi humanam deorum; quae enim forma alia occurrit umquam aut vigilanti cuiquam aut dormienti? Sed ne omnia revocentur ad primas notiones, ratio hoc idem ipsa declarat.

[47] Nam cum praestantissumam naturam, vel quia beata est vel quia sempiterna, convenire videatur eandem esse pulcherrimam, quae conpositio membrorum, quae conformatio liniamentorum, quae figura, quae species humana potest esse pulchrior? Vos quidem, Lucili, soletis (nam Cotta meus modo hoc, modo illud), cum artificium effingitis fabricamque divinam, quam sint omnia in hominis figura non modo ad usum, verum etiam ad venustatem apta, describere;

[48] quod si omnium animantium formam vincit hominis figura, deus autem animans est, ea figura profecto est, quae pulcherrimast omnium. Quoniamque deos beatissimos esse constat, beatus autem esse sine virtute nemo potest nec virtus sine ratione constare nec ratio usquam inesse nisi in hominis figura, hominis esse specie deos confitendum est.

[49] Nec tamen ea species corpus est, sed quasi corpus, nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem.

Yonge: With regard to his form, we are directed partly by nature and partly by reason. All men are told by nature that none but a human form can be ascribed to the Gods; for under what other image did it ever appear to any one either sleeping or waking? and, without having recourse to our first notions, reason itself declares the same; for as it is easy to conceive that the most excellent nature, either because of its happiness or immortality, should be the most beautiful, what composition of limbs, what conformation of lineaments, what form, what aspect, can be more beautiful than the human? Your sect, Lucilius (not like my friend Cotta, who sometimes says one thing and sometimes another), when they represent the divine art and workmanship in the human body, are used to describe how very completely each member is formed, not only for convenience, but also for beauty. Therefore, if the human form excels that of all other animal beings, as God himself is an animated being, he must surely be of that form which is the most beautiful. Besides, the Gods are granted to be perfectly happy; and nobody can be happy without virtue, nor can virtue exist where reason is not; and reason can reside in none but the human form; the Gods, therefore, must be acknowledged to be of human form; yet that form is not body, but something like body; nor does it contain any blood, but something like blood. Though these distinctions were more acutely devised and more artfully expressed by Epicurus than any common capacity can comprehend; yet, depending on your understanding, I shall be more brief on the subject than otherwise I should be. Epicurus, who not only discovered and understood the occult and almost hidden secrets of nature, but explained them with ease, teaches that the power and nature of the Gods is not to be discerned by the senses, but by the mind; nor are they to be considered as bodies of any solidity, or reducible to number, like those things which, because of their firmness, he calls Στερέμνια; but as images, perceived by similitude and transition. As infinite kinds of those images result from innumerable individuals, and centre in the Gods, our minds and understanding are directed towards and fixed with the greatest delight on them, in order to comprehend what that happy and eternal essence is.

Brooks: Now, with regard to form, we are partly prompted by natural instinct, and partly instructed by reason. So far as natural instinct is concerned, no one of us in any nation attributes to the gods any but a human aspect, for under what other shape do they ever present themselves to any one whether waking orasleep? We will not, however, refer everything to primary ideas, when the same declaration is made by reason itself. For since it seems appropriate that the nature which, whether as being blessed or eternal, is the most exalted, should also be the most beautiful, could any arrangement of limbs, or cast of feature, any outline or appearance be more beautiful than man’s? Your school, at any rate, Lucilius,—as for my friend Cotta, his opinions vary —is accustomed, when exhibiting the ingenuity of the divine handiwork, to point out how admirably everything in the human figure is contrived for purposes of beauty as well as use. Now if the human figure surpasses the form of any other animate being, and if God is animate, this figure which is the most beautiful of all, is assuredly possessed by him. Since, moreover, it is understood that the gods are supremely blessed, and since no being can be blessed without virtue, and virtue cannot exist without reason, or reason be found anywhere except in a human form, it must be admitted that the gods have the outward aspect of man, though this is not body, but quasibody, and does not contain blood, but quasi-blood. Though these speculations of Epicurus were too acute, and their exposition too subtle, for every one to be able to appreciate them, still my confidence in your intelligence leads me to state them with less fulness than the subject requires. Well, Epicurus tells us—for he was one who could not only bring obscure and highly recondite questions before his mind’s eye,but positively deals with them as though they were lying in his hands—that the essence and nature of the gods is such that, in the first place, it is perceived by mind and not by sense, and that it does not possess what we may call solidity, or maintain an unvarying self-identity, like the bodies which on account of their compactness he calls στερέμνια. His account is that through the images being perceived owing to their similarity and their passage before us, when an infinite series of very similar images is formed from innumerable atoms and streams towards us, our mind, intently fixed and concentrated upon these, arrives with the utmost joy at the conception of a blessed and immortal nature.

American: As to the divine form we have hints given by Nature supplemented by the teachings of reason. From Nature all men of all races derive the notion of gods as having human shape. In what other shape do gods ever appear to anyone, awake or asleep?

But preconceptions are not the sole test of all things, and reason delivers its own pronouncements. For it seems appropriate that a being who is the most exalted, whether by reason of his happiness or of his eternity, would also be the most beautiful. What disposition of the limbs, what cast of features, what shape or outline can be more beautiful than the human form?

My friend Cotta the Academic Skeptic says one thing at one time and another thing at another time, but you Stoics, Lucilius, like to portray the skill of the divine creator by enlarging on Beauty, as well as the utility of design displayed in all parts of the human figure.

But if the human figure surpasses the form of all other living beings, and god is a living being, god must possess the shape which is the most beautiful of all. Since it is agreed that the gods are supremely happy, and no one can be happy without virtue, and virtue cannot exist without reason, and reason is only found in the human shape, it follows that the gods possess the shape of men.

Yet the form of the gods is not corporeal, but only resembles bodily substance. It does not contain blood, but the semblance of blood. These discoveries of Epicurus are so acute, and so intelligently expressed, that not everyone is capable of appreciating them. Still, I will rely on your intelligence and make my explanation more brief than the subject demands. Epicurus does not merely discern abstruse and difficult things with his mind's eye, but he also handles them as tangible realities. He teaches that the substance and nature of gods is such that, in the first place, it is perceived not by the senses but by the mind. The nature of gods is not perceived materially or individually, like the solid objects which Epicurus because of their substance entitles steremnia; but by our perceiving images owing to their similarity and succession. This is because an endless train of similar images arises from the innumerable atoms and streams from the gods, and our mind with the keenest feelings of pleasure fixes its gaze on these images. In this way, our minds attain an understanding of the nature of a being both blessed and eternal.

Cicero (Latin): Haec quamquam et inventa sunt acutius et dicta subtilius ab Epicuro, quam ut quivis ea possit agnoscere, tamen fretus intellegentia vestra dissero brevius, quam causa desiderat. Epicurus autem, qui res occultas et penitus abditas non modo videat animo, sed etiam sic tractet ut manu, docet eam esse vim et naturam deorum, ut primum non sensu, sed mente cernatur, nec soliditate quadam nec ad numerum, ut ea, quae ille propter firmitatem steremnia appellat, sed imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis, cum infinita simillumarum imaginum species ex innumerabilibus individuis existat et ad deos adfluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram intellegentiam capere, quae sit et beata natura et aeterna.

[50] Summa vero vis infinitatis et magna ac diligenti contemplatione dignissima est. In qua intellegi necesse est eam esse naturam, ut omnia omnibus paribus paria respondeant; hanc isonomian appellat Epicurus, id est aequabilem tributionem. Ex hac igitur illud efficitur, si mortalium tanta multitudo sit, esse inmortalium non minorem, et si, quae interimant, innumerabilia sint, etiam ea, quae conservent infinita esse debere. Et quaerere a nobis, Balbe, soletis, quae vita deorum sit quaeque ab is degatur aetas.

[51] Ea videlicet, qua nihil beatius, nihil omnibus bonis affluentius cogitari potest. Nihil enim agit, nullis occupationibus est inplicatus, nulla opera molitur, sua sapientia et virtute gaudet, habet exploratum fore se semper cum in maximis tum in aeternis voluptatibus.

Yonge: Surely the mighty power of the Infinite Being is most worthy our great and earnest contemplation; the nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. This is called by Epicurus ἰσονομία; that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things. From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals; and if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless. Your sect, Balbus, frequently ask us how the Gods live, and how they pass their time? Their life is the most happy, and the most abounding with all kinds of blessings, which can be conceived. They do nothing. They are embarrassed with no business; nor do they perform any work. They rejoice in the possession of their own wisdom and virtue. They are satisfied that they shall ever enjoy the fulness of eternal pleasures.

Brooks: And this mighty power of infinity, which so well deserves to be much and heedfully contemplated, must needs be conceived of as so constituted that each part in it is balanced by its equivalent, according to what Epicurus calls ἰσονομία, or equal distribution, the result of which distribution is that for a given number of mortal beings there is a no less number of immortal, and that if the agencies which destroy are innumerable, those which preserve must be also without limit. And then, Balbus, it is usual with your school to inquire from us what the life of the gods is like, and how they spend their days. In a way, you may be certain, which for blessedness and abundant possession of every good cannot be excelled even in imagination. For God does nothing, is involved in no occupations, and projectsno works; he rejoices in his own wisdom and virtue, and is assured that his state will always be one of the highest felicity eternally prolonged.

American: Moreover there is the supremely powerful principle of infinity which demands the most close and careful study. We must understand that in the infinite sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart. Epicurus calls this property isonomia, or the principle of uniform distribution. From this principle he draws the inference that as there is such a vast multitude of mortals that there cannot be a lesser number of immortals. Further, if those that have perished are beyond count, those that are preserved must also be countless.

Balbus, you Stoics are also fond of asking us about the mode of life of the gods, and how they pass their days. The answer is that the life of the gods is the happiest conceivable, and the life most bountifully furnished with all good things. The gods are embarrassed with no business and are free from all labor, but take delight in their own wisdom and virtue. Further, the gods know with absolute certainty that they will always enjoy the fullness of everlasting pleasures.

Cicero (Latin): [52] Hunc deum rite beatum dixerimus, vestrum vero laboriosissimum. Sive enim ipse mundus deus est, quid potest esse minus quietum, quam nullo puncto temporis intermisso versari circum axem caeli admirabili celeritate: nisi quietum autem, nihil beatum est; sive in ipso mundo deus inest aliquis, qui regat, qui gubernet, qui cursus astrorum, mutationes temporum, rerum vicissitudines ordinesque conservet, terras et maria contemplans hominum commoda vitasque tueatur, ne ille est inplicatus molestis negotiis et operosis.

[53] Nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus. docuit enim nos idem, qui cetera, natura effectum esse mundum, nihil opus fuisse fabrica, tamque eam rem esse facilem, quam vos effici negetis sine divina posse sollertia, ut innumerabiles natura mundos effectura sit, efficiat, effecerit. Quod quia, quem ad modum natura efficere sine aliqua mente possit, non videtis, ut tragici poetae cum explicare argumenti exitum non potestis, confugitis ad deum.

[54] Cuius operam profecto non desideraretis, si inmensam et interminatam in omnis partis magnitudinem regionum videretis, in quam se iniciens animus et intendens ita late longeque peregrinatur, ut nullam tamen oram ultimi videat, in qua possit insistere. In hac igitur inmensitate latitudinum, longitudinum, altitudinum infinita vis innumerabilium volitat atomorum, quae interiecto inani cohaerescunt tamen inter se et aliae alias adprehendentes continuantur; ex quo efficiuntur eae rerum formae et figurae, quas vos effici posse sine follibus et incudibus non putatis. Itaque inposuistis in cervicibus nostris sempiternum dominum, quem dies et noctes timeremus. Quis enim non timeat omnia providentem et cogitantem et animadvertentem et omnia ad se pertinere putantem curiosum et plenum negotii deum?

[55] Hinc vobis extitit primum illa fatalis necessitas, quam heimarmenen dicitis, ut, quicquid accidat, id ex aeterna veritate causarumque continuatione fluxisse dicatis. Quanti autem haec philosophia aestimandast, cui tamquam aniculis, et his quidem indoctis, fato fieri videantur omnia. Sequitur mantike vestra, quae Latine divinatio dicitur, qua tanta inbueremur superstitione, si vos audire vellemus, ut haruspices, augures, harioli, vates, coniectores nobis essent colendi.

[56] His terroribus ab Epicuro soluti et in libertatem vindicati nec metuimus eos, quos intellegimus nec sibi fingere ullam molestiam nec alteri quaerere, et pie sancteque colimus naturam excellentem atque praestantem. Sed elatus studio vereor, ne longior fuerim. Erat autem difficile rem tantam tamque praeclaram inchoatam relinquere; quamquam non tam dicendi ratio mihi habenda fuit quam audiendi.

Yonge: Such a Deity may properly be called happy; but yours is a most laborious God. For let us suppose the world a Deity—what can be a more uneasy state than, without the least cessation, to be whirled about the axle-tree of heaven with a surprising celerity? But nothing can be happy that is not at ease. Or let us suppose a Deity residing in the world, who directs and governs it, who preserves the courses of the stars, the changes of the seasons, and the vicissitudes and orders of things, surveying the earth and the sea, and accommodating them to the advantage and necessities of man. Truly this Deity is embarrassed with a very troublesome and laborious office. We make a happy life to consist in a tranquillity of mind, a perfect freedom from care, and an exemption from all employment. The philosopher from whom we received all our knowledge has taught us that the world was made by nature; that there was no occasion for a workhouse to frame it in; and that, though you deny the possibility of such a work without divine skill, it is so easy to her, that she has made, does make, and will make innumerable worlds. But, because you do not conceive that nature is able to produce such effects without some rational aid, you are forced, like the tragic poets, when you cannot wind up your argument in any other way, to have recourse to a Deity, whose assistance you would not seek, if you could view that vast and unbounded magnitude of regions in all parts; where the mind, extending and spreading itself, travels so far and wide that it can find no end, no extremity to stop at. In this immensity of breadth, length, and height, a most boundless company of innumerable atoms are fluttering about, which, notwithstanding the interposition of a void space, meet and cohere, and continue clinging to one another; and by this union these modifications and forms of things arise, which, in your opinions, could not possibly be made without the help of bellows and anvils. Thus you have imposed on us an eternal master, whom we must dread day and night. For who can be free from fear of a Deity who foresees, regards, and takes notice of everything; one who thinks all things his own; a curious, ever-busy God?

Hence first arose your Εἱμαρμένη, as you call it, your fatal necessity; so that, whatever happens, you affirm that it flows from an eternal chain and continuance of causes. Of what value is this philosophy, which, like old women and illiterate men, attributes everything to fate? Then follows your μαντικὴ, in Latin called divinatio, divination; which, if we would listen to you, would plunge us into such superstition that we should fall down and worship your inspectors into sacrifices, your augurs, your soothsayers, your prophets, and your fortune-tellers.

Epicurus having freed us from these terrors and restored us to liberty, we have no dread of those beings whom we have reason to think entirely free from all trouble themselves, and who do not impose any on others. We pay our adoration, indeed, with piety and reverence to that essence which is above all excellence and perfection. But I fear my zeal for this doctrine has made me too prolix. However, I could not easily leave so eminent and important a subject unfinished, though I must confess I should rather endeavor to hear than speak so long.

Brooks: We should be right in describing this God as blessed, but yours as a slave to toil. For if it is the world itself that is God, what can be less restful—and nothing that is not restful is blessed—than to revolve round the celestial axis without a moment’s pause and at a marvellous rate of speed? If, on the other hand, a god of some kind is resident in the world itself, who is to rule and direct it, to maintain the courses of the stars, and the changes of the seasons, and the ordered alternation of events, to have his eye upon lands and seas, and to guard the well-being and the lives of men, assuredly it is an oppressive and laborious task in which he is involved. We, on the contrary, make blessedness of life depend upon an untroubled mind, and exemption from all duties, for we were taught by him who taught us everything else, that the world was produced by the working of nature, without there having been any need for a process of manufacture, and that what your school declares to be capable of accomplishment only by means of divine intelligence is a thing so easy that nature will produce, and is producing, and has produced worlds innumerable. It is because you do not see how nature can accomplish this without the help of some kind of mind that, like the tragic poets, in your inability to bring the plot to a smooth conclusion, you have recourse to a god. Yet you would certainly feel no need for his agency if you had before your eyes the expanse of region, unmeasured and on every side unbounded, upon which the mind may fasten and concentrate itself, and where it may wander far and wide without seeing anyfarthermost limit upon which to be able to rest. Now in this immensity of length and breadth and height there floats an infinite quantity of innumerable atoms which, in spite of the intervening void, nevertheless join together, and through one seizing upon one, and another upon another, form themselves into connected wholes, by which means are produced those forms and outlines of the material world which your school is of opinion cannot be produced without bellows and anvils. You have therefore placed our necks beneath the yoke of a perpetual tyrant, of whom we are to go in fear by day and night, for who would not fear a god who foresaw everything, considered everything, noted everything, and looked upon himself as concerned in everything,—a busy and prying god? From this has come, in the first place, your idea of preordained necessity, which you call εἱμαρμένη, meaning by the term that every event that occurs had its origin in eternal truth and the chain of causation—(though what is to be thought of a philosophy that holds the ignorant old crone’s belief that everything happens by destiny?)—and secondly your art of μαντικὴ, ordivinatio,as it is called in Latin, which, if we were willing to listen to you, would imbue us with such superstition that we should have to pay regard to soothsayers, augurs, diviners, prophets, and interpreters of dreams. From these terrors we have been released by Epicurus, and claimed for freedom; we do not fear beings of whom we understand that they neither create trouble for themselves, nor seek it for others, and we worship, in piety and holiness, a sublime and exalted nature. My enthusiasm, I fear, has led me into too great length, but it was difficult, although my proper character was rather that of alistener than a speaker, to leave so important and lofty a subject incomplete.

American: This is a god which we can call happy in the proper sense of the term. Your Stoic god seems to us to be grievously overworked. If the world itself is god, what can be less restful than to revolve at incredible speed around the axis of the heavens, without a single moment of respite? Rest is an essential condition of happiness. You on the other hand maintain that a god resides within the world as its governor and pilot, maintaining the courses of the stars, supervising the changes of the seasons, governing all the ordered processes of creation, and keeping a watch on land and sea to guard the interests and lives of men. If so, what a bondage of irksome and laborious business that must be!

We Epicureans for our part deem happiness to consist in tranquility of mind and entire exemption from all labors. For he who taught us all the rest has also taught us that the world was made by Nature, without need of an artificer to construct it. Epicurus also taught that the act of creation, which according to you cannot be performed without divine skill, is so easy that Nature will create, is creating, and has created worlds without number.

You on the contrary cannot see how Nature can achieve all this without the aid of some intelligence. Like the tragic poets who are unable to bring the plot of their drama to an ending, you must resort to a god. You would assuredly not need such intervention if you would but contemplate the measureless and boundless extent of space that stretches in every direction. Into that infinity the mind projects and propels itself, journeying onward far and wide, without ever sighting any margin or ultimate point where it can stop.

In that immensity of length and breadth and height there moves an infinite quantity of atoms, which though separated by void yet come together and take hold of each other. From these unions are created those shapes and forms of things which you think cannot be created without the aid of bellows and anvils. You have therefore saddled humanity with an eternal master, whom day and night we are obliged to fear. For who would not fear a prying busybody of a god, who foresees and thinks about and notices all things, and deems everything to be his concern?

Out of this theology came first of all your doctrine of Necessity or Fate, which you also call harmony, the theory that every event is the result of an eternal truth and an unbroken sequence of causation.

But what value can be assigned to a philosophy which thinks that everything happens by fate? That is a belief for old women, and ignorant old women at that!

Next follows your doctrine of divination, which - if we consented to listen to you - would so steep us in superstition that we would become devoted to soothsayers, oracle-mongers, seers, and interpreters of dreams.

But Epicurus has set us free from superstitious terrors and delivered us out of captivity. Through Epicurus' wisdom we have no fear of beings who - we assuredly know - create no trouble for themselves, nor seek to cause trouble to others, while we ourselves worship with reverence the transcendent majesty of Nature.

I fear that enthusiasm for my subject has made me long-winded. It is difficult to leave so vast and splendid a theme unfinished, but it is my business here to be more of a listener than a speaker.