,atheism ,in ,pagan ,antiquity          
,by                                 ,a4 
,b4 ,drachmann         ,professor of    
,classical ,philology in the ,university
 of ,copenhagen                         
,gyldendal                          #aa 
,hanover ,square1 ,london1 ,w4#a        
,copenhagen                             
,christiania                            
#aibb            ,,contents             
,preface  ,introduction  ,chapter ,i    
,chapter ,,ii  ,chapter ,,iii  ,chapter 
,,iv  ,chapter ,v  ,chapter ,,vi        
,chapter ,,vii  ,chapter ,,viii         
,chapter ,,ix  ,notes  ,index           
,footnotes              ,,preface       
,the present treatise originally        
appeared in ,danish as a ,university    
publication 7,kjbenhavns ,universitets  
,festskrift1 ,november #aiai74 ,in      
submitting it to the ,english public1 ,i
 wish to acknowledge my profound        
indebtedness to ,mr4 ,g4 ,f4 ,hill of   
the ,british ,museum1 who not only      
suggested the ,english edition1 but also

 with untiring kindness has  subjected  
the translation1 as originally made by  
,miss ,ingeborg ,andersen1  ,m4,a4 of   
,copenhagen1 to a painstaking and most  
valuable revision4    ,for an account of
 the previous treatments of the subject1
 as well as of  the method employed in  
my investigation1 the reader is referred
 to the  introductory remarks which     
precede the ,notes4    ,a4 ,b4          
,,drachmann4  ,,charlottenlund1  ,july  
#aibb4            ,,introduction        
,the present inquiry is the outcome of a
 request to write an article on         
8,atheism0 for a projected dictionary of
 the religious history of classical     
antiquity4 ,on going through the sources
 ,i found that the subject might  well  
deserve a more comprehensive treatment  
than the scope of a dictionary  would   
allow4 ,it is such a treatment that ,i  
have attempted in the following  pages4 
,a difficulty that occurred at the very 
beginning of the inquiry was how to     
define the notion of atheism4 ,nowadays 

the term is taken to designate the      
attitude which denies every idea of     
,god4 ,even antiquity sometimes referred
  to atheism in this sense2 but an      
inquiry dealing with the history of     
religion could not start from a         
definition of that kind4 ,it would have 
to  keep in view1 not the philosophical 
notion of ,god1 but the conceptions of  
the gods as they appear in the religion 
of antiquity4 ,hence ,i came to  define 
atheism in ,pagan antiquity as the point
 of view which denies the  existence of 
the ancient gods4 ,it is in this sense  
that the word will be  used in the      
following inquiry4    ,even though we   
disregard philosophical atheism1 the    
definition is somewhat  narrow2 for in  
antiquity mere denial of the existence  
of the gods of  popular belief was not  
the only attitude which was designated  
as atheism4  ,but it has the advantage  
of starting from the conception of the  
ancient  gods that may be said to have  
finally prevailed4 ,in the sense in     

which the  word is used here we are     
nowadays all of us atheists4 ,we do not 
believe  that the gods whom the ,greeks 
and the ,romans worshipped and believed 
in  exist or have ever existed2 we hold 
them to be productions of the human     
imagination to which nothing real       
corresponds4 ,this view has nowadays    
become so ingrained in us and appears so
 self-evident1 that we find it          
difficult to imagine that it has not    
been prevalent through long ages2  nay1 
it is perhaps a widely diffused         
assumption that even in antiquity       
educated and unbiased persons held the  
same view of the religion of their      
people as we do4 ,in reality both       
assumptions are erroneous3 our 8atheism0
  in regard to ancient paganism is of   
recent date1 and in antiquity itself    
downright denial of the existence of the
 gods was a comparatively rare          
phenomenon4 ,the demonstration of this  
fact1 rather than a consideration of    
the various intermediate positions taken

 up by the thinkers of antiquity  in    
their desire to avoid a complete rupture
 with the traditional ideas of  the     
gods1 has been one of the chief purposes
 of this inquiry4    ,though the        
definition of atheism set down here     
might seem to be clear and  unequivocal1
 and though ,i have tried to adhere     
strictly to it1 cases have  unavoidably 
occurred that were difficult to         
classify4 ,the most  embarrassing are   
those which involve a reinterpretation  
of the conception  of the gods1 i4e4    
which1 while acknowledging that there is
 some reality  corresponding to the     
conception1 yet define this reality as  
essentially  different from it4         
,moreover1 the acknowledgment of a      
certain group of gods  7the celestial   
bodies1 for instance7 combined with the 
rejection of  others1 may create        
difficulties in defining the notion of  
atheism2 in  practice1 however1 this    
doctrine generally coincides with the   
former1 by  which the gods are explained

 away4 ,on the whole it would hardly be 
just1  in a field of inquiry like the   
present1 to expect or require absolutely
  clearly defined boundary-lines2       
transition forms will always occur4     
,the persons of whom it is related that 
they denied the existence of the        
ancient gods are in themselves few1 and 
they all belong to the highest  level of
 culture2 by far the greater part of    
them are simply professional            
philosophers4 ,hence the inquiry will   
almost exclusively have to deal with    
philosophers and philosophical schools  
and their doctrines2 of religion as     
exhibited in the masses1 as a social    
factor1 it will only treat by           
exception4 ,but in its purpose it is    
concerned with the history of  religion1
 not with philosophy2 therefore--in     
accordance with the definition  of its  
object--it will deal as little as       
possible with the purely  philosophical 
notions of ,god that have nothing to do 
with popular  religion4 ,what it aims at

 illustrating is a certain--if you like1
 the  negative--aspect of ancient       
religion4 ,but its result1 if it can be 
sufficiently established1 will not be   
without importance for the              
understanding of the positive religious 
sense of antiquity4 ,if you want to     
obtain some idea of the hold a certain  
religion had on its adherents1 it  is   
not amiss to know something about the   
extent to which it dominated even  the  
strata of society most exposed to       
influences that went against it4    ,it 
might seem more natural1 in dealing with
 atheism in antiquity1 to adopt  the    
definition current among the ancients   
themselves4 ,that this method  would    
prove futile the following investigation
 will1 ,i hope1 make  sufficiently      
evident2 antiquity succeeded as little  
as we moderns in  connecting any clear  
and unequivocal idea with the words that
 signify  8denial of ,god40 ,on the     
other hand1 it is1 of course1 impossible
 to begin  at all except from the       

traditions of antiquity about denial and
 deniers4  ,hence the course of the     
inquiry will be1 first to make clear    
what  antiquity understood by denial of 
the gods and what persons it designated 
as deniers1 and then to examine in how  
far these persons were atheists in  our 
sense of the word4            ,,chapter 
,i      ,atheism and atheist are words  
formed from ,greek roots and with ,greek
  derivative endings4 ,nevertheless they
 are not ,greek2 their formation is  not
 consonant with ,greek usage4 ,in ,greek
 they said atheos and  atheotes2 to     
these the ,english words ungodly and    
ungodliness correspond  rather closely4 
,in exactly the same way as ungodly1    
atheos was used as  an expression of    
severe censure and moral condemnation2  
this use is an old  one1 and the oldest 
that can be traced4 ,not till later do  
we find it  employed to denote a certain
 philosophical creed2 we even meet with 
philosophers bearing atheos as a regular
 surname4 ,we know very little of  the  

men in question2 but it can hardly be   
doubted that atheos1 as  applied to     
them1 implied not only a denial of the  
gods of popular belief1  but a denial of
 gods in the widest sense of the word1  
or ,atheism as it is  nowadays          
understood4    ,in this case the word is
 more particularly a philosophical term4
 ,but it  was used in a similar sense   
also in popular language1 and           
corresponds then  closely to the        
,english 8denier of ,god10 denoting a   
person who denies the  gods of his      
people and ,state4 ,from the popular    
point of view the interest1  of course1 
centred in those only1 not in the       
exponents of philosophical  theology4   
,thus we find the word employed both of 
theoretical denial of the  gods 7atheism
 in our sense7 and of practical denial  
of the gods1 as in the  case of the     
adherents of monotheism1 ,jews and      
,christians4    ,atheism1 in the        
theoretical as well as the practical    
sense of the word1  was1 according to   

the ancient conception of law1 always a 
crime2 but in  practice it was treated  
in different ways1 which varied both    
according to  the period in question and
 according to the more or less dangerous
 nature  of the threat it offered to    
established religion4 ,it is only as far
 as  ,athens and ,imperial ,rome are    
concerned that we have any definite     
knowledge  of the law and the judicial  
procedure on this point2 a somewhat     
detailed  account of the state of things
 in ,athens and ,rome cannot be         
dispensed with  here4    ,in the        
criminal law of ,athens we meet with the
 term asebeia--literally3  impiety or   
disrespect towards the gods4 ,as an     
established formula of  accusation of   
asebeia existed1 legislation must have  
dealt with the  subject2 but how it was 
defined we do not know4 ,the word itself
 conveys  the idea that the law         
particularly had offences against public
 worship in  view2 and this is confirmed
 by the fact that a number of such      

offences--from the felling of sacred    
trees to the profanation of the         
,eleusinian ,mysteries--were treated as 
asebeia4 ,when1 in the next place1      
towards the close of the fifth century  
,b4,c41 free-thinking began to assume   
forms which seemed dangerous to the     
religion of the ,state1 theoretical     
denial of the gods was also included    
under asebeia4 ,from about the          
beginning of the ,peloponnesian ,war to 
the close of the fourth century  ,b4,c41
 there are on record a number of        
prosecutions of philosophers who  were  
tried and condemned for denial of the   
gods4 ,the indictment seems in  most    
cases--the trial of ,socrates is the    
only one of which we know  details--to  
have been on the charge of asebeia1 and 
the procedure proper  thereto seems to  
have been employed1 though there was no 
proof or  assertion of the accused      
having offended against public worship2 
as to  ,socrates1 we know the opposite  
to have been the case2 he worshipped the

  gods like any other good citizen4     
,this extension of the conception of    
asebeia to include theoretical denial of
 the gods no doubt had no  foundation in
 law2 this is amongst other things      
evident from the fact that  it was      
necessary1 in order to convict          
,anaxagoras1 to pass a special public   
resolution in virtue of which his       
free-thinking theories became           
indictable4 ,the law presumably dated   
from a time when theoretical denial  of 
the gods lay beyond the horizon of      
legislation4 ,nevertheless1 in the      
trial of ,socrates it is simply taken   
for granted that denial of the gods  is 
a capital crime1 and that not only on   
the side of the prosecution1 but  also  
on the side of the defence3 the trial   
only turns on a question of  fact1 the  
legal basis is taken for granted4 ,so   
inveterate1 then1 at this  time was the 
conception of the unlawful nature of the
 denial of the gods  among the people of
 ,athens4    ,in the course of the      

fourth century ,b4,c4 several           
philosophers were accused  of denial of 
the gods or blasphemy2 but after the    
close of the century we  hear no more of
 such trials4 ,to be sure1 our knowledge
 of the succeeding  centuries1 when     
,athens was but a provincial town1 is   
far less copious than  of the days of   
its greatness2 nevertheless1 it is      
beyond doubt that the  practice in      
regard to theoretical denial of the gods
 was changed4 ,a  philosopher like      
,carneades1 for instance1 might1 in view
 of his sceptical  standpoint1 just as  
well have been convicted of asebeia as  
,protagoras1  who was convicted because 
he had declared that he did not know    
whether the  gods existed or not2 and as
 to such a process against ,carneades1  
tradition  would not have remained      
silent4 ,instead1 we learn that he was  
employed as  the trusted representative 
of the ,state on most important         
diplomatic  missions4 ,it is evident    
that ,athens had arrived at the point of

 view that  the theoretical denial of   
the gods might be tolerated1 whereas the
 law1 of  course1 continued to protect  
public worship4    ,in ,rome they did   
not possess1 as in ,athens1 a general   
statute against  religious offences2    
there were only special provisions1 and 
they were1  moreover1 few and           
insufficient4 ,this defect1 however1 was
 remedied by the  vigorous police       
authority with which the ,roman         
magistrates were invested4  ,in ,rome   
severe measures were often taken against
 movements which  threatened the ,roman 
official worship1 but it was done at the
 discretion  of the administration and  
not according to hard-and-fast rules2   
hence the  practice was somewhat        
varying1 and a certain arbitrariness    
inevitable4    ,no example is known from
 ,rome of action taken against          
theoretical denial  of the gods         
corresponding to the trials of the      
philosophers in ,athens4 ,the  main     
cause of this was1 no doubt1 that       

free-thinking in the fifth century      
,b4,c4 invaded ,hellas1 and specially   
,athens1 like a flood which threatened  
to overthrow everything2 in ,rome1 on   
the other hand1 ,greek philosophy made  
its way in slowly and gradually1 and    
this took place at a time when in the   
country of its origin it had long ago   
found a modus vivendi with popular      
religion and was acknowledged as        
harmless to the established worship4    
,the  more practical outlook of the     
,romans may perhaps also have had       
something  to say in the matter3 they   
were rather indifferent to theoretical  
speculations1 whereas they were not to  
be trifled with when their national     
institutions were concerned4    ,in     
consequence of this point of view the   
,roman government first came to  deal   
with denial of the gods as a breach of  
law when confronted with the  two       
monotheistic religions which invaded the
 ,empire from the ,east4 ,that  which   
distinguished ,jews and ,christians from

 ,pagans was not that they  denied the  
existence of the ,pagan gods--the       
,christians1 at any rate1 did  not do   
this as a rule--but that they denied    
that they were gods1 and  therefore     
refused to worship them4 ,they were     
practical1 not theoretical  deniers4    
,the tolerance which the ,roman         
government showed towards all  foreign  
creeds and the result of which in       
imperial times was1 practically         
speaking1 freedom of religion over the  
whole ,empire1 could not be extended  to
 the ,jews and the ,christians2 for it  
was in the last resort based on         
reciprocity1 on the fact that worship of
 the ,egyptian or ,persian gods did  not
 exclude worship of the ,roman ones4    
,every convert1 on the other hand1  won 
over to ,judaism or ,christianity was eo
 ipso an apostate from the  ,roman      
religion1 an atheos according to the    
ancient conception4 ,hence1 as  soon as 
such religions began to spread1 they    
constituted a serious danger  to the    

established religion1 and the ,roman    
government intervened4 ,judaism  and    
,christianity were not treated quite    
alike2 in this connexion details  are of
 no interest1 but certain principal     
features must be dwelt on as            
significant of the attitude of antiquity
 towards denial of the gods4 ,to        
simplify matters ,i confine myself to   
,christianity1 where things are less    
complicated4    ,the ,christians were   
generally designated as atheoi1 as      
deniers of the  gods1 and the objection 
against them was precisely their denial 
of the  ,pagan gods1 not their religion 
as such4 ,when the ,christian1 summoned 
before the ,roman magistrates1 agreed to
 sacrifice to the ,pagan gods 7among    
them1 the ,emperor7 he was acquitted2 he
 was not punished for previously  having
 attended ,christian services1 and it   
seems that he was not even  required to 
undertake not to do so in future4 ,only 
if he refused to  sacrifice1 was he     
punished4 ,we cannot ask for a clearer  

proof that it is  apostasy as such1     
denial of the gods1 against which action
 is taken4 ,it is  in keeping with this 
that1 at any rate under the earlier     
,empire1 no  attempt was made to seek   
out the ,christians at their assemblies1
 to hinder  their services or the like2 
it was considered sufficient to take    
steps  when information was laid4       
,the punishments meted out were         
different1 in that they were left solely
 to  the discretion of the magistrates4 
,but they were generally severe3 forced 
labour in mines and capital punishment  
were quite common4 ,no  discrimination  
was made between ,roman citizens and    
others belonging to the  ,empire1 but   
all were treated alike2 that the ,roman 
citizen could not  undergo capital      
punishment without appeal to the        
,emperor does not affect  the principle4
 ,this procedure has really no expressly
 formulated basis in  law2 the ,roman   
penal code did not1 as mentioned above1 
take cognizance of  denial of the gods4 

,nevertheless1 the sentences on the     
,christians were  considered by the     
,pagans of the earlier time as a matter 
of course1 the  justice of which was not
 contested1 and the procedure of the    
government  was in principle the same   
under humane and conscientious rulers   
like  ,trajan and ,marcus ,aurelius as  
under tyrants like ,nero and ,domitian4 
,here  again it is evident how firmly   
rooted in the mind of antiquity was the 
conviction that denial of the gods was a
 capital offence4    ,to resume what has
 here been set forth concerning the     
attitude of ancient  society to atheism3
 it is1 in the first place1 evident that
 the frequently  mentioned tolerance of 
polytheism was not extended to those who
 denied its  gods2 in fact1 it was      
applied only to those who acknowledged  
them even if  they worshipped others    
besides4 ,but the assertion of this     
principle of  intolerance varied greatly
 in practice according to whether it was
 a  question of theoretical denial of   

the gods--atheism in our sense--or      
practical refusal to worship the ,pagan 
gods4 ,against atheism the community    
took action only during a comparatively 
short period1 and1 as far as we  know1  
only in a single place4 ,the latter     
limitation is probably explained  not   
only by the defectiveness of tradition1 
but also by the fact that in  ,athens   
free-thinking made its appearance about 
the year #djj as a general  phenomenon  
and therefore attracted the attention of
 the community4 ,apart  from this case1 
the philosophical denier of ,god was    
left in peace all  through antiquity1 in
 the same way as the individual citizen 
was not  interfered with1 as a rule1    
when he1 for one reason or another1     
refrained  from taking part in the      
worship of the deities4 ,on the other   
hand1 as soon  as practical refusal to  
believe in the gods1 apostasy from the  
established  religion1 assumed dangerous
 proportions1 ruthless severity was     
exercised  against it4    ,the          

discrimination1 however1 made in the    
treatment of the theoretical and        
practical denial of the gods is         
certainly not due merely to             
consideration  of the more or less      
isolated occurrence of the phenomenon2  
it is rooted at  the same time in the   
very nature of ancient religion4 ,the   
essence of  ancient polytheism is the   
worship of the gods1 that is1 cultus2 of
 a  doctrine of divinity properly       
speaking1 of theology1 there were only  
slight rudiments1 and there was no idea 
of any elaborate dogmatic system4       
,quite different attitudes were         
accordingly assumed towards the         
philosopher1 who held his own opinions  
of the gods1 but took part in the       
public worship like anybody else2 and   
towards the monotheist1 to whom the     
whole of the ,pagan worship was an      
abomination1 which one should abstain   
from at any cost1 and which one should  
prevail on others to give up for  the   
sake of their own good in this life or  

the next4    ,in the literature of      
antiquity we meet with sporadic         
statements to the  effect that certain  
philosophers bore the epithet atheos as 
a sort of  surname2 and in a few of the 
later authors of antiquity we even find 
lists  of men--almost all of them       
philosophers--who denied the existence  
of the  gods4 ,furthermore1 we possess  
information about certain persons--these
  also1 if ,jews and ,christians are    
excluded1 are nearly all of them        
philosophers--having been accused of1   
and eventually convicted of1 denial  of 
the gods2 some of these are not in our  
lists4 ,information of this kind  will1 
as remarked above1 be taken as the point
 of departure for an  investigation of  
atheism in antiquity4 ,for practical    
reasons1 however1 it  is reasonable to  
include some philosophers whom antiquity
 did not  designate as atheists1 and who
 did not come into conflict with        
official  religion1 but of whom it has  
been maintained in later times that they

 did  not believe in the existence of   
the gods of popular belief4 ,thus we    
arrive  at the following list1 in which 
those who were denoted as atheoi are    
italicised and those who were accused of
 impiety are marked with an  asterisk3  
,xenophanes4        99,anaxagoras4      
,diogenes of ,apollonia4        ,hippo  
of ,rhegium4        99,protagoras4      
,prodicus4        ,critias4             
99,diagoras of ,melos4                  
99,socrates4        ,antisthenes4       
,plato4        99,aristotle4            
,theophrastus4        99,stilpo4        
99,theodorus4        99,bion4           
,epicurus4        ,euhemerus4    ,the   
persons are put down in chronological   
order4 ,this order will in some  measure
 be preserved in the following survey2  
but regard for the  continuity of the   
tradition of the doctrine will entail   
certain  deviations4 ,it will1 that is  
to say1 be natural to divide the        
material  into four groups3 the         
pre-,socratic philosophy2 the ,sophists2

 ,socrates and  the ,socratics2         
,hellenistic philosophy4 ,each of these 
groups has a  philosophical character of
 its own1 and it will be seen that this 
character also makes itself felt in the 
relation to the gods of the  popular    
belief1 even though we here meet with   
phenomena of more isolated  occurrence4 
,the four groups must be supplemented by
 a fifth1 a survey of  the conditions in
 ,imperial ,rome4 ,atheists of this     
period are not found in  our lists2 but 
a good deal of old ,pagan free-thinking 
survives in the  first centuries of our 
era1 and also the epithet atheoi was    
bestowed  generally on the ,christians  
and sometimes on the ,jews1 and if only 
for  this reason they cannot be         
altogether passed by in this survey4    
,,chapter ,,ii      ,the paganism of    
antiquity is based on a primitive       
religion1 i4e4 it is  originally in the 
main homogeneous with the religions     
nowadays met with in  the so-called     
primitive peoples4 ,it underwent1       

however1 a long process of  evolution   
parallel with and conditioned by the    
development of ,greek and  later ,roman 
civilisation4 ,this evolution carried   
ancient religion far away  from its     
primitive starting-point2 it produced   
numerous new formations1  above all a   
huge system of anthropomorphic gods1    
each with a definite  character and     
personality of his own4 ,this           
development is the result of an         
interplay of numerous factors3 changing 
social and economical conditions  evoked
 the desire for new religious ideas2 the
 influence of other peoples  made itself
 felt2 poetry and the fine arts         
contributed largely to the  moulding of 
these ideas2 conscious reflection1 too1 
arose early and  modified original      
simplicity4 ,but what is characteristic 
of the whole  process is the fact that  
it went on continuously without breaks  
or sudden  bounds4 ,nowhere in ancient  
religion1 as far as we can trace it1 did
 a  powerful religious personality      

strike in with a radical transformation1
  with a direct rejection of old ideas  
and dogmatic accentuation of new  ones4 
,the result of this quiet growth was an 
exceedingly heterogeneous  organism1 in 
which remains of ancient1 highly        
primitive customs and ideas  were       
retained along with other elements of a 
far more advanced character4    ,such a 
state of things need not in itself      
trouble the general  consciousness2 it  
is a well-established fact that in      
religion the most  divergent elements   
are not incompatible4 ,nevertheless1    
among the ,greeks1  with their strong   
proclivity to reflective thought1       
criticism early arose  against the      
traditional conceptions of the gods4    
,the typical method of  this criticism  
is that the higher conceptions of the   
gods are used against  the lower4 ,from 
the earliest times the ,greek religious 
sense favoured  absoluteness of         
definition where the gods are concerned2
 even in ,homer  they are not only      

eternal and happy1 but also all-powerful
 and  all-knowing4 ,corresponding       
expressions of a moral character are    
hardly to  be found in ,homer2 but as   
early as ,hesiod and ,solon we find1 at 
any rate1  ,zeus as the representative  
of heavenly justice4 ,with such         
definitions a  large number of customs  
of public worship and1 above all1 a     
number of  stories about the gods1 were 
in violent contradiction2 thus we find  
even  so old and so pious a poet as     
,pindar occasionally rejecting mythical 
stories which he thinks at variance with
 the sublime nature of the gods4  ,this 
form of criticism of popular beliefs is 
continued through the whole  of         
antiquity2 it is found not only in      
philosophers and philosophically        
educated laymen1 but appears            
spontaneously in everybody of a         
reflective  mind2 its best known        
representative in earlier times is      
,euripides4 ,typical  of its popular    
form is in the first place its          

casualness2 it is directed  against     
details which at the moment attract     
attention1 while it leaves  other things
 alone which in principle are quite as  
offensive1 but either  not very         
obviously so1 or else not relevant to   
the matter in hand4  ,secondly1 it is   
nave3 it takes the gods of the popular  
belief for granted  essentially as they 
are2 it does not raise the crucial      
question whether  the popular belief is 
not quite justified in attributing to   
these higher  beings all kinds of       
imperfection1 and wrong in attributing  
perfection to  them1 and still less if  
such beings1 whether they are defined as
 perfect  or imperfect1 exist at all4   
,it follows that as a whole this form of
  criticism is outside the scope of our 
inquiry4    ,still1 there is one single 
personality in early ,greek thought who 
seems to  have proceeded still further  
on the lines of this nave criticism1    
namely1  ,xenophanes of ,colophon4 ,he  
is generally included amongst the       

philosophers1  and rightly in so far as 
he initiated a philosophical speculation
 which  was of the highest importance in
 the development of ,greek scientific   
thought4 ,but in the present connexion  
it would1 nevertheless1 be  misleading  
to place ,xenophanes among those        
philosophers who came into  conflict    
with the popular belief because their   
conception of ,existence was  based on  
science4 ,the starting-point for his    
criticism of the popular  belief is in  
fact not philosophical1 but religious2  
he ranks with  personalities like       
,pindar and ,euripides--he was also a   
verse-writer  himself1 with considerable
 poetic gift--and is only distinguished 
from them  by the greater consistency of
 his thought4 ,hence1 the correct course
 is to  deal with him in this place as  
the only eminent thinker in antiquity   
about  whom it is known that--starting  
from popular belief and religious       
motives--he reached a standpoint which  
at any rate with some truth may be      

designated as atheism4    ,xenophanes   
lived in the latter part of the sixth   
and the beginning of the  fifth         
centuries ,b4,c4 7according to his own  
statement he reached an age of  more    
than ninety years74 ,he was an itinerant
 singer who travelled about  and recited
 poetry1 presumably not merely his own  
but also that of others4  ,in his own   
poems he severely attacked the manner in
 which ,homer and  ,hesiod1 the most    
famous poets of ,greece1 had represented
 the gods3 they  had attributed to them 
everything which in man's eyes is       
outrageous and  reprehensible--theft1   
adultery and deception of one another4  
,their accounts  of the fights of the   
gods against ,titans and ,giants he     
denounced as  8inventions of the        
ancients40 ,but he did not stop at that3
 8,men believe  that the gods are born1 
are clothed and shaped and speak like   
themselves02  8if oxen and horses and   
lions could draw and paint1 they would  
delineate  their gods in their own      

image02 8the ,negroes believe that their
 gods are  flat-nosed and black1 the    
,thracians that theirs have blue eyes   
and red  hair40 ,thus he attacked       
directly the popular belief that the    
gods are  anthropomorphic1 and his      
arguments testify that he clearly       
realised that  men create their gods in 
their own image4 ,on another main point1
 too1 he  was in direct opposition to   
the religious ideas of his time3 he     
rejected  ,divination1 the belief that  
the gods imparted the secrets of the    
future to  men--which was deemed a      
mainstay of the belief in the existence 
of the  gods4 ,as a positive counterpart
 to the anthropomorphic gods1           
,xenophanes  set up a philosophical     
conception of ,god3 ,god must be ,one1  
,eternal1  ,unchangeable and identical  
with himself in every way 7all sight1   
all  hearing and all mind74 ,this deity1
 according to the explicit statements of
  our earliest sources1 he identified   
with the universe4    ,if we examine    

more closely the arguments put forth by 
,xenophanes in  support of his          
remarkable conception of the deity1 we  
realise that he  everywhere starts from 
the definitions of the nature of the    
gods as given  by popular religion2 but1
 be it understood1 solely from the      
absolute  definitions4 ,he takes the    
existence of the divine1 with its       
absolute  attributes1 for granted2 it is
 in fact the basis of all his           
speculation4  ,his criticism of the     
popular ideas of the gods is therefore  
closely  connected with his             
philosophical conception of ,god2 the   
two are the  positive and negative sides
 of the same thing4 ,altogether his     
connexion  with what ,i call the nave   
criticism of the popular religion is    
unmistakable4    ,it is undoubtedly a   
remarkable fact that we meet at this    
early date with  such a consistent      
representative of this criticism4 ,if we
 take ,xenophanes  at his word we must  
describe him as an atheist1 and atheism 

in the sixth  century ,b4,c4 is a very  
curious phenomenon indeed4 ,neither was 
it  acknowledged in antiquity2 no one   
placed ,xenophanes amongst atheoi2 and  
,cicero even says somewhere 7according  
to ,greek authority7 that ,xenophanes   
was the only one of those who believed  
in gods who rejected divination4 ,in    
more recent times1 too1 serious doubt   
has been expressed whether  ,xenophanes 
actually denied the existence of the    
gods4 ,reference has  amongst other     
things been made to the fact that he    
speaks in several  places about 8gods0  
where he1 according to his view1 ought  
to say 8,god02  nay1 he has even        
formulated his fundamental idea in the  
words3 8,one ,god1  the greatest amongst
 gods and men1 neither in shape nor mind
 like unto any  mortal40 ,to be sure1   
,xenophanes is not always consistent in 
his language2  but no weight whatever   
ought to be attached to this1 least of  
all in the  case of a man who           
exclusively expressed himself in verse4 

,another theory  rests on the tradition 
that ,xenophanes regarded his deity and 
the universe  as identical1 consequently
 was a pantheist4 ,in that case1 it is  
said1 he  may very well have considered1
 for instance1 the heavenly bodies as   
deities4 ,sound as this argument is in  
general1 it does not apply to this      
case4 ,when a thinker arrives at        
pantheism1 starting from a criticism of 
polytheism which is expressly based on  
the antithesis between the unity  and   
plurality of the deity--then very valid 
proofs1 indeed1 are needed in  order to 
justify the assumption that he after all
 believed in a plurality  of gods2 and  
such proofs are wanting in the case of  
,xenophanes4    ,judging from the       
material in hand one can hardly arrive  
at any other  conclusion than that the  
standpoint of ,xenophanes comes under   
our  definition of atheism4 ,but we must
 not forget that only fragments of his  
writings have been preserved1 and that  
the more extensive of them do not       

assist us greatly to the understanding  
of his religious standpoint4 ,it is     
possible that we might have arrived at a
 different conclusion had we but        
possessed his chief philosophical work  
in its entirety1 or at least larger     
portions of it4 ,and ,i must candidly   
confess that if ,i were asked whether1  
in my heart of hearts1 ,i believed that 
a ,greek of the sixth century ,b4,c4    
denied point-blank the existence of his 
gods1 my answer would be in the         
negative4    ,that ,xenophanes was not  
considered an atheist by the ancients   
may possibly  be explained by the fact  
that they objected to fasten this       
designation on  a man whose reasoning   
took the deity as a starting-point and  
whose sole  aim was to define its       
nature4 ,perhaps they also had an       
inkling that he in  reality stood on the
 ground of popular belief1 even if he   
went beyond it4  ,still more curious is 
the fact that his religious view does   
not seem to  have influenced the        

immediately succeeding philosophy at    
all4 ,his  successors1 ,parmenides and  
,zeno1 developed his doctrine of unity1 
but in a  pantheistic direction1 and on 
a logical1 not religious line of        
argument2  about their attitude to      
popular belief we are told practically  
nothing4  ,and ,ionic speculation took a
 quite different direction4 ,not till a 
century  later1 in ,euripides1 do we    
observe a distinct influence of his     
criticism  of popular belief2 but at    
that time other currents of opinion had 
intervened which are not dependent on   
,xenophanes1 but might direct  attention
 to him4            ,,chapter ,,iii     
,ancient ,greek naturalism is           
essentially calculated to collide with  
the  popular belief4 ,it seeks a natural
 explanation of the world1 first and    
foremost of its origin1 but in the next 
place of individual natural  phenomena4 
,as to the genesis of the world1        
speculations of a mythical kind  had    
already developed on the basis of the   

popular belief4 ,they were not1         
however1 binding on anybody1 and1 above 
all1 the idea of the gods having        
created the world was altogether alien  
to ,greek religion4 ,thus1 without      
offence to them it might be maintained  
that everything originated from a       
primary substance or from a mixture of  
several primary substances1 as was      
generally maintained by the ancient     
naturalists4 ,on the other hand1 a      
conflict arose as soon as the heavenly  
phenomena1 such as lightning and        
thunder1 were ascribed to natural       
causes1 or when the heavenly bodies were
  made out to be natural objects2 for to
 the ,greeks it was an established  fact
 that ,zeus sent lightning and thunder1 
and that the sun and the moon  were     
gods4 ,a refusal to believe in the      
latter was especially dangerous  because
 they were visible gods1 and as to the  
person who did not believe  in their    
divinity the obvious conclusion would be
 that he believed still  less in the    

invisible gods4    ,that this inference 
was drawn will appear before long4 ,but 
the epithet  8atheist0 was very rarely  
attached to the ancient naturalists2    
only a few  of the later 7and those the 
least important7 were given the nickname
  atheos4 ,altogether we hear very      
little of the relation of these         
philosophers to the popular belief1 and 
this very silence is surely             
significant4 ,no doubt1 most of them    
bestowed but a scant attention on this  
aspect of the matter2 they were         
engrossed in speculations which did not 
bring them into conflict with the       
popular belief1 and even their          
scientific treatment of the 8divine0    
natural phenomena did not make them     
doubt the existence of the gods4 ,this  
is connected with a peculiarity in      
their conception of existence4          
,tradition tells us of several of them1 
and  it applies presumably also to those
 of whom it is not recorded1 that they  
designated their primary substance or   

substances as gods2 sometimes they  also
 applied this designation to the world  
or worlds originating in the  primary   
substance4 ,this view is deeply rooted  
in the ,greek popular belief  and       
harmonises with its fundamental view of 
existence4 ,to these ancient  thinkers  
the primary substance is at once a      
living and a superhuman power2  and any 
living power which transcended that of  
man was divine to the  ,greeks4         
,hylozoism 7the theory that matter is   
alive7 consequently1 when it  allies    
itself with popular belief1 leads       
straight to pantheism1 whereas it       
excludes monotheism1 which presupposes a
 distinction between god and  matter4   
,now it is a matter of experience that1 
while monotheism is the  hereditary foe 
of polytheism1 polytheism and pantheism 
go very well  together4 ,the universe   
being divine1 there is no reason to     
doubt that  beings of a higher order    
than man exist1 nor any reason to refuse
 to  bestow on them the predicate       

8divine02 and with this we find         
ourselves in  principle on the          
standpoint of polytheistic popular      
belief4 ,there is  nothing surprising1  
then1 in the tradition that ,thales     
identified ,god with  the mind of the   
universe and believed the universe to be
 animated1 and  filled with 8demons40   
,the first statement is in this form    
probably  influenced by later ideas and 
hardly a correct expression of the view 
of  ,thales2 the rest bears the very    
stamp of genuineness1 and similar ideas 
recur1 more or less completely and      
variously refracted1 in the succeeding  
philosophers4    ,to follow these       
variations in detail is outside the     
scope of this  investigation2 but it may
 be of interest to see the form they    
take in one  of the latest and most     
advanced representatives of ,ionian     
naturalism4 ,in  ,democritus's          
conception of the universe1 personal    
gods would seem excluded  a priori4 ,he 
works with but three premises3 the      

atoms1 their movements1  and empty      
space4 ,from this everything is derived 
according to strict  causality4 ,such   
phenomena also as thunder and lightning1
 comets and  eclipses1 which were       
generally ascribed to the gods1 are     
according to his  opinion due to natural
 causes1 whereas people in the olden    
days were  afraid of them because they  
believed they were due to the gods4     
,nevertheless1 he seems1 in the first   
place1 to have designated ,fire1 which  
he at the same time recognised as a     
8soul-substance10 as divine1 the  cosmic
 fire being the soul of the world2 and  
secondly1 he thought that  there was    
something real underlying the popular   
conception of the gods4 ,he  was led to 
this from a consideration of dreams1    
which he thought were  images of real   
objects which entered into the sleeper  
through the pores of  the body4 ,now1   
since gods might be seen in dreams1 they
 must be real  beings4 ,he did actually 
say that the gods had more senses than  

the  ordinary five4 ,when he who of all 
the ,greek philosophers went furthest in
  a purely mechanical conception of     
nature took up such an attitude to the  
religion of his people1 one cannot      
expect the others1 who were less        
advanced1 to discard it4                
,nevertheless1 there is a certain       
probability that some of the later      
,ionian  naturalists went further in    
their criticism of the gods of popular  
belief4  ,one of them actually came into
 conflict with popular religion2 it will
 be  natural to begin with him4         
,shortly before the outbreak of the     
,peloponnesian ,war1 ,anaxagoras of     
,clazomenae was accused of impiety and  
had to leave ,athens1 where he had      
taken up his abode4 ,the object of the  
accusation was in reality political2    
the idea being to hit ,pericles through 
his friend the naturalist4 ,what        
,anaxagoras was charged with was that he
 had assumed that the heavenly  bodies  
were natural objects2 he had taught that

 the sun was a red-hot  mass1 and that  
the moon was earth and larger than      
,peloponnese4 ,to base an  accusation of
 impiety on this1 it was necessary first
 to carry a public  resolution1 giving  
power to prosecute those who gave       
natural explanations  of heavenly       
phenomena4    ,as to ,anaxagoras's      
attitude to popular belief1 we hear next
 to nothing  apart from this4 ,there is 
a story of a ram's head being found with
 one  horn in the middle of the         
forehead2 it was brought to ,pericles1  
and the  soothsayer ,lampon explained   
the portent to the effect that1 of the  
two  men1 ,pericles and ,thucydides1 who
 contended for the leadership of        
,athens1  one should prove victorious4  
,anaxagoras1 on the other hand1 had the 
ram's  head cut open and showed that the
 brain did not fill up the cranium1 but 
was egg-shaped and lay gathered together
 at the point where the horn grew  out4 
,he evidently thought that abortions    
also1 which otherwise were  generally   

considered as signs from the gods1 were 
due to natural causes4  ,beyond this1   
nothing is said of any attack on the    
popular belief on the  part of          
,anaxagoras1 and in his philosophy      
nothing occurred which logically        
entailed a denial of the existence of   
the gods4 ,add to this that it was      
necessary to create a new judicial basis
 for the accusation against             
,anaxagoras1 and it can be taken as     
certain that neither in his writings    
nor in any other way did he come forward
 in public as a denier of the  gods4    
,it is somewhat different when we       
consider the purely personal point of   
view of ,anaxagoras4 ,the very fact that
 no expression of his opinion           
concerning the gods has been transmitted
 affords food for thought4  ,presumably 
there was none2 but this very fact is   
notable when we bear in  mind that the  
earlier naturalists show no such        
reticence4 ,add to this  that1 if there 
is any place and any time in which we   

might expect a  complete emancipation   
from popular belief1 combined with a    
decided  disinclination to give         
expression to it1 it is ,athens under   
,pericles4 ,men  like ,pericles and his 
friends represent a high level1 perhaps 
the zenith1  in ,hellenic culture4 ,that
 they were critical of many of the      
religious  conceptions of their time we 
may take for granted2 as to ,pericles   
himself1  this is actually stated as a  
fact1 and the accusations of impiety    
directed  against ,aspasia and ,pheidias
 prove that orthodox circles were very  
well  aware of it4 ,but the accusations 
prove1 moreover1 that ,pericles and     
those  who shared his views were so much
 in advance of their time that they     
could  not afford to let their          
free-thinking attitude become a matter  
of public  knowledge without endangering
 their political position certainly1 and
  possibly even more than that4 ,to be  
sure1 considerations of that kind did   
not weigh with ,anaxagoras2 but he      

was--and that we know on good           
authority--a  quiet scholar whose ideal 
of life was to devote himself to        
problems of  natural science1 and he can
 hardly have wished to be disturbed in  
this  occupation by affairs in which he 
took no sort of interest4 ,the question 
is then only how far men like ,pericles 
and himself may have ventured in  their 
criticism4 ,though all direct tradition 
is wanting1 we have at any  rate        
circumstantial evidence possessing a    
certain degree of probability4    ,to   
begin with1 the attempt to give a       
natural explanation of prodigies is  not
 in itself without interest4 ,the mantic
 art1 i4e4 the ability to  predict the  
future by signs from the gods or direct 
divine inspiration1  was throughout     
antiquity considered one of the surest  
proofs of the  existence of the gods4   
,now1 it by no means follows that a     
person who was  not impressed by a      
deformed ram's head would deny1 e4g41   
the ability of  the ,delphic ,oracle to 

predict the future1 especially not so   
when the  person in question was a      
naturalist4 ,but that there was at this 
time a  general tendency to reject the  
art of divination is evident from the   
fact  that ,herodotus as well as        
,sophocles1 both of them contemporaries 
of  ,pericles and ,anaxagoras1 expressly
 contend against attempts in that       
direction1 and1 be it remarked1 as if   
the theory they attack was commonly     
held4 ,sophocles is in this connexion so
 far the more interesting of the  two1  
as1 on one hand1 he criticises private  
divination but defends the  ,delphic    
oracle vigorously1 while he1 on the     
other hand1 identifies denial  of the   
oracle with denial of the gods4 ,and he 
does this in such a way as  to make it  
evident that he has a definite object in
 mind4 ,that in this  polemic he may    
have been aiming precisely at           
,anaxagoras is indicated by  the fact   
that ,diopeithes1 who carried the       
resolution concerning the  accusation of

 the philosopher1 was a soothsayer by   
profession4    ,the strongest evidence  
as to the free-thinking of the          
,periclean age is1  however1 to be met  
with in the historical writing of       
,thucydides4 ,in his  work on the       
,peloponnesian ,war1 ,thucydides        
completely eliminated the  supernatural 
element2 not only did he throughout     
ignore omens and  divinations1 except in
 so far as they played a part as a      
psychological  factor1 but he also      
completely omitted any reference to the 
gods in his  narrative4 ,such a         
procedure was at this time              
unprecedented1 and contrasts  sharply   
with that of his immediate forerunner   
,herodotus1 who constantly  lays stress 
on the intervention of the gods4 ,that  
is hardly conceivable  except in a man  
who had altogether emancipated himself  
from the religious  views of his time4  
,now1 ,thucydides is not only a         
fellow-countryman and  younger          
contemporary of ,pericles1 but he also  

sees in ,pericles his ideal  not only as
 a politician but evidently also as a   
man4 ,hence1 when  everything is        
considered1 it is not improbable that   
,pericles and his  friends went to all  
lengths in their criticism of popular   
belief1  although1 of course1 it remains
 impossible to state anything definite  
as  to particular persons' individual   
views4 ,curiously enough1 even in       
antiquity this connexion was observed2  
in a biography of ,thucydides it is     
said that he was a disciple of          
,anaxagoras and accordingly was also    
considered something of an atheist4     
,while ,anaxagoras1 his trial           
notwithstanding1 is not generally       
designated  an atheist1 probably because
 there was nothing in his writings to   
which he  might be pinned down1 that    
fate befell two of his contemporaries1  
,hippo of  ,rhegium and ,diogenes of    
,apollonia4 ,very little1 however1 is   
known of them4  ,hippo1 who is said to  
have been a ,pythagorean1 taught that   

water and fire  were the origin of      
everything2 as to the reason why he     
earned the nickname  atheos1 it is said 
that he taught that ,water was the      
primal cause of  all1 as well as that he
 maintained that nothing existed but    
what could be  perceived by the senses4 
,there is also quoted a 7fictitious7    
inscription1  which he is said to have  
caused to be put on his tomb1 to the    
effect that  ,death has made him the    
equal of the immortal gods 7in that he  
now exists  no more than they74         
,otherwise we know nothing special of   
,hippo2 ,aristotle  refers to him as    
shallow4 ,as to ,diogenes1 we learn that
 he was influenced  by ,anaximenes and  
,anaxagoras2 in agreement with the      
former he regarded ,air  as the primary 
substance1 and like ,anaxagoras he      
attributed reason to his  primary       
substance4 ,of his doctrine we have     
extensive accounts1 and also  some not  
inconsiderable fragments of his treatise
 ,on ,nature2 but they  are almost all  

of them of purely scientific1 mostly of 
an anatomical and  physiological        
character4 ,in especial1 as to his      
relation to popular  belief1 it is      
recorded that he identified ,zeus with  
the air4 ,indirectly1  however1 we are  
able to demonstrate1 by the aid of an   
almost contemporary  witness1 that there
 must have been some foundation for the 
accusation of  8atheism40 ,for in ,the  
,clouds1 where ,aristophanes wants to   
represent  ,socrates as an atheist1 he  
puts in his mouth scraps of the         
naturalism of  ,diogenes2 that he would 
hardly have done1 if ,diogenes had not  
already been  decried as an atheist4    
,it is of course impossible to base any 
statement of the relation of the  two   
philosophers to popular belief on such a
 foundation4 ,but it is1  nevertheless1 
worth noticing that while not a single  
one of the earlier  naturalists acquired
 the designation atheist1 it was applied
 to two of the  latest and otherwise    
little-known representatives of the     

school4 ,take this  in combination with 
what has been said above of ,anaxagoras1
 and we get at  any rate a suspicion    
that ,greek naturalism gradually led its
 adherents  beyond the nave stage where 
many individual phenomena were indeed   
ascribed to natural causes1 even if they
 had formerly been regarded as  caused  
by divine intervention1 but where the   
foundations of the popular  belief were 
left untouched4 ,once this path has been
 entered on1 a point  will be arrived at
 where the final conclusion is drawn and
 the existence  of the supernatural     
completely denied4 ,it is probable that 
this happened  towards the close of the 
naturalistic period4 ,if so early a     
philosopher as  ,anaxagoras took this   
point of view1 his personal contribution
 as a member  of the ,periclean circle  
may have been more significant in the   
religious  field than one would         
conjecture from the character of his    
work4    ,before we proceed to mention  
the sophists1 there is one person on our

 list  who must be examined though the  
result will be negative1 namely1        
,diagoras  of ,melos4 ,as he appears in 
our records1 he falls outside the       
classification adopted here2 but as he  
must have lived1 at any rate1 about  the
 middle of the fifth century 7he is said
 to have 8flourished0 in #dfd7  he may  
most fitly be placed on the boundary    
line between the ,ionian  philosophy and
 ,sophistic4    ,for later antiquity    
,diagoras is the typical atheist2 he    
heads our lists of  atheists1 and round 
his person a whole series of myths have 
been formed4  ,he is said to have been a
 poet and a pious man like others2 but  
then a  colleague once stole an ode from
 him1 escaped by taking an oath that he 
was innocent1 and afterwards made a hit 
with the stolen work4 ,so ,diagoras     
lost his faith in the gods and wrote a  
treatise under the title of             
apopyrgizontes logoi 7literally1        
destructive considerations7 in which he 
attacked the belief in the gods4        

,this looks very plausible1 and is      
interesting in so far as it1 if correct1
  affords an instance of atheism arising
 in a layman from actual experience1    
not in a philosopher from speculation4  
,if we ask1 however1 what is known      
historically about ,diagoras1 we are    
told a different tale4 ,there existed   
in ,athens1 engraved on a bronze tablet 
and set up on the ,acropolis1 a  decree 
of the people offering a reward of one  
talent to him who should  kill ,diagoras
 of ,melos1 and of two talents to him   
who should bring him  alive to ,athens4 
,the reason given was that he had       
scoffed at the  ,eleusinian ,mysteries  
and divulged what took place at them4   
,the date of  this decree is given by a 
historian as #dae ,b4,c42 that this is  
correct is  seen from a passage in      
,aristophanes's contemporary drama1 ,the
 ,birds4  ,furthermore1 one of the      
disciples of ,aristotle1 the literary   
historian  ,aristoxenus1 states that no 
trace of impiety was to be found in the 

works  of the dithyrambic poet          
,diagoras1 and that1 in fact1 they      
contained  definite opinions to the     
contrary4 ,a remark to the effect that  
,diagoras  was instrumental in drawing  
up the laws of ,mantinea is probably due
 to the  same source4 ,the context shows
 that the reference is to the earlier   
constitution of ,mantinea1 which was a  
mixture of aristocracy and  democracy1  
and is praised for its excellence4 ,it  
is inconceivable that1 in  a            
,peloponnesian city during the course   
of1 nay1 presumably even before the     
middle of the fifth century1 a notorious
 atheist should have been invited  to   
advise on the revision of its           
constitution4 ,it is more probable that 
,aristoxenus adduced this fact as an    
additional disproof of ,diagoras's      
atheism1 in which he evidently did not  
believe4    ,the above information      
explains the origin of the legend4 ,two 
fixed points  were in existence3 the    
pious poet of c4 #dfj and the atheist   

who was  outlawed in #dae2 a bridge was 
constructed between them by the story of
 the  stolen ode4 ,this disposes of the 
whole supposition of atheism growing out
  of a basis of experience4 ,but1       
furthermore1 it must be admitted that it
 is  doubtful whether the poet and the  
atheist are one and the same person4    
,the  interval of time between them is  
itself suspicious1 for the poet1        
according to the ancient system of      
calculation1 must have been about forty 
years old in #dfd1 consequently between 
eighty and ninety in #dae4 7,there is   
general agreement that the treatise1 the
 title of which has been quoted1  must  
have been a later forgery47 ,if1 in     
spite of all1 ,i dare not  absolutely   
deny the identity of the two ,diagorases
 of tradition1 the  reason is that      
,aristophanes1 where he mentions the    
decree concerning  ,diagoras1 seems to  
suggest that his attack on the          
,mysteries was an old  story which was  
raked up again in #dae4 ,but for our    

purpose1 at any rate1  nothing remains  
of the copious mass of legend but the   
fact that one  ,diagoras of ,melos in   
#dae was outlawed in ,athens on the     
ground of his  attack on the ,mysteries4
 ,such an attack may have been the      
outcome of  atheism2 there was no lack  
of impiety in ,athens at the end of the 
fifth  century4 ,but whether this was   
the case or not we cannot possibly tell2
 and  to throw light on free-thinking   
tendencies in ,athens at this time1 we  
have  other and richer sources than the 
historical notice of ,diagoras4         
,,chapter ,,iv      ,with the movement  
in ,greek thought which is generally    
known as sophistic1  a new view of      
popular belief appears4 ,the criticism  
of the sophists was  directed against   
the entire tradition on which ,greek    
society was based1  and principally     
against the moral conceptions which     
hitherto had been  unquestioned3 good   
and evil1 right and wrong4 ,the         
criticism was  essentially negative2    

that which hitherto had been imagined as
 absolute  was demonstrated to be       
relative1 and the relative was          
identified with the  invalid4 ,thus they
 could not help running up against the  
popular ideas of  the gods1 and treating
 them in the same way4 ,a leading part  
was here  played by the sophistic       
distinction between nomos and physis1   
,law and  ,nature1 i4e4 that which is   
based on human convention1 and that     
which is  founded on the nature of      
things4 ,the sophists could not help    
seeing that  the whole public worship   
and the ideas associated with it        
belonged to the  former--to the domain  
of 8the law40 ,not only did the worship 
and the  conceptions of the gods vary   
from place to place in the hundreds of  
small  independent communities into     
which ,hellas was divided--a fact which 
the  sophists had special opportunity of
 observing when travelling from town to 
town to teach2 but it was even          
officially admitted that the whole      

ritual--which1 popularly speaking1 was  
almost identical with religion--was     
based on convention4 ,if a ,greek was   
asked why a god was to be worshipped  in
 such and such a way1 generally the only
 answer was3 because it is the  law of  
the ,state 7or the convention2 the word 
nomos expresses both  things74 ,hence it
 followed in principle that religion    
came under the  domain of 8the law10    
being consequently the work of man2 and 
hence again  the obvious conclusion1    
according to sophistic reasoning1 was   
that it was  nothing but human          
imagination1 and that there was no      
physis1 no reality1  behind it at all4  
,in the case of the naturalists1 it was 
the positive  foundation of their       
system1 their conception of nature as a 
whole1 that  led them to criticise the  
popular belief4 ,hence their criticism  
was in the  main only directed against  
those particular ideas in the popular   
belief  which were at variance with the 
results of their investigations4 ,to be 

sure1 the sophists were not above making
 use of the results of natural  science 
in their criticism of the popular       
belief2 it was their general aim  to    
impart the highest education of their   
time1 and of a liberal education        
natural science formed a rather         
important part4 ,but their              
starting-point  was quite different from
 that of the naturalists4 ,their whole  
interest was  concentrated on man as a  
member of the community1 and it was from
  consideration of this relation that   
they were brought into collision with   
the established religion4 ,hence their  
attack was far more dangerous than  that
 of the naturalists2 no longer was it   
directed against details1 it  laid bare 
the psychological basis itself of       
popular belief and clearly  revealed its
 unstable character4 ,their criticism   
was fundamental and  central1 not casual
 and circumstantial4    ,from a purely  
practical point of view also1 the       
criticism of the sophists  was far more 

dangerous than that of the old          
philosophers4 ,they were not  theorists 
themselves1 but practitioners2 their    
business was to impart the  higher      
education to the more mature youth4 ,it 
was therefore part of their  profession 
to disseminate their views not by means 
of learned professional  writings1 but  
by the persuasive eloquence of oral     
discourse4 ,and in their  criticism of  
the existing state of things they did   
not start with special  results which   
only science could prove1 and the       
correctness of which the  layman need   
not recognise2 they operated with facts 
and principles known  and acknowledged  
by everybody4 ,it is not to be wondered 
at that such  efforts evoked a vigorous 
reaction on the part of established     
society1 the  more so as in any case the
 result of sophistic criticism--though  
not  consciously its object--was to     
liquefy the moral principles on which   
the  social order was based4    ,such1  
in principle1 appeared to be the state  

of things4 ,in practice1 here  as       
elsewhere1 the devil proved not so black
 as he was painted4 ,first1 not  all the
 sophists--hardly even the majority of  
them--drew the logical  conclusions from
 their views in respect of either morals
 or religion4 ,they  were teachers of   
rhetoric1 and as such they taught1 for  
instance1 all the  tricks by which a bad
 cause might be defended2 that was part 
of the trade4  ,but it must be supposed 
that ,gorgias1 the most distinguished of
 them1  expressly insisted that         
rhetoric1 just like any other art the   
aim of which  was to defeat an opponent1
 should only be used for good ends4     
,similarly  many of them may have       
stopped short in their criticism of     
popular belief  at some arbitrary point1
 so that it was possible for them to    
respect at  any rate something of the   
established religion1 and so1 of course1
 first  and foremost the very belief in 
the existence of the gods4 ,that they   
did  not as a rule interfere with public

 worship1 we may be sure2 that was      
based firmly on 8the ,law40 ,but1 in    
addition1 even sophists who personally  
took an attitude radically contradictory
 to popular belief had the most         
important reasons for being careful in  
advancing such a view4 ,they had to     
live by being the teachers of youth2    
they had no fixed appointment1 they     
travelled about as lecturers and        
enlisted disciples by means of their    
lectures4 ,for such men it would have   
been a very serious thing to attack  the
 established order in its tenderest     
place1 religion1 and above all they  had
 to beware of coming into conflict with 
the penal laws4 ,this risk they  did not
 incur while confining themselves to    
theoretical discussions about  right and
 wrong1 nor by the practical application
 of them in their  teaching of rhetoric2
 but they might very easily incur it if 
attacking  religion4 ,this being the    
case1 it is not to be wondered at that  
we do not  find many direct statements  

of undoubtedly atheistical character    
handed  down from the more eminent      
sophists1 and that trials for impiety   
are rare  in their case4 ,but1          
nevertheless1 a few such cases are met  
with1 and from  these as our            
starting-point we will now proceed4     
,as to ,protagoras of ,abdera1 one of   
the earliest and most famous of all the 
sophists1 it is stated that he began a  
pamphlet treating of the gods with  the 
words3 8,concerning the gods ,i can say 
nothing1 neither that they exist  nor   
that they do not exist1 nor of what form
 they are2 because there are  many      
things which prevent one from knowing   
that1 namely1 both the  uncertainty of  
the matter and the shortness of man's   
life40 ,on this  account1 it is said1 he
 was charged with impiety at ,athens and
 was  outlawed1 and his works were      
publicly burned4 ,the date of this trial
 is  not known for certain2 but it is   
reasonably supposed to have coincided   
with that of ,diagoras1 namely1 in #dae4

 ,at any rate it must have taken  place 
after #dbc-dba1 as we know that         
,protagoras was at that time staying  in
 ,athens4 ,as he must have been born    
about #dhe1 the charge overtook him     
when old and famous2 according to one   
account1 his work on the gods seems  to 
belong to his earlier writings4    ,to  
doubt the correctness of this tradition 
would require stronger reasons  than we 
possess1 although it is rather strange  
that the condemnation of  ,protagoras is
 mentioned neither in our historical    
sources nor in  ,aristophanes1 and that 
,plato1 who mentions ,protagoras rather 
frequently as  dead1 never alludes to   
it4 ,at any rate1 the quotation from the
 work on the  gods is certainly         
authentic1 for ,plato himself referred  
to it4 ,hence it is  certain that       
,protagoras directly stated the problem 
as to the existence of  the gods and    
regarded it as an open question4 ,but   
beyond that nothing much  can be deduced
 from the short quotation2 and as to the

 rest of the book on  the gods we know  
nothing4 ,the meagre reasons for        
scepticism adduced  probably do not     
imply any more than that the            
difficulties are objective as  well as  
subjective4 ,if1 in the latter respect1 
the brevity of life is  specially       
mentioned it may be supposed that       
,protagoras had in mind a  definite     
proof of the existence of the gods which
 was rendered difficult  by the fact    
that life is so brief2 prediction of the
 future may be guessed  at1 but nothing 
certain can be stated4    ,protagoras is
 the only one of the sophists of whom   
tradition says that he  was the object  
of persecution owing to his religious   
views4 ,the trial of  ,socrates1        
however1 really belongs to the same     
category when looked at from  the       
accusers' point of view2 ,socrates was  
accused as a sophist4 ,but as his  own  
attitude towards popular religion       
differed essentially from that of  the  
sophists1 we cannot consider him in this

 connexion4 ,protagoras's trial  itself 
is partly determined by special         
circumstances4 ,in all probability  it  
took place at a moment when a violent   
religious reaction had set in at        
,athens owing to some grave offences    
against the public worship and          
sanctuaries of the ,state 7violation of 
the ,mysteries and mutilation of the    
,hermae74 ,the work on the gods had     
presumably been in existence and known  
long before this without causing scandal
 to anybody4 ,but1 nevertheless1  the   
trial1 like those of ,anaxagoras and    
,socrates1 plainly bears witness to  the
 animosity with which the modern        
free-thought was regarded in ,athens4   
,this animosity did not easily manifest 
itself publicly without special         
reasons2 but it was always there and    
might always be used in case of         
provocation4    ,as to ,protagoras's    
personal attitude to the question of the
 existence of  the gods1 much may be    
guessed and much has been guessed2 but  

nothing can  be stated for certain4     
,however1 judging from the man's        
profession and his  general habit of    
life as it appears in tradition1 we may 
take for granted  that he did not give  
offence in his outward behaviour by     
taking a hostile  attitude to public    
worship or attacking its foundations2   
had that been so1  he would not for     
forty years have been the most          
distinguished teacher of  ,hellas1 but  
would simply not have been tolerated4   
,an eminent modern  scholar has         
therefore advanced the conjecture that  
,protagoras  distinguished between      
belief and knowledge1 and that his work 
on the gods  only aimed at showing that 
the existence of the gods could not be  
scientifically demonstrated4  ,now such 
a distinction probably1 if  conceived as
 a conscious principle1 is alien to     
ancient thought1 at any  rate at the    
time of ,protagoras2 and yet it may     
contain a grain of truth4  ,when it is  
borne in mind that the incriminated     

passage represents the very  exordium of
 the work of ,protagoras1 the impression
 cannot be avoided that  he himself did 
not intend his work to disturb the      
established religion1  but that he quite
 navely took up the existence of the    
gods as a subject1  as good as any      
other1 for dialectic discussion4 ,all   
that he was concerned  with was theory  
and theorising2 religion was practice   
and ritual2 and he  had no more         
intention of interfering with that than 
the other earlier  sophists of assailing
 the legal system of the community in   
their  speculation as to relativity of  
right and wrong4    ,all this1 however1 
does not alter the fact that the work of
 ,protagoras  posed the very question of
 the existence of the gods as a problem 
which  might possibly be solved in the  
negative4 ,he seems to have been the    
first  to do this4 ,that it could be    
done is significant of the age to which 
,protagoras belongs2 that it was done   
was undoubtedly of great importance  for

 the development of thought in wide     
circles4    ,prodicus of ,ceos1 also one
 of the most famous sophists1 advanced  
the idea  that the conceptions of the   
gods were originally associated with    
those  things which were of use to      
humanity3 sun and moon1 rivers and      
springs1  the products of the earth and 
the elements2 therefore bread was       
identified  with ,demeter1 wine with    
,dionysus1 water with ,poseidon1 fire   
with  ,hephaestus4 ,as a special        
instance he mentioned the worship of the
 ,nile by  the ,egyptians4    ,in       
,democritus1 who was a slightly elder   
contemporary of ,prodicus1 we have      
already met with investigation into the 
origin of the conceptions of the  gods4 
,there is a close parallel between his  
handling of the subject and  that of    
,prodicus1 but at the same time a       
characteristic difference4  ,democritus 
was a naturalist1 hence he took as his  
starting-point the  natural phenomena   
commonly ascribed to the influence of   

the gods4  ,prodicus1 on the other hand1
 started from the intellectual life of  
man4 ,we  learn that he had commenced to
 study synonyms1 and that he was        
interested  in the interpretation of the
 poets4 ,now he found that ,homer       
occasionally  simply substituted the    
name of ,hephaestus for fire1 and that  
other poets  went even further on the   
same lines4 ,furthermore1 while it was  
common  knowledge to every ,greek that  
certain natural objects1 such as the    
heavenly bodies and the rivers1 were    
regarded as divine and had names in     
common with their gods1 this to         
,prodicus would be a specially          
attractive  subject for speculation4 ,it
 is plainly shown by his instances that 
it is  linguistic observations of this  
kind which were the starting-point of   
his  theory concerning the origin of the
 conceptions of the gods4    ,in the    
accounts of ,prodicus it is taken for   
granted that he denied the  existence of
 the gods1 and in later times he is     

classed as atheos4  ,nevertheless we    
have every reason to doubt the          
correctness of this  opinion4 ,the case 
of ,democritus already shows that a     
philosopher might  very well derive the 
conceptions of the gods from an         
incorrect  interpretation of certain    
phenomena without throwing doubt on     
their  existence4 ,as far as ,prodicus  
is concerned it may be assumed that he  
did  not believe that ,bread1 ,wine or  
,fire were gods1 any more than          
,democritus  imagined that ,zeus sent   
thunder and lightning2 nor1 presumably1 
did he  ever believe that rivers were   
gods4 ,but he need not therefore have   
denied  the existence of ,demeter1      
,dionysus and ,hephaestus1 much less the
 divinity  of the sun and the moon4 ,and
 if we consider his theory more closely 
it  points in quite a different         
direction from that of atheism4 ,to     
,prodicus it  was evidently the         
conception of utility that mattered3 if 
these objects  came to be regarded as   

gods it was because they 8benefited     
humanity40 ,this  too is a genuinely    
sophistic view1 characteristically      
deviating from that  of the naturalist  
,democritus in its limitation to the    
human and social  aspect of the         
question4 ,such a point of view1 if     
confronted with the  question of the    
existence of the gods1 may very well1   
according to  sophistic methods of      
reasoning1 lead to the conclusion that  
primitive man  was right in so far as   
the useful1 i4e4 that which 8benefits   
humanity10  really is an essential      
feature of the gods1 and wrong only in  
so far as he  identified the individual 
useful objects with the gods4 ,whether  
,prodicus  adopted this point of view1  
we cannot possibly tell2 but the general
 body  of tradition concerning the man1 
which does not in any way suggest       
religious radicalism1 indicates as most 
probable that he did not connect  the   
question of the origin of the           
conceptions of the gods with that of the

  existence of the gods1 which to him   
was taken for granted1 and that it was  
only later philosophers who1 in their   
researches into the ideas of earlier    
philosophers about the gods1 inferred   
his atheism from his speculations on    
the history of religion4    ,critias1   
the well-known reactionary politician1  
the chief of the ,thirty  ,tyrants1 is  
placed amongst the atheists on the      
strength of a passage in a  satyric     
drama1 ,sisyphus4 ,the drama is lost1   
but our authority quotes the            
objectionable passage in extenso2 it is 
a piece of no less than forty  lines4   
,the passage argues that human life in  
its origins knew no social  order1 that 
might ruled supreme4 ,then men conceived
 the idea of making  laws in order that 
right might rule instead of might4 ,the 
result of this  was1 it is true1 that   
wrong was not done openly2 but it was   
done secretly  instead4 ,then a wise man
 bethought himself of making men believe
 that  there existed gods who saw and   

heard everything which men did1 nay even
  knew their innermost thoughts4 ,and1  
in order that men might stand in  proper
 awe of the gods1 he said that they     
lived in the sky1 out of which  comes   
that which makes men afraid1 such as    
lightning and thunder1 but also  that   
which benefits them1 sunshine and rain1 
and the stars1 those fair  ornaments by 
whose course men measure time4 ,thus he 
succeeded in bringing  lawlessness to an
 end4 ,it is expressly stated that it   
was all a cunning  fraud3 8by such talk 
he made his teaching most acceptable1   
veiling truth  with false words40    ,in
 antiquity it was disputed whether the  
drama ,sisyphus was by ,critias  or     
,euripides2 nowadays all agree in       
attributing it to ,critias2 nor does    
the style of the long fragment resemble 
that of ,euripides4 ,the question  is1  
however1 of no consequence in this      
connexion3 whether the drama is by      
,critias or ,euripides it is wrong to   
attribute to an author opinions which   

he has put into the mouth of a character
 in a drama4 ,moreover1 ,sisyphus  was a
 satyric play1 i4e4 it belonged to a    
class of poetry the liberty of  which   
was nearly as great as in comedy1 and   
the speech was delivered by  ,sisyphus  
himself1 who1 according to the legend1  
is a type of the crafty  criminal whose 
forte is to do evil and elude           
punishment4 ,there is1 in  fact1 nothing
 in that which we otherwise hear of     
,critias to suggest that  he cherished  
free-thinking views4 ,he was--or in his 
later years became--a  fanatical        
adversary of the ,attic democracy1 and  
he was1 when he held  power1            
unscrupulous in his choice of the means 
with which he opposed it  and the men   
who stood in the path of his reactionary
 policy2 but in our  earlier sources he 
is never accused of impiety in the      
theoretical sense4  ,and yet there had  
been an excellent opportunity of        
bringing forward such  an accusation2   
for in his youth ,critias had been a    

companion of ,socrates1  and his later  
conduct was used as a proof that        
,socrates corrupted his  surroundings4  
,but it is always ,critias's political  
crimes which are  adduced in this       
connexion1 not his irreligion4 ,on the  
other hand1  posterity looked upon him  
as the pure type of tyrant1 and the     
label  atheist therefore suggested      
itself on the slightest provocation4    
,but1 even if the ,sisyphus fragment    
cannot be used to characterise its      
author as an atheist1 it is1            
nevertheless1 of the greatest interest  
in  this connexion1 and therefore       
demands closer analysis4    ,the        
introductory idea1 that mankind has     
evolved from an animal state into       
higher stages1 is at variance with the  
earlier ,greek conception1 namely1  that
 history begins with a golden age from  
which there is a continual  decline4    
,the theory of the fragment is expressed
 by a series of authors  from the same  
and the immediately succeeding period4  

,it occurs in  ,euripides2 a later and  
otherwise little-known tragedian1       
,moschion1  developed it in detail in a 
still extant fragment2 ,plato accepted  
it and  made it the basis of his        
presentation of the origin of the       
,state2  ,aristotle takes it for        
granted4 ,its source1 too1 has been     
demonstrated3 it  was presumably        
,democritus who first advanced it4      
,nevertheless the author  of the        
fragment has hardly got it direct from  
,democritus1 who at this time  was      
little known at ,athens1 but from an    
intermediary4 ,this intermediary is     
probably ,protagoras1 of whom it is said
 that he composed a treatise1 ,the      
,original ,state1 i4e4 the primary state
 of mankind4 ,protagoras was a          
fellow-townsman of ,democritus1 and     
recorded by tradition as one of his     
direct disciples4    ,in another point  
also the fragment seems to betray the   
influence of  ,democritus4 ,when it is  
said that the wise inventors of the gods

 made them  dwell in the skies1 because 
from the skies come those natural       
phenomena  which frighten men1 it is    
highly suggestive of ,democritus's      
criticism of  the divine explanation of 
thunder and lightning and the like4 ,in 
this case  also ,protagoras may have    
been the intermediary4 ,in his work on  
the gods he  had every opportunity of   
discussing the question in detail4 ,but 
here we  have the theory of ,democritus 
combined with that of ,prodicus in that 
it is  maintained that from the skies   
come also those things that benefit men1
  and that they are on this account also
 a suitable dwelling-place for the      
gods4 ,it is obvious that the author of 
the fragment 7or his source7 was  versed
 in the most modern wisdom4    ,all this
 erudition1 however1 is made to serve a 
certain tendency3 the  well-known       
tendency to represent religion as a     
political invention having  as its      
object the policing of society4 ,it is a
 theory which in  antiquity--to its     

honour be it said--is but of rare       
occurrence4 ,there is a  vague          
indication of it in ,euripides1 a more  
definite one in ,aristotle1 and  an     
elaborate application of it in          
,polybius2 and that is in reality all4  
7,that many people in more enlightened  
ages upheld religion as a means of      
keeping the masses in check1 is a       
different matter47 ,however1 it is an   
interesting fact that the ,critias      
fragment is not only the first evidence 
of the existence of the theory known to 
us1 but also presumably the  earliest   
and probably the best known to later    
antiquity4 ,otherwise we  should not    
find reference for the theory made to a 
fragment of a farce1  but to a quotation
 from a philosopher4    ,this might lead
 us to conclude that the theory was     
,critias's own  invention1 though1 of   
course1 it would not follow that he     
himself adhered  to it4 ,but it is more 
probable that it was a ready-made modern
 theory  which ,critias put into the    

mouth of ,sisyphus4 ,not only does the  
whole  character of the fragment and its
 scene of action favour this            
supposition1  but there is also another 
factor which corroborates it4    ,in the
 ,gorgias ,plato makes one of the       
characters1 ,callicles--a man of  whom  
we otherwise know nothing--profess a    
doctrine which up to a certain  point is
 almost identical with that of the      
fragment4 ,according to  ,callicles1 the
 natural state 7and the right state2 on 
this point he is at  variance with the  
fragment7 is that right belongs to the  
strong4 ,this  state has been corrupted 
by legislation2 the laws are inventions 
of the  weak1 who are also the majority1
 and their aim is to hinder the         
encroachment of the strong4 ,if this    
theory is carried to its conclusion1  it
 is obvious that religion must be added 
to the laws2 if the former is  not also 
regarded as an invention for the        
policing of society1 the whole  theory  
is upset4 ,now in the ,gorgias the      

question as to the attitude of  the gods
 towards the problem of what is right   
and what is wrong is  carefully avoided 
in the discussion4 ,not till the close  
of the dialogue1  where ,plato          
substitutes myth for scientific         
research1 does he draw the  conclusion  
in respect of religion4 ,he does this in
 a positive form1 as a  consequence of  
his point of view3 after death the gods 
reward the just  and punish the unjust2 
but he expressly assumes that ,callicles
 will regard  it all as an old wives'   
tale4    ,in ,callicles an attempt has  
been made to see a pseudonym for        
,critias4 ,that  is certainly wrong4    
,critias was a kinsman of ,plato1 is    
introduced by name  in several          
dialogues1 nay1 one dialogue even bears 
his name1 and he is  everywhere treated 
with respect and sympathy4 ,nowadays1   
therefore1 it is  generally acknowledged
 that ,callicles is a real person1      
merely unknown to  us as such4 ,however 
that may be1 ,plato would never have let

 a leading  character in one of his     
longer dialogues advance 7and ,socrates 
refute7 a  view which had no better     
authority than a passage in a satyric   
drama4 ,on  the other hand1 there is1 as
 shown above1 difficulty in supposing   
that the  doctrine of the fragment was  
stated in the writings of an eminent    
sophist2  so we come to the conclusion  
that it was developed and diffused in   
sophistic circles by oral teaching1 and 
that it became known to ,critias  and   
,plato in this way4 ,its originator we  
do not know4 ,we might think of  the    
sophist ,thrasymachus1 who in the first 
book of ,plato's ,republic  maintains a 
point of view corresponding to that of  
,callicles in ,gorgias4  ,but what we   
otherwise learn of ,thrasymachus is not 
suggestive of interest  in religion1 and
 the only statement of his as to that   
kind of thing which  has come down to us
 tends to the denial of a providence1   
not denial of the  gods4 ,quite recently
 ,diagoras of ,melos has been guessed   

at2 this is empty  talk1 resulting at   
best in substituting x 7or ,,nn7 for y4 
,if ,i have dwelt in such detail on the 
,sisyphus fragment1 it is because  it is
 our first direct and unmistakable      
evidence of ancient atheism4 ,here  for 
the first time we meet with the direct  
statement which we have  searched for in
 vain among all the preceding authors3  
that the gods of  popular belief are    
fabrication pure and simple and without 
any  corresponding reality1 however     
remote4 ,the nature of our tradition    
precludes our ascertaining whether such 
a statement might have been made        
earlier2 but the probability is a priori
 that it was not4 ,the whole            
development of ancient reasoning on     
religious questions1 as far as we are   
able to survey it1 leads in reality to  
the conclusion that atheism as an       
expressed 7though perhaps not publicly  
expressed7 confession of faith did  not 
appear till the age of the sophists4    
,with the ,critias fragment we have also

 brought to an end the inquiry into  the
 direct statements of atheistic tendency
 which have come down to us  from the   
age of the sophists4 ,the result is1 as 
we see1 rather meagre4 ,but  it may be  
supplemented with indirect testimonies  
which prove that there  was more of the 
thing than the direct tradition would   
lead us to  conjecture1 and that the    
denial of the existence of the gods must
 have  penetrated very wide circles4    
,the fullest expression of ,attic       
free-thought at the end of the fifth    
century is to be found in the tragedies 
of ,euripides4 ,they are leavened  with 
reflections on all possible moral and   
religious problems1 and  criticism of   
the traditional conceptions of the gods 
plays a leading part  in them4 ,we      
shall1 however1 have some difficulty in 
using ,euripides as a  source of what   
people really thought at this period1   
partly because he is  a very pronounced 
personality and by no means a mere      
mouthpiece for the  ideas of his        

contemporaries--during his lifetime he  
was an object of the  most violent      
animosity owing1 among other things1 to 
his free-thinking  views--partly because
 he1 as a dramatist1 was obliged to put 
his ideas into  the mouths of his       
characters1 so that in many cases it is 
difficult to  decide how much is due to 
dramatic considerations and how much to 
the  personal opinion of the poet4 ,even
 to this day the religious standpoint of
  ,euripides is matter of dispute4 ,in  
the most recent detailed treatment of   
the question he is characterised as an  
atheist1 whereas others regard him      
merely as a dialectician who debates    
problems without having any real        
standpoint of his own4    ,i do not     
believe that ,euripides personally      
denied the existence of the  gods2 there
 is too much that tells against that    
theory1 and1 in fact1  nothing that     
tells directly in favour of it1 though  
he did not quite  escape the charge of  
atheism even in his own day4 ,to prove  

the correctness  of this view would1    
however1 lead too far afield in this    
connexion4 ,on the  other hand1 a short 
characterisation of ,euripides's manner 
of reasoning  about religious problems  
is unavoidable as a background for the  
treatment  of those--very rare--passages
 where he has put actually atheistic    
reflections into the mouths of his      
characters4    ,as a ,greek dramatist   
,euripides had to derive his subjects   
from the heroic  legends1 which at the  
same time were legends of the gods in so
 far as they  were interwoven with tales
 of the gods' direct intervention in    
affairs4 ,it  is precisely against this 
intervention that the criticism of      
,euripides is  primarily directed4      
,again and again he makes his characters
 protest  against the manner in which   
they are treated by the gods or in which
 the  gods generally behave4 ,it is     
characteristic of ,euripides that his   
starting-point in this connexion is     
always the moral one4 ,so far he is a   

typical representative of that tendency 
which1 in earlier times1 was            
represented by ,xenophanes and a little 
later by ,pindar2 in no other ,greek    
poet has the method of using the higher 
conceptions of the gods against  the    
lower found more complete expression    
than in ,euripides4 ,and in so far1     
too1 he is still entirely on the ground 
of popular belief4 ,but at the same     
time it is characteristic of him that he
 is familiar with and highly  influenced
 by ,greek science4 ,he knows the most  
eminent representatives of  ,ionian     
naturalism 7with the exception of       
,democritus71 and he is fond of         
displaying his knowledge4 ,nevertheless1
 it cannot be said that he uses it  in a
 contentious spirit against popular     
belief2 on the contrary1 he is  inclined
 in agreement with the old philosophers 
to identify the gods of  popular belief 
with the elements4 ,towards sophistic he
 takes a similar1  but less sympathetic 
attitude4 ,sophistic was not in vogue   

till he was a  man of mature age2 he    
made acquaintance with it1 and he made  
use of  it--there are reflections in his
 dramas which carry distinct evidence of
  sophistic influence2 but in his       
treatment of religious problems he is   
not  a disciple of the sophists1 and on 
this subject1 as on others1 he          
occasionally attacked them4    ,it is   
against this background that we must set
 the reflections with an  atheistic tone
 that we find in ,euripides4 ,they are1 
as already mentioned1  rare2 indeed1    
strictly speaking there is only one case
 in which a  character openly denies the
 existence of the gods4 ,the passage is 
a  fragment of the drama ,bellerophon2  
it is1 despite its isolation1 so        
typical of the manner of ,euripides that
 it deserves to be quoted in full4      
8,and then to say that there are gods in
 the heavens6 ,nay1 there are none      
there2 if you are not foolish enough to 
be seduced by the old talk4 ,think  for 
yourselves about the matter1 and do not 

be influenced by my words4 ,i  contend  
that the tyrants kill the people        
wholesale1 take their money and  destroy
 cities in spite of their oaths2 and    
although they do all this they  are     
happier than people who1 in peace and   
quietness1 lead god-fearing  lives4 ,and
 ,i know small states which honour the  
gods1 but must obey  greater states1    
which are less pious1 because their     
spearmen are fewer in  number4 ,and ,i  
believe that you1 if a slothful man just
 prayed to the gods  and did not earn   
his bread by the work of his hands--0   
,here the sense is  interrupted2 but    
there remains one more line3 8,that     
which builds the  castle of the gods is 
in part the unfortunate happenings 4440 
,the  continuation is missing4    ,the  
argumentation here is characteristic of 
,euripides4 ,from the injustice  of life
 he infers the non-existence of the     
gods4 ,the conclusion evidently  only   
holds good on the assumption that the   
gods must be just2 and this is          

precisely one of the postulates of      
popular belief4 ,the reasoning is not   
sophistic2 on the contrary1 in their    
attacks the sophists took up a  position
 outside the foundation of popular      
belief and attacked the  foundation     
itself4 ,this reasoning1 on the other   
hand1 is closely allied to  the earlier 
religious thinking of the ,greeks2 it   
only proceeds further  than the latter1 
where it results in rank denial4    ,the
 drama of ,bellerophon is lost1 and     
reconstruction is out of the  question2 
if only for that reason it is           
unwarrantable to draw any  conclusions  
from the detached fragment as to the    
poet's personal attitude  towards the   
existence of the gods4 ,but1            
nevertheless1 the fragment is of        
interest in this connexion4 ,it would   
never have occurred to ,sophocles or    
,aeschylus to put such a speech in the  
mouth of one of his characters4 ,when   
,euripides does that it is a proof that 
the question of the existence of  the   

gods has begun to present itself to the 
popular consciousness at this  time4    
,viewed in this light other statements  
of his which are not in  themselves     
atheistic become significant4 ,when it  
is said3 8,if the gods act  in a        
shameful way1 they are not gods0--that  
indeed is not atheism in our  sense1 but
 it is very near to it4 ,interesting is 
also the introduction to  the drama     
,melanippe3 8,zeus1 whoever ,zeus may   
be2 for of that ,i only know  what is   
told40 ,aeschylus begins a strophe in   
one of his most famous choral  odes with
 almost the same words3 8,zeus1 whoe'er 
he be2 for if he desire so  to be       
called1 ,i will address him by this     
name40 ,in him it is an expression  of  
genuine antique piety1 which excludes   
all human impertinence towards  the gods
 to such a degree that it even forgoes  
knowing their real names4  ,in          
,euripides the same idea becomes an     
expression of doubt2 but in this  case  
also the doubt is raised on the         

foundation of popular belief4    ,it is 
not surprising that so prominent and    
sustained a criticism of  popular belief
 as that of ,euripides1 produced1       
moreover1 on the stage1  called forth a 
reaction from the defenders of the      
established faith1 and  that charges of 
impiety were not wanting4 ,it is more to
 be wondered at  that these charges on  
the whole are so few and slight1 and    
that ,euripides  did not become the     
object of any actual prosecution4 ,we   
know of a private  trial in which the   
accuser incidentally charged ,euripides 
with impiety on  the strength of a      
quotation from one of his tragedies1    
,euripides's answer  being a protest    
against dragging his poetry into the    
affair2 the verdict  on that belonged to
 another court4 ,aristophanes1 who is   
always severe on  ,euripides1 has only  
one passage directly charging him with  
being a  propagator of atheism2 but the 
accusation is hardly meant to be taken  
seriously4 ,in ,the ,frogs1 where he had

 every opportunity of emphasising  this 
view1 there is hardly an indication of  
it4 ,in ,the ,clouds1 where the  main   
attack is directed against modern       
free-thought1 ,euripides1 to be  sure1  
is sneered at as being the fashionable  
poet of the corrupted youth1  but he is 
not drawn into the charge of impiety4   
,even when ,plato wrote his  ,republic1 
,euripides was generally considered the 
8wisest of all  tragedians40 ,this would
 have been impossible if he had been    
considered an  atheist4 ,in spite of    
all1 the general feeling must           
undoubtedly have been  that ,euripides  
ultimately took his stand on the ground 
of popular belief4  ,it was a similar   
instinctive judgment in regard to       
religion which  prevented antiquity from
 placing ,xenophanes amongst the        
atheists4 ,later  times no doubt judged 
differently2 the quotation from         
,melanippe is in  fact cited as a proof 
that ,euripides was an atheist in his   
heart of  hearts4    ,in ,aristophanes  

we meet with the first observations     
concerning the change  in the religious 
conditions of ,athens during the        
,peloponnesian ,war4 ,in one  of his    
plays1 ,the ,clouds1 he actually set    
himself the task of taking up  arms     
against modern unbelief1 and he         
characterises it directly as atheism4   
,if only for that reason the play       
deserves somewhat fuller consideration4 
,it is well known that ,aristophanes    
chose ,socrates as a representative of  
the modern movement4 ,in him he embodies
 all the faults with which he  wished to
 pick a quarrel in the fashionable      
philosophy of the day4 ,on the  other   
hand1 the essence of ,socratic teaching 
is entirely absent from  ,aristophanes's
 representation2 of that he had hardly  
any understanding1  and even if he had  
he would at any rate not have been able 
to make use of  it in his drama4 ,we    
need not then in this connexion consider
 ,socrates  himself at all2 on the other
 hand1 the play gives a good idea of the

  popular idea of sophistic4 ,here we   
find all the features of the school1    
grotesquely mixed up and distorted by   
the farce1 it is true1 but  nevertheless
 easily recognisable3 rhetoric as an end
 in itself1 of course1  with emphasis on
 its immoral aspect2 empty and          
hair-splitting dialectics2  linguistic  
researches2 ,ionic naturalism2 and first
 and last1 as the focus  of all1 denial 
of the gods4 ,that ,aristophanes was    
well informed on certain  points1 at any
 rate1 is clear from the fact that the  
majority of the  scientific explanations
 which he puts into the mouth of        
,socrates actually  represent the latest
 results of science at that time--which 
in all  probability did not prevent his 
,athenians from considering them as     
exceedingly absurd and ridiculous4      
,what matters here1 however1 is only the
 accusation of atheism which he  made   
against ,socrates4 ,it is a little      
difficult to handle1 in so far as       
,aristophanes1 for dramatic reasons1 has

 equipped ,socrates with a whole set  of
 deities4 ,there are the clouds         
themselves1 which are of ,aristophanes's
  own invention2 there is also the air1 
which he has got from ,diogenes of      
,apollonia1 and finally a 8vortex0 which
 is supposed to be derived from the     
same source1 and which at any rate has  
cast ,zeus down from his throne4 ,all   
this we must ignore1 as it is only      
conditioned partly by technical         
reasons--,aristophanes had to have a    
chorus and chose the clouds for the     
purpose--and partially by the desire to 
ridicule ,ionic naturalism4 ,but  enough
 is left over4 ,in the beginning of the 
play ,socrates expressly  declares that 
no gods exist4 ,similar statements are  
repeated in several  places4 ,zeus is   
sometimes substituted for the gods1 but 
it comes to the  same thing4 ,and at the
 end of the play1 where the honest      
,athenian1 who has  ventured on the     
ticklish ground of sophistic1 admits his
 delusion1 it is  expressly said3       

8,oh1 what a fool ,i am6 ,nay1 ,i must  
have been mad indeed when ,i thought of 
throwing the gods away for ,socrates's  
sake60    ,even in the verses with which
 the chorus conclude the play it is     
insisted  that the worst crime of the   
sophists is their insult to the gods4   
,the inference to be drawn from all this
 is simply that the popular  ,athenian  
opinion--for we may rest assured that   
this and the view of  ,aristophanes are 
identical--was that the sophists were   
atheists4 ,that says  but little4 ,for  
popular opinion always works with broad 
categories1 and  the probability is that
 in this case1 as demonstrated above1 it
 was in the  wrong1 for1 as a rule1 the 
sophists were hardly conscious deniers  
of the  gods4 ,but1 at the same time1 at
 the back of the onslaught of           
,aristophanes  there lies the idea that 
the teaching of the sophists led to     
denial of the  gods2 that atheism was   
the natural outcome of their doctrine   
and way of  reasoning4 ,and that there  

was some truth therein is proved by     
other  evidence which can hardly be     
rejected4    ,in the indictment of      
,socrates it is said that he 8offended  
by not  believing in the gods in which  
the ,state believed40 ,in the two       
apologies  for ,socrates which have come
 down to us under ,xenophon's name1 the 
author  treats this accusation entirely 
under the aspect of atheism1 and tries  
to  refute it by positive proofs of the 
piety of ,socrates4 ,but not one word is
  said about there being1 in and for    
itself1 anything remarkable or          
improbable in the charge4 ,in ,plato's  
,apology1 ,plato makes ,socrates ask    
the accuser point-blank whether he is of
 the opinion that he1 ,socrates1  does  
not believe in the gods at all and      
accordingly is a downright denier  of   
the gods1 or whether he merely means to 
say that he believes in other  gods than
 those of the ,state4 ,he makes the     
accuser answer that the  assertion is   
that ,socrates does not believe in any  

gods at all4 ,in ,plato  ,socrates      
refutes the accusation indirectly1 using
 a line of argument  entirely differing 
from that of ,xenophon4 ,but in ,plato1 
too1 the  accusation is treated as being
 in no way extraordinary4 ,in my        
opinion1  ,plato's ,apology cannot be   
used as historical evidence for details 
unless  special reasons can be given    
proving their historical value beyond   
the  fact that they occur in the        
,apology4 ,but in this connexion the    
question  is not what was said or not   
said at ,socrates's trial4 ,the decisive
 point  is that we possess two quite    
independent and unambiguous depositions 
by  two fully competent witnesses of the
 beginning of the fourth century which  
both treat of the charge of atheism as  
something which is neither strange  nor 
surprising at their time4 ,it is        
therefore permissible to conclude that  
in ,athens at this time there really    
existed circles or at any rate not a    
few individuals who had given up the    

belief in the popular gods4    ,a       
dialogue between ,socrates and a young  
man by name ,aristodemus1 given in      
,xenophon's ,memorabilia1 makes the same
 impression4 ,of ,aristodemus it is     
said that he does not sacrifice to the  
gods1 does not consult the ,oracle  and 
ridicules those who do so4 ,when he is  
called to account for this  behaviour he
 maintains that he does not despise 8the
 divine10 but is of  the opinion that it
 is too exalted to need his worship4    
,moreover1 he  contends that the gods do
 not trouble themselves about mankind4  
,this is1  of course1 not atheism in our
 sense2 but ,aristodemus's attitude is1 
nevertheless1 extremely eccentric in a  
community like that of ,athens in  the  
fifth century4 ,and yet it is not       
mentioned as anything isolated and      
extraordinary1 but as if it were        
something which1 to be sure1 was out of 
the common1 but not unheard of4    ,it  
is further to be observed that at the   
end of the fifth century we often  hear 

of active sacrilegious outrages4 ,an    
example is the historic trial of        
,alcibiades for profanation of the      
,mysteries4 ,but this was not an        
isolated  occurrence2 there were more of
 the same kind at the time4 ,of the     
dithyrambic poet ,cinesias it is said   
that he profaned holy things in an      
obscene manner4 ,but the greatest stress
 of all must be laid on the  well-known 
mutilation of the ,hermae at ,athens in 
#dae1 just before the  expedition to    
,sicily4 ,all the tales about the       
outrages of the ,mysteries  may have    
been fictitious1 but it is a fact that  
the ,hermae were  mutilated4 ,the motive
 was probably political3 the members of 
a secret  society intended to pledge    
themselves to each other by all         
committing a  capital crime4 ,but that  
they chose just this form of crime shows
 quite  clearly that respect for the    
,state religion had greatly declined in 
these  circles4    ,what has so far been
 adduced as proof that the belief in the

 gods had  begun to waver in ,athens at 
the end of the fifth century is1 in my  
opinion1 conclusive in itself to anybody
 who is familiar with the more  ancient 
,greek modes of thought and expression  
on this point1 and can not  only hear   
what is said1 but also understand how it
 is said and what is  passed over in    
silence4 ,of course it can always be    
objected that the  proofs are partly the
 assertions of a comic poet who         
certainly was not  particular about     
accusations of impiety1 partly          
deductions ex silentio1  partly actions 
the motives for which are uncertain4    
,fortunately1 however1  we have--from a 
slightly later period1 it is true--a    
positive utterance  which confirms our  
conclusion and which comes from a man   
who was not in  the habit of talking    
idly and who had the best opportunities 
of knowing  the circumstances4    ,in   
the tenth book of his ,laws1 written    
shortly before his death1 i4e4  about   
the middle of the fourth century1 ,plato

 gives a detailed account of  the       
question of irreligion seen from the    
point of view of penal  legislation4 ,he
 distinguishes here between three forms1
 namely1 denial of  the existence of the
 gods1 denial of the divine providence  
7whereas the  existence of the gods is  
admitted71 and finally the assumption   
that the  gods exist and exercise       
providence1 but that they allow         
themselves to be  influenced by         
sacrifices and prayers4 ,of these three 
categories the last  is evidently       
directed against ancient popular belief 
itself2 it does not  therefore interest 
us in this connexion4 ,the second view1 
the denial of a  providence1 we have    
already met with in ,xenophon in the    
character of  ,aristodemus1 and in the  
sophist ,thrasymachus2 ,euripides1 too1 
sometimes  alludes to it1 though it was 
far from being his own opinion4 ,whether
 it  amounted to denial of the gods or  
not was1 in ancient times1 the cause of 
much dispute2 it is1 of course1 not     

atheism in our sense1 but it is         
certainly evidence that belief in the   
gods is shaken4 ,the first view1 on  the
 other hand1 is sheer atheism4 ,plato   
consequently reckons with this as  a    
serious danger to the community2 he     
mentions it as a widespread view  among 
the youth of his time1 and in his       
legislation he sentences to death  those
 who fail to be converted4 ,it would    
seem certain1 therefore1 that  there    
was1 in reality1 something in it after  
all4    ,plato does not confine himself 
to defining atheism and laying down the 
penalty for it2 he at the same time1 in 
accordance with a principle which  he   
generally follows in the ,laws1         
discusses it and tries to disprove it4  
,in this way he happens to give us      
information--which is of special        
interest  to us--of the proofs which    
were adduced by its followers4    ,the  
argument is a twofold one4 ,first comes 
the naturalistic proof2 the  heavenly   
bodies1 according to the general 7and   

,plato's own7 view the most  certain    
deities1 are inanimate natural objects4 
,it is interesting to note  that in     
speaking of this doctrine in detail     
reference is clearly made to            
,anaxagoras2 this confirms our          
afore-mentioned conjectures as to the   
character of his work4 ,plato was quite 
in a position to deal with  ,anaxagoras 
on the strength not only of what he     
said1 but of what he passed  over in    
silence4 ,the second argument is the    
well-known sophistic one1 that  the gods
 are nomi1 not physei1 they depend upon 
convention1 which has  nothing to do    
with reality4 ,in this connexion the    
argument adds that what  applies to the 
gods1 applies also to right and wrong2  
i4e4 we find here  in the ,laws the view
 with which we are familiar from        
,callicles in the  ,gorgias1 but with   
the missing link supplied4 ,and ,plato's
 development of  this theme shows       
clearly just what a general historical  
consideration  might lead us to expect1 

namely1 that it was naturalism and      
sophistic that  jointly undermined the  
belief in the old gods4                 
,,chapter ,v      ,with ,socrates and   
his successors the whole question of the
 relation of  ,greek thought to popular 
belief enters upon a new phase4 ,the    
,socratic  philosophy is in many ways a 
continuation of sophistic4 ,this is     
involved  already in the fact that the  
same questions form the central interest
 in  the two schools of thought1 so that
 the problems stated by the sophists    
became the decisive factor in the       
content of ,socratic and ,platonic      
thought4 ,the ,socratic schools at the  
same time took over the actual          
programme of the sophists1 namely1 the  
education of adolescence in the  highest
 culture4 ,but1 on the other hand1 the  
,socratic philosophy was in  the        
opposite camp to sophistic2 on many     
points it represents a reaction  against
 it1 a recollection of the valuable     
elements contained in earlier  ,greek   

thought on life1 especially human life1 
values which sophistic  regarded with   
indifference or even hostility1 and     
which were threatened  with destruction 
if it should carry the day4 ,this       
reactionary tendency in  ,socratic      
philosophy appears nowhere more plainly 
than in the field of  religion4         
,under these circumstances it is a      
peculiar irony of fate that the very    
originator of the new trend in ,greek   
thought was charged with and  sentenced 
for impiety4 ,we have already mentioned 
the singular prelude to  the indictment 
afforded by the comedy of ,aristophanes4
 ,we have also  remarked upon the       
futility of looking therein for any     
actual enlightenment  on the ,socratic  
point of view4 ,and ,plato makes        
,socrates state this with  all necessary
 sharpness in the ,apology4 ,hence what 
we may infer from the  attack of        
,aristophanes is merely this1 that the  
general public lumped  ,socrates        
together with the sophists and more     

especially regarded him as a  godless   
fellow4 ,unless this had been so1       
,aristophanes could not have  introduced
 him as the chief character in his      
travesty4 ,and without doubt  it was    
this popular point of view which his    
accusers relied on when they  actually  
included atheism as a count in their    
bill of indictment4 ,it will1           
nevertheless1 be necessary to dwell for 
a moment on this bill of  indictment and
 the defence4    ,the charge of impiety 
was a twofold one1 partly for not       
believing in the  gods the ,state       
believed in1 partly for introducing new 
8demonic things40  ,this latter act was 
directly punishable according to ,attic 
law4 ,what his  accusers alluded to was 
the daimonion of ,socrates4 ,that they  
should have  had any idea of what that  
was must be regarded as utterly out of  
the  question1 and whatever it may have 
been--and of this we shall have a word  
to say later--it had at any rate nothing
 whatever to do with atheism4 ,as to    

the charge of not believing in the gods 
of the ,state1 ,plato makes the  accuser
 prefer it in the form that ,socrates   
did not believe in any gods at  all1    
after which it becomes an easy matter   
for ,socrates to show that it is        
directly incompatible with the charge of
 introducing new deities4 ,as  ground   
for his accusation the accuser          
states--in ,plato1 as before--that      
,socrates taught the same doctrine about
 the sun and moon as ,anaxagoras4  ,the 
whole of the passage in the ,apology in 
which the question of the  denial of    
gods is dealt with--a short dialogue    
between ,socrates and the  accuser1     
quite in the ,socratic                  
manner--historically speaking1 carries  
little conviction1 and we therefore dare
 not take it for granted that the       
charge either of atheism or of false    
doctrine about the sun and moon was  put
 forward in that form4 ,but that        
something about this latter point was   
mentioned during the trial must be      

regarded as probable1 when we consider  
that ,xenophon1 too1 defends ,socrates  
at some length against the charge of    
concerning himself with speculations on 
,nature4 ,that he did not do so must  be
 taken for certain1 not only from the   
express evidence of ,xenophon and       
,plato1 but from the whole nature of the
 case4 ,the accusation on this point    
was assuredly pure fabrication4 ,there  
remains only what was no doubt also  the
 main point1 namely1 the assertion of   
the pernicious influence of  ,socrates  
on the young1 and the inference of      
irreligion to be drawn from  it--an     
argument which it would be absurd to    
waste any words upon4    ,the attack1   
then1 affords no information about      
,socrates's personal point  of view as  
regards belief in the gods1 and the     
defence only very little4  ,both        
,xenophon and ,plato give an account of 
,socrates's daimonion1 but  this point  
has so little relation to the charge of 
atheism that it is not  worth           

examination4 ,for the rest ,plato's     
defence is indirect4 ,he makes          
,socrates refute his opponent1 but does 
not let him say a word about his  own   
point of view4 ,xenophon is more        
positive1 in so far as in the first     
place he asserts that ,socrates         
worshipped the gods like any other good 
citizen1 and more especially that he    
advised his friends to use the  ,oracle2
 in the second place1 that1 though he   
lived in full publicity1 no  one ever   
saw him do or heard him say anything of 
an impious nature4 ,all  these          
assertions are assuredly correct1 and   
they render it highly  improbable that  
,socrates should have secretly abandoned
 the popular faith1  but they tell us   
little that is positive about his views4
 ,fortunately we  possess other means of
 getting to closer grips with the       
question2 the way  must be through a    
consideration of ,socrates's whole      
conduct and his mode  of thought4       
,here we at once come to the interesting

 negative fact that there is  nothing in
 tradition to indicate that ,socrates   
ever occupied himself with  theological 
questions4 ,to be sure1 ,xenophon has   
twice put into his mouth a  whole       
theodicy expressing an elaborate        
teleological view of nature4 ,but  that 
we dare not base anything upon this is  
now1 ,i think1 universally              
acknowledged4 ,plato1 in the dialogue   
,euthyphron1 makes him subject the      
popular notion of piety to a devastating
 criticism2 but this1 again1 will  not  
nowadays be regarded as historical by   
anybody4 ,everything we are told  about 
,socrates which bears the stamp of      
historical truth indicates that he      
restricted himself to ethics and left   
theology alone4 ,but this very fact  is 
not without significance4 ,it indicates 
that ,socrates's aim was not to  alter  
the religious views of his              
contemporaries4 ,since he did not do so 
we  may reasonably believe it was       
because they did not inconvenience him  

in  what was most important to him1 i4e4
 ethics4    ,we may1 however1 perhaps go
 even a step farther4 ,we may venture1  
,i think1  to maintain that so far from 
contemporary religion being a hindrance 
to  ,socrates in his occupation as a    
teacher of ethics1 it was1 on the       
contrary1 an indispensable support to   
him1 nay1 an integral component of  his 
fundamental ethical view4 ,the object of
 ,socrates in his relations with  his   
fellow-men was1 on his own showing--for 
on this important point ,i think  we can
 confidently rely upon ,plato's         
,apology--to make clear to them that    
they knew nothing4 ,and when he was     
asked to say in what he himself         
differed from other people1 he could    
mention only one thing1 namely1 that  he
 was aware of his own ignorance4 ,but   
his ignorance is not an ignorance  of   
this thing or that1 it is a radical     
ignorance1 something involved in  the   
essence of man as man4 ,that is1 in     
other words1 it is determined by        

religion4 ,in order to be at all        
intelligible and ethically applicable1  
it  presupposes the conception of beings
 of whom the essence is knowledge4 ,for 
,socrates and his contemporaries the    
popular belief supplied such beings in  
the gods4 ,the institution of the       
,oracle itself is an expression of the  
recognition of the superiority of the   
gods to man in knowledge4 ,but the      
dogma had long been stated even in its  
absolute form when ,homer said3 8,the   
gods know everything40 ,to ,socrates1   
who always took his starting-point      
quite popularly from notions that were  
universally accepted1 this basis  was   
simply indispensable4 ,and so far from  
inconveniencing ,socrates1 the          
multiplicity and anthropomorphism of the
 gods seemed an advantage to  him--the  
more they were like man in all but the  
essential qualification1  the better4   
,the ,socratic ignorance has an ethical 
bearing4 ,its complement is his         
assertion that virtue is knowledge4     

,here again the gods are the necessary  
presupposition and determination4 ,that 
the gods were good1 or1 as it was       
preferred to express it1 8just0 7the    
,greek word comprises more than the     
,english word71 was no less a popular   
dogma than the notion that they         
possessed knowledge4 ,now all           
,socrates's efforts were directed       
towards  goodness as an end in view1    
towards the ethical development of      
mankind4  ,here again popular belief was
 his best ally4 ,to the people to whom  
he  talked1 virtue 7the ,greek word is  
at once both wider and narrower in sense
  than the ,english term7 was no mere   
abstract notion2 it was a living        
reality to them1 embodied in beings that
 were like themselves1 human  beings1   
but perfect human beings4    ,if we     
correlate this with the negative        
circumstance that ,socrates was no      
theologian but a teacher of ethics1 we  
can easily understand a point of  view  
which accepted popular belief as it was 

and employed it for working  purposes in
 the service of moral teaching4 ,such a 
point of view1 moreover1  gained        
extraordinary strength by the fact that 
it preserved continuity  with earlier   
,greek religious thought4 ,this latter1 
too1 had been ethical  in its bearing2  
it1 too1 had employed the gods in the   
service of its  ethical aim4 ,but its   
central idea was felicity1 not virtue2  
its  starting-point was the popular     
dogma of the felicity of the gods1 not  
their justice4 ,in this way it had come 
to lay stress on a virtue which  might  
be termed modesty1 but in a religious   
sense1 i4e4 man must  recognise his     
difference from the gods as a limited   
being1 subject to the  vicissitudes of  
an existence above which the gods are   
raised4 ,socrates  says just the same1  
only that he puts knowledge or virtue1  
which to him  was the same thing1 in the
 place of felicity4 ,from a religious   
point of  view the result is exactly the
 same1 namely1 the doctrine of the gods 

as  the terminus and ideal1 and the     
insistence on the gulf separating man   
from  them4 ,we are tempted to say that1
 had ,socrates turned with hostile      
intent  against a religion which thus   
played into his hands1 the more fool he4
 ,but  this is putting the problem the  
wrong way up--,socrates never stood     
critically outside popular belief and   
traditional religious thought           
speculating as to whether he should use 
it or reject it4 ,no1 his thought  grew 
out of it as from the bosom of the      
earth4 ,hence its mighty religious      
power1 its inevitable victory over a    
school of thought which had severed  all
 connexion with tradition4    ,that such
 a point of view should be so badly     
misunderstood as it was in  ,athens     
seems incomprehensible4 ,the explanation
 is no doubt that the whole  story of   
,socrates's denial of the gods was only 
included by his accusers  for the sake  
of completeness1 and did not play any   
great part in the final  issue4 ,this   

seems confirmed by the fact that they   
found it convenient to  support their   
charge of atheism by one of introducing 
foreign gods1 this  being punishable by 
,attic law4 ,they thus obtained some    
slight hold for  their accusation4 ,but 
both charges must be presumed to have   
been so  signally refuted during the    
trial that it is hardly possible that   
any  great number of the judges were    
influenced by them4 ,it was quite       
different  and far weightier matters    
which brought about the conviction of   
,socrates1  questions on which there was
 really a deep and vital difference of  
opinion  between him and his            
contemporaries4 ,that ,socrates's       
attitude towards  popular belief was at 
any rate fully understood elsewhere is  
testified by  the answer of the ,delphic
 ,oracle1 that declared ,socrates to be 
the wisest  of all men4 ,however        
remarkable such a pronouncement from    
such a place may  appear1 it seems      
impossible to reject the accounts of it 

as unhistorical2  on the other hand1 it 
does not seem impossible to explain how 
the ,oracle  came to declare itself as  
reported4 ,earlier ,greek thought1 which
 insisted  upon the gulf separating gods
 and men1 was from olden times          
intimately  connected with the ,delphic 
,oracle4 ,it hardly sprang from there2  
more  probably it arose spontaneously in
 various parts of ,hellas4 ,but it would
  naturally feel attracted toward the   
,oracle1 which was one of the religious 
centres of ,hellas1 and it was          
recognised as legitimate by the ,oracle4
  ,above all1 the honour shown by the   
,oracle to ,pindar1 one of the chief    
representatives of the earlier thought1 
testifies to this4 ,hence there is      
nothing incredible in the assumption    
that ,socrates attracted notice at      
,delphi as a defender of the            
old-fashioned religious views approved  
by the  ,oracle1 precisely in virtue of 
his opposition to the ideas then in     
vogue4    ,if we accept this explanation

 we are1 however1 excluded from taking  
literally ,plato's account of the answer
 of the ,delphic ,oracle and            
,socrates's attitude towards it4 ,plato 
presents the case as if the ,oracle     
were the starting-point of ,socrates's  
philosophy and of the peculiar mode  of 
life which was indissolubly bound up    
with it4 ,this presentation cannot  be  
correct if we are to regard the ,oracle 
as historical and understand it  as we  
have understood it4 ,the ,oracle        
presupposes the ,socrates we know3 a    
man with a religious message and a mode 
of life which was bound to attract      
notice to him as an exception from the  
general rule4 ,it cannot1 therefore1    
have been the cause of ,socrates's      
finding himself4 ,on the other hand1 it 
is difficult to imagine a man choosing a
 mode of life like that of  ,socrates   
without a definite inducement1 without  
some fact or other that  would lead him 
to conceive himself as an exception from
 the rule4 ,if we  look for such a fact 

in the life of ,socrates1 we shall look 
in vain as  regards externals4 ,apart   
from his activities as a religious and  
ethical  personality1 his life was that 
of any other ,attic citizen4 ,but in his
  spiritual life there was certainly one
 point1 but only one1 on which he       
deviated from the normal1 namely1 his   
daimonion4 ,if we examine the  accounts 
of this more closely the only thing we  
can make of them is--or so  at least it 
seems to me--that we are here in the    
presence of a  form--peculiar1 no doubt1
 and highly developed--of the phenomena 
which are  nowadays classed under the   
concept of clairvoyance4 ,now ,plato    
makes  ,socrates himself say that the   
power of avoiding what would harm him1  
in  great things and little1 by virtue  
of a direct perception 7a 8voice071     
which is what constituted his daimonion1
 was given him from childhood4  ,that it
 was regarded as something singular both
 by himself and others is  evident1 and 
likewise that he himself regarded it as 

something  supernatural2 the designation
 daimonion itself seems to be his own4  
,i  think that we must seek for the     
origin of ,socrates's peculiar mode of  
life  in this direction1 strange as it  
may be that a purely mystic element     
should have given the impulse to the    
most rationalistic philosophy the  world
 has ever produced4 ,it is impossible to
 enter more deeply into this  problem   
here2 but1 if my conjecture is correct1 
we have an additional  explanation of   
the fact that ,socrates was disposed to 
anything rather than  an attack on the  
established religion4    ,a view of     
popular religion such as ,i have here   
sketched bore in itself the  germ of a  
further development which must lead in  
other directions4 ,a  personality like  
,socrates might perhaps manage          
throughout a lifetime to  keep that     
balance on a razor's edge which is      
involved in utilising to the  utmost in 
the service of ethics the popular dogmas
 of the perfection of  the gods1 while  

disregarding all irrelevant tales1 all  
myths and all  notions of too human a   
tenor about them4 ,this demanded        
concentration on  the one thing needful1
 in conjunction with deep piety of the  
most genuine  antique kind1 with the    
most profound religious modesty1 a      
combination  which it was assuredly     
given to but one man to attain4         
,socrates's  successors had it not4     
,starting precisely from a ,socratic    
foundation they  entered upon           
theological speculations which carried  
them away from the  ,socratic point of  
view4    ,for the ,cynics1 who set up   
virtue as the only good1 the popular    
notions of  the gods would seem to have 
been just as convenient as for          
,socrates4 ,and  we know that           
,antisthenes1 the founder of the school1
 made ample use of  them in his ethical 
teaching4 ,he represented ,heracles as  
the ,cynical ideal  and occupied himself
 largely with allegorical interpretation
 of the myths4  ,on the other hand1     

there is a tradition that he maintained 
that 8according  to nature0 there was   
only one god1 but 8according to the law0
 several--a  purely sophistic view4 ,he 
inveighed against the worship of images1
 too1  and maintained that god 8did not 
resemble any thing10 and we know that   
his  school rejected all worship of the 
gods because the gods 8were in need of  
nothing40 ,this conception1 too1 is     
presumably traceable to ,antisthenes4   
,in  all this the theological interest  
is evident4 ,as soon as this interest   
sets in1 the harmonious relation to the 
popular faith is upset1 the  discord    
between its higher and lower ideas      
becomes manifest1 and criticism  begins 
to assert itself4 ,in the case of       
,antisthenes1 if we may believe         
tradition1 it seems to have led to      
monotheism1 in itself a most remarkable 
phenomenon in the history of ,greek     
religion1 but the material is too       
slight for us to make anything of it4   
,the later ,cynics afford interesting   

features in illustration of atheism in  
antiquity1 but this is best left to  a  
later chapter4    ,about the relations  
of the ,megarians to the popular faith  
we know next to  nothing4 ,one of them1 
,stilpo1 was charged with impiety on    
account of a bad  joke about ,athene1   
and convicted1 although he tried to save
 himself by  another bad joke4 ,as his  
point of view was that of a downright   
sceptic1 he  was no doubt an atheist    
according to the notions of antiquity2  
in our day  he would be called an       
agnostic1 but the information that we   
have about his  religious standpoint is 
too slight to repay dwelling on him4    
,as to the relation of the ,cyrenaic    
school to the popular faith1 the        
general proposition has been handed down
 to us that the wise man could not  be  
8deisidaimon10 i4e4 superstitious or    
god-fearing2 the ,greek word can  have  
both senses4 ,this does not speak for   
piety at any rate1 but then the         
relationship of the ,cyrenaics to the   

gods of popular belief was different    
from that of the other followers of     
,socrates4 ,as they set up pleasure--the
  momentary1 isolated feeling of        
pleasure--as the supreme good1 they had 
no  use for the popular conceptions of  
the gods in their ethics1 nay1 these    
conceptions were even a hindrance to    
them in so far as the fear of the  gods 
might prove a restriction where it ought
 not to4 ,in these  circumstances we    
cannot wonder at finding a member of the
 school in the  list of atheoi4 ,this is
 ,theodorus of ,cyrene1 who lived about 
the year  #cjj4 ,he really seems to have
 been a downright denier of the gods2 he
 wrote  a work ,on the ,gods containing 
a searching criticism of theology1 which
  is said to have exposed him to        
unpleasantness during a stay at ,athens1
 but  the then ruler of the city1       
,demetrius of ,phalerum1 protected him4 
,there is  nothing strange in a         
manifestation of downright atheism at   
this time and  from this quarter4 ,more 

remarkable is that interest in theology 
which we  must assume ,theodorus to have
 had1 since he wrote at length upon the 
subject4 ,unfortunately it is not       
evident from the account whether his    
criticism was directed mostly against   
popular religion or against the         
theology of the philosophers4 ,as it was
 asserted in antiquity that  ,epicurus  
used his book largely1 the latter is    
more probable4    ,whereas in the case  
of the 8imperfect ,socratics0 as well as
 of all the  earlier philosophers we    
must content ourselves with more or less
 casual  notes1 and at the best with    
fragments1 and for ,socrates with       
second-hand  information1 when we come  
to ,plato we find ourselves for the     
first time in  the presence of full and 
authentic information4 ,plato belongs to
 those few  among the ancient authors of
 whom everything that their             
contemporaries  possessed has been      
preserved to our own day4 ,there would1 
however1 be no  cause to speak about    

,plato in an investigation of atheism in
 antiquity1  had not so eminent a       
scholar as ,zeller roundly asserted that
 ,plato did not  believe in the ,greek  
gods--with the exception of the heavenly
 bodies1 in  the case of which the facts
 are obvious4 ,on the other hand1 it is 
impossible here to enter upon a close   
discussion of so large a question2 ,i   
must content myself with giving my views
 in their main lines1 with a brief      
statement of my reasons for holding     
them4    ,in the mythical portions of   
his dialogues ,plato uses the gods as a 
given  poetic motive and treats them    
with poetic licence4 ,otherwise they    
play a  very inferior part in the       
greater portion of his works4 ,in the   
,euthyphron he gives a sharp criticism  
of the popular conception of  piety1 and
 in reality at the same time very       
seriously questions the  importance and 
value of the existing form of worship4  
,in his chief ethical  work1 the        
,gorgias1 he subjects the fundamental   

problems of individual  ethics to a     
close discussion without saying one word
 of their relation to  religion2 if we  
except the mythic part at the end the   
gods scarcely appear  in the dialogue4  
,finally1 in his ,republic he no doubt  
gives a detailed  criticism of popular  
mythology as an element of education1   
and in the  course of this also some    
positive definitions of the idea of     
,god1 but  throughout the construction  
of his ideal community he entirely      
disregards  religion and worship1 even  
if he occasionally takes it for granted 
that a  cult of some sort exists1 and in
 one place quite casually refers to the 
,oracle at ,delphi as authority for its 
organisation in details4 ,to this may   
further be added the negative point that
 he never in any of his works made      
,socrates define his position in regard 
to the sophistic treatment of the       
popular religion4    ,in ,plato's later 
works the case is different4 ,in the    
construction of the  universe described 

in the ,timaeus the gods have a definite
 and  significant place1 and in the     
,laws1 ,plato's last work1 they play a  
leading part4 ,here he not only gives   
elaborate rules for the organisation  of
 the worship which permeate the whole   
life of the community1 but even in  the 
argument of the dialogue the gods are   
everywhere in evidence in a way  which  
strongly suggests bigotry4 ,finally1    
,plato gives the above-mentioned        
definitions of impiety and fixes the    
severest punishment for it--for         
downright denial of the gods1 when all  
attempts at conversion have failed1  the
 penalty of death4    ,on this evidence 
we are tempted to take the view that    
,plato in his earlier  years took up a  
critical attitude in regard to the gods 
of popular belief1  perhaps even denied 
them altogether1 that he gradually grew 
more  conservative1 and ended by being a
 confirmed bigot4 ,and we might look for
  a corroboration of this in a peculiar 
observation in the ,laws4 ,plato  opens 

his admonition to the young against     
atheism by reminding them that  they are
 young1 and that false opinion          
concerning the gods is a common  disease
 among the young1 but that utter denial 
of their existence is not  wont to      
endure to old age4 ,in this we might see
 an expression of personal  religious   
experience4    ,nevertheless ,i do not  
think such a construction of ,plato's   
religious  development feasible4 ,a     
decisive objection is his exposition of 
the  ,socratic point of view in so early
 a work as the ,apology4 ,i at any rate 
regard it as psychologically impossible 
that a downright atheist1 be he  ever so
 great a poet1 should be able to draw   
such a picture of a deeply  religious   
personality1 and draw it with so much   
sympathy and such  convincing force4    
,add to this other facts of secondary   
moment4 ,even the  close criticism to   
which ,plato subjects the popular       
notions of the gods in  his ,republic   
does not indicate denial of the gods as 

such2 moreover1 it  is built on a       
positive foundation1 on the idea of the 
goodness of the gods  and their truth   
7which for ,plato manifests itself in   
immutability74  ,finally1 ,plato at all 
times vigorously advocated the belief in
 providence4  ,in the ,laws he stamps   
unbelief in divine providence as        
impiety2 in the  ,republic he insists in
 a prominent passage that the gods love 
the just  man and order everything for  
him in the best way4 ,and he puts the   
same  thought into ,socrates's mouth in 
the ,apology1 though it is hardly       
,socratic in the strict sense of the    
word1 i4e4 as a main point in           
,socrates's conception of existence4    
,all this should warn us not to         
exaggerate the significance of the      
difference which may be pointed out     
between the religious standpoints of the
 younger and the older ,plato4 ,but  the
 difference itself cannot1 ,i think1 be 
denied2 there can hardly be any  doubt  
that ,plato was much more critical of   

popular belief in his youth and  prime  
than towards the close of his life4     
,even in ,plato's later works there is1 
in spite of their conservative          
attitude1 a very peculiar reservation in
 regard to the anthropomorphic  gods of 
popular belief4 ,it shows itself in the 
,laws in the fact that  where he sets   
out to prove the existence of the gods  
he contents himself  with proving the   
divinity of the heavenly bodies and     
quite disregards the  other gods4 ,it   
appears still more plainly in the       
,timaeus1 where he gives  a             
philosophical explanation of how the    
divine heavenly bodies came into        
existence1 but says expressly of the    
other gods that such an explanation  is 
impossible1 and that we must abide by   
what the old theologians said on  this  
subject2 they being partly the children 
of gods would know best where  their    
parents came from4 ,it is observations  
of this kind that induced  ,zeller to   
believe that ,plato altogether denied   

the gods of popular belief2  he also    
contends that the gods have no place in 
,plato's system4 ,this  latter          
contention is perfectly correct2 ,plato 
never identified the gods  with the     
ideas 7although he comes very near to it
 in the ,republic1 where  he attributes 
to them immutability1 the quality which 
determines the  essence of the ideas71  
and in the ,timaeus he distinguishes    
sharply  between them4 ,no doubt his    
doctrine of ideas led up to a kind of   
divinity1  the idea of the good1 as the 
crown of the system1 but the direct     
inference  from this conception would be
 pure monotheism and so exclude         
polytheism4  ,this inference ,plato did 
not draw1 though his treatment of the   
gods in the  ,laws and ,timaeus         
certainly shows that he was quite clear 
that the gods  of the popular faith were
 an irrational element in his conception
 of the  universe4 ,the two passages do 
not entitle us to go further and        
conclude  that he utterly rejected them1

 and in the ,timaeus1 where ,plato makes
  both classes of gods1 both the        
heavenly bodies and the others1 take    
part  in the creation of man1 this is   
plainly precluded4 ,the playful turn    
with  which he evades inquiry into the  
origin of the gods thus receives its    
proper limitation2 it is entirely       
confined to their origin4    ,such1     
according to my view1 is the state of   
the case4 ,it is of fundamental         
importance to emphasise the fact that we
 cannot conclude1 because the gods  of  
popular belief do not fit into the      
system of a philosopher1 that he  denies
 their existence4 ,in what follows we   
shall have occasion to point  out a case
 in which1 as all are now agreed1 a     
philosophical school has  adopted and   
stubbornly held to the belief in the    
existence of gods though  this          
assumption was directly opposed to a    
fundamental proposition in its  system  
of doctrine4 ,the case of ,plato is     
particularly interesting because  he    

himself was aware and has pointed out   
that here was a point on which  the     
consistent scientific application of his
 conception of the universe  must fail4 
,it is the outcome--one of many--of what
 is perhaps his finest  quality as a    
philosopher1 namely1 his intellectual   
honesty4    ,an indirect testimony to   
the correctness of the view here stated 
will be  found in the way in which      
,plato's faithful disciple ,xenocrates  
developed  his theology1 for it shows   
that ,xenocrates presupposed the        
existence of  the gods of popular belief
 as given by ,plato4 ,xenocrates made it
 his  general task to systematise       
,plato's philosophy 7which had never    
been set  forth publicly by himself as a
 whole71 and to secure it against       
attack4 ,in  the course of this work he 
was bound to discover that the          
conception of  the gods of popular      
belief was a particularly weak point in 
,plato's  system1 and he attempted to   
mend matters by a peculiar theory which 

became  of the greatest importance for  
later times4 ,xenocrates set up as gods1
 in  the first place1 the heavenly      
bodies4 ,next he gave his highest       
principles  7pure abstracts such as     
oneness and twoness7 and the elements of
 his  universe 7air1 water and earth7   
the names of some of the highest        
divinities in popular belief 7,zeus1    
,hades1 ,poseidon1 ,demeter74 ,these    
gods1  however1 did not enter into      
direct communication with men1 but only 
through some intermediate agent4 ,the   
intermediate agents were the  8demons10 
a class of beings who were higher than  
man yet not perfect like  the gods4     
,they were1 it seems1 immortal2 they    
were invisible and far more  powerful   
than human beings2 but they were subject
 to human passions and  were of highly  
differing grades of moral perfection4   
,these are the beings  that are the     
objects of the greater part of the      
existing cult1 especially  such usages  
as rest on the assumption that the gods 

can do harm and are  directed towards   
averting it1 or which are in other ways 
objectionable2  and with them are       
connected the myths which ,plato        
subjected to so severe a  criticism4    
,xenocrates found a basis for this      
system in ,plato1 who in the  ,symposium
 sets up the demons as a class of beings
 between gods and men1  and makes them  
carriers of the prayers and wishes of   
men to the gods4 ,but  what was a       
passing thought with ,plato serving only
 a poetical purpose was  taken seriously
 and systematised by ,xenocrates4    ,it
 can hardly be said that ,xenocrates has
 gained much recognition among  modern  
writers on the history of philosophy for
 his theory of demons4 ,and  yet ,i     
cannot see that there was any other     
possible solution of the problem  which 
ancient popular belief set ancient      
philosophy1 if1 be it understood1  we   
hold fast by two hypotheses3 the first1 
that the popular belief and  worship of 
the ancients was based throughout on a  

foundation of reality2  and second1 that
 moral perfection is an essential factor
 in the conception  of ,god4 ,the only  
inconsistency which we may perhaps bring
 home to  ,xenocrates is that he        
retained certain of the popular names of
 the gods as  designations for gods in  
his sense2 but this inconsistency was1  
as we  shall see1 subsequently removed4 
,in favour of this estimate of          
,xenocrates's doctrine of demons may    
further be adduced that it actually  was
 the last word of ancient philosophy on 
the matter4 ,the doctrine was  adopted  
by the ,stoics1 the ,neo-,pythagoreans1 
and the ,neo-,platonists4 ,only  the    
,epicureans went another way1 but their 
doctrine died out before the  close of  
antiquity4 ,and so the doctrine of      
demons became the ground on  which      
,jewish-,christian monotheism managed to
 come to terms with ancient  paganism1  
to conquer it in theory1 as it were4    
,this implies1 however1 that the        
doctrine of demons1 though it arose out 

of  an honest attempt to save popular   
belief philosophically1 in reality      
brings out its incompatibility with     
philosophy4 ,the religion and worship   
of the ancients could dispense with     
neither the higher nor the lower        
conceptions of its gods4 ,if the former 
were done away with1 recognition1       
however full1 of the existence of the   
gods was no good2 in the long run  the  
inference could not be avoided that they
 were immoral powers and so  ought not  
to be worshipped4 ,this was the         
inference drawn by ,christianity  in    
theory and enforced in practice1        
ultimately by main force4    ,aristotle 
is among the philosophers who were      
prosecuted for impiety4 ,when  the      
anti-,macedonian party came into power  
in ,athens after the death of           
,alexander1 there broke out a           
persecution against his adherents1 and  
this  was also directed against         
,aristotle4 ,the basis of the charge    
against him  was that he had shown      

divine honour after his death to the    
tyrant ,hermias1  whose guest he had    
been during a prolonged stay in ,asia   
,minor4 ,this seems  to have been a     
fabrication1 and at any rate has nothing
 to do with  atheism4 ,in the writings  
of ,aristotle1 as they were then        
generally known1  it would assuredly    
have been impossible to find any ground 
for a charge of  atheism4               
,nevertheless1 ,aristotle is one of the 
philosophers about whose faith in  the  
gods of popular religion well-founded   
doubts may be raised4 ,like  ,plato1 he 
acknowledged the divinity of the        
heavenly bodies on the ground  that they
 must have a soul since they had        
independent motion4 ,further1 he  has a 
kind of supreme god who1 himself        
unmoved1 is the cause of all  movement1 
and whose constituent quality is reason4
 ,as regards the gods of  popular       
belief1 in his ,ethics and his ,politics
 he assumes public  worship to be a     
necessary constituent of the life of the

 individual and  the community4 ,he gave
 no grounds for this assumption--on the 
contrary1 he  expressly declared that it
 was a question which ought not to be   
discussed  at all3 he who stirs up      
doubts whether honour should be paid to 
the gods  is in need not of teaching but
 of punishment4 7,that he himself took  
part  in worship is evident from his    
will47 ,further1 in his ethical works he
  used the conceptions of the gods      
almost in the same way as we have       
assumed  that ,socrates did1 i4e4 as the
 ethical ideal and determining the      
limits  of the human4 ,he never entered 
upon any elaborate criticism of the     
lower  elements of popular religion such
 as ,plato gave4 ,so far everything is  
in  admirable order4 ,but if we look    
more closely at things there is         
nevertheless nearly always a little     
8but0 in ,aristotle's utterances about  
the gods4 ,where he operates with       
popular notions he prefers to speak     
hypothetically or to refer to what is   

generally assumed2 or he is content  to 
use only definitions which will also    
agree with his own philosophical        
conception of ,god4 ,but he goes        
further2 in a few places in his writings
  there are utterances which it seems   
can only be interpreted as a radical    
denial of the popular religion4 ,the    
most important of them deserves to be   
quoted in extenso3          8,a         
tradition has been handed down from the 
ancients and from the      most         
primitive times1 and left to later ages 
in the form of myth1      that these    
substances 7i4e4 sky and heavenly       
bodies7 are gods      and that the      
divine embraces all nature4 ,the rest   
consists in      legendary additions    
intended to impress the multitude and   
serve      the purposes of legislation  
and the common weal2 for these gods     
are said to have human shape or resemble
 certain other beings      7animals71   
and they say other things which follow  
from this and      are of a similar kind

 to those already mentioned4 ,but if we 
disregard all this and restrict         
ourselves to the first point1 that      
they thought that the first substances  
were gods1 we must      acknowledge that
 it is a divinely inspired saying4 ,and 
as1 in all      probability1 every art  
and science has been discovered many    
times1      as far as it is possible1   
and has perished again1 so these        
notions1 too1 may have been preserved   
till now as relics of those      times4 
,to this extent only can we have any    
idea of the opinion      which was held 
by our fathers and has come down from   
the beginning      of things40      ,the
 last sentences1 expressing ,aristotle's
 idea of a life-cycle and  periods of   
civilisation which repeat themselves1   
have only been included  in the         
quotation for the sake of completeness4 
,if we disregard them1 the  passage     
plainly enough states the view that the 
only element of truth in  the           
traditional notions about the gods was  

the divinity of the sky and the         
heavenly bodies2 the rest is myth4      
,aristotle has nowhere else expressed   
himself with such distinctness and in   
such length1 but then the passage in    
question has a place of its own4 ,it    
comes in his ,metaphysics directly      
after the exposition of his             
philosophical conception of ,god--a     
position  marked by profound earnestness
 and as it were irradiated by a quiet   
inner  fervour4 ,we feel that we are    
here approaching the sanctum sanctorum  
of  the thinker4 ,in this connexion1 and
 only here1 he wished for once to state 
his opinion about the religion of his   
time without reserve4 ,what he says     
here is a precise formulation of the    
result arrived at by the best ,greek    
thinkers as regards the religion of the 
,greek people4 ,it was not1 they        
thought1 pure fabrication4 ,it contained
 an element of truth of the  greatest   
value4 ,but most of it consisted of     
human inventions without any  reality   

behind them4    ,a point of view like   
that of ,aristotle would1 ,i suppose1   
hardly have been  called atheism among  
the ancients1 if only because the       
heavenly bodies  were acknowledged as   
divine4 ,but according to our definition
 it is  atheism4 ,the 8sky0-gods of     
,aristotle have nothing in common with  
the gods  of popular belief1 not even   
their names1 for ,aristotle never names 
them4  ,and the rest1 the whole crowd of
 ,greek anthropomorphic gods1 exist only
 in  the human imagination4             
,aristotle's successors offer little of 
interest to our inquiry4  ,theophrastus 
was charged with impiety1 but the charge
 broke down  completely4 ,his           
theological standpoint was certainly the
 same as  ,aristotle's4 ,of ,strato1 the
 most independent of the ,peripatetics1 
we know  that in his view of nature he  
laid greater stress on the material     
causes  than ,aristotle did1 and so     
arrived at a different conception of the
  supreme deity4 ,aristotle had severed 

the deity from ,nature and placed it    
outside the latter as an incorporeal    
being whose chief determining factor    
was reason4 ,in ,strato's view the deity
 was identical with ,nature and1 like   
the latter1 was without consciousness2  
consciousness was only found in  organic
 nature4 ,consequently we cannot suppose
 him to have believed in the  divinity  
of the heavenly bodies in ,aristotle's  
sense1 though no direct  statement on   
this subject has come down to us4 ,about
 his attitude towards  popular belief we
 hear nothing4 ,a denial of the popular 
gods is not  necessarily implied in     
,strato's theory1 but seems reasonable  
in itself and  is further rendered      
probable by the fact that all writers   
seem to take it  for granted that       
,strato knew no god other than the whole
 of ,nature4    ,we designated ,socratic
 philosophy1 in its relation to popular 
belief1 as a  reaction against the      
radical free-thought of the sophistic   
movement4 ,it  may seem peculiar that   

with ,aristotle it develops into a view 
which we can  only describe as atheism4 
,there is1 however1 an important        
difference  between the standpoints of  
the sophists and of ,aristotle4 ,radical
 as the  latter is at bottom1 it is not1
 however1 openly opposed to popular     
belief--on the contrary1 to any one who 
did not examine it more closely it  must
 have had the appearance of accepting   
popular belief4 ,the very  assumption   
that the heavenly bodies were divine    
would contribute to that  effect2 this1 
as we have seen1 was a point on which   
the popular view laid  great stress4 ,if
 we add to this that ,aristotle never   
made the existence of  the popular gods 
matter of debate2 that he expressly     
acknowledged the  established worship2  
and that he consistently made use of    
certain  fundamental notions of popular 
belief in his philosophy--we can hardly 
avoid the conclusion that1              
notwithstanding his personal            
emancipation from  the existing         

religion1 he is a true representative of
 the ,socratic  reaction against        
sophistic4 ,but we see1 too1 that there 
is a reservation  in this reaction4 ,in 
continuity with earlier ,greek thought  
on religion1 it  proceeded from the     
absolute definitions of the divine      
offered by popular  belief1 but when    
criticising anthropomorphism on this    
basis it did not  after all avoid       
falling out with popular belief4 ,how   
far each philosopher  went in his       
antagonism was a matter of discretion1  
as also was the means  chosen to        
reconcile the philosophical with the    
popular view4 ,the theology  of the     
,socratic schools thus suffered from a  
certain half-heartedness2 in  the main  
it has the character of a compromise4   
,it would not give up the  popular      
notions of the gods1 and yet they were  
continually getting in the  way4 ,this  
dualism governs the whole of the        
succeeding ,greek philosophy4           
,,chapter ,,vi      ,during the three or

 four centuries which passed between the
 downfall of  free ,hellas and the      
beginning of the ,roman ,empire1 great  
social and  political changes took place
 in the ancient world1 involving also   
vital  changes in religion4 ,the chief  
phenomenon in this field1 the invasion  
of  foreign1 especially oriental1       
religions into ,hellas1 does not come   
within  the scope of this investigation4
 ,on the one hand1 it is an expression  
of  dissatisfaction with the old gods2  
on the other1 the intrusion of new gods 
would contribute to the ousting of the  
old ones4 ,there is no question of      
atheism here2 it is only a change within
 polytheism4 ,but apart from this       
change there is evidence that the old   
faith had lost its hold on men's  minds 
to no inconsiderable extent4 ,here1 too1
 there is hardly any question  of       
atheism properly speaking1 but as a     
background to the--not very             
numerous--evidences of such atheism in  
our period1 we cannot well ignore  the  

decline of the popular faith4 ,our      
investigation is rendered difficult  on 
this point1 and generally within this   
period1 by the lack of direct  evidence4
 ,of the rich ,hellenistic literature   
almost everything has been  lost1 and we
 are restricted to reports and          
fragments4    ,in order to gain a       
concrete starting-point we will begin   
with a quotation  from the historian    
,polybius--so to speak the only ,greek  
prose author of the  earlier            
,hellenistic period of whose works      
considerable and connected  portions are
 preserved4 ,polybius wrote in the      
latter half of the second  century a    
history of the world in which ,rome took
 the dominant place4 ,here  he gave1    
among other things1 a detailed          
description of the ,roman  constitution 
and thus came to touch upon the state of
 religion in ,rome as  compared with    
that in ,greece4 ,he says on this       
subject3    8,the greatest advantage of 
the ,roman constitution seems to me to  

lie in  its conception of the gods1 and 
,i believe that what among other peoples
 is  despised is what holds together the
 ,roman power--,i mean superstition4    
,for  this feature has by them been     
developed so far in the direction of the
  #8horrible1' and has so permeated both
 private and public life1 that it is    
quite unique4 ,many will perhaps find   
this strange1 but ,i think they have    
acted so with an eye to the mass of the 
people4 ,for if it were possible to     
compose a state of reasonable people    
such a procedure would no doubt be      
unnecessary1 but as every people        
regarded as a mass is easily impressed  
and full of criminal instincts1         
unreasonable violence1 and fierce       
passion1  there is nothing to be done   
but to keep the masses under by vague   
fears  and such-like hocus-pocus4       
,therefore it is my opinion that it was 
not  without good reason or by mere     
chance that the ancients imparted to the
  masses the notions of the gods and the

 underworld1 but rather is it           
thoughtless and irrational when nowadays
 we seek to destroy them40    ,as a     
proof of this last statement follows a  
comparison between the state  of public 
morals in ,greece and in ,rome4 ,in     
,greece you cannot trust a man  with a  
few hundred pounds without ten notaries 
and as many seals and  double the number
 of witnesses2 in ,rome great public    
treasure is  administered with honesty  
merely under the safeguard of an oath4  
,as we see1 this passage contains direct
 evidence that in the second  century in
 ,hellas--in contradistinction to       
,rome--there was an attempt to  break   
down the belief in the gods4 ,by his    
8we0 ,polybius evidently referred       
especially to the leading political     
circles4 ,he knew these circles from    
personal experience1 and his testimony  
has all the more weight because he  does
 not come forward in the rle of the     
orthodox man complaining in the  usual  
way of the impiety of his               

contemporaries2 on the contrary1 he     
speaks  as the educated and enlightened 
man to whom it is a matter of course    
that  all this talk about the gods and  
the underworld is a myth which nobody   
among the better classes takes          
seriously4 ,this is a tone we have not  
heard  before1 and it is a strong       
indirect testimony to the fact that     
,polybius is  not wrong when he speaks  
of disbelief among the upper classes of 
,greece4    ,in this connexion the work 
of ,polybius has a certain interest on  
another  point4 ,where earlier--and     
later--authors would speak of the       
intervention of  the gods in the march  
of history1 he operates as a rule with  
an idea which  he calls ,tyche4 ,the    
word is untranslatable when used in this
 way4 ,it is  something between chance1 
fortune and fate4 ,it is more           
comprehensive and  more personal than   
chance2 it has not the immutable1 the   
8lawbound0  character of fate2 rather it
 denotes the incalculability1 the       

capriciousness associated1 especially in
 earlier usage1 with the word  fortune1 
but without the tendency of this word to
 be used in a good sense4    ,this      
,tyche-religion--if we may use this     
expression--was not new in ,hellas4     
,quite early we find ,tyche worshipped  
as a goddess among the other deities1   
and it is an old notion that the gods   
send good fortune1 a notion which  set  
its mark on a series of established     
phrases in private and public  life4    
,but what is of interest here is that   
shifting of religious ideas in  the     
course of which ,tyche drives the gods  
into the background4 ,we find           
indications of it as early as           
,thucydides4 ,in his view of history he 
lays  the main stress1 certainly1 on    
human initiative1 and not least on      
rational  calculation1 as the cause of  
events4 ,but where he is obliged to     
reckon  with an element independent of  
human efforts1 he calls it ,tyche and   
not  8the immortal gods40 ,a somewhat   

similar view we find in another great   
political author of the stage of        
transition to our period1 namely1       
,demosthenes4 ,demosthenes of course    
employs the official apparatus of gods3 
he invokes them on solemn occasions2 he 
quotes their authority in support  of   
his assertions 7once he even reported a 
revelation which he had in a  dream72 he
 calls his opponents enemies of the     
gods1 etc4 ,but in his  political       
considerations the gods play a          
negligible part4 ,the factors with      
which he reckons as a rule are merely   
political forces4 ,where he is          
compelled to bring forward elements     
which man cannot control1 he shows a    
preference for ,tyche4 ,he certainly    
occasionally identifies her with the    
favour of the gods1 but in such a way as
 to give the impression that it is  only
 a faon de parler4 ,direct              
pronouncements of a free-thinking kind  
one would not expect from an orator and 
statesman1 and yet ,demosthenes was     

once bold enough to say that ,pythia1   
the mouthpiece of the ,delphic ,oracle1 
was a partisan of ,macedonia1 an        
utterance which his opponent ,aeschines1
  who liked to parade his orthodoxy1 did
 not omit to cast in his teeth4 ,on  the
 whole1 ,aeschines liked to represent   
,demosthenes as a godless fellow1  and  
it is not perhaps without significance  
that the latter never directly  replied 
to such attacks1 or indirectly did      
anything to impair their force4         
,during the violent revolutions that    
took place in ,hellas under ,alexander  
the ,great and his successors1 and the  
instability of social and political     
conditions consequent thereon1 the      
,tyche-religion received a fresh        
impetus4 ,with one stroke ,hellas was   
flung into world politics4 ,everything  
grew to colossal proportions in         
comparison with earlier conditions4 ,the
  small ,hellenic city-states that had  
hitherto been each for itself a world   
shrank into nothing4 ,it is as if the   

old gods could not keep pace with  this 
violent process of expansion4 ,men felt 
a craving for a wider and more          
comprehensive religious concept to      
answer to the changed conditions1 and   
such an idea was found in the idea of   
,tyche4 ,thoughtful men1 such as        
,demetrius of ,phalerum1 wrote whole    
books about it2 states built temples to 
,tyche2 in private religion also it     
played a great part4 ,no one reflected  
much on the relation of ,tyche to the   
old gods4 ,it must be remembered that   
,tyche is a real layman's notion1 and   
that ,hellenistic philosophy regarded   
it as its task precisely to render man  
independent of the whims of fate4       
,sometimes1 however1 we find a positive 
statement of the view that ,tyche  ruled
 over the gods also4 ,it is             
characteristic of the state of affairs2 
men did not want to relinquish the old  
gods1 but could not any longer  allow   
them the leading place4    ,if we return
 for a moment to ,polybius1 we shall    

find that his conception  of ,tyche     
strikingly illustrates the distance     
between him and ,thucydides4  ,in the   
introduction to his work1 on its first  
page1 he points out that the            
universally acknowledged task of        
historical writing is partly to educate 
people for political activities1 partly 
to teach them to bear the  vicissitudes 
of fortune with fortitude by reminding  
them of the lot of  others4 ,and        
subsequently1 when he passes on to his  
main theme1 the  foundation of the      
,roman world-empire1 after having       
explained the plan of  his work1 he     
says3 8,so far then our plan4 ,but the  
co-operation of  fortune is still needed
 if my life is to be long enough for me 
to  accomplish my purpose40 ,an         
earlier--or a later--author would here  
either  have left the higher powers out 
of the game altogether or would have    
used  an expression showing more        
submission to the gods of the popular   
faith4    ,in a later author1 ,pliny the

 ,elder1 we again find a characteristic 
utterance throwing light upon the       
significance of the ,tyche-religion4    
,after a very free-thinking survey of   
the popular notions regarding the  gods1
 ,pliny says3 8,as an intermediate      
position between these two views  7that 
there is a divine providence and that   
there is none7 men have  themselves     
invented another divine power1 in order 
that speculation about  the deity might 
become still more uncertain4 ,throughout
 the world1 in  every place1 at every   
hour of the day1 ,fortune alone is      
invoked and named  by every mouth2 she  
alone is accused1 she bears the guilt of
 everything2  of her only do we think1  
to her is all praise1 to her all blame4 
,and she  is worshipped with railing    
words--she is deemed inconstant1 by many
 even  blind2 she is fickle1 unstable1  
uncertain1 changeable2 giving her       
favours  to the unworthy4 ,to her is    
imputed every loss1 every gain2 in all  
the  accounts of life she alone fills up

 both the debit and the credit side1    
and we are so subject to chance that    
,chance itself becomes our god1 and     
again proves the incertitude of the     
deity40 ,even if a great deal of this   
may be put down to rhetoric1 by which   
,pliny was easily carried away1 the     
solid fact itself remains that he felt  
justified in speaking as if ,dame       
,fortune had dethroned all the old gods4
    ,that this view of life must have   
persisted very tenaciously even down to 
a  time when a strong reaction in the   
direction of positive religious feeling 
had set in1 is proved by the romances of
 the time4 ,the novels of the  ancients 
were in general poor productions4 ,most 
of them are made after the  recipe of a 
little misfortune in each chapter and   
great happiness in the  last4 ,the two  
lovers meet1 fall in love1 part1 and    
suffer a series of  troubles            
individually until they are finally     
united4 ,the power that  governs their  
fates and shapes everything according to

 this pattern is  regularly ,tyche1     
never the gods4 ,the testimony of the   
novels is of special  significance      
because they were read by the general   
mass of the educated  classes1 not by   
the select who had philosophy to guide  
them4    ,another testimony to the      
weakening of popular faith in the       
,hellenistic age  is the decay of the   
institution of the ,oracle4 ,this1 also1
 is of early  date2 as early as the     
fifth and fourth century we hear much   
less of the  interference of the oracles
 in political matters than in earlier   
times4  ,the most important of them all1
 the ,delphic ,oracle1 was dealt a      
terrible  blow in the ,holy ,war        
7#cef-cdf ,b4,c471 when the ,phocians   
seized it and used  the treasures which 
had been accumulated in it during       
centuries to hire  mercenaries and carry
 on war4 ,such proceedings would        
assuredly have been  impossible a       
century earlier2 no soldiers could have 
been hired with money  acquired in such 

a way1 or1 if they could have been      
procured1 all ,hellas  would have risen 
in arms against the robbers of the      
,temple1 whereas in the  ,holy ,war most
 of the states were indifferent1 and    
several even sided with  the ,phocians4 
,in the succeeding years1 after ,philip 
of ,macedonia had put  an end to the    
,phocian scandal1 the ,oracle was in    
reality in his hands--it  was during    
this period that ,demosthenes           
stigmatised it as the mouthpiece  of    
,philip4 ,in the succeeding centuries1  
too1 it was dependent on the  various   
rulers of ,hellas and undoubtedly lost  
all public authority4 ,during  this     
period we hear very little of the       
oracles of ,hellas until the time       
before and after the birth of ,christ   
provides us with definite evidence of   
their complete decay4    ,thus ,strabo1 
who wrote during the reign of ,augustus1
 says that the  ancients attached more  
importance to divination generally and  
oracles more  particularly1 whereas     

people in his day were quite indifferent
 to these  things4 ,he gives as the     
reason that the ,romans were content to 
use the  ,sibylline books and their own 
system of divination4 ,his remark is    
made a  propos of the ,oracle in ,libya1
 which was formerly in great repute1 but
  was almost extinct in his time4 ,he is
 undoubtedly correct as to the fact1    
but the decline of the oracular system  
cannot be explained by the  indifference
 of the ,romans4 ,plutarch1 in a        
monograph on the discontinuance  of the 
oracles1 furnishes us with more detailed
 information4 ,from this it  appears    
that not only the ,oracle of ,ammon but 
also the numerous oracles of  ,boeotia  
had ceased to exist1 with one exception1
 while even for the ,oracle  at ,delphi1
 which had formerly employed three      
priestesses1 a single one  amply        
sufficed4 ,we also note the remark that 
the questions submitted to  the ,oracle 
were mostly unworthy or of no           
importance4    ,the want of             

consideration sometimes shown to sacred 
places and things  during the wars of   
the ,hellenistic period may no doubt    
also be regarded as  the result of a    
weakening of interest in the old gods4  
,we have detailed  information on this  
point from the war between ,philip of   
,macedonia and the  ,aetolians in       
#bbj-bag ,b4,c4 ,the ,aetolians began by
 destroying the temples at  ,dium and   
,dodona1 whereupon ,philip retaliated by
 totally wrecking the  federal sanctuary
 of the ,aetolians at ,thermon4 ,of     
,philip's admiral  ,dicaearchus we are  
told by ,polybius that wherever he      
landed he erected  altars to            
8godlessness and lawlessness0 and       
offered up sacrifice on them4  ,judging 
by the way he was hated1 his practice   
must have answered to his  theory4      
,one more phenomenon must be mentioned  
in this context1 though it falls        
outside the limits within which we have 
hitherto moved1 and though its          
connexion with free-thought and         

religious enlightenment will no doubt1  
on  closer examination1 prove           
disputable4 ,this is the decay of the   
established  worship of the ,roman      
,state in the later years of the        
,republic4    ,in the preceding pages   
there has been no occasion to include   
conditions in  ,rome in our             
investigation1 simply because nothing   
has come down to us  about atheism in   
the earlier days of ,rome1 and we may   
presume that it did  not exist4 ,of any 
religious thought at ,rome corresponding
 to that of the  ,greeks we hear        
nothing1 nor did the ,romans produce any
 philosophy4  ,whatever knowledge of    
philosophy there was at ,rome was simply
 borrowed  from the ,greeks4 ,the ,greek
 influence was not seriously felt until 
the  second century ,b4,c41 even though 
as early as about the middle of the     
third  century the ,romans1 through the 
performance of plays translated from the
  ,greek1 made acquaintance with ,greek 
dramatic poetry and the religious       

thought contained therein4 ,neither the 
latter1 nor the heresies of the         
philosophers1 seem to have made any deep
 impression upon them4 ,ennius1  their  
most important poet of the second       
century1 was no doubt strongly          
influenced by ,greek free-thinking1 but 
this was evidently an isolated          
phenomenon4 ,also1 by birth ,ennius was 
not a native of ,rome but half a        
,greek4 ,the testimony of ,polybius     
7from the close of the second century7  
to  ,roman religious conservatism is    
emphatic enough4 ,its causes are        
doubtless  of a complex nature1 but as  
one of them the peculiar character of   
the  ,roman religion itself stands out  
prominently4 ,however much it resembled 
,greek religion in externals--a         
resemblance which was strengthened by   
numerous loans both of religious rites  
and of deities--it is decidedly         
distinct from it in being restricted    
still more to cultus and1 above all1  in
 being entirely devoid of mythology4    

,the ,roman gods were powers about  the 
rites of whose worship the most accurate
 details were known or could  be        
ascertained if need were1 but they had  
little personality1 and about  their    
personal relations people knew little   
and cared less4 ,this was1              
aesthetically1 a great defect4 ,the     
,roman gods afforded no good theme for  
poetry and art1 and when they were to be
 used as such they were invariably      
replaced by loans from the ,greeks4     
,but1 as in the face of ,greek          
free-thought and ,greek criticism of    
religion1 they had the advantage that   
the vital point for attack was lacking4 
,all the objectionable tales of the     
exploits of the gods and the associated 
ideas about their nature which had      
prompted the ,greek attack on the       
popular faith simply did not exist in   
,roman religion4 ,on the other hand1 its
 rites were in many points more         
primitive than the ,greek ones1 but     
,greek philosophy had been very reserved

  in its criticism of ritual4 ,we may   
thus no doubt take it for granted1      
though we have no direct evidence to    
that effect1 that even ,romans with a   
,greek education long regarded the      
,greek criticism of religion as         
something  foreign which was none of    
their concern4    ,that a time came when
 all this was changed2 that towards the 
end of the  ,republic great scepticism  
concerning the established religion of  
,rome was  found among the upper        
classes1 is beyond doubt1 and we shall  
subsequently  find occasion to consider 
this more closely4 ,in this connexion   
another  circumstance demands attention1
 one which1 moreover1 has by some been  
associated with ,greek influence among  
the upper classes1 namely1 the decay  of
 the established worship of the ,roman  
,state during the last years of the     
,republic4 ,of the actual facts there   
can hardly be any doubt1 though we  know
 very little about them4 ,the decisive  
symptoms are3 that ,augustus1  after    

having taken over the government1 had to
 repair some eighty  dilapidated temples
 in ,rome and reinstitute a series of   
religious rites  and priesthoods which  
had ceased to function4 ,among them was 
one of the  most important1 that of the 
priest of ,jupiter1 an office which had 
been  vacant for more than seventy-five 
years 7#hg-aa ,b4,c471 because it       
excluded  the holder from a political   
career4 ,further1 that complaints were  
made of  private persons encroaching on 
places that were reserved for religious 
worship2 and that ,varro1 when writing  
his great work on the ,roman  religion1 
in many cases was unable to discover    
what god was the object of  an existing 
cult2 and generally1 according to his   
own statement he wrote  his work1 among 
other things1 in order to save great    
portions of the old  ,roman religion    
from falling into utter oblivion on     
account of the  indifference of the     
,romans themselves4 ,it is obvious that 
such a state of  affairs would have been

 impossible in a community where the    
traditional  religion was a living      
power1 not only formally acknowledged by
 everybody1  but felt to be a necessary 
of life1 the spiritual daily bread1 as  
it were1  of the nation4    ,to hold1   
however1 that the main cause of the     
decay of the established  religion of   
,rome was the invasion of ,greek        
culture1 together with the fact  that   
the members of the ,roman aristocracy1  
from whom the priests were  recruited   
and who superintended the cult1 had     
become indifferent to the  traditional  
religion through this influence1 this1  
,i think1 is to go  altogether astray4  
,we may take it for granted that the    
governing classes  in ,rome would not   
have ventured to let the cult decay if  
there had been  any serious interest in 
it among the masses of the population2  
and it is  equally certain that ,greek  
philosophy and religious criticism did  
not  penetrate to these masses4 ,when   
they became indifferent to the national 

religion1 this was due to causes that   
had nothing to do with free-thought4    
,the old ,roman religion was adapted for
 a small1 narrow and homogeneous        
community whose main constituent and    
real core consisted of the farmers1     
large and small1 and minor artisans4 ,in
 the last centuries of the ,republic    
the social development had occasioned   
the complete decay of the ,roman        
peasantry1 and the free artisans had    
fared little better4 ,in the place of   
the old ,rome had arisen the capital of 
an empire1 inhabited by a  population of
 a million and of extraordinarily mixed 
composition4 ,not only  did this        
population comprise a number of         
immigrant foreigners1 but1 in           
consequence of the peculiar ,roman rule 
that every slave on being set free      
attained citizenship1 a large percentage
 of the citizens must of necessity  have
 been of foreign origin4 ,only certain  
portions of the ,roman religion1  more  
especially the cult of the great central

 deities of the ,state  religion1 can   
have kept pace with these changed       
conditions2 the remainder  had in       
reality lost all hold on ,roman society 
as it had developed in  process of time1
 and was only kept alive by force of    
habit4 ,to this must  be added the      
peculiar ,roman mixture of mobility and 
conservatism in  religious matters4 ,the
 ,roman superstition and uncertainty in 
regard to the  gods led on the one hand 
to a continual setting up of new cults  
and new  sanctuaries1 and on the other  
hand to a fear of letting any of the old
  cults die out4 ,in consequence thereof
 a great deal of dead and worthless     
ritual material must have accumulated in
 ,rome in the course of centuries1  and 
was of course in the way during the     
rapid development of the city in  the   
last century of the ,republic4 ,things  
must gradually have come to such  a pass
 that a thorough reform1 above all a    
reduction1 of the whole cult  had become
 a necessity4 ,to introduce such a      

reform the republican  government was   
just as unsuited as it was to carry out 
all the other tasks  imposed by the     
development of the empire and the       
capital at that time4 ,on  this point1  
however1 it must not be forgotten that  
the governing class not  only lacked    
ability1 for political reasons1 to carry
 out serious reforms1  but also the will
 to do so1 on account of religious      
indifference1 and so  let things go     
altogether to the bad4 ,the consequence 
was anarchy1 in this  as in all other   
spheres at that time2 but at the same   
time the tendency  towards the only     
sensible issue1 a restriction of the old
 ,roman  ,state-cult1 is plainly        
evident4 ,the simultaneous strong       
infusion of  foreign religions was      
unavoidable in the mixed population of  
the capital4  ,that these influences    
also affected the lower classes of the  
citizens is  at any rate a proof that   
they were not indifferent to religion4  
,in its main outlines this is all the   

information that ,i have been able to   
glean about the general decline of the  
belief in the gods during the           
,hellenistic period4 ,judging from such 
information we should expect to find    
strong tendencies to atheism in the     
philosophy of the period4 ,these        
anticipations are1 however1 doomed to   
disappointment4 ,the ruling             
philosophical schools on the whole      
preserved a friendly attitude towards   
the gods of the popular faith and       
especially towards their worship1       
although they only accepted the existing
 religion with strict reservation4      
,most characteristic but least          
consistent and original was the attitude
 of  the ,stoic school4 ,the ,stoics    
were pantheists4 ,their deity was a     
substance  which they designated as     
fire1 but which1 it must be admitted1   
differed  greatly from fire as an       
element4 ,it permeated the entire world4
 ,it had  produced the world out of     
itself1 and it absorbed it again1 and   

this  process was repeated to eternity4 
,the divine fire was also reason1 and as
  such the cause of the harmony of the  
world-order4 ,what of conscious reason  
was found in the world was part of the  
divine reason4    ,though in this scheme
 of things there was in the abstract    
plenty of room  for the gods of popular 
belief1 nevertheless the ,stoics did not
 in reality  acknowledge them4 ,in      
principle their standpoint was the same 
as  ,aristotle's4 ,they supposed the    
heavenly bodies to be divine1 but all   
the  rest1 namely1 the anthropomorphic  
gods1 were nothing to them4    ,in their
 explanation of the origin of the gods  
they went beyond ,aristotle1  but their 
doctrine was not always the same on this
 point4 ,the earlier  ,stoics regarded  
mythology and all theology as human     
inventions1 but not  arbitrary          
inventions4 ,mythology1 they thought1   
should be understood  allegorically2 it 
was the nave expression partly of a     
correct conception  of ,nature1 partly  

of ethical and metaphysical truths4     
,strictly speaking1  men had always been
 ,stoics1 though in an imperfect way4   
,this point of view  was elaborated in  
detail by the first ,stoics1 who took   
their stand partly  on the earlier      
naturalism which had already broken the 
ground in this  direction1 and partly on
 sophistic1 so that they even brought   
into vogue  again the theory of         
,prodicus1 that the gods were a         
hypostasis of the  benefits of          
civilisation4 ,such a standpoint could  
not of course be  maintained without    
arbitrariness and absurdities which     
exposed it to  embarrassing criticism4  
,this seems to have been the reason why 
the later  ,stoics1 and especially      
,poseidonius1 took another road4 ,they  
adopted the  doctrine of ,xenocrates    
with regard to demons and developed it  
in fantastic  forms4 ,the earlier method
 was not1 however1 given up1 and at the 
time of  ,cicero we find both views     
represented in the doctrine of the      

school4    ,such is the appearance of   
the theory4 ,in both its forms it is    
evidently an  attempt to meet popular   
belief half-way from a standpoint which 
is really  beyond it4 ,this tendency is 
seen even more plainly in the practice  
of the  ,stoics4 ,they recognised public
 worship and insisted on its advantages2
 in  their moral reflections they       
employed the gods as ideals in the      
,socratic  manner1 regardless of the    
fact that in their theory they did not  
really  allow for gods who were ideal   
men2 nay1 they even went the length of  
giving to their philosophical deity1 the
 8universal reason10 the name of  ,zeus 
by preference1 though it had nothing but
 the name in common with the  ,olympian 
ruler of gods and men4 ,this pervading  
ambiguity brought much  well-deserved   
reproof on the ,stoics even in ancient  
times2 but1 however  unattractive it may
 seem to us1 it is of significance as a 
manifestation  of the great hold popular
 belief continued to have even on the   

minds of  the upper classes1 for it was 
to these that the ,stoics appealed4     
,far more original and consistent is the
 ,epicurean attitude towards the        
popular faith4 ,epicurus unreservedly   
acknowledged its foundation1 i4e4  the  
existence of anthropomorphic beings of a
 higher order than man4 ,his  gods had  
human shape but they were eternal and   
blessed4 ,in the latter  definition was 
included1 according to the ethical ideal
 of ,epicurus1 the  idea that the gods  
were free from every care1 including    
taking an interest  in nature or in     
human affairs4 ,they were entirely      
outside the world1 a  fact to which     
,epicurus gave expression by placing    
them in the empty spaces  between the   
infinite number of spherical worlds     
which he assumed4 ,there  his gods lived
 in bliss like ideal ,epicureans4       
,lucretius1 the only poet of  this      
school1 extolled them in splendid verse 
whose motif he borrowed from  ,homer's  
description of ,olympus4 ,in this way   

,epicurus also managed to  uphold public
 worship itself4 ,it could not1 of      
course1 have any practical  aim1 but it 
was justified as an expression of the   
respect man owed to  beings whose       
existence expressed the human ideal4    
,the reasons why ,epicurus assumed this 
attitude towards popular belief are     
simple enough4 ,he maintained that the  
evidence of sensual perception was  the 
basis of all knowledge1 and he thought  
that the senses 7through  dreams7 gave  
evidence of the existence of the gods4  
,and in the popular  ideas of the bliss 
of the gods he found his ethical ideal  
directly  confirmed4 ,as regards their  
eternity the case was more difficult4   
,the  basis of his system was the theory
 that everything was made of atoms and  
that only the atoms as such1 not the    
bodies composed of the atoms1 were      
eternal4 ,he conceived the gods1 too1 as
 made of atoms1 nevertheless he  held   
that they were eternal4 ,any rational   
explanation of this postulate is  not   

possible on ,epicurus's hypotheses1 and 
the criticism of his theology  was      
therefore especially directed against   
this point4    ,epicurus was the ,greek 
philosopher who most consistently took  
the course  of emphasising the popular  
dogma of the perfection of the gods in  
order to  preserve the popular notions  
about them4 ,and he was the philosopher 
to  whom this would seem the most       
obvious course1 because his ethical     
ideal--quietism--agreed with the oldest 
popular ideal of divine existence4  ,in 
this way ,epicureanism became the most  
orthodox of all ,greek  philosophical   
schools4 ,if nevertheless ,epicurus did 
not escape the charge  of atheism the   
sole reason is that his whole theology  
was denounced  off-hand as hypocrisy4   
,it was assumed to be set up by him only
 to shield  himself against a charge of 
impiety1 not to be his actual belief4   
,this  accusation is now universally    
acknowledged to be unjustified1 and the 
,epicureans had no difficulty in        

rebutting it with interest4 ,they took  
special delight in pointing out that the
 theology of the other schools was  much
 more remote from popular belief than   
theirs1 nay1 in spite of  recognition of
 the existing religion1 was in truth    
fundamentally at  variance with it4 ,but
 in reality their own was in no better  
case3 gods who  did not trouble in the  
least about human affairs were beings   
for whom  popular belief had no use4 ,it
 made no difference that ,epicurus's    
definition of the nature of the gods was
 the direct outcome of a  fundamental   
doctrine of popular belief4 ,popular    
religion will not tolerate  pedantry4   
,in this connexion we cannot well pass  
over a third philosophical school  which
 played no inconspicuous rle in the     
latter half of our period1  namely1     
,scepticism4 ,the ,sceptic philosophy as
 such dates from ,socrates1  from whom  
the so-called ,megarian school took its 
origin1 but it did not  reach its       
greatest importance until the second    

century1 when the ,academic  school     
became ,sceptic4 ,it was especially the 
famous philosopher ,carneades1  a       
brilliant master of logic and dialectic1
 who made a success by his  searching   
negative criticism of the doctrines of  
the other philosophical  schools 7the   
,dogmatics74 ,for such criticism the    
theology of the  philosophers was a     
grateful subject1 and ,carneades did not
 spare it4 ,here  as in all the         
investigations of the ,sceptics the     
theoretical result was  that no         
scientific certainty could be attained3 
it was equally wrong to  assert or to   
deny the existence of the gods4 ,but in 
practice the attitude  of the ,sceptics 
was quite different4 ,just as they      
behaved like other  people1 acting upon 
their immediate impressions and         
experience1 though  they did not believe
 that anything could be scientifically  
proved1 e4g4  not even the reality of   
the world of the senses1 so also did    
they  acknowledge the existing cult and 

lived generally like good heathens4     
,characteristic though ,scepticism be of
 a period of ,greek spiritual life in   
which ,greek thought lost its belief in 
itself1 it was1 however1 very far  from 
supporting atheism4 ,on the contrary1   
according to the correct ,sceptic       
doctrine atheism was a dogmatic         
contention which theoretically was as   
objectionable as its antithesis1 and in 
practice was to be utterly              
discountenanced4    ,a more radical     
standpoint than this as regards the gods
 of the popular  faith is not found     
during the ,hellenistic period except   
among the less  noted schools1 and in   
the beginning of the period4 ,we have   
already  mentioned such thinkers as     
,strato1 ,theodorus1 and ,stilpo2       
chronologically  they belong to the     
,hellenistic ,age1 but in virtue of     
their connexion with  the ,socratic     
philosophy they were dealt with in the  
last chapter4 ,a  definite polemical    
attitude towards the popular faith is   

also a  characteristic of the ,cynic    
school1 hence1 though our information is
 very  meagre1 we must speak of it a    
little more fully4    ,the ,cynics      
continued the tendency of ,antisthenes1 
but the school  comparatively soon lost 
its importance4 ,after the third century
 we hear no  more about the ,cynics     
until they crop up again about the year 
,a4,d4 #ajj4  ,but in the fourth and    
third centuries the school had important
  representatives4 ,the most famous is  
,diogenes2 his life1 to be sure1 is     
entangled in such a web of legend that  
it is difficult to arrive at a true     
picture of his personality4 ,of his     
attitude towards popular belief we know 
one thing1 that he did not take part in 
the worship of the gods4 ,this was  a   
general principle of the ,cynics2 their 
argument was that the gods were  8in    
need of nothing0 7cf4 above1 pp4 #fj and
 #da74 ,if we find him accused of       
atheism1 in an anecdote of very doubtful
 value1 it may1 if there is  anything in

 it1 be due to his rejection of worship4
 ,of one of his  successors1 however1   
,bion of ,borysthenes1 we have authentic
 information  that he denied the        
existence of the gods1 with the edifying
 legend  attached that he was converted 
before his death4 ,but we also hear of  
,bion  that he was a disciple of the    
atheist ,theodorus1 and other facts go  
to  suggest that ,bion united ,cynic and
 ,hedonistic principles in his mode of  
life--a compromise that was not so      
unlikely as might be supposed4 ,bion's  
attitude cannot therefore be taken as   
typical of ,cynicism4 ,another ,cynic   
of about the same period 7the beginning 
of the third century7 was ,menippus  of 
,gadara 7in northern ,palestine74 ,he   
wrote tales and dialogues in a  mixture 
of prose and verse4 ,the contents were  
satirical1 the satire being  directed   
against the contemporary philosophers   
and their doctrines1 and  against the   
popular notions of the gods4 ,menippus  
availed himself partly  of the old      

criticism of mythology and partly of the
 philosophical attacks  on the popular  
conception of the gods4 ,the only       
novelty was the facetious  form in which
 he concealed the sting of serious      
criticism4 ,it is  impossible to decide 
whether he positively denied the        
existence of the  gods1 but his satire  
on the popular notions and its success  
among his  contemporaries at least      
testifies to the weakening of the       
popular faith  among the educated       
classes4 ,in ,hellas itself he seems to 
have gone out of  fashion very early2   
but the ,romans took him up again2      
,varro and ,seneca  imitated him1 and   
,lucian made his name famous again in   
the ,greek world in  the second century 
after ,christ4 ,it is chiefly due to    
,lucian that we can  form an idea of    
,menippus's literary work1 hence we     
shall return to ,cynic  satire in our   
chapter on the age of the ,roman        
,empire4    ,during our survey of ,greek
 philosophical thought in the           

,hellenistic period  we have only met   
with a few cases of atheism in the      
strict sense1 and they  all occur about 
and immediately after #cjj1 though there
 does not seem to  be any internal      
connexion between them4 ,about the same 
time there appeared  a writer1 outside  
the circle of philosophers1 who is      
regularly listed  among the atheoi1 and 
who has given a name to a peculiar      
theory about  the origin of the idea of 
the gods1 namely1 ,euhemerus4 ,he is    
said to have  travelled extensively in  
the service of ,king ,cassander of      
,macedonia4 ,at  any rate he published  
his theological views in the shape of a 
book of  travel which was1 however1     
wholly fiction4 ,he relates how he came 
to an  island1 ,panchaia1 in the ,indian
 ,ocean1 and in a temple there found a  
lengthy inscription in which ,uranos1   
,kronos1 ,zeus and other gods recorded  
their exploits4 ,the substance of the   
tale was that these gods had once  been 
men1 great kings and rulers1 who had    

bestowed on their peoples all  sorts of 
improvements in civilisation and had    
thus got themselves  worshipped as gods4
 ,it appears from the accounts that     
,euhemerus supposed  the heavenly bodies
 to be real and eternal gods--he thought
 that ,uranos had  first taught men to  
worship them2 further1 as his theory is 
generally  understood1 it must be       
assumed that in his opinion the other   
gods had  ceased to exist as such after 
their death4 ,this accords with the fact
 that  ,euhemerus was generally         
characterised as an atheist4    ,the    
theory that the gods were at first men  
was not originated by  ,euhemerus1      
though it takes its name 7,euhemerism7  
from him4 ,the theory had  some support 
in the popular faith which recognised   
gods 7,heracles1  ,asclepius7 who had   
lived as men on earth2 and the opinion  
which was  fundamental to ,greek        
religion1 that the gods had come into   
existence1  and had not existed from    
eternity1 would favour this theory4     

,moreover1  ,euhemerus had had an       
immediate precursor in the slightly     
earlier ,hecataeus  of ,abdera1 who had 
set forth a similar theory1 with the    
difference1  however1 that he took the  
view that all excellent men became real 
gods4  ,but ,euhemerus's theory appeared
 just at the right moment and fell on   
fertile soil4 ,alexander the ,great and 
his successors had adopted the          
,oriental policy by which the ruler was 
worshipped as a god1 and were  supported
 in this by a tendency which had already
 made itself felt  occasionally among   
the ,greeks in the ,east4 ,euhemerus    
only inverted  matters--if the rulers   
were gods1 it was an obvious inference  
that the gods  were rulers4 ,no wonder  
that his theory gained a large          
following4 ,its great  influence is seen
 from numerous similar attempts in the  
,hellenistic world4  ,at ,rome1 in the  
second century1 ,ennius translated his  
works into ,latin1  and as late as the  
time of ,augustus an author such as     

,diodorus1 in his  popular history of   
the world1 served up ,euhemerism as the 
best scientific  explanation of the     
origin of religion4 ,it is              
characteristic1 too1 that  both ,jews   
and ,christians1 in their attacks on    
,paganism1 reckoned with  ,euhemerism as
 a well-established theory4 ,as every   
one knows1 it has  survived to our day2 
,carlyle1 ,i suppose1 being its last    
prominent  exponent4    ,it is          
characteristic of ,euhemerism in its    
most radical form that it  assumed that 
the gods of polytheism did not exist2 so
 far it is atheism4  ,but it is no less 
characteristic that it made the         
concession to popular  belief that its  
gods had once existed4 ,hereby it takes 
its place1 in spite  of its greater     
radicalism1 on the same plane with most 
other ancient  theories about the origin
 of men's notions about the gods4 ,the  
gods of  popular belief could not       
survive in the light of ancient thought1
 which in  its essence was free-thought1

 not tied down by dogmas4 ,but the      
philosophers of old could not but       
believe that a psychological fact of    
such enormous dimensions as ancient     
polytheism must have something          
answering to it in the objective world4 
,ancient philosophy never got clear  of 
this dilemma2 hence ,plato's open       
recognition of the absurdity2 hence     
,aristotle's delight at being able to   
meet the popular faith half-way in  his 
assumption of the divinity of the       
heavenly bodies2 hence ,xenocrates's    
demons1 the allegories of the ,stoics1  
the ideal ,epicureans of ,epicurus1     
,euhemerus's early benefactors of       
mankind4 ,and we may say that the more  
the  ,greeks got to know of the world   
about them the more they were confirmed 
in  their view1 for in the varied       
multiplicity of polytheism they found   
the  same principle everywhere1 the same
 belief in a multitude of beings of a   
higher order than man4    ,euhemerus's  
theory is no doubt the last serious     

attempt in the old pagan  world to give 
an explanation of the popular faith     
which may be called  genuine atheism4   
,we will not1 however1 leave the        
,hellenistic period  without casting a  
glance at some personalities about whom 
we have  information enough to form an  
idea at first hand of their religious   
standpoint1 and whose attitude towards  
popular belief at any rate comes  very  
near to atheism pure and simple4    ,one
 of them is ,polybius4 ,in the          
above-cited passage referring to the    
decline of the popular faith in the     
,hellenistic period1 ,polybius also     
gives his own theory of the origin of   
men's notions regarding the gods4 ,it   
is not new4 ,it is the theory known from
 the ,critias fragment1 what may be     
called the political theory4 ,in the    
fragment it appears as atheism pure  and
 simple1 and it seems obvious to        
understand it in the same way in        
,polybius4 ,that he shows a leaning     
towards ,euhemerism in another passage  

where he speaks about the origin of     
religious ideas1 is in itself not       
against this--the two theories are      
closely related and might very well be  
combined4 ,but we have a series of      
passages in which ,polybius expressed   
himself in a way that seems quite       
irreconcilable with a purely atheistic  
standpoint4 ,he expressly acknowledged  
divination and worship as justified2  in
 several places he refers to disasters  
that have befallen individuals or  a    
whole people as being sent by the gods1 
or even as a punishment for  impiety2   
and towards the close of his work he    
actually1 in marked contrast  to the    
tone of its beginning1 offers up a      
prayer to the gods to grant him  a happy
 ending to his long life4 ,it would seem
 as if ,polybius at a certain  period of
 his life came under the influence of   
,stoicism and in consequence  greatly   
modified his earlier views4 ,that these 
were of an atheistic  character seems1  
however1 beyond doubt1 and that is the  

decisive point in  this connexion4      
,cicero's philosophical standpoint was  
that of an ,academic1 i4e4 a  ,sceptic4 
,but--in accord1 for the rest1 with the 
doctrines of the school  just at this   
period--he employed his liberty as a    
,sceptic to favour such  philosophical  
doctrines as seemed to him more         
reasonable than others1  regardless of  
the school from which they were derived4
 ,in his philosophy  of religion he was 
more especially a ,stoic4 ,he himself   
expressly insisted  on this point of    
view in the closing words of his work on
 the ,nature of  the ,gods4 ,as he was  
not1 and made no pretence of being1 a   
philosopher1  his philosophical         
expositions have no importance for us2  
they are  throughout second-hand1 mostly
 mere translations from ,greek sources4 
,that  we have employed them in the     
foregoing pages to throw light on the   
theology of the earlier1 more especially
 the ,hellenistic1 philosophy1 goes     
without saying4 ,but his personal       

religious standpoint is not without     
interest4    ,as orator and statesman   
,cicero took his stand wholly on the    
side of the  established ,roman         
religion1 operating with the 8immortal  
gods10 with  ,jupiter ,optimus ,maximus1
 etc41 at his convenience4 ,in his works
 on the  ,state and the ,laws he adheres
 decidedly to the established religion4 
,but all this is mere politics4         
,personally ,cicero had no religion     
other  than philosophy4 ,philosophy was 
his consolation in adversity1 or he     
attempted to make it so1 for the result 
was often indifferent2 and he  looked to
 philosophy to guide him in ethical     
questions4 ,we never find any           
indication in his writings that the gods
 of popular belief meant anything  to   
him in these respects4 ,and what is     
more--he assumed this off-hand to be    
the standpoint of everybody else1 and   
evidently he was justified4 ,a great    
number of letters from him to his       
circle1 and not a few from his friends  

and acquaintances to him1 have been     
preserved2 and in his philosophical     
writings he often introduces            
contemporary ,romans as characters in   
the  dialogue4 ,but in all this         
literature there is never the faintest  
indication that a ,roman of the better  
class entertained1 or could even be     
supposed to entertain1 an orthodox view 
with regard to the ,state religion4  ,to
 ,cicero and his circle the popular     
faith did not exist as an element of    
their personal religion4    ,such a     
standpoint is of course1 practically    
speaking1 atheism1 and in this  sense   
atheism was widely spread among the     
higher classes of the  ,graeco-,roman   
society about the time of the birth of  
,christ4 ,but from this  to theoretical 
atheism there is still a good step4     
,cicero himself affords  an amusing     
example of how easily people1 who have  
apparently quite  emancipated themselves
 from the official religion of their    
community1 may  backslide4 ,when his    

beloved daughter ,tullia died in the    
year #de ,b4,c41 it  became evident that
 ,cicero1 in the first violence of his  
grief1 which was  the more overwhelming 
because he was excluded from political  
activity  during ,csar's dictatorship1  
could not console himself with          
philosophy  alone4 ,he wanted something 
more tangible to take hold on1 and so he
 hit  upon the idea of having ,tullia   
exalted among the gods4 ,he thought of  
building a temple and instituting a cult
 in her honour4 ,he moved heaven  and   
earth to arrange the matter1 sought to  
buy ground in a prominent place  in     
,rome1 and was willing to make the      
greatest pecuniary sacrifices to get  a 
conspicuous result4 ,nothing came of it 
all1 however2 ,cicero's friends1  who   
were to help him to put the matter      
through1 were perhaps hardly so  eager  
as he2 time assuaged his own grief1 and 
finally he contented himself  with      
publishing a consolatory epistle written
 by himself1 or1 correctly  speaking1   

translated from a famous ,greek work and
 adapted to the occasion4  ,so far he   
ended where he should1 i4e4 in          
philosophy2 but the little  incident is 
significant1 not least because it shows 
what practical ends  ,euhemerism could  
be brought to serve and how doubtful was
 its atheistic  character after all4    
,for not only was the contemplated      
apotheosis of  ,tullia in itself a      
,euhemeristic idea1 but ,cicero also    
expressly defended  it with             
,euhemeristic arguments1 though speaking
 as if the departed who  were worshipped
 as gods really had become gods4    ,the
 attitude of ,cicero and his            
contemporaries towards popular belief   
was  still the general attitude in the  
first days of the ,empire4 ,it was of no
  avail that ,augustus re-established   
the decayed ,state cult in all its      
splendour and variety1 or that the poets
 during his reign1 when they  wished to 
express themselves in harmony with the  
spirit of the new rgime1  directly or   

indirectly extolled the revived         
orthodoxy4 ,wherever we find  personal  
religious feeling expressed by men of   
that time1 in the ,epistles  of ,horace1
 in ,virgil's posthumous minor poems or 
in such passages in his  greater works  
where he expresses his own ideals1 it is
 philosophy that is  predominant and the
 official religion ignored4 ,virgil was 
an ,epicurean2  ,horace an ,eclectic1   
now an ,epicurean1 then a ,stoic2       
,augustus had a  domestic philosopher4  
,ovid employed his genius in writing    
travesties of  the old mythology while  
at the same time he composed a poem1    
serious for  him1 on the ,roman cult2   
and when disaster befell him and he was 
cast out  from the society of the       
capital1 which was the breath of life to
 him1 he  was abandoned not only by men1
 but also by the gods--he had not even a
  philosophy with which to console      
himself4 ,it is only in inferior writers
  such as ,valerius ,maximus1 who wrote 
a work on great deeds--good and         

evil--under ,tiberius1 that we find a   
different spirit4    ,direct utterances 
about men's relationship to the gods1   
from which  conclusions can be drawn1   
are seldom met with during this period4 
,the  whole question was so remote from 
the thoughts of these people that they  
never mentioned it except when they     
assumed an orthodox air for political   
or aesthetic reasons4 ,still1 here and  
there we come across something4 ,one  of
 the most significant pronouncements is 
that of ,pliny the ,elder1 from  whom we
 quoted the passage about the worship of
 ,fortune4 ,pliny opens his  scientific 
encyclopedia by explaining the structure
 of the universe in its  broad features2
 this he does on the lines of the       
physics of the ,stoics1  hence he       
designates the universe as ,god4 ,next  
comes a survey of special  theology4 ,it
 is introduced as follows3 8,i therefore
 deem it a sign of  human weakness to   
ask about the shape and form of ,god4   
,whoever ,god is1 if  any other god     

7than the universe7 exists at all1 and  
in whatever part of  the world he is1 he
 is all perception1 all sight1 all      
hearing1 all soul1  all reason1 all     
self40 ,the popular notions of the gods 
are then reviewed1  in the most         
supercilious tone1 and their absurdities
 pointed out4 ,a polite  bow is made to 
the worship of the ,emperors and its    
motives1 the rest is  little but        
persiflage4 ,not even ,providence1 which
 was recognised by the  ,stoics1 is     
acknowledged by ,pliny4 ,the conclusion 
is like the beginning3  8,to imperfect  
human nature it is a special consolation
 that ,god also is  not omnipotent 7he  
can neither put himself to death1 even  
if he would1  though he has given man   
that power and it is his choicest gift  
in this  punishment which is life2 nor  
can he give immortality to mortals or   
call  the dead to life2 nor can he bring
 it to pass that those who have lived   
have not lived1 or that he who has held 
honourable offices did not hold  them72 

and that he has no other power over the 
past than that of oblivion2  and that   
7in order that we may also give a       
jesting proof of our  partnership with  
,god7 he cannot bring it about that     
twice ten is not  twenty1 and more of   
the same sort--by all which the power of
 ,nature is  clearly revealed1 and that 
it is this we call ,god40    ,an opinion
 like that expressed here must without  
doubt be designated as  atheism1 even   
though it is nothing but the ,stoic     
pantheism logically  carried out4 ,as we
 have said before1 we rarely meet it so 
directly  expressed1 but there can      
hardly be any doubt that even in the    
time of  ,pliny it was quite common in  
,rome4 ,at this point1 then1 had the    
educated  classes of the ancient world  
arrived under the influence of          
,hellenistic  philosophy4               
,,chapter ,,vii      ,though the        
foundation of the ,empire in many ways  
inaugurated a new era for  the antique  
world1 it is1 of course1 impossible1 in 

an inquiry which is  not confined to    
political history in the narrowest sense
 of the word1 to  operate with anything 
but the loosest chronological divisions4
 ,accordingly  in the last chapter we   
had to include phenomena from the early 
days of the  ,empire in order not to    
separate things which naturally belonged
 together4  ,from the point of view of  
religious history the dividing line     
cannot  possibly be drawn at the        
,emperor ,augustus1 in spite of his     
restoration of  worship and the orthodox
 reaction in the official ,augustan     
poetry1 but  rather at about the        
beginning of the second century4 ,the   
enthusiasm of the  ,augustan ,age for   
the good old times was never much more  
than affectation4  ,it quickly          
evaporated when the promised millennium 
was not forthcoming1  and was replaced  
by a reserve which developed into       
cynicism--but1 be it  understood1 in the
 upper circles of the capital only4 ,in 
the empire at  large the development    

took its natural tranquil course1       
unaffected by the  manner in which the  
old ,roman nobility was effacing itself2
 and this  development did not tend     
towards atheism4    ,the reaction       
towards positive religious feeling1     
which becomes clearly  manifest in the  
second century after ,christ1 though the
 preparation for it  is undoubtedly of  
earlier date1 is perhaps the most       
remarkable phenomenon  in the religious 
history of antiquity4 ,this is not the  
place to inquire  into its causes1 which
 still remain largely unexplained2 there
 is even no  reason to enter more       
closely into its outer manifestations1  
as the thing  itself is doubted by      
nobody4 ,it is sufficient to mention as 
instances  authors like ,suetonius1 with
 his nave belief in miracles1 and the   
rhetorician ,aristides1 with his        
,asclepius-cult and general             
sanctimoniousness2 or a minor figure    
such as ,aelian1 who wrote whole books  
of a pronounced1 nay even fanatical1    

devotionalism2 or within the sphere  of 
philosophy movements like               
,neo-,pythagoreanism and                
,neo-,platonism1 both of  which are as  
much in the nature of mystic theology as
 attempts at a  scientific explanation  
of the universe4 ,it is characteristic1 
too1 that an  essentially anti-religious
 school like that of the ,epicureans    
actually  dies out at this time4 ,under 
these conditions our task in this       
chapter  must be to bring out the       
comparatively few and weak traces of    
other  currents which still made        
themselves felt4    ,of the earlier     
philosophical schools ,stoicism flowered
 afresh in the  second century2 the     
,emperor ,marcus ,aurelius himself was a
 prominent  adherent of the creed4 ,this
 later ,stoicism differs1 however1      
somewhat from  the earlier4 ,it limits  
the scientific apparatus which the early
 ,stoics had  operated with to a        
minimum1 and is almost exclusively      
concerned with  practical ethics on a   

religious basis4 ,its religion is that  
of ordinary  ,stoicism3 ,pantheism and  
belief in ,providence4 ,but1 on the     
whole1 it takes  up a more sympathetic  
attitude towards popular religion than  
early  ,stoicism had done4 ,of the      
bitter criticism of the absurdities of  
the  worship of the gods and of         
mythology which is still to be met with 
as late  as ,seneca1 nothing remains4   
,on the contrary1 participation in      
public  worship is still enjoined as    
being a duty2 nay1 more3 attacks on     
belief in  the gods--in the plain       
popular sense of the word--are denounced
 as  pernicious and reprehensible4      
,perhaps no clearer proof could be      
adduced of  the revolution which had    
taken place in the attitude of the      
educated  classes towards popular       
religion than this change of front on   
the part of  ,stoicism4    ,contrary to 
this was the attitude of another school 
which was in vogue at  the same time as 
the ,stoic1 namely1 the ,cynic4 ,between

 ,cynicism and  popular belief strained 
relations had existed since early times4
 ,it is  true1 the ,cynics did not      
altogether deny the existence of the    
gods2 but  they rejected worship on the 
ground that the gods were not in need of
  anything1 and they denied             
categorically the majority of the       
popular ideas  about the gods4 ,for the 
latter were1 in fact1 popular and       
traditional1 and  the whole aim of the  
,cynics was to antagonise the current   
estimate of  values4 ,a characteristic  
instance of their manner is provided by 
this very  period in the fragments of   
the work of ,oenomaus4 ,the work was    
entitled  ,the ,swindlers ,unmasked1 and
 it contained a violent attack on       
oracles4  ,its tone is exceedingly      
pungent4 ,in the extant fragments       
,oenomaus  addresses the god in ,delphi 
and overwhelms him with insults4 ,but we
 are  expressly told--and one utterance 
of ,oenomaus himself verifies it--that  
the  attack was not really directed     

against the god1 but against the men who
  gave oracles in his name4 ,in his     
opinion the whole thing was a priestly  
fraud--a view which otherwise was rather
 unfamiliar to the ancients1 but  played
 an important part later4 ,incidentally 
there is a violent attack on  idolatry4 
,the work is not without acuteness of   
thought and a certain  coarse wit of the
 true ,cynical kind2 but it is entirely 
uncritical  7oracles are used which are 
evidently inventions of later times7 and
 of no  great significance4 ,it is even 
difficult to avoid the impression that  
the  author's aim is in some degree to  
create a sensation4 ,cynics of that day 
were not strangers to that kind of      
thing4 ,but it is at any rate a proof of
  the fact that there were at the time  
tendencies opposed to the religious     
reaction4    ,a more significant        
phenomenon of the same kind is to be    
found in the  writings of ,lucian4      
,lucian was by education a rhetorician1 
by profession  an itinerant lecturer and

 essayist4 ,at a certain stage of his   
life he  became acquainted with the     
,cynic philosophy and for some time felt
 much  attracted to it4 ,from that he   
evidently acquired a sincere contempt of
 the  vulgar superstition which         
flourished in his time1 even in circles 
of which  one might have expected       
something better4 ,in writings which for
 the  greater part belong to his later  
period1 he pilloried individuals who    
traded 7or seemed to trade7 in the      
religious ferment of the time1 as well  
as satirised superstition as such4  ,in 
this way he made an important           
contribution to the spiritual history of
 the age4 ,but simultaneously he        
produced1 for the entertainment of his  
public1 a series of writings the  aim of
 which is to make fun of the ,olympian  
gods4 ,in this work also he  leant on   
the literature of the ,cynics1 but      
substituted for their grave and  biting 
satire light causeries or slight        
dramatic sketches1 in which his         

wit--for ,lucian was really witty--had  
full scope4 ,as an instance of his      
manner ,i shall quote a short passage   
from the dialogue ,timon4 ,it is ,zeus  
who speaks2 he has given ,hermes orders 
to send the god of wealth to ,timon1    
who has wasted his fortune by his       
liberality and is now abandoned by his  
false friends4 ,then he goes on3 8,as to
 the flatterers you speak of and  their 
ingratitude1 ,i shall deal with them    
another time1 and they will meet  with  
their due punishment as soon as ,i have 
had my thunderbolt repaired4  ,the two  
largest darts of it were broken and     
blunted the other day when ,i  got in a 
rage and flung it at the sophist        
,anaxagoras1 who was trying to  make his
 disciples believe that we gods do not  
exist at all4 ,however1 ,i  missed him1 
for ,pericles held his hand over him1   
but the bolt struck the  temple of the  
,dioscuri and set fire to it1 and the   
bolt itself was nearly  destroyed when  
it struck the rock40 ,this sort of thing

 abounds in ,lucian1  even if it is not 
always equally amusing and to the point4
 ,now there is  nothing strange in the  
fact that a witty man for once should   
feel inclined  to make game of the old  
mythology2 this might have happened     
almost at any  time1 once the critical  
spirit had been awakened4 ,but that a   
man1 and  moreover an essayist1 who had 
to live by the approval of his public1  
should make it his trade1 as it were1   
and that at a time of vigorous          
religious reaction1 seems more difficult
 to account for4 ,lucian's              
controversial pamphlets against         
superstition cannot be classed off-hand 
with his ,dialogues of the ,gods2 the   
latter are of a quite different and  far
 more harmless character4 ,the fact is  
rather that mythology at this  time was 
fair game4 ,it was cut off from its     
connexion with religion--a  connexion   
which in historical times was never very
 intimate and was now  entirely severed4
 ,this had been brought about in part by

 centuries of  criticism of the most    
varied kind1 in part precisely as a     
result of the  religious reaction which 
had now set in4 ,if people turned during
 this time  to the old gods--who1       
however1 had been considerably          
contaminated with new  elements--it was 
because they had nothing else to turn   
to2 but what they  now looked for was   
something quite different from the old  
religion4 ,the  powerful tradition which
 had bound members of each small        
community--we  should say1 of each      
township--to its familiar gods1 with all
 that belonged  to them1 was now in     
process of dissolution2 in the larger   
cities of the  world-empire with their  
mixed populations it had entirely       
disappeared4  ,religion was no longer   
primarily a concern of society2 it was a
 personal  matter4 ,in the face of the  
enormous selection of gods which ancient
  paganism came gradually to proffer1   
the individual was free to choose1 as   
individual or as a member of a communion

 based upon religious1 not  political1  
sympathy4 ,under these circumstances the
 existence of the gods  and their power 
and will to help their worshippers was  
the only thing of  interest2 all the old
 tales about them were more than ever   
myths of no  religious value4 ,on closer
 inspection ,lucian indeed proves to    
have  exercised a certain selection in  
his satire4 ,gods like ,asclepius and   
,serapis1 who were popular in his day1  
he prefers to say nothing about2 and    
even with a phenomenon like             
,christianity he deals cautiously2 he   
sticks to  the old ,olympian gods4 ,thus
 his derision of these constitutes an   
indirect  proof that they had gone out  
of vogue1 and his forbearance on other  
points  is a proof of the power of the  
current religion over contemporary      
minds4  ,as to ascribing any deeper     
religious conviction to ,lucian--were it
 even of  a purely negative kind--that  
is1 in view of the whole character of   
his  work1 out of the question4 ,to be  

sure1 his polemical pamphlets against   
superstition show clearly1 like those of
 ,oenomaus1 that the religious  reaction
 did not run its course without         
criticism from certain sides2 but  even 
here it is significant that the         
criticism comes from a professional     
jester and not from a serious religious 
thinker4    ,a few words remain to be   
said about the two monotheistic         
religions which  in the days of the     
,roman ,empire came to play a great1 one
 of them indeed a  decisive1 part4 ,i   
have already referred to pagan society's
 attitude  towards ,judaism and         
,christianity1 and pointed out that the 
adherents of  both were designated and  
treated as atheists--the ,jews only     
occasionally  and with certain          
reservations1 the ,christians nearly    
always and  unconditionally4 ,the       
question here is1 how far this          
designation was  justified according to 
the definition of atheism which is the  
basis of our  inquiry4    ,in the       

preceding pages we have several times   
referred to the fact that the  real     
enemy of ,polytheism is not the         
philosophical theology1 which  generally
 tends more or less towards ,pantheism1 
but ,monotheism4 ,it is in  keeping with
 this that the ,jews and the ,christians
 in practice are  downright deniers of  
the pagan gods3 they would not worship  
them2 whereas  the ,greek philosophers  
as a rule respected worship1 however far
 they went  in their criticism of men's 
ideas of the gods4 ,we shall not dwell  
here on  this aspect of the matter2 we  
are concerned with the theory only4     
,detailed  expositions of it occur in   
numerous writings1 from the passages in 
the ,old  ,testament where heathenism is
 attacked1 to the defences of           
,christianity by  the latest ,fathers of
 the ,church4    ,the original ,jewish  
view1 according to which the heathen    
gods are real  beings just as much as   
the ,god of the ,jews themselves--only  
,jews must not  worship them--is in the 

later portions of the ,old ,testament   
superseded by  the view that the gods   
are only images made of wood1 stone or  
metal1 and  incapable of doing either   
good or evil4 ,this point of view is    
taken over  by later ,jewish authors and
 completely dominates them4 ,in those   
acquainted  with ,greek thought it is   
combined with ,euhemeristic ideas3 the  
images  represent dead men4 ,the theory 
that the gods are really natural        
objects--elements or heavenly bodies--is
 occasionally taken into account  too4  
,alongside of these opinions there      
appears also the view that the  pagan   
gods are evil spirits 7demons74 ,it is  
already found in a few places  in the   
,old ,testament1 and after that         
sporadically and quite incidentally  in 
later ,jewish writings2 in one place it 
is combined with the ,old  ,testament's 
account of the fallen angels4 ,the      
demon-theory is not an  instrument of   
,jewish apologetics proper1 not even of 
,philo1 though he has  a complete       

demonology and can hardly have been     
ignorant of the  ,platonic-,stoic       
doctrine of demons4    ,apart from the  
few and1 as it were1 incidental         
utterances concerning  demons1 the      
,jewish view of the pagan gods impresses
 one as decidedly  atheistic4 ,the god  
is identical with the idol1 and the idol
 is a dead  object1 the work of men's   
hands1 or the god is identical with a   
natural  object1 made by ,god to be     
sure1 but without soul or1 at any rate1 
without  divinity4 ,it is remarkable    
that no ,jewish controversialist        
seriously  envisaged the problem of the 
real view of the gods embodied in the   
popular  belief of the ancients1 namely1
 that they are personal beings of a     
higher  order than man4 ,it is          
inconceivable that men like ,philo1     
,josephus and the  author of the ,wisdom
 of ,solomon should have been ignorant  
of it4 ,i know  nothing to account for  
this curious phenomenon2 and till some  
light has  been thrown upon the matter1 

,i should hesitate to assert that the   
,jewish  conception of ,polytheism was  
purely atheistic1 however much          
appearance it  may have of being so4    
,it was otherwise with ,christian       
polemical writing4 ,as early as ,st4    
,paul  the demon-theory appears         
distinctly1 though side by side with    
utterances  of seemingly atheistic      
character4 ,other ,new ,testament       
authors1 too1  designate the gods as    
demons4 ,the subsequent apologists1     
excepting the  earliest1 ,aristides1 lay
 the main stress on demonology1 but     
include for  the sake of completeness   
idolatry and the like1 sometimes without
 caring  about or trying to conciliate  
the contradictions4 ,in the long run    
demonology is victorious2 in ,st4       
,augustine1 the foremost among          
,christian  apologists1 there is hardly 
any other point of view that counts4    
,to trace the ,christian demonology in  
detail and give an account of its       
various aspects is outside the scope of 

this essay4 ,its origin is a  twofold   
one1 partly the ,jewish demonology1     
which just at the commencement  of our  
era had received a great impetus1 partly
 the theory of the ,greek  philosophers1
 which we have characterised above when 
speaking of  ,xenocrates4 ,the          
,christian doctrine regarding demons    
differs from the  latter1 especially by 
the fact that it does not acknowledge   
good demons2  they were all evil4 ,this 
was the indispensable basis for the     
interdict  against the worship of       
demons2 in its further development the  
,christians1  following ,jewish         
tradition1 pointed to an origin in the  
fallen angels1 and  thus effected a     
connexion with the ,old ,testament4     
,while they at the same  time retained  
its angelology they had to distinguish  
good and evil beings  intermediate      
between god and man2 but they carefully 
avoided designating  the angels as      
demons1 and kept them distinct from the 
pagan gods1 who were  all demons and    

evil4    ,the application of demonology 
to the pagan worship caused certain     
difficulties in detail4 ,to be sure1 it 
was possible to identify a given  pagan 
god with a certain demon1 and this was  
often done2 but it was  impossible to   
identify the ,pagans' conceptions of    
their gods with the  ,christians'       
conceptions of demons4 ,the ,pagans1 in 
fact1 ascribed to their  gods not only  
demoniac 7diabolical7 but also divine   
qualities1 which the  ,christians       
absolutely denied them4 ,consequently   
they had to recognise that  pagan       
worship to a great extent rested on a   
delusion1 on a misconception  of the    
essential character of the gods which   
were worshipped4 ,this view  was        
corroborated by the dogma of the fallen 
angels1 which was altogether  alien to  
paganism4 ,by identifying them with the 
evil spirits of the ,bible1  demon-names
 were even obtained which differed from 
those of the pagan gods  and1 of course1
 were the correct ones2 were they not   

given in ,holy ,writ8  ,in general1 the 
,christians1 who possessed an authentic 
revelation of the  matter1 were of      
course much better informed about the   
nature of the pagan  gods than the      
,pagans themselves1 who were groping in 
the dark4 ,euhemerism1  which plays a   
great part in the apologists1 helped in 
the same direction3  the supposition    
that the idols were originally men      
existed among the  ,pagans themselves1  
and it was too much in harmony with the 
tendency of the  apologists to be left  
unemployed4 ,it was reconciled with     
demonology by the  supposition that the 
demons had assumed the masks of dead    
heroes2 they had  beguiled mankind to   
worship them in order to possess        
themselves of the  sacrifices1 which    
they always coveted1 and by this        
deception to be able to  rule and       
corrupt men4 ,the ,christians also could
 not avoid recognising that  part of the
 pagan worship was worship of natural   
objects1 in particular of  the heavenly 

bodies2 and this error of worshipping   
the 8creation instead  of the creator0  
was so obvious that the ,christians were
 not inclined to  resort to demonology  
for an explanation of this phenomenon1  
the less so as  they could not identify 
the sun or the moon with a demon4 ,the  
conflict of  these different points of  
view accounts for the peculiar          
vacillation in  the ,christian          
conception of paganism4 ,on one hand1 we
 meet with crude  conceptions1 according
 to which the pagan gods are just like  
so many  demons2 they are specially     
prominent when pagan miracles and       
prophecies  are to be explained4 ,on the
 other hand1 there is a train of thought
 which  carried to its logical          
conclusion would lead to conceiving     
paganism as a  whole as a huge delusion 
of humanity1 but a delusion caused      
indeed by  supernatural agencies4 ,this 
conclusion hardly presented itself to   
the  early ,church2 later1 however1 it  
was drawn and caused a not              

inconsiderable  shifting in men's views 
and explanations of paganism4           
,demonology is to such a degree the     
ruling point of view in ,christian      
apologetics that it would be absurd to  
make a collection from these  writings  
of utterances with an atheistic ring4   
,such utterances are to be  found in    
most of them2 they appear spontaneously1
 for instance1 wherever  idolatry is    
attacked4 ,but one cannot attach any    
importance to them when  they appear in 
this connexion1 not even in apologists  
in whose works the  demon theory is     
lacking4 ,no ,christian theologian in   
antiquity advanced1  much less          
sustained1 the view that the pagan gods 
were mere phantoms of  human imagination
 without any corresponding reality4     
,remarkable as this state of things may 
appear to us moderns1 it is really      
quite simple1 nay even a matter of      
course1 when regarded historically4     
,christianity had from its very         
beginning a decidedly dualistic         

character4  ,the contrast between this  
world and the world to come was         
identical with  the contrast between the
 kingdom of the ,devil and the kingdom  
of ,god4 ,as  soon as the new religion  
came into contact with paganism1 the    
latter was  necessarily regarded as     
belonging to the kingdom of the ,devil2 
thus the  conception of the gods as     
demons was a foregone conclusion4 ,in   
the minds  of the later apologists1 who 
became acquainted with ,greek           
philosophy1 this  conception received   
additional confirmation2 did it not     
indeed agree in  the main with ,platonic
 and ,stoic theory8 ,details were added3
 the  ,christians could not deny the    
pagan miracles without throwing a doubt 
on  their own1 for miracles cannot be   
done away with at all except by a denial
  on principle2 neither could they      
explain paganism--that gigantic1        
millennial aberration of humanity--by   
merely human causes1 much less lay  the 
blame on ,god alone4 ,but ultimately all

 this rests on one and the same         
thing--the supernatural and dualistic   
hypothesis4 ,consequently demonology  is
 the kernel of the ,christian conception
 of paganism3 it is not merely a        
natural result of the hypotheses1 it is 
the one and only correct  expression of 
the way in which the new religion       
understood the old4            ,,chapter
 ,,viii      ,in the preceding inquiry  
we took as our starting-point not the   
ancient  conception of atheism but the  
modern view of the nature of the pagan  
gods4  ,it proved that this view was1   
upon the whole1 feebly represented      
during  antiquity1 and that it was      
another view 7demonology7 which was     
transmitted  to later ages from the     
closing years of antiquity4 ,the inquiry
 will  therefore find its natural       
conclusion in a demonstration of the    
time and  manner in which the conception
 handed down from antiquity of the      
nature of  paganism was superseded and  
displaced by the modern view4    ,this  

question is1 however1 more difficult to 
answer than one would perhaps  think4   
,after ancient paganism had ceased to   
exist as a living religion1 it  had lost
 its practical interest1 and            
theoretically the ,middle ,ages were    
occupied with quite other problems than 
the nature of paganism4 ,at the  revival
 of the study of ancient literature1    
during the ,renaissance1 people         
certainly again came into the most      
intimate contact with ancient religion  
itself1 but systematic investigations of
 its nature do not seem to have  been   
taken up in real earnest until after the
 middle of the sixteenth  century4 ,it  
is therefore difficult to ascertain in  
what light paganism was  regarded during
 the thousand years which had then      
passed since its final  extinction4     
,from the seventeenth and eighteenth    
centuries1 on the other  hand1 the      
material is extraordinarily plentiful1  
though but slightly  investigated4      
,previous works in this field seem to be

 entirely wanting2 at  any rate it has  
not been possible for me to find any    
collective treatment  of the subject1   
nor even any contributions worth        
mentioning towards the  solution of the 
numerous individual problems which arise
 when we enter  upon what might be      
called 8the history of the history of   
religion407#a7 ,in  this essay ,i must  
therefore restrict myself to a few      
aphoristic remarks  which may perhaps   
give occasion for this subject1 in      
itself not devoid of  interest1 to      
receive more detailed treatment at some 
future time4    ,milton1 in the         
beginning of ,paradise ,lost1 which     
appeared in #affg1 makes  ,satan        
assemble all his angels for continued   
battle against ,god4 ,among the  demons 
there enumerated1 ancient gods also     
appear2 they are1 then1 plainly         
regarded as devils4 ,now ,milton was not
 only a poet1 but also a sound  scholar 
and an orthodox theologian2 we may      
therefore rest assured that his         

conception of the pagan gods was        
dogmatically correct and in accord with 
the prevailing views of his time4 ,in   
him1 therefore1 we have found a fixed   
point from which we can look forwards   
and backwards2 as late as after the     
middle of the seventeenth century the   
early ,christian view of the nature  of 
paganism evidently persisted in leading 
circles4    ,we seldom find definite    
heathen gods so precisely designated as 
demons as  in ,milton1 but no doubt     
seems possible that the general         
principle was  accepted by contemporary 
and earlier authors4 ,the chief work of 
the  seventeenth century on ancient     
religion is the ,de ,theologia ,gentili 
of  ,g4 ,i4 ,voss2 he operates entirely 
with the traditional view4 ,it may be   
traced back through a succession of     
writings of the seventeenth and         
sixteenth centuries4 ,they are all1 or  
almost all1 agreed that antique         
paganism was the work of the devil1 and 
that idolatry was1 at any rate in  part1

 a worship of demons4 ,from the ,middle 
,ages ,i can adduce a pregnant          
expression of the same view from ,thomas
 ,aquinas2 in his treatment of  idolatry
 and also of false prophecy he          
definitely accepts the demonology  of   
the early ,church4 ,on this point he    
appeals to ,augustine1 and with  perfect
 right2 from this it may presumably be  
assumed that the ,schoolmen  in general 
had the same view1 ,augustine being1 as 
we know1 an authority  for ,catholic    
theologians4    ,in mediaeval poets also
 we occasionally find the same view     
expressed4 ,as  far as ,i have been able
 to ascertain1 ,dante has no ancient    
gods among his  devils1 and the degree  
to which he had dissociated himself from
 ancient  paganism may be gauged by the 
fact that in one of the most impassioned
  passages of his poem he addresses the 
,christian ,god as 8,great ,jupiter40   
,but he allows figures of ancient       
mythology such as ,charon1 ,minos and   
,geryon to appear in his infernal world1

 and when he designates the pagan  gods 
as 8false and untruthful10 demonology is
 evidently at the back of  his mind4    
,the mediaeval epic poets who dealt with
 antique subjects took  over the pagan  
gods more or less4 ,sometimes1 as in the
 ,romance of ,troy1  the ,christian     
veneer is so thick that the pagan       
groundwork is but slightly  apparent2 in
 other poems1 such as the adaptation of 
the ,aeneid1 it is  more in evidence4   
,in so far as the gods are not          
eliminated they seem as a  rule to be   
taken over quite navely from the source 
without further  comment2 but           
occasionally the poet expresses his view
 of their nature4  ,thus the ,french    
adapter of ,statius's ,thebas1 in whose 
work the  ,christian element is         
otherwise not prominent1 cautiously     
remarks that  ,jupiter and ,tisiphone1  
by whom his heroes swear1 are in reality
 only  devils4 ,generally speaking1 the 
gods of antiquity are often designated  
as  devils in mediaeval poetry1 but at  

times the opinion that they are         
departed human beings crops up4 ,thus1  
as we might expect1 the theories of     
ancient times still survive and retain  
their sway4    ,there is a domain in    
which we might expect to find distinct  
traces of the  survival of the ancient  
gods in the mediaeval popular           
consciousness1  namely1 that of magic4  
,there does not1 however1 seem to be    
much in it2 the  forms of mediaeval     
magic often go back to antiquity1 but   
the beings it  operates with are        
pre-eminently the ,christian devils1 if 
we may venture to  employ the term1 and 
the evil spirits of popular belief4     
,there is1  however1 extant a collection
 of magic formulae against various      
ailments in  which pagan gods appear3   
,hercules and ,juno ,regina1 ,juno and  
,jupiter1 the  nymphs1 ,luna ,jovis     
filia1 ,sol invictus4 ,the collection is
 transmitted in a  manuscript of the    
ninth century2 the formulae mostly      
convey the impression  of dating from a 

much earlier period1 but the fact that  
they were copied  in the ,middle ,ages  
suggests that they were intended for    
practical  application4    ,a problem1  
the closer investigation of which would 
no doubt yield an  interesting result1  
but which does not seem to have been    
much noticed1 is  the ,european         
conception of the heathen religions with
 which the explorers  came into contact 
on their great voyages of discovery4    
,primitive  heathenism as a living      
reality had lain rather beyond the      
horizon of the  ,middle ,ages2 when it  
was met with in ,america1 it evidently  
awakened  considerable interest4 ,there 
is a description of the religion of     
,peru and  ,mexico1 written by the      
,jesuit ,acosta at the close of the     
sixteenth  century1 which gives us a    
clear insight into the orthodox view of 
heathenism during the ,renaissance4     
,according to ,acosta1 heathenism is as 
a  whole the work of the ,devil2 he has 
seduced men to idolatry in order that   

he himself may be worshipped instead of 
the true ,god4 ,all worship of idols  is
 in reality worship of ,satan4 ,the     
individual idols1 however1 are not      
identified with individual devils2      
,acosta distinguishes between the       
worship of nature 7heavenly bodies1     
natural objects of the earth1 right     
down to trees1 etc471 the worship of the
 dead1 and the worship of images1  but  
says nothing about the worship of       
demons4 ,at one point only is there a   
direct intervention of the evil powers1 
namely1 in magic1 and particularly  in  
oracles2 and here then we find1 as an   
exception1 mention of individual  devils
 which must be imagined to inhabit the  
idols4 ,the same conception is  found   
again as late as the seventeenth century
 in a story told by ,g4 ,i4  ,voss of   
the time of the ,dutch wars in ,brazil4 
,arcissewski1 a ,polish  officer serving
 in the ,dutch army1 had witnessed the  
conjuring of a devil  among the ,tapuis4
 ,the demon made his appearance all     

right1 but proved to  be a native well  
known to ,arcissewski4 ,as he1 however1 
made some true  prognostications1 ,voss1
 as it seems at variance with           
,arcissewski1 thinks  that there must   
have been some supernatural powers      
concerned in the game4    ,an           
exceptional place is occupied by the    
attempt made during the  ,renaissance at
 an actual revival of ancient paganism  
and the worship of  its gods4 ,it       
proceeded from ,plethon1 the head of the
 ,florentine ,academy1  and seems to    
have spread thence to the ,roman        
,academy4 ,the whole movement  must be  
viewed more particularly as an outcome  
of the enthusiasm during  the           
,renaissance for the culture of         
antiquity and more especially for its   
philosophy rather than its religion2 the
 gods worshipped were given a new  and  
strongly philosophical interpretation4  
,but it is not improbable that  the     
traditional theory of the reality of the
 ancient deities may have had  something

 to do with it4    ,simultaneously with 
demonology1 and while it was still      
acknowledged in  principle1 there       
flourished more naturalistic conceptions
 of paganism1  both in the ,middle ,ages
 and during the ,renaissance4 ,as       
remarked above1 the  way was already    
prepared for them during antiquity4 ,in 
,thomas ,aquinas we  find a lucid       
explanation of the origin of idolatry   
with a reference to the  ancient theory4
 ,here we meet with the familiar        
elements3 the worship of  the stars and 
the cult of the dead4 ,according to     
,thomas1 man has a natural  disposition 
towards this error1 but it only comes   
into play when he is led  astray by     
demons4 ,in the sixteenth and           
seventeenth centuries the ,devil is     
mentioned oftener than the demons       
7compare ,acosta's view of the          
heathenism  of the ,american ,indians72 
evidently the conception of the nature  
of evil  had undergone a change in the  
direction of monotheism4 ,in this way   

more  scope was given for the adoption  
of naturalistic views in regard to the  
individual forms in which paganism      
manifested itself than when dealing     
with a multiplicity of demons that      
answered individually to the pagan      
gods1 and we meet with systematic       
attempts to explain the origin of       
idolatry by natural means1 though still 
with the ,devil in the background4      
,one of these systems1 which played a   
prominent part1 especially in the       
seventeenth century1 is the so-called   
,hebraism1 i4e4 the attempt to  derive  
the whole of paganism from ,judaism4    
,this fashion1 for which the way  had   
already been prepared by ,jewish and    
,christian apologists1 reaches its      
climax1 ,i think1 with ,abbot ,huet1 who
 derived all the gods of antiquity  7and
 not only ,greek and ,roman antiquity7  
from ,moses1 and all the goddesses  from
 his sister2 according to him the       
knowledge of these two persons had      
spread from the ,jews to other peoples1 

who had woven about them a web of       
8fables40 ,alongside of ,hebraism1 which
 is ,euhemeristic in principle1         
allegorical methods of interpretation   
were put forward4 ,the chief            
representative of this tendency in      
earlier times is ,natalis ,comes 7,nol  
du  ,comte71 the author of the first    
handbook of mythology2 he directly set  
himself the task of allegorising all the
 myths4 ,the allegories are mostly      
moral1 but also physical2 ,euhemeristic 
interpretations are not rejected        
either1 and in several places the author
 gives all three explanations side  by  
side without choosing between them4  ,in
 the footsteps of du ,comte  follows    
,bacon1 in his ,de ,sapientia ,veterum2 
to the moral and physical  allegories he
 adds political ones1 as when ,jove's   
struggle with ,typhoeus  is made to     
symbolise a wise ruler's treatment of a 
rebellion4 ,while these  attempts at    
interpretation1 both the ,euhemeristic  
and the allegorical1 are  in principle a

 direct continuation of those of        
antiquity1 another method  points       
plainly in the direction of the         
fantastic notions of the ,middle  ,ages4
 ,as early as the sixteenth century the 
idea arose of connecting the  theology  
of the ancients with alchemy4 ,the idea 
seemed obvious because the  metals were 
designated by the names of the planets1 
which are also the  names of the gods4  
,it found acceptance1 and in the        
seventeenth century we  have a series of
 writings in which ancient mythology is 
explained as the  symbolical language of
 chemical processes4    ,within the     
limits of the supernatural explanation  
the interest centred  more and more in a
 single point3 the oracles4 ,as far back
 as in ,aquinas1  8false prophecy0 is a 
main section in the chapter on demons1  
whose power  to foretell the future he  
expressly acknowledges4 ,in the         
sixteenth and  seventeenth centuries1   
when the interest in the prediction of  
the future  was so strong1 the ancient  

accounts of true prognostications were  
the real  prop of demonology4 ,hence    
demons generally play a great part in   
these  explanations1 even though in     
other cases the ,devil fills the bill4  
,thus  ,acosta in his account of the    
,american religions2 thus ,voss and     
numerous  other writers of the          
seventeenth century2 and it is hardly a 
mere  accident1 one would think1 when   
,milton specially mentions ,dodona and  
,delphi as the seats of worship of the  
,greek demons4 ,among a few of the      
humanists we certainly find an attempt  
to apply the natural explanation  even  
here2 thus ,caelius ,rhodiginus asserted
 that a great part 7but not  all67 of   
the oracular system might be explained  
as priestly imposture1 and  his slightly
 younger contemporary ,caelius          
,calcagninus1 in his dialogue on        
oracles1 seems to go still further and  
to deny the power of predicting the     
future to any other being than the true 
,god4 ,an exceptional position is       

occupied by ,pomponazzi1 who in his     
little pamphlet ,de ,incantationibus    
seems to wish to derive all magic1      
including the oracles1 from natural     
causes1 though ultimately he formally   
acknowledges demonology as the          
authoritative explanation4 ,but these   
advances did not find acceptance2 we    
find even ,voss combating the view on   
which they were founded4 ,it is         
characteristic of the power of          
demonology in this domain that in       
support  of his point of view he can    
quote no less a writer than             
,machiavelli4    ,the author who opened 
battle in real earnest against          
demonology was a  ,dutch scholar1 one   
van ,dale1 otherwise little known4 ,in a
 couple of  treatises written about the 
close of the seventeenth century he     
tried to  show that the whole of        
idolatry 7as well as the oracles in     
particular7 was  not dependent on the   
intervention of supernatural beings1 but
 was solely  due to imposture on the    

part of the priests4 ,van ,dale was a   
,protestant1 so  he easily got over the 
unanimous recognition of demonology by  
the ,fathers  of the ,church4 ,the      
accounts of demons in the ,old and ,new 
,testaments proved  more difficult to   
deal with2 it is interesting to see how 
he wriggles  about to get round         
them--and it illustrates most           
instructively the degree  to which      
demonology affords the only reasonable  
and natural explanation of  paganism on 
the basis of early ,christian belief4   
,van ,dale's books are learned works    
written in ,latin1 full of quotations in
  ,latin1 ,greek1 and ,hebrew1 and      
moreover confused and obscure in        
exposition1  as is often the case with  
,dutch writings of that time4 ,but a    
clever  ,frenchman1 ,fontenelle1 took   
upon himself the task of rendering his  
work on  the oracles into ,french in a  
popular and attractive form4 ,his book  
called  forth an answering pamphlet from
 a ,jesuit advocating the traditional   

view2  the little controversy seems to  
have made some stir in ,france about the
  year #agjj4 ,at any rate ,banier1 who1
 in the beginning of the eighteenth     
century1 treated ancient mythology from 
a ,euhemeristic point of view1 gave     
some consideration to it4 ,his own      
conclusion is--in #agch6--that          
demonology  cannot be dispensed with for
 the explanation of the oracles4 ,he    
gives his  grounds for this in a very   
sensible criticism of van ,dale's       
priestly fraud  theory1 the absurdity of
 which he exposes with sound arguments4 
,banier is the last author to whom ,i   
can point for the demon-theory applied  
as an explanation of a phenomenon in    
ancient religion2 ,i have not found it  
in any other mythologist of the         
eighteenth century1 and even in ,banier1
  with the exception of this single     
point1 everything is explained quite    
naturally according to the best         
,euhemeristic models4 ,but in the       
positive  understanding of the nature of

 ancient paganism no very considerable  
advance had actually been made withal4  
,a characteristic example of this is    
the treatment of ancient religion by    
such an eminent intellect as            
,giambattista ,vico4 ,in his ,scienza   
,nuova1 which appeared in #agbe1 as the 
foundation of his exposition of the     
religion of antiquity he gives a        
characterisation of the mode of thought 
of primitive mankind1 which is so       
pertinent and psychologically so correct
 that it anticipates the results  of    
more than a hundred years of research4  
,of any supernatural explanation  no    
trace is found in him1 though otherwise 
he speaks as a good ,catholic4  ,but    
when he proceeds to explain the nature  
of the ancient ideas of the  gods in    
detail1 all that it comes to is a series
 of allegories1 among  which the        
politico-social play a main part4 ,vico 
sees the earliest history  of mankind in
 the light of the traditions about      
,rome2 the ,graeco-,roman  gods1 then1  

and the myths about them1 become to him 
largely an expression  of struggles     
between the 8patricians and plebeians0  
of remote antiquity4    ,most of the    
mythology of the eighteenth century is  
like this4 ,the  ,euhemeristic school   
gradually gave up the hypothesis of the 
,jewish  religion as the origin of      
paganism2 ,banier1 the chief            
representative of  the school1 still    
argues at length against ,hebraism4 ,in 
its place1  ,phoenicians1 ,assyrians1   
,persians and1 above all1 ,egyptians1   
are brought  into play1 or1 as in the   
case of the ,englishman ,bryant1 the    
whole of  mythology is explained as     
reminiscences of the exploits of an     
aboriginal  race1 the ,cuthites1 which  
never existed4 ,the allegorist school   
gradually  rallied round the idea of the
 cult of the heavenly bodies as the     
origin of  the pagan religions2 as late 
as the days of the ,french ,revolution1 
,dupuis1  in a voluminous work1 tried to
 trace the whole of ancient religion and

  mythology back to astronomy4 ,on the  
whole the movement diverged more and    
more from ,euhemerism towards the       
conception of ,greek religion as a kind 
of  cult of nature2 when the sudden     
awakening to a more correct             
understanding  came towards the close of
 the century1 ,euhemerism was evidently 
already an  antiquated view4 ,thus1     
since the ,renaissance1 by a slow and   
very devious  process of development1 a 
gradual approach had been made to a more
 correct  view of the nature of ancient 
religion4 ,after the ,devil had more or 
less  taken the place of the demons1 the
 rest of demonology1 the moral allegory1
  ,hebraism and ,euhemerism were        
eliminated by successive stages1 and    
nature-symbolism was reached as the     
final stage4    ,we know now that even  
this is not the correct explanation of  
the nature  and origin of the conception
 of the gods prevailing among the       
ancients4  ,recent investigations have  
shown that the ,greek gods1 in spite of 

their  apparent simplicity and clarity1 
are highly complex organisms1 the       
products of a long process of           
development to which the most diverse   
factors have contributed4 ,in order to  
arrive at this result another  century  
of work1 with many attempts in the wrong
 direction1 has been  required4 ,the    
idea that the ,greek gods were          
nature-gods really dominated  research  
through almost the whole of the         
nineteenth century4 ,if it has now  been
 dethroned or reduced to the measure of 
truth it contains--for  undoubtedly a   
natural object enters as a component    
into the essence of  some ,greek        
deities--this is in the first place due 
to the intensive study  of the religions
 of primitive peoples1 living or        
obsolete2 and the results  of this study
 were only applied to ,greek religion   
during the last decade  of the century4 
,but the starting-point of modern       
history of religion lies  much farther  
back3 its beginnings date from the great

 revival of  historical research which  
was inaugurated by ,rousseau and        
continued by  ,herder4 ,henceforward the
 unhistorical methods of the age of     
enlightenment  were abolished1 and      
attention directed in real earnest      
towards the earlier  stages of human    
civilisation4    ,this1 however1 carries
 us a step beyond the point of time at  
which this  sketch should1 strictly     
speaking1 stop4 ,for by the beginning of
 the  eighteenth century--but not       
before--the negative fact which is all  
important  in this connexion had won    
recognition3 namely1 that there existed 
no  supernatural beings latent behind   
the ,greek ideas of their gods1 and     
corresponding at any rate in some degree
 to them2 but that these ideas  must be 
regarded and explained as entirely      
inventions of the human  imagination4   
,,chapter ,,ix      ,at the very        
beginning of this inquiry it was        
emphasised that its theme  would in the 
main be the religious views of the upper

 class1 and within  this sphere again   
especially the views of those circles   
which were in  close touch with         
philosophy4 ,the reason for this is of  
course in the first  place that only in 
such circles can we expect to find      
expressed a point of  view approaching  
to positive atheism4 ,but we may        
assuredly go further than  this4 ,we    
shall hardly be too bold in asserting   
that the free-thinking of               
philosophically educated men in reality 
had very slight influence on the  great 
mass of the population4 ,philosophy did 
not penetrate so far1 and  whatever     
degree of perception we estimate the    
masses to have had of the  fact that the
 upper layer of society regarded the    
popular faith with  critical eyes--and  
in the long run it could not be         
concealed--we cannot fail  to recognise 
that religious development among the    
ancients did not tend  towards atheism4 
,important changes took place in ancient
 religion during  the ,hellenistic ,age 

and the time of the ,roman ,empire1 but 
their causes  were of a social and      
national kind1 and1 if we confine       
ourselves to  paganism1 they only led to
 certain gods going out of fashion and  
others  coming in4 ,the utmost we can   
assert is that a certain weakening of   
the  religious life may have been widely
 prevalent during the time of           
transition between the two ages--the    
transition falls at somewhat different  
dates in the eastern and western part of
 the ,empire--but that weakening was    
soon overcome4    ,now the peculiar     
result of this investigation of the     
state of religion  among the upper      
classes seems to me to be this3 the     
curve of intensity of  religious feeling
 which conjecture leads us to draw      
through the spiritual  life of the      
ancients as a whole1 that same curve1   
but more distinct and  sharply          
accentuated1 is found again in the      
relations of the upper classes  to the  
popular faith4 ,towards the close of the

 fifth century it looks as  if the      
cultured classes that formed the centre 
of ,greek intellectual life  were       
outgrowing the ancient religion4 ,the   
reaction which set in with  ,socrates   
and ,plato certainly checked this       
movement1 but it did not stop  it4      
,cynics1 ,peripatetics1 ,stoics1        
,epicureans and ,sceptics1 in spite of  
their widely differing points of view1  
were all entirely unable to share  the  
religious ideas of their countrymen in  
the form in which they were  cast in the
 national religion4 ,however many       
allowances they made1 their  attitude   
towards the popular faith was critical1 
and on important points  they denied it4
 ,it is against the background thus     
resulting from ancient  philosophy's    
treatment of ancient religion that we   
must view such  phenomena as ,polybius1 
,cicero1 and ,pliny the ,elder1 if we   
wish to  understand their full          
significance4    ,on the other hand1 it 
is certain that this was not the view   

that conquered  in the end among the    
educated classes in antiquity4 ,the     
lower we come down  in the ,empire the  
more evident does the positive relation 
of the upper  class to the gods of the  
popular faith become4 ,some few examples
 have  already been mentioned in the    
preceding pages4 ,in philosophy the     
whole  movement finds its typical       
expression in demonology1 which during  
the  later ,empire reigned undisputed in
 the one or two schools that still      
retained any vitality4 ,it is           
significant that its source was the     
earlier  ,platonism1 with its very      
conservative attitude towards popular   
belief1 and  that it was taken over by  
the later ,stoic school1 which          
inaugurated the  general religious      
reaction in philosophy4 ,and it is no   
less significant  that demonology was   
swallowed whole by the monotheistic     
religion which  superseded ancient      
paganism1 and for more than a thousand  
years was the  recognised explanation of

 the nature thereof4    ,in accordance  
with the line of development here       
sketched1 the inquiry has  of necessity 
been focused on two main points3        
,sophistic and the  ,hellenistic ,age4  
,now it is of peculiar interest to note 
what small traces  of pure atheism can  
after all be found here1 in spite of all
 criticism of  the popular faith4 ,we   
have surmised its presence among a few  
prominent  personalities in             
fifth-century ,athens2 we have found    
evidence of its  extension in the same  
place in the period immediately         
following2 and in  the time of          
transition between the fourth and third 
centuries we have  thought it likely    
that it existed among a very few        
philosophers1 of whom  none are in the  
first rank4 ,everywhere else we find    
adjustments1 in part  very serious and  
real concessions1 to popular belief4    
,not to mention the  attitude towards   
worship1 which was only hostile in one  
sect of slight  importance3 the         

assumption of the divinity of the       
heavenly bodies which  was common to the
 ,academics1 ,peripatetics1 and ,stoics 
is really in  principle an              
acknowledgement of the popular faith1   
whose conception of the  gods was       
actually borrowed and applied1 not to   
some philosophical  abstraction1 but to 
individual and concrete natural objects4
 ,the  anthropomorphic gods of the      
,epicureans point in the same direction4
 ,in  spite of their profound difference
 from the beings that were worshipped   
and believed in by the ordinary ,greek1 
they are in complete harmony with  the  
opinion on which all polytheism is      
based3 that there are individual  beings
 of a higher order than man4 ,and though
 the ,stoics in theory  confined their  
acknowledgment of this doctrine to the  
heavenly bodies1 in  practice--even if  
we disregard demonology--they           
consistently brought it to  bear upon   
the anthropomorphic gods1 in direct     
continuation of the ,socratic  reaction 

against the atheistic tendencies of     
,sophistic4    ,if now we ask ourselves 
what may be the cause of this peculiar  
dualism in  the relationship of ancient 
thought to religion1 though admitting   
the  highly complex nature of the       
problem1 we can scarcely avoid          
recognising a  certain principle4       
,ancient thought outgrew the ancient    
popular faith2 that  is beyond doubt4   
,hence its critical attitude4 ,but it   
never outgrew that  supernaturalist view
 which was the foundation of the popular
 faith4 ,hence  its concessions to the  
popular faith1 even when it was most    
critical1 and  its final surrender      
thereunto4 ,and that it never outgrew   
the foundation of  the popular faith is 
connected with its whole conception of  
nature and  especially with its         
conception of the universe4 ,we cannot  
indeed deny that  the ancients had a    
certain feeling that nature was         
regulated by laws1 but  they only made  
imperfect attempts at a mechanical      

theory of nature in  which this         
regulation of the world by law was      
carried through in  principle1 and with 
one brilliant exception they adhered    
implicitly to the  geocentric conception
 of the universe4 ,we may1 ,i think1    
venture to assert  with good reason that
 on such assumptions the philosophers of
 antiquity  could not advance further   
than they did4 ,in other words1 on the  
given  hypotheses the supernaturalist   
view was the correct one1 the one that  
was  most probable1 and therefore that  
on which people finally agreed4 ,a few  
chosen spirits may at any time by       
intuition1 without any strictly         
scientific foundation1 emancipate       
themselves entirely from religious      
errors2 this also happened among the    
ancients1 and on the first occasion  was
 not unconnected with an enormous       
advance in the conception of nature4    
,but it is certain that the views of an 
entire age are always decisively        
conditioned by its knowledge and        

interpretation of the universe          
surrounding it1 and cannot in principle 
be emancipated therefrom4    ,seen from 
this point of view1 our brief sketch of 
the attitude of  posterity towards the  
religion of the pagan world will also   
not be without  interest4 ,if1 after    
isolated advances during the mighty     
awakening of the  ,renaissance1 it is   
not until the transition from the       
seventeenth to the  eighteenth century  
that we find the modern atheistic       
conception of the  nature of the gods of
 the ancients established in principle  
and  consistently applied1 we can       
scarcely avoid connecting this fact with
 the  advance of natural science in the 
seventeenth century1 and not least with 
the victory of the heliocentric system4 
,after the close of antiquity the  pagan
 gods had receded to a distance1        
practically speaking1 because they  were
 not worshipped any more4 ,no one       
troubled himself about them4 ,but in    
theory one had got no further1 i4e4 no  

advance had been made on the  ancients1 
and no advance could be made as long as 
supernaturalism was  adhered to in      
connexion with the ancient view of the  
universe4 ,through  monotheism the      
notions of the divinity of the sun1 moon
 and planets had  certainly been got rid
 of1 but not so the notion of the       
world--i4e4 the  globe enclosed within  
the firmament--as filled with personal  
beings of a  higher order than man2 and 
even the duty of turning the spheres to 
which  the heavenly bodies were believed
 to be fastened was--quite              
consistently--assigned to some of these 
beings4 ,as long as such notions  were  
in operation1 not only were there no    
grounds for denying the reality  of the 
pagan gods1 but there was every reason  
to assume it4 ,so far we may  rightly   
say that it was ,copernicus1 ,galileo1  
,giordano ,bruno1 ,kepler and  ,newton  
that did away with the traditional      
conception of ancient paganism4         
,natural science1 however1 furnishes    

only the negative result that the gods  
of polytheism are not what they are said
 to be3 real beings of a higher  order  
than man4 ,to reveal what they are1     
other knowledge is required4 ,this  was 
not attained until long after the       
revival of natural science in the       
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries4    
,the vacillation in the eighteenth      
century between various theories of the 
explanation of the nature of  ancient   
polytheism--theories which were all     
false1 though not equally  false--is in 
this respect significant enough2        
likewise the gradual progress  which    
characterises research in the nineteenth
 century1 and which may be  indicated by
 such names as ,heyne1 ,buttmann1 ,k4   
,o4 ,mller1 ,lobeck1  ,mannhardt1       
,rohde1 and ,usener1 to mention only    
some of the most important  and omitting
 those still alive4 ,viewed in this     
light the development  sketched here    
within a narrowly restricted field is   
typical of the course  of ,european     

intellectual history from antiquity down
 to our day4            ,,notes      ,of
 ,atheism in ,antiquity as defined here 
no treatment is known to me2 but  there 
exist an older and a newer book that    
deal with the question within a  wider  
compass4 ,the first of these is         
,krische1 ,die theologischen ,lehren    
der griechischen ,denker 7,gttingen1    
#ahdj72 it is chiefly concerned with    
the philosophical conceptions of deity1 
but it touches also on the  relations of
 philosophers to popular religion4 ,the 
second is ,decharme1 ,la  critique des  
traditions religieuses chez les ,grecs  
7,paris1 #aijd72 it is  not fertile in  
new points of view1 but it has suggested
 several details  which ,i might else   
have overlooked4 ,such books as ,caird1 
,the ,evolution of  ,theology in the    
,greek ,philosophers 7,glasgow1 #aijd71 
or ,moon1 ,religious  ,thought of the   
,greeks 7,cambridge1 ,mass41 #aiai71    
barely touch on the  relation to popular
 belief2 of ,louis1 ,les doctrines      

religieuses des  philosophes grecs1 ,i  
have not been able to make use4 ,i      
regret that ,poul  ,helms1 ,the         
,conception of ,god in ,greek           
,philosophy 7,danish1 in ,studier  for  
,sprog-og ,oldtidsforskning1 ,no4 #aae71
 was not published until my essay  was  
already in the press4 ,general works on 
,atheism are indicated in  ,aveling's   
article1 8,atheism10 in the ,catholic   
,encyclopdia1 vol4 ii41  but none of    
them seem to be found at ,copenhagen4   
,in the ,dictionary of  ,religion and   
,ethics1 ii41 there is a detailed       
article on ,atheism in its  relation to 
different religions2 the section        
treating of ,antiquity is  written by   
,pearson1 but is meagre4 ,works like    
,zeller1 ,philosophie der  ,griechen1   
and ,gomperz1 ,griechische ,denker1     
contain accounts of the  attitude of    
philosophers 7,gomperz also includes    
others7 towards popular  belief2 of     
these books ,i have of course made use  
throughout1 but they are  not referred  

to in the following notes except on     
special occasion4  ,scattered remarks   
and small monographs on details are     
naturally to be  found in plenty4 ,where
 ,i have met with such and found        
something useful in  them1 or where ,i  
express dissent from them1 ,i have      
noticed it2 but ,i have  not aimed at   
exhausting the literature on my subject4
 ,on the other hand ,i  have tried to   
make myself completely acquainted with  
the first-hand  material1 wherever it   
gave a direct support for assuming      
,atheism1 and to  take my own view of   
it4 ,in many cases1 however1 the        
argumentation has had  to be indirect3  
it has been necessary to draw inferences
 from what an  author does not say in a 
certain connexion when he might be      
expected to  say it1 or what he         
generally and throughout avoids         
mentioning1 or from his  general manner 
and peculiarities in his way of speaking
 of the gods4 ,in  such cases ,i have   
often had to be content with my previous

 knowledge and  my general impression of
 the facts2 but then ,i have as a rule  
made use of  the important modern       
literature on the subject4 ,in working  
out the sketch  of the ideas after the  
end of ,antiquity1 ,i have been almost  
without any  guidance in modern         
literature4 ,i have accordingly had to  
try1 on the basis  of a superficial     
acquaintance with some of the chief     
types1 to form for  myself1 as best ,i  
might1 some idea of the course of the   
evolution2 but ,i  have not been able to
 go systematically through the immense  
material1  however fruitful such a      
research appeared to be4 ,in the        
meantime1 between  the publication of my
 ,danish essay and this translation1    
there has  appeared a work by ,mr4      
,gruppe1 ,geschichte der klassischen    
,mythologie und  ,religionsgeschichte   
7,leipzig1 #aiba74 ,my task in writing  
my last chapters  would have been much  
easier if ,i could have made use of ,mr4
 ,gruppe's  learned and comprehensive   

treatment of the subject2 but it would  
not have  been superfluous1 for ,mr4    
,gruppe deals principally with the      
history of  classical mythology1 not    
with the history of the belief in the   
gods of  antiquity4 ,so ,i have ventured
 to let my sketch stand as it is1 only  
reducing some of the notes 7which ,i had
 on purpose made rather full1 to  aid   
others who might pursue the subject7 by 
referring to ,mr4 ,gruppe  instead of to
 the sources themselves4    ,for kindly 
helping me to find my bearings in       
out-of-the-way parts of my  subject1 ,i 
am indebted to my colleagues ,f4 ,buhl1 
,i4,l4 ,heiberg1 ,i4,c4  ,jacobsen and  
,kr4 ,nyrop1 as well as to ,prof4       
,martin ,p4 ,nilsson in ,lund4    ,p4   
#a4 ,definition of ,atheism3 see the    
article in the ,catholic ,encycl4  vol4 
ii4    ,p4 #e4 ,atheism3 see ,murray1   
,new ,engl4 ,dict41 under ,atheism and  
-ism4 ,the  word seems to have come up  
in the ,renaissance4    ,p4 #f4         
,criminal ,law at ,athens3 see ,lipsius1

 ,das attische ,recht und               
,rechtsverfahren1 i4 p4 #ceh4--,the     
definition in ,aristotle1 de virt4 et   
vit4 #g1 p4 #abea;a1 has1 ,i think1 no  
legal foundation4    ,p4 #i4 ,on the    
legal foundation for the trials of      
,christians1 see ,mommsen1  ,der        
,religionsfreuel nach rmischem ,recht   
7,ges4 ,schr4 iii4 p4  #chi74--,mommsen 
goes too far1 ,i think1 in supposing a  
legal foundation for  the trials of     
,christians2 above all1 ,i do not       
believe that the defection  from the    
,roman religion was ever considered as  
maiestas in the technical  sense of the 
word1 the more so as it is certain that1
 after the earliest  period1 no         
difference was made in the treatment of 
citizens and aliens4    ,p4 #ac4 ,lists 
of atheists3 ,cicero1 de nat4 deor4 #a4 
#a1 #b 7comp4 #a4 #bc1  #bf74 ,sext4    
,emp4 hypotyp4 #c4 #bac2 adv4 math4 #i4 
#ej4 ,aelian1 v4h4 #b4  #ca2 de nat4 an4
 #f4 #dj4--,the predicate atheos is once
 applied to  ,anaxagoras by a ,christian

 author 7,irenaeus3 see ,diels1         
,vorsokr4 #df1 ,a  #aac2 compare also   
,marcellinus1 vit4 ,thuc41 see below1   
note on p4 #bi74 ,of  such isolated     
cases ,i have taken no account4    ,p4  
#af4 ,on the dualism in the ,greek      
conception of the nature of gods see    
,ngelsbach1 ,hom4 ,theol4 p4            
#aa4--,pindar3 ,ol4 #a4 #bh1 #i4 #ce2   
,pyth4 #c4  #bg4    ,p4 #ag4            
,xenophanes3 ,einhorn1 ,zeit- und       
,streitfragen der modernen              
,xenophanesforschung 7,arch4 f4 ,gesch4 
d4 ,philos4 xxxi474    ,p4 #ah4         
,xenophanes's age3 ,diels1 ,vorsokr4    
#aa1 ,b #h4--;,his criticism of ,homer  
and ,hesiod3 ibid4 #aa1 #ab4--,titans   
and ,giants3 ibid4 #a4 #bb4--;,criticism
 of  ,anthropomorphism3 ibid4           
#ad-af4--;,divination3 ,cic4 de div4 #a4
 #c1 #e4    ,p4 #ai4 ,on ,xenophanes's  
conception of ,god1 comp4 ,vorsokr4 #aa1
 ,b #bc-bf2 on  the identification of   
,god with the universe3 ,vorsokr4 #aa1  
,a #cj1 #ca1  #cc-cf4--;,cicero3 de div4

 #a4 #c1 #e4    ,p4 #ba4 ,for           
,xenophanes's theology1 comp4           
,freudenthal1 ,arch4 f4 ,gesch4 d4      
,philos4 i4 p4 #cbb1 and ,zeller's      
criticism1 ibid4 p4 #ebd4 ,agreeing with
  ,freudenthal3 ,decharme1 p4 #df2      
,campbell1 ,religion in ,greek          
,literature1 p4  #bic4    ,p4 #ba4      
,parmenides does not even appear to have
 designated his 8,being0 as  ,god       
7,zeller1 i4 p4 #efc74    ,p4 #bc4 ,in  
the eighteenth century people discussed 
diffusely the question  whether ,thales 
was an atheist 7of course in the sense  
in which the word  was taken at that    
time72 comp4 ,tennemann1 ,gesch4 d4     
,philos4 i4 pp4 #fb  and #dbb4          
,tennemann remarks quite truly that the 
question is put wrongly4    ,p4 #bd4    
,thales3 ,diels1 ,vorsokr4 #a1 ,a       
#bb-bc4--;,attitude of ,democritus      
towards popular belief3 ,vorsokr4 #ee1  
,a #gd-gi2 comp4 #aaf1 #aag2 ,b #aff1   
and  also ,b #cj4 ,diels1 ,ueber den    
,dmonenglauben des ,d4 7,arch4 f4       

,gesch4 d4  ,philos4 #ahid1 p4 #aed74   
,p4 #be4 ,trial of ,anaxagoras3         
,vorsokr4 #df1 ,a #a1 #ag1 #ah1 #ai4    
,p4 #bf4 ,ram's head3 ,vorsokr4 #df1 ,a 
#af4    ,p4 #bg4 ,geffcken 7in ,hermes1 
#db1 p4 #abg7 has tried to make out     
something  about a criticism of popular 
belief by ,anaxagoras from some passages
 in  ,aristophanes 7,nub4 #cih7 and     
,lucian 7,tim4 #aj1 etc471 but ,i do not
 think  he has succeeded4--,pericles a  
free-thinker3 ,plut4 ,pericl4 #f and    
#ch2 comp4  ,decharme1 p4               
#afj4--,personality of ,anaxagoras3     
,vorsokr4 #df1 ,a #cj  7,aristotle1     
,eud4 ,ethics1 ,a #d1 p4 #abae;b1 #f74  
,p4 #bh4 ,herodotus3 #h1                
#gg4--,sophocles3 ,oed4 rex4 #dih1      
#hfc4--;,diopeithes3  ,plut4 ,pericl4   
#cb 7,vorsokr4 #df1 ,a                  
#ag74--,thucydides3 ,classen in the     
preface to his #crd ed41 p4 lvii4    ,p4
 #bi4 ,thucydides1 a disciple of        
,anaxagoras3 ,marcellinus1 vit4 ,thuc4  
#bb4--;,generally ,thucydides is thought

 to have been more conservative in his  
religious opinions than ,i consider     
probable2 see ,classen1 loc4 cit42      
,decharme1 p4 #hc2 ,gertz in his preface
 to the ,danish translation of          
,thucydides1 p4 xxvii4--,hippo3         
,vorsokr4 #bf1 ,a #d1 #f1 #h1 #i2 ,b #b1
 #c4    ,p4 #cj4 ,aristotle3 ,vorsokr4  
#bf1 ,a #g4--;,diogenes an atheist3     
,aelian1 v4h4  #b1 #ca4--,the air his   
god3 ,vorsokr4 #ea1 ,a #h 7he thought   
that ,homer  identified ,zeus with the  
air1 and approved of this as  1    72 ,b
 #e1 #g1 #h4--;,allusions to his        
doctrines by ,aristophanes3  ,nub4 #bbe1
 #hbh 7,vorsokr4 #ea1 ,c #a1 #b74    ,p4
 #ca4 ,a chief representative of the    
navely critical view of natural         
phenomena is for us ,herodotus4 ,the    
locus classicus is vii4 #abi2 comp4     
,gomperz1 ,griech4 ,denker1 i4 p4 #bjh2 
,heiberg1 ,festskrift til ,ussing       
7,copenhagen1 #aijj71 p4 #ia2 ,decharme1
 p4 #fi4--,principal passages about     
,diagoras3 ,sext4 ,emp4 adv4 math4 #i1  

#ec2 ,suidas1 art4 ,diagoras ,,ii42     
schol4 ,aristoph4 ,nub4 #hcj 7the       
legend72 ,suidas1 art4 ,diagoras ,i42   
,aristoph4 ,av4 #ajga with schol42      
schol4 ,aristoph4 ,ran4 #cbj2 ,lysias   
vi4 #ag2 ,diod4 xiii4 #af 7the decree72 
,philodem4 de piet4 p4 #hi ,gomp4       
7comments of ,aristoxenus72 ,aelian1    
v4h4 ii4 #bb 7legislation at            
,mantinea74--,wilamowitz 7,textgesch4 d4
 ,lyr4 p4 #hj7 has tried to save the    
tradition by supposing that the acme of 
,diagoras has been put too early4       
,comp4 also his remarks1 ,griech4       
,verskunst4 p4 #dbf1 where he has taken 
up  the question again with reference to
 my treatment of it4 ,as he has now     
conceded the possibility of referring   
the legislation to the earlier date1    
the difference between us is really very
 slight1 and it is of course  possible1 
perhaps even probable1 that the acme of 
the poet has been                       
antedated4--,aristoph4 ,av4 #ajga3 8,on 
this very day it is made public1 that   

if one of you kills ,diagoras from      
,melos1 he shall have a talent1 and if  
one kills one of the dead tyrants1 he   
shall have a talent40 ,the parallel     
between the two decrees1 of which the   
latter is of course an invention of     
,aristophanes1 would be without point if
 the decree against ,diagoras was  not  
as futile as the decree against the     
tyrants 7i4e4 the sons of               
,peisistratus1 who had been dead some   
three-quarters of a century71 that  is1 
if it did not come many years too       
late4--,wilamowitz 7,griech4            
,verskunst1 loc4 cit47 takes the sense  
to be3 8,you will not get hold of       
,diagoras any more than you did of the  
tyrants40 ,but this1 besides being      
somewhat pointless1 does not agree so   
well as my explanation with the         
introductory words3 8,on this very day40
 ,on the other hand1 ,i never meant  to 
imply that ,diagoras was dead in #dae1  
but only that his offence was an  old   
one--just as that of ,protagoras        

probably was 7see p4 #ci74    ,p4 #ci4  
,trial of ,protagoras3 ,vorsokr4 #gd1 ,a
 #a-d1 #bc2 the passage  referring to   
the gods3 ibid4 ,b #d4--,plato3 ,theaet4
 p4 #afb;d 7,vorsokr4  #gd1 ,a #bc74    
,p4 #da4 ,distinction between belief and
 knowledge by ,protagoras3 ,gomperz1    
,griech4 ,denker1 i4 p4 #cei4    ,p4    
#db4 ,prodicus3 ,vorsokr4 #gg1 ,b #e4   
,comp4 ,norvin1 ,allegorien i den  grske
 ,philosophi 7,edda1 #aiai71 p4 #hb4 ,i 
cannot1 however1 quite adopt  ,norvin's 
view of the theory of ,protagoras4      
,p4 #dd4 ,critias3 ,vorsokr4 #ha1 ,b    
#be4--,w4 ,nestle1 ,jahrbb4 f4 ,philol4 
xi4  7#aijc71 pp4 #ha and #agh1 gives an
 exhaustive treatment of the subject1   
but  ,i cannot share his view of it4    
,p4 #df4 ,euripides3 ,suppl4            
#bja4--,moschion3 ,trag4 ,fragm4 ed4    
,nauck 7#bnd  ed471 p4 #hac4--,plato3   
,rep4 ii4 #cfi;b4    ,p4 #dg4           
,democritus3 ,reinhardt in ,hermes1     
xlvii 7#aiab71 p4 #ejc ,in spite of     
,wilamowitz's objections 7in his        

,platon1 ii4 p4 #bad71 ,i still consider
 it  probable that ,plato alludes to a  
philosophical theory4--,protagoras on   
the  original state3 ,vorsokr4 #gd1 ,b  
#h;b4    ,p4 #dh4 ,euripides3 ,electra1 
#gcg 7,euripides does not believe in the
 tale  that the sun reversed its course 
on account of ,thyestes's fraud against 
,atreus1 and then adds3 8,fables that   
terrify men are a profit to the  worship
 of the gods074--,aristotle3 ,metaph4 ,a
 #h1 #ajgd;b2 see text1 p4              
#he4--,polybius3 vi4 #ef2 see text pp4  
#ij and #aad4--,plato's ,gorgias1 p4    
#dhb  and foll4    ,p4                  
#di4--;,callicles3 see e4g4 ,wilamowitz1
 ,platon1 i4 p4 #bjh4    ,p4            
#ej4--,thrasymachus3 ,plato1 ,rep4 i4   
pp4 #cch;c1 #cdc;a2 comp4 also ii4  p4  
#ceh;b4 ,his remark on ,providence      
7,vorsokr4 #gh1 ,b #h7 runs thus3 8,the 
gods do not see the things that are done
 among men2 if they did1 they  would not
 overlook the greatest human good1      
justice4 ,for we find that men  do not  

follow it40 ,comp4 text1 p4             
#fa4--;,diagoras as ,critias's source3  
,nestle1 ,jahrbb41 #aijc1 p4 #aja4      
,p4 #ea4 ,euripides3 see ,w4 ,nestle1   
,euripides 7,stuttgart1 #aija7 pp4      
#ea-aeb4  ,here1 too1 the material is   
set forth exhaustively2 the results seem
 to me  inadmissible4 ,browning's theory
 7,the ,ring and the ,book1 x4 #affa    
foll47  that ,euripides did believe in  
the existence of the gods1 but did not  
believe them to be perfect1 is a        
possible1 perhaps even a probable1      
explanation of many of his utterances2  
but it will hardly fit all of them4  ,i 
have examined the question in an essay1 
8,browning om ,euripides0 in my         
,udvalgte ,afhandlinger1 p4 #ee4    ,p4 
#eb4 ,gods identified with the          
,elements3 ,bacch4 #bgd2 fragm4 #hci4   
#hgg1  #ida 7,nestle1 p4 #aec74    ,p4  
#ec4 ,polemic against sophists3 ,nestle1
 p4 #bjf4--;,bellerophon3 fragm4  #bhf4 
,p4 #ed4 8,if the gods----03 fragm4     
#bib1 #g4    ,p4 #ee4 ,melanippe3 fragm4

 #dhj4 ,the words are said to have given
 offence  at the rehearsal1 so that     
,euripides altered them at the          
production of the  play 7,plut4 ,amat4  
ch4 #ac74--;,aeschylus3 ,agam4          
#afj4--;,aristophanes3  ,thesmoph4      
#dej4--;,in the ,frogs1 #hib1 ,euripides
 prays to the ,ether and  other         
abstractions1 not to the gods4--,clouds3
 #acga4    ,p4 #ef4 ,plato3 ,republ4    
viii4 p4 #efh;a4--,quotation from       
,melanippe3 ,plut4  ,amat4 #ac4    ,p4  
#eg4 ,aristophanes and ,naturalism3 see 
note to p4 #cj4    ,p4 #eh4 ,denial of  
the gods in the ,clouds1 #bdg1 #cfg1    
#chj1 #dbc1 #fbg1 #hag1  #hbe1          
#abcb4--,moral of the piece3            
#adeb-aeaj4--;,in ,aristophanes's own   
travesties  of the gods1 scholars have  
found evidence for a weakening of       
popular  belief1 but this is certainly  
wrong2 comp4 ,decharme1 p4 #aji4--,words
 like  8believe0 and 8belief0 do not    
cover the ,greek word 1 which  signifies
 at once 8believe0 and 8be in the       

habit10 8use habitually10 so  that it   
covers both belief and worship--an      
ambiguity that is characteristic  of    
,greek religion4--,xenophon3 ,memorab4  
i4 #a2 ,apol4 ,socr4 #aj and foll4      
,p4 #ei4 ,plato3 ,apol4 p4 #bd;b 7the   
indictment72 #bf;b 7the refutation74    
,p4 #fj4 ,aristodemus3 ,xenoph4 ,memor4 
i4 #d4--;,cinesias3 ,decharme1 p4       
#ace4--,the  ,hermocopidae3 ,decharme1  
p4 #aeb4 ,beloch1 ,hist4 of ,greece1 ii4
 #a1 p4 #cfj1  has another explanation4 
,to my argument it is of no consequence 
what  special motive is assigned for the
 crime1 as long as it is a political    
one4    ,p4 #fa4 ,plato on impiety3     
,laws1 x4 p4 #hhf;b2 comp4 xii4 p4      
#ifg;a4  ,curiously enough1 the same    
tripartition of the wrong attitude      
towards the  gods occurs already in the 
,republic1 ii4 p4 #cfe;d1 where it is   
introduced incidentally as well known   
and a matter of course4    ,p4 #fb4     
,euripides3 e4g4 ,hecuba1 #dhh2 ,suppl4 
#fjh4--,reference to  ,anaxagoras3      

,laws1 x4 p4 #hhf;d2 to ,sophistic1     
#hhi;b4    ,p4 #fe4 ,plato in the       
,apology3 p4 #ai;c4--,socrates's        
daimonion a proof of  asebeia3 ,xenoph4 
,memorab4 i4 #a1 #b2 ,apol4 ,socr4 #ab2 
,plato1 ,apol4  p4 #ca;d4    ,p4 #ff4   
,accusation of teaching the doctrine of 
,anaxagoras3 ,plato1 ,apol4  p4 #bf;d2  
comp4 ,xenoph4 ,memor4 i4 #a1           
#aj4--,plato's defence of ,socrates3    
,apol4 p4 #bg;a4    ,p4 #fg4 ,xenophon's
 defence of ,socrates3 ,memor4 i4 #a1   
#b2 #f foll41 #aj  foll4--,teleological 
view of nature3 ,xenoph4 ,memor4 i4 #d2 
iv4 #c4--,on the  religious standpoint  
of ,socrates1 comp4 my ,udvalgte        
,afhandlinger1 p4 #ch4    ,p4 #fh4      
,plato's ,apology1 p4 #ba;d1 #bc;a and  
f1 etc4--,the gods  all-knowing3 ,odyss4
 iv4 #cgi and #dfh2 comp4 ,ngelsbach1   
,hom4 ,theol4 p4  #ah2 ,nachhom4 ,theol4
 p4 #bc4    ,p4 #fi4 ,the gods just3    
,ngelsbach1 ,hom4 ,theol4 p4 #big2      
,nachhom4 ,theol4  p4 #bg4    ,p4 #ga4  
,the relation between early religious   

thought and ,delphi has been  explained 
correctly by ,sam ,wide1 ,einleit4 in   
die ,altertumswissensch41  ii4 p4 #bba2 
comp4 also ,i4 ,l4 ,heiberg in          
,tilskueren1 #aiai1 ii4 p4              
#dd4--;,honours shown to ,pindar at     
,delphi3 schol4 ,pind4 ed4 ,drachm4 i4  
p4 #b1  #ad2 #e1 #f4 ,pausan1 x4 #bd4   
#e4    ,p4 #gb4 ,plato on the ,delphic  
,oracle3 ,apol4 p4 #bj;e4 ,on the       
following  comp4 ,i4 ,l4 ,heiberg1 loc4 
cit4 p4 #de4--,socrates on his          
daimonion3  ,plato1 ,apol4 p4 #ca;c4    
,p4 #gd4 ,antisthenes3 ,ritter1 ,hist4  
philos4 ,gr4#i #bhe4--,on the later     
,cynics1 especially ,diogenes1 see      
,diog4 ,laert4 vi4 #aje 7the gods are in
  need of nothing72 ,julian1 ,or4 vi4 p4
 #aii;b 7,diogenes did not worship  the 
gods74    ,p4 #ge4 ,cyrenaics3 ,diog4   
,laert4 ii4 #ia4--;,date of ,theodorus3 
,diog4 ,laert4 ii4  #aja1 #ajc2 his book
 on the gods3 ,diog4 ,laert4 ii4 #ig1   
,sext4 ,emp4 adv4  math4 ix4 #ee2 his   
trial3 ,diog4 ,laert4 ii4 #aja4    ,p4  

#gf4 ,theodorus's book used by          
,epicurus3 ,diog4 ,laert4 ii4           
#ig4--,zeller3  ,philos4 d4 ,griechen1  
ii4 #a1 p4 #ibe4--;,euthyphron3 see     
especially p4 #ad;b  foll4    ,p4 #gg4  
,criticism of ,mythology in the         
,republic3 ii4 p4 #cgg;b foll42  worship
 presupposed3 e4g4 iii4 p4 #dae;e2 v4 p4
 #dei;e1 #dfa;a1 #dfh;d1  #dfi;a1       
#dgj;a2 vii4 p4 #edj;b2 reference to the
 ,oracle3 iv4 p4  #dbg;b4--,timaeus3 p4 
#dj;d foll4--,laws1 rules of worship3   
vi4 p4 #gei;a1  vii4 p4 #ifg;a and      
elsewhere1 x4 p4 #iji;d2 capital        
punishment for  atheists3 x4 p4 #iji;a4 
,comp4 above1 on p4 #fa4    ,p4 #gh4    
,atheism a sin of youth3 ,laws1 x4 p4   
#hhh;a4--,goodness and truth of  the    
gods3 ,republ4 ii4 p4 #cgi;a1 #chj;d1   
#chb;a4--,belief in ,providence3  ,laws1
 x4 p4 #hhe;c1 etc42 ,republ4 x4 p4     
#fab;e2 ,apol4 p4 #da;d4    ,p4 #gi4    
,laws1 x4 p4 #hhh;d1 #hic;b foll41      
especially #hii;c-d2 comp4 also  xii4 p4
 #ifg;a-c4--,timaeus3 p4 #dj;d-f4 ,comp4

 ,laws1 xii4 p4 #idh;b4    ,p4 #hj4 ,the
 gods in the ,republic1 ii4 p4 #chj;d4  
,this passage1 taken  together with     
,plato's general treatment of popular   
belief1 might lead to  the hypothesis   
that it was ,plato's doctrine of ideas  
rather than the  rationalism of his     
youth that brought about strained       
relations between his  thought and      
popular belief4 ,i incline to think that
 such is the case2 but  there is a long 
step even from such a state of things to
 downright  atheism1 and the stress     
,plato always laid on the belief in     
,providence is a  strong argument in    
favour of his belief in the gods1 for he
 could never  make his ideas act in the 
capacity of ,providence4--,the gods as  
creators of  mankind3 ,timaeus1 p4 #da;a
 foll4    ,p4 #ha4 ,xenocrates3 the     
exposition of his doctrine given in the 
text is  based upon ,heinze's           
,xenokrates 7,leipzig1 #ahib74    ,p4   
#hc4 ,trial of ,aristotle3 ,diog4       
,laert4 v4 #e2 ,athen4 xv4 p4           

#fif4--,the  writings of ,aristotle that
 have come down to us are almost all of 
them  compositions for the use of his   
disciples1 and were not accessible to   
the  general public during his lifetime4
    ,p4 #hd4 ,on the religious views of 
,aristotle see in general ,zeller1 ii4  
#b1  p4 #ghg 7,engl4 transl4 ii4 p4     
#cbe72 where the references to his      
writings  are given in full4 ,in the    
following ,i indicate only a few        
passages of  special                    
interest4--,discussion of worship       
precluded3 ,top4 ,a1 xi4 p4  #aje;a1    
#e4--;,aristotle's ,will3 ,diog4 ,laert4
 v4 #ae4--,the gods as determining  the 
limits of the human3 e4g4 ,nic4 ,eth4   
,k1 viii4 p4 #aagh;b1 #cc3 87the  wise7 
will also be in need of outward         
prosperity1 as he is 7only7 a           
man40--,reservations in speaking of the 
gods1 e4g4 ,nic4 ,eth4 ,k1 ix4 p4       
#aagi;a1 #ac3 8he who is active in      
accordance with reason 444 must also be 
supposed to be the most beloved of the  

gods2 for if the gods trouble           
themselves about human affairs--and that
 they do so is generally taken for      
granted--it must be probable that they  
take pleasure in what is best and  most 
nearly related to themselves 7and that  
must be the reason71 and  that they     
reward those who love and honour this   
most highly10 etc4 ,the  passage is     
typical both of the hypothetical way of 
speaking1 and of the  twist in the      
direction of ,aristotle's own conception
 of the deity 7whose  essence is        
reason72 also of the ,socratic manner of
 dealing with the gods4    ,p4 #he4 ,the
 passage quoted is from the             
,metaphysics1 ,a viii4 p4 #ajgd;a1  #ch4
 ,comp4 ,metaph4 ,b1 ii4 p4 #iig;b1 #h2 
iv4 p4 #ajjj;a1 #i4    ,p4 #hf4         
,theophrastus3 ,diog4 ,laert4 v4 #cg4   
,p4 #hg4 ,strato3 ,diels1 ,ueber das    
physikal4 ,system des ,s41 ,sitzungsber4
 d4  ,berl4 ,akad41 #ahic1 p4           
#aja4--;,his god the same as nature3    
,cic4 de nat4  deor4 i4 #ce4    ,p4 #hi4

 ,on the history of ,hellenistic        
religion1 see ,wendland1 ,die           
hellenistisch-rmische ,kultur in ihren  
,beziehungen z4 ,judentum u4            
,christentum 7,tbingen1 #aijg74    ,p4  
#ij4 ,the passage quoted is ,polyb4 vi4 
#ef1 #f4    ,p4 #ib4 ,on the            
,tyche-,religion1 see ,ngelsbach1       
,nachhom4 ,theologie1 p4  #aec2 ,lehrs1 
,populre ,aufstze1 p4 #aec2 ,rohde1     
,griech4 ,roman1 p4 #bfg  7#ast ed472   
,wendland1 p4 #ei4--,thucydides3 see    
,classen in the introduction to  his    
7#crd7 edition1 pp4 lvii-lix1 where all 
the material is collected4 ,a           
conclusive passage is vii4 #cf1 #f1     
where ,thuc4 makes the bigoted ,nicias  
before a decisive battle express the    
hope that 8,fortune0 will favour the    
,athenians4--,demosthenes's dream3      
,aeschin4 iii4 #gg4--;,demosthenes on   
,tyche3  ,olynth4 ii4 #bb2 de cor4 #beb4
    ,p4 #ic4 ,demosthenes and the       
,pythia3 ,aesch4 iii4 #acj4 ,comp4 ibid4
 #fh1  #aca1 #aeb2 ,plutarch1 ,dem4     

#bj4--;,demetrius of ,phalerum3 ,polyb4 
xxix4  #ba4--,temples of ,tyche3        
,roscher1 ,mythol4 ,lex41 art4 ,fortuna4
    ,p4 #id4 ,tyche mistress of the     
gods3 ,trag4 adesp4 fragm4 #ejf1 ,nauck2
 ,dio  ,chrys4 lxiv4 p4 #cca            
,r4--,polybius3 i4 #a2 iii4 #e1         
#g4--,the reservations  against ,tyche  
as a principle for the explaining of    
historical facts1 and  the twisting of  
the notion in the direction of          
,providence found in certain  passages  
in ,polybius1 do not concern us here2   
they are probably due to the  ,stoic    
influence he underwent during his stay  
at ,rome4 ,comp4 below1 on p4  #aad1 and
 see ,cuntz1 ,polybios 7,leipzig1       
#aijb71 p4 #dc4--,pliny3 ii4 #bb foll4  
,p4 #ie4 ,tyche in the novels3 ,rohde1  
,griech4 ,rom4 p4 #bhj4    ,p4 #ig4     
,strabo3 xvii4 p4 #hac4--,plutarch3 de  
def4 or4 #e and #g4    ,p4 #ih4 ,the    
,aetolians at ,dium3 ,polyb4 iv4 #fb2 at
 ,dodona1 iv4 #fg2 ,philip at  ,thermon1
 v4 #i2 ,dicaearchus1 xviii4            

#ed4--;,decay of ,roman worship3        
,wissowa1  ,religion u4 ,kultus d4      
,rmer1 p4 #gj 7#bnd ed474 ,to this work 
,i must refer  for indications of the   
sources2 but the polemic in the text is 
chiefly  directed against ,wissowa4     
,p4 #ii4 ,ennius3 comp4 below1 p4 #aab4 
,p4 #ajj4 ,varro3 in ,augustine1 de civ4
 ,dei1 vi4 #b4    ,p4 #ajc4 ,theology of
 the ,stoics3 ,zeller1 iii4 #a1 p4      
#cji-de4    ,p4 #ajd4 ,demonology of the
 ,stoics3 ,heinze1 ,xenokrates1 p4 #if4 
,p4 #aje4 ,epicurus's theology3 ,zeller1
 iii4 #a1 pp4 #dbg-ch4 ,comp4 ,schwartz1
  ,charakterkpfe1 ii4 p4 #dc4    ,p4    
#ajf4 ,epicurus's doctrine of the       
eternity of the gods criticised3 ,cic4  
de nat4 deor4 i4 #fh foll4    ,p4 #ajg4 
,the ,sceptics3 ,zeller1 iii4 #a1 pp4   
#ejg and #eba4    ,p4 #aji4 ,diogenes3  
see note on p4 #gd4--;,bion3 ,diog4     
,laert4 iv4 #eb and #ed4    ,p4 #aaj4   
,menippos3 ,r4 ,helm1 ,lukian u4 ,menipp
 7,leipzig and ,berlin1 #aijf74    ,p4  
#aaa4 ,euhemerus3 ,jacoby in            

,pauly-,wissowa's ,realencyclop41 art4  
8,euemeros02 ,wendland1 ,hellenist4     
,kultur1 p4 #gj4--;,euhemerism before   
,euhemerus3 ,lobeck1 ,aglaophamus1 p4   
#i2 ,wendland1 p4 #fg4    ,p4 #aab4 ,a  
,danish scholar1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,jacobsen 
7,afhandlinger og ,artikler1  p4 #dij71 
seems to think that ,euhemerus's theory 
was influenced by the  worship of       
heroes4 ,but there is nothing to show   
that ,euhemerus supposed  his gods to   
have continued their existence after    
their death1 though this  would have    
been in accordance with ,greek belief   
even in the ,hellenistic  period2 he    
seems rather to have insisted that they 
were worshipped as gods  during their   
lifetime 7comp4 ,jacoby1 loc4 cit474    
,p4 #aad4 ,euhemerism in ,polybius3     
xxxiv4 #b2 comp4 x4 #aj1 #aa4--,relapse 
into  orthodoxy3 xxxvii4 #i 7the        
decisive passage72 xxxix4 #ai1 #b       
7concluding  prayer to the gods72 xviii4
 #ed1 #g-aj2 xxiii4 #aj1 #ad 7the gods  
punish  impiety2 comp4 xxxvii4 #i1 #af74

 ,there is a marked contrast between    
such  passages and the way ,polybius    
speaks of ,philip's destruction of the  
sanctuary at ,thermon2 he blames it     
severely1 but merely on political1 not  
on religious grounds 7v4 #i-ab74        
,orthodox utterances in the older       
portions  of the work 7i4 #hd1 #aj2 x4  
#b1 #g7 may be due to that accommodation
 to  popular belief which ,polybius     
himself acknowledges as justifiable     
7xvi4  #ab1 #i71 but also to later      
revision4--,influence of ,stoicism3     
,hirzel1  ,untersuchungen zu ,ciceros   
philos4 ,schriften1 ii4 p4 #hda4    ,p4 
#aae4 ,cicero's ,stoicism in his        
philosophy of religion3 de nat4 deor4   
iii4 #dj1 #ie4    ,p4 #aaf4 ,sanctuary  
to ,tullia3 ,cic4 ad ,att4 xii4 #ah     
foll42 several of the  letters 7#bc1    
#be1 #ce1 #cf7 show that ,atticus       
disapproved of the idea1 and  that      
,cicero himself was conscious that it   
was unworthy of him4    ,p4 #aag4       
,euhemeristic defence3 fragm4 consol4   

#ad1 #ae4--;,augustus's  reorganisation 
of the cults3 ,wissowa1 ,religion u4    
,kultus d4 ,rmer1 p4  #gc4 ,recent      
scholars1 especially when treating of   
,virgil 7,heinze1 ,vergils  ep4         
,technik1 #crd ed4 p4 #bia2 ,norden1    
,aeneis1 vi4 #bnd ed4 pp4 #cad1 #cah1   
#cfb71 speak of the reform of ,augustus 
as if it involved a real revulsion  of  
feeling in his contemporaries4 ,this is 
in my opinion a complete                
misunderstanding of the facts4 ,virgil's
 religious views3 ,catal4 v41           
,georgics1 ii4 #deh4    ,p4 #aah4       
,pliny3 hist4 nat4 ii4 #a-bg4 ,the      
passages translated are  #ad  and #bg4  
,p4 #abb4 ,seneca3 fragm4 #ca-ci1       
,haase4--,stoic polemic against atheism3
  ,epictetus1 diss4 ii4 #bj1 #ba2 comp4 
,marcus ,aurelius1 vi4 #dd4--,later     
,cynicism3 ,zeller1 iii4 #a1 p4         
#gfc4--,oenomaus3 only preserved in     
excerpts by  ,euseb4 praep4 evang4 #e-f 
7a separate edition is wanted74--,his   
polemic  directed against the priests3  

,euseb4 #e1 p4 #bac;c2 comp4 ,oenomaus  
himself1  ibid4 #f1 p4 #bef;d4    ,p4   
#abc4 ,lucian3 see ,christ1 ,gesch4 d4  
griech4 ,litt4 ii4 #b1 p4 #eej 7#eth    
ed471 and ,r4 ,helm1 ,lukian u4 ,menipp 
7see note to p4 #aaj74    ,p4 #abd4     
,timon3 ch4 x4    ,p4 #abf4 ,on         
,lucian's caution in attacking the      
really popular gods1 see  ,wilamowitz1  
in ,kultur d4 ,gegenwart1 i4 #h1 p4     
#bdh4--,the ,jews atheists3  ,harnack1  
,der ,vorwurf d4 ,atheismus in den #c   
ersten ,jahrh4 7,texte u4  ,unters41    
,n4,f41 xiii4 #d71 p4 #c4    ,p4 #abg4  
,i have met with no comprehensive       
treatment of ,jewish and ,christian     
polemic against ,paganism2 ,geffcken1   
,zwei griech4 ,apologeten 7,leipzig1    
#aijg71 is chiefly concerned with       
investigations into the sources4 ,i     
shall  therefore indicate the principal 
passages on which my treatment is       
based4--,polemic against images in the  
,old ,testament3 ,isaiah #dd4aj etc42 in
  later literature3 ,epistle of         

,jeremiah2 ,wisdom of ,solomon #ac      
foll42 ,philo1  de decal4 #fe foll41    
etc4--,euhemerism3 ,wisdom of ,solomon  
#ad4ae2 ,epistle of  ,aristeas1 #ace2   
,sibyll4 iii4 #edg1 #eed1               
#gbc4--;,elements and celestial bodies3 
,wisdom of ,solomon #ac2 ,philo1 de     
decal4 #eb foll4--,the tenacity of      
tradition is apparent from the fact that
 even ,maimonides in his treatise  of   
idolatry deals only with star-worship   
and image-worship4 ,i know the  treatise
 only from the ,latin translation by ,d4
 ,voss 7in ,g4 ,i4 ,voss's  ,opera1 vol4
 v474--,demons3 ,deuteron4 #cb4ag2      
,psalms #ajf4cg2 add 7according  to     
,,lxx47 ,isaiah #fe4aa2 ,psalms #if4e4  
,later writers3 ,enoch #ai4ii1 #g2      
,baruch  #d4g4 ,such passages as ,jub4  
#bb1 #ag or ,sibyll4 prooem4 #bb are    
possibly  ,euhemeristic4--,fallen       
angels3 ,enoch1 #ai4--,philo's          
demonology3 de gig4  #f-ah1 etc4    ,p4 
#abh4 ,st4 ,paul3 #a ,cor4 #aj4bj2 comp4
 #h4d and ,rom4 #a4bc4    ,p4 #abi4     

,image-worship and demon-worship not    
conciliated3 e4g4 ,tertull4  ,apologet4 
#aj-ae and #bb-bc1 comp4 #bg4--;,jewish 
demonology3 ,bousset1  ,religion d4     
,judentums1 p4 #cbf 7#ast ed474--,fallen
 angels3 e4g4 ,athenag4  #bd foll42     
,augustine1 ,enchir4 #i1 #bh foll42 de  
civ4 ,dei1 viii4 #bb4    ,p4 #acj4      
,euhemerism in the ,apologists3 e4g4    
,augustine1 de civ4 ,dei1 ii4  #aj2 vi4 
#g2 vii4 #ah and #cc2 viii4             
#bf4--;,euhemerism and demonology       
combined3  e4g4 ,augustine1 de civ4     
,dei1 ii4 #aj2 vii4 #ce2 comp4 vii4 #bh 
fin4--,worship of the heavenly bodies3  
e4g4 ,aristid4 #c foll42 ,augustine1  de
 civ4 ,dei1 vii4 #bi foll4    ,p4 #aca4 
,paganism a delusion caused by demons3  
,thomas ,aq4 ,summa theol4 ,p4  ii4 #b1 
,q4 #id1 art4 #d2 comp4 below1 note on  
p4 #ace4    ,p4 #acc4 ,for the following
 sketch ,i have found valuable material 
in  ,gedike's essay1 ,ueber die         
mannigfaltigen ,hypothesen z4 ,erklrung 
d4  ,mythologie 7,verm4 ,schriften1     

,berlin1 #ahja1 p4 #fa74    ,p4 #acd4   
,milton3 ,paradise ,lost1 i4 #ejf4 ,the 
theory that the pagan oracles  fell mute
 at the rise of ,christianity is also   
found in ,milton1 ,hymn on  the ,morning
 of ,christ's ,nativity1 st4 xviii4     
foll4    ,p4 #ace4 ,g4 ,i4 ,voss2 ,de   
,theologia ,gentili1 lib4 i4 7published1
  #afdb7--,voss's view is in the main   
that idolatry as a whole is the work of 
the ,devil4 ,what is worshipped is      
partly the heavenly bodies1 partly      
demons1 partly 7and principally7 dead   
men2 most of the ancient gods are       
identified with persons from the ,old   
,testament4 ,demon-worship is dealt     
with in ch4 #f2 it is proved among other
 things by the true predictions of  the 
oracles4 ,individual ,greek deities are 
identified with demons in ch4 #g1  in a 
context where oracles are dealt with4   
,on older works of the same  tendency1  
see below1 note on p4 #adj2 on ,natalis 
,comes1 ibid4 ,a fuller  treatment of   
,voss's theories is found in ,gruppe's  

work1  #be4--,thomas  ,aquinas3 ,summa  
theol4 ,p4 ii4 #b1 ,q4 #id1 art4 #d2    
comp4 also ,q4 #abb1 art4  #b4--;,dante3
 ,sommo ,giove for ,god1 ,purg4 vi4     
#aah2 his devils3 ,charon1 ,inf4  iii4  
#hb 7#aji expressly designated as       
8dimonio072 ,minos1 ,inf4 v4 #d2        
,geryon1 ,inf4 xviii4 7there are more of
 the same kind74--8,dei falsi e         
bugiardi03 ,inf4 i4 #gb4 7,plutus1 who  
appears as a devil in ,inf4 vii4  was   
probably taken by ,dante for an antique 
god2 but the name may also be a         
classicising translation of ,mammon47   
,p4 #acf4 ,mediaeval epic poets3 ,nyrop1
 ,den oldfranske ,heltedigtning1 p4     
#bee and #bfj2 ,dernedde1 ,ueber die den
 altfranzs4 ,dichtern bekannten  ,stoffe
 aus dem ,altertum 7,diss4 ,gtting4     
#ahhg74--;,confusion of ancient and     
,christian elements3 ,dernedde1 p4 #aj2 
the gods are devils3 ,dernedde1 pp4     
#he1 #hh4--;,euhemerism3 ,dernedde1 p4  
#d4--;,i have tried to get a first-hand 
impression of the way the gods are      

treated by the old ,french epic poets1  
but the material is too large1 and      
indexes suited to the purpose are       
wanting4 ,the paganism of the original  
is taken over navely1 e4g41 by          
,veldeke1 ,eneidt1 i4 #de1 #afi4--,on   
magic ,i have consulted ,horst's        
,dmonomagie 7,frankf4 #ahah72 and his   
,zauber-,bibliothek 7,mainz1  #ahba-bf72
 ,schindler1 ,der ,aberglaube des       
,mittelalters 7,breslau1 #aheh72        
,maury1 ,la magie et l'astrologie dans  
l'antiquit et au moyen ge 7,paris1      
#ahfj74 ,these authors all agree that   
mediaeval magic is dependent on         
antiquity1 but that the pagan gods are  
superseded by devils 7or the  ,devil74  
,the connexion in substance with        
antiquity1 on which ,maury  specially   
insists1 is certain enough1 but does not
 concern us here1 where  the question is
 about the theory4 ,in the              
,zauber-,bibl4 i4 p4 #acg 7in the       
treatise ,pneumatologia vera et         
occulta71 the snake ,python is put down 

among the demons1 with the remark that  
,apollo was called after it4--,magic    
formulae with antique gods3 ,heim1      
,incantamenta magica 7in the ,neue      
,jahrbb4 f4 ,philologie1 ,suppl4 xix4   
#ahic1 p4 #eeg2 ,i owe this reference to
  the kindness of my colleague1 ,prof4  
,groenbeck74 ,pradel1 ,religionsgesch4  
,vers4 u4  ,vorarb4 iii41 has collected 
prayers and magic formulae from  ,italy 
and ,greece2 they do not contain names  
of antique gods4    ,p4 #acg4 ,acosta3  
,joseph de ,acosta1 ,historia naturale e
 morale delle  ,indie1 ,venice1 #aeif4  
,i have used this ,italian translation2 
the original  work appeared in          
#aeij4--;,demons at work in oracles3 bk4
 v4 ch4 #i2 in magic3  ch4 #be4    ,p4  
#ach4 ,demon in ,brazil3 ,voss1 ,theol4 
,gent4 i4 ch4 #h4--,pagan worship in    
the ,florentine and ,roman ,academies3  
,voigt1 ,wiederbelebung d4 klass4       
,altertums1 ii4 p4 #bci 7#bnd ed472     
,hettner1 ,ital4 ,studien1 p4 #agd4--,on
 the  conception of the antique gods in 

the earlier ,middle ,ages1 see ,gruppe1 
#d4--,thomas ,aquinas3 ,summa theol4 ,p4
 ii4 #b1 ,q4 #id1 art4 #d4--;,curious   
and  typical of the mediaeval way of    
reasoning is the idea of seeking        
prototypes of the ,christian history of 
salvation in pagan mythology4 ,see  v4  
,eicken1 ,gesch4 u4 ,system d4          
mittelalt4 ,weltanschauung 7,stuttg4    
#ahhg71  p4 #fdh1 and 7with more detail7
 ,f4 ,piper1 ,mythologie u4 ,symbolik d4
  christl4 ,kunst 7,weimar1 #ahdg-ea71  
i4 p4 #adc2 comp4 also ,gruppe1  #h     
foll4  ,good instances are the myths in 
the ,speculum humanae salvationis1 chs4 
#c  and #bd4    ,p4 #aci4 ,on ,hebraism 
in general1 see ,gruppe1  #ai and  #bd  
foll42 on ,huet1   #bh4 ,nevertheless1  
,huet operates with demonology in       
connexion with the  oracles 7,dem4      
evang4 ii4 #i1 #cd1 #d74    ,p4 #adj4   
,on ,natalis ,comes1 see ,gruppe1  #ai4 
,in bk4 i4 ch4 #g1 ,natalis ,comes      
gives an account of the origin of       
antiquity's conceptions of the gods2 it 

has quite a naturalistic turn4          
,nevertheless1 we find in ch4 #af a     
remark  which shows that he embraced    
demonology in its crudest form2 compare 
also  the theory set forth in ch4 #aj4  
,his interpretations of myths are       
collected  in bk4 x4--,on ,bacon1 see   
,gruppe1  #bb4 ,typhoeus-myth3          
introduct4 to ,de  sapientia            
veterum4--,alchemistic interpretations3 
,gedike1 ,verm4  ,schriften1 p4 #gh2    
,gruppe1  #cj4 ,of the works quoted by  
,gedike1 ,i have  consulted ,faber's    
,panchymicum 7,frankf4 #afea7 and       
,toll's ,fortuita  7,amsterd4 #afhg74   
,faber has only some remarks on the     
matter in bk4 i4 ch4  #e2 by ,toll the  
alchemistic interpretation is carried   
through4 ,gedike  quotes1 moreover1 a   
work by ,suarez de ,salazar1 which must 
date from the  sixteenth century2       
according to ,jcher 7iv4 #aiac7 it only 
exists in ,,ms41  and ,i do not know    
where ,gedike got his                   
reference4--,thomas3 ,summa1 ,p4 ii4    

#b1 ,q4 #agb1 arts4 #e and #f4    ,p4   
#ada4 ,demonology as explanation of the 
oracles3 see van ,dale1 ,de  oraculis1  
p4 #dcj 7,amsterd4 #agjj72 he quotes    
numerous treatises from the  sixteenth  
and seventeenth centuries4 ,i have      
glanced at ,moebius1 ,de  oraculorum    
ethnicorum origine1 etc4 7,leipzig1     
#afef74--;,caelius ,rhodiginus3         
,lectionum antiq4 7,leyden1 #aeaf71 lib4
 ii4 cap4 #ab2 comp4 ,gruppe1           
#ae4--;,caelius ,calcagninus3           
,oraculorum liber 7in his ,opera1       
,basle1 #aedd1  p4 #fdj74 ,the little   
dialogue is not very easy to understand2
 it is  evidently a satire on           
contemporary credulity2 but that        
,caelius completely  rejected divination
 seems to be assumed also by ,g4 ,i4    
,voss1 ,theol4 ,gent4  i4               
#f4--,machiavelli3 ,discorsi1 i4        
#ef4--,van ,dale3 ,de oraculis gentilium
  7#ast ed4 ,amsterd4 #afhc72 ,de       
idololatria 7,amsterd4 #afif74          
,difficulties  with the biblical        

accounts of demons3 ,de idol41          
dedication4--,fontenelle3  ,histoire des
 oracles 7,paris1 #afhg74 ,the little   
book has an amusing  preface1 in which  
,fontenelle with nave complacency 7and  
with a sharp eye  for van ,dale's       
deficiencies of style7 gives an account 
of his  popularisation of the learned   
work4 ,on ,fontenelle and the answer by 
the  ,jesuit1 ,balthus1 see for further 
details ,banier1 ,la mythologie et les  
fables expliques par l'histoire 7,paris1
 #agch71 bk4 iii4 ch4 #a4 ,van  ,dale's 
book itself had called forth an answer  
by ,moebius 7included in the  edition of
 #afij of his work1 de orac4 ethn4      
orig474--,on the influence  exercised by
 van ,dale and ,fontenelle on the       
succeeding mythologists1 see  ,gruppe1  
#cd4--;,banier3 see ,gruppe1  #ce4      
,p4 #adc4 ,vico3 ,scienza nuova 7,milan1
 #ahec71 p4 #afh 7bk4 ii4 in the        
section1 ,della metafisica poetica72    
political allegories1 e4g4 p4 #cji  7in 
the ,canone mitologico74 ,comp4 ,gruppe1

  #dd4--;,banier3 in the work  indicated
 above1 bk4 i4 ch4 #e4    ,p4 #add4 ,on 
the mythological theories of the        
eighteenth century1 comp4  ,gruppe1  #cf
 foll42 on ,bryant1  #dj2 on ,dupuis1   
#da4--,polemic against  ,euhemerism from
 the standpoint of nature-symbolism3 de 
la ,barre1 ,mmoires  pour servir        
l'histoire de la religion en ,grce1 in  
,mm4 de l',acad4 des  ,inscr4 xxiv4     
7#agdi2 the treatise had already been   
communicated in #agcg  and #agch72 a    
posthumous continuation in ,mm4 xxix4   
7#aggj7 gives an idea  of de la ,barre's
 own point of view1 which was not a     
little in advance of  his time4 ,comp4  
,gruppe1  #cg4    ,p4 #ade4 ,a good     
survey of modern investigations in the  
field of the history  of ancient        
religion is given by ,sam ,wide in the  
,einleit4 in die  ,altertumswissensch4  
ii42 here also remarks on the mythology 
of older  times4 ,the later part of     
,gruppe's work contains a very full     
treatment of  the subject4              

,,index      ,absolute definitions of   
the divine1 #af1 #ai1 #fh1 #fi1 #hb1    
#hh4    ,academics1 #adi4    ,academy1  
later1 #ajh1 #aad4    ,acosta1 #acg1    
#aci1 #ada4    ,aelian1 #aba4    ,aeneid
 7mediaeval71 #acf4    ,aeschines1 #ic4 
,aeschylus1 #ed1 #ee4    ,aetolians1    
#ig1 #ih4    ,alchemistic explanation of
 ,paganism1 #adj4    ,alcibiades1 #fj4  
,alexander the ,great1 #ic1 #aab4       
,allegorical interpretation1 #ajd1 #aac1
 #aci1 #adj1 #adc1 #add4    ,american   
,paganism1 #acg1 #aci1 #ada4            
,anaxagoras of ,clazomenae1 #g1 #ac1    
#be-bi1 #cj1 #ca1 #dj1 #fb1 #fc1 #ff1   
#abd4    ,anaximenes1 #cj4              
,angelology1 #abi4    ,anthropomorphism1
 #ad1 #ah1 #ai1 #fi4    ,antisthenes1   
#ac1 #gd1 #aji4    ,apologists1 #abh1   
#acj1 #acb1 #aci4    ,arcissewsky1 #ach4
    ,aristides the ,apologist1 #abi4    
,aristides ,rhetor1 #aba4               
,aristodemus1 #fj1 #fb4                 
,aristophanes1 #cj1 #cb1 #cc1 #ci1 #ee1 
#ef-eh1 #fe4    ,birds1 #cb4    ,clouds1

 #cj1 #ee1 #ef-eh    ,frogs1 #ee4       
,aristotle1 #ac1 #cj1 #cb1 #df1 #hc-hg1 
#ajd1 #aac4    ,ethics1 #hd4            
,metaphysics1 #he-hf4    ,politics1 #hd4
    ,aristoxenus1 #cb1 #cc4             
,asclepius1 #aaa1 #aba1 #abf4           
,asebeia1 #f1 #g1 #h4    ,aspasia1 #bg4 
,atheism 7and ,atheist7 defined1 #a2    
rare in antiquity1 #b1 #acc2    of      
recent origin1 #b1 #adc2    origin of   
the words1 #e2    lists of atheists1    
#ac2    punishable by death in ,plato's 
,laws1 #gg2    sin of youth1 #gh4       
,athene1 #gd4    ,athens1 its treatment 
of atheism1 #f-h1 #i1 #ab1 #be1 #ci1 #fe
 foll41 #gd1 #ge1              #hc1 #hf2
    its view of sophistic1 #eh-ei4      
,atheos 7atheoi71 #b1 #aj1 #ac1 #ad1    
#ai1 #bc1 #bi1 #dc1 #ge1 #aaj4          
,atheotes1 #b4    ,augustine1 ,st41     
#abi1 #ace4    ,augustus1 #aag2         
religious reaction of1 #ajj1 #aac1 #aag1
 #abj4    ,aurelius1 ,marcus1 #aa1 #aba4
    ,bacon1 ,francis 7,de ,sap4 ,vet47  
#adj4    ,banier1 #adb1 #adc4    ,bible1

 #acj1 #adb4    ,bion1 #ac1 #aji4       
,brazil1 #ach4    ,bruno1 ,giordano1    
#aea4    ,bryant1 #add4    ,buttmann1   
#aeb4    ,caelius ,calcagninus1 #ada4   
,caelius ,rhodiginus1 #ada4             
,callicles1 #dh foll41 #fc4    ,carlyle1
 #aab4    ,carneades1 #h1 #ajh4         
,cassander of ,macedonia1 #aaa4         
,charon1 #ace4    ,christianity1 #abf1  
#abh-cb4    ,christians1 their atheism1 
#i2    prosecutions of1 #aj2            
demonology1 #hc4    ,cicero1 #ai1 #aje1 
#aad-ag1 #adg4    ,nature of the ,gods1 
#aae4    ,on the ,state1 #aae4    ,on   
the ,laws1 #aae4    ,de consolatione1   
#aaf4    ,cinesias1 #fj4    ,copernicus1
 #aea4    ,critias1 #ac1 #dd-ej4        
,sisyphus1 #dd f41 #aad4    ,criticism  
of popular religion1 #af1 #ag1 #ai1 #ce 
foll41 #gd1 #gh1 #hb1 #hd1 #hh1         
#ij1 #ii1 #ajd1 #aji1 #aaj1 #abb1       
#abd-bf4    ,cuthites1 #add4    ,cynics1
 #gd1 #aji-aj1 #abb1 #abd1 #adg4        
,cyrenaics1 #ge4    ,daimonion of       
,socrates1 #fe1 #ff1 #gb-gc4    van     

,dale1 #ada-db4    ,dante1 #ace4        
,deisidaimon1 #ge4    ,demeter1 #db1    
#dc1 #ha4    ,demetrius of ,phalerum1   
#ge1 #ic4    ,on ,tyche1 #ic4           
,democritus1 #bd1 #db1 #dc1 #dd1 #dg1   
#eb4    ,demonology1 #ha-hc1 #aje1 #aac1
 #abg-cb1 #acd-db1 #adh1 #adi4          
,demosthenes1 #ib-ic1 #if4    ,devil1   
#acb1 #acg1 #aci1 #ada1 #add4           
,diagoras of ,melos1 #ac1 #ca-cd1 #ci1  
#ej4    ,apopyrgizontes logoi1 #cb1 #cc4
    ,dicaearchus1 #ih4    ,diodorus     
,siculus1 #aab4    ,diogenes of         
,apollonia1 #ac1 #bi-cj1 #eg4           
,diogenes the ,cynic1 #aji4             
,dionysus1 #db1 #dc4    ,diopeithes1    
#bh4    ,dioscuri1 #abd4    ,dium1 #ih4 
,divination1 #ah1 #bj1 #bf1 #bg1 #bh1   
#dj1 #ig1 #aad1 #aca1 #ace1 #acg1       
#adj-db4    ,comp4 ,oracle4    ,dodona1 
#ih1 #ada4    ,dogmatics1 #ajh4         
,domitian1 #aa4    ,dupuis1 #add4       
,elements1 divine1 #bc1 #bd1 #cj1 #eb   
foll41 #eg1 #ha1 #ajc1 #abg4            
,eleusinian ,mysteries1 #cb1 #cc1 #dj1  

#fj4    ,ennius1 #ii1 #aab4             
,epicureans1 ,epicurus1 #ac1 #gf1 #hj1  
#hc1 #aje-g1 #aac1 #adg1 #adi4          
,euhemerus1 ,euhemerism1 #ac1 #aaj-ab1  
#aac1 #aad1 #aag1 #abg1 #acj1 #acf1     
#acg1 #aci1              #adj1 #adb1    
#adc1 #add4    ,euripides1 #af1 #ag1    
#ba1 #de1 #df1 #dh1 #ea-ef1 #fb4        
,bellerophon1 #ec4    ,melanippe1 #ee1  
#ef4    ,fallen angels1 #abh1 #abi1     
#acj4    ,florentine ,academy1 #ach4    
,foreign gods1 #gj1 #hi1 #ajc4          
,fontenelle1 #adb4    ,geocentric view1 
#aej4    ,geryon1 #ace4    ,giants1 #ah4
    ,gorgias1 #cg4    ,hades1 #ha4      
,heavenly bodies1 #b1 #bj1 #bb1 #be1    
#dc1 #fb1 #ff1 #gi1 #hj1 #ha1 #hd1 #hg1 
#ajd1 #abg1              #abh1 #acj1    
#acg1 #aci1 #add1 #adi1 #aea4           
,heavenly phenomena1 #bb4    ,hebraism1 
#aci1 #adc1 #add4    ,hecataeus of      
,abdera1 #aab4    ,heliocentric view1   
#aea4    ,hellenistic philosophy1 #id1  
#ajc-aj1 #aai4    ,hephaestus1 #db1 #dc4
    ,heracles1 #gd1 #aaa4    ,hercules1 

#acf4    ,herder1 #ade4    ,hermae1 #dj1
 #fj4    ,hermes1 #abd4    ,hermias1    
#hc4    ,herodotus1 #bh1 #bi4           
,hesiod1 #af1 #ah4    ,heyne1 #aeb4     
,hippo of ,rhegium1 #ac1 #bi-cj4        
,holy ,war1 #if4    ,homer1 #af1 #ah1   
#dc1 #fh1 #ajf4    ,horace1 #aag4       
,huet1 #aci4    ,hylozoism1 #bc4        
,ideas1 ,platonic1 #hj4    ,idolatry    
attacked1 #abc4    ,see also ,image     
,worship4    ,ignorance1 ,socratic1 #fh4
    ,image ,worship1 #abg1 #abh1        
#aca-cg4    ,jews1 their atheism1 #i1   
#abf4    ,josephus1 #abh4    ,judaism1  
#abf1 #abg-bh1 #abi4    ,juno ,regina1  
#acf4    ,jupiter 7in ,dante71 #ace2    
7in the ,thebas17 #acf4                 
,jupiter-priest1 #ajj4    ,kepler1 #aea4
    ,kronos1 #aaa4    ,lampon1 #bf4     
,lobeck1 #aeb4    ,lucian1 #aaj1        
#abc-bf4    ,timon1 #abd4    ,dialogues 
of the ,gods1 #abe4    ,lucretius1 #ajf4
    ,luna ,jovis filia1 #acf4           
,macedonia1 #ic4    ,machiavelli1 #ada4 
,magic1 #acf-cg4    ,mannhardt1 #aeb4   

,mantinea1 constitution of1 #cb4        
,marcus ,aurelius1 #aa1 #aba4           
,mediaeval epic poets1 #acf4            
,megarians1 #gd1 #ajg4    ,menippus of  
,gadara1 #aaj4    ,mexico1 #acg4        
,middle ,ages1 #acc1 #ace-ci4    ,milton
 7,paradise ,lost71 #acd1 #ace1 #ada4   
,minos1 #ace4    ,miracles1 pagan1 #aca1
 #acb4    ,modesty1 religions1 #ee1 #gj1
 #gc4    ,moschion1 #df4    ,moses and  
his sister1 #aci4    ,monotheism1 #i1   
#ab1 #bc1 #gd1 #hj1 #hc1 #abg foll41    
#aci1 #adh1 #aea4    ,mller1 ,k4 ,o41   
#aeb4    ,natalis ,comes1 #aci foll4    
,naturalism1 ,ionian1 #ba1 #bb-be1      
#cj-ca1 #eb1 #eg4    ,negroes1 #ah4     
,neo-,platonists1 #hc1 #aba4            
,neo-,pythagoreans1 #hc1 #aba4    ,nero1
 #aa4    ,newton1 #aea4    ,nile1 #db4  
,nomos 7and ,physis71 #ce1 #cf1 #ch1    
#fc1 #gd4    ,nymphs1 #acf4    ,oenomaus
 7,the ,swindlers ,unmasked71 #abb-bc1  
#abf4    ,old ,testament1 #abg1 #abi4   
,oracle of ,ammon1 #ig2 oracles of      
,boeotia1 #ig2    ,delphic ,oracle1 #bh1

 #fj1 #fg1 #fh1 #ga1 #gb1 #gg1 #ic1 #if1
 #ig1 #abc1 #ada2    decay of oracles1  
#if-ig2    oracles explained by priestly
 fraud1 #abc1 #ada-db4    ,ovid1 #aag4  
,paganism of ,antiquity1 its character1 
#ae4    ,panchaia1 #aaa4    ,parmenides1
 #ba4    ,pantheism1 #bj1 #bc1 #ajc1    
#aai1 #abb1 #abg4    ,paul1 ,st41 #abh4 
,pericles1 #be1 #bf1 #bg1 #bh1 #bi1 #ca1
 #abd4    ,peripatetics1 #adg1 #adi4    
,peru1 #acg4    ,pheidias1 #bg4         
,philip ,,iii4 of ,macedonia1 #if4      
,philip ,v4 of ,macedonia1 #ig-ih4      
,philo1 #abh4    ,phocians1 #if4        
,physis 7and ,nomos71 #ce1 #cf1 #fc1    
#gd4    ,pindar1 #af1 #ag1 #eb1 #ga4    
,plato1 #ac1 #ci1 #dh1 #di1 #ej1 #ef1   
#ei1 #fa-fc1 #fe1 #ff1 #gb1 #gf-ha1 #hb1
 #hd1 #aac1              #adg4          
,apology1 #ei1 #fe1 #ff1 #fh1 #gb1 #gh1 
#gi4    ,euthyphron1 #fg1 #gf4          
,gorgias1 #dh foll41 #fc1 #gg4    ,laws1
 #fa foll41 #gg1 #gh1 #gi1 #hj4         
,republic1 #ej1 #ef1 #gg1 #gh4          
,symposium1 #hb4    ,timaeus1 #gg1 #gi1 

#hj4    ,platonism1 #adh4    ,plethon1  
#ach4    ,pliny the ,elder1 #id1 #ie1   
#aah1 #adg4    ,plutarch 7de def4       
orac471 #ig4    ,polybius1 #dh1 #ij-ia1 
#id1 #ii1 #aac-ad1 #adg2    ,stoicism in
 ,p41 #aad4    ,pomponazzi 7,de         
,incantat471 #ada4    ,poseidon1 #db1   
#ha4    ,poseidonius1 #ajd4    ,prodicus
 of ,ceos1 #ac1 #db-dd1 #ajd4           
,protagoras of ,abdera1 #ac1 #ci-db1    
#dg4    ,on the ,gods1 #ci foll4        
,original ,state1 #dg4    ,providence1  
#fj1 #fa1 #gh1 #aje1 #aah1 #abb4        
,pythia1 #ic4    ,reaction1 religious1  
of second century1 #abj-ba1 #abe2    of 
,augustus1 see ,augustus4               
,reinterpretation of the conceptions of 
the gods1 #b4    ,see also ,allegorical 
interpretation4    ,religion a political
 invention1 #dg1 #aad4    ,religious    
thought1 early1 of ,greece1 #af-ag1 #eb1
 #ed1 #ee1 #fi-gj1 #ga1 #hd1 #hh1       
#ih1 #ajg4    ,renaissance1 #acc1 #ach1 
#aci foll41 #ada4    ,rohde1 #aeb4      
,roman ,academy1 #ach4    ,roman        

religion1 #ij1 #ii-ajj1 #aja-b4         
,roman ,state-worship1 decay of1        
#ih-ajc4    ,romance of ,troy1 #acf4    
,romances1 #ie-if4    ,rome's treatment 
of atheism1 #h-aa4    ,rousseau1 #ade4  
,scepticism1 #ajg-h1 #aad1 #adg4        
,schoolmen1 #ace4    ,seneca1 #aaj1     
#abb4    ,sibylline books1 #ig4         
,sisyphus1 #de1 #dh4    ,socrates1 #g1  
#ac1 #dj1 #df1 #di1 #ef1 #eh1 #fd-gc1   
#hd1 #ajg1 #adg4 ,see also              
,daimonion of ,s4    ,socratic          
philosophy1 #fd1 #hg1 #adi4    ,socratic
 ,schools1 #gc1 #hg-hh4    ,sol         
invictus1 #acf4    ,solon1 #af4         
,sophistic1 #ce-ch1 #eg1 #fd1 #hg1 #ajd1
 #adh1 #adi4    ,sophocles1 #bh1 #ed4   
,stilpo1 #ac1 #gd1 #ajh4    ,stoics1    
#hc1 #ajc-e1 #aac1 #aah1 #aai1 #aba-bb1 
#adg1 #adh1 #adi4    ,strabo1 #ig4      
,strato1 #hg1 #ajh4    ,suetonius1 #aba4
    ,supernaturalism1 #adi-ea4          
,superstition1 #ge1 #ij1 #ajb1 #abc1    
#abf4    ,tapuis1 #ach4    ,thales1 #bd4
    ,thebas 7mediaeval71 #acf4          

,theodicy 7,socratic71 #fg4             
,theodoras1 #ac1 #ge-gf1 #ajh1 #aji4    
,on the ,gods1 #ge4    ,theophrastus1   
#ac1 #hf4    ,thermon1 #ih4    ,thomas  
,aquinas1 #aca1 #ace1 #ach1 #aci1 #adj4 
,thracians1 #ah4    ,thrasymachus1 #ej1 
#fb4    ,thucydides 7the historian71    
#bh-bi1 #ib1 #id4    ,thucydides 7the   
statesman71 #bf4    ,tiberius1 #aah4    
,tisiphone1 #acf4    ,titans1 #ah4      
,tolerance in antiquity1 #i1 #aa4       
,trajan1 #aa4    ,tullia1 #aaf4         
,tyche1 #ia-if1 #aah4    ,typhoeus1     
#adj4    ,uranos1 #aaa4    ,usener1     
#aeb4    ,valerius ,maximus1 #aah4      
,varro1 #ajj1 #aaj4    ,vico 7,scienza  
,nuova71 #adc4    ,violation of         
sanctuaries1 #dj1 #fj1 #ig1 #ajj4       
,virgil1 #aag4    ,voss1 ,g4 ,i41 #ace1 
#ach1 #ada4    ,wisdom of ,solomon1     
#abh4    ,worship rejected1 #i-ac1 #fj1 
#gd1 #gg1 #hd1 #aji1 #abc1 #abe4        
,xenocrates1 #ha-hb1 #aje1 #aac1 #abi4  
,xenophanes of ,colophon1 #ac1 #ag-ba1  
#eb1 #ef4    ,xenophon1 #eh1 #ei1 #fb1  

#ff1 #fg4    ,memorab4 #eh1 #fj4        
,apology1 #eh4    ,zeller1 #gf1 #gi4    
,zeno of ,elea1 #ba4    ,zeus1 #af1 #bb1
 #cj1 #dc1 #ee1 #eg1 #eh1 #ha1 #aje1    
#aaa1 #abd4              ,,footnotes    
#a ,this was written before the         
appearance of ,mr4 ,gruppe's work1      
,geschichte der klassischen ,mythologie 
und ,religionsgeschichte4               
,compare infra1 p4 #aed4