Traces of Cynic Monotheism in the Early Roman Empire*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACTA CIASSICA LI (2008) 1-20 ISSN 0065-1141 ARTICLES • ARTIKELS TRACES OF CYNIC MONOTHEISM IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE* P.R. Bosman Univel sity of South Africa ABSTRACT The ancient Cynics rejected traditional religion, themselves on first appearances endorsing either atheism or agnosticism. But their criticism may also have stemmed from a radical monotheism as voiced by Antisthenes. After briefly discussing imperial Cynics and their views on religion, the article argues that the 4th letter of Pseudo-Heraclitus and the Geneva Papyrus inv. 271, Cynic texts from the Early Empire, are not contrary to the essentials of the philosophy and may represent late Hellenistic forms of the Antisthenic tradition in portraying Cynic-type sages mediating between humankind and the God of nature. Introduction Cynic philosophy's roots go back to the 4th century BC, but it experienced a revival approximately simultaneous with the dramatic rise of Christianity. The two movements had much in common, not least their shared criticism of traditional Greco-Roman religion. 1 Two fundamental forces driving early Christian rejection of popular religion were belief in the one God of Judaism and a close association of his will with the rules for righteous living. It may be asked whether anything similar can be found in the Cynicism of that era. Some sources indeed suggest that the Cynics - traditionally focussing exclusively on ethics - were prepared to link their way of life to belief in a single God who provides or communicates the principles of correct conduct to the Cynic sage.2 * I wish to thank the referees of Acta Classica for valuable comments and corrections to this text. 1 Moles 2006 provides a brief survey of the main issues and of New Testament scholarship; Downing 1988, 1992 and 1993:281-83 in particular, energetically advo cated the case for similarities between Cynicism and early Christianity. 2 Pace Frede 1999:42: 'There is little of substance to say about the Cynics, except 1 Cynicism gradually gained prominence as popular philosophy during the Roman Empire.3 By late antiquity, some Christian authors considered the Cynics to be their closest rivals from among the philosophical schools.4 If the claim may be accepted that monotheism was a prerequisite for the success of early Christianity,s one may suspect that a contemporary move ment with popular appeal would also have harboured thoughts on a topic of such crucial importance. This suspicion is strengthened by the Antisthenic roots of Cynicism.6 Antisthenes, the late 5th/ early 4th century Socratic, is credited with probably the least ambiguous formulation of monotheism in all antiquity, expressed initerms of the sophistic nomos-pl?Jsis antithesis. As reported by Philodemus, Antisthenes claimed in his Pl?Jsics that there are many gods 'according to custom' (KaTa v6µov), but only one 'according to nature' (rnTa cpuow).7 Unfortunately, evidence from Cynic literature of the Roman era is meagre and ambiguous, as reflected in the absence of an opinio comm11nis on the issue of Cynic religion.a However, indications exist of some Cynics at least who shared with the majority of ancient philosophers a belief in one God gover ning the universe.9 Before we attempt to establish the outlines of such a belief and even of a rudimentary theology, the Cynicism of the first centu ries of our era and their attitude towards religion must be briefly considered. perhaps that they apparently tended to reject traditional religion.' 3 Cf. Branham & Goulet-Caze 1996:5: 'the pre-eminent popular philosophy of the Roman empire.' 4 Cf. Rahn 1991:244-48; Dorival 1993:431-42. 5 Athanassiadi & Frede 1999:20. 6 Antisthenes's relationship to Cynicism is disputed, but prominent scholars in the field accept at least strong influence; cf. Guthrie 1969:306-08; Kindstrand 197 6:59; Prince 2006. On how the issue of Antisthenic antecedence impacts on the philo sophy's profile, cf. Desmond 2006:6-7. 7 P. Herc. 1428 fr. 21 Gomperz 1866:72 = fr.39A Decleva Caizzi; Philod. De piet. 19.536-41 refers to the same idea; cf. Obbink 1996:142-43; 359-61; also Cic. De nat. deo1: 1.32: Atque etiam Antisthenes in eo libro qui Pf?ysictts inscribit11r popularis deos 11111/tos natttralem tlflttm esse dicens to/lit vim et natttram deon1111; discussion in Brancacci 1985. On the issue of defining monotheism in antiquity, see Athanassiadi & Frede 1999:2-20; West 1999. 8 Goulet-Caze 1996:47, 79-80 mentions the following views of modern scholars: 'Enlightenment' (Zeller), 'the purest deist sect' (Bernays), 'colourless or strict mono theism' (Gomperz, Malherbe) and 'pantheism' (Guthrie), herself preferring to l~bel them agnostics; cf. also Malherbe 1978:47. 9 Frede 1999:56. 2 ·" ,-f"• Cynics of the early Roman Empire Following two low-keyed centuries, Cynicism became something of a philosophical mass movement during the early imperial period. IO By the 2nd century AD, Cynics were a common sight in imperial centres, as Dio and Lucian observe: Twv 8E KvvLKwv AEYDµEvwv fon µEv Ev Tfj TTOAEL TTAf\Sos ouK 6A.[ yov ... ouToL BE: Ev TE TpL68oLs Kal. CJTEvwTTo'Ls Kal. TTuA.waLv lEpwv ayE[pOUCJL KUL UTTUTWCJL TTm8cipw KUL vmhas KUL TOLOUTOV oxA.ov ... There is no small mob of the so-called Cynics in the city (Alexandria) ... these gather at cross-roads and alleyways and temple-gates, and they deceive boys and sailors and such crowds ... 11 TOL yapouv EµTTETTATJCJTm TTdaa TTOALS Tfis TOLUUTTJS pq.8LOupy(as, Kal. µciA.wTa Twv LlLDyEVTJ 1eal. 'Avna8EVT] 1eal. KpciTT]Ta ETTL ypacpoµ€vwv Kal imo Tc)> 1euvl. TaTToµ€vwv ... For this reason every city is filled with such knavery, particularly with those who enlist with Diogenes, Antisthenes, and Crates and are posted under the dog.12 Taking into account that both these authors had Cynic sympathies, the passages reveal an apparent schism between the cultured or educated Cynics on the one hand, and the uneducated, charlatan Cynics on the other. Our sources are virtually all from the literate side of the controversy and strongly biased against the seemingly huge but voiceless group who, they claim, took to the externals of the philosophy without comprehending its intellectual core: these Cynics sported the costume, but degraded it with coarse, abusive behaviour and lack of integrity. The same authors (and others such as Seneca, Epictetus and Julian) also eulogise the early Cynics and those contemporaries they believe to be the true heirs of Diogenes, such as 10 Branham & Goulet-Caze 1996:16. The standard treatment of the era is Goulet Caze 1990; more recently, Trapp 2007. Billerbeck 1991a:147-48 agrees with scholars such as Zeller and Bernays that Cynicism had died out by the 2nd century BC, a view contested by others; cf. Dudley 2003:117-24; Moles 1983:122; Branham & Goulet Caze 1996:12 n. 34. The phenomenon is commonly regarded as a reaction against the excessive wealth and luxury of the era. The cultured version - using Cynic TTappria[a - played a significant part in the so-called philosophical resistance against Nero, Vespasian and Domitian; cf. Billerbeck (above) 151. 11 Dio Chrys. 01: 32.9. 12 Lucian, F11g. 16. 3 .,. Demetrius and Demonax. In the latter depictions, the famous Cynic ci.val8ELa and other offensive aspects of the philosophy are deliberately downplayed for the purpose of social acceptance.13 It seems unlikely, however, that our literary sources present us with a true picture. The Cynicism of the age should rather be viewed in terms of a con tinuum, including various degrees of education and extremism. The boun daries of the movement are ill-defined, often merging into other forms of popular philosophy. Their closest ties were with the Stoics, as is already clear from Cicero.14 First-century Stoic authors such as Seneca and Epictetus express genuine tJ.dmiration for Cynic principles and figures; both their teachers (Attalus and Musonius Rufus) represented an ascetic form of Stoicism that could easily be mistaken for Cynicism. It appears, however, that th~ Cynics resisted late Stoic appropriation and felt in some respects closer to other schools of thought. Some scholars are of the opinion that by the second-century Cynics were probably closest to Epicureanism in respect of ascetic behaviour and rationalism, while others speculate that a figure like Peregrinus bears resemblance to neo-Pythagorean mysticism.is In any event, the Cynic profile was well known in the philosophical and social landscape of the era; outwardly, the Cynic sage even embodied the ideal of the true philosopher.16 In summary, the Cynics of the imperial age emerge from the evidence as a non-consolidated movement, sometimes admired - even among the cultured - for their uncompromising stance, their wit, lively style and literary inventiveness, and at other times despised - especially when represented by the less educated - for their shameless behaviour, intemperate demeanour and paucity of intellect. While a good measure of eclecticism may be presumed, the Cynics nonetheless wished to remain distinct from the other schools by reason of their strict adherence to simplicity and the dictates of nature, and to an outward style of radical rrappT]a(a, on occasion leading to a provocative subversion of social conventions. 13Billerbeck1991a. 14 Cic. Off. 1.128; cf. Billerbeck 1991a:148-49. 15 Cf. Dill 1906:355; Hornsby 1991:168. That Lucian's Cynic and Epicurean characters, such as Cyniscus in the Zeus Conj and Damis in the Zeus Trag. use the same arguments may be indicative of perceived closeness, although perhaps mainly in opposition to Stoic views on fate and religion. 16 Indicating, perhaps, that such Cynic-type figures were free to choose from the available philosophical repertoire supposedly compatible with Cynic austerity and criticism of societal norms.