Jackson, P.T.M. (2013) ‘The Gods of Philodemus’ Rosetta 13: 73-88. http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue_13/jackson_philodemus.pdf Rosetta 13. http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue_13/jackson_philodemus.pdf The Gods of Philodemus Paul Terence Matthias Jackson [email protected] This paper represents an aspect of my current work on the theology of the Epicureans, where I am interested in working out exactly what the Epicureans believed in. Here, I am focusing on Philodemus’ conception of the gods, and considering how faithful to Epicurus he was in this area. Nichols (1976, 154) concludes that ‘we accordingly accept the traditional view…that Lucretius was an atheist.’ Sedley (1998, 102) refers to Lucretius as a fundamentalist - that, whereas other Epicurean philosophers have developed Epicurus’ philosophy in the two hundred years since his death, Lucretius remains true to Epicurus. In this way, the philosophy of Lucretius would seem to be that of Epicurus. Even so, whether one were to read Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura or even the fragments of Epicurus himself, charges of atheism appear to me to be without foundation. Of course, the nature of atheism itself requires definition. In The Apology, Socrates considers the charge he faces: that he is guilty of corrupting the minds of young; that he believes in deities of his own invention instead of the gods recognised by the state;1 and that he has taught the young to believe in these new deities. Socrates concludes from this that he is not a complete atheist, as he does believe in gods, but that he just cannot believe in supernatural beings that are bastard children of the gods by nymphs or other monsters.2 However, in Laws, Plato considers piety and impiety. On the one hand, the pious person, who believes in gods, has never committed an impious deed voluntarily. The impious person, though, is categorised in one of three ways: he who does not believe in gods; he who, though believing in gods, thinks that they have no care for 1 22e-24a. 2 24b-27a. 73 Rosetta 13. http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue_13/jackson_philodemus.pdf men; and he who, though believing in gods, believes that they are easily won over and bribed by offerings and prayers.3 These beliefs come from poets, orators, seers and priests.4 Plato equally dismisses the views of naturalists, who deny the divinity of things.5 Obbink (1989, 188-90) considers the very definition of atheism. He admits that it is a difficult issue, as “atheism in the ancient world was never a well-defined or ideologically fixed position. But deviation from a proper attitude towards gods…could result in charges of impiety or in the suspicion of atheism.” Obbink concludes that “the charge of atheism could be incurred for something less than an outright denial of the existence of the gods.” It has been suggested that the theism of the Epicureans was so far-removed from conventional belief in the Homeric and Hesiodic pantheon of traditional Olympian gods that it constituted atheism. For Santayana (1935, 62) writes that it is usual and, in one sense, legitimate to speak of the Epicureans as atheists, since they denied providence and any government of God in the world. Lucretius and Epicurus are not explicit in their descriptions or explanations of gods, which presents a difficulty. However they do profess to believe in gods. For instance Epicurus, in his letter to Menoeceus, admits that ‘gods there are.’ 6 This is perhaps where Philodemus may be helpful. Bailey (1928, 444) points out that it is, however, necessary to be cautious, for there is reason to believe that Philodemus - from whom Cicero probably derived his information- had gone beyond the tradition of Epicurus himself and worked out the notion of the constitution of gods on his own lines. 3 10.885bff. 4 10.885dff. 5 10.886bff. 6 ‘θεοὶ μὲν γὰρ εἰσίν’ (Epicurus, Ad Men. 123-4). 74 Rosetta 13. http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue_13/jackson_philodemus.pdf But Rist (1972, 163) writes that ‘our other evidence about Epicureanism, in particular that of Cicero, Philodemus and Epicurus himself, gives a more complete picture,’ however, ‘it might be imagined that this evidence has exaggerated the importance of the gods for Epicurus himself.’ The notion that we draw from both Epicurus and Lucretius is that the gods that there are, dwell removed from human affairs, heedless of mortals,7 in the ‘spaces between worlds’, the μετακοσμίοι as Epicurus himself puts it,8 or intermundia as Cicero translates this.9 They live in peace, removed from all pain,10 paradigms, it would seem, of a true Epicurean’s life. Indeed Stallings (2007, ix) writes that ‘some think that he (Epicurus) believed them (gods) to exist merely as concepts,’ and Strodach (1963, 51) also writes that the gods perform. This function is ethical; they are paragons of the good life, exemplifying in their own existence the highest Epicurean ideals. As Merlan (1960, 50) poses, is it not entirely possible that they [Epicureans] were ready to invoke Zeus and all the other divinities of popular religion, not to ensure their benevolence but just to express their admiration for these perfect beings? But, are these gods more than paradigms or paragons, and if so, what are they? A natural, initial question perhaps ought to be from where the Epicureans took their notion of the divine from, and what evidence they gave for this concept. The answer to this is entirely tied up with the word προλήψις. The Epicurean spokesman in Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, Velleius, explains the term as follows, that ‘Epicurus uses the word prolepsis [transliterated] for these notions, that is, a sort of preconceived mental picture of a thing,’11 and so 7 Drn 1.44-9. 8 Ad Pyth. 88-9. 9 Dnd 1.18. 10 Drn 1.44-9. 11 ‘quam appellat πρόληψιν Epicurus, id est anteceptam animo rei quandam informationem’ (Cicero, Dnd 1.16). 75 Rosetta 13. http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue_13/jackson_philodemus.pdf gods exist, because nature herself has imprinted a conception of them on the minds of all mankind. For what nation or what tribe of men is there which possesses untaught some ‘preconception’ of the gods?12 The term preconception13 itself is difficult, as this is an opinion or idea formed beforehand.14 But what is this idea formed before? Epicurus must mean that the mental picture of a god is received in advance of the god itself; that the gods are only known to exist as this mental picture was imprinted on the mind in advance of the knowledge of their existence; and that this imprint was not taught, but was received in advance of any teaching. It is interesting that Lucretius uses the term notitia or notities,15 which translates a being known, an idea, conception or notion,16 without a prefix denoting beforehand, perhaps to avoid any such confusion. For this is not something reasoned, but something acquired initially and innately, even though the faculty of reasoning, the mind, acquires it. This προλήψις is the only evidence that the Epicureans assert for proof of the existence of the gods, that although people might grow up distinctly and apart, all acquire this same preconception. This can be traced directly back to Epicurus himself, in his letter to Menoeceus,17 where he writes that ‘the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds,’ and that gods ‘there are, since knowledge of them is by clear vision…derived from sensation.’18 Lucretius follows this, writing that “men used to see with waking mind, and still more in sleep, gods.” 19 How exactly is this preconception imparted onto humans? At this juncture an appreciation of Epicurean physics and their explanation of vision would be useful. The Epicureans believed that things come about, are created, by the collision and thus compounding of atoms. Atoms are the smallest possible units of matter in 12 ‘esse deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem impressisset ipsa natura. Quae est enim gens aut quod genus hominum, quod non habeat sine doctrina anticipationem quandam deorum?’ (Cicero, Dnd 1.16). 13 Masson 1907: 264 translates προλήψις as prenotion. 14 Foreman, 1966, 380. 15 Drn 2.745; 4.476; 479; 5.124; 182; 1047. 16 Lewis 1996; 542. 17 Epicurus, Ad Men. 123-4. 18‘ἐναργὴς γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις’ (Epicurus, Ad Men. 123-4). 19 ‘divom mortalia saecla egregias animo facies vigilante videbant, et magis in somnis’ (Drn 5.169-71). 76 Rosetta 13. http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue_13/jackson_philodemus.pdf Epicureanism, refuting Anaxagorean homoeomeria (of matter being infinitely small).20 Such atoms, even when compounded, are in continual motion, and so the compounds themselves are continually losing atoms, whilst also replenishing themselves at the same time.21 The atoms on the outside of the compound are of course most liable to be lost, through continual collisions from without, and it is these atoms, or rather thin films of these atoms, that escape and then come to collide with the sensitive eye, and thus allow sight.22 However, there are various types of atom, or rather, atoms of varying size and shape, within limits.23 The atoms that come to make up mind and soul are said to be the slightest, lightest and swiftest of atoms, and so it is that these are undetectable to the eye, but can be detected by that most sensitive organ, the mind itself.24 Diogenes Laertius records Epicurus as writing ‘that the gods are perceived by reason alone,’ 25 and Aetius that ‘gods can be contemplated by reason because of the fineness of the nature of their images.’ 26 So the gods can be apprehended only by the mind, due to the delicacy of their image.