cynics as allies of scepticism

._---------

INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF PHILOSOrHYAND INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

SERIES CONGRESSES' "PROCEEDINGS", N" 2PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF L C. BARGELlOTES

~IE0NEL KENTPO <1>IAOLO<1>IALKAI ~IEmLTHMONIKH:E EPEYNALLEIPA «nPAKTIKA :EYNE~PInN}), No 2.

EK~I~ETAI vno THN ~IEY0YN:EH A. K. MnAPTZEAlflTH

~I(EIITII(I~MO~: SCEPTICISM:L\IEIlI~THMONIKE~ npO~ErrI~EI~ INTER-DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES

nPAKTIKA B' LiIE0NOY:E :EYMnOnOY (I>L\O:EO<DIA:E

KAI Li:EnI:ETHMONIKH:E EPEYNA:E

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SECOND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM OF PHILOSOPHYAND INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

ZAXAPO - APXAIA OAYMnIA, 27 - 31 IEnTEMBPIOY 1988

ZACHARO - ANCIENT OLYMPIA, SEPTEMBER 27 - 31, 1988

~~;)~~~F.'.Jt::",,'.~~

Cu '£Jft ;;I /~t ~.

1'1 :~1';$~r,~~--,- .,j,Ii-"

i'Irj'.. (.rJ"J',.,-W--11

~~~,....dI'!1!e(~~

! • UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE MINISTRY OF CULTUREvno THN AlrILiA TOY vnovr-r stov nOAITIIMOY

~.

A0HNA 1990 ATHENS 1990

CYNICS AS ALLIES OF SCEPTICISM

In his pioneer work on the later Cynics, Jacob Bemays oncesuggested that we conceive of them as «allies» of the newly arisingmonotheism in its struggle against the old pagan gods. Althoughpointing to an interesting problem in Cynic criticism of conventionalcult, Bernays' hypothesis demands complete reappraisal in light ofmore recent studies today 1. Furthermore, during the later Helleni-stic period, many of the Cynic discussions in this field have closeties with those employed by the Sceptics, who have often beencompared to the Cynics for their practical approach in ethics>. Al-though these two movements are so ditTerent in outlook and aspira-tion, we can see them as the «allied» assault on belief in the oldgods. The later Cynics refused to accept the logical absurdities ofaccepted religion while contemporary Sceptics refused to draw anyconclusion whatsoever regarding true knowledge of the gods. First,however, we must examine the origin of their arguments them-selves. I hope to show that Xenophanes of Colophon may in a sensebe seen as an indirect ancestor for many of the ideas later reerner-ging in both movements, reaching the cynic through the works ofAntisthenes - and the Sceptic through the relativism of the soph-ists. While 1 intend to examine Xenophanes' indirect influence onthese later movements in the first half of this paper, the second halfwill be devoted to the critique of religious dogma raised in the laterHellenistic period.

I. J. BERNAYS, Lukian lI.d. Kyniker (Berlin, 1!)79), 31. See now: G.

GIANNANTONl, Reliqniac Socraticorum ii (Rome, 19!)3), iii (19!)S).2. R.G. BURY, SeXllI.I' Empiricus I (Hurvurd , 1976), xvi- xvii. A.A. LONG

D.N. SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Philosophers 1 (Cambridge, 19!)6), 16; 11(1987), 2.

101

M. LUZ CYNICS AS ALLIES OF SCEPTICISM

In the sixth century, Xenophanes raised a famous criticism ofconventional anthropomorphic descriptions of the gods, that servesas a watershed in the history of Greek philosophy. Not only is itahead of its time with its conclusions regarding the true nature ofGod, but it also employs a relativistic method of argumentation thatprefigures much of the work done during the later sophistic period.As is well known, he first compares the idea of the gods commonamong peoples and races known to the Greek world, showing thateach builds an image of the god like himself in appearance and at-titude:

3. DK ( = Diels, VOl'sokr.12), I.B.16; KRS ( = G.S. KIRK -J. E. RAVEN -

M. SCHOFIELD, The Pre socrutic Philosophers, 19!132, Cambridge), fr. 16!l.4. DK, l.B. 14; KRS, fr. 167.

tsphet ere). However, while this may be viewed as a relativisticconclusion to a comparison of different cthne , Xenophanes uses itto draw certain more dogmatic conclusions of a more hypotheticalnature. Here he tries to elucidate not the thoughts and beliefs ofhuman races, but of other species of living beings:

«Now, if cattle, horses and lions had hands,or were able to draw with their hands and furnish the work thatmen do,horses would draw the form of gods like horses, and cattle likecattle, and they would makethem have a body such as they each had themselves»:

an' d Xdpuc; £xov ~OEC; frtrrOl 1" tl£ Atovn:c;,ij ypa\jJat xcipEcrm KUt tpyu 1EAclV (11t£p uvop£e;,[1t1t0l IlCV O'[rt1Wlm ~o£e; Ot 1E ~OlJcrtV ouou«;Kat KE O£&v lotue; £ypa<pov Kat orouut ' £1toiouv10lUUO' olov ncp KUUWt ()£Ilue; £lxov i:KU(HOl 5.

Superficially, Xenophanes gives the impression that he presents ahomogeneous argument in these three fragments - working fromthe particular to the universal (from individual tribes to mankind),and from mankind to all species. This is also clear from the waythat this fragment intentionally recalls our previous one: the animalswould describe the gods as «having a body» (demos eichon) liketheir own if they only had man's ability to paint and sculpt. More-over, this last inference - if the animals had man's ability - im-plies that this fragment is meant to follow a conclusion similar tothat established in our previous fragments for, like them, it pre-sumes that mall has the ability to express himself in this way. Inother words, this particular fragment is not an isolated argument,but a continuation of Xenophanes' previous claim that mankinddoes express himself about the gods in a particular way, while herehe adds that animal-kind would do the same if it too had his ability.However, if this is so, we would have to explain the logical connec-tion between these fragments by claiming that Xenophanes origi-nally wished to use particular data (examples of human ethne) to

«The Ethiopian claim that their own gods are snub-nosed andblackwhile the Thracians «claim» that theirs are blue-eyed and red-headed»

AW(01tce; 1E Oeauc; mpE1CpOUe; O'lIlOUe; ~lCAuvac; 11:epi)lKCc; 1E YAUUKOUe; Kat 1tUppOUC; oucn 1t£A.l:aOm » 3.

Xenophanes builds his argument on what is claimed (phasi) bythe Ethiopians and Thracians concerning the existence tpelesthaisof their gods - that they look like themselves in appearancewhether as dark-skinned, or red-headed. He thus compares the tra-ditions of two separate races, reaching a relativistic conclusion _that all mortals imagine their gods to be and appear like themselves:

But mortals think that the gods were bornand have clothes, a voice and a body like their own

aAA' of 0powi OOK£OUO'l YEvvuaOul Beauc;1T]V cr<P£'[CPllv o'£crOfjra £XElV <P(OVT]V11: O£IlUC; 11:4•

Of similar format to the previous fragment, these lines draw amore general conclusion while at the same time playing on themeaning of its words. While the Thracians and Ethiopians con-ceivc their own tspheterous) gods to be like themselves, all of man-kind believes that the gods «have a body idemas »> similar to itself

5. DK, LB. 15; KRS, fr. 169.

102 103


draw a universal conclusion (about mankind in general) in the firsttwo fragments, and then went on to use this universal conclusion asthe first particular datum of the next hypothesis: If mankind thinksthat God is like himself, and animal-kind thinks that God is likeitself - therefore all nature thinks that God is like itself. However,for this sort of argument, Xenophanes obviously could not basehimself on the same sort of comparative method that he used in thefirst fragment. We simply do not learn about the thoughts of ani-mals as we do about those of the Thracians. The latter claimiphasi) that their gods are of a particular type while the animals canmake no such claim. While his previous method relied purely onthe comparative relationship of real data, the surviving fragmentfrom the second argument claims to discover some general truthbehind the whole of nature by a speculative method. What is newhere is not just the data, but also the method: from a comparativemethod, Xenophanes then passes on to the sphere of speculation.

It is precisely this dual nature to his approach that has puzzledscholars. Should he be ranked as the first of the relativists, or as aforerunner of Eleatic speculation? Xenophanes also wishes to re-place the gods of different et/me and 1/01I/0i by propounding a con-cept of a very great God comparable to no human in form andthought:

One god, among gods and men the greatest,similar to mortals neither in body nor in thought.

d<; {h:o<;, £v re Bsotot xui uv8pffinOlm 1l£'Y1Gto<;oun ()£Ilu<; Bvnroirnv ououoc oUo£ venue 1>.

While Aristotle takes Xenophanes to mean that the One was God(to EV sivor rov OEOV), it is obvious that he is merely trying to ex-plain Xenophanes' connection with the Eleatic philosophy of unityin nature 7. It is also obvious from the above that Xenophanes didnot propound a monistic, never mind monotheistic god to replacethe others, but merely speaks of the greatest imegistos), or perhaps« very great», god, who is unlike other gods. While Aristotle may

see Xenophanes as an immediate precursor of Parmenides, modernscholars have also shown how his relativistic arguments and metho-.dology can lead to the great fifth century controversy of nomosand physis . Accepted norms in religious practice and social customwere a special target in this controversy, the sophist's use of com-parative ethnographic data in order to cast doubt on the validity ofaccepting tradition as an absolute has its roots in Xenophanes'comparison of the human concept of the divine", Not only is hiscomparison of et/me an accepted method in the fifth century, buteven the particular et/we mentioned by Xenophanes become someof the stereotyped examples in, for example, the Dissoi Logoi".

While Protagoras is the true father of sophistic -relativism, usinghis antithetical arguments of logos and untilogos in order to con-trast the beliefs and customs of peoples throughout the world, henonetheless does not employ Xenophanes' comparative argumentsin the extant fragments from his discussion, «011 the Gods» (FlspieE&V), but rather a practical complaint that «theology» was unclearand obstructed by the brevity of human life. As his words are pro-blematic, I will here translate them literally:

«About the gods, I am capable of knowing neither how theyare, nor how they are not-nor of what type they are in ap-pearance. For many things prevent our knowing - both theuncertainty [of the subject] as well as man's life being brief».

mpi Il£V 8E&V OUK £Xw d&£VUl, 000' <.0<; denv oue' <.0<;OUKsici vouO' onotot rtvcc; iMav' nOAAa 'Yap to. J(WAUOVtU d&£VUl 1'\ .'aOllA.Otll<; Kat ~paxu<; OlV 6 ~io<; rou avOp(i:mou I U.

Untersteiner was correct to see that Protagoras is here influencedby the language and concepts of Xenophanes - and we may note,for example, his use of the general word idea (appearance, form) ofthe gods to replace Xenophanes' more concerete demus. Protago-ras, however, does not explain exactly what the uncertainty / ob-

e-

6. DK, LB. 23; KRS, fr. 173.7. ARISTOT, Met. 986b21.

8. W.K.C. GUTHRIE, Thl:' Sophists (1971. Cambridge), 22611.9. J)K, Il. so (1B) cap. 1-2.10. DK 11. B. 4; M. UNTERSTEINER, Sojis!i 1 (1%7, Firenze), 71) - ') & 11.

Cr. especially H IPPOCR., Aphorism, 1.1.

104 105


scurity (adelotes) was that prevented knowledge in this field. Didhe, like Xenophanes, mean to claim that there was uncertainty con-cerning differing accounts of the gods' appearance (idea) accordingto different traditions? In that sense should Protagoras' phrase,«and (kai) man's life being brief», be meant to explain the wordadelotes'l Although kai can sometimes be employed in an explana-tory sense of «videlicet», this is usually the case only when the twophrases joined by it are interchangeable. In this instance, Protago-ras could not have meant to say that the obscurity of the subject iscaused by the shortness of life. These must be two separate diffi-culties. It is moreover unlikely that Protagoras was unduly worriedby the amount of myths and traditons one has to learn in one brieflife-time, but rather by the difficulties of reconciling them. Ourmain problem is to discover in what way knowledge of the gods isunclear. Does Protagoras claim to be agnostic concerning merelythe attributes of the divine (of what type (lwpoioi) the gods are;and what was their general idea), or concerning its very existence.When he says that he knows: «neither how they are (has elsin), norhow they are not», the Greek of has eisin could be interpreted intwo ways:

I) That he cannot tell how the gods are, that is of what sort theyare, or what sort of existence they have. This is the qualitativesense noted in Xenophanes above.

2) That he can say neither that the gods exist, nor that they donot exist.

Now it is also clear that this fragment has a striking verbal re-semblance to Protagoras' more famous argument quoted by SextusEmpiricus:

«Man is the standard of all things - both as to how they areand as to how they are not»

nnvnov XPTHlalffiv dVUl ~U';lPOV10V aVepffi1tOVl&V ~EV ovttov 00<;£<fnv, 't&v SE OUKovrtov 00<;OUK£<fnv 11.

as is seen in the phrase has estin . In other words, Sextus under-stood Protagoras to claim that man is the sole means of judging theexistence of the ont a . However, Plato, as well <IS other ancient sour-ces, made Protagoras refer to a problem concerning the attributesof the phaenomena - as if Protagoras refer to a problem concer-ning the attributes of the phaenomenu - as if Protagoras meant toclaim that man is the sole means of judging their appearance tCrat.;385e - 386a). In this sense, man would be the measure of how theyare, rather than that they are. It seems likely that Protagoras wasbeing intentionally unclear with his expression, hos estin , in order togive a double meaning to his description of the standard for judgingonta (in both a qualitative and an existential sense). While much ofthis is well known, it has recently received unexpected confirmationin a new citation from Protagoras (or his pupils), where he exempli-fies the problem of the pliainomena, Even if the fragment as it isnow quoted in our Didymus-commentary on the Psalms shows laterSceptic influence, it is important for showing how later generationswished to interpret Protagoras. At any rate, it ascribes to this so-phist a clearly existential problem of how different people judgewhether an object exists or not, and only then goes on to the pro-blem of its qualitative or attributative being:

«For example, 1 see the moon while someone else does not seeit; it is uncertain whether it exists or does not exist. When I amhealthy, I have a perception of honey that it is sweet, while foranother person, who has a fever, it is bitter. It is uncertainwhether it bitter or sweet etc».olov op& IT}V<f£ATJVllv,{iAAOC;bE OUXopq' a&llAOV et £<fnv t\OUKsonv. £~oi 14>uywivovn uv'tiAll'l'l<; yiv£Wl mu ~tA110<; ()'tl

YAUKU,aA~ of: 6'!l mxpov, £Ctv1tUP£'t1T]'libllAOV OUVEl m KPOVII YAUKU£anv. K.l.A.12

This fragment has a close verbal affinity with that describing Pro-tagoras' denial of his knowledge of the gods that we examined abo-

"

..

The general context of this passage makes it clear that Sextusunderstood Protagoras to refer to the onta in an existential sense -

11. S.E., Pyrrh . i. 216; UNTERSTEINER, op. cif. (above, n. 10),40.12. M. GRONEWALD, «Ein Neues Protagorus-Frugment» , in: Zeitschrift

[iir Papyrologie 11. Epigruphie , 2 (1l)6~), 1-2.

106 107


·1

was unbounded by the mind while according to Antisthenes,there were many gods of the people, but in nature, there wasone principal (god)».Xenophanem notum est omne infinitum cum rncnte dcum trade-re, et Antisthenem populares deos rnultos, sed naturalem unumpraecipuurn» 16.

r

At this period, the origin of Antisthenes' theological cnuque wasseen at least to parallel, if not to derive from that of Xenophanes.

In the sophists and their pupils, we thus see a dual tradition andnot a single philosophical system. We have here two separate diffe-rentiated approaches: a comparative analysis of man's idea of godleading to uncertainty and lack of knowledge - and a dogmaticrefusal of conventional belief in the nomos accompanied by a returnto a god of nature - whether in the form of pantheism or of anatural monotheism. This dual approach was continued also bytheir philosophical successors. In the direct line of Protagoras' anti-thetical discussions, where pro and contra of every thesis wereexamined in order to reach a neutral conclusion, the very existenceof the gods was doubted in the Sceptical New Academy. A numberof arguments are ascribed to Carneades in which he attacks thevery existence of the gods. If there are gods, they are animate; butthe animate is affected by sensation; therefore so are the gods, butif so they are perishable (phthartoi):

«Now if there are gods, then they are living beings; but if theyare living beings, then they perceive for every living being con-ceived as a living being by virtue of its sharing in sensation.But if it perceives, then it is also affected by bitter and sweet... but in being affected by bitter and sweet, it will be pleasedwith some things and dislike others; and by disliking some itwill also be receptive to discomfort and change for the worse;but if so, then he is perishable so that if there are gods, thenthey are perishable. There are therefore, no gods».€fy' up' dcri 6£ol, C,0u aioiv. El SE C,0ci eici v, uia6civov'Wl' n:av

ve. In both cases, we do not know hos estin (how / that they exist).In both cases, such knowledge is obscure - in the above fragment,it is something uncertain (adelon) while in that on the gods, it isblocked by uncertainty (adelotes). If, as has been claimed, Protago-ras intentionally intends to discuss the onta in our phainomena frag-ments in both ways - qualitatively and existentially - it is likelythat he had similar intentions in his rejoinder concerning the gods.In other words, he disclaims knowledge not only of the quality oftheir being (as in Xenophanes), but even of their very existence.

Other contemporary sophists, however, were less sceptical aboutour knowledge of the gods. Although Prodicus was sometimes re-garded as an atheist, he seems to speak of the divine in the wholeof the natural universe in a sort of early pantheistic way 13. In thisof course, we are much closer to that indescribable god of naturethat Aristotle read into the words of Xenophanes. Antisthenes' na-tural monotheism has also sometimes been regarded as the productof Sophists, under whom he studied in the period before he metSocrates. Nonetheless, the relevant fragments from his work onnature tPhvsikos) speak not of relativistic comparisons of humanconcepts of god, nor of doubt sprung from uncertainty, but ratherof a single natural god, resembling no picture or statue 14. HereAntisthenes finally express what was only implied in Xenophanes

that there were many gods by nomos but only one by physis:

«It was said by Antisthenes in his Pliysikos , that there aremany gods by convention, but in nature, one».

n:pp' 'Avtla6ev£l S'EV Il£v [t j'9 <DumK0 Aey£tul to KUta VOIlOVdVUl n:OAA00e;6£oile; KUta O€ <j>UGlV £vuIS•

.Antisthenes' debt to Xenophanes is best expressed by the thirdcentury Minucius Felix:

«Xenophanes is known to have taught that God was all that

./

13. GUTHRIE,op . cif. (above, n. 8), 238 - 9, 241 - 2.14. F. DECLEVACAIZZI, Antisthenis Fragmenta (Farese-Miluno, 1966),

fr. 39a - 44d.15. GIANNANTONI,op . cif. (above, n. I) ii, fr. 179, p. 388. 16. GIANNANTONI,up. cit (above, n. I), ii. fr. IHO p. 3HlJ.

108 109


yap s<t>ov ataBijCH;;<oe; ~.II;;wxi) vostrm s0ov. cl 8e alaOo.vovwt,Kat 1tlKpo.SOVW.t Kat yAUKo.SOV·Wt .. , YAUKas6~£voe; OE Kat m xpu-s6~£voe; £Uap£(Hijo£t riot Kat Ouaap£G1:ija£t. Suoupeo nov Ottrot Kat 6xAijo£<o<; £aw.t O£KtlKOe; Kat tfle; Ent to X£i:pov ueru-~oAfle;. cl DE wow, c:p8apt6e; tanv. &at£ Ein£p Elm OWl, c:pOap-rot dmv. OUK lipa Owi sictv !".

In a parallel passage, Cicero explains how Carneades did notwish to prove such an unphilosophical conclusion as the total dis-missal of the gods - that he surely did not mean to destroy theirvery existence. Scholars have in fact noted that we should acceptthis appraisal of Carneades since it would have been equally incon-sistent of a Sceptic to espouse total atheisim as deism Ill. We canthus accept Cicero's verdict that Carneades' real aim was to showhow useless Stoic theology was. This is of course also seen in thelatter's lengthily attack on Stoic notions of divine providence andprophecy 19.

We should at this stage then note these primary ingredients in theAcademic Sceptic attack on accepted belief in the gods: I) a use ofStoic logic to disprove belief in a divine architect of the universe;2) the dismissal of popular oracular cult; 3) while the main brunt ofthe Academic attack was the Stoa, popular belief in the gods wouldnot have been overlooked. During the later Sceptic revival whenthere was growing disbelief in the old gods at a popular level, we infact find a reactionary policy at the imperial level, especially in theactive revival and rebuilding of the old oracles under Hadrian,

Julian and others-v. In reaction to this, we find in the writings ofSextus Empiricus not only the use of Stoic logic in order tocounter-attack Stoic theology as was used by the Academic Sce-ptics, but also a return to the comparative argument of Xenophanesand the sophists. The essence of god is not only apprehended asdifferent in different parts of the world, but peoples' notions of itare mutually contradictory-t , This Sceptic criticism of the paganoracles had also a popular literary parallel, indicating a growingdisbelief in their efficacy 22.

Alongside religious criticism on a popular and philosophical level,we also find the Cynic movement of this later Hellenistic periodgenerally critical not only of social and accepted mores, but also ofdivine worship. A tradition first propounded by Bernays in the lastcentury saw the Cynics as a «reinste deische Sect e» 23. It is truethat Diogenes was intluenced by Antisthenes' writings on the sociallevel - especially in his interpretation of the latter's aut arkeia as areturn to natural values. Nonetheless, Diogenes' concept of religiondemanded no belief in a one natural god as in Antisthenes, and wasexpressed more through a mocking pantheism, somewhat remini-

20. W.e. WRIGHT, Julian III (Harvard, 19RO), xvi, xxiv, Ep, 29, 42.H.W. PARKE, Greek Oracles (London, 1967), I44ff.

21. SEXTUS, Ad!'. Muth . ix (Adv. Plty s. I). IS- 20.22. See the fictitious «Daulis at Delphi» (W. SCH!:JBART, «Aus einer

Apollon-Aretologie», in: Hermes 55. 1920, pp. 11IS- 195; A. KORTE,«Apollon-Aretologie», in: Archiv I Papyrusforschu ng vii. 1924, pp. 252-253); 2) its relationship with Oenomaus (S. Eitrem, «Daulis in Delphoi undApollons Strafe», in: ;jpdYlIa M. Nil sson, (Lund , 1939), 170- HW)i 3) thefirst century fire at Clams (cf. Sibyl/. vii. 55) and its parallels with Oeno-rnaus (J. GEFFCKEN, The Last Days of Greco-Roman Paganism (Oxf.,197!!; trans. MacCormach), 18n. 78).

23. BERNAYS, op . cit. (above, n. I), 31, \15. On Juliuns idealization ofthe earlier Cynics - who unlike the new ones were supposed to be «god-fearing", see: D.R. DUDLEY, A History {~r Cvnicisiu (1967, Hildcshcimj ,202 If; on the re-establishment of pugurn cults, sec above, n. 20. On thelater Cynics in general, sec: R. HOISTAD. Cyui« l lcro and Cynic K illg(Uppsala, 1948); A. CASPARI, De Cynicis qu! [ucrunt act ate imperot orumRonuinonun (Progr. Chernnitz. I!N5/18%). Sff.

17. SEXTUS, Adl'. Maih . ix tPhys. I) \39-41; LONG-SEDLEY, op . cit.(above, n. 2), I, 462; 11 (1987), 454.

18. C1c., De Nar. Deorum iii. 44; LONG-SEDLEY, op . cit. I (above, n. 2),1. 462- 3, IL 454- 5, where «non ut deos tolleret» meant that Carneadeswould not try to dismiss/disprove tdiairein s the notion t ennoia) of thegods.

19. C1c., De Fato 31; LONG-SEDLEY, op . cit . (above, n. 2), L 463-4, It.456-7. Stoic conceptions of Cynic deism (esp. Epictetus) in: M.DRAGONA-MoNACHOU, The Stoic Arguments [or the Existence and Provi-dence of the Gods (Athens, 1976), 226. In general: K. HULSER, Die Frag>mente zur Dialekiik der St oiker 1- I V (1987 - 8, St uttgart).

I,

110 III

112 113


scent or Prodicus, but distinctly critical of accepted religious practi-ce. In one fragment, perhaps deriving from Diogeues' lost Politeiuwith its communization of wives and children, the Cynic claims thathe owns the whole world since as friend of the gods, their propertyis his:

«He (Diogenes) used to reason in this fashion: everything be-longs to the gods. Sages are friends of the gods. But the (pro-perty) of friends is held in common. Therefore, everything be-longs to the sage».

cruV£AOY(S£to DE Kui o(i"t:we;'HllV DUllV can nuvtu: <plAOlDE 01cocoi tote; 8£OtC;· ••oivd DE to. t&v <plA.wv.nuvt ' apu cati l&Vao<p<i:lvH.

open war declared against all religious authority in hi-, work Cluulu-tans Dct cct cd (fOllt(i)v <p<i)pU)~h.Ocnornau-, attack, however, ismainly literary and b"sed on a careful cx.uuination and comparisonof oracular response recorded in history - and even known tu himfrom his own experience: This uuuck is aimed chiefly at any pus~i-bility of divine providence, whether as conceived by the Stoa, or inGreek literature. However, Ocnomaus is abo outraged at the incon-sistencies ascribed to the gods as well as the immorality associ:llcdwith them by the poets. In elfect , he looks back to the groundworklaid by Xenophunes as well as by the Sceptics. Although there is noexpressed denial of the gods themselves, his belief is that if there isa god he cares nothing for us. That religions instead of encouragingpeace divide mankind and .rnislcad him. As one of Juiians youngerCynics so abhorrent 'io the emperor (Or., vi. II)~a), Oe nornuusthus prefigures as a debasement of the traditional piety shown bysuch -Stoiciz ing" Cynics as Dill Chrysovrom.Once we reappraise the role played by the Cynic in ancient i'Cli-

gious criticism, we do not find a pure religious sect, but rather acriticism of religious mores that typified Cynicism since the time ofDiogenes. However, Oenornaus also turns to Arcesilaus for help inhis attack on Chrysippus and joins hands with the Sceptics fur hiscriticism of Stoic notions of the godsn. It is thus that we findOenomuus frequently cited ill O:II'II.I(J by Euxcbius and Clement.For these pious theologians, Cynic and Sceptic texts served as astorehouse of argument and self-incrirniruu ing criticism of the olJpagan world. However, we have seen that a view of Cynicism andScepticism as allies of the new monotheistic belief cannot be justified.

While this may be a parody of philosophical views of the gods, Dio-genes was also critical of the cult. This is best seen in his famousepisode with the prostrate woman who is chided for acting immo-destly at her prayers. Since everything is full of God (nnvtu yap sonvUlllOU nAt1PTl), he could creep lip behind her (above, n. 24). Thisreligious criticism was aimed against the oracles, as well as popularsacrifice. It was latterly expressed by the Gudurene Cynics: Menip-pus, Meleager and Oenornaus. All three seem to have been criticalof the altar and sucrifice->. But in Oenornuus especially, we find an

24. D.L vi 37, also 2~, 72; GtANNANTUNI. up. cit . (above, n. I) Ill,

pp. 492 - 4.

25. I) On Menippus: J. GEl-FCKEN .•• Mcnippos Ilcpi 0lJen&v». 111:

Il ermrs 66. 1931, 347 - 354; I. UIWNS, «Luciun 1I. Ocnornuus» , in: Rhein,M us. M, t!l~lj, 374 - 31)6. CL D. L. vi. 10 I (LeIlI'T.I· uf t lu: G",h), V AKKO,Sutur . Mcni pp . (cd. R. Astbury ; Leipzig, 1'.I~5) - l l ccat ombt: llcpi OlJenG:iv(94-95), P.\t'l/(/()/II~· Apollo (43~-MX); Luc., JI.' sacrificiis 11- 12. CL alsoDiogenes: D.L. vi. 2K; Ps-Diog. 1:./). xxxviii 0= Apollo; A.J. MAUIERBE, Till.'Cynic Epistles (Atlanta, 19~6), 14 tf.. 161. 2) On Meleuger: Anth. Gr. ix.

453 & schol. (Suulunullcr. iii. I) = Zeus. 3) On the philosophical and lite-rary traditions of Gadaru in general, sec: M. l.uz. •.Sularu, Mclcagcr!» , in:Studi lt aliuui Ji Filolog!« clussica xxx , I9K'.I'! , pp. 1-2; M. liAllAS, «Gudu-rcnes in Pagan Literature», in: Clussica! Wl'l'/../\', x xv. 4 (1167). 1'J31, 25- 30;

J. GEIGER, "Athens in Syria: Greek lntcllectuul-, of Gad"ra", in: Kuthcdra35. 19K5, 11- 12 (Heb.).

26. SIIJa (Adler) , iv. p. 622 S 123, S.I·. O!VOflUlIC;; FI'C Ill, 3M. fr. 4; P.V ALLETTE, De Ot'II()/IIl1U Cynico (I'JOK, Paris: di~!>.J. 12, 27, 34. I) 0":110-

muus' works: O. CRUSIUS, Die KlJv<'>C;UlJ10lPWviu des Oinumaus', in:Rhein, Mm. 44. IHH'J, 309-312; DUDLEY, 01'. cif. (ubov., n. 23), 1<>3;

VALLETT!:, 0". cif., 12 If. 2) and the Sllla: l. IlRuNs, 01'. cir., 37-1-')(,;

E. ZELLER (cd. W. Nestle), Grundriss J. G".\Th. d. grit'ch. Plul. (I..:ipzig.1921<), 335 (9 HO). /'27. VALLETTE, "I). cif. (above, n. 2(". 7"2; [)UIlI.EY, "I' .•. it . (above. 11.

23), 169.

B

M. LUZ

Both movements should rather be seen as natural developmentsof that dual stream in Greek philosophy, first propounded by Xeno-phanes of Colophon: a critical relativistic methodology in order todismiss conventional belief - as well as return to a nature in orderto explain the meaning of our existence. Both sought in their sepa-rate ways to find a 'method of' freeing man from religious prejudice.

Menuhcrn LuzHuifu University

114

cynics as allies of scepticism

Documents