{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54406/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54406","id":"gutenberg_54406","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54406","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Greece -- Religion","Philosophy, Ancient","Religious thought -- Greece","Religious thought -- To 600"],"text":"THE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT\n                             OF THE GREEKS\n\n                       FROM HOMER TO THE TRIUMPH\n                            OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n                                   BY\n                        CLIFFORD HERSCHEL MOORE\n                PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY\n\n                             [Illustration]\n\n                               CAMBRIDGE\n                        HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n                        LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD\n                        OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n                                  1916\n\n                            COPYRIGHT, 1916\n                        HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n                 First impression issued November, 1916\n                Second impression issued December, 1916\n\nTO MY WIFE\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIn this book eight lectures given before the Lowell Institute in\nBoston during the late autumn of 1914 are combined with material drawn\nfrom a course of lectures delivered the previous spring before the\nWestern Colleges with which Harvard University maintains an annual\nexchange\u2014Beloit, Carleton, Colorado, Grinnell, and Knox. The lecture\nform has been kept, even at the cost of occasional repetition.\n\nThe purpose of these lectures is to present within a moderate compass\nan historical account of the progress of Greek religious thought\nthrough something over a thousand years. No attempt has been made\nto give a general treatment of Greek religion, or to deal with\npre-Hellenic origins, with religious antiquities, or with mythology.\nThe discussions are confined rather to the Greeks\u2019 ideas about the\nnature of the gods, and to their concepts of the relations between\ngods and men and of men\u2019s obligations toward the divine. The lectures\ntherefore deal with the higher ranges of Greek thought and at times\nhave much to do with philosophy and theology.\n\nYet I have felt free to interpret my subject liberally, and, so\nfar as space allowed, I have touched on whatever seemed to me most\nsignificant. Ethics has been included without hesitation, for the\nGreeks themselves, certainly from the fifth century B.C.,\nregarded morals as closely connected with religion. A treatment of the\noriental religions seemed desirable, since the first two centuries and\na half of our era cannot be understood if these religions are left out\nof account. Still more necessary was it to include Christianity. In my\nhandling of this I have discussed the teachings of Jesus and of Paul\nwith comparative fullness, in order to set forth clearly the material\nwhich later under the influence of secular thought was transformed into\na philosophic system. Origen and Plotinus represent the culmination of\nGreek religious philosophy.\n\nSuch a book as this can be nothing more than a sketch; in it the\nscholar will miss many topics which might well have been included. Of\nsuch omissions I am fully conscious; but limitations of subject and of\nspace forced me to select those themes which seemed most significant in\nthe development of the religious ideas of the ancient world.\n\nIt is not possible for me to acknowledge all my obligations to others.\nI wish, however, to express here my gratitude to Professor C. P.\nParker, who has shared his knowledge of Plato with me; to Professor J.\nH. Ropes, who has helped me on many points in my last two lectures,\nwhere I especially needed an expert\u2019s aid; and to Professor C. N.\nJackson, who has read the entire book in manuscript and by his learning\nand judgment has made me his constant debtor. The criticism which these\nfriends have given me has been of the greatest assistance even when I\ncould not accept their views; and none of them is responsible for my\nstatements.\n\nThe translations of Aeschylus are by A. S. Way, Macmillan, 1906-08;\nthose of Euripides are from the same skilled hand, in the Loeb\nClassical Library, Heinemann, 1912; for Sophocles I have drawn on the\nversion by Lewis Campbell, Kegan Paul, Trench and Company, 1883; and\nfor Thucydides and Plato I have used the classic renderings of Jowett\nwith slight modifications in one or two passages.\n\nIn an appendix will be found selected bibliographies for each lecture.\nTo these lists I have admitted, with one or two exceptions, only such\nbooks as I have found useful from actual experience; and few articles\nin periodicals have been named.\n\n                         CLIFFORD HERSCHEL MOORE.\n  CAMBRIDGE, MASS.\n        August 1, 1916.\n\n\n\n\n                        CONTENTS\n\n                                                      PAGE\n\n     I. HOMER AND HESIOD                                 3\n    II. ORPHISM, PYTHAGOREANISM, AND THE MYSTERIES      40\n   III. RELIGION IN THE POETS OF THE SIXTH AND\n           FIFTH CENTURIES B.C.                         74\n    IV. THE FIFTH CENTURY AT ATHENS                    109\n     V. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE                            144\n    VI. LATER RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES                   183\n   VII. THE VICTORY OF GREECE OVER ROME                221\n  VIII. ORIENTAL RELIGIONS IN THE WESTERN HALF\n            OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE                        257\n    IX. CHRISTIANITY                                   296\n     X. CHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM                      326\n\n  APPENDIX  I (BIBLIOGRAPHIES)                         361\n  APPENDIX II (SPECIMEN OF ROMAN CALENDAR)             370\n  INDEX                                                373\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF THE GREEKS\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF THE GREEKS\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nHOMER AND HESIOD\n\n\n\u201cHomer and Hesiod created the generations of the gods for the\nGreeks; they gave the divinities their names, assigned to them their\nprerogatives and functions, and made their forms known.\u201d So Herodotus\ndescribes the service of these poets to the centuries which followed\nthem.[1] But the modern historian of Greek religion cannot accept\nthe statement of the father of history as wholly satisfactory; he\nknows that the excavations of the last forty years have revealed to\nus civilizations of the third and second millenia before Christ, the\nMinoan and Mycenaean cultures, of which the historical Greeks were\nhardly conscious, but which nevertheless made large contributions to\nreligion in the period after Homer. Yet at the most the Mycenaean and\nMinoan Ages were for the Greek of the sixth and fifth centuries only a\nkind of dim background for the remote history of his race. The Homeric\npoems represented for him the earliest stage of Hellenic social life\nand religion. We are justified, then, in taking the Iliad and Odyssey\nas starting points in our present considerations. These matchless epics\ncast an ineffable spell over the imaginations of the Greeks themselves\nand influenced religion hardly less than literature.\n\nIt is obvious that in this course of lectures we cannot consider\ntogether all the multitudinous phases of Greek religion: it will be\nimpossible to discuss those large primitive elements in the practices\nand beliefs of the ancient Greek folk which are so attractive to many\nstudents of religion today, for these things were, by and large, only\nsurvivals from a ruder past and did not contribute to the religious\nprogress from age to age; nor can we rehearse the details of worship,\nor review all the varieties of religious belief which we find in\ndifferent places and in successive centuries; still less can we concern\nourselves with mythology. Alluring as these things are they do not\nconcern our present purpose. I shall invite you rather to trace with\nme the development of Greek religious thought through something over a\nthousand years, from the period of the Homeric poems to the triumph of\nChristianity. In such a survey we must be occupied for the most part\nwith the larger movements and the higher ranges of Greek thought, with\nthe advance which was made from century to century; and we shall try\nto see how each stage of religious development came to fruition in the\nnext period. To accomplish this purpose we must take into due account\nthe social, economic, and political changes in the Greek world which\ninfluenced the course of Hellenic thinking. Ultimately, if our study\nis successful, we shall have discovered in some measure, I trust, what\npermanent contributions the Greeks made to our own religious ideas.\nWith these things in mind, therefore, let us return to the Homeric\nPoems.\n\nWhatever the date at which the Iliad and the Odyssey received their\nfinal form, the common view that they belong to a period somewhere\nbetween 850 and 700 B.C. is substantially correct. They\nrepresent the culmination of a long period of poetic development\nand picture so to speak on one canvas scenes and deeds from many\ncenturies. Yet the composite life is wrought by poetic art into one\nsplendid whole, so that the ordinary reader, in antiquity as today,\nwas unconscious of the variety and contradictions in the poems; only\nthe analytic mind of the scholar detects the traces of the varied\nmaterials which the epic poet made his own. It is important that we\nshould realize the fact that the Homeric poems made the impression of a\nconsistent unity upon the popular mind in antiquity, for the influence\nof these epics through the recitations of rhapsodes at great public\nfestivals and through their use in school was enormous. The statement\nof Herodotus, with which I began, was very largely true.\n\nThese poems were composed to be recited at the courts of princes in\nIonia for the entertainment of the nobles at the banquet or after the\nfeast was over. This purpose naturally influenced the poet in depicting\nlife and religion, for the incidents chosen, the adventures recounted,\nall the life represented, of necessity had to be consonant with the\ninterests and life of the bard\u2019s audience. His lays were for the ears\nof men who had not yet lost the consciousness that they were in a new\nland, who knew that they were living in stirring times, and who feeling\nthe spirit of adventure still fresh within them responded joyously to\ntales of heroic combat. This fact explains in part why it is that we\nfind so little that is primitive or savage in Homer. Such elements\nwere deliberately left out by the bard as unsuited to his audience;\nhe chose to neglect them, not because of any antagonism toward them,\nbut because they did not agree with his artistic aim. Again, the\nantiquity of the themes, even at the time of composition, made a\nfreedom and picturesqueness of treatment possible, which a narrative of\ncontemporaneous events could never have possessed. Furthermore since\nthe peoples of Ionia, on migrating from the mainland of Greece, had\nleft behind their sacred places and had carried with them their gods,\nsevered from their ancient homes, the epic poet could treat religion\nwith a liberty and could exercise a freedom of selection among the\ndivinities, could use his poetic imagination to modify forms and to\nemphasize certain attributes, as he never could have done if singing\nfor a people long resident in an ancient home where their gods had been\nlocalized and fixed in character time out of mind. A poet singing of\nHera in the Argolid would have found himself bound by the traditions of\nthe Heraeum where the goddess had been domiciled from prehistoric time,\nbut the Homeric bard in Ionia was under no such limitation.\n\nTherefore we find that the Iliad and Odyssey present to us a picture of\nlife and religion composed of selected elements and so universalized\nthat it was understood everywhere and at all later times. Exactly as\nthe Homeric dialect, probably never spoken in any place or period, was\nuniversally comprehended, so the contents of the poems seemed nothing\nstrange or difficult to audiences in the remotest parts of the Greek\nworld; in the Greek colonies in Sicily, along the western shores of the\nMediterranean, or on the borders of the Black Sea, the epic tales were\nas easily understood as at Delos, Olympia, or Athens.\n\nYet we have no warrant for using the Homeric poems as sources for\nthe full history of Greek religion in the ninth and eighth centuries\nB.C. We must remember that the epic bard was least of all\ncomposing systematic treatises about religion; on the contrary he\nwas narrating heroic tales, such as the wrath of Achilles, the death\nof Hector and the ransoming of his body, and the return of Odysseus;\nhe introduced the gods solely as mighty actors in the struggles and\nadventures of his mortal heroes. The divinities who play their parts in\nthe Iliad, for example, were summoned, like the Achaean princes, so to\nspeak, from many places to take part in the combat before Troy, and in\nthe Odyssey only those gods appear who are required by the story. In\nshort, the poet used the gods and religion exactly as he used his other\nmaterials, drawing from a great stock of beliefs and practices that\nwhich suited his tale, disregarding all the rest, and troubling little\nabout consistency. Homer\u2019s aim, like that of most poets, was primarily\nartistic, and least of all didactic.\n\nFurthermore every reader of the Homeric epics is struck by the\nfreshness of the treatment; indeed, scholars of an earlier day thought\nthat the Iliad and the Odyssey were the first fruits of European poetic\ninspiration. Today we know that Homer represents the culmination of a\nlong fine of bards, that his artistry was won by effort and was not\nsimply the incredible inspiration of one untaught; but this knowledge\ndoes not diminish in the slightest degree our appreciation of the\nfreshness and directness of treatment which that art realized. These\nqualities are obtained in part by a freedom from reflection, by a lack\nof self-consciousness in the poems. They do not deal with the origin\nof the gods, they present no theogonies, any more than they concern\nthemselves with the descent of man. It is true that Zeus is the son\nof Cronos, as Hera is the daughter of Cronos and Rhea, and that it is\nsaid that Zeus drove Cronos beneath the earth and sea, but we have no\naccount of the rule of the elder gods or of the struggle by which Zeus\nwon his place. For the epic poet the world of gods, men, and nature\nsimply is; he does not indulge in speculation himself nor does he make\nhis heroes debate questions of whence or whither; the living present\nwith its actions, its struggles, victories, and defeats filled the\ncompass of the poet\u2019s thought and of his audience\u2019s desire.\n\nThe Iliad and the Odyssey then must not be considered as treatises\nor as reflective and philosophical works. This elementary point must\nbe emphasized here, for there is always danger of losing the true\nperspective when we are considering a single theme. The poems derive\ntheir great significance for the history of Greek religion from the\nfact that through recitations they became the chief popular literature\nof Greece, and that from the sixth century they were the basis of\neducation, as I have already said. Thus they were universally known\nand universally influential; they created a common Olympic religion\nbeside the local religions; and through the individualities which they\ngave the gods they fixed the types which poets were to recall and which\nartists were to embody in marble or in wood, ivory, and gold at the\ncenters of the Greek world.\n\nWith these facts in mind we may ask what are the nature and\ncharacteristics of the gods in Homer. Excavations have shown us that\nthe Mycenaean Age had already passed beyond the ruder stages and had\nconceived some at least of its divinities in anthropomorphic fashion.\nIn Homer the gods are frankly made in man\u2019s image. They are beings\nlarger, wiser, and stronger than mortals; they have a superhuman but\nnot complete control over nature and mankind. Their chief pre\u00ebminence\nover man lies in this superior power and in the possession of\nimmortality as well as of that eternal youth and beauty which is\nappropriate to immortals. In their veins flows a divine ichor instead\nof blood; their food and drink are not the bread and wine which mortals\nneed. Yet for all this they are hardly more independent of physical\nneeds than men: they must sleep and eat, and they need the light of\nthe sun. The passions hold sway over them to such an extent that the\nmorality of the gods, of Zeus in particular, is distinctly inferior to\nthat of mortal princes. The divinities can suffer pain and indignities.\nDiomedes was able to wound both Aphrodite and Ares, whereat the valiant\ngod of war bawled out as loud, the poet says, \u201cas nine or ten thousand\nmen shout in battle,\u201d and fled into the broad heaven to appeal to\nZeus.[2] In the twenty-first book of the Iliad Athena hits Ares in the\nneck with a large boundary stone and overthrows him, adding insult\nto injury by laughing merrily at the god\u2019s discomfiture; then when\nAphrodite would lead him off groaning, Athena hurries after and with a\nblow of her stout hand lays goddess and god prostrate on the ground.[3]\nNor are the gods more just and honorable than men; they are moved by\ncaprice; and their godhead does not prevent their quarreling or making\nup their differences in very human fashion, as the domestic jar between\nZeus and Hera in the first book of the Iliad shows.[4]\n\nFurthermore the Homeric gods are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.\n\u201cThe gods know all things\u201d is a pious tribute of the poet, but the\nnarrative shows it to be untrue. In the thirteenth book of the Iliad,\nwhen Zeus is gazing off into Thrace he fails to notice that Poseidon\nenters the battle on the plain immediately below him.[5] In the fifth\nbook of the Odyssey the tables are turned in a sense, for Poseidon\nfinds that during his absence among the Ethiopians the Olympians have\ntaken action favorable to Odysseus, whose return the god of the sea\nwould fain prevent.[6] For nine years Thetis and Eurynome alone among\nthe gods knew where Hephaestus was concealed: when he had been thrown\nfrom heaven by his mother in shame for his lameness, they hid him in a\ngrotto where the sound of the stream of Oceanus drowned the noise of\nhis smithy.[7] Apollo arrives too late to save Rhesus from his fate;[8]\nand we are told that in the previous generation Ares was imprisoned by\nthe giants Otus and Ephialtes in a bronze jar, like an Oriental jinn,\nfor thirteen months. There he had perished if it had not been for the\nfriendly aid of Hermes who stole him from his prison.[9] The gods at\ntimes thwart one another\u2019s purposes, and, as we have seen, they may\neven be wounded or frightened like human beings.[10] In such ways as\nthese do the Homeric divinities show their limitations.\n\nNot only can the gods thwart one another, but they are all at times\nsubject to Fate or Destiny, which, although vaguely conceived by\nthe poet, is none the less inexorable. It seems usually to be an\nimpersonal power, although sometimes it is identified with the will\nof an indefinite god (\u03b4\u03b1\u1f30\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1) or with that of Zeus\nhimself (\u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1). It was fated that Sarpedon, the son of\nZeus, should die, and Zeus, in spite of his grief, yielded him up to\nhis doom, not because he could not have opposed Fate successfully,\nbut because he feared that other divinities would wish to save their\nchildren if he saved his.[11] Yet in the Odyssey Athena disguised as\nMentor declares to Telemachus that not even the gods can save a man\nthey love whenever the fatal doom of death lays hold on him.[12] So\nnaturally inconsistent is the poet, for in his day men had not reached\nthe stage where they could form any adequate notion of unity in the\nworld. Fate therefore is not conceived to be an inexorable power which\nis constantly operative, as we find it represented at a later time\namong the Greeks and among the Romans, notably in Virgil.\n\nAt times we find a more or less fatalistic view of life, Fate being\nconceived as a destiny fixed at birth, for the notion that the thread\nof life was spun already existed. So Hecuba, wailing for her son, cries\nthat mighty Fate spun Hector\u2019s doom at the hour she gave him birth;[13]\nand Alcinous declares that under Phaeacian escort Odysseus shall reach\nhis home, but that there he will suffer all that Fate and the cruel\nspinsters spun for him when his mother bore him.[14] This fatalism is\nmost clearly expressed in passages such as that where Odysseus on\nCirce\u2019s isle cheers his companions by reminding them that they shall\nnot enter the house of Hades until their fated day shall come,[15] and\nespecially in those lines in which Hector comforts his wife Andromache\nwho would have restrained his impetuous desire for battle:[16] \u201cMy good\nwife, grieve not overmuch for me in thy heart, for no man shall send\nme to Hades contrary to my fate; and I say that none, be he a coward\nor brave, has ever escaped his doom, when once it comes.\u201d Still the\nHomeric bard had not arrived at any consistent view of destiny; he\ngave utterance to that feeling which men had vaguely then as now, that\nbeyond all lies something fixed and invariable to which all things and\nbeings are ultimately subject.\n\nAs we have seen, the divinities may work at cross purposes; there is\nnothing in the Homeric poems like monotheism or pantheism in any true\nsense. When the Homeric man said that a thing happened \u201cwith god\u2019s\nhelp,\u201d he was simply recognizing the agency of the gods in everything.\nNot knowing the special divinity concerned, he left him nameless;\nleast of all had he any concept of a complete divine polity. There\nis, therefore, no such thing in the epics as a divine providence in\nthe way of a definite purpose or plan such as we shall later find in\nthe fifth century. Like mortals the Homeric gods discuss their plans,\nwithout being able to see the end from the beginning; they are moved\nby caprice, so that Zeus changes sides twice on the second day of the\ngreat battle between the Achaeans and Trojans.[17] The vacillating and\ncapricious character of the gods is not offset by the protection that\na divinity may give a favorite, such as Athena gave to Odysseus in his\nlong wanderings and on his return to Ithaca. Throughout both poems we\nfind the assumption constantly held that every blessing comes from the\ngods, that they give every distinction. In like fashion men believed\nthat all misfortunes were due to divine anger or hostility. So Odysseus\nwas kept from home for nearly ten years by Poseidon\u2019s hate; the favor\nof Athena toward the Achaeans turned to wrath because of the violence\ndone her shrine in the sack of Troy so that she caused an evil return\nfor her former favorites. Indeed in misfortune the Homeric hero\u2019s\nfirst question was as to what god he had offended. The problem of evil\ntherefore was a simple one\u2014all depended on the will or whim of some\ndivinity.\n\nBut there are other things which we should note with regard to these\ndivinities. As has been said, they are universalized, not attached\nto definite localities; in fact the epics contain few traces of that\nlocalization which was the rule in the common religion of Greece.\nAlthough Hera declares:[18] \u201cVerily three cities there are most dear to\nme, Argos and Sparta and broad-streeted Mycenae,\u201d she is in no sense\nregarded as bound to these localities. In Demodocus\u2019 song of the love\nof Ares and Aphrodite it is said that when released from the bonds in\nwhich Hephaestus had ensnared them, the god of war fled to Thrace and\nlaughter-loving Aphrodite to Paphos in Cyprus,[19] but these places\nare not their homes in any strict sense. And so with the other gods.\nThe Olympians are rather free, universal divinities, unhampered by\nlocal attachments. Olympus itself is in the upper heaven more than in\nThessaly. It is of course true that lesser divinities, like river-gods\nand mountain-nymphs, are localized, but these beings have little\ninfluence on the affairs of men.\n\nLet us now consider briefly the most important Homeric gods. At the\nhead of the divine order stands Zeus, \u201cfather of gods and of men\u201d\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5), \u201cmost exalted of rulers\u201d (\u1f54\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd),\n\u201cmost glorious and most mighty\u201d (\u03ba\u03cd\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5), as he is called.[20]\nTo him the elements are subject and at his nod great Olympus trembles.\nHe is the guardian of oaths, the protector of the stranger and the\nsuppliant. Famed for his prowess and might he never in person enters\nbattle, but indirectly he takes a hand in the strife between the Greeks\nand the Trojans. Although he surpasses all in wisdom and power, at\ntimes he is outwitted by other divinities. Like a mortal chieftain\nhe presides at council on Olympus in his great hall, whither he may\non occasion summon the divinities of every class to attend a general\nassembly.[21] Olympus indeed is conceived as loosely organized after\nthe fashion of an aristocratic state with Zeus as chief (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2),\nthe Olympians as members of the council (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae), and the whole body of\nminor divinities as making up the assembly (\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae).\n\nHera, the queen of Olympus, is at once both sister and wife of Zeus;\nthey are the only wedded pair on Olympus. She belongs, however,\ndistinctly to the second class of Olympians. She takes no part in\nthe Odyssey; and in the Iliad, although she favors the Achaeans most\nvehemently, she is less active than Athena. In character she is a good\ndeal of a scold, so that Zeus fears her jealous anger.[22] He knows that\nshe is accustomed to block his plans, although on one occasion he had\npunished her by stringing her up by the wrists and tying anvils to her\nfeet! Of this he indignantly reminds her: \u201cDost thou not remember\nwhen I strung thee up aloft and from thy feet I hung two anvils, and\nround thy wrists I bound a golden bond unbreakable? And thou wast hung\nin the upper air and the clouds. Wroth were the gods throughout high\nOlympus, but still they could not approach and free thee.\u201d[23] Again he\nhad beaten her, and when Hephaestus tried to intervene, Zeus seized the\nmeddler by the foot and threw him out of Olympus. Hephaestus himself\nrecalls the experience: \u201cAll the day long I fell and at setting of the\nsun I dropped in Lemnos, and there was little life left in me.\u201d[24]\n\nAthena is above all the goddess of war, and she plays a large part\nin both the Iliad and Odyssey. In the latter poem she is the special\nguardian of Odysseus, whose ready mind wins her admiration. She is\nalso the most skilled of all divinities, the patroness of every\nhandicraft.[25] She is perhaps the chief divinity of Troy; on the Trojan\ncitadel stands her temple to which the noble matrons bring a gift of a\nbeautiful robe with the promise of generous sacrifice if the goddess\nwill give them her protection against Diomedes.[26] She also has a home\non the acropolis at Athens.[27]\n\nApollo, the archer god, is a patron of war and of bowmen. In the Iliad\nhe is a violent enemy of the Achaeans and gives most effective aid\nto the Trojans; but in the Odyssey he plays no active part. He also\ninspires seers and prophets; and he is the god of the lyre and the\nteacher of bards. In prayers he is named with Zeus and Athena when an\nobject is most earnestly desired.[28]\n\nThese three are the greatest of the Homeric divinities, although there\nis no close connection among them. Apollo\u2019s virgin sister, Artemis,\nplays a part much inferior to that of her brother, but in many ways she\nis similar to him. Her arrows bring a quick and peaceful end to women\nas Apollo\u2019s do to men. In the chase she is pre\u00ebminent: she is the fair\ngoddess of wood and mountain.\n\nAres and Aphrodite also belong to a lower rank. In function they\nare limited to an appeal to a single passion each, Ares to rage for\nslaughter, Aphrodite to the passion of love. They are both treated with\na certain contempt and are mocked by the other gods.\n\nHephaestus is the god of fire, the lame craftsman of Olympus. It was\nhe who built the homes of the gods; but his skill was especially shown\nin the wondrous works he wrought in gold and silver. Such were the\nmixing-bowl which Phaedimus, the Sidonian king, gave to Menelaus;[29]\nwonderful automata, twenty golden tripods, which on occasion would go\nof their own accord to the assemblage of the gods and then return;[30]\nor the gold and silver dogs which guarded the palace of Alcinous.[31]\nStill more marvellous were the golden maidens endowed with reason,\nspeech, and cunning knowledge, which supported their maker as he limped\nfrom his forge to his chair;[32] and above all the splendid armor\nwrought for Achilles.[33]\n\nPoseidon, the brother of Zeus, has as his special province the sea;\nbut he appears on Olympus at the councils of the gods. In the Iliad he\nsupports the Achaeans vigorously; no doubt from anger at the Trojans\nwhose king Laomedon had once cheated him of the pay which was his\ndue for building the walls of Troy;[34] in the Odyssey, angry at the\nblinding of his son, Polyphemus, he holds Odysseus far from Ithaca,\nuntil at last the Phaeacians bring him home. Then in wrath he turns\ntheir vessel into stone.[35]\n\nSuch in brief are the eight great gods of the Homeric poems. Of these\nZeus is easily the first, but in the first rank also are Athena and\nApollo; Hera and Poseidon hold a second place; and Hephaestus, Ares,\nand Aphrodite belong to the third class. Many other divinities there\nare, but all of lesser rank, like Hermes whose duties are those of a\nhigher servant or messenger. He is sent to escort King Priam to the\ntent of Achilles to ransom Hector\u2019s body,[36] and he is despatched\nto Calypso\u2019s isle to bid her let Odysseus go.[37] There are some\nindications that he is already the patron of thieves, as he is of\nservants. Dionysus and Demeter, so prominent in later Greece, have not\nyet won a place in the Olympic circle. There is no hint in the epics of\nthe mysteries and the orgiastic cults which were afterwards of great\nsignificance. Hades, the brother of Zeus and Poseidon, holds as his\nrealm the dark abode of the dead, where he reigns with Persephone as\nqueen. His murky kingdom is now represented as beneath the earth, again\nas far out on the bounds of Oceanus. But Hades takes no active part in\neither poem.\n\nBesides these there is a host of divinities, some named but most\nunnamed, who cause all the phenomena of the visible world. In fact,\nthe Homeric man could not conceive of a natural world obeying laws\nwhose operation was fixed; on the contrary, he could only think of\nanimated beings as the causes of all events. For him every occurrence\nwas the manifestation of the will of some divinity; the natural and the\nmiraculous were one.\n\nIt is evident from this hasty review of the Homeric gods that we\nhave in the epics no complete and fully organized pantheon. Zeus is\nregarded as supreme but he is thwarted and outwitted by lesser members\nof the Olympic circle, even as they block one another. In fact Homer\u2019s\nview of the gods abounds in contradictions of which however only the\nscholar and the critic have ever been very conscious. From our modern\nstandpoint we notice the moral inconsistencies above all. Although Zeus\nis the guardian of justice, he is deceitful and treacherous if occasion\narises, as when at the request of Thetis he sends a delusive dream to\nAgamemnon to urge him to give battle, in spite of the fact that he\ncannot be successful.[38] It is Zeus also who is responsible for the\nfaithless breaking of the truce between the Achaeans and Trojans[39];\nand many other instances might be cited to illustrate his utter\nuntrustworthiness. On his lack of domestic morality I need hardly dwell.\n\nYet we must remind ourselves that to the Homeric Age there was\nlittle connection, if any, between morals and religion. Religion is\nconcerned with man\u2019s relation to the gods, morality with his relation\nto his fellow men. Morality is therefore developed through the social\nrelations first of all, and only later is brought into relation to\nreligion. In Homer the sense of social obligations is much more keenly\nrealized than is that of religious sanctions. The cardinal virtues are\nbravery, wisdom, love of home and family, and regard for hospitality.\nIn a life of action, filled with war, bravery is of prime importance;\nby it wealth, power, and honor are won. Proper to such a life are\npractical wisdom and even cunning. The highest praise is to be called\n\u201cfirst in council and first in battle.\u201d[40] Agamemnon is lauded by Helen\nas \u201cboth a good king and a mighty warrior.\u201d[41] The standing epithets\nof Odysseus, \u201cvery crafty\u201d (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) and \u201cthe man of many devices\u201d\n(\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), show the qualities which were deemed praiseworthy.\nYet Odysseus had won this distinction by his skill in lying and\ndeceiving\u2014practices still deemed highly laudable in our own world if\nemployed against a foe, or sometimes even when used as acts of caution.\nYet if our modern views do not wholly coincide with the ancient on\nthese points, we can feel only admiration for the regard for home and\nfamily, the unselfish generosity, and the universal hospitality toward\nstrangers which the epic heroes display.\n\nThe poems also set a high value on personal honor. The outrage done\nMenelaus by Paris, who violated the most sacred laws of hospitality\nby carrying away his host\u2019s wife, was the whole cause of the Trojan\nWar. To avenge this outrage all the princes of the Achaeans rallied\nas if the wrong suffered had been their own. Agamemnon\u2019s high-handed\nact in taking the captive Briseis from Achilles roused that wrath\nwhich is the first word of the Iliad. The Odyssey is the epic of a\npersonal will which, triumphing over all disasters, finally wreaked\na terrible vengeance on the insolent suitors who had wooed Odysseus\u2019\nwife, devoured his substance, plotted against his son, and at the end\nshamefully insulted Odysseus himself. The punishment of the suitors\nis the victory of justice over lawlessness, and possesses a moral\nsignificance which was not lost on antiquity.\n\nIn what I have just been saying I have already implied that man\u2019s\nrelation to the gods was not ethical but ritualistic. We must\nremember that when we speak of \u201csin\u201d or a \u201cconsciousness of guilt,\u201d\nwe are presupposing a self-conscious and self-searching individual.\nThis the Homeric man was not; on the contrary he was in the highest\ndegree natural, unreflective, and unconscious of self. In fact the\nHomeric concept of sin touches our moral ideas at hardly more than\nthree points. Disregard for an oath, failure to honor one\u2019s father\nand mother, and disrespect for the stranger and suppliant were high\noffenses against heaven and brought down divine wrath on the\ntransgressor. But in general sin is failure to recognize man\u2019s absolute\ndependence on the immortals, to give them due honor, to pay them proper\nsacrifice, and to walk humbly on the earth. Sacrifice is tribute\nwhereby man acquires merit with divinity; of such meritorious credit\nthe priest Chryses reminds Apollo in his prayer at the beginning of\nthe Iliad:[42] \u201cHear me, Lord of the silver bow, ... if ever I have\nroofed over a temple pleasing to thee, or if ever I have burnt in thy\nhonor fat thighs of bulls or of goats, then accomplish this my prayer.\u201d\nAgamemnon in the stress of battle reproaches Zeus for bringing his\npresent disaster upon him in spite of the fact that he made sacrifice\non every altar as he hurried to Ilion;[43] and many other illustrations\nmight be cited. Failure to make due offering might bring serious\ndisaster. Menelaus, on his way home from Troy, omitted sacrifice before\nleaving Egypt; so he was forced to return from the island of Pharos and\nrepair his failure, after which he accomplished his voyage easily.[44]\nWhen Oeneus neglected Artemis, she sent the Calydonian boar to afflict\nhis land: \u201cArtemis of the golden throne sent a plague upon them, angry\nthat Oeneus did not offer her the first fruits of his rich land. All\nthe other gods had their feast of hecatombs, and only to the daughter\nof mighty Zeus did he fail to make offering, whether he forgot or had\nno thought of the matter. But he showed great folly in his soul.\u201d[45]\nAgain the plague sent by Apollo on the Achaean host before Troy suggests\nto Achilles that the god may be angered at a failure to perform some\nvow or to offer a hecatomb.[46] It is little wonder that the enlightened\nPlato felt horror and disgust at such notions as these and that he\ncondemned this kind of worship as an \u201cart of trafficking\u201d (\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7).[47] Still this Homeric idea of the relations between men\nand gods\u2014an idea which has not wholly disappeared from the world\ntoday\u2014rests on the notion that gods and men belong to one common\nsociety in which the obligations are binding on both sides.\n\nEspecially to be avoided was insolent pride; man must not boast himself\novermuch; there were fixed bounds set for him which he might not\ntransgress. So Ajax met his fate because of his insolent defiance:\n\u201cEven so he had escaped his doom, hateful though he was to Athena, if\nhe had not let fall an insolent speech and committed great folly. He\nsaid that in spite of the gods he had escaped the great gulf of the\nsea; but Poseidon heard his loud boasting. Straightway then he took his\ntrident in his mighty hands and struck the Gyraean rock and cleft it in\ntwain. Part remained in its place, but a portion fell in the deep, that\npart on which Ajax first sat and uttered his great folly; but it now\nbore him down beneath the vast billowy sea.\u201d[48] But Achilles showed\nthe approved attitude of mind when he thus addressed the dead Hector:\n\u201cLie now dead; but my doom I will accept whenever it please Zeus and\nthe other immortal gods to send it.\u201d[49] This fear of punishment from\nheaven, of that which Aeschylus and Herodotus call \u201cthe envy of the\ngods,\u201d long operated to keep in check excess of speech and added no\ndoubt to the comfort of Greek society. Of magic whereby man can compel\nthe gods there is nothing in Homer; the inferiority of mortals to the\nimmortals is complete.\n\nWe may now properly consider the Homeric view of life after death.\nThe epic psychology made no sharp distinction between the soul and\nthe body; on the whole the body was identified with the self rather\nthan the soul (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae), which goes to the realm of Hades when the man is\ndead. There in the world of shadows beneath the earth or far out by the\nstream of Oceanus the shades, pale images of the men who were, exist;\nthey do not live. The pathetic plaints of the shades that come up to\nOdysseus in the eleventh book of the Odyssey show how hopeless is their\nlot. Though Orion pursue the wild beasts over the cheerless plains of\nasphodel and Minos hold his golden staff and sit in judgment over the\ndead, yet all is insubstantial and far less than life. The often quoted\nwords of Achilles\u2019 shade sum up the whole matter: \u201cSpeak not to me of\ndeath, glorious Odysseus. For so I might be on earth, I would rather be\nthe servant of another, of a poor man who had little substance, than to\nbe lord over all the dead.\u201d[50]\n\nThere is no system of future punishment or rewards, although a few\nindividuals have won supreme suffering like Tityus, Sisyphus, and\nTantalus or gained high station like Minos, the judge. Therefore beyond\nthe grave there was for the Homeric man no hope, no satisfaction. Only\nhere under the light of the sun and in the glory of action could the\nepic hero find his joy. This is, in no small measure, the cause of\nthat pathos which strikes us occasionally in the poems. Man is spoken\nof as the most pitiful of creatures, the feeblest of all beings which\nthe earth nourishes. Evil and suffering sent by the gods are his lot,\nunrelieved by any prospect of the future.[51]\n\nLet us now summarize briefly the matter we have thus far been\nconsidering together. As I said at the beginning of this lecture,\nreligion in the Homeric poems shows the influence of the conditions\nunder which the poems were composed. Intended for Ionian princes of\nAsia Minor, emigrants who had lost the support which local attachment\nalways gives, the Iliad and Odyssey present those traits of religion\nwhich were everywhere understood and which made a universal appeal.\nTherefore the Homeric gods have a synthetic character; they are,\nas has been aptly said, \u201ccomposite photographs\u201d of local Zeus\u2019s,\nApollos, Athenas, and so on. Again since the epics were intended for\nentertainment, the gods are represented not as remote, but human and\nreal; they have characters and personalities which local divinities\ndid not possess. In picturing them as more human, in rehearsing their\nquarrels, intrigues, passions, and even physical peculiarities, the\npoet not only amused his carefree audience, but brought the gods closer\nto men; he made them more comfortable creatures to live with, even if\nthey were moved by whims and fancies. Their worship was sacrifice\nassociated with the banquet which men and gods shared in common\nfellowship; the gods were thought to wish man\u2019s offerings and service\njust as man desired communion with them. Malevolent divinities, daemons\nof the earth, rites of riddance by which man seeks to avert the wrath\nof some spiteful or angry being, all the great mass of practices\nunquestionably common to the folk-religion of the age, were for the\nmost part omitted by the poet as unsuited or uninteresting to his\naristocratic audience. There is almost nothing bearing on the cult of\nthe dead save possibly in connection with the funeral of Patroclus;\nincantation proper is mentioned only once; and Circe\u2019s potent herbs by\nwhich she transformed Odysseus\u2019s companions into beasts, like Circe\nherself, belong to fairyland. The Homeric religion, therefore, is\nlargely a social religion of this world, of sunlight and of action.\n\nYet if Homer\u2019s gods are human, they are still impressive; they have the\ndignity which comes from unchanging age and superhuman power; they are\nconceived in the grand way. So true was this that as the Homeric poems\nbecame popular literature, studied in school and known to all men, they\ncreated a universal religion. They also influenced the types under\nwhich the Greek artists represented their great gods. Tradition says\nthat when Phidias was asked by his associate Panaenus what type he had\nselected for his Zeus at Olympia, he replied with Homer\u2019s lines: \u201cThe\nson of Cronos spoke and nodded under his dark brows; and the ambrosial\nlocks of the king fell down from his immortal head, and he shook great\nOlympus.\u201d[52] Such was the effect of this statue after it had stood for\nfive centuries and a half that the orator Dio Chrysostom said of it:\n\u201cWhoever among mankind is wholly weary in soul, whoever has experienced\nmany misfortunes and sorrows in life, and may not find sweet sleep,\nhe, methinks, if he stood before this statue, would forget all the\ncalamities and griefs that come in the life of man.\u201d[53]\n\nWe must, however, recognize that the spiritual contribution of the\nHomeric poems to later Greece was inevitably less than the artistic. No\ninspired bard was needed to teach the lessons of man\u2019s inferiority to\nthe gods and of his dependence on them, although these are constantly\nemphasized; yet the epics also inculcate the necessity of moderation\nin act and speech; and they teach that Zeus is the guardian of oaths\nand of hospitality. Furthermore they express the half-realized belief\nthat Zeus is the protector of all justice; and they bring home the\nfact that the individual must pay for his sin, however he may have\nbeen led into it. But the greatest contribution which the poems made\nto later religious thought was paradoxically due to the fact that they\nmade their gods so thoroughly human, for it inevitably followed in due\nseason that the gods were measured by the same standards of right and\nwrong that were applied to men. This eventually ennobled man\u2019s concept\nof divinity, so that he required of the gods a perfection to match\ntheir immortal nature.\n\nHerodotus names Homer and Hesiod together as the great theological\nteachers of Greece. But when we compare the later poet with the\nearlier we find a marked contrast between them. Homer looks backward\nto an earlier day; his poems reflect the glory of that splendid age\nwhen the Achaean princes, like Agamemnon in golden Mycenae, ruled at\nhome in power, or on the plains of Troy contended with divine and\nhuman foes. Homer is aristocratic, universal, objective, with little\nself-consciousness, hardly concerned with the origins of gods and men\nor with the possible goals toward which the world was moving. Hesiod\nwas the son of a farmer, who according to tradition had come from Cyme\nin Asia Minor to Boeotian Ascra which lay on a spur of the range of\nHelicon near a shrine of the Muses. When Hesiod wrote, the land had\nfelt the exhaustion of war, the coming of ruder tribes from the north\nand west had swamped the earlier civilization, and both noble and\npeasant were finding life harder. These conditions are reflected in the\nHesiodic poetry: it deals with fact rather than fancy; for the splendid\ndramatic deeds of men and gods it substitutes homely adage, reasoned\nreflection, and moral tale. Hesiod is self-conscious and reflective. He\nuses the first person, whereas Homer never names himself. A dour son\nof the soil, born in gloomy days, he is the first writer of Europe to\nspeak for the common man.\n\nThe two chief poems which bear the name of Hesiod are the Theogony and\nthe Works and Days. The former deals with the origin of the world and\nthe generations of the gods. It is an attempt to bring order into\ncurrent myths by sifting and arranging them into a system. The material\nHesiod found ready to his hand; his task was to systematize and set\nit forth to his audience. The Theogony is the first extant work of\nEuropean literature to present the idea that dynasties of the gods have\nsucceeded each other in time, the rule of Uranus giving way to the sway\nof Cronos, who in his turn was displaced by Zeus. We have seen that\nHomer did not concern himself about such matters as these; that only\nvague references to such ideas are found in the Iliad and Odyssey.\nHesiod, however, represents another age and another aspect of the Greek\nmind, a desire to bring harmony into the varied and inconsistent tales\nof current mythology and thus in a way to render the gods intelligible\nto men.\n\nThe gods of the Theogony are hardly moral beings; on the contrary much\nof the theology there presented is far ruder than that of the Iliad and\nOdyssey. Some of the tales are on the level of primitive mythology,\nsuch as the account of the way in which earth and heaven were separated\nand of the manner in which the earth was fertilized; others retain\nmore offensive elements like that of Cronos devouring his children,\nor of Zeus swallowing his wife Metis when she was about to give birth\nto Athena, for it was fated that her child should be the equal of its\nfather in wit and cunning. In general the poet gives no sign of being\nconscious that this work might have moral or religious significance.\nThe word justice (\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7), which is so frequent in the Works and Days,\noccurs but twice in the Theogony. The wives of Zeus are in succession\nWisdom (\u039c\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) and Right (\u0398\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2), but his constant attendants\nare Violence (\u039a\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) and Force (\u0392\u03af\u03b7). In neither case, however,\nis any moral conclusion drawn therefrom. The only beings to whom\nmoral functions are assigned are the Fates, \u201cGoddesses who visit\ntransgressions of men and gods and never cease from their fearful wrath\nuntil they have inflicted dire punishment on the sinner.\u201d[54] Save for\nthis passage and one in which the punishment of the gods for perjury\nis described, the Theogony is less ethical than even the Iliad and\nOdyssey, for they have regard for certain social sanctions. The work\nis nevertheless significant and requires notice here because it bears\nwitness to the critical mind that set the myths in order, and because\nit shows that the age of Hesiod was a reflective one.\n\nHesiod\u2019s other poem, the Works and Days, is of high moral import. It\nowes its title to the fact that it gives directions for various kinds\nof occupations and that it also contains a kind of peasant\u2019s calendar.\nBy bribing his judges the poet\u2019s brother Perses had deprived the poet\nof the inheritance which was properly his. To this unjust brother\nHesiod addresses his poem, but he rises constantly from the particular\ncase to general moral considerations; indeed the poet\u2019s ethical lessons\ngain in force because they start with a personal application.\n\nWork, justice, right social relations, and piety toward the gods are\nthe cardinal themes of the Works and Days. At the very opening of the\npoem Hesiod points out that there are two kinds of Strife or Rivalry\non earth, the one good and praiseworthy, the other evil. Evil strife\nleads to war and to discord, but the good, implanted by Zeus in the\nvery order of things, ever urges men on to work. Hesiod delights in\nemphasizing the value of toil; he has given enduring expression to the\nnatural dignity of labor in the verse,\n\n    \u0395\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4' \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f42\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4' \u1f42\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n    Work is no disgrace, but laziness is a disgrace.[55]\n\nBy constant toil alone, he says, can the many misfortunes of life be\nrelieved; by it riches and honor are won; and the worker is beloved\nby the gods. The lazy man on the contrary has hunger for his portion\nand is detested by gods and men: \u201cGods and mortals are alike indignant\nwith the man who lives without toiling; he is like in energy to the\nstingless drones, for they without toiling waste and devour the product\nof the honey-bees\u2019 work. But do thou (Perses), love all seemly toil\nthat thy barns may be filled with food in the proper seasons.\u201d[56] For\nthe poor man the poet, and apparently his contemporaries, had little\ncompassion, since he regards poverty as proof of a lack of industry, of\na failure to work unceasingly with a determined spirit, which he holds\nto be the only way in which man can acquire the comforts which give\ndignity to life. In his mind shame is the natural lot of the poor, but\nself-respect the proper possession of the successful worker. And toil\nhas for him a divine sanction; it is a moral duty imposed on men by the\ngods. By it alone men attain not only material prosperity but virtue as\nwell. \u201cI perceive the good and will tell it thee, Perses, very foolish\nthough thou art. Wickedness men attain easily and in great numbers,\nfor level is the road to her and she dwells very near; but before\nVirtue the immortal gods have set the sweat of toil. Long and steep is\nthe path to her and rough at the outset; but when one has reached the\nsummit, thereafter it is easy, hard though it was before.\u201d[57]\n\nSmarting under the injustice done him by his unjust brother and the\nvenal judges, Hesiod naturally praised justice (\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7) in his work. He\nrepeats the word again and again. In the name of outraged universal\njustice he protests against the particular wrong he has suffered, but\nin his handling of this theme he passes far beyond the matter between\nhim and his brother, and treats justice in a universal and impressive\nmanner. He thus exhorts Perses: \u201cPerses, harken to justice, and make\nnot insolence prosper. For insolence is baneful even to the humble;\nnor can the noble easily bear the burden of it, but he sinketh beneath\nits weight, meeting doom. Yet the road that leadeth in the opposite\ndirection, toward justice, is better to travel. Justice prevaileth over\ninsolence in the end; even the fool knoweth from experience.\u201d[58] He\npresses home the truth that wrong harms the doer no less than him who\nsuffers the wrong: \u201cThe man who worketh evil to another, worketh evil\nto himself, and evil counsel is most evil for him who counselled\nit.\u201d[59] Again he teaches that even if retribution is slow in coming,\nZeus accomplishes it in the end: \u201cFinally Zeus imposes due requital\nfor the wicked man\u2019s unjust deeds.\u201d[60] On the other hand Hesiod in a\nfamous passage pictures with satisfaction the prosperity of the just:\n\u201cBut for those who render straight judgments to both strangers and\ncitizens and never depart from justice, their city flourishes and their\npeople prosper in it. Peace, which nurtures youth, dwells in the land\nand never does far-seeing Zeus bring fearful war upon the inhabitants.\nNever does famine or woe attend men who do justice, but in good cheer\ndo they perform their due tasks. For them the earth yields abundant\nfood, the oak on the mountains bears them acorns in its topmost\nbranches, and its trunk is the honey-bees\u2019 home; fleecy sheep are heavy\nwith wool, wives bear children who are like their parents. The just\nflourish in prosperity continually; nor do they go away on ships, for\nthe fruitful earth gives them its product.\u201d[61]\n\nThe last sentence shows that trading in ships was less highly\nregarded than agriculture. The reason is to be found not alone in the\ncomparatively undeveloped state of commerce, but also in the very\nnature of such commerce as the poet saw it, for he admits commerce into\nhis plan rather unwillingly. He knows that the sea is treacherous and\noften wrecks ships and causes ruin; he holds that only men\u2019s inordinate\ndesires and folly tempt them to venture across the waters and to stake\nall on the chances of loss and death. More than this, he feels a moral\ndefect in transmarine trading, even when profitable, for one may gain\nwealth by a single venture. Such is not his ideal; rather he would\nsee material prosperity won by the long toil and frugality which make\nagriculture successful.\n\nBut to return to justice. Hesiod, as we have already seen, makes this\nthe whole basis of man\u2019s relation to his fellows; on just actions and\nlabor depends all prosperity; injustice injures the doer no less than\nthe object of the wrong, and in the end is sure of punishment. Indeed\naccording to the poet justice is what distinguishes man from the lower\nanimals: \u201cPerses, put these words now in thy heart, and harken to\njustice, but forget violence utterly. For this the son of Cronos has\nestablished as a rule for men. Fishes and wild beasts and winged birds\nhe ordained should devour one another, since there is no justice among\nthem; but to man he has given justice, which is by far the best.\u201d[62]\nThe theme of justice in human relations is developed into injunctions\nto be kind to the stranger, the suppliant, and the orphan, to respect\nparents, to regard another\u2019s bed, and to give hospitality to one\u2019s\nfriends. Yet it must be said that Hesiod\u2019s social morality is strictly\nutilitarian, not altruistic; indeed there is something in his poem\nwhich reminds us of the maxim \u201cAn eye for an eye, and a tooth for a\ntooth,\u201d as when he writes: \u201cIf thy friend is the first to do thee an\nunkindness either in word or deed, remember to return him twofold; but\nif he would bring thee again into friendship and consent to render thee\njustice, accept it.\u201d[63] But we must remember that this was the almost\nuniversal teaching among the Greeks down to the end of the fifth\ncentury.\n\nJustice, however, is more than a social virtue between men; it is the\nchief attribute of Zeus, personified as his daughter and constant\nattendant: \u201cJustice is the daughter of Zeus, glorified and honored by\nthe gods who hold Olympus; and whenever anyone does her wrong with\nperverse blame, straightway she sits by Zeus, son of Cronos, and she\ntells him the thoughts of unjust men, that the people may pay for\nthe folly of the princes who by their wrongful purposes and crooked\nspeeches turn judgments from the right course.\u201d[64] In his work of\ndefending justice Zeus is aided not only by his daughter, but by a\nhost of watchful guardians, intermediaries who report mortals\u2019 deeds:\n\u201cThrice ten thousand are the immortal servants of Zeus upon the rich\nearth, who watch mortal men. Clad in mist they fare to and fro on the\nearth watching deeds of justice and wrongful acts.\u201d[65] Justice then\nnever fails to bring sooner or later the due return to right and wrong\nactions; from her and the watchful messengers of Zeus there is no\nescape. The Homeric man had recognized that righteousness is better\nthan evil and that the wicked are constantly threatened by punishment;\nbut Hesiod in his Works and Days goes somewhat further than Homer, in\nthat he makes justice a necessary attribute of the gods as well as of\nmen.\n\nMan\u2019s dependence on the gods is naturally recognized in Hesiod as\nelsewhere by the obligations of sacrifice, libation, and prayer, for\nthese are universal modes of religious expression. The poet betrays the\nunimaginative character of a peasant by the baldness with which he says\nthat material prosperity is the whole purpose of religious observance\nas well as of justice: \u201cAccording to thy ability offer sacrifice to the\nimmortal gods with thy person pure and undefiled, and burn the goodly\nthigh-pieces; again propitiate them with libations and with sacrifices,\nboth when thou liest down and when the sacred light comes, that they\nmay have a heart and mind kindly disposed toward thee; that thus thou\nmayest buy the land of others and not another thine.\u201d[66] Yet we must\nremember that this huckster\u2019s mind, as Plato might have called it,\nwas common enough in Greece, that it was the ordinary attitude of the\nofficial Roman religion throughout Rome\u2019s history, and that it has not\ndisappeared from men\u2019s thought today.\n\nIn the Iliad and Odyssey evil, like the good, comes from the gods. The\nsimple fact is unquestionably recognized. But Hesiod searches more\ndeeply for the origin of evil which he pessimistically regards as\nomnipresent. The story of Prometheus and Pandora contains in part the\npoet\u2019s answer to this eternal riddle. The myth was already ancient and\nfamiliar to all. Once men lived without effort and free from evils, but\nwhen led by crafty Prometheus they had endeavored to cheat Zeus of the\nbetter part of the sacrificed bullock, the god withheld fire from them.\nYet the cunning Titan stole a spark of this divine fire and delivered\nit to mortals. This Zeus allowed men to keep; by its aid they created\nall industries, but only at the cost of constant toil and struggle.\nPrometheus he punished harshly. To work his vengeance on mortals he\ncaused Hephaestus to create a woman on whom the gods bestowed all gifts\nso that she was named Pandora. She opened a jar containing every kind\nof evil, which straightway flew out among mankind. Only \u1f18\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2 remained\ntherein\u2014a word hardly equivalent to our Hope, but rather meaning\n\u201canticipation of misfortune.\u201d It then is the only plague to which man\nis not subjected.[67] He is obliged to suffer, having been involved\nin the original sin of Prometheus, who wished to cheat Zeus of the\nsacrifice due him. Such is the sacred tale offered as an explanation of\nthe presence of evils on earth. To us it seems childish, and indeed it\ndid not completely satisfy Hesiod.\n\nA second explanation of a very different sort was given, one which\nwas in reality a profound attempt to trace man\u2019s origin as well as to\nexplain his actual condition.[68] This is the story of the five ages\nof man, beginning with the age of gold in which gods and men dwelt\ntogether. Then mortals lived like the gods with hearts untroubled, far\nfrom toil and suffering, and the earth yielded them of its own accord\nabundant food. Over them Cronos reigned. But the men of this Utopian\nage died in painless sleep; and the silver age under Zeus followed.\nCompared with the former it was an age of degeneracy in which men\nshowed insolence toward one another and failed to sacrifice to the\ngods. Zeus in his anger destroyed these mortals. The three remaining\nages\u2014the bronze, the heroic, and the iron, show both decay and\nadvance. The men of the bronze age were fierce, wild creatures,\nunapproachable in their savagery. To these succeeded a better and\njuster race, that of the heroes, who however met their fate in war\nbeneath seven-gated Thebes or at Troy for fair-haired Helen\u2019s sake.\nAnd now they dwell care-free in the Islands of the Blest. Finally\nHesiod pictures his own age, that of iron. Now no longer do men spend\ntheir effort in war and battle, but they have come to a selfish\nindividualism, \u201cwhen father and children will not agree together, nor\nguest with host, nor friend with friend, nor brother longer be dear\nas aforetime.\u201d[69] But this unlimited egoism, which Hesiod pictures,\npresupposes an intellectual evolution beyond the stage where men fought\nin masses as in the heroic time. Thus faithfully and relentlessly he\ndescribes his own day. Yet the poet is not without confidence that\nthere are good as well as evil elements in the age of iron; but on the\nwhole he is despondent and exclaims: \u201cWould that I were not living in\nthe fifth age of men, but that I had either died before them or been\nborn later.\u201d[70]\n\nThus Hesiod takes ancient myths and by his genius makes them\nepitomize the stages of man\u2019s evolution downward morally, but forward\nintellectually. The faint hope expressed at the end of the exclamation\njust quoted shows that the poet saw the possibility of a better age to\ncome, and therein he showed himself a prophet. He apparently did not\nregard the present age of iron as eternal, but perhaps, in accordance\nwith the cyclical theory of the world, thought that the ages might\nrevolve and the Golden Age return again. Furthermore, although he\nregards man\u2019s course as largely one of degeneration, he sees that it\nhas also been one in which intellectual progress has been made and law\ndeveloped.\n\nWhen we come to the question of life beyond the grave we must\nacknowledge that herein Hesiod shows no advance over Homer. For\nordinary mortals oblivion in the dank halls of Hades seems to be the\nrelentless doom. Only a few, the heroes of that earlier age are allowed\nby divine favor to dwell with hearts free from trouble in the Islands\nof the Blest.\n\nYet if we consider the Hesiodic poetry as a whole it does bear witness\nto a great change from the world of Homer. It shows clearly that by the\nseventh century B.C. man was coming to self-consciousness,\nthat he was endeavoring by reflection to solve some of the deepest\nproblems of life, and that he had already developed a moral code that\ndemanded righteousness in the individual. Hesiod depicts for us a more\nthoughtful and a more reflective time than that shown us by Homer. How\nsignificant this change was I shall try to show in my next lecture.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Herod. 2, 53.\n\n[2] _Il._ 5, 335 ff.; 855 ff.\n\n[3] _Il._ 21, 400-426.\n\n[4] _Il._ 1, 531-570.\n\n[5] _Il._ 13, 1 ff.\n\n[6] _Od._ 5, 1-298.\n\n[7] _Il._ 18, 394-405.\n\n[8] _Il._ 10, 515 ff.\n\n[9] _Il._ 5, 385-391.\n\n[10] Cf. _Il._ 23, 382 ff.; _Il._ 5, 335; 855 ff.\n\n[11] _Il._ 16, 433 ff.\n\n[12] _Od._ 3, 236 ff.\n\n[13] _Il._ 24, 209 ff.\n\n[14] _Od._ 7, 196 ff.\n\n[15] _Od._ 10, 174 ff.\n\n[16] _Il._ 6, 486 ff.\n\n[17] _Il._ 8.\n\n[18] _Il._ 4, 51 f.\n\n[19] _Od._ 8, 360-366.\n\n[20] _Il._ 1, 544; _Od._ 1, 45; _Il._ 3, 276.\n\n[21] _Il._ 20, 1 ff.\n\n[22] _Il._ 1, 517 ff.\n\n[23] _Il._ 15, 18-22.\n\n[24] _Il._ I, 592 ff.\n\n[25] _Od._ 13, 296-299; 331 ff.\n\n[26] _Il._ 6, 297-310.\n\n[27] _Il._ 2, 549; _Od._ 7, 81.\n\n[28] _Il._ 2, 371 and often.\n\n[29] _Od._ 4, 615 ff.; 15, 115 ff.\n\n[30] _Il._ 18, 369 ff.\n\n[31] _Od._ 7, 91 ff.\n\n[32] _Il._ 18, 417 ff.\n\n[33] _Il._ 18, 478 ff.\n\n[34] _Il._ 21, 442 ff.\n\n[35] _Od._ 13, 162 ff.\n\n[36] _Il._ 24, 334 ff.\n\n[37] _Od._ 5, 28 ff.\n\n[38] _Il._ 2, 5 ff.\n\n[39] _Il._ 4, 1 ff.\n\n[40] _Il._ 1, 258; cf. 2, 202, 273.\n\n[41] _Il._ 3, 179.\n\n[42] _Il._ 1, 37-41.\n\n[43] _Il._ 8, 236 ff.\n\n[44] _Od._ 4, 351 ff.\n\n[45] _Il._ 9, 533 ff.\n\n[46] _Il._ 1, 65.\n\n[47] _Euth._ 14 E; _Alc._ 11, 149 D ff.\n\n[48] _Od._ 4, 502 ff.\n\n[49] _Il._ 22, 365 f.\n\n[50] _Od._ 11, 488 ff.\n\n[51] _Il._ 17, 446 f.; 24, 525 f.\n\n[52] _Il._ 1, 528 ff.\n\n[53] _Or._ 12, 51.\n\n[54] _Th._ 220 ff.\n\n[55] _W. and D._ 311.\n\n[56] _Ibid._ 303 ff.\n\n[57] _W. and D._ 286 ff.\n\n[58] _Ibid._ 213 ff.\n\n[59] _W. and D._ 265 f.\n\n[60] _Ibid._ 333 f.\n\n[61] _Ibid._ 225 ff.\n\n[62] _W. and D._ 274 ff.\n\n[63] _Ibid._ 709 ff.\n\n[64] _W. and D._ 256 ff.\n\n[65] _Ibid._ 252 ff.\n\n[66] _W. and D._ 336 ff.\n\n[67] _W. and D._ 47-104.\n\n[68] _Ibid._ 109-201.\n\n[69] _W. and D._ 182 ff.\n\n[70] _Ibid._ 174 f.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nORPHISM, PYTHAGOREANISM, AND THE MYSTERIES\n\n\nThe seventh and sixth centuries before Christ were marked by important\nsocial, philosophic, and religious movements. Of the many causes which\nbrought about these changes, the most easily traced are those of a\npolitical and economic nature.\n\nThe form of government which is pictured in the Homeric poems is one in\nwhich the king and nobles alone have an effective voice. The humbler\nfolk meet to hear the decision of the few, which they are expected\nto accept without a murmur. On only one occasion does a common man,\nThersites, venture to raise his voice against his betters, and then\nhe is made the laughing-stock of his fellows and is beaten into a\nsad silence by Odysseus. But the Homeric organization of society was\ngradually superseded by aristocracies in which the power of wealth\nultimately claimed a position beside nobility of birth. The development\nof industry and trade in Ionia and on the mainland of Greece proper\ncreated a new wealthy class which was a rival of the old nobility\nwhose riches had been in herds and lands. The political struggles\nwhich accompanied these changes were highly educative to considerable\nbodies of citizens, who were expending their efforts in improving the\ncondition of their own class or of themselves rather than in maintaining\nthe advantage of some prince or noble. In this way there was developed\na political and social self-consciousness. When kings were superseded\nby aristocracies, magistracies, limited in scope and duration, had\nnecessarily been employed. Thus political machinery and organization\ndeveloped. These political changes and the failure of ancient customs\nto fit new social and economic conditions naturally led to a demand\nfor written law, which alone can be the basis of even justice and\nprotection. So we hear of many \u201claw-givers\u201d in Greece during the\nseventh and sixth centuries B.C., of whom the most famous were\nZaleucus among the western Locrians, Charondas of Catane, and Draco of\nAthens, followed about thirty years later by Solon. Now written law\nusually tends to become ultimately the embodiment of rules for all, not\nsimply for one class alone, so that the written codes marked a long\nstep in the advance of the common man toward equality with the noble.\nIt is true that the aristocracies in many parts of Greece were later\nfollowed by the rule of tyrants, but the tyrannies themselves fostered\nthe development of the lower classes on whose well-being and support\nthe existence of the tyrannies depended.\n\nOf the law-givers I have just mentioned one belonged to Catane, a Greek\ncity in Sicily. This fact suggests another important movement which\ndemands our notice. I mean the planting of colonies. The great era of\nHellenic colonization fell between the eighth and sixth centuries, and\nwas in a sense but a continuation of that earlier wave of expansion\nwhich had carried the Greeks to Cyprus and to the nearer shores of Asia\nMinor. Among the causes which led to the establishment of colonies the\nchief seem to have been defects in the land system, whereby many were\ndeprived of a share in their ancestral estates, political conditions\noften oppressive, and trade, which was now coming largely into the\nhands of Greeks because of the disasters which were inflicted on their\nformer rivals, the Phoenicians, by their eastern neighbors. From\nMegara and Miletus, from Chalcis and Eretria, began an outpouring\nof eager traders, of the landless, the needy, the discontented, and\nthe adventurous, who eventually planted colonies entirely around the\nMediterranean and Euxine Seas. Between these colonies and the mother\ncities a rich stream of traffic flowed; the growth of trade stimulated\nmanufactures and increased wealth. In the colonies there existed from\nthe beginning greater equality than in the older communities, the\nland system was more equitable, and many men of humble birth came\nto wealth and power. Furthermore, with travel and success in new\ncommunities there was an expansion of mind, a sense of power acquired\nby prosperity, such as can always be observed under similar conditions.\nThese developments had their reflex influence on the society of the\nmother cities, and both at home and in the colonies there came to\npass those political and social changes to which I have referred\nabove. But the most important result of these things for our present\nconsideration was the fact that by these developments large numbers of\nmen were awakened to self-consciousness, and that the first period of\nindividualism in Greece was begun.\n\nWhenever individuals come to self-consciousness, and have the leisure\nand security which were enjoyed in many Greek cities of this time as\nthe result of improved social and economic conditions, men find not\nonly the opportunity but also the occasion for reflection. This was the\ncase in our period. Men began to think and question about themselves\nand the world around them, to reflect not only concerning the political\nand social world in which they lived, to ask what their place in it\nwas, but also to inquire still deeper into the meaning of things. They\ndebated with themselves questions relating to the gods, the nature and\njustice of their rule; and most significant for our present interest\nthey began to ask whence men came and whither they were going. One\ngreat monument of this period is Hesiod\u2019s \u201cWorks and Days,\u201d of which\nI spoke in my last lecture. It is also important to remember that the\nseventh and sixth centuries were the age of the so-called Seven Wise\nMen, to whom were assigned many moral precepts which became revered\nproverbs in Greece. These sayings, no less than the works of Hesiod and\nthe Gnomic Poets, bear witness to an age of increasing reflection.\n\nIn the seventh century Ionia controlled the trade between Asia and\nEurope. Its chief center was Miletus. Here in the first half of the\nsixth century before our era began Greek philosophy, with Thales,\nAnaximander, and Anaximenes as the leaders. The modest task which they\nset themselves was nothing less than the solution of the universe.\nTheir philosophic views are of no special interest to us now; but\nit is a fact of supreme importance that here for the first time in\nGreece appeared men whose reflection had made them bold enough to\nwrestle with the whole problem of nature including man, and to propose\nsolutions entirely at variance with the traditional views. This\nphilosophic development was one result of the factors which we have\nbeen considering\u2014factors which produced also new ethical and religious\nmovements that do concern us directly.\n\nWith the emergence of Greece in the seventh century from the dark\nages that followed the Mycenaean civilization, we find that certain\nbeliefs, expressed or only hinted at in the Homeric poems, come to the\nsurface, and that religious ideas imported from without make themselves\nmanifest. The cult of the dead for example is almost passed over in\nsilence by the Homeric poems. At the funeral pyre of Patroclus Achilles\noffered jars of oil and honey, and slew horses, dogs, and twelve Trojan\nyouths[71]; but nowhere else is such a sacrifice mentioned in the Iliad.\nLikewise in the Odyssey the only instance of any similar offering is in\nthe description of Odysseus\u2019 visit to the borders of the realm of Hades\nto consult the shade of the seer Teiresias, where it is said that he\ndug a square pit, poured into it a triple chrism, and then after prayer\nand vows let the blood of a ram and a black ewe flow into it to attract\nthe shades.[72] Yet we know from archeological and other evidence that\nthe worship of the dead was common in Greece from the Minoan and\nMycenaean times throughout antiquity. Ceremonial purification also,\nof which there are but few instances in Homer\u2014and none of these is\nmagical\u2014now appears common, as a notion of impurity attaches to many\nconditions and acts which require expiation. The change in sentiment\nwith regard to murder will serve as an illustration. In the Homeric\npoems killing brought no pollution either to the murderer or to his\nland; but in the Cyclic epics, which date from the seventh and sixth\ncenturies B.C., bloodguilt required expiation just as in\nthe later tragedies. So in the Aethiopis Achilles went to Lesbos to\nbe cleansed from the stain of having slain Thersites. In fostering\nand directing rites of purification the oracle of Apollo at Delphi\nplayed an important part. There was developing, indeed there had been\ndeveloping from an unknown period, a sense of defilement and of the\nnecessity of cleansing. At this point, however, I must again speak a\nword of caution. We need to remember that morality develops slowly.\nIt is undoubtedly a far cry from the morality of the seventh century\nto Plato\u2019s definition of the impure man as the one whose soul is\nbase, or to that motto which in a later century was written over the\nentrance of the shrine of Aesculapius at Epidaurus, \u201cPiety consisteth\nin holy thoughts.\u201d We must bear in mind that to the man of the seventh\nand sixth century sin and purification were primarily if not wholly\nceremonial matters, and that his concept of future happiness was\nlargely material. But the consequence of his feeling was great in\nfuture centuries.\n\nOther phenomena of the seventh and sixth centuries require our notice\nat this point. We saw in the preceding lecture that the gaze of the\nHomeric man was fixed on this world with its victories and its defeats,\nthat he viewed splendid action on the field and wise counsel in the\nassembly of the princes as the individual\u2019s highest province and his\nsupreme happiness. The world beyond this had no rewards comparable\nwith those of this life; the greatest boon man could hope from the\nfuture was that his exploits here might become the subject of song\nfor coming generations. Suffering he regarded as necessary that a\nhigher purpose might be attained. \u201cThe will of Zeus was accomplished\u201d\nwas the explanation beyond which man might not go; he must find his\ncomfort in such unity as that thought gave to the world. Hence arises\nthat pathos and sadness which strike us again and again in Homer. But\nthe new age sought relief by shifting its gaze from this world to the\nnext and by expecting there the recompenses and balances which make\nlife just and complete; for it the future life furnished an escape\nfrom the sufferings of this present existence. Moreover under the\nmanifold influences which I have tried to sketch above, men began to be\nimpressed with the unity which apparently underlay the variety of the\nphenomenal world. This is the problem of philosophy. It is true that\nthe early Greek philosophers devoted themselves chiefly to the material\nworld, of which they regarded man as a part; but in religion there\nresulted a tendency to pantheism, which saw behind the multitude of\ndivinities one all-embracing god. Moreover there were not lacking\nthinkers to struggle with the question as to the way in which man\ncould bring himself into accord with the unity of the world. So in\nspite of the individualism of this age we find it also an age of\nmysticism\u2014which is the very opposite of individualism. The mystic\nalways holds in greater or less degree the belief that by destroying\nthat which sets off the individual from his fellows, that is, by\nuprooting personality through the destruction of the passions, or by\nsome ecstatic state which takes one out of himself, man may attain to\nunion with god and therefore to salvation. This belief may lead even to\na religion without gods, or it may be bound to a belief in divinity.\nIn Greece these tendencies were not fully developed for a considerable\ntime, but we can see that in the seventh and sixth centuries the\nlonging for future happiness, the desire for salvation, and the\nmystic means thereto were already potent elements in Greek thought.\nThey showed themselves in various ways; one outlet for the religious\nlonging was found in the religion of Dionysus, especially as it was\nincorporated in the beliefs of the Orphic sect.\n\nDionysus came late into Greek religion. As we have seen, in Homer he\nwas not a member of the Olympic circle. Mythology has preserved many\nstories which bear witness to the opposition which his worship received\nas it spread over Greece. The newcomer, like Ares and the Muses, was a\nThracian. His worship was introduced by immigrants and spread gradually\nto the south. Apparently the cult of the god was brought into Greece by\nmore than one wave of immigration, and by more than one route. Thebes\nand Orchomenos in Boeotia were early centers of his worship, from which\nDelphi was later influenced. In the Peloponnesus probably Argolis\nreceived the new comer first. Even before the god was established in\nsouthern Greece he may have been carried to Crete directly from his\nnorthern home. The islands of the Aegean, the cities of Asia Minor, and\nultimately the remote colonies knew the divinity. In Attica tradition\nsaid that his first home was in the country demes, notably at Icaria,\nwhere Americans excavated his shrine over twenty-five years ago.\nProbably the early rulers at Athens received the god into the city, but\nit was the Pisistratidae who especially favored his worship and gave\nhim a home on the south side of the Acropolis, where the fifth century\nsaw presented all the glories of the Attic stage.\n\nThe new god came as the god of all living things, of plants, trees, the\nlower animals, as well as of man. In short he was a nature divinity\nwhose death was seen in the dead vegetation of winter and whose rebirth\nappeared with the revival of spring. His orgiastic rites no doubt were\noriginally, in part at least, intended to recall the dead god to life.\nBut in all such religions there is the tendency to see in the rebirth\nof the dead god the warrant of man\u2019s future life. The hope is easily\nawakened that as the vegetation, whose life disappears in the ground,\nis revivified in the spring, so man, whose body also is laid in the\nearth, may be recalled to new life. The Dionysiac myth set forth the\nstory of the god\u2019s death and rebirth. It was natural then that men\nshould feel that if they could secure union with the god, lose\nthemselves in the divine, they too might attain immortality. Herodotus\ntells us that among the Thracian peoples the Getae believed that men\nat death went to dwell with their chief divinity beneath the earth.[73]\nSuch hope of immortality Dionysus brought with him from his Thracian\nhome.\n\nThe worship of this god was wholly unlike that of the Olympian gods.\nUnder his influence his devotees, mostly women, in divine madness left\ntheir homes and daily tasks to roam the wild mountainside, clad no\nlonger in their ordinary dress but wearing the skins of wild beasts,\ntheir flowing hair bound with ivy and wild bryony. In their excitement\nthey were unconscious of time and place, unfettered by the normal\nlimitations of human powers and sensibilities. Wild music stimulated\ntheir orgiastic dance; in frenzy they tore living creatures limb from\nlimb, and devoured the raw dripping flesh, calling meantime on the\ngod by name. This mad revel was continued until the participants fell\nexhausted to the ground.\n\nWe can well understand how these things shocked the earliest Hellenic\nspectators and why it was that in becoming a Greek god, Dionysus lost\nmuch of his wilder Thracian nature and the more savage elements of his\ncult. To this amelioration the Delphic oracle doubtless contributed.\nYet it is certain that the ecstatic rites were known on Mt. Cithaeron\nand on the heights of Parnassos down to a late date. Elsewhere for the\nmost part the excesses of the cult were checked and ordered by law. The\nGreeks had come to see that there was something more than extravagant\nmadness in the wild Dionysiac revel. The possessed devotee was set free\nfor the moment from the tangled net of daily life, gained for a brief\ntime new and superhuman powers, a very foretaste of immortality. Not\nleast of all he was made one with all nature that united to worship the\none god. Now this escape from the daily round of human affairs, this\ndesire for union with divinity, has constantly made its appearance in\nvarious times and under varied conditions; as we all know, it has led\nto extraordinary religious outbursts in both pagan and Christian ages.\n\nDionysus came also as god of wine. In the revival and elevation\nof the man, which the moderate use of wine gives, the Greek saw a\ndivine mystery. Of course this use of wine is exactly parallel to\nthe use of hashish and other narcotics for religious ends, and the\necstasy produced by music and the dance is familiar in the history of\nreligion as a means to put individuals or whole companies into direct\ncommunication with the spirits or into union with a god.\n\nNow it will readily be seen that this idea that the soul can be\nseparated from the body and united with the god implies two things:\nfirst, a belief in a difference between soul and body which sets them\noff against each other, and secondly, a belief in the divine nature\nof the human soul. The former clearly established for the first time\nin Greek thought the concept of the dual ego, the double self, the\nsignificance of which we can hardly overestimate. We shall be concerned\nwith it throughout the entire course of our considerations. The second\nmade it easy for men to explain the source and destiny of the soul and\nto point out the means by which the soul must be set free to seek its\nnatural destiny. The possibility that the soul, escaping from the body\nduring the Dionysiac frenzy, might unite itself with god, might indeed\nbecome a god, so that the orgiastic devotee was given the divine name\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\u2014this showed the way by which man could secure immortality. He\nmust loose his divine soul from the body that it might ultimately enjoy\nits divine life unhampered by earthly bonds and be forever with god.\n\nAccording to the Dionysiac myth, which naturally varies much in\ndetails, the god was pursued by the Titans, the warring powers opposed\nto Zeus; in his distress Dionysus changed himself into various forms,\nfinally into that of a bull which was torn to pieces and devoured\nby the Titans. But Athena saved the heart and gave it to Zeus who\nswallowed it. Hence sprang the new Dionysus. The Titans were ultimately\ndestroyed by the thunderbolt of Zeus and their ashes scattered to the\nwinds. You will at once notice the parallelism between this myth of\nDionysus and those of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis. These are all gods who\ndie and live again, and so become gods of life and death, divinities\nthrough whom man gains assurance of his own immortality. You will also\nnotice in this myth of Dionysus how most ancient and crudest elements\nare united with a rather advanced attempt to wrestle with the problems\nof the world, and particularly with the problem of evil. Over against\nthe beneficent divinity, or divinities, are set the Titans, powers of\nill.\n\nThe myth became the basis of the spiritual belief and of the mystic\nceremonial, and was made the center of that movement which we call\nOrphism. Who the founder, Orpheus, was, we cannot say. The ancients\nknew him as a Thracian, a magical musician, and also as a priest of\nDionysus. In the popular tradition the musician overshadowed the\npriest. Yet he was regarded as the founder of the Bacchic or Dionysiac\nrites. The truth we can never know; but thus much is certain, that\nin the sixth century, possibly because of a second wave of Dionysiac\nreligion, a movement appeared in which the religion of Dionysus was\nspiritualized and ennobled, and in which consecration, ceremonial\nholiness in this life, became the chief concern as the means of\nsecuring that immortality which would follow. The movement, however,\nwhich may have been stimulated by a feeling of dissatisfaction with\nthe traditional religion, was only one prominent manifestation of the\ngeneral mysticism which showed itself in many forms during the sixth\ncentury. Pythagoreanism was closely allied to it. Indeed some think\nOrphism only a collective name for the mysticism of the time.\n\nOur information as to the beginning and earliest forms of Orphism is\nscanty and mostly late. But considering the influence which Orphic\nideas had in the fifth century, for example on Pindar, Empedocles, and\nPlato, not to speak of the latter Neoplatonists, we are justified in\nregarding the sect as of great significance. And we have a warrant for\nattributing to the sixth century doctrines which are consistently set\nforth by our witnesses, especially by Empedocles and Plato, so that\nwith due caution we may use also the fragmentary Orphic literature with\nsome confidence.\n\nWe do not know where Orphism started. In Greece proper, Delphi,\nThebes, and Athens were prominent centers; in greater Greece, Croton\nin southern Italy, Camarina and Syracuse in Sicily. Some would regard\nsouthern Italy, and specifically the city of Croton, as the home of the\nmovement; possibly they are correct, for tradition told of three great\nOrphics at the court of Pisistratus. They were Zopyrus of Heraclea,\nOrpheus of Croton, and Onomacritus, who formed part of the commission\nwhich is said to have arranged the Homeric poems at the orders of the\nAthenian tyrant. Whatever the truth of the tradition in detail is, it\nis significant that two of the three came from southern Italy; and\nthe name of one of the commission, Orpheus, marks him as a devotee.\nYet Athens became the literary center, if I may use the term, for the\ndiffusion of Orphism.\n\nThe Orphic religion was distinguished from the popular religions by\nhaving a body of belief and a method of life. Undoubtedly the beliefs\nof the sect were enlarged and modified from age to age; but the Orphics\nhad a unity which is remotely comparable to that of Christian churches.\nOf the organization of the brotherhoods we know little, but probably\nthey were loosely bound together in a manner similar to those of the\nreligious associations known to us from later times. Nor can we tell\nwhether the Orphics were numerous. Probably they were not; but in any\ncase their mysteries and teachings were important and influential; they\nintroduced new ideas which were destined to produce profound changes in\nGreek religious thought.\n\nWith the varied details of the grotesque Orphic theogonies we are not\nnow concerned. They were similar to those of Hesiod and others in their\nmain lines, but they owe their importance for us now to the fact that\nthey exhibit a pantheism which is opposed to the common polytheistic\ntheology of the time; they endeavor to show that deity is one and\nuniversal under whatever form or appearance. To this universal divinity\nthey give the name now of Zeus, now of Dionysus, the greatest of the\nchildren of Zeus; at times he is called also Zagreus. Certain Orphic\nverses clearly express this pantheistic thought: \u201cOne Zeus, one Hades,\none Sun, one Dionysus, one god in all.\u201d[74] And again: \u201cZeus was the\nfirst, Zeus of the flashing lightning bolt the last; Zeus the head,\nZeus the middle; from Zeus have all things been made. Zeus was the\nfoundation of the earth and of the starry heaven; Zeus was male, Zeus\nwas the bride immortal; Zeus the breath of all things, Zeus the rush of\nthe flame unwearied; Zeus the source of the sea, Zeus the sun and the\nmoon; Zeus the king, Zeus of the flashing lightning the beginning of\nall things. For he concealed all and again brought them forth from his\nsacred heart to the glad light, working wondrous things.\u201d[75]\n\nYou will remember that in the myth of the rending of Dionysus by the\nTitans, these powers of evil were burned to ashes by the thunderbolt\nof Zeus. According to one version of the story man is formed from\nthese ashes, which contain the element of the divine, taken in by the\nTitans when they devoured the god. Thus man is of a two-fold nature,\nhis soul divine, Dionysiac, his body evil, Titanic. On an Orphic tablet\nfound in a grave in southern Italy the soul declares: \u201cI am a child of\nearth and the starry heaven, but my race is from heaven. This ye know\nyourselves.\u201d Here we have a complete expression of man\u2019s duality: his\nbody is of the earth, but his soul is of celestial origin. The descent\nof the soul was due to sin; wind-borne\u2014as Empedocles says of himself,\n\u201can exile from god and a wanderer,\u201d[76] it entered into the body, in\nwhich prison it was condemned to live until such time as it might be\ndelivered. Clement of Alexandria, quoting the Pythagorean Philolaus of\nthe fifth century B.C., reports: \u201cThe ancient theologians and\nseers bear witness that for a punishment the soul is yoked with the\nbody and buried in it as in a tomb.\u201d[77] This figure of the body as the\nprison-house or the tomb of the soul was used by Plato, as we shall\nhave occasion to see in a later lecture.\n\nMan\u2019s hope, therefore, according to the Orphic, lies in deliverance\nfrom his body, the Titan element of his nature, that the Dionysiac\npart, his soul, may be free and untrammelled. Yet one might not of\nhis own motion cast off his body by a physical act, for a round is\nprescribed by necessity.\n\nAfter death the soul was fated to pass to Hades and then from its\nsojourn there into another body, and so on. This doom was the result\nof sin. To hasten the process and escape from evil, \u201cto end the cycle\nand have respite from sin,\u201d a course of life was necessary, which was\ndefined by the Orphic teaching. The requirements of the Orphic life\nseem to us trivial and absurd for the most part. Apparently abstinence\nfrom flesh was required, except perhaps at certain sacramental\nfestivals; this prohibition was of course due to the doctrine of\nmetempsychosis. No bloody sacrifices were allowed for the same reason.\nThe use of eggs and beans was forbidden, for these articles were\nassociated with the worship of the dead; and burial in woolen garments\nwas likewise wrong. Besides these taboos certain rites existed of\nwhich we get only hints. There were liturgies, initiations, magic\nincantations which seem to show that in time at least an elaborate\nritual was developed. All these things were the means by which the soul\nmight be purified from its sin which condemned it to the prison of the\nbody, and which pursued it through incarnation after incarnation.\n\nAfter death, as I have said, the soul awaited in Hades its rebirth,\nbut its stay in Hades, like its life on earth, was a period of reward\nor punishment: \u201cThey who are righteous beneath the rays of the sun,\nwhen they die have a gentler lot in a fair meadow by deep-flowing\nAcheron.... But they who have worked wrong and insolence beneath the\nrays of the sun are led down beneath Cocytus\u2019s watery plain into chill\nTartarus.\u201d[78] So this stay in Hades was a period of punishment and of\npurification, as life itself was a period of penance. The duration of\nthis intermediate stay in Hades was conceived perhaps as a thousand\nyears. In any case, after due season the soul entered upon a new\nincarnation, which apparently was determined by the innocence or guilt\nof its former life. Rebirth was not always into human form, as the\nOrphic verses show: \u201cWherefore the changing soul of man, in the cycles\nof time, passes into various creatures: sometimes it enters a horse,\n... again it is a sheep, then a bird dread to see; again it has the\nform of a dog with heavy voice, or as a chill snake creeps along the\nground.\u201d[79] The poet-philosopher Empedocles declared that before his\npresent existence he had been \u201ca youth, a maiden, a bush, a bird, and a\nfish of the sea.\u201d[80] So the soul was buffeted from birth to death and\nback to birth again. Of those who had been guilty of most grievous sins\nEmpedocles says: \u201cThere is an oracle of Necessity, an ancient, eternal\ndecree of the gods sealed with strong oaths: when one in sin stains his\nhands with murder, or when another joining in strife swears falsely,\nthey become the spirits who have long life as their portion, who are\ndoomed to wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessed,\nbeing born in the course of time into all forms of mortal creatures,\nshifting along life\u2019s hard paths. For the might of the air drives them\nto the sea and the sea spews them on the ground, and the land bares\nthem to the rays of the bright sun, and the sun throws them in whirls\nof ether. One receives them from another, but all hate them. Of this\nnumber am even I now, an exile from god and a wanderer, for I put my\ntrust in mad strife.\u201d[81] The number of reincarnations was not fixed\nso far as we know, though apparently ten thousand years was thought\nto be the limit of the process for the ordinary soul. Probably it was\nbelieved that there was no end of rebirths for the wicked, but that\nthey were condemned to their repeated fate forever; or that they were\ndoomed to endless punishment without rebirths.\n\nBut you may ask, what was the ultimate fate of the purified soul?\nTo this, too, we can give no complete answer. Apparently the soul,\nstripped at last of all that was earthly and defiling, was then thought\nto be first truly free and alive. On Orphic tablets of the fourth\ncentury before our era found in southern Italy we read these words of\nthe triumphant soul: \u201cI have escaped from the sorrowful, weary round,\nI have entered with eager feet the ring desired. I have passed to the\nbosom of the mistress queen of the lower world.\u201d And it is greeted\nin answer: \u201cO happy and blessed one, thou shalt be god instead of\nmortal.\u201d[82] Apparently the purified soul left earth and Hades behind.\nThere is no hint of absorption into god; no idea of Nirvana. The spirit\nof Greek thought required that the individuality of the soul should\nbe retained. No doubt the Orphics conceived of every kind of heaven\nthat was possible, many of them of most materialistic nature. Indeed,\nPlato reproaches some of them for believing future happiness to be a\nperpetual drunken round.\n\nFor the sinful, torments of a most fearful sort were reserved: not only\ndid they lie in mud and filth, but they were exposed to most terrible\ncreatures who rent their vitals. In short, the Orphic hell was not less\nawful physically than that of the medieval and later Christian, which\nin no small part was inherited from the Orphics.\n\nBefore we go on to consider other movements of the sixth century,\nlet us summarize briefly the contributions of the Orphics to Greek\nreligious thought. In the first place they definitely shifted man\u2019s\nlook from this world to the world beyond. In Homer, as we have seen,\nthis world offered all for which man could hope; but to the Orphic,\nas to the devoted sectaries of all redemptive religions, this world\nwas unimportant compared with the next in which he was to realize\nhis fondest desires. Again the Orphics emphasized the duality of\nman, regarding him as a divine soul imprisoned in a sinful body.\nThey made the divinity of the soul a motive for the religious life,\nthe aim of which was to free the spirit of man from the sin which\nvisits him in the prison-house of the flesh. Thereby they started the\ntendency to religious asceticism which was to be sharply emphasized\nby Christianity when a thousand years had past. Their doctrine of the\ndivine nature of the soul they also made the basis of their belief in\nthe soul\u2019s immortality; for if the soul is divine, it must be eternally\nso. Furthermore, so far as we can know, they introduced the idea of\npre-natal sin for which the individual soul must pay the penalty. It\nneeds no argument to show the intrinsic importance of these ideas; as\nwe go on, we shall have occasion to observe their significance in Greek\nreligious thought.\n\nLess valuable in itself, but not less persistent, as we can still\nsee in our own Christian church, was the notion that only the\ninitiates, who by purificatory rites had been received into the sacred\nassociation, could hope for salvation. Union with the divine nature\nand future blessedness were thus made to depend on sacraments rather\nthan on virtue. Indeed, we need not suppose that here any more than\nin the mysteries at Eleusis there was originally any requirement of\na virtuous life. But reason and an awakened ethical sense among the\nGreeks began early to demand of the initiates compliance with the\nrecognized standards of morality, as the passages already quoted\nshow; and there can be no doubt that in due time most of the various\nmysteries contributed to the ethical life. Yet the inevitable tendency\nin the opposite direction made itself felt and there were many Orphic\ncharlatans and quacks who promised salvation to all who would undergo\nthe cheap rites of their initiations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe must now glance at a contemporaneous and related movement\u2014I mean\nPythagoreanism, which will have sprung into the thoughts of many of you\nalready.\n\nWhether Orphism learned from Pythagoras or Pythagoras from Orphism\ncannot be determined; but it seems probable that Croton was already an\nOrphic center when about 530 B.C. Pythagoras of Samos after\nlong travels established there an association which combined in a\nway hitherto unknown religious and philosophic aims. Pythagoras may\nhave attached himself to some group of Orphics already in existence\nand have inspired it with his political and philosophic interests. In\nany case his society, which was opposed to the democratic temper of\nCroton, became in time important enough to be regarded with suspicion\nand forced to move to Metapontum; ultimately the members were dispersed\ncarrying their doctrines with them throughout the Greek world.\n\nOur knowledge of the philosophic ideas of Pythagoras himself amounts\nto little. It is clear that in contrast to the emotional Orphics he\nwas interested in intellectual pursuits, especially in mathematics;\nmore than that we cannot say; our present concern lies rather in the\nethical and religious views and practices of the society which he\nestablished. This set high store on ethical discipline, following a\nstrict course of life, for the ultimate aim was identical with that of\nthe Orphics\u2014salvation and release from sin. Like them the Pythagoreans\nalso held to the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Their rules\nenjoined simplicity of food, rare use of meat, and abstention from the\neating of beans and eggs. But more important was the discipline which\nwas prescribed for the mind and soul. The applicant for admission to\nthe brotherhood was first tested to determine his fitness. The neophyte\nwas bound to silence and obedience. \u201cThe master said it\u201d was argument\nenough for him. The members devoted themselves to reflection, to\nself-examination, to the pursuit of the truth. Their highest aim was\n\u201cto follow god.\u201d Although the Pythagoreans fixed their gaze more on\nthis world than the Orphics did, they also were of great religious\nsignificance. They emphasized the duality of man, the moral obligation\nof the individual, and especially the possibility of training and\npurifying the soul, and so helped to establish a spiritual heritage for\nlater centuries.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow I shall invite your attention to a third manifestation of the\nmystic tendency of this age. Fourteen miles northwest of Athens,\nbetween a fertile plain and the sea, lies the ancient town of Eleusis,\nthe center of the most important mysteries in Greece. The story of\nDemeter is familiar to us all\u2014the goddess whose daughter, Persephone\nor Kore, was carried off by the god of the lower world. According to\nthe Homeric hymn to Demeter, the mother wandered fasting in search of\nher daughter over the earth. She came to Eleusis in the guise of an\nold woman, where she was found by the daughters of the king, Keleos,\nwho took her to their home. There she was kindly received, and was\ninstalled as nurse to the infant son of the king. Under her care the\nchild prospered and grew marvellously, for quite secretly Demeter\nanointed him with ambrosia, breathed upon him, and cherished him in\nher bosom. By night she hid him \u201clike a brand in the fire ..., for she\nwould have made him free from age and death forever.\u201d\n\nBut the queen saw her and cried out in dismay. The goddess was angry,\nyet none the less promised glory imperishable; she declared herself: \u201cI\nam the honored Demeter, who am the greatest good and joy to immortals\nand mortals alike. Come, let all the people build me a mighty temple\nand hard by it an altar beneath your town and its steep wall, above\nCallichoros on the jutting spur. But the rites I will myself prescribe,\nthat here ever after you may duly perform them and appease my will.\u201d So\nthe temple and altar to the goddess were built, but she still mourned\nfor her lost daughter. In her sorrow she held back the seedgrain in\nthe ground and all man\u2019s plowing was vain, so that the race of men\nhad nearly perished from the earth if it had not been for Zeus, who\ninterposed and finally restored Persephone to her mother\u2014but not\nforever. Before she left the house of the dead, Pluto had made her eat\na pomegranate seed by which she was bound to return beneath the earth.\nSo she spent two-thirds of each year with her mother on the earth,\ncoming \u201cwhen the ground blossomed with fragrant flowers,\u201d but returning\nto the lord of the dead when the flowers faded and the grass withered\nbefore the coming of winter. Zeus then summoned Demeter to join the\nimmortal gods on Olympus; but before she went, \u201cshe quickly sent up\nthe grain from the fertile ground, and all the broad earth was heavy\nwith leaves and with flowers. And the goddess went and taught the kings\nwho deal out justice, Triptolemus and Diocles the charioteer, mighty\nEumolpus, and Keleos, leader of the people. To them she showed the\nmanner of her rites and to them all her mysteries, holy, which none may\ntransgress or enquire into or make known. For a great curse of the\ngods restrains men\u2019s speech. Happy is he whoever of men dwelling on\nthis earth has seen these things! But he who is uninitiate in these\nholy rites, who has no share in them, never hath equal lot in death\nin the shadowy gloom.\u201d So says the Homeric hymn to Demeter, which was\ncomposed, according to the general opinion of scholars, in the seventh\ncentury before our era.\n\nThus we see that before this hymn was written the myth was fully\ndeveloped at Eleusis. There Demeter, Kore, and Pluto had their place,\nand with them were associated certain heroic personages. A temple\nand altar to the two goddesses already existed, and mysteries were\ncelebrated which gave to those who might see them and share in them the\nwarrant of a better lot in death than that for which the uninitiate\nmight hope. The date at which the mysteries were established cannot be\ndetermined. This is no place for the speculations of the learned in\ndetail, but they seem to have existed as early as the eighth century,\nand indeed they probably go back to a much remoter antiquity; yet\nthere is no mention of them in Homer or Hesiod. In their earliest form\nthey evidently consisted of certain religious ceremonies connected\nwith agriculture by which the dead grain was called to life in the\nspring. The grain and the earth from which it sprang were worshipped\nas the corn-mother, Demeter, and then by a development natural in such\nreligions the goddess was doubled and Kore, the maiden, came into\nexistence beside Demeter. In the cult of these goddesses various rites\nhad developed\u2014fasting, purifications, and night vigils; a myth grew\nup to explain the ritual and the relation of the two goddesses, with\nwhom a god of the dead was early associated; so something like the\nstory in the Homeric hymn came into being. The agricultural festival\nwas gradually transformed into one of profound meaning, by partaking\nin which one gained an assurance of future happiness. The wonderful\nmiracle of reviving vegetation, of the grain which dies in the ground\nand springs anew to life, has often served as the warrant of man\u2019s\nlonging for a revival of his own life, as an assurance of his hope of\nimmortality. So gods and goddesses of agriculture or of vegetation,\nwhich grows and dies and grows again, have become for men the lords of\nlife and death, as we have already seen in the case of Dionysus.\n\nThe English word mystery is somewhat misleading in such a connection. A\nmystery in the Greek sense is a secret ritual to which only those may\nbe admitted who have first been prepared by some rites of purification\nor probation. Such, for example, is the Christian Eucharist to which\nthe Greek word \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd was freely applied. After the proper ritual\nof initiation, through which the neophyte is guided by one previously\ninitiate and expert, he may take part in the secret performances, which\nare thought to confer some special power or to bring him into close and\nprivileged relation to divinity.\n\nOriginally the festival at Eleusis belonged to a noble Eleusinian\nfamily, or possibly to two families. In the seventh century Eleusis\nwas incorporated with Attica; an Eleusinion, a shrine to Demeter of\nEleusis, was built near the city; and the privilege of sharing in the\nfestival was apparently given to all Athenians. The mysteries were\nespecially fostered in the sixth century by the tyrant Pisistratus,\nwho built a new hall of initiation which was destroyed by the Persians\nduring their great invasion. Under Pisistratus the mysteries may have\nbeen opened to the whole Hellenic world. In the fifth century the\nbroad formula of admission was: \u201cWhoever has pure hands and speaks our\ntongue.\u201d Eleusis shared in the glory of Athens\u2019 greatest period, and\neven in the time of Athenian weakness and decay the mysteries retained\nmuch of their ancient prestige. Many Romans, including some of the\nimperial house, were initiated, and the popularity of Eleusis continued\nas late as the third and fourth centuries. Julian the Apostate in his\nyouth was here initiated. In 364 A.D. the Emperor Valentinian\nI forbade all nocturnal festivals, including that at Eleusis, but\nwhen the pro-consul of Achaea declared that the people could not live\nwithout the mysteries, he relaxed his prohibition so far as they were\nconcerned. Thirty-two years later Alaric destroyed the sanctuary,\nand its long history, which began before history, seemed closed.\nYet Eleusis was true to Demeter, for in spite of the iconoclastic\ntendencies of the Greek Church, the inhabitants continued to worship\nas St. Demetra a mutilated ancient statue of the goddess, until in\n1801 the Englishmen Clarke and Cripps carried it off to its present\nresting-place in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge.\n\nThe mysteries were under the general charge of the King Archon and his\nassistants at Athens, but the officials proper continued to be drawn\nfrom the two sacred families of the Eumolpidae and Ceryces. From the\nformer was selected the highest official, the hierophant, who held\noffice for life. He alone had the right to show or to explain the\nsecret objects and ceremonies. The next three priests were taken from\nthe Ceryces, and like the hierophant were chosen for life; they were\nthe torch-bearer, dadouchos, who carried the sacred torch at sacrifices\nand purifications, the altar-priest, and the sacred herald, hieroceryx.\nBesides these four high officials we know of a considerable number of\nlesser priests and priestesses, heralds, and secular officers who do\nnot concern us now.\n\nThe would-be initiate applied to someone belonging to either of the\nsacred Eleusinian families to act as mystagogue and lead him through\nthe preliminary purification, which seems to have been essentially\nidentical with that employed to purify any unclean person; this\ndone, the mystagogue duly presented the novice to the officials and\nrecommended him as a proper person to be initiated. There were two\ndegrees of the secret rites: in the first the novices were initiated\nand became mystae; in the second they advanced to be epoptae, those to\nwhom were made special revelations not vouchsafed to the mystae.\n\nEach year there were two celebrations of the mysteries, one at Agrae, a\nsuburb of Athens, in the month Anthesterion, which corresponds roughly\nto our February-March, and the greater celebration at Eleusis in\nBo\u00ebdromion, our September. The initiate was ordinarily obliged to take\npart in the lesser celebration before he could be admitted at Eleusis.\nThe great festival lasted eight or nine days, from the fifteenth to the\ntwenty-second or twenty-third of the month Bo\u00ebdromion. On the first day\nthe participants assembled before the Painted Porch in Athens to listen\nto the formal proclamation, in which the officials ordered all unclean\npersons and all foreigners to withdraw, and enjoined secrecy on all who\nwere to share in the festival. The sixteenth was a day of purification\nwhen the participants washed in the sea; the seventeenth and eighteenth\nwere spent as holidays at Athens, during which various sacrifices\nwere made; so that it was not until the nineteenth that the festal\nprocession started for Eleusis, carrying the image of Iacchos, a form\nof the infant Dionysus. Although the Sacred Way is less than fourteen\nmiles in length, so many stops were made at shrines that Eleusis was\nnot reached until evening. The ceremonies there continued three days\nand nights. There were sacrifices and offerings to many divinities.\nIn memory of Demeter\u2019s hunt for her daughter the devotees roamed the\nshore by night carrying lighted torches; and finally like the goddess,\nthey broke their fast by drinking a holy potion of meal and water. The\nconsummation of the festival was the celebration in the Great Hall,\nwhere some three thousand might find place on the seats which rose in\nbanks on all four sides. There were two sorts of representations\u2014one\nfor the mystae, who were witnessing the festival for the first time,\nand the other for those who were more expert, the epoptae. What went on\nin the Hall we do not know; we can, however, conjecture in general\nthe nature of the celebrations. They consisted of \u201cthings done,\u201d\n\u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, and \u201cthings said,\u201d \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1. The former may well refer to\nsome kind of mystery play, or of tableaux, in which incidents from the\nmyth were represented, such for example as the rape and the recovery\nof Kore, the mourning of Demeter, the birth of the child Iacchos,\nand so forth. In fact Clement of Alexandria tells us: \u201cDeo and Kore\nbecame persons in a mystic drama, and Eleusis with its torch-bearer\ncelebrates the wandering, the abduction, and the sorrow.\u201d[83] From this\nand other notices we may conclude that some simple mystery play was\nacted or tableaux vivants presented before the eyes of the company. In\nany case there was nothing elaborate. Sacred objects were doubtless\nexhibited, and apparently handled by some of the spectators. The\nformula: \u201cI fasted, I drank the potion, I took it from the chest and\nhaving tasted I put it away in the basket and from the basket into\nthe chest\u201d[84] gives a hint of certain sacraments, but we cannot now\nclearly determine their nature. There was no preaching or exhortation.\nAt most the \u201cthings said\u201d were a simple ritual, or explanation of the\nobjects exhibited. There may have been music and singing. On the last\nday of the festival two jars were filled with water and set up, one to\nthe east and the other to the west of the great hall. Then these were\noverturned with the words, \u1f53\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03b5, \u201crain,\u201d \u201cconceive.\u201d[85] Here we have\na bit of ancient agricultural ritual, of magic, intended to secure\nabundant rains and the prosperity of the crops. A similar rite was the\nsolemn exhibition of an ear of grain as a symbol of the initiates\u2019\nhope.[86]\n\nWe inevitably inquire as to what the nature of the teaching of these\nmysteries was. As a matter of fact, there was probably little if any\ninstruction given. Life beyond the grave was certainly taken for\ngranted. The mystic ritual consisted of only certain simple symbolical\nceremonies and representations which each initiate might interpret\naccording to his own impressions. The spectators were put into a\ncertain frame of mind; the celebration touched their emotions and not\ntheir intellects. So Aristotle says: \u201cThe initiates are not to learn\nanything, but they are to be affected and put into a certain frame of\nmind.\u201d[87] This we can understand from the effect of a Christian Mass,\nwhich, full of the richest meaning to the devout Catholic, to another\nmay seem of no significance.\n\nAlthough we have no reason to believe that there was formal teaching at\nEleusis, we have abundant evidence of the convictions of the initiates.\nThey clearly enjoyed peace of mind and happiness, and they believed\nthat in the future life their blessedness would be secure, and that\nthey could dance in the sacred dance, while the uninitiate would be\nwretched. As the Homeric hymn to Demeter promised: \u201cBlessed is he among\nmortal men who has seen these rites.\u201d[88] And Pindar, at the beginning\nof the fifth century, declared: \u201cHappy he who has seen these things,\nand then goes beneath the earth. For he knows the end of life and its\nZeus-given beginning.\u201d[89] Sophocles too says: \u201cThrice blessed are they\nwho have seen these rites and then go to the house of Hades, for they\nalone have life there; but all others have only woe.\u201d[90] In the Frogs\nof Aristophanes the chorus of mystae sing: \u201cFor we alone have a sun and\na holy light, we who were initiated and who live toward friends and\nstrangers with reverence towards the gods.\u201d[91] And finally I would\noffer you the evidence of an inscription set up in the third century of\nour era by an Eleusinian hierophant: \u201cVerily glorious is that mystery\nvouchsafed by the blessed gods, for death is no ill for mortals, but\nrather a good.\u201d[92]\n\nThere were branches of the Eleusinian mysteries established in the\nPeloponnesus, of which that at Andania in Messenia is best known to\nus through a long inscription happily preserved.[93] But it never\nrivalled Eleusis. Of the other mysteries dating from an early period,\nthose of Samothrace were most important and influential, being second\nonly to the Eleusinian. Herodotus tells us that the Samothracians got\nthese mysteries from the Pelasgians; among modern scholars it has been\nthe fashion to regard the two male divinities there worshipped, the\nKabeiroi, as Phoenician in origin; but whatever the source from which\nthey sprang, in the period in which they are known to us neither the\ngods nor the mysteries betray foreign elements. With the Kabeiroi were\nassociated Demeter and Kore, and in general the mysteries seem to have\nresembled those of Eleusis. As elsewhere the initiates were of two\ngrades, mystae and epoptae; there were \u201cthings done\u201d and \u201cthings said,\u201d\nand the assurance of safety here and hereafter was equally potent.\nBranches were established, notably in Thebes, as early as the middle of\nthe sixth century B.C.\n\nYou will observe that the mysteries did not interfere in any sense\nwith a faith in the many gods of popular belief or with their worship.\nWe should also note that here no less than in Orphism ecclesiastical\nexclusiveness was evident: only those who had been initiated and had\npartaken of the sacraments could hope for salvation. Yet by the end\nof the fifth century the Eleusinian Mysteries had gained a moral\nsignificance, as is shown by the passage from the Frogs of Aristophanes\nquoted just now. A few years later Andocides in his speech On the\nMysteries appealed to his jurors, reminding them that the purpose\nof their initiation was that they might punish the impious and save\nthose who had done no wrong.[94] Still there was undoubtedly abundant\nwarrant for the sarcastic joke of Diogenes who asked: \u201cShall the robber\nPataecion have a better lot after death than Epaminondas, just because\nhe has been initiated?\u201d[95]\n\nWe have now considered three manifestations of the mysticism which\nbecame prominent in the sixth century before our era\u2014Orphism,\nPythagoreanism, and the Greater Mysteries. We have seen how a new\nreligious sense arose which turned men\u2019s thoughts toward the next world\nand future happiness. This happiness the Orphics and Pythagoreans\nendeavored to secure by a prescribed mode of life, by ceremonial\npurifications, and by sacraments. The Mysteries likewise offered\nassurance through initiation and participation in their sacred ritual.\nIn every case the devotees were inspired with confident hope, not by\nreason, but by ceremonies and emotional experiences. Philosophy was not\nyet united with religion.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[71] _Il._ 23, 170-176.\n\n[72] _Od._ II, 24-36.\n\n[73] Herod. 4, 94 ff.\n\n[74] _Frg._ 7 A.\n\n[75] _Frg._ 46 A.\n\n[76] _Frg._ 115.\n\n[77] _Frg._ 14.\n\n[78] _Frg._ 154 A.\n\n[79] _Frg._ 223 A.\n\n[80] _Frg._ 117.\n\n[81] _Frg._ 115.\n\n[82] _Or._ 18.\n\n[83] Clem. _Protrep._ p. 12 P.\n\n[84] _Ibid._ p. 18 P.\n\n[85] Ath. XI, 93, p. 496: Proclus ad Plat. _Tim._ p. 293 C. It is not\ncertain that the notices in Athenaeus and in Proclus refer to the same\nrite, but I have ventured so to interpret them.\n\n[86] Hippol. _Philos._ p. 115 M.\n\n[87] _Frg._ 45 Rose.\n\n[88] 480 f.\n\n[89] _Frg._ 137.\n\n[90] _Frg._ 753.\n\n[91] 454 ff.\n\n[92] _Eph. Arch._ III (1883), p. 81, 8.\n\n[93] Ditt. _Syll._^2, 653.\n\n[94] _De mys._ 31.\n\n[95] Plut. _de aud. poet._ 21 F.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nRELIGION IN THE POETS OF THE SIXTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES B.C.\n\n\nIn the preceding lecture we considered together various manifestations\nof the mystic tendencies which developed in Greece during the seventh\nand sixth centuries B.C. Now we must turn back and ask what\nevidence we have from the poets of these centuries as to the course of\nmorality and religion. To the epic poetry of Homer and the didactic\nverse of Hesiod succeeded the elegiac, iambic, and melic poets. The\nindividualism of the age, the spirit of reflection, political changes,\npersonal ambitions and passions are all mirrored in their verses. When\nwe summon them as witnesses to their day, we must remember that the\nevidence they can offer is only incidental and frequently partial;\nthat it reflects the temper of the audience as well as the views of\nthe poet. In this fact, indeed, lies our chief warrant for consulting\nthem, for while poets may be leaders in thought far in advance of their\ntime, a contemporary hearing is secured by them only when their hearers\nsympathize with the ideas which they express. Again it must be borne\nin mind that we have for the most part only fragments of the poetry of\nthis time, preserved by quotations, and that we cannot therefore form\nadequate judgments of the whole.\n\nWhen, however, we examine the scanty remains that we possess, we find\nthat on the whole there is little evidence of progress in morality\nand religion beyond Homer and Hesiod. The concepts of the gods are\nessentially the Homeric, except that Zeus plays a larger part in the\ndivine economy than in Homer. In the Iliad and Odyssey, as we have\nseen, he is often thwarted and outwitted by the other gods, some of\nwhom seem at times almost on an equality with him. But in the poets\nof the seventh and sixth centuries the will of Zeus is unquestionably\nsupreme. No god hopes to oppose him successfully; all the rest play\nminor r\u00f4les. Indeed, it is not too much to say that we have here a\ndeveloped sense of unity in the world, although the poets of this\ntime did not by any means reach the position of the philosophers or\nattain to any real pantheism. Yet an advance is made: not only is Zeus\nsupreme, but Zeus and Fate are now more closely identified, so that\nthere is no conflict between them, such as we noticed in the Homeric\npoems.\n\nOf all the poetry that has been preserved to us from the sixth century\nthe elegiac verses which have been handed down under the name of\nTheognis show most reflection. The poet himself was an aristocrat of\nMegara, who about the middle of the century was driven into exile by\nthe violent struggles between the aristocratic and the democratic\nparties. Much of the verse which we have is addressed to a youth,\nCyrnus, and is of a didactic or gnomic character. The poet undertakes\nto teach his young friend conduct in life, so that the verses consist\nlargely of rules for living adapted to various situations and of a\nuniversal nature. Although it is probably true that much of what passes\nunder the name of Theognis was not written by him, on the whole the\ntenor of the verses is such that we may use them with a good deal\nof confidence to illustrate the thought and the spirit of his age.\nXenophon in commenting on this poet but slightly exaggerated the truth\nwhen he said that he was concerned with nothing else but virtue and\nwickedness, and that his poetry is a treatise on man, just as if a\nhorse-fancier should write a treatise on horses.[96]\n\nTheognis, like Homer, teaches that it is from the gods that all things\ncome, both good and evil. He declares that no mortal man can be either\nwealthy or poor, base or good, apart from divinity. He bids his young\nfriend pray to the gods, for they have all power and without them are\nno blessings or misfortunes to men.[97] A similar view is expressed by\nSimonides who insists that no one, neither state nor mortal man, has\never attained to virtue without the gods;[98] likewise by Archilochus,\nwho in verses, imitated by Horace centuries later, exhorts his hearer\nto trust fully to the gods, and reminds him that oftentimes the\ngods set upright men who as a result of misfortune are prostrate on\nthe black earth, and oftentimes they overthrow those who are very\nprosperous.[99] And again he declares that from Zeus come all things to\nmortals, and that no one should be surprised at any marvel which Zeus\nbrings to pass.[100] In fact, from Homer on, the poets regard Zeus and\nthe other gods as the source of all things, both good and evil. It is\nonly later that the doctrine of man\u2019s complete responsibility for his\nsin supplants this earlier view.\n\nIt was natural that Theognis and his contemporaries should regard the\nlot of man with a pessimism exceeding that of Homer. As they looked\nabout them they saw evil everywhere, the good afflicted, the wicked\nprosperous. They were oppressed by the weakness of humanity, so that\ntheir verses with regard to man and his lot are gloomy indeed\u2014so much\nso that in one passage Theognis declares that in reality no mortal man\non whom the sun shines is truly happy. Again he holds that man can have\nno foresight into the future, for it is hardest of all, he says, to\nlearn the end of a thing as yet unaccomplished, to know how god will\nbring that to pass; a mist is stretched before men\u2019s eyes, and there\nis no way for mortals to test and try the outcome of the future.[101]\nThe poet feels a deep despair, when he reflects that no knowledge or\nforesight for mortals is possible, but the gods accomplish everything\naccording to their will; and because there is little hope of implanting\nvirtue in men, then it were better not to be born at all and never to\nhave seen the bright rays of the sun. But since this may not be, then\nhe is most fortunate who enters Hades most quickly, and has a high\nmound of earth heaped over him.[102] Still there are other passages\nwhich show that man\u2019s case was not considered wholly hopeless. There\nis an appeal to self-pride, an expression of the view that poverty is\nthe test of a man, that has a tonic sound. The poet says that poverty\nreveals the worthless man and the superior whenever need of money comes\non them, for the mind of the good man, whose thought is ever upright\nin his heart, thinks only of justice.[103] In another place he assures\nhis young friend that the good man ever has his wit with him, and his\ncourage, whether he be in adversity or in good fortune. But if a god\ngives abundance and riches to a base creature, then he in his folly\ncannot restrain his baseness.[104] Again the poet exhorts his own soul:\n\u201cEndure, my soul, although thou hast suffered unendurable things at\nthe hands of the wicked\u201d; he bids it not be distressed or angry over\nmisfortune and disaster, nor to blame friends or cheer enemies by\nfailure: \u201cFor mortal man may not easily escape the fated gifts of the\ngods, though he dive into the very depth of the purple sea, or even\nwhen the dark shadow of Tartarus holds him.\u201d[105] Thus we see that the\npoet, in spite of his pessimism and of his realization of the hardship\nand injustice in the world, still urged his young friend to face it in\nthe same spirit in which the later Stoics like Marcus Aurelius exhorted\nthemselves to endure.\n\nAlthough in the world as seen by the poets of the sixth century Zeus is\nsupreme and the gods are the source of all things for mortals, their\nrule nevertheless is based on justice, which the gods love and which is\ntheir chief attribute. Opposed to justice is insolence (\u1f53\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2), which\nthey detest and which they wish to punish. Archilochus addresses Father\nZeus, declaring that his is the rule of heaven, and that he oversees\nall the works of man, both those which are base and those which are\nlawful, and has a care even for insolence and justice among wild\nbeasts.[106] The statesman Solon assures the Athenians that their city\nwill never come to ruin contrary to the will and intention of Zeus\nand the immortal gods; that ruin only can be brought upon the city by\nthe citizens themselves, by the unjust spirit of the leaders of the\npeople, whose mighty insolence will bring great suffering upon them.\nLike Aeschylus Solon believes and teaches that insolence must fail in\nthe end and that Justice, who in silence knows all things both present\nand future, will recompense completely in due season.[107] In another\npassage Solon dwells on the fact that the riches which are sought with\ninsolence bring doom quickly, and in striking verses compares the\nbeginning of destruction with the spark which springs from a little\nfire, slight at first, but finally consuming all; even so are the\nresults of insolence that fall upon mortals; for Zeus sees the end of\nall things: as the wind suddenly in the springtime quickly scatters the\nclouds, stirs up the sea, and works destruction over the grainbearing\nearth, reaching to very heaven, the steep home of the gods, and makes\nthe bright sky appear again, and the brilliant sun shine far over the\nrich earth, so that there are no longer any clouds to be seen; even so\nis the vengeance that comes from Zeus. Zeus is not quick to anger over\neach fault like mortal man, but whoever has a wicked heart never\nescapes his notice, but in the end is utterly destroyed.[108] It would\nbe possible to cite similar passages from other poets which show a\ndeepening of that sense of the inevitableness of punishment which was\nfirst expressed in Hesiod.\n\nYet the problems of evil and of the justice of the gods were not\nsatisfactorily solved for Theognis and his contemporaries. In two\nstriking passages he criticizes Zeus, saying first: \u201cDear Zeus, I\nwonder at thee, for thou rulest over all things, having thrice great\nhonor and great power, and thou knowest well the mind and will of each\nman, and thy own power is supreme over all, O King. How is it, then,\nson of Cronos, that thy mind endures to keep wicked men and the just\nsubject to the same lot? Whether the mind of the one be turned to\nprudence or of the other, who trusts in unjust action, to insolence,\nthere is no distinction made by god or mortals; nor is there any road\nwhich one may travel and please the gods.\u201d[109] In the second passage\nhis reproach is the keener from the form of its expression: \u201cFather\nZeus, would that it might be the will of the gods that insolence be\nthe pleasure of the wicked, and would that it might be their pleasure,\nthat whoever contriveth wicked deeds in heart and thought, having no\nregard for the gods, should pay for his wickedness himself; and the\nfolly of the father not harm the children thereafter; and would that\nthe children of an unjust father, who themselves have just purposes\nand regard for thy wrath, Son of Cronos, they who from childhood love\njustice along with their fellow citizens, might not pay for the\ninsolence of their sires. I would that such might be the will of the\nblessed gods. But as it is, the man who does evil escapes, and another\nthen bears the evil. How then is this just, King of the Immortals,\nthat a man who has no part in unjust deeds should himself be treated\nunjustly?\u201d[110] Here we have not only a recognition of the fact that the\nsins of the fathers are visited upon the children even to the third and\nfourth generations\u2014a truth which Solon had earlier enunciated,[111]\u2014but\nalso a protest against the injustice of it.\n\nThese are some of the conflicting expressions on morality, justice,\nand religion, which we find among the fragments of these early poets.\nThe contradictions which they show need not surprise us, for we are\ndrawing, as I have already said, from mere fragments written on various\nthemes and for different occasions; so the record is inevitably\nimperfect. Nor must we suppose that the poets of this time had arrived\nat any clearer conceptions with regard to these fundamental questions\nthan thinkers of a later age; the problem of evil, the justice of\nthe divine economy, the prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings\nof the good are matters which still baffle men as they did more than\ntwenty-five centuries ago.\n\nBut let us now turn to the poets of the fifth century, above all to\nPindar, Aeschylus, and Sophocles, of whose works we have considerable\nportions. These were poets whose position and genius made them the\ntruest witnesses to the highest thoughts of Greece, and especially of\nAthens in that glorious period of her supremacy from the time of the\nPersian Wars through the Periclean age. The poetry of Pindar and of the\ntragedians was by its very nature connected with the service of the\ngods. The former wrote his odes to the victors who had won renown at\nthe great national festivals of Zeus, Apollo, and Poseidon, or composed\nhis hymns and paeans in honor of the divinities. The tragedians\nproduced their plays for performance at the great festival of Dionysus.\nAnd yet we must be cautious here, as everywhere, since we are not\nalways justified in attributing to the poet the sentiments which he\nputs into the mouths of his speakers. The tragedian\u2019s purpose was first\nof all artistic. While it is true that his own beliefs inevitably\ncolored and tempered his work, still he never became a preacher. He\ndealt with traditional material, which he might modify somewhat, but in\nlarge measure his themes were determined for him. Yet there are many\npassages both in choral songs and in single speeches which certainly\nreflect the poet\u2019s own thought or his interpretation of the views held\nby his audience. The very strength of personality which Aeschylus,\nSophocles, and Euripides possessed made it impossible that they should\nnot voice their own conceptions, and that too without violence to\ntheir poetic purpose. Pindar\u2019s work lay in different fields, but he no\nless than the tragedians helped to interpret and mould the moral and\nreligious sentiments of his audience.\n\nPindar was born about 522 B.C. of a noble family near Thebes\nin Boeotia; but he belonged to all Greece. He wrote in the first half\nof the fifth century when the influence of the preceding century was\nstill strong upon men\u2019s minds, and he also shared the great stimulus\nwhich their country\u2019s victory over the Persians imparted to the Greeks.\nOf his personal devotion to the gods we have abundant evidence. He\nspent a part of his fortune in dedications at Thebes. There in the\nsecond century of our era the traveller Pausanias saw three statues\nwhich the poet had set up, one in honor of Apollo, another to Hermes,\nand a third, by the famous sculptor Calamis, which stood in the shrine\nof Zeus Ammon. To the Asiatic Cybele and to the new Arcadian Pan Pindar\nerected a shrine before his own door; there, as he himself tells us,\nthe Theban maidens came by night and sang their hymns.[112]\n\nPindar shows throughout the pervasive influence of Homer, both in his\nconception of the gods and in his style as well. He makes no break with\nthe Homeric anthropomorphism, and his divinities are subject to the\nneeds and desires of mortals; but his concept is a noble one, for his\ngods are mighty and permanent, while men are transitory and weak: \u201cOne\nis the race of men and of gods; from one mother we have the breath of\nlife. Yet in power we are wholly diverse: for man is nothing, but the\nbrazen heaven abides, a home ever unshaken. Still we resemble somewhat\nthe immortals either in lofty mind or in nature; yet we know not in the\nday or in the night what course fate has marked out for us to run.\u201d[113]\n\nThe power and the knowledge of the gods are in fact complete and\nperfect; they are not the limited creatures of the Homeric pantheon.\nWith them resides all power, so that they easily bring things to pass\nbeyond man\u2019s expectation. Their might may cause man\u2019s wonder, but\n\u201cnothing ever appears to be incredible\u201d;[114] and in his second Pythian\nOde the poet writes: \u201cGod bringeth every end to pass according to his\ndesires. He overtaketh even the winged eagle and passeth the dolphin in\nthe sea; and he bringeth low many a proud man, granting to others glory\nthat grows not old.\u201d[115] And in the ninth Pythian Ode he addresses\nApollo thus: \u201cThou who knowest the final destiny of all things and\nall the paths thereto; all the leaves that the earth sends up in the\nspring, and all the sands whirled by the waves in sea and rivers and by\nthe blasts of the winds; thou seest well the future and whence it shall\ncome to pass.\u201d[116]\n\nPindar\u2019s gods are thus all-wise and all-powerful. At times he shows a\ncertain tendency toward pantheism, for he speaks of god or divinity\nin a general sense, as if his mind conceived the divine nature to be\none, so that the divinities were no longer several gods, but, as it\nwere, bound together in a common divine unity. But we must not deceive\nourselves into thinking that this pantheistic tendency was at all\nclearly developed in Pindar, or that he broke with polytheism. Rather\nhe seems to have conceived of divinity as something which presents\nitself in many persons, the varied gods of the traditional pantheon.\nIf we accept as genuine the fragment preserved by Clement of\nAlexandria,[117] in which the poet asks, \u201cWhat is God?\u201d and answers\n\u201cThe all,\u201d we can hardly think that this pantheistic definition means\nmore than the universal cause; unless indeed it resulted from the\nOrphic pantheism. But whatever Pindar\u2019s views as to the unity of the\ndivine, his teachings as to the gods\u2019 power are clear. He warns men\nthat they cannot hope to avoid the gods\u2019 watchful eyes: \u201cFor if man\nexpects to escape god\u2019s notice when he does aught, he is mistaken.\u201d[118]\nMoreover, Pindar teaches that the gods, though the givers of both good\nand evil to men, like Homer\u2019s divinities, are nevertheless just and\ntruthful beings who reward the righteous and reverent and punish the\nwicked: \u201cThe bliss of men who feel reverence lives longer, but he who\nassociates with wicked purposes prospers not forever.\u201d[119]\n\nTruth also belongs to god: indeed she is \u201cthe daughter of Zeus\u201d, \u201cthe\nfoundation of virtue.\u201d Of Apollo it is said that he \u201clays not hold of\nlies.\u201d[120] Here is a great advance over Homer\u2019s ideas of the godhead.\nPindar\u2019s attitude in this respect is not dissimilar to that of Hesiod,\nwho, as we have seen, first gave poetic expression to the idea that\njustice is an attribute and handmaid of Zeus.\n\nConsonant with these higher views of divinity is Pindar\u2019s treatment\nof the myths. The grosser elements he leaves aside as being unworthy\nof the gods. At times he openly protests, as for example in the first\nOlympian Ode where he declares that he will not treat the story of\nPelops in the traditional way, which made Tantalus offer his son\u2019s\nflesh at a dinner given the immortals: \u201cI will speak differently from\nthose who have gone before. I may not call any one of the blessed\ngods a cannibal.\u201d[121] This revolt against the current forms of myths\nwas due in part to his belief in the moral perfection of divinity, in\npart to his moral sense concerning man. His rule was, as laid down\nby himself, that man should say only good things of the gods, and he\nshrank from attributing to the divinities things which it would be base\nfor men to do. So in his fifth Nemean Ode he was unwilling to tell of\nthe fratricide of the heroes Peleus and Telamon, but broke off his\nnarrative abruptly, just as he rejected with indignation the shameful\ntales told of Tantalus. Furthermore Pindar subjected the myths and\nreligious beliefs with which he had to deal to the test of reason;\namong the several versions which he found current he recognized that\nsome must be false, and so he endeavored to separate the good from the\nevil, to control the traditions of his people, and thus to practise a\nfree criticism in his work.\n\nOn the nature of sin Pindar, as the Greeks in general, holds that\nwhenever man passes the bounds appointed between a mortal and a god,\nor between man and his fellowmen, he becomes thereby a sinner. Excess\nis the form of sin which he makes repeatedly his theme. When he\npraises Lampon of Aegina for \u201cpursuing the mean with his thought and\nmaintaining it in his acts,\u201d[122] he is recalling the principle laid\ndown in Hesiod\u2019s verse, which had passed long since into a proverb:\n\u201cKeep a middle course; the seasonable in all things is best.\u201d[123]\n\nAgain and again in varied forms he warns us to remember that man is\nmortal: \u201cIf one prosper and enjoy a good name, still seek not to become\nZeus. Thou hast all, if ever perchance the fate to possess these\nhonors should come to thee. Mortal things befit a mortal.\u201d[124] And\nagain he says: \u201cBut if a man shall have wealth and excel other men in\nbeauty, and if in the games he hath exhibited his strength and gained\ndistinction, let him still remember that his garment wraps mortal limbs\nand that earth shall be the raiment of all in the end.\u201d[125] Sin then\nis presumption, and as such is punished by the gods. That \u201cenvy of\nthe gods,\u201d which seems in Homer almost a childish resentment, is thus\ngiven an ethical value which coincides very closely with Aeschylus\u2019\ninterpretation of this belief. The moral character of Pindar\u2019s form of\nthis doctrine is secured in part by the poet\u2019s apparent belief that man\nis a free moral agent. The sinner sometimes, like Ixion, might not be\nable to endure prosperity, and so fall into insolent pride, and thence\ninto blind infatuation. In like fashion Bacchylides teaches that the\ngiants were destroyed by insolent pride, whereas the path to happiness\nis open to all who will follow justice: \u201cWarriors of Troy, Zeus, who\nrules on high and beholds all things, is not the author of grievous\nwoes for mortals; no, open before all men is the path that leads to\nunswerving Justice, attendant of holy Eunomia and prudent Themis: happy\nthe land whose sons take her to dwell with them. But insolence\u2014the\nspirit void of reverence, who luxuriates in shifty wiles and illicit\nfollies\u2014who swiftly gives a man his neighbor\u2019s wealth and power, but\nanon plunges him into a gulf of ruin\u2014she it was who destroyed the\nGiants, overweening.\u201d[126]\n\nOn the question of man\u2019s freedom Pindar is not entirely clear. And yet\nhe seems to hold that man, and not some god, is responsible for his\ninitial wrongdoing. But he also points out that when man has once given\nway to that insolent pride, which is presumptuous sin, then the gods\nin punishing him may drive him on his wrong course until the man is\nutterly ruined. This doctrine appears more clearly in Aeschylus.\n\nWhen we come to Pindar\u2019s view of the life after death, we find that\nhe has a more exalted vision than the poets of an earlier day. The\nideas of immortality, of future rewards and punishments, of rebirth,\nand of a possible final bliss, which were current from the early sixth\ncentury at least, had not failed to have their effect on our poet. In\na remarkable fragment he sets forth a doctrine as to the relation of\nbody and soul which is very similar to that held by the Orphics, under\nwhose influence he had evidently come: \u201cThe bodies of all men follow\nall-conquering death; but life\u2019s image still liveth on, for that only\nis from the gods. It sleeps when the limbs are active, but ofttimes in\ndreams it shows to the sleeper coming judgment, a judgment of peace\nand pain.\u201d[127] That is, when the body is awake it hampers the soul\nso that the soul is numbed in sleep; but when the soul is free from\nthe domination of the imprisoning flesh, it then enjoys its proper\npowers. There is a famous passage in the second Olympian which sets\nforth Pindar\u2019s views of future reward and punishment. According to\nthis passage, sins committed on the earth are punished beneath the\nearth, and those done beneath the earth are punished in the soul\u2019s next\nreincarnation. So heaven and hell are always present to man\u2019s soul,\nwhether here in the light of the sun, or in the darkness of Hades.\nThose from whom atonement is accepted in the lower world are allowed to\nreturn to the earth in high positions; when they have accomplished this\nrebirth thrice, if they have been just, they may enter into their final\nhappiness. These are Pindar\u2019s words: \u201cThe guilty souls of the dead\nstraightway pay the penalty here on earth; and the sins done in this\nkingdom of Zeus are judged by one beneath the ground, who delivereth\nhis judgment to hateful necessity. But ever in the night and in the day\nalike the good receive as their lot a life free from toil, enjoying the\nlight of the sun. They vex neither the ground nor the water of the sea\nfor food that does not satisfy, but among the honored gods, those who\nhave found their pleasure in keeping their oaths, enjoy a life free\nfrom tears; but the others bear suffering too great to look upon. Yet\nall those who have tarried thrice on either side (of death) and have\npersevered in keeping their souls wholly free from unjust deeds, travel\nthe road of Zeus to the tower of Cronos. There the ocean breezes blow\naround the islands of the blest, golden flowers bloom, some from\nglorious trees on the land, others water feeds. With garlands the blest\nentwine their hands and crown their temples.\u201d[128]\n\nWe need not pause here to point out in detail the great contrast\nbetween Pindar\u2019s ideas of religion and those expressed in the Homeric\nand Hesiodic poetry. He presented a higher doctrine of future rewards\nand punishments, which was binding upon men in all the relations of\nthis life; and he expressed a higher conception of morality and of\njustice, to whose obligations the gods as well as men were subject.\nThe baser elements of mythology he refined away and elevated thereby\nmen\u2019s ideas of the divine; and by making righteousness and truth the\nprime attributes of the gods, in accordance with which they punished\nthe wicked and blessed the good, he lifted morality and religion to a\nnobler plane.\n\nWhen we turn to the two older tragic poets, Aeschylus and Sophocles,\nwe find that they teach doctrines very like those of Pindar, although\nnaturally they dwell on those elements in religion and morality that\nare adapted to their tragic themes; and they differ between themselves\nin the points which they emphasize. Aeschylus makes prominent the\npunitive aspect of divine justice; he dwells upon the punishment which\nmust inevitably follow sin, and which pursues a guilty line from\ngeneration to generation. The poet displays a moral earnestness and\nintensity like that of a Hebrew prophet, and he shows an extraordinary\nprofundity in his handling of moral and religious themes; furthermore\nhe is consciously a religious teacher. Sophocles keeps religion more in\nthe background, using it as one of the materials which he as a literary\nartist can employ in his dramas; yet he is important as a religious\npoet for he lays especial stress on the necessity of purity of heart,\nwhich for him is the substance of piety toward the gods.\n\nThe elder tragedian, Aeschylus, was born at Eleusis about the year 525\nB.C. Tradition told that he fought in the Persian wars and was\nwounded at Marathon. He began to present tragedies about the year 500,\nand continued to produce them until about three years before his death\nin 456. Aeschylus was a man of mighty concepts and massive thought, to\nwhich his condensed and pregnant style corresponds; a man of a profound\nand religious nature, strongly influenced by the Mysteries, he thought\ndeeply upon the problems of men and of gods. He faced with honesty the\ncontradictions involved in the current notions with regard to the moral\nnature of the gods, and in the ethical standards of men. Like Pindar he\nelevated and refined the traditional myths and made them a medium for\nthe teaching of great moral truths.\n\nAeschylus regards the order of the universe as moral throughout. This\nview appears even in the Prometheus Bound, that unique drama of revolt.\nWhen we now read this tragedy alone, it seems as if Zeus were\nrepresented as a lawless tyrant, using his power and might in most\nunjust ways. But it is evident that if we had the other two plays of\nthe trilogy, the sympathy which we feel with the Titan Prometheus would\nbe lessened, that we should realize that the extant play represents the\ntransition from violence to law, and that in reality the rule of Zeus\nis not one of might but one subject ultimately to the law of justice.\n\nAlthough Aeschylus, like all of his day, was a polytheist, he exalts\nZeus far above all other divinities. He regards him as pre\u00ebminent,\nthe possessor of all majesty and power, whose will always prevails,\nso that, when he speaks, the thing he wishes comes to pass. The poet\nuses the highest and most comprehensive epithets of him throughout his\nplays; in the Supplices the chorus appeal to Zeus as \u201cKing of kings,\nmost blessed of the blessed, most perfect power of perfect powers;\nblessed Zeus\u201d; and again they address him as \u201cthe one who rules through\ninfinite time.\u201d[129] In other passages the poet seems to feel as if\nlanguage were unequal to the task of describing adequately the majesty\nand power of this supreme god. In his mind Zeus surpasses the other\ngods so much that his will represents the whole of the divine laws; to\nhim man inevitably turns in doubt and perplexity. As the chorus say in\nthe Agamemnon:\n\n    Zeus\u2014whate\u2019er \u2019Zeus\u2019 expresseth of His essence\u2014\n      If the name please him on the lips of prayer,\n    With his name on my lips I seek his presence,\n      Knowing none else I may with him compare.\n\n    Yea, though I ponder, in the balance laying\n      All else, no help save Zeus alone I find,\n    If I would cast aside the burden weighing,\n      All to no profit, ever on my mind.[130]\n\nIt is not impossible that Aeschylus cherished ideas of divinity which\napproached the pantheism or the henotheism of a later age. Clement of\nAlexandria has preserved two of his verses which are so extraordinary\nthat we are glad to have them attested also by Philodemus.[131] When in\nthese the poet says: \u201cZeus is the ether, Zeus the earth also; also\nthe sky. Zeus is all things, and that which is above all things as\nwell,\u201d this syncretistic expression may well be due to the influence\nof Orphism or of the philosopher Heraclitus; but whatever the source\nof the idea it stands at diameter with popular tradition. Of course it\ndoes not exclude the gods of the popular belief, who could be included\nin the divine unity, as later thought usually conceived them. That\nAeschylus uses the gods of the people in his plays is not surprising,\nfor the dramatic poet, whatever his personal belief, must always use\nmaterial familiar to his audience and suited to his dramatic and poetic\npurpose.\n\nIn the Prometheus Bound the Titan threatens Zeus with Fate and declares\nthat even he cannot escape Necessity. But we must remember that\nthe Prometheus, as I have said before, is a drama which represents\ntransition from the old order to the new, and that at the end of the\ntrilogy there was no conflict between Zeus and Fate; and in general\nAeschylus, though not always clear, most often represents Fate either\nas the will of Zeus himself or as his assistant. The former idea is\nagain and again expressed in the Supplices, where the will of the\nsupreme god is shown as something mighty and absolute which none may\ntransgress.\n\nBut if Zeus is exalted to this supreme position, it is as a god\nof supreme justice. With the poet the ideas of justice and piety,\ninjustice and impiety are equivalent. Like Hesiod he makes Justice the\ndaughter of Zeus, whom Zeus always supports and avenges, \u201callotting\nduly ill to the wicked, blessing to the righteous.\u201d To the poet it is\ninconceivable that a god of perfect justice could desire anything in\nthe world except what is right and just; and therefore he conceives\nthat man\u2019s obligation is to strive after that which is just and\nrighteous, and so to put himself into harmony with the divine will. A\nfailure to do this is sin. Indeed the poet says that when men disregard\njustice they injure the gods, and more than once sin is spoken of as a\ndisease of the mind. The sinner is a vain creature, laboring under a\ndelusion which oftentimes springs from o\u2019erweening pride and is doomed\nto bear tears for its fruit. The envy of the gods, which seems in Homer\na childish thing, is in Aeschylus only the resentment which they feel\ntoward a sinner who has been led away by success into insolent pride\nand so is doomed to punishment. In the Persians Xerxes is represented\nas having been swept away by his haughty insolence so that he lacked\ndiscretion (\u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7) and came to his doom. The shade of Darius says\nto the chorus:\n\n    Zeus sits above, a chastener of thoughts\n    Exceeding proud, a stern inquisitor.\n    Wherefore, since Heaven\u2019s warning bids be prudent,\n    Admonish him with counsel of wise speech\n    To cease from flouting Gods with reckless pride.[132]\n\nAnd Xerxes\u2019 armies were likewise doomed to pay the price of insolence\nand of their godless thoughts.\n\nFurthermore Aeschylus teaches that good men must avoid the wicked, and\nillustrates the truth by the fact that it was evil companions who urged\nXerxes to his folly. There is a striking passage in the Septem in which\nEteocles, when informed that the seer Amphiaraus is among the heroes\nwho are besieging Thebes, says:\n\n    Woe for the omen that with impious men\n    Joineth a righteous man in fellowship!\n    Than evil converse, in all enterprise\n    Nothing is worse; its harvest let none reap.\n    Infatuation\u2019s field hath death for fruit.\n    If the godfearing man for shipmates hath\n    A crew hot-hearted in iniquity,\n    With that god-hated tribe he perisheth:\n    The righteous man who dwells with citizens\n    Traitrous to guests and reckless of the Gods,\n    Is justly taken in the selfsame net,\n    Lashed by the same impartial scourge of God.[133]\n\nWe have just seen that Pindar shows a tendency to make man responsible\nfor his sin, quite in contrast to the popular belief which still kept\nthe Homeric view that the gods were responsible for all things. With\nthis popular idea Aeschylus seems at times in accord. But if we\nconsider his plays in their entirety, he makes man responsible for the\nfirst step. In the Eumenides, for example, the Furies declare that\nno just man has ever put his hands justly to any deed and met their\nwrath. The lesson is that when men have taken the initial downward step\nthemselves an evil divinity or daemon drives them on, but that the\nfirst step no man is forced to take. When, however, he has taken it,\nthen the poet represents the sinner as through god\u2019s will infatuated\nwith his sin. No other extant poet shows so impressively how sin\nrelentlessly persists through generation after generation.\n\nThe most familiar illustration is found in Aeschylus\u2019 treatment of the\nstory of the bloody line of Atreus, who sinned by slaying his brother\u2019s\nsons and offering their flesh, an unholy banquet, to their father;\nthen Agamemnon\u2019s queen, with her paramour Aegisthus, slew her lord on\nhis return from Troy; and finally Agamemnon\u2019s son Orestes murdered his\nmother and Aegisthus to avenge his sire. Thus through three generations\nthe curse ran, each generation adding its own crime until only the\ndivine intervention of Apollo and Athena could stay the course of sin\nand its doom. When in the Choephoroe Orestes has exacted his vengeance\nand stained himself with his mother\u2019s blood, the chorus finally sings:\n\n    Lo, how upon the palace royal hath burst\n      The third storm that fulfils the house\u2019s fate!\n    First, wretch Thyestes at a feast accurst\n      Of his own children ate:\n\n    Then shrieked the second storm the agony\n      Of that king in that laver hacked to death,\n    When the Achaians\u2019 chief to treachery\n      There yielded up his breath:\n\n    Now on the third storm\u2019s wild wings down doth sweep\n      A Saviour\u2014or a Doom shall he be named?\n    Where shall the Curse end?\u2014how be lulled to sleep\n      Its fury?\u2014how be tamed?[134]\n\nA similar theme was handled by him in his tragedies which dealt with\nthe history of the royal house of Thebes. Against the warning of the\noracle Laius married Jocasta; their son Oedipus slew his father and\nwed his own mother who bore him children. Under the burden of Oedipus\u2019\ncurse their two sons, Eteocles and Polynices, fell in fratricidal\nstrife. These are dark bloody tales, but in the tragedies of Aeschylus\nthey were given a fearful moral import. It is true that the same\nstories were handled by other tragedians, but by none with such moral\nimpressiveness.\n\nThe mind of the poet was too searching and earnest to avoid the\ndifficult problems which appear in real life when there is a conflict\nof duties. Such a conflict arises when Agamemnon has to choose between\nslaying his daughter and failing to do his duty by his country; again\nwhen Antigone at the close of the Seven against Thebes has to decide\nwhether she will disobey the higher law which requires that the dead\nshall be buried, or resist the edict of the state which forbids her the\nservice to her dead. Throughout the Choephoroe and Eumenides Orestes\nhas to face the duty of avenging his father\u2019s death laid upon him by\nApollo, and the pious reverence which he should show his mother. The\npoet offers no satisfactory solution to such problems as these\u2014indeed,\nhis purpose in bringing them out clearly was probably dramatic rather\nthan moral. Yet whatever his purpose, it is important for us to note\nthat he realized the moral conflict clearly as a part of man\u2019s common\nexperience.\n\nI have already said that Aeschylus dwells chiefly upon the retributory\nnature of punishment, teaching that the sinner must suffer for his own\ndeeds. \u201cAn eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth\u201d was no less binding\nin Greek than Hebrew justice:\n\n    Destinies, Mighty Ones, grant that from Zeus may the issue betide\n    Even as Justice requireth, who now is arrayed on our side.\n    \u2018Ever the tongue of hate shall the tongue of hate requite:\n    Aye for the stroke of murder the stroke of murder shall smite\u2019\n    Justice exacting her dues cries ringing-voiced this law.\n    \u2018Doers must suffer\u2019\u2014so sayeth the immemorial saw.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    A law saith, \u2018Murder-drops of blood-libation\n    On earth spilt, cry for blood in expiation.\u2019\n    The Avenging Sprite shrieks, hastening Havoc on\n    Which brings from graves of men dead long agone\n    Ruin to crown the work of ruin done.[135]\n\nThis principle runs through the entire trilogy of the Oresteia.\nAgamemnon lost his life as recompense for the life of his daughter\nIphigenia whom he slew with his own hand, and the murder of Agamemnon\nwas avenged by the slaughter of Clytemnestra and her paramour.\nThroughout the three plays doom follows the criminal relentlessly and\nonly divine interference in the end clears the account. And yet at\ntimes Aeschylus teaches a gentler belief, that wisdom comes through\nsuffering and constraint, and that it is through the discipline of pain\nthat we travel the road to understanding.\n\nAlthough Aeschylus lays overwhelming emphasis on the truth that\npunishment for sin falls upon the sinner in this life, he also teaches\nthat there is punishment for the wicked in the world below. In his\ndescription of the dead there are many reminiscences of Homer. But his\nHades is not Homeric; there is reality in punishment there no less than\nupon earth. In the Eumenides the Furies threaten Orestes thus:\n\n    Nay, I shall suck\u2014thou canst not choose but pay the penalty\u2014\n    The red gore from thy living limbs, and win me out of thee\n    The banquet of a draught that shall with awful anguish flow.\n    Yea, I will waste thy living frame, then drag thee far below,\n    There to pay all thy penalty, the mother-murder\u2019s woe.\n        So shall all else that have transgressed,\n        Have sinned against a God, a guest,\n        Or parents, mark how each receives\n        The dues of sin that Justice gives.\n      For Hades \u2019neath the earth waits every soul,\n      A mighty judge who watcheth to enscroll\n      All sins on his eternal memory\u2019s roll.[136]\n\nOf the rewards of the righteous in the next life Aeschylus has no word\nto say. There is no Elysium or Islands of the Blest.\n\nAeschylus represents the Athens of the Persian Wars; Sophocles belongs\nto the Periclean age. He was born fifteen years before the battle of\nSalamis and led the chorus which sang a paean to celebrate the Greek\nvictory. To his contemporaries his life seemed happy, as if he were\nbeloved by the gods above all other men. In 468 B.C. he was\nsuccessful in contending for the tragic prize with Aeschylus, and\nhe continued to write until his death in 406. Instead of the rugged\nstrength and passion that we find in Aeschylus, Sophocles displays\na sunny and gentle nature that naturally sought out the kindly and\nmediating elements in life. A conservative, he was not an innovator,\ncritic, or teacher, as both Aeschylus and Euripides were; he does\nnot make his characters reason much on the deeper things of life or\ncriticize the traditional order.\n\nYet in one sense he is the most religious of the Greek poets, showing\na faith in divine government and a wide outlook on the universe which\nthe two other tragedians did not display. He does not break with the\ntraditional belief as to the nature of the gods; indeed at most points\nhe follows closely the Homeric conception; they are still to his mind\nthe givers of evil as well as of good to men, and in fact his chorus in\nthe Antigone quotes with approval the ancient saying that evil seems\ngood soon or late to him whose mind the god draws to mischief.[137]\nAlthough he does not follow Pindar and Aeschylus in ascribing to divine\nbeings a pure morality, yet he is inclined to believe with the elder\npoets that \u201cJustice revealed from of old sits with Zeus in the might\nof the eternal laws.\u201d[138] There are only two passages in which his\ncharacters may be said to criticize the gods. In the first Philoctetes,\nsmarting under his suffering and neglect, exclaims:\n\n                        No evil yet was crushed.\n    The Heavens will ever shield it. \u2019Tis their sport\n    To turn back all things rancorous and malign\n    From going down to the grave, and send instead\n    The good and true. Oh, how shall we commend\n    Such acts, how construe them? When I extol\n    Things god-like, I find evil in the Gods.[139]\n\nBut it must be observed that any other sentiment would have been out\nof character for Philoctetes at this point. The second is a fragment\nfrom his lost play, Aleites, in which some speaker, contemplating the\nprosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes of the good, declares\nthat the gods ought not to order things thus for mortals, but that\non the contrary the pious should have some evident profit from their\npiety and the unjust should pay the penalty for their wrongs that all\nmight see.[140] But this fragment is so at variance in sentiment with\nSophocles\u2019 general attitude that it has been conjectured, not without\nprobability, that it came from Euripides. Even if we reject this\nconjecture, as I think we must, we need not suppose that the sentiments\nwhich the poet puts into the mouths of his characters always represent\nhis real view. A dramatist, as we must remind ourselves, should make\nthe speakers in his play express sentiments in harmony with their\ncharacters and for the most part will have them utter moral ideas with\nwhich most of his audience is in sympathy, unless indeed he would play\nthe part of innovator or prophet. As a matter of fact Sophocles\u2019 own\nattitude seems to be expressed in another fragment: \u201cNo man is wise\nsave him whom god honors; but if one look unto the gods, even if the\ngod bid him depart from justice, there he must go. For nothing to\nwhich the gods lead men is base.\u201d[141] This seems the key to Sophocles\u2019\nreligious attitude. He is confident that however things may seem to us\nin our short-sightedness, if we could only see the purposes of the gods\nin their totality, we should know that they are good.\n\nThe bases of man\u2019s life and action, his highest duty, Sophocles teaches\nis piety and discretion, \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7. When in the Philoctetes Heracles\nappears, he urges upon the heroes that when they return to Troy they be\nmindful, in laying waste the land, to show reverence towards the gods:\n\n                          But, take good heed,\n    Midst all your spoil to hold the gods in awe.\n    For our great Father counteth piety\n    Far above all. This follows men in death,\n    And fails them not when they resign their breath.[142]\n\nAnd the chorus sings at the end of the Antigone:\n\n    Wise thought hath the first place in happiness\n    Before all else, and piety to Heaven\n    Must be preserved. High boastings of the proud\n    Bring sorrows to the height to punish pride:\u2014\n    A lesson men shall learn when they are old.[143]\n\nIn the Ajax Athena says:\n\n    Then, warned by what thou seest, be thou not rash\n    To vaunt high words toward Heaven, nor swell thy port\n    Too proudly, if in puissance of thy hand\n    Thou passest others, or in mines of wealth.\n    Since Time abases and uplifts again\n    All that is human, and the modest heart\n    Is loved by Heaven, who hates the intemperate will.[144]\n\nThere is an extraordinary passage in the Oedipus Coloneus where Oedipus\nis made to say, when his strength fails him and he cannot go to the\naltar to sacrifice, but must send one of his daughters: \u201cFor I think\nthat one soul suffices to pay this debt for ten thousand, if it come\nwith good will (purity) to the shrine.\u201d[145] Piety, reverence, and\npurity, these to Sophocles are the highest qualities of man.\n\nFor the poet the moral order was unchanging, dependent not upon caprice\nbut having a divine source and a divine sanction; the laws of heaven\nare therefore superior to those of man, and man\u2019s obedience to the\nhigher law is made his duty and the means of his consecration. In an\node in Oedipus the King, which is called forth by the king\u2019s harshness\nand by the suspicion that he is not wholly guiltless, as well as by the\nqueen\u2019s bold contempt for Apollo\u2019s oracle, the chorus sings:\n\n    O may I live\n    Sinless and pure in every word and deed\n    Ordained by those firm laws, that hold their realm on high!\n    Begotten of Heaven, of brightest Ether born,\n    Created not of man\u2019s ephemeral mould,\n    They ne\u2019er shall sink to slumber in oblivion.\n    A Power of God is there, untouched by Time.[146]\n\nThat is, the chorus here pray that they may always show their piety and\nreverence by obeying the divine laws. This sentiment is repeated more\nthan once in the extant tragedies; as when Odysseus warns Agamemnon\nnot to refuse burial to the body of Ajax: \u201c\u2019Tis not he, \u2019tis the law\nof heaven that thou would\u2019st hurt.\u201d[147] Through this belief Sophocles\njustified Antigone in her decision to defy the edict of the state, for\nCreon had ordained that her brother Polynices might not be buried,\nsince he had attacked Thebes. But Greek belief regarded it as a sacred\nduty of the next of kin to bury their dead, and this duty Antigone\ncould not but fulfil, although she knew that death would be her lot.\nWhen Creon asks her if she did indeed dare to transgress his edict, she\nreplies:\n\n    I heard it not from Zeus, nor came it forth\n    From Justice, where she reigns in the Underworld.\n    They too have published to mankind a law.\n    Nor could I think thine edict of such might\n    That one who is mortal thus could overrule\n    The infallible, unwritten laws of Heaven.\n    Their majesty begins not from today\n    But from eternity, and none can tell\n    The hour that saw their birth.[148]\n\nIt was for this same principle that Socrates, a generation later, gave\nup his life. In his defense he told his jury why: \u201cPerhaps someone\nmay say, \u2018But Socrates, can you not go off and live in exile, give up\ntalking and be quiet?\u2019 This is the very point on which it is hardest to\npersuade some of you, for if I say that this is exile to be disobeying\nthe god and therefore that it is impossible to keep quiet, you will\nnot believe me, but will say that I am ironical.\u201d[149] Socrates\nbelieved that he had a divine commission to question and examine\nothers, and that duty he must perform as the heroine in the tragedy\nmust perform hers, cost him what it might.\n\nThe eternal problem of human suffering, the fact that pain and\nmisfortune are not always the result of wrong doing, but that the\ninnocent suffer while the guilty escape, was a matter with which\nSophocles was much concerned. His predecessor Aeschylus had tried to\nshow in opposition to experience that sin always preceded pain; and in\nSophocles the doom of Creon and his house is due to the king\u2019s proud\nresentment wherein he sinned against heaven\u2019s law. But in the same play\nthe heroine Antigone, who has obeyed the divine mandates, is forced to\nsuffer a most pathetic fate. King Oedipus was not intentionally guilty,\nand the fate of the innocent queen Deianeira surpasses in pathos that\nof any other tragic heroine. She was impelled by the tender desire to\nrecall the love of her faithless husband, and the poet acquits her of\nblame, \u201cShe erred, though she intended well.\u201d[150] But none the less she\ninvolved both husband and herself in dreadful doom.\n\nThe tragic poet found his solution of this ancient perplexing problem\nonly in the larger view, which regarded the individual as but a slight\nfactor in the economy of the whole. At times suffering was regarded as\na means of discipline: \u201cThe soul that has been bedded in misfortune\nsees many things.\u201d[151] Thus through pain one learns and has his nature\ndeveloped. Theseus, in the Oedipus Coloneus, offers a kindly welcome\nto the exile Oedipus and his daughters, for his own sufferings in\nexile have produced a spirit of kindliness and charity in him. Oedipus\nhimself in the same play is unlike the headstrong king of the earlier\ntragedy; suffering and time have chastened and enlightened him, though\nthey have not made him mild in spirit.\n\nSophocles also displays great sympathy with human weakness and\nsuffering. This appears in his treatment of the character of Deianeira,\nand above all in the tender pathos with which he brings out the\nhuman longings of Antigone, who though she has nobly obeyed heaven\u2019s\nunwritten law, yet shrinks from suffering and death and from the loss\nof all that youth promises. It is not surprising, therefore, that we\nfind in Sophocles mercy emphasized as a divine attribute, and this\nquality in the gods held up as an example to men. On this Polynices\nmakes his appeal to Oedipus:\n\n    But seeing that Zeus on his almighty throne\n    Keeps Mercy in all he does to counsel him,\n    Thou, too, my father, let her plead with thee![152]\n\nThe sentiment is not far from Portia\u2019s plea:\n\n    It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,\n    It is an attribute to God himself;\n    And earthly power doth then show likest God\u2019s\n    When mercy seasons justice.\n\nSophocles\u2019 sympathy for undeserved suffering, his understanding of\nthe weakness of men, of their liability to error, and his faith in\nthe gods, all led him to try to take the larger view of the ills of\nlife, to which the philosopher Heraclitus had already given expression\nwhen he said that god does all things for the harmony of the whole;\nand that while men regard some things as right and others wrong, to\ngod all things are fair and good and right. The individual is only a\npart of the great whole, and when human experiences are regarded _sub\nspecie aeternitatis_, we shall find that that which seems evil is\nonly permitted to make a just and harmonious unity. The poet tried to\nconceive of the life of man,\n\n    As a great whole, not analyzed to parts\n    But each part having reference to all.\n\nLooked at from this universal point of view the sufferings of\nPhiloctetes, Antigone, Deianeira, and Oedipus are justified to men.\n\nIt was natural that Sophocles should use many Homeric concepts with\nreference to the condition of men and the life after death. In the\nAntigone alone is there any personal hope of future happiness. It\nmay well be that the poet\u2019s sense of what was fitting dramatically\nis responsible for his conservative attitude; he was dealing with\ntraditional material, and using themes and incidents which were\nfar remote in time from his audience. It may have seemed to him\nthat fidelity to his subject and the requirements of artistic unity\nprevented his putting into the mouths of his characters sentiments\nwhich an early age could hardly have conceived. Sophocles was not\nanimated by the iconoclasm which we shall find in the bolder Euripides;\nbut if the future life is not pictured in Sophocles\u2019 extant tragedies,\nwe need not doubt for a moment that he believed in immortality. He had\nbeen initiated into the Mysteries and one of the finest expressions of\nthe ecclesiastical confidence which the initiates felt came from his\npen: \u201cThrice blessed are those mortals who have seen these rites and\nthen go to the house of Hades, for they alone have life there; but all\nothers have only woe.\u201d[153]\n\nSuch, in brief, were the teachings of some of the greatest poets of the\nsixth and fifth centuries before our era. But these represent only one\nside of Greek thought in this time. In Athens there were influences,\npolitical, social, and intellectual, which were working profound\nchanges. Pindar, Aeschylus, and Sophocles belonged to an older order;\nthe voices of the new age will concern us in our next lecture.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[96] Xen. ap. Stob., _Flor._ 88, 14.\n\n[97] 165 f.; 171 f.\n\n[98] _Frg._ 61.\n\n[99] _Frg._ 56.\n\n[100] _Frg._ 74, 5 ff.\n\n[101] 167 f.; 1075 ff. (cf. 583 f.).\n\n[102] 425-431.\n\n[103] 383 ff.\n\n[104] 319 ff.\n\n[105] 1029 ff.\n\n[106] _Frg._ 88.\n\n[107] _Frg._ 4, 1-16.\n\n[108] 13, especially vv. 11-32.\n\n[109] 373-380.\n\n[110] 731 ff.\n\n[111] Solon 13, 31 f.\n\n[112] _Pyth._ 3, 78 f.\n\n[113] _Nem._ 6, 1 ff.\n\n[114] Cf. _Ol._ 13, 83; _Pyth._ 10, 49; _Frg._ 142.\n\n[115] _Pyth._ 2, 49 ff.\n\n[116] _Pyth._ 9, 44 ff.\n\n[117] _Frg._ 140.\n\n[118] _Ol._ 1, 64.\n\n[119] _Isth._ 3, 5 f.\n\n[120] _Ol._ 10, 3; _Frg._ 205; _Pyth._ 3, 29.\n\n[121] _Ol._ 1, 52.\n\n[122] _Isth._ 6, 71.\n\n[123] _W. and D._ 694.\n\n[124] _Isth._ 5, 13 ff.\n\n[125] _Nem._ 11, 13 ff.\n\n[126] Bacch. 14, 50-63 (Jebb).\n\n[127] _Frg._ 131.\n\n[128] _Ol._ 2, 63 ff.\n\n[129] _Supp._ 524 f.; 574.\n\n[130] _Ag._ 160 ff.\n\n[131] _Frg._ 70.\n\n[132] _Pers._ 827 ff.\n\n[133] _Sept._ 597-608.\n\n[134] _Choeph._ 1065 ff.\n\n[135] _Choeph._ 306 ff.; 400 ff.\n\n[136] _Eum._ 264 ff.\n\n[137] _Antig._ 621 ff.\n\n[138] _O. C._ 1381 f.\n\n[139] _Phil._ 446 ff.\n\n[140] _Frg._ 103.\n\n[141] _Frg._ 226.\n\n[142] _Phil._ 1440 ff.\n\n[143] _Ant._ 1347 ff.\n\n[144] _Ai._ 127 ff.\n\n[145] _O. C._ 495 ff.\n\n[146] _O. T._ 863 ff.\n\n[147] _Ai._ 1343 f.\n\n[148] _Ant._ 450 ff.\n\n[149] Plato, _Apol._ 37 E.\n\n[150] _Tr._ 1136.\n\n[151] _Frg._ 600.\n\n[152] _O. C._ 1267 ff.\n\n[153] _Frg._ 753.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nTHE FIFTH CENTURY AT ATHENS\n\n\nThe defeat of the Persians at Salamis in 480 B.C. made Athens\nthe first state in Greece. Not only had she suffered enormous losses in\nthe ruin of her city and lands for the common cause, but she had borne\nthe brunt of the naval fight at Salamis, as ten years before, with the\nbrave men from Plataea, she had driven the Persian hordes from the\nplain of Marathon into the sea. The Athenians had acquitted themselves\nwell, for they had shown the loftiest patriotism and loyalty to the\ncause of Hellas; now their high position was recognized even by their\njealous rivals. Athens entered on a brilliant period of fifty years\nwhich has never been equalled in the world\u2019s history. Within that time\nshe produced statesmen, architects, artists, and poets who have never\nbeen surpassed since in any state in the same length of time. Her naval\npower, her wealth and culture, placed her in a supreme position.\n\nNeither the Athenians nor the other Greeks forgot the gods to whom they\nbelieved that they owed their victory over the Persians. To Apollo\nat Delphi the allies sent a golden tripod set on a pillar of three\nbronze serpents bearing the names of those who made the offering; the\nAthenians on their own account erected a trophy there, and on the\nAcropolis they deposited the broken cables of the bridge which the\nPersians had built across the Hellespont. Soon they set up in the\nsame place a colossal bronze statue of Athena made from the spoils\ncaptured at Marathon. A new temple to the goddess in place of the one\ndestroyed by the Persians was planned by Cimon; but his ostracism in\n461 B.C. stopped its building. When Pericles was able to\ncarry out his plans for adorning Athens, he determined to enlarge the\nstructure; as a result the Parthenon with its wondrous sculptures and\ngreat chryselephantine statue of the goddess was completed in 438\nB.C. At the entrance of the Acropolis a splendid propylaea\nwas begun and many other public buildings were erected to adorn the\ncity. The chief divinity of Athens, the goddess Athena, now held her\nposition without a rival; all the other gods were in second place. The\nconception of the goddess was essentially that fixed by the Homeric\npoems, and as such Phidias represented her with aegis, spear, and\nshield, carrying victory in her hand. She became the embodiment of the\npower and the glory of the state.\n\nIn an earlier lecture I referred to the part which Pisistratus\nplayed during the sixth century in fostering Orphism at Athens and\nin developing the mysteries at Eleusis. Now the Athenian success in\ndriving back the Persian invaders had filled the citizens with a\nspirit which had little desire for the sacraments of the Orphics, and\nfurthermore the mysteries at Eleusis satisfied all longing for mystic\nassurance of security and of future happiness. But Pisistratus had also\nemphasized the Olympian religion as set forth in the Homeric poems.\nIndeed, we may say that he produced a Homeric revival; for whatever\nthe truth may be in the tradition that he had the Homeric text fixed\nand written down in the Attic alphabet, there can be little question\nthat he made the Iliad and Odyssey more widely known by ordaining that\nthe rhapsodes should recite them at the great Panathenaic festival.\nThe emphasis given by him to the Olympian divinities resulted in the\nexaltation of Athena and the subordination of most local cults to her\nworship upon the Acropolis. It was Pisistratus also who developed and\ngave new magnificence to the Panathenaic festival. This was annual,\nbut was celebrated with special splendor every fourth year. At these\nfestivals the recitation of the Homeric poems brought before the\npeople in impressive manner the whole pageantry of Olympus. The great\nprocession with which the festival culminated\u2014that procession known to\nus from Phidias\u2019 frieze upon the Parthenon\u2014had as its objective point\nthe Acropolis, where the sacred robe and other gifts were offered to\nthe patron goddess, Athena. Her old temple on the site once occupied\nby the goodly house of Erectheus was adorned at the tyrant\u2019s orders\nwith a peristyle and new pediment sculptures. The battle of Athena\nPolias and the gods against the giants replaced the old sculptures of\nZeus encountering a three-headed monster and of Heracles destroying\nthe Hydra. Thus Pisistratus made the temple of Athena the center of\nthe united Athenian state, and established the goddess as the chief\ndivinity of Attica.\n\nThis Olympian religion was well suited to the state in the fifth\ncentury. The Athenian success in saving Greece from the Persians had\nmagnified the importance of Athens in the eyes of all her citizens.\nTheir life was now one of action; they were proudly conscious of their\nexpanding empire, their growing power, and increasing wealth. The joy\nwhich they felt in their present existence had something of the epic\nquality in it. Furthermore the growth of free democracy, which opened\nup many channels of successful activity through the state, had not yet\nresulted in that individualism with its disintegrating tendencies which\nmarked the fourth century, and the common interests of the Athenians\nmade the state the center of their thought. They regarded it as an\norganization existing for the benefit of all free citizens. Its unity\nand its power, so far as Athens was concerned, were symbolized by the\ngoddess Athena. On her home and on her worship the resources of the\nstate were lavished. It was inevitable that her religion should be\nregarded as primarily a state affair, and that at the same time she\nand the other protecting gods should seem to the individual citizen\nsomewhat more removed from human interests and sympathy as they gained\nin the august majesty which the wealth of the empire lent them. Exactly\nas to many a Christian the wealth and magnificence of a splendid\ncathedral seem to put God farther away than the bare simplicity of some\nbeloved chapel, so the Parthenon undoubtedly made Athena seem more\naugust and more remote to many an Athenian than the rude and simple\nprotecting deity of his country home.\n\nThe result of these various causes which were operative in the fifty\nyears of Athens\u2019 greatness was that a part of religion became a state\nconcern, and that men\u2019s loyalty was centered on the state. Patriotism\nand pride in empire took the place to a considerable extent of what\nmay be roughly described as personal religion. This, of course, does\nnot mean that a belief in the gods among the mass of the people had\ndied out in any sense. The ordinary Athenian continued his worship\nas before at the local shrines and joined with the other citizens in\npaying tribute to the great divinities. But especially with many of the\nintellectual and leading men religion was absorbed, so to speak, into\npatriotism, exactly as has been the case in our own time in France and\nItaly. This attitude of mind finds supreme expression in the funeral\noration of Pericles, which he pronounced over those who had died in\nthe first year of the Peloponnesian War. His speech is devoted to\nglorifying the Athenians and to celebrating the noble service which the\nfallen rendered when they gave up their lives for their fatherland.\nThere is not one syllable about the gods, one word of gratitude to\nheaven, or a single expression of solace to the relatives of the dead\nbased on any hope of immortality. In the service of the state Pericles\nsaw every incentive and every reward. This will be clear from the\nfollowing paragraphs:[154]\n\n\u201cSuch was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens, and the\nliving need not desire to have a more heroic spirit, although they\nmay pray for a less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to\nbe expressed in words. Any one can discourse to you forever about the\nadvantages of a brave defence, which you know already. But instead of\nlistening to him I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the\ngreatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and\nwhen you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that\nthis empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the\ncourage to do it, who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonor\nalways present to them, and who, if they failed in an enterprise, would\nnot allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave\ntheir lives to her as the fairest offering which they could present at\nher feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made was individually\nrepaid to them; for they received again each one for himself a praise\nwhich grows not old, and the noblest of all sepulchres\u2014I speak not of\nthat in which their remains are laid, but of that in which their glory\nsurvives, and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both\nin word and deed. For the whole earth is the sepulchre of famous men;\nnot only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own\ncountry, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial\nof them, graven not on stone, but in the hearts of men. Make them\nyour examples, and esteeming courage to be freedom and freedom to be\nhappiness, do not weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate\nwho has no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw\naway his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is always\nliable to a change for the worse, and to whom any accidental fall\nmakes the most serious difference. To a man of spirit, cowardice and\ndisaster coming together are far more bitter than death, striking him\nunperceived at a time when he is full of courage and animated by the\ngeneral hope.\n\nWherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the dead who stand\nhere; I would rather comfort them. You know that your life has been\npassed amid manifold vicissitudes; and that they may be deemed\nfortunate who have gained most honour, whether an honorable death\nlike theirs, or an honorable sorrow like yours, and whose days have\nbeen so ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the term\nof their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel this, when the\ngood fortune of others will too often remind you of the gladness which\nonce lightened your hearts. And sorrow is felt at the want of those\nblessings, not which a man never knew, but which were a part of his\nlife before they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at\nwhich they may hope to have other children, and they ought to bear\ntheir sorrow better; not only will the children who may hereafter be\nborn make them forget their own lost ones, but the city will be doubly\na gainer. She will not be left desolate, and she will be safer. For a\nman\u2019s counsel cannot have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no\nchildren to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have passed\ntheir prime I say: \u2018Congratulate yourselves that you have been happy\nduring the greater part of your days; remember that your life of sorrow\nwill not last long, and be comforted by the glory of those who are\ngone. For the love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches,\nas some say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and\nuseless.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe loyalty to the state, however, which animates this oration we must\nremember actually resulted in the glorification of Athena and the other\ngreat gods. For they, too, were a part of the state, and had a share\nin its reputation and prosperity. But I must point out again that in\nthis exaltation of the Olympic gods there was nothing of that personal\nrelation of the individual to divinity, such as must exist in every\nreally religious age.\n\nYet at the risk of repetition, I would recall the fact that the\npractice of religion by individuals had not ceased at Athens. The\ncommon man still paid devotion to his guardian gods, made offerings to\nthe dead, and shared in many forms of worship. Furthermore the spread\nof the Eleusinian mysteries in this century, so that a new and larger\ninitiation hall had to be erected at Eleusis, shows that thoughts\nof the future life and the deepest religious feelings still existed\nin large numbers of the citizens. We have here, then, an apparent\ncontradiction, such as has appeared many times and in many places in\nthe religious history of man. Many of the leaders of the state were\ninterested in religion only as it was an affair of state, in the same\nway in which the army and navy were. On the other hand there were\nlarge numbers who felt a more personal interest in religion and who\ncultivated a more personal relation to divinity. Nor were there lacking\nmen of the most intellectual class to deal with the higher concepts of\nreligion which had been developing during the recent centuries. These\nideas find their truest utterance in the work of the poets, and we have\nalready seen how Pindar, Aeschylus, and Sophocles interpreted nobler\nviews with regard to the gods, human conduct, and man\u2019s relation to the\ndivinities, to all Greece and especially to Athens which had now become\nthe intellectual center of the Hellenic world.\n\nBut another new force had been developing among the Greeks during\nthe sixth century which was destined to deal a far greater blow to\ntraditional religion than any other\u2014I mean philosophy. This began\nin Ionia and was cultivated in other parts of greater Greece before\nit came to Athens. But after the Persian Wars the prominence and\nprosperity of that city was so great and her intellectual eminence\nwas so high that she attracted the men of note in many departments of\nlife. Among them was the philosopher Anaxagoras of Clazomenae who made\nAthens his home for about thirty years (c. 462-432 B.C.).\nHe became a member of the most intellectual Athenian society of his\nday, a friend of Euripides, and an intimate of Pericles. When dangers\nbegan to threaten the state, with the prospect of war looming on the\nhorizon, the people began to blame their great leader; to injure him,\nthey banished one and another of his friends. The two most noted were\nPhidias the sculptor, of whose art the marbles of the Parthenon are\nstill the unsurpassed witnesses, and Anaxagoras the philosopher; the\ncharge against both was impiety. Anaxagoras taught that the sun was a\nred hot mass of rock, as the moon was a cold mass, like the earth.\nAccording to this teaching the sun and moon could no longer be\nregarded as gods, so that a charge of impiety was as easily based on\nsuch doctrines as it was on the teaching of Galileo twenty centuries\nlater. But although the philosopher was driven out, philosophy could\nnot be so easily banished. The eager intellectual life of Athens had\ncaught the spark, and the flame of philosophy was never extinguished\non the Athenian altars for almost a thousand years, until the Emperor\nJustinian closed the philosophic schools in 529 A.D.\n\nNow philosophy aimed from the very first to explain the origin and\nstructure of the universe by reducing all things to a single principle,\nor to a few principles at most. The purpose of the philosopher was\nto carry out a more systematic search for unity than the thought of\nthe poet or of the ordinary man could accomplish. We have seen how\nHesiod and the Orphics tried by cosmogonies to explain the origin\nof the world. The philosophers turned to physical science for their\nexplanation. But in every case their work was from its very nature\nantagonistic to popular polytheism, which saw a separate divinity in\nevery phenomenon. It was inevitable that the conflict should become an\nopen one sooner or later.\n\nXenophanes of Colophon (flor. c. 540 B.C.) was the first to\nenter the lists. Driven into exile by civil disturbances at about the\nage of twenty-five, he lived most of his life in Sicily. He was as much\na social and religious reformer and satirist as philosopher. With a\nfrankness which passed beyond the freedom of his age he struck at\nthe popular beliefs with regard to the gods, which taught that the\ngods were born and had clothes and voices and forms like mortals. He\nillustrated the folly of the Greeks in making the gods after their own\nimage by reminding them that the Ethiopians made their gods flat-nosed\nand black, and the Thracians theirs blue-eyed and red-haired, while if\ncattle and horses and lions had but hands and could draw and mould and\nfashion like men, then each would draw and fashion the gods in his own\nimage.[155] For the current notions of divinity he held Homer and Hesiod\nresponsible and charged that these poets had attributed to the gods\neverything that was reckoned as shame and reproach among men\u2014stealing,\nadultery, and cheating.[156] He likewise opposed the doctrine that\nthe gods had taught men their knowledge, but declared that man had\nalways learned through experience and investigation the better way\nfor himself.[157] Xenophanes went even further than this and used the\nscience of his day to prove that what was regarded as the appearances\nof the gods was merely meteorological phenomena. In the place of many\ngods he declared that there was but one, and he not like mortal men\neither in form or intelligence, but that he was wholly sight, wholly\nintelligence, wholly hearing\u2014that is to say, god and the universe are\nidentical, and the cosmos is eternal, sentient, and intelligent.[158]\nThere could hardly have been a greater contrast than between this\npantheism and the polytheism of the day. It is true that Xenophanes\noffers no adequate explanation of the way in which phenomena arise;\nhe does not solve the problem of deriving the transient out of that\nwhich is permanent and fixed. But nevertheless he crudely anticipated\nthe thought of later philosophers and theologians and began the open\nstruggle with polytheism which was to continue for many centuries.\n\nAnother philosopher who deserves our attention here is Heraclitus of\nEphesus who flourished in the early fifth century. As he surveyed the\nworld he was impressed with the variety of phenomena that moved before\nhim, with the fact that nothing is stable but that everything is always\nin process of change. He declared therefore that nothing is permanent\nbut that all things in reality are in a state of flux and flow\n(\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6). The explanation for this constant change he apparently\nfound in the crude science of the day which observed that changes in\ntemperature cause changes of form, some solids becoming liquid and\nliquids gaseous. This phenomenon he thought was due to fire. Fire he\nregarded as universal in the cosmos\u2014indeed, as identical with it, and\nhe is reported as saying that this universe, which is the same for all\nbeings, no god or mortal has made, but it has always been and is and\never will be eternal fire, which sometimes grows the brighter and again\nis quenched. This fire he is willing to call god; it is to him the\nprinciple which permeates the universe and causes all change within it.\nSuch being the case, Heraclitus maintains that true knowledge is not\nconcerned with many things but solely with the unity in the world\nwhich his teachings set forth. In his scorn for his predecessors\nhe outdoes Xenophanes. Not only Homer and Hesiod, but Pythagoras,\nXenophanes, Archilochus, and Hecateus are alike condemned. Homer\nand Archilochus he declares deserve to be driven from the games and\nflogged, such folly had they taught.[159] In his assaults on the popular\nreligion Heraclitus did not concern himself so much with mythology\nas with the rites and ceremonies current in his time. He evidently\nattacked the representatives of the mystery religions, calling them\nnight walkers, magi, priests of Bacchus, devotees of the wine-vat, and\nmystery-mongers. In another fragment he ridicules those who pray to\nthe images of the gods, for that is as if one were to pray to a man\u2019s\nhouse; and again he declares that if men on ordinary occasions sang\nsongs like the hymns which they raise in honor of Dionysus they would\nbe acting most shamelessly. Man\u2019s duty to his mind is to devote himself\nwholly to the apprehension of the divine unity in the world, of that\nwisdom to which alone he would consent to give the name of Zeus.[160]\n\nWe have now seen from these two representatives how philosophy regarded\ntraditional polytheism, and taught that the unity of the universe was\nidentical with god. But neither Xenophanes nor Heraclitus offered any\nsatisfactory explanation of the way in which multiplicity could arise\nout of unity. Still less did they conceive of a personal god. This\nconcept was reserved for Plato or possibly for his great teacher. A\nslight approach toward an explanation of variety was made, it is true,\nby Heraclitus, through his \u201cfire\u201d and also through a doctrine which I\nhave not mentioned, namely that \u201cstrife,\u201d the action of opposites, is\nthe cause of change. Now another philosopher, Empedocles of Agrigentum,\nwhom we have already met as a mystic, offered an explanation of the\ncause of phenomena not dissimilar to that of Heraclitus, and yet one\nthat marked an advance. For his elements Empedocles took the four of\npopular belief\u2014earth, air, fire, water, which he said were combined\nin various forms by the principles of \u201cfriendship\u201d and of \u201cstrife\u201d;\nor, as we should say today in less symbolic language, by affinity and\nincompatibility. But like Heraclitus Empedocles fails to make clear how\nor why these principles act at all on his elements. In short before\nAnaxagoras no thinker conceived of any satisfactory formative or\nmotive principles to explain phenomena; likewise none had arrived at a\nwell defined distinction between a material principle and a formative\nprinciple. Anaxagoras solved the problem in a way highly satisfactory\nfor his age and in a manner which unconsciously anticipated many of\nthe principles of modern science. According to him all substances\nare elementary, existing in seeds or germs, infinite in number,\ninfinitesimal in size. Aristotle and the ancients in general understood\nhim to mean that these seeds or germs are minute particles of the\nthings which we know in the mass, as for example bread or water, or\nflesh and bones. Some modern scholars think that he meant that the\noriginal mass of matter was infinitely divided and that every atom had\nin it a portion of everything else: the various combinations of these\nseeds, atoms, we name bread, water, or flesh and bones according to the\npredominance of these things in the seeds which make up the whole. Yet\nwhether Aristotle and the ancients or the moderns be right is a matter\nof little moment to us now. Anaxagoras thought that these \u201cseeds,\u201d\nwhatever they were, were set in motion and combined to produce the\ninfinite diversity of the natural objects by Mind (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2).\n\nAnaxagoras\u2019 great service, then, was his introduction of Mind into\nphilosophy as a formative, a motive principle to provide the cause for\nchange and diversity. It is not to be denied that Anaxagoras conceived\nhis principle to be as material as the elements themselves, and that\nhe did not employ his principle fully, even after he introduced it\ninto the world. Indeed, he did not advance beyond a mechanical concept\nof the cause of phenomena. But nevertheless he is significant in the\nhistory of European thought as the founder of the dualistic system\nwhich largely prevailed thereafter. His contemporaries, too, recognized\nhim as an innovator, for we are told that the wits of Athens nicknamed\nhim \u201cMind.\u201d With the consequences of this new dualism we shall be much\nconcerned hereafter.\n\nAnother group of men contributed to the intellectual life of that\nwonderful fifty years of Athenian history which began with the defeat\nof the Persians and ended with the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War.\nHow keen the intellectual life of that time was is shown by the high\nexcellence of the plays to which the masses of the common citizens\nlistened in the theater. Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were\nnot enjoyed by the few but by the great body of Athenian citizens,\nand their plays were known even among the remote Greek colonies.\nThe intellectual spirit of the age was stimulated to inquiry and to\nscepticism. Herodotus is wholly sceptical, and the agnostic tendency\nof the time is shown by the entire lack of mythology and superstition\ndisplayed by Thucydides. A further stimulus was furnished by the\ndevelopment of a higher education given by professional teachers\u2014the\nSophists.\n\nThe last half of the fifth century is often called with good reason\nthe \u201cAge of the Sophists.\u201d We must understand clearly just what we\nmean by this term as applied to the men of this time, for today the\nword sophist has an unfavorable connotation. The Sophists of the fifth\ncentury neither formed a philosophic school nor were they charlatans.\nThe most prominent among them was Protagoras of Abdera whose ability\nand character is shown by the fact that Pericles selected him to draw\nup the laws for Thurii in 444-43 B.C. Gorgias of Leontini in\nSicily enjoyed such high reputation that in 427 he was sent at the head\nof an embassy to Athens. These Sophists were simply men devoted to the\npursuit of wisdom, frequently professional teachers who undertook to\ngive a general culture, to train their pupils to take part in society\nand the state. For the old training which had been gained by\nobservation they substituted a formal discipline; they offered\ninstruction in rhetoric, politics, music, in short in all the higher\nbranches, as we should call them. But they had no unity of doctrine. By\nthe close of the fifth century they had fallen somewhat into disrepute\nand were under suspicion, since in the Athenian state all the youths\nwho could afford to pay the fees which these professional teachers\ncharged belonged to the aristocratic class, which frequently voted\nagainst the democracy. The Sophists owed their great influence to\nthe fact that they met an actual need in the small society of Athens\nwhich included an unusual number of men with eager alert minds and\ngreat intellectual curiosity. Now it should be observed that rhetoric,\nwhich formed a considerable part of the new education introduced by\nthese professional teachers since political life was the chief career\nopen to a young Athenian, led to habits of examination, analysis, and\ndefinition. We are all familiar with the fact that any attempt to\nanalyze and define customary beliefs and practices is pretty certain to\ndetect inconsistencies unobserved before; to lead, at first at least,\nto confusion and to doubt as to the validity of the practice or belief\nunder consideration; and that when applied to traditional morality or\nreligion it is likely to loosen the obligations which men have hitherto\nregarded. For illustrations of this truth we have only to look about\nus and to see how in this generation, as in the generations of our\nfathers, long accepted beliefs have crumbled before examination, as for\nexample the institution of slavery, the justice of which few questioned\na century and a quarter ago. So it was inevitable that in Athens\nsome of the effects of the sophistic teaching should be destructive.\nAnd these effects were exaggerated by the great store which was set\non skill in disputation. When moral or religious themes were under\ndiscussion, the point at issue was not the value of this or that\nposition, but rather the relative skill of the disputants. We are so\nfamiliar with this in academic life, in college debates, for example,\nthat the question of the moral effect does not rise in our minds. But\nit is little wonder that in the fifth century in Athens the Sophists\nwere charged with making the worse cause the better.\n\nFurthermore the Sophists were sceptical as to the possibility of\nacquiring absolute knowledge about anything. This scepticism may have\nbeen due to a failure on the part of the science of the day which led\nindividuals to turn from nature to man as the object of their inquiry.\nProtagoras maintained that all knowledge was relative, since the only\nway in which a man can know anything is through his senses; through\nthem he perceives that an object is hot or cold, round or square, sweet\nor bitter. He pointed out, also, that the same object will not always\nappear the same even to the same individual; hence he declared that\nthere is no such thing as absolute truth, but that whatever seems true\nto you or to me at the moment is the truth for you or for me, and that\nit is not at all necessary that you and I should hold the same thing to\nbe true at one and the same time. Whatever seems to the individual true\nis true, according to him. From this came his famous dictum that man,\nthat is the individual, is the measure of all things.[161] It is clear\nthat this doctrine when applied to politics, morals, or religion was\nupsetting.\n\nSo long as men studied nature, they were concerned with discovering\nthe inflexible laws which govern the world. But when they turned their\nattention from nature to society or government, they realized that\nhuman institutions seemed to be the result on the whole of conventions\nagreed upon and adopted by mankind. The Sophists held in general that\nthe form of the state, the current moral and religious beliefs and\nsocial customs had no absolute validity; that they were the results of\nconvention; and that their only warrant was that they worked well in\npractice, that they were profitable to the individual and to society.\nThis pragmatic view of institutions fell in well with the temper of the\nlast half of the fifth century, both in the period of Athens\u2019 imperial\nsupremacy and in the time of her trial during the Peloponnesian War,\nwhen in passion or despair the people disregarded law and, as in the\ncase of the Melians, all that humanity had counted sacred. It was an\nage when many held that might and right were identical, and for this\nview the Sophists, even though unwittingly, furnished arguments; for\nif the test of an institution or act is that it works well when put\ninto practice, success proves validity. The Sophists, too, taught that\nvirtue (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae) was nothing else than what we call today efficiency. It\nis not strange that the conservative Athenians came to look on them\nwith suspicion.\n\nWith regard to the gods Protagoras was naturally agnostic. He began\nhis \u201cTreatise on the Gods\u201d with the words: \u201cSo far as the gods are\nconcerned, I cannot know whether they exist or do not exist; or what\ntheir nature is. Many things prevent our knowing. The matter is\nobscure and life is short.\u201d[162] One may be curious to know what large\nmatter Protagoras found for his discussion when he began with this\nfrank confession of ignorance; but it should be observed that in this\nconfession there is nothing necessarily antagonistic to the popular\ntheology of his day. It only shows what the words plainly declare, that\na belief in the gods cannot depend upon knowledge. Another Sophist,\nProdicus, maintained that the divinities were nothing but the kindly\npowers of nature which man had deified;[163] and the \u201cGentle Critias,\u201d\none of the worst of the Thirty Tyrants, and a ready pupil of the\nearlier Sophists, is said to have set forth in a satyric drama the\ntheory that the gods were the clever invention of someone who wished\nto scare men out of their desire to do evil.[164] The effect of such\nscepticism and agnosticism we can easily imagine.\n\nMany things had been wrongly laid at the door of the Sophists, but it\nis small wonder that the conservative Athenian citizens came to look\nwith distrust and alarm on these new-fangled subversive notions; that\nthey banished Protagoras and burned his books in the market place; or\nfinally that they should have put Socrates to death.\n\nInto this age of intellectual ferment and readjustment, of scepticism\nand eager inquiry, the age of Anaxagoras and the Sophists, Socrates\nentered. He was at once the child of his time and the greatest\nfecundator of men\u2019s minds that Europe had yet known. He was born in 469\nB.C. and was forced to drink the hemlock in March, 399, so\nthat he had completed the allotted span of life. The son of a sculptor,\nwe are told that he followed his father\u2019s profession in his youth,\nbut apparently he did not continue this long. Whence he derived the\nmeans of livelihood we do not know. He received the regular Athenian\neducation, was interested especially in geometry and astronomy;\nthe works of the philosophers he had read, but professed that he\ngained little from them. One is tempted to dwell on the picturesque\ncharacteristics of this man\u2014his refusal to teach for pay, as did the\nordinary teachers, his profession of complete ignorance\u2014his only claim\nto wisdom, he said himself,\u2014his ugliness of feature, and his beauty\nof soul, his omnivorous interest in the work of the humble craftsmen,\nabove all on his belief that he had a warning spirit, a daemon, which\nchecked him when his course was wrong. Although in obedience to this\ninward monitor Socrates refrained from politics, he fulfilled all his\ncivic duties in peace and in war. He conformed to the traditional\nreligion, sacrificing and praying to the traditional gods, although he\nundoubtedly did not hold that they were the limited and sensual\ncreatures of the popular belief. When he prayed he asked not for gold\nor silver or power, but for what the gods knew was good for him. At the\nclose of Plato\u2019s Phaedrus he offers this appeal: \u201cBeloved Pan, and all\nye other gods who haunt this place, grant me beauty of the inward soul,\nand make the outward and the inward man to be but one.\u201d This was the\nman who was charged with corrupting the youth of Athens.\n\nSocrates had much in common with the Sophists. Although it is evident\nthat in his earlier years he had been interested in physical science,\nwe know that he turned away from that in the course of time, convinced\nthat man alone was more than man could understand. He rather confined\nhis attention to man himself, and made man and his conduct the center\nof philosophic inquiry. With the Sophists Socrates held that the\ncultivation of excellence, of virtue, whatever that might be, was\nthe chief thing. He also identified virtue and knowledge, and like\nthe Sophists was sceptical as to man\u2019s ability to attain absolute\nknowledge. Practicability was the test he applied to various opinions.\nIf one notion as to the state or society or anything else worked\nbetter than another, it was, therefore, in his view the better; and\naccording to him it was by the adoption of such useful opinions that\nthe individual became the wiser man. He held that education does not\nconsist in putting things into people\u2019s heads, but in leading them to\ndiscover the truths which they already possess. He therefore employed\ndiscussion as to the validity of hypotheses to bring out the\nlatent knowledge in the minds of his young friends. This method of\nhis\u2014dialectic\u2014was not identical with that of the Sophists apparently,\nbut was not unlike theirs. It was, therefore, natural that his own time\nshould have reckoned him as one of the professional class.\n\nHow then was he distinguished from these Sophists? Externally, first of\nall, by the fact that he did not teach for pay, that his purpose was\nunselfish, his interest being solely the elucidation of truth and so\nthe establishment of virtue. He himself believed that he had a divine\ncommission to serve the Athenians as a missionary. Plato makes him\ndeclare in his defence before his judges: \u201cMen of Athens, I should be\nguilty of a crime indeed if through fear of death or anything else I\nshould desert the post to which I am assigned by the god. For the god\nordains ... that I should follow after wisdom and examine myself and\nothers.\u201d[165] He conceived of himself as the physician of the soul, and\nmaintained that his whole business was \u201cto persuade all, both young and\nold, not to care about the body or riches, but first and foremost about\nthe soul\u2014how to make the soul as good as possible.\u201d[166]\n\nAs I have already said, he believed that if men could only know what\njustice, goodness, and temperance were they would naturally and\ninevitably be just and good and temperate. Vice he thought was due to a\nlack of knowledge; therefore he employed his questioning, dialectic, to\nendeavor to secure clear definitions of these and other virtues, for\nhe was convinced that if only he and his associates could discover\nwhat virtue was, they would at once pursue virtue and flee from all\nwrongdoing. We may smile at the na\u00efvet\u00e9 of this belief, that virtue\nis something that can be taught, that to be practised it needs only to\nbe seen; but we must remind ourselves that his confidence was based\non another belief, which was that virtue is the best and the most\nprofitable for the individual; and that since each man desires the\nbest for himself, if he sees what is right, he will follow that course\nunswervingly to the end. It may be said with reason that this is a\nutilitarian view, and so it is; but in Socrates it was combined with\na power of will which enabled him to translate his convictions into\nreality, for it was in obedience to this conviction that the great\nteacher gave up his life.\n\nThus far we have seen that in the ferment of the last part of the fifth\ncentury in Athens there were two forces which were in a sense opposed\nto each other, the Sophists with their inevitable scepticism, who\ntaught that all truth was subjective, that justice and goodness were\nonly that which seemed just and good to the individual; opposed to them\nin reality was Socrates, not only in spirit but also by the doctrine\nwhich he endeavored to establish; for his search was always directed\nat finding the reality, was always aimed at knowledge in opposition to\nopinion. These objective truths, the universals, which to him were the\nonly real things in the world, he endeavored to obtain by a process of\ndefinition which was not wholly adequate; but he turned men away from\nmere observation, from what seemed to be true, to search for permanent\nobjective reality. How fruitful his teaching was, was shown by many\nschools, but above all by his greatest pupil, Plato. His followers have\nlasted to the present day.\n\nThe last third of the fifth century was a new era for Greece. The\nPeloponnesian War broke out in the year 431, and lasted until 404.\nOn the one side was Athens with the empire which she had boldly\nbuilt and somewhat ruthlessly held; on the other was a large number\nof allied states of Greece with Sparta at their head. The war ended\nwith the complete humiliation of Athens. She lost her empire, her\nwealth, and a large part of her population. These disasters gave\nopportunity and occasion for new forces to come to the front. Early in\nthe war the mercurial Athenians had shown themselves impatient of the\nleadership which had made Athens great, and they rejected Pericles.\nThey were easily led astray by wild schemes, as when they followed the\nimperialistic party headed by Alcibiades and sent out the Sicilian\nexpedition in 415, which was to meet irreparable disaster two years\nlater. In time of distress, under the burden of political and economic\nmisfortune, men often turn to reconsider the bases of their beliefs\nand actions, to test the validity of the doctrines which have hitherto\nguided them. This was the case at Athens. The old beliefs went by the\nboard; society, government, and religion all became subjects of doubt\nand of reexamination.\n\nThe greatest spokesman of this time was Euripides. Although he was the\nyounger contemporary of Sophocles, who outlived him by a few months,\nEuripides belongs to a new age. The former represents imperial Athens\nof the age of Pericles, the latter the Athens of the Peloponnesian War.\nBorn of a family apparently well-to-do he certainly received a liberal\neducation. Politics and society seem never to have attracted him to\nactive participation in them, but the intellectual life of his time\nhe shared to the full; and more than any extant writer of his day, he\nshows that he felt the force of the movements which were transforming\nAthenian thought. It has been aptly said that in Sophocles the poetical\ncourse of traditional religion culminated; in Euripides we have for the\nfirst time the poetic and philosophical development fully combined.\nHe was a profound thinker, troubled by the most difficult problems of\nhumanity, and approaching tradition with the liberal frankness of the\nnew age. Yet we must always bear in mind that he was a dramatic poet,\nnot a systematic theologian or moral teacher. Again and again fidelity\nto his art made him put sentiments into the mouths of his characters\nwhich must have been abhorrent to him. Nor have we any right to search\nfor some hidden meaning in his plays. Yet after all allowances have\nbeen made, we cannot doubt that in his dramas he frequently expresses\nhis personal views on politics, morals, and religion, which were quite\nat variance with the views of tradition.\n\nToward the gods of the current mythology no one could have been more\nfrankly sceptical or scornful than he. As Nestle, a German critic, has\npointed out, the basic principle of his attacks is found in his verse:\n\n    \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af.[167]\n\n    If the gods do aught that is base, then they are not gods.\n\nThat is, as the same critic says, for Euripides \u201cGod and sin are\nmutually exclusive terms.\u201d Sophocles held the same belief, yet his\npoint of view was wholly different, as is shown by his verse:\n\n    \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f51\u03c6\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af.[168]\n\n    Nothing to which the gods lead men is base.\n\nThat is, whatever the gods do is good no matter how it may seem\nto man. There is then a fundamental difference between the two\ntragedians: the elder has faith to believe in the righteousness of the\ntraditional gods, the younger is ready to throw tradition over. The\nunreasonableness and immorality of popular beliefs and the baffling\nexistence of evil in the world Euripides could not reconcile with a\nfaith in the existence of all powerful and just beings such as he\nheld the gods must be, if they exist at all. His firm conviction that\ndivinity, if it have any existence, must be absolutely just, explains\nthe poet\u2019s boldness in holding up to scorn the popular notions. In the\nHippolytus he exhibits the goddess of love in a shameful light, and\nmakes Artemis join with the innocent hero of the play in condemning her.\n\nIndeed throughout the tragedy the traditional beliefs are treated with\npowerful irony. When Phaedra is filled with shame at the passion for\nher step-son with which Aphrodite has inspired her, the nurse tempts\nher to yield, quoting ancient tales of the celestials\u2019 amours as\nexamples:\n\n    Whoso have scrolls writ in the ancient days,\n    And wander still themselves by paths of song,\n    They know how Zeus of yore desired the embrace\n    Of Semele; they know how radiant Dawn\n    Up to the gods snatched Cephalus of yore,\n    And all for love; yet these in Heaven their home\n    Dwell, neither do they flee the face of Gods,\n    Content, I trow, to be love\u2019s vanquished ones.\n    Thou\u2014wilt not yield?[169]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    Nay, darling, from thy deadly thoughts refrain,\n    And from presumption\u2014sheer presumption this,\n    That one should wish to be more strong than Gods.\n    In love flinch not; a God hath willed this thing.[170]\n\nBut Phaedra dies by her own hand rather than yield to the goddess\u2019s\ndesign. The innocent Hippolytus, second victim of divine injustice,\ncries out as he dies:\n\n    Innocent I, ever fearing the Gods, who was wholly heart-clean\n          Above all men beside,\u2014\n            Lo, how am I thrust\n          Unto Hades, to hide\n            My life in the dust!\n    All vainly I reverenced God, and in vain unto man was I just.[171]\n\nWhat greater condemnation of the traditional gods could there be than\nthis!\n\nIn the Hercules Hera drives the hero mad and makes him the slayer of\nhis own innocent children, all because of the goddess\u2019s jealousy of\nZeus. Small wonder that Hercules cries when the truth is brought home\nto him:\n\n                    To such a Goddess\n    Who shall pray now? who, for a woman\u2019s sake\n    Jealous of Zeus, from Hellas hath cut off\n    Her benefactors, guiltless though they were.[172]\n\nThe hero refuses to find any consolation for his woes in the suggestion\nthat the gods too have sinned and suffered for their wrongs\u2014\u201cif\nminstrel legends be not false.\u201d Whereat he exclaims:\n\n    I deem not that the Gods for spousals crave\n    Unhallowed: tales of Gods\u2019 hands manacled\n    Ever I scorned nor ever will believe,\n    Nor that one God is born another\u2019s lord.\n    For God hath need, if God indeed he be,\n    Of naught: these be the minstrels\u2019 sorry tales.[173]\n\nThis play then like the Hippolytus is a condemnation through Hera and\nZeus of the whole system of gods.\n\nIn these sentiments there is something more than direct defiance of\ntradition. Euripides does not, like Pindar, refine away the baser\nelements of legends; or, like Aeschylus and Sophocles, obscure the\nuglier features of the ancient mythology. On the contrary, constrained\nby his profession as dramatic poet to draw his themes from the dark\ntales of gods and heroes in a mythological age\u2014tales whose immorality\nwas wholly hateful to him\u2014he accomplishes his purpose by showing these\ngods and heroes on his stage engaged in actions and prompted by motives\nwhich are so base as to destroy the spectator\u2019s regard for beings of\nsuch a sort, and to win the onlooker\u2019s sympathy for the mortal victim\nagainst the higher power. To the shameless natures of the gods the poet\nbluntly gives fitting characterizations: he names them cruel, vengeful,\ntreacherous, licentious.\n\nEuripides is no less iconoclastic in dealing with current religious\npractices; there is none that escapes his scorn. Sacrifices and votive\nofferings seem to him unworthy of true gods. The folly of popular\nwonder at the riches of temples is brought out in a fragment of the\nlost Philoctetes, in which the hero sarcastically bids his hearers see\nhow even the gods prize gain, and therefore men should not hesitate\nto get profit and thereby make themselves equal to the gods.[174] That\nit is not the size of the gift, but piety which secures the favor of\njust Heaven, is the lesson of another couplet.[175] Temples and statues,\nand all the sacred privileges attached thereto are treated with equal\ndisregard for tradition; and the sacred institution of blood-vengeance\nis most emphatically condemned. For the common trust in omens given by\ndreams and the flight of birds he has only ridicule. So in the Tauric\nIphigenia when Iphigenia learns from Orestes that her brother lives,\nshe cries:\n\n    False dreams, avaunt! So then ye were but naught.[176]\n\nTo which Orestes answers:\n\n    Ay, and not even Gods, whom men call wise,\n    Are less deceitful than be fleeting dreams.\n    Utter confusion is in things divine\n    And human. Wise men grieve at this alone\n    When\u2014rashness?\u2014no, but faith in oracles\n    Brings ruin\u2014how deep, they that prove it know.[177]\n\nThe condemnation of the interpreter of signs given by birds is made the\nmore effective in the Phoenissae by putting it into the mouth of the\nseer Tirisias:\n\n                  Who useth the diviner\u2019s art\n    Is foolish. If he heraldeth ill things,\n    He is loathed of those to whom he prophesies.\n    If pitying them that seek to him, he lie,\n    He wrongs the Gods.[178]\n\nIn the Iphigenia at Aulis Achilles bitterly asks, \u201cWhat is a seer?\u201d\nand answers his own question, \u201cA man who speaks few truths and many\nlies.\u201d[179] Even prayer is sometimes regarded as of doubtful aid,\nalthough naturally Euripides\u2019 characters often appeal to the Gods.\n\nAt times, too, the poet is more openly atheistic or agnostic with\nreference to the popular religion. The most striking illustration is\nfound in the prayer which he puts into the mouth of Hecuba, the Trojan\nqueen:\n\n    O Earth\u2019s Upbearer, thou whose throne is Earth,\n    Whoe\u2019er thou be, O past our finding out,\n    Zeus, be thou Nature\u2019s Law, or Mind of Man,\n    To thee I pray; for treading soundless paths,\n    In justice dost thou guide all mortal things.[180]\n\nYou will observe that although this prayer rejects all current\npolytheism, it is far from denying the existence of a divine\npower\u2014rather it maintains in poetic language the existence of such a\nprinciple\u2014the reason of the universe which shows itself in nature as\nlaw and in the mind of man as reason. This pantheism finds expression\nelsewhere in his poetry. In illustration I will quote two fragments.\nThe first identifies divinity with all embracing ether:\n\n    Seest thou the boundless ether there on high,\n    That folds the earth around with dewy arms?\n    This deem thou Zeus, this reckon one with God.[181]\n\nThe second identifies god with the intelligence which pervades the\nworld:\n\n    Thee, self-begotten, who in ether rolled\n    Ceaselessly round, by mystic links dost blend\n    The nature of all things, whom veils enfold\n    Of light, of dark night flecked with gleams of gold,\n    Of star-hosts dancing round thee without end.[182]\n\nThe last three passages show how the poet\u2019s mind was filled with the\nphilosophic thought of the day. In identifying divinity with the\nether he was apparently giving poetic expression to the views of his\ncontemporary, the philosopher Diogenes of Apollonia, whom he must have\nknown at Athens. Diogenes followed Anaximenes in making \u201cAir\u201d (or\nthe \u201cEther\u201d) the basic element of the world, but advanced beyond his\npredecessor in attributing to \u201cAir\u201d intelligence and movement\u2014indeed\nhe held that it could only be conceived as intelligent; and he further\nsaid that this intelligent \u201cAir,\u201d which was the cause and, by virtue\nof its intelligence, the director of all things, seemed to him to be\ngod. In the mind of man therefore the divine principle shows itself\nas intellect, in nature it is law. But in Hecuba\u2019s prayer there is a\nhigher conception of god than even this\u2014the divine reason is also\nworld-ruling Justice: Justice and God are one. This identification\nin a sense is as old as Hesiod, but Euripides conceives of Justice\nnot as the daughter of Zeus but as identical with the cosmic reason,\nimmanent in all things, forming and directing all things. When the\npoet speaks of Justice in ways more natural to the ordinary man, he\ncombats the current notion that Justice dwells in heaven where men\u2019s\nsins are recorded in a book; rather, he says, she is here on earth\nwith men, unseen but seeing all.[183] Yet he never carried out this idea\nand reconciled it with the actual moral condition of the world and\nthe undeserved sufferings of mankind. The problem of evil and doubt\nconstantly vexed him; neither faith nor reason gave him rest:\n\n   When faith overfloweth my mind, God\u2019s providence all-embracing\n   Banisheth griefs: but when doubt whispereth \u2018Ah but to _know_!\u2019\n   No clue through the tangle I find of fate and of life for my tracing:\n       There is ever a change and many a change,\n   And the mutable fortune of men evermore sways to and fro\n       Over limitless range.[184]\n\nOn death and the possibility of a future life Euripides again gives us\nno consistent views. He thought that men fear the great transition from\ninexperience with it; but he found some comfort in the fact that death\ncomes in obedience to nature\u2019s universal law, and therefore should\ncause no alarm.[185] Still he felt that the possibility of life beyond\nthe grave gave no certainty of joy, for many, like Macaria in the\nHeraclidae, might say:\n\n                If in the grave aught be:\n    But ah that naught might be!\u2014for if there too\n    We mortals who must die shall yet have cares,\n    I know not whither one shall turn; since death\n    For sorrow is accounted chiefest balm.[186]\n\nSometimes he expresses or hints at the view that our souls return to\nthe air or ether from which they sprang.[187] Again he uses the Homeric\npictures of a cheerless other world. Once he refers to the Orphic\ndoctrine in the cryptic utterance, \u201cWho knows but life be death,\nand death be reckoned life below?\u201d\u2014verses which Plato and other\nphilosophers were to interpret after him.\n\nIf space allowed, we might gladly dwell on Euripides\u2019 sympathy with\nhuman poverty and suffering, on the hints he gives that he perceived\nthe common brotherhood of man. In his noble ideals of womanhood he\nsurpasses his contemporaries. Above all these matters it is important\nfor us with our present interest to note that more than once the\ntragedian seems to wish to inculcate the truth that the standard\nof morality among men was far superior to that of the traditional\npantheon. No other poet of his age sets forth the true nobility of man\nso perfectly as Euripides.\n\nThe last play of the long list he wrote was the Bacchae. Composed in\nMacedonia, it was first produced at Athens after the poet\u2019s death. As\nwas fitting for a tragedy written in the home of Dionysus, the drama\ndeals with the Dionysiac possession, enthusiasm, the \u201cdivine madness,\u201d\non which the Greeks ever set high store. No play has so baffled\ninterpretation. Some scholars think it a recantation; others vigorously\ndeny it. Personally I am inclined to hold with Adam that Dionysus\nin the play \u201cstands for the spirit of enthusiasm in the ancient\nGreek meaning of the word,\u201d and that the principal lesson of the\ndrama is to be found in the verse, \u201cNot with knowledge is wisdom\nbought\u201d[188]\u2014that is, reason is not all in man, but there is something\ngreater\u2014enthusiasm, inspiration.[189]\n\nFrom what we have been considering thus far, it is evident that\nEuripides\u2019 spirit was primarily iconoclastic; there can be no question\nthat he contributed to the decay of the ancient beliefs and that he\nhelped drive the Olympians from their thrones in the minds of thinking\nmen. For fifty years he openly uttered his criticisms in the theater\nat the high festival of Dionysus before the quick-witted Athenians.\nThe effect must have been great, for no poet enjoyed more widespread\npopularity.\n\nOn the positive side Euripides offers no system of religion or of\nmorals. Indeed, he seems never to have arrived at any complete\nunity in his thought. But he is stimulating now, and in his own day\nunquestionably goaded men to reflection, just because he raises so\noften fundamental questions\u2014the questions which reflecting men were\nasking then and have been asking ever since\u2014questions which are never\nwholly answered, but which always demand an answer. The stimulating\ncharacter of his dramas makes him indeed one of the great religious\npoets of the world.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[154] _Thuc._ 2, 43-44.\n\n[155] _Frgg._ 14-16.\n\n[156] _Frg._ 11.\n\n[157] _Frg._ 18.\n\n[158] _Frgg._ 23-26.\n\n[159] _Frgg._ 1, 2, 30, 31, 40-42; cf. 57, 67, 90.\n\n[160] _Frgg._ 14, 15, 29, 32, 41, 128.\n\n[161] _Frg._ 1.\n\n[162] _Frg._ 4.\n\n[163] _Frg._ 5.\n\n[164] _Frg._ 25 = 1 Nauck^2, pp. 770 ff.\n\n[165] _Apol._ 28 E.\n\n[166] _Apol._ 30 A.\n\n[167] _Frg._ 292, 7.\n\n[168] _Frg._ 226, 4.\n\n[169] _Hipp._ 451-459.\n\n[170] _Hipp._ 473-476.\n\n[171] _Hipp._ 1365-1369.\n\n[172] _H. F._ 1307 ff.\n\n[173] _H. F._ 1341 ff.\n\n[174] _Frg._ 794.\n\n[175] _Frg._ 946.\n\n[176] _I.T._ 569.\n\n[177] _I.T._ 570-575.\n\n[178] _Phoen._ 954-958.\n\n[179] _I.A._ 956 f.\n\n[180] _Tro._ 884-888.\n\n[181] _Frg._ 941.\n\n[182] _Frg._ 593.\n\n[183] _Frgg._ 151, 255, 506.\n\n[184] _Hippol._ 1102 ff.\n\n[185] _Frgg._ 757, 816.\n\n[186] 592 ff.\n\n[187] _Hel._ 1014 ff.\n\n[188] 395.\n\n[189] Adam, _Religious Teachers_, p. 316.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nPLATO AND ARISTOTLE\n\n\nSocrates became the father of many philosophic schools. His pupils\nnaturally differed from one another in the emphasis which they gave\nto this or that side of their master\u2019s teaching and in the ways in\nwhich they combined his doctrines with principles laid down by earlier\nthinkers, but all agreed in this, that they directed their attention\nto man as the center of thought and inquiry. From this time ethics and\nreligion became the dominant themes of philosophy. Our subject bids us\nconfine our attention to the greatest of these pupils, Plato.\n\nPlato was born at Athens in the year 428/7 B.C. of an ancient\nfamily, which was related to the law-giver Solon. After being educated\nin the best Athenian fashion, he attached himself to Socrates in his\ntwentieth year, when the latter was already about sixty years old,\nand he continued to associate with his master for ten years until the\nlatter\u2019s condemnation and death. Probably he was not one of the inner\ncircle, but he tells us that he was present at his master\u2019s trial and\nwith other followers of Socrates was prepared to go bondsman, if a fine\nwere inflicted. Sickness prevented him from sharing in the discussion\nof the last day, which is related to us in the Phaedo. After Socrates\u2019\ndeath, Plato was absent from Athens for about twelve years, residing\nfirst in the neighboring city of Megara, where his association with\nEuclides, one of Socrates\u2019 oldest pupils, must have contributed to\nthe development of his own philosophy. Later in southern Italy, if we\naccept the traditional account of his travels, he had an opportunity\nto study more closely in their home the Orphic-Pythagorean systems and\ndoctrines, many of which no doubt he had often heard Socrates discuss.\nAt Syracuse in Sicily he won over Dion, the young brother-in-law of\nthe tyrant Dionysius. The latter, however, found his moral teachings\noffensive, seized him, and had him offered for sale as a prisoner of\nwar in the slave market at Aegina. But a friend, Anniceris, bought\nhim and set him free. When Plato\u2019s other friends wished to repay to\nAnniceris the money he had spent, the latter refused, and the sum was\nused to purchase a grove sacred to the hero Academus, in which Plato\nopened a philosophic school. There, save for the interruptions caused\nby two journeys to Sicily, he continued to teach for about forty years,\ndying in 347 B.C. at the age of eighty.\n\nTo this school came pupils from almost every part of the Greek\nworld. The chief subjects studied were the various branches of\nmathematics\u2014including of course astronomy and harmonics,\u2014and\ndialectics, by which is meant \u201cthe art of question and answer, the art\nof giving a rational account of things and of receiving such an account\nfrom others.\u201d The distinctive methods employed were those of analysis\nand division which Plato seems to have developed so far that the\ninvention of the former was actually, but erroneously, attributed to\nhim. The purpose of analysis was to secure an explanation or proof of a\nproposition; that of division was to arrive at a proper classification\nor division of the object under consideration. Plato\u2019s instruction was\nevidently given in considerable part by lectures, of which his hearers\ntook notes; there was also scientific research on the part of the\npupils who worked out the problems or difficulties set them by their\nmaster. Nor were these researches wholly mathematical and astronomical,\nfor there is good reason to believe that studies in natural history\nwere also pursued. Indeed, Aristotle, for twenty years a member of the\nAcademy, must have had opportunities here to carry on those researches\nwhich interested him most in the early part of his life. But whatever\nthe studies, the purpose was to lead the pupils to the discovery and\ncontemplation of Reality, of Being, of the fundamental and permanent as\nagainst the individual and transitory phenomenon. Of Plato\u2019s lectures\nwe know virtually nothing; his Dialogues represent those parts of his\ndoctrine which he wished to give to the outside world; it is probable\nthat they in no sense adequately reproduce his teachings to his\ndisciples.\n\nHow much of his philosophy Plato received from his master Socrates,\nhow much he developed for himself cannot now be determined. Socrates\nleft no writings; we know him only from the writings of others, and\nabove all from the dialogues of Plato. There he is the chief spokesman,\nwho leads his associates along various paths toward truth; and\ncertainly no pupil ever built a nobler monument to his teacher than\nPlato did. Among modern scholars there are many views as to the extent\nof Plato\u2019s debt to his master: one extreme wing, which has many\nadherents, would limit the Socratic elements in the Platonic doctrine\nto the ethical interest, the search for universals, and the dialectic\nmethod; the other wing, of which the eminent English Platonist Burnet\nis the chief representative, would attribute to Socrates practically\neverything found in the dialogues which Plato wrote before he began\nhis teaching in the Academy. Indeed Burnet holds that Plato\u2019s chief\npurpose in the earlier dialogues was to set forth the life and teaching\nof Socrates; he therefore claims that the \u201cdoctrine of ideas,\u201d with all\nits consequences, and much besides, are purely Socratic, taken over by\nPlato in developed form. Few of us can accept either of these extreme\nviews; it seems more probable that the truth lies between, that Plato\nlearned much relating to \u201cideas\u201d and their Pythagorean origins from\nhis teacher, just as he derived from him his ethical interest and his\nmethod. But to reduce the brilliant pupil to a mere reporter of his\nmaster\u2019s views with little philosophy of his own until he was past\nforty, is quite incredible, and such a procedure has no proper warrant.\nWhen speaking of Socrates in my previous lecture I avoided this\nquestion, for a discussion of it there would have been unprofitable and\nconfusing; and even now for convenience I propose to treat that part of\nPlato\u2019s philosophy which immediately concerns us as if it were wholly\nhis own, begging you, however, to keep in mind always that undoubtedly\nmuch in germ or developed form was derived directly from Plato\u2019s\nchief teacher. Furthermore I must ask you to remember that Plato had\nbeen given to poetry when a youth, and that although he renounced the\npractice of the art, he remained a poet in spirit to the end of his\nlife; all his thoughts were touched with poetry, enlivened with humour,\nand fired with religious zeal. He was a consummate literary artist,\nand a man of many sides. It was natural therefore that he should\nnowhere set forth a crystallized system of philosophy such as a less\nimaginative and duller person might have done; he was apparently a man\nwho grew through all his eighty years. The result is that in spite of\nthe fact that we may properly speak of \u201cthe unity of Plato\u2019s thought,\u201d\nwe find in his works variety, variation, and even contradiction. The\nrequirements of our present situation, however, force us to consider\nour themes categorically, though that procedure is somewhat unfair to\nPlato.\n\nLet us then first examine the central thought of Plato\u2019s\nphilosophy\u2014the \u201cdoctrine of ideas.\u201d Developing the doctrines of\nearlier philosophers, especially those of Heraclitus and Anaxagoras,\nPlato held that the world is dual. In it is the phenomenal world\nvisible to us, which includes all natural objects and those made by\nman, a transient and unreal world which we know only through our\nsenses. But beside it, or rather behind it, is another world invisible\nbut permanent and real, which can be grasped only by the reason. This\nis the world of ideas. Yet the two worlds are not separate, for the\nworld of the senses owes its existence wholly to its dependence on\nthe world of ideas. To understand Plato\u2019s view we must consider\nin an elementary way what he meant by \u201cideas.\u201d The words which he\nuses (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1) signify \u201cform,\u201d and in logic are used in the\nsense of \u201cclass,\u201d \u201ckind,\u201d \u201cspecies,\u201d \u201cthe general principle for the\nclassification of objects.\u201d The translation \u201cidea\u201d is traditional, and\nthere is no adequate reason for preferring \u201cform\u201d or any other English\nequivalent. Now Plato\u2019s statement that the world of phenomena depends\non the invisible world of ideas seems at first sight paradoxical, for\nby it he means that the individual tree, book, desk, chair, good man,\nor whatever you please, is not the real being at all, but that the\nideas of tree, book, desk, chair, and goodness alone possess reality.\nIt may be made plain by an illustration which shall be Plato\u2019s own. At\nthe beginning of the tenth book of the Republic Socrates and Glaucon\nare conversing together. The master wins Glaucon\u2019s assent first to the\nproposition that although there are many beds and tables in the world,\nthere are only two ideas, one of a bed, the other of a table. He then\ngoes on to show that the workman makes a bed or table by shaping his\nmaterial according to the idea of a bed or a table, but that he does\nnot create the ideas themselves. That is done by God who is the real\nmaker of the real bed, that is, of the idea of a bed. The carpenter\nmakes only the particular bed which owes its temporary existence to the\neternal idea\u2014the real bed\u2014which is in Nature, in the mind of God. Or\nif Plato should appear before us tonight, he might say, \u201cSuppose\nwe take a dozen books of different sizes and different shapes and\nappearance, how do we recognize that these diverse objects are all\nbooks?\u201d Then when we hesitated to give an answer, as we probably\nshould, he would reply, \u201cIt is because each one of these individual\nbooks partakes of the idea of book. The idea is present in the\nindividual example and thereby gives the individual its existence;\nthe individual depends therefore on the idea, not the idea on the\nindividual. If this dozen, or indeed if all the books in the entire\nworld were to be destroyed, the idea of book would still remain,\nand new books could be made by causing the materials, out of which\nbooks are constructed, to partake of the idea of book. That is, all\nindividual books are transitory, impermanent, unreal; the idea of\nbook is permanent, eternal, it alone has reality; and all individual\nthings, therefore, exist, so far as they have any real existence, only\nby partaking of the ideas. So all things come into being and owe their\nexistence to sharing in the eternal ideas.\u201d\n\nWe should be unjust to Plato if we thought that he regarded this\ndoctrine as a perfect explanation of the relation between the visible\nand invisible worlds. Far from holding such a view he himself evidently\nheld it to be a \u201cguess at truth,\u201d which served to show in its way that\nthere is a permanent reality behind the phenomena of the visible world\nand a truth which is beyond sense. Indeed Plato is very conscious of\ntroublesome questions which arise in connection with the doctrine, and\nin three dialogues\u2014his Philebus, Parmenides, and Sophist\u2014he endeavors\nto meet some of these questions, and there he offers admirable\ncriticism of his own views.\n\nWith reference to the source of the doctrine, as I have said above,\nwe cannot tell how much Plato derived from Socrates or how much he\ndeveloped for himself. Socrates was evidently always searching for\nuniversals, trying to determine what goodness is in itself in contrast\nto the goodness embodied in a good man, what are virtue, courage, and\nsuch qualities. The teacher or the pupil may have extended the ideas,\nthe universals, to include all things, even the humble articles of\nfurniture which are the examples in the Republic. But in any case by\nthis doctrine of \u201cideas,\u201d \u201cforms,\u201d Plato secured a basis for reality,\na means of attaining absolute knowledge in contrast to that relative\nknowledge, which according to the Sophists was the utmost which man\ncould attain. Plato would have quite agreed with Protagoras that if\nthe senses were our only avenues to knowledge, then indeed man would\nbe the measure of all things and his knowledge would be limited to the\ntransient phenomenal world; that is, he could have no knowledge of\nreality; but by apprehending through our reason the ideas\u2014that is, the\nrealities\u2014on which the phenomenal world depends, we can gain genuine\nknowledge and free ourselves from subjection to mere opinion.\n\nPlato also teaches that there are various grades of ideas, some\nbeing subordinate to others; the highest of all is that of the Good,\nidentified by him with the Beautiful. This supreme idea is at once the\ncause of all existence and knowledge, and comprehends within itself all\nother ideas; as the sun in the visible world, so in the world of true\nknowledge the Good \u201cis the universal author of all things right and\nbeautiful, itself the source of truth and intelligence.\u201d It is the\nAbsolute, the universal Reason, God.[190]\n\nWe have seen that Plato sets the world of ideas apprehended by reason\nover against the world of phenomena, known to us through our senses.\nThe latter world is material, the former immaterial. This concept of\nthe immateriality of ideas was something new in philosophy. Anaxagoras\nhad thought his formative principle (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), as his predecessors had\nthought theirs, to be as material as the \u201cseeds\u201d out of which all\nthings were made; but Plato developed an immaterial, an ideal world,\nwherein are found all cause and all reality.\n\nNow the Platonic ideas are apprehended by the human intellect. What\nare the consequences of this fact? It must follow that man\u2019s reason\nhas a nature similar to that of the ideas; like them it must belong to\nthe world which is above the senses; and with them it must partake of\nthe Absolute. But Plato shows that the ideas are eternal and immortal,\nand draws therefrom the logical conclusion that man\u2019s intellect, his\nreasoning soul, likewise knows no creation and is free from death.\n\nHowever he is not content to let the matter rest on this argument\nalone, but he supports the doctrine of immortality by many proofs, as\nin the Phaedrus where Socrates explains: \u201cThe soul through all her\nbeing is immortal, for that which is ever in motion is immortal; but\nthat which moves another and is moved by another, in ceasing to move,\nceases also to live. Only the self-moving, as it never leaves itself,\nnever ceases to move and is the fountain and beginning of motion to\nall that moves besides.\u201d[191] In the Phaedo[192] he represents Socrates\nas offering a number of different arguments to his questioning friends.\nOne of these is that by which he first proves that souls exist before\nthey are domiciled in our bodies, for recollection implies a previous\nexistence, and since men can recall and recognize things which they\nhave never seen or been taught in their present existence, it follows\nthat they have been born with this knowledge, so that what we call\nlearning is after all only a recollection of ideas gained in a previous\nexistence. Socrates concludes his argument with the question: \u201cThen\nmay we not say, Simmias, that if, as we are always repeating, there\nis an absolute beauty, and goodness, and an absolute essence of all\nthings; and if to this, which is now discovered to have existed in our\nformer state, we refer all our sensations, and with this compare them,\nfinding these ideas to be pre-existent and our inborn possession\u2014then\nour souls must have had a prior existence, but if not, there would be\nno force in the argument?\u201d To this his hearers give ready assent. In\nthe Meno this same argument is very adroitly drawn from the realm of\nmathematics.[193] An untutored slave is made to \u201crecollect\u201d that the\nsquare of the hypothenuse of an isosceles right-angled triangle is\nequal to twice the square of one of its sides. This is the doctrine of\nrecollection to which Wordsworth has given beautiful expression in his\nfamiliar lines:\n\n    Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:\n    The soul that rises with us, our life\u2019s star,\n              Hath had elsewhere its setting,\n                  And cometh from afar;\n              Not in entire forgetfulness,\n              And not in utter nakedness,\n    But trailing clouds of glory do we come\n              From God, who is our home.\n\nBut as Simmias and Cebes in the Phaedo point out, this doctrine only\nshows that the soul existed before the body; it does not prove that\nthe soul is immortal. Socrates therefore goes on to prove this further\npoint, largely by showing the simple and unchanging nature of the\nsoul which is like that of the ideas, and he therefore concludes that\nsince it cannot admit of change, it must be free from death. Again\nhe argues that since the soul can rule and use the body as it will,\nit must be anterior to the body and hence have an eternal and never\nending existence.[194] The final and apparently most convincing proof to\nPlato\u2019s mind, in spite of its dialectic character, is that the notion\nof life cannot be separated from the soul, for the soul is that which\ngives life; therefore since a dead soul is an impossibility, we must\nagree that the soul is immortal.[195] To follow out in detail the other\narguments would occupy too much time now, interesting as it might\nprove. Indeed if we were to rehearse all of Plato\u2019s proofs of the\nimmortality of the soul, we should run through practically the entire\ngamut of the arguments which have ever been offered. His frequent\nreturn to the subject indicates the importance which he gave to the\nbelief.\n\nBefore we approach Plato\u2019s ethical and religious views we must glance\nfor a moment at his psychology, for on that depends in no small measure\nhis moral system. In the fourth book of the Republic when discussing\nthe different forms of government, Socrates is made to show that the\nsoul has three parts or elements: the first is the divine or rational\npart (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd) whose seat is in the head, the second,\nthe courageous or passionate element (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2) residing in the\nheart, and the third is the appetite (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd) which belongs to\nthe diaphragm or liver.[196] In the Phaedrus[197] this same division\nis set forth in a myth. Now when in an individual all three parts are\nin accord under the leadership of reason, whose orders are enforced\nby courage on appetite, the man is virtuous; but if appetite and\ncourage unite against reason, discord results and the man is vicious.\nAs the state is well ordered when harmony exists among its parts, so\nharmony of the soul, led by the reason, produces the virtuous human\nbeing. In the earlier dialogues the soul is evidently regarded as a\nunit, so that the parts are really forms or manifestations of the\nsoul; all three are immortal. But in the Timaeus only the reason is\nimmortal, the other parts being separable and bound to the body with\nwhich they die.[198] Now we have already seen that the soul, or at\nleast its rational part, being divine and immortal, has an affinity\nfor the eternal ideas and is endowed by a natural love for the true,\nthe beautiful, and the good. It is therefore impelled toward the\ndivine world of ideas by a natural passion, and this effort on the\npart of man\u2019s reason is philosophy. The true philosopher then is the\nlover of truth and reality, who is absorbed in the pleasures of the\nsoul so that he will hardly be conscious of bodily pleasure; indeed he\nwill not think much of human life or even fear death.[199] The soul,\nhowever, in its effort to mount into the realm of the ideas, is held\nback by the body in which it is imprisoned and fettered in the world\nof the senses. Thus we find in Plato the Orphic belief that man has a\ndual nature, made up of a divine soul and a mortal hindering body. We\nshall presently see how he gave to the emotional belief of that sect a\nphilosophic basis and so transformed it into a reasonable article of\nmorality and religion.\n\nNow we may consider Plato\u2019s moral and religious views. The highest good\nfor man, according to his teaching, is likeness to God\u2014that is, the\nlargest possible participation in the ideas of the Good which are in\nthe Absolute. In direct proportion to the success of the rational soul\nin appropriating to itself these ideas, the man will practise justice\nand holiness, that is, be righteous; but inasmuch as the world of\nideas cannot be apprehended by the senses, the rational soul of the\nphilosopher must always try to escape from the world of the senses\nwhere evils dwell. As Socrates in the Theaetetus[200] assures Theodorus:\n\u201cEvils, Theodorus, can never pass away; for there must always remain\nsomething which is antagonistic to the good. Having no place among\nthe gods in heaven, of necessity they hover around the mortal nature\nand this earthly sphere. Wherefore we ought to fly away from earth to\nheaven as quickly as we can; and to fly away is to become like God,\nso far as this is possible; and to become like him is to become holy,\njust, and wise ... God is never in any way unrighteous\u2014he is perfect\nrighteousness; and he of us who is the most righteous is most like\nhim.... To know this is true wisdom and virtue; and ignorance of this\nis manifest folly and vice.\u201d The man, then, whose soul strives to\nbecome like God will inevitably be righteous. Plato\u2019s philosophy thus\nresults in practical morality.\n\nFurthermore we are assured in the Republic that a seeker after\nrighteousness will not be neglected by the gods, for Socrates there\nsays:[201] \u201cThen this must be our notion of the just man, that even when\nhe is in poverty or sickness or any other seeming misfortune, all\nthings will in the end work together for good to him in life and death:\nfor the gods have a care of any one whose desire is to become just\nand be like God, so far as man can attain the divine likeness, by the\npursuit of virtue.\u201d\n\nThe path by which man is to attain to likeness of God, and so to\nfreedom from his lower nature, is that of a noble asceticism which\nSocrates described to Simmias and Cebes the night before his own\ndeath:[202] \u201cNo one who has not studied philosophy and who is not\nentirely pure at the time of his departure is allowed to enter the\ncompany of the gods, but the lover of knowledge only. And this is the\nreason, Simmias and Cebes, why the true votaries of philosophy abstain\nfrom all fleshly lusts, and hold out against them and refuse to give\nthemselves up to them, not because they fear poverty or the ruin of\ntheir families, like the lovers of money and the world in general; nor\nlike the lovers of power and honour, because they dread the dishonour\nor the disgrace of evil deeds.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, Socrates, that would not become them,\u201d said Cebes.\n\n\u201cNo indeed,\u201d he replied, \u201cand therefore they who have any care of their\nown souls, and do not merely live moulding and fashioning the body, say\nfarewell to all this; they will not walk in the ways of the blind: and\nwhen philosophy offers them purification and release from evil, they\nfeel that they ought not to resist her influence, and whither she leads\nthey turn and follow.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat do you mean, Socrates?\u201d\n\n\u201cI will tell you,\u201d he said. \u201cThe lovers of knowledge are conscious that\nthe soul was simply fastened and glued to the body\u2014until philosophy\nfreed her, she could only view real existence through the bars of a\nprison, not in and through herself; she was wallowing in the mire of\nevery sort of ignorance, and by reason of lust had become the principal\naccomplice in her own captivity.\u201d And a little later Socrates says:\n\u201cThe soul of the true philosopher thinks that she ought not to resist\nthis deliverance (which philosophy offers), and therefore abstains from\npleasures and desires and pains and fears, so far as she is able.\u201d\n\nSomewhat earlier in the dialogue Socrates had stated in still more\nemphatic terms the necessity of putting the body aside if man\u2019s soul\nwould attain real knowledge:[203] \u201cFor if while in company with the body\nthe soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things follows\u2014either\nknowledge is not to be attained at all, or if at all, after death.\nFor then, and not till then, the soul will be parted from the body\nand exist in herself alone. In this present life, I reckon that we\nmake the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible\nintercourse or communion with the body, and are not surfeited with the\nbodily nature, but keep ourselves pure until the hour when God himself\nis pleased to release us. And thus having got rid of the foolishness of\nthe body we shall be pure and shall hold converse with the pure, and\nknow of ourselves the clear light everywhere, which is no other than\nthe light of truth.\u201d As the phrase, \u201cuntil the hour when God himself\nis pleased to release us,\u201d shows, man might not hasten the time of his\nrelease by his own act. And in other places, in familiar ways, Plato\nteaches that man may not desert the station where god has set him on\nguard until the command is given.\n\nFinally in the Cratylus,[204] where Socrates in discussing the origin\nand nature of language indulges in some serious fooling in connection\nwith the name of the soul (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae), he says that he imagines that\nthose who first gave the soul its name \u201cpsyche,\u201d (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae), wished to\nexpress the truth that the soul when in the body is the source of\nlife, and gives the body the ability to breathe and revive, and that\nwhen this power fails the body, then it perishes and dies. As for\nbody, he reminds his interlocutor that that word (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) is variously\ninterpreted, some saying that it is the grave (\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1) of the soul, which\nmay be regarded as in a tomb during this present life; and he adds that\nthe Orphic poets were probably the ones who invented the name, for\nthey had the notion that the embodied soul is suffering punishment for\nsin, and that the body is a prison in which the soul is incarcerated\nuntil the penalty of sin is paid. Likewise in the Gorgias[205] Socrates\nrefers to the same Orphic idea and quotes a verse from Euripides: \u201cWho\nknows whether life be not death and death life?\u201d That is, this death\nin life is due to the body which tends to strangle the soul. Only\nwhen the reasoning soul has escaped from this tomb of the flesh can\nit really live. This is the reason why the true philosopher is always\npursuing death in the sense that he is trying to free his soul, so far\nas may be, from the concerns of the body that it may enjoy life at its\nbest.[206]\n\nI have used Plato\u2019s own words thus extensively for they set forth\nmore eloquently than any words of mine the essential features of his\ndoctrine. It requires no argument to show how great his debt to the\nOrphics and Pythagoreans was. But we cannot fail to see that he went\nfar beyond his predecessors, for to their emotional belief in the\nimmortality of the soul he gave an intellectual basis, by showing that\nthe rational soul is of the same nature and substance as the Absolute,\nand therefore immortal and ever striving to apprehend the Absolute to\nwhich it belongs. In place of the external purifications and simple\ntaboos which made up the Orphic course of life, Plato substitutes a\nnoble discipline, reminding us of St. Paul\u2014a discipline which has for\nits aim nothing less than the likening of man\u2019s soul to God. When Plato\nteaches that man must begin his immortality here \u201cby the practice of\ndeath,\u201d we now see that he really means the practice of life; for life\ncan only begin when the soul is released from its bodily tomb.\n\nFrom the Orphics and Pythagoreans Plato adopted also the doctrine\nof the transmigration of souls. According to his view a thousand\nyears\u2014ten times the longest span of human life\u2014elapsed between\ndeath and rebirth, during which the wicked received their ten-fold\npunishment and the righteous their like reward. When the time to return\non earth came around, the souls were allowed to choose their new life\nas they pleased, only the wicked souls, \u201cwhich had never seen the\ntruth,\u201d could not pass into the bodies of men. The choice made and their\nnext destiny determined, the souls passed to the plain of Forgetfulness\nwhere each must drink of the river of Lethe; in the darkness of\nmidnight there was an earthquake and thunderstorm, and the souls were\ndriven, like shooting stars, to their birth. Ten thousand years were\nrequired to complete the round of rebirths and to allow the soul to\nreturn to its heavenly home. But the soul of a philosopher, \u201cguileless\nand true,\u201d might secure release after three rebirths if each time he\nhad chosen the higher life. Some incurable sinners were not allowed\nto return to earth, but when their souls approached the mouth of the\ncavern which led to the upper world, the mouth gave a mighty roar and\ndrove them back, while fiends tortured them with all the sufferings\nwhich a fertile imagination could devise. The path of salvation\ntherefore lay in following righteousness and justice, in choosing\nthe good, that is, in true philosophy. At the close of the Republic\nSocrates relates the vision of Er the Pamphylian whose soul returned\nwith a report of the other world, and so concludes: \u201cAnd thus, Glaucon,\nthe tale has been saved and has not perished, and will save us if we\nare obedient to the word spoken; and we shall pass safely over the\nriver of Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled. Wherefore my\ncounsel is, that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after\njustice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and\nable to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall\nwe live dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here\nand when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we\nreceive our reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life\nand in the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we have been\ndescribing.\u201d[207]\n\nWith regard to the ultimate fate of the soul Plato is not wholly\nclear; but apparently he held that with the exception of those who had\ndone unpardonable wrongs the souls of men, when their wanderings and\nrebirths were over and they had attained to purity, returned to God, to\nthe universal reason; probably, however, he thought of their return as\nbeing without loss of individuality, for Plato lays so much stress on\nthe individual soul that we cannot believe that he would have allowed\nit to lose its personality in the Absolute.\n\nThis account, I trust, for all its imperfections, is sufficient\nto indicate what a great advance Plato made in his concept of the\nspiritual life. Man\u2019s reason is now made the means and agent of his\nspiritual ascent; the reasoning soul, by its own nature, strives to\nseek its own, and so finds its goal by virtue of its reason. The human\nwill is not neglected in the Platonic system, but it is by no means\nmade prominent. Man\u2019s salvation is attained when the soul through the\nexercise of its reason has risen superior to its bodily prison, freed\nitself of the imperfections and evils which are necessarily associated\nwith the body, and purified has attained to God\u2019s likeness.\n\nIn the preceding discussion I have used the word God freely, but it may\nfairly be asked how far such use is justified, and furthermore whether\nPlato was a pantheist or a polytheist. It is indeed somewhat difficult\nto answer these questions, for in many passages he speaks of the gods\nin the plural after the common manner, and in the Timaeus he especially\nprovides for a multitude of gods secondary to the Absolute; in many\nother places he speaks of the Divine (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd) or simply God (\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2).\nSometimes he seems to conceive of God as a living personality; again\nGod is apparently only the impersonal idea of the Good. Yet in spite\nof the fact that his expressions range from polytheism almost to\nmonotheism, considering the sum total of his thought, we are justified\nin speaking of his idea of God. At the same time we must always\nunderstand that his thought admitted many gods, subordinate to the\nAbsolute and included in it.\n\nBut whatever the form of expression which he uses, Plato conceives\nof God as the giver of good alone. For him there is no deception or\ndeceit in the divine; the chastening of man by God is always for the\npurpose of making man better, never to satisfy any punitive desire. The\nnotion of \u201cthe envy of the gods,\u201d which is so prominent in Aeschylus,\nHerodotus, and other writers of the fifth century, to Plato is\nabhorrent and inconceivable. Furthermore he makes the Divine, the idea\nof the Good, the measure of truth, not man, as Protagoras would have\nhad him. His world therefore has a divine warrant of its validity; it\nis ordered by the mind of the good and just God, and not by the will\nof a debased divinity or by mere chance. Previous thinkers had made\nJustice the highest attribute of divinity; to this Plato added Goodness\nas the chief characteristic of God.\n\nBut in this discussion of Plato\u2019s religious philosophy we have left\none important subject untouched\u2014the problem of evil. This was a\nquestion which a mind so acute and inquisitive as Plato\u2019s could not\nfinally avoid. Of the presence of evil in the world he was fully\naware, and indeed he maintained that evils must always exist, for\nthere must remain something antagonistic to the good; and since evils\ncannot exist in heaven the earth is their abode, from which man must\ntry to escape.[208] On the source of evil, however, he touches only in\nthe Statesman and the Timaeus;[209] in both the question is intimately\nconnected with his theories of creation, which he sets forth in myth.\nBut leaving aside the Platonic imagery, I will simply remind you that\nearlier in this lecture we saw that Plato conceived the world we\nknow as dual\u2014the phenomenal world known through the senses and the\nworld of ideas apprehended by reason. Now the ideas alone have Being;\nbut the phenomenal world is always in a state of Becoming, that is,\nof coming into being and of ceasing to be; it is both temporal and\nimperfect. Obviously there must be some principle, parallel in a way\nto the perfect and eternal ideas, such that it can receive them, and\nby its participation in them bring the imperfect sensible world into\ntransitory existence. This principle is to Plato the material element.\nNow since he ascribes to the ideas alone real existence, that is,\nBeing, the material principle must be Not-being. It is the negative\nsubstratum of all sensible phenomena, itself invisible, without form or\ncharacteristic, or in Plato\u2019s words \u201cthe receptacle, and in a manner,\nthe nurse of all generation\u201d for, although itself formless, it is\ncapable of taking on all the forms which the ideas may impose upon it.\nPlato himself could not avoid the difficulties which such a material\nsubstratum raises, and at times he is forced to speak as if it were\nsomething real in itself, having an existence beside the ideas. But\nhis true notion seems to be that matter is mere negation, like the\nAristotelian \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, something which cannot be grasped by\nthe intellect, as can the ideas, or perceived by the senses, as can\nthe phenomenal world; it is identical with space. Of course when Plato\ntalks about this negative principle, he inevitably speaks as if we\ncould know something about it.[210]\n\nThe Absolute in Plato\u2019s thought had not only life and intelligence\nbut also creative activities; and the acts of creation consisted\nin imposing on the formless material principle the ideas which the\nAbsolute comprehends in itself, or, as perhaps he would have preferred\nto say, in making the material principle partake of the appropriate\nidea. In the Cratylus he illustrates the relation of matter to the idea\nby the way in which the artisan makes a shuttle out of wood, always\nforming his material with reference to the true or ideal shuttle.[211]\nWe may illustrate further by examples modelled on Plato\u2019s own. Think\nfor a moment of the potter and his clay. The clay is formless matter\nwhich the potter takes and places on the wheel, and there imposes\nupon the clay the idea of the pot which is in his own mind; so the\npot acquires a real existence in so far as it partakes of or embodies\nthe idea which exists in the potter\u2019s mind. Or we may think of the\nsculptor and the shapeless block of marble. By imposing his idea upon\nthe marble, by making the shapeless block embody his idea, the sculptor\nbrings the statue into being. These illustrations, both Plato\u2019s and\nmy own, are of course misleading, for the wood, clay, and marble from\nwhich the several objects are made are far from being the negative\nsubstance which Plato would have us believe his material principle to\nbe. But they may serve to suggest the way in which he conceived the\nvaried world about us to come into its temporary existence.\n\nNow to Plato\u2019s mind the Absolute and the ideas are perfect; yet we\nknow that the phenomenal world is imperfect, and imperfection is evil;\ntherefore, he says, evil must be found in the negative substratum,\nsince as we have already seen, this was regarded by Plato as in every\nway the opposite of the perfect ideas. This imperfection, inherent\nin the material principle, is the \u201cnecessity\u201d of which he speaks in\nthe Theaetetus as causing evils\u2014the opposite of the good.[212] Evil,\ntherefore, is eternal, but, as we have earlier learned, the individual\nmay escape, if he will take the deliverance which philosophy offers him.\n\nAs I have said, the course of creation is explained through myth in\nthe Timaeus and the Statesman.[213] In the former God is represented\nas creating first the gods of heaven which are the fixed stars and\nplanets, from whom sprang the gods of popular mythology. The Creator\nhad already conceived of creatures of the air, sea, and land; but these\nhe did not himself create, for then they would have been on equality\nwith the gods; he rather commissioned the gods to create man and the\nlower animals, while he furnished the divine part, the soul. Man\u2019s soul\ntherefore is of the same nature as the universal soul, but his body is\nmaterial, made of the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water,\nand it is imperfect, being subject to the passions. In the Statesman\nPlato sets forth his theory of the development of man from an earlier\nstage to the present: the significant thing for us at the moment is his\nexplanation of man\u2019s falling away from virtue as due to the admixture\nof matter in him, that this fall was \u201cinherent in the primal nature\nwhich was full of disorder.\u201d\n\nThis, then, will at least suggest Plato\u2019s view as to the origin of\nevil in the world. His language is that of myth, and it seems evident\nthat he did not formulate his explanation perfectly even in his own\nmind. We shall best regard it as one of his guesses at truth. It is, of\ncourse, easy to find weaknesses in his thought on this question and to\nshow that the explanation which he suggests is not satisfactory. But\nwe shall do better to remember the difficulty of the problem and to\nrecognize the value of his attempt to reach its solution.\n\nThe greatest service, however, which Plato did was to establish\nby means of his doctrine of ideas a rational relation between the\ninvisible world of reason and the visible world of the senses; and\nby pointing out that the rational part of man\u2019s soul is of the same\nsubstance as the ideas and therefore of the same substance as the\nAbsolute, to give an intellectual basis to the doctrine of a natural\nstriving on the part of man after the supreme Good. Hardly second to\nthis was his service in the field of ethics, where he showed that man\u2019s\nspiritual advance depends upon the constant curbing of the passions\nand the body. The greatness of his genius is shown by the fact that\nthroughout antiquity the highest religious thought of paganism had\nits source in his work and was only a development of it. Before we\nhave finished these lectures we shall gain some hints of his profound\ninfluence on Christianity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPlatonic philosophy by attributing to the ideas an existence apart\nfrom things, and conversely by denying all existence to anything but\nthe ideas, had removed all reality to the supernatural world. It was\ninevitable that this view should be promptly attacked. The challenge\ncame from Plato\u2019s greatest pupil, Aristotle.\n\nAristotle, born at Stagira in Thrace about 384 B.C., by\ninheritance and early training had a strong bent toward natural\nscience, since he was descended from a line of physicians who,\naccording to Galen, taught anatomy by dissection. For twenty years he\nwas the pupil and assistant of Plato in the Academy. After the death\nof his master he went to the court of Hermias, a prince of Mysia, and\nin 343 he was appointed tutor to the son of King Philip of Macedon,\nAlexander, then thirteen years of age. About 335 he opened a school\nin the Lyceum at Athens, where he taught for some thirteen years.\nThen, being accused of impiety after Alexander\u2019s death, he withdrew\nto Chalcis in Euboea, as he said, that the Athenians might not sin a\nsecond time against philosophy; there he died about 322.\n\nInto Aristotle\u2019s encyclopedic knowledge and enormous scientific\nactivities we may not now go; and indeed we need not dwell at very\ngreat length upon him, for his influence in religion was less potent\nthan Plato\u2019s through antiquity and the earlier Middle Ages. The chief\ncause of the elder philosopher\u2019s greater influence is to be found in\nthe fact that Plato\u2019s thought centered on man, his morality, and his\nrelation to God, while Aristotle was concerned primarily with the\nuniverse of which man was to him only a part; to Plato virtue was\ninseparably connected with religion, and was therefore something to be\nsought with fervent spirit as well as with cool reason; to Aristotle\nvirtue was rather an intellectual matter, an even balance of the soul,\nthat natural perfection of the whole organism on which the well-being\nand happiness of man depended\u2014a state which was to be attained by\nright calculation, choice, and habit. So it came to pass that although\nAristotle\u2019s works on logic were continuously studied in one form or\nanother, his great sway in many realms of human thought, including\ntheology, began in the thirteenth century, when, learning first from\nArabic scholars, later aided and stimulated by the Latin conquest of\nConstantinople in 1204, the western intellectual world eagerly studied\nhis works anew. Then Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Roger\nBacon raised him to the supreme position in philosophy and theology, so\nthat he became for that age indeed \u201cthe master of those who know.\u201d\n\nLet us now consider some parts of his philosophy. He criticized\nPlato\u2019s doctrine that ideas have an existence apart from things, and\nnot unjustly charged that Plato had taken the universals, which we\narrive at by abstraction, and had elevated these general concepts\ninto eternal and immortal elements, claiming for them that they were\nanterior to the things of sense and alone had real existence. In his\nown philosophy he took a position fundamentally opposed to that of\nPlato, for he insisted that \u201cideas,\u201d \u201cforms\u201d and the phenomenal world\ncould not exist apart, for if they did, then we should be obliged to\npostulate a third world beyond them; that is to say, that if the idea\nof man, for example, had a substantial existence apart from individual\nmen, then there would have to be an idea antecedent to both the idea of\nman and the individual men, the model of both, and this idea would be a\n\u201cthird man.\u201d He further pointed out that men know the ideas only in the\nconcrete objects, never apart from those objects of which they are the\nideas, that the essence can never be separated from that of which it is\nthe essence, since then both thing and essence would cease to exist. So\nhe charged Plato with using meaningless poetic metaphors when he said\nthat ideas, forms, existed apart from things. Reality to Aristotle was\nalways in the individual object, itself an indissoluble union of matter\nand form. Of course he recognized that the human mind could abstract\nthese two elements each from the other and could think of the\nmatter and the form as separate, but he would not allow that these\nabstractions had substantial reality in the sense that they could ever\nexist by themselves.[214]\n\nSince then to him the Platonic ideas were nothing apart from the\nindividual objects, Aristotle could find no principle of movement or\nchange in them; so he claimed that the doctrine of ideas was sterile\nand came to naught. In his own system he enumerated four principles\nor causes, which he insisted, however, are only known to us from\nindividual things: the material cause (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03be o\u1f57 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9, \u1f21 \u1f53\u03bb\u03b7), the\nformal cause (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ae), the efficient cause (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae),\nand the final cause (\u03c4\u1f78 o\u1f57 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2). To make his meaning clear\nlet us use in part his own illustrations: the material cause of the\nstatue is the bronze of which it is made, just as in the example of the\npot which we used a little while ago, the clay was its material cause;\nthe formal cause is the idea of the statue, or of the pot, or of the\noctave in music, which the artist has in mind; the artist himself is\nthe efficient cause; and the object of the action, the completed pot,\nstatue, or whatever it may be, is the final cause.[215] That is to say\nthe statue exists potentially in the bronze, the pot potentially in the\nclay, the octave potentially in the musical sounds, but these things\ncan be called in actual existence only by the operation of the other\nthree causes; and the same thing holds true in animate nature. It\nis possible therefore to state the matter generally and to say that\nin every case the individual is produced by the operation of the\nformal, efficient, and final causes on the material cause, bringing\nto actuality the potentiality in matter. Of course we may regard\nthe formal, efficient, and final causes as different aspects of the\nsame formal cause\u2014a thing which Aristotle himself does in more than\none passage,[216] so that in the last analysis he regards matter and\nform as the two causes or principles of things. These two are to him\ncorrelatives, each completing the other, although he gives greater\nimportance to the formal than to the material cause. These two causes,\nhe says, attract each other; and their union brings about movement,\nwhich is always the evolution of something from something else.\n\nFrom these considerations I trust that it is evident that Aristotle\nregarded every object of nature, whether animate or inanimate, as\nthe product of causation; behind each individual he found another\nindividual, and he saw that each object was the result of conscious\ncausal activity. So, looking on the world with scientific eyes, he\nfound therein continuous movement dependent on a chain of causes, and\nhe pointed out that such a chain requires a first cause which must be\nthe source of all activity. This first cause was to him Mind, pure\nThought, God, conscious, eternal, and good. But his First Cause was at\nthe same time the Final Cause, for the supreme Mind conceives the end\ntoward which all creative activity is tending, that is, it acts with\nintelligence so that the world is the creation of intelligence and is\ndirected toward wise ends.[217] The order of the universe bears witness\nto the Mind which set it in order, and which keeps it in motion, all\nfor intelligent ends; for to use Aristotle\u2019s own expression, \u201cGod and\nNature do nothing without a purpose.\u201d[218] Thus Aristotle introduced\ninto theology cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence\nof God.\n\nBut when Aristotle defines God as pure Thought, the supreme Idea\nor Form, with no admixture of matter, it might seem that he had\ncontradicted himself. It will be remembered, however, that in his\nsystem matter and form do not stand quite on an equality\u2014matter is\nsomewhat subordinate to form. He regarded matter as the point of\ndeparture for something higher\u2014the clay being antecedent and lower\nthan the pot, the bronze than the statue\u2014for the higher product always\nresults from the operation of the formal cause on the material. Of\ncourse in our illustrations the bronze and the clay are not absolute\nmatter, but only matter with reference to the higher products evolved\nfrom them\u2014the pot and the statue. Indeed Aristotle did not suppose\nthat there was such a thing as absolute matter existing by itself, but\nhe rather thought of his material cause as matter not yet formed, the\ngerm from which the actual object was to be developed by the operation\nof the formal cause. Now he saw in the universe an ascending scale of\nexistence, just as today we recognize such a scale in the animal world,\neach stage being more perfect than that below it; he pointed out that\nwith reference to the lower, each higher stage was ideal, but material\nwith reference to that which was still higher. So in every stage the\nidea, the form, preceded and conditioned the material element, and in\na sense we may correctly say that Aristotle gradually refined away\nhis material element in the ascending scale. At the summit Aristotle\nplaced the perfect and supreme Idea, God, the eternal antecedent\nof all activity, the prime mover of the universe. So in the end he\nidentified God and Form. Strictly speaking in his system God could\nnot be a resultant of form and matter, for then God would not be the\nultimate being, but some cause would lie behind him; and he would not\nbe perfection, since some potentiality, the characteristic of matter,\nwould still reside in him. As a matter of fact Aristotle in a number of\npassages identifies his ultimate material and form (\u1f21 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f54\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc);[219] not that he would have granted that there was a\nmaterial element in the Supreme Being; but in the light of what we have\njust said we can understand how he might have held that the ultimate\nmaterial and God were identical.[220]\n\nIt readily follows from Aristotle\u2019s concept of God as the prime\nmover, the source of all activity in the world, that God can be but\none. Monotheism is the logical result of the Aristotelian reasoning.\nMoreover it was inevitable that Aristotle should make God transcendent,\nthat is, that he should place him above all objects of the natural\nworld, since if the First Cause is pure thought unmixed with matter, he\ncannot be immanent in material things. The immateriality which Plato\ngave to his ideas, his pupil transferred to God.\n\nMidway between the natural and the supernatural worlds Aristotle placed\nman, whom he regarded as bound to the world of nature by his body and\nthe lower elements of his mind, but connected with God through his\nreason, for he held that the human mind possessed attributes of the\ndivine intelligence. Aristotle\u2019s psychology was based on his belief\nthat there was a purpose in all nature, and on his view that in the\nindividual were always united form and material. With reference to\nanimate beings he showed that they had their formative principle\nwithin them, which brought to actuality the material which had the\npotentiality of life, and which determined the purpose for which the\nindividual creature existed. This formative principle was then for\nhim the soul of the animate being, whether plant, lower animal, or\nman; it was the internal principle which determined the processes of\nnutrition, growth, and decay common to all animate creatures, and\nno less the functions peculiar to the lower and the higher animals\nthroughout the scale of life. The soul of a plant, then, he defined as\nthe assimilative principle (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd) But creatures of the next,\nhigher stage, the so-called lower animals, he saw had senses, desires,\nand self-movement; to their souls therefore he assigned the additional\nelements of sensation (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd), appetite (t\u1f78 \u1f40rektik\u03ccn), and\nmotion (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd). Finally, he said, the human soul had mind (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2)\nin addition to the elements possessed by the lower animals and plants,\nfor man has the power of thought and reflection. Therefore man is the\nhighest creature, the most perfect organism in the natural order.\n\nBut the human mind, as Aristotle pointed out, has two activities:\nit concerns itself with knowing and with reasoning; it is passive,\nreceptive, in that it receives ideas from without, and creative in that\nit can reflect on its own ideas and so create new ideas which are in no\nsense dependent on material objects\u2014are, as we say, abstract ideas. To\nthis creative part of man\u2019s soul, to his reason alone, did Aristotle\ngrant eternal existence and immortality. All other activities of the\nsoul\u2014knowing, moving, seeking, feeling, and assimilating\u2014he held to\nbe bound to the body and hence to perish with it; but the reasoning\nelement he maintained was in no way dependent on the material world,\nwas always active, and therefore it alone was immortal and eternal.[221]\nYet after establishing the immortality of the reasoning element\nAristotle failed to define the fate of the immortal human reason after\ndeath; of joys or pains beyond the grave he gave no description.\n\nIn ethics Aristotle taught that the highest human good was that\nhappiness which results when man\u2019s mind under the direction of reason\nis active toward virtuous ends; that moral virtue is a habit which\nis acquired by cultivation, a condition which is attained when the\nappetites are controlled by the will and guided by the reason. Now in\nthe Aristotelian system man alone was regarded as capable of moral\naction. The animals are guided by appetite and lack intelligence to\ndirect them; God is pure reason and therefore we cannot attribute to\nhim any moral qualities; but man possesses the characteristics of\nthe lower creatures and has at the same time the divine element, the\nreason, which connects him with God. Therefore since man is endowed\nwith reason which can either prompt the will to check the appetite\nor bid the will let appetite go its way, he is capable of choice and\nso of morality. By thus emphasizing the controlling function of the\nwill Aristotle prepared the way for the Stoics, as we shall see in our\nnext lecture. Virtue in the active life of society was to him always\nthe mean between two extremes, both of which were themselves vices.\nCourage, for example, lies midway between cowardice and rashness;\ntemperance between indulgence and abstinence; and so on through the\nwhole range of the ethical virtues. Above these virtues of the active\nlife, Aristotle placed a higher rank\u2014the intellectual virtues of\nwisdom, knowledge, good-sense, practical insight, etc., which result\nfrom a harmony of the active and the receptive parts of the intellect.\nHighest of all he put the speculative activities of the intellect,\nwhich he regarded as its proper and most constant function. This\n\u201ctheoretical\u201d or \u201ccontemplative\u201d life (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2) he said brought\nman his highest happiness just because it was his highest activity.\nYet Aristotle could not hold out the hope that men could attain this\njoy fully or in great numbers; he saw that the greater part of human\nlife was concerned with practical virtues, with good character; and he\nbelieved that only when man was good in everyday life could he hope to\nrise to the contemplative life, but that in that life, at moments, he\nmight catch glimpses of the happiness which belonged continuously to\nGod.[222]\n\nUnquestionably Aristotle did a large service in putting ethics on a\nmore scientific basis than his predecessors had done, but his chief\ncontributions to the subject with which we are now concerned were in\nthe field of theology. There, as we have already noted, he established\nthe cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God;\nand he also introduced a clearly defined transcendentalism, thus making\nexplicit what had been implied in parts of Plato\u2019s teachings. Yet he\nfailed to provide that satisfaction for religious hopes and fears which\nmen desired, and so, as I have said, the cold scientific reasoning of\nthe Stagirite had far less influence in religion than the enthusiastic\nthought of his teacher until after many centuries had passed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAlthough we may readily recognize that the influence of philosophy on\nthe religious belief of the most enlightened in this time was great,\nwe may still question whether it had any considerable influence on the\nreligious customs of the people. Practice is always more conservative\nthan thought, and we find that the thinkers who did most to destroy\ntraditional theology frequently conformed to the traditional worship of\nthe common man. So Socrates sacrificed in the usual way to the gods,\nalthough he held advanced ideas with regard to prayers and oaths. No\ndoubt Plato and Aristotle passed for pious so far as their religious\npractices were concerned, in spite of the fact that they put new\ncontent into ancient forms. The former frequently made the speakers in\nhis dialogues refer to the gods in quite the traditional way, and in\nhis Timaeus he set forth a kind of systematic theology; in his Laws,\nwritten in his old age as a supplement to his Republic, he planned\nfor his ideal state a religious organization, involving a plurality\nof gods, not dissimilar to that of the actual Athenian state; he\nrepresented his chief spokesman as proving the existence of the gods,\ngiving warrant for the familiar practices of religion, and justifying\nthe ways of gods to men; moreover he proposed to have statutes against\nimpiety and the introduction of religious rites not recognized by\nlaw.[223] Aristotle clearly had slight respect for the common notions\nas to the gods, but for all that he regarded the worship of many gods\nas natural, and he thought that worship was indispensable for the\nexistence of a state; therefore in his Politics he made a place for a\npolytheistic religion, defined the duties of priests and other sacred\nofficials, and provided that all the expenses of public worship should\nbe borne by the state.[224] The charge, prompted by political passion,\nbrought against Aristotle for impiety in deifying Hermias, the prince\nof Mysia, shows that he was not regarded as atheistic.\n\nAs a matter of fact with all the changes in religious thought which\nthe centuries brought in Greece, sacred customs and practices remained\nbut little altered down to the end of antiquity. Theology has small\ninterest for the common man. He must depend for his assurance on the\nperformance of those acts which immemorial custom has sanctioned as\nthe proper means of securing the favor of the gods, rather than on\nthe speculations of some theologian or on his own poor reflections.\nSacrifice and prayer before the sacred statue or symbol, community\nworship at the great festivals, private devotion at the shrine\nwithin the home, rites of riddance and appeasing, the promise and\npayment of vows, remained the practices of the mass of men for many\ncenturies after the prophet of Nazareth delivered his message\u2014indeed\nChristianity took over many of these things and has kept them to the\npresent day. Then too we must remember that the civic character of\nthe common Greek religion had a higher side, for it strengthened the\nbond of family and of city-state; and through the great festivals at\nOlympia, Delphi, and Nemea it helped to form a dim concept of a Greek\nnation. Thus it elevated men\u2019s notions of responsibility to the social\nunits, both small and great. Furthermore, apart from the civic and\nnational sides of Greek religion, the general religious thought of the\nmass was gradually ennobled with the passage of the centuries; in spite\nof the survival into later antiquity of certain rude and primitive\nelements, religion became more moral and more spiritual, as we have\nalready seen was the case with the Eleusinian Mysteries. Plato and\nAristotle in the very nature of the case could have little influence\non the many in their day; but when their thoughts had been transmuted\ninto terms which the common man could comprehend and express in living,\nphilosophy became for the many a guide of life.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[190] It is sometimes said that Plato does not identify the Idea of the\nGood with God, but I cannot interpret the following passages save as I\nhave done above: _Phil._ 22 C; _Tim._ 28 A-29 E; 37 A; 92 C.\n\n[191] _Phaedrus_, 245; cf. _Laws_, 10, 894 B ff., 12, 966 E.\n\n[192] _Phaedo_, 72 ff.\n\n[193] _Meno_, 81 ff.\n\n[194] _Phaedo_, 86 ff.\n\n[195] _Phaedo_, 105.\n\n[196] _Rep._ IV, 427 ff., esp. 440 E-441 A; VI, 504; VIII, 550; IX,\n580-581; cf. _Timaeus_, 69-72.\n\n[197] 246 f.\n\n[198] 69 ff.\n\n[199] _Rep._ VI, 484 ff.\n\n[200] _Theaet._ 176.\n\n[201] X, 613.\n\n[202] _Phaedo_, 82 f.\n\n[203] _Phaedo_, 66 E ff.\n\n[204] 399 f.\n\n[205] 492 E-493 A.\n\n[206] _Phaedo_, 63 ff.\n\n[207] _Rep._ X, 614 ff.; cf. _Phaedrus_, 248 f.\n\n[208] _Theaet._ 176.\n\n[209] _Statesman_ 272 ff.; _Tim._ 42 ff.\n\n[210] _Tim._ 49 E-52 B; cf. Aristot. _Phys._ 1, 9, 192 a, 3 ff.; 4, 2,\n209 b, 11 ff.\n\n[211] _Crat._ 389 f.\n\n[212] _Theaet._ 176.\n\n[213] _Tim._ 29 E ff.; _Statesman_, 272 B ff.\n\n[214] _Met._ I, 9, 990 b ff.; VI, 8; XII, 10; XIII, 3.\n\n[215] _Phys._ II, 3, 194 b, 16 ff.; cf. _Met._ I, 3, 983 a, 24 ff.; VI,\n7, 1032 a, 13 ff.; VII, 4, 1044 a, 32 ff.; _et passim_.\n\n[216] E. g. _Phys._ II, 7, 198 a, 22 ff.\n\n[217] _Phys._ VIII, 6, 258 b, 10 ff.; _Met._ XI, 7 (entire).\n\n[218] _De caelo_, I, 4, 271 a, 33.\n\n[219] E. g. _Met._ VII, 6, 1045 b, 18 f.\n\n[220] Cf. the whole discussion of God in _Met._ XI.\n\n[221] On the foregoing see the _De anima_ in general and especially II,\n1; III, 4 and 5.\n\n[222] Cf. on the foregoing the two ethical works, the Nicomachean and\nthe Eudemian Ethics, entire.\n\n[223] _Laws_, VI, 759 and X entire.\n\n[224] _Politics_, VI, 8, 1322 b, 18 ff.; VII, 8, 1328 b, 12 ff.; 1329\na, 27 ff.; 1330 a, 8 f.; 1331 b, 4-6, 17 f.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nLATER RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES\n\n\nPlato and Aristotle mark the culmination of a great period in Greek\nthought. After them metaphysical speculation made little if any advance\nin antiquity. Indeed we are all aware of the fact that the greater\npart of the thinking world has been divided between Platonists and\nAristotelians ever since, although in our own time we are seeing\na return by some to the philosophic position of the Sophists and\nHeraclitus.\n\nNow in our discussion of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle you\nmust have felt that their systems were for the intellectual \u00e9lite.\nThe large demands which they make upon the reason and the habit of\nreasoning unfit them for the great majority of mankind, since the\naverage man desires a practical guide in life which he can readily\nfollow, rather than a philosophical system which he can grasp only by\nthe careful use of his intellect. Furthermore, in the period after\nAlexander, when national life and interests were weakened or destroyed\nby the Macedonian\u2019s conquests and the struggles of his successors,\nthe individual was forced to withdraw from public life; he lost the\nsatisfactions which the politics of his community had once furnished,\nfelt himself without the social supports which the compact life of his\ncity-state had formerly given, and so, turned in on himself, he\nnaturally sought for a sure rule of life and a guarantee of individual\nhappiness. We shall now consider first a school of practical philosophy\nwhich followed Aristotle\u2014that of the Stoics, and then some mystic\nphilosophies of the early centuries of our era.\n\nSocrates, the great teacher and the dramatic spokesman of Plato\u2019s\ndialogues, gave the impulse to many philosophic systems. The only one\nwe need to glance at now is that of the Cynics founded by Antisthenes,\nwho had been one of Socrates\u2019 many pupils. It was continued by the\nwhimsical and notorious Diogenes of Sinope, whose name is familiar\nto us all. The founder of Cynicism emphasized the Socratic aim of\nindividual virtue to the neglect of all else, for like his master he\nmaintained that virtue was the only good, the sole aim in life, and\nthat it was sufficient in itself for happiness. But he also went to the\nextreme of declaring that all external relations and obligations were\nto be neglected, and that there was no middle ground of the slightest\nimportance between virtue and vice. Antisthenes also taught that\nwhoever possessed virtue was wise, the rest of the world foolish; and\nthat virtue was a thing which could be taught, and which once learned\ncould never be lost. To the Cynic all pleasure was vicious, but sweat\nand toil blessings if associated with the individual freedom which was\nthe aim of the school. Although the Cynics were concerned only with\npractical virtue in this world here and now, their puritanical and\ndoctrinaire system deserves this place in our consideration, because it\nwas the first to attempt to make philosophy a practical guide for\nthe common man in everyday life. It is quite true that this was also\nSocrates\u2019 position, but his mind and common sense took so large a\nview of the relations of man that he never fell into the narrow\nexclusiveness of the Cynics. With them philosophy was not speculative,\nbut became the art of virtuous living; it easily degenerated into\ninsolent and ostentatious show, and doubtless deserved many of the\njibes which the later satirists threw at it. Within the sect, strictly\nspeaking, the doctrine of virtue as man\u2019s chief good came to little\nbecause it lacked the principle of moral activity. The will of man\nwas not challenged to act in advancing him along the path of virtue.\nBut Stoicism took over the doctrine, gave it life by insisting on the\nexercise of the will in the practice of virtue, and made thereby such\na contribution to the practical life of virtue that we are still the\nStoics\u2019 heirs.\n\nIt was toward the close of the fourth century that Zeno of Citium\nin the island of Cyprus established a school in the Painted Porch\n(\u03a3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b7) at Athens. Zeno had been an adherent of no one school\nor philosophical sect: he had listened to both Cynic, Megarian, and\nPlatonic teachers. It was natural, therefore, in view of the training\nof the founder and of the fact that he was born in a place distant from\nthe great centers of the Greek world, that the Stoic school from the\nbeginning should draw its tenets from many sources and that it should\nhave a cosmopolitan character.\n\nFurthermore the time in which it was founded had a potent and direct\ninfluence upon it. Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C.,\nafter carrying his arms to the banks of the Indus and enlarging the\nGreek world far beyond even his own vast dreams. The ideal state,\neven in the mind of Alexander\u2019s great teacher Aristotle, was at this\ntime thought to be one which corresponded closely to the actual Greek\nstate, a community of limited size, whose free population should be\nall of the same stock, and one in which the manual toil should be\nperformed by slaves. A sharp contrast to this was the mighty empire\nwhich Aristotle\u2019s pupil carved in an incredible fashion out of Europe,\nAfrica, and Asia. It is not to be wondered at that a philosophy, the\nprinciples of which were drawn from various Athenian schools, as I\nhave just said, and which was developed by men like Zeno of Citium and\nChrysippus of Soli in Cilicia should have a character which made it\nappeal to the enlarged and varied world of Hellenism, and to the Roman\nEmpire which succeeded that of Alexander.\n\nThe development of Stoicism corresponded to its eclectic origin. The\nsystem established by Zeno was enlarged and rounded out by Chrysippus.\nIt was welcomed by the Romans in the second century B.C. when\nPanaetius of Rhodes transplanted the system to Rome. In the hands of\nits earliest leaders the school had held to a severe and uncompromising\ndoctrine, not dissimilar to that of the Cynics. But Panaetius greatly\nmodified this teaching, and accommodated the school to the other great\nphilosophic systems of the time, especially to the doctrines of Plato\nand Aristotle; and thus he made Stoicism suited to the educated Roman\nworld. Among his disciples he numbered many of the Roman aristocracy\nof the second century B.C., the most famous of whom were\nLaelius and the younger Scipio. That unyielding dogmatism of the older\nschool which had paralleled Cynicism in teaching that between virtue\nand vice there was no intermediate position, that the philosopher was\nthe perfectly virtuous man, and that he and the vicious were absolutely\nseparated, was replaced by a doctrine of the possibility of gradual\nprogress in virtue. Indeed some with good sense held that this was\nthe most to which man could attain, that he could never hope to reach\nperfection, but that his duty was to accomplish a daily advance toward\nexcellence. Panaetius did a great service in adapting Stoicism to\nlife. A famous pupil of Panaetius was Posidonius of Apamea in Syria,\nwho drew many Romans to hear him at his school in Rhodes, among them\nCicero and Pompey. He carried still further the synthesis of Stoicism\nwith Platonism and Aristotelianism, and by the astounding range of his\nlearning and the brilliancy of his style acquired a large influence. He\nseems also to have given Stoicism a strong religious cast.\n\nLike other philosophies Stoicism had embraced many subjects\u2014logic,\nincluding dialectic and rhetoric, physical science, including cosmology\nand theology, and ethics. But by the first century of the Roman Empire\nit had become almost exclusively a philosophy of moral and religious\nedification, well calculated to steel men against the distress and\ntrouble of that age. Its great representatives in this last period were\nSeneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, whose works are still a source\nof strength for many thoughtful men.\n\nLet us now consider briefly the system of the Stoics. Our theme\nconfines us chiefly to the moral and religious sides of their\nphilosophy; but this is only a slight limitation, for true to the\nteachings of the Cynics, who had greatly influenced the founder of\nthe school, throughout their history the Stoics laid much emphasis on\nethics, that is, on the art of a righteous and virtuous life. They were\nnever so much concerned with speculation as to the nature of virtue as\nwith its practice. To them virtue was man\u2019s highest aim, and by it they\nmeant righteousness in the practical relations of life. They defined it\nas a condition of the soul in which the soul is in continuous harmony\nwith itself. Virtue they subdivided into the four chief elements of\nintelligence, discretion, courage, and justice. Some also recognized\nsubordinate virtues, but these I name were the four that made up\nthe supreme excellence. Furthermore the Stoics, like Socrates and\nthe Cynics, identified virtue with knowledge and regarded the ideal\nphilosopher as the one who had attained to true and complete wisdom and\nconsequently to perfect virtue. Therefore the ideal of the wise man\nbecame the very center of the Stoic doctrine. He was thought to combine\nin himself all perfection, and as Seneca says, differs from God only by\nbeing mortal. As I have already observed, the early Stoics had fixed\nan absolute gulf between the perfect wise man and the unwise; like the\nCynics they had declared that virtue once attained could not be lost;\nbut the practical good sense of a later age modified these extreme\nviews and taught that there were degrees in virtue, and that the most\nthat the ordinary man could do was daily to advance and make progress\ntoward his goal. As Seneca says: \u201cI am not yet wise, nor shall I ever\nbe. Do not ask me to be equal to the best but rather to be better\nthan the base. This is enough for me\u2014to take away daily something\nfrom my faults and daily to reject my errors.\u201d[225] That man might\nattain to virtue, according to the Stoic, he must free himself from\nthe world and its influences, through the exercise of his will he must\nstrive to attain to freedom from all excess of feeling and passion.\nThe extremist said that he must raise himself to a position where he\nwas entirely free from passion, where he had attained to complete\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. The milder Stoics held the view that the wise man would not\nbe one who felt no passion or desire, but rather one in whom virtue\novermastered the passions. The mastery, whether complete or partial,\nall agreed was to be attained by the exercise of the will; therefore\nman must regard as wholly indifferent to him all things that are not\nwithin the control of that faculty. On this point Epictetus discourses\nmost interestingly.[226] He points out that the materials we employ in\nlife are indifferent to us, neither good nor bad; they are like the\ndice with which we play our game. But like the gamester we must try to\nmanage life dexterously; whatever happens we must say: \u201cExternals are\nnot within my power; choice is. Where then shall I seek good and evil?\nWhy, within, in what is my own.\u201d And then he continues, pointing out\nthat we must count nothing good or evil, profitable or hurtful, or of\nany concern to us, that is controlled by others. In tranquillity and\ncalm we must accept what life brings, concerned only with what actually\ndepends on the will of each one of us. We must act in life as we do in\na voyage: the individual can choose the pilot, the sailors, and the\nhour of his departure; after that he must meet quietly all that comes,\nfor he has done his part; and if a storm arise, he must face with\nindifference disaster or safety, for these matters are quite beyond\nthe control of his will. So sickness and health, abundance and need,\nhigh position or the loss of station are things which my will cannot\ncontrol. Therefore to me as a philosopher they are indifferent; I must\nhave no anxiety about them; they really are not my affair. But my\nthoughts and my acts are matters that I can control, and in them I must\nfind all my concern. The external circumstances, the acts of others,\ndo not touch me, but my own acts, my own relations, my own inner life\nare things to which I must give all of my attention. So the Stoic\nreasoned, holding that virtue was quite sufficient for happiness, and\nthat it made man master of his world. Thus we see that to the doctrine\nof virtue, which the Cynics had magnified, the Stoics had added the\nvitalizing principle of the operation of man\u2019s will, and thereby had\nmade the pursuit of wisdom, which to them was identical with virtue, a\npowerful means of moral and spiritual edification.\n\nBut when the Stoic discoursed of virtue and wisdom, what did he\nconceive the highest aim of man to be? \u201cTo live in accord with Nature,\u201d\nwas the answer which the followers of Zeno usually gave. By that they\nmeant that man must bring himself into accord with that Nature which\nrules all things; that he must make his will and reason agree with the\nuniversal will and reason of which in truth they are a part. Others\nsaid that one must live in harmony with himself. But as we shall\npresently see, their definition was essentially the same as that of\ntheir fellows, for to the Stoic man was in himself an epitome of the\ncosmos.\n\nIn their explanation of the universe the Stoics held to a materialism\nwhich they borrowed from the teachings of Heraclitus, who had\nmaintained that only matter had any existence whatever; therefore their\nsystem was in theory a materialistic monism, but with their monistic\nprinciple they combined an idea which in reality they had derived from\nAristotle, apparently without realizing the possible consequence to\ntheir view that matter alone exists. Although holding that everything\nis material, they recognized in all things the presence of an active\nand a passive principle, the active principle forming and directing,\nthe other being formed and directed, so that by the operation of the\nactive principle upon the passive all the phenomena of the world\ncome into being. The passive principle corresponded to Aristotle\u2019s\nmaterial, while the active principle included both his efficient\nand final causes. To their active principle the Stoics gave all the\ncharacteristics that Heraclitus had given to his \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, reason, or\nAnaxagoras to his \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, mind. In short they attributed to it all\nthe characteristics of reason and intelligence, so that in spite of\ntheir argument that the active principle was no less material than\nthe passive, that it was the element of fire or vapor or both, it was\ninevitable that in practice their philosophy should ultimately tend\ntoward a dualism and that the ancient conflict of matter and mind, of\nbody and soul, should have its place in their teaching. They thought\nthat the operative principle, fire, the divine reason, expresses\nitself in every part of the universe, that everything which exists\nis permeated by this divine spirit and directed by it. It is nothing\nless than the world-reason, God, which begets all things; so that\nthey called it \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, that is, the reason that contains\nwithin itself the germs of all things that are to be. Now since man\nis of course a part of the cosmos, the Stoic argued that in him the\nworld-reason naturally expresses itself; it is that which guides him,\nin fact it is his reason, the directing portion of his soul. And\nit is the possession of this soul, itself a part of the universal\nreason, which makes it possible for man to live in accord with Nature,\nfor he attains that aim whenever his soul is in agreement with the\nuniversal soul which is its source. In this way the Stoic, for all his\nmaterialism, emphasized the divine nature of man and the community of\nhuman reason with God.\n\nThe pantheistic character of this philosophy is now evident. The\nworld-reason, God, whatever the Stoic might call it, is all, embraces\nall within itself, and permeates all. This conception is in marked\ncontrast to the teachings of Aristotle and the later Platonists,\nwho conceived of God as transcendent, removed from the world about\nus. We have here the doctrine of the immanence of God, in whom all\nthings live and move and have their being, because the world-reason is\nthe principle on which all life and action directly depend. In this\ndoctrine of the immanence of God the Stoics brought together again the\nworlds of matter and of reason which Plato had separated; and in the\npantheistic character of this teaching they established a belief which\nlater fitted in with the general course of pagan thought under the\nRoman Empire, when philosophy and religion were at one in recognizing\nthe existence in the world of but a single divine principle, although\nall systems, including Stoicism, found a way to provide for the\nmultitude of gods which popular belief demanded.\n\nThe Stoic theology then is in technical language a materialistic\npantheism, and the world is only a mode of God. Such abstractions are\ndifficult to grasp and have no personal meaning for the common man.\nBut in practice the Stoic thought and spoke of God as a personality.\nNowhere is this feeling expressed with so much devotion as in\nCleanthes\u2019 Hymn to Zeus; the language is largely that of poetic\ntradition, but the thought is not that of common polytheism:\n\n   Most glorious of immortals, many named, powerful over all,\n   Zeus, thou author of all nature, guiding all with law,\n   Hail to thee. Thee \u2019tis right all mortals should address,\n   For from thee men derive their race, they who alone\n   Of all things mortal, living, creeping on the ground,\n   Have gift of speech. So will I hymn thee, and thy power forever sing.\n   For thee this entire cosmos, circling earth around,\n   Obeys where\u2019er thou leadest, and \u2019tis gladly ruled by thee.\n   Such servant hast thou in thy hands invincible,\n   The two-edged thunderbolt, ever living flame.\n   For by its strokes are all things in nature wrought;\n   With it thou dost direct the common law, which throughout all\n   Forever moves, with every gleam commingled, great and small.\n   \u2019Tis this hath made thee supreme king o\u2019er all;\n   For naught e\u2019er comes to pass on earth apart from thee, O God,\n   Nor in the sacred pole of ether above nor in the deep,\n   Save all the sin men do with folly cursed.[227]\n\nBut some of you have doubtless remembered that Fate (\u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7) plays a\nlarge part in Stoicism, that the Stoic writers describe it as the cause\nthat works through all things and brings all things to pass.[228] We\nmust therefore consider what the Stoic meant by Fate, how he explained\nthe existence of evil, and what provision he made for the freedom of\nthe will. Fate was identified with reason or with what we call natural\nlaw; and since the Stoic held that it does not operate in a mechanical\nway, but is directed by reason to the best possible ends, it followed\nthat Fate became identical with Providence (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1).[229] This world\nthen for the Stoic is the best of all possible worlds. Yet the question\nwill inevitably be asked as to why it is that evil can exist in such a\nworld, in which a particular Providence rules all things for the best.\nWe have already seen that Cleanthes held that God directed all things\nbut the deeds of the wicked:\n\n    Naught e\u2019er comes to pass on earth apart from thee, O God,\n    Nor in the sacred pole of ether above nor in the deep,\n    Save all the sin men do with folly cursed.\n\nFor the most part however the Stoics did not attempt to place evil\noutside the domain of Fate, but boldly maintained that the existence of\ngood is inconceivable without the existence of its opposite, evil. They\ntaught that many of the things which are ordinarily reckoned evils by\nmen were nothing of the sort; what we call physical evils, for example,\nwere for them not evils, because they could not affect the wise man,\nthe philosopher; or if they affected him, they could serve only as\ndiscipline, and therefore contribute to good ends. Man has within him\nthe possibility of good; he must also have the possibility of evil, and\ntherefore he must possess the freedom of choice without which goodness\nor evil has no moral value. Evil therefore like the good must be part\nof a world in which God rules all things to the best and wisest ends.\n\nStill there remains the difficulty that if man can determine his own\nchoice, how can we still speak of Fate as directing the world. The\nanswer is found in the nature of man, whose body is properly directed\nby his soul. This soul through experience develops reason, and the\nreasoning soul, as we have already seen, is a part of the universal\nreason, God. When the reason rules a man\u2019s impulses and directs his\nwill to follow the right course, it leads him into the path of freedom,\nfor freedom consists in the complete subjugation of the impulses to\nreason. The Stoic had only to appeal to common experience to show that\nif the body and its impulses prevail, man obviously is a slave; but if\nreason dominates he is free. As Epictetus taught: \u201cFreedom and slavery,\nthe first is the name of virtue, the other of vice, but both are the\neffects of choice. Those who do not have the power of choice are\ntouched by neither of these things. But the soul is accustomed to be\nmaster of the body, and the things of the body have properly nothing to\ndo with the will to choose; for no man is a slave if he is free in his\npower to choose.\u201d[230] The perfect philosopher, then, is wholly free,\nfor his every act is guided by reason, and therefore he lives perfectly\nin accord with Nature and himself. Freedom lies in choice, but the\nchoice once made, the consequences inevitably follow. So the freedom of\nthe individual was reconciled with the rule of a determining Fate.\n\nWe have thus far seen that Stoicism was a philosophy for the\nindividual; that it demanded that man, being a free agent, recognize\nhis high calling as a reasonable being and put himself by the exercise\nof his will into accord with Nature and himself, and so attain or at\nleast advance toward perfection. But in contrast to Cynicism Stoicism\ndid not demand that its sectaries should cut themselves off from\nsociety; on the contrary it recognized that man is normally a member\nof a social group. If in its doctrine of personal edification it was\nstrongly individualistic, it was no less cosmopolitan in its social\nphilosophy. Although the earlier Stoics had not taken part in political\nlife\u2014probably because of the conditions of the time,\u2014none had\nforbidden participation in public affairs, but on the contrary all\nfavored it. Moreover the Stoic could not limit his view to the small\npolitical unit or to the society contained therein; but inasmuch as\neach individual possesses a soul that is a part of the cosmic reason,\nall mankind is a community of reasoning beings, and every man is a\nbrother of every other.[231] Thus Stoicism gave a philosophic basis\nto the idea of the brotherhood of man. It taught also that external\ncircumstances, birth, wealth, high position, physical freedom or\nslavery, are indifferent matters; that the slave if a philosopher is\nthe equal of the philosophic emperor. Such doctrines as these gave\na new dignity to the individual and were destined to produce great\nsocial effects in the course of time: they resulted toward the close\nof the first century of our era in a new humanitarian spirit which\nbegan to care for the poor and the weak. Ultimately the Stoic Roman\njurists wrote into the great law-codes the doctrine of the brotherhood\nof man, distinguishing between natural law, according to which all\nmen are brothers on an equal footing, and human law which has brought\nabout distinctions. These law-codes saved the written doctrine for the\nlater centuries, and Christianity on its part absorbed much of Stoic\nteaching; through these two channels we have inherited many of the\nideas which are moving forces in modern democracy.\n\nThese matters touch us so closely that we may well pause for a moment\nand listen to some ancient witnesses. On the question whether a slave\ncould be said to confer benefits on his master, Seneca wrote that\nwhoever denied the possibility of this was ignorant of the principles\nof all human law: \u201cfor the question is as to the spirit of the one who\nconfers the benefit, not as to his position in life. Virtue is closed\nto no man; but she is open for all, admits all, invites all, both\nfreeborn and freedmen, slaves, kings, and exiles all alike. She does\nnot choose house or wealth; she is satisfied with the bare man and\nasks nothing more.\u201d[232] Again he points out that only the body can be\nenslaved; that no prison can hold the mind and keep it from consorting\nwith the divine.[233] He sums up: \u201cAll of us have the same origin, the\nsame source; no man is nobler than another save he who has a more\nupright character and one better fitted to honorable pursuits.\u201d[234]\nThe great jurists speak no less plainly than the philosopher. Julius\nPaulus, at the beginning of the third century of our era, laid down\nthe principle that nature has established between men a certain\nrelationship; this his contemporary Ulpian expressed more plainly\nin these words: \u201cBy natural law all men are equal.\u201d And Florentinus\nwrote: \u201cSlavery is a provision of the law of nations, by which one\nman, contrary to the law of nature, is subject to the domination of\nanother.\u201d[235]\n\nSuch doctrines as these naturally broke down allegiance to city and\nnation, and made men feel that they were citizens of the world. Seneca\ndistinguished two states, the one that into which a man is born; the\nother, the great and true commonwealth where dwell both gods and men,\nin which one looks not to this corner or to that, but measures its\nborders by the course of the sun.[236] In like language Musonius taught\nthat the wise man, i.e., the philosopher, believes himself to be a\ncitizen of the city of God, which consists of gods and men.[237] So the\nEmperor Marcus Aurelius reflected: \u201cTo me as Antoninus my city is Rome,\nbut as a man it is the universe.\u201d[238]\n\nWe may seem to have wandered somewhat from the religious aspect of\nStoicism, but the digression finds its justification not only in the\nfact that both the belief in the natural equality of men and the\ncosmopolitan character of Stoicism grew out of the doctrine that\neach man\u2019s reason is a part of the universal reason, but also in the\nsignificance these things had for that time and for ours.\n\nThe Stoic felt himself commissioned to preach and to turn men from\ntheir evil ways; he became a missionary to the world, exhorting men to\nthe pursuit of sobriety, patience, virtue, and to the imitation of God.\nSeneca recalled with new emphasis Plato\u2019s definition of man\u2019s duty:\n\u201cThe first point in the worship of the gods is to believe that the gods\nexist; second to render unto them their majesty; to render likewise\ntheir goodness without which there is no majesty; to know that the gods\npreside over the world, that they direct the universe by their power,\nprotect mankind, and sometimes have regard for individuals. The gods\nneither bring evil nor have it in themselves; but they chastise and\ncheck some men, they inflict penalties, sometimes they punish under\nthe guise of blessings. Would\u2019st thou propitiate the gods? Be thou\ngood thyself. He has worshipped them aright who has imitated them.\u201d\nAnd again: \u201cThe divine nature is not worshipped with the fat bodies\nof slain bulls, or with gold or silver votive offerings, or with\nmoney collected for the sacred treasury, but with a pious and upright\nwill.\u201d[239] Epictetus reviews the gifts of providence to men and asks:\n\u201cWhat words can praise the works of providence in us and set them\nforth according to their worth? If we have understanding, ought we to\ndo anything else, individually or all together, save sing hymns and\nbless the deity and tell of his benefits?... But since most of you have\nbecome blind, should there not be someone to fulfill this duty and on\nbehalf of all to sing the hymn to God? For what else can I do, a lame\nold man, but sing hymns to God? If I were a nightingale, I should do\nthe part of a nightingale; if I were a swan, I should do the part of a\nswan. But now I am a rational creature, and therefore must praise God.\nThis is my task. I will do it, nor will I leave my post, so long as I\nmay keep it; and I urge you to join in this same song.\u201d[240]\n\nUnder the Empire Stoicism lost the moderate interest in speculation\nwhich it had once had, and became almost exclusively a moral\nphilosophy. It was an age which called for moral resistance, when men\nwere obliged to steel themselves to endure oppression and disaster, to\n\u201cendure and refrain.\u201d This is the motto of the later Stoics, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5, by which they meant: \u201cRefrain from all that thy will\ncannot control; endure all that may assault thee; practise thyself in\nfollowing the guide of reason; resist all passions.\u201d This is almost the\nsum total of the discourses of Epictetus. The ancient conflict between\nbody and soul also came to the front once more, and Stoicism showed\nthe same ascetic tendency that is found in all the later philosophies.\nTo it Marcus Aurelius gives clearest expression. Reflecting on his own\nnature the Emperor quotes a saying of Epictetus: \u201cThou art a poor soul\nburdened with a corpse.\u201d[241] Again in self-exhortation he says: \u201c This\nthing I am is but flesh, breath, and the guiding reason. Farewell my\nbooks! strain after them no more. They are not for thee. As if already\nin the presence of death, despise thy flesh\u2014it is only foul blood and\nbones, a web and tissue of sinews and veins and arteries. Consider\nbreath too! What is it? A puff of wind never the same, but every moment\nexhaled and again inhaled. Last comes the guiding reason\u2014on that set\nall thy mind.\u201d[242]\n\nThe Emperor bids his books farewell. Philosophy was no longer a thing\nfor the closet and the scholar\u2019s study, but a matter of practical life\nin the market place and public square; the unlettered might pursue it\nas well as the learned, for it was the art of living\u2014an art which the\nnoblest pursued with all the enthusiasm of religious emotion. Although\nthe Stoic was most concerned with the present, and could offer no\ncontinued life for the individual soul beyond the time when all the\nuniverse should sink back into the original fire, his fervor could be\nthat of the seer with a vision of eternity.\n\nThe contributions which the Stoics made to the ethical and religious\nlife were large. They showed that there is a moral order in nature\nto which man as a part of nature must conform; by emphasizing the\ncommunity of reason between man and God, so that in Epictetus\u2019 phrase\nwe are but fragments of God,[243] they gave a religious sanction to\nduty toward God and man which had hitherto been lacking; and by the\nconclusions which they logically drew as to the brotherhood of man,\ndisregarding distinctions of birth, position, or race, and looking\nto character alone, they gave a great impulse to the improvement of\nmorals, to the spread of justice and kindliness in private relations,\nand to a genuine love for humanity. The stimulus which a belief in\npersonal immortality might have given them was replaced by a sense of\ndivine kinship and a challenge to the will to choose the nobler course\nunder the guide of reason.\n\nOn the theological side they established the doctrine of the immanence\nof God in opposition to the transcendental views of the Platonists and\nAristotelians. Since the whole cosmos is in their view animated by the\nuniversal reason, every part of it is alive. The heavenly bodies were\ntherefore naturally regarded as divine, gods to whom the names of the\ngreater gods of popular theology were conveniently given. But on the\nwhole the traditional gods were explained allegorically, being regarded\nas the names assigned to various manifestations of God in nature. So\nZeus was the heavens or the ether, Hera air, Poseidon the waters,\nDemeter earth, Hephaestus fire, Hades darkness, and so on. Now this\nphysical allegorizing tended to destroy all belief in the mythological\ndivinities more effectually perhaps than any other assault that had\nbeen made since the attacks began in the sixth century. But we must not\nthink that the Stoics disbelieved in the existence of gods. I have just\nspoken of their doctrine that the heavenly bodies are divine; and they\nheld that the spirits of the wisest and best survive the body as lesser\ndivinities, as daemons. All these, however, will cease to be when the\npresent age comes to an end and the cosmos sinks back into universal\nfire.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the religious philosophies which we have thus far considered\nthe reason and the will were the chief means by which security and\nhappiness here or hereafter could be obtained. These systems taught\nthat salvation was a matter of man\u2019s own effort, and within his\nown power. Yet in Marcus Aurelius, for example, we have again and\nagain clear evidence that the last great Stoic was conscious of the\ninsufficiency of man to save his own soul unaided, and the philosophies\nto which we are now to turn recognize man\u2019s weakness and make salvation\nan act of grace from God.\n\nAs we have remarked before, the last three centuries before our era\namong the Greeks were centuries in which their national life and\nculture decayed. Autocratic forms of government arose which cut men\noff from active participation in politics and turned their attention\nin upon themselves. There was a loss of creative power in literature,\nart, and speculative thought; and men were conscious of a failure of\nthe sense which their forefathers had had, that this life could give\nthem great satisfaction. These things, and the extremes of wealth\nand poverty, terror of the imperial power, the selfish greed and\nhopelessness of the mass of the people, all combined under the early\nEmpire to fill the minds of the thoughtful with sadness and pessimism.\nWe find these sentiments in every writer of the first two centuries\nof our era who deals with contemporary society. Seneca feels that the\nworld is lost and helpless; that life itself is a fatal gift compared\nwith which nothing is so deceitful and treacherous. Filled with ardour\nfor his philosophy and with confidence in the efficacy of its moral\nteachings, he nevertheless at times loses heart. This is likewise true\nof the rest. As we read the pages of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, in\nspite of the inspiring words of that halting slave who in Nicopolis\npreached high fortitude to his hearers and of the Emperor who in\ndistant camp among the Quadi on the banks of the Gran or in winter\nquarters at Carnuntum recounted his blessings and exhorted his own soul\nto endure, we have at times an inevitable sense of the hopelessness of\nthe struggle. Furthermore, as has been frequently pointed out, the last\ncenturies before our era had been marked by a feeling on the part of\nmany of a separation from God and by a longing in some way to bridge\nthe gulf between the human and the divine, to secure a revelation from\nheaven, and to attain to direct vision and knowledge of God. As the\nsatisfactions of life, which the earlier, freer centuries had given,\ngrew less, in weariness of spirit, conscious of his own weakness and\nlack of power to secure his soul\u2019s freedom and happiness, man turned\nfor help from outside himself. The reason and the will alone had\nfailed. God\u2019s grace was needed for salvation.\n\nThe conquests of Alexander had not only diffused Hellenic speech and\nthought over a wide area, but they had also opened the way by which\nthe nearer East could influence the western part of the ancient world.\nAlexandria in Egypt became the chief intellectual center; from it\nespecially spread intellectual movements to the remoter parts of the\nRoman world. As I hope to show in my next lecture, Greek culture became\nthe common property of all educated men. It was natural also that some\nof the philosophies cultivated at Alexandria should show the influence\nof Jewish thought, for this metropolis had been from its founding a\ncenter for Jews as well as Greeks.\n\nThe longing for tranquillity in this life, for a revelation of God,\nand for the assurance of personal salvation which could not find\nsatisfaction in Stoicism, Epicureanism, and the later Aristotelian\nschools, led to a revival of Pythagorean mysticism and of Platonism.\nThese elements, combined in more than one case with Jewish thought,\nwere the materials out of which the principal mystic schools developed\nat Alexandria. The three with which we are chiefly concerned are\nNeopythagoreanism, Judeo-Aexandrian philosophy, and Neoplatonism.\n\nThe Pythagorean school had ceased to have a separate existence by\nthe fourth century B.C., but the ideas which the school had\ncherished were not lost. In the last century before our era these\ndoctrines were revived, and in accordance with the syncretistic spirit\nof the age were combined with Platonic teachings into a philosophic, or\nas we may more truly say, a theosophic system. The first representative\nof this revival known to us by name is Nigidius Figulus, a friend\nand contemporary of Cicero. Its most famous leader was Apollonius of\nTyana in Cappadocia, who lived under Nero. By the third century a mass\nof marvellous legends had gathered about this Apollonius which is\npreserved in his life, written about 210 A.D. by Philostratus\nat the request of the Empress Julia Domna.\n\nThe extant evidence shows us clearly that by the second century\nB.C. the process had begun at Alexandria of reconciling Jewish\ntheology with Greek philosophy. The first, however, to combine the two\ninto a system, known to us as the Judeo-Aexandrian, was the learned\nPhilo, who was born about 25 B.C. He belonged to one of the\nmost prominent Jewish families; in 40 A.D., he was chosen to\nhead a delegation of Aexandrian Jews which was sent to the Emperor\nCaligula. His purpose in common with the other adherents of this school\nwas primarily religious, and he aimed at a better understanding of\nhis own religion rather than at building up a system of philosophic\nthought. To accomplish his purpose he took from the Hellenic schools\nwhatever seemed useful, without troubling himself overmuch about the\nlogical relation of the parts which he wove together. The movement\nactually developed a school which had a large historical significance.\n\nThe third philosophy is Neoplatonism, founded at Alexandria, according\nto tradition, by Ammonius Saccas at the beginning of the third century.\nAmmonius had been reared in the Christian faith, but on reaching\nmaturity returned to pagan philosophy. His instruction was given wholly\nby word of mouth. Of his numerous pupils the most famous were Origen,\nthe church father, and Plotinus. The latter and his pupil Porphyry were\nthe chief representatives of the school in the period we have now under\nconsideration.\n\nObviously in the time at our disposal we cannot consider in detail all\nthe several doctrines of these three schools, but we must focus our\nattention on certain elements which are of prime importance in the\npagan philosophy of the day and most significant because of their\nrelation to Christianity. Before we proceed to this, however, I must\nask you to remember that we are now dealing not with rigidly logical\nsystems, but with mystic philosophies, with theosophies. There is much\nin them, therefore, that we cannot hope to understand clearly, because\nthese philosophers themselves abandoned the path of reason alone and\nlet intuition and emotion guide them in their loftiest experiences.\n\nLet us first examine certain characteristics common to all these\nschools. They all combine large elements drawn from Platonism with\nborrowings from later philosophies, especially Stoicism; and, as I have\nalready indicated, Judeo-Alexandrianism shows the influence of Jewish\nthought. All hold to the dual nature of man, a view which first became\nof religious significance with the Orphics in the sixth century. Plato,\nyou will remember, emphasized the conflict of flesh and spirit, and we\nhave seen how the Stoics, for all their monistic theory, came finally\nto the same dualism. Closely connected with this view was the contempt\nfor the world of the senses which these schools show. This was due to a\ndevelopment of the Platonic doctrines of matter and of the descent of\nsouls into corporeal dwellings; these teachings in their turn led to a\nconfirmation of the belief that the ascetic life was the proper one for\nthe philosopher\u2014a doctrine which had been held in considerable degree\nby the Stoics and Cynics. In theology all maintained the transcendence\nof God, and postulated between God and this world intermediary powers,\nwhich work God\u2019s will and cause all the sensible phenomena with which\nwe are acquainted. Finally all believed in the possibility of a direct\nrevelation of God to man, when in a state of enthusiasm or ecstasy.\nThis belief in direct divine revelation, together with the ascetic\ntendencies of the several schools, led to the establishment of the\nideal of sanctity as that toward which the faithful sectary should\nstrive. Pythagoras was canonized by his later followers, Plato became\n\u201cthe divine\u201d; Apollonius of Tyana grew in tradition to be the model\nof the saint on earth. He was regarded as one filled with divine\ninspiration, a worker of miracles. He ate no flesh, but lived solely\non bread, fruits, and ordinary herbs; water was his only drink; he\npractised silence and neglected his person. The same description almost\nfits Plotinus, as made known to us by his biographer Porphyry. In all\nthe essential practices these pagan saints anticipated their later\nChristian counterparts.\n\nLet us look at the theology of these schools a little more closely.\nBut before we proceed, it is important to define clearly what we mean\nby the transcendence of God, for the term is often loosely used. A\ntranscendent god is one who is absolutely above the world and above\nman\u2019s knowledge, a god who is so far removed that man can have no\ndealings with him directly, nor can he deal directly with man or\nmake his works manifest to man, save through an intermediary. Such\nessentially was Aristotle\u2019s God, his First Cause. The opposite idea\nis that of the immanence of God, such as we have seen in the Stoic\nteachings, in which God is conceived of as existing in all things. Now\nit is evident that in any system of philosophy or theology which\nbelieves in a transcendent God, and yet regards the visible world,\nincluding man, as the creation of the divine, some provision must be\nmade for a being or beings, mediary between the transcendent God and\nthe world, which shall express God\u2019s will and make God intelligible\nto man. If such a being or beings do not exist to serve as mediators\nbetween the world and God, then man can have no knowledge of the divine\nwhatsoever, and God cannot express himself in the world. Now in Plato\u2019s\nphilosophy the transcendency of God was at least implicit, it was\nclearly defined in Aristotle\u2019s thought, and the idea certainly belonged\nto the Jewish-Alexandrian thought of the last two centuries before the\nbeginning of the Christian era. Philo sets forth the doctrine most\nplainly. According to him God is so far above all mortal things that he\nmust be defined in a negative way. All that we can say of him is that\nhe is pure being, incorporeal, invisible, without qualities, above all\nvirtue, and above all knowledge. We therefore cannot say that God is\ngood or beautiful, because he is above all beauty and goodness; he is\neternal, unchanging, existing in and for himself alone. His perfection\nis beyond our power to comprehend; our intellect cannot grasp his\nnature. All that man can know or say of God is that God _is_.[244] Yet\nnaturally Philo is not content with negative definitions, but does\nattempt to express in a more or less traditional fashion the perfection\nof God; he speaks of him as that being which includes all reality\nwithin himself, or as the only being of whom real existence can be\npredicated; again as the absolute happy and perfect being; or as the\noriginal of all beauty. He likewise pictures God as the source of all\nactivity, as the being to whom endless activity is as proper as it is\nfor fire to burn or snow to chill; God is therefore the cause of all\nthe activity in the world, as he is the supreme cause of all things.\n\nYet with his view of the transcendence of God, Philo could not say that\nGod is present in the world save in his acts; and these acts he does\nnot perform directly, for if God were to deal directly with the matter\nout of which the visible world is made, contact with that matter would\ndefile the divine perfection. The creation of the world, therefore,\nGod accomplished by incorporeal powers (\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), by ideas (\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9),\nwhich are his servants.[245] The chief of these is the supreme reason,\nthe word, the logos. In this logos all the ideas have their place,\nas the plan of a city has its place in the soul of its architect.\nThe logos stands midway between God and the created world; it is not\neternal as God is, or mortal as we, but occupies a middle position. The\nindebtedness of Philo to Plato is self-evident. Plato\u2019s absolute and\nPlato\u2019s ideas have been made mediary between the transcendent God and\nthe visible world. This term, logos, the word, had been familiar not\nonly to Greek philosophy from the time of Heraclitus but it had also a\nverbal parallel at least in certain Jewish expressions, \u201cthe wisdom of\nGod,\u201d \u201cthe word of God,\u201d which Philo interprets in terms of the logos.\n\nAccording to Philo the logos has a double r\u00f4le. Through the logos God\ncreated the world out of inert and formless matter, and continues to\nreveal himself through it to the world. The logos also serves as the\nhigh priest, the intercessor and advocate of the world with God.[246]\nLet me here note, however, that in Philo\u2019s thought the logos could not\ntake corporeal form; it could not become flesh and dwell among us,\nand therefore it was not possible that the logos should be identified\ncompletely with the idea of the Jewish Messiah.\n\nFollowing Plato and the Stoics Philo teaches that man\u2019s reason, his\nsoul, is a particle, so to speak, of the divine intelligence that has\nentered into the human body. The human spirit, therefore, is divine,\nbut man\u2019s body is mortal and sinful. Here then, as in most of the\nphilosophies which were influenced by Platonism, a discipline is\nnecessary to subdue the flesh and free the spirit: man must constantly\nexercise his choice in preferring the things of the spirit, for through\nthe gift of God man is free with power to choose the right or wrong.\nThe moral obligation of man and the path of his salvation is the same\nas we have seen in earlier Greek thought. To this end Philo lays much\nweight on practice and education as contributing to advance in virtue;\nhe is fired with a passionate longing for purity. In a notable passage\nhe speaks thus to his own soul: \u201cHaste thee, O my soul, to become God\u2019s\ndwelling place, pure, holy; to become strong instead of utterly weak,\npowerful instead of impotent, wise instead of foolish, most reasonable\ninstead of wandering.\u201d[247] Yet he goes beyond his predecessors in\nteaching that man is so possessed by sin that he can escape from the\nbondage only by divine help; that his own reason and his own will are\ninsufficient for the task. Knowledge and virtue are not acquired by\nunaided human effort, but are the gifts of God. Philo outdoes even\nthe Stoics in requiring man to free himself from the passions of the\nbody, and yet he points out that just because man is subject to these\npassions, because he is a sinner, he cannot unaided follow and imitate\nGod, or make himself God\u2019s holy temple. Man\u2019s goodness then is due to\nthe favor of God; salvation is an act of grace.\n\nThe end of man\u2019s effort and hope is to attain to knowledge of God and\nthereby to find supreme happiness. But man cannot reach this by his\nown will or intellect, for God is so far removed from the world that\nhe cannot be fully apprehended by one dwelling here, so that the gulf\nbetween man and God must be bridged. This is possible, Philo teaches,\nwhen the soul in ecstasy passes out of itself, beyond the sensuous\nworld, the realm of ideas and the logos, to be at one with God. This\nvision of God is the supreme blessing, accorded only to the most\nperfect and holy among men; in it the human soul finds not only its\nrest and full satisfaction, but its own consummation.[248]\n\nYou recognize at once that we have here philosophy fired with religious\nemotion, that in Philo\u2019s system at the end reason gives way before a\npassionate desire for revelation through union with God. Philosophy\nhas become theosophy. The ecstacy which we have hitherto seen, has\nbeen connected chiefly with the worship of Dionysus, in which it was\nstimulated by means which we find offensive. But this ecstasy is not\naroused by dance or music, or indeed by contemplation, but is attained\nin a purely passive condition when the soul is emptied of itself and\nbecomes one with the Absolute.\n\nThese same ideas\u2014the transcendence of God, the existence of mediary\npowers between God and the world, the ascetic life as a means of\ngrowth, the dependence of man on God\u2019s grace for his salvation, the\npossibility of the Beatific Vision\u2014all are common in varying degrees\nto all the mystic philosophies of the day. In the third century\nNeoplatonism became the most popular and influential. Through Origen\nand St. Augustine it passed into Christian theology. The real problem\nfor Neoplatonism, as for the other religious philosophies of this\ntime, was to set forth the way by which the soul of man could grasp\nthe Divine directly and find its happiness and complete satisfaction\nin perfect unity with him. We have just seen how Philo had conceived\nof God as wholly transcendent, and had established the logos as the\nmediator who furnishes the necessary connection between the eternal,\ntranscendent God and the created, temporal world. Plotinus outdid\nPhilo in that he removed his God one stage still farther away. His\ndefinition of God is necessarily similar to that of Philo, but he\nendeavors to give a notion of an Absolute more remote, if possible,\nthan that of his predecessors. God he says is neither reason itself\nnor can he be grasped by the use of reason, but is above all knowledge\nand reason.[249] We must conceive of him as absolute unity, as at once\npure creative activity, the first cause, the power on which the world\ndepends, and at the same time as the final cause toward which the world\nis tending. The acts of creation are constant; yet God does not create\nthe visible world directly, but as the sun without effort or loss to\nitself sends out its rays, so God out of the fullness of his perfection\nemanates Intelligence (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), in which are immanent the Ideas: these\nare the causes of all things which come into being. The second grade\nof emanation is that of the World-soul (\u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae), which pours itself out,\nso to speak, into the individual souls. The last stage of emanation is\nthat of Matter, the material which in itself has no characteristics of\nbeing. The sensible world is produced by the action of the Ideas on\nMatter, forming and shaping it through Intelligence.[250] You will note\nhere the four stages, God, Intelligence, Soul, and Matter, as compared\nwith Philo\u2019s three, God, the Logos, and Matter.\n\nYou may well ask at this point why these later philosophers with\ntheir desire to know God, should still lay so much emphasis on his\ntranscendence, apparently vying with one another in pushing the Divine\nbeyond the universe, which they still regarded as his creation. Now\nwe have already seen that Plato implied that his material principle\nwas imperfect and thereby the source of evil, and that his Absolute,\nthe supreme Idea, was separate from matter. In the period we are\nnow considering all schools which owed ultimate allegiance to Plato\nor the Pythagoreans held to a clearly defined dualistic view of the\nuniverse. Conscious that the visible, material world is imperfect and\nfull of evil, unstable and decaying, they argued that God cannot be\nimmanent in the world, for if he were, he would be subject to evil,\nimperfection, and change, whereas we must conceive him to be good,\nperfect, and unchanging unity. Therefore the motive which prompted all\nthese theologians was their desire to save the unity and perfection of\nGod by removing him from all possible contact with matter, to which\nsome like the Neoplatonists, following Plato, absolutely denied all\nthe attributes of being. And the doctrine of divine transcendence was\nthe more natural for Philo and all who had come under the influence of\nJewish thought, since the Old Testament constantly affirms the absolute\nexaltation and perfection of God. In like manner the doctrine of\nmediary powers was helped by the Jewish idea of the wisdom of God and\nthe popular post-exilic belief in angels.\n\nYet when the theologians had removed God beyond the confines of the\nworld, beyond all knowledge, they had still to deal with the passionate\nlonging for knowledge of God and for assurance of salvation which was\nstrong in large numbers of the uninstructed, as well as in the\nphilosophic \u00e9lite. This knowledge and assurance could only be supplied\nby a belief in the direct revelation of God to man. Such a belief was\ntraditional in the Old Testament; on the Greek side it was fostered by\nthe feeling that the great teachers Pythagoras and Plato were divinely\ninspired; and in the popular Oriental religions which we shall consider\nin a later lecture, divine revelation was a fundamental article of\nfaith. But let us return to Plotinus.\n\nThe second grade of emanation in the Neoplatonic system is the\nWorld-soul (\u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae),[251] which, though inferior to Intelligence (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2),\nis nevertheless divine and immaterial. It stands midway between\nIntelligence and Matter and is related to both. Within the World-soul,\nwhich is the highest of all souls, corresponding to Plato\u2019s idea of\nthe Good, are all individual souls.[252] These descend into matter and,\npervading bodies in all their parts, give them sensation, reason, and\nall their life. But even as the sunlight descending into darkness is\ndimmed or wholly lost, so by their descent and birth into corporeal\nforms souls are made to forget their divine origin. They wish to be\nindependent; like children who leave their parents and dwell apart from\nthem, the souls of men forget their own nature and their divine father;\nthey lose their freedom; they honor that which is not honorable, and\nso fall deeper into sin. The sinner therefore must be turned from his\nways, must be made to remember his divine race, to honor the things\nof the spirit, and to cease reverencing those things which are not\nthe soul\u2019s concern.[253] The soul\u2019s return is to be accomplished by an\nasceticism with which we are now familiar. This the leaders illustrated\nin their own lives. Porphyry tells us that his master remained\nunmarried, abstained from animal food, lived in the simplest fashion,\nand so despised his body that he seemed ashamed of its possession.[254]\nThe pupil laid even more stress on the subjugation of the flesh that\nthe soul might be free and return toward God. \u201cThe more we turn toward\nthat which is mortal,\u201d he says, \u201cthe more we unfit our minds for the\ninfinite grandeur, and the more we withdraw from attachment to the\nbody, in that same measure we approach the divine.\u201d[255] He taught that\nmen must regard their bodies as garments, which not only burden but\nactually defile them, and which they like athletes must lay aside\nthat naked and unclothed they may enter the stadium to contend in the\nOlympia of the soul.[256]\n\nPlotinus, however, held that men would not all rise above the plane of\nthe senses, but that many would remain caught by them, thinking that\nthe good is identical with pleasure and pain with evil; others are more\ncapable, he said, but they cannot turn their gaze upward, and so they\ndevote themselves to the virtues of the practical life. But there is a\nthird class of divine men of greater strength and keener insight, who\ncan see and follow the gleam from above, so that they rise beyond the\nmists of this world to their true and natural abode, like men returning\nto their native city after long wandering.[257]\n\nThe soul\u2019s final aim in its flight from evil Plotinus defines in\nPlato\u2019s words: it is likeness to God.[258] That is the sum of all\nvirtue. But the master distinguishes grades and degrees of virtue in\npractice. There are the social virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance,\nand justice, which serve to regulate the passions and help man to\nform right opinions. At this stage these cardinal virtues are related\nsolely to external objects, and serve primarily to better man in his\nmundane activities. Next come those virtues which purify the soul from\nthe pollution of the body, the activities which have nothing to do\nwith the body but belong wholly to the soul; they are concerned with\nthought and reason. But in the highest range the virtues of the lower\nstages are no longer related to external objects, but have to do with\nthe Intelligence (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) alone. This is the contemplative life, man\u2019s\nhighest activity, in which he becomes himself divine.[259]\n\nYet the Neoplatonist held that there is a still higher stage.\nWhen man\u2019s soul has mounted upward to Intelligence and lives the\ncontemplative life, the space between Intelligence and God is yet\nunbridged. This gulf can only be crossed when the soul in ecstasy,\nforgetful of all thought and of self, rises to complete knowledge and\nunion with the One.[260] This supreme privilege, according to Porphyry,\nwas vouchsafed his master four times in the years he was his pupil; and\nonce he too had seen the Beatific Vision.[261]\n\nIt is evident that Neoplatonism, the last stage of Greek philosophy,\nis no isolated or strange phenomenon. On its metaphysical side it is\nthe consummation and final synthesis of the whole course of Greek\nthought from the sixth century to its own day; likewise in ethics it\ncombined the views of its chief predecessors as its leaders understood\nthem; and finally in the doctrine of the soul\u2019s union with God it only\ncarried the mystical tendencies of previous centuries to their natural\nconclusion.\n\nIf time allowed, we might consider the way in which the Neoplatonists\nreconciled their theology with the polytheism and demonology of popular\nbelief, but that would lead us too far; indeed it would take us away\nfrom our own proper subject and from the main interest of the great\nleaders of this school. They were most concerned with finding out and\nshowing men the true path to the soul\u2019s peace and happiness, and we are\nchiefly interested in the history of their thought on this high theme.\nThey found their object not in the exercise of the reason or the will\nalone, but in mysticism.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[225] _De vita beata_, 17.\n\n[226] _Diss._, I, 1; II, 5, 13; and often.\n\n[227] Stob. _Ecl._ I, 1, 12 = SVF, I, 537.\n\n[228] Diog. La\u00ebrt. VII, 149 = SVF, I, 175.\n\n[229] Aetius, I, 27, 5 = SVF, I, 176; II, 974 ff.\n\n[230] _Gnomol._ Stobaei 31 Schenkl; cf. _Diss._ 4, 1 (_On Freedom_)\nentire.\n\n[231] Cf. Cic. _de Fin._ III, 64 mundum autem censent (Stoici) regi\nnumine deorum eumque esse quasi communem urbem et civitatem hominum et\ndeorum; et unumquemque nostrum eius mundi esse partem, ex quo illud\nnatura consequi ut communem utilitatem nostrae anteponamus. Sen. _Ep._\n95, 52 membra sumus corporis magni, etc.; cf. Epict. I, 3 (_How one\nshould proceed from the fact that God is the Father of all men to the\nconclusions therefrom_).\n\n[232] Sen. _de Ben._ 3, 18, 2.\n\n[233] _Ibid._ 20.\n\n[234] _Ibid._ 28.\n\n[235] _Dig._ I, 1, 4. 5, 4; XVII, 32.\n\n[236] _De otio_, 4, 1; cf. _Epist._ 68, 2.\n\n[237] Stob. _Flor._ 40, 9.\n\n[238] VI, 44; and often.\n\n[239] _Ep._ 95, 50; 115, 5.\n\n[240] _Diss._ I, 16, 15-21.\n\n[241] IV, 41.\n\n[242] II, 2.\n\n[243] _Diss._ I, 14, 6; II, 8, 11: \u03c3\u1f7a \u1f00\u03c0\u00f3\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f15\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f10\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[244] It is impossible to give here all the numerous references to\nPhilo\u2019s works on which these and the following statements depend. The\nmost important of Philo\u2019s works bearing on the nature of God are _de\nallegoriis legum, de somniis, de opificio mundi, de Cherubim, quod deus\nsit immutabilis_. For detailed references consult Zeller, _Phil. d.\nGriechen_, III, 2^4, pp. 400 ff.\n\n[245] _De special. legib._ I, 329; _de vita Mosis_, II, 127 ff.\n\n[246] _Quis rer. div. her._ 205 f.\n\n[247] _De somn._ I, 149. Wendland\u2019s transposition and choice of text\nare not followed here.\n\n[248] _De alleg. leg._ III, 29 ff.\n\n[249] Porph. _Vita Plot._ 23; Plot. _Enn._ V, 1; VI, 9, 3; and often.\n\n[250] _Enn._ IV, V, and VI.\n\n[251] Plot. _Enn._ V, 1 f.\n\n[252] _Enn._ IV, 3, 7, and 9.\n\n[253] _Enn._ V, 1, and often.\n\n[254] _Vita Plot._ 1 ff.\n\n[255] _Ad Marc._ 32.\n\n[256] _De abs._ I, 31.\n\n[257] _Enn._ V, 9, 1.\n\n[258] _Enn._ I, 2, 1.\n\n[259] _Enn._ I, 2, entire.\n\n[260] _Enn._ VI, 9, 11.\n\n[261] Porph. _Vita Plot._ 23.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nTHE VICTORY OF GREECE OVER ROME\n\n\nBy her victory at Zama in 202 B.C. Rome made her position as\nmistress of the western Mediterranean secure; and in the next century\nshe extended her political dominion over Greece. But the same period\nsaw captured Greece take her captor captive. Nor was this subjugation\nof the victor by the vanquished any sudden thing\u2014in fact it had begun\ncenturies earlier. The course of that conquest will be the main subject\nof the present lecture.\n\nThe story of the sale of the Sibylline Books to King Tarquin is\nfamiliar to all: how the Cumaean Sibyl brought to the King nine books\nof oracles; when he refused their purchase she went away and burned\nthree, and offered the remaining six at the price she had originally\ndemanded for the nine; upon his second refusal she burned three more,\nand then offered the last three on the original terms. Tradition says\nthat her confidence in human curiosity was justified, and that Tarquin,\nafter consultation with his seers, purchased the last three books.[262]\nAlthough we cannot today determine what historical truth lies behind\nthis na\u00efve story, the date of the reputed sale\u2014the sixth century\nbefore our era\u2014coincides with the first period of Greek influence at\nRome.\n\nBy their geographical position the early Romans were exposed to\ninfluences from two superior civilizations\u2014the Etruscan at the\nnorth, the Greek in southern Italy. The Etruscans had entered Italy\nprobably from the East at some time between the eleventh and the eighth\ncenturies B.C.; but before their coming they had advanced in\nculture beyond the Latins whose territories they touched on the Tiber.\nBy the sixth century certainly the Romans had come into close political\nand commercial relations with them, and indeed had already felt\ntheir power, for an Etruscan dynasty ruled at Rome. In spite of the\npatriotic efforts of Roman historians, we can now see that the Etruscan\ndomination lasted long after the traditional expulsion of the kings.\nFrom their northern neighbors the Romans took many political and social\ninstitutions as well as certain religious elements. The most important\nof the latter were the College of the Haruspices, the Great Games in\nthe Circus, the Triumph, and the Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno,\nand Minerva, which was established by the Tarquins to strengthen their\npolitical position.\n\nBut far greater was the influence of the Greeks, whose colonies, firmly\nestablished, rich and prosperous, fringed the whole southern part of\nthe Italian peninsula. From them the Romans got their alphabet, their\nweights and measures, and certain political institutions; but most\nimportant of all for our present interest, they received from them\nreligious influences which finally so overlaid the early Roman religion\nthat the Romans themselves could not well discover its original\nelements, and we are hardly in a better situation. Furthermore, if we\ncan believe that there is a kernel of historic truth in the story that\nKing Tarquin the Proud sent an embassy to consult the oracle at Delphi,\nRome was not wholly without connection with Greece proper in the sixth\ncentury before our era. We have then in Rome of the sixth and earlier\ncenturies an example of a state whose rude civilization was brought\ninto close and intensive contact with the higher civilizations about\nher. It was inevitable that the results should be rapid and profound.\n\nOf Roman religion before it was influenced by the Greeks and the\nEtruscans we have comparatively little knowledge. Our literary sources\nfor that period are late and fragmentary, and consist almost wholly of\nthe speculations of the learned. But we have preserved in fragmentary\nform some twenty stone calendars, dating from the early empire. These\ncalendars are not unlike that classic work known to us all, the Old\nFarmer\u2019s Almanack, in that they not only enumerate the days and the\nmonths, but also note religious festivals and great historic events.\nIn all of them two styles of letters are employed. The larger letters\nin part indicate one class of religious festivals; other festivals and\nhistorical notices are inscribed in letters of smaller size. Theodor\nMommsen was the first to see the meaning of this difference. He showed\nthat the religious festivals recorded in the larger letters represented\nthe earliest stage of Roman religion known to us.[263] Some forty-five\nfixed public festivals in the year\u2019s round are thus indicated. We\ncannot now discover the character of a number of these, and the\nfunctions of some of the gods who belonged to that earliest stage\nwere as obscure to the scholars of the time of Cicero as they are to\nus today. But we can determine the approximate date at which this\nearliest period of Roman religion closed, so to speak, for there is\nno mention in these entries of the triad of the Capitol\u2014Jupiter,\nJuno, and Minerva. As I have just said, tradition tells us that this\ngroup was introduced by the Tarquin dynasty in the first half of the\nsixth century before our era; so that the date that can be set for the\nclose of this first stage of Roman religion is somewhere about 600-550\nB.C.\n\nAn examination of the character of the earliest festivals shows the\nstage of civilization which had been attained by the Romans. Some\nthirteen or fourteen among those whose nature can be discovered had\nto do with agriculture, a few perhaps with grazing, a few others with\nwar; certain ones were connected with the household and the cult of\ndead ancestors, or were the occasions on which special efforts were\nmade to avert the baneful influences of the dead. The Romans then at\nthis stage were a simple agricultural people, busy with their efforts\nto get a living from the soil with the aid of their flocks and herds,\nand engaged in armed conflicts with the neighbors. Their religion\nhad little in it that showed the exercise of the imagination; it was\nconfined rather to those elements which a life rooted in the ground,\npossessing no broad outlook, required. The heavenly bodies, the sun,\nmoon, and stars, and the operations of nature were not deified; and the\nsocial relations, which later furnished many abstract divinities, as\nyet had no place among the divine powers. Only those things which had\nto do with the Roman\u2019s daily life in his own neighborhood received his\ndevotion.\n\nFurthermore in this earliest stage the gods were hardly conceived\nanthropomorphically. Varro says that for the first hundred and seventy\nyears of Roman history the Romans did not represent their gods by\nstatues. According to his chronology this brings us to the founding of\nthe Capitoline temple in which the Etruscan triad of Jupiter, Juno,\nand Minerva were worshipped. In general we may say that his statement\nis true, for the Romans were in the aniconic stage until they learned\nfrom their neighbors to represent their divinities by images in human\nform. In this primitive period the Roman thought of his gods not as\nindividuals but as powers (numina), resident in and associated with\ndepartments. This is an idea extremely difficult for us to grasp\nwith our sophisticated minds. To the early Roman Janus, for example,\nwas not the god of the door or the threshold, he was the door or the\nthreshold\u2014not simply resident in it, but not even distinguished from\nthe object itself. So Vesta was the fire on the hearth; Saturn was the\nsown grain; Ceres the growing grain; Flora the blossoming flower; Fons\nthe spring of water; and so on. The circle of such powers could never\nbe closed, as the number of departments in which divine powers might\nreside was indefinite. Yet even in this early stage certain numina were\nregarded as more prominent than others. At the head of the list stood\nJanus, the numen of the door or passage, whose importance was such that\nstill in later times his priest, the rex sacrorum, took precedence\nof all others, and prayers began with an appeal to him. Jupiter was\nthe god of the sky and of all the phenomena which seem to have their\norigin there; Juno the feminine counterpart of Jove; Mars the god of\nwar and protector of the land; Quirinus a similar divinity, belonging\noriginally perhaps to a separate settlement on the Quirinal Hill. The\nlist closed with Vesta, the goddess of the hearthfire, with whose\nname the ancient litanies always ended. These were the great gods of\nthe period before Greek influence came. Yet in this earliest time the\ndivinities had little, if any, personality in our sense of the word.\nThey were simply powers. Personalities and anthropomorphic forms they\nacquired under the influence of the Greeks, who had left the primitive\nstage many centuries behind them and had long represented their\ndivinities in human shape.\n\nThe religion of the early Romans was at once both simple and elaborate.\nThere were no temples in the later sense; no cult images of the gods.\nBut religion was thought to consist primarily in the employment of a\nscrupulous care in all dealings with the divine powers, that is to say\nthe ritual had to be exactly performed so that the numina might be\nforced, if need be, to perform the things the suppliant desired. Such a\nconcept naturally led to the development even in this earliest time of\nan elaborate ritual, on the exact performance of which all depended.\nThis character Roman religion maintained to the end. So fixed was the\nritual that the ancient litanies could not be changed. We have still\npreserved the songs of the Arval Brothers and of the Salii, which are\nof such primitive form that in the historical period they were largely\nunintelligible to those who sang them; yet no syllable of the venerable\nformulae might be varied. Furthermore religion was regarded as a state\naffair. It was by state action that certain gods had been recognized\nand given a kind of citizenship; no others therefore were of concern\nto the Romans unless the state adopted them also by formal decree. The\nstate likewise determined where and when worship should be carried on.\nThese legislative enactments, according to tradition, had followed the\nactual establishment of the state by Romulus; and in the historical\nperiod the establishment of the religious organization of a colony, for\nexample, was regularly subsequent to the political. In fact the Romans\nsaid that the earliest religious system had been established by King\nNuma, as the political system had been made by Romulus, for they had\na natural tendency to regard their institutions as the creations of\nindividuals. The historical significance of this belief for us is that\nthe \u201creligion of Numa\u201d marked the earliest stage of which the Romans\nwere conscious. It is that indicated in the calendars by the entries in\nlarge letters.\n\nThe Romans further thought of their religion as a contract between the\nstate and its gods. This view comes out clearly in the vows made at\nthe beginning of the year or of a campaign. At such seasons the king,\nand later the consuls or other officials, promised that if the divine\npowers should prosper them against their foes, and should grant them\nabundant harvests, increase of the crops and herds, then the state,\nwhen the gods had done their part, would in its turn pay the price\npromised in the form of votive gifts and sacrifices. Livy furnishes\nus many illustrations. For example, in a crisis during the struggle\nwith the Samnites the Roman leader prayed thus to the goddess of war:\n\u201cBellona, if thou wilt today grant us victory, then I promise thee a\ntemple.\u201d[264] Another is the vow made near the beginning of the Second\nPunic War: \u201cIf the state of the Roman People, the Quirites, shall be\npreserved, as I would have it preserved, for the next five years in\nthese wars\u2014the war which the Roman People is carrying on with the\nCarthaginians and the wars which they have with the Gauls who live this\nside the Alps,\u2014then the Roman People, the Quirites, will give a gift,\netc.\u201d; a long list of the offerings to be made follows.[265]\n\nIn this first period the religion of the family also was already fixed\nin the form which it retained to the end of antiquity. Vesta of the\nhearthfire, the Penates of the larder, the Lar of the farm, the Genius\nof the pater familias, were the divine powers which were worshipped in\nthe house. Rites were paid also to the Manes, the shades of the dead.\nAs within the home the head of the family naturally performed the\npriestly offices, so in the state during the regal period the king was\nchief priest. Advisers and assistants were given him, who with the\norganization of the republic acquired an independent position, so that\nthereafter the Pontifex Maximus and his associates, who formed the\nCollege of the Pontifices, were at the head of the state religion.\nAlthough it is impossible here to go into the details of the Roman\npriesthoods, it is important to note that these priestly offices were\nstate magistracies just as much as the offices of consul and praetor,\nand that with a few exceptions priestly office never debarred its\nholder from performing any other political function. The Roman state\nwas not burdened with sacerdotalism.\n\nNow this early religion of which I have been giving a brief summary\nwas the religion of a little city-state; it was suited to a small,\nunimaginative community. As such it remained formal and practical\u2014a\nreligion intended to secure material blessings; but it lacked all\nspiritual elements, and offered little or nothing to satisfy man\u2019s\nnatural hope for a happy future life. More than this, it contained\nlittle to ennoble daily life, save as it taught the lesson of duty and\nof fidelity towards the gods in the performance of contracts agreed\nupon. Yet it was not an uncomfortable religion for unreflective men,\nwinning their existence from the soil and gaining their wealth from\ncrops, their power through war. It did not, however, have in it the\npossibility of satisfying men\u2019s higher desires.\n\nUnder the influence of the Greeks and the Etruscans the Hellenic gods\nwere early introduced to Rome. The temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline,\nwhich the Tarquin kings apparently built to establish a new religious\ncenter associated with their own dynasty, housed Jupiter, Juno, and\nMinerva; but they were only the Greek gods Zeus, Hera, and Athena,\nwho had travelled to Rome by way of Etruria. In this temple the\ngods were represented in human form, and thereafter the process of\nanthropomorphizing and individualizing the divinities must have gone\non apace. Some gods came by migration and trade, like the Greek Castor\nand Pollux, who were introduced to Rome from the neighboring town of\nTusculum, and Hercules, whom Greek immigrants had established at Tibur.\nBut the greatest influence in introducing Greek gods was the Sibylline\nBooks. Whenever need pressed the state, these books were consulted that\nthey might indicate what new means should be employed to win divine\naid. We can name at least ten Greek divinities who were thus brought in\nbefore the outbreak of the Second Punic War. Apollo must have come at\nthe time of the acquisition of the Sibylline Books, or soon after, for\nthe Books were believed to contain his directions; we know that he had\na temple by 433 B.C. Under the name of the Italian divinity\nMercury, the Greek Hermes had received a shrine in 495; two years later\nthe triad Ceres, Liber, and Libera, an Italian disguise for Demeter,\nDionysus, and Kore, were domiciled near Mercury; and not long before\n399 B.C. the Greek Poseidon, with the name of Neptunus, was\nestablished near the city walls. Then there was apparently a pause for\nabout a century. But in 293 B.C. a serious plague ravaged the\ncity, so that the Sibylline Books were consulted. This time they were\nfound to say that relief was certain if the Greek god of healing,\nAesculapius, were brought to Rome. The divinity consented, and two\nyears later a temple was dedicated to him on the island in the Tiber\nwhere the hospital of San Bartolomeo today continues his kindly work.\nAgain in the crisis of the year 249 B.C., warned by many\nomens, the Romans obeyed the Books\u2019 injunction to establish on the\nCampus Martius a festival to the Greek Pluto and Persephone under the\nnames Dispater and Proserpina. This festival was to be renewed every\nsaeculum, and ultimately became the festival which Augustus celebrated\nwith such magnificence in 17 B.C. Finally in 238 B.C. the Greek\nAphrodite was adopted under the Italian name Flora. You will observe\nthat most of the Greek gods were identified with Roman or Italian\ndivinities long familiar to the Romans; but in every case sooner or\nlater the Greek god so completely overshadowed his Italian counterpart\nthat the Italian lost his identity in the Greek. Besides these\ndivinities which I have named the popular mind identified many others,\nand in the end a large part of the Greek pantheon crept into the Roman\nsystem. The temple for Jupiter and his associates, Juno and Minerva,\nhad been built on the Capitoline Hill in the Etruscan style and the\nthree gods were represented by Etruscan terra-cotta images; but the\nhomes of the Greek divinities were erected in the Greek style by Greek\narchitects, and the statues of the divinities were copies of statues in\nGreek cities. These set models for the representation of other gods. We\ncan readily understand how men\u2019s concepts of their gods were profoundly\ninfluenced by their artistic representations.\n\nThe introduction of these Greek gods is probably to be connected with\nthe political struggles of the two centuries between 500 and 300 B.C.\nAt the beginning of the Republic the patricians were the only ones who\nhad considerable political rights or who enjoyed the privileges of\nthe state religion, whereas the plebeians were struggling to secure\nadmission to both political and priestly offices; and during these\ntwo centuries the humbler class found religious satisfaction in the\nworship of these new gods, whose rites were public, open to all, and\nnot restricted to the privileged citizens, as were the rites of the\nolder divinities. In 367/6 B.C., the plebeians secured admission to the\nconsulate and to the College of Ten who had charge of the Sibylline\nBooks, and by the year 300 they had obtained a right to all important\npolitical offices, including practically all the priesthoods. A social\nsignificance also attached to the temples of these new gods: that of\nMercury, the god of trade, became the resort of the guild of merchants;\nthe temple of Minerva on the Aventine the center for the various guilds\nof craftsmen, including that of poets. Along with the Greek gods had\ncome also the Greek ritual. The Hellenization of Roman religion may be\nsaid to have been completed by the year 217 B.C. when, as ordered by\nthe Sibylline Books, at the great festival of the lectisternium twelve\ngods were represented as sharing a sacred meal with the people; these\ntwelve gods were Greek divinities, although all but Apollo were called\nby Roman names: Jupiter and Juno, Neptune and Minerva, Mars and Venus,\nApollo and Diana, Volcanus and Vesta, Mercury and Ceres.[266] While\nthe practical character of Roman religion still remained, the Romans\u2019\nconcept of the gods themselves, as well as much of the ritual, had been\nprofoundly altered.\n\nIn other fields as well Greece began her conquest of Rome before\nRome entered on her political subjugation of Greece. An educated\nyoung Greek, taken captive at the fall of Tarentum in the year 272\nB.C., became the teacher of his master\u2019s children at Rome;\nwhen set free, he continued his profession under the name of Livius\nAndronicus. There was, however, no Roman literature available, so that\nhe had to supply this lack by translating the Odyssey into the rude\nSaturnian verse current in the mouths of the Latins. In the year 240\nB.C. he presented a tragedy and a comedy adapted from Greek\noriginals, and thus through epic and dramatic poetry he became the\nfounder of Latin literature.\n\nWe must realize that at this time the only literature existing was the\nGreek, which in its unexampled history of six centuries and more had\noriginated and perfected almost every major literary form since known.\nIt was inevitable that Andronicus and his successors should turn to the\nGreek for their models and that the early drama should largely consist\nof adaptations, chiefly from the cosmopolitan comedy of Greece. That\nthis was possible and natural shows in part how common knowledge of\nthe Greek language and of Greek customs was already in Rome of the\nthird and second centuries before our era. Now these adapted plays,\nboth tragedies and comedies, had a share in breaking down the older\nreligious and social strictness, as we can easily see from the extant\ncomedies of Plautus and of Terence. These prove beyond question that\nthe later Greek drama, when adapted for Roman audiences, must have had\na considerable influence upon Roman religion and Roman society. The\ngods are intentionally held up to ridicule; they are represented as\nbeing more immoral and baser than common men; nor is the human society\nwhich is presented in these plays an edifying spectacle. Although we\nshould not attribute too great influence in such matters to the stage,\nthere is no possible question that the theatre had its effect then, as\nit has its influence now.\n\nAt the close of the third century before our era native epic poetry\nbegan under the influence naturally of the Homeric epics. Naevius,\nwho flourished during the Second Punic War, wrote a narrative poem,\nthe Bellum Punicum, in the native Saturnian measure\u2014a poem which\nenjoyed great success and continued to be read in Horace\u2019s day. In it\nhe popularized among the Romans a simple form of the legend of Rome\u2019s\nconnection with Troy, which is familiar to us from Virgil and Livy. His\nsuccessor in this field was Ennius, who died in 169 B.C. He\nboldly adopted the Greek hexameter for his poetic history of Rome, the\nAnnales, and moulded the Latin language to this measure so successfully\nthat thereafter this remained the metre for the Roman epic. From\nNaevius and Ennius through Virgil to the end of the fourth Christian\ncentury, when Claudian closed the long line of classical Latin poets,\nevery one drew his form, his imagery, and many of his incidents from\nthe Greek epics.\n\nThe splendid results of the Second Punic War, made the more glorious by\nthe long years of doubt and disaster, stirred the Romans to a desire to\nrecord their national history in prose form. But the only prose which\nhad been developed for this purpose was Greek; therefore the Roman\nhistorians wrote in that language for half a century until Cato the\nCensor set the fashion of writing in Latin prose. So we might go on\nand point out how in oratory, lyric poetry, elegy, and in almost every\nother form of literature the Greeks were the direct models for the\nRomans, as in a way they have been for the literatures of all peoples\nsince. Furthermore in poetry, history, and indeed in all classes of\nliterature, Greek myths and legends were adopted or worked over to fit\nnew conditions, tales and genealogies invented on Greek models, and\neverywhere the Greek gods were given Latin names and adapted to their\nnew environment. The disastrous result for the indigenous religion is\nself-evident.\n\nDuring the third and second centuries education came to mean first of\nall the study of the Greek language and literature. I have just spoken\nof some of the evidence we possess which shows that Greek was early\nwidely known among all classes at Rome. By the Second Punic War it\nbecame customary in well-to-do and noble families to employ a private\nteacher (grammaticus) within the house to give instruction in the\nGreek language and literature; in the middle of the second century\nB.C., with the growth of a wider interest in the formal study\nof Greek literature, schools arose in which the grammatici taught a\nconsiderable number of pupils together. The Greek authors studied were\nfirst of all Homer, and then the great tragedians; among the writers of\ncomedy Menander was the favorite; the fables of Aesop and lyric poetry\nalso found their place. Modelled on this Greek curriculum was the\nstudy of Latin literature\u2014Livius Andronicus, Ennius, with selections\nfrom the Roman writers of tragedy and comedy. In due season Virgil and\nHorace occupied the first rank. Furthermore not far from the beginning\nof the last century before our era Greek rhetoricians began formal\ninstruction at Rome, and they continued to hold the field against Latin\nrhetoricians throughout antiquity. We see therefore that all education\nof every grade from the time of the Second Punic War was either Greek\nor modelled directly on the Greek. By it the Latin tongue was refined\nand perfected; but more significant for us at the present moment is the\nfact that thereby Latin society was made familiar with Greek social,\nphilosophic, and religious ideas so far as they were represented in\nGreek literature.\n\nI have earlier said that the temples of the Greek gods at Rome were\nbuilt in Greek style by Greek architects, and that the images of the\ngods within were copies of famous Greek works of art. By these the\nRomans\u2019 ideas as to the personality of their divinities were fixed\nin the Greek concepts. As Rome extended her conquests over Greek\nlands, first in southern Italy and Sicily, and then in Greece proper,\nshe acquired as part of the spoils of war great treasures of Greek\nsculpture and painting; the number of statues and other works of\nart which were brought home by Memmius alone after the destruction\nof Corinth in 146 B.C. can hardly be estimated. A large\nnumber of them represented the gods, and intensified the process\nof Hellenization with which we are now concerned, for the statues\nand other representations of Cronos, Zeus, Hera, Ares, and Athena\nreadily represented Saturn, Jupiter, Juno, Mars, and Minerva. In cases\nwhere the similarity was not so close, the nearest Greek analogy was\nselected; if none was satisfactory, still the best was made of the\ncase, as when the Greek representations of the Dioscuri, Castor and\nPollux, came to do service for the Lares Praestites. Among the spoils\nof war were many Greek paintings, for which mythological scenes were\nfavorite subjects, and such frequently represented the baser, sensual\nside of traditional religion. The effect on the ignorant was to give\nthem a lower concept of divinity; the intellectual classes were\ndisgusted with the gods of such a sort and rejected them.\n\nBut the most potent influence that came from Greece to Rome was\nnaturally philosophy. We cannot fix any date for the introduction of\nGreek philosophic thought at Rome, yet it certainly became influential\nsoon after the close of the Second Punic War. We have already seen that\nlong before this time the Greek philosophic systems were highly\ndeveloped and had done much to drive the traditional gods from their\nhigh places. It was inevitable that these philosophies should have\na swift effect when they once became known to the newly Hellenized\nRoman society of the second century B.C. The poet Ennius,\nwho belonged to the first half of that century, was a man of strong\nreligious bent and moral convictions, and he heartily scorned the\nsuperstitious notions of his day. He had been already influenced by\nEpicurean scepticism with regard to the existence of the gods, and the\nfollowing words, spoken by Teucer in one of his tragedies, may well\nhave represented his own view: \u201cI have always said, and I shall always\nsay, that the gods of heaven exist, but I believe that they have no\ncare for what the race of man does. For if they had such care, it would\nbe well with the good and ill with the wicked; which is not the case\nnow.\u201d[267] It is the ancient difficulty of justifying the ways of God to\nmen. Ennius adopted the easy solution by denial, which he had already\nlearned from Epicureanism.\n\nThe same poet also translated and made known to the Romans the Sacred\nHistory of Euhemerus. This was a romantic tale written in the third\ncentury before our era in which the author told of an imaginary voyage\nwhich he had made from Arabia to the island Panchaea in the Indian\nOcean; there he found inscribed on a column the history of the supposed\ngods Uranus, Cronos, and Zeus, and learned that they and the other gods\nand heroes had been originally historical persons who were raised to\ntheir high position because of the services they had rendered mankind.\nThis Sacred History was an interesting example of the rationalizing\ntendency of the age that produced it; its effect upon the Roman, whose\nbelief in the traditional religion was already shaken, we can readily\nunderstand. Unquestionably Ennius\u2019 work and the plays of the comedians\nhastened the work of unbelief, although they were only two of many\nfactors that contributed to the ultimate result.\n\nThe first half of this same second century was also a time of religious\nunrest. Whatever may have been the reason, whether the common longing\nfor mystic assurance of safety and salvation had come naturally to\nthe front in the Roman and Italian mind, or whether the large number\nof Greeks, slaves, traders, and other members of the lower and\nimmigrant classes had moved the natives by mystic practices which\nthey had brought with them, certain it is that a considerable part\nof the Romans found no satisfaction for their deeper longings in the\ntraditional religion, and turned to a form of the Greek mysteries.[268]\nThe mysteries of Bacchus which had gradually made their way up the\npeninsula from the Greek cities of the south led to such excesses in\n186 B.C. that the Roman senate felt obliged to adopt stern measures;\nyet it is significant that it did not dare to forbid the celebration\nof these mysteries, but attempted only to control them. The Bacchic\nmysteries offered essentially the same religious satisfaction that the\ngreat mysteries at Eleusis did. Their influence at this time in Italy\nshows how conscious men had become of larger religious desires and how\nlittle the current forms of religion satisfied them. The conservatives\nin the state abhorred the Bacchic rites and would have no more part in\nthem than in philosophy, towards which they showed an amusing timidity.\nFive years after the regulation of the mysteries an attempt was made to\nintroduce at Rome some philosophic books which were generally regarded\nas subversive in their tendencies. The method of their introduction\nwas the same one which has been used many times for similar purposes.\nSome farmers plowing in their fields at the foot of the Janiculum found\ntwo stone chests or coffins with inscriptions upon them in both Latin\nand Greek, saying that in one King Numa Pompilius had been buried,\nand that in the other were the books of the sacred law established by\nhim. On opening the sarcophagi it was discovered that the body of the\nking had disappeared, but in the second chest were found two rolls of\nseven books each; one set was in Latin and treated of the pontifical\nlaw, the other, in Greek, dealt with Greek philosophy\u2014tradition said\nit was the philosophy of Pythagoras. After solemn deliberation by the\nofficials it was found that these books tended to destroy religion, and\na timid senate ordered them to be publicly burned.[269] Again about\n173 B.C., the senate required the Epicurean philosophers, Aldus and\nPhiliscus, to leave the state;[270] and once more in 161 it passed a\nvote banishing the Greek philosophers and rhetoricians.[271] In 156/5\nan embassy from Athens included the Peripatetic philosopher Critolaus,\nthe Academic Carneades, and the Stoic Diogenes, who during their stay\nat Rome exhibited their skill in disputation and their eloquence in\nspeeches before the people. The populace was charmed, but old fashioned\npeople were horrified at such exhibitions. Cato the Censor was so\nshocked that he moved in the senate that the Roman youth should not\nbe allowed to listen to such teachings.[272] But it was too late;\nphilosophers might be driven from the state, but philosophy had found a\nfoothold at Rome.\n\nThe two schools that made the strongest appeal to the Romans at the\nend of the Republic were Epicureanism and Stoicism. The former had\nwide influence until the first century of our era, chiefly because its\nagnosticism, or rather its denial of the existence of any future life,\noffered a refuge from the uncertainty which prevailed now that the\nold beliefs were broken up and men, harrassed by political disorders,\nhad not yet found an abiding place in any positive philosophy. The\nEpicureans did not deny the existence of gods, it is true, but they\ndeclared that the gods, if they existed, must dwell in some remote\nplace in the upper ether in eternal sunshine, undisturbed by any care\nfor mortals. They explained the universe by a resort to the atomistic\nmaterialism of Democritus, a philosopher of the late fifth century.\nTheir religious aim, if we may so define it, was to free men from the\nterror which their superstitious beliefs in the gods and in future\npunishment brought upon them. No writer sets this forth with greater\ngenius or with greater passion than Lucretius, the contemporary of\nCicero. His six books are devoted to an explanation of the universe\nand its phenomena, of the nature of man, and of the impossibility of\nimmortality. This splendid poem furnishes us the best proof that in\nthat day the mass of men still believed in immortality and longed for\nan assurance that their belief was not in vain.\n\nIn practical ethics the Epicureans did not differ much from the other\nsystems of their time. They taught that happiness must be found in the\navoidance of pain, and that inasmuch as some pleasures have painful\nresults they were to be rejected, as some pains were to be accepted,\nfor they were followed by pleasure; and they held that in self-control\nand choice lay the means by which man could attain to his goal, which\nwas \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1, complete repose of the mind. So the Epicurean tried to\nreach an end similar to that of the Stoic, although his premises were\nsomewhat different. Epicureanism made a natural appeal to men in a time\nlike the last century and a half of the Republic, when the ancient\nconfidence in the state religion was gone, when the simplicity of the\nearlier centuries had been replaced by a more elaborate method of\nliving, made possible through the rapid increase of wealth, and when in\nevery department of Roman life rapid changes were taking place.\n\nYet for various reasons Epicureanism gradually lost its hold. It may be\nthat the passivity which it engendered failed to make a lasting appeal\nto the Roman mind, or more probably other philosophies may have offered\nmore attractive means of attaining the same goal of happiness. At any\nrate, as I pointed out in an earlier lecture, the Roman temperament had\nan especial leaning towards Stoicism. I there spoke of the introduction\nof Stoicism at Rome by Panaetius during the second century B.C., and\nI sketched the tendencies of his system so far as popular religion\nwas concerned. It was probably Panaetius who was responsible for that\nthreefold theology which was set forth by the famous Scaevola, who\ndeclared that there were three classes of gods\u2014those of the poets,\nthose of the statesmen, and those of the philosophers. The mythical\ntheology of the poets, he said, was full of absurd and degrading\nstories unworthy of the attention of men; the religion of the state was\nnothing but a wise device, a useful convention adopted by statesmen as\nsuited to the necessities of the political organism; but the theology\nof the intelligent man, the philosopher, was alone true, yet naturally\nit was beyond the power of the common man to grasp. Such was the\nattitude of the most famous jurist and the head of the state religion\nat the beginning of the last century before our era.[273] A little\nlater Varro, the famous polyhistor, in writing of the gods and religion\nin his great Encyclopedia of Roman Antiquities, made a similar\ndistinction between theologies and showed throughout his treatment the\npantheistic influence of the Stoic philosophy. In his works he was the\nfirst fully to combine the mythological traditions with the philosophic\ndoctrines which the Romans had been learning for over a century.\n\nYet the Epicurean and the Stoic schools were not the only ones which\nnumbered adherents among the Romans. The representatives of the later\nAcademy, Philo of Larissa and Antiochus of Ascalon, had many pupils.\nCicero, Atticus, Brutus, and Varro had all heard the latter lecture at\nAthens. But the teachings of Plato had been greatly modified, inasmuch\nas these later Academicians had adopted the greater part of Stoicism\ninto their philosophy. Furthermore the sceptical tendency which is so\nclearly marked among the Sophists of the fifth century had gradually\ndeveloped during the fourth and third centuries into something like\na philosophic system. The Sceptics, however, can hardly be called a\nschool; they included those men in the various schools who doubted\nthe possibility of attaining to absolute knowledge. Among the Romans\nthey had close affinity with the tenets of the later Academicians on\nthe one hand and with Stoic doctrines on the other. But their keen\nconsciousness of the limitations of human knowledge made them also a\nfactor in producing a certain agnosticism among the educated. As a\nmatter of fact, the majority of the Romans were plain men, not given to\nspeculation, with a fondness for the concrete rather than the abstract.\nThey naturally selected from the various philosophies the elements which\nappealed to their practical sense, and which fortified them to meet the\nburdens and responsibilities of their daily life. On the whole Stoicism\ndid this service more than any other of the current systems, and in\nthe end, as we have already seen, Stoicism became the chief philosophy\nunder the early Empire. The Stoics\u2019 interest in grammar and logic also\nappealed to the legal character of the Roman mind; their system of\nduties, which were to be met unflinchingly, accorded with the Roman\ntemper, and their cosmopolitan view found favor with a people that were\nmasters of the greater part of the known world. But whatever the system\nof philosophy or selection of philosophic doctrines the Roman adopted,\nhe found therein no warrant for a belief in the state religion.\nPhilosophy could go no further than it did with Scaevola and Varro. The\ntraditional religion was abandoned by the intellectual Romans; they\nsubstituted for it either agnosticism, some form of moral philosophy,\nor a pantheistic concept of the world. In truth the conquest of Greece\nover Rome was complete: in literature, art, philosophy, and religion\ncaptured Greece had taken her captor captive; by the beginning of\nour era Greek thought had penetrated to all the great centers of the\nRoman Empire, and under that long peace, which with comparatively few\ninterruptions lasted for two centuries after the battle for Actium,\nphilosophy and many new religions, including Christianity, travelled\nthe great Roman roads from one end of the ancient world to the other.\n\nThe last century of the Republic from the time of the Gracchi to the\nbattle of Actium in 31 B.C. was not only a period of religious\nchange but also a time of political decay. The strength of the Republic\nwas so far gone that democratic government no longer existed, and the\nrule fell into the hands of political leaders. However much the Gracchi\nmay have been inspired by public spirit and high purpose, they set in\nmotion a train of events that was destined to result in the loss of\nall public liberty and in the foundation of the Empire. The history of\nthis last century must be read in the history of individuals\u2014Tiberius\nand Gaius Gracchus; Saturninus; Marius, Cinna, and Sulla; Pompey,\nCaesar, and Crassus; Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus. These were the\npolitical bosses who for good or ill led the state and combined for its\ncontrol. From the day that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in January 49\nto the battle of Actium in September 31 B.C., Italy and many\nother lands around the Mediterranean were harassed almost continuously\nby civil war. The Italian peninsula never fully recovered from the\ndisasters of this time. Even with the horrors of the European struggle\nbefore us, we in this land can hardly picture to ourselves either\nthese disasters or the joy with which the majority of the inhabitants\nof the Roman world hailed the pax Romana which the Emperor Augustus\nestablished. With peace came a revival of trade and a return of\nprosperity, to which eloquent witness is given by Virgil and Horace.\n\nThe founder of the Empire, Augustus, attempted to revive the old state\nreligion and to introduce certain modifications to the advantage of\nhis own position. In this he was aided by the sense of dissatisfaction\nwhich the preceding disasters had increased, and by that inherent\nbelief which always seems to persist, even in times of great religious\ndoubt, that somehow the prosperity of the state is inseparably\nconnected with the rites of religion. Under his direction temples\nwere rebuilt, old priesthoods reestablished, and the ancient ritual\nperformed with a magnificence that men had never before seen. He also\nmagnified the worship of Apollo and of Apollo\u2019s sister Diana; the\nformer god in fact he regarded as his patron divinity, and three years\nafter his victory at Actium he dedicated a magnificent temple to him\non the Palatine. But the new worship of Apollo did not attain to the\nsupreme position to which Augustus apparently wished to raise it, and\nhis efforts to recall the old state religion could not bring back men\u2019s\nbelief, although they could restore its practices. Indeed we must\nbear in mind that the traditional worship of the greater Roman gods\ncontinued to exist to the end of antiquity, in spite of the fact that\nit had lost its vitality centuries before its final downfall.\n\nOne important and permanent contribution to religion Augustus did\nmake: as early as the year 42 B.C., the masterful youth had\nforced an unwilling senate to declare Julius Caesar divine; thereby he\nestablished the worship of the deified emperors\u2014a cult which was to\nlast nearly four centuries. The significance for us of this worship\nof the emperor lies in the fact that now for the first time there was\nintroduced into the entire civilized world a common religion. From the\nremotest East to the farthest West, from Britain on the north to the\nedge of the Great Desert on the south, temples to the deified emperors\nhad been erected before a century of the Empire had passed, and these\ndid much to accustom men to the idea of one common worship for the\nwhole world.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus far we have been considering almost wholly those forces which\nwere operating in the Roman world first to obscure the original Roman\nreligion and finally to break down faith in that traditional religion\nwhich had resulted from the victory of the gods of Greece over those of\nRome. Yet the age of Augustus was far from being irreligious. Of the\ntruth of this statement Virgil alone would be sufficient witness if all\nothers were lacking, for the Aeneid owed its immediate popularity and\nits permanent high place, not only to the unmatched expression which it\ngave to Roman imperialism, but also to its religious tone, which the\npoet\u2019s contemporaries and their successors found partly in Virgil\u2019s\nexact knowledge of Roman ritual and felt still more in the sixth book\nof the Aeneid, where the current beliefs in a future life with rewards\nand punishments were set forth in combination with impressive prophecy\nafter the event; all was planned and combined in such a way as to make\na strong appeal to the Romans\u2019 national pride and religious sense\nalike. Moreover under the Empire positive elements tending to elevate\nreligious thought and to purify morals were not lacking. On many of\nthese we have already touched in our last lecture, for they were\nlargely to be found in philosophy, one of the greatest gifts which\nGreece gave to her conqueror. Even at the risk of repetition, we shall\nnow consider briefly some of these constructive forces.\n\nAlthough Epicureanism taught that man\u2019s highest good was pleasure,\nit was far from being a thoroughgoing hedonism, as I pointed out\na little while ago. On the contrary its founder taught that the\npleasures of the mind were superior to those of the body, and that the\ncardinal virtue of man was correct insight, that is to say, wisdom,\nvirtue, and justice; and that these three factors\u2014wisdom, virtue, and\njustice\u2014were necessary for a pleasant life.[274] Such doctrine as this\ndoes not properly make for religion, but it does contribute to the\nwelfare and comfort of society. Epicureanism was the most quietistic\nof the later philosophic schools and so was well adapted to the\nconditions of the later Republic and the early Empire. We have seen how\nPythagoreanism in its revival had something approaching the Christian\ncult of the Saints, and made sanctity an ideal of human life as well as\nan object of admiration. Platonism never lost its own religious fervor\nand missionary zeal, but had indeed communicated them to most of the\neclectic later schools. Yet of all the schools perhaps Stoicism made\nthe largest contribution directly to the moral and indirectly to the\nreligious life of the first two centuries of our era.\n\nThe Stoic, like the Cynic, his doctrinaire and less effective\nintellectual cousin, at this time conceived of his task as that of\na missionary to a lost world; he was a director of men\u2019s souls.\nSpeculation was by most regarded as unpractical and useless, save\nas it might help to elevate men\u2019s minds and so contribute to their\nmoral edification. Many of the aristocracy, whose wealth furnished\nonly a splendid cloak for the disorder of their souls within, had\nin their houses philosophers who served as confessors and private\nchaplains\u2014physicians to the soul. Such was Seneca, to whose real\nsignificance and merit we must not be blinded either by his own\nweakness or by the monstrosity of the emperor whose minister he was.\nHe was a spiritual director, a confessor, and a guide to many of the\naristocracy. His correspondence shows how he endeavored to build up his\nfriends in virtue and moral strength, not by theoretical speculation as\nto the nature of virtue, but by wise instructions as to the practice\nof a virtuous life. Epictetus on the other hand was more of a preacher\nto the masses. Arrian occasionally gives us the dramatic setting of\nhis master\u2019s discourses, as for example: \u201cWhen a man asked his advice\nas to the way in which he could persuade his brother to be no longer\nangry at him, Epictetus said,\u201d etc.[275] These words show that the text\nof Epictetus\u2019 sermons might often be furnished by the question of an\nindividual, but the sermons themselves make it clear that any one who\nwished might hear the teacher. Seneca and Epictetus are simply the\ntwo examples best known to us of the philosophic director and the\nmissionary, but it is clear that there were many of both classes. Their\nessential moral and religious teachings were in practical accord.\n\nWhat were some of the supports and satisfactions which Stoicism offered\nserious men in the disordered political and social world of the early\nEmpire? First of all, it laid stress on conduct and frankly proposed\nto give rules by which men could attain to the peace they sought.\nBoth Seneca and Epictetus inculcated daily self-examination, and this\npractice was not the habit of their school alone. The eclectic Sextius,\nwho belonged to the generation before Seneca, at the end of each day\nasked his soul: \u201cWhat fault of yours have you cured today? What vice\nresisted? In what way are you a better man?\u201d Seneca himself found the\nsame practice helpful; he would say to himself: \u201cIn that discussion\nyou spoke with too much warmth. Do not engage again with the ignorant,\nfor they who have never learned do not wish to learn.\u201d[276] Epictetus\nquoted from the \u201cGolden Words\u201d of Pythagoras and reminded his hearers\nthat the verses were not for recitation but for use: \u201cNever let sleep\ncome to thy languid eyes e\u2019er thou hast considered each act of the day.\n\u2018Where have I slipped?\u2019 \u2018What done, what failed to do?\u2019 Begin thus and\ngo through all; and then chide thyself for thy shameful acts, rejoice\nover thy good.\u201d[277] Such a searching of one\u2019s daily acts Epictetus\nregarded as an essential exercise to prepare and train a man to meet\nthe vicissitudes of life. In the discourse in which he quotes these\nPythagorean verses, he continues with the question: \u201cWhat is\nphilosophy?\u201d \u201cIs it not a preparation against things which may happen\nto a man?\u201d He argues that a man who throws away the patience which\nphilosophy teaches him is like an athlete who because of the blows he\nreceives wishes to withdraw from the pancratium\u2014still worse than he,\nfor the athlete may avoid his contest and escape the blows; but no man\ncan escape the buffetings of life. Therefore the preacher says that to\ngive up philosophy is to abandon the one resource against misfortune,\nthe only source of happiness and courage.\n\nThe pagan missionary no less than the Christian apostle to the Gentiles\nregarded life as a battle to be fought and a race to be run. Epictetus\noften compared human life to a warfare; he said that men were assigned\ntheir several places and duties in this world, just as in an army one\nman is obliged to stand watch, another to spy, and a third to fight,\neach doing his part in the place in which the great general, God, had\nset him,\u2014a figure which Socrates had used five centuries earlier in\nhis defence before his judges. In accord with this view of life as a\nbattle or an athletic contest, the philosophers laid much weight on\ntraining. Seneca and Epictetus both exhorted their pupils to exercise\nthemselves in the means whereby they could meet misfortune or be ready\nto perform any duty which the changes of life might bring them. The\nlatter had a discourse \u201cOn Exercise,\u201d which was apparently a favorite\ntheme for all Stoic preachers.[278] The purpose of this exercise was to\ntrain the individual in right abstentions and the proper use of his\ndesires, so that he would be always obedient to reason and do nothing\nout of season or place\u2014in short to make him an adept in living so that\nhe could manage his usual life with adroit uprightness and meet the\nsudden changes of fortune undismayed. In another discourse Epictetus\npointed out that the misfortunes of life were tests sent by God to\nprove the individual\u2019s fidelity in training; \u201cGod says to you, \u2018Give\nme proof if you have duly practised athletics, if you have eaten what\nyou should, if you have exercised, if you have obeyed the trainer.\u2019 And\nthen will you show yourself weak when the time for action comes? Now is\nthe time for a fever. Bear it well. Now the time for thirst. Endure thy\nthirst well.\u201d[279]\n\nIn my last lecture I spoke of the doctrine of constant advance in\nvirtue which these later moral teachers magnified. Stoicism had come\nto recognize the facts of human life and in practice had abandoned\nthe older doctrine of the sudden and complete perfection of man by\nphilosophy. Seneca\u2019s honest words I must quote again: \u201cI am not yet\nwise, nor shall I ever be. Do not ask me to be equal to the best but\nrather to be better than the base. This is enough for me\u2014to take away\ndaily something from my faults and daily to rebuke my errors. I have\nnot attained complete moral health, nor shall I ever attain it.\u201d[280] It\nis unnecessary to point out that such teaching as is given in these\nwords was far more tonic than the uncompromising doctrine of an earlier\nday, for progress in virtue each man could feel was within his\npower; sudden perfection he knew was beyond the strength of any man.\nFurthermore the philosophers gave detailed injunctions as to the ways\nin which one could further his moral progress, as for example when\nSeneca, following Epicurus, advised Lucilius to select some person of\nnoble character like a Cato, a Scipio, or a Laelius, and to imagine\nthat he was always present, watching and judging the novice\u2019s every\nact; then when he had advanced to the point where his self-respect\nwas sufficient to keep him from wrong-doing, he could dismiss his\nguardian.[281] But if Seneca recognized the limitations of human nature,\nhe still kept clearly in view the ultimate goal of man\u2019s effort\u2014that\nperfection of the individual which according to the Stoic was attained\nwhen his reason was harmoniously developed and had become supreme.[282]\nThen man was to be wholly independent, happy, and serene; his mind\nwould be like that of God.\n\nSelf-examination, self-training, daily advance in virtue, ultimate calm\nand peace\u2014these were the moral habits and the attainable goals which\nthe later Stoics tried to teach their age. Moreover the Stoic doctrine\nof the community between the divine and the human reason gave a dignity\nto man; cut off from activity in the political world he realized that\nhe was dwelling in a world in which God and men were the citizens,\nthat he shared in that divine polity, free in the freedom which his\nrelationship to God gave him. Between man and God for the Stoic there\nwas no gulf fixed; on the contrary as Seneca wrote his younger friend:\n\u201cGod is near you, with you, within you. This I say, Lucilius: a holy\nspirit sits within us, watcher of our good and evil deeds, and guardian\nover us. Even as we treat him, he treats us. No man is good without\nGod. Can any one rise superior to fortune save with God\u2019s help?\u201d[283]\nA nobler concept of the worship of the gods and of man\u2019s duty toward\nthem arose: not by the lighting of lamps, the giving of gifts, the\nslaying of bullocks, or visitations to the temples were the gods to be\nworshipped, but by a recognition of their true nature and goodness,\nby rendering to them again their perfect justice, and by ascribing\nto them constant praise.[284] In the contemplation of God alone and in\nloving obedience to his commands lay the means of freeing the mind from\nsorrow, fear, desire, envy, avarice, and every base thought, and of\nsecuring that peace which no Caesar but only God could give.[285]\n\nA belief in the goodness of God and the perfection of his works made\nthe Stoic naturally regard this world as the best of all possible\nworlds, and urge men to accommodate themselves to the natural order,\nin which he saw the perfect product of the supreme reason. He could\nnot think that the world was out of joint, but he believed that all\nwas perfect harmony for one who would set himself in tune with the\nuniverse. So Marcus Aurelius wrote: \u201cEverything is harmonious to me\nthat is harmonious to thee, O Universe; nothing is too early or too\nlate for me that is in due time for thee. Everything is fruit to me\nthat thy seasons bring, O Nature; from thee are all things, in thee are\nall things, to thee all things return. \u2018Beloved city of Cecrops,\u2019 sings\nthe poet: Shall I not say, \u2018O beloved city of God?\u2019\u201d[286] It is easy to\nunderstand from passages like this how stabilizing and how ennobling\nlater Stoicism was. To reverence God, to do nothing that God would not\napprove, to think ever of God, and to trust in the harmonious purpose\nof the universe was the Emperor\u2019s constant exhortation to himself. With\nthis purpose was associated a similar desire to help his fellowmen;\nand yet in spite of the Emperor\u2019s religious devotion and sympathetic\ninterest in humanity, in spite of the exaltation of spirit which\nappears in his Meditations, there is still a note of sadness which\nhad already been sounded by Seneca and Epictetus; there is a sense of\nthe vanity of all things which makes itself felt again and again as\nwe read his book. For all his belief in the harmony of this universe\nthe Emperor exhorts himself too much to make the best of a sad and\nwicked world. What Marcus Aurelius felt others had been feeling for\ngenerations. The passion for assurance of protection here and salvation\nhereafter, the longing for union with God, would not be quieted. The\nWest offered little satisfaction; the answers from the East will occupy\nour next lectures.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[262] Dionys. Hal. IV, 62.\n\n[263] See p. 370 f. for an example of such a calendar.\n\n[264] 296 B.C., Livy X, 19, 17.\n\n[265] Livy XXII, 10, 2 ff.\n\n[266] Livy XXII, 10, 9.\n\n[267] _Scen._ 316 ff., Vahlen.\n\n[268] Livy XXXIX, 8 ff.\n\n[269] Livy XL, 29; Plin. _N. H._ XIII, 84. ff.\n\n[270] Athen. XII, 547 A; Aelian _V. H._ IX, 12.\n\n[271] Suet. _de rhet._ 1; Aul. Gell. XV, 11, 1.\n\n[272] Plin. _N. H._ VII, 112; Plut. _C. M._ 22.\n\n[273] Augustin. _Civ. Dei_ IV, 27.\n\n[274] Epic., p. 72 Usener. Cf. p. 59, and frg. 506.\n\n[275] _Diss._ I, 15, 1.\n\n[276] Sen. _de Ira_ III, 36, 1-4.\n\n[277] Epict. _Diss._ III, 10, 2.\n\n[278] _Diss._ III, 12.\n\n[279] _Diss._ III, 10, 8.\n\n[280] _De vita beata_, 17.\n\n[281] _Epist._ 11, 8-10; 25, 5, 6.\n\n[282] _Epist._ 41, 8; 92, 2 f.; and often.\n\n[283] _Epist._ 41, 2.\n\n[284] Seneca _Epist._ 95, 47-50; 115, 5. Epict. _Diss._ I, 16.\n\n[285] Epict. _Diss._ II, 16, 45-47; III, 13, 9 ff.\n\n[286] IV, 23.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nORIENTAL RELIGIONS IN THE WESTERN HALF OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE\n\n\nIn our previous lectures we have had occasion more than once to refer\nto the effect of the conquests of Alexander in opening up the nearer\nEast to the European West, and in making easy the contact between\nGreeks and Orientals, especially those of Semitic and Persian stocks.\nGreece, Egypt, and western Asia were for a brief period united in one\ngreat empire; and although that political empire quickly broke into\nmany units, the sway of the Greek language and of Greek ideas was\npermanently extended over wide areas where they had not had potent\ninfluence before, and by this extension a door was opened for the\nentrance of oriental ideas into the West. No doubt the Macedonian\nconqueror simply accelerated a process which had been going on\nimperceptibly through the channels of trade and of war from prehistoric\ntimes. Now with regard to the question of oriental influence on the\nGreek world from the earliest period, there has been much extravagant\nstatement and conjecture: the Orphics, Pythagoras, Plato, and others\ntoo are said to have derived many of their ideas from the East. Such\ninaccuracies I wish to avoid. Indeed I will take this opportunity to\nstate that apart from certain cults which we shall presently consider\nI am unable to see any clear proof of direct and concrete eastern\ninfluence on Greek or Roman philosophic and religious thought until\nthe second century B.C., at the earliest; and that I believe\nthat the amount of such influence later\u2014up to the time when the Jewish\nand the Greek streams of thought united in Christian theology\u2014has\nbeen greatly overestimated. Nevertheless it is true that in certain\nplaces, especially at Alexandria in Egypt, the greatest intellectual\ncenter in the ancient world after 300 B.C., there was some\nmingling of Hellenic and Semitic thought. The translation of the\nsacred books of the Jews into Greek, which we know as the Septuagint,\nbegan as early as the third century, but this translation was made for\nHellenized Jews of the dispersion and had little interest for Greeks\nuntil the Christian period. But in the middle of the second century\nbefore our era a certain Aristobulus endeavored to reconcile Greek\nphilosophy, especially that of the Peripatetic School, with Jewish\nwisdom, and to show that the Greeks drew their philosophy from the\nMosaic laws and the prophets. The so-called Wisdom of Solomon also\nbetrays the influence of Hellenic thought on Jews at Alexandria; and we\nhave in an earlier lecture seen how the Greek and the Jew met in Philo.\nMoreover all the later Platonists, Pythagoreans, and similar sects were\nin some degree at least in accord with the Jewish thought of the time;\nand in general we know that the intellectual metropolis of the ancient\nworld showed a fusion of West and East in society and ideas such as was\nhardly found elsewhere.\n\nBut while this mingling of the Greek and the Jew was going on at\nAlexandria, a new power was rising in Italy, which, having secured\nthe mastery of the western half of the Mediterranean, turned its\nattention toward the East. Let us call to mind the position of Rome\nat the close of the Second Punic War in 202 B.C. She was\nmistress of practically the entire Italian peninsula from the Alps to\nthe Straits of Messina; by her two wars with Carthage she had gained\nSicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and a large part of Spain\u2014in short at the\nend of the third century before our era Rome was the dominant power in\nthe West. Within the next two centuries she was destined to take and\nin no small degree to Latinize all of modern Spain and Portugal, the\nwhole of France and Belgium, a part of Holland, the Rhine districts,\nSwitzerland, southern Germany, and Austria below the Danube; she was\nto extend her power over the greater part of the Balkan peninsula\nincluding Greece; and she was to become mistress of the most of Asia\nMinor, of Syria and Palestine, of Egypt, and of all northern Africa\nwith the exception of what is now Morocco. The whole civilized world,\nand many lands to which this name could hardly be applied, were brought\nunder her sway before the close of the first Christian century.\n\nIn their conquests of eastern lands Roman soldiers came directly into\ncontact with Asiatic, Syrian, and Egyptian forms of religion, so that\non their return to the West they brought with them some knowledge of\neastern gods. But the influence of oriental cults had begun before Rome\nentered on her military conquests; for a long time she had had\nmercantile and diplomatic relations with Asia Minor and Egypt. Trade\nindeed was one of the great channels through which gods no less than\ngoods moved from the East to the West. The Greeks of western Asia\nMinor, of Delos, of southern Italy and Sicily were the middlemen who\nassisted in these transfers. Furthermore, beginning with the second\npre-christian century, enormous numbers of slaves were brought from\nAsia Minor and the neighboring lands to Italy and the West. These\nslaves were of every degree from the most ignorant to the highly\ncultivated, but whatever their class they brought with them their\nown religions, which they practised in their captivity and thus made\nknown to their masters. At a later period, under the Empire, auxiliary\ntroops, enlisted in the eastern provinces, were stationed at many\npoints in the West. The remains of shrines and hundreds of inscriptions\nfound along the Danube and the Rhine, in remotest Britain, in Spain\nand Portugal, as well as in France and other lands, show that these\nauxiliary troops did much to introduce oriental gods to the areas in\nwhich they served. So traders, slaves, and soldiers became the great\nagents in transfer of those oriental religions, which in the first\nthree centuries of our era were spread over all the western part of the\nRoman Empire.\n\nYet the first oriental deity to be received at Rome was invited there\nby vote of the Senate. In one of the darkest hours of the Second Punic\nWar, in 205 B.C., the Sibylline Books declared that Hannibal\nwould be forced to leave Italy if the great Mother of the Gods could\nbe brought from Phrygia to Rome. King Attalus of Pergamum, a friend\nand ally of the Romans, readily gave up the meteoric stone which\nrepresented the goddess, and in 204 this was received with great\nceremony at Rome. Thirteen years later the divinity was installed in\nher permanent home on the Palatine, where the ruins of her temple may\nstill be seen. The character of her worship was wholly different from\nthat of any god hitherto known at Rome, and the citizens must have been\ngreatly shocked when they first beheld it; Phrygian priests dancing\nand mutilating themselves furnished an appalling contrast to the sober\nritual of the state. So offensive were these performances that no\nRoman was allowed to become a priest of the goddess until after the\nclose of the Republic. Only on April 4 did a state official\u2014the city\npraetor\u2014offer sacrifice in the temple of the goddess, and on this\nsame day sodalities formed among the aristocracy dined together in her\nhonor; in 194 plays were presented on her festal day, and three years\nlater with the dedication of her temple there were established in her\nhonor the Ludi Megalenses, which, however, did not differ essentially\nfrom similar festivals in honor of Roman gods. But the temple service\nwas restricted to the imported Phrygian priests, who were allowed on\ncertain days to dance through the streets to the sound of their wild\nmusic, singing hymns to the goddess, and taking up collections for the\nsupport of the worship. Under the Empire Roman citizens were admitted\nto the priestly offices. Yet from the first the goddess was held\nin high esteem, for the promise of the Sibylline Books had been\nfulfilled\u2014Hannibal had been forced to withdraw to Africa, and the\nRoman cause had triumphed with divine help.\n\nOther divinities came in what may be described as unofficial ways,\nthrough the agencies that I have already mentioned. For example, as\nearly as the third century before our era, the worship of the goddess\nIsis and her associates Serapis, Anubis, and the rest, spread from\nAlexandria into Sicily and southern Italy, as it had extended in the\nsame period to Delos and the other islands of the Aegean Sea, and to\nthe coast of Asia Minor. Before 105 B.C. a temple had been\nbuilt at Puteoli, the important seaport of that day on the Bay of\nNaples, which had close commercial relations with Delos and other ports\nin the East. The temple of Isis at Pompeii was erected at about the\nsame period. Within half a century a shrine of the goddess had been\nestablished on the very Capitol at Rome, where she maintained herself\nin spite of many efforts to dislodge her. This Egyptian cult had been\nintroduced by immigrant traders and slaves, but it soon spread to other\nclasses. About 38 A.D., a temple to the goddess was erected\non the Campus Martius not far from the Pantheon. There is today in\nfront of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva a little east of the\nPantheon an elephant carrying on his back a small obelisk at which he\ncasts an amusing look. That obelisk originally stood before the temple\nof Isis, which was the chief center of the Egyptian cult at Rome to the\nend of paganism.\n\nThe campaigns of Sulla and Pompey in Asia Minor had brought\nthe soldiers into contact with the worship of a Cappadocian\n\u201cMother-goddess,\u201d M\u00e2, to whom the Romans gave the Italian name of\nBellona. The cult of this divinity was apparently carried on privately\nat Rome during the last half-century of the Republic, but the goddess\ndid not receive official recognition before the third Christian century.\n\nIt was in the first century of our era, however, that a flood of\ndivinities came from the East to the West. Of these I can mention\nonly a few. From northern Syria slaves and traders brought the Syrian\ngoddess Atargatis, whom they made known as far as Britain under the\nname of Dea Syria. From many Syrian towns came the local Baalim, who\nwere regularly identified with Iupiter Optimus Maximus. So Adad, the\nconsort of Atargatis at Hierapolis in Syria, was known in the West; the\nBaal of Heliopolis, Baalbec, was worshipped as Iupiter Optimus Maximus\nHeliopolitanus, not only in Italy, but in the Balkan peninsula, along\nthe Danube and the Rhine, and in Gaul. The Syrian port Berytus, the\nmodern Beyrout, became apparently a center for the export, so to speak,\nof these oriental divinities. We have inscriptions which show that\nan association of Syrian merchants coming from this city was settled\nat Puteoli, where they formed a religious society, cultores Iovis\nHeliopolitani Berytenses, which carried on the worship of the Baal of\nHeliopolis at the end of the first and the beginning of the second\ncentury of our era. A dedication to the same god, from N\u00eemes in southern\nFrance, was set up by a retired centurion, who tells us that his\nhome was Beyrout; and likewise in the third century at Zellhausen\nnear the Rhine another centurion paid his devotions to the gods and\nwrote himself down as from the same place. From the little town of\nDoliche in Commagene, a district of northern Syria, soldiers carried\ntheir warlike god to the western borders of the Roman world; Damascus\nfurnished Iupiter Optimus Maximus Damascenus; and I might quote many\nother illustrations. More important, however, than these divinities was\nthe god Mithras, whose worship originated in Persia, but had long been\nestablished in Asia Minor. It was to become prominent in the West at\nthe close of the first Christian century.\n\nI have already said that these oriental gods were known over virtually\nall the western world. We naturally find the evidence for their worship\nmost abundant in the great centers of trade and in those districts\nwhere soldiers were quartered. In Italy the ports of Puteoli on the Bay\nof Naples and of Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber, together with the\ncapital, Rome, were the greatest centers. But the oriental cults were\nfound throughout the Italian peninsula. In the provinces of the Gauls\nand the Germanies we find two great areas\u2014the populous valleys of the\nRhone and the upper Garonne, and the Rhine valley. The chief centers,\nas we should expect, were for the most part the larger towns or army\nheadquarters: Marseilles, Arles, Orange, Die, Vaison, Vienne, N\u00eemes,\nNarbonne, and Bordeaux; Lyons, Tr\u00e8ves, Mayence, Heddernheim, and\nCologne. Occasionally a small town showed remarkable devotion to some\ncult, as did Lactoure in Aquitaine, where the Great Mother of the\nGods was especially popular in the latter third of the second and the\nfirst half of the third century of our era. In like fashion these\ncults flourished along the valley of the Danube and even in remote\nDacia, which included approximately modern Rumania and Transylvania;\ndedications are also found in the more important towns in Africa,\nSpain, and Britain, being most abundant in the last named province\nalong the line of Hadrian\u2019s wall.\n\nWith regard to the centuries during which these oriental religions\nflourished our evidence, aside from that for the Great Mother, shows\nclearly that some entered southern Italy in the second century B.C. or\neven earlier, and that they began at Rome about 100 B.C.; there they\nlasted to the very close of the fourth century of our era, almost a\nhundred years after the recognition of Christianity by Constantine. In\nthe provinces of the Roman Empire these cults did not become prominent\nuntil about 100 A.D., and they ceased before the close of the third\ncentury. When in 307 A.D. Diocletian, Galerius, and Licinius restored\na shrine of Mithras, \u201cthe protector of their empire,\u201d at Carnuntum on\nthe Danube, they were honoring a god whose potency in the European\nprovinces had ended more than a generation before.[287] The reasons for\nthe decay of these cults we shall consider later. But I should like\nyou now to observe that in Rome these religions flourished for a good\ncentury longer than they did in the western provinces. The explanation\nof this fact is to be found in that sharp conflict between paganism\nand Christianity which went on through the fourth century, when the\npagan party rallied its forces of every sort for a final defense\nagainst the advance of Christianity. This movement at Rome, which had\nslight influence elsewhere save perhaps in some of the largest cities,\nproduced a pagan revival which helped to maintain the adopted oriental\nreligions for over a century after they had lost all vitality in the\nprovinces.\n\nThe character of these oriental religions offers a marked contrast to\nthat of the Roman. In my last lecture I pointed out that this latter\nwas a formal, practical, bread-and-butter sort of religion, one that\nwas natural to an unimaginative agricultural people; it was a religion\nin which the worship of the gods consisted primarily in the exact\nperformance of ritual to secure practical blessings of a material kind.\nI further tried to show that this religion offered no satisfaction to\nman\u2019s deeper questionings, made slight appeal to religious emotion,\nand had little moral effect except in the emphasis which it laid on\nduty; we also saw that the forms of Greek religion, which were imported\ninto Italy, were serviceable chiefly in that they were cults in which\nall classes of citizens could share, and because they offered certain\naesthetic satisfactions; I likewise spoke of the way in which the\nGreco-Roman religion of the state fell into decay after the end of\nthe third century before our era, so that before Cicero\u2019s day the\nintellectual class had lost their belief in it. This did not mean,\nhowever, that men had lost their religious longing. Far from it. For\nthere is abundant proof that under the stimulus of Greek philosophy\nand mysticism, questionings as to the nature of man, his relation to\ndivinity, and his immortality became more earnest. To these questions\nthe Greco-Roman religion offered no answer.\n\nThe oriental gods, however, were of a very different sort from those\nof Greece and Rome: they required a spiritual devotion on the part of\ntheir devotees and they made strong appeals to the religious emotions.\nThese appeals were increased by the exotic character of these foreign\ncults, for it seems to be a characteristic of the human mind in time\nof special need or distress to seek some foreign source of help or\nrelief. Egypt and the East made a far greater appeal to the imagination\nat the close of the Roman Republic and in the early Empire than they\ndo even today. Furthermore many of these religions could claim the\nwarrant of great age: Isis and Osiris had been mighty in Egypt for\ntwo thousand years; the Great Mother of the Gods belonged to a class\nof Asiatic mother-goddesses of immemorial antiquity; and Mithras came\nfrom a period beyond the knowledge of the Roman world. Whenever records\nfailed, pious tradition supplied the need. The devotees formed closed\ncommunities, sacred brotherhoods, to which admission was obtained\nthrough rites of initiation. Their rituals were essentially mysteries,\nin which through emotional experiences and revelations the devout\ngained assurance of divine aid here and hereafter. Furthermore these\noriental religions had proselyting priests who recruited the number\nof devotees by their appeals, and each religion numbered among its\nfollowers considerable bodies of men who followed a certain holy\nlife\u2014they were known as sacrati, \u201cthe consecrated.\u201d There was, in\nfact, much in common between these oriental mysteries and the greater\nmysteries of Greece and the Orphic religion.\n\nThese oriental gods, moreover, were adaptable. They were sometimes\nidentified with familiar Greek and Roman divinities, in the same\nfashion as Greek gods had been given Italian names; but their\nadaptability went much further. Freed from all local restrictions, the\nOrientals could take on the characteristics and functions required by\ntheir new environment without losing their individualities, and their\nsystems could be easily modified and elevated to meet the needs and\ndemands of successive generations. Unmoral or even immoral when first\nbrought into the Greco-Roman world, a number of them adopted first the\ncurrent secular morality and eventually became strong moral agencies.\nFinally they all displayed a pantheistic tendency. We have already seen\nhow philosophy inclined from the first toward pantheism or monotheism;\nthat the general attitude which first belonged to the philosopher\nbecame finally common to large numbers of men, for the human mind\nnaturally tends to see resemblances and through them affinities,\nrather than their opposites. Therefore in religious thought men,\nacting consciously or unconsciously under the influence of philosophy\nand of this syncretistic tendency, now looked through the variety of\npopular polytheism and found unity in the divine; they did not deny the\nmultiplicity of gods, but they rather regarded each of the many gods as\na manifestation of the one divine principle in the world. So religion\nwas in agreement with Stoicism and the later mystic philosophies.\n\nThe devotees of the oriental gods generally adopted this syncretistic\nview, so that most, if not all, saw in their god the supreme\nall-embracing divinity whose divine nature was manifest in countless\nother gods. This belief is best expressed by Apuleius, who composed his\nfamous Metamorphoses in the middle of the second century of our era.\nAfter his hero Lucius had passed through many hardships and adventures,\nthe saving goddess Isis appeared in a vision and thus declared herself:\n\u201cLo, I am here, Lucius, moved by thy prayers, I, the parent of the\nuniverse, mistress of the elements, the primal offspring of the ages,\ngreatest of divinities, queen of the dead, first among the celestials,\nthe single form of gods and goddesses; I, who by my word rule the\nbright heights of heaven, the healthful breezes of the sea, the gloomy\nsilent shades below. To my divinity, one in itself, the entire world\ndoes reverence under many forms, with varied rites, and manifold names.\nHence it is that the primal Phrygians call me at Pessinus the Mother of\nthe Gods, hence the Athenians, who are sprung from the ground on which\nthey dwell, name me Cecropian Minerva, the wave-beat Cyprians Paphian\nVenus, the archer Cretans Dictynnan Diana, the Sicilians with their\ntriple speech Stygian Proserpina, the people of Eleusis ancient Ceres,\nothers Juno, others Bellona, some Hecate, again Rhamnusia; but the\nAethiopians on whom shine the growing rays of the sun at his birth, the\nArians, and the Egyptians, mighty in their ancient learning, worship me\nwith the proper rites and call me by my true name Queen Isis.\u201d[288]\n\nThis revelation by the goddess not only squares with the pantheism\nof philosophic thought and with the doctrine of emanations of the\ndivine, such as were believed in by the Neoplatonists, but it is also\nin harmony with the popular polytheism. At the beginning of the second\ncentury of our era the genial Plutarch first stated a philosophy of a\nuniversal syncretistic religion: \u201cNot different gods among different\npeoples\u2014gods of Barbarians, of Greeks, of the South, or of the North;\nbut even as sun and moon, heaven and earth and sea are common to all,\nyet have different names among different peoples, so there is one\nIntelligence which rules in the world, one Providence which directs it;\nthe same powers act everywhere. Honors, names, and symbols vary.\u201d[289]\nThis statement represents the attitude of all the more enlightened\nclasses after the beginning of the second century. A pantheism, which\nmade abundant provision for a subordinate polytheism, was the dominant\nbelief. In fact Greco-Roman paganism ended in such a pantheism, in\nwhich the sun was the symbol of the supreme and all-embracing divinity.\n\nAlthough many, if not most, of these eastern religions were probably\nmysteries, requiring that their devotees should undergo certain\ninitiatory rites before being admitted to full participation in the\nsacred service, we shall confine ourselves to sure ground and shall\nconsider briefly the mysteries of Isis, of Mithras, and of the Great\nMother of the Gods\u2014especially those of Isis, because Apuleius, from\nwhose work I quoted a moment ago, has left us a rather full account of\nthe initiation of his hero Lucius, whose experiences in this part of\nthe Metamorphoses are apparently the author\u2019s own.\n\nIsis and Osiris were ancient gods whose worship had been wide spread in\nEgypt from very early times; they had been carried by Egyptian traders\nto some other parts of the Mediterranean world before the conquests\nof Alexander. But the form of the Isiac religion which ultimately\nspread over the Greco-Roman world was a conscious mingling of Egyptian\nand Hellenic elements. The Ptolemies naturally desired to unite the\nGreeks and Egyptians under their rule, and Ptolemy Soter (306-285\nB.C.), the first of the line, according to Plutarch, employed\nManetho, a priest at Heliopolis in Egypt, and Timotheus, one of the\nsacred family of the Eumolpidae in Eleusis, to work out a modified\nreligion of Isis, with whom was now associated a new divinity, Serapis,\nsaid to have been originally Hades of Sinope, a Greek colony on the\nsouth shore of the Black Sea. Thus Greek elements were grafted on the\nEgyptian stock, Serapis being identified with Osiris. The ancient\nforms apparently were largely retained, and the priesthood remained\nEgyptian; but Greek became the common language for the ritual, while\nGreek artists made statues of Isis and her consort, and Greek poets\nsang the goddess\u2019s praise. Thus the spread of this composite religion\nwas rendered easy, especially as its mysteries claimed to give that\nassurance of salvation for which men longed.\n\nThe mysteries were based on the story of Osiris, the brother and\nhusband of Isis. According to the tale Set, or Typhon, killed Osiris,\nbut the body was discovered by Isis. However while Isis was visiting\nher son Horus, Set again gained possession of the body, tore it in\npieces, and scattered its fragments far and wide. But these Isis once\nmore found and buried, and now Osiris lives again and reigns in the\nlower world, and also in heaven, as the sun; that is, Osiris-Serapis\nis lord of life and death. The story was early brought into relation\nwith the Egyptian doctrine of immortality. It is another myth of a god\nwho dies and lives again, whose rebirth, like that of Dionysus, Attis,\nand Adonis, becomes the warrant of man\u2019s future existence. The story\nwas early acted as a kind of passion play at Abydos; this element was\nkept in the Ptolemaic creation, so that in Rome, at least beginning\nwith the reigns of Caligula and of Claudius, Isis\u2019 hunt for her\nmurdered consort, her mourning for him, and her joy over the discovery\nof his body and over his revival were experienced again yearly by\nher priests during the days from October 28 to November 3. The final\njoy of the participants in this sacred season was indicated by the\nname, _Hilaria_, given to the last day. The Empire also knew a spring\nfestival of the goddess as ruler of the sea and protectress of sailors.\n\nThere were three grades of initiation into the Isiac mysteries. The\nfirst was that of Isis, the second of Osiris-Serapis, the third led\nto the priesthood. In Apuleius\u2019 story his hero Lucius had through\nover-curious tampering with a magic unguent been changed into the\nshape of an ass. In this form he suffered various adventures which\nfill the greater part of the extraordinary work; but at last, through\nthe favor of the goddess, he was restored to his human form, and in a\nvision was commanded to devote himself to the divine service. Although\nmost eager to be initiated, he was informed that he must wait until the\ngoddess should indicate her willingness to receive him. Finally another\nvision told him that the happy day had arrived. At dawn the priest met\nhim and conducted him to the temple, where the matin service of opening\nthe shrine was solemnly performed. Then he told Lucius that he must\nprovide certain things before the initiation took place\u2014evidently\ngifts to the temple and the priests and something in the nature of a\nfee. After these had been secured, Lucius was taken to a public bath\nnearby, where after prayer the priest sprinkled him with holy water and\nduly purified him. Then Lucius was led back to the temple, set at the\nfeet of the goddess, and secretly given many instructions \u201ctoo sacred\nfor utterance\u201d; openly he was charged to abstain for ten consecutive\ndays from all pleasures of the table, to eat no animal food, and to\ndrink no wine.\n\nAfter the ten days of preparation had been reverently observed, toward\nnightfall great numbers of the initiates assembled bringing gifts to\nthe neophyte. When the uninitiate had been excluded from the temple\narea, a fresh robe was placed about Lucius and he was led into the\nholiest part of the shrine. What there took place he might not tell;\nonly this much he could say: \u201cI approached the bounds of death. I trod\nthe threshold of Proserpina. I was carried through all the elements\nand returned again to the upper air. At dead of night I saw the sun\nall glowing with a brilliant light. The gods of heaven and of hell I\napproached in very person and worshipped face to face.\u201d[290]\n\nOur imagination may busy itself as much as it will with trying to\nconceive the means which were employed to produce this effect; it is\nmost probable that a hypnotic condition was induced in the neophyte\nand that in this state he was made to see the proper visions. But\nthat must remain uncertain. This, however, is clear: the initiate,\nthrough a series of emotional experiences, was inspired with the belief\nthat he had seen a divine vision. Like the seer in the Apocalypse,\nhe knew that there was no night in the final abode of those who had\nbeen consecrated. By passing through the elements he had acquired a\nknowledge of holy things, which no uninitiated could possibly gain: he\nhad been given assurance that he was to be ever after under the divine\nprotection\u2014in fact he had attained the certainty of salvation.\n\nBut let us follow Apuleius\u2019 hero through his later experiences. The\nmorning after his secret initiation Lucius was clothed in twelve sacred\narticles of dress and placed on a wooden dais in the middle of the\nshrine before the statue of the goddess; over him was thrown a linen\ngarment, richly embroidered in various colors with marvellous animals,\nwith Indian dragons and hyperborean gryphons. In his right hand was\nput a lighted torch, while on his head was placed a garland of palm\nleaves, which stood out like the rays of the sun. Then the curtains\nwere drawn back and the neophyte was displayed to the assembled people.\nThe meaning of this ceremony also is evident: by initiation Lucius had\nbecome one with the god, and therefore this exhibition of him is the\nepiphany of the initiate as the Sun God. The last is clearly indicated\nby the garland of palm leaves which represented the rays of the sun.\nThe meaning of the dress is obscure to us, but naturally it was\neffective in the impression which it made on the wearer and on those\nwho viewed him. After this epiphany certain minor rites followed on the\nnext day, completing the initiation of Lucius into the first degree,\nthat of Isis.\n\nAfter continuing for some days enjoying the inexpressible bliss\nafforded him by the sight of the goddess and receiving the blessings\nwhich her power bestowed, Lucius set out from Corinth for Rome in\nobedience to a vision which the goddess had granted him. There, when a\nyear had rolled round, he was divinely warned that he was to advance\nto the second degree, that of the invincible Osiris; and shortly\nafter this he was ordered in like manner to take the highest degree\nof initiation; henceforth he was a priest and an official in the\nsacred association. For the second and third degrees the same days of\npreparation were required as for the first, and like ceremonies were\nperformed. When the final initiation had been undergone, Lucius was\nmarked by a shaven head, and apparently also by a sign branded on his\nforehead, as one who had consecrated his life to Isis.[291]\n\nThis is a brief summary of the fullest account which we possess of\nan initiation into any of these oriental mysteries. We see from it\nnot only how the initiate was given the satisfaction of feeling that\nhe had seen divinity face to face\u2014a vision by which he obtained a\nforetaste of the final knowledge of god and received assurance of his\nown salvation; but also how his religious life was constantly fed and\nsupported by daily religious services, by matins and vespers in the\ntemple. In these his emotions were stimulated and his consecration\nrenewed by a ritual made impressive through every means which an\nimmemorial history had sanctified and by every suggestion which an\nelaborate symbolism could give. He realized that he had become a member\nof a body set apart from the rest of the world. The members of this\nholy company were called \u201cthe consecrated ones,\u201d sacrati. They had been\nborn again indeed through initiation into the Isiac life. The term\nreborn, renatus, is used frequently of the initiates, the day of whose\ninitiation was often referred to and celebrated as their birthday.\n\nMore widely spread and more powerful than the religion of Isis was the\nreligion of Mithras. Into the details of its early history we may not\nnow go, but we must limit ourselves to a few points only. Mithraism\nhad its origin in Persia, yet it was greatly influenced by the ancient\ntheology of the Chaldeans and by Babylonian astrology, as well as\nlater by the more barbarous religions of Asia Minor, whither it was\ncarried by Persian colonists during the last three centuries before\nthe Christian era. The Romans first came into contact with it during\nPompey\u2019s campaign against the pirates of Cilicia in 67 B.C.,\nbut the soldiers seem not to have been greatly impressed at that time,\nfor it was about a hundred and fifty years later that Mithraism began\nto be influential in the West. Soldiers, traders, and slaves all aided\nin its spread. For the most part it followed in the steps of the Syrian\ngods, with whom it was closely associated. Along the borders of the\nRoman Empire, at the military stations on the Danube, on the Rhine,\nand by Hadrian\u2019s Wall in Britain inscriptions and ruined chapels still\nattest the popularity of the cult; there are few Roman military centers\nin Europe, outside of Greece, or in the African provinces, which have\nnot given evidence of its existence. In the ports of Italy, Puteoli and\nOstia, in Rome, and in all the chief cities of the West, traders and\nslaves introduced the Persian religion; and the cult attracted many\nRoman citizens; it found favor with the imperial house, especially from\nCommodus to Diocletian. In fact during the second and third centuries\nChristianity found in Mithraism its chief rival.\n\nMithras himself was an extremely ancient divinity known to the\nancestors of both the Iranian and Indian peoples. In early\nZoroastrianism he had no place, but later appeared as one of the\ninferior divinities. Under the manifold influences to which Persian\nMazdaism was exposed, the position of Mithras gradually rose in\nimportance. The details of the theology at the time the religion became\nknown to the Romans cannot be determined, but it seems evident that\nthe main features were these: the Mazdaists conceived of the world as\na battleground in which the powers of light and of righteousness\nwere ever fighting against the powers of darkness and of evil; at the\nhead of the powers of light was Ahura Mazda, Oromasdes, or, to use\nthe form more familiar to us, Ormuzd; opposed to him was Ahriman, the\narchfiend and adversary, lord of the world of darkness, who with his\ndemons was thought to strive continually to spread evil in the world;\nmidway was Mithras whose function was to help mankind and to hasten the\ndestruction of wickedness. So far as we can judge from the sculptured\nmonuments, Mithras in the sacred myths was not identified with the sun,\nyet it is clear that he was regarded by the Roman devotees as the chief\ndivinity of light. This position was the more easily assured him by the\nfact that he had been originally such a god, so that the Chaldeans had\nidentified him with Shamash, their solar divinity, just as the Greeks\nin Asia Minor had made him equivalent to their sun god, Helios. Later\nphilosophy too lent its aid in that it took the sun as the supreme\nsymbol of divinity. On Roman dedications Mithras is often called simply\n\u201cThe Invincible Sun,\u201d Sol Invictus.\n\nFor all its exotic character Mithraism could offer nothing essentially\nnew in point of theology which would attract devotees, nor could\nit win them simply by its elaborate and distinctive ritual. The\ncharacteristic which distinguished it from the other religions of its\ntime save Christianity was the thoroughgoing dualism to which I have\njust referred\u2014I mean that dualism which divided the world into two\nopposing armies, the one the legions of light and righteousness, the\nother the forces of sin and darkness. The evil principle was deified\nin the same way as the principle of good. It is quite true that the\nGreeks and other peoples had conceived of evil powers, like the Titans\nfor example, but nowhere was the opposition between the two made so\nsharp or the conflict regarded as so constant. In the cosmic struggle\nthe Mithraist believed man shared; for he too, the microcosm, was both\ngood and evil, so that the same battle had to be waged within him\nas everywhere in the world. This religion, then, was able to supply\na strong moral motive for the individual: he was bound to struggle\ncontinually against the powers of sin to aid in bringing about the\nfinal victory of the powers of righteousness, and he was taught that in\nthis struggle Mithras gave the faithful constant aid.\n\nMithraism therefore was well suited to stir and energize the individual\nin a time when the ancient fibre of the Romans was relaxing and when\nthe signs of social and economic decay were evident. In the first three\ncenturies of the Empire, as we have already had occasion to observe\nmore than once, the loss of political power and the weakening of the\nsatisfactions which a vigorous society can give, led men to search for\nother rewards and assurances than those of this world; in the mystic\nphilosophies and religions they found their strength and hope. No\noriental pagan cult had so much to offer as Mithraism. Its compelling\nsystem of ethics, the high ideal of moral purity which it inherited\nfrom its Persian source, the fraternity which its associations\nfostered, and the confidence which the promise of Mithras\u2019 aid gave\nthe individual, all combined to extend its sway to the westernmost\nboundaries of the Roman Empire and to maintain its power until it was\nforced to yield before the victorious advance of a nobler faith.\n\nThe Mithraic worship was carried on in small chapels which would seldom\nhold as many as a hundred worshippers at once, so that when the number\nof devotees was considerable more than one chapel was required. No\nless than five have been found at Ostia, the seaport at the mouth of\nthe Tiber, and in the capital some sixty have been discovered. These\nstructures were generally half-subterranean, recalling the sacred cave\nof the Mithraic legend. Before each was a pronaos, an anteroom, from\nwhich steps led down to the chapel proper. Through the middle of this\nran an aisle flanked on either side by a raised platform for the\ndevotees. In the floor were often represented the signs of the Zodiac,\nwhich played an important part in the belief. The farther end of the\nchapel contained a relief which always reproduced the same scene in the\ntype which some Pergamene sculptor had established in the Hellenistic\nperiod. The god Mithras was shown in the act of slaying the sacred\nbull; subordinate figures and creatures were also represented, and on\nsome reliefs a series of scenes from the sacred legends formed a frame\nfor the central representation. We can readily understand something\nof the effect produced on the mind of the neophyte when he was first\nintroduced into the lighted chapel from the darkness without. The rows\nof worshippers on either side, the symbolic figures and signs, and\nespecially the sacred relief which was doubtless brightly illuminated,\nmust have all combined to stimulate acutely the tiro\u2019s imagination,\nalready stirred by his anticipations.\n\nThere were seven grades of initiation, each with its symbol and magic\nname. The first stage was that of the Raven (corax), the second that of\nthe Hidden One (\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), and the third that of the Soldier (miles).\nThese first three degrees seem to have been preliminary, so that the\ninitiate was not admitted to full participation in the privileges of\nthe sacred community until he had been inducted into the fourth degree,\nthe Lion (leo). The succeeding degrees were the Persian (Persa), the\nCourier of the Sun (\u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), and the Father (pater); the head of a\nnumber of Mithraic communities was apparently the Pater Patrum. Each\nstage had its proper initiatory ceremonies, admission to which required\nabstinence, lustrations and ablutions, and many symbolic acts.\nThe courage and constancy of the neophyte were tested; oaths were\nadministered to him; a seal was set on his forehead; he was bound to\nsecrecy; and doubtless many other vows were required. The candidate\nfor the degree of the Soldier was presented with a crown which he was\nexpected to thrust aside and to say that Mithras was his only crown. He\nwas made to feel that he had enlisted for a sacred warfare against the\npowers of evil and to realize that perfect purity was the goal toward\nwhich the faithful must strive. Apparently the culminating point of the\ntests and trials which the neophyte underwent was a symbolic death in\nwhich he died at the hands of the priest and rose again into a new and\npurified existence. Such rites are common in similar mysteries, but\nthere is some reason to suspect that in Mithraism the symbolic act had\nan especially terrifying nature.\n\nThe religious life of the devotees was fed by meetings held in the\nhalf-underground chapels. A part of the services evidently consisted\nof a sacred communion, which, with consecrated cup and loaf, recalled\nthe sacred meal which Mithras had once celebrated with the Sun after\nhe had completed his service upon the earth. This is shown on a relief\ndiscovered some years since at Konjica in Dalmatia, in which Mithras\nand the Sun are shown reclining at table, where they are served by\nattendants, one of whom wears a Phrygian cap, another a mask of a crow,\na third that of a lion, while the head of the fourth is hopelessly\nmutilated.[292] It was believed that this mystic communion on earth gave\nthe devotees strength and wisdom, that it imparted the power necessary\nto combat the emissaries of evil, and conferred immortality upon those\nwho partook of it. The parallelism with the Christian eucharist is\nself-evident, and it is not strange that the church fathers claimed\nthat the Mithraists had stolen from Christianity.\n\nAccording to the Mithraic doctrine the divine essence in man survived,\nand was susceptible of rewards and punishments after this life. When\nthe body died the emissaries from heaven and the powers of darkness\ncontended for the possession of the soul. It stood on trial before\nMithras, the final judge. If the man had been impure, his soul was\ndragged below for torture, but if virtuous, then his soul rose to the\ncelestial regions. At this point we come upon a doctrine which seems\nto be foreign to Mazdaism, and which was doubtless borrowed from alien\nsources. The heavens were conceived to be seven spheres presided over\nby the seven planets, the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus,\nand Saturn. In each sphere was a gate guarded by an angel of Ormuzd.\nTo open these gates magic names and passwords were necessary, which\nwere known only to the initiates. The souls of men were thought to have\ndescended from the empyrean through these spheres, receiving from the\nplanets that presided over them the passions and qualities which they\nexhibited when incarnate on earth. As the righteous soul returned, it\ndropped at each stage of its ascent its earthly passions and faculties\nlike garments, until, stripped and pure, it entered into eternal bliss.\nIn the realms of everlasting light beyond the stars, it enjoyed the\ncompanionship of the gods themselves.\n\nWith this concept of the final fate of the soul there was\ninconsistently united a doctrine of a final resurrection of the flesh\nwhen the world should come to an end. It may be that the sublimated\ndoctrine of the bliss of the purified soul did not appeal to the\nordinary man, and that, therefore, there was introduced from some\nexternal source this belief that the whole man, flesh and spirit alike,\nwould ultimately enjoy a blissful existence. In any case the Mithraist\nbelieved that the struggle between the contending powers of good and\nevil was not to continue forever; that in the fullness of time the\nevil powers would destroy the world, but that Mithras would once more\ndescend, wake the dead, and separate the good from the evil; with a new\ncommunion he would then confer immortality on all the just, while the\nwicked would be consumed with Ahriman and his fiends, and Mithras would\nreign in a new and sinless world forever.\n\nThese are some of the essential features of Mithraism. It was a\nreligion which called for unceasing effort, for action on the part of\nmen, and which promised them divine aid in their efforts. It is little\nwonder that it was popular in the Roman Empire, or that it appealed to\nsoldiers and to civilians alike. The remains of its chapels and the\ndedications to its god furnish more abundant evidence than we possess\nfor any other oriental religion. Although in common with other cults\nof this sort it had fallen into decay in the provinces of the western\nworld before the end of the third century, yet it was kept alive by the\npagan revival at Rome until nearly 400 A.D.\n\nIn the cult of the Great Mother of the Gods and Attis also there\ndeveloped certain rites which gave the promise of security here and of\nsalvation after death\u2014the greatest religious concern of the opening\ncenturies of the Roman Empire. Down to the close of the Republic the\nGreat Mother apparently exerted no very wide or deep influence on the\npeople. She had quickly accomplished the purpose for which she had\nbeen brought in 204 B.C., and therefore, with the exceptions\nof which I spoke earlier in this lecture, her worship was left to the\nPhrygian priests. Attis certainly played a small part at Rome before\nthe Empire, but by the second century of our era, if not before, he\novershadowed to a considerable extent the Great Goddess herself.\n\nThe story of Attis has many forms in detail, due no doubt to original\nlocal differences and to the influences of later environment. The\nkernel of the literary myth is as follows: Attis, a beautiful shepherd,\nwas loved by the Great Goddess; when he refused her advances, he was\ndriven mad by her, and in his frenzy mutilated himself at the foot of a\npine tree, into which his spirit departed, while from his blood sprang\nviolets. But in answer to the prayers of the mourning goddess Attis was\npresently restored to life. The primitive elements from which this myth\ndeveloped we need not now discuss, but it will be sufficient to note\nthat in Attis, as in Adonis, we have an eastern vegetation-divinity,\na god who dies and lives again, thus becoming a symbol of man\u2019s\nresurrection into immortality and an earnest of his hope. The parallel\ncases of Osiris, Dionysus, and Persephone will also occur to all.\n\nIn honor of Attis a spring festival was held in which the drama of\nthe myth was repeated by the priests and devotees. This festival was\nintroduced at Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.),\nfrom which time the god\u2019s importance there may be dated.[293] The\ncelebration began on March 15, which is designated in a calendar of the\nfourth century by _Canna intrat_. These obscure words must be brought\ninto connection with the colleges of the Cannophori, \u201creed-bearers,\u201d\nwhich are known to us from inscriptions, but the significance of the\nday is not clear; apparently it is to be connected with the story of\nthe discovery of the infant Attis, who had been exposed among the\nreeds by the banks of the river Gallus. On March 22, _Arbor intrat_,\nthe dendrophori, \u201ctree-bearers,\u201d cut down a pine tree and in solemn\nprocession brought its trunk, decorated with violets and woolen\nfillets, to the temple of the Great Mother on the Palatine. This act\nwas obviously in memory of the pine tree into which the spirit of Attis\npassed at his death. Two days later came the \u201cday of blood,\u201d _Sanguen,\ndies Sanguinis_, which marked the height of the mourning for Attis.\nStimulated by wild music and dances, the Galli scourged themselves\nwith whips loaded with pieces of bone or metal, slashed their arms\nwith knives, offering their blood on the altar of the goddess, while\nthe would-be Galli mutilated themselves. The whole period from the\nfirst day was a time of sorrow, during which fasting and continence\nwere required; it was followed on March 25th, _Hilaria_, \u201crejoicing,\u201d\nby the wildest outbursts of joy in celebration of the resurrection of\nAttis.[294] The next day was that of \u201crest,\u201d _Requietio_; and on the\n27th, the festival closed with the solemn bathing in the brook Almo of\nthe sacred meteoric stone, which was the symbol of the Great Mother. It\nis clear that this festival, centering in the spring equinox, had its\norigin in rites which were intended to recall the vegetation from its\nwinter\u2019s death into vernal life again, but like other similar festivals\nit had long had a deeper meaning before it came to Rome. As the Orphic\ndevotee by participation in the holy rites became a Bacchus, the Isiac\nan Osiris, so here the orgiastic participant became an Attis and\nreceived assurance of his own resurrection. The result was identical in\nall essentials with that in other mysteries.\n\nBut from the second century of our era there was celebrated in the\nwestern part of the Roman Empire another mystic rite in the worship of\nthe Great Mother to which we must now turn our attention for a moment.\nI mean that ritual of purification and regeneration by means of the\nblood of a slain bull which the ancients called the _taurobolium_.\nWithout much doubt this rite developed from the sacrifice of a bull to\nthe Great Mother, such as was made annually on March 15 at Rome. But\nthe taurobolium was no ordinary sacrifice. It is first mentioned in the\nwest in an inscription from Puteoli of 134 A.D.;[295] thence\nit quickly spread to Rome, from there to Lyons; and it was celebrated\nin many parts of the western provinces during the second and third\ncenturies. Like the other oriental rites it lived on at Rome long after\nit had died in the provinces, the last celebration being near the\nclose of the fourth century. One of the earliest places at Rome for\nthe performance of the taurobolium was in the Vatican district close\nby the circus erected by the Emperor Caligula and enlarged by Nero.\nThere, certainly from the time of Antoninus Pius to the end of the\nfourth century, this purifying and regenerating ritual was performed,\nnever with more passionate hope of its efficacy than during the fourth\ncentury, when for some seventy years this pagan shrine and St. Peter\u2019s\nfirst basilica stood side by side, fanes of the dying faith and of\nthe triumphing religion. It stirs the imagination to recall that when\nin the early seventeenth century certain changes were being made in\nthe present St. Peter\u2019s, a considerable number of inscriptions were\ndiscovered buried in the ground, recording the celebration of the\ntaurobolium by members of the nobility after the first St. Peter\u2019s had\nbeen built.[296] So side by side the two rival religions contended for\nthe mastery.\n\nThe two descriptions of the ritual we have date from the fourth\ncentury.[297] The one who was to be purified, after first laying aside\nhis ordinary garments and dressing himself in rags as a suppliant and\nbeggar, descended into a pit. This was covered with planks pierced\nwith holes; then the sacred bull was slain over the planks that his\nblood, falling on the devotee, might cleanse him and give him freedom\nfrom his sin. The recipient endeavored to have every part of his\nperson\u2014especially his eyes, nose, and ears\u2014washed by the cleansing\nstreams; he opened his mouth to catch the falling blood and swallowed\nit. When he issued forth from the pit, dripping with his horrible\npurification, he was greeted by his fellow consecrates as one who\nhad been born again. Usually the efficacy of the new birth given by\nthe taurobolium was thought to last only twenty years (renatus in XX\nannos), at the expiration of which time the ritual was apparently\nrepeated;[298] once, however, we have the confident assertion that the\ndevotee was \u201cborn again for eternity.\u201d[299]\n\nIn all these mystic rites there were many common elements. First,\nall gave assurance of the salvation of the soul through the exact\nperformance of the rites of initiation and through the ritual\nof service. As we have earlier seen, philosophy, especially\nNeopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism, aimed at the same object as these\noriental faiths; the means were different but the end was one. The\ndevotee of Mithras, of Isis, of Cybele and Attis,\u2014whatever the god\nmight be\u2014believed that by initiation he had been born into a new life,\nthat the rites which he celebrated had a purifying power, and that\nthey protected him against the assaults of evil spirits. Furthermore\nhis religious life was constantly fed and nourished by membership in\na brotherhood which was consecrated and set apart from the rest of\nthe world, as well as by regular services within the shrine of his\ndivinity. Again the gods of Greece and Rome required only occasional\nand rare service; the Orientals claimed the whole of a man\u2019s life:\nnot only at the great festivals but apparently at daily matins and\nvespers they received the praise and worship of their followers.\nThe priests were no longer civilians, sharing in the ordinary life\nof their communities, but persons withdrawn for the divine service,\ndistinguished by their dress and other signs. Moreover these oriental\nmystic religions were practically universal, in spite of the fact that\nonly men were admitted to the mysteries of Mithras; membership in the\nsacred associations did not depend on birth, wealth, or learning, but\non devotion. Advance in religious proficiency was usually marked by\ndifferent grades, to which the devotee received a divine call. In these\ninitiations the individual obtained direct revelations which gave him\nknowledge and freedom. He was made to feel his relation to the universe\nboth visible and invisible, and to find himself in unity with it.\nRebirth into a new life, constant support of faith through membership\nin a sacred community and by religious services, confident assurance\nof salvation\u2014these were the common characteristics of the oriental\nreligions which go far to explain their hold on the Roman world in the\nearly centuries of our era.\n\nThe question may well be asked how far these religions inculcated\nmorality and what their ethical characters were. It is certainly true\nthat originally they were not moral or concerned with morality any\nmore than most other religions have been; indeed in the stories of\nCybele and Attis, of Isis and Osiris, and of many other gods, there\nwere obscene elements almost as offensive to the enlightened ancient\nas to us. Mithraism on the other hand was singularly free from coarse\nmyths. In time the baser tales were allegorized and their symbolism\nuniversally accepted, so that, as St. Augustine tells us, the ancient\nstories were interpreted to the people for their moral edification.\nIsis became the everpresent divine mother and kind providence; Serapis\nwas a god of gracious pity toward men; the Great Mother laid aside\nher wild Phrygian character and changed into the beneficent mother\nof all Nature, while Attis became the Sun-god, the common symbol of\nall-embracing divinity. With such changes as these came a response to\nwhat we may call secular ethics, and there can be no question that\nfrom the second century of our era at least the oriental faiths taught\na morality which would win our approval in large measure today. There\nwere indeed many elements in them which made for righteousness. The\nconcept of divinity as a kindly providence which cared for the\nindividual and exacted the same good qualities from man, the\nunremitting devotion demanded of the devotees, the sense of moral\npollution and the longing for moral purification, the shifting of\nmen\u2019s eyes from the material gains of this world to the ideal rewards\nof the next\u2014all these and many other things gave to the oriental\ncults distinct and positive ethical and spiritual values. Furthermore,\nthe self-restraint, the gentle asceticism, the obligation to strive\nunceasingly on the side of righteousness against the evil powers,\nwhich these religions imposed, are not to be neglected. Within the\nreligious bodies, whose members were brothers (fratres, consecranei)\nthe individual learned submission to the head of the society (pater),\ngained self-control and courage for his struggle against the evils of\nlife. No one can read the evidence we possess and not be impressed\nby the earnestness and devotion of the faithful. That the oriental\nreligions actually contributed to the higher moral and spiritual life\nof the Roman Empire during the second, third, and fourth centuries is\ncertain.\n\nIt is very true that these pagan religions from the East had their\ncharlatans and quacks in abundance, that their noblest elements were\noften entangled in a mesh of magic, superstitions, and false beliefs;\nbut Christianity too suffered from the same evils. Christianity\ntriumphed because of its own inherent superiority to the other\nreligions, not because its rivals were wholly evil and degrading. To\nfail to recognize the real moral value of oriental Paganism is to fail\nto understand the first centuries of our era, and so to remain blind\nto the true nature of the world in which Christianity established its\ngreater worth.\n\nYet even if we were inclined to doubt the value of these religions\nfrom our present point of view, there could be no question of their\neffect upon their devotees. No one who reads the prayer of praise to\nIsis which Lucius offered before leaving Corinth for Rome, can mistake\nits sincerity: \u201cO thou holy and eternal protectress of the human race,\nthou who art ever kind to care for mortals and who showest unceasingly\nthe sweet affection of a mother for the misfortunes of wretched men,\nneither day nor any night, nor even the slightest moment of time\npasses without thy blessings; thou carest for men on land and sea,\nthou drivest from them the storms of life and ever extendest a saving\nhand, wherewith thou unravellest even the inextricable web of Fate;\nthou assuagest the tempests of Fortune, and thou holdest in restraint\nthe baneful courses of the stars. Thee the gods of heaven above adore,\nthe gods of the world below obey; thou spinnest the sphere of heaven,\nthou lightest the sun, guidest the universe, and tramplest Tartarus\nbeneath thy feet. To thee the stars make answer, the seasons return,\nthe divinities show their joy, the elements do their service. At thy\nnod the breezes blow, the clouds send their nourishing rains, seeds\nswell, and buds increase. Before thy majesty the birds who traverse the\nheavens are in awe, the beasts that roam the mountains, the serpents\nthat lurk beneath the ground, the monsters that swim the deep. But I am\nall too weak in wit to render thy praises, too poor in purse to offer\nthee due sacrifice; my voice has not the eloquence to express all\nthat I feel concerning thy majesty. Nay, had I a thousand mouths and\ntongues or eternal continuance of speech unbroken, it were not enough.\nTherefore will I try to do that which alone a devotee faithful, but\npoor withal, can accomplish. I will guard the memory of thy divine\nfeatures and thy most holy god-head deep within my heart\u2019s secret\nshrine and there keep that image forever.\u201d[300]\n\nIt may have seemed strange to some of you that in this course of\nlectures we should be considering matters which at first sight appear\nso alien to Greek thinking as these oriental mysteries. The reason is\nto be found in the goal toward which we are aiming, for it has been\nour purpose from the beginning to trace the history of Greek religious\nthought through to the time when it had in large measure determined\nthe form of Christian thought and had provided the means by which the\nlatter could be made intelligible to the contemporary world. It is\nnecessary therefore to examine the several elements which made up the\nsum total of the religious thought of the earlier Christian centuries.\nMoreover, as we have now seen, the purpose of the oriental mysteries\nwas one with the aim of the Greek mysteries and with the object of the\nGreek mystic philosophies. Therefore we have been obliged to bring into\nour plan these eastern religions.\n\nBut I need not remind you that at this time there was another oriental\nreligion spreading over the world which we have not yet considered.\nWhen Christianity was introduced to the West, it must have presented\nitself as a new eastern mystery. Men had long been accustomed to such\nreligions; for centuries they had sought either through mysteries such\nas were celebrated at Eleusis or like those brought in from the East,\nto find the satisfaction of their hopes for a happy immortality. In\nthese mysteries, as in the mystic philosophies, one of the central\nideas was that of the direct vision of the divine which was a\nrevelation of God to man. This act of grace had supplanted, or rather\nhad been added to, the use of the reason or of the will which the\nphilosophers had urged as the means of man\u2019s salvation. Through a long\ncourse of centuries men had been trained by philosophy, by mystery,\nand by political events, until an environment had been created which\nwas favorable to the ideas of Christianity\u2014an environment also which\nwas destined to influence profoundly this new religion in its earlier\ncenturies, so that it ultimately received a form different from\nthat foreshadowed in the teachings of its founder. The relation of\nChristianity to the world into which it entered and some of the reasons\nfor its triumph will be the subject of our final lectures.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[287] _CIL._ III, 4413. III, 4796 from Tanzenberg in southern Austria,\nis an important witness here, for it records the restoration in 311\nby the governor of the province of a Mithraic shrine which had been\ndeserted for over fifty years.\n\n[288] Apuleius, _Met._ XI, 5.\n\n[289] Plutarch, _de Is. et Osir._, 67.\n\n[290] Apuleius, _Met._ XI, 23.\n\n[291] Apuleius, _Met._ XI, 19-30.\n\n[292] Published by Cumont, _Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_^2, p. 132, fig. 18.\n\n[293] Lydus, _de mens._ IV, 59. Cf. Cumont, _The Oriental Religions_,\npp. 55 ff. Some scholars doubt the evidence and would place the\nintroduction of the festivals in the time of the Antonines; so Wissowa,\n_Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer_^2, p. 322.\n\n[294] The same name was used in the festival of Isis. Cf. p. 273.\n\n[295] _CIL._ X, 1596.\n\n[296] _Ibid._ VI, 497-504; cf. _IGSI._ 1019, 1020.\n\n[297] Prudentius, _Persiteph._ 10, 1011 ff.; Anon., _Carmen contra\nPaganos_ 57 ff.\n\n[298] _CIL._ VI, 512, iterato viginti annis expletis taurobolii sui.\nProbably we should read taurobolio suo.\n\n[299] _Ibid._ VI, 510.\n\n[300] Apuleius, _Met._ XI, 25.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\nCHRISTIANITY\n\n\nIn the previous lectures we have traced the development of Greek\nreligious thought from the Homeric poems to the third century of\nour era; we have seen how Greece extended her intellectual dominion\nover the entire Mediterranean world which the military and political\ngenius of Rome bound into one empire; and we have examined the chief\noriental mysteries which spread throughout the same area. We now turn\nto Christianity. In dealing with this it will be necessary to review at\nsome length the work of Jesus and the doctrines of Paul, that we may\nhave in mind the material which was later brought into accord with the\nphilosophic thought and the intellectual habits of the Roman Empire\noutside that district in which Christianity had its birth. But before\nwe do this we should recall some characteristics of the ancient world\nin the earliest centuries of our era.\n\nIn the first place we must realize that it was a Greco-Roman world, one\nin which the civilizations of two great peoples\u2014the one intellectual,\nthe other political\u2014had been compounded. In the eastern half of the\nEmpire Greek influence dominated. Alexander\u2019s conquests had made Greek\nthe common language of a great area with the result that in the East\nGreek thought and Greek habits of expression\u2014that is to say, Greek\nphilosophy and Greek rhetoric\u2014were practically native. The West\nalso, as I have earlier tried to show, had received Greek philosophy\nand Greek rhetoric more than a century and a half before our era, so\nthat indeed over all the Roman Empire common habits of thought and\nuniversal modes of expression prevailed. The eastern half of the Empire\ncontained Alexandria, which had been the chief intellectual center from\nthe third century before our era; in the West was Rome, the center of\nthat imperial power which made the world a political unit; yet western\nthought owed not merely its form but almost its existence to Greek\ninfluences.\n\nIn the second place the East was the home of the learning of the world.\nThe Greeks furnished the West not only philosophy and rhetoric but\nthe sciences as well. Building on the mathematics and astronomy which\nthey had learned from their Eastern neighbors and the Egyptians they\nsoon developed these two sister sciences. Tradition says that in the\nsixth century B.C. the philosopher Thales predicted an eclipse of the\nsun; certainly a century later the Greeks had made great advances; and\nsuch were their attainments by the opening of our era that only in\ncomparatively modern times has a new period in the history of astronomy\nand mathematics begun. In the descriptive sciences of botany and\nzo\u00f6logy especially the Greeks had reached a high position by the fourth\ncentury B.C. The work of Aristotle, of Theophrastus, and of\nothers still holds the profound respect of all modern scientists who\nare familiar with the history of their subjects. In geography and\nmineralogy also their accomplishments were not inconsiderable;\nlikewise in many branches of physics they did notable work; while\nGreek scientific medicine, already highly developed in Hippocrates\u2019\nday (c. 460-377 B.C.), was further advanced in the succeeding\ncenturies. The works of Galen (129-c. 199 A.D.) remained the\nauthoritative treatises for more than fourteen hundred years. All\nthese sciences the Romans learned from the Greeks, and although in\nsome fields they made notable application of their lessons, they never\nsurpassed their teachers.\n\nMoreover Greece and Hellenized Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt had a\nknowledge of the conduct of business, of banking, and of the details\nof administration which they gave to the western half of the Empire.\nIndeed Roman history between the battle of Actium and the reign of\nDiocletian from one point of view is the history of the spread of\neastern ideas to the West and of their absorption there. Not only did\ncaptive Greece take her captor captive, but in a sense Egypt, Syria,\nand Asia Minor won their conquests as well. Many causes operated to\nfurther this intellectual domination of the Hellenized East over the\nRoman West. The eastern provinces had not suffered in the civil wars\nat the end of the Republic as had many parts of the West; their wealth\nwas not wasted, and in general their social and economic relations\nwere comparatively undisturbed. Under the wise administration of the\nEmperors these provinces grew richer; their inhabitants, especially the\nGreeks among them, gained a consciousness of their own intellectual\nsuperiority which they had not had in the last two centuries before our\nera. The influence of the East, therefore, was in many ways consciously\nexerted.\n\nThirdly we must bear in mind that the world was cosmopolitan. For\ncenturies traders had carried not only wares but ideas from one part\nof the ancient world to another, slaves had done their part, which\nwas not small, since many of them were educated; and from the time of\nAugustus the soldiers drawn from every province of the Empire exerted a\ngreat influence in breaking down the barriers between the nations. For\nthe idea of a cosmopolitan world Stoicism had furnished a philosophic\nbasis; the actuality was realized in large measure by the natural\ndevelopments under Roman imperial rule. Separate nations had ceased\nto exist; and in the universal levelling which a growing autocracy\nproduced, the differences between citizens, provincials, and slaves\nwere diminished and an approach was made to a cosmopolitan equality.\n\nFurthermore the Roman world of the first three centuries was virtually\na world of peace. Merchants and traders, tourists and missionaries\nmoved freely from one end of the Empire to the other. The value of\nthis Roman peace was recognized by the Christians; near the end of the\nsecond century the Christian writer Irenaeus declared: \u201cThe Romans have\ngiven the world peace and we travel without fear along the roads and\nacross the sea wherever we will.\u201d[301]\n\nThe world was also one of religious unrest and inquiry. The traditional\nreligions and the inherited forms of religious expression had in\nlarge part failed. There was, as has been said in an earlier lecture,\na sense of weariness and dissatisfaction which showed itself in the\nlarge resort of all classes to Stoic philosophy, in the devotion among\nthe cultured to the mystic philosophies, in conversions to Judaism,\nand later in the ready reception of oriental religions, including\nChristianity. We have already seen how both philosophy and mysticism\nrecognized that men had a sense of moral guilt and were conscious of an\nestrangement from God through sin, from which they desired to secure\npurification, that is, to attain freedom from the common lot of the\nbondage of wickedness. Philosophy and mysticism also agreed in holding\nthat the means at man\u2019s disposal were not sufficient to accomplish\nhis release, that the reason and the will unaided could not free him,\nand that therefore external help was necessary\u2014that an act of grace\nmade known by a divine revelation was required. This escape from sin,\nthis freeing of man\u2019s spirit, for which they longed, was regarded as a\nreunion with God, which gave the promise of security and salvation here\nand hereafter, and which thereby answered man\u2019s hope for an unbroken\nand a perfected existence. It was into a world of such a nature and\nwith such religious thoughts as these that Christianity entered.\n\nBut Christianity grew out of Judaism. It will be well therefore to\nrecall briefly to our minds those religious ideas of the Jews to which\nthe mission and the teaching of Jesus were immediately related. At the\nbeginning of our era a majority of the Jews had abandoned the earlier\nnotion of a golden age, a material kingdom of God, which was to be\nset up on earth, for a belief in a more spiritual kingdom, which was\nto be established at some future time either on a transformed earth\nor in a supermundane heaven. They no longer expected that the whole\nnation would share in the supreme happiness of this kingdom, but only\nthose individuals who by righteousness and through God\u2019s mercy had\nwon a place therein; the wicked were to be either utterly destroyed\nor punished forever in Sheol. Moreover the Jews generally entertained\nMessianic expectations of various kinds; they did not, however, look\nforward with confidence, as their forefathers had done, to the coming\nof one who should be a national king on earth. There were besides hopes\nof revelation from God on which we must not pause. Nor is it necessary\nto speak of the weaknesses of Judaism, its tendency to make the\npractice of religion a matter of conformity to the minute regulations\nof the law, its frequent disregard of moral motives, its pride and\nreligious pretence.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAll thoughtful readers of the New Testament are aware that within it\nare represented three stages in the early development of Christianity.\nIn the first the disciples of Jesus formed a group and then a sect\nwithin the Jewish nation. The second was that in which the gospel was\ncarried outside Judea into the Roman Empire to Gentiles as well as to\nJews. Thus the transformation of Christianity into a universal religion\nwas begun. In that movement, as we all know, Paul was the chief figure.\nThe third stage was that in which philosophic thought began to operate\nupon the doctrines of this new religion. It was the period in which\nChristian theology started to develop; the time in which Christian\nthought began to be expressed in philosophic form and squared with the\nphilosophy of the day. The fourth Gospel is the document in our canon\nin which the use of a great philosophic conception for the expression\nof Christian ideas is first obvious.\n\nLet us now consider briefly the teachings that belong to these three\nstages, as they are represented by Jesus, by Paul, and by the writer of\nthe Johannine books.\n\nLike every great spiritual teacher Jesus built on the beliefs of\nhis time, refining, enlarging, ennobling, and transforming men\u2019s\nconceptions of God and of his kingdom, of man and of his salvation.\nHis teachings were concrete; he made no attempt to present his views\nin philosophic form, but inculcated his lessons as occasion offered\nor required. His words and the history of his life are preserved to\nus in imperfect and fragmentary forms, having been recorded after\nhis death at a time when his followers had considerably increased in\nnumbers and were to be found at many places outside Judea and Syria.\nFor our present purpose we must confine ourselves to the three synoptic\ngospels. Of these Mark in essentially its present form was written\nshortly after 70; Matthew and Luke can hardly be earlier than 80-90\nA.D. These gospels are necessarily both historical and interpretative;\ntheir writers were children of their own day and shared in its beliefs\nand superstitions. They were naturally credulous toward the myths and\nlegends which had rapidly grown up about Jesus. When we consider their\ngreat eschatological interest, we realize that the authors actually\ntell us an extraordinary amount concerning Jesus\u2019 life and teachings.\nThe historical interpretation of the gospels must take all these\nmatters into account.\n\nIt is impossible to understand Jesus\u2019 teachings if we detach them from\nhis person, for in a very real sense he was himself the gospel. Only by\ngrasping so far as possible his personality can we comprehend in any\nadequate degree the impression which he made on his followers. Their\ndiscipleship at the time and the whole development of Christianity\nafter Jesus\u2019 death depended on that personality. Nor is there anything\nstrange in this fact; we are in a degree familiar with it in our own\nexperience, whenever any great teacher or leader appears.\n\nLet us now consider Jesus\u2019 views as to the nature of God and as to\nman\u2019s relation to him. First of all he taught his disciples that they\nmust regard God as their Father. This idea was by no means new or\nforeign to the thoughts of his hearers. In the Old Testament we not\ninfrequently find Israel spoken of as the son of God; it was said that\nGod took a special and gracious interest in the people of Israel, that\nhe cared for them wholly, or especially, and that they were his beloved\npeople whom he had chosen to be the agents of his revelation. Jesus\ntaught that God\u2019s fatherhood expresses itself in infinite love for men,\nthat this love extends not only to the righteous but to the wicked as\nwell, so that both receive his care and blessings: \u201cBut I say unto\nyou, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye\nmay be sons of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun\nto rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the\nunjust.\u201d[302] Furthermore he showed that the divine care is given to\nthe humblest and smallest parts of the universe, so that the heavenly\nFather marks even the fall of a sparrow to the ground. The perfect\nnature of God\u2019s love Jesus made the measure of God\u2019s perfection; and,\nalthough he recognized man\u2019s limitations and the moral value of an\nhonest advance in righteousness, he set as man\u2019s ultimate goal nothing\nless than the perfection of God himself as shown in perfect love.[303]\nAgain he gave a new hope to outcasts and sinners by declaring that\nthose who repented of their sins and desired to enter into right\nrelations with God would not be despised. That was the meaning of the\nparable of the Prodigal Son: it illustrated the generosity of God\u2019s\naffection and showed that it reached to the poorest and worst of men.\nTo realize fully the significance of this teaching we must remind\nourselves of the attitude of self-righteous Pharisees not only toward\npublicans and sinners but toward the common people, association with\nwhom they scrupulously shunned and among whom they hardly admitted\nthat true piety could exist. It was a scandal in their eyes that Jesus\nmingled freely with the classes whose contact was defilement and whose\nintimacy was shame, while he declared that he came to call not the\nrighteous, but sinners to repentance.\n\nMan\u2019s proper relation to God Jesus held to be the exact converse of\nGod\u2019s to man: he taught that man\u2019s sonship consists in a likeness\nto God, which will express itself in love toward God and toward all\nmen. This teaching is nowhere more clearly set forth than in the\nwords which I have just quoted: \u201cLove your enemies, and pray for them\nthat persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father which is in\nheaven;\u201d[304] the same lesson he inculcated in the prayer which he\ntaught his disciples: \u201cForgive us our debts as we also have forgiven\nour debtors.\u201d On another occasion he charged his followers: \u201cWhensoever\nye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against anyone; that your\nFather also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.\u201d[305]\nSo Jesus held that love and forgiveness, the characteristics of God\nhimself, are required of men as sons of their heavenly Father; that\nthose who wish to claim such a relationship to God must exercise the\nsame generous affection toward their fellows that God shows to them;\nand that with this must go such love of God as was taught in the law:\n\u201cThou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all\nthy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy\nneighbour as thyself.\u201d[306]\n\nSalvation Jesus would no doubt have defined in part as peace and\nconfidence of mind in this world and eternal happiness in the next.\nOur data clearly show that he held that man secures salvation when he\nenters on the life which belongs to the sons of God, and that the basis\nof this life, as we have just seen, is love, while its outward signs\nare acts prompted by whole hearted affection for one\u2019s fellow-men and\nfor God. This life Jesus evidently regarded as the natural one from\nwhich man departs through sin, and therefore he taught that repentance\nfrom sin is the antecedent condition of entrance into right relations\nwith God, that is to say, into salvation. At the beginning of his\nministry he preached in Galilee that the kingdom of Heaven was at\nhand and called on men to repent and to believe in the good news; and\nat the end of his work he charged his disciples to preach repentance\nand the remission of sins to all peoples.[307] But it is important\nthat we should keep clearly before us the fact that Jesus did not\nlay so much emphasis on the negative element of repentance as on the\npositive motive of love. He taught that the man who had that motive\nwould naturally exhibit it in a trustful dependence on God and in a\nrighteousness of life which would be of a very different character\nfrom that of a life directed by mere obedience to legal and ritual\nrequirements. A man whose thoughts and acts were prompted by love of\nGod and of his fellow-men had attained salvation\u2014that is to say, Jesus\nheld salvation to be a present experience, one which could be realized\nat any time by any man who recognized God as his father with all\nwhich that implied, and who consequently devoted himself to a life of\nunselfish service. He declared that such a man had already entered into\na joy and blessedness which no earthly misfortunes could disturb. Jesus\ntherefore not only gave his followers a sure hope of salvation in the\nfuture, when they should realize in heaven the supreme ideal of life\nand complete happiness, but he also taught them that they could have a\nreal experience of salvation in their present every-day lives.\n\nIt should be observed that Jesus laid the greatest stress on the\nmotives for righteousness, and that he paid little attention to the\nnegative and restrictive elements which are inevitably large in any\nlegalistic system of ethics or religion. For him mere external acts\nand observances were not enough, but righteousness and service must be\nprompted from within. Furthermore, although the record of his life and\nteachings show that he attached much importance to the social elements\nin religion, he dwelt on the responsibility of the individual, who\nmust for himself, by his motives, character, and actions fulfill the\nrequirements for entrance into salvation.\n\nWith regard to Jesus\u2019 conception of his own person it is difficult to\nspeak with certainty on many points. It is beyond question, however,\nthat he regarded himself as one divinely commissioned to present the\nfatherhood of God and to set forth man\u2019s proper relations to God and to\nhis fellow-men. Faith in the validity of his commission and in\nhis teachings as showing the way of salvation was required of his\nfollowers, for only by such faith could they be moved to transmute his\nteachings into action. Yet it is intimated that up to the time of his\nlast arrival at Jerusalem Jesus made no effort to be popularly regarded\nas the Messiah for whom the Jews had looked. When at Caesarea Philippi\nPeter declared that he was the Christ, Jesus \u201ccharged the disciples\nthat they should tell no man.\u201d[308] His reasons for such caution seem\nevident when we consider the varied character of the Jews\u2019 Messianic\nhopes, and the great probability that if he had allowed himself to be\nrecognized as the one whom they expected, his proper work would have\nbeen greatly hampered, if not utterly checked. The danger is well\nillustrated by the incident recorded in John, when the people wished to\ntake him by force and make him king, so that he was obliged to withdraw\nfrom them.[309]\n\nBut in spite of Jesus\u2019 unwillingness to put forward Messianic claims\nfor himself, it is clear that he considered his relation to God as\nunique in its knowledge and perfection. When he asked his followers to\nbelieve on him, he seems obviously to have called on them to trust him\nas the one who had been divinely commissioned to interpret God to men,\nand to accept the validity of his teaching as to man\u2019s proper relations\nto God and his fellow-men, that is, as to the life which they should\nfollow as the sons of their Father. The dogmatic associations which\ntoday are attached to the idea of a \u201cbelief in Christ,\u201d obscure Jesus\u2019\nplain teaching for many. But when his ministry had been brought to its\ntragic close, his disciples saw him in a new light, and thereafter made\nhis person a matter of supreme moment, as the Church on the whole has\ndone ever since.\n\nAgain there has been much debate as to the significance of the\nsufferings and death of Jesus. From our data we must conclude that\nJesus did not give to his passion the interpretation which his\ndisciples naturally gave after the event, and which succeeding\ngenerations have given it. Yet toward the end of his ministry Jesus\nrecalled and applied to himself the doctrine that the good may suffer\ndeath, not for his own faults, but for the sins of others, as found in\nthe fifty-third chapter of Isaiah; and it seems clear that he regarded\nhis rejection and crucifixion as essential factors in bringing men into\nthe kingdom of God.\n\nWhat relation now did the teachings of Jesus bear to the religious\nbeliefs and hopes of the Jewish people? Certainly his words on most\nmatters did not appear to his hearers opposed to Jewish doctrines, but\nrather they seemed to enlarge and to give a nobler content to their own\nideas. With the current doctrine that the salvation of the individual\ndepended on his own righteousness he was thoroughly in accord. He gave,\nhowever, a deeper meaning to the idea of righteousness: in opposition\nto the extreme legalistic notions which were emphasized especially by\nsome of the Pharisees, he taught that there must first exist the inner\nmotive of love for God and man from which alone right actions could\nflow; that one who had recognized his true relations to God and his\nfellows and whose transformed character showed itself in filial\ndependence on God and in loving and generous service towards men, and\nin the practice of humility, was already delivered from the bondage\nof sin and had entered into a new spiritual life. Although his\ncontemporaries had abandoned their hopes of a prompt realization of the\nkingdom of God on earth, Jesus showed that that kingdom was already\npresent in its beginning wherever men displayed the character and did\nthe deeds which belonged to the kingdom\u2014in other words, that the\nkingdom could be realized here by changing present conditions so that\nGod\u2019s will should be done on earth as in heaven. God, to Jesus\u2019 mind,\nwas not to be conceived as a king ruling over his people, but rather\nas a universal loving father, whose affection extended to the wicked\nas well as to the good, and embraced every class of mankind. He taught\nfurther that from this divine love flowed an infinite grace which left\nno man outside the possibility of salvation. But beyond all these\nelements in the teachings of Jesus, which, because of their supreme\nmoral demands, made the way of salvation at once most simple and most\nsevere, more than the fact that his teachings dealt primarily with\nthe health of the soul, the personality of Jesus, his belief that he\nhad received a divine commission, and his consciousness of his unique\nrelation to God must be taken into account if we are to understand\nadequately the effect of his teaching. His immediate disciples never\ndreamed of separating themselves from the Jews until events forced them\nto take that step, but they were filled with the conviction that their\nMaster was the Messiah and that a new revelation had come to them.\n\nAfter Jesus\u2019 death his followers made the central theme of their\npreaching the proclamation of him as the Christ, who by his sufferings\nand death had brought salvation to men; they taught that through him\nmen might be delivered from their sin and enter into the blessings\npromised by his gospel. In general they laid more stress on eschatology\nthan Jesus had done, for they confidently expected an early end of\nthe world and the reappearance of Christ in glory. Quietly no doubt\nat first they began to make converts in Jerusalem. Then a persecution\nbroke out and conversions were made outside Judea among other peoples\nthan the Jews. About the year 45 a church, largely Gentile, was formed\nat Antioch,[310] the third city of importance in the Empire. The\nfounding of this church definitely began the expansion of Christianity\nbeyond the bounds of Judaism.\n\nPaul was the chief leader in extending the gospel to the Gentiles,\nand so much did he overshadow the other missionaries that his work\nand teaching mark the second period in the history of Christianity.\nAlthough no account can here be given of his life and experiences,\nit is necessary to have these in mind to understand his influence.\nEspecially important is it to remember that he was a trained Jew,\nfamiliar with the Old Testament and with the theological doctrines of\nhis people; nor was he unacquainted with the ideas and the language\nof the Greek world, or untouched by the mysticism of his day. A Roman\ncitizen by birth, a Hebrew of the Hebrews by descent and education,\nhe was well fitted to play his great r\u00f4le as the apostle who was to\ncarry Christianity out of Judaism to the Gentiles. He was, however, no\nsystematic theologian to lay down a logical body of doctrine as a Greek\nmight have done, and his writings were all occasional. Furthermore he\nhad not been a companion of Jesus, but was one who believed that by an\nextraordinary experience he had come directly into knowledge of the\nrisen Christ.\n\nYet if Paul was not a systematic theologian, he combined with his\nintense religious devotion a keen habit of mind which made the\nfundamental elements of his thought stand out clearly. To him Christ\u2019s\ndeath and resurrection were the great facts of salvation, the means\nwhereby man was redeemed from sin. If we read the Epistle to the\nGalatians, perhaps the earliest of the Pauline epistles (c. 46-50\nA.D.), which contains much autobiographical material, we find\ncertain ideas set forth there which are repeated again and again in his\nother writings. We can hardly do better than to begin with this letter.\n\nFirst, Christ is stated to be the redeemer of men from their sins; this\nis shown by the words of the greeting: \u201cGrace to you and peace from God\nthe Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins,\nthat he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to\nthe will of our God and Father.\u201d The suffering of the good for the sins\nof others, as we have already seen, was an idea familiar to the Jews,\nand it was easy for a Jewish convert to relate the death of Jesus to\nthe prophecy in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. Paul saw in the\ndeath and the resurrection of Jesus the proof that he was the Christ.\nThe vicarious character of Christ\u2019s death was probably an element in\nall apostolic teaching. On it and the mystic indwelling of Christ, Paul\nwholly based his preaching.\n\nPaul, however, did not teach that the death of Christ in itself\nsaved men without effort on their part; on the contrary he held that\nman could attain redemption only through faith in Jesus Christ. Now\n\u201cfaith\u201d meant to him something more than mere belief or trust; it was\ntrust marked by an attitude of sympathy with the divine nature and a\nreadiness to receive that nature into one\u2019s self so that Christ could\ndwell in man, and the human and the divine natures could be united. In\nthis way to Paul\u2019s mind the Jew was set free from the requirements of\nthe law and obtained justification, that is, gained forgiveness of his\nsins and reconciliation with God. Faith supplanted law, and made men\nsons of God. So he wrote: \u201cWe being Jews by nature, and not sinners of\nthe Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of\nthe law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ\nJesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the\nworks of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be\njustified.\u201d[311] And again: \u201cBut before faith came, we were kept in\nward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be\nrevealed. So that the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ,\nthat we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we\nare no longer under a tutor. For ye are all the sons of God, through\nfaith, in Christ Jesus.\u201d[312] This attitude of the apostle was due in\npart to his own experience, which had shown him the insufficiency of\nthe Jewish law, and also in part to the polemic against Judaism which\nwas a necessary part of his ministry. But his doctrine of justification\nby faith was not developed for forensic purposes; it was one of his\nfirmest convictions.\n\nWhen Paul spoke of Christ dwelling in a man, as he frequently did\nin the Epistle to the Galatians,[313] he meant his words to be taken\nliterally: he held that Christ enters into the man, frees him from the\ndomination of the sinful flesh, and, being a life-giving spirit, brings\nthe Christian from death to life; and that in this way the believer by\nfaith shares in Christ\u2019s death, resurrection, and triumph. Therefore he\nexhorted the Colossians: \u201cIf then ye were raised together with Christ,\nseek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right\nhand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the\nthings that are upon the earth. For ye died, and your life is hid with\nChrist in God.\u201d[314] Faith to Paul\u2019s mind was a present union with the\nrisen and glorified Christ; it was for him the means of salvation,\nor rather it was salvation. As he wrote in the sixth chapter of the\nEpistle to the Romans, he held that through union with Christ man dies\nto sin and rises to freedom from the bondage of wickedness; he is\nreborn a new creature and enters into a new spiritual life.[315]\n\nClosely associated with faith is Paul\u2019s doctrine of the Holy Spirit.\nThe word itself (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1) was intelligible to both the Greek and Jewish\nworld, but since Paul was not a systematic theologian, it is a matter\nof much dispute as to what his exact concept of the Holy Spirit was. He\nevidently thought of the Spirit as a divine objective reality. In some\npassages he identifies Christ and the spirit of Christ or the spirit\nof God;[316] from this we may conclude that he probably thought the Holy\nSpirit to be a mode of the indwelling Christ. But if his concept is not\nclear to us, we have no difficulty in understanding his ideas as to the\noperation of the Spirit. He taught that it is the Spirit which assures\nmen of their sonship so that they may address God as their Father; that\nit transforms the inner man; and that it demands the sanctification of\nthe body, for the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.[317] From the\nSpirit come the fundamental virtues\u2014\u201clove, joy, peace, long-suffering,\nkindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance.\u201d[318] Thus the\nSpirit is the means of continuing the believer in his course and of\nperfecting him in the Christian life. In common with his contemporaries\nPaul of course believed that many ecstatic phenomena\u2014speaking with\ntongues and prophesying, for example\u2014were the gifts of the Spirit; but\nhis instructions to the excitable Corinthians show his good sense and\nwisdom.[319]\n\nIn all his teaching Paul was highly practical. It is not certain that\nhe held a dualistic view of man\u2019s nature in the Greek or Persian sense,\nbut he was well acquainted with the struggle between man\u2019s lower and\nhigher natures and he knew the warring elements within the individual.\nHe frequently contrasted the flesh and the spirit, meaning by the first\nman\u2019s sinful nature which keeps him in the bondage of wickedness. From\nthis bondage and consequent death he held that man cannot escape by his\nown powers; but that Christ delivers man from sin and its consequences.\nThis deliverance is an act of grace, a gift from God. We have only to\nread the Epistles which bear his name to see how wisely he dealt with\nactual errors and sins, or stirred to concrete acts of righteousness\nthe members of the churches which he had founded.\n\nIn most of his writing Paul dwelt on the present salvation which\nthe mystic union with Christ secured, but at times he treated the\neschatological nature of salvation, teaching that the full effects of\nit would be realized when Christ should come to be glorified in his\nsaints. That this day would come quickly the apostle fully believed;\nthen the faithful, dead and living alike, would receive their full\nreward and the wicked their punishment.\n\nThese, briefly, are the fundamental elements in Paul\u2019s doctrine: first,\nthe significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus; second, faith\nwhich secures the mystic union with Christ; third, the indwelling\nHoly Spirit, which completes man\u2019s redemption and moral regeneration.\nFor all Paul doubtless found warrant in the life and words of Jesus,\nalthough he seems to have neglected the ethical teachings of the\nMaster. Paul\u2019s views have formed the basis of much of the doctrine\nof the Church since his time, although his idea of union with Christ\nthrough faith soon fell into the background; when it was revived it\ntook on a form very unlike the apostle\u2019s teaching.\n\nWe have thus far seen two tendencies in Christian thought. The first\nappears in the synoptic gospels where Jesus is represented as the\nmediator and teacher, who interpreted to men the universal loving\nfatherhood of God and showed them their proper relations to God and to\ntheir fellow-men; the other is seen in Paul who taught that through\nthe indwelling Christ salvation was secured. It was inevitable that\nreflective thought should act upon these teachings, and that in the\nphilosophic environment of the Christian churches, at least outside\nJudea, attempts should be made to apprehend and to formulate in\nintellectual terms the nature, life, and mission of Jesus\u2014in other\nwords to create a Christian philosophy or theology. When in the period\nbetween 50 and 100 A.D., Christianity came into conflict\nwith Hellenistic philosophy and theosophy this work of building up a\nChristian philosophy began. This stage is the third represented in the\nNew Testament.\n\nThe so-called Epistle to the Hebrews (c. 90 A.D.) is the first\ndocument of the New Testament in which the Greek intellectual habit\nclearly appears. Although the unknown author was writing to Gentile\nChristians for practical and not doctrinal ends, there is good evidence\nthat he had been influenced by Alexandrian thought. He presents\nChristianity as the final and absolute religion, emphasizes Christ\u2019s\npriestly office and his sacrifice, and gives a more philosophical\nand abstract definition of faith than any other writer of the New\nTestament. The great example, however, of the effect of the contact of\nChristianity with Greek thought is furnished by the Gospel of John and\nthe Johannine Epistles.\n\nThis fourth Gospel was apparently written at Ephesus, probably between\n100 and 110 A.D., by one who was well acquainted with the\nphilosophy and mysticism of his time; he was also strongly influenced\nby Paul. If the Johannine Epistles are not by the same author, they\nrepresent the same range of ideas as the Gospel, and we are therefore\njustified in using them together with it.\n\nThe fourth Gospel is much more an interpretation than a history of\nJesus\u2019 person and life; it takes for granted that its readers are\nacquainted with the facts; and it assumes that the church is one\nuniversal body.\n\nLet us now consider the opening words of this Gospel: \u201cIn the beginning\nwas the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same\nwas in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without\nhim was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the\nlife was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and\nthe darkness apprehended it not. There came a man, sent from God, whose\nname was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of\nthe light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light,\nbut came that he might bear witness of the light. There was the true\nlight, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.\nHe was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew\nhim not. He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him\nnot. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become\nchildren of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were\nborn, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of\nman, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we\nbeheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full\nof grace and truth.\u201d[320]\n\nHere then are two fundamental ideas: first, the eternal existence and\ndivine nature of Christ who is the Word, the Logos of philosophic\nspeech, and second, the revelation of God to man through the incarnate\nWord\u2014\u201cthe Word became flesh and dwelt among us.\u201d The concept of the\nLogos as the world-reason we saw first appear in the philosophy of\nHeraclitus; then the idea developed through the centuries until the\nLogos was equivalent to the reason of God, at once existing in God and\nbeing his expression. As such it was a part of Alexandrian thought,\nbeing found, for example, in Philo. The Logos of the philosopher,\nhowever, was the agent connecting a transcendental god with the divine\ncreation, making and sustaining the world. In so far the Johannine\nstatement is in accord with current thought and expression, although\nwe should probably be wrong if we affirmed that the author was drawing\non Philo directly; it is far more probable that he was simply using\nideas and language common in the intellectual circles of the day. But\nif we compare the idea of the Logos in the Johannine prologue with that\nin Philo we observe a profound and striking difference between the\ntwo. For Philo, as we have just said, the Logos was an abstract entity\nwhich existed for cosmological purposes; in the Johannine thought,\nalthough the Logos is the creator of the world, he is much more: he is\nincarnate in mortal flesh that he may reveal God to man and bring man\nsalvation. The author wished to show that the creator and revealer were\none, that the Logos had appeared as a man on earth. Now this emphasis\non the human side of Jesus, the son of God, was in all probability due\nto the arguments of some incipient Gnostics who denied that the Christ\nhad come in the flesh, and this polemic purpose goes far to explain\nthe abruptness of the prologue. When once the statement has been made\nthe philosophical language dealing with the Logos is dropped; yet the\nposition and emphasis of the ideas in the prologue were calculated to\nassure the enlightened readers of the fourth Gospel that the witness of\nthe generation which had seen Jesus was true and must be accepted.[321]\nThe first purpose of the author was to set forth the prime significance\nof the personal human Jesus, with whom men had lived on familiar terms\nand from whom they had learned the deepest truths.[322]\n\nHow then, according to this writer, does the incarnation of the Word\nof God in the human Jesus bring salvation to men? The first answer is\ngiven by the use of a symbol which is employed in six passages in the\nGospel:[323] Christ is the light which lighteth every man; that is, the\nfunction of the incarnate Word is to bring the light of true insight,\nwhich is knowledge of God,\u2014and Jesus in himself brings that knowledge.\nSo Jesus declared that he was the light of the world, come to illumine\nthe darkness of sin and ignorance in which men dwelt by manifesting the\nFather to them. He said in answer to Philip: \u201cHe that hath seen me hath\nseen the Father; how sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Believest thou\nnot that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say\nunto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth\nhis works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or\nelse believe me for the very works\u2019 sake.\u201d[324] These words show also\nthat knowledge could come only from belief; hence followed the\nnecessity of believing in Jesus as the incarnation of the Word of God,\nand in the truth of his teachings. It is the knowledge of the truth\nthus acquired which sets men free.[325]\n\nYet the knowledge of God revealed to the believer through faith in\nChrist was not to the author\u2019s mind the sole factor in securing\nsalvation. We have seen how prominent love is in the teachings of\nChrist, as reported by the synoptic writers; to this element the\nJohannine writer returned and made it almost pre\u00ebminent. Love is the\ndefinition of God himself in the First Epistle;[326] love was the\nmotive which prompted God to reveal himself to the world through his\nonly begotten son who by that revelation and in his person brought\nsalvation to men.[327] To love one another was the new commandment\nwhich Christ gave his followers, and the measure of their love was his\nlove for them; it was also to be the proof to the world that they were\nhis disciples.[328] Love, then, was at once the warrant of their hope\nand the evidence of the new life into which they were reborn through\nbelief in Christ and acceptance of him as the revealer of God to men.\n\nThis new life is expressed in the fourth Gospel as a mystical union\nwith Christ which cannot be distinguished in its essence from that of\nthe Pauline epistles; only the way of entrance into it is differently\ndescribed. Paul makes faith the gate; although the Johannine author\ndoes not lay less emphasis on faith than Paul,[329] he does not look at\nit in quite the same way as the earlier writer, and he speaks of the\nentrance into the true relation with Christ as a new birth\u2014using the\nsame idea as the pagan mystics. The new birth was described as of the\nspirit, whereas the first was of the flesh,[330] and the believer\u2019s\nvital relation to Christ was symbolized by the figures of the vine, of\nthe bread, and of the water of life.[331]\n\nPauline influence may possibly be seen also in the Johannine doctrine\nof the Holy Spirit\u2014at any rate the fourth Gospel shows that at the time\nit was written a belief in the Holy Spirit was well established, so\nthat the germ of the doctrine of the Trinity was already planted.[332]\nThe Holy Spirit is variously referred to as the Advocate or Helper,\nand the Spirit of Truth, which was to be the active agent in edifying\nbelievers and rebuking the world when Christ was no longer in the\nflesh.[333]\n\nThe purpose of the fourth Gospel then was first to prove that Jesus\nwas the Christ, the Son of God, and secondly to bring men to a belief\nin this fact which would give them life in Christ.[334] The idea that\nsalvation is present spiritual experience culminates in the Johannine\nwritings; the doctrine that those who hear and believe have already\nentered into eternal life is clearly stated.[335]\n\nLet us now summarize the fundamental ideas of primitive Christianity\nwhich we have been examining in this lecture. In the first place,\nbecause of his nature and his teachings Jesus was regarded as the\nrevealer of God to men, and at the same time, being the Christ, he was\nheld to be their saviour and redeemer. Paul emphasized Christ\u2019s death\nand resurrection, John the incarnation as the great central facts.\nSecondly, love and faith and their effects on man\u2019s relation to God and\nto his fellow-men were made the essential elements in the Christian\nlife. Thirdly, the doctrine of the mystic union of the believer\nwith the divine Christ and that of the indwelling Holy Spirit were\nfundamental in both the Pauline and Johannine writings. Revelation,\nfaith, mystic union with the Divine, salvation\u2014our previous studies\nhave shown us that these ideas were both familiar and welcome in the\nGreco-Roman world of the first century of our era.\n\nWe have now reviewed the essential elements in each of the three stages\nrepresented in the writings of the New Testament. In the first, the\nteachings of Jesus show no trace of any influence exerted by Greek\nphilosophic or religious thought. With Paul we begin to detect the\nsigns of such influence\u2014the germs of the doctrine of Logos, for\nexample, are found in the later epistles (Philippians, Ephesians, and\nColossians), which set forth a belief in the eternal existence of\nChrist, the Son of God. But it remained for the Johannine writer to\ngive a fuller philosophic statement to this doctrine, and in general\nto bring Christianity well within the province of Greek thought and\nexpression. Thenceforth Christianity belonged to the Greek intellectual\nworld.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[301] _Adv. haer._ IV, 30, 3.\n\n[302] _Matt._ V, 44-45.\n\n[303] _Matt._ V, 43-48; cf. _Luke_ VI, 27-36.\n\n[304] _Matt._ V, 44-45; _Luke_ VI, 35.\n\n[305] _Mark_ XI, 25.\n\n[306] _Deut._ VI, 5; _Matt._ XXII, 37; _Mark_ XII, 30; _Luke_ X, 27.\n\n[307] _Matt._ IV, 17; _Luke_ XXIV, 47.\n\n[308] _Matt._ XVI, 13-20; _Mark_ VIII, 27-30; _Luke_ IX, 18-21. Cf.\n_Mark_ XIV, 61; _Matt._ XXVI, 63.\n\n[309] _John_ VI, 15.\n\n[310] _Acts_ XI, 19-26.\n\n[311] _Gal._ II, 15-16.\n\n[312] _Gal._ III, 23-26.\n\n[313] _Gal._ I, 16; II, 20; III, 27; IV, 19. So _Rom._ VIII, 10. Cf.\nalso _2 Cor._ IV, 6-7.\n\n[314] _Col._ III, 1-3.\n\n[315] Cf. _Rom._ VII, 4 ff.; _Phil._ III, 10 f.; and the passages\nreferred to p. 314.\n\n[316] _2 Cor._ III, 17; _Rom._ VIII, 10 f.\n\n[317] _Rom._ VIII, 15; _Gal._ III, 26 f.; IV, 6; _1 Cor._ III, 16 f.;\nVI, 19.\n\n[318] _Gal._ V, 22 f. Cf. _Rom._ XIV, 17.\n\n[319] _1 Cor._ XII-XIV.\n\n[320] _John_ I, 1-14.\n\n[321] Harnack and some other scholars incline to regard the prologue as\n\u201cnot the key to [the Gospel\u2019s] comprehension\u201d; but when we consider the\nimportance which John attaches to the incarnation, it is difficult to\nseparate the body of the book from the opening passage.\n\n[322] Cf. _1 John_ IV, 2-3.\n\n[323] _John_ I, 9; III, 19-21; V, 35; VIII, 12; IX, 5; XII, 35-36.\n\n[324] _John_ XIV, 9-11.\n\n[325] _John_ VIII, 31 ff.\n\n[326] _1 John_ IV, 8, 16.\n\n[327] _John_ III, 16-17; _1 John_ IV, 9-10.\n\n[328] _John_ XIII, 34-35.\n\n[329] Cf. _John_ XX, 31.\n\n[330] _John_ III, 3, 6; cf. V, 24.\n\n[331] _John_ XV, 1 ff.; IV, 7 ff.; VI, 33 ff.\n\n[332] Theophilus, _Ad Autol._ 2, 15 (c. 180 A.D.), is the first among\nour extant Greek sources to use the word Trinity (\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2) of the nature\nof God; Tertullian, _Adv. Valent._ 17 (c. 200), the first Latin writer\nto employ trinitas in the same sense.\n\n[333] The preparatory discourse put into the mouth of Jesus in _John_\nXIV-XVI contains the Johannine doctrine. This discourse may be built\nup from traditional sayings of Jesus, but in its present form it bears\nunmistakable marks of its literary origin.\n\n[334] _John_ XX, 31.\n\n[335] _John_ V, 24; _1 John_ III, 14.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM\n\n\nIn the last lecture we traced the growth of Christianity through the\nthree stages that are represented in the New Testament, and we saw\nthat when the new religion passed beyond the bounds of Palestine and\nentered on a campaign for converts among the Gentiles, it came into\ncontact with Greek philosophic thought and perforce began to state its\ndoctrines in terms which should be intelligible to educated men. For\nin spite of the fact that the majority of its adherents\u2014like those\nof every other contemporary religion\u2014were naturally of humble birth\nand station, it is certain that from the first it appealed also to men\nof position and education, and that such were among its followers.\nTherefore when it put forth its claims to be the universal religion, it\nhad to meet and satisfy the demands of the intellectual classes.\n\nNot only were the various forms of Greek philosophy rivals of\nChristianity, but the oriental mysteries also proved serious opponents.\nIn our discussion of the most important of these mystery religions\nin an earlier lecture we tried to show the reasons for the wide\nappeal which they made during the first two centuries and a half of\nour era. Christianity therefore had to offer a greater assurance and\nsatisfaction than these religions if it was to make headway against\nthem. Thus Christianity was forced to meet two classes of opponents.\n\nBut it was inevitable that while the new religion was seeking to\ninfluence the environment into which it had come, it should itself be\ninfluenced by the world it had entered. No living belief or institution\ncan exist without being affected by the life of which it is a part.\nChristianity accordingly ran many dangers, received many accretions,\nand was in some ways transformed during the first few centuries of its\nhistory. In this final lecture we shall consider briefly, by means of\nsignificant illustrations, first, the way in which Christianity during\nthe second and third centuries accommodated itself to the intellectual\nworld; secondly, the influence which the pagan environment had on\nChristian thought; and finally, the causes of its triumph.\n\nBy the beginning of the second century it was evident that in its\nconflict with pagan polytheism and philosophy Christianity could hope\nto win the victory only by taking into itself the fundamental elements\nof that intellectual life and civilization which the Greco-Roman world\nhad been establishing through centuries. Its claim that the gospel\nwas universal, that it solved the deepest mysteries and satisfied the\nhighest human aspirations, inevitably brought it into the arena of\ncontemporaneous life. It not only was obliged to defend itself in terms\ncurrent in Greek thought, and to carry on a successful polemic against\npolytheism, but it had to prove that it offered the fullest, indeed the\nonly true satisfaction of that longing for salvation which men felt.\nFrom these necessities of attack and defense came the Greek Apologists\nof the second century, the most important of whom were Aristides,\nJustin, Tatian, and Athenagoras.\n\nMoreover as the Christian communities multiplied, their members were\nexposed to many influences which tended to injure or destroy the unity\nand purity of their belief, so that for self-protection Christianity\nwas forced to develop a formal statement of its faith, that is, to\ncreate a dogmatic theology. By formal dogma the common doctrine of\nthe church could be maintained comparatively unimpaired and at the\nsame time the faith could be made intelligible and attractive to the\nlearned of the pagan world. But to give philosophic expression to\nChristianity\u2019s beliefs meant the Hellenization of this religion.\n\nThe Gnostics\u2014to whom we shall presently return\u2014were perhaps the\nfirst to undertake the construction of a Christian theology, but their\naberrations were so extreme and violent that the growing church had\nto rid itself of them so far as possible. The work of building up a\ndogmatic system was carried on more slowly in the great catechetical\nschool of Alexandria.\n\nWe have already seen the beginning of both the apologetic and the\ntheological movements in the Pauline and Johannine writings of the New\nTestament. Let us now consider the work of the Apologists of the second\ncentury.\n\nThese defenders were all educated converts; indeed some of them, like\nAristides and Athenagoras, called themselves philosophers. Naturally\nthey did not give up their philosophic custom when they went over to\nChristianity, but rather applied their intellectual habit to their\nnew faith. We should be wrong, however, in thinking that they wished\nto reconcile Greek philosophy and Christianity; on the contrary they\nwished to show that Christianity was the only true philosophy. Still\nall, with the exception of Tatian, treated Greek philosophy and\ncivilization with respect and were ready to recognize God\u2019s revelations\namong the Greeks as well as the Jews. They labored, however, with the\nfundamental antagonism between revelation and reason, and were often\nobliged somewhat illogically to blame Greek thinkers while praising\nthem. Yet the sway of Hellenic philosophy was so complete and the means\nof defense which it furnished so powerful, that the Christians readily\ndisregarded logical difficulties and gladly used the weapons which\npagan thought had forged.\n\nIt is impossible here to distinguish in full detail the contributions\nof the several Apologists; we must therefore be content with a\nsummarized statement of their positions.\n\nFirst of all they accepted the historic tradition of the person, work,\nand teachings of Christ as authentic, and made no attempt to enlarge or\ndiminish that tradition. They endeavored rather to present Christianity\nas a rational religion in such a way as to win the approval of the\nintellectual world. As Harnack says: \u201cThese Christian philosophers\nformulated the content of the Gospel in a manner which appealed to the\ncommon sense of all the serious thinkers and intelligent men of the\nage. Moreover, they contrived to use the positive material of\ntradition, including the life and worship of Christ, in such a way as\nto furnish this reasonable religion with a confirmation and proof that\nhad hitherto been eagerly sought, but sought in vain.\u201d[336]\n\nThey all set forth Christianity as a revelation from God, given in\nthe Old Testament through the inspired prophets, who had foretold\nthe supreme revelation in Jesus Christ. Christianity therefore was\nsomething which had existed from the beginning of the world; it\nwas a thing which revelation had continuously attested, and which\nconsequently was ultimate truth.[337] According to Justin not only the\nprophets of the Old Testament but also the Greek philosophers had borne\nwitness to the truth and had been in a measure Christians. This power\nof insight and of prophecy he would ascribe in the latter case as in\nthe former to the operation of the reason of God, a seed of which was\ngranted to every man by nature; all therefore that was reasonable in\nGreek thought was due to divine inspiration. He found the cause of\nthe Greeks\u2019 failure to expound the whole truth in the view that man\u2019s\nnatural endowment was insufficient to enable him to resist the evil\ndemons which beset him.[338] Although Athenagoras did not say that every\nman had within him a germ of the divine wisdom, he no less than Justin\ngranted that the pagan poets and philosophers had known the truth in\npart;[339] their errors had been due to their dependence on themselves.\nThe full truth then was to be found in revelation, which gave the\nApologists the sole and sufficient warrant of their faith and the\ncomplete rule of life.\n\nBut, as I have said, the Apologists represented Christianity as the one\nvalid philosophy. We must now examine briefly its principles.\n\nFirst as to the nature of God. In dealing with this subject the\nApologists used a method of thought and of expression very much like\nthat employed by Philo and the later Platonists. They contrasted\nGod and the world: the latter they said was created, temporal, and\nconditioned; the former, unconditioned, eternal, and self-existent;\nthe material world was apprehended by the senses, God by the mind and\nreason alone.[340] God, therefore, to them was the One, pure spirit,\nunchanging, requiring nothing. It followed from this idea of God that\nhe must be regarded as supramundane, if not transcendent. As a matter\nof fact, these writers were perhaps unconsciously trying to reconcile\nthe personal attributes of God the Father, which the common Christian\nfaith ascribed to the Godhead, and the current concept of God as\na transcendent and ineffable being. A variety of expressions, too\nnumerous to be quoted here, was employed to suggest God\u2019s exalted and\nperfect nature. Furthermore God was not regarded as a passive, but as a\nliving and active spirit, who must express himself in creations; he was\ntherefore the First Cause, the Lord, Father, and Creator of all. The\nperfection of his nature made him also the source of moral good.\n\nThe complete contrast between the perfect, supramundane God and the\nimperfect, transient world required the Apologists, like the later\npagan philosophers, to postulate some agent connecting the two, and\nthey, like Philo and others, found this in the Logos, which to them\nwas the operative reason of God, regarded as a person. But there is\nthis significant fact to be noted, that the Apologists reached their\nviews with regard to God and the Logos from a contemplation of the\nworld itself in which they saw reason and order, and detected spiritual\nforces working toward good ends. Therefore they believed that the world\nwas created and directed by God\u2019s reason. Reflection on the chain of\nrational causation had led them to their conclusions. But Philo and\nthe later Platonists we might say conceived of the Logos as a remedial\nbeing, for through his mediation they saved the perfection of God from\ncontamination with evil matter. To the Apologists, however, matter was\nonly an indifferent finite substance.\n\nThe Logos, as the reason of God, was identical with God in essence; but\nas a projection by God from himself, made for the purpose of creation\nand revelation, the Logos had a being distinct from God, not in essence\nbut in number, so that he was a second God; yet at the same time the\nLogos, being a mode of God, God\u2019s operative reason, was included in\nGod; therefore no polytheistic ideas were admitted here.[341]\n\nThe Logos then was regarded as a creature and a servant of God, but he\nwas held to be above all other creatures, being one in essence with\nthe Divine. Moreover being created and therefore finite from the point\nof view of time, the Logos could enter into the finite and thus do the\nwork of creation and revelation; by the Logos the world was made out of\nfinite matter, and man was endowed with reason and freedom of the will.\nIt is a striking fact, however, that with the exception of Justin, the\nApologists betray comparatively little interest in the incarnation\nof the Logos in Jesus Christ. Their efforts were directed rather to\nestablishing against the pagan world their claim that God is One and\nthat the Logos is the operative reason of God which exercises his\npowers. Furthermore they had little or nothing to say about the Holy\nSpirit as a separate person, but for the most part they identified the\nLogos and the Spirit.[342]\n\nThe problem of evil the Apologists solved by connecting it with a\nbelief in the freedom of choice given spirits or angels who chose to\ndepart from righteousness, and, thus becoming evil demons, have from\nthe first beset man and still do beset him with temptations which cause\nhim to sin. They regarded man, by virtue of his endowments of reason\nand of freedom of the will, as capable of immortal life or of complete\ndeath. The conditions of immortality were first, the maintenance of the\nknowledge of God and of his relation through the Logos to the created\nworld, and secondly, persistence in a life aimed at moral perfection,\na life which followed after the Spirit and did not yield to the bodily\npassions. In Tatian especially there is a distinct ascetic strain.[343]\n\nThe best exposition of man\u2019s moral obligations the Apologists believed\nto be found in the words of Jesus, but at the same time they agreed\nin holding that the essential element in a life of virtue was a clear\nknowledge of divine things through which man was at once raised above\nthe things of this world into a pure and noble existence. Thus man was\nassured now of salvation, and in the future life was destined to enjoy\nimmortality and the perfection of knowledge which would come with the\ndirect vision of God.[344]\n\nBut such a doctrine presupposes a revelation of God. This, as I have\nalready pointed out, the Apologists said had been made in the beginning\nby the Logos who disclosed himself in the created universe and in man\nas a part thereof. Man, however, by yielding to sin, had lost that\ndivine knowledge which had been his through the original revelation,\nwith the result that repeated revelations had been necessary. The\nagents of these had been the inspired prophets of the Old Testament\nand to a slight degree the philosophers of Greece. The revelation of\nthe Logos in Jesus Christ was simply an attestation and guarantee of\nthe truths and predictions of the prophets, the highest stage in the\nhistory of revelation, confirming that revelation without changing its\ncontent in any way.\n\nBut all this is something very different from the teachings of Jesus,\nor of Paul, or of the Fourth Gospel; indeed the relations of the\nApologists to Stoicism, to Philo and the later Platonists, seem fully\nas close as to the New Testament. Of the writers in question Justin\nalone\u2014and he somewhat unsuccessfully\u2014tried to set forth Jesus as the\nredeemer in the strict sense of the word and to see in him a unique\nrevelation of the Logos.[345] Side by side with the tendency to seek\nreligious satisfaction in mysticism there existed even more strongly\nin intellectual circles a desire to find the principles of right\nconduct in a correct theory of the world. Such was, for example, the\naim of the Stoic. In attempting to satisfy this desire the Apologists\nprobably represented the views of the majority of educated Christians\nof their day who felt that the noble morality of Christianity was its\nmost edifying characteristic; at any rate they knew that it was the\nstrongest argument for the validity of their religion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have already seen many times that the idea that supreme knowledge\nwas conferred by direct revelation and that such knowledge led to\nperfection was widespread not only among later Greek thinkers and\nHellenized Jews like Philo, but also among the devotees of the oriental\nmysteries. Lucius, the hero of Apuleius\u2019 Metamorphoses, believed that\nthrough the rites of initiation into the mysteries of Isis he had\nbeen allowed to see the gods face to face and to acquire a knowledge\nwhich only such revelation could convey.[346] Magical papyri describe\ntheir contents as knowledge (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), meaning thereby the supernatural\nknowledge which they impart. From the other extreme we can cite the\ncase of the Apostle Paul, who claimed that his knowledge and the gospel\nwhich he preached had come to him not from man, but \u201cby the revelation\nof Jesus Christ.\u201d[347] It was then a common belief of the day that\nthrough direct revelation one might obtain a secret knowledge (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)\nof divine things which no teaching could give. Such a revelation,\nhowever gained, was recognized as an act of grace toward men, whereby\nthey attained salvation.\n\nIt was this idea of a secret revealed knowledge which gave the name of\nGnostic to a series of movements in the early Christian centuries to\nwhich we must now turn.\n\nThe Gnostics never formed any single community or school, but they\ncomprised groups which exhibited the greatest diversity and range of\nbeliefs and of morals; the most famous and influential individuals\nwere Basilides, who taught at Alexandria in the time of Hadrian, and\nValentinus, who was active at Rome in the middle of the second century\n(c. 140-c. 165). Gnosticism did not originate within Christianity,\nbut rather antedated it. All its forms arose from some combination of\noriental religions and mythologies with Greek modes of philosophic\nthought, which in many ways remind one of later Neoplatonism. When\nChristianity was taken into the Gnostic systems, it was inevitable\nthat it should be modified, reshaped, and stated in forms which might\ncontain gross error. Yet it would be a mistake to regard the Gnostics\nas fundamentally foes of Christianity. Even if we cannot go so far\nas Harnack and call them \u201cthe theologians of the first century,\u201d\nand attribute to them the first place in the early formation of a\nChristian theology,[348] we must recognize that they did a great, and\nin some ways a permanent, service to the new faith. They were seekers\nafter a philosophy of history; they interpreted Christianity as the\nreligion which replaced both paganism and Judaism, and they held that\nthe appearance of the redeemer had completed the development of the\nhuman race and had consummated the history of the universe. Such a\nview, which in itself was quite in accord with the views of Christians\ngenerally, led the Gnostics to reject the Old Testament because it was\nsupplanted by the new revelation; the Apostolic writings they believed\nto contain first of all the rule of faith when taken at their face\nvalue, and secondly to hold a secret and deeper meaning, which could\nbe obtained only by allegorical, that is, by esoteric interpretation.\nBut thus far the Gnostics and the mass of Christians were still in\nessential agreement, although the latter held to faith (\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) as the\nbasic element in their religion, while the former exalted knowledge\n(\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) above it.\n\nThe Christians, however, commonly believed the world to be the creation\nof God and wholly subject to him, as we just now saw when examining\nthe position of the Apologists. The Gnostics on the other hand almost\nuniversally adopted some form of dualism which set off God and matter\nagainst each other as more or less independent entities. In matter\nthey saw the basis of evil; at the other pole was the perfect supreme\nBeing who was wholly transcendent, above all thought; from this Being,\naccording to Basilides, proceeded a series of emanations, no less\nthan three hundred and sixty-five in number, the lowest of which were\nthe angels who occupy the visible heaven; they were the creators and\nrulers of all things on earth. The chief of these angels was the God\nof the Jews, as he was made known in the Old Testament.[349] Valentinus,\ntoo, described a series of thirty Eons, descended from the perfect,\npre-existent Eon and his feminine counterpart, Ennoea, in which appear\nfantastic combinations of abstract ideas, mathematical concepts, and\nconjugal relations, betraying the manifold origin of this bizarre\nsystem.[350] Yet such doctrines represent only extravagant efforts to\nbridge the gap between a transcendent God and the world, a task which\nPhilo and the later Platonists accomplished in a more restrained manner.\n\nThe common Gnostic explanation of the origin of the universe was\nthat the cosmos arose from the descent into matter of some sparks of\nthe divine. The Creator of the cosmos, the Demiurge, was regarded as\nan intermediate creature, sometimes as an evil one; but he is never\nidentical with the supreme Being.[351]\n\nMan, also, in their views, was a dual creature, made up of corruptible\nflesh and divine spirit. Some Gnostics also divided mankind into two\nclasses: the spiritual who were capable of salvation, and the material\nwho were doomed to perish. The Valentinians, however, conceived of\nthree kinds, corresponding to the three forms of existence found\nthroughout the world: the spiritual, the animal, and the material. Of\nthese the material men were predestined to destruction; the animal by\nright choice might find rest in an \u201cintermediate space\u201d; but the\nspiritual were to attain perfection and become \u201cas brides to the angels\nof the Saviour.\u201d[352] The Gnostics of course were spiritual and destined\nfor the supreme bliss.\n\nAs regards their views concerning the person of Christ we may not\nnow go into detail. We can simply state the views of the two chief\nGnostics. Basilides identified Christ with the first-born of the\nFather, the emanation Mind (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), who came to destroy the God of the\nJews and all evil men, but to save those who believed on him.[353]\nValentinus made Christ one of the Eons, forming a conjugal pair of\nChrist and the Holy Spirit; but Jesus who appeared on earth was\nanother, the perfect product of the whole pleroma of Eons.[354] We\nmay say that generally Christ was regarded by the Gnostics as one of\nthe emanations of the supreme Being, by which the divine principle\nentered the visible world and made God known, whereas he had been\nhidden hitherto. Christ, therefore, was a power, a heavenly Eon, which\nwas to be distinguished from his earthly appearance as the man Jesus.\nThis view was in accord with other beliefs that Christ had not actually\nappeared and suffered in the flesh, to which is given the name docetism.\n\nThe Gnostic ethics were based on the dual concept of man, with the\nnatural result that in many groups a marked asceticism was practised.\nOn the other hand the belief that the revelation brought by Christ had\nfreed men from law\u2014an exaggeration of Paul\u2019s position, unchecked by\nPaul\u2019s good-sense\u2014led to the extremes of libertinism.\n\nThe Gnostics laid much stress also on the magic value of the\nsacraments of baptism, the Lord\u2019s supper, and anointing with oil. They\ntreated them as the means of initiation into the holy mysteries of\nChristianity, whereby the initiate obtained, as in pagan mysteries,\nthe higher knowledge (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), which was salvation. Beyond this they\nresorted to the crassest magic, playing with names and numbers,\nemploying images, incantations, invocations, and many kinds of curious\narts.[355] But in this respect they were hardly in disaccord with their\ncontemporaries.\n\nFrom the foregoing it will appear that the Gnostic movement represented\nin general exaggerations of the normal Christian tenets, produced by an\nattempt to combine Christianity with many Greek and oriental elements.\nThe results varied from a doctrine which differed from that, for\nexample, of the Johannine writings chiefly in denying the actual human\nexistence of Christ, to the most extravagant perversions of Christian\nbelief. Many Gnostics remained within the Church undisturbed, others\nwere bitterly attacked.\n\nThe entire movement which we have been considering is instructive, for\nit illustrates in a striking way the danger which the growing Church\nran of being swamped in the confused floods of Hellenic and oriental\nthought and mysticism. The conflict with such foes as the Gnostics\nwas one of the chief causes which led to the formation of a body of\naccepted catholic doctrine, for in dogma lay in part the protection\nof Christianity. Although the Church was able to free itself of most\nGnostic heresies, she could not wholly escape their influence, as we\nshall presently see.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe heir of both the Gnostics and the Apologists was the catechetical\nschool at Alexandria under the leadership of Clement and Origen (c.\n200-231). The early history of this school is unknown, but it became\nimportant at the close of the second century. In it both the Greek\nsciences and the holy Scriptures were studied, so that it was a natural\nplace for the fusion of secular learning and Christian theology.\n\nClement, who was first a pupil, then a teacher in this school, and at\nlast its head for three years (200-203), was the first to attempt an\nexposition of Christianity with all the aid that heretical speculation\nand Greek learning alike could give. We possess from his hand three\nworks of systematic edification. The Protrepticus is addressed to\nconverts, and in it he employs arguments similar to those of the\nApologists, Justin and Athenagoras; the Paedagogus gives practical\ndirections for the Christian life; and the Stromateis, \u201cMiscellanies,\u201d\nis intended to present and establish Christianity as the true\nphilosophy, and so to lead the reader to supreme knowledge (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2),\nas its full title announces.[356] From this it is at once evident that\nthe Gnostic movements had had their influence on Clement; and indeed,\nafter combatting Gnostic errors frequently, especially in the third\nbook, he devotes a considerable part of his sixth book and the whole\nof his seventh to a presentation of the true Gnostic.[357] His view as\nto the service done mankind by the Greek intellect is summed up in the\noften-quoted words: \u201cPhilosophy was a tutor to bring the Greeks, as the\nlaw was to bring the Hebrews, to Christ.\u201d[358]\n\nBut since it was Clement\u2019s great pupil and successor, Origen,\nwho actually founded Christian theology as a philosophy, and who\nestablished his views so firmly that although the Church has rejected\nmuch in detail, its dogmas still bear the stamp of his system, we shall\npass at once to him and endeavor to set forth in summary the most\nimportant elements of his doctrine.\n\nOrigen held fast to the traditional teaching of the Apostles and to the\nOld Testament which he felt contained the sum of Christian truth,[359]\nand at the same time he worked freely as a speculative thinker. For\nthe greater part of the period during which he was the head of the\nAlexandrian School, (c. 203-231) he was undisturbed by persecution and\ncould work in the clear atmosphere of scientific study. His theology\nwas built on the secular theology of his day.[360]\n\nGod he regarded as wholly transcendent, but potentially everywhere\npresent, incomprehensible to man save in so far as man could behold\nthe revelation of him in nature and in Christ. He predicated justice,\ngoodness, and omnipotence of God, not simply as potentialities, but\nas attributes exercised fully and eternally in the universe. Still to\nleave man a free agent, Origen was obliged to hold that God limited his\nown omnipotence. The belief in the eternal exercise of God\u2019s attributes\nrequired him to regard creation as eternal, so that he held that God\nand his creatures had eternally existed; God therefore, he said, had\nnever existed apart from his creation, but the two were co\u00ebternal.\nThis does not mean that Origen regarded the present world as existing\nin visible form from eternity, for he taught quite the contrary: this\npresent world did begin and will end in time, but it is only one in an\ninfinite series of worlds, a single expression of the eternal creative\nactivity of God.[361]\n\nThe Logos in Origen\u2019s system stands midway between God and the world.\nIn opposition to those who claimed that the Logos had been begotten\nin time and was therefore a temporal creature, he insisted that the\nLogos was without beginning, but was eternally generated by God.\nIn attempting to make his view clear he employed familiar figures,\nsaying that the Logos, the eternal Son, was related to the Father, as\nthe gleam to the source of light, or the will to the mind of man. He\nwas the wisdom, the consciousness, and the activity of God; and he\nlikewise was God\u2019s perfect image, a second God. Yet in essence he was\nnot independent, but rather one with the Father by whose will he was\neternally created. Being created, however, he was one stage removed\nfrom God toward the multiple creation; being the medium of the Divine,\nhe was the Creator of the world.[362]\n\nIt will be observed that in this philosophical system there is no\nnecessity for the redeemer, and indeed Origen made somewhat less\nuse of this concept of Christ than most other writers. On Christ\u2019s\nincarnation he insisted, but the essential work of the human Christ was\nrevelation.[363]\n\nNor did Origen\u2019s system require the Holy Spirit, but to comply with\nthe Christian belief he gave the Spirit a place with God the Father,\nand Christ the Son, and made him the inspirer of the prophets and\napostles. The functions of the three persons in one, so far as man is\nconcerned, he defined by saying that God gave man existence, the Son\nsupplied reason, and the Spirit holiness. Although he held the Spirit\nto be of the eternal essence of God, he made him subordinate to the\nSon, being the first creation through the Logos. Thus Origen in reality\nestablished two stages of creation: the Logos and the Holy Spirit.[364]\n\nBelow these he placed an infinite number of lesser spirits, endowed\nwith freedom and bound for a time with matter: angels, men, and demons.\nBy the exercise of their freedom certain spirits have fallen from\nperfect holiness and, entering into bodies, have become the souls of\nmen, aided by those spirits which have held fast to purity and are\nGod\u2019s angels, and hindered by the demons who have fallen lower than\nmen and who prefer evil and find pleasure in it.[365] The chief of\nthe fallen angels is the devil.[366] Yet the world is ruled by divine\nprovidence toward ultimate good; evil therefore will not finally\nconquer: men who now choose the good become the sons of God and rise\nto the rank of angels. Ultimately, by a process which will go on\nimperceptibly through countless ages, even the evil spirits will be\nbrought back to God and so all wickedness shall be purged away.[367]\nThen this course will begin again.\n\nOrigen\u2019s human psychology was probably taken from his teacher\nClement; but the views of both, like those of the Gnostics, go back\nultimately to Plato.[368] Accordingly Origen held that the human body\nhas two souls, the first the animal or the passionate, the second the\nreasonable soul or the spirit. The latter is man\u2019s divine essence\nwhich enters him from above; the former becomes his at the time of\nhis conception.[369] To human spirits, as to all others, God granted\nfreedom, and through their evil choice they fell, so that all men are\nborn in a condition of sin. The duty of man is to endeavor to give his\ndivine soul the mastery in him that he may thereby become like God and\nattain eternal happiness; his inherent sin must be overcome by his own\nwill and determined aspiration. Not that Origen believed that man could\nfully accomplish his own salvation; on the contrary he held most firmly\nthat divine grace was needed; but he maintained that the first step,\nan act of faith, did depend on the individual\u2019s free choice.[370] The\nhistorical revelation of the Logos and the redemptive work of Christ,\nwho by his death dealt the first blow in the struggle to overthrow\nthe devil, were both made a part of the plan of salvation by Origen,\nalthough, as I have said, redemption is not logically an indispensable\nelement in his system.[371]\n\nThere are three stages of Christian progress, according to Origen. In\nthe first and lowest man may advance through faith and by a belief in\nthe redemptive death of the historic Christ to a state of sinlessness\nand to fellowship with God. Here the Logos incarnate in Jesus acts\nthrough revelation and redemption as a physician to cure men of\ntheir sins. But beyond is a higher stage in which through love and\nknowledge the soul may mount from its view of the phenomenal world\nto the \u201cinvisible things of God,\u201d that is, to an understanding of\nthe whole creation; and still further soar from these upward to \u201cthe\neternal power of God, in short, to God\u2019s own divinity.\u201d In these higher\nstages the Logos is the teacher of the divine mysteries; they make the\ncontemplative life in which the Christian may obtain perfect knowledge.\nTo such a Gnostic as the Christian becomes who has been granted the\nvision, the historic Christ is no longer significant; the Logos in his\nmanifold revelations teaches him the supreme truth.[372]\n\nThus we see that Origen assumed that there were two forms of\nChristianity, an exoteric for the mass, who were capable only of faith\nand who could not grasp the deeper truths, and an esoteric, reserved\nfor the few who could understand the mysteries of God and whose souls\ncould rise to the knowledge of God himself. This double view depended\nin part on his Gnostic tendencies, in part on his interpretation of\nScripture, to which we shall presently turn.\n\nWe have now followed the development of Christianity from the simple\nteachings of Jesus into a Greek philosophy, as illustrated by the\nlater writings of the New Testament, the Apologists, the Gnostics, and\nOrigen. The last of these completed the process which began in Paul\nand the Epistle to the Hebrews, for he united successfully and fully,\nthe religious principles of the Christian religion with the content of\nHellenic philosophy. It must be evident furthermore that Origen and\nthose who prepared the way for him, were no less debtors to the Greeks\nthan they were to the Hebrews, to Jesus, and to Paul, since the form\nand in no small degree the very matter of their philosophy had been\nprovided by secular thought. Indeed Porphyry with some reason charged\nOrigen with being more Greek than Christian.[373]\n\nIt will be observed that Origen, and his predecessors also in large\nmeasure, made man\u2019s salvation a part of a philosophy of the entire\nuniverse, each portion of which was to be fully understood only through\na comprehension of the whole. That is to say, the scheme of salvation\nwas an element in cosmological speculation. The earliest Greek\nphilosophers had been concerned with a solution of the physical cosmos;\nsoon thinkers began to search for the causes of change, without,\nhowever, troubling themselves with ethics or religion; but from the end\nof the fifth century B.C., the position of man, his obligations\nand his happiness, the nature of the Divine and the relation between\nGod and the world, became dominant themes. In Plato we see first fully\ndeveloped a religious philosophy of the cosmos of which man\u2019s salvation\nis an inseparable part. The line from Plato to Origen, and we may add\nto the present day, is unbroken. Thus we find that Greek philosophy\nfurnished the general plan for a statement of Christianity which should\nnot only be intelligible, attractive, and convincing to the learned\nand the simple alike, but which should also prove triumphant over the\nGnostics and other aberrant thinkers.\n\nThis transformation of the rule of faith into an Hellenic philosophy\nwas contemporaneous with the growth of the separate churches into one\nbody politic with an organization fitted for present defense and for\nfuture aggression.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf space allowed, numerous illustrations might be adduced to show how\npagan philosophy and mysticism had influenced Christian theologians in\ndetails. Many examples we have already seen in passing, such as the\nview held by both Clement and Origen, as well as by the Gnostics and\nperhaps by Paul, that the supreme Christian truth was to be obtained by\ndirect revelation, by a vision of the Divine. This was a current belief\nnot only in the later mystic philosophies, like Neopythagoreanism\nand Neoplatonism, but also in the mystic religions, and in the Greek\nmysteries likewise. Again it would be possible to show that Origen\u2019s\nethical system owed much more to Stoicism and to later Platonism\nthan to the teachings of Christ, which, however, were easily brought\ninto accord with the philosophers\u2019 doctrines. Or once more we might\nenlarge on the development of the triune nature of God, whereby the\ntranscendent God and the Logos of pagan theology were united with\na varying concept of the spirit of God, also familiar in Hellenic\nthought, to produce the Trinity of Christian dogma.\n\nThus in examining the ways in which Christianity accommodated itself to\nthe intellectual world for purposes of defense and conquest, we have\nbeen seeing many examples of the influence which the pagan environment\nhad on Christianity. Let us now examine a few further illustrations.\n\nThe first of these shall be the method of interpretation which was\napplied to the sacred writings. As early as the sixth century B.C.,\nthe Homeric mythology had aroused a protest from Xenophanes and\nothers;[374] and in defense a new form of interpretation was adopted by\nthe supporters of Homer who declared that there was a deeper meaning\nto the myths than appeared on the surface. Theagenes of Rhegium (c.\n525 B.C.) suggested that the Homeric gods expressed either human\nfaculties or natural elements, and thus he began the long history of\nallegorical exegesis.[375] From this time such interpretation of myths\nbecame a common practice; it was adopted by the Stoics; at Alexandria\nJewish scholars took it over and applied it to the writings of the\nOld Testament, so that before the beginning of our era the sacred\nwritings were regularly so explained. Philo shows how universal the\nprocedure was. By it of course the historical character of the Old\nTestament was thrust into the background, and thus many difficulties\nof interpretation were avoided which otherwise would vex a man who\nregarded every part of the sacred books as perfect. Naturally the\nearly Christians followed their predecessors, and in fact allegorical\ninterpretation of the Old Testament has lasted down to our own time.\nOrigen helped to fix the standard system, so to speak; there were,\naccording to him, three senses in which the Scriptures were to be\nunderstood, corresponding to the triple nature of man: first, the\nliteral sense which was for the \u201cflesh,\u201d the simple man; secondly, the\npsychic which fitted the moral man; and finally the pneumatic sense,\nfor the spiritual man.[376]\n\nThe development of Christian asceticism will serve as another\nillustration of our present theme. It will be remembered that the\nOrphics and the Pythagoreans imposed on their followers a mode of\nlife in which certain things were forbidden. These two sects were\nthe first to grasp the meaning of the dualism of the flesh and\nspirit which we have found significant throughout the course of our\ninvestigation. Plato and the later philosophic schools developed the\nhigher significance of man\u2019s dual nature until asceticism in greater\nor less degree became the normal regimen for the philosopher of almost\nevery school. In the oriental religions also certain abstentions were\nrequired as preparation for initiation into their mysteries.\n\nOn the whole asceticism was foreign to both Judaism and early\nChristianity.[377] In the Pauline epistles it is true that we find\npassages in which the flesh and the spirit are contrasted; virginity is\nmoderately approved in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, but the\nEpistle to the Colossians contains a direct argument against the errors\nof ascetic teachers in Asia Minor, and the non-Pauline First Epistle to\nTimothy combats celibacy and vegetarianism.[378] It was indeed somewhat\ndifficult to find a satisfactory warrant for an ascetic life in the New\nTestament. Christianity, however, could not escape its environment.\nPresently in the second century certain sects like the Gnostics,\nMontanists, and Encratites appeared which laid great stress on ascetic\npractice; at the same time the habit of fasting generally increased;\nmany bound themselves to perpetual virginity; and riches were regarded\nas incompatible with the highest Christian character. In the third\ncentury numbers began to withdraw from the world, and by the fifth\ncentury monasticism was established in both the East and the West. But\nit was paganism which had given men the ideal of the ascetic saint,\nand the Church writers who furnished the warrant for the Christian\npractice, drew their arguments from Greek philosophers, and sometimes\nfound it difficult to meet the criticisms of the Jewish defenders of a\nnormal human life.\n\nThe almost universal rite of baptism as a means of ritual purification\nwas employed by the early Christians. Jesus had been baptized by John,\nbut he never made baptism a condition of discipleship. The Apostles\nbaptized with water immediately after conversion. Confession of sins,\nrepentance, and the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Christ were the\nantecedent requirements; the act itself was believed to mark the\nremission of sins and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. But by the\nearly second century we find that the convert went through a period of\ninstruction and was obliged to fast before he could be baptized.[379]\nFrom the middle of this century a new group of ideas drawn from\nthe mysteries was associated with the rite. It became a mystery\n(\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), the one who conferred it was a mystagogue (\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2);\nmany forms of speech used in pagan initiations were employed; and\nthe pagan expression \u201cenlightenment\u201d (\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) became\na Christian term. Likewise those who had been initiated into the\nChristian mysteries were said to bear a seal (\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c2) on their\nforeheads.[380] In general it was commonly thought that baptism\u2014the\nChristian initiation\u2014had a magic power to secure salvation similar\nto that which the pagan initiatory ritual was believed to possess.\nMoreover a long period of preparation was required, a sharp distinction\nwas made between those who had received this Christian initiation and\nthose who had not; and the Church became a secret association.[381]\nLater the Lord\u2019s Prayer and the formula of baptism became a pass word\n(\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd), which was kept from the catechumens until shortly before\nbaptism.\n\nLikewise the Lord\u2019s Supper in time assumed the character of a\nmystery. Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus, all natives of the East and\nfamiliar with pagan mysteries, ascribe an extraordinary efficacy\nto its celebration. The elements were believed to become the flesh\nand blood of Christ,[382] or to take on a heavenly nature in addition\nto the earthly, whereby the partaker gained the hope of eternal\nresurrection.[383] Ignatius early in the century had called the bread\n\u201cthe medicine of immortality and antidote against death.\u201d[384] As such\nit had a magic value.\n\nIf time and subject allowed, we might draw further illustrations of the\ninfluence of paganism from the calendar of the Church, which would show\nhow pagan festivals were supplanted by Christian; or we might examine\nthe list of accepted saints, some of whom have heathen origins\u2014others\nare composites, so to speak; or again we might turn to Christian art\nand see how pagan types were adapted to Christian uses. But although\nsuch studies might prove interesting, we may not enter on them now, for\nwe have already departed somewhat from our proper theme.\n\nYet great as the influence of the pagan environment was on\nChristianity, there is always a possibility that in such a study as\nthe present we may get a wrong point of view. We should remember that\nChristianity was a positive religion, which in being transformed into\na Greek philosophy did not lose its own character; indeed it was not\nobscured by the Greek intellectual habit, but it appropriated that\nhabit and in the end made it its own. Pagan thought and practice\naffected Christianity in countless ways, but they did not overwhelm it.\nNor must we underestimate the service which paganism rendered the faith\nwhich was to overthrow it. The philosopher\u2019s long search for a rule of\nlife, the Greek and oriental mysteries, and the mystic theosophies,\nall provided an environment ready and favorable to Christianity. The\nrapid spread of this new religion, at first in Syria and Asia Minor,\nwas not due simply to the propinquity of these countries to Palestine.\nThey had been for centuries familiar with mystic religions which in a\ncrude way aimed to give what Christianity promised in nobler fashion.\nThe same thing was true in a measure of the great centers of the West.\nWithout an environment already prepared for it Christianity would have\nhad a very different history from the one we know. Moreover we have\nnow abundantly seen how Greek rhetoric and philosophy furnished the\nforms by which Christianity made itself understood, and how they gave\nthe intellectual weapons by which in part it gained its victory over\npaganism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow we may ask what were some of the chief reasons for Christianity\u2019s\ntriumph. Sometimes it is lightly said that its victory was due to\nthe fact that it \u201cpromised immortality to a hopeless world.\u201d But we\nknow that there were many contemporaneous religions which promised\nimmortality and that the world was not without hope. We must try to\nlook somewhat more deeply, and we cannot limit ourselves wholly to\nintellectual causes.\n\nThe first, although not the most significant, reason may be found in\nthe positive and noble monotheism of Christianity. Other religions\nby syncretistic processes arrived at a doctrine of the unity of the\nDivine, of one God who embraced in himself a multitude of divinities;\nbut the new faith, supported by its Jewish inheritance, taught that God\nwas but One and that there was no other.\n\nYet the most important causes are to be found in the person and\nmission of Jesus. He brought a new revelation of God to men; and it\nwas a revelation which men believed the Old Testament had foretold.\nThe Jewish Scriptures were the one body of sacred writings known to\nthe Greco-Roman world, and their authority was enormous wherever\nanti-Jewish prejudices were overcome, or when, as in Christian thought,\nJesus was related to its prophecies. This influence had extended to\nGreeks, especially in such places as Alexandria, long before Jesus\nbegan his ministry. Therefore it was natural that the Gentiles\u2019 desire\nfor revelation as well as the Jews\u2019 Messianic hopes should be attached\nto the Old Testament, so that Christianity had the support of its\nweighty authority.\n\nAgain Christianity knew its saviour and redeemer not as some god whose\nhistory was contained in a myth filled with rude, primitive, and even\noffensive elements, as were the stories of Attis, of Osiris, and to a\ndegree of Dionysus. Such myths required violent interpretation to make\nthem acceptable to enlightened minds. On the contrary the Christian\nsaviour had lived and associated with men, whose minds and senses\nhad apprehended his person, acts, and character. These witnesses had\ntransmitted their knowledge directly, and they had testified that\nthe life of Jesus corresponded to his teachings. Jesus was then an\nhistorical, not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded\nitself on the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive,\nhistorical, and acceptable facts.\n\nChristianity showed a superior power of adaptation to every class;\nit was a practical guide of life for all, a guide which was soon\nrecognized by its opponents to be of the highest ethical value. In\nspite of the human weaknesses of Christians, their superior morality\nwas generally recognized from the time of Pliny.[385] Their motives for\nrighteous living sprang from love and faith rather than from any social\nor rational sanctions; and the fruits were \u201clove, joy, peace,\nlongsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance.\u201d\nThese virtues and the belief that Christ\u2019s revelation and the mystic\nunion of man with the Divine brought salvation, could be understood\nby the most unlettered. The intellectual classes found Christianity\nfulfilling the aim of both Greek thought and of Old Testament prophecy;\nin it they saw the ultimate philosophy. Christianity therefore proved\nitself a religion which satisfied men\u2019s desires and hopes as well\nas their philosophic aims in a more complete and spiritual way than\noriental mysticism or Greek rationalism; and it gave a nobler assurance\nof salvation.\n\nFinally, experience taught the value of Christianity; already in the\nsecond century the Apologists could make the appeal to common knowledge\nof the Christians to show the superiority of their faith.\n\nYet by the close of the second century Christianity had not won many\nadherents outside of Syria and Asia Minor, save in the greater cities.\nThe third century was the period in which paganism rapidly decayed\nand Christianity swiftly advanced toward its triumph; by the year\n300 it had filled the Mediterranean world, and the proud claim which\nTertullian had made a century before, began to be justified: \u201cWe are of\nyesterday, and yet we have filled all your holdings, cities, houses,\ncastles, towns, councils, your very camps, tribes, wards, the palace,\nthe senate, the forum\u2014we have left you only your temples.\u201d[386] The\nvictory over pagan religions and philosophies was indeed certain;\nbut this success had been secured on the intellectual side by the\ntransformation of the teachings of Jesus and of the apostles into a\nGreek philosophy. It is as such that Christianity has the final place\nin a history of Greek religious thought.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[336] _History of Dogma_, II, 170.\n\n[337] Vid. Justin\u2019s arguments, _Apol._ I, 31-53. Athenagoras, _Legat._\n9, limits himself to the testimonies of the prophets as to the nature\nof God. Cf. also Tatian, 20, at the end.\n\n[338] Justin, _Apol._ II, 8 ff.; cf. I, 46. In two passages (_Apol._ I,\n44 and 59) Justin illogically declares that the Greeks owed all their\ntrue knowledge to their borrowings from Moses. Herein he was simply\nfollowing the Alexandrian Jews.\n\n[339] _Legat._ 7.\n\n[340] Tatian, _Orat._ 5; cf. Athen., _Legat._ 4. The ideas recur\nfrequently in nearly all the Apologists.\n\n[341] (Justin) _Dial. cum Tryphone_ 61, 62, 105, 128; Tatian, _Orat._\n5-7; Athen., _Legat._ 10, 16, 24.\n\n[342] Cf. Justin, _Apol._ I, 5, 13, 61, 65, 67; _Dial._ 7, 29, 116;\nTatian, _Orat._ 13; Athen., _Legat._ 10.\n\n[343] Justin, _Apol._ I, 5, 15, 21, 56; II, 5-7; Tatian, _Orat._ 7 f.,\n11; Athen., _Legat._ 24 ff.\n\n[344] Justin, _Apol._ I, 15 ff., and often in the apologetic writings.\n\n[345] Cf. _Apol._ I, 23, 63; II, 6.\n\n[346] Cf. p. 274.\n\n[347] _Gal._ I, 11-12; _Eph._ III, 3-4.\n\n[348] _History of Dogma_, I, 222 ff.\n\n[349] Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ I, 24, 3-4.\n\n[350] Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ I, 1-3.\n\n[351] Cf. Ptolemaeus, apud Epiphan., _Haer._ XXXIII, 3-7, _Epist. ad\nFloram_, at the beginning.\n\n[352] Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ I, 5-8. The Valentinian idea of the triple\nnature of man is as old as Plato.\n\n[353] Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ I, 24, 2-4.\n\n[354] Ibid., I, 2, 5-6.\n\n[355] Cf. Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ I, 23, 4; 24, 5.\n\n[356] \u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f30\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u1f00\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[357] Cf. also _Strom._ II, 19-20.\n\n[358] _Strom._ I, 5, 28, 3; cf. I, 20, 97; VI, 7, 59.\n\n[359] Cf. _De prin._ Praef. 1.\n\n[360] Tradition says that Origen heard the discourses of Ammonius\nSaccas, the founder of the Neoplatonic School. Porphyr. apud Euseb. _H.\nE._ VI, 19, 6.\n\n[361] _De prin._ I, 1; III, 5.\n\n[362] _De prin._ I, 1 and 2 deal with God and Christ respectively in a\nsystematic way; cf. also II, 5 and 6. Besides there are many passages\nin Origen\u2019s extant works, too numerous for reference here, which show\nhis views.\n\n[363] _De prin._ II, 6.\n\n[364] _De prin._ I, 3; II, 7.\n\n[365] Origen adopted the popular belief in the existence of angels and\ndemons and made great use of it in explaining the present state of the\nworld. The passages in his works are too numerous to be all named here;\nbut _De prin._ I, 8, entire is devoted to the topic.\n\n[366] _C. Cels._ IV, 65; _De prin._ I, 5.\n\n[367] _De prin._ III, 6; cf. I, 5, 3.\n\n[368] Clement, _Paed._ III, 1, 1. _Strom._ V, 14, 94; VI, 16, 134 f.\nCf. Plato, _Rep._ IV, 436 A-441 C; _Tim._ 42 A.\n\n[369] _De prin._ III, 4; cf. II, 8.\n\n[370] _De prin._ III, 1; _In Matt._, ser. 69; _in Rom._ IV, 5; IX, 3.\n\n[371] _C. Cels._ VII, 17; cf. I, 31; _Exhort. ad Mart._ entire.\n\n[372] _C. Cel._ III, 59-62; VII, 46. Cf. _in Joh._ I, 20-22; _C. Cel._\nII, 66-69; IV, 15-18; VI, 68.\n\n[373] Apud Euseb. _H. E._ VI, 19, 7 f.\n\n[374] Cf. pp. 119 ff.\n\n[375] Schol. Venet. ad _Il._ XX, 67.\n\n[376] _De prin._ IV, 11ff.\n\n[377] The Essenes seem to have been a Jewish sect strongly under\nthe influence of Orphic and Pythagorean ideas. Neither they nor the\nTherapeutae influenced Judaism or Christianity to any considerable\nextent.\n\n[378] _1 Cor._ VII entire; _Col._ II, 20-23; _1 Tim._ IV, 1-3.\n\n[379] _Didache_ 7.\n\n[380] Cf. Clement, _Protrep._ 12; _Paed._ I, 6; _Strom._ II, 3.\nAlthough we cannot be quite certain that \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c2 were\ntechnical terms of the Greek mysteries, they undoubtedly corresponded\nto ideas and practices found in both Hellenic and oriental mystic\nreligions. For a full list of authorities see the works of Hatch,\nAnrich, Wobbermin, and Clemen named, p. 368.\n\n[381] Cf. Celsus\u2019 charges, Origen, _C. Cel._ 1, 1, and Origen\u2019s reply,\n_ibid._, 1, 7. Origen defends an esoteric Christianity by the examples\nof philosophy and the pagan mysteries.\n\n[382] Justin, _Apol._ I, 66.\n\n[383] Iren., _Adv. Haer._ IV, 31, 4; frg. 36 Harvey.\n\n[384] Ignatius, _ad Eph._ 20.\n\n[385] Plin., _Ep._ X, 96.\n\n[386] _Apol._ 37.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\nGENERAL WORKS\n\n\nThe relevant articles in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11 ed., are\noften valuable, being written by specialists. Of other encyclopedic\nworks the following are most useful: Hastings: _Encyclopaedia\nof Religion and Ethics_, I-VIII, A-Mulla, 1908-. W. Roscher:\n_Ausf\u00fchrliches Lexikon der griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Mythologie_,\nA-Tan, 1884-. Pauly-Wissowa: _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die der classischen\nAltertumswissenschaft_, A-Imperator, Ra-Ryton, 1894-. Daremberg et\nSaglio: _Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines_, A-Via,\n1887-.\n\nGREEK RELIGION.\u2014L. R. Farnell: _The Cults of the Greek\nStates_, 5 vols., 1896-1907. A comprehensive study of the greater\ndivinities. Id.: _The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion_, 1912. L.\nCampbell: _Religion in Greek Literature_, 1898. J. Adam: _The Religious\nTeachers of Greece_, 2 ed., 1909. An interesting and valuable book\nfor the period from Homer to Plato. A. Fairbanks: _A Handbook of\nGreek Religion_, 1910. An admirable treatment of the subject in\nmoderate compass with excellent bibliographies. G. F. Moore: _History\nof Religions_, I, pp. 406-602, on Greek and Roman Religions, 1913.\nThe work of a master in the entire field. Ed. Meyer: _Geschichte des\nAltertums_, II-V, 1893-1902. The religion of the Greeks is nowhere else\nso well treated from the historical point of view. G. F. v. Schoemann:\n_Griechische Altert\u00fcmer_, 4 ed., by Lipsius, II, pp. 133-607, 1902.\nP. Stengel: _Die griechischen Kultusaltert\u00fcmer_, 2 ed., 1898. The\nbest treatment of the religious antiquities of the Greeks. O. Gruppe:\n_Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_, 2 vols., 1897, 1906.\nThis is the most comprehensive work dealing with the subject; its\nvalue is somewhat impaired by the author\u2019s peculiar views. S. Wide:\n_Griechische und R\u00f6mische Religion_, in Gercke und Norden: _Einleitung\nin die Altertumswissenschaft_, 2 ed., II, pp. 169-271, 1912.\n\nMYTHOLOGY.\u2014_The Mythology of all Races_, I, _Greek and\nRoman_, by W. S. Fox, 1916. A modern presentation of the myths\nconnected with the chief gods; the book is well illustrated and is\nprovided with an ample bibliography. Preller: _Griechische Mythologie_,\nI, 4 ed., by Robert, 1894; II, 3 ed., by Plew, 1872.\n\nETHICS.\u2014L. Schmidt: _Die Ethik der alten Griechen_, 2 vols.,\n1882. The standard treatment of the subject. J. Denis: _Histoire des\nth\u00e9ories et des id\u00e9es morales dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9_, 2 ed., 2 vols., 1879.\nAn historical account of Greek morals to the end of the fifth century\nof our era. M. Wundt: _Geschichte der griechischen Ethik_, 2 vols.,\n1908, 1911. This book covers the periods from Homer to Marcus Aurelius.\nW. E. H. Lecky: _History of European Morals_, I, pp. 169-356. The\nperiod from Augustus to Neoplatonism, 1869. C. Martha: _\u00c9tudes morales\nsur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9_, Paris, 1896. W. H. S. Jones: _Greek Morality in\nRelation to Institutions_, 1906.\n\nPHILOSOPHY.\u2014Ed. Zeller: _Die Philosophie der Griechen_: I,\n1 and 2, 5 ed., 1892; II, 1, 4 ed., 1889; II, 2, 3 ed., 1879; III,\n1, 4 ed., 1909; III, 2, 4 ed., 1903. English translations from the\nfourth or third German editions: _Pre-Socratic Philosophy_, 2 vols.,\n1881; _Socrates and the Socratic Schools_, 1885; _Plato and the Older\nAcademy_, 1888; _Aristotle and the Early Peripatetics_, 2 vols.,\n1897; _The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics_, 1892. The best history\nof ancient philosophy, containing full references to the sources.\nTh. Gomperz: _Griechische Denker_, 3 vols., 2 ed., 1903-09. English\ntranslation: _Greek Thinkers_, 4 vols., 1901-12. A stimulating book,\nbut less useful than Zeller\u2019s. J. Burnet: _Early Greek Philosophy_, 2\ned., 1908; id.: _Greek Philosophy_, I, _Thales to Plato_, 1914. A. W.\nBenn: _The Greek Philosophers_, 2 ed., 1914. Three valuable books. M.\nLouis: _Doctrines religieuses des philosophes Grecs_, 1909.\n\n\nI\n\nT. D. Seymour: _Life in the Homeric Age_, chaps. xiv-xvi, 1907. Gives\nthe facts with regard to religion in the Iliad and Odyssey. J. Adam:\n_Religious Teachers_, pp. 21-83. E. Rohde: _Psyche_ I^3, pp. 1 ff.,\n1903. N\u00e4gelsbach: _Homerische Theologie_, 3 ed., 1884. O. Gruppe:\n_Griechische Mythologie_, pp. 987-1015. Campbell: _Religion in Greek\nLiterature_, pp. 53-113. J. Girard: _Le sentiment religieux en Gr\u00e8ce\nd\u2019Hom\u00e8re \u00e0 Eschyle_, 3 ed., pp. 1-133, 1887.\n\nP. Waltz: _H\u00e9siode et son po\u00e8me moral_, 1906. The most valuable\ntreatment of Hesiod\u2019s Works and Days. Ed. Meyer: _Hesiods Erga und das\nGedicht von den f\u00fcnf Menschengeschlectern_, in _Genethliakon_, 1910. O.\nGruppe: _Die griechischen Culte und Mythen_, I, pp. 567-612, 1887. P.\nDecharme: _La critique des traditions religieuses chez les Grecs_, pp.\n1-26, 1904.\n\n\nII\n\nThe Orphic fragments are quoted from the edition by Abel, 1885; the\ntablets found in graves from Diels: _Fragmente der Vorsokratiker_, 3\ned., II, pp. 163 ff., 1912.\n\nLobeck: _Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis_,\n1829. The classic work. Rohde: _Psyche_, I^3, pp. 278 ff., on the\nMysteries; II^3, pp. 1 ff., on Dionysiac religion and Orphism.\nAdam: _Religious Teachers_, chap. v. Campbell: _Religion in Greek\nLiterature_, pp. 238-266. Fairbanks: _Handbook of Greek Religion_, pp.\n128-137; 230-248. J. E. Harrison: _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek\nReligion_, 2 ed., chaps, viii-xii, 1908. This book must be used with\ncaution. B. I. Wheeler: _Dionysus and Immortality_, 1899. The Ingersoll\nLecture for 1898-99. Girard: _Le sentiment religieux_, pp. 171-297.\nGruppe: _Griechische Culte und Mythen_, I, pp. 612-675; _Griechische\nMythologie_, 1016-1041. E. Maass: _Orpheus. Untersuchungen zur\ngriechischen, r\u00f6mischen, altchristlichen Jenseitsdichtung und\nReligion_, 1895. A. Dieterich: _Nekyia. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erkl\u00e4rung der\nneuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse_, 2 ed., 1913. Although the two\npreceding books deal primarily with early Christianity, they contain\nmuch matter bearing on early Orphism and the Mysteries. Farnell: _Cults\nof the Greek States_, III, pp. 126-213; 343-367; V, 85-181. A. Mommsen:\n_Feste der Stadt Athen_, pp. 204-277; 405-421, 1898. P. Foucart, _Les\nmyst\u00e8res d\u2019Eleusis_, 1914. The author\u2019s hypothesis of the Egyptian\norigin of the Eleusinian mysteries is untenable. K. H. E. De Jong: _Das\nantike Mysterienwesen_, 1909. A discussion of the phenomena connected\nwith the several mysteries.\n\n\nIII\n\nThe fragments of Archilochus, Solon, Theognis, and Simonides are\nquoted from Bergk: _Poetae Lyrici Graeci_, 3 ed., II and III; those of\nAeschylus and Sophocles from Nauck: _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, 2\ned., 1889.\n\nAdam: _Religious Teachers_, pp. 83-183. Campbell: _Religion in Greek\nLiterature_, pp. 114-121; 169-180; 195-208; 267-290. Girard: _Le\nsentiment religieux_, pp. 135-170; 247-448. Decharme: _Critique des\ntraditions religieuses_, pp. 91-112. Gruppe: _Griechische Mythologie_,\npp. 1041-1058. E. Buchholz: _Die sittlichen Weltanschauung des Pindaros\nund Aeschylos_, 1869. F. F. C. Fischer: _De deo Aeschyleo_, 1912.\nDronke: _Die religi\u00f6sen und sittlichen Vorstellungen des Aeschylos und\nSophocles_, Jahrbb. f\u00fcr klass. Phil., Suppl. IV, pp. 1-116. F. L\u00fcbker:\n_Die sophokleische Theologie und Ethik_, 1851, 1855.\n\n\nIV\n\nThe fragments of the pre-Socratic philosophers are quoted from Diels:\n_Fragmente der Vorsokratiker_, 2 vols., 3 ed., 1912; those of Euripides\nfrom Nauck: _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, 2 ed., 1889.\n\nAdam: _Religious Teachers_, pp. 184-355. Campbell: _Religion in Greek\nLiterature_, pp. 291-337. Zeller: _Philosophie der Griechen_, I, 1^5,\npp. 521-552; I, 2^5, pp. 623-837; 968-1164; English translation,\n_Pre-Socratic Philosophy_, II, pp. 1-206; 321-516. _Socrates and the\nSocratic Schools_, pp. 39-236. Gomperz: _Griechische Denker_, I^2,\npp. 127-134; 168-204; 331-396; II^2, pp. 3-95; English translation,\nI, 155-164; 208-254; 412-496; II, pp. 3-118. G. Grote: _History of\nGreece_, chaps. 67-68. Burnet: _Early Greek Philosophy_, pp. 143-191;\n227-318; _Greek Philosophy_, pp. 57-81; 105-192. Benn: _Greek\nPhilosophers_, pp. 65-143. Louis: _Doctrines religieuses_, pp. 1-95.\n\nDecharme: _Critique des traditions religieuses_, pp. 43-63; 113-140;\n_Euripide et l\u2019esprit de son the\u00e2tre_, 1893; English translation by\nJames Loeb: _Euripides and the Spirit of his Dramas_, 1906. A. Verrall:\n_Euripides the Rationalist_, 1895. W. Nestle: _Euripides der Dichter\nder griechischen Aufkl\u00e4rung_, 1902.\n\n\nV\n\nAdam: _Religious Teachers_, pp. 356-460. On Plato by one of the best\nof recent English Platonists. Zeller: _Philosophie der Griechen_, II,\n1^4, pp. 389-982; II, 2^3, pp. 1-806; English translation, _Plato and\nthe Older Academy_, pp. 1-552; _Aristotle and the Early Peripatetics_,\nI-II, pp. 1-347. Gomperz: _Griechische Denker_, II^2, pp. 203-533;\nIII^2, entire; English translation, II, pp. 249-397, III and IV,\nentire. Burnet: _Greek Philosophy_: I, pp. 205-350. Benn: _Greek\nPhilosophers_, pp. 144-326. E. Caird: _The Evolution of Theology in\nthe Greek Philosophers_, I, pp. 58-382; II, pp. 1-30. 1904. Louis:\n_Doctrines religieuses_, pp. 99-164. Decharme: _Critique des traditions\nreligieuses_, pp. 181-219; 233-242. Campbell, _Religion in Greek\nLiterature_, pp. 342-367.\n\n\nVI\n\nThe fragments of the early Stoics are quoted from von Arnim: _Stoicorum\nVeterum Fragmenta_, I-III, 1903-05 (_S V F_).\n\nBenn: _Greek Philosophers_, pp. 326-364; 452-473; 523-588. Caird:\n_Theology in Greek Philosophers_: II, pp. 31-316. Louis: _Doctrines\nreligieuses_, pp. 199-343. Decharme: _Critique des traditions\nreligieuses_, pp. 259-501. Zeller: _Philosophie der Griechen_: III,\n1^4, pp. I-373; III, 2^4, pp. 82-218; 254-735. The English volume:\n_Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics_, includes no more than its title\nindicates. E. V. Arnold: _Roman Stoicism_, 1911. A useful book. E.\nBevan: _Stoics and Sceptics_, 1913. Renan: _Marc-Aur\u00e8le_, 1882. E.\nBr\u00e9hier: _Les id\u00e9es philosophiques et religieuses de Philo_, 1908. J.\nMartin, _Philon_, 1908. Whittaker: _The Neo-Platonists_, 1901. B. A. G.\nFuller: _The Problem of Evil in Plotinus_, 1912.\n\n\nVII\n\nFor the political relations of Italy to Greece and the East reference\nshould be had to the standard histories of Rome; the following books\ndeal primarily with religion.\n\nG. Wissowa: _Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer_, 2 ed., 1912. The Standard\nbook on the subject; a comprehensive work of sound learning. Marquardt:\n_R\u00f6mische Staatsverwaltung_, III, 2 ed., 1885. W. Warde Fowler: _The\nReligious Experience of the Roman People from the Earliest Times to the\nAge of Augustus_, 1911. The best book for the period. Id.: _Roman Ideas\nof Deity in the last Century before the Christian Era_, 1914; _The\nRoman Festivals of the Period of the Republic_, 1899. J. B. Carter:\n_The Religion of Numa_, 1906; _The Religious Life of Ancient Rome_,\nchaps, i-iii, 1911. G. Boissier: _La religion romaine d\u2019Auguste aux\nAntonines_, 6 ed., 1906. A valuable book written by a master. Dill:\n_Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, 2 ed., pp. 289-546, 1911.\nE. Beurlier: _Le culte imp\u00e9rial_, 1891.\n\n\nVIII\n\nDill: _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 547-626.\nGlover: _The Conflict of Religions in the Early Empire_, 3 ed., 1909.\nBenn: _Greek Philosophers_, pp. 487-522. J. Reville: _La religion \u00e0\nRome sous les S\u00e9v\u00e8res_, 1886. F. Cumont: _Textes et monuments relatifs\naux myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, 2 vols., 1894-1900. The only treatment of\nany of the oriental religions which takes fully into account the\nmonumental, epigraphical, and literary evidence. Id.: _Les myst\u00e8res\nde Mithra_, 2 ed., 1902; English translation, 1910; _Les religions\norientales dans le paganisme romaine_, 1907; English translation, 1911;\n_Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans_, 1912. J. Toutain:\n_Les cultes pa\u00efens dans l\u2019empire romain_, II, 1 _Les cultes orientaux_,\n1911. A valuable treatment of the oriental religions in the Latin\nprovinces. The geographical distribution of these religions in Britain,\nthe Gauls and Germanies, and in Spain has been discussed by C. H. Moore\nin the following places: _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_, XI,\npp. 47 ff.; _Transactions of the American Philological Association_,\nXXXVIII, pp. 109 ff.; and in _Studies in the History of Religions\npresented to C. H. Toy_, 1912. G. Showerman: _The Great Mother of the\nGods_, 1901. Hepding: _Attis_, 1903. G. Lafaye: _Histoire der culte des\ndivinit\u00e9s d\u2019Alexandrie hors de l\u2019Egypte_, 1884. R. Reitzenstein: _Die\nhellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_, 1910.\n\n\nIX-X\n\nMany of the pertinent articles in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible\nand Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_, in the _Encyclopaedia\nBritannica_, 11 ed., and in similar works are written by specialists\nand are valuable.\n\nA. Harnack: _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte_, I, 4 ed., 1909; English\ntranslation from the third German edition, I and II, 1901. The most\nvaluable book on the subject. F. Loofs: _Leitfaden zum Studium der\nDogmengeschichte_, 4 ed., Halle, 1906. The opening chapters cover the\nearly period. G. B. Stevens: _The Theology of the New Testament_, 1903.\nH. Holtzmann: _Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie_, 2 vols., 2\ned., 1911.\n\nA. C. McGiffert: _History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, 1897.\nJ. H. Ropes: _The Apostolic Age_, 1906.\n\nS. J. Case: _The Evolution of Early Christianity_, 1914. K. Lake: _The\nEarlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911; _The Stewardship of Faith_, 1915.\nT. R. Glover: _The Conflict of Religions in the Roman Empire_, 1909.\n\nJ. Geffcken: _Zwei griechischen Apologeten_, 1907. An important\ncommentary to Aristides and Athenagoras, preceded by an introduction\ndealing with the history and characteristics of the Greek Apologists,\nand followed by a sketch of the development of the apologetic\nliterature after Athenagoras to Augustine. A. Puech: _Les apologistes\ngrecs du II^e si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re_, 1912.\n\nH. S. Mansel: _The Gnostic Heresies_, 1875. E. de Faye: _Gnostiques et\ngnosticisme_, 1913.\n\nC. Bigg: _The Christian Platonists of Alexandria_, 1886. E. de Faye:\n_Cl\u00e9ment d\u2019Alexandrie_, 2 ed., 1906.\n\nP. Wendland: _Die hellenistisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen\nzu Judentum und Christentum_, 2 ed., 1912. A book of prime importance\non the conditions of the ancient world during the beginnings of\nChristianity. E. Hatch: _The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages\nupon the Christian Church_, 8 ed., 1901. G. Anrich, _Das antike\nMysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum_, 1894. G.\nWobbermin: _Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung\ndes Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen_, 1896. C. Clemen:\n_Religionsgeschichtliche Erkl\u00e4rung des Neuen Testaments_, 1909; English\ntranslation: _Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources_, 1912;\n_Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das \u00e4lteste Christentum_,\n1913. C. H. Moore: _Greek and Roman Ascetic Tendencies in Harvard\nEssays on Classical Subjects_, pp. 97-140, 1912. H. Streithman:\n_Geschichte der fr\u00fchchristlichen Askese in der Umgebung des werdenden\nChristentums_, 1914. This book I have been unable to see. A. Deissman:\n_Licht vom Osten_, 3 ed., 1909; English translation, _Light from the\nAncient East_, chap. iv, 1910. R. Reitzenstein: _Die hellenistischen\nMysterienreligionen_, 1910. E. Maass: _Orpheus. Untersuchungen zur\ngrieschischen, r\u00f6mischen, altchristlichen Jenseitsdichtung und\nReligion_, 1895. A. Dieterich: _Nekyia_, 2 ed., 1913.\n\nA. Harnack: _Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten\ndrei Jahrhunderten_, 2 vols., 3 ed., 1915; English translation: _The\nExpansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries_, 2 ed., 2\nvols., 1908.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II\n\nSPECIMEN OF A ROMAN CALENDAR\n\n\nTaken from the _Fasti Praenestini_, which were composed between 4 and\n10 A.D.\n\nThe letters of the first column show the eight days of the Roman\n_nundinae_, which are repeated for the successive nundinal periods; the\nsecond column gives the number of days before the Calends, Nones, or\nIdes as the case may be; in the third column the character of the day\nis indicated by C = _comitialis_, F = _fastus_, N and NP = _nefastus_,\nand the oldest festivals are given: VIN = _Vinalia_, ROB = _Robigalia_,\netc.; the small capitals give the festivals added within the historical\nperiod and sundry other notices.\n\n     APRIL 23-30\n\n  A  VIIII  VIN F  [VINI OMNIS NOVI LIBAMENTVM IOVI]\n                   CONSECRATVM[EST CVM LATINI BELLO PREME]\n                   RENTVR AB\u00b7RVTILIS\u00b7QVIA\u00b7MEZENTIVS\u00b7REX\u00b7ETRV[SCO]RVM\n                   PACISCEBATVR\u00b7SI\u00b7SVBSIDIO VENISSIT\u00b7OMNIVM\u00b7ANNORVM\n                   VINI\u00b7FRVCTVM\u00b7SIG\u00b7DIVO\u00b7AVGVSTO\u00b7PATRI\u00b7AD\u00b7THEATRVM\u00b7\n                   MARC[ELLI] IVLIA\u00b7AVGVSTA\u00b7ET\u00b7TI\u00b7AVGVSTVS\u00b7DEDICARVNT\n\n  B  VIII   CTI\u00b7CAESAR\u00b7TOGAM\u00b7VIRILEM\u00b7SVMPSIT\u00b7IMP\u00b7CAESARE\u00b7VII\u00b7AGRIPPA\n                   III\u00b7COS\u00b7\n\n                   FERIAE\u00b7ROBIGO\u00b7VIA\u00b7CLAVDIA\u00b7AD\u00b7MILLIARIVM\n  C  VII    ROB NP V\u00b7NE\u00b7ROBIGO\u00b7FRVMINTIS\u00b7NOCEAT\u00b7SACRIFICIV[M]\n                   ET\u00b7LVDI\u00b7CVRSORIBVS\u00b7MAIORIBVS\u00b7MINORIBVSQ\n                   FIVNT\u00b7FESTVS\u00b7EST PVERORVM LLNONIORVM\n                   QVIA PROXIMVS\u00b7SVPERIOR MERETRICVM EST\n\n  D  VI     F HVNC\u00b7DIEM\u00b7DIVVS\u00b7CAESAR\u00b7ADDIDIT\n\n  E  V      C\n\n  F  IIII  NP  LVDI FLORAE FERIAE\u00b7EX\u00b7S\u00b7C\u00b7QVOD\u00b7EO\u00b7DI[E AEDICVL]A\u00b7ET\u00b7[ARA]\n                   VESTAE\u00b7IN\u00b7DOMV\u00b7IMP\u00b7CAESARIS\u00b7AVGV[STI PO]NTIF\u00b7MA[X]\n                   DEDICATAST\u00b7QVIRINIO ET VALGIO CoS EODEM\n                   DIE\u00b7AEDIS\u00b7FLORAE\u00b7QVAE\u00b7REBVS\u00b7FLORESCENDIS PRAEEST\n                   DEDICATA\u00b7EST\u00b7PROPTER STERILITATEM\u00b7FRVGVM\n\n  G  III    C LVDI\n\n  H  PR     C LVDI\n\n  XXX\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbsolute: in Plato, 152, 163 f., 166.\nAcademus, 145.\nAcademy:\n  Platonic, 145 ff.;\n  influence of later A. on Romans, 244.\nAcropolis, 109 ff.\nActium: the battle of, 245, 246, 247.\n_Acts_, XI, 19-26: 311.\nAdad, 263.\nAdam, James, quoted, 143.\nAdonis, 51, 272.\nAelian, _V. H._, IX, 12: 240.\nAeschylus, 79, 81, 88, 90 ff., 117, 137, 164;\n  on conflict of duties, 97 f.;\n  concept of Zeus, 92 ff.;\n  Fate, 93 f.;\n  freedom of choice, 95 ff.;\n  justice as attribute of Zeus, 94;\n  man\u2019s obligations, 94 ff.;\n  nature of universe, 91 f.;\n  pantheism, 93;\n  punishment after death, 99.\n  _Ag._, 160 ff.: 92 f.;\n  _Choeph._, 306 ff., 400 ff.: 98; 1055 ff.: 96 f.;\n  _Eum._, 264 ff.: 99;\n  _Pers._, 827 ff.: 95;\n  _Sept._, 597-608: 95;\n  _Suppl._, 524 f., 574: 92;\n  _Frg._ 70: 93.\nAesculapius, 231.\nAesop, 236.\nAetius, I, 27, 5: 194.\nAges of man: Hesiod\u2019s five, 37 f.\nAhriman, 278.\nAhura Mazda, 278.\nAlaric, 66.\nAlbertus Magnus, 171.\nAlexander the Great, 169;\n  effect of conquests, 183, 185 f., 205 f., 257 f., 296 f.\nAlexandria, 205 ff., 297;\n  Jews at, 205 f., 258, 262.\nAllegorical interpretation, 350 f.\nAmmonius Saccas, 207.\nAnaxagoras, 117 ff., 148, 152, 192.\nAnaximander, 43.\nAnaximenes, 43.\nAndania: mysteries at, 71.\nAndocides: _de Myst._ 31: 72.\nAntigone, 97 f., 104, 106, 107.\nAnniceris, 145.\nAntioch: church at, 311.\nAntiochus of Ascalon, 244.\nAntisthenes, 184.\nAntony, 246.\nAnubis, 262.\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, 189.\nAphrodite, 17, 136, 231.\nApollo, 16 f., 96 f., 230, 233, 247.\nApollonius of Tyana, 206, 209.\nApologists:\n  the Greek, 327 ff.;\n  attitude toward Greek culture and philosophy, 329 ff., 335;\n  on creation, 333;\n  Holy Spirit, 333;\n  Logos, 332 f.;\n  incarnation, 333;\n  morality, 334 f.;\n  nature of God, 331 f.;\n  problem of evil, 333 f.;\n  revelation, 333 ff.;\n  salvation, 334.\n    See also Aristides, Athenagoras, Justin, and Tatian.\nApuleius, 335 f.;\n  _Met._ X, 5: 269 f.;\n  19-30: 273-6;\n  23: 274;\n  25: 293 f.\nArchilochus, 76, 79, 121. _Frgg._, 56, 74, 3 ff.: 76; 88: 79.\nAres, 17, 237.\nAristides, 328.\nAristobulus, 258.\nAristocracies, 40.\nAristophanes, _Frogs_, 454 ff.: 71.\nAristotle, 70, 146, 169 ff., 183, 186, 187, 191, 209, 210, 297;\n  attitude toward traditional religion, 180 f.;\n  on the contemplative life, 178 f.;\n  cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence\n      of God, 174, 179;\n  creative intelligence, 174;\n  criticism of Plato\u2019s ideas, 169, 171 f.;\n  ethics, 177 ff.;\n  first and final causes, 173 f.;\n  four causes, 172 f.;\n  God, 173 ff.;\n  ideal state, 186;\n  immortality, 177;\n  influence of, 170 f.;\n  matter and God, 174 f.;\n  monotheism, 175 f.;\n  teleology, 173 f.;\n  transcendence of God, 176, 179;\n  psychology, 176 ff.\n    _De anima_, II, 1; III, 4, 5, 177;\n    _de caelo_, I, 4, 271a, 33: 174;\n    _Ethica Nic. et Eud._: 179;\n    _Met._, I, 3, 983a, 24 ff.; 9, 990b ff.: 172; VI, 8: 172;\n               VII, 6, 1045b, 18 f.: 175; 7, 1032a, 13 ff.: 172;\n               VII, 4, 1044a, 32 ff.: 172; XI, 7: 174; XI, entire: 175;\n               XII, 10: 172; XIII, 3: 172;\n    _Phys._, I, 9, 192a, 3 ff.: 166; II, 3, 194b, 16 ff.: 172;\n                 II, 7, 198a, 22 ff.: 173; IV, 2, 209b, 11 ff.: 166;\n               VIII, 6, 258b, 10 ff.: 174;\n    _Pol._, VI, 8, 1322b, 18 ff.; VII, 8, 1328b, 12 ff.; 1329a,\n                     27 ff.; 1330a, 8 f.; 1381b, 4-6, 17 f.: 181;\n    _Frg._, 45: 70.\nArmy: and oriental religions, 259 f.\nArt: influence of Greek on Roman concepts of gods, 231, 236 f.\nArtemis, 17, 135.\nArval Brothers, 227.\nAsceticism, 158 f., 208, 209, 212 f., 214, 218, 351 ff.\nAssociations: religious, 53 f., 268, 276, 290 f.\n\u1f00\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1, 242.\nAtargatis, 263.\nAthena, 16, 51, 96, 102, 110, 111 ff.\nAthenaeus, _Deip._, XI, p. 496: 69; XIII, p. 547 A: 240.\nAthenagoras, 328 ff.; _Legat_. 4, 7: 331; 9: 330; 10, 16, 24: 333;\n             24 ff.: 334.\nAthens, 41, 48, 53, 109 ff.\nAtreus: the house of, 96 f.\nAttalus, 261.\nAtticus, 244.\nAttis, 51, 272, 285 ff., 357.\nAugustine, Saint, 214; _Civ. Dei_, IV, 27: 243.\nAugustus, 231, 246 ff.\nAulus Gellius, _N. A._ XV, 11, 1: 241.\n\nBaal:\n  of Damascus, 264;\n  of Doliche, 264;\n  of Heliopolis, 263.\n_Bacchae_, of Euripides, 142 f.\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, 51.\nBacchylides, 14, 50-63: 87 f.\nBacon, Roger, 171.\nBaptism, 340, 353 f.\nBasilides, 336 ff.\nBeyrout, 263.\nBirth, the new, 323.\nBody: tomb of soul, 55, 160.\nBrotherhood of man, 197 ff., 202.\nBurnet: on Plato, 147.\nBusiness: knowledge of, possessed by the East, 298.\n\nCalamis, 83.\nCalendars, Roman, 223.\nCallichoros, 63.\nCaesar, Julius, 246, 247.\nCapitoline Triad, 222, 224 f., 231.\nCarneades, 241.\n_Carmen contra Paganos_, 57 ff.: 289.\nCastor and Pollux, 230, 237.\nCatechetical School of Alexandria, 341 f.\nCato the Censor, 235, 241.\nCato of Utica, 254.\nCeres, 225, 230, 233.\nChalcis, 42.\nCharondas, 41.\nChrist:\n  in Gnostic systems, 339;\n  the indwelling, 314, 317, 322 f.;\n  the light of men, 321 f.;\n  the Logos, 318 ff.;\n  in Origen, 344;\n  the theme of apostolic preaching, 311, 312 f.\n    See also Jesus and Messiah.\nChristianity, 296 ff., 301 ff.;\n  and Paganism, 181, 326 ff.;\n  Apologists, 327 ff.;\n  debt to Paganism, 355 f.;\n  dogma as safeguard of faith, 328;\n  ethical value, 357 f.;\n  fundamental ideas of primitive Christianity, 324 f.;\n  Gnostics, 336 ff.;\n  modification by philosophy, 326 ff.;\n  a mystery, 295, 340;\n  Origen, 342;\n  reason for triumph, 356 ff.;\n  relation to Greek philosophy, 302, 317 f., 324 ff., 355;\n  teachings of Jesus, 302 ff.;\n    of Johannine writings, 318 ff.;\n    of Paul, 311 ff.;\n  spread in the third century, 358;\n  the ultimate philosophy, 358.\nChrysippus, 186.\nCicero, 187, 244; _de Fin._, III, 64: 197.\nCimon, 110.\nCinna, 246.\nClaudian, 235.\nCleanthes, _Hymn_, 193 ff.\nClement of Alexandria, 55, 69, 85, 93;\n  _Paed_., I, 6: 353; III, 1, 1: 346;\n  _Protrep_, 12: 353; pp. 12, 18 P:69;\n  _Strom_. I, 5, 28, 3; I, 20: 97; II, 19, 20: 342; II, 3: 353;\n                V, 14, 94: 346; VI, 7, 59: 342; VI, 16, 134 f.: 346.\nClytemnestra, 98.\nColonization, 41 ff.\n_Colossians: Epistle to_, II, 20-23: 352; III, 1-3: 314.\nCommunion, Mithraic, 282 f.;\n           Christian, 354.\nConstantinople: the conquest of, 170.\nContemplative life: according to Aristotle, 178 f.;\n  Neoplatonists, 219;\n  Origen, 347.\nConvention, the basis of institutions, 127.\n_Corinthians_:\n   _1 Epistle to_, III, 16 f.; VI, 19: 315; VII: 352; XII-XIV: 316;\n   _2 Epistle to_, III, 17: 315; IV, 6-7: 314.\n_Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_ (_CIL_), VI, 497-504: 288;\n       VI, 510, 512: 289; X, 1596: 288.\nCosmopolitanism: Stoic, 196 ff.;\n  of Roman Empire, 299.\nCrassus, 246.\nCreon, 104 f.\nCritias, _Frg._ 25 = 1 N^2: 128.\nCriticism of gods, 80 f.\nCritolaus, 241.\nCronos, 237, 238.\nCroton, 53.\nCult of dead, 26, 44.\n_Cultores Iovis Heliopolitani Berytenses_, 263.\nCybele, 83.\nCynics, 184 f., 188, 208.\n\nDea Syria, 263.\nDeath: life after. See Future Life.\nDeianeira, 105 ff.\nDelos, 260, 262.\nDelphi, 53, 109.\nDemeter, 18, 62 ff., 230.\nDemocracy at Athens, 112.\nDemocritus, 241.\nDeo, 69.\n_Deuteronomy_ VI, 5: 305.\nDialogues: the Platonic, 146 ff.\nDiana, 233, 247.\n_Didache_, 7: 353.\n_Digest_ I, 1, 4.5: 4; XVII, 32: 198.\nDio Chrysostom, _Or._ XII, 51: 27.\nDiogenes of Apollonia, 140.\nDiogenes Laertius, VII, 149: 194.\nDiogenes of Sinope, 72, 184.\nDiogenes the Stoic, 241.\nDion, 145.\nDionysius of Halicarnassus, IV, 62: 221.\nDionysius of Syracuse, 145.\nDionysus, 18, 47 ff., 142 f., 230, 272, 286, 357.\nDispater, 231.\nDittenberger, _Sylloge_^2 653: 71.\nDocetism, 320, 339.\nDraco, 41.\nDrama: effect at Rome, 233 f.\nDualism:\n  Gnostic, 338 f.;\n  Mithraic, 279;\n  Orphic, 50 ff., 55 f.;\n  Platonic, 148 ff., cf. 208, 212, 216;\n  Pythagorean, 62;\n  Stoic, 191.\n\u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, 69.\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, 211.\n\nEcstacy, 213 f., 218 ff.\nEducation, Roman, 235 ff.\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, 149.\nEleusinian mysteries, 62 ff., 116.\nEleusinion at Athens, 65 f.\nEleusis, 62 ff., 116.\nEmpedocles, 52, 53, 55, 57, 122; _Frg._ 115: 57 f.\nEmperor, worship of, 247 f.\nEnnius, 234, 235, 236, 238 f.; _Scen._ 316 ff.: 238.\nEnvy of the gods, 24, 87, 94 f., 164.\n_Ephemeris Arch._, III (1883), p. 81, 8: 71.\n_Ephesians: Epistle to_, III, 3-4: 336.\nEpictetus, 187, 201, 204 f., 250 ff.;\n  _Diss._, I, 1: 189;\n    I, 3: 197; I, 14, 6: 202; I, 15, 1: 250; I, 16: 255;\n    I, 16, 15-21: 200;\n    II, 5, 13: 189; II, 8, 11: 202; II, 16, 45-47: 255;\n    III, 10, 2: 251; III, 10, 8: 253; III, 12: 252; III, 13, 9 ff.: 255;\n    IV, 1: 196; _Gnomol. Stobaei_, 31: 196.\n_Epicurea_, pp. 59, 72; _Frg_. 506: 249.\nEpicureanism: at Rome, 238, 241 ff.\nEpicurus, 254.\nEpoptae, 67.\nEr the Pamphylian, 162.\nEretria, 42.\nEteocles, 97.\nEthics, 242, 249. See Morality.\nEtruscan influence at Rome, 222 ff.\nEucharist: an initiation or mystery, 340, 354.\nEuclides, 145.\nEuhemerus: Sacred History, 238 f.\nEumolpidae and Ceryces, 67.\nEuripides, 82, 107, 117, 133 ff.;\n    on cosmic reason, 139 ff.;\n    future life, 141 f., 160;\n    humanity, 142;\n    traditional religion, 134 ff.;\n    a religious poet, 143.\n  _Bacch._, 395: 143;\n  _Hel._, 1014 ff.: 142;\n  _Heracl._, 592 ff.: 141 f.;\n  _H.F._, 1307 ff., 1341 ff.: 137;\n  _Hipp._, 451 ff., 473 ff., 1365 ff.: 136; 1102 ff.: 141;\n  _I.A._, 956 f.: 139;\n  _I.T._, 569, 570 ff.: 138;\n  _Phoen._, 954 ff.: 139;\n  _Tro._, 884 ff.: 139;\n  _Frgg._, 151, 255: 141; 292, 7: 135; 506: 141; 593: 140;\n                 757: 141; 794: 138; 816: 141; 941: 140; 946: 138.\nEvil: origin and problem of:\n  in Apologists, 333 f.;\n  Gnostics, 338 f.;\n  Hesiod, 36 ff.;\n  Homer, 14;\n  Orphism, 52;\n  Plato, 157, 165 ff.;\n  Stoicism, 194 ff.\n\nFaith, 308 f., 313 ff., 321 ff.\nFate: in Homer, II ff.; Stoicism, 194 ff.\nFire: in Heraclitus, 120 f.; Stoicism, 192.\nFirst cause: Aristotle\u2019s, 173 f.\nFlora, 225, 231.\nFlorentinus, 198.\nFolk-religion in Homer, 26.\nFons, 225.\nFreedom of the will, 88, 195 ff., 333 f., 345.\nFuries, 96.\nFuture life, 24 ff., 39, 46, 48, 56, 88 ff., 99, 107 f., 141 f.,\n             274, 283 ff., 316 f., 339, 345 f.\n\n_Galatians: Epistle to_, I, 1 ff.: 312 f.; I, 11-12: 336;\n          I, 16: 314; II, 15-16, 20: 314; III, 23-26, 27: 314;\n        III, 26-27: 315; IV, 6: 315; IV, 19: 314; V, 22 f.: 315.\nGalen, 169, 298.\nGalileo, 118.\nGames in the circus, 222.\nGenius, 228.\nGetae, 49.\nGiants, 87.\n\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 336 ff., 340, 342.\nGnostics, 328, 336 ff.;\n  on Christ, 339 f.;\n  doctrine of emanations, 338;\n  dualism, 338 f.;\n  ethics, 340;\n  nature of god, 338;\n  origin of evil, 338;\n  revelation, 337;\n  sacraments, 340.\n    See also Basilides and Valentinus.\nGod: immanence of, 193, 203, 209;\n  kingdom of, 301, 310;\n  nature of, according to the Apologists, 333 f.;\n  Aristotle, 173 ff.;\n  Gnostics, 338;\n  Jesus, 303 ff.;\n  Origen, 343;\n  Plato, 151 ff., 157, 163 ff.;\n  Stoics, 192 ff., 203;\n  personal concept of in Plato, 163 f.;\n  Stoicism, 193 f.;\n  transcendence of, 176, 208 ff., 215 ff., 331 f., 338, 343, 350.\nGods: concept of in\n   Aeschylus, 91 ff.;\n   Archilochus, 76, 79 f.;\n   Critias, 128;\n   Epicureans, 241 f.;\n   Euripides, 134 ff.;\n   Hesiod, 29 ff.;\n   Homer, 6 ff.;\n   Pindar, 83 ff.;\n   Protagoras, 128;\n   Sophocles, 100 ff.;\n   Theognis, 76 ff.;\n   Xenophanes, 118 f.\nGood: the Platonic idea of, and god, 151 f.\nGoodness, attribute of god, 164.\nGorgias, 124.\nGovernment:\n  Homeric, 15, 40;\n  effect of changes in, 40 ff., 183 f.\nGracchi, 246.\nGreat Mother of the Gods, 261, 267, 285 ff.\nGreece and Rome, 221 ff.\nGreek colonies: influence on Rome, 222 f.\nGreek language: knowledge of in Republican Rome, 233 ff.;\n  universally understood in Roman Empire, 296 f.\nGreek religion: phase treated, 4.\n\nHades:\n  the Homeric, 19;\n  as place of penance, 56 ff., 88 f., 161 f.\nHarnack, quoted, 321, 329 f., 337.\n_Hebrews: Epistle to_, 318, 348.\nHecateus, 121.\nHellenization of Roman religion, 229 ff.\nHephaestus, 17 f.\nHera, 15 f., 136, 237.\nHeraclea, 53.\nHeraclitus, 93, 107, 120 ff., 148, 183, 191 f., 212, 319;\n  _Frgg._, 1, 2, 14, 15, 29, 30-32, 40-42, 57, 67, 90, 128: 121.\nHercules, 137, 230.\nHermes, 19, 230.\nHermias, 169, 181.\nHerodotus, 3, 49, 71, 124, 164;\n  _Hist._, II, 53: 3.\nHesiod, 3, 28 ff., 43, 80, 118, 119, 121;\n  _Theog._, 220 ff.: 30;\n  _W. and D._, 47-104, 109 ff.: 37;\n    174 f., 182 ff.: 38; 213 ff.: 32;\n    225 ff.: 33; 252 ff., 256 ff.: 35;\n    265 f.: 33; 274 ff.: 34;\n    303 ff., 311: 31; 333 f.: 33;\n    336 ff.: 36; 694: 87; 709 ff.: 34.\nHippolytus, 135 f.\nHippolytus, _Philos._, p. 115 M: 70.\nHippocrates, 298.\nHoly Spirit, 315 f., 322, 333, 339, 345, 353\nHomer, 3 ff., 119, 121, 236.\n  _Il._, I, 37 ff.: 22; I, 65: 23; I, 258: 20; I, 517 ff.: 15;\n    I, 528 ff.: 27; I, 544: 15; I, 592 ff.: 16; II, 5 ff.: 19;\n    II, 202, 273: 20; II, 371: 17; II, 549: 16; III, 179: 20;\n    III, 276: 15; IV, 1 ff.: 20; VI, 297 ff.: 16; VIII, 236 ff.: 22;\n    IX, 533 ff.: 22; XIII, 296 ff., 331 ff.: 16; XV, 18 ff.: 16;\n    XVII, 446 f.: 25; XVIII, 369 ff.: 17; XVIII, 417 ff., 478 ff.: 18;\n    XX, 1 ff.: 15; XXI, 442 ff.: 18; XXII, 365 f.: 23;\n    XXIV, 334 ff., 525 f.: 25;\n  _Od_. I, 45: 15; IV, 115 ff.: 17; IV, 351 ff.: 22;\n    IV, 502 ff.: 23; V, 28 ff.: 18; VII, 81: 16; VII, 91 ff.: 17;\n    XI, 488 ff.: 24; XIII, 162 ff.: 18; XV, 115 ff.: 17.\nHomeric Hymn to Demeter, 62 ff., 480 f.: 70.\nHonor: personal in Homer, 21.\nHorace, 76, 234, 236, 246.\nHorus, 272.\nHaruspices, 222.\n\u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, 78 ff. See Insolence.\n\nIacchos, 68 f.\nIcaria, 48.\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1, \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9, 149, 211.\nIdeas: doctrine of in Plato, 147 ff.; in Philo, 211; Plotinus, 215.\nIgnatius, _ad Eph._, 20: 354.\n_I G S I_, 1019, 1020: 288.\n_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_:\n  characteristics of, 5 ff., 25 ff.;\n  contain no theogonies, 8;\n  contributions to later religious ideas, 27;\n  date, 5;\n  freedom in treatment of gods, 16 f.;\n  purpose, 5 ff.;\n  religion in, 6 ff.;\n  show little reflection, 8, 21.\nImmanence of God, 193, 203, 209, 216.\nImmateriality of Plato\u2019s ideas, 152.\nImmortality, 48, 59, 152 ff., 177, 202, 283 f., 286, 289, 306,\n             316 f., 334, 339.\nIncarnation, 319 ff., 333, 344.\nIndividualism, 43, 47, 196.\nInitiation:\n  significance of, 60, 72;\n  Christian, 353 f.;\n  Eleusinian, 65 ff.;\n  Isiac, 273 ff.;\n  Mithraic, 281 f.\nInsolence, 32, 78 ff., 86 ff.\nIphigenia, 98, 138.\nIrenaeus, _adv. Haer._ I, 1-3; 24, 3-4: 338; I, 2, 5-6, 5-8;\n        24, 2-4: 339; I, 23, 4; 24, 5: 340; IV, 30, 3: 299;\n        IV, 31, 4: 354; _Frg._ 36 Harvey: 354.\nIsis, 262 ff., 335;\n  festivals introduced at Rome, 272 f.;\n  initiation, 273 ff.;\n  matins and vespers, 273, 276;\n  modification of religion by Ptolemy Soter, 271 f.;\n  mysteries, 271, 273 ff.;\n  supreme divinity, 269 f.\nIslands of the Blest, 38 f., 90.\n\nJanus, 225, 226.\nJesus, 301 ff.;\n  concept of own person, 307 f., 310;\n  of relation to God, 308;\n  of passion and death, 309;\n  on kingdom of God, 310;\n  and the Logos, 318 ff., 333;\n  person and mission, 303, 356 f.;\n  redeemer and saviour, 312 ff., 321 f.; 357;\n  relation of teachings to Jewish ideas, 309 f.;\n  required belief of his followers, 308 f.;\n  significance of personality, 303, 310;\n  teachings, 302 ff.\nJocasta, 97.\nJohn, 302, 318 ff.;\n  character of gospel, 318;\n  on Christ as Logos, 318 ff.;\n  faith, 321 f.;\n  Holy Spirit, 323;\n  incarnation, 321;\n  love, 322;\n  salvation, 321 f.;\n  union with Christ, 322 f.\n _Gospel_, I, 9: 321; III, 3, 6: 323; III, 16-17: 322;\n        III, 19-21: 321; IV, 7 ff.: 323; V, 24: 323 f.;\n        V, 35: 321; VI, 15: 308; VI, 33 ff.: 323; VIII, 12: 321;\n        VIII, 31 ff.: 322; IX, 5: 321; XII, 35 f.: 321;\n        XIII, 34 f: 322; XIV, 9-11: 322; XIV-XVI: 323;\n        XV, 1 ff.: 323; XX, 31: 323.\n _Epistles_: 1 John III, 14: 324; IV, 2 f.: 321;\n        IV, 8, 9 f., 16: 322; V, 24: 324.\nJudaism, 300 f.\nJudeo-Alexandrian philosophy, 206 ff.\nJulian, 66.\nJuno, 222, 224, 225, 226, 230, 233, 237.\nJupiter, 222, 224, 225, 226, 229, 230, 233, 237, 263, 264.\nJustice, 19, 21, 32 ff., 35, 78 ff., 85 ff., 94 f., 141.\nJustin, 328 ff.; _Apol._, I, 5, 13, 61, 65, 67: 333;\n    I, 5, 15 ff., 21, 56: 334; I, 23, 63: 335; I, 31-53, 56: 330;\n    I, 66: 354; II, 6: 335; II, 8 ff.: 330;\n  _Dial. c. Tryph._, 7, 29, 61, 62, 105, 116, 128: 333.\nJustinian, 118.\n\nKabeiroi, 71 f.\nKeleos, 62 f.\nKingdom of God, 301, 306.\nKnowledge, and Virtue, 131 f.;\n  relativity of, 126 f.;\n  revealed, 335 ff.\nKore, 62, 64, 69, 230.\n\nLaelius, 187, 254.\nLaius, house of, 97.\nLar, 228.\nLatin literature:\n  founded by Livius Andronicus, 233;\n  influenced by Greek, 233 ff.\nLaw, written, 41.\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, 69.\nLepidus, 246.\nLiber = Dionysus, 230.\nLibera = Kore, 230.\nLife after death. See Future life and Immortality.\nLivius Andronicus, 233, 236.\nLivy, 234;\n  _Hist._, X, 19, 17: 228; XXII, 10, 2 ff.: 228; XXII, 10, 9: 233;\n                XXXIX, 8 ff.: 239; XL, 29: 240.\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03cc, 155.\nLogos:\n    in Apologists, 332 f.;\n       Heraclitus, 192, 319 f.;\n       John, 318 ff.;\n       Origen, 344 f.;\n       Philo, 211 f.;\n   and trinity, 350.\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, 192.\nLove: cardinal principles of Christianity, 304 ff., 322.\nLucretius, 242.\nLudi Megalenses, 261.\nLuke: _Gospel_, 302 f.; VI, 27-36: 304; VI, 35: 305;\n     IX, 18-21: 308; X, 27: 305; XXIV, 47: 306.\nLydus, _de Mens._, IV, 59: 286.\n\nM\u00e2, 263.\nMacaria, 141.\nMagic, lacking in Homer, 24.\nMagna Mater. See Great Mother of the Gods.\nManes, 228.\nMarcus Aurelius, 78, 188, 204 f.;\n  _Reflections_, II, 2: 201; IV, 41: 201;\n    IV, 23: 256; VI, 44: 199.\nMarius, 246.\nMars, 226, 233, 237.\nMatter, 166 ff., 172 f., 215 ff., 331, 332, 338.\nMatthew: _Gospel_, 302 f.;\n    IV, 17: 306; V, 43-48, 44-45: 304, 305; XVI, 13-20: 308;\n    XXII, 37: 305; XXVI, 63: 308.\nMark: _Gospel_, 302 f.;\n    VIII, 27-30: 308; XI, 25; XII, 30: 305; XIV, 61: 308.\nMegara, 42, 75, 145.\nMenander, 236.\nMercury, 230, 232, 233.\nMercy, attribute of gods, 106.\nMessiah, 212, 308, 311.\nMessianic hopes, 301.\nMetempsychosis, 56 ff., 61.\nMiletus, 42, 43.\nMind, as formative principles, 123 f.\nMinerva, 222, 224, 225, 230, 232, 233, 237.\nMinoan Age, 3.\nMithras, 264, 267, 277 ff.;\n  chapels, 280 f.;\n  communion, 282 f.;\n  destruction of world, 284;\n  dualism, 279;\n  ethics, 280;\n  final judgment, 284;\n  identified with sun, 279;\n  initiation, 281 f.;\n  popularity, 277 f.;\n  religion, origin and history, 277 f.;\n  resurrection of body, 284;\n  rewards and punishments, 283 f.\nMommsen, Theodor, 223.\nMonotheism, Christian, 356.\nMorality, 20 f., 35, 45, 60, 72, 156 ff., 169, 177, 184 f., 188 ff.,\n          201 f., 213, 219, 249, 251 ff., 268, 279 f., 291, 305 f.,\n          314 f., 334, 340, 345 ff.\nMultiplicity and unity, 120 ff.\nMurder, 45.\nMusonius, 199.\nMycenaean Age, 3.\nMystae, 67.\nMysteries:\n  not mentioned in Homer, 18;\n  Bacchic at Rome, 239 f.;\n  Eleusinian, 62 ff., 116;\n  Oriental, 268 ff., 289 f.;\n  influence on Christianity, 353 f.\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, 353.\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 65, 353.\nMystery religions, 52 ff., 62 ff., 268 ff.\nMysticism, in later Greek philosophy, 214 ff.\n\nNaevius, 234, 235.\nNature, in Stoicism: 191, 196.\nNeoplatonism, 206 ff.; 214 ff.\nNeopythagoreanism, 206 ff.\nNeptunus, 230, 233.\nNestle, quoted, 134.\nNew Testament: three stages of Christianity represented therein, 301 f.\nNigidius Figulus, 206.\n\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, 123, 152, 215, 217, 219, 339.\nNuma, 227.\n\nOctavian, 246.\nOdysseus, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 104.\nOdyssey: translated by Livius Andronicus, 233.\nOedipus, 97, 103, 105, 106, 107.\nOld Testament, 216, 217, 258, 303, 351, 356 f.\nOlympian religion, 25 ff., 110 ff.\nOnomacritus, 53.\nOrestes, 96 ff.\nOrgiastic cults: not mentioned in Homer, 18.\nOriental influence on Greek thought, 257 f.\nOriental religions, 257 ff.:\n   character, 266 ff.:\n   chronology, 265 f.:\n   common elements, 289 f.:\n   decay, 265, 357;\n   distribution, 260, 264 f.;\n   effect on devotees, 293 f.;\n   morality, 268, 291 ff.;\n   mysteries, 268, 271;\n   opponents of Christianity, 326;\n   pantheistic tendencies, 268 ff.;\n   revival at Rome, 266.\nOrigen, 207, 214, 341 ff.;\n   on angels, men, and demons, 345;\n   Christ, 344;\n   creation, 343 f.;\n   esoteric and exoteric Christianity, 347 f.;\n   the founder of Christian philosophy, 342 ff., 348;\n   on freedom, 346; Holy Spirit, 345;\n   incarnation, 344, 347;\n   Logos, 344 f., 347;\n   nature of God, 343;\n   psychology, 346;\n   revelation, 343, 344, 347;\n   salvation, 346 f., 348 f.;\n   ultimate destruction of wickedness, 346.\n  _C. Cels._, I, 1.7: 354; I, 31: 347; II, 66.69: 347;\n                 III, 59-62, 347; IV, 15.18: 347; IV, 65: 345;\n                 VI, 68: 347; VII, 17: 347;\n  _Exhort. ad Mart._, 347;\n  _in Ioh._, I, 20-22: 347;\n  _in Matt._, ser. 69: 346;\n  _de Prin._, praef., I: 343;\n    I, 1.2: 344; I, 3.5.8: 345; I, 5, 3: 346; II, 5.6: 344;\n    II, 7: 345; II, 8: 346; III, 1. 4. 6: 346; III, 5: 344;\n    IV, 11 ff.: 351; _in Rom._, IV, 5; IX, 3: 346.\nOrmuzd, 278, 283.\nOromasdes, 278.\nOrpheus, 52.\nOrpheus of Croton, 53.\n_Orphica_:\n    _Frgg._, 7: 54; 14: 55; 46: 54; 115: 55;\n            117: 57; 154: 56; 223: 57;\n    _Tab. Orph._ 18: 58.\nOrphism, 52 ff., 93, 118, 145, 208, 257, 351;\n  ascetic tendency, 59;\n  contributions to Greek religious ideas, 59;\n  rule of life, 56;\n  theogonies, 54.\nOsiris, 51, 267, 271 f., 286, 357.\n\nPaganism:\n  influence on Christian thought, 349 ff.;\n  service to Christianity, 355 f.\nPan, 83, 130.\nPanaetius, 186 f., 243.\nPanathenaic festival, 111.\nPandora, 36 f.\nPantheism, 13, 46, 54, 84 f., 93, 119, 140, 163 f., 192 ff., 268 ff.\nParthenon, 110 f., 112.\nPathos in Homer, 25, 46.\nPaul, 161, 302, 311 ff., 348, 349;\n  on Christ\u2019s death and resurrection, 312 f.;\n  dualism, 316;\n  faith, 313 ff.;\n  Holy Spirit, 315 f.;\n  indwelling Christ, 314;\n  salvation, 312 ff.\n    See also Colossians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians.\nPaulus, Julius, 198.\nPausanias, 83.\nPax Romana, 245, 246, 299.\nPeloponnesian War, 124, 127, 133.\nPenates, 228, 237.\nPericles, 110, 113 ff., 117 f., 124, 133 f.\nPersephone, 19, 62 ff., 231, 286.\nPersian Wars, 82, 83, 109, 117.\nPessimism:\n  in Theognis, 77;\n  under Roman Empire, 204 f.\nPhaedra, 135 f.\nPharisees, 304 f., 309.\nPhidias, 26, 110, 117.\n_Philippians: Epistle to_, III, 10 f.: 315.\nPhilo of Alexandria, 207, 210 ff., 216, 258, 320, 331, 332, 338, 351.\n  _De alleg. leg._, III, 29 ff.: 214;\n  _quis rer. div. her._ 205 f.: 212;\n  _de somn._, I, 149: 213;\n  _de special. legib._, I, 329: 211.\nPhilo of Larissa, 244.\nPhiloctetes, 101.\nPhilodemus, 93.\nPhilolaus, 55.\nPhilosophers, banished from Rome, 240 f.\nPhilosophic schools at Athens closed, 118.\nPhilosophy:\n  Greek, and Apologists, 328 ff.;\n  beginnings of, 43 f.;\n  Clement\u2019s attitude toward, 342;\n  enemy of traditional religion, 117 ff.;\n  function of according to Plato, 158;\n  influence on Christianity, 302, 317 f., 324 ff., 355 f., 358;\n  influence at Rome, 239 ff.;\n  practical guide of life, 184 ff., 201 f.;\n  reconciliation with Jewish theology, 206 f., 258; and\n      religion, 179 ff.;\n  rival of Christianity, 358;\n  spread to the West, 297.\n    See also Aristotle, Epicureanism, Philo, Plato,\n             Socrates, Sophists, Stoics, etc.\nPhilostratus, 206.\n\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, 353.\nPindar, 52, 81 ff., 117, 137;\n  _Isth._, III, 5 f.: 85; V, 13 ff.: 87; VI, 71: 87;\n  _Nem._, VI, 1 ff.: 83; XI, 13 ff.: 87; _Ol._, I, 52: 86;\n    I, 64: 85; II, 63 ff.: 90; X, 3: 85; XIII, 83: 84;\n  _Pyth._, II, 49 ff.: 84; III, 29: 85; III, 78 f.: 83;\n                IX, 44 ff.; X, 49: 84;\n  _Frgg._, 131: 89; 137: 71; 140: 85; 142: 84; 205: 85.\nPisistratidae, 48.\nPisistratus, 53, 110 f.\nPlato, 144 ff., 183, 184, 186, 187, 199, 208, 209, 210,\n                211, 212, 216, 217, 257, 346, 349, 351;\n  ascetic tendencies, 158;\n  on creation, 167 f.;\n  debt to Orphics and Pythagoreans, 156, 160 ff.;\n  debt to Socrates, 146 ff.;\n  doctrine of recollection, 153 f.;\n  dualism, 148;\n  on final fate of soul, 163;\n  goodness as attribute of god, 164;\n  on highest good of man, 156;\n  human reason, 152;\n  ideas, 148 ff.:\n    immortality, 152 ff.;\n    matter, 165 f.;\n    morality, 156 ff., 169;\n    nature of god, 151 f.;\n    and Orphic dualism, 156;\n    pantheism, 163 f.;\n    on problem of evil, 165 ff.;\n    psychology, 155 f.;\n    transmigration of souls, 161 f.\n  _Alc._, II, 149 D ff.: 23; _Apol._, 37 E: 105;\n  _Crat._, 399 f.: 160; 389 f.: 166;\n  _Euth._, 14 E: 23; _Gorgias_, 492 E-493 A: 160;\n  _Laws_, VI, 759: 180; X, 894 B ff.: 153;\n                X entire: 180; XII, 966 E: 153;\n  _Meno_, 81 ff.: 153;\n  _Phaedo_, 63 ff.: 160; 66 E ff.: 159; 72 ff.: 153;\n                 82 f.: 158; 86 ff., 105: 154;\n  _Phaedrus_, 245: 153; 246 f.: 155; 248 f.: 163;\n  _Phil._, 22 C: 152; _Rep._, IV, 427 ff.: 155;\n    IV, 438 A-441 C: 346; VI, 440 E-441 A: 155; VI, 484 ff.: 156;\n    VI, 504: 155; VIII, 550: 155; IX, 580 f.: 155; X, 613: 157;\n    X, 614 ff.: 163;\n  _Statesm_., 272 ff.: 165, 167;\n  _Theaet._, 176: 157, 165, 167;\n  _Tim._, 28 A-29 E, 37 A: 152; 42 ff.: 165, 346;\n             49 E-52 B: 166; 69-72: 155 f.; 92 C: 152.\nPlautus, 234.\nPliny the Elder, _N. H._, VII, 112: 241; XIII, 84 ff.: 240.\nPliny the Younger, _Epist._, X, 96.\nPlotinus, 207, 209, 215 ff.;\n  _Enn._, I, 2: 219; IV entire, 215; IV, 3, 7, 9: 217;\n    V entire: 215; V, 1: 215, 217, 218; V, 9, 1: 219;\n    VI entire: 215; VI, 9, 3: 215; VI, 9, 11: 219.\nPlutarch: philosophy of religion, 270;\n  _de aud. poet._, 21 F: 72;\n  _de Is. et Osir._, 67: 270;\n  _C. M._, 22: 241.\nPluto, 63 f., 231.\nPolitics, Roman: in relation to religion, 232.\nPolynices, 97, 104.\nPompeii, 262.\nPompey, 187, 246, 263.\nPontifex maximus, 229.\nPontifices, 229.\nPorphyry, 207, 209, 218, 219;\n  _de abst._, I, 31: 218;\n  _ad Marc._, 32: 218;\n  _vita Plot._, 1 ff.: 218; 23: 215, 220; apud Euseb.,\n  _H. E._, VI, 19, 6: 343; VI, 19, 7 f.: 348.\nPoseidon, 18, 230.\nPriesthoods, Roman, 229.\nProclus, _ad Plat. Tim._, p. 293 C: 69.\nProdicus, _Frg._, 5: 128.\n_Prometheus Bound_, 91 ff.\nPrometheus, myth of, 36 f.\nProserpina, 231. See Kore.\nProtagoras, 124, 126 f., 128, 151; _Frg._, 1: 127; 4: 128.\nProvidence, 13, 194 f.\nPrudentius, _Peristeph._, X, 1011 ff.: 289.\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae: in Plotinus, 215.\nPsychology:\n  Aristotelian, 176 ff.;\n  Gnostic, 339;\n  Homeric, 24;\n  Origen\u2019s, 346;\n  Orphic, 55;\n  Platonic, 155;\n  Stoic, 192, 195.\nPtolomaeus, _Epist. ad Floram_, 339.\nPtolemy Soter, 271 f.\nPurification, 45.\nPuteoli, 262, 263, 264.\nPythagoras, 60 f., 251.\nPythagorean books at Rome, 240.\nPythagoreanism, 52, 60 ff., 145, 206, 209, 216, 217, 257, 351.\n\nQuirinus, 226.\n\nReason, the cosmic, 123, 139 ff.\nRelativity of knowledge, 126 f.\nReligion, Greek:\n  of common man, 181 f.;\n  in Athens of fifth century B.C., 112 ff.\nReligion, Roman, 223 ff.\n_Renatus_, 277, 289.\nRepentance, in teachings of Jesus, 306.\nRevelation, 209, 214, 217, 300, 334 ff., 349, 356 f.\nRhetoric, Greek: spread to West, 297.\nRhetoricians, Greek: banished from Rome, 241.\nRoman Empire: characteristics at beginning of the Christian era, 296 ff.\n_Romans: Epistle to_, VI; VII, 4 ff.: 315; VIII, 10 f.: 314, 315;\n                           VIII, 15; XIV, 17: 315.\nRome, and Greece, 221 ff.;\n  connection with Troy, 233;\n  political power of, 259 ff.\nRomulus, 227.\n\n_Sacrati_, 268, 276.\nSacrifice: obligation of, 21 ff., 35 f.\nSt. Demetra, 66.\nSalamis: battle of, 109.\nSalii, 227.\nSalvation, 47, 55, 58, 60, 212 f., 274 f., 306 f., 324, 334.\nSanctity: ideal of, 209.\nSamothrace: mysteries of, 71.\nSaturn, 225, 237.\nSaturninus, 246.\nScaevola, 243, 245.\nScepticism, of Sophists, 126 ff.\nSceptics, 244.\n_Scholia Venet. ad Il._, XX, 67: 350.\nScience: East home of, 297 f.\nScipio, 187, 254.\nSecond Punic War, 235, 259.\nSecular games, 231.\nSelf-consciousness, 8, 21, 41 ff.\nSeneca, 187, 188, 204, 250 ff.;\n  _de Ben._, III, 18, 2. 20. 28: 198;\n  _Epist._, 11, 8-10; 25, 5. 6: 254; 41, 2: 255; 41, 8: 254;\n       68, 2: 199; 92, 2 f.: 254; 95, 47-50: 200, 255;\n       95, 52: 197; 115, 5: 200, 255;\n  _de Ira_, III, 36, 1-4: 251;\n  _de Otio_, 4, 1: 199;\n  _de Vita Beata_, 17: 189, 253.\nSerapis, 262, 271 f.\nSeven Wise Men, 43.\nShamash, 278.\nSibyl: Cumaean, 221.\nSibylline Books, 221 ff., 230 ff., 260 ff.\nSicilian expedition, 133.\nSimonides, _Frg._, 61: 76.\nSocrates, 104 f., 129 ff., 144 ff., 184, 185, 188, 252.\nSol invictus, 279.\nSolon, 41, 79, 81;\n  _Frgg._, 4, 1-16: 79; 13: 79 f.; 13, 31 f.: 81.\nSophists, 124 ff., 151, 183, 244.\nSophocles, 81, 90 f., 99 ff., 117, 133 ff.;\n  attitude toward gods, 100 f.;\n  concept of divine ordinances, 103 f.;\n  criticism of gods, 100 ff.;\n  and Eleusinian mysteries, 108;\n  on good and evil, 100;\n  life after death, 107 ff.;\n  suffering, 105 ff.\n  _Ai._, 127 ff.: 102 f.; 1343 f.: 104;\n  _Antig._, 450 ff.: 104; 621 ff.: 100; 1347 ff.: 102;\n  _O. C._, 495 ff.: 103; 1267 ff.: 106; 1381 f.: 100;\n  _O. T._, 863 ff.: 103;\n  _Phil._, 446 ff.: 101; 1440 ff.: 102;\n  _Trach._, 1136: 105;\n  _Frgg._, 103: 101; 226: 102, 135; 600: 105; 753: 71, 108.\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, 94, 102.\n\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c2, 353.\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 166.\nStobaeus, Ecl., I, 1, 12: 194; _Flor._, 40, 9: 199.\n_Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta_ (_SVF_), I, 175, 176, 537;\n    II, 974 ff.: 194.\nStoics and Stoicism, 184 ff., 208, 209, 212, 213, 241, 243 f.,\n                     245, 249 ff., 254 f., 335, 350;\n  allegorical interpretation of myths, 203, 350;\n  ascetic tendency, 201;\n  on brotherhood of man, 197 f., 202;\n  and Christianity, 197 f.;\n  cosmopolitanism, 196 ff., 254;\n  eclectic character, 185 ff.;\n  ethics, 187 ff.;\n  on evil, 194 ff.;\n  failure of, 256;\n  on Fate, 194;\n  freedom of the will, 195 f.;\n  \u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, 192;\n  on immanence of god, 193, 203;\n  individualism, 196;\n  missionary impulse, 199;\n  modified by Panaetius and Posidonius, 187 ff.;\n  a moral philosophy, 187 f.,\n  on Nature, 191;\n  pantheism, 192 f.;\n  on Providence, 194;\n  psychology, 192, 195;\n  on worship, 199 f., 255.\nSuetonius, _de Rhet._, 1: 241.\nSulla, 246, 263.\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, 354.\nSyncretism, 268 ff.\n\nTarquins, 221, 222, 229 f.\nTatian, 328; _Orat._, 5: 331; 5-7: 333; 7 f., 11: 334;\n                          13: 333; 20: 330.\nTaurobolium, 288 ff.\nTerence, 234.\nTertullian, _Apol._, 37: 358; _adv. Valent._, 17: 323.\nThales, 43, 297.\nTheagenes, 350.\nThebes, 50, 72.\nTheophrastus, 297.\nTheophilus, _ad Autol._, 2, 15: 323.\nTheognis, 75 ff.; 165 f.: 76; 167 f.: 77; 171 f.: 76; 319 ff.: 78;\n                 373-380: 80; 383 ff.: 78; 425-431: 77; 583 f.: 77;\n                 731 ff.: 81; 1029 ff.: 78; 1075 ff.: 77.\nTheogony, of Hesiod, 28 ff.\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, in Plato, 164.\nTheseus, 105.\nThomas Aquinas, 171.\nThucydides, 113 ff., 124; _Hist._, II, 43-44: 113.\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2, 155.\nThurii, 124.\nTibur, 230.\n_Timothy: 1 Epistle to_, IV, I-3: 352.\nTiresias, 139.\nTitans, 51 f.\nTranscendence of god, 176, 208 ff., 215 ff., 331 f., 338, 343, 350.\nTransmigration of souls, 161 f.\nTrinity, 350.\nTriumph, 222.\nTusculum, 230.\nTyphon, 272.\nTyrannies, 41.\n\nUlpian, 198.\nUnion with god, 47 ff., 213, 219 f., 300, 314, 317, 322 f., 358.\nUranus, 238.\n\nValentinian I, 66.\nValentinus, 336 ff.\nVarro, 225, 243 f., 245.\nVesta, 225, 226, 228, 233.\nVirgil, 234, 236, 246; _Aen._, VI: 248.\nVision of God, 213 f., 219 f., 347, 349.\nVolcanus, 233.\nVows, 227 f.\n\n_Wisdom of Solomon_, 258.\nWordsworth, quoted, 154.\n_Works and Days_, of Hesiod, 30 ff.\n\nXenophanes, 118 ff., 350; _Frgg._, 11, 14-16, 18, 23-26: 119.\nXenophon, apud Stob. _Flor._, 88, 14: 76.\nXerxes, 94 f.\n\nZaleucus, 41.\nZama, battle of, 221.\nZeno, 185 ff.\nZeus, 14 f., 19 f., 26 f., 54, 75 ff., 79, 80, 83, 92 ff.,\n      193 f., 203, 237, 238.\nZopyrus, 53.\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n  Underscores \"_\" before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_\n    in the original text.\n  Carat symbol \"^\" designates a superscript.\n  Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.\n  Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.\n  Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations\n    in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered.","title":"The Religious Thought of the Greeks, from Homer to the Triumph of Christianity","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":105229}