Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second Century

American Philological Association

Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second CenturyAuthor(s): Adelaide D. SimpsonSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 72 (1941),pp. 372-381Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283063 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 17:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American PhilologicalAssociation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 9 May 2014 17:19:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/283063?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


372 Adelaide D. Simpson [1941

XXVII.-Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second Century

ADELAIDE D. SIMPSON

HUNTER COLLEGE

This study is in two parts, first an inquiry into the reasons for associating Epicureans and Christians in popular disfavor, and second the suggestion that in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, the two Christians, Octavius and Minucius, had originally been Epicureans.

The oracle-monger in Lucian classed Epicureans and Christians with atheists ' and banished them from his spectacular rites.2 In Alexander the thaumaturge, Lucian portrayed a clever man, whose knowledge of popular sentiment was accurate and profitable; his linking of Epicureans and Christians with atheists indicates the very unfavorable impression which they both made on the ordinary citizen of the second century. In Alexander's evaluation there were three degrees of evil, impiety, atheism, Epicureanism, and the last was the greatest reproach.3 In the same age Christianity was con- demned with equal severity, not by a satirist,4 but by serious critics, as a superstition which Pliny could call prava inmodica, Suetonius malefica, Tacitus exitiabilis; Tacitus records the popular hatred of Christians per flagitia.5 The oratorical tradition of invective may account for the language, but underneath the abuse conventionally employed by literary men can be seen the opinions held by the common people.' It is worthwhile therefore to examine the pairing of Epicureanism and Christianity to see if there were other resemblances than the alleged atheism, and to discover if these were superficial or were the result of similar intellectual and emotional attitudes.

The charge of impiety and atheism must first be considered.

l Luc. Alex. 25. 2 Ibid. 38. 3 Ibid. 46. 4 Lucian's opinion of Christians is given below, note 48. 6 Plin. Epist. 96.8; Suet. Nero 16.2; Tac. Ann. 15.44: per flagitia invisos vulgus

Christianos adpellabat, . . . exitiabilis superstitio. 6 Cic. De Oral. 1.221: Orator autem omnia haec, quae putantur in communi vitae

consuetudine mala ac molesta et fugienda, multo maiora et acerbiora verbis facit. See Min. Fel. 31.2: tuus Fronto non ut adfirmator testimonium fecit, sed convicium ut orator adspersit.



Vol. lxxii] Epicureans, Christians, Atheists 373

So far as Epicureans were concerned, this was old enough and important enough to have been answered by Epicurus himself,7 and Lucretius also had found it necessary to assure Memmius that he need fear not the inpia rationis elementa of the Epicureans but the impia facta of religion.8 Epicurus had asserted that the gods were immortal and blessed, and Lucretius had incorporated in the De Rerum Natura Homer's picture of divine tranquillity.9 Other Epicureans however said that the gods neither existed nor shared in the government of the universe.10 Popular repetition of the charge of Epicurean impiety and atheism was probably due to the emphasis on the complete indifference of the gods to human welfare. The doctrine of divine indifference was so important that Lucian could repeatedly refer to it as characteristic of the school.' Christian writers were aware of the gravity of the charge of atheism and of its historical connections,12 and denied that they were atheists, even while acknowledging the possible justice of the charge. Justin undertook to develop the theme; we are not atheists, for we worship the creator of the world, and yet we are atheists in our rejection of the accepted gods, but not of the most true, the father of justice and temperance and the other virtues, God unmixed with evil.-3 In so far as atheism involved divine indifference to humanity, the Christian answered by emphasizing the relation of God to the universe and to man; he was the creator and made everything from

I Epicur. Ad Men. 123. Quotations from Epicurus are from C. Bailey, Epicurus: The Extant Remains (Oxford, 1926).

8 Lucr. 1.80-83. Quotations from Lucretius are from the edition of W. A. Merrill (New York, 1907).

9Epicur. Ad Men. 123; Sent. 1. Lucr. 3.18-22 (Od. 6.42-46); 2.646-648. 10 Luc. JTr. 4: Kai o ,uev Aa,uLs ov' etvaO eoovs 9aKEV ovire 5XwS Ta 'cyvy6ouvAa

e7rLoKo7roLv b 5ararTretv. Min. Fel. 19.8: Etiam Epicurus ille, qui deos aut otiosos fingit aut nullos, naturam tamen superponit. Quotations from Minucius are from my edition (New York, 1938).

11 Luc. ibid. The phrase Xwos 1r4 'yLyv6weva ehrtaKo7rE6v is repeated in Icar. 32: Oi 6b

' EIrTKObPeLO, . . . Og ,erphs ',I"P Kac&IrToVTrat ,AT re krqAeXra0 rCov a'c0pop7rIVWv

Xeryovres roCvs Oeobs IAurie iXws 1r 'yL'yv'6/eva &irtaKoireo, and the same idea is differently expressed in Bis A cc. 2.

12Justin. Apol. 1.5.3: Kal alvrhv (2ZKp&r,v) ot 5alJoves bid r-Zu' Xacp6vzrwz' rp KaKIk aSpwrctwFvFhoyr)avCos a@o a -3ltroelpeHaft Xk^yovreS MAtv e' etpe alrov avOpcnrwp k2jp-yjaavw M &eOV Ka'I &OeI%j &IroKTEVOcL aT~ cI' iooep P wOP

b&ai/L6O'a. Kai' 6.uolks F4' rj,uav rh acdrh iOepyontLv. G. Rauschen, S. Iustini Apologiae Duae (Bonn, 1911).

13Justin. Apol. 1.13.1: &&OL ,.Av OvOS Os ovK iff/eP, rO' bjj,LoupyhP roite ro-v 7rap'ro's aeI%/Luevos. 1.6.1 : 'EO'ev 6b Kai &IfOE KeKX2IAOa Kat 6j.oXoyoVjAeP' TVop Towrcov OvO.LLO- /LV@o' OeWO'v Oeot etvat, &XV obxt' To) &XI70ea60T&ToV Kat iraCrpds 5LKawaOO'S Kat 4wopoabz's, KaC TO'Xp aXwO' &ppeTrCop b&eIrqKrTOV Te KaKicas Oeoi. Also, Athenagoras Pres. 4: OVK &ffTA'P

aLOcoL.




formless matter for the service of mankind.'4 The most vigorous Christian response to the charge of atheism was contained in de- tailed denunciations of pagan gods and cults, denunciations which were not infrequently derived from non-Christian sources.15

Epicureans found a mild defender in Apuleius, who attributed the accusation of atheism to popular ignorance,'6 but Apuleius was a professional philosopher who could regard the opinion of the un- learned with kindly condescension. The pagan Caecilius in Minu- cius Felix may be taken as a better representative of the non- professional public; he blamed the Christians for their interest in scientific study and begged them to keep away from it, partly because they were ignorant, but chiefly because matters in which there is no certainty should be avoided for fear of running into superstition or of destroying religion.'7 Christians themselves said that a right understanding of the universe was necessary for a right understanding of man and of God; the creation led to the creator.18 Epicureans always regarded scientific study as necessary to clear the mind from the confusion and pain of false ideas, and to induce the tranquillity which was the goal of living.'9

Epicurean and Christian alike rejected the rigid fatalism of the age and stressed free will. Epicurus had held that the atomic swerve was necessary to account at once for change in the physical world and for human free will; he considered the doctrine of neces-

14Justin. Apol. 1.10.2: KcLt 7r6Ta T7)v &PX71P &yaLGv ovTa 57L,YY27cTaL avrov 't

&,Op4ov vXis8 ' aivOpc'rovs eU&cy/LEOa. Aristeid. 1; Theophil. Ad Autolycum 1.4, note 28 below.

15 Min. Fel. 22.1: Isiaci miseri caedunt pectora et dolorem infelicissimae matris imitantur. . . . Nonne ridiculum est vel lugere quod colas vel colere quod lugeas? Plu. De Superstitione 13 (17 1E): zEvvo4paiv2s 6' O' 4cffLKOS OTs ALyvr-TovS KO0rTOjIAfEOvs ivTaLs

iopTraLs Kal Op2voi3vras 0p,Zjv ii7rlv27oEv OLKELWS. OV'rO, 011qot, EL lAiV OEOL E'Ot, Ili Gp27VElTE

airo6s eL 8' avOpwlroL, lui ObeTre acroTs. Other Christian examples are Aristeid. 9-12 and Athenagoras, Pres. 20-21. Min. Fel. 22-24 is largely indebted to Cic. Nat. Deor. 3.40-64.

16 Apul. Apol. 27: Verum haec ferme communi quodam errore imperitorum philosophis obiectantur, ut partim eorum qui corporum causas meras et simplices rimantur irreligiosos putent eoque aiant deos abnuere, ut Anaxagoram et Leucippum et Demo- critum et Epicurum ceterosque rerum naturae patronos.

17 Min. Fel. 5.4 and 12.7. 13.5: Mea quoque opinione quae sunt dubia . . . re- linquenda sunt . . . ne aut anilis inducatur superstitio aut omnis religio destruatur.

18 Id. 17.1-4. 19 Epicur. Sent. 12: O0K 'y ro 0o,ob.4evov XveLv b7rip rCV KvptcTrarc)V lij KcareLTo&ra rTLs

Tro) abcA7ravros 4dats . . . &cT-re o'VK iv Jvev 4vaw XoXyLas &KepaLovsv ras t6ov&as &LroXaA-

#6vetv. Also, Sent. 11; Lucr. 3.1071-1075.




sity even more harmful than myths.20 Christianity also was com- mitted to the doctrine of free will.2" The philosophical difficulty in reconciling a divinely ordered universe with human freedom of choice was increased for Christians by their obligation to accept the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures, but by no means all Christians recognized the problem. Justin tried to solve it by saying that God had foreknowledge of men's acts, and through the prophetic spirit led men to increased effort and to reflection on his provident care; Athenagoras apparently thought of prophecy as mechanical: the divine spirit used the prophets as a flute-player plays the flute.22 All divination and oracles the Christians rejected as evidence of demonic possession.23 The Epicurean attitude was similarly un- compromising; Epicurus had accepted no kind of divination, and Lucian's Epicureans carried on a vigorous campaign against Alex- ander the false prophet.24 All this ran counter to even enlightened opinion of the age, which seems to have accepted divination and oracles as a concession to popular frailty.25

20 Epicur. Ad Men. 134: i1rel KPrpoTTOv' rp' Tep't r OeWV JAdOq, KaTaKOXUO0E!V 2r Tr TWV

4WVTLKCAV ELpapjAeAvp 5ovXEetLv. Cic. Fat. 22: Sed Epicurus declinatione atomi vitari fati necessitatem putat. 23: Hanc Epicurus rationem induxit ob eam rem, quod veritus est ne, si semper atomus gravitate ferretur naturali ac necessaria, nihil liberum nobis esset, cum ita moveretur animus, ut atomorum motu cogeretur. Lucr. 2.251-293, especially 261-262: nam dubio procul his rebus sua cuique voluntas principium dat et hinc motus per membra rigantur.

21 Justin. Apol. 2.6(7).3: &XX' ob5i KaoO d'.Aap/.t'v7jv 7rp&TTElv TOVs &Opcrovs Ii oaaXeLv Ta ytv6yeva, aXXa KaTra pA& T2v r rpoatpeatv e'KatTOV KaToppov j ApapTaveLv. See also 1.43, and Tatian Oratio adversus Graecos 9: '/UIS 6e KaG eL,uappuev2qs ia,Aov &v()Tepot. The Christian doctrine could be challenged, however; Min. Fel. 11.6: Nam quicquid agimus, ut alii fato ita vos deo dicitis.

22Justin. Apol. 1.44.11; Athenagoras Pres. 9. 23 Min. Fel. 26-27, esp. 27.1: Isti igitur impuri spiritus . . . sub statuis et imagini-

bus consecratis delitiscunt et adflatu suo auctoritatem quasi praesentis numinis conse- quuntur, . . . avium volatus gubernant, sortes regunt, oracula efficunt, falsis pluribus involuta. Athenagoras Pres. 27.

24 Cic. Div. 1.5: Philosophorum vero exquisita quaedam argumenta cur esset vera divinatio collecta sunt. E quibus . . . Colophonius Xenophanes . . . divinationem funditus sustulit; reliqui vero omnes praeter Epicurum balbutientem de natura deorum, divinationem probaverunt sed non uno modo. The references are collected in the edition of the De Divinatione 1 by Arthur Stanley Pease (University of Illinois, 1920), note ad loc. For Lucian, see above note 1.

25 Divination, Min. Fel. 7.6: pleni et mixti deo vates futura praecerpunt, dant cau- telam periculis, morbis medellam, spem adflictis, opem miseris, solacium calamitatibus, laboribus levamentum. Oracles, Fronto Ad M. Caesarem et Invicem 3.12 (Marcus to Fronto): nullum denique tam veriloquum oraculum est, quin aliquid ancipitis vel obliqui vel impediti habeat, quo inprudentior inretiatur.




The form of divination most closely connected with fatalism was astrology, which assumed the divinity of the heavenly bodies and their ability to reveal knowledge of events. Suetonius showed the common linking of astrology and fatalism when he wrote of Tiberius (Tiberius 69): addictus mathematicae plenusque persua- sionis cuncta fato agi. Plutarch blamed the Epicureans for their denial of accepted beliefs, and specified prophecy and the divinity of the sun and the moon.26 This was Epicurean orthodoxy; both Epicurus and Lucretius had written that the heavenly bodies did not owe their motion and various changes to any divine being, nor were they divine themselves.27 Christians had no more respect for the divinity of the sun and the moon than for other pagan divinities; all heavenly bodies were part of the divine creation and were intended for man's service.28

In regard to the immortality of the soul, Epicurean and Chris- tian teachings were wholly antagonistic, but the complete Epicurean denial and the complete Christian affirmation of immortality seem to have produced similar results. Epicurus had said that death was nothing, and therefore not to be feared, and that this knowledge made living enjoyable by taking away the longing for immortality.29 Lucretius thought more of abolishing the fear of death than of promoting the joy of living; his " Hymn to Death " was austere and contained none of the Epicurean exultation described rather scorn- fully by Cicero,30 but even Lucretius described the life released from fear of death as one of urbane courtesy in the midst of fes- tivity.3" The Christian was taught not to fear death; 32 the soul

26 P1U. Colotes 27(1123A): oL .avcLTLK'7'V a&valpOV'TeS KaeL irpbOtcu VTrpxEu' 062V $

45irKKOVres /q6& Tb V IIXLoV 4o/'vXov e'lval 26E T2)J' 6T7v a JXjvq, o's 7vivres /pw7roL Oiovat KaL

7rPorekXovTraL Kal a(Yk(ovTaL. 27 Epicur. Ad Herodotum 76; Lucr. 5.114-116. 28Tatian. Orat. 10: eXETcav OYrOL n'v eLjcap$AvEvv. rovs rXav7ras 7rpOOKVVE7V OV

,foviXoAaL. Theophil. Ad Autolycum 1.4: ijXLOs KaOL OEXr'V77 Ka'L &aripes TroLXe7a avrov

(roO Oeov) eLLv, . . . yeyov6ra 7rpos b7rqpeaLoaV Kal OovXeiav avOpc&7rwv. 29 Epicur. Ad Men. 124. 30 Cic. Tusc. 1.48: Quae quidem cogitans soleo saepe mirari non nullorum insolen-

tiam philosophorum, qui naturae cognitionem admirantur eiusque inventori et principi gratias exultantes agunt eumque venerantur ut deum; liberatos enim se per eum dicunt

gravissimis dominis, terrore sempiterno et diurno ac nocturno metu. 31 Lucr. 3.830-1094. The phrase " Hymn to Death" is attributed to Andrew Lang

in Merrill's note on 830-869. 32 Justin. Apol. 1.57.2: ov yap 6e0L'Ka,Aev O&varov, TOO 7r-hvmrs &7ro0aveLv ioXo-you-v

$juvov. Tatian. Orat. 11: Oav&rov KaTa4lpovp, v6ofov 7ravrobarvis &v&Tepos 'yivw,uac, Xi77r7

,UOV T21'v I'VX7V OV1K divaXLXLKEL.




was mortal in itself but immortal by God's will; 33 therefore all sorts and conditions of Christians could look down on fear and death.34 Epicureans and Christians virtually made death unimportant, wherein they differed conspicuously from their contemporaries, whose attitude is best exemplified in Fronto's lament that the immortality of the soul was no consolation to the grieving family and friends.35

In conduct as well as in beliefs Epicureans and Christians showed obvious resemblances, but the practice of virtue and the particular virtues stressed were similar in all the schools of philosophy.36 They taught and as far as possible practised withdrawal from politics and public life,37 and in theory at least disliked and distrusted the rhetoric which was one of its major activities.38 Poverty they considered no disgrace, but held that lack of possessions might be a positive help in acquiring happiness.39 The Epicureans held that the possession of love (tXiLa) was the greatest blessing in life; 40 Chris-

Justin. Trypho 6: tws 6s i'e vx,vX IIerTeXt, i7rel tji abrip' o eO's jo3eAraL. Tatian. Orat. 13: OVK kaTLr' &O'araTos . . . ,4 'VX7 Kai c avT'1v Ovq'7T37 be . . . /VXq7 -ya&p OVK aCVT2

Tro 7rJEv,a 'eaOWev, EaTWObf 6 v7r' aTroV.

34 Justin. Apol. 2.10.8: XpLarcp 6e . . . ov qLAoXaoq5oL ov6e q5X6Xoyot 6Ovov 7rdeWqfav', &XX& KaLL XeLpoTrXvJaL KaCL 7ravTeXaos lboLWTraL, Kaic U6TS Kat 46#oKv Kal Oavr7ov iKara4povj-

(avrTes.

35 Fronto De Nepote A misso 5: nec quicquam nos animarum immortalitas consola- tur, qui carissimis nostris dum vivimus caremus . . . Si maxime esse animas immor- talis constet, erit hoc philosophis disserendi argumentum, non parentibus desiderandi remedium.

36 The description of virtuous living given in Fronto's self-portrait (De Nepote Amisso 8) might have been referred to any philosophic school, although in tone it was clearly neither Epicurean nor Christian.

37 Epicur. Sent. 14: Tis &akXlas T7rs t &vOp&rxwv yevoAevr/s Ie'xpt rtv6s OaV&A/EL TlJv

efOpLaTLKK Kal eb7ropla eLX&LKpLveaTr&T7 ylverat ? I Ti 7r/s )avXIas Kal KXWP71(OSE TrCov 7roXXCav

&o4&aaXe&a. Also, Sent. Vat. 58; Fr. 87; Plu. Colotes 31(1125C) and 33(1126E). The Christian attitude is shown in Min. Fel. 31.6: honores vestros et purpuras recusamus; 37.10: Fascibus et purpuris gloriaris? Vanus error hominis et inanis cultus dignitatis, fulgere purpura, mente sordescere.

38 Vita Epicuri 118: ovi' p7)Topebffev KaXC7s (Trov o4q54). 120a: ob 7ravq,fvp&e&v 6e. Lucr. 1.641-644; Min. Fel. 14.3-7 and 16.6: quo imperitior sermo, hoc inlustrior ratio est.

3'2 Epicur. Sent. 15: 'O r7s ba4cos 7rXo&roS Kall wpLoTaL Kal evr6opLaroTS EOTLV. Sent. Vat. 25: 'H 7revia 1Ae/pov1AeLPV/ w Tq.) Tr)s 4Obaews TEt IA&ycLas earl 7rXOrTOs. 7rXOIr-OS 66 cut)

6pt6lAivos je-ya&Xq l 7revt a. Min. Fel. 36.3: Ceterum quod plerique pauperes dicimur, non est infamia nostra, sed gloria: animus enim ut luxu solvitur, ita frugalitate firmatur. 36.6: Igitur ut qui. viam terit, eo felicior quo levior incedit, ita beatior in hoc itinere vivendi, qui paupertate se sublevat, non sub divitiarum onere suspirat.

40 Epicur. Sent. 27: 'Ov ' ao4la 7rapacLKeva4eratL eELs T7rv Troy Aov 1OV /caKapcLp6TI)Ta, 7roXi j1lyLoT6v eOTrV i Ti io&XtaS KTr)Ols. Also, Sent. 28; Sent. Vat. 52; 23; Cic. Fin. 1.65: de qua (amicitia) Epicurus quidem ita dicit, omnium rerum quas ad beate vivendum sapientia conparaverit, nihil esse maius amicitia, nihil uberius, nihil iucundius. 'k)Xia




tian aiyair7r was an extreme form of love,. perhaps foolish in its ex- travagance or perhaps dangerous.4' Christians defended themselves against such criticism by saying that they did not know how to hate, but loved even their enemies.42 This 4)tXia and ayart7 found practical expression in community living. The Epicurean avv&a,ywsyy may be reconstructed from various sources, especially the writings of Epicurus himself, Cicero's De Finibus and the fragments of the Hep'l Happt7atfas of Philodemus; the reconstruction has been admirably made by Professor DeWitt,43 to whom students of Epi- cureanism owe a permanent debt of gratitude. Christian living in the second century is described by all the Apologists; perhaps the most attractive picture is in the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, where Christians are spoken of as inhabitants of Greek and bar- barian cities, but having their citizenship in heaven; obeying the laws, but in their private lives surpassing the laws.44

The final point of resemblance between Epicureans and Chris- tians was in their reverent devotion to the founders of their respec- tive schools. Lucretius had spoken of Epicurus as a god (5.8: deus ille fuit, deus),45 and Cicero and later Plutarch criticised Epi- cureans for their veneration of their founder.46 Christians were blamed for worshipping an earthly criminal; they retorted that their god was neither earthly nor criminal.47 Pliny and Lucian seem to is called &ayafov . . . &6vcaTov (Epicur. Sent. Vat. 78), a phrase occurring also at the end of Ad Men. Presumably &yaOa &O&vaLra are &ayaOa which the gods (a&4aproL) en- joy and which therefore may be called &06vara. 5tXhla then would be mortal in relation to men, because men are mortal, but immortal in relation to the gods; a man who suc- ceeded in living W's Oecs v ,&VOpcro&s (Ad Men. fin.) might be said to have tXL'a as &aYaOov &Oa'varov, though he himself was inevitably Ovqr6s.

41 Christian charity foolish: Luc. Peregr. 13; dangerous: Min. Fel. 9.2, especially: amant mutuo paene antequam noverint.

42 Min. Fel. 31.8: sic mutuo, quod doletis, amore diligimus, quoniam odisse non novimus. Epistula ad Diognetum 5: 'Ayaroat 7raTrras. 6: Kai XptaTtavor obs Aitaooviras &,ya7rCatv.

43 Norman W. DeWitt, "Epicurean Contubernium," TAPhA 67 (1936) 55-63; "Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups," CPh 31 (1936) 205-211.

44 Epis. ad Diogn. 5: 'Eri y7js b6arptf3ovaov, &XV' e'v obpav'4 7roXTrebovTca. 7reOovrat

oroZs bpioFsivot svJhOLs, KCat TOZS t6iOtS f3o& i'ucK7C TroiV sO6IOvs. Aristeides 15; Theophil. Ad Autolycum 3.15; Min. Fel. 31.5-8.

46 Lucr. 5.8; 3.1042-1044; 3.3; 6.5-8. See L. Edelstein, " Primum Graius Homo," TAPhA 71 (1940) 78-90, and esp. 79 and note 5.

46 Cic. Tusc. 1.48; above note 30. Plu. Colotes 17(1117A, B); he uses the phrases (1 1 17A): Oe/3a6E&S Kal k7rAa-aeOs, (1 11 7 B): OE64avra op'yta.

47 Min. Fel. 9.4; 29.2: Nam quod religioni nostrae hominem noxium et crucem eius adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terrenum. Terrenum is used apparently to indicate the connection of

homo (or humanus?) with humus.




have accepted the worship of Christ as a characteristic eccentricity of the Christians.48

Popular judgment of Epicureans and Christians then had for its basis their similar rejection of conventional belief in the gods, fate and divination, and their acceptance of their founders as divine; their rejection of fatalism and acceptance of free will; their calmness in regard to death; their preference for private life and reluctance to take part in political activity. There were fundamental antith- eses between Epicurean mechanistic materialism and Christian providential theism, between Epicurean tranquillity in accepting annihilation at death and Christian confidence of joyous immortality, and between the Epicurean utilitarian theory of virtue and the Christian doctrine of virtue as an offering to God.49 Temperament- ally however they were not dissimilar, for both showed themselves impatient with sham, certain of their own convictions, willing to challenge commonly accepted ideas, and believers in the practical value of community living.

The Octavius of Minucius Felix is a dialogue which has as its characters two Christians, Octavius and Minucius, and a pagan, Caecilius. Caecilius is obviously a Sceptic (5.2: omnia in rebus humanis dubia, incerta, suspensa magisque omnia verisimilia quam vera), and it has been assumed that the two Christians were Stoics, largely because of the debt of the Octavius to Cicero and to Seneca.50 I would suggest that Minucius and Octavius had originally been Epicureans, and that the dialogue was designed to appeal to ad- herents of the major philosophical schools; the two parts of the

48 Plin. Epist. 96.7; Luc. Peregr. 11: Trov ,Aeyav yo0v EKfiVoV &Lt areova Teo'v aivOpo7rov Tv iev r' 7)laXaaTrIvp &cLTvafKOXoX7r(Te`vTa, 6ITL KaIV2V TrahT7rv TeXET2-v ear2Yaoyev E TiO (ov. 13: Tie' 5F &vEoKoXolrF,evov EKELVOV Ov4offOT2rV abTr'v 7rpoUKlvwOL KaL KaCT& TobS EKetVOV

vOIAOVS j3uohn. 4 Vita Epicuri 138: At' 6& T7rv itoviV Kal Tas apeTa's atLpeLTOat, ou OtL aVTras c p

T-7V laTpLK7i7V OLa T7rqv iryieav. Epicurean justice, Sent. 31-38; Sent. Vat. 70. Christian virtue, Min. Fel. 32.3: Igitur qui innocentiam colit, deo supplicat; qui iustitiam, deo libat, qui fraudibus abstinet, propitiat deum, qui hominem periculo subripit, optimam victimam caedit. Haec nostra sacrificia, haec dei sacra sunt: sic apud nos religiosior est ille qui iustior.

50 For the debt of Minucius to Cicero, Nat. Deor., see A. Ebert, "Tertullians Verhaltnis zu Minucius Felix," ASG 5 (1870) 319-386; to Cicero, Seneca, Varro, P. Schwenke, "Uber die Zeit des M. F.," Jahrb. fur protest. Theol. 1883, 263-294; to Cicero, Nat. Deor., Div., Rep., Tusc., H. J. Baylis, Minucius Felix and his place among the early Fathers of the Latin Church (London, 1928); to Seneca, V. Carlier, " Minucius Felix et Seneque," MB 1 (1897) 258-293; to Seneca, F. X. Burger, Uber das Verhdltnis des M. F. zu dem Philosophen Seneca (Munich, 1904); to Cicero and Posidonius, R. Beutler, Philosophie und Apologie bei Minucius Felix (Weida i. Thur., 1936).




debate were intended for Sceptics and Stoics, and made use of their familiar arguments; the descriptive passages, with their delightful picture of friendship, were intended for Epicureans.

In the introduction Minucius reflects on the dead Octavius in words strongly reminiscent of Epicurus; 51 he speaks of him as contubernalis (1.1), indicating that they had been members of an Epicurean contubernium, and he uses also convictus (1.5) to describe their relationship.52 The words socius and comitem (1.4) probably indicate that the friends were classed as avv770Ots,53 which is also suggested by familiaritatis in 1.5. Octavius is called vir eximius et sanctus (1.3), which sounds like Lucian's description of Epicurus as aXr0WS tEpOS KacL 0Eo7i-&Los (Alexander 61). Minucius's account of his joy at seeing Octavius after a long separation (2.2) is similar in tone to Epicurus Sent. Vat. 52 and Fr. 32, and the use of exultaverim re- calls Cicero's use of the same word in describing Epicureans.54 In 3.1 Octavius corrects Minucius for not correcting Caecilius, and in 14.2 Minucius rebukes Caecilius pointedly; both passages are examples of Epicurean correction,55 and in both instances Caecilius takes the correction badly, recalling the picture in Philodemus (Jilpl HappnoaLas XXII.1-9). Octavius blames Minucius for deserting his young friend (3.1), and Epicurus had said that the wise man will never desert a friend (Vita Epicuri 120a). In the closing scene (40.1) Caecilius admits that he has been defeated in argument but has triumphed over error; the words are similar to the dictum of Epicurus Sent. Vat. 74: 'Ev OtXoXo6yq av~IrTat l rXEov fvvoTev 6 'rT E0Lt,

KaG' o 7rpooilAaOev. The phrase laeti hilaresque (40.4), used to describe the friends as they go away together, sounds very much like a Latin rendering of the Epicurean ' xapa' Ka' c ebopoo-bv (Fr. 1).

In the body of the dialogue are two translations from Epicurus; 11.3: qui sicut nascimur et interimus is Sent. Vat. 60: Hahs ̀airep apri

'YfOVcS (K v T 77 lpXE, and 31.7: in pulcro genere vivendi is TO trv n8&ws (Ad Men. 132), but both of these are so familiar as to be com- monplaces. In 35.6 the words vos scelera admissa punitis, apud nos

' Min. Fel. 1; Epicur. Sent. Vat. 66: 2;v araDCouv rois 4iXols oV 0pqvoDvres &XXa

Opovrlov'res, and Fr. 50: 'HtI v 4iXov Wv.l' -reO@VKorOS.

52 N. W. DeWitt, "Epicurean Contubernium," TAPhA 67 (1936) 59-60. 53 DeWitt, "Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups," CPh 31 (1936)

208. 54 Above, note 30. 5S Phld., Hlept Happqalas (ed. A. Olivieri, Leipzig, 1914). DeWitt, "Organization,

etc." 207-210.




et cogitare peccare est: vos conscios timetis, nos etiam conscientiam solam, sine qua esse non possumus are apparently meant as a refuta- tion of the Epicurean doctrine of justice.56 There are verbal parallels with Lucretius, e.g. the phrase for baby-talk (Min. Fel. 2.1; Lucr. 5.230), and the untranslatable de summa rerum ac maiestate (5.4), which is a combination of the Lucretian summa rerum (2.303; 1.235, 502, 756, 1028) and maiestas rerum (5.2, 7). Caecilius dis- cusses the beginnings of the world in Lucretian terms, attributing all creation to Nature and the elementorum . . . voluntaria con- cretio (5.7-9); he uses the phrase terram fundare (Lucr. 5.417; 5.68). The picture which Caecilius draws in this passage of the interrela- tion of the creation and religion and fear sounds like an adaptation of Lucretius 6.50-55, where mortals in their ignorance of causes attribute the creation of the world to gods because they are afraid of natural phenomena. In 34.1-4 the theory of the ultimate de- struction of the world by fire is referred to Epicurus as well as to the Stoics and Plato, and there may be a reference to Lucretius 5.407-410. In 35.3 the everlasting fires of punishment are com- pared with the flames of Etna in language which probably owes something to the description of Etna in Lucretius 6, especially 669 ignis abundare Aetnaeus, flammescere caelum. On the basis of this evidence I conclude that Minucius and Octavius were Epicureans before they became Christians, and that Minucius thought their Epicureanism was no more to be concealed than their friendship, (1.4) sic solus in amoribus conscius, ipse socius in erroribus.

56 Epicur. Sent. 31-38; Sent. Vat. 70. Above, note 49.



Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second Century

Documents

Transcript of Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second Century