Kernos 2109 25 Theological Etymologizing in the Early Stoa

Kernos25 (2012)Varia

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Mikolaj Domaradzki

Theological Etymologizing in the EarlyStoa................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

AvertissementLe contenu de ce site relve de la lgislation franaise sur la proprit intellectuelle et est la proprit exclusive del'diteur.Les uvres figurant sur ce site peuvent tre consultes et reproduites sur un support papier ou numrique sousrserve qu'elles soient strictement rserves un usage soit personnel, soit scientifique ou pdagogique excluanttoute exploitation commerciale. La reproduction devra obligatoirement mentionner l'diteur, le nom de la revue,l'auteur et la rfrence du document.Toute autre reproduction est interdite sauf accord pralable de l'diteur, en dehors des cas prvus par la lgislationen vigueur en France.

Revues.org est un portail de revues en sciences humaines et sociales dvelopp par le Clo, Centre pour l'ditionlectronique ouverte (CNRS, EHESS, UP, UAPV).

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Rfrence lectroniqueMikolaj Domaradzki, Theological Etymologizing in the Early Stoa, Kernos [En ligne], 25|2012, mis en ligne le 20novembre 2014, consult le 21 novembre 2014. URL: http://kernos.revues.org/2109; DOI: 10.4000/kernos.2109

diteur : Centre International dEtude de la religion grecque antiquehttp://kernos.revues.orghttp://www.revues.org

Document accessible en ligne sur : http://kernos.revues.org/2109Ce document est le fac-simil de l'dition papier.Tous droits rservs

Kernos25(2012),p.125-148.

Theological Etymologizing in the Early Stoa* Abstract:Thepresent article aims to show that etymologizingwas an integralpartof

Stoic theology.TheStoicspantheisticandhylozoisticviewof thecosmosmade itnaturalfor these thinkers touseetymology for thepurposeofdiscovering thediversemanifesta-tionsofGodintheuniverse.Accordingly, themainthesisofthepaperpositsthat,withinStoicism,etymologywasnotsomuchthestudyofthehistoryofwords,butratherthatofhowGoddevelopsandrevealsHimselfinthevariousphenomenaofourworld.InasmuchasstudyingthenamesofthegodswasfortheStoicstantamounttoseekingGod,etymologyplayeda threefold function inStoicism: firstly, itwasameans tohonorGod; secondly, itwasawayofinterpretingpoetry;andfinally,itwasalsoatoolfortransformingonesownexistence.Consequently, thepresentarticle investigates thetheological, theallegoricaland,lastly,theexistentialdimensionofStoicetymologizing.

Rsum : Le but de cet article est de dmontrer que ltymologie faisait intgralementpartiedelathologiestocienne.Suivantleurconceptionpanthisteethylozoisteducosmos,les stociens utilisaient ltymologie pour dcouvir diverses manifestations de Dieu danslunivers. Ainsi, la thse principale de cet article est de montrer que, dans le stocisme,ltymologietaitmoinsunetudesurlhistoiredesmotsqueltudedelafaondontDieusedveloppeetsemanifestetraversdiversphnomnesdenotremonde.AttenduquepourlesstocienslefaitdtudierlesnomsdesdieuxquivalaitrechercherDieu,ltymologiejouaituntriplerle:premirement,elletaitunmoyenderendreunculteDieu;deuximement,elletaitunemaniredinterprter laposie;et,enfin,elletaitunoutilde transformationdesapropre existence. Par consquent, cet article se veut une recherche sur la dimensionthologique,allgoriqueetexistentielledeltymologiestocienne.

Introduction

Thepurposeofthepresentpaperistoexaminethepivotalrolethatetymol-ogycametoplayintheearlyStoicsoriginaltheology.Although,atfirstsight,many a Stoic etymological interpretation may give the impression of beinginconsistent, irreconcilable and even irreverent, the article will argue thatthrough their etymologizing the Stoics did not seek to eradicate the thenreligionby turning it intophysics.Rather, their intentionwas to reinterpret theexistingreligiousbeliefssoastopavetherebythewayforwhattheytooktobegenuinereligiousness.

*Iwouldliketothanktheanonymousreviewerforhisinsightfulandinspiringsuggestions.

126 M.DOMARADZKI

Inordertobeproperlyunderstood,Stoicetymologizingneedstobeplacedinthecontextof thephilosopherscomplexphysics (whichtheStoicsassumedtoinclude theology). In nuce, the Stoics account of reality is organicistic, vitalistic,hylozoistic,andpantheistic:theworldisalivingorganismthatissteeredbyavitalforce, allmatter possesses life, and thewhole of the universe is identical withGod(seemoreonthisbelow).TheStoicspantheisticviewofGodasanomni-potentforcethatpervadesthecosmosandadoptsvariousappellationsinaccordwithGodsdistinctpowers,justifiedusingetymologyasatoolfordecipheringthemanifold manifestations of one and the same Deity.1 While etymologizingenabled, thus, the early Stoics to treat theparticular names and epithetsof thegods as diverse expressions of one God, etymology became in this way anencounterwithDivinity through language: the specific names of the gods andgoddesses transpired to essentially light up the divinity of God-Cosmos fromdifferentsides.

Obviously, it has tobe emphasized that the extant testimonieson the earlyStoicsetymologizingaresofragmentaryandmediatedthatitishardlypossibletopresentanythinglikeadefinitiveandindisputableaccountthereof.Yet,whiletheindirectnessofthesourcesprecludesanyconclusiveness, thepresentarticlewillaimtoshowthatnumerousinterpretativedifficultiesaredissolved,whentheearlyStoics etymologizing is readas an attempt to seekGod in theaforementionedsense.InordertobringforththefunctionsofStoicetymologizingthepaperhasbeenstructuredinthefollowingmanner:section1discussesancientoppositiontoStoic hermeneutics, section2 focuses on the theological dimensionof Stoicetymologizing, section 3 touches upon its allegorical dimension and section 4dealswithitsexistentialdimension.Naturally,theaccountofStoicetymologizing

1Theideathattheparticulargodsandgoddessesarebuttherevelationsofoneandthesame

GodisthehallmarkofStoicpantheistictheology.FromtheperspectiveofourconsiderationsthemostimportantassumptionoftheearlyStoicshermeneuticsisthatpourunStocien,lesdieuxnesontpasdeslmentsoudesforcesnaturelles,maislamanifestationdelaraisondivinedansceslments,danssesforcesnaturelles,L.BRISSON,Introduction la philosophie du mythe. 1. Sauver les mythes,Paris,1996,p.69.ThesamepointismadebyGoulet,whoexplainsthatintheStoicsnouvelle thologie the traditional gods are nothing but symbols or allegories of les forcesdivinesqui expriment travers toutes choses laRaisonuniverselle,R.GOULET, Lamthodeallgorique chez les Stociens, in G. ROMEYERDHERBEY, J.B. GOURINAT (ed.),Les Stociens,2005,p.111.WhilethepresentpaperbuildsontheassumptionthatfortheStoicsalldeitiesaremerely expressions of the ultimateDivinity (referred to interchangeably asGod,Zeus, Logos,Pneuma,Nature,etc.), suchanaccountofStoic theologyemerges inonewayoranother fromthefollowingworks:F.BUFFIRE,Les Mythes dHomre et la pense grecque,Paris,1956,p.141-146;M.L.COLISH,The Stoic Tradition From Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, Leiden, 1985, p. 23-27;J.WHITMAN,Allegory. The Dynamics of an Ancient and Medieval Technique,Cambridge,1987,p.31-38;C. BLNNIGEN,Der griechische Ursprung der jdisch-hellenistischen Allegorese und ihre Rezeption in der alexandrischen Patristik, Frankfurt am Main, 1992, p. 22-23; K. ALGRA, Stoic Theology, inB.INWOOD,The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics,Cambridge,2003,p.165-170andP.T.STRUCK,Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts,Princeton,2004,p.135-141.

TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 127

that is put forward here covers only some facets of this cultural phenomenonand,consequently,doesnotpurporttobeexhaustive.

". Ancient opposition to Stoic hermeneutics

Apart fromthenumerouscontroversiessurrounding thecredibilityofmanytestimonies, onemay level at least two fundamental objections against the firstStoicsetymologicalanalyses:ontheonehand,thephilosophersmaybeaccusedofofferingcontradictoryand,therefore,self-cancellingexplanations,and,ontheother hand, the Stoics may be charged with blasphemy, since the variousetymological interpretations of the gods put forward by the philosophersappearedtothethenmentalityasdesignedtoabolishtraditionalreligion.Letuslookatsomeancientarticulationsofthesecriticisms.

Firstofall, theStoicswouldoftenproposeetymological interpretations thatcouldeasilybedismissedasmutuallyexclusive.Here,onemightforexampleciteMacrobiuswhorelatesthatCleanthes,ontheonehand, identifiedthesunwithApollo,derivingthenamefromthefactthatthegodrisesatdifferenttimesatdifferentplaces(),2and,onthe other, the philosopher equated the sun withDionysus, deriving the namefromtheverbtocomplete()andarguingthatinitsdailycoursefromrisingtosettingthesuncompletesthecircleoftheheavens,makingthedayandthe night (cotidiano impetu ab oriente ad occasum diem noctemque faciendo caeli conficit cursum).3 Cleanthes identification of the sun with both Apollo and Dionysusmightberegardedasinconsistentandcontradictory,uponwhichhisetymologiz-ingcouldbelabelledasself-refuting.

Secondlyandrelatedly,theStoicswouldalsofrequentlypresentseveralalter-nativeetymologiesforoneandthesameword.Whilethiscanbemostspectacu-larlyobservedinCornutus,4withregardtothefirstStoics,wecouldagainquoteMacrobiuswhoreportsChrysippustohaveofferedtwoexplanationsofApollosname.Ontheassumptionthatthisgodsnamecomprisesaprivativealpha, thephilosopherderivedthenameeitherfromthefactthatthesunconsistsofnot

2SVFI,540.WiththeexceptionofCleantheshymn(seeinfra,note30)andHeraclitus(see

infra,note77),alltranslationsaremine.However,whentryingtomakemyrenditionsastruetotheGreekoriginalaspossibleIconsultedtwoverygoodEnglishtranslations:A.A.LONG,D.N.SEDLEY,The Hellenistic Philosophers. 1. Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary,Cambridge, 1987, p. 158-437 and B. INWOOD, L.P. GERSON,Hellenistic Philosophy. Introductory Readings,Indianapolis,1997,p.103-260.

3 SVF I, 546. Several of the Stoics exegeses that are analyzed here can also be taken asillustrating the philosophers keen interest in the genesis of conventional religion. See in thisrespect M. DOMARADZKI, From Etymology to Ethnology. On the Development of StoicAllegorism,Archiwum historii filozofii i myli spoecznej56(2011),p.81-100.

4ThroughoutthepaperIcitethetextfrom:Cornuti theologiae Graece compendium,ed.C.LANG,Leipzig,1881.

128 M.DOMARADZKI

many and not vile fiery substances ( ),orfromthefactthatthesunisoneandnotmany( ).5 Again, one could point out that offering several alternativeetymologiesistantamounttoofferingcontradictoryetymologies,sincenocriteriafor distinguishing between right andwrong interpretations are provided. Thus,from a purely logical point of viewmany Stoic interpretations appear to be atodds with one another both with respect to the identity of the referent inquestionandwithrespecttotheetymologyofitsname.

Inthelightofallthathasbeensaidsofar,itshouldcomeasnosurprisethatthe Stoics etymological interpretationswere frownedupon already in antiquityand that the philosophers were often charged with presenting conflicting andthereby self-refuting interpretations. Such criticisms of Stoic hermeneutics caneasilybefoundinthinkerswhoactuallydidembraceStoicismandinauthorswhoflatlyrepudiatedit.Thus,theStoicSenecarejectstheearlyStoicsetymologizing,pointingpreciselytothephilosophersinabilitytoofferanycriteriaforestablish-ing what a correct interpretation should look like. When commenting onChrysippusaccountoftheGraces,Senecadiagnosesthatthesenamesareinter-pretedjustasitsuitseveryone(prout cuique visum est).6ForSeneca,Chrysippusetymologizingisnotonlyameaninglessandtotallyarbitrarymumbo-jumbo,butitisalsoaclassicalstrawman.Hence,havingrefusedtoacknowledgethatitisatallrelevant(ad rem [] pertinere)whatnamesweregivenbyHesiodtothethreeGraces,SenecacastigatesChrysippusmercilesslyforfillinghiswholebookwithsuchabsurdities(totum librum suum his ineptiis replet).7FromSenecaspointofview,etymologizingcanbeusedinsupportofvirtuallyanyargumentand,therefore,itsprobativepowerisnil.

A very similar criticism is offered by the Middle Platonist Plutarch who,interestingly enough, is uncompromisingly critical of etymologizing and alle-gorizingHomerinhisHow the Young Man Should Study Poetry,butwho,neverthe-less,doesinterpretEgyptianmythsallegoricallyinhisOn Isis and Osiris.8Thus,Plutarchadmonishesthatoneoughttorefrainfromthepuerility()ofCleanthes who evidently resorts to a mock seriousness (),whereas he only pretends to be interpreting ( )Homer.9 In a similar vein, Plutarch assesses the hermeneutical activity ofChrysippus, who is characterized as frequently petty ( ),since he ingeniously but unconvincingly invents words () when interpreting the poet.10 Similarly to Seneca, Plutarch refuses

5SVFII,1095.6Sen.,Benef. I,3,6(= SVFII,1082).7Sen.,Benef. I,3,6-8(= SVFII,1082).8Seeinfra,note95.9Plu.,De aud. poet.,31d-e(=SVF I,535).10Plu.,De aud. poet.,31e(= SVFII,1062).


then to acknowledge the validity of etymological interpretations. Hence, forboth these thinkers,Stoicetymologizinggivesan impressionofbeinganad hocventure:thoroughlydevoidofanystandardsandtherebyself-contradictory.11

Still,thingslookevenworsefromatheologicalpointofview,asmanyaStoicinterpretationseemsprima facieblasphemous.Afterall,numerousaccountsofthegodsput forwardby thephilosophersentail a transformationof religion intoapantheistic physics which threatens to abrogate the official creed.12 Generallyspeaking, theStoics identifyGodwith theworldandassumethat thewholeofreality can be derived from this all-encompassing God-Universe.13 While thispantheismisalreadytobefoundinZenowhoidentifiedthesubstanceofGod()withthewholeworldandtheheaven(),14theideawasembracedbyotherStoicswhoalsoequatedthecosmoswithGod.15 Yet, for the StoicsGod is not only identicalwith theworld. ThephilosophersassertedalsothatGodpermeatesthewholeofreality( ), assuming the form of Intellect (), Soul(),Nature()etc.16Thismeansthat justasGodiseverything,so isHeineverything.Accordingly,Godistheprinciplethatflowsthroughallmatter,therebyanimatingandadministeringit.

WhilethisprincipleadoptssuchappellationsasIntellectorNature, it isalsothe basis of Stoic vitalism, since the philosophers regardGod as the ultimateforce that powers the cosmos: all life in the universe is brought about andmaintainedbytheself-determiningandself-evolvingvitalforcewhichtheStoicsrefer to as the Pneuma. Thus, the philosophersmake it clear that the wholerealityisunifiedandsustainedbythePneumawhichpervadesitall(

11Thus, it is clear that thedetractorsofStoic etymologizingwouldembrace the following

diagnosis:Danscertainscas, ltymologienestpasseulementmultiple,elleestcontradictoire,M.DIXSAUT,Platon et la question de la pense, Paris, 2000, p. 172.While the opponents of Stoichermeneutics seem to have assumed that offering alternative etymologies amounts to offeringcontradictory etymologies, the assumption was hardly a prevailing one: ancient advocates ofetymologywouldratherfrequentlyassumethatthemoreoptionsagivenetymologyputsforward,themore valuable it is, since the alternatives are complementary rather than contradictory. For anexcellentdiscussionofthispointseeD.SEDLEY,Platos Cratylus,Cambridge,2003,p.35-37.Thisassumption,aswillbeseen,permeatesStoichermeneutics.Cf.alsoinfra,note46.

12ThisphenomenonisbynomeanslimitedtotheStoics,asitiscloselyintertwinedwiththerise of ancient allegoresis in general. I discuss the complex relationship between allegoricalinterpretation and the resulting rationalization of religion in:M.DOMARADZKI, Allegoresis intheFifthCenturyB.C., Eos97(2010),p.233-248andTheagenesofRhegiumandtheRiseofAllegoricalInterpretation,Elenchos32(2011),p.205-227.

13Suchaformofpantheism,blendedwithcertainacosmismthough,hasbeenembracedbyPlotinus.SeeM.DOMARADZKI,PlotinusRejectionofSupernaturalism,inG.ARABATZIS(ed.),Studies on Supernaturalism,Berlin,2009,p.107-125.

14SVFI,163.15SVFII,526and528.16SVFI,158.

130 M.DOMARADZKI

, ).17TheideathatGodisthecreativepowerthatgovernsthewholeoftheworldhasthefollowing implications: firstofall,characterizingGodasanima mundimeansrejectingtheideathatGodisaperson;secondlyandrelatedly,suchanaccountofGodmakesitnecessaryfortheStoicstosomehowaccountfortheexistenceofthe whole Pantheon of traditional Greek deities. The upshot is, then, that inStoicism all the conventional anthropomorphic gods and goddesses becomereduced tovariousmanifestationsof thedivinegenerative force that theStoicsequatewith theirGod.18 Let us quote some examples. If the Stoics in generalidentifiedtheirGodwithartfulfire()andbreath(),19thenthisviewofGodasfierybreathappearstobepresent,forexample,inCleanthesreduction of Persephone () to the productive and destructivePneuma().20Inasimilarvein,thefounderofStoicismreducedHesiodstowater,21whereastheCyclopesbecamemerelycircularmotions().22Finally,Chrysippus,whileacknowl-edgingthedivinityofZeus,reduced,nevertheless,Heratomatter().23

Interpretations such as these exposed theStoics to the charge that thephi-losophersexegeticalactivitywasaimedatrescindingreligion.Thisisclearinthetirade that theEpicureanVelleius launchesagainst theStoics inCicerosOn the Nature of the Gods.SparingnoneofthefirstStoics,Velleiusflatlyrepudiatesalloftheir hermeneutical activity, pointing precisely to the unholy and ungodlyimplicationsofStoicpantheism.Thus,ZenoisdisparagedforidentifyingDivinitywiththe lawofnature (naturalem legem),24 forequatingGodwithaether,25andfor interpreting (interpretatur)Hesiods Theogony in such amanner that the

17SVFII,473.18AsBuffireobserves: Ils [scil. Les dieuxde la religionpopulaire]se dpouillent de leur

forme humaine, de leur personnalit, pour devenir en quelque sorte des fragments de miroirrefltanttouslemmedieu,danslinfinievaritdesesaspects,BUFFIRE,o.c. (n.1),p.153.

19SVFII,1027.Cf.infra,note32.20SVFI,547.21SVFI,103.WhileaverysimilarexplanationistobefoundinCornutus(28,8),Iwhole-

heartedly agree with the diagnosis that not all unattested etymological explanations in a laterStoicauthor likeCornutuscanbeascribedtoZeno,K.ALGRA,CommentsorCommentary?ZenoofCitiumandHesiodsTheogonia,Mnemosyne54(2001),p.566.Still,whatisimportantformyconsiderationshereisthattheycanbetakenasbelongingtotheStoicsgeneralrepertoire.Letus recall that thepurposeof thepresentpaper is togive anoverviewofhow theStoicsmadetheirreligioususeofetymology.AsthearticleisconcernedwiththeStoicsingeneral,itconfinesitselftoestablishingthatagivenetymologicalexplanationandtherelatedinterpretationmaybecharacterizedasStoic.ThatisalsowhythetestimonyofCornutusisoftencitedhereasevidencesupportingtheStoiccharacteroftheparticularinterpretations.

22SVFI,118.23SVFII,1074.24Cic.,De nat. d. I,36(=SVFI,162).25Cic.,De nat. d. I,36(=SVFI,154).


established notions of the gods are completely abolished (tollit omnino usitatas perceptasque cognitiones deorum).26 Then, Cleanthes is berated for attributing alldivinitytothestars(divinitatem omnem tribuit astris),andforidentifyingGodwitheitherthisveryworld(ipsum mundum),orwiththemindandspiritofuniversalnature(totius naturae menti atque animo),or,finally,withaether.27Lastly,Chrysippusis decried for deifying virtually everything so excessively as to the point ofabsurdity.Hence, thephilosopher is censured for, amongothers, firstlyplacingthedivinepowerinreason(in ratione),andinthespiritandmindofuniversalnature(in universae naturae animo atque mente),then,foridentifyingGodwiththeveryworld and theuniversal effusionof its spirit (ipsumque mundum [] et eius animi fusionem universam), and,eventually, forequatingDivinitywithfire,aether,water, earth, air, the sun, themoon, the stars and thewholeuniverse (universi-tatemque rerum).28 We can see clearly that Velleius accusations are much moresevere than those of Seneca or Plutarch. Velleius suggests that the Stoics doviolencetotraditionaltheology,and,whendoingso,theyputforwardinterpreta-tionsthatareimpiousandirreligious.29Withthesituationbeingasitis,theStoicsarenotsomuchludicrous(asSenecaorPlutarchwouldhaveit),buttheyarefirstandforemostblasphemous.

Inwhat follows, Iwould like to show that all these gravecharges levelledagainst Stoic hermeneutics result from their rather one-dimensional andreductionist view. All these accusations lose much of their sting when theStoics exegetical efforts are placed in a broader context of their originalphysics.Consequently,Ishallexaminethetheological,allegoricalandexistentialdimensions of Stoic etymologizing so as to show that the Stoics pantheisticaccount of Divinity makes it actually quite natural for the philosophers toetymologizeinsearchofGod.

2. The theological dimension of Stoic etymologizing

For the Stoics, etymology is an encounterwithGod through language.Al-thoughthephilosopherswereoftenaccusedofblasphemyandiconoclasm,theydid not want to annihilate the mythical symbols preserved in the language oftraditionalreligiousbeliefs.TheStoicstreatedvariousnamesandepithetsofthegodsandgoddessesascluesleadingtowhattheyregardedasagenuinelysacredreality.WhenassessingStoic etymologizing,onemust alwaysbear inmind thisstrictly theological dimension of Stoic hermeneutics. As in the early Stoa

26Cic.,De nat. d. I,36(=SVFI,167).27Cic.,De nat. d. I,37(=SVFI,530).28Cic.,De nat. d. I,39(=SVFII,1077).29GouletisclearlyrightinstressingthatforVelleiusthemajorflawwithStoictheologylies

in the fact that it is bound to attribuer la divinit des tres inanimsdnusde sensation,GOULET,o.c. (n.1),p.111.

132 M.DOMARADZKI

etymologicalinterpretationwasassumedtoprovideaccesstoauthenticreligious-ness, itwasthroughtheiretymologizingthat theStoicsactuallysoughttomakeconventionalmythologyandreligiontrulyrelevantandmeaningful.Thiscanbeclearlyseen,ifStoicetymologizingisreadthroughCleanthesHymn to Zeus.Thehymnopenswiththefollowinginvocation:

,,,,,,.

Mosthonouredoftheimmortals,Possessorofmanynames,EverAlmighty,Zeus,Chiefofnature,whosteerswithYourlawallthings,hailtoYou.FortoaddressYouisrightforthemortals,allofthem.30

TheseepithetscontainthequintessenceofStoictheology:Godisanomnipo-tentRulerofnaturewhoisworshippedbymenashavingmanynames.Alreadyin this invocation Cleanthes suggests that the task of knowingGod is far toocomplex to be handled with a single and, thereby, reductionist account ofDivinity. Still, the view of God as a who is and,therefore, is also testified by Diogenes Laertios, who reports theStoicstohavecharacterizedGodastheCreatorofthewholeuniverseand,asitwere,theFatherofall,bothingeneralandinparticular,thatpartofHimwhichpermeateseverything,andwhichiscalledbymanynamesinaccordancewithHispowers(,).31

ReadagainstthebackgroundofCleantheshymn,thistestimonysuggeststhatvariousnamesofthegodsandgoddessesarebutexteriormanifestationsofoneandthesameDeity:GodistheomnipresentpowerthatflowsthrougheverythingandforthatreasonHeisnamedbymanyappellationsincorrespondencewiththeparticularexpressionsofHismight.TheStoicsfundamentalideathatGodis the creative force of the universe that penetrates the world under variousnamesandepithetsisalsotestifiedbyAetiuswhorelatesthattheStoicsidentifiedGod with artful fire that systematically moves on to the creation of theuniverse, containingat the same timeall the seminal reasons ( , ) and withbreaththatpermeatesthewholeoftheuniverse,assumingvariousnamesinaccordancewiththechangesofmatterthroughwhichitadvances(

30SVFI,537(lines1-3).Inthepresentpaper,Iavailmyselfofthetranslationthatistobe

found inP.A.MEIJER,Stoic Theology. Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods. Including a Commentary of Cleanthes Hymn on Zeus,Delft,2007,p.209-228.

31Diog.Laert.,VII,147.


, , ,).32

Naturally,theconceptsofartfulfireandbreathsignifyhereoneandthesamedivinepower:thefieryPneumaistheultimatecreativeforcethatproducesall thingsoftheworldinaccordancewithitsspermaticreasons.Whilethisvitalforce is theStoicsGod,whomthephilosopherselsewherealsocharacterize astheSeminalReasonof theworld([]),33oneshouldnoteherehowtheStoicscombinevitalismwithorganicism:theensouleduniverse is governed by a vital force whose various rationes seminales make thecosmos into an organic whole. Small wonder, then, that from the Stoicsperspective, all reality can be derived from such a God. Furthermore, thispantheism is also supportedby radical hylozoism, sincematter cannot be hereseparated from life: the whole of the world is for the Stoics alive, preciselybecauseallmatterisdiffused,governedandanimatedbythefieryPneuma.

One would be gravely mistaken though, if one assumed that the Stoicspantheistic, vitalistic, organicistic and hylozoistic account of reality made thephilosophers embrace some sort of monotheism. Stoic pantheism does notexcludepolytheism.As amatterof fact, theStoics theologypresupposes theexistence of the whole Pantheon of various deities. In this respect, PlutarchrelatesthattheStoicsregardednone()ofthegodsasimperishableoreternalexceptZeusalone([])andmadeitclearthatalltheothergodswereborn,andshallperishbyfire( ).34 ThetestimonyshowsthattheStoicsdidaccepttheexistenceofthetraditionalgodsand goddesses. However, the philosophers reinterpreted the conventionalpolytheisminaveryoriginalway,sincetheyassumedthatthereisoneGodthatis immortal and indestructible, whereas all other deities are merely Hiscontingent manifestations. That is why the Stoics could maintain that theconventionalgodsandgoddesses(thatareinfactonlyexpressionsofoneandthesameDivinity)havebeenbornandwilldieinthecyclicalconflagrationthatconsumesthecosmos.35

32SVFII,1027.DiogenesLaertios(VII,156=SVFI,171)reportsalsotheStoicstohaveidentified their artful fire ( ) and their fiery and craftsmanlikePneuma ( )withNature (). This is perfectly understandable, if one bears inmindthatinaccordwiththeirpantheismtheStoicsalwaysidentifyGodwithNature.Cicerotooattributes this idea toZenowho is tohavedefinedNatureprecisely in thismanner:Zeno igitur naturam ita definit ut eam dicat ignem esse artificiosum ad gignendum progredientem via (De nat. d.II,57=SVFI,171).

33SVFI,102.34SVFI,536.35AlreadyWehrlihasaptlyobserved(ad loc.)thatZeusalsderallesdurchdringendeGeistist

frdenStoikeralleinunsterblich,alleanderenGttererhaltenihreNamennurdurchdieMaterie,welche der gttliche Stoff durchluft, und sind damit demWechsel und zeitweisenUntergangunterworfen,F.WEHRLI,Zur Geschichte der allegorischen Deutung Homers im Altertum,Borna-Leipzig,

134 M.DOMARADZKI

In this context, one should therefore put it in no uncertain terms that theimperishableandeternalZeusthatPlutarchmentionsisobviouslynottheactualrulerofOlympus.Asalreadyexplained,God,accordingtoStoictheology,isthevital principle that penetrates and governs the whole of reality. Consequently,God is for the Stoics a dynamic being and fluctuating power, whose distinctnames change as the God changes Himself. It is for this reason that thephilosophersuse interchangeablyallsuchconceptsasGod,Zeus,Logos,Pneuma,Nature, Intellect, Fate, Providence and so on. From the perspective of Stoicpantheisticphysics, all thesenotions refer tooneand the sameultimate reality.Letusquotesomerelevanttestimonies.WeknowthatfromZenoonwardstheStoics would identify Fate () with the Logos that administers theworld ( ).36 The thought is also present inCleanthes, who in his hymn specifies that Zeus directs the common Logos()thatrunsthroughallthings().37Withregardtothe third of the great founding fathers of the Stoa, Stobaeus relates thatwhileChrysippus identified Fate with the Pneumatic Power ( )that arranges everything systematically, the philosopher also equated Fate withtheLogosof theworld ()andtheLogosof theworldlythings that are governed by Providence ( ),usingwords such asLogos,Truth,Cause,Nature andNecessityinterchangeably.38 Finally, the early Stoics pantheistic assumption about thefundamental interchangeability of all divine appellations is also confirmed byDiogenesLaertios,whoreportsthephilosopherstohaveidentifiedGod(),Intellect(),Fate(),andZeus()withoneanother,andtohave assumed that God is called by many other names ( ).39

TheStoicspantheismmakesit,then,naturalforthephilosopherstoassumethatallindividualdeitiescanbestbeapprehendediftheyaretakenasformingacosmicunity.Conversely,thisunitycanbeapprehendedduetoalltheindividualdeities harmonious interrelationships.God (whetherHebe calledLogos,Fate,Intellect,PneumaorZeus) isawholethatdefinesanddeterminesall individualaspectsofNaturesdivinity.Inotherwords,theStoicspantheismresultsinthephilosophers conviction that it is impossible toknow thewholeof creation atonce: onemust rather beginwith the various individual parts that derive theirmeaningfromtheorganicwhole.Thus,havingknowntheindividualdeities,one

1928,p.58.ThesamepointhasalsobeenmadebyColish:TheStoicsparticularaimintheirallegoresiswastoadjusttheirconceptionofaunitarydeityandamonistphysicstoapolytheisticreligion.TheydothisbyinterpretingthegodsandapotheosizedheroesasmanifestationsoftheonecentralGod,COLISH,o.c. (n.1),p.34.

36SVFI,175.37SVFI,537(lines12-13).38SVFII,913.39Diog.Laert.,VII,135-136.


will become acquaintedwith thehigherdivinityof the cosmos, for just asonegraspsthemeaningofawholesentencebyidentifyingthemeaningsofindividualwords, sodoesonegraspGod throughvarious individual gods.This intercon-nectedness of the whole and its parts is pivotal to Stoic theology: God hasstamped His Divinity upon every individual deity, and etymology is preciselywhatmakes itpossible tograsp thisomnipresentdivinityof theworld throughstudyingthenamesoftheindividualgodsandgoddesses.Inasmuchasetymologyserves here the purpose of identifying the ontological unity of all deities, itbecomes for the Stoics the very key to the sacred reality: etymologizing theparticularnamesandepithetsoftheconventionalgods(i.e.,variousrevelationsofGod) helps to light up the phenomenon of the divinity of the universe fromvarioussides.

WecannowseeclearlythatthepurposeoftheearlyStoicsetymologizingisprofoundly religious: through their etymologizing thephilosophers seek to findGod,whomthey identifywith theworldandwhomthey, therefore, assume tomanifest differently and to adoptmany diverse names in accordancewithHisdistinctpowers.Theclearestexpositionofthis thoroughlyreligiousetymologiz-ingcomesfromDiogenesLaertioswhoreportstheStoicstohaveassumedGodtobecalled,sinceallthingsarethroughHim(),Zeus(),sinceHeisthecauseof,orpermeateslife(),AthenaasHisgoverningfacultyextendstotheaether;Heraasitextendstotheair,Hephaestusasitextendstotheartfulfire(),Poseidonasitextendstothewater;andDemeterasitextendstotheearth.40WhileDiogenesLaertiosputsitinnouncertaintermsthattheStoicsin the similarway attributed [toGod] various other names, positing a certainrelationshipamong them(),41wefindthetracesofthisapproachinZeno,CleanthesandChrysippus:foralloftheearlyStoicsvariousnamesandepithetsdenote,infact,oneandthesameDeitythatonlymakesitselfknowndifferently.

Thus,ChrysippusisreportedtohaveexplainedZeusnamefromthefactthatthegodgiveslifetoeverything(),whereastheaccusativeformwasderivedbythephilosopherfromthefactthegodisthecauseofeverything ( ) and everything is through him ( ).42While this etymologygoesback toPlato,43Cornutus account testifiesthat itwas embracedby someof the laterStoics too.Whendrawing aparallelbetween the soul that governsmen and the soul that theworld has,Cornutusexplainsthatthesouloftheworldsustains()itandiscalledZeus,because it is living () and because it is the cause of life for all living

40Diog.Laert.,VII,147.41Diog.Laert.,VII,147.42SVF II,1062.AnanalogousexplanationofZeusnameappearsinSVFII,1076.43IntheCratylus (396a7-b2),SocratesidentifiesZeuswiththecauseoflife([]

)andexplainsthealllifeisthroughhim().

136 M.DOMARADZKI

things ( ).44 Cornutus accounts for the accusativeform in amanner that also clearly echoesChrysippus.According toCornutus,Zeusiscalled,foritisbecauseofhimthateverythingcomesintobeingandispreserved().45TheinterpretationspresentedbyChrysippusandCornutusclearlybuildontheassumptionthatZeusisjustoneof the many manifestations of God. In this particular case, the god is anexpressionoftheLife-Giving-Cause:Zeuspervadesalllifeandis,therefore,theultimate source of it. While the name Zeus reflects the creative and life-bringingaspectofDivinity,wecanseethatetymologizingthegodsnamemakesitpossiblefortheStoicstojustifytheirvitalism:Zeusstandssimplyforthevitalprincipleoftheensouleduniverse.

ConsidernowCleanthes.Wehaveseenthatthephilosopher interpretedthesunasbothApollo46andDionysus.47Cleanthesidentificationofthesunwiththetwo gods at the same time does not have to be dismissed as inconsistent andcontradictory. From the perspective of Stoic pantheism, one interpretation ofGod does not automaticallymake another one invalid.Rather than being self-refuting,thetwointerpretationsfocusondifferentaspectsofGodsactivity:onthe one hand the sun rises at different times at different places and, on theother, itcompletesthecircleof theheavens,making, thereby, thedayandthenight. In yet another etymological explanation, Cleanthes derived ApollosepithetLoxiasfromthefactthatthesunmovesalongaspiraltrajectoryandthespiralsareoblique().48WeseeclearlyherethatCleanthesinterpretationsshedlightonthevariousaspectsofthedivinityofthesun:Godisthesourceofeverything and that is why the imprints ofHis activity can be observed fromdiverseperspectives.TheStoicspantheismresults,thus,inaveryoriginaluseofetymology:ratherthanbeingthestudyofwordsoriginsandshapes,etymologybecomesherethestudyofhowGoddevelopsandrevealsHimselfinthevariousphenomenaofourworld.

ItisalsothefounderofStoicismthatseemstohavetreatedetymologyasthestudyofGodsvariousmanifestations.Thus,ZenoequatedHesiodswithwater,basinghisinterpretationontheverbtopourorbeflowing().49Thisinterpretationisalsoconfirmedbyatestimony,whichadditionallypresents

44Corn.,3,3-6.45Corn.,3,8-9.46 See supra, note 2. In theCratylus (404e 1 406a 3), Socrates perceives the alternative

etymologiesofApolloascomplementaryratherthancontradictory.Cf.alsosupra,note11.47Seesupra,note3.48 SVF I, 542. Apart from the obliqueness () of the suns course, Cornutus

suggests(67,14-16)thattheepithetmaybeduetothefactthatthegodsoraclesareambigu-ous().

49SVFI,103.Asalreadyobserved(seesupra,note21),ahighlycomparableexegesisappearsinCornutus(28,8:).


anexcerptfromthephilosopherscosmogony:whilethecondensationofwatergeneratesmudwhich then solidifies into earth, the third factor involved in thegenerativeprocessisEros(i.e.,fire).50Hence,Zenoscosmogonyseemstobuildon three generative forces: Chaos, Earth and Eros. Although the existence ofsuchanaccountiscorroboratedbyPlato,51therearesomeproblemsconcerningthisinterpretationofHesiod,sinceitappearstopresupposeeitheranequationofEarthwithTartarus,or anomissionofAir.52Theproblemsdisappear, though,when we recall that the Stoics posited the existence of a certain affinity()amongthevariousnamesandepithetsofGod:iftheStoicshailGodas and identifyHimwith thewholeof the cosmos, then it is onlynaturalforthephilosopherstoperceivetheparticularnamesandepithetsofthegodsandgoddessesasappellationsofoneandthesameDeity.

Letus recallhere that inStoicismGod isnot aperson.God is thecreativepoweroftheuniversethatisidenticalwithNature,whereasalltheconventionalanthropomorphicgodsandgoddessesaremerelymanifestationsof thisgenera-tive force. IfGod is not a person, but rather an aggregate ofNatures variousexpressions,thenitisunderstandablewhytheStoicsassumethatonecanreachGodthroughetymologicalinterpretations:itisinthiswaythatonecandeciphertheimprintsofDivinityonallBeing.ThequalityofhavingmanytitleswhichCleanthes in his hymn attributed to Zeus is characteristic ofDivinity as such:GodiscalledLogos,Pneuma,Intellect,etc.,forasHetransformsHimself,sodoHisappellationschangeaccordingly.Inthiscontext,Aetiusreportsthatwhile the Stoics equated their with a flowof air ( )whichchangesnameswitheachchangeofplace(),theywouldillustratethetenetwithsuchetymologiesasthatthenameZephyrderivesfromthewestandthesunset(),thenameApeliotesderivesfromtheeastandthesun( ), the name Boreas derives from the north ( )andthenameLipsderivesfromthesouth().53

Whilst the last two explanations are admittedly not particularly obvious,overallthetestimonyclearlyshowstheStoicstohavetakentheirGod-Pneumatobe the source, cause and end of all things. The philosophers maintained thateverythingparticipatesinGod,foreverythingthatis,hasbeenandeverwillbe,canbe found (inmoreor lessembryonic form) in thePneuma.That iswhy inStoicpantheistic theologyGodhasmany appellations andproportionallymanymanifestations:whenGodisreferredtoasPneuma,ithastoberememberedthatHeembracesallsuchexpressionsoftheflowofairasZephyr,Apeliotes,Boreas

50SVF I,104.51Pl.,Symp., 178b8-9.52Cf.ALGRA,l.c.(n.21),p.567.53SVFII,697.

138 M.DOMARADZKI

and Lips. Similarly, this God-Pneuma comprises also the four elements.54DiogenesLaertiosmakesitclearthatalthoughtheStoicsdistinguishedbetweenthefourelements(fire/aether,air,waterandearth),theywereinclinedtoperceivethem all as revelations of one and the same force governing the world.55Relatedly,AlexanderofAphrodisiasspecifiesthattheStoicsadoptedtheideaofthefourelements,butthattheyletfireandaircoalesceintothePneuma.56Lastly,Cicero,when referring to theStoicdoctrine, stresses the similarity (similitudo)andthethehighestunion(summa coniunctio)ofairandaether.57

OnecouldobviouslycitemuchmoreevidencefortheearlyStoicsproclivitytoregardthevariousaspectsoftheuniverseasexpressionsofoneandthesameDeity,butitseemsenoughtonoteherethatallStoicreductionsofthetraditionalgodsandgoddessestophysicalphenomenacanbesubsumedunderthefollowinggeneralization:whetherwearedealingwithmythologicalcharacters(Zeus,Hera,Poseidon,Hephaestus,Athena,Demeter,Persephone,Chaos,Cyclopes,etc.)orphilosophicalconcepts(Logos,Pneuma,Intellect,Nature,Fate,Necessity,Cause,Truth, etc.),God is for the Stoics a reality that encompasses all these entities.Thatiswhy,aswehaveseen,oneandthesamephysicalphenomenoncouldbeequatedwithtwodifferentgods(e.g.thesunwasidentifiedwithbothDionysusandApollo,whereasaetherwasidentifiedwithbothZeusandAthena).Wemay,therefore, conclude that while in Stoic pantheistic theology God changespermanently and adopts various names accordingly, the various alternativeetymologiesarefortheStoicscomplementaryratherthancontradictory.TheStoicsunderstand their God as the omnipresent and omnipotent cosmic force thatanimates and steers the ensouled world. If from a philosophical perspective theforceisdescribedinsuchtermsasGod,Logos,orPneuma,thenfromanordinaryview the force is labelled as Zeus, Poseidon, or Hephaestus. It goes withoutsayingthoughthatfortheStoicsbothterminologiesareactuallytwosidesofthesamecoin:philosophical theoriesandfolkconceptionspointtotheimprintsofone and the same Divinity, whose manifestations can be captured by both

54ZenoisreportedtohaveinterpretedthefourmajorOlympiansinsuchamannerthatJuno

(Hera)becameair,Jove(Zeus)becametheheavens(i.e.aether),Neptune(Poseidon)becamethesea (i.e. water) and Vulcan (Hephaestus) became fire (SVF I, 169), whereas Chrysippus wassupposedtohaveequatedJove(Zeus)withaether(i.e.,fire)andJuno(Hera)withthelower(layerof) air (SVF II, 1066). Whilst in Chrysippus Hera is aer that is subiectus igni (i.e., Iovi), thisidentificationofHerawithairisalsotestifiedbyCornutus,3,16.

55Diog.Laert.,VII,136-137and147.56SVFII,310,442,786.57De nat. d.II,66.Thiscoalescenceoffireandair isalsoreflectedinaninterpretationput

forwardbyHeraclitustheAllegorist,cf.Heraclitus,Homeric Problems,15,3(ed.D.A.RUSSELL,D.KONSTAN, Atlanta, 2005). This generally non-Stoic author deciphers Heras epithet white-armed()withtheaidoftheStoicdoctrineoftwofundamentalpneumaticelements( ).Hence, the epithet is read as symbolizing an interactionof aether(Zeus), i.e., the fiery substance ( ) with air (Hera), i.e., the softer element().


philosophy andmythology. In order tomake the twodifferent descriptions ofoneandthesamerealitymeet,theStoicsavailthemselvesofallegoresis.

3. The allegorical dimension of Stoic etymologizing

For quite a few decades now, there has been an ongoing debate as towhether(andifso,towhatextent)Stoichermeneuticscanbecharacterizedasallegoresis. While the preponderance of scholars do classify Stoic exegeticaleffortsasallegorical,58theauthorswhoinonewayoranotherobjecttotheideaofStoicallegoresis59basetheirreservationsonaverysharpdistinctionbetweenallegoryandetymology.Althoughoneshouldnaturallybeverycarefulsoasnottohastilyidentifyandtherebyconfusethetwo,overemphasizingthedifferencebetweenallegoryandetymologycanproveequallymisguided,sinceboththeseexegetical procedures frequently presuppose and complement each other.60ThiscoalescenceofallegoryandetymologycanindeedbeobservedinsomeoftheexegesesputforwardbytheStoics.Letuslookatseveralexamples.

Zenosetymological interpretationofHesiodsChaosseemstobearatherclear-cutexampleofallegorization.61Aswehaveseen,itcametoplayacrucialrole in the philosophers cosmogony: became the flowing ()water, whose condensation generated mud, which then congealed into theEarth.TheallegoricalnatureofZenosinterpretationistestifiedbyyetanothersource. The testimony has Zeno claim that the Earth originated from some

58Seeforexample:J.TATE,CornutusandthePoets,CQ23(1929),p.41-45;P.DELACY,

StoicViewsofPoetry,AJPh69(1948),p.241-271;BUFFIRE,o.c. (n.1),p.148-154;J.PPIN,Mythe et allgorie: Les origines grecques et les contestations judo-chrtiennes, Paris, 1976, p. 125-131;COLISH,o.c. (n.1),p.34;R.LAMBERTON,Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition,Berkeley,1986,p.25-26;WHITMAN,o.c. (n.1),p.31-47;BLNNIGEN,o.c. (n. 1), p. 27-31; D. DAWSON,Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria,Berkeley,1992,p.32;BRISSON,o.c. (n.1),p.61-69;G.R.BOYS-STONES,TheStoicsTwoTypesofAllegory, in id. (ed.), Metaphor, Allegory and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions,Oxford,2003,p.189-216andSTRUCK,o.c. (n.1),p.111-113.

59 Most notably P. STEINMETZ, Allegorische Deutung und allegorische Dichtung in deraltenStoa,RhM,129(1986),p.18-30;andA.A.LONG,Stoic Studies,NewYork,1996,p.58-84(chapterIII:StoicReadingsofHomer).

60This, ratheruncontroversial,opinionhasbeen justlyemphasizedbyGoulet:Ladistinc-tionentreinterprtationtymologiquedesnomsdesdieuxetcommentaireallgoriquedestextesdHomreetdHsiodenedoitpasnousconduirepenserqueltymologienepouvaitpastreemployedansuncontexteallgorique,toutaucontraire.Ltymologieestunlmentprivilgide lamthode allgorique, dans lamesure o elle suggre un symbolisme qui ne dpend pasentirementde larbitrairedu lecteur,GOULET, o.c. (n.1),p.113-114.Although thecontext isquitedifferent,Dixsautreachesneverthelessahighlycomparableconclusiontoo:Ltymologiedevient alors non seulement le moyen privilgi de lxgse, elle est en elle-mme exgse,DIXSAUT, o.c. (n. 11), p. 162. Lastly, Sedley is clearly also right when he stresses that ancientetymology isbestunderstoodwhen it isviewedasmoreclosely analogous tomodern literarycriticismthantomodernetymology,SEDLEY,o.c.(n.11),p.37.

61Cf.supra,notes21and49.

140 M.DOMARADZKI

moistsubstance()intheformofsomesediment().62Evidently, the moist substance is water, which the philosopher identifiedallegoricallywith.Equallyallegorical innaturearealsoZenosequationsoftheCyclopeswithcircularmotions,63andoftheTitanswiththeelementsoftheuniverse().64Importantly,thislastinterpretationhas been taken up by Chrysippus, who is reported to have offered a highlycomparable account of the Titans.65While already this testimony shows alsothesecondfounderoftheStoatohavecombinedetymologywithallegory,66another example of such an etymological allegorization could beChrysippusaccount of Kronos, whom the philosopher identified with time (),and,basingthisinterpretationonetymology,accountedforthegodsswallow-ing()ofRheaschildrenintermsofallthingscomingintobeingintimeand,therefore,beingaltogetherdestroyed()byit.67

62SVFI,105.63Cf.supra,note22.64SVFI,100.65SVF II, 1086.Cf.MEIJER, l.c. (n. 30),p. 103 (n. 549). Ifwe compare the interpretation

attributed toZeno(SVF I,100)with theoneascribedtoChrysippus (SVF II,1086), thenthefollowingpicturewillemerge.Firstofall,bothtestimoniesinterpretKoios asaquality(),although only the former justifies this reading etymologically, hypothesizing about the Eolianchangeof into. Secondly, the testimonies complementeachother in their interpretationofKreios:whilsttheformeridentifiestheTitanwiththecommandingandcontrollingprinciple( ) and the latter equates him with judgment (), the seemingdifference is easy to reconcile if one bears in mind that the governing part of our soul isresponsible for making judgments. Thirdly, both testimonies connect the nameHyperion withwhatishighandaboveus:theformeridentifiestheTitanwithupwardmovement()onthebasisofthephrasetogoupwards (),whereasthelatterequatestheTitanwithHeaven()sinceitgoesaboveus().Finally,bothtestimoniesassociatethenameIapetoswithsomemotion:theformerderivesthenamefromthefactthatalllight things,when set free, naturally fall upwards ( ),while the latter identifies theTitanwiththemovement()oftheHeaventhatisEvermoving(),justifyingthisreadingetymologicallybyreferencetotheverbsand.Admittedly,thebiggestdifference between the two testimonies consists in that Chrysippus is also reported to haveallowed for an alternative interpretation of Iapetos as themovement of reasoning (),onthegroundsthattheTitaninvestigatesandexamineseverything( ).The interpretationsof theTitansoffered byZeno andChrysippus arealludedtoinCornutus(30,8-18).

66 Chrysippus allegorical interpretation of the votive image ofHera fellating Zeus wouldclearly be the most obvious example of the philosophers allegoresis (SVF II, 1071-1074).However, the exegesis does not immediately involve etymology and is, therefore, outside thescopeofthepresentpaper.

67SVFII,1087.WhileparallelaccountsarealsogivenbyCornutus(6,20-7,5)andCicero(De nat. d. II, 64), the allegorical nature of this interpretation is most clearly evidenced byHeraclitustheAllegorist.Heraclitus interpretsHomersnarrativeaboutHerasoath(Il.XV,36-37) and the worlds partitioning (Il. XV, 190-193) in such a manner that the whole storybecomesanallegory ()of theoriginalfourelements (41,5).Asfarasourpresentconsiderationsareconcerned, theAllegoristsmost importantpoint is thatKronos is identified(41,6)withtime(),andcharacterizedasthefatherofallthings()andtherootof thefourelements (),whereasRhea is interpreted


As for Cleanthes, we have already cited the philosophers identification ofPersephonewiththeproductiveanddestructivePneuma.68ThisallegorizationseemstobuildonPersephonesbeingboththegoddessoffertility(i.e.asymbolofbirth)andthequeenoftheunderworld(i.e.,asymbolofdeath).Yetanotherexample is the philosophers reading of Atlas. Cleanthes is reported to havesuggestedthattheepithetofAtlas69beemendedfrom(i.e.baleful,malevolent) to (i.e., omniscient,heedfulofeverything) so thatAtlas could stand for indefatigable and untiring providence ( ).70WhileCleanthesequationofAtlaswithProvidenceisalsoa good example of allegorization, the Stoic nature of this interpretation isconfirmedbyCornutus.71

AlltheaforementionedcasesofStoicallegorizationbuildontheassumptionthat the Pantheon of the Greek gods is actually a self-externalization of onepantheistic God (Pneuma, Logos, Nature etc.). They reveal that the Stoicsassumed thevery ideaofGod to require recourse to allegory.Suffice it to citehere Cleanthes famous assertion that poetry in the highest degree possibleapproaches the truth about contemplating the gods ().72CleanthesdiagnosiscanbetakenasrepresentativeoftheStoicattitudetopoetryingeneral:forallearlyStoics,Godcomes most fully to expression in poetry. That is also why the philosophersinterpret the particular excerpts from poems as clues pointing to the variousrevelations of God. When doing so, the Stoics translate the conventionalmythology of the poets into terms acceptable from the point of view of theirpantheistictheology,sothatthegodsofHomerandHesiodbecomesymbolsofthe various aspects of the ultimate reality (i.e., the all-embracing God of thephilosophers).

Atthispoint,itneedstobestressedthoughthatwhiletheStoicsdocombineetymologywithallegory, there isnoapologeticdimension in theirexegeses: theStoicsneverallegorizewithaviewtodefendingthepoet(s).Thisisduetotheirconviction that the soul of the poem is not the authors intentions. Thefrequentlydiscordantwritingsof thepoetscamouflage theprofoundcoherenceoftheLogosthatmanifestsitselfindependentlyofanybodysdesign.TheStoics

(41,7)asthemother()ofthefourelementsonthegroundsofthefactthattheuniverseisgovernedbyaflow().ThelatterinterpretationthrowsalsosomelightonChrysippusinterpretationofRhea.Thephilosopher is reported (SVF II, 1084) tohave explained that thegoddessstandsfortheEarth,sinceallwatersflowfromher().Cf.alsoCratylus (402a9b4)andCornutus(5,10).

68Cf.supra,note20.69Hom.,Od. I,52.70SVFI,549.StruckrightlystressesthatCleanthestextualemendationhasbeenmadeon

allegoricalgrounds,STRUCK,o.c. (n.1),p.143.71Corn.,48,16:.72SVFI,486.

142 M.DOMARADZKI

assume that there are limits to how a poet (even one as great as Homer orHesiod) can transmit the overwhelming reality he poetizes about. And that ispreciselywhytheveryideaofGodrequiresrecoursetoallegory.Thatisalsowhythephilosophersdointerpretpoetryallegoricallyeventhoughtheyneversuggestthatthemeaningofaverseexhaustsitselfinwhattheauthorwishedtoconvey.Wemay, therefore, say that the Stoics want to understand the poem, not thepoet. While this understanding of poetry consists in translating it into Stoicpantheisticphilosophy,itveryoftenentailssomeallegorization.

In the context of Stoic theology, one should, therefore, emphasize that thephilosophersbelief thatGodismostclearlydisplayedinpoetryandmythologyhasseveralimportantramifications.Firstofall,theStoicsdonotinterpretpoetryandmythology as ends in themselves, but rather asmeans to grasp the higherontologicalunityofdeities.Thephilosophersabstractfromtheintentionsoftheauthor: the names and epithets of the gods and goddesses are symbols of adeeperreality,buttheseexpressionsofGodareneverexpressionsofanindivid-ualpoet.The intentionsofHomer,Hesiodoranyotherauthorarecompletelyirrelevant, since their subjectivity remains totally impenetrable. If, however,mythologyandpoetryareregardedasexpressionsofGod,thentheseexpressions(merely transmittedby thepoet)maybe takenasobjective.Thus, theprincipalraison dtre of poetry is that it provides access toGod and not some aestheticthrill. Furthermore, the Stoic idea of extracting Divinity from poetry andmythology presupposes that God can be understood objectively through andowingtoHismanifestationsinlanguage.73

Language is, therefore, seen as a set of expressions ofGod andnot of thepoets (i.e., their thoughts, feelings, values etc.).Hence, it is also clearwhy theStoicsresorttoetymology:allBeing(Godincluded)ismediatedinlanguageandfor that reason it is accessible only through language. With that, the Stoicsintroduce intoour culture theview that language is the reservoir of a societysculturalexperiencesandthatinvestigatingitbecomestantamounttoinvestigatingthesocietysconceptionoftheworld.Inotherwords,theStoicssawthatwhilelanguagepreservesaparticularvisionof reality,man ishardlyawareof thefactthatsuchfacetsofhisexistenceas,say,hisworshipping,areencodedinlanguage.Consequently, for the Stoics it is not only the ultimate reality ofGod-Pneuma

73 While the Stoics practice of etymology presupposes a one-to-one correspondence be-

tweenlanguageandexternalreality,Idiscusstheissuemorefullyin:M.DOMARADZKI,Allegory,Symbol,orMetaphor?ChrysippusHermeneuticsandtheProblemofAmbiguity[forthcoming].Here,IwouldmerelyliketoobservethatAugustinesDe dialectica(VI,10-11)andOrigensContra Celsum (I,24)make itclear that theStoicsassumedwordstomimictheworld.Asthephiloso-phers posited the existence of a natural bond between names and their referents (resultingpreciselyfromthefact thateverywordreproducesreality), theybelievedalsothenamesofthegods to be motivated precisely in this way. Consequently, the Stoics were convinced thatetymologymakesitpossibletoaccountforthefactwhyZeusisthesymbolof,Heraisthesymbolof,Kronosisthesymbolof,etc.Cf.also,supra,notes40,42,54and67.


that isaccessible through language: all realityandallbeingcanonlybegraspedthroughwords.Iflanguageisthemostfundamentalmediumforthetransmissionof the divine, then it has to be stressed that reaching this hidden and sacredaspectof reality requires transcending the literal dimensionof language.Aswehaveseen,thistranscendingconsistsinallegorizing.

Wheredoesthatleaveus,then,withregardtotheaccusationsthatwereraisedagainst theStoicsby suchdetractorsasVelleius?Contrary towhat thesecriticspurport,theStoicsdonotcallforsomesortofreligiouspurge,asaconsequenceof which all the conventional deities become abolished and all the traditionalformsofcultaredeclareduseless.TheStoicsdonotoptforsuchademystifica-tion of religion that results in its reduction to plain superstition. Rather, thephilosophers believe that investigating the particular names of the gods andgoddesses delivered by tradition is crucial, since all these names light up thedivinityoftheuniversefromvarioussides.Iftheparticularappellationsofdiversedeities arebut revelationsofonepantheisticGod, thendiscovering thehiddensymbolicrealitythatunderliesmythologyisnottantamounttodiscardingreligion.ThatiswhyithasbeenstressedattheoutsetthattheStoicsreinterpretreligion,notdemolish it. Obviously, the philosophers sometimes undermine traditionalreligion,butwhendoing so, they seek to lay the foundations for adeeper andmoreauthenticreligiousness.Withthat,wecometooneofthemostoriginalandastoundingaspectsofStoicetymologizing:asstudyingthenamesofthegodsisfor the philosophers identical with discovering God, etymology becomes forthemthetoolfortransformingourexistence.

4. The existential dimension of Stoic etymologizing

EtymologizingreceivesinStoicismanimportantethicalandexistentialdimen-sion,asbymakinggenuinereligiousnesspossible,itchanges,thereby,ourlives.InhishymntoZeus,Cleanthespassionatelycondemnsallthoseamongthemortalswhoarebad(),whofleeandletbe()theLogos,andthewretched()whoneitherlooktotheUniversalLawofGod nor listen to it ( ).74 ThisexhortationtoseektheUniversalLawofGodshowsthatfortheStoicsthestudyofetymologyhasprimarilyethicalvalues:itservesthepurposeofknowingGodand, aswe shall shortly see,of enablingus to live in conformitywithHiswill.ThisspiritualandexistentialdimensionofStoicetymologizingseemstobeadebtthatthephilosophershavecontractedwithHeraclitus.

74SVFI,537(lines22-24).

144 M.DOMARADZKI

It has been proved beyond any doubt that Cleanthes hymn is profoundlyindebtedtoHeraclitusofEphesus(asisStoicphilosophyingeneral).75Asfarasourconsiderationsareconcerned,thefollowingthreepointsmadebyHeraclitusare absolutely crucial for understanding the existential dimension of Stoicetymologizing.Firstofall,whileHeraclituspointedtothejudgment(),bywhich all things are steered through all,76 Cleanthes spoke of the judgment() by which Zeus steers all things with justice.77 Secondly, HeraclitusinsistedontheexistenceofOneDivineLawthatnourishesallhumanlaws,78whereasCleanthes, aswe have just seen, censured thosewho fail to seek theUniversal Law of God.79 Finally, having recommended listening to theLogos,80HeraclitusassertedthatGoddoesnotanddoesconsenttobecalledbythenameofZeus.81Again,thismotifwasalsoembracedbyCleantheswho,asalreadymentioned,spokeofZeusdirectingthecommonLogosthatrunsthroughall things,82andmade itclearthattheLogos isalwayspresent ().83

Wesee,then,thatCleanthesagreeswithHeraclitusthatthereisanintelligentprinciplethatsteerstheuniverse.Whiletheprinciple isreferredtoaseithertheLogos or Zeus, it governs not only thewhole world but also every individualman.Consequently, and this is themost important affinity betweenHeraclitusand Cleanthes, both thinkers draw significant moral consequences from thenecessity to recognize and follow the common Logos/Nomos.84 Thus, whilstHeraclitus stresses themoral obligation to follow the common Logos,85 theethical task of acknowledging andobeying the commonLogos appears also inCleanthes,whostressesthatifpeopleobeyed()theUniversalLawof

75IhavebenefitedgreatlyfromaveryusefulandinspiringdiscussionofHeraclitusimpact

onCleantheshymnthatistobefoundin:LONG,o.c. (n.59),p.46-52.Thewholesecondchapterofthebook(HeraclitusandStoicism,p.35-57)isalsotoberecommendedasaveryinstructivetreatmentofHeraclitusinfluenceontheStoics.

76D.K.22B41.77SVFI,537(line35).Cf.G.S.KIRK,J.E.RAVEN,M.SCHOFIELD,The Presocratic Philosophers.

A Critical History with a Selection of Texts,Cambridge,1983,p.202.ThetranslationsofHeraclitusaregenerallyKirks,butIfeltfreetoslightlymodifythemattimes.

78D.K.22B114.79Cf.supra,note74.80D.K.22B50.81D.K.22B32.The thatHeraclitususeshereseems tobeechoed inseveralStoic

exegesis,cf.supra,notes40and42.82Cf.supra,note37.83SVFI,537(line21).84LONG,o.c. (n.59),p.48-49.Obviously,thewordslogosandnomosarenotoriouslypolysemous,

butinCleantheshymntheycanbetakentooverlap,seeinthisrespectMEIJER,o.c. (n.30)p.228.ThisispartandparceloftheStoicsusingappellationssuchasGodorLogosinterchangeably.

85D.K.22B2.


God with mind ( ), then they could have a noble life ( ),86andwhoconcludeshishymnwithanobservationthat:

[],,.

[]thereisnogreatergifttoofferbothformortalsandgodsthan,injustice,oftheuniversallawalwaystosing.87

ThemoralimperativetorecognizeandfollowtheLogosshowsthatHeracli-tusandCleanthesletethicsandontologycoalesce.Thiscoalescenceofethicsandontology ismost clearly visible in the Stoics specification that the objective()ofhumanexistenceis:toliveconsistentlywithnature( ), i.e., in conformity with ones own nature and that of the wholeuniverse, doing nothing that is prohibited by the Common Law ( ), which is identical which the All-Pervading and Right Logos ( ,),whichisthesameasZeus().88

AccordingtotheStoics,then,participationintheLogosisthemostpreciousgift thatGodhasbestoweduponmen. It is at the same time ablessing and acalling. Men return the blessing and fulfill their calling by recognizing Godsomnipresence in the surrounding universe. The recognition takes place in andthrough language: etymologizing the names and epithets of the particular godsandgoddessesleadsmentoacknowledgetheexistenceofonepantheisticGod.Thus,etymologyreceivesitsreligiousjustificationinStoicism:itbecomesatoolfor honouring God, since it makes men aware that diverse deities are butrevelationsofoneultimateDivinity.Aswehaveseen,Stoicphysicsbuildsontheideaofdivineandamorphousmatterthatispenetrated,animatedandsteeredbythe fieryPneuma,While the termPneuma is usedhere interchangeablywithsuch terms as God or Logos, the Stoics identify their Pneuma with theWorldSoul.Thephilosophersmake it clear thatlifeandsoularenothingbutPneuma ( ).89 This pantheisticcharacterizationofthePneumaasthesouloftheuniverseissignificant,sinceitshowsthatthePneumaisnotonlytheworldspervadingformativeprinciplebutalsothemostcentralpointofourexistence:justasourimmersioninthePneumacausesustoliveinandthroughit,sodoesitcauseustoobtainallourknowledgeviathePneuma.

TheparallelismbetweenmacrocosmandmicrocosmthattheStoicsdrawhasan importantexistentialconsequence.If,ashasbeennotedabove,Divinitycan

86SVFI,537(line25).87SVFI,537(lines38-39).88Diog.Laert.,VII,88(=SVFI,162).89SVF II,443.Weknowthat fromZenoonwards, theStoics identified thesoulwith the

fieryPneuma.Accordingly,inSVFI,135thesoulistermedas,whereasinSVF I,146itis.

146 M.DOMARADZKI

bemadepresenttousthroughpiousetymologizing,thenwecannowclarifythatwe grasp the divinePneuma through etymology, sincewe all participate in thePneumaandalwaysremainapartofit.Thus,bystudyingthediversemanifesta-tionofthePneuma,wecometounderstandnotonlyGod,butalsoourselves.Itgoeswithoutsaying,though,thatsuchknowledgeisnotmerelytobepossessedbut to be lived in.Hence, etymology becomes in Stoicism a tool for not onlyhonouring God, but also for transforming ones life. Cleanthes promise thatlivinginaccordwithGodsUniversalLawwillguaranteemennoblelivesmustbeplacedinthecontextoftheStoicsideaofreformingthethenreligion.

TheStoicBalbuslamentsoverthepoorconditionofconventionalreligionwhich, as he puts it, provides ludicrous and absurd details on the godsoutward appearances (formae), their age, clothes and equipment (aetates et vestitus ornatusque), their descents,marriages, relationships (genera [] coniugia cognationes), their agitatedminds (perturbatis animis), their passions, sorrows,angers (cupiditates aegritudines iracundias), their wars and battles (bellis proeliis-que), and in a word on everything that was projected [on them] in thelikeness of human weakness (omniaque traducta ad similitudinem inbecillitatis humanae).90While in thispassage,CicerohasBalbusdiagnosethatreligionhasdegenerated into crude and nave anthropomorphism, we find the sameassessmentofreligionsconditioninChrysippus,whodeploresthatthegodsare spoken and written of childishly () and portrayed anthropo-morphically().91

Thesediagnoses show that the Stoicsweredeeplydissatisfiedwith conven-tionalmythologyandreligion,whichintheireyesamountedtoshallowsupersti-tion and spiritless ritualism.Yet, the deplorable state of the existing system ofbeliefsdidnotprompt thephilosophers toembraceatheism.The task that theStoics undertook was not only to pinpoint the deficiencies of traditionalmythology and religion,but also to rectify them.This rectification consisted insuchareinterpretationof thePantheonof theGreekgods thatall thesedeitiestranspiredtobeself-externalizationsofonepantheisticGod.Apartfromalltheafore-cited testimonies, we find this idea also in the De natura deorum: whenrejectingthetraditionalmyths,BalbusrecognizesaGodthatpermeatesnature(deus pertinens per naturam)andillustratestheideawithCerespervadingtheearth(per terras Ceres), Neptunepervading the sea (per maria Neptunus), and soon.92Balbus testimony nicely accords with all the other sources that have beendiscussedabove:manissurroundedbydiversemanifestationsoftheWorldSoul,thedistinctnamesof the anthropomorphic gods andgoddesses aremerely theexpressions of thisGod-Pneuma, and etymology is precisely the key tounder-standingthedivinityoftheGod-Cosmos.

90Cic.,De nat. d.II,70.91SVFII,1076.92Cic.,De nat. d.II,71.


Withouttheaidofetymologicaland/orallegoricalinterpretations,religionisdoomed to nave and immoral anthropomorphism. On the other hand,studying meticulously the customarily religious nomenclature leads to agenuinelysacredreality.Thatiswhystudyingthetraditionalnamesofalldeitiesis for the Stoics not pointless but pious. Etymology is what transformsmythology and religion from shallow literalism to a profound religiousexperience. As a matter of fact, the Stoics suggest that to refrain fromtranscendingthemanifestandsuperficialdimensionofconventionalreligionistantamounttofailingasaworshipperand,thus,becomingguiltyofblasphemy.That is why Balbus so forcefully contrasts superstitio with religio,93 whereasCornutus with equal vehemence differentiates between piety ( )andsuperstition ().94EvenPlutarchwho, aswehave seen,canbeverycriticalofStoicetymologizing,praisesinhisOn Isis and Osiris,thistypeofpioushermeneuticsthatleadstohavingtrueopinionaboutthegods()andputsit innouncertaintermsthatsupersti-tion()isasbadasatheism().95

For Balbus, Cornutus and Plutarch, as for the early Stoics, an appropriateetymologicaland/orallegoricalinterpretationmakesitpossibletoliberatereligionfrom superstition. That is why the Stoics attribute an existential dimension totheiretymologizing:throughetymologywediscoverGod(whetherHebecalledLogos,PneumaorZeus)andthroughGodwediscoverourselves.Thisdiscoveryresultsinatransformationofourlives,fortounderstandGodistoliveinaccordwithHiswill.ThethatCleanthesalludestoinhishymnistheresultof implementing what one has apprehended: etymology provides us with thepossibilityofknowingGod,applyingthisknowledgeand,thereby,changingourlives. Needless to say such a noble life and such genuine religiousness areavailableonlyforaStoicsage.

Conclusions

Let us recapitulate. Etymology is an integral part of Stoic theology, sinceetymologizing the names of the conventional gods becomes for the philoso-phers an encounter with God through language. The Stoics pantheistic,hylozoistic, vitalistic andorganicistic viewof the cosmosmakes it natural forthe thinkers touseetymologyasa tool fordecipheringthediversemanifesta-tionsofGod.Consequently,etymologybecomesinStoicismnotsomuchthestudyofthehistoryofwords,butratherthestudyofhowGodmakesHimselfknowntousinthevariousphenomenaofourworld.InasmuchasGodishere

93Cic.,De nat. d. II,71-72.94Corn.,76,12-13.95Plu.,De Is. et Os.,355c-d.

148 M.DOMARADZKI

acreativeforcethatpermeatestheuniverseandassumesdistinctappellationsincorrespondence with its numerous powers, the particular names of thetraditionalgodsandgoddessestranspiretobenootherthanexpressionsofoneandthesameDivinity.Hence,thePantheonoftheGreekgodsprovestobeaself-externalizationoftheStoicspantheisticDeity.

TheStoicunderstandingofetymologyasthestudyofGodsdiversemani-festations prompts the philosophers to implicitly differentiate between twowaysofdescribingDivinity.ThephilosophicalunderstandingofGodmakesuseof such abstract terms as Logos, Pneuma, Providence, etc., whereas the folkconception of Divinity resorts to such contingent names as Zeus, Hera,Hephaestus, and soon. Importantly, fromaStoic perspective both terminol-ogiesturnouttobetwosidesofthesamecoin.Thus,thephilosophersdonotdiscardconventionalmythology.Neitherdotheyoptforabrogatingtraditionalreligion (although their characterizing God as anima mundi is evidentlytantamount to denying the personality of God). Rather, the Stoics employetymology to make the existing mythology and religion truly relevant andmeaningful. Their etymologizing is supposed to pave the way for genuinereligiousness and authentic piety, for inasmuch as studying the names of thegods is identicalwithdiscoveringGod,etymologybecomes inStoicisma toolforhonouringGodand,atthesametime,fortransformingonesexistence.

MikolajDOMARADZKI

AdamMickiewiczUniversitySzamarzewskiego89CPL60-569POZNANE-mail: [email protected]

Kernos 2109 25 Theological Etymologizing in the Early Stoa

Documents

Transcript of Kernos 2109 25 Theological Etymologizing in the Early Stoa