-
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).
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 129
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).
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 131
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.
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 133
, , ,).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.
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 135
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:).
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 137
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().
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 139
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
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 141
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.
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 143
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.
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 145
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.
-
TheologicalEtymologizingintheEarlyStoa 147
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]