Lucian of Samosata on Religion and Reason: An Epicurean in Hiding

1

Lucian of Samosata on Religion and Reason: An Epicurean in Hiding

By Raymond Stephen Solga

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in history, in the Graduate Division of Queens College of the City University of New York

2

Date: December 2012

Approved by:

_____________________________

Date:

_____________________________

3

Copyright © 2012 by Raymond Stephen SolgaAll rights reserved

4

It is not the pretended but the real pursuit of philosophy that is needed; for we do not need to seem to enjoy good health but to enjoy it in truth.

-Epicurus, The Vatican Sayings1

I have always consistently admired philosophy… These very phrases that I utter- where else but from you did I get them? Culling them like a bee, I make my show with them before men, who applaud and recognize where and from whom and how I gathered each flower…

-Lucian, The Dead Come to Life, or The Fisherman2

1 Russel M. Geer, trans., Letters, Principle Doctrines and Vatican Sayings. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.), 70.2 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 3, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 11-13.

5

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1

CHAPTER 1: Religion in the Roman Empire

…………………………………………....4

CHAPTER 2: Epicureanism……………………………………………………………..23

CHAPTER 3: Lucian’s Works.…………………………………………………………..29

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..64

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………..66

Raymond Solga

Professor Joel Allen

Lucian of Samosata on Religion and Reason: An Epicurean inHiding

Introduction

Lucian of Samosata was one of the most prolific and

original writers of the Second Sophistic. His writings have

a manifestly comedic tone while at the same time addressing

the most serious of subjects. Modern scholars have shied

away from pinning Lucian down to one school of philosophy or

religion, possibly because of the mocking tone he takes in

his writings. However, Lucian shows a distinct pattern of

favoring the Epicurean school of thought even if he does not

profess himself to be an Epicurean. The way he mocks

religion has Epicurean underpinnings and even when he mocks

Epicureans along with the other schools of philosophy his

criticism of them is lighter and often from an Epicurean

point of view. Understanding Lucian as someone who is

sympathetic to Epicureanism effects how one views his

2

writings as well as how one understands how Epicurean

thought evolved in the Roman Empire.

Personal information about Lucian can be found in his

works, though some of the details have likely been altered

for literary effect. He is thought to have been born between

115 and 125 C.E. in Samosata, a city on the Euphrates near

the eastern edge of the Roman Empire in the province of

Syria. His background, as a Hellenized Syrian living in the

Roman Empire, comes through in his writing and sets him

apart from other Second Sophistic writers. According to his

work The Dream, his father had decided that he would become

a sculptor and he was apprenticed to his uncle. But Lucian

did not care for this career, choosing instead to study

rhetoric, a decision he dramatizes in The Dream as an

argument between the personifications of “Culture” and

“Craft” over Lucian’s career path.3 His early career was

spent as a rhetor, traveling through Greece, Gaul and Italy

delivering public declamations, and practicing litigation in

3 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 3, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 215-233.

3

court, which earned him a great deal of money.4 Later in

life his interests turned more to philosophy, “but finding

the modern practitioners to be charlatans [he] decided to

expose them by means of dialogue.”5 He discusses philosophy

and religion extensively in his writings, but is not a

philosopher himself since his main intent is to tear down

the beliefs of others rather than to expound his own. It is

significant that he does not dismiss all philosophy as the

work of charlatans, but merely those of contemporary

practitioners, since this shows that he respects philosophy

in theory and leaves open the possibility that he favors one

school over others.

Since there are no contemporary categorizations or

commentaries for his works it is difficult for modern

scholars to interpret what Lucian meant to convey. While

much of his work could be classified as satire, his style

does not fit neatly into modern literary genres, and his

meaning is difficult to grasp since it is uncertain whether

4 C.P. Jones, Lucian in Society, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press), 10-13. 5 Ibid., 13.

4

he is expressing his own opinions or constructing various

literary personae as part of a literary game for comedic

effect.6 Tim Whitmarsh describes Lucian’s works as

“offer[ing] no securely authoritative moral position, only a

recurrently frustrated process of challenge and counter-

challenge. This makes his works also a satire upon

‘expressive-realism’, the desire to access secure and

sincere opinions. Lucian’s deeply held views are a chimera:

what his writings dramatize is the elusiveness of the

heartfelt voice, the evanescence of ‘Greek views of Rome’.”

7 While it is true that Lucian and his characters represent

a range of opinions, most scholars agree that Lucian’s

opinions can be gleaned from his writings. Whitmarsh

notwithstanding, the variety of perspectives and styles in

works attributed to Lucian makes it difficult to distill a

consistent set of beliefs. He exaggerated aspects of many of

his characters for comedic effect, holding religious and

philosophical figures up to ridicule. However, even reading

6 Tim Whitmarsh, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 293. 7 Ibid., 294.

5

Lucian with the understanding that he did not intend to

impart his own opinion, it would be difficult for him to

write about aspects of the society in which he lived without

his own opinions seeping into the page. A close look at his

works show that while his tone is often mocking and

irreverent, with an eye towards entertaining his audience,

he does exhibit a core set of opinions in many of his works.

Lucian respects what he sees as true philosophy and the

Greek literary tradition that he is a part of, though he

often mocks individuals who don’t live up to his standards

in these areas. He also shows a higher degree of respect for

Epicurean philosophy in his works, and many of the opinions

expressed in his writings are in line with that school.

The selection of works by Lucian I have chosen to

illustrate my points about Lucian’s views on religion and

philosophy include: Alexander, Peregrinus, Lover of Lies, On

Sacrifices, On Funerals, Icaromenippus, Zeus Catechized, and Zeus Rants.

Alexander was written after the year 180, near the end of

Lucian’s life.8 Peregrinus was written soon after the self

8 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 4, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 173.

6

immolation of Peregrinus in 165.9 Unfortunately, these are

the only pieces from Lucian that I have chosen which can be

dated with any accuracy. Therefore, there is no way to trace

any evolution in Lucian’s thought over time. I chose these

works because I think they are the ones that best reveal

Lucian’s thoughts on religion and philosophy.

Before I go into the topic of Lucian I will first

discuss religion in the Roman Empire and Epicureanism.

Religion in the Roman Empire

Lucian of Samosata had much to say about religion, so

it is important to have some understanding of the religious

climate during his lifetime in order to understand his

works. During the imperial period foreign religious

influences played an important role in Roman life and the

Roman elite had a somewhat ambivalent view of them. Everyone

in the empire was required to make public sacrifices to the

emperor and the gods of the Roman state. This can be seen as

a loyalty test of sorts, but people were allowed to take

9 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 5, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 1.

7

part in other religious activities besides their official

obligation. Generally foreign religious practices were

tolerated as long as they did not prevent people from

worshiping the official state gods, especially the emperor.

However, the practice of magic was illegal under Roman law,

even though the vast majority of Romans sought out some kind

of magical assistance. Educated Romans were critical of what

they considered superstition, which was generally considered

excessive fear of the gods, but thought it only proper to

perform a reasonable amount of sacrifices to the gods in

order to show them respect. “In Rome, religio (national and

authentic) was readily contrasted with superstitio (exotic and

suspect).”10 Although innovation in religion was generally

seen in a negative light certain practices were approved of

despite their novelty.

In the Roman Empire there were many mystery religions

coming from various regions of the empire. Mystery religions

are religions that use secret rites or doctrines that only

10 Robert Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire Trans. by Antonia Nevill. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1996.), 10.

8

members are allowed to know about. Today the best known of

the mystery religions is Christianity, which was just one of

the many foreign religions that spread throughout the empire

at its beginning. Other mystery cults focused on Demeter (a

Greek goddess of the harvest), Isis (an Egyptian Goddess),

Mithras (an Indo-Iranian god who was popular with Roman

soldiers), Dionysus (Greek god of wine), Cybele – Magna

Mater (a mother goddess from Asia Minor), among other

deities. People were allowed to practice these religions as

long as they also worshiped the state gods. The refusal of

Christians to worship the imperial cult set them apart from

society and led to persecution. There are many Roman sources

that are critical of Christianity. Since the mystery cults

demanded that their members keep certain aspects of their

religion secret there is much that is not known about them

today. However, sources on some of the other religious

practices and on religious leaders do exist and I intend to

examine them as well in order to understand the attitude of

Roman intellectuals toward foreign religions.

9

“Intellectuals like Cicero and Seneca and poets like

Horace want us to believe that superstitio was an insanity, an

illness of the mind… However, it was widespread and deeply

rooted in Roman society.”11 Professional soothsayers, dream

interpreters, astrologers, and magicians were hired

throughout the Roman Empire by people from all levels of

society, and the price for their services varied greatly.

There are accounts of Roman Senators using magic to further

their political goals. “In one of the stories, M. Scribonius

Libo Drusus, a relative of the emperor Tiberius, was accused

in AD16 of aiming for the throne. According to Tacitus (Ann.

2.27-31) the senator Firmus Catus… had: promoted the young

man, who was thoughtless and an easy prey to delusions, to

resort to astrologers’ promises… magical rites… and

interpreters of dreams…”12 Libo Drusus was forced to commit

suicide, and “In the aftermath of the alleged conspiracy of

Libo Drusus, the senate expelled astrologers and magicians…

from Rome and Italy and at least two of them were executed…

11 Rupke, Jorg. A Companion to Roman Religion. (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007.), 339. 12 Rupke, A Companion to Roman Religion, 340

10

According to the chronicle of the late antique Codex

Calendar of 354, 54 sorcerers and 85 sorceresses were even

executed under Tiberius.”13 This shows that Roman elites

took unofficial and foreign religious practices seriously,

whether they believed they were effective or not.

In Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age, Antonia Tripolitis

describes the foundations of Hellenistic and Roman religious

practices. She argues that the Greeks, who had great

influence on Roman culture, began to lose confidence in

their traditional gods in the 5th century B.C.E.14 because of

the influence of the Sophists, Plato, and a new

understanding of cosmology. People continued to worship the

ancient gods, but by the 4th century “the ordinary man and

woman no longer placed their hope or faith on the ancient

gods, whom they believed could not alleviate their daily

encounters with the vicissitudes of Hellenistic life.”15

Mystery cults used “purification rites, their enthusiasm and

ecstasy, and their rewards of immortality through personal

13 Ibid., 34114 Tripolitis, Antonia. 2002. Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 14.15 Ibid., 15

11

identification with the deity” to meet the individual’s

desire for “salvation, revelation, peace of mind, or inner

illumination.”16 These included both oriental cults and

cults created around the traditional gods of Greece, which

spread throughout the Roman Empire. Unlike the traditional

gods and the cult of the ruler, the mystery religions

offered salvation, meaning protection in this life and a

better life after death. The ruler was called savior because

he assured the peace and prosperity of his subjects on

earth. However, people were skeptical of the cult of the

ruler since its primary purpose was political rather than

meeting people’s spiritual needs.

Another difference between the official religion and

the mystery cults was that the old “gods were often limited

in both scope and function.”17 They were associated with

certain professions, activities and geographical areas, so

people could not call on them for all of their needs. In

contrast, the gods of the mystery cults took on a degree of

16 Ibid., 1617 Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, 25

12

universality in that the power of these gods was defined

more broadly.

“The oldest and most significant for the development of

Hellenistic-Roman mysteries was the cult of Demeter situated

at Eleusis, some 14 miles west of the city of Athens.”18

This continued to be a destination for pilgrims as long as

the cult existed. It began as a local religion, but grew so

that by “the 7th century, Eleusis acquired immense prestige

as a holy place and a shrine of pilgrimage… The cult’s ever-

increasing popularity resulted in the continuous expansion

and development of the sanctuary and its facilities. It

reached the zenith of its development during the Roman

imperial period.”19 There are many aspects of the cult that

remain hidden to this day. Demeter was the Greek goddess of

grain and the annual renewal of vegetation to the Earth.

There were two stages of Eleusinian mysteries. The Lesser

Mysteries were celebrated in Athens and were open to the

public both as initiates and observers. This part “included

fasting, the ritual of washing and purification by water,

18 Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age, 1719 Ibid., 20

13

and public sacrifice. It served as a preliminary exercise to

determine the worthiness of the participants and to prepare

them for the initiation into the Greater Mysteries, the

second and highest stage of the mysteries.”20 The Greater

Mysteries were held in Eleusis and lasted for ten days

because that was how long Demeter searched for her daughter

Persephone before she found out that she had been kidnapped

by Pluto, the god of the underworld. The ritual “included

three elements: the dromena, the things demonstrated; the

legomena, the words spoken; and the deiknoumena, the objects

that were shown.”21 All that is known is that part of the

dromena included a reenactment of the abduction of

Persephone. People from all over the known world sought to

be initiated into this cult, “including several emperors…

However, not everyone who sought initiation was accepted,

only people of approved moral character.”22 Cicero said of

the mysteries that “‘we recognize in them the true

principles of life’” and have learned from them “‘how to

20 Ibid.21 Ibid., 2122 Ibid., 21

14

live in happiness and how to die with a better hope.’”23

Clearly this cult is an example of a religion that had the

approval of the elites. That this cult existed for a long

time certainly helped it gain the approval of Romans, as did

the fact that Demeter was one of the twelve Olympian gods.

Isis was an Egyptian goddess that acquired new

attributes as her cult spread throughout the Greek world,

but “her dominant trait was as devoted wife and mother, the

divine patroness of family life.”24 In the classical myth,

Isis’s brother Osiris is killed by his twin brother Seth,

who dismembers the body and throws it into the Nile. Isis

and her sister Nephtys search for the body parts, reassemble

them, and perform the embalming ritual, which bring Osiris

back to life. In the Egyptian tradition Osiris is of more

importance, and Isis’s duty is to mourn him and try to

receive him. The Hellenistic tradition made Isis the central

figure. Plutarch gives an account of the myth in his On Isis

and Osiris 25. “Isis’s early identification with Demeter

23 Ibid., 2124 Ibid., 2725 Ibid., 26

15

facilitated the popularity and expansion of her cult and

enhanced her role as wife and mother. Both had wandered,

mourned and suffered for a beloved family member, and both

were successful in the restoration of the lost family

member.”26 Equating foreign gods with similar gods within

their own tradition was typical in the Roman world, as it

was among the Greeks, which made it more palatable to people

within the society by making them less foreign. However, the

cult of Isis did have its’ critics, such as “Juvenal, the

second-century AD Roman satirist, [who] describes with the

greatest contempt the commitment of a female devotee to the

goddess Isis to her worship: she is willing to undergo the

most terrible suffering for the sake of the goddess and even

to accept intervention of the priests of the cult in her

married sexual life.” 27

The cult of Dionysus was quite popular and wide

spread28. Dionysus was the god of wine, and like Demeter, a

nature god and one of the twelve Olympian gods. Unlike the

26 Ibid., 2727 North, J.A. 2000. Greece & Rome: New Surveys in the Classics No. 30: Roman Religion (New York, Oxford University Press) 69. 28 Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age, 22.

16

Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter there was never any

institution that created a standardized religion, so there

is variety in the rituals of the cult and in the stories

told about Dionysus. Euripides provides us with a

description of the public rites of the cult in his play the

Bacchae 29. “A development of the cult of Dionysus during the

Classical period was the theater and two dramatic forms,

tragedy and comedy, which served as a principal expression

of the public worship of Dionysus and were an essential part

of Greek culture.” 30 Dionysus was popular in the Greek

world, “but it was not until the Hellenistic-Roman age that

this cult gained wide acceptance and was publicly promoted

by kings and emperors.” 31 The cult spread rapidly through

the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.E. in Roman Italy. At this time

“initiates held secret meetings and had secret signs by

which they recognized each other, and changes were made to

the initiation ceremonies, or Bacchanalia. Wine drinking and

feasting were added to the religious component, which led to

29 Ibid., 23.30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.

17

ecstatic fanaticism and the practice of scandalous

behavior.” 32 The Roman senate considered them a threat and

passed laws restricting the cult. Livy gives an account of

the spread of the cult of Dionysus in 186 BCE as well as the

reaction of the Senate, which places restrictions on cult

worship. “Many of their audacious deeds were brought about

by treachery, but most of them by force; it served to

conceal the violence, that, on account of the loud shouting,

and the noise of drums and cymbals… The infection of this

mischief, like that from the contagion of disease, spread

from Etruria to Rome;” 33 The senate thought it was a threat

to their authority, and passed a law forbidding the

celebration of Bacchanalia, not allowing citizens to join

the cult, not allowing them to organize or have a common

treasury, and not allowing them to meet in groups larger

than five. 34 The cult continued for centuries after, but

did not enjoy the same enthusiasm it had earlier. Although

32 Ibid., 24.33 Halsall, Paul. Ancient History Sourcebook: Roman Religious Toleration: The Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, 186 BCE, 1998. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/livy39.html

34 Halsall, Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, 186 BCE

18

this was a Greek and Roman god this cult faced persecution

because its power rivaled that of the official government of

Rome.

Cybele originally comes from Anatolia and is often

referred to as Magna Mater. Evidence shows that her cult can

be traced to the Neolithic age. “During her prehistoric

existence, Cybele was revered as Earth Mother.” 35 Believers

thought of her as the mother of the gods, mankind and all

other life. The cult was especially important in the

Phyrgian kingdom in Asia Minor, where she was their national

goddess. “The Phyrgians are also responsible for the wild

and barbaric features of the cult, the loud ululations and

wild dances that incited people to bloody self-flagellation

and self-mutilation.” 36 She was seen as akin to Demeter and

Isis in the Greek world and came to take on similar

characteristics in their culture, as goddess of the earth,

fertility and agriculture. Because of the ecstatic dance of

members of this cult it was associated with the cult of

Dionysus as well. Its Asiatic style of worship prevented the

35 Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age, 30.36 Ibid., 31.

19

cult from becoming very popular in Greece. Livy provides an

excellent example of how a foreign religion was integrated

into Roman culture. He writes about how the cult of Magna

Mater was officially recognized by the Roman state in 204

B.C.E. “About this time the citizens were much exercised by

a religious question which had lately come up. Owing to the

unusual number of showers of stones which had fallen during

the year, an inspection had been made of the Sibylline

Books, and some oracular verses had been discovered which

announced that whenever a foreign foe should carry war into

Italy he could be driven out and conquered if the Mater

Magna were brought from Pessinos [in Phrygia] to Rome.” 37

Rome was under threat from its old enemy Carthage, with

Hannibal and his men marching through the Italian

countryside at will. The interpretation of signs was taken

seriously, and was done officially by augurs. Due to this

prediction a delegation was sent from Rome to bring the

statue of Cybele to Rome, where she was placed in the temple

of Victory until a new temple was built for her. It was

37 Halsall, Roman Religious Toleration: The Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus

20

officially recognized by the Roman state and received money

from patrician families. However, participation in the cult

was restricted due to certain features of the cult, like

“The extravagance in the ceremonies, the barbaric corybantic

enthusiasm of the galli, or eunuch priests, their mad

hypnotic dances accompanied by the loud shrill of the flute,

and the sound of the tympanum that led to their self-

mutilation were abhorrent to the Romans… Romans could not

serve as priests, play the sacred instruments, or take part

in the orgies. All this changed beginning with the time of

Claudius (41-54 C.E.).” 38 After Claudius the cult was

allowed to spread in Italy and Romans were allowed to become

priests. It is interesting the way Romans treated the cult

for over 200 years from the time it was brought to Rome. It

was incorporated into the pantheon during a time of crisis

in order to save Rome from destruction, but because it was

so foreign the elites did not want it to spread because it

would change Roman traditions. After 200 years it became

38 Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age, 33.

21

popular and more familiar, so it was politically expedient

to allow the religion to be practiced openly.

“Mithra was an Indo-Iranian deity whose earliest

recorded evidence is found in a 14th century B.C.E. treaty

between the Hittites and their neighbors, the Mitanni of

Upper Mesopotamia.” 39 Mithra was seen as a guarantor of

treaties, and as an intermediary between mankind and the

supreme deity, “the Indian Varuna and the Persian Ahura

Mazda…” 40 There is little written evidence about the

teachings and practices of Mithras’ followers, so much of

what is known comes from archaeological evidence found in

the mithraea, which were small caves where small groups of

worshipers met. The image of Mithra slaying a bull is common

to all known mithraea. “All that can be said with some

certainty is that the slaying of the bull has a

soteriological significance. It was an act of salvation that

is an important aspect in all the ancient mystery religions

and cults.” 41 Other important aspects of the religion

39 Ibid., 47. 40 Ibid., 47.41 Ibid., 49.

22

depicted on cave walls are the sacred meal, which is

reenacted by cult members, and the birth of Mithras out of a

rock, which was said to have happened on December 25.

Members of the cult were divided into seven levels through

which members advanced. Women were prohibited from joining

the religion, which made it difficult to compete with

Christianity, which eventually eclipsed Mithraism. Mithraism

is thought to have been introduced in Rome by Cilican

pirates, who were brought to Rome after their defeat by the

Roman general Pompey in 66 B.C.E. “By the end of the 1st

century C.E., it had begun to spread throughout the empire,

and by the middle of the 3rd century it had become the most

important of the contemporary cults.” 42 It was especially

popular among Roman soldiers and in Rome itself, becoming

popular among Roman elites and spreading along the Roman

frontier and in port cities. Mithraism was able to spread

because of the support of imperial officials and emperors

and because of the fact that worshipers were allowed to

worship other gods. Also, the movement towards sun worship

42 Ibid., 56.

23

in the empire helped the spread of Mithraism because Mithras

had always been associated with the sun god. Mithraism was

very influential beginning with the reign of Emperor

Aurelian, who made the cult of Sol Invictus (the invincible

sun) an official religion of Rome. Even though he did not

practice Mithraism, this recognition helped the spread of

Mithraism because of the association. Then, in 308 C.E. a

conference was held with Diocletian, who had recently

abdicated as emperor, and his successors. After the

conference they declared that “Mithras the invincible sun

[to be] god and protector of their rule…” 43 which made

Mithras the official god of the Roman state, replacing the

less-specific sun god of Aurelian. However this was short

lived because in 312 Constantine became sole ruler of the

Roman Empire and he promoted Christianity as the official

religion of Rome. There was a chance for Mithraism to regain

its former status during the reign of Emperor Julian, a life

long Mithras follower. However he only reigned briefly, from

361-363, and was followed by Christian rulers who persecuted

43 Ibid., 57.

24

the Mithras cult. Although foreign in origin, the fact that

Mithras was a sun god helped popularize the cult because sun

worship was already practiced in Rome, and as mentioned

earlier Romans often identified foreign gods with those they

already worshiped.

A major world religion today, Christianity began as a

small apocalyptic sect. When Christianity emerged in the

first century C.E. it was considered by Romans to be a sect

of Judaism. Although an exact date cannot be determined for

when Christianity began to be viewed as a new religion, “By

the 60’s… we may assume that Christianity had emerged as a

new religion in the Roman Empire.” 44 The change in Rome’s

perception of Christianity as a new religion rather than a

sect within Judaism brought about a change in the way the

Roman government treated Christians. One reason for this was

that Christianity was a new religion. Judaism, like other

religions within the empire, was allowed by Rome, so Jews

were allowed to practice their religion. Christianity was

44 Bainton, Roland H. Early Christianity. New York: Van Nostrand, 87.

25

deemed to be a separate religion from Judaism because

Christians worshiped Jesus Christ as their god. Since

Christianity was not Judaism, and was therefore a new

religion it was illicit, because anything new was bad from a

Roman perspective. Also, Jesus was a person who was executed

as a criminal by Roman authority, and in the eyes of

Christians his authority was superior to that of the emperor

of Rome. This was seen as an affront to the authority of the

emperor and Rome. Another charge levied against Christians

was that they refused to participate in the imperial cult.

Jews were even given a special exemption from participating

in the imperial cult, which required everyone in the empire

to make a sacrifice to the emperor as a god. Since

Christianity was a new religion, and not a sect of Judaism,

practitioners were not extended the same exemption from the

imperial cult.

The first persecution of Christians took place in 64

C.E. under the emperor Nero. That year, there had been a

terrible fire which consumed much of the city of Rome, and

many people believed that Nero himself had started the fire.

26

“Therefore,” according to Tacitus, “to quiet the rumor, Nero

cast the blame and ingeniously punished a people popularly

called Christians and hated for their crimes.” 45 The crimes

he refers to are “not so much… arson… [but] hatred of the

human race” 46, a claim which plays into the Roman

perception of Christians as different than other Romans and

the suspicion that surrounds them due to their supposed

secrecy and refusal to participate in many aspects of public

life in Rome, which made them a convenient scapegoat. He

goes on to say “Whence, though the victims were deserving of

the severest penalty, nevertheless compassion arose on the

ground that they suffered not for the public good but to

glut the cruelty of one man.” 47 Here Tacitus makes two

points: that the Christians didn’t, and weren’t believed to

have set the fire and that even though they weren’t guilty

of this they deserved to be punished anyway for being

Christians.

45 Ibid., 8746 Ibid.47 Ibid.

27

A letter from Pliny, a provincial Roman governor in

Bithynia, to the emperor Trajan between 111 and 113 C.E.

sheds some light on the nature of Roman persecution of

Christians in the second century. In the letter he asks

Trajan for advice on how to deal with Christians who are

brought to him and explains the considerations and methods

he has been using. Having never witnessed trials of

Christians, he wonders “whether profession of the name

should be punished if there be no attendant crime or whether

only the crimes associated with the name are subject to

penalty.”48 By this he means to ask whether they should be

punished for the crime of arson, which was associated with

their name, or for their refusal to worship the emperor,

which is what Pliny does. He also says “I do not doubt that

whatever it was that they profess, surely their stubbornness

and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished.” 49 This

shows that he was somewhat indifferent to what the

Christians believe as long as they show submission to the

emperor. He goes on to say “There were others addicted to

48 Ibid., 8849 Ibid.

28

this same madness…” 50 This refers to Christianity, which

indicates that he viewed it as a sort of mental illness,

which is akin to Cicero and Seneca’s views on superstition.

To test those denounced to him as Christians he would ask

them if they were, giving them three chances to recant, and

if they denied being Christians they had to worship an image

of the emperor and curse Christ. Trajan replies in a letter

that he “has followed the proper procedures in dealing with

Christians… No absolute rule can be laid down. They are not

to be hunted out… [and] he who denies that he is a Christian

and proves it by supplicating our gods, although suspect in

the past, may gain pardon from penitence.” 51 This shows

that Trajan’s policy towards Christians was not a sustained

effort, and that as long as the Christian in question showed

his submission he would be forgiven.

In addition to the official persecutions of Christians

by Roman authorities there were elites who were vehemently

opposed to Christianity. Writing in 177-180 C.E., the Roman

intellectual Celsus offers an example of elite pagan

50 Ibid.51 Ibid., 89

29

attitudes towards Christians. One charge he makes is that

the Christians practice obscurantism, which means

deliberately preventing the facts from being known. He

writes that they “do not even want to give or to receive a

reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as

‘Do not ask questions; just believe,’… [and] ‘Let no one

educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these

abilities are thought to be evil.” 52 Here he is asserting

that Christian teachings are anathema to true wisdom and

civilization. He goes on to accuse them of corrupting the

minds of women and children, telling them that “they must

not pay any attention to their father or school-teachers,

but must obey [the Christian leaders]… [and] urge the

children on to rebel.” 53 Rome was a patriarchal society,

and the Paterfamilias, or Father of the family, was the

ultimate authority within a family. To a Roman it was truly

scandalous that women and children should be encouraged to

disobey the father. It was seen as undermining the fabric of

society.

52 Ibid., 11153 Ibid., 111-112

30

Next Celsus takes on the notion that God has come to

earth to judge mankind, calling it “most shameful…” 54 He

questions whether God’s purpose was to learn about mankind,

yet Christians claim that God knows everything, and if this

is true “why does he not correct men, and why can he not do

this by his divine power?” 55 rather than by sending his son

to die on a cross. He also criticizes God’s supposed

lateness in sending Jesus, saying “Is it only now after such

a long age that God has remembered to judge the life of men?

Did he not care before?” 56 This is a reasoned attack based

on Celsus’s cultural assumptions about religion as a Roman,

which differ from those of Christians now as then.

He goes on to compare Christians and Jews “to a cluster

of bats or ants coming out of a nest, or frogs holding

council round a marsh, or worms assembling in some filthy

corner, disagreeing with one another about which of them are

the worst sinners.” 57 This is a classic attack used by

those in the majority culture to dehumanize members of a

54 Ibid., 11255 Ibid.56 Ibid.,57 Ibid., 113

31

non-conforming minority, and it can be seen throughout

history. It is also an assertion that the Christians and

Jews are both right in their attacks on each other. He

continues by mocking the belief of Christians and Jews that

they hold a special place in God’s plan for the universe,

communicates only with them “disregarding the vast earth to

give attention to us alone…” 58 and that non-believers will

be punished, “when God applies the fire (like a cook!), all

the rest of mankind will be thoroughly roasted and they

alone will survive, not merely those who are alive at the

time but those who are long dead who will rise up from the

earth possessing the same bodies as before.” 59 The idea

that God would ignore the vast majority of the world in

favor of people as low as the Christians and Jews is

ludicrous on it’s face from Celsus’s perspective, and so are

the concepts of God’s punishment of non-believers and

raising the dead Christians, because he was raised in an

aristocratic, pagan Roman family.

58 Ibid.59 Ibid.

32

The next line of attack against the Christians is

against Jesus himself. He uses a Jewish source which says,

“He came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman

who earned her living by spinning… She was turned out by the

carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been

convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier

named Panthera… While she was wandering about in a

disgraceful way she gave birth to Jesus… Because he was poor

he hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried

his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians

pride themselves; he returned full of conceit because of

these powers, and on account of them gave himself the title

of God…” 60 This account of Jesus’ life gives a negative

impression of him as: the son of an adulterous woman, a

shameful thing, particularly in this period; poor, something

that would also be shameful to an aristocratic Roman and

evidence of his dishonesty; and a charlatan who went to

Egypt, a place thought to be full of sorcerers in Roman

eyes, to learn magic and used this magic to pretend to be a

60 Ibid.

33

god. The charge of practicing magic is familiar in Roman

history and is used on many different people and practices.

Next, Celsus attacks Jesus’ disciples as “ten or eleven

infamous men, the most wicked tax collectors and sailors,

and with these fled hither and thither, collecting a means

of livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate way…” 61 Tax

collectors were hated because people didn’t want to pay

taxes, and sailors were viewed much as the stereotype is

today: curse like a sailor, drink like a sailor, and sleep

around like a sailor; so the people Jesus surrounded himself

with did not speak well of him. He goes on to say “The body

of a god would not have been born as you, Jesus, were born…

The body of a god would also not eat food…” 62 Here he is

displaying his culture’s view of what a god was supposed to

be like, which differed widely from Christianity. Then

Celsus quotes his Jewish source again, which says, “he did

not manifest anything which he professed to do, and when we

had convicted him, condemned him, and decided that he should

be punished, was caught hiding himself and escaping most

61 Ibid., 113-11462 Ibid., 114

34

disgracefully, and indeed betrayed by those whom he called

disciples?” 63 Celsus comments that no good general, or even

a robber chieftain was ever betrayed by his followers, and

this shows that Jesus was a poor leader, since he didn’t

even inspire the good will of his followers. Next Celsus

criticizes the claim that Jesus foretold what would happen

to him, saying “why did they not fear him as God, so that

the one did not betray him nor the other deny him?” 64 He

also argues that if Jesus was a god and had allowed himself

to be punished on purpose, then it would not have been

painful, so “Why then does he utter loud laments and

wailings, and pray that he may avoid the fear of death…” 65

Then he criticizes the story of Jesus coming back to life,

saying, “But who saw this? An hysterical female, and perhaps

some other one of those who were deluded by the same

sorcery… If Jesus really wanted to show forth divine power,

he ought to have appeared to the very men who treated him

despitefully, and to the men who condemned him and to

63 Ibid.64 Ibid.65 Ibid.

35

everyone everywhere.” 66 Here, Celsus displays typical Roman

misogyny in his description of Mary Magdalene, and concludes

by applying a final consideration, that Jesus should have

proven himself a god if he was one.

Finally, Celsus addresses the political aloofness of

Christians, saying “If they refuse to worship in the proper

way the lords in charge of the following activities, then

they ought neither to come to the estate of a free man, nor

to marry a wife, nor to beget children, nor to do anything

else in life.” 67 He is saying that if Christians do not

honor the emperor and the traditional gods of Rome, then

they should not enjoy the benefits that are bestowed by

Rome. The Roman gods were seen by Celsus and others as the

protectors of Rome and the providers of prosperity, so it

was a civic duty to honor them. Next he makes a case in

favor of the authority of the emperor, saying “We ought not

to disbelieve the ancient man who long ago declared ‘Let

there be one king’… For, if you overthrow this doctrine, it

is probable the emperor will punish you. If anyone were to

66 Ibid., 11567 Ibid.

36

do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent him

from being abandoned, alone and deserted, while earthly

things would come into the power of the most lawless and

savage barbarians…” 68 Here he is saying that it is right

that the emperor punish anyone who challenges his status as

the Christians have by declaring Jesus their only lord

because if people like the Christians had their way the

empire would fall to barbarians. Finally, he argues that the

Christian God would not protect Rome if the Romans converted

to Christianity. To prove this, he says “Instead of being

masters of the world, they [the Jews] have been left with no

land and home of any kind. While in your case, if anyone

does still wander about in secret, yet he is sought out and

condemned to death.” 69 In the ancient world a god’s power

is judged by the success of the people who worship that god.

By those standards the God of Christianity and Judaism

doesn’t seem powerful from Celsus’ perspective.

Looking at the most common foreign and innovative

religious practices in the Roman Empire it is clear that

68 Ibid.69 Ibid.

37

there are some common threads in how they are perceived and

treated by the establishment. Although the Romans generally

looked down on foreigners, they had a significant impact on

Roman culture. With eastern religions like Christianity,

Mithraism, Isis, and Cybele integration came easier if there

were some parallels with Roman religion. The cult of Demeter

was accepted at all levels of Roman society because she had

a direct Roman counterpart, Ceres. The cult of Demeter was

small, exclusive, and non political, so there was no reason

for Romans to object. Isis was associated with Demeter, and

the cult of Isis was around for a long period of time,

becoming Hellenized before becoming popular in Rome. Cybele

had also been Hellenized, but the practice of self

castration of priests had an alien oriental quality to it

that Romans had a hard time accepting, which is why it was

restricted for the first 200 years that it was in Rome.

Mithras was associated with the sun god, which Romans

worshiped in many other forms before the arrival of that

cult. On the other hand, Christianity did not have a

counterpart in Roman religion, but was somewhat associated

38

with Judaism, a sect not well liked by Romans. Also,

Christians denied the existence of all the other gods, which

greatly offended Roman sensibilities. Another common factor

across the different religions was that the longer they were

around the more likely they were to be accepted. Only after

existing in the Roman consciousness for centuries did any of

the religions gain widespread acceptance. Notably, Dionysus’

cult was quite popular, but when it began to be seen as a

threat to the established order it was persecuted. Cybele

was seen as a threat because it was so different, but after

a long period of controlled exposure it became fashionable.

Christianity was also seen as a threat and was persecuted

sporadically. The fact that Christians were not allowed to

worship other gods, including the state gods, offended the

Romans. All of the other mystery religions allowed their

adherents to worship other gods, and if they hadn’t they

would have been persecuted by the Roman state for not

worshiping the gods of Rome. The practice of magic was also

proscribed, although it was quite popular. This is because

magic was widely believed to be effective and because it was

39

most often used for nefarious purposes, particularly putting

curses on people. Since there was no legitimate use for

magic it made sense that it remained illegal, but because it

was thought to be effective people continued to use it.

Epicureanism

Since Lucian is so closely associated with Epicureanism

it is essential to have a basic understanding of the

teachings and history of that school of philosophy in order

to have a deeper understanding of Lucian. The Epicurean

School of Philosophy was founded by Epicurus, who set up his

main school in Athens in 306 B.C. 70 This school would

become known as the “Garden”. The main concern of his

philosophy was human happiness, which he considered to be

the ultimate goal in life. This meant freedom from fear of

the gods and of death, and the avoidance of physical and

mental pain known as ataraxia in Greek. Unlike how his

opponents (Stoics, Christians, and others) labeled

Epicureans, Epicurus himself did not promote the seeking of

70 David Sedley, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press) 155.

40

immoderate pleasure for the attainment of happiness, but

rather promoted a simple life. Although Epicurus was a

prolific writer, few of his original works survive. His

philosophy is known mainly through these few, including his

Letter to Herodotus, on physics, Letter to Pythocles, on

meteorological phenomena, Letter to Menoeceus, on ethics,

Principle Doctrines, and the Vatican Sayings. 71 Yet more is known of

Epicurean teachings through the writings of Lucretius, who

“rather than imitate Epicurus’ dry prose, Lucretius

transforms his doctrines into a hexameter poem, modeled on

the philosophical verse of Empedocles, which rivals Virgil’s

Aeneid in scale and literary genius.” 72 Since so much is

missing of Epicurus’ original works, Lucretius’ De Rerum

Natura “is often our fullest source for the founder’s

thought… Like all Epicureans, he looks back to Epicurus as

his unique authority; he has no interest in doctrinal

innovation or substantive deviation from the texts he takes

to be canonical.” 73

71 Ibid., 155. 72 Ibid., 194. 73 Ibid., 195.

41

Epicurus’ theory of knowledge, which he called

“Canonic”, was put forth in a work that is now lost called

the Kanon. This was what he used as the grounding on which

all knowledge could be said to be true and answer the

skeptical threat that faced all philosophical schools.

Epicurus used three criteria as his measuring stick:

“sensations, preconceptions (prolepseis) and feelings,

defending the first with the provocative dictum ‘All

sensations are true.’” 74 He claimed that all sensations are

true on the grounds that it is the interpretive judgment we

impose on it that is true or false, not the sensation, which

is merely the passive recording data. “The second nominated

criterion, prolepseis, is variously translated

‘preconceptions’, ‘anticipations’ etc., none of which is

adequate. First introduced by Epicurus, the term came to

play a key part in all Hellenistic systems. A prolepsis is a

universal notion of some kind of thing, and it earns its

criterial status from the fact that, analogously to

sensations, it is naturally and unreflectively generated in

74 Ibid., 157.

42

us, usually by repeated sense-perceptions.” 75 Lastly,

feelings tell us what brings about pleasure and what brings

about pain, which is most essential to Epicurus’ ethical

theory.

In regard to physics, Epicurus was a materialist and an

atomist, the former meaning that there is nothing

supernatural that lay outside the natural world, and the

latter that the physical world is made up of tiny particles

called atoms. However, unlike his forerunner Democritus,

Epicurus was not a determinist, and created the theory of

atomic swerve to explain the existence of free will,

although no full explanation of this doctrine survives. “As

far as physics is concerned there seems to have been no

progress in Epicurean theory after the master’s death…[and]

his followers were content to take for granted to take the

physics for granted as the foundation for the ethical

system, in which they were more interested, and to make no

particular effort to explain, or even to understand, the

75 Ibid., 157.

43

theories.” 76 Since Epicureans put little emphasis on the

physics of Epicurus, and Lucian is no exception, there need

be no further exploration of it here.

The first four doctrines of Epicurus’ Principle Doctrines

are known as the Tetrapharmakos or “fourfold remedy”, and

represent the core of Epicurus’ prescription for the good

life. They are:

1. That being [i.e. god] which is blessed and imperishable neither suffers nor inflicts trouble, and therefore is affected neither by anger nor by favor. For all such things are marks of weakness.

2. Death is nothing to us. For what has been dissolved has no sensation, and what has no sensation is nothing to us.

3. The removal of all pains is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, pain or distress or their combination is absent.

4. Pain does not last continuously in the flesh: when acute it is there for a very short time, while the pain which just exceeds the pleasure of the flesh does not persist for many days; and chronic illnesses contain an excess of pleasure inthe flesh over pain. 77

The first doctrine is Epicurus’ most significant teaching

about the gods: that they represent perfect immortal beings.

For Epicurus, these beings would necessarily be satisfied

unto themselves and would have no need to interfere in the

lives of men for better or worse, nor would they bicker 76 Russel M. Geer, trans., Letters, Principle Doctrines and Vatican Sayings (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.) xxxiv. 77 David Sedley, 156.

44

amongst themselves as contemporary religious teachings would

have him believe. The gods represented ideals to be emulated

by practicing Epicurean philosophy, not worshiped or feared.

This put Epicurean teachings at odds with the prevailing

religious and philosophical traditions of the time, and they

were often accused of being atheists because of it. To be

clear, Epicurus did not teach that the gods did not exist,

but that they existed on another plane and were aloof from

the affairs of men. This teaching was commensurate with a

rational outlook because it does not allow for supernatural

explanations for things in the physical world, only that

which could be observed and thought about critically could

be said to be known.

The second doctrine deals with Epicurus’ teaching on

death, which is insignificant to him. This is because death

is the end of sensation, and without sensation there can be

neither pain nor pleasure. In his letter to Menoeceus

Epicurus writes “{The wise man neither renounces life} nor

fears its end; for living does not offend him, nor does he

45

suppose that not to live is in any way an evil.” 78 The wise

man, fortified by philosophy, knows that the pains of this

life are only temporary, so he does not desire death, and he

knows that without sensation there is no self to feel

distress, therefore death is the end of such feelings and

there is no reason to fear it in life.

The third doctrine teaches that the absence of pain is

the highest pleasure. Not suffering from any physical or

mental pain is the greatest good in terms of pleasure, which

is the goal of Epicurean philosophy. Unlike the detractors

of the Epicureans, who thought their only concern was

physical pleasure, Epicurus taught that moderation in all

things would bring about tranquility of mind, which he

considered the greatest form of happiness.

The fourth doctrine points out that physical pain is

only temporary, and that it can be endured. Epicureans

recognized that one cannot always remain in a state of

perfect tranquility, but with the right mindset people can

endure the more trying pains of life more easily.

78 Russel M. Geer, 55.

46

Despite serious challenges facing Epicurus from

detractors, Epicureanism would go on to thrive throughout

the Mediterranean world. 79 One of the aspects of Epicurus’

school was the use of “portraits of the Master, as well as

of his closest associates Metrodorus and Hermarchus… to

convey both the personality of the Master and the

philosophical message of the School [and] played a prominent

role in the recruitment of potential members.” 80 Another

way Epicureans were adept at finding converts was the

simplicity of the message, “and a deliberate attempt was

made to convey its essentials in the form of sayings both

easy to memorize and convenient to transmit by word of

mouth. Finally, there is the psychological attraction of the

Garden itself, which offered a unique alternative community

that was open to persons of every social standing, including

women and slaves,” that sheltered its members from the

troubles of the outside world. 81

79 Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, by Howard Jones. (New York: Routledge, 1989), 63.80 Ibid. 81 Ibid.

47

Considering the continual opposition faced by

Epicureans from rival schools of philosophy, Epicureanism

“enjoyed considerable success in winning converts, and there

is evidence that this was particularly so outside Greece.”

82 The Garden remained the center for Epicureanism, “but

after the third century the individual Epicureans mentioned

in the sources are for the most part associated with centers

in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.” 83 Of the great

philosophical schools the Epicureans were particularly

zealous in their recruiting practices, “and it is not

surprising that in the fast-growing and polyglot Eastern

cities Epicureanism, with its emphasis upon community and

its disregard for social distinctions, should have gained a

strong foothold.” 84 The history of Epicureanism in Italy is

more complicated, considering the conservative opposition in

Rome to influences that were contrary to Roman tradition.

Although Greek culture became popular among Romans, there

82 Ibid., 64. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid.

48

were clashes between Epicurean teachings and Roman

tradition.

While in the time of Epicurus the main opponent of his

school were the Platonists, that changed as Stoicism gained

popularity. This is one of the many changes that took place

in the writings of Lucretius, who went to such extreme

lengths to disprove providence he “committed himself to a

pessimism that is quite alien to Epicurus.” 85 Another

change that took place was in the style of writing used by

later Epicureans as opposed to those of Epicurus. Epicurus

was writing for his students and friends, so he “either

presented to the reader a detailed and technical discussion

of a philosophical problem, or took it for granted that the

reader was familiar with his teaching… it is in no sense a

popularization.” 86 Later Epicureans composed works that

were intended to spread the teachings of Epicurus to a wider

audience and to prove the superiority of Epicureanism over

other teachings. “Lucretius’ poem has much of this

85 P.H. de Lacy, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 79. (Johns Hopkins University Press) 19. 86 Ibid., 20

49

protreptic character; and when Diogenes of Oenoanda had his

writings inscribed on a high wall he hoped, no doubt, to

attract the attention and the interest of the casual passer

by.” 87 Later Epicureans also introduced various literary

forms that were alien to Epicurus, for whom “There is no

evidence that he ever tried to gain a wide audience for his

philosophy by the use of such literary devices as dialogue,

anecdote, frequent quotation from the poets, or lists of

examples drawn from mythology or history.” 88 It is probable

that Epicurus would have condemned such techniques as

unbecoming a philosopher. It is also quite likely that

Epicurus would have found much to disagree with about in

Lucian of Samosata, but that does not preclude him from

being associated with the Epicurean tradition, as it had

gone through so many changes over time. For instance, as

with Lucretius, there is no evidence that Lucian belonged to

an Epicurean community, which was one of the basic aspects

of the school from the beginning. 89

87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Norman W. DeWitt Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 63. (Johns Hopkins University Press) 170.

50

Lucian’s Works

In one of his most well known works, Alexander, he

writes about a false prophet named Alexander of Abonoteichus

who creates a cult and uses it to swindle people out of

their money. This piece is written in the form of a letter

to his friend Celsus responding to his request to tell him

what he knows about Alexander. Lucian has contempt for

Alexander, and expresses embarrassment that he is even

writing about such a man, though his embarrassment may or

may not be sincere. He describes Alexander as exceedingly

handsome and brilliant, but says he applied these gifts

toward the worst ends, using his “godlike” appearance and

keen intelligence to create elaborate schemes to elicit the

trust of his victims. Lucian says that Alexander worked as a

prostitute while he was a young man90, which may or may not

be the case. An older man who was a quack doctor took a

liking to him and taught him his trade. After the passing of

this man, Alexander went on to practice “quackery and

90 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 4, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 181.

51

sorcery” 91 with a partner, Cocconas, who was a Byzantine

writer of choral songs. The two of them formed a plan to

create their own oracle which they would use to make

themselves rich. They buried some tablets in the temple of

Apollo at Chalcedon that said that Asclepius and his father

Apollo would take up residence in Abonoteichos. Hearing

this, the people of Abonoteichos built a temple. Cooconas

died before long, possibly bit by a snake, and Alexander

proceeded with the plan they had formed, entering his home

city claiming descent from Persius and the Homeric healer

Podaleirius. Alexander buried a blown out goose egg with a

new born snake in it in the foundation of the new temple. He

went back later to dig it up during the day in front of a

crowd of people and proclaimed that it was Asclepius reborn.

Using a fake human head that he had made out of cloth, he

made it appear as though this was the snake’s head and used

it as the source of the oracle. His cult was very

successful, drawing followers from all over the empire,

including powerful Roman officials. One of his most

91 Ibid., 183.

52

important followers was Rutilianius, a Roman official who

married Alexander’s daughter. According to Lucian the only

people who opposed Alexander publicly were the Epicurians,

the Christians and the people of the city of Amastris, which

was a rival to the city of Abonoteichus. Lucian says that he

met Alexander himself, and that they were personal enemies.

Lucian had submitted questions to Alexander in an attempt to

prove him a fraud, and he had counseled Rutilianus not to

marry Alexander’s daughter. When Lucian visited

Abonoteichus, Alexander sent for him and offered him his

friendship, wanting to show his power by converting an

enemy. Fearing for his safety, Lucian accepted Alexander’s

offer of friendship, and when Lucian was leaving Alexander

offered him transportation on a ship. The crew of the ship

was ordered to kill Lucian, and he barely escaped death

because the captain had changed his mind.

According to Lucian, Alexander realized that “human

life is swayed by two great tyrants, hope and fear, and that

a man who could use both of these to his advantage would

53

speedily enrich himself.” 92 Alexander also understood, and

Lucian agreed, “that to commence such a venture they needed

‘fat-heads’ and simpletons to be their victims, and such, he

said, were the Paphlagonians who lived up above

Abonoteichus, who were for the most part superstitious and

rich;” 93 He points out the circumstances that are necessary

for Alexander’s schemes to work, and in doing so displays

his disposition toward common religious practice. To Lucian,

people are drawn to oracles because of their hopes and

fears, and because simple people are easily fooled by those

who claim to know their future. Addressing his friend

Celsus, Lucian says that they should excuse the people of

Paphlagonia and Pontus who were deluded when they touched

the serpent because they were uneducated, and it would take

“a Democritus, or even Epicurus himself or Metrodorus, or

someone else with a mind as firm as adamant toward such

matters, so as to disbelieve and guess the truth-- one who,

if he could not discover how it went, would at all events be

convinced beforehand that though the method of the fraud

92 Ibid., 185. 93 Ibid.

54

escaped him, it was nevertheless all sham and could not

possibly happen.” 94 In naming Democritus and Epicurus,

Lucian is showing his own philosophical bent, which is seen

in some of his other works as well. Though there are

differences between these two philosophers on many issues,

they were both atomists and materialists. Lucian goes on to

call Alexander’s victims “driveling idiots” for not seeing

through Alexander’s method of opening the sealed scrolls

that they submitted their questions in, blatantly

disrespecting the intelligence of regular people.

Of the elite Roman followers of Alexander, Lucian pays

the most attention to Rutilianus, who in spite of being “a

man of birth and breeding, put to the proof in many Roman

offices, nevertheless in all that concerned the gods was

very infirm and held strange beliefs about them.” 95 He had

sent his servants to see Alexander’s oracle and report back

to him, and was easily taken in by the rumors that he heard.

Believing what he had heard, he repeated it to his powerful

friends in Rome, enticing them to seek out the oracle.

94 Ibid., 199. 95 Ibid., 217.

55

Lucian thinks that Rutilianus does not live up to the

standards of a man of his station and experience because he

was weak minded and superstitious. Alexander made up a story

that his daughter was born of a goddess and that Rutilianus

should marry her, so “Without any hesitation that prince of

sages Rutilianus sent for the girl at once” 96

Lucian goes on to discuss some of the confrontations

between Epicureans and Alexander. Several Epicureans tried

to expose Alexander as a fraud publicly, and Alexander

feared them because of this.97 On one occasion Alexander

attempted to have a crowd of people stone an Epicurean to

death for this, but he was saved by a prominent man. “Why

did he have to be the only man of sense among all those

lunatics and suffer from the idiocy of the Paphlagonians?”

98 Discussing how Alexander ordered the burning of

Epicurus’s writings, Lucian showers praise on Epicurean

teachings for liberating people from irrational fears and

hopes, and helping them to develop an independent mind,

96 Ibid., 221. 97 Ibid., 231. 98 Ibid., 233.

56

“truly purifying their understanding, not with torches and

squills and that sort of foolery, but with straight

thinking, truthfulness and frankness.” 99 His comments on

Epicurean teachings are in line with his irreverent attitude

towards religion, so it makes sense that he respects, or

perhaps even adheres to, Epicurean philosophy. I do not see

this as Lucian mocking “expressive realism” because it is a

part of a pattern of sympathy towards Epicureanism. Lucian

also mentions Democritus, the atomist philosopher, as one

who would have easily seen through Alexander’s tricks, so he

clearly has respect for what he considers true philosophy.

100

Although Lucian mentions Christians as enemies of

Alexander, he conspicuously stays away from praising them

for this. 101 Perhaps the omission is due to Lucian’s

supposed audience, Celsus, who as an Epicurean would not

have been sympathetic to Christians. It likely reflects

99 Ibid. 235. 100 Ibid. 241. 101 Ibid., 209.

57

Lucian’s own antipathy towards Christians, who oppose

Alexander, but for the wrong reasons.

Lucian concludes this work by explaining his reasons

for writing it, which go beyond mere entertainment and

suggest sincerity. In addition to being written at the

request of his friend Celsus, Lucian states that he wants

“to right the wrongs of Epicurus, a man truly saintly and

divine in his nature, who alone truly discerned right ideals

and handed them down… I think too that to its readers the

writing will seem to have some usefulness, refuting as it

does certain falsehoods and confirming certain truths in the

minds of all men of sense.” 102 Although much of Lucian’s

works are full of irony and humor, it would be a mistake to

assume that all of them should be viewed as only intended

for entertainment. This is one of many works in which Lucian

praises Epicureanism.

Lucian discusses Christians as well as Cynics in his

essay Peregrinus, which is a diatribe against a Cynic

philosopher and some time Christian of that name. Lucian’s

102 Ibid., 253.

58

aim is to expose Peregrinus as a fraud, believing that he

was not sincere in his philosophy, but merely a vainglorious

attention seeker. Peregrinus took the name Proteus, after

the sea god in Homer’s Odyssey, and like the sea god he

assumed many forms. Peregrinus took his own life at the

Olympic games of 165 C.E. by burning himself alive in a pyre

in front of a crowd of people. He claimed that he was doing

it for the benefit of mankind, so we would learn to deride

death and abide fear. Lucian tells the story as someone who

is familiar with Peregrinus’s life and witnessed his final

act. The story is written to Lucian’s friend Cronius, who

was a Platonist.103 Most of the essay deals with the time

leading up to Proteus’s death and the events surrounding it,

but Lucian also briefly discusses the story of his life.

Throughout the story, Lucian digresses to point out the

humor in this story to his friend. “I think I can see you

laughing heartily at the old man’s driveling idiocy –

indeed, I hear you give tongue as you naturally would: ‘Oh,

the stupidity! Oh, the vainglory! Oh’ – everything else that

103A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 5, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 3.

59

we are in the habit of saying about it all.” 104 He expresses

contempt for both Cynics and Christians. The rarity and

frankness of the aside suggest its importance.

Lucian puts the background story of Peregrinus’s life

in the form of a speech given by a critic of Peregrinus that

spoke before the crowd amassed for the immolation, but it is

generally accepted that Lucian composed the speech himself.

105 “This person is a double for Lucian, since this speech

must be the one which in the introduction he claims to have

given himself, and in addition the laughter of Deomocritus

is a characteristic of Lucian or his substitutes in this and

other works.” 106 As a young man, he says that Peregrinus

corrupted a young boy, and paid off his parents to avoid

prosecution. This may be a trope, as similar accusations are

found in Alexander. He also strangled his own father, and

when this became widely known he went into exile abroad.

It was at this point that he learned about Christianity

while in Palestine, “by associating with their priests and

104 Ibid., 5. 105 Ibid., 1.106 C.P. Jones, Lucian in Society, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 119.

60

scribes in Palestine. And – how else could it be? – in a

trice he made them all look like children; for he was

prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything,

all by himself.” 107 This phrase is revealing of Lucian’s

attitude toward Christians as a confused sect with uncertain

and unclear beliefs. That the laughably stupid and

vainglorious Peregrinus was able to instantly take control

of a community of Christians, who were like children next to

him, shows what little regard Lucian held them in. “He

interpreted and explained some of their books and even

composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of

him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next

after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the

man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced

this new cult into the world.” 108 This elevated position

that Peregrinus held with the Christians reinforces Lucian’s

contempt for them. Lucian goes on to tell us that Peregrinus

was imprisoned for practicing Christianity, which increased

107 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 5, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 13.108 Ibid.

61

his fame and notoriety in the Christian community.

Christians would come to the prison with lavish gifts and

food, and Peregrinus “procured not a little revenue from it.

The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and

foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for

all time, in consequence of which they despise death and

even willingly give themselves into custody”. 109 The

practice of Christians allowing themselves to be punished

for their beliefs is well documented. For Lucian, the idea

that Christians thought they would have eternal life shows

them to be foolish, and this belief led them to the ill-

advised action of martyring themselves intentionally. Then

Lucian criticizes them for denying the Greek gods and

believing they are all brothers, in their naiveté.

“Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and

consider them common property, receiving such doctrines

traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any

charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes

among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing

109 Ibid., 15.

62

upon simple folk.” 110 He sees their rejection of material

wealth, their unquestioning faith and trust they have in

fellow Christians as weaknesses that are easily exploited by

more worldly but unscrupulous men, like Peregrinus. Lucian

thinks Christian values make men simple, in contrast to true

philosophy, which is a bulwark against falsehood. The

governor of Syria, “a man who was fond of philosophy”, freed

Peregrinus because he knew that killing him would help him

achieve his much prized notoriety. Lucian also mocks the

concept of martyrdom. The Christians eventually turned

against him, supposedly for violating one of their dietary

laws, and Peregrinus became a Cynic again long before his

immolation.

The Lover of Lies is a dialog that deals with tales of the

supernatural, and how people tend to believe them without

reference to evidence. Tychiades broaches the subject by

asking his friend why men would tell stories like that. The

usefulness of falsehoods for personal gain are left out of

consideration, and the men being considered are “otherwise

110 Ibid.

63

sensible and remarkable for their intelligence who have

somehow become infected with this plague and are lovers of

lying, so that it irks me when such men, excellent in every

way, yet delight in deceiving themselves and their

associates.” 111 The stories he is talking about are

traditional stories of the Greek gods and heroes that have

been composed by poets and passed down, as well as the

official stories told by cities. Philocles defends the poets

and the Greek cities on the grounds that the poets are

trying to make their poems more appealing, as are the

cities. Those who do not have such motive, he says, “may be

properly thought utterly ridiculous.” 112 Tychiades responds

by recounting a conversation he had in the house of Eucrates

on the subject. Eucrates is reputed by Philocles to be a

wise old man, a follower of philosophy, and he asks “what

sort of quackery he has been screening behind that great

beard.” 113

111 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 3, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 323.112 Ibid., 327. 113 Ibid., 329.

64

Tychiades begins by identifying the men involved in the

conversation, all of whom have a background in philosophy,

including “Cleodemus the Peripatetic, and Deinomachus the

Stoic, and Ion – you know the one that thinks he ought to be

admired for his mastery of Plato’s doctrines as the only

person who has accurately sensed the man’s meaning and can

expound it to the rest of the world… all-wise and all-

virtuous, the very fore-front of each school, every one

venerable… In addition, the physician Antigonus was there”.

114 Cleodemus and Deinomachus were discussing magical cures

that could be applied to cure Eucrates’s ailment, when

Tychiades questioned whether any such means could be

effective. All but the doctor laughed at Tychiades’s

comment, and they proceeded to recount instances in which

magic was used to cure an ailment. Tychiades’s point was

that there is no logical proof that magical cures work, and

without providing any their stories amount to nothing more

than old wives’ tales. Deinomachus accused Tychiades of not

believing in the gods because he denied that holy names

114 Ibid.

65

could be used to cure the sick. Tychiades replied “‘Don’t

say that my dear sir… Even though the gods exist, there is

nothing to prevent that sort of thing from being false just

the same. For my part, I revere the gods and I see their

cures and all the good that they do by restoring the sick to

health with drugs and doctoring. In fact, Asclepius himself

and his sons ministered to the sick by laying on healing

drugs, not by fastening on lions’ skins and weasels.’” 115

The idea that the gods don’t intervene in the lives of men

is consistent with Epicurean philosophy, but that is not

exactly what is being said here. If we accept that in this

dialogue the opinions expressed by Tychiades are those of

Lucian, it is possible that he might not entirely agree with

Epicureanism, since he gives the gods credit for medicine.

Epicureans acknowledge the existence of the gods, but

believe that the gods do not interfere in the lives of men,

so the idea that Asclepius or any other god worked medicine

is not consistent with that philosophy. However, Lucian

could be thinking of the mortal Asclepius, who like Hercules

115 Ibid., 335.

66

obtained divinity for his deeds, in which case he would be

in line with Epicurean thinking.

The men go on to share some of the supernatural events

that they have seen themselves, to which Tychiades replies

“I should have believed if I had seen it, but as things are

I may perhaps be pardoned if I am not able to see as clearly

as you.” 116 With this comment, Tychiades holds on to his

original judgment. Responding to Ion the Platonist’s

description of an exorcism he claimed to have witnessed,

Tychiades made fun of Plato’s doctrine of the forms 117.

Tychiades sardonic comments are typical of Lucian’s sense of

humor, and they appear throughout the work, driving home the

point of the work: foolish beliefs about religion are very

common in Lucian’s day, even among men who are reputed to be

wise. “They associate with young men to make them wise and

are admired by many, but what are they themselves? Only

their grey hair and their beard distinguishes them from

infants, and for the rest of it, even infants are not so

116 Ibid., 343. 117 Ibid., 345.

67

amenable to falsehood.” 118 When Arignotus the Pythagorean

entered the house and joined the conversation, Tychiades

thought he would join his side in the discussion and silence

the others because of his reputation for wisdom, but after

he told his story “there was no longer any one of those

present who did not hold [Tychiades] convicted of gross

folly if I doubted such things”119. Tychiades’ false hope

that Arignotus would come to his defense is a device used by

Lucian to make his point.

When Arignotus asks Tychiades who is more trustworthy

on the subject than the men gathered there, he names

Democritus of Abdera. Once again, Lucian mentions Democritus

as a man that would join him in laughing at gullible people

who believe in tall tales. Like in Alexander the false

prophet, Democritus “was thoroughly convinced” that the

supernatural did not exist. The depth of his philosophical

training made him immune to tricks and stories, as an

anecdote mentioned by Tychiades shows. He says that

Democritus would go inside a tomb to write, and some young

118 Ibid., 355. 119 Ibid., 369.

68

men tried to scare him by pretending to be ghosts, to which

Democritus said “‘Stop your foolery!’ So firmly did he

believe that souls are nothing after they have gone out of

their bodies.” 120

Tychiades becomes increasingly more put off by the

stories, arguing that they are a bad influence on the young

men who are present and listening because it will cause them

to become superstitious. Finally, Tychiades had enough of

listening to the other men, so he left in the middle of one

of Eucrates’ stories, making an excuse. This shows disdain

for the other men and their arguments. He concludes his part

in the conversation by saying to them “As for you, since you

do not think that human experiences afford you a sufficient

field, go ahead and call in the gods themselves to help you

out in your romancing.”121 Here Lucian offers his explanation

of why men tell supernatural stories. Since the real world

is not enough for them they look to other worldly phenomena

to make their reality explicable. Tychaides tells Philocles

that after leaving the house he wished that he had some kind

120 Ibid., 371. 121 Ibid., 379.

69

of drug that would make him forget what he had heard there

so he would not be influenced by the lies he had heard.

Philocles also fears the same, and compares hearing the

story with being bitten by a mad dog. Lucian put these words

in their mouths to make the point that irrational, mystical

thinking can be contagious, but as the closing lines of

Tychiades remind us, we have a “powerful antidote to such

poisons in truth and in sound reason brought to bear

everywhere. As long as we make use of this, none of these

empty, foolish lies will disturb our peace.” 122

On Sacrifices is an attack on common religious practices,

with Lucian once again mocking common people and their

beliefs. Lucian opens by saying that he doesn’t think anyone

is so unhappy that they could not laugh at the idiotic

religious practices of people. This is a recurring theme in

Lucian’s writings, so it would be strange indeed if this was

not his actual sentiment. He certainly desired to entertain

his audience with his writing, and making fun of religion is

entertaining to him, so he must have actually thought the

122 Ibid., 381.

70

religious practices he writes about were foolish. Lucian

goes on to question “whether he should call them devout or,

on the contrary, irreligious and pestilent, inasmuch as they

have taken it for granted that the gods are so low and mean

as to stand in need of men and to enjoy being flattered and

to get angry when they are slighted.” 123 Once again, Lucian

expresses an opinion on religion that is in the vein of

Epicureanism, in that the gods are not concerned with the

affairs of men. He jokes that “nothing, it seems, that they

do is done without compensation.” 124 By this he means that

there are sacrifices for anything people want the gods to

grant them. Lucian points out that Chryses, in the Iliad,

knew the conventional wisdom about sacrificing to the gods,

“being a priest and an old man and wise in the ways of the

gods;” so he spoke to Apollo as if he owed him something for

his sacrifices and was punished for it. This comment is

intended to mock the legitimacy of sacrificing to the gods.

Lucian blames the poets for telling stories about the

gods that influence the beliefs of the people, and relates

123 Ibid., 155. 124 Ibid., 157.

71

some of them to show their absurdity. For Lucian, the

absurdity of these tales is due in part to how flawed the

gods are made out to be and how outlandish the stories are.

He writes about recounting the promiscuous reputation of

Zeus, he says “that, being passionate and prone to the

pleasures of love, he soon filled Heaven with children, some

of whom he got by his equals in station and some

illegitimately of mortal, earthly stock, now turning into

gold, this gallant squire, now into a bull or a swan or an

eagle, and in short, showing himself more changeable than

even Proteus;” 125 The unrestrained passion of Zeus, who is

said to have slept with mortal women, goes against the idea

that they did not intervene in the lives of people, and is

inconsistent with the idea that they a lived blissful

existence between worlds. Lucian’s attention to these

aspects of the gods suggests sympathy for Epicurean thought.

Another similar example is that of “Hephaestus, who,

however, is not in great luck, but works at the blacksmiths’

trade over a fire… moreover, he is not even straight limbed,

125 Ibid., 161.

72

as he was lamed by his fall when Zeus threw him out of

Heaven.” 126 Next, Lucian talks about the gods’ home,

inviting the reader to “go up to Heaven itself, soaring up

poet-fashion by the same route as Homer and Hesiod, and let

us see how they have arranged things on high.” 127 Lucian’s

signature sarcasm is again on display here as he mocks the

poets’ presumption that they could know how heaven looked.

He makes fun of the practice of burning offerings to the

gods by saying that when this is done on earth the gods “all

have a feast, opening their mouths for the smoke and

drinking the blood that is spilt at the altars, just like

flies; but if they dine at home, their meal is nectar and

ambrosia.”128 The people who perform these sacrifices

certainly didn’t believe the gods did this, but there was no

realistic explanation of how the smoke and blood managed to

satisfy the gods. Lucian is applying a rational

consideration to a practice that is accepted on tradition

and in doing so he exposes the lack of logical reasons

126 Ibid. 127 Ibid., 163. 128 Ibid., 165.

73

supporting it, which can make practically any religious

practice seem silly from an outside perspective. This

empirical interpretation of the religious ritual is in

accordance with the Epicurean teaching that one should use

rational consideration of one’s sense perceptions to arrive

at knowledge of the world.

Lucian also talks about the sacrificial practices of

other cultures. He says the Scythians sacrifice humans to

the gods, and he mockingly adds that the gods welcome it. He

also mocks the Egyptian depictions of the gods with the

heads of animals, calling this “venerable and truly in

keeping with Heaven”129. This sarcastic comment expresses the

Epicurean view that anything said about the gods should be

in agreement with the concept of blessedness, which from a

Greek perspective an animal’s head on a human body is not.

In keeping with Greek tradition he has a syncretistic

outlook on the gods, identifying the gods of Egypt with

those of Greece. He writes that the gods fled to Egypt when

the giants revolted, and they took on the appearance of

129 Ibid., 169.

74

animals in order to hide from them, which he says is

supposedly proven by documents. Lucian concludes by saying

“Actions and beliefs like these on the part of the public

seem to me to require, not someone to censure them, but a

Heracleitus or a Democritus, the one to laugh at their

ignorance, the other to bewail their folly.”130 Although

Lucian refers to Democritus in other writings as an

exceptionally wise man, he mentions him alongside

Heracleitus because they are known as the laughing

philosopher and the weeping philosopher respectively. As in

the Lover of Lies, Lucian’s character realizes that it is

futile to try to correct the false beliefs people have about

religion. Minds that are not fortified by philosophy cannot

be convinced of the truth through rational arguments, so the

only sensible way to react to them is to laugh at and regret

their stupidity.

On Funerals is closely related to On Sacrifices, and the

latter is believed to be a continuation of the former. Both

deal with common religious practices, mocking them in

130 Ibid., 171.

75

classic Lucianic style. He argues that although mourners act

as if they consider death a horrible thing for themselves

and the deceased, there is no evidence to show that it is a

terrible thing to be dead. Their assumption is based solely

on custom and habit. This is a purely Epicurean thought on

the fear of death and is one of Epicurus’ most basic

teachings. “The general herd, whom philosophers call the

laity, trust Homer and Hesiod and the other mythmakers in

these matters, and take their poetry for a law unto

themselves.” 131 He goes on to describe the typical beliefs

about the afterlife, specifically those of the Hellenistic

tradition. The fact that Lucian talks about this tradition

as the one followed by the common man shows that traditional

Greek religion was still popular in his lifetime. Next

Lucian describes the funerary customs of average people. He

scoffs at the notion that Hades is under the Earth and

without sunlight, because it would mean that people couldn’t

see. He also mocks the practice of placing a coin in the

mouth of a corpse, asking which currency the ferryman to the

131 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 4, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 111-131.

76

underworld accepts and whether it would be better not to pay

so the person could just return to life. Joking about the

practice of clothing the dead, Lucian says it “very likely

is intended to keep them from being cold on the way and from

being seen undressed by Cerberus.”132 Lucian is obviously

joking, but he does show an unusual aversion to metaphor in

his views on religion.

The most significant critique Lucian has is against

people who act out at funerals by crying, wailing, and

ripping their clothes and hair out, which he claims is done

not for the benefit of the deceased but for the other people

present at the funeral. When someone does this “he has not

even considered what life itself is, or else he would not

take on so about the leaving of it, as if it were something

dreadful.”133 Lucian creates a hypothetical response from a

deceased son to his father to try to make him stop behaving

in this way. The son claims that in death he “has become far

better off and happier… What dreadful misfortune do you

think I am undergoing? Is it that I did not get to be an old

132 Ibid., 119. 133 Ibid., 123.

77

man like you, with your head bald, your face wrinkled, your

back bent, and your knees trembling – like you… and who now,

at the last, go out of your mind in the presence of so many

witnesses?... you are unaware that not to thirst is far

better than drinking, not to hunger than eating, and not to

be cold than to have quantities of clothing?” 134 The absence

of physical pain, as well as irrational fears and desires,

are central to Epicurean teaching, 135 and in making this

argument Lucian yet again shows sympathy for Epicurean

thought. He goes on to instruct the father on how to mourn,

incorporating these ideas into a speech. The extravagant

crying, sacrifices, decorations, burial customs, feasts and

music are all dismissed and labeled utterly useless for the

deceased, and are therefore ridiculous.

A few of Lucian’s dialogs are imaginary conversations

between the Greek gods. Obviously fictional and intended for

humorous effect, they should not necessarily be taken as

expressing Lucian’s opinions, even if they deal with

134 Ibid. 135 David Sedley, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press) 156.

78

subjects that are notable for him. The Parliament of the Gods is

a dialog between Momus, the god of mockery and censure, and

Zeus. Momus argues that there are gods in heaven who do not

belong among the traditional Greek gods because of their

half-human or foreign origins. This seems like a tongue in

cheek reference to Lucian’s own status as an outsider to

Greek culture. Momus criticizes Dionysus for having a non-

Greek human mother, his drunkenness and his womanish

character. Dionysus also introduced his followers to heaven,

such as “Pan and Silenus and the Satyrs, regular farm-hands

and goat-herds…” with the features of animals. Momus goes on

to criticize Zeus himself for sleeping with mortal women and

causing these lesser beings to become gods in the first

place, as well as his inconsistencies in who of his children

he allows to become gods. Then he criticizes foreign gods,

like Attis, Corybas, Sabazius and Mithras, reserving added

scorn for the animal-headed gods of Egypt. He takes issue

with the worship of heroes as well on the grounds that they

take followers from the Greek gods, and because “ever since

we became so numerous, perjury and sacrilege have been

79

increasing,” and people no longer care for the gods. This

seems to be a critique of the expansion of Roman citizenship

and the abandonment of traditional values, which in his mind

are somehow connected. Finally, he objects to the

deification of abstract concepts, like Virtue, Nature,

Destiny and Chance, calling them unsubstantial creations of

philosophers. The dialog ends with a bill proposed by Momus

to rid heaven of unworthy gods under the direction of the

twelve Olympian gods and those from the older generation of

Cronus. The remaining gods would be forbidden from

practicing multiple functions “and be either seer or singer

or physician; [and] that the philosophers be warned not to

make up empty names or talk nonsense about matters of which

they know nothing;” 136 Zeus concludes by unilaterally

passing the bill, much like an emperor, and promising to rid

heaven of undeserving gods.

I don’t think this dialog should be interpreted as

expressing Lucian’s belief in the Twelve Olympian gods

because he so often mocks these same gods in his other

136 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 5, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 419-441.

80

works. I see it as an expression of his penchant for

traditional Greek culture over non-Greek. The core issue

that he has with the other gods is that they are supplanting

the traditional Greek religious practices. The gods that

attract the most criticism are those that are most foreign.

Dionysus, with his effeminate nature and drunkenness, is at

odds with the Greek conception of manhood. That Scythians

could proclaim a god, or gods could have animalistic

features, or that the traditional roles of the gods could be

supplanted show that foreignness is the biggest issue for

Lucian. When you consider Lucian’s status as a Syrian and an

outsider to Greek and Roman cultural identities it is ironic

that he is so defensive of Greek tradition. Perhaps his

self-consciousness about his Syrian origins compels him to

try even harder to wrap himself in his adopted Greek

identity. The only issues not relating to foreignness that

he raises are the admission of half-mortal children of gods

entering heaven and the deification of abstract concepts,

both of which Lucian spends little time on. Furthermore, the

argument against beings with mortal parents becoming gods is

81

that their numbers lead to a decline in people’s respect for

the gods, which is another argument in support of tradition;

likewise with the deification of abstract concepts. Lucian’s

arguments against them come from his espousal of Greek

cultural orthodoxy.

R. Bracht Branham calls Menippus and Icaromenippus the

essentially Lucianic pieces of writing because they raise

serious issues in a humorous way in order to make them seem

absurd.137 He uses the term seriocomic to describe this

style. Icaromenippus is a satire that takes aim not only at

the common religious beliefs passed down by the poets, but

at the philosophers who criticize them. Rather than staking

out a clear position on any issue, Lucian is making fun of

everything people take seriously. The character Menippus is

based on “a Cynic polemicist and parodist” from the third

century B.C.E. whose works don’t survive today, so there is

no way of knowing for sure what relation this piece has to

his work. He appears in this piece as well as in the one

named after him. In Icaromenippus he tells a story to his

137 R.B. Branham, Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press), 14-28.

82

friend about how he flew up to heaven using one wing from an

eagle and another from a vulture, stopping off at the moon

on his way up to visit the gods. Menippus begins his story

by saying “that all objects of human endeavor are ridiculous

and trivial and insecure (wealth, I mean, and office and

sovereign power),” so he decided to contemplate the

universe. Finding it impossible to understand, he turned to

the philosophers, of which he “picked out the best of them,

as far as I could judge from their dourness of visage,

paleness of complexion and length of beard;” 138 Here Lucian

is mocking how common people might judge philosophers. Then

he mocks the philosophers’ themselves by saying they made

him more confused than he was before by using confusing

jargon and contradicting each other. Listening to their

certainty in their contradictory doctrines, their assertions

that they knew the measurements and physical makeup of

heavenly bodies, and finally their various views on the

gods, Menippus decided that there was no way he would get

the truth about this on earth, so he would have to go up to

138 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 5, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 275-277.

83

heaven. He “did not want to disbelieve ‘high-thundering’

gentlemen with goodly beards, and yet did not know where to

turn in order to find a point of doctrine that was

unassailable and not in any way subject to refutation by

someone else.” 139 This piece is an example of Branham’s

seriocomic characterization, as well as Tim Whitmarsh’s view

of Lucian’s writing as a satire on expressive realism.

Looking down at the Earth, Menippus sees the unseemly

behavior of men. Among them were philosophers, “Hermodorus

the Epicurean perjuring himself for a thousand drachmas, the

Stoic Agathocles going to law with his disciple about a fee,

the orator Clinias stealing a cup out of the Temple of

Asclepius and the Cynic Herophilus asleep in the brothel.”

140 This is typical of Lucian, who speaks highly of

philosophy but is critical of the hypocrisy he sees in

philosophers. When Menippus reaches the moon it speaks to

him in a woman’s voice and asks him to deliver a message to

Zeus, complaining that the philosophers are slandering her

by talking about her and trying to figure out what she is.

139 Ibid., 283. 140 Ibid., 295.

84

The moon also criticizes them for hypocrisy, threatening to

move far away unless Zeus “destroys the natural

philosophers, muzzles the logicians, razes the Porch, burns

down the Academy, and stops the lectures in the Walks; for

only then can I get a rest and cease to be surveyed by them

every day.” 141 The moon’s objection to philosophers’

statements about her is Lucian’s way of criticizing them for

overreaching in their assertions by claiming knowledge that

cannot be backed up by empirical evidence. An Epicurean

approach would be to accept the existence of the moon and

leave it at that.

When Menippus finally reaches heaven, Zeus asks him

what people on Earth think about him. Zeus laments that he

was once the god that everyone sacrificed to for all of

their needs, but because of people’s appetite for novelty

there are many other gods that people turn to. 142 Mennipus

observes Zeus going about his work, listening to prayers,

answering some of them, controlling the weather, and

destroying Hermodorus the Epicurean, presumably for

141 Ibid., 305. 142 Ibid., 309.

85

perjuring himself as observed by Mennipus earlier. By

mentioning the annihilation of Hermodorus Lucian shows

notable disgust with him, and the fact that he is singled

out over the other unethical philosophers mentioned is

likely because Lucian especially disapproves of an Epicurean

not living up to the standards of his philosophy. Because of

Mennipus’ message from the moon, and because he has long

been concerned about the philosophers, Zeus decides to call

an assembly of the gods. He characterizes philosophers as

“lazy, disputatious, vainglorious, quick-tempered,

gluttonous, doltish, [confused], full of effrontery and to

use the language of Homer, ‘a useless load to the soil.’

Well, these people, dividing themselves into schools and

inventing various word-mazes, have called themselves Stoics,

Academics, Epicureans, Peripatatics and other things much

more laughable than these.”143 In addition to Lucian’s usual

criticism of philosophers for their vices and hypocrisy, he

adds their cryptic language. Coming from the mouth of Zeus,

Lucian is making the point being that philosophical jargon

143 Ibid., 317.

86

is nonsense. Although he includes the Epicureans in this,

the real point being made is that dialectic is not a well-

founded method for understanding truth. This is a key

component of Epicurean philosophy, that knowledge is

attained through sensory perception rather than words. 144

Zeus goes on to accuse philosophers of hiding their

vice behind high minded talk, doing “no good either in

public or in private life but are useless and superfluous…

nevertheless they accuse everyone else; they amass biting

phrases and school themselves in novel terms of abuse, and

then they censure and reproach their fellow men; and whoever

of them is the most noisy and impudent and reckless in

calling names is held to be the champion.” 145 This is a

harsh and seemingly sincere assessment of philosophers, but

it is important to remember that this is a satire, and like

other satirists Lucian has a tendency to exaggerate for

comedic effect. In other works, such as Alexander and

Peregrinus, where he has a different aim, Lucian praises the

144 David Sedley, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press) 157.145 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 5, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 319.

87

Epicureans. Although Lucian’s opinions often seep into his

characters, we should not view his characters as always

representing Lucian’s point of view. Zeus’s attack on the

Epicureans in particular should be understood as tongue in

cheek. Zeus says “Epicureans are very insolent fellows

indeed and attack us immoderately, saying not only that the

gods do not direct human affairs, but that they pay no

attention at all to what goes on. So it is high time you

were bethinking yourselves that if they ever are able to

persuade the world, you would go uncommonly hungry; for who

would continue to sacrifice to you if he expected to gain

nothing by it?” 146 The character Zeus plainly states his

problem with the Epicureans: they believe that the gods no

not interfere in the lives of men, so if they convince other

people of this they would no longer sacrifice to the gods.

Lucian’s Zeus is expressing the common man’s conception of

how the god would react to the Epicurean philosophy, and

that is the joke. Lucian’s sympathies would have been known

to contemporary readers. The Epicurean view is that the gods

146 Ibid., 321.

88

would have no need of sacrifices, since they have no concern

with the affairs of men and live in a state of perfect

contentment. The story concludes with the gods calling for

the annihilation of the philosophers, and Zeus promising to

do so in the spring, after the festival season. This is a

tongue in cheek statement, since Lucian never expects the

gods to do anything to the philosophers, so he puts it off

to a later time. Mennipus has his wings taken away so he

could not return to heaven, and he is carried down to Earth

by Hermes, where he intends to spread the news to the

philosophers.

Zeus Catechized is a dialog between Cyniscus and Zeus on

predestination and free-will, in which the purpose of the

gods is called into question. Like some of Lucian’s other

works, it was influenced by the Cynic satirist Mennipus. It

begins with Cyniscus asking Zeus to answer a question, and

suggesting that Zeus ignores most people’s prayers. The

question he asks is whether what the poets say about Fate

and Destiny is true: “that whatever they spin for each of us

89

at his birth is inevitable”. 147 Zeus affirms that

“everything that comes to pass is controlled by their

spindle and has its outcome spun for it in each instance

from the very beginning, and it cannot come to pass

differently.” 148

Then Cyniscus asks about Destiny and Fortune, to which

Zeus responds that he is not permitted to know everything.

When Cyniscus inquires if the gods are under the power of

the Fates, and when Zeus admits it, Cyniscus reveals his

point, which is that if everything is predetermined, then it

follows logically there is no possible benefit that men

could derive from sacrificing to the gods because they are

powerless to change anything. Zeus accuses Cyniscus of

getting his questions “from the cursed sophists, who say

that we do not even exert any providence on behalf of men.

At any rate they ask questions like yours out of impiety,

and dissuade the rest from sacrificing and praying on the

ground that it is silly;”149 Opposition to sacrificing to the

147 A.M. Harmon, trans., Lucian, Vol. 2, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library), 61.148 Ibid., 63. 149 Ibid. 67.

90

gods is important to Lucian’s thinking as well as Epicurean

philosophy on the grounds that religion is irrational.

Then Zeus posits that men sacrifice to the gods in

order to honor them because they are superior, not because

they want something from them. Cyniscus accepts this, since

Zeus admits that there is nothing useful to be gained by

sacrificing to the gods, but he disputes that the gods are

superior to men, “when really they are fellow slaves with

men, and subject to the same mistresses, the Fates. For

their immortality will not suffice to make them seem better,

since that feature certainly is far worse, because men are

set free by death at least,” 150 Although he does not argue

against the existence of determinism, Cyniscus thinks that

in a predetermined world even the gods are slaves. His

disdain for such a condition shows that at the very least he

would not want it to be true. Zeus counters that the gods

enjoy a blissful eternal life, unlike humans, but Cyniscus

quashes that point as well by citing stories of tribulations

that the gods have suffered through, which is contrary to

150 Ibid., 70-71.

91

Epicurean thought. Next Zeus tries to preserve the

importance of the gods by arguing that the Fates work

through the gods, to which Cyniscus responds that they are

mere tools, and that even the Fates are powerless to

overturn their original decrees. Finally, Zeus falls back on

the gods’ function of telling the future through oracles.

This too is easily dismissed by Cyniscus because a man

knowing his fate does not help him avoid it, and besides,

the oracles are generally so vague as not to be useful

anyway. Zeus replies, “Then you leave nothing for us, and we

are gods to no purpose, not contributing any providence to

the world and not deserving our sacrifices, like drills or

adzes in very truth? Indeed it seems to me that you scorn me

with reason, because although, as you see, I have a

thunderbolt clenched in my hand, I am letting you say all

this against us.”151 Cyinscus is unafraid, saying he won’t

blame Zeus for killing him, but the Fate Clotho.

This brings Cyinscus to the issue of the problem of

evil: why are the wicked allowed to go unpunished while

151 Ibid., 79.

92

virtuous people suffer? First, Zeus replies that this is

something that Cyniscus is not permitted to know, but then

mentions that “punishments await the wicked when life is

over, and in what happiness the good abide” 152 Cyniscus

counters this reminding Zeus of his statement that Fate is

the cause of all things, so “we men do nothing of our own

accord, but only at the behest of some inevitable necessity,

if what you previously admitted is true… If a man slay, it

is she who slays, and if he rob temples, he only does it

under orders. Therefore if Minos were to judge justly he

would punish Destiny instead of Sisyphus and Fate instead of

Tantalus, for what wrong did they do in obeying orders?”153

According to Cyniscus, determinism precludes moral

culpability, so any punishment would be senseless. Zeus

refuses to answer any more questions from Cyniscus, “an

impudent fellow and a sophist”. Cyniscus comments on what a

difficult life the Fates live because “they attend to so

much business, when there are only three of them. There is

much labour and little good-fortune in the life they live…

152 Ibid., 85. 153 Ibid., 87.

93

and Destiny, it would appear, was not too gracious when they

themselves were born.” 154 Lucian is sardonically pointing

out how silly belief in the Fates is by joking that there is

far too much work for them to do and that they have such an

arduous fate laid out for them. This is another example of

his super literal-mindedness. Responsibility for deciding

the fate of the Fates before they were born is clearly left

out intentionally, illustrating Lucian’s mockery. He

concludes that he has heard enough to understand Destiny and

Providence, despite Zeus’s refusal to talk to him anymore.

Although written from the Cynic perspective, this does

not preclude Lucian from being an Epicurean because of the

similarities between the two traditions. Criticism of

traditional religious practices such as sacrificing, oracles

and fate were common to both Cynics and Epicureans. However

some of the views expressed in this dialog disagree with

Epicurean teachings. Cyniscus suggests that the gods live a

less than idyllic existence, which is at odds with Epicurean

belief that they were blissfully detached from human

154 Ibid.

94

affairs. Likewise, determinism is assumed to be true by

Zeus, which is against Epicurean belief in free will.

However, we shouldn’t take these to be Lucian’s views. What

he is trying to do is to point out the logical

inconsistencies of common religious beliefs, thereby

discrediting them. Debunking these beliefs contributes to

the Epicurean goal of freeing oneself of irrational fears

that result from belief in supernatural phenomena. Freedom

from fear and pain (ataraxia) are the main goals of

Epicureanism, and some doctrines are set aside for the sake

of the argument being made by this piece. He clearly uses

the character Cyniscus as a representative of the Cynic

perspective to argue against the Stoics, who believed in a

rationally ordered world providentially laid out by God. 155

The desired result is to leave the reader with the

impression that belief in fate and sacrificing to the gods

makes no sense.

Zeus Rants is similar in subject matter to Zeus Catechized,

in that it deals with the issue of men turning away from the

155 Ibid., 59.

95

gods. Zeus is worried about an argument between Timocles the

Stoic and Damis the Epicurean on the subject of Providence

“in the presence of a great many men of high standing, and

it was that fact that annoyed me most. Damis asserted that

gods did not even exist, to say nothing of overseeing and

directing events, whereas Timocles, good soul that he is,

tried to take our part.” 156 They did not finish their

conversation and agreed to continue it tomorrow, which gave

the gods some time to discuss what should be done about this

problem, since according to Zeus “their interests are staked

on a single man, and there are only two things that can

happen – we must either be thrust aside in case they

conclude that we are nothing but names, or else be honored

as before if Timocles gets the better of it in the

argument.” 157 Through Zeus’s assessment of the argument

between the Epicurean and Stoic positions on the gods,

Lucian is making the point that the consequence of people

accepting the Epicurean position on the gods will be the

triumph of Atheism. Technically Epicureans do not deny the

156 Ibid., 95. 157 Ibid., 97.

96

existence of the gods, but assert that they do not interfere

in the lives of men, essentially making sacrifice and

worship useless.

All of the gods are called to assembly to discuss the

potential problem of the triumph of the Epicurean argument.

Zeus humorously criticizes Hermes for the simplicity of the

proclamation, to which Hermes replies that he is no poet, so

he would ruin the proclamation if he attempted to make it

poetic, since “even Apollo gets laughed at for some of his

oracles, although they are generally so beclouded with

obscurity that those who hear them don’t have much chance to

examine their meters.” 158 Lucian is belittling the

intelligence of the gods, since even the words of Apollo the

god of poetry don’t measure up. Hermes is forced to use the

words of Homer to make his point and get the gods to come.

The assembled gods digress from their point to argue over

which of them deserve to sit in the front row, depending on

the value of the statues they are made out of. They consider

what material the statues are made of, how artfully they are

158 Ibid., 99-101.

97

made, their size and whether they are Greek or foreign gods.

This topic is a metaphor for which gods should be considered

more important, and the issue is complicated by the

inclusion of a myriad of foreign gods, but Zeus decides that

the issue should be set aside for another time while they

address the issue at hand. Lucian is making the point that

there are so many things said about the gods and their

status that there is no authoritative answer to the

question. He is also ridiculing the idea of making expensive

statues of the gods, since it doesn’t do any good for

anyone.

Zeus tells Hermes that he doesn’t “know whether because

of the greatness of the impending disasters or because of

the number of those present (for the meeting is packed with

gods, as you see), I am confused in the head and trembly and

my tongue seems to be tied;” 159 The changing religious

climate represented by new religions and Epicurean

philosophy are troubling to Zeus, who represents traditional

Greek religion. Unable to come up with his own words, Zeus

159 Ibid., 111.

98

paraphrases from Demosthenes’ speeches against Philip of

Macedon, an analogous situation, since Philip represents the

kind of threat to Demosthenes’ Athens as the Epicureans do

to the gods. Notably, Demosthenes’ pleas famously went

unheeded by the people of Athens. Zeus goes on to complain

about the stinginess of a sacrifice made by a sailor after

his ship was saved from ruin, a sign of waning respect for

the gods, after which he comes across the discussion between

Damis the Epicurean and Timocles the Stoic. Timocles had

started to lose the argument to Damis, who “asserted that we

do not exercise any providence in behalf of men and do not

oversee what goes on among them, saying nothing less than

that we do not exist at all (for that is of course what his

argument implied).” 160 Seeing this, Zeus ordered night to

fall so the gods would have time to come up with a solution

to this problem before the men finished their discussion the

next day. Zeus is sure that the Epicurean will win the

argument unless they come up with something.

160 Ibid., 115-117.

99

Initially, the gods have no response, but Momus, the

god of mockery and satire, has something to contribute.

Taking the side of the Epicureans, Momus argues that it

makes perfect sense that there are those who turn away from

the gods and that the gods have no right to be angry about

it. Firstly, he points to the problem of evil, why the gods

would allow evil men to prosper while good men suffer. Then

he criticizes the vagueness of oracles and the tales of

troubles told about the gods, in spite of claims of their

blissful existence. Momus points out that the gods never

consider who is good or evil among men, and are only now

considering how to make people continue to sacrifice to

them. Momus is expressing an Epicurean idea, that the gods

are not concerned with the affairs of men. He continues,

arguing that as long as this state of affairs continues the

gods will get no more sacrifices than they deserve, and

people will eventually abandon them altogether. Momus leaves

it to the rest of the gods how to settle the issue, since he

is indifferent because he never received sacrifices anyway.

100

Zeus tells the other gods to ignore Momus, since as

Demosthenes says “to reproach and criticize and find fault

is easy and anyone can do it, but to advise how a situation

may be improved requires a really wise counselor;” 161

Poseidon suggests that Zeus kill Damis before he can resume

the argument to show people what happens when they speak

against the gods. Zeus points out that it is not in his

power to do this, because the Fates decide how a man will

die, not the gods. “If it lay in my power,” he says “do you

suppose I would have let the temple-robbers get away from

Olympia the other day unscathed by my thunderbolt, when they

had shorn off two of my curls weighing six pounds apiece?”

162 Here, Zeus admits the argument made against the gods in

Zeus Catechized, which is that the gods are subject to the

power of the Fates and can do nothing that hasn’t been set

down by them. This is a dig by Lucian against traditional

religion. Furthermore, Zeus says that if they harm Damis it

will look like they were afraid of his argument and he would

“die undefeated, leaving the question still in dispute and

161 Ibid., 125. 162 Ibid.

101

unsettled!” 163 Apollo suggests providing a spokesman for

Timocles, to which Momus replies by mocking Apollo’s

ambiguous oracles as the opposite of clear speech, and

laughs at the idea of the spectacle of Timocles whispering

into someone’s ear, who would then interpret his words. Then

Momus challenges Apollo to use his power of prophecy to

predict the outcome of the debate between Damis and

Timocles. Apollo is hesitant, saying that he hasn’t the

proper tools at hand, but with some prodding from Zeus and

teasing from Momus he gives in. Listening to Apollo’s oracle

Momus begins laughing hysterically, since he interprets

Apollo’s words to mean that he “is a humbug and that you who

believe in him are pack-asses and mules, without as much

sense as grasshoppers.” 164 Since this interpretation is not

questioned and no other interpretation is offered, Apollo is

essentially rebuking himself and those who believe in him.

At this point Heracles joins the discussion, and like

Poseidon he suggests turning to violence against Damis if

the argument doesn’t go their way, by destroying the porch

163 Ibid., 127. 164 Ibid., 137.

102

on which the men are meeting. Zeus rejects this idea,

calling it “a loutish and horribly Boeotian thing” 165 to

say, because it would harm innocents and destroy the

beautiful and inspiring Painted Porch where men go to make

speeches. Furthermore, according to Zeus, Heracles no longer

has the power to do this, though he could have during his

mortal life. Since he is not a mortal anymore but a god

“only the Fates can do such things, and that we have no part

in them.” 166 Heracles is dismayed that he does not have the

power to strike down those who rob his temples or otherwise

offend him that he would rather leave behind the honors of a

god “and go down to Hell, where with my bow uncased I can at

least frighten the ghosts of the animals I have slain.” 167

Zeus sarcastically replies that he “would have done us a

great service if you had given Damis a hint to say that.” 168

Just then, Hermes comes in to tell them that the debate

between Damis and Timocles has resumed, and with no

165 Boeotia is a region of Greece adjacent to Attica, and the connotationis that the people of Boeotia are not as sophisticated as the Athenians in Attica. 166 Ibid.167 Ibid., 139. 168 Ibid.

103

confidence at all in Timocles’s chances Zeus calls on the

other gods to listen in.

Timocles begins by calling Damis a “sacrilegious

wretch” and insisting that he explain why he says “the gods

do not exist and do not show providence in behalf of men?”

169 Damis replies by insisting that Timocles tell him why he

believes the gods do exist, to which Timocles replies “No,

you tell me, you miscreant!” 170 Zeus, listening up above, is

pleased with Timocles’s aggressive and abusive language

because he does not believe in Timocles’s point. In Lucian’s

sardonic portrayal of Zeus, the king of the gods is so

unsure of the arguments in favor of his own existence and

providence that he is hoping personal attacks will take the

place of sound reasoning because it is the only way his side

can win. Damis relents and agrees to answer Timocles’s

questions first, on the condition that he stops using

abusive language. However, as soon as Damis answers his

questions by denying the gods and providence, Timocles

attempts to incite the crowd to stone Damis. Damis argues

169 Ibid., 143. 170 Ibid., 143.

104

that Timocles has no reason to be angry on behalf of the

gods because the gods are not angry, since they have not

harmed him.

The argument then turns to the topic of providence when

Damis asks why Timocles believes in it. Timocles points to

“the order of nature… the sun always going the same road and

the moon likewise and the seasons changing and plants

growing and living creatures being born, and these latter so

cleverly devised that they can support life and move and

think and walk and build houses and cobble shoes – and all

the rest of it; these seem to me to be works of providence.”

171 Damis argues that Timocles is committing a logical

fallacy, begging the question, since his argument assumes

the conclusion by saying that an ordered universe is proof

of the gods’ providence, without admitting the possibility

“that they began at random and now take place with

uniformity and regularity.” 172 Timocles replies that no

other proof is needed than he has already given, but

continues anyway, asking if Damis agrees that Homer is the

171 Ibid., 147. 172 Ibid., 149.

105

best poet. When Damis agrees, Timocles states that Homer’s

portrayal of the gods’ providence is what convinced him.

Damis retorts that being a good poet has nothing to do with

being truthful, “but only to charming their hearers, and to

this end they enchant them with metres and entrance them

with fables and in a word do anything to give pleasure.” 173

He goes on to discuss many examples of the discord among the

gods and between the gods and men that take place in the

Iliad. At this point, Zeus exclaims how badly he thinks

Timocles is doing. Timocles responds to Damis by making the

same argument about Euripides, that his stories of gods and

heroes are evidence of divine providence. Damis mocks him

further, calling the claim that something is true because it

is in a play is as ludicrous as believing “that Polus and

Aristodemus and Satyrus are gods for the nonce, or that the

very masks representing the gods… and all the other things

with which they make tragedy grand are divine;” 174

Furthermore, Damis quotes Euripides making statements that

cast doubt on the existence of the gods.

173 Ibid., 149-151. 174 Ibid., 153.

106

Next, Timocles makes an appeal to popular opinion,

asking Damis whether “all men and all nations have been

mistaken in believing in gods and celebrating festivals?” 175

Damis points out that there is great disagreement among

different peoples in what they believe about the gods.

Timocles then points to the oracular predictions of the

future as surely divine, which Damis dismisses as vague and

useless, naming a couple famous examples. Momus tells the

other gods that Damis is saying exactly what he feared he

would, and chides Apollo to go down and defend himself

against criticism. Timocles accuses Damis of upsetting the

temples of the gods, to which he replies that he is not

trying to upset all of the altars, “for what harm do they do

if they are full of incense and sweet savour? But I should

be glad to see the altars of Artemis among the Taurians

turned completely upside down, those on which the maiden

goddess used to enjoy such horrid feasts.” 176 Here he is

referring to the custom among the Taurians of sacrificing

people who came to their shores to the goddess Artemis.

175 Ibid., 155. 176 Ibid., 157.

107

Damis claims to be indifferent to harmless religious

practices, although his argument discredits them along with

the rest, attacking “the guiltless along with the guilty”177,

as Zeus points out. Momus quips that there are few guiltless

among the gods, and that Damis “will soon fasten on a

certain person of prominence.”178 Timocles asks Damis if he

can even hear Zeus thunder, which Damis sarcastically

dismisses by saying “But whether it is Zeus that thunders or

not, you no doubt know best, coming as you do from some

place or other where the gods live!” He continues by

pointing out the grave on Crete that is said to be that of

Zeus, mocking the possibility that Zeus lives.

Timocles then moves on to a teleological argument,

making an analogy that like a ship that needs to be steered

in order to sail, so the universe must be likewise guided.

Damis responds with a long tirade using Timocles’ analogy of

the ship to illustrate how everything in the universe is out

of order, particularly the injustice of evil and incompetent

men profiting while good and capable men suffer. Were there

177 Ibid., 159. 178 Ibid.

108

a god who designed the universe this would not be the case

according to Damis. Though not an unassailable argument, it

is clearly enough for Lucian since both Momus and Zeus agree

that Timocles is losing the argument. Seeing his comparison

to the ship fall flat, Timocles makes his final argument,

which he claims is indisputable. Attempting a logical

syllogism, he claims “If there are altars, there are also

gods; but there are altars, ergo there are also gods.” 179

Damis laughs at this argument, taunting Timocles “for like

men threatened with violence from some quarter or other, you

have taken refuge at the altars.”180 With that, Damis decides

not to argue any more on the subject, and walks away while

Timocles hurls insults at him and threatens to hit him with

a bat. Hermes concludes, quoting Menander, that “No harm’s

been done if you none admit it.” 181 He argues that since the

vast majority of men still believe in the gods, it is of no

consequence if the few men present for the argument walk

away no longer believing in the gods. Zeus agrees, but

179 Ibid., 167. 180 Ibid.181 Ibid., 169.

109

laments, like “Darius said about Zopyrus… I would rather

have this man Damis alone on my side than posses a thousand

Babylons.” 182 Although no longer fearing for his precious

sacrifices, Zeus recognizes that Damis is the better man,

and that is Lucian’s final condemnation of religion.

Conclusion

Perhaps Lucian himself would not even want to admit it,

since his main goal in writing was to entertain, but through

a close reading of Lucian’s works it seems clear that he is

most partial to Epicurean philosophy. The similarities

between the arguments made in Lucian’s works and those made

by Epicurus are undeniable. Both are adamantly against any

notion of divine providence and traditional religious

practices, based on their shared empiricist theory of

knowledge. They both disagree with sacrificing to the gods

and the fear of death. They also share as their highest goal

the enjoyment of life, which Epicurus states explicitly and

Lucian implicitly by making amusement the goal of his

182 Ibid.

110

writing. Most significantly, Lucian is more generous to

Epicurean thought in his writings than to any other

philosophy. He even uses the voice of an Epicurean in Zeus

Rants in order to make his argument against the gods.

Although one could point to other works by Lucian, such as

Philosophies for Sale and The Dead Come to Life, in which Lucian

irreverently mocks philosophers from the various schools, I

would argue that he is merely doing this for entertainment

value. It is his desire to entertain that makes him not want

to reveal his true thoughts on philosophy in these works

because it allows him more freedom to point his acerbic

humor in all directions without concern for reverence to any

philosophy. Yet there is enough evidence in the works I have

dissected here to show that Lucian fits within the Epicurean

tradition.

111

Bibliography

Bainton, Roland H. Early Christianity. New York: Van Nostrand,

1960.

Baldwin, B. “Lucian as Social Satirist”. The Classical Quarterly.

New Series, Vol. 11, No. 2, (1961).

Branham, R.B., Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,

1989.

DeWitt, Norman W., Transactions and Proceedings of the American

Philological Association, Vol. 63, 1932.

de Lacy, P.H., Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological

Association, Vol. 79. Johns Hopkins University Press,

1948.

Geer, Russel M., trans., Letters, Principle Doctrines and Vatican

Sayings. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,

1964.

Halsall, Paul. Ancient History Sourcebook: Roman Religious

Toleration:

The Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, 186 BCE, 1998.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/livy39.html

112

Halsall, Paul. Ancient History Sourcebook: Roman Religiones

Licitae and Illicitae, c. 204 BCE - 112 CE, 1998.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romrelig2.html

Harmon, A.M. trans., Lucian, Vol. 1-8. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Loeb Classical Library, 1921.

Jones, C.P., Lucian in Society, Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1986.

Jones, Howard. The Epicurean Tradition. New York: Routledge,

1989.

Richter, Daniel. “Lives and Afterlives of Lucian of

Samosata.” Arion, Third Series, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring-

Summer, 2005), pp. 75-100.

Rupke, Jorg. A Companion to Roman Religion. Malden,

Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007.

Sedley, David ed., The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman

Philosophy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press, 2003.

Tripolitis, Antonia. 2002. Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

113

Turcan, Robert. The Cults of the Roman Empire. Trans. by Antonia

Nevill. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1996.

Whitmarsh, Tim. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of

Imitation. Oxford [U.K.]: Oxford University Press, 2001.