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:
_____________________________
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.