CICERO'S DE NATURA DEORUM AND MINUCIUS' OCTAVIUS:


AN EXAMPLE OF THE INFLUENCE OF PRE-CHRISTIAN


PHILOSOPHY ON CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS


By


FREDERIK CHRISTOPHOOR BOUTER


Thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Latin


April, 1984




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My first and most profound gratitude I owe Almighty God by whose strength alone I have been able noctes vigilare serenas. I am greatly indebted to the Department of Classics: to Dr. Booth, thanks to whose patience, understanding and guidance this work has reached completion. His advice and suggestions have provided a kind of mould in which the substance of my learning has taken this form; to Dr. Verstraete under whose direction I have followed most of my courses; to Dr. Vellek for the overseeing of my programme of studies.

I have also benefited a great deal in the development of my honours programme from courses in other departments and from stimulating exchange with fellow students, and for these too I am grateful. I thank also my typist, Robyn Fisher, who, though unfamiliar with the Latin language, worked through the manuscript with marvellous ease. And last but not least I express my most affectionate gratitude to my wife for her patient and loving support through all those noctes serenas.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION ................

CHAPTER I: DE NATURA DEORUM ........

EPICUREANISM ...............

Existence of the Gods ..........

Nature of the Gods .............

Nature .........................

Humankind .....................

AGAINST EPICUREANISM .............

Existence of the Gods ..........

Nature of the Gods .............

Nature .........................

Humankind .....................

STOICISM ...................

Existence of the Gods ..........

Nature of the Gods or God ......

Nature .........................

Humankind .....................

AGAINST STOICISM ................

Existence of the Gods ..........

Nature of the Gods .............

Nature ........................

Humankind ................



CONCLUSION .................

NOTES ......................




CHAPTER II: OCTAVIUS ............

The Case for Paganism ..........

The Academy ....................

Stoicism .......................

Epicureanism ...................

The Case for Christianity ......

CONCLUSION ......................

NOTES ...........................

APPENDIX ........................

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................


ABSTRACT

Early Christians, in dialogue with pagans, did not shrink from using pagan reason to support their faith. Paul himself, addressing Greeks, spoke of the teaching of nature(1 Cor. 11), and said that God's invisible qualities His power and divinity, can be seen in creation (Rom. 1). And on the Areopagus he appealed to the Athenians by quoting from one of their poets. This is one of the reasons why early Christian apologists turned to pre-Christian philosophical writings to find acceptable proofs for their faith. However, almost always, they maintained that all proof must be interpreted on the basis of biblical revelation.

In this study we have followed the above-named connection, between pre-Christian and Christian thinking, in the influence of Cicero's De Natura Deorum on the Christian Octavius. Isolation of the various arguments of the former enables us to note the significant re-occurrence of many of them in the latter; many of the tenets of pagan philosophy are thus seen to have been adapted to serve a Christian end.


table of contents

INTRODUCTION

As Cicero notes in the introduction to his De Natura Deorum, opinions about the divine nature are among the most important to be debated by humankind, particularly because there is so much uncertainty about them. Around the turn of the third century A.D. a work, the Octavius, was compiled purportedly by a certain Minucius Felix in commemoration of his friend Octavius, who had persuaded a pagan to become a Christian in a long discussion set in Ostia. The work itself, showing certain affinities with Tertullian's work, may have originated in Africa.

To judge by its resemblances this work seems to have been modeled on Cicero's De Natura Deorum, written some three hundred and fifty years earlier, about the middle of the first century B.C. Both works show a triad of speakers, representing two opposed points of view (the Epicurean and Stoic philosophies in the earlier, the pagan and Christian faiths in the latter) presided over by a judge. Another similarity is that the first system (Epicureanism, paganism)is given considerably less attention in each work than the second one. Possibly the reason behind this is that less material was available to the compilers on the first systems, or that the compilers, in their bias, were more interested in presenting information on the second, or some combination of these two possibilities. Cicero ends his work saying that, in his opinion, the Stoics were closest to the truth, and Minucius Felix, himself a Christian, naturally sided with Octavius.

The merit of these works is that they give a bird's- eye view of the two major streams of their day. Cicero's work provides us with an important, and unique, record of a long tradition of debate within the skeptical Academy; the Octavius gives us a significant glimpse into the kind of debate which succeeded that of the pagan schools as Christianity came gradually into prominence. It is interesting to note that when Paul was in Athens (Acts 17) he found there Epicureans and Stoics. In Ephesus (Acts 19) the devotees of Artemis rose up against the Christians. These two incidents show the historic relevancy of the confrontations as we have them in the De Natura Deorum and the Octavius respectively. Paul's use elsewhere (e.g. Acts 17; Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 11) of pagan teachings, and his referring to nature, in addressing gentiles provided serviceable precedent for the use Minucius Felix and others would make of the pagan philosophies in the service of the Christian faith.

table of contents

There is an important difference between the two books. Cicero's work contains a severe criticism of both major schools by Cotta, who plays the role of judge. But Minucius, who is both compiler and judge, plays no such major role, the reason being, as has been stated, that he was a Christian himself. Another natural reason, is that it is difficult to conceive of something like an Academy standing between paganism and Christianity. It simply did not exist. One was either Christian or non-Christian, the rise of Christianity having a profound effect on the polarization of positions.

Both works indulge in calumny, and idiosyncratic opinion. In this study we have isolated the relevant statements of both works, with this difference that, in the case of the Octavius, we deal only with those tenets that have direct resemblance to their counterparts in the De Natura Deorum. This will enable us to pinpoint the extent to which a Christian thinker such as Minucius Felix has drawn upon a pagan work such as the De Natura Deorum as a source. This in turn gives us an impression of the importance of pre-Christian philosophies for early Christian writers in dialogue with their pagan counterparts.


CHAPTER I DE NATURA DEORUM

The De Natura Deorum gives a presentation of Epicureanism, and Stoicism, and a criticism of both by Cotta, who represents the skeptical Academy, which found it easier to criticize than to declare.

Although both the Epicureans and the Stoics were materialists, believing atomic matter and not purely immaterial soul to be the prime basis of existence, they held considerably different views about the role of the divinity. The former group could be called deists in a sense (excepting the deist conception of creation), and the latter pantheists. Hence stem the major differences between their respective teachings on physics, psychology, and theology.

table of contents

In this chapter we shall give those Epicurean and Stoic theological statements that occur in Cicero's De Natura Deorum. Cotta's counter-arguments are divided into two sections, each of which follows the position of the two other schools, first Epicureanism, then Stoicism.

EPICUREANISM


The Epicureans often have been cast as atheists; however, from their statements it is clear that they were primarily deists. They, in turn, mocked the cherished beliefs of their opponents. Both schools were guilty of name-calling, slander, and all sorts of abuse. In the present work this has been omitted as irrelevant.

Existence of the Gods


Epicurus maintains that the gods exist because all mankind has a natural idea about them.

Solus enim vidit primum esse deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem inpressisset ipsa natura (I 43).

Any such idea is called prolepsis and serves as the basis of all inquiry and debate.

Quam appellat prolhyin Epicurus, id est anteceptam animo rei quandam informationem, sine qua nec intellegi quicquam nec quaeri nec disputari possit (I 43).

The belief, then, that the gods exist has not been determined by any authority, custom, or law but derives from the universal agreement of humankind.

table of contents

Cum enim non instituto aliquo aut more aut lege sit opinio constituta maneatque ad unum omnium firma consensio, intellegi necesse est esse deos (I 44).


Nature of the Gods

The natural impression of the Gods pictures them as blissful and eternal.

Quod beatum aeternumque sit id nec habere ipsum negotii quicquam nec exhibere alteri, itaque neque ira neque gratia teneri quod quae talia essent imbecilia omnia (I 45).

The natural conception of the gods depicts them only as possessing human form.

table of contents

Hanc igitur habemus, ut deos beatos et inmortales putemus (I 45) .
From this it can be deduced that the gods do not have any difficulty, or cause any for others, wherefore they entertain neither wrath nor grace, for such feelings are only weaknesses.

Nam a natura habemus omnes omnium gentium speciem nullam aliam nisi humanam deorum (I 46).

This satisfies also the highest esthetic standards, since no form is more beautiful than the human one.

Quae conpositio membrorum, quae conformatio liniamentorum, quae figura, quae species humana potest esse pulchrior (I 47)?

It also satisfies logic, for it is fitting that the highest being must possess the most beautiful form as well.

Nam cum praestantissumam naturam, vel quia beata est vel quia sempiterna, convenire videatur eandem esse pulcherrimam (I 47)?

Notwithstanding, they are not corporeal, but only look like the physical body; they do not have real blood but something similar to it.

Nec tamen ea species corpus est, sed quasi corpus, nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem (I 4 9) . 1

table of contents

Without this kind of corporeality, the gods would not be capable of any sensing, nor of pragmatic wisdom, nor of pleasure, for all these concepts are included in the natural conception of the gods.

Quod vero sine corpore ullo deum vult esse ut Graeci dicunt swvmaton, id quale esse possit intellegi non potest: careat enim sensu necesse est, careat etiam prudentia, careat voluptate; quae omnia una cum deorum notione comprehendimus (I 30).

for sensing can only take place when a being is hit upon by atoms.

. . . neque sensum omnino quo non ipsa natura pulsa sentiret (I 26) .

table of contents

Divine nature is solely devoted to its wisdom and virtue, and is completely certain that it will always enjoy perfect and everlasting pleasures in its freedom from any task.

Nihil enim agit, nullis occupationibus est inplicatus, nulla opera molitur, sua sapientia et virtute gaudet, habet exploratum fore se semper cum in maximis tum in aeternis voluptatibus (I 51) .

This is consistent with the proposition that happiness consists of security of mind and complete freedom from all occupations.

Nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus (I 53).

table of contents

All these qualities of the gods are not conveyed to us through our senses but directly to our minds. For we experience images, which are caused by an immense flow of atoms, which lead our attention directly to the gods.

These images bestow both pleasure and understanding of the nature of the gods, because of what we perceive.2

Imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis, cum infinita simillumarum imaginum series ex innumerabilibus individuis existat et ad deos adfluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram intellegentiam capere quae sit et beata natura et aeterna (I 49).

According to the principle of isonomia, which means equal arrangement, there are as many immortals as mortals. This principle of distribution is based on the principle of infinity, which has the property that in totality all things are divided into opposite parts.

Summa vero vis infinitatis et magna ac diligenti contemplatione dignissima est, in qua intellegi necesse est eam esse naturam ut omnia omnibus paribus paria respondeant. Hanc Æsonomivan appellat Epicurus, id est aequabilem tributionem. Ex hac igitur illud efficitur, si mortalium tanta multitudo sit, esse inmortalium non minorem (I 50).

table of contents

Nature

The world has been made by nature itself without the need of any intelligence. Creating is so easy that nature will create, is creating, and has created worlds without number.

Natura effectum esse mundum, nihil opus fuisse fabrica, tamque eam rem esse facilem quam vos effici negatis sine divina posse sollertia, ut innummerabilis natura mundos effectura sit efficiat effecerit (I 53).

Space consists of void in which an infinite number of atoms fly and come together to form all kinds of shapes.

Hac igitur inmensitate latitudinum longitudinum altitudinum infinita vis innumerabilium volitat atomorum, quae interiecto inani cohaerescunt tamen inter se et aliae alias adprehendentes continuantur;

table of contents

ex quo efficiuntur eae rerum formae et figurae . . .(I 54) .

According to the principle of isonomia, there are just as many destructive causes as preservative ones.

Et si quae interimant innumerabilia sint, etiam ea quae conservent infinita esse debere (I 50)..

The world is not eternal for the simple reason that everything has a beginning and an end.

Hunc censes primis ut dicitur labris gustasse physiologiam, id est naturae rationem, qui quicquam quod ortum sit putet aeternum esse posse? Quae est enim coagmentatio non dissolubilis? Aut quid est cui principium aliquod sit, nihil sit extremum (I 20)?

table of contents

Humankind

As with the gods, so also with man, happiness consists of security of mind and complete freedom from all occupations.

Nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus (I 53).

Wise men can arrange life in such a way as to minimize troubles and maximize happiness. Fools neither can escape trouble, nor endure it. Therefore folly is the most miserable thing.

Cum omnes stulti sint sine dubio miserrimi, maxime quod stulti sunt (miserium enim stultitia quid possumus dicere?) , deinde quod ita multa Sunt incommoda in vita ut ea sapientes commodorum conpensatione leniant, stulti nec vitare venientia possint nec ferre praesentia(1 23).

table of contents

Fear is an enemy of happiness. It is, therefore, important to see that the gods take no interest in us nor consider anything of their concern. Given the nature of their happiness, we are not responsible to them for our deeds. A good understanding of this takes away superstitious terrors and any fear of the gods.

Quas vos effici posse sine follibus et incudibus non putatis, itaque inposuistis in cervicibus nostris sempiternum dominum, quem dies et noctes timeremus: quis enim non timeat omnia providentem et cogitantem et animadvertentem et omnia ad se pertinere putantem curiosum et plenum negotii deum (I 54)?

His terroribus ab Epicuro soluti et in libertatem vindicati nec metuimus eos quos intellegimus nec sibi fingere ullam molestiam nec alteri quaerere (I 56).

table of contents

As far as worship is concerned, we pay homage to nature, which is exalted and excellent.

Et pie sancteque colimus naturam excellentem atque praestantem (I 56).

AGAINST EPICUREANISM

The arguments against Epicureanism, as well as those against Stoicism, are put in the mouth of a certain Cotta, a Roman high priest and pontiff. Cotta did not embrace the beliefs of either school, and though he seems to have been a confused doubter, he made some very keen observations and criticisms. That is what makes him the eloquent spokesman of the Academy. At certain points, one could get the impression that he was a down-right skeptic. This is not true, however, and one must be aware that his skepticism is solely a reaction to the Epicurean and Stoic presentation of the truth. His own views do show a longing for the real truth, and that is what he wonders about all the time. It must be concluded that his remarks expose a variety of weaknesses on the parts of both major schools.

Existence of the Gods

The statement that belief in the gods' existence is universal, is not valid for the following reasons: firstly, not all the beliefs of foreign peoples are known, and secondly, there are many atheists and agnostics (I 62,63)

Nature of the Gods

The concept of happiness is one of a life that clearly languishes away with idleness.

table of contents

Nam de vita beata nihil repugno, quam tu ne in eo quidem esse censes nisi plane otio langueat (I 67). -

The conception of the gods' happiness as cons isting only in selfcontemplation is not a true conception of happiness.

"Cogitat" inquiunt "adsidue beatum esse; habet enim nihil aliud quod agitet in mente.". . . Ita nec beatus est vester deus ... (I 114) .

In fact, the notion of the gods' happiness is worse than that of a spoilt child, who at least wants to enjoy some active play (I 102). It is a projection of a subjective opinion rather than real knowledge of the gods.

Anthropomorphism is a misconception for every species considers its own form unique. According to this reasoning an eagle or lion or dolphin would not prefer any other form over its own (I 77). Moreover, if the gods are superior to men in everything else, then they are also superior in form.

Cur igitur cum ceteris rebus inferioressimus forma pares sumus (I 96)?

table of contents

Anthropomorphism also runs into the following problems: If the gods are entirely free from bodily imperfection, then they are all alike. In that case, no recognition is possible. If not, then there must be degrees of beauty. And in that case, not all gods attain to the highest standard (I 80). The logic that reason can only exist in human form does not hold (I 89). Moreover, why would the gods have a human form if they have no need of hands, feet, and intestines (I 92)? Finally, it is not necessary to consider the consequences of stating that the gods are male and female (I 95) .

Atomism is inconsistent with divine immortality, for if they are made of atoms they cannot be eternal, since it was argued that everything has a beginning and an end (I 68) . Also, it is argued that the theory about the continuous flow of images is not well defined at all. A person could use it to claim that everything is eternal (I 107). The theory of the gods' quasi corporeality cannot be understood by anybody, not even the Epicureans (I 74).

Nature

Atoms do not exist. But even if they did, then they probably would be only capable of coming into contact with one another. They could not create form shape, colour, or life.

Quae etiamsi essent, quae nulla sunt, pellere se ipsa et agitari inter se concursu fortasse possent, formare figurare colorare animare non possent (I 110).

table of contents

There is no void, all space is filled with matter, and there is no such thing as an indivisible body.

Nihil est enim . . . quod vacet corpore;corporibus autem omnis obsidetur locus; ita nullum inane, nihil esse individuum potest (I 65).

The Epicurean belief that freedom of will derives from the spontaneous concourse of atoms, is a device invented to escape determinism. According to this device, atoms, while traveling vertically downward by the force of gravity, make a minute motion to one side.

Velut Epicurus cum videret, si atomi ferrentur in locum inferiorem suopte pondere, nihil fore innostra potestate, quod esset earum motus certus et necessarius, invenit quo modo necessitatem effugeret, quod videlicet Democritum fugerat: ait atomum, cum pondere et gravitate directo deorsus feratur, declinare paululum (I 69).

table of contents

Also, the principle of isonomia is an escape theory and is understood as meaning that because there is mortal substance, there must also be immortal substance. The principle is discredited by stating the mock reasoning that because there are mortal people, there are also some that are immortal, and because there are people born on land, there are people born in the water. As far as the equilibrium between destructive and preservative forces is concerned, this only would maintain what exists (I 109) .

Humankind

Epicurean logic is a total failure since it denies the necessity of a disjunctive proposition.

Hoc dicere turpius est quam illud quod vult non posse defendere. Idem facit contra dialecticos; a quibus cum traditum sit in omnibus diiunctionibus in quibus 'aut etiam aut non' poneretur alterum utrum esse verum, pertimuit ne si concessum esset huius modi aliquid 'aut vivet cras aut non vivet Epicurus,' alterutrum fieret necessarium: totum hoc 'aut etiam aut non' negavit esse necessarium; quo quid dici potuit obtusius (I 70)?

table of contents

Epicurus stated that all sensation is true, since he was afraid that if it were admitted that one could be false, all could be false (I 70).

The deistic notion leaves no reason for man to worship the gods (I 115, 116), whereas the Egyptians and barbarians even deify different animals for some useful service that they render (T 101).

In the Epicurean theology, there is no place left either for homage, or for piety-- justice towards the gods -- or for holiness -- the science of divine worship.

Quae porro pietas ei debetur a quo nihil acceperis? Aut quid omnino cuius nullum meritumsit ei deberi potest? Est enim pietas iustitia adversum deos; cum quibus quid potest nobis esseiuris, cum homini nulla cum deo sit communitas? Sanctitas autem est scientia colendorum deorum; qui quam ob rem colendi sint non intellego nullonec accepto ab iis nec sperato bono (I 116).

table of contents

Epicurus merely tried to avoid popular hostility in holding to some view about the gods, whereas, for himself he did not believe in them at all (I 123).

STOICISM

It has been said already that the Stoics were pantheists. This is apparent throughout the statements of their belief. For them everything centers around God, who is some kind of a soul that permeates the whole world. Constantly, they employ the teleological argument that the world shows such a perfect design, that only an all-powerful Being could have created it. They attempt to show this in relation to all aspects of life.

Existence of the Gods

That the gods exist is clear from various records we have about their epiphanies. This is also why, among all nations, reverence for the gods and respect for religion is growing.

table of contents

Itaque et in nostro populo et in ceteris deorum cultus religionumque sanctitates exsistunt in dies maiores atque meliores, idque evenit non temere nec casu, sed quod et praesentes saepe divim suam declarant (II 5, 6).

Another proof is that people everywhere have a clear idea of the gods, which is strengthened with every new generation, while ungrounded beliefs, such as about the hippocentaur, have been fading away. Grounded beliefs, of course, concern things that exist, whereas ungrounded beliefs concern things that do not exist.

Quod nisi cognitum conprehensumque animis haberemus, non tam stabilis opinio permaneretnec confirmaretur diuturnitate temporis nec una cum saeclis aetatibusque hominum inveterari potuisset. Etenim videmus ceteras opiniones fictas atque vanas diuturnitate extabuisse. Quis enim Hippocentaurum fuisse aut Chimaeram putat . . . (II 5)?

Itaque inter omnis omnium gentium summa constat; omnibus enim innatum est et in animoquasi insculptum esse deos. Quales sint variumest, esse nemo negat (II 13).

table of contents

The art of divination is evidence for the existence of the gods. Empires have been won by religious commanders. However, due to negligence, this gift has fallen into contempt. Misinterpretations are human mistakes.

Magna augurum auctoritas; quid, haruspicum ars nonne divina? Haec et innumerabilia ex eodem genere qui videat nonne cogatur confiteri deos esse? Quorum enim interpretes sunt eos ipsosesse certe necesse est; deorum autem interpretessunt; deos igitur esse fateamur (II 12).

Quorum exitio intellegi potest eorum imperiis rem publicam amplificatam qui religionibus paruissent (II 8).

Sed neglegentia nobilitatis augurii disciplina omissa veritas auspiciorum spreta est, speciestantum retenta (II 9) .

table of contents

Signa ostenduntur a dis rerum futurarum; in his si qui erraverunt, non deorum natura sedhominum coniectura peccavit (II 12) .

The power of the gods can also be deduced from the abundance of natural blessings which we enjoy, and from various awe-inspiring events.

. . . ex magnitudine commodorum quae percipiuntur caeli temperatione fecunditate terrarum aliarumque commoditatum conplurium copia . . . quae terreret animos fulminibus tempestatibus nimbis nivibus grandinibus vastitate etc.(II 14).

But the most powerful reason for belief is the fact that the whole universe shows design. Nobody would contest that a house or the horary of Posidonius presupposes a designer. So the world shows the power of a superhuman agency .

table of contents

. . . causam esse eamque vel maximam aequabilitatem motus conversionumque caeli, solis lunae siderumque omnium distinctionem