[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. XVIII

[sdi]

Happy Wednesday! I had an unusual amount of spare time over the last weekend, and so I went ahead and transcribed the rest of Sallustius in preparation for the next few weeks: we are getting quite close to the end, and will finish just after the vernal equinox. Nonetheless, I'll appreciate it while it lasts.

Let's go ahead and pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

XVIII. Why there are rejections of God, and that God is not injured.

Nor need the fact that rejections of God have taken place in certain parts of the earth* and will often take place hereafter, disturb the mind of the wise: both because these things do not affect the gods, just as we saw that worship did not benefit them; and because the soul, being of middle essence, cannot be always right; and because the whole world cannot enjoy the providence of the gods equally, but some parts may partake of it eternally, some at certain times, some in the primal manner, some in the secondary. Just as the head enjoys all the senses, but the rest of the body only one.

For this reason, it seems, those who ordained Festivals ordained also Forbidden Days, in which some temples† lay idle, some were shut, some had their adornment removed, in expiation of the weakness of our nature.

It is not unlikely, too, that the rejection of God is a kind of punishment: we may well believe that those who knew the gods and neglected them in one life may in another life be deprived of the knowledge of them altogether. Also those who have worshipped their own kings as gods have deserved as their punishment to lose all knowledge of God.‡

* "Rejections of God" is literally ἀθεΐαι ["atheiai"], atheism. Recall from Ch. I that the Greeks used "God" to refer to divinity generally. Thomas Taylor notes, "the philosopher alludes here to the Christian religion," and Arthur Darby Nock further observes, "Sallustius in effect replies to the Christian argument from their success."

† Nock notes, "Muccio, Studi italiani, VII. 70, makes ἱερά ['iera'] mean 'ceremonies:' this seems less probable."

‡ Nock comments, "The view of the deification of kings as a sin of the first magnitude is of considerable interest, whether we accept or reject Prof. G. Kaerst's view that the deification of Alexander and of the Diadochi promoted Euhemerist rationalism. These remarks would not have offended Julian. The knowledge of the gods which man may lose for his sins in a previous incarnation is γνῶσις ['gnosis'] in the heightened sense, a mystical knowledge conveying definite illumination."

Comments

[sdi]

a rejection of the gods

I'm working my way through Murray's Five Stages of Greek Religion (slower than I'd like, but I am a tortoise after all), and he says the following:

[That the Christians are considered atheists] may surprise us at first sight, but the explanation is easy. To Julian the one great truth that matters is the presence and glory of the gods. No doubt, they are all ultimately one: they are δυνάμεις ["dynameis"], "forces," not persons, but for reasons above our comprehension they are manifest only under conditions of form, time, and personality, and have so been revealed and worshipped and partly known by the great minds of the past. In Julian's mind the religious emotion itself becomes the thing to live for. Every object that has been touched by that emotion is thereby glorified and made sacred. Every shrine where men have worshipped in truth of heart is thereby a house of God. The worship may be mixed up with all sorts of folly, all sorts of unedifying practice. Such things must be purged away, or, still better, must be properly understood. For to the pure all things are pure: and the myths that shock the vulgar are noble allegories to the wise and reverent. Purge religion from dross, if you like; but remember that you do so at your peril. One false step, one self-confident rejection of a thing which is merely too high for you to grasp, and you are darkening the Sun, casting God out of the world. And that was just what the Christians deliberately did.

If I understand this appropriately, he is saying that the flip side of tolerance is hubris, yes? Denying tolerance to others' experience of the Divine is tantamount to denying the Divine itself, and one does not deny the Divine to their face! Have we not Arachnes, Icaruses, Niobes, and Pirithouses enough to see how that is regarded?

[sdi]

Arachnes, Icaruses, Niobes, and Pirithouses

Side note, my daughter for her bedtime stories tonight just kept asking me for every story about hubris I could remember. It's lucky that there are so many! (And that she has as morbid a sense of humor as I do. "Hey, you know how I sometimes joke about trying to fattening you up so we can eat you? Well, there was this guy, Tantalus...")

[boccaderlupo]

I have not read this, but interesting thoughts from Murray on the Blessed Julian. Interesting, too, that he would use the term "dynameis" for the gods...

Axé

[sdi]

Interesting, too, that he would use the term "dynameis" for the gods...

It is not clear from the text whether he is quoting somebody or if that's his own interpretation. If the latter, it should be made quite clear that he very much writes from the perspective of a materialist-rationalist worldview, and in fact this is my biggest criticism of his work. (Otherwise, I found it very helpful!)