Intro to Ancient Philosophy - Greek Lecture 2
Xenophanes; humans, gods and philosophical inquiry
Philosophical poetry – wrote in hexameters and elegiacs.
T1 - Diels Kranz (DK) 21 8 = Loeb D66; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 9.19;
(1) Already there are sixty-seven years (2) tossing my thought throughout the land of Greece, (3) and from my birth
there were twenty-five in addition to these, (4) if indeed I know how to speak truly about these matters.
Xenophanes’ critique of traditional religious attitudes
T2 - DK21 B14 = Loeb D12; Clement, Miscellanies 5.109;
(1) But mortals believe that the gods are born, (2) and have clothing, voice, and bodily form just like theirs.
Fragmentary nature means context is lost.
Comment on what mortals believe - describing a human consensus but standing outside of it.
T3 - DK21 B11 = Loeb D8; Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 9.193;
(1) Both Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all deeds (2) which among men are matters of reproach and
blame: (3) thieving, adultery, and deceiving one another.
Human rather than divine behaviours – unhappy with the way gods are reduced to human level
anthropomorphism; wants to disassociate the divine from human nature.
Gods are supposed to pose as emulation of morality; are we somehow justifying our own poor
behaviour by telling these stories of the gods?
Observations rather than criticisms yet there is the implicit suspicion of a critique.
Why should Xenophanes expect us to agree with his criticism of Homer and Hesiod?
Describe gods as just deities, defenders of justice in some cases they are also
presented as misbehaving, very impious human acts and traits. Confronts reader w/
tension in the belief system.
T4 - DK21 A12 = Loeb P16; Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23 1399b6–9;
Xenophanes used to say that those who say that the gods are born are just as impious as those who say that they die,
since either way it follows that there is a time when the gods do not exist.
If humans existed before is their dependence weakened?
Anything that comes into existence must be dependent upon whatever brought them into existence;
gods cannot be dependent/reliant – vulnerability is incompatible with divine power.
With birth and death in the same strata there is the implication that the gods will die (human concept
of sex distastefully applied to divinities?).
Here the denial of their divinity is an explicit criticism.
If the gods are connected to justice is there the concern that if they die our societal sense of
justice will collapse?
Xenophanes’ criticism of anthropomorphism not just about what the gods look like –
a radical challenge to the fundamental idea that gods come to be, look, think, behave
and misbehave like us.
T5 - DK21 A32; ps.-Plutarch Strom. 4;
Xenophanes declares also that ... no one of the gods needs any of the other gods nor anything else.
Divine birth as incompatible with the principle of divine self-sufficiency?
T6 - DK21 C1 = Euripides Heracles 1341-1346;
But I do not think, have never believed and will never be persuaded that the gods have illicit sexual liaisons or fasten
bonds (desma) on each other’s hands or that one is master (despotên) of another. A god, if he truly is a god, needs
nothing (deitai ... oudenos). These are the wretched tales of the poets.
Euripides here (as elsewhere) imitating Xenophanes.
, Intro to Ancient Philosophy - Greek Lecture 2
We shouldn’t think of gods as indulging in the worst of human behaviour.
A god by definition self-sufficient and unconstrained; no divine tyranny.
A criticism of the political aspect of anthropomorphism – connection between theology and politics.
T7 – DK21 B16 = Loeb D13; Clement, Miscellanies 7.22;
(1) Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and dark, (2) Thracians, that theirs are grey-eyed and red-haired.
Descriptive comment – ethnographic observation.
Perhaps undermining sense of Greek superiority? Exposes a sense of narcissism?
But is there also an implicit argument here?
Link to anthropomorphism – humans depict their gods in their own image – self-
projection – hubristic?
T8 - DK21 B15 = Loeb D14; Clement, Miscellanies 5.110;
(1) If horses had hands, or oxen or lions, (2) or if they could draw with their hands and produce works as men do,
(3) then horses would draw figures of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, (4) and each would render the
bodies (5) to be of the same frame that each of them have.
Not a descriptive comment – rather a counterfactual thought-exercise not just an observation
Is it degrading to the gods themselves to compare them to humans?
Cross-cultural commonality that we compare gods to humans.
Previously been made aware acting in a culturist sense, now made aware we are
acting in a species manner.
T8 adds criticism to T7 as applied to animals – almost degrading nature confronts reader with the absurdity if
their beliefs.
Pose a challenge to inspect critically the grounds on which we hold our conceptions of goads as like
us.
Again: not just about what the gods look like – a radical challenge to our very fundamental
notion that gods are and behave recognisably like us, to our very understanding of how gods
act towards us and our communities.
T9 - DK21 A13 = Loeb P17; Aristotle, Rhetoric 1400b6-8; trans. J.H. Lesher;
The citizens of Elea asked Xenophanes if they should sacrifice to Leucothea and mourn for her, or not; he advised
them not to mourn for her if they took her to be a goddess and not to sacrifice to her if they took her to be human.
Probably not historical – but an interesting later reflection on Xenophanes’ attitudes.
Traditional Greek religious thought allows for mortals becoming gods (e.g. Leucothea) or mortals with a
divine parent or like gods (e.g. Achilles).
Xenophanes: strict division – one or the other.
Expects coherence and consistency; correspondence between religious belief and religious practice.
Positive theology;
What looks to be his own beliefs on the divine.
T10 - DK21 B23 = Loeb D16; Clement, Miscellanies, 5.109;
(1) One god, greatest among gods and men, (2) not at all like mortals in body or in thought
In keeping with criticism of anthropomorphism: radical difference in god’s body and thought.
Not monotheism (only one god) but henotheism (one supremely greatest god)
T11 - DK21 B24 = Loeb D17; Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 9.144;
…whole he sees, and whole he thinks, and whole he hears.
Greatest god: a unified thinking and perceptive organ.
Radical difference to what we-re like as sentient beings.
Belief in cosmic regularities requires such intelligent, divine gods.
T12 – DK21 B25 = Loeb D18; Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 23.19;
Xenophanes; humans, gods and philosophical inquiry
Philosophical poetry – wrote in hexameters and elegiacs.
T1 - Diels Kranz (DK) 21 8 = Loeb D66; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 9.19;
(1) Already there are sixty-seven years (2) tossing my thought throughout the land of Greece, (3) and from my birth
there were twenty-five in addition to these, (4) if indeed I know how to speak truly about these matters.
Xenophanes’ critique of traditional religious attitudes
T2 - DK21 B14 = Loeb D12; Clement, Miscellanies 5.109;
(1) But mortals believe that the gods are born, (2) and have clothing, voice, and bodily form just like theirs.
Fragmentary nature means context is lost.
Comment on what mortals believe - describing a human consensus but standing outside of it.
T3 - DK21 B11 = Loeb D8; Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 9.193;
(1) Both Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all deeds (2) which among men are matters of reproach and
blame: (3) thieving, adultery, and deceiving one another.
Human rather than divine behaviours – unhappy with the way gods are reduced to human level
anthropomorphism; wants to disassociate the divine from human nature.
Gods are supposed to pose as emulation of morality; are we somehow justifying our own poor
behaviour by telling these stories of the gods?
Observations rather than criticisms yet there is the implicit suspicion of a critique.
Why should Xenophanes expect us to agree with his criticism of Homer and Hesiod?
Describe gods as just deities, defenders of justice in some cases they are also
presented as misbehaving, very impious human acts and traits. Confronts reader w/
tension in the belief system.
T4 - DK21 A12 = Loeb P16; Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23 1399b6–9;
Xenophanes used to say that those who say that the gods are born are just as impious as those who say that they die,
since either way it follows that there is a time when the gods do not exist.
If humans existed before is their dependence weakened?
Anything that comes into existence must be dependent upon whatever brought them into existence;
gods cannot be dependent/reliant – vulnerability is incompatible with divine power.
With birth and death in the same strata there is the implication that the gods will die (human concept
of sex distastefully applied to divinities?).
Here the denial of their divinity is an explicit criticism.
If the gods are connected to justice is there the concern that if they die our societal sense of
justice will collapse?
Xenophanes’ criticism of anthropomorphism not just about what the gods look like –
a radical challenge to the fundamental idea that gods come to be, look, think, behave
and misbehave like us.
T5 - DK21 A32; ps.-Plutarch Strom. 4;
Xenophanes declares also that ... no one of the gods needs any of the other gods nor anything else.
Divine birth as incompatible with the principle of divine self-sufficiency?
T6 - DK21 C1 = Euripides Heracles 1341-1346;
But I do not think, have never believed and will never be persuaded that the gods have illicit sexual liaisons or fasten
bonds (desma) on each other’s hands or that one is master (despotên) of another. A god, if he truly is a god, needs
nothing (deitai ... oudenos). These are the wretched tales of the poets.
Euripides here (as elsewhere) imitating Xenophanes.
, Intro to Ancient Philosophy - Greek Lecture 2
We shouldn’t think of gods as indulging in the worst of human behaviour.
A god by definition self-sufficient and unconstrained; no divine tyranny.
A criticism of the political aspect of anthropomorphism – connection between theology and politics.
T7 – DK21 B16 = Loeb D13; Clement, Miscellanies 7.22;
(1) Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and dark, (2) Thracians, that theirs are grey-eyed and red-haired.
Descriptive comment – ethnographic observation.
Perhaps undermining sense of Greek superiority? Exposes a sense of narcissism?
But is there also an implicit argument here?
Link to anthropomorphism – humans depict their gods in their own image – self-
projection – hubristic?
T8 - DK21 B15 = Loeb D14; Clement, Miscellanies 5.110;
(1) If horses had hands, or oxen or lions, (2) or if they could draw with their hands and produce works as men do,
(3) then horses would draw figures of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, (4) and each would render the
bodies (5) to be of the same frame that each of them have.
Not a descriptive comment – rather a counterfactual thought-exercise not just an observation
Is it degrading to the gods themselves to compare them to humans?
Cross-cultural commonality that we compare gods to humans.
Previously been made aware acting in a culturist sense, now made aware we are
acting in a species manner.
T8 adds criticism to T7 as applied to animals – almost degrading nature confronts reader with the absurdity if
their beliefs.
Pose a challenge to inspect critically the grounds on which we hold our conceptions of goads as like
us.
Again: not just about what the gods look like – a radical challenge to our very fundamental
notion that gods are and behave recognisably like us, to our very understanding of how gods
act towards us and our communities.
T9 - DK21 A13 = Loeb P17; Aristotle, Rhetoric 1400b6-8; trans. J.H. Lesher;
The citizens of Elea asked Xenophanes if they should sacrifice to Leucothea and mourn for her, or not; he advised
them not to mourn for her if they took her to be a goddess and not to sacrifice to her if they took her to be human.
Probably not historical – but an interesting later reflection on Xenophanes’ attitudes.
Traditional Greek religious thought allows for mortals becoming gods (e.g. Leucothea) or mortals with a
divine parent or like gods (e.g. Achilles).
Xenophanes: strict division – one or the other.
Expects coherence and consistency; correspondence between religious belief and religious practice.
Positive theology;
What looks to be his own beliefs on the divine.
T10 - DK21 B23 = Loeb D16; Clement, Miscellanies, 5.109;
(1) One god, greatest among gods and men, (2) not at all like mortals in body or in thought
In keeping with criticism of anthropomorphism: radical difference in god’s body and thought.
Not monotheism (only one god) but henotheism (one supremely greatest god)
T11 - DK21 B24 = Loeb D17; Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 9.144;
…whole he sees, and whole he thinks, and whole he hears.
Greatest god: a unified thinking and perceptive organ.
Radical difference to what we-re like as sentient beings.
Belief in cosmic regularities requires such intelligent, divine gods.
T12 – DK21 B25 = Loeb D18; Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 23.19;
