Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



7574
Lucretius Carus, On The Nature Of Things, 5.165-5.173
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

17 results
1. Xenophanes, Fragments, None (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

2. Xenophanes, Fragments, None (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

3. Xenophanes, Fragments, None (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

4. Plato, Laws, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

5. Plato, Timaeus, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

6. Cicero, On The Nature of The Gods, 1.20 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)

1.20. but the prize example is that the thinker who represented the world not merely as having had an origin but even as almost made by hand, also declared that it will exist for ever. Can you suppose that a man can have even dipped into natural philosophy if he imagines that anything that has come into being can be eternal? What composite whole is not capable of dissolution? What thing is there that has a beginning but not an end? While as for your Stoic Providence, Lucilius, if it is the same thing as Plato's creator, I repeat my previous questions, what were its agents and instruments, and how was the entire undertaking planned out and carried though? If on the contrary it is something different, I ask why it made the world mortal, and not everlasting as did Plato's divine creator?
7. Cicero, Academica Posteriora, 1.22-1.23, 1.28-1.29, 1.40 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)

8. Lucretius Carus, On The Nature of Things, 1.44-1.49, 1.62-1.111, 1.116-1.118, 1.123, 1.727, 2.168, 2.172, 2.595, 2.646-2.651, 2.1090-2.1104, 3.23-3.24, 3.37-3.93, 3.830-3.1094, 4.12-4.39, 5.76-5.90, 5.110-5.164, 5.166-5.415, 5.772-5.1457, 6.1-6.7, 6.26-6.27, 6.33-6.34, 6.36-6.38, 6.42-6.422 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)

9. Plutarch, On Isis And Osiris, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

355e. The Egyptians even now call these five days intercalated and celebrate them as the birthdays of the gods. They relate that on the first of these days Osiris was born, and at the hour of his birth a voice issued forth saying, "The Lord of All advances to the light." But some relate that a certain Pamyles, while he was drawing water in Thebes, heard a voice issuing from the shrine of Zeus, which bade him proclaim with a loud voice that a mighty and beneficent king, Osiris, had been born; and for this Cronus entrusted to him the child Osiris, which he brought up. It is in his honour that the festival of Pamylia is celebrated, a festival which resembles the phallic processions.
10. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of The Philosophers, 10.77, 10.125, 10.139 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10.77. For troubles and anxieties and feelings of anger and partiality do not accord with bliss, but always imply weakness and fear and dependence upon one's neighbours. Nor, again, must we hold that things which are no more than globular masses of fire, being at the same time endowed with bliss, assume these motions at will. Nay, in every term we use we must hold fast to all the majesty which attaches to such notions as bliss and immortality, lest the terms should generate opinions inconsistent with this majesty. Otherwise such inconsistency will of itself suffice to produce the worst disturbance in our minds. Hence, where we find phenomena invariably recurring, the invariableness of the recurrence must be ascribed to the original interception and conglomeration of atoms whereby the world was formed. 10.125. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly apprehended that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live. Foolish, therefore, is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. Whatsoever causes no annoyance when it is present, causes only a groundless pain in the expectation. Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer. But in the world, at one time men shun death as the greatest of all evils, and at another time choose it as a respite from the evils in life. 10.139. [A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness [Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us.The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.
11. Plotinus, Enneads, 5.5.3 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

12. Porphyry, Letter To Marcella, 24 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

24. No god is responsible for a man's evils, for he has chosen his lot himself. The prayer which is accompanied by base actions is impure, and |45 therefore not acceptable to God; but that which is accompanied by noble actions is pure, and at the same time acceptable. There are four first principles that must be upheld concerning God—faith, truth, love, hope. We must have faith that our only salvation is in turning to God. And having faith, we must strive with all our might to know the truth about God. And when we know this, we must love Him we do know. And when we love Him we must nourish our souls on good hopes for our life, for it is by their good hopes good men are superior to bad ones. Let then these four principles be firmly held.
13. Augustine, The City of God, 10.3, 10.23, 10.26-10.27, 19.23 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

10.3. This being so, if the Platonists, or those who think with them, knowing God, glorified Him as God and gave thanks, if they did not become vain in their own thoughts, if they did not originate or yield to the popular errors, they would certainly acknowledge that neither could the blessed immortals retain, nor we miserable mortals reach, a happy condition without worshipping the one God of gods, who is both theirs and ours. To Him we owe the service which is called in Greek λατρεία, whether we render it outwardly or inwardly; for we are all His temple, each of us severally and all of us together, because He condescends to inhabit each individually and the whole harmonious body, being no greater in all than in each, since He is neither expanded nor divided. Our heart when it rises to Him is His altar; the priest who intercedes for us is His Only-begotten; we sacrifice to Him bleeding victims when we contend for His truth even unto blood; to Him we offer the sweetest incense when we come before Him burning with holy and pious love; to Him we devote and surrender ourselves and His gifts in us; to Him, by solemn feasts and on appointed days, we consecrate the memory of His benefits, lest through the lapse of time ungrateful oblivion should steal upon us; to Him we offer on the altar of our heart the sacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by the fire of burning love. It is that we may see Him, so far as He can be seen; it is that we may cleave to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. For He is the fountain of our happiness, He the end of all our desires. Being attached to Him, or rather let me say, re-attached - for we had detached ourselves and lost hold of Him - being, I say, re-attached to Him, we tend towards Him by love, that we may rest in Him, and find our blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, about which philosophers have so keenly contended, is nothing else than to be united to God. It is, if I may say so, by spiritually embracing Him that the intellectual soul is filled and impregnated with true virtues. We are enjoined to love this good with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength. To this good we ought to be led by those who love us, and to lead those we love. Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:37-40 For, that man might be intelligent in his self-love, there was appointed for him an end to which he might refer all his actions, that he might be blessed. For he who loves himself wishes nothing else than this. And the end set before him is to draw near to God. And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbor as himself, what else is enjoined than that he shall do all in his power to commend to him the love of God? This is the worship of God, this is true religion, this right piety, this the service due to God only. If any immortal power, then, no matter with what virtue endowed, loves us as himself, he must desire that we find our happiness by submitting ourselves to Him, in submission to whom he himself finds happiness. If he does not worship God, he is wretched, because deprived of God; if he worships God, he cannot wish to be worshipped in God's stead. On the contrary, these higher powers acquiesce heartily in the divine sentence in which it is written, He that sacrifices unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20 10.23. Even Porphyry asserts that it was revealed by divine oracles that we are not purified by any sacrifices to sun or moon, meaning it to be inferred that we are not purified by sacrificing to any gods. For what mysteries can purify, if those of the sun and moon, which are esteemed the chief of the celestial gods, do not purify? He says, too, in the same place, that principles can purify, lest it should be supposed, from his saying that sacrificing to the sun and moon cannot purify, that sacrificing to some other of the host of gods might do so. And what he as a Platonist means by principles, we know. For he speaks of God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls (writing in Greek) the intellect or mind of the Father; but of the Holy Spirit he says either nothing, or nothing plainly, for I do not understand what other he speaks of as holding the middle place between these two. For if, like Plotinus in his discussion regarding the three principal substances, he wished us to understand by this third the soul of nature, he would certainly not have given it the middle place between these two, that is, between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the soul of nature after the intellect of the Father, while Porphyry, making it the mean, does not place it after, but between the others. No doubt he spoke according to his light, or as he thought expedient; but we assert that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but of both. For philosophers speak as they have a mind to, and in the most difficult matters do not scruple to offend religious ears; but we are bound to speak according to a certain rule, lest freedom of speech beget impiety of opinion about the matters themselves of which we speak. 10.26. I know not how it is so, but it seems to me that Porphyry blushed for his friends the theurgists; for he knew all that I have adduced, but did not frankly condemn polytheistic worship. He said, in fact, that there are some angels who visit earth, and reveal divine truth to theurgists, and others who publish on earth the things that belong to the Father, His height and depth. Can we believe, then, that the angels whose office it is to declare the will of the Father, wish us to be subject to any but Him whose will they declare? And hence, even this Platonist himself judiciously observes that we should rather imitate than invoke them. We ought not, then, to fear that we may offend these immortal and happy subjects of the one God by not sacrificing to them; for this they know to be due only to the one true God, in allegiance to whom they themselves find their blessedness, and therefore they will not have it given to them, either in figure or in the reality, which the mysteries of sacrifice symbolized. Such arrogance belongs to proud and wretched demons, whose disposition is diametrically opposite to the piety of those who are subject to God, and whose blessedness consists in attachment to Him. And, that we also may attain to this bliss, they aid us, as is fit, with sincere kindliness, and usurp over us no dominion, but declare to us Him under whose rule we are then fellow-subjects. Why, then, O philosopher, do you still fear to speak freely against the powers which are inimical both to true virtue and to the gifts of the true God? Already you have discriminated between the angels who proclaim God's will, and those who visit theurgists, drawn down by I know not what art. Why do you still ascribe to these latter the honor of declaring divine truth? If they do not declare the will of the Father, what divine revelations can they make? Are not these the evil spirits who were bound over by the incantations of an envious man, that they should not grant purity of soul to another, and could not, as you say, be set free from these bonds by a good man anxious for purity, and recover power over their own actions? Do you still doubt whether these are wicked demons; or do you, perhaps, feign ignorance, that you may not give offense to the theurgists, who have allured you by their secret rites, and have taught you, as a mighty boon, these insane and pernicious devilries? Do you dare to elevate above the air, and even to heaven, these envious powers, or pests, let me rather call them, less worthy of the name of sovereign than of slave, as you yourself own; and are you not ashamed to place them even among your sidereal gods, and so put a slight upon the stars themselves? 10.27. How much more tolerable and accordant with human feeling is the error of your Platonist co-sectary Apuleius! For he attributed the diseases and storms of human passions only to the demons who occupy a grade beneath the moon, and makes even this avowal as by constraint regarding gods whom he honors; but the superior and celestial gods, who inhabit the ethereal regions, whether visible, as the sun, moon, and other luminaries, whose brilliancy makes them conspicuous, or invisible, but believed in by him, he does his utmost to remove beyond the slightest stain of these perturbations. It is not, then, from Plato, but from your Chald an teachers you have learned to elevate human vices to the ethereal and empyreal regions of the world and to the celestial firmament, in order that your theurgists might be able to obtain from your gods divine revelations; and yet you make yourself superior to these divine revelations by your intellectual life, which dispenses with these theurgic purifications as not needed by a philosopher. But, by way of rewarding your teachers, you recommend these arts to other men, who, not being philosophers, may be persuaded to use what you acknowledge to be useless to yourself, who are capable of higher things; so that those who cannot avail themselves of the virtue of philosophy, which is too arduous for the multitude, may, at your instigation, betake themselves to theurgists by whom they may be purified, not, indeed, in the intellectual, but in the spiritual part of the soul. Now, as the persons who are unfit for philosophy form incomparably the majority of mankind, more may be compelled to consult these secret and illicit teachers of yours than frequent the Platonic schools. For these most impure demons, pretending to be ethereal gods, whose herald and messenger you have become, have promised that those who are purified by theurgy in the spiritual part of their soul shall not indeed return to the Father, but shall dwell among the ethereal gods above the aerial regions. But such fancies are not listened to by the multitudes of men whom Christ came to set free from the tyranny of demons. For in Him they have the most gracious cleansing, in which mind, spirit, and body alike participate. For, in order that He might heal the whole man from the plague of sin, He took without sin the whole human nature. Would that you had known Him, and would that you had committed yourself for healing to Him rather than to your own frail and infirm human virtue, or to pernicious and curious arts! He would not have deceived you; for Him your own oracles, on your own showing, acknowledged holy and immortal. It is of Him, too, that the most famous poet speaks, poetically indeed, since he applies it to the person of another, yet truly, if you refer it to Christ, saying, Under your auspices, if any traces of our crimes remain, they shall be obliterated, and earth freed from its perpetual fear. By which he indicates that, by reason of the infirmity which attaches to this life, the greatest progress in virtue and righteousness leaves room for the existence, if not of crimes, yet of the traces of crimes, which are obliterated only by that Saviour of whom this verse speaks. For that he did not say this at the prompting of his own fancy, Virgil tells us in almost the last verse of that 4th Eclogue, when he says, The last age predicted by the Cum an sibyl has now arrived; whence it plainly appears that this had been dictated by the Cum an sibyl. But those theurgists, or rather demons, who assume the appearance and form of gods, pollute rather than purify the human spirit by false appearances and the delusive mockery of unsubstantial forms. How can those whose own spirit is unclean cleanse the spirit of man? Were they not unclean, they would not be bound by the incantations of an envious man, and would neither be afraid nor grudge to bestow that hollow boon which they promise. But it is sufficient for our purpose that you acknowledge that the intellectual soul, that is, our mind, cannot be justified by theurgy; and that even the spiritual or inferior part of our soul cannot by this act be made eternal and immortal, though you maintain that it can be purified by it. Christ, however, promises life eternal; and therefore to Him the world flocks, greatly to your indignation, greatly also to your astonishment and confusion. What avails your forced avowal that theurgy leads men astray, and deceives vast numbers by its ignorant and foolish teaching, and that it is the most manifest mistake to have recourse by prayer and sacrifice to angels and principalities, when at the same time, to save yourself from the charge of spending labor in vain on such arts, you direct men to the theurgists, that by their means men, who do not live by the rule of the intellectual soul, may have their spiritual soul purified? 19.23. For in his book called ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, in which he collects and comments upon the responses which he pretends were uttered by the gods concerning divine things, he says - I give his own words as they have been translated from the Greek: To one who inquired what god he should propitiate in order to recall his wife from Christianity, Apollo replied in the following verses. Then the following words are given as those of Apollo: You will probably find it easier to write lasting characters on the water, or lightly fly like a bird through the air, than to restore right feeling in your impious wife once she has polluted herself. Let her remain as she pleases in her foolish deception, and sing false laments to her dead God, who was condemned by right-minded judges, and perished ignominiously by a violent death. Then after these verses of Apollo (which we have given in a Latin version that does not preserve the metrical form), he goes on to say: In these verses Apollo exposed the incurable corruption of the Christians, saying that the Jews, rather than the Christians, recognized God. See how he misrepresents Christ, giving the Jews the preference to the Christians in the recognition of God. This was his explanation of Apollo's verses, in which he says that Christ was put to death by right-minded or just judges, - in other words, that He deserved to die. I leave the responsibility of this oracle regarding Christ on the lying interpreter of Apollo, or on this philosopher who believed it or possibly himself invented it; as to its agreement with Porphyry's opinions or with other oracles, we shall in a little have something to say. In this passage, however, he says that the Jews, as the interpreters of God, judged justly in pronouncing Christ to be worthy of the most shameful death. He should have listened, then, to this God of the Jews to whom he bears this testimony, when that God says, He that sacrifices to any other god save to the Lord alone shall be utterly destroyed. But let us come to still plainer expressions, and hear how great a God Porphyry thinks the God of the Jews is. Apollo, he says, when asked whether word, i.e., reason, or law is the better thing, replied in the following verses. Then he gives the verses of Apollo, from which I select the following as sufficient: God, the Generator, and the King prior to all things, before whom heaven and earth, and the sea, and the hidden places of hell tremble, and the deities themselves are afraid, for their law is the Father whom the holy Hebrews honor. In this oracle of his god Apollo, Porphyry avowed that the God of the Hebrews is so great that the deities themselves are afraid before Him. I am surprised, therefore, that when God said, He that sacrifices to other gods shall be utterly destroyed, Porphyry himself was not afraid lest he should be destroyed for sacrificing to other gods. This philosopher, however, has also some good to say of Christ, oblivious, as it were, of that contumely of his of which we have just been speaking; or as if his gods spoke evil of Christ only while asleep, and recognized Him to be good, and gave Him His deserved praise, when they awoke. For, as if he were about to proclaim some marvellous thing passing belief, he says, What we are going to say will certainly take some by surprise. For the gods have declared that Christ was very pious, and has become immortal, and that they cherish his memory: that the Christians, however, are polluted, contaminated, and involved in error. And many other such things, he says, do the gods say against the Christians. Then he gives specimens of the accusations made, as he says, by the gods against them, and then goes on: But to some who asked Hecate whether Christ were a God, she replied, You know the condition of the disembodied immortal soul, and that if it has been severed from wisdom it always errs. The soul you refer to is that of a man foremost in piety: they worship it because they mistake the truth. To this so-called oracular response he adds the following words of his own: of this very pious man, then, Hecate said that the soul, like the souls of other good men, was after death dowered with immortality, and that the Christians through ignorance worship it. And to those who ask why he was condemned to die, the oracle of the goddess replied, The body, indeed, is always exposed to torments, but the souls of the pious abide in heaven. And the soul you inquire about has been the fatal cause of error to other souls which were not fated to receive the gifts of the gods, and to have the knowledge of immortal Jove. Such souls are therefore hated by the gods; for they who were fated not to receive the gifts of the gods, and not to know God, were fated to be involved in error by means of him you speak of. He himself, however, was good, and heaven has been opened to him as to other good men. You are not, then, to speak evil of him, but to pity the folly of men: and through him men's danger is imminent. Who is so foolish as not to see that these oracles were either composed by a clever man with a strong animus against the Christians, or were uttered as responses by impure demons with a similar design - that is to say, in order that their praise of Christ may win credence for their vituperation of Christians; and that thus they may, if possible, close the way of eternal salvation, which is identical with Christianity? For they believe that they are by no means counter working their own hurtful craft by promoting belief in Christ, so long as their calumniation of Christians is also accepted; for they thus secure that even the man who thinks well of Christ declines to become a Christian, and is therefore not delivered from their own rule by the Christ he praises. Besides, their praise of Christ is so contrived that whosoever believes in Him as thus represented will not be a true Christian but a Photinian heretic, recognizing only the humanity, and not also the divinity of Christ, and will thus be precluded from salvation and from deliverance out of the meshes of these devilish lies. For our part, we are no better pleased with Hecate's praises of Christ than with Apollo's calumniation of Him. Apollo says that Christ was put to death by right-minded judges, implying that He was unrighteous. Hecate says that He was a most pious man, but no more. The intention of both is the same, to prevent men from becoming Christians, because if this be secured, men shall never be rescued from their power. But it is incumbent on our philosopher, or rather on those who believe in these pretended oracles against the Christians, first of all, if they can, to bring Apollo and Hecate to the same mind regarding Christ, so that either both may condemn or both praise Him. And even if they succeeded in this, we for our part would notwithstanding repudiate the testimony of demons, whether favorable or adverse to Christ. But when our adversaries find a god and goddess of their own at variance about Christ the one praising, the other vituperating Him, they can certainly give no credence, if they have any judgment, to mere men who blaspheme the Christians. When Porphyry or Hecate praises Christ, and adds that He gave Himself to the Christians as a fatal gift, that they might be involved in error, he exposes, as he thinks, the causes of this error. But before I cite his words to that purpose, I would ask, If Christ did thus give Himself to the Christians to involve them in error, did He do so willingly, or against His will? If willingly, how is He righteous? If against His will, how is He blessed? However, let us hear the causes of this error. There are, he says, in a certain place very small earthly spirits, subject to the power of evil demons. The wise men of the Hebrews, among whom was this Jesus, as you have heard from the oracles of Apollo cited above, turned religious persons from these very wicked demons and minor spirits, and taught them rather to worship the celestial gods, and especially to adore God the Father. This, he said, the gods enjoin; and we have already shown how they admonish the soul to turn to God, and command it to worship Him. But the ignorant and the ungodly, who are not destined to receive favors from the gods, nor to know the immortal Jupiter, not listening to the gods and their messages, have turned away from all gods, and have not only refused to hate, but have venerated the prohibited demons. Professing to worship God, they refuse to do those things by which alone God is worshipped. For God, indeed, being the Father of all, is in need of nothing; but for us it is good to adore Him by means of justice, chastity, and other virtues, and thus to make life itself a prayer to Him, by inquiring into and imitating His nature. For inquiry, says he, purifies and imitation deifies us, by moving us nearer to Him. He is right in so far as he proclaims God the Father, and the conduct by which we should worship Him. of such precepts the prophetic books of the Hebrews are full, when they praise or blame the life of the saints. But in speaking of the Christians he is in error, and caluminates them as much as is desired by the demons whom he takes for gods, as if it were difficult for any man to recollect the disgraceful and shameful actions which used to be done in the theatres and temples to please the gods, and to compare with these things what is heard in our churches, and what is offered to the true God, and from this comparison to conclude where character is edified, and where it is ruined. But who but a diabolical spirit has told or suggested to this man so manifest and vain a lie, as that the Christians reverenced rather than hated the demons, whose worship the Hebrews prohibited? But that God, whom the Hebrew sages worshipped, forbids sacrifice to be offered even to the holy angels of heaven and divine powers, whom we, in this our pilgrimage, venerate and love as our most blessed fellow citizens. For in the law which God gave to His Hebrew people He utters this menace, as in a voice of thunder: He that sacrifices unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20 And that no one might suppose that this prohibition extends only to the very wicked demons and earthly spirits, whom this philosopher calls very small and inferior - for even these are in the Scripture called gods, not of the Hebrews, but of the nations, as the Septuagint translators have shown in the psalm where it is said, For all the gods of the nations are demons, - that no one might suppose, I say, that sacrifice to these demons was prohibited, but that sacrifice might be offered to all or some of the celestials, it was immediately added, save unto the Lord alone. The God of the Hebrews, then, to whom this renowned philosopher bears this signal testimony, gave to His Hebrew people a law, composed in the Hebrew language, and not obscure and unknown, but published now in every nation, and in this law it is written, He that sacrifices unto any god, save unto the Lord alone, he shall be utterly destroyed. What need is there to seek further proofs in the law or the prophets of this same thing? Seek, we need not say, for the passages are neither few nor difficult to find; but what need to collect and apply to my argument the proofs which are thickly sown and obvious, and by which it appears clear as day that sacrifice may be paid to none but the supreme and true God? Here is one brief but decided, even menacing, and certainly true utterance of that God whom the wisest of our adversaries so highly extol. Let this be listened to, feared, fulfilled, that there may be no disobedient soul cut off. He that sacrifices, He says, not because He needs anything, but because it behooves us to be His possession. Hence the Psalmist in the Hebrew Scriptures sings, I have said to the Lord, You are my God, for You need not my good. For we ourselves, who are His own city, are His most noble and worthy sacrifice, and it is this mystery we celebrate in our sacrifices, which are well known to the faithful, as we have explained in the preceding books. For through the prophets the oracles of God declared that the sacrifices which the Jews offered as a shadow of that which was to be would cease, and that the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun, would offer one sacrifice. From these oracles, which we now see accomplished, we have made such selections as seemed suitable to our purpose in this work. And therefore, where there is not this righteousness whereby the one supreme God rules the obedient city according to His grace, so that it sacrifices to none but Him, and whereby, in all the citizens of this obedient city, the soul consequently rules the body and reason the vices in the rightful order, so that, as the individual just man, so also the community and people of the just, live by faith, which works by love, that love whereby man loves God as He ought to be loved, and his neighbor as himself - there, I say, there is not an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of right, and by a community of interests. But if there is not this, there is not a people, if our definition be true, and therefore there is no republic; for where there is no people there can be no republic.
14. Epicurus, Letter To Menoeceus, 124, 123

15. Epicurus, Letter To Herodotus, 71, 75-76, 68

16. Epicurus, Letters, 116, 88, 115

17. Epicurus, Letters, 116, 88, 115



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
academy Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48, 69
analogy Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 88
anger Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70
animals, origin and growth of Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
anthropocentrism Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
antiochus Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48
apuleius Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
aristotle Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
arnobius, concept of salvation Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 142
ataraxia Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 73
atheism Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
body parts, eyes Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
body parts, feet Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
body parts, mouth Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
bond (desmos), stoic concept of Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
campbell, gordon Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
chance Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
christian, christianity Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
cicero, allusion by lucretius to Gee, Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (2013) 69
cicero Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91; Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17; Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
conflagration (ekpurōsis), stoic concept of Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
cosmology Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70, 73, 102
cosmos/universe Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
creationism Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
des places, e. Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 139
design, imparted through the function of disease as fabricator leti Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
design/purpose Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 88, 102
diagoras of melos Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
diogenes laertius Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70
diogenes of oenoanda Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70
disease, as a force of (re)creation Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
disease, as a force of destruction Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
epicurean, epicureanism Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
epicureanism, gods mercy Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 142
epicureanism, theology of Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 139, 142
epicurus, on divine kindness Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 139
epicurus Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91; Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 69
fear, of death Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 73
fear Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70
gnostic, gnosticism Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
gods, divine control (lack of) Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 88, 102
gods, providence Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 88
gods Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70, 73
good Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48
grantor Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48
hecate Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 139
impiety Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
intelligent design Gee, Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (2013) 69
law, natural/physical Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
law Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
le bonniec Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 139
lucretius, allusion to ciceros aratea in drn Gee, Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (2013) 69
lucretius Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91; Kingsley Monti and Rood, The Authoritative Historian: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Historiography (2022) 93
materialism Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70
matter, divisibility Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 69
matter Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 69
meteorology, thunder Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 88
meteorology Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70, 88
offering Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
origen Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
paradox Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
peripatetics/peripatos Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48
plants Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
plato Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91; Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48, 69; Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
platonism Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 142
politics Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
porphyry, philosophia ex oraculis, ancestral customs Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 142
porphyry Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
prayer, criticism of Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
prayer, for the dead' Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 142
prayer, petitionary Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
principles/ archai Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48, 69
proclus Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 139
providence Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
providence (divine), in plato and the stoics Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
rome/romans Kingsley Monti and Rood, The Authoritative Historian: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Historiography (2022) 93
sacrifice Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
stoa, stoic(ism) Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
stoicism Gee, Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (2013) 69
stoics/stoicism Kazantzidis, Lucretius on Disease: The Poetics of Morbidity in "De rerum natura" (2021) 17
theodore of cyrene Dillon and Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer (2015) 91
theophrastus Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
varro Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 48
velleius, epicurean philosopher Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian (1995) 139
xenocrates Frede and Laks, Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (2001) 69; Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 102
xenophanes Lehoux et al., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (2013) 70