xenophanes' proposed reform of greek religion

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

Xenophanes' Proposed Reform of Greek Religion Author(s): Michael Eisenstadt Source: Hermes, 102. Bd., H. 2 (1974), pp. 142-150Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4475833Accessed: 26-08-2015 02:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:35:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4475833

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



I42 MICHAEL EISENSTADT

X6yoq (eTepov XO6yov), der Schein zu einem freien, 'wahren' Schein wie in der Erzahlung von den Fulnf Geschlechtern (Erga vv. io6ff.), wo ebenfalls das

Sc eV zur Voraussetzung gemacht wird fur die logisch-poetische Erklarung der progressiven Verschlechterung des Menschengeschlechts. Wie sich von dieser engen Verbundenheit mit dem dichterischen Wort der philosophische ?oyo4 emanzipierte, bleibt also noch eine offene Frage, jedenfalls eine solche, die sich im Rahmen des Pro6miums der 'Theogonie' nicht eindeutig beant- worten lBt.

Athen DEMETRIOS K. THERAIOS

XENOPHANES' PROPOSED REFORM OF GREEK RELIGION

In fragments VS 2I B I4, B I5 and B I6, Xenophanes identifies the origin of the anthropomorphic fallacy in popular religions: in their conception of the divine, men project onto the gods their own physical and cultural characteristics. These fragments, together with the well-known criticism of Homer and Hesiod in B ii and B I2 and the theological fragments (B 23, B 24, B 25

and B 26), are commonly interpreted by present-day scholars so as to lead to the conclusion that Xenophanes wished to replace the worship among the Greeks of the anthropomorphic Olympian gods with his own non-anthropomorphic theology.

A brief survey will be sufficient to establish this. To E. ZELLER, #sein Hauptgesichtspunkt# was )>jene Bestreitung des polytheistischen Volks- glaubens, durch die er sich schon im Altertum bekannt gemacht hat1 #. On the basis of #Beobachtungen iuber die Verschiedenheit der Religionen<#, according to K. REINHARDT, Xenophanes concluded )>daB die Gesetze und die land- laufigen Vorstellungen von den G6ttern nicht verbindlich seien2((. H. FRANKEL

speaks of his >Ablehnung der religiosen Tradition#< as an )>Apostel eines radi- kalen Monotheismus3#. In a recent article on Xenophanes, K. v. FRITZ takes for granted this )>Polemik gegen den Volksglauben4#. According to K. FREE-

MAN: >The method of conceiving God has been wrong; a new concept must

1 E. ZELLER, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, rev.

by W. NESTLE, 7th ed., Leipzig I923. Vol. I, 643. 2 K. REINHARDT, Parmenides und die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie, Bonn

I9I6, reprinted Frankfurt am Main 1959, 82. 3 H. FRANKEL, Dichtung und Philosophie des friihen Griechentums, 2nd ed., Munich

I962, 376. 4 K. v. FRITZ, RE Suppl. IX A, Vol. 2, col. 1546, s. v. Xenophanes.



Xenophanes' Proposed Reform of Greek Religion I43

be substituted, purged of all human elements 5(. G. S. KIRK and J. E. RAVEN

put it thus: )>The conclusion is that (sc. anthropomorphic religions) are subjective and without value, and that the established picture in Homer . .. of gods as men and women must be abandoned 6((.

This, I believe, is a serious misreading of the fragments. The present article will argue that, for Xenophanes, the subjectivity of anthropomorphic religion does not affect its social value in human life, despite its philosophical inade- quacy; that the conclusions arrived at in his theological fragments were purely speculative and not intended to provide the basis for a new religion; and that the evidence of the other fragments suggests rather that he approved of the worship of the Olympian gods7.

The claim that Xenophanes disapproved of the worship of anthropomorphic gods per se must, of course, primarily rest on the evidence of B I4, B I5 and B i6. But the tone of his witty remarks in these fragments is one of amused detachment, not of disapproval. For example, >But mortals believe that the gods are born, wear human dress, speak human language and have human form8,'. Or, ))Ethiopian gods are black and snub-nosed; Thracian gods are blue-eyed redheads 9((. Or the reductio ad absurdum of animals sculpting theriomorphic gods: )>But if bulls and horses and lions had hands ...10 (.

Quite unlike the tone in these three fragments, however, is the unmistakeable moral censure in his criticism of Homer and Hesiod. For example, >How very many aOeAatLoc deeds of the gods have they uttered! # he expostulates 11.

Or, )>Homer and Hesiod ascribe to the gods all that among men is the object of reproach and blame: theft, adultery and tricking one another12#. The

5 K. FREEMAN, Companion to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, 3 rd ed., Cambridge, Mass. I966, 96.

6 G. S. KIRK and J. E. RAVEN, The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge I957, I69. 7 I forgo discussion of vexed passages in the fragments whose precise significance, if

they could be determined, would in nowise affect this argument, e. g. the implication for or against strict monotheism in the assertion in B 23, I: eq ik05, "V T? 9teOZL xac aVRpc)oL

JAL&La'r0q.

8 B 14: uXX' o' Ppooto aoxCoual yevvi&afXL ?10lU,

rnv 'V aPeTrkP'V 8 e =a"Ta ?X?L Uvv CPOV ?r 861asc r 9 B 16: Alo7trf t (kok aCPzt6TpOVU> atlok t6?avak 1'

OPeLX6q 'Te yXOCuXov XOc 7TUppoU6 (cpoaLt 7n6hatOCL>. 10 B 1 5: &?,X' e'l ZLtpo5 9xov f36s5 ('L7broL T' > Xe'ovreq

N ypaca x?LpsaaL xmd ?pyac T1X?Lv &7rp &Vapeq, LVr7tOL rLeV t1 L7t77OtaL f36e af t' POVOL OV.O xcd (X?> iV 'a'Ocq &YPrXpOpV XOC' a6LOCT' 'oLouV

tOLOC0' or6V ?P xav CUoi 84vocq elxov (fXLa'tOL>.

B 12: 5 ntXeZa'(oc) & ?y:avTo ?t)ev kOeVlarTLoc gypo, XX'7rteLV LOLYXeU'LV tr xOCL OC?'Xk?oU) abOCTaC6etLv.

12 B II: 7davloc 4t6oZ' &v6f&xmv "OV-p6q 1 'HoLoa6o re

oaac 7OCp' MV,Ypd7rOLOLV Ov8e xo,L 4Oyo4 6atLV,

X7?T?LV sLOLX?VLV tr xaC OCX ,<OU X7?U1LV.




disapproval here is neither of anthropomorphic religons in general nor of the anthropomorphic Olympian religion in particular. Rather it is directed speci- fically against stories in Homer and Hesiod about immorality among the Olympian gods. Xenophanes' disapproval is based on his conviction that stories about divine immorality adversely affect human morality. The steps that lead to this conclusion seem to be these: men regard theft, adultery, etc. as contravening the traditional Greek morality of Zeus-sanctioned Oe?Ltg 3. If the divine family of Zeus disobeys his 04t&q, humans can hardly be expected to observe it. The explicit criticism and implicit advice offered in B ii and B 12

is simply this: Homeric and Hesiodic stories about divine immorality set bad examples for their audience and therefore should be expurgated. Far from being evidence for Xenophanes' rejection of traditional Greek religion, these fragments express his staunch support of the popular belief in an Olympian theodicy.

On the basis of the same insight about setting bad examples, Xenophanes in his symposium elegy (B i, I9-23) lists certain song-topics which should be omitted from the repertoire of #praise-worthy# symposiasts:

CVMp&V ' e ocaLVeZ T'VOVV 80 eaf,X0 rwv. &VovOMV?,

20 )t olV OcYVYj zoc TOvog &X?cp' 0p?e5,

OVrL [.LXMoc &LebtiV TLrvvW GU FLy&v-rGv

OV (T<r> Kev 'pov, 7rXaCaxOT'x TWV 7pO-?p&V

a Mlram(,, sgaye0Va,K,r, '06'O8?V zpja-ov evarVCC

Songs or stories about these ))battles<( are dismissed as ffictions of (our) ancestorsa(. Here the criterion for acceptable song-topics seems to be truth. But these stories are insalubrious not because they are false but because they exhibit divine and heroic (3ptL to men in their cups. They would be no less insalubrious if true. The phrase which deprecates such stories occurs here in the context not of didactic hexameters but of paraenetic elegy. 7&iCatx'ra twv

npo-rpcov does not reproduce the train of thought behind Xenophanes' unprecedented censorship'4. The function of these words is solely rhetorical, for the objection to such stories is based on neither their antiquity nor their

13 For Zeus as the giver of OCpL6 to men, cf. Homer, I1. A 238-239, B 205-2o6,

I 98-99, Od. 7r 403. 14 As FRANKEL argues, Dichtung und Philosophie, 2nd ed., 374: *Eine grof3e Anzahl von

alten Mythen wvill er ausgeschlossen wissen, g (Why not all of them?) sweil sie nur Erdich- tungen der Vorvater seien . . . Fur ihn wird eine tberlieferung durch ihr hohes Alter nicht sanktioniert, sondern im Gegenteil entwertet: was man sich fruiher ausgedacht hat, wird ein fortschrittlicher Mensch von heute nicht mehr glauben#. If this were true, one would have to explain with some care why Xenophanes elsewhere in this poem approvingly describes such traditional religious practices as hymns, libations, worship at altars incense and prayer.

14& Cf. Hom. Od. x 351-352.




falsity. The phrase is aimed at persuading the audience of B i to abandon their traditional entertainments at symposia. In order to accomplish this aim, appeal is made to the common preference for novelty and true stories over >old-fashioned fairy-tales((.

The last song-topic to be censored is )>violent civil wars<. This topic is listed after the )>battles of the Titans, Giants and Centaurs<x have been dismissed as &aTa. As for >>violent civil wars#, Xenophanes goes on to say that they )#have no use in them((. But are stories of this sort false? H. DIELS

explained the words ar kacp Ye?a(XV as a )>Polemik gegen des Alkaios Stasiotika#15. Or Xenophanes may have been thinking of the two expeditions against Thebes: stories of the internecine strife16 between Eteocles and Poly- neices would be both useless and true. Stories about a6aL' are useless not because they are false but because they set bad examples. Like 7ra% ocT0 C0v 7rporpcov, the phrase -o&ou' O8i p xp-6a'ov evea' is also paraenetic rhetoric,

for as C. M. BOWRA has noted, the term Zp-nark was used honorifically by oligarchs and democrats alike'7. But, unlike the former phrase, the latter, although it does not fully articulate the theory behind Xenophanes' censorship, at least indicates its primary consideration: the acceptable song-topic will not have a harmful effect on its audience. The unexpressed theory here seems to rest on the following considerations. His long experience as a poet led Xenophanes to the conclusion that there is a kind of homeopathic effect of story on audience; since hearing about violence exacerbates violent tendencies in an inebriated audience, zU'voVt at symposia requires that certain song-topics be avoided.

The resemblance between Plato's censorship in the Republic (377b-78e) and the language and homeopathic theory of the censorship in B i was noted by H. DIELS18. Plato adopts Xenophanes' censorship of harmful myths and true stories of civil strife, listing them in the same order. Perhaps even Plato's metaphor at 377b of the molding of children's souls ([LaocMrac yap &? Tore

sarwa) by the pu,Doug 7Xa,&ev-ac; of their elders owes its origin to the phrase 7aG0aT TCV repOTCpOV.

15 VS, ad bc. 16 For Xenophanes' concern for vi0t7, cf. B 2, I9. 17 C. M. BOWRA, Xenophanes, Fragment I, CP 33, I938, 363-364, reprinted in ibid.,

Problems in Greek Poetry, Oxford I953, IO-II. 18 And, so far as I know, by DIELs alone. In the apparatus ad loc. of his Poetarum

Philosophorum Fragmenta, Berlin I901, 35-36, he quotes from Rep. 378c: Xo?Xoi6 aet ycyawvo' yXtcm re U4oo),ooynv n Coc rol xoal 7Ctox&XTkov xal &Wocq 9X1pocq =o?W& xoc

Vr'O&XaC7ra h&)V TS XaOc Np(coV ... (OV Vl 'LOC0 gv?oS 7repP 7nrv'6q ntOLY6ov & nprorm &xoi5- ouaLv, Ort X&Xxtaioc F?tUTOY-?V0c pO M&pe v M&xoueLv. However DIELs apparently failed to recognize that the second half of the first sentence quoted, which he omits, is Plato's paraphrase of Xenophanes' censorship of true atoLcg a9pe&aMV&q: &X?' e? Wto5 jAX?XLev 7??Laetv, oCol5 n6nore noXET-% 9,?epo5 ?Cr &7M'X &eO O'U' 9arT toUTo 0aLov. DIELS'

reference to Plato here does not reappear in the editions of the VS.

Hermes 102,2 10




Xenophanes' attitude towards Greek myths about the gods is referred to by Aristotle in his discussion of literary problems and their solutions in Chapter 25 of the Poetica. The poet is defined here as a maker of images who must imitate one or another of three categories of things: )>either things as they were or are, or as they are said or believed to be, or as they ought to be# (I460 b io-iI). If a poem is censured as not true, it may be justified as representing things as they should be (I460 b 32-35). Finally, if the poem is censured as neither true nor as it should be, it may be justified #as being in accord with ordinary opinion, as for example things said of the gods. For these are perhaps neither the better thing to say nor true but have turned out as in the view of Xenophanes; nevertheless men do say these things# (I460 b 35-6i a i) 19.

At first view Aristotle seems to be saying that Xenophanes rejected traditional poetry about the gods in its entirety for setting bad examples and for being false. This would be an exaggeration on Aristotle's part, once we remember Xenophanes' words at B I2, I: 'G 7r)-Tc(M) ?'P?YE(v'0o 1&e6v OC&L6taLu e'pycx. In using the phrase C'g n?eZa'= Xenophanes may himself be exaggerating; at any rate, while not minimizing the number of such myths, he is expressly criticizing only those which tell of &Cov &&IaTm epya and are therefore not the better thing to say, not all religious myth for being anthropomorphic, i. e. false. However Aristotle's exaggeration disappears if, as I suspect, the phrase -a& 7rspL &s&v at I460 b 35 means not all but some of the false stories about the gods, i. e. only those which are not the better thing to say. -r4, then, would be equivalent to -tvx rather than mkvta. Although all poems about anthropomorphic gods are false, it does not therefore follow that they are all the worse thing to say.

Aristotle adduces Xenophanes' criticism of religious myths in order to refute it with the only justification he can think of which would exculpate poems that set bad examples. He suggests that the undisturbed preservation of ordinary opinion, presumably for the sake of social stability, has precedence over the reform of its harmful elements. Though it is flawed by falsehood and immoral tendencies, the positive social value of undisturbed ordinary opinion might be considered to outweigh its defects, at least in the case of societies like Aristotle's own which possessed a modicum of social decency. Of course, in the case of poetry which is censured as neither true nor the better thing to say nor in accord witlh conventional belief, no justification is possible.

If Aristotle is not thinking of a lost poem or poems, which of the surviving fragments was his source for Xenophanes' viewpoint? J. VAHLEN19&, A. GUDE-

19 Arist. Poet. I460 b 35-6I a i (R. KASSEL'S Oxford Text): et 8' V e8eTfpo0, ZTl 0lrTco cpoca6v, otov O'T W?pl 'hV t cC) Y&P ouT? rXTLOV ObTO) 05 YlV oot' &XB j, &XV CE

tuzev 6)a7trp .CVOq0VZL O'CX' oi5v CPOCGL. 19a J. VAHLEN, Aristoteles Ilepl IIOLLT7Mq, 3rd ed., Leipzig I885, reprinted Hildes-

heim I964, 67.




MAN20 and A. ROSTAGNI21 understand Aristotle to be referring here to B 34,

although nothing is said in this fragment about the harmfulness or falsity of religious myths. D. W. LuCAS22 suggests B iI and B I2 to which I would add the pertinent verses in the symposium elegy.

In B ii and B I2, no attention is called to the falsity of the Oreiv Oae'crToc epyoc; the criticism here is based on the conviction that in recounting such deeds the Zeus-sanctioned 9?4xu of traditional Greek morality, itself a salutary falsehood in Xenophanes' opinion, is subverted. The flaw in these stories does not attach to their objective falsity; it consists rather in their incompatibility with the conventional belief in the Olympian theodicy.

At B I, 22, however, Xenophanes expressly deprecates stories about the battles of Titans and Giants with the gods and the Centaurs with the Lapiths as &Xa6xc-ra '&v rrpoOt&pov. H. FRANKEL sees in this phrase the actual grounds for Xenophanes' censorship 23. In my opinion, these words are no more than a rhetorical appeal to the ordinary preference for novelty and true stories, for the falsity of a belief does not vitiate its usefulness any more than its antiquity. The real criterion of Xenophanes' censorship is utility which comes to light in the next verse (23) where even true stories of civil strife are dismissed as >having nothing useful in them<<. This criterion, explicit here and implicit in B ii and B I2, Aristotle seems very well aware of.

If Aristotle was thinking primarily of the symposium elegy, oufSre L3PrLov ou5ro XeyeLV would be a paraphrase of to&a' o'v xpa6rov v'ea'rL, which Xenophanes mentions only in connection with true stories, and oi-r' &?X1,84 a paraphrase of nXa'ralc tc7V rpot6pcov: #>for these (sc. some stories about the gods) are perhaps neither the better thing to say nor true but have turned out as in the view of Xenophanes< (I460 b 36-6I a I). Thus Aristotle would have made Xenophanes' remarks in B I about some religious myths and all stories of civil strife fit neatly into the context of his discussion of the former alone.

In B I, 2I-23, then, Xenophanes proposed a censorship of those traditional Greek myths (and, in addition, even true stories of civil strife) whose violent theme, in his estimation, homeopathically exacerbated violent tendencies in an inebriated audience. This censorship was, of course, not in itself a rejection of 'Volksglauben', and the recognition of its utilitarian basis should be sufficient to reject the usual interpretation of Xenophanes' attitude towards popular belief. In addition, the remainder of B i provides ample evidence that Xenophanes warmly approved of the forms and practice of traditional Greek religion, at least as it supported rather than subverted traditional

20 A. GUDEMAN, Aristoteles lpp llwOLqrwLXi, Berlin 1934, 427-428. 21 A. ROSTAGNI, Aristotele: Poetica, Turin I945, 159. 22 D. W. LUCAS, Aristotle: Poetics, Oxford I968, 239. 23 See above p. I44, n. I4.

10*




morality and 6vOdl. The burning of frankincense (ev ae p0oLa' o yv-v o4LV

?&L13ocV6q tfat, 7), the singing of hymns (xZp 8' 7tpCtOv [Lv ?Ov 'S vtV, I3),

and the pouring of libations and prayer (oa ?avtaca a xoc ij eaCvouq,

15) to the god whose altar stands before the guests of his ideal symposium

(0Vc40,ua, a' &vDaLv av To p=OV =WVr- 7t7CX0CTra, II) are all approvingly described 24. There is not a word in B I about changing in the least detail, much less abolishing, the Olympian religion. Nor in any other fragment - un- less, as FRANKEL suggests, B I7 should be read as a criticism of Bacchic cult25 which, in any case, was peripheral to the Olympian religion. Nor is there any statement in the doxographical tradition about Xenophanes which supports the interpretation of KIRK and RAVEN that ))the established picture in Homer of gods as men and women must be abandoned 268(.

If this is so, what are we to make of Xenophanes' theological fragments (B 23, B 24, B 25 and B 26) ? In these four fragments the ))fitting<(27 or logically necessary attributes of god are deduced from the idea of absolute divinity. Xenophanes' god is one and incommensurate with men and their anthropomorphic gods28, omniscient29 and immobile30. Most important for popular religion, this divinity, unlike the Olympian gods whom the Greeks named in prayer, is nameless and, consequently, an unsuitable object of prayer; it is not, as in Homer, that )4father of heroes and gods3"(( who punishes transgressors with the xepocxuv6o but, as Xenophanes puts it, )>that which shakes all things 32.

24 If the last verse of B I is accepted as it is usually printed, it too would be an example of Xenophanes' approval of the Olympian religion. Unfortunately, the text is metrically deficient and possibly corrupt: 4e6v (8A) rpolioeEIv oc'Liv lZew &yocD'v (8k supplevit SCALIGER). G. HERMANN'S emendation of MS. &yoHv to &yaOo6v, which is accepted into the

text of the VS, is superfluous because 7rp%L-n,&et-qv IZetv here can act as an imperative as

oatvel does in verse I9: vMpCov 8' octve v 'oi5'ov 05 .... As to the meaning of this verse, FRANKEL'S argument, Dichtung und Philosophie, 2nd ed., 373, n. 3, is convincing: #In

Vers 24 k6nnte &e5v 7poV,uq v lyetv nur bedeuten: 'vorsorglich auf das Wohlergehen

der G6tter bedacht sein' . .. was Unsinn ist (x. He then suggests emending MS. tcov to Xpe6v which is open to the same objection as G. HERMANN'S emendation. Finally he proposes what seems to me a correct paraphrase of this verse: *>'man soll immer einen Zweck im Auge haben' (Dichtung soll nicht nur delectare sondern auch prodesse) <X.

25 H. FRANKEL, Wege und Formen friuhgriechischen Denkens, 2nd ed., Munich I960,

34I, n. 6. 26 KIRK and RAVEN, 0. C., I69. 27 Cf. B 26, 2: oV8i pTCpXGOOE ILLV 7&7LP7t rL &XXoTe &W?q. For the criterion of the

sfitting# attributes of divinity, cf. W. JAEGER, The Theology of the Early Greek Philo-

sophers, Oxford 1947, 49. 28 Cf. B 23: sl5 ftk, ?v 're &eOZL xod &W&p 7OLML 1LkyLaTO,

OVTL 8kakLo 4NVTOLaLV 6[oLLto oV8i Vioe.

29 Cf. B 24: 0605)O opa, o0Xo9 8 vO?L, 0oX0o 8U T' XO6?C.

80 Cf. B 26. I: oCLed 8' ?iv ro pLLLV?L xtvotevoq oV8kv

31 E. g. Homer, Il. A 544. 22 Cf. B 25: &WXX &iv eut 7r6VOLO v6Ou (pEVL 7r i&vtm Xpm8ocvcL.




How is Xenophanes' notion of this nameless and therefore unpropitiable god whose *shaking of all things(i suggests its indifference to human things to be reconciled with his approval of the popular belief in Zeus-sanctioned b9;u in B ii and B I2 and his praise of the traditional worship of the Olympians with hymns, libation and prayer in the symposium elegy?

In my opinion, the contradiction between Xenophanes' theological conclusions and his approval of traditional Greek religious belief and practice elsewhere in the fragments should be understood as follows. Xenophanes recognized the positive moral value of traditional Greek religion and approved of the attitude of obligation and duty which accompanied the belief in the theodicy of Zeus, despite the anthropomorphic fallacy which such a belief entailed. Anthropomorphic religion, according to Xenophanes, is a subjective projection of human characteristics onto the gods, but he does not therefore conclude that it is without value. Its value rests on its utility, not on its truth, for utility is the primary criterion of his proposed reform. Traditional religion is not lightly to be demolished and reconstructed, especially when one believes, as did Xenophanes, that even his own theological conclusions have the epistemological status of opinion. This we know from B 34 where he says that #no man has or ever will know clearly about the gods. . .33(x.

B 34: xOCl TO6 gLV O5v a?5g 05)TL5 &v p PL8ev ot 86 'TC *a'roc ?18d5 &aLCp' ft?Yv 'T? XOCt &a66 X6yc 7rep' &V'T(OV et y&p xac & FLdLaCTOC 6XXO ?eLXea?VOV el7Ov,

MUTO6q 64us oiux ot8e' 86xoq 8' brt 7taac r&*uxToc.

The phrase &aacc kyco 7rep'L mTkvTC in verse 2 refers to Xenophanes' scientific opinions about empirically inaccessible aspects of the physical world (e. g. B 27, B 28, B 29, B 30, B 33). Cf. FRXNKEL, Wege und Formen, 2nd ed., 342-343; A. RIVIER, Remarques sur les fragments 34 et 35 de Xenophane, RPh 30, I956, 37-38; v. FRITZ, 0. C., cols. I557-1558,

Another reading is that of E. HEITSCH, Das Wissen des Xenophanes, RhM Iog, I966, I93-235, who understands Xenophanes to be a thorough going Skeptic and suggests the collocation of B 36 and B 35 in that order. Against this suggestion are the following considerations. B 36 ('6J7O6am 8h AVTTOZmL 7ecp'vOaC elaop&ia&L) describes the pheno- menal world which, for Xenophanes, is the ground both for ordinary speech and belief (cf. B 38: et t Xp69v gpuae ?05 tC 7ro?ov gaxov / y,6aaooc ai5xm beaatL) and for carefully reasoned-out opinions about contingently invisible aspects of the physical world (cf. B 28: yoar J v t68e 7wstpas &vo 7rxp& 7roaacrv 6p &-rtL/'pL 7rpoa7%X&Vov, T6 xck'tco 8' 'g &7?lpOv LxveZLmt). However B 35 (tu=55- 88oKao CO &OLk0tx rot &'TL0LaL)

suggests that Xenophanes' opinions or carefully reasoned-out opinions in general, although not empirical knowledge, can be accepted as corresponding verbally or logically with invisible things as they really are. Xenophanes or his peer in B 34 and B 35 is or should be aware of the problematic epistemological status of opinions about essentially invisible divinity and contingently invisible aspects of the physical world. To collocate B 36 and B 35 amounts to saying that Xenophanes, far from having opinions about invisible things, did not believe that men can possess certain knowledge even of visible things. HEITSCH, 0. C., 224-225, must therefore interpret &aao ?kyco 7rept 7t&vTov at B 34, 2 as referring also to the visible world.



I50 MICHAEL EISENSTADT: Xenophanes' Proposed Reform of Greek Religion

The usual view that Xenophanes wished to abolish the anthropomorphic Olympian religion or was an opponent of Volksglauben is mistaken. As a staunch supporter of the traditional Greek morality of Zeus-sanctioned

Ok[LL, his proposed reform of, religion was simply this: stories about immoral behavior among the gods should be expurgated. The harmfulness of such stories is not a product of their falsity - even true stories can be harmful - but of the bad examples they set for their audience. His theological conclusions admitted of no real proof, as he is careful to point out in B 34, and at best might be accepted, together with his scientific opinions about the physical world, as possessing a verbal or logical correspondence to invisible things as they really are: sav'o 8sRoi&aO& p.dv ?oLX6tOC 'rot ?tt4L00 (B35)34. His utilitarian approval of the Olympian religion in B i, B iI and B I2 is weighty evidence against the assumption that his theological speculations in B 23, B 24, B 25

and B 26 were intended to provide the basis for a new religion; the notion of a nameless and unpropitiable divine principle is patently less useful as the guarantor of morality among the Greeks than the theodicy of their anthropomorphic religion.

Xenophanes' )>complete 97roq about the gods*(35 avoids the fallacies of anthropomorphic polytheism, but it too has the epistemological status of opinion because its subject is empirically inaccessible. We should remember, however, that his proposed censorship was not based on his opinions - either about divinity or about invisible and therefore unknowable aspects of the physical world -, but on his conviction that he knew by long experience which practices were harmful in human society and which were safe.

Austin, Texas MICHAEL EISENSTADT

34 For this interpretation of B 35, cf. RIvIER, O. c., 45-48. 85 Its context in B 34 suggests that the fully expressed grammatical object of ebdIav

would be Teec\aptov &[6v 7roq, i. e. y rI v rexoct daaoca ?iyc ?pI w&vv. w??xea- tudvov, then, refers not to invisible reality or '6 6v as FRANKEL claims, Wege und For- men, 2nd ed., 345, but to the criterion by which a reasoned opinion may be adjudged satis- factory: unlike ordinary unexamined opinion, Xenophanes attempts to make the account of the invisible subject of his 7ros complete. According to Z. P. AMBROSE, The Homeric Telos, Glotta 43, I965, 55: *The telos muthdn and telos epedn signify the point at which a speech becomes complete in both a quantitative and qualitative senset.



xenophanes' proposed reform of greek religion

Documents