AsiCTiSaiflOVLOL
A contribution to the knowledge of
the religious terminology in Greek

PROEFSCHRIFT TER VERKRIJGING VAN DEN
GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE LETTEREN EN
WIJSBEGEERTE AAN DE RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT
TE UTRECHT, OP GEZAG VAN DEN RECTOR
MAGNIFICUS DrH. Th.OBBINK, HOOGLEERAAR
IN DE FACULTEIT DER GODGELEERDHEID,
VOLGENS BESLUIT VAN DEN SENAAT DER
UNIVERSITEIT, TEGEN DE BEDENKINGEN VAN
DE FACULTEIT DER LETTEREN EN WIJSBE-
GEERTE TE VERDEDIGEN OP VRIJDAG 22 FE-
BRUARI 1929, DES NAMIDDAGS TE 3 UUR

\'^i^^^^ii^n-jn^i-m\' ^}] Hmfiav om^^:

ï^^^A ^i^ÄHBO^ta^Tm-\'-
^a^CiHH-^\'^tö; HAV;\' ÓASSO ntï \'.TK^^mf-U; 3t ; :

vîA^miMjMSâm mn-^^i\'t jmn^m^^j^^ri


-- 1\' ■	i



	-t.:

Nu ik op \'t punt sta mijn academische studie af te sluiten is
het mij een behoefte uiting te geven aan mijn dankbaarheid
jegens al degenen, die tot mijn vorming hebben bijgedragen.

In de allereerste plaats richt ik mij dan tot U, Hooggeleerde
Bolkestein, Hooggeachte Promotor. Niet enkel voor Uw
levend en leven-wekkend onderwijs is het dat ik U te danken
heb, maar evenzeer ook voor Uw medeleven in allerlei wat
mij meer persoonlijk raakte en voor de wijze waarop gij mij
bij het bewerken van mijn proefschrift hebt aangemoedigd
en gesteund. Telkens weer hebt gij Uw gastvrije studeer-
kamer voor mij opengesteld en iederen keer opnieuw heeft
een bezoek bij U mij den moed en den lust gegeven \'t eenmaal
begonnen werk voort te zetten en te voltooien.

Hooggeleerde Damsté, U dank ik voor Uw onderwijs en
voor \'t besef, dat gij bij mij hebt wakker geroepen, van het
zoo bij uitstek vaderlandsch karakter van de studie der
klassieke philologie. Steeds hebt gij ons, Uw leerlingen, voor
oogen gehouden dat wij voortzetters waren eener oude tra-
ditie en als zoodanig groote verplichtingen hadden. Wees er
van overtuigd dat ook ik, naar de mate mijner krachten,
trachten wil er aan te voldoen.

Dat ik. Hooggeleerde Vollgraff, ook Uw leerling ben ge-
weest zal ik steeds als een groot voorrecht blijven beschouwen.
Van den aanvang van mijn studie af heeft Uw heldere wijze
van doceeren. Uw even breede als diepgaande kennis mij met
bewondering vervuld. Erkentelijk blijf ik U tevens voor de
belangstelling \'in mijn studie, welke ik steeds van U mocht
ondervinden.

Schrijnen voor het vele, dat gij mij door Uw onderwijs hebt
gegeven en niet minder ook U, Zeergeleerde van Hoorn.

Ook aan hen, die door hun vriendschap mijn studententijd
tot een zoo bijzonder gelukkige periode van mijn leven maak-
ten, mijn hartelijken dank!

Intimis intima: toch mag ik het ook hier wel uitspreken,
dat \'t feit dat ik mijn proefschrift opdragen kan aan mijn
Ouders en mijn Vrouw, voor mij een oorzaak is van groote
vreugde en innige dankbaarheid.

§ 2 — The criticism of the philosophers . .nbsp;41 — 54
§ 3 — Polybius and other historians as critics

Synopsis of the chief meanings of SsicnSaifxovta etc. . 104 — 106
Index of classical passages..........107—110

In the Leipzig edition of Theophrast\'s Characters^), 0.
Immisch, in his introduction to the sixteenth character,
has, in a few words, described the development of the
meaning of the words SeiaiSaipiojv and 8eiaiSai(jiovta. He winds
up by saying: \'Diese ethologische Entwicklung bedarf drin-
gend einer Darstellung.\' Although it is more than a quarter
of a century ago, that this was written, as yet, to the best
of my belief, no one has devoted a monograph to this subject.
It is the aim of this thesis to supply that deficiency.

Everything that, up till now, has been written about these
words treats of them more or less incidentally. Although,
naturally, the authors differ in several points, still one may
safely say there is a common opinion as to the evolution
of the meaning of SetaiSaifxwv etc. : originally it was used
in a favourable sense, e. g. by Xenophon, to designate god-
fearing, pious; very soon, however, in Theophrast f. i., its
meaning deteriorates, and it denotes \'superstitious\', \'exces-
sively afraid of the gods\', while Immisch and one or two others
point out that the Christians use SeiaiSaifAovEa synonymous
with ocCTÉpsta.

What strikes one immediately on consulting the literature
pertaining to the subject, is that this opinion, apart from

For the sake of brevity I have designated by 8eiai8aL[Uigt;M etc. the
whole group of its derivatives: SEi(7iSai(j.ovCa, Sei(TiSai(xóvMC, SeioiSaifjtoveïv,
48eicnSat[xwv, dSeiai8ai{xovCa, «SeitTiSai[jióvtOi;, auvScioiSalixoiv, txTroSetai-
Sat.(jioveïv.

slight variations fairly general, is based on very few passages
from the Greek writers, indeed. Not more than a dozen,
all told, will be found quoted, here and there.

Because of this, the chief object of this study has been
to bring together as many passages as possible in which
the words: SeiaiSaCfxcov, Set(TiSai[i,ovCa etc. are used, to ascer-
tain as accurately as possible the shade of meaning in each
case and in that way to test the opinions which are now gene-
rally held as regards the usage of these words and their history.

This investigation is semantic, as to its starting-point, in
so far as it occupies itself with the meanings of a group of
words and their development. At the same time, however,
it is hoped, that it may be of some value to the study of
Greek religion. The way in which a word, which can mean
such divergent things as \'contemptible, exaggerated fear of
the gods\' and \'real piety\' is used by a particular writer may
show us something about his religious opinions in general.

The passages, which have been collected here, have, of
course, mostly been found with the help of the different
special lexica and indices verborum, as far as they were
available Where this wasn\'t the case, or where the in-
dices proved to be anything but complete, I have endea-
voured to a certain extent to supply the deficiency, by a
rapid reading of the writers themselves.

\') Although it may seem ungrateful, I should like to point out that
only the most modern indices are complete and trustworthy. In passing
I want to register the wish that every new edition have an index ver-
borum, unless one is already available.

») Among the writers which I have read through for my purpose,
because no trustworthy index exists, I want to mention: Athenaeus,
Diogenes Laertius, Diodorus Siculus, Flavius Josephus, Stobaeus, Strabo,
besides those where the result was negative. As far as I know these
words are not to be found in any of the poets, nor f. i. in Plato or
the Oratores.

Completeness is, naturally, entirely out of the question,
but an attempt has been made to neglect as little as possible
of the principal material. When we however bear in mind
that, apart from the fact that our research has only covered
a small part of the Greek writers that have come down to
us, much more has been lost than saved, it is at once ob-
vious that a statistical method of handling the collected
material is impossible. We can only treat it in a descriptive
way and must leave undecided the question, which usage
was predominant. Perhaps is not superfluous to add, that
even if we had the whole of Greek literature, we would still
remain ignorant of the way in which different words were
used in every-day life, by the man in the street whose voice
is rarely heard in literature, at least in that of the an-
cients.

A difficulty, which is still more important than the objec-
tion that the material has been brought together from only
a small part of Greek literature, is that, by confining
the investigation to a certain group of words, it is too
formal in character to be of much value from the point of
view of the history of religion. Although this is certainly
a very real difficulty, and it would be methodologically
preferable, and more attractive as well, to take an idea as
starting-point, for instance \'fear\', that is so obviously a
task which the writer of a thesis cannot fulfill, that I
have stuck to the investigation of the specified words.
This may have its good points as well. When one notices
how nearly all treatises on \'superstition in Greek religion\'
start by defining what the writer means by that word -
and his opinion will always be subjective, as one man calls
superstition\', what is his neighbour\'s creed — one is in-
clined to think oneself justified in choosing an objective

even if somewhat formal, criterion. Be that as it is, I can only
hope that this book may help to pave the way, by collecting
some of the material, for a book on \'fear in Greek religion\',
which remains to be written.

The etymology of the word, of which we are investigating
the meaning, is quite clear: it is derived from the verb
SsiSco, and the substantive Satjicov. In the same way the
word SstcDQvtop has been formed, which is found both as a
proper name and as an adjective 2).

In its origin already this word, SstaiSaifiovia, offers possi-
bilities of differentiation in opposite directions. As to the
first part \'to fear\' can both mean \'to be afraid of and \'to
stand in awe of; \'fear\' may be \'awe\', according to Marett
the fundamental rehgious feeUng, and \'pure funk\'»). Al-
ready in Homer SeJSco is used to describe the feeling of rever-
ence, which a human being feels towards the gods and
there is no trace of any unfavourable criticism whatever ¹).

With regard to the second part Babick says: \'neque vero
cum Geo? compositum est, quamquam id facile fieri potuit,
sed cum vocabulo \'8ai(Alt;ov\'amp;)\'. It has evidently escaped
his notice that the proper name AetCTl0solt;; is frequently found,
not only in Attica«), but f. i. in Chios as well\'), even long
after the word SetoriSaiticov had come to be used in an un-

1nbsp; Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica. 3206. \'s. VI. ut videtur\'; 3207
med. s. IV; 3208 s. II.

favourable sense by most writers. It is only natural to at
once draw the conclusion that evidently the associations
of the word SxiyLov have influenced the meaning of Ssilt;n8ai(io-
vta too. Although this certainly may have been so to a cer-
tain extent, it is not in itself sufficient to account for the
change of meaning SetcriSaifxovia underwent. Pollux, in his
Onomasticum, mentions SsKJtSaipiwv and SsKrieeo? in one
and the same breath as both meaning: a person who wor-
ships the gods in an exaggerated wayi). More important
is the fact that originally the Greek language hardly dis-
tinguishes between the words 0e6lt;; and SaCpLOiv»). For us
moderns it is difficult to free ourselves from the feeling that
a Saifxcov is a bit more uncanny, but the usage of the Greek
authors shows that wasji\'t necessarily the case with them
At the same time however, as has already been said, it is
by no means impossible that the change of meaning, which
Sat[i,wv underwent, so that it became the designation of a
being between gods and humans, exercised its influence
on SsiCTiSatfjiovta as well.

Etymologically there is nothing which argues against
thinking that SetcriSatfjiovta was originally used in a favourable
sense and this is borne out also by the meaning with which
it is used in literature, when first we meet with it there»).

in his Agesilaus and his Cyropaedia 2). This writer, though
originally a purist, in his usage of words shows traces of
\'Konisierung\' 3). It is, therefore, not impossible that he has
really been one of the first to introduce this word into Attic.
In respect to his religion Xenophon can be regarded as
important because he is ,as might be expected in a country-
gentleman, so characteristic a representative of an old-
fashioned type of piety¹), which was true to the tradi-
tional cult, with its prayers and sacrifices; it had remained
practically uninfluenced by the new spiritual movements,
which since the Sophists had widely spread in Greece and
which regarded traditional religion with a critical and often
hostile eye. Agesilaus, Xenophon\'s ideal, naturally also
belongs to the traditional, old-fashioned type. Even in the
enemy\'s country he respected temples, regarding it as useful
to have the gods of this country as allies as well as those
of his own. del Bk SeiCTiSaifitov ^v, vofxi^wv tou? [ih xaXw?
CtovTa(; ouTtw euSa[(Aovalt;;, TOUlt;; Bk euxXEtoq TSTeXsuTTjxOTa? I^SY)
liaxapiout;. These words remind one of Solon\'s warning to
Croesus, that no one can be called happy, while he is still
living and subject to sudden changes. Agesilaus is \'always
reverently aware of his dependence, being only a human
being, on the gods\'.

After Cyrus has given the word to his troops, drawn up
near the enemy, he starts singing the usual paean, in which
all his men join piously (Oeoaspco!;), at the top of their
voices, for, Xenophon says, in suchlike circumstances ot

1nbsp; J. Schlageter. Der Wortschatz der auszerhalb Attikas gefunde-
nen Inschriften. Straszb. 1912, p. 46. Rutherford, The new Phryni-
chus. p. 160. Immisch, Apol. d. Xen. Neue Jahrb. V (1900) p. 405.

ssictisatfxove; ^ttov toix; dv6pt[)Troui; 9oj3ouvtai. Xenophon is
evidently playing with the etymological meaning: the god-
fearing men are not afraid of their (human) enemies.

Aristotle says^) that the subjects of an absolute ruler
will be less afraid to be treated unjustly lav SsKTtSatfxova
vofiiCcoaiv elvai tov icpxovTa xal (ppovxi^etv tcov Oewv and people
are less inclined to conspire against a sovereign, if they
think the gods are his alhes. Aristotle had already said that
one method for a ruler to insure the obedience of his subjects
was xa Ttpo? Toui; 6eou(; cpatvEcr^-ai del oTrouSd^ovxa Sta(psp6v-
xox;®). Setlt;7tSaC(jicov is here used in the same sense in which
we found it used by Xenophon: it is the god-fearing man,
who reckons with the gods and is always exceedingly busy
with everything pertaining to their worship. That gradually
a change of meaning was taking place, however, is clearly
proved by the words with which Aristotle qualifies the above
statement: \'he must show himself such without fatuity
(iSveu dpeXxepla;;) This shows that SstaiSatfxovta was al-
ready beginning to be used as a designation for fatuous,
extravagant piety.

In another chapter*) I have ventured to suppose that
this new usage was first introduced by the different post-
Socratic schools, more especially those of Cyrenaics and
Cynics. This however, is merely a hypothesis, but we know

quot;) Cf. Dio Chrys. I 15: Oecov ^tritxex^ji; xal t6 Sai(x6viov Trpo-rt(iwv. iii.
51 A good king first of all eepaTCiicret t6 0eiov oOx 6(xoXoywv (z6vov,
dcXXa xal neneianivo^ elvai Geoii?.

») Cf. Harrison, Prolegomena p. 4; Theophr. Char. ed. Jebb-Saa-
dys p. 138.
«) Cf. p. 41 sqq.

for certain that Menander and Theophrast used it in this
sense. One often finds the opinion expressed that this usage
in an adverse sense has since then been the only one; the
aim of this chapter is to show that this is not the case and
that examples of the original usage are to be found fairly
often.

In chronological order Diodorus Siculus is the first writer
since Aristotle by whom we find these words used in a favour-
able sense, but that leaves a gap of about three centuries.
In Diodorus, however, we meet with a phenomenon which
is without parallel in other writers: he uses the word Seiai-
Sxluoiv etc. in widely different senses, as it evidently some-
times has the meaning of \'godfearing, pious\' and elsewhere
that of \'excessively religious, superstitious\'. Now his lack
of originality is well-known and these differences of mean-
ing may surely be regarded as a further proof, that he merely
copied his sources, without even troubling to refashion
their words i).

In his Sicilian history Timaeus is his chief source; one of
the arguments that prove this, is that writer\'s\'abergläu-
bische Romandk\'which is very characteristic too for
this part of Diodorus\' history. Polybius had already very
•sharply criticised Timaeus, because he was 8eicnSai[xovta(;
iys^Q xal Teparetac; yuvaixtoSouf;____7rX7)p7)i; =»). Especially

\') R. E. p. 663 ff. Schwartz, the best and fullest analysis of Diodo-
rus sources, of. Christ-Schmid II p. 408: Feinere Untersuchungen
wurden wohl ergeben, dasz die Quellenschddung auch durch sprach-
hche und stilistische Beobachtungen weiter unterstützt werden könnte.

\') Schwartz 1. c.: Volquardsen, Unters, über die Quellen der gr. und
SIC. Gesch. bei Diod. Kiel 1868 p. 82, 83, III passim.

in books XI—XVI Diodorus follows him, as Volquardsen
has convincingly shown i), but in other books he is often
Diodorus\' source as well.

It surely is n\'t a mere coincidence that in this part of the
\'Bibliotheca\' the word SeiCTiSaifxovta is to be found more than
once to designate the feeling of human dependence and
deficiency, which the writer evidently regards with sym-
pathy.

Imilco, a Carthaginian general 2) had plundered temples,
but in due time was punished, as he deserved, for this sacri-
lege. The Carthaginian army was routed and it became
clear to all men how people that unduly exalt themselves
come to grief. Imilco, himself, after his return to Carthage,
was always to be found in different temples, accusing him-
self of impiety until at last he committed suicide TuoXXTjv
Tot(; TcoXiTatc; arcoXiTcwv SeiaiSatfxoviav: leaving behind him
amongst his fellow-citizens the well-founded feeling that
impiety and sacrilege are punished®).

The Carthaginians are manifestly being fought (TroXe-
[xoifXEvoi) by the gods themselves, as their situation, after
Imilco\'s death, goes on from bad to worse. Panic-stricken
they already think the end of their state is there: Tcaaav
tJjv tiixiv SetatSaifjiovia xatscxe xal Seolt;;. But first they try
to placate the gods that bave been sinned against by Imilco;
they introduce a new cult of Demeter and Kore, according
to the Greek rites. They then concentrate all their powers
on the war and, aided by external circumstances, are success-
ful *). The city had not only been a prey to panic (Seoi;)

») It certainly is not a coincidence either that the four examples
which follow all treat of Carthaginian history.
») D. S. 14.76.4. \') 14.77.4.

but also to fear, born of a sense of guilt, for that is evidently
the meaning of SetcriSatfiovia in this passage.

Once, when Agathocles and his army were drawn up
near the Carthaginian forces, both parties were loath to
begin the battle, as an ancient oracle had predicted that
many men would be killed in that spot: cruvspaivs SeiaiSat-
jiovstv xa (TxpaxoTcsSa That they were quite right in \'feeling
uneasy\' is proved by the result: in the battle, which at last
is fought, many Greeks perish.

A slightly different shade of meaning, which is nearer
related to that in the first two examples is found else-
where«). A Carthaginian, who wants to seize the town and
be ruler of it himself, is always putting off his plans, even
when the chance is favourable: SeiaiSaJfioveq yap [xeXXovxst;
cyxeipstv xat? TuapavojjioK; xai [leydXaiq Ttpd^eaiv. The pious
historian sees the hand of God in this fact. This Carthagin-
ian is^ji\'t \'foohshly susceptible to signs\', but anxious»)
because of his bad conscience.

The attitude of mind in all these passages reminds one of
that of Herodotus and Xenophon, but there is a good deal
more emotionality and less pluck. If we may really regard
this usage as directly taken from Timaeus, it would give us
already a link between the fourth and the first century.

In other passages SeiaiSaifAovia clearly means the feeling
a human being has when he regards a certain happening
as a heavensent sign. While the Athenians were busily
engaged in clearing Delus of all corpses, the Peloponnesian
troops were ready to invade Attica, but when great earth-
quakes occurred they returned, frightened by this sign

(SsiCTtSaifxovTQCTavTEi;), to their own countries Here Ephorus
is probably Diodorus\' authority and, if the quotation is
literal, he may have meant the use of this word to be a
sneer but Diodorus need not have regarded it as such.

This SstaiSaifiovia — and that shows plainly that it is some-
thing quite different from what, say, Theophrast meant by
it — need not be negative in its consequences, it does n\'t
always act as a brake, but may urge one on as well. During
the siege of Tyrus by Alexander an enormous sea-monster
is washed ashore. Everybody was dumbfounded at this
strange event and when the animal succeeded in swimming
back again to sea: eic; SetatSaifzoviav d|X90Tepoult;; TrpoTQYayeTo \');
both parties thought it was a sign that Poseidon was with
them. Many other paradoxical things happened as well,
which caused agitation and anxiety amongst the masses .
There is nothing to show Diodorus judges unfavourably
about the feelings of these people, which he evidently
shares.

In the first book Diodorus describes many Egyptian
ceremonies and rites about which his information is derived
from Hecataeus of Abdera. He tells how, early in the morn-
ing, the king offers sacrifice, while the high-priest prays;
in that prayer he also praises the king \'because he is piously
(euCTepwf;) incHned towards the gods and friendly towards
mankind\' A curse is invoked against those, who might

have incited the king to do wrong, whereas he himself
was not held responsible. The priest treated the king in
this way to exhort him sic, 8eiCTtSai|jiovtav xal eeo9iX5) pCov:
towards piety and a god-fearing hfe i). In this case there
can be no doubt as to the meaning of SeiaiSat[.iovia.

A few pages before it is used in a related, if somewhat
different sense. The Egyptian kings used to wear all kinds
of wonderful headdresses, to give themselves a majestic ap-
pearance and at the same time to bring others el^ xaxa-
7tX7)^iv— xcd SeiCTtSaCpiova SiocGectiv: a feeling of awe-struck
reverence Everyone will agree that we are very far away
from the ridicule and more or less good-natured contempt
with which SstCTiSaifxovta is treated by many writers. It is
true that even here, where the word is clearly meant as a
designation of \'religio\', if we may translate in that way,
there is always something a bit \'uncanny\' about it, but that
by no means need imply criticism.

Bocchoris, the mythical legislator, was said to have
made a decree about people who had borrowed money
without a bond. If they later on said they had n\'t received
anything and repeated this on their oaths they were be-
lieved. This Bocchoris had done, with a somewhat unfound-
ed optimism, one would think, Stcw? ev [xevaXwi Tiesfxevoi tou?
6pxou? SeictSatptovwcn: \'that they might keep their consciences
clear, aware of the power of the gods\', the meaning seems to bequot;).

With the words ^ izphi; xa K^ix Taura SeiCTiSaifAovJa he des-
cribes the religious feeling, the reverence with which the
Egyptians regard their holy animals 4). This was so great,
that once in Alexandria a Roman citizen, who had inad-
vertently killed a cat, was murdered by the mob, although

at the time the Egyptians did their utmost to maintain
friendly relations with Rome. It at least doubtful whether
t is permissible to translate \'superstition\' ; in my opinion
nothing shows that Diodorus was entirely out of sympathy
with the feelings of the lynchers.

It seems to me that the right translation of SsiCTiSatptovb
is harder to determine in the story of Medea, in the fourth
book. With the aid of her magic art she manages to kill
Pelias and put Jason in power in his kingdom. First she
started by filling a hollow statue of Artemis with myste-
rious herbs and changing herself into an old woman, and
then rushed into the town with the statue, which was done
up xaTaTrXyjxTixwt; eic; S^Xcov SeicnSattxovfav 2). In exaltation
(ev0£a^oiicr/]?) she tells the crowds which gather round her,
that they must receive this goddess piously (eucrepco?). The
whole population joining in this ecstasy, praying and offering
sacrifices, Medea hurries to the palace and strikes fear into
Pelias (etq SEiatSaifxova Sidamp;eatv e[jipaXstv) and his daughters
too she quite subdues to her will, with the well-known
result. That Pehas is afraid, that his \'attitude of mind is
anxiously reverent\' is only natural; this again is the dif-
ference with f. i. Theophrast\'s AsiatSalfxtov, who is \'over-
awed\', overcome by religious anxiety without any reason
whatever, because he regards ordinary happenings as por-
tents. Surely it is obvious that PeUas\' frame of mind is
quite different; in the circumstances anyone would probably
feel like he did and it is, therefore, erroneous to speak of
his \'superstitious disposition\' And it is perhaps not with-

out significance that Medea calls Pelias, when speaking to
him, the \'most pious\' (t6v suaepsoxatov) of all kings and
promises him everything that is necessary for a godly (62091X75)
life.

In the story of Eumenes it is very probable that Diodorus
follows the same source as Plutarch in his life of that gene-
ral 1). We find there, once more, SsiaiSaifjiovta used with the
meaning of \'firm conviction, based on a sign, of divine
help\'. Eumenes. to strengthen his position, tells the other
commanders, that Alexander had appeared to him and
promised to be present during their deliberations; a throne
is, therefore, always put ready for him and they all were
filled with good expectations, as if a god was guiding them,
xara tov PaatXea Setci,Sai[xovia(; evictxuouctgt;](; 2). The result
of this SeiCTiSainovCa is positive, it urges these men on. Plu-
tarch\'s choice of words, when telling this same story, shows
he does n\'t admire these feelings: Eumenes, he says: iTrijye
SeitJiSatfxoviav \').

Somewhat reminiscent of the \'stories with a moral\', which
have probably been drawn from Timaeus«), is that about
the sacrilegous plundering of a temple by Pyrrhus, the king
of Epirus. He had committed this crime in Locri, as he
was short of money with which to pay his soldiers, but
very soon punishment followed, as he was nearly ship-
wrecked while attempting to cross to Greece and Pyrrhus,
so the historian has it, SetatSat(zovy]aavTa T^v Oeov e^iXacacrGai.
and he dicUi\'t try to cross again, until he had restored
everything s). Appianus has the same story. He tells how

•) Exc. de virt. et v. 1 nr. 227; p. 267 ed. Boissevain- de Boor-BUtt-
ner-Wobst (the pages referred to of the Exc. hist, are those of that
edition); 27, 4.

the king did his deed I7ric7xamp;)(|^a(; r/jv (Xxatpov Osoospsiav
slvat SeiaiSai{xov[av, words which might almost serve as a
definition of SsiatSaifxovia used in an unfavourable sense
Through his misadventures on the way home however —
this historian adds a new pious trait viz. that the stolen
votive offerings are safely washed ashore, while many of
the ships sink — he became aware at last of his impiety and
dedicated everything to the outraged deity.

In the epitome from Diodorus, quoted above, SsiCTiSai-
fjLOV)QCTavTa is nearly sjoionymous with Appianus\': aae^eioLq
aJa06{jievov.

In the same epitome another case of sacrilege, this time
committed by a Roman general, is told. When the senate
heard of it, it was profoundly uncomfortable, aware of the
fact that the gods had been sinned against: ou (xsTpibx;
eSsiaiSaijjLovst; envoys are at once sent to investigate into
the matter. Another excerpt proves that the writer regards
these qualms of conscience as quite right and justified.
After the general, already mentioned above, has been
punished, other persons guilty of sacrilege become anxious:
ETcl SeiaiSaipiovtav evsTtiTrxov: they suffered from pangs of
conscience. And the writer, piously and a bit self-sufficiently
adds: in that manner a person who is aware he has committed
a sin is secretly punished, even if he happens to have escap-
ed the notice of others.

Elsewhere Diodorus tells how the senate, in alarm (Sekti-
SaifjLovouCTa) acting on the advice of the Sibylline books —
either because of some portent or on account of a sense of

») Exc. de virt. et v. 2, nr. 8, p. 221.
») Exc. de sent. nr. 299 (p. 356); 27. 4.

guilt we may safely suppose — sent deputies to Sicily, who
declared a certain spot sacred to Zeus^).

Much more interesting is a curious excerpt, that has come
down to us through Photius. which shows us something
about the way in which the Oriental religions spread in
Rome. Battaces, a priest of the Magna Mater, came from
Pessmus to Rome, beautifully attired with a gold wreath
on his head and brightly-coloured garments. He said the
temple of the goddess had been defiled and that therefore
rites of purification were imperative. Speaking on the rostra
and \'striking fear into the hearts of the common people\'
(to tcx^Ooq dq Sei(jiSai(xov[av epipaxwv) he was given accom-
modation and presents by the authorities, but was forbid-
den to wear his wreath by one of the tribunes of the people.
Questioned, in what way the temple could be purified, by
another tribune dTroxpbstc; sTCotstTo SetatSatfxoviav Tieptexoii-
aa?. Pompeius, the first-mentioned tribune, again takes
action against him and Battaces says that not only he him-
self, but the goddess as well has been impiously (cJaEpSc)
msulted. Pompeius fell ill and died within three days, which
the masses regarded as a divine punishment (Tcp6Spa yip
\'Pwixaioi SstCTiSainovouCTi: for the Romans are extremely
religious, are very much inclined to regard certain happen-
mgs as a direct intervention of the gods 2). The historian\'s
sympathy is evidently with the priest of the Great Mother

\') Exc. de V. et v. nr. 336 (p. 306); 34/5. 10
Exc. Photii p. 537/8; 36. 13
Cf. Sail. Cat. 12. 3.

known has made an extensive use of Posidonius, but
we have n\'t, in most cases, sufficient evidence to show
whether certain passages are literal quotations. That is how-
ever very probably the case in a description in one of the
earlier books, where we know Posidonius to have been
Diodorus\' source. Speaking about the gold which abounds
in Gaul, he says a wonderful thing is to be seen in that coun-
try. In the temples of the gods and on the sacred demesnes
there is an abundance of gold, which has been dedicated
to the gods. And, although the Celts are exceedingly cove-
tous, nobody touches that gold 8id ttjv ssictisaifxoviav .
The same story is told in a shorter form by Strabo, who,
quoting Posidonius, says the country was rich in treasure
as the country was t:oXuxpu(to(;. ... xal SsiatSaijjiovwv av-
6pa)7Tlt;ov®). Although Strabo may have said this sneeringly ¹),
it is certain that Diodorus admired this Ssilt;Ti8a!.{jLovta. An
exact translation is difficult, as it can mean here as well
\'the religious reverence or fear\' of the Gauls as \'the religious
holiness\' inherent in what is sacred to the gods.

This uncertainty as to the exact meaning also exists in
another passage where a temple near Castabus, opposite
Rhodus is described. Since times immemorial it had been
surrounded by numerous votive offerings, which had been
dedicated to the goddess, Hemithea, out of gratitude for the
benefactions she had bestowed, especially on ill people.
The Persians had n\'t touched the temple and even robbers
respected it, although it and its offerings were not surrounded

by a wall or guarded by watchmen, but only defended utto
rfiq auvTQ6oult;; SetoriSaifAovlac;. Except in these last two instances
we have always found SsiatSai(xov(a to be a quality of human
beings, but, as will be presently shown i), it can also denote
the hoUness of a certain spot, in the same way as the Latin
\'religio\'. In these two instances we have, as it were, a tran-
sition form, although in the last case the change of mean-
ing has practically taken place.

The same can be said of another passage, where Timaeus
is, once again, Diodorus\' authority 2). The PaHci had a
temple near Palice, in Sicily, with a very mysterious source,
which is so impressive, it seems the water bubbles up through
a divine necessity»). The most solemn oaths are sworn
there, xotarSxT)? — eeotcpetreia^ oucttj? trepi to tsfjisvoi;; per-
jurors are at once punished and some of them have been
struck with blindness on the spot«). People, who have
controversies, come there to take their oaths: (ieydcXT)?....
ouong? SsKTiSatixovCa? ^hi^h here is clearly altogether synon-
ymous with GsoTrpeTCia: awe-inspiring holiness. This same
temple was a refuge for runaway slaves, who are entirely
safe there. The masters come to the temple too and try to
persuade them to return, by promising them different
things, on their oaths. No one has ever been known to break
his oath: outw.... twv Oeoiv SeiatSaiptovia tou? 6(x6(javtalt;;
•••• Tcic7Toegt;? TToiet«). The \'awe of the gods\' prevents them
from breaking their promises, awe which is probably made
up of real reverence, piety and fear of punishment, but it
IS clear, at a glance, that Diodorus. or Timaeus, regarded
this awe as a very real virtue \').

\') Cf e. g. p. 20. «) Guffcken, Tim. Cieogr. d. VVestens p. 175.
) w6 Osla? tiv6lt;; Avccyxy)?. ♦) D. S. 11. 89. 6. •) 1. c. •) 11 89 8
•) Other passages from Diodorus, where the meaning is unfavou-
rable have been discussed on p. 60 sqq.

In an inscription, which is contemporary with Diodorus,
we find 8silt;7tSai,(xovta undoubtedly used to designate the holi-
ness of a certain temple. It is a decree of the senate, in
which certain privileges, that have formerly been accorded
to Aphrodisias, in Caria, are confirmed. With reference to
the temple of Aphrodite it is stated: [aouXov sjciTto rauTtoi
lt;to)igt; Sixaiwi xauttji ts SetaiSaifxoviat amp;i Sixaiwi xal
8st(T[iSai{xoviai] that of Artemis in Ephesus SsicrtSaifjiovia
is, in this case, used exactly as \'religio\' can be in Latin

We must now turn our attention to a writer, who in chro-
nological order probably precedes Diodorus, viz. the author
of the so-called letter of Aristeas®). The Jewish apologist
lets Aristeas mention certain usages of the Jews with regard
to pure and impure food, about which he questioned the
high-priest, who managed to defend them, very convincingly.
As an explanation ps. Aristeas adds: SetoiSat[ji6vo)(; yap -ra
•nrXeicrxa rJjv vopioGeaiav e^etv, ev Bk toiStoii; TtavTsXwf; SeicjiSat-
(iovwt;. It is, of course, quite obvious that to the writer
SeKJi8ai[i.6va)(; means \'religiose\', with the greatest conscien-
tiousness and implies no criticism whatever. The etymo-
logical sense has entirely vanished, but the new meaning
can psychologically be explained by the fact that behind
this scrupulousness there is the reverence, or perhaps, the
fear of God«).

It seems probable, that the fact that the Jewish religion to a
large extent consisted of the scrupulous following of the Law, has
something to do with the use of this word in this connection. The pagan
8eiCTtSa((Jiwv, too, is very strict in his observing of all the cult precepts.

Later on we shall see that pagan writers, even while ad-
miring Jewish monotheism, looked down upon their ritual
ceremonies as mere ridiculous exaggeration: SsiaiSaiiJiovSa i). It
is a very good example to show how the same word is used,
both by admirers and critics, to designate a certain religious
usage, in the first case without, in the latter with an unfa-
vourable secondary meaning; it shows how the use of the
word is determined by the attitude of mind of the writer.

Another Jewish author, Josephus, nearly always uses the
word in the same sense as ps. Aristeas. Telling the story of
king Manasse\'s conversion, he says that the king, when
back in Jerusalem did all he could to banish even the mem-
oiy of his former sins against God and iano68x^ev ....
7ra(T7)tnbsp;Tiepl auxov SswiSaipiovlai which he shows

by purifying the temple and the town. If any doubt as to
the exact meaning of S£taiSai[xov[a still existed it would
be dispelled by what Josephus adds, a bit further on viz.
that, since his conversion, Manasse started to piously serve
(euaepsLv) God.

\'Religious zeal\' is the meaning in another passage, which
describes the indignation of the Jews, when a Roman soldier
had torn up and burnt a law-scroll which he had found.
The whole country instantly was in a state of commotion
and the Jews all flocked to Caesarea. to demand the punish-
ment of the miscreant xcddmp Spyavwi rivl ryji Seic7iSai[xov[ai
cruveXx6(i.evot

With the aid of these two passages, where the meaning
IS beyond doubt we can now also interpret those passages.

where there is room for more than one opinion. Alexandra had
managed, though a woman, to acquire royal power, through
her reputation of piety (Sid So^av sucrspeia?), as she was very
strict in her observance of the Law. During her reign the
Pliarisees, a sect which had the name of being more pious
(suaspeaTEpov) and more strict in its observation of the
Law than the other Jews gained greatly in influence. They
even managed to persuade the queen to kill their enemies,
and as she allowed them free play through her intense reli-
giousness (UTUO SsiaiSaifxovia«;), they made away with whom
they wanted^).

Herod once outraged the feelings of the Jews by erecting
trophies in the amphitheatre he had built in Jerusalem,
because the populace thought they were images and became
perturbed at this supposed transgression of the Law. Herod,
not wishing to use force to put down this unrest, went and
talked with some of them ty)(; SEiaiSatpiovia? d9aipoiI)(iEVO(;:
wishing to remove their scruples, not: \'to draw them away
from their superstition\' \').

In about the same way Pilate fell foul of the Jews, when
he wanted to force them to admit statues of the emperor
in Jerusalem. On their refusing he has them surrounded
by his soldiers and threatens to kill them. As they still
refuse, he himself gives in and has the statues removed to

(ScxpaTov, wondering greatly at and admiring the power of
their religious zeal In this passage too, so at least it seems
to me, Josephus, whose sympathy in this confUct is cer-
tainly with his countrymen, means us to admire this \'zeal\',
not to marvel at this \'superstition.\'

It is interesting to note that where Josephus does use
SeiaiSaifiovta in an unfavourable sense, we have probably
to deal with quotations. For instance, he tells how the
Samaritans, wishing to make themselves agreeable to An-
tioch, wrote him a letter to say they had nothing in common
with the Jews. Our ancestors, so they say, because of some
calamity that had befallen them, TrapaxoXouO^aavTe? apxatai
Tivi SetaiSai[ioviai e8olt;; sTroivjaav lt;7e|3eiv the day, which the
Jews called the Sabbath i). It is clear that Josephus here
uses SeiatSaifxovia with the meaning: religious rite, or more
probably even: superstitious practice, but .that the unfa-
vourable sense, if it is there, is due to the Samaritans, not
to the historian. Elsewhere he mentions his source, so that
there we can undoubtedly regard the unfavourable meaning
as coming from the writer Josephus quotes 2).

Besides quotations from writers, however, Josephus has
preserved for us several official documents, which are in-
teresting and important, because they show that the word
8eiaiSai[iov{a was one of the terms, used by the Roman
authorities to designate the Jewish religion 3). Lentulus
Crus, consul in the year 49 B. C. had been charged by the
senate to raise two legions in the province of Asia, and
he exempted Jews, who possessed Roman citizenship, from
military service SetcriSatfzovia? evexa, religionis causa: be-
cause of their religion. This decree is quoted several times¹),
together with communications of Roman officials or reso-
lutions of towns, made in connection with the decree of
Lentulus s). Although the wording slightly varies from case

\') Juster, Les Juifs I p. 252. See I- p. 142 sqq. for a discussion of
the edict of Lentulus Crus.

to case, the expression Ssilt;TiSai(j,ov[alt;; svsxa is found every-
where, which proves it was already to be found in the origin-
al document.

In an edict of the emperor Claudius^), in which he con-
firms the ancient privileges of the Jews, he declares the
Jews are free, in the whole empire, to observe their customs,
but he appeals to them (xt) xxq tcov aXXcov eOvcov SsiatSaifxoviai;
e^ouSevtS^siv We may safely conclude from these examples
that in Roman law-style Sei(iiSat[xovia was used as one of
the possible translations of \'religio\' and that it was not
confined to the Jewish religion alone we have already»)
learnt from the inscription from Aphrodisias. One of the
reasons why it was used may have been that it had a wider
meaning than eudepeta, which generally designated a cer-
tain attitude of mind, while SeiaiSatfjiovia covered the obser-
ving of all kinds of ritual ceremonies as well. However,
this point is not to be stretched and the contrast is by no
means absolute.

We are now able to judge better about the two passages
in the Acts of the Apostles, where the words SeiaiSaifxovta,
SeidtSaifAtov occur, the meaning of which has been a matter
of controversy.

Festus, speaking to Agrippa about the disputings between
St. Paul and the Jews says: ^7)T!r)(xaTa Se Ttva Trspl t^j; lSia(;

5eilt;nSainov(«lt;; elxov nphq xMv^). The commentators are
divided as to the meaning of SeiaiSaiptovJ« here. Zahn «)
thmks Festus regarded the Jewish rehgion as superstition
and Hatch translates in that way but the general opinion
IS. that he used a more or less neutral word, so as not to
msult the king while reserving his own opinion^). The
psychological argument, which this last group advance,
that Festus, a man of the world surely wouldn\'t have
chosen a word which he thought was bound to effend the
king, m itself seems to me quite sound. In the light of the
usage we met, in ps. Aristeas and Josephus and on the other
hand m Roman official documents, I think, however, we
can undoubtedly accept as a fact that neither to the Jewish
king nor to the Roman governor, the word SetalS«l[xov^a
meant anything else than \'religion\'.

This makes it the more probable that in the passage
where St. Paul says to the Athenians: xaxA Trdcvr« cb, Setat-
5at(.oveaT£poo^ ifxa? Gecopoi»). the translation \'extremely reli-
gious\', which also has been defended on psychological grounds
is to be preferred to \'very superstitious\' e).

Not only writers who belong to the Jewish-Christian
world use SeicrtSaifxovJa in a favourable sense, but we find
traces of this usage in the \'pagan\' authors as well, even
a long time after Diodorus.

To the first century A. D. probably^), belongs Heraclitus,
whose little book on the allegorical explanation of Homer
has come down to us. If Homer did n\'t speak figuratively,
he says, then he has committed all manner of impiety.
Often, the writer adds, he has been astonished how pious
people could recite those ungodly tales, how 6 SeiaiSaifxtov
ptolt;;, 6 vaoLc; xal TSfJiEveoi xal -zcdc, St\' fe\'Tou? Tcepl 6ecov Tupoxps-
Tcofxevo? eopxai«; 2) has so passionately embraced the impiety
of Homer. Surely the life which devotes itself to the temples
and holy grounds, to the feasts of the gods, is that of the
pious, not of the superstitious. There is no trace of adverse
criticism.

It is generally thought that the author of a treatise \'on
incredible things\', also called Heraclitus, is a different per-
son He has collected, or written himself, as the case
may be, a number of m5d;hs, which he interprets rationalis-
tically and in a somewhat insipid way. For instance, the
tradition about Orpheus, that he influenced animals and
even inanimate objects by his music, he manages to explain
in the following way. The bard, he thinks, fascinated his
human contemporaries, while they were still little better
than brutes, rock-like and tree-like (TcexpwSsti;.... xal Sev-
SpcoSsif;); at the time they had neither customs nor laws
and Orpheus gained the reputation he later had by enchant-
ing them, zlc, SsictSaifJiovlav dyaycov, xal ztX to suciePelv Trapa-
xaXiatxt;^). These last words sufficiently show what is meant
by the former.

Aelianus, the second-century sophist, is a man of a nar-
row-minded. often repellent!) piety and when we find
him using SeiaiSai[xovia in the meaning of \'religion, piety\',
it is exactly what we expect. It would be hard, indeed, to
thmk of anything which this man, who calls the barbarians
happy, because they have never known any doubts about
the existence and providence of the gods, but firmly believed
in the signs of the stars, the flight of birds etc. 2), could
have regarded as condemnable superstition. After telling,
with pious relish, the story of a Httle child, that had been
put to death because of its inadvertent sacrilege, he heads
his next chapter: Tztpi \'AGv^vatcov SeiaiSaipiov{alt;;: on the piety
of the Athenians 3), which is introduced with the words:
quot;Oti ToaouTov ^v \'Aev)va[oi(; SelctSaipiovfa«;. which piety is
demonstrated by the fact that they executed anyone who
cut down a tree in a heroon and put to death a certain Atar-
bes. who had accidentally killed a holy bird of Asclepius.

In Athenaeus we are once more up against the difficulty,
that we cannot tell exactly how far he was dependent on
his sources i. e. whether a quotation is hteral or not. He
mentions Antipater of Tarsus\' book ntpi SstatSaifxovfaq«)
and himself uses these words twice, in a favourable or, at
least, a neutral sense. When telling the famous story of
Hypendes, who suddenly uncovered Phryne\'s beauty to
enforce his plea, he describes the result in the words: Seicic-
Sattzov^aa. .... ^^o^vjasnbsp;t^v 67ro9^Tiv xal ^dcxopov

are \'overawed\' by this beauty, and remember the defendant
is a priestess and servant of the goddess of love, but they
are not \'ridiculously afraid\'. And in the long story, which
explains why the Carians use the willow to wreath them-
selves, Budaeus rightly translates \'religione\': the Carians
sent people to question Apollo, seized SeicrtSai[i.ov[ai, by
religious feeling, not by superstition i).

According to Rohde Heliodorus, the author of the
Aethiopica, was not, as is often supposed, a Christian, but
a pagan and even a very convinced one. As a very small
indication in the same direction may perhaps be regarded
the fact that he uses the word SeidtSaifzovstv in a favourable
sense, at any rate certainly not with the meaning \'to fear
the pagan gods, demons\', as the Christian writers do
Chariclea, the heroïne of the love-story is about to be sacri-
ficed to the Sun and the Moon. All the spectators were struck
by her beauty and chastity and would quite willingly have
seen her saved by some agency or other xai SeiCTiSaifxovoijv-
xzq: although full of religious zeal¹).

Cassius Dio uses this verb in a different sense, which we
have already noticed before, viz. to be \'awe-struck\', when
he relates how the Roman soldiers did not, when they were
able to do so at once rush into the temple at Jerusalem
Sia TO SsiaiSai[jiov^c7at ®); they are half shy, half afraid.

In an author who is no friend of excessive rehgious zeal
and superstition, Lucian, who generally uses SaaiSatfxovîa
as a designation of these forms of piety which he despises
we have a rather interesting, indirect example of a favour-
able usage. In his essay \'Pro imaginibus\' he defends his
praises of Panthea, the wife of the emperor, Verus, against
her own criticism that they were exaggerated. She did n\'t
wish to be compared to goddesses or heroines, for, she said,
as regards the gods Tcàvu .... SsiaiS«tpi6v(oç xai t^ocpoSeôiç
exco 2). Lucian, who as we know, was anything but a pious
worshipper himself, has more than once ridiculed the adepts
of SeiaiSaijxovt«. It is, therefore, especially worthy of men-
tion, that, while praising this great lady, he lets her des-
cribe her attitude towards the gods, in the words already
quoted. In this same essay 3) he argues that the gods do
not mind at all, if human beings use divine names, as he
shows in the case of a certain Leto, the wife of a king of
Cyprus. And the Egyptians, oÏTrep xai SetatSaifxovéaTaxot
eîai TràvToiv have derived nearly all their names \'from
heaven\'.

If in the second century the highest lady in the empire
could be thought of as speaking of her \'anxious scrupu-
lousness\' as regards the divine beings, we need not be sur-
prised to find a man of the people described in his epitaph
as ôecacSaî^cov\'. very pious. As it is, with the exception of
Official documents, the only example known to us of this
word used m an inscription, the rather lame verses may
be_ve^tly quoted here in full«).

AaifxoCTtv suospsartv Falou \'louXlou KapaxouTrlou
TTOtyjaev Kaorta twl xsifxitot xai d^lcoi dvSpt.
Traai cpiXo;; 6vy]Tot(; etq t dOavaxoui; SetaiSatuwv
xoipLaxai Kapaxouxxi«;, iyoiv [xv7)fi.7)v Sid Tiavxoi;,
xsp^/at; cruvxXrjxov, [xaxpcovai; xal j3acTiX^ai;,
su9pav9£l!; ecp\' 6crov Moipai y^poMov coptcrav auxwi,
euctePit)? evexsv So^aaSElc; xal [xexd X^Oyjv.

Caracuttis, probably an actor 2), has left behind him a
reputation for piety and the real meaning of SsiaiSaiixoiv
is here clearly shown by the last verse.

As it is by no means certain when Zaleucus, the celebrated
law-giver lived, the part of the proemium of his laws, in
which the verb SEiCTiSaifxovetv is used, and which Stobaeus
has handed down to us, is quoted here.

If, so Zaleucus says, someone is tempted by an evil demon
who urges him to do wrong, he should always remain near
the temples and altars, praying the gods to help and seeking
the counsel of wise men, that he may be deterred from
doing evil 8etlt;TtSai(xovwv SaCfAovat; dXaaxopa?.

Suidas, besides giving his own definition of SsiaiSaiixovia,
has several quotations from different writers in which the
word is used. Crito, probably Trajanus\' surgeon¹), tells
how the kings of the Getes strove after great things aTtdxiji
xal for^iEioi.1. SEiatSaifAoviav xal 6(x6voiav svEpYacidfisvot auxoti;;
although they are not very particular as to their methods,

the results are satisfying: \'awe and harmony\' are implanted
m the minds of their followers. Of Asclepiodotus, a dis-
ciple of Proclus, he says, probably deriving his information
from Damascius^): ôacoç ^v xai eiae^^ç- gt;c«l xà fxèv TcpÛTa
SeiatSaCfxtov èYeyévs: xal eôXa^^ç to such an extent that he

never stopped offering sacrifice, fx^ré tivoç dcTiopp^xou fxrjSevôç
axoiieiv.

On the strength of the material which has been collected
m this chapter we can confidently state that examples of
«Eilt;TiSat(xov[a SeiaiSaifxovetv, etc. used in a favourable sense,
are to be found in Greek literature from the fourth century
B. C. to at least the third century A. I). 2) Besides wehave
seen it used in official documents as a designation for the
Jewish religion and practically synonymous with the Latin
•religio\', while as late as the third century in an epitaph
outside Hterature proper, SeiaiSaJpiwv is used with the sensé
^god-fearing\' and so links up with the oldest known usage,
in Xenophon.

As has been shown in the previous chapter the word
SeiCTiSatfiovia was used by many people in its original mean-
ing, that is synonymous, or very nearly so, with 6soae-
peia, for centuries after it had first been used, with criticism
and condemnation implied, to denote \'excessive piety\',
\'superstition\' etc. This change of meaning to the worse
may be historically explained by the ever widening chasm
that separated the educated \'elite\' from the masses.

While the former drifted away from the traditional forms
of piety and on the whole expected more from philosophy
than from religion, the mass of the people sought for com-
fort in all kinds of new religions. It is well-known how.
round about the end of the fifth century. Oriental religions
began to gain a foothold in Greece and how especially those
movements, that may comprehensively be described as
Orphic, asserted or reasserted their influence, which probably
even in the heyday of fifth century rationalism had not been
negligible.

In its psychological aspects this change of meaning is also
readily understood. Nothing is so contagious as fear, and
the man who \'fears\' God, who sees the hand of God in every
little happening, especially if he regards it as a proof of
impending disaster can easily pass the boundary that sepa-
rates \'awe\' from \'pure funk\'. In this latter case it is only
natural that he becomes an object of ridicule or contempt

to those who are more rational-minded, while rehgious
men may try to clear his ideas and free his piety from what
they too regard as undesirable elements. In this they are
sometimes led by a kind of pity for their deluded fellowman

We fmd, therefore, in the fourth century how many edu-
cated men begin to regard \'SsiatSatf^ovla\' as a term of reproach
which they use to designate those forms of popular religion
with which they are out of sympathy.

At the same time, however, we must bear in mind that
all criticism of \'SeiatSai^LovJa\' can\'t be treated ahke. as in-
cidentally has already been remarked above. A rationalist
like Polybius. in whose eyes practically all religion, as op-
posed to philosophy, is SeioiSai(xov(«. which he only - and
that warmly - defends as an instrument to curb the unruly
mstincts of less-enlightened men must not be lumped to-
gether with a deeply religious man like Plutarch, who from
religious motives tries to educate men away from this

The mentality of that rather superficial scoffer Lucian is dia-
metrically opposed to that of the mystic emperor Julian
Up till the present however, it seems to me. those writers
who have given attention to the development of this word
m its different usages, have been content with stating that
since the days of Theophrast and Menander SsiaiSaitxovia
IS used m an unfavourable sense. They have not sufficiently
pomted out that the aeiaiSaiptovJa of one adverse critic may
be something entirely different from that of another, while
the motives which cause the attacking of what each regards
as SeiaLSaifiovla often also differ very widely. In this chapter
an attempt has been made to differentiate these critics.

Of course this division only partially meets our needs,
for it is obvious that the partition between ridicule and
criticism often is largely imaginary, while f. i. the lumping
together of all historians is a rather arbitrary divison. Broadly
speaking, however, I think these divisions will be found
to correspond with different kinds of criticism, that arise
from different sides. That Plutarch has been treated by
himself is largely due to practical considerations. He is so
rich in material that is of importance for our investigation
that, treated in one of the other paragraphs, he would swell
it beyond measure. At the same time he may be regarded
as, to a certain extent, uniting all kinds of criticism, although
it is true that that of the philosophical-religious type pre-
dominates.

To the writers of comedy, who exercised their wit on
everything and everybody, the exaggerated forms of piety
and the new-fangled cults were a welcome object of ridicule.
A rapid survey of titles and fragments will show how many
of them treat of religious subjects. Babick has devoted the
entire second part of his thesis to this subject: \'quomodo
deisidaemones in comoediis veterum illusi sint\'

Theophrast was not, therefore, the inventor of the Aetat-
S«£^cov as a type, but his sketch certainly is the most amus-
ing that has come down to us and anyhow it is one of our
chief sources His sixteenth \'Type\' - perhaps a better trans-
lation than Character\' - is largely responsible for our
Idea of a typical SacrtSaCptcov. It will at once become clear
even^to a casual reader, that this man is hardly \'supersti-
tious m our sense of the word or that he is, at least, a good
deal more than that: he is very strict in his religiousness,
a bigot with a streak of the cad.

Everywhere he sees \'signs\', that point to imminent disaster,
f a weasel 2) crosses his way he dare n\'t go on without
taking counter-measures; when he hears an owl hoot he
calls m Athena\'s aid 3) and in the case of his having a dream
he runs about consulting every possible kind of oneirologist

practical advice to take it to a cobbler and have it mended,
he does n\'t do so, but tries to ward off the evil sign with
the aid of magic. The commentators have shown, with a
wealth of detail, that this belief in signs was very general;
it is the overdoing it, the seeing of a portent in every ordin-
ary thing that makes a man a 8si(nSaC[ic.gt;v. We know from
inscriptions that the fear of practically all these defilements
against which this SetaiSatpicov so eagerly guards himself
was rooted in popular conceptions, which were shared by
all, but the most highly educated. It is his exaggeration
again which makes this man ridiculous or contemptible.
On certain occasions he sprinkles himself with holy water
and walks about the whole day with a laurel leaf in his
mouth. He thinks it better to be on the safe side and entirely
avoid contamination, which might result from coming into
contact with a corpse or with a woman that has just given
birth to a child: one of his most unsympathetic traits, as it
would mean his not being able to fulfil his duties as a neigh-
bour, friend or relative. He would n\'t think of passing a
holy stone without kneeling down, pouring out oil and
praying; if he meets a lunatic or a person in an epileptic
fit he spits to avoid becoming unclean himself. All these
things may be regarded as common practices among a great
part of the population, in fourth-century Athens as well
as later, but the SeiffiSai|jiwv combines and exaggerates
them all to a fantastic degree. He sees a sign where no other
person would think of it and he never tones down the strict
demands of ritual purity to fit them to practical purposes.
His whole life is under the cloud of \'this cowardice towards
the unseen world\', which checks him at every other step.

the remark its point, but a private l^yjyiQTiQ? surely would n\'t have
made fun of anyone who came to consult him. A quack always treats
his patients seriously.

About this time too it was. that Menander wrote his
comedy entitled AeiaiSaCticov, a few fragments of which are
still extant; from them we can gather that the picture he
drew of this ridiculous bigot had much in common with
that of Theophrast\'s \'Type\'. The mouse, which struck terror
mto his heart, again pops up in the play and indeed it seems
to have become a kind of recognized figure with the oppo-
nents of SeiaiSatfxov{a. At least we have a story about Bion
of Borysthenes i) who ironically consoled someone, to whom
the same terrible mishap had occurred as we met above in
this connection, by remarking that it would have been a
real portent^ if the sack had devoured the mouse. Menan-
der\'s SsiCTiSaifxfov sees signs everywhere even
av (xu(; Siopu^ei pwfxov ovra K^Xtvov
xamp;v [XTjS^v aX\' ixo^v SiaTpotyvji ^gt;6Xaxov 2).

In an other fragment someone tells a certain Phidias that
If really something terrible had occurred he would indeed
have been right in looking round for a real \'medicine\' (cpdp-
txaxov). while now the speaker says, you have found xev6v
.... t6 9(£p(xaxov | 7ip6? t6 x£v6v. If. he proceeds, you think
that will help you, let women, standing round you in a
circle cleanse you by rubbing you down and by using sul-
ph^ur; spnnkle yourself with water from three sources
while you throw in salt and lentils.

In an amusing bit of dialogue we find the SetaiSaifxcv
praymg to the gods for help; an awful thing has happened:
on his shoes the strap of the right one has

snapped. His sceptic friend, however, is not in the least
impressed and answers him: and \'quite natural too, you
twaddler, as it was entirely rotten, and you so stingy, not
wanting to buy new ones\' Perhaps it is n\'t superfluous
to reiterate once again that the belief in portents was prob-
ably shared by many of these critics of SetaLSaijxovta. Many
of them, too were of the opinion: st (xev xt xaxov dXYjO^i;
sl^s?____^Tjxstv dXY)Ge? ^dpfxaxov xoiixou cr\'eSsi^).

This is, however, less likely to have been the case with
another group of critics: the philosophers of the Cynic
school. We know that they ridiculed and criticized the popu-
lar religious conceptions of their day vehemently and wit-
tily Diogenes Laertius has preserved for us several anec-
dotes of his namesake\'s, the famous philosopher of the tub.
Of course there is only the very slightest chance that we
have a direct quotation of Diogenes\' words, but perhaps
the evidence may be regarded as convincing enough to esta-
blish the fact that in the Cynic school SetaiSatfjiovia pretty
soon came to be used as a term of opprobrium, especially
as we have direct evidence in Plutarch that points in the
same direction

Once, so Diogenes Laertius, who quotes Zoilus of Pergae
as his source, relates the philosopher saw a woman, who
was kneeling down to the gods in a rather undecorous posi-
tion. Wanting to cure her x% SsicnSatf^ovia? he went up to

«) Alciphro (Epist. 2. 4. 50; 4. 19. 6 Sch.) in Glycera\'s letter to Me-
nander mentions how everyone wants to see Menander and hear
«ptXapyiipwv xal epcovxtov xal SstatSatfidvcov etc.

her and asked: are n\'t you afraid (eôXapÇji), my good woman,
to make a very unseemly impression, if a god should hap-
pen to be standing behind you, as is quite possible, every-
thmg being full of him? Two things are worthy of note:
that here again we have a woman who is overdoing her
expression of piety and that Diogenes, whoever it is. is
probably using the word eôXocp^i with a certain irony, eôXa-
PeiaOai being nearly synonymous, in many ways, with Sei-
(iiSaifxovsïv. Another time a person who very firmly beheved
m miraculous signs (bxopôç SsiaiSatpLcov) threatening to
punch Diogenes\' head the philosopher answered: I\'ll just
sneeze to the left and make you tremble i).

To Lucian, as might be expected beforehand, SstaiSai-
{xovca as one of the many human frailties, is merely a source
of amusement and an object of mockery.

Alexander, the false prophet of dubious fame, strongly
urges upon his comrades the necessity of choosing favour-
able huntmg-ground for their intended religious swindle.
He recommends very strongly to try the town of Abonu-
tiches and the country round about, from where he hailed
nimself. For their aims, he added, they needed dull and
stupid people, like his compatriots the Paphlagonians
^^SoH^xoi^ TcoXXoùç xal TrXouaCouç One need only ap-

pear there, Alexander continues, predicting the future,
accompanied by someone playing a flute or clashing cym-
bals and the whole populace stand about, gaping open-
mouthed as if they saw a divine being, descended from
heaven.

In another of his essays one of the men who are talking
together asks the other to stop telling all kinds of wonder-
ful tales (TspaToXoyetv), because of the young people present:
lest they, he says, without our noticing it be filled with
terrors and wonderful stories (dXXoxoTcov [xuaoXoyTQjxaTtov).
If young people become accustomed to hear such gruesome
and creepy stories they will never forget them and that
will torment them all their lives. It will make them jumpy
at the slightest sound (t{;o9oSe£i!;) and make them full ttoi-
xiXy)«; -nji; Seiai8ai[xov[alt;;. A good thing you reminded me,
the other man answers, eitcwv ty]v SeiCTiSaifxoviav. And turning
again to his original partner he asks: what do you think
of those things, I mean oracles and heaven-sent messages
and the words men utter when carried away by divine
inspiration (eeo9opogt;i(Asvoi) From all this it is already
sufficiently clear what Lucian regarded as SeicjiSai[xovia.
We need n\'t entertain the idea that this light-hearted scoffer
wished to reform those who suffered from that \'disease\',
although we can readily imagine so of men like Theophrast
and Diogenes. This, however, would be entering into the
regions of the merely hypothetical and we shall now turn
from this group, who with all their enormous differences
have in common that \'their foe was SsidtSaifjiovla and their
weapon wit\' to the philosophers who in criticizing Seiai-

Quite early in the history of Greek civilisation we find
philosophers criticizing the religious bdiefs of their coun-
trymen. Xenophanes\' poetry f. i. is full of this criticism
and since then, though at times it may be less virulent it
never vanishes.

It is only in the third century that we have an example
of the word SstatSacfzovJ« being used to denote the trak
tional rehgion as opposed to that of the philosopher. How-
ever It IS not entirely impossible that this meaning came
mto use a bit earlier. There is some evidence which makes
It more or ess plausible that is was first used in this sense
by some of the Socratic schools viz. the Cynics and the

Diogenes Laertius has a notice about Aristippus that in
his opmion the wise man will neither teel the longing of

ir; ^ »quot;«»«•vov^aav can be translated Shortly
mLacCrquot;.\'\'quot;quot;\'quot; philosophers, Meleager ■ and

them as useless: a man who has a philosophic knowledge
of good and evil will be able to speak well — and so, evidently
the Cyrenaics thought, won\'t need any dialectics — and
at the same time \'can benbsp;extocj and escape

the fear of death\' i) — manifestly the two results that were
expected from a study of \'physics\'. Although SeiotSattzovia
is n\'t further described in this passage either, it is signi-
ficant that \'fear of death\' is mentioned in the same breath.

Menedemus of Eretria, a man xd S\' dXXa (xsyaXotl/uxot; ....
xal eXeu6epio^, is described by Diogenes as having been
SsiCTiSaifxovsCTTspot;: something of a SsiaiSaijicov. To illustrate
this, he tells how Menedemus once in an inn had, without
knowing it, partaken of \'meat that is thrown away\' (ptTrxou-
pievwv). After he had found this out he turned pale and felt
sick, but was rebuked for this by his friend Asclepiades,
who pointed out that the meat by itself had n\'t in the least
inconvenienced him, but only his own ideas about it

Although the meaning is n\'t quite clear, as we do not
know for certain what is meant by \'meat, that is thrown
away\', it is obvious that SstcjiSatfjiojv here is used in an un-
favourable sense.

As had already been remarked in a former paragraph
Diogenes\' use of the word in this way is not to be regarded
as a convincing proof that the philosophers quoted used it
in the same way, but the possibility is there¹). That Xeno-
phon used it in an entirely different sense would afford
only another proof for the spiritual abyss that separated
him, the old-fashioned, pious country-gentleman, from
most other followers of Socrates.

1nbsp; Cf. Diels, Elementum p. XI on the different yhf] and their usages
of words.

Teles, halfway the third century, certainly uses the word
8£iatSai[xwv in a derogatory way i). To a person, who is suf-
fering from dropsy one must n\'t give water, because he
would drink himself to death sooner than quench his thirst.
It is quite the same with a spendthrift: a man like that will
never be satisfied, exav cJ7tX7]aTolt;; xocl So^oxStvoi; xai Seiai-
Saifxwv2) and again, partly in the same words: you will
achieve nothing if you give someone much money having
first made him cxXa^6va ttoXuteX^ 8aaiSa(|xova So^ox6kov
acTTXyjarov 3). Evidently the SswiSaJfxcov is here regarded as
someone who has never enough money and at the same
time is something of a braggart and a notoriety-seeker

Aristotle, in his extant writings, has only once used the
word SstffiSattxcov. Later on, in Philo and Plutarch e. g., we
repeatedly find \'real piety\' regarded as a virtue, the golden
mean between a too much: bigotry (S£iatSat(zov[a) and a
too little: godlessness. This, of course, is entirely in accor-
dance with the Peripatetic method and Stobaeus, under
the heading \'Aristotle and the other Peripatetics on ques-
tions of ethics\' remarks: euaepeiav jxb o5v elvat dsav
y.cci Sat[x6vwv OspaTceuTixV, fAETa^i!) oSaav dJGsdxvjTOi; xal Ssi-
«TiSai[xov[a?5). Suidas, without attributing it to the Peri-
patetics, has a notice to the same effect 6). It is, clearly,

yet another case where \'die Stoisch-peripatetische Schul-
sprache\' has come into general usage

Epicure, an enemy of traditional religion, is, as might
be expected, no friend of SeiatSaifzovta either. He reproached
the Stoics that they too suffered from it, in their belief in
Providence and an omnipotent deity 2). Plutarch also
tells us that the Epicureans attacked this Stoic doctrine:
stapaxxovtei; ttjv Tipovoiav coatcep tcaialv quot;efxtiouctav tj Jloivvjv
aXiTTjpiwSiQ xal TpayiXYjv e7Tixpe[jia(xevir)v 3). We notice once
again how pretty nearly every critic of SsKjiSaifxovJa has
his own conception of what is to be regarded as such: Plu-
tarch, a violent assailant of what he himself calls SsioiSai-
Hov(a, would certainly have been regarded as a SeicnSaifxojv
by Epicure, to whom even a belief in Providence was \'child-
ish superstition\'.

In an, unfortunately, very badly mutilated fragment of
Philodemus, the tone is much more moderate. The master
seems to urge his disciples not to abandon their \'purity of
conduct\' (baioTfiq) along with the traditional religion: (!)[(;]
S\'o\'t Xey6fX£[vot SeitrJiSaCpiove^ ¹) the bigots, the so-called \'dei-
sidaimones\' who are prone to throw from them all religious
feeling, if once they can free themselves of their SstaiSai-
[jiovia: they rush into another, undesirable extreme.

1nbsp;\') Cf. Diels, Elementura p. 41. «) Epicurea nr. 369.
») Plut. contra Epic. beat. 21 p. IIOIC. «) Epicurea nr. 38

which has only come down to us in a very fragmentary
condition we can see he attacks those people who are very
courageous when it only comes to words, but in reality are
very much afraid and nervous: people who talk like that,
he says, you will see TcpoiTov S£i[lt;j]iSaipiovouvTa(; stiI tcov Ipycov:
full of nervous fear when they really have to begin work.
And, he goes on to say, if they ever find courage enough
to act in accordance with their expressed views they are
overwhelmed by fear and remorse, like the man of whom
it is told that he killed the snake in the temple. This man,
we gather from what Polystratus adds, seems afterwards
to have repented of his rashness and to have offered an
expiatory sacrifice, after which he erected a gold snake in
stead of the one, that had been killed by him. We learn
from this little story, a thing which, however, hardly needed
proof, that there must have been many people who ridi-
culed SstatSaifxovia, but were full of it themselves, as soon
as something extraordinary happened to them.

In whatever sense, approving or the opposite, SstaiSat-
(xovia is used, in one way all writers are agreed viz. that a
characteristic trait is the feeling of utter dependance, on
God or the gods.
Stoics

The Stoic \'wise man\', whose pride made him regard him-
self as \'of one race with God\' i) naturally was out of sym-
pathy with the humbleness of the SeiaiSatfjicav, notwith-
standing the fact that the Stoa as a whole tried to turn
popular religion to its own account f. i. by allegorical inter-
pretation of myths etc. The Stoics regarded SetatSatfjiovta
^ an emotion, a passion and as such blameworthy. Among
\') Cf. Aratus, Phen. 5.

all kinds of fear we find it described as ç6|3oç Gewv yj Sai-
(iovcov and about the same definition turns up in ps. An-
dronicus, who has: SetatSaifiovia .... çopoç toû Saifxoviou
[75 ôtrepéxtttojctiç ttjç trpoç toùç 6soùçnbsp;2). The second
part of the definition, which von Arnim») rightly regards
as not in its proper place here, is valuable for us nevertheless
as expressing the well-known idea that SsiCTiSatjxovia is
essentially an exaggeration of religious practices. Elsewhere
all the evil consequences of different passions are enumer-
ated: utto Sè tov (po^ov oxvoi xai____66pu[3oi. xal SstcjiSatpioviai

Antipater of Tarsus, Panaetius\' master, even wrote a trea-
tise Trepl SetaiSatfxoviaç In the only extant fragment he
puts forward a rather insipid explanation of the fact that
in Syria certain species of fish are regarded as sacred to
Atargatis and are not eaten. Perhaps his book contained
more of this rationalistic explanation of myths and rituals.

There is probably, according to some scholars 5), a slight
influence of the Stoa to be found in a little treatise, that has
come down to us among the writing of Hippocrates entitled,
Tcepl eùoxi^tioaijvTjç. The language in which it is written is
very obscure in many places and its meaning is by no means
clear everywhere, but in a passage, where we find all the
quahties which v) tvjxptxiQ possesses extolled, along with
modesty, judgment etc. àSsiCTiSatpiovÎTj is mentioned\'). This,
as we have just seen, certainly is quite in keeping with the
way in which the Stoic philosophers use SeiatSatfxovfa. A
good doctor should be free, too, from the love of money,

so this writer says, and the same combination is to be found
in Soranus who wants a midwife to be aqjiXdcpyupov, so
as not to give a lt;p06piov for money and aSetaiSaifxova, to be
sure she won\'t overlook what her patient needs: St ovstpov
ri Sta xXTjSovaf; ^ (Tiiv7)0e(; ti (xuax^ptov xal picdTixr)v 6py]icyxsiav.

Most nurses, he says, do not like to cut the umbilical cord
with an iron knife, because they regard that as a bad omen.
That idea, according to Soranus, is ridiculous, for crying
in itself is a bad omen too and all children begin life that
way. In his opinion the best method is dSeiatSatfioveaxepov
a(jiiXC(oi, ---- x6v 6(X9(xX6v xoTrxeiv

In choosing a wet-nurse the selection should be made with
great care: she should be between twenty and forty years
of age, well-built, of Greek nationality: ouSe SeiCTiSaifiova
Set xal 62096pTjxov elvai xyjv yaXouxov, so as not to endanger
the child 7rapaXoYicr0etc7« tcoxs xal (xavicoSto? CTaXsuS-eiaa

This Peripatetic-Stoic doctrine is to be found also in Philo
Judaeus, who uses the word SstaiSaifjiovta etc., rather often,
to signify different kinds of objectionable religiosity. He
warns against rushing from one extreme into the other
and recommends to steer a middle course. All virtues can
be regarded as a golden mean: courage f. i. of fool-hardiness
and cowardice, SetciSatfiovia? xal acrepEia? euaepeta . It is
worth noting that here aaepeia is regarded as the opposite
of SsiCTtSai[xov[a, while we generally find d0£6xy](; used as
such.

Every virtue is so perfect in itself that the very slightest
addition or subtraction will change it into something quite

different. That is true too of the queen of all virtues, real
piety: if you take anything away from it dccrepsia is the
result and you must n\'t add anything either: yewTjcret yap
7) — 7rp6CT6slt;ji? SsiaiSaifxoviav 1), Real piety is something
to be sought for. being a \'knowledge of the service of God\' 2).
In the light of this definition it is not surprising to read in
another passage 3) that in the same way as every texvy)
is to be exercised rexvixatq and neither arsxvat; nor xaxo-
TExvox; one must n\'t practice one\'s religion SstoiSat(ji6vw?.
In Philo\'s sight SsKiiSaifAovta is a lack of skill or a wrongly-
used skill in the \'art and knowledge\', if one may be allowed
to translate tIxvt) in this way, of serving God*).

There are several other places where \'right\' and \'wrong\'
piety (euaepsta, SeicTiSai(i.ov[a) are opposed to one another®).
Most interesting is a passage«) where Philo enlarges upon
the influence that unwise nurses and educators exercise
on the character of young people. One of the chief sources
of SsiCTtSaifiovta is there laid bare and at the same time we
understand better why especially really pious men attacked
SetCTtSatfxovEa quite often as leading to an impious throwing
over of all religion (aaepsia, desoTTj?). When we are young,
Philo says, we are subject to fiery passions: licentiousness,
and many others, each of which nurses and \'educators\'
(TtatSaywyof) foster and augment xal eOwv xal vofAi{x(ov evci-
peiav (iev eXauvovTwv SsiatSaifjiovtav Se TCpayjxa dSeX^^ov daepeiai
xaTacjxsuaCovTcov sLcnjy/jcsi^ xal dicst^\'). It is the practice
of these undesirable idoiv xal vofzipiwv which especially raises
Philo\'s wrath.

\') 2. 360. ») 1. c.: ^tticin^eitjv ^jjittotouaa espatte^a*; 0eoi3.
») 1. 195. 9. *) Cf. Suidas\' definition of piety.
») e. g. 1. 166; 1. 195. 8; 2. 414. •) 1. 166.
\') Cf. Luc. Philops. 38; p. 40.

Elsewhere SeiatSaifiovta is more or less identified by him
with traditional, popiilar religion. He distinguishes the differ-
ent, wrong ways in which people judge about the chief
problems of life. Some flatly deny the very existence of any
divine power, others are weakly sceptical and say they have
no opinion in that matter, while a third group merely accept
the opinions about the existence of God from their parents
and teachers and don\'t trouble to think for themselves. But,
according to Philo, these people eSo^av euoToxamp;x; euaepeiv,
SeiciSai[ioviai rfjv eualpetav xapa^avrs«;

It is quite in keeping with this judgment of his that, when
explaining the old traditions of his people according to
his allegorical method, he warns the SeiatSaifxove? to stop
their ears or stand aside; the word here means evidently
the believers in the literal truth of these stories, one might
almost say \'the orthodox\'. His teaching, he adds, is meant
only for those who practise a real, true and unadorned
piety, free from arrogance, and not for those who are sub-
ject to that irremediable evil Til)9a)t pYjfxaTov xal ovofxaTwv
YXiaxp6T7]Tt xal rep^peiai? eOoiv, an accurate if prejudiced
and unsympathizing description of his orthodox co-religio-
nists, from Philo\'s point of view«).

The offering of sacrifices Philo regards as a good thing
in itself, but an evil has sprung up next to it viz. SettrtSai-
fxovia, which ought to be exterminated as soon as possible.
Some people are of the opinion that sacrificing as such is
a form of piety (euaepeta) and part of everything they secure
they sacrifice on the altar, even if it has been gained by
robbery or in some other criminal way, in the hope of assuring
themselves impunity by doing so^). We find here SetatSai-
jxovcausedin yet another way: it is the external form of religion

that is characterized by its formality and its lack of
moral feeling. An impediment to holy living (6CTi6Ty)!;) and
a heavy punishment for those who suffer from it Philo calls
SstCTiSaipiovia elsewhere^) and again a heavy burden, that
one will be able to throw off on seeing that \'spirits and
demons and angels\', though differing in name are really
one and the same 2),

Of his antithesis to the orthodox Jews we are once more
reminded in reading that the real meaning of the holy scrip-
tures cannot be grasped by everyone tcoXXou tou SstatSai-
[Lovlctc, puevTOc; irap\' YjtiTv xaxou, submerging unmanly and
weak spirits

The verb SeifftSatfxovsTv is once used by Philo to signify
the entertaining of unnecessary scruples, a meaning that is
well-known: 06 ssictlsailxovcov Ttspl t/jv 6elt;jlv twv 6vo[xdtti)v

To recapitulate, we can say that Philo uses SsicriSatfxovfa
as a denotation of those forms of religion which he thought
wrong, because they differed from real piety as which,
naturally, he regarded his own. While following the lead
of the Peripatetics in calling SsicriSaifjiovia an excess, he gives
it a meaning of his own when he obviously uses it to signify
the ,in his view, petty belief in the literal truth of the sacred
books and the undue value attached to the outward practices
of the Jewish religion.

Comutus, who was a follower of the Stoa, also used the
allegorical method in explaining myths. Priapus, for instance,
he regards as the god \'who brings everything to the light\',

the ancients, according to his view, expressing in that way,
what they thought about the nature of the universe Ssicjt-
Sat{j(.6vo)lt;; xal txSpc3lt;;^), a rather unusual combination. Ssiai-
Sai(ji6va)lt;; here means practically: diffidently, full of religious
awe. Taken by themselves these words would not prove
that Cornutus condemned this feeling of awe, although the
fact that he sees an allegory in what to the popular mind
is a reality would make it probable. It is sufficiently proved,
however, by his usage of the word SetCTiSaijxoveiv in another
part of his treatise 2), where it is opposed to euctePeiv: he
wants young men to be taught the traditional religion
el? xb eucjePelv dXXoc fi^ el? to SsiatSattxoveTv; they must
learn to sacrifice, pray, kneel and swear in the right way
xal ev toT? e[jtpdXXou(ji, xaipot?. These additional words are
important as showing once again that most critics of Seiat-
Sai(jiov[a thought of it merely as an exaggeration; the whole
passage can be summed up in the words of Pyrrhus: y) Sxai-
po? OeocjepEia SsicjtSaifxovla saT^v®).

Marcus Aurelius describes his adoptive father as 0EOCTep^)(;
X«pk SsiCTiSaifzovla?¹), god-fearing without exaggerated big-
otry 6) and in describing what he owes his father he enumer-
ates, in an interesting parallel: to [itits uepl Geou? SetalSat-
h.ov (xtqte Ttepl dv9pco7rou? Sy)[xoxotcix6v rj dpscrxeuTixiv oxXo-
X^9k, dUdc vyjtpov ev Ttaai xal (3ePaiov®). The SEiaiSaffjicov in
his relation to the gods is like a popularity seeker, a man
who bends down to suit the mob; \'sober and steadfast\',
like the proud Stoic, he never will be.

A somewhat similar comparison is found in the emper-
or\'s contemporary Maximus of Tyre. In an oration of his
in which he discusses the difference between a real friend
and a flatterer, he says a real pious person is comparable
to the first, 6 Ss SeicriSaipiwv xoXa^ 0soui). He sketches them
both in their relations to the gods: the pious man free of fear,
courageous because he is conscious of his own moral worthi-
ness, the other tatceivoi; Std fjiox87)ptav fjistoc ttoXXou 8kouq,
SiScjeXTTti; and afraid of the gods as of tyrants. It is this element
of fear which makes SsiatSaifjiovta so intolerable and undig-
nified in the eyes of Maximus as of Plutarch. Very little room
for real religion is left, however, if all sense of \'awe\' is gone,
especially when one is so fully conscious of one\'s own per-
fection as this philosopher appears to be.

One can even become blasphemous from undue religious
zeal (uTTo Ssiai.Saip,oviat;) according to one of the anonymous
\'philosophers\' whose writings are collected in the Corpus
Hermeticum Some people, he says, in an exaggerated
fervour to separate God as widely as possible from the

Julian, the last of the pagan emperors, fights on two
fronts: both against the superstitious practices of the pagans
and against Christianity, and both these forms of \'perverted,
exaggerated piety\' he calls by the name of SeidiSatfjiovEa,
In his zeal to restore the worship of the Hellenic gods he

wished passionately to abolish everything that could hinder
this primary object of his life. In Alexandria a certain obe-
lisk, which had lain there for some time and which previous
emperors had already thought of transporting to Constan-
tinople, was deeply venerated by the masses. In writing to
the citizens about it Julian says he feels bound to have it
fetched away x^c, SstaiSaifjiovtai; evsxa Tau-nr]?. And then,
most interestingly, he shows his missionary motives by
saying that people who see those worshippers lying about
in the midst of dirt and all kinds of iniquities don\'t believe
the obelisk to be divine in character at all and become them-
selves more unbelieving with regard to the gods Sta t?)v
Twv TcpoCTSxovTtov auTcit. (sc. Toil 6peXamp;ii) SetGtSatfiovCav

In another letter, which is also addressed to the citizens
of Alexandria he urges them to return to the worship of
Helios and refuses to allow Athanasius\' coming back to the
city, which the Alexandrians had requested. If he says,
you want to remain faithful -riji SeiCTiSai(xovtai... xal xar/jXquot;:^-
CTst Twv TtavoijpYwv avepwTTcov, at least hold your peace amongst
one another and do not wish Athanasius back®). Elsewhere
he speaks about people who have given themselves up t^i
Twv FaXiXalcov ____ SetaiSat[xov[ai .

It is interesting to note that the Christians used exactly
the same word when talking about Julian and his \'fear of
demons\' as they called his belief in the pagan gods¹).

We are rather surprised to find him using the word dSei-
ai9-eolt;; with the meaning \'impious\' although, to be sure, it
occurs both times in the same oracle and may have been

part of the old formula The emperor upbraids a governor
of Caria, who, it seems, has flogged a pagan priest. As the
governor, who Julian thinks was perhaps applauded by the
bishops and elders of the GaUlaeans, probably regards
Homer\'s stories as myths, he reminds him of an oracle of
the Lord of Didymus, Anyone who sins against a priest of
the immortal gods dSetaiOsoiCTi Xoytafjiot? will be punished.

In view of this usage of dSsicidsoQ with the meaning of
impious it is advisable to read also in Proclus\' hymn

It is contrary to what we would have expected to find
aSeicjideot; used in this way by pretty nearly the last pagan
philosophers and poets, as f. i. Pollux identifies SsiaiSaifzwv
and 8stCT[0eo;, describing them both as \'a man who inordin-
ately worships (uTreprifjiojv) the gods®).

Two of the best-known men in the circle of philosophers
and writers that gathered round Scipio Minor were Panae-
tius and Polybius.

The founder of the so-called Middle Stoa was a very liberal-
minded thinker, entirely free from the traditional religion

\') ed. B. C. 88, [ep. 62] p. 150 1. 22; 89b [Frgm. ep. 288A-305D] p.
165 1. 15.

») 3. 12 Several mss. have: SsimO£o)v. Boissonade (apud Ludwich):
Christianos tangit; forsan Christiani librarii epithetum sic facili opere
lenierunt.

of his contemporaries, which he regarded merely as an
invention of calculating statesmen or a fiction of poets

These opinions very deeply influenced the thought of
the educated class in Rome. Lucilius e. g. ridicules the
people, who are afraid of the ghost-stories which Numa
had invented, and it is under Panaetius\' influence again
that Q. Mucins Scaevola formed his celebrated theory about
the threefold theology\'^).

Small wonder therefore that his philosophy deeply af-
fected Polybius, the sober and rational-minded historian,
in whose work the traces of this influence are very distinct.
This is especially the case in the often-quoted passage,
where he treats of the relation of the Roman state towards
religion. That, according to him, is the point where the
excellence of the Roman constitution above all others is
apparent: ■nod (jloi Soxet Tcapd Tot? 6cXXoilt;; dvOpwTrotc; ovet-
StJ^ofisvov, touto ouvsxsiv toc \'Ptofxaicov TtpdyfjiaTa, Xeya)

t7)v SeiatSatfxoviav. In their private and in their public life
everything pertaining to religion has been so impressively
decked out and exaggerated (exTETpaywiSyjTai) that it cannot
be surpassed. Perhaps, Polybius says, many people will
be surprised at this, but in his opinion it has been done be-
cause of the masses. If it were possible to form a state of
wise men all these things could probably be dispensed with,
but as the great mass of the people are full of lawless pas-
sions and desires they have to be kept in check rot? dST^Xoi?
96^01? xal T^i ToiaijTTjt TpaycoiSlai®). For that reason the states-

\') Cf. A. Schmekel. Die Phil. d. mittl. Stoa, p. 190, p. 227; on the
circle round Scipio i. a. p. 440.

men of old who introduced the conceptions about the gods
and the ideas concerning the nether-world are not to be
blamed, as they knew what they were about; on the con-
trary, the people who want to destroy these opinions are
foolhardy and thoughtless.

Polybius is about as sober and as haughty as one can be
in this exposition of the influence of religion on the lower
classes. What he thinks of SEicnSai(xovia is very clear, but
perhaps it is not quite superfluous to draw attention to
the fact that in his eyes the whole of popular religion and
not only its excessive forms, deserves that name. The be-
lief, for example, that the gods as it were exercise a kind
of moral control and punish sinners after death, he con-
demns as a philosopher, but he regards it as indispensable
to restrain less enlightened citizens^).

The idea that religion is nothing but the invention of
some shrewd statesman of old who wanted to curb the un-
ruly masses through the fear of punishment in the next
world, we already find in a famous fragment of Critias
and it never entirely vanishes. Plutarch e. g. has a tradition
that Epicure too was of the opinion that the great majority
of men are only good because of their fear of punishment,
so that one must make use against them t^? SeioiSaifjiovia«;
and apply toc e? oupavou xal y^? Selfxaxa xal xatJ[JLaTa xal
lt;p6(3oult;; xal uTTovoCa«;. Panaetius therefore merely carried on
a tradition, although the division of theology into three
parts may be a personal invention of his

Strabo is probably just following in Polybius\' track in
the sketch of the origin of religion in the beginning of his

book»). Myths, he says, have been a means in the hands
of statesmen both as an incitement to do good and as a
warning to keep away from evil, in the same way as child-
ren are frightened by all kinds of ghost-stories. The masses
are urged on to virtue, for instance by the myths concerning
Heracles and Theseus and are deterred from evil through
the fear of punishment by the gods. It is impossible to
exhort the masses of women and ordinary people by the
means of philosophy towards piety and holiness and faith
ocXXa Set xal Sta SeiaiSaifjiovia«;. touto 8\' oux amp;veu [Jiu6o7Toita(;
xal Tepaxelat; The real philosophical religion has to be
reserved for the chosen few, the man in the street needs
myths and stories of miracles. All these forms of the trad-
itional religion Strabo regards as SeiCTiSaijjiovia. It is interest-
ing to see that he lumps women together with the ordinary
people as persons for whom philosophy is not meant.

Perhaps we have another example of Polybius\' influence
in a passage from Diodorus. Striking instances of adversity,
he argues there, have a pedagogical value. Even if many
people doubt whether the gods have anything to do with
misfortune, it is a useful thing for the state as a whole
ty)v ex Gcoiv SeiatSatfjioviav evT£T/)xevai Tatlt;; twv ttoXXwv lt;{^uxatlt;; \').
Only very few people are good from their own virtuous
inclination (apc-nQ) and the others need to be frightened
away from sin by legal punishments and the fear of the
gods. In the same way as Strabo thinks SeiatSatfxovta a
necessary incitement towards piety and purity, Diodorus
here strikingly adds -r?)v ex Oeoiv.

In his life of Numa, Plutarch relates how this wise king
made use of religion to turn the Romans into a peace-loving

people. He civilized them by instituting sacrifices and
religious ceremonies, that were both solemn and pleasant.
Sometimes however, by telling them fearful things in the
name of the deity, weird visions of demons and menacing
voices, he cowed them (eSouXou) xal tatreivrjv stcoisi rJjv Sid-
voiav auTwv utto 8£tai8ai[i,ovtalt;;: the fear of the gods

Lysander, too, according to Plutarch, when plotting to
become king in Sparta, was aware that the speech he had
had made for him would be of no avail, unless he had a
divine sanction: he could only hope for success qidpwi tivI
6eou xal SeiCTtSai[xoviai TtposxTrXvj^ai; xalnbsp;• • • •

All these examples show that for a group of free-thinkers
at least the idea that the gods punished sinful behaviour
stood condemned as SsiatSaifjiovia, be it that this belief was
a political necessity. This is a different thing from the \'ex-
cessive religiousness\' that was criticized by Menander and
Theophrast.

That Lycurgus consulted the oracle at Delphi and referred
to the Pythia as sanctioning his reforms is not to be ex-
plained, so Polybius thinks, by any feeling of dependence
on his part (SeicriSaifxovouvTa), but solely because he saw
that most people can only find courage for some big
venture if they can hope that the deity is with them\').

Not only the consulting of an oracle is to Polybius a thing
he condemns, but also the attaching of credit to dreams
and miracles. Bitingly he says of Timaeus that this histor-
ian is very strong in his criticism of others, but that in his
own work he is full of dreams and miracles and incredible
myths xal cuXXi^(3Sir]v Setc7tSai[iov[alt;; dyevvoui; xal TepaTeta?

YuvatxwSou?, The addition of dyevvou? reminds us of Aris-
totle\'s words that the SsicjiSaifjiovi« of a ruler should be
lt;5cv£u dpeXxspiac, but in Polybius\' case we need not think
there was any form of SstatSatfjiovta he did not regard as
\'sordid\' 1).

A typical SeicrtSaifjtwv is Nicias, the celebrated Athenian
general; not only Polybius but Diodorus and Plutarch as
well characterize him as such.

Polybius narrates how, when the mooneclipse occurred as
he was on the point of raising the siege of Syracuse Seicyt-
Soaiiovrjaat; lt;amp;lt;; xt Seivov TcpocjiQpiatvotScyT]? (sc. -rijc; aeXYjVTj?)
eTTECfxe TYjv dva^uY7)v2). It was a regrettable coincidence,
Plutarch says, that only a little while before his soothsayer
Stilbides to koXu t^? SeioiSaiixovia? dcpoiiptiv had died 3). He
extensively describes how, during the eclipse, Nicias and
the others who either through ignorance or through Setat-
Saifxovia feared such phenomena became panic-stricken. At
that time, he continues, people were as yet largely ignorant
about eclipses and regarded them as miracles, by which
the gods predicted that terrible things were about to
happen. Anaxagoras had already clearly and courageously
written about these things, but his doctrines were only
known to a small circle and these enlightened spirits dared
only speak about them in hushed tones (fiET euXapsCa?) lt;).
In striking contrast to Nicias\' fear is Pericles\' demonstra-
tion to his soldiers of what an eclipse really is®).

Diodorus in his description of the expedition to Syracuse
is probably directly or indirectly • dependent on Ephorus
^ so, indirectly, on Thucydides «). As soon as the eclipse

was seen Nicias xal 9iJCTei SeiaiSaifiwv uTcdpxtov xal Sia t})v
ev tcot (ttpatotrescot voctov euXaplt;oi; Staxsi(xevolt;;, \'already by
nature susceptible to divine signs and at the time in a ner-
vous state because of the illness in the army\', called to-
gether the soothsayers. On their declaring that a delay of
some time was necessary, Demosthenes and his men also
saw themselves obliged to wait because of this nervous
fear with regard to the divine powers (Sid tJjv rcpcx; to Gsiov
suXapeCav) i).

It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that Thucydides,
the primary source of all these writers, describes Nicias as
^cyav 0stalt;7(io)i re xal Toit TOtouTfoi Tcpooxetptsvo?, words which
might serve as a definition of SstcnSaifxwvThat this last
word is n\'t used might be explained by the theory that for
Thucydides, as for Xenophon, it still had its original mean-
ing of \'god-fearing\', but it seems less far-fetched to regard
it as an indication that it first appeared in Attic only in the
4th century. This however, is only a hypothesis and is by
no means sure; the general value of an argument ex silentio
is slight. How natural this word came to later Greek writers
in this sphere is proved by the fact that an ancient schol-
iast explains the historian\'s evGufxiov 7toioij[xevoi in the same
passage as dTcoSstatSat[i.ov\')Q(javTe(; ^ exXoyiaoi^cvoi, xaxd vouv
axovTEt; TO CTEXt^VTJI;

We have already seen*), that different passages of Dio-
dorus\' which disapprove of SsiCTiSaifjiovia have probably been
largely drawn from Ephorus. This may well be the case
also where he describes the battle of Leuctra®). As the

Boeotians were marching out, a number of portents had
taken place, about which the older soldiers were much
concerned, while the younger men only held their peace
so as not to be taken for cowards, in case Epaminondas
should have to abandon the expedition because of them.
This general, a man steeped in philosophy and wisely using
his wisdom as Diodorus puts it, takes counter-measures.
On seeing his soldiers setatsaifxovouvta? ettI toi«; yzyovoai
lt;yri[itLoiq he did all he could to take away their scruples
(suXapsta?) by his own insight and strategy 2). He spreads
all kinds of rumours that are capable of encouraging his
men, e. g. that the heroes will come to their aid, and after
his making a final speech to them their feeling changes
entirely. They bravely get themselves ready for the fight
xal T7)(; — SeiaiSai[jiov[alt;; a7TeXu6y)CTav If the author is here
dependent on Ephorus for the choice of his words too, a
quite conceivable thing in Diodorus\' case, we should have
an example from a fourth century historian also in which
SsiaiSaipLovia is used to denote popular religious ideas and
more especially the behef in miraculous and ominous signs.
This, of course, would fit in very well with what we know
of the sense in which this word is used by men like Menander
and Theophrast about the same time.

In a very curious passage from Diodorus, which Photius
has preserved for uslt;), we have an example of a scientific
writer who uses his knowledge to fight this exaggerated
attaching of credit to signs, which are, to the insider, just
natural phenomena. Caustic spirits had ridiculed it and
Anaxagoras had, for a few people at least, as we have just
l^rd Plutarch tell us®), taken away their awe-inspiring

character from eclipses f. i., by a scientific demonstration
of their nature. We find the same kind of spirit in this pas-
sage from Diodorus, but unfortunately cannot tell who is
his informant 1). He tells of several cases of hermaphrodit-
ism, \'not for mere entertainment, but for instruction\' as
he says, contrasting these two in a way we find elsewhere
also 2). For many people regard such things as divine signs
and are afraid (SsiaiSaifjiovoucTiv), not only private persons,
but cities and sometimes a whole people as well. In the
beginning of the Marsyan war f. i. such a hermaphrodite
was born in Italy. The senate, on hearing this, very much
afraid that some evil was predicted by it (Ssiai8ai(xovv)(7aaav)
acted on the advice of the haruspices and had the creature
burnt to death, a shameful thing caused by ignorance of
this pathological abnormality. He adds the story of some
other cases as well and winds up by saying: let that be said
Tcpo? SippGwaiv SsiaiSaifjLovia?, to correct this \'ignorant regard-
ing of a natural phenomenon as a divine sign\'. Perhaps
nothing shows better Diodorus\' utter lack of originality
than the diametrically opposed meanings in which he uses
this group of words. Other writers may have slight differences
but they use SsiCTiSaifxovta either in a condemnatory or in
a commending way, while in Diodorus\' language it may
mean everything from \'praiseworthy religious feeling\' to
\'ignorant behef in portents\'

Sulla, at a time when he badly needed money, took away
a number of votive offerings from temples. He gave the
gods pieces of land from which they derived a yearly in-
come to make up for their losses. One of the historians«)

who tells this says that Sulla made this exchange dSsici-
Saifxovo)?: without undue scruples.

The same tale turns up again in Plutarch\'s life of Sulla i).
There it. is a friend whom he sends to Delphi to seize the
offerings. This man, however, hesitates to follow his instruct-
ions and sends a message to Sulla about a cither which
had been heard in the temple, either believing it himself

(xoviav, to awaken his scruples. He was unsuccessful however,
if that was his object, as the dictator jokingly answered
that he need n\'t fear to carry out his mandate 6xi xa^povTO?
ou ■/o-\'keTza.ivovxoc; sit) to dciSeiv.

Strabo, the philosophic geographer, was something of a
Stoic and no friend of excessive forms of religion. Indeed,
as we have seen already he was rather inclined to regard
all religion as a superfluous thing for the real philosopher.

His contempt is not clearly shown in a passage where he
speaks about a certain perfume that is largely used by the
SeitjiSatpiovE?, but we may be sure it is there, all the same,
as he was no friend of sacrifices either¹). In describing the
Avernan lake, enclosed by hills that used to be set with high,
dense woods at xaTd SsiCTiSai(jLov[av xaTaaxiov eTrolouv t6v
x6X7rov®), a place where passing seamen used to worship
the \'subterranean demons\', we are safe in saying that he
neither joined in this worship, nor shared that feeling of awe,

Posidonius had handed down a tradition that the Mysians
from religious motives abstained from the eating of
wieat and that they therefore were called \'godfearing and

xaTtvopdrai\', while among the Thracians a holy sect existed,
the members of which lived without women. This Strabo
can\'t believe, as it is entirely contrary to the general opin-
ion Everybody, he says, regards women as Ssiai-
8ai[xov[alt;; dpxv}YO\'ilt;;- They exhort their menfolk towards
TOCQ ETil TiXeov OspaTceia!; Ttov 6eoiv xal eopra? xal 7roTviao-(xolt;5?;
it is very seldom that a man, living by himself, is so ex-
cessively pious. To prove his point he quotes two passages
from Menander, in one of which a married man complains
that the gods make life especially difficult for men who
have wives, because there is always some celebration on,
and in the other a woman-hater describes how he had to
sacrifice about fifty times a day, with the women standing
around wailing

This page of Strabo\'s is both important in showing once
again to what an extent all these more or less nervous forms
of religion found adherents among women and in defining
8ei(TtSai(xovia as \'an exaggerated service of the gods\'. This
is another proof that the word, even when used in an un-
favourable sense cannot always be translated by \'super-
stition\' and that it need not necessarily have anything to
do with \'demons\'

The thrifty pater familias in Menander\'s comedy probably
was chiefly concerned about his wife\'s penchant for religious
festivities as it involved him in expenses. It is amusing to
read in Strabo\'s account of the exodus from Egypt that

|jiax£tailt;; axonoiq Strabo rather admires Moses\' mono-
theistic religion, as it originally was, but it quickly degenerated,
he says, for overzealous (Seioi.Sai[i,oveq) men becoming priests,
all sorts of rites like the abstention from certain forms
of food, circumcision etc, came into use ex T55lt;;8eiaiSai(xovLalt;;®).
It is not fortuitous that it is the ritual side of the Jewish
religion which Strabo condemns, by regarding 8eiCTt8ai(xovla
as its source, while he expresses his admiration for the
conception of the world that is embodied, according to
him, in its original form.

The extreme punctuality with which the orthodox Jews
followed the (ritual) precepts of their religion often evoked
the criticism and ridicule of unsympathetic onlookers and
accordingly we find the word SeiotSatfiovta frequently used
to stigmatize it, Josephus relates how the historian Aga-

at the Jews on account of their not defending themselves
against Ptolemy on a Sabbath, when he had come into Jeru-
salem on the pretence of bringing a sacrifice: 8ia t7)v (Sxatpov
SeiaiSaifAovtav they lost their liberty and had to put up
with a hard master. In a slightly different form Josephus
elsewhere repeats this story*), where he quotes Agathar-
chides as a source for the history of queen Stratonice.
Although she had the opportunity to flee when her enemies
were approaching, she remained, in obedience to \'a dream
that kept her back\', so that she was taken prisoner and lost

her life. After telling this, Josephus adds, and ridiculing
Stratonice, for this \'superstitious belief in dreams* (Ssicti-
Saifxovia), Agatharchides uses the story about us as an ex-
ample and tells how Ptolemy seized Jerusalem. We may
be pretty sure that the word SeiatSaifjiovia, used in this sense,
belonged to Josephus\' source, as it is not in keeping with
the way he himself uses it. In his counter criticism of the
unfriendly critic the Jewish historian makes it clear how
the same thing, that is to the one a ridiculous superstition
may be a real form of piety to another. To anyone who is
in sympathy with the Jews, Josephus says, it must be a
very impressive fact that people prefer, even to liberty and
country vofxtov (puXaxyjv xal rJjv 7rp6(; 6s6v sucepstav.

In some of the Christian authors we find the word Ssicjt-
Satfiovia or one of its cognates put to this same use viz. to
designate in a depreciatory way the Jewish religion, especial-
ly as regards its ritual side.

Origenes describes the vision of St. Peter, that came to
him Ixt SstCTiSatpLovouvxa, \'while he still felt himself bound
by the Jewish law\', so that be refused to follow the com-
mand of the voice, that urged him to partake of the meat.

Finally the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus also uses
it in this way. Already in his introduction he remarks
that Diognetus is much interested to know more about
the Christians, why they do not believe in the so-called
gods of the Greeks ouxe t7)v \'louSaicov SeiatSaifjioviav (puXda-
(Touctv. A little further on his language is still more
trenchant; Diognetus can learn from him how ridiculous all

these Jewish practices are; their excessive anxiety (to ....
^j/ocpoSee?) about their food and their imposture (dXa^ove(a)
about circumcision xal t7)v Trspl toc adßßata SeicnSatpioviav :
their excessive scrupulousness with regard to the keeping
of their Sabbath.

Of a peculiar usage of SetcriSaifjiovla we have two examples,
one in Lydus, who quotes Aristodemus and one in ps.
Plutarch, whose source is a certain Dorotheus®). Lydus
tells how in Lacedaemon every year, since a famine, a noble
young maiden was sacrificed eeot? dTioTpoTtaloK;; the Delphic
oracle had said this was the only way to end the famine.
Once upon a time it happened that Helen was marked out
to be sacrificed, t^? Se dvojzou SstaiSaKfxovta? xaTa roav
«pöivoTTcopov TeXoufjtsvr)?. This time, however, as Tyndareus

lt;(xou Ouxjia?) an eagle snatched his sword away and let it
fall down near a white heifer. In the story from Dorotheus
the word SeiciSaifjiov^a is used in the same way of a human
sacrifice. There is a wonderful, black stone in the river
Araxes. When an oracle has ordered a human sacrifice, two
girls carry the stone to the altars of the apotropaeic gods;
a priest then touches it with a sword and streams of blood
flow from it. They thereupon go away, carrying the stone
to the temple toiStoji twi tpötrwt tyjv SeiaiSatfiovlav tsXs-
cravTE?.

This change of meaning, from abstract to concrete, has been
proved for the Latin word \'religio\' by W. Otto 3), who i. a.

\') Religio u. Superstitio. Archiv f. Rel. XII (1909) p. 533 sqq. His
conclusions were attacked by Kobbert in his diss. (Königsberg 1910)
de verb, \'religio\',... usu, but in a second article Archiv XIV, (1911)

points to \'aepa;*, which can mean not only \'awe\' but \'awe-
inspiring object\' as well. It seems to me this evolution of
the meaning of 8sioiSai[jLovta is further proof for his hypo-
thesis.

In devoting a separate paragraph to Plutarch, instead of
treating his views along with those of the other philosophers,
we have been led by practical considerations exclusively.
His writings give us as much material for our investigation
as those of many other writers combined, as he not
only uses the words 8eiCTi8ai[Aovia etc. very frequently, but
also has written a separate treatise on this subject. We can,
in his case, form for ourselves a very clear idea of what
he understood by SetcjiSaifjiovia. Nearly ever3rwhere he uses
the word in a condemnatory sense: 8siCTtSai|xovta is to him
a wrong frame of mind with regard to the gods, and
although we sometimes find him mocking and ridiculing those
who suffer from it, he generally tries to convert them to a
better form of piety, his own of course, which he calls
fiuaepsia or, a significant name: suXdpeia.

This at once proves the difference between Plutarch and,
say, Polybius, who nevertheless are too often mentioned
in one and the same breath as using Setai8at(jiovta in its later,
adverse meaning. Plutarch, the devout priest of Apollo,

On p. 55 Kobbert quotes from Lydus de ostentis p. 46. 3 ed. Wachs-
muth: o\'l 8EioiSat[JL0viaic xttrlv dvaSeSefA^vot-TauTYji ylt;*P xal ^eXiytwveq reap\'
\'iTaXoT? xaXoüvrat xtX., an interesting passage which shows how Seioi-
8at[iovta and religio, in some of its usages, were identified.

with his leaning towards mysticism, his behef in prodigies
and dreams was a deeply-religious man whom the ratio-
nalistic friend of Panaetius would probably have regarded
as suffering from SsiaiSatfjiovCa himself.

Although Plutarch was very well-read and of course quite
often must have followed the writers, who were his source,
in their usage of different words too, we need n\'t think in
his case of a slavish imitation like in that of Diodorus Sicu-
lus. It is only very rarely that Plutarch does n\'t attach an
obviously adverse meaning to the word SeiaiSaifjiovta and
we find no striking examples of inconsistency as in Diodorus,
who uses the word with widely different meanings in accord-
ance with the usage of his source.

AeiaiSaifiovia is an illness, which one ought to expel from
the conceptions about the gods, but that must n\'t be done at
the expense of the popular religion, any more than one would
blind a man to end some eye-trouble An illness he calls
it more than once, frequently using the word ocpuY[i6(; to
illustrate his meaning by a simile

Repeatedly he mentions 8ei(ii8ai(xov[a among other
vices or bad habits. Of a certain man he tells that he was
xaGapcx; 8siCTiSai|xovCalt;;, en Se [aocXXov aXaJ^oveia? A flatterer,
he says, only imitates his so-called friend\'s vices: his bad
temper, lack of friendliness and his 8Ei(nSat(iov(a«). As to virtues
he is quite content with the second place, but in vices he wants
to be first and foremost: if his friend is peevish, he calls
himself a hypochondriac, av exsTvo? SeiaiSaffxtov, aux^v 6eo(p6-

p7)Tov In the same way a TrpocrpoX-}} 8eiatSai(i.ovta(; is
mentioned alongside of a bitter quarrel with one\'s inmates or
an extreme passion of love Scipio, true to the teaching
of Panaetius, on finding in the camp at Numantia, when
he came there to assume the command, much disorder,
licentiousness xal SeicrtSaifiovtav at once set to work to put
matters right. He banished forthwith all [xavTsu; — xal
euTa(; xal TTOpvo^oaxou«;; this unsavoury company shows
plainly what he thought of priests and soothsayers of that
kind®).

In the famous story of Sertorius and his white doe Plu-
tarch says the Roman used this ruse to impress the Span-
iards, well aware that barbarians (to pap^apixov) were by
nature sudXtoTov si? SsiaiSaifiovtav . This is one of the very
rare examples where this superstitious belief in miraculous
happenings is attributed especially to \'barbarians\' ®).

On the contrary several passages can be quoted which
prove that Plutarch did regard SeiaiSaiixovia as especially
a failing of women. In the night before the murdering of
Caesar, his wife has many ominous dreams and entreats
her husband not to leave the house or at least to consult
the soothsayers. Caesar himself became afraid, and suspected
something was amiss, because never before had he seen in
her any yuvaixicrfzov ev SsioLSaifioviat and he was aware she
was very nervous and afraid through these dreams®).

In the Httle book in which he gives precepts for people
who want to have a happy marriage he argues that a wife
ought not to have other friends than her husband\'s and,
the gods being everybody\'s first and principal friends, she

vtaiq, for no god takes deHght in sacrifices which married
women secretly offer up to them»),

Tullus Hostilius ridiculed the \'careful piety\' (euXdpeiav)
of Numa as womanish, until he was taken seriously ill and
ei? Sei(ti5ai(aoviav eveScoxev ouSev ti t^i xata Noufxav euaspeiat

evetcoitjcre tot? (scxxoi? to toioutov nddoi; Plutarch regards
this feeling as 7rd0olt;;, an undesirable thing and his criticism
is also shown by the fact that he describes Tullius as \'giving
way to\' Sei(nSai(zovta: an obvious example of \'the failure of
nerve\'. At the same time it is clear that his sympathy is n\'t
with the scoffer either. It is significant for his own religious
point of view that he uses EuXdpsta practically synonymous
with EU(j£|3eia s).

A very characteristic passage is that where he speaks
about images of gods, that have sighed or perspired. We
could tell of many wonderful happenings, he says, and it is
n t right at once to refuse to believe in them. In things like
that neither excessive incredulity nor exaggerated credulous-
ness is the right thing, the first leading to disdain and
contempt of \'the divine\', the second ei? SsioiSatfxoviav xal
And then, in words which might be used as his motto:

Far from being a rationalist, Plutarch would certainly
have been dubbed a SstotSaifjiwv himself, if men like Poly-
bius could have read the above passage or the one in which
the death of Brutus is described He tells there how both

to Dio and to Brutus their death was predicted by a ghostly
apparition. Some people laugh at that idea and say no right-
minded person has ever seen a phantom, but only women
and children, and men, who because of spiritual or physical
infirmity did n\'t dispose of all their faculties, 8ai[i,ova 7rovY]p6v
£V auTOt«; r¹]v SetCTt,Sai[i,oviav exovxa«;. Plutarch does n\'t agree
with these scoffers, but is inclined to think that really evil
spirits in this way tried to frighten and perturb good men,
so as to make them stray from the path of virtue.

This religion of the golden mean, that reminds one of the
Peripatetic doctrine where it opposes SstcrtSaifiovia and aGe6T7j(;
as two extremes which should both be avoided is Plutarch\'s
ideal. It is not, of course, entirely without discernment;
as he says one should n\'t SsiXcoi; fjL7)S^— utto SetotSatfjiovtac;
sv lEptoi cppCxTEiv ocTcavTa xal Tcpocrxuvstv 2); but we are far
away from the spiritual atmosphere of Scipio\'s circle.

Though at times not too unfriendly towards the philoso-
phers of the Garden, on the whole Plutarch is no friend of
them. The Epicureans said the object of philosophy was
to be liberated from the \'fear\' (cpopEtci^ai) of god, but Plu-
tarch attacks this doctrine®). If that were true, he says,
those people would be best off who have no idea even of
the existence of gods: not only are they free from SEioiSat-
jxovia, but they have never even suffered from it. The Epicu-
reans look down upon the Seoat.8ai[jiovei; who, according to
them, join in all kinds of religious celebrations out of fear,
but Plutarch thinks they are no better themselves, as they
do the same merely because they are afraid of the masses.
And they don\'t even gain that \'good hope\' which at least
the others do manage to get out of their religious practices *).

It must n\'t be supposed however that Plutarch often de-
fends SsiCTiSatfjiovia; on the contrary, we have already seen
how he frequently attacks it and it is only against absolute
impiety or godlessness that he backs it as the lesser evil»).
Compared to real piety it is always looked upon as a vice,
or at least a bad habit. For instance, in the story of Fabius
Maximus, who urged the Romans to greater reverence for
the gods, by pointing out that their former defeats were
due to neglect and lack of consideration for the divine (t6
Saifxovtov) on the part of their commander, the historian
adds he did that ou Ssto-tSatiJioviav evspYa^6(j(.svolt;; aXXa 6ap-
pijvwv euCTEßefai rJjv dper/)v

Plutarch, though firmly believing in portents himself»),
retained his faculty of criticism in his belief, as we have
already seen, and quite often uses the word Sei(nSat(jiovta
of those, who lack this discernment and are inclined to see
a portent everywhere.

Timoleon, for instance, manages by his presence of mind
to explain an occurrence which his soldiers regarded as
ominous, in a favourable way ßouX6[jiEvo(;.,.. auToi!)? dcTcaXXd^ai
f^Q SeiatSaifjLovta«;¹). A somewhat similar story is told of
Marcellus, who was afraid that a certain happening would
cause a panic amongst his soldiers ex seiotsaiptovca«;

Nicias, as we have already seen ®), had not been influenced
by the teachings of Anaxagoras, who on the contrary had
had a very deep influence on Pericles, as he through him

phenomena, and through this ignorance are nervous and
panicky about them. This lack of knowledge is expelled
by the study of nature, which gives people dvxi ty]? qjopepat;
Kcd 9XEY[iatvouCTY]£; SeiaiSatfjiovia? TV]V dc79aX^ (ZET\' IXTciStov
dyaOwv suaspEiav

In another case people who witness the fact that a huge
snake appears on a corpse are seized by SEtaiSaifzovia, until
better-informed persons (cjo9coT£poi) point out to them that
that is an entirely natural thing to happen, like the bees
that arise from the carcasses of cattle

Before the battle of Philippi all kinds of portents happened,
so that the priests took counter-measures d9ocTio6[xsvoi rJjv
SEicriSaifxoviav, which had affected even Cassius so much
that he forgot his Epicurean philosophy, while the common
soldiers were entirely overwhelmed®).

Once Alexander\'s \'nerve failed him\' (ax; eveScoxe— Trpo?
rd Gsia) there was nothing so insignificant or ordinary that
he did n\'t interpret as a portent. His whole palace was filled
with sacrificers, purifiers and soothsayers. Such a dreadful
thing, Plutarch says, is unbelief and contempt of the divine,
Seivt] S\' auOt«; v) SsiCTiSaifjiovia 4).

He takes care to explain that the Romans, though punctil-
ious even in the minutest matters as regards religion, did
not act like that from SsiatSaipiovla®), obviously not a virtue,
no more than elsewhere, when he attacks a doctrine as
leading Tcpo? dTcepdvTOU?---- S£t,aLSat[j,ovla? ®).

All these passages have one thing in common: that Plu-
tarch uses the word SsiatSatiJiovia to describe a mentality
with regard to the gods that he condemns and looks upon
as a disease, a vice, a proof of mental feebleness or a parody

of real, true piety. At the same time, however, he would
not change this spiritual outlook if entire lack of religion,
dae|3sta or dOsoTT)? were to be the result. Once more perhaps,
one may be allowed to point out the difference between
Polybius and Plutarch: the latter, feeling the \'cure of souls\'
to be his pleasant duty, on seeing someone suffering from
S£iCTiSai[jiovia is moved to pity and would do everything in
his power to remedy, by his kindly counsels, this grievous
disease. Polybius, on the other band, would probably be at
once thankful for his own enlightenment and rather proud,
while wishing to maintain the victim\'s Ssi(7tSai[jiovia, as
being the only way to curb the ordinary man\'s lawless
instincts.

We will now turn our attention to a few passages, where
Plutarch\'s usage of the word SetatSatixovia is not, at first
^ight, quite obviously condemnatory, although a second
reading will generally decide it is. When he speaks about
a law in Sicyon that no one should be buried within the

word has the meaning of the Latin \'religio\', that can be
used in the same wayThe fact, however, of Plutarch\'s
using this word, with which, as we have seen, he nearly
always signifies a species of religious feeling which he by no
means admires, probably proves that he himself did n\'t
share the \'shivery feeling\' in this case. Lycurgus, by allowing
burial within the town, took away from the graves tvjv
SeiaiSaifxoviav ocTraaav 3). The same story is told elsewhere

and Plutarch is evidently in favour of Lycurgus\' action:
\'as regards the graves be took excellent measures\', he says,
\'for through them young people were no longer afraid, as
if death rendered them impure, when they touched a corpse
or passed graves\' i). We can safely conclude that Plutarch,
not admiring this taboo, on purpose called it a name, which
implied criticism to him, though it did n\'t necessarily to
all others 2).

After Cylon and his followers had been murdered Athens
was torn asunder by civil discord, Salamis was lost xal
96P01 Tiveq ex S£iCTi8ai[Xovia? (x(xa xal cpdcJ(JiaTa xaxELXs t^v
TcoXiv»). To put matters right Epimenides, the well-known
prophet was sent for, a man, as the historian puts it, wise
as regards the divine matters, in the enthusiastic and mystic
rites. He simplifies all kinds of ceremonies, more especially
the funeral rites, which he deprived of their harsh and
barbaric character, that formerly especially oppressed
most women. AeiaiSaiiJiovia is here used as a name for that
frightened and rather nervous form of religion, that arises
in times of crisis, but Plutarch sympathizes with the reformer,
who more or less smooths it down and liberates it of its
excesses.

In his life of Marcellus, where Posidonius is perhaps his
source, Plutarch tells the story of a certain Nicias, an inhab-
itant of a little Sicilian town, who is in danger of being
extradited, by his fellow-citizens, to the Carthaginians on
a charge of pro-Romanism. On purpose he now starts
blaspheming the \'Mothers\', the locally venerated divinities
and at last, during a meeting, in the middle of his speech,
he suddenly falls down and lies motionless, while all others

stand about in fearful silence. Unexpectedly he jumps up,
throws off his clothes, calls out he is being pursued by the
Mothers and, looking like a madman, runs out of the city-
gate and so makes good his escape, no one daring to touch
him Side SsicriSaiptovtav . It is more than probable that
the writer joined in the laugh at the expense of these out-
witted Sicilians.

It is perhaps not just by chance that those passages,
where our doubt as to the exact meaning of the words Setai-
SaifAovia etc. is most justified, all have some relation to the
Romans, whose euXapeia Tcp6lt;; to 6stov was a frequently
recurring theme in the ancient historians.

Speaking about the \'black days\' of the Romans he tells
the story of the Fabians and how the day they were mas-
sacred was one of the blackest to their countrymen, and because
of it two other days in each month: TYj(; Tcp6lt;; t6 oufjipav
euXape{a(; xal Setcji8ai.(i.ovia(; etcI ttXsov, wcjtrsp etwGe, pueicrrj?
Although there is certainly a critical undertone in these
last words, still it is rather surprising to find SetatSatpiovta
used practically synonymous with euXa(3eta, a word to which
we have seen 3) Plutarch did not generally attribute an
unfavourable meaning. It is noteworthy, too, how he starts
by saying that he will not now investigate further whether
one is really justified in admitting ill-omened days.

Ateius, a tribune of the people, had tried to prevent Cras-
sus\' expedition to the East and cursed him, when he left,
with frightful and horrible curses, invoking awful and por-.
tentous gods. The Romans say that the power of these
ancient curses is so great that no one can escape it, but that
they also bring misfortune to him who uttered them. That

is why they are used only very seldom and why everyone
was angry with Ateius that he, having quarrelled with
Crassus because of the city dlt;; auTy]v dpa? dtp^xs xal Seici-
SatfxovCav xoaauTv^v i). In this case we have no evidence of
Plutarch\'s criticizing this \'uneasy feeling\', which is the result
of a bad conscience; on the contrary the issue of the exped-
ition seems to have more than justified it.

Very few Vestal Virgins avail themselves of the permission
to lay down their priesthood and to marry, after serving
thirty years. The few who do marry generally become un-
happy, tormented by remorse and throw the others ele;
Seifft8ai[j.oviav: into a state of mind, half fear, half awe, it
probably is, but here, too, the meaning is not directly un-
favourable

Once again the word turns up in relation to the mysterious
Vestal Virgins. Perhaps the Vestal, who has sinned, is buried
alive, because no one dares lay violent hands on her sacred
person and even so those who bury her don\'t escape \'a guilty
feeling\' (-n]v SetCTtSai[jLoviav), but up till now the priests go
there and offer sacrifices (evaYt^ouatv)

These examples, where SeioiSaifjiovia is not used in a sense
that is clearly condemnatory, although it is by no means
impossible that it is, are so few that we can state as an un-
doubted fact that wherever Plutarch uses the word Seiat-
Sai[j.ovta he means a religiosity which he disapproves of.

Although an analysis of his treatise Trepl Seio-iSaifxovta«;
will hardly add any entirely new elements to the conception
we have now formed of what Plutarch meant by Setct-
Sai[xovia, it is nevertheless full of interesting and instructive
detail, that makes the picture more vivid and life-like.

Besides, while all his other remarks on Sei(nSai(xov[a are made
more or less in passing, this little essay is a theoretical ex-
position of his ideas and as such deserves our attention.

In some ways this treatise, probably written when Plu-
tarch was still young, differs in its criticism of SeiatSaij^ovta
from what we have met with in his other works. To a large
extent this may be explained by the fact that he here
follows a Cynic diatribe, hugging his original rather closely i),
and the youthfulness of the author can also have been the
cause of his radical views.

The chief distinction is that here he backs impiety (dOeÖTT]?)
against SeiotSaifjiovia as the lesser evil, whereas we have
seen that in his other writings he would hke to free people
from their SetCTiSaifxovia but not if \'impiety\' would be the
result 2).

In the introductory paragraph he mentions \'godlessness\'
and \'anxious piety\' as the two forms in which the lack
of knowledge and ignorance concerning the gods manifests
itself and at the very end, in a few words Plutarch warns
his readers that, fleeing SeiatSatptovta, they must n\'t rush
into the opposite extreme, but should seek the golden mean,
\'real piety\'. We have here a reminiscence of Peripatetic
doctrine®); elsewhere in this treatise the comparison between
these two always turns out favourable to \'utter disregard of
the gods\'.

\') On his sources, and in general on this essay, consult the thesis
of Abernetty. De Plutarchi qui fertur de superstitione libello. Diss.
Königsberg. 1911.
Cf. p. 69.

\') Paton ad locum: \'certe hie Plutarchus Peripateticorum doctri-
nam secutus mediam____ viam commendat etc.\'

by its name, an emotional conception and an idea that
causes fear, which oppresses a person and consumes him,
as he believes that gods do exist, but that they are
dangerous and cruel. Fear is the worst of \'emotions\' (udGif)) as
it checks one\'s actions and is a source of helplessness and
perplexity and of all species of fear SeiatSaifxovia is again
the most awful in its consequences. Nobody is afraid of
war when he is n\'t campaigning and all fear of the sea vanishes
when one is on land, slaves can find a short rest for their
troubles when asleep, but the SeiatSaifxwv is always afraid.
Even in his sleep he is tormented by horrible dreams and
once awake be does n\'t laugh at all those horrors as unreal,
but runs to all sorts of begging priests and wizards, which
costs him lots of money and, following their advice, he
bathes himself in sea-water or sits on the ground a whole
day or tries to purify himself in some other way. All kinds
of barbaric and horrible religious rites have been created
by the inflamed imagination of the SeiaiSaifitov.

Tyrants or cruel masters one can flee, but a SsiaiSaCfjiwv
can never find a moment\'s rest, for a person who is afraid
of the gods of his fathers naturally fears all other gods as
well.

He has horrible conceptions about life in the hereafter,
where he imagines there are flaming rivers in a darkened
country, many judges and \'punishers\'. The ungodly are
much better off than a man who thinks the gods are cruel
and hard-hearted. The 8ei,ai.Sat[jLtov believes the gods to have
human shapes as the sculptors portray them and he ridicules
philosophers and better-informed men when they tell him
that the divinity is both good and great.

He is afraid of the gods but at the same time he seeks
them, he flatters and he reviles them, prays to them and
utters reproaches. An atheist may blame blind coincidence
when misfortune overtakes him, but the SEtCTtSai[i.tov sees
God\'s hand everywhere. If he falls ill, loses a child or has
bad luck in his political life he regards the godhead as the
cause of everything and he does nothing to ward off or
amehorate his misfortune. The doctor who wants to help
and the philosopher who comes to offer consolation are
both shut out^). \'Let me suffer my punishment, he says, me,
impious man (dccjep?)), cursed by the gods and hated by the
demons\'.

If he suffers from a mild form of SeKJiSatpiovia he will try
to have himself purified by sulphurating, and old women
that he calls in will hang on him, as on a peg, Bion says,
whatever they happen to have with them. In misfortune
he at once loses all hope, because he regards it as a heaven-
sent punishment and he won\'t be helped. Lots of people
have perished through their SeiCTtSaifjiovCa, Nicias for one,
although an echpse of the moon is nothing awful at all,
while an eclipse of the spirit which blinds all rational think-
ing where it is most necessary, is terrible. Other people pray
the gods to help them when in distress: apeTV)? yap
6 6e6? eaxiv, ou SeiXia^ 7T;p69aCTt(;; the Jews however, caught
in their SsiatSaifxovia as in a net, did n\'t defend themselves
at all when the enemy attacked their city on a Sabbath,

In the cheerful things of life 8ei(TtSai[i.ov(a is n\'t able either
to hold its own against aesoTV]?. The most pleasant things
in life are, of course, festivities and banquets near the temples,
initiations and offerings to the gods. An atheist takes part

■) It is hardly necessary to point out that this type of piety is
well-known in the present time as well, at least in Holland.

in all of them, even if he does n\'t believe in them at all;
he may perhaps smile ironically in his sleeve and say to
his friends that people who worship the gods in this fashion
must be a bit crazy, but for the rest he can enjoy them.
The SeiaiSatfxtov on the other hand wears a wreath above a
deadly-pale face, he is anxious while he sacrifices, he prays
with a quavering voice and trembling hands. In a temple
he is more afraid than an3rwhere else. Is n\'t all that much
worse than disbelieving in the gods? Plutarch would much
rather have people deny his existence than have them
say about him that he is untrustworthy, fickle, bad-
tempered, petty-souled. And the SsicriSat[jLO)v believes things
like that of the gods, f. i. that Artemis killed Niobe\'s children
because she had been insulted and that the Syrian goddess
punishes anyone who eats her holy fishes by striking him
down with a horrible disease*).

Because the SeiCTiSaifxwv thinks the gods are like that:
capricious, not to be trusted, cruel, small-minded, vindictive
he hates them and is afraid of them. The atheist beheves
there are no gods, the SsKTiSalfxojv wishes there were none,
but believes in them willy-nilly, because he lacks the pluck
to disbelieve. If he could only screw up his courage he would
like to be an atheist himself.

Atheism never leads to SEtc7iSai[xov[a, but that is n\'t true
the other way round, for when people see the ridiculous
rites, the magic and sorcery, the barbarian punishments
and impure purifications some say: better no gods, than
gods who have to be worshipped in that way. Much better
be a Scythian and not have any notion whatever about
the existence of gods than a Carthaginian and offer children
in sacrifice.

However one should not rush away from the extreme of
SsiatSati^ovia to the other extreme of atheism, but choose
the golden mean, real piety: euaeiBeta.

This end, added, as it were, as an afterthought, is in keeping
with Plutarch\'s doctrine as explained elsewhere i), but the
violent character of his onslaught on SstaiSaifxovla is mostly
due to his Cynic predecessor, who, it should be noted, while
ndiculing many extravagant religious ceremonies, attacks
as the greatest evil the wrong conceptions about the nature
of the gods, the anxious fear with regard to them.

If we now turn to an investigation of the meaning in
which SsicjiSaifiovta is used by the Christian authors we will
see that, under the influence of the new religion, a change
has taken place.

It is well-known that Christianity has deeply influenced
both Greek and Latin i), especially, as has been pointed
out i. a. by Deissmann by the fact that the Christians
used old words with a new meaning. Words like aTrocfToXo?,
AyyeXoi; and many others were, of course, well-known and
much-used long before the Christian era, but they acquired
a new sense in the group-language of the Christians. The
same holds good of the words we are investigating in this
thesis, for, as will be shown, Set(jiSa£[jiwv becomes, with the
Ecclesiastical writers, a common designation for \'heathen\'.

We have here one of the causes that bring about changes
in the meanings of words. When a hitherto unknown con-
ception has to be designated, either a new word must be formed
to fulfil this task or, as is quite often the case, someone may
use an already known word in a new sense and it may then
pass into general usage 3).

\') Cf. Schrijnen. Handleiding bij de studie der verg. Indog. Taal-
wetenschap.2 p. 156. Licht vom Osten.* p. 86.

Cf. the Dutch word \'luistervink\', which of late, under influence
of the radio-wave, has changed its meaning from \'eavesdropper* to
\'listener-in\'.

It IS obvious that the Christians, aware of the difference
between themselves and those who did not profess their
rehgion, needed a word to designate these \'pagans\' Who
It was that first used SstcrtSatfxov^a in this new sense of\'pagan-
ism we do not know, but we already find it in Justin and
It seems to have been generally accepted pretty soon

That especially this word came to mean \'heathen\' is un-
doubtedly connected with the fact that the ancient Christians

Traces of this idea are already to be found in Jewish
popular behef«). In one of the Sibylhne oracles e. g we
read a threat to those who have left the true and eternal
God and who, instead of praising him and sacrificing to him
have sacrificed Salfioai .... toTctiv h quot;AiSyjiS).

From the Jews this belief has passed to the Christians
It would seem that St. Paul regarded the heathen gods as
demons, having a real existence, though they were not gods\'
an Enghsh scholar¹) has said and he quotes a text like
I Cor. 10^0 ^here St. Paul says of the offerings of the pagans-
a 0uouatv, Sat(xovJoilt;; xal oO Gewt Giiouaiv.

A clearer proof that a Christian did not deny the existence
of the heathen gods we have in the case of Justin. When
the demons showed their might, he says«\'), the pagans did
not recognize them as demons, but carried away by fear
they called them gods, not aware Sa^fxova, sivat ^«^Xou,.\'

as \'inhuman and misanthropic demons\' and St. Augustine
calls them \'inutilia simulacra vel immundos spiritus et per-
niciosa daemonia\' i). The real character of these gods has

Finally, to quote an example from a non-literary source,
in a Syrian inscription of a very late date, erected in honour
of the fact that a pagan temple had been turned into a
Christian church, we read:

It may be readily accepted that, where we find even men
like Clemens and St. Augustine believing in the reaUty of
these \'demons\', the great mass of the Christians shared
this idea and were fully convinced not only of the existence
but of the power of the heathen gods.

Of course, now and then, we come across an utterance
which denies the existence of any gods but one, but, as
has been shown above, the other opinion seems to have
been more widely spread.

We understand now how the word SsiCTtSai[ji«v came to
be used in its new sense by the Christians: a pagan to them
was \'one who feared the demons\'. It is to be noted that,
while for instance Plutarch\'s criticism of SsiaiSaipiovta
aims chiefly at the element of fear, it is the second part of
the word that gives it its unfavourable sense when used
by the Christians. As the Etym. Gudianum puts it: ou toiIx;
Satpiova?----SeStevai xp^Jnbsp;tov ^vto)? SvTa 6e6v«).

The first examples of this new usage that we have are to
be found in Justin Martyr. In his Apology he appeals to his
readers to form an honest opinion about Christianity, un-
influenced by prejudice or the wish to please \'the fearers of
the demons\': dvöpwTcapsaxeiat xr^i SstCTtSaifxovwv i). Elsewhere
he uses the same word to denote the ancient religion of their
fathers, when speaking to the pagans. They can learn from
Orpheus that there is only one god, if a certain hesitation
or TtaXaia tóöv Trpoyóvwv .... SeiatSatpiovta as, yet prevents
them from reading the prophecies of the holy men «).

Clemens of Alexandria passionately hated the \'inhuman
and misanthropic demons\', and his language shows a certain
fierceness when he attacks the stupidity of those who fear
them. To a large extent he is dependent on the ancient
philosophers who had already been criticizing the popular
religion of their countrymen since the days of Xenophanes,
as we have seen in an earlier chapter. He loses sight of thé
fact that to them SeioiSaipiovta meant something entirely ■
different from what he understood by it himself.

His usage has an especial interest for us because in his
writings we see, as it were, the change of meaning taking
place.

When he calls atheism and SetaiSaifAovia two excessive
forms of ignorance®) this is the ordinary Peripatetic doctrine
and when, before quoting some verses of Menander\'s
AsiCTtSat(xamp;gt;v, in which he ridicules the people who see a sign
in every little thing, Clemens says eixoTw? xotvuv SsioiSaC-

fxovelt;; Ttepi xouc; suopyiQTOui; yiwiizvot Tidcvxa (lYjtieia yjyouvTai
slvai rd crufxpaivovxa this is quite the same usage as we have
found in the non-Christian authors In other passages
there is only a slight, if any, difference between his usage
and that of the pagan critics of SeiaiSaifjiovta.

After telling how Erechtheus and Marius offered their
daughters in sacrifice he ironically adds that that shows how
the demons love human beings and asks nSgt;c, Ss oux Baiot
dvaXoyco? ot SEtaiSatfiovs? sc, xaxa9aivovxat 2). In the same
way the Greek philosophers had protested against human
sacrifices and Plutarch e. g. uses them as an argument to
show what a degrading and horrible thing this wrong
conception of the gods was®).

There is nothing to show of which especial group he is
thinking when he says that the SeicriSaifjLovs? in spite of them-
selves become aware of their errors in regard to the gods ¹).
In the passage where he tauntingly remarks to his ad-
versaries that fire is not afraid of demons as it attacks and
destroys their temples and statues, so that it may be regarded
as a SsKTiSatfxovtai; taxix6v®), also, although it is evident that
he denounces it, we can\'t be sure that this usage of the word is
original. It may have been used by one of the pagan philosophers
who criticized the worship of images, although there is, I
believe, no example of their calling it with this name.

Following the lead of the Stoics «) he calls fear an \'emotion*
(7tdeolt;;), but he expounds his Christian doctrine in what
he adds, viz. that not all fear can be regarded as such:
7] youv SetffiSatfxovia nddoc;, 96^0? Sai[x6vwv oSaa exTraGtov xe
xal e(X7ra0agt;v, while the fear of the God, who is untouched

by emotion, itself also is free from it: one is n\'t afraid of God
but of losing himx). Here we find traces of the by-meaning\'
lear of the wrong gods, the evil demons.

This is the case in several other passages, where the con-
demnation of SstatS«t.aovJ« is obvious, but where it is not
unambiguously identified with paganism as such, although
to all probability Clemens meant it that way. Once it is
contrasted with real piety 2), while elsewhere it is pointed
out that a good man must needs also have right conceptions
about the godsThat is why the man of royal spirit and
real insight, Qeoc.^^q x«lnbsp;is aware that only

The barbarians thought their gods to be wild and cruel-
those of the Greeks are more human, it is true, but emotionable
(efX7r«eerlt;;) and only the Christians have the true ideas
Clemens then refers the reader to his book entitled Pro-
trepticus, as he has there spoken circumstantially uepl....

We are hardly surprised to find that Clemens, who cord-
ially hated and condemned the mysteries regarded them
as SstatS«tfxov(a. In expressing his utter detestation he even
ventured an etymological explanation of their name- they
are he says, mere idle talknbsp;6.jps6ouat yip .... d

j^uGot oc TotofSe (about the mysteries, that is) the most bar-
barian Thracians, the silhest Phrygians, \'EXX^vcov xoO,,
What his opinion of these last is, is suf-
ficiently proved by their company. A bit further on«) he
curses and execrates those who have first made man
acqua^ with the mysteries, who-ever they may have been.

2 Strom. 2. 8. 40 S. 162. «) Protr. 10. 108. 3 S. 30.
) Strom. 7. 4. 22. 2 S. 302. «) 1. c.
\') Protr. 2. 13. 2 S. 5. •) 1. c. § 3.

They planted this seed of all unrighteousness and perdition
in human life; them, he says, he would call the mischief-
beginning fathers (xu6cov d6ea)v xal SeicjLSat[jiovta? oXsSpiou,
That SiQeoq, and SeiaiSaipiovta are here used, as it were,
in one and the same breath is significant of the change in
meaning that has taken place.

We find the two connected again in an impassioned pro-
test against the stage on which adulteries and orgies of the
gods are shown i). O impiety! he exclaims. Heaven you
have made a stage-setting and the divine has become a
subject for the drama, what is holy you have mocked at
with the masks of demons t7)v dX7)6Y) Gsoaepsiav SeiaiSaitioviat
caTupiaavTE?. Here we have once more the contrast between
0£oae^£ta and SeiaiSaifiovia, which is at the same time a form
of godlessness.

Examples in which it is at once obvious that the pagans
as such are called SEioiSaifzovE? abound as well. He calls
animals happy above men: ou 8£icriSai(iovoucrtv Ix^ue«;, oux
EtScoXoXaTpEt Td 8pvEa

In defending the Christians against the charge of atheism,
the atheist is opposed to the SsiaiSaifjicov who is described
as 6 SeSiw? xd Sat[jL6via, 6 Tcavra eeidCwv, even wood and stone»).
In the same way they are called ol 8eiaiSai[i,ov£?, ol twv
XiGcov TtpoffxuvTjxai«). Tmage-worshippers\' is Clemens\' de-
signation in a passage in which he, with fiery eloquence,
exhorts the pagans not to listen to what this vulgar scum,
SEioiSaijzovia? d^sot xop^^\'^«\' ••••nbsp;7tot,7)Tal xal Xt0wv

Trpoaxuv7)Tal tell them, these men, who have even dared to
deify Alexander, although Babylon saw his corpse®).

Characteristic of Clemens\' bitter invective, and instructive
for our purpose as well, is a passage which we shall
quote more fully i). In passionate astonishment he asks
himself: carried astray by what kind of phantasies men
first SetcrtSatfxovtav àvepoTiotç xaTyjyyeiXav, Saifjiovaç àXi-njpiouç
vo(io0eto5vt£ç ctéPeiv, for whom, according to tradition, they
built temples and altars and introduced sacrifices. Be that
as it may, rising from somewhere i) SEimSatfjiovia .... xaxiaç
âvovjTou YEyove TCTjy^; afterwards increasing all the time
Svjfxioupyoç TcoXXûv xaGiCTTaxai Satfjiovwv, éxaT6(xpaç Oûoucra
xal 7ravy)yûpetç ÈTutTsXouaa xal âyàxfxata àvtcttôcffa xal vewç
âvoixoSofxouCTa, temples that could better be called graves,
and therefore, he winds up his exhortation: SeiaiSaifxoviaç
èxXàGscTÔE, Toùç Ta90u? Ttfjiàv atax^^vofjiEvoi. Here it is clear to
every one that Clemens regards the whole so-called Olympian
ritual with its sacrifices and temples, its altars and festivals
as SsiatSaifxovia, an abomination and a sin.

Eusebius very often uses the word SEioiSatfiovia.
\'Hellenism\', according to him, one might define as t7)v ....
eîç TtXeiovaç Geoùç 8stc7tSai[jioviav Often a further quahfi-
cation is added: ttji tcoXu^ewi SEiatSaipioviai ») for instance
and ettI tyjv tcoXijOeov .... SEtaiSaifxovtav«); in these cases
the whole expression can be translated by \'polytheism\'.
He calls it tyjv àôeov xal TToXuTrXavîj SEiciSaifxoviav«), a phrase
that would have been a contradiction to Plutarch, and
elsewhere he adds à^cpi xà EÏScoXa or Ttspl rà ayaXpiara or
some such expression

An addition like that, however, is not absolutely neces-
sary. He describes his method of evangelization in respect
to \'EXXt^vov Totlt;; SstCTiSaCfjiocnv, which consists of first putting
forward refutations -^c, eiSwXoXdxpou TtXdvri^; and demon-
strating that there is only one God i). Eusebius praises
Constantine that he, in opposition to former emperors who
embellished the temples, destroyed those that were especial-
ly in honour Trapd rot? SeiCTtSaifzocriv In a certain town
Constantine did away with all idolatry, so that there no
longer were found images, festivals or any of the other
things that are customary toT? SetaiSaifxoaiv

Abraham, ex Traxfpcov opfxtlipiEvo¹; SeiaiSaifiovov, changed
his life*); he was converted t^; TrarptxT)«; SeiCTtSaifiovtaf;,
as it is put elsewhere ®).

Eusebius calls the Egyptians of all men toiIx; .... Setcji-
Sai[jtov£CTTdToult;; ®); they had been regarded as such by non-
Christian writers as well\'), but that to the ecclesiastic it
means something different is shown by his saying of other
people atyuTCTia^oucri xaxd ttjv SsiaiSaifiova TtXdvvjv ®).

Many other examples®) from Eusebius could be quoted,
but those already mentioned are sufficient proof that he
calls every form of religion apart from orthodox Christianity
by the name of SsiaiSatfjiovta. On the other hand he uses
6eo(poPta as a synonym of euaepeia in a favourable sense, of
the 6£09iXs!:lt;;, the god-fearing Jews of the Old Testament lo).

Athanasius speaks of Greeks, that are converted to
Christianitynbsp;-rijv tlt;ov etslt;i)xo)v SetaiSaifzovJav i).

Plato is reproached by Epiphanius for having believed
m the migration of souls x«l TroXoOetai? xal xai? dXXai? elStoXo-
Xaxp(ailt;; xal SeiCTtSai(xoviailt;; 2).

It is a matter of general knowledge how Julian the Apostate
was hated and detested by his Christian contemporaries
and their successors. It is interesting that he. to whom
the creed of the Christians was SeiatSatfiovJa»), was in his
turn attacked in the same way by the Fathers.

Gregorius of Nazianzus
Gregorius of Nazianzus, in defending Christianity against
him, argued that all the wisdom of the Greeks was due to
foreign peoples. Astronomy they had adopted from the
Babylonians, the Persians had taught them magic, to the
Thracians they owed their epy)axe6£iv and so on; at last all
these elements uniting Sv SeiaiSai^iovfa? ouvlaxyj (xucrx^piov .

To hear a true opinion about his \'demons\', Cyrillus refers
him to his \'fellow-pagan\' Porphyrins: x6v .... aovSecaiSaJ-
fiova nop9ijptov

abuse. He is mentioned by a scholiast as one those \'who
returned like a dog to their vomiting\', upo¹; tyjv apxatav
SEiatSatfxoviav dcTroxXtvavTE«;.

It may be the same anonymous writer who elsewhere
in expressing his loathing of paganism even hazards a rather
feeble pun: tipo«; tyji Xoitt^i SsiatSaifioviai, (xaXXov Se (xavtat.
TTjt TTSpl Tou? XeyoiJisvou!; BsoCx; xal IIpiaTrov xiva Gsov Elvai
quot;EXXY)velt;; (jiefjiuBoXoYrjxaaiv.

After quoting a few verses of Menander, in which the
exaggerated belief in portents is ridiculed, Theodoretus
remarks that in this way even ol tui t^? 8eiaiSai[xovia(; uXavwi
SeSouXeuxoTEi; jeered at those miraculous signs, in which
the masses believe even now This is a very striking proof
of the change in meaning that has taken place: Menander
who mocked at what he regarded as \'SEtatSaipiovia\' is looked
upon by the Christian writer as himself enslaved by the
errors of \'paganism\', what he evidently means by the word.

In his Ecclesiastical History*) he tells about a young
man, a priest\'s son, who having grown up in \'impiety\' (Suct-

Xop{)v). A friend of his mother\'s, a lady well-known because
of her piety (euXapEia) tried to convert him and with success,
as the young man took her admonishments to heart and
enquired of her in what manner he might flee rJjv tou 7ratp6(;
SetctSaifzovtav. It is noteworthy that Suacrepeia and Seiat-
Satfiovta are here practically regarded as synonyms, while

1nbsp;nbsp;Therap. 6. ed. Gaisf. p. 88»; Migne P. G. 83 p. 961.
\') Hist. Eccl. 3. 14. 2.

the word eôXàpsLa, used by Greek critics of SetaiSaifzovfa
more or less along with that word, here has the same meaning
as eùaépeia.

It is only natural that we meet with this change of mean-
ing in the lexicographers as well. Hesychius explains Sewi-
8ai(iov[a by the word cpopoGeta and further has: SeiatSaipicov
Ô Tà eïScoXa cTépcov. elScoXoXàrpT)?. ô eùcrsp^jç xal SecXàç Trspl
Oeoi;. This definition is, as it were, a short history of the
word\'s meaning; its first part records the favourable and
unfavourable sense in which it is used by the \'pagans\' and
the second part the meaning the word had come to have
for the Christians, {^psaxé?- TrsptTTéç. SeiaiSalfxtov is another
explanation of Hesychius while in the Excerpta Cyrilli
Gloss, we find: SsiCTtSatpiov^aç- Xaxp^aç Satpiévwv i).

Photius has a curious and not entirely comprehensible
notice \'ÔXoXouç- toÙç SsiatSalfxovaç èxàXouv otwviJ:optlvouç «).

Etymologicum Gudianum
In the Etym. Gud. we read 8staiSa([xcov 6 ScSlcoç toùç
SaCfiovaç, and (s. v. sôSaipiovla) SsKnSaijxovia .... ^opoGsta
^ tô SsStévai toùç Saîpiovaç. The Etym. Magn. (s. v. SslSco)
has the same double explanation of SeiaiSafpitov as Hesychius
VIZ. Ô eùXap:;]ç xal SsiXèç rrepl Osoù; and elsewhere SstaiSaifiwv

Rather more interesting is a notice that the Etym. Gud.
has s. V. SstctSatfiovia and that here is quoted in full:

Tcapd (lev tott; quot;EXXyjdiv sttI xaXou Xa(i,pdveTai Seov SeSi^ai
Toi»lt;; Oeou^ auTcSv. Trap\' rnzlv Ss tollt;; XpidTtavoii; sTtl t^? daepeta?
XeysTat t6 tv)«; 8eiatSat(xov[alt;; 6vo[xa. ou toui; Satfxovai; yip
SeSiEvat XP\'*) dXXd t6v Svtwi; ovra 6e6v. xal exsivoui; (xcv fjnoetv
ex6poult;; xal 7coXs[i.ioui; xal daTTOvSou«; det\'tov Se Oeov tov tou
x6c7{xou travtoi; ttoiiqtiqv te xal xuPspv^ttjv dyaTiav te xal cfEpEaOai.

Worded a bit differently — SetdiSattJiovia is defined as ^
7tp6? Toi)(; 7tov7}poiI)(; Satfiova? ETtifxeXsia xal 96^0? — the same
notice is also found in the Etym. Magnum. What at once
attracts our notice is not the fact that here Seilt;ji8at(iovta
is identified with paganism but that according to these
lexicographers it is used in a favourable sense by \'the
Greeks\', .as this is only very partially true.

Suidas finally, who quotes several instances of the word,
noticed elsewhere i), adds no new element in his own defin-
ition to what we have found in the other lexicographers.

In his lexicon, which forms as it were a termination of
Byzantine \'etymological\' studies, Phavorinus defines Ssi-
(nSat|xov(a in nearly the same way as the other etymologists,
but it is interesting to find amongst others these definitions
to TcdvTa aepstv xal Ta (xy) oepdCTfxia and 6 dXcyoi; (p6|3oi; tuv
6ewv, which prove, once again, that it was especially the
exaggeration of the SsiaiSaipiwv that came in for criticism.
The worshipping and fear in itself are not criticized, but
to worship what does n\'t deserve it and to fear in an
irrational way.
Cf. p. 30, 31.

If we now endeavour to summarize in a few words the
results of the foregoing investigation, at the same time
comparing them with the opinions of others as to the history
of these words, I think it can be confidently stated:

I. The original meaning of SsiatSaifjiovta undoubtedly was
\'piety, awe, reverence towards the gods\' and no criticism
whatever was implied in the word. According to Heerdegen i)
three tests should be applied to ascertain the original sense
of a word viz. its etymology, its usage and if possible, an
ancient definition. The existence of the proper name Aei-
a\'lQsoq is sufficient etymological proof that the first element of
the word SstatSaifjtov^a need not mean \'cowardly or ridiculous
fear\' and though there certainly is a difference between 026? and
SaJfxtov, originally it is so slight, that we are not forced to accept
a difference in meaning betweennbsp;and Sei(7iSa((jitov.

This opinion is borne out by the \'usus\' of Xenophon and
Aristotle, where we first meet SewtSalfxcov and where it
simply means \'god-fearing, pious\'. As to a definition from
antiquity, we have several i. a. in Theophrast, Pollux and
Hesychius. It is only natural that these definitions vary,
but they nearly all agree in regarding SetcnSatpiovJa as some-
thing different from real piety, as cowardice or exaggerated
fear of the gods. This does not, however, disprove the assert-
ion that the original sense was favourable. Every author
naturally defines what he himself regards as SetaiSaipiovia
\') Lateinische Semasiologie p. 99.

and I can not agree with Heerdegen that in a case hke this
these definitions help us to understand the original meaning.
It is, for instance, obvious, that the definition of the Etym.
Magnum: \'SsiaiSatptovta means the worship and the fear of
the evil demons\' is only true for the \'usus\' of the Christian
authors. Hesychius however, explains SetatSatficov as \'idolater,
worshipper of idols\' but he also has: 6 suciepT]^ xai SeiXo;;
TOpi Gsoilx;, which shows that he — or his sources — knew
the usage of the word in a favourable sense as well.

There is nothing whatever to justify Hild\'s idea i), that
the word SsiaLSaifiovta owes its origin to the cult of evil
spirits; on the contrary it can be regarded as certain that
the word, as used by the non-Christian writers, never had
anything to do with \'evil spirits\' and originally merely
expressed, as has been said before: \'piety, reverence towards
the unseen\'. At the same time it is true that the mental
attitude which is described as SetCTtSaifxoviK, even where
the word is used in a favourable sense, lays especial stress
on that element of religion, that can be called \'awe\'. As
to the original meaning nearly every one is in agreement,
but, it is added, the sense of the word deteriorated and
since Theophrast and Menander it is only used in an un-
favourable sense. This opinion, as has been shown in our
first chapter, is erroneous. Examples have been found
throughout the whole period of Greek literature of a usage
in a favourable sense and besides the significant fact has
come to light, that where we find these words used in in-
scriptions the meaning is always favourable.

It has been ascertained moreover that these words, used
in a favourable sense, can have various shades of meaning,
which will be noticed below 2).

IL Although the idea that Ss^nSaifjiovta is used exclusively
in an unfavourable sense since Theophrast i) is mistaken,
it is nevertheless true that the majority of Greek writers,
who were mostly \'enlightened\' and out of touch with
popular religion, used it in that way, to designate those
forms of piety which they regarded as ridiculous or exagger-
ated. But here, once again, we have noticed that there are
many shades of meaning and that it is inexact to translate
SsimSociixovix by \'superstition\', as it very seldom means
that, if we take this word in the modern sense.

Many modern scholars in defining SsicrtSaipiovia lose sight
of its manifold meanings and give definitions which only
fit the usage of certain writers. When for instance Toutain
says 2) : \'de même que Cicéron opposait religio à superstitio,
de même en grec, au moins sous l\'Empire, on opposait
sùcjépeia à SstcjiSaifjiovia\' he is evidently thinking of Plutarch,
and the same is even more true in the case of Schoemann»).

It is quite inexact to speak of \'the\' unfavourable meaning,
as it is clear that though e. g. both Polybius and Plutarch
use SeiatSaifxovfa with a derogative connotation, the en-
lightened historian regards the whole of popular religion
as such while Plutarch means only a form of piety, that
he regards as cowardly or exaggerated.

The change of meaning from favourable to unfavourable,
from \'awe\' to \'funk\', if we may once more use Marett\'s term-

\') Ast was wrong in thinking (Characteres, 1816) that the word
S£tCTiSai(iov(a was first used in this way in the time of Polybius; he
even regarded this usage in Theophrast as a proof that the 16tH Charact.
could n\'t have been written by him. Jebb has pointed to Menander
(ed. Jebb-Sandys p. 138) and we can add the example from Polystra-
tus (cf. p. 45).

=) Dar.-Saglio s. v. rehgio IV p. 831b.
») Schoemann-Lipsius, Gr. Alt. II p. 149.

inology, can be explained both psychologically and historically.
The man, who is always keenly aware of his dependence
on \'to Sat[z6viov\', \'the divine powers\', who tries with all his
might to placate these \'powers\' and to avoid all ritual
defilement, very easily changes into the SEiCTtSaCfjitov as
depicted by Theophrast, who carries all this to a ridiculous
extreme.

Historically speaking, the change becomes comprehensible
when we consider the fact that, from the times of the So-
phists — and perhaps even earlier — there was an ever-
widening chasm between the religious beliefs and practices
of the masses and of that intellectual elite, which expresses
itself in literature i). The penetration of foreign, chiefly
Oriental cults in Greece is a symptom of this difference
between the masses and the best-educated men, but I doubt
if this irruption in itself is responsible for the change of
meaning SsiaiSaipLovia underwent.

Neither, so it seems to me, is Immisch right in saying that
SeiCTtSatfxovta meant piety, as long as the belief in demons
was not confined to the lower classes 2). While it is true
that the word \'Saifxwv\', too, underwent a change to the
worse in its meaning and that this probably will have in-
fluenced the usage of SeiaiSaifjiovta as well, it can not be
truly said that the change of the latter word was caused
by that of the former. In fourth-century Greek, in the ora-
tors f. i., TO Sat[x6viov is quite an ordinary expression for
\'the divinity, divine powers\' and Immisch is mistaken when
he, evidently under the influence of the idea that this word
must necessarily mean \'the demoniac powers\' asserts that

\') Cf. Paul Decharme, La critique des traditions religieuses chez les
Grecs, passim.

it is characteristic for Theophrast that \'der Definition
durchaus entsprechend sein SstatSatpicov nur mit dämoni-
schen Wesen zu thun hat\'.

Besides, the fact that Plutarch, who certainly did believe
in \'demons\', uses the word Ssi(nSai[ji,ovLa in an unfavourable
sense, is sufficient proof, that Immisch\'s explanation of
the change of meaning is not the true one.

Not the limitation of the belief in demons to the lower
classes caused this change, but the fact that the educated
classes were alienated more and more from popular religion,
for, as Nilsson has pointed out, SeiatSai[jiovia, which he

Zorn der Götter wegen der Uebertretungen ihrer groszen
und kleinen Gebote fürchtete\' had its roots in popular
conceptions

In his very brilliant, but on the whole, I think, uncon-
vincing Uttle book \'la Sibylle\', Zielinsky has a chapter
entitled \'crainte de dieu, amour de dieu\', in which the Greek
religion of the classical time is contrasted to that of the
Jews. The first is called a religion of love, the second one
of fear 2). In this connection he comes to speak of the word
S£i(TiSal(jLo)v and says: \'quiconque persistait à craindre ceux
qu\'il fallait aimer, était traité non de pieux, mais de
superstitieux: c\'est le sens propre du mot deisidaimôn,
quot;craignant les dieuxquot;.\' As we have already seen, SsiaiSatfjioiv
has many other meanings as well and besides I very much
doubt whether many of those, who condemned this \'fear

\') Lehrb. d. Religionsgesch. Chantepie de la Saussaye. 11 p. 375;
cf. on the meaning of SeiaiSatpLovta II p. 287; nearly the same in his
History of Greek religion, p. 84.

\') La Sibylle p. 50 sqq.; deisidaimôn p. 53. The same ideas in his
book: La religion de la Grèce antique, p. 99, 100.

While all this makes the change of meaning intelligible,
it is perhaps not superfluous to call attention to the fact
that the word SsiaiSatpiovia itself made such a change quite
easy. \'To fear\' may mean \'to revere\' as well as \'to be deadly
afraid of and, as we have seen before, Saipicov which meant
about the same as Qeoq to many Greeks, designated e. g.
demon, heathen god in the language of the Christian authors.
Plutarch attacks the SetaiSaiptove;; because they \'fear\' i. e.
live in terror of the gods, they ought to love and respect;
the Fathers attack the pagans who \'fear\' i. e. worship the
\'demons\', in stead of the one and only God. These two
examples show that the word SetCTiSai^Aovia had, etymolo-
gically speaking, many possibilities of differentiation in itself.

To the best of my belief 8si(nSai(j.ovia, except in the Christian
writers, nowhere means \'fear of demons\', this last word
taken as a contrast to \'gods\'. The SsLoi8at(ji.ovia which is
attacked and criticized by e. g. Plutarch is not so much
a creed as a frame of mind. That is the reason why I venture
to differ from Miss Harrison, who opposing it to Qspansh.,
regards SstaiSaiixovLa as \'fear, not tendance, fear not of gods
but of spirit-things, or, to put it abstractly, of the super-
natural\' 2). In Plutarch\'s case, and that of many others,
SsiCTiSaifxovJa is attacked in favour of sucrspsia, there is a
psychological, not a ritual difference between this \'false\' and
this \'real\' piety. Plutarch, as far as I know, never says:
\'abandon your fear of spirit-things and tend the gods\' but
he does, quite often, exhort his readers and hearers to banish

\') I believe Zielinsky\'s interpretation of the Homeric OeouSr^? to be
wrong too. In this connection I want to point to a scholion which
explains this word as OsoSev;!;, vj SsiaiSaipiwv, while a later commentator
has added Oeoasp-^q. (Schol. Palat. ad 121).

their terror of the gods, who, he is convinced, are friendly
and well-meaning, in fact much like the kindly philosopher
himself is, only more so.

It is quite probable that especially the 8eicnSat[xov£lt;; were
concerned with dcTroTpoTrY), as is the fact f. i. with the man
Theophrast describes, but that does not justify, to my view at
least. Miss Harrison\'s opinion as to the meaning of SEtcrtSaifxovia.

III. The Christian writers use SsiaiSaiixovfa in a quite
different sense and designate by it the fear of the pagan
gods, or demons as they called them. It is, therefore, not
quite exact to say that they mean by it the same as atr^^sta
or that it is to them synonymous with impiety

») Immisch 1. c.: Wie denn überhaupt der 8eiCTi8ai[xuv im Gegensatz
z. B. zum el\'ptov ein Begriff ist, der rücksichtlich des sittlichen Wert-
urteils in beständigem Sinken begriffen ist, bis schlieszlich das Chris-
tentum das Facit zieht: rtapä toT? quot;EXXtqoiv ^ttI xaXoü, irapot
71(i,iv knl -zffi daeßeCa; (Et. M. 263. 13; vgl. Hesych. s. v.).

Sandys 1. c.: ultimately SeLai8ai[i.ovEa becomes, in Christian times,
synonymous with impiety.

The meaning of the word SsiciSaitxovia is moreover discussed by
Wyttenbach. Animadversiones II. p. 279 sqq.; von Wilaniowitz-Moel-
lendorff. Griech. Lesebuch. I. 2. p. 330 sqq.; Welcker. Griech. Götter-
lehre II p. 140 — 143; Leop. Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen II p.
64 sqq.; E. Riess. On ancient superstition. Transactions of the Am.
Phil. Association 26 (1895) p. 40 sqq. etc. Welcker and Schmidt both
translate the word, in its unfavourable sense, as \'Götterangst\'; the
former regards it as caused by the irruption of exotic religions, while
in Schmidt\'s opinion it is an exaggeration of that attitude of mind
which is very scrupulous in the fulfilling of religious duties and afraid
of divine wrath in case of any omission. As we have seen both opinions
are true to a certain extent. Riess, wrongly as I believe, states that
those who especially dealt with 8eiCTiSai(xovla, superstition, during
antiquity regarded it as \'fear of demons\'. His whole article, however,
is full of interesting and exact observations, e. g. where he points out
that most Greek writers were enlightened and their opinions in reUgious
matters as little common property as those of Goethe and Kant in the
18th century (p. 43, 44).

Synopsis of the chief meanings of SetaiSaifjiovetv,
8sicriSat(j,ovta, 8stcrtSaipt,tov.

1.nbsp;to fear the gods: 8.8. Satfzova? aXdaxopa^;, Zaleucus
apud Stob. (H.) 4. p. 126; to be religious: Heliod.
Aeth. 10. 9.

1.nbsp;to be full of nervous, superstitious fear: Polystratus
p. 9; Polyb. 9. 19. 1; D. S. 15. 53. 4; Diog. L. 2. 91.

1.nbsp;piety: D. S. 1. 70. 8 el^ 8.8. xal OeocpiX^ piov; Jos. Ant.
lud. 10. 42; Heracl. Incred. 23; Ael. V. H. 5. 17.

3.nbsp;reverence, awe: D. S. 5. 27. 4; 11. 89. 6: xoiv Oewv
8.8; 36. 13; towards holy animals: 1. 83. 8.

4.nbsp;fear of the gods because of a bad conscience, conviction
that the gods punish sin: D. S. 14. 76. 4; 27. 4.

5.nbsp;conviction that a certain event is a token of divine
help: D. S. 17. 41. 6; 18. 61. 3.

6.nbsp;holiness of a certain temple or spot: D. S. 5. 63, 3;
11. 89. 6; C. I. G. 2737b 11.

7.nbsp;religion: Jos, Ant. lud. 14. 228 etc. Jews liberated
from military service SstortSainoviat; evexa; Jos. Ant.
lud. 19. 290; Acts of the Ap. 25. 19.

1.nbsp;fear (terror) of the divine powers, the gods and demons:
Theophr. Char. 16; Stoic. Vet. Frgm. 408, 409; Plut.

2.nbsp;exaggerated piety, excessive religious zeal: Strabo
7. 3. 3; Plut. Numa 22; Diog. L. 6. 37; Corpus Her-
meticum 9 § 9; opposed to real piety, philosophical
religion: Philo J. 1. 166; 2. 414; Plut.; Marc. Aur.
6. 30; regarded as a too much, the opposite of a too
little (deeÓTT)?): Peripatetic philosophers (Stob. W.
H. II p. 147, Suidas s.v. S.S.); Philo J. 1. 297; 2. 360;
Plut. Tcepi SeiCTtSaifxovia? 164 E, 171 E.

3.nbsp;the regarding of natural phenomena as bad omens:
D. S. 15. 54. 1; 32. 12; Plut.

4.nbsp;religion i. e. belief in a divine providence, in a judg-
ment after death etc.: Pol. 6. 56. 6; 1). S. 34/5. 2. 47;
Strabo 1. 2. 8; Plut. II 1101 C.

5.nbsp;taboo: Plut. Aratus 53: lax^pat; twi vófAwt SeiaiSat-
fjiovta;; TrpoCToiioY)?; II 238 I).

6.nbsp;veneration of unworthy objects: JuUan the Apostate
Epist. 59 (ed. Bidez-C.).

7.nbsp;observation of the Jewish Law: Jos. Ant. lud. 12. 259;
Origenes I 800 A (Migne); Epist. ad Diognetum 1; 4.

9.nbsp;paganism: Eusebius. Dem. Ev. 1. 2. 5 -r^t TroXu^éwt.
SetortSaifxovtaL; 1. 6. 63, etc.; Ecclesiastical writers.

1.nbsp;god-fearing, pious: Xen. Ag. 11. 8; Aristotle Pol.
1315 a 1; Acts of the Ap. 17. 22; Heracl. Quaest.
Horn. 1: 6 8.S. pbç; Luc. pro imag. 27; L G. 14. 1683:
SÏÇ t\' à9-avàTou; 8.8. ; Suidas s. v. 8.8. : 8.8. xal sùXapiQç.

1.nbsp;bigot, excessively religious: Theophr. Char. 16; Plut.;
M. Aur. 1. 16; Max. Tyr. 20. 6. 7.

2.nbsp;a person who regards all kinds of things as bad omens
Menander\'s Asic7t8a^[jio)v; D. S. 13. 12. 6; Plut.; Diog
L. 6. 48; superstitious: Teles p. 39, 41 H; Plut.
Soranus 2. 88: 8.8. xal ^£0lt;p6p7)T0(; ; Luc. Alex. 9
Diog. L. 2. 132.

Or. contra Arr. 3 P.
407.
Athenaeus.
8. 346 D.
13. 590 E.
15. 672 D.
Cassius Dio.

93.

27, 46.

27.nbsp;28.

28.

89.
87.

91.
91.
90.
88.
90.
90.
90.
89.
89.

13.

12,nbsp;13.

13.

14.

14.
18.

18,nbsp;19.

19.
19.

11, 12.
59, 60.
10.
10, 11.
61.
61.
12.

15.
11.
11.

15,nbsp;16.
61, 62.
57.

16,nbsp;17.

17,

62, 63.

Adv. haer. 1. 1.nbsp;93.
Etymologicum Gudia-
num.nbsp;95, 96.
Etjmiologicum Mag-
num.nbsp;96.
Eusebius.

In a corrupt passage Origenes uses the expression: SeicrtSai(i.ovouvTEi;. .
TCpl Tot 6v6(xaTa (Comm. Joh. 19. 15. 4).

Theodoretus.
Hist. Eccl. 3. 14. 2.
Therap. 6. p. 88
(Gaisf.).
Theophrast.
Thucydides see Scholia.
Xenophon.
Ag. 11. 8.
Cyr. 3. 3. 58.
Zaleucus see Stobaeus.

Page

30, 31, 96.

43.
43.

94.

35, 36.

7..
7.

1) The passage from Antipater\'s Tcspl yf^^jJio^ (Stobaeus H IV 510) I
have not used,,as the true reading has not yet been ascertained.

Aeilt;nSai[jiovia beteekent oorspronkelijk \'ontzag voor de
hoogere machten\' en is, ook na den tijd van Theophrastus,
veel algemeener in deze beteekenis gebruikt dan gewoon-
lijk wordt aangenomen.

AstaiSaifjiovia wordt door niet-Christelijke schrijvers nim-
mer gebruikt met de beteekenis \'vrees voor demonen\', dit
laatste woord genomen als tegenstelling tot goden.

De tegensteUing door Miss Harrison gemaakt tusschen
Ospocnelot \'service, tendance\' en SsiatSaipiovia \'fear, not
tendance, fear not of gods but of spirit-things, or, to put it
abstractly, of the supernatural\' is niet geheel zuiver. (Jane
E. Harrison. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek religion.
Cambridge 1922, p. 4).

AetaiSaifxovJa in den ongunstigen zin van het woord, zoo-
als \'t b.v. door Theophrastus wordt gebruikt, kan beter
worden weergegeven door \'bigotterie\', \'kwezelachtigheid\'
dan door \'bijgeloof\'.

De beteekenisontwikkeling van \'t woord SsKnSaifxovta is
een afspiegeling van de steeds wijder geworden kloof tus-
schen de ontwikkelde klassen en de massa.

Dat de Christelijke schrijvers SetaiSaifxovta gebruikten in
den zin van \'heidendom\' was mogelijk, doordat zij de reali-
teit der heidensche goden niet loochenden, doch hen als
demonische wezens beschouwden.

Handelingen 17 vs. 22 en 25 vs. 19 zijn de woorden Setat-
Satfitov en SetcrtSaipiovta niet in afkeurenden zin bedoeld.

De opvatting van Walter Otto (Archiv für Religionswiss.
XII. 1909, p. 533 sqq.; XIV. 1911, p. 406 sqq.) aangaande
de beteekenisontwikkeling van het woord \'rehgio\' verdient
de voorkeur boven die van Kobbert (de verborum \'rehgio\'
atque \'rehgiosus\' usu apud Romanos quaestiones selectae.
Diss. Koningsbergen. 1910).

Daar er, godsdienst-historisch gesproken, geen onder-
scheid is tusschen geloof en bijgeloof is de onderscheiding
door Riess (On ancient superstition. Transactions of the
Amer. Philol. Ass. XXVI (1895) p. 44) gemaakt tusschen
\'echt\' en \'onecht\' bijgeloof methodisch onhoudbaar.

De opvatting van Zielinsky (La Sibylle. Christianisme
nr. 4. Paris 1924, p. 50 sqq. cf. La religion de la Grèce antique
Paris 1926, p. 99) dat kenmerkend is voor de zgn. Home-
rische periode een \'uitgesproken vrees voor de goden\' is in
strijd met de gegevens van het epos, vindt geen steun in
\'t gebruik van het woord 6eou8Yilt;; berust ten deele op ver-
waarloozing van \'t feit dat \'vrees\' zoowel \'ontzag\' als \'angst\'
kan wezen.

Het betoog van Brakman, dat de slotverzen van het Per-
vigilium Veneris opgevat moeten worden als een symboli-
sche klacht over den ondergang der oude religie, is niet
overtuigend. (Pervigilium Veneris. Leiden 1928, p. 18—20).

De indeeling van \'t Pervigilium Veneris in vierregelige
Strophen, door Mackail in zijn uitgave aangenomen, is wille-
keurig. (Pervigilium Veneris. London 1912. Loeb class,
library).

In vs. 14 van het Pervigilium Veneris leze men, met Lip-
sius en Mackail, turgentes in plaats van surgentes.

In Theophrastus Charact. 16 § 10 leze men:
xal etaeXOwv etcrw orTe9avouv toui; \'Ep(jLacppoSiTou?(?) lt;xai Oueivgt;
oXrjv T7)v r)(jiépav.

In Plutarchus\' vrepl SsiaiSatfxoviai; 166 B: oxi tov uttvov ol
Gsol Xifj07)v xaxcóv ëSoaav tjijiiv xal dvocTrauaiv, xi toGto xoXalt;7T^piov
aautwi Tioieiq xxX. moeten de woorden tóv uttvov gelezen
worden na dvcicTcaucnv.

Stobaeus, Floril. ed. Wachsmuth-Hense IV p. 510, uit
Antipater\'s Trepl ydnou (frgm. 63 Arnim S.V.F):

(i,7)Sè Trepl öecov eua-eßeiat; xal Só^y;? xal SeiaiSaifiovia«; sfXTroieiv
leze men: (xvjSè Ttspl 0ewv sucrsßeiac; xaXai; Só^a«; xaxa Seiat-
8ai(jiov(av èfXTroistv.

De lezing van Groeneboom (Aeschylus\' Prometheus, Gro-
ningen-den Haag 1928) in Aesch, Prom. vs. 792
ttÓvtov Trepóicr\' d^Xoiaßov

Ten onrechte geeft Mazon in zijn uitgave van Aeschylus\'
Prometheus (Eschyle. Tome I. Paris 1920) de verzen 968
en 969 aan Prometheus.

	Page
I. G. 14. 1683.	30.
Josephus.
Ant. lud. 10. 42.	21.
12. 5/6 (A-
gatharchi-
des).	65.
12. 259.	23.
14. 228.	23. 24.
14. 232.	23, 24.
14. 234.	23, 24.
14. 237.	23, 24.
14. 240.	23, 24.
15. 277.	22.
19. 290.	24.
c. Apionem. 1. 208.
(Agathar-
chides).	65.
deBello lud. 1. 113.	22.
2. 174.	22.
2. 230.	21.
Julian the Apostate.
Epist. (ed. Bidez-C.)
54.	53.
59.	53.
88.	54.
896.	54.
111.	53.
Justin Martyr.
Apol. 1. 2.	87.
Coh. ad Gent. 36.	87.
ps. Justinus.
Epist. ad Diogn. 1.	66.
4.	67.
Lucian.
Alex. 9.	39, 40.
pro Imag. 7.	29.
27.	29.
Philops. 38.	30.
see Scholia.
Lydus.
de mens. 4. 147.	67.
de ostent, p. 46. 3
Wachsm.	68. notf
Marcus Aurelius.
1. 16.	51.
6. 30.	51.
Maximus Tyrius.
Or. 20. 6. 7.	52.
Menander.	37, 38.
New Testament.

	Page		Page
Acts of the Ap.		Per. 6.	73. 74.
17. 22.	25.	Sert. 11.	70.
25. 19.	24, 25.	Solon 12.	76.
Origenes		Sulla 12.	63.
I. 800 A (Migne 11).	66.	Timol. 26.	73.
c. Cols. I. 13 (Epicu-		II 26 B.	72.
rea 369).	44.	34 E.	69.
Phavorinus.	96.	43 D.	70.
Philo Judaeus.		53 D.	69.
I 146.	49.	54 C.	69, 70.
166.	48.	66 C.	83, note.
195.	48.	100 F.	80, note.
264.	50.	140 C.	70, 71.
288.	50.	164 E—171 E.	78—83.
297.	47.	201 B.	70.
345.	49.	238 D.	75.
599.	50.	287 A.	78.
655.	50.	1051 E.	82, note.
11 360.	48.	1092 C.	72.
414.	49.	1101 C.	44, 69.
Philodemus.		1101 DE.	69.
de Piet. 105 (Epicu-		1102 C.	72.
rea 38).	44.	1104 B,	56.
Photius.		1128 D.	69.
s. V. öXoXou?.	59.	ps. Plutarch.
Plutarch.		de fluv. 23. 3.	67.
Aem. Paul. 1.	74.	Pollux.
Alex. 75.	74.	Onom. 1, 20.	6, 54.
Aratus 53.	75.	Polybius.
Brutus 39.	74.	6. 56. 6.	55, 56. 59.
Caesar 63.	70.	9. 19. 1.
Cam. 6.	71.	10. 2. 9.	58.
19.	77.	12. 24. 5.	9, 58, 59.
Cleom. 39. Coriol. 24. Crassus 17. Dio 2.	74. 69. 77, 78. 71.	Polystratus p. 9. Proclus. Hymn. 3. 12.	44. 54.
Eumenes 13.	15.	Scholia.
Fab. Max. 4.	73.	Aristoph. Vesp. 81.	64 note 2.
Lyc. 27.	76.	83.	64, note 2.
Lysander 25.	58.	Hom. Z 121.	102, note 1.
Marc. 5.	74.	Luc. lupp. trag. 6.	94.
6.	73.	Luc. de morte Per. 11	94.
20.	76, 77.	Thuc. 7. 50.	60.
Nic. 23.	59. (2 X).	Soranus.
Numa 8.	57, 58.	jrept yuv. 1. 4.	47.
10.	78.	2. 80.	47.
22.	71.	2. 88.	47.


, - .\' i i a

	■ gt; ■ v .





ii -