Cicero's Treatise on the Nature of the Gods

by Charles Duke Yonge (Translator)

Cicero's Treatise On The Nature Of The Gods is a philosophical work that explores the nature of the gods and the universe. Written by the Roman statesman and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero, the book is a dialogue between three characters who represent different schools of the Epicureans, the Stoics, and the Academics. The book is divided into three parts, each of which examines a different perspective on the nature of the gods. In the first part, the Epicureans argue that the gods are distant and uninvolved in human affairs, and that the universe is the result of chance and natural processes. In the second part, the Stoics argue that the gods are active and involved in human affairs, and that the universe is the result of divine design. In the third part, the Academics argue that it is impossible to know the nature of the gods and the universe with certainty, and that we should instead focus on living a virtuous life.Throughout the book, Cicero uses a variety of rhetorical techniques to explore the different arguments and to challenge the reader's assumptions about the nature of the gods. He also draws on a wide range of sources, including Greek philosophy, Roman religion, and his own personal beliefs.This edition of the book is translated by C. D. Yonge, a nineteenth-century British scholar and translator. The translation is faithful to the original Latin text and includes an introduction that provides historical and philosophical context for the work.This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the old original and may contain some imperfections such as library marks and notations. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions, that are true to their original work.

Genres: Philosophy

164 pages, Paperback

First published September 10, 2010

About the author

Charles Duke Yonge was an English historian, classicist and cricketer.

Reviews

[Steven H]

AN IMPORTANT WORK IN THE HISTORY OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was a Roman statesman, orator, lawyer and philosopher, who served as consul in the year 63 BC. (The book is told as a dialogue.)

He observes, “So at the very onset of our inquiry we are faced with fundamental differences of opinion. Unless those differences can be resolved, mankind will continue to live in the grossest error and in ignorance of what they most require to know… There is no subject on which there is so much difference of opinion among both the learned and the ignorant. But in this medley of conflicting opinions, one thing is certain. Though it is possible that they are all of them false, it is impossible that more than one of them is true.” (Pg. 70-71)

‘Velleius’ notes, “This is not a belief which has been prescribed to us by some authority, or law, or custom; it rests rather upon a firm and continuing consensus of opinion that we must admit the existence of the gods because this knowledge is implanted in our minds at birth. And an idea that by its nature commands universal agreement must be true. We must therefore admit that there are gods… The same nature… has also imprinted in our minds a belief in their blessedness and immortality.” (Pg. 88)

‘Cotta’ replies, “You say that it is a sufficient proof of the existence of the gods that men of all races and of all nations believe in them. But such an argument is false and frivolous. In the first place, how do you know the opinions of all mankind? I would think that there must be many wild and primitive peoples who have no idea of the gods at all. And what about the atheist Diagoras, and after him Theodorus, both of whom openly deny that any gods exist?” (Pg. 94-95) He adds, “If [the gods] are real only as ideas in our minds, and have no solidity or substantial form, what is the difference between imagining a god and imagining a centaur?... And why do we have in our minds images of creatures which have never existed and never could exist…? Why do we have images of man and places and cities which we have never seen?” (Pg. 112-114)

‘Balbus’ argues, “Beings who do not exist can send us no messengers. But the gods do have their prophets and their messengers. So how can we deny that they exist? You may say that not every prophecy is fulfilled. But in the same way not every sick person is cured. Are we then to say there is no art of medicine?... any mistakes which may be made in their interpretation arise from human speculation and not from the nature of the gods.” (Pg. 128) He adds, “Why … will no you admit the universe to be a conscious intelligence since conscious intelligences are born from it?” (Pg. 132) He concludes, “If any man cannot feel the power of God when he looks upon the stars, then I doubt whether he is capable of any feeling at all.” (Pg. 145)

Balbus points out, “Is it not a wonder that anyone can bring himself to believe that a number of solid and separate particles by their chance collisions and moved only by the force of their own weight could bring into being so marvelous and beautiful a world? If anybody thinks that this is possible, I do not see why he should not think that if an infinite number of examples of the twenty-one letters of the alphabet… were shaken together and poured out on the ground it would be possible for them to … spell out, say, the whole text of the Annals of Ennius. In fact I doubt whether chance would permit them to spell out a single verse!” (Pg. 161) He adds, “I ask you whether any sane man can believe that all these constellations, all this glory of the sky, can have been created by the random movement of material atoms? Or that natural forces, devoid of mind or purpose, could create phenomena which not only could not come into existence except through a rational intelligence but the nature of which is so subtle that we must strain our reason to the utmost in the effort to comprehend their mysteries?” (Pg. 170)

Cotta replies, “There is nothing in nature, you say, superior to the universe itself. Well, I say there is nothing on earth superior to the city of Rome. Must I therefore imagine that the city of Rome thinks and reasons like an intelligent being?... You have said… that there is no power in nature to create anything other than itself. Do you then now ask us to believe that the natural universe is not only a conscious and rational being but also a player on the lute and harp, since it has created out of itself men who are masters of these arts?” (Pg. 201-202)

Cotta asserts, “I cannot but wonder whether it would not have been better if mankind had never been endowed at all with … ‘reason.’ As it profits only a few, and is a curse to many, it is a pity that it has been so widely and so generously bestowed… If the divine mind willed the good of men, when it endowed them with reason, then it willed only the good of those whom it also endowed with the power to use their reason well, whom we see to be few indeed, if any. But the gods would not will the good of a few men only. So it follows that they have not willed the good of any.” (Pg. 222) He adds, “So in your view the gods become responsible for fraud, felony and all misdemeanors of this sort; as none of them could be conceived or carried through without the use of reason.” (Pg. 225-226)

He suggests, “If the gods had the good of the human race at heart, then they ought to have made all men good. If that were too much to ask, they should at least do their best for those who are good… Time would fail me if I tried to list all the good men for whom things have turned out badly. So it would if I tried to mention all the wicked who have prospered.” (Pg. 228)

The book ends with the statement, “This then was the end of our discussion and we went our ways, Velleius thinking that Cotta had the best of the argument while to me it seemed that Balbus brought us nearer to an image of the truth.” (Pg. 235)

This book will be “must reading” for students of Roman philosophy, as well as students of the philosophy of religion.

[Le Maistre Chat]

Cicero states near the beginning of De Natura Deorum that he wrote philosophical dialogues both as a relief from the political inactivity he was reduced to by the supremacy of Julius Caesar and as a distraction from the grief over his daughter Tullia's death. This was around 45 BC: the immortal republican orator would survive Julius Caesar but be killed by Mark Antony.
The dialogue takes place at the house of Cotta the pontiff, where the theologies of Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Academic Skepticism are presented. The work lacks cohesion, as points raised by one speaker may go unanswered by his two critics. The speakers agree that, no matter where discursive reasoning leads them, the gods must be worshiped exactly as handed down from ancestral Romans, as piety is their noteworthy virtue among the nations. By this they conquered the world, other nations being their equals in many ways and some even superior in some ways. Cotta the Skeptic and Velleius the Epicurean then seem to admit that, other than this social effect, it is hard to prove that the gods even exist, their goodness, and caring for the world rather than being unmoved. Balbus the Stoic brings up innate ideas and the Argument from Design.
This Latin text is an important source for the religious views of Plato's Academy when it taught Skepticism rather than what we recognize as Platonism and also for Epicureanism, which have left very scant sources. Wikipedia says "heated scholarly debate has focused on this text's discussion at 1.43–44 of how the Epicurean gods may be said to exist", whether as just idealizations of the life we aspire to or as beings made of real atoms like us with the properties traditionally ascribed to them (which would basically make Zeus Storm from X-Men). One obscure part I personally found intriguing is the claim that there are multiple gods with the same names, e.g. "this Dionysus was the son of Jupiter, meaning the third Jupiter..." Cotta presents this as difficult fact, an inscrutable, unphilosophic part of religion, but his exact words seem hard to corroborate. We know the Romans were practicing interpretatio graeca, but not all the Jupiters etc enumerated are from other cultures nor did the Roman government permit priesthoods/temples of all the foreign gods mentioned: if we were to take Cicero/Cotta at face value on this point, just the Hercules(es) worshiped at Rome would have included Melkart of Tyre and some sort of Hindu temple.
So, difficult but recommended.

[Dayla]

On the Nature of the Gods became one of the most influential works on natural theology in Western thought. It shaped later discussions by Christian, Jewish, and Enlightenment thinkers about whether reason alone can establish the existence and character of God.

Cicero’s method—presenting competing viewpoints fairly and encouraging readers to judge for themselves—has made the work a lasting model of philosophical dialogue.

Given your recent interest in Cicero’s On Old Age and On Duties, you’ll notice a common thread: Cicero consistently argues that reason is humanity’s greatest gift.

In On the Nature of the Gods, he applies that conviction to religion itself, inviting readers to seek truth through careful argument rather than unquestioning acceptance.