Page:History of Greece Vol I.djvu/456

 424 HISTORY OF GREECE. or of general physical or moral truth. Instructed men were commonly disposed to historicize only the heroic legends, and to allegorize more or less of the divine legends : the attempt of Euemerus to historicize the latter was for the most part denounced as irreligious, while that of Metrodorus to allegorize the former met with no success. In allegorizing, moreover, even the divine legends, it was usual to apply the scheme of allegory only to the inferior gods, though some of the great Stoic philosophers car- ried it farther, and allegorized all the separate personal gods, leaving only an all-pervading cosmic Mind, 1 essential as a co- efficient along with Matter, yet not separable from Matter. But many pious pagans seem to have perceived that allegory pushed to this extent was fatal to all living religious faith, 2 inasmuch as it divested the gods of their character of Persons, sympathizing with mankind and modifiable in their dispositions according to the conduct and prayers of the believer: and hence they per- mitted themselves to employ allegorical interpretation only to some of the obnoxious legends connected with the superior gods, leaving the personality of the latter unimpeached. One novelty, however, introduced seemingly by the philosopher Empedokles and afterwards expanded by others, deserves notice, inasmuch as it modified considerably the old religious creed by drawing a pointed contrast between gods and daemons, a dis- tinction hardly at all manifested in Homer, but recognized in the Works and Days of Hesiod. 3 Empedokles widened the gap be- tween the two, and founded upon it important consequences. The gods were good, immortal, and powerful agents, having freewill 1 See Hitter, Geschichtc der Philosophic, 2nd edit, part 3. book 11. chap. 4. p. 592 ; Varro ap. Augustin. Civitat. Dei, vi. 5, ix. 6 ; Cicero, Nat. Deor. ii. 24-28. Chrysippus admitted the most important distinction between Zeus and the other gods (Plutarch, de Stoicor. Repugnant, p. 1052.) 2 Plutarch, de Isid. et Osirid. c. 66. p. 377 ; c. 70. p. 379. Compare on this subject O. Miiller, Prolegom. Mythol. p. 59 seq., and Eckermann, Lehr- buch der Religions Geschichte, vol. i. sect. ii. p. 46. 3 Hesiod, Opp. ct Di. 122 : to the same effect Pythagoras and ThalSs lTiogen. LaCr. viii. 32 ; and Plutarch, Placit. Philos. i. 8). The Hesiodic daemons are all gocd : Athenagoras (Legal. Chr. p. 8) sayi that Thalfis admitted a distinction between good and bad daeiuors. wnich icems very doubtful.