Die Studie beleuchtet utopische Romane der hellenistischen Zeit, die in der Forschung oft vernachlässigt werden. Der Autor analysiert verschiedene Schriften und diskutiert deren philosophische, religionswissenschaftliche, historische, ethnografische und geografische Kontexte, um eine umfassende Perspektive zu bieten.
Leben, Werk und Nachwirkung
Die Beiträge zur Altertumskunde enthalten Monographien, Sammelbände, Editionen, Übersetzungen und Kommentare zu Themen aus den Bereichen Klassische, Mittel- und Neulateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte, Archäologie, Antike Philosophie sowie Nachwirken der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Dadurch leistet die Reihe einen umfassenden Beitrag zur Erschließung klassischer Literatur und zur Forschung im gesamten Gebiet der Altertumswissenschaften.
In his utopian novel Hiera Anagraphe ( Sacred History ) Euhemerus of Messene (ca. 300 B. C.) describes his travel to the island Panchaia in the Indian Ocean where he discovered an inscribed stele in the temple of Zeus Triphylius. It turned out that the Olympian gods (Uranos, Kronos, Zeus) were deified kings. The travels of Zeus allowed to describe peoples and places all over the world. Winiarczyk investigates the sources of the theological views of Euhemerus. He proves that Euhemerus’ religious views were rooted in old Greek tradition (the worship of heroes, gods as founders of their own cult, tombs of gods, euergetism, rationalistic interpretation of myths, the explanations of the origin of religion by the sophists, the ruler cult). The description of the Panchaian society is intended to suggest an archaic and closed culture, in which the stele recording res gestae of the deified kings might have been preserved. The translation of Ennius’ Euhemerus sive Sacra historia (ca. 200 - ca. 194) is a free prose rendering, which Lactantius knew only indirectly. The book is concluded by a short history of Euhemerism in the pagan, Christian and Jewish literature.
Focusing on the life and works of Diagoras of Melos, the book reexamines his reputation as a radical atheist and critic of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It argues against the notion of him being an atheist by exploring his biography and the context of his beliefs, suggesting that his views differ significantly from contemporary understandings of atheism. The evaluation sheds light on his condemnation for impiety in Athens and provides a nuanced perspective on his contributions to ancient thought.