|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ------------------
| + | Moved to [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/augustine/civitate-6.htm here]. |
| − | ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK VI
| |
| − | ------------------
| |
| − | [[Directory:Logic Museum/Augustine City of God|Index]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Translated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dods_%28theologian%29 Marcus Dods]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#c0|Introduction]]
| |
| − | *[[#c1|Chapter 1]] Of Those Who Maintain that They Worship the Gods Not for the Sake of Temporal But Eternal Advantages
| |
| − | *[[#c2|Chapter 2]] What We are to Believe that Varro Thought Concerning the Gods of the Nations, Whose Various Kinds and Sacred Rites He Has Shown to Be Such that He Would Have Acted More Reverently Towards Them Had He Been Altogether Silent Concerning Them
| |
| − | *[[#c3|Chapter 3]] Varro's Distribution of His Book Which He Composed Concerning the Antiquities of Human and Divine Things
| |
| − | *[[#c4|Chapter 4]] That from the Disputation of Varro, It Follows that the Worshippers of the Gods Regard Human Things as More Ancient Than Divine Things
| |
| − | *[[#c5|Chapter 5]] Concerning the Three Kinds of Theology According to Varro, Namely, One Fabulous, the Other Natural, the Third Civil
| |
| − | *[[#c6|Chapter 6]] Concerning the Mythic, that Is, the Fabulous, Theology, and the Civil, Against Varro
| |
| − | *[[#c7|Chapter 7]] Concerning the Likeness and Agreement of the Fabulous and Civil Theologies
| |
| − | *[[#c8|Chapter 8]] Concerning the Interpretations, Consisting of Natural Explanations, Which the Pagan Teachers Attempt to Show for Their Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c9|Chapter 9]] Concerning the Special Offices of the Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c10|Chapter 10]] Concerning the Liberty of Seneca, Who More Vehemently Censured the Civil Theology Than Varro Did the Fabulous
| |
| − | *[[#c11|Chapter 11]] What Seneca Thought Concerning the Jews
| |
| − | *[[#c12|Chapter 12]] That When Once the Vanity of the Gods of the Nations Has Been Exposed, It Cannot Be Doubted that They are Unable to Bestow Eternal Life on Any One, When They Cannot Afford Help Even with Respect to the Things Of this Temporal Life
| |
| − |
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=45%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=55%|Latin
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c0"><b>BOOK VI</b> [Pr] Quinque superioribus libris satis mihi adversus eos videor disputasse, qui multos deos et falsos, quos esse inutilia simulacra vel inmundos spiritus et perniciosa daemonia vel certe creaturas, non creatorem veritas Christiana conuincit, propter vitae huius mortalis rerumque terrenarum utilitatem eo ritu ac seruitute, quae Graece *latreia dicitur et uni vero Deo debetur, venerandos et colendos putant. Et nimiae quidem stultitiae vel pertinaciae nec istos quinque nec ullos alios quanticumque numeri libros satis esse posse quis nesciat? quando ea putatur gloria uanitatis, nullis cedere viribus veritatis, in perniciem utique eius, cui vitium tam inmane dominatur. Nam et contra omnem curantis industriam non malo medici, sed aegroti insanabilis morbus inuictus est. Hi vero, qui ea quae legunt vel sine ulla vel non cum magna ac nimia ueteris erroris obstinatione intellecta et considerata perpendunt, facilius nos isto numero terminatorum quinque voluminum plus, quam quaestionis ipsius necessitas postulabat, quam minus disseruisse iudicabunt, totamque inuidiam, quam Christianae religioni de huius vitae cladibus terrenarumque contritione ac mutatione rerum imperiti facere conantur, non solum dissimulantibus, sed contra suam conscientiam etiam faventibus doctis, quos impietas uesana possedit, omnino esse inanem rectae cogitationis atque rationis plenamque levissimae temeritatis et perniciosissimae animositatis dubitare non poterunt. ||The City of God (Book VI) Argument-Hitherto the argument has been conducted against those who believe that the gods are to be worshipped for the sake of temporal advantages, now it is directed against those who believe that they are to be worshipped for the sake of eternal life. Augustin devotes the five following books to the confutation of this latter belief, and first of all shows how mean an opinion of the gods was held by Varro himself, the most esteemed writer on heathen theology. Of this theology Augustin adopts Varro's division into three kinds, mythical, natural, and civil; and at once demonstrates that neither the mythical nor the civil can contribute anything to the happiness of the future life.Preface.In the five former books, I think I have sufficiently disputed against those who believe that the many false gods, which the Christian truth shows to be useless images, or unclean spirits and pernicious demons, or certainly creatures, not the Creator, are to be worshipped for the advantage of this mortal life, and of terrestrial affairs, with that rite and service which the Greeks call ?at?e?a, and which is due to the one true God. And who does not know that, in the face of excessive stupidity and obstinacy, neither these five nor any other number of books whatsoever could be enough, when it is esteemed the glory of vanity to yield to no amount of strength on the side of truth,-certainly to his destruction over whom so heinous a vice tyrannizes? For, notwithstanding all the assiduity of the physician who attempts to effect a cure, the disease remains unconquered, not through any fault of his, but because of the incurableness of the sick man. But those who thoroughly weigh the things which they read, having understood and considered them, without any, or with no great and excessive degree of that obstinacy which belongs to a long-cherished error, will more readily judge that, in the five books already finished, we have done more than the necessity of the question demanded, than that we have given it less discussion than it required. And they cannot have doubted but that all the hatred which the ignorant attempt to bring upon the Christian religion on account of the disasters of this life, and the destruction and change which befall terrestrial things, while the learned do not merely dissimulate, but encourage that hatred, contrary to their own consciences, being possessed by a mad impiety;-they cannot have doubted, I say, but that this hatred is devoid of right reflection and reason, and full of most light temerity, and most pernicious animosity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c1"><b>BOOK VI</b> [I] Nunc ergo quoniam deinceps, ut promissus ordo expetit, etiam hi refellendi et docendi sunt, qui non propter istam vitam, sed propter illam, quae post mortem futura est, deos gentium, quos Christiana religio destruit, colendos esse contendunt: placet a veridico oraculo sancti psalmi sumere exordium disputationis meae: Beatus, cuius est Dominus Deus spes ipsius et non respexit in uanitates et insanias mendaces. Verum tamen in omnibus uanitatibus insaniisque mendacibus longe tolerabilius philosophi audiendi sunt, quibus displicuerunt istae opiniones erroresque populorum, qui populi constituerunt simulacra numinibus multaque de his, quos deos inmortales vocant, falsa atque indigna sive finxerunt sive ficta crediderunt et credita eorum cultui sacrorumque ritibus miscuerunt. Cum his hominibus, qui, etsi non libere praedicando, saltem utcumque in disputationibus mussitando, talia se inprobare testati sunt, non usque adeo inconvenienter quaestio ista tractatur: utrum non unum Deum, qui fecit omnem spiritalem corporalemque creaturam, propter vitam, quae post mortem futura est, coli oporteat, sed multos deos, quos ab illo uno factos et sublimiter conlocatos quidam eorundem philosophorum ceteris excellentiores nobilioresque senserunt. Ceterum quis ferat dici atque contendi deos illos, quorum in quarto libro quosdam commemoravi, quibus rerum exiguarum singulis singula distribuuntur officia, vitam aeternam cuique praestare? An vero peritissimi illi et acutissimi viri, qui se pro magno beneficio conscripta docuisse gloriantur, ut sciretur quare cuique deo supplicandum esset, quid a quoque esset petendum, ne absurditate turpissima, qualis ioculariter in mimo fieri solet, peteretur a Libero aqua, a Lymphis vinum, auctores erunt cuipiam hominum diis inmortalibus supplicanti, ut, cum a Lymphis petierit vinum eique responderint: Nos aquam habemus, hoc a Libero pete, possit recte dicere: Si vinum non habetis, saltem date mihi vitam aeternam? Quid hac absurditate monstrosius? Nonne illae cachinnantes (solent enim esse ad risum faciles), si non adfectent fallere ut daemones, supplici respondebunt: O homo, putasne in potestate nos habere vitam, quas audis non habere vel vitem? Inpudentissimae igitur stultitiae est vitam aeternam a talibus diis petere vel sperare, qui vitae huius aerumnosissimae atque brevissimae et si qua ad eam pertinent, adminiculandam atque fulciendam ita singulas particulas tueri asseruntur, ut, si id, quod sub alterius tutela ac potestate est, petatur ab altero, tam sit inconveniens et absurdum, ut mimicae scurrilitati videatur esse simillimum. Quod cum fit ab scientibus mimis, digne ridentur in theatro; cum vero a nescientibus stultis, dignius inridentur in mundo. Cui ergo deo vel deae propter quid supplicaretur, quantum ad illos deos adtinet quos instituerunt civitates, a doctis sollerter inventum memoriaeque mandatum est; quid a Libero, verbi gratia, quid a Lymphis, quid a Vulcano ac sic a ceteris, quos partim commemoravi in quarto libro, partim praetereundos putavi. Porro si a Cerere vinum a Libero panem, a Vulcano aquam a Lymphis ignem petere erroris est: quanto maioris deliramenti esse intellegi debet, si cuiquam istorum pro vita supplicetur aeterna! Quam ob rem si, cum de regno terreno quaereremus, quosnam illud deos vel deas hominibus credendum esset posse conferre, discussis omnibus longe alienum a veritate monstratum est a quoquam istorum multorum numinum atque falsorum saltem regna terrena existimare constitui: nonne insanissimae impietatis est, si aeterna vita, quae terrenis omnibus regnis sine ulla dubitatione vel comparatione praeferenda est, ab istorum quoquam dari cuiquam posse credatur? Neque enim propterea dii tales vel terrenum regnum dare non posse visi sunt, quia illi magni et excelsi sunt, hoc quiddam paruum et abiectum, quod non dignarentur in tanta sublimitate curare; sed quantumlibet consideratione fragilitatis humanae caducos apices terreni regni merito quisque contemnat, illi dii tales apparuerunt, ut indignissimi viderentur, quibus danda atque servanda deberent vel ista committi. Ac per hoc, si (ut superiora proximis duobus libris pertractata docuerunt) nullus deus ex illa turba vel quasi plebeiorum vel quasi procerum deorum idoneus est regna mortalia mortalibus dare, quanto minus potest inmortales ex mortalibus facere! Huc accedit, quia, si iam cum illis agimus, qui non propter istam, sed propter vitam quae post mortem futura est existimant colendos deos, iam nec propter illa saltem, quae deorum talium potestati tamquam dispertita et propria non ratione veritatis, sed uanitatis opinione tribuuntur, omnino colendi sunt, sicut credunt hi, qui cultum eorum vitae huius mortalis utilitatibus necessarium esse contendunt; contra quos iam quinque praecedentibus voluminibus satis, quantum potui, disputavi. Quae cum ita sint, si eorum, qui colerent deam Ivuentatem, aetas ipsa floreret insignius, contemptores autem eius vel intra annos occumberent ivuentutis, vel in ea tamquam senili torpore frigescerent; si malas cultorum suorum speciosius et festivius Fortuna barbata uestiret, a quibus autem sperneretur, glabros aut male barbatos videremus: etiam sic rectissime diceremus huc usque istas deas singulas posse, suis officiis quodam modo limitatas, ac per hoc nec a Ivuentate oportere peti vitam aeternam, quae non daret barbam, nec a Fortuna barbata boni aliquid post hanc vitam esse sperandum, cuius in hac vita potestas nulla esset, ut eandem saltem aetatem, quae barba induitur, ipsa praestaret. Nunc vero cum earum cultus nec propter ista ipsa, quae putant eis subdita, sit necessarius, quia et multi colentes Ivuentatem deam minime in illa aetate viguerunt, et multi non eam colentes gaudent robore ivuentutis, itemque multi Fortunae barbatae supplices ad nullam vel deformem barbam pervenire potuerunt, et si qui eam pro barba impetranda venerantur, a barbatis eius contemptoribus inridentur: itane desipit cor humanum, ut, quorum deorum cultum propter ista ipsa temporalia et cito praetereuntia munera, quibus singulis singuli praeesse perhibentur, inanem ludibriosumque cognoscit, propter vitam aeternam credat esse fructuosum? Hanc dare illos posse nec hi dicere ausi sunt, qui eis, ut ab insipientibus populis colerentur, ista opera temporalia, quoniam nimis multos putarunt, ne quisquam eorum sederet otiosus, minutatim divisa tribuerunt. ||Now, as, in the next place (as the promised order demands), those are to be refuted and taught who contend that the gods of the nations, which the Christian truth destroys, are to be worshipped not on account of this life, but on account of that which is to be after death, I shall do well to commence my disputation with the truthful oracle of the holy psalm, "Blessed is the man whose hope is the Lord God, and who respects not vanities and lying follies." Nevertheless, in all vanities and lying follies the philosophers are to be listened to with far more toleration, who have repudiated those opinions and errors of the people; for the people set up images to the deities, and either feigned concerning those whom they call immortal gods many false and unworthy things, or believed them, already feigned, and, when believed, mixed them up with their worship and sacred rites.With those men who, though not by free avowal of their convictions, do still testify that they disapprove of those things by their muttering disapprobation during disputations on the subject, it may not be very far amiss to discuss the following question: Whether for the sake of the life which is to be after death, we ought to worship, not the one God who made all creatures spiritual and corporeal, but those many gods who, as some of these philosophers hold, were made by that one God, and placed by Him in their respective sublime spheres, and are therefore considered more excellent and more noble than all the others? But who will assert that it must be affirmed and contended that those gods, certain of whom I have mentioned in the fourth book, to whom are distributed, each to each, the charges of minute things, do bestow eternal life? But will those most skilled and most acute men, who glory in having written for the great benefit of men, to teach on what account each god is to be worshipped, and what is to be sought from each, lest with most disgraceful absurdity, such as a mimic is wont for the sake of merriment to exhibit, water should be sought from Liber, wine from the Lymphs,-will those men indeed affirm to any man supplicating the immortal gods, that when he shall have asked wine from the Lymphs, and they shall have answered him, "We have water, seek wine from Liber," he may rightly say, "If you have not wine, at least give me eternal life?" What more monstrous than this absurdity? Will not these Lymphs,-for they are wont to be very easily made laugh,-laughing loudly (if they do not attempt to deceive like demons), answer the suppliant, "O man, do you think that we have life (vitam) in our power, who you hear have not even the vine (vitem)?" It is therefore most impudent folly to seek and hope for eternal life from such gods as are asserted so to preside over the separate minute concernments of this most sorrowful and short life, and whatever is useful for supporting and propping it, as that if anything which is under the care and power of one be sought from another, it is so incongruous and absurd that it appears very like to mimic drollery,-which, when it is done by mimics knowing what they are doing, is deservedly laughed at in the theatre, but when it is done by foolish persons, who do not know better, is more deservedly ridiculed in the world. Wherefore, as concerns those gods which the states have established, it has been cleverly invented and handed down to memory by learned men, what god or goddess is to be supplicated in relation to every particular thing,-what, for instance, is to be sought from Liber, what from the Lymphs, what from Vulcan, and so of all the rest, some of whom I have mentioned in the fourth book, and some I have thought right to omit. Further, if it is an error to seek wine from Ceres, bread from Liber, water from Vulcan, fire from the Lymphs, how much greater absurdity ought it to be thought, if supplication be made to any one of these for eternal life?Wherefore, if, when we were inquiring what gods or goddesses are to be believed to be able to confer earthly kingdoms upon men, all things having been discussed, it was shown to be very far from the truth to think that even terrestrial kingdoms are established by any of those many false deities, is it not most insane impiety to believe that eternal life, which is, without any doubt or comparison, to be preferred to all terrestrial kingdoms, can be given to any one by any of these gods? For the reason why such gods seemed to us not to be able to give even an earthly kingdom, was not because they are very great and exalted, while that is something small and abject, which they, in their so great sublimity, would not condescend to care for, but because, however deservedly any one may, in consideration of human frailty, despise the falling pinnacles of an earthly kingdom, these gods have presented such an appearance as to seem most unworthy to have the granting and preserving of even those entrusted to them; and consequently, if (as we have taught in the two last books of our work, where this matter is treated of) no god out of all that crowd, either belonging to, as it were, the plebeian or to the noble gods, is fit to give mortal kingdoms to mortals, how much less is he able to make immortals of mortals?And more than this, if, according to the opinion of those with whom we are now arguing, the gods are to be worshipped, not on account of the present life, but of that which is to be after death, then, certainly, they are not to be worshipped on account of those particular things which are distributed and portioned out (not by any law of rational truth, but by mere vain conjecture) to the power of such gods, as they believe they ought to be worshipped, who contend that their worship is necessary for all the desirable things of this mortal life, against whom I have disputed sufficiently, as far as I was able, in the five preceding books. These things being so, if the age itself of those who worshipped the goddess Juventas should be characterized by remarkable vigor, while her despisers should either die within the years of youth, or should, during that period, grow cold as with the torpor of old age; if bearded Fortuna should cover the cheeks of her worshippers more handsomely and more gracefully than all others, while we should see those by whom she was despised either altogether beardless or ill-bearded; even then we should most rightly say, that thus far these several gods had power, limited in some way by their functions, and that, consequently, neither ought eternal life to be sought from Juventas, who could not give a beard, nor ought any good thing after this life to be expected from Fortuna Barbata, who has no power even in this life to give the age itself at which the beard grows. But now, when their worship is necessary not even on account of those very things which they think are subjected to their power,-for many worshippers of the goddess Juventas have not been at all vigorous at that age, and many who do not worship her rejoice in youthful strength; and also many suppliants of Fortuna Barbata have either not been able to attain to any beard at all, not even an ugly one, although they who adore her in order to obtain a beard are ridiculed by her bearded despisers,-is the human heart really so foolish as to believe that that worship of the gods, which it acknowledges to be vain and ridiculous with respect to those very temporal and swiftly passing gifts, over each of which one of these gods is said to preside, is fruitful in results with respect to eternal life? And that they are able to give eternal life has not been affirmed even by those who, that they might be worshipped by the silly populace, distributed in minute division among them these temporal occupations, that none of them might sit idle; for they had supposed the existence of an exceedingly great number.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c2"><b>BOOK VI</b> [II] Quis Marco Varrone curiosius ista quaesivit? quis invenit doctius? quis consideravit adtentius? quis distinxit acutius? quis diligentius pleniusque conscripsit? Qui tametsi minus est suavis eloquio, doctrina tamen atque sententiis ita refertus est, ut in omni eruditione, quam nos saecularem, illi autem liberalem vocant, studiosum rerum tantum iste doceat, quantum studiosum verborum Cicero delectat. Denique et ipse <Tullius> huic tale testimonium perhibet, ut in libris Academicis dicat eam, quae ibi versatur, disputationem se habuisse cum Marco Varrone, "homine, inquit, omnium facile acutissimo et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo". Non ait "eloquentissimo" vel "facundissimo", quoniam re vera in hac facultate multum impar est; sed "omnium, inquit, facile acutissimo", et in eis libris, id est Academicis, ubi cuncta dubitanda esse contendit, addidit "sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo". Profecto de hac re sic erat certus, ut auferret dubitationem, quam solet in omnibus adhibere, tamquam de hoc uno etiam pro Academicorum dubitatione disputaturus se Academicum fuisset oblitus. In primo autem libro cum eiusdem Varronis litteraria opera praedicaret: "Nos, inquit, in nostra urbe peregrinantes errantesque tamquam hospites tui libri quasi domum reduxerunt, ut possemus aliquando qui et ubi essemus agnoscere. Tu aetatem patriae, tu descriptiones temporum, tu sacrorum iura, tu sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu publicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum locorum, ut omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum nomina genera, officia causas aperuisti." Iste igitur vir tam insignis excellentisque peritiae et, quod de illo etiam Terentianus elegantissimo versiculo breviter ait: Vir doctissimus undecumque Varro, qui tam multa legit, ut aliquid ei scribere uacuisse miremur; tam multa scripsit, quam multa vix quemquam legere potuisse credamus: iste, inquam, vir tantus ingenio tantusque doctrina, si rerum velut divinarum, de quibus scripsit, oppugnator esset atque destructor easque non ad religionem, sed ad superstitionem diceret pertinere, nescio utrum tam multa in eis ridenda contemnenda detestanda conscriberet. Cum vero deos eosdem ita coluerit colendosque censuerit, ut in eo ipso opere litterarum suarum dicat se timere ne pereant, non incursu hostili, sed civium neglegentia, de qua illos velut ruina liberari a se dicit et in memoria bonorum per eius modi libros recondi atque servari utiliore cura, quam Metellus de incendio sacra Vestalia et Aeneas de Troiano excidio penates liberasse praedicatur; et tamen ea legenda saeculis prodit, quae a sapientibus et insipientibus merito abicienda et veritati religionis inimicissima iudicentur: quid existimare debemus nisi hominem acerrimum ac peritissimum, non tamen sancto Spiritu liberum, oppressum fuisse suae civitatis consuetudine ac legibus, et tamen ea quibus movebatur sub specie commendandae religionis tacere noluisse. ||Who has investigated those things more carefully than Marcus Varro? Who has discovered them more learnedly? Who has considered them more attentively? Who has distinguished them more acutely? Who has written about them more diligently and more fully?-who, though he is less pleasing in his eloquence, is nevertheless so full of instruction and wisdom, that in all the erudition which we call secular, but they liberal, he will teach the student of things as much as Cicero delights the student of words. And even Tully himself renders him such testimony, as to say in his Academic books that he had held that disputation which is there carried on with Marcus Varro, "a man," he adds, "unquestionably the acutest of all men, and, without any doubt, the most learned." He does not say the most eloquent or the most fluent, for in reality he was very deficient in this faculty, but he says, "of all men the most acute." And in those books,-that is, the Academic,-where he contends that all things are to be doubted, he adds of him, "without any doubt the most learned." In truth, he was so certain concerning this thing, that he laid aside that doubt which he is wont to have recourse to in all things, as if, when about to dispute in favor of the doubt of the Academics, he had, with respect to this one thing, forgotten that he was an Academic. But in the first book, when he extols the literary works of the same Varro, he says, "Us straying and wandering in our own city like strangers, your books, as it were, brought home, that at length we might come to know of who we were and where we were. You have opened up to us the age of the country, the distribution of seasons, the laws of sacred things, and of the priests; you have opened up to us domestic and public discipline; you have pointed out to us the proper places for religious ceremonies, and hast informed us concerning sacred places. You have shown us the names, kinds, offices, causes of all divine and human things."This man, then, of so distinguished and excellent acquirements, and, as Terentian briefly says of him in a most elegant verse,Varro, a man universally informed,who read so much that we wonder when he had time to write, wrote so much that we can scarcely believe any one could have read it all,-this man, I say, so great in talent, so great in learning, had he had been an opposer and destroyer of the so-called divine things of which he wrote, and had he said that they pertained to superstition rather than to religion, might perhaps, even in that case, not have written so many things which are ridiculous, contemptible, detestable. But when he so worshipped these same gods, and so vindicated their worship, as to say, in that same literary work of his, that he was afraid lest they should perish, not by an assault by enemies, but by the negligence of the citizens, and that from this ignominy they are being delivered by him, and are being laid up and preserved in the memory of the good by means of such books, with a zeal far more beneficial than that through which Metellus is declared to have rescued the sacred things of Vesta from the flames, and Жneas to have rescued the Penates from the burning of Troy; and when he nevertheless, gives forth such things to be read by succeeding ages as are deservedly judged by wise and unwise to be unfit to be read, and to be most hostile to the truth of religion; what ought we to think but that a most acute and learned man,-not, however made free by the Holy Spirit,-was overpowered by the custom and laws of his state, and, not being able to be silent about those things by which he was influenced, spoke of them under pretence of commending religion?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c3"><b>BOOK VI</b> [III] Quadraginta et unum libros scripsit antiquitatum; hos in res humanas divinasque divisit, rebus humanis viginti quinque, divinis sedecim tribuit, istam secutus in ea partitione rationem, ut rerum humanarum libros senos quattuor partibus daret. Intendit enim qui agant, ubi agant, quando agant, quid agant. In sex itaque primis de hominibus scripsit, in secundis sex de locis, sex tertios de temporibus, sex quartos eosdemque postremos de rebus absolvit. Quater autem seni viginti et quattuor fiunt. Sed unum singularem, qui communiter prius de omnibus loqueretur, in capite posuit. In divinis identidem rebus eadem ab illo divisionis forma servata est, quantum adtinet ad ea, quae diis exhibenda sunt. Exhibentur enim ab hominibus in locis et temporibus sacra. Haec quattuor, quae dixi, libris complexus est ternis: nam tres priores de hominibus scripsit, sequentes de locis, tertios de temporibus, quartos de sacris, etiam hic, qui exhibeant, ubi exhibeant, quando exhibeant, quid exhibeant, subtilissima distinctione commendans. Sed quia oportebat dicere et maxime id expectabatur, quibus exhibeant, de ipsis quoque diis tres conscripsit extremos, ut quinquies terni quindecim fierent. Sunt autem omnes, ut diximus, sedecim, quia et istorum exordio unum singularem, qui prius de omnibus loqueretur, apposuit. Quo absoluto consequenter ex illa quinquepertita distributione tres praecedentes, qui ad homines pertinent, ita subdivisit, ut primus sit de pontificibus, secundus de auguribus, tertius de quindecim viris sacrorum; secundos tres ad loca pertinentes ita, ut in uno eorum de sacellis, altero de sacris aedibus diceret, tertio de locis religiosis; tres porro, qui istos sequuntur et ad tempora pertinent, id est ad dies festos, ita, ut unum eorum faceret de feriis, alterum de ludis circensibus, de scaenicis tertium; quartorum trium ad sacra pertinentium uni dedit consecrationes, alteri sacra privata, ultimo publica. Hanc velut pompam obsequiorum in tribus, qui restant, dii ipsi sequuntur extremi, quibus iste universus cultus inpensus est: in primo dii certi, in secundo incerti, in tertio cunctorum novissimo dii praecipui atque selecti. ||He wrote forty-one books of antiquities. These he divided into human and divine things. Twenty-five he devoted to human things, sixteen to divine things; following this plan in that division,-namely, to give six books to each of the four divisions of human things. For he directs his attention to these considerations: who perform, where they perform, when they perform, what they perform. Therefore in the first six books he wrote concerning men; in the second six, concerning places; in the third six, concerning times; in the fourth and last six, concerning things. Four times six, however, make only twenty-four. But he placed at the head of them one separate work, which spoke of all these things conjointly.In divine things, the same order he preserved throughout, as far as concerns those things which are performed to the gods. For sacred things are performed by men in places and times. These four things I have mentioned he embraced in twelve books, allotting three to each. For he wrote the first three concerning men, the following three concerning places, the third three concerning times, and the fourth three concerning sacred rites,-showing who should perform, where they should perform, when they should perform, what they should perform, with most subtle distinction. But because it was necessary to say-and that especially was expected-to whom they should perform sacred rites, he wrote concerning the gods themselves the last three books; and these five times three made fifteen. But they are in all, as we have said, sixteen. For he put also at the beginning of these one distinct book, speaking by way of introduction of all which follows; which being finished, he proceeded to subdivide the first three in that five-fold distribution which pertain to men, making the first concerning high priests, the second concerning augurs, the third concerning the fifteen men presiding over the sacred ceremonies. The second three he made concerning places, speaking in one of them concerning their chapels, in the second concerning their temples, and in the third concerning religious places. The next three which follow these, and pertain to times,-that is, to festival days,-he distributed so as to make one concerning holidays, the other concerning the circus games, and the third concerning scenic plays. Of the fourth three, pertaining to sacred things, he devoted one to consecrations, another to private, the last to public, sacred rites. In the three which remain, the gods themselves follow this pompous train, as it were, for whom all this culture has been expended. In the first book are the certain gods, in the second the uncertain, in the third, and last of all, the chief and select gods.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c4"><b>BOOK VI</b> [IV] In hac tota serie pulcherrimae ac subtilissimae distributionis et distinctionis vitam aeternam frustra quaeri et sperari inpudentissime vel optari, ex his, quae iam diximus et quae deinceps dicenda sunt, cuivis hominum, qui corde obstinato sibi non fuerit inimicus, facillime apparet. Vel hominum enim sunt ista instituta vel daemonum, non quales vocant illi daemones bonos, sed, ut loquar apertius, inmundorum spirituum et sine controversia malignorum, qui noxias opiniones, quibus anima humana magis magisque uanescat et incommutabili aeternaeque veritati coaptari atque inhaerere non possit, inuidentia mirabili et occulte inserunt cogitationibus impiorum et aperte aliquando ingerunt sensibus et qua possunt fallaci adtestatione confirmant. Iste ipse Varro propterea se prius de rebus humanis, de divinis autem postea scripsisse testatur, quod prius extiterint civitates, deinde ab eis haec instituta sint. Vera autem religio non a terrena aliqua civitate instituta est, sed plane caelestem ipsa instituit civitatem. Eam vero inspirat et docet verus Deus, dator vitae aeternae, veris cultoribus suis. Varronis igitur confitentis ideo se prius de rebus humanis scripsisse, postea de divinis, quia divinae istae ab hominibus institutae sunt, haec ratio est: "Sicut prior est, inquit, pictor quam tabula picta, prior faber quam aedificium: ita priores sunt civitates quam ea, quae a civitatibus instituta sunt." Dicit autem prius se scripturum fuisse de diis, postea de hominibus, si de omni natura deorum scriberet, quasi hic de aliqua scribat et non de omni, aut vero etiam aliqua, licet non omnis, deorum natura non prior debeat esse quam hominum. Quid quod in illis tribus novissimis libris deos certos et incertos et selectos diligenter explicans nullam deorum naturam praetermittere videtur? Quid est ergo, quod ait: "Si de omni natura deorum et hominum scriberemus, prius divina absolvissemus, quam humana adtigissemus"? Aut enim de omni natura deorum scribit, aut de aliqua, aut omnino de nulla. Si de omni, praeponenda est utique rebus humanis; si de aliqua, cur non etiam ipsa res praecedat humanas? An indigna est praeferri etiam universae naturae hominum pars aliqua deorum? Quod si multum est, ut aliqua pars divina praeponatur universis rebus humanis, saltem digna est vel Romanis. Rerum quippe humanarum libros, non quantum ad orbem terrarum, sed quantum ad solam Romam pertinet, scripsit, quos tamen rerum divinarum libris se dixit scribendi ordine merito praetulisse, sicut pictorem tabulae pictae, sicut fabrum aedificio, apertissime confitens, quod etiam istae res divinae, sicut pictura, sicut structura, ab hominibus institutae sint. Restat ut de nulla deorum natura scripsisse intellegatur, neque hoc aperte dicere voluisse, sed intellegentibus reliquisse. Vbi enim dicitur "non omnis", usitate quidem intellegitur "aliqua"; sed potest intellegi et "nulla", quoniam quae nulla est nec omnis nec aliqua est. Nam, ut ipse dicit, si omnis esset natura deorum, de qua scriberet, scribendi ordine rebus humanis praeponenda esset; ut autem et ipso tacente veritas clamat, praeponenda esset certe rebus Romanis, etiamsi non omnis, sed saltem aliqua esset: recte autem postponitur; ergo nulla est. Non itaque rebus divinis anteferre voluit res humanas, sed rebus veris noluit anteferre res falsas. In his enim, quae scripsit de rebus humanis, secutus est historiam rerum gestarum; quae autem de his, quas divinas vocat, quid nisi opiniones rerum uanarum? Hoc est nimirum, quod voluit subtili significatione monstrare, non solum scribens de his posterius quam de illis, sed etiam rationem reddens cur id fecerit. Quam si tacuisset, aliter hoc factum eius ab aliis fortasse defenderetur. In ea vero ipsa ratione, quam reddidit, nec aliis quicquam reliquit pro arbitrio suspicari et satis probavit homines se praeposuisse institutis hominum, non naturam hominum naturae deorum. Ita se libros rerum divinarum non de veritate quae pertinet ad naturam, sed de falsitate quae pertinet ad errorem scripsisse confessus est. Quod apertius alibi posuit, sicut in quarto libro commemoravi, ex naturae formula se scripturum fuisse, si nouam ipse conderet civitatem; quia vero iam ueterem invenerat, non se potuisse nisi eius consuetudinem sequi. ||In this whole series of most beautiful and most subtle distributions and distinctions, it will most easily appear evident from the things we have said already, and from what is to be said hereafter, to any man who is not, in the obstinacy of his heart, an enemy to himself, that it is vain to seek and to hope for, and even most impudent to wish for eternal life. For these institutions are either the work of men or of demons,-not of those whom they call good demons, but, to speak more plainly, of unclean, and, without controversy, malign spirits, who with wonderful slyness and secretness suggest to the thoughts of the impious, and sometimes openly present to their understandings, noxious opinions, by which the human mind grows more and more foolish, and becomes unable to adapt itself to and abide in the immutable and eternal truth, and seek to confirm these opinions by every kind of fallacious attestation in their power. This very same Varro testifies that he wrote first concerning human things, but afterwards concerning divine things, because the states existed first, and afterward these things were instituted by them. But the true religion was not instituted by any earthly state, but plainly it established the celestial city. It, however, is inspired and taught by the true God, the giver of eternal life to His true worshippers.The following is the reason Varro gives when he confesses that he had written first concerning human things, and afterwards of divine things, because these divine things were instituted by men:-"As the painter is before the painted tablet, the mason before the edifice, so states are before those things which are instituted by states." But he says that he would have written first concerning the gods, afterwards concerning men, if he had been writing concerning the whole nature of the gods,-as if he were really writing concerning some portion of, and not all, the nature of the gods; or as if, indeed, some portion of, though not all, the nature of the gods ought not to be put before that of men. How, then, comes it that in those three last books, when he is diligently explaining the certain, uncertain and select gods, he seems to pass over no portion of the nature of the gods? Why, then, does he say, "If we had been writing on the whole nature of the gods, we would first have finished the divine things before we touched the human?" For he either writes concerning the whole nature of the gods, or concerning some portion of it, or concerning no part of it at all. If concerning it all, it is certainly to be put before human things; if concerning some part of it, why should it not, from the very nature of the case, precede human things? Is not even some part of the gods to be preferred to the whole of humanity? But if it is too much to prefer a part of the divine to all human things, that part is certainly worthy to be preferred to the Romans at least. For he writes the books concerning human things, not with reference to the whole world, but only to Rome; which books he says he had properly placed, in the order of writing, before the books on divine things, like a painter before the painted tablet, or a mason before the building, most openly confessing that, as a picture or a structure, even these divine things were instituted by men. There remains only the third supposition, that he is to be understood to have written concerning no divine nature, but that he did not wish to say this openly, but left it to the intelligent to infer; for when one says "not all," usage understands that to mean "some," but it may be understood as meaning none, because that which is none is neither all nor some. In fact, as he himself says, if he had been writing concerning all the nature of the gods, its due place would have been before human things in the order of writing. But, as the truth declares, even though Varro is silent, the divine nature should have taken precedence of Roman things, though it were not all, but only some. But it is properly put after, therefore it is none. His arrangement, therefore, was due, not to a desire to give human things priority to divine things, but to his unwillingness to prefer false things to true. For in what he wrote on human things, he followed the history of affairs; but in what he wrote concerning those things which they call divine, what else did he follow but mere conjectures about vain things? This, doubtless, is what, in a subtle manner, he wished to signify; not only writing concerning divine things after the human, but even giving a reason why he did so; for if he had suppressed this, some, perchance, would have defended his doing so in one way, and some in another. But in that very reason he has rendered, he has left nothing for men to conjecture at will, and has sufficiently proved that he preferred men to the institutions of men, not the nature of men to the nature of the gods. Thus he confessed that, in writing the books concerning divine things, he did not write concerning the truth which belongs to nature, but the falseness which belongs to error; which he has elsewhere expressed more openly (as I have mentioned in the fourth book), saying that, had he been founding a new city himself, he would have written according to the order of nature; but as he had only found an old one, he could not but follow its custom.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c5"><b>BOOK VI</b> [V] Deinde illud quale est, quod tria genera theologiae dicit esse, id est rationis quae de diis explicatur, eorumque unum mythicon appellari, alterum physicon, tertium civile? Latine si usus admitteret, genus, quod primum posuit, fabulare appellaremus; sed fabulosum dicamus; a fabulis enim mythicon dictum est, quoniam *muthos Graece fabula dicitur. Secundum autem ut naturale dicatur, iam et consuetudo locutionis admittit. Tertium etiam ipse Latine enuntiavit, quod civile appellatur. Deinde ait: "Mythicon appellant, quo maxime utuntur poetae; physicon, quo philosophi, civile, quo populi. Primum, inquit, quod dixi, in eo sunt multa contra dignitatem et naturam inmortalium ficta. In hoc enim est, ut deus alius ex capite, alius ex femore sit, alius ex guttis sanguinis natus; in hoc, ut dii furati sint, ut adulterarint, ut seruierint homini; denique in hoc omnia diis adtribuuntur, quae non modo in hominem, sed etiam quae in contemptissimum hominem cadere possunt." Hic certe ubi potuit, ubi ausus est, ubi inpunitum putavit, quanta mendacissimis fabulis naturae deorum fieret iniuria, sine caligine ullius ambiguitatis expressit. Loquebatur enim non de naturali theologia, non de civili, sed de fabulosa, quam libere a se putavit esse culpandam. Videamus quid de altera dicat. "Secundum genus est, inquit, quod demonstravi, de quo multos libros philosophi reliquerunt; in quibus est, dii qui sint, ubi, quod genus, quale est: a quodam tempore an a sempiterno fuerint dii; ex igni sint, ut credit Heraclitus, an ex numeris, ut Pythagoras, an ex atomis, ut ait Epicurus. Sic alia, quae facilius intra parietes in schola quam extra in foro ferre possunt aures." Nihil in hoc genere culpavit, quod physicon vocant et ad philosophos pertinet, tantum quod eorum inter se controversias commemoravit, per quos facta est dissidentium multitudo sectarum. Removit tamen hoc genus a foro, id est a populis; scholis vero et parietibus clausit. Illud autem primum mendacissimum atque turpissimum a civitatibus non removit. O religiosas aures populares atque in his etiam Romanas! Quod de diis inmortalibus philosophi disputant, ferre non possunt; quod vero poetae canunt et histriones agunt, quae contra dignitatem ac naturam inmortalium ficta sunt, quia non modo in hominem, sed etiam in contemptissimum hominem cadere possunt, non solum ferunt, sed etiam libenter audiunt. Neque id tantum, sed diis quoque ipsis haec placere et per haec eos placandos esse decernunt. Dixerit aliquis: Haec duo genera mythicon et physicon, id est fabulosum atque naturale, discernamus ab hoc civili, de quo nunc agitur, unde illa et ipse discrevit, iamque ipsum civile videamus qualiter explicet. Video quidem, cur debeat discerni fabulosum: quia falsum, quia turpe, quia indignum est. Naturale autem a civili velle discernere quid est aliud quam etiam ipsum civile fateri esse mendosum? Si enim illud naturale est, quid habet reprehensionis, ut excludatur? Si autem hoc quod civile dicitur naturale non est, quid habet meriti, ut admittatur? Haec nempe illa causa est, quare prius scripserit de rebus humanis, posterius de divinis, quoniam in divinis rebus non naturam, sed hominum instituta secutus est. Intueamur sane et civilem theologian. "Tertium genus est, inquit, quod in urbibus cives, maxime sacerdotes, nosse atque administrare debent. In quo est, quos deos publice sacra ac sacrificia colere et facere quemque par sit." Adhuc quod sequitur adtendamus. "Prima, inquit, theologia maxime accommodata est ad theatrum, secunda ad mundum, tertia ad urbem." Quis non videat, cui palmam dederit? Vtique secundae, quam supra dixit esse philosophorum. Hanc enim pertinere testatur ad mundum, quo isti nihil esse excellentius opinantur in rebus. Duas vero illas theologias, primam et tertiam, theatri scilicet atque urbis, distinxit an iunxit? Videmus enim non continuo, quod est urbis, pertinere posse et ad mundum, quamuis urbes esse videamus in mundo; fieri enim potest, ut in urbe secundum falsas opiniones ea colantur et ea credantur, quorum in mundo vel extra mundum natura sit nusquam: theatrum vero ubi est nisi in urbe? Quis theatrum instituit nisi civitas? Propter quid instituit nisi propter ludos scaenicos? Vbi sunt ludi scaenici nisi in rebus divinis, de quibus hi libri tanta sollertia conscribuntur? ||Now what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely, that there are three kinds of theology, that is, of the account which is given of the gods; and of these, the one is called mythical, the other physical, and the third civil? Did the Latin usage permit, we should call the kind which he has placed first in order fabular, but let us call it fabulous, for mythical is derived from the Greek µ????, a fable; but that the second should be called natural, the usage of speech now admits; the third he himself has designated in Latin, call ing it civil. Then he says, "they call that kind mythical which the poets chiefly use; physical, that which the philosophers use; civil, that which the people use. As to the first I have mentioned," says he, "in it are many fictions, which are contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For we find in it that one god has been born from the head, another from the thigh, another from drops of blood; also, in this we find that gods have stolen, committed adultery, served men; in a word, in this all manner of things are attributed to the gods, such as may befall, not merely any man, but even the most contemptible man." He certainly, where he could, where he dared, where he thought he could do it with impunity, has manifested, without any of the haziness of ambiguity, how great injury was done to the nature of the gods by lying fables; for he was speaking, not concerning natural theology, not concerning civil, but concerning fabulous theology, which he thought he could freely find fault with.Let us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind. "The second kind which I have explained," he says, "is that concerning which philosophers have left many books, in which they treat such questions as these: what gods there are, where they are, of what kind and character they are, since what time they have existed, or if they have existed from eternity; whether they are of fire, as Heraclitus believes; or of number, as Pythagoras; or of atoms, as Epicurus says; and other such things, which men's ears can more easily hear inside the walls of a school than outside in the Forum." He finds fault with nothing in this kind of theology which they call physical, and which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their controversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in schools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and among them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what the philosophers dispute concerning the gods! But when the poets sing and stage-players act such things as are derogatory to the dignity and the nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a man merely, but the most contemptible man, they not only bear, but willingly listen to. Nor is this all, but they even consider that these things please the gods, and that they are propitiated by them.But some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kinds of theology, the mythical and the physical,-that is, the fabulous and the natural,-from this civil kind about which we are now speaking. Anticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see now how he explains the civil theology itself. I see, indeed, why it should be distinguished as fabulous, even because it is false, because it is base, because it is unworthy. But to wish to distinguish the natural from the civil, what else is that but to confess that the civil itself is false? For if that be natural, what fault has it that it should be excluded? And if this which is called civil be not natural, what merit has it that it should be admitted? This, in truth, is the cause why he wrote first concerning human things, and afterwards concerning divine things; since in divine things he did not follow nature, but the institution of men. Let us look at this civil theology of his. "The third kind," says he, "is that which citizens in cities, and especially the priests, ought to know and to administer. From it is to be known what god each one may suitably worship, what sacred rites and sacrifices each one may suitably perform." Let us still attend to what follows. "The first theology," he says, "is especially adapted to the theatre, the second to the world, the third to the city." Who does not see to which he gives the palm? Certainly to the second, which he said above is that of the philosophers. For he testifies that this pertains to the world, than which they think there is nothing better. But those two theologies, the first and the third,-to wit, those of the theatre and of the city,-has he distinguished them or united them? For although we see that the city is in the world, we do not see that it follows that any things belonging to the city pertain to the world. For it is possible that such things may be worshipped and believed in the city, according to false opinions, as have no existence either in the world or out of it. But where is the theatre but in the city? Who instituted the theatre but the state? For what purpose did it constitute it but for scenic plays? And to what class of things do scenic plays belong but to those divine things concerning which these books of Varro's are written with so much ability?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c6"><b>BOOK VI</b> [VI] O Marce Varro, cum sis homo omnium acutissimus et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimus, sed tamen homo, non Deus, nec spiritu Dei ad videnda et adnuntianda divina in veritatem libertatemque subuectus, cernis quidem quam sint res divinae ab humanis nugis atque mendaciis dirimendae; sed vitiosissimas populorum opiniones et consuetudines in superstitionibus publicis vereris offendere, quas ab deorum natura abhorrere vel talium, quales in huius mundi elementis humani animi suspicatur infirmitas, et sentis ipse, cum eas usquequaque consideras, et omnis uestra litteratura circumsonat. Quid hic agit humanum quamuis excellentissimum ingenium? Quid tibi humana licet multiplex ingensque doctrina in his angustiis suffragatur? Naturales deos colere cupis, civiles cogeris. Invenisti alios fabulosos, in quos liberius quod sentis euomas, unde et istos civiles velis nolisue perfundas. Dicis quippe fabulosos accommodatos esse ad theatrum, naturales ad mundum, civiles ad urbem, cum mundus opus sit divinum, urbes vero et theatra opera sint hominum, nec alii dii rideantur in theatris, quam qui adorantur in templis, nec aliis ludos exhibeatis, quam quibus victimas immolatis. Quanto liberius subtiliusque ista divideres, dicens alios esse deos naturales, alios ab hominibus institutos, sed de institutis aliud habere litteras poetarum, aliud sacerdotum, utrasque tamen ita esse inter se amicas consortio falsitatis, ut gratae sint utraeque daemonibus, quibus doctrina inimica est veritatis! Sequestrata igitur paululum theologia, quam naturalem vocant, de qua postea disserendum est, placetne tandem vitam aeternam peti aut sperari ab diis poeticis theatricis, ludicris scaenicis? Absit; immo avertat Deus verus tam inmanem sacrilegamque dementiam. Quid? ab eis diis, quibus haec placent et quos haec placant, cum eorum illic crimina frequententur, vita aeterna poscenda est? Nemo, ut arbitror, usque ad tantum praecipitium furiosissimae impietatis insanit. Nec fabulosa igitur nec civili theologia sempiternam quisquam adipiscitur vitam. Illa enim de diis turpia fingendo seminat, haec favendo metit; illa mendacia spargit, haec colligit; illa res divinas falsis criminibus insectatur, haec eorum criminum ludos in divinis rebus amplectitur; illa de diis nefanda figmenta hominum carminibus personat, haec ea deorum ipsorum festivitatibus consecrat; facinora et flagitia numinum illa cantat, haec amat; illa prodit aut fingit, haec autem aut adtestatur veris aut oblectatur et falsis. Ambae turpes ambaeque damnabiles; sed illa, quae theatrica est, publicam turpitudinem profitetur; ista, quae urbana est, illius turpitudine ornatur. Hincine vita aeterna sperabitur, unde ista brevis temporalisque polluitur? An vero vitam polluit consortium nefariorum hominum, si se inserant affectionibus et assensionibus nostris, et vitam non polluit societas daemonum, qui coluntur criminibus suis? Si veris, quam mali! si falsis, quam male! Haec cum dicimus, videri fortasse cuipiam nimis harum rerum ignaro potest ea sola de diis talibus maiestati indigna divinae et ridicula detestabilia celebrari, quae poeticis cantantur carminibus et ludis scaenicis actitantur; sacra vero illa, quae non histriones, sed sacerdotes agunt, ab omni esse dedecore purgata et aliena. Hoc si ita esset, numquam theatricas turpitudines in eorum honorem quisquam celebrandas esse censeret, numquam eas ipsi dii praeciperent sibimet exhiberi. Sed ideo nihil pudet ad obsequium deorum talia gerere in theatris, quia similia geruntur in templis. Denique cum memoratus auctor civilem theologian a fabulosa et naturali tertiam quandam sui generis distinguere conaretur, magis eam ex utraque temperatam quam ab utraque separatam intellegi voluit. Ait enim ea, quae scribunt poetae, minus esse quam ut populi sequi debeant; quae autem philosophi, plus quam ut ea uulgum scrutari expediat. "Quae sic abhorrent, inquit, ut tamen ex utroque genere ad civiles rationes adsumpta sint non pauca. Quare quae erunt communia cum propriis, una cum civilibus scribemus; e quibus maior societas debet esse nobis cum philosophis quam cum poetis." Non ergo nulla cum poetis. Et tamen alio loco dicit de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos. Hic enim dixit quid fieri debeat, ibi quid fiat. Physicos dixit utilitatis causa scripsisse, poetas delectationis. Ac per hoc ea, quae a poetis conscripta populi sequi non debent, crimina sunt deorum, quae tamen delectant et populos et deos. Delectationis enim causa, sicut dicit, scribunt poetae, non utilitatis; ea tamen scribunt, quae dii expetant, populi exhibeant. ||O Marcus Varro! you are the most acute, and without doubt the most learned, but still a man, not God,-now lifted up by the Spirit of God to see and to announce divine things, you see, indeed, that divine things are to be separated from human trifles and lies, but you fear to offend those most corrupt opinions of the populace, and their customs in public superstitions, which you yourself, when you consider them on all sides, perceivest, and all your literature loudly pronounces to be abhorrent from the nature of the gods, even of such gods as the frailty of the human mind supposes to exist in the elements of this world. What can the most excellent human talent do here? What can human learning, though manifold, avail you in this perplexity? You desire to worship the natural gods; you are compelled to worship the civil. You have found some of the gods to be fabulous, on whom you vomit forth very freely what you think, and, whether you will or not, you wet therewith even the civil gods. You say, forsooth, that the fabulous are adapted to the theatre, the natural to the world, and the civil to the city; though the world is a divine work, but cities and theatres are the works of men, and though the gods who are laughed at in the theatre are not other than those who are adored in the temples; and you do not exhibit games in honor of other gods than those to whom you immolate victims. How much more freely and more subtly would you have decided these had you said that some gods are natural, others established by men; and concerning those who have been so established, the literature of the poets gives one account, and that of the priests another,-both of which are, nevertheless, so friendly the one to the other, through fellowship in falsehood, that they are both pleasing to the demons, to whom the doctrine of the truth is hostile.That theology, therefore, which they call natural, being put aside for a moment, as it is afterwards to be discussed, we ask if any one is really content to seek a hope for eternal life from poetical, theatrical, scenic gods? Perish the thought! The true God avert so wild and sacrilegious a madness! What, is eternal life to be asked from those gods whom these things pleased, and whom these things propitiate, in which their own crimes are represented? No one, as I think, has arrived at such a pitch of headlong and furious impiety. So then, neither by the fabulous nor by the civil theology does any one obtain eternal life. For the one sows base things concerning the gods by feigning them, the other reaps by cherishing them; the one scatters lies, the other gathers them together; the one pursues divine things with false crimes, the other incorporates among divine things the plays which are made up of these crimes; the one sounds abroad in human songs impious fictions concerning the gods, the other consecrates these for the festivities of the gods themselves; the one sings the misdeeds and crimes of the gods, the other loves them; the one gives forth or feigns, the other either attests the true or delights in the false. Both are base; both are damnable. But the one which is theatrical teaches public abomination, and that one which is of the city adorns itself with that abomination. Shall eternal life be hoped for from these, by which this short and temporal life is polluted? Does the society of wicked men pollute our life if they insinuate themselves into our affections, and win our assent? and does not the society of demons pollute the life, who are worshipped with their own crimes?-if with true crimes, how wicked the demons! if with false, how wicked the worship!When we say these things, it may perchance seem to some one who is very ignorant of these matters that only those things concerning the gods which are sung in the songs of the poets and acted on the stage are unworthy of the divine majesty, and ridiculous, and too detestable to be celebrated, while those sacred things which not stage-players but priests perform are pure and free from all unseemliness. Had this been so, never would any one have thought that these theatrical abominations should be celebrated in their honor, never would the gods themselves have ordered them to be performed to them. But men are in nowise ashamed to perform these things in the theatres, because similar things are carried on in the temples. In short, when the fore-mentioned author attempted to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous and natural, as a sort of third and distinct kind, he wished it to be understood to be rather tempered by both than separated from either. For he says that those things which the poets write are less than the people ought to follow, while what the philosophers say is more than it is expedient for the people to pry into. "Which," says he, "differ in such a way, that nevertheless not a few things from both of them have been taken to the account of the civil theology; wherefore we will indicate what the civil theology has in common with that of the poet, though it ought to be more closely connected with the theology of philosophers." Civil theology is therefore not quite disconnected from that of the poets. Nevertheless, in another place, concerning the generations of the gods, he says that the people are more inclined toward the poets than toward the physical theologists. For in this place he said what ought to be done; in that other place, what was really done. He said that the latter had written for the sake of utility, but the poets for the sake of amusement. And hence the things from the poets' writings, which the people ought not to follow, are the crimes of the gods; which, nevertheless, amuse both the people and the gods. For, for amusement's sake, he says, the poets write, and not for that of utility; nevertheless they write such things as the gods will desire, and the people perform.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c7"><b>BOOK VI</b> [VII] Reuocatur igitur ad theologian civilem theologia fabulosa theatrica scaenica, indignitatis et turpitudinis plena, et haec tota, quae merito culpanda et respuenda iudicatur, pars huius est, quae colenda et observanda censetur; non sane pars incongrua, sicut ostendere institui, et quae ab universo corpore aliena importune illi conexa atque suspensa sit, sed omnino consona et tamquam eiusdem corporis membrum convenientissime copulata. Quid enim aliud ostendunt illa simulacra formae aetates sexus habitus deorum? Numquid barbatum Iovem, imberbem Mercurium poetae habent, pontifices non habent? Numquid Priapo mimi, non etiam sacerdotes enormia pudenda fecerunt? An aliter stat adorandus in locis sacris, quam procedit ridendus in theatris? Num Saturnus senex, Apollo ephebus ita personae sunt histrionum, ut non sint statuae delubrorum? Cur Forculus, qui foribus praeest, et Limentinus, qui limini, dii sunt masculi, atque inter hos Cardea femina est, quae cardinem servat? Nonne ista in rerum divinarum libris reperiuntur, quae graves poetae suis carminibus indigna duxerunt? Numquid Diana theatrica portat arma et urbana simpliciter virgo est? Numquid scaenicus Apollo citharista est et ab hac arte Delphicus uacat? Sed haec honestiora sunt in comparatione turpiorum. Quid de ipso Iove senserunt, qui eius nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? Nonne adtestati sunt Euhemero, qui omnes tales deos non fabulosa garrulitate, sed historica diligentia homines fuisse mortalesque conscripsit? Epulones etiam deos, parasitos Iovis, ad eius mensam qui constituerunt, quid aliud quam mimica sacra esse voluerunt? Nam parasitos Iovis ad conuivium eius adhibitos si mimus dixisset, utique risum quaesisse videretur. Varro dixit! non cum inrideret deos, sed cum commendaret hoc dixit; divinarum, non humanarum rerum libri hoc eum scripsisse testantur, nec ubi ludos scaenicos exponebat, sed ubi Capitolina iura pandebat. Denique talibus vincitur et fatetur, sicut forma humana deos fecerunt, ita eos delectari humanis voluptatibus credidisse. Non enim et maligni spiritus suo negotio defuerunt, ut has noxias opiniones humanarum mentium ludificatione firmarent. Vnde etiam illud est, quod Herculis aedituus otiosus atque feriatus lusit tesseris secum utraque manu alternante, in una constituens Herculem, in altera se ipsum, sub ea condicione, ut, si ipse vicisset, de stipe templi sibi cenam pararet amicamque conduceret; si autem victoria Herculis fieret, hoc idem de pecunia sua voluptati Herculis exhiberet; deinde cum a se ipso tamquam ab Hercule victus esset, debitam cenam et nobilissimam meretricem Larentinam deo Herculi dedit. At illa cum dormisset in templo, vidit in somnis Herculem sibi esse commixtum sibique dixisse, quod inde discedens, cui primum ivveni obuia fieret, apud illum esset inventura mercedem, quam sibi credere deberet ab Hercule persolutam. Ac sic abeunti cum primus ivvenis ditissimus Tarutius occurrisset eamque dilectam secum diutius habuisset, illa herede defunctus est. Quae amplissimam adepta pecuniam ne divinae mercedi videretur ingrata, quod acceptissimum putavit esse numinibus, populum Romanum etiam ipsa scripsit heredem, atque illa non comparente inventum est testamentum; quibus meritis eam ferunt etiam honores meruisse divinos. Haec si poetae fingerent, si mimi agerent, ad fabulosam theologian dicerentur procul dubio pertinere et a civilis theologiae dignitate separanda iudicarentur. Cum vero haec dedecora non poetarum, sed populorum; non mimorum, sed sacrorum; non theatrorum, sed templorum; id est non fabulosae, sed civilis theologiae, a tanto doctore produntur: non frustra histriones ludicris artibus fingunt deorum quae tanta est turpitudinem, sed plane frustra sacerdotes velut sacris ritibus conantur fingere deorum quae nulla est honestatem. Sacra sunt Iunonis, et haec in eius dilecta insula Samo celebrabantur, ubi nuptum data est Iovi; sacra sunt Cereris, ubi a Plutone rapta Proserpina quaeritur; sacra sunt Veneris, ubi amatus eius Adon aprino dente extinctus ivvenis formosissimus plangitur; sacra sunt Matris deum, ubi Attis pulcher adulescens ab ea dilectus et muliebri zelo abscisus etiam hominum abscisorum, quos Gallos vocant, infelicitate deploratur. Haec cum deformiora sint omni scaenica foeditate, quid est quod fabulosa de diis figmenta poetarum ad theatrum videlicet pertinentia velut secernere nituntur a civili theologia, quam pertinere ad urbem volunt, quasi ab honestis et dignis indigna et turpia? Itaque potius est unde gratiae debeantur histrionibus, qui oculis hominum pepercerunt nec omnia spectaculis nudaverunt, quae sacrarum aedium parietibus occuluntur. Quid de sacris eorum boni sentiendum est, quae tenebris operiuntur, cum tam sint detestabilia, quae proferuntur in lucem? Et certe quid in occulto agant per abscisos et molles, ipsi viderint; eosdem tamen homines infeliciter ac turpiter eneruatos atque corruptos occultare mimine potuerunt. Persuadeant cui possunt se aliquid sanctum per tales agere homines, quos inter sua sancta numerari atque versari negare non possunt. Nescimus quid agant, sed scimus per quales agant. Novimus autem quae agantur in scaena, quo numquam vel in choro meretricum abscisus aut mollis intravit; et tamen etiam ipsa turpes et infames agunt; neque enim ab honestis agi debuerunt. Quae sunt ergo illa sacra, quibus agendis tales elegit sanctitas, quales nec thymelica in se admisit obscenitas? ||That theology, therefore, which is fabulous, theatrical, scenic, and full of all baseness and unseemliness, is taken up into the civil theology; and part of that theology, which in its totality is deservedly judged to be worthy of reprobation and rejection, is pronounced worthy to be cultivated and observed;-not at all an incongruous part, as I have undertaken to show, and one which, being alien to the whole body, was unsuitably attached to and suspended from it, but a part entirely congruous with, and most harmoniously fitted to the rest, as a member of the same body. For what else do those images, forms, ages, sexes, characteristics of the gods show? If the poets have Jupiter with a beard and Mercury beardless, have not the priests the same? Is the Priapus of the priests less obscene than the Priapus of the players? Does he receive the adoration of worshippers in a different form from that in which he moves about the stage for the amusement of spectators? Is not Saturn old and Apollo young in the shrines where their images stand as well as when represented by actors' masks? Why are Forculus, who presides over doors, and Limentinus, who presides over thresholds and lintels, male gods, and Cardea between them feminine, who presides over hinges? Are not those things found in books on divine things, which grave poets have deemed unworthy of their verses? Does the Diana of the theatre carry arms, while the Diana of the city is simply a virgin? Is the stage Apollo a lyrist, but the Delphic Apollo ignorant of this art? But these things are decent compared with the more shameful things. What was thought of Jupiter himself by those who placed his wet nurse in the Capitol? Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus, who, not with the garrulity of a fable-teller, but with the gravity of an historian who had diligently investigated the matter, wrote that all such gods had been men and mortals? And they who appointed the Epulones as parasites at the table of Jupiter, what else did they wish for but mimic sacred rites. For if any mimic had said that parasites of Jupiter were made use of at his table, he would assuredly have appeared to be seeking to call forth laughter. Varro said it,-not when he was mocking, but when he was commending the gods did he say it. His books on divine, not on human, things testify that he wrote this,-not where he set forth the scenic games, but where he explained the Capitoline laws. In a word, he is conquered, and confesses that, as they made the gods with a human form, so they believed that they are delighted with human pleasures.For also malign spirits were not so wanting to their own business as not to confirm noxious opinions in the minds of men by converting them into sport. Whence also is that story about the sacristan of Hercules, which says that, having nothing to do, he took to playing at dice as a pastime, throwing them alternately with the one hand for Hercules, with the other for himself, with this understanding, that if he should win, he should from the funds of the temple prepare himself a supper, and hire a mistress; but if Hercules should win the game, he himself should, at his own expense, provide the same for the pleasure of Hercules. Then, when he had been beaten by himself, as though by Hercules, he gave to the god Hercules the supper he owed him, and also the most noble harlot Larentina. But she, having fallen asleep in the temple, dreamed that Hercules had had intercourse with her, and had said to her that she would find her payment with the youth whom she should first meet on leaving the temple, and that she was to believe this to be paid to her by Hercules. And so the first youth that met her on going out was the wealthy Tarutius, who kept her a long time, and when he died left her his heir. She, having obtained a most ample fortune, that she should not seem ungrateful for the divine hire, in her turn made the Roman people her heir, which she thought to be most acceptable to the deities; and, having disappeared, the will was found. By which meritorious conduct they say that she gained divine honors.Now had these things been feigned by the poets and acted by the mimics, they would without any doubt have been said to pertain to the fabulous theology, and would have been judged worthy to be separated from the dig nity of the civil theology. But when these shameful things,-not of the poets, but of the people; not of the mimics, but of the sacred things; not of the theatres, but of the temples, that is, not of the fabulous, but of the civil theology,-are reported by so great an author, not in vain do the actors represent with theatrical art the baseness of the gods, which is so great; but surely in vain do the priests attempt, by rites called sacred, to represent their nobleness of character, which has no existence. There are sacred rites of Juno; and these are celebrated in her beloved island, Samos, where she was given in marriage to Jupiter. There are sacred rites of Ceres, in which Proserpine is sought for, having been carried off by Pluto. There are sacred rites of Venus, in which, her beloved Adonis being slain by a boar's tooth, the lovely youth is lamented. There are sacred rites of the mother of the gods, in which the beautiful youth Atys, loved by her, and castrated by her through a woman's jealousy, is deplored by men who have suffered the like calamity, whom they call Galli. Since, then, these things are more unseemly than all scenic abomination, why is it that they strive to separate, as it were, the fabulous fictions of the poet concerning the gods, as, forsooth, pertaining to the theatre, from the civil theology which they wish to belong to the city, as though they were separating from noble and worthy things, things unworthy and base? Wherefore there is more reason to thank the stage-actors, who have spared the eyes of men and have not laid bare by theatrical exhibition all the things which are hid by the walls of the temples. What good is to be thought of their sacred rites which are concealed in darkness, when those which are brought forth into the light are so detestable? And certainly they themselves have seen what they transact in secret through the agency of mutilated and effeminate men. Yet they have not been able to conceal those same men miserably and vile enervated and corrupted. Let them persuade whom they can that they transact anything holy through such men, who, they cannot deny, are numbered, and live among their sacred things. We know not what they transact, but we know through whom they transact; for we know what things are transacted on the stage, where never, even in a chorus of harlots, has one who is mutilated or an effeminate appeared. And, nevertheless, even these things are acted by vile and infamous characters; for, indeed, they ought not to be acted by men of good character. What, then, are those sacred rites, for the performance of which holiness has chosen such men as not even the obscenity of the stage has admitted?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c8"><b>BOOK VI</b> [VIII] At enim habent ista physiologicas quasdam, sicut aiunt, id est naturalium rationum interpretationes. Quasi vero nos in hac disputatione physiologian quaerimus et non theologian, id est rationem non naturae, sed Dei. Quamuis enim qui verus Deus est non opinione, sed natura Deus sit: non tamen omnis natura deus est, quia et hominis et pecoris, et arboris et lapidis utique natura est, quorum nihil est deus. Si autem interpretationis huius, quando agitur de sacris Matris deum, caput est certe quod Mater deum terra est: quid ultra quaerimus, quid cetera perscrutamur? Quid evidentius suffragatur eis, qui dicunt omnes istos deos homines fuisse? Sic enim sunt terrigenae, sic eis mater est terra. In vera autem theologia opus Dei est terra, non mater. Verum tamen quoquo modo sacra eius interpretentur et referant ad rerum naturam: viros muliebria pati non est secundum naturam, sed contra naturam. Hic morbus, hoc crimen, hoc dedecus habet inter illa sacra professionem, quod in vitiosis hominum moribus vix habet inter tormenta confessionem. Deinde si ista sacra, quae scaenicis turpitudinibus conuincuntur esse foediora, hinc excusantur atque purgantur, quod habent interpretationes suas, quibus ostendantur rerum significare naturam: cur non etiam poetica similiter excusentur atque purgentur? Multi enim et ipsa ad eundem modum interpretati sunt, usque adeo ut, quod ab eis inmanissimum et infandissimum dicitur, Saturnum suos filios deuorasse, ita nonnulli interpretentur, quod longinquitas temporis, quae Saturni nomine significatur, quidquid gignit ipsa consumat, vel, sicut idem opinatur Varro, quod pertineat Saturnus ad semina, quae in terram, de qua oriuntur, iterum recidunt. Itemque alii alio modo et similiter cetera. Et tamen theologia fabulosa dicitur et cum omnibus huiusce modi interpretationibus suis reprehenditur abicitur inprobatur, nec solum a naturali, quae philosophorum est, verum etiam ab ista civili, de qua agimus, quae ad urbes populosque asseritur pertinere, eo quod de diis indigna confinxerit, merito repudianda discernitur, eo nimirum consilio, ut, quoniam acutissimi homines atque doctissimi, a quibus ista conscripta sunt, ambas inprobandas intellegebant, et illam scilicet fabulosam et istam civilem, illam vero audebant inprobare, hanc non audebant; illam culpandam proposuerunt, hanc eius similem comparandam exposuerunt, _ non ut haec prae illa tenenda eligeretur, sed ut cum illa respuenda intellegeretur, atque ita sine periculo eorum, qui civilem theologian reprehendere metuebant, utraque contempta ea, quam naturalem vocant, apud meliores animos inveniret locum. Nam et civilis et fabulosa ambae fabulosae sunt ambaeque civiles; ambas inveniet fabulosas, qui uanitates et obscenitates ambarum prudenter inspexerit; ambas civiles, qui scaenicos ludos pertinentes ad fabulosam in deorum civilium festivitatibus et in urbium divinis rebus adverterit. Quo modo igitur vitae aeternae dandae potestas cuiquam deorum istorum tribuitur, quos sua simulacra et sacra conuincunt diis fabulosis apertissime reprobatis esse simillimos formis aetatibus, sexu habitu, coniugiis generationibus ritibus, in quibus omnibus aut homines fuisse intelleguntur et pro uniuscuiusque vita vel morte sacra eis et sollemnia constituta, hunc errorem insinuantibus firmantibusque daemonibus, aut certe ex qualibet occasione inmundissimi spiritus fallendis humanis mentibus inrepsisse? ||But all these things, they say, have certain physical, that is, natural interpretations, showing their natural meaning; as though in this disputation we were seeking physics and not theology, which is the account, not of nature, but of God. For although He who is the true God is God, not by opinion, but by nature, nevertheless all nature is not God; for there is certainly a nature of man, of a beast, of a tree, of a stone,-none of which is God. For if, when the question is concerning the mother of the gods, that from which the whole system of interpretation starts certainly is, that the mother of the gods is the earth, why do we make further inquiry? why do we carry our investigation through all the rest of it? What can more manifestly favor them who say that all those gods were men? For they are earth-born in the sense that the earth is their mother. But in the true theology the earth is the work, not the mother, of God. But in whatever way their sacred rites may be interpreted, and whatever reference they may have to the nature of things, it is not according to nature, but contrary to nature, that men should be effeminates. This disease, this crime, this abomination, has a recognized place among those sacred things, though even depraved men will scarcely be compelled by torments to confess they are guilty of it. Again, if these sacred rites, which are proved to be fouler than scenic abominations, are excused and justified on the ground that they have their own interpretations, by which they are shown to symbolize the nature of things, why are not the poetical things in like manner excused and justified? For many have interpreted even these in like fashion, to such a degree that even that which they say is the most monstrous and most horrible,-namely, that Saturn devoured his own children,-has been interpreted by some of them to mean that length of time, which is signified by the name of Saturn, consumes whatever it begets; or that, as the same Varro thinks, Saturn belongs to seeds which fall back again into the earth from whence they spring. And so one interprets it in one way, and one in another. And the same is to be said of all the rest of this theology.And, nevertheless, it is called the fabulous theology, and is censured, cast off, rejected, together with all such interpretations belonging to it. And not only by the natural theology, which is that of the philosophers, but also by this civil theology, concerning which we are speaking, which is asserted to pertain to cities and peoples, it is judged worthy of repudiation, because it has invented unworthy things concerning the gods. Of which, I wot, this is the secret: that those most acute and learned men, by whom those things were written, understood that both theologies ought to be rejected,-to wit, both that fabulous and this civil one,-but the former they dared to reject, the latter they dared not; the former they set forth to be censured, the latter they showed to be very like it; not that it might be chosen to be held in preference to the other, but that it might be understood to be worthy of being rejected together with it. And thus, without danger to those who feared to censure the civil theology, both of them being brought into contempt, that theology which they call natural might find a place in better disposed minds; for the civil and the fabulous are both fabulous and both civil. He who shall wisely inspect the vanities and obscenities of both will find that they are both fabulous; and he who shall direct his attention to the scenic plays pertaining to the fabulous theology in the festivals of the civil gods, and in the divine rites of the cities, will find they are both civil. How, then, can the power of giving eternal life be attributed to any of those gods whose own images and sacred rites convict them of being most like to the fabulous gods, which are most openly reprobated, in forms, ages, sex, characteristics, marriages, generations, rites; in all which things they are understood either to have been men, and to have had their sacred rites and solemnities instituted in their honor according to the life or death of each of them, the demons suggesting and confirming this error, or certainly most foul spirits, who, taking advantage of some occasion or other, have stolen into the minds of men to deceive them?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c9"><b>BOOK VI</b> [IX] Quid? ipsa numinum officia tam viliter minutatimque concisa, propter quod eis dicunt pro uniuscuiusque proprio munere supplicari oportere, unde non quidem omnia, sed multa iam diximus, nonne scurrilitati mimicae quam divinae consonant dignitati? Si duas quisquam nutrices adhiberet infanti, quarum una nihil nisi escam, altera nihil nisi potum daret, sicut isti ad hoc duas adhibuerunt deas, Educam et Potinam: nempe desipere et aliquid mimo simile in sua domo agere videretur. Liberum a liberamento appellatum volunt, quod mares in coeundo per eius beneficium emissis seminibus liberentur; hoc idem in feminis agere Liberam, quam etiam Venerem putant, quod et ipsam perhibeant semina emittere; et ob haec Libero eandem virilem corporis partem in templo poni, femineam Liberae. Ad haec addunt mulieres adtributas Libero et vinum propter libidinem concitandam. Sic Bacchanalia summa celebrabantur insania; ubi Varro ipse confitetur a Bacchantibus talia fieri non potuisse nisi mente commota. Haec tamen postea displicuerunt senatui saniori, et ea iussit auferri. Saltem hic tandem forsitan senserunt quid inmundi spiritus, dum pro diis habentur, in hominum mentibus possint. Haec certe non fierent in theatris; ludunt quippe ibi, non furiunt; quamuis deos habere, qui etiam ludis talibus delectentur, simile sit furoris. Quale autem illud est, quod cum religiosum a superstitioso ea distinctione discernat, ut a superstitioso dicat timeri deos, a religioso autem tantum vereri ut parentes, non ut hostes timeri, atque omnes ita bonos dicat, ut facilius sit eos nocentibus parcere quam laedere quemquam innocentem, tamen mulieri fetae post partum tres deos custodes commemorat adhiberi, ne Siluanus deus per noctem ingrediatur et uexet, eorumque custodum significandorum causa tres homines noctu circuire limina domus et primo limen securi ferire, postea pilo, tertio deuerrere scopis, ut his datis culturae signis deus Siluanus prohibeatur intrare, quod neque arbores caeduntur ac putantur sine ferro, neque far conficitur sine pilo, neque fruges coaceruantur sine scopis; ab his autem tribus rebus tres nuncupatos deos, Intercidonam a securis intercisione, Pilumnum a pilo, Deuerram ab scopis, quibus diis custodibus contra vim dei Siluani feta conservaretur. Ita contra dei nocentis saevitiam non valeret custodia bonorum, nisi plures essent adversus unum eique aspero horrendo inculto, utpote siluestri, signis culturae tamquam contrariis repugnarent. Itane ista est innocentia deorum, ista concordia? Haecine sunt numina salubria urbium, magis ridenda quam ludibria theatrorum? Cum mas et femina coniunguntur, adhibetur deus lugatinus; sit hoc ferendum. Sed domum est ducenda quae nubit; adhibetur et deus Domiducus; ut in domo sit, adhibetur deus Domitius; ut maneat cum viro, additur dea Manturna. Quid ultra quaeritur? Parcatur humanae verecundiae; peragat cetera concupiscentia carnis et sanguinis procurato secreto pudoris. Quid impletur cubiculum turba numinum, quando et paranymphi inde discedunt? Et ad hoc impletur, non ut eorum praesentia cogitata maior sit cura pudicitiae, sed ut feminae sexu infirmae, novitate pavidae illis cooperantibus sine ulla difficultate virginitas auferatur. Adest enim dea Virginensis et deus pater Subigus, et dea mater Prema et dea Pertunda, et Venus et Priapus. Quid est hoc? Si omnino laborantem in illo opere virum ab diis adivuari oportebat, non sufficeret aliquis unus aut aliqua una? Numquid Venus sola parum esset, quae ab hoc etiam dicitur nuncupata, quod sine vi femina virgo esse non desinat? Si est ulla frons in hominibus, quae non est in numinibus, nonne, cum credunt coniugati tot deos utriusque sexus esse praesentes et huic operi instantes, ita pudore adficiuntur, ut et ille minus moveatur et illa plus reluctetur? Et certe si adest Virginensis dea, ut virgini zona solvatur; si adest deus Subigus, ut viro subigatur; si adest dea Prema, ut subacta, ne se commoveat, conprimatur: dea Pertunda ibi quid facit? Erubescat, eat foras; agat aliquid et maritus. Valde inhonestum est, ut, quod vocatur illa, impleat quisquam nisi ille. Sed forte ideo toleratur, quia dea dicitur esse, non deus. Nam si masculus crederetur et Pertundus vocaretur, maius contra eum pro uxoris pudicitia posceret maritus auxilium quam feta contra Siluanum. Sed quid hoc dicam, cum ibi sit et Priapus nimius masculus, super cuius inmanissimum et turpissimum fascinum sedere noua nupta iubebatur, more honestissimo et religiosissimo matronarum? Eant adhuc et theologian civilem a theologia fabulosa, urbes a theatris, templa ab scaenis, sacra pontificum a carminibus poetarum, velut res honestas a turpibus, veraces a fallacibus, graves a levibus, serias a ludicris, adpetendas a respuendis, qua possunt quasi conentur subtilitate discernere. Intellegimus quid agant; illam theatricam et fabulosam theologian ab ista civili pendere noverunt et ei de carminibus poetarum tamquam de speculo resultare, et ideo ista exposita, quam damnare non audent, illam eius imaginem liberius arguunt et reprehendunt, ut, qui agnoscunt quid velint, et hanc ipsam faciem, cuius illa imago est, detestentur; quam tamen dii ipsi tamquam in eodem speculo se intuentes ita diligunt, ut qui qualesque sint in utraque melius videantur. Vnde etiam cultores suos terribilibus imperiis compulerunt, ut inmunditiam theologiae fabulosae sibi dicarent, in suis sollemnitatibus ponerent, in rebus divinis haberent, atque ita et se ipsos inmundissimos spiritus manifestius esse docuerunt, et huius urbanae theologiae velut electae et probatae illam theatricam abiectam atque reprobatam membrum partemque fecerunt, ut, cum sit universa turpis et fallax atque in se contineat commenticios deos, una pars eius sit in litteris sacerdotum, altera in carminibus poetarum. Vtrum habeat et alias partes, alia quaestio est: nunc propter divisionem Varronis et urbanam et theatricam theologian ad unam civilem pertinere satis, ut opinor, ostendi. Vnde, quia sunt ambae similis turpitudinis absurditatis, indignitatis falsitatis, absit a veris religiosis, ut sive ab hac sive ab illa vita speretur aeterna. Denique et ipse Varro commemorare et enumerare deos coepit a conceptione hominis, quorum numerum est exorsus a Iano, eamque seriem perduxit usque ad decrepiti hominis mortem, et deos ad ipsum hominem pertinentes clausit ad Neniam deam, quae in funeribus senum cantatur; deinde coepit deos alios ostendere, qui pertinerent non ad ipsum hominem, sed ad ea, quae sunt hominis, sicuti est victus atque uestitus et quaecumque alia huic vitae sunt necessaria, ostendens in omnibus, quod sit cuiusque munus et propter quid cuique debeat supplicari; in qua universa diligentia nullos demonstravit vel nominavit deos, a quibus vita aeterna poscenda sit, propter quam unam proprie nos Christiani sumus. Quis ergo usque adeo tardus sit, ut non intellegat istum hominem civilem theologian tam diligenter exponendo et aperiendo eamque illi fabulosae, indignae atque probrosae, similem demonstrando atque ipsam fabulosam partem esse huius satis evidenter docendo non nisi illi naturali, quam dicit ad philosophos pertinere, in animis hominum moliri locum, ea subtilitate, ut fabulosam reprehendat, civilem vero reprehendere quidem non audeat, sed prodendo reprehensibilem ostendat, atque ita utraque iudicio recte intellegentium reprobata sola naturalis remaneat eligenda? De qua suo loco in adiutorio Dei veri diligentius disserendum est. ||And as to those very offices of the gods, so meanly and so minutely portioned out, so that they say that they ought to be supplicated, each one according to his special function,-about which we have spoken much already, though not all that is to be said concerning it,-are they not more consistent with mimic buffoonery than divine majesty? If any one should use two nurses for his infant, one of whom should give nothing but food, the other nothing but drink, as these make use of two goddesses for this purpose, Educa and Potina, he should certainly seem to be foolish, and to do in his house a thing worthy of a mimic. They would have Liber to have been named from "liberation," because through him males at the time of copulation are liberated by the emission of the seed. They also say that Libera (the same in their opinion as Venus) exercises the same function in the case of women, because they say that they also emit seed; and they also say that on this account the same part of the male and of the female is placed in the temple, that of the male to Liber, and that of the female to Libera. To these things they add the women assigned to Liber, and the wine for exciting lust. Thus the Bacchanalia are celebrated with the utmost insanity, with respect to which Varro himself confesses that such things would not be done by the Bacchanals except their minds were highly excited. These things, however, afterwards displeased a saner senate, and it ordered them to be discontinued. Here, at length, they perhaps perceived how much power unclean spirits, when held to be gods, exercise over the minds of men. These things, certainly, were not to be done in the theatres; for there they play, not rave, although to have gods who are delighted with such plays is very like raving.But what kind of distinction is this which he makes between the religious and the superstitious man, saying that the gods are feared by the superstitious man, but are reverenced as parents by the religious man, not feared as enemies; and that they are all so good that they will more readily spare those who are impious than hurt one who is innocent? And yet he tells us that three gods are assigned as guardians to a woman after she has been delivered, lest the god Silvanus come in and molest her; and that in order to signify the presence of these protectors, three men go round the house during the night, and first strike the threshold with a hatchet, next with a pestle, and the third time sweep it with a brush, in order that these symbols of agriculture having been exhibited, the god Silvanus might be hindered from entering, because neither are trees cut down or pruned without a hatchet, neither is grain ground without a pestle, nor corn heaped up without a besom. Now from these three things three gods have been named: Intercidona, from the cut made by the hatchet; Pilumnus, from the pestle; Diverra, from the besom;-by which guardian gods the woman who has been de livered is preserved against the power of the god Silvanus. Thus the guardianship of kindly-disposed gods would not avail against the malice of a mischievous god, unless they were three to one, and fought against him, as it were, with the opposing emblems of cultivation, who, being an inhabitant of the woods, is rough, horrible, and uncultivated. Is this the innocence of the gods? Is this their concord? Are these the health-giving deities of the cities, more ridiculous than the things which are laughed at in the theatres?When a male and a female are united, the god Jugatinus presides. Well, let this be borne with. But the married woman must be brought home: the god Domiducus also is invoked. That she may be in the house, the god Domitius is introduced. That she may remain with her husband, the goddess Manturnж is used. What more is required? Let human modesty be spared. Let the lust of flesh and blood go on with the rest, the secret of shame being respected. Why is the bed-chamber filled with a crowd of deities, when even the groomsmen have departed? And, moreover, it is so filled, not that in consideration of their presence more regard may be paid to chastity, but that by their help the woman, naturally of the weaker sex, and trembling with the novelty of her situation, may the more readily yield her virginity. For there are the goddess Virginiensis, and the god-father Subigus, and the goddess-mother Prema, and the goddess Pertunda, and Venus, and Priapus. What is this? If it was absolutely necessary that a man, laboring at this work, should be helped by the gods, might not some one god or goddess have been sufficient? Was Venus not sufficient alone, who is even said to be named from this, that without her power a woman does not cease to be a virgin? If there is any shame in men, which is not in the deities, is it not the case that, when the married couple believe that so many gods of either sex are present, and busy at this work, they are so much affected with shame, that the man is less moved, and the woman more reluctant? And certainly, if the goddess Virginiensis is present to loose the virgin's zone, if the god Subigus is present that the virgin may be got under the man, if the goddess Prema is present that, having been got under him, she may be kept down, and may not move herself, what has the goddess Pertunda to do there? Let her blush; let her go forth. Let the husband himself do something. It is disgraceful that any one but himself should do that from which she gets her name. But perhaps she is tolerated because she is said to be a goddess, and not a god. For if she were believed to be a male, and were called Pertundus, the husband would demand more help against him for the chastity of his wife than the newly-delivered woman against Silvanus. But why am I saying this, when Priapus, too, is there, a male to excess, upon whose immense and most unsightly member the newly-married bride is commanded to sit, according to the most honorable and most religious custom of matrons?Let them go on, and let them attempt with all the subtlety they can to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous, the cities from the theatres, the temples from the stages, the sacred things of the priests from the songs of the poets, as honorable things from base things, truthful things from fallacious, grave from light, serious from ludicrous, desirable things from things to be rejected, we understand what they do. They are aware that that theatrical and fabulous theology hangs by the civil, and is reflected back upon it from the songs of the poets as from a mirror; and thus, that theology having been exposed to view which they do not dare to condemn, they more freely assail and censure that picture of it, in order that those who perceive what they mean may detest this very face itself of which that is the picture,-which, however, the gods themselves, as though seeing themselves in the same mirror, love so much, that it is better seen in both of them who and what they are. Whence, also, they have compelled their worshippers, with terrible commands, to dedicate to them the uncleanness of the fabulous theology, to put them among their solemnities, and reckon them among divine things; and thus they have both shown themselves more manifestly to be most impure spirits, and have made that rejected and reprobated theatrical theology a member and a part of this, as it were, chosen and approved theology of the city, so that, though the whole is disgraceful and false, and contains in it fictitious gods, one part of it is in the literature of the priests, the other in the songs of the poets. Whether it may have other parts is another question. At present, I think, I have sufficiently shown, on account of the division of Varro, that the theology of the city and that of the theatre belong to one civil theology. Wherefore, because they are both equally disgraceful, absurd, shameful, false, far be it from religious men to hope for eternal life from either the one or the other.In fine, even Varro himself, in his account and enumeration of the gods, starts from the moment of a man's conception. He commences the series of those gods who take charge of man with Janus, carries it on to the death of the man decrepit with age, and terminates it with the goddess Nжnia, who is sung at the funerals of the aged. After that, he begins to give an account of the other gods, whose province is not man himself, but man's belongings, as food, clothing, and all that is necessary for this life; and, in the case of all these, he explains what is the special office of each, and for what each ought to be supplicated. But with all this scrupulous and comprehensive diligence, he has neither proved the existence, nor so much as mentioned the name, of any god from whom eternal life is to be sought,-the one object for which we are Christians. Who, then, is so stupid as not to perceive that this man, by setting forth and opening up so diligently the civil theology, and by exhibiting its likeness to that fabulous, shameful, and disgraceful theology, and also by teaching that that fabulous sort is also a part of this other, was laboring to obtain a place in the minds of men for none but that natural theology, which he says pertains to philosophers, with such subtlety that he censures the fabulous, and, not daring openly to censure the civil, shows its censurable character by simply exhibiting it; and thus, both being reprobated by the judgment of men of right understanding, the natural alone remains to be chosen? But concerning this in its own place, by the help of the true God, we have to discuss more diligently.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c10"><b>BOOK VI</b> [X] Libertas sane, quae huic defuit, ne istam urbanam theologian theatricae simillimam aperte sicut illam reprehendere auderet, Annaeo Senecae, quem nonnullis indiciis invenimus apostolorum nostrorum claruisse temporibus, non quidem ex toto, verum ex aliqua parte non defuit. Adfuit enim scribenti, viventi defuit. Nam in eo libro, quem contra superstitiones condidit, multo copiosius atque uehementius reprehendit ipse civilem istam et urbanam theologian quam Varro theatricam atque fabulosam. Cum enim de simulacris ageret: "Sacros, inquit, inmortales, inuiolabiles in materia vilissima atque inmobili dedicant, habitus illis hominum ferarumque et piscium, quidam vero mixto sexu, diversis corporibus induunt; numina vocant, quae si spiritu accepto subito occurrerent, monstra haberentur." Deinde aliquanto post, cum theologian naturalem praedicans quorundam philosophorum sententias digessisset, opposuit sibi quaestionem et ait: "Hoc loco dicit aliquis: Credam ego caelum et terram deos esse et supra lunam alios, infra alios? Ego feram aut Platonem aut Peripateticum Stratonem, quorum alter fecit deum sine corpore, alter sine animo?" Et ad hoc respondens: "Quid ergo tandem, inquit, veriora tibi videntur Titi Tatii aut Romuli aut Tulli Hostilii somnia? Cluacinam Tatius dedicavit deam, Picum Tiberinumque Romulus, Hostilius Pauorem atque Pallorem taeterrimos hominum affectus, quorum alter mentis territae motus est, alter corporis ne morbus quidem, sed color. Haec numina potius credes et caelo recipies?" De ipsis vero ritibus crudeliter turpibus quam libere scripsit! "Ille, inquit, viriles sibi partes amputat, ille lacertos secat. Vbi iratos deos timent, qui sic propitios merentur? Dii autem nullo debent coli genere, si hoc volunt. Tantus est perturbatae mentis et sedibus suis pulsae furor, ut sic dii placentur, quem ad modum ne quidem homines saeviunt taeterrimi et in fabulas traditae crudelitatis. Tyranni laceraverunt aliquorum membra, neminem sua lacerare iusserunt. In regiae libidinis voluptatem castrati sunt quidam; sed nemo sibi, ne vir esset, iubente domino manus adtulit. Se ipsi in templis contrucidant, uulneribus suis ac sanguine supplicant. Si cui intueri uacet, quae faciunt quaeque patiuntur, inveniet tam indecora honestis, tam indigna liberis, tam dissimilia sanis, ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere eos, si cum paucioribus furerent; nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba." Iam illa, quae in ipso Capitolio fieri solere commemorat et intrepide omnino coarguit, quis credat nisi ab inridentibus aut furentibus fieri? Nam cum in sacris Aegyptiis Osirim lugeri perditum, mox autem inventum magno esse gaudio derissiset, cum perditio eius inventioque fingatur, dolor tamen ille atque laetitia ab eis, qui nihil perdiderunt nihilque invenerunt, veraciter exprimatur: "Huic tamen, inquit, furori certum tempus est. Tolerabile est semel anno insanire. In Capitolium perveni, pudebit publicatae dementiae, quod sibi uanus furor adtribuit officii. Alius nomina deo subicit, alius horas Iovi nuntiat: alius lutor est, alius unctor, qui uano motu bracchiorum imitatur unguentem. Sunt quae Iunoni ac Mineruae capillos disponant (longe a templo, non tantum a simulacro stantes digitos movent omantium modo), sunt quae speculum teneant; sunt qui ad uadimonia sua deos aduocent, sunt qui libellos offerant et illos causam suam doceant. Doctus archimimus, senex iam decrepitus, cotidie in Capitolio mimum agebat, quasi dii libenter spectarent, quem illi homines desierant. Omne illic artificum genus operatum diis inmortalibus desidet." Et paulo post: "Hi tamen, inquit, etiamsi superuacuum usum, non turpem nec infamem deo promittunt. Sedent quaedam in Capitolio, quae se a Iove amari putant: ne Iunonis quidem, si credere poetis velis, iracundissimae respectu terrentur." Hanc libertatem Varro non habuit; tantum modo poeticam theologian reprehendere ausus est, civilem non ausus est, quam iste concidit. Sed si verum adtendamus, deteriora sunt templa ubi haec aguntur, quam theatra ubi finguntur. Vnde in his sacris civilis theologiae has partes potius elegit Seneca sapienti, ut eas in animi religione non habeat, sed in actibus fingat. Ait enim: "Quae omnia sapiens servabit tamquam legibus iussa, non tamquam diis grata." Et paulo post: "Quid quod et matrimonia, inquit, deorum iungimus, et ne pie quidem, fratrum ac sororum! Bellonam Marti conlocamus, Vulcano Venerem, Neptuno Salaciam. Quosdam tamen caelibes relinquimus, quasi condicio defecerit, praesertim cum quaedam viduae sint, ut Populonia vel Fulgora et diva Rumina; quibus non miror petitorem defuisse. Omnem istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aeuo longa superstitio congessit, sic, inquit, adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum eius magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere." Nec leges ergo illae nec mos in civili theologia id instituerunt, quod diis gratum esset vel ad rem pertineret. Sed iste, quem philosophi quasi liberum fecerunt, tamen, quia inlustris populi Romani senator erat, colebat quod reprehendebat, agebat quod arguebat, quod culpabat adorabat; quia videlicet magnum aliquid eum philosophia docuerat, ne superstitiosus esset in mundo, sed propter leges civium moresque hominum non quidem ageret fingentem scaenicum in theatro, sed imitaretur in templo; eo damnabilius, quo illa, quae mendaciter agebat, sic ageret, ut eum populus veraciter agere existimaret; scaenicus autem ludendo potius delectaret, quam fallendo deciperet. ||That liberty, in truth, which this man wanted, so that he did not dare to censure that theology of the city, which is very similar to the theatrical, so openly as he did the theatrical itself, was, though not fully, yet in part possessed by Annжus Seneca, whom we have some evidence to show to have flourished in the times of our apostles. It was in part possessed by him, I say, for he possessed it in writing, but not in living. For in that book which he wrote against superstition, he more copiously and vehemently censured that civil and urban theology than Varro the theatrical and fabulous. For, when speaking concerning images, he says, "They dedicate images of the sacred and inviolable immortals in most worthless and motionless matter. They give them the appearance of man, beasts, and fishes, and some make them of mixed sex, and heterogeneous bodies. They call them deities, when they are such that if they should get breath and should suddenly meet them, they would be held to be monsters." Then, a while afterwards, when extolling the natural theology, he had expounded the sentiments of certain philosophers, he opposes to himself a question, and says, "Here some one says, Shall I believe that the heavens and the earth are gods, and that some are above the moon and some below it? Shall I bring forward either Plato or the peripatetic Strato, one of whom made God to be without a body, the other without a mind?" In answer to which he says, "And, really, what truer do the dreams of Titus Tatius, or Romulus, or Tullus Hostilius appear to you? Tatius declared the divinity of the goddess Cloacina; Romulus that of Picus and Tiberinus; Tullus Hostilius that of Pavor and Pallor, the most disagreeable affections of men, the one of which is the agitation of the mind under fright, the other that of the body, not a disease, indeed, but a change of color." Will you rather believe that these are deities, and receive them into heaven? But with what freedom he has written concerning the rites themselves, cruel and shameful! "One," he says, "castrates himself, another cuts his arms. Where will they find room for the fear of these gods when angry, who use such means of gaining their favor when propitious? But gods who wish to be worshipped in this fashion should be worshipped in none. So great is the frenzy of the mind when perturbed and driven from its seat, that the gods are propitiated by men in a manner in which not even men of the greatest ferocity and fable-renowned cruelty vent their rage. Tyrants have lacerated the limbs of some; they never ordered any one to lacerate his own. For the gratification of royal lust, some have been castrated; but no one ever, by the command of his lord, laid violent hands on himself to emasculate himself. They kill themselves in the temples. They supplicate with their wounds and with their blood. If any one has time to see the things they do and the things they suffer, he will find so many things unseemly for men of respectability, so unworthy of freemen, so unlike the doings of sane men, that no one would doubt that they are mad, had they been mad with the minority; but now the multitude of the insane is the defence of their sanity." He next relates those things which are wont to be done in the Capitol, and with the utmost intrepidity insists that they are such things as one could only believe to be done by men making sport, or by madmen. For having spoken with derision of this, that in the Egyptian sacred rites Osiris, being lost, is lamented for, but straightway, when found, is the occasion of great joy by his reappearance, because both the losing and the finding of him are feigned; and yet that grief and that joy which are elicited thereby from those who have lost nothing and found nothing are real;-having I say, so spoken of this, he says, "Still there is a fixed time for this frenzy. It is tolerable to go mad once in the year. Go into the Capitol. One is suggesting divine commands to a god; another is telling the hours to Jupiter; one is a lictor; another is an anointer, who with the mere movement of his arms imitates one anointing. There are women who arrange the hair of Juno and Minerva, standing far away not only from her image, but even from her temple. These move their fingers in the manner of hairdressers. There are some women who hold a mirror. There are some who are calling the gods to assist them in court. There are some who are holding up documents to them, and are explaining to them their cases. A learned and distinguished comedian, now old and decrepit, was daily playing the mimic in the Capitol, as though the gods would gladly be spectators of that which men had ceased to care about. Every kind of artificers working for the immortal gods is dwelling there in idleness." And a little after he says, "Nevertheless these, though they give themselves up to the gods for purposes superflous enough, do not do so for any abominable or infamous purpose. There sit certain women in the Capitol who think they are beloved by Jupiter; nor are they frightened even by the look of the, if you will believe the poets, most wrathful Juno."This liberty Varro did not enjoy. It was only the poetical theology he seemed to censure. The civil, which this man cuts to pieces, he was not bold enough to impugn. But if we attend to the truth, the temples where these things are performed are far worse than the theatres where they are represented. Whence, with respect to these sacred rites of the civil theology, Seneca preferred, as the best course to be followed by a wise man, to feign respect for them in act, but to have no real regard for them at heart. "All which things," he says, "a wise man will observe as being commanded by the laws, but not as being pleasing to the gods." And a little after he says, "And what of this, that we unite the gods in marriage, and that not even naturally, for we join brothers and sisters? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to Neptune. Some of them we leave unmarried, as though there were no match for them, which is surely needless, especially when there are certain unmarried goddesses, as Populonia, or Fulgora, or the goddess Rumina, for whom I am not astonished that suitors have been awanting. All this ignoble crowd of gods, which the superstition of ages has amassed, we ought," he says, "to adore in such a way as to remember all the while that its worship belongs rather to custom than to reality." Wherefore, neither those laws nor customs instituted in the civil theology that which was pleasing to the gods, or which pertained to reality. But this man, whom philosophy had made, as it were, free, nevertheless, because he was an illustrious senator of the Roman people, worshipped what he censured, did what he condemned, adored what he reproached, because, forsooth, philosophy had taught him something great,-namely, not to be superstitious in the world, but, on account of the laws of cities and the customs of men, to be an actor, not on the stage, but in the temples,-conduct the more to be condemned, that those things which he was deceitfully acting he so acted that the people thought he was acting sincerely. But a stage-actor would rather delight people by acting plays than take them in by false pretences.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c11"><b>BOOK VI</b> [XI] Hic inter alias civilis theologiae superstitiones reprehendit etiam sacramenta Iudaeorum et maxime sabbata, inutiliter eos facere adfirmans, quod per illos singulos septenis interpositos dies septimam fere partem aetatis suae perdant uacando et multa in tempore urgentia non agendo laedantur. Christianos tamen iam tunc ludaeis inimicissimos in neutram partem commemorare ausus est, ne vel laudaret contra suae patriae ueterem consuetudinem, vel reprehenderet contra propriam forsitan voluntatem. De illis sane Iudaeis cum loqueretur, ait: "Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimae gentis consuetudo conualuit, ut per omnes iam terras recepta sit; victi victoribus leges dederunt." Mirabatur haec dicens et quid divinitus ageretur ignorans subiecit plane sententiam, qua significaret quid de illorum sacramentorum ratione sentiret. Ait enim: "Illi tamen causas ritus sui noverunt; maior pars populi facit, quod cur faciat ignorat." Sed de sacramentis Iudaeorum, vel cur vel quatenus instituta sint auctoritate divina, ac post modum a populo Dei, cui vitae aeternae mysterium reuelatum est, tempore quo oportuit eadem auctoritate sublata sint, et alias diximus, maxime cum adversus Manichaeos ageremus, et in hoc opere loco oportuniore dicendum est. ||Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the sabbaths, affirming that they act uselessly in keeping those seventh days, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of their life, and also many things which demand immediate attention are damaged. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame, lest, if he praised them, he should do so against the ancient custom of his country, or, perhaps, if he should blame them, he should do so against his own will.When he was speaking concerning those Jews, he said, "When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors." By these words he expresses his astonishment; and, not knowing what the providence of God was leading him to say, subjoins in plain words an opinion by which he showed what he thought about the meaning of those sacred institutions: "For," he says, "those, however, know the cause of their rites, while the greater part of the people know not why they perform theirs." But concerning the solemnities of the Jews, either why or how far they were instituted by divine authority, and afterwards, in due time, by the same authority taken away from the people of God, to whom the mystery of eternal life was revealed, we have both spoken elsewhere, especially when we were treating against the Manichжans, and also intend to speak in this work in a more suitable place.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c12"><b>BOOK VI</b> [XII] Nunc propter tres theologias, quas Graeci dicunt mythicen physicen politicen, Latine autem dici possunt fabulosa naturalis civilis, quod neque de fabulosa, quam et ipsi deorum multorum falsorumque cultores liberrime reprehenderunt, neque de civili, cuius illa pars esse conuincitur eiusque et ista simillima vel etiam deterior invenitur, speranda est aeterna vita, si cui satis non sunt quae in hoc in volumine dicta sunt, adiungat etiam illa, quae in superioribus libris et maxime quarto de felicitatis datore Deo plurima disputata sunt. Nam cui nisi uni felicitati propter aeternam vitam consecrandi homines essent, si dea felicitas esset? Quia vero non dea, sed munus est dei: cui deo nisi datori felicitatis consecrandi sumus, qui aeternam vitam, ubi vera est et plena felicitas, pia caritate diligimus? Non autem esse datorem felicitatis quemquam istorum deorum, qui tanta turpitudine coluntur et, nisi ita colantur, multo turpius irascuntur atque ob hoc se spiritus inmundissimos confitentur, puto ex his, quae dicta sunt, neminem dubitare oportere. Porro qui non dat felicitatem, vitam quo modo dare posset aeternam? Eam quippe vitam aeternam dicimus, ubi est sine fine felicitas. Nam si anima in poenis vivit aeternis, quibus et ipsi spiritus cruciabuntur inmundi, mors est illa potius aeterna quam vita. Nulla quippe maior et peior est mors, quam ubi non moritur mors. Sed quod animae natura, per id quod inmortalis creata est, sine qualicumque vita esse non potest, summa mors eius est alienatio a vita Dei in aeternitate supplicii. Vitam igitur aeternam, id est sine ullo fine felicem, solus ille dat, qui dat veram felicitatem. Quam quoniam illi, quos colit theologia ista civilis, dare non posse conuicti sunt: non solum propter ista temporalia atque terrena, quod superioribus quinque libris ostendimus, sed multo magis propter vitam aeternam, quae post mortem futura est, quod isto uno etiam illis cooperantibus egimus, colendi non sunt. Sed quoniam ueternosae consuetudinis vis nimis in alto radices habet, si cui de ista civili theologia respuenda atque vitanda parum videor disputasse, in aliud volumen, quod huic opitulante Deo coniungendum est, animum intendat. ||Now, since there are three theologies, which the Greeks call respectively mythical, physical, and political, and which may be called in Latin fabulous, natural, and civil; and since neither from the fabulous, which even the worshippers of many and false gods have themselves most freely censured, nor from the civil, of which that is convicted of being a part, or even worse than it, can eternal life be hoped for from any of these theologies,-if any one thinks that what has been said in this book is not enough for him, let him also add to it the many and various dissertations concerning God as the giver of felicity, contained in the former books, especially the fourth one.For to what but to felicity should men consecrate themselves, were felicity a goddess? However, as it is not a goddess, but a gift of God, to what God but the giver of happiness ought we to consecrate ourselves, who piously love eternal life, in which there is true and full felicity? But I think, from what has been said, no one ought to doubt that none of those gods is the giver of happiness, who are worshipped with such shame, and who, if they are not so worshipped, are more shamefully enraged, and thus confess that they are most foul spirits. Moreover, how can he give eternal life who cannot give happiness? For we mean by eternal life that life where there is endless happiness. For if the soul live in eternal punishments, by which also those unclean spirits shall be tormented, that is rather eternal death than eternal life. For there is no greater or worse death than when death never dies. But because the soul from its very nature, being created immortal, cannot be without some kind of life, its utmost death is alienation from the life of God in an eternity of punishment. So, then, He only who gives true happiness gives eternal life, that is, an endlessly happy life. And since those gods whom this civil theology worships have been proved to be unable to give this happiness, they ought not to be worshipped on account of those temporal and terrestrial things, as we showed in the five former books, much less on account of eternal life, which is to be after death, as we have sought to show in this one book especially, while the other books also lend it their co-operation. But since the strength of inveterate habit has its roots very deep, if any one thinks that I have not disputed sufficiently to show that this civil theology ought to be rejected and shunned, let him attend to another book which, with God's help, is to be joined to this one.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
