| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ---------------------
| + | Moved to [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/augustine/civitate-7.htm here]. |
| − | ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK VII
| |
| − | ---------------------
| |
| − | [[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]] Whether, Since It is Evident that Deity is Not to Be Found in the Civil Theology, We are to Believe that It is to Be Found in the Select Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c2|Chapter 2]] Who are the Select Gods, and Whether They are Held to Be Exempt from the Offices of the Commoner Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c3|Chapter 3]] How There is No Reason Which Can Be Shown for the Selection of Certain Gods, When the Administration of More Exalted Offices is Assigned to Many Inferior Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c4|Chapter 4]] The Inferior Gods, Whose Names are Not Associated with Infamy, Have Been Better Dealt with Than the Select Gods, Whose Infamies are Celebrated
| |
| − | *[[#c5|Chapter 5]] Concerning the More Secret Doctrine of the Pagans, and Concerning the Physical Interpretations
| |
| − | *[[#c6|Chapter 6]] Concerning the Opinion of Varro, that God is the Soul of the World, Which Nevertheless, in Its Various Parts, Has Many Souls Whose Nature is Divine
| |
| − | *[[#c7|Chapter 7]] Whether It is Reasonable to Separate Janus and Terminus as Two Distinct Deities
| |
| − | *[[#c8|Chapter 8]] For What Reason the Worshippers of Janus Have Made His Image with Two Faces, When They Would Sometimes Have It Be Seen with Four
| |
| − | *[[#c9|Chapter 9]] Concerning the Power of Jupiter, and a Comparison of Jupiter with Janus
| |
| − | *[[#c10|Chapter 10]] Whether the Distinction Between Janus and Jupiter is a Proper One
| |
| − | *[[#c11|Chapter 11]] Concerning the Surnames of Jupiter, Which are Referred Not to Many Gods, But to One and the Same God
| |
| − | *[[#c12|Chapter 12]] That Jupiter is Also Called Pecunia
| |
| − | *[[#c13|Chapter 13]] That When It is Expounded What Saturn Is, What Genius Is, It Comes to This, that Both of Them are Shown to Be Jupiter
| |
| − | *[[#c14|Chapter 14]] Concerning the Offices of Mercury and Mars
| |
| − | *[[#c15|Chapter 15]] Concerning Certain Stars Which the Pagans Have Called by the Names of Their Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c16|Chapter 16]] Concerning Apollo and Diana, and the Other Select Gods Whom They Would Have to Be Parts of the World
| |
| − | *[[#c17|Chapter 17]] That Even Varro Himself Pronounced His Own Opinions Regarding the Gods Ambiguous
| |
| − | *[[#c18|Chapter 18]] A More Credible Cause of the Rise of Pagan Error
| |
| − | *[[#c19|Chapter 19]] Concerning the Interpretations Which Compose the Reason of the Worship of Saturn
| |
| − | *[[#c20|Chapter 20]] Concerning the Rites of Eleusinian Ceres
| |
| − | *[[#c21|Chapter 21]] Concerning the Shamefulness of the Rites Which are Celebrated in Honor of Liber
| |
| − | *[[#c22|Chapter 22]] Concerning Neptune, and Salacia and Venilia
| |
| − | *[[#c23|Chapter 23]] Concerning the Earth, Which Varro Affirms to Be a Goddess, Because that Soul of the World Which He Thinks to Be God Pervades Also This Lowest Part of His Body, and Imparts to It a Divine Force
| |
| − | *[[#c24|Chapter 24]] Concerning the Surnames of Tellus and Their Significations, Which, Although They Indicate Many Properties, Ought Not to Have Established the Opinion that There is a Corresponding Number of Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c25|Chapter 25]] The Interpretation of the Mutilation of Atys Which the Doctrine of the Greek Sages Set Forth
| |
| − | *[[#c26|Chapter 26]] Concerning the Abomination of the Sacred Rites of the Great Mother
| |
| − | *[[#c27|Chapter 27]] Concerning the Figments of the Physical Theologists, Who Neither Worship the True Divinity, Nor Perform the Worship Wherewith the True Divinity Should Be Served
| |
| − | *[[#c28|Chapter 28]] That the Doctrine of Varro Concerning Theology is in No Part Consistent with Itself
| |
| − | *[[#c29|Chapter 29]] That All Things Which the Physical Theologists Have Referred to the World and Its Parts, They Ought to Have Referred to the One True God
| |
| − | *[[#c30|Chapter 30]] How Piety Distinguishes the Creator from the Creatures, So That, Instead of One God, There are Not Worshipped as Many Gods as There are Works of the One Author
| |
| − | *[[#c31|Chapter 31]] What Benefits God Gives to the Followers of the Truth to Enjoy Over and Above His General Bounty
| |
| − | *[[#c32|Chapter 32]] That at No Time in the Past Was the Mystery of Christ's Redemption Awanting, But Was at All Times Declared, Though in Various Forms
| |
| − | *[[#c33|Chapter 33]] That Only Through the Christian Religion Could the Deceit of Malign Spirits, Who Rejoice in the Errors of Men, Have Been Manifested
| |
| − | *[[#c34|Chapter 34]] Concerning the Books of Numa Pompilius, Which the Senate Ordered to Be Burned, in Order that the Causes of Sacred Rights Therein Assigned Should Not Become Known
| |
| − | *[[#c35|Chapter 35]] Concerning the Hydromancy Through Which Numa Was Befooled by Certain Images of Demons Seen in the Water
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=45%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=55%|Latin
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c0"><b>BOOK VII</b> [Pr] Diligentius me prauas et ueteres opiniones veritati pietatis inimicas, quas tenebrosis animis altius et tenacius diuturnus humani generis error infixit, euellere atque exstirpare conantem et illius gratiae, qui hoc ut verus Deus potest, pro meo modulo in eius adiutorio cooperantem ingenia celeriora atque meliora, quibus ad hanc rem superiores libri satis superque sufficiunt, patienter et aequanimiter ferre debebunt et propter alios non putare superfluum, quod iam sibi sentiunt non necessarium. Multum magna res agitur, cum vera et vere sancta divinitas, quamuis ab ea nobis etiam huic, quam nunc gerimus, fragilitati necessaria subsidia praebeantur, non tamen propter mortalis vitae transitorium uaporem, sed propter vitam beatam, quae non nisi aeterna est, quaerenda et colenda praedicatur. ||The City of God (Book VII) Argument-In this book it is shown that eternal life is not obtained by the worship of Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, and the other "select gods" of the civil theology.Preface.It will be the duty of those who are endowed with quicker and better understandings, in whose case the former books are sufficient, and more than sufficient, to effect their intended object, to bear with me with patience and equanimity while I attempt with more than ordinary diligence to tear up and eradicate depraved and ancient opinions hostile to the truth of piety, which the long-continued error of the human race has fixed very deeply in unenlightened minds; co-operating also in this, according to my little measure, with the grace of Him who, being the true God, is able to accomplish it, and on whose help I depend in my work; and, for the sake of others, such should not deem superfluous what they feel to be no longer necessary for themselves. A very great matter is at stake when the true and truly holy divinity is commended to men as that which they ought to seek after and to worship; not, however, on account of the transitory vapor of mortal life, but on account of life eternal, which alone is blessed, although the help necessary for this frail life we are now living is also afforded us by it.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c1"><b>BOOK VII</b> [I] Hanc divinitatem vel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem (nam et hoc verbo uti iam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant quod illi *theo/thta appellant) -- hanc ergo divinitatem sive deitatem non esse in ea theologia, quam civilem vocant, quae a Marco Varrone sedecim voluminibus explicata est, id est non perveniri ad aeternae vitae felicitatem talium deorum cultu, quales a civitatibus qualiterque colendi instituti sunt, cui nondum persuasit sextus liber, quem proxime absolvimus, cum istum forsitan legerit, quid de hac quaestione expedienda ulterius desideret, non habebit. Fieri enim potest, ut saltem deos selectos atque praecipuos, quos Varro volumine complexus est ultimo, de quibus parum diximus, quisquam colendos propter vitam beatam, quae non nisi aeterna est, opinetur. Qua in re non dico quod facetius ait Tertullianus fortasse quam verius: Si dii eliguntur ut bulbi, utique ceteri reprobi iudicantur. Non hoc dico: video enim etiam ex selectis seligi aliquos ad aliquid maius atque praestantius, sicut in militia, cum tirones electi fuerint, ex his quoque eliguntur ad opus aliquod maius armorum; et cum eliguntur in ecclesia, qui fiant praepositi, non utique ceteri reprobantur, cum omnes boni fideles electi merito nuncupentur. Eliguntur in aedificio lapides angulares, non reprobatis ceteris, qui structurae partibus aliis deputantur. Eliguntur uuae ad uescendum, nec reprobantur aliae, quas relinquimus ad bibendum. Non opus est multa percurrere, cum res in aperto sit. Quam ob rem non ex hoc, quod dii ex multis quidam selecti sunt, vel is qui scripsit vel eorum cultores vel dii ipsi vituperandi sunt, sed advertendum potius quinam isti sint et ad quam rem selecti videantur. ||If there is any one whom the sixth book, which I have last finished, has not persuaded that this divinity, or, so to speak, deity-for this word also our authors do not hesitate to use, in order to translate more accurately that which the Greeks call ?e?t??;-if there is any one, I say, whom the sixth book has not persuaded that this divinity or deity is not to be found in that theology which they call civil, and which Marcus Varro has explained in sixteen books,-that is, that the happiness of eternal life is not attainable through the worship of gods such as states have established to be worshipped, and that in such a form,-perhaps, when he has read this book, he will not have anything further to desire in order to the clearing up of this question. For it is possible that some one may think that at least the select and chief gods, whom Varro comprised in his last book, and of whom we have not spoken sufficiently, are to be worshipped on account of the blessed life, which is none other than eternal. In respect to which matter I do not say what Tertullian said, perhaps more wittily than truly, "If gods are selected like onions, certainly the rest are rejected as bad." I do not say this, for I see that even from among the select, some are selected for some greater and more excellent office: as in warfare, when recruits have been elected, there are some again elected from among those for the performance of some greater military service; and in the church, when persons are elected to be overseers, certainly the rest are not rejected, since all good Christians are deservedly called elect; in the erection of a building corner-stones are elected, though the other stones, which are destined for other parts of the structure, are not rejected; grapes are elected for eating, while the others, which we leave for drinking, are not rejected. There is no need of adducing many illustrations, since the thing is evident. Wherefore the selection of certain gods from among many affords no proper reason why either he who wrote on this subject, or the worshippers of the gods, or the gods themselves, should be spurned. We ought rather to seek to know what gods these are, and for what purpose they may appear to have been selected.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c2"><b>BOOK VII</b> [II] Hos certe deos selectos Varro unius libri contextione commendat: Ianum, Iovem, Saturnum, Genium, Mercurium, Apollinem, Martem, Vulcanum, Neptunum, Solem, Orcum, Liberum patrem, Tellurem, Cererem, Iunonem, Lunam, Dianam, Mineruam, Venerem, Vestam; in quibus omnibus ferme viginti duodecim mares, octo sunt feminae. Haec numina utrum propter maiores in mundo administrationes selecta dicuntur, an quod populis magis innotuerunt maiorque est eis cultus exhibitus? Si propterea, quia opera maiora ab his administrantur in mundo, non eos invenire debuimus inter illam quasi plebeiam numinum multitudinem minutis opusculis deputatam. Nam ipse primum Ianus, cum puerperium concipitur, unde illa cuncta opera sumunt exordium minutatim minutis distributa numinibus, aditum aperit recipiendo semini. Ibi est et Saturnus propter ipsum semen; ibi Liber, qui marem effuso semine liberat; ibi Libera, quam et Venerem volunt, quae hoc idem beneficium conferat feminae, ut etiam ipsa emisso semine liberetur. Omnes hi ex illis sunt, qui selecti appellantur. Sed ibi est et dea Mena, quae menstruis fluoribus praeest, quamuis Iovis filia, tamen ignobilis. Et hanc provinciam fluorum menstruorum in libro selectorum deorum ipsi Iunoni idem auctor adsignat, quae in diis selectis etiam regina est et hic tamquam Iuno Lucina cum eadem Mena privigna sua eidem cruori praesidet. Ibi sunt et duo nescio qui obscurissimi, Vitumnus et Sentinus, quorum alter vitam, alter sensus puerperio largiuntur. Et nimirum multo plus praestant, cum sint ignobilissimi, quam illi tot proceres et selecti. Nam profecto sine vita et sensu, quid est illud totum, quod muliebri utero geritur, nisi nescio quid abiectissimum limo ac pulueri comparandum? ||The following gods, certainly, Varro signalizes as select, devoting one book to this subject: Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, Genius, Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, Sol, Orcus, father Liber, Tellus, Ceres, Juno, Luna, Diana, Minerva, Venus, Vesta; of which twenty gods, twelve are males, and eight females. Whether are these deities called select, because of their higher spheres of administration in the world, or because they have become better known to the people, and more worship has been expended on them? If it be on account of the greater works which are performed by them in the world, we ought not to have found them among that, as it were, plebeian crowd of deities, which has assigned to it the charge of minute and trifling things. For, first of all, at the conception of a f_S tus, from which point all the works commence which have been distributed in minute detail to many deities, Janus himself opens the way for the reception of the seed; there also is Saturn, on account of the seed itself; there is Liber, who liberates the male by the effusion of the seed; there is Libera, whom they also would have to be Venus, who confers this same benefit on the woman, namely, that she also be liberated by the emission of the seed;-all these are of the number of those who are called select. But there is also the goddess Mena, who presides over the menses; though the daughter of Jupiter, ignoble nevertheless. And this province of the menses the same author, in his book on the select gods, assigns to Juno herself, who is even queen among the select gods; and here, as Juno Lucina, along with the same Mena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood. There also are two gods, exceedingly obscure, Vitumnus and Sentinus-the one of whom imparts life to the f_S tus, and the other sensation; and, of a truth, they bestow, most ignoble though they be, far more than all those noble and select gods bestow. For, surely, without life and sensation, what is the whole f_S tus which a woman carries in her womb, but a most vile and worthless thing, no better than slime and dust?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c3"><b>BOOK VII</b> [III] Quae igitur causa tot selectos deos ad haec opera minima compulit, ubi a Vitumno et Sentino, quos fama obscura recondit, in huius munificentiae partitione superentur? Confert enim selectus Ianus aditum et quasi ianuam semini; confert selectus Saturnus semen ipsum; confert selectus Liber eiusdem seminis emissionem viris; confert hoc idem Libera, quae Ceres seu Venus est, feminis; confert selecta Iuno, et hoc non sola, sed cum Mena, filia Iovis, fluores menstruos ad eius, quod conceptum est, incrementum: et confert Vitumnus obscurus et ignobilis vitam; confert Sentinus obscurus et ignobilis sensum; quae duo tanto illis rebus praestantiora sunt, quanto et ipsa intellectu ac ratione vincuntur. Sicut enim, quae ratiocinantur et intellegunt, profecto potiora sunt his, quae sine intellectu atque ratione ut pecora vivunt et sentiunt: ita et illa, quae vita sensuque sunt praedita, his, quae nec vivunt nec sentiunt, merito praeferuntur. Inter selectos itaque deos Vitumnus vivificator et Sentinus sensificator magis haberi debuerunt quam Ianus seminis admissor et Saturnus seminis dator vel sator et Liber et Libera seminum commotores vel emissores; quae semina cogitare indignum est, nisi ad vitam sensumque peruenerint, quae munera selecta non dantur a diis selectis, sed a quibusdam incognitis et prae istorum dignitate neglectis. Quod si respondetur omnium initiorum potestatem habere Ianum et ideo illi etiam quod aperitur conceptui non inmerito adtribui, et omnium seminum Saturnum et ideo seminationem quoque hominis non posse ab eius operatione seiungi, omnium seminum emittendorum Liberum et Liberam et ideo his etiam praeesse, quae ad substituendos homines pertinent, omnium purgandorum et pariendorum Iunonem et ideo eam non deesse purgationibus feminarum et partubus hominum: quaerant quid respondeant de Vitumno et Sentino, utrum et ipsos velint habere omnium quae vivunt et sentiunt potestatem. Quod si concedunt, adtendant quam eos sublimius locaturi sint. Nam seminibus nasci in terra et ex terra est; vivere autem atque sentire etiam deos sidereos opinantur. Si autem dicunt Vitumno atque Sentino haec sola adtributa, quae in carne vivescunt et sensibus adminiculantur: cur non deus ille, qui facit omnia vivere atque sentire, etiam carni vitam praebet et sensum, universali opere hoc munus etiam partubus tribuens? et quid opus est Vitumno atque Sentino? Quod si ab illo, qui vitae ac sensibus universaliter praesidet, his quasi famulis ista carnalia velut extrema et ima commissa sunt: itane sunt illi selecti destituti familia, ut non invenirent quibus etiam ipsi ista committerent, sed cum tota sua nobilitate, qua visi sunt seligendi, opus facere cum ignobilibus cogerentur? Iuno selecta et regina "Iovisque et soror et coniunx"; haec tamen Iterduca est pueris et opus facit cum deabus ignobilissimis Abeona et Adeona. Ibi posuerunt et Mentem deam, quae faciat pueris bonam mentem, et inter selectos ista non ponitur, quasi quicquam maius praestari homini potest; ponitur autem Iuno, quia Iterduca est et Domiduca, quasi quicquam prosit iter carpere et domum duci, si mens non est bona, cuius muneris deam selectores isti inter selecta numina minime posuerunt. Quae profecto et Mineruae fuerat praeferenda, cui per ista minuta opera puerorum memoriam tribuerunt. Quis enim dubitet multo esse melius habere bonam mentem quam memoriam quantumlibet ingentem? Nemo enim malus est, qui bonam habet mentem; quidam vero pessimi memoria sunt mirabili, tanto peiores quanto minus possunt quod male cogitant oblivisci. Et tamen Minerua est inter selectos deos; Mentem autem deam turba vilis operuit. Quid de Virtute dicam? quid de Felicitate? de quibus in quarto libro plura iam diximus; quas cum deas haberent, nullum eis locum inter selectos deos dare voluerunt, ubi dederunt Marti et Orco, uni effectori mortium alteri receptori. Cum igitur in his minutis operibus, quae minutatim diis pluribus distributa sunt, etiam ipsos selectos videamus tamquam senatum cum plebe pariter operari, et inveniamus a quibusdam diis, qui nequaquam seligendi putati sunt, multo maiora atque meliora administrari quam ab illis, qui selecti vocantur: restat arbitrari non propter praestantiores in mundo administrationes, sed quia provenit eis, ut magis populis innotescerent, selectos eos et praecipuos nuncupatos. Vnde dicit etiam ipse Varro, quod diis quibusdam patribus et deabus matribus, sicut hominibus, ignobilitas accidisset. Si ergo Felicitas ideo fortasse inter selectos deos esse non debuit, quod ad istam nobilitatem non merito, sed fortuito peruenerunt: saltem inter illos vel potius prae illis Fortuna poneretur, quam dicunt deam non rationabili dispositione, sed ut temere acciderit, sua cuique dona conferre. Haec in diis selectis tenere apicem debuit, in quibus maxime quid posset ostendit; quando eos videmus non praecipua virtute, non rationabili felicitate, sed temeraria, sicut eorum cultores de illa sentiunt, Fortunae potestate selectos. Nam et vir disertissimus Sallustius etiam ipsos deos fortassis adtendit, cum diceret: "Sed profecto fortuna in omni re dominatur; ea res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex vero celebrat obscuratque." Non enim possunt invenire causam, cur celebrata sit Venus et obscurata sit Virtus, cum ambarum ab istis consecrata sint numina nec comparanda sint merita. Aut si hoc nobilitari meruit, quod plures adpetum, plures enim Venerem quam Virtutem: cur celebrata est dea Minerua et obscurata est dea Pecunia? cum in genere humano plures alliciat auaritia quam peritia, et in eis ipsis, qui sunt artificiosi, raro invenias hominem, qui non habeat artem suam pecuniaria mercede venalem, plurisque pendatur semper propter quod aliquid fit, quam id quod propter aliud fit. Si ergo insipientis iudicio multitudinis facta est deorum ista selectio, cur dea Pecunia Mineruae praelata non est, cum propter pecuniam sint artifices multi? Si autem paucorum sapientium est ista distinctio, cur non praelata est Veneri Virtus, cum eam longe praeferat ratio? Saltem certe, ut dixi, ipsa Fortuna, quae, sicut putant qui ei plurimum tribuunt, in omni re dominatur et res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex vero celebrat obscuratque, si tantum et in deos valuit, ut temerario iudicio suo quos vellet celebraret obscuraretque quos vellet, praecipuum locum haberet in selectis, quae in ipsos quoque deos tam praecipuae est potestatis. An ut illic esse non posset, nihil aliud etiam ipsa Fortuna nisi adversam putanda est habuisse fortunam? Sibi ergo adversata est, quae alios nobiles faciens nobilitata non est. || What is the cause, therefore, which has driven so many select gods to these very small works, in which they are excelled by Vitumnus and Sentinus, though little known and sunk in obscurity, inasmuch as they confer the munificent gifts of life and sensation? For the select Janus bestows an entrance, and, as it were, a door for the seed; the select Saturn bestows the seed itself; the select Liber bestows on men the emission of the same seed; Libera, who is Ceres or Venus, confers the same on women; the select Juno confers (not alone, but together with Mena, the daughter of Jupiter) the menses, for the growth of that which has been conceived; and the obscure and ignoble Vitumnus confers life, while the obscure and ignoble Sentinus confers sensation;-which two last things are as much more excellent than the others, as they themselves are excelled by reason and intellect. For as those things which reason and understand are preferable to those which, without intellect and reason, as in the case of cattle, live and feel; so also those things which have been endowed with life and sensation are deservedly preferred to those things which neither live nor feel. Therefore Vitumnus the life-giver, and Sentinus the sense-giver, ought to have been reckoned among the select gods, rather than Janus the admitter of seed, and Saturn the giver or sower of seed, and Liber and Libera the movers and liberators of seed; which seed is not worth a thought, unless it attain to life and sensation. Yet these select gifts are not given by select gods, but by certain unknown, and, considering their dignity, neglected gods. But if it be replied that Janus has dominion over all beginnings, and therefore the opening of the way for conception is not without reason assigned to him; and that Saturn has dominion over all seeds, and therefore the sowing of the seed whereby a human being is generated cannot be excluded from his operation; that Liber and Libera have power over the emission of all seeds, and therefore preside over those seeds which pertain to the procreation of men; that Juno presides over all purgations and births, and therefore she has also charge of the purgations of women and the births of human beings;-if they give this reply, let them find an answer to the question concerning Vitumnus and Sentinus, whether they are willing that these likewise should have dominion over all things which live and feel. If they grant this, let them observe in how sublime a position they are about to place them. For to spring from seeds is in the earth and of the earth, but to live and feel are supposed to be properties even of the sidereal gods. But if they say that only such things as come to life in flesh, and are supported by senses, are assigned to Sentinus, why does not that God who made all things live and feel, bestow on flesh also life and sensation, in the universality of His operation conferring also on f_S tuses this gift? And what, then, is the use of Vitumnus and Sentinus? But if these, as it were, extreme and lowest things have been committed by Him who presides universally over life and sense to these gods as to servants, are these select gods then so destitute of servants, that they could not find any to whom even they might commit those things, but with all their dignity, for which they are, it seems, deemed worthy to be selected, were compelled to perform their work along with ignoble ones? Juno is select queen of the gods, and the sister and wife of Jupiter; nevertheless she is Iterduca, the conductor, to boys, and performs this work along with a most ignoble pair-the goddesses Abeona and Adeona. There they have also placed the goddess Mena, who gives to boys a good mind, and she is not placed among the select gods; as if anything greater could be bestowed on a man than a good mind. But Juno is placed among the select because she is Iterduca and Domiduca (she who conducts one on a journey, and who conducts him home again); as if it is of any advantage for one to make a journey, and to be conducted home again, if his mind is not good. And yet the goddess who bestows that gift has not been placed by the selectors among the select gods, though she ought indeed to have been preferred even to Minerva, to whom, in this minute distribution of work, they have allotted the memory of boys. For who will doubt that it is a far better thing to have a good mind, than ever so great a memory? For no one is bad who has a good mind; but some who are very bad are possessed of an admirable memory, and are so much the worse, the less they are able to forget the bad things which they think. And yet Minerva is among the select gods, while the goddess Mena is hidden by a worthless crowd. What shall I say concerning Virtus? What concerning Felicitas?-concerning whom I have already spoken much in the fourth book; to whom, though they held them to be goddesses, they have not thought fit to assign a place among the select gods, among whom they have given a place to Mars and Orcus, the one the causer of death, the other the receiver of the dead.Since, therefore, we see that even the select gods themselves work together with the others, like a senate with the people, in all those minute works which have been minutely portioned out among many gods; and since we find that far greater and better things are administered by certain gods who have not been reckoned worthy to be selected than by those who are called select, it remains that we suppose that they were called select and chief, not on account of their holding more exalted offices in the world, but because it happened to them to become better known to the people. And even Varro himself says, that in that way obscurity had fallen to the lot of some father gods and mother goddesses, as it fails to the lot of man. If, therefore, Felicity ought not perhaps to have been put among the select gods, because they did not attain to that noble position by merit, but by chance, Fortune at least should have been placed among them, or rather before them; for they say that that goddess distributes to every one the gifts she receives, not according to any rational arrangement, but according as chance may determine. She ought to have held the uppermost place among the select gods, for among them chiefly it is that she shows what power she has. For we see that they have been selected not on account of some eminent virtue or rational happiness, but by that random power of Fortune which the worshippers of these gods think that she exerts. For that most eloquent man Sallust also may perhaps have the gods themselves in view when he says: "But, in truth, fortune rules in everything; it renders all things famous or obscure, according to caprice rather than according to truth." For they cannot discover a reason why Venus should have been made famous, while Virtus has been made obscure, when the divinity of both of them has been solemnly recognized by them, and their merits are not to be compared. Again, if she has deserved a noble position on account of the fact that she is much sought after-for there are more who seek after Venus than after Virtus-why has Minerva been celebrated while Pecunia has been left in obscurity, although throughout the whole human race avarice allures a far greater number than skill? And even among those who are skilled in the arts, you will rarely find a man who does not practise his own art for the purpose of pecuniary gain; and that for the sake of which anything is made, is always valued more than that which is made for the sake of something else. If, then, this selection of gods has been made by the judgment of the foolish multitude, why has not the goddess Pecunia been preferred to Minerva, since there are many artificers for the sake of money? But if this distinction has been made by the few wise, why has Virtus been preferred to Venus, when reason by far prefers the former? At all events, as I have already said, Fortune herself-who, according to those who attribute most influence to her, renders all things famous or obscure according to caprice rather than according to the truth-since she has been able to exercise so much power even over the gods, as, according to her capricious judgment, to render those of them famous whom she would, and those obscure whom she would; Fortune herself ought to occupy the place of pre-eminence among the select gods, since over them also she has such pre-eminent power. Or must we suppose that the reason why she is not among the select is simply this, that even Fortune herself has had an adverse fortune? She was adverse, then, to herself, since, while ennobling others, she herself has remained obscure.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c4"><b>BOOK VII</b> [IV] Gratularetur autem diis istis selectis quisquam nobilitatis et claritudinis adpetitor et eos diceret fortunatos, si non eos magis ad iniurias quam ad honores selectos videret. Nam illam infimam turbam ipsa ignobilitas texit, ne obrueretur opprobriis. Ridemus quidem, cum eos videmus figmentis humanarum opinionum partitis inter se operibus distributos, tamquam minuscularios uectigalium conductores vel tamquam opifices in vico argentario, ubi unum uasculum, ut perfectum exeat, per multos artifices transit, cum ab uno perfecto perfici posset. Sed aliter non putatum est operantium multitudini consulendum, nisi ut singulas artis partes cito ac facile discerent singuli, ne omnes in arte una tarde ac difficile cogerentur esse perfecti. Verum tamen vix quisquam reperitur deorum non selectorum, qui aliquo crimine famam traxit infamem; vix autem selectorum quispiam, qui non in se notam contumeliae insignis acceperit. Illi ad istorum humilia opera descenderunt, isti in illorum sublimia crimina non venerunt. De Iano quidem non mihi facile quicquam occurrit, quod ad probrum pertineat. Et fortasse talis fuerit, innocentius vixerit et a facinoribus flagitiisque remotius. Saturnum fugientem benignus excepit; cum hospite partitus est regnum, ut etiam civitates singulas conderent, iste Ianiculum, ille Saturniam. Sed isti in cultu deorum omnis dedeoris adpetitores, cuius vitam minus turpem invenerunt, eum simulacri monstrosa deformitate turparunt, nunc eum bifrontem, nunc etiam quadrifrontem, tamquam geminum, facientes. An forte voluerunt,ut, quoniam plurimi dii selecti erubescenda perpetrando amiserant frontem, quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret? ||However, any one who eagerly seeks for celebrity and renown, might congratulate those select gods, and call them fortunate, were it not that he saw that they have been selected more to their injury than to their honor. For that low crowd of gods have been protected by their very meanness and obscurity from being overwhelmed with infamy. We laugh, indeed, when we see them distributed by the mere fiction of human opinions, according to the special works assigned to them, like those who farm small portions of the public revenue, or like workmen in the street of the silversmiths, where one vessel, in order that it may go out perfect, passes through the hands of many, when it might have been finished by one perfect workman. But the only reason why the combined skill of many workmen was thought necessary, was, that it is better that each part of an art should be learned by a special workman, which can be done speedily and easily, than that they should all be compelled to be perfect in one art throughout all its parts, which they could only attain slowly and with difficulty. Nevertheless there is scarcely to be found one of the non-select gods who has brought infamy on himself by any crime, while there is scarce any one of the select gods who has not received upon himself the brand of notable infamy. These latter have descended to the humble works of the others, while the others have not come up to their sublime crimes. Concerning Janus, there does not readily occur to my recollection anything infamous; and perhaps he was such an one as lived more innocently than the rest, and further removed from misdeeds and crimes. He kindly received and entertained Saturn when he was fleeing; he divided his kingdom with his guest, so that each of them had a city for himself, the one Janiculum, and the other Saturnia. But those seekers after every kind of unseemliness in the worship of the gods have disgraced him, whose life they found to be less disgracful than that of the other gods, with an image of monstrous deformity, making it sometimes with two faces, and sometimes, as it were, double, with four faces. Did they wish that, as the most of the select gods had lost shame through the perpetration of shameful crimes, his greater innocence should be marked by a greater number of faces?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c5"><b>BOOK VII</b> [V] Sed ipsorum potius interpretationes physicas audiamus, quibus turpitudinem miserrimi erroris velut altioris doctrinae specie colorare conantur. Primum eas interpretationes sic Varro commendat, ut dicat antiquos simulacra deorum et insignia ornatusque finxisse, quae cum oculis animadvertissent hi, qui adissent doctrinae mysteria, possent animam mundi ac partes eius, id est deos veros, animo videre; quorum qui simulacra specie hominis fecerunt, hoc videri secutos, quod mortalium animus, qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est inmortalis animi; tamquam si uasa ponerentur causa notandorum deorum et in Liberi aede oenophorum sisteretur, quod significaret vinum, per id quod continet id quod continetur; ita per simulacrum, quod formam haberet humanam, significari animam rationalem, quod eo velut uase natura ista soleat contineri, cuius naturae deum volunt esse vel deos. Haec sunt mysteria doctrinae, quae iste vir doctissimus penetraverat, unde in lucem ista proferret. Sed, o homo acutissime, num in istis doctrinae mysteriis illam prudentiam perdidisti, qua tibi sobrie visum est, quod hi, qui primi populis simulacra constituerunt, et metum dempserunt civibus suis et errorem addiderunt, castiusque deos sine simulacris ueteres observasse Romanos? Hi enim tibi fuerunt auctores, ut haec contra posteriores Romanos dicere auderes. Nam si et illi antiquissimi simulacra coluissent, fortassis totum istum sensum de simulacris non constituendis, interim verum,timoris silentio premeres et in huiusce modi perniciosis uanisque figmentis mysteria ista doctrinae loquacius et elatius praedicares. Anima tua tamen tam docta et ingeniosa (ubi te multum dolemus)per haec mysteria doctrinae ad Deum suum,idest a quo facta est, non cum quo facta est, nec cuius portio, sed cuius conditio est, nec qui est omnium anima, sed qui fecit omnem animam, quo solo inlustrante anima fit beata, si eius gratiae non sit ingrata, nullo modo potuit pervenire. Verum ista mysteria doctrinae qualia sint quantique pendenda, quae sequuntur ostendent. Fatetur interim vir iste doctissimus animam mundi ac partes eius esse veros deos; unde intellegitur totam eius theologian, eam ipsam scilicet naturalem, cui plurimum tribuit, usque ad animae rationalis naturam se extendere potuisse. De naturali enim paucissima praeloquitur in hoc libro quem de diis selectis ultimum scripsit; in quo videbimus utrum per interpretationes physiologicas ad hanc naturalem possit referre civilem. Quod si potuerit, tota naturalis erit: et quid opus erat ab ea civilem tanta cura distinctionis abiungere? Si autem recto discrimine separata est: quando nec ista vera est quae illi naturalis placet (pervenit enim usque ad animam, non usque ad verum Deum qui fecit et animam), quanto est abiectior et falsior ista civilis, quae maxime circa corporum est occupata naturam, sicut ipsae interpretationes eius, ex quibus quaedam necessaria commemorare me oportet, tanta ab ipsis exquisitae et enucleatae diligentia demonstrabunt. ||But let us hear their own physical interpretations by which they attempt to color, as with the appearance of profounder doctrine, the baseness of most miserable error. Varro, in the first place, commends these interpretations so strongly as to say, that the ancients invented the images, badges, and adornments of the gods, in order that when those who went to the mysteries should see them with their bodily eyes, they might with the eyes of their mind see the soul of the world, and its parts, that is, the true gods; and also that the meaning which was intended by those who made their images with the human form, seemed to be this,-namely, that the mind of mortals, which is in a human body, is very like to the immortal mind, just as vessels might be placed to represent the gods, as, for instance, a wine-vessel might be placed in the temple of Liber, to signify wine, that which is contained being signified by that which contains. Thus by an image which had the human form the rational soul was signified, because the human form is the vessel, as it were, in which that nature is wont to be contained which they attribute to God, or to the gods. These are the mysteries of doctrine to which that most learned man penetrated in order that he might bring them forth to the light. But, O you most acute man, have you lost among those mysteries that prudence which led you to form the sober opinion, that those who first established those images for the people took away fear from the citizens and added error, and that the ancient Romans honored the gods more chastely without images? For it was through consideration of them that you were emboldened to speak these things against the later Romans. For if those most ancient Romans also had worshipped images, perhaps you would have suppressed by the silence of fear all those sentiments (true sentiments, nevertheless) concerning the folly of setting up images, and would have extolled more loftily, and more loquaciously, those mysterious doctrines consisting of these vain and pernicious fictions. Your soul, so learned and so clever (and for this I grieve much for you), could never through these mysteries have reached its God; that is, the God by whom, not with whom, it was made, of whom it is not a part, but a work,-that God who is not the soul of all things, but who made every soul, and in whose light alone every soul is blessed, if it be not ungrateful for His grace.But the things which follow in this book will show what is the nature of these mysteries, and what value is to be set upon them. Meanwhile, this most learned man confesses as his opinion that the soul of the world and its parts are the true gods, from which we perceive that his theology (to wit, that same natural theology to which he pays great regard) has been able, in its completeness, to extend itself even to the nature of the rational soul. For in this book (concerning the select gods) he says a very few things by anticipation concerning the natural theology; and we shall see whether he has been able in that book, by means of physical interpretations, to refer to this natural theology that civil theology, concerning which he wrote last when treating of the select gods. Now, if he has been able to do this, the whole is natural; and in that case, what need was there for distinguishing so carefully the civil from the natural? But if it has been distinguished by a veritable distinction, then, since not even this natural theology with which he is so much pleased is true (for though it has reached as far as the soul, it has not reached to the true God who made the soul), how much more contemptible and false is that civil theology which is chiefly occupied about what is corporeal, as will be shown by its very interpretations, which they have with such diligence sought out and enucleated, some of which I must necessarily mention!
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c6"><b>BOOK VII</b> [VI] Dicit ergo idem Varro adhuc de naturali theologia praeloquens deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi, quem Graeci vocant *ko/smon, et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex corpore et animo, tamen ab animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Hic videtur quoquo modo unum confiteri Deum; sed ut plures etiam introducat, adiungit mundum dividi in duas partes, caelum et terram; et caelum bifariam, in aethera et aera; terram vero in aquam et humum; e quibus summum esse aethera, secundum aera, tertiam aquam, infimam terram; quas omnes partes quattuor animarum esse plenas, in aethere et aere inmortalium, in aqua et terra mortalium. Ab summo autem circuitu caeli ad circulum lunae aetherias animas esse astra ac stellas, eos caelestes deos non modo intellegi esse, sed etiam videri; inter lunae vero gyrum et nimborum ac ventorum cacumina aerias esse animas, sed eas animo, non oculis videri et vocari heroas et lares et genios. Haec est videlicet breviter in ista praelocutione proposita theologia naturalis, quae non huic tantum, sed multis philosophis placuit; de qua tunc diligentius disserendum est, cum de civili, quantum ad deos selectos adtinet, opitulante Deo vero quod restat impleuero. ||The same Varro, then, still speaking by anticipation, says that he thinks that God is the soul of the world (which the Greeks call ??sµ?? ), and that this world itself is God; but as a wise man, though he consists of body and mind, is nevertheless called wise on account of his mind, so the world is called God on account of mind, although it consists of mind and body. Here he seems, in some fashion at least, to acknowledge one God; but that he may introduce more, he adds that the world is divided into two parts, heaven and earth, which are again divided each into two parts, heaven into ether and air, earth into water and land, of all which the ether is the highest, the air second, the water third, and the earth the lowest. All these four parts, he says, are full of souls; those which are in the ether and air being immortal, and those which are in the water and on the earth mortal. From the highest part of the heavens to the orbit of the moon there are souls, namely, the stars and planets; and these are not only understood to be gods, but are seen to be such. And between the orbit of the moon and the commencement of the region of clouds and winds there are aerial souls; but these are seen with the mind, not with the eyes, and are called Heroes, and Lares, and Genii. This is the natural theology which is briefly set forth in these anticipatory statements, and which satisfied not Varro only, but many philosophers besides. This I must discuss more carefully, when, with the help of God, I shall have completed what I have yet to say concerning the civil theology, as far as it concerns the select gods.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c7"><b>BOOK VII</b> [VII] Ianus igitur, a quo sumpsit exordium, quaero quisnam sit. Respondetur: Mundus est. Brevis haec plane est atque aperta responsio. Cur ergo ad eum dicuntur rerum initia pertinere, fines vero ad alterum, quem Terminum vocant? Nam propter initia et fines duobus istis diis duos menses perhibent dedicatos praeter illos decem, quibus usque ad Decembrem caput est Martius, Ianuarium Iano, Februarium Termino. Ideo Terminalia eodem mense Februario celebrari dicunt, cum fit sacrum purgatorium, quod vocant Februm, unde mensis nomen accepit. Numquid ergo ad mundum, qui Ianus est, initia rerum pertinent et fines non pertinent, ut alter illis deus praeficeretur? Nonne omnia, quae in hoc mundo fieri dicunt, in hoc etiam mundo terminari fatentur? Quae est ista uanitas, in opere illi dare potestatem dimidiam, in simulacro faciem duplam? Nonne istum bifrontem multo elegantius interpretarentur, si eundem et Ianum et Terminum dicerent atque initiis unam faciem, finibus alteram darent? quoniam qui operatur utrumque debet intendere; in omni enim motu actionis suae qui non respicit initium non prospicit finem. Vnde necesse est a memoria respiciente prospiciens conectatur intentio; nam cui exciderit quod coeperit, quo modo finiat non inveniet. Quod si vitam beatam in hoc mundo inchoari putarent, extra mundum perfici, et ideo Iano, id est mundo, solam initiorum tribuerent potestatem: profecto ei praeponerent Terminum eumque ab diis selectis non alienarent. Quamquam etiam nunc cum in istis duobus diis initia rerum temporalium finesque tractantur, Termino dari debuit plus honoris. Maior enim laetitia est, cum res quaeque perficitur; sollicitudinis autem plena sunt coepta, donec perducantur ad finem, quem qui aliquid incipit maxime adpetit intendit, expectat exoptat, nec de re inchoata, nisi terminetur, exultat. ||Who, then, is Janus, with whom Varro commences? He is the world. Certainly a very brief and unambiguous reply. Why, then, do they say that the beginnings of things pertain to him, but the ends to another whom they call Terminus? For they say that two months have been dedicated to these two gods, with reference to beginnings and ends-January to Janus, and February to Terminus-over and above those ten months which commence with March and end with December. And they say that that is the reason why the Terminalia are celebrated in the month of February, the same month in which the sacred purification is made which they call Februum, and from which the month derives its name. Do the beginnings of things, therefore, pertain to the world, which is Janus, and not also the ends, since another god has been placed over them? Do they not own that all things which they say begin in this world also come to an end in this world? What folly it is, to give him only half power in work, when in his image they give him two faces! Would it not be a far more elegant way of interpreting the two-faced image, to say that Janus and Terminus are the same, and that the one face has reference to beginnings, the other to ends? For one who works ought to have respect to both. For he who in every forthputting of activity does not look back on the beginning, does not look forward to the end. Wherefore it is necessary that prospective intention be connected with retrospective memory. For how shall one find how to finish anything, if he has forgotten what it was which he had begun? But if they thought that the blessed life is begun in this world, and perfected beyond the world, and for that reason attributed to Janus, that is, to the world, only the power of beginnings, they should certainly have preferred Terminus to him, and should not have shut him out from the number of the select gods. Yet even now, when the beginnings and ends of temporal things are represented by these two gods, more honor ought to have been given to Terminus. For the greater joy is that which is felt when anything is finished; but things begun are always cause of much anxiety until they are brought to an end, which end he who begins anything very greatly longs for, fixes his mind on, expects, desires; nor does any one ever rejoice over anything he has begun, unless it be brought to an end.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c8"><b>BOOK VII</b> [VIII] Sed iam bifrontis simulacri interpretatio proferatur. Duas eum facies ante et retro habere dicunt, quod hiatus noster, cum os aperimus, mundo similis videatur; unde et palatum Graeci *ou)rano\n appellant, et nonnulli, inquit, poetae Latini caelum vocaverunt palatum, a quo hiatu oris et foras esse aditum ad dentes versus et introrsus ad fauces. Ecce quo perductus est mundus propter palati nostri vocabulum vel Graecum vel poeticum. Quid autem hoc ad animam, quid ad vitam aeternam? Propter solas salivas colatur hic deus, quibus partim gluttiendis partim spuendis sub caelo palati utraque panditur ianua. Quid est porro absurdius, quam in ipso mundo non invenire duas ianuas ex adverso sitas, per quas vel admittat ad se aliquid intro vel emittat a se foras, et de nostro ore et gutture, quorum similitudinem mundus non habet, velle mundi simulacrum componere in Iano propter solum palatum, cuius similitudinem Ianus non habet? Cum vero eum faciunt quadrifrontem et Ianum geminum appellant, ad quattuor mundi partes hoc interpretantur, quasi aliquid spectet mundus foras sicut per omnes facies Ianus. Deinde si Ianus est mundus et mundus quattuor partibus constat, falsum est simulacrum Iani bifrontis; aut si propterea verum est, quia etiam nomine Orientis et Occidentis totus solet mundus intellegi, numquid, cum duas partes alias nominamus Septentrionis et Austri, sicut illi quadrifrontem dicunt geminum Ianum, ita quisquam geminum dicturus est mundum? Non habent omnino unde quattuor ianuas, quae intrantibus et exeuntibus pateant, interpretentur ad mundi similitudinem, sicut de bifronti quod dicerent saltem in ore hominis invenerunt, nisi Neptunus forte subveniat et porrigat piscem, cui praeter hiatum oris et gutturis etiam dextra et sinistra fauces patent. Et tamen hanc uanitatem per tot ianuas nulla effugit anima, nisi quae audit veritatem dicentem: Ego sum ianua. ||But now let the interpretation of the two-faced image be produced. For they say that it has two faces, one before and one behind, because our gaping mouths seem to resemble the world: whence the Greeks call the palate ???a???, and some Latin poets, he says, have called the heavens palatum [the palate]; and from the gaping mouth, they say, there is a way out in the direction of the teeth, and a way in in the direction of the gullet. See what the world has been brought to on account of a Greek or a poetical word for our palate! Let this god be worshipped only on account of saliva, which has two open doorways under the heavens of the palate,-one through which part of it may be spitten out, the other through which part of it may be swallowed down. Besides, what is more absurd than not to find in the world itself two doorways opposite to each other, through which it may either receive anything into itself, or cast it out from itself; and to seek of our throat and gullet, to which the world has no resemblance, to make up an image of the world in Janus, because the world is said to resemble the palate, to which Janus bears no likeness? But when they make him four-faced, and call him double Janus, they interpret this as having reference to the four quarters of the world, as though the world looked out on anything, like Janus through his four faces. Again, if Janus is the world, and the world consists of four quarters, then the image of the two-faced Janus is false. Or if it is true, because the whole world is sometimes understood by the expression east and west, will any one call the world double when north and south also are mentioned, as they call Janus double when he has four faces? They have no way at all of interpreting, in relation to the world, four doorways by which to go in and to come out as they did in the case of the two-faced Janus, where they found, at any rate in the human mouth, something which answered to what they said about him; unless perhaps Neptune come to their aid, and hand them a fish, which, besides the mouth and gullet, has also the openings of the gills, one on each side. Nevertheless, with all the doors, no soul escapes this vanity but that one which hears the truth saying, "I am the door." John 10:9
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c9"><b>BOOK VII</b> [IX] Iovem autem, qui etiam Iuppiter dicitur, quem velint intellegi, exponant. "Deus est, inquiunt, habens potestatem causarum, quibus aliquid fit in mundo." Hoc quam magnum sit, nobilissimus Vergilii versus ille testatur: Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. Sed cur ei praeponitur Ianus? hoc nobis vir ille acutissimus doctissimusque respondeat. "Quoniam penes Ianum, inquit, sunt prima, penes Iovem summa. Merito ergo rex omnium Iuppiter habetur. Prima enim vincuntur a summis, quia, licet prima praecedant tempore, summa superant dignitate." Sed recte hoc diceretur, si factorum prima discernerentur et summa; sicut initium facti est proficisci, summum pervenire; initium facti inceptio discendi, summum perceptio doctrinae; ac sic in omnibus prima sunt initia summique sunt fines. Sed iam hoc negotium inter Ianum Terminumque discussum est. Causae autem, quae dantur Iovi, efficientia sunt, non effecta; neque ullo modo fieri potest, ut vel tempore praeveniantur a factis initiisue factorum. Semper enim prior est res quae facit, quam illa quae fit. Quapropter si ad Ianum pertinent initia factorum, non ideo priora sunt efficientibus causis, quas Iovi tribuunt. Sicut enim nihil fit, ita nihil inchoatur ut fiat, quod non faciens causa praecesserit. Hunc sane deum, penes quem sunt omnes causae factarum omnium naturarum naturaliumque rerum, si Iovem populi appellant et tantis contumeliis tamque scelestis criminationibus colunt, taetriore sacrilegio sese obstringunt, quam si prorsus nullum putarent deum. Vnde satius esset eis alium aliquem Iovis nomine nuncupare, dignum turpibus et flagitiosis honoribus, supposito uano figmento quod potius blasphemarent (sicut Saturno dicitur suppositus lapis, quem pro filio deuoraret), quam istum deum dicere et tonantem et adulterantem, et totum mundum regentem et per tot stupra diffluentem, et naturarum omnium naturaliumque rerum causas summas habentem et suas causas bonas non habentem. Deinde quaero, quem iam locum inter deos huic Iovi tribuant, si Ianus est mundus. Deos enim veros animam mundi ac partes eius iste definivit; ac per hoc, quidquid hoc non est, non est utique secundum istos verus deus. Num igitur ita dicturi sunt Iovem animam mundi, ut Ianus sit corpus eius, id est iste visibilis mundus? Hoc si dicunt, non erit quem ad modum Ianum deum dicant, quoniam mundi corpus non est deus vel secundum ipsos, sed anima mundi ac partes eius. Vnde apertissime idem dicit deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex animo et corpore, tamen ex animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Solum itaque mundi corpus non est deus, sed aut sola anima eius aut simul corpus et animus, ita tamen ut non sit a corpore, sed ab animo deus. Si ergo Ianus est mundus et deus est Ianus, numquid Iovem, ut deus esse possit, aliquam partem Iani esse dicturi sunt? Magis enim Iovi universum solent tribuere; unde est: Iovis omnia plena. Ergo et Iovem, ut deus sit et maxime rex deorum, non alium possunt existimare quam mundum, ut diis ceteris secundum istos suis partibus regnet. In hanc sententiam etiam quosdam versus Valerii Sorani exponit idem Varro in eo libro, quem seorsum ab istis de cultu deorum scripsit; qui versus hi sunt: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deum, deus unus et omnes. Exponuntur autem in eodem libro ita: cum marem existimarent qui semen emitteret, feminam quae acciperet, Iovemque esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere: "cum causa, inquit, scripsit Soranus Iuppiter progenitor genetrixque; nec minus cum causa unum et omnia idem esse; mundus enim unus, et in eo uno omnia sunt." ||But they also show whom they would have Jove (who is also called Jupiter) understood to be. He is the god, say they, who has the power of the causes by which anything comes to be in the world. And how great a thing this is, that most noble verse of Virgil testifies:Happy is he who has learned the causes of things.But why is Janus preferred to him? Let that most acute and most learned man answer us this question. "Because," says he, "Janus has dominion over first things, Jupiter over highest things. Therefore Jupiter is deservedly held to be the king of all things; for highest things are better than first things: for although first things precede in time, highest things excel by dignity."Now this would have been rightly said had the first parts of things which are done been distinguished from the highest parts; as, for instance, it is the beginning of a thing done to set out, the highest part to arrive. The commencing to learn is the first part of a thing begun, the acquirement of knowledge is the highest part. And so of all things: the beginnings are first, the ends highest. This matter, however, has been already discussed in connection with Janus and Terminus. But the causes which are attributed to Jupiter are things effecting, not things effected; and it is impossible for them to be prevented in time by things which are made or done, or by the beginnings of such things; for the thing which makes is always prior to the thing which is made. Therefore, though the beginnings of things which are made or done pertain to Janus, they are nevertheless not prior to the efficient causes which they attribute to Jupiter. For as nothing takes place without being preceded by an efficient cause, so without an efficient cause nothing begins to take place. Verily, if the people call this god Jupiter, in whose power are all the causes of all natures which have been made, and of all natural things, and worship him with such insults and infamous criminations, they are guilty of more shocking sacrilege than if they should totally deny the existence of any god. It would therefore be better for them to call some other god by the name of Jupiter-some one worthy of base and criminal honors; substituting instead of Jupiter some vain fiction (as Saturn is said to have had a stone given to him to devour instead of his son,) which they might make the subject of their blasphemies, rather than speak of that god as both thundering and committing adultery,-ruling the whole world, and laying himself out for the commission of so many licentious acts,-having in his power nature and the highest causes of all natural things, but not having his own causes good.Next, I ask what place they find any longer for this Jupiter among the gods, if Janus is the world; for Varro defined the true gods to be the soul of the world, and the parts of it. And therefore whatever falls not within this definition, is certainly not a true god, according to them. Will they then say that Jupiter is the soul of the world, and Janus the body -that is, this visible world? If they say this, it will not be possible for them to affirm that Janus is a god. For even, according to them, the body of the world is not a god, but the soul of the world and its parts. Wherefore Varro, seeing this, says that he thinks God is the soul of the world, and that this world itself is God; but that as a wise man though he consists of soul and body, is nevertheless called wise from the soul, so the world is called God from the soul, though it consists of soul and body. Therefore the body of the world alone is not God, but either the soul of it alone, or the soul and the body together, yet so as that it is God not by virtue of the body, but by virtue of the soul. If, therefore, Janus is the world, and Janus is a god, will they say, in order that Jupiter may be a god, that he is some part of Janus? For they are wont rather to attribute universal existence to Jupiter; whence the saying, "All things are full of Jupiter." Therefore they must think Jupiter also, in order that he may be a god, and especially king of the gods, to be the world, that he may rule over the other gods-according to them, his parts. To this effect, also, the same Varro expounds certain verses of Valerius Soranus in that book which he wrote apart from the others concerning the worship of the gods. These are the verses:"Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,And eke the mother of the gods, god one and all."But in the same book he expounds these verses by saying that as the male emits seed, and the female receives it, so Jupiter, whom they believed to be the world, both emits all seeds from himself and receives them into himself. For which reason, he says, Soranus wrote, "Jove, progenitor and mother;" and with no less reason said that one and all were the same. For the world is one, and in that one are all things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c10"><b>BOOK VII</b> [X] Cum ergo et Ianus mundus sit et Iuppiter mundus sit unusque sit mundus, quare duo dii sunt Ianus et Iuppiter? Quare seorsus habent templa seorsus aras, diversa sacra dissimilia simulacra? Si propterea, quod alia vis est primordiorum, alia causarum, et illa Iani, illa Iovis nomen accepit: numquid si unus homo in diversis rebus duas habeat potestates aut duas artes, quia singularum diversa vis est, ideo duo iudices aut duo dicuntur artifices? Sic ergo et unus Deus cum ipse habeat potestatem primordiorum, ipse causarum, num propterea illum duos deos esse necesse est putari, quia primordia causaeque res duae sunt? Quod si hoc iustum putant, etiam ipsum Iovem tot deos esse dicant, quotquot ei cognomina propter multas potestates dederunt, quoniam res omnesЎЃ ex quibus illa cognomina sunt adhibita, multae atque diversae sunt, ex quibus pauca commemoro. ||Since, therefore, Janus is the world, and Jupiter is the world, wherefore are Janus and Jupiter two gods, while the world is but one? Why do they have separate temples, separate altars, different rites, dissimilar images? If it be because the nature of beginnings is one, and the nature of causes another, and the one has received the name of Janus, the other of Jupiter; is it then the case, that if one man has two distinct offices of authority, or two arts, two judges or two artificers are spoken of, because the nature of the offices or the arts is different? So also with respect to one god: if he have the power of beginnings and of causes, must he therefore be thought to be two gods, because beginnings and causes are two things? But if they think that this is right, let them also affirm that Jupiter is as many gods as they have given him surnames, on account of many powers; for the things from which these surnames are applied to him are many and diverse. I shall mention a few of them.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c11"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XI] Dixerunt eum Victorem, Inuictum, Opitulum, Inpulsorem, Statorem, Centumpedam, Supinalem, Tigillum, Almum, Ruminum et alia quae persequi longum est. Haec autem cognomina inposuerunt uni deo propter causas potestatesque diversas, non tamen propter tot res etiam tot deos eum esse coegerunt: quod omnia vinceret, quod a nemine vinceretur, quod opem indigentibus ferret, quod haberet inpellendi, statuendi, stabiliendi, resupinandi potestatem, quod tamquam tigillus mundum contineret ac sustineret, quod aleret omnia, quod ruma, id est mamma, aleret animalia. In his, ut advertimus, quaedam magna sunt, quaedam exigua; et tamen unus utraque facere perhibetur. Puto inter se propinquiora esse causas rerum atque primordia, propter quas res unum mundum duos deos esse voluerunt, Iovem atque Ianum, quam continere mundum et mammam dare animalibus; nec tamen propter haec opera duo tam longe inter se vi et dignitate diversa duo dii esse compulsi sunt; sed unus Iuppiter propter illud Tigillus, propter illud Ruminus appellatus est. Nolo dicere, quod animalibus mammam praebere sugentibus magis Iunonem potuit decere quam Iovem, praesertim cum esset etiam diva Rumina, quae in hoc opus adiutorium illi famulatumue praeberet. Cogito enim posse responderi, et ipsam Iunonem nihil aliud esse quam Iovem, secundum illos Valerii Sorani versus, ubi dictum est: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deum. Quare ergo dictus est et Ruminus, cum diligentius fortasse quaerentibus ipse inveniatur esse etiam illa diva Rumina? Si enim maiestate deorum recte videbatur indignum, ut in una spica alter ad curam geniculi, altera ad folliculi pertineret: quanto est indignius unam rem infimam, id est ut mammis alantur animalia, duorum deorum potestate curari, quorum sit unus Iuppiter, rex ipse cunctorum, et hoc agat non saltem cum coniuge sua, sed cum ignobili nescio qua Rumina, nisi quia ipse est etiam ipsa Rumina; Ruminus fortasse pro sugentibus maribus, Rumina pro feminis. Dicerem quippe noluisse illos Iovi femininum nomen inponere, nisi et in illis versibus "progenitor genetrixque" diceretur, et inter eius alia cognomina legerem, quod etiam Pecunia vocaretur, quam deam inter illos minuscularios invenimus et in quarto libro commemoravimus. Sed cum et mares et feminae habeant pecuniam, cur non et Pecunia et Pecunius appellatus sit, sicut Rumina et Ruminus, ipsi viderint. ||They have called him Victor, Invictus, Opitulus, Impulsor, Stator, Centumpeda, Supinalis, Tigillus, Almus, Ruminus, and other names which it were long to enumerate. But these surnames they have given to one god on account of diverse causes and powers, but yet have not compelled him to be, on account of so many things, as many gods. They gave him these surnames because he conquered all things; because he was conquered by none; because he brought help to the needy; because he had the power of impelling, stopping, establishing, throwing on the back; because as a beam he held together and sustained the world; because he nourished all things; because, like the pap, he nourished animals. Here, we perceive, are some great things and some small things; and yet it is one who is said to perform them all. I think that the causes and the beginnings of things, on account of which they have thought that the one world is two gods, Jupiter and Janus, are nearer to each other than the holding together of the world, and the giving of the pap to animals; and yet, on account of these two works so far apart from each other, both in nature and dignity, there has not been any necessity for the existence of two gods; but one Jupiter has been called, on account of the one Tigillus, on account of the other Ruminus. I am unwilling to say that the giving of the pap to sucking animals might have become Juno rather than Jupiter, especially when there was the goddess Rumina to help and to serve her in this work; for I think it may be replied that Juno herself is nothing else than Jupiter, according to those verses of Valerius Soranus, where it has been said:"Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,And eke the mother of the gods, etc."Why, then, was he called Ruminus, when they who may perchance inquire more diligently may find that he is also that goddess Rumina?If, then, it was rightly thought unworthy of the majesty of the gods, that in one ear of corn one god should have the care of the joint, another that of the husk, how much more unworthy of that majesty is it, that one thing, and that of the lowest kind, even the giving of the pap to animals that they may be nourished, should be under the care of two gods, one of whom is Jupiter himself, the very king of all things, who does this not along with his own wife, but with some ignoble Rumina (unless perhaps he himself is Rumina, being Ruminus for males and Rumina for females)! I should certainly have said that they had been unwilling to apply to Jupiter a feminine name, had he not been styled in these verses "progenitor and mother," and had I not read among other surnames of his that of Pecunia [money], which we found as a goddess among those petty deities, as I have already mentioned in the fourth book. But since both males and females have money [pecuniam], why has he not been called both Pecunius and Pecunia? That is their concern.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c12"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XII] Quam vero eleganter rationem huius nominis reddiderunt! "Et Pecunia, inquit, vocatur, quod eius sunt omnia." O magnam rationem divini nominis! Immo vero ille, cuius sunt omnia, vilissime et contumeliosissime Pecunia nuncupatur. Ad omnia enim, quae caelo et terra continentur, quid est pecunia in omnibus omnino rebus, quae ab hominibus nomine pecuniae possidentur? Sed nimirum hoc auaritia Iovi nomen inposuit, ut, quisquis amat pecuniam, non quemlibet deum, sed ipsum regem omnium sibi amare videatur. Longe autem aliud esset, si divitiae vocaretur. Aliud namque sunt divitiae, aliud pecunia. Nam dicimus divites sapientes, iustos, bonos, quibus pecunia vel nulla vel parua est; magis enim sunt virtutibus divites, per quas eis etiam in ipsis corporalium rerum necessitatibus sat est quod adest: pauperes vero auaros, semper inhiantes et egentes; quamlibet enim magnas pecunias habere possunt, sed in earum quantacumque abundantia non egere non possunt. Et Deum ipsum verum recte dicimus divitem, non tamen pecunia, sed omnipotentia. Dicuntur itaque et divites pecuniosi; sed interius egeni, si cupidi: item dicuntur pauperes pecunia carentes; sed interius divites, si sapientes. Qualis ergo ista theologia debet esse sapienti, ubi rex deorum eius rei nomen accepit, "quam nemo sapiens concupivit"? Quanto enim facilius, si aliquid hac doctrina quod ad vitam pertineret aeternam salubriter disceretur, deus mundi rector non ab eis Pecunia, sed Sapientia vocaretur, cuius amor purgat a sordibus auaritiae, hoc est ab amore pecuniae! ||How elegantly they have accounted for this name! "He is also called Pecunia," say they, "because all things belong to him." Oh how grand an explanation of the name of a deity! Yes; he to whom all things belong is most meanly and most contumeliously called Pecunia. In comparison of all things which are contained by heaven and earth, what are all things together which are possessed by men under the name of money? And this name, forsooth, has avarice given to Jupiter, that whoever was a lover of money might seem to himself to love not an ordinary god, but the very king of all things himself. But it would be a far different thing if he had been called Riches. For riches are one thing, money another. For we call rich the wise, the just, the good, who have either no money or very little. For they are more truly rich in possessing virtue, since by it, even as re spects things necessary for the body, they are content with what they have. But we call the greedy poor, who are always craving and always wanting. For they may possess ever so great an amount of money; but whatever be the abundance of that, they are not able but to want. And we properly call God Himself rich; not, however, in money, but in omnipotence. Therefore they who have abundance of money are called rich, but inwardly needy if they are greedy. So also, those who have no money are called poor, but inwardly rich if they are wise.What, then, ought the wise man to think of this theology, in which the king of the gods receives the name of that thing "which no wise man has desired?" For had there been anything wholesomely taught by this philosophy concerning eternal life, how much more appropriately would that god who is the ruler of the world have been called by them, not money, but wisdom, the love of which purges from the filth of avarice, that is, of the love of money!
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c13"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XIII] Sed quid de hoc Iove plura, ad quem fortasse ceteri referendi sunt, ut inanis remaneat deorum opinio plurimorum, cum hic ipse sint omnes, sive quando partes eius vel potestates existimantur, sive cum vis animae, quam putant per cuncta diffusam, ex partibus molis huius, in quas visibilis mundus iste consurgit, et multiplici administratione naturae quasi plurium deorum nomina accepit? Quid est enim et Saturnus? "Vnus, inquit, de principibus deus, penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est." Nonne expositio versuum illorum Valerii Sorani sic se habet, Iovem esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere? Ipse est igitur penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est. Quid est Genius? "Deus, inquit, qui praepositus est ac vim habet omnium rerum gignendarum." Quem alium hanc vim habere credunt quam mundum, cui dictum est: "Iuppiter progenitor genetrixque"? Et cum alio loco genium dicit esse uniuscuiusque animum rationalem et ideo esse singulos singulorum, talem autem mundi animum Deum esse: ad hoc idem utique reuocat, ut tamquam universalis genius ipse mundi animus esse credatur. Hic est igitur quem appellant Iovem. Nam si omnis genius deus et omnis viri animus genius, sequitur ut sit omnis viri animus deus; quod si et ipsos abhorrere absurditas ipsa compellit, restat ut eum singulariter et excellenter dicant deum Genium, quem dicunt mundi animum ac per hoc Iovem. ||But why speak more of this Jupiter, with whom perchance all the rest are to be identified; so that, he being all, the opinion as to the existence of many gods may remain as a mere opinion, empty of all truth? And they are all to be referred to him, if his various parts and powers are thought of as so many gods, or if the principle of mind which they think to be diffused through all things has received the names of many gods from the various parts which the mass of this visible world combines in itself, and from the manifold administration of nature. For what is Saturn also? "One of the principal gods," he says, "who has dominion over all sowings." Does not the exposition of the verses of Valerius Soranus teach that Jupiter is the world, and that he emits all seeds from himself, and receives them into himself?It is he, then, with whom is the dominion of all sowings. What is Genius? "He is the god who is set over, and has the power of begetting, all things." Who else than the world do they believe to have this power, to which it has been said:Almighty Jove, progenitor and mother?And when in another place he says that Genius is the rational soul of every one, and therefore exists separately in each individual, but that the corresponding soul of the world is God, he just comes back to this same thing,-namely, that the soul of the world itself is to be held to be, as it were, the universal genius. This, therefore, is what he calls Jupiter. For if every genius is a god, and the soul of every man a genius, it follows that the soul of every man is a god. But if very absurdity compels even these theologists themselves to shrink from this, it remains that they call that genius god by special and pre-eminent distinction, whom they call the soul of the world, and therefore Jupiter.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c14"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XIV] Mercurium vero et Martem quo modo referrent ad aliquas partes mundi et opera Dei, quae sunt in elementis, non invenerunt, et ideo eos saltem operibus hominum praeposuerunt, sermocinandi et belligerandi administros. Quorum Mercurius si sermonis etiam deorum potestatem gerit, ipsi quoque regi deorum dominatur, si secundum eius arbitrium Iuppiter loquitur aut loquendi ab illo accepit facultatem; quod utique absurdum est. Si autem illi humani tantum sermonis potestas tributa perhibetur, non est credibile ad lactandos mamma non solum pueros, sed etiam pecora, unde Ruminus cognominatus est, Iovem descendere voluisse, et curam nostri sermonis, quo pecoribus antecellimus, ad se pertinere noluisse; ac per hoc idem ipse est Iovis atque Mercurius. Quod si sermo ipse dicitur esse Mercurius, sicut e a, quae d e illo interpretantur, ostentunt (nam ideo Mercurius quasi medius currens dicitur appellatus, quod sermo currat inter homines medius; ideo *(Hrmh=s Graece, quod sermo, vel interpretatio, quae ad sermonem utique pertinet, *e(rmhnei/a dicitur; ideo et mercibus praeesse, quia inter vendentes et ementes sermo fit medius; alas eius in capite et pedibus significare volucrem ferri per aera sermonem; nuntium dictum, quoniam per sermonem omnia cogitata enuntiantur -- si ergo Mercurius ipse sermo est, etiam ipsis confitentibus deus non est. Sed cum sibi deos faciunt eos, qui nec daemones sunt, inmundis supplicando spiritibus possidentur ab eis, qui non dii, sed daemones sunt. Item quia nec Marti aliquod elementum vel partem mundi invenire potuerunt, ubi ageret opera qualiacumque naturae, deum belli esse dixerunt, quod opus est hominum et optabilius non est. Si ergo pacem perpetuam Felicitas daret, Mars quid ageret non haberet. Si autem ipsum bellum est Mars, sicut sermo Mercurius: utinam quam manifestum est, quod non sit deus, tam non sit et bellum, quod vel falso vocetur deus. ||But they have not found how to refer Mercury and Mars to any parts of the world, and to the works of God which are in the elements; and therefore they have set them at least over human works, making them assistants in speaking and in carrying on wars. Now Mercury, if he has also the power of the speech of the gods, rules also over the king of the gods himself, if Jupiter, as he receives from him the faculty of speech, also speaks according as it is his pleasure to permit him-which surely is absurd; but if it is only the power over human speech which is held to be attributed to him, then we say it is incredible that Jupiter should have condescended to give the pap not only to children, but also to beasts-from which he has been surnamed Ruminus-and yet should have been unwilling that the care of our speech, by which we excel the beasts, should pertain to him. And thus speech itself both belongs to Jupiter, and is Mercury. But if speech itself is said to be Mercury, as those things which are said concerning him by way of interpretation show it to be;-for he is said to have been called Mercury, that is, he who runs between, because speech runs between men: they say also that the Greeks call him ???µ??, because speech, or interpretation, which certainly belongs to speech, is called by them ??µ??e?a : also he is said to preside over payments, because speech passes between sellers and buyers: the wings, too, which he has on his head and on his feet, they say mean that speech passes winged through the air: he is also said to have been called the messenger, because by means of speech all our thoughts are expressed;-if, therefore, speech itself is Mercury, then, even by their own confession, he is not a god. But when they make to themselves gods of such as are not even demons, by praying to unclean spirits, they are possessed by such as are not gods, but demons. In like manner, because they have not been able to find for Mars any element or part of the world in which he might perform some works of nature of whatever kind, they have said that he is the god of war, which is a work of men, and that not one which is considered desirable by them. If, therefore, Felicitas should give perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But if war itself is Mars, as speech is Mercury, I wish it were as true that there were no war to be falsely called a god, as it is true that it is not a god.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c15"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XV] Nisi forte illae stellae sunt hi dii, quas eorum appellavere nominibus. Nam stellam quandam vocant Mercurium, quandam itidem Martem. Sed ibi est et illa quam vocant Iovem, et tamen eis mundus est Iovis; ibi quam vocant Saturnum, et tamen ei praeterea dant non paruam substantiam, omnium videlicet seminum; ibi est et illa omnium clarissima, quae ab eis appellatur Venus, et tamen eandem Venerem esse etiam Lunam volunt; quamuis de illo fulgentissimo sidere apud eos tamquam de malo aureo Iuno Venusque contendant. Luciferum enim quidam Veneris, quidam dicunt esse Iunonis; sed, ut solet, Venus vincit. Nam multo plures eam stellam Veneri tribuunt, ita ut vix eorum quisquam reperiatur, qui aliud opinetur. Quis autem non rideat, cum regem omnium Iovem dicant, quod stella eius ab stella Veneris tanta vincitur claritate? Tanto enim esse debuit ceteris illa fulgentior, quanto est ipse potentior. Respondent ideo sic videri, quia illa, quae putatur obscurior, superior est atque a terris longe remotior. Si ergo superiorem locum maior dignitas meruit, quare Saturnus ibi est Iove superior? An uanitas fabulae, quae regem Iovem facit, non potuit usque ad sidera per- , venire, et quod non valuit Saturnus in regno suo neque in Capitolio, saltem obtinere est permissus in caelo? Quare autem Ianus non accepit aliquam stellam? Si <propterea>, quia mundus est et omnes in illo sunt: et Iovis mundus est et habet tamen. An iste causam suam composuit ut potuit et pro una stella, quam non habet inter sidera, tot facies accepit in terra? Deinde si propter solas stellas Mercurium et Martem partes mundi putant, ut eos deos habere possint, quia utique sermo et bellum non sunt partes mundi, sed actus hominum: cur Arieti et Tauro et Cancro et Scorpio <ni> ceterisque huius modi, quae caelestia signa numerant et stellis non singulis, sed singula pluribus constant superiusque istis in summo caelo perhibent conlocata, ubi constantior motus inerrabilem meatum sideribus praebet, nullas aras, nulla sacra, nulla templa fecerunt, nec deos, non dico inter hos selectos, sed ne inter illos quidem quasi plebeios habuerunt? ||But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. For they call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the names of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give to him no small property besides,-namely, all seeds. There also is that brightest of them all which is called by them Venus, and yet they will have this same Venus to be also the moon:-not to mention how Venus and Juno are said by them to contend about that most brilliant star, as though about another golden apple. For some say that Lucifer belongs to Venus, and some to Juno. But, as usual, Venus conquers. For by far the greatest number assign that star to Venus, so much so that there is scarcely found one of them who thinks otherwise. But since they call Jupiter the king of all, who will not laugh to see his star so far surpassed in brilliancy by the star of Venus? For it ought to have been as much more brilliant than the rest, as he himself is more powerful. They answer that it only appears so because it is higher up, and very much farther away from the earth. If, therefore, its greater dignity has deserved a higher place, why is Saturn higher in the heavens than Jupiter? Was the vanity of the fable which made Jupiter king not able to reach the stars? And has Saturn been permitted to obtain at least in the heavens, what he could not obtain in his own kingdom nor in the Capitol?But why has Janus received no star? If it is because he is the world, and they are all in him, the world is also Jupiter's, and yet he has one. Did Janus compromise his case as best he could, and instead of the one star which he does not have among the heavenly bodies, accept so many faces on earth? Again, if they think that on account of the stars alone Mercury and Mars are parts of the world, in order that they may be able to have them for gods, since speech and war are not parts of the world, but acts of men, how is it that they have made no altars, established no rites, built no temples for Aries, and Taurus, and Cancer, and Scorpio, and the rest which they number as the celestial signs, and which consist not of single stars, but each of them of many stars, which also they say are situated above those already mentioned in the highest part of the heavens, where a more constant motion causes the stars to follow an undeviating course? And why have they not reckoned them as gods, I do not say among those select gods, but not even among those, as it were, plebeian gods?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c16"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XVI] Apollinem quamuis divinatorem et medicum velint, tamen ut in aliqua parte mundi statuerent, ipsum etiam solem esse dixerunt, Dianamque germanam eius similiter lunam et viarum praesidem (unde et virginem volunt, quod via nihil pariat), et ideo ambos sagittas habere, quod ipsa duo sidera de caelo radios terras usque pertendant. Vulcanum volunt ignem mundi, Neptunum aquas mundi, vitem patrem, hoc est Orcum, terrenam et infimam partem mundi. Liberum et Cererem praeponunt seminibus, vel illum masculinis, illam femininis; vel illum liquori, illam vero ariditati seminum. Et hoc utique totum refertur ad mundum, id est ad Iovem, qui propterea dictus est "progenitor genetrixque", quod omnia semina ex se emitteret et in se reciperet. Quando quidem etiam Matrem Magnam eandem Cererem volunt, quam nihil aliud dicunt esse quam terram, eamque perhibent et Iunonem, et ideo ei secundas causas rerum tribuunt, cum tamen Iovi sit dictum "progenitor genetrixque deum", quia secundum eos totus ipse mundus est Iovis, Mineruam etiam, quia eam humanis artibus praeposuerunt nec invenerunt vel stellam, ubi eam ponerent, eandem vel summum aethera vel etiam lunam esse dixerunt. Vestam quoque ipsam propterea dearum maximam putaverunt, quod ipsa sit terra, quamuis ignem mundi leviorem, qui pertinet ad usus hominum faciles, non violentiorem, qualis Vulcani est, ei deputandum esse crediderunt. Ac per hoc omnes istos selectos deos hunc esse mundum volunt, in quibusdam universum, in quibusdam partes eius; universum sicut Iovem, partes eius, ut Genium, ut Matrem Magnam, ut Solem et Lunam, vel potius Apollinem et Dianam, Et aliquando unum deum res plures, aliquando unam rem deos plures faciunt. Nam unus deus res plures sunt, sicut ipse Iuppiter; et mundus enim totus Iuppiter, et solum caelum Iuppiter, et sola stella Iuppiter habetur et dicitur; itemque Iuno secundarum causarum domina et Iuno aer et Iuno terra et, si Venerem vinceret, Iuno stella. Similiter Minerua summus aether et Minerua itidem luna, quam esse in aetheris infimo limite existimant. Vnam vero rem deos plures ita faciunt: Et Ianus est mundus et Iuppiter; sic et Iuno est terra et Mater Magna et Ceres. ||Although they would have Apollo to be a diviner and physician, they have nevertheless given him a place as some part of the world. They have said that he is also the sun; and likewise they have said that Diana, his sister, is the moon, and the guardian of roads. Whence also they will have her be a virgin, because a road brings forth nothing. They also make both of them have arrows, because those two planets send their rays from the heavens to the earth. They make Vulcan to be the fire of the world; Neptune the waters of the world; Father Dis, that is, Orcus, the earthy and lowest part of the world. Liber and Ceres they set over seeds,-the former over the seeds of males, the latter over the seeds of females; or the one over the fluid part of seed, but the other over the dry part. And all this together is referred to the world, that is, to Jupiter, who is called "progenitor and mother," because he emitted all seeds from himself, and received them into himself. For they also make this same Ceres to be the Great Mother, who they say is none other than the earth, and call her also Juno. And therefore they assign to her the second causes of things, notwithstanding that it has been said to Jupiter, "progenitor and mother of the gods;" because, according to them, the whole world itself is Jupiter's. Minerva, also, because they set her over human arts, and did not find even a star in which to place her, has been said by them to be either the highest ether, or even the moon. Also Vesta herself they have thought to be the highest of the goddesses, because she is the earth; although they have thought that the milder fire of the world, which is used for the ordinary purposes of human life, not the more violent fire, such as belongs to Vulcan, is to be assigned to her. And thus they will have all those select gods to be the world and its parts,-some of them the whole world, others of them its parts; the whole of it Jupiter,-its parts, Genius, Mater Magna, Sol and Luna, or rather Apollo and Diana, and so on. And sometimes they make one god many things; sometimes one thing many gods. Many things are one god in the case of Jupiter; for both the whole world is Jupiter, and the sky alone is Jupiter, and the star alone is said and held to be Jupiter. Juno also is mistress of second causes,-Juno is the air, Juno is the earth; and had she won it over Venus, Juno would have been the star. Likewise Minerva is the highest ether, and Minerva is likewise the moon, which they suppose to be in the lowest limit of the ether. And also they make one thing many gods in this way. The world is both Janus and Jupiter; also the earth is Juno, and Mater Magna, and Ceres.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c17"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XVII] Et sicut haec, quae exempli gratia commemoravi, ita cetera non explicant, sed potius inplicant; sicut impetus errabundae opinionis inpulerit, ita huc atque illuc, hinc atque illinc insiliunt et resiliunt, ut ipse Varro de omnibus dubitare quam aliquid adfirmare maluerit. Nam trium extremorum primum de diis certis cum absolvisset librum, in altero de diis incertis dicere ingressus ait: "Cum in hoc libello dubias de diis opiniones posuero, reprehendi non debeo. Qui enim putabit iudicari oportere et posse, cum audierit, faciet ipse. Ego citius perduci possum, ut in primo libro quae dixi in dubitationem reuocem, quam in hoc quae perscribam omnia ut ad aliquam dirigam summam." Ita non solum istum de diis incertis, sed etiam illum de certis fecit incertum. In tertio porro isto de diis selectis, postea quam praelocutus est quod ex naturali theologia praeloquendum putavit, ingressurus huius civilis theologiae uanitates et insanias mendaces, ubi eum non solum non ducebat rerum veritas, sed etiam maiorum premebat auctoritas: "De diis, inquit, populi Romani publicis, quibus aedes dedicaverunt eosque pluribus signis ornatos notaverunt, in hoc libro scribam, sed ut Xenophanes Colophonios scribit, quid putem, non quid contendam, ponam. Hominis est enim haec opinari, dei scire." Rerum igitur non conprehensarum nec firmissime creditarum, sed opinatarum et dubitandarum sermonem trepidus pollicetur dicturus ea, quae ab hominibus instituta sunt. Neque enim, sicut sciebat esse mundum, esse caelum et terram, caelum sideribus fulgidum, terram seminibus fertilem, atque huius modi cetera, sicut hanc totam molem atque naturam vi quadam inuisibili ac praepotenti regi atque administrari certa animi stabilitate credebat: ita poterat adfirmare de Iano, quod mundus ipse esset, aut de Saturno invenire, quo modo et Iovis pater esset et Iovi regnanti subditus factus esset et cetera talia. ||And the same is true with respect to all the rest, as is true with respect to those things which I have mentioned for the sake of example. They do not explain them, but rather involve them. They rush hither and thither, to this side or to that, according as they are driven by the impulse of erratic opinion; so that even Varro himself has chosen rather to doubt concerning all things, than to affirm anything. For, having written the first of the three last books concerning the certain gods, and having commenced in the second of these to speak of the uncertain gods, he says: "I ought not to be censured for having stated in this book the doubtful opinions concerning the gods. For he who, when he has read them, shall think that they both ought to be, and can be, conclusively judged of, will do so himself. For my own part, I can be more easily led to doubt the things which I have written in the first book, than to attempt to reduce all the things I shall write in this one to any orderly system." Thus he makes uncertain not only that book concerning the uncertain gods, but also that other concerning the certain gods. Moreover, in that third book concerning the select gods, after having exhibited by anticipation as much of the natural theology as he deemed necessary, and when about to commence to speak of the vanities and lying insanities of the civil theology, where he was not only without the guidance of the truth of things, but was also pressed by the authority of tradition, he says: "I will write in this book concerning the public gods of the Roman people, to whom they have dedicated temples, and whom they have conspicuously distinguished by many adornments; but, as Xenophon of Colophon writes, I will state what I think, not what I am prepared to maintain: it is for man to think those things, for God to know them."It is not, then, an account of things comprehended and most certainly believed which he promised, when about to write those things which were instituted by men. He only timidly promises an account of things which are but the subject of doubtful opinion. Nor, indeed, was it possible for him to affirm with the same certainty that Janus was the world, and such like things; or to discover with the same certainty such things as how Jupiter was the son of Saturn, while Saturn was made subject to him as king:-he could, I say, neither affirm nor discover such things with the same certainty with which he knew such things as that the world existed, that the heavens and earth existed, the heavens bright with stars, and the earth fertile through seeds; or with the same perfect conviction with which he believed that this universal mass of nature is governed and administered by a certain invisible and mighty force.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c18"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XVIII] De quibus credibilior redditur ratio, cum perhibentur homines fuisse et unicuique eorum ab his, qui eos adulando deos esse voluerunt, ex eius ingenio moribus, actibus casibus sacra et sollemnia constituta atque haec paulatim per animas hominum daemonibus similes et ludicrarum rerum avidas inrependo longe lateque uulgata, ornantibus ea mendaciis poetarum et ad ea fallacibus spiritibus seducentibus. Facilius enim fieri potuit, ut ivvenis impius vel ab impio patre interfici metuens et avidus regni patrem pelleret regno, quam id,l quod iste interpretatur, ideo Saturnum patrem a Iove filio superatum, quod ante est causa quae pertinet ad Iovem, quam semen quod pertinet ad Saturnum. Si enim hoc ita esset, numquam Saturnus prior fuisset nec pater Iovis esset. Semper enim semen causa praecedit nec umquam generatur ex semine. Sed cum conantur uanissimas fabulas sive hominum res gestas velut naturalibus interpretationibus honorare, etiam homines acutissimi tantas patiuntur angustias, ut eorum quoque uanitatem dolere cogamur. ||A far more credible account of these gods is given, when it is said that they were men, and that to each one of them sacred rites and solemnities were instituted, according to his particular genius, manners, actions, circumstances; which rites and solemnities, by gradually creeping through the souls of men, which are like demons, and eager for things which yield them sport, were spread far and wide; the poets adorning them with lies, and false spirits seducing men to receive them. For it is far more likely that some youth, either impious himself, or afraid of being slain by an impious father, being desirous to reign, dethroned his father, than that (according to Varro's interpretation) Saturn was overthrown by his son Jupiter: for cause, which belongs to Jupiter, is before seed, which belongs to Saturn. For had this been so, Saturn would never have been before Jupiter, nor would he have been the father of Jupiter. For cause always precedes seed, and is never generated from seed. But when they seek to honor by natural interpretation most vain fables or deeds of men, even the acutest men are so perplexed that we are compelled to grieve for their folly also.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c19"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XIX] "Saturnum, inquit, dixerunt, quae nata ex eo essent, solitum deuorare, quod eo semina, unde nascerentur, redirent. Et quod illi pro Iove gleba obiecta est deuoranda, significat, inquit, manibus humanis obrui coeptas serendo fruges, antequam utilitas arandi esset inventa." Saturnus ergo dici debuit ipsa terra, non semina; ipsa enim quodam modo deuorat quae genuerit, cum ex ea nata semina in eam rursus recipienda redierint. Et quod pro Iove accepisse dicitur glebam, quid hoc ad id valet, quod manibus hominum semen gleba coopertum est? Numquid ideo non est, ut cetera, deuoratum, quod gleba coopertum est? Ita enim hoc dictum est, quasi qui glebam opposuit semen abstulerit, sicut Saturno perhibent oblata gleba ablatum Iovem, ac non potius gleba semen operiendo fecerit illud diligentius deuorari. Deinde isto modo semen est Iuppiter, non seminis causa, quod paulo ante dicebatur. Sed quid faciant homines, qui, cum res stultas interpretantur, non inveniunt quid sapienter dicatur? "Falcem habet, inquit, propter agriculturam." Certe illo regnante nondum erat agricultura, et ideo priora eius tempora perhibentur, sicut idem ipse fabellas interpretatur, quia primi homines ex his vivebant seminibus, quae terra sponte gignebat. An falcem sceptro perdito accepit, ut, qui primis temporibus rex fuerat otiosus, filio regnante fieret operarius laboriosus? Deinde ideo dicit a quibusdam pueros ei solitos immolari, sicut a Poenis, et a quibusdam etiam maiores, sicut a Gallis, quia omnium seminum optimum est genus humanum. De hac crudelissima uanitate quid opus est plura dicere? Hoc potius advertamus atque teneamus, has interpretationes non referri ad Deum verum, vivam, incorpoream incommutabilemque naturam, a quo vita in aeternum beata poscenda est; sed earum esse fines in rebus corporalibus, temporalibus, mutabilibus atque mortalibus. "Quod Caelum, inquit, patrem Saturnus castrasse in fabulis dicitur, hoc significat penes Saturnum, non penes Caelum semen esse divinum." Hoc propterea, quantum intellegi datur, quia nihil in caelo de seminibus nascitur. Sed ecce, Saturnus si Caeli est filius, Iovis est filius. Caelum enim esse Iovem innumerabiliter et diligenter adfirmant. Ita ista, quae a veritate non veniunt, plerumque et nullo inpellente se ipsa subuertunt. Chronon appellatum dicit, quod Graeco vocabulo significat temporis spatium, sine quo semen, inquit, non potest esse fecundum. Haec et alia de Saturno multa dicuntur, et ad semen omnia referuntur. Sed saltem Saturnus seminibus cum tanta ista potestate sufficeret; quid ad haec dii alii requiruntur, maxime Liber et Libera, id est Ceres? De quibus rursus, quod ad semen adtinet, tanta dicit, quasi de Saturno nihil dixerit. ||They said, says Varro, that Saturn was wont to devour all that sprang from him, because seeds returned to the earth from whence they sprang. And when it is said that a lump of earth was put before Saturn to be devoured instead of Jupiter, it is signified, he says, that before the art of ploughing was discovered, seeds were buried in the earth by the hands of men. The earth itself, then, and not seeds, should have been called Saturn, because it in a manner devours what it has brought forth, when the seeds which have sprung from it return again into it. And what has Saturn's receiving of a lump of earth instead of Jupiter to do with this, that the seeds were covered in the soil by the hands of men? Was the seed kept from being devoured, like other things, by being covered with the soil? For what they say would imply that he who put on the soil took away the seed, as Jupiter is said to have been taken away when the lump of soil was offered to Saturn instead of him, and not rather that the soil, by covering the seed, only caused it to be devoured the more eagerly. Then, in that way, Jupiter is the seed, and not the cause of the seed, as was said a little before.But what shall men do who cannot find anything wise to say, because they are interpreting foolish things? Saturn has a pruning-knife. That, says Varro, is on account of agriculture. Certainly in Saturn's reign there as yet existed no agriculture, and therefore the former times of Saturn are spoken of, because, as the same Varro interprets the fables, the primeval men lived on those seeds which the earth produced spontaneously. Perhaps he received a pruning-knife when he had lost his sceptre; that he who had been a king, and lived at ease during the first part of his time, should become a laborious workman while his son occupied the throne. Then he says that boys were wont to be immolated to him by certain peoples, the Carthaginians for instance; and also that adults were immolated by some nations, for example the Gauls-because, of all seeds, the human race is the best. What need we say more concerning this most cruel vanity. Let us rather attend to and hold by this, that these interpretations are not carried up to the true God,-a living, incorporeal, unchangeable nature, from whom a blessed life enduring for ever may be obtained,-but that they end in things which are corporeal, temporal, mutable, and mortal. And whereas it is said in the fables that Saturn castrated his father C_S lus, this signifies, says Varro, that the divine seed belongs to Saturn, and not to C_S lus; for this reason, as far as a reason can be discovered, namely, that in heaven nothing is born from seed. But, lo! Saturn, if he is the son of C_S lus, is the son of Jupiter. For they affirm times without number, and that emphatically, that the heavens are Jupiter. Thus those things which come not of the truth, do very often, without being impelled by any one, themselves overthrow one another. He says that Saturn was called ??????, which in the Greek tongue signifies a space of time, because, without that, seed cannot be productive. These and many other things are said concerning Saturn, and they are all referred to seed. But Saturn surely, with all that great power, might have sufficed for seed. Why are other gods demanded for it, especially Liber and Libera, that is, Ceres?-concerning whom again, as far as seed is concerned, he says as many things as if he had said nothing concerning Saturn.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c20"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XX] In Cereris autem sacris praedicantur illa Eleusinia, quae apud Athenienses nobilissima fuerunt. De quibus iste nihil interpretatur, nisi quod adtinet ad frumentum, quod Ceres invenit, et ad Proserpinam, quam rapiente Orco perdidit; et hanc ipsam dicit significare fecunditatem seminum; quae cum defuisset quodam tempore eademque sterilitate terra maereret, exortam esse opinionem, quod filiam Cereris, id est ipsam fecunditatem, quae a proserpendo Proserpina dicta esset, Orcus abstulerat et apud inferos detinverat; quae res cum fuisset luctu publico celebrata, quia rursus eadem fecunditas rediit, Proserpina reddita exortam esse laetitiam et ex hoc sollemnia constituta. Dicit deinde multa in mysteriis eius tradi, quae nisi ad frugum inventionem non pertineant. ||Now among the rites of Ceres, those Eleusinian rites are much famed which were in the highest repute among the Athenians, of which Varro offers no interpretation except with respect to corn, which Ceres discovered, and with respect to Proserpine, whom Ceres lost, Orcus having carried her away. And this Proserpine herself, he says, signifies the fecundity of seeds. But as this fecundity departed at a certain season, while the earth wore an aspect of sorrow through the consequent sterility, there arose an opinion that the daughter of Ceres, that is, fecundity itself, who was called Proserpine, from proserpere (to creep forth, to spring), had been carried away by Orcus, and detained among the inhabitants of the nether world; which circumstance was celebrated with public mourning. But since the same fecundity again returned, there arose joy because Proserpine had been given back by Orcus, and thus these rites were instituted. Then Varro adds, that many things are taught in the mysteries of Ceres which only refer to the discovery of fruits.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c21"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXI] Iam vero Liberi sacra, quem liquidis seminibus ac per hoc non solum liquoribus fructuum, quorum quodam modo primatum vinum tenet, verum etiam seminibus animalium praefecerunt, ad quantam turpitudinem peruenerint, piget quidem dicere propter sermonis longitudinem; sed propter istorum superbam hebetudinem non piget. Inter cetera, qua e praetermittere, quoniam multa sunt, cogor, in Italiae compitis quaedam dicit sacra Liberi celebrata cum tanta licentia turpitudinis, ut in eius honorem pudenda virilia colerentur, non saltem aliquantum verecundiore secreto, sed in propatulo exultante nequitia. Nam hoc turpe membrum per Liberi dies festos cum honore magno plostellis inpositum prius rure in compitis et usque in urbem postea uectabatur. In oppido autem Lavinio unus Libero totus mensis tribuebatur, cuius diebus omnes verbis flagitiosissimis uterentur, donec illud membrum per forum transuectum esset atque in loco suo quiesceret. Cui membro inhonesto matrem familias honestissimam palam coronam necesse erat inponere. Sic videlicet Liber deus placandus fuerat pro euentibus seminum, sic ab agris fascinatio repellenda, ut matrona facere cogeretur in publico, quod nec meretrix, si matronae spectarent, permitti debuit in theatro. Propter haec Saturnus solus creditus non est sufficere posse seminibus, ut occasiones multiplicandorum deorum inmunda anima reperiret, et ab uno vero Deo merito inmunditiae destituta ac per multos falsos aviditate maioris inmunditiae prostituta ista sacrilegia sacra nominaret seseque spurcorum daemonum turbis conuiolandam polluendamque praeberet. ||Now as to the rites of Liber, whom they have set over liquid seeds, and therefore not only over the liquors of fruits, among which wine holds, so to speak, the primacy, but also over the seeds of animals:-as to these rites, I am unwilling to undertake to show to what excess of turpitude they had reached, because that would entail a lengthened discourse, though I am not unwilling to do so as a demonstration of the proud stupidity of those who practise them. Among other rites which I am compelled from the greatness of their number to omit, Varro says that in Italy, at the places where roads crossed each other the rites of Liber were celebrated with such unrestrained turpitude, that the private parts of a man were worshipped in his honor. Nor was this abomination transacted in secret that some regard at least might be paid to modesty, but was openly and wantonly displayed. For during the festival of Liber this obscene member, placed on a car, was carried with great honor, first over the crossroads in the country, and then into the city. But in the town of Lavinium a whole month was devoted to Liber alone, during the days of which all the people gave themselves up to the must dissolute conversation, until that member had been carried through the forum and brought to rest in its own place; on which unseemly member it was necessary that the most honorable matron should place a wreath in the presence of all the people. Thus, forsooth, was the god Liber to be appeased in order to the growth of seeds. Thus was enchantment to be driven away from fields, even by a matron's being compelled to do in public what not even a harlot ought to be permitted to do in a theatre, if there were matrons among the spectators. For these reasons, then, Saturn alone was not believed to be sufficient for seeds,-namely, that the impure mind might find occasions for multiplying the gods; and that, being righteously abandoned to uncleanness by the one true God, and being prostituted to the worship of many false gods, through an avidity for ever greater and greater uncleanness, it should call these sacrilegious rites sacred things, and should abandon itself to be violated and polluted by crowds of foul demons.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c22"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXII] Iam utique habebat S alaciam Neptunus uxorem, quam, inferiorem aquam maris esse dixerunt: ut quid illi adiuncta est et Venilia, nisi ut sine ulla causa necessariorum sacrorum sola libidine animae prostitutae multiplicaretur inuitatio daemoniorum? Sed proferatur interpretatio praeclarae theologiae, quae nos ab ista reprehensione reddita ratione compescat. "Venilia, inquit, unda est, quae ad litus venit; Salacia, quae in salum redit." Cur ergo deae fiunt duae, cum sit una unda quae venit et redit? Nempe ipsa est exaestuans in multa numina libido uesana. Quamuis enim a qua non geminetur quae it et redit, huius tamen occasione uanitatis duobus daemoniis inuitatis amplius commaculatur anima, quae it et non redit. Quaeso te, Varro, vel vos, qui tam doctorum hominum talia scripta legistis et aliquid magnum vos didicisse iactatis, interpretamini hoc, nolo dicere secundum illam aeternam incommutabilemque naturam, qui solus est Deus, sed saltem secundum animam mundi et partes eius, quos deos esse veros existimatis. Partem animae mundi, quae mare permeat, deum vobis fecisse Neptunum utcumque tolerabilioris erroris est. Itane unda ad litus veniens et in salum rediens duae sunt partes mundi aut duae partes animae mundi? Quis uestrum ita desipiat , ut hoc sapiat? Cur ergo vobis duas deas fecerunt, nisi quia provisum est a sapientibus maioribus uestris, non ut dii plures vos regerent, sed ut ea, quae istis uanitatibus et falsitatibus gaudent, plura vos daemonia possiderent? Cur autem illa Salacia per hanc interpretationem inferiorem maris partem, qua viro erat subdita, perdidit? Namque illam modo, cum refluentem fluctum esse perhibetis, in superficie posuistis. An quia Veniliam pelicem accepit, irata suum maritum de supernis maris exclusit? ||Now Neptune had Salacia to wife, who they say is the nether waters of the sea. Wherefore was Venilia also joined to him? Was it not simply through the lust of the soul desiring a greater number of demons to whom to prostitute itself, and not because this goddess was necessary to the perfection of their sacred rites? But let the interpretation of this illustrious theology be brought forward to restrain us from this censuring by rendering a satisfactory reason. Venilia, says this theology, is the wave which comes to the shore, Salacia the wave which returns into the sea. Why, then, are there two goddesses, when it is one wave which comes and returns? Certainly it is mad lust itself, which in its eagerness for many deities resembles the waves which break on the shore. For though the water which goes is not different from that which returns, still the soul which goes and returns not is defiled by two demons, whom it has taken occasion by this false pretext to invite. I ask you, O Varro, and you who have read such works of learned men, and think you have learned something great,-I ask you to interpret this, I do not say in a manner consistent with the eternal and unchangeable nature which alone is God, but only in a manner consistent with the doctrine concerning the soul of the world and its parts, which you think to be the true gods. It is a somewhat more tolerable thing that you have made that part of the soul of the world which pervades the sea your god Neptune. Is the wave, then, which comes to the shore and returns to the main, two parts of the world, or two parts of the soul of the world? Who of you is so silly as to think so? Why, then, have they made to you two goddesses? The only reason seems to be, that your wise ancestors have provided, not that many gods should rule you, but that many of such demons as are delighted with those vanities and falsehoods should possess you. But why has that Salacia, according to this interpretation, lost the lower part of the sea, seeing that she was represented as subject to her husband? For in saying that she is the receding wave, you have put her on the surface. Was she enraged at her husband for taking Venilia as a concubine, and thus drove him from the upper part of the sea?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c23"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXIII] Nempe una est terra, quam plenam quidem Didanus malibus suis, verum tamen ipsam magnum corpus in elementis mundique infimam partem. Cur eam volunt deam? An quia fecunda est? Cur ergo non magis homines dii sunt, qui eam fecundiorem faciunt excolendo; sed cum arant, non cum adorant? Sed pars animae mundi, inquiunt, quae per illam permeat, deam facit. Quasi non evidentior sit in hominibus anima, quae utrum sit nulla fit quaestio; et tamen homines dii non habentur et, quod est graviter dolendum, his, qui dii non sunt et quibus ipsi meliores sunt, colendis et adorandis mirabili et miserabili errore subduntur. Et certe idem Varro in eodem de diis selectis libro tres esse adfirmat animae gradus in omni universaque natura; unum, quod omnes partes corporis, quae vivunt, transit et non habet sensum, sed tantum ad vivendum valetudinem; hanc vim in nostro corpore permanare dicit in ossa, ungues, capillos; sicut in mundo arbores sine sensu aluntur et crescunt et modo quodam suo vivunt: secundum gradum animae, in quo sensus est; hanc vim pervenire in oculos, aures, nares, os, tactum: tertium gradum esse animae summum, quod vocatur animus, in quo intellegentia praeminet; hoc praeter hominem omnes carere mortales. Hanc partem animae mundi dicit Deum, in nobis autem genium vocari. Esse autem in mundo lapides ac terram, quam videmus, quo non permanat sensus, ut ossa, ut ungues Dei; solem vero, lunam, stellas, quae sentimus quibusque ipse sentit, sensus esse eius; aethera porro animum eius; cuius vim, quae pervenit in astra, ea quoque facere deos, et per ea quod in terram permanat, deam Tellurem; quod autem inde permanat in mare atque oceanum, deum esse Neptunum. Redeat ergo ab hac, quam theologian naturalem putat, quo velut requiescendi causa ab his ambagibus atque anfractibus fatigatus egressus est; redeat, inquam, redeat ad civilem; hic eum adhuc teneo, tantisper de hac ago. Nondum dico, si terra et lapides nostris sunt ossibus et unguibus similes, similiter eos intellegentiam non habere, sicut sensu carent; aut si idcirco habere dicuntur ossa et ungues nostri intellegentiam, quia in homine sunt qui habet intellegentiam, tam stultum esse qui hos in mundo deos dicit, quam stultus est qui in nobis ossa et ungues homines dicit. Sed haec cum philosophis fortassis agenda sunt; nunc autem istum adhuc politicum volo. Fieri enim potest, ut, licet in illam naturalis theologiae veluti libertatem caput erigere paululum voluisse videatur, adhuc tamen hunc librum versans et se in illo versari cogitans, eum etiam inde respexerit et hoc propterea dixerit, ne maiores eius sive aliae civitates Tellurem atque Neptunum inaniter coluisse credantur. Sed hoc dico: pars animi mundani, quae per terram permeat, sicut una est terra, cur non etiam unam fecit deam, quam dicit esse Tellurem? Quod si ita fecit, ubi erit Orcus, frater Iovis atque Neptuni, quem vitem patrem vocant? ubi eius coniux Proserpina, quae secundum aliam in eisdem libris positam opinionem non terrae fecunditas, sed pars inferior perhibetur? Quod si dicunt animi mundani partem, cum permeat terrae partem superiorem, vitem patrem facere deum; cum vero inferiorem, Proserpinam deam: Tellus illa quid erit? Ita enim totum, quod ipsa erat, in duas istas partes deosque divisum est, ut ipsa tertia quae sit aut ubi sit invenire non possit; nisi quis dicat simul istos deos Orcum atque Proserpinam unam deam esse Tellurem et non esse iam tres, sed aut unam aut duos; et tamen tres dicuntur, tres habentur, tres coluntur aris suis, delubris suis, sacris, simulacris, sacerdotibus suis, et per haec etiam fallacibus prostitutam animam constuprantibus daemonibus suis. Adhuc respondeatur, quam partem terrae permeet pars mundani animi, ut deum faciat Tellumonem? Non, inquit, sed una eademque terra habet geminam vim, et masculinam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat atque nutriat; inde a vi feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem. Cur ergo pontifices, ut ipse indicat, additis quoque aliis duobus quattuor diis faciunt rem divinam, Telluri, Tellumoni, Altori, Rusori? De Tellure et Tellumone iam dictum est. Altori quare? Quod ex terra, inquit, aluntur omnia quae nata sunt. Rusori quare? Quod rursus, inquit, cuncta eodem reuoluuntur. ||Surely the earth, which we see full of its own living creatures, is one; but for all that, it is but a mighty mass among the elements, and the lowest part of the world. Why, then, would they have it to be a goddess? Is it because it is fruitful? Why, then, are not men rather held to be gods, who render it fruitful by cultivating it; but though they plough it, do not adore it? But, say they, the part of the soul of the world which pervades it makes it a goddess. As if it were not a far more evident thing, nay, a thing which is not called in question, that there is a soul in man. And yet men are not held to be gods, but (a thing to be sadly lamented), with wonderful and pitiful delusion, are subjected to those who are not gods, and than whom they themselves are better, as the objects of deserved worship and adoration. And certainly the same Varro, in the book concerning the select gods, affirms that there are three grades of soul in universal nature. One which pervades all the living parts of the body, and has not sensation, but only the power of life,-that principle which penetrates into the bones, nails and hair. By this principle in the world trees are nourished, and grow without being possessed of sensation, and live in a manner peculiar to themselves. The second grade of soul is that in which there is sensation. This principle penetrates into the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and the organs of sensation. The third grade of soul is the highest, and is called mind, where intelligence has its throne. This grade of soul no mortal creatures except man are possessed of. Now this part of the soul of the world, Varro says, is called God, and in us is called Genius. And the stones and earth in the world, which we see, and which are not pervaded by the power of sensation, are, as it were, the bones and nails of God. Again, the sun, moon, and stars, which we perceive, and by which He perceives, are His organs of perception. Moreover, the ether is His mind; and by the virtue which is in it, which penetrates into the stars, it also makes them gods; and because it penetrates through them into the earth, it makes it the goddess Tellus, whence again it enters and permeates the sea and ocean, making them the god Neptune.Let him return from this, which he thinks to be natural theology, back to that from which he went out, in order to rest from the fatigue occasioned by the many turnings and windings of his path. Let him return, I say, let him return to the civil theology. I wish to detain him there a while. I have somewhat to say which has to do with that theology. I am not yet saying, that if the earth and stones are similar to our bones and nails, they are in like manner devoid of intelligence, as they are devoid of sensation. Nor am I saying that, if our bones and nails are said to have intelligence, because they are in a man who has intelligence, he who says that the things analogous to these in the world are gods, is as stupid as he is who says that our bones and nails are men. We shall perhaps have occasion to dispute these things with the philosophers. At present, however, I wish to deal with Varro as a political theologian. For it is possible that, though he may seem to have wished to lift up his head, as it were, into the liberty of natural theology, the consciousness that the book with which he was occupied was one concerning a subject belonging to civil theology, may have caused him to relapse into the point of view of that theology, and to say this in order that the ancestors of his nation, and other states, might not be believed to have bestowed on Neptune an irrational worship. What I am to say is this: Since the earth is one, why has not that part of the soul of the world which permeates the earth made it that one goddess which he calls Tellus? But had it done so, what then had become of Orcus, the brother of Jupiter and Neptune, whom they call Father Dis? And where, in that case, had been his wife Proserpine, who, according to another opinion given in the same book, is called, not the fecundity of the earth, but its lower part? But if they say that part of the soul of the world, when it permeates the upper part of the earth, makes the god Father Dis, but when it pervades the nether part of the same the goddess Proserpine; what, in that case, will that Tellus be? For all that which she was has been divided into these two parts, and these two gods; so that it is impossible to find what to make or where to place her as a third goddess, except it be said that those divinities Orcus and Proserpine are the one goddess Tellus, and that they are not three gods, but one or two, while notwithstanding they are called three, held to be three, worshipped as three, having their own several altars, their own shrines, rites, images, priests, while their own false demons also through these things defile the prostituted soul. Let this further question be answered: What part of the earth does a part of the soul of the world permeate in order to make the god Tellumo? No, says he; but the earth being one and the same, has a double life,-the masculine, which produces seed, and the feminine, which receives and nourishes the seed. Hence it has been called Tellus from the feminine principle, and Tellumo from the masculine. Why, then, do the priests, as he indicates, perform divine service to four gods, two others being added,-namely, to Tellus, Tellumo, Altor, and Rusor? We have already spoken concerning Tellus and Tellumo. But why do they worship Altor? Because, says he, all that springs of the earth is nourished by the earth. Wherefore do they worship Rusor? Because all things return back again to the place whence they proceeded.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c24"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXIV] Debuit ergo una terra propter istam quatergeininam vim quattuor habere cognomina, non quattuor facere deos; sicut tot cognominibus unus Iuppiter et tot cognominibus una Iuno, in quibus omnibus vis multiplex esse dicitur ad unum deum vel unam deam pertinens, non multitudo cognominum deorum etiam multitudinem faciens. Sed profecto sicut aliquando etiam ipsas vilissimas feminas earum, quas libidine quaesierunt, taedet paenitetque turbarum: sic animam vilem factam et inmundis spiritibus prostitutam deos sibi multiplicare, quibus contaminanda prosterneretur, sicut plurimum libuit, sic aliquando et piguit. Nam et ipse Varro quasi de ipsa turba verecundatus unam deam uult esse Tellurem. "Eandem, inquit, dicunt Matrem Magnam; quod tympanum habeat, significari esse orbem terrae; quod turres in capite, oppida; quod sedens fingatur, circa eam cum omnia moveantur, ipsam non moveri. Quod Gallos huic deae ut seruirent fecerunt, significat, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; in ea quippe omnia reperiri. Quod se apud eam iactant, praecipitur, inquit, qui terram colunt, ne sedeant; semper enim esse quod agant. Cymbalorum sonitus ferramentorum iactandorum ac manuum et +eius rei crepitum in colendo agro qui fit significant; ideo aere, quod eam antiqui colebant aere, antequam ferrum esset inventum. Leonem, inquit, adiungunt solutum ac mansuetum, ut ostendant nullum genus esse terrae tam remotum ac uehementer ferum, quod non subigi colique conveniat." Deinde adiungit et dicit, Tellurem matrem et nominibus pluribus et cognominibus quod nominarunt, deos existimatos esse complures. "Tellurem, inquit, putant esse Opem, quod opere fiat melior; Matrem, quo d plurima pariat; Magnam, quod cibum pariat; Proserpinam, quod ex ea proserpant fruges; Vestam, quod uestiatur herbis. Sic alias deas, inquit, non absurde ad hanc reuocant." Si ergo una dea est, quae quidem consulta veritate nec ipsa est, interim quid itur in multas? Vnius sint ista multa numina, non tam deae multae quam nomina. Sed errantium maiorum auctoritas deprimit et eundem Varronem post hanc sententiam trepidare compellit. Adiungit enim et dicit: "Cum quibus opinio maiorum de his deabus, quod plures eas putarunt esse, non pugnat." Quo modo non pugnat, cum valde aliud sit unam deam nomina habere multa, aliud esse deas multas? "Sed potest, inquit, fieri ut eadem res et una sit, et in ea quaedam res sint plures." Concedo in uno homine esse res plures, numquid ideo et homines plures? Sic in una dea esse res plures, numquid ideo et deas plures? Verum sicut volunt, dividant conflent, multiplicent replicent inplicent. Haec sunt Telluris et Matris Magnae praeclara mysteria, unde omnia referuntur ad mortalia semina et exercendam agriculturam. Itane ad haec relata et hunc finem habentia tympanum, turres, Galli, iactatio insana membrorum, crepitus cymbalorum, confictio leonum vitam cuiquam pollicentur aeternam? Itane propterea Galli abscisi huic Magnae deae seruiunt, ut significent, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; quasi non eos ipsa potius seruitus semine faciat indigere? Vtrum enim sequendo hanc deam, cum indigeant, semen adquirunt, an potius sequendo hanc deam, cum habeant, semen amittunt? Hoc interpretari est an detestari? Nec adtenditur, quantum maligni daemones praeualuerint, qui nec aliqua magna his sacris polliceri ausi sunt, et tam crudeli a exigere potuerunt. Si dea terra non esset, manus ei homines operando inferrent, ut semina consequerentur per illam, non et sibi saeviendo, ut semina perderent propter illam; si dea non esset, ita fecunda fieret manibus alienis, ut non cogeret hominem sterilem fieri manibus suis. Iam quod in Liberi sacris honesta matrona pudenda virilia coronabat spectante multitudine, ubi rubens et sudans, si est ulla frons in hominibus, adstabat forsitan et maritus; et quod in celebratione nuptiarum super Priapi scapum noua nupta sedere iubebatur: longe contemptibiliora atque leviora sunt prae ista turpitudine crudelissima vel crudelitate turpissima, ubi daemonicis ritibus sic uterque sexus inluditur, ut neuter suo uulnere perimatur. Ibi fascinatio timetur agrorum, hic membrorum amputatio non timetur. Ibi sic dehonestatur nouae nuptae verecundia, ut non solum fecunditas, sed nec virginitas adimatur; hic ita amputatur virilitas, ut nec convertatur in feminam nec vir relinquatur. ||The one earth, then, on account of this fourfold virtue, ought to have had four surnames, but not to have been considered as four gods,-as Jupiter and Juno, though they have so many surnames, are for all that only single deities,-for by all these surnames it is signified that a manifold virtue belongs to one god or to one goddess; but the multitude of surnames does not imply a multitude of gods. But as sometimes even the vilest women themselves grow tired of those crowds which they have sought after under the impulse of wicked passion, so also the soul, become vile, and prostituted to impure spirits, sometimes begins to loathe to multiply to itself gods to whom to surrender itself to be polluted by them, as much as it once delighted in so doing. For Varro himself, as if ashamed of that crowd of gods, would make Tellus to be one goddess. "They say," says he, "that whereas the one great mother has a tympanum, it is signified that she is the orb of the earth; whereas she has towers on her head, towns are signified; and whereas seats are fixed round about her, it is signified that while all things move, she moves not. And their having made the Galli to serve this goddess, signifies that they who are in need of seed ought to follow the earth for in it all seeds are found. By their throwing themselves down before her, it is taught," he says, "that they who cultivate the earth should not sit idle, for there is always something for them to do. The sound of the cymbals signifies the noise made by the throwing of iron utensils, and by men's hands, and all other noises connected with agricultural operations; and these cymbals are of brass, because the ancients used brazen utensils in their agriculture before iron was discovered. They place beside the goddess an unbound and tame lion, to show that there is no kind of land so wild and so excessively barren as that it would be profitless to attempt to bring it in and cultivate it." Then he adds that, because they gave many names and surnames to mother Tellus, it came to be thought that these signified many gods. "They think," says he, "that Tellus is Ops, because the earth is improved by labor; Mother, because it brings forth much; Great, because it brings forth seed; Proserpine, because fruits creep forth from it; Vesta, because it is invested with herbs. And thus," says he, "they not at all absurdly identify other goddesses with the earth." If, then, it is one goddess (though, if the truth were consulted, it is not even that), why do they nevertheless separate it into many? Let there be many names of one goddess, and let there not be as many goddesses as there are names.But the authority of the erring ancients weighs heavily on Varro, and compels him, after having expressed this opinion, to show signs of uneasiness; for he immediately adds, "With which things the opinion of the ancients, who thought that there were really many goddesses, does not conflict." How does it not conflict, when it is entirely a different thing to say that one goddess has many names, and to say that there are many goddesses? But it is possible, he says, that the same thing may both be one, and yet have in it a plurality of things. I grant that there are many things in one man; are there therefore in him many men? In like manner, in one goddess there are many things; are there therefore also many goddesses? But let them divide, unite, multiply, reduplicate, and implicate as they like.These are the famous mysteries of Tellus and the Great Mother, all of which are shown to have reference to mortal seeds and to agriculture. Do these things, then,-namely, the tympanum, the towers, the Galli, the tossing to and fro of limbs, the noise of cymbals, the images of lions,-do these things, having this reference and this end, promise eternal life? Do the mutilated Galli, then, serve this Great Mother in order to signify that they who are in need of seed should follow the earth, as though it were not rather the case that this very service caused them to want seed? For whether do they, by following this goddess, acquire seed, being in want of it, or, by following her, lose seed when they have it? Is this to interpret or to deprecate? Nor is it considered to what a degree malign demons have gained the upper hand, inasmuch as they have been able to exact such cruel rites without having dared to promise any great things in return for them. Had the earth not been a goddess, men would have, by laboring, laid their hands on it in order to obtain seed through it, and would not have laid violent hands on themselves in order to lose seed on account of it. Had it not been a goddess, it would have become so fertile by the hands of others, that it would not have compelled a man to be rendered barren by his own hands; nor that in the festival of Liber an honorable matron put a wreath on the private parts of a man in the sight of the multitude, where perhaps her husband was standing by blushing and perspiring, if there is any shame left in men; and that in the celebration of marriages the newly-married bride was ordered to sit upon Priapus. These things are bad enough, but they are small and contemptible in comparison with that most cruel abomination, or most abominable cruelty, by which either set is so deluded that neither perishes of its wound. There the enchantment of fields is feared; here the amputation of members is not feared. There the modesty of the bride is outraged, but in such a manner as that neither her fruitfulness nor even her virginity is taken away; here a man is so mutilated that he is neither changed into a woman nor remains a man.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c25"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXV] Et Attis ille non est cornmemoratus nec eius ab isto interpretatio requisita est, in cuius dilectionis memoriam Gallus absciditur. Sed docti Graeci atque sapientes nequaquam rationem tam sanctam praeclaramque tacuerunt. Propter vernalem quippe faciem terrae, quae ceteris est temporibus pulchrior, Porphyrius, philosophus nobilis, Attin flores significare perhibuit, et ideo abscisum, quia flos decidit ante fructum. Non ergo ipsum hominem vel quasi hominem, qui est vocatus Attis, sed virilia eius flori comparaverunt. Ipsa quippe illo vivente deciderunt; immo vero non deciderunt neque decerpta, sed plane discerpta sunt; nec illo flore amisso quisquam postea fructus, sed potius sterilitas consecuta est. Quid ergo ipse reliquus, et quidquid remansit absciso? quid eo significari dicitur? qua refertur? quae interpretatio inde profertur? An haec frustra moliendo nihilque inveniendo persuadent illud potius esse credendum, quod de homine castrato fama iactavit litterisque mandatum est? Merito hinc aversatus est Varro noster, neque hoc dicere voluit; non enim hominem doctissimum latuit. ||Varro has not spoken of that Atys, nor sought out any interpretation for him, in memory of whose being loved by Ceres the Gallus is mutilated. But the learned and wise Greeks have by no means been silent about an interpretation so holy and so illustrious. The celebrated philosopher Porphyry has said that Atys signifies the flowers of spring, which is the most beautiful season, and therefore was mutilated because the flower falls before the fruit appears. They have not, then, compared the man himself, or rather that semblance of a man they called Atys, to the flower, but his male organs,-these, indeed, fell while he was living. Did I say fell? nay, truly they did not fall, nor were they plucked off, but torn away. Nor when that flower was lost did any fruit follow, but rather sterility. What, then, do they say is signified by the castrated Atys himself, and whatever remained to him after his castration? To what do they refer that? What interpretation does that give rise to? Do they, after vain endeavors to discover an interpretation, seek to persuade men that that is rather to be believed which report has made public, and which has also been written concerning his having been a mutilated man? Our Varro has very properly opposed this, and has been unwilling to state it; for it certainly was not unknown to that most learned man.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c26"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXVI] Itemque de mollibus eidem Matri Magnae contra omnem virorum mulierumque verecundiam consecratis, qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis facie dealbata, fluentibus membris incessu femineo per plateas vicosque Carthaginis etiam a propolis unde turpiter viverent exigebant, nihil Varro dicere voluit nec uspiam me legisse commemini. Defecit interpretatio, erubuit ratio, conticuit oratio. Vicit Matris Magnae omnes deos filios non numinis magnitudo, sed criminis. Huic monstro nec Iani monstrositas comparatur. Ille in simulacris habebat solam deformitatem, ista in sacris deformem crudelitatem; ille membra in lapidibus addita, haec in hominibus perdita. Hoc dedecus tot Iovis ipsius et tanta stupra non vincunt. Ille inter femineas corruptelas uno Ganymede caelum infamavit; ista tot mollibus professis et publicis et inquinavit terram et caelo fecit iniuriam. Saturnum fortasse possemus huic in isto genere turpissimae crudelitatis sive conferre sive praeferre, qui patrem castrasse perhibetur; sed in Saturni sacris homines alienis manibus potius occidi quam suis abscidi potuerunt. Deuoravit ille filios, ut poetae ferunt, et physici ex hoc interpretantur quod volunt; ut autem historia prodit, necavit; sed quod ei Poeni suos filios sacrificati sunt, non recepere Romani. At vero ista Magna deorum Mater etiam Romanis templis castratos intulit atque istam saevitiam moremque servavit, credita vires adivuare Romanorum exsecando virilia virorum. Quid sunt ad hoc malum furta Mercurii, Veneris lascivia, stupra ac turpitudines ceterorum, quae proferremus de libris, nisi cotidie cantarentur et saltarentur in theatris? Sed haec quid sunt ad tantum malum, cuius magnitudo Magnae Matri tantummodo competebat? Praesertim quod illa dicuntur a poetis esse conficta, quasi poetae id etiam finxerint, quod ea sint diis grata et accepta. Vt ergo canerentur vel scriberentur, sit audacia vel petulantia poetarum; ut vero divinis rebus et honoribus eisdem imperantibus et extorquentihus numinibus adderentur, quid est nisi crimen deorum, immo vero confessio daemoniorum et deceptio miserorum? Verum illud, quod de abscisorum consecratione Mater deum coli meruit, non poetae confinxerunt, sed horrere magis quam canere maluerunt. Hisne diis selectis quisquam consecrandus est, ut post mortem vivat beate, quibus consecratus ante mortem honeste non potest vivere, tam foedis superstitionibus subditus et inmundis daemonibus obligatus? Sed haec omnia, inquit, referuntur ad mundum. Videat ne potius ad inmundum. Quid autem non potest referri ad mundum, quod esse demonstratur in mundo? Nos autem animum quaerimus, qui vera religione confisus non tamquam deum suum adoret mundum, sed tamquam opus Dei propter Deum laudet mundum, et mundanis sordibus expiatus mundus perveniat ad Deum, qui condidit mundum. ||Concerning the effeminates consecrated to the same Great Mother, in defiance of all the modesty which belongs to men and women, Varro has not wished to say anything, nor do I remember to have read anywhere anything concerning them. These effeminates, no later than yesterday, were going through the streets and places of Carthage with anointed hair, whitened faces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from the people the means of maintaining their ignominious lives. Nothing has been said concerning them. Interpretation failed, reason blushed, speech was silent. The Great Mother has surpassed all her sons, not in greatness of deity, but of crime. To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus is to be compared. His deformity was only in his image; hers was the deformity of cruelty in her sacred rites. He has a redundancy of members in stone images; she inflicts the loss of members on men. This abomination is not surpassed by the licentious deeds of Jupiter, so many and so great. He, with all his seductions of women, only disgraced heaven with one Ganymede; she, with so many avowed and public effeminates, has both defiled the earth and outraged heaven. Perhaps we may either compare Saturn to this Magna Mater, or even set him before her in this kind of abominable cruelty, for he mutilated his father. But at the festivals of Saturn, men could rather be slain by the hands of others than mutilated by their own. He devoured his sons, as the poets say, and the natural theologists interpret this as they list. History says he slew them. But the Romans never received, like the Carthaginians, the custom of sacrificing their sons to him. This Great Mother of the gods, however, has brought mutilated men into Roman temples, and has preserved that cruel custom, being believed to promote the strength of the Romans by emasculating their men. Compared with this evil, what are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, and the base and flagitious deeds of the rest of them, which we might bring forward from books, were it not that they are daily sung and danced in the theatres? But what are these things to so great an evil,-an evil whose magnitude was only proportioned to the greatness of the Great Mother,-especially as these are said to have been invented by the poets? as if the poets had also invented this that they are acceptable to the gods. Let it be imputed, then, to the audacity and impudence of the poets that these things have been sung and written of. But that they have been incorporated into the body of divine rites and honors, the deities themselves demanding and extorting that incorporation, what is that but the crime of the gods? nay more, the confession of demons and the deception of wretched men? But as to this that the Great Mother is considered to be worshipped in the appropriate form when she is worshipped by the consecration of mutilated men, this is not an invention of the poets, nay, they have rather shrunk from it with horror than sung of it. Ought any one, then, to be consecrated to these select gods, that he may live blessedly after death, consecrated to whom he could not live decently before death, being subjected to such foul superstitions, and bound over to unclean demons? But all these things, says Varro, are to be referred to the world. Let him consider if it be not rather to the unclean. But why not refer that to the world which is demonstrated to be in the world? We, however, seek for a mind which, trusting to true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but for the sake of God praises the world as a work of God, and, purified from mundane defilements, comes pure to God Himself who founded the world.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c27"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXVII] Istos vero deos selectos videmus quidem clarius innotuisseЎЃ quam ceteros, non tamen ut eorum inlustrarentur merita, sed ne occultarentur opprobria; unde magis eos homines fuisse credibile est, sicut non solum poeticae litterae, verum etiam historicae tradiderunt. Nam quod Vergilius ait: Primus ab aetherio venit Saturnus Olympo, Arma Iovis fugiens et regnis exul ademptis, et quae ad hanc rem pertinentia consequuntur, totam de hoc Euhemerus pandit historiam, quam Ennius in Latinum vertit eloquium; unde quia plurima posuerunt, qui contra huius modi errores ante nos vel Graeco sermone vel Latino scripserunt, non in eo mihi placuit inmorari. XXVII. Ipsas physiologias cum considero, quibus docti et acuti homines has res humanas conantur vertere in res divinas, nihil video nisi ad temporalia terrenaque opera naturamque corpoream vel etiamsi inuisibilem, tamen mutabilem potuisse reuocari; quod nullo modo est verus Deus. Hoc autem si saltem religiositati congruis significationibus ageretur, esset quidem dolendum non his verum Deum adnuntiari atque praedicari, tamen aliquo modo ferendum tam foeda et turpia non fieri nec iuberi; at nunc cum pro Deo vero, quo solo anima se inhabitante fit felix, nefas sit colere aut corpus aut animam, quanto magis nefarium est ista sic colere, ut nec salutem nec decus humanum corpus aut anima colentis obtineat! Quam ob rem si templo sacerdote sacrificio, quod vero Deo debetur, colatur aliquod elementum mundi vel creatus aliquis spiritus, etiamsi non inmundus et malus: non ideo malum est, quia illa mala sunt, quibus colitur, sed quia illa talia sunt, quibus solus ille colendus sit, cui talis cultus seruitusque debetur. Si autem stoliditate vel monstrositate simulacrorum, sacrificiis homicidiorum, coronatione virilium pudendorum, mercede stuprorum, sectione membrorum, abscisione genitalium, consecratione mollium, festis inpurorum obscenorumque ludorum unum verum Deum, id est omnis animae corporisque creatorem, colere se quisque contendat: non ideo peccat, quia non est colendus quem colit, sed quia colendum non ut colendus est colit. Qui vero et rebus talibus, id est turpibus et scelestis, et non Deum verum, id est animae corporisque factorem, sed creaturam quamuis non vitiosam colit, sive illa sit anima sive corpus sive anima simul et corpus, bis peccat in Deum, quod et pro ipso colit, quod non est ipse, et talibus rebus colit, qualibus nec ipse colendus est nec non ipse. Sed hi quonam modo, id est quam turpiter nefarieque, coluerint, in promptu est; quid autem vel quos coluerint, esset obscurum, nisi eorum testaretur historia ea ipsa, quae foeda et turpia confitentur, numinibus terribiliter exigentibus reddita; unde remotis constat ambagibus nefarios daemones atque inmundissimos spiritus hac omni civili theologia inuisendis stolidis imaginibus et per eas possidendis etiam stultis cordibus inuitatos. ||We see that these select gods have, indeed, become more famous than the rest; not, however, that their merits may be brought to light, but that their opprobrious deeds may not be hid. Whence it is more credible that they were men, as not only poetic but also historical literature has handed down. For this which Virgil says,"Then from Olympus' heights came downGood Saturn, exiled from his throneBy Jove, his mightier heir;"and what follows with reference to this affair, is fully related by the historian Euhemerus, and has been translated into Latin by Ennius. And as they who have written before us in the Greek or in the Latin tongue against such errors as these have said much concerning this matter, I have thought it unnecessary to dwell upon it. When I consider those physical reasons, then, by which learned and acute men attempt to turn human things into divine things, all I see is that they have been able to refer these things only to temporal works and to that which has a corporeal nature, and even though invisible still mutable; and this is by no means the true God. But if this worship had been performed as the symbolism of ideas at least congruous with religion, though it would indeed have been cause of grief that the true God was not announced and proclaimed by its symbolism, nevertheless it could have been in some degree borne with, when it did not occasion and command the performance of such foul and abominable things. But since it is impiety to worship the body or the soul for the true God, by whose indwelling alone the soul is happy, how much more impious is it to worship those things through which neither soul nor body can obtain either salvation or human honor? Wherefore if with temple, priest, and sacrifice, which are due to the true God, any element of the world be worshipped, or any created spirit, even though not impure and evil, that worship is still evil, not because the things are evil by which the worship is performed, but because those things ought only to be used in the worship of Him to whom alone such worship and service are due. But if any one insist that he worships the one true God,-that is, the Creator of every soul and of every body,-with stupid and monstrous idols, with human victims, with putting a wreath on the male organ, with the wages of unchastity, with the cutting of limbs, with emasculation, with the consecration of effeminates, with impure and obscene plays, such a one does not sin because he worships One who ought not to be worshipped, but because he worships Him who ought to be worshipped in a way in which He ought not to be worshipped. But he who worships with such things,-that is, foul and obscene things,-and that not the true God, namely, the maker of soul and body, but a creature, even though not a wicked creature, whether it be soul or body, or soul and body together, twice sins against God, because he both worships for God what is not God, and also worships with such things as neither God nor what is not God ought to be worshipped with. It is, indeed, manifest how these pagans worship,-that is, how shamefully and criminally they worship; but what or whom they worship would have been left in obscurity, had not their history testi fied that those same confessedly base and foul rites were rendered in obedience to the demands of the gods, who exacted them with terrible severity. Wherefore it is evident beyond doubt that this whole civil theology is occupied in inventing means for attracting wicked and most impure spirits, inviting them to visit senseless images, and through these to take possession of stupid hearts.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c28"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXVIII] Quid igitur valet, quod vir doctissimus et acutissimus Varro velut subtili disputatione hos omnes deos in caelum et terram redigere ac referre conatur? Non potest; fluunt de manibus, resiliunt, labuntur et decidunt. Dicturus enim de feminis, hoc est deabus: "Quoniam, inquit, ut primo libro dixi de locis, duo sunt principia deorum animadversa de caelo et terra, a quo dii partim dicuntur caelestes, partim terrestres: ut in superioribus initium fecimus a caelo, cum diximus de Iano, quem alii caelum, alii dixerunt esse mundum, sic de feminis scribendi facimus initium a Tellure." Sentio quantam molestiam tale ac tantum patiatur ingenium. Ducitur enim quadam ratione verisimili, caelum esse quod faciat, terram quae patiatur, et ideo illi masculinam vim tribuit, huic femininam, et non adtendit eum potius esse qui haec facit, qui utrumque fecit. Hinc etiam Samothracum nobilia mysteria In superiore libro sic interpretatur eaque se, quae nec suis nota sunt, scribendo expositurum eisque missurum quasi religiosissime pollicetur. Dicit enim se ibi multis indiciis collegisse in simulacris aliud significare caelum, aliud terram, aliud exempla rerum, quas Plato appellat ideas; caelum Iovem, terram Iunonem, ideas Mineruam uult intellegi; caelum a quo fiat aliquid, terram de qua fiat, exemplum secundum quod fiat. Qua in re omitto dicere, quod Plato illas ideas tantam vim habere dicit, ut secundum eas non caelum aliquid fecerit, sed etiam caelum factum sit. Hoc dico, istum in hoc libro selectorum deorum rationem illam trium deorum, quibus quasi cuncta complexus est, perdidisse. Caelo enim tribuit masculos deos, feminas terrae; inter quas posuit Mineruam, quam supra ipsum caelum ante posuerat. Deinde masculus deus Neptunus in mari est, quod ad terram potius quam ad caelum pertinet. Dis pater postremo, qui Graece *Plou/twn dicitur, etiam ipse masculus frater amborum terrenus deus esse perhibetur, superiorem terram tenens, in inferiore habens Proserpinam coniugem. Quo modo ergo deos ad caelum, deas ad terram referre conantur? Quid solidum quid constans, quid sobrium quid definitum habet haec disputatio? Illa est autem Tellus initium dearum, Mater scilicet Magna, apud quam mollium et abscisorum seseque secantium atque iactantium insana perstrepit turpitudo. Quid est ergo quod dicitur caput deorum Ianus, caput dearum Tellus? Nec ibi facit unum caput error, nec hic sanum furor. Cur haec frustra referre nituntur ad mundum? Quod etsi possent, pro Deo vero mundum nemo pius colit; et tamen eos nec hoc posse veritas aperta conuincit. Referant haec potius ad homines mortuos et ad daemones pessimos, et nulla quaestio remanebit. ||To what purpose, then, is it that this most learned and most acute man Varro attempts, as it were, with subtle disputation, to reduce and refer all these gods to heaven and earth? He cannot do it. They go out of his hands like water; they shrink back; they slip down and fall. For when about to speak of the females, that is, the goddesses, he says, "Since, as I observed in the first book concerning places, heaven and earth are the two origins of the gods, on which account they are called celestials and terrestrials, and as I began in the former books with heaven, speaking of Janus, whom some have said to be heaven, and others the earth, so I now commence with Tellus in speaking concerning the goddesses." I can understand what embarrassment so great a mind was experiencing. For he is influenced by the perception of a certain plausible resemblance, when he says that the heaven is that which does, and the earth that which suffers, and therefore attributes the masculine principle to the one, and the feminine to the other, not considering that it is rather He who made both heaven and earth who is the maker of both activity and passivity. On this principle he interprets the celebrated mysteries of the Samothracians, and promises, with an air of great devoutness, that he will by writing expound these mysteries, which have not been so much as known to his countrymen, and will send them his exposition. Then he says that he had from many proofs gathered that, in those mysteries, among the images one signifies heaven, another the earth, another the patterns of things, which Plato calls ideas. He makes Jupiter to signify heaven, Juno the earth, Minerva the ideas. Heaven, by which anything is made; the earth, from which it is made; and the pattern, according to which it is made. But, with respect to the last, I am forgetting to say that Plato attributed so great an importance to these ideas as to say, not that anything was made by heaven according to them, but that according to them heaven itself was made. To return, however,-it is to be observed that Varro has, in the book on the select gods, lost that theory of these gods, in whom he has, as it were, embraced all things. For he assigns the male gods to heaven, the females to earth; among which latter he has placed Minerva, whom he had before placed above heaven itself. Then the male god Neptune is in the sea, which pertains rather to earth than to heaven. Last of all, father Dis, who is called in Greek ????t??, another male god, brother of both (Jupiter and Neptune), is also held to be a god of the earth, holding the upper region of the earth himself, and allotting the nether region to his wife Proserpine. How, then, do they attempt to refer the gods to heaven, and the goddesses to earth? What solidity, what consistency, what sobriety has this disputation? But that Tellus is the origin of the goddesses,-the great mother, to wit, beside whom there is continually the noise of the mad and abominable revelry of effeminates and mutilated men, and men who cut themselves, and indulge in frantic gesticulations,-how is it, then, that Janus is called the head of the gods, and Tellus the head of the goddesses? In the one case error does not make one head, and in the other frenzy does not make a sane one. Why do they vainly attempt to refer these to the world? Even if they could do so, no pious person worships the world for the true God. Nevertheless, plain truth makes it evident that they are not able even to do this. Let them rather identify them with dead men and most wicked demons, and no further question will remain.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c29"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXIX] Namque omnia, quae ab eis ex istorum deorum theologia velut physicis rationibus referuntur ad mundum, quam sine ullo scrupulo sacrilegae opinionis Deo potius vero, qui fecit mundum, omnis animae et omnis corporis conditori, tribuantur, advertamus hoc modo: Nos Deum colimus, non caelum et terram, quibus duabus partibus mundus hic constat; nec animam vel animas per viventia quaecumque diffusas, sed Deum, qui fecit caelum et terram et omnia, quae in eis sunt; qui fecit omnem animam, sive quocumque modo viventem et sensus ac rationis expertem, sive etiam sentientem, sive etiam intellegentem. ||For all those things which, according to the account given of those gods, are referred to the world by so-called physical interpretation, may, without any religious scruple, be rather assigned to the true God, who made heaven and earth, and created every soul and every body; and the following is the manner in which we see that this may be done. We worship God,-not heaven and earth, of which two parts this world consists, nor the soul or souls diffused through all living things,-but God who made heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; who made every soul, whatever be the nature of its life, whether it have life without sensation and reason, or life with sensation, or life with both sensation and reason.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c30"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXX] Et ut iam incipiam illa unius et veri Dei opera percurrere, propter quae isti sibi, dum quasi honeste conantur sacramenta turpissima et scelestissima interpretari, deos multos falsosque fecerunt: illum Deum colimus, qui naturis a se creatis et subsistendi et movendi initia finesque constituit; qui rerum causas habet, novit atque disponit; qui vim seminum condidit; qui rationalem animam, quod dicitur animus, quibus voluit viventibus indidit; qui sermonis facultatem usumque donavit; qui munus futura dicendi quibus placuit spiritibus inpertivit et per quos placet ipse futura praedicit et per quos placet malas valetudines pellit; qui bellorum quoque ipsorum, cum sic emendandum et castigandum est genus humanum, exordiis progressibus finibusque moderatur; qui mundi huius ignem uehementissimum et violentissimum pro inmensae naturae temperamento et creavit et regit; qui universarum aquarum creator et gubernator est; qui solem fecit corporalium clarissimum luminum eique vim congruam et motum dedit; qui ipsis etiam inferis dominationem suam potestatemque non subtrahit; qui semina et alimenta mortalium, sive arida sive liquida, naturis competentibus adtributa substituit; qui terram fundat atque fecundat; qui fructus eius animalibus hominibusque largitur; qui causas non solum principales, sed etiam subsequentes novit atque ordinat; qui lunae statuit modum suum; qui vias caelestes atque terrestres locorum mutationibus praebet; qui humanis ingeniis, quae creavit, etiam scientias artium variarum ad adivuandam vitam naturamque concessit; qui coniunctionem maris et feminae ad adiutorium propagandae prolis instituit; qui hominum coetibus, quem focis et luminibus adhiberent, ad facillimos usus munus terreni ignis indulsit. Ista sunt certe, quae diis selectis per nescio quas physicas interpretationes vir acutissimus atque doctissimus Varro, sive quae aliunde accepit, sive quae ipse coniecit, distribuere laboravit. Haec autem facit atque agit unus verus Deus, sed sicut Deus, id est ubique totus, nullis inclusus locis, nullis vinculis alligatus, in nullas partes sectilis, ex nulla parte mutabilis, implens caelum et terram praesente potentia, non indigente natura. Sic itaque administrat omnia, quae creavit, ut etiam ipsa proprios exserere et agere motus sinat. Quamuis enim nihil esse possint sine ipso, non sunt quod ipse. Agit autem multa etiam per angelos; sed non nisi ex se ipso beatificat angelos. Ita quamuis propter aliquas causas hominibus angelos mittat, non tamen ex angelis homines, sed ex se ipso, sicut angelos, beatificat. Ab hoc uno et vero Deo vitam speramus aeternam. ||And now, to begin to go over those works of the one true God, on account of which these have made to themselves many and false gods, while they attempt to give an honorable interpretation to their many most abominable and most infamous mysteries,-we worship that God who has appointed to the natures created by Him both the beginnings and the end of their existing and moving; who holds, knows, and disposes the causes of things; who has created the virtue of seeds; who has given to what creatures He would a rational soul, which is called mind; who has bestowed the faculty and use of speech; who has imparted the gift of foretelling future things to whatever spirits it seemed to Him good; who also Himself predicts future things, through whom He pleases, and through whom He will, removes diseases who, when the human race is to be corrected and chastised by wars, regulates also the beginnings, progress, and ends of these wars who has created and governs the most vehement and most violent fire of this world, in due relation and proportion to the other elements of immense nature; who is the governor of all the waters; who has made the sun brightest of all material lights, and has given him suitable power and motion; who has not withdrawn, even from the inhabitants of the nether world, His dominion and power; who has appointed to mortal natures their suitable seed and nourishment, dry or liquid; who establishes and makes fruitful the earth; who bountifully bestows its fruits on animals and on men; who knows and ordains, not only principal causes, but also subsequent causes; who has determined for the moon her motion; who affords ways in heaven and on earth for passage from one place to another; who has granted also to human minds, which He has created, the knowledge of the various arts for the help of life and nature; who has appointed the union of male and female for the propagation of offspring; who has favored the societies of men with the gift of terrestrial fire for the simplest and most familiar purposes, to burn on the hearth and to give light. These are, then, the things which that most acute and most learned man Varro has labored to distribute among the select gods, by I know not what physical interpretation, which he has got from other sources, and also conjectured for himself. But these things the one true God makes and does, but as the same God,-that is, as He who is wholly everywhere, included in no space, bound by no chains, mutable in no part of His being, filling heaven and earth with omnipresent power, not with a needy nature. Therefore He governs all things in such a manner as to allow them to perform and exercise their own proper movements. For although they can be nothing without Him, they are not what He is. He does also many things through angels; but only from Himself does He beatify angels. So also, though He send angels to men for certain purposes, He does not for all that beatify men by the good inherent in the angels, but by Himself, as He does the angels themselves.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c31"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXXI] Habemus enim ab illo praeter huiusce modi beneficia, quae ex hac, de qua nonnulla diximus, administratione naturae bonis malisque largitur, magnum et bonorum proprium magnae dilectionis indicium. Quamquam enim, quod sumus, quod vivimus, quod caelum terramque conspicimus, quod habemus mentem atque rationem, qua eum ipsum, qui haec omnia condidit, inquiramus, nequaquam valeamus actioni sufficere gratiarum: tamen quod nos oneratos obrutosque peccatis et a contemplatione suae lucis aversos ac tenebrarum, id est iniquitatis, dilectione caecatos non omnino deseruit misitque nobis Verbum suum, qui est eius unicus filius, quo pro nobis adsumpta carne nato atque passo, quanti Deus hominem penderet, nosceremus atque illo sacrificio singulari a peccatis omnibus mundaremur eiusque spiritu in cordibus nostris dilectione diffusa omnibus difficultatibus superatis in aeternam requiem et contemplationis eius ineffabilem dulcedinem veniremus, quae corda, quot linguae ad agendas ei gratias satis esse contenderint? ||For, besides such benefits as, according to this administration of nature of which we have made some mention, He lavishes on good and bad alike, we have from Him a great manifestation of great love, which belongs only to the good. For although we can never sufficiently give thanks to Him, that we are, that we live, that we behold heaven and earth, that we have mind and reason by which to seek after Him who made all these things, nevertheless, what hearts, what number of tongues, shall affirm that they are sufficient to render thanks to Him for this, that He has not wholly departed from us, laden and overwhelmed with sins, averse to the contemplation of His light, and blinded by the love of darkness, that is, of iniquity, but has sent to us His own Word, who is His only Son, that by His birth and suffering for us in the flesh, which He assumed, we might know how much God valued man, and that by that unique sacrifice we might be purified from all our sins, and that, love being shed abroad in our hearts by His Spirit, we might, having surmounted all difficulties, come into eternal rest, and the ineffable sweetness of the contemplation of Himself?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c32"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXXII] Hoc mysterium vitae aeternae iam inde ab exordio generis humani per quaedam signa et sacramenta temporibus congrua, quibus oportuit, per angelos praedicatum est. Deinde populus Hebraeus in unam quandam rem publicam, quae hoc sacramentum ageret, congregatus est, ubi per quosdam scientes, per quosdam nescientes id, quod ex adventu Christi usque nunc et deinceps agitur, praenuntiaretur esse venturum; sparsa etiam postea eadem gente per gentes propter testimonium scripturarum, quibus aeterna salus in Christo futura praedicta est. Omnes enim non solum prophetiae, quae in verbis sunt, nec tantum praecepta vitae, quae mores pietatemque conformant atque illis litteris continentur, verum etiam sacra, sacerdotia, tabernaculum sive templum, altaria, sacrificia, ceremoniae, dies festi et quidquid aliud ad eam seruitutem pertinet, quae Deo debetur et Graece proprie *latrei/a dicitur -- ea significata et praenuntiata sunt, quae propter aeternam vitam fidelium in Christo et impleta credimus et impleri cernimus et implenda confidimus. ||This mystery of eternal life, even from the beginning of the human race, was, by certain signs and sacraments suitable to the times, announced through angels to those to whom it was meet. Then the Hebrew people was congregated into one republic, as it were, to perform this mystery; and in that republic was foretold, sometimes through men who understood what they spoke, and sometimes through men who understood not, all that had transpired since the advent of Christ until now, and all that will transpire. This same nation, too, was afterwards dispersed through the nations, in order to testify to the scriptures in which eternal salvation in Christ had been declared. For not only the prophecies which are contained in words, nor only the precepts for the right conduct of life, which teach morals and piety, and are contained in the sacred writings,-not only these, but also the rites, priesthood, tabernacle or temple, altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, and whatever else belongs to that service which is due to God, and which in Greek is properly called ?at?e?a,-all these signified and fore-announced those things which we who believe in Jesus Christ unto eternal life believe to have been fulfilled, or behold in process of fulfillment, or confidently believe shall yet be fulfilled.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c33"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXXIII] Per hanc ergo religionem unam et veram potuit aperiri deos gentium esse inmundissimos daemones, sub defunctarum occasionibus animarum vel creaturarum specie mundanarum deos se putari cupientes et quasi divinis honoribus eisdemque scelestis ac turpibus rebus superba inpuritate laetantes atque ad verum Deum conversionem humanis animis inuidentes. Ex quorum inmanissimo et impiissimo dominatu homo liberatur, cum credit in eum, qui praebuit ad exsurgendum tantae humilitatis exemplum, quanta illi superbia ceciderunt. Hinc sunt non solum illi, de quibus multa iam diximus, et alii atque alii similes ceterarum gentium atque terrarum, sed etiam hi, de quibus nunc agimus, tamquam in senatum deorum selecti; sed plane selecti nobilitate criminum, non dignitate virtutum. Quorum sacra Varro dum quasi ad naturales rationes referre conatur, quaerens honestare res turpes, quomodo his quadret et consonet non potest invenire, quoniam non sunt ipsae illorum sacrorum causae, quas putat vel potius uult putari. Nam si non solum ipsae, verum etiam quaelibet aliae huius generis essent, quamuis nihil ad Deum verum vitamque aeternam, quae in religione quaerenda est, pertinerent, tamen qualicumque de rerum natura reddita ratione aliquantulum mitigarent offensionem, quam non intellecta in sacris aliqua velut turpitudo aut absurditas fecerat; sicut in quibusdam theatrorum fabulis vel delubrorum mysteriis facere conatus est, ubi non theatra delubrorum similitudine absolvit, sed theatrorum potius similitudine delubra damnavit; tamen utcumque conatus est, ut sensum horribilibus rebus offensum velut naturalium causarum reddita ratio deleniret. ||This, the only true religion, has alone been able to manifest that the gods of the nations are most impure demons, who desire to be thought gods, availing themselves of the names of certain defunct souls, or the appearance of mundane creatures, and with proud impurity rejoicing in things most base and infamous, as though in divine honors, and envying human souls their conversion to the true God. From whose most cruel and most impious dominion a man is liberated when he believes on Him who has afforded an example of humility, following which men may rise as great as was that pride by which they fell. Hence are not only those gods, concerning whom we have already spoken much, and many others belonging to different nations and lands, but also those of whom we are now treating, who have been selected as it were into the senate of the gods,-selected, however, on account of the notoriousness of their crimes, not on account of the dignity of their virtues,-whose sacred things Varro attempts to refer to certain natural reasons, seeking to make base things honorable, but cannot find how to square and agree with these reasons, because these are not the causes of those rites, which he thinks, or rather wishes to be thought to be so. For had not only these, but also all others of this kind, been real causes, even though they had nothing to do with the true God and eternal life, which is to be sought in religion, they would, by affording some sort of reason drawn from the nature of things, have mitigated in some degree that offence which was occasioned by some turpitude or absurdity in the sacred rites, which was not understood. This he attempted to do in respect to certain fables of the theatres, or mysteries of the shrines; but he did not acquit the theatres of likeness to the shrines, but rather condemned the shrines for likeness to the theatres. However, he in some way made the attempt to soothe the feelings shocked by horrible things, by rendering what he would have to be natural interpretations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c34"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXXIV] Sed contra invenimus, sicut ipse vir doctissimus prodidit, de Numae Pompilii libris redditas sacrorum causas nullo modo potuisse tolerari nec dignas habitas, quae non solum lectae innotescerent religiosis, sed saltem scriptae reconderentur in tenebris. Iam enim dicam, quod in tertio huius operis libro me suo loco dicturum esse promiseram. Nam, sicut apud eundem Varronem legitur in libro de cultu deorum, "Terentius quidam cum haberet ad Ianiculum fundum et bubulcus eius iuxta sepulcrum Numae Pompilii traiciens aratrum eruisset ex terra libros eius, ubi sacrorum institutorum scriptae erant causae, in Vrbem pertulit ad praetorem. At ille cum inspexisset principia, rem tantam detulit ad senatum. Vbi cum primores quasdam causas legissent, cur quidque in sacris fuerit institutum, Numae mortuo senatus adsensus est, eosque libros tamquam religiosi patres conscripti, praetor ut combureret, censuerunt." Credat quisque quod putat; immo vero dicat, quod dicendum suggesserit uesana contentio, quilibet tantae impietatis defensor egregius. Me admonere sufficiat sacrorum causas a rege Pompilio Romanorum sacrorum institutore conscriptas nec populo nec senatui nec saltem ipsis sacerdotibus innotescere debuisse ipsumque Numam Pompilium curiositate inlicita ad ea daemonum pervenisse secreta, quae ipse quidem scriberet, ut haberet unde legendo commoneretur; sed ea tamen, cum rex esset, qui minime quemquam metueret, nec docere aliquem nec delendo vel quoquo modo consumendo perdere auderet. Ita quod scire neminem voluit, ne homines nefaria doceret, violare autem timuit, ne daemones iratos haberet, obruit, ubi tutum putavit, sepulcro suo propinquare aratrum posse non credens. Senatus autem cum religiones formidaret damnare maiorum et ideo Numae adsentiri cogeretur, illos tamen libros tam perniciosos esse iudicavit, ut nec obrui rursus iuberet, ne humana curiositas multo uehementius rem iam proditam quaereret, sed flammis aboleri nefanda monumenta, ut, quia iam necesse esse existimabant sacra illa facere, tolerabilius erraretur causis eorum ignoratis, quam cognitis civitas turbaretur. ||But, on the other hand, we find, as the same most learned man has related, that the causes of the sacred rites which were given from the books of Numa Pompilius could by no means be tolerated, and were considered unworthy, not only to become known to the religious by being read, but even to lie written in the darkness in which they had been concealed. For now let me say what I promised in the third book of this work to say in its proper place. For, as we read in the same Varro's book on the worship of the gods, "A certain one Terentius had a field at the Janiculum, and once, when his ploughman was passing the plough near to the tomb of Numa Pompilius, he turned up from the ground the books of Numa, in which were written the causes of the sacred institutions; which books he carried to the prжtor, who, having read the beginnings of them, referred to the senate what seemed to be a matter of so much importance. And when the chief senators had read certain of the causes why this or that rite was instituted, the senate assented to the dead Numa, and the conscript fathers, as though concerned for the interests of religion, ordered the prжtor to burn the books." Let each one believe what he thinks; nay, let every champion of such impiety say whatever mad contention may suggest. For my part, let it suffice to suggest that the causes of those sacred things which were written down by King Numa Pompilius, the institutor of the Roman rites, ought never to have become known to people or senate, or even to the priests themselves; and also that Numa him self attained to these secrets of demons by an illicit curiosity, in order that he might write them down, so as to be able, by reading, to be reminded of them. However, though he was king, and had no cause to be afraid of any one, he neither dared to teach them to any one, nor to destroy them by obliteration, or any other form of destruction. Therefore, because he was unwilling that any one should know them, lest men should be taught infamous things, and because he was afraid to violate them, lest he should enrage the demons against himself, he buried them in what he thought a safe place, believing that a plough could not approach his sepulchre. But the senate, fearing to condemn the religious solemnities of their ancestors, and therefore compelled to assent to Numa, were nevertheless so convinced that those books were pernicious, that they did not order them to be buried again, knowing that human curiosity would thereby be excited to seek with far greater eagerness after the matter already divulged, but ordered the scandalous relics to be destroyed with fire; because, as they thought it was now a necessity to perform those sacred rites, they judged that the error arising from ignorance of their causes was more tolerable than the disturbance which the knowledge of them would occasion the state.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c35"><b>BOOK VII</b> [XXXV] Nam et ipse Numa, ad quem nullus Dei propheta, nullus sanctus angelus mittebatur, hydromantian facere compulsus est, ut in aqua videret imagines deorum vel potius ludificationes daemonum, aquibus audiret, quid in sacris constituere atque observare deberet. Quod genus divinationis idem Varro a Persis dicit allatum, quo et ipsum Numam et postea Pythagoram philosophum usum fuisse commemorat; ubi adhibito sanguine etiam inferos perhibet sciscitari et *nekuomantei/an Graece dicit vocari, quae [sive hydromantia] sive necromantia dicatur, id ipsum est, ubi videntur mortui divinare. Quibus haec artibus fiant, ipsi viderint. Nolo enim dicere has artes etiam ante nostri Saluatoris adventum in ipsis civitatibus gentium legibus solere prohiberi et poena seuerissima vindicari. Nolo, inquam, hoc dicere; fortassis enim talia tunc licebant. His tamen artibus didicit sacra illa Pompilius, quorum sacrorum facta prodidit, causas obruit (ita timuit et ipse quod didicit), quarum causarum proditos libros senatus incendit. Quid mihi ergo Varro illorum sacrorum alias nescio quas causas velut physicas interpretatur? quales si libri illi habuissent, non utique arsissent, aut et istos Varronis ad Caesarem pontificem scriptos atque editos patres conscripti similiter incendissent. Quod ergo aquam egesserit, id est exportaverit, Numa Pompilius, unde hydromantian faceret, ideo nympham Egeriam coniugem dicitur habuisse, quem ad modum in supradicto libro Varronis exponitur. Ita enim solent res gestae aspersione mendaciorum in fabulas verti. In illa igitur hydromantia curiosissimus rex ille Romanus et sacra didicit, quae in libris suis pontifices haberent, et eorum causas, quas praeter se neminem scire voluit. Itaque eas seorsum scriptas secum quodam modo mori fecit, quando ita subtrahendas hominum notitiae sepeliendasque curavit. Aut ergo daemonum illic tam sordidae et noxiae cupiditates erant conscriptae, ut ex his tota illa theologia civilis etiam apud tales homines execrabilis appareret, qui tam multa in ipsis sacris erubescenda susceperant; aut illi omnes nihil aliud quam homines mortui prodebantur, quos tam prolixa temporis uetustate fere omnes populi gentium deos inmortales esse crediderant, cum et talibus sacris idem illi daemones oblectarentur, qui se colendos pro ipsis mortuis, quos deos putari fecerant, quibusdam fallacium miraculorum adtestationibus supponebant. Sed occulta Dei veri providentia factum est, ut et Pompilio amico suo illis conciliati artibus, quibus hydromantia fieri potuit, cuncta illa confiteri permitterentur, et tamen, ut moriturus incenderet ea potius quam obrueret, admonere non permitterentur; qui ne innotescerent nec aratro, quo sunt eruta, obsistere potuerunt, nec stilo Varronis, quo ea, quae de hac re gesta sunt, in nostram memoriam peruenerunt. Non enim possunt, quod non sinuntur efficere; sinuntur autem alto Dei summi iustoque iudicio pro meritis eorum, quos ab eis vel adfligi tantum, vel etiam subici ac decipi iustum est. Quam vero perniciosae vel a cultu verae divinitatis alienae illae litterae iudicatae sint, hinc intellegi potest, quod eas maluit senatus incendere, quas Pompilius occultavit, quam timere quod timuit, qui hoc audere non potuit. Qui ergo vitam nec modo habere uult piam, talibus sacris quaerat aeternam; qui autem cum malignis daemonibus non uult habere societatem, non superstitionem, qua coluntur, noxiam pertimescat, sed veram religionem, qua produntur et vincuntur, agnoscat. ||For Numa himself also, to whom no prophet of God, no holy angel was sent, was driven to have recourse to hydromancy, that he might see the images of the gods in the water (or, rather, appearances whereby the demons made sport of him), and might learn from them what he ought to ordain and observe in the sacred rites. This kind of divination, says Varro, was introduced from the Persians, and was used by Numa himself, and at an after time by the philosopher Pythagoras. In this divination, he says, they also inquire at the inhabitants of the nether world, and make use of blood; and this the Greeks call ?e???µa?te?a? . But whether it be called necromancy or hydromancy it is the same thing, for in either case the dead are supposed to foretell future things. But by what artifices these things are done, let themselves consider; for I am unwilling to say that these artifices were wont to be prohibited by the laws, and to be very severely punished even in the Gentile states, before the advent of our Saviour. I am unwilling, I say, to affirm this, for perhaps even such things were then allowed. However, it was by these arts that Pompilius learned those sacred rites which he gave forth as facts, while he concealed their causes; for even he himself was afraid of that which he had learned. The senate also caused the books in which those causes were recorded to be burned. What is it, then, to me, that Varro attempts to adduce all sorts of fanciful physical interpretations, which if these books had contained, they would certainly not have been burned? For otherwise the conscript fathers would also have burned those books which Varro published and dedicated to the high priest Cжsar. Now Numa is said to have married the nymph Egeria, because (as Varro explains it in the forementioned book) he carried forth water wherewith to perform his hydromancy. Thus facts are wont to be converted into fables through false colorings. It was by that hydromancy, then, that that over-curious Roman king learned both the sacred rites which were to be written in the books of the priests, and also the causes of those rites,-which latter, however, he was unwilling that any one besides himself should know. Wherefore he made these causes, as it were, to die along with himself, taking care to have them written by themselves, and removed from the knowledge of men by being buried in the earth. Wherefore the things which are written in those books were either abominations of demons, so foul and noxious as to render that whole civil theology execrable even in the eyes of such men as those senators, who had accepted so many shameful things in the sacred rites themselves, or they were nothing else than the accounts of dead men, whom, through the lapse of ages, almost all the Gentile nations had come to believe to be immortal gods; while those same demons were delighted even with such rites, having presented themselves to receive worship under pretence of being those very dead men whom they had caused to be thought immortal gods by certain fallacious miracles, performed in order to establish that belief. But, by the hidden providence of the true God, these demons were permitted to confess these things to their friend Numa, having been gained by those arts through which necromancy could be performed, and yet were not constrained to admonish him rather at his death to burn than to bury the books in which they were written. But, in order that these books might be unknown, the demons could not resist the plough by which they were thrown up, or the pen of Varro, through which the things which were done in reference to this matter have come down even to our knowledge. For they are not able to effect anything which they are not allowed; but they are permitted to influence those whom God, in His deep and just judgment, according to their deserts, gives over either to be simply afflicted by them, or to be also subdued and deceived. But how pernicious these writings were judged to be, or how alien from the worship of the true Divinity, may be understood from the fact that the senate preferred to burn what Pompilius had hid, rather than to fear what he feared, so that he could not dare to do that. Wherefore let him who does not desire to live a pious life even now, seek eternal life by means of such rites. But let him who does not wish to have fellowship with malign demons have no fear for the noxious superstition wherewith they are worshipped, but let him recognize the true religion by which they are unmasked and vanquished.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |