Changes

167,911 bytes added , 11:59, 24 October 2009

New page: ----------------------- ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK IV ----------------------- Index Translated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dods_...

-----------------------
ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK IV
-----------------------
[[Directory:Logic Museum/Augustine City of God|Index]]

Translated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dods_%28theologian%29 Marcus Dods]

*[[#c0|Introduction]]
*[[#c1|Chapter 1]] Of the Things Which Have Been Discussed in the First Book
*[[#c2|Chapter 2]] Of Those Things Which are Contained in Books Second and Third
*[[#c3|Chapter 3]] Whether the Great Extent of the Empire, Which Has Been Acquired Only by Wars, is to Be Reckoned Among the Good Things Either of the Wise or the Happy
*[[#c4|Chapter 4]] How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies
*[[#c5|Chapter 5]] Of the Runaway Gladiators Whose Power Became Like that of Royal Dignity
*[[#c6|Chapter 6]] Concerning the Covetousness of Ninus, Who Was the First Who Made War on His Neighbors, that He Might Rule More Widely
*[[#c7|Chapter 7]] Whether Earthly Kingdoms in Their Rise and Fall Have Been Either Aided or Deserted by the Help of the Gods
*[[#c8|Chapter 8]] Which of the Gods Can the Romans Suppose Presided Over the Increase and Preservation of Their Empire, When They Have Believed that Even the Care of Single Things Could Scarcely Be Committed to Single Gods
*[[#c9|Chapter 9]] Whether the Great Extent and Long Duration of the Roman Empire Should Be Ascribed to Jove, Whom His Worshippers Believe to Be the Chief God
*[[#c10|Chapter 10]] What Opinions Those Have Followed Who Have Set Divers Gods Over Divers Parts of the World
*[[#c11|Chapter 11]] Concerning the Many Gods Whom the Pagan Doctors Defend as Being One and the Same Jove
*[[#c12|Chapter 12]] Concerning the Opinion of Those Who Have Thought that God is the Soul of the World, and the World is the Body of God
*[[#c13|Chapter 13]] Concerning Those Who Assert that Only Rational Animals are Parts of the One God
*[[#c14|Chapter 14]] The Enlargement of Kingdoms is Unsuitably Ascribed to Jove; For If, as They Will Have It, Victoria is a Goddess, She Alone Would Suffice for This Business
*[[#c15|Chapter 15]] Whether It is Suitable for Good Men to Wish to Rule More Widely
*[[#c16|Chapter 16]] What Was the Reason Why the Romans, in Detailing Separate Gods for All Things and All Movements of the Mind, Chose to Have the Temple of Quiet Outside the Gates
*[[#c17|Chapter 17]] Whether, If the Highest Power Belongs to Jove, Victoria Also Ought to Be Worshipped
*[[#c18|Chapter 18]] With What Reason They Who Think Felicity and Fortune Goddesses Have Distinguished Them
*[[#c19|Chapter 19]] Concerning Fortuna Muliebris
*[[#c20|Chapter 20]] Concerning Virtue and Faith, Which the Pagans Have Honored with Temples and Sacred Rites, Passing by Other Good Qualities, Which Ought Likewise to Have Been Worshipped, If Deity Was Rightly Attributed to These
*[[#c21|Chapter 21]] That Although Not Understanding Them to Be the Gifts of God, They Ought at Least to Have Been Content with Virtue and Felicity
*[[#c22|Chapter 22]] Concerning the Knowledge of the Worship Due to the Gods, Which Varro Glories in Having Himself Conferred on the Romans
*[[#c23|Chapter 23]] Concerning Felicity, Whom the Romans, Who Venerate Many Gods, for a Long Time Did Not Worship with Divine Honor, Though She Alone Would Have Sufficed Instead of All
*[[#c24|Chapter 24]] The Reasons by Which the Pagans Attempt to Defend Their Worshipping Among the Gods the Divine Gifts Themselves
*[[#c25|Chapter 25]] Concerning the One God Only to Be Worshipped, Who, Although His Name is Unknown, is Yet Deemed to Be the Giver of Felicity
*[[#c26|Chapter 26]] Of the Scenic Plays, the Celebration of Which the Gods Have Exacted from Their Worshippers
*[[#c27|Chapter 27]] Concerning the Three Kinds of Gods About Which the Pontiff Scжvola Has Discoursed
*[[#c28|Chapter 28]] Whether the Worship of the Gods Has Been of Service to the Romans in Obtaining and Extending the Empire
*[[#c29|Chapter 29]] Of the Falsity of the Augury by Which the Strength and Stability of the Roman Empire Was Considered to Be Indicated
*[[#c30|Chapter 30]] What Kind of Things Even Their Worshippers Have Owned They Have Thought About the Gods of the Nations
*[[#c31|Chapter 31]] Concerning the Opinions of Varro, Who, While Reprobating the Popular Belief, Thought that Their Worship Should Be Confined to One God, Though He Was Unable to Discover the True God
*[[#c32|Chapter 32]] In What Interest the Princes of the Nations Wished False Religions to Continue Among the People Subject to Them
*[[#c33|Chapter 33]] That the Times of All Kings and Kingdoms are Ordained by the Judgment and Power of the True God
*[[#c34|Chapter 34]] Concerning the Kingdom of the Jews, Which Was Founded by the One and True God, and Preserved by Him as Long as They Remained in the True Religion

{| border=1 cellpadding=10
!valign = top width=46%|Latin
!valign = top width=54%|Latin

|- valign = top
||<div id="c0"><b>BOOK IV</b> [] ||The City of God (Book IV) Argument-In this book it is proved that the extent and long duration of the Roman empire is to be ascribed, not to Jove or the gods of the heathen, to whom individually scarce even single things and the very basest functions were believed to be entrusted, but to the one true God, the author of felicity, by whose power and judgment earthly kingdoms are founded and maintained.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c1"><b>BOOK IV</b> [I] De civitate Dei dicere exorsus prius respondendum putavi eius inimicis, qui terrena gaudia consectantes rebusque fugacibus inhiantes, quidquid in eis triste misericordia potius admonentis Dei quam punientis seueritate patiuntur, religioni increpitant Christianae, quae una est salubris et vera religio. Et quoniam cum sit in eis etiam uulgus indoctus, velut doctorum auctoritate in odium nostrum gravius inritantur, existimantibus inperitis ea, quae suis temporibus insolite acciderint, per alia retro tempora accidre non solere, eorumque opinionem etiam his, qui eam falsam esse noverunt, ut adversus nos iusta murmura habere videantur, suae scientiae dissimulatione firmantibus: de libris, quos auctores eorum ad cognoscendam praeteritorum temporum historiam memoriae mandaverunt, longe aliter esse quam putant emonstrandum fuit et simul docendum deos falsos, quos vel palam colebant vel occulte adhuc colunt, eos esse inmundissimos spiritus et malignissimos ac fallacissimos daemones, usque adeo, ut aut veris aut fictis etiam, suis tamen criminibus delectentur, quae sibi celebrari per sua festa voluerunt, ut a perpetrandis damnabilibus factis humana reuocari non possit infirmitas, dum ad haec imitanda velut divina praebetur auctoritas. Haec non ex nostra coniectura probavimus, sed partim ex recenti memoria, quia et ipsi vidimus talia ac talibus numinibus exhiberi, partim ex litteris eorum, qui non tamquam in contemeliam, sed tamquam in honorem deorum suorum ista conscripta posteris reliquerunt, ita ut vir doctissimus apud eos Varro et gravissimae auctoritatis, cum rerum humanarum atque divinarum dispertitos faceret libros, alios humanis, alios divinis pro sua cuiusque rei dignitate distribuens non saltem in rebus humanis, sed in rebus divinis ludos scaenicos poneret, cum utique, si tantummodo boni et honesti homines in civitate essent, nec in rebus humanis ludi scaenici esse debuissent. Quod profecto non auctoritate sua fecit, sed quoniam eos Romae natus et ducatus in divinis rebus invenit. Et quoniam in fine primi libri, quae deinceps dicenda essent, breviter posuimus et ex his quaedam in duobus consequentibus diximus, expectationi legentium quae retant reddenda cognoscimus. ||Having begun to speak of the city of God, I have thought it necessary first of all to reply to its enemies, who, eagerly pursuing earthly joys and gaping after transitory things, throw the blame of all the sorrow they suffer in them-rather through the compassion of God in admonishing than His severity in punishing-on the Christian religion, which is the one salutary and true religion. And since there is among them also an unlearned rabble, they are stirred up as by the authority of the learned to hate us more bitterly, thinking in their inexperience that things which have happened unwontedly in their days were not wont to happen in other times gone by; and whereas this opinion of theirs is confirmed even by those who know that it is false, and yet dissemble their knowledge in order that they may seem to have just cause for murmuring against us, it was necessary, from books in which their authors recorded and published the history of bygone times that it might be known, to demonstrate that it is far otherwise than they think; and at the same time to teach that the false gods, whom they openly worshipped, or still worship in secret, are most unclean spirits, and most malignant and deceitful demons, even to such a pitch that they take delight in crimes which, whether real or only fictitious, are yet their own, which it has been their will to have celebrated in honor of them at their own festivals; so that human infirmity cannot be called back from the perpetration of damnable deeds, so long as authority is furnished for imitating them that seems even divine. These things we have proved, not from our own conjectures, but partly from recent memory, because we ourselves have seen such things celebrated, and to such deities, partly from the writings of those who have left these things on record to posterity, not as if in reproach but as in honor of their own gods. Thus Varro, a most learned man among them, and of the weightiest authority, when he made separate books concerning things human and things divine, distributing some among the human, others among the divine, according to the special dignity of each, placed the scenic plays not at all among things human, but among things divine; though, certainly, if only there were good and honest men in the state, the scenic plays ought not to be allowed even among things human. And this he did not on his own authority, but because, being born and educated at Rome, he found them among the divine things. Now as we briefly stated in the end of the first book what we intended afterwards to discuss, and as we have disposed of a part of this in the next two books, we see what our readers will expect us now to take up.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c2"><b>BOOK IV</b> [II] Promiseramus ergo quaedam nos esse dicturos adversus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent vel satis esse viderentur mala, quae illa civitas pertulit vel ad eius imperium provinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam vel illis clareret nostra religio vel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Haec in secundo et tertio libro satis, quantum existimo, absolvimus, in secundo agentes de malis morum, quae mala vel sola vel maxima deputanda sunt, in tertio autem de his malis, quae stulti sola perpeti exhorrent, corporis videlicet externarumque rerum, quae plerumque patiuntur et boni; illa vero mala non dico patienter, sed libenter habent, quibus ipsi fiunt mali. Et quam pauca dixi de sola ipsa civitate atque eius imperio! nec inde omnia usque ad Caesarem Augustum. Quid, si commemorare voluissem et exaggerare illa mala, quae non sibi inuicem homines faciunt, sicut sunt uastationes euersionesque bellantum, sed ex ipsius mundi elementis terrenis accidunt rebus (quae uno loco Apuleius breviter stringit in eo libello quem de mundo scripsit, terrena omnia dicens mutationes, conversiones et interitus habere; namque inmodicis tremoribus terrarum, ut verbis eius utar, dissiluisse humum et interceptas urbes cum populis dicit; abruptis etiam imbribus prolutas totas esse regiones; illas etiam, quae prius fuerant continentes, hospitibus atque advenis fluctibus insulatas aliasque desidia maris pedestri accessu peruias factas; ventis ac procellis euersas esse civitates; incendia de nubibus emicasse, quibus Orientis regiones conflagratae perierunt, et in Occidentis plagis scaturrigines quasdam ac proluuiones easdem strages dedisse; sic ex Aetnae verticibus quondam effusis crateribus divino incendio per declivia torrentis vice flammarum flumina cucurrisse), _ si haec atque huius modi, quae habet historia, unde possem, colligere voluissem, quando finissem? quae illis temporibus euenerunt, antequam Christi nomen ulla istorum uana et verae saluti perniciosa conprimeret. Promiseram etiam me demonstraturum, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus verus ad augendum imperium adivuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adivuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint: unde nunc mihi video esse dicendum, et magis de incrementis imperii Romani. Nam de noxia fallacia daemonum, quos velut deos colebant, quantum malorum invexerit moribus eorum, in secundo maxime libro non pauca iam dicta sunt. Per omnes autem absolutos tres libros, ubi oportunum visum est, commendavimus, etiam in ipsis bellicis malis quantum solaciorum Deus per Christi nomen, cui tantum honoris barbari detulerunt praeter bellorum morem, bonis malisque contulerit, quo modo qui facit solem suum oriri super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos. ||We had promised, then, that we would say something against those who attribute the calamities of the Roman republic to our religion, and that we would recount the evils, as many and great as we could remember or might deem sufficient, which that city, or the provinces belonging to its empire, had suffered before their sacrifices were prohibited, all of which would beyond doubt have been attributed to us, if our religion had either already shone on them, or had thus prohibited their sacrilegious rites. These things we have, as we think, fully disposed of in the second and third books, treating in the second of evils in morals, which alone or chiefly are to be accounted evils; and in the third, of those which only fools dread to undergo-namely, those of the body or of outward things-which for the most part the good also suffer. But those evils by which they themselves become evil, they take, I do not say patiently, but with pleasure. And how few evils have I related concerning that one city and its empire! Not even all down to the time of Cжsar Augustus. What if I had chosen to recount and enlarge on those evils, not which men have inflicted on each other; such as the devastations and destructions of war, but which happen in earthly things, from the elements of the world itself. Of such evils Apuleius speaks briefly in one passage of that book which he wrote, De Mundo, saying that all earthly things are subject to change, overthrow, and destruction. For, to use his own words, by excessive earthquakes the ground has burst asunder, and cities with their inhabitants have been clean destroyed: by sudden rains whole regions have been washed away; those also which formerly had been continents, have been insulated by strange and new-come waves, and others, by the subsiding of the sea, have been made passable by the foot of man: by winds and storms cities have been overthrown; fires have flashed forth from the clouds, by which regions in the East being burnt up have perished; and on the western coasts the like destructions have been caused by the bursting forth of waters and floods. So, formerly, from the lofty craters of Etna, rivers of fire kindled by God have flowed like a torrent down the steeps. If I had wished to collect from history wherever I could, these and similar instances, where should I have finished what happened even in those times before the name of Christ had put down those of their idols, so vain and hurtful to true salvation? I promised that I should also point out which of their customs, and for what cause, the true God, in whose power all kingdoms are, had deigned to favor to the enlargement of their empire; and how those whom they think gods can have profited them nothing, but much rather hurt them by deceiving and beguiling them; so that it seems to me I must now speak of these things, and chiefly of the increase of the Roman empire. For I have already said not a little, especially in the second book, about the many evils introduced into their manners by the hurtful deceits of the demons whom they worshipped as gods. But throughout all the three books already completed, where it appeared suitable, we have set forth how much succor God, through the name of Christ, to whom the barbarians beyond the custom of war paid so much honor, has bestowed on the good and bad, according as it is written, "Who makes His sun to rise on the good and the evil, and gives rain to the just and the unjust." Matthew 5:45
|- valign = top
||<div id="c3"><b>BOOK IV</b> [III] Iam itaque videamus, quale sit quod tantam latitudinem ac diuturnitatem imperii Romani illis diis audent tribuere, quos etiam per turpium ludorum obsequia et per turpium hominum ministeria se honeste coluisse contendunt. Quamquam vellem prius paululum inquirere, quae sit ratio, quae prudentia, cum hominum felicitatem non possis ostendere, semper in bellicis cladibus et in sanguine civili vel hostili, tamen humano cum tenebroso timore et cruenta cupiditate versantium, ut vitrea laetitia comparetur fragiliter splendida, cui timeatur horribilius ne repente frangatur, de imperii latitudine ac magnitudine velle gloriari. Hoc ut facilius diiudicetur, non uanescamus inani ventositate iactati atque obtundamus intentionis aciem altisonis vocabulis rerum, cum audimus populos regna provincias; sed duos constituamus homines (nam singulus quisque homo, ut in sermone una littera, ita quasi elementum est civitatis et regni, quantalibet terrarum occupatione latissimi), quorum duorum hominum unum pauperem vel potius mediocrem, alium praedivitem cogitemus; sed divitem timoribus anxium, maeroribus tabescentem, cupiditate flagrantem, numquam securum, semper inquietum, perpetuis inimicitiarum contentionibus anhelantem, augentem sane his miseriis patrimonium suum in inmensum modum atque illis augmentis curas quoque amarissimas aggerantem; mediocrem vero illum re familiari parua atque succincta sibi sufficientem, carissimum suis, cum cognatis vicinis amicis dulcissima pace gaudentem, pietate religiosum, benignum mente, sanum corpore, vita parcum, moribus castum, conscientia securum. Nescio utrum quisquam ita desipiat, ut audeat dubitare quem praeferat. Vt ergo in his duobus hominibus, ita in duabus familiis, ita in duobus populis, ita in duobus regnis regula sequitur aequitatis, qua vigilanter adhibita si nostra intentio corrigatur, facillime videbimus ubi habitet uanitas et ubi felicitas. Quapropter si verum Deus colatur eique sacris veracibus et bonis moribus seruiatur, utile est ut boni longe lateque diu regnent; neque hoc tam ipsis quam illis utile est, quibus regnant. Nam quantum ad ipsos pertinet, pietas et probitas eorum, quae magna Dei dona sunt, sufficit eis ad veram felicitatem, qua et ista vita bene agatur et postea percipiatur aeterna. In hac ergo terra regnum bonorum non tam illis praestatur quam rebus humanis; malorum vero regnum magis regnantibus nocet, qui suos animos uastant scelerum maiore licentia; his autem, qui eis seruiendo subduntur, non nocet nisi propria iniquitas. Nam iustis quidquid malorum ab iniquis dominis inrogatur, non est poena criminis, sed virtutis examen. Proinde bonus etiamsi seruiat, liber est; malus autem etiamsi regnet, seruus est, nec unius hominis, sed, quod est gravius, tot dominorum, quot vitiorum. De quibus vitiis cum ageret scriptura divina: A quo enim quis, inquit, devictus est, huic et seruus addictus est. ||Now, therefore, let us see how it is that they dare to ascribe the very great extent and duration of the Roman empire to those gods whom they contend that they worship honorably, even by the obsequies of vile games and the ministry of vile men: although I should like first to inquire for a little what reason, what prudence, there is in wishing to glory in the greatness and extent of the empire, when you cannot point out the happiness of men who are always rolling, with dark fear and cruel lust, in warlike slaughters and in blood, which, whether shed in civil or foreign war, is still human blood; so that their joy may be compared to glass in its fragile splendor, of which one is horribly afraid lest it should be suddenly broken in pieces. That this may be more easily discerned, let us not come to nought by being carried away with empty boasting, or blunt the edge of our attention by loud-sounding names of things, when we hear of peoples, kingdoms, provinces. But let us suppose a case of two men; for each individual man, like one letter in a language, is as it were the element of a city or kingdom, however far-spreading in its occupation of the earth. Of these two men let us suppose that one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never se cure, always uneasy, panting from the perpetual strife of his enemies, adding to his patrimony indeed by these miseries to an immense degree, and by these additions also heaping up most bitter cares. But that other man of moderate wealth is contented with a small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbors and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I know not whether any one can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate which to prefer. As, therefore, in the case of these two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds good; and if we apply it vigilantly and without prejudice, we shall quite easily see where the mere show of happiness dwells, and where real felicity. Wherefore if the true God is worshipped, and if He is served with genuine rites and true virtue, it is advantageous that good men should long reign both far and wide. Nor is this advantageous so much to themselves, as to those over whom they reign. For, so far as concerns themselves, their piety and probity, which are great gifts of God, suffice to give them true felicity, enabling them to live well the life that now is, and afterwards to receive that which is eternal. In this world, therefore, the dominion of good men is profitable, not so much for themselves as for human affairs. But the dominion of bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule, for they destroy their own souls by greater license in wickedness; while those who are put under them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but, what is far more grievous, of as many masters as he has vices; of which vices when the divine Scripture treats, it says, "For of whom any man is overcome, to the same he is also the bond-slave." 2 Peter 2:19
|- valign = top
||<div id="c4"><b>BOOK IV</b> [IV] Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia? quia et latrocinia quid sunt nisi parua regna? Manus et ipsa hominum est, imperio principis regitur, pacto societatis astringitur, placiti lege praeda dividitur. Hoc malum si in tantum perditorum hominum accessibus crescit, ut et loca teneat sedes constituat, civitates occupet populos subiuget, evidentius regni nomen adsumit, quod ei iam in manifesto confert non dempta cupiditas, sed addita inpunitas. Eleganter enim et veraciter Alexandro illi Magno quidam comprehensus pirata respondit. Nam cum idem rex hominem interrogaret, quid ei videretur, ut mare haberet infestum, ille libera contumacia: Quod tibi, inquit, ut orbem terrarum; sed quia <id> ego exiguo navigio facio, latro vocor; quia tu magna classe, imperator. ||Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
|- valign = top
||<div id="c5"><b>BOOK IV</b> [V] Proinde omitto quaerere quales Romulus congregaverit, quoniam multum eis consultum est, ut ex illa vita dato sibi consortio civitatis poenas debitas cogitare desisterent, quarum metus eos in maiora facinora propellebat, ut deinceps pacatiores essent rebus humanis. Hoc dico, quod ipsum Romanum imperium iam magnum multis gentibus subiugatis ceterisque terribile acerbe sensit, graviter timuit, non paruo negotio devitandae ingentis cladis oppressit, quando paucissimi gladiatores in Campania de ludo fugientes magnum exercitum compararunt, tres duces habuerunt, Italiam latissime et crudelissime uastaverunt. Dicant, quis istos deus adivuerit, ut ex paruo et contemptibili latrocinio pervenirent ad regnum tantis iam Romanis viribus arcibusque metuendum. An quia non diu fuerunt, ideo divinitus negabuntur adiuti? Quasi vero ipsa cuiuslibet hominis vita diuturna est. Isto ergo pacto neminem dii adivuant ad regnandum, quoniam singuli quique cito miruntur, nec beneficium deputandum est. quod exiguo tempore in unoquoque homine ac per hoc singillatim utique in omnibus vice uaporis euanescit. Quid enim interest eorum, qui sub Romulo deos coluerunt et olim sunt mortui, quod post eorum mortem Romanum tantum crevit imperium, cum illi apud inferos causas suas agant? utrum bonas an malas, ad rem praesentem non pertinet. Hoc autem de omnibus intellegendum est, qui per ipsum imperium (quamuis decedentibus succedentibusque mortalibus in longa spatia protendatur) paucis diebus vitae suae cursim raptimque transierunt, actuum suorum sarcinas baiulantes. Sin vero etiam ipsa brevissimi temporis beneficia deorum adiutorio tribuenda sunt, non parum adiuti sunt illi gladiatores: seruilis condicionis vincla reperunt, fugerunt, euaserunt, exercitum magnum et fortissimum collegerunt, oboedientes regum suorum consiliis et iussis multum Romanae celsitudini metuendi et aliquot Romanis imperatoribus insuperabiles multa ceperunt, potiti sunt victoriis plurimis, usi voluptatibus quibus voluerunt, quod suggessit libido fecerunt, postremo donec vinceretur, quod difficillime factum est, sublimes regnantesque vixerunt. Sed ad maiora veniamus. ||I shall not therefore stay to inquire what sort of men Romulus gathered together, seeing he deliberated much about them,-how, being assumed out of that life they led into the fellowship of his city, they might cease to think of the punishment they deserved, the fear of which had driven them to greater villainies; so that henceforth they might be made more peaceable members of society. But this I say, that the Roman empire, which by subduing many nations had already grown great and an object of universal dread, was itself greatly alarmed, and only with much difficulty avoided a disastrous overthrow, because a mere handful of gladiators in Campania, escaping from the games, had recruited a great army, appointed three generals, and most widely and cruelly devastated Italy. Let them say what god aided these men, so that from a small and contemptible band of robbers they attained to a kingdom, feared even by the Romans, who had such great forces and fortresses. Or will they deny that they were divinely aided because they did not last long? As if, indeed, the life of any man whatever lasted long. In that case, too, the gods aid no one to reign, since all individuals quickly die; nor is sovereign power to be reckoned a benefit, because in a little time in every man, and thus in all of them one by one, it vanishes like a vapor. For what does it matter to those who worshipped the gods under Romulus, and are long since dead, that after their death the Roman empire has grown so great, while they plead their causes before the powers beneath? Whether those causes are good or bad, it matters not to the question before us. And this is to be understood of all those who carry with them the heavy burden of their actions, having in the few days of their life swiftly and hurriedly passed over the stage of the imperial office, although the office itself has lasted through long spaces of time, being filled by a constant succession of dying men. If, however, even those benefits which last only for the shortest time are to be ascribed to the aid of the gods, these gladiators were not a little aided, who broke the bonds of their servile condition, fled, escaped, raised a great and most powerful army, obedient to the will and orders of their chiefs and much feared by the Roman majesty, and remaining unsubdued by several Roman generals, seized many places, and, having won very many victories, enjoyed whatever pleasures they wished, and did what their lust suggested, and, until at last they were conquered, which was done with the utmost difficulty, lived sublime and dominant. But let us come to greater matters.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c6"><b>BOOK IV</b> [VI] Iustinus, qui Graecam vel potius peregrinam Trogum Pompeium secutus non Latine tantum, sicut ille, verum etiam breviter scripsit historiam, opus librorum suorum sic incipit: "Principio rerum gentium nationumque imperium penes reges erat, quos ad fastigium huius maiestatis non ambitio popularis, sed spectata inter bonos moderatio provehebat. Populi nullis legibus tenebantur, fines imperii tueri magis quam proferre mos erat, intra suam cuique patriam regna finiebantur. Primus omnium Ninus rex Assyriorum ueterem et quasi avitum gentibus morem noua imperii cupiditate mutavit. Hic primus intulit bella finitimis et rudes adhuc ad resistendum populos ad terminos usque Libyae perdomuit." Et paulo post: "Ninus, inquit, magnitudinem quaesitae dominationis continua possessione firmavit. Domitis igitur proximis cum accessione virium fortior ad alios transiret et proxima quaeque victoria instrumentum sequentis esset, totius Orientis populos subegit." Qualibet autem fide rerum vel iste vel Trogus scripserit (nam quaedam illos fuisse mentitos aliae fideliores litterae ostendunt), constat tamen et inter alios scriptores regnum Assyriorum a Nino rege fuisse longe lateque porrectum. Tam diu autem perseueravit, ut Romanum nondum sit eius aetatis. Nam sicut scribunt, qui chronicam historiam persecuti sunt, mille ducentos et quadraginta annos ab anno primo, quo Ninus regnare coepit, permansit hoc regnum, donec transferretur ad Medos. Inferre autem bella finitimis et in cetera inde procedere ac populos sibi no molestos sola regni cupiditate conterere et subdere, quid aliud quam grande latrocinium nominandum est? ||Justinus, who wrote Greek or rather foreign history in Latin, and briefly, like Trogus Pompeius whom he followed, begins his work thus: "In the beginning of the affairs of peoples and nations the government was in the hands of kings, who were raised to the height of this majesty not by courting the people, but by the knowledge good men had of their moderation. The people were held bound by no laws; the decisions of the princes were instead of laws. It was the custom to guard rather than to extend the boundaries of the empire; and kingdoms were kept within the bounds of each ruler's native land. Ninus king of the Assyrians first of all, through new lust of empire, changed the old and, as it were, ancestral custom of nations. He first made war on his neighbors, and wholly subdued as far as to the frontiers of Libya the nations as yet untrained to resist." And a little after he says: "Ninus established by constant possession the greatness of the authority he had gained. Having mastered his nearest neighbors, he went on to others, strengthened by the accession of forces, and by making each fresh victory the instrument of that which followed, subdued the nations of the whole East." Now, with whatever fidelity to fact either he or Trogus may in general have written-for that they sometimes told lies is shown by other more trustworthy writers-yet it is agreed among other authors, that the kingdom of the Assyrians was extended far and wide by King Ninus. And it lasted so long, that the Roman empire has not yet attained the same age; for, as those write who have treated of chronological history, this kingdom endured for twelve hundred and forty years from the first year in which Ninus began to reign, until it was transferred to the Medes. But to make war on your neighbors, and thence to proceed to others, and through mere lust of dominion to crush and subdue people who do you no harm, what else is this to be called than great robbery?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c7"><b>BOOK IV</b> [VII] Si nullo deorum adiutorio tam magnum hoc regnum et prolixum fuit, quare diis Romanis tribuitur Romanum regnum locis amplum temporibusque diuturnum? quaecumque enim causa est illa, eadem est etiam ista. Si autem et illud eorum adiutorio tribuendum esse contendunt, quaero quorum. Non enim aliae gentes, quas Ninus domuit et subegit, alios tunc colebant deos. Aut si proprios habuerunt Assyrii, quasi peritiores fabros imperii construendi atque servandi, numquidnam mortui sunt, quando et ipsi imperium perdiderunt, aut mercede non sibi reddita vel alia maiore promissa ad Medos transire maluerunt, atque inde rursus ad Persas Cyro inuitante et aliquid commodius pollicente? Quae gens non angustis Orientis finibus post Alexandri Macedonis regnum magnum locis, sed brevissimum tempore in suo regno adhuc usque perdurat. Hoc si ita est, aut infideles dii sunt, qui suos deserunt et ad hostes transeunt (quod nec homo fecit Camillus, quando victor et expugnator adversissimae civitatis Romam, cui vicerat, sensit ingratam, quam tamen postea oblitus iniuriae, memor patriae a Gallis iterum liberavit), aut non ita fortes sunt, ut deos esse fortes decet, qui possunt humanis vel consiliis vel viribus vinci; aut si, cum inter se belligerant, non dii ab hominibus, sed dii ab aliis diis fortes vincuntur, qui sunt quarumque proprii civitatum: habent ergo et ipsi inter se inimicitias, quas pro sua quisque parte suscipiunt. Non itaque deos suos debuit colere civitas magis quam alios, a quibus adivuarentur sui. Postremo quoquo modo se habeat deorum iste vel transitus vel fuga, vel migratio vel in pugna defectio, nondum illis temporibus atque in illis terrarum partibus Christi nomen fuerat praedicatum, quando illa regna per ingentes bellicas clades amissa atque translata sunt. Nam si post mille ducentos et quod excurrit annos, quando regnum Assyriis ablatum est, _ si iam ibi Christiana religio aliud regnum praedicaret aeternum et deorum falsorum cultus sacrilegos inhiberet: quid aliud illius gentis uani homines dicerent, nisi regnum, quod tam diu conservatum est, nulla alia causa nisi suis religionibus desertis et illa recepta perire potuisse? In qua voce uanitatis, quae poterat esse, isti adtendant speculum suum, et similia conqueri, si ullus in eis pudor est, erubescant. Quamquam Romanum imperium adflictum est potius quam mutatum, quod et aliis ante Christi nomen temporibus ei contigit et ab illa est adflictione recreatum, quod nec istis temporibus desperandum est. Quis enim de hac re novit voluntatem Dei? ||If this kingdom was so great and lasting without the aid of the gods, why is the ample territory and long duration of the Roman empire to be ascribed to the Roman gods? For whatever is the cause in it, the same is in the other also. But if they contend that the prosperity of the other also is to be attributed to the aid of the gods, I ask of which? For the other nations whom Ninus overcame, did not then worship other gods. Or if the Assyrians had gods of their own, who, so to speak, were more skillful workmen in the construction and preservation of the empire, whether are they dead, since they themselves have also lost the empire; or, having been defrauded of their pay, or promised a greater, have they chosen rather to go over to the Medes, and from them again to the Persians, because Cyrus invited them, and promised them something still more advantageous? This nation, indeed, since the time of the kingdom of Alexander the Macedonian, which was as brief in duration as it was great in extent, has preserved its own empire, and at this day occupies no small territories in the East. If this is so, then either the gods are unfaithful, who desert their own and go over to their enemies, which Camillus, who was but a man, did not do, when, being victor and subduer of a most hostile state, although he had felt that Rome, for whom he had done so much, was ungrateful, yet afterwards, forgetting the injury and remembering his native land, he freed her again from the Gauls; or they are not so strong as gods ought to be, since they can be overcome by human skill or strength. Or if, when they carry on war among themselves, the gods are not overcome by men, but some gods who are peculiar to certain cities are perchance overcome by other gods, it follows that they have quarrels among themselves which they uphold, each for his own part. Therefore a city ought not to worship its own gods, but rather others who aid their own worshippers. Finally, whatever may have been the case as to this change of sides, or flight, or migration, or failure in battle on the part of the gods, the name of Christ had not yet been proclaimed in those parts of the earth when these kingdoms were lost and transferred through great destructions in war. For if, after more than twelve hundred years, when the kingdom was taken away from the Assyrians, the Christian religion had there already preached another eternal kingdom, and put a stop to the sacrilegious worship of false gods, what else would the foolish men of that nation have said, but that the kingdom which had been so long preserved, could be lost for no other cause than the desertion of their own religions and the reception of Christianity? In which foolish speech that might have been uttered, let those we speak of observe their own likeness, and blush, if there is any sense of shame in them, because they have uttered similar complaints; although the Roman empire is afflicted rather than changed,-a thing which has befallen it in other times also, before the name of Christ was heard, and it has been restored after such affliction,-a thing which even in these times is not to be despaired of. For who knows the will of God concerning this matter?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c8"><b>BOOK IV</b> [VIII] Deinde quaeramus, si placet, ex tanta deorum turba, quam Romani colebant, quem potissimum vel quos deos credant illud imperium dilatasse atque servasse. Neque enim in hoc tam praeclaro opere et tantae plenissimo dignitatis audent aliquas partes deae Cluacinae tribuere aut Volupiae, quae a voluptate appellata est, aut Lubentinae, cui nomen est a libidine, aut Vaticano, qui infantum uagitibus praesidet, aut Cuninae, quae cunas eorum administrat. Quando autem possunt uno loco libri huius commemorari omnia nomina deorum et dearum, quae illi grandibus voluminibus vix comprehendere potuerunt singulis rebus propria dispertientes officia numinum? Nec agrorum munus uni alicui deo committendum arbitrati sunt, sed rura deae Rusinae, iuga montium deo Iugatino; collibus deae Collatinam, vallibus Valloniam praefecerunt. Nec saltem potuerunt unam Segetiam talem invenire, cui semel segetes commendarent, sed sata frumenta, quamdiu sub terra essent, praepositam voluerunt habere deam Seiam; cum vero iam essent super terram et segetem facerent, deam Segetiam; frumentis vero collectis atque reconditis, ut tuto servarentur, deam Tutilinam praeposuerunt. cui non sufficere videretur illa Segetia, quamdiu seges ab initiis herbidis usque ad aristas aridas perveniret? Non tamen satis fuit hominibus deorum multitudinem amantibus, ut anima misera daemoniorum turbae prostitueretur, unius Dei veri castum dedignata complexum. Praefecerunt ergo Proserpinam frumentis germinantibus, geniculis nodisque culmorum deum Nodutum, inuolunmentis folliculorum deam Volutinam; cum folliculi patescunt, ut spica exeat, deam Patelanam, cum segetes novis aristis aequantur, quia ueteres aequare hostire dixerunt, deam Hostilinam; florentibus frumentis deam Floram, lactescentibus deum Lacturnum, maturescentibus deam Matutam; cum runcantur, id est a terra auferuntur, deam Runcinam. Nec omnia commemoro, quia me piget quod illos non pudet. Haec autem paucissima ideo dixi, ut intellegeretur nullo modo eos dicere audere ista numina imperium constituisse auxisse conservasse Romanum, quae ita suis quaeque adhibebantur officiis, ut nihil universum uni alicui crederetur. Quando ergo Segetia curaret imperium, cui curam gerere simul et segetibus et arboribus non licebat? Quando de armis Cunina cogitaret, cuius praepositura paruulorum cunas non permittebatur excedere? Quando Nodutus adivuaret in bello, qui nec ad folliculum spicae, sed tantum ad nodum geniculi pertinebat? Vnum quisque domui suae ponit ostiarium, et quia homo est, omnino sufficit: tres deos isti posuerunt, Forculum foribus, Cardeam cardini, Limentinum limini. Ita non poterat Forculus simul et cardinem limenque servare. ||Next let us ask, if they please, out of so great a crowd of gods which the Romans worship, whom in special, or what gods they believe to have extended and preserved that empire. Now, surely of this work, which is so excellent and so very full of the highest dignity, they dare not ascribe any part to the goddess Cloacina; or to Volupia, who has her appellation from voluptuousness; or to Libentina, who has her name from lust; or to Vaticanus, who presides over the screaming of infants; or to Cunina, who rules over their cradles. But how is it possible to recount in one part of this book all the names of gods or goddesses, which they could scarcely comprise in great volumes, distributing among these divinities their peculiar offices about single things? They have not even thought that the charge of their lands should be committed to any one god: but they have entrusted their farms to Rusina; the ridges of the mountains to Jugatinus; over the downs they have set the goddess Collatina; over the valleys, Vallonia. Nor could they even find one Segetia so competent, that they could commend to her care all their corn crops at once; but so long as their seed-corn was still under the ground, they would have the goddess Seia set over it; then, whenever it was above ground and formed straw, they set over it the goddess Segetia; and when the grain was collected and stored, they set over it the goddess Tutilina, that it might be kept safe. Who would not have thought that goddess Segetia sufficient to take care of the standing corn until it had passed from the first green blades to the dry ears? Yet she was not enough for men, who loved a multitude of gods, that the miserable soul, despising the chaste embrace of the one true God, should be prostituted to a crowd of demons. Therefore they set Proserpina over the germinating seeds; over the joints and knots of the stems, the god Nodotus; over the sheaths enfolding the ears, the goddess Voluntina; when the sheaths opened that the spike might shoot forth, it was ascribed to the goddess Patelana; when the stems stood all equal with new ears, because the ancients described this equalizing by the term hostire, it was ascribed to the goddess Hostilina; when the grain was in flower, it was dedicated to the goddess Flora; when full of milk, to the god Lacturnus; when maturing, to the goddess Matuta; when the crop was runcated,-that is, removed from the soil,-to the goddess Runcina. Nor do I yet recount them all, for I am sick of all this, though it gives them no shame. Only, I have said these very few things, in order that it may be understood they dare by no means say that the Roman empire has been established, increased, and preserved by their deities, who had all their own functions assigned to them in such a way, that no general oversight was entrusted to any one of them. When, therefore, could Segetia take care of the empire, who was not allowed to take care of the corn and the trees? When could Cunina take thought about war, whose oversight was not allowed to go beyond the cradles of the babies? When could Nodotus give help in battle, who had nothing to do even with the sheath of the ear, but only with the knots of the joints? Every one sets a porter at the door of his house, and because he is a man, he is quite sufficient; but these people have set three gods, Forculus to the doors, Cardea to the hinge, Limentinus to the threshold. Thus Forculus could not at the same time take care also of the hinge and the threshold.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c9"><b>BOOK IV</b> [IX] Omissa igitur ista turba minutorum deorum vel aliquantum intermissa officium maiorum deorum debemus inquirere, quo Roma tam magna facta est, ut tam diu tot gentibus imperaret. Nimirum ergo Iovis hoc opus est. Ipsum enim deorum omnium dearumque regem volunt: hoc eius indicat sceptrum, hoc in alto colle Capitolium. De isto deo quamuis a poeta dictum convenientissime praedicant: Iovis omnia plena. Hunc Varro credit etiam ab his coli, qui unum Deum solum sine simulacro colunt, sed alio nomine nuncupari. Quod si ita est, cur tam male tractatus est Romae, sicut quidem et in ceteris gentibus, ut ei fieret simulacrum? quod ipsi etiam Varroni ita displicet, ut, cum tantae civitatis peruersa consuetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere et scribere dubitaret, quod hi, qui populis instituerunt simulacra, et metum dempserunt et errorem addiderunt. ||Therefore omitting, or passing by for a little, that crowd of petty gods, we ought to inquire into the part performed by the great gods, whereby Rome has been made so great as to reign so long over so many nations. Doubtless, therefore, this is the work of Jove. For they will have it that he is the king of all the gods and goddesses, as is shown by his sceptre and by the Capitol on the lofty hill. Concerning that god they publish a saying which, although that of a poet, is most apt, "All things are full of Jove." Varro believes that this god is worshipped, although called by another name, even by those who worship one God alone without any image. But if this is so, why has he been so badly used at Rome (and indeed by other nations too), that an image of him should be made?-a thing which was so displeasing to Varro himself, that although he was overborne by the perverse custom of so great a city, he had not the least hesitation in both saying and writing, that those who have appointed images for the people have both taken away fear and added error.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c10"><b>BOOK IV</b> [X] Cur illi etiam Iuno uxor adiungitur, quae dicatur "soror et coniux"? Quia Iovem, inquiunt, in aethere accipimus, in aere Iunonem, et haec duo elementa coniuncta sunt, alterum superius, alterum inferius. Non est ergo ille, de quo dictum est "Iovis omnia plena", si aliquam partem implet et Iuno. An uterque utrumque implet, et ambo isti coniuges et in duobus istis elementis et in singulis simul sunt? Cur ergo aether datur Iovi, aer Iunoni? Postremo ipsi duo satis essent: quid est quod mare Neptuno tribuitur, terra Plutoni? Et ne ipsi quoque sine coniugibus remanerent, additur Neptuno Salacia, Plutoni Proserpina. Nam sicut inferiorem caeli partem, id est aerem, inquiunt, Iuno tenet, ita inferiorem maris Salacia et terrae inferiorem Proserpina. quaerunt quem ad modum sarciant fabulas, nec inveniunt. Si enim haec ita essent, tria potius elementa mundi esse, non quattuor, eorum ueteres proderent, ut singula deorum coniugia dividerentur singulis elementis. Nunc euero omni modo adfirmaverunt aliud esse aetherem, aliud aerem. Aqua vero sive superior sive inferior utique aqua est; puta quia dissimilis: numquid in tantum ut aqua non sit? Et inferior terra quid aliud potest esse quam terra quantalibet diversitate distincta? Deinde ecce iam totus in his quattuor vel tribus elementis corporeus completus est mundus: Mineruua ubi erit? quid tenebit? quid implebit? Simul enim cum his in Capitolio constitua est, cum ista filia non sit amborum. Aut si aetheris partem superiorem Mineruam tenere dicunt et hac occasione fingere poetas quod de Iovis capitae nata sit: cur non ergo ipsa potius deorum regina deputatur, quod sit Iove superior? An quia indignum erat praeponere patri filiam? Cur non de Iove ipso erga Saturnum iustitia ista servata est? An quia victus est? Ergo pugnarunt? Absit, inquiunt; fabularum est ista garrulitas. Ecce fabulis non credatur et de diis meliora sentiantur: cur ergo non data est patri Iovis, etsi non sublimior, aequalis certe sedes honoris? Quia Saturnus, inquiunt, temprois longitudo est. Tempus ergo colunt, qui Saturnum colunt, et rex deorum Iuppiter insinuatur natus ex tempore. Quid enim indignum dicitur, cum Iuppiter et Iuno nati dicuntur ex tempore, si caelum est ille et illa terra, cum facta sint utique caelum et terra? nam hoc quoque in libirs suis habent eorum docti atque sapientes. Neque de figmentis poeticis, sed de philosophorum libris a Vergilio dictum est: Tum pater omnipotens fecundis imbribus aether Coniugis in gremium laetae descendit, id est in gremium telluris aut terrae; quia et hic aliquas differentias volunt esse atque in ipsa terra aliud Terram, aliud Tellurem, aliud Tellumonem putant, et hos omnes deos habent suis nominibus appellatos, suis officiis distinctos, suis aris sacrisque veneratos. Eandem terram etiam matrem deum vocant, ut iam poetae tolerabiliora confingant, si secundum istorum non poeticos, sed sacrorum libros non solum Iuno, "soror et coniux", sed etiam mater est Iovis. Eandem terram Cererem, eandem etiam Vestam volunt, cum tamen saepius Vestam non nisi ignem esse perhibeant pertinentem ad focos, sine quibus civitas esse non potest, et ideo illi virgines solere seruire, quod sicut ex virgine, ita nihil ex igne nascatur. Quam totam uanitatem aboleri et extingui utique ab illo oportuit, qui est natus ex virgine. Quis enim ferat, quod, cum tantum honoris et quasi castitatis igni tribuerint, aliquando Vestam non erubescunt etiam Venerem dicere, ut uanescat in ancillis eius honorata virginitas? Si enim Vesta Venus est, quo modo ei rite virgines a Veneris operibus abstinendo seruierunt? An Veneres duae sunt, una virgo, altera mulier? An potius tres, una virginum, quaze etiam Vesta est, alia coniugatarum, alia meretricum? Cui etiam Phoenicis donum dabant de prostitutione filioaru, antequam eas iungerent viris. Quae illarum est matrona Vulcani? Non utique virgo, quoniam habet maritum. Absit autem ut meretrix, ne filio Iunonis et cooperario Mineruae facere videamur iniuriam. Ergo haec ad coniugatas intellegitur pertinere: sed eam nolumus imitentur in eo quod fecit illa cum Marte. Rursus, inquiunt, ad fabulas redis. Quae ista iustitia est, nobis suscensere, quod talia dicimus de diis eorum, et sibi non suscensere, qui haec in theatris libentissime spectant crimina deorum suorum? Et (quod esset incredibile, nisi contestatissime probaretur) haec ipsa theatrica crimina deorum in honorem instituta sunt eorundem deorum. ||Why, also, is Juno united to him as his wife, who is called at once "sister and yoke-fellow?" Because, say they, we have Jove in the ether, Juno in the air; and these two elements are united, the one being superior, the other inferior. It is not he, then, of whom it is said, "All things are full of Jove," if Juno also fills some part. Does each fill either, and are both of this couple in both of these elements, and in each of them at the same time? Why, then, is the ether given to Jove, the air to Juno? Besides, these two should have been enough. Why is it that the sea is assigned to Neptune, the earth to Pluto? And that these also might not be left without mates, Salacia is joined to Neptune, Proserpine to Pluto. For they say that, as Juno possesses the lower part of the heavens,-that is, the air,-so Salacia possesses the lower part of the sea, and Proserpine the lower part of the earth. They seek how they may patch up these fables, but they find no way. For if these things were so, their ancient sages would have maintained that there are three chief elements of the world, not four, in order that each of the elements might have a pair of gods. Now, they have positively affirmed that the ether is one thing, the air another. But water, whether higher or lower, is surely water. Suppose it ever so unlike, can it ever be so much so as no longer to be water? And the lower earth, by whatever divinity it may be distinguished, what else can it be than earth? Lo, then, since the whole physical world is complete in these four or three elements, where shall Minerva be? What should she possess, what should she fill? For she is placed in the Capitol along with these two, although she is not the offspring of their marriage. Or if they say that she possesses the higher part of the ether,-and on that account the poets have feigned that she sprang from the head of Jove,-why then is she not rather reckoned queen of the gods, because she is superior to Jove? Is it because it would be improper to set the daughter before the father? Why, then, is not that rule of justice observed concerning Jove himself toward Saturn? Is it because he was conquered? Have they fought then? By no means, say they; that is an old wife's fable. Lo, we are not to believe fables, and must hold more worthy opinions concerning the gods! Why, then, do they not assign to the father of Jove a seat, if not of higher, at least of equal honor? Because Saturn, say they, is length of time. Therefore they who worship Saturn worship Time; and it is insinuated that Jupiter, the king of the gods, was born of Time. For is anything unworthy said when Jupiter and Juno are said to have been sprung from Time, if he is the heaven and she is the earth, since both heaven and earth have been made, and are therefore not eternal? For their learned and wise men have this also in their books. Nor is that saying taken by Virgil out of poetic figments, but out of the books of philosophers,"Then Ether, the Father Almighty, in copious showers descendedInto his spouse's glad bosom, making it fertile,"-that is, into the bosom of Tellus, or the earth. Although here, also, they will have it that there are some differences, and think that in the earth herself Terra is one thing, Tellus another, and Tellumo another. And they have all these as gods, called by their own names distinguished by their own offices, and venerated with their own altars and rites. This same earth also they call the mother of the gods, so that even the fictions of the poets are more tolerable, if, according, not to their poetical but sacred books, Juno is not only the sister and wife, but also the mother of Jove. The same earth they worship as Ceres, and also as Vesta; while yet they more frequently affirm that Vesta is nothing else than fire, pertaining to the hearths, without which the city cannot exist; and therefore virgins are wont to serve her, because as nothing is born of a virgin, so nothing is born of fire;-but all this nonsense ought to be completely abolished and extinguished by Him who is born of a virgin. For who can bear that, while they ascribe to the fire so much honor, and, as it were, chastity, they do not blush sometimes even to call Vesta Venus, so that honored virginity may vanish in her hand-maidens? For if Vesta is Venus, how can virgins rightly serve her by abstaining from venery? Are there two Venuses, the one a virgin, the other not a maid? Or rather, are there three, one the goddess of virgins, who is also called Vesta, another the goddess of wives, and another of harlots? To her also the Phenicians offered a gift by prostituting their daughters before they united them to husbands. Which of these is the wife of Vulcan? Certainly not the virgin, since she has a husband. Far be it from us to say it is the harlot, lest we should seem to wrong the son of Juno and fellow-worker of Minerva. Therefore it is to be understood that she belongs to the married people; but we would not wish them to imitate her in what she did with Mars. "Again," say they, "you return to fables." What sort of justice is that, to be angry with us because we say such things of their gods, and not to be angry with themselves, who in their theatres most willingly behold the crimes of their gods? And,-a thing incredible, if it were not thoroughly well proved,-these very theatric representations of the crimes of their gods have been instituted in honor of these same gods.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c11"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XI] Quodlibet igitur physicis rationibus et disputationibus adserant: modo sit Iuppiter corporei huius mundi animus, qui universam istam molem ex quattuor vel quot eis placet elementis constructam atque compactam implet et movet, modo inde suas partes sorori et fratribus cedat; modo sit aether, ut aerem Iunonem subterfusam desuper amplectatur, modo totum simul cum aere sit ipse caelum, terram vero tamquam coniugem eandemque matrem (quia hoc in divinis turpe non est) fecundis imbribus et seminibus fetet; modo autem (ne sit necesse per cuncta discurrere) deus unus, de quo multi a poeta nobilissimo dictum putant: deum namque ire per omnes Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum; ipse in aethere sit Iuppiter, ipse in aere Iuno, ipse in mari Neptunus, in inferioribus etiam maris ipse Salacia, in terra Pluto, in terra inferiore Proserpina, in focis domesticis Vesta, in fabrorum fornace Vulcanus, in sideribus sol et luna et stellae, in divinantibus Apollo, in merce Mercurius, in Iano initiator, in Termino terminator, Saturnus in tempore, Mars et Bellona in bellis, Liber in vineis, Ceres in frumentis, Diana in siluis, Minerua in ingeniis; ipse sit postremo etiam in illa turba quasi plebeiorum deorum; ipse praesit nomine Liberi virorum seminibus et nomine Liberae feminarum, ipse sit Diespater, qui partum perducat ad diem; ipse sit dea Mena, quam praefecerunt menstruis feminarum, ipse Lucina, quae a parturientibus inuocetur; ipse opem ferat nascentibus excipiendo eos sinu terrae et vocetur Opis, ipse in uagitu os aperiat et vocetur deus Vaticanus; ipse leuet de terra et vocetur dea Leuana, ipse cunas tueatur et vocetur <dea> Cunia; non sit alius sed ipse in illis deabus, quae fata nascentibus canunt et vocantur Carmentes, praesit fortuitis voceturque Fortuna; in diva Rumina mammam paruulo inmulgeat, quia rumam dixerunt ueteres mammam, in diva Potina potionem ministret, in diva Educa escam praebeat; de pauore infantum Paventia nuncupetur, de spe, quae venit, Venilia, de voluptate Volupia, de actu Agenoria; de stimulis, quibus ad nimium actum homo inpellitur, dea Stimula nominetur; Strenia dea sit strenuum faciendo, Numeria, quae numerare doceat, Camena, quae canere; ipse sit et deus Consus praebendo consilia et dea Sentia sententias inspirando; ipse dea Ivuentas, quae post praetextam excipiat ivuenalis aetatis exordia, ipse sit et Fortuna barbata, quae adultos barba induat (quos honorare noluerunt, ut hoc qualecumque numen saltem masculum deum vel a barba Barbatum, sicut a nodis Nodutum, vel acete non Fortunam, sed quia barbas habet Fortunium nominarent); ipse in Iugatino deo coniuges iungat, et cum virgini uxori zona solvitur, ipse inuocetur et dea Virginensis vocetur; ipse sit Mutunus vel Tutunus, qui est apud Graecos Priapus: si non pudet, haec omnia quae dixi et quaecumque non dixi (non enim omnia dicenda arbitratus sum), hic omnes dii deaeque sit unus Iuppiter, sive sint, ut quidam volunt, omnia ista partes eius sive virtutes eius, sicut eis videtur, quibus eum placet esse mundi animum, quae sententia velut magnorum multumque doctorum est. Haec si ita sunt (quod quale sit, nondum interim quaero), quid perderent, si unum Deum colerent prudentiore compendio? Quid enim eius contemneretur, cum ipse coleretur? Si autem metuendum fuit, ne praetermissae sive neglectae partes eius irascerentur: non ergo, ut volunt, velut unius animantis haec tota vita est, quae omnes continet deos, quasi suas virtutes vel membra vel partes; sed suam quaeque pars habet vitam a ceteris separatam, si praeter alteram irasci altera potest, et alia placari, alia concitari. Si autem dicitur omnes simul, id est totum ipsum Iovem, potuisse offendi, si partes eius non etiam singillatim minutatimque colerentur, stulte dicitur. Nulla quippe illarum praetermitteretur, cum ipse unus, qui haberet omnia, coleretur. Nam ut alia omittam, quae sunt innumerabilia, cum dicunt omnia sidera partes Iovis esse et omnia vivere atque rationales animas habere, et ideo sine controversia deos esse, non vident quam multos non colant, quam multis aedes non construant, aras non statuant, quas tamen paucissimis siderum statuendas esse putaverunt et singillatim sacrificandum. Si igitur irascuntur, qui non singillatim coluntur, non metuunt paucis placatis toto caelo irato vivere? Si autem stellas omnes ideo colunt, quia in Iove sunt quem colunt, isto compendio possent in illo uno omnibus supplicare (sic enim nemo irasceretur, cum in illo uno nemo contemneretur) potius quam cultis quibusdam iusta irascendi causa illis, qui praetermissi essent, multo numerosioribus praeberetur, praesertim cum eis de superna sede fulgentibus turpi nuditate distentus praeponeretur Priapus. ||Let them therefore assert as many things as ever they please in physical reasonings and disputations. One while let Jupiter be the soul of this corporeal world, who fills and moves that whole mass, constructed and compacted out of four, or as many elements as they please; another while, let him yield to his sister and brothers their parts of it: now let him be the ether, that from above he may embrace Juno, the air spread out beneath; again, let him be the whole heaven along with the air, and impregnate with fertilizing showers and seeds the earth, as his wife, and, at the same time, his mother (for this is not vile in divine beings); and yet again (that it may not be necessary to run through them all), let him, the one god, of whom many think it has been said by a most noble poet,"For God pervades all things,All lands, and the tracts of the sea, and the depth of the heavens,"-let it be him who in the ether is Jupiter; in the air, Juno; in the sea, Neptune; in the lower parts of the sea, Salacia; in the earth, Pluto; in the lower part of the earth, Proserpine; on the domestic hearths, Vesta; in the furnace of the workmen, Vulcan; among the stars, Sol and Luna, and the Stars; in divination, Apollo; in merchandise, Mercury; in Janus, the initiator; in Terminus, the terminator; Saturn, in time; Mars and Bellona, in war; Liber, in vineyards; Ceres, in cornfields; Diana, in forests; Minerva, in learning. Finally, let it be him who is in that crowd, as it were, of plebeian gods: let him preside under the name of Liber over the seed of men, and under that of Libera over that of women: let him be Diespiter, who brings forth the birth to the light of day: let him be the goddess Mena, whom they set over the menstruation of women: let him be Lucina, who is invoked by women in childbirth: let him bring help to those who are being born, by taking them up from the bosom of the earth, and let him be called Opis: let him open the mouth in the crying babe, and be called the god Vaticanus: let him lift it from the earth, and be called the goddess Levana; let him watch over cradles, and be called the goddess Cunina: let it be no other than he who is in those goddesses, who sing the fates of the new born, and are called Carmentes: let him preside over fortuitous events, and be called Fortuna: in the goddess Rumina, let him milk out the breast to the little one, because the ancients termed the breast ruma: in the goddess Potina, let him administer drink: in the goddess Educa, let him supply food: from the terror of infants, let him be styled Paventia: from the hope which comes, Venilia: from voluptuousness, Volupia: from action, Agenor: from the stimulants by which man is spurred on to much action, let him be named the goddess Stimula: let him be the goddess Strenia, for making strenuous; Numeria, who teaches to number; Camoena, who teaches to sing: let him be both the god Consus for granting counsel, and the goddess Sentia for inspiring sentences: let him be the goddess Juventas, who, after the robe of boyhood is laid aside, takes charge of the beginning of the youthful age: let him be Fortuna Barbata, who endues adults with a beard, whom they have not chosen to honor; so that this divinity, whatever it may be, should at least be a male god, named either Barbatus, from barba, like Nodotus, from nodus; or, certainly, not Fortuna, but because he has beards, Fortunius: let him, in the god Jugatinus, yoke couples in marriage; and when the girdle of the virgin wife is loosed, let him be invoked as the goddess Virginiensis: let him be Mutunus or Tuternus, who, among the Greeks, is called Priapus. If they are not ashamed of it, let all these which I have named, and whatever others I have not named (for I have not thought fit to name all), let all these gods and goddesses be that one Jupiter, whether, as some will have it, all these are parts of him, or are his powers, as those think who are pleased to consider him the soul of the world, which is the opinion of most of their doctors, and these the greatest. If these things are so (how evil they may be I do not yet meanwhile inquire), what would they lose, if they, by a more prudent abridgment, should worship one god? For what part of him could be contemned if he himself should be worshipped? But if they are afraid lest parts of him should be angry at being passed by or neglected, then it is not the case, as they will have it, that this whole is as the life of one living being, which contains all the gods together, as if they were its virtues, or members, or parts; but each part has its own life separate from the rest, if it is so that one can be angered, appeased, or stirred up more than another. But if it is said that all together,-that is, the whole Jove himself,-would be offended if his parts were not also worshipped singly and minutely, it is foolishly spoken. Surely none of them could be passed by if he who singly possesses them all should be worshipped. For, to omit other things which are innumerable, when they say that all the stars are parts of Jove, and are all alive, and have rational souls, and therefore without controversy are gods, can they not see how many they do not worship, to how many they do not build temples or set up altars, and to how very few, in fact, of the stars they have thought of setting them up and offering sacrifice? If, therefore, those are displeased who are not severally worshipped, do they not fear to live with only a few appeased, while all heaven is displeased? But if they worship all the stars because they are part of Jove whom they worship, by the same compendious method they could supplicate them all in him alone. For in this way no one would be displeased, since in him alone all would be supplicated. No one would be contemned, instead of there being just cause of displeasure given to the much greater number who are passed by in the worship offered to some; especially when Priapus, stretched out in vile nakedness, is preferred to those who shine from their supernal abode.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c12"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XII] Quid? illud nonne debet movere acutos homins vel qualescumque homines (non enim ad hoc ingenii opus est excellentia), ut deposito studio contentionis adtendant, si mundi animus Deus est eique animo mundus ut corpus est, ut sit unum animal constans ex animo et corpore, atque iste Deus est sinu quodam naturae in se ipso continens omnia, ut ex ipsius anima, qua vivificatur tota ista moles, vitae atque animae cunctorum viventium pro cuiusque nascendi sorte sumantur, nihil omnino remanere, quod non sit pars Dei. Quod si ita est, quis non videat quanta impietas et inreligiositas consequantur, ut, quod calcaverit quisque, partem Dei calcet, in omni animante occidendo pars Dei trucidetur? Nolo omnia dicere, quae possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem sine verecundia non possunt. ||Ought not men of intelligence, and indeed men of every kind, to be stirred up to examine the nature of this opinion? For there is no need of excellent capacity for this task, that putting away the desire of contention, they may observe that if God is the soul of the world, and the world is as a body to Him, who is the soul, He must be one living being consisting of soul and body, and that this same God is a kind of womb of nature containing all things in Himself, so that the lives and souls of all living things are taken, according to the manner of each one's birth, out of His soul which vivifies that whole mass, and therefore nothing at all remains which is not a part of God. And if this is so, who cannot see what impious and irreligious consequences follow, such as that whatever one may trample, he must trample a part of God, and in slaying any living creature, a part of God must be slaughtered? But I am unwilling to utter all that may occur to those who think of it, yet cannot be spoken without irreverence.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c13"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XIII] Si autem sola animalia rationalia, sicut sunt homines, partes Dei esse contendunt: non video quidem, si totus mundus est Deus, quo modo bestias ab eius partibus separent; sed obluctari quid opus est? De ipso rationali animante, id est homine, quid infelicius credi potest, quam Dei partem uapulare, cum puer uapulat? Iam vero partes Dei fieri lascivas, iniquas, impias atque omnino damnabiles quis ferre possit, nisi qui prorsus insanit? Postremo quid irascitur eis, a quibus non colitur, cum a suis partibus non colatur? Restat ergo ut dicant omnes deos suas habere vitas, sibi quemque vivere, nullum eorum esse partem cuiusquam, sed omnes colendos, qui cognosci et coli possunt, quia tam multi sunt, ut omnes non possint. Quorum Iuppiter quia rex praesidet, ipsum credo ab eis putari regnum constituisse vel auxisse Romanum. Nam si hoc ipse non fecit, quem alium deum opus tam magnum potuisse adgredi credant, cum omnes occupati sint officiis et operibus propriis, nec alter inruat in alterius? A rege igitur deorum regnum hominum potuit propagari et augeri. ||But if they contend that only rational animals, such as men, are parts of God, I do not really see how, if the whole world is God, they can separate beasts from being parts of Him. But what need is there of striving about that? Concerning the rational animal himself,-that is, man,-what more unhappy belief can be entertained than that a part of God is whipped when a boy is whipped? And who, unless he is quite mad, could bear the thought that parts of God can become lascivi ous, iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable? In brief, why is God angry at those who do not worship Him, since these offenders are parts of Himself? It remains, therefore, that they must say that all the gods have their own lives; that each one lives for himself, and none of them is a part of any one; but that all are to be worshipped,-at least as many as can be known and worshipped; for they are so many it is impossible that all can be so. And of all these, I believe that Jupiter, because he presides as king, is thought by them to have both established and extended the Roman empire. For if he has not done it, what other god do they believe could have attempted so great a work, when they must all be occupied with their own offices and works, nor can one intrude on that of another? Could the kingdom of men then be propagated and increased by the king of the gods?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c14"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XIV] Hic primum quaero, cur non etiam ipsum regnum aliquis deus est? Cur enim non ita sit, si Victoria dea est? Aut quid ipso Iove in hac causa opus est, si Victoria faveat sitque propitia et semper eat ad illos, quos uult esse victores? Hac dea favente et propitia, etiam Iove uacante vel aliud agente, quae gentes non subditae remanerent? quae regna non cederent? An forte displicet bonis iniquissima inprobitate pugnare et finitimos quietos nullamque iniuriam facientes ad dilatandum regnum bello spontaneo prouocare? Plane si ita sentiunt approbo et laudo. ||Here, first of all, I ask, why even the kingdom itself is not some god. For why should not it also be so, if Victory is a goddess? Or what need is there of Jove himself in this affair, if Victory favors and is propitious, and always goes to those whom she wishes to be victorious? With this goddess favorable and propitious, even if Jove was idle and did nothing, what nations could remain unsubdued, what kingdom would not yield? But perhaps it is displeasing to good men to fight with most wicked unrighteousness, and provoke with voluntary war neighbors who are peaceable and do no wrong, in order to enlarge a kingdom? If they feel thus, I entirely approve and praise them.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c15"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XV] Videant ergo ne forte non pertineat ad viros bonos gaudere de regni latitudine. Iniquitas enim eorum, cum quibus iusta bella gesta sunt, egnum adivuit ut cresceret, quod utique paruum esset, si quies et iustitia finitimorum contra se bellum geri nulla prouocaret iniuria ac sic felicioribus rebus humanis omnia regna parua essent concordi vicinitate laetantia et ita essent in mundo regna plurima gentium, ut sunt in urbe domus plurimae civium. Proinde belligerare et perdomitis gentibus dilatare regnum malis videtur felicitas, bonis necessitas. Sed quia peius esset, ut iniuriosi iustioribus dominarentur, ideo non incongrue dicitur etiam ista felicitas. Sed procul dubio felicitas maior est vicinum bonum habere concordem quam vicinum malum subiugare bellantem. Mala vota sunt optare habere quem oderis vel quem timeas, ut possit esse quem vincas. Si ergo iusta gerendo bella, non impia, non iniqua. Romani imperium tam magnum adquirere potuerunt, numquid tamquam aliqua dea colenda est eis etiam iniquitas aliena? Multum enim ad istam latitudinem imperii eam cooperatam videmus, quae faciebat iniuriosos, ut essent cum quibus iusta bella gererentur et augeretur imperium. Cur autem et iniquitas dea non sit vel externarum gentium, si Pauor et Pallor et Febris dii Romani esse meruerunt? His igitur duabus, id est aliena iniquitate et dea Victoria, dum bellorum causas iniquitas excitat, Victoria eadem bella feliciter terminat, etiam feriato Iove crevit imperium. Quas enim hic partes Iuppiter haberet, cum ea, quae possent beneficia eius putari, dii habentur, dii vocantur, dii coluntur, ipsi pro suis partibus inuocantur? Haberet hic autem etiam ille aliquam partem, si Regnum etiam ipse appellaretur, sicut appellatur illa Victoria. Aut si regnum munus est Iovis, cur non et victoria munus eius habeatur? Quod profecto haberetur, si non lapis in Capitolio, sed verus rex regum et dominus dominantium cognosceretur atque coleretur. ||Let them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good men to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of those with whom just wars are carried on favors the growth of a kingdom, which would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of neighbors had not by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and human affairs being thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been small, rejoicing in neighborly concord; and thus there would have been very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very many houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity. But because it would be worse that the injurious should rule over those who are more righteous, therefore even that is not unsuitably called felicity. But beyond doubt it is greater felicity to have a good neighbor at peace, than to conquer a bad one by making war. Your wishes are bad, when you desire that one whom you hate or fear should be in such a condition that you can conquer him. If, therefore, by carrying on wars that were just, not impious or unrighteous, the Romans could have acquired so great an empire, ought they not to worship as a goddess even the injustice of foreigners? For we see that this has cooperated much in extending the empire, by making foreigners so unjust that they became people with whom just wars might be carried on, and the empire increased. And why may not injustice, at least that of foreign nations, also be a goddess, if Fear and Dread and Ague have deserved to be Roman gods? By these two, therefore,-that is, by foreign injustice, and the goddess Victoria, for injustice stirs up causes of wars, and Victoria brings these same wars to a happy termination,-the empire has increased, even although Jove has been idle. For what part could Jove have here, when those things which might be thought to be his benefits are held to be gods, called gods, worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own parts? He also might have some part here, if he himself might be called Empire, just as she is called Victory. Or if empire is the gift of Jove, why may not victory also be held to be his gift? And it certainly would have been held to be so, had he been recognized and worshipped, not as a stone in the Capitol, but as the true King of kings and Lord of lords.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c16"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XVI] Miror autem plurimum, quod, cum deos singulos singulis rebus et paene singulis motibus adtribuerent, vocaverunt deam Agenoriam, quae ad agendum excitaret, deam Stimulam, quae ad agendum ultra modum stimularet, deam Murciam, quae praeter modum non moveret ac faceret hominem, ut ait Pomponius, murcidum, id est nimis desidiosum et inactuosum, deam Streniam, quae faceret strenuum, his omnibus diis et deabus publica sacra facere susceperunt, Quietem vero appellantes, quae faceret quietum, cum aedem haberet extra portam Collinam, publice illam suscipere noluerunt. Vtrum indicium fuit animi inquieti, an potius ita significatum est, qui illam turbam colere perseueraret non plane deorum, sed daemoniorum, eum quietem habere non posse? ad quam vocat verus medicus dicens: Discite a me, quoniam mitis sum et humilis corde, et invenietis requiem animabus uestris. ||But I wonder very much, that while they assigned to separate gods single things, and (well nigh) all movements of the mind; that while they invoked the goddess Agenoria, who should excite to action; the goddess Stimula, who should stimulate to unusual action; the goddess Murcia, who should not move men beyond measure, but make them, as Pomponius says, murcid-that is, too slothful and inactive; the goddess Strenua, who should make them strenuous; and that while they offered to all these gods and goddesses solemn and public worship, they should yet have been unwilling to give public acknowledgment to her whom they name Quies because she makes men quiet, but built her temple outside the Colline gate. Whether was this a symptom of an unquiet mind, or rather was it thus intimated that he who should persevere in worshipping that crowd, not, to be sure, of gods, but of demons, could not dwell with quiet; to which the true Physician calls, saying, "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest unto your souls?"
|- valign = top
||<div id="c17"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XVII] An forte dicunt, quod deam Victoriam Iuppiter mittat atque illa tamquam regi deorum obtemperans ad quos iusserit veniat et in eorum parte considat? Hoc vere dicitur non de illo Iove, quem deorum regem pro sua opinione confingunt, sed de illo vero rege saeculorum, quod mittat non Victoriam, quae nulla substantia est, sed angelum suum et faciat vincere quem voluerit; cuius consilium occultum esse potest, iniquum non potest. Nam si victoria dea est, cur non deus est et triumphus, et victoriae iungitur vel maritus vel frater vel filius? Talia quippe isti de diis opinati sunt, qualia si poetae fingerent atque a nobis exagitarentur, responderent isti ridenda esse figmenta poetarum, non veris adtribuenda numinibus; et tamen se ipsi non redebant, cum talia deliramenta non apud poetas legebant, sed in templis colebant. Iovem igitur de omnibus rogarent, ei uni tantummodo supplicarent. Non enim, quo misisset Victoriam, si dea est et sub illo rege est, posset ei audere resistere et suam potius facere voluntatem. ||Or do they say, perhaps, that Jupiter sends the goddess Victoria, and that she, as it were acting in obedience to the king of the gods, comes to those to whom he may have despatched her, and takes up her quarters on their side? This is truly said, not of Jove, whom they, according to their own imagination, feign to be king of the gods, but of Him who is the true eternal King, because he sends, not Victory, who is no person, but His angel, and causes whom He pleases to conquer; whose counsel may be hidden, but cannot be unjust. For if Victory is a goddess, why is not Triumph also a god, and joined to Victory either as husband, or brother, or son? Indeed, they have imagined such things concerning the gods, that if the poets had feigned the like, and they should have been discussed by us, they would have replied that they were laughable figments of the poets not to be attributed to true deities. And yet they themselves did not laugh when they were, not reading in the poets, but worshipping in the temples such doating follies. Therefore they should entreat Jove alone for all things, and supplicate him only. For if Victory is a goddess, and is under him as her king, wherever he might have sent her, she could not dare to resist and do her own will rather than his.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c18"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XVIII] Quid, quod et Felicitas dea est? Aedem accepit, aram meruit, sacra congrua persoluta sunt. Ipsa ergo sola coleretur. Vbi enim ipsa esset, quid boni non esset? Sed quid sibi uult, quod et Fortuna dea putatur et colitur? An aliud est felicitas, aliud fortuna? Quia fortuna potest esse et mala; felicitas autem si mala fuerit, felicitas non erit. Certe omnes deos utriusque sexus (si et sexum habent) non nisi bonos existimare debemus. Hoc Plato dicit, hoc alii philosophi, hoc excellentes rei publicae populorumque rectores. Quo modo ergo dea Fortuna aliquando bona est, aliquando mala? An forte quando mala est, dea non est, sed in malignum daemonem repente convertitur? Quot sunt ergo deae istae? Profecto quotquot homines fortunati, hoc est bonae fortunae. Nam cum sint et alii plurimi simul, hoc est uno tempore, malae fortunae, numquid, si ipsa esset, simul et bona esset et mala; his aliud, illis aliud? An illa, quae dea est, semper est bona? Ipsa est ergo Felicitas: cur adhibentur diversa nomina? Sed hoc ferendum est; solet enim et una res duobus nominibus appellari. Quid diversae aedes, diversae arae, diversa sacra? Est causa, inquiunt, quia felicitas illa est, quam boni habent praecedentibus meritis; fortuna vero, quae dicitur bona, sine ullo examine meritorum fortuito accidit hominibus et bonis et malis, unde etiam Fortuna nominatur. Quo modo ergo bona est, quae sine ullo iudicio venit et ad bonos et ad malos? Vt quid autem colitur, quae ita caeca est passim in quoslibet incurrens, ut suos cultores plerumque praetereat et suis contemptoribus haereat? Aut si aliquid proficiunt cultores eius, ut ab illa videantur et amentur, iam merita sequitur, non fortuito venit. Vbi est definitio illa Fortunae? Vbi est quod a fortuitis etiam nomen accepit? Nihil enim prodest eam colere, si fortuna est. Si autem suos cultores discernit, ut prosit, fortuna non est. An et ipsam, quo voluerit, Iuppiter mittit? Colatur ergo ipse solus; non enim potest ei iubenti et eam quo voluerit mittenti Fortuna resistere. Aut certe istam mali colant, qui nolunt habere merita, quibus dea possit Felicitas inuitari. ||What shall we say, besides, of the idea that Felicity also is a goddess? She has received a temple; she has merited an altar; suitable rites of worship are paid to her. She alone, then, should be worshipped. For where she is present, what good thing can be absent? But what does a man wish, that he thinks Fortune also a goddess and worships her? Is felicity one thing, fortune another? Fortune, indeed, may be bad as well as good; but felicity, if it could be bad, would not be felicity. Certainly we ought to think all the gods of either sex (if they also have sex) are only good. This says Plato; this say other philosophers; this say all estimable rulers of the republic and the nations. How is it, then, that the goddess Fortune is sometimes good, sometimes bad? Is it perhaps the case that when she is bad she is not a goddess, but is suddenly changed into a malignant demon? How many Fortunes are there then? Just as many as there are men who are fortunate, that is, of good fortune. But since there must also be very many others who at the very same time are men of bad fortune, could she, being one and the same Fortune, be at the same time both bad and good-the one to these, the other to those? She who is the goddess, is she always good? Then she herself is felicity. Why, then, are two names given her? Yet this is tolerable; for it is customary that one thing should be called by two names. But why different temples, different altars, different rituals? There is a reason, say they, because Felicity is she whom the good have by previous merit; but fortune, which is termed good without any trial of merit, befalls both good and bad men fortuitously, whence also she is named Fortune. How, therefore, is she good, who without any discernment comes-both to the good and to the bad? Why is she worshipped, who is thus blind, running at random on any one whatever, so that for the most part she passes by her worshippers, and cleaves to those who despise her? Or if her worshippers profit somewhat, so that they are seen by her and loved, then she follows merit, and does not come fortuitously. What, then, becomes of that definition of fortune? What becomes of the opinion that she has received her very name from fortuitous events? For it profits one nothing to worship her if she is truly fortune. But if she distinguishes her worshippers, so that she may benefit them, she is not fortune. Or does, Jupiter send her too, whither he pleases? Then let him alone be worshipped; because Fortune is not able to resist him when he commands her, and sends her where he pleases. Or, at least, let the bad worship her, who do not choose to have merit by which the goddess Felicity might be invited.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c19"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XIX] Tantum sane huic velut numini tribuunt, quam Fortunam vocant, ut simulacrum eius, quod a matronis dedicatum est et appellata est Fortuna muliebris, etiam locutum esse memoriae commendaverint atque dixisse non semel, sed iterum, quod eam rite matronae dedicaverint. Quod quidem si verum sit, mirari nos non oportet. Non enim malignis daemonibus etiam sic difficile est fallere, quorum artes atque versutias hinc potius isti advertere debuerunt, quod illa dea locuta est, quae fortuito accidit, non quae meritis venit. Fuit enim Fortuna loquax et muta Felicitas, ut quid aliud, nisi ut homines recte vivere non curarent conciliata sibi Fortuna, quae illos sine ullis bonis meritis faceret fortunatos? Et certe si Fortuna loquitur, non saltem muliebris, sed virilis potius loqueretur, ut non ipsae, quae simulacrum dedicaverunt, putarentur tantum miraculum muliebri loquacitate finxisse. ||To this supposed deity, whom they call Fortuna, they ascribe so much, indeed, that they have a tradition that the image of her, which was dedicated by the Roman matrons, and called Fortuna Muliebris, has spoken, and has said, once and again, that the matrons pleased her by their homage; which, indeed, if it is true, ought not to excite our wonder. For it is not so difficult for malignant demons to deceive, and they ought the rather to advert to their wits and wiles, because it is that goddess who comes by haphazard who has spoken, and not she who comes to reward merit. For Fortuna was loquacious, and Felicitas mute; and for what other reason but that men might not care to live rightly, having made Fortuna their friend, who could make them fortunate without any good desert? And truly, if Fortuna speaks, she should at least speak, not with a womanly, but with a manly voice; lest they themselves who have dedicated the image should think so great a miracle has been wrought by feminine loquacity.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c20"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XX] Virtutem quoque deam fecerunt; quae quidem si dea esset, multis fuerat praeferenda. Et nunc quia dea non est, sed donum Dei est, ipsa ab ilo impetretur, a quo solo dari potest, et omnis falsorum deorum turba uanescet. Sed cur et Fides dea credita est et accepit etiam ipsa templum et altare? Quam quisquis prudenter agnoscit, habitaculum illi se ipsum facit. Vnde autem sciunt illi quid sit fides, cuius primum et maximum officium est, ut in verum credatur Deum? Sed cur non suffecerat Virtus? Nonne ibi est et Fides? Quando quidem virtutem in quattuor species distribuendam esse viderunt, prudentiam, iustitiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam; et quoniam et istae singulae species suas habent, in partibus iustitiae fides est maximumque locum apud nos habet, quicumque scimus quid sit, quod iustus ex fide vivit. Sed illos miror adpretiores multitudinis deorum, si fides dea est, quare aliis tam multis deabus iniuriam fecerint praetermittendo eas, quibus similiter aedes et aras dedicare potuerunt? Cur temperantia dea esse non meruit, cum eius nomine nonnulli Romani principes non paruam gloriam compararint? Cur denique fortitudo dea non est, quae adfuit Mucio, cum dexteram porrexit in flammas; quae adfuit Curtio, cum se pro patria in abruptam terram praecipitem dedit; quae adfuit Decio patri et Decio filio, cum pro exercitu se voverunt? Si tamen his omnibus vera inerat fortitudo, unde modo non agitur. Quare prudentia, quare sapientia nulla numinum loca meruerunt? An quia in nomine generali ipsius virtutis omnes coluntur? Sic ergo posset et unus Deus coli, cuius partes ceteri dii putantur. Sed in illa una virtute et fides est et pudicitia, quae tamen extra in aedibus propriis altaria meruerunt. ||They have made Virtue also a goddess, which, indeed, if it could be a goddess, had been preferable to many. And now, because it is not a goddess, but a gift of God, let it be obtained by prayer from Him, by whom alone it can be given, and the whole crowd of false gods vanishes. But why is Faith believed to be a goddess, and why does she herself receive temple and altar? For whoever prudently acknowledges her makes his own self an abode for her. But how do they know what faith is, of which it is the prime and greatest function that the true God may be believed in? But why had not virtue sufficed? Does it not include faith also? Forasmuch as they have thought proper to distribute virtue into four divisions-prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance-and as each of these divisions has its own virtues, faith is among the parts of justice, and has the chief place with as many of us as know what that saying means, "The just shall live by faith." Habakkuk 2:4 But if Faith is a goddess, I wonder why these keen lovers of a multitude of gods have wronged so many other goddesses, by passing them by, when they could have dedicated temples and altars to them likewise. Why has temperance not deserved to be a goddess, when some Roman princes have obtained no small glory on account of her? Why, in fine, is fortitude not a goddess, who aided Mucius when he thrust his right hand into the flames; who aided Curtius, when for the sake of his country he threw himself headlong into the yawning earth; who aided Decius the sire, and Decius the son, when they devoted themselves for the army?-though we might question whether these men had true fortitude, if this concerned our present discussion. Why have prudence and wisdom merited no place among the gods? Is it because they are all worshipped under the general name of Virtue itself? Then they could thus worship the true God also, of whom all the other gods are thought to be parts. But in that one name of virtue is comprehended both faith and chastity, which yet have obtained separate altars in temples of their own.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c21"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXI] Has deas non veritas, sed uanitas facit; haec enim veri Dei munera sunt, non ipsae sunt deae. Verum tamen ubi est virtus et felicitas, quid aliud quaeritur? quid ei sufficit, cui virtus felicitasque non sufficit? Omnia quippe agenda complectitur virtus, omnia optanda felicitas. Si Iuppiter, ut haec daret, ideo colebatur, quia, si bonum aliquid est latitudo regni atque diuturnitas, ad eandem pertinet felicitatem, cur non intellectum est dona Dei esse, non deas? Si autem putatae sunt deae, saltem alia tanta deorum turba non quaereretur. Consideratis enim officiis deorum dearumque omnium, quae sicut voluerunt pro sua opinatione finxerunt, inveniant, si possunt, aliquid quod praestari ab aliquo deo possit homini habenti virtutem, habenti felicitatem. Quid doctrinae vel a Mercurio vel a Minerua petendum esset, cum virtus omnia secum haberet? Ars quippe ipsa bene recteque vivendi virtus a ueteribus definita est. Vnde ab eo, quod Graece *arete dicitur virtus, nomen artis Latinos traduxisse putaverunt. Sed si virtus non nisi ad ingeniosum posset venire, quid opus erat deo Catio patre, qui catos, id est acutos faceret, cum hoc posset conferre felicitas? Ingeniosum quippe nasci felicitatis est, unde, etiamsi non potuit a nondum nato coli dea Felicitas, ut hoc ei conciliata donaret, conferret hoc parentibus eius cultoribus suis, ut eis ingeniosi filii nascerentur. Quid opus erat parturientibus inuocare Lucinam, cum, si adesset Felicitas, non solum bene parerent, sed etiam bonos? Quid necesse erat Opi deae commendare nascentes, deo Vaticano uagientes, deae Cuninae iacentes, deae Ruminae sugentes, deo Statilino stantes, deae Adeonae adeuntes, Abeonae abeuntes; deae Menti, ut bonam haberent mentem, deo Volumno et deae Volumnae, ut bona vellent; diis nuptialibus, ut bene coniugarentur, diis agrestibus, ut fructus uberrimos caperent, et maxime ipsi divae Fructeseae; Marti et Bellonae, ut bene belligerarent, deae Victoriae, ut vincerent; deo Honori, ut honorarentur, deae Pecuniae, ut pecuniosi essent, deo Aesculano et filio eius Argentino, ut haberent aeream argenteamque pecuniam? Nam ideo patrem Argentini Aesculanum posuerunt, quia prius aerea pecunia in usu coepit esse, post argentea. Miror autem, quod Argentinus non genuit Aurinum, quia et aurea subsecuta est. Quem deum isti si haberent, sicut Saturno Iovem, ita et patri Argentino et auo Aesculano Aurinum praeponerent. Quid ergo erat necesse propter haec bona vel animi vel corporis vel externa tantam deorum turbam colere et inuocare (quos neque omnes commemoravi, nec ipsi potuerunt omnibus bonis humanis minutatim singillatimque digestis deos minutos et singulos providere), cum posset magno facilique compendio una dea Felicitas cuncta conferre, nec solum ad bona capienda quisquam alius, sed neque ad depellenda mala quaereretur? Cur enim esset inuocanda propter fessos diva Fessona, propter hostes depellendos diva Pellonia, propter aegros medicus vel Apollo vel Aesculapius vel ambo simul, quando esset grande periculum? Nec deus Spiniensis, ut spinas ex agris eradicaret; nec dea Robigo, ut non accederet, rogaretur: una Felicitate praesente et tuente vel nulla mala exorerentur, vel facillime pellerentur. Postremo quoniam de duabus istis deabus Virtute et Felicitate tractamus: si felicitas virtutis est praemium, non dea, sed Dei donum est; si autem dea est, cur non dicatur et virtutem ipsa conferre, quando quidem etiam virtutem consequi felicitas magna est? ||These, not verity but vanity has made goddesses. For these are gifts of the true God, not themselves goddesses. However, where virtue and felicity are, what else is sought for? What can suffice the man whom virtue and felicity do not suffice? For surely virtue comprehends all things we need do, felicity all things we need wish for. If Jupiter, then, was worshipped in order that he might give these two things,-because, if extent and duration of empire is something good, it pertains to this same felicity,-why is it not understood that they are not goddesses, but the gifts of God? But if they are judged to be goddesses, then at least that other great crowd of gods should not be sought after. For, having considered all the offices which their fancy has distributed among the various gods and goddesses, let them find out, if they can, anything which could be bestowed by any god whatever on a man possessing virtue, possessing felicity. What instruction could be sought either from Mercury or Minerva, when Virtue already possessed all in herself? Virtue, indeed, is defined by the ancients as itself the art of living well and rightly. Hence, because virtue is called in Greek ??et?, it has been thought the Latins have derived from it the term art. But if Virtue cannot come except to the clever, what need was there of the god Father Catius, who should make men cautious, that is, acute, when Felicity could confer this? Because, to be born clever belongs to felicity. Whence, although goddess Felicity could not be worshipped by one not yet born, in order that, being made his friend, she might bestow this on him, yet she might confer this favor on parents who were her worshippers, that clever children should be born to them. What need had women in childbirth to invoke Lucina, when, if Felicity should be present, they would have, not only a good delivery, but good children too? What need was there to commend the children to the goddess Ops when they were being born; to the god Vaticanus in their birth-cry; to the goddess Cunina when lying cradled; to the goddess Rimina when sucking; to the god Statilinus when standing; to the goddess Adeona when coming; to Abeona when going away; to the goddess Mens that they might have a good mind; to the god Volumnus, and the goddess Volumna, that they might wish for good things; to the nuptial gods, that they might make good matches; to the rural gods, and chiefly to the goddess Fructesca herself, that they might receive the most abundant fruits; to Mars and Bellona, that they might carry on war well; to the goddess Victoria, that they might be victorious; to the god Honor, that they might be honored; to the goddess Pecunia, that they might have plenty money; to the god Aesculanus, and his son Argentinus, that they might have brass and silver coin? For they set down Aesculanus as the father of Argentinus for this reason, that brass coin began to be used before silver. But I wonder Argentinus has not begotten Aurinus, since gold coin also has followed. Could they have him for a god, they would prefer Aurinus both to his father Argentinus and his grandfather Aesculanus, just as they set Jove before Saturn. Therefore, what necessity was there on account of these gifts, either of soul, or body, or outward estate, to worship and invoke so great a crowd of gods, all of whom I have not mentioned, nor have they themselves been able to provide for all human benefits, minutely and singly methodized, minute and single gods, when the one goddess Felicity was able, with the greatest ease, compendiously to bestow the whole of them? nor should any other be sought after, either for the bestowing of good things, or for the averting of evil. For why should they invoke the goddess Fessonia for the weary; for driving away enemies, the goddess Pellonia; for the sick, as a physician, either Apollo or Жsculapius, or both together if there should be great danger? Neither should the god Spiniensis be entreated that he might root out the thorns from the fields; nor the goddess Rubigo that the mildew might not come,-Felicitas alone being present and guarding, either no evils would have arisen, or they would have been quite easily driven away. Finally, since we treat of these two goddesses, Virtue and Felicity, if felicity is the reward of virtue, she is not a goddess, but a gift of God. But if she is a goddess, why may she not be said to confer virtue itself, inasmuch as it is a great felicity to attain virtue?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c22"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXII] Quid est ergo, quod pro ingenti beneficio Varro iactat praestare se civibus suis, quia non solum commemorat deos, quos coli oporteat a Romanis, verum etiam dicit quid ad quemque pertineat? Quoniam nihil prodest, inquit, hominis alicuius medici nomen formamque nosse, et quod sit medicus ignorare: ita dicit nihil prodesse scire deum esse Aesculapium, si nescias eum valetudini opitulari atque ita ignores cur ei debeas supplicare. Hoc etiam alia similitudine adfirmat dicens, non modo bene vivere, sed vivere omnino neminem posse, si ignoret quisnam sit faber, quis pistor, quis tector, a quo quid utensile petere possit, quem adiutorem adsumere, quem ducem, quem doctorem; eo modo nulli dubium esse asserens ita esse utilem cognitionem deorum, si sciatur quam quisque deus vim et facultatem ac potestatem cuiusque rei habeat. "Ex eo enim poterimus, inquit, scire quem cuiusque causa deum aduocare atque inuocare debeamus, ne faciamus, ut mimi solent, et optemus a Libero aquam, a Lymphis vinum." Magna sane utilitas. Quis non huic gratias ageret, si vera monstraret, et si unum verum Deum, a quo essent omnia bona, hominibus colendum doceret? ||What is it, then, that Varro boasts he has bestowed as a very great benefit on his fellow-citizens, because he not only recounts the gods who ought to be worshipped by the Romans, but also tells what pertains to each of them? "Just as it is of no advantage," he says, "to know the name and appearance of any man who is a physician, and not know that he is a physician, so," he says, "it is of no advantage to know well that Жsculapius is a god, if you are not aware that he can bestow the gift of health, and consequently do not know why you ought to supplicate him." He also affirms this by another comparison, saying, "No one is able, not only to live well, but even to live at all, if he does not know who is a smith, who a baker, who a weaver, from whom he can seek any utensil, whom he may take for a helper, whom for a leader, whom for a teacher;" asserting, "that in this way it can be doubtful to no one, that thus the knowledge of the gods is useful, if one can know what force, and faculty, or power any god may have in any thing. For from this we may be able," he says, "to know what god we ought to call to, and invoke for any cause; lest we should do as too many are wont to do, and desire water from Liber, and wine from Lymphs." Very useful, forsooth! Who would not give this man thanks if he could show true things, and if he could teach that the one true God, from whom all good things are, is to be worshipped by men?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c23"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXIII] Sed (unde nunc agitur) si libri et sacra eorum vera sunt et Felicitas dea est, cur non ipsa una quae coleretur constituta est, quae posset universa conferre et compendio facere felicem? Quis enim optat aliquid propter aliud quam ut felix fiat? Cur denique tam sero huic tantae deae post tot Romanos principes Lucullus aedem constituit? Cur ipse Romulus felicem cupiens condere civitatem non huic templum potissimum struxit nec propter aliquid diis ceteris supplicavit, quando nihil deesset, si haec adesset? Nam et ipse nec prius rex, nec ut putant postea deus fieret, si hanc deam propitiam non haberet. Vt quid ergo constituit Romanis deos Ianum, Iovem, Martem, Picum, Faunum, Tiberinum, Herculem et si quos alios? Vt quid Titus Tatius addidit Saturnum, Opem, Solem, Lunam, Vulcanum, Lucem et quoscumque alios addidit, inter quos etiam deam Cluacinam, Felicitate neglecta? Vt quid Numa tot deos et tot deas sine ista? An eam forte in tanta turba videre non potuit? Hostilius certe rex deos et ipse nouos Pauorem atque Pallorem propitiandos non introduceret, si deam istam nosset aut coleret. Praesente quippe Felicitate omnis pauor et pallor non propitiatus abscederet, sed pulsus aufugeret. Deinde quid est hoc, quod iam Romanum imperium longe lateque crescebat, et adhuc nemo Felicitatem colebat? An ideo grandius imperium quam felicius fuit? Nam quo modo ibi esset vera felicitas, ubi vera non erat pietas? Pietas est enim verax veri Dei cultus, non cultus falsorum tot deorum, quot daemoniorum. Sed et postea iam in deorum numerum Felicitate suscepta magna bellorum civilium infelicitas subsecuta est. An forte iuste est indignata Felicitas, quod et tam sero et non ad honorem, sed ad contumeliam potius inuitata est, ut cum ea coleretur Priapus et Cluacina et Pauor et Pallor et Febris et cetera non numina colendorum, sed crimina colentium? Ad extremum si cum turba indignissima tanta dea colenda visa est, cur non vel inlustrius ceteris colebatur? Quis enim ferat, quod neque inter deos Consentes, quos dicunt in consilium Iovis adhiberi, nec inter deos, quos selectos vocant, Felicitas constituta est? Templum aliquod ei fieret, quod et loci sublimitate et operis dignitate praemineret. Cur enim non aliquid melius quam ipsi Iovi? Nam quae etiam Iovi regnum nisi Felicitas dedit? si tamen cum regnaret felix fuit. Et potior est felicitas regno. Nemo enim dubitat facile inveniri hominem, qui se timeat fieri regem; nullus autem invenitur, qui se nolit esse felicem. Ipsi ergo dii si per auguria vel quolibet modo eos posse consuli putant, de hac re consulerentur, utrum vellent Felicitati loco cedere, si forte aliorum aedibus vel altaribus iam fuisset locus occupatus, ubi aedes maior atque sublimior Felicitati construeretur; etiam ipsi Iuppiter cederet, ut ipsum verticem collis Capitolini Felicitas potius obtineret. Non enim quispiam resisteret Felicitati, nisi, quod fieri non potest, qui esse vellet infelix. Nullo modo omnino, si consuleretur, faceret Iuppiter, quod ei fecerunt tres dii, Mars, Terminus et Ivuentas, qui maiori et regi suo nullo modo cedere loco voluerunt. Nam sicut habent eorum litterae, cum rex Tarquinius Capitolium fabricari vellet eumque locum, qui ei dignior aptiorque videbatur, ab diis aliis cerneret praeoccupatum, non audens aliquid contra eorum facere arbitrium et credens eos tanto numini suoque principi voluntate cessuros, quia multi erant illic, ubi Capitolium constitutum est, per augurium quaesivit, utrum concedere locum vellent Iovi; atque ipsi inde cedere omnes voluerunt praeter illos quos commemoravi, Martem, Terminum, Ivuentatem; atque ideo Capitolium ita constructum est, ut etiam isti tres intus essent tam obscuris signis, ut hoc vix homines doctissimi scirent. Nullo modo igitur Felicitatem Iuppiter ipse contemneret, sicut a Termino, Marte, Ivuentate contemptus est. Sed ipsi etiam, qui non cesserant Iovi, profecto cederent Felicitati, quae illis regem fecerat Iovem. Aut si non cederent, non id contemptu eius facerent, sed quod in domo Felicitatis obscuri esse mallent quam sine illa in locis propriis eminere. Ita dea Felicitate in loco amplissimo et celsissimo constituta discerent cives, unde omnis boni voti petendum esset auxilium, ac sic ipsa suadente natura aliorum deorum superflua multitudine derelicta coleretur una Felicitas, uni supplicaretur, unius templum frequentaretur a civibus qui felices esse vellent, quorum esset nemo qui nollet, atque ita ipsa a se ipsa peteretur, quae ab omnibus petebatur. Quis enim aliquid ab aliquo deo nisi felicitatem velit accipere vel quod ad felicitatem existimat pertinere? Proinde si felicitas habet in potestate cum quo homine sit (habet autem, si dea est): quae tandem stultitia est ab aliquo eam deo petere, quam possis a se ipsa impetrare? Hanc ergo deam super deos ceteros honorare etiam loci dignitate debuerunt. Sicut enim apud ipsos legitur, Romani ueteres nescio quem Summanum, cui nocturna fulmina tribuebant, coluerunt magis quam Iovem, ad quem diurna fulmina pertinerent. Sed postquam Iovi templum insigne ac sublime constructum est, propter aedis dignitatem sic ad eum multitudo confluxit, ut vix inveniatur qui Summani nomen, quod audire iam non potest, se saltem legisse meminerit. Si autem felicitas dea non est, quoniam, quod verum est, munus est Dei: ille Deus quaeratur, qui eam dare possit, et falsorum deorum multitudo noxia relinquatur, quam stultorum hominum multitudo uana sectatur, Dei dona deos sibi faciens et ipsum, cuius ea dona sunt, obstinatione superbae voluntatis offendens. Sic enim carere non potest infelicitate, qui tamquam deam felicitatem colit et Deum datorem felicitatis relinquit, sicut carere non potest fame, qui panem pictum lingit et ab homine, qui verum habet, non petit. ||But how does it happen, if their books and rituals are true, and Felicity is a goddess, that she herself is not appointed as the only one to be worshipped, since she could confer all things, and all at once make men happy? For who wishes anything for any other reason than that he may become happy? Why was it left to Lucullus to dedicate a temple to so great a goddess at so late a date, and after so many Roman rulers? Why did Romulus himself, ambitious as he was of founding a fortunate city, not erect a temple to this goddess before all others? Why did he supplicate the other gods for anything, since he would have lacked nothing had she been with him? For even he himself would neither have been first a king, then afterwards, as they think, a god, if this goddess had not been propitious to him. Why, therefore, did he appoint as gods for the Romans, Janus, Jove, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tibernus, Hercules, and others, if there were more of them? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sun, Moon, Vulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, among whom was even the goddess Cloacina, while Felicity was neglected? Why did Numa appoint so many gods and so many goddesses without this one? Was it perhaps because he could not see her among so great a crowd? Certainly king Hostilius would not have introduced the new gods Fear and Dread to be propitiated, if he could have known or might have worshipped this goddess. For, in presence of Felicity, Fear and Dread would have disappeared,-I do not say propitiated, but put to flight. Next, I ask, how is it that the Roman empire had already immensely increased before any one worshipped Felicity? Was the empire, therefore, more great than happy? For how could true felicity be there, where there was not true piety? For piety is the genuine worship of the true God, and not the worship of as many demons as there are false gods. Yet even afterwards, when Felicity had already been taken into the number of the gods, the great infelicity of the civil wars ensued. Was Felicity perhaps justly indignant, both because she was invited so late, and was invited not to honor, but rather to reproach, because along with her were worshipped Priapus, and Cloacina, and Fear and Dread, and Ague, and others which were not gods to be worshipped, but the crimes of the worshippers? Last of all, if it seemed good to worship so great a goddess along with a most unworthy crowd, why at least was she not worshipped in a more honorable way than the rest? For is it not intolerable that Felicity is placed neither among the gods Consentes, whom they allege to be admitted into the council of Jupiter, nor among the gods whom they term Select? Some temple might be made for her which might be pre-eminent, both in loftiness of site and dignity of style. Why, indeed, not something better than is made for Jupiter himself? For who gave the kingdom even to Jupiter but Felicity? I am supposing that when he reigned he was happy. Felicity, however, is certainly more valuable than a kingdom. For no one doubts that a man might easily be found who may fear to be made a king; but no one is found who is unwilling to be happy. Therefore, if it is thought they can be consulted by augury, or in any other way, the gods themselves should be consulted about this thing, whether they may wish to give place to Felicity. If, perchance, the place should already be occupied by the temples and altars of others, where a greater and more lofty temple might be built to Felicity, even Jupiter himself might give way, so that Felicity might rather obtain the very pinnacle of the Capitoline hill. For there is not any one who would resist Felicity, except, which is impossible, one who might wish to be unhappy. Certainly, if he should be consulted, Jupiter would in no case do what those three gods, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas, did, who positively refused to give place to their superior and king. For, as their books record, when king Tarquin wished to construct the Capitol, and perceived that the place which seemed to him to be the most worthy and suitable was preoccupied by other gods, not daring to do anything contrary to their pleasure, and believing that they would willingly give place to a god who was so great, and was their own master, because there were many of them there when the Capitol was founded, he inquired by augury whether they chose to give place to Jupiter, and they were all willing to remove thence except those whom I have named, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas; and therefore the Capitol was built in such a way that these three also might be within it, yet with such obscure signs that even the most learned men could scarcely know this. Surely, then, Jupiter himself would by no means despise Felicity, as he was himself despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But even they themselves who had not given place to Jupiter, would certainly give place to Felicity, who had made Jupiter king over them. Or if they should not give place, they would act thus not out of contempt of her, but because they chose rather to be obscure in the house of Felicity, than to be eminent without her in their own places.Thus the goddess Felicity being established in the largest and loftiest place, the citizens should learn whence the furtherance of every good desire should be sought. And so, by the persuasion of nature herself, the superfluous multitude of other gods being abandoned, Felicity alone would be worshipped, prayer would be made to her alone, her temple alone would be frequented by the citizens who wished to be happy, which no one of them would not wish; and thus felicity, who was sought for from all the gods, would be sought for only from her own self. For who wishes to receive from any god anything else than felicity, or what he supposes to tend to felicity? Wherefore, if Felicity has it in her power to be with what man she pleases (and she has it if she is a goddess), what folly is it, after all, to seek from any other god her whom you can obtain by request from her own self! Therefore they ought to honor this goddess above other gods, even by dignity of place. For, as we read in their own authors, the ancient Romans paid greater honors to I know not what Summanus, to whom they attributed nocturnal thunderbolts, than to Jupiter, to whom diurnal thunderbolts were held to pertain. But, after a famous and conspicuous temple had been built to Jupiter, owing to the dignity of the building, the multitude resorted to him in so great numbers, that scarce one can be found who remembers even to have read the name of Summanus, which now he cannot once hear named. But if Felicity is not a goddess, because, as is true, it is a gift of God, that god must be sought who has power to give it, and that hurtful multitude of false gods must be abandoned which the vain multitude of foolish men follows after, making gods to itself of the gifts of God, and offending Himself whose gifts they are by the stubbornness of a proud will. For he cannot be free from infelicity who worships Felicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of felicity; just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted loaf of bread, and does not buy it of the man who has a real one.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c24"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXIV] Libet autem eorum considerare rationes. Vsque adeone, inquiunt, maiores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est, ut haec nescirent munera divina esse, non deos? Sed quoniam sciebant nemini talia nisi aliquo deo largiente concedi, quorum deorum nomina non inveniebant, earum rerum nominibus appellabant deos, quas ad eis sentiebant dari, aliqua vocabula inde flectentes, sicut a bello Bellonam nuncupaverunt, non Bellum; sicut a cunis Cuninam, non Cunam; sicut a segetibus Segetiam, non Segetem, <sicut> a pomis Pomonam, non Pomum; sicut a bubus Bononam, non Bovem: aut certe nulla vocabuli declinatione sicut res ipsae nominantur, ut Pecunia dicta est dea, quae dat pecuniam, non omnino pecunia dea ipsa putata est; ita Virtus, quae dat virtutem, Honor, qui honorem, Concordia, quae concordiam, Victoria, quae dat victoriam. Ita, inquiunt, cum Felicitas dea dicitur, non ipsa quae datur, sed numen illud adtenditur a quo felicitas datur. ||We may, however, consider their reasons. Is it to be believed, say they, that our forefathers were besotted even to such a degree as not to know that these things are divine gifts, and not gods? But as they knew that such things are granted to no one, except by some god freely bestowing them, they called the gods whose names they did not find out by the names of those things which they deemed to be given by them; sometimes slightly altering the name for that purpose, as, for example, from war they have named Bellona, not bellum; from cradles, Cunina, not cunж; from standing corn, Segetia, not seges; from apples, Pomona, not pomum; from oxen, Bubona, not bos. Sometimes, again, with no alteration of the word, just as the things themselves are named, so that the goddess who gives money is called Pecunia, and money is not thought to be itself a goddess: so of Virtus, who gives virtue; Honor, who gives honor; Concordia, who gives concord; Victoria, who gives victory. So, they say, when Felicitas is called a goddess, what is meant is not the thing itself which is given, but that deity by whom felicity is given.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c25"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXV] Ista nobis reddita ratione multo facilius eis, quorum cor non nimis obduruit, persuadebimus fortasse quod volumus. Si enim iam humana infirmitas sensit non nisi ab aliquo deo dari posse felicitatem, et hoc senserunt homines, qui tam multos colebant deos, in quibus et ipsum eorum regem Iovem: quia nomen eius, a quo daretur felicitas, ignorabant, ideo ipsius rei nomine, quam credebant ab illo dari, eum appellare voluerunt, satis ergo indicarunt nec ab ipso Iove dari posse felicitatem, quem iam colebant, sed utique ab illo, quem nomine ipsius felicitatis colendum esse censebant. Confirmo prorsus a quodam deo, quem nesciebant, eos credidisse dari felicitatem: ipse ergo quaeratur, ipse colatur, et sufficit. Repudietur strepitus innumerabilium daemoniorum; illi non sufficiat hic deus, cui non sufficit munus eius. Illi, inquam, non sufficiat ad colendum Deus dator felicitatis, cui non sufficit ad accipiendum ipsa felicitas. Cui autem sufficit (non enim habet homo quid amplius optare debeat), seruiat uni Deo datori felicitatis. Non est ipse, quem nominant Iovem. Nam si eum datorem felicitatis agnoscerent, non utique alium vel aliam, a qua daretur felicitas, nomine ipsius felicitatis inquirerent, neque ipsum Iovem cum tantis iniuriis colendum putarent. Iste alienarum dicitur adulter uxorum, iste pueri pulchri inpudicus amator et raptor. ||Having had that reason rendered to us, we shall perhaps much more easily persuade, as we wish, those whose heart has not become too much hardened. For if now human infirmity has perceived that felicity cannot be given except by some god; if this was perceived by those who worshipped so many gods, at whose head they set Jupiter himself; if, in their ignorance of the name of Him by whom felicity was given, they agreed to call Him by the name of that very thing which they believed He gave;-then it follows that they thought that felicity could not be given even by Jupiter himself, whom they already worshipped, but certainly by him whom they thought fit to worship under the name of Felicity itself. I thoroughly affirm the statement that they believed felicity to be given by a certain God whom they knew not: let Him therefore be sought after, let Him be worshipped, and it is enough. Let the train of innumerable demons be repudiated, and let this God suffice every man whom his gift suffices. For him, I say, God the giver of felicity will not be enough to worship, for whom felicity itself is not enough to receive. But let him for whom it suffices (and man has nothing more he ought to wish for) serve the one God, the giver of felicity. This God is not he whom they call Jupiter. For if they acknowledged him to be the giver of felicity, they would not seek, under the name of Felicity itself, for another god or goddess by whom felicity might be given; nor could they tolerate that Jupiter himself should be worshipped with such infamous attributes. For he is said to be the debaucher of the wives of others; he is the shameless lover and ravisher of a beautiful boy.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c26"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXVI] Sed "fingebat haec Homerus, ait Tullius, et humana ad deos transferebat: divina mallem ad nos." Merito displicuit viro gravi divinorum criminum poeta confictor. Cur ergo ludi scaenici, ubi haec dictitantur cantitantur actitantur, deorum honoribus exhibentur, inter res divinas a doctissimis conscribuntur? Hic exclamet Cicero non contra figmenta poetarum, sed contra instituta maiorum, an exclamarent et illi: Quid nos fecimus! Ipsi dii ista suis honoribus exhibenda flagitaverunt, atrociter imperarunt, cladem nisi fieret praenuntiarunt, quia neglectum est aliquid, seuerissime vindicarunt, quia id quod neglectum fuerat factum est, placatos se esse monstrarunt. Inter eorum commemoratur virtutes et miranda facta quod dicam. Tito Latinio rustico Romano patri familias dictum est in somnis, in senatum nuntiaret, ut ludi Romani instaurarentur, quod primo eorum die in quodam scelerato, qui populo spectante ad supplicium duci iussus est, numinibus videlicet ex ludis hilaritatem quaerentibus triste displicuisset imperium. Cum ergo ille qui somnio commonitus erat postero die iussa facere non ausus esset, secunda nocte hoc idem rursus seuerius imperatum est: amisit filium, quia non fecit. Tertia nocte dictum est homini, quod maior ei poena, si non faceret, inmineret. Cum etiam sic non auderet, in morbum incidit acrem et horribilem. Tum vero ex amicorum sententia ad magistratus rem detulit atque in lectica allatus est in senatum expositoque somnio recepta continuo valetudine pedibus suis sanus abscessit. Tanto stupefactus miraculo senatus quadruplicata pecuinia ludos censuit instaurari. Quis non videat, qui sanum sapit, subditos homines malignis daemonibus, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum, vi compulsos esse exhibere talibus diis, quae recto consilio poterant turpia iudicari? In illis certe ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iovem quentantur, qui ludi cogentibus numinibus iussu senatus instaurabantur. In illis ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iovem turpissimi histriones cantabant agebant placebant. Si illud fingebatur, ille irasceretur; si autem suis criminibus etiam fictis delectabatur, quando coleretur, nisi diabolo seruiretur? Itane iste Romanum conderet dilataret conservaret imperium, quovis Romano, cui talia displicebant, homine abiectior? Iste daret felicitatem, qui tam infeliciter colebatur, et nisi ita coleretur, infelicius irascebatur? ||But, says Cicero, "Homer invented these things, and transferred things human to the gods: I would rather transfer things divine to us." The poet, by ascribing such crimes to the gods, has justly displeased the grave man. Why, then, are the scenic plays, where these crimes are habitually spoken of, acted, exhibited, in honor of the gods, reckoned among things divine by the most learned men? Cicero should exclaim, not against the inventions of the poets, but against the customs of the ancients. Would not they have exclaimed in reply, What have we done? The gods themselves have loudly demanded that these plays should be exhibited in their honor, have fiercely exacted them, have menaced destruction unless this was performed, have avenged its neglect with great severity, and have manifested pleasure at the reparation of such neglect. Among their virtuous and wonderful deeds the following is related. It was announced in a dream to Titus Latinius, a Roman rustic, that he should go to the senate and tell them to recommence the games of Rome, because on the first day of their celebration a condemned criminal had been led to punishment in sight of the people, an incident so sad as to disturb the gods who were seeking amusement from the games. And when the peasant who had received this intimation was afraid on the following day to deliver it to the senate, it was renewed next night in a severer form: he lost his son, because of his neglect. On the third night he was warned that a yet graver punishment was impending, if he should still refuse obedience. When even thus he did not dare to obey, he fell into a virulent and horrible disease. But then, on the advice of his friends, he gave information to the magistrates, and was carried in a litter into the senate, and having, on declaring his dream, immediately recovered strength, went away on his own feet whole. The senate, amazed at so great a miracle, decreed that the games should be renewed at fourfold cost. What sensible man does not see that men, being put upon by malignant demons, from whose domination nothing save the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord sets free, have been compelled by force to exhibit to such gods as these, plays which, if well advised, they should condemn as shameful? Certain it is that in these plays the poetic crimes of the gods are celebrated, yet they are plays which were re-established by decree of the senate, under compulsion of the gods. In these plays the most shameless actors celebrated Jupiter as the corrupter of chastity, and thus gave him pleasure. If that was a fiction, he would have been moved to anger; but if he was delighted with the representation of his crimes, even although fabulous, then, when he happened to be worshipped, who but the devil could be served? Is it so that he could found, extend, and preserve the Roman empire, who was more vile than any Roman man whatever, to whom such things were displeasing? Could he give felicity who was so infelicitously worshipped, and who, unless he should be thus worshipped, was yet more infelicitously provoked to anger?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c27"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXVII] Relatum est in litteras doctissimum pontificem Scaeuolam disputasse tria genera tradita deorum: unum a poetis, alterum a philosophis, tertium a principibus civitatis. Primum genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de diis fingantur indigna; secundum non congruere civitatibus, quod habeat aliqua superuacua, aliqua etiam quae obsit populis nosse. De superuacuis non magna causa est; solet enim et a iuris peritis dici: Superflua non nocent. Quae sunt autem illa, quae prolata in multitudinem nocent? "Haec, inquit, non esse deos Herculem, Aesculapium, Castorem, Pollucem; proditur enim ab doctis, quod homines fuerint et humana condicione defecerint." Quid aliud? "Quod eorum qui sint dii non habeant civitates vera simulacra, quod verus deus nec sexum habeat nec aetatem nec definita corporis membra." Haec pontifex nosse populos non uult; nam falsa esse non putat. Expedire igitur existimat falli in religione civitates. Quod dicere etiam in libris rerum divinarum Varro ipse non dubitat. Praeclara religio, quo confugiat liberandus infirmus, et cum veritatem qua liberetur inquirat, credatur ei expedire quod fallitur. Poeticum sane deorum genus cur Scaeuola respuat, eisdem litteris non tacetur: quia sic videlicet deos deformant, ut nec bonis hominibus comparentur, cum alium faciant furari, alium adulterare, sic item aliquid aliter turpiter atque inepte dicere ac facere; tres inter se deas certasse de praemio pulchritudinis, victas duas a Venere Troiam euertisse; Iovem ipsum converti in bovem aut cygnum, ut cum aliqua concumbat; deam homini nubere, Saturnum liberos deuorare: nihil denique posse confingi miraculorum atque vitiorum, quod non ibi reperiatur atque ab deorum natura longe absit. O Scaeuola pontifex maxime, ludos tolle, si potes; praecipe populis, ne tales honores diis inmortalibus deferant, ubi crimina deorum libeat mirari et quae fieri possunt placeat imitari. Si autem tibi responderit populus: Vos nobis importastis ista pontifices: deos ipsos roga, quibus instigantibus ista iussistis, ne talia sibi iubeant exhiberi. Quae si mala sunt et propterea nullo modo de deorum maeistate credenda, maior est deorum iniuria, de quibus inpune finguntur. Sed non te audiunt, daemones sunt, praua docent, turpibus gaudent: non solum non deputant iniuriam, si de illis ista fingantur, sed eam potius iniuriam ferre non possunt, si per eorum sollemnia non agantur. Iam vero si adversus eos Iovem interpelles, maxime ob eam causam, quia eius plura crimina ludis scaenicis actitantur: nonne etiamsi deum Iovem nuncupatis, a quo regitur totus atque administratur hic mundus, eo illi fit a vobis maxima iniuria, quod eum cum istis colendum putatis eorumque regem esse perhibetis? ||It is recorded that the very learned pontiff Scжvola had distinguished about three kinds of gods-one introduced by the poets, another by the philosophers, another by the statesmen. The first kind he declares to be trifling, because many unworthy things have been invented by the poets concerning the gods; the second does not suit states, because it contains some things that are superfluous, and some, too, which it would be prejudicial for the people to know. It is no great matter about the superfluous things, for it is a common saying of skillful lawyers, "Superfluous things do no harm." But what are those things which do harm when brought before the multitude? "These," he says, "that Hercules, Жsculapius, Castor and Pollux, are not gods; for it is declared by learned men that these were but men, and yielded to the common lot of mortals." What else? "That states have not the true images of the gods; because the true God has neither sex, nor age, nor definite corporeal members." The pontiff is not willing that the people should know these things; for he does not think they are false. He thinks it expedient, therefore, that states should be deceived in matters of religion; which Varro himself does not even hesitate to say in his books about things divine. Excellent religion! to which the weak, who requires to be delivered, may flee for succor; and when he seeks for the truth by which he may be delivered, it is believed to be expedient for him that he be deceived. And, truly, in these same books, Scжvola is not silent as to his reason for rejecting the poetic sort of gods,-to wit, "because they so disfigure the gods that they could not bear comparison even with good men, when they make one to commit theft, another adultery; or, again, to say or do something else basely and foolishly; as that three goddesses contested (with each other) the prize of beauty, and the two vanquished by Venus destroyed Troy; that Jupiter turned himself into a bull or swan that he might copulate with some one; that a goddess married a man, and Saturn devoured his children; that, in fine, there is nothing that could be imagined, either of the miraculous or vicious, which may not be found there, and yet is far removed from the nature of the gods." O chief pontiff Scжvola, take away the plays if you are able; instruct the people that they may not offer such honors to the immortal gods, in which, if they like, they may admire the crimes of the gods, and, so far as it is possible, may, if they please, imitate them. But if the people shall have answered you, You, O pontiff, have brought these things in among us, then ask the gods themselves at whose instigation you have ordered these things, that they may not order such things to be offered to them. For if they are bad, and therefore in no way to be believed concerning the majority of the gods, the greater is the wrong done the gods about whom they are feigned with impunity. But they do not hear you, they are demons, they teach wicked things, they rejoice in vile things; not only do they not count it a wrong if these things are feigned about them, but it is a wrong they are quite unable to bear if they are not acted at their stated festivals. But now, if you would call on Jupiter against them, chiefly for that reason that more of his crimes are wont to be acted in the scenic plays, is it not the case that, although you call him god Jupiter, by whom this whole world is ruled and administered, it is he to whom the greatest wrong is done by you, because you have thought he ought to be worshipped along with them, and have styled him their king?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c28"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXVIII] Nullo igitur modo dii tales, qui talibus placantur vel potius accusantur honoribus, ut maius sit crimen quod eis falsis oblectantur, quam si de illis vera dicerentur, Romanum imperium augere et conservare potuissent. Hoc enim si possent, Graecis potius donum tam grande conferrent, qui eos in huiusce modi rebus divinis, hoc est ludis scaenicis, honorabilius digniusque coluerunt, quando et a morsibus poetarum, quibus deos dilacerari videbant, se non subtraxerunt, dando eis licentiam male tractandi homines quos liberet, et ipsos scaenicos non turpes iudicaverunt, sed dignos etiam praeclaris honoribus habuerunt. Sicut autem potuerunt auream pecuniam habere Romani, quamuis deum Aurinum non colerent: sic et argenteam habere potuerunt et aeream, si nec Argentinum nec eius patrem colerent Aescolanum, et sic omnia quae retexere piget. Sic ergo et regnum inuito quidem Deo vero nullo modo habere possent; diis vero istis falsis et multis ignoratis sive contemptis atque illo uno cognito et fide sincera ac moribus culto et melius hic regnum haberent, quantumcumque haberent,et post haec acciperent sempiternum, sive hic haberent sive non haberent. ||Therefore such gods, who are propitiated by such honors, or rather are impeached by them (for it is a greater crime to delight in having such things said of them falsely, than even if they could be said truly), could never by any means have been able to increase and preserve the Roman empire. For if they could have done it, they would rather have bestowed so grand a gift on the Greeks, who, in this kind of divine things,-that is, in scenic plays,-have worshipped them more honorably and worthily, although they have not exempted themselves from those slanders of the poets, by whom they saw the gods torn in pieces, giving them licence to ill-use any man they pleased, and have not deemed the scenic players themselves to be base, but have held them worthy even of distinguished honor. But just as the Romans were able to have gold money, although they did not worship a god Aurinus, so also they could have silver and brass coin, and yet worship neither Argentinus nor his father Aesculanus; and so of all the rest, which it would be irksome for me to detail. It follows, therefore, both that they could not by any means attain such dominion if the true God was unwilling; and that if these gods, false and many, were unknown or contemned, and He alone was known and worshipped with sincere faith and virtue, they would both have a better kingdom here, whatever might be its extent, and whether they might have one here or not, would afterwards receive an eternal kingdom.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c29"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXIX] Nam illud quale est quod pulcherrimum auspicium fuisse dixerunt, quod paulo ante commemoravi, Martem et Terminum et Ivuentatem nec Iovi regi deorum loco cedere voluisse? Sic enim, inquiunt, significatum est, Martiam gentem, id est Romanam, nemini locum quem teneret, daturam, Romanos quoque terminos propter deum Terminum neminem commoturum, ivuentutem etiam Romanam propter deam Ivuentatem nemini esse cessuram. Videant ergo quo modo habeant istum regem deorum suorum et datorem regni sui, ut eum auspicia ista pro adversario ponerent, cui non cedere pulchrum esset. Quamquam haec si vera sunt, non habent omnino quid timeant. Non enim confessuri sunt, quod dii cesserint Christo, qui Iovi cedere noluerunt; saluis quippe imperii finibus Christo cedere potuerunt et de sedibus locorum et maxime de corde credentium. Sed antequam Christus venisset in carne, antequam denique ista scriberentur, quae de libris eorum proferimus, sed tamen postea quam factum est sub rege Tarquinio illud auspicium, aliquotiens Romanus excercitus fusus est, hoc est versus in fugam, fsumque ostendit auspicium, quo Ivuentas illa non cesserat Iovi, et gens Martia superantibus atque inrumpentibus Gallis in ipsa Vrbe contrita est, et termini imperii deficientibus multis ad Hannibalem civitatibus in angustum fuerant coartati. Ita euacuata est pulchritudo auspiciorum, remansit contra Iovem contumacia, non deorum, sed daemoniorum. Aliud est enim non cessisse, aliud unde cesseras redisse. Quamquam et postea in orientalibus partibus Hadriani voluntate mutati sunt termini imperii Romani. Ille namque tres provincias nobiles, Armeniam, Mesopotamiam, Assyriam, Persarum concessit imperio, ut deus ille Terminus, qui Romanos terminos secundum istos tuebatur et per illud pulcherrimum auspicium loco non cesserat Iovi, plus Hadrianum regem hominum quam regem deorum timuisse videatur. Receptis quoque alio tempore provinciis memoratis nostra paene memoria retrorsus Terminus cessit, quando Iulianus deorum illorum oraculis deditus inmoderato ausu naves iussit incendi, quibus alimonia portabatur; qua exercitus destitutus mox etiam ipso hostili uulnere extincto in tantam est redactus inopiam, ut inde nullus euaderet undique hostibus incursantibus militem imperatoris morte turbatum, nisi placito pacis illic imperii fines constituerentur, ubi hodieque persistunt, non quidem tanto detrimento, quantum concesserat Hadrianus, sed media tamen compositione defixi. Vano igitur augurio deus Terminus non cessit Iovi, qui cessit Hadriani voluntati, cessit etiam Iuliani temeritati et Ioviani necessitati. Viderunt haec intellegentiores gravioresque Romani; sed contra consuetudinem civitatis, quae daemonicis ritibus fuerat obligata, parum valebant, quia et ipsi, etiamsi illa uana esse sentiebant, naturae tamen rerum sub unius veri Dei regimine atque imperio constitutae religiosum cultum, qui Deo debetur, exhibendum putabant, seruientes, ut ait apostolus, creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula. Huius Dei veri erat auxilium necessarium, a quo mitterentur sancti viri et veraciter pii, qui pro vera religione morerentur, ut falsae a viventibus tollerentur. ||For what kind of augury is that which they have declared to be most beautiful, and to which I referred a little ago, that Mars, and Terminus, and Juventas would not give place even to Jove, the king of the gods? For thus, they say, it was signified that the nation dedicated to Mars,-that is, the Roman,-should yield to none the place it once occupied; likewise, that on account of the god Terminus, no one would be able to disturb the Roman frontiers; and also, that the Roman youth, because of the goddess Juventas, should yield to no one. Let them see, therefore, how they can hold him to be the king of their gods, and the giver of their own kingdom, if these auguries set him down for an adversary, to whom it would have been honorable not to yield. However, if these things are true, they need not be at all afraid. For they are not going to confess that the gods who would not yield to Jove have yielded to Christ. For, without altering the boundaries of the empire, Jesus Christ has proved Himself able to drive them, not only from their temples, but from the hearts of their worshippers. But, before Christ came in the flesh, and, indeed, before these things which we have quoted from their books could have been written, but yet after that auspice was made under king Tarquin, the Roman army has been various times scattered or put to flight, and has shown the falseness of the auspice, which they derived from the fact that the goddess Juventas had not given place to Jove; and the nation dedicated to Mars was trodden down in the city itself by the invading and triumphant Gauls; and the boundaries of the empire, through the falling away of many cities to Hannibal, had been hemmed into a narrow space. Thus the beauty of the auspices is made void, and there has remained only the contumacy against Jove, not of gods, but of demons. For it is one thing not to have yielded, and another to have returned whither you have yielded. Besides, even afterwards, in the oriental regions, the boundaries of the Roman empire were changed by the will of Hadrian; for he yielded up to the Persian empire those three noble provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. Thus that god Terminus, who according to these books was the guardian of the Roman frontiers, and by that most beautiful auspice had not given place to Jove, would seem to have been more afraid of Hadrian, a king of men, than of the king of the gods. The aforesaid provinces having also been taken back again, almost within our own recollection the frontier fell back, when Julian, given up to the oracles of their gods, with immoderate daring ordered the victualling ships to be set on fire. The army being thus left destitute of provisions, and he himself also being presently killed by the enemy, and the legions being hard pressed, while dismayed by the loss of their commander, they were reduced to such extremities that no one could have escaped, unless by articles of peace the boundaries of the empire had then been established where they still remain; not, indeed, with so great a loss as was suffered by the concession of Hadrian, but still at a considerable sacrifice. It was a vain augury, then, that the god Terminus did not yield to Jove, since he yielded to the will of Hadrian, and yielded also to the rashness of Julian, and the necessity of Jovinian. The more intelligent and grave Romans have seen these things, but have had little power against the custom of the state, which was bound to observe the rites of the demons; because even they themselves, although they perceived that these things were vain, yet thought that the religious worship which is due to God should be paid to the nature of things which is established under the rule and government of the one true God, "serving," as says the apostle, "the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for evermore." Romans 1:25 The help of this true God was necessary to send holy and truly pious men, who would die for the true religion that they might remove the false from among the living.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c30"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXX] Cicero augur inridet auguria et inridet homines corui et corniculae vocibus vitae consilia moderantes. Sed iste Academicus, qui omnia esse contendit incerta, indignus est qui habeat ullam in his rebus auctoritatem. Disputat apud eum Quintus Lucilius Balbus in secundo de deorum natura libro, et cum ipse superstitiones ex natura rerum velut physicas et philosophicas inserat, indignatur tamen institutioni simulacrorum et opinionibus fabulosis ita loquens: "Videtisne igitur, ut a physicis rebus bene atque utiliter inventis ratio sit tracta ad commenticios et fictos deos? Quae res genuit falsas opiniones erroresque turbulentos et superstitiones paene aniles. Et formae enim nobis deorum et aetates et uestitus ornatusque noti sunt, genera praeterea, coniugia, cognationes, omniaque traducta ad similitudinem imbecillitatis humanae. Nam et perturbatis animis inducuntur; accepimus enim deorum cupiditates aegritudines iracundias. Nec vero, ut fabulae ferunt, dii bellis proeliisque caruerunt; nec solum, ut apud Homerum, cum duos exercitus contarios alii dii ex alia parte defenderent, sed etiam (ut cum Titanis aut cum Gigantibus) sua propria bella gesserunt. Haec et dicuntur et creduntur stultissime et plena sunt uanitatis, summaeque levitatis." Ecce interim quae confitentur qui defendunt deos gentium. Deinde cum haec ad superstitionem pertinere dicat, ad religionem vero, quae ipse secundum Stoicos videtur docere: "non enim philosophi solum, inquit, verum etiam maiores nostri superstitionem a religione separaverunt; nam qui totos dies precabantur, inquit, et immolabant, ut sibi sui liberi superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati." Quis non intellegat eum conari, dum consuetudinem civitatis timet, religionem laudare maiorum eamque a superstitione velle seiungere, sed quo modo id possit non invenire? Si enim a maioribus illi sunt appellati superstitiosi, qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, numquid et illi, qui instituerunt (quod iste reprehendit) deorum simulacra diversa aetate et ueste distincta, deorum genera coniugia cognationes? Haec utique cum tamquam superstitiosa culpantur, inplicat ista culpa maiores talium simulacrorum institutores atque cultores; inplicat et ipsum, qui, quantolibet eloquio se in libertatem nitatur euoluere, necesse habebat ista venerari; nec quod in hac disputatione disertus insonat, muttire auderet in populi contione. Agamus itaque Christiani Domino Deo nostro gratias, non caelo et terrae sicut iste disputat, sed ei qui fecit caelum et terram, qui has superstitiones, quas iste Balbus velut balbutiens vix reprehendit, per altissimam Christi humilitatem, per apostolorum praedicationem, per fidem martyrum pro veritate morientium et cum veritate viventium non solum in cordibus religiosis, verum etiam in aedibus superstitiosis libera suorum seruitute subuertit. ||Cicero the augur laughs at auguries, and reproves men for regulating the purposes of life by the cries of crows and jackdaws. But it will be said that an academic philosopher, who argues that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these matters. In the second book of his De Natura Deorum, he introduces Lucilius Balbus, who, after showing that superstitions have their origin in physical and philosophical truths, expresses his indignation at the setting up of images and fabulous notions, speaking thus: "Do you not therefore see that from true and useful physical discoveries the reason may be drawn away to fabulous and imaginary gods? This gives birth to false opinions and turbulent errors, and superstitions well-nigh old-wifeish. For both the forms of the gods, and their ages, and clothing, and ornaments, are made familiar to us; their genealogies, too, their marriages, kinships, and all things about them, are debased to the likeness of human weakness. They are even introduced as having perturbed minds; for we have accounts of the lusts, cares, and angers of the gods. Nor, indeed, as the fables go, have the gods been without their wars and battles. And that not only when, as in Homer, some gods on either side have defended two opposing armies, but they have even carried on wars on their own account, as with the Titans or with the Giants. Such things it is quite absurd either to say or to believe: they are utterly frivolous and groundless." Behold, now, what is confessed by those who defend the gods of the nations. Afterwards he goes on to say that some things belong to superstition, but others to religion, which he thinks good to teach according to the Stoics. "For not only the philosophers," he says, "but also our forefathers, have made a distinction between superstition and religion. For those," he says, "who spent whole days in prayer, and offered sacrifice, that their children might outlive them, are called superstitious." Who does not see that he is trying, while he fears the public prejudice, to praise the religion of the ancients, and that he wishes to disjoin it from superstition, but cannot find out how to do so? For if those who prayed and sacrificed all day were called superstitious by the ancients, were those also called so who instituted (what he blames) the images of the gods of diverse age and distinct clothing, and invented the genealogies of gods, their marriages, and kinships? When, therefore, these things are found fault with as superstitious, he implicates in that fault the ancients who instituted and worshipped such images. Nay, he implicates himself, who, with whatever eloquence he may strive to extricate himself and be free, was yet under the necessity of venerating these images; nor dared he so much as whisper in a discourse to the people what in this disputation he plainly sounds forth. Let us Christians, therefore, give thanks to the Lord our God-not to heaven and earth, as that author argues, but to Him who has made heaven and earth; because these superstitions, which that Balbus, like a babbler, scarcely reprehends, He, by the most deep lowliness of Christ, by the preaching of the apostles, by the faith of the martyrs dying for the truth and living with the truth, has overthrown, not only in the hearts of the religious, but even in the temples of the superstitious, by their own free service.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c31"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXXI] Quid ipse Varro, quem dolemus in rebus divinis ludos scaenicos, quamuis non iudicio proprio, posuisse, cum ad deos colendos multis locis velut religiosus hortetur, nonne ita confitetur non se illa iudicio suo sequi, quae civitatem Romanam instituisse commemorat, ut, si eam civitatem nouam constitueret, ex naturae potius formula deos nominaque eorum se fuisse dedicaturum non dubitet confiteri? Sed iam quoniam in uetere populo esset, acceptam ab antiquis nominum et cognominum historiam tenere, ut tradita est, debere si dicit, et ad eum finem illa scribere ac perscrutari, ut potius eos magis colere quam despicere uulgus velit. Quibus verbis homo acutissimus satis indicat non se aperire omnia, quae non sibi tantum contemptui essent, sed etiam ipsi uulgo despicienda viderentur, nisi tacerentur. Ego ista conicere putari debui, nisi evidenter alio loco ipse diceret de religionibus loquens multa esse vera, quae non modo uulgo scire non sit utile, sed etiam, tametsi falsa sunt, aliter existimare populum expediat, et ideo Graecos teletas ac mysteria taciturnitate parietibusque clasisse. Hic certe totum consilium prodidit velut sapientium, per quos civitates et populi regerentur. Hac tamen fallacia miris modis maligni daemones delectantur, qui et deceptores et deceptos pariter possident, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum. Dicit etiam idem auctor acutissimus atque doctissimus, quod hi soli ei videantur animadvertisse quid esset Deus, qui crediderunt eum esse animam motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ac per hoc, etsi nondum tenebat quod veritas habet (Deus enim verus non anima, sed animae quoque est effector et conditor), tamen si contra praeiudicia consuetudinis liber esse posset, unum Deum colendum fateretur atque suaderet, motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ut ea cum illo de hac re quaestio remaneret, quod eum diceret esse animam, non potius et animae creatorem. Dicit etiam antiquos Romanos plus annos centum et septuaginta deos sine simulacro coluisse. "Quod si adhuc, inquit, mansisset, castius dii observarentur." Cui sententiae suae testem adhibet inter cetera etiam gentem Iudaeam; nec dubitat eum locum ita concludere, ut dicat, qui primi simulacra deorum populis posuerunt, eos civitatibus suis et metum dempsisse et errorem addidisse, prudenter existimans deos facile posse in simulacrorum stoliditate contemni. Quod vero non ait "errorem tradiderunt", sed "addiderunt": iam utique fuisse etiam sine simulacris uult intellegi errorem. Quapropter cum solos dicit animadvertisse quid esset Deus, qui eum crederent animam mundum gubernantem, castiusque existimat sine simulacris observari religionem, quis non videat quantum propinquaverit veritati? Si enim aliquid contra uetustatem tanti posset erroris, profecto et unum Deum, a quo mundum crederet gubernari, et sine simulacro colendum esse censeret; atque in tam proximo inventus facile fortasse de animae mutabilitate commoneretur, ut naturam potius incommutabilem, quae ipsam quoque animam condidisset, Deum verum esse sentiret. Haec cum ita sint, quaecumque tales viri in suis litteris multorum deorum ludibria posuerunt, confiteri ea potius occulta Dei voluntate compulsi sunt quam persuadere conati. Si qua igitur a nobis inde testimonia proferuntur, ad eos redarguendos proferuntur, qui nolunt advertere de quanta et quam maligna daemonum potestate nos liberet singulare sacrificium tam sancti sanguinis fusi et donum spiritus impertiti. ||What says Varro himself, whom we grieve to have found, although not by his own judgment, placing the scenic plays among things divine? When in many passages he is exhorting, like a religious man, to the worship of the gods, does he not in doing so admit that he does not in his own judgment believe those things which he relates that the Roman state has instituted; so that he does not hesitate to affirm that if he were founding a new state, he could enumerate the gods and their names better by the rule of nature? But being born into a nation already ancient, he says that he finds himself bound to accept the traditional names and surnames of the gods, and the histories connected with them, and that his purpose in investigating and publishing these details is to incline the people to worship the gods, and not to despise them. By which words this most acute man sufficiently indicates that he does not publish all things, because they would not only have been contemptible to himself, but would have seemed despicable even to the rabble, unless they had been passed over in silence. I should be thought to conjecture these things, unless he himself, in another passage, had openly said, in speaking of religious rites, that many things are true which it is not only not useful for the common people to know, but that it is expedient that the people should think otherwise, even though falsely, and therefore the Greeks have shut up the religious ceremonies and mysteries in silence, and within walls. In this he no doubt expresses the policy of the so-called wise men by whom states and peoples are ruled. Yet by this crafty device the malign demons are wonderfully delighted, who possess alike the deceivers and the deceived, and from whose tyranny nothing sets free save the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.The same most acute and learned author also says, that those alone seem to him to have perceived what God is, who have believed Him to be the soul of the world, governing it by design and reason. And by this, it appears, that although he did not attain to the truth,-for the true God is not a soul, but the maker and author of the soul,-yet if he could have been free to go against the prejudices of custom, he could have confessed and counselled others that the one God ought to be worshipped, who governs the world by design and reason; so that on this subject only this point would remain to be debated with him, that he had called Him a soul, and not rather the creator of the soul. He says, also, that the ancient Romans, for more than a hundred and seventy years, worshipped the gods without an image. "And if this custom," he says, "could have remained till now, the gods would have been more purely worshipped." In favor of this opinion, he cites as a witness among others the Jewish nation; nor does he hesitate to conclude that passage by saying of those who first consecrated images for the people, that they have both taken away religious fear from their fellow-citizens, and increased error, wisely thinking that the gods easily fall into contempt when exhibited under the stolidity of images. But as he does not say they have transmitted error, but that they have increased it, he therefore wishes it to be understood that there was error already when there were no images. Wherefore, when he says they alone have perceived what God is who have believed Him to be the governing soul of the world, and thinks that the rites of religion would have been more purely observed without images, who fails to see how near he has come to the truth? For if he had been able to do anything against so inveterate an error, he would certainly have given it as his opinion both that the one God should be worshipped, and that He should be worshipped without an image; and having so nearly discovered the truth, perhaps he might easily have been put in mind of the mutability of the soul, and might thus have perceived that the true God is that immutable nature which made the soul itself. Since these things are so, whatever ridicule such men have poured in their writings against the plurality of the gods, they have done so rather as compelled by the secret will of God to confess them, than as trying to persuade others. If, therefore, any testimonies are adduced by us from these writings, they are adduced for the confutation of those who are unwilling to consider from how great and malignant a power of the demons the singular sacrifice of the shedding of the most holy blood, and the gift of the imparted Spirit, can set us free.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c32"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXXII] Dicit etiam de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos, et ideo et sexum et generationes deorum maiores suos, id est ueteres credidisse Romanos et eorum constituisse coniugia. Quod utique non aliam ob causam factum videtur, nisi quia hominum velut prudentium et sapientium negotium fuit populum in religionibus fallere et in eo ipso non solum colere, sed imitari etiam daemones, quibus maxima est fallendi cupiditas. Sicut enim daemones nisi eos, quos fallendo deceperint, possidere non possunt, sic et homines principes, non sane iusti, sed daemonum similes, ea, quae uana esse noverant, religionis nomine populis tamquam vera suadebant, hoc modo eos civili societati velut aptius alligantes, quo similiter subditos possiderent. Quis autem infirmus et indoctus euaderet simul fallaces et principes civitatis et daemones? ||Varro says also, concerning the generations of the gods, that the people have inclined to the poets rather than to the natural philosophers; and that therefore their forefathers,-that is, the ancient Romans,-believed both in the sex and the generations of the gods, and settled their marriages; which certainly seems to have been done for no other cause except that it was the business of such men as were prudent and wise to deceive the people in matters of religion, and in that very thing not only to worship, but also to imitate the demons, whose greatest lust is to deceive. For just as the demons cannot possess any but those whom they have deceived with guile, so also men in princely office, not indeed being just, but like demons, have persuaded the people in the name of religion to receive as true those things which they themselves knew to be false; in this way, as it were, binding them up more firmly in civil society, so that they might in like manner possess them as subjects. But who that was weak and unlearned could escape the deceits of both the princes of the state and the demons?
|- valign = top
||<div id="c33"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXXIII] Deus igitur ille felicitatis auctor et dator, quia solus est verus Deus, ipse dat regna terrena et bonis et malis, neque hoc temere et quasi fortuito, quia Deus est, non fortuna, sed pro rerum ordine ac temporum occulto nobis, notissimo sibi; cui tamen ordini temporum non subditus seruit, sed eum ipse tamquam dominus regit moderatorque disponit: felicitatem vero non dat nisi bonis. Hanc enim possunt et non habere et habere seruientes, possunt et non habere et habere regnantes; quae tamen plena in ea vita erit, ubi nemo iam seruiet. Et ideo regna terrena et bonis ab illo dantur et malis, ne eius cultores adhuc in provectu animi paruuli haec ab eo munera quasi magnum aliquid concupiscant. Et hoc est sacramentum ueteris testamenti, ubi occultum erat nouum, quod illic promissa et dona terrena sunt, intellegentibus et tunc spiritalibus, quamuis nondum in manifestatione praedicantibus, et quae illis temporalibus rebus significaretur aeternitas, et in quibus Dei donis esset vera felicitas. ||Therefore that God, the author and giver of felicity, because He alone is the true God, Himself gives earthly kingdoms both to good and bad. Neither does He do this rashly, and, as it were, fortuitously,-because He is God not fortune,-but according to the order of things and times, which is hidden from us, but thoroughly known to Himself; which same order of times, however, He does not serve as subject to it, but Himself rules as lord and appoints as governor. Felicity He gives only to the good. Whether a man be a subject or a king makes no difference; he may equally either possess or not possess it. And it shall be full in that life where kings and subjects exist no longer. And therefore earthly kingdoms are given by Him both to the good and the bad; lest His worshippers, still under the conduct of a very weak mind, should covet these gifts from Him as some great things. And this is the mystery of the Old Testament, in which the New was hidden, that there even earthly gifts are promised: those who were spiritual understanding even then, although not yet openly declaring, both the eternity which was symbolized by these earthly things, and in what gifts of God true felicity could be found.
|- valign = top
||<div id="c34"><b>BOOK IV</b> [XXXIV] Itaque ut cognosceretur etiam illa terrena bona, quibus solis inhiant qui meliora cogitare non possunt, in ipsius unius Dei esse posita potestate, non in multorum falsorum, quos colendos Romani antea crediderunt, populum suum in Aegypto de paucissimis multiplicavit et inde signis mirabilibus liberavit. Nec Lucinam mulieres illae inuocaverunt, quando earum partus, ut miris modis multiplicarentur et gens illa incredibiliter cresceret, ab Aegyptiorum persequentium et infantes omnes necare volentium manibus ipse servavit. Sine dea rumina suxerunt, sine Cunina in cunis fuerunt, sine Educa et Potina escam potumque sumpserunt, sine tot diis puerilibus educati sunt, sine diis coniugalibus coniugati, sine cultu Priapi coniugibus mixti; sine inuocatione Neptuni mare transeuntibus divisum patuit et sequentes eorum inimicos fluctibus in se redeuntibus obruit. Nec consecraverunt aliquam deam Manniam, quando de caelo manna sumpserunt; nec quando sitientibus aquam percussa petra profudit, Nymphas Lymphasque coluerunt. Sine insanis sacris Martis et Bellonae bella gesserunt, et sine victoria quidem non vicerunt, non eam tamen deam, sed Dei sui munus habuerunt. Sine Segetia segetes sine Bubona boves, mella sine Mellona poma sine Pomona, et prorsus omnia, pro quibus tantae falsorum deorum turbae Romani supplicandum putarunt, ab uno vero Deo multo felicius acceperunt. Et si non in eum peccassent, impia curiositate tamquam magicis artibus seducti ad alienos deos et ad idola defluendo, et postremo Christum occidendo: in eodem regno etsi non spatiosiore, tamen feliciore mansissent. Et nunc quod per omnes fere terras gentesque dispersi sunt, illius unius veri Dei providentia est, ut, quod deorum falsorum usquequaque simulacra arae, luci templa euertuntur et sacrificia prohibentur, de codicibus eorum probetur, quem ad modum hoc fuerit tanto ante prophetatum; ne forte, cum legeretur in nostris, a nobis putaretur esse confictum. Iam quod sequitur in volumine sequenti videndum est, et hic dandus huius prolixitati modus. ||Therefore, that it might be known that these earthly good things, after which those pant who cannot imagine better things, remain in the power of the one God Himself, not of the many false gods whom the Romans have formerly believed worthy of worship, He multiplied His people in Egypt from being very few, and delivered them out of it by wonderful signs. Nor did their women invoke Lucina when their offspring was being incredibly multiplied; and that nation having increased incredibly, He Himself delivered, He Himself saved them from the hands of the Egyptians, who persecuted them, and wished to kill all their infants. Without the goddess Rumina they sucked; without Cunina they were cradled, without Educa and Potina they took food and drink; without all those puerile gods they were educated; without the nuptial gods they were married; without the worship of Priapus they had conjugal intercourse; without invocation of Neptune the divided sea opened up a way for them to pass over, and overwhelmed with its returning waves their enemies who pursued them. Neither did they consecrate any goddess Mannia when they received manna from heaven; nor, when the smitten rock poured forth water to them when they thirsted, did they worship Nymphs and Lymphs. Without the mad rites of Mars and Bellona they carried on war; and while, indeed, they did not conquer without victory, yet they did not hold it to be a goddess, but the gift of their God. Without Segetia they had harvests; without Bubona, oxen; honey without Mellona; apples without Pomona: and, in a word, everything for which the Romans thought they must supplicate so great a crowd of false gods, they received much more happily from the one true God. And if they had not sinned against Him with impious curiosity, which seduced them like magic arts, and drew them to strange gods and idols, and at last led them to kill Christ, their kingdom would have remained to them, and would have been, if not more spacious, yet more happy, than that of Rome. And now that they are dispersed through almost all lands and nations, it is through the providence of that one true God; that whereas the images, altars, groves, and temples of the false gods are everywhere overthrown, and their sacrifices prohibited, it may be shown from their books how this has been foretold by their prophets so long before; lest, perhaps, when they should be read in ours, they might seem to be invented by us. But now, reserving what is to follow for the following book, we must here set a bound to the prolixity of this one.

|}
[[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]

Ockham

3,209

edits

Changes

Directory:Logic Museum/Augustine City of God Book IV (view source)

Revision as of 11:59, 24 October 2009