Augustine: DE CIVITATE DEI

[I] De ciuitate Dei dicere exorsus prius respondendum putaui 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 uera religio. Et quoniam cum sit in eis etiam uulgus indoctus, uelut doctorum auctoritate in odium nostrum grauius inritantur, existimantibus inperitis ea, quae suis temporibus insolite acciderint, per alia retro tempora accidre non solere, eorumque opinionem etiam his, qui eam falsam esse nouerunt, ut aduersus nos iusta murmura habere uideantur, suae scientiae dissimulatione firmantibus: de libris, quos auctores eorum ad cognoscendam praeteritorum temporum historiam memoriae mandauerunt, longe aliter esse quam putant emonstrandum fuit et simul docendum deos falsos, quos uel palam colebant uel occulte adhuc colunt, eos esse inmundissimos spiritus et malignissimos ac fallacissimos daemones, usque adeo, ut aut ueris aut fictis etiam, suis tamen criminibus delectentur, quae sibi celebrari per sua festa uoluerunt, ut a perpetrandis damnabilibus factis humana reuocari non possit infirmitas, dum ad haec imitanda uelut diuina praebetur auctoritas. Haec non ex nostra coniectura probauimus, sed partim ex recenti memoria, quia et ipsi uidimus 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 uir doctissimus apud eos Varro et grauissimae auctoritatis, cum rerum humanarum atque diuinarum dispertitos faceret libros, alios humanis, alios diuinis pro sua cuiusque rei dignitate distribuens non saltem in rebus humanis, sed in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos poneret, cum utique, si tantummodo boni et honesti homines in ciuitate essent, nec in rebus humanis ludi scaenici esse debuissent.

[1] Having begun to speak about the City of God, I thought I ought first to reply to its enemies, who, pursuing earthly joys and gaping after fugitive things, whatever they suffer as grievous in them by the mercy of God admonishing rather than by the severity of one punishing, they upbraid to the Christian religion, which alone is the salubrious and true religion. And since among them there is also the unlearned vulgus, as though by the authority of the learned they are more grievously provoked into hatred against us, the inexpert supposing that the things which have happened unusually in their own times are not wont to happen through other past times, and their opinion being strengthened even by those who know it to be false, by the dissembling of their knowledge, in order that they may seem to have just murmurs against us: from the books which their authors have consigned to memory for the knowing of the history of former times, it had to be shown that it is far otherwise than they suppose, and at the same time taught that the false gods, whom they either openly worshiped or still secretly worship, are most unclean spirits and most malignant and most fallacious demons, to such a degree that, whether by true or even by fictitious tales, nevertheless by their own crimes they are delighted—crimes which they have willed to be celebrated for themselves through their festivals—so that human weakness cannot be called back from perpetrating damnable deeds, while for imitating these things an authority as though divine is offered. These things we have proved not from our conjecture, but partly from recent memory, since we ourselves have seen such things offered to such numina (divine powers), partly from their writings, who have left these things written for posterity not as contumely, but as in honor of their own gods—so much so that a most learned man among them, Varro, of most weighty authority, when he was making divided books of human and divine matters, distributing some to human, others to divine, according to the dignity of each matter, placed the scenic games not at least among human affairs but among divine affairs; whereas assuredly, if only good and honorable men were in the city, not even among human affairs ought scenic games (stage-plays) to have existed.

Quod profecto non auctoritate sua fecit, sed quoniam eos Romae natus et ducatus in diuinis rebus inuenit. Et quoniam in fine primi libri, quae deinceps dicenda essent, breuiter posuimus et ex his quaedam in duobus consequentibus diximus, expectationi legentium quae retant reddenda cognoscimus.

Which assuredly he did not do by his own authority, but since he found them at Rome to have been originated and staged in divine matters. And since at the end of the first book we briefly set down what ought thereafter to be said, and of these we have said certain things in the two consequent books, we recognize that what remains must be rendered to the expectation of the readers.

[II] Promiseramus ergo quaedam nos esse dicturos aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent uel satis esse uiderentur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam uel illis clareret nostra religio uel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Haec in secundo et tertio libro satis, quantum existimo, absoluimus, in secundo agentes de malis morum, quae mala uel sola uel maxima deputanda sunt, in tertio autem de his malis, quae stulti sola perpeti exhorrent, corporis uidelicet externarumque rerum, quae plerumque patiuntur et boni; illa uero mala non dico patienter, sed libenter habent, quibus ipsi fiunt mali. Et quam pauca dixi de sola ipsa ciuitate atque eius imperio!

[2] We had promised, then, to say certain things against those who refer the disasters of the Roman republic to our religion, and to recall whatever and however great evils might have occurred or might seem sufficient, which that city suffered, or the provinces pertaining to its imperium, before their sacrifices had been prohibited; all of which, without doubt, they would ascribe to us, if either our religion were already evident to them, or it so prohibited them from sacrilegious rites. These things in the second and third book we have, so far as I think, sufficiently completed: in the second dealing with the evils of morals, which evils are to be reckoned either alone or as the greatest; but in the third, with those evils which fools shudder at enduring alone, namely of the body and of external things, which even the good often suffer; whereas those evils they have, not, I do not say patiently, but gladly, by which they themselves become evil. And how few things I have said about the city itself alone and its dominion!

nec inde omnia usque ad Caesarem Augustum. Quid, si commemorare uoluissem 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 breuiter stringit in eo libello quem de mundo scripsit, terrena omnia dicens mutationes, conuersiones et interitus habere; namque inmodicis tremoribus terrarum, ut uerbis 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 aduenis fluctibus insulatas aliasque desidia maris pedestri accessu peruias factas; uentis ac procellis euersas esse ciuitates; incendia de nubibus emicasse, quibus Orientis regiones conflagratae perierunt, et in Occidentis plagis scaturrigines quasdam ac proluuiones easdem strages dedisse; sic ex Aetnae uerticibus quondam effusis crateribus diuino incendio per decliuia torrentis uice flammarum flumina cucurrisse),—si haec atque huius modi, quae habet historia, unde possem, colligere uoluissem, quando finissem? quae illis temporibus euenerunt, antequam Christi nomen ulla istorum uana et uerae saluti perniciosa conprimeret.

nor thence all the way to Caesar Augustus. What, if I had wished to commemorate and to exaggerate those evils which men do not inflict upon one another, such as are the devastations and overturnings of those waging war, but which befall terrestrial things from the very elements of the world (which in one place Apuleius briefly compresses in that little book which he wrote On the World, saying that all earthly things have mutations, conversions, and destructions; for by excessive tremors of the lands, to use his words, the ground has split asunder and cities with their peoples have been cut off; also with rains broken loose whole regions have been washed away; and those which previously had been continuous, by guest and adventitious waves have been made into islands, and others by the sloth of the sea have been made passable by pedestrian access; that cities have been overthrown by winds and storms; that fires have leapt out from the clouds, by which the regions of the East, being conflagrated, have perished, and in the tracts of the West certain gushings and deluges have given the same slaughters; thus from Aetna’s summits, the craters once poured out, by a divine conflagration down the slopes rivers of flames have run in the manner of a torrent),—if I had wished to collect these and things of this sort, which history contains, from wherever I could, when should I have finished? these occurred in those times before the name of Christ suppressed any of their vanities, pernicious to true salvation.

Promiseram etiam me demonstraturum, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adiuuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint: unde nunc mihi uideo esse dicendum, et magis de incrementis imperii Romani. Nam de noxia fallacia daemonum, quos uelut deos colebant, quantum malorum inuexerit moribus eorum, in secundo maxime libro non pauca iam dicta sunt. Per omnes autem absolutos tres libros, ubi oportunum uisum est, commendauimus, 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.

I had also promised that I would demonstrate which of their mores and for what cause the true God deigned to assist in augmenting the empire, in whose power are all kingdoms, and how those whom they reckon as gods helped them nothing, and rather how much, by deceiving and deluding, they harmed: whence now I see that I must speak, and more about the increments of the Roman imperium. For concerning the noxious fallacy of the daemons, whom they worshiped as though gods, how many evils it imported into their mores, especially in the second book not a few things have already been said. Moreover, throughout all three completed books, where it seemed opportune, we have commended how much of consolations God, through the name of Christ—to which even the barbarians paid so great an honor beyond the custom of wars—has bestowed upon both good and bad, in the way that he makes his sun rise upon the good and the bad and rains upon the just and the unjust.

[III] Iam itaque uideamus, 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 uellem prius paululum inquirere, quae sit ratio, quae prudentia, cum hominum felicitatem non possis ostendere, semper in bellicis cladibus et in sanguine ciuili uel hostili, tamen humano cum tenebroso timore et cruenta cupiditate uersantium, ut uitrea laetitia comparetur fragiliter splendida, cui timeatur horribilius ne repente frangatur, de imperii latitudine ac magnitudine uelle gloriari. Hoc ut facilius diiudicetur, non uanescamus inani uentositate iactati atque obtundamus intentionis aciem altisonis uocabulis rerum, cum audimus populos regna prouincias; sed duos constituamus homines (nam singulus quisque homo, ut in sermone una littera, ita quasi elementum est ciuitatis et regni, quantalibet terrarum occupatione latissimi), quorum duorum hominum unum pauperem uel potius mediocrem, alium praediuitem cogitemus; sed diuitem 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 uero illum re familiari parua atque succincta sibi sufficientem, carissimum suis, cum cognatis uicinis amicis dulcissima pace gaudentem, pietate religiosum, benignum mente, sanum corpore, uita parcum, moribus castum, conscientia securum.

[III] Now therefore let us see what sort of thing it is that they dare to attribute so great a breadth and long duration of the Roman empire to those gods whom they maintain they have worshiped honorably even through the observances of shameful games and through the ministries of shameful men. And yet I would first like to inquire a little what reason, what prudence there is, when you cannot exhibit human felicity—men always turning about amid the disasters of war and in civil or hostile blood, yet human, with tenebrous fear and bloody cupidity—that a glassy joy should be set forth, fragilely splendid, to which there is a yet more horrible fear lest it suddenly be shattered, and to wish to glory in the breadth and the magnitude of an empire. That this may be judged more easily, let us not vanish, tossed by empty windiness, nor dull the edge of our intention with high‑sounding vocabularies of things when we hear “peoples, kingdoms, provinces”; but let us set two men (for each single man, as in speech a single letter, is as it were an element of a commonwealth and a kingdom, however very broad by occupation of lands): of these two men let us imagine one poor or rather moderate, the other very rich; but the rich man anxious with fears, wasting away with griefs, burning with cupidity, never secure, always restless, panting with perpetual contests of enmities, indeed increasing by these miseries his patrimony to an immense measure and by those augmentations also heaping up most bitter cares; while that moderate man, with a household estate small and trim and sufficient for himself, most dear to his own, rejoicing with kinsmen, neighbors, and friends in sweetest peace, religious in piety, kindly in mind, sound in body, sparing in life, chaste in morals, secure in conscience.

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 uigilanter adhibita si nostra intentio corrigatur, facillime uidebimus ubi habitet uanitas et ubi felicitas. Quapropter si uerum Deus colatur eique sacris ueracibus et bonis moribus seruiatur, utile est ut boni longe lateque diu regnent; neque hoc tam ipsis quam illis utile est, quibus regnant.

I do not know whether anyone is so foolish as to dare to doubt whom he should prefer. As therefore in these two men, so in two families, so in two peoples, so in two kingdoms, the rule of equity follows; which, vigilantly applied, if our intention be corrected by it, we shall very easily see where vanity dwells and where felicity. Wherefore, if the true God is worshiped and He is served with veracious rites and good morals, it is useful that the good should reign far and wide and for a long time; nor is this so much useful to themselves as to those over whom they reign.

Nam quantum ad ipsos pertinet, pietas et probitas eorum, quae magna Dei dona sunt, sufficit eis ad ueram felicitatem, qua et ista uita bene agatur et postea percipiatur aeterna. In hac ergo terra regnum bonorum non tam illis praestatur quam rebus humanis; malorum uero 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 uirtutis examen.

For, so far as it pertains to themselves, their piety and probity, which are great gifts of God, suffice for them unto true felicity, whereby both this life is conducted well and afterward the eternal life is received. Therefore, on this earth the kingdom of the good is granted not so much to them as to human affairs; but the kingdom of the wicked harms the rulers more, who lay waste their own souls by a greater license of crimes; while for those who, by serving them, are subjected, nothing harms save their own iniquity. For whatever evils are imposed upon the just by unjust masters are not the punishment of crime, but an examination of virtue.

Proinde bonus etiamsi seruiat, liber est; malus autem etiamsi regnet, seruus est, nec unius hominis, sed, quod est grauius, tot dominorum, quot uitiorum. De quibus uitiis cum ageret scriptura diuina: A quo enim quis, inquit, deuictus est, huic et seruus addictus est.

Accordingly the good man, even if he serves, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave—and not to one man, but, which is graver, to as many masters as he has vices. About these vices, when the divine Scripture was treating: “For by whom anyone has been vanquished,” it says, “to him he is an addicted slave.”

[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 diuiditur.

[4] Therefore, with justice removed, what are kingdoms if not great brigandages? for even brigandages, what are they if not little kingdoms? The band is itself a band of men, it is governed by the command of a prince, it is bound by a pact of society, the prey is divided by the law of the compact.

Hoc malum si in tantum perditorum hominum accessibus crescit, ut et loca teneat sedes constituat, ciuitates occupet populos subiuget, euidentius regni nomen adsumit, quod ei iam in manifesto confert non dempta cupiditas, sed addita inpunitas. Eleganter enim et ueraciter Alexandro illi Magno quidam comprehensus pirata respondit. Nam cum idem rex hominem interrogaret, quid ei uideretur, ut mare haberet infestum, ille libera contumacia: Quod tibi, inquit, ut orbem terrarum; sed quia <id> ego exiguo nauigio facio, latro uocor; quia tu magna classe, imperator.

If this evil grows by the accessions of depraved men to such a degree that it both holds places, establishes seats, seizes cities, subjugates peoples, it more evidently assumes the name of a kingdom, which is now plainly conferred upon it not by cupidity taken away, but by impunity added. For elegantly and veraciously a certain apprehended pirate made reply to that Alexander the Great. For when that same king was asking the man what it seemed to him, that he should have the sea infested, he, with frank contumacy: “The same as to you,” he said, “to have the circle of lands; but because I do this with a slight skiff, I am called a robber; because you with a great fleet, an emperor.”

[V] Proinde omitto quaerere quales Romulus congregauerit, quoniam multum eis consultum est, ut ex illa uita dato sibi consortio ciuitatis 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, grauiter timuit, non paruo negotio deuitandae ingentis cladis oppressit, quando paucissimi gladiatores in Campania de ludo fugientes magnum exercitum compararunt, tres duces habuerunt, Italiam latissime et crudelissime uastauerunt. Dicant, quis istos deus adiuuerit, ut ex paruo et contemptibili latrocinio peruenirent ad regnum tantis iam Romanis uiribus arcibusque metuendum.

[5] Accordingly I omit to inquire what sort of men Romulus gathered, since much was provided for them, that from that life, with the fellowship of citizenship granted to them, they should cease to think of the due penalties, the fear of which was propelling them into greater crimes, so that thereafter they might be more pacific toward human affairs. This I say: that the Roman empire itself, already great with many nations subjugated and terrible to the rest, bitterly felt, grievously feared, and with no small trouble suppressed, in order to avoid an enormous calamity, when a very few gladiators in Campania, fleeing from the training-school, mustered a great army, had three leaders, and most widely and most cruelly devastated Italy. Let them say which god aided these men, that from a small and contemptible brigandage they came to a regnum to be feared by the already so great Roman forces and citadels.

An quia non diu fuerunt, ideo diuinitus negabuntur adiuti? Quasi uero ipsa cuiuslibet hominis uita diuturna est. Isto ergo pacto neminem dii adiuuant ad regnandum, quoniam singuli quique cito miruntur, nec beneficium deputandum est.

Or because they did not last long, will they therefore be denied to have been aided by divinity? As though indeed the life of any human being is long. By this reckoning, then, the gods aid no one to reign, since each individual quickly dies, nor is it to be accounted a benefaction.

quod exiguo tempore in unoquoque homine ac per hoc singillatim utique in omnibus uice uaporis euanescit. Quid enim interest eorum, qui sub Romulo deos coluerunt et olim sunt mortui, quod post eorum mortem Romanum tantum creuit imperium, cum illi apud inferos causas suas agant? utrum bonas an malas, ad rem praesentem non pertinet.

which in a brief time in each individual man, and thus individually indeed in all, vanishes in the manner of vapor. For what does it matter to those who under Romulus worshiped the gods and long ago died, that after their death the Roman empire grew so greatly, since they are pleading their own cases in the underworld? whether good or bad, does not pertain to the present matter.

Hoc autem de omnibus intellegendum est, qui per ipsum imperium (quamuis decedentibus succedentibusque mortalibus in longa spatia protendatur) paucis diebus uitae suae cursim raptimque transierunt, actuum suorum sarcinas baiulantes. Sin uero etiam ipsa breuissimi temporis beneficia deorum adiutorio tribuenda sunt, non parum adiuti sunt illi gladiatores: seruilis condicionis uincla 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 uictoriis plurimis, usi uoluptatibus quibus uoluerunt, quod suggessit libido fecerunt, postremo donec uinceretur, quod difficillime factum est, sublimes regnantesque uixerunt. Sed ad maiora ueniamus.

But this is to be understood of all who, within that very empire (although, with mortals departing and succeeding, it is extended into long spans), in the few days of their life sped swiftly and hastily along, bearing the baggage of their acts. But if indeed even the benefits themselves of a very brief time are to be attributed to the gods’ aid, those gladiators were not a little helped: they burst the bonds of servile condition, they fled, they escaped, they gathered a great and most strong army, obedient to the counsels and commands of their kings, very much to be feared by the Roman loftiness, and unconquerable to several Roman commanders, they captured many, they gained possession of very many victories, they enjoyed the pleasures they wished, they did what lust suggested; at last, until it was conquered—which was accomplished with the utmost difficulty—they lived exalted and reigning. But let us come to greater things.

[VI] Iustinus, qui Graecam uel potius peregrinam Trogum Pompeium secutus non Latine tantum, sicut ille, uerum etiam breuiter 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 prouehebat. 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 auitum gentibus morem noua imperii cupiditate mutauit.

[6] Justin, who, following Trogus Pompeius—a Greek, or rather a foreigner—wrote history not only in Latin, as he did, but also briefly, thus begins the work of his books: "In the beginning of the affairs of peoples and nations, dominion was in the hands of kings, whom to the pinnacle of this majesty not popular ambition, but moderation approved among the good advanced. The peoples were bound by no laws; the custom was to guard the borders of their imperium rather than to extend them; the kingdoms were bounded for each within his own fatherland. First of all, Ninus, king of the Assyrians, by a new lust for imperium changed the ancient and, as it were, ancestral custom of the peoples.

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 firmauit. Domitis igitur proximis cum accessione uirium fortior ad alios transiret et proxima quaeque uictoria instrumentum sequentis esset, totius Orientis populos subegit." Qualibet autem fide rerum uel iste uel 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 perseuerauit, ut Romanum nondum sit eius aetatis.

He first brought wars upon his neighbors and subdued peoples still untrained to resist, even to the borders of Libya." And a little later: "Ninus," he says, "confirmed the magnitude of the dominion he had sought by continuous possession. Therefore, the nearest having been tamed, as he passed over to others, stronger with an accession of forces, and as each nearest victory was the instrument of the following one, he subdued the peoples of the whole Orient." However, with whatever credibility concerning the facts either this man or Trogus wrote (for other more faithful writings show that they told falsehoods in certain matters), nevertheless it stands established even among other writers that the kingdom of the Assyrians was extended far and wide by King Ninus. And it persisted so long that the Roman power has not yet reached its age.

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?

For, as those who have pursued the chronicle history write, from the first year in which Ninus began to reign this kingdom endured for 1,240 years, until it was transferred to the Medes. But to bring wars upon neighbors and from there to proceed into the rest, and to crush and subdue peoples not troublesome to oneself by the sole cupidity of rule—what else ought it to be named than grand brigandage?

[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.

[7] If with no aid of the gods that kingdom was so great and extended, why is the Roman kingdom attributed to the Roman gods as ample in places and long-lasting in times? For whatever the cause of that one is, the same is also of this one. But if they contend that even that is to be ascribed to their aid, I ask: whose?

Non enim aliae gentes, quas Ninus domuit et subegit, alios tunc colebant deos. Aut si proprios habuerunt Assyrii, quasi peritiores fabros imperii construendi atque seruandi, numquidnam mortui sunt, quando et ipsi imperium perdiderunt, aut mercede non sibi reddita uel 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 breuissimum tempore in suo regno adhuc usque perdurat.

For the other nations, whom Ninus tamed and subjugated, were not then worshiping other gods. Or if the Assyrians had their own proper ones, as more skillful craftsmen of constructing and preserving empire, did they perchance die when they themselves lost the empire, or, their wage not rendered to them, or a greater one promised, did they prefer to pass over to the Medes, and from there again to the Persians, with Cyrus inviting and promising something more advantageous? Which nation, not within the narrow boundaries of the East, after the kingdom of Alexander the Macedonian—great in places but most brief in time—still even to this day endures in its own kingdom?

Hoc si ita est, aut infideles dii sunt, qui suos deserunt et ad hostes transeunt (quod nec homo fecit Camillus, quando uictor et expugnator aduersissimae ciuitatis Romam, cui uicerat, sensit ingratam, quam tamen postea oblitus iniuriae, memor patriae a Gallis iterum liberauit), aut non ita fortes sunt, ut deos esse fortes decet, qui possunt humanis uel consiliis uel uiribus uinci; aut si, cum inter se belligerant, non dii ab hominibus, sed dii ab aliis diis fortes uincuntur, qui sunt quarumque proprii ciuitatum: habent ergo et ipsi inter se inimicitias, quas pro sua quisque parte suscipiunt. Non itaque deos suos debuit colere ciuitas magis quam alios, a quibus adiuuarentur sui. Postremo quoquo modo se habeat deorum iste uel transitus uel fuga, uel migratio uel 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.

If this is so, either the gods are unfaithful, who desert their own and go over to their enemies (which not even a man did—Camillus, when, the victor and stormer of a most hostile city, he perceived Rome, for which he had won, to be ungrateful, yet afterward, forgetful of the injury and mindful of his fatherland, he freed her again from the Gauls); or they are not so strong as it befits gods to be strong, since they can be conquered by human counsels or by human forces; or, if, when they war among themselves, it is not gods by men but gods by other gods, strong, who are conquered—those who are the proper patrons of their several cities—then they too have enmities among themselves, which each takes up on his own side. Therefore a city ought not to have worshiped its own gods more than others, by whom its own people would be helped. Finally, however this passing-over or flight of the gods, or migration or defection in battle, may stand, in those times and in those parts of the earth the name of Christ had not yet been proclaimed, when those kingdoms were lost and transferred through huge warlike disasters.

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 conseruatum est, nulla alia causa nisi suis religionibus desertis et illa recepta perire potuisse? In qua uoce 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.

For if, after one thousand two hundred and what runs over years, when the kingdom was taken from the Assyrians — if by then the Christian religion were there proclaiming another, eternal kingdom and inhibiting the sacrilegious cults of false gods — what else would the vain men of that nation say, except that the kingdom, which had been preserved for so long, could have perished for no other cause than that their own religions were deserted and that one received? In which utterance of vanity, whatever it might be, let these men look into their mirror, and, if there is any modesty in them, let them blush to make similar complaints. Although the Roman empire has been afflicted rather than changed, a thing which also befell it at other times before the name of Christ and from that affliction it was restored — a thing which is not to be despaired of in these times either.

Quis enim de hac re nouit uoluntatem Dei?

For who, indeed, knows the will of God about this matter?

[VIII] Deinde quaeramus, si placet, ex tanta deorum turba, quam Romani colebant, quem potissimum uel quos deos credant illud imperium dilatasse atque seruasse. Neque enim in hoc tam praeclaro opere et tantae plenissimo dignitatis audent aliquas partes deae Cluacinae tribuere aut Volupiae, quae a uoluptate 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 uoluminibus uix comprehendere potuerunt singulis rebus propria dispertientes officia numinum?

[8] Then let us inquire, if it pleases, out of so great a throng of gods, whom the Romans worshiped, which god most especially, or which gods, they believe enlarged that empire and preserved it. For in so illustrious a work and so full of great dignity they do not dare to assign any shares to the goddess Cluacina, or to Volupia, who is named from voluptas, “pleasure,” or to Lubentina, whose name is from libido, or to Vaticanus, who presides over the wailings of infants, or to Cunina, who manages their cradles. But how can all the names of the gods and goddesses be commemorated in one place of this book, which they could scarcely comprehend in great volumes, apportioning to individual things the proper offices of the numina?

Nec agrorum munus uni alicui deo committendum arbitrati sunt, sed rura deae Rusinae, iuga montium deo Iugatino; collibus deae Collatinam, uallibus Valloniam praefecerunt. Nec saltem potuerunt unam Segetiam talem inuenire, cui semel segetes commendarent, sed sata frumenta, quamdiu sub terra essent, praepositam uoluerunt habere deam Seiam; cum uero iam essent super terram et segetem facerent, deam Segetiam; frumentis uero collectis atque reconditis, ut tuto seruarentur, deam Tutilinam praeposuerunt. cui non sufficere uideretur illa Segetia, quamdiu seges ab initiis herbidis usque ad aristas aridas perueniret?

Nor did they judge the office of the fields to be committed to any one god, but they appointed the rural lands to the goddess Rusina, the ridges of the mountains to the god Jugatinus; they set the goddess Collatina over the hills, and Vallonia over the valleys. Nor even could they find one such Segetia to whom they might once for all commend the crops, but they wished to have the goddess Seia set over the sown grain, so long as it was under the earth; but when it was now above the earth and made a crop, the goddess Segetia; and when the grains had been gathered and stored away, that they might be kept safe, they set the goddess Tutilina over them. To whom would not that Segetia seem sufficient, so long as the crop came from grassy beginnings all the way to dry ears?

Non tamen satis fuit hominibus deorum multitudinem amantibus, ut anima misera daemoniorum turbae prostitueretur, unius Dei ueri 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 nouis 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.

Yet it was not enough for men who loved a multitude of gods that the wretched soul should be prostituted to a throng of daemons, disdaining the chaste embrace of the one true God. So they set Proserpina over sprouting grains; over the little knees and knots of the stalks, the god Nodutus; over the involucres of the husks, the goddess Volutina; when the husks open so that the ear may come forth, the goddess Patelana; when the crops are made even with new awns—since the ancients said “to equal” as hostire—the goddess Hostilina; for the grain in flower, the goddess Flora; when it is in the milky stage, the god Lacturnus; when it is ripening, the goddess Matuta; and when it is “runced,” that is, taken away from the earth, the goddess Runcina. Nor do I commemorate all, because I am disgusted at what they are not ashamed of.

Haec autem paucissima ideo dixi, ut intellegeretur nullo modo eos dicere audere ista numina imperium constituisse auxisse conseruasse Romanum, quae ita suis quaeque adhibebantur officiis, ut nihil uniuersum 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?

These, however, I have said in the very fewest words for this reason, that it might be understood that in no way do they dare to say that those numina constituted, augmented, and conserved the Roman imperium, since each was applied to its own offices in such a manner that nothing universal was entrusted to any one single being. When, then, would Segetia take care of the imperium, to whom it was not permitted at the same time to bear care both for the crops and for the trees? When would Cunina think about arms, whose charge was not allowed to step beyond the cradles of little children?

Quando Nodutus adiuuaret 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 seruare.

When would Nodutus aid in war, who pertained not even to the little follicle of the ear [of grain], but only to the node of the joint? Each man appoints an ostiary for his own house, and because he is a man, he altogether suffices: these people set up three gods—Forculus for the doors, Cardea for the hinge, Limentinus for the threshold. Thus Forculus could not at the same time guard both the hinge and the threshold.

[IX] Omissa igitur ista turba minutorum deorum uel aliquantum intermissa officium maiorum deorum debemus inquirere, quo Roma tam magna facta est, ut tam diu tot gentibus imperaret. Nimirum ergo Iouis hoc opus est. Ipsum enim deorum omnium dearumque regem uolunt: hoc eius indicat sceptrum, hoc in alto colle Capitolium.

[IX] Having therefore put aside that crowd of minute gods—or at least having somewhat intermitted it—we ought to inquire into the office of the greater gods, whereby Rome was made so great that for so long it ruled over so many gentes. Surely, then, this is the work of Jove. For they will him as king of all gods and goddesses: his scepter indicates this, the Capitol on the high hill indicates this.

De isto deo quamuis a poeta dictum conuenientissime praedicant: Iouis 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?

About this god they most appropriately proclaim, although said by a poet: “All things are full of Jove.” Varro believes that this one is even worshiped by those who worship one God alone without a simulacrum, but is denominated by another name. If this is so, why was he treated so badly at Rome, as indeed among the other peoples, that a simulacrum was made for him?

quod ipsi etiam Varroni ita displicet, ut, cum tantae ciuitatis peruersa consuetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere et scribere dubitaret, quod hi, qui populis instituerunt simulacra, et metum dempserunt et errorem addiderunt.

which also displeased Varro himself to such a degree that, although he was pressed by the perverse custom of so great a commonwealth, nevertheless he by no means hesitated to say and to write that those who instituted simulacra for the peoples both removed fear and added error.

[X] Cur illi etiam Iuno uxor adiungitur, quae dicatur "soror et coniux"? Quia Iouem, 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 "Iouis 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?

[10] Why is Juno also joined to him as wife, who is called “sister and consort”? Because, they say, we take Jove in the ether, Juno in the air, and these two elements are conjoined, the one upper, the other lower. Therefore he is not the one of whom it was said “all things are full of Jove,” if Juno also fills some part. Or does each fill both, and are both those spouses both in those two elements and in each individually at the same time?

Cur ergo aether datur Ioui, 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.

Why therefore is the ether given to Jupiter, the air to Juno? Finally, the two themselves would have been enough: what is it that the sea is attributed to Neptune, the earth to Pluto? And lest they too remain without consorts, Salacia is added to Neptune, Proserpina to Pluto.

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 inueniunt. Si enim haec ita essent, tria potius elementa mundi esse, non quattuor, eorum ueteres proderent, ut singula deorum coniugia diuiderentur singulis elementis.

For just as, they say, Juno holds the lower part of heaven, that is, the air, so Salacia [holds] the lower part of the sea and Proserpina the lower part of the earth. They seek how to patch the fables, and do not find a way. For if these things were so, their ancients would have handed down that the elements of the world were three rather than four, so that the several marriages of the gods would be divided one apiece among the several elements.

Nunc euero omni modo adfirmauerunt aliud esse aetherem, aliud aerem. Aqua uero siue superior siue inferior utique aqua est; puta quia dissimilis: numquid in tantum ut aqua non sit? Et inferior terra quid aliud potest esse quam terra quantalibet diuersitate distincta?

Now indeed they have in every way affirmed that aether is one thing, air another. But water, whether higher or lower, is in any case water; grant that it is dissimilar—surely not to such an extent that it is not water? And the lower earth, what else can it be than earth, however distinguished by any amount of diversity?

Deinde ecce iam totus in his quattuor uel tribus elementis corporeus completus est mundus: Mineruua ubi erit? quid tenebit? quid implebit?

Then behold, now the whole corporeal world is completed in these four or three elements: where will Minerva be? what will she hold? what will she fill?

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 Iouis capitae nata sit: cur non ergo ipsa potius deorum regina deputatur, quod sit Ioue superior? An quia indignum erat praeponere patri filiam?

For at the same time together with these she was set up on the Capitol, although that daughter is not of them both. Or if they say that Minerva holds the upper part of the aether and on this pretext the poets feign that she was born from the head of Jove: why then is she not rather appointed queen of the gods, because she is superior to Jove? Or because it was unworthy to prepose the daughter to the father?

Cur non de Ioue ipso erga Saturnum iustitia ista seruata est? An quia uictus est? Ergo pugnarunt?

Why was that justice not kept by Jove himself toward Saturn? Or because he was conquered? Therefore they fought?

Absit, inquiunt; fabularum est ista garrulitas. Ecce fabulis non credatur et de diis meliora sentiantur: cur ergo non data est patri Iouis, etsi non sublimior, aequalis certe sedes honoris? Quia Saturnus, inquiunt, temprois longitudo est.

Far be it, they say; that is the garrulity of fables. Behold, let fables not be believed and let better things be thought about the gods: why then was not, for the father of Jove, even if not more sublime, at least an equal seat of honor given? Because Saturn, they say, is the length of time.

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.

Therefore they worship Time, who worship Saturn, and Jupiter, the king of the gods, is insinuated as born from Time. For what is said to be unworthy, when Jupiter and Juno are said to have been born from Time, if he is Heaven and she Earth, since Heaven and Earth have, of course, been made? For this too their learned and wise have in their books.

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 uolunt 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 ueneratos. Eandem terram etiam matrem deum uocant, ut iam poetae tolerabiliora confingant, si secundum istorum non poeticos, sed sacrorum libros non solum Iuno, "soror et coniux", sed etiam mater est Iouis. Eandem terram Cererem, eandem etiam Vestam uolunt, cum tamen saepius Vestam non nisi ignem esse perhibeant pertinentem ad focos, sine quibus ciuitas esse non potest, et ideo illi uirgines solere seruire, quod sicut ex uirgine, ita nihil ex igne nascatur.

Nor is it from poetic figments, but from the books of the philosophers, that it was said by Vergil: 'Then the omnipotent father, with fecund showers, the ether descended into the lap of his joyful spouse,' that is, into the lap of the soil or of Earth; for even here they want certain differences to exist, and in Earth itself they suppose one thing to be Terra, another Tellus, another Tellumon, and they hold all these to be gods, called by their own names, distinguished by their own offices, venerated at their own altars and sacred rites. The same earth they also call the mother of the gods, so that now the poets would fashion more tolerable things, if, according to their books—not the poets’, but the sacred—Juno, "sister and spouse," is also the mother of Jupiter. The same earth they want to be Ceres, and the same also Vesta, although more often they assert that Vesta is nothing but fire pertaining to the hearths, without which a civitas cannot exist, and for that reason virgins are accustomed to serve her, because just as from a virgin, so from fire nothing is born.

Quam totam uanitatem aboleri et extingui utique ab illo oportuit, qui est natus ex uirgine. 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 uirginitas? Si enim Vesta Venus est, quo modo ei rite uirgines a Veneris operibus abstinendo seruierunt?

This whole vanity ought surely to have been abolished and extinguished by Him who was born of a virgin. For who could endure that, when they have attributed so much honor and a kind of chastity to fire, they are sometimes not ashamed to say that Vesta is even Venus—so that the honored virginity in her handmaids evaporates into vanity? For if Vesta is Venus, how did virgins duly serve her by abstaining from the works of Venus?

An Veneres duae sunt, una uirgo, altera mulier? An potius tres, una uirginum, quaze etiam Vesta est, alia coniugatarum, alia meretricum? Cui etiam Phoenicis donum dabant de prostitutione filioaru, antequam eas iungerent uiris.

Are there two Venuses, one a virgin, the other a woman? Or rather three: one of virgins, who is also Vesta; another of married women; another of prostitutes? To whom also the Phoenicians used to give a gift from the prostitution of their daughters, before they joined them to husbands.

Quae illarum est matrona Vulcani? Non utique uirgo, quoniam habet maritum. Absit autem ut meretrix, ne filio Iunonis et cooperario Mineruae facere uideamur iniuriam.

Which of those is the matron of Vulcan? Surely not a virgin, since she has a husband. But far be it that she be a prostitute, lest we seem to do an injury to the son of Juno and the co-worker of Minerva.

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?

Therefore this is understood to pertain to the married; but we do not wish them to imitate her in that which she did with Mars. Again, they say, you return to fables. What justice is this—to be angry with us because we say such things about their gods, and not to be angry with themselves, who most gladly watch in the theaters these crimes of their own gods?

Et (quod esset incredibile, nisi contestatissime probaretur) haec ipsa theatrica crimina deorum in honorem instituta sunt eorundem deorum.

And (which would be unbelievable, unless it were most solemnly attested) these very theatrical crimes of the gods were instituted in honor of those same gods.

[XI] Quodlibet igitur physicis rationibus et disputationibus adserant: modo sit Iuppiter corporei huius mundi animus, qui uniuersam istam molem ex quattuor uel quot eis placet elementis constructam atque compactam implet et mouet, 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 uero tamquam coniugem eandemque matrem (quia hoc in diuinis 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:

[11] Therefore let them assert whatever they please by physical reasons and disputations: now that Jupiter is the soul of this corporeal world, which fills and moves that whole mass constructed and compacted from four elements, or from as many as it pleases them; now that from there he yields his parts to his sister and brothers; now that he is ether, so that he from above embraces the air—Juno—lying beneath; now that all together with the air he himself is the heaven, while he makes the earth, as spouse and the same also mother (since in divine things this is not shameful), fertile with fecund showers and seeds; now, however (lest it be necessary to run through everything), that he is one god, about whom many think it was said by a most noble poet:

deum namque ire per omnes
Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum;

for indeed god goes through all
lands and the tracts of the sea and the profound heaven;

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 diuinantibus Apollo, in merce Mercurius, in Iano initiator, in Termino terminator, Saturnus in tempore, Mars et Bellona in bellis, Liber in uineis, Ceres in frumentis, Diana in siluis, Minerua in ingeniis; ipse sit postremo etiam in illa turba quasi plebeiorum deorum; ipse praesit nomine Liberi uirorum 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 uocetur Opis, ipse in uagitu os aperiat et uocetur deus Vaticanus; ipse leuet de terra et uocetur dea Leuana, ipse cunas tueatur et uocetur <dea> Cunia; non sit alius sed ipse in illis deabus, quae fata nascentibus canunt et uocantur Carmentes, praesit fortuitis uoceturque Fortuna; in diua Rumina mammam paruulo inmulgeat, quia rumam dixerunt ueteres mammam, in diua Potina potionem ministret, in diua Educa escam praebeat; de pauore infantum Pauentia nuncupetur, de spe, quae uenit, Venilia, de uoluptate 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 Iuuentas, quae post praetextam excipiat iuuenalis aetatis exordia, ipse sit et Fortuna barbata, quae adultos barba induat (quos honorare noluerunt, ut hoc qualecumque numen saltem masculum deum uel a barba Barbatum, sicut a nodis Nodutum, uel acete non Fortunam, sed quia barbas habet Fortunium nominarent); ipse in Iugatino deo coniuges iungat, et cum uirgini uxori zona soluitur, ipse inuocetur et dea Virginensis uocetur; ipse sit Mutunus uel 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, siue sint, ut quidam uolunt, omnia ista partes eius siue uirtutes eius, sicut eis uidetur, quibus eum placet esse mundi animum, quae sententia uelut 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?

let Jupiter himself be in the ether, Juno herself in the air, Neptune himself in the sea, Salacia herself even in the lower parts of the sea, Pluto on the earth, Proserpina in the lower earth, Vesta at the household hearths, Vulcan in the smiths’ furnace, in the stars the sun and moon and the stars, Apollo in diviners, Mercury in merchandise, an initiator in Janus, a terminator in Terminus, Saturn in time, Mars and Bellona in wars, Liber in the vineyards, Ceres in the grains, Diana in the woods, Minerva in the ingenuities; let him himself, finally, also be in that crowd, as it were, of plebeian gods; let him himself preside under the name of Liber over the seeds of men and under the name of Libera over those of women, let him himself be Diespater, who brings the birth forth to the day; let him himself be the goddess Mena, whom they set over the monthlies of women, let him himself be Lucina, who is invoked by women in labor; let him himself bring help to the newborn by receiving them into the bosom of the earth and be called Opis, let him himself in the wail open the mouth and be called the god Vaticanus; let him himself lift from the earth and be called the goddess Levana, let him himself watch over the cradles and be called the <goddess> Cunia; let there not be another but he himself in those goddesses who sing fates to the newborn and are called the Carmentes, let him preside over happenstances and be called Fortuna; in the divine Rumina let him himself milk the breast for the little one, because the ancients called the breast “ruma,” in the divine Potina let him himself minister the drink, in the divine Educa let him himself provide the food; from the fear of infants let him be named Pauentia, from the hope that comes, Venilia, from pleasure, Volupia, from activity, Agenoria; from the goads by which a man is driven to excessive activity, let the goddess be named Stimula; let Strenia be goddess by making one strenuous, Numeria, who may teach to number, Camena, who to sing; let him himself also be the god Consus by providing counsels and the goddess Sentia by inspiring sentences, let him himself be the goddess Juventas, who after the praetexta receives the beginnings of the youthful age, let him himself also be Bearded Fortune, who clothes adults with a beard (whom they were unwilling to honor, so that at least this whatever numen they would call a male god, either from the beard “Barbatus,” just as from knots “Nodutus,” or even not “Fortuna,” but, because he has a beard, “Fortunium”); let him himself in the Iugatinus god join spouses, and when the girdle is loosed for the virgin wife, let he himself be invoked and be called the goddess Virginensis; let him himself be Mutunus or Tutunus, who among the Greeks is Priapus: if one is not ashamed, let all these things which I have said and whatever I have not said (for I have not judged all things to be said), here all gods and goddesses be one Jupiter, whether they be, as some wish, all these things his parts or his virtues, as it seems to those to whom it pleases that he be the soul of the world—a view as it were of great and very learned men. If these things are so (what sort it is, I do not meanwhile inquire), what would they lose, if with a more prudent compendium they worshiped one God? For what of his would be slighted, when he himself were worshiped?

Si autem metuendum fuit, ne praetermissae siue neglectae partes eius irascerentur: non ergo, ut uolunt, uelut unius animantis haec tota uita est, quae omnes continet deos, quasi suas uirtutes uel membra uel partes; sed suam quaeque pars habet uitam a ceteris separatam, si praeter alteram irasci altera potest, et alia placari, alia concitari. Si autem dicitur omnes simul, id est totum ipsum Iouem, potuisse offendi, si partes eius non etiam singillatim minutatimque colerentur, stulte dicitur. Nulla quippe illarum praetermitteretur, cum ipse unus, qui haberet omnia, coleretur.

If, however, there was reason to fear lest his parts, if passed over or neglected, should grow angry, then not, as they wish, is this the whole life, as it were, of one living creature, which contains all the gods as its own virtues or members or parts; but each part has its own life separated from the rest, if the one can be angered when another is overlooked, and one be appeased, another stirred up. But if it is said that all together, that is Jupiter himself in his entirety, could have been offended if his parts were not also worshiped singly and minutely, it is said foolishly. For none of those would be omitted, when he alone, who had all things, was being worshiped.

Nam ut alia omittam, quae sunt innumerabilia, cum dicunt omnia sidera partes Iouis esse et omnia uiuere atque rationales animas habere, et ideo sine controuersia deos esse, non uident quam multos non colant, quam multis aedes non construant, aras non statuant, quas tamen paucissimis siderum statuendas esse putauerunt et singillatim sacrificandum. Si igitur irascuntur, qui non singillatim coluntur, non metuunt paucis placatis toto caelo irato uiuere? Si autem stellas omnes ideo colunt, quia in Ioue 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.

For, to omit other things, which are innumerable, when they say that all the stars are parts of Jove and that all live and have rational souls, and therefore without controversy are gods, they do not see how many they do not worship, for how many they do not build temples, do not set up altars—though they have thought that altars should be set up for very few of the stars, and that sacrifice should be offered to them individually. If therefore those who are not worshiped one by one grow angry, do they not fear to live with the whole heaven enraged, a few having been appeased? But if, however, they worship all the stars for this reason, because they are in Jove whom they worship, by this compendium they could in that one supplicate all (for thus no one would be angered, since in that one no one would be contemned) rather than, with certain ones being worshiped, a just cause of anger would be afforded to those much more numerous who would have been passed over, especially since Priapus, distended with shameful nudity, would be set before them who shine from the supernal seat.

[XII] Quid? illud nonne debet mouere acutos homins uel 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 uiuificatur tota ista moles, uitae atque animae cunctorum uiuentium pro cuiusque nascendi sorte sumantur, nihil omnino remanere, quod non sit pars Dei. Quod si ita est, quis non uideat quanta impietas et inreligiositas consequantur, ut, quod calcauerit quisque, partem Dei calcet, in omni animante occidendo pars Dei trucidetur?

[12] What? does not this point deserve to move keen-witted men, or men of whatever sort (for to this the excellence of genius is not required), that, laying aside a zeal for contention, they attend to this: if the soul of the world is God, and to that soul the world is as a body, so that there be one animal consisting of soul and body; and this God, by a certain bosom of nature, contains all things in himself, so that from his own soul, by which that whole mass is vivified, the lives and souls of all living beings are taken according to each one’s lot of being born—then nothing at all remains which is not a part of God. But if this is so, who does not see how great impiety and irreligion follow: that whatever anyone has trampled, he tramples a part of God; and that, in killing any living creature, a part of God is butchered?

Nolo omnia dicere, quae possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem sine uerecundia non possunt.

I do not wish to say everything that can occur to those who cogitate; yet they cannot be said without shamelessness.

[XIII] Si autem sola animalia rationalia, sicut sunt homines, partes Dei esse contendunt: non uideo 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 uero partes Dei fieri lasciuas, iniquas, impias atque omnino damnabiles quis ferre possit, nisi qui prorsus insanit?

[13] If, however, they contend that only rational animals, such as men, are parts of God: I do not see, indeed, if the whole world is God, how they separate beasts from his parts; but what need is there to wrestle? Concerning the rational living being itself, that is, man, what more wretched can be believed than that a part of God is flogged, when a boy is flogged? Now then, who could bear that parts of God become lascivious, iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable, unless one is utterly insane?

Postremo quid irascitur eis, a quibus non colitur, cum a suis partibus non colatur? Restat ergo ut dicant omnes deos suas habere uitas, sibi quemque uiuere, 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 uel auxisse Romanum.

Finally, why does he grow angry with those by whom he is not worshiped, since he is not worshiped by his own parts? It remains, then, that they say all the gods have their own lives, each living for himself, that none of them is a part of anyone, but that all who can be known and worshiped are to be worshiped, because they are so many that all cannot be known and worshiped. Of these, Jupiter—since as king he presides—I suppose is thought by them to have established or increased the Roman dominion.

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.

For if he himself did not do this, what other god do they believe could have undertaken so great a work, since all are occupied with their own offices and works, and one does not rush into another’s? Therefore by the king of the gods the kingdom of men could be propagated and augmented.

[XIV] Hic primum quaero, cur non etiam ipsum regnum aliquis deus est? Cur enim non ita sit, si Victoria dea est? Aut quid ipso Ioue in hac causa opus est, si Victoria faueat sitque propitia et semper eat ad illos, quos uult esse uictores?

[14] Here first I ask, why is not even the kingdom itself also some god? For why should it not be so, if Victory is a goddess? Or what need is there of Jove himself in this matter, if Victory favors and is propitious and always goes to those whom she wishes to be victors?

Hac dea fauente et propitia, etiam Ioue uacante uel 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?

With this goddess favoring and propitious, even with Jupiter idle or doing something else, what nations would not remain subjected? what kingdoms would not cede? Or perhaps it displeases good men to fight with most iniquitous improbity and to provoke neighbors who are quiet and doing no injury to a voluntary war for the dilating of the kingdom?

Plane si ita sentiunt approbo et laudo.

Plainly, if they so think, I approve and laud.

[XV] Videant ergo ne forte non pertineat ad uiros bonos gaudere de regni latitudine. Iniquitas enim eorum, cum quibus iusta bella gesta sunt, egnum adiuuit 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 uicinitate laetantia et ita essent in mundo regna plurima gentium, ut sunt in urbe domus plurimae ciuium. Proinde belligerare et perdomitis gentibus dilatare regnum malis uidetur felicitas, bonis necessitas.

[15] Let them see, then, lest perhaps it not pertain to good men to rejoice over the latitude of a kingdom. For the iniquity of those with whom just wars have been waged has aided the kingdom to grow, which assuredly would be small if the quiet and justice of the neighbors provoked no war to be waged against them by any injury; and thus, with human affairs more felicitous, all kingdoms would be small, rejoicing in concordant neighborhood, and so there would be in the world very many kingdoms of nations, as there are in a city very many houses of citizens. Accordingly, to wage war and, with nations thoroughly subdued, to dilate the kingdom seems to the wicked a felicity, to the good a necessity.

Sed quia peius esset, ut iniuriosi iustioribus dominarentur, ideo non incongrue dicitur etiam ista felicitas. Sed procul dubio felicitas maior est uicinum bonum habere concordem quam uicinum malum subiugare bellantem. Mala uota sunt optare habere quem oderis uel quem timeas, ut possit esse quem uincas.

But because it would be worse that the injurious should dominate the more just, therefore it is not incongruous that even this be called felicity. But beyond doubt a greater felicity is to have a good neighbor in concord than to subjugate an evil neighbor warring. Evil vows are to desire to have someone whom you may hate or whom you may fear, so that there may be someone whom you may conquer.

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 uidemus, quae faciebat iniuriosos, ut essent cum quibus iusta bella gererentur et augeretur imperium.

If therefore, by waging just wars—no impious ones, no unjust ones—the Romans were able to acquire so great an empire, is even alien iniquity to be worshiped by them as though some goddess? For we see that it cooperated much toward that latitude of the empire, that which was making men injurious, so that there might be those with whom just wars would be waged and the empire would be augmented.

Cur autem et iniquitas dea non sit uel 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 Ioue creuit imperium. Quas enim hic partes Iuppiter haberet, cum ea, quae possent beneficia eius putari, dii habentur, dii uocantur, dii coluntur, ipsi pro suis partibus inuocantur?

Why, moreover, should not even Iniquity be a goddess, or of foreign nations, if Pavor and Pallor and Febris have merited to be Roman gods? Therefore by these two, that is, another’s iniquity and the goddess Victory, while iniquity excites the causes of wars, Victory brings those same wars to a fortunate conclusion, and even with Jove on holiday the empire grew. For what role would Jupiter have here, since those things which could be thought his benefactions are held to be gods, are called gods, are worshiped as gods, and are invoked for their own parts?

Haberet hic autem etiam ille aliquam partem, si Regnum etiam ipse appellaretur, sicut appellatur illa Victoria. Aut si regnum munus est Iouis, cur non et uictoria munus eius habeatur? Quod profecto haberetur, si non lapis in Capitolio, sed uerus rex regum et dominus dominantium cognosceretur atque coleretur.

He would have here, moreover, some share as well, if he himself too were called Kingship, just as that Victory is called. Or if kingship is a gift of Jove, why should not Victory also be held his gift? Which indeed would be so held, if not a stone on the Capitol, but the true King of kings and Lord of lords were recognized and worshiped.

[XVI] Miror autem plurimum, quod, cum deos singulos singulis rebus et paene singulis motibus adtribuerent, uocauerunt deam Agenoriam, quae ad agendum excitaret, deam Stimulam, quae ad agendum ultra modum stimularet, deam Murciam, quae praeter modum non moueret 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 uero 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 uocat uerus medicus dicens: Discite a me, quoniam mitis sum et humilis corde, et inuenietis requiem animabus uestris.

[16] I marvel very greatly that, although they assigned individual gods to individual matters and almost to individual motions, they named a goddess Agenoria, who might rouse to acting, a goddess Stimula, who might stimulate to acting beyond measure, a goddess Murcia, who beyond measure might not move and might make a man, as Pomponius says, murcidus, that is, overly slothful and inactive, a goddess Strenia, who might make one strenuous; they undertook to perform public sacred rites to all these gods and goddesses, but, though they called “Quiet,” which would make one quiet, although she had a temple outside the Colline Gate, they were unwilling to receive her publicly. Was this an indication of an unquiet mind, or is it rather thus signified: that he who should persist in worshiping that crowd—not plainly of gods, but of daemons—cannot have rest? to which the true physician calls, saying: Learn from me, for I am mild and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

[XVII] An forte dicunt, quod deam Victoriam Iuppiter mittat atque illa tamquam regi deorum obtemperans ad quos iusserit ueniat et in eorum parte considat? Hoc uere dicitur non de illo Ioue, quem deorum regem pro sua opinione confingunt, sed de illo uero rege saeculorum, quod mittat non Victoriam, quae nulla substantia est, sed angelum suum et faciat uincere quem uoluerit; cuius consilium occultum esse potest, iniquum non potest. Nam si uictoria dea est, cur non deus est et triumphus, et uictoriae iungitur uel maritus uel frater uel filius?

[XVII] Or do they perhaps say that Jupiter sends the goddess Victory, and that she, obeying as to the king of the gods, comes to whom he has ordered and takes her seat on their side? This is truly said not of that Jove whom, according to their opinion, they fashion as king of the gods, but of that true king of the ages, in that he sends not Victory, which has no substance, but his angel, and makes to conquer whom he will; whose counsel can be hidden, but cannot be iniquitous. For if Victory is a goddess, why is not Triumph a god as well, and is there joined to Victory either a husband or a brother or a son?

Talia quippe isti de diis opinati sunt, qualia si poetae fingerent atque a nobis exagitarentur, responderent isti ridenda esse figmenta poetarum, non ueris adtribuenda numinibus; et tamen se ipsi non redebant, cum talia deliramenta non apud poetas legebant, sed in templis colebant. Iouem 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 uoluntatem.

For indeed these men formed such opinions about the gods as, if the poets were to fashion them and we were to assail them, those same men would reply that they were laughable figments of the poets, not to be attributed to true numina; and yet they themselves did not come back to their senses, since they were not reading such deliraments among the poets, but were worshipping them in temples. Therefore they should ask Jupiter about all things; to him alone should they make supplication. For, wherever he had sent Victory, if she is a goddess and is under that king, she could not dare to resist him and rather do her own will.

[XVIII] Quid, quod et Felicitas dea est? Aedem accepit, aram meruit, sacra congrua persoluta sunt. Ipsa ergo sola coleretur.

[18] What of it, that Felicity too is a goddess? She has received a temple, has deserved an altar, the fitting rites have been paid. Let her alone, then, be worshiped.

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?

For wherever she herself were, what good would there not be? But what does it mean, that even Fortune is thought a goddess and is worshipped? Or is felicity one thing, fortune another?

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.

Because Fortune can also be bad; but Felicity, if it were bad, would not be Felicity. Surely we ought to esteem all gods of either sex (if they also have sex) as nothing but good. This Plato says, this other philosophers, this the excellent rulers of the commonwealth and of peoples.

Quo modo ergo dea Fortuna aliquando bona est, aliquando mala? An forte quando mala est, dea non est, sed in malignum daemonem repente conuertitur? Quot sunt ergo deae istae?

How then is the goddess Fortune sometimes good, sometimes bad? Or perhaps, when she is bad, she is not a goddess, but is suddenly converted into a malignant daemon? How many goddesses, then, are these?

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?

Surely, as many men as are fortunate, that is, of good Fortune. For since there are also very many others at the same time, that is, at one time, of bad Fortune, would it be that, if she herself existed, she would at once be both good and bad—one thing for these, another for those? Or is she, who is a goddess, always good?

Ipsa est ergo Felicitas: cur adhibentur diuersa nomina? Sed hoc ferendum est; solet enim et una res duobus nominibus appellari. Quid diuersae aedes, diuersae arae, diuersa sacra?

She herself, then, is Felicity: why are diverse names employed? But this must be borne; for even a single thing is wont to be called by two names. What of diverse temples, diverse altars, diverse sacred rites?

Est causa, inquiunt, quia felicitas illa est, quam boni habent praecedentibus meritis; fortuna uero, 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 uenit 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?

“There is a reason,” they say, “because that is the felicity which the good possess with merits going before; but fortune, which is called good, befalls fortuitously, without any examination of merits, to human beings both good and bad, whence she is also named Fortune. In what way, then, is she good, who comes without any judgment to both good and bad? And why, moreover, is she worshiped, who is so blind—rushing indiscriminately upon anyone—that she for the most part passes by her own worshipers and clings to her despisers?”

Aut si aliquid proficiunt cultores eius, ut ab illa uideantur et amentur, iam merita sequitur, non fortuito uenit. Vbi est definitio illa Fortunae? Vbi est quod a fortuitis etiam nomen accepit?

Or if her worshipers achieve anything, so that they may be seen and loved by her, then she follows merits; she does not come fortuitously. Where is that definition of Fortune? Where is the claim that it has even received its name from fortuities?

Nihil enim prodest eam colere, si fortuna est. Si autem suos cultores discernit, ut prosit, fortuna non est. An et ipsam, quo uoluerit, Iuppiter mittit?

For it avails nothing to worship her, if she is Fortune. If, however, she discerns her own worshipers so as to benefit, she is not Fortune. Or does Jupiter also send her herself wherever he has willed?

Colatur ergo ipse solus; non enim potest ei iubenti et eam quo uoluerit mittenti Fortuna resistere. Aut certe istam mali colant, qui nolunt habere merita, quibus dea possit Felicitas inuitari.

Therefore let him himself alone be worshiped; for Fortune cannot resist him who bids and sends her where he wishes. Or at any rate let the wicked worship her, who are unwilling to have merits by which the goddess Felicity can be invited.

[XIX] Tantum sane huic uelut numini tribuunt, quam Fortunam uocant, ut simulacrum eius, quod a matronis dedicatum est et appellata est Fortuna muliebris, etiam locutum esse memoriae commendauerint atque dixisse non semel, sed iterum, quod eam rite matronae dedicauerint. Quod quidem si uerum sit, mirari nos non oportet. Non enim malignis daemonibus etiam sic difficile est fallere, quorum artes atque uersutias hinc potius isti aduertere debuerunt, quod illa dea locuta est, quae fortuito accidit, non quae meritis uenit.

[19] Indeed, they ascribe so much to this as-if divinity, which they call Fortune, that the simulacrum of her, which was dedicated by matrons and was called Fortuna muliebris, they have even consigned to memory as having spoken and as having said not once, but a second time, that the matrons had duly dedicated her. If that is true, we ought not to marvel. For not even thus is it difficult for malign daemons to deceive, whose arts and cunning those men ought rather to have noticed from this very fact: that a goddess spoke who befalls fortuitously, not one who comes by merits.

Fuit enim Fortuna loquax et muta Felicitas, ut quid aliud, nisi ut homines recte uiuere non curarent conciliata sibi Fortuna, quae illos sine ullis bonis meritis faceret fortunatos? Et certe si Fortuna loquitur, non saltem muliebris, sed uirilis potius loqueretur, ut non ipsae, quae simulacrum dedicauerunt, putarentur tantum miraculum muliebri loquacitate finxisse.

For indeed Fortune was loquacious and Felicity mute—to what other end, if not that men should not care to live rightly, with Fortune conciliated to themselves, who would make them fortunate without any good merits? And certainly, if Fortune speaks, it would not be at least a womanly, but rather a manly voice that would speak, so that not the very ones who dedicated the statue might be thought to have fabricated so great a miracle by womanly loquacity.

[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?

[20] They also made Virtue a goddess; which indeed, if she were a goddess, would have been to be preferred above many. And now, since she is not a goddess but a gift of God, let Virtue herself be impetrated from Him, by whom alone it can be given, and the whole throng of false gods will vanish. But why has Faith also been believed a goddess, and has she herself received even a temple and an altar?

Quam quisquis prudenter agnoscit, habitaculum illi se ipsum facit. Vnde autem sciunt illi quid sit fides, cuius primum et maximum officium est, ut in uerum credatur Deum? Sed cur non suffecerat Virtus?

Whoever prudently recognizes her makes himself a habitation for her. But whence, moreover, do they know what Faith is, whose first and greatest office is that the true God be believed? But why had Virtue not sufficed?

Nonne ibi est et Fides? Quando quidem uirtutem in quattuor species distribuendam esse uiderunt, 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 uiuit. 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?

Is not Faith there too? Since indeed they saw that Virtue was to be distributed into four species—Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance; and since these likewise each have their own species, among the parts of Justice Faith is, and she holds the greatest place among us, we who know what it is, namely that “the just man lives by faith.” But I marvel at those prizers of the multitude of gods, if Faith is a goddess, why they have done injury to so many other goddesses by passing them over, to whom likewise they could have dedicated temples and altars?

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 uouerunt? Si tamen his omnibus uera inerat fortitudo, unde modo non agitur.

Why did Temperance not deserve to be a goddess, when under its name some Roman princes procured no small glory? Why, finally, is Fortitude not a goddess—she who stood by Mucius when he stretched his right hand into the flames; who stood by Curtius when, for his fatherland, he hurled himself headlong into the abrupt ground; who stood by Decius the father and Decius the son when they vowed themselves for the army? If, however, in all these there was true fortitude, how is it that now it is not being practiced?

Quare prudentia, quare sapientia nulla numinum loca meruerunt? An quia in nomine generali ipsius uirtutis omnes coluntur? Sic ergo posset et unus Deus coli, cuius partes ceteri dii putantur.

Why have Prudence, why has Sapience, merited no places among the gods? Or is it because under the general name of Virtue itself all are worshiped? Thus, therefore, even one God could be worshiped, of whom the other gods are thought to be parts.

Sed in illa una uirtute et fides est et pudicitia, quae tamen extra in aedibus propriis altaria meruerunt.

But in that one virtue both faith and pudicity are contained, which, however, besides this, have merited altars in their own shrines.

[XXI] Has deas non ueritas, sed uanitas facit; haec enim ueri Dei munera sunt, non ipsae sunt deae. Verum tamen ubi est uirtus et felicitas, quid aliud quaeritur? quid ei sufficit, cui uirtus felicitasque non sufficit?

[21] These goddesses not truth, but vanity makes; for these are the gifts of the true God, they themselves are not goddesses. Nevertheless, where virtue and felicity are, what else is sought? what suffices for one to whom virtue and felicity do not suffice?

Omnia quippe agenda complectitur uirtus, 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.

Virtue, to be sure, embraces all things that are to be done; felicity, all things that are to be desired. If Jupiter was therefore worshiped so that he might grant these—because, if the latitude of rule and long duration are any good, they pertain to that same felicity—why was it not understood that they are gifts of God, not goddesses? But if they were thought to be goddesses, at least another so great a crowd of gods would not be sought.

Consideratis enim officiis deorum dearumque omnium, quae sicut uoluerunt pro sua opinatione finxerunt, inueniant, si possunt, aliquid quod praestari ab aliquo deo possit homini habenti uirtutem, habenti felicitatem. Quid doctrinae uel a Mercurio uel a Minerua petendum esset, cum uirtus omnia secum haberet? Ars quippe ipsa bene recteque uiuendi uirtus a ueteribus definita est.

For, with the offices of all the gods and goddesses considered—which they fashioned, as they wished, according to their own opinion—let them find, if they can, anything that could be furnished by any god to a man possessing virtue, possessing felicity. What of doctrine would have to be sought either from Mercury or from Minerva, since virtue would have everything with itself? For the very art of living well and rightly was defined by the ancients as virtue.

Vnde ab eo, quod Graece *arete dicitur uirtus, nomen artis Latinos traduxisse putauerunt. Sed si uirtus non nisi ad ingeniosum posset uenire, 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.

Whence, from that which in Greek is called *arete*, “virtue,” they supposed the Latins transferred the name of “art.” But if virtue could come only to the ingenious person, what need was there of the god Father Catius, who would make cati, that is, “acute,” since Felicity could confer this? For to be born ingenious is a matter of felicity; whence, even if the goddess Felicity could not be worshiped by one not yet born, so that, having been conciliated, she might grant this to him, she would confer this upon his parents, her worshipers, that ingenious sons might be born to them.

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 uellent; diis nuptialibus, ut bene coniugarentur, diis agrestibus, ut fructus uberrimos caperent, et maxime ipsi diuae Fructeseae; Marti et Bellonae, ut bene belligerarent, deae Victoriae, ut uincerent; 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.

What need was there for women in labor to invoke Lucina, since, if Felicity were present, they would not only give birth well, but also to good children? What necessity was there to commend the newborn to the goddess Ops, the wailing to the god Vaticanus, the lying-in-cradle to the goddess Cunina, the suckling to the goddess Rumina, the standing to the god Statilinus, the approaching to the goddess Adeona, the departing to Abeona; to the goddess Mens, that they might have a good mind, to the god Volumnus and the goddess Volumna, that they might will good things; to the nuptial gods, that they might be well joined in marriage, to the rustic gods, that they might take most abundant fruits, and especially to the very goddess Fructesca; to Mars and Bellona, that they might wage war well, to the goddess Victory, that they might conquer; to the god Honor, that they might be honored, to the goddess Money, that they might be pecunious, to the god Aesculanus and his son Argentinus, that they might have bronze and silver money? For they therefore set Aesculanus as the father of Argentinus, because bronze money began to be in use first, afterward silver.

Miror autem, quod Argentinus non genuit Aurinum, quia et aurea subsecuta est. Quem deum isti si haberent, sicut Saturno Iouem, ita et patri Argentino et auo Aesculano Aurinum praeponerent. Quid ergo erat necesse propter haec bona uel animi uel corporis uel externa tantam deorum turbam colere et inuocare (quos neque omnes commemoraui, nec ipsi potuerunt omnibus bonis humanis minutatim singillatimque digestis deos minutos et singulos prouidere), cum posset magno facilique compendio una dea Felicitas cuncta conferre, nec solum ad bona capienda quisquam alius, sed neque ad depellenda mala quaereretur?

Moreover, I marvel that Argentine did not beget Aurine, since golden coinage followed as well. If these people had such a god, then, just as they set Jupiter before Saturn, so too they would set Aurine before his father Argentine and his grandfather Aesculanus. What need was there, then, on account of these goods—whether of mind or of body or external—to cultivate and invoke so great a crowd of gods (whom I have not all even mentioned, nor were they themselves able, with all human goods broken down minutely, bit by bit and one by one, to provide minute and individual gods), when by a great and easy shortcut one goddess Felicity could confer all things, and no one else would be sought, either for the taking of good things or for the driving away of evils?

Cur enim esset inuocanda propter fessos diua Fessona, propter hostes depellendos diua Pellonia, propter aegros medicus uel Apollo uel Aesculapius uel 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 uel nulla mala exorerentur, uel facillime pellerentur. Postremo quoniam de duabus istis deabus Virtute et Felicitate tractamus: si felicitas uirtutis est praemium, non dea, sed Dei donum est; si autem dea est, cur non dicatur et uirtutem ipsa conferre, quando quidem etiam uirtutem consequi felicitas magna est?

For why should the goddess Fessona be invoked on behalf of the fatigued, the goddess Pellonia for enemies to be driven away, for the sick a physician—either Apollo or Aesculapius or both together—whenever there was great peril? Nor should the god Spiniensis be entreated to eradicate thorns from the fields, nor the goddess Robigo to keep rust from approaching: with Felicity alone present and protecting, either no evils would arise, or they would be repelled most easily. Finally, since we are treating of those two goddesses, Virtue and Felicity: if felicity is the reward of virtue, it is not a goddess, but the gift of God; but if it is a goddess, why should it not be said that she herself also confers virtue, since indeed to attain virtue is a great felicity?

[XXII] Quid est ergo, quod pro ingenti beneficio Varro iactat praestare se ciuibus suis, quia non solum commemorat deos, quos coli oporteat a Romanis, uerum 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 ualetudini opitulari atque ita ignores cur ei debeas supplicare. Hoc etiam alia similitudine adfirmat dicens, non modo bene uiuere, sed uiuere 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 uim et facultatem ac potestatem cuiusque rei habeat.

[22] What, then, is this that Varro brags he is furnishing to his fellow-citizens as an immense benefaction, that he not only commemorates the gods whom it is fitting for Romans to worship, but even says what pertains to each? Since, he says, it profits nothing to know the name and the form of some man, a physician, and yet be ignorant that he is a physician; so he says it profits nothing to know that Aesculapius is a god, if you do not know that he succors health and thus are ignorant why you ought to supplicate him. He also affirms this by another similitude, saying that not only to live well, but to live at all no one can, if he is ignorant who is the smith, who the baker, who the plasterer, from whom he may ask for any utensil, whom to take as helper, whom as leader, whom as teacher; in like manner asserting that to none is it doubtful that the cognition of the gods is thus useful, if it be known what force and faculty and power with respect to each matter each god has.

"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 uinum." Magna sane utilitas. Quis non huic gratias ageret, si uera monstraret, et si unum uerum Deum, a quo essent omnia bona, hominibus colendum doceret?

"From that, he says, we shall be able to know which god, for each case, we ought to advocate and invoke, lest we do as mimes are wont and ask for water from Liber, for wine from the Nymphs." A great utility indeed. Who would not give thanks to him, if he were to show truths, and if he taught human beings to worship the one true God, from whom are all good things?

[XXIII] Sed (unde nunc agitur) si libri et sacra eorum uera sunt et Felicitas dea est, cur non ipsa una quae coleretur constituta est, quae posset uniuersa 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?

[23] But (about which matter is now being dealt) if their books and sacra are true and Felicity is a goddess, why was not she herself alone appointed to be worshiped, who could confer all things and by a compendious means make one happy? For who desires anything for any other reason than that he may become happy? Why, finally, did Lucullus so late establish a temple to this so great goddess after so many Roman princes?

Cur ipse Romulus felicem cupiens condere ciuitatem non huic templum potissimum struxit nec propter aliquid diis ceteris supplicauit, 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, Iouem, Martem, Picum, Faunum, Tiberinum, Herculem et si quos alios?

Why did Romulus himself, wishing to found a felicitous city, not build a temple to her above all, nor supplicate the other gods for anything, since nothing would be lacking if she were present? For he himself would neither earlier have become king nor, as they think, later a god, if he did not have this goddess propitious. To what end, then, did he establish for the Romans the gods Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and any others?

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 uidere non potuit?

Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sun, Moon, Vulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, among whom even the goddess Cloacina, with Felicity neglected? Why did Numa so many gods and so many goddesses without her? Or perhaps he could not by chance see her in so great a crowd?

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.

Certainly King Hostilius himself would not have introduced new gods, Pavor and Pallor, to be propitiated, if he had known or worshiped that goddess. For with Felicity present, all fear and pallor would not depart appeased, but, driven off, would flee away.

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 uera felicitas, ubi uera non erat pietas?

Then what is this, that now the Roman empire was increasing far and wide, and as yet no one was worshiping Felicity? Or was the empire therefore grander rather than more felicitous? For how could there be true felicity where there was not true piety?

Pietas est enim uerax ueri Dei cultus, non cultus falsorum tot deorum, quot daemoniorum. Sed et postea iam in deorum numerum Felicitate suscepta magna bellorum ciuilium 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?

For piety is the veracious worship of the true God, not the worship of false gods, as many as there are of demons. But even afterward, once Felicity had been received into the number of the gods, a great infelicity of civil wars followed. Or perhaps Felicity was justly indignant, because she was invited both so late and not to honor, but rather to contumely, so that along with her Priapus and Cloacina and Fear and Paleness and Fever and the rest— not numina of things-to-be-worshiped, but the crimes of the worshipers— were worshiped?

Ad extremum si cum turba indignissima tanta dea colenda uisa est, cur non uel inlustrius ceteris colebatur? Quis enim ferat, quod neque inter deos Consentes, quos dicunt in consilium Iouis adhiberi, nec inter deos, quos selectos uocant, Felicitas constituta est? Templum aliquod ei fieret, quod et loci sublimitate et operis dignitate praemineret.

At the last, if together with a most unworthy crowd so great a goddess seemed fit to be worshiped, why was she not at least worshiped more illustriously than the rest? For who could endure that Felicity was established neither among the Consenting gods, whom they say are admitted to the council of Jove, nor among the gods whom they call Selected? Let some temple be made for her, which by the sublimity of its site and the dignity of its workmanship would pre‑eminently stand out.

Cur enim non aliquid melius quam ipsi Ioui? Nam quae etiam Ioui regnum nisi Felicitas dedit? si tamen cum regnaret felix fuit.

Why, indeed, not something better than Jove himself? For what gave even to Jove his kingdom except Felicity? if, however, he was fortunate while he reigned.

Et potior est felicitas regno. Nemo enim dubitat facile inueniri hominem, qui se timeat fieri regem; nullus autem inuenitur, qui se nolit esse felicem. Ipsi ergo dii si per auguria uel quolibet modo eos posse consuli putant, de hac re consulerentur, utrum uellent Felicitati loco cedere, si forte aliorum aedibus uel altaribus iam fuisset locus occupatus, ubi aedes maior atque sublimior Felicitati construeretur; etiam ipsi Iuppiter cederet, ut ipsum uerticem collis Capitolini Felicitas potius obtineret.

And Felicity is more powerful than kingship. For no one doubts that a man may easily be found who fears to become a king; but no one is found who does not wish to be happy. Therefore the gods themselves, if by auguries or by any manner whatsoever they think they can be consulted, would be consulted on this matter: whether they would be willing to yield place to Felicity, if perchance a site had already been occupied by the temples or altars of others, where a greater and more sublime temple might be built for Felicity; even Jupiter himself would yield, so that Felicity rather would possess the very summit of the Capitoline Hill.

Non enim quispiam resisteret Felicitati, nisi, quod fieri non potest, qui esse uellet infelix. Nullo modo omnino, si consuleretur, faceret Iuppiter, quod ei fecerunt tres dii, Mars, Terminus et Iuuentas, qui maiori et regi suo nullo modo cedere loco uoluerunt. Nam sicut habent eorum litterae, cum rex Tarquinius Capitolium fabricari uellet eumque locum, qui ei dignior aptiorque uidebatur, ab diis aliis cerneret praeoccupatum, non audens aliquid contra eorum facere arbitrium et credens eos tanto numini suoque principi uoluntate cessuros, quia multi erant illic, ubi Capitolium constitutum est, per augurium quaesiuit, utrum concedere locum uellent Ioui; atque ipsi inde cedere omnes uoluerunt praeter illos quos commemoraui, Martem, Terminum, Iuuentatem; atque ideo Capitolium ita constructum est, ut etiam isti tres intus essent tam obscuris signis, ut hoc uix homines doctissimi scirent.

For no one would stand against Felicity, unless—what cannot happen—someone who would wish to be infelicitous. By no means at all, if he were consulted, would Jupiter do what the three gods did to him—Mars, Terminus, and Juventas—who were unwilling in any way to yield place to their greater and their own king. For, as their writings have it, when King Tarquin wanted to construct the Capitol and saw that the place which seemed to him more worthy and more fitting had been preoccupied by other gods, not daring to do anything against their will and believing that they would yield by choice to so great a divinity and to their own chief, because many were there where the Capitol was established, he sought by augury whether they wished to concede the place to Jupiter; and they all wished to withdraw from there except those whom I have mentioned—Mars, Terminus, Juventas; and therefore the Capitol was constructed in such a way that even these three were inside, with signs so obscure that scarcely the most learned men knew this.

Nullo modo igitur Felicitatem Iuppiter ipse contemneret, sicut a Termino, Marte, Iuuentate contemptus est. Sed ipsi etiam, qui non cesserant Ioui, profecto cederent Felicitati, quae illis regem fecerat Iouem. Aut si non cederent, non id contemptu eius facerent, sed quod in domo Felicitatis obscuri esse mallent quam sine illa in locis propriis eminere.

In no way, therefore, would Jupiter himself contemn Felicity, as he was contemned by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But those very ones who had not ceded to Jupiter would assuredly cede to Felicity, who had made Jupiter their king. Or if they would not cede, they would not do it out of contempt for her, but because in the house of Felicity they would prefer to be obscure rather than, without her, to be eminent in their own proper places.

Ita dea Felicitate in loco amplissimo et celsissimo constituta discerent ciues, unde omnis boni uoti petendum esset auxilium, ac sic ipsa suadente natura aliorum deorum superflua multitudine derelicta coleretur una Felicitas, uni supplicaretur, unius templum frequentaretur a ciuibus qui felices esse uellent, quorum esset nemo qui nollet, atque ita ipsa a se ipsa peteretur, quae ab omnibus petebatur. Quis enim aliquid ab aliquo deo nisi felicitatem uelit accipere uel 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?

Thus, with the goddess Felicity established in a most spacious and most lofty place, the citizens would learn whence aid for every good vow ought to be sought; and so, nature herself persuading, the superfluous multitude of other gods being abandoned, Felicity alone would be worshiped; to one alone would supplication be made, the temple of the one would be frequented by citizens who wished to be happy—of whom there would be no one who would not wish it—and thus she herself would be asked from herself, she who was being asked by all. For who wishes to receive anything from any god except felicity, or what he judges to pertain to felicity? Accordingly, if felicity has in her power with which man she is (and she does have it, if she is a goddess), what folly, then, is it to ask her from some god, when you can obtain her from herself?

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 Iouem, ad quem diurna fulmina pertinerent. Sed postquam Ioui templum insigne ac sublime constructum est, propter aedis dignitatem sic ad eum multitudo confluxit, ut uix inueniatur qui Summani nomen, quod audire iam non potest, se saltem legisse meminerit.

Therefore they ought to have honored this goddess above the other gods even by the dignity of the place. For, as it is read among themselves, the ancient Romans worshiped some I‑know‑not‑what Summanus, to whom they attributed nocturnal lightning‑bolts, more than Jupiter, to whom the diurnal lightning‑bolts pertained. But after a distinguished and sublime temple was constructed for Jupiter, on account of the dignity of the edifice the multitude so flocked to him that scarcely is anyone found who remembers himself at least to have read the name of Summanus, which can now no longer be heard.

Si autem felicitas dea non est, quoniam, quod uerum 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 uoluntatis 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 uerum habet, non petit.

If, however, felicity is not a goddess, since, which is true, it is a gift of God: let that God be sought who can give it, and let the harmful multitude of false gods be abandoned, which the vain multitude of foolish men follows, making for themselves gods out of the gifts of God and offending the very One whose gifts they are by the obstinacy of a proud will. For thus he cannot be without infelicity who worships felicity as a goddess and abandons God, the giver of felicity, just as he cannot be without hunger who licks a painted loaf and does not ask from the man who has the real one.

[XXIV] Libet autem eorum considerare rationes. Vsque adeone, inquiunt, maiores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est, ut haec nescirent munera diuina esse, non deos? Sed quoniam sciebant nemini talia nisi aliquo deo largiente concedi, quorum deorum nomina non inueniebant, earum rerum nominibus appellabant deos, quas ad eis sentiebant dari, aliqua uocabula inde flectentes, sicut a bello Bellonam nuncupauerunt, non Bellum; sicut a cunis Cuninam, non Cunam; sicut a segetibus Segetiam, non Segetem, a pomis Pomonam, non Pomum; sicut a bubus Bononam, non Bouem: aut certe nulla uocabuli declinatione sicut res ipsae nominantur, ut Pecunia dicta est dea, quae dat pecuniam, non omnino pecunia dea ipsa putata est; ita Virtus, quae dat uirtutem, Honor, qui honorem, Concordia, quae concordiam, Victoria, quae dat uictoriam.

[24] Moreover, I am pleased to consider their rationales. “To such an extent,” they say, “is it to be believed that our ancestors were senseless, that they did not know these to be divine gifts, not gods? But since they knew that such things are granted to no one except by some god bestowing them, and since they did not find the names of which gods, they called gods by the names of the things which they felt to be given by them, bending certain vocables therefrom: just as from war they named Bellona, not Bellum; just as from cradles Cunina, not Cuna; just as from crops Segetia, not Segetem; from fruits Pomona, not Pomum; just as from oxen Bonona, not Bovem: or else, with no declension of the word, just as the things themselves are named, so that Pecunia was called a goddess—she who gives money—yet money itself was by no means thought to be the goddess; so Virtue, who gives virtue; Honor, who gives honor; Concord, who gives concord; Victory, who gives victory.”

Ita, inquiunt, cum Felicitas dea dicitur, non ipsa quae datur, sed numen illud adtenditur a quo felicitas datur.

Thus, they say, when Felicity is called a goddess, it is not the thing itself that is given, but that numen is attended to by which felicity is given.

[XXV] Ista nobis reddita ratione multo facilius eis, quorum cor non nimis obduruit, persuadebimus fortasse quod uolumus. 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 Iouem: quia nomen eius, a quo daretur felicitas, ignorabant, ideo ipsius rei nomine, quam credebant ab illo dari, eum appellare uoluerunt, satis ergo indicarunt nec ab ipso Ioue 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.

[25] With this reasoning thus rendered, we shall perhaps much more easily persuade those whose heart has not been too hardened of what we wish. For if human infirmity has already sensed that felicity can be given only by some god—and this was sensed by men who worshiped so many gods, among whom even their very king, Jupiter—because they did not know the name of him by whom felicity would be given, therefore by the name of the very thing which they believed to be given by him they wished to call him; they therefore sufficiently indicated that felicity could not be given even by Jupiter himself, whom they already worshiped, but assuredly by that one whom they judged ought to be worshiped under the very name of felicity. I confirm outright that they believed felicity to be given by a certain god whom they did not know: let him therefore be sought, let him be worshiped, and that suffices.

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.

Let the din of innumerable daemons be repudiated; let this God not suffice for that man to whom His gift does not suffice. Let not God, I say, the giver of felicity, suffice for him for worship, for whom even felicity itself does not suffice for acceptance. But for whom it does suffice (for a man has nothing more he ought to desire), let him serve the one God, the giver of felicity.

Non est ipse, quem nominant Iouem. Nam si eum datorem felicitatis agnoscerent, non utique alium uel aliam, a qua daretur felicitas, nomine ipsius felicitatis inquirerent, neque ipsum Iouem cum tantis iniuriis colendum putarent. Iste alienarum dicitur adulter uxorum, iste pueri pulchri inpudicus amator et raptor.

That is not he whom they name Jove. For if they acknowledged him as the giver of felicity, they would surely not be seeking another, male or female, by whom felicity would be given, under the very name of Felicity; nor would they think that Jove himself should be worshiped with such great indignities. This one is said to be an adulterer of others’ wives; this one, an impudent lover and ravisher of a beautiful boy.

[XXVI] Sed "fingebat haec Homerus, ait Tullius, et humana ad deos transferebat: diuina mallem ad nos." Merito displicuit uiro graui diuinorum criminum poeta confictor. Cur ergo ludi scaenici, ubi haec dictitantur cantitantur actitantur, deorum honoribus exhibentur, inter res diuinas a doctissimis conscribuntur? Hic exclamet Cicero non contra figmenta poetarum, sed contra instituta maiorum, an exclamarent et illi: Quid nos fecimus!

[26] But “Homer was inventing these things,” says Tullius, “and was transferring human things to the gods; I would prefer that divine things be transferred to us.” With good reason did the poet, a fabricator of crimes against the divine, displease the weighty man. Why then are stage plays, where these things are said again and again, sung again and again, acted again and again, presented as honors to the gods, and enrolled among sacred matters by the most learned? Here let Cicero cry out, not against the figments of the poets, but against the institutions of the ancestors—or would they too cry out: What have we done!

Ipsi dii ista suis honoribus exhibenda flagitauerunt, atrociter imperarunt, cladem nisi fieret praenuntiarunt, quia neglectum est aliquid, seuerissime uindicarunt, quia id quod neglectum fuerat factum est, placatos se esse monstrarunt. Inter eorum commemoratur uirtutes 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 uidelicet ex ludis hilaritatem quaerentibus triste displicuisset imperium.

The gods themselves demanded that those things be exhibited to their honors, commanded them atrociously, foretold a calamity unless it should be done; because something was neglected, they most sternly vindicated it; because that which had been neglected was done, they showed themselves to be appeased. Among their virtues and wondrous deeds, what I shall mention is recounted: to Titus Latinius, a rustic Roman paterfamilias, it was said in a dream that he should announce in the senate that the Roman Games be reinstated, because on their first day an order concerning a certain criminal—who, with the people watching, was commanded to be led to punishment—had been displeasing, as something sad, to the numina, evidently seeking hilarity from the games.

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.

Therefore, when he who had been admonished by a dream did not dare on the following day to carry out the orders, on the second night this same thing was again commanded more sternly: he lost his son, because he did not do it. On the third night it was said to the man that a greater penalty impended for him if he should not do it. When even so he did not dare, he fell into an acute and horrible illness.

Tum uero ex amicorum sententia ad magistratus rem detulit atque in lectica allatus est in senatum expositoque somnio recepta continuo ualetudine pedibus suis sanus abscessit. Tanto stupefactus miraculo senatus quadruplicata pecuinia ludos censuit instaurari. Quis non uideat, qui sanum sapit, subditos homines malignis daemonibus, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum, ui compulsos esse exhibere talibus diis, quae recto consilio poterant turpia iudicari?

Then indeed, by the counsel of his friends, he reported the matter to the magistrates, and, brought in a litter, he was carried into the Senate; and with the dream set forth, his health being immediately recovered, he departed sound on his own feet. The Senate, astonished at so great a miracle, decreed that the games be renewed with the money quadrupled. Who that has sound sense does not see that men subject to malign demons—from whose domination none frees except the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord—are by force compelled to render to such gods things which by right counsel could be judged shameful?

In illis certe ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iouem quentantur, qui ludi cogentibus numinibus iussu senatus instaurabantur. In illis ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iouem turpissimi histriones cantabant agebant placebant. Si illud fingebatur, ille irasceretur; si autem suis criminibus etiam fictis delectabatur, quando coleretur, nisi diabolo seruiretur?

In those very games they celebrate Jupiter, the corrupter of chastity—games which, with the numina compelling, by order of the senate were reinstated. In those games the most shameful actors sang, performed, and pleased about Jupiter the corrupter of chastity. If that was a fiction, he would be angered; but if he was delighted even by fictitious imputations of his crimes, then when he was being worshiped, who was being served, unless the devil?

Itane iste Romanum conderet dilataret conseruaret imperium, quouis Romano, cui talia displicebant, homine abiectior? Iste daret felicitatem, qui tam infeliciter colebatur, et nisi ita coleretur, infelicius irascebatur?

Was this fellow to found, dilate, and conserve the Roman imperium, being more abject than any Roman man to whom such things were displeasing? Would this one grant felicity, who was worshiped so unhappily, and, unless he were so worshiped, was angered more unhappily?

[XXVII] Relatum est in litteras doctissimum pontificem Scaeuolam disputasse tria genera tradita deorum: unum a poetis, alterum a philosophis, tertium a principibus ciuitatis. Primum genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de diis fingantur indigna; secundum non congruere ciuitatibus, 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.

[27] It has been recorded in writings that the most learned Pontiff Scaevola argued that three kinds concerning the gods have been handed down: one by poets, another by philosophers, a third by the chiefs of the commonwealth. He says the first kind is nugatory, because many things unworthy are fabricated about the gods; the second does not befit cities, because it contains some superfluous things, and some also which it is harmful for peoples to know. About the superfluous there is no great issue; for it is even wont to be said by jurists: Superfluities do not harm.

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 ciuitates uera simulacra, quod uerus deus nec sexum habeat nec aetatem nec definita corporis membra." Haec pontifex nosse populos non uult; nam falsa esse non putat.

What, however, are those things which, when brought forth to the multitude, do harm? "These," he says, "that Hercules, Aesculapius, Castor, Pollux are not gods; for it is handed down by the learned that they were men and perished under the human condition." What else? "That the cities do not have true images of those who are gods, since the true god has neither sex nor age nor defined members of the body." These things the pontifex does not wish the peoples to know; for he does not think them to be false.

Expedire igitur existimat falli in religione ciuitates. Quod dicere etiam in libris rerum diuinarum Varro ipse non dubitat. Praeclara religio, quo confugiat liberandus infirmus, et cum ueritatem qua liberetur inquirat, credatur ei expedire quod fallitur.

Therefore he thinks it expedient that the cities be deceived in religion. Which Varro himself also does not hesitate to say in the books of divine things. Splendid religion, to which the infirm man to be freed flees for refuge; and when he seeks the truth by which he may be freed, it is believed expedient for him that he be deceived.

Poeticum sane deorum genus cur Scaeuola respuat, eisdem litteris non tacetur: quia sic uidelicet 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, uictas duas a Venere Troiam euertisse; Iouem ipsum conuerti in bouem aut cygnum, ut cum aliqua concumbat; deam homini nubere, Saturnum liberos deuorare: nihil denique posse confingi miraculorum atque uitiorum, 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.

Indeed why Scaevola spits out the poetic kind of gods is not left unspoken in these same writings: because thus, to wit, they deform the gods, so that they are not even comparable to good men, since they make one steal, another commit adultery, likewise in other ways to say and to do something basely and ineptly; that three goddesses contended among themselves for the prize of beauty, that the two defeated overthrew Troy because of Venus; that Jupiter himself was converted into a bull or a swan, so that he might lie with some woman; that a goddess married a man, that Saturn devoured his children: in fine, that nothing of miracles and of vices can be fabricated which is not found there and is far removed from the nature of the gods. O Scaevola, greatest pontifex, take away the games, if you can; command the peoples not to confer such honors upon the immortal gods, where it is a pleasure to marvel at the crimes of the gods and it pleases to imitate the things that can be done. But if the people should answer you: You pontifices have imported these things to us: ask the gods themselves, at whose instigations you ordered these things, not to command that such things be exhibited to themselves.

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 uero si aduersus eos Iouem interpelles, maxime ob eam causam, quia eius plura crimina ludis scaenicis actitantur: nonne etiamsi deum Iouem nuncupatis, a quo regitur totus atque administratur hic mundus, eo illi fit a uobis maxima iniuria, quod eum cum istis colendum putatis eorumque regem esse perhibetis?

If these things are evils and therefore in no way to be believed about the majesty of the gods, the injury to the gods is the greater, concerning whom such fictions are coined with impunity. But they do not listen to you: they are daemons, they teach depraved things, they rejoice in the base; they not only do not reckon it an injury if such things are feigned about them, but rather they cannot bear that injury if, through their solemnities, they are not acted. And now, if you appeal to Jupiter against them—especially for this cause, because more of his crimes are repeatedly performed in the scenic games—is it not the case that, even if you entitle Jupiter a god, by whom this whole world is ruled and administered, for that very reason the greatest injury is done to him by you, namely, that you think he ought to be worshiped together with those beings and you aver him to be their king?

[XXVIII] Nullo igitur modo dii tales, qui talibus placantur uel potius accusantur honoribus, ut maius sit crimen quod eis falsis oblectantur, quam si de illis uera dicerentur, Romanum imperium augere et conseruare potuissent. Hoc enim si possent, Graecis potius donum tam grande conferrent, qui eos in huiusce modi rebus diuinis, hoc est ludis scaenicis, honorabilius digniusque coluerunt, quando et a morsibus poetarum, quibus deos dilacerari uidebant, se non subtraxerunt, dando eis licentiam male tractandi homines quos liberet, et ipsos scaenicos non turpes iudicauerunt, 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.

[28] In no way, therefore, could such gods—who are appeased, or rather accused, by such honors, so that the crime is greater that they are delighted by falsehoods about them than if truths were spoken about them—have been able to augment and conserve the Roman empire. For if they could do this, they would rather have conferred so great a gift upon the Greeks, who cultivated them more honorably and worthily in divine matters of this sort, that is, in scenic games; since they did not withdraw themselves from the bites of the poets, by whom they saw the gods being torn to pieces, granting them license to maltreat whatever men they pleased, and they did not judge the actors themselves disgraceful, but even held them worthy of illustrious honors. And just as the Romans were able to have golden coin, although they did not worship the god Aurinus, so too they could have had silver and bronze, if they worshiped neither Argentinus nor his father Aescolanus—and so with all the rest, which it is irksome to unweave.

Sic ergo et regnum inuito quidem Deo uero nullo modo habere possent; diis uero istis falsis et multis ignoratis siue contemptis atque illo uno cognito et fide sincera ac moribus culto et melius hic regnum haberent, quantumcumque haberent,et post haec acciperent sempiternum, siue hic haberent siue non haberent.

Thus therefore even a kingdom they could in no way have with the true God unwilling; but with these gods—false, and many unknown or else contemned—and with that One known and worshiped with sincere faith and morals, they would both have the kingdom here better, however much they had it, and after these things would receive the sempiternal one, whether they had it here or did not have it.

[XXIX] Nam illud quale est quod pulcherrimum auspicium fuisse dixerunt, quod paulo ante commemoraui, Martem et Terminum et Iuuentatem nec Ioui regi deorum loco cedere uoluisse? Sic enim, inquiunt, significatum est, Martiam gentem, id est Romanam, nemini locum quem teneret, daturam, Romanos quoque terminos propter deum Terminum neminem commoturum, iuuentutem etiam Romanam propter deam Iuuentatem nemini esse cessuram. Videant ergo quo modo habeant istum regem deorum suorum et datorem regni sui, ut eum auspicia ista pro aduersario ponerent, cui non cedere pulchrum esset.

[29] For what is that, which they said was the most beautiful auspice—as I a little before recalled—that Mars and Terminus and Juventas were unwilling to yield place even to Jupiter, the king of the gods? Thus, they say, it was signified that the Martial nation, that is, the Roman, would give to no one the place which it held; that the Roman boundaries, on account of the god Terminus, would be moved by no one; that the Roman youth also, on account of the goddess Juventas, would yield to no one. Let them therefore see how they regard that king of their gods and the giver of their kingdom, in that by these auspices they set him as an adversary, to whom it would be a fine thing not to yield.

Quamquam haec si uera sunt, non habent omnino quid timeant. Non enim confessuri sunt, quod dii cesserint Christo, qui Ioui cedere noluerunt; saluis quippe imperii finibus Christo cedere potuerunt et de sedibus locorum et maxime de corde credentium. Sed antequam Christus uenisset 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 uersus in fugam, fsumque ostendit auspicium, quo Iuuentas illa non cesserat Ioui, et gens Martia superantibus atque inrumpentibus Gallis in ipsa Vrbe contrita est, et termini imperii deficientibus multis ad Hannibalem ciuitatibus in angustum fuerant coartati.

Although, if these things are true, they have absolutely nothing to fear. For they will not be about to confess that the gods yielded to Christ, who were unwilling to yield to Jupiter; indeed, with the borders of the empire unharmed they could yield to Christ both from their seats of places and most of all from the heart of believers. But before Christ came in the flesh—before, finally, those things were written which we bring forth from their books—yet after that auspice had been made under King Tarquin, the Roman army was several times routed, that is, turned to flight, and the auspice showed itself false, by which that Youth had not yielded to Jupiter; and the Martial nation was crushed by the Gauls overcoming and bursting in, in the very City; and the borders of the empire, with many communities defecting to Hannibal, had been constricted into a narrow compass.

Ita euacuata est pulchritudo auspiciorum, remansit contra Iouem contumacia, non deorum, sed daemoniorum. Aliud est enim non cessisse, aliud unde cesseras redisse. Quamquam et postea in orientalibus partibus Hadriani uoluntate mutati sunt termini imperii Romani.

Thus the pulchritude of the auspices was evacuated, and contumacy remained against Jupiter—not of gods, but of daemons. For not to have yielded is one thing; to have returned whence you had yielded is another. And yet afterward in the eastern parts, by Hadrian’s will, the boundaries of the Roman empire were changed.

Ille namque tres prouincias 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 Ioui, plus Hadrianum regem hominum quam regem deorum timuisse uideatur. Receptis quoque alio tempore prouinciis memoratis nostra paene memoria retrorsus Terminus cessit, quando Iulianus deorum illorum oraculis deditus inmoderato ausu naues 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 Ioui, qui cessit Hadriani uoluntati, cessit etiam Iuliani temeritati et Iouiani necessitati.

For he conceded three noble provinces—Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria—to the imperium of the Persians, so that that god Terminus, who according to their account was guarding the Roman boundaries and by that most beautiful auspice had not yielded in place to Jupiter, may seem to have feared Hadrian, a king of men, more than the king of the gods. And when at another time the aforesaid provinces had been recovered, almost within our memory Terminus yielded backward, when Julian, devoted to the oracles of those gods, with immoderate audacity ordered the ships to be set on fire by which provisions were being carried; by which deprivation the army—soon also with himself extinguished by a hostile wound—was reduced to such want that from there no one would have escaped, with the enemies assaulting from all sides and the soldiery thrown into confusion by the emperor’s death, unless by a compact of peace the boundaries of the empire were established there, where they persist to this day, not indeed with so great a detriment as Hadrian had conceded, but yet fixed by a middle compromise. Therefore, by a vain augury the god Terminus did not yield to Jupiter, who yielded to Hadrian’s will; he yielded also to Julian’s temerity and to Jovian’s necessity.

Viderunt haec intellegentiores grauioresque Romani; sed contra consuetudinem ciuitatis, quae daemonicis ritibus fuerat obligata, parum ualebant, quia et ipsi, etiamsi illa uana esse sentiebant, naturae tamen rerum sub unius ueri 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 ueri erat auxilium necessarium, a quo mitterentur sancti uiri et ueraciter pii, qui pro uera religione morerentur, ut falsae a uiuentibus tollerentur.

The more intelligent and more grave Romans saw these things; but against the custom of the commonwealth, which had been bound by daemonic rites, they availed little, because they themselves, even if they perceived those things to be vain, nevertheless thought that to the nature of things, established under the governance and imperium of the one true God, the religious cult which is owed to God ought to be rendered—serving, as the apostle says, the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed unto the ages. The help of this true God was necessary, from whom holy men and truly pious would be sent, who would die for the true religion, so that the false ones might be taken away by the living.

[XXX] Cicero augur inridet auguria et inridet homines corui et corniculae uocibus uitae 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 uelut physicas et philosophicas inserat, indignatur tamen institutioni simulacrorum et opinionibus fabulosis ita loquens: "Videtisne igitur, ut a physicis rebus bene atque utiliter inuentis ratio sit tracta ad commenticios et fictos deos?

[30] Cicero the augur mocks the auguries and mocks men who govern the counsels of life by the voices of the raven and the jackdaw. But that Academic, who maintains that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these matters. Quintus Lucilius Balbus argues in his second book On the Nature of the Gods; and although he himself inserts superstitions from the nature of things as it were physical and philosophical, nevertheless he is indignant at the institution of simulacra and at fabulous opinions, speaking thus: "Do you see then how from physical matters, well and usefully discovered, reason has been drawn over to contrived and fictitious gods?

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.

Which thing has begotten false opinions and turbulent errors and superstitions almost old-womanish. For even the forms of the gods and their ages and vesture and ornaments are known to us, moreover their genera, marriages, kinships—indeed all things translated to the likeness of human imbecility. For they are even brought on with perturbed spirits; for we have received the cupidities, afflictions, and wraths of the gods.

Nec uero, 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 leuitatis." Ecce interim quae confitentur qui defendunt deos gentium. Deinde cum haec ad superstitionem pertinere dicat, ad religionem uero, quae ipse secundum Stoicos uidetur docere: "non enim philosophi solum, inquit, uerum etiam maiores nostri superstitionem a religione separauerunt; nam qui totos dies precabantur, inquit, et immolabant, ut sibi sui liberi superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati." Quis non intellegat eum conari, dum consuetudinem ciuitatis timet, religionem laudare maiorum eamque a superstitione uelle seiungere, sed quo modo id possit non inuenire?

Nor indeed, as fables report, did the gods lack wars and battles; nor only, as with Homer, when other gods from the other side were defending two opposing armies, but also (as with the Titans or with the Giants) they waged their own proper wars. These things both are said and are believed most foolishly and are full of vanity and of the highest levity. Behold meanwhile what those who defend the gods of the nations confess. Then, when he says that these things pertain to superstition, but as for religion, which he himself seems to teach according to the Stoics: "for not philosophers only," he says, "but even our ancestors separated superstition from religion; for those who prayed whole days and immolated, in order that their own children might be survivors to them, were called superstitious." Who does not understand that he is trying, while he fears the custom of the state, to praise the religion of the ancestors and to wish to sever it from superstition, but not to find how that can be done?

Si enim a maioribus illi sunt appellati superstitiosi, qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, numquid et illi, qui instituerunt (quod iste reprehendit) deorum simulacra diuersa 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 uenerari; 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 uelut balbutiens uix reprehendit, per altissimam Christi humilitatem, per apostolorum praedicationem, per fidem martyrum pro ueritate morientium et cum ueritate uiuentium non solum in cordibus religiosis, uerum etiam in aedibus superstitiosis libera suorum seruitute subuertit.

For if by our ancestors those are called superstitious who spent whole days praying and sacrificing, pray, were not they also who instituted (which this man reproves) the simulacra of the gods distinguished by diverse age and dress, the classes of gods, marriages, kinships? Since these are blamed as superstitious, this blame assuredly entangles the ancestors themselves as institutors and worshipers of such simulacra; it entangles even him who, with however great eloquence he strives to extricate himself into liberty, was under necessity to venerate these things, nor would he dare to mutter in the people’s assembly what, eloquent, he sonorously proclaims in this disputation. Let us therefore, as Christians, give thanks to the Lord our God, not to heaven and earth as he argues, but to him who made heaven and earth, who has overthrown these superstitions—which this Balbus, as if babbling, scarcely reproves—through the most high humility of Christ, through the preaching of the apostles, through the faith of the martyrs dying for the truth and living with the truth, not only in religious hearts but also in superstitious shrines, by freeing his own from servitude.

[XXXI] Quid ipse Varro, quem dolemus in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos, quamuis non iudicio proprio, posuisse, cum ad deos colendos multis locis uelut religiosus hortetur, nonne ita confitetur non se illa iudicio suo sequi, quae ciuitatem Romanam instituisse commemorat, ut, si eam ciuitatem 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 uelit. Quibus uerbis homo acutissimus satis indicat non se aperire omnia, quae non sibi tantum contemptui essent, sed etiam ipsi uulgo despicienda uiderentur, nisi tacerentur.

[31] What of Varro himself, whom we lament to have placed scenic games among divine affairs, although not by his own proper judgment? When in many places, as though religious, he exhorts to worship the gods, does he not so confess that he does not, by his own judgment, follow those things which he recounts the Roman commonwealth to have instituted, that, if he were to establish that commonwealth anew, he does not hesitate to confess that he would have dedicated the gods and their names rather according to the formula of nature? But now, since he was in an old people, if he says that he ought to hold the history of names and surnames (epithets) received from the ancients, as it has been handed down, and to write and scrutinize those things to this end, that the vulgus may wish to worship them rather than to despise them—by these words the most acute man sufficiently indicates that he does not disclose all things which would be not only for contempt to himself, but would even seem despicable to the very vulgus, unless they were kept silent.

Ego ista conicere putari debui, nisi euidenter alio loco ipse diceret de religionibus loquens multa esse uera, 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 uelut sapientium, per quos ciuitates 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.

I ought to be thought to have conjectured those things, unless he himself quite evidently said elsewhere, speaking about religions, that many things are true which it is not only not useful for the vulgar crowd to know, but also that, although they are false, it is expedient for the populace to think otherwise; and for that reason the Greeks have shut up the teletas and mysteries with taciturnity and with walls. Here assuredly he betrayed the whole policy, as it were, of the wise, through whom states and peoples are ruled. Yet in this deception malignant demons are delighted in wondrous ways, who possess equally both the deceivers and the deceived; from whose domination none frees save the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Dicit etiam idem auctor acutissimus atque doctissimus, quod hi soli ei uideantur animaduertisse quid esset Deus, qui crediderunt eum esse animam motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ac per hoc, etsi nondum tenebat quod ueritas habet (Deus enim uerus 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 obseruarentur." 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 ciuitatibus suis et metum dempsisse et errorem addidisse, prudenter existimans deos facile posse in simulacrorum stoliditate contemni.

The same most acute and most learned author also says that only those seemed to him to have noticed what God was, who believed him to be a soul governing the world by motion and reason; and by this, although he did not yet hold what the truth has (for the true God is not a soul, but is also the effector and founder of the soul), nevertheless, if he could be free against the prejudgments of custom, he would confess and recommend that one God is to be worshiped, governing the world by motion and reason, so that the question with him on this matter would remain at this point: that he would call him a soul, rather than also the creator of the soul. He also says that the ancient Romans for more than 170 years worshiped gods without a simulacrum. “Which, if it had remained up to now,” he says, “the gods would be observed more chastely.” To this opinion of his he adduces as witness, among other things, also the Jewish nation; nor does he hesitate to conclude that passage thus, to say that those who first set up simulacra of the gods for the peoples both stripped their city-states of fear and added error, prudently supposing that the gods can easily be scorned in the stolidity of simulacra.

Quod uero non ait "errorem tradiderunt", sed "addiderunt": iam utique fuisse etiam sine simulacris uult intellegi errorem. Quapropter cum solos dicit animaduertisse quid esset Deus, qui eum crederent animam mundum gubernantem, castiusque existimat sine simulacris obseruari religionem, quis non uideat quantum propinquauerit ueritati? 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 inuentus facile fortasse de animae mutabilitate commoneretur, ut naturam potius incommutabilem, quae ipsam quoque animam condidisset, Deum uerum esse sentiret.

But the fact that he does not say “they handed down an error,” but “they added an error,” he surely wants it to be understood that error already existed even without simulacra. Wherefore, since he says that only those noticed what God was who believed him to be a soul governing the world, and he thinks that religion is observed more chastely without simulacra, who does not see how close he has approached the truth? For if he could do anything against the antiquity of so great an error, assuredly he would judge both that one God, by whom he believed the world to be governed, and that he must be worshiped without a simulacrum; and, being found so near, he might perhaps be easily admonished about the mutability of the soul, so that he would perceive that rather the immutable nature, which had fashioned even the soul itself, is the true God.

Haec cum ita sint, quaecumque tales uiri in suis litteris multorum deorum ludibria posuerunt, confiteri ea potius occulta Dei uoluntate compulsi sunt quam persuadere conati. Si qua igitur a nobis inde testimonia proferuntur, ad eos redarguendos proferuntur, qui nolunt aduertere de quanta et quam maligna daemonum potestate nos liberet singulare sacrificium tam sancti sanguinis fusi et donum spiritus impertiti.

Since these things are so, whatever mockeries of many gods such men have set down in their writings, they were compelled by the hidden will of God to confess them rather than to attempt to persuade. If therefore any testimonies are brought forward by us from there, they are brought forward to refute those who do not wish to notice from how great and how malign a power of daemons we are freed by the singular sacrifice of so holy blood poured out and by the gift of the imparted Spirit.

[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 uidetur, nisi quia hominum uelut 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 nouerant, religionis nomine populis tamquam uera suadebant, hoc modo eos ciuili societati uelut aptius alligantes, quo similiter subditos possiderent.

[32] He also says that the peoples were inclined more to the poets than to the physicists (natural philosophers) concerning the generations of the gods, and therefore that the Romans, their elders—that is, the ancients—believed both the sex and the generations of the gods and established their marriages. This indeed seems to have been done for no other cause than because it was the business, as it were, of men deemed prudent and wise to deceive the people in matters of religion, and therein not only to worship but even to imitate the demons, who have the greatest cupidity for deceiving. For just as demons cannot possess any except those whom, by deceiving, they have deluded, so also ruling men, assuredly not just, but similar to demons, recommended to the peoples under the name of religion those things which they knew to be vain as though true, in this way binding them to civil society, as it were, more aptly, so that they might similarly possess their subjects.

Quis autem infirmus et indoctus euaderet simul fallaces et principes ciuitatis et daemones?

But who that is infirm and unlearned would at the same time escape the deceitful ones, and the princes of the city, and the daemons?

[XXXIII] Deus igitur ille felicitatis auctor et dator, quia solus est uerus 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 uero 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 uita erit, ubi nemo iam seruiet. Et ideo regna terrena et bonis ab illo dantur et malis, ne eius cultores adhuc in prouectu animi paruuli haec ab eo munera quasi magnum aliquid concupiscant.

[33] Therefore that God, the author and giver of felicity, because he alone is the true God, himself gives earthly kingdoms both to the good and to the evil; nor does he do this rashly and as if fortuitously, since he is God, not Fortune, but according to the order of things and of times—hidden to us, most well known to himself; to which order of times, however, he is not subjected to serve, but he himself as lord rules it and, as moderator, disposes it. Felicity, however, he gives only to the good. For both those who are serving can both not have it and have it, and those who are reigning can both not have it and have it; which nevertheless will be full in that life where no one will serve any longer. And therefore earthly kingdoms are given by him both to the good and to the wicked, lest his worshipers, still little in the advancement of mind, should desire these gifts from him as if something great.

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 uera felicitas.

And this is the sacrament of the Old Testament, wherein the New was occult, that there the promises and gifts are earthly, to those understanding and even then spiritual—although not yet preaching in manifestation—both what eternity was signified by those temporal things, and in which gifts of God true felicity would be.

[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 multiplicauit et inde signis mirabilibus liberauit. Nec Lucinam mulieres illae inuocauerunt, quando earum partus, ut miris modis multiplicarentur et gens illa incredibiliter cresceret, ab Aegyptiorum persequentium et infantes omnes necare uolentium manibus ipse seruauit. 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 diuisum patuit et sequentes eorum inimicos fluctibus in se redeuntibus obruit.

[34] And so, in order that it might be known that even those earthly goods, at which alone they gape who cannot think of better things, are set in the power of the one God himself, not of many false ones whom the Romans formerly believed must be worshiped, he multiplied his people in Egypt from very few, and from there by miraculous signs he liberated them. Nor did those women invoke Lucina, when he himself preserved their births from the hands of the Egyptians who were pursuing and wished to kill all the infants, so that they might be multiplied in wondrous ways and that nation might grow unbelievably. Without the goddess rumina they suckled, without Cunina they were in their cradles, without Educa and Potina they took food and drink, without so many childish gods they were reared, without conjugal gods they were joined in marriage, without the worship of Priapus they were mingled with their spouses; without the invocation of Neptune the sea, divided, lay open to those crossing, and it overwhelmed their enemies following them, as the waves returned upon themselves.

Nec consecrauerunt 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 uictoria quidem non uicerunt, non eam tamen deam, sed Dei sui munus habuerunt. Sine Segetia segetes sine Bubona boues, mella sine Mellona poma sine Pomona, et prorsus omnia, pro quibus tantae falsorum deorum turbae Romani supplicandum putarunt, ab uno uero Deo multo felicius acceperunt.

Nor did they consecrate any goddess Mannia, when they took manna from heaven; nor, when for the thirsty water poured forth from the smitten rock, did they worship the Nymphs and the Lymphs. Without the insane rites of Mars and Bellona they waged wars, and indeed they did not conquer without victory, yet they had it not as that goddess, but as a gift of their God. Without Segetia they had harvests, without Bubona cattle, honey without Mellona, fruits without Pomona, and absolutely all things, for which the Romans thought they must supplicate such crowds of false gods, they received far more happily from the one true God.

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 ueri Dei prouidentia 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 uolumine sequenti uidendum est, et hic dandus huius prolixitati modus.

And if they had not sinned against him—seduced by impious curiosity as if by magic arts, by falling away to alien gods and to idols, and at last by killing Christ—they would have remained in the same kingdom, if not more spacious, yet more felicitous. And now the fact that they are dispersed through almost all lands and nations is the providence of that one true God, in order that the fact—that everywhere the simulacra, altars, sacred groves, temples of false gods are being overthrown, and sacrifices are being prohibited—may be proved from their codices, in what manner this had been prophesied so long before; lest perhaps, when it should be read in ours, it might be thought to have been fabricated by us. Now what follows must be considered in the following volume, and here a limit must be set to this prolixity.