Augustine: DE CIVITATE DEI

[Pr] Diligentius me prauas et ueteres opiniones ueritati pietatis inimicas, quas tenebrosis animis altius et tenacius diuturnus humani generis error infixit, euellere atque exstirpare conantem et illius gratiae, qui hoc ut uerus Deus potest, pro meo modulo in eius adiutorio cooperantem ingenia celeriora atque meliora, quibus ad hanc rem superiores libri satis superque sufficiunt, patienter et aequanimiter ferre debebunt et propter alios non putare superfluum, quod iam sibi sentiunt non necessarium. Multum magna res agitur, cum uera et uere sancta diuinitas, quamuis ab ea nobis etiam huic, quam nunc gerimus, fragilitati necessaria subsidia praebeantur, non tamen propter mortalis uitae transitorium uaporem, sed propter uitam beatam, quae non nisi aeterna est, quaerenda et colenda praedicatur.

[Pr] The quicker and better wits will have to bear with patience and equanimity me, striving more diligently to pluck up and extirpate the depraved and old opinions inimical to the truth of piety, which the long-standing error of the human race has fastened deeper and more tenaciously in tenebrous minds, and me, according to my measure, cooperating in His aid with the grace of Him who, as the true God, can accomplish this; and they should not think superfluous on account of others what they already feel is not necessary for themselves, since the preceding books suffice more than enough for them for this matter. A very great matter is at stake, when the true and truly holy divinity—although from it there are furnished to us even for this fragility which we now bear the necessary subsidies—is nevertheless proclaimed as to be sought and cultivated not on account of the transitory vapor of mortal life, but on account of the blessed life, which is none other than eternal.

[I] Hanc diuinitatem uel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem (nam et hoc uerbo uti iam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant quod illi *theo/thta appellant) -- hanc ergo diuinitatem siue deitatem non esse in ea theologia, quam ciuilem uocant, quae a Marco Varrone sedecim uoluminibus explicata est, id est non perueniri ad aeternae uitae felicitatem talium deorum cultu, quales a ciuitatibus qualiterque colendi instituti sunt, cui nondum persuasit sextus liber, quem proxime absoluimus, cum istum forsitan legerit, quid de hac quaestione expedienda ulterius desideret, non habebit. Fieri enim potest, ut saltem deos selectos atque praecipuos, quos Varro uolumine complexus est ultimo, de quibus parum diximus, quisquam colendos propter uitam beatam, quae non nisi aeterna est, opinetur. Qua in re non dico quod facetius ait Tertullianus fortasse quam uerius: Si dii eliguntur ut bulbi, utique ceteri reprobi iudicantur.

[1] This divinity, or, so to speak, deity (for our people now are not ashamed to use even this word, that they may transfer more expressly from the Greek what they call *theo/thta*) -- this, then, divinity or deity is not in that theology which they call civil, which was expounded by Marcus Varro in 16 volumes; that is, that one does not arrive at the felicity of eternal life by the cult of such gods as have been instituted by states and prescribed how they are to be worshiped. Whoever has not yet been persuaded by the sixth book, which we have just completed, when he has perhaps read this one, will have nothing further to desire regarding the resolution of this question. For it can happen that at least the selected and principal gods, whom Varro encompassed in the last volume, about whom we have said little, someone may suppose are to be worshiped for the sake of the blessed life, which is only eternal. In which matter I do not say what Tertullian says more wittily perhaps than more truly: If gods are chosen like bulbs, surely the rest are judged reprobate.

Non hoc dico: uideo enim etiam ex selectis seligi aliquos ad aliquid maius atque praestantius, sicut in militia, cum tirones electi fuerint, ex his quoque eliguntur ad opus aliquod maius armorum; et cum eliguntur in ecclesia, qui fiant praepositi, non utique ceteri reprobantur, cum omnes boni fideles electi merito nuncupentur. Eliguntur in aedificio lapides angulares, non reprobatis ceteris, qui structurae partibus aliis deputantur. Eliguntur uuae ad uescendum, nec reprobantur aliae, quas relinquimus ad bibendum.

I do not say this: for I see that even out of the select some are selected for something greater and more pre-eminent, just as in the militia, when the tyros have been elected, from these also some are chosen for some greater work of arms; and when, in the Church, those are chosen who are to become provosts, assuredly the others are not on that account rejected, since all good faithful are deservedly called the elect. Stones are chosen as corner-stones in a building, with the others not rejected who are assigned to other parts of the structure. Grapes are selected for eating, nor are the others rejected, which we leave for drinking.

Non opus est multa percurrere, cum res in aperto sit. Quam ob rem non ex hoc, quod dii ex multis quidam selecti sunt, uel is qui scripsit uel eorum cultores uel dii ipsi uituperandi sunt, sed aduertendum potius quinam isti sint et ad quam rem selecti uideantur.

There is no need to run through many points, since the matter is in the open. Wherefore, not on this account—that certain gods have been selected out of many—are either the one who wrote, or their worshipers, or the gods themselves to be vituperated, but rather it should be noted who exactly these are and for what purpose they seem to have been selected.

[II] Hos certe deos selectos Varro unius libri contextione commendat: Ianum, Iouem, Saturnum, Genium, Mercurium, Apollinem, Martem, Vulcanum, Neptunum, Solem, Orcum, Liberum patrem, Tellurem, Cererem, Iunonem, Lunam, Dianam, Mineruam, Venerem, Vestam; in quibus omnibus ferme uiginti duodecim mares, octo sunt feminae. Haec numina utrum propter maiores in mundo administrationes selecta dicuntur, an quod populis magis innotuerunt maiorque est eis cultus exhibitus? Si propterea, quia opera maiora ab his administrantur in mundo, non eos inuenire debuimus inter illam quasi plebeiam numinum multitudinem minutis opusculis deputatam.

[2] These selected gods, to be sure, Varro commends by the contexture of a single book: Janus, Jove, Saturn, Genius, Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, the Sun, Orcus, Liber Father, Earth, Ceres, Juno, the Moon, Diana, Minerva, Venus, Vesta; among all these, nearly twenty, twelve are males, eight are females. Are these numina said to be selected either on account of greater administrations in the world, or because they became better known to peoples and a greater cult was exhibited to them? If for this reason, that greater works are administered by these in the world, we ought not to find them among that, as it were, plebeian multitude of divinities assigned to minute little tasks.

Nam ipse primum Ianus, cum puerperium concipitur, unde illa cuncta opera sumunt exordium minutatim minutis distributa numinibus, aditum aperit recipiendo semini. Ibi est et Saturnus propter ipsum semen; ibi Liber, qui marem effuso semine liberat; ibi Libera, quam et Venerem uolunt, quae hoc idem beneficium conferat feminae, ut etiam ipsa emisso semine liberetur. Omnes hi ex illis sunt, qui selecti appellantur.

For, first, Janus himself, when childbearing is conceived—whence all those works take their exordium, minutely parceled out to minute numina—opens the access by receiving the seed. There too is Saturn on account of the seed itself; there Liber, who frees the male when the seed has been poured out; there Libera, whom they also wish to be Venus, who confers this same benefaction upon the female, that she too, the seed having been emitted, may be freed. All these are of those who are called “selected.”

Sed ibi est et dea Mena, quae menstruis fluoribus praeest, quamuis Iouis filia, tamen ignobilis. Et hanc prouinciam fluorum menstruorum in libro selectorum deorum ipsi Iunoni idem auctor adsignat, quae in diis selectis etiam regina est et hic tamquam Iuno Lucina cum eadem Mena priuigna sua eidem cruori praesidet. Ibi sunt et duo nescio qui obscurissimi, Vitumnus et Sentinus, quorum alter uitam, alter sensus puerperio largiuntur.

But there too is the goddess Mena, who presides over the menstrual flows; although a daughter of Jove, nevertheless ignoble. And this province of the menstrual flows, in the Book of the Selected Gods, the same author assigns to Juno herself, who among the select gods is even queen; and here, as Juno Lucina, together with that same Mena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood. There too are two I-know-not-who, most obscure, Vitumnus and Sentinus, of whom the one bestows life, the other senses, in childbed.

Et nimirum multo plus praestant, cum sint ignobilissimi, quam illi tot proceres et selecti. Nam profecto sine uita et sensu, quid est illud totum, quod muliebri utero geritur, nisi nescio quid abiectissimum limo ac pulueri comparandum?

And indeed they, although most ignoble, excel much more than those so many nobles and select ones. For assuredly, without life and sense, what is that whole thing which is borne in a woman’s womb, except some I-know-not-what most abject thing to be compared with mud and dust?

[III] Quae igitur causa tot selectos deos ad haec opera minima compulit, ubi a Vitumno et Sentino, quos fama obscura recondit, in huius munificentiae partitione superentur? Confert enim selectus Ianus aditum et quasi ianuam semini; confert selectus Saturnus semen ipsum; confert selectus Liber eiusdem seminis emissionem uiris; confert hoc idem Libera, quae Ceres seu Venus est, feminis; confert selecta Iuno, et hoc non sola, sed cum Mena, filia Iouis, fluores menstruos ad eius, quod conceptum est, incrementum: et confert Vitumnus obscurus et ignobilis uitam; confert Sentinus obscurus et ignobilis sensum; quae duo tanto illis rebus praestantiora sunt, quanto et ipsa intellectu ac ratione uincuntur. Sicut enim, quae ratiocinantur et intellegunt, profecto potiora sunt his, quae sine intellectu atque ratione ut pecora uiuunt et sentiunt: ita et illa, quae uita sensuque sunt praedita, his, quae nec uiuunt nec sentiunt, merito praeferuntur.

[3] What cause, then, compelled so many selected gods to these minim works, where they are surpassed in the partition of this munificence by Vitumnus and Sentinus, whom an obscure fame hides? For the selected Janus contributes an approach and, as it were, a door to the seed; the selected Saturn contributes the seed itself; the selected Liber contributes the emission of the same seed to males; this same thing Libera, who is Ceres or Venus, contributes to females; the selected Juno contributes— and this not alone, but with Mena, daughter of Jupiter— the menstrual flows for the increment of that which has been conceived: and Vitumnus, obscure and ignoble, contributes life; Sentinus, obscure and ignoble, contributes sense; which two are so much more excellent than those things, as they themselves are surpassed by intellect and reason. For just as those who ratiocinate and understand are assuredly better than those who, without intellect and reason, live and feel like cattle: so also those endowed with life and sense are deservedly preferred to those who neither live nor feel.

Inter selectos itaque deos Vitumnus uiuificator et Sentinus sensificator magis haberi debuerunt quam Ianus seminis admissor et Saturnus seminis dator uel sator et Liber et Libera seminum commotores uel emissores; quae semina cogitare indignum est, nisi ad uitam sensumque peruenerint, quae munera selecta non dantur a diis selectis, sed a quibusdam incognitis et prae istorum dignitate neglectis. Quod si respondetur omnium initiorum potestatem habere Ianum et ideo illi etiam quod aperitur conceptui non inmerito adtribui, et omnium seminum Saturnum et ideo seminationem quoque hominis non posse ab eius operatione seiungi, omnium seminum emittendorum Liberum et Liberam et ideo his etiam praeesse, quae ad substituendos homines pertinent, omnium purgandorum et pariendorum Iunonem et ideo eam non deesse purgationibus feminarum et partubus hominum: quaerant quid respondeant de Vitumno et Sentino, utrum et ipsos uelint habere omnium quae uiuunt et sentiunt potestatem. Quod si concedunt, adtendant quam eos sublimius locaturi sint.

Among the select gods, therefore, Vitumnus the vivifier and Sentinus the sensifier ought to have been held in greater account than Janus the admitter of seed and Saturn the giver or sower of seed, and Liber and Libera the movers or emitters of seeds; which seeds it is unworthy even to think of, unless they have attained to life and sense—gifts which are select, yet are not given by the select gods, but by certain unknown ones and, in comparison with the dignity of those, neglected. But if it is answered that Janus has the power of all beginnings, and therefore that what is opened is rightly attributed also to conception; and that Saturn has power over all seeds, and therefore that the semination of man too cannot be separated from his operation; and that Liber and Libera have power over all seeds to be emitted, and therefore preside also over the things that pertain to the replenishing of mankind; and that Juno has power over all purgations and parturitions, and therefore is not absent from the purifications of women and the births of humans: let them consider what they will answer about Vitumnus and Sentinus—whether they also wish them to have the power over all things that live and feel. And if they concede this, let them attend to how much more sublimely they will be placing them.

Nam seminibus nasci in terra et ex terra est; uiuere autem atque sentire etiam deos sidereos opinantur. Si autem dicunt Vitumno atque Sentino haec sola adtributa, quae in carne uiuescunt et sensibus adminiculantur: cur non deus ille, qui facit omnia uiuere atque sentire, etiam carni uitam praebet et sensum, uniuersali opere hoc munus etiam partubus tribuens? et quid opus est Vitumno atque Sentino?

For as to seeds, their being born is in the earth and from the earth; but to live and to feel they opine to pertain even to the sidereal gods. But if they say that to Vitumnus and Sentinus these things alone are attributed, those which come alive in flesh and are aided by the senses: why does not that God, who makes all things live and feel, also provide to flesh life and sense, by a universal operation granting this gift also to births? and what need is there of Vitumnus and Sentinus?

Quod si ab illo, qui uitae ac sensibus uniuersaliter praesidet, his quasi famulis ista carnalia uelut extrema et ima commissa sunt: itane sunt illi selecti destituti familia, ut non inuenirent quibus etiam ipsi ista committerent, sed cum tota sua nobilitate, qua uisi sunt seligendi, opus facere cum ignobilibus cogerentur? Iuno selecta et regina "Iouisque et soror et coniunx"; haec tamen Iterduca est pueris et opus facit cum deabus ignobilissimis Abeona et Adeona. Ibi posuerunt et Mentem deam, quae faciat pueris bonam mentem, et inter selectos ista non ponitur, quasi quicquam maius praestari homini potest; ponitur autem Iuno, quia Iterduca est et Domiduca, quasi quicquam prosit iter carpere et domum duci, si mens non est bona, cuius muneris deam selectores isti inter selecta numina minime posuerunt.

But if from that one who universally presides over life and senses these carnal things, as it were the extreme and the lowest, have been entrusted to these as to servants: are those select ones so destitute of a household-retinue that they did not find any to whom even they themselves might commit these things, but were compelled, with all their nobility by which they seemed worthy of being selected, to do work with the ignoble? Juno, selected and queen, “both sister and spouse of Jove”; yet she is Iterduca for boys and does work with the most ignoble goddesses Abeona and Adeona. There they have placed also the goddess Mind (Mens), who makes for boys a good mind, and among the select this one is not placed, as though anything greater could be bestowed upon a human being; but Juno is placed, because she is Iterduca and Domiduca, as though it profits anything to take a journey and to be led home, if the mind is not good—the goddess of which gift these selectors have by no means placed among the select divinities.

Quae profecto et Mineruae fuerat praeferenda, cui per ista minuta opera puerorum memoriam tribuerunt. Quis enim dubitet multo esse melius habere bonam mentem quam memoriam quantumlibet ingentem? Nemo enim malus est, qui bonam habet mentem; quidam uero pessimi memoria sunt mirabili, tanto peiores quanto minus possunt quod male cogitant obliuisci.

Which indeed ought to have been preferred even to Minerva, to whom, through those minute tasks, they attributed the boys’ memory. For who doubts that it is much better to have a good mind than a memory however immense? For no one is evil who has a good mind; whereas certain men, most wicked, have a wondrous memory, so much the worse the less they are able to forget what they think ill.

Et tamen Minerua est inter selectos deos; Mentem autem deam turba uilis operuit. Quid de Virtute dicam? quid de Felicitate?

And yet Minerva is among the select gods; but the goddess Mens a vile crowd has covered over. What shall I say about Virtue? what about Felicity?

de quibus in quarto libro plura iam diximus; quas cum deas haberent, nullum eis locum inter selectos deos dare uoluerunt, ubi dederunt Marti et Orco, uni effectori mortium alteri receptori.

about which in the fourth book we have already said more; though they had these as goddesses, they were unwilling to give them any place among the select gods, where they gave one to Mars and to Orcus—the one the producer of deaths, the other the receiver.

Cum igitur in his minutis operibus, quae minutatim diis pluribus distributa sunt, etiam ipsos selectos uideamus tamquam senatum cum plebe pariter operari, et inueniamus a quibusdam diis, qui nequaquam seligendi putati sunt, multo maiora atque meliora administrari quam ab illis, qui selecti uocantur: restat arbitrari non propter praestantiores in mundo administrationes, sed quia prouenit eis, ut magis populis innotescerent, selectos eos et praecipuos nuncupatos. Vnde dicit etiam ipse Varro, quod diis quibusdam patribus et deabus matribus, sicut hominibus, ignobilitas accidisset. Si ergo Felicitas ideo fortasse inter selectos deos esse non debuit, quod ad istam nobilitatem non merito, sed fortuito peruenerunt: saltem inter illos uel potius prae illis Fortuna poneretur, quam dicunt deam non rationabili dispositione, sed ut temere acciderit, sua cuique dona conferre.

Since therefore in these minute works, which have been distributed piecemeal to a plurality of gods, we see even those very select ones working together equally, as a senate with the plebs, and we find that by certain gods, who were thought by no means to be selected, much greater and better things are administered than by those who are called select: it remains to judge that they were named select and principal, not on account of more outstanding administrations in the world, but because it befell them to become more well-known to peoples. Whence Varro himself also says that to certain father gods and mother goddesses, as to men, ignobility had happened. If therefore Felicity for this reason perhaps ought not to be among the select gods, because they attained to that nobility not by merit, but by fortune: at least among those, or rather before them, Fortune should be placed, whom they say to be a goddess who, not by rational disposition, but as it has happened at random, confers her own gifts on each.

Haec in diis selectis tenere apicem debuit, in quibus maxime quid posset ostendit; quando eos uidemus non praecipua uirtute, non rationabili felicitate, sed temeraria, sicut eorum cultores de illa sentiunt, Fortunae potestate selectos. Nam et uir disertissimus Sallustius etiam ipsos deos fortassis adtendit, cum diceret: "Sed profecto fortuna in omni re dominatur; ea res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex uero celebrat obscuratque." Non enim possunt inuenire causam, cur celebrata sit Venus et obscurata sit Virtus, cum ambarum ab istis consecrata sint numina nec comparanda sint merita. Aut si hoc nobilitari meruit, quod plures adpetum, plures enim Venerem quam Virtutem: cur celebrata est dea Minerua et obscurata est dea Pecunia?

This one ought to have held the apex among the selected gods, among whom she has most shown what she could do; since we see them selected not by preeminent virtue, not by rational felicity, but by the reckless power of Fortune, as their worshipers think of her. For even the most eloquent man Sallust perhaps had regard even to the gods themselves when he said: "But assuredly Fortune dominates in every matter; that thing celebrates and obscures all things more by caprice than by truth." For they cannot find a cause why Venus is celebrated and Virtue is obscured, since the numina of both have been consecrated by them and the merits are not comparable. Or if this deserved to be ennobled, that more people desire it—for more desire Venus than Virtue—why is the goddess Minerva celebrated and the goddess Money obscured?

cum in genere humano plures alliciat auaritia quam peritia, et in eis ipsis, qui sunt artificiosi, raro inuenias hominem, qui non habeat artem suam pecuniaria mercede uenalem, plurisque pendatur semper propter quod aliquid fit, quam id quod propter aliud fit. Si ergo insipientis iudicio multitudinis facta est deorum ista selectio, cur dea Pecunia Mineruae praelata non est, cum propter pecuniam sint artifices multi? Si autem paucorum sapientium est ista distinctio, cur non praelata est Veneri Virtus, cum eam longe praeferat ratio?

since in the human race avarice allures more than expertise, and among those very persons who are artificers you would rarely find a man who does not have his art made venal for a pecuniary wage, and that that on account of which something is done is always appraised at a higher price than that for the sake of which it is done. If therefore this selection of the gods has been made by the foolish judgment of the multitude, why has the goddess Money not been preferred to Minerva, since many are artificers on account of money? But if this distinction belongs to a few wise men, why has Virtue not been preferred to Venus, since reason by far prefers it?

Saltem certe, ut dixi, ipsa Fortuna, quae, sicut putant qui ei plurimum tribuunt, in omni re dominatur et res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex uero celebrat obscuratque, si tantum et in deos ualuit, ut temerario iudicio suo quos uellet celebraret obscuraretque quos uellet, praecipuum locum haberet in selectis, quae in ipsos quoque deos tam praecipuae est potestatis. An ut illic esse non posset, nihil aliud etiam ipsa Fortuna nisi aduersam putanda est habuisse fortunam? Sibi ergo aduersata est, quae alios nobiles faciens nobilitata non est.

At least surely, as I said, Fortune herself, who, as those who attribute most to her suppose, dominates in every matter and celebrates and obscures all things more by libido than by truth, if she prevailed even over the gods to such an extent that by her temerarious judgment she celebrated whom she wished and obscured whom she wished, ought to have had a preeminent place among the select, she who is of such preeminent power even over the gods themselves. Or, in order that she could not be there, is Fortune herself to be thought to have had nothing other than adverse fortune? Therefore she opposed herself, who, making others noble, was not herself ennobled.

[IV] Gratularetur autem diis istis selectis quisquam nobilitatis et claritudinis adpetitor et eos diceret fortunatos, si non eos magis ad iniurias quam ad honores selectos uideret. Nam illam infimam turbam ipsa ignobilitas texit, ne obrueretur opprobriis. Ridemus quidem, cum eos uidemus figmentis humanarum opinionum partitis inter se operibus distributos, tamquam minuscularios uectigalium conductores uel tamquam opifices in uico argentario, ubi unum uasculum, ut perfectum exeat, per multos artifices transit, cum ab uno perfecto perfici posset.

[4] But some appetitor of nobility and claritude would congratulate those select gods and call them fortunate, if he did not see them selected more for injuries than for honors. For that lowest mob ignobility itself has covered, lest it be overwhelmed by reproaches. We do indeed laugh, when we see them, by the figments of human opinions, partitioned and distributed among themselves by tasks, as if minuscule contractors of the tax-revenues, or as workmen on the Silversmiths’ Row, where a single small vessel, in order that it may come out perfect, passes through many artisans, although it could be perfected by one perfect workman.

Sed aliter non putatum est operantium multitudini consulendum, nisi ut singulas artis partes cito ac facile discerent singuli, ne omnes in arte una tarde ac difficile cogerentur esse perfecti. Verum tamen uix quisquam reperitur deorum non selectorum, qui aliquo crimine famam traxit infamem; uix autem selectorum quispiam, qui non in se notam contumeliae insignis acceperit. Illi ad istorum humilia opera descenderunt, isti in illorum sublimia crimina non uenerunt.

But it was not thought that provision could be made for the multitude of workers in any other way, except that individuals should quickly and easily learn the single parts of the art, lest all be compelled to be perfect in one art slowly and with difficulty. Yet nevertheless scarcely anyone is found among the not-selected gods who has not dragged his fame into infamy by some crime; and scarcely anyone among the selected who has not received upon himself the mark of conspicuous contumely. Those descended to the humble works of these; these did not come into the sublime crimes of those.

De Iano quidem non mihi facile quicquam occurrit, quod ad probrum pertineat. Et fortasse talis fuerit, innocentius uixerit et a facinoribus flagitiisque remotius. Saturnum fugientem benignus excepit; cum hospite partitus est regnum, ut etiam ciuitates singulas conderent, iste Ianiculum, ille Saturniam.

Concerning Janus, indeed, nothing readily occurs to me that pertains to reproach. And perhaps he was such a man: he lived more innocently and more remotely from crimes and flagitious deeds. He benignly received Saturn as he fled; with his guest he shared the kingdom, so that they even founded individual cities, the former the Janiculum, the latter Saturnia.

Sed isti in cultu deorum omnis dedeoris adpetitores, cuius uitam minus turpem inuenerunt, eum simulacri monstrosa deformitate turparunt, nunc eum bifrontem, nunc etiam quadrifrontem, tamquam geminum, facientes. An forte uoluerunt,ut, quoniam plurimi dii selecti erubescenda perpetrando amiserant frontem, quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret?

But those men, in the cult of the gods, pursuers of every dishonor, the one whose life they found less disgraceful they defaced by the monstrous deformity of a simulacrum, making him now bifront, now even quadrifront, as though a twin. Or did they perhaps will that, since very many of the select gods, by perpetrating things to blush at, had lost their front, the more innocent this one was, by so much the more full-of-front (more brazen-faced) he might appear?

[V] Sed ipsorum potius interpretationes physicas audiamus, quibus turpitudinem miserrimi erroris uelut altioris doctrinae specie colorare conantur. Primum eas interpretationes sic Varro commendat, ut dicat antiquos simulacra deorum et insignia ornatusque finxisse, quae cum oculis animaduertissent hi, qui adissent doctrinae mysteria, possent animam mundi ac partes eius, id est deos ueros, animo uidere; quorum qui simulacra specie hominis fecerunt, hoc uideri secutos, quod mortalium animus, qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est inmortalis animi; tamquam si uasa ponerentur causa notandorum deorum et in Liberi aede oenophorum sisteretur, quod significaret uinum, per id quod continet id quod continetur; ita per simulacrum, quod formam haberet humanam, significari animam rationalem, quod eo uelut uase natura ista soleat contineri, cuius naturae deum uolunt esse uel deos. Haec sunt mysteria doctrinae, quae iste uir doctissimus penetrauerat, unde in lucem ista proferret.

[5] But rather let us hear their own physical interpretations, with which they try to color the turpitude of a most miserable error with the semblance of a higher doctrine. First, Varro commends these interpretations thus, when he says that the ancients fashioned simulacra of the gods and insignia and ornaments, so that when those who approached the mysteries of the doctrine had observed them with their eyes, they might be able with the mind to see the soul of the world and its parts, that is, the true gods; and that those who made their simulacra in the species of man seem to have followed this, namely that the mind of mortals, which is in the human body, is most similar to the mind of the immortal. As if vessels were set up for the purpose of marking out the gods, and in the temple of Liber an oenophorum (wine‑jar) were set, which would signify wine—through that which contains, that which is contained—so through a simulacrum that had a human form the rational soul is signified, because in that, as in a vessel, this nature is wont to be contained, of which nature they wish there to be a god or gods. These are the mysteries of the doctrine, which that most learned man had penetrated, whence he would bring these things into the light.

Sed, o homo acutissime, num in istis doctrinae mysteriis illam prudentiam perdidisti, qua tibi sobrie uisum est, quod hi, qui primi populis simulacra constituerunt, et metum dempserunt ciuibus suis et errorem addiderunt, castiusque deos sine simulacris ueteres obseruasse Romanos? Hi enim tibi fuerunt auctores, ut haec contra posteriores Romanos dicere auderes. Nam si et illi antiquissimi simulacra coluissent, fortassis totum istum sensum de simulacris non constituendis, interim uerum,timoris silentio premeres et in huiusce modi perniciosis uanisque figmentis mysteria ista doctrinae loquacius et elatius praedicares.

But, O most acute man, did you in those mysteries of doctrine lose that prudence, by which it soberly seemed to you that those who first established simulacra for the peoples both took away fear from their citizens and added error, and that the Romans of old observed the gods more chastely without simulacra? For these were your authorities, that you dared to say these things against the later Romans. For if even those most ancient had worshiped simulacra, perhaps that whole view about not establishing simulacra, though true, you would for the time being suppress under the silence of fear, and would more loquaciously and loftily proclaim these mysteries of doctrine in pernicious and vain figments of this sort.

Anima tua tamen tam docta et ingeniosa (ubi te multum dolemus)per haec mysteria doctrinae ad Deum suum,idest a quo facta est, non cum quo facta est, nec cuius portio, sed cuius conditio est, nec qui est omnium anima, sed qui fecit omnem animam, quo solo inlustrante anima fit beata, si eius gratiae non sit ingrata, nullo modo potuit peruenire. Verum ista mysteria doctrinae qualia sint quantique pendenda, quae sequuntur ostendent. Fatetur interim uir iste doctissimus animam mundi ac partes eius esse ueros deos; unde intellegitur totam eius theologian, eam ipsam scilicet naturalem, cui plurimum tribuit, usque ad animae rationalis naturam se extendere potuisse.

Anima tua tamen tam docta et ingeniosa (where we greatly lament you)through these mysteries of doctrine to its own God,that is, by whom it was made, not with whom it was made, nor of whom it is a portion, but of whom it is a creation, nor he who is the soul of all things, but he who made every soul, by whose illumination alone the soul becomes blessed, if it be not ungrateful to his grace, in no way could arrive. But what sort these mysteries of doctrine are and how much they are to be weighed, what follows will show. Meanwhile this most learned man confesses that the soul of the world and its parts are true gods; whence it is understood that his whole theology, namely that very natural one, to which he attributes very much, could extend only as far as the nature of the rational soul.

De naturali enim paucissima praeloquitur in hoc libro quem de diis selectis ultimum scripsit; in quo uidebimus utrum per interpretationes physiologicas ad hanc naturalem possit referre ciuilem. Quod si potuerit, tota naturalis erit: et quid opus erat ab ea ciuilem tanta cura distinctionis abiungere? Si autem recto discrimine separata est: quando nec ista uera est quae illi naturalis placet (peruenit enim usque ad animam, non usque ad uerum Deum qui fecit et animam), quanto est abiectior et falsior ista ciuilis, quae maxime circa corporum est occupata naturam, sicut ipsae interpretationes eius, ex quibus quaedam necessaria commemorare me oportet, tanta ab ipsis exquisitae et enucleatae diligentia demonstrabunt.

For concerning the natural he pre-says very few things in this book which, on the Selected Gods, he wrote last; in which we shall see whether through physiological interpretations he can refer the civil to this natural. But if he can, it will be wholly natural: and what need was there to disjoin the civil from it with so great a care of distinction? If, however, it is separated by a right discrimination—since not even that which pleases him as natural is true (for it reaches as far as the soul, not as far as the true God who made even the soul)—how much more abject and more false is this civil, which is especially occupied about the nature of bodies, as its very interpretations, of which it is fitting for me to recount certain necessary points, will show with such exquisite and elucidated diligence.

[VI] Dicit ergo idem Varro adhuc de naturali theologia praeloquens deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi, quem Graeci uocant *ko/smon, et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex corpore et animo, tamen ab animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Hic uidetur quoquo modo unum confiteri Deum; sed ut plures etiam introducat, adiungit mundum diuidi in duas partes, caelum et terram; et caelum bifariam, in aethera et aera; terram uero in aquam et humum; e quibus summum esse aethera, secundum aera, tertiam aquam, infimam terram; quas omnes partes quattuor animarum esse plenas, in aethere et aere inmortalium, in aqua et terra mortalium. Ab summo autem circuitu caeli ad circulum lunae aetherias animas esse astra ac stellas, eos caelestes deos non modo intellegi esse, sed etiam uideri; inter lunae uero gyrum et nimborum ac uentorum cacumina aerias esse animas, sed eas animo, non oculis uideri et uocari heroas et lares et genios.

[VI] Therefore the same Varro, still pre-speaking about natural theology, says that he judges god to be the soul of the world, which the Greeks call *ko/smon*, and that this world itself is god; but just as a wise man, although he is from body and soul, is yet called wise from the soul, so the world is called god from the soul, although it is from soul and body. Here he seems in some fashion to confess one God; but so that he may also introduce several, he adds that the world is divided into two parts, heaven and earth; and heaven in a twofold way, into aether and air; the earth indeed into water and soil; of which the highest is aether, the second air, the third water, the lowest earth; and that all these parts are full of four kinds of souls, in aether and air of immortals, in water and earth of mortals. Moreover, from the highest circuit of heaven down to the circle of the moon the aetherial souls are the constellations and stars, and those celestial gods are not only understood to be, but even seen; but between the orbit of the moon and the summits of clouds and winds there are aerial souls, yet they are seen by the mind, not by the eyes, and are called heroes and Lares and genii.

Haec est uidelicet breuiter in ista praelocutione proposita theologia naturalis, quae non huic tantum, sed multis philosophis placuit; de qua tunc diligentius disserendum est, cum de ciuili, quantum ad deos selectos adtinet, opitulante Deo uero quod restat impleuero.

This, namely, is briefly the natural theology set forth in this preface, which has pleased not him only, but many philosophers; about which a more diligent discussion must then be undertaken, when, concerning the civil (so far as it pertains to the selected gods), with the true God helping, I shall have completed what remains.

[VII] Ianus igitur, a quo sumpsit exordium, quaero quisnam sit. Respondetur: Mundus est. Breuis haec plane est atque aperta responsio.

[VII] Janus therefore, from whom he took his exordium, I ask who he is. It is answered: He is the world. This is plainly a brief and open response.

Cur ergo ad eum dicuntur rerum initia pertinere, fines uero ad alterum, quem Terminum uocant? Nam propter initia et fines duobus istis diis duos menses perhibent dedicatos praeter illos decem, quibus usque ad Decembrem caput est Martius, Ianuarium Iano, Februarium Termino. Ideo Terminalia eodem mense Februario celebrari dicunt, cum fit sacrum purgatorium, quod uocant Februm, unde mensis nomen accepit.

Why, therefore, are the beginnings of things said to pertain to him, but the ends to another, whom they call Terminus? For on account of beginnings and ends they maintain that two months have been dedicated to those two gods, in addition to those ten in which, up to December, the head is March: January to Janus, February to Terminus. Therefore they say the Terminalia are celebrated in that same month of February, when the purgatorial sacred rite is performed, which they call the Februm, whence the month took its name.

Numquid ergo ad mundum, qui Ianus est, initia rerum pertinent et fines non pertinent, ut alter illis deus praeficeretur? Nonne omnia, quae in hoc mundo fieri dicunt, in hoc etiam mundo terminari fatentur? Quae est ista uanitas, in opere illi dare potestatem dimidiam, in simulacro faciem duplam?

Therefore do the beginnings of things pertain to the world, which is Janus, and the ends not pertain, so that another god should be set over them? Do they not confess that all things which they say are done in this world are also terminated in this world? What is this vanity, to give to him in the work half-power, and in the simulacrum a double face?

Nonne istum bifrontem multo elegantius interpretarentur, si eundem et Ianum et Terminum dicerent atque initiis unam faciem, finibus alteram darent? quoniam qui operatur utrumque debet intendere; in omni enim motu actionis suae qui non respicit initium non prospicit finem. Vnde necesse est a memoria respiciente prospiciens conectatur intentio; nam cui exciderit quod coeperit, quo modo finiat non inueniet.

Would they not interpret that two-faced one much more elegantly, if they said that the same is both Janus and Terminus and gave one face to beginnings, another to ends? since he who works at both ought to intend to both; for in every motion of his action, he who does not look back to the beginning does not look forward to the end. Whence it is necessary that intention, looking forward, be connected from a memory that looks back; for he to whom what he began has slipped out will not find how to finish.

Quod si uitam beatam in hoc mundo inchoari putarent, extra mundum perfici, et ideo Iano, id est mundo, solam initiorum tribuerent potestatem: profecto ei praeponerent Terminum eumque ab diis selectis non alienarent. Quamquam etiam nunc cum in istis duobus diis initia rerum temporalium finesque tractantur, Termino dari debuit plus honoris. Maior enim laetitia est, cum res quaeque perficitur; sollicitudinis autem plena sunt coepta, donec perducantur ad finem, quem qui aliquid incipit maxime adpetit intendit, expectat exoptat, nec de re inchoata, nisi terminetur, exultat.

If they thought that the blessed life is begun in this world and perfected outside the world, and therefore ascribed to Janus, that is, the world, only the power of beginnings: surely they would set Terminus over him and would not alienate him from the select gods. Although even now, since in these two gods the beginnings and the ends of temporal things are handled, more honor ought to have been given to Terminus. For there is greater joy when each thing is perfected; but beginnings are full of solicitude, until they are led through to the end, which the one who begins anything most of all appetites, intends, expects, and longs for, nor does one exult over a thing inchoated, unless it be terminated.

[VIII] Sed iam bifrontis simulacri interpretatio proferatur. Duas eum facies ante et retro habere dicunt, quod hiatus noster, cum os aperimus, mundo similis uideatur; unde et palatum Graeci *ou)rano\n appellant, et nonnulli, inquit, poetae Latini caelum uocauerunt palatum, a quo hiatu oris et foras esse aditum ad dentes uersus et introrsus ad fauces. Ecce quo perductus est mundus propter palati nostri uocabulum uel Graecum uel poeticum.

[8] But now let the interpretation of the bifrontal simulacrum be brought forward. They say that he has two faces, before and behind, because our hiatus, when we open the mouth, seems similar to the world; whence also the Greeks call the palate *ou)rano\n, and, he says, some Latin poets have called the palate “heaven”; from which gaping of the mouth there is an adit both outward toward the teeth and inward toward the fauces. Behold to what point the world has been conducted on account of the appellation of our palate, whether Greek or poetic.

Quid autem hoc ad animam, quid ad uitam aeternam? Propter solas saliuas colatur hic deus, quibus partim gluttiendis partim spuendis sub caelo palati utraque panditur ianua. Quid est porro absurdius, quam in ipso mundo non inuenire duas ianuas ex aduerso sitas, per quas uel admittat ad se aliquid intro uel emittat a se foras, et de nostro ore et gutture, quorum similitudinem mundus non habet, uelle mundi simulacrum componere in Iano propter solum palatum, cuius similitudinem Ianus non habet?

What, moreover, has this to do with the soul, what with eternal life? For the sake of saliva alone let this god be worshipped, by which, partly for swallowing and partly for spitting, under the heaven of the palate both gates are flung open. What is more absurd than not to find in the world itself two gates set opposite one another, through which it either admits something into itself or emits something from itself outward, and from our mouth and gullet (throat)—whose likeness the world does not have—to wish to compose a simulacrum of the world in Janus on account of the palate alone, whose likeness Janus does not have?

Cum uero eum faciunt quadrifrontem et Ianum geminum appellant, ad quattuor mundi partes hoc interpretantur, quasi aliquid spectet mundus foras sicut per omnes facies Ianus. Deinde si Ianus est mundus et mundus quattuor partibus constat, falsum est simulacrum Iani bifrontis; aut si propterea uerum est, quia etiam nomine Orientis et Occidentis totus solet mundus intellegi, numquid, cum duas partes alias nominamus Septentrionis et Austri, sicut illi quadrifrontem dicunt geminum Ianum, ita quisquam geminum dicturus est mundum? Non habent omnino unde quattuor ianuas, quae intrantibus et exeuntibus pateant, interpretentur ad mundi similitudinem, sicut de bifronti quod dicerent saltem in ore hominis inuenerunt, nisi Neptunus forte subueniat et porrigat piscem, cui praeter hiatum oris et gutturis etiam dextra et sinistra fauces patent.

When, however, they make him four-faced and call him the twin Janus, they interpret this by the four parts of the world, as though the world were looking outward at something just as Janus does through all his faces. Then if Janus is the world and the world consists of four parts, the simulacrum of a two-faced Janus is false; or if for that reason it is true, because the whole world is also wont to be understood by the names of the East and the West, surely, when we name the other two parts of the North and the South, just as they call the four-faced Janus “twin,” will anyone be going to call the world “twin” in the same way? They have absolutely nothing from which they might interpret four doors, which stand open to those entering and those going out, to the likeness of the world—just as, regarding the two-faced, what they might say they at least found in a man’s mouth—unless perhaps Neptune should come to the rescue and proffer a fish, to which, besides the gape of mouth and throat, even right and left gills stand open.

Et tamen hanc uanitatem per tot ianuas nulla effugit anima, nisi quae audit ueritatem dicentem: Ego sum ianua.

And yet through so many doors no soul escapes this vanity, except the one that hears the truth saying: 'I am the door.'

[IX] Iouem autem, qui etiam Iuppiter dicitur, quem uelint intellegi, exponant. "Deus est, inquiunt, habens potestatem causarum, quibus aliquid fit in mundo." Hoc quam magnum sit, nobilissimus Vergilii uersus ille testatur: Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. Sed cur ei praeponitur Ianus?

[9] But as for Jove, who is also called Jupiter, let them set forth whom they wish to be understood. “He is God,” they say, “having power over the causes by which something is done in the world.” How great this is, that most noble verse of Virgil attests: “Happy is he who has been able to know the causes of things.” But why is Janus set before him?

hoc nobis uir ille acutissimus doctissimusque respondeat. "Quoniam penes Ianum, inquit, sunt prima, penes Iouem summa. Merito ergo rex omnium Iuppiter habetur.

let that most acute and most learned man answer us this. "Since," he says, "the first things are with Janus, the highest with Jove. Rightly, therefore, Jupiter is held the king of all."

Prima enim uincuntur a summis, quia, licet prima praecedant tempore, summa superant dignitate." Sed recte hoc diceretur, si factorum prima discernerentur et summa; sicut initium facti est proficisci, summum peruenire; initium facti inceptio discendi, summum perceptio doctrinae; ac sic in omnibus prima sunt initia summique sunt fines. Sed iam hoc negotium inter Ianum Terminumque discussum est. Causae autem, quae dantur Ioui, efficientia sunt, non effecta; neque ullo modo fieri potest, ut uel tempore praeueniantur a factis initiisue factorum.

“For the first things are conquered by the highest, because, although the first precede in time, the highest surpass in dignity.” But this would be said rightly, if the firsts of deeds and the summits were being distinguished; just as the beginning of a deed is to set out, the summit to arrive; the beginning of a deed is the inception of learning, the summit the perception of doctrine; and thus in all things the firsts are beginnings and the summits are ends. But now this business has already been discussed between Janus and Terminus. The causes, moreover, which are assigned to Jupiter, are efficient, not effected things; nor can it in any way come about that they are anticipated in time either by the things done or by the beginnings of things done.

Semper enim prior est res quae facit, quam illa quae fit. Quapropter si ad Ianum pertinent initia factorum, non ideo priora sunt efficientibus causis, quas Ioui tribuunt. Sicut enim nihil fit, ita nihil inchoatur ut fiat, quod non faciens causa praecesserit.

For always the thing that does is prior to that which is done. Wherefore, if the beginnings of deeds pertain to Janus, they are not on that account prior to the efficient causes, which they attribute to Jupiter. For just as nothing is made, so nothing is inchoated so that it may be made, which an efficient cause has not preceded.

Hunc sane deum, penes quem sunt omnes causae factarum omnium naturarum naturaliumque rerum, si Iouem populi appellant et tantis contumeliis tamque scelestis criminationibus colunt, taetriore sacrilegio sese obstringunt, quam si prorsus nullum putarent deum. Vnde satius esset eis alium aliquem Iouis nomine nuncupare, dignum turpibus et flagitiosis honoribus, supposito uano figmento quod potius blasphemarent (sicut Saturno dicitur suppositus lapis, quem pro filio deuoraret), quam istum deum dicere et tonantem et adulterantem, et totum mundum regentem et per tot stupra diffluentem, et naturarum omnium naturaliumque rerum causas summas habentem et suas causas bonas non habentem.

This God indeed, in whose control are all the causes of all the made natures and natural things, if the peoples call him Jupiter and worship him with such great contumelies and such wicked criminations, they bind themselves with a more loathsome sacrilege than if they thought there were absolutely no god. Whence it would be better for them to designate some other by the name of Jupiter, one worthy of base and flagitious honors, with a vain figment put in his place to be blasphemed rather (just as a stone is said to have been put in Saturn’s stead, for him to devour instead of his son), than to say that this God both thunders and commits adultery, and both governs the whole world and overflows through so many debaucheries, and has the supreme causes of all natures and natural things and does not have good causes of his own.

Deinde quaero, quem iam locum inter deos huic Ioui tribuant, si Ianus est mundus. Deos enim ueros animam mundi ac partes eius iste definiuit; ac per hoc, quidquid hoc non est, non est utique secundum istos uerus deus. Num igitur ita dicturi sunt Iouem animam mundi, ut Ianus sit corpus eius, id est iste uisibilis mundus?

Then I ask, what place among the gods they now assign to this Jupiter, if Janus is the world. For that man defined the true gods as the soul of the world and its parts; and through this, whatever is not this is certainly, according to these men, not a true god. Are they then going to say Jupiter is the soul of the world, so that Janus is its body, that is, this visible world?

Hoc si dicunt, non erit quem ad modum Ianum deum dicant, quoniam mundi corpus non est deus uel secundum ipsos, sed anima mundi ac partes eius. Vnde apertissime idem dicit deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex animo et corpore, tamen ex animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Solum itaque mundi corpus non est deus, sed aut sola anima eius aut simul corpus et animus, ita tamen ut non sit a corpore, sed ab animo deus.

If they say this, there will be no way for them to call Janus a god, since the body of the world is not god even according to them, but the soul of the world and its parts. Whence, most openly, the same man says he thinks that god is the soul of the world and that this very world is god; but just as a wise man, although he is from soul and body, is nevertheless said to be wise from the soul, so the world is said to be god from the soul, since it is from soul and body. Therefore the body of the world alone is not god, but either its soul alone or soul and body together—yet in such a way that it is not from the body, but from the soul, that it is god.

Si ergo Ianus est mundus et deus est Ianus, numquid Iouem, ut deus esse possit, aliquam partem Iani esse dicturi sunt? Magis enim Ioui uniuersum solent tribuere; unde est: Iouis omnia plena. Ergo et Iouem, ut deus sit et maxime rex deorum, non alium possunt existimare quam mundum, ut diis ceteris secundum istos suis partibus regnet.

If therefore Janus is the world and Janus is a god, are they going to say that Jove, in order to be a god, is some part of Janus? For they are more accustomed to attribute the whole universe to Jove; whence comes: “All things are full of Jove.” Therefore they can think Jove, so that he may be a god and supremely the king of the gods, to be none other than the world, so that, according to them, he reigns over the other gods through his own parts.

In hanc sententiam etiam quosdam uersus Valerii Sorani exponit idem Varro in eo libro, quem seorsum ab istis de cultu deorum scripsit; qui uersus hi sunt: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deum, deus unus et omnes. Exponuntur autem in eodem libro ita: cum marem existimarent qui semen emitteret, feminam quae acciperet, Iouemque esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere: "cum causa, inquit, scripsit Soranus Iuppiter progenitor genetrixque; nec minus cum causa unum et omnia idem esse; mundus enim unus, et in eo uno omnia sunt."

Into this opinion the same Varro also expounds certain verses of Valerius Soranus in that book which he wrote separately from those about the cult of the gods; the verses are these: Jupiter omnipotent, of kings and of things and of gods, progenitor and genetrix of gods, one god and all. They are explained moreover in the same book thus: since they considered the male to be he who emits seed, the female she who receives it, and that Jupiter is the world and that he emits all seeds from himself and receives them into himself: "with reason," he says, "Soranus wrote ‘Jupiter progenitor and genetrix’; and no less with reason that the same is one and all; for the world is one, and in that one are all things."

[X] Cum ergo et Ianus mundus sit et Iuppiter mundus sit unusque sit mundus, quare duo dii sunt Ianus et Iuppiter? Quare seorsus habent templa seorsus aras, diuersa sacra dissimilia simulacra? Si propterea, quod alia uis est primordiorum, alia causarum, et illa Iani, illa Iouis nomen accepit: numquid si unus homo in diuersis rebus duas habeat potestates aut duas artes, quia singularum diuersa uis est, ideo duo iudices aut duo dicuntur artifices?

[10] Since therefore both Janus is the world and Jupiter is the world, and the world is one, why are Janus and Jupiter two gods? Why do they have temples separately, altars separately, diverse sacred rites, dissimilar simulacra? If it is for this reason, that the force of the primordials is one thing, that of the causes another, and the one has received Janus’s name, the other Jupiter’s: surely if one man in different matters has two powers or two arts, because the force of each is different, would he therefore be called two judges or two artificers?

Sic ergo et unus Deus cum ipse habeat potestatem primordiorum, ipse causarum, num propterea illum duos deos esse necesse est putari, quia primordia causaeque res duae sunt? Quod si hoc iustum putant, etiam ipsum Iouem tot deos esse dicant, quotquot ei cognomina propter multas potestates dederunt, quoniam res omnes¡ ex quibus illa cognomina sunt adhibita, multae atque diuersae sunt, ex quibus pauca commemoro.

Thus therefore also the one God, since he himself has the power of the primordia and himself of the causes, is it on that account necessary to be thought two gods, because primordia and causes are two things? But if they deem this just, let them also say that Jupiter himself is as many gods as the cognomina they have given him on account of his many powers, since all the things from which those cognomina have been applied are many and diverse, of which I mention a few.

[XI] Dixerunt eum Victorem, Inuictum, Opitulum, Inpulsorem, Statorem, Centumpedam, Supinalem, Tigillum, Almum, Ruminum et alia quae persequi longum est. Haec autem cognomina inposuerunt uni deo propter causas potestatesque diuersas, non tamen propter tot res etiam tot deos eum esse coegerunt: quod omnia uinceret, quod a nemine uinceretur, quod opem indigentibus ferret, quod haberet inpellendi, statuendi, stabiliendi, resupinandi potestatem, quod tamquam tigillus mundum contineret ac sustineret, quod aleret omnia, quod ruma, id est mamma, aleret animalia. In his, ut aduertimus, quaedam magna sunt, quaedam exigua; et tamen unus utraque facere perhibetur.

[11] They called him Victor, Unconquered, Helper, Impeller, Stayer, Hundred‑footed, Supinal, Cross‑beam, Nurturing, Of‑the‑Teat, and other [titles] which it would be long to pursue. These surnames, moreover, they imposed on one god on account of diverse causes and powers; yet they did not on account of so many things also force him to be so many gods: because he conquered all things, because he was conquered by no one, because he brought help to the needy, because he had the power of impelling, of making stand, of stabilizing, of throwing back supine; because, as a cross‑beam (tigillum), he held together and sustained the world; because he nourished all things; because by the ruma, that is, the teat, he nourished living creatures. Among these, as we observe, some are great, some small; and yet one is said to do both.

Puto inter se propinquiora esse causas rerum atque primordia, propter quas res unum mundum duos deos esse uoluerunt, Iouem atque Ianum, quam continere mundum et mammam dare animalibus; nec tamen propter haec opera duo tam longe inter se ui et dignitate diuersa duo dii esse compulsi sunt; sed unus Iuppiter propter illud Tigillus, propter illud Ruminus appellatus est. Nolo dicere, quod animalibus mammam praebere sugentibus magis Iunonem potuit decere quam Iouem, praesertim cum esset etiam diua Rumina, quae in hoc opus adiutorium illi famulatumue praeberet. Cogito enim posse responderi, et ipsam Iunonem nihil aliud esse quam Iouem, secundum illos Valerii Sorani uersus, ubi dictum est: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deum.

I think the causes of things and the first-beginnings are nearer akin to one another—on account of which considerations they wished the one world to be two gods, Jupiter and Janus—than are holding together the world and giving the teat to animals; and yet not even on account of these works, two so far different from one another in force and in dignity, were they compelled to be two gods; rather, the one Jupiter was called Tigillus for the one, Ruminus for the other. I do not wish to say that to offer the teat to suckling animals could have befitted Juno more than Jupiter, especially since there was also the goddess Rumina, who in this work would render him assistance or service. For I consider that it can be replied that Juno herself is nothing other than Jupiter, according to those verses of Valerius Soranus, where it is said: “Jupiter omnipotent, progenitor and genetrix of kings, and of things, and of gods.”

Quare ergo dictus est et Ruminus, cum diligentius fortasse quaerentibus ipse inueniatur esse etiam illa diua Rumina? Si enim maiestate deorum recte uidebatur indignum, ut in una spica alter ad curam geniculi, altera ad folliculi pertineret: quanto est indignius unam rem infimam, id est ut mammis alantur animalia, duorum deorum potestate curari, quorum sit unus Iuppiter, rex ipse cunctorum, et hoc agat non saltem cum coniuge sua, sed cum ignobili nescio qua Rumina, nisi quia ipse est etiam ipsa Rumina; Ruminus fortasse pro sugentibus maribus, Rumina pro feminis. Dicerem quippe noluisse illos Ioui femininum nomen inponere, nisi et in illis uersibus "progenitor genetrixque" diceretur, et inter eius alia cognomina legerem, quod etiam Pecunia uocaretur, quam deam inter illos minuscularios inuenimus et in quarto libro commemorauimus.

Why then has he also been called Ruminus, since, to those perhaps inquiring more diligently, he himself is found to be even that goddess Rumina? For if, in the majesty of the gods, it seemed rightly unworthy that in a single ear of grain one should pertain to the care of the node, another to that of the husk (follicle): how much more unworthy is it that one most low matter—namely, that animals be nourished at the breasts—should be managed by the power of two gods, of whom the one is Jupiter, the very king of all, and that he should do this not at least with his own spouse, but with some ignoble Rumina I know not what, unless because he himself is also that very Rumina; Ruminus perhaps for male sucklings, Rumina for females. I would indeed say that they did not wish to impose a feminine name upon Jupiter, were it not that in those verses “progenitor and genetrix” is said, and that among his other cognomina I read that he is even called Pecunia (Money), which goddess among those minuscule gods we have found and have mentioned in the fourth book.

Sed cum et mares et feminae habeant pecuniam, cur non et Pecunia et Pecunius appellatus sit, sicut Rumina et Ruminus, ipsi uiderint.

But since both males and females have money, why has it not been appellated both Pecunia and Pecunius, just as Rumina and Ruminus? Let them see to it themselves.

[XII] Quam uero eleganter rationem huius nominis reddiderunt! "Et Pecunia, inquit, uocatur, quod eius sunt omnia." O magnam rationem diuini nominis! Immo uero ille, cuius sunt omnia, uilissime et contumeliosissime Pecunia nuncupatur.

[12] How elegantly indeed they have rendered the rationale of this name! "And she is called Pecunia," he says, "because all things are his." O great rationale of a divine name! Nay rather, he whose are all things is most vilely and most contumeliously denominated Money.

Ad omnia enim, quae caelo et terra continentur, quid est pecunia in omnibus omnino rebus, quae ab hominibus nomine pecuniae possidentur? Sed nimirum hoc auaritia Ioui nomen inposuit, ut, quisquis amat pecuniam, non quemlibet deum, sed ipsum regem omnium sibi amare uideatur. Longe autem aliud esset, si diuitiae uocaretur.

For with regard to all things that are contained in heaven and earth, what is money among all the things whatsoever that are possessed by men under the name of money? But doubtless avarice imposed this name upon Jove, so that whoever loves money seems to himself to love not just any god, but the very king of all. It would be far otherwise, if it were called riches.

Aliud namque sunt diuitiae, aliud pecunia. Nam dicimus diuites sapientes, iustos, bonos, quibus pecunia uel nulla uel parua est; magis enim sunt uirtutibus diuites, per quas eis etiam in ipsis corporalium rerum necessitatibus sat est quod adest: pauperes uero auaros, semper inhiantes et egentes; quamlibet enim magnas pecunias habere possunt, sed in earum quantacumque abundantia non egere non possunt. Et Deum ipsum uerum recte dicimus diuitem, non tamen pecunia, sed omnipotentia.

For riches are one thing, money another. For we call the wise, the just, the good rich, though they have either no money or little; for they are richer in virtues, through which even amid the very necessities of bodily things, what is at hand is enough for them: but poor, the avaricious, ever gaping after and in want; for they can have however great sums of money, yet, in whatever abundance of them, they cannot be without need. And we rightly call the true God himself rich, not by money, but by omnipotence.

Dicuntur itaque et diuites pecuniosi; sed interius egeni, si cupidi: item dicuntur pauperes pecunia carentes; sed interius diuites, si sapientes. Qualis ergo ista theologia debet esse sapienti, ubi rex deorum eius rei nomen accepit, "quam nemo sapiens concupiuit"? Quanto enim facilius, si aliquid hac doctrina quod ad uitam pertineret aeternam salubriter disceretur, deus mundi rector non ab eis Pecunia, sed Sapientia uocaretur, cuius amor purgat a sordibus auaritiae, hoc est ab amore pecuniae!

Accordingly, both the rich are called pecunious; but inwardly needy, if greedy: likewise the poor are said to be lacking in money; but inwardly rich, if wise. What sort of theology, then, ought this to be for a wise man, where the king of the gods has received the name of that thing “which no wise man has coveted”? For how much more easily—if anything by this doctrine were being learned healthfully that pertained to eternal life—would the god, the ruler of the world, be called by them not Pecunia, but Sapientia, whose love purges from the filths of avarice, that is, from the love of money!

[XIII] Sed quid de hoc Ioue plura, ad quem fortasse ceteri referendi sunt, ut inanis remaneat deorum opinio plurimorum, cum hic ipse sint omnes, siue quando partes eius uel potestates existimantur, siue cum uis animae, quam putant per cuncta diffusam, ex partibus molis huius, in quas uisibilis mundus iste consurgit, et multiplici administratione naturae quasi plurium deorum nomina accepit? Quid est enim et Saturnus? "Vnus, inquit, de principibus deus, penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est." Nonne expositio uersuum illorum Valerii Sorani sic se habet, Iouem esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere?

[XIII] But what more about this Jove, to whom perchance the rest are to be referred, so that the opinion of a plurality of gods may remain empty, since this very one is all of them, whether when his parts or powers are reckoned, or when the force of the soul, which they suppose to be diffused through all things, from the parts of this mass, out of which this visible world rises, and by a manifold administration of nature has, as it were, received the names of many gods? For what, too, is Saturn? “One,” he says, “of the chief gods, with whom is the dominion of all sowings.” Does not the exposition of those verses of Valerius Soranus run thus: that Jove is the world and that he sends forth all seeds from himself and receives them back into himself?

Ipse est igitur penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est. Quid est Genius? "Deus, inquit, qui praepositus est ac uim habet omnium rerum gignendarum." Quem alium hanc uim habere credunt quam mundum, cui dictum est: "Iuppiter progenitor genetrixque"? Et cum alio loco genium dicit esse uniuscuiusque animum rationalem et ideo esse singulos singulorum, talem autem mundi animum Deum esse: ad hoc idem utique reuocat, ut tamquam uniuersalis genius ipse mundi animus esse credatur.

He is therefore the one with whom the dominion of all sowings lies. What is the Genius? "A god," he says, "who is set over and has the power of the begetting of all things." Whom do they believe to have this power other than the world, to which it has been said: "Jupiter, progenitor and genetrix"? And when in another place he says that the genius is the rational mind of each person, and therefore that there are single genii of single individuals, but that such a mind of the world is God: he surely brings it back to this same point, that the soul of the world itself is to be believed to be, as it were, the universal genius.

Hic est igitur quem appellant Iouem. Nam si omnis genius deus et omnis uiri animus genius, sequitur ut sit omnis uiri animus deus; quod si et ipsos abhorrere absurditas ipsa compellit, restat ut eum singulariter et excellenter dicant deum Genium, quem dicunt mundi animum ac per hoc Iouem.

This, then, is the one whom they call Jupiter. For if every genius is a god and every man’s animus is a genius, it follows that every man’s animus is a god; but since absurdity itself compels even them to abhor this, it remains that they call him, singularly and excellently, the god Genius, whom they say is the soul of the world and therefore Jupiter.

[XIV] Mercurium uero et Martem quo modo referrent ad aliquas partes mundi et opera Dei, quae sunt in elementis, non inuenerunt, et ideo eos saltem operibus hominum praeposuerunt, sermocinandi et belligerandi administros. Quorum Mercurius si sermonis etiam deorum potestatem gerit, ipsi quoque regi deorum dominatur, si secundum eius arbitrium Iuppiter loquitur aut loquendi ab illo accepit facultatem; quod utique absurdum est. Si autem illi humani tantum sermonis potestas tributa perhibetur, non est credibile ad lactandos mamma non solum pueros, sed etiam pecora, unde Ruminus cognominatus est, Iouem descendere uoluisse, et curam nostri sermonis, quo pecoribus antecellimus, ad se pertinere noluisse; ac per hoc idem ipse est Iouis atque Mercurius.

[14] But Mercury and Mars, in what way they might refer them to any parts of the world and to the works of God, which are in the elements, they did not find; and therefore they appointed them at least over the works of men, ministers of discoursing and of war-waging. Of whom, if Mercury even bears the power of the speech of the gods, he also dominates the king of the gods himself, if Jupiter speaks according to his arbitration or received from him the faculty of speaking; which is of course absurd. But if to him the power only of human speech is held to have been attributed, it is not credible that Jupiter would have wished to descend for suckling at the breast not only boys but even cattle (whence he was surnamed Ruminus), and not to have wished that the care of our speech, by which we excel the cattle, pertain to himself; and through this he himself is the same as Jupiter and as Mercury.

Quod si sermo ipse dicitur esse Mercurius, sicut e a, quae d e illo interpretantur, ostentunt (nam ideo Mercurius quasi medius currens dicitur appellatus, quod sermo currat inter homines medius; ideo *(Hrmh=s Graece, quod sermo, uel interpretatio, quae ad sermonem utique pertinet, *e(rmhnei/a dicitur; ideo et mercibus praeesse, quia inter uendentes et ementes sermo fit medius; alas eius in capite et pedibus significare uolucrem ferri per aera sermonem; nuntium dictum, quoniam per sermonem omnia cogitata enuntiantur -- si ergo Mercurius ipse sermo est, etiam ipsis confitentibus deus non est. Sed cum sibi deos faciunt eos, qui nec daemones sunt, inmundis supplicando spiritibus possidentur ab eis, qui non dii, sed daemones sunt. Item quia nec Marti aliquod elementum uel partem mundi inuenire potuerunt, ubi ageret opera qualiacumque naturae, deum belli esse dixerunt, quod opus est hominum et optabilius non est.

But if speech itself is said to be Mercury, as those things which are interpreted about him show (for therefore Mercury is said to be so called as running-in-the-middle, because speech runs in the middle among men; therefore *(Hrmh=s in Greek, because speech, or interpretation, which of course pertains to speech, is called *e(rmhnei/a; therefore also that he presides over merchandise, because between sellers and buyers speech comes in as a middle; that his wings on head and feet signify that speech is borne winged through the air; called messenger, since through speech all thoughts are announced -- if therefore Mercury is himself speech, then even by their own confession he is not a god. But when they make for themselves as gods those who are not even daemons, by supplicating unclean spirits they are possessed by those who are not gods, but daemons. Likewise, because they were not able to find for Mars any element or part of the world where he might perform works of whatever kind of nature, they said he is the god of war, which is a work of men and is not desirable.

Si ergo pacem perpetuam Felicitas daret, Mars quid ageret non haberet. Si autem ipsum bellum est Mars, sicut sermo Mercurius: utinam quam manifestum est, quod non sit deus, tam non sit et bellum, quod uel falso uocetur deus.

If therefore Felicity should grant perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But if Mars is war itself, just as speech is Mercury: would that, as it is manifest that he is not a god, so there would not be war either, which even falsely is called a god.

[XV] Nisi forte illae stellae sunt hi dii, quas eorum appellauere nominibus. Nam stellam quandam uocant Mercurium, quandam itidem Martem. Sed ibi est et illa quam uocant Iouem, et tamen eis mundus est Iouis; ibi quam uocant Saturnum, et tamen ei praeterea dant non paruam substantiam, omnium uidelicet seminum; ibi est et illa omnium clarissima, quae ab eis appellatur Venus, et tamen eandem Venerem esse etiam Lunam uolunt; quamuis de illo fulgentissimo sidere apud eos tamquam de malo aureo Iuno Venusque contendant.

[15] Unless perhaps those stars are these gods, which they have called by their names. For they call a certain star Mercury, another likewise Mars. But there too is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet for them the world is Jove’s; there that which they call Saturn, and yet to him besides they assign no small substance, namely of all seeds; there also is that one, brightest of all, which by them is called Venus, and yet they want that same Venus to be the Moon as well; although about that most gleaming star among them, as if about the golden apple, Juno and Venus contend.

Luciferum enim quidam Veneris, quidam dicunt esse Iunonis; sed, ut solet, Venus uincit. Nam multo plures eam stellam Veneri tribuunt, ita ut uix eorum quisquam reperiatur, qui aliud opinetur. Quis autem non rideat, cum regem omnium Iouem dicant, quod stella eius ab stella Veneris tanta uincitur claritate?

For some say that Lucifer belongs to Venus, some that it belongs to Juno; but, as is usual, Venus prevails. For many more assign that star to Venus, such that scarcely anyone among them is found who thinks otherwise. But who would not laugh, when they call Jupiter the king of all, since his star is so vanquished in brightness by the star of Venus?

Tanto enim esse debuit ceteris illa fulgentior, quanto est ipse potentior. Respondent ideo sic uideri, quia illa, quae putatur obscurior, superior est atque a terris longe remotior. Si ergo superiorem locum maior dignitas meruit, quare Saturnus ibi est Ioue superior?

For indeed that ought to have been more fulgent than the rest, by as much as he himself is more potent. They respond that therefore it seems so, because that one, which is thought more obscure, is higher and far more remote from the earth. If therefore a greater dignity has merited a higher place, why is Saturn there superior to Jupiter?

An uanitas fabulae, quae regem Iouem facit, non potuit usque ad sidera per- , uenire, et quod non ualuit Saturnus in regno suo neque in Capitolio, saltem obtinere est permissus in caelo? Quare autem Ianus non accepit aliquam stellam? Si <propterea>, quia mundus est et omnes in illo sunt: et Iouis mundus est et habet tamen.

Or did the vanity of the fable that makes Jupiter king not manage to reach all the way to the stars, and was Saturn at least permitted to obtain in the sky what he was not able to achieve in his own kingdom nor on the Capitol? But why, moreover, did Janus not receive some star? If <for this reason>, because he is the world and all are in it: and the world is Jupiter’s, and yet he has one.

An iste causam suam composuit ut potuit et pro una stella, quam non habet inter sidera, tot facies accepit in terra? Deinde si propter solas stellas Mercurium et Martem partes mundi putant, ut eos deos habere possint, quia utique sermo et bellum non sunt partes mundi, sed actus hominum: cur Arieti et Tauro et Cancro et Scorpio <ni> ceterisque huius modi, quae caelestia signa numerant et stellis non singulis, sed singula pluribus constant superiusque istis in summo caelo perhibent conlocata, ubi constantior motus inerrabilem meatum sideribus praebet, nullas aras, nulla sacra, nulla templa fecerunt, nec deos, non dico inter hos selectos, sed ne inter illos quidem quasi plebeios habuerunt?

Or did this fellow compose his own cause as he could, and, in exchange for the one star which he does not have among the stars, receive so many faces on earth? Then, if on account of the stars alone they reckon Mercury and Mars to be parts of the world, so that they may be able to have them as gods—since assuredly speech and war are not parts of the world, but acts of men—why for Aries and Taurus and Cancer and Scorpio <ni> and the others of this kind, which they count as celestial signs and which do not consist of single stars, but each of many, and which they declare to be set above these in the highest heaven, where a more constant motion provides to the stars an inerrant course, did they make no altars, no sacred rites, no temples, nor have them as gods, not, I do not say, among these select ones, but not even among those, as it were, plebeian?

[XVI] Apollinem quamuis diuinatorem et medicum uelint, tamen ut in aliqua parte mundi statuerent, ipsum etiam solem esse dixerunt, Dianamque germanam eius similiter lunam et uiarum praesidem (unde et uirginem uolunt, quod uia nihil pariat), et ideo ambos sagittas habere, quod ipsa duo sidera de caelo radios terras usque pertendant. Vulcanum uolunt ignem mundi, Neptunum aquas mundi, uitem patrem, hoc est Orcum, terrenam et infimam partem mundi. Liberum et Cererem praeponunt seminibus, uel illum masculinis, illam femininis; uel illum liquori, illam uero ariditati seminum.

[16] Although they wish Apollo to be a diviner and a physician, yet, in order to assign him to some part of the world, they even said that he is the sun itself; and Diana, his sister, likewise the moon and the guardian of roads (whence they want her a virgin as well, because a road bears nothing); and for that reason both have arrows, because those two stars stretch their rays from heaven all the way to the lands. They want Vulcan to be the fire of the world, Neptune the waters of the world, and likewise the Father—that is, Orcus—the earthly and lowest part of the world. They set Liber and Ceres over seeds, either him over the masculine, her over the feminine; or him over the moisture, but her indeed over the dryness of seeds.

Et hoc utique totum refertur ad mundum, id est ad Iouem, qui propterea dictus est "progenitor genetrixque", quod omnia semina ex se emitteret et in se reciperet. Quando quidem etiam Matrem Magnam eandem Cererem uolunt, quam nihil aliud dicunt esse quam terram, eamque perhibent et Iunonem, et ideo ei secundas causas rerum tribuunt, cum tamen Ioui sit dictum "progenitor genetrixque deum", quia secundum eos totus ipse mundus est Iouis, Mineruam etiam, quia eam humanis artibus praeposuerunt nec inuenerunt uel stellam, ubi eam ponerent, eandem uel summum aethera uel etiam lunam esse dixerunt. Vestam quoque ipsam propterea dearum maximam putauerunt, quod ipsa sit terra, quamuis ignem mundi leuiorem, qui pertinet ad usus hominum faciles, non uiolentiorem, qualis Vulcani est, ei deputandum esse crediderunt.

And all this, to be sure, is referred to the world, that is, to Jupiter, who for that reason was called "progenitor and genetrix," because he sends forth all seeds from himself and receives them back into himself. Since indeed they also want the Great Mother to be the same as Ceres, whom they say is nothing else than the earth, and they assert her also to be Juno, and therefore they assign to her the secondary causes of things, although to Jupiter there has been said "progenitor and genetrix of the gods," because according to them the whole world itself is Jupiter; Minerva also, because they set her over human arts and did not find even a star where they might place her, they said is the same as the highest aether or even the moon. Vesta likewise they thought the greatest of the goddesses for this reason, that she herself is the earth, although they believed that the gentler fire of the world, which pertains to the easy uses of men, not the more violent kind such as Vulcan’s is, ought to be assigned to her.

Ac per hoc omnes istos selectos deos hunc esse mundum uolunt, in quibusdam uniuersum, in quibusdam partes eius; uniuersum sicut Iouem, partes eius, ut Genium, ut Matrem Magnam, ut Solem et Lunam, uel potius Apollinem et Dianam, Et aliquando unum deum res plures, aliquando unam rem deos plures faciunt. Nam unus deus res plures sunt, sicut ipse Iuppiter; et mundus enim totus Iuppiter, et solum caelum Iuppiter, et sola stella Iuppiter habetur et dicitur; itemque Iuno secundarum causarum domina et Iuno aer et Iuno terra et, si Venerem uinceret, Iuno stella. Similiter Minerua summus aether et Minerua itidem luna, quam esse in aetheris infimo limite existimant.

And through this, they want all those selected gods to be this world—sometimes the whole, sometimes its parts; the whole, as Jupiter; its parts, such as Genius, such as the Great Mother, such as the Sun and the Moon, or rather Apollo and Diana, And sometimes they make one god to be several things, sometimes one thing to be several gods. For one god is several things, as Jupiter himself; for the whole world is Jupiter, and the sky alone is Jupiter, and a single star is held and said to be Jupiter; likewise Juno is the mistress of secondary causes, and Juno is air, and Juno is earth, and, if she should conquer Venus, Juno is a star. Similarly Minerva is the highest aether, and Minerva likewise is the moon, which they suppose to be on the lowest boundary of the aether.

Vnam uero rem deos plures ita faciunt: Et Ianus est mundus et Iuppiter; sic et Iuno est terra et Mater Magna et Ceres.

One thing indeed they make into several gods: And Janus is the world and Jupiter; so too Juno is the earth and the Great Mother and Ceres.

[XVII] Et sicut haec, quae exempli gratia commemoraui, ita cetera non explicant, sed potius inplicant; sicut impetus errabundae opinionis inpulerit, ita huc atque illuc, hinc atque illinc insiliunt et resiliunt, ut ipse Varro de omnibus dubitare quam aliquid adfirmare maluerit. Nam trium extremorum primum de diis certis cum absoluisset librum, in altero de diis incertis dicere ingressus ait: "Cum in hoc libello dubias de diis opiniones posuero, reprehendi non debeo. Qui enim putabit iudicari oportere et posse, cum audierit, faciet ipse.

[17] And just as these things, which I have commemorated for the sake of example, so they do not explicate the rest, but rather implicate them; as the impulse of an errant opinion has impelled, so hither and thither, on this side and that, they leap in and resile, so that Varro himself preferred to doubt about all things rather than to affirm anything. For when he had finished the first book of the three extremes on the certain gods, entering to speak in the second about the uncertain gods, he says: "When in this little book I shall have set down doubtful opinions about the gods, I ought not to be reprehended. For whoever will think that it ought and can be judged, when he hears, he himself will do it.

Ego citius perduci possum, ut in primo libro quae dixi in dubitationem reuocem, quam in hoc quae perscribam omnia ut ad aliquam dirigam summam." Ita non solum istum de diis incertis, sed etiam illum de certis fecit incertum. In tertio porro isto de diis selectis, postea quam praelocutus est quod ex naturali theologia praeloquendum putauit, ingressurus huius ciuilis theologiae uanitates et insanias mendaces, ubi eum non solum non ducebat rerum ueritas, sed etiam maiorum premebat auctoritas: "De diis, inquit, populi Romani publicis, quibus aedes dedicauerunt eosque pluribus signis ornatos notauerunt, in hoc libro scribam, sed ut Xenophanes Colophonios scribit, quid putem, non quid contendam, ponam. Hominis est enim haec opinari, dei scire." Rerum igitur non conprehensarum nec firmissime creditarum, sed opinatarum et dubitandarum sermonem trepidus pollicetur dicturus ea, quae ab hominibus instituta sunt.

I can more quickly be induced to recall into doubt the things which I said in the first book than, in this one, to direct everything I shall write out to any settled sum. Thus he made not only that book about the uncertain gods, but even that about the certain, uncertain. And in this third one, about the select gods, after he had prefaced what he thought ought to be prefaced from natural theology, when he was about to enter upon the vanities and lying insanities of this civil theology, where not only did the truth of things not lead him, but even the authority of the ancestors pressed him, he says: “About the public gods of the Roman people, to whom they dedicated temples and marked them, adorned with many statues, I will write in this book; but, as Xenophanes writes about the Colophonians, I will set down what I think, not what I contend.” For it is a man’s part to opine these things, a god’s to know. Therefore, concerning things not comprehended nor most firmly believed, but matters of opinion and to be doubted, he timidly promises a discourse, being about to speak of those things which have been instituted by men.

Neque enim, sicut sciebat esse mundum, esse caelum et terram, caelum sideribus fulgidum, terram seminibus fertilem, atque huius modi cetera, sicut hanc totam molem atque naturam ui quadam inuisibili ac praepotenti regi atque administrari certa animi stabilitate credebat: ita poterat adfirmare de Iano, quod mundus ipse esset, aut de Saturno inuenire, quo modo et Iouis pater esset et Ioui regnanti subditus factus esset et cetera talia.

For he could not, just as he knew that there is a world, that there is heaven and earth—heaven shining with stars, earth fertile with seeds—and other things of this sort; and just as he believed, with a certain steadfastness of mind, that this whole mass and nature is ruled and administered by a certain invisible and very powerful force: so likewise affirm about Janus that he was the world itself, or discover about Saturn how he was both the father of Jupiter and had been made subject to Jupiter as he reigned, and other such things.

[XVIII] De quibus credibilior redditur ratio, cum perhibentur homines fuisse et unicuique eorum ab his, qui eos adulando deos esse uoluerunt, ex eius ingenio moribus, actibus casibus sacra et sollemnia constituta atque haec paulatim per animas hominum daemonibus similes et ludicrarum rerum auidas inrependo longe lateque uulgata, ornantibus ea mendaciis poetarum et ad ea fallacibus spiritibus seducentibus. Facilius enim fieri potuit, ut iuuenis impius uel ab impio patre interfici metuens et auidus regni patrem pelleret regno, quam id,l quod iste interpretatur, ideo Saturnum patrem a Ioue filio superatum, quod ante est causa quae pertinet ad Iouem, quam semen quod pertinet ad Saturnum. Si enim hoc ita esset, numquam Saturnus prior fuisset nec pater Iouis esset.

[18] Of these a more credible reason is rendered, when they are reported to have been men, and to each of them by those who, through adulation, wanted them to be gods, rites and solemnities were established from his talent, morals, deeds, and fortunes; and these, by gradually creeping into the souls of men—like to daemons and greedy for ludicrous things—were spread far and wide, the lies of poets adorning them and deceitful spirits seducing men to them. For it could more easily have happened that an impious youth, either fearing to be killed by an impious father and eager for kingship, expelled his father from the kingdom, than that which that interpreter explains: that therefore Saturn the father was overcome by Jove the son, because cause, which pertains to Jove, is prior to seed, which pertains to Saturn. For if this were so, Saturn would never have been prior nor the father of Jove.

Semper enim semen causa praecedit nec umquam generatur ex semine. Sed cum conantur uanissimas fabulas siue hominum res gestas uelut naturalibus interpretationibus honorare, etiam homines acutissimi tantas patiuntur angustias, ut eorum quoque uanitatem dolere cogamur.

For the seed always precedes as a cause, nor is the cause ever generated from seed. But when they try to honor the emptiest fables or even the deeds of men with, as it were, natural interpretations, even the most acute men suffer such straits that we too are compelled to grieve over their vanity.

[XIX] "Saturnum, inquit, dixerunt, quae nata ex eo essent, solitum deuorare, quod eo semina, unde nascerentur, redirent. Et quod illi pro Ioue gleba obiecta est deuoranda, significat, inquit, manibus humanis obrui coeptas serendo fruges, antequam utilitas arandi esset inuenta." Saturnus ergo dici debuit ipsa terra, non semina; ipsa enim quodam modo deuorat quae genuerit, cum ex ea nata semina in eam rursus recipienda redierint. Et quod pro Ioue accepisse dicitur glebam, quid hoc ad id ualet, quod manibus hominum semen gleba coopertum est?

[19] "They said," he says, "that Saturn was accustomed to devour the things which had been born from him, because into him the seeds whence they would be born returned. And that for him, in place of Jove, a clod was thrown to be devoured signifies," he says, "that the crops, begun by sowing, were being covered over by human hands, before the utility of ploughing had been discovered." Therefore Saturn ought to have been said to be the earth itself, not the seeds; for she herself in a certain way devours what she has engendered, when the seeds born from her have returned into her to be received again. And as to the fact that a clod is said to have been received in place of Jove, what has this to do with the fact that the seed has been covered by a clod by human hands?

Numquid ideo non est, ut cetera, deuoratum, quod gleba coopertum est? Ita enim hoc dictum est, quasi qui glebam opposuit semen abstulerit, sicut Saturno perhibent oblata gleba ablatum Iouem, ac non potius gleba semen operiendo fecerit illud diligentius deuorari. Deinde isto modo semen est Iuppiter, non seminis causa, quod paulo ante dicebatur.

Is it therefore not, like the rest, devoured, because it has been covered by a clod? For this has been said as though the one who set the clod in the way had removed the seed, just as they relate that, with a clod offered to Saturn, Jupiter was taken away, and not rather that the clod, by covering the seed, made it be devoured more thoroughly. Then, on this showing, Jupiter is the seed, not the cause of the seed, which a little before was being said.

Sed quid faciant homines, qui, cum res stultas interpretantur, non inueniunt quid sapienter dicatur? "Falcem habet, inquit, propter agriculturam." Certe illo regnante nondum erat agricultura, et ideo priora eius tempora perhibentur, sicut idem ipse fabellas interpretatur, quia primi homines ex his uiuebant seminibus, quae terra sponte gignebat. An falcem sceptro perdito accepit, ut, qui primis temporibus rex fuerat otiosus, filio regnante fieret operarius laboriosus?

But what are men to do, who, when they interpret foolish things, do not find what might be said wisely? "He has a sickle," he says, "on account of agriculture." Certainly, while he was reigning, agriculture did not yet exist, and therefore his earlier times are said—just as that same man himself interprets the little fables—to have been such because the first men lived on those seeds which the earth generated of its own accord. Or did he receive the sickle, the scepter having been lost, so that he who in the first times had been an idle king, with his son reigning, might become a laborious workman?

Deinde ideo dicit a quibusdam pueros ei solitos immolari, sicut a Poenis, et a quibusdam etiam maiores, sicut a Gallis, quia omnium seminum optimum est genus humanum. De hac crudelissima uanitate quid opus est plura dicere? Hoc potius aduertamus atque teneamus, has interpretationes non referri ad Deum uerum, uiuam, incorpoream incommutabilemque naturam, a quo uita in aeternum beata poscenda est; sed earum esse fines in rebus corporalibus, temporalibus, mutabilibus atque mortalibus.

Then for that reason he says that by some boys were accustomed to be immolated to him, as by the Punic (Phoenicians/Carthaginians), and by some even elders, as by the Gauls, since of all seeds the human race is the best kind. About this most cruel vanity, what need is there to say more? Let us rather notice and hold fast this: that these interpretations are not referred to the true God, the living, incorporeal, and immutable nature, from whom blessed life unto eternity is to be sought; but that their ends lie in corporeal, temporal, mutable, and mortal things.

"Quod Caelum, inquit, patrem Saturnus castrasse in fabulis dicitur, hoc significat penes Saturnum, non penes Caelum semen esse diuinum." Hoc propterea, quantum intellegi datur, quia nihil in caelo de seminibus nascitur. Sed ecce, Saturnus si Caeli est filius, Iouis est filius. Caelum enim esse Iouem innumerabiliter et diligenter adfirmant.

"That Saturn, he says, is said in the fables to have castrated Caelum his father, this signifies that with Saturn, not with Caelum, there is the divine seed." This for the reason, so far as it is given to be understood, that nothing in heaven is born from seeds. But behold, if Saturn is the son of Caelum, he is the son of Jove. For they affirm, in countless ways and with diligence, that Caelum is Jove.

Ita ista, quae a ueritate non ueniunt, plerumque et nullo inpellente se ipsa subuertunt. Chronon appellatum dicit, quod Graeco uocabulo significat temporis spatium, sine quo semen, inquit, non potest esse fecundum. Haec et alia de Saturno multa dicuntur, et ad semen omnia referuntur.

Thus those things which do not come from truth, for the most part, even with no one impelling, subvert themselves. He says it is called Chronon, which in Greek vocabulary signifies a space of time, without which the seed (semen), he says, cannot be fecund. These and many other things are said about Saturn, and everything is referred to seed.

Sed saltem Saturnus seminibus cum tanta ista potestate sufficeret; quid ad haec dii alii requiruntur, maxime Liber et Libera, id est Ceres? De quibus rursus, quod ad semen adtinet, tanta dicit, quasi de Saturno nihil dixerit.

But at least let Saturn suffice for the seeds with all that great power; what other gods are required for these things, especially Liber and Libera, that is, Ceres? About whom in turn, as far as seed pertains, he says such great things, as if he had said nothing about Saturn.

[XX] In Cereris autem sacris praedicantur illa Eleusinia, quae apud Athenienses nobilissima fuerunt. De quibus iste nihil interpretatur, nisi quod adtinet ad frumentum, quod Ceres inuenit, et ad Proserpinam, quam rapiente Orco perdidit; et hanc ipsam dicit significare fecunditatem seminum; quae cum defuisset quodam tempore eademque sterilitate terra maereret, exortam esse opinionem, quod filiam Cereris, id est ipsam fecunditatem, quae a proserpendo Proserpina dicta esset, Orcus abstulerat et apud inferos detinuerat; quae res cum fuisset luctu publico celebrata, quia rursus eadem fecunditas rediit, Proserpina reddita exortam esse laetitiam et ex hoc sollemnia constituta. Dicit deinde multa in mysteriis eius tradi, quae nisi ad frugum inuentionem non pertineant.

[20] But in the sacred rites of Ceres those Eleusinian rites are proclaimed, which among the Athenians were most renowned. Of which this man interprets nothing, except what pertains to grain, which Ceres discovered, and to Proserpina, whom, as Orcus was abducting her, she lost; and he says that this very one signifies the fecundity of seeds; which, when at a certain time it had been lacking and the earth mourned with the same sterility, there arose the opinion that the daughter of Ceres, that is, fecundity itself, which from “proserpere” (to creep forth) had been called Proserpina, Orcus had carried off and was detaining in the underworld; which matter, when it had been observed with public mourning, because the same fecundity returned—Proserpina being restored—there arose joy, and from this solemnities were established. He then says that many things are handed down in her mysteries, which pertain to nothing unless to the invention of crops.

[XXI] Iam uero Liberi sacra, quem liquidis seminibus ac per hoc non solum liquoribus fructuum, quorum quodam modo primatum uinum tenet, uerum etiam seminibus animalium praefecerunt, ad quantam turpitudinem peruenerint, piget quidem dicere propter sermonis longitudinem; sed propter istorum superbam hebetudinem non piget. Inter cetera, qua e praetermittere, quoniam multa sunt, cogor, in Italiae compitis quaedam dicit sacra Liberi celebrata cum tanta licentia turpitudinis, ut in eius honorem pudenda uirilia colerentur, non saltem aliquantum uerecundiore secreto, sed in propatulo exultante nequitia. Nam hoc turpe membrum per Liberi dies festos cum honore magno plostellis inpositum prius rure in compitis et usque in urbem postea uectabatur.

[XXI] Now indeed the rites of Liber, whom they have set over liquid seeds and through this not only over the liquids of fruits, of which in a certain manner wine holds the primacy, but also over the seeds of animals, to what turpitude they have come, I am indeed loath to say on account of the length of the discourse; but on account of their proud dullness I am not loath. Among other things, which I am compelled to pass over, since they are many, he says that at the cross-roads of Italy certain rites of Liber were celebrated with such license of turpitude, that in his honor shameful virile parts were worshiped, not at least in a somewhat more modest secrecy, but openly, with wantonness exulting. For this shameful member during the festival days of Liber, set with great honor upon little wagons, was carried first in the countryside at the cross-roads, and afterwards even all the way into the city.

In oppido autem Lauinio unus Libero totus mensis tribuebatur, cuius diebus omnes uerbis flagitiosissimis uterentur, donec illud membrum per forum transuectum esset atque in loco suo quiesceret. Cui membro inhonesto matrem familias honestissimam palam coronam necesse erat inponere. Sic uidelicet Liber deus placandus fuerat pro euentibus seminum, sic ab agris fascinatio repellenda, ut matrona facere cogeretur in publico, quod nec meretrix, si matronae spectarent, permitti debuit in theatro.

But in the town of Lavinium one whole month was assigned to Liber, during whose days all employed the most flagitious words, until that member had been carried through the forum and had come to rest in its place. Upon this dishonorable member it was necessary for the most honorable mother of a household to place a garland openly. Thus, forsooth, the god Liber had to be placated for the outcomes of seeds, thus the bewitchment was to be driven back from the fields, with the result that a matron was compelled to do in public what not even a prostitute, if matrons were looking on, ought to have been permitted in the theater.

Propter haec Saturnus solus creditus non est sufficere posse seminibus, ut occasiones multiplicandorum deorum inmunda anima reperiret, et ab uno uero Deo merito inmunditiae destituta ac per multos falsos auiditate maioris inmunditiae prostituta ista sacrilegia sacra nominaret seseque spurcorum daemonum turbis conuiolandam polluendamque praeberet.

Because of these things Saturn alone was believed not to be able to suffice for the seeds, so that an unclean soul might find occasions for multiplying the gods, and, deservedly forsaken by the one true God on account of uncleanness, and prostituted through many false ones by a greed for greater uncleanness, would call these sacrileges “sacred rites” and would offer herself to be defiled-by-trampling and polluted by the throngs of filthy demons.

[XXII] Iam utique habebat S alaciam Neptunus uxorem, quam, inferiorem aquam maris esse dixerunt: ut quid illi adiuncta est et Venilia, nisi ut sine ulla causa necessariorum sacrorum sola libidine animae prostitutae multiplicaretur inuitatio daemoniorum? Sed proferatur interpretatio praeclarae theologiae, quae nos ab ista reprehensione reddita ratione compescat. "Venilia, inquit, unda est, quae ad litus uenit; Salacia, quae in salum redit." Cur ergo deae fiunt duae, cum sit una unda quae uenit et redit?

[22] By now, to be sure, Neptune had Salacia as his wife, whom they said to be the lower water of the sea: to what end is Venilia also joined to him, unless that, without any cause of necessary sacred rites, by the mere libido of a prostituted soul the invitation of daemons might be multiplied? But let the interpretation of illustrious theology be brought forward, which may restrain us from that reprehension by a reason rendered. "Venilia," he says, "is the wave which comes to the shore; Salacia, which returns into the open sea." Why therefore are two goddesses made, since there is one wave which comes and returns?

Nempe ipsa est exaestuans in multa numina libido uesana. Quamuis enim a qua non geminetur quae it et redit, huius tamen occasione uanitatis duobus daemoniis inuitatis amplius commaculatur anima, quae it et non redit. Quaeso te, Varro, uel uos, qui tam doctorum hominum talia scripta legistis et aliquid magnum uos didicisse iactatis, interpretamini hoc, nolo dicere secundum illam aeternam incommutabilemque naturam, qui solus est Deus, sed saltem secundum animam mundi et partes eius, quos deos esse ueros existimatis.

Surely it is that very mad libido, seething into many numina. For although by it there is not made a doubling of that which goes and returns, yet on this occasion of vanity, with two daemons invited, the soul—which goes and does not return—is further befouled. I beg you, Varro, or you all who have read such writings of so learned men and boast that you have learned something great, interpret this, I will not say according to that eternal and incommutable nature, who alone is God, but at least according to the soul of the world and its parts, whom you deem to be true gods.

Partem animae mundi, quae mare permeat, deum uobis fecisse Neptunum utcumque tolerabilioris erroris est. Itane unda ad litus ueniens et in salum rediens duae sunt partes mundi aut duae partes animae mundi? Quis uestrum ita desipiat , ut hoc sapiat?

To have made Neptune for you the god as the part of the soul of the world which permeates the sea is an error in some measure more tolerable. So then, is the wave coming to the shore and returning into the deep two parts of the world, or two parts of the soul of the world? Who among you is so foolish as to deem this wisdom?

Cur ergo uobis duas deas fecerunt, nisi quia prouisum est a sapientibus maioribus uestris, non ut dii plures uos regerent, sed ut ea, quae istis uanitatibus et falsitatibus gaudent, plura uos daemonia possiderent? Cur autem illa Salacia per hanc interpretationem inferiorem maris partem, qua uiro erat subdita, perdidit? Namque illam modo, cum refluentem fluctum esse perhibetis, in superficie posuistis.

Why therefore did they make for you two goddesses, unless because it was provided by your wiser ancestors, not that more gods might rule you, but that more daemons, who rejoice in those vanities and falsities, might possess you? But why, moreover, did that Salacia, through this interpretation, lose the lower part of the sea, by which she was subject to her husband? For just now, when you assert that she is the ebbing wave, you have placed her on the surface.

An quia Veniliam pelicem accepit, irata suum maritum de supernis maris exclusit?

Or because he accepted Venilia as a concubine, did she, irate, exclude her own husband from the supernal parts of the sea?

[XXIII] Nempe una est terra, quam plenam quidem Didanus malibus suis, uerum tamen ipsam magnum corpus in elementis mundique infimam partem. Cur eam uolunt deam? An quia fecunda est?

[23] Surely there is one earth, which indeed they say is full of its own evils, yet nevertheless it itself is a great body among the elements and the lowest part of the world. Why do they wish it to be a goddess? Or because it is fecund?

Cur ergo non magis homines dii sunt, qui eam fecundiorem faciunt excolendo; sed cum arant, non cum adorant? Sed pars animae mundi, inquiunt, quae per illam permeat, deam facit. Quasi non euidentior sit in hominibus anima, quae utrum sit nulla fit quaestio; et tamen homines dii non habentur et, quod est grauiter dolendum, his, qui dii non sunt et quibus ipsi meliores sunt, colendis et adorandis mirabili et miserabili errore subduntur.

Why then are men not rather gods, who make it more fecund by cultivating it—when they plow, not when they adore? But, they say, the part of the soul of the world which permeates through it makes it a goddess. As if the soul were not more evident in human beings—about which whether it exists there is no question; and yet men are not accounted gods and, what is grievously to be lamented, by a wondrous and wretched error they are subjected to the worshiping and adoring of those who are not gods and than whom they themselves are better.

Et certe idem Varro in eodem de diis selectis libro tres esse adfirmat animae gradus in omni uniuersaque natura; unum, quod omnes partes corporis, quae uiuunt, transit et non habet sensum, sed tantum ad uiuendum ualetudinem; hanc uim in nostro corpore permanare dicit in ossa, ungues, capillos; sicut in mundo arbores sine sensu aluntur et crescunt et modo quodam suo uiuunt: secundum gradum animae, in quo sensus est; hanc uim peruenire in oculos, aures, nares, os, tactum: tertium gradum esse animae summum, quod uocatur animus, in quo intellegentia praeminet; hoc praeter hominem omnes carere mortales. Hanc partem animae mundi dicit Deum, in nobis autem genium uocari. Esse autem in mundo lapides ac terram, quam uidemus, quo non permanat sensus, ut ossa, ut ungues Dei; solem uero, lunam, stellas, quae sentimus quibusque ipse sentit, sensus esse eius; aethera porro animum eius; cuius uim, quae peruenit in astra, ea quoque facere deos, et per ea quod in terram permanat, deam Tellurem; quod autem inde permanat in mare atque oceanum, deum esse Neptunum.

And certainly the same Varro, in that same book On the Select Gods, affirms that there are three grades of soul in all and the universal nature: one, which passes through all the parts of a body that live and does not have sense, but only a vitality for living; he says this force in our body permeates into the bones, nails, hairs; just as in the world trees without sense are nourished and grow and in a certain manner of their own live: the second grade of soul, in which there is sense; this force arrives at the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, touch: the third grade of the soul, the highest, which is called mind, in which intelligence is preeminent; all mortals, except man, lack this. He says this part of the soul of the world is God, but in us it is called a genius. Moreover, in the world there are stones and earth, which we see, where sense does not permeate, like the bones, like the nails of God; but the sun, moon, stars, which we perceive and by which he himself perceives, are its senses; the ether, furthermore, is his mind; whose force, which reaches into the stars, makes those also gods, and through them that which permeates into the earth makes the goddess Tellus; but that which from there permeates into the sea and the ocean is the god Neptune.

Redeat ergo ab hac, quam theologian naturalem putat, quo uelut requiescendi causa ab his ambagibus atque anfractibus fatigatus egressus est; redeat, inquam, redeat ad ciuilem; hic eum adhuc teneo, tantisper de hac ago. Nondum dico, si terra et lapides nostris sunt ossibus et unguibus similes, similiter eos intellegentiam non habere, sicut sensu carent; aut si idcirco habere dicuntur ossa et ungues nostri intellegentiam, quia in homine sunt qui habet intellegentiam, tam stultum esse qui hos in mundo deos dicit, quam stultus est qui in nobis ossa et ungues homines dicit. Sed haec cum philosophis fortassis agenda sunt; nunc autem istum adhuc politicum uolo.

Let him, then, return from this which he deems natural theology, to which, as though for the sake of resting, wearied by these ambages and anfractuosities, he withdrew; let him return, I say, let him return to the civil; here I still hold him, for the present I deal with this. I do not yet say that, if earth and stones are like to our bones and nails, they likewise do not have intelligence, just as they lack sense; or, if for that reason our bones and nails are said to have intelligence, because they are in a human being who has intelligence, that he who calls these in the world gods is as foolish as he who calls the bones and nails in us men. But these matters perhaps are to be handled with philosophers; now, however, I want him still political.

Fieri enim potest, ut, licet in illam naturalis theologiae ueluti libertatem caput erigere paululum uoluisse uideatur, adhuc tamen hunc librum uersans et se in illo uersari cogitans, eum etiam inde respexerit et hoc propterea dixerit, ne maiores eius siue aliae ciuitates Tellurem atque Neptunum inaniter coluisse credantur. Sed hoc dico: pars animi mundani, quae per terram permeat, sicut una est terra, cur non etiam unam fecit deam, quam dicit esse Tellurem? Quod si ita fecit, ubi erit Orcus, frater Iouis atque Neptuni, quem uitem patrem uocant?

For it can be, that although he may seem to have wished to lift his head a little into that sort of liberty of natural theology, yet, still turning this book and thinking himself to be engaged upon it, he even looked back from there and said this for this reason: lest his ancestors or other cities be thought to have worshiped Tellus and Neptune vainly. But this I say: the part of the world-soul which permeates through the earth—since the earth is one—why did it not also make one goddess, whom he says is Tellus? But if he made it so, where will Orcus be, the brother of Jove and Neptune, whom they call Dis the Father?

ubi eius coniux Proserpina, quae secundum aliam in eisdem libris positam opinionem non terrae fecunditas, sed pars inferior perhibetur? Quod si dicunt animi mundani partem, cum permeat terrae partem superiorem, uitem patrem facere deum; cum uero inferiorem, Proserpinam deam: Tellus illa quid erit? Ita enim totum, quod ipsa erat, in duas istas partes deosque diuisum est, ut ipsa tertia quae sit aut ubi sit inuenire non possit; nisi quis dicat simul istos deos Orcum atque Proserpinam unam deam esse Tellurem et non esse iam tres, sed aut unam aut duos; et tamen tres dicuntur, tres habentur, tres coluntur aris suis, delubris suis, sacris, simulacris, sacerdotibus suis, et per haec etiam fallacibus prostitutam animam constuprantibus daemonibus suis.

where is his spouse Proserpina, who, according to another opinion set forth in these same books, is held to be not the fertility of the earth, but the lower part? But if they say that a part of the world-soul, when it permeates the upper part of the earth, makes Dis Pater a god; but when the lower part, makes Proserpina a goddess: what then will that Tellus be? For thus the whole, which she herself was, has been divided into those two parts and gods, so that she herself as the third cannot be found, what she is or where she is; unless someone should say that these gods together, Orcus and Proserpina, are one goddess, Tellus, and that they are no longer three, but either one or two; and yet they are called three, are held as three, are worshiped with their own altars, their own delubra, sacra, simulacra, their own priests, and through these also by their deceitful daemons, who violate the prostituted soul.

Adhuc respondeatur, quam partem terrae permeet pars mundani animi, ut deum faciat Tellumonem? Non, inquit, sed una eademque terra habet geminam uim, et masculinam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat atque nutriat; inde a ui feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem. Cur ergo pontifices, ut ipse indicat, additis quoque aliis duobus quattuor diis faciunt rem diuinam, Telluri, Tellumoni, Altori, Rusori?

Let it still be answered: what part of the earth does the part of the world‑soul permeate, so as to make the god Tellumon? “Not so,” he says, “but one and the same earth has a twin force, both masculine, in that it brings forth seeds, and feminine, in that it receives and nourishes; whence from the force of the female it is called Tellus, from that of the male, Tellumon.” Why therefore do the pontiffs, as he himself indicates, with two others also added, perform the divine rite to four gods—to Tellus, to Tellumon, to Altor, to Rusor?

De Tellure et Tellumone iam dictum est. Altori quare? Quod ex terra, inquit, aluntur omnia quae nata sunt.

About Tellus and Tellumo it has already been said. Why to Altor? Because, he says, from the earth all things that have been born are nourished.

Rusori quare? Quod rursus, inquit, cuncta eodem reuoluuntur.

Why to Rusor? Because, he says, all things revolve back again to the same.

[XXIV] Debuit ergo una terra propter istam quatergeininam uim quattuor habere cognomina, non quattuor facere deos; sicut tot cognominibus unus Iuppiter et tot cognominibus una Iuno, in quibus omnibus uis multiplex esse dicitur ad unum deum uel unam deam pertinens, non multitudo cognominum deorum etiam multitudinem faciens. Sed profecto sicut aliquando etiam ipsas uilissimas feminas earum, quas libidine quaesierunt, taedet paenitetque turbarum: sic animam uilem factam et inmundis spiritibus prostitutam deos sibi multiplicare, quibus contaminanda prosterneretur, sicut plurimum libuit, sic aliquando et piguit. Nam et ipse Varro quasi de ipsa turba uerecundatus unam deam uult esse Tellurem.

[24] Therefore one earth, on account of that fourfold power, ought to have four cognomina, not to make four gods; just as with so many cognomina there is one Jupiter and with so many cognomina one Juno, in all of which a manifold power is said to be, pertaining to one god or one goddess, not the multitude of the cognomina of gods also making a multitude. But assuredly, just as sometimes even the most worthless women grow weary of and repent the crowds of those whom they have sought by lust, so the soul, made worthless and prostituted to unclean spirits, to multiply gods for itself before whom it might be prostrated to be contaminated, just as for the most part it has pleased, so at times it has also wearied. For even Varro himself, as if ashamed of that very crowd, wants there to be one goddess, Tellus.

"Eandem, inquit, dicunt Matrem Magnam; quod tympanum habeat, significari esse orbem terrae; quod turres in capite, oppida; quod sedens fingatur, circa eam cum omnia moueantur, ipsam non moueri. Quod Gallos huic deae ut seruirent fecerunt, significat, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; in ea quippe omnia reperiri. Quod se apud eam iactant, praecipitur, inquit, qui terram colunt, ne sedeant; semper enim esse quod agant.

"The same one," he says, "they call the Great Mother; that she has a tympanum signifies that it is the orb of the earth; that the towers on her head signify the towns; that she is fashioned as sitting, while all things around her are moved, she herself is not moved. That they made the Galli serve this goddess signifies that those who are in need of seed ought to follow the earth; for in it, indeed, all things are found. That they toss themselves about in her presence—there is prescribed," he says, "for those who cultivate the earth, that they are not to sit; for there is always something for them to do."

Cymbalorum sonitus ferramentorum iactandorum ac manuum et +eius rei crepitum in colendo agro qui fit significant; ideo aere, quod eam antiqui colebant aere, antequam ferrum esset inuentum. Leonem, inquit, adiungunt solutum ac mansuetum, ut ostendant nullum genus esse terrae tam remotum ac uehementer ferum, quod non subigi colique conueniat." Deinde adiungit et dicit, Tellurem matrem et nominibus pluribus et cognominibus quod nominarunt, deos existimatos esse complures. "Tellurem, inquit, putant esse Opem, quod opere fiat melior; Matrem, quo d plurima pariat; Magnam, quod cibum pariat; Proserpinam, quod ex ea proserpant fruges; Vestam, quod uestiatur herbis.

The sound of cymbals signifies the clamor of tools being brandished and of hands, and the rattle of that activity which arises in cultivating the field; therefore with bronze, because the ancients tilled it with bronze, before iron had been invented. “They add,” he says, “a lion unbound and tame, to show that there is no kind of land so remote and violently wild that it does not suit to be subdued and cultivated.” Then he adds and says that Earth the Mother, because they named her by more names and cognomina, has been reckoned as several gods. “They think,” he says, “that Tellus is Ops, because by work she becomes better; Mother, because she bears very many; Great, because she brings forth food; Proserpina, because from her the crops creep forth; Vesta, because she is clothed with herbs.”

Sic alias deas, inquit, non absurde ad hanc reuocant." Si ergo una dea est, quae quidem consulta ueritate nec ipsa est, interim quid itur in multas? Vnius sint ista multa numina, non tam deae multae quam nomina. Sed errantium maiorum auctoritas deprimit et eundem Varronem post hanc sententiam trepidare compellit.

"Thus, he says, they do not absurdly refer the other goddesses back to this one." If therefore there is one goddess—who indeed, when truth is consulted, is not even herself—why meanwhile does one resort to many? Let these many numina be of one, not so much many goddesses as names. But the authority of erring ancestors bears down and compels that same Varro, after this sentence, to tremble.

Adiungit enim et dicit: "Cum quibus opinio maiorum de his deabus, quod plures eas putarunt esse, non pugnat." Quo modo non pugnat, cum ualde aliud sit unam deam nomina habere multa, aliud esse deas multas? "Sed potest, inquit, fieri ut eadem res et una sit, et in ea quaedam res sint plures." Concedo in uno homine esse res plures, numquid ideo et homines plures? Sic in una dea esse res plures, numquid ideo et deas plures?

For he adds and says: "With which the opinion of the ancestors about these goddesses, that they thought them to be many, does not conflict." How does it not conflict, since it is very different for one goddess to have many names and for there to be many goddesses? "But it can, he says, come to pass that the same thing both is one, and that in it certain things are several." I concede that in one man there are many things—does it therefore follow that there are many men? So in one goddess there are many things—does it therefore follow that there are many goddesses?

Verum sicut uolunt, diuidant conflent, multiplicent replicent inplicent.

But as they wish, let them divide, conflate, multiply, replicate, implicate.

Haec sunt Telluris et Matris Magnae praeclara mysteria, unde omnia referuntur ad mortalia semina et exercendam agriculturam. Itane ad haec relata et hunc finem habentia tympanum, turres, Galli, iactatio insana membrorum, crepitus cymbalorum, confictio leonum uitam cuiquam pollicentur aeternam? Itane propterea Galli abscisi huic Magnae deae seruiunt, ut significent, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; quasi non eos ipsa potius seruitus semine faciat indigere?

These are the renowned mysteries of Earth and of the Great Mother, whence all things are referred to mortal seeds and to the exercise of agriculture. Is it so that, referred to these and having this end, the tympanum, towers, the Galli, the insane flinging of limbs, the clatter of cymbals, the fabrication of lions, promise to anyone eternal life? Is it so for this reason that the Galli, castrated, serve this Great goddess, to signify that those who are in need of seed ought to follow the earth; as if that very servitude did not rather make them be in need of seed?

Vtrum enim sequendo hanc deam, cum indigeant, semen adquirunt, an potius sequendo hanc deam, cum habeant, semen amittunt? Hoc interpretari est an detestari? Nec adtenditur, quantum maligni daemones praeualuerint, qui nec aliqua magna his sacris polliceri ausi sunt, et tam crudeli a exigere potuerunt.

For is it by following this goddess that, when they are in need, they acquire seed, or rather by following this goddess that, when they have it, they lose seed? Is this to interpret or to detest? Nor is it considered how greatly the malignant demons have prevailed, who did not dare to promise anything great by these sacred rites, and yet were able to exact such cruel demands.

Si dea terra non esset, manus ei homines operando inferrent, ut semina consequerentur per illam, non et sibi saeuiendo, ut semina perderent propter illam; si dea non esset, ita fecunda fieret manibus alienis, ut non cogeret hominem sterilem fieri manibus suis. Iam quod in Liberi sacris honesta matrona pudenda uirilia coronabat spectante multitudine, ubi rubens et sudans, si est ulla frons in hominibus, adstabat forsitan et maritus; et quod in celebratione nuptiarum super Priapi scapum noua nupta sedere iubebatur: longe contemptibiliora atque leuiora sunt prae ista turpitudine crudelissima uel crudelitate turpissima, ubi daemonicis ritibus sic uterque sexus inluditur, ut neuter suo uulnere perimatur. Ibi fascinatio timetur agrorum, hic membrorum amputatio non timetur.

If the earth were not a goddess, men would lay hands upon her by working, in order to obtain seed through her, and would not also, by raging against themselves, lose seed on account of her; if she were not a goddess, she would become so fecund by others’ hands as not to compel a human to become sterile by his own hands. Now, that in the rites of Liber an honorable matron was crowning the virile pudenda with a wreath with the multitude looking on—where, blushing and sweating, if there is any shame in human beings, perhaps even the husband was standing by—and that in the celebration of nuptials the new bride was ordered to sit upon Priapus’s shaft: these are far more contemptible and lighter in comparison with that most disgraceful turpitude or most shameful cruelty, where by daemonic rites both sexes are thus mocked that neither is slain by his or her own wound. There the bewitchment of fields is feared; here the amputation of members is not feared.

Ibi sic dehonestatur nouae nuptae uerecundia, ut non solum fecunditas, sed nec uirginitas adimatur; hic ita amputatur uirilitas, ut nec conuertatur in feminam nec uir relinquatur.

There the modesty of the new bride is thus dishonored, such that neither fecundity nor even virginity is taken away; here virility is so amputated that it is neither converted into a woman nor is a man left.

[XXV] Et Attis ille non est cornmemoratus nec eius ab isto interpretatio requisita est, in cuius dilectionis memoriam Gallus absciditur. Sed docti Graeci atque sapientes nequaquam rationem tam sanctam praeclaramque tacuerunt. Propter uernalem quippe faciem terrae, quae ceteris est temporibus pulchrior, Porphyrius, philosophus nobilis, Attin flores significare perhibuit, et ideo abscisum, quia flos decidit ante fructum.

[25] And that Attis has not been commemorated, nor has an interpretation of him been sought by this man, in whose love’s memory a Gallus is cut off. But learned Greeks and wise men by no means kept silent about so sacred and illustrious a rationale. On account, indeed, of the vernal face of the earth, which is more beautiful than at other times, Porphyry, a noble philosopher, maintained that Attis signifies flowers, and that therefore he is cut off, because the flower falls before the fruit.

Non ergo ipsum hominem uel quasi hominem, qui est uocatus Attis, sed uirilia eius flori comparauerunt. Ipsa quippe illo uiuente deciderunt; immo uero non deciderunt neque decerpta, sed plane discerpta sunt; nec illo flore amisso quisquam postea fructus, sed potius sterilitas consecuta est. Quid ergo ipse reliquus, et quidquid remansit absciso?

Therefore they did not compare the man himself, or the quasi-man, who is called Attis, but his virile parts to a flower. For these very parts, while he was alive, fell away; nay rather, they did not fall off nor were they plucked, but plainly were torn asunder; and with that flower lost, thereafter there followed no fruit, but rather sterility ensued. What then is he himself, left over, and whatever remained with it cut off?

quid eo significari dicitur? qua refertur? quae interpretatio inde profertur?

what is said to be signified by that? to what is it referred? what interpretation is brought forth from it?

An haec frustra moliendo nihilque inueniendo persuadent illud potius esse credendum, quod de homine castrato fama iactauit litterisque mandatum est? Merito hinc auersatus est Varro noster, neque hoc dicere uoluit; non enim hominem doctissimum latuit.

Or do these, by toiling in vain and by finding nothing, persuade that rather that is to be believed which fame has bandied about concerning a castrated man and has been committed to letters? With good reason our Varro turned away from this, nor was he willing to say it; for such a thing did not escape the notice of a most learned man.

[XXVI] Itemque de mollibus eidem Matri Magnae contra omnem uirorum mulierumque uerecundiam consecratis, qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis facie dealbata, fluentibus membris incessu femineo per plateas uicosque Carthaginis etiam a propolis unde turpiter uiuerent exigebant, nihil Varro dicere uoluit nec uspiam me legisse commemini. Defecit interpretatio, erubuit ratio, conticuit oratio. Vicit Matris Magnae omnes deos filios non numinis magnitudo, sed criminis.

[26] Likewise, about the “soft” ones consecrated to that same Great Mother against all modesty of men and women, who even up to yesterday, with dripping hair, face whitened, limbs languid, with a feminine gait, through the streets and lanes of Carthage were even exacting from the shopkeepers the means by which they might live shamefully, Varro wished to say nothing, nor do I remember to have read it anywhere. Interpretation failed, reason blushed, oration fell silent. What conquered all the gods, the sons of the Great Mother, was not the greatness of her numen, but of her crime.

Huic monstro nec Iani monstrositas comparatur. Ille in simulacris habebat solam deformitatem, ista in sacris deformem crudelitatem; ille membra in lapidibus addita, haec in hominibus perdita. Hoc dedecus tot Iouis ipsius et tanta stupra non uincunt.

To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus is comparable. He in simulacra had mere deformity; this one in sacred rites had deformed cruelty. He had limbs added in stones; she had limbs lost in human beings. This disgrace so many and so great debaucheries of Jupiter himself do not overcome.

Ille inter femineas corruptelas uno Ganymede caelum infamauit; ista tot mollibus professis et publicis et inquinauit terram et caelo fecit iniuriam. Saturnum fortasse possemus huic in isto genere turpissimae crudelitatis siue conferre siue praeferre, qui patrem castrasse perhibetur; sed in Saturni sacris homines alienis manibus potius occidi quam suis abscidi potuerunt. Deuorauit ille filios, ut poetae ferunt, et physici ex hoc interpretantur quod uolunt; ut autem historia prodit, necauit; sed quod ei Poeni suos filios sacrificati sunt, non recepere Romani.

He among feminine corruptions with one Ganymede made heaven infamous; she, with so many effeminates, professed and public, both polluted the earth and did an injury to heaven. We could perhaps either compare or prefer Saturn to her in this kind of most shameful cruelty, who is reported to have castrated his father; but in the rites of Saturn men could rather be slain by others’ hands than have their own [members] cut off. He devoured his sons, as the poets report, and the natural philosophers from this interpret what they will; but, as history puts forth, he killed them; yet that to him the Phoenicians sacrificed their own sons, the Romans did not receive.

At uero ista Magna deorum Mater etiam Romanis templis castratos intulit atque istam saeuitiam moremque seruauit, credita uires adiuuare Romanorum exsecando uirilia uirorum. Quid sunt ad hoc malum furta Mercurii, Veneris lasciuia, stupra ac turpitudines ceterorum, quae proferremus de libris, nisi cotidie cantarentur et saltarentur in theatris? Sed haec quid sunt ad tantum malum, cuius magnitudo Magnae Matri tantummodo competebat?

But indeed that Great Mother of the gods even brought castrates into the Roman temples and preserved that savagery and custom, being believed to aid the strength of the Romans by cutting off the virilia of men. What are, in comparison to this evil, the thefts of Mercury, the lasciviousness of Venus, the rapes and turpitudes of the others, which we would bring forth from the books, were they not daily sung and danced in the theaters? But what are these to so great an evil, whose magnitude befitted the Great Mother alone?

Praesertim quod illa dicuntur a poetis esse conficta, quasi poetae id etiam finxerint, quod ea sint diis grata et accepta. Vt ergo canerentur uel scriberentur, sit audacia uel petulantia poetarum; ut uero diuinis rebus et honoribus eisdem imperantibus et extorquentihus numinibus adderentur, quid est nisi crimen deorum, immo uero confessio daemoniorum et deceptio miserorum? Verum illud, quod de abscisorum consecratione Mater deum coli meruit, non poetae confinxerunt, sed horrere magis quam canere maluerunt.

Especially since those things are said by the poets to have been confected, as if the poets even fabricated this too, that they are pleasing and acceptable to the gods. Therefore, that they should be sung or written, let it be the audacity or petulance of the poets; but that they were added to divine rites and honors, the same numina commanding and extorting, what is it if not a crime of the gods—nay rather a confession of demons and a deception of the wretched? But that matter, that by the consecration of the castrated the Mother of the gods merited to be worshiped, the poets did not contrive, but preferred to shudder rather than to sing.

Hisne diis selectis quisquam consecrandus est, ut post mortem uiuat beate, quibus consecratus ante mortem honeste non potest uiuere, tam foedis superstitionibus subditus et inmundis daemonibus obligatus? Sed haec omnia, inquit, referuntur ad mundum. Videat ne potius ad inmundum.

Is anyone to be consecrated to these selected gods, so that after death he may live blessedly, when, consecrated to them, before death he cannot live honorably, being subject to such foul superstitions and bound to unclean demons? But, he says, all these things are referred to the world. Let him see whether rather to the unclean.

Quid autem non potest referri ad mundum, quod esse demonstratur in mundo? Nos autem animum quaerimus, qui uera religione confisus non tamquam deum suum adoret mundum, sed tamquam opus Dei propter Deum laudet mundum, et mundanis sordibus expiatus mundus perueniat ad Deum, qui condidit mundum.

But what, moreover, can not be referred to the world, which is shown to exist in the world? We, however, seek the mind, which, trusting in true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but praises the world as the work of God for the sake of God, and, purged from worldly filths, clean, may come to God, who created the world.

[XXVII] Istos uero deos selectos uidemus quidem clarius innotuisse¡ quam ceteros, non tamen ut eorum inlustrarentur merita, sed ne occultarentur opprobria; unde magis eos homines fuisse credibile est, sicut non solum poeticae litterae, uerum etiam historicae tradiderunt. Nam quod Vergilius ait: Primus ab aetherio uenit Saturnus Olympo, Arma Iouis fugiens et regnis exul ademptis, et quae ad hanc rem pertinentia consequuntur, totam de hoc Euhemerus pandit historiam, quam Ennius in Latinum uertit eloquium; unde quia plurima posuerunt, qui contra huius modi errores ante nos uel Graeco sermone uel Latino scripserunt, non in eo mihi placuit inmorari.

[27] We do indeed see that these so‑called selected gods became more clearly known than the others, yet not so that their merits might be illuminated, but lest their disgraces be concealed; whence it is more credible that they were men, as not only the poetic writings but also the historical have handed down. For as to what Vergil says: "First from ethereal Olympus came Saturn, fleeing the arms of Jove and an exile from kingdoms taken away," and the things that follow pertinent to this matter—Euhemerus unfolds the whole history about this, which Ennius translated into Latin diction; and since very many have been set down by those who before us wrote against errors of this kind, whether in the Greek tongue or in Latin, it has not pleased me to dwell on it.

XXVII. Ipsas physiologias cum considero, quibus docti et acuti homines has res humanas conantur uertere in res diuinas, nihil uideo nisi ad temporalia terrenaque opera naturamque corpoream uel etiamsi inuisibilem, tamen mutabilem potuisse reuocari; quod nullo modo est uerus Deus. Hoc autem si saltem religiositati congruis significationibus ageretur, esset quidem dolendum non his uerum Deum adnuntiari atque praedicari, tamen aliquo modo ferendum tam foeda et turpia non fieri nec iuberi; at nunc cum pro Deo uero, quo solo anima se inhabitante fit felix, nefas sit colere aut corpus aut animam, quanto magis nefarium est ista sic colere, ut nec salutem nec decus humanum corpus aut anima colentis obtineat!

27. When I consider the very physiologies by which learned and acute men try to turn these human things into divine things, I see nothing except that they can be referred back to temporal and earthly works and to a corporeal nature—or, even if invisible, yet mutable—which in no way is the true God. But if this were at least conducted with significations congruent to religiosity, it would indeed be a matter for grief that by these the true God is not announced and proclaimed; nevertheless it would somehow be tolerable, in that such foul and base things would neither be done nor commanded. But as it is—since, in place of the true God, by whose indwelling alone the soul is made happy, it is impious to worship either body or soul—how much more nefarious is it to worship these things in such a way that neither salvation nor human decency is obtained by the body or the soul of the worshiper!

Quam ob rem si templo sacerdote sacrificio, quod uero Deo debetur, colatur aliquod elementum mundi uel creatus aliquis spiritus, etiamsi non inmundus et malus: non ideo malum est, quia illa mala sunt, quibus colitur, sed quia illa talia sunt, quibus solus ille colendus sit, cui talis cultus seruitusque debetur. Si autem stoliditate uel monstrositate simulacrorum, sacrificiis homicidiorum, coronatione uirilium pudendorum, mercede stuprorum, sectione membrorum, abscisione genitalium, consecratione mollium, festis inpurorum obscenorumque ludorum unum uerum Deum, id est omnis animae corporisque creatorem, colere se quisque contendat: non ideo peccat, quia non est colendus quem colit, sed quia colendum non ut colendus est colit. Qui uero et rebus talibus, id est turpibus et scelestis, et non Deum uerum, id est animae corporisque factorem, sed creaturam quamuis non uitiosam colit, siue illa sit anima siue corpus siue anima simul et corpus, bis peccat in Deum, quod et pro ipso colit, quod non est ipse, et talibus rebus colit, qualibus nec ipse colendus est nec non ipse.

Wherefore, if with temple, priest, and sacrifice—which is owed to the true God—some element of the world or some created spirit be worshiped, even if not unclean and evil: it is not for that reason evil because those things are evil with which it is worshiped, but because those are such things with which He alone ought to be worshiped, to whom such cult and servitude are owed. But if, by the stolidness or monstrosity of simulacra, by sacrifices of homicides, by the coronation of male pudenda, by the fee of debaucheries, by the cutting of limbs, by the excision of genitals, by the consecration of the effeminate, by festivals of impure and obscene games, anyone should contend that he worships the one true God—that is, the creator of every soul and body—he does not therefore sin because the one whom he worships is not to be worshiped, but because the One to be worshiped he worships not as He ought to be worshiped. But he who both with such things, that is, base and criminal, and not the true God, that is, the maker of soul and body, but a creature, although not vicious—whether it be soul or body or soul and body together—he worships, sins twice against God, in that both in place of Him he worships what is not Himself, and with such things he worships, with which neither He Himself is to be worshiped nor the not-Him.

Sed hi quonam modo, id est quam turpiter nefarieque, coluerint, in promptu est; quid autem uel quos coluerint, esset obscurum, nisi eorum testaretur historia ea ipsa, quae foeda et turpia confitentur, numinibus terribiliter exigentibus reddita; unde remotis constat ambagibus nefarios daemones atque inmundissimos spiritus hac omni ciuili theologia inuisendis stolidis imaginibus et per eas possidendis etiam stultis cordibus inuitatos.

But in what way, that is, how shamefully and nefariously, they have worshiped is manifest; but what or whom they have worshiped would be obscure, unless their history bore witness—those very things which they confess to be foul and base having been rendered at the terrifying demands of the divinities; whence, with circumlocutions removed, it is clear that nefarious demons and most unclean spirits have by this whole civil theology been invited with odious stolid images, and through them even to possess foolish hearts.

[XXVIII] Quid igitur ualet, quod uir doctissimus et acutissimus Varro uelut subtili disputatione hos omnes deos in caelum et terram redigere ac referre conatur? Non potest; fluunt de manibus, resiliunt, labuntur et decidunt. Dicturus enim de feminis, hoc est deabus: "Quoniam, inquit, ut primo libro dixi de locis, duo sunt principia deorum animaduersa de caelo et terra, a quo dii partim dicuntur caelestes, partim terrestres: ut in superioribus initium fecimus a caelo, cum diximus de Iano, quem alii caelum, alii dixerunt esse mundum, sic de feminis scribendi facimus initium a Tellure." Sentio quantam molestiam tale ac tantum patiatur ingenium.

[28] What, then, avails it, that the most learned and most acute man Varro tries, as by a subtle disputation, to reduce and refer all these gods to heaven and earth? He cannot; they flow out of the hands, they spring back, they slip and fall. For when he is about to speak of females, that is, of goddesses: "Since," he says, "as in the first book I said concerning places, two principles of the gods have been observed, from heaven and earth, whence the gods are partly called celestial, partly terrestrial: as above we made our beginning from heaven, when we spoke of Janus, whom some have said is the sky, others the world, so in writing about the females we make our beginning from Tellus." I perceive what great vexation such and so great an ingenium endures.

Ducitur enim quadam ratione uerisimili, caelum esse quod faciat, terram quae patiatur, et ideo illi masculinam uim tribuit, huic femininam, et non adtendit eum potius esse qui haec facit, qui utrumque fecit. Hinc etiam Samothracum nobilia mysteria

For he is led, indeed, by a certain verisimilar reasoning, that the heaven is that which acts, the earth that which suffers, and therefore he attributes to that a masculine force, to this a feminine; and he does not attend that it is rather the One who does these things, who made both. Hence also the noble mysteries of the Samothracians

In superiore libro sic interpretatur eaque se, quae nec suis nota sunt, scribendo expositurum eisque missurum quasi religiosissime pollicetur. Dicit enim se ibi multis indiciis collegisse in simulacris aliud significare caelum, aliud terram, aliud exempla rerum, quas Plato appellat ideas; caelum Iouem, terram Iunonem, ideas Mineruam uult intellegi; caelum a quo fiat aliquid, terram de qua fiat, exemplum secundum quod fiat. Qua in re omitto dicere, quod Plato illas ideas tantam uim habere dicit, ut secundum eas non caelum aliquid fecerit, sed etiam caelum factum sit.

In the preceding book he thus interprets things, and most religiously promises that he will set forth by writing those things which are not known even to their own people, and will send them to them. For he says that there he has gathered by many indications that in the simulacra heaven signifies one thing, earth another, and the exemplars of things—which Plato calls ideas—another; he wants heaven to be understood as Jupiter, earth as Juno, ideas as Minerva; heaven as that from which something is made, earth as that out of which it is made, the exemplar according to which it is made. In which matter I omit to say that Plato says those ideas have such power that, according to them, it is not that heaven made anything, but that even heaven was made.

Hoc dico, istum in hoc libro selectorum deorum rationem illam trium deorum, quibus quasi cuncta complexus est, perdidisse. Caelo enim tribuit masculos deos, feminas terrae; inter quas posuit Mineruam, quam supra ipsum caelum ante posuerat. Deinde masculus deus Neptunus in mari est, quod ad terram potius quam ad caelum pertinet.

I say this: that that man, in this book of select gods, has lost that rationale of the three gods, by which he as it were encompassed all things. For he attributes the male gods to the sky, the females to the earth; among whom he has placed Minerva, whom earlier he had set above the sky itself. Then the masculine god Neptune is in the sea, which pertains rather to the earth than to the sky.

Dis pater postremo, qui Graece *Plou/twn dicitur, etiam ipse masculus frater amborum terrenus deus esse perhibetur, superiorem terram tenens, in inferiore habens Proserpinam coniugem. Quo modo ergo deos ad caelum, deas ad terram referre conantur? Quid solidum quid constans, quid sobrium quid definitum habet haec disputatio?

Lastly Father Dis, who in Greek is called *Plou/twn, is also himself said to be the male brother of both, an earthly god, holding the upper earth, and in the lower having Proserpina as wife. How then do they attempt to refer the gods to heaven and the goddesses to earth? What solid, what constant, what sober, what definite does this disputation have?

Illa est autem Tellus initium dearum, Mater scilicet Magna, apud quam mollium et abscisorum seseque secantium atque iactantium insana perstrepit turpitudo. Quid est ergo quod dicitur caput deorum Ianus, caput dearum Tellus? Nec ibi facit unum caput error, nec hic sanum furor.

But Tellus, moreover, is the beginning of the goddesses—namely the Great Mother—at whose rites the insane turpitude of the soft (effeminate) and the abscised, and of those cutting themselves and flinging themselves about, resounds. What then is this, that Janus is called the head of the gods, Tellus the head of the goddesses? Neither there does error make a single head, nor here does frenzy make a sound one.

Cur haec frustra referre nituntur ad mundum? Quod etsi possent, pro Deo uero mundum nemo pius colit; et tamen eos nec hoc posse ueritas aperta conuincit. Referant haec potius ad homines mortuos et ad daemones pessimos, et nulla quaestio remanebit.

Why do they strive in vain to refer these things to the world? And even if they could, no pious person worships the world in place of the true God; and yet manifest truth convicts them that they cannot even do this. Let them rather refer these things to dead men and to the worst demons, and no question will remain.

[XXIX] Namque omnia, quae ab eis ex istorum deorum theologia uelut physicis rationibus referuntur ad mundum, quam sine ullo scrupulo sacrilegae opinionis Deo potius uero, qui fecit mundum, omnis animae et omnis corporis conditori, tribuantur, aduertamus hoc modo: Nos Deum colimus, non caelum et terram, quibus duabus partibus mundus hic constat; nec animam uel animas per uiuentia quaecumque diffusas, sed Deum, qui fecit caelum et terram et omnia, quae in eis sunt; qui fecit omnem animam, siue quocumque modo uiuentem et sensus ac rationis expertem, siue etiam sentientem, siue etiam intellegentem.

[29] For indeed all the things which by them, from the theology of those gods as if by physical rationales, are referred to the world, let these, without any scruple of sacrilegious opinion, rather be attributed to the true God, who made the world, the creator of every soul and every body; let us observe in this way: We worship God, not heaven and earth, of which two parts this world consists; nor a soul or souls diffused through whatever living things, but God, who made heaven and earth and all things that are in them; who made every soul, whether living in whatever way and devoid of sense and reason, or even sentient, or even intelligent.

[XXX] Et ut iam incipiam illa unius et ueri Dei opera percurrere, propter quae isti sibi, dum quasi honeste conantur sacramenta turpissima et scelestissima interpretari, deos multos falsosque fecerunt: illum Deum colimus, qui naturis a se creatis et subsistendi et mouendi initia finesque constituit; qui rerum causas habet, nouit atque disponit; qui uim seminum condidit; qui rationalem animam, quod dicitur animus, quibus uoluit uiuentibus indidit; qui sermonis facultatem usumque donauit; qui munus futura dicendi quibus placuit spiritibus inpertiuit et per quos placet ipse futura praedicit et per quos placet malas ualetudines pellit; qui bellorum quoque ipsorum, cum sic emendandum et castigandum est genus humanum, exordiis progressibus finibusque moderatur; qui mundi huius ignem uehementissimum et uiolentissimum pro inmensae naturae temperamento et creauit et regit; qui uniuersarum aquarum creator et gubernator est; qui solem fecit corporalium clarissimum luminum eique uim congruam et motum dedit; qui ipsis etiam inferis dominationem suam potestatemque non subtrahit; qui semina et alimenta mortalium, siue arida siue liquida, naturis competentibus adtributa substituit; qui terram fundat atque fecundat; qui fructus eius animalibus hominibusque largitur; qui causas non solum principales, sed etiam subsequentes nouit atque ordinat; qui lunae statuit modum suum; qui uias caelestes atque terrestres locorum mutationibus praebet; qui humanis ingeniis, quae creauit, etiam scientias artium uariarum ad adiuuandam uitam naturamque concessit; qui coniunctionem maris et feminae ad adiutorium propagandae prolis instituit; qui hominum coetibus, quem focis et luminibus adhiberent, ad facillimos usus munus terreni ignis indulsit. Ista sunt certe, quae diis selectis per nescio quas physicas interpretationes uir acutissimus atque doctissimus Varro, siue quae aliunde accepit, siue quae ipse coniecit, distribuere laborauit. Haec autem facit atque agit unus uerus Deus, sed sicut Deus, id est ubique totus, nullis inclusus locis, nullis uinculis alligatus, in nullas partes sectilis, ex nulla parte mutabilis, implens caelum et terram praesente potentia, non indigente natura.

[30] And now to begin to run through those works of the one and true God, on account of which those men, while they try as if honorably to interpret the most base and most criminal “sacraments,” have made for themselves many and false gods: we worship that God, who for the natures created by Himself set the beginnings and ends both of subsistence and of motion; who holds, knows, and disposes the causes of things; who established the force of seeds; who inserted the rational soul, which is called the mind, into such living beings as He willed; who bestowed the faculty and use of speech; who imparted the gift of speaking things to come to those spirits to whom He pleased, and through whom it pleases Him He Himself foretells future things, and through whom it pleases He expels evil maladies; who also of wars themselves, when thus the human race is to be amended and chastised, moderates their commencements, progresses, and ends; who both created and rules the most vehement and most violent fire of this world in accordance with the tempering of the vast nature; who is the creator and governor of all waters; who made the sun, the brightest of bodily lights, and gave to it its congruent power and motion; who does not withdraw His dominion and power even from the underworld itself; who supplies the seeds and nourishments of mortals, whether dry or liquid, assigned to natures that are fitting; who founds and makes the earth fruitful; who lavishes its fruits upon animals and human beings; who knows and orders the causes not only principal, but also subsequent; who appointed to the moon its proper measure; who provides the celestial and terrestrial ways by the changes of places; who to human intelligences, which He created, has also granted the sciences of various arts for the aiding of life and nature; who instituted the conjunction of male and female for the help of propagating offspring; who to the gatherings of men granted the gift of earthly fire, to be applied to hearths and lights, for the most facile uses. These are assuredly the things which to the selected gods, through I know not what physical interpretations, the most acute and most learned man Varro, whether those he received from elsewhere or those he himself conjectured, strove to distribute. But these things the one true God does and acts, yet as God, that is, everywhere whole, enclosed by no places, bound by no bonds, divisible into no parts, mutable in no part, filling heaven and earth by present power, not by a nature that is in need.

Sic itaque administrat omnia, quae creauit, ut etiam ipsa proprios exserere et agere motus sinat. Quamuis enim nihil esse possint sine ipso, non sunt quod ipse. Agit autem multa etiam per angelos; sed non nisi ex se ipso beatificat angelos.

Thus therefore he administers all things which he created, in such a way that he even allows them to exert and to perform their own proper motions. For although they can be nothing without himself, they are not what he is. Moreover, he does many things even through angels; but he beatifies the angels only from himself alone.

Ita quamuis propter aliquas causas hominibus angelos mittat, non tamen ex angelis homines, sed ex se ipso, sicut angelos, beatificat. Ab hoc uno et uero Deo uitam speramus aeternam.

Thus, although for certain causes he sends angels to human beings, nevertheless he does not beatify human beings from angels, but from himself, just as he does the angels. From this one and true God we hope for eternal life.

[XXXI] Habemus enim ab illo praeter huiusce modi beneficia, quae ex hac, de qua nonnulla diximus, administratione naturae bonis malisque largitur, magnum et bonorum proprium magnae dilectionis indicium. Quamquam enim, quod sumus, quod uiuimus, quod caelum terramque conspicimus, quod habemus mentem atque rationem, qua eum ipsum, qui haec omnia condidit, inquiramus, nequaquam ualeamus actioni sufficere gratiarum: tamen quod nos oneratos obrutosque peccatis et a contemplatione suae lucis auersos ac tenebrarum, id est iniquitatis, dilectione caecatos non omnino deseruit misitque nobis Verbum suum, qui est eius unicus filius, quo pro nobis adsumpta carne nato atque passo, quanti Deus hominem penderet, nosceremus atque illo sacrificio singulari a peccatis omnibus mundaremur eiusque spiritu in cordibus nostris dilectione diffusa omnibus difficultatibus superatis in aeternam requiem et contemplationis eius ineffabilem dulcedinem ueniremus, quae corda, quot linguae ad agendas ei gratias satis esse contenderint?

[31] For we have from him, besides benefits of this sort, which from this administration of nature, about which we have said somewhat, he lavishes upon good and bad, a great and, proper to the good, indication of great love. For although, in that we are, that we live, that we behold heaven and earth, that we have mind and reason, by which we inquire after him himself who founded all these things, we are by no means able to suffice in the action of thanksgivings: yet that he did not altogether desert us, burdened and overwhelmed with sins and turned away from the contemplation of his light and blindfolded by love of darkness—that is, of iniquity—and sent to us his Word, who is his only Son, by whom, with flesh assumed for us, born and having suffered, we might know how greatly God valued man, and by that singular sacrifice we might be cleansed from all sins, and by his Spirit, with love diffused in our hearts, all difficulties being overcome, we might come into eternal rest and the ineffable sweetness of his contemplation—what hearts, how many tongues would contend to be sufficient to render thanks to him?

[XXXII] Hoc mysterium uitae aeternae iam inde ab exordio generis humani per quaedam signa et sacramenta temporibus congrua, quibus oportuit, per angelos praedicatum est. Deinde populus Hebraeus in unam quandam rem publicam, quae hoc sacramentum ageret, congregatus est, ubi per quosdam scientes, per quosdam nescientes id, quod ex aduentu Christi usque nunc et deinceps agitur, praenuntiaretur esse uenturum; sparsa etiam postea eadem gente per gentes propter testimonium scripturarum, quibus aeterna salus in Christo futura praedicta est. Omnes enim non solum prophetiae, quae in uerbis sunt, nec tantum praecepta uitae, quae mores pietatemque conformant atque illis litteris continentur, uerum etiam sacra, sacerdotia, tabernaculum siue templum, altaria, sacrificia, ceremoniae, dies festi et quidquid aliud ad eam seruitutem pertinet, quae Deo debetur et Graece proprie *latrei/a dicitur -- ea significata et praenuntiata sunt, quae propter aeternam uitam fidelium in Christo et impleta credimus et impleri cernimus et implenda confidimus.

[32] This mystery of eternal life, from the very exordium of the human race, was preached through certain signs and sacraments suited to the times, when it was fitting, by angels. Then the Hebrew people was gathered into a certain commonwealth, to enact this sacrament, where—by some knowing, by others unknowing—that which, from the advent of Christ until now and hereafter, is carried on, was being foretold as going to come; the same nation also afterwards being scattered among the nations for the testimony of the Scriptures, whereby eternal salvation in Christ was foretold as future. For not only all the prophecies, which are in words, nor only the precepts of life, which fashion morals and piety and are contained in those letters, but also sacred rites, priesthoods, the tabernacle or temple, altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, feast days, and whatever else pertains to that service which is owed to God and is properly called in Greek *latrei/a*—these were significations and foreshadowings of those things which, for the eternal life of the faithful in Christ, we believe to have been fulfilled, we see to be being fulfilled, and we trust will be fulfilled.

[XXXIII] Per hanc ergo religionem unam et ueram potuit aperiri deos gentium esse inmundissimos daemones, sub defunctarum occasionibus animarum uel creaturarum specie mundanarum deos se putari cupientes et quasi diuinis honoribus eisdemque scelestis ac turpibus rebus superba inpuritate laetantes atque ad uerum Deum conuersionem humanis animis inuidentes. Ex quorum inmanissimo et impiissimo dominatu homo liberatur, cum credit in eum, qui praebuit ad exsurgendum tantae humilitatis exemplum, quanta illi superbia ceciderunt. Hinc sunt non solum illi, de quibus multa iam diximus, et alii atque alii similes ceterarum gentium atque terrarum, sed etiam hi, de quibus nunc agimus, tamquam in senatum deorum selecti; sed plane selecti nobilitate criminum, non dignitate uirtutum.

[33] Through this one and true religion it could be opened that the gods of the nations are the most unclean demons, desiring to be thought gods under the pretexts of the souls of the departed or under the appearance of worldly creatures, and rejoicing in proud impurity in quasi-divine honors and in those same wicked and base things, and envying human souls their conversion to the true God. From whose most monstrous and most impious dominion a man is freed, when he believes in him who supplied, for rising again, an example of so great humility as great as that pride by which they fell. Hence there are not only those of whom we have already said much, and others and yet others like them among the other nations and lands, but also these of whom we are now treating, as though selected into a senate of the gods; but plainly selected by the nobility of crimes, not by the dignity of virtues.

Quorum sacra Varro dum quasi ad naturales rationes referre conatur, quaerens honestare res turpes, quomodo his quadret et consonet non potest inuenire, quoniam non sunt ipsae illorum sacrorum causae, quas putat uel potius uult putari. Nam si non solum ipsae, uerum etiam quaelibet aliae huius generis essent, quamuis nihil ad Deum uerum uitamque aeternam, quae in religione quaerenda est, pertinerent, tamen qualicumque de rerum natura reddita ratione aliquantulum mitigarent offensionem, quam non intellecta in sacris aliqua uelut turpitudo aut absurditas fecerat; sicut in quibusdam theatrorum fabulis uel delubrorum mysteriis facere conatus est, ubi non theatra delubrorum similitudine absoluit, sed theatrorum potius similitudine delubra damnauit; tamen utcumque conatus est, ut sensum horribilibus rebus offensum uelut naturalium causarum reddita ratio deleniret.

Of whose sacred rites Varro, while he tries, as it were, to refer them to natural reasons, seeking to make honorable disgraceful things, cannot find how it might square and consonate with these, since those are not the very causes of those sacred rites which he thinks, or rather wishes to be thought. For if not only these, but even any others of this kind were the case, although they pertained nothing to the true God and to eternal life, which is to be sought in religion, nevertheless some rationale rendered from the nature of things would somewhat mitigate the offense which some, as it were, turpitude or absurdity, not understood in the rites, had produced; as he tried to do in certain plays of the theaters or mysteries of the shrines, where he did not absolve the theaters by the likeness of the shrines, but rather condemned the shrines by the likeness of the theaters; yet he attempted somehow that an account, as it were, of natural causes might soothe the sense offended by horrible things.

[XXXIV] Sed contra inuenimus, sicut ipse uir doctissimus prodidit, de Numae Pompilii libris redditas sacrorum causas nullo modo potuisse tolerari nec dignas habitas, quae non solum lectae innotescerent religiosis, sed saltem scriptae reconderentur in tenebris. Iam enim dicam, quod in tertio huius operis libro me suo loco dicturum esse promiseram. Nam, sicut apud eundem Varronem legitur in libro de cultu deorum, "Terentius quidam cum haberet ad Ianiculum fundum et bubulcus eius iuxta sepulcrum Numae Pompilii traiciens aratrum eruisset ex terra libros eius, ubi sacrorum institutorum scriptae erant causae, in Vrbem pertulit ad praetorem.

[34] But on the contrary we find, as the very most learned man himself has reported, that from the books of Numa Pompilius the causes of the rites, once rendered, could in no way be tolerated, nor were they judged worthy either to be made known by being read to the religious, or even, once written, to be laid away hidden in darkness. Now at last I will say what in the third book of this work I had promised to say in its place. For, as is read in that same Varro in the book On the Cult of the Gods, “a certain Terentius, since he had a farm on the Janiculum, and his oxherd, dragging the plow near the tomb of Numa Pompilius, had unearthed from the ground his books, where the written causes of the institutions of the rites were, carried them into the City to the praetor.”

At ille cum inspexisset principia, rem tantam detulit ad senatum. Vbi cum primores quasdam causas legissent, cur quidque in sacris fuerit institutum, Numae mortuo senatus adsensus est, eosque libros tamquam religiosi patres conscripti, praetor ut combureret, censuerunt." Credat quisque quod putat; immo uero dicat, quod dicendum suggesserit uesana contentio, quilibet tantae impietatis defensor egregius. Me admonere sufficiat sacrorum causas a rege Pompilio Romanorum sacrorum institutore conscriptas nec populo nec senatui nec saltem ipsis sacerdotibus innotescere debuisse ipsumque Numam Pompilium curiositate inlicita ad ea daemonum peruenisse secreta, quae ipse quidem scriberet, ut haberet unde legendo commoneretur; sed ea tamen, cum rex esset, qui minime quemquam metueret, nec docere aliquem nec delendo uel quoquo modo consumendo perdere auderet.

But he, when he had inspected the first pages, reported so great a matter to the senate. Where, when they had read certain principal causes why each thing in the sacred rites had been instituted, with Numa dead the senate assented, and, as religious patres conscripti, they decreed that the praetor should burn those books." Let each believe what he thinks; nay rather, let any eminent defender of so great impiety say whatever insane contentiousness may have suggested ought to be said. Let it suffice for me to admonish that the causes of the sacred rites, written by King Pompilius, the institutor of the Roman sacred rites, ought to have become known neither to the people nor to the senate nor at least even to the priests themselves; and that Numa Pompilius himself, by illicit curiosity, had come to those secrets of the daemons, which indeed he would write, so that he might have something whence by reading he might be reminded; yet those things, although he was a king, who would hardly fear anyone at all, he would not dare either to teach to anyone or to destroy by erasing or to annihilate by consuming in whatever way.

Ita quod scire neminem uoluit, ne homines nefaria doceret, uiolare autem timuit, ne daemones iratos haberet, obruit, ubi tutum putauit, sepulcro suo propinquare aratrum posse non credens. Senatus autem cum religiones formidaret damnare maiorum et ideo Numae adsentiri cogeretur, illos tamen libros tam perniciosos esse iudicauit, ut nec obrui rursus iuberet, ne humana curiositas multo uehementius rem iam proditam quaereret, sed flammis aboleri nefanda monumenta, ut, quia iam necesse esse existimabant sacra illa facere, tolerabilius erraretur causis eorum ignoratis, quam cognitis ciuitas turbaretur.

Thus what he did not wish anyone to know, lest he teach men nefarious things, yet he feared to violate, lest he have the daemons angered; he buried it where he thought it safe, not believing that a plough could draw near to his tomb. But the Senate, while it dreaded to condemn the traditions of the ancestors and was therefore compelled to assent to Numa, nevertheless judged those books to be so pernicious that it did not order them to be buried again—lest human curiosity much more vehemently seek out a matter already divulged—but that the nefarious monuments be abolished by flames; so that, because they now deemed it necessary to perform those sacred rites, it would be more tolerably erred with their causes unknown than that, the causes known, the city be disturbed.

[XXXV] Nam et ipse Numa, ad quem nullus Dei propheta, nullus sanctus angelus mittebatur, hydromantian facere compulsus est, ut in aqua uideret imagines deorum uel potius ludificationes daemonum, aquibus audiret, quid in sacris constituere atque obseruare deberet. Quod genus diuinationis idem Varro a Persis dicit allatum, quo et ipsum Numam et postea Pythagoram philosophum usum fuisse commemorat; ubi adhibito sanguine etiam inferos perhibet sciscitari et *nekuomantei/an Graece dicit uocari, quae [siue hydromantia] siue necromantia dicatur, id ipsum est, ubi uidentur mortui diuinare. Quibus haec artibus fiant, ipsi uiderint.

[35] For even Numa himself, to whom no prophet of God, no holy angel was being sent, was compelled to practice hydromancy, so that in water he might see images of the gods—or rather the mockeries of demons—from whom he might hear what he ought to establish and observe in sacred rites. This kind of divination the same Varro says was brought from the Persians; he records that by it both Numa himself and later the philosopher Pythagoras made use; and he asserts that, with blood employed, they even consult the inferi, and he says it is called in Greek *nekuomantei/an*, which, whether it be called [whether hydromancy] or necromancy, is that very thing wherein the dead seem to divine. By what arts these things are done, let they themselves see to it.

Nolo enim dicere has artes etiam ante nostri Saluatoris aduentum in ipsis ciuitatibus gentium legibus solere prohiberi et poena seuerissima uindicari. Nolo, inquam, hoc dicere; fortassis enim talia tunc licebant. His tamen artibus didicit sacra illa Pompilius, quorum sacrorum facta prodidit, causas obruit (ita timuit et ipse quod didicit), quarum causarum proditos libros senatus incendit.

For I do not wish to say that these arts even before the Advent of our Savior were accustomed to be prohibited in the very cities of the nations by the laws and to be punished with the most severe penalty. I do not wish, I say, to say this; perhaps such things were then permitted. By these arts, however, Pompilius learned those sacred rites, the acts of which sacred rites he divulged, the causes he buried (thus he too feared what he had learned), and the Senate burned the books, once disclosed, concerning those causes.

Quid mihi ergo Varro illorum sacrorum alias nescio quas causas uelut physicas interpretatur? quales si libri illi habuissent, non utique arsissent, aut et istos Varronis ad Caesarem pontificem scriptos atque editos patres conscripti similiter incendissent. Quod ergo aquam egesserit, id est exportauerit, Numa Pompilius, unde hydromantian faceret, ideo nympham Egeriam coniugem dicitur habuisse, quem ad modum in supradicto libro Varronis exponitur.

Why, then, does Varro interpret for me as if physical some other I-know-not-what causes of those sacra? Such that, if those books had contained such causes, surely they would not have burned; or else the senators (patres conscripti) would similarly have burned these writings of Varro, written and published to Caesar the pontiff. Since, therefore, Numa Pompilius drew out water—that is, carried it out—from which to perform hydromancy, for this reason he is said to have had the nymph Egeria as his spouse, as is set forth in the aforesaid book of Varro.

Ita enim solent res gestae aspersione mendaciorum in fabulas uerti. In illa igitur hydromantia curiosissimus rex ille Romanus et sacra didicit, quae in libris suis pontifices haberent, et eorum causas, quas praeter se neminem scire uoluit. Itaque eas seorsum scriptas secum quodam modo mori fecit, quando ita subtrahendas hominum notitiae sepeliendasque curauit.

For thus are deeds wont to be turned into fables by a sprinkling of mendacities. In that hydromancy, therefore, that most curious Roman king both learned the sacred rites, which the pontiffs were to have in their books, and their causes, which he wished no one besides himself to know. And so those things, written apart, he in a certain way made to die with himself, since he so took care that they be withdrawn from the knowledge of men and be buried.

Aut ergo daemonum illic tam sordidae et noxiae cupiditates erant conscriptae, ut ex his tota illa theologia ciuilis etiam apud tales homines execrabilis appareret, qui tam multa in ipsis sacris erubescenda susceperant; aut illi omnes nihil aliud quam homines mortui prodebantur, quos tam prolixa temporis uetustate fere omnes populi gentium deos inmortales esse crediderant, cum et talibus sacris idem illi daemones oblectarentur, qui se colendos pro ipsis mortuis, quos deos putari fecerant, quibusdam fallacium miraculorum adtestationibus supponebant. Sed occulta Dei ueri prouidentia factum est, ut et Pompilio amico suo illis conciliati artibus, quibus hydromantia fieri potuit, cuncta illa confiteri permitterentur, et tamen, ut moriturus incenderet ea potius quam obrueret, admonere non permitterentur; qui ne innotescerent nec aratro, quo sunt eruta, obsistere potuerunt, nec stilo Varronis, quo ea, quae de hac re gesta sunt, in nostram memoriam peruenerunt. Non enim possunt, quod non sinuntur efficere; sinuntur autem alto Dei summi iustoque iudicio pro meritis eorum, quos ab eis uel adfligi tantum, uel etiam subici ac decipi iustum est.

Either, then, the lusts of the daemons so sordid and noxious were written there that from these the whole civil theology would appear execrable even to men who had undertaken so many things to be blushed at in those very rites; or all those figures were being disclosed as nothing other than dead men, whom in the long stretch of antiquity almost all the peoples of the nations had believed to be immortal gods—since those same daemons took delight in such rites, who substituted themselves to be worshiped in place of the dead, whom they had caused to be thought gods, with certain attestations of deceptive miracles. But by the hidden providence of the true God it came about both that, to Pompilius, their friend, conciliated by those arts by which hydromancy could be effected, all those things were allowed to be confessed, and yet that they were not allowed to warn him, when he was about to die, to burn them rather than to bury them; who, lest they should become known, were able to resist neither the plough by which they were unearthed nor the stylus of Varro, by which the things that were done in this matter have come into our memory. For they cannot effect what they are not permitted to effect; and they are permitted by the lofty and just judgment of the Most High God according to the merits of those whom it is just should by them either be only afflicted, or even be subjected and deceived.

Quam uero perniciosae uel a cultu uerae diuinitatis alienae illae litterae iudicatae sint, hinc intellegi potest, quod eas maluit senatus incendere, quas Pompilius occultauit, quam timere quod timuit, qui hoc audere non potuit. Qui ergo uitam nec modo habere uult piam, talibus sacris quaerat aeternam; qui autem cum malignis daemonibus non uult habere societatem, non superstitionem, qua coluntur, noxiam pertimescat, sed ueram religionem, qua produntur et uincuntur, agnoscat.

How truly pernicious, or alien from the cult of true divinity, those writings were judged to be can be understood from this: that the Senate preferred to burn those which Pompilius had concealed, rather than to fear what he feared—he who could not dare this. Therefore, let him who does not even wish to have a pious life seek an eternal one by such sacred rites; but let him who does not wish to have fellowship with malignant demons not dread the noxious superstition by which they are worshiped, but acknowledge the true religion by which they are exposed and conquered.