Lactantius: DIVINARUM INSTITUTIONUM LIBRI VII

Praefatio. Magno et excellenti ingenio uiri, cum se doctrinae penitus dedissent, quidquid laboris poterat impendi, contemptis omnibus et priuatis et publicis actionibus, ad inquirendae ueritatis studium contulerunt; existimantes multo esse praeclarius humanarum diuinarumque rerum inuestigare ac scire rationem, quam aut struendis opibus, aut cumulandis honoribus inhaerere. Quibus rebus, quoniam fragiles terrenaeque sunt et ad solius corporis pertinent cultum, nemo melior, nemo iustior effici potest.

Preface. Men of great and excellent genius, when they had given themselves wholly to doctrine, directed whatever labor could be expended—despising all private and public actions—to the study for inquiring into truth; judging it to be far more illustrious to investigate and to know the reason of human and divine things, than to cling either to building up wealth or to piling up honors. By which things, since they are fragile and earthly and pertain to the cult of the body alone, no one can be made better, no one more just.

Erant illi quidem ueritatis cognitione dignissimi, quam scire tantopere cupiuerunt; atque ita, ut eam rebus omnibus arteponerent. Nam et abiecisse quosdam res familiares suas, et renuntiasse uniuersis uoluptatibus constat, ut solam nudamque ueritatem nudi expeditique sequerentur: tantumque apud eos ueritatis nomen et auctoritas ualuit, ut in ipsa esse summi boni praemium praedicarent. Sed neque adepti sunt id quod uolebant: et operam simul atque industriam perdiderunt; quia ueritas, id est arcanum summi Dei, qui fecit omnia, ingenio ac propriis non potest sensibus comprehendi: alioqui nihil inter Deum hominemque distaret, si consilia et dispositiones illius maiestatis aeternae cogitatio assequeretur humana.

They indeed were most worthy of the cognition of truth, which they so greatly longed to know; and to such an extent that they would set it before all things. For it is well attested that some cast aside their household resources and renounced all pleasures, so that they might follow the truth alone and naked, themselves naked and unencumbered: and so greatly did the name and authority of truth prevail with them that they proclaimed the prize of the highest good to be in it itself. But they neither attained what they wanted, and they lost their effort and their industry besides; because truth—that is, the arcanum of the Most High God, who made all things—cannot be comprehended by intellect and by one’s own senses: otherwise nothing would differ between God and man, if human thought could attain to the counsels and dispositions of that eternal majesty.

Quod quia fieri non potuit, ut homini per seipsum ratio diuina innotesceret, non est passus hominem Deus lumen sapientiae requirentem diutius errare, ac sine ullo laboris effectu uagari per tenebras inextricabiles; aperuit oculos eius aliquando, et notionem ueritatis munus suum fecit: ut et humanam sapientiam nullam esse monstraret, et erranti ac uago uiam consequendae immortalitatis ostenderet. Verum quoniam pauci utuntur hoc coelesti beneficio ac munere; quod obuoluta in obscuro ueritas latet; eaque uel contemptui doctis est, quia idoneis assertoribus eget, uel odio indoctis, ob insitam sibi austeritatem, quam natura hominum procliuis in uitia pati non potest (nam quia uirtutibus amaritudo permixta est, uitia uero uoluptate condita sunt; illa offensi, hac deliniti feruntur in praeceps, et bonorum specie falsi, mala pro bonis amplectuntur) succurrendum esse his erroribus credidi: ut et docti ad ueram sapientiam dirigantur et indocti ad ueram religionem. Quae professio multo melior, utilior, gloriosior putanda est, quam illa oratoria, in qua diu uersati, non ad uirtutem, sed plane ad argutam malitiam iuuenes erudiebamus.

Since it could not come to pass that the divine reason should become known to man by himself, God did not allow man, seeking the light of wisdom, to err any longer and to wander, without any effect of his toil, through inextricable darkness; he at length opened his eyes, and made the notion of truth his own gift: so that he might both show that human wisdom is nothing, and point out to the erring and the wandering the road for attaining immortality. But since few make use of this celestial beneficence and gift; because truth, wrapped up in obscurity, lies hidden; and it is either an object of contempt to the learned, because it needs suitable assertors, or of hatred to the unlearned, on account of the austerity inherent in it, which the nature of men, prone to vices, cannot endure (for since bitterness is mixed with virtues, while vices are seasoned with pleasure; by the former they are offended, by the latter beguiled they are carried headlong, and, deceived by the appearance of goods, they embrace evils in place of goods), I judged that succor must be brought to these errors: that both the learned may be directed to true wisdom and the unlearned to true religion. Which profession is to be thought much better, more useful, more glorious than that oratorical one, in which, long engaged, we were training youths not to virtue, but plainly to subtle malice.

Multo quippe nunc rectius de praeceptis coelestibus disseremus, quibus ad cultum uerae maiestatis mentes hominum instruere possimus: nec tam de rebus humanis bene meretur, qui scientiam bene dicendi affert, quam qui pie atque innocenter docet uiuere: idcirco apud Graecos maiore in gloria philosophi, quam oratores fuerunt. Illi enim recte uiuendi doctores sunt existimati: quod est longe praestabilius: quoniam bene dicere, ad paucos pertinet, bene autem uiuere ad omnes. Multum tamen nobis exercitatio illa fictarum litium contulit, ut nunc maiore copia et facultate dicendi causam ueritatis peroremus: quae licet possit sine eloquentia defendi, ut est a multis saepe defensa; tamen claritate ac nitore sermonis illustranda, et quodammodo disserenda est, ut potentius in animos influat et ui sua instructa, et luce orationis ornata.

By much indeed we will now more rightly discourse on the celestial precepts, by which we may be able to instruct the minds of men for the cult of the true Majesty: nor does he deserve so well of human affairs who brings the science of speaking well, as he who teaches to live piously and innocently: therefore among the Greeks philosophers were in greater glory than orators. For they were reckoned doctors of living rightly: which is far more excellent; since to speak well pertains to a few, but to live well to all. Yet that exercise of feigned litigations has contributed much to us, so that now with greater abundance and faculty of speaking we may perorate the cause of truth: which, although it can be defended without eloquence, as it has been often defended by many; nevertheless it ought to be illuminated by the clarity and lustre of discourse, and in a certain manner to be expounded, so that it may flow more powerfully into minds, both equipped with its own force and adorned with the light of oration.

[1,1] CAPUT PRIMUM. De religione itaque nobis rebusque diuinis instituitur disputatio. Nam si quidam maximi oratores professionis suae quasi ueterani, decursis operibus actionum suarum, postremo se philosophiae tradiderunt, eamque sibi requiem laborum iustissimam putauerunt; si animos suos in earum rerum, quae inueniri non poterant, inquisitione torquerent, ut non tam otium sibi, quam negotium quaesisse uideantur, et quidem multo molestius, quam in quo fuerant ante uersati: quanto iustius ego me ad illam piam, ueram, diuinamque sapientiam, quasi ad portum aliquem tutissimum conferam, in qua omnia dictu prona sunt, auditu suauia, facilia intellectu, honesta susceptu?

[1,1] Chapter One. Therefore a disputation is instituted for us concerning religion and divine matters. For if certain very great orators, as if veterans of their profession, after the course of the works of their actions had been run, at last handed themselves over to philosophy, and judged it for themselves the most just repose of their labors; if they tortured their minds with the inquisition of those things which could not be found, so that they seem to have sought not so much leisure for themselves as business, and indeed far more troublesome than that in which they had previously been conversant: how much more justly should I betake myself to that pious, true, and divine wisdom, as to some safest harbor, in which all things are easy to say, sweet to hear, facile to understand, honorable to undertake?

Et si quidam prudentes, et arbitri aequitatis, Institutiones ciuilis iuris compositas ediderunt, quibus ciuium dissidentium lites contentionesque sopirent: quanto melius nos et rectius diuinas Institutiones litteris persequemur; in quibus non de stillicidiis, aut aquis arcendis, aut de manu conserenda, sed de spe, de uita, de salute, de immortalitate, de Deo loquemur, ut superstitiones mortiferas, erroresque turpissimos sopiamus? Quod opus nunc nominis tui auspicio inchoamus, Constantine, Imperator Maxime, qui primus Romanorum principum, repudiatis erroribus, maiestatem Dei singularis ac ueri et cognouisti et honorasti. Nam cum ille dies felicissimus orbi terrarum illuxisset, quo te Deus summus ad beatum imperii culmen euexit, salutarem uniuersis et optabilem principatum praeclaro initio auspicatus es, cum euersam sublatamque iustitiam reducens, teterrimum aliorum facinus expiasti: pro quo facto dabit tibi Deus felicitatem, uirtutem, diuturnitatem: ut eadem iustitia, qua iuuenis exorsus es, gubernaculum reipublicae etiam senex teneas, tuisque liberis, ut ipse a patre accepisti, tutelam Romani nominis tradas.

And if certain prudent men, and arbiters of equity, have published Institutes of civil law composed to lull to rest the suits and contentions of dissenting citizens: how much better and more rightly shall we pursue in letters the divine Institutes; in which we will speak not of drip-falls, or of warding off waters, or of “joining hands,” but of hope, of life, of salvation, of immortality, of God, so that we may hush death-bringing superstitions and most disgraceful errors? This work we now begin under the auspices of your name, Constantine, Greatest Emperor, you who, the first of the Roman rulers, after repudiating errors, have both recognized and honored the majesty of the one and true God. For when that most fortunate day had dawned upon the world, on which the Most High God raised you to the blessed summit of imperium, you inaugurated, with a splendid beginning, a principate salutary and desirable to all, when, restoring justice, overthrown and removed, you expiated the most foul crime of others: for which deed God will grant you happiness, valor, long duration; so that with the same justice with which you began as a young man you may hold the helm of the commonwealth even as an old man, and may hand over to your sons, as you yourself received from your father, the guardianship of the Roman name.

Nam malis, qui adhuc aduersus iustos in aliis terrarum partibus saeuiunt, quanto serius, tanto uehementius idem omnipotens mercedem sceleris exsoluet: quia ut est erga pios indulgentissimus pater, sic aduersus impios rectissimus iudex. Cuius religionem cultumque diuinum cupiens defendere, quem potius appellem, quem alloquar, nisi eum per quem rebus humanis iustitia et sapientia restituta est? Omissis ergo huiusce terrenae philosophiae auctoribus nihil certi afferentibus, aggrediamur uiam rectam: quos equidem, si putarem satis idoneos ad bene uiuendum duces esse, et ipse sequerer, et alios, ut sequerentur, hortarer.

For the wicked, who still rage against the just in other parts of the earth, the more tardily, the more vehemently the same Omnipotent will pay the wage of their crime: because as he is a most indulgent father toward the pious, so against the impious he is a most upright judge. Desiring to defend his religion and divine cult, whom should I rather call upon, whom address, if not him through whom justice and wisdom have been restored to human affairs? Therefore, with the authors of this earthly philosophy, who bring forward nothing certain, set aside, let us undertake the straight way: whom indeed, if I thought sufficiently suitable as guides for living well, I myself would follow, and urge others to follow.

Sed cum inter se magna concertatione dissideant, secumque ipsi plerumque discordent, apparet eorum iter nequaquam esse directum: siquidem sibi quique, ut est libitum, proprias uias impresserunt, confusionemque magnam inquirentibus ueritatem reliquerunt. Nobis autem, qui sacramentum uerae religionis accepimus, cum sit ueritas reuelata diuinitus, cum doctorem sapientiae ducemque ueritatis Deum sequamur, uniuersos sine ullo discrimine uel sexus uel aetatis ad coeleste pabulum conuocamus. Nullus enim suauior animo cibus est, quam cognitio ueritatis, cui asserendae atque illustrandae septem uolumina destinauimus, quamuis ea res infiniti pene sit operis et immensi: ut si quis haec dilatare atque exequi plenissime uelit, tanta illi rerum copia exuberet, ut nec libri modum nec finem reperiat oratio.

But since they disagree among themselves with great contestation, and very often are at discord with themselves, it appears that their path is by no means direct: seeing that each one for himself, as it has pleased him, has impressed his own roads, and has left great confusion to those inquiring after the truth. But for us, who have received the sacrament of true religion, since the truth has been revealed divinely, since we follow God as teacher of wisdom and leader of truth, we summon all without any discrimination either of sex or of age to the heavenly nourishment. For no food is sweeter to the mind than the cognition of truth, to the asserting and illuminating of which we have destined seven volumes, although that matter is almost a work infinite and immense: so that if anyone should wish to dilate these things and to execute them most fully, such abundance of materials would overflow for him that neither would the book find a limit nor the discourse discover an end.

Sed nos idcirco breuiter omnia colligemus; quod ea quae allaturi sumus, tam clara sunt et lucida, ut magis mirum esse uideatur tam obscuram uideri hominibus ueritatem, et iis praecipue, qui sapientes uulgo putantur, uel quod tantummodo instituendi nobis homines erunt, hoc est, ab errore quo sunt implicati, ad rectiorem uiam reuocandi. Quod si fuerimus, ut spero, assecuti, mittemus eos ad ipsum doctrinae uberrimum ac plenissimum fontem, cuius haustu atque potu conceptam uisceribus sitim sedent, ardoremque restinguant. Eruntque illis omnia facilia, prona, manifesta: modo ne pigeat ad percipiendam sapientiae disciplinam, legendi, uel audiendi patientiam commodare.

But we therefore will gather everything briefly; because the things which we are about to bring forward are so clear and lucid, that it seems the more a wonder that truth appears so obscure to men, and especially to those who are commonly considered wise, or because we shall only have men to be instructed by us—that is, to be recalled from the error in which they are entangled to a more right way. But if we shall have attained this, as I hope, we will send them to the very font of doctrine, most abounding and most full, by whose draught and drink they may soothe the thirst conceived in their inward parts and quench the burning. And all things will be easy, ready, manifest to them: only let it not be irksome, for the receiving of the discipline of wisdom, to lend patience to reading or to hearing.

Multi enim superstitionibus uanis pertinaciter inhaerentes, obdurant se contra manifestam ueritatem, non tam de suis religionibus, quas praue asserunt, bene meriti, quam de se male: qui cum habeant iter rectum, deuios sequuntur anfractus; planum deserunt, ut per praecipitium labantur; lucem relinquunt, ut in tenebris caeci ac debiles iaceant. His consulendum est ne contra se pugnent, uelintque se tandem ab inueteratis erroribus liberari: quod utique facient, si, quare sint nati, aliquando peruiderint. Haec enim prauitatis est causa, ignoratio sui; quam si quis, cognita ueritate, discusserit, sciet quo referenda, et quemadmodum sibi uita degenda sit.

For many, pertinaciously adhering to vain superstitions, harden themselves against the manifest truth, not so much well-deserving with respect to their own religions, which they assert perversely, as ill-deserving with respect to themselves: who, though they have a straight way, follow devious windings; they abandon the level path, so that they may slip down a precipice; they leave the light, so that in the darkness they lie blind and feeble. These must be counseled not to fight against themselves, and to be willing at length to be freed from inveterate errors: which assuredly they will do, if ever they discern for what they have been born. For this is the cause of depravity, ignorance of oneself; which, if anyone, the truth having been known, shall have dispelled, he will know to what end things are to be referred, and in what manner life is to be spent by him.

Cuius scientiae summam breuiter circumscribo: ut neque religio ulla sine sapientia suscipienda sit, nec ulla sine religione probanda sapientia.

I briefly circumscribe the sum of this science: that neither any religion is to be undertaken without wisdom, nor any wisdom to be approved without religion.

[1,2] CAPUT II. Suscepto igitur illustrandae ueritatis officio, non putaui adeo necessarium ab illa quaestione principium sumere, quae uidetur prima esse natura: sitne prouidentia, quae rebus omnibus consulat; an fortuitu uel facta sint omnia uel regantur. Cuius sententiae auctor est Democritus, confirmator Epicurus. Sed et antea Protagoras, qui deos in dubium uocauit; et postea Diagoras, qui exclusit; et alii nonnulli qui non putauerunt deos esse; quid aliud effecerunt, nisi ut nulla esse prouidentia putaretur?

[1,2] CHAPTER 2. Having therefore undertaken the office of making the truth illustrious, I did not think it so necessary to take the beginning from that question which seems to be first by nature: whether there is Providence which takes counsel for all things; or whether all things either were made or are ruled fortuitously. The author of this opinion is Democritus, its confirmer Epicurus. But even before, Protagoras, who called the gods into doubt; and afterwards Diagoras, who excluded them; and some others who did not think the gods to exist—what else did they effect, except that it should be thought that there is no Providence?

quos tamen et caeteri philosophi, ac maxime Stoici acerrime retuderunt, docentes, nec fieri mundum sine diuina ratione potuisse, nec constare, nisi summa ratione regeretur. Sed et M- Tullius, quamuis Academicae disciplinae defensor esset, de prouidentia gubernatrice rerum et multa et saepe disseruit, Stoicorum argumenta confirmans, et noua ipse afferens plurima: quod facit tum in omnibus philosophiae suae libris, tum maxime in iis qui sunt de Natura deorum. Nec difficile sane fuit paucorum hominum praue sentientium redarguere mendacia testimonio populorum atque gentium in hac una re non dissidentium.

whom nevertheless the other philosophers, and most sharply the Stoics, blunted, teaching that neither could the world have been made without divine ratio, nor can it consist, unless it be governed by highest ratio. But also M. Tullius, although he was a defender of the Academic discipline, discoursed both much and often about providence as the governess of things, confirming the arguments of the Stoics and himself bringing forward very many new ones: which he does both in all the books of his philosophy, and most especially in those which are On the Nature of the Gods. Nor indeed was it difficult to refute the mendacities of a few men thinking perversely by the testimony of peoples and nations not dissenting in this one matter.

Nemo est enim tam rudis, tam feris moribus, qui oculos suos in coelum tollens, tametsi nesciat cuius Dei prouidentia regatur hoc omne quod cernitur, non aliquam tamen esse intelligat ex ipsa rerum magnitudine, motu, dispositione, constantia, utilitate, pulchritudine, temperatione: nec posse fieri quin id, quod mirabili ratione constat, consilio maiori aliquo sit instructum. Et nobis utique facillimum est exequi hanc partem quamlibet copiose. Sed quia multum inter philosophos agitata res est, et prouidentiam tollentibus satis responsum uidetur ab hominibus argutis et eloquentibus, et de solertia diuinae prouidentiae per totum hoc opus, quod suscepimus, sparsim dicere necesse est; omittamus in praesenti hanc quaestionem, quae cum caeteris sic cohaeret, ut nihil a nobis disseri posse uideatur, ut non simul de prouidentia disseratur.

For there is no one so rude, so with savage morals, who, lifting his eyes to heaven, although he may not know by the providence of which God this whole that is seen is governed, yet does not understand that there is some [providence] from the very magnitude of things, their motion, disposition, constancy, utility, beauty, tempering: nor can it be but that that which stands by wondrous reason is equipped with some greater counsel. And for us assuredly it is most easy to treat this part as copiously as you please. But since the matter has been much agitated among philosophers, and to those abolishing providence a sufficient reply seems to have been given by subtle and eloquent men, and it is necessary throughout this whole work, which we have undertaken, to speak here and there of the sagacity of divine providence; let us for the present omit this question, which so coheres with the others that nothing seems able to be discussed by us without providence being discussed at the same time.

[1,3] CAPUT III. Sit ergo nostri operis exordium quaestio illa consequens ac secunda: utrum potestate unius Dei mundus regatur, anne multorum? Nemo est qui quidem sapiat, rationemque secum putet, non unum esse intelligat, qui et condiderit omnia, et eadem, qua condidit, uirtute moderetur.

[1,3] CHAPTER 3. Let the exordium of our work, then, be that question which is consequent and second: whether the world is governed by the power of one God, or of many? There is no one who indeed is wise, and reckons reason with himself, who does not understand that there is one who both has founded all things and moderates them with the same power by which he founded them.

Quid enim multis opus est ad mundi regimen sustinendum? nisi forte arbitremur, si plures sint, minus habere singulos neruorum atque uirium. Quod quidem faciunt ii, qui multos esse uolunt; quia necesse est imbecilles esse: siquidem singuli, sine auxilio reliquorum, tantae molis gubernaculum sustinere non possent.

For what need is there of many to sustain the regimen of the world? Unless perhaps we suppose that, if there are more, each has less of sinews and of strength. This indeed is what those do who want there to be many; because it is necessary that they be weak: since individuals, without the assistance of the rest, would not be able to sustain the helm of so great a mass.

Deus autem, qui est aeterna mens, ex omni utique parte perfectae consummataeque uirtutis est. Quod si uerum est, unus sit necesse est. Potestas enim, uel uirtus absoluta, relinet suam propriam firmitatem.

God, however, who is the eternal mind, is in every respect of perfect and consummate virtue. And if this is true, it is necessary that he be one. For power, or absolute virtue, retains its own proper firmness.

Id autem solidum existimandum est, cui nihil decedere; id perfectum, cui nihil possit accedere. Quis dubitet potentissimum esse regem, qui totius orbis habeat imperium? neque immerito: cum illius sint, quae ubique sunt omnia; cum ad eum solum omnes undique copiae congerantur.

That, moreover, is to be considered solid, from which nothing can fall away; that perfect, to which nothing can be added. Who would doubt that the most mighty king is he who has the empire of the whole orb? and not without cause: since all things that are everywhere are his; since upon him alone all resources from every side are heaped together.

At si plures partiantur orbem, minus certe opum, minus uirium singuli habebunt, cum intra praescriptam portionem se quisque contineat. Eodem etiam modo dii, si plures sint, minus ualebunt, aliis tantumdem in se habentibus. Virtutis autem perfectior natura potest esse in eo, in quo totum est, quam in eo, in quo pars exigua de toto est.

But if several divide the orb, each certainly will have less of resources, less of powers, since each confines himself within the prescribed portion. In the same way also the gods, if there are several, will be less potent, others having just as much in themselves. But a more perfect nature of virtue can be in that in which the whole is, rather than in that in which an exiguous part of the whole is.

Deus uero, si perfectus est (quia perfectus est) ut esse debet, non potest esse nisi unus, ut in eo sint omnia. Deorum igitur uirtutes ac potestates infirmiores sint necesse est: quia tantum singulis deerit quantum in caeteris fuerit; ita quanto plures, tanto minores erunt. Quid, quod summa illa rerum potestas ac diuina uis ne semel quidem diuidi potest?

But God, if he is perfect (since he is perfect) as he ought to be, cannot be anything but one, so that in him all things are. Therefore the virtues and powers of gods must needs be more infirm: because as much will be lacking to individuals as will be in the others; thus the more of them there are, the lesser they will be. What of the fact that that highest power of things and divine force cannot be divided even once?

Quidquid enim capit diuisionem, et interitum capiat necesse est. Si autem interitus procul est a Deo, quia incorruptibilis est et aeternus, consequens est ut diuidi potestas diuina non possit. Deus ergo unus est, si nihil esse aliud potest, quod tantumdem capiat potestatis; et ii tamen, qui multos esse arbitrantur, officia inter se dicunt esse partitos: de quibus omnibus suo loco disputabimus.

For whatever admits division must of necessity also admit destruction. But if destruction is far from God, because he is incorruptible and eternal, it follows that the divine power cannot be divided. Therefore God is one, if there can be nothing else that can take in an equal measure of power; and yet those who suppose that there are many say that the offices are apportioned among them: about all of which we shall dispute in its proper place.

Illud interim, quod ad praesentem locum pertinet, teneo. Si partiti sunt inter se officia, eodem reuoluitur res, ut ex iis quilibet sufficere, omnibus nequeat. Perfectus igitur iam non erit, qui, cessantibus caeteris, non potest omnia gubernare.

Meanwhile, I hold this, which pertains to the present point. If they have partitioned the offices among themselves, the matter revolves back to the same thing: that any one of them cannot suffice for all. Therefore he will no longer be perfect, who, the rest ceasing, cannot govern all things.

Ita fit ut ad regendum mundum unius perfecta uirtute magis opus sit, quam imbecillitate multorum. Qui autem putat hanc tantam magnitudinem non posse ab uno regi, fallitur. Nec enim quanta sit uis potestasque diuinae maiestatis intelligit, si existimat singularem Deum, qui facere mundum potuit, eumdem regere non posse quem fecit.

Thus it comes about that for governing the world there is more need of the perfect virtue of one than of the imbecility of many. But whoever thinks that so great a magnitude cannot be ruled by one is deceived. For he does not understand how great is the force and power of the divine majesty, if he supposes that the singular God who was able to make the world cannot govern that same world which he made.

At si concipiat animo, quanta sit diuini huius operis immensitas cum antea nihil esset, tamen uirtute atque consilio Dei ex nihilo esse conflatam; quod opus nisi ab uno inchoari perficique non potuit: iam intelliget, multo facilius esse ab uno regi, quod est ab uno constitutum. Dicat fortasse aliquis, ne fabricari quidem tam immensum opus mundi, nisi a pluribus potuisse: quamlibet multos, quamlibet magnos faciat, quidquid in multis magnitudinis, potestatis, uirtutis, maiestatisque posuerit, id totum in unum confero, et in uno esse dico; ut tantum in eo sit istarum rerum, quantum nec cogitari nec dici potest. Qua in re quoniam et sensu deficimus et uerbis; quia neque tantae intelligentiae lucem pectus humanum, neque explanationem tantarum rerum capit lingua mortalis: idipsum intelligere nos oportet ac dicere.

But if he should conceive in his mind how great is the immensity of this divine work—that when previously nothing existed, yet by the virtue and counsel of God it was fashioned ex nihilo; a work which could not be initiated and perfected except by one—then he will understand that it is much easier for what has been constituted by one to be ruled by one. Perhaps someone will say that not even so immense a work as the world could have been fabricated except by many: let him make them however many, however great; whatever of greatness, power, virtue, and majesty he shall have placed in many, I transfer that whole to one, and I say it is in one; so that there is in him so much of these things as can neither be conceived nor spoken. In which matter, since we fail both in sense and in words—because neither does the human breast grasp the light of so great an intelligence, nor does a mortal tongue contain the explication of such great things—we ought to understand and to say this very thing.

Video rursus quid e contrario dici possit: tales esse illos plures, qualem nos uolumus unum. At hoc fieri nullo pacto potest, quod singulorum potestas progredi longius non ualebit, occurrentibus sibi postestatibus caeterorum. Necesse est enim ut suos quisque limites aut transgredi nequeat, aut si transgressus fuerit, suis alterum finibus pellat.

I see again what, on the contrary, can be said: that those many would be such as we want the one to be. But this can in no way be done, because the power of individuals will not be able to progress farther, the powers of the others meeting them. For it is necessary that each either cannot transgress his own limits, or, if he has transgressed, he drives another from his own boundaries.

Non uident, qui deos multos esse credunt, fieri posse ut aliqui diuersum uelint; ex qua re disceptatio inter eos et certamen oriatur: sicut Homerus bellantes inter se deos finxit; cum alii Troiam capi uellent, alii repugnarent. Unius igitur arbitrio mundum regi necesse est. Nisi enim singularum partium potestas ad unam prouidentiam referatur, non poterit summa ipsa constare; unoquoque nihil curante amplius, quam quod ad eum proprie pertinet: sicut ne res quidem militaris, nisi unum habeat ducem atque rectorem.

They do not see, who believe there are many gods, that it can come to pass that some will wish a different thing; whence disputation and contest may arise among them: just as Homer fashioned gods fighting among themselves, since some wished Troy to be taken, others resisted. Therefore it is necessary that the world be ruled by the arbitration of one. For unless the power of the several parts be referred to a single providence, the sum itself will not be able to consist; with each one caring for nothing more than what pertains properly to himself: just as not even the military establishment can [stand], unless it have one leader and rector.

Quod si in uno exercitu tot fuerint imperatores, quot legiones, quot cohortes, quot cunei, quot alae, primum nec instrui poterit acies, unoquoque periculum recusante; nec regi facile, aut temperari, quod suis propriis consiliis utantur omnes, quorum diuersitate plus noceant, quam prosint: sic in hoc rerum naturae imperio, nisi unus fuerit, ad quem totius summae cura referatur, uniuersa soluentur et corruent. Dicere autem, multorum arbitrio regi mundum, tale est, quale si quis affirmet in uno corpore multas esse mentes: quoniam multa et uaria sunt ministeria membrorum; ut singulos corporis sensus singulae mentes regere credantur, item multi affectus, quibus commoueri solemus uel ad iram, uel ad cupiditatem, uel ad laetitiam, uel ad metum, uel ad miserationem; ut in his omnibus totidem mentes putentur operari: quod si quis profecto dicat, ne ipsam quidem, quae una est, habere uideatur. Quod si in uno corpore tantarum rerum gubernationem mens una possidet, et uniuersis simul intenta est; cur aliquis existimet mundum non posse ab uno regi, a pluribus posse?

But if in one army there were as many commanders as there are legions, as many as cohorts, as many as wedges, as many as wings, first the battle-line could not be drawn up, with each one refusing the danger; nor could it be easily ruled or kept in temper, because all would use their own proper counsels, whose diversity would do more harm than good: so in this empire of the nature of things, unless there be one to whom the care of the whole sum is referred, the universe will be loosened and collapse. To say, moreover, that the world is ruled by the arbitration of many is like someone affirming that in one body there are many minds: since the ministries of the members are many and varied; so that the several senses of the body are believed to be ruled by several minds, likewise the many affections by which we are wont to be moved either to anger, or to desire, or to joy, or to fear, or to compassion; so that in all these just as many minds are thought to operate: and if someone should indeed say this, he would seem not to have even that very one which is single. But if in one body one mind possesses the governance of so great things, and is at the same time intent upon all of them, why should anyone suppose that the world cannot be ruled by one, but can by many?

Quod quia intelligunt isti assertores deorum, ita eos praeesse singulis rebus ac partibus dicunt, ut tamen unus sit rector eximius. Iam ergo caeteri dii non erunt sed satellites ac ministri, quos ille unus maximus et polens omnium his officiis praefecerit; et ipsi eius imperio ac nutibus seruient. Si uniuersi pares non sunt, non igitur dii omnes sunt.

Because those assertors of the gods understand this, they say that they preside over individual things and parts, yet that nevertheless there is one preeminent rector. Therefore, then, the rest will not be gods but satellites and ministers, whom that one, greatest and potent of all, has set over these offices; and they themselves will serve his command and nods. If all taken together are not equals, then not all are gods.

Nec enim potest hoc idem esse, quod seruit, et quod dominatur. Nam si Deus est nomen summae potestatis, incorruptibilis esse debet, perfectus, impassibilis, nulli rei subiectus. Ergo dii non sunt, quos parere uni maximo Deo necessitas cogit.

For indeed the same cannot be both that which serves and that which dominates. For if “God” is the name of the highest power, he must be incorruptible, perfect, impassible, subject to no thing. Therefore they are not gods whom necessity compels to obey the one greatest God.

Sed quia non frustra falluntur ii qui hoc ita putant, causam huius erroris paulo post aperiemus. Nunc unitatem diuinae potestatis testimoniis comprobemus.

But since those who think thus are not deceived without cause, we will a little later lay open the cause of this error. Now let us confirm the unity of the divine power by testimonies.

[1,4] CAPUT IV. Prophetae, qui fuerunt admodum multi, unum Deum praedicant, unum loquuntur: quippe qui unius Dei spiritu pleni, quae futura essent, pari et consona uoce praedixerunt. At enim ueritatis expertes non putant his esse credendum. Illas enim non diuinas, sed humanas uoces fuisse aiunt.

[1,4] CHAPTER 4. The Prophets, who were very many, proclaim one God, they speak one: indeed, since filled with the Spirit of the one God, they foretold the things that were to be with an equal and consonant voice. But indeed, those destitute of truth do not think that credence is to be given to these. For they say that those voices were not divine, but human.

Videlicet quia de uno Deo praeconium faciunt, aut insani, aut fallaces fuerunt. At quin impleta esse implerique quotidie illorum uaticinia uidemus; et in unam sententiam congruens diuinatio docet non fuisse furiosos. Quis enim mentis emotae, non modo futura praecinere, sed etiam cohaerentia loqui possit?

Namely, because they make a proclamation of one God, they must have been either insane or deceitful. But indeed we see that their vaticinations have been fulfilled and are fulfilled every day; and divination, converging into one and the same judgment, teaches that they were not mad. For who, with a mind unseated, could not only foretell things to come, but even speak things that cohere?

Num ergo fallaces erant, qui talia loquebantur? quid ab his tam longe alienum quam ratio fallendi, cum caeteros ab omni fraude cohiberent? Idcirco enim a Deo mittebantur, ut et praecones essent maiestatis eius, et correctores prauitatis humanae.

Were they then deceivers, who spoke such things? What is so far alien from them as a rationale for deceiving, when they were restraining others from every fraud? For this reason they were sent by God, that they might be both heralds of his majesty and correctors of human pravity.

Praeterea uoluntas fingendi ac mentiendi eorum est qui opes appetunt, qui lucra desiderant; quae res procul ab illis sanctis uiris abfuit. Ita enim delegato sibi officio functi sunt, ut, derelictis omnibus ad tutelam uitae necessariis, non modo in futurum, sed ne in diem quidem laborarent, contenti extemporali cibo, quem Deus subministrasset: et hi non modo quaestum nullum habuerunt, sed etiam cruciatus atque mortem. Amara sunt enim uitiosis ac male uiuentibus praecepta iustitiae.

Moreover, the will to fashion and to lie belongs to those who have an appetite for wealth, who desire lucre; a matter far removed from those holy men. For thus did they discharge the office delegated to them, that, having abandoned all things necessary for the safeguarding of life, they labored not only not for the future, but not even for the day, content with extemporary food which God had supplied: and these not only had no gain, but even torments and death. For the precepts of justice are bitter to the vicious and to those living badly.

Itaque ii, quorum peccata et arguebantur et prohibebantur, excruciatos eos acerbissime necauerunt. Ergo a quibus abfuit studium lucri, abfuit etiam uoluntas et causa fallendi. Quid, quod aliqui eorum principes aut etiam reges fuerunt, in quos cadere non posset suspicio cupiditatis ac fraudis, et tamen praeconium Dei singularis eadem, qua caeteri, diuinatione fecerunt?

Therefore those, whose sins were both being arraigned and being prohibited, after excruciating them most bitterly killed them. Therefore, from those in whom the zeal for profit was absent, the will and the cause of deceiving were also absent. What of the fact that some of them were princes or even kings, upon whom suspicion of cupidity and fraud could not fall, and yet they made the proclamation of the singular God by the same divination as the rest?

[1,5] CAPUT V. Sed omittamus sane testimonia prophetarum, ne minus idonea probatio uideatur esse de his, quibus omnino non creditur. Veniamus ad auctores; et eos ipsos ad ueri probationem testes citemus, quibus contra nos uti solent, poetas dico ac philosophus. Ex his unum Deum probemus necesse est: non quod illi habuerint cognitam ueritatem; sed quod ueritatis ipsius tanta uis est, ut nemo possit esse tam caecus, qui non uideat ingerentem se oculis diuinam claritatem.

[1,5] CHAPTER 5. But let us indeed omit the testimonies of the prophets, lest the proof appear less suitable because it is from those to whom no credit at all is given. Let us come to the authorities; and let us cite as witnesses for the proof of the truth those very persons whom they are accustomed to use against us, I mean the poets and the philosophers. From these we must demonstrate one God: not that they had the truth known; but because so great is the force of truth itself that no one can be so blind as not to see the divine brightness thrusting itself upon the eyes.

Poetae igitur, quamuis deos carminibus ornauerint, et eorum res gestas amplificauerint summis laudibus, saepissime tamen confitentur spiritu uel mente una contineri regique omnia. Orpheus, qui est uetustissimus poetarum, et aequalis ipsorum deorum (siquidem traditur inter Argonautas cum Tyndaridis et Hercule nauigasse), Deum uerum et magnum, g-prohtogonon, id est primogenitum, appellat; quod ante ipsum nihil sit genitum, sed ab ipso sint cuncta generata: eumdem etiam faunhta nominat; quod cum adhuc nihil esset, primus ex infinito apparuerit et extiterit. Cuius originem atque naturam quia concipere animo non poterat, ex aere immenso natum esse dixit: g-Prohtogonoû g-phaetohn g-peri g-mehkeos g-eheros g-huios.

Therefore the poets, although they have adorned the gods with songs and have amplified their exploits with the highest praises, nevertheless most often confess that all things are contained and ruled by one spirit or mind. Orpheus, who is the most ancient of the poets, and a contemporary of the gods themselves (since it is handed down that he sailed among the Argonauts with the Tyndarids and Hercules), calls the true and great God g-prohtogonon, that is, first-born; because before him nothing was begotten, but from him all things were generated: he also names the same one Phanes; because when as yet nothing existed, he first appeared and came forth from the Infinite. And since he could not conceive in mind his origin and nature, he said that he was born from the boundless air: g-Prohtogonoû g-phaetohn g-peri g-mehkeos g-eheros g-huios.

Aliud enim amplius quod diceret non habebat. Hunc ait esse omnium deorum parentem, quorum causa coelum condiderit, liberisque prospexerit ut haberent habitaculum, sedemque communem: g-ektisen g-athanatois g-domon g-aphthiton. Natura igitur et ratione ducente, intellexit esse praestantissimam potestatem coeli ac terrae conditricem.

For he had nothing further to say. He says that this one is the parent of all the gods, for whose sake he founded heaven, and provided for the children that they might have a habitation and a common seat: g-ektisen g-athanatois g-domon g-aphthiton. Therefore, with nature and reason leading, he understood that there is a most preeminent power, the foundress of heaven and earth.

Non poterat enim dicere Iouem esse principem rerum, qui erat Saturno genitus; neque Saturnum ipsum, qui coelo natus ferebatur: coelum autem tamquam Deum primum constituere non audebat, quod uidebat elementum esse mundi, quod ipsum eguerit auctore. Haec eum ratio perduxit ad illum Deum primogenitum, cui assignat et tribuit principatum. Homerus nihil nobis dare potuit, quod pertineat ad ueritatem, qui humana potius quam diuina conscripsit.

For he could not say that Jupiter was the chief of things, who was begotten of Saturn; nor Saturn himself, who was reported to have been born of heaven: but he did not dare to constitute heaven as the first God, because he saw it to be an element of the world, which itself has needed an author. This reasoning led him to that first-begotten God, to whom he assigns and bestows the principate. Homer could give us nothing that pertains to truth, who wrote human rather than divine things.

Potuit Hesiodus, qui deorum generationem unius libri opere complexus est. Sed tamen nihil dedit, non a Deo conditore sumens exordium, sed a chao, quod est rudis inordinataeque materiae confusa congeries: cum explanare ante debuerit, chaos ipsum unde, quando, quomodo esse, aut constare coepisset. Nimirum sicut ab aliquo artifice disposita, ordinata, effecta sunt omnia: sic ipsam materiam fictam esse ab aliquo necesse est.

Hesiod could have, who in the work of a single book encompassed the generation of the gods. Yet he gave nothing, not taking his exordium from God the creator, but from chaos, which is a confused conglomeration of raw and unordered matter: whereas he ought first to have explained whence, when, how chaos itself began to be, or to consist. Clearly, just as all things have been disposed, ordered, effected by some artificer, so it is necessary that the matter itself be fashioned by someone.

Quis igitur hanc, nisi Deus, fecit, cuius potestati subiacent omnia? sed refugit hoc ille dum horret incognitam, ueritatem. Non enim Musarum instinctu, sicut uideri uolebat, in Helicone carmen illud effudit; sed meditatus uenerat et paratus.

Who then made this, if not God, to whose power all things lie subject? but he shrank from this while he shuddered at the unknown truth. For not by the Muses’ instinct, as he wished to seem, did he pour forth that song on Helicon; rather, he had come premeditated and prepared.

Nostrorum primus Maro non longe fuit a ueritate; cuius de summo Deo, quem mentem ac spiritum nominauit, haec uerba sunt: "Principio coelum, ac terras, camposque liquentes, Lucentemque globum lunae, Titaniaque astra, Spiritus intus alit; totamque infusa per artus Meus agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet." Ac ne quis forte ignoret quisnam esset ille spiritus, qui tantum haberet potestatis, declarauit alio loco, dicens: "Deum namque ire per omnes Terrasque, tractusque maris, coelumque profundum. Hinc pecudes, armenta, uiros, genus omne ferarum, Quemque sibi tenues nascentem arcessere uitas." Ouidius quoque in principio praeclari operis, sine ulla nominis dissimulatione, a Deo, quem fabricatorem mundi, quem rerum opificem uocat, mundum fatetur instructum. Quod si uel Orpheus, uel hi nostri, quae natura ducente senserunt, in perpetuum defendissent, eamdem quam nos sequimur, doctrinam comprehensa ueritate tenuissent.

Of our own, first Maro was not far from the truth; of whom, concerning the Most High God, whom he named Mind and Spirit, these are the words: "In the beginning heaven and lands, and the liquid plains, and the shining globe of the moon, and the Titanian stars, a Spirit within nourishes; and, poured through all the limbs, my Spirit stirs the whole mass, and mingles itself with the great body." And lest anyone perchance not know who that spirit was, who had so much power, he made it clear in another place, saying: "For God indeed goes through all lands and the tracts of the sea, and the deep heaven. Hence come flocks, herds, men, every kind of beasts, and each at its birth draws to itself the tenuous lives." Ovid also, at the beginning of his illustrious work, without any dissimulation of the name, confesses the world to have been set in order by God, whom he calls the fabricator of the world, the artificer of things. But if either Orpheus, or these our own, had defended forever the things which, with Nature leading, they perceived, they would have held the same doctrine which we follow, the truth having been grasped.

Sed hactenus de poetis. Ad philosophos ueniamus, quorum grauior est auctoritas, certiusque iudicium; quia non rebus commentitiis, sed inuestigandae ueritati studuisse creduntur. Thales Milesius, qui unus e septem sapientium numero fuit, quique primus omnium quaesisse de causis naturalibus traditur, aquam esse dixit, ex qua nata sint omnia; Deum autem esse mentem, quae ex aqua cuncta formauerit.

But thus far about the poets. Let us come to the philosophers, whose authority is graver and whose judgment more certain; because they are believed to have been devoted not to commentitious things, but to truth to be investigated. Thales the Milesian, who was one of the number of the Seven Sages, and who is reported to have been the first of all to inquire into natural causes, said that water is that from which all things were born; and that God is Mind, who formed all things out of water.

Ita materiam rerum posuit in humore; principium causamque nascendi constituit in Deo. Pythagoras ita definiuit quid esset Deus: «Animus, qui per uniuersas mundi partes, omnemque naturam commeans atque diffusus; ex quo omnia, quae nascuntur animalia, uitam capiunt.» Anaxagoras Deum esse dixit infinitam mentem, quae per seipsam moueatur, Antisthenes multos quidem esse populares deos, unum tamen naturalem, summae totius artificem. Cleanthes et Anaximenes aethera dicunt esse summum Deum; cui opinioni poeta noster assensit: "Tum pater omnipotens foecundis imbribus aether Coniugis in gremium laetae descendit, et omnes Magnus alit magno permixtus corpore foetus." Chrysippus naturalem uim diuina ratione praeditam, interdum diuinam necessitatem Deum nuncupat.

Ita he placed the material of things in moisture; he established the beginning and cause of being-born in God. Pythagoras thus defined what God is: «Spirit, which, traversing and diffused through all the parts of the world and all nature; from which all animals that are born take life.» Anaxagoras said that God is an infinite mind, which moves by itself. Antisthenes [said] that there are indeed many popular gods, yet one natural [God], the artificer of the whole totality. Cleanthes and Anaximenes say that the aether is the highest God; to which opinion our poet assented: "Then the omnipotent father, the aether, with fecund showers descends into the lap of his happy spouse, and great he nourishes all the offspring, mingled with her great body." Chrysippus calls God the natural force endowed with divine reason, and sometimes calls divine necessity God.

Item Zeno diuinam naturalemque legem. Horum omnium sententia, quamuis sit incerta, eodem tamen spectat, ut prouidentiam unam esse consentiant. Siue enim natura, siue aether, siue ratio, siue mens, siue fatalis necessitas, siue diuina lex, siue quid aliud dixeris; idem est, quod a nobis dicitur Deus.

Likewise Zeno the divine and natural law. The opinion of all these, although it is uncertain, nevertheless looks to the same point, that they agree there is one Providence. For whether you say nature, or aether, or reason, or mind, or fatal necessity, or divine law, or anything else; it is the same as what by us is called God.

Nec obstat appellationum diuersitas, cum ipsa significatione ad unum omnia reuoluantur. Aristoteles, quamuis secum ipse dissideat, ac repugnantia sibi et dicat et sentiat, in summum tamen unam mentem mundo praeesse testatur. Plato, qui omnium sapientissimus iudicatur, monarchiam plane aperteque defendit; nec aethera, aut rationem, aut naturam, sed, ut est, Deum nominat; ab eo mundum hunc perfectum atque mirabilem esse fabricatum.

Nor does the diversity of appellations hinder, since by the very signification all things are revolved back to one. Aristotle, although he is at variance with himself and both says and thinks things repugnant to himself, nevertheless testifies that one mind presides over the world as supreme. Plato, who is judged the wisest of all, plainly and openly defends monarchy; and he names not aether, or reason, or nature, but, as it is, God; by whom this perfect and wonderful world has been fashioned.

Quem Cicero secutus atque imitatus in plurimis, Deum frequenter confitetur, ac supremum uocat in iis libris, quos de Legibus scripsit; ab eoque regi mundum argumentatur, cum disputat de Natura deorum, hoc modo: «Nihil est praestantius Deo; ab eo igitur mundum regi necesse est. Nulli igitur est naturae obediens aut subiectus Deus; omnem ergo regit ipse naturam.» Quid autem sit Deus, in Consolatione definit: «Nec uero Deus ipse, qui intelligitur a nobis, alio modo intelligi potest, nisi mens soluta quaedam et libera, segregata ab omni concretione mortali, omnia sentiens ac mouens.» Annaeus quoque Seneca, qui ex Romanis uel acerrimus Stoicus fuit, quam saepe summum Deum merita laude prosequitur! Nam cum de immatura morte dissereret: «Non intelligis, inquit, auctoritatem ac maiestatem iudicis tui, rectorem orbis terrarum, coelique et deorum omnium Deum, a quo ista numina, quae singula adoramus, et colimus, suspensa sunt.» Item in Exhortationibus: «Hic, cum prima fundamenta molis pulcherrimae iaceret, et hoc ordiretur, quo neque maius quidquam nouit natura, nec melius; ut omnia sub ducibus suis irent, quamuis ipse per totum se corpus intenderat, tamen ministros regni sui deos genuit.» Et quam multa alia de Deo nostris similia locutus est: quae nunc differo, quod aliis locis opportuniora sunt.

Whom Cicero, having followed and imitated in very many things, frequently confesses God, and calls him supreme in those books which he wrote On the Laws; and he argues that the world is governed by him, when he discusses On the Nature of the Gods, in this way: «Nothing is more preeminent than God; therefore it is necessary that the world be governed by him. Therefore God is obedient or subject to no nature; he himself therefore governs the whole nature.» And what God is, he defines in the Consolation: «Nor indeed can God himself, who is understood by us, be understood in any other way, except as a certain mind loosed and free, segregated from all mortal concretion, perceiving and moving all things.» Annaeus Seneca also, who of the Romans was even the keenest Stoic, how often does he pursue the highest God with deserved praise! For when he was discoursing about untimely death: «You do not understand, he says, the authority and majesty of your judge, the rector of the circle of lands, and the God of heaven and of all the gods, upon whom those divinities (numina), which we worship and honor individually, are dependent.» Likewise in the Exhortations: «When he was laying the first foundations of a most beautiful mass, and was ordering this, than which nature knows nothing greater nor better; that all things might go under their own leaders, although he had stretched himself through the whole body, nevertheless he begot the gods as ministers of his kingdom.» And how many other things has he spoken about God similar to ours: which I now defer, because they are more opportune in other places.

Nunc satis est demonstrare, summo ingenio uiros attigisse ueritatem, ac pene tenuisse; nisi eos retrorsum infatuata prauis opinionibus consuetudo rapuisset, qua et deos alios esse opinabantur, et ea, quae in usum hominis Deus fecit, tamquam sensu praedita essent, pro diis habenda, et colenda credebant.

Now it is enough to demonstrate that men of the highest genius touched the truth and almost held it; had not a consuetude, infatuated by perverse opinions, snatched them backward—whereby they both opined that there were other gods, and believed that the things which God made for the use of man, as though endowed with sense, ought to be held as gods and to be worshiped.

[1,6] CAPUT VI. Nunc ad diuina testimonia transeamus: sed prius unum proferam, quod est simile diuino, et ob nimiam uetustatem, et quod is, quem nominabo, ex hominibus in deos relatus est. Apud Ciceronem C- Cotta pontifex disputans contra Stoicos de religionibus, et de uarietate opinionum, quae solent esse de diis, ut more academicorum omnia faceret incerta, quinque fuisse Mercurios ait; et enumeratis per ordinem quatuor, quintum fuisse eum, a quo occisus sit Argus, ob eamque causam in Aegyptum profugisse, atque Aegyptiis leges ac litteras tradidisse. Hunc Aegyptii Thoyth appellant, a quo apud eos primus anni sui mensis, id est september, nomen accepit.

[1,6] CHAPTER 6. Now let us pass over to divine testimonies: but first I will bring forward one which is akin to a divine one, both on account of excessive antiquity, and because he whom I shall name was translated from among men into the gods. In Cicero, C- Cotta the pontiff, disputing against the Stoics about religions and about the variety of opinions which are wont to be about the gods, so that after the custom of the Academics he made all things uncertain, says that there were five Mercuries; and, the four having been enumerated in order, that the fifth was he by whom Argus was slain, and for that cause fled into Egypt, and handed down laws and letters to the Egyptians. The Egyptians call this man Thoyth, from whom among them the first month of their year, that is September, took its name.

Idem oppidum condidit, quod etiam nunc Graece uocatur g-Ermopolis et Phenatae colunt eum religiose. Qui tametsi homo, fuit tamen antiquissimus, et instructissimus omni genere doctrinae: adeo ut ei multarum rerum et artium scientia Trismegisto cognomen imponeret. Hic scripsit libros, et quidem multos, ad cognitionem diuinarum rerum pertinentes, in quibus maiestatem summi ac singularis Dei asserit, iisdemque nominibus appellat, quibus nos, Deum et patrem.

That same man founded a town, which even now is called in Greek “Hermopolis,” and the Phenatae worship him religiously. Who, although a man, was nevertheless most ancient, and most fully instructed in every kind of doctrine: to such a degree that the science of many things and of arts imposed on him the cognomen Trismegistus. He wrote books, and indeed many, pertaining to the cognition of divine matters, in which he asserts the majesty of the highest and singular God, and he calls Him by the same names by which we do, God and Father.

Ac ne quis nomen eius requireret, g-anohnumon esse dixit; eo quod nominis proprietate non egeat, ob ipsam scilicet unitatem. Ipsius haec uerba sunt: g-Ho g-de g-theos g-eis, g-ho g-de g-eis g-onomatos g-ou g-prosdeeitai, g-esti g-gar g-ho g-hohn g-anohnumos. Deo igitur nomen non est, quia solus est; nec opus est proprio uocabulo, nisi cum discrimen exigit multitudo, ut unamquamque personam sua nota et appellatione designes.

And lest anyone should ask his name, he said that it is anonymous, because he does not need the property of a name, on account of the unity itself. These are his words: “God is one, and the One has no need of a name, for he who is One is anonymous.” Therefore there is no name for God, because he is alone; nor is there need of a proper vocable, unless a multitude demands a distinction, so that you may designate each person by his own mark and appellation.

Deo autem, quia semper unus est, proprium nomen est Deus. Superest de responsis carminibusque sacris testimonia, quae sunt multo certiora, proferre. Nam fortasse ii, contra quos agimus, nec poëtis putent esse credendum, tamquam uana fingentibus; nec philosophis, quod errare potuerint, quia et ipsi homines fuerint.

But for God, because he is always one, the proper name is God. It remains to bring forward testimonies from the responses and sacred songs, which are much more certain. For perhaps those with whom we contend think that neither the poets are to be believed, as feigning vain things, nor the philosophers, because they could have erred, since they too were men.

M- Varro, quo nemo umquam doctior, ne apud graecos quidem nedum apud latinos uixit, in libris rerum diuinarum, quos ad C- Caesarem pontificem maximum scripsit, cum de quindecim uiris loqueretur, Sibyllinos libros ait non fuisse unius Sibyllae; sed appellari uno nomine Sibyllinos quod omnes foeminae uates Sibyllae, sint a ueteribus nuncupatae, uel ab unius Delphidis nomine, uel a consiliis deorum enuntiandis. g-sious enim deos, non g-theous, et consilium non g-boulehn, sed g-bulehn appellabant Aeolico genere sermonis: itaque Sibyllam dictam esse quasi g-siobolehn; caeterum Sibyllas decem numero fuisse; easque omnes enumerauit sub auctoribus, qui de singulis scriptitauerint: primam fuisse de Persis, cuius mentionem fecerit Nicanor, qui res gestas Alexandri Macedonis scripsit: secundam Lybissam, cuius meminit Euripides in Lamiae prologo: tertiam Delphida, de qua Chrysippus loquitur in eo libro, quem de diuinatione composuit: quartam Cimmeriam in Italia, quam Naeuius in libris belli Punici, Piso in annalibus nominat: quintam Erythraeam, quam Apollodorus Erythraeus affirmat suam fuisse ciuem, eamque Graiis Ilium petentibus uaticinatam, et perituram esse Troiam, et Homerum mendacia scripturum: sextam Samiam de qua scribit Eratosthenes in antiquis annalibus Samiorum repeisse se scriptum: septimam Cumanam nomine Amaltheam, quae ab aliis Demophile uel Herophile nominatur; eamque nouem libros attulisse ad regem Tarquinium Priscum, ac pro eis trecentos Philippeos postulasse; regemque aspernatum pretii magnitudinem, derisisse mulieris insaniam: illam in conspectu Regis tres combussisse, ac pro reliquis idem pretium postulasse: Tarquinium multo magis mulierem insanire putasse. Quae denuo tribus aliis exustis, cum in eodem pretio perseueraret, motum esse regem, ac residuos trecentis aureis emisse: quorum postea numerus sit auctus, Capitolio refecto, quod ex omnibus ciuitatibus et Italicis, et Graecis, et praecipue Erythraeis coacti, allatique sunt Romam, cuiuscumque Sibyllae nomine fuerint: octauam Hellespontiam in agro Troiano natam; uico Marpesso, circa oppidum Gergithium; quam scribit Heraclides Ponticus Solonis et Cyri fuisse temporibus: nonam Phrygiam, quae uaticinata sit Ancyrae: decimam Tiburtem, nomine Albuneam, quae Tiburi colitur ut dea, iuxta ripas amnis Anienis, cuius in gurgite simulacrum eius inuentum esse dicitur, tenens in manu librum: cuius sortes Senatus in Capitolium transtulerit.

M- Varro, than whom no one ever more learned lived, not even among the Greeks, to say nothing of the Latins, in the books on divine matters which he wrote to C- Caesar the pontifex maximus, when he was speaking about the Fifteen Men, says that the Sibylline Books were not those of one Sibyl; but that they are called by the one name “Sibylline” because all prophetess-women were by the ancients named Sibyls, either from the name of a certain single Delphic woman, or from announcing the counsels of the gods. For in the Aeolic kind of speech they called gods g-sious, not g-theous, and counsel not g-boulehn, but g-bulehn: and so Sibylla is said to have been called as if g-siobolehn; moreover that the Sibyls were ten in number; and he enumerated them all along with the authorities who have written about each: the first was the Persian, mention of whom was made by Nicanor, who wrote the deeds of Alexander the Macedonian; the second the Libyan, whom Euripides remembers in the prologue of the Lamia; the third the Delphic, of whom Chrysippus speaks in that book which he composed on divination; the fourth the Cimmerian in Italy, whom Naevius in the books on the Punic War, and Piso in his Annals, names; the fifth the Erythraean, whom Apollodorus of Erythrae affirms to have been his fellow-citizen, and who prophesied to the Greeks as they sought Ilium that Troy would perish, and that Homer would write mendacities; the sixth the Samian, about whom Eratosthenes writes that he found it written in the ancient annals of the Samians; the seventh the Cumaean, by name Amalthea, who by others is called Demophile or Herophile; and she brought nine books to King Tarquinius Priscus, and for them demanded three hundred Philippei; and the king, spurning the greatness of the price, mocked the woman’s madness: she in the sight of the king burned three, and for the rest demanded the same price; Tarquin thought much more that the woman was mad. When she again burned three others, since she persisted at the same price, the king was moved, and for three hundred gold pieces bought the remaining ones: the number of which was afterward increased, when the Capitol was rebuilt, because from all the cities, both Italian and Greek, and especially from Erythrae, they were collected and brought to Rome, of whatever Sibyl’s name they might have been: the eighth the Hellespontine, born in the Troad, in the village Marpessus, near the town Gergithium; whom Heraclides Ponticus writes to have been in the times of Solon and Cyrus; the ninth the Phrygian, who prophesied at Ancyra; the tenth the Tiburtine, by name Albunea, who at Tibur is worshiped as a goddess, near the banks of the river Anio, in the whirlpool of which her statue is said to have been found, holding a book in her hand: whose lots the Senate transferred into the Capitol.

Harum omnium Sibyllarum carmina et feruntur et habentur, praeterquam Cumaeae, cuius libri a Romanis occuluntur, nec eos ab ullo, nisi a quindecim uiris inspici fas habent. Et sunt singularum singuli libri: qui quia Sibyllae nomine inscribuntur, unius esse creduntur; suntque confusi, nec discerni ac suum cuique assignari potest: nisi Eruthraeae, quae et nomen suum uerum carmini inseruit, et Erythraeam se nominatum iri praelocuta est, cum esset orta Babylone: sed et nos confuse Sibyllam dicemus, sicubi testimoniis earum fuerit abutendum. Omnes igitur hae Sibyllae unum Deum praedicant; maxime tamen Erythraea, quae celebrior inter caeteras ac nobilior habetur: siquidem Fenestella, diligentissimus Scriptor de quindecim uiris dicens, ait, restituto Capitolio, retulisse ad Senatum C- Curionem Cos- ut legati Erythras mitterentur, qui carmina Sibyllae conquisita Romam deportarent; itaque missos esse P- Gabinium, M- Otacilium, L- Valerium, qui descriptos a priuatis uersus circa mille Romam deportarunt.

The songs of all these Sibyls are both circulated and held, except of the Cumaean, whose books are concealed by the Romans, nor do they have it as a religious permission that they be inspected by anyone, save by the fifteen men. And there are single books of each; which, because they are inscribed under the name Sibyl, are believed to be of one; and they are confused, nor can they be discerned and assigned to each her own—except the Erythraean, who both inserted her true name into the song, and foretold that she would be named Erythraean, though she had arisen from Babylon: but we too will speak confusedly of “the Sibyl,” wherever their testimonies must be employed. All therefore these Sibyls proclaim one God; most of all, however, the Erythraean, who is held more celebrated and more noble among the rest: since indeed Fenestella, a most diligent writer, speaking about the fifteen men, says that, the Capitol having been restored, C- Curio, Cons-, reported to the Senate that envoys be sent to Erythrae, to carry off to Rome the songs of the Sibyl sought out; and so P- Gabinius, M- Otacilius, L- Valerius were sent, who brought to Rome about 1,000 verses transcribed from private persons.

Idem supra ostendimus dixisse Varronem. In iis ergo uersibus, quos legati Romam attulerunt, de uno Deo haec sunt testimonia: "g-Eis g-theos g-hos g-monos g-estin g-hupermegethehs, g-agenehtos". Hunc esse solum Deum summum, qui coelum fecerit, luminibusque distinxerit. "g-Alle g-theos g-monos g-eis, g-panupertatos, g-hos g-pepoiehken g-Ouranon g-ehelion g-te g-kai g-asteras, g-ehde g-selehnehn, g-Karpophoron g-gaian g-te, g-kai g-hudatos g-oidmata g-pontou." Qui quoniam solus sit aedificator mundi, et artifex rerum, uel quibus constat, uel quae in eo sunt, solum coli oportere testatur: "g-Auton g-ton g-monon g-onta g-sebesth' g-hehgehtora g-kosmou.

We have likewise shown above that Varro said this. Therefore, in those verses which the envoys brought to Rome, concerning the one God, these are the testimonies: "One God, who alone is of hyper-greatness, unbegotten." That this is the only highest God, who made heaven and distinguished it with luminaries. "One God alone, the Most-High, who has made Heaven, and the Sun and the stars, and also the Moon, and the fruit-bearing Earth, and the swellings of the water of the sea." Since he alone is the builder of the world and the artificer of the things either whereof it consists or which are in it, he bears witness that he alone ought to be worshiped: "Him—the only one existing—revere, the leader of the cosmos."

g-hos g-monos g-eis g-aiohna g-kai g-ex g-aiohnohs g-etuchtheh." Item alia Sibylla, quaecumque est, cum perferre se ad homines Dei uocem diceret, sic ait: "g-Eis g-monos g-eimi g-theos g-kai g-ouk g-esti g-theos g-allos." Exequerer nunc testimonia caeterarum, nisi et haec sufficerent, et illa opportunioribus locis reseruarem. Sed cum defendamus causam ueritatis apud eos, qui aberrantes a ueritate falsis religionibus seruiunt, quod genus probationis aduersus eos magis adhibere debemus, quam ut eos deorum suorum testimoniis reuincamus?

"who alone is unto the aeon and from the aeon has existed." Likewise another Sibyl, whoever she is, when she said that she was conveying to men the voice of God, thus says: "I am one, the only God, and there is no other god." I would now pursue the testimonies of the rest, were not these sufficient, and were I not reserving those for more opportune places. But since we defend the cause of truth among those who, wandering from the truth, serve false religions, what kind of proof ought we rather to employ against them than to refute them by the testimonies of their own gods?

[1,7] CAPUT VII. Apollo enim, quem praeter caeteros diuinum maximeque fatidicum existimant, Colophone respondens, quod Delphis (credo) migrauerat, Asiae ductus amoenitate; quaerenti cuidam, quis esset, aut quid esset omnino Deus, respondit uiginti et uno uersibus, quorum hoc principium est: "g-Autophues, g-adidaktos, g-amehtor, g-astupheliktos, g-Ounoma g-mehde g- g-logoh g-chohroumenon,g-en g-puri g-naiohn g-Touti g-theos, g-mikra g-de g-theou g-meris g-aggeloi h-hehmeis." Num quis potest suspicari de Ioue esse dictum, qui et matrem habuit, et nomen? Quid quod, Mercurius ille ter maximus, cuius supra mentionem feci, non modo g-amehtora, ut Apollo, sed g-apatora quoque appellat Deum; quod origo illi non sit aliunde?

[1,7] CHAPTER 7. For Apollo, whom they reckon divine and most fatidic above the rest, replying at Colophon—because from Delphi (I think) he had migrated, drawn by the pleasantness of Asia—to someone asking who he was, or what God was altogether, answered in twenty-one verses, whose beginning is this: "g-Autophues, g-adidaktos, g-amehtor, g-astupheliktos, g-Ounoma g-mehde g- g-logoh g-chohroumenon,g-en g-puri g-naiohn g-Touti g-theos, g-mikra g-de g-theou g-meris g-aggeloi h-hehmeis." Can anyone suspect this to have been said of Jove, who had both a mother and a name? What of the fact that that Mercury the thrice-greatest, of whom I made mention above, calls God not only g-amehtora, as Apollo does, but g-apatora as well; because his origin is not from another?

Nec enim potest ab ullo esse generatus, qui ipse uniuersa generauit. Satis (ut opinor) et argumentis docui, et testibus confirmaui, quod per se satis clarum est : Unum esse regem mundi, unum patrem, unum Deum. Sed fortasse quaerat aliquis a nobis idem illud, quod apud Ciceronem quaerit Hortensius: Si Deus unus est, quae esse beata solitudo queat?

For neither can he be generated by anyone, who himself generated the universe. Enough (as I think) I have both taught by arguments and confirmed by witnesses what is per se sufficiently clear : that there is one king of the world, one father, one God. But perhaps someone may inquire of us that same point which Hortensius asks in Cicero: If God is one, what kind of blessed solitude can there be?

Tamquam nos, qui unum esse dicimus, desertum ac solitarium esse dicamus; habet enim ministros, quos uocamus nuntios. Et est illud uerum, quod dixisse in Exhortationibus Senecam supra retuli, ministros genuisse regni sui Deum. Verum hi neque dii sunt, neque deos se uocari, aut coli uolunt: quippe qui nihil praeter iussum ac uoluntatem Dei faciant.

As though we, who say that he is one, were saying that he is deserted and solitary; for he has ministers, whom we call messengers. And that is true, which I reported above that Seneca said in the Exhortations: that God has begotten ministers of his kingdom. But these are neither gods, nor do they wish to be called gods or to be worshiped; inasmuch as they do nothing except the command and will of God.

Nec tamen illi sunt, qui uulgo coluntur, quorum et exiguus et certus est numerus. Quod si cultores deorum eos ipsos se colere putant, quos summi Dei ministros appellamus, nihil est quod nobis faciant inuidiam, qui unum Deum dicamus, multos negemus. Si eos multitudo delectat, non duodecim dicimus, aut trecentos sexaginta quinque (ut Orpheus), sed innumerabiles esse arguimus errores eorum in diuersum, qui tam paucos putant.

Nor yet are they those who are commonly worshiped, whose number is both meager and certain. But if the worshipers of the gods think that they are worshiping those very ones whom we call the ministers of the Most High God, there is no ground for them to cast odium upon us, who say one God and deny many. If a multitude delights them, we do not say 12, or 365 (as Orpheus), but we argue that, in diverse ways, the errors of those who suppose so few are innumerable.

Sciant tamen, quo nomine appellari debeant: ne Deum uerum uiolent, cuius nomen exponunt, dum pluribus tribuunt. Credant Apollini suo, qui eodem illo responso, ut Ioui principatum, sic etiam caeteris diis abstulit nomen. Tertius enim uersus ostendit, Dei ministros, non deos, uerum angelos appellari oportere.

Let them nevertheless know by what name they ought to be called: lest they violate the true God, whose name they expose while they attribute it to many. Let them believe their own Apollo, who by that same response, just as he removed the primacy from Jove, so also removed the name from the other gods. For the third verse shows that the ministers of God, not gods, ought to be called, but rather angels.

De se quidem ille mentitus est, qui cum sit e numero daemonum, angelis se Dei aggregauit: denique in aliis responsis daemonem se esse confessus est. Nam cum interrogaretur, quomodo sibi supplicari uellet, ita respondit: "g-Pansophe, g-pantodidakt' g-aiolostrophe, g- kekluthi g-daimon." Item rursus cum precem in Apollinem Smynthium rogatus expromeret, ab hoc uersu exorsus est: "g-Armonieh g-kosmoio, g-phaesphore g-kai g- sophe g-daimon." Quid ergo superest, nisi ut sua confessione uerberibus ueri Dei ac poenae subiaceat sempiternae? Nam et in alio responso ita dixit: "g-Daimones g-hoi g-phoitohsi g-peri g-chtona g-kai g-peri g-ponton g-Akamantoi g-damantai g-hupai g-mastigi g-theoio." De utrisque generibus in secundo libro disserimus (scilicet cap- 15). Interim nobis sat est, quod, dum honorare se uult, et in coelo collocare, confessus est, id quod res habet, quomodo sint appellandi qui Deo semper assistunt.

He indeed lied about himself, who, though he is from the number of daemons, aggregated himself to the angels of God: finally, in other responses he confessed that he is a daemon. For when he was asked how he wished to be supplicated, he answered thus: "All-wise, all-teacher, changeful-turner, hearken, daemon." Likewise again, when asked to utter a prayer to Apollo Smintheus, he began from this verse: "Harmonizer of the cosmos, light-bearer and wise daemon." What then remains, except that by his own confession he be subject to the stripes of the true God and to everlasting punishment? For also in another response he spoke thus: "The daemons who wander about the earth and about the seas, tireless, are subdued beneath the scourge of God." Concerning both kinds we discourse in the second book (namely chapter 15). Meanwhile it is enough for us that, while he wishes to honor himself and to place himself in heaven, he has confessed, just as the matter stands, how those who always assist God ought to be named.

Retrahant ergo se homines ab erroribus et abiectis religionibus prauis, parentem suum dominumque cognoscant: cuius nec uirtus aestimari potest, nec magnitudo perspici, nec principium comprehendi. Cum ad illum mentis humanae intentio et acumen et memoria peruenerit, quasi subductis et consummatis omnibus uiis, subsistit, haeret, deficit; nec est aliquid ulterius quo progredi possit. Verum quia fieri non potest, quin id quod sit, aliquando esse coeperit, consequens est, ut quando nihil ante illum fuit, ipse ante omnia ex se ipso sit procreatus.

Let men therefore withdraw themselves from errors and, having cast away depraved religions, recognize their parent and lord: whose virtue cannot be estimated, nor his magnitude discerned, nor his beginning comprehended. When the intention and acumen and memory of the human mind have come through to him, as though, all ways having been subducted and consummated, it halts, clings fast, fails; nor is there anything further to which it can advance. Yet since it cannot be but that that which is has at some time begun to be, it follows that, when nothing was before him, he himself, before all things, was procreated from himself.

Ideoque ab Apolline g-autophuehs, a Sibylla g-autogenehs, et g-agennehtos, et g-apoiehtos nominatur. Quod Seneca, homo acutus, in Exhortationibus uidit: «Nos, inquit, aliunde pendemus. Itaque ad aliquem respicimus, cui, quod est optimum in nobis debeamus.

And therefore by Apollo he is named self-grown, by the Sibyl self-generated, and unbegotten and unmade. Which Seneca, a keen man, saw in the Exhortations: «We,» he says, «depend from elsewhere. And so we look toward someone, to whom we owe that which is best in us.»

Alius nos edidit; alius instruxit: Deus ipse se fecit.»

Another brought us forth; another instructed us: God himself made himself.»

[1,8] CAPUT VIII. His igitur tot et tantis testibus comprobatur unius Dei potestate ac prouidentia mundum gubernari; cuius uim maiestatemque tantam esse dicit in Timaeo Plato, ut eam neque mente concipere, neque uerbis enarrare quisquam possit, ob nimiam eius et inaestimabilem potestatem. Dubitet uero aliquis, an quidquam difficile aut impossibile sit Deo, qui tanta tamque mirifica opera prouidentia excogitauit, uirtute constituit, ratione perfecit; nunc autem spiritu sustentet, potestate moderetur, inexcogitabilis, ineffabilis, et nulli alii satis notus quam sibi?

[1,8] CHAPTER 8. Therefore by so many and so great witnesses it is proved that the world is governed by the power and providence of one God; whose force and majesty Plato in the Timaeus says to be so great that no one can either conceive it with the mind or narrate it with words, on account of its excessive and inestimable power. Will anyone indeed doubt whether anything is difficult or impossible for God, who by providence devised such great and so wondrous works, established them by virtue, perfected them by reason; and now moreover sustains by spirit, moderates them by power—unimaginable, ineffable, and sufficiently known to no other than to himself?

Unde mihi de tanta maiestate saepius cogitanti, qui deos colunt, interdum uideri solent tam caeci, tam incogitabiles, tam excordes, tam non multum a mutis animalibus differentes, qui credant eos, qui geniti sunt maris ac foeminae coïtu, aliquid maiestatis diuinaeque uirtutis habere potuisse; cum Sibylla Erythraea dicat: " - - - g-Ou g-dunat' g-andros, G-Ek g-mehrohn mehtras g-te g-theos g-tetu g-pohmenos g-einai." Quod si est uerum, sicuti est, apparet Herculem, Apollinem, Liberum, Mercurium, Iouemque ipsum cum caeteris homines fuisse; quando sunt ex duobus sexibus nati. Quid est autem tam remotum a Deo, quam id opus quod ipse ad propagandam sobolem mortalibus tribuit, et quod sine substantia corporali nullum potest esse? Dii ergo si sunt immortales et aeterni, quid opus est altero sexu; cum successione non egeant, qui semper sunt futuri?

Whence, as I more often reflect on so great a Majesty, those who worship the gods are sometimes wont to seem to me so blind, so incogitable, so witless, so not much different from mute animals, who believe that those who have been begotten by the coitus of male and female could have had anything of majesty and divine virtue; since the Erythraean Sibyl says: " - - - A god cannot be, born from a man’s members and a mother’s womb." But if this is true, as indeed it is, it appears that Hercules, Apollo, Liber, Mercury, and Jupiter himself with the rest were men; since they were born from two sexes. Moreover, what is so remote from God as that work which he himself has granted to mortals for the propagating of offspring, and which without corporeal substance can be nothing? Therefore, if the gods are immortal and eternal, what need is there of the other sex; since they do not need succession, who are always going to be?

Nam profecto in hominibus caeterisque animantibus diuersitas sexus, et coïtio, et generatio nullam habet aliam rationem, nisi ut omnia genera uiuentium, quando sunt conditione mortalitatis obitura, mutua possint successione seruari. Deo autem, qui est sempiternus, neque alter sexus, neque successio necessaria est. Dicet aliquis, ut habeat uel ministros, uel in quos ipse possit dominari.

For indeed in human beings and the other living creatures, the diversity of sex, and coition, and generation has no other rationale except that all kinds of living beings, since by the condition of mortality they are destined to perish, may be able to be preserved by mutual succession. But for God, who is sempiternal, neither the other sex nor succession is necessary. Someone will say, that he may have either ministers, or those over whom he himself can rule.

Quid igitur opus est sexu foemineo, cum Deus, qui est ommipotens, sine usu et opera foeminae possit filios procreare? Nam si quibusdam minutis animalibus id praestitit, ut sibi "E foliis natos et suauibus herbis Ore legant": cur existimet aliquis ipsum Deum, nisi ex permixtione sexus alterius non posse generare? Illos igitur, quos imperiti et insipientes tanquam deos et nuncupant et adorant, nemo est tam inconsideratus, qui non intelligat fuisse mortales.

What, therefore, is the need of the female sex, since God, who is omnipotent, can procreate sons without the use and work of a woman? For if to certain minute animals he has granted this, that they “E foliis natos et suauibus herbis Ore legant” (“with their mouth they gather their young born from leaves and sweet herbs”), why should anyone suppose that God himself cannot generate except from the commixture of the other sex? Those, therefore, whom the unskilled and unwise both entitle and adore as gods, there is no one so inconsiderate as not to understand that they were mortals.

Quomodo ergo, inquiet aliquis, dii crediti sunt? Nimirum quia reges maximi ac potentissimi fuerint: ob merita uirtutum suarum, aut munerum, aut artium repertarum, cum cari fuissent iis quibus imperitauerant, in memoriam sunt consecrati. Quod is quis dubitet, res eorum gestas, et facta consideret, quae uniuersa tam poetae quam historici ueteres prodiderunt.

How then, someone asks, were gods believed? Clearly because they were kings the greatest and most powerful: on account of the merits of their virtues, or of their services/gifts, or of arts discovered, since they had been dear to those whom they had ruled, they were consecrated into remembrance. As to which, if anyone should doubt, let him consider their exploits and deeds, which in their entirety both the poets and the ancient historians have handed down.

[1,9] CAPUT IX. Hercules, qui ob uirtutem clarissimus, et quasi Africanus inter deos habetur, nonne orbem terrae, quem peragrasse ac expurgasse narratur, stupris, libidinibus, adulteriis inquinauit? nec mirum, cum esset adulterio genitus Alcmenae. Quid tandem potuit in eo esse diuini, quis suis ipse uitiis mancipatus, et mares et foeminas contra omnes leges infamia, dedecore, flagitio affecit?

[1,9] CHAPTER 9. Hercules, who on account of his virtue is most illustrious, and is held as a kind of Africanus among the gods, did he not defile the orb of the earth—which he is related to have traversed and purged—with rapes, lusts, and adulteries? Nor is it a wonder, since he was begotten by the adultery of Alcmene. What, pray, could there be of the divine in him, who was himself mancipated to his own vices, and who afflicted both males and females, against all laws, with infamy, disgrace, and flagitiousness?

Sed ne illa quidem, quae magna et mirabilia gessit, talia iudicanda sunt; ut uirtutibus diuinis tribuenda uideantur. Quid enim tam magnificum, si leonem aprumque superauit, si aues sagittis deiecit, si regium stabulum egessit, si uiraginem uicit, cingulumque detraxit, si equos feroces cum domino interemit? Opera sunt ista fortis uiri, hominis tamen.

But not even those deeds which he performed, great and marvelous, are to be judged of such a sort that they seem to be attributed to divine virtues. For what is so magnificent, if he overcame the lion and the boar, if he cast down birds with arrows, if he cleaned out the regal stable, if he conquered a virago and stripped off the girdle, if he slew the fierce horses along with their master? These are the works of a brave man—yet of a man.

Illa enim, quae uicit, fragilia et mortalia fuerunt. Nulla enim est (quod ait Orator) tanta uis, quae non ferro ac uiribus debilitari frangique possit. At animum uincere, iracundiam cohibere, fortissimi est: quae ille nec fecit unquam, nec potuit.

For those things which he conquered were fragile and mortal. For there is no force so great (as the Orator says) that cannot be debilitated and broken by iron and by might. But to conquer the spirit, to cohibit wrath, is the mark of the very bravest: which he neither ever did nor could.

Haec qui faciat, non ego eum cum summis uiris comparo; sed simillimum Deo iudico. Vellem adiecisset de libidine, luxuria, cupiditate, insolentia; ut uirtutem eius impleret, quem similem Deo iudicabat. Non enim fortior putandus est, qui leonem, quam qui uiolentam in seipso inclusam feram superat, iracundiam; aut qui rapacissimas uolucres deiecit, quam qui cupiditates auidissimas coercet; aut qui Amazonem bellatricem, quam qui libidinem uincit, pudoris ac famae debellatricem; aut qui fimum de stabulo, quam qui uitia de corde suo egerit, quae magis sunt perniciosa, quia domestica et propria mala sunt, quam illa, quae et uitari poterant et caueri.

Whoever does these things, I do not compare him with the highest men; but I judge him most similar to God. I would that he had added about libido, luxury, cupidity, insolence; so that he might complete the virtue of him whom he judged similar to God. For he is not to be thought stronger who overcomes a lion, than he who overcomes the violent wild beast shut up within himself—wrath; or he who has cast down the most rapacious birds, than he who coerces the most avid desires; or he who has conquered the warrior Amazon, than he who conquers libido, the subduer of modesty and of reputation; or he who has carried out dung from the stable, than he who has driven out vices from his own heart—vices which are more pernicious, because they are domestic and one’s own evils, than those which both could be avoided and guarded against.

Ex quo fit, ut ille solus uir fortis debeat iudicari, qui temperans, moderatus et iustus est. Quod si cogitet aliquis, quae sint Dei opera: iam haec omnia, quae mirantur homines ineptissimi, ridicula iudicabit. Illa enim non diuinis uirtutibus, quas ignorant, sed infirmitate suarum uirium metiuntur.

Whence it comes about that he alone ought to be judged a man of fortitude, who is temperate, moderate, and just. But if anyone should consider what the works of God are, he will already judge all those things, at which the most inept men marvel, to be ridiculous. For they measure them not by the divine virtues, which they are ignorant of, but by the infirmity of their own powers.

Nam illud quidem nemo negabit, Herculem non Eurystheo tantum seruisse regi, quod aliquatenus honestum uideri potest; sed etiam impudicae mulieri Omphalae, quae illum uestibus suis indutum sedere ad pedes suos iubebat pensa facientem: detestabilis turpitudo! sed tanti erat uoluptas. Quid tu, inquiet aliquis, poetisne credendum putas?

For indeed no one will deny this, that Hercules served not only King Eurystheus, which can seem in some measure honorable; but also the unchaste woman Omphale, who ordered him, clothed in her garments, to sit at her feet doing the spinning: detestable turpitude! but the pleasure was worth so much. What say you, says someone, do you think the poets are to be believed?

Quidni putem? Non enim ista Lucilius narrat, aut Lucianus, qui diis et hominibus non pepercit; sed hi potissimum, qui deorum laudes canebant. Quibus igitur credemus, si fidem laudantibus non habemus?

Why should I not think so? For it is not Lucilius who narrates these things, nor Lucian, who spared neither gods nor men; but rather those above all who were singing the lauds of the gods. To whom, therefore, shall we give credence, if we do not have faith in those who praise?

Qui hos mentiri putat, proferat alios quibus credamus auctores, qui nos doceant, qui sint isti dii, quomodo, unde orti; quae sit uis eorum, qui numerus, quae potestas, quid in his admirabile, quid cultu dignum, quod denique certius ueriusque mysterium: nullos dabit. Credamus igitur istis, qui non ut reprehenderent sunt locuti; sed ut praedicarent. Nauigauit ergo cum Argonautis, expugnauitque Troiam, iratus Laomedonti ob negatam sibi pro filiae salute mercedem: unde, quo tempore fuerit, apparet.

Who thinks these to be lying, let him bring forward other authors to whom we may give credence, who may teach us who those gods are, how, whence they originated; what is their force, what their number, what their power, what in them is admirable, what worthy of cult, what, finally, is a more certain and truer mystery: he will produce none. Let us therefore believe those who spoke not in order to reprove, but to proclaim. He sailed therefore with the Argonauts, and he took Troy by storm, angered at Laomedon on account of the reward denied to him for his daughter’s salvation: whence it appears in what time he existed.

Idem furore atque insania percitus, uxorem suam cum liberis interemit. Hunc homines deum putant? sed Philocteta eius haeres non putauit, qui facem supposuit arsuro, qui artus eius et neruos cremari ac diffluere uidit, qui ossa eius ac cineres in Oeteo monte sepeliuit, pro quo munere sagittas eius accepit.

That same man, driven by fury and insanity, slew his own wife together with his children. Do men think this man a god? But Philoctetes, his heir, did not think so—he who set the torch beneath him as he was about to burn, who saw his limbs and sinews being burned and melt away, who interred his bones and ashes on Mount Oeta, in return for which service he received his arrows.

[1,10] CAPUT X. Aesculapius et ipse non sine flagitio Apollinis natus, quid fecit aliud diuinis honoribus dignum, nisi quod sanauit Hippolytum? mortem sane habuit clariorem, quod a Deo meruit fulminari. Hunc Tarquitius de illustribus uiris disserens, ait incertis parentibus natum, expositum, et a uenatoribus inuentum, canino lacte nutritum, Chironi traditum, didicisse medicinam: fuisse autem Messenium, sed Epidauri moratum.

[1,10] CHAPTER 10. Aesculapius himself, born not without Apollo’s disgrace, what else did he do worthy of divine honors, except that he healed Hippolytus? He certainly had a more illustrious death, in that he merited to be struck by lightning by God. Tarquitius, discoursing on illustrious men, says that he was born of uncertain parents, exposed, and found by hunters, nourished with canine milk, handed over to Chiron, that he learned medicine: and that he was a Messenian, but dwelt at Epidaurus.

Tullius etiam Cynosuris ait sepultum. Quid Apollo pater eius? Nonne ob amorem, quo flagrabat, turpissime gregem pauit alienum, et muros Laomedonti exstruxit, cum Neptuno mercede conductus, quae illi negari potuit impune, ab eoque primo Rex perfidus, quidquid cum diis pepigisset, didicit abnegare.

Tullius also says he was buried at Cynosuris. What of Apollo, his father? Did he not, on account of the love with which he blazed, most disgracefully pasture another’s flock, and construct walls for Laomedon, when, hired for a wage together with Neptune—a wage which could be denied him with impunity—and from him first the perfidious king learned to deny whatever he had made a pact upon with the gods?

Idem formosum puerum et dum amat, uiolauit; et dum ludit, occidit. Homicida Mars, et per gratiam caedis crimine ab Atheniensibus liberatus, ne uideretur nimis ferus et immanis, adulterium cum Venere commisit. Castor et Pollux, dum alienas sponsas rapiunt, esse gemini desierunt.

The same one violated a handsome boy while he loved; and while he played, he killed him. Mars, a homicide, and by favor freed by the Athenians from the charge of slaughter, so as not to seem too fierce and monstrous, committed adultery with Venus. Castor and Pollux, while they were carrying off others’ betrothed brides, ceased to be twins.

Nam liuore iniuriae concitatus Idas, alterum gladio transuerberauit; et eosdem poetae alternis uiuere alternis mori narrant: ut iam sint non deorum tantum, sed omnium mortalium miserrimi, quibus semmel mori non licet. Hos tamen Homerus ambos simpliciter (non ut poetae solent) mortuos esse testatur. Nam cum faceret in muris assidentem Priamo Helenam, cunctos Graeciae principes recognoscere, solos autem se fratres suos requirere, subieccit orationi eius huiusmodi uersum: "g-Hohs g-phato, g-tous g-d' g-ehdeh g-katechen g-phunizoos g-aia". Fur ac nebulo Mercurius, quid ad famam sui reliquit nisi memoriam fraudum suarum?

Now, Idas, stirred by the rancor of the injury, ran the other through with a sword; and the same men the poets relate to live by turns and to die by turns: so that now they are the most wretched not only of the gods, but of all mortals, for whom it is not permitted to die once. These, however, Homer testifies both of them simply (not as poets are wont) to have been dead. For when he made Helen, sitting by Priam on the walls, recognize all the princes of Greece, but to be seeking her brothers alone, he subjoined to her speech a verse of this kind: "So she spoke, and already the life-destroying earth held them." A thief and a rascal, Mercury—what did he leave to his own fame except the memory of his frauds?

Coelo scilicet dignus, quia palaestram docuit, et lyram primus inuenit. Liberum patrem in senatu deorum summae auctoritatis primaeque esse sententiae necesse est; quia praeter Iouem solus omnium triumphauit, exercitum duxit, Indos deballauit. Sed inuictus ille Imperator Indicus, maximus ab amore ac libidine turpissime uictus est.

Worthy of Heaven, forsooth, because he taught the palaestra, and first discovered the lyre. It is necessary that Liber Pater in the senate of the gods be of the highest authority and of the first opinion; because, besides Jove, he alone of all has triumphed, led an army, and subdued the Indians. But that unconquered Indian Imperator, though very great, was most shamefully conquered by love and lust.

Delatus enim Cretam cum semiuiro comitatu, nactus est impudicam mulierem in littore ac fiducia uictoriae Indicae uir esse, uoluit, ne nimium mollis uideretur atque illam patris proditricem, fratris interemptricem, ab alio relictam et repudiatam, in coniugium sibi uendicauit, et Liberam fecit, et cum ea pariter ascendit in coelum. Quid horum omnium pater Iupiter, qui in solemni precatione Optimus, Maximus nominatur? nonne a prima sua pueritia impius ac pene parricida deprehenditur?

For when he was borne to Crete with a semi-virile retinue, he encountered an impudent woman on the shore; and, with the confidence of his Indian victory, he wished to be a man, lest he seem too soft; and that betrayer of her father, murderess of her brother, left by another and repudiated, he claimed to himself in matrimony, and he made her Libera, and with her together he ascended into heaven. What of all this, Father Jupiter, who in solemn prayer is named Best and Greatest? Is he not from his earliest boyhood detected as impious and almost a parricide?

cum patrem regno expulit ac fugauit, nec expectauit mortem decrepiti senis, cupiditate regnandi: et cum paternum solium per uim, per arma cepisset, bello est a Titanibus lacessitus; quod humano generi principium fuit malorum: quibus uictis, et pace in perpetuum comparata, reliquam suam uitam in stupris adulteriisque consumpsit. Omitto uirgines, quas imminuit. Id enim tolerabile iudicari solet.

when he expelled and put his father to flight from the kingdom, nor did he await the death of the decrepit old man, from cupidity of reigning: and when he had seized the paternal throne by violence, by arms, he was provoked to war by the Titans; which was the beginning of evils for the human race: they having been conquered, and peace secured in perpetuity, he consumed the rest of his life in debaucheries and adulteries. I omit the virgins whom he deflowered. For that is commonly judged tolerable.

Amphitryonem ac Tyndarum praeterire non possum, quorum domos dedecore atque infamia plenissimas reddidit. Illud uero summae impietatis ac sceleris, quod regium puerum rapuit ad stuprum. Parum enim uidebatur, si in expugnanda foeminarum pudicitia maculosus esset ac turpis, nisi etiam sexui suo iniuriam faceret: hoc est uerum adulterium, quod fit contra naturam.

I cannot pass over Amphitryon and Tyndareus, whose houses he rendered most full of disgrace and infamy. But this was of the highest impiety and crime, that he seized a royal boy for debauchery. For it seemed too little, if in storming the chastity of women he were blotched and base, unless he also did injury to his own sex: this is the true adultery, which is done against nature.

Haec qui fecit uiderimus, an maximus; certe optimus non est: quod nomen a corruptoribus, ab adulteris, ab incestis abest; nisi forte nos erramus homines, qui talia facientes sceleratos uocamus, ac perditos, omnibusque poenis dignissimos iudicamus. Stultus autem Marcus Tullius, qui C- Verri adulteria obiecit: eadem enim Iupiter, quem colebat, admisit; qui P- Clodio sororis incestum: at illi Optimo Maximo eadem fuit et soror et coninx.

As for the one who did these things, let us see whether he is “greatest”; certainly he is not “best”: for that name is absent from corrupters, from adulterers, from the incestuous—unless perhaps we humans are in error, we who call those doing such things criminals and depraved, and judge them most worthy of all punishments. And foolish, then, was Marcus Tullius, who charged C- Verres with adulteries: for Jupiter, whom he worshiped, admitted the same; and who [charged] P- Clodius with incest with his sister: but to that Best and Greatest, the same woman was both sister and spouse.

[1,11] CAPUT XI. Quis est igitur tam excors, qui hunc in coelo regnare putet, qui ne in terra quidem debuit? Non insulse quidam poeta triumphum Cupidinis scripsit: quo in libro non modo potentissimum deorum Cupidinem, sed etiam uictorem facit. Enumeratis enim amoribus singulorum, quibus in potestatem Cupidinis ditionemque uenissent, instruit pompam, in qua Iupiter cum caeteris diis ante currum triumphantis ducitur catenatus.

[1,11] CHAPTER 11. Who, then, is so witless as to think that this one reigns in heaven, who did not even deserve to do so on earth? Not unwittily a certain poet wrote a Triumph of Cupid: in which book he makes Cupid, the most powerful of the gods, a victor as well. For, the loves of each having been enumerated, whereby they had come into the power and dominion of Cupid, he arrays a pomp, in which Jupiter, with the other gods, is led in chains before the chariot of the triumphant.

Eleganter id quidem a poeta figuratum: sed tamen non multum distat a uero. Qui enim uirtutis est expers, qui a cupiditate ac libidinibus malis uincitur, non Cupidini (ut ille finxit), sed morti subiectus est sempiternae. Sed omittamus de moribus dicere: rem confideremus; ut intelligant homines, in quibus miseri uersentur erroribus.

Elegantly indeed was that figured by the poet: yet it does not differ much from the true. For he who is devoid of virtue, who is conquered by cupidity and evil libidos, is subject not to Cupid (as he feigned), but to eternal death. But let us omit to speak about morals: let us consider the matter; so that men may understand in what errors the wretched are tossed about.

Regnare in coelo Iouem uulgus existimat: id et doctis pariter et indoctis persuasum est. Quod et Religio ipsa, et precationes, et hymni, et delubra, et simulacra demonstrant. Eumdem tamen Saturno et Rhea genitum confitentur.

The multitude thinks that Jupiter reigns in heaven: and this has been persuaded equally to the learned and the unlearned. Which both Religion herself, and prayers, and hymns, and shrines, and images demonstrate. Yet they confess that the same was begotten by Saturn and Rhea.

Quomodo potest Deus uideri, aut credi (ut ait poeta): " - - - Hominum rerumque repertor", ante cuius ortum infinita hominum millia fuerunt? eorum scilicet, qui Saturno regnante uixerunt; ac priores luce, quam Iupiter, sunt potiti. Video alium Deum regem fuisse primis temporibus, alium consequentibus.

How can God be seen, or believed (as the poet says): " - - - the discoverer of men and of things," before whose birth countless thousands of men had existed? namely, those who lived while Saturn was reigning; and they gained the light earlier than Jupiter. I see that one god was king in the first times, another in the subsequent.

Potest ergo fieri, ut alius sit postea futurus. Si enim regnum prius mutatum est: cur desperemus etiam posterius posse mutari? nisi forte Saturnus generare potuit fortiorem: Iupiter non potest.

Therefore it can happen that another will be afterward. For if the kingdom was previously changed: why should we despair that it can also be changed afterward? unless perhaps Saturn was able to generate a stronger one: Jupiter cannot.

Atqui diuinum imperium aut semper immutabile est: aut, si est mutabile, quod fieri non potest, semper utique mutabile est. Potest ergo Iupiter regnum amittere, sicut pater eius amisit? Ita plane.

Yet the divine imperium is either always immutable; or, if it is mutable—which cannot be—then assuredly it is always mutable. Can Jupiter therefore lose the kingdom, just as his father lost it? Yes, plainly.

Nam cum idem neque uirginibus, neque maritatis unquam pepercisset, abstinuit se tamen una Thetide, quod responsum fuit, maiorem patre suo futurum, quisquis ex illa natus esset. Et primum imprudentia in eo non Dei, cui nisi Themis futura dixisset, ipse nesciret. Si autem diuinus non sit, ne Deus quidem sit; unde ipsa diuinitas nominatur, ut ab homine humanitas.

For although that same one never spared either virgins or married women, yet he restrained himself from Thetis alone, because there had been a response (oracle) that whoever should be born from her would be greater than his father. And first, there is in him an imprudence not of a God, for unless Themis had told the future things, he himself would not know. But if he is not divine, he is not even God; whence divinity itself is named, as humanity from man.

Deinde conscientia imbecillitatis, qui timuit utique maiorem: quod qui facit, scit profecto non esse se maximum: quondoquidem potest aliquid maius existere. Idem per Stygiam paludem sanctissime iurat. Vana superstitio, superis quae reddita diuis.

Then, by a consciousness of feebleness, in that he surely feared someone greater; and whoever does this knows assuredly that he is not the greatest, since something greater can exist. The same one swears most solemnly by the Stygian marsh. A vain superstition, which is rendered to the gods above.

Quae est ista superstitio? aut a quo reddita? Est ergo aliqua potestas maxima, quae peierantes deos puniat?

What is that superstition? or by whom was it rendered? Therefore is there some greatest power that punishes the perjuring gods?

quae tanta formido est paludis infernae, si sunt immortales? quid metuunt eam, quam uisuri non sunt, nisi quos mori necesse est? Quid igitur homines oculos suos in coelum tollunt?

what so great dread is there of the infernal marsh, if they are immortal? why do they fear it, which they are not going to behold, except those who must die? Why, then, do men lift their eyes to heaven?

quid per superos deierant, cum ipsi superi ad inferos reuoluantur, ibique habeant quod uenerentur et adorent? Illud uero quale est? esse fata, quibus dii omnes, et ipse Iupiter pareat.

Why do they swear by the supernals, when those very supernals are revolved down to the infernals, and there have what they venerate and adore? And what kind of thing is this, pray: that there are Fates, to whom all the gods, and Jupiter himself, obey?

Si Parcarum tanta uis est, ut plus possint quam coelestes uniuersi, quamque ipse rector ac dominus, cur non illae potius regnare dicantur, quarum legibus ac statutis parere omnes deos necessitas cogit? Nunc cui dubium est, quin is, qui alicui rei obsequitur, maximus non sit? nam si sit, non accipiat fata, sed faciat.

If the Parcae have such power, that they are more powerful than all the celestials, and than the ruler and lord himself, why are they not rather said to reign, whose laws and statutes necessity compels all the gods to obey? Now who doubts that he who is obsequious to something is not the greatest? For if he were, he would not receive the fates, but make them.

Nunc ad aliud, quod omiseram, redeo. In una itaque sola fuit continentior, cum eam deperiret; non uirtute aliqua, sed metu successoris. Quae formido utique eius est, qui sit et mortalis, et imbecillus, et nihili: quippe qui potuit et tunc, cum nasceretur, extingui, sicut frater eius ante genitus, extinctus est: qui si uiuere potuisset, nunquam minori concessisset imperium.

Now I return to another point which I had omitted. Thus with respect to one alone he was more continent, when he was desperately enamored of her; not by any virtue, but from fear of a successor. Which dread is assuredly that of one who is both mortal, and imbecile, and a nobody: indeed, he could even then, when he was being born, have been extinguished, just as his brother, begotten earlier, was extinguished; who, if he had been able to live, would never have conceded the empire to one inferior.

Ipse autem furto seruatus, furtimque nutritus, g-zeus siue g-zehn appellatus est; non, ut isti putant, a feruore coelestis ignis, uel quod uitae sit dator, uel quod animantibus inspiret animas, quae uirtus solius Dei est (quam enim possit inspirare animam, qui ipse accepit aliunde?), sed quod primus ex liberis Saturni maribus uixerit. Potuerunt igitur homines alium deum habere rectorem, si Saturnus non fuisset ab uxore delusus. At enim poetae ista finxerunt.

But he himself, saved by stealth and furtively nourished, was appellated g-zeus or g-zehn; not, as those people think, from the fervor of celestial fire, or because he is the giver of life, or because he inspires souls into living beings— which virtue belongs to God alone (for how can he inspire a soul, who himself received it from elsewhere?)— but because he was the first among the male children of Saturn to have lived. Men could therefore have had another god as rector, if Saturn had not been deluded by his wife. “But indeed the poets feigned these things.”

Errat quisquis hoc putat. Illi enim de hominibus loquebantur; sed ut eos ornarent, quorum memoriam laudibus celebrabant, deos esse dixerunt. Itaque illa potius ficta sunt, quae tamquam de diis, non illa quae tamquam de hominibus locuti sunt: quod clarum fiet exemplo, quod inferemus.

He errs whoever thinks this. For they were speaking about human beings; but so as to adorn those whose memory they celebrated with praises, they said that they were gods. And thus rather those things are fictitious which they spoke as if about gods, not those which they spoke as if about humans: which will become clear by an example that we shall bring forward.

Danaen uiolaturus, aureos nummos largiter in sinum eius infudit. Haec stupri merces fuit. At poetae, qui quasi de Deo loquebantur, ne auctoritatem creditae maiestatis infringerent, finxerunt ipsum in aureo imbre delapsum, eadem figura, qua imbres ferreos dicunt, cum multitudinem telorum sagittarumque describunt.

About to violate Danae, he poured gold coins lavishly into her lap. This was the price of the violation. But the poets, who spoke as though about God, lest they infringe the authority of the credited majesty, feigned that he himself had descended in a golden shower, with the same figure with which they speak of iron rains when they describe a multitude of missiles and arrows.

Rapuisse dicitur in aquila Catamitum: poeticus color est. Sed aut per legionem rapuit, cuius insigne aquila est; aut nauis, in qua est impositus, tutelam habuit in aquila figuratam, sicut taurum, cum rapuit et transuexit Europam. Eodem modo conuertisse in bouem traditur Io Inachi filiam, quae, ut iram Iunonis effugeret, ut erat iam setis obsita, iam bos tranasse dicitur mare, in Aegyptumque uenisse, atque ibi, recepta pristina specie, dea facta quae nunc Isis uocatur.

He is said to have seized Catamitus as an eagle: it is a poetic color. But either he carried him off by means of a legion, whose insignia is the eagle; or the ship, on which he was set, had its tutelage figured in an eagle, just as a bull, when he snatched and transported Europa. In the same way he is reported to have converted into a cow Io, daughter of Inachus, who, in order to escape the wrath of Juno, as she was now covered with bristles, already a cow, is said to have swum across the sea, and to have come into Egypt, and there, her pristine appearance recovered, to have been made a goddess who is now called Isis.

Quo igitur argumento probari potest, nec Europam in Tauro sedisse, nec Io factam bouem? Quod certus dies habetur in Fastis, quo Isidis nauigium celebratur: quae res docet non tranasse illam, sed nauigasse. Igitur qui sapere sibi uidentur, quia intelligunt uiuum terrenumque corpus in coelo esse non posse, totam Ganymedeam fabulam pro falso repudiant; ac sentiunt in terra id esse factum, quia res ac libido ipsa terrena est.

By what argument, therefore, can it be proved that neither did Europa sit upon the Bull, nor was Io made a cow? Because a fixed day is held in the Fasti on which the Navigium of Isis is celebrated: this fact teaches that she did not swim across, but sailed. Therefore those who seem wise to themselves, since they understand that a living and earthly body cannot be in heaven, repudiate the whole Ganymedean fable as false; and they perceive that it was done on earth, because the thing itself, and the lust, are earthly.

Non ergo ipsas res gestas finxerunt poetae; quod si facerent, essent uanissimi: sed rebus gestis addiderunt quemdam colorem. Non enim obtrectantes illa dicebant, sed ornare cupientes. Hinc homines decipiuntur: maxime quod, dum haec omnia ficta esse arbitrantur a poetis, colunt quod ignorant.

Therefore the poets did not feign the deeds themselves; and if they were to do so, they would be most vain; but to deeds actually done they added a certain color. For they were not saying those things as detractors, but desiring to adorn. Hence men are deceived: especially because, while they suppose all these things to have been fabricated by the poets, they worship what they are ignorant of.

Nesciunt enim, qui sit poeticae licentiae modus; quousque progredi fingendo liceat: cum officium poetae sit in eo, ut ea, quae gesta sunt uere, in alias species obliquis figurationibus cum decore aliquo conuersa traducat. Totum autem, quod referas, fingere, id est ineptum esse, et mendacem potius quam poetam. Sed finxerint ista, quae fabulosa creduntur; num etiam illa, quae de diis foeminis, deorumque connubiis dicta sunt?

For they do not know what the limit of poetic license is, how far it is permitted to progress by feigning: since the office of the poet lies in this, that the things which have truly been done he translate, turned into other kinds by oblique figurations with some decorum. But to invent the whole of what you relate—that is to be inept, and mendacious rather than a poet. Yet grant that they fabricated those things which are believed to be fabulous; surely not even those that have been said about the female gods, and the connubia of the gods?

Cur igitur sic figurantur, sic coluntur? nisi forte non tantum poetae, sed pictores etiam fictoresque imaginum mentiuntur. Si enim hic est Iupiter, qui a uobis dicitur deus, si non is est, qui ex Saturno et Ope natus est, non oportuit nisi solius simulacrum in templis omnibus collocari.

Why therefore are they thus figured, thus cultivated? unless perhaps not only the poets, but even the painters and the figurers of images are lying. For if this is Jupiter, who by you is called a god, if he is not the one who was born from Saturn and Ops, it ought not to have been that anything except his simulacrum alone be set up in all the temples.

Quid sibi mulierum effigies uolunt? quid sexus infirmus? in quem si cecidit hic Iupiter, eum uero ipsi lapides hominem fatebuntur.

What do the effigies of women want? what of the infirm sex? upon which, if this Jupiter has fallen, then the very stones themselves will confess him to be a man.

Mentitos aiunt esse poetas, et his tamen credunt; immo uero non esse mentitos, re ipsa probant, ita enim deorum simulacra confingunt, ut ex ipsa diuersitate sexus appareat, uera esse quae dicunt poetae. Nam quod aliud argumentum habet imago Catamiti, et effigies aquilae, cum ante pedes Iouis ponuntur in templis, et cum ipso pariter adorantur: nisi ut nefandi sceleris ac stupri memoria maneat in aeternum? Nihil igitur a poetis in totum fictum est: aliquid fortasse traductum, et obliqua figuratione obscuratum, quo ueritas inuoluta tegeretur; sicut illud de sortitione regnorum.

They say that the poets have lied, and yet they believe them; nay rather, they prove by the fact itself that they have not lied, for they fashion the simulacra of the gods in such a way that from the very diversity of sex it appears that the things which the poets say are true. For what other argument does the image of the Catamite and the effigy of the eagle have, when they are placed before the feet of Jove in the temples and are worshiped together with him alike: except that the memory of a nefarious crime and sexual outrage may remain forever? Nothing, therefore, has been wholly feigned by the poets: perhaps something has been translated, and obscured by oblique figuration, so that the truth, wrapped up, might be covered; just like that matter of the casting of lots for the realms.

Aiunt enim Ioui coelum obtigisse, Neptuno mare, inferna Plutoni. Cur non terra potius in sortem tertiam uenit; nisi quod in terra gesta res est. Ergo illud in uero est, quod regnum orbis ita partiti sortitique sunt, ut Orientis imperium Ioui cederet; Plutoni, cui cognomen Agesilao fuit, pars Occidentis obtingeret: eo quod plaga Orientis, ex qua lux mortalibus datur, superior; Occidentis autem inferior esse uideatur.

They say, in fact, that heaven fell by lot to Jupiter, the sea to Neptune, the infernal regions to Pluto. Why did the earth not rather come into the third lot; unless because the affair was transacted on the earth. Therefore this is in the truth: that they so divided and cast lots for the kingdom of the world, that the empire of the Orient should cede to Jupiter; to Pluto, whose cognomen was Agesilaus, a portion of the Occident should fall: for the reason that the quarter of the Orient, from which light is given to mortals, seems superior; whereas that of the Occident seems inferior.

Sic ueritatem mendacio uelauerunt, ut ueritas ipsa persuasioni publicae nihil derogaret. De Neptunii sorte manifestum est, cuius regnum tale fuisse dicimus, quale Marci Antonii fuit infinitum illud imperium; cui totius orae maritimae potestatem Senatus decreuerat, ut praedones persequeretur, ac mare omne pacaret. Sic Neptuno maritima omnia cum insulis obuenerunt.

Sthus they veiled truth with mendacity, so that the truth itself took nothing away from public persuasion. About Neptune’s lot it is manifest, whose kingdom we say was such as that boundless imperium of Mark Antony; to whom the Senate had decreed authority over the whole maritime shore, that he should pursue pirates and pacify the whole sea. Thus to Neptune all maritime things, together with the islands, befell.

Quomodo id probari potest? Nimirum ueteres historiae docent. Antiquus auctor Euhemerus, qui fuit ex ciuitate Messene, res gestas Iouis, et caeterorum qui dii putantur, collegit, historiamque contexuit ex titulis, et inscriptionibus sacris, quae in antiquissimis templis habebantur, maximeque in fano Iouis Triphylii; ubi auream columnam positam esse ab ipso Ioue titulus indicabat, in qua columna gesta sua perscripsit, ut monumentum esset posteris rerum suarum.

How can that be proved? Plainly the ancient histories teach it. The ancient author Euhemerus, who was from the city Messene, collected the deeds of Jove and of the others who are thought to be gods, and he wove a history from the titles and sacred inscriptions which were kept in the most ancient temples, and most especially in the fane of Jove the Triphylian; where an inscription indicated that a golden column had been set up by Jove himself, on which column he wrote out his own deeds, so that it might be a monument of his affairs for posterity.

Hanc historiam et intepretatus est Ennius, et secutus; cuius haec uerba sunt: «Ubi Iupiter Neptuno imperium dat maris, ut in insulis omnibus et quae secundum mare loca essent, omnibus regnaret.» Vera sunt ergo quae loquuntur poetae, sed obtentu aliquo specieque uelata. Potest et mons Olympus figuram poetis dedisse, ut Iouem dicerent coeli regnum esse sortitum; quod Olympus ambiguum nomen est et montis, et coeli. In Olympo autem Iouem habitasse docet historia eadem, quae dicit: «Ea tempestate Iupiter in monte Olympo maximam partem uitae colebat, et eo ad eum in ius ueniebant, si quae res in controuersia erant.

This history both Ennius interpreted and followed; whose these words are: «Where Jupiter gives to Neptune the dominion of the sea, so that in all the islands and in the places next to the sea he should rule over all.» True, therefore, are the things the poets speak, but veiled by some pretext and appearance. The mountain Olympus also may have given a figura to the poets, so that they would say that Jupiter had obtained by lot the kingdom of heaven; because Olympus is an ambiguous name both of the mountain and of the heaven. Moreover the same history teaches that Jupiter dwelt on Olympus, which says: «At that time Jupiter on Mount Olympus cultivated the greatest part of his life, and there they would come to him into court, if there were any matters in controversy.»

Item, si quis quid noui inuenerat, quod ad uitam humanam utile esset, eo ueniebat, atque Ioui ostendebat.» Multa in hunc modum poetae transferunt, non ut in eos mentiantur quos colunt, sed ut figuris uersicoloribus uenustatem ac leporem carminibus suis addant. Qui autem non intelligunt, quomodo aut quare quidque figuretur, poetas uelut mendaces et sacrilegos insequuntur. Hoc errore decepti etiam philosophi, quod ea, quae de Ioue feruntur, minime in Deum conuenire uidebantur, duos Ioues fecerunt, unum naturalem, alterum fabulosum.

»Likewise, if anyone had discovered anything new that was useful to human life, he would come there and show it to Jupiter.« The poets render many things in this fashion, not to tell lies about those whom they worship, but to add grace and charm to their poems by varicolored figures. But those who do not understand how or why each thing is figured pursue the poets as though liars and sacrilegious. Philosophers too, deceived by this error, because the things which are reported about Jupiter seemed by no means to suit God, made two Jupiters: one natural, the other fabulous.

Viderunt ex parte, quod erat uerum, eum scilicet, de quo poetae loquuntur hominem fuisse: in illo autem naturali Ioue, uulgari consuetudine religionis inducti, errauerunt, quod in Deum nomen hominis transtulerunt; qui (ut supra diximus) quia solus est, non indiget nomine. Iouem autem illum esse, qui sit ex Ope Saturnoque natus, negari non potest. Vana igitur persuasio est eorum, qui nomen Iouis summo Deo tribuunt.

They saw in part what was true, namely, that he of whom the poets speak had been a man; but in that “natural” Jupiter, induced by the vulgar custom of religion, they erred, in that they transferred the name of a man onto God—who (as we said above), because he is sole, has no need of a name. But that that Jupiter is the one who was born of Ops and Saturn cannot be denied. Vain, therefore, is the persuasion of those who attribute the name of Jupiter to the Supreme God.

Solent enim quidam errores suos hac excusatione defendere; qui conuicti de uno Deo, cum id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere affirmant, uerum hoc sibi placere, ut Iupiter nominetur: quo quid absurdius? Iupiter enim sine contubernio coniugis filiaeque coli non solet. Unde quid sit, apparet: nec fas est id nomen eo transferri, ubi nec Minerua est ulla, nec Iuno.

For certain people are wont to defend their errors by this excuse: when convicted concerning the one God, since they cannot deny it, they affirm that they worship him himself, but that this pleases them—that he be named Jupiter: than which what could be more absurd? For Jupiter is not wont to be worshiped without the contubernium of his wife and daughter. From which what it is becomes apparent: nor is it right that that name be transferred there where there is no Minerva at all, nor Juno.

Quid? quod huius nominis proprietas non diuinam uim exprimit, sed humanam? Iouem enim, Iunonemque a iuuando esse dictos, Cicero interpretatur.

What then? that the proper meaning of this name does not express divine power, but human? For Jupiter and Juno, Cicero interprets, are said to be named from helping.

Et Iupiter, quasi Iuuans pater dicitur; quod nomen in Deum minime congruit; quia iuuare hominis est, opis aliquid conferentis in eum, qui sit alienus, et exigui beneficii. Nemo sic Deum precatur, ut se adiuuet; sed ut seruet, ut uitam salutemque tribuat: quod multo plus ac maius est quam iuuare. Et quoniam de patre loquimur, nullus pater dicitur filios iuuare, cum eos generat, aut educat.

And Jupiter is said, as it were, “Helping father”; which name by no means befits God, because to help is a human act, of one who confers some aid upon one who is alien to him, and that of a meager benefit. No one thus prays to God that He may help him, but that He may preserve, that He may bestow life and salvation: which is much more and greater than to help. And since we are speaking of “father,” no father is said to help his children when he begets them or educates them.

Illud enim leuius est, quam ut eo uerbo magnitudo paterni beneficii exprimatur. Quanto id magis inconueniens est Deo, qui uerus est pater; per quem sumus, et cuius toti sumus, a quo fingimur, animamur, illuminamur; qui nobis uitam impertit, salutem tribuit, uictum multiplicem subministrat. Non intelligit beneficia diuina, qui se iuuari tantummodo a Deo putat.

For that is too slight to have the greatness of a fatherly beneficence expressed by that word. How much more incongruous is this for God, who is the true Father; through whom we are, and whose we are wholly, by whom we are fashioned, animated, illumined; who imparts to us life, grants salvation, supplies manifold victuals. He does not understand divine benefactions who thinks that he is only helped by God.

Ergo non imperitus modo, sed etiam impius est, qui nomine Iouis uirtutem summae potestatis imminuit. Quare si Iouem et ex rebus gestis et ex moribus hominem fuisse, in terraque regnasse deprehendimus, superest ut mortem quoque eius inuestigemus. Ennius in sacra Historia, descriptis omnibus quae in uita sua gessit, ad ultimum sic ait: Deinde Iupiter, postquam quinquies terras circuiuit, omnibusque amicis atque cognatis suis imperia diuisit, reliquitque hominibus leges, mores frumentaque parauit, multaque alia bona fecit, immortali gloria, memoriaque affectus, sempiterna monimenta suis reliquit: aetate pessum acta, in Creta uitam commutauit, et ad deos abiit, eumque Curetes filii sui curauerunt, decoraueruntque eum; et sepulcrum eius est in Creta et in oppido Cnosso, et dicitur Vesta hanc urbem creauisse; inque sepulcro eius est inscriptum antiquis litteris graecis, g-ZAN g-KRONOU, id est latine, Iupiter Saturni.

Therefore not only unskilled, but even impious is he who by the name of Jove diminishes the virtue of the highest power. Wherefore, if we have discovered Jupiter, both from his deeds and from his morals, to have been a man, and to have reigned upon the earth, it remains that we investigate his death as well. Ennius, in the Sacred History, after describing all the things which he did in his life, at the last says thus: Then Jupiter, after he had gone around the lands five times, and had divided empires among all his friends and kinsmen, and had left to men laws, had prepared customs and grains, and had done many other good things, having been endowed with immortal glory and memory, left everlasting monuments to his own: when his age had been driven to ruin, in Crete he exchanged life and went away to the gods, and the Curetes, his sons, took care of him and adorned him; and his tomb is in Crete, in the town Cnossus, and it is said that Vesta founded this city; and on his tomb is inscribed in ancient Greek letters, g-ZAN g-KRONOU, that is in Latin, Jupiter of Saturn.

Hoc certe non poetae tradunt, sed antiquarum rerum scriptores: quae adeo uera sunt, ut ea sybillinis uersibus confirmentur; qui sunt tales: "g-Daimonas g-apsuchous, g-nekuohn g-eidohla g-kamontohn, g-Hohn g-Chrehteh g-kauchehma g-taphous g-eh g-dusmoros g-ischei". Cicero de Natura deorum, cum tres Ioues a theologis enumerari diceret, ait tertium fuisse Cretensem, Saturni filium, cuius in illa insula sepulcrum ostenditur. Quomodo igitur potest deus alibi esse uiuus alibi mortuus, alibi habere templum, alibi sepulcrum? Sciant ergo Romani, Capitolium suum, id est summum caput religionum publicarum, nihil esse aliud quam inane monimentum.

This certainly is not handed down by poets, but by writers of ancient matters: which are so true that they are confirmed by Sibylline verses; which are such: "soulless daimons, the eidola of dead men who have toiled; whose boast Crete—ill-fated—holds, their tombs." Cicero, in On the Nature of the Gods, when he said that three Jupiters are enumerated by the theologians, says that the third was a Cretan, the son of Saturn, whose sepulcher is shown in that island. How, then, can a god be alive in one place and dead in another, have a temple in one place and a sepulcher in another? Let the Romans know, therefore, that their Capitol, that is, the supreme head of public religions, is nothing else than an empty monument.

Veniamus nunc ad eius patrem, qui ante regnauit, et qui fortasse plus habebat in se, quod ex coitu tantorum elementorum genitus esse dicatur. Videamus quid in eo fuerit deo dignum: in primis illud, quod aureum saeculum narratur habuisse; quod iustitia sub eo fuerit in terra. Teneo aliquid in hoc, quod in eius filio non fuit.

Let us now come to his father, who reigned before, and who perhaps had more in himself, in that he is said to have been begotten from the coitus of such great elements. Let us see what in him was worthy of a god: in the first place this, that he is recounted to have had a golden age; that justice was on earth under him. I concede something in this, which was not in his son.

Quid enim tam conueniens deo, quam iustum regimen, ac pium saeculum? Sed cum eadem ratione natum esse cogito, non possum putare Deum summum, quo uideam esse aliquid antiquius, coelum scilicet atque terram. At ego Deum quaero, ultra quem nihil sit omnino, qui fons, et origo sit rerum.

For what indeed is so convenient to a god as a just regimen and a pious age? But since I consider that he was born by the same rationale, I cannot reckon him the Highest God, than whom I see there is something more ancient—namely heaven and earth. But I seek God, beyond whom there is nothing at all, who is the fount and origin of things.

Hic sit necesse est, qui coelum ipsum condidit, terramque fundauit. Saturnus autem si ex his natus est (ut putatur) quemadmodum potest Deus esse principalis, qui aliis ortum suum debet? aut quis praefuit mundo, priusquam Saturnus gigneretur?

This must be he who founded the heaven itself and established the earth. But if Saturn was born from these (as is thought), how can he be the principal God, who owes his origin to others? or who presided over the world before Saturn was begotten?

Sed hoc poeticum est (ut dicebam paulo ante) figmentum. Nec enim fieri poterat, ut elementa insensibilia, tantoque interuallo separata, in unum coirent ac filium procrearent: aut is, qui natus esset, non potissimum genitoribus similis existeret; sed eam formam gereret, quam parentes sui non habebant. Quaeramus ergo quid ueritatis sub hac figura lateat.

But this is a poetic figment (as I was saying a little before). For it could not occur that insensible elements, separated by so great an interval, should come together into one and beget a son; or that he who was born would not be chiefly similar to his genitors, but would bear a form which his parents did not have. Let us therefore seek what truth lies hidden under this figure.

Minucius Felix in eo libro, qui Octauius inscribitur, sic argumentatus est: «Saturnum, cum fugatus esset a filio in Italiamque uenisset, Coeli filium dictum, quod soleamus eos quorum uirtutem miremur, aut qui repentino aduenerint, de coelo cecidisse dicere; terrae autem, quod ignotis parentibus natos, terrae filios nominemus.» Sunt haec quidem similia ueri, non tamen uera: quia constat etiam tunc cum regnaret ita esse habitum. Potuit et sic argumentari: Saturnum, cum potentissimus rex esset, ad retinendam parentum suorum memoriam, nomina eorum coelo terraeque indidisse, cum haec prius aliis uocabulis appellarentur; qua ratione et montibus et fluminibus nomina scimus imposita. Neque enim cum dicunt poetae de progenie Atlantis, aut Inachi fluminis, id potissimum dicunt, homines ex rebus sensu carentibus potuisse generari; sed eos utique significant, qui nati sunt ex his hominibus, qui uel uiui, uel mortui, nomina montibus aut fluminibus indiderunt.

Minucius Felix, in that book which is entitled Octavius, argued thus: "Saturn, when he had been put to flight by his son and had come into Italy, was called the son of Heaven, because we are wont to say of those whose virtue we admire, or who have arrived suddenly, that they have fallen from heaven; and the son of Earth, because we name sons of the earth those born of unknown parents." These things are indeed like the truth, yet not true: because it is established that even then, while he was reigning, he was so regarded. He could also have argued thus: that Saturn, when he was a most powerful king, for the retaining of the memory of his parents, gave their names to the heaven and the earth, whereas these previously were called by other vocables; by which rationale we know that names were imposed also on mountains and rivers. For when the poets speak of the progeny of Atlas, or of the river Inachus, they do not chiefly say that men could be generated from things devoid of sense; but they certainly signify those who were born from those men who, whether alive or dead, gave their names to mountains or rivers.

Nam id apud ueteres, maximeque Graecos, fuit usitatum. Sic maria eorum traxisse nomina accepimus, qui deciderant in ea, ut Aegeum, Icarium, Hellesponticum: et in Latio Auentinus, uocabulum monti dedit, in quo sepultus est; Tiberinus uel Tiberis, amni in quo mersus est. Non ergo mirandum, si nomina eorum coelo terraeque attributa essent, qui reges genuerant potentissimos.

For that was customary among the ancients, and most of all the Greeks. Thus we have received that seas drew their names from those who fell into them, as the Aegean, the Icarian, the Hellespontine; and in Latium, Aventinus gave the appellation to the mount on which he was buried; Tiberinus, or Tiber, to the river in which he was drowned. Therefore it is not to be wondered at, if the names of those who had begotten most powerful kings were attributed to Heaven and to Earth.

Apparet ergo non ex coelo natum esse; quod fieri non potest: sed ex eo homine, cui nomen Urano fuit. Quod esse uerum Trismegistus auctor est: qui cum diceret admodum paucos extitisse in quibus esset perfecta doctrina, in his Uranum, Saturnum, Mercurium cognatos suos nominauit. Haec ille quia ignorauit, alio traduxit historiam; qui quomodo potuerit argumentari, ostendi: nunc dicam, quomodo, ubi, a quo sit hoc factum; non enim Saturnus hoc, sed Iupiter fecit.

It therefore appears that he was not born from heaven; which cannot come to pass: but from that man whose name was Uranus. That this is true Trismegistus is an authority: who, when he said that very few had existed in whom the doctrine was perfected, among these named Uranus, Saturn, and Mercury, his relatives. Because he was ignorant of these things, he diverted the history elsewhere; how he could have argued, I have shown: now I will say how, where, and by whom this was done; for it was not Saturn who did this, but Jupiter did.

In sacra Historia sic Ennius tradit: «Deinde Pan eum deducit in montem, qui uocatur coeli stela. Postquam eo ascendit, contemplatus est late terras, ibique eo in monte aram creat coelo; primusque in ea ara Iupiter sacrificauit: in eo loco suspexit in coelum quod nunc nos nominamus, idque quod supra mundum erat, quod aether uocabatur, de sui aui nomine coelo nomen indidit: idque Iupiter, quod aether uocatur, precans, primum coelum nominauit; eamque hostiam, quam ibi sacrauit, totam adoleuit.» Nec hic tantum sacrificasse Iupiter inuenitur. Caesar quoque in Arato refert Aglaosthenem dicere, Iouem cum ex insula Naxo aduersus Titanas proficisceretur, et sacrificium faceret in littore, aquilam ei in auspicium aduolasse; quam uictor bono omine acceptam tutelae suae subiugarit.

In the sacred History thus does Ennius hand down: «Then Pan leads him down into a mountain, which is called the Stele of Heaven. After he ascended there, he surveyed the lands far and wide, and there on that mountain he creates an altar to Heaven; and Jupiter was the first to sacrifice on that altar: in that place he looked up into the heaven which now we name, and that which was above the world, which was called aether, from his grandfather’s name he bestowed the name upon heaven: and Jupiter, praying that which is called aether, first named it Heaven; and the victim which he consecrated there he wholly consumed.» Nor is Jupiter found to have sacrificed only here. Caesar also, in the Aratea, reports Aglaosthenes to say that, when Jupiter was setting out from the island Naxos against the Titans and was making a sacrifice on the shore, an eagle flew to him as an auspice; which, accepted as a good omen by the victor, he subjected to his guardianship.

Sacra uero Historia (scilicet Ennii) etiam ante consedisse illi aquilam in capite, atque illi regnum portendisse, testatur. Cui ergo sacrificare Iupiter potuit, nisi coelo auo? quem dicit Euhemerus in Oceania mortuum, et in oppido Aulacia sepultum.

The sacred History (namely of Ennius) also testifies that even earlier an eagle settled upon his head and portended to him a kingdom. To whom therefore could Jupiter sacrifice, except to Heaven his grandfather? whom Euhemerus says died in Oceania and was buried in the town Aulacia.

[1,12] CAPUT XII. Quoniam reuelauimus mysteria poetarum, et Saturni parentes inuenimus, ad uirtutes eius et facta redeamus. Iustus in regno fuit.

[1,12] CHAPTER 12. Since we have unveiled the mysteries of the poets, and we have found Saturn’s parents, let us return to his virtues and deeds. He was just in his reign.

Primum ex hoc ipso iam Deus non est, quod fuit: Deinde quod ne iustus quidem fuit; sed impius, non modo in filios quos necauit, uerum etiam in patrem, cuius dicitur abscidisse genitalia; quod forsitan uere acciderit. Sed homines respectu elementi, quod dicitur coelum, totam fabulam explodunt tamquam ineptissime fictam: quam tamen stoici (ut solent) ad rationem physicam conantur traducere; quorum sententiam Cicero, de Natura deorum {lib. II, cap.

First, from this very point, he now is not what he was, namely God: then, that he was not even just; but impious, not only toward the sons whom he killed, but also toward his father, whose genitalia he is said to have cut off; which perhaps truly befell. But men, with respect to the element which is called heaven, explode the whole fable as most ineptly fabricated: which nevertheless the Stoics (as they are wont) try to translate to a physical rationale; whose opinion Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods {book 2, ch.

24} disserens, posuit: «Coelestem, inquit, altissimam aetheriamque naturam, id est igneam, quae per sese omnia gigneret, uacare uoluerunt ea parte corporis, quae coniunctione alterius egeret ad procreandum: quae ratio in Vestam potuit conuenire, si mas diceretur. Idcirco enim uirginem putant Vestam, quia ignis inuiolabile sit elementum, nihilque nasci possit ex eo, quippe qui omnia quae arripuerit absumat.» Ouidius in Fastis {Lib. VI, u. 291 sqq.} : "Nec tu aliud Vestam, quam uiuam intellige flammam; Nataque de flamma corpora nulla uides.

24} discoursing, he set forth: «They wanted the celestial, most lofty and aetherial nature—that is, igneous—which of itself would beget all things, to be vacant of that part of the body which would need the conjunction of another for procreation: which reason could suit Vesta, if she were called male. For this cause they think Vesta a virgin, because fire is an inviolable element, and nothing can be born from it, since it consumes all the things which it seizes.» Ovid in the Fasti {Book 6, v. 291 ff.} : "Nor understand Vesta as anything other than living flame; and you see no bodies born from flame."

Iure igitur uirgo est, quae semina nulla remittit, Nec capit, et comites uirginitatis amat". Vulcano quoque id potuit adscribi, qui quidem putatur ignis; et tamen eum poetae non absciderunt. Potuit et Soli, in quo est natura et causa gignentium; nam sine Solis igneo calore neque nasci quidquam, neque augeri potest: ut nulli alii elemento magis opus sit genitalibus, quam calori, cuius fotu concipiuntur, nascuntur, sustentantur omnia. Postremo etiamsi ita sit (ut uolunt) qui magis abscissum esse Coelum putemus, quam omnino sine genitalibus natum?

Therefore with justice she is a virgin, who sends back no seeds, nor does she receive them, and she loves the companions of virginity". To Vulcan this too could be ascribed, who indeed is thought to be fire; and yet the poets did not cut him off. It could also be to the Sun, in whom is the nature and cause of those that beget; for without the Sun’s igneous heat neither can anything be born, nor be increased: so that no other element has more need of genitals than heat, by whose warming all things are conceived, are born, are sustained. Finally, even if it be so (as they wish), why should we think that Heaven was rather cut off, than altogether born without genitals?

Nam si per se gignit, non indigebat utique genitalibus, cum Saturnum ipsum procrearet. Si uero habuit, et a filio abscissa sunt, ortus rerum, et natura omnis interisset. Quid, quod ipsi Saturno non diuinum modo sensum, sed humanum quoque adimunt, cum affirmant eum esse Saturnum, qui cursum et conuersionem spatiorum et temporum continet; eumque graece id ipsum nomen habere.

For if it engenders by itself, it surely had no need of genitals, when it procreated Saturn himself. But if in truth it had them, and they were abscised by the son, the birth of things and all nature would have perished. What of this, that they deprive Saturn himself not only of divine sense but also of human, when they affirm that he is that Saturn who contains the course and conversion of spaces and times; and that in Greek he bears that very name.

G-Kronos enim dicitur, quod est idem, quod crounoû, id est spatium temporis. Saturnus autem est appellatus, quod saturetur annis. Haec Ciceronis uerba sunt exponentis sententiam stoicorum (Lib.

For G-Kronos is said, which is the same as crounoû, that is, a span of time. Saturn, moreover, is appellated thus because he is sated with years. These are Cicero’s words expounding the opinion of the Stoics (Book.

II de Nat. deor, c. 64) : «Quae quam uana sit, cuiuis intelligere promptissimum est. Si enim Saturnus Coeli est filius, quomodo potuit aut tempus a Coelo gigni, aut Coelum a tempore abscidi, aut postea tempus imperio spoliari a filio Ioue?

2 On the Nature of the Gods, ch. 64) : «How vain that is, it is most easy for anyone to understand. For if Saturn is the son of Heaven, how could either Time be begotten from Heaven, or Heaven be cut off from Time, or afterward Time be despoiled of sovereignty by his son Jove?»

Aut quomodo Iupiter natus est ex tempore? Aut quibus annis saturari possit aeternitas, cui nullus est finis?»

Or how was Jupiter born from time? Or with what years could eternity be sated, which has no end?»

[1,13] CAPUT XIII. Si ergo uanae sunt istae rationes philosophorum, quid superest, nisi ut uere factum esse credamus, id est hominem ab homine abscissum? nisi forte aliquis existimet deum fuisse, qui timuit cohaeredem: cum, si quid diuinitatis habuisset, non patris genitalia debuerit amputare, sed propria, ne Iupiter nasceretur, qui eum regni possessione priuauit.

[1,13] CHAPTER 13. If therefore those reasonings of the philosophers are vain, what remains, except that we believe it truly to have been done, that is, a man severed from a man? unless perhaps someone should suppose that it was a god, who feared a coheir: since, if he had had anything of divinity, he ought not to have amputated his father’s genitals, but his own, lest Jupiter be born, who deprived him of the possession of the kingdom.

Idem sororem suam Rheam, quam latine Opem dicimus, cum haberet uxorem, responso uetitus esse dicitur, mares liberos educare; quod futurum esset, ut a filio pelleretur: quam rem metuens, natos sibi filios non utique deuorabat (ut ferunt fabulae) sed necabat; quamquam scriptum sit in Historia sacra (scilicet Ennii) Saturnum, et Opem, caeterosque tunc homines humanam carnem solitos esitare: uerum primum Iouem, leges hominibus moresque condentem, edicto prohibuisse ne liceret eo cibo uesci. Quod si uerum est, quae potest in eo fuisse iustitia? Sed fictum sane putemus, Saturnum filios deuorasse, modo quum aliqua ratione: num idcirco, quod ait uulgus comedisse filios suos eum qui extulerit, sepulturaeque mandauerit?

The same man, having his sister Rhea, whom in Latin we call Ops, as wife, is said to have been forbidden by an oracle to rear male children; because it would come to pass that he would be driven out by a son: fearing this thing, the sons born to him he by no means devoured (as the fables report) but killed; although it is written in the Sacred History (namely of Ennius) that Saturn and Ops, and the rest of men at that time, were wont to eat human flesh; but that first Jupiter, establishing laws and mores for men, by an edict forbade it to be permitted to feed on that food. But if this is true, what justice could there have been in him? Yet let us certainly suppose it fictitious that Saturn devoured his sons, provided it be with some rationale: is it therefore, as the vulgar say, that he “has eaten his sons,” who has carried them out and consigned them to sepulture?

Ops autem cum Iouem peperisset, subtraxit infantem, eumque nutriendum furtim misit in Cretam. Rursum imprudentiam reprehendam necesse est. Cur enim responsum ab alio potius accepit?

But Ops, when she had borne Jupiter, withdrew the infant, and sent him furtively to Crete to be nourished. Again I must reprehend imprudence. For why indeed did she rather receive the response from another?

Cur in coelo constitutus, quae gerebantur in terra, non uidebat? Cur eum Corybantes cymbalis fefellerunt? Postremo cur extitit aliqua uis maior, quae illius uinceret potestatem?

Why, established in heaven, did he not see what was being done on earth? Why did the Corybantes deceive him with cymbals? Finally, why did some greater force arise, which would conquer his power?

Nimirum senex a iuuene facile uictus est, ac spoliatus imperio. Fugit igitur, et in Italiam nauigio uenit, cum errasset diu; sicut expulsus Ouidius in Fastorum libris (libro primo) refert: "Causa ratis superest. Thuscum rate uenit ad amnem Ante pererrato falcifer orbe Deus". Hunc errantem atque inopem Ianus excepit.

Surely the old man was easily conquered by the young man, and despoiled of sovereignty. Therefore he fled, and came by ship to Italy, after he had wandered for a long time; just as the banished Ovid relates in the books of the Fasti (book 1): "The cause of the raft remains. By raft the sickle-bearing god came to the Tuscan river, after the orb had first been traversed." Janus received him wandering and destitute.

Cuius rei argumenta sunt nummi ueteres, in quibus est cum duplici fronte Ianus, et in altera parte nauis; sicut idem poeta (ibidem) subiecit: "At bona posteritas puppim formauit in aere, Hospitis aduentum testificata dei." Omnes ergo non tantum poetae, sed historiarum quoque ac rerum antiquarum scriptores, hominem fuisse consentiunt, qui res eius in Italia gestas memoriae prodiderunt: Graeci, Diodorus et Thallus; Latini, Nepos et Cassius et Varro. Nam cum agresti quodam more in Italia uiueretur, "Is genus indocile, ac dispersum montibus altis Composuit; legesque dedit, Latiumque uocari Maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris". Censet ne aliquis deum esse, qui pulsus est, qui fugit, qui latuit? Nemo tam stultus est.

Cuius rei the evidences are ancient coins, on which Janus with a double face is, and on the other side a ship; just as the same poet (in the same place) subjoined: "But good posterity fashioned the stern in bronze, bearing witness to the guest-god’s arrival." All therefore, not only the poets, but also the writers of histories and of antiquities, agree that he was a man, who have handed down to memory his deeds accomplished in Italy: among the Greeks, Diodorus and Thallus; among the Latins, Nepos and Cassius and Varro. For when in Italy people lived after a certain rustic manner, "He composed the indocile race, and scattered among lofty mountains, and he gave laws, and he preferred that it be called Latium, since on these shores he had lain hidden in safety." Does anyone reckon him to be a god, who was driven out, who fled, who hid? No one is so foolish.

Qui enim fugit aut latet, et uim et mortem timeat necesse est. Orpheus, qui temporibus eius recentior fuit, aperte Saturnum in terra et apud homines regnasse commemorat: "G-Prohtistos g-men g-anassen g-epichthoniohn g-androhn, g-Ek g-de g-Kronou g-genet' g-autos g-anax, g-megas, g-euruopa g-Zeus". Item Maro noster: "Aureus hanc uitam in terris Saturnus agebat"; Et alio loco: "Aureaque (ut perhibent) illo sub rege fuere Saecula: sic placida populos in pace regebat". Neque superius dixit in coelo egisse uitam, neque inferius superos in pace rexisse: unde apparet illum regem fuisse terrenum; quod alibi apertius declarat: "Aurea condet Saecula; qui rursus Latio, regnata per arua Saturno quondam". Ennius quidem in Euhemero non primum dicit regnasse Saturnum, sed Uranum patrem. Initio, inquit, primus in terris imperium summum Coelus habuit; is id regnum una cum fratribus suis instituit atque parauit.

For whoever flees or lies hidden must of necessity fear both force and death. Orpheus, who was more recent than his times, openly commemorates that Saturn reigned on earth and among men: "First indeed he was king of earth-born men; and from Kronos there was born he himself as lord, great, wide-faced Zeus". Likewise our Maro: "Golden Saturn spent this life on the earth"; and in another place: "And golden (as they report) were the ages under that king: thus in placid peace he used to rule the peoples". Nor did he say above that he spent his life in heaven, nor below that he ruled the supernals in peace: whence it appears that he was an earthly king; which elsewhere he declares more openly: "He will found golden ages; he who again in Latium, once ruled over the fields by Saturn". Ennius indeed in the Euhemerus does not say that Saturn was first to have reigned, but Uranus the father. "In the beginning," he says, "first on earth Heaven held the highest dominion; he established and prepared that kingdom together with his brothers."

Non magna dissensio, siquidem maximorum auctorum de filio ac patre dubitatio est. Sed tamen utrumque fieri potest: ut et primus Uranus eminere inter caeteros potentia coeperit, et principatum habere, non regnum; postea Saturnus maiores sibi opes comparauerit, ac regium nomen asciuerit.

Not a great dissension, since indeed among the greatest authors there is a doubt concerning the son and the father. But yet either can be the case: that Uranus first began to stand out among the others in power, and to have the principate, not a kingdom; afterwards Saturn procured greater resources for himself, and assumed the royal name.

[1,14] CAPUT XIV. Nunc quoniam ab iis, quae retulimus, aliquantulum sacra Historia dissentit, aperiamus ea quae ueris litteris continentur, ne poetarum ineptias in accusandis religionibus sequi ac probare uideamur. Haec Ennii uerba sunt: «Exin Saturnus uxorem duxit Opem.

[1,14] CHAPTER 14. Now, since sacred History dissents somewhat from those things which we have related, let us lay open those things which are contained in true letters, lest we seem to follow and approve the ineptitudes of poets in accusing religions. These are the words of Ennius: «Then Saturn took Ops as wife.

Titan, qui maior natu erat, postulat ut ipse regnaret. Ibi Vesta mater eorum, et sorores Ceres atque Ops, suadent Saturno, ut de regno non concedat fratri. Ibi Titan, qui facie deterior esset, quam Saturnus, idcirco et quod uidebat matrem atque sorores suas operam dare ut Saturnus regnaret, concessit ei ut is regnaret.

Titan, who was elder by birth, demands that he himself should reign. Thereupon Vesta their mother, and their sisters Ceres and Ops, advise Saturn that he should not concede the rule to his brother. Then Titan, who was inferior in looks to Saturn, therefore both because of this and because he saw his mother and sisters giving their efforts that Saturn should reign, conceded to him that he should reign.

Itaque pactus est cum Saturno, uti si quid liberum uirilis sexus ei natum esset, ne educaret. Id eius rei causa fecit, uti ad suos gnatos regnum rediret. Tum Saturno filius qui primus natus est, eum necauerunt.

Accordingly he pacted with Saturn, that if any offspring of the virile sex were born to him, he should not rear it. He did this for the sake of that matter, so that the realm might return to his own sons. Then the son who was first born to Saturn—they slew him.

Deinde posterius nati sunt gemini, Iupiter atque Iuno. Tum Iunonem Saturno in conspectum dedere, atque Iouem clam abscondunt, dantque eum Vestae educandum, celantes Saturnum. Item Neptunum clam Saturno Ops parit, eumque clanculum abscondit.

Then later twins were born, Jupiter and Juno. Then they gave Juno into Saturn’s sight, and they secretly hide Jove, and give him to Vesta to be reared, concealing it from Saturn. Likewise Ops bears Neptune in secret from Saturn, and hides him furtively.

Ad eumdem modum tertio partu Ops parit geminos, Plutonem et Glaucam. Pluto Latine est Dispater: alii Orcum uocant. Ibi Glaucam filiam Saturno ostendunt, ac filium Plutonem celant atque abscondunt.

In the same mode, at the third childbirth Ops bears twins, Pluto and Glauca. Pluto in Latin is Dis Pater; others call him Orcus. There they show the daughter Glauca to Saturn, and they hide and conceal the son Pluto.

Deinde Glauca parua emoritur.» Haec (ut scripta sunt) Iouis fratrumque eius stirps, atque cognatio in hunc modum nobis ex sacra scriptione tradita est. Item paulo post haec infert: «Deinde Titan, postquam resciuit Saturno filios procreatos, atque educatos esse clam, seducit secum filios suos qui Titani uocantur, fratremque suum Saturnum, atque Opem comprehendit, eosque muro circumegit, et custodiam his apponit.» Haec historia quam uera sit, docet Sibylla Erythraea, eadem fere dicens; nisi quod in paucis, quae ad rem non pertinent, discrepat. Iupiter ergo liberatur summi sceleris crimine, quod patrem uinxisse compedibus perhibetur: id enim Titan patruus fecit quod ille contra pactionem iusque iurandum mares liberos sustulisset.

Then little Glauca dies.» This (as it has been written) is the stock of Jupiter and of his brothers, and their cognation, handed down to us from sacred Scripture in this manner. Likewise a little after these things he adds: «Then Titan, after he learned that sons had been procreated to Saturn and brought up in secret, draws aside with himself his sons who are called Titans, and apprehends his brother Saturn and Ops, and he encircled them with a wall, and sets a guard over them.» How true this history is, the Erythraean Sibyl teaches, saying nearly the same things; except that in a few points, which do not pertain to the matter, she differs. Jupiter therefore is freed from the charge of the highest crime, namely that he is said to have bound his father in fetters: for his uncle Titan did that, because he (Saturn), contrary to the pact and to the sworn oath, had removed the male children.

Reliqua historia sic contexitur: Iouem adultum, cum audisset patrem atque matrem custodiis circumseptos, atque in uincula coniectos, uenisse cum magna Cretensium multitudine, Titanumque ac filios eius pugnando uicisse, parentes uinculis exemisse, patri regnum reddidisse, atque ita in Cretam remeasse: Post haec deinde Saturno datam sortem, ut caueret ne filius eum regno expelleret: illum eleuandae sortis atque effugiendi periculi gratia, insidiatum Ioui, ut eum necaret: Iouem, cognitis insidiis, regnum sibi denuo uindicasse, ac fugasse Saturnum, qui, cum iactatus esset per omnes terras, persequentibus armatis, quos ad eum comprehendendum uel necandum Iupiter miserat, uix in Italia locum, in quo lateret, inuenit.

The remaining history is thus woven together: Jove, grown adult, when he had heard that his father and mother were surrounded with guards and cast into chains, came with a great multitude of Cretans, and by fighting conquered the Titans and his sons, released his parents from the chains, restored the kingdom to his father, and so returned to Crete. After these things then a lot was given to Saturn, that he should beware lest a son expel him from the kingdom; he, for the sake of lightening the lot and escaping the danger, laid an ambush for Jove to kill him; Jove, the ambush having been learned, vindicated the kingship for himself anew, and put Saturn to flight, who, when he had been tossed through all the lands, with armed men pursuing—whom Jupiter had sent to seize or to kill him—hardly in Italy found a place in which to lie hidden.

[1,15] CAPUT XV. Quibus ex rebus, cum constet illos homines fuisse, non est obscurum qua ratione dii coeperint nominari. Si enim nulli reges ante Saturnum uel Uranum fuerunt propter hominum raritatem, qui agrestem uitam sine ullo rectore uiuebant: non est dubium quin illis temporibus homines regem ipsum totamque gentem summis laudibus ac nouis honoribus iactare coeperint, ut etiam deos appellarent, siue ob miraculum uirtutis (hoc uere putabant rudes adhuc et simplices), siue (ut fieri solet) in adulationem praesentis potentiae, siue ob beneficia quibus erant ad humanitatem compositi. Deinde ipsi reges, cum chari fuissent iis, quorum uitam composuerant, magnum sui desiderium mortui reliquerunt.

[1,15] CHAPTER 15. From which facts, since it is agreed that those were men, it is not obscure by what manner the gods began to be named. For if there were no kings before Saturn or Uranus because of the scarcity of men, who were living a rustic life without any ruler: there is no doubt that in those times men began to vaunt the king himself and the whole people with highest praises and new honors, so that they even called them gods, whether on account of the miracle of virtue (this they truly supposed, still rude and simple), or (as it is wont to happen) in adulation of present power, or on account of the benefits by which they had been set in order toward humanity. Then the kings themselves, since they had been dear to those whose life they had set in order, when dead left behind a great longing for themselves.

Itaque homines eorum simulacra finxerunt, ut haberent aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium; progressique longius per amorem meriti, memoriam defunctorum colere coeperunt; ut et gratiam referre bene meritis uiderentur, et successores eorum allicerent ad bene imperandi cupiditatem. Quod Cicero de Natura deorum {l. II, c. 14} docet, dicens: «Suscepit autem uita hominum consuetudoque communis, ut beneficiis excellentes uiros in coelum fama ac uoluntate tollerent. Hinc Hercules, hinc Castor, hinc Pollux, hinc Aesculapius, hinc Liber.» Et alio loco: «Atque in plerisque ciuitatibus intelligi potest, acuendae uirtutis gratia, aut quo libentius reipublicae causa periculum adiret optimus quisque uirorum fortium, memoriam honore deorum immortalium consecratam.» Hac scilicet ratione Romani Caesares suos consecrauerunt, et Mauri reges suos.

Therefore men fashioned their simulacra, so that they might have some solace from the contemplation of images; and, having progressed further through love of merit, they began to cultivate the memory of the deceased; so that they might seem both to return gratitude to the well‑deserving, and to entice their successors to a desire of ruling well. Which Cicero teaches in On the Nature of the Gods {book 2, chapter 14}, saying: «Moreover, the life of men and the common custom undertook that they should lift to heaven, by fame and by goodwill, men excelling in benefactions. Hence Hercules, hence Castor, hence Pollux, hence Aesculapius, hence Liber.» And in another place: «And in very many commonwealths it can be understood, for the sake of sharpening virtue, or so that each best of the brave men might more willingly go to danger for the sake of the republic, the memory consecrated with the honor of the immortal gods.» By this rationale, namely, the Romans consecrated their Caesars, and the Moors their kings.

Sic paulatim religiones esse coeperunt, dum illi primi, qui eos nouerant, eo ritu suos liberos ac nepotes, deinde omnes posteros imbuerunt. Et hi tamen summi reges ob celebritatem nominis in prouinciis omnibus colebantur. Priuatim uero singuli populi gentis aut urbis suae conditores, seu uiri fortitudine insignes erant, seu foeminae castitate mirabiles, summa ueneratione coluerunt; ut Aegyptii Isidem, Mauri Iubam, Macedones Cabirum, Poeni Uranum, Latini Faunum, Sabini Sancum, Romani Quirinum.

Thus little by little religions began to be, while those first who had known them, with that rite imbued their sons and grandsons, and then all posterity. And yet these highest kings, on account of the celebrity of their name, were worshiped in all the provinces. Privately, however, individual peoples paid the founders of their clan or their city—whether men distinguished for fortitude or women marvelous for chastity—the highest veneration; as the Egyptians Isis, the Moors Juba, the Macedonians Cabirus, the Punic peoples Uranus, the Latins Faunus, the Sabines Sancus, the Romans Quirinus.

Eodem utique modo Athenae Mineruam, Samos Iunonem, Paphos Venerem, Lemnos Vulcanum, Naxos Liberum, Apollinem Delphi. Sic per populos atque regiones uaria sacra suscepta sunt, dum grati homines esse in suos principes cupiunt, et quod alios honores, quos uita carentibus deferant, inuenire non possunt. Praeterea pietas eorum, qui successerant, plurimum contulit ad errorem; qui (ut diuina stirpe nati uiderentur) diuinos honores parentibus detulerunt, deferrique iusserunt.

In the same way, to be sure, Athens Minerva, Samos Juno, Paphos Venus, Lemnos Vulcan, Naxos Liber, Delphi Apollo. Thus among peoples and regions various sacred rites were undertaken, while men desire to be grateful toward their princes, and because they cannot find other honors to bestow upon those bereft of life. Moreover, the pietas of those who had succeeded contributed very much to the error; who (in order that they might seem born from a divine stock) bestowed divine honors upon their parents, and ordered them to be bestowed.

An potest aliquis dubitare, quomodo religiones deorum sint institutae, cum apud Maronem legat Aeneae uerba sociis imperantis: "Nunc pateras libate Ioui, precibusque uocate Anchisem genitorem." Cui non tantum immortalitatem, uerum etiam uentorum tribuit potestatem: "Poscamus uentos, atque haec me sacra quotannis Urbe uelit posita templis sibi ferre dicatis." Idem scilicet de Ioue Liber, et Pan, et Mercurius, et Apollo fecerunt; ac postea de his ipsis successores eorum. Accesserunt etiam poetae, et compositis ad uoluptatem carminibus, in coelum eos sustulerunt: sicut faciunt qui apud reges, etiam malos, panegyricis mendacibus adulantur. Quod malum a Graecis ortum est: quorum leuitas, instructa dicendi facultate et copia, incredibile est quantas mendaciorum nebulas excitauerit.

Can anyone doubt how the religions of the gods were instituted, when with Maro one reads the words of Aeneas giving orders to his allies: "Now with bowls pour libations to Jove, and with prayers call upon Anchises the begetter." To whom he assigned not only immortality, but even the power of the winds: "Let us ask for winds, and let him be willing that I should every year carry these rites, the City having set up for him temples dedicated to himself." The same, of course, about Jove was done by Liber, and Pan, and Mercury, and Apollo; and afterwards by their successors about these very men. The poets also joined in, and with songs composed for delectation lifted them into heaven: just as do those who, at the courts of kings, even wicked ones, flatter with mendacious panegyrics. This evil took its origin from the Greeks: whose levity, equipped with a faculty of speaking and with copiousness, it is incredible how great clouds of lies it has stirred up.

Itaque admirati eos, et susceperunt primi sacra illorum, et uniuersis gentibus tradiderunt. Ob hanc uanitatem Sibylla sic eos increpat: {uerba graeca}. M. Tullius, qui non tantum perfectus orator, sed etiam philosophus fuit; siquidem solus extitit Platonis imitator, in eo libro, quo se ipse de morte filiae consolatus est, non dubitauit dicere, deos, qui publice colerentur, homines fuisse. Quod ipsius testimonium eo debet grauissimum iudicari, quod et augurale habuit sacerdotium, et eosdem se colere uenerarique testatur.

And so, admiring them, they were the first to take up their rites, and handed them down to all the nations. On account of this vanity the Sibyl thus rebukes them: {Greek words}. M. Tullius, who was not only a perfect orator but also a philosopher—indeed he alone stood forth as an imitator of Plato—in that book in which he consoled himself about the death of his daughter, did not hesitate to say that the gods who were publicly worshiped had been men. And his testimony ought for that reason to be judged most weighty, because he both held the augural priesthood, and bears witness that he himself worships and venerates the same gods.

Itaque intra paucos uersiculos duas res nobis dedit. Nam dum imaginem filiae eodem modo se consecraturum esse profiteretur, quo illi a ueteribus sunt consecrati, et illos mortuos esse docuit, et originem uanae superstitionis ostendit. «Cum uero, inquit, et mares et foeminas complures ex hominibus in deorum numero esse uideamus, et eorum in urbibus atque agris augustissima delubra ueneremur, assentiamur eorum sapientiae, quorum ingeniis et inuentis omnem uitam legibus et institutis excultam constitutamque habemus.

And so within a few short verses he gave us two things. For while he was professing that he would consecrate the image of his daughter in the same manner in which those have been consecrated by the ancients, he both taught that those men were dead, and showed the origin of vain superstition. «But when, he says, we see that both males and females, several from among human beings, are in the number of the gods, and we venerate their most august shrines in the cities and in the fields, let us assent to the wisdom of those men, by whose talents and inventions we have all life cultivated and established by laws and institutions.

Quod si ullum unquam animal consecrandum fuit, illud profecto fuit. Si Cadmi progenies, aut Amphytrionis, aut Tyndari in coelum tollenda fama fuit, huic idem honos certe dicandus est. Quod quidem faciam, teque omnium optimam doctissimamque, approbantibus diis immortalibus ipsis, in eorum coetu locatam, ad opinionem omnium mortalium consecrabo.» Fortasse dicat aliquis, prae nimio luctu delirasse Ciceronem.

But if ever any living being was to be consecrated, that one surely was. If the progeny of Cadmus, or of Amphitryon, or the Tyndarids was to be lifted to heaven by fame, to her surely the same honor must be declared. Which indeed I will do, and you—the best and most learned of all—with the immortal gods themselves approving, placed in their company, I will consecrate in the opinion of all mortals.» Perhaps someone may say that Cicero, because of excessive grief, raved.

Atqui omnis illa oratio, et doctrina, et exemplis, et ipso loquendi genere perfecta, non aegri, sed constantis animi ac iudicii fuit; et haec ipsa sententia nullum praefert indicium doloris. Neque enim puto illum tam uarie, tam copiose, tam ornate scribere potuisse, nisi luctum eius et ratio ipsa, et consolatio amicorum, et temporis longitudo mitigasset. Quid, quod idem dicit in libris de Republica?

And yet that whole oration, perfected both by doctrine and by examples and by the very manner of speaking, was not of a sick man, but of a steadfast mind and judgment; and this very opinion bears no indication of sorrow. For I do not think that he could have written so variously, so copiously, so ornately, unless his grief had been mitigated by reason itself, by the consolation of friends, and by the length of time. What of the fact that he says the same in the books On the Republic?

idem de Gloria? Nam de Legibus, quo in opere Platonem secutus, leges uoluit ponere, quibus putaret usuram esse iustam et sapienetm ciuitatem, de Religione ita sanxit: «Diuos, et eos qui coelestes semper habiti sunt, colunto; et illos, quos in coelo merita locauerunt, Herculem, Liberum, Aesculapium, Pollucem, Castorem, Quirinum.» Item in Tusculanis, cum diceret totum pene coelum humano genere completum: «Si uero, inquit, scrutari uetera, et ex illis ea quae scriptores Graeciae prodiderunt, eruere coner, ipsi illi maiorum gentium dii qui habentur, hinc a nobis profecti in coelum reperientur. Quaere, quorum demonstrantur sepulcra in Graecia; reminiscere, quoniam es initiatus, quae traduntur mysteriis: tum denique quam hoc late pateat intelliges.» Testatus est uidelicet Attici conscientiam, ex ipsis mysteriis intelligi posse, quod omnes illi homines fuerunt, qui coluntur: et cum de Hercule, Libero, Aesculapio, Castore, Polluce incunctanter fateretur; de Apolline ac Ioue, patribus eorum, item de Neptuno, Vulcano, Marte, Mercurio, quos maiorum gentium deos appellauit, timuit aperte confiteri.

the same in On Glory? For in On the Laws, in which work, following Plato, he wished to set down laws which he thought a just and wise commonwealth would have use of, concerning Religion he thus sanctioned: «Let them worship the divinities, and those who have always been held as celestial; and those whom their merits have placed in heaven—Hercules, Liber, Aesculapius, Pollux, Castor, Quirinus.» Likewise in the Tusculans, when he said that almost the whole heaven was filled with the human race: «If indeed, he says, I try to scrutinize the ancients and to dig out from them those things which the writers of Greece have handed down, those very gods of the major nations who are held as such will be found to have set out hence from among us into heaven. Seek whose tombs are pointed out in Greece; remember, since you are initiated, what things are handed down in the Mysteries: then at last you will understand how widely this extends.» He attested, namely, the consciousness of Atticus, that from the Mysteries themselves it can be understood that all those who are worshiped were men; and while he unhesitatingly admitted this of Hercules, Liber, Aesculapius, Castor, and Pollux, about Apollo and Jove, their fathers, likewise about Neptune, Vulcan, Mars, Mercury—whom he called the gods of the major nations—he feared to confess it openly.

Et idcirco ait late hoc patere, ut idem de Ioue caeterisque antiquioribus diis intelligamus, quorum memoriam si eadem ratione ueteres consecrauerunt, qua se imaginem nomenque filiae consecraturum esse dicit, ignosci moerentibus potest, credentibus non potest. Quis enim tam demens, qui consensu et placito innumerabilium stultorum aperiri coelum mortuis arbitretur? aut aliquem, quod ipse non habeat, dare alteri posse?

And therefore he says that this reaches widely, so that we may understand the same about Jove and the other more ancient gods; if the ancients consecrated their memory by the same rationale by which he says that he will consecrate the image and the name of his daughter, it can be pardoned to the mourning, it cannot be pardoned to the believing. For who is so demented as to suppose that by the consensus and placitum of innumerable fools heaven is opened to the dead? or that anyone can give to another what he himself does not have?

Apud Romanos deus Iulius, quia hoc scelerato homini placuit Antonio; deus Quirinus, quia hoc pastoribus uisum est: cum alter gemini fratris extiterit, alter patriae parricida. Quod si consul non fuisset Antonius, C. Caesar pro suis in rempublicam meritis etiam defuncti hominis honore caruisset, et quidem consilio Pisonis soceri, et L- Caesaris propinqui, qui uetabant funus fieri, et Dolabellae consulis, qui columnam in foro, id est, tumulum eius euertit, ac forum expiauit. Nam Romulum desiderio suis fuisse declarat Ennius, apud quem populus amissum regem dolens, haec loquitur: "O Romule, Romule dic, o, Qualem te patriae custodem dii genuerunt?

Among the Romans, the god Julius—because this pleased Antony, a nefarious man; the god Quirinus—because this seemed good to shepherds: though the one turned out to be a twin brother, the other a parricide of his fatherland. And if Antony had not been consul, Gaius Caesar, for his merits toward the commonwealth, would have been deprived even of the honor due to a dead man—indeed by the counsel of Piso his father-in-law and of Lucius Caesar his kinsman, who forbade a funeral to be held, and of the consul Dolabella, who overthrew the column in the forum, that is, his tomb, and purified the forum. For Ennius declares that Romulus was longed for by his own, with whom the people, grieving their lost king, thus speak: “O Romulus, Romulus, say, O, what a guardian of the fatherland the gods begot!”

Tu produxisti nos intra luminis oras. O pater, o genitor, o sanguen diis oriundum!" Ob hoc desiderium facilius creditum est Iulio Proculo mentienti, qui subornatus a patribus est, ut nuntiaret plebi uidisse se regem humano habitu augustiorem, eumque mandasse ad populum, ut sibi delubrum fieret, se deum esse, et Quirinum uocari. Quo facto, et ipsi populo persuasit Romulum ad deos abiisse, et senatum suspicione caedis regiae liberauit.

"You have led us forth within the shores of light. O father, O begetter, O blood sprung from the gods!" On account of this longing, credit was more easily given to the lying Julius Proculus, who was suborned by the senators to announce to the plebs that he had seen the king, in human guise yet more august, and that he had sent word to the people that a shrine should be made for him, that he was a god, and was to be called Quirinus. Which having been done, he both persuaded the people themselves that Romulus had gone away to the gods, and freed the senate from the suspicion of regicide.

[1,16] CAPUT XVI. Poteram iis, quae retuli, esse contentus; sed supersunt adhuc multa suscepto operi necessaria. Nam quam uis ipso religionum capite destructo, uniuersa sustulerim, libet tamen prosequi caetera, et redarguere plenius inueteratam persuasionem, ut tandem homines suorum pudeat ac poeniteat errorum.

[1,16] CHAPTER 16. I could be content with the things which I have related; but there still remain many things necessary for the undertaken work. For although, with the very head of the religions destroyed, I have removed the whole, it nevertheless pleases me to pursue the rest and to redargue more fully the inveterate persuasion, so that at length men may be ashamed and repent of their own errors.

Magnum hoc opus, et homine dignum. Relligionum animos nodis exsoluere pergo, ut ait Lucretius, qui quidem hoc efficere non poterat, quia nihil ueri afferebat. Nostrum est hoc officium, qui et uerum Deum asserimus, et falsos refutamus.

This is a great work, and worthy of a man. I proceed to unloose minds from the knots of religions, as Lucretius says, who indeed could not accomplish this, because he advanced nothing true. This is our office, we who both assert the true God and refute the false gods.

Illi ergo, qui poetas finxisse de diis fabulas opinantur, et deas feminas et esse credunt et colunt, reuoluuntur imprudentes ad id quod negauerant, coire illos, ac parere. Nec enim fieri potest, quin duo sexus generandi causa sint instituti. Recepta uero sexuum diuersitate, non intelligunt consequens esse, ut concipiant: quod in Deum cadere non potest.

Therefore those who suppose that the poets have fabricated fables about the gods, and believe goddesses to be female and both believe in and worship them, unwittingly roll back to that which they had denied: that they have intercourse and beget. For it cannot but be that the two sexes were instituted for the purpose of generating. But once the diversity of the sexes is admitted, they do not understand that it follows that they conceive—something which cannot pertain to God.

Sed sit ut isti putant; nam et Iouis esse filios dicunt, et caeterorum deorum. Nascuntur ergo et quotidie quidem dii noui, nec enim uincuntur ab hominibus fecunditate. Igitur deorum innumerabilium plena sunt omnia, nullo scilicet moriente.

But let it be as those men think; for they say there are sons of Jove, and of the other gods besides. Therefore new gods are born, indeed every day; for they are not surpassed by human beings in fecundity. Accordingly all things are full of innumerable gods, with, to be sure, none dying.

Nam cum hominum uis incredibilis, numerus sit inaestimabilis, quos tamen, sicuti nascuntur, mori necesse est; quid deorum esse tandem putemus, qui tot saeculis nati sunt, immortalesque manserunt? Cur ergo tam pauci coluntur? nisi forte arbitramur, non generandi causa, sed tantummodo capiendae uoluptatis duos esse sexus deorum; et ea exercere, quae homunculos et facere et pati pudet.

For since the host of human beings is incredible, their number inestimable, who nevertheless, just as they are born, must die; what, pray, are we to suppose about the gods, who have been born through so many ages and have remained immortal? Why, then, are so few worshiped? unless perhaps we think that the two sexes of the gods are not for the purpose of begetting, but solely for the taking of pleasure; and that they exercise those things which homunculi are ashamed both to do and to suffer.

Cum uero dicantur aliqui ex aliquibus nati, consequens est, ut semper nascantur; siquidem aliquando sunt nati: uel, si aliquando nasci desierunt, scire nos conuenit, cur aut quando desierint. Non illepide Seneca in libris moralis Philosophiae: «Quid ergo est, inquit, quare apud poetas salacissimus Iupiter desierit liberos tollere? Utrum sexagenarius factus est, et illi lex Papia fibulam imposuit?

But since some are said to have been born from some, it follows that they are always being born, if indeed at some time they were born; or, if at some time they have ceased to be born, it is fitting for us to know why or when they ceased. Not unwittily Seneca, in the books of Moral Philosophy: «What then is it, he says, for which reason among the poets the most salacious Jupiter has ceased to beget offspring? Was he made a sexagenarian, and did the Papian law fasten a clasp upon him?»

an impetrauit ius trium liberorum? an tandem illi uenit in mentem: "Ab alio expectes, alteri quod feceris, et timet, ne quis sibi faciat, quod ipse Saturno?" At isti, qui deos asserunt, uideant quomodo respondeant huic argumento quod inferemus: Si duo sunt sexus deorum, sequitur concubitus; et si coeunt, et domos habeant necesse est, nec enim carent uirtute ac pudore, ut hoc promiscue aut in propatulo faciant, sicut muta uidemus facere animalia. Si domos habent, consequens est ut et urbes habeant, et quidem auctore Nasone qui ait: "Plebs habitat diuersa locis; hac fronte potentes Coelicolae clarique suos posuere penates". Si habent urbes, et agros igitur habebunt.

or did he obtain the right of three children? or did it at last come into his mind: "Expect from another what you have done to a second, and he fears lest someone do to him what he himself did to Saturn"? But let those who assert gods see how they will answer this argument which we will bring forward: If there are two sexes of gods, coitus follows; and if they come together, it is necessary that they also have homes, for they are not lacking in virtue and modesty, so as to do this promiscuously or in the open, as we see dumb animals do. If they have homes, it follows that they also have cities, and indeed with Naso as our authority, who says: "The plebs dwell in different places; upon this front the mighty heaven-dwellers and the renowned have set their Penates." If they have cities, therefore they will also have fields.

Iam, quis non uideat quae sequantur? arare illos, et colere: quod quidem uictus causa fit. Ergo mortales sunt.

Now, who does not see what follows? that they plow and cultivate: which indeed is done for the sake of victuals. Therefore they are mortal.

Quod argumentum retrouersum idem ualet. Si enim agros non habent, ne urbes quidem: si urbes non habent, ne domos quidem. Si domibus carent, ergo et concubitu.

This argument, reversed, holds the same. For if they do not have fields, then not even cities; if they do not have cities, not even houses. If they lack houses, therefore they lack concubinage as well.

Si concubitus ab his abest, et sexus igitur femineus: in diis autem uidemus et feminas esse; ergo dii non sunt. Dissoluat hoc argumentum, si quis potest. Ita enim res rem sequitur, ut haec ultima necesse sit confiteri.

If sexual intercourse is absent from them, then the feminine sex also is absent: yet among the gods we see that females exist; therefore they are not gods. Let anyone who can dissolve this argument. For thus thing follows upon thing, so that this last conclusion must be confessed.

Sed ne illud quidem dissoluet aliquis. Ex duobus sexibus alter fortior, alter infirmior est. Robustiores enim mares sunt, feminae imbecilliores.

But not even that will anyone dissolve. Of the two sexes, the one is stronger, the other more infirm. For males are more robust, females more feeble.

Imbecillitas autem non cadit in deum; ergo nec femineus sexus. Huic additur superioris argumenti extrema illa conclusio, ut dii non sint, quoniam in diis et feminae sunt.

But imbecility does not fall upon God; therefore neither does the feminine sex. To this is added that ultimate conclusion of the preceding argument, that the gods are not, since among the gods there are also females.

[1,17] CAPUT XVII. Ob has rationes Stoici aliouersus deos interpretantur; et quia non peruident, quid sit in uero, conantur eos cum rerum naturalium ratione coniungere. Quos Cicero secutus, de diis, ac religionibus eorum hanc sententiam tulit: Videtisne igitur, ut a physicis rebus bene atque utiliter inuentis tracta ratio sit ad commentitios ac fictos deos?

[1,17] CHAPTER 17. On account of these reasons the Stoics interpret the gods in another way; and because they do not clearly perceive what is in truth, they try to conjoin them with the rationale of natural things. Following whom Cicero brought forward this opinion about the gods and their religions: Do you see, therefore, how from physical things well and usefully discovered, the rationale has been drawn over to commentitious and fictitious gods?

quae res genuit falsas opiniones, erroresque turbulentos, et superstitiones pene aniles. Et formae enim deorum nobis, et aetates, et uestitus, ornatusque noti sunt: genera praeterea, coniugia, cognationes omnes, omniaque traducta ad similitudinem imbecillitatis humanae. Quid planius, quid uerius dici potest?

which thing has engendered false opinions, turbulent errors, and superstitions almost anile. For indeed the forms of the gods, and their ages, and clothing, and adornment are known to us: moreover, their genera, marriages, all cognations, and everything has been transferred to the likeness of human imbecility. What more plainly, what more truly can be said?

Romanae philosophiae princeps, et amplissimo sacerdotio praeditus, commentitios ac fictos deos arguit; quorum cultus superstitiones pene aniles esse testatur: falsis opinionibus, erroribusque turbulentis implicatos esse homines queritur. Nam totus liber tertius de Natura deorum omnes funditus religiones euertit ac delet. Quid ergo a nobis expectatur amplius?

The prince of Roman philosophy, and endowed with a most ample priesthood, arraigns the commentitious and fictitious gods; he bears witness that their cult is superstitions almost anile; he laments that men are entangled in false opinions and turbulent errors. For the entire third book of On the Nature of the Gods overturns and obliterates all religions from the very foundations. What more, then, is expected from us?

Num eloquentia superare possumus Ciceronem? minime id quidem; sed fiducia illi defuit ignoranti ueritatem, quod ipse simpliciter in eodem opere confitetur. Ait enim facilius se posse dicere, quid non sit, quam quid sit; hoc est, falsa se intelligere, uera nescire.

Are we able by eloquence to surpass Cicero? By no means indeed; but confidence was lacking to him, being ignorant of the truth, as he himself simply confesses in the same work. For he says that he can more easily say what it is not than what it is; that is, that he understands the false, but does not know the true.

Clarum est igitur homines fuisse illos, qui dii putantur, et eorum memoriam post mortem consecratam esse. Ideo etiam aetates diuersae sunt, et certae imagines singulorum, quod in eo habitu, et aetate simulacra eorum configurata sunt, in qua quemque mors deprehendit. Consideremus, si placet, aerumnas infelicium deorum.

It is clear, therefore, that those who are thought to be gods were men, and that their memory after death has been consecrated. For this reason also the ages are diverse, and the definite images of individuals, because their simulacra were configured in that habit and age in which death apprehended each one. Let us consider, if it pleases, the hardships of the unfortunate gods.

Isis filium perdidit; Ceres filiam; expulsa et per orbem terrae iactata, Latona uix insulam paruam (Delon), in qua pareret, inuenit. Deum mater et amauit formosum adolescentem, et eumdem cum pellice deprehensum exsectis uirilibus semiuirum reddidit; et ideo nunc sacra eius a Gallis sacerdotibus celebrantur. Iuno pellices acerrime persecuta est, quia parere ipsa non potuit ex fratre.

Isis lost her son; Ceres her daughter; driven out and tossed through the orb of the earth, Latona scarcely found a small island (Delos) on which she might give birth. The mother of the gods both loved a handsome adolescent, and, having caught the same man with a paramour, with his virile parts cut out she rendered him half-man; and for that reason now her sacred rites are celebrated by Galli priests. Juno most bitterly persecuted the mistresses, because she herself could not bring forth from her brother.

Insulam Samum scribit Varro prius Partheniam nominatam, quod ibi Iuno adoleuerit, ibique etiam Ioui nupserit. Itaque nobilissimum et antiquissimum templum eius est Sami, et simulacrum in habitu nubentis figuratum, et sacra eius anniuersaria nuptiarum ritu celebrantur. Si ergo adoleuit, si uirgo fuit primo, postea mulier, hominem fuisse, qui non intelligit, pecudem se fatetur.

Varro writes that the island Samos was earlier named Parthenia, because Juno grew up there, and there also she married Jupiter. And so her most noble and most ancient temple is at Samos, and her image is fashioned in the habit of a bride, and her sacred rites are celebrated annually with the rite of nuptials. If therefore she grew up—if she was a virgin at first, afterward a woman—whoever does not understand that she was a human being confesses himself a brute beast.

Quid loquar obscoenitatem Veneris omnium libidinibus prostitutae, non deorum tantum, sed et hominum? Haec enim ex famoso Martis stupro genuit Harmoniam; ex Mercurio Hermaphroditum, qui est natus Androgynus; ex Ioue Cupidinem; ex Anchise Aeneam; ex Bute Erycen; ex Adonio quidem nullum potuit, quod etiamtum puer ab apro ictus occisus est: quae prima, ut in Historia Sacra continetur, artem meretriciam instituit, auctorque mulieribus in Cypro fuit, uti uulgato corpore quaestum facerent: quod idcirco imperauit, ne sola praeter alias mulieres impudica, et uirorum appetens uideretur. Etiamne habet haec aliquid numinis?

What shall I say of the obscenity of Venus, prostituted to the lusts of all—not only of gods, but also of men? For from her infamous debauchery with Mars she bore Harmonia; from Mercury, Hermaphroditus, who was born Androgynous; from Jupiter, Cupid; from Anchises, Aeneas; from Butes, Eryx; from Adonis indeed she could bear none, because, still a boy, he was struck by a boar and slain. She first, as is contained in Sacred History, instituted the meretricial art, and was a promoter to the women in Cyprus to make gain with their body made common: which she therefore commanded, lest she alone, beyond other women, should seem unchaste and desirous of men. Has this even anything of divinity?

cuius plura numerantur adulteria, quam partus. Sed ne illae quidem uirgines illibatam castitatem seruare potuerunt. Unde enim putemus Erichthonium esse natum?

of whom more adulteries are numbered than births. But not even those virgins were able to preserve unsullied chastity. Whence, indeed, should we think Erichthonius was born?

an ex terra, ut poetae uideri uolunt? At res ipsa clamat. Nam cum Vulcanus diis arma fecisset, eique Iupiter optionem dedisset praemii quod uellet postulandi, iurassetque, ut solebat, per infernam paludem se nihil negaturum, tum faber claudus Mineruae nuptias postulauit.

or from the earth, as the poets wish it to seem? But the thing itself cries out. For when Vulcan had fashioned arms for the gods, and Jupiter had given him the option of asking for whatever prize he wished, and had sworn, as he was wont, by the infernal marsh that he would deny nothing, then the lame smith demanded the nuptials of Minerva.

Hic Iupiter Opt- Max- tanta religione constrictus abnuere non potuit: Mineruam tamen monuit repugnare, pudicitiamque defendere. Tum in illa colluctatione Vulcanum in terram profudisse aiunt semen, unde sit Erichthonius natus; idque illi nomen impositum g-apo g-tehs g-eridos, g-kai g-chtonos, id est, ex certamine atque humo. Cur igitur uirgo eum puerum cum dracone conclusum et obsignatum tribus uirginibus Cecropidis commendauit?

Here Jupiter, Best and Greatest, constrained by so great a religious scruple, could not refuse: nevertheless he warned Minerva to resist and to defend her chastity. Then, in that wrestling, they say that Vulcan poured forth seed upon the earth, whence Erichthonius was born; and that this name was imposed upon him from g-apo g-tehs g-eridos, g-kai g-chtonos, that is, from contest and from soil. Why then did the virgin entrust that boy, enclosed with a serpent and sealed, to the three Cecropid virgins?

euidens, ut opinor, incestum, quod nullo modo possit colorari. Altera cum pene amatorem suum perdidisset, qui erat Turbatis distractus equis, praestantissimum medicum Asclepium curando iuueni aduocauit; eumque sanatum: "Secretis alma recondit Sedibus, et nymphae Egeriae, nemorique relegat: Solus ubi in siluis Italis ignobilis aeuum Exigeret, uersoque ubi nomine Virbius esset". Quid sibi uult haec tam diligens, tam sollicita curatio? quid secretae sedes?

evident, as I suppose, an incest, which in no way can be colored over. The other, when she had almost lost her lover, who had been torn apart by Troubled horses, summoned Asclepius, the most outstanding physician, to heal the youth; and him cured: "She benignly hides in secret Abodes, and relegates him to the nymph Egeria and to the grove: Where alone in the Italian woods he might pass an ignoble age, and where, with his name reversed, he would be Virbius." What does this so diligent, so solicitous care mean? what the secret abodes?

quid relegatio uel tam longe, uel ad mulierem, uel in solitudinem? quid deinde nominis commutatio? Postremo, quid equorum tam pertinax abominatio?

what is the relegation either so far away, or to a woman, or into solitude? what then is the commutation of the name? finally, what is the so pertinacious abomination of horses?

quid significant haec omnia, nisi conscientiam stupri, et amorem minime uirginalem? Erat plane cur tantum laborem pro tam fideli iuuene susciperet, qui amanti nouercae obsequium pernegarat.

what do all these things signify, if not a conscience of defilement, and a love by no means virginal? There was, plainly, a reason why she would undertake so great a labor on behalf of so faithful a youth, who had flatly refused compliance to the amorous stepmother.

[1,18] CAPUT XVIII. Hoc loco refellendi sunt etiam ii, qui deos ex hominibus esse factos, non tantum fatentur, sed ut eos laudent etiam gloriantur, aut uirtutis gratia, ut Herculem; aut munerum, ut Cererem ac Liberum; aut artium repertarum, ut Aesculapium ac Mineruam. Haec uero quam inepta sint, quamque non digna propter quae homines inexpiabili se scelere contaminent, hostesque Deo uero fiant, quo contempto, mortuorum sacra suscipiunt, ex singulis rebus ostendam.

[1,18] CHAPTER 18. At this point those too must be refuted who not only confess that gods were made out of human beings, but even boast in order to laud them: either for the sake of virtue, as Hercules; or of benefactions, as Ceres and Liber; or of arts discovered, as Aesculapius and Minerva. How inept these things are, and how unworthy for which men stain themselves with an inexpiable crime and become enemies to the true God—He being despised, while they undertake the sacred rites of the dead—I will show from individual instances.

Virtutem esse dicunt, quae hominem tollat in coelum: non illam, de qua philosophi disserunt, quae posita est in bonis animi; sed hanc corporalem, quae dicitur fortitudo: quae quoniam praecipua in Hercule fuit, immortalitatem meruisse creditur. Quis tam stulte ineptus est, ut corporis uires diuinum uel etiam humanum bonum iudicet; cum sint et maiores pecudibus attributae, et uno morbo saepe frangantur, uel ipsa senectute minuantur et corruant? Itaque idem ille, cum deformari ulceribus toros suos cerneret, nec sanari se uoluit, nec senem fieri, ne quando seipso minor aut deformior uideretur.

They say it is Virtue which lifts a man into heaven: not that of which the philosophers discourse, which is set in the goods of the mind; but this corporeal virtue, which is called fortitude: which, since it was preeminent in Hercules, is believed to have merited immortality. Who is so foolishly inept as to judge the strengths of the body a divine, or even a human, good; since greater ones are attributed even to beasts, and they are often broken by a single disease, or by old age itself are diminished and collapse? And so that same man, when he perceived his brawny muscles being disfigured by ulcers, was unwilling either to be healed or to become an old man, lest at any time he should seem less than himself or more deformed.

Hunc e rogo quo uiuum se ipse combusserat, ascendisse in coelum putauerunt: eaque ipsa, quae stultissime admirati sunt, simulacris et imaginibus expressa et consecrata posuerunt, ut in perpetuum uanitatis eorum monimenta perstarent, qui ob necem bestiarum deos fieri credidissent. Sed haec Graecorum fortasse culpa sit, qui res leuissimas pro maximis semper habuerunt. Quid nostri, num sapientiores?

They supposed that he had ascended into heaven from the pyre on which he had burned himself alive; and those very things which they most foolishly admired, they set up expressed and consecrated in simulacra and images, so that monuments of their vanity might stand in perpetuity—those who had believed that, on account of the slaughter of beasts, men become gods. But perhaps this is the fault of the Greeks, who have always held the lightest matters as the greatest. What of our own—are they any wiser?

qui athleticam quidem uirtutem contemnunt, quia nihil obest: sed regiam, quia late solet nocere, sic admirantur, ut fortes et bellicosos duces in deorum coetu locari arbitrentur; nec esse ullam aliam ad immortalitatem uiam, quam exercitus ducere, aliena uastare, urbes delere, oppida excidere, liberos populos aut trucidare, aut subiicere seruituti: uidelicet quo plures homines afflixerint, spoliauerint, occiderint, eo se nobiliores, et clariores putant, et inanis gloriae specie capti, sceleribus suis nomen uirtutis imponunt. Iam mallem, ut a ferarum caedibus deos sibi fingerent, quam immortalitatem tam cruentam probarent. Si quis unum hominem iugulauerit, pro contaminato ac nefario habetur, nec ad terrenum hoc domicilium deorum admitti eum fas putant.

who indeed contemn athletic virtue, because it harms nothing: but the royal sort, because it is wont to harm far and wide, they so admire, that they judge brave and bellicose leaders to be placed in the cohort of the gods; and that there is no other road to immortality than to lead armies, to ravage alien things, to destroy cities, to cut down towns, to butcher free peoples or to subject them to servitude: plainly, the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, killed, by so much the more noble and more illustrious they think themselves; and, captured by the semblance of empty glory, they impose the name of virtue upon their crimes. Now I would rather that they should fashion gods for themselves from the slaughters of wild beasts than approve so blood-stained an immortality. If anyone has jugulated a single man, he is held as defiled and nefarious, nor do they think it right that he be admitted to this earthly domicile of the gods.

Ille autem, qui infinita hominum millia trucidauerit, cruore campos inundauerit, flumina infecerit, non modo in templum, sed etiam in coelum admittitur. Apud Ennium sic loquitur Africanus; Si fas endo plagas coelestum ascendere cuiquam est, Mi soli coeli maxima porta patet. Scilicet quia magnam partem generis humani extinxit ac perdidit.

But that man, who has butchered infinite thousands of human beings, has inundated the fields with gore, has infected the rivers, is admitted not only into the temple but even into heaven. With Ennius, Africanus speaks thus; If it is right for anyone to ascend into the tracts of the celestials, for me alone the greatest gate of heaven stands open. Evidently because he extinguished and destroyed a great part of the human race.

O quantis in tenebris, Africane, uersatus es! uel potius, o poeta, qui per caedes et sanguinem patere hominibus in coelum ascensum putaueris! Cui uanitati et Cicero assensit: Est uero, inquit, Africane: nam et Herculi eadem ista porta patuit. Tamquam ipse plane, cum id fieret, ianitor fuerit in coelo.

O in how great darkness you have been tossed about, Africanus! or rather, O poet, you who have supposed that ascent into heaven lay open to men through slaughters and blood! To which vanity even Cicero assented: “It is indeed so,” he says, “Africanus: for to Hercules that same portal stood open.” As though he himself, plainly, when that was being done, had been the janitor in heaven.

Equidem statuere non possum, dolendumne potius, an ridendum putem; cum uideam graues et doctos, et, ut sibi uidentur, sapientes uiros, in tam miserandis errorum fluctibus uolutari. Si haec est uirtus, quae nos immortales facit, mori quidem malim, quam exitio esse quamplurimis. Si aliter immortalitas parari non potest, nisi per sanguinent, quid fiet, si omnes in concordiam consenserint?

I for my part am not able to determine whether I should think it rather to be lamented or to be laughed at; since I see grave and learned men, and—so they seem to themselves—wise, being tossed in such pitiable billows of error. If this is the virtue which makes us immortal, I would indeed prefer to die than to be a ruin to very many. If immortality cannot otherwise be procured except through bloodshed, what will happen if all should agree in concord?

Quod certe fieri poterit, si pernicioso et impio furore proiecto, innocentes esse ac iusti uelint. Num igitur nemo erit coelo dignus? num peribit uirtus, quia hominibus in homines saeuire non dabitur?

Which surely can come to pass, if, with pernicious and impious fury cast off, they should wish to be innocent and just. Will no one, then, be worthy of heaven? Will virtue perish, because it will not be granted to men to rage against men?

Sed isti, qui euersiones urbium populorumque summam gloriam computant, otium publicum non ferent; rapient, saeuient, et iniuriis insolenter illatis, humanae societatis foedus irrumpent, ut habere hostem possint, quem sceleratius deleant, quam lacessierint. Nunc ad reliqua pergamus. Nomen deorum Cereri ac Libero traditio munerum fecit.

But those men, who reckon the eversions of cities and of peoples as the highest glory, will not endure public peace; they will snatch, they will rage, and, with injuries insolently inflicted, they will break the covenant of human society, so that they may have an enemy whom they may more criminally destroy than they had provoked. Now let us proceed to the rest. The tradition of gifts conferred the name of gods upon Ceres and Liber.

Possum diuinis docere litteris, uinum atque fruges ante progeniem Coeli atque Saturni fuisse in usu hominum: sed ab his sane inuenta esse fingamus. Num potest plus aut maius uideri, collegisse fruges, hisque fractis, panem facere docuisse, aut uuas de uitibus lectas expressisse, uinumque fecisse, quam fruges ipsas, aut uites generasse, ac protulisse de terra? Reliquerit haec sane Deus humanis ingeniis eruenda: tamen fieri non potest, quin ipsius sint omnia, qui et sapientiam tribuit homini, ut inueniret, et illa ipsa, quae possent inueniri.

I can show from divine letters that wine and grain were in the use of men before the progeny of Heaven and Saturn; but let us suppose that these were indeed discovered by them. Can it seem a greater or grander thing to have gathered grain, and, these being broken, to have taught to make bread, or to have pressed grapes picked from the vines and made wine, than to have generated the grains themselves or the vines, and to have brought them forth out of the earth? Granted that God left these things to be unearthed by human ingenuity: nevertheless it cannot but be that all things are his, who both bestowed wisdom upon man, that he might discover, and also those very things which could be discovered.

Artes quoque suis inuentoribus immortalitatem peperisse dicuntur, ut Aesculapio medicina, Vulcano fabrica. Colamus igitur et illos, qui fullonicam sutrinamque docuerunt. Cur autem figulinae repertori honos non habetur?

The arts too are said to have borne immortality for their inventors, as medicine for Aesculapius, and fabrication for Vulcan. Let us, then, also honor those who taught the fuller's and the cobbler's trades. Why, however, is no honor paid to the discoverer of pottery?

an quia isti diuites uas Samia contemnunt? Sunt et aliae artes, quarum repertores humanae uitae plurimum profuerunt. Cur non et illis attributa sunt templa?

or is it because those rich men despise Samian ware? There are also other arts, whose inventors have very greatly profited human life. Why have temples not been attributed to them as well?

sed nimirum Minerua est, quae omnes reperit: ideoque illi opifices supplicant. Ergo ab his sordibus Minerua ascendit in coelum. Est uero cur quisquam derelinquat eum, qui terram cum animantibus, coelum cum astris et luminibus exorsus est, ut eam ueneretur, quae telam docuit ordiri?

But assuredly it is Minerva who discovers all things; and therefore the artificers supplicate her. Therefore from these sordid trades Minerva ascends into heaven. Is there truly any cause for anyone to forsake Him who has set forth the earth with living beings, and the heaven with the stars and the luminaries, in order that he may venerate her who taught how to begin (to warp) the web?

Quid ille, qui uulnera in corporibus sanare docuit? num potest esse praestantior, quam qui corpora ipsa formauit, sentiendi ac uiuendi rationem dedit? herbas denique ipsas, et caetera quibus medendi ars constat, excogitauit ac protulit?

What of the one who taught to heal wounds in bodies? Can he be more preeminent than he who formed the bodies themselves, and gave the rationale of sensing and living? The herbs themselves, finally, and the rest by which the art of medicine consists, he devised and brought forth.

[1,19] CAPUT XIX. At enim dicet aliquis, et huic summo qui fecit omnia, et illis partim profuerunt, suam uenerationem esse tribuendam. Primum nec factum est unquam, ut qui hos coluit, etiam Deum coluerit: neque fieri potest; quoniam si honos idem tribuitur aliis, ipse omnino non colitur, cuius religio est, illum esse unum ac solum Deum credere.

[1,19] CHAPTER 19. But indeed someone will say that both to this Supreme One who made all things, and to those who have in part been beneficial, their own veneration is to be given. First, it has never come to pass that one who has worshipped these has also worshipped God; nor can it be done; since, if the same honor is bestowed upon others, he himself is not worshipped at all, whose religion is to believe that he is one and the only God.

Clamat summus poeta, eos omnes, "Qui inuentas uitam excoluere per artes", apud inferos esse, ipsumque illum repertorem medicinae talis et artis ad Stygias undas fulmine esse detrusum: ut intelligamus, quantum ualeat pater omnipotens, qui et deos fulminibus extinguat. Sed homines ingeniosi hanc secum habebant fortasse rationem: quia Deus fulminari non potest, apparet non esse factum; immo uero, quia factum est, apparet hominem fuisse, non deum. Mendacium enim poetarum non in facto est, sed in nomine.

The supreme poet cries out that all those “who cultivated life discovered through the arts” are among the shades, and that very discoverer of such an art, medicine, was by a thunderbolt driven down to the Stygian waves: so that we may understand how much the omnipotent Father prevails, who even extinguishes gods with thunderbolts. But ingenious men perhaps had this reasoning with themselves: because God cannot be fulminated (struck by lightning), it appears it was not done; nay rather, because it was done, it appears he was a man, not a god. For the lie of the poets is not in the deed, but in the name.

Metuebant enim malum, si contra publicam persuasionem faterentur, quod erat uerum. Quod si hoc constat inter ipsos, ex hominibus deos factos, cur ergo non credunt poetis, si quando illorum fugas, et uulnera, et mortes, et bella, et adulteria describunt? Quibus de rebus intelligi datur, non potuisse ullo pacto fieri deos: quia ne homines quidem probi fuerunt, eaque in uita sua gesserunt, quae mortem pariunt sempiternam.

For they feared an evil, if they should confess, against public persuasion, what was true. But if this stands among themselves—that gods were made out of men—why therefore do they not believe the poets, whenever they describe their flights, and wounds, and deaths, and wars, and adulteries? From which matters it is given to be understood that they could not by any means have become gods: because they were not even upright men, and they did in their life those things which beget eternal death.

[1,20] CAPUT XX. Venio nunc ad proprias Romanorum religiones, quoniam de communibus dixi. Romuli nutrix lupa honoribus est affecta diuinis. Et ferrem si animal ipsum fuisset, cuius figuram gerit.

[1,20] CHAPTER 20. I come now to the religions peculiar to the Romans, since I have spoken of the common ones. The she-wolf, nurse of Romulus, has been invested with divine honors. And I would bear it, if it had been the animal itself, whose figure she bears.

Auctor est Liuius, Larentinae esse simulacrum, et quidem non corporis, sed mentis ac morum. Fuit enim Faustuli uxor, et propter uulgati corporis uilitatem, lupa inter pastores, id est, meretrix nuncupata est; unde etiam lupanar dicitur. Exemplum scilicet Atheniensium in ea figuranda Romani secuti sunt; apud quos meretrix quaedam nomine Leaena, cum tyrannum occidisset, quia nefas erat simulacrum constitui meretricis in templo, animalis effigiem posuerunt, cuius nomen gerebat.

Livy is the authority that there is a simulacrum of Larentia, and indeed not of the body, but of the mind and morals. For she was the wife of Faustulus, and on account of the cheapness of her public body she was among the shepherds called lupa, that is, a meretrix; whence also lupanar is so named. Clearly the Romans, in fashioning her, followed the example of the Athenians; among whom a certain meretrix named Leaena, when she had slain a tyrant, because it was nefas to set up a simulacrum of a meretrix in a temple, they placed the effigy of the animal whose name she bore.

Itaque ut illi monimentum ex nomine, sic isti ex professione fecerunt. Huius nomini etiam dies festus dicatus est, et Larentinalia constituta. Nec hanc solam Romani meretricem colunt, sed Faulam quoque, quam Herculis scortum fuisse Verrius scribit.

Accordingly, as those made a monument from the name, so these made one from the profession. To this name a feast day has also been dedicated, and the Larentinalia have been instituted. Nor do the Romans worship this meretrix alone, but Faula as well, whom Verrius writes was Hercules’ scortum.

Iam quanta ista immortalitas putanda est quam etiam meretrices assequuntur? Flora, cum magnas opes ex arte meretricia quaesiuisset, populum scripsit haeredem, certamque pecuniam reliquit, cuius ex annuo foenore suus natalis dies celebraretur editione ludorum, quos appelant Floralia. Quod quia senatui flagitiosum uidebatur, ab ipso nomine argumentum sumi placuit, ut pudendae rei quaedam dignitas adderetur.

Now how great must that immortality be thought, which even prostitutes attain? Flora, when she had acquired great wealth from the meretricial art, enrolled the people as heir, and left a specified sum of money, from the annual interest of which her natal day should be celebrated by the staging of games, which they call the Floralia. And because this seemed scandalous to the senate, it was decided that a pretext be taken from the very name, so that a certain dignity might be added to a shameful matter.

Deam finxerunt esse, quae floribus praesit, eamque oportere placari, ut fruges cum arboribus aut uitibus bene prospereque florescerent. Eum colorem secutus in Fastis poeta, non ignobilem nympham fuisse narrauit, quae sit Chloris uocitata, eamque Zephyro nuptam, quasi dotis loco id accepisse muneris a marito, ut haberet omnium florum potestatem. Honeste quidem ista dicuntur; sed inhoneste turpiterque creduntur.

They fashioned that there is a goddess who presides over flowers, and that she ought to be placated, so that crops together with trees or vines might flower well and prosperously. Following that color in the Fasti, the poet narrated that she was a not-ignoble nymph, who was called Chloris, and that she was wedded to Zephyr, and that, as if in place of a dowry, she received this gift from her husband: that she should have the power of all flowers. These things indeed are said honorably; but they are believed dishonorably and disgracefully.

Nec debent (cum ueritas quaeritur) huiusmodi nos uelamenta decipere. Celebrantur ergo illi ludi cum omni lasciuia, conuenienter memoriae meretricis. Nam praeter uerborum licentiam, quibus obscoenitas omnis effunditur, exuuntur etiam uestibus populo flagitante meretrices, quae tunc mimarum funguntur officio, et in conspectu populi usque ad satietatem impudicorum luminum cum pudendis motibus detinentur.

Nor ought such veils to deceive us (when truth is being sought). Therefore those games are celebrated with all lasciviousness, suitably to the memory of the prostitute. For besides the license of words, by which every obscenity is poured forth, the prostitutes—who then perform the office of mimes—are also stripped of their garments with the people demanding it, and in the sight of the people they are detained to the point of satiety for unchaste eyes, with motions of the pudenda.

Cloacinae simulacrum in cloaca maxima repertum Tatius consecrauit, et quia cuius esset effigies ignorabat, ex loco illi nomen imposuit. Pauorem, Palloremque Tullus Hostilius figurauit et coluit. Quid de hoc dicam, nisi dignum fuisse, qui semper deos suos (sicut optari solet) praesentes haberet?

Tatius consecrated an image of Cloacina, found in the Cloaca Maxima, and because he did not know whose effigy it was, he imposed upon it a name from the place. Tullus Hostilius fashioned and worshiped Pavor and Pallor. What shall I say of this, except that he was worthy to have his gods always present (as is wont to be wished)?

Ab hoc illud M- Marcelli de consecratione Honoris atque Virtutis, honestate nominum differt, re congruit. Eadem uanitate Mentem quoque inter deos collocauit senatus: quam profecto si habuisset, eiusmodi sacra nunquam suscepisset. Magnum Cicero audaxque consilium suscepisse Graeciam dicit, quod Cupidinum et Amorum simulacra in gymnasiis consecrasset; adulatus est uidelicet Attico, et irrisit hominem familiarem.

From this, that act of M- Marcellus concerning the consecration of Honor and Virtue differs in the honesty of the names, agrees in the reality. By the same vanity the senate also placed Mind among the gods: which indeed, if it had possessed it, it would never have undertaken sacred rites of this sort. Cicero says that Greece undertook a great and audacious counsel, because it consecrated simulacra of Cupids and Loves in the gymnasia; he obviously flattered Atticus, and he mocked a familiar friend.

Non enim illud magnum, aut omnino consilium dicendum fuit, sed impudicorum hominum perdita et deplorata nequitia, qui liberos suos, quos erudire ad honesta deberent, prostituerunt libidini iuuentutis; a quibus flagitiorum deos, et in illis potissimum locis ubi nuda corpora corruptorum luminibus patent, et in illa coli aetate uoluerunt, quae simplex et improuida prius irretiri, et in laqueos potest cadere, quam cauere. Quid mirum si ab hac gente uniuersa flagitia manarunt? apud quam ipsa uitia religiosa sunt, eaque non modo non uitantur, uerum etiam coluntur.

For that was not to be called a great, or even a counsel at all, but the lost and deplored nequity of impudent men, who prostituted their children—whom they ought to have trained to honorable things—to the libido of youth; by whom the gods of flagitious deeds were established, and they wished them to be worshiped especially in those places where naked bodies lie open to the eyes of the corrupt, and in that age which, simple and improvident, can sooner be ensnared and fall into nooses than beware. What wonder if from this people all flagitious acts have flowed forth? among whom the vices themselves are religious, and these not only are not avoided, but even are cultivated.

Et ideo huic sententiae, tanquam Graecos prudentia uinceret, adiecit: «Virtutes enim oportere, non uitia consecrari. Quod si recipis, o Marce Tulli, non uides fore ut irrumpant uitia cum uirtutibus, quia mala bonis adhaerent, et in animis hominum potentiora sunt; quae si uetas consecrari, respondebit tibi illa eadem Graecia, se alios deos colere, ut prosint, alios, ne noceant.» Haec enim semper excusatio est eorum, qui mala sua pro diis habent, ut Romani Rubiginem ac Febrem. Si ergo uitia consecranda non sunt, in quo tibi assentior, ne uirtutes quidem.

And therefore to this opinion, as though he were outstripping the Greeks in prudence, he added: «For it is the virtues that ought to be consecrated, not the vices. But if you accept this, O Marcus Tullius, do you not see that vices will break in together with virtues, because evils cling to goods, and in the souls of men they are more potent? And if you forbid these to be consecrated, that same Greece will answer you that it worships some gods so that they may benefit, others, lest they harm.» For this is always the excuse of those who have their evils for gods, as the Romans [have] Rust (Rubigo) and Fever. Therefore, if vices are not to be consecrated, in which I assent to you, neither are virtues.

Non enim per se sapiunt, aut sentiunt, neque intra parietes, aut aediculas luto factas, sed intra pectus collocandae sunt, et interius comprehendendae, ne sint falsae, si extra hominem fuerint collocatae. Itaque praeclaram illam legem tuam derideo, quam ponis his uerbis: «Ast illa, propter quae datur homini ascensus in coelum, mentem, uirtutem, pietatem, fidem, earumque laudum delubra sunto.» Atqui haec separari ab homine non possunt. Si enim colenda sunt, in homine ipso sint necesse est.

For they do not by themselves have wisdom or sense, nor within walls, or little shrines made of clay, but they must be placed within the breast and apprehended inwardly, lest they be false, if they have been located outside the human being. Therefore I deride that splendid law of yours, which you set forth in these words: «But as for those things by reason of which ascent into heaven is given to man—mind, virtue, piety, faith—let there be shrines for their praises.» And yet these cannot be separated from man. For if they are to be worshiped, it is necessary that they be in the man himself.

Si autem sunt extra hominem, quid opus est ea colere quibus careas? Virtus enim colenda est, non imago uirtutis: et colenda est non sacrificio aliquo, aut thure, aut precatione solemni, sed uoluntate sola atque proposito. Nam quid est aliud colere uirtutem, nisi eam comprehendere animo, et tenere?

But if they are outside the human being, what need is there to worship those things you lack? For virtue is to be worshiped, not the image of virtue; and it is to be worshiped not by any sacrifice, or incense, or solemn prayer, but by will alone and by purpose. For what is it to worship virtue, if not to comprehend it with the mind and to hold it?

quod unusquisque simul ac coepit uelle, consequitur. Hic solus uirtutis est cultus; nam religio et ueneratio nulla alia, nisi unius Dei tenenda est. Quid igitur opus est, o uir sapientissime, superuacuis extructionibus loca occupare, quae possint humanis usibus cedere?

whatsoever each person, as soon as he has begun to will, attains. This alone is the cult of virtue; for religion and veneration are to be held for no other, except for the one God. What need, then, O most wise man, to occupy places with superfluous constructions, which could yield to human uses?

quid sacerdotes constituere uana et insensibilia culturos? quid immolare uictimas? quid tantos sumptus uel fingendis, uel colendis imaginibus impendere?

why constitute priests to worship vain and insensible things? why immolate victims? why expend such great outlays upon images, either for their fashioning or for their cult?

Firmius et incorruptius templum est pectus humanum: hoc potius ornetur, hoc ueris illis nominibus impleatur. Has ergo falsas consecrationes sequitur, quod necesse est. Qui enim uirtutes sic colunt, id est qui umbras atque imagines uirtutum consectantur, ea ipsa, quae uera sunt, tenere non possunt.

A firmer and more incorrupt temple is the human heart: let this rather be adorned, let this be filled with those true names. Therefore these false consecrations follow, as is necessary. For those who thus cultivate the virtues—that is, who pursue the shades and images of virtues—cannot hold the very things that are true.

Itaque nulla in quoquam uirtus est, uitiis ubique dominantibus; nulla fides, omnia pro se unoquoque rapiente; nulla pietas, nec consanguineis nec parentibus parcente auaritia, et cupiditate in uenena et in ferrum ruente; nulla pax, nulla concordia, publice bellis saeuientibus, priuatim uero inimicitiis usque ad sanguinem furentibus; nulla pudicitia, libidinibus effrenatis omnem sexum et omnes corporis partes contaminantibus: nec tamen desinunt ea colere, quae fugiunt et oderunt. Colunt enim thure ac summis digitis, quae sensibus intimis horrere debuerunt: qui error omnis ex illius principalis ac summi boni ignoratione descendit. Urbe a Gallis occupata, obsessi in Capitolio Romani, cum ex mulierum capillis tormenta fecissent, aedem Veneri Caluae consecrarunt.

And so there is no virtue in anyone, with vices dominating everywhere; no faith, as each one snatches everything for himself; no pietas, with avarice sparing neither kinsfolk nor parents, and cupidity rushing into poisons and into steel; no peace, no concord, with wars raging publicly, but privately enmities raging even unto blood; no pudicity, as unbridled lusts contaminate every sex and all the parts of the body: and yet they do not cease to worship the very things they flee and hate. For they worship with incense and with the tips of their fingers those things which they ought to have shuddered at with their inmost senses: and all this error descends from ignorance of that principal and highest good. When the city was occupied by the Gauls, the Romans, besieged on the Capitol, when they had made siege engines from women’s hair, consecrated a temple to Venus the Bald.

Non igitur intelligunt, quam uanae sint religiones, uel ex eo ipso, quod eas his ineptiis cauillantur. A Lacedaemoniis fortasse didicerant, deos sibi ex euentis fingere, qui cum Messenios obsiderent, et illi furtim deceptis obsessoribus egressi, ad diripiendam Lacedaemonem cucurrissent, a Spartanis mulieribus fusi fugatique sunt. Cognitis autem dolis hostium, Lacedaemonii sequebantur.

Therefore they do not understand how vain the religions are, even from this very fact, that they cavil at them with these ineptitudes. Perhaps they had learned from the Lacedaemonians to fashion gods for themselves from events: who, when they were besieging the Messenians, and those men, having secretly gone out with the besiegers deceived, had run to plunder Lacedaemon, were scattered and put to flight by Spartan women. But once the deceits of the enemy were known, the Lacedaemonians were in pursuit.

His armatae mulieres obuiam longius exierunt; quae cum uiros suos cernerent parare se ad pugnam, quod putarent Messenios esse, corpora sua nudauerunt. At illi uxoribus cognitis, et aspectu in libidinem concitati, sicuti erant armati, permisti sunt utique promiscue; nec enim uacabat discernere. Sic iuuenes ab iisdem antea missi, misti cum uirginibus, ex quibus sunt Partheniae nati, propter huius facti memoriam aedem Veneri armatae, simulacrumque posuerunt: quod tametsi ex causa turpi uenit, tamen honestius uidetur armatam Venerem consecrasse, quam caluam.

At this, armed women went out farther to meet them; who, when they saw their own men preparing themselves for battle, because they thought them to be Messenians, laid bare their bodies. But they, their wives recognized, and by the sight stirred to libido, just as they were armed, were indeed mingled promiscuously; for there was no leisure to discern. Thus the young men previously sent by those same, mixed with virgins, from whom the Partheniae were born, in memory of this deed set up a temple to Armed Venus, and an image besides: which although it comes from a base cause, nevertheless it seems more honorable to have consecrated Venus armed than bald.

Eodem tempore Ioui quoque Pistori ara posita est, quod eos in quiete monuisset, ut ex omni frumento, quod habebant, panem facerent, et in hostium castra iactarent; eoque facto soluta esset obsidio, desperantibus Gallis inopia subigi posse Romanos. Quae ista religionum derisio est? Si earum defensor essem, quid tam grauiter queri possem, quam deorum nomen in tantum uenisse contemptum, ut turpissimis nominibus ludibrio habeatur?

At the same time an altar was set up to Jupiter Pistor as well, because he had admonished them in sleep to make bread from all the grain they had and to throw it into the enemies’ camp; and, this having been done, the siege was lifted, the Gauls despairing that the Romans could be subdued by want. What derision of religions is this? If I were a defender of them, what could I complain of more gravely than that the name of the gods has come into such contempt as to be held up to mockery by the most shameful names?

Quis non rideat Fornacem deam, uel potius doctos uiros celebrandis Fornacalibus operari? Quis, cum audiat deam Mutam, tenere risum queat? Hanc esse dicunt, ex qua sint nati Lares, et ipsam Laram nominant, uel Larundam.

Who does not laugh at the goddess Fornax, or rather at learned men busied with celebrating the Fornacalia? Who, when he hears of the goddess Muta, can hold in his laughter? They say that she is the one from whom the Lares were born, and they name her Lara, or Larunda.

Quid praestare colenti potest, quae loqui non potest? Colitur et Caca, quae Herculi fecit indicium de furto boum, diuinitatem consecuta, quia prodidit fratrem; et Cunina, quae infantes in cunis tuetur, ac fascinum submouet; et Stercutus, qui stercorandi agri rationem primus induxit; et Tutinus, in cuius sinu pudendo nubentes praesident, ut illarum pudicitiam prior deus delibasse uideatur: et mille alia portenta, ut iam uaniores qui haec colenda susceperint, quam Aegyptios esse dicamus, qui monstruosa et ridicula quaedam simulacra uenerantur. Et haec tamen habent aliquam imaginem.

What can she avail the worshiper, who cannot speak? Caca too is worshiped, who gave Hercules information about the theft of the cattle, having attained divinity because she betrayed her brother; and Cunina, who protects infants in their cradles and wards off the evil eye; and Stercutus, who first introduced the method of manuring the field; and Tutinus, in whose shameful lap brides take their seat, so that their chastity may seem to have been first tasted by the god: and a thousand other portents, so that we may say that those who have undertaken to worship these are now more vain than the Egyptians, who venerate certain monstrous and ridiculous images. And yet these at least have some image.

Quid? qui lapidem colunt informem atque rudem, cui nomen est Terminus? Hic est, quem pro Ioue Saturnus dicitur deuorasse; nec immerito illi honos tribuitur.

What then? those who worship a shapeless and rude stone, whose name is Terminus? This is he whom Saturn is said to have devoured in place of Jove; nor is honor attributed to him undeservedly.

Nam cum Tarquinius Capitolium facere uellet, atque in eo loco multorum deorum sacella essent, consuluit eos per auguria, utrum Ioui cederent; et cedentibus caeteris, solus Terminus mansit. Unde illum poeta "Capitoli immobile saxum" uocat. Iam ex hoc ipso quam magnus Iupiter inuenitur, cui non cessit lapis, ea fortasse fiducia, quod illum de paternis faucibus liberauerat.

For when Tarquin wished to make the Capitol, and in that place there were little shrines of many gods, he consulted them through auguries whether they would yield to Jupiter; and as the others yielded, Terminus alone remained. Whence the poet calls him “the immovable stone of the Capitol.” Now from this very fact how great Jupiter is found to be, to whom a stone did not yield—perhaps in that confidence, because he had freed it from his father’s jaws.

Facto itaque Capitolio, supra ipsum Terminum foramen est in tecto relictum: ut quia non cesserat, libero coelo frueretur; quo ne ipsi quidem fruebantur, qui lapidem frui putauerunt. Et huic ergo publice supplicacatur, quasi custodi finium deo: qui non tantum lapis, sed etiam stipes interdum est. Quid de iis dicam, qui colunt talia?

Accordingly, when the Capitol was built, above Terminus himself an aperture was left in the roof: so that, because he had not yielded, he might enjoy the open sky; which not even they themselves enjoyed, who thought that the stone enjoyed it. And to him, therefore, public supplication is made, as to a god, the custodian of boundaries: who is not only a stone, but sometimes also a stake. What shall I say of those who worship such things?

nisi ipsos potissimum lapides ac stipites esse?

unless they themselves are above all stones and posts?

[1,21] CAPUT XXI. Diximus de diis ipsis, qui coluntur: nunc de sacris ac mysteriis eorum pauca dicenda sunt. Apud Cyprios humanam hostiam Ioui Teucrus immolauit; idque sacrificium posteris tradidit, quod est nuper Hadriano imperante sublatum.

[1,21] CHAPTER 21. We have spoken about the gods themselves who are worshiped: now a few things must be said about their sacred rites and mysteries. Among the Cypriots Teucer immolated a human victim to Jupiter; and he handed that sacrifice down to posterity, which was recently abolished while Hadrian was emperor.

Erat lex apud Tauros, inhumanam et feram gentem, uti Dianae hospites immolarentur; et id sacrificium multis temporibus celebratum est. Galli Hesum atque Teutatem humano cruore placabant. Nec Latini quidem huius immanitatis expertes fuerunt, siquidem Latialis Iupiter etiamnunc sanguine colitur humano.

There was a law among the Taurians, an inhuman and feral people, that guests were immolated to Diana; and that sacrifice was celebrated for many ages. The Gauls were appeasing Hesus and Teutates with human gore. Nor indeed were the Latins exempt from this monstrosity, since the Latin Jupiter even now is worshiped with human blood.

Quid a diis boni precantur, qui sic sacrificant? Aut quid tales dii hominibus praestare possunt, quorum poenis propitiantur? Sed de Barbaris non est adeo mirandum, quorum religio cum moribus congruit.

What good do they pray for from the gods, who sacrifice thus? Or what can such gods bestow upon men, by whose punishments they are propitiated? But concerning the Barbarians it is not so greatly to be wondered at, whose religion is congruent with their morals.

Nostri uero, qui semper mansuetudinis et humanitatis gloriam sibi uindicarunt, nonne sacrilegis his sacris immaniores reperiuntur? Hi enim potius scelerati sunt habendi, qui, cum sint liberalium disciplinarum studiis expoliti, ab humanitate desciscunt, quam qui rudes et imperiti ad mala facinora bonorum ignoratione labuntur. Apparet tamen antiquum esse hunc immolandorum hominum ritum: siquidem Saturnus in Latio eodem genere sacrificii cultus est, non quidem ut homo ad aram immolaretur, sed uti in Tiberim de ponte Miluio mitteretur.

Our own, indeed, who have always claimed to themselves the glory of mansuetude and humanity, are they not found more savage by these sacrilegious rites? For these are rather to be held as criminal, who, though polished by the studies of the liberal disciplines, fall away from humanity, than those who, rough and unskilled, slip into evil deeds by ignorance of good things. It appears, however, that this rite of the immolation of men is ancient: since Saturn in Latium was worshiped by the same kind of sacrifice, not indeed that a man should be immolated at the altar, but that he should be sent into the Tiber from the Milvian Bridge.

Quod ex responso quodam factitatum Varro auctor est; cuius responsi ultimus uersus est talis: "g-Kai g-kephalos g-Aideh g-kai g-toh g-patri g-pempete g-phohta." Quod quia uidetur ambiguum et fax illi, et homo iaci solet. Verum id genus sacrificii ab Hercule, cum ex Hispania rediret, dicitur esse sublatum, ritu tamen permanente, ut pro ueris hominibus imagines iacerentur ex scirpo; ut Ouidius in Fastis docet: "Donec in haec uenit Tirynthius arua, quotannis Tristia Leucadio sacra peracta modo. Illum stramineos in aquam misisse Quirites: Herculis exemplo corpora falsa iace." Haec sacra Vestales uirgines faciunt, ut ait idem : "Tum quoque priscorum uirgo simulacra uirorum Mittere roboreo scirpea ponte solet". Nam de infantibus, qui eidem Saturno immolabantur propter odium Iouis quid dicam, non inuenio; tam barbaros, tam immanes fuisse homines, ut parricidium suum, id est tetrum atque execrabile humano generi facinus, sacrificium uocarent: cum teneras atque innocentes animas, quae maxime est aetas parentibus dulcior, sine ullo respectu pietatis extinguerent, immanitatemque omnium bestiarum, quae tamen foetus suos amant, feritate superarent!

Varro is the authority that this was done from a certain oracle; of which response the last verse is as follows: "And a head to Hades, and to the father send a man." Because this seems ambiguous, both a torch and a man are wont to be cast for it. Yet that kind of sacrifice is said to have been abolished by Hercules, when he was returning from Spain, with the rite nevertheless remaining, that in place of real humans images were thrown made of rush; as Ovid teaches in the Fasti: "Until the Tirynthian came into these fields, each year the gloomy rites were performed in the Leucadian manner. He had the Quirites send straw-stuffed figures into the water: by the example of Hercules, cast false bodies." These rites the Vestal virgins perform, as the same author says: "Then too a maiden of the Vestals is accustomed to send the simulacra of ancient men from the oaken, rush-work bridge." As for the infants who were sacrificed to that same Saturn on account of hatred for Jove—what am I to say? I do not find words: that men were so barbarous, so monstrous, that they called their own parricide—that is, a deed foul and execrable to the human race—a sacrifice; when they extinguished tender and innocent souls, the age most dear to parents, without any regard for pietas, and surpassed, in ferocity, the savagery of all beasts, which nevertheless love their offspring!

O dementiam insanabilem! Quid illis isti dii amplius facere possent, si essent iratissimi, quam faciunt propitii? cum suos cultores parricidiis inquinant, orbitatibus mactant, humanis sensibus spoliant?

O incurable madness! What more could those gods do to them, if they were most irate, than they do when propitious? since they defile their worshipers with parricides, smite them with bereavements, and despoil them of human senses?

Quid potest esse his hominibus sancti? Aut quid in profanis locis facient, qui inter aras deorum summa scelera committunt? Pescennius Festus in libris Historiarum per Satyram refert, Carthaginenses Saturno humanas hostias solitos immolare: et cum uicti essent ab Agathocle, rege Siculorum, iratum sibi Deum putauisse; itaque ut diligentius piaculum soluerent, ducentos nobilium filios immolasse.

What can be sacred to these men? Or what will they do in profane places, who among the altars of the gods commit the greatest crimes? Pescennius Festus in the Books of Histories, by way of Satire, reports that the Carthaginians were accustomed to immolate human victims to Saturn; and when they had been defeated by Agathocles, king of the Sicilians, they thought the god was angry with them; and so, that they might discharge the expiation more diligently, they immolated two hundred sons of the nobles.

"Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum, Quae peperit saepe scelerosa, atque impia facta". Cui ergo dementissimi homines illo sacrificio consulebant? cum tantam partem ciuitatis occiderent, quantam fortasse ne Agathocles quidem uictor occiderat. Ab isto genere sacrorum non minoris insaniae iudicanda sunt publica illa sacra: quorum alia sunt matris deum, in quibus homines suis ipsi uirilibus litant; amputato enim sexu, nec uiros se, nec foeminas faciunt: alia Virtutis, quam eamdem Bellonam uocant, in quibus ipsi sacerdotes non alieno, sed suo cruore sacrificant.

"So much could religion persuade of evils, which has often begotten criminal and impious deeds." For whom, then, were the most demented men providing by that sacrifice? since they were killing so great a part of the citizenry as perhaps not even Agathocles the victor had killed. From that kind of rites, those public rites are to be judged of no less insanity: some of which are of the Mother of the gods, in which men sacrifice with their own manly parts; for with the sex cut off, they make themselves neither men nor women: others are of Virtue, whom they call the same as Bellona, in which the priests themselves sacrifice not with another’s blood, but with their own gore.

Sectis namque humeris, et utraque manu districtos gladios exerentes, currunt, efferuntur, insaniunt. Optime igitur Quintilianus in Fanatico; «Istud, inquit, si Deus cogit, iratus est.» Etiamne haec sacra sunt? Nonne satius est pecudum more uiuere, quam deos tam impios, tam profanos, tam sanguinarios colere?

For indeed, with shoulders gashed, and brandishing drawn swords in each hand, they run, they are carried away, they rave. Most aptly, therefore, Quintilian in the Fanatic: «That, he says, if God compels it, he is angry.» Are even these sacred rites? Is it not preferable to live in the manner of cattle, than to worship gods so impious, so profane, so sanguinary?

Sed unde isti errores et haec tanta flagitia manauerint, suo loco disseremus: interim uideamus et caetera, quae carent scelere, ne studio insectandi uideamur eligere peiora. Isidis Aegyptia sacra sunt, quatenus filium paruulum uel perdiderit, uel inuenerit. Nam primo sacerdotes eius, deglabrato corpore, pectora sua tundunt; lamentantur, sicut ipsa, cum perdidit, fecerat.

But whence those errors and these so great flagitious deeds have flowed, we shall discourse in its proper place: meanwhile let us also look at the rest which are free from crime, lest we seem, from a zeal for assailing, to choose the worse. The Egyptian sacred rites of Isis are such, inasmuch as she either lost or found her little son. For first her priests, with their bodies shaved bare, beat their own breasts; they lament, just as she herself, when she lost him, had done.

Deinde puer producitur quasi inuentus, et in laetitiam luctus ille mutatur: ideo Lucanus: "- - - Nunquamque satis quaesitus Osiris". Semper enim perdunt, et semper inueniunt. Refertur ergo in sacris imago rei, quae uere gesta est, quae profecto, si quid sapimus, declarat mortalem mulierem fuisse, ac pene orbam, nisi unicum reperisset. Quod illum ipsum poetam minime fugit, apud quem Pompeius adolescens, morte patris audita, haec loquitur: "Euoluam busto iam numen gentibus Isim; Et tectum ligno spargam per uulgus Osirim". Hic est Osiris, quem Serapim uel Serapidem uulgus appellat.

Then the boy is brought forth as if found, and that mourning is changed into joy: therefore Lucan: "- - - and Osiris never sought enough." For they always lose, and they always find. Accordingly, in the rites there is represented an image of the thing which was truly done, which indeed, if we have any wisdom, declares that she was a mortal woman, and almost bereft, unless she had found her only one. This by no means escaped that very poet, with whom Pompey, a youth, upon hearing of his father’s death, speaks these things: "I will bring forth from the pyre now the divinity Isis for the nations; And Osiris covered with wood I will scatter through the common people." This is Osiris, whom the common crowd calls Serapis or Serapidem.

Solent enim mortuis consecratis nomina immutari; credo, ne quis putet eos homines fuisse. Nam et Romulus post mortem Quirinus factus est; et Leda, Nemesis; et Circe, Marica; et Ino, postquam se praecipitauit, Leucothea, materque Matuta; et Melicertes filius eius, Palaemon, atque Portumnus. Sacra uero Cereris Eleusinae non sunt his dissimilia.

For indeed the names of the consecrated dead are wont to be changed; I suppose, lest anyone think that they were humans. For Romulus after death was made Quirinus; and Leda, Nemesis; and Circe, Marica; and Ino, after she hurled herself down, Leucothea, and Mother Matuta; and Melicertes, her son, Palaemon, and Portumnus. The rites, moreover, of Ceres at Eleusis are not dissimilar to these.

Nam sicut ibi Osiris puer planctu matris inquiritur; ita hic ad incestum patrui matrimonium rapta Proserpina: quam quia facibus ex Aetnae uertice accensis quaesisse in Sicilia Ceres dicitur, idcirco sacra eius ardentium taedarum iactatione celebrantur. Apud Lampsacum Priapo litabilis uictima est asellus: cuius sacrificii ratio in Fastis haec redditur: Cum dii omnes ad festum matris magnae conuenissent, epulisque satiati noctem lusibus ducerent, quieuisse humi Vestam, somnumque cepisse: ibi Priapum somno eius ac pudicitiae insidiatum; sed illam intempestiuo clamore aselli, quo Silenus uehebatur excitatam, libidinem uero insidiatoris esse deceptam; hac de causa Lampsacenos asellum Priapo, quasi in ultionem, mactare consueuisse; apud Romanos uero eumdem Vestalibus sacris in honorem pudicitiae conseruatae panibus coronari. Quid turpius?

For just as there the boy Osiris is sought with the lamentation of his mother; so here Proserpina, snatched for the incestuous matrimony of her uncle: whom, because Ceres is said to have sought in Sicily with torches kindled from the summit of Etna, on that account her sacred rites are celebrated with the tossing of burning pine-torches. At Lampsacus a pleasing victim to Priapus is the little ass: the rationale of which sacrifice is rendered thus in the Fasti: when all the gods had come together to the festival of the Great Mother, and, sated with feasts, were passing the night with games, it is said that Vesta lay down on the ground and took sleep; there Priapus laid ambush for her sleep and chastity; but she, roused by the untimely braying of a little ass, on which Silenus was being borne, the lust of the ambusher was in fact frustrated; for this cause the Lampsacenes were accustomed to slaughter an ass to Priapus, as if in vengeance; but among the Romans the same animal is crowned with loaves at the Vestal rites in honor of chastity preserved. What is more shameful?

quid flagitiosius? quam si Vesta beneficio asini uirgo est? At poeta fabulam finxit.

What more scandalous? than if Vesta is a virgin by the benefit of an ass? But the poet fashioned the fable.

Num ergo illud est uerius, quod referunt ii, qui Fainoumena conscripserunt, cum de duabus Cancri stellis loquuntur, quas Graeci g-onous uocant? asellos fuisse, qui Liberum patrem transuexerint, cum amnem transire non posset; quorum alteri hoc praemium dederit, ut humana uoce loqueretur: itaque inter eum, Priapumque ortum esse certamen de obscoeni magnitudine; Priapum uictum et iratum, interemisse uictorem. Hoc uero multo magis ineptum est; sed poetis licet quidquid uelint: non excutio tam deforme mysterium, nec Priapum denudo, ne quid appareat risu dignum.

Is that, then, more true, which those relate who composed the Phainomena, when they speak about the two stars of Cancer, which the Greeks call g-onous? that they were little asses, who ferried Father Liber across, when he could not cross a river; to one of whom he gave this reward, that he should speak with a human voice: and so between him and Priapus a contest arose about the magnitude of the obscene; Priapus, defeated and angry, slew the victor. This truly is much more inept; but to poets whatever they wish is permitted: I do not shake out so misshapen a mystery, nor do I strip Priapus naked, lest anything appear worthy of laughter.

Finxerunt haec sane poetae; sed necesse est alicuius maioris turpitudinis tegendae gratia ficta sint. Quae sit ergo quaeramus. At ea profecto manifesta est.

The poets indeed fashioned these; but it is necessary that they were feigned for the sake of veiling some greater turpitude. What it is, then, let us inquire. But that, assuredly, is manifest.

Nam sicut Lunae taurus mactatur, quia similiter habet cornua, et "Placat equo Persis radiis Hyperiona cinctum, Ne detur celeri uictima tarda Deo." Ita in hoc quia magnitudo membri uirilis enormis est, non potuit ei monstro aptior uictima reperiri, quam quae ipsum, cui mactatur, posset imitari. Apud Lindum, quod est oppidum Rhodi, Herculis sacra sunt, quorum a caeteris longe diuersus est ritus: siquidem non g-euphehmia (ut Graeci appellant), sed maledictis, et execratione celebrantur; eaque pro uiolatis habent, si quando inter solemnes ritus uel imprudenti alicui exciderit bonum uerbum. Cuius rei haec ratio redditur, si tamen ulla esse in rebus uanissimis potest: Hercules, cum eo delatus esset, famemque pateretur, aratorem quemdam aspexit operantem, ab eoque petere coepit, ut sibi unum bouem uenderet.

For just as a bull is slaughtered to the Moon, because it likewise has horns, and “The Persian appeases Hyperion girded with rays with a horse, lest a slow victim be given to a swift god.” So in this case, because the magnitude of the male member is enormous, no victim more apt could be found for that monster than one which might imitate the very one to whom it is sacrificed. At Lindus, which is a town of Rhodes, there are rites of Hercules, whose ritual is far different from the rest: for it is not with euphemia (as the Greeks call it), but with maledictions and execration that they are celebrated; and they hold the rites as violated, if ever during the solemn ceremonies even by someone’s inadvertence a good word should slip out. The reason for this is given thus—if indeed any reason can exist in matters most vain: Hercules, when he had been borne thither and was suffering hunger, saw a certain ploughman at work, and began to ask him to sell him one ox.

Enimuero ille negauit fieri posse, quia spes sua omnis colendae terrae duobus illis iuuencis niteretur. Hercules, solita uiolentia usus, quia unum accipere non potuit, utrumque sustulit. At ille infelix, cum boues suos mactari uideret, iniuriam suam maledictis ultus est.

Indeed, he refused, saying it could not be done, because all his hope of cultivating the land depended on those two young oxen. Hercules, employing his accustomed violence, because he could not obtain one, carried off both. But that unfortunate man, when he saw his oxen being sacrificed, avenged his injury with maledictions.

Quod homini eleganti et urbano gratissimum fuit. Nam dum comitibus suis epulas apparat, dumque alienos boues deuorat, illum sibi amarissime conuiciantem, cum risu et cachinnis audiebat. Sed postquam Herculi diuinos honores ob admirationem uirtutis deferri placuit, a ciuibus ei ara posita est, quam de facto bouuzugon nominauit, ad quam duo iuncti boues immolarentur, sicut illi quos abstulerat aratori; eumque ipsum sibi constituit sacerdotem, ac praecepit, ut iisdem maledictis semper in celebrandis sacrificiis uteretur, quod negaret se unquam epulatum esse iucundius.

Which was most pleasing to the elegant and urbane man. For while he was preparing banquets for his companions, and while he was devouring others’ oxen, he would listen to that man hurling the bitterest insults at him, with laughter and guffaws. But after it pleased that divine honors be conferred upon Hercules, out of admiration for his virtue, an altar was set up for him by the citizens, which from the deed he named Bouzygōn, at which two yoked oxen should be immolated, just like those which he had taken from the plowman; and he appointed that very man as his priest, and ordered that in celebrating the sacrifices he should always use the same maledictions, because he declared that he had never feasted more pleasantly.

Haec iam non sacra sunt, sed sacrilegia, in quibus id sanctum dicitur, quod in aliis, si fiat, etiam seuerissime uindicatur. Ipsius autem Cretici Iouis sacra quid aliud quam quomodo sit aut subtractus patri, aut nutritus ostendunt? Capella est Amaltheae nymphae, quae uberibus suis aluit infantem; de qua Germanicus Caesar in Arataeo carmine sic ait: "- - - Illa putatur Nutrix esse Iouis; si uere Iuppiter infans Ubera Cretaeae mulsit fidissima caprae, Sidere quae claro gratum testatur alumnum." Huius capellae corio usum esse pro scuto Iouem contra Titanas dimicantem Musaeus auctor est: unde a poetis aiigiuocoû nominatur.

These are now not sacred rites, but sacrileges, in which that is called holy which, if it be done in other cases, is even most severely punished. But the rites of Cretan Jove himself—what else do they show than how he was either snatched away from his father or nourished? There is the she-goat of the nymph Amalthea, who with her udders suckled the infant; about her Germanicus Caesar in the Aratean poem thus says: "- - - She is thought to be the Nurse of Jove; if truly infant Jupiter milked the udders of the most faithful Cretan she-goat, who by a bright star attests her dear fosterling." Musaeus is authority that Jupiter, fighting against the Titans, used the hide of this she-goat as a shield: whence by the poets he is named Aigiochos.

Ita quidquid est gestum in abscondendo puero, id ipsum per imaginem geritur in sacris. Sed et matris eius mysterium idem continet, quod Ouidius exponit {in Fastis, lib. IV, v. 207} : "Ardua iamdudum resonat tinnitibus Ide; Tutus ut infanti uagiat ore puer.

Thus whatever has been done in hiding the boy, that very thing is enacted through an image in the sacred rites. But also the mystery of his mother contains the same, which Ovid expounds {in the Fasti, book 4, verse 207} : "Lofty Ida has for some time now been resounding with tinkles; so that the boy may wail safely with an infant’s mouth."

Pars clypeos sudibus, galeas pars tundit inanes: Hoc Curetes habent, hoc Corybantes opus. Res latuit, priscique manent imitamina facti; Aera deae comites raucaque terga mouent, Cymbala pro galeis, pro scutis tympana pulsant: Tibia dat Phrygios, ut dedit ante, modos". Hanc totam opinionem, quasi a poetis fictam, Salustius respuit, uoluitque ingeniose interpretari, cur altores Iouis dicantur Curetes fuisse; et sic ait: Quia principes intelligendi diuini fuerunt, uetustatem ut caetera in maius componentem, altores Iouis celebrauisse. Quantum errauerit homo eruditus, iam res ipsa declarat.

Part beat shields with stakes, part beat empty helmets: This the Curetes have, this is the work of the Corybantes. The matter lay hidden, and the imitations of the ancient deed remain; the companions of the goddess set bronzes and raucous hides in motion, they strike cymbals in place of helmets, in place of shields they beat drums: the pipe gives Phrygian modes, as it gave before". This whole opinion, as if fabricated by the poets, Sallustius rejects, and wished ingeniously to interpret why the fosterers of Jove are said to have been the Curetes; and thus he says: Because they were princes of divine understanding, antiquity—composing things, like the rest, into the greater—celebrated the Curetes as fosterers of Jove. How much the learned man has erred, the thing itself now declares.

Si enim princeps est Iupiter, et deorum et religionum; si ante illum dii nulli colebantur uulgo, quia nondum nati fuerant, qui coluntur; apparet Curetes ex diuerso principes fuisse diuini non intelligendi, per quos error omnis inductus est, et Dei ueri memoria sublata. Ex ipsis itaque mysteriis et ceremoniis intelligere debuerunt, hominibus se mortuis supplicare. Non igitur exigo, ut aliquis poetarum fictionibus credat.

For if Jupiter is the princeps, both of the gods and of religions; if before him no gods were worshiped commonly, because those who are worshiped had not yet been born; it appears that the Curetes, conversely, were princes not of understanding the divine, through whom every error was introduced and the memory of the true God removed. From those mysteries and ceremonies themselves, therefore, they ought to have understood that they were supplicating dead human beings. I do not, therefore, demand that anyone believe the fictions of the poets.

Qui hos mentiri putat, Pontificum ipsorum scripta consideret, et quidquid est litterarum ad sacra pertinentium reuoluat: plura fortasse, quam nos afferimus, inueniet, ex quibus intelligat, inania inepta, commentitia esse omnia, quae pro sanctis habentur. Si quis autem, percepta sapientia, deposuerit errorem, profecto ridebit ineptias hominum pene dementium; illos dico, qui uel inhonesto saltatu tripudiant, uel qui nudi, uncti, coronati, personati, aut luto obliti currunt. Quid de scutis iam uetustate putridis dicam?

Whoever thinks these are lying, let him consider the writings of the Pontiffs themselves, and turn over whatever letters pertain to the sacred rites: he will perhaps find more than we bring forward, from which he may understand that all the things which are held as holy are inane, inept, commentitious. But if anyone, wisdom once perceived, shall lay aside error, he will assuredly laugh at the ineptitudes of men well-nigh demented; I mean those who either caper with an indecent dance, or who, naked, anointed, garlanded, masked, or smeared with mud, run. What shall I say about shields now putrid with age?

quae cum portant, deos ipsos se gestare humeris suis arbitrantur. Nam Furius Bibaculus inter praecipua pietatis exempla numeratur, qui cum praetor esset, tamen lictoribus praeeuntibus, ancile portauit, cum haberet, magistratus beneficio, muneris eius uacationem. Non ergo ille Furius, sed plane furiosus fuit, qui praeturam hoc ministerio se putauit ornare.

and when they carry these, they suppose that they bear the gods themselves upon their shoulders. For Furius Bibaculus is counted among the chief examples of piety, who, although he was praetor, nevertheless, with the lictors going before, carried the ancile, although he had, by the benefit of his magistracy, an exemption from that duty. He was therefore not Furius, but plainly furious, who thought that he adorned the praetorship by this ministry.

Merito igitur, cum haec a uiris non imperitis ac rudibus fiant, Lucretius exclamat: "O stultas hominum mentes, o pectora caeca! Qualibus in tenebris uitae, quantisque periclis Degitur hoc aeui, quodcumque est!" Quis haec ludibria non rideat, qui habeat aliquid sanitatis? cum uideat homines uelut mente captos ea serio facere, quae si quis faciat in lusu, nimis lasciuus et ineptus esse uideatur.

Rightly, therefore, since these things are done by men not unskilled and untutored, Lucretius cries out: “O foolish minds of men, O blind hearts! In what darknesses of life, and in how great perils, is this span of age, whatever it is, spent!” Who that has any sanity would not laugh at these mockeries, when he sees men, as if seized in mind, doing in earnest those things which, if anyone should do them in play, he would seem excessively wanton and inept.

[1,22] CAPUT XXII. Harum uanitatum apud Romanos auctor et constitutor Sabinus ille rex fuit, qui maxime animos hominum rudes atque imperitos nouis superstitionibus implicauit: quod ut faceret aliqua cum auctoritate, simulauit cum dea Egeria nocturnos se habere congressus. Erat quaedam spelunca peropaca in nemore Aricino, unde riuus perenni fonte manabat; huc, remotis arbitris, se inferre consueuerat, ut mentiri posset, monitu deae coniugis ea sacra populo se tradere quae acceptissima diis essent: uidelicet astutiam Minois uoluit imitari: qui se in antrum Iouis recondebat, et ibi diu moratus, leges tamquam sibi a Ioue traditas afferebat, ut homines ad parendum non modo imperio, sed etiam religione constringeret.

[1,22] CHAPTER 22. The author and establisher of these vanities among the Romans was that Sabine king, who most entangled the raw and unskilled minds of men with new superstitions: and in order to do this with some authority, he simulated that he had nocturnal congresses with the goddess Egeria. There was a very dark cave in the Arician grove, whence a brook flowed from a perennial spring; here, with witnesses removed, he was accustomed to betake himself, so that he might lie that, at the monition of his goddess-consort, he was handing down to the people those rites which were most acceptable to the gods: clearly he wished to imitate the astuteness of Minos, who used to hide himself away in the cave of Jove, and, having tarried there a long time, would bring forth laws as though handed down to him by Jove, so that he might bind men to obey not only by command, but also by religion.

Nec difficile sane fuit persuadere pastoribus. Itaque pontifices, flamines, salios, augures creauit, deos per familias descripsit. Sic noui populi feroces animos mitigauit, et ad studia pacis a rebus bellicis auocauit.

Nor indeed was it difficult to persuade the shepherds. And so he created pontiffs, flamens, the Salii, [and] augurs; he described the gods by families. Thus he mitigated the fierce spirits of the new people, and drew them away from military affairs to the studies of peace.

Sed cum alios falleret, seipsum tamen non fefellit; nam post annos plurimos, Cornelio et Bebio coss., in agro scribae Petilii sub ianiculo arcae duae lapideae sunt repertae a fossoribus, quarum in altera corpus Numae fuit, in altera septem latini libri de iure pontificio, item graeci totidem de disciplina sapientiae scripti, quibus religiones, non eas modo, quas ipse instituerat, sed omnes praeterea dissoluit. Qua re ad senatum delata, decretum est, ut hi libri abolerentur: ita eos Q- Petilius Praetor urbanus in concione populi concremauit, insipienter id quidem. Quid enim profuit, libros esse combustos?

But while he was deceiving others, yet he did not deceive himself; for after very many years, in the consulship of Cornelius and Bebius, in the field of the scribe Petilius beneath the Janiculum, two stone chests were found by diggers, in one of which was the body of Numa, in the other seven Latin books on pontifical law, likewise as many Greek written on the discipline of wisdom, by which he dissolved religions—not only those which he himself had instituted, but all besides. When this matter was reported to the senate, it was decreed that these books be abolished: thus Q- Petilius, the urban praetor, burned them in the assembly of the people—foolishly indeed. For what, in fact, did it profit that the books were burned?

cum hoc ipsum, quod sunt ideo combusti, quia religionibus derogabant, memoriae sit traditum? Nemo ergo tunc in senatu non stultissimus. Potuerunt enim et libri aboleri, et res tamen in memoriam non exire.

when this very thing, that they were therefore burned because they derogated from the religions, has been handed down to memory? Therefore at that time there was no one in the senate who was not most foolish. For both the books could have been abolished, and yet the fact not come into memory.

Ita dum uolunt etiam posteris approbare quanta pietate defenderint religiones, auctoritatem religionum ipsarum testando minuerunt. Sed ut Pompilius apud Romanos institutor ineptarum religionum fuit: sic ante Pompilium Faunus in Latio, quin et Saturno auo nefaria sacra constituit, et Picum patrem inter deos honorauit, et sororem suam Fatuam Faunam, eamdemque coniugem consecrauit; quam Gabius Bassus Fatuam nominatam tradit, quod mulieribus fata canere consueuisset, ut Faunus uiris. Eamdem Varro scribit tantae pudicitiae fuisse, ut nemo eam, quoad uixerit, praeter uirum suum mas uiderit, nec nomen eius audierit.

Thus, while they want even posterity to approve with what piety they have defended the religions, by attesting the authority of the religions themselves they diminished it. But just as Pompilius among the Romans was the institutor of inept religions, so before Pompilius Faunus in Latium indeed even established nefarious sacred rites for Saturn his grandsire, and honored his father Picus among the gods, and consecrated his sister Fatua Fauna, and this same woman his spouse; whom Gabius Bassus hands down to have been named Fatua, because she had been accustomed to sing the fates for women, as Faunus for men. The same woman, Varro writes, was of such pudicity that no male, so long as she lived, saw her except her own husband, nor heard her name.

Idcirco illi mulieres in operto sacrificant, et bonam deam nominant. Et Sextus Clodius in eo libro, quem graece scripsit, refert Fauni hanc uxorem fuisse, quae quia contra morem decusque regium clam uini ollam ebiberat, et ebria facta erat, uirgis myrteis a uiro usque ad mortem caesa. Postea uero cum eum facti sui poeniteret, et desiderium eius ferre non posset, diuinum illi honorem detulisse; idcirco in sacris eius obuolutam uini amphoram poni.

Therefore those women sacrifice under cover, and name her the Good Goddess. And Sextus Clodius, in that book which he wrote in Greek, reports that this was the wife of Faunus, who, because contrary to custom and royal decorum she had secretly drunk down a pot of wine and had become intoxicated, was beaten with myrtle rods by her husband unto death. Afterwards indeed, when he repented of his deed and could not bear longing for her, he conferred divine honor upon her; therefore in her rites a wine amphora, wrapped up, is set.

Reliquit ergo posteris Faunus quoque non parum erroris, quem tamen prudentes quique perspiciunt. Nam Lucilius eorum stultitiam, qui simulacra deos putant esse, deridet his uersibus: "Terricolas Lamias Fauni, quas Pompiliique Instituere Numae, tremit has; hic omnia ponit. Ut pueri infantes credunt signa omnia ahena Viuere, et esse homines: sic isti omnia ficta Vera putant; credunt signis cor inesse in ahenis.

Therefore Faunus too left to his descendants no small amount of error, which, however, the prudent perceive. For Lucilius mocks the stupidity of those who think images to be gods with these verses: "He trembles at the earth-dwelling Lamiae of the Fauns, which Numas and Pompiliuses established; on these he stakes everything. As infant boys believe that all brazen statues live and are men: so these people think all things fictive to be true; they believe that a heart is present in the bronze statues."

Pergula pictorum; ueri nihil: omnia ficta." Poeta quidem stultos homines infantibus comparauit. At ego multo imprudentiores esse dico. Illi enim simulacra homines putant esse, hi deos.

"Painters’ booth; nothing of verity: all things fictitious." The poet indeed compared foolish men to infants. But I say they are much more imprudent. For those think the simulacra to be men, these, gods.

Illos aetas facit putare quod non est, hos stultitia. Illi utique breui desinunt falli, horum uanitas et durat, et semper crescit. Sacra Liberi Patris primus Orpheus induxit in Graeciam, primusque celebrauit in monte Boeotiae Thebis, ubi Liber natus est, proximo, qui cum frequenter citharae cantu personaret, Citeron appellatus est.

Age makes those think what is not; stupidity makes these. Those indeed cease shortly to be deceived; the vanity of these both endures and always increases. Orpheus first introduced the sacred rites of Father Liber into Greece, and he first celebrated them on the mountain next to Thebes of Boeotia, where Liber was born, which, since it frequently resounded with the song of the cithara, was called Cithaeron.

Ea sacra etiamnunc Orphica nominantur, in quibus ipse postea dilaceratus, et carptus est, et fuit per eadem fere tempora, quibus Faunus. Sed quis aetate praecesserit, dubitari potest: siquidem per eosdem annos Latinus Priamusque regnauerunt; item patres eorum Faunus et Laomedon, quo regnante, Orpheus cum Argonautis ad Iliensium littus accessit. Procedamus igitur ulterius, et quaeramus, quis omnino colendorum deorum primus auctor extiterit.

Those rites even now are called Orphic, in the course of which he himself was later dismembered and torn apart, and he lived at almost the same times as Faunus. But which of them preceded the other in age can be doubted: since during those same years Latinus and Priam reigned; likewise their fathers, Faunus and Laomedon, and, while he was reigning, Orpheus with the Argonauts approached the Iliensian shore. Let us then proceed further and inquire who was, in sum, the first author of the gods to be worshiped.

Didymus in libris g-exehgehseohs g-Pindarikehs ait, Melissea Cretensium regem primum diis sacrificasse, ac ritus nouos sacrorumque pompas introduxisse. Huius duas fuisse filias, Amalthaeam et Melissam, quae Iouem puerum caprino lacte ac melle nutrierunt. Unde poetica illa fabula originem sumpsit, aduolasse apes, atque os pueri melle complesse.

Didymus, in the books of the g-exehgehseohs g-Pindarikehs, says that Melisseus, king of the Cretans, was the first to sacrifice to the gods, and introduced new rites and sacred pomps. He had two daughters, Amalthea and Melissa, who nourished Jupiter as a boy with caprine milk and honey. Whence that poetic fable took its origin: that bees flew to him and filled the boy’s mouth with honey.

Melissam uero a patre primam sacerdotem Matri magnae constitutam, unde adhuc eiusdem Matris antistites Melissae nuncupantur. Historia uero sacra testatur ipsum Iouem, postquam rerum potitus est, in tantam insolentiam uenisse, ut ipse sibi fana multis in locis constitueret. Nam cum terras circuiret, ut in quamcumque regionem uenerat, reges principesue populorum hospitio sibi et amicitia copulabat, et cum a quoque digrederetur, iubebat sibi fanum creari hospitis sui nomine, quasi ita posset amicitiae et foederis memoria conseruari.

Melissa, in truth, was appointed by her father the first priestess to the Great Mother, whence even now the priests of that same Mother are named “Melissae.” But sacred history attests that Jupiter himself, after he gained possession of affairs, came into such insolence that he himself established fanes for himself in many places. For as he went around the lands, whichever region he had come into, he united to himself the kings and princes of the peoples by hospitality and friendship, and when he departed from each, he ordered that a fanum be created for himself in the name of his host, as if in this way the memory of friendship and of the treaty might be preserved.

Sic constituta sunt templa Ioui Atabyrio, Ioui Labrandio. Atabyrius enim et Labrandius hospites eius, atque adiutores in bello fuerunt. Item Ioui Laprio, Ioui Molioni, Ioui Casio, et quae sunt in eumdem modum.

Thus temples were established to Jupiter Atabyrius, to Jupiter Labrandius. For Atabyrius and Labrandius were his hosts and adjutors in war. Likewise to Jupiter Laprius, to Jupiter Molion, to Jupiter Casius, and those which are in the same manner.

Quod ille astutissime excogitauit, ut et sibi honorem diuinum, et hospitibus suis perpetuum nomen acquireret cum religione coniunctum. Gaudebant ergo illi, et hinc imperio eius libenter obsequebantur, et nominis sui gratia ritus annuos et festa celebrabant. Simile quiddam in Sicilia fecit Aeneas, cum conditae urbi Acestae hospitis nomen imposuit, ut eam postmodum laetus ac libens Acestes diligeret, augeret, ornaret.

Which he most astutely contrived, so that both for himself he might acquire divine honor, and for his hosts a perpetual name conjoined with religion. Therefore they rejoiced, and hence they gladly were obedient to his authority, and for the sake of their name they celebrated annual rites and festivals. Aeneas did something similar in Sicily, when he imposed the name of his host, Acestes, upon the founded city, Acesta, so that thereafter Acestes, joyful and willing, might cherish it, increase it, and adorn it.

Hoc modo religionem cultus sui per orbem terrae Iupiter seminauit, et exemplum caeteris ad imitandum dedit. Siue igitur a Melisseo, sicut Didymus tradidit, colendorum deorum ritus effluxit; siue ab ipso quoque Ioue, ut Euhemerus; de tempore tamen constat quando dii coli coeperint. Melisseus quidem multum antecessit aetate, quippe qui educauerit Iouem nepotem.

In this way Jupiter sowed the religion of his own cult throughout the orb of the earth, and he gave an example to the others to imitate. Whether therefore the rites of gods-to-be-worshiped flowed from Melisseus, as Didymus transmitted; or from Jupiter himself also, as Euhemerus (held); yet as to the time it is agreed when the gods began to be worshiped. Melisseus indeed far preceded in age, inasmuch as he had reared Jupiter, his grandson.

Et idcirco fieri potest, uel ut ante, uel adhuc puero Ioue deos colere instituerit, id est alumni sui matrem; et auiam Tellurem, quae fuit Urani coniux, et patrem Saturnum: et ipse hoc exemplo atque instituto Iouem ad tantam superbiam prouexerit, ut postea sibi diuinos honores auderet assumere.

And therefore it can be, either that before, or while Jove was still a boy, he instituted the cult of the gods—that is, of the mother of his fosterling; and of the grandmother Tellus, who was the consort of Uranus, and of the father Saturn—and that he himself by this example and institution promoted Jove to such arrogance that afterward he dared to assume divine honors for himself.

[1,23] CAPUT XXIII. Nunc quoniam uanarum superstitionum originem deprehendimus, superest ut etiam tempora colligamus, per quae fuerint illi quorum memoria colitur. Theophilus in libro de Temporibus ad Autolicum scripto ait, in historia sua Thallum dicere, quod Belus, quem Babylonii et Assyrii colunt, antiquior troiano bello fuisse inuenitur trecentis uiginti duobus annis: Belum autem Saturno aequalem fuisse, et utrumque uno tempore adoleuisse.

[1,23] CHAPTER 23. Now, since we have detected the origin of vain superstitions, it remains that we also gather the times, during which those men lived whose memory is worshiped. Theophilus, in the book On the Times written to Autolycus, says that in his History Thallus states that Belus, whom the Babylonians and Assyrians worship, is found to have been earlier than the Trojan War by three hundred twenty-two years; and that Belus was equal/coeval with Saturn, and that both flourished at the same time.

Quod adeo uerum est, ut ratione ipsa colligi possit. Nam et Agamemnon, qui gessit bellum Troicum, Iouis abnepos fuit, et Achilles Aiaxque pronepotes, et Ulysses eodem gradu proximus fuit; Priamus quidem longa serie. Sed auctores quidam tradunt, Dardanum et Iasium Coriti filios fuisse, non Iouis.

Which is so true that it can be gathered by reason itself. For Agamemnon, who waged the Trojan War, was the great-great-grandson of Jupiter, and Achilles and Ajax were great-grandsons, and Ulysses was nearest in the same degree; Priam indeed by a long series. But some authorities hand down that Dardanus and Iasius were sons of Coritus, not of Jupiter.

Nec enim, si ita fuisset, ad usus impudicos Ganymedem pronepotem suum habere potuisset. Itaque parentibus illorum, quos supra nominaui, si congruentes annos diuidas, numerus consentiet. Ab excidio autem Troianae urbis colliguntur anni MCCCCLXX.

Nor indeed, if it had been so, could he have had Ganymede, his great-grandson, for shameless uses. Thus, if you allot congruent years to the parents of those whom I named above, the number will agree. From the destruction of the Trojan city are gathered 1470 years.

Ex hac temporum ratione manifestum est, ante annos non amplius quam MDCCC natum esse Saturnum, qui et sator omnium deorum fuit. Non ergo isti glorientur sacrorum uetustate, quorum et origo, et ratio, et tempora deprehensa sunt. Restant adhuc aliqua, quae ad arguendas religiones falsas plurimum ualent.

From this reckoning of times it is manifest that Saturn was born not more than 1800 years ago, who also was the sower/begetter of all the gods. Let them therefore not glory in the antiquity of their sacred rites, whose origin, rationale, and times have been detected. There still remain some things which avail most for arraigning false religions.

Sed iam finem facere libro decreui, ne modum excedat. Ea enim plenius sunt exequenda, ut omnibus refutatis, quae ueritati uidentur obstare, homines, qui bonorum ignorantia uagantur incerti, ad religionem ueram possimus imbuere. Primus autem sapientiae gradus est, falsa intelligere; secundus, uera cognoscere.

But now I have decided to make an end to the book, lest it exceed the measure. For these things must be executed more fully, so that, with all things refuted which seem to obstruct the truth, we may be able to imbue with the true religion those men who, through ignorance of good things, wander uncertain. Moreover, the first step of wisdom is to understand false things; the second, to know the true.

Ergo apud quem haec prima institutio nostra profecerit, qua falsa deteximus, excitabitur ad ueri cognitionem, qua nulla est homini iucundior uoluptas; et erit iam sapientia coelestis disciplinae dignus, qui ad cognoscenda caetera libens ac paratus accesserit.

Therefore, in whom this our first instruction shall have profited, by which we have detected the false, he will be aroused to the cognition of the true, than which there is no pleasure more agreeable for man; and he will now be worthy of the wisdom of the celestial discipline, who shall have approached to the cognition of the rest willing and prepared.