THE DIVINE INSTITUTES and OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PERSECUTORS
DIED.(1)
by
Lactantius
THE DIVINE INSTITUTES
BOOK I.
OF THE FALSE WORSHIP OF THE GODS.
PREFACE.--OF WHAT GREAT VALUE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH IS AND ALWAYS
HAS BEEN.
MEN of great and distinguished talent, when they had
entirely devoted themselves to learning, holding in contempt all
actions both private and public, applied to the pursuit of
investigating the truth whatever labour could be bestowed upon it;
thinking it much more excellent to investigate and know the method of
human and divine things, than to be entirely occupied with the heaping
up of riches or the accumulation of honours. For no one can be made
better or more just by these things, since they are frail and earthly,
and pertain to the adorning of the body only. Those men were indeed
most deserving of the knowledge of the truth, which they so greatly
desired to know, that they even preferred it to all things. For it is
plain that some gave up their property, and altogether abandoned the
pursuit of pleasures, that, being disengaged and without impediment,
they might follow the simple truth, and it alone. And so greatly did
the name and authority of the truth prevail with them, that they
proclaimed that the reward of the greatest good was contained in it.
But they did not obtain the object of their wish, and at the same time
lost their labour and industry; because the truth, that is the secret
of the Most High God, who created all things, cannot be attained by our
own ability and perceptions. Otherwise there would be no difference
between God and man, if human thought. could reach to the counsels and
arrangements of that eternal majesty. And because it was impossible
that the divine method of procedure should become known to man by
his own efforts, God did not suffer man any longer to err in
search of the light of wisdom, and to wander through inextricable
darkness without any result of his labour, but at length opened
his eyes, and made the investigation of the truth His own gift,
so that He might show the nothingness of human wisdom, and point out to
man wandering in error the way of obtaining immortality.
But since few make use of this heavenly benefit and
gift, because the truth lies hidden veiled in obscurity; and it is
either an object of contempt to the learned because it has not suitable
defenders, or is hated by the unlearned on account of its natural
severity, which the nature of men inclined to vices cannot endure: for
because there is a bitterness mingled with virtues, while vices are
seasoned with pleasure, offended by the former and soothed by the
latter, they are borne headlong, and deceived by the appearance of good
things, they embrace evils for goods,--I have believed that these
errors should be encountered, that both the learned may be directed to
true wisdom, and the unlearned to true religion. And this profession is
to be thought much better, more useful and glorious, than that of
oratory, in which being long engaged, we trained young men not to
virtue, but altogether to cunning wickedness.(1) Certainly we shall now
much more rightly discuss respecting the heavenly precepts, by which we
may be able to instruct the minds of men to the worship of the true
majesty. Nor does he deserve so well respecting the affairs of men, who
imparts the knowledge of speaking well, as he who teaches men to live
in piety and innocence; on which account the philosophers were in
greater glory among the Greeks than the orators. For they, the
philosophers, were considered teachers of right living, which is far
more excellent, since to speak well belongs only to a few, but to live
well belongs to all. Yet that practice in fictitious suits has been of
great advantage to us, so that we are now able to plead the cause of
truth with greater copiousness and ability of speaking; for although
the truth may be defended without eloquence, as it often has
10
been defended by many, yet it needs to be explained, and in a measure
discussed, with distinctness and elegance of speech, in order that it
may flow with greater power into the minds of men, being both provided
with its own force, and adorned with the brilliancy of speech.
CHAP. I.--OF RELIGION AND WISDOM.
We undertake, therefore, to discuss religion and
divine things. For if some of the greatest orators, veterans as it were
of their profession, having completed the works of their pleadings, at
last gave themselves up to philosophy, and regarded that as a most just
rest from their labours, if they tortured their minds in the
investigation of those things which could not be found out, so that
they appear to have sought for themselves not so much leisure as
occupation, and that indeed with much greater trouble than in their
former pursuit; how much more justly shall I betake myself as to a most
safe harbour, to that pious, true, and divine wisdom, in which all
things are ready for utterance, pleasant to the hearing, easy to be
understood, honourable to be undertaken! And if some skilful men and
arbiters of justice composed and published Institutions of civil law,
by which they might lull the strifes and contentions of discordant
citizens, how much better and more rightly shall we follow up in
writing the divine Institutions, in which we shall not speak about
rain-droppings, or the turning of waters, or the preferring of claims,
but we shall speak of hope, of life, of salvation, of immortality, and
of God, that we may put an end to deadly superstitions and most
disgraceful errors.
And we now commence this work under the auspices of
your name, O mighty Emperor Constantine, who were the first of the
Roman princes to repudiate errors, and to acknowledge and honour the
majesty of the one and only true God.(1) For when that most happy day
had shone upon the world, in which the Most High God raised you to the
prosperous height of power, you entered upon a dominion which was
salutary and desirable for all, with an excellent beginning,
when, restoring justice which had been overthrown and taken away, you
expiated the most shameful deed of others. In return for which action
God will grant to you happiness, virtue, and length of days, that
even when old you may govern the state with the same justice with which
you began in youth, anti may hand down to your children the
guardianship of the Roman name, as you yourself received it from your
father. For to the wicked, who still rage against the righteous in
other parts of the world, the Omnipotent will also repay the reward of
their wickedness with a severity proportioned to its tardiness; for as
He is a most indulgent Father towards the godly, so is He a most
upright Judge against the ungodly. And in my desire to defend His
religion and divine worship, to whom can I rather appeal, whom can I
address, but him by whom justice and wisdom have been restored to the
affairs of
men?
Therefore, leaving the authors of this earthly
philosophy, who bring forward nothing certain. let us approach the
right path; for if I considered these to be sufficiently suitable
guides to a good life, I would both follow them myself, and exhort
others to follow them. But since they disagree among one another with
great contention, and are for the most part at variance with
themselves, it is evident that their path is by no means
straightforward: since they have severally marked out distinct ways for
themselves according to their own will, and have left great confusion
to those who are seeking for the truth. But since the truth is revealed
from heaven to us who have received the mystery of true religion, and
since we follow God, the teacher of wisdom and the guide to truth, we
call to ether all, without any distinction either of sex or of age, to
heavenly pasture. For there is no more pleasant food for the soul than
the knowledge of truth,(2) to the maintaining and explaining of which
we have destined seven books, although the subject is one of almost
boundless and immeasurable labour; so that if any one should wish to
dilate upon and follow up these things to their full extent, he would
have such an exuberant supply of subjects, that neither books would
find any limit, nor speech any end. But oil this account we will put
together all things briefly, because those things which we are about to
bring forward are so plain and lucid, that it seems to be more
wonderful that the truth appears so obscure to men, and to those
especially who are commonly esteemed wise, or because men will only
need to be trained by us,--that is, to be recalled from the error in
which they are entangled to a better course of life.
And if, as I hope, we shall attain to this, we will
send them to the very fountain of learning, which is most rich and
abundant, by copious draughts of which they may appease the thirst
conceived within, and quench their ardour. And all things will be easy,
ready of accomplishment, and clear to them, if only they are not
annoyed at applying patience in reading or hearing to the perception of
the discipline of wisdom.(3) For many, pertinaciously adhering to vain
superstitions, harden themselves against the manifest
11
truth, not so much deserving well of their religions, which they
wrongly maintain, as they deserve ill of themselves; who, when they
have a straight path, seek devious windings; who leave the level ground
that they may glide over a precipice; who leave the light, that, blind
and enfeebled, they may lie in darkness. We must provide for these,
that they may not fight against themselves, and that they may be
willing at length to be freed from inveterate errors. And this they
will assuredly do if they shall at any time see for what purpose they
were born; for this is the cause of their perverseness,--namely,
ignorance of themselves: and if any one, having gained the knowledge of
the truth, shall have shaken off this ignorance, he will know to what
object his life is to be directed, and how it is to be spent. And I
thus briefly define the sum of this knowledge, that neither is any
religion to be undertaken without wisdom, nor any wisdom to be approved
of without religion.
CHAP. II.--THAT THERE
IS A PROVIDENCE IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
Having therefore undertaken the office of explaining
the truth, I did not think it so necessary to take my commencement from
that inquiry which naturally seems the first, whether there is a
providence which consults for all things, or all things were either
made or are governed by chance; which sentiment was introduced by
Democritus, and confirmed by Epicurus. But before them, what did
Protagoras effect, who raised doubts respecting the gods; or Diagoras
afterwards, who excluded them; and some others, who did not hold the
existence of gods, except that there was supposed to be no providence?
These, however, were most vigorously opposed by the other philosophers,
and especially by the Stoics, who taught that the universe could
neither have been made without divine intelligence, nor continue to
exist unless it were governed by the highest intelligence. But even
Marcus Tullius, although he was a defender of the Academic system,
discussed at length and on many occasions respecting the providence
which governs affairs, confirming the arguments of the Stoics, and
himself adducing many new ones; and this he does both in all the books
of his own philosophy, and especially in those which treat of the
nature of the gods.(1)
And it was no difficult task, indeed, to refute the
falsehoods of a few men who entertained perverse sentiments by the
testimony of communities and tribes, who on this one point had no
disagreement. For there is no one so uncivilized, and of such an
uncultivated disposition,
who, when he raises his eyes to heaven, although he knows not by the
providence of what God all this visible universe is governed, does not
understand from the very magnitude of the objects, from their motion,
arrangement, constancy, usefulness, beauty, and temperament, that there
is some providence, and that that which exists with wonderful method
must have been prepared by some greater intelligence. And for us,
assuredly, it is very easy to follow up this part as copiously as it
may please us. But because the subject has been much agitated among
philosophers, and they who take away providence appear to have been
sufficiently answered by men of sagacity and eloquence, and
because it is necessary to speak, in different places throughout
this work which we have undertaken, respecting the skill of the divine
providence, let us for the present omit this inquiry, which is so
closely connected with the other questions, that it seems possible for
us to discuss no subject, without at the same time discussing the
subject of providence.
CHAP. III.--WHETHER THE UNIVERSE IS GOVERNED BY THE POWER OF ONE GOD OR
OF MANY.
Let the commencement of our work therefore be that
inquiry which closely follows and is connected with the first: Whether
the universe is governed by the power of one God or of many. There is
no one, who possesses intelligence and uses reflection, who does not
understand that it is one Being who both created all things and governs
them with the same energy by which He created them. For what need is
there of many to sustain the government of the universe? unless we
should happen to think that, if there were more than one, each would
possess less might and strength. And they who hold that there are many
gods, do indeed effect this; for those gods must of necessity be weak,
since individually, without the aid of the others, they would be unable
to sustain the government of so vast a mass. But God, who is the
Eternal Mind, is undoubtedly of excellence, complete and perfect in
every part. And if this is true, He must of necessity be one. For power
or excellence, which is complete, retains its own peculiar stability.
But that is to be regarded as solid from which nothing can be taken
away, that as perfect to which nothing can be added.
Who can doubt that he would be a most powerful king
who should have the government of the whole world? And not without
reason, since all things which everywhere exist would belong to him,
since all resources from all quarters would be centred in him alone.
But if more than one divide the government of the world, undoubtedly
each will have less power and strength, since every one must confine
him-
12
self within his prescribed portion.(1) In the same manner also, if
there are more gods than one, they will be of less weight, others
having in themselves the same power. But the nature of excellence
admits of greater perfection in him in whom the whole is, than in him
in whom there is only a small part of the whole. But God, if He is
perfect, as He ought to be, cannot but be one, because He is perfect,
so that all things may be in Him. Therefore the excellences and powers
of the gods must necessarily be weaker, because so much will be wanting
to each as shall be in the others; and so the more there are, so much
the less powerful will they be. Why should I mention that this highest
power and divine energy is altogether incapable of division? For
whatever is capable of division must of necessity be liable to
destruction also. But if destruction is far removed from God, because
He is incorruptible and eternal, it follows that the divine power is
incapable of division. Therefore God is one, if that which admits of so
great power can be nothing else: and yet those who deem that there are
many gods, say that they have divided their functions among themselves;
but we will discuss all these matters at their proper places. In the
meantime, I affirm this, which belongs to the present subject. If they
have divided their functions among themselves, the matter comes back to
the same point, that any one of them is unable to supply the place of
all. He cannot, then, be perfect who is unable to govern all things
while the others are unemployed. And so is comes to pass, that for the
government of the universe there is more need of the perfect excellence
of one than of the imperfect powers of many. But he who imagines that
so great a magnitude as this cannot be governed by one Being, is
deceived. For he does not comprehend how great are the might and power
of the divine majesty, if he thinks that the one God, who had power to
create the universe, is also unable to govern that which He has
created. But if he conceives in his mind how great is the immensity of
that divine work, when before it was nothing, yet that by the power and
wisdom of God it was made out of nothing--a work which could only be
commenced and accomplished by one--he will now understand that that
which has been established by one is much more easily governed by one.
Some one may perhaps say that so immense a work as
that of the universe could not even have been fabricated except by
many. But however many and however great he may consider
them,--whatever magnitude, power, excellence, and majesty he may
attribute to the
many,--the whole of that I assign to one, and say that it exists in
one: so that there is in Him such an amount of these properties as can
neither be conceived nor expressed. And since we fail in this subject,
both in perception and in words--for neither does the human breast
admit the light of so great understanding, nor is the mortal tongue
capable of explaining such great subjects--it is right that we should
understand and say this very same thing. I see, again, what can be
alleged on the other hand, that those many gods are such as we hold the
one God to be. But this cannot possibly be so, because the power of
these gods individually will not be able to proceed further, the power
of the others meeting and hindering them. For either each must be
unable to pass beyond his own limits, or, if he shall have passed
beyond them, he must drive another from his boundaries. They who
believe that there are many gods, do not see that it may happen that
some may be opposed to others in their wishes, from which circumstance
disputing and contention would arise among them; as Homer represented
the gods at war among themselves, since some desired that Troy should
be taken, others opposed it. The universe, therefore, must be ruled by
the will of one. For unless the power over the separate parts be
referred to one and the same providence, the whole itself will not be
able to exist; since each takes care of nothing beyond that which
belongs peculiarly to him, just as warfare could not be carried on
without one general and commander. But if there were in one army
as many generals as there are legions, cohorts, divisions,(2) and
squadrons, first of all it would not be possible for the army to be
drawn out in battle array, since each would refuse the peril; nor could
it easily be governed or controlled, because all would use their own
peculiar counsels, by the diversity of which they would inflict more
injury than they would confer advantage. So, in this government of the
affairs of nature, unless there shall be one to whom the care of the
whole is referred, all things will be dissolved and fall to decay.
But to say that the universe is governed by the will
of many, is equivalent to a declaration that there are many minds in
one body, since there are many and various offices of the members, so
that separate minds may be supposed to govern separate senses; and also
the many affections, by which we are accustomed to be moved either to
anger, or to desire, or to joy, or to fear, or to pity, so that in all
these affections as many minds may be supposed to operate; and if any
one should say this, he would appear to be destitute even of that very
mind, which is one. But
13
if in one body one mind possesses the government of so many things, and
is at the same time occupied with the whole, why should any one suppose
that the universe cannot be governed by one, but that it can be
governed by more than one? And because those maintainers of many gods
are aware of this, they say that they so preside over separate offices
and parts, that there is still one chief ruler. The others, therefore,
on this principle, will not be gods, but attendants and ministers, whom
that one most mighty and omnipotent appointed to these offices, and
they themselves will be subservient to his authority and command. If,
therefore, all are not equal to one another, all are not gods; for that
which serves and that which rules cannot be the same. For if God is a
title of the highest power, He must be incorruptible, perfect,
incapable of suffering, and subject to no other being; therefore they
are not gods whom necessity compels to obey the one greatest God. But
because they who hold this opinion are not deceived without cause, we
will presently lay open the cause of this error. Now, let us prove by
testimonies the unity of the divine power.
CHAP. IV.--THAT THE ONE GOD WAS FORETOLD EVEN
BY THE PROPHETS.
The prophets, who were very many, proclaim and
declare the one God; for, being filled with the inspiration of the one
God, they predicted things to come, with agreeing and harmonious voice.
But those who are ignorant of the truth do not think that these
prophets are to be believed; for they say that those voices are not
divine, but human. Forsooth, because they proclaim one God, they were
either madmen or deceivers. But truly we see that their predictions
have been fulfilled, and are in course of fulfilment daily; and their
foresight, agreeing as it does to one opinion, teaches that they were
not under the impulse of madness. For who possessed of a frenzied mind
would be able, I do not say to predict the future, but even to speak
coherently? Were they, therefore, who spoke such things deceitful? What
was so utterly foreign to their nature as a system of deceit, when they
themselves restrained others from all fraud? For to this end were they
sent by God, that they should both be heralds of His majesty, and
correctors of the wickedness of man.
Moreover, the inclination to feign and speak falsely
belongs to those who covet riches, and eagerly desire gains,--a
disposition which was far removed from those holy men. For they so
discharged the office entrusted to them, that, disregarding all things
necessary for the maintenance of life, they were so far from laying up
store for the future, that they did not even labour for the day,
content with the unstored food which God had supplied; and these not
only had no gains, but even endured torments and death. For the
precepts of righteousness are distasteful to the wicked, and to those
who lead an unholy life. Wherefore they, whose sins were brought to
light and forbidden, most cruelly tortured and slew them. They,
therefore, who had no desire for gain, had neither the inclination nor
the motive for deceit. Why should I say that some of them were princes,
or even kings,(1) upon whom the suspicion of covetousness and fraud
could not possibly fall, and yet they proclaimed the one God with the
same prophetic foresight as the others?
CHAP, V.--OF THE
TESTIMONIES OF POETS AND PHILOSOPHERS.
But let us leave the testimony of prophets, lest a
proof derived from those who are universally disbelieved should appear
insufficient. Let us come to authors, and for the demonstration of the
truth let us cite as witnesses those very persons whom they are
accustomed to make use of against us,--I mean poets and philosophers.
From these we cannot fail in proving the unity of God; not that they
had ascertained the truth, but that the force of the truth itself is so
great, that no one can be so blind as not to see the divine brightness
presenting itself to his eyes. The poets, therefore, however much they
adorned the gods in their poems, and amplified their exploits with the
highest praises, yet very frequently confess that all things are held
together and governed by one spirit or mind. Orpheus, who is the most
ancient of the poets, and coeval with the gods themselves,--since it is
reported that he sailed among the Argonauts together with the sons of
Tyndarus and Hercules,--speaks of the true and great God as the
first-born(2) because nothing was produced before Him, but all things
sprung from Him. He also calls Him Phanes(3) because when as yet there
was nothing He first appeared and came forth from the infinite. And
since he was unable to conceive in his mind the origin and nature of
this Being, he said that He was born from the boundless air: "The
first-born, Phaethon, son of the extended air;" for he had nothing more
to say. He affirms that this Being is the Parent of all the gods, on
whose account He framed the heaven, and provided for His children that
they might have a habitation and place of abode in common: "He built
for immortals an imperishable home." Thus, under the guidance of nature
and reason, he understood that there was a power of surpassing
14
greatness which framed heaven and earth. For he could not say that
Jupiter was the author of all things, since he was born from Saturn;
nor could he say that Saturn himself was their author, since it was
reported that he was produced from the heaven; but he did not venture
to set up the heaven as the primeval god, because he saw that it was an
element of the universe, and must itself have had an author. This
consideration led him to that first-born god, to whom he assigns and
gives the first place.
Homer was able to give us no information relating to
the truth, for he wrote of human rather than divine things. Hesiod was
able, for he comprised in the work of one book the generation of the
gods; but yet he gave us no information, for he took his commencement
not from God the Creator, but from chaos, which is a confused mass of
rude and unarranged matter; whereas he ought first to have explained
from what source, at what time, and in what manner, chaos itself had
begun to exist or to have consistency. Without doubt, as all things
were placed in order, arranged, and made by some artificer, so matter
itself must of necessity have been formed by some being. Who, then,
made it except God, to whose power all things are subject? But he
shrinks from admitting this, while he dreads the unknown truth. For, as
he wished it to appear, it was by the inspiration of the Muses that he
poured forth that song on Helicon; but he had come after previous
meditation and preparation.
Maro was the first of our poets to approach the
truth, who thus speaks respecting the highest God, whom he calls Mind
and Spirit:(1)--
"Know first, the heaven, the earth, the main,
The moon's pale orb, the starry train,
Are nourished by a Soul,
A Spirit, whose celestial flame
Glows in each member of the frame,
And stirs the mighty whole."
And lest any one should happen to be ignorant what that Spirit was
which had so much power, he has declared it in another place,
saying:(2) "For the Deity pervades all lands, the tracts of sea and
depth of heaven; the flocks, the herds, and men, and all the race of
beasts, each at its birth, derive their slender lives from Him."
Ovid also, in the beginning of his remarkable work,
without any disguising of the name, admits that the universe was
arranged by God, whom he calls the Framer of the world, the Artificer
of all things.(3) But if either Orpheus or these poets of our country
had always maintained what they perceived under the guidance of nature,
they would have comprehended the truth, and gained the same learning
which we follow.(4)
But thus far of the poets. Let us come to the
philosophers, whose authority is of greater weight, and their judgment
more to be relied on, because they are believed to have paid attention,
not to matters of fiction, but to the investigation of the truth.
Thales of Miletus, who was one of the number of the seven wise men, and
who is said to have been the first of all to inquire respecting natural
causes, said that water was the element from which all things were
produced, and that God was the mind which formed all things from water.
Thus he placed the material of all things in moisture; he fixed the
beginning and cause of their production in God. Pythagoras thus defined
the being of God, "as a soul passing to and fro, and diffused through
all parts of the universe, and through all nature, from which all
living creatures which are produced derive their life." Anaxagoras said
that God was an infinite mind, which moves by its own power.
Antisthenes maintained that the gods of the people were many, but that
the God of nature was one only; that is, the Fabricator of the whole
universe. Cleanthes and Anaximenes assert that the air is the chief
deity; and to this opinion our poet has assented:(5) "Then almighty
father Aether descends in fertile showers into the bosom of his joyous
spouse; and great himself, mingling with her great body, nourishes all
her offspring." Chrysippus speaks of God as a natural power endowed
with divine reason, and sometimes as a divine necessity. Zeno also
speaks of Him as a divine and natural law. The opinion of all these,
however uncertain it is, has reference to one point,--to their
agreement in the existence of one providence. For whether it be nature,
or aether, or reason, or mind, or a fatal necessity, or a divine law,
or if you term it anything else, it is the same which is called by us
God. Nor does the diversity of titles prove an obstacle, since by their
very signification they all refer to one object. Aristotle, although he
is at variance with himself, and both utters and holds sentiments
opposed to one another, yet upon the whole bears witness that one Mind
presides over the. universe. Plato, who is judged the wisest of all,
plainly and openly maintains the rule of one God; nor does he name Him
Aether, or Reason, or Nature, but, as He truly is, God, and that this
universe, so perfect and wonderful, was fabricated by Him. And Cicero,
following and imitating him in many instances, frequently acknowledges
God, and calls Him supreme, in those books which he wrote on the
15
subject of laws; and he adduces proof that the universe is governed by
Him, when he argues respecting the nature of the gods in this way:
"Nothing is superior to God: the world must therefore be governed by
Him. Therefore God is obedient or subject to no nature; consequently He
Himself governs all nature." But what God Himself is he defines in his
Consolation:(1) "Nor can God Himself, as He is comprehended by us, be
comprehended in any other way than as a mind free and unrestrained, far
removed from all mortal materiality, perceiving and moving all things."
How often, also, does Annaeus Seneca, who was the
keenest Stoic of the Romans, follow up with deserved praise the supreme
Deity! For when he was discussing the subject of premature death, he
said "You do not understand the authority and majesty of your Judge,
the Ruler of the world, and the God or heaven and of all gods, on whom
those deities which we separately worship and honour are dependent."
Also in his Exhortations: "This Being, when He was laying the first
foundations of the most beautiful fabric, and was commencing this work,
than which nature has known nothing greater or better, that all things
might serve their own rulers, although He had spread Himself out
through the whole body, yet He produced gods as ministers of His
kingdom." And how many other things like to our own writers did
he speak on the subject of God! But these things I put off for the
present, because they are more suited to other parts of the subject. At
present it is enough to demonstrate that men of the highest genius
touched upon the truth, and almost grasped it, had not custom,
infatuated by false opinions, carried them back; by which custom they
both deemed that there were other gods, and believed that those things
which God made for the use of man, as though they were endowed with
perception, were to be held and worshipped as gods.
CHAP. VI.--OF DIVINE TESTIMONIES, AND OF THE SIBYLS AND THEIR
PREDICTIONS.
Now let us pass to divine testimonies; but I will
previously bring forward one which resembles a divine testimony, both
on account of its very great antiquity, and because he whom I shall
name was taken from men and placed among the gods. According to Cicero,
Caius Cotta the pontiff, while disputing against the Stoics concerning
superstitions, and the variety of opinions which prevail respecting the
gods, in order that he might, after the custom of the Academics, make
everything uncertain, says that there were five Mercuries; and having
enumerated four in order, says that the fifth was he by whom Argus
was slain, and that on this account he fled into Egypt, and gave laws
and letters to the Egyptians. The Egyptians call him Thoth; and from
him the first month of their year, that is, September, received its
name among them. He also built a town, which is even now called in
Greek Hermopolis (the town of Mercury), and the inhabitants of Phenae
honour him with religious worship. And although he was a man, yet he
was of great antiquity, and most fully imbued with every kind of
learning, so that the knowledge of many subjects and arts acquired for
him the name of Trismegistus.(2) He wrote books, and those in great
numbers, relating to the knowledge of divine things, in which be
asserts the majesty of the supreme and only God, and makes mention of
Him by the same names which we use-God and Father. And that no one
might inquire His name, he said that He was without name, and that on
account of His very unity He does not require the peculiarity of a
name. These are his own words: "God is one, but He who is one only does
not need a name; for He who is self-existent is without a name." God,
therefore, has no name, because He is alone; nor is there any need of a
proper name, except in cases where a multitude of persons requires a
distinguishing mark, so that you may designate each person by his own
mark and appellation. But God, because He is always one, has no
peculiar name.
It remains for me to bring forward testimonies
respecting the sacred responses and predictions, which are much more to
be relied upon. For perhaps they against whom we are arguing may think
that no credence is to be given to poets, as though they invented
fictions, nor to philosophers, inasmuch as they were liable to err,
being themselves but men. Marcus Varro, than whom no man of greater
learning ever lived, even among the Greeks, much less among the Latins,
in those books respecting divine subjects which he addressed to Caius
Caesar the chief pontiff, when he was speaking of the Quindecemviri,(3)
says that the Sibylline books were not the production of one Sibyl
only, but that they were called by one name Sibylline, because all
prophetesses were called by the ancients Sibyls, either from the name
of one, the Delphian priestess, or from their proclaiming the counsels
of the gods. For in the Aeolic dialect they used to call the gods by
the word Sioi, not . Theoi; and for counsel they used the word bule,
not boule;--and so the Sibyl received her name as though Siobule.(4)
But he says that the Sibyls
16
were ten in number, and he enumerated them all under the writers, who
wrote an account of each: that the first was from the Persians, and of
her Nicanor made mention, who wrote the exploits of Alexander of
Macedon;--the second of Libya, and of her Euripides makes mention in
the prologue of the Lamia;--the third of Delphi, concerning whom
Chrysippus speaks in that book which he composed concerning
divination;--the fourth a Cimmerian in Italy, whom Naevius mentions in
his books of the Punic war, and Piso in his annals;--the fifth of
Erythraea, whom Apollodorus of Erythraea affirms to have been his own
country-woman, and that she foretold to the Greeks when they were
setting but for Ilium, both that Troy was doomed to destruction, and
that Homer would write falsehoods;--the sixth of Samos, respecting whom
Eratosthenes writes that he had found a written notice in the ancient
annals of the Samians. The seventh was of Cumae, by name Amalthaea, who
is termed by some Herophile, or Demophile and they say that she brought
nine books to the king Tarquinius Priscus, and asked for them three
hundred philippics, and that the king refused so great a price, and
derided the madness of the woman; that she, in the sight of the king,
burnt three of the books, and demanded the same price for those which
were left; that Tarquinias much more considered the woman to be mad;
and that when she again, having burnt three other books, persisted in
asking the same price, the king was moved, and bought the remaining
books for the three hundred pieces of gold: and the number of these
books was afterwards increased, after the rebuilding of the Capitol;
because they were collected from all cities of Italy and Greece, and
especially from those of Erythraea, and were brought to Rome, under the
name of whatever Sibyl they were. Further, that the eighth was from the
Hellespont, born in the Trojan territory, in the village of Marpessus,
about the town of Gergithus; and Heraclides of Pontus writes that she
lived in the times of Solon and Cyrus;--the ninth of Phrygia, who gave
oracles at Ancyra;--the tenth of Tibur, by name Albunea, who is
worshipped at Tibur as a goddess, near the banks of the river
Anio, in the depths of which her statue is said to have been
found, holding in her hand a book. The senate transferred her oracles
into the Capitol.
The predictions of all these Sibyls(1) are both
brought forward and esteemed as such, except those of the Cumaean
Sibyl, whose books are l concealed by the Romans; nor do they consider
it lawful for them to be inspected by any
one but the Quindecemviri. And them are separate books the production
of each, but because these are inscribed with the name of the Sibyl
they are believed to be the work of one; and they are confused, nor can
the productions of each be distinguished and assigned to their own
authors, except in the case of the Erythraean Sibyl, for she both
inserted her own true name in her verse, and predicted that she would
be called Erythraean, though she was born at Babylon. But we also shall
speak of the Sibyl without any distinction, wherever we shall have
occasion to use their testimonies. All these Sibyls, then, proclaim one
God, and especially the Erythraean, who is regarded among the others as
more celebrated and noble; since Fenestella, a most diligent writer,
speaking of the Quindecemviri, says that, after the rebuilding of the
Capitol, Caius Curio the consul proposed to the senate that ambassadors
should be sent to Erythrae to search out and bring to Rome the writings
of the Sibyl; and that, accordingly, Publius Gabinius, Marcus
Otacilius, and Lucius Valerius were sent, who conveyed to Rome about a
thousand verses written out by private persons. We have shown before
that Varro made the same statement. Now in these verses which the
ambassadors brought to Rome, are these testimonies respecting the one
God:--
1. "One God, who is alone, most mighty,
uncreated."
This is the only supreme God, who made the heaven, and decked it with
lights.
2. "But there is one only God of pre-eminent
power, who made the heaven, and sun, and stars, and moon, and fruitful
earth, and waves of the water of the sea."
And since He alone is the framer of the universe, and the artificer of
all things of which it consists or which are contained in it, it
testifies that He alone ought to be worshipped:--
3. "Worship Him who is alone the ruler of the
world, who alone was and is from age to age."
Also another Sibyl, whoever she is, when she said that she conveyed the
voice of God to men, thus spoke:--
4. "I am the one only God, and there is no
other God."
I would now follow up the testimonies of the others,
were it not that these are sufficient, and that I reserve others for
more befitting opportunities. But since we are defending the cause of
truth before those who err from the truth and serve false religions,
what kind of proof ought we to bring forward(2) against them, rather
than to refute them by the testimonies of their own gods?
17
CHAP. VII.--CONCERNING THE TESTIMONIES OF
APOLLO AND THE GODS.
Apollo, indeed, whom they think divine above all
others, and especially prophetic, giving responses at Colophon,--I
suppose because, induced by the pleasantness of Asia, he had removed
from Delphi,--to some one who asked who He was, or what God was at all,
replied in twenty-one verses, of which this is the beginning:--
"Self-produced, untaught, without a mother, unshaken,
A name not even to be comprised in word, dwelling in fire,
This is God; and we His messengers are a slight portion of
God."
Can any one suspect that this is spoken of Jupiter, who had both a
mother and a name? Why should I say that Mercury, that thrice greatest,
of whom I have made mention above, not only speaks of God as "without a
mother," as Apollo does, but also as "without a father," because He has
no origin from any other source but Himself? For He cannot be produced
from any one, who Himself produced all things. I have, as I think,
sufficiently taught by arguments, and confirmed by witnesses, that
which is sufficiently plain by itself, that there is one only King of
the universe, one Father, one God.
But perchance some one may ask of us the same
question which Hortensius asks in Cicero: If God is one only,(1) what
solitude can be happy? As though we, in asserting that He is one, say
that He is desolate and solitary. Undoubtedly He has ministers, whom we
call messengers. And that is true, which I have before related, that
Seneca said in his Exhortations that God produced ministers of His
kingdom. But these are neither gods, nor do they wish to be called gods
or to be worshipped, inasmuch as they do nothing but execute the
command and will of God. Nor, however, are they gods who are worshipped
in common, whose number is small and fixed. But if the worshippers of
the gods think that they worship those beings whom we call the
ministers of the Supreme God, there is no reason why they should envy
its who say that there is one God, and deny that there are many. If a
multitude of gods delights them, we do not speak of twelve, or three
hundred and sixty-five as Orpheus did; but we convict them of
innumerable errors on the other side, in thinking that they are so few,
Let them know, however, by what name they ought to be called, lest they
do injury to the true God, whose name they set forth, while they assign
it to more than one. Let them believe their own Apollo, who in that
same response took away from the other gods their name, as he took away
the dominion from Jupiter. For
the third verse shows that the ministers of God ought not to be called
gods, but angels. He spoke falsely respecting himself, indeed; for
though he was of the number of demons, he reckoned himself among the
angels of God, and then in other responses he confessed himself a
demon. For when he was asked how he wished to be supplicated, he thus
answered:--
"O all-wise, all-learned, versed in many pursuits, hear, O
demon."
And so, again, when at the entreaty of some one he uttered an
imprecation against the Sminthian Apollo, he began with this verse:--
"O harmony of the world, bearing light, all-wise demon."
What therefore remains, except that by his own confession he is subject
to the scourge of the true God and to everlasting punishment? For in
another response he also said:--
"The demons who go about the earth and about the sea
Without weariness, are subdued beneath the scourge
of God."
We speak on the subject of both in the second book. In the meantime it
is enough for us, that while he wishes to honour and place himself in
heaven. he has confessed, as the nature of the matter is, in what
manner they are to be named who always stand beside God.
Therefore let men withdraw themselves from errors;
and laying aside corrupt superstitions, let them acknowledge their
Father and Lord, whose excellence cannot be estimated, nor His
greatness perceived, nor His beginning comprehended. When the earnest
attention of the human mind and its acute sagacity and memory has
reached Him, all ways being, as it were, summed up and
exhausted,(2) it stops, it is at a loss, it fails; nor is there
anything beyond to which it can proceed. But because that which exists
must of necessity have had a beginning, it follows that since there was
nothing before Him, He was produced from Himself before all things.
Therefore He is called by Apollo "self-produced," by the Sibyl
"self-created," "uncreated," and "unmade." And Seneca, an acute man,
saw and expressed this in his Exhortations. "We," he said, "are
dependent upon another." Therefore we took to some one to whom we owe
that which is most excellent in us. Another brought us into being,
another formed us; but God of His own power made Himself.
CHAP. VIII.--THAT GOD IS WITHOUT A BODY, NOR DOES HE NEED DIFFERENCE OF
SEX FOR PROCREATION.
It is proved, therefore, by these witnesses, so
numerous and of such authority, that the universe
18
is governed by the power and providence of one God, whose energy and
majesty Plato in the Timoeus asserts to be so great, that no one can
either conceive it in his mind, or give utterance to it in words, on
account of His surpassing and incalculable power. And then can any one
doubt whether any thing can be difficult or impossible for God, who by
His providence designed, by His energy established, and by His judgment
completed those works so great and wonderful, and even now sustains
them by His spirit, and governs them by His power, being
incomprehensible and unspeakable, and fully known to no other than
Himself? Wherefore, as I often reflect on the subject of such great
majesty, they who worship the gods sometimes appear so blind, so
incapable of reflection, so senseless, so little removed from the mute
animals, as to believe that those who are born from the natural
intercourse of the sexes could have had anything of majesty and divine
influence; since the Erythraean Sibyl says: "It is impossible for a God
to be fashioned from the loins of a man and the womb of a woman." And
if this is true, as it really is, it is evident that Hercules, Apollo,
Bacchus, Mercury, and Jupiter, with the rest, were but men, since they
were born from the two sexes. But what is so far removed from the
nature of God as that operation which He Himself assigned to mortals
for the propagation of their race, and which cannot be affected without
corporeal substance?
Therefore, if the gods are immortal and eternal,
what need is there of the other sex, when they themselves do not
require succession, since they are always about to exist? For assuredly
in the case of mankind and the other animals, there is no other reason
for difference of sex and procreation and bringing forth, except that
all classes of living creatures, inasmuch as they are doomed to death
by the condition of their mortality, may be preserved by mutual
succession. But God, who is immortal, has no need of difference of sex,
nor of succession. Some one will say that this arrangement is
necessary, in order that He may have some to minister to Him, or over
whom He may bear rule. What need is there of the female sex, since God,
who is almighty, is able to produce sons without the agency of the
female? For if He has granted to certain minute creatures(1) that
they
"Should gather offspring for themselves with their mouth
from leaves and sweet herbs,"
why should any one think it impossible for God Himself to have
offspring except by union with the other sex? No one, therefore, is so
thoughtless as not to understand that those were mere
mortals, whom the ignorant and foolish regard and worship as gods. Why,
then, some one will say, were they believed to be gods? Doubtless
because they were very great and powerful kings; and since, on account
of the merits of their virtues, or offices, or the arts which they
discovered, they were beloved by those over whom they had ruled, they
were consecrated to lasting, memory. And if any one doubts this, let
him consider their exploits and deeds, the whole of which both ancient
poets and historians have handed down.
CHAP. IX.--OF HERCULES
AND HIS LIFE AND DEATH.(2)
Did not Hercules, who is most renowned for his
valour, and who is regarded as an Africanus among the gods, by his
debaucheries, lusts, and adulteries, pollute the world, which he is
related to have traversed and purified? And no wonder, since he was
born from an adulterous intercourse with Alcmena.
What divinity could there have been in him, who,
enslaved to his own vices, against all laws, treated with infamy,
disgrace, and outrage, both males and females? Nor, indeed, are those
great and wonderful actions which he performed to be judged such as to
be thought worthy of being attributed to divine excellence. For what!
is it so magnificent if he overcame a lion and a boar; if he shot down
birds with arrows; if he cleansed a royal stable; if he conquered a
virago, and deprived her of her belt; if he slew savage horses together
with their master? These are the deeds of a brave and heroic man, but
still a man; for those things which he overcame were frail and
mortal. For there is no power so great, as the orator says, which
cannot be weakened and broken by iron and strength. But to conquer the
mind, and to restrain anger, is the part of the bravest man; and these
things he never did or could do: for one who does these things I do not
compare with excellent men, but I judge him to be most like to a god.
I could wish that he had added something on the
subject of lust, luxury, desire, and arrogance, so as to complete the
excellence of him whom he judged to be like to a god. For he is not to
be thought braver who overcomes a lion, than he who overcomes the
violent wild beast shut up within himself, viz. anger; or he who has
brought down most rapacious birds, than he who restrains most covetous
desires; or he who subdues a warlike Amazon, than he who subdues lust,
the vanquisher(3) of modesty and fame; or he who cleanses a stable from
dung, than he who cleanses his heart from vices, which are more
destructive
19
evils because they are peculiarly his own, than those which might have
been avoided and guarded against. From this it comes to pass, that he
alone ought to be judged a brave man who is temperate, moderate, and
just. But if any one considers what the works of God are, he will at
once judge all these things, which most trifling men admire, to be
ridiculous. For they measure them not by the divine power of which they
are ignorant, but by the weakness of their own strength. For no one
will deny this, that Hercules was not only a servant to Eurystheus, a
king, which to a certain extent may appear honourable, but also to an
unchaste woman, Omphale, who used to order him to sit at her feet,
clothed with her garments, and executing an appointed task. Detestable
baseness! But such was the price at which pleasure was valued. What!
some one will say, do you think that the poets are to be believed? Why
should I not think so? For it is not Lucilius who relates these things,
or Lucian, who spared not men nor gods, but these especially who sting
the praises of the gods.
Whom, then, shall we believe, if we do not credit
those who praise them? Let him who thinks that these speak. falsely
produce other authors on whom we may rely, who may teach us who these
gods are, in what manner and from what source they had their origin,
what is their strength, what their number, what their power, what there
is in them which is admirable and worthy of adoration--what mystery, in
short, more to be relied on, and more true. He will produce no such
authorities. Let us, then, give credence to those who did not speak for
the purpose of censure, but to proclaim their praise. He sailed, then,
with the Argonauts, and sacked Troy, being enraged with Laomedon on
account of the reward refused to him, by Laomedon, for the preservation
of his daughter, from which circumstance it is evident at what time he
lived. He also, excited by rage and madness, slew his wife, together
with his children. Is this he whom men consider a god? But his heir
Philoctetes did not so regard him, who applied a torch to him when
about to be burnt, who witnessed the burning and wasting of his limbs
and sinews, who buried his bones and ashes on Mount OEta, in return for
which office he received his arrows.
CHAP. X.--OF THE LIFE AND ACTIONS AESCULAPIUS, APOLLO, NEPTUNE,
MARS,CASTOR AND POLLUX, MERCURY AND BACCHUS.
What other action worthy of divine honours, except
the healing of Hippolytus, did Aesculapius perform, whose birth also
was not without disgrace to Apollo? His death was certainly
more renowned, because he earned the distinction of being struck with
lightning by a god. Tarquitius, in a dissertation concerning
illustrious men, says that he was born of uncertain parents, exposed,
and found by some hunters; that he was nourished by a dog, and that,
being delivered to Chiron, he learned the art of medicine. He says,
moreover, that he was a Messenian, but that he spent some time at
Epidaurus. Tully also says that he was buried at Cynosurae. What was
the conduct of Apollo, his father? Did he not, on account of his
impassioned love, most disgracefully tend the flock of another, and
build walls for Laomedon, having been hired together with Neptune for a
reward, which could with impunity be withheld from him? And from him
first the perfidious king learned to refuse to carry out whatever
contract he had made with gods. And he also, while in love with a
beautiful boy, offered violence to him, and while engaged in play, slew
him.
Mars, when guilty of homicide, and set free from the
charge of murder by the Athenians through favour, lest he should appear
to be too fierce and savage, committed adultery with Venus.
Castor and Pollux, while they are engaged in carrying off the wives of
others, ceased to be twin-brothers. For Idas, being excited with
jealousy on account of the injury, transfixed one of the brothers with
his sword. And the poets relate that they live and die alternately: so
that they are now the most wretched not only of the gods, but also of
all mortals, inasmuch as they are not permitted to die once only. And
yet Homer, differing from the other poets, simply records that they
both died. For when he represented Helen as sitting by the side of
Priam on the walls of Troy, and recognising all the chieftains of
Greece, but as looking in vain for her brothers only, he added to his
speech a verse of this kind:--
"Thus she; unconscious that in Sparta they,
Their native land, beneath the sod were laid."
What did Mercury, a thief and spendthrift, leave to contribute to his
fame, except the memory of his frauds? Doubtless he was deserving of
heaven, because he taught the exercises of the palaestra, and was the
first who invented the lyre.(1) It is necessary that Father Liber
should be of chief authority, and of the first rank in the senate of
the gods, because he was the only one of them all, except Jupiter, who
triumphed, led an army, and subdued the Indians. But that very great
and unconquered Indian commander was most shamefully overpowered by
love and lust. For, being conveyed to Crete with his effeminate
retinue, lie met with an unchaste woman on the shore; and in the
confidence inspired by his
20
Indian victory, he wished to give proof of his manliness, lest he
should appear too effeminate. And so he took to himself in marriage
that woman, the betrayer of her father, and the murderer of her
brother, after that she had been deserted and repudiated by another
husband; and he made her Libera, and with her ascended into heaven.
What was the conduct of Jupiter, the father of all
these, who in the customary prayer is styled(1) Most Excellent and
Great? Is he not, from his earliest childhood, proved to be impious,
and almost a parricide, since he expelled his father from his kingdom,
and banished him, and did not await his death though he was aged and
worn out, such was his eagerness for rule? And when he had taken his
father's throne by violence and arms, he was attacked with war by the
Titans, which was the beginning of evils to the human race; and
when these had been overcome and lasting peace procured, he spent the
rest of his life in debaucheries and adulteries. I forbear to mention
the virgins whom he dishonoured. For that is wont to be judged
endurable. I cannot pass by the cases of Amphitryon and Tyndarus, whose
houses he filled to overflowing with disgrace and infamy. But he
reached the height of impiety and guilt in carrying off the royal boy.
For it did not appear enough to cover himself with infamy in offering
violence to women, unless he also outraged his own sex. This is true
adultery, which is done against nature. Whether he who committed these
crimes can be called Greatest is a matter of question, undoubtedly he
is not the Best; to which name corrupters, adulterers, and incestuous
persons have no claim; unless it happens that we men are mistaken in
terming those who do such things wicked and abandoned, and in judging
them most deserving of every kind of punishment. But Marcus Tullius was
foolish in upbraiding Caius Verres with adulteries, for Jupiter, whom
he worshipped, committed the same; and in upbraiding Publius Clodius
with incest with his sister, for he who was Best and Greatest had the
same person both as sister and wife.
CHAP. XI.--OF THE ORIGIN, LIFE, REIGN, NAME AND DEATH OF JUPITER, AND
OF SATURN AND URANUS.(2)
Who, then, is so senseless as to imagine that he
reigns in heaven who ought not even to have reigned on earth? It was
not without humour that a certain poet wrote of the triumph of Cupid:
in which book he not only represented Cupid as the most powerful of the
gods, but
also as their conqueror. For having enumerated the loves of each, by
which they had come into the power and dominion of Cupid, he sets in
array a procession, in which Jupiter, with the other gods, is led in
chains before the chariot of him, celebrating a triumph. This is
elegantly pictured by the poet, but it is not far removed from the
truth. For he who is without virtue, who is overpowered by desire and
wicked lusts, is not, as the poet feigned, in subjection to Cupid, but
to everlasting death. But let us cease to speak concerning morals; let
us examine the matter, in order that men may understand in what errors
they are miserably engaged. The common people imagine that Jupiter
reigns in heaven; both learned and unlearned are alike persuaded of
this. For both religion itself, and prayers, and hymns, and shrines,
and images demonstrate this. And yet they admit that he was also
descended from Saturn and Rhea. How can he appear a god, or be
believed, as the poet says, to be the author of men and all things,
when innumerable thousands of men existed before his birth--those, for
instance, who lived during the reign of Saturn, and enjoyed the light
sooner than Jupiter? I see that one god was king in the earliest times,
and another in the times that followed. It is therefore possible that
there may be another hereafter. For if the former kingdom was changed,
why should we not expect that the latter may possibly be changed,
unless by chance it was possible for Saturn to produce one more
powerful than himself, but impossible for Jupiter so to do? And yet the
divine government is always unchangeable; or if it is changeable, which
is an impossibility, it is undoubtedly changeable at all times.
Is it possible, then, for Jupiter to lose his
kingdom as his father lost it? It is so undoubtedly. For when that
deity had spared neither virgins nor married women, he abstained from
Thetis only in consequence of an oracle which foretold that whatever
son should be born from her would be greater than his father. And first
of all there was in him a want of foreknowledge not befitting a god;
for had not Themis related to him future events, he would not have
known them of his own accord. But if he is not divine, he is not indeed
a god; for the name of divinity is derived from god, as humanity is
from man. Then there was a consciousness of weakness; but he who has
feared, must plainly have feared one greater than himself. But he who
does this assuredly knows that he is not the greatest, since something
greater can exist. He also swears most solemnly by the Stygian marsh:
"Which is set forth the sole object of religious dread to the gods
above." What is this object of religious dread? Or by whom is it set
forth?
21
Is there, then, some mighty power which may punish the gods who commit
perjury? What is this great dread of the infernal marsh, if they are
immortal? Why should they fear that which none are about to see, except
those who are bound by the necessity of death? Why, then, do men raise
their eyes to the heaven? Why do they swear by the gods above, when the
gods above themselves have recourse to the infernal gods, and find
among them an object of veneration and worship? But what is the meaning
of that saying, that there are fates whom all the gods and Jupiter
himself obey? If the power of the Parcae is so great, that they are of
more avail than all the heavenly gods, and their ruler and lord
himself, why should not they be rather said to reign, since necessity
compels all the gods to obey their laws and ordinances? Now, who can
entertain a doubt that he who is subservient to anything cannot be
greatest? For if he were so, he would not receive fates, but would
appoint them. Now I return to another subject which I had omitted. In
the case of one goddess only he exercised self-restraint, though he was
deeply enamoured of her; but this was not from any virtue, but through
fear of a successor. But this fear plainly denotes one who is both
mortal and feeble, and of no weight: for at the very hour of his birth
he might have been put to death, as his elder brother had been put to
death; and if it had been possible for him to have lived, he would
never have given up the supreme power to a younger brother. But Jupiter
himself having been preserved by stealth, and stealthily nourished, was
called Zeus, or Zen,(1) not, as they imagine, from the fervor of
heavenly fire, or because he is the giver of life, or because he
breathes life into living creatures, which power belongs to God alone;
for how can he impart the breath of life who has himself received it
from another source? But he was so called because he was the first who
lived of the male children of Saturn. Men, therefore, might have had
another god as their ruler, if Saturn had not been deceived by his
wife. But it will be said the poets reigned these things. Whoever
entertains this opinion is in error. For they spoke respecting men; but
in order that they might embellish those whose memory they used to
celebrate with praises, they said that they were gods. Those things,
therefore, which they spoke concerning them as gods were feigned, and
not those which they spoke concerning them as men and this will be
manifest from an instance which we will bring forward. When about to
offer violence to Danae, he poured into her lap a great quantity of
golden coins. This was the price which he paid for her dishonour. But
the poets
who spoke about him as a god, that they might not weaken the authority
of his supposed majesty, feigned that he himself descended in a shower
of gold, making use of the same figure with which they speak of showers
of iron when they describe a multitude of darts and arrows. He is said
to have carried away Ganymede by an eagle; it is a picture of the
poets. But he either carried him off by a legion, which has an eagle
for its standard; or the ship on board of which he was placed had its
tutelary deity in the shape of an eagle, just as it had the effigy of a
bull when he seized Europa and conveyed her across the sea. In the same
manner, it is related that he changed Io, the daughter of Inachus, into
a heifer. And in order that she might escape the anger of Juno, just as
she was, now covered with bristly hair, and in the shape of a heifer,
she is said to have swam over the sea, and to have come into Egypt; and
there, having recovered her former appearance, she became the goddess
who is now called Isis. By what argument, then, can it be proved that
Europa did not sit on the bull, and that Io was not changed into a
heifer? Because there is a fixed day in the annals on which the voyage
of Isis is celebrated; from which fact we learn that she did not swim
across the sea, but sailed over. Therefore they who appear to
themselves to be wise because they understand that there cannot be a
living and earthly body in heaven, reject the whole story of Ganymede
as false, and perceive that the occurrence took place on earth,
inasmuch as the matter and the lust itself is earthly. The poets did
not therefore invent these transactions, for if they were to do so they
would be most worthless; but they added a certain colour to the
transactions.(2) For it was not for the purpose of detraction that they
said these things, but from a desire to embellish them. Hence men are
deceived; especially because, while they think that all these things
are feigned by the poets, they worship that of which they are ignorant.
For they do not know what is the limit of poetic licence, how far it is
allowable to proceed in fiction, since it is the business of the poet
with some gracefulness to change and transfer actual occurrences into
other representations by oblique transformations. But to feign the
whole of that which you relate, that is to be foolish and deceitful
rather than to be a poet.
But grant that they reigned those things which are
believed to be fabulous, did they also feign those things which are
related about the female deities and the marriages of the gods? Why,
then, are they so represented, and so worshipped? unless by chance not
the poets only, but painters also, and statuaries, speak falsehoods.
For if
22
this is the Jupiter who is called by you a god, if it is not he who was
born from Saturn and Ops, no other image but his alone ought to have
been placed in all the temples. What meaning have the effigies of
women? What the doubtful sex? in which, if this Jupiter is represented,
the very stones will confess that he is a man. They say that the poets
have spoken falsely, and yet they believe them: yes, truly they prove
by the fact itself that the poets did not speak falsely; for they so
frame the images of the gods, that, from the very diversity of sex, it
appears that these things which the poets say are true. For what other
conclusion does the image of Ganymede and the effigy of the eagle admit
of, when they are placed before the feet of Jupiter in the temples, and
are worshipped equally with himself, except that the memory of impious
guilt and debauchery remains for ever? Nothing, therefore, is wholly
invented by the poets: something perhaps is transferred and obscured by
oblique fashioning, under which the truth was enwrapped and concealed;
as that which was related about the dividing of the kingdoms by lot.
For they say that the heaven fell to the share of Jupiter, the sea to
Neptune, and the infernal regions to Pluto. Why was not the earth
rather taken as the third portion, except that the transaction took
place on the earth? Therefore it is true that they so divided and
portioned out the government of the world, that the empire of the east
fell to Jupiter, a part of the west was allotted to Pluto, who had the
surname of Agesilaus; because the region of the east, from which light
is given to mortals, seems to be higher, but the region of the west
lower. Thus they so veiled the truth under a fiction, that the truth
itself detracted nothing from the public persuasion. It is manifest
concerning the share of Neptune; for we say that his kingdom resembled
that unlimited authority possessed by Mark Antony, to whom the senate
had decreed the power of the maritime coast, that he might punish the
pirates, and tranquillize the whole sea. Thus all the maritime coasts,
together with the islands, fell to the lot of Neptune. How can this be
proved? Undoubtedly ancient stories attest it. Euhemerus, an ancient
author, who was of the city of Messene, collected the actions of
Jupiter and of the others, who are esteemed gods, and composed a
history from the titles and sacred inscriptions which were in the most
ancient temples, and especially in the sanctuary of the Triphylian
Jupiter, where an inscription indicated that a golden column had been
placed by Jupiter himself, on which column he wrote an account of his
exploits, that posterity might have a memorial of his actions. This
history was translated and followed by Ennius, whose words are these:
"Where Jupiter gives to Neptune the government of the sea, that he
might reign in all the islands and places bordering on the sea."
The accounts of the poets, therefore, are true, but
veiled with an outward covering and show. It is possible that Mount
Olympus may have supplied the poets with the hint for saying that
Jupiter obtained the kingdom of heaven, because Olympus is the common
name both of the mountain and of heaven. But the same history informs
us that Jupiter dwelt on Mount Olympus, when it says: "At that time
Jupiter spent the greatest part of his life on Mount Olympus; and they
used to resort to him thither for the administration of justice, if any
matters were disputed. Moreover, if any one had found out any new
invention which might be useful for human life, he used to come thither
and display it to Jupiter." The poets transfer many things after this
manner, not for the sake of speaking falsely against the objects of
their worship, but that they may by variously coloured figures add
beauty and grace to their poems. But they who do not understand the
manner, or the cause, or the nature of that which is represented by
figure, attack the poets as false and sacrilegious. Even the
philosophers were deceived by this error; for because these things
which are related about Jupiter appeared unsuited to the character of a
god, they introduced two Jupiters, one natural, the other fabulous.
They saw, on the one hand, that which was true, that he, forsooth,
concerning whom the poets speak, was man; but in the case of that
natural Jupiter, led by the common practice of superstition, they
committed an error, inasmuch as they transferred the name of a man to
God, who, as we have already said, because He is one only, has no need
of a name. But it is undeniable that he is Jupiter who was born from
Ops and Saturn. It is therefore an empty persuasion on the part of
those who give the name of Jupiter to the Supreme God. For some are in
the habit of defending their errors by this excuse; for, when convinced
of the unity of God, since they cannot deny this, they affirm that they
worship Him, but that it is their pleasure that He should be called
Jupiter. But what can be more absurd than this? For Jupiter is not
accustomed to be worshipped without the accompanying worship of his
wife and daughter. From which his real nature is evident; nor is it
lawful for that name to be transferred thither,(1) where there is
neither any Minerva nor Juno. Why should I say that the peculiar
meaning of this name does not express a divine, but human power? For
Cicero explains the names Jupiter and Juno as being derived from giving
help;(2) and Jupiter is so called as if he were a helping father,--a
name which is ill adapted to God:
23
for to help is the part of a man conferring some aid upon one who is a
stranger, and in a case where the benefit is small. No one implores God
to help him, but to preserve him, to give him life and safety, which is
a much greater and more important matter than to help.
And since we are speaking of a father, no father is
said to help his sons when he begets or brings them up. For that
expression is too insignificant to denote the magnitude of the benefit
derived from a father. How ranch more unsuitable is it to God, who is
our true Father, by whom we exist, and whose we are altogether, by whom
we are formed, endued with life, and enlightened, who bestows upon us
life, gives us safety, and supplies us with various kinds of food! He
has no apprehension of the divine benefits who thinks that he is only
aided by God. Therefore he is not only ignorant, but impious, who
disparages the excellency of the supreme power under the name of
Jupiter. Wherefore, if both from his actions and character we have
proved that Jupiter was a man, and reigned on earth, it only remains
that we should also investigate his death. Ennius, in his sacred
history, having described all the actions which he performed in his
life, at the close thus speaks: Then Jupiter, when he had five times
made a circuit of the earth, and bestowed governments upon all
his friends and relatives, and left laws to men, provided them with a
settled mode of life and corn, and given them many other benefits, and
having been honoured with immortal glory and remembrance, left lasting
memorials to his friends, and when his age(1) was almost spent, he
changed(2) his life in Crete, and departed to the gods. And the
Curetes. his sons, took charge of him, and honoured him; and his tomb
is in Crete, in the town of Cnossus, and Vesta is said to have founded
this city; and on his tomb is an inscription in ancient Greek
characters, "Zan Kronou," which is in Latin. "Jupiter the son of
Saturn." This undoubtedly is not handed down by poets. but by writers
of ancient events; and these things are so true, that they are
confirmed by some verses of the Sibyls, to this effect:--
"Inanimate demons, images of the dead,
Whose tombs the ill-fated Crete possesses as a boast."
Cicero, in his treatise concerning the Nature of the
Gods, having said that three Jupiters were enumerated by theologians,
adds that the third was of Crete, the son of Saturn, and that his
tomb is shown in that island. How, therefore, can a god be alive
in one place, and dead in another; in one place have a temple, and in
another a tomb? Let the Romans then know that their Capitol, that
is the chief head of their
objects of public veneration, is nothing but an empty monument.
Let us now come to his father who reigned before
him, and who perhaps had more power in himself, because he is said to
be born from the meeting of such great elements. Let us see what there
was in him worthy of a god, especially that he is related to have had
the golden age, because in his reign there was justice in the earth. I
find something in him which was not in his son. For what is so
befitting the character of a god, as a just government and an age of
piety? But when, on the same principle, I reflect that he is a son, I
cannot consider him as the Supreme God; for I see that there is
something more ancient than himself,--namely, the heaven and the earth.
But I am in search of a God beyond whom nothing has any existence, who
is the source and origin of all things. He must of necessity exist who
framed the heaven itself, and laid the foundations of the earth. But if
Saturn was born from these, as it is supposed, how can he be the chief
God, since he owes his origin to another? Or who presided over the
universe before the birth of Saturn? But this, as I recently said, is a
fiction of the poets. For it was impossible that the senseless
elements, which are separated by so long an interval, should meet
together and give birth to a son, or that he who was born should not at
all resemble his parents, but should have a form which his parents did
not possess.
Let us therefore inquire what degree of truth lies
hid under this figure. Minucius Felix, in his treatise which has the
title of Octavius,(3) alleged these proofs: "That Saturn, when he had
been banished by his son, and had come into Italy, was called the son
of Coelus (heaven), because we are accustomed to say that those whose
virtue we admire, or those who have unexpectedly arrived, have fallen
from heaven; and that he was called the son of earth, because we name
those who are born from unknown parents sons of earth." These things,
indeed, have some resemblance to the truth, but are not true, because
it is evident that even during his reign he was so esteemed. He might
have argued thus: That Saturn, being a very powerful king, in order
that the memory of his parents might be preserved, gave their names to
the heaven and earth, whereas these were before called by other names,
for which reason we know that names were applied both to mountains and
rivers. For when the poets speak of the offspring of Atlas, or of the
river Inachus, they do not absolutely say that men could possibly be
born from inanimate objects; but they undoubtedly indicate those who
were born from those men, who either during their lives or after their
death gave their
24
names to mountains or rivers. For that was a common practice among the
ancients, and especially among the Greeks. Thus we have heard that seas
received the names of those who had fallen into them, as the Aegean,
the Icarian, and the Hellespont. In Latium, also, Aventinus gave his
name to the mountain on which he was buried; and Tiberinus, or Tiber,
gave his name to the river in which he was drowned. No wonder, then, if
the names of those who had given birth to most powerful kings were
attributed to the heaven and earth. Therefore it appears that Saturn
was not born from heaven, which is impossible, but from that man who
bore the name of Uranus. And Trismegistus attests the truth of this;
for when he said that very few had existed in whom there was perfect
learning, he mentioned by name among these his relatives, Uranus,
Saturn, and Mercury. And because he was ignorant of these things, he
gave another account of the matter; how he might have argued, I have
shown. Now I will say in what manner, at what time, and by whom this
was done; for it was not Saturn who did this, but Jupiter. Ennius thus
relates in his sacred history: "Then Pan leads him to the mountain,
which is called the pillar of heaven. Having ascended thither, he
surveyed the lands far and wide, and there on that mountain he builds
an altar to Coelus; and Jupiter was the first who offered sacrifice on
that altar. In that place he looked up to heaven, by which name we now
call it, and that which was above the world which was called the
firmament,(1) and he gave to the heaven its name from the name of his
grandfather; and Jupiter in prayer first gave the name of heaven to
that which was called firmament,(1) and he burnt entire the victim
which he there offered in sacrifice." Nor is it here only that Jupiter
is found to have offered sacrifice. Caesar also, in Aratus, relates
that Aglaosthenes says that when he was setting out from the island of
Naxos against the Titans, and was offering sacrifice on the shore, an
eagle flew to Jupiter as an omen, and that the victor received it as a
good token, and placed it under his own protection. But the sacred
history testifies that even beforehand an eagle had sat upon his head,
and portended to him the kingdom. To whom, then, could Jupiter have
offered sacrifice, except to his grandfather Coelus, who, according to
the saying of Euhemerus,(2) died in Oceania, and was buried in the town
of Aulatia?
CHAP. XII.--THAT THE STOICS TRANSFER THE FIGMENTS OF THE POETS TO A
PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM.
Since we have brought to light the mysteries of the
poets, and have found out the parents of Saturn, let us return to his
virtues and actions. He was, they say, just in his rule. First, from
this very circumstance he is not now a god, inasmuch as he has ceased
to be. In the next place, he was not even just, but impious not only
towards his sons, whom he devoured, but also towards his father, whom
he is said to have mutilated. And this may perhaps have happened in
truth. But men, having regard to the element which is called the
heaven, reject the whole fable as most foolishly invented; though the
Stoics, (according to their custom) endeavour to transfer it to a
physical system, whose opinion Cicero has laid down in his treatise
concerning the Nature of the Gods. They held, he says, that the highest
and ethereal nature of heaven, that is, of fire, which by itself
produced all things, was without that part of the body which contained
the productive organs. Now this theory might have been suitable to
Vesta, if she were called a male. For it is on this account that they
esteem Vesta to be a virgin, inasmuch as fire is an incorruptible
element; and nothing can be born from it, since it consumes all things,
whatever it has seized upon. Ovid in the Fasti says:(3) "Nor do you
esteem Vesta to be anything else than a living flame; and you see no
bodies produced from flame. Therefore she is truly a virgin, for she
sends forth no seed, nor receives it, and loves the attendants of
virginity."
This also might have been ascribed to Vulcan, who
indeed is supposed to be fire, and yet the poets did not mutilate him.
It might also have been ascribed to the sun, in whom is the nature and
cause of the productive powers. For without the fiery heat of the sun
nothing could be born, or have increase; so that no other element has
greater need of productive organs than heat, by the nourishment of
which all things are conceived, produced, and supported. Lastly, even
if the case were as they would have it, why should we suppose that
Coelus was mutilated, rather than that he was born without productive
organs? For if he produces by himself, it is plain that he had no need
of productive organs, since he gave birth to Saturn himself; but if he
had them, and suffered mutilation from his son, the origin of all
things and all nature would have perished. Why should I say that they
deprive Saturn himself not only of divine, but also of human
intelligence, when they affirm that Saturn is he who comprises the
course and change of the spaces and seasons, and that he has that very
25
name in Greek? For he is called Cronos, which is the same as Chronos,
that is, a space of time. But he is called Saturn, because he is
satiated with years. These are the words of Cicero, setting forth the
opinion of the Stoics: "The worthlessness of these things any one may
readily understand. For if Saturn is the son of Coelus, how could Time
have been born from Coelus, or Coelus have been mutilated by Time, or
afterwards could Time have been despoiled of his sovereignty by his son
Jupiter? Or how was Jupiter born from Time? Or with what years could
eternity be satiated, since it has no limit?"(1)
CHAP. XIII.- HOW VAIN AND TRIFLING ARE THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
STOICS RESPECTING THE GODS, AND IN THEM CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF
JUPITER, CONCERNING SATURN AND OPS.
If therefore these speculations of the philosophers
are trifling, what remains, except that we believe it to be a matter of
fact that, being a man, he suffered mutilation from a man? Unless by
chance any one esteems him as a god who feared a co-heir; whereas, if
he had possessed any divine knowledge, he ought not to have mutilated
his father, but himself, to prevent the birth of Jupiter, who deprived
him of the possession of his kingdom. And he also, when he had married
his sister Rhea, whom in Latin we call Ops, is said to have been warned
by an oracle not to bring up his male children, because it would come
to pass that he should be driven into banishment by a son. And being in
fear of this, it is plain that he did not devour his sons, as the
fables report, but put them to death; although it is written in sacred
history that Saturn and Ops, and other men, were at that time
accustomed to eat human flesh, but that Jupiter, who gave to men laws
and civilization, was the first who by an edict prohibited the use of
that food. Now if this is true, what justice can there possibly have
been in him? But let us suppose it to be a fictitious story that Saturn
devoured his sons, only true after a certain fashion; must we then
suppose, with the vulgar, that he has eaten his sons, who has carried
them out to burial? But when Ops had brought forth Jupiter, she stole
away the infant, and secretly sent him into Crete to be nourished.
Again, I cannot but blame his want of foresight. For why did he receive
an oracle from another, and not from himself? Being placed in heaven,
why did he not see the things which were taking place on earth? Why did
the Corybantes with their cymbals escape his notice? Lastly, why did
there exist any greater force which might overcome his power?
Doubtless, being aged, he was easily
overcome by one who was young, and despoiled of his sovereignty. He was
therefore banished and went into exile; and after long wanderings came
into Italy in a ship, as Ovid relates in his Fasti:--
"The cause of the ship remains to be explained. The
scythe-bearing god came to the Tuscan river in a ship, having first
traversed the world."
Janus received him wandering and destitute; and the
ancient coins are a proof of this, on which there is a representation
of Janus with a double face, and on the other side a ship; as the same
poet adds:--
"But pious posterity represented a ship on the coin,
bearing testimony to the arrival of the stranger god."
Not only therefore all the poets, but the writers
also of ancient histories and events, agree that he was a man, inasmuch
as they handed down to memory his actions in Italy: of Greek writers,
Diodorus and Thallus; of Latin writers, Nepos, Cassius, and Varro. For
since men lived in Italy after a rustic fashion,(2)--
"He brought the race to union first,
Erewhile on mountain tops dispersed,
And gave them statutes to obey,
And willed the land wherein he lay
Should Latium's title bear."
Does any one imagine him to be a god, who was driven into banishment,
who fled, who lay hid? No one is so senseless. For he who flees, or
lies hid, must fear both violence and death. Orpheus, who lived in more
recent times than his, openly relates that Saturn reigned on earth and
among men:--
"First Cronus
ruled o'er men on earth,
And then
from Cronus sprung the mighty king,
The widely
sounding Zeus."
And also our own Maro says:(3)--
"This life the
golden Saturn led on earth;"
and in another place:(4)--
"That was the storied age of gold,
So peacefully, serenely rolled
The years beneath his reign."
The poet did not say in the former passage that he led this life in
heaven, nor in the latter passage that he reigned over the gods above.
From which it appears that he was a king on earth; and this he declares
more plainly in another place:(5)--
"Restorer of the age of gold,
In lands where Saturn ruled of old."
26
Ennius, indeed, in his translation of Euhemerus says that Saturn was
not the first who reigned, but his father Uranus. In the beginning, he
says, Coelus first had the supreme power on the earth. He instituted
and prepared that kingdom in conjunction with his brothers. There is no
great dispute, if there is doubt, on the part of the greatest
authorities respecting the son and the father. But it is possible that
each may have happened: that Uranus first began to be pre-eminent in
power among the rest, and to have the chief place, but not the kingdom;
and that afterwards Saturn acquired greater resources, and took the
title of king.
CHAP. XIV.--WHAT THE SACRED HISTORY OF EUHEMERUS AND ENNIUS TEACHES
CONCERNING THE GODS.
Now, since the sacred history differs in some degree
from those things which we have related, let us open those things which
are contained in the true writings, that we may not, in accusing
superstitions, appear to follow and approve of the follies of the
poets. These are the words of Ennius: "Afterwards Saturn married Ops.
Titan, who was older than Saturn, demands the kingdom for himself. Upon
this their mother Vesta, and their sisters Ceres and Ops, advise Saturn
not to give up the kingdom to his brother. Then Titan, who was inferior
in person to Saturn, on that account, and because he saw that his
mother and sisters were using their endeavours that Saturn might reign,
yielded the kingdom to him. He therefore made an agreement with Saturn,
that if any male children should be born to him, he would not bring
them up. He did so for this purpose, that the kingdom might return to
his own sons. Then, when a son was first born to Saturn, they slew him.
Afterwards twins were born, Jupiter and Juno. Upon this they present
Juno to the sight of Saturn, and secretly hide Jupiter, and give him to
Vesta to be brought up, concealing him from Saturn. Ops also brings
forth Neptune without the knowledge of Saturn, and secretly hides him.
In the same manner Ops brings forth twins by a third birth, Pluto and
Glauca. Pluto in Latin is Dispater; others call him Orcus. Upon this
they show to Saturn the daughter Glauca, and conceal and hide the son
Pluto. Then Glauca dies while yet young." This is the lineage of
Jupiter and his brothers, as these things are written, and the
relationship is handed down to us after this manner from the sacred
narrative. Also shortly afterwards he introduces these things: "Then
Titan, when he learned that sons were born to Saturn, and secretly
brought up, secretly takes with him his sons, who are called Titans,
and seizes his brother Saturn and Ops, and encloses
them within a wall, and places over them a guard."
The truth of this history is taught by the
Erythraean Sibyl, who speaks almost the same things, with a few
discrepancies, which do not affect the subject-matter itself. Therefore
Jupiter is freed from the charge of the greatest wickedness, according
to which he is reported to have bound his father with fetters; for this
was the deed of his uncle Titan, because he, contrary to his promise
and oath, had brought up male children. The rest of the history is thus
put together. It is said that Jupiter, when grown up, having heard that
his father and mother had been surrounded with a guard and imprisoned,
came with a great multitude of Cretans, and conquered Titan and his
sons in an engagement, and rescued his parents from imprisonment,
restored the kingdom to his father, and thus returned into Crete. Then,
after these things, they say that an oracle was given to Saturn,
bidding him to take heed lest his son should expel him from the
kingdom; that he, for the sake of weakening the oracle and avoiding the
danger, laid an ambush for Jupiter to kill him; that Jupiter, having
learned the plot, claimed the kingdom for himself afresh, and banished
Saturn; and that he, when he had been tossed over all lands, followed
by armed men whom Jupiter had sent to seize or put him to death,
scarcely found a place of concealment in Italy.
CHAP. XV.--HOW THEY WHO WERE
MEN OBTAINED THE NAME OF GODS.
Now, since it is evident from these things that they
were men, it is not difficult to see in what I manner they began to be
called gods.(1) For if there were no kings before Saturn or Uranus, on
account of the small number of men who lived a rustic life without any
ruler, there is no doubt but in those times men began to exalt the king
himself, and his whole family, with the highest praises and with new
honours, so that they even called them gods; whether on account of
their wonderful excellence, men as yet rude and simple really
entertained this opinion, or, as is commonly the case, in flattery of
present power, or on account of the benefits by which they were set in
order and reduced to a civilized state. Afterwards the kings
themselves, since they were beloved by those whose life they had
civilized, after their death left regret of themselves. Therefore men
formed images of them, that they might derive some consolation from the
contemplation of their likenesses; and proceeding further through love
of their worth,(2) they began to reverence the memory of the deceased,
that
27
they might appear to be grateful for their services, and might attract
their successors to a desire of ruling well. And this Cicero teaches in
his treatise on the Nature of the Gods, saying "But the life of men and
common intercourse led to the exalting to heaven by fame and goodwill
men who were distinguished by their benefits. On this account Hercules,
on this Castor and Pollux, Aesculapius and Liber" were ranked with the
gods. And in another passage: "And in most states it may be understood,
that for the sake of exciting valour, or that the men most
distinguished for bravery might more readily encounter danger on
account of the state, their memory was consecrated with the honour paid
to the immortal gods." It was doubtless on this account that the Romans
consecrated their Caesars, and the Moors their kings. Thus by degrees
religious honours began to be paid to them; while those who had known
them, first instructed their own children and grandchildren, and
afterwards all their posterity, in the practice of this rite. And yet
these great kings, on account of the celebrity of their name, were
honoured in all provinces.
But separate people privately honoured the founders
of their nation or city with the highest veneration, whether they were
men distinguished for bravery, or women admirable for chastity; as the
Egyptians honoured Isis, the Moors Juba, the Macedonians Cabirus, the
Carthaginians Uranus, the Latins Faunus, the Sabines Sancus, the Romans
Quirinus. In the same manner truly Athens worshipped Minerva, Samos
Juno, Paphos Venus, Lemnos Vulcan, Naxos Liber, and Delos Apollo. And
thus various sacred rites have been undertaken among different peoples
and countries, inasmuch as men desire to show gratitude to their
princes, and cannot find out other honours which they may confer upon
the dead. Moreover, the piety of their successors contributed in a
great degree to the error; for, in order that they might appear to be
born from a divine origin, they paid divine honours to their parents,
and ordered that they should be paid by others. Can any one doubt in
what way the honours paid to the gods were instituted, when he reads in
Virgil the words of Aeneas giving commands to his friends:(1)--
"Now with full cups
libation pour
To mighty Jove,
whom all adore,
Invoke Anchises'
blessed soul."
And he attributes to him not only immortality, but also power over the
winds:(2)--
"Invoke the winds to
speed our flight,
And pray that he
we hold so dear
May take our
offerings year by year,
Soon as our
promised town we raise,
In temples
sacred to his praise."
In truth, Liber and Pan, and Mercury and Apollo, acted in the same way
respecting Jupiter, and afterwards their successors did the same
respecting them. The poets also added their influence, and by means of
poems composed to give pleasure, raised them to the heaven; as is the
case with those who flatter kings, even though wicked, with false
panegyrics. And this evil originated with the Greeks, whose levity
being furnished with the ability and copiousness of speech, cited in an
incredible degree mists of falsehoods. And thus from admiration of them
they first undertook their sacred rites, and handed them down to all
nations. On account of this vanity the Sibyl thus rebukes them:--
"Why trustest thou, O Greece, to princely men?
Why to the dead dost offer empty gifts?
Thou offerest to idols; this error who suggested,
That thou shouldst leave the presence of the mighty God,
And make these offerings?"
Marcus Tullius, who was not only an accomplished
orator, but also a philosopher, since he alone was an imitator of
Plato, in that treatise in which he consoled himself concerning the
death of his daughter, did not hesitate to say that those gods who were
publicly worshipped were men. And this testimony of his ought to be
esteemed the more weighty, because he held the priesthood of the
augurs, and testifies that he worships and venerates the same gods. And
thus within the compass of a few verses he has presented us with two
facts. For while he declared his intention of consecrating the image of
his daughter in the same manner in which they were consecrated by the
ancients, he both taught that they were dead, and showed the origin of
a vain superstition. "Since, in truth,"
he says, "we see many men and women among the number of the gods, and
venerate their shrines, held in the greatest honour in cities and in
the country, let us assent to the wisdom of those to whose talents and
inventions we owe it that life is altogether adorned with laws and
institutions, and established on a firm basis. And if any living being
was worthy of being consecrated, assuredly it was this. If the
offspring of Cadmus, or Amphitryon, or Tyndarus, was worthy of being
extolled by fame to the heaven, the same honour ought undoubtedly to be
appropriated to her. And this indeed I will do; and with the
approbation of the gods, I will place you the best and most learned of
all women in their assembly. and will consecrate you to the estimation
of men." Some one may perhaps say that Cicero raved through excessive
grief. But, in truth, the whole of that speech, which was perfect both
in learning and in its examples, and in the very style of expression,
gave no indications of a dis-
28
tempered mind, but of constancy and judgment; and this very sentence
exhibits no sign of grief. For I do not think that he could have
written with such variety, and copiousness, and ornament, had not his
grief been mitigated by reason itself, and the consolation of his
friends and length of time. Why should I mention what he says in his
books concerning the Republic, and also concerning glory? For in his
treatise on the Laws, in which work, following the example of Plato, he
wished to set forth those laws which he thought that a just and wise
state would employ, he thus decreed concerning religion:(1) "Let them
reverence the gods, both those who have always been regarded as gods of
heaven, and those whose services to men have placed them in heaven:
Hercules, Liber, Aesculapius, Castor, Pollux, and Quirinus." Also in
his Tusculan Disputations,(2) when he said that heaven was almost
entirely filled with the human race, he said: "If, indeed, I should
attempt to investigate ancient accounts, and to extract from them those
things which the writers of Greece have handed down, even those who are
held in the highest rank as gods will be found to have gone from us
into heaven. Inquire whose sepulchres are pointed out in Greece:
remember, since you are initiated, what things are handed down in the
mysteries; and then at length you will understand how widely this
persuasion is spread." He appealed, as it is plain, to the conscience
of Atticus, that it might he understood from the very mysteries that
all those who are worshipped were men; and when he acknowledged this
without hesitation in the case of Hercules, Liber, Aesculapius, Castor
and Pollux, he was afraid openly to make the same admission respecting
Apollo and Jupiter their fathers, and likewise respecting Neptune,
Vulcan, Mars, and Mercury, whom he termed the greater gods; and
therefore he says that this opinion is widely spread, that we may
understand the same concerning Jupiter and the other more ancient gods:
for if the ancients consecrated their memory in the same manner in
which he says that he will consecrate the image and the name of his
daughter, those who mourn may be pardoned, but those who believe it
cannot be pardoned. For who is so infatuated as to believe that heaven
is opened to the dead at the consent and pleasure of a senseless
multitude? Or that any one is able to give to another that which he
himself does not possess? Among the Romans, Julius was made a god,
because it pleased a guilty man, Antony; Quirinus was made a god,
because it seemed good to the shepherds, though one of them was the
murderer of his twin brother, the other the destroyer of his country.
But if Antony had not
been consul, in return for his services towards the state Caius Caesar
would have been without the honour even of a dead man, and that, too,
by the advice of his father-in-law Piso, and of his relative Lucius
Caesar, who opposed the celebration of the funeral, and by the advice
of Dolabella the consul, who overthrew the column in the forum, that
is, his monuments, and purified the forum. For Ennius declares that
Romulus was regretted by his people, since he represents the people as
thus speaking, through grief for their lost king: "O Romulus, Romulus,
say what a guardian of your country the gods produced you? You brought
us forth within the regions of light. O father, O sire, O race,
descended from the gods." On account of this regret they more readily
believed Julius Proculus uttering falsehoods, who was suborned by the
fathers to announce to the populace that he had seen the king in a form
more majestic than that of a man; and that he had given command to the
people that a temple should be built to his honour, that he was a god,
and was called by the name of Quirinus. By which deed he at once
persuaded the people that Romulus had gone to the gods, and freed the
senate from the suspicion of having slain the king.
CHAP, XVI.--BY WHAT ARGUMENT IT IS PROVED THAT THOSE
WHO ARE DISTINGUISHED BY A DIFFERENCE OF SEX CANNOT BE GODS.(3)
I might be content with those things which I
have related, but there still remain many things which are
necessary for the work which I have undertaken. For although, by
destroying the principal part of superstitions, I have taken away the
whole, yet it pleases me to follow up the remaining parts, and more
fully to refute so inveterate a persuasion, that men may at length be
ashamed and repent of their errors. This is a great undertaking, and
worthy of a man. "I proceed to release the minds of men from the ties
of superstitions," as Lucretius(4) says; and be indeed was unable to
effect this, because he brought forward nothing true. This is our duty,
who both assert the existence of the true God and refute false deities.
They, therefore, who entertain the opinion that the poets have invented
fables about the gods, and yet believe in the existence of female
deities, and worship them, are unconciously brought back to that which
they had denied--that they have sexual intercourse, and bring forth.
For it is impossible that the two sexes can have been instituted except
for the sake of generation. But a difference of sex being admitted,
they do not perceive that conception follows as a consequence. And this
cannot
29
be the case with a God. But let the matter be as they imagine; for they
say that there are sons of Jupiter and of the other gods. Therefore new
gods are born, and that indeed daily, for gods are not surpassed in
fruitfulness by men. It follows that all things are full of gods
without number, since forsooth none of them dies. For since the
multitude of men is incredible, and their number not to be
estimated--though, as they are born, they must of necessity die--what
must we suppose to be the case with the gods who have been born through
so many ages, and have remained immortal? How is it, then, that so few
are worshipped? Unless we think by any means that there are two sexes
of the gods, not for the sake of generation, but for mere
gratification, and that the gods practise those things which men are
ashamed to do, and to submit to. But when any are said to be born from
any, it follows that they always continue to be born, if they are born
at any time; or if they ceased at any time to be born, it is befitting
that we should know why or at what time they so ceased. Seneca, in his
books of moral philosophy, not without some plesantry, asks, "What is
the reason why Jupiter, who is represented by the poets as most
addicted to lust, ceased to beget children? Was it that he was become a
sexagenarian, and was restrained by the Papian law?(1) Or did he obtain
the privileges conferred by having three children? Or did the sentiment
at length occur to him, 'What you have done to another, you may expect
from another;' and does he fear lest any one should act towards him as
he himself did to Saturn?" But let those who maintain that they are
gods, see in what manner they can answer this argument which I shall
bring forward. If there are two sexes of the gods, conjugal
intercourse follows; and if this takes place, they must have houses,
for they are not without virtue and a sense of shame, so as to do this
openly and promiscuously, as we see that the brute animals do. If they
have houses, it follows that they also have cities; and for this we
have the authority of Ovid, who says, "The multitude of gods occupy
separate places; in this front the powerful and illustrious inhabitants
of heaven have placed their dwellings." If they have cities, they will
also have fields. Now who cannot see the consequence,--namely, that
they plough and cultivate their lands? And this is done for the sake of
food. Therefore they are mortal. And this argument is of the same
weight when reversed. For if they have no lands, they have no cities;
and if they have no cities, they are also without houses. And if they
have no houses, they have no conjugal intercourse; and if they are
without this, they have no female sex. But
we see that there are females among the gods also. Therefore there are
not gods. If any one is able, let him do away with this argument. For
one thing so follows the other, that it is impossible not to admit
these last things. But no one will refute even the former argument. Of
the two sexes the one is stronger, the other weaker. For the males are
more robust, the females more feeble. But a god is not liable to
feebleness; therefore there is no female sex. To this is added
that last conclusion of the former argument, that there are no gods,
since there are females also among the gods.
CHAP. XVII.--CONCERNING THE SAME OPINION OF THE STOICS, AND CONCERNING
THE HARDSHIPS AND DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF THE GODS.
On these accounts the Stoics form a different
conception of the gods; and because they do not perceive what the truth
is, they attempt to join them with the system of natural things. And
Cicero, following them, brought forward this opinion respecting the
gods and their religions. Do you see then, he says, how an argument has
been drawn from physical subjects which have been well and usefully
found out, to the existence of false and fictitious gods? And this
circumstance gave rise to false opinions and turbulent errors, and
almost old-womanly superstitions. For both the forms of the gods, and
their ages, and clothing and ornaments, are known to us; and moreover
their races, and marriages, and all their relationships, and all things
reduced to the similitude of human infirmity. What can be said more
plain, more true? The chief of the Roman philosophy, and invested with
the most honourable priesthood, refutes the false and fictitious gods,
and testifies that their worship consists of almost old-womanly
superstitions: he complains that men are entangled in false opinions
and turbulent errors. For the whole of his third book respecting the
Nature of the Gods altogether overthrows and destroys all religion.
What more, therefore, is expected from us? Can we surpass Cicero in
eloquence? By no means; but confidence was wanting to him, being
ignorant of the truth, as he himself simply acknowledges in the same
work. For he says that he can more easily say what is not, than what
is; that is, that he is aware that the received system is false, but is
ignorant of the truth.(2) It is plain, therefore, that those who are
supposed to be gods were but men, and that their memory was consecrated
after their death. And on this account also different ages and
established representations of form are assigned to each, be-
30
cause their images were fashioned in that dress and of that age at
which death arrested each.
Let us consider, if you please, the hardships of the
unfortunate gods. Isis lost her son; Ceres her daughter; Latona,
expelled and driven about over the earth, with difficulty found a small
island(1) where she might bring forth. The mother of the gods both
loved a beautiful youth, and also mutilated him when found in company
with a harlot; and on this account her sacred rites are now celebrated
by the Galli(2) as priests. Juno violently persecuted harlots, because
she was not able to conceive by her brother.(3) Varro writes, that the
island Samos was before called Parthenia, because Juno there grew up,
and there also was married to Jupiter. Accordingly there is a most
noble and ancient temple of hers at Samos, and an image fashioned in
the dress of a bride; and her annual sacred rites are celebrated after
the manner of a marriage. If, therefore, she grew up, if she was at
first a virgin and afterwards a woman, he who does not understand that
she was a human being confesses himself a brute. Why should I speak of
the lewdness of Venus, who ministered to the lusts of all, not only
gods, but also men? For from her infamous debauchery with Mars she
brought forth Harmonia; from Mercury she brought forth Hermaphroditus,
who was born of both sexes; from Jupiter Cupid; from Anchines AEneas;
from Butes Eryx; from Adonis she could bring forth no offspring,
because he was struck by a boar, and slain, while yet a boy. And she
first instituted the art of courtesanship, as is contained in the
sacred history; and taught women in Cyprus to seek gain by
prostitution, which she commanded for this purpose, that she alone
might not appear unchaste and a courter of men beyond other females.
Has she, too, any claim to religious worship, on whose part more
adulteries are recorded than births? But not even were those virgins
who are celebrated able to preserve their chastity inviolate. For from
what source can we suppose that Erichthonius was born? Was it from the
earth, as the poets would have it appear? But the circumstance itself
cries out. For when Vulcan had made arms for the gods, and Jupiter had
given him the option of asking for whatever reward he might wish, and
had sworn, according to his custom, by the infernal lake, that he would
refuse him nothing which he might ask, then the lame artificer demanded
Minerva in marriage. Upon this the excellent and mighty Jupiter, being
bound by so great an oath, was not able to refuse; he, however, advised
Minerva to oppose and defend her chastity. Then in that
struggle they say that Vulcan shed his seed upon the earth, from which
source Erichthonius was born: and that this name was given to him from
<greek>eridos</greek> and
<greek>kqonos</greek>, that is, from the contest and
the ground. Why, then, did she, a virgin, entrust that boy
shut up with a dragon and sealed to three virgins born from Cecrops? An
evident case of incest, as I think, which can by no means be glossed
over. Another, when she had almost lost her lover, who was torn to
pieces by his madened horses, called in the most excellent physician
AEsculapius for the treatment of the youth; and when he was healed,
"Trivia kind her favourite bides,
And to Egeria's care confides,
To live in woods obscure and lone,
And lose in Virbius' name his own."(4)
What is the meaning of this so diligent and anxious care? Why this
secret abode? Why this banishment, either to so great a distance, or to
a woman, or into solitude? Why, in the next place, the change of name?
Lastly, why such a determined hatred of horses? What do all these
things imply, but the consciousness of dishonour, and a love by no
means consistent with a virgin? There was evidently a reason why she
undertook so great a labour for a youth so faithful, who had
refused compliance with the love of his stepmother.
CHAP. XVIII.--ON THE CONSECRATION OF GODS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE BENEFITS
WHICH THEY CONFERRED UPON MEN.
In this place also they are to be refuted, who not
only admit that gods have been made from men, but even boast of it as a
subject of praise, either on account of their valour, as Hercules, or
of their gifts, as Ceres and Liber, or of the arts which they
discovered, as AEsculapius or Minerva. But how foolish these things
are, and how unworthy of being the causes why men should contaminate
themselves with inexpiable guilt, and become enemies to God, in
contempt of whom they undertake offerings to the dead, I will show from
particular instances. They say that it is virtue(5) which exalts man to
heaven,--not, however, that concerning which philosophers discuss,
which consists in goods of the soul, but this connected with the body,
which is called fortitude; and since this was pre-eminent in Hercules,
it is believed to have deserved immortality. Who is so foolishly
senseless as to judge strength of body to be a divine or even a human
good, when it has been assigned in greater measure to cattle, and it is
often impaired by one disease, or is lessened by old age
31
itself, and altogether fails? And so Hercules, when he perceived that
his muscles were disfigured by ulcers, neither wished to be healed nor
to grow old, that he might not at any time appear to have less strength
or comeliness than he once had.(1) They supposed that he ascended into
heaven from the funeral pile on which he had burnt himself alive; and
those very qualities which they most foolishly admired, they expressed
by statues and images, and consecrated, so that they might for ever
remain as memorials of the folly of those who had believed that gods
owed their origin to the slaughter of beasts. But this, perchance, may
be the fault of the Greeks, who always esteemed most trifling things as
of the greatest consequence. What is the case of our own countrymen?
Are they more wise? For they despise valour in an athlete, because it
produces no injury; but in the case of a king, because it occasions
widely-spread disasters, they so admire it as to imagine that brave and
warlike generals are admitted to the assembly of the gods, and that
there is no other way to immortality than to lead armies, to lay waste
the territory of others, to destroy cities, to overthrow towns, to put
to death or enslave free peoples. Truly the greater number of men they
have cast down, plundered, and slain, so much the more noble and
distinguished do they think themselves; and ensnared by the show of
empty glory, they give to their crimes the name of virtue. I would
rather that they should make to themselves gods from the slaughter of
wild beasts, than approve of an immortality so stained with blood. If
any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and
wicked, nor do they think it lawful for him to be admitted to this
earthly abode of the gods. But he who has slaughtered countless
thousands of men, has inundated plains with blood, and infected rivers,
is not only admitted into the temple, but even into heaven. In Ennius
Africanus thus speaks: "If it is permitted any one to ascend to the
regions of the gods above, the greatest gate of heaven is open to me
alone." Because, in truth, he extinguished and destroyed a great part
of the human race. Oh how great the darkness in which you were
involved, O Africanus, or rather O poet, in that you imagined
the ascent to heaven to be open to men through slaughters
and bloodshed! And Cicero also assented to this delusion. It is so in
truth, he said, O Africanus, for the same gate was open to Hercules; as
though he himself had been doorkeeper in heaven at the time when this
took place. I indeed cannot determine whether I should think it a
subject of grief or of ridicule, when I see grave and learned, and, as
they appear to themselves, wise men, involved in such miserable waves
of errors. If this is the virtue which renders us immortal, I for my
part should prefer to die, rather than to be the cause of destruction
to as many as possible. If immortality can be obtained in no other way
than by bloodshed, what will be the result if all shall agree to live
in harmony? And this may undoubtedly be realized, if men would cast
aside their pernicious and impious madness, and live in innocence and
jus rice. Shall no one, then, be worthy of heaven? Shall virtue perish,
because it will not be permitted men to rage against their fellow-men?
But they who reckon the overthrow of cities and people as the greatest
glory will not endure public tranquillity: they will plunder and rage;
and by the infliction of outrageous injuries will disturb the compact
of human society, that they may have an enemy whom they may destroy
with greater wickedness than that with which they attacked.
Now let us proceed to the remaining subjects. The
conferring of benefits gave the name of gods to Ceres and Liber. I am
able to prove from the sacred writings that wine and corn were used by
men before the offspring of Coelus and Saturnus. But let us suppose
that they were introduced by these. Can it appear to be a greater thing
to have collected corn, and having bruised it, to have taught men to
make bread; or to have pressed grapes gathered from the vine, and to
have made wine, than to have produced and brought forth from the earth
corn itself, or the vine? God, indeed, may have left these things
to be drawn out by the ingenuity of man; yet all things must belong to
Him, who gave to man both wisdom to discover, and those very things
which might be discovered. The arts also are said to have gained
immortality for their inventors, as medicine for AEsculapius, the craft
of the smith for Vulcan. Therefore let us worship those also who taught
the art of the fuller and of the shoemaker. But why is not honour paid
to the discoverer of the potter's art? Is it that those rich men
despise Samian vessels? There are also other arts, the inventors of
which greatly profiled the life of man. Why have not temples been
assigned to them also? But doubtless it is Minerva who discovered all,
and therefore workmen offer prayers to her. Such, then, was the low
condition(2) from which Minerva ascended to heaven. Is there truly any
reason why any one should leave the worship of Him who created(3) the
earth with its living creatures, and the heaven with its stars, for the
adoration of her who taught men to set up the woof? What place does he
hold who taught the healing of wounds in the
32
body? Can he be more excellent than Him who formed the body itself, and
the power of sensibility and of life? Finally, did he contrive
and bring to light the herbs themselves, and the other
things in which the healing art consists?
CHAP. XIX.--THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ONE TO WORSHIP THE TRUE GOD
TOGETHER WITH FALSE DEITIES.
But some one will say that this supreme Being, who
made all things, and those also who conferred on men particular
benefits, are entitled to their respective worship. First of all, it
has never happened that the worshipper of these has also been a
worshipper of God. Nor can this possibly happen. For if the honour paid
to Him is shared by others, He altogether ceases to be worshipped,
since His religion requires us to believe that He is the one and only
God. The excellent poet exclaims, that all those who refined life by
the invention of arts are in the lower regions, and that even the
discoverer himself of such a medicine and art was thrust down by
lightning to the Stygian waves, that we may understand how great is the
power of the Almighty Father, who can extinguish even gods by His
lightnings. But ingenious men perchance thus reasoned with themselves:
Because God cannot be struck with lightning, it is manifest that the
occurrence never took place; nay, rather, because it did take place, it
is manifest that the person in question was a man, and not a god. For
the falsehood of the poets does not consist in the deed, but in the
name. For they feared evil, if, in opposition to the general
persuasion, they should acknowledge that which was true. But if this is
agreed upon among themselves, that gods were made from men, why then do
they not believe the poets, if at any time they describe their
banishments and wounds, their deaths, and wars, and adulteries? From
which things it may be understood that they could not possibly become
gods, since they were not even good men, and during their life they
performed I those actions which bring forth everlasting death.
CHAP.XX.--OF THE GODS PECULIAR TO THE ROMANS, AND THEIR SACRED
RITES.
I now come to the superstitions peculiar to the
Romans, since I have spoken of those which are common. The wolf, the
nurse of Romulus, was invested with divine honours. And I could endure
this, if it had been the animal itself whose figure she
bears. Livy relates that there was an image of Larentina, and
indeed not of her body, but of her mind and character. For
she was the wife of Faustulus, and on account of her prostitution she
was called among the
shepherds wolf,(1) that is, harlot, from which also the brothel(2)
derives its name. The Romans doubtless followed the example of the
Athenians in representing her figure. For when a harlot, by name
Leaena, had put to death a tyrant among them, because it was unlawful
for the image of a harlot to be placed in the temple, they erected the
effigy of the animal whose name she bore. Therefore, as the Athenians
erected a monument from the name, so did the Romans from the profession
of the person thus honoured. A festival was also dedicated to her name,
and the Larentinalia were instituted. Nor is she the only harlot whom
the Romans worship, but also Faula, who was, as Verrius writes, the
paramour of Hericules. Now how great must that immortality be thought
which is attained even by harlots! Flora, having obtained great wealth
by this practice, made the people her heir, and left a fixed sum of
money, from the annual proceeds of which her birthday might be
celebrated by public games, which they called Floralia. And because
this appeared disgraceful to the senate, in order that a kind of
dignity might be given to a shameful matter, they resolved
that an argument should be taken from the name itself. They
pretended that she was the goddess who presides over flowers, and that
she must be appeased, that the crops, together with the trees or vines,
might produce a good and abundant blossom. The poet followed up this
idea in his Fasti, and related that there was a nymph, by no means
obscure, who was called Chloris, and that, on her marriage with
Zephyrus, she received from her husband as a wedding gift the control
over all flowers. These things are spoken with propriety, but to
believe them is unbecoming and shameful. Anti when the truth is in
question, ought disguises of this kind to deceive us? Those games,
therefore, are celebrated with all wantonness, as is suitable to the
memory of a harlot. For besides licentiousness of words, in which all
lewdness is poured forth, women are also stripped of their garments at
the demand of the people, and then perform the office of mimeplayers,
and are detained in the sight of the people with indecent
gestures, even to the satiating of unchaste eyes. Tatius
consecrated an image of Cloacina, which had been found in the great
sewer; and because he did not know whose likeness it was, he gave it a
name from the place. Tullus Hostilius fashioned and worshipped Fear and
Pallor. What shall I say respecting him, but that he was worthy of
having his gods always at hand, as men commonly wish? The conduct of
Marcus Marcellus concerning the consecration of Honour and Valour
differs from this in goodness of the names, but agrees with it in
reality. The senate
33
acted with the same vanity in placing Mind(1) among the gods; for if
they had possessed any intelligence, they would never have undertaken
sacred rites of this kind. Cicero says that Greece undertook a great
and bold design in consecrating the images of Cupids and Loves in the
gymnasia: it is plain that he flattered Atticus and jested with his
friend. For that ought not to have been called a great design, or a
design at all, but the abandoned and deplorable wickedness of unchaste
men, who exposed their children, whom it was their duty to train to an
honourable course, to the lust of youth, and wished them to worship
gods of profligacy, in those places especially where their naked bodies
were exposed to the gaze of their corruptors, and at that age which,
through its simplicity and incau