That the Worshippers of the Gods Never Received from Them Any Healthy Moral Precepts, and that in Celebrating Their Worship All Sorts of Impurities Were Practiced.

Chapter 4.—That the Worshippers of the Gods Never Received from Them Any Healthy Moral Precepts, and that in Celebrating Their Worship All Sorts of Impurities Were Practiced.

Caput IV. Quod cultores deorum nulla umquam a dis suis praecepta probitatis acceperint et in sacris eorum turpia quaeque celebrauerint.

First of all, we would ask why their gods took no steps to improve the morals of their worshippers. That the true God should neglect those who did not seek His help, that was but justice; but why did those gods, from whose worship ungrateful men are now complaining that they are prohibited, issue no laws which might have guided their devotees to a virtuous life? Surely it was but just, that such care as men showed to the worship of the gods, the gods on their part should have to the conduct of men. But, it is replied, it is by his own will a man goes astray. Who denies it? But none the less was it incumbent on these gods, who were men’s guardians, to publish in plain terms the laws of a good life, and not to conceal them from their worshippers. It was their part to send prophets to reach and convict such as broke these laws, and publicly to proclaim the punishments which await evil-doers, and the rewards which may be looked for by those that do well. Did ever the walls of any of their temples echo to any such warning voice? I myself, when I was a young man, used sometimes to go to the sacrilegious entertainments and spectacles; I saw the priests raving in religious excitement, and heard the choristers; I took pleasure in the shameful games which were celebrated in honor of gods and goddesses, of the virgin Cœlestis, and Berecynthia, the mother of all the gods. And on the holy day consecrated to her purification, there were sung before her couch productions so obscene and filthy for the ear—I do not say of the mother of the gods, but of the mother of any senator or honest man—nay, so impure, that not even the mother of the foul-mouthed players themselves could have formed one of the audience. For natural reverence for parents is a bond which the most abandoned cannot ignore. And, accordingly, the lewd actions and filthy words with which these players honored the mother of the gods, in presence of a vast assemblage and audience of both sexes, they could not for very shame have rehearsed at home in presence of their own mothers. And the crowds that were gathered from all quarters by curiosity, offended modesty must, I should suppose, have scattered in the confusion of shame. If these are sacred rites, what is sacrilege? If this is purification, what is pollution? This festivity was called the Tables, as if a banquet were being given at which unclean devils might find suitable refreshment. For it is not difficult to see what kind of spirits they must be who are delighted with such obscenities, unless, indeed, a man be blinded by these evil spirits passing themselves off under the name of gods, and either disbelieves in their existence, or leads such a life as prompts him rather to propitiate and fear them than the true God.

Primo ipsos mores ne pessimos haberent, quare di eorum curare noluerunt? Deus enim uerus eos, a quibus non colebatur, merito neglexit; di autem illi, a quorum cultu se prohiberi homines ingratissimi conqueruntur, cultores suos ad bene uiuendum quare nullis legibus adiuuerunt? Utique dignum erat, ut, quo modo isti illorum sacra, ita illi istorum facta curarent. Sed respondetur, quod uoluntate propria quisque malus est. Quis hoc negauerit? Verum tamen pertinebat ad consultores deos uitae bonae praecepta non occultare populis cultoribus suis, sed clara praedicatione praebere, per uates etiam conuenire adque arguere peccantes, palam minari poenas male agentibus. praemia recte uiuentibus polliceri. Quid umquam tale in deorum illorum templis prompta et eminenti uoce concrepuit? Veniebamus etiam nos aliquando adulescentes ad spectacula ludibriaque sacrilegiorum, spectabamus arrepticios, audiebamus synphoniacos, ludis turpissimis, qui dis deabusque exhibebantur, oblectabamur, Caelesti uirgini et Berecynthiae matri omnium, ante cuius lecticam die sollemni lauationis eius talia per publicum cantitabantur a nequissimis scaenicis, qualia, non dico matrem deorum, sed matrem qualiumcumque senatorum uel quorumlibet honestorum uirorum, immo uero qualia nec matrem ipsorum scaenicorum deceret audire. Habet enim quiddam erga parentes humana uerecundia, quod nec ipsa nequitia possit auferre. Illam proinde turpitudinem obscenorum dictorum adque factorum scaenicos ipsos domi suae proludendi causa coram matribus suis agere puderet, quam per publicum agebant coram deum matre spectante adque audiente utriusque sexus frequentissima multitudine. Quae si inlecta curiositate adesse potuit circumfusa, saltem offensa castitate debuit abire confusa. Quae sunt sacrilegia, si illa sunt sacra? aut quae inquinatio, si illa lauatio? Et haec fercula appellabantur, quasi celebraretur conuiuium, quo uelut suis epulis inmunda daemonia pascerentur. Quis enim non sentiat cuius modi spiritus talibus obscenitatibus delectentur, nisi uel nesciens, utrum omnino sint ulli inmundi spiritus deorum nomine decipientes, uel talem agens uitam, in qua istos potius quam Deum uerum et optet propitios et formidet iratos?

Chapter 5.—Of the Obscenities Practiced in Honor of the Mother of the Gods.

Caput V. De obscenitatibus, quibus mater deum a cultoribus suis honorabatur.

In this matter I would prefer to have as my assessors in judgment, not those men who rather take pleasure in these infamous customs than take pains to put an end to them, but that same Scipio Nasica who was chosen by the senate as the citizen most worthy to receive in his hands the image of that demon Cybele, and convey it into the city. He would tell us whether he would be proud to see his own mother so highly esteemed by the state as to have divine honors adjudged to her; as the Greeks and Romans and other nations have decreed divine honors to men who had been of material service to them, and have believed that their mortal benefactors were thus made immortal, and enrolled among the gods. Surely he would desire that his mother should enjoy such felicity were it possible. But if we proceeded to ask him whether, among the honors paid to her, he would wish such shameful rites as these to be celebrated, would he not at once exclaim that he would rather his mother lay stone-dead, than survive as a goddess to lend her ear to these obscenities? Is it possible that he who was of so severe a morality, that he used his influence as a Roman senator to prevent the building of a theatre in that city dedicated to the manly virtues, would wish his mother to be propitiated as a goddess with words which would have brought the blush to her cheek when a Roman matron? Could he possibly believe that the modesty of an estimable woman would be so transformed by her promotion to divinity, that she would suffer herself to be invoked and celebrated in terms so gross and immodest, that if she had heard the like while alive upon earth, and had listened without stopping her ears and hurrying from the spot, her relatives, her husband, and her children would have blushed for her? Therefore, the mother of the gods being such a character as the most profligate man would be ashamed to have for his mother, and meaning to enthral the minds of the Romans, demanded for her service their best citizen, not to ripen him still more in virtue by her helpful counsel, but to entangle him by her deceit, like her of whom it is written, “The adulteress will hunt for the precious soul.” Her intent was to puff up this high- souled man by an apparently divine testimony to his excellence, in order that he might rely upon his own eminence in virtue, and make no further efforts after true piety and religion, without which natural genius, however brilliant, vapors into pride and comes to nothing. For what but a guileful purpose could that goddess demand the best man seeing that in her own sacred festivals she requires such obscenities as the best men would be covered with shame to hear at their own tables?

Nequaquam istos, qui flagitiosissimae consuetudinis uitiis oblectari magis quam obluctari student, sed illum ipsum Nasicam Scipionem, qui uir optimus a senatu electus est, cuius manibus eiusdem daemonis simulacrum susceptum est in Urbemque peruectum, habere de hac re iudicem uellem. Diceret nobis, utrum matrem suam tam optime de re publica uellet mereri, ut ei diuini honores decernerentur; sicut et Graecos et Romanos aliasque gentes constat quibusdam decreuisse mortalibus, quorum erga se beneficia magnipenderant, eosque inmortales factos adque in deorum numerum receptos esse crediderant. Profecto ille tantam felicitatem suae matri. si fieri posset, optaret. Porro si ab illo deinde quaereremus. utrum inter eius diuinos honores uellet illa turpia celebrari: nonne se malle clamaret, ut sua mater sine ullo sensu mortua iaceret, quam ad hoc dea uiueret, ut illa libenter audiret? Absit, ut senator populi Romani ea mente praeditus, qua theatrum aedificari in urbe fortium uirorum prohibuit, sic uellet coli matrem suam, ut talibus dea sacris propitiaretur, qualibus matrona uerbis offenderetur. Nec ullo modo crederet uerecundiam laudabilis feminae ita in contrarium diuinitate mutari, ut honoribus eam talibus aduocarent cultores sui, qualibus conuiciis in quempiam iaculatis, cum inter homines uiueret, nisi aures clauderet seseque subtraheret, erubescerent pro illa et propinqui et maritus et liberi. Proinde talis mater deum, qualem habere matrem puderet quemlibet etiam pessimum uirum, Romanas occupatura mentes quaesiuit optimum uirum, non quem monendo et adiuuando faceret, sed quem fallendo deciperet, ei similis de qua scriptum est: Mulier autem uirorum pretiosas animas captat, ut ille magnae indolis animus hoc uelut diuino testimonio sublimatus et uere se optimum existimans ueram pietatem religionemque non quaereret, sine qua omne quamuis laudabile ingenium superbia uanescit et decidit. Quo modo igitur nisi insidiose quaereret dea illa optimum uirum, cum talia quaerat in suis sacris, qualia uiri optimi abhorrent suis adhibere conuiuiis?

Chapter 6.—That the Gods of the Pagans Never Inculcated Holiness of Life.

Caput VI. Deos paganorum numquam bene uiuendi sanxisse doctrinam.

This is the reason why those divinities quite neglected the lives and morals of the cities and nations who worshipped them, and threw no dreadful prohibition in their way to hinder them from becoming utterly corrupt, and to preserve them from those terrible and detestable evils which visit not harvests and vintages, not house and possessions, not the body which is subject to the soul, but the soul itself, the spirit that rules the whole man. If there was any such prohibition, let it be produced, let it be proved. They will tell us that purity and probity were inculcated upon those who were initiated in the mysteries of religion, and that secret incitements to virtue were whispered in the ear of the élite; but this is an idle boast. Let them show or name to us the places which were at any time consecrated to assemblages in which, instead of the obscene songs and licentious acting of players, instead of the celebration of those most filthy and shameless Fugalia (well called Fugalia, since they banish modesty and right feeling), the people were commanded in the name of the gods to restrain avarice, bridle impurity, and conquer ambition; where, in short, they might learn in that school which Persius vehemently lashes them to, when he says: “Be taught, ye abandoned creatures, and ascertain the causes of things; what we are, and for what end we are born; what is the law of our success in life; and by what art we may turn the goal without making shipwreck; what limit we should put to our wealth, what we may lawfully desire, and what uses filthy lucre serves; how much we should bestow upon our country and our family; learn, in short, what God meant thee to be, and what place He has ordered you to fill.” Let them name to us the places where such instructions were wont to be communicated from the gods, and where the people who worshipped them were accustomed to resort to hear them, as we can point to our churches built for this purpose in every land where the Christian religion is received.

Hinc est quod de uita et moribus ciuitatum adque populorum a quibus colebantur illa numina non curarunt, ut tam horrendis eos et detestabilibus malis non in agro et uitibus, non in domo adque pecunia, non denique in ipso corpore, quod menti subditur, sed in ipsa mente, in ipso rectore carnis animo, eos inpleri ac pessimos fieri sine ulla sua terribili prohibitione permitterent. Aut si prohibebant, hoc ostendatur potius, hoc probetur. Nec nobis nescio quos susurros paucissimorum auribus anhelatos et arcana uelut religione traditos iactent, quibus uitae probitas castitasque discatur; sed demonstrentur uel commemorentur loca talibus aliquando conuenticulis consecrata, non ubi ludi agerentur obscenis uocibus et motibus histrionum, nec ubi Fugalia celebrantur effusa omni licentia turpitudinum (et uere Fugalia, sed pudoris et honestatis); sed ubi populi audirent quid di praeciperent de cohibenda auaritia, ambitione frangenda, luxuria refrenanda, ubi discerent miseri, quod discendum Persius increpat dicens: Discite, o miseri, et causas cognoscite rerum, Quid sumus et quidnam uicturi gignimur, ordo Quis datus aut metae qua mollis flexus et unde, Quis modus argenti, quid fas optare, quid asper Utile nummus habet, patriae carisque propinquis Quantum largiri deceat, quem te Deus esse Iussit et humana qua parte locatus es in re. Dicatur in quibus locis haec docentium deorum solebant praecepta recitari et a cultoribus eorum populis frequenter audiri, sicut nos ostendimus ad hoc ecclesias institutas, quaqua uersum religio Christiana diffunditur.

Chapter 7.—That the Suggestions of Philosophers are Precluded from Having Any Moral Effect, Because They Have Not the Authority Which Belongs to Divine Instruction, and Because Man’s Natural Bias to Evil Induces Him Rather to Follow the Examples of the Gods Than to Obey the Precepts of Men.

Caput VII. Inutilia esse inuenta philosophica sine auctoritate diuina, ubi quemque ad uitia pronum magis mouet quid di fecerint, quam quid homines disputarint.

But will they perhaps remind us of the schools of the philosophers, and their disputations? In the first place, these belong not to Rome, but to Greece; and even if we yield to them that they are now Roman, because Greece itself has become a Roman province, still the teachings of the philosophers are not the commandments of the gods, but the discoveries of men, who, at the prompting of their own speculative ability, made efforts to discover the hidden laws of nature, and the right and wrong in ethics, and in dialectic what was consequent according to the rules of logic, and what was inconsequent and erroneous. And some of them, by God’s help, made great discoveries; but when left to themselves they were betrayed by human infirmity, and fell into mistakes. And this was ordered by divine providence, that their pride might be restrained, and that by their example it might be pointed out that it is humility which has access to the highest regions. But of this we shall have more to say, if the Lord God of truth permit, in its own place. However, if the philosophers have made any discoveries which are sufficient to guide men to virtue and blessedness, would it not have been greater justice to vote divine honors to them? Were it not more accordant with every virtuous sentiment to read Plato’s writings in a “Temple of Plato,” than to be present in the temples of devils to witness the priests of Cybele mutilating themselves, the effeminate being consecrated, the raving fanatics cutting themselves, and whatever other cruel or shameful, or shamefully cruel or cruelly shameful, ceremony is enjoined by the ritual of such gods as these? Were it not a more suitable education, and more likely to prompt the youth to virtue, if they heard public recitals of the laws of the gods, instead of the vain laudation of the customs and laws of their ancestors? Certainly all the worshippers of the Roman gods, when once they are possessed by what Persius calls “the burning poison of lust,” prefer to witness the deeds of Jupiter rather than to hear what Plato taught or Cato censured. Hence the young profligate in Terence, when he sees on the wall a fresco representing the fabled descent of Jupiter into the lap of Danaë in the form of a golden shower, accepts this as authoritative precedent for his own licentiousness, and boasts that he is an imitator of God. “And what God?” he says. “He who with His thunder shakes the loftiest temples. And was I, a poor creature compared to Him, to make bones of it? No; I did it, and with all my heart.”

An forte nobis philosophorum scholas disputationesque memorabunt? Primo haec non Romana, sed Graeca sunt; aut si propterea iam Romana, quia et Graecia facta est Romana prouincia, non deorum praecepta sunt, sed hominum inuenta, qui utcumque conati sunt ingeniis acutissimis praediti ratiocinando uestigare, quid in rerum natura latitaret, quid in moribus adpetendum esset adque fugiendum, quid in ipsis ratiocinandi regulis certa conexione traheretur, aut quid non esset consequens uel etiam repugnaret. Et quidam eorum quaedam magna, quantum diuinitus adiuti sunt, inuenerunt; quantum autem humanitus inpediti sunt, errauerunt, maxime cum eorum superbiae iuste prouidentia diuina resisteret, ut uiam pietatis ab humilitate in superna surgentem etiam istorum conparatione monstraret; unde postea nobis erit in Dei ueri Domini uoluntate disquirendi ac disserendi locus. Verum tamen si philosophi aliquid inuenerunt, quod agendae bonae uitae beataeque adipiscendae satis esse possit: quanto iustius talibus diuini honores decernerentur! Quanto melius et honestius in Platonis templo libri eius legerentur, quam in templis daemonum Galli absciderentur, molles consecrarentur, insani secarentur, et quidquid aliud uel crudele uel turpe, uel turpiter crudele uel crudeliter turpe in sacris talium deorum celebrari solet! Quanto satius erat ad erudiendam iustitia iuuentutem publice recitari leges deorum quam laudari inaniter leges adque instituta maiorum! Omnes enim cultores talium deorum, mox ut eos libido perpulerit feruenti, ut ait Persius, tincta ueneno, magis intuentur quid Iuppiter fecerit, quam quid docuerit Plato uel censuerit Cato. Hinc aput Terentium flagitiosus adulescens spectat tabulam quandam pictam in pariete, ubi inerat pictura haec, Iouem Quo pacto Danaae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium imbrem aureum, adque ab hac tanta auctoritate adhibet patrocinium turpitudini suae, cum in ea se iactat imitari deum. At quem deum! inquit; qui templa caeli summo sonitu concutit. Ego homuncio id non facerem? Ego uero illud feci ac libens.

Chapter 8.—That the Theatrical Exhibitions Publishing the Shameful Actions of the Gods, Propitiated Rather Than Offended Them.

Caput VIII. De ludis scaenicis, in quibus di non offenduntur editione suarum turpitudinum, sed placantur.

But, some one will interpose, these are the fables of poets, not the deliverances of the gods themselves. Well, I have no mind to arbitrate between the lewdness of theatrical entertainments and of mystic rites; only this I say, and history bears me out in making the assertion, that those same entertainments, in which the fictions of poets are the main attraction, were not introduced in the festivals of the gods by the ignorant devotion of the Romans, but that the gods themselves gave the most urgent commands to this effect, and indeed extorted from the Romans these solemnities and celebrations in their honor. I touched on this in the preceding book, and mentioned that dramatic entertainments were first inaugurated at Rome on occasion of a pestilence, and by authority of the pontiff. And what man is there who is not more likely to adopt, for the regulation of his own life, the examples that are represented in plays which have a divine sanction, rather than the precepts written and promulgated with no more than human authority? If the poets gave a false representation of Jove in describing him as adulterous, then it were to be expected that the chaste gods should in anger avenge so wicked a fiction, in place of encouraging the games which circulated it. Of these plays, the most inoffensive are comedies and tragedies, that is to say, the dramas which poets write for the stage, and which, though they often handle impure subjects, yet do so without the filthiness of language which characterizes many other performances; and it is these dramas which boys are obliged by their seniors to read and learn as a part of what is called a liberal and gentlemanly education.

At enim non traduntur ista sacris deorum, sed fabulis poetarum. Nolo dicere illa mystica quam ista theatrica esse turpiora; hoc dico, quod negantes conuincit historia, eosdem illos ludos, in quibus regnant figmenta poetarum, non per inperitum obsequium sacris deorum suorum intulisse Romanos, sed ipsos deos, ut sibi sollemniter ederentur et honori suo consecrarentur, acerbe imperando et quodam modo extorquendo fecisse; quod in primo libro breui commemoratione perstrinxi. Nam ingrauescente pestilentia ludi scaenici auctoritate pontificum Romae primitus instituti sunt. Quis igitur in agenda uita non ea sibi potius sectanda arbitretur, quae actitantur ludis auctoritate diuina institutis, quam ea, quae scriptitantur legibus humano consilio promulgatis? Adulterum Iouem si poetae fallaciter prodiderunt, di utique casti, quia tantum nefas per humanos ludos confictum est, non quia neglectum, irasci ac uindicare debuerunt. Et haec sunt scaenicorum tolerabiliora ludorum, comoediae scilicet et tragoediae, hoc est fabulae poetarum agendae in spectaculis multa rerum turpitudine, sed nulla saltem, sicut alia multa, uerborum obscenitate conpositae; quas etiam inter studia, quae honesta ac liberalia uocantur, pueri legere et discere coguntur a senibus.

Chapter 9.—That the Poetical License Which the Greeks, in Obedience to Their Gods, Allowed, Was Restrained by the Ancient Romans.

Caput IX. Quid Romani ueteres de cohibenda poetica licentia senserint, quam Graeci deorum secuti iudicium liberam esse uoluerunt.

The opinion of the ancient Romans on this matter is attested by Cicero in his work De Republica, in which Scipio, one of the interlocutors, says, “The lewdness of comedy could never have been suffered by audiences, unless the customs of society had previously sanctioned the same lewdness.” And in the earlier days the Greeks preserved a certain reasonableness in their license, and made it a law, that whatever comedy wished to say of any one, it must say it of him by name. And so in the same work of Cicero’s, Scipio says, “Whom has it not aspersed? Nay, whom has it not worried? Whom has it spared? Allow that it may assail demagogues and factions, men injurious to the commonwealth—a Cleon, a Cleophon, a Hyperbolus. That is tolerable, though it had been more seemly for the public censor to brand such men, than for a poet to lampoon them; but to blacken the fame of Pericles with scurrilous verse, after he had with the utmost dignity presided over their state alike in war and in peace, was as unworthy of a poet, as if our own Plautus or Nævius were to bring Publius and Cneius Scipio on the comic stage, or as if Cæcilius were to caricature Cato.” And then a little after he goes on: “Though our Twelve Tables attached the penalty of death only to a very few offences, yet among these few this was one: if any man should have sung a pasquinade, or have composed a satire calculated to bring infamy or disgrace on another person. Wisely decreed. For it is by the decisions of magistrates, and by a well-informed justice, that our lives ought to be judged, and not by the flighty fancies of poets; neither ought we to be exposed to hear calumnies, save where we have the liberty of replying, and defending ourselves before an adequate tribunal.” This much I have judged it advisable to quote from the fourth book of Cicero’s De Republica; and I have made the quotation word for word, with the exception of some words omitted, and some slightly transposed, for the sake of giving the sense more readily. And certainly the extract is pertinent to the matter I am endeavoring to explain. Cicero makes some further remarks, and concludes the passage by showing that the ancient Romans did not permit any living man to be either praised or blamed on the stage. But the Greeks, as I said, though not so moral, were more logical in allowing this license which the Romans forbade; for they saw that their gods approved and enjoyed the scurrilous language of low comedy when directed not only against men, but even against themselves; and this, whether the infamous actions imputed to them were the fictions of poets, or were their actual iniquities commemorated and acted in the theatres. And would that the spectators had judged them worthy only of laughter, and not of imitation! Manifestly it had been a stretch of pride to spare the good name of the leading men and the common citizens, when the very deities did not grudge that their own reputation should be blemished.

Quid hinc autem senserint Romani ueteres, Cicero testatur in libris, quos de re publica scripsit, ubi Scipio disputans ait: ‘Numquam comoediae, nisi consuetudo uitae pateretur, probare sua theatris flagitia potuissent’. Et Graeci quidem antiquiores uitiosae suae opinionis quandam conuenientiam seruarunt, aput quos fuit etiam lege concessum, ut quod uellet comoedia, de quo uellet, nominatim diceret. Itaque, sicut in eisdem libris loquitur Africanus, quem illa non adtigit, uel potius quem non uexauit? cui pepercit? Esto, populares homines inprobos, in re publica seditiosos, Cleonem, Cleophontem, Hyperbolum laesit. Patiamur, inquit, etsi eius modi ciues a censore melius est quam a poeta notari. Sed Periclen, cum iam suae ciuitati maxima auctoritate plurimos annos domi et belli praefuisset, uiolari uersibus et eos agi in scaena non plus decuit, quam si Plautus, inquit, noster uoluisset aut Naeuius Publio et Gn. Scipioni aut Caecilius Marco Catoni maledicere.’ Dein paulo post: ‘Nostrae, inquit, contra duodecim tabulae cum perpaucas res capite sanxissent, in his hanc quoque sanciendam putauerunt, si quis occentauisset siue carmen condidisset, quod infamiam faceret flagitiumue alteri. Praeclare. Iudiciis enim magistratuum, disceptationibus legitimis propositam uitam, non poetarum ingeniis habere debemus, nec probrum audire nisi ea lege, ut respondere liceat et iudicio defendere.’ Haec ex Ciceronis quarto de re publica libro ad uerbum excerpenda arbitratus sum, nonnullis propter faciliorem intellectum uel praetermissis uel paululum commutatis. Multum enim ad rem pertinet, quam molior explicare, si potero. Dicit deinde alia et sic concludit hunc locum, ut ostendat ueteribus displicuisse Romanis uel laudari quemquam in scaena uiuum hominem uel uituperari. Sed, ut dixi, hoc Graeci quamquam inuerecundius, tamen conuenientius licere uoluerunt, cum uiderent dis suis accepta et grata esse obprobria non tantum hominum, uerum et ipsorum deorum in scaenicis fabulis, siue a poetis essent illa conficta, siue flagitia eorum uera commemorarentur et agerentur in theatris adque ab eorum cultoribus utinam solo risu, ac non etiam imitatione digna uiderentur. Nimis enim superbum fuit famae parcere principum ciuitatis et ciuium, ubi suae famae parci numina noluerunt.

Chapter 10.—That the Devils, in Suffering Either False or True Crimes to Be Laid to Their Charge, Meant to Do Men a Mischief.

Caput X. Qua nocendi arte daemones uelint uel falsa de se crimina uel uera narrari.

It is alleged, in excuse of this practice, that the stories told of the gods are not true, but false, and mere inventions, but this only makes matters worse, if we form our estimate by the morality our religion teaches; and if we consider the malice of the devils, what more wily and astute artifice could they practise upon men? When a slander is uttered against a leading statesman of upright and useful life, is it not reprehensible in proportion to its untruth and groundlessness? What punishment, then, shall be sufficient when the gods are the objects of so wicked and outrageous an injustice? But the devils, whom these men repute gods, are content that even iniquities they are guiltless of should be ascribed to them, so long as they may entangle men’s minds in the meshes of these opinions, and draw them on along with themselves to their predestinated punishment: whether such things were actually committed by the men whom these devils, delighting in human infatuation, cause to be worshipped as gods, and in whose stead they, by a thousand malign and deceitful artifices, substitute themselves, and so receive worship; or whether, though they were really the crimes of men, these wicked spirits gladly allowed them to be attributed to higher beings, that there might seem to be conveyed from heaven itself a sufficient sanction for the perpetration of shameful wickedness. The Greeks, therefore, seeing the character of the gods they served, thought that the poets should certainly not refrain from showing up human vices on the stage, either because they desired to be like their gods in this, or because they were afraid that, if they required for themselves a more unblemished reputation than they asserted for the gods, they might provoke them to anger.

Nam quod adfertur pro defensione, non illa uera in deos dici, sed falsa adque conficta, id ipsum est scelestius, si pietatem consulas religionis; si autem malitiam daemonum cogites, quid astutius ad decipiendum adque callidius? Cum enim probrum iacitur in principem patriae bonum adque utilem, nonne tanto est indignius, quanto a ueritate remotius et a uita illius alienius? Quae igitur supplicia sufficiunt, cum deo fit ista tam nefaria, tam insignis iniuria? Sed maligni spiritus, quos isti deos putant, etiam flagitia, quae non admiserunt, de se dici uolunt, dum tamen humanas mentes his opinionibus uelut retibus induant et ad praedestinatum supplicium secum trahant, siue homines ista commiserint, quos deos haberi gaudent, qui humanis erroribus gaudent, pro quibus se etiam colendos mille nocendi fallendique artibus interponunt; siue etiam non ullorum hominum illa crimina uera sint, quae tamen de numinibus fingi libenter accipiunt fallacissimi spiritus, ut ad scelesta ac turpia perpetranda uelut ab ipso caelo traduci in terras satis idonea uideatur auctoritas. Cum igitur Graeci talium numinum seruos se esse sentirent, inter tot et tanta eorum theatrica obprobria parcendum sibi a poetis nullo modo putauerunt, uel dis suis etiam sic consimilari adpetentes, uel metuentes, ne honestiorem famam ipsi requirendo et eis se hoc modo praeferendo illos ad iracundiam prouocarent.

Chapter 11.—That the Greeks Admitted Players to Offices of State, on the Ground that Men Who Pleased the Gods Should Not Be Contemptuously Treated by Their Fellows.

Caput XI. De scaenicis aput Graecos in rei publicae administrationem receptis, eo quod placatores deorum iniuste ab hominibus spernerentur.

It was a part of this same reasonableness of the Greeks which induced them to bestow upon the actors of these same plays no inconsiderable civic honors. In the above-mentioned book of the De Republica, it is mentioned that Aeschines, a very eloquent Athenian, who had been a tragic actor in his youth, became a statesman, and that the Athenians again and again sent another tragedian, Aristodemus, as their plenipotentiary to Philip. For they judged it unbecoming to condemn and treat as infamous persons those who were the chief actors in the scenic entertainments which they saw to be so pleasing to the gods. No doubt this was immoral of the Greeks, but there can be as little doubt they acted in conformity with the character of their gods; for how could they have presumed to protect the conduct of the citizens from being cut to pieces by the tongues of poets and players, who were allowed, and even enjoined by the gods, to tear their divine reputation to tatters? And how could they hold in contempt the men who acted in the theatres those dramas which, as they had ascertained, gave pleasure to the gods whom they worshipped? Nay, how could they but grant to them the highest civic honors? On what plea could they honor the priests who offered for them acceptable sacrifices to the gods, if they branded with infamy the actors who in behalf of the people gave to the gods that pleasure or honour which they demanded, and which, according to the account of the priests, they were angry at not receiving. Labeo, whose learning makes him an authority on such points, is of opinion that the distinction between good and evil deities should find expression in a difference of worship; that the evil should be propitiated by bloody sacrifices and doleful rites, but the good with a joyful and pleasant observance, as, e.g. (as he says himself), with plays, festivals, and banquets. All this we shall, with God’s help, hereafter discuss. At present, and speaking to the subject on hand, whether all kinds of offerings are made indiscriminately to all the gods, as if all were good (and it is an unseemly thing to conceive that there are evil gods; but these gods of the pagans are all evil, because they are not gods, but evil spirits), or whether, as Labeo thinks, a distinction is made between the offerings presented to the different gods the Greeks are equally justified in honoring alike the priests by whom the sacrifices are offered, and the players by whom the dramas are acted, that they may not be open to the charge of doing an injury to all their gods, if the plays are pleasing to all of them, or (which were still worse) to their good gods, if the plays are relished only by them.

Ad hanc conuenientiam pertinet, quod etiam scaenicos actores earundem fabularum non paruo ciuitatis honore dignos existimarunt, si quidem, quod in eo quoque de re publica libro commemoratur, Aeschines Atheniensis, uir eloquentissimus, cum adulescens tragoedias actitauisset, rem publicam capessiuit et Aristodemum, tragicum item actorem, maximis de rebus pacis ac belli legatum ad Philippum Athenienses saepe miserunt. Non enim consentaneum putabatur, cum easdem artes eosdemque scaenicos ludos etiam dis suis acceptos uiderent, illos, per quos agerentur, infamium loco ac numero deputare. Haec Graeci turpiter quidem, sed sane dis suis omnino congruenter, qui nec uitam ciuium lacerandam linguis poetarum et histrionum subtrahere ausi sunt, a quibus cernebant deorum uitam eisdem ipsis dis uolentibus et libentibus carpi, et ipsos homines, per quos ista in theatris agebantur, quae numinibus quibus subditi erant grata esse cognouerant, non solum minime spernendos in ciuitate, uerum etiam maxime honorandos putarunt. Quid enim causae reperire possent, quur sacerdotes honorarent, quia per eos uictimas dis acceptabiles offerebant, et scaenicos probrosos haberent, per quos illam uoluptatem siue honorem dis exhiberi petentibus et, nisi fieret, irascentibus eorum admonitione didicerant? cum praesertim Labeo, quem huiusce modi rerum peritissimum praedicant, numina bona a numinibus malis ista etiam cultus diuersitate % distinguat, ut malos deos propitiari caedibus et tristibus supplicationibus adserat, bonos autem obsequiis laetis adque iucundis, qualia sunt, ut ipse ait, ludi conuiuia lectisternia. Quod totum quale sit, postea, si Deus iuuerit, diligentius disseremus. Nunc ad rem praesentem quod adtinet, siue omnibus omnia tamquam bonis permixte tribuantur (neque enim esse decet deos malos, cum potius isti, quia inmundi sunt spiritus, omnes sint mali), siue certa discretione, sicut Labeoni uisum est, illis illa, istis ista distribuantur obsequia, conpetentissime Graeci utrosque honori ducunt, et sacerdotes, per quos uictimae ministrantur, et scaenicos, per quos ludi exhibentur, ne uel omnibus dis suis, si et ludi omnibus grati sunt, uel, quod est indignius, his, quos bonos putant, si ludi ab eis solis amantur, facere conuincantur iniuriam.