Argument—As in the foregoing book Augustin has proved regarding moral and spiritual calamities, so in this book he proves regarding external and bodily disasters, that since the foundation of the city the Romans have been continually subject to them; and that even when the false gods were worshipped without a rival, before the advent of Christ, they afforded no relief from such calamities.
Of the Ills Which Alone the Wicked Fear, and Which the World Continually Suffered, Even When the Gods Were Worshipped.
Chapter 1.—Of the Ills Which Alone the Wicked Fear, and Which the World Continually Suffered, Even When the Gods Were Worshipped.
Caput I. De aduersitatibus, quas solas mali metuunt et quas semper passus est mundus, cum deos coleret.
Of moral and spiritual evils, which are above all others to be deprecated, I think enough has already been said to show that the false gods took no steps to prevent the people who worshipped them from being overwhelmed by such calamities, but rather aggravated the ruin. I see I must now speak of those evils which alone are dreaded by the heathen—famine, pestilence, war, pillage, captivity, massacre, and the like calamities, already enumerated in the first book. For evil men account those things alone evil which do not make men evil; neither do they blush to praise good things, and yet to remain evil among the good things they praise. It grieves them more to own a bad house than a bad life, as if it were man’s greatest good to have everything good but himself. But not even such evils as were alone dreaded by the heathen were warded off by their gods, even when they were most unrestrictedly worshipped. For in various times and places before the advent of our Redeemer, the human race was crushed with numberless and sometimes incredible calamities; and at that time what gods but those did the world worship, if you except the one nation of the Hebrews, and, beyond them, such individuals as the most secret and most just judgment of God counted worthy of divine grace? But that I may not be prolix, I will be silent regarding the heavy calamities that have been suffered by any other nations, and will speak only of what happened to Rome and the Roman empire, by which I mean Rome properly so called, and those lands which already, before the coming of Christ, had by alliance or conquest become, as it were, members of the body of the state.
Iam satis dictum arbitror de morum malis et animorum, quae praecipue cauenda sunt, nihil deos falsos populo cultori suo, quo minus eorum malorum aggere premeretur, subuenire curasse, sed potius, ut maxime premeretur, egisse. Nunc de illis malis uideo dicendum, quae sola isti perpeti nolunt, qualia sunt fames morbus, bellum exspoliatio, captiuitas trucidatio, et si qua similia iam in primo libro commemorauimus. Haec enim sola mali deputant mala, quae non faciunt malos; nec erubescunt inter bona, quae laudant, ipsi mali esse qui laudant, magisque stomachantur, si uillam malam habeant, quam si uitam, quasi hoc sit hominis maximum bonum, habere bona omnia praeter se ipsum. Sed neque talia mala, quae isti sola formidant, di eorum, quando ab eis libere colebantur, ne illis acciderent obstiterunt. Cum enim uariis per diuersa temporibus ante aduentum Redemtoris nostri innumerabilibus nonnullisque etiam incredibilibus cladibus genus contereretur humanum, quos alios quam istos deos mundus colebat, excepto uno populo Hebraeo et quibusdam extra ipsum populum, ubicumque gratia diuina digni occultissimo adque iustissimo Dei iudicio fuerunt? Verum ne nimis longum faciam, tacebo aliarum usquequaque gentium mala grauissima: quod ad Romam pertinet Romanumque imperium tantum loquar, id est ad ipsam proprie ciuitatem et quaecumque illi terrarum uel societate coniunctae uel condicione subiectae sunt, quae sint perpessae ante aduentum Christi, cum iam ad eius quasi corpus rei publicae pertinerent.
Whether the Gods, Whom the Greeks and Romans Worshipped in Common, Were Justified in Permitting the Destruction of Ilium.
Chapter 2.—Whether the Gods, Whom the Greeks and Romans Worshipped in Common, Were Justified in Permitting the Destruction of Ilium.
Caput II. An di, qui et a Romanis et a Graecis similiter colebantur, causas habuerint, quibus Ilium paterentur exscindi.
First, then, why was Troy or Ilium, the cradle of the Roman people (for I must not overlook nor disguise what I touched upon in the first book), conquered, taken and destroyed by the Greeks, though it esteemed and worshipped the same gods as they? Priam, some answer, paid the penalty of the perjury of his father Laomedon. Then it is true that Laomedon hired Apollo and Neptune as his workmen. For the story goes that he promised them wages, and then broke his bargain. I wonder that famous diviner Apollo toiled at so huge a work, and never suspected Laomedon was going to cheat him of his pay. And Neptune too, his uncle, brother of Jupiter, king of the sea, it really was not seemly that he should be ignorant of what was to happen. For he is introduced by Homer (who lived and wrote before the building of Rome) as predicting something great of the posterity of Æneas, who in fact founded Rome. And as Homer says, Nep tune also rescued Æneas in a cloud from the wrath of Achilles, though (according to Virgil)
Primum ipsa Troia uel Ilium, unde origo est populi Romani, (neque enim praetereundum aut dissimulandum est, quod et in primo libro adtigi) eosdem habens deos et colens quur a Graecis uictum, captum adque deletum est? Priamo, inquiunt, sunt reddita Laomedontea paterna periuria’. Ergo uerum est, quod Apollo adque Neptunus eidem Laomedonti mercennariis operibus seruierunt? Illis quippe promisisse mercedem falsumque iurasse perhibetur. Miror Apollinem nominatum diuinatorem in tanto opificio laborasse nescientem quod Laomedon fuerat promissa negaturus. Quamquam nec ipsum Neptunum, patruum eius, fratrem Iouis, regem maris, decuit ignarum esse futurorum. Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris [condita] Roma est, cum ante illam urbem conditam idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem, quem etiam nube rapuit, ut dicit, ne ab Achille occideretur, cuperet cum uertere ab imo, quod aput Vergilium confitetur, Structa suis manibus periurae moenia Troiae.
“All his will was to destroy
His own creation, perjured Troy.”
Gods, then, so great as Apollo and Neptune, in ignorance of the cheat that was to defraud them of their wages, built the walls of Troy for nothing but thanks and thankless people. There may be some doubt whether it is not a worse crime to believe such persons to be gods, than to cheat such gods. Even Homer himself did not give full credence to the story for while he represents Neptune, indeed, as hostile to the Trojans, he introduces Apollo as their champion, though the story implies that both were offended by that fraud. If, therefore, they believe their fables, let them blush to worship such gods; if they discredit the fables, let no more be said of the “Trojan perjury;” or let them explain how the gods hated Trojan, but loved Roman perjury. For how did the conspiracy of Catiline, even in so large and corrupt a city, find so abundant a supply of men whose hands and tongues found them a living by perjury and civic broils? What else but perjury corrupted the judgments pronounced by so many of the senators? What else corrupted the people’s votes and decisions of all causes tried before them? For it seems that the ancient practice of taking oaths has been preserved even in the midst of the greatest corruption, not for the sake of restraining wickedness by religious fear, but to complete the tale of crimes by adding that of perjury.
Nescientes igitur tanti di, Neptunus et Apollo, Laomedontem sibi negaturum esse mercedem, structores moenium Troianorum gratis et ingratis fuerunt. Videant ne grauius sit tales deos credere quam dis talibus peierare. Hoc enim nec ipse Homerus facile credidit, qui Neptunum quidem contra Troianos, Apollinem autem pro Troianis pugnantem facit, cum illo periurio ambos fabula narret offensos. Si igitur fabulis credunt, erubescant talia colere numina; si fabulis non credunt, non obtendant Troiana periuria, aut mirentur deos periuria punisse Troiana, amasse Romana. Unde enim coniuratio Catilinae in tanta tamque corrupta ciuitate habuit etiam eorum grandem copiam, quos manus adque lingua periurio aut sanguine ciuili alebat? Quid enim aliud totiens senatores corrupti in iudiciis, totiens populus in suffragiis uel in quibusque causis, quae aput eum contionibus agebantur, nisi etiam peierando peccabant? Namque corruptissimis moribus ad hoc mos iurandi seruabatur antiquus, non ut ab sceleribus metu religionis prohiberentur, sed ut periuria quoque sceleribus ceteris adderentur.
That the Gods Could Not Be Offended by the Adultery of Paris, This Crime Being So Common Among Themselves.
Chapter 3.—That the Gods Could Not Be Offended by the Adultery of Paris, This Crime Being So Common Among Themselves.
Caput III. Non potuisse offendi deos Paridis adulterio, quod inter ipsos traditur frequentatum.
There is no ground, then, for representing the gods (by whom, as they say, that empire stood, though they are proved to have been conquered by the Greeks) as being enraged at the Trojan perjury. Neither, as others again plead in their defence, was it indignation at the adultery of Paris that caused them to withdraw their protection from Troy. For their habit is to be instigators and instructors in vice, not its avengers. “The city of Rome,” says Sallust, “was first built and inhabited, as I have heard, by the Trojans, who, flying their country, under the conduct of Æneas, wandered about without making any settlement.” If, then, the gods were of opinion that the adultery of Paris should be punished, it was chiefly the Romans, or at least the Romans also, who should have suffered; for the adultery was brought about by Æneas’ mother. But how could they hate in Paris a crime which they made no objection to in their own sister Venus, who (not to mention any other instance) committed adultery with Anchises, and so became the mother of Æneas? Is it because in the one case Menelaus was aggrieved, while in the other Vulcan connived at the crime? For the gods, I fancy, are so little jealous of their wives, that they make no scruple of sharing them with men. But perhaps I may be suspected of turning the myths into ridicule, and not handling so weighty a subject with sufficient gravity. Well, then, let us say that Æneas is not the son of Venus. I am willing to admit it; but is Romulus any more the son of Mars? For why not the one as well as the other? Or is it lawful for gods to have intercourse with women, unlawful for men to have intercourse with goddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible condition, that what was allowed to Mars by the law of Venus, should not be allowed to Venus herself by her own law. However, both cases have the authority of Rome; for Cæsar in modern times believed no less that he was descended from Venus, than the ancient Romulus believed himself the son of Mars.
Nulla itaque causa est, quare di, quibus, ut dicunt, steterat illud imperium, cum a Graecis praeualentibus probentur uicti, Troianis peierantibus fingantur irati. Nec adulterio Paridis, ut rursus a quibusdam defenduntur, ut Troiam desererent, suscensuerunt. Auctores enim doctoresque peccatorum esse adsolent, non ultores. ‘Urbem Romam, inquit Sallustius, sicuti ego accepi, condidere adque habuere initio Troiani, qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis uagabantur’. Si ergo adulterium Paridis uindicandum numina censuerunt, aut magis in Romanis aut certe etiam in Romanis puniendum fuit, quia Aeneae mater hoc fecit. Sed quo modo in illo illud flagitium oderant, qui in sua socia Venere non oderant (ut alia omittam) quod cum Anchise commiserat, ex quo Aenean pepererat? An quia illud factum est indignante Menelao, illud autem concedente Vulcano? Di enim, credo, non zelant coniuges suas usque adeo, ut eas etiam cum hominibus dignentur habere communes. Inridere fabulas fortassis existimor nec grauiter agere tanti ponderis causam. Non ergo credamus, si placet, Aenean esse Veneris filium: ecce concedo, si nec Romulum Martis. Si autem illud, quur non et illud? An deos [fas est] hominibus feminis, mares autem homines deabus misceri nefas? Dura uel potius non credenda condicio, quod ex iure Veneris in concubitu Marti licuit, hoc in iure suo ipsi Veneri non licere. At utrumque firmatum est auctoritate Romana. Neque enim minus credidit recentior Caesar auiam Venerem quam patrem antiquior Romulus Martem.
Of Varro’s Opinion, that It is Useful for Men to Feign Themselves the Offspring of the Gods.
Chapter 4.—Of Varro’s Opinion, that It is Useful for Men to Feign Themselves the Offspring of the Gods.
Caput IV. De sententia Varronis, qua utile esse dixit, ut se homines dis genitos mentiantur.
Some one will say, But do you believe all this? Not I indeed. For even Varro, a very learned heathen, all but admits that these stories are false, though he does not boldly and confidently say so. But he maintains it is useful for states that brave men believe, though falsely, that they are descended from the gods; for that thus the human spirit, cherishing the belief of its divine descent, will both more boldly venture into great enterprises, and will carry them out more energetically, and will therefore by its very confidence secure more abundant success. You see how wide a field is opened to falsehood by this opinion of Varro’s, which I have expressed as well as I could in my own words; and how comprehensible it is, that many of the religions and sacred legends should be feigned in a community in which it was judged profitable for the citizens that lies should be told even about the gods themselves.
Dixerit aliquis: Itane tu ista credis? Ego uero ista non credo. Nam et uir doctissimus eorum Varro falsa haec esse, quamuis non audacter neque fidenter, paene tamen fatetur. Sed utile ciuitatibus esse dicit, ut se uiri fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, dis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus humanus uelut diuinae stirpis fiduciam gerens res magnas adgrediendas praesumat audacius, agat uehementius et ob hoc inpleat ipsa securitate felicius. Quae Varronis sententia expressa, ut potui, meis uerbis cernis quam latum locum aperiat falsitati, ubi intellegamus plura iam sacra et quasi religiosa potuisse confingi, ubi putata sunt ciuibus etiam de ipsis dis prodesse mendacia.
That It is Not Credible that the Gods Should Have Punished the Adultery of Paris, Seeing They Showed No Indignation at the Adultery of the Mother of Romulus.
Chapter 5.—That It is Not Credible that the Gods Should Have Punished the Adultery of Paris, Seeing They Showed No Indignation at the Adultery of the Mother of Romulus.
Caput V. Non probari quod di adulterium Paridis punierint, quod in Romuli matre non ulti sunt.
But whether Venus could bear Æneas to a human father Anchises, or Mars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor, we leave as unsettled questions. For our own Scriptures suggest the very similar question, whether the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, by which the earth was at that time filled with giants, that is, with enormously large and strong men. At present, then, I will limit my discussion to this dilemma: If that which their books relate about the mother of Æneas and the father of Romulus be true, how can the gods be displeased with men for adulteries which, when committed by themselves, excite no displeasure? If it is false, not even in this case can the gods be angry that men should really commit adulteries, which, even when falsely attributed to the gods, they delight in. Moreover, if the adultery of Mars be discredited, that Venus also may be freed from the imputation, then the mother of Romulus is left unshielded by the pretext of a divine seduction. For Sylvia was a vestal priestess, and the gods ought to avenge this sacrilege on the Romans with greater severity than Paris’ adultery on the Trojans. For even the Romans themselves in primitive times used to go so far as to bury alive any vestal who was detected in adultery, while women unconsecrated, though they were punished, were never punished with death for that crime; and thus they more earnestly vindicated the purity of shrines they esteemed divine, than of the human bed.
Sed utrum potuerit Venus ex concubitu Anchisae Aenean parere uel Mars ex concubitu filiae Numitoris Romulum gignere, in medio relinquamus. Nam paene talis quaestio etiam de scripturis nostris oboritur, qua quaeritur, utrum praeuaricatores angeli cum filiabus hominum concubuerint, unde natis gigantibus, hoc est nimium grandibus ac fortibus uiris, tunc terra conpleta est. Proinde ad utrumque interim modo nostra disputatio referatur. Si enim uera sunt, quae aput illos de matre Aeneae et de patre Romuli lectitantur, quo modo possunt dis adulteria displicere hominum, quae in se ipsis concorditer ferunt? Si autem falsa sunt, ne sic quidem possunt irasci ueris adulteriis humanis, qui etiam falsis delectantur suis. Huc accedit, quoniam, si illud de Marte non creditur, ut hoc quoque de Venere non credatur, nullo diuini concubitus obtentu matris Romuli causa defenditur. Fuit autem sacerdos illa Vestalis, et ideo di magis in Romanos sacrilegum illud flagitium quam in Troianos Paridis adulterium uindicare debuerunt. Nam et ipsi Romani antiqui in stupro detectas Vestae sacerdotes uiuas etiam defodiebant, adulteras autem feminas, quamuis aliqua damnatione, nulla tamen morte plectebant: usque adeo grauius quae putabant adyta diuina quam humana cubilia uindicabant.
That the Gods Exacted No Penalty for the Fratricidal Act of Romulus.
Chapter 6.—That the Gods Exacted No Penalty for the Fratricidal Act of Romulus.
Caput VI. De parricidio Romuli, quod di non uindicarunt.
I add another instance: If the sins of men so greatly incensed those divinities, that they abandoned Troy to fire and sword to punish the crime of Paris, the murder of Romulus’ brother ought to have incensed them more against the Romans than the cajoling of a Greek husband moved them against the Trojans: fratricide in a newly-born city should have provoked them more than adultery in a city already flourishing. It makes no difference to the question we now discuss, whether Romulus ordered his brother to be slain, or slew him with his own hand; it is a crime which many shamelessly deny, many through shame doubt, many in grief disguise. And we shall not pause to examine and weigh the testimonies of historical writers on the subject. All agree that the brother of Romulus was slain, not by enemies, not by strangers. If it was Romulus who either commanded or perpetrated this crime; Romulus was more truly the head of the Romans than Paris of the Trojans; why then did he who carried off another man’s wife bring down the anger of the gods on the Trojans, while he who took his brother’s life obtained the guardianship of those same gods? If, on the other hand, that crime was not wrought either by the hand or will of Romulus, then the whole city is chargeable with it, because it did not see to its punishment, and thus committed, not fratricide, but parricide, which is worse. For both brothers were the founders of that city, of which the one was by villainy prevented from being a ruler. So far as I see, then, no evil can be ascribed to Troy which warranted the gods in abandoning it to destruction, nor any good to Rome which accounts for the gods visiting it with prosperity; unless the truth be, that they fled from Troy because they were vanquished, and betook themselves to Rome to practise their characteristic deceptions there. Nevertheless they kept a footing for themselves in Troy, that they might deceive future inhabitants who re-peopled these lands; while at Rome, by a wider exercise of their malignant arts, they exulted in more abundant honors.
Aliud adicio, quia, si peccata hominum illis numinibus displicerent, ut offensi Paridis facto desertam Troiam ferro ignibusque donarent, magis eos contra Romanos moueret Romuli frater occisus quam contra Troianos Graecus maritus inlusus; magis inritaret parricidium nascentis quam regnantis adulterium ciuitatis. Nec ad causam, quam nunc agimus, interest, utrum hoc fieri Romulus iusserit aut Romulus fecerit, quod multi inpudentia negant, multi pudore dubitant, multi dolore dissimulant. Nec nos itaque in ea re diligentius requirenda per multorum scriptorum perpensa testimonia demoremur: Romuli fratrem palam constat occisum, non ab hostibus, ‘non ab alienis. Si aut perpetrauit aut imperauit hoc Romulus, magis ipse fuit Romanorum quam Paris Troianorum caput; quur igitur Troianis iram deorum prouocauit ille alienae coniugis raptor, et eorundem deorum tutelam Romanis inuitauit iste sui fratris extinctor? Si autem illud scelus a facto imperioque Romuli alienum est: quoniam debuit utique uindicari, tota hoc illa ciuitas fecit, quod tota contemsit, et non iam fratrem, sed patrem, quod est peius, occidit. Uterque enim fuit conditor, ubi alter scelere ablatus non permissus est esse regnator. Non est, ut arbitror, quod dicatur quid mali Troia meruerit, ut eam di desererent, quo posset extingui, et quid boni Roma, ut eam di inhabitarent, quo posset augeri; nisi quod uicti inde fugerunt et se ad istos, quos pariter deciperent, contulerunt; immo uero et illic manserunt ad eos more suo decipiendos, qui rursus easdem terras habitarent, et hic easdem artes fallaciae suae magis etiam exercendo maioribus honoribus gloriati sunt.