Concerning the Likeness and Agreement of the Fabulous and Civil Theologies.

Chapter 7.—Concerning the Likeness and Agreement of the Fabulous and Civil Theologies.

Caput VII. De fabulosae et ciuilis theologiae similitudine adque concordia.

That theology, therefore, which is fabulous, theatrical, scenic, and full of all baseness and unseemliness, is taken up into the civil theology; and part of that theology, which in its totality is deservedly judged to be worthy of reprobation and rejection, is pronounced worthy to be cultivated and observed;—not at all an incongruous part, as I have undertaken to show, and one which, being alien to the whole body, was unsuitably attached to and suspended from it, but a part entirely congruous with, and most harmoniously fitted to the rest, as a member of the same body. For what else do those images, forms, ages, sexes, characteristics of the gods show? If the poets have Jupiter with a beard and Mercury beardless, have not the priests the same? Is the Priapus of the priests less obscene than the Priapus of the players? Does he receive the adoration of worshippers in a different form from that in which he moves about the stage for the amusement of spectators? Is not Saturn old and Apollo young in the shrines where their images stand as well as when represented by actors’ masks? Why are Forculus, who presides over doors, and Limentinus, who presides over thresholds and lintels, male gods, and Cardea between them feminine, who presides over hinges? Are not those things found in books on divine things, which grave poets have deemed unworthy of their verses? Does the Diana of the theatre carry arms, whilst the Diana of the city is simply a virgin? Is the stage Apollo a lyrist, but the Delphic Apollo ignorant of this art? But these things are decent compared with the more shameful things. What was thought of Jupiter himself by those who placed his wet nurse in the Capitol? Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus, who, not with the garrulity of a fable-teller, but with the gravity of an historian who had diligently investigated the matter, wrote that all such gods had been men and mortals? And they who appointed the Epulones as parasites at the table of Jupiter, what else did they wish for but mimic sacred rites. For if any mimic had said that parasites of Jupiter were made use of at his table, he would assuredly have appeared to be seeking to call forth laughter. Varro said it,—not when he was mocking, but when he was commending the gods did he say it. His books on divine, not on human, things testify that he wrote this,—not where he set forth the scenic games, but where he explained the Capitoline laws. In a word, he is conquered, and confesses that, as they made the gods with a human form, so they believed that they are delighted with human pleasures.

Reuocatur igitur ad theologian ciuilem theologia fabulosa theatrica scaenica, indignitatis et turpitudinis plena, et haec tota, quae merito culpanda et respuenda iudicatur, pars huius est, quae colenda et obseruanda censetur; non sane pars incongrua, sicut ostendere institui, et quae ab uniuerso corpore aliena inportune illi conexa adque suspensa sit, sed omnino consona et tamquam eiusdem corporis membrum conuenientissime copulata. Quid enim aliud ostendunt illa simulacra formae aetates sexus habitus deorum? Numquid barbatum Iouem, inberbem Mercurium poetae habent, pontifices non habent? Numquid Priapo mimi, non etiam sacerdotes enormia pudenda fecerunt? An aliter stat adorandus in locis sacris, quam procedit ridendus in theatris? Num Saturnus senex, Apollo ephebus ita personae sunt histrionum, ut non sint statuae delubrorum? Quur Forculus, qui foribus praeest, et Limentinus, qui limini, di sunt masculi, adque inter hos Cardea femina est, quae cardinem seruat? Nonne ista in rerum diuinarum libris reperiuntur, quae graues poetae suis carminibus indigna duxerunt? Numquid Diana theatrica portat arma et urbana simpliciter uirgo est? Numquid scaenicus Apollo citharista est et ab hac arte Delphicus uacat? Sed haec honestiora sunt in conparatione turpiorum. Quid de ipso Ioue senserunt, qui eius nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? Nonne adtestati sunt Euemero, qui omnes tales deos non fabulosa garrulitate, sed historica diligentia homines fuisse mortalesque conscripsit? Epulones etiam deos, parasitos Iouis, ad eius mensam qui constituerunt, quid aliud quam mimica sacra esse uoluerunt? Nam parasitos Iouis ad conuiuium eius adhibitos si mimus dixisset, utique risum quaesisse uideretur. Varro dixit! non cum inrideret deos, sed cum commendaret hoc dixit; diuinarum, non humanarum rerum libri hoc eum scripsisse testantur, nec ubi ludos scaenicos exponebat, sed ubi Capitolina iura pandebat. Denique talibus uincitur et fatetur, sicut forma humana deos fecerunt, ita eos delectari humanis uoluptatibus credidisse.

For also malign spirits were not so wanting to their own business as not to confirm noxious opinions in the minds of men by converting them into sport. Whence also is that story about the sacristan of Hercules, which says that, having nothing to do, he took to playing at dice as a pastime, throwing them alternately with the one hand for Hercules, with the other for himself, with this understanding, that if he should win, he should from the funds of the temple prepare himself a supper, and hire a mistress; but if Hercules should win the game, he himself should, at his own expense, provide the same for the pleasure of Hercules. Then, when he had been beaten by himself, as though by Hercules, he gave to the god Hercules the supper he owed him, and also the most noble harlot Larentina. But she, having fallen asleep in the temple, dreamed that Hercules had had intercourse with her, and had said to her that she would find her payment with the youth whom she should first meet on leaving the temple, and that she was to believe this to be paid to her by Hercules. And so the first youth that met her on going out was the wealthy Tarutius, who kept her a long time, and when he died left her his heir. She, having obtained a most ample fortune, that she should not seem ungrateful for the divine hire, in her turn made the Roman people her heir, which she thought to be most acceptable to the deities; and, having disappeared, the will was found. By which meritorious conduct they say that she gained divine honors.

Non enim et maligni spiritus suo negotio defuerunt, ut has noxias opiniones humanarum mentium ludificatione firmarent. Unde etiam illud est, quod Herculis aedituus otiosus adque feriatus lusit tesseris secum utraque manu alternante, in una constituens Herculem, in altera se ipsum, sub ea condicione, ut, si ipse uicisset, de stipe templi sibi cenam pararet amicamque conduceret; si autem uictoria Herculis fieret, hoc idem de pecunia sua uoluptati Herculis exhiberet; deinde cum a se ipso tamquam ab Hercule uictus esset, debitam cenam et nobilissimam meretricem Larentinam deo Herculi dedit. At illa cum dormisset in templo, uidit in somnis Herculem sibi esse commixtum sibique dixisse, quod inde discedens, cui primum iuueni obuia fieret, aput illum esset inuentura mercedem, quam sibi credere deberet ab Hercule persolutam. Ac sic abeunti cum primus iuuenis ditissimus Tarutius occurrisset eamque dilectam secum diutius habuisset, illa herede defunctus est. Quae amplissimam adepta pecuniam ne diuinae mercedi uideretur ingrata, quod acceptissimum putauit esse numinibus, populum Romanum etiam ipsa scripsit heredem, adque illa non conparente inuentum est testamentum; quibus meritis eam ferunt etiam honores meruisse diuinos.

Now had these things been feigned by the poets and acted by the mimics, they would without any doubt have been said to pertain to the fabulous theology, and would have been judged worthy to be separated from the dig nity of the civil theology. But when these shameful things,—not of the poets, but of the people; not of the mimics, but of the sacred things; not of the theatres, but of the temples, that is, not of the fabulous, but of the civil theology,—are reported by so great an author, not in vain do the actors represent with theatrical art the baseness of the gods, which is so great; but surely in vain do the priests attempt, by rites called sacred, to represent their nobleness of character, which has no existence. There are sacred rites of Juno; and these are celebrated in her beloved island, Samos, where she was given in marriage to Jupiter. There are sacred rites of Ceres, in which Proserpine is sought for, having been carried off by Pluto. There are sacred rites of Venus, in which, her beloved Adonis being slain by a boar’s tooth, the lovely youth is lamented. There are sacred rites of the mother of the gods, in which the beautiful youth Atys, loved by her, and castrated by her through a woman’s jealousy, is deplored by men who have suffered the like calamity, whom they call Galli. Since, then, these things are more unseemly than all scenic abomination, why is it that they strive to separate, as it were, the fabulous fictions of the poet concerning the gods, as, forsooth, pertaining to the theatre, from the civil theology which they wish to belong to the city, as though they were separating from noble and worthy things, things unworthy and base? Wherefore there is more reason to thank the stage-actors, who have spared the eyes of men and have not laid bare by theatrical exhibition all the things which are hid by the walls of the temples. What good is to be thought of their sacred rites which are concealed in darkness, when those which are brought forth into the light are so detestable? And certainly they themselves have seen what they transact in secret through the agency of mutilated and effeminate men. Yet they have not been able to conceal those same men miserably and vile enervated and corrupted. Let them persuade whom they can that they transact anything holy through such men, who, they cannot deny, are numbered, and live among their sacred things. We know not what they transact, but we know through whom they transact; for we know what things are transacted on the stage, where never, even in a chorus of harlots, hath one who is mutilated or an effeminate appeared. And, nevertheless, even these things are acted by vile and infamous characters; for, indeed, they ought not to be acted by men of good character. What, then, are those sacred rites, for the performance of which holiness has chosen such men as not even the obscenity of the stage has admitted?

Haec si poetae fingerent, si mimi agerent, ad fabulosam theologian dicerentur procul dubio pertinere et a ciuilis theologiae dignitate separanda iudicarentur. Cum uero haec dedecora non poetarum, sed populorum; non mimorum, sed sacrorum; non theatrorum, sed templorum; id est non fabulosae, sed ciuilis theologiae, a tanto auctore produntur: non frustra histriones ludicris artibus fingunt deorum quae tanta est turpitudinem, sed plane frustra sacerdotes uelut sacris ritibus conantur fingere deorum quae nulla est honestatem. Sacra sunt Iunonis, et haec in eius dilecta insula Samo celebrabantur, ubi nuptum data est Ioui; sacra sunt Cereris, ubi a Plutone rapta Proserpina quaeritur; sacra sunt Veneris, ubi amatus eius Adon aprino dente extinctus iuuenis formosissimus plangitur; sacra sunt Matris deum, ubi Attis pulcher adulescens ab ea dilectus et muliebri zelo abscisus etiam hominum abscisorum, quos Gallos uocant, infelicitate deploratur. Haec cum deformiora sint omni scaenica foeditate, quid est quod fabulosa de dis figmenta poetarum ad theatrum uidelicet pertinentia uelut secernere nituntur a ciuili theologia, quam pertinere ad urbem uolunt, quasi ab honestis et dignis indigna et turpia? Itaque potius est unde gratiae debeantur histrionibus, qui oculis hominum pepercerunt nec omnia spectaculis nudauerunt, quae sacrarum aedium parietibus occuluntur. Quid de sacris eorum boni sentiendum est, quae tenebris operiuntur, cum tam sint detestabilia, quae proferuntur in lucem? Et certe quid in occulto agant per abscisos et molles, ipsi uiderint; eosdem tamen homines infeliciter ac turpiter eneruatos adque corruptos occultare minime potuerunt. Persuadeant cui possunt se aliquid sanctum per tales agere homines, quos inter sua sancta numerari adque uersari negare non possunt. Nescimus quid agant, sed scimus per quales agant. Nouimus enim quae agantur in scaena, quo numquam uel in choro meretricum abscisus aut mollis intrauit; et tamen etiam ipsa turpes et infames agunt; neque enim ab honestis agi debuerunt. Quae sunt ergo illa sacra, quibus agendis tales elegit sanctitas, quales nec thymelica in se admisit obscenitas?

Chapter 8.—Concerning the Interpretations, Consisting of Natural Explanations, Which the Pagan Teachers Attempt to Show for Their Gods.

Caput VIII. De interpretationibus naturalium rationum, quas doctores pagani pro dis suis conantur ostendere.

But all these things, they say, have certain physical, that is, natural interpretations, showing their natural meaning; as though in this disputation we were seeking physics and not theology, which is the account, not of nature, but of God. For although He who is the true God is God, not by opinion, but by nature, nevertheless all nature is not God; for there is certainly a nature of man, of a beast, of a tree, of a stone,—none of which is God. For if, when the question is concerning the mother of the gods, that from which the whole system of interpretation starts certainly is, that the mother of the gods is the earth, why do we make further inquiry? why do we carry our investigation through all the rest of it? What can more manifestly favor them who say that all those gods were men? For they are earth-born in the sense that the earth is their mother. But in the true theology the earth is the work, not the mother, of God. But in whatever way their sacred rites may be interpreted, and whatever reference they may have to the nature of things, it is not according to nature, but contrary to nature, that men should be effeminates. This disease, this crime, this abomination, has a recognized place among those sacred things, though even depraved men will scarcely be compelled by torments to confess they are guilty of it. Again, if these sacred rites, which are proved to be fouler than scenic abominations, are excused and justified on the ground that they have their own interpretations, by which they are shown to symbolize the nature of things, why are not the poetical things in like manner excused and justified? For many have interpreted even these in like fashion, to such a degree that even that which they say is the most monstrous and most horrible,—namely, that Saturn devoured his own children,—has been interpreted by some of them to mean that length of time, which is signified by the name of Saturn, consumes whatever it begets; or that, as the same Varro thinks, Saturn belongs to seeds which fall back again into the earth from whence they spring. And so one interprets it in one way, and one in another. And the same is to be said of all the rest of this theology.

At enim habent ista physiologicas quasdam, sicut aiunt, id est naturalium rationum interpretationes. Quasi uero nos in hac disputatione physiologian quaerimus et non theologian, id est rationem non naturae, sed Dei. Quamuis enim qui uerus Deus est non opinione, sed natura Deus sit: non tamen omnis natura deus est, quia et hominis et pecoris, et arboris et lapidis utique natura est, quorum nihil est deus. Si autem interpretationis huius, quando agitur de sacris Matris deum, caput est certe quod Mater deum terra est, quid ultra quaerimus, quid cetera perscrutamur? Quid euidentius suffragatur eis, qui dicunt omnes istos deos homines fuisse? Sic enim sunt terrigenae, sic eis mater est terra. In uera autem theologia opus Dei est terra, non mater. Verum tamen quoquo modo sacra eius interpretentur et referant ad rerum naturam: uiros muliebria pati non est secundum naturam, sed contra naturam. Hic morbus, hoc crimen, hoc dedecus habet inter illa sacra professionem, quod in uitiosis hominum moribus uix habet inter tormenta confessionem. Deinde si ista sacra, quae scaenicis turpitudinibus conuincuntur esse foediora, hinc excusantur adque purgantur, quod habent interpretationes suas, quibus ostendantur rerum significare naturam: quur non etiam poetica similiter excusentur adque purgentur? Multi enim et ipsa ad eundem modum interpretati sunt, usque adeo ut, quod ab eis inmanissimum et infandissimum dicitur, Saturnum suos filios deuorasse, ita nonnulli interpretentur, quod longinquitas temporis, quae Saturni nomine significatur, quidquid gignit ipsa consumat, uel, sicut idem opinatur Varro, quod pertineat Saturnus ad semina, quae in terram, de qua oriuntur, iterum recidunt. Itemque alii alio modo et similiter cetera.

And, nevertheless, it is called the fabulous theology, and is censured, cast off, rejected, together with all such interpretations belonging to it. And not only by the natural theology, which is that of the philosophers, but also by this civil theology, concerning which we are speaking, which is asserted to pertain to cities and peoples, it is judged worthy of repudiation, because it has invented unworthy things concerning the gods. Of which, I wot, this is the secret: that those most acute and learned men, by whom those things were written, understood that both theologies ought to be rejected,—to wit, both that fabulous and this civil one,—but the former they dared to reject, the latter they dared not; the former they set forth to be censured, the latter they showed to be very like it; not that it might be chosen to be held in preference to the other, but that it might be understood to be worthy of being rejected together with it. And thus, without danger to those who feared to censure the civil theology, both of them being brought into contempt, that theology which they call natural might find a place in better disposed minds; for the civil and the fabulous are both fabulous and both civil. He who shall wisely inspect the vanities and obscenities of both will find that they are both fabulous; and he who shall direct his attention to the scenic plays pertaining to the fabulous theology in the festivals of the civil gods, and in the divine rites of the cities, will find they are both civil. How, then, can the power of giving eternal life be attributed to any of those gods whose own images and sacred rites convict them of being most like to the fabulous gods, which are most openly reprobated, in forms, ages, sex, characteristics, marriages, generations, rites; in all which things they are understood either to have been men, and to have had their sacred rites and solemnities instituted in their honor according to the life or death of each of them, the demons suggesting and confirming this error, or certainly most foul spirits, who, taking advantage of some occasion or other, have stolen into the minds of men to deceive them?

Et tamen theologia fabulosa dicitur et cum omnibus huiusce modi interpretationibus suis reprehenditur abicitur inprobatur, nec solum a naturali, quae philosophorum est, uerum etiam ab ista ciuili, de qua agimus, quae ad urbes populosque adseritur pertinere, eo quod de dis indigna confinxerit, merito repudianda discernitur, eo nimirum consilio, ut, quoniam acutissimi homines adque doctissimi, a quibus ista conscripta sunt, ambas inprobandas intellegebant, et illam scilicet fabulosam et istam ciuilem, illam uero audebant inprobare, hanc non audebant; illam culpandam proposuerunt, hanc eius similem conparandam exposuerunt, — non ut haec prae illa tenenda eligeretur, sed ut cum illa respuenda intellegeretur, adque ita sine periculo eorum, qui ciuilem theologian reprehendere metuebant, utraque contemta ea, quam naturalem uocant, aput meliores animos inueniret locum. Nam et ciuilis et fabulosa ambae fabulosae sunt ambaeque ciuiles; ambas inueniet fabulosas, qui uanitates et obscenitates ambarum prudenter inspexerit; ambas ciuiles, qui scaenicos ludos pertinentes ad fabulosam in deorum ciuilium festiuitatibus et in urbium diuinis rebus aduerterit. Quo modo igitur uitae aeternae dandae potestas cuiquam deorum istorum tribuitur, quos sua simulacra et sacra conuincunt dis fabulosis apertissime reprobatis esse simillimos formis aetatibus, sexu habitu, coniugiis generationibus ritibus, in quibus omnibus aut homines fuisse intelleguntur et pro uniuscuiusque uita uel morte sacra eis et sollemnia constituta, hunc errorem insinuantibus firmantibusque daemonibus, aut certe ex qualibet occasione inmundissimi spiritus fallendis humanis mentibus inrepsisse?

Chapter 9.—Concerning the Special Offices of the Gods.

Caput IX. De officiis singulorum deorum.

And as to those very offices of the gods, so meanly and so minutely portioned out, so that they say that they ought to be supplicated, each one according to his special function,—about which we have spoken much already, though not all that is to be said concerning it,—are they not more consistent with mimic buffoonery than divine majesty? If any one should use two nurses for his infant, one of whom should give nothing but food, the other nothing but drink, as these make use of two goddesses for this purpose, Educa and Potina, he should certainly seem to be foolish, and to do in his house a thing worthy of a mimic. They would have Liber to have been named from “liberation,” because through him males at the time of copulation are liberated by the emission of the seed. They also say that Libera (the same in their opinion as Venus) exercises the same function in the case of women, because they say that they also emit seed; and they also say that on this account the same part of the male and of the female is placed in the temple, that of the male to Liber, and that of the female to Libera. To these things they add the women assigned to Liber, and the wine for exciting lust. Thus the Bacchanalia are celebrated with the utmost insanity, with respect to which Varro himself confesses that such things would not be done by the Bacchanals except their minds were highly excited. These things, however, afterwards displeased a saner senate, and it ordered them to be discontinued. Here, at length, they perhaps perceived how much power unclean spirits, when held to be gods, exercise over the minds of men. These things, certainly, were not to be done in the theatres; for there they play, not rave, although to have gods who are delighted with such plays is very like raving.

Quid? ipsa numinum officia tam uiliter minutatimque concisa, propter quod eis dicunt pro uniuscuiusque proprio munere supplicari oportere, unde non quidem omnia, sed multa iam diximus, nonne scurrilitati mimicae quam diuinae consonant dignitati? Si duas quisquam nutrices adhiberet infanti, quarum una nihil nisi escam, altera nihil nisi potum daret, sicut isti ad hoc duas adhibuerunt deas, Educam et Potinam, nempe desipere et aliquid mimo simile in sua domo agere uideretur. Liberum a liberamento appellatum uolunt, quod mares in coeundo per eius beneficium emissis seminibus liberentur; hoc idem in feminis agere Liberam, quam etiam Venerem putant, quod et ipsam perhibeant semina emittere; et ob haec Libero eandem uirilem corporis partem in templo poni, femineam Liberae. Ad haec addunt mulieres adtributas Libero et uinum propter libidinem concitandam. Sic Bacchanalia summa celebrabantur insania; ubi Varro ipse confitetur a Bacchantibus talia fieri non potuisse nisi mente commota. Haec tamen postea displicuerunt senatui saniori, et ea iussit auferri. Saltem hic tandem forsitan senserunt quid inmundi spiritus, dum pro dis habentur, in hominum mentibus possint. Haec certe non fierent in theatris; ludunt quippe ibi, non fuiiunt; quamuis deos habere, qui etiam ludis talibus delectentur, simile sit furoris.

But what kind of distinction is this which he makes between the religious and the superstitious man, saying that the gods are feared by the superstitious man, but are reverenced as parents by the religious man, not feared as enemies; and that they are all so good that they will more readily spare those who are impious than hurt one who is innocent? And yet he tells us that three gods are assigned as guardians to a woman after she has been delivered, lest the god Silvanus come in and molest her; and that in order to signify the presence of these protectors, three men go round the house during the night, and first strike the threshold with a hatchet, next with a pestle, and the third time sweep it with a brush, in order that these symbols of agriculture having been exhibited, the god Silvanus might be hindered from entering, because neither are trees cut down or pruned without a hatchet, neither is grain ground without a pestle, nor corn heaped up without a besom. Now from these three things three gods have been named: Intercidona, from the cut made by the hatchet; Pilumnus, from the pestle; Diverra, from the besom;—by which guardian gods the woman who has been de livered is preserved against the power of the god Silvanus. Thus the guardianship of kindly-disposed gods would not avail against the malice of a mischievous god, unless they were three to one, and fought against him, as it were, with the opposing emblems of cultivation, who, being an inhabitant of the woods, is rough, horrible, and uncultivated. Is this the innocence of the gods? Is this their concord? Are these the health-giving deities of the cities, more ridiculous than the things which are laughed at in the theatres?

Quale autem illud est, quod, cum religiosum a superstitioso ea distinctione discernat, uta superstitioso dicat timeri deos, a religioso autem tantum uereri ut parentes, non ut hostes timeri, adque omnes ita bonos dicat, ut facilius sit eos nocentibus parcere quam laedere quemquam innocentem, tamen mulieri fetae post partum tres deos custodes commemorat adhiberi, ne Siluanus deus per noctem ingrediatur et uexet, eorumque custodum significandorum causa tres homines noctu : circuire limina domus et primo limen securi ferire, postea pilo, tertio deuerrere scopis, ut his datis culturae signis deus Siluanus prohibeatur intrare, quod neque arbores caeduntur ac putantur sine ferro, neque far conficitur sine pilo, neque fruges coaceruantur sine scopis; ab his autem tribus rebus tres nuncupatos deos, Intercidonam a securis intercisione, Pilumnum a pilo, Deuerram a scopis, quibus dis custodibus contra uim dei Siluani feta conseruaretur. Ita contra dei nocentis saeuitiam non ualeret custodia bonorum, nisi plures essent aduersus unum eique aspero horrendo inculto, utpote siluestri, signis culturae tamquam contrariis repugnarent. Itane ista est innocentia deorum, ista concordia? Haeccine sunt numina salubria urbium, magis ridenda quam ludibria theatrorum? Cum mas et femina coniunguntur, adhibetur deus Iugatinus; sit hoc ferendum.

When a male and a female are united, the god Jugatinus presides. Well, let this be borne with. But the married woman must be brought home: the god Domiducus also is invoked. That she may be in the house, the god Domitius is introduced. That she may remain with her husband, the goddess Manturnæ is used. What more is required? Let human modesty be spared. Let the lust of flesh and blood go on with the rest, the secret of shame being respected. Why is the bed-chamber filled with a crowd of deities, when even the groomsmen have departed? And, moreover, it is so filled, not that in consideration of their presence more regard may be paid to chastity, but that by their help the woman, naturally of the weaker sex, and trembling with the novelty of her situation, may the more readily yield her virginity. For there are the goddess Virginiensis, and the god-father Subigus, and the goddess-mother Prema, and the goddess Pertunda, and Venus, and Priapus. What is this? If it was absolutely necessary that a man, laboring at this work, should be helped by the gods, might not some one god or goddess have been sufficient? Was Venus not sufficient alone, who is even said to be named from this, that without her power a woman does not cease to be a virgin? If there is any shame in men, which is not in the deities, is it not the case that, when the married couple believe that so many gods of either sex are present, and busy at this work, they are so much affected with shame, that the man is less moved, and the woman more reluctant? And certainly, if the goddess Virginiensis is present to loose the virgin’s zone, if the god Subigus is present that the virgin may be got under the man, if the goddess Prema is present that, having been got under him, she may be kept down, and may not move herself, what has the goddess Pertunda to do there? Let her blush; let her go forth. Let the husband himself do something. It is disgraceful that any one but himself should do that from which she gets her name. But perhaps she is tolerated because she is said to be a goddess, and not a god. For if she were believed to be a male, and were called Pertundus, the husband would demand more help against him for the chastity of his wife than the newly-delivered woman against Silvanus. But why am I saying this, when Priapus, too, is there, a male to excess, upon whose immense and most unsightly member the newly-married bride is commanded to sit, according to the most honorable and most religious custom of matrons?

Sed domum est ducenda quae nubit; adhibetur et deus Domiducus; ut in domo sit, adhibetur deus Domitius; ut maneat cum uiro, additur dea Manturna. Quid ultra quaeritur? Parcatur humanae uerecundiae; peragat cetera concupiscentia carnis et sanguinis procurato secreto pudoris. Quid inpletur cubiculum turba numinum, quando et paranymphi inde discedunt? Et ad hoc inpletur, non ut eorum praesentia cogitata maior sit cura pudicitiae, sed ut feminae sexu infirmae, nouitate pauidae illis cooperantibus sine ulla difficultate uirginitas auferatur. Adest enim dea Virginiensis et deus pater Subigus, et dea mater Prema et dea Pertunda, et Venus et Priapus. Quid est hoc? Si omnino laborantem in illo opere uirum ab dis adiuuari oportebat, non sufficeret aliquis unus aut aliqua una? Numquid Venus sola parum esset, quae ad hoc etiam dicitur nuncupata, quod sine ui femina uirgo esse non desinat? Si est ulla frons in hominibus, quae non est in numinibus, nonne, cum credunt coniugati tot deos utriusque sexus esse praesentes et huic operi instantes, ita pudore adficiuntur, ut et ille minus moueatur et illa plus reluctetur? Et certe si adest Virginiensis dea, ut uirgini zona soluatur; si adest deus Subigus, ut uiro subigatur; si adest dea Prema, ut subacta, ne se commoueat, conprimatur: dea Pertunda ibi quid facit? Erubescat, eat foras; agat aliquid et maritus. Valde inhonestum est, ut, quod uocatur illa, quisquam inpleat nisi ille. Sed forte ideo toleratur, quia dea dicitur esse, non deus. Nam si masculus crederetur et Pertundus uocaretur, maius contra eum pro uxoris pudicitia posceret maritus auxilium quam feta contra Siluanum. Sed quid hoc dicam, cum ibi sit et Priapus nimius masculus, super cuius inmanissimum et turpissimum fascinum sedere noua nupta iubebatur, more honestissimo et religiosissimo matronarum?

Let them go on, and let them attempt with all the subtlety they can to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous, the cities from the theatres, the temples from the stages, the sacred things of the priests from the songs of the poets, as honorable things from base things, truthful things from fallacious, grave from light, serious from ludicrous, desirable things from things to be rejected, we understand what they do. They are aware that that theatrical and fabulous theology hangs by the civil, and is reflected back upon it from the songs of the poets as from a mirror; and thus, that theology having been exposed to view which they do not dare to condemn, they more freely assail and censure that picture of it, in order that those who perceive what they mean may detest this very face itself of which that is the picture,—which, however, the gods themselves, as though seeing themselves in the same mirror, love so much, that it is better seen in both of them who and what they are. Whence, also, they have compelled their worshippers, with terrible commands, to dedicate to them the uncleanness of the fabulous theology, to put them among their solemnities, and reckon them among divine things; and thus they have both shown themselves more manifestly to be most impure spirits, and have made that rejected and reprobated theatrical theology a member and a part of this, as it were, chosen and approved theology of the city, so that, though the whole is disgraceful and false, and contains in it fictitious gods, one part of it is in the literature of the priests, the other in the songs of the poets. Whether it may have other parts is another question. At present, I think, I have sufficiently shown, on account of the division of Varro, that the theology of the city and that of the theatre belong to one civil theology. Wherefore, because they are both equally disgraceful, absurd, shameful, false, far be it from religious men to hope for eternal life from either the one or the other.

Eant adhuc et theologian ciuilem a theologia fabulosa, urbes a theatris, templa ab scaenis, sacra pontificum a carminibus poetarum, uelut res honestas a turpibus, ueraces a fallacibus, graues a leuibus, serias a ludicris, adpetendas a respuendis, qua possunt quasi conentur subtilitate discernere. Intellegimus quid agant; illam theatricam et fabulosam theologian ab ista ciuili pendere nouerunt et ei de carminibus poetarum tamquam de speculo resultare, et ideo ista exposita, quam damnare non audent, illam eius imaginem liberius arguunt et reprehendunt, ut, qui agnoscunt quid uelint, et hanc ipsam faciem, cuius illa imago est, detestentur; quam tamen di ipsi tamquam in eodem speculo se intuentes ita diligunt, ut qui qualesque sint in utraque melius uideantur. Unde etiam cultores suos terribilibus imperiis conpulerunt, ut inmunditiam theologiae fabulosae sibi dicarent, in suis sollemnitatibus ponerent, in rebus diuinis haberent, adque ita et se ipsos inmundissimos spiritus manifestius esse docuerunt, et huius urbanae theologiae uelut electae et probatae illam theatricam abiectam adque reprobatam membrum partemque fecerunt, ut, cum sit uniuersa turpis et fallax adque in se contineat commenticios deos, una pars eius sit in litteris sacerdotum, altera in carminibus poetarum. Utrum habeat et alias partes, alia quaestio est: nunc propter diuisionem Varronis et urbanam et theatricam theologian ad unam ciuilem pertinere satis, ut opinor, ostendi. Unde, quia sunt ambae similis turpitudinis absurditatis, indignitatis falsitatis, absit a ueris religiosis, ut siue ab hac siue ab illa uita speretur aeterna.

In fine, even Varro himself, in his account and enumeration of the gods, starts from the moment of a man’s conception. He commences the series of those gods who take charge of man with Janus, carries it on to the death of the man decrepit with age, and terminates it with the goddess Nænia, who is sung at the funerals of the aged. After that, he begins to give an account of the other gods, whose province is not man himself, but man’s belongings, as food, clothing, and all that is necessary for this life; and, in the case of all these, he explains what is the special office of each, and for what each ought to be supplicated. But with all this scrupulous and comprehensive diligence, he has neither proved the existence, nor so much as mentioned the name, of any god from whom eternal life is to be sought,—the one object for which we are Christians. Who, then, is so stupid as not to perceive that this man, by setting forth and opening up so diligently the civil theology, and by exhibiting its likeness to that fabulous, shameful, and disgraceful theology, and also by teaching that that fabulous sort is also a part of this other, was laboring to obtain a place in the minds of men for none but that natural theology, which he says pertains to philosophers, with such subtlety that he censures the fabulous, and, not daring openly to censure the civil, shows its censurable character by simply exhibiting it; and thus, both being reprobated by the judgment of men of right understanding, the natural alone remains to be chosen? But concerning this in its own place, by the help of the true God, we have to discuss more diligently.

Denique et ipse Varro commemorare et enumerare deos coepit a conceptione hominis, quorum numerum est exorsus a Iano, eamque seriem perduxit usque ad decrepiti hominis mortem, et deos ad ipsum hominem pertinentes clausit ad Neniam deam, quae in funeribus senum cantatur; deinde coepit deos alios ostendere, qui pertinerent non ad ipsum hominem, sed ad ea, quae sunt hominis, sicuti est uictus adque uestitus et quaecumque alia huic uitae sunt necessaria, ostendens in omnibus, quod sit cuiusque munus et propter quid cuique debeat supplicari; in qua uniuersa diligentia nullos demonstrauit uel nominauit deos, a quibus uita aeterna poscenda sit, propter quam unam proprie nos Christiani sumus. Quis ergo usque adeo tardus sit, ut non intellegat istum hominem ciuilem theologian tam diligenter exponendo et aperiendo eamque illi fabulosae, indignae adque probrosae, similem demonstrando adque ipsam fabulosam partem esse huius satis euidenter docendo non nisi illi naturali, quam dicit ad philosophos pertinere, in animis hominum moliri locum, ea subtilitate, ut fabulosam reprehendat, ciuilem uero reprehendere quidem non audeat, sed prodendo reprehensibilem ostendat, adque ita utraque iudicio recte intellegentium reprobata sola naturalis remaneat eligenda? De qua suo loco in adiutorio Dei ueri diligentius disserendum est.

Chapter 10.—Concerning the Liberty of Seneca, Who More Vehemently Censured the Civil Theology Than Varro Did the Fabulous.

Caput X. De libertate Senecae, qui uehementius ciuilem theologian reprehendit quam Varro fabulosam.

That liberty, in truth, which this man wanted, so that he did not dare to censure that theology of the city, which is very similar to the theatrical, so openly as he did the theatrical itself, was, though not fully, yet in part possessed by Annæus Seneca, whom we have some evidence to show to have flourished in the times of our apostles. It was in part possessed by him, I say, for he possessed it in writing, but not in living. For in that book which he wrote against superstition, he more copiously and vehemently censured that civil and urban theology than Varro the theatrical and fabulous. For, when speaking concerning images, he says, “They dedicate images of the sacred and inviolable immortals in most worthless and motionless matter. They give them the appearance of man, beasts, and fishes, and some make them of mixed sex, and heterogeneous bodies. They call them deities, when they are such that if they should get breath and should suddenly meet them, they would be held to be monsters.” Then, a while afterwards, when extolling the natural theology, he had expounded the sentiments of certain philosophers, he opposes to himself a question, and says, “Here some one says, Shall I believe that the heavens and the earth are gods, and that some are above the moon and some below it? Shall I bring forward either Plato or the peripatetic Strato, one of whom made God to be without a body, the other without a mind?” In answer to which he says, “And, really, what truer do the dreams of Titus Tatius, or Romulus, or Tullus Hostilius appear to thee? Tatius declared the divinity of the goddess Cloacina; Romulus that of Picus and Tiberinus; Tullus Hostilius that of Pavor and Pallor, the most disagreeable affections of men, the one of which is the agitation of the mind under fright, the other that of the body, not a disease, indeed, but a change of color.” Wilt thou rather believe that these are deities, and receive them into heaven? But with what freedom he has written concerning the rites themselves, cruel and shameful! “One,” he says, “castrates himself, another cuts his arms. Where will they find room for the fear of these gods when angry, who use such means of gaining their favor when propitious? But gods who wish to be worshipped in this fashion should be worshipped in none. So great is the frenzy of the mind when perturbed and driven from its seat, that the gods are propitiated by men in a manner in which not even men of the greatest ferocity and fable-renowned cruelty vent their rage. Tyrants have lacerated the limbs of some; they never ordered any one to lacerate his own. For the gratification of royal lust, some have been castrated; but no one ever, by the command of his lord, laid violent hands on himself to emasculate himself. They kill themselves in the temples. They supplicate with their wounds and with their blood. If any one has time to see the things they do and the things they suffer, he will find so many things unseemly for men of respectability, so unworthy of freemen, so unlike the doings of sane men, that no one would doubt that they are mad, had they been mad with the minority; but now the multitude of the insane is the defence of their sanity.”

Libertas sane, quae huic defuit, ne istam urbanam theologian [tam diligenter exponendo] theatricae simillimam aperte sicut illam reprehendere auderet, Annaeo Senecae, quem nonnullis indiciis inuenimus apostolorum nostrorum claruisse temporibus, non quidem ex toto, uerum ex aliqua parte non defuit. Adfuit enim scribenti, uiuenti defuit. Nam in eo libro, quem contra superstitiones condidit, multo copiosius adque uehementius reprehendit ipse ciuilem istam et urbanam theologian quam Varro theatricam adque fabulosam. Cum enim de simulacris ageret: ‘Sacros, inquit, inmortales, inuiolabiles in materia uilissima adque inmobili dedicant, habitus illis hominum ferarumque et piscium, quidam uero mixto sexu, diuersis corporibus induunt; numina uocant, quae si spiritu accepto subito occurrerent, monstra haberentur. Deinde aliquanto post, cum theologian naturalem praedicans quorundam philosophorum sententias digessisset, obposuit sibi quaestionem et ait: ‘Hoc loco dicit aliquis: Credam ego caelum et terram deos esse et supra lunam alios, infra alios? Ego feram aut Platonem aut Peripateticum Stratonem, quorum alter fecit deum sine corpore, alter sine animo?’ Et ad hoc respondens: ‘Quid ergo tandem, inquit, ueriora tibi uidentur Titi Tatii aut Romuli aut Tulli Hostilii somnia? Cloacinam Tatius dedicauit deam, Picum Tiberinumque Romulus, Hostilius Pauorem adque Pallorem, taeterrimos omnium adfectus, quorum alter mentis territae motus est, alter corporis ne morbus quidem, sed color. Haec numina potius credes et caelo recipies?’ De ipsis uero ritibus crudeliter turpibus quam libere scripsit! Ille, inquit, uiriles sibi partes amputat, ille lacertos secat. Ubi iratos deos timent, qui sic propitios merentur? Di autem nullo debent coli genere, si hoc uolunt. Tantus est perturbatae mentis et sedibus suis pulsae furor, ut sic di placentur, quem ad modum ne quidem homines saeuiunt taeterrimi et in fabulas traditae crudelitatis. Tyranni lacerauerunt aliquorum membra, neminem sua lacerare iusserunt. In regiae libidinis uoluptatem castrati sunt quidam; sed nemo sibi, ne uir esset, iubente domino manus intulit. Se ipsi in templis contrucidant, uulneribus suis ac sanguine supplicant. Si cui intueri uacet, quae faciunt quaeque patiuntur, inueniet tam indecora honestis, tam indigna liberis, tam dissimilia sanis, ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere eos, si cum paucioribus furerent; nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba.’ Iam illa, quae in ipso Capitolio fieri solere commemorat et intrepide omnino coarguit, quis credat nisi ab inridentibus aut furentibus fieri?

He next relates those things which are wont to be done in the Capitol, and with the utmost intrepidity insists that they are such things as one could only believe to be done by men making sport, or by madmen. For having spoken with derision of this, that in the Egyptian sacred rites Osiris, being lost, is lamented for, but straightway, when found, is the occasion of great joy by his reappearance, because both the losing and the finding of him are feigned; and yet that grief and that joy which are elicited thereby from those who have lost nothing and found nothing are real;—having I say, so spoken of this, he says, “Still there is a fixed time for this frenzy. It is tolerable to go mad once in the year. Go into the Capitol. One is suggesting divine commands to a god; another is telling the hours to Jupiter; one is a lictor; another is an anointer, who with the mere movement of his arms imitates one anointing. There are women who arrange the hair of Juno and Minerva, standing far away not only from her image, but even from her temple. These move their fingers in the manner of hairdressers. There are some women who hold a mirror. There are some who are calling the gods to assist them in court. There are some who are holding up documents to them, and are explaining to them their cases. A learned and distinguished comedian, now old and decrepit, was daily playing the mimic in the Capitol, as though the gods would gladly be spectators of that which men had ceased to care about. Every kind of artificers working for the immortal gods is dwelling there in idleness.” And a little after he says, “Nevertheless these, though they give themselves up to the gods for purposes superflous enough, do not do so for any abominable or infamous purpose. There sit certain women in the Capitol who think they are beloved by Jupiter; nor are they frightened even by the look of the, if you will believe the poets, most wrathful Juno.”

Nam cum in sacris Aegyptiis Osirim lugeri perditum, mox autem inuentum magno esse gaudio derisisset, cum perditio eius inuentioque fingatur, dolor tamen ille adque laetitia ab eis, qui nihil perdiderunt nihilque inuenerunt, ueraciter exprimatur: ‘Huic tamen, inquit, furori certum tempus est. Tolerabile est semel anno insanire. In Capitolium perueni: pudebit publicatae dementiae, quod sibi uanus furor adtribuit officii. Alius nomina deo subicit, alius horas Ioui nuntiat, alius lector est, alius unctor, qui uano motu bracchiorum imitatur unguentem. Sunt quae Iunoni ac Mineruae capillos disponant (longe a templo, non tantum a simulacro stantes digitos mouent ornantium modo), sunt quae speculum teneant; sunt qui ad uadimonia sua deos aduocent, sunt qui libellos offerant et illos causam suam doceant. Doctus archimimus, senex iam decrepitus, cottidie in Capitolio mimum agebat, quasi di libenter spectarent, quem illi homines desierant. Omne illic artificum genus operatum dis inmortalibus desidet’. Et paulo post: Hi tamen, inquit, etiamsi superuacuum usum, non turpem nec infamem deo promittunt. Sedent quaedam in Capitolio, quae se a Ioue amari putant: ne Iunonis quidem, si credere poetis uelis, iracundissimae respectu terrentur.’ Hanc libertatem Varro non habuit; tantum modo poeticam theologian reprehendere ausus est, ciuilem non ausus est, quam iste concidit.

This liberty Varro did not enjoy. It was only the poetical theology he seemed to censure. The civil, which this man cuts to pieces, he was not bold enough to impugn. But if we attend to the truth, the temples where these things are performed are far worse than the theatres where they are represented. Whence, with respect to these sacred rites of the civil theology, Seneca preferred, as the best course to be followed by a wise man, to feign respect for them in act, but to have no real regard for them at heart. “All which things,” he says, “a wise man will observe as being commanded by the laws, but not as being pleasing to the gods.” And a little after he says, “And what of this, that we unite the gods in marriage, and that not even naturally, for we join brothers and sisters? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to Neptune. Some of them we leave unmarried, as though there were no match for them, which is surely needless, especially when there are certain unmarried goddesses, as Populonia, or Fulgora, or the goddess Rumina, for whom I am not astonished that suitors have been awanting. All this ignoble crowd of gods, which the superstition of ages has amassed, we ought,” he says, “to adore in such a way as to remember all the while that its worship belongs rather to custom than to reality.” Wherefore, neither those laws nor customs instituted in the civil theology that which was pleasing to the gods, or which pertained to reality. But this man, whom philosophy had made, as it were, free, nevertheless, because he was an illustrious senator of the Roman people, worshipped what he censured, did what he condemned, adored what he reproached, because, forsooth, philosophy had taught him something great,—namely, not to be superstitious in the world, but, on account of the laws of cities and the customs of men, to be an actor, not on the stage, but in the temples,—conduct the more to be condemned, that those things which he was deceitfully acting he so acted that the people thought he was acting sincerely. But a stage-actor would rather delight people by acting plays than take them in by false pretences.

Sed si uerum adtendamus, deteriora sunt templa ubi haec aguntur, quam theatra ubi finguntur. Unde in his sacris ciuilis theologiae has partes potius elegit Seneca sapienti, ut eas in animi religione non habeat, sed in actibus fingat. Ait enim: ‘Quae omnia sapiens seruabit tamquam legibus iussa, non tamquam dis grata. Et paulo post: <Quid quod et matrimonia, inquit, deorum iungimus, et ne pie quidem, fratrum ac sororum! Bellonam Marti conlocamus, Vulcano Venerem, Neptuno Salaciam. Quosdam tamen caelibes relinquimus, quasi condicio defecerit, praesertim cum quaedam uiduae sint, ut Populonia uel Fulgora et diua Rumina; quibus non miror petitorem defuisse. Omnem istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aeuo longa superstitio congessit, sic, inquit, adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum eius magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere’. Nec leges ergo illae nec mos in ciuili theologia id instituerunt, quod dis gratum esset uel ad rem pertineret. Sed iste, quem philosophi quasi liberum fecerunt, tamen, quia inlustris populi Romani senator erat, colebat quod reprehendebat, agebat quod arguebat, quod culpabat adorabat; quia uidelicet magnum aliquid eum philosophia docuerat, ne superstitiosus esset in mundo, sed propter leges ciuium moresque hominum non quidem ageret fingentem scaenicum in theatro, sed imitaretur in templo; eo damnabilius, quo illa, quae mendaciter agebat, sic ageret, ut eum populus ueraciter agere existimaret; scaenicus autem ludendo potius delectaret, quam fallendo deciperet.

Chapter 11.—What Seneca Thought Concerning the Jews.

Caput XI. Quid de Iudaeis Seneca senserit.

Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the sabbaths, affirming that they act uselessly in keeping those seventh days, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of their life, and also many things which demand immediate attention are damaged. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame, lest, if he praised them, he should do so against the ancient custom of his country, or, perhaps, if he should blame them, he should do so against his own will.

Hic inter alias ciuilis theologiae superstitiones reprehendit etiam sacramenta Iudaeorum et maxime sabbata, inutiliter eos facere adfirmans, quod per illos singulos septem interpositos dies septimam fere partem aetatis suae perdant uacando et multa in tempore urgentia non agendo laedantur. Christianos tamen iam tunc Iudaeis inimicissimos in neutram partem commemorare ausus est, ne uel laudaret contra suae patriae ueterem consuetudinem, uel reprehenderet contra propriam forsitan uoluntatem.

When he was speaking concerning those Jews, he said, “When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” By these words he expresses his astonishment; and, not knowing what the providence of God was leading him to say, subjoins in plain words an opinion by which he showed what he thought about the meaning of those sacred institutions: “For,” he says, “those, however, know the cause of their rites, whilst the greater part of the people know not why they perform theirs.” But concerning the solemnities of the Jews, either why or how far they were instituted by divine authority, and afterwards, in due time, by the same authority taken away from the people of God, to whom the mystery of eternal life was revealed, we have both spoken elsewhere, especially when we were treating against the Manichæans, and also intend to speak in this work in a more suitable place.

De illis sane Iudaeis cum loqueretur, ait: ‘Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimae gentis consuetudo conualuit, ut per omnes iam terras recepta sit: uicti uictoribus leges dederunt). Mirabatur haec dicens et quid diuinitus ageretur ignorans subiecit plane sententiam, qua significaret quid de illorum sacramentorum ratione sentiret. Ait enim: <Illi tamen causas ritus sui nouerunt; maior pars populi facit, quod quur faciat ignorat). Sed de sacramentis Iudaeorum, uel quur uel quatenus instituta sint auctoritate diuina, ac post modum a populo Dei, cui uitae aeternae mysterium reuelatum est, tempore quo oportuit eadem auctoritate sublata sint, et alias diximus, maxime cum aduersus Manichaeos ageremus, et in hoc opere loco opportuniore dicendum est.