---
title: "City of God · De civitate Dei"
author: "Augustine"
translator: "Marcus Dods"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Church Fathers"
section: 36 of 116
url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/36/
cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 36. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/36/"
---

# City of God · De civitate Dei

*Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods*

“Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter.

> Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted.

> English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887).

> Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position.

## 36. Concerning the Surnames of Jupiter, Which are Referred Not to Many Gods, But to One and the Same God.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/36/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/36/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 11.—Concerning the Surnames of Jupiter, Which are Referred Not to Many Gods, But to One and the Same God.

> Latin: Caput XI. De cognominibus Iouis, quae non ad multos deos, sed ad unum eundemque referuntur.

[¶1] They have called him Victor, Invictus, Opitulus, Impulsor, Stator, Centumpeda, Supinalis, Tigillus, Almus, Ruminus, and other names which it were long to enumerate. But these surnames they have given to one god on account of diverse causes and powers, but yet have not compelled him to be, on account of so many things, as many gods. They gave him these surnames because he conquered all things; because he was conquered by none; because he brought help to the needy; because he had the power of impelling, stopping, stablishing, throwing on the back; because as a beam he held together and sustained the world; because he nourished all things; because, like the pap, he nourished animals. Here, we perceive, are some great things and some small things; and yet it is one who is said to perform them all. I think that the causes and the beginnings of things, on account of which they have thought that the one world is two gods, Jupiter and Janus, are nearer to each other than the holding together of the world, and the giving of the pap to animals; and yet, on account of these two works so far apart from each other, both in nature and dignity, there has not been any necessity for the existence of two gods; but one Jupiter has been called, on account of the one Tigillus, on account of the other Ruminus. I am unwilling to say that the giving of the pap to sucking animals might have become Juno rather than Jupiter, especially when there was the goddess Rumina to help and to serve her in this work; for I think it may be replied that Juno herself is nothing else than Jupiter, according to those verses of Valerius Soranus, where it has been said:

> Latin: Dixerunt eum Victorem, Inuictum, Opitulum, Inpulsorem, Statorem, Centumpedam, Supinalem. Tigillum, Almum, Ruminum et alia quae persequi longum est. Haec autem cognomina inposuerunt uni deo propter causas potestatesque diuersas, non tamen propter tot res etiam tot deos eum esse coegerunt.: quod omnia uinceret, quod a nemine uinceretur, quod opem indigentibus ferret, quod haberet inpellendi, statuendi, stabiliendi. liendi, resupinandi potestatem, quod tamquam tigillus mundum contineret ac sustineret, quod aleret omnia, quod ruma, id est mamma, aleret animalia. In his, ut aduertimus, quaedam magna sunt, quaedam exigua; et tamen unus utraque facere perhibetur. Puto inter se propinquiora esse causas rerum adque primordia, propter quas res unum mundum duos deos esse uoluerunt, Iouem adque Ianum, quam continere mundum et mammam dare animalibus; nec tamen propter haec opera duo tam longe inter se ui et dignitate diuersa duo di esse conpulsi sunt; sed unus Iuppiter propter illud Tigillus, propter illud Ruminus appellatus est. Nolo dicere, quod animalibus mammam praebere sugentibus magis Iunonem potuit decere quam Iouem, praesertim cum esset etiam diua Rumina, quae in hoc opus adiutorium illi famulatumue praeberet. Cogito enim posse responderi, et ipsam Iunonem nihil aliud esse quam Iouem, secundum illos Valerii Sorani uersus, ubi dictum est: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deam.

[¶2] “Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,

[¶3] And eke the mother of the gods,” etc.

[¶4] Why, then, was he called Ruminus, when they who may perchance inquire more diligently may find that he is also that goddess Rumina?

> Latin: Quare ergo dictus est et Ruminus, cum diligentius fortasse quaerentibus ipse inueniatur esse etiam illa diua Rumina?

[¶5] If, then, it was rightly thought unworthy of the majesty of the gods, that in one ear of corn one god should have the care of the joint, another that of the husk, how much more unworthy of that majesty is it, that one thing, and that of the lowest kind, even the giving of the pap to animals that they may be nourished, should be under the care of two gods, one of whom is Jupiter himself, the very king of all things, who does this not along with his own wife, but with some ignoble Rumina (unless perhaps he himself is Rumina, being Ruminus for males and Rumina for females)! I should certainly have said that they had been unwilling to apply to Jupiter a feminine name, had he not been styled in these verses “progenitor and mother,” and had I not read among other surnames of his that of Pecunia [money], which we found as a goddess among those petty deities, as I have already mentioned in the fourth book. But since both males and females have money [pecuniam], why has he not been called both Pecunius and Pecunia? That is their concern.

> Latin: Si enim maiestate deorum recte uidebatur indignum, ut in una spica alter ad curam geniculi, altera ad folliculi pertineret: quanto est indignius unam rem infimam, id est ut mammis alantur animalia, duorum deorum potestate curari, quorum sit unus Iuppiter, rex ipse cunctorum, et hoc agat non saltem cum coniuge sua, sed cum ignobili nescio qua Rumina, nisi quia ipse est etiam ipsa Rumina; Ruminus fortasse pro sugentibus maribus, Rumina pro feminis. Dicerem quippe noluisse illos Ioui femininum nomen inponere, nisi et in illis uersibus ‘progenitor genetrixque’ diceretur, et inter eius alia cognomina legerem, quod etiam Pecunia uocaretur, quam deam inter illos minuscularios inuenimus et in quarto libro commemorauimus. Sed cum et mares et feminae habeant pecuniam, quur non et Pecunia et Pecunius appellatus sit, sicut Rumina et Ruminus, ipsi uiderint._

### That Jupiter is Also Called Pecunia.

[¶7] Chapter 12.—That Jupiter is Also Called Pecunia.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quod Iuppiter etiam Pecunia nuncupetur.

[¶8] How elegantly they have accounted for this name! “He is also called Pecunia,” say they, “because all things belong to him.” Oh how grand an explanation of the name of a deity! Yes; he to whom all things belong is most meanly and most contumeliously called Pecunia. In comparison of all things which are contained by heaven and earth, what are all things together which are possessed by men under the name of money? And this name, forsooth, hath avarice given to Jupiter, that whoever was a lover of money might seem to himself to love not an ordinary god, but the very king of all things himself. But it would be a far different thing if he had been called Riches. For riches are one thing, money another. For we call rich the wise, the just, the good, who have either no money or very little. For they are more truly rich in possessing virtue, since by it, even as re spects things necessary for the body, they are content with what they have. But we call the greedy poor, who are always craving and always wanting. For they may possess ever so great an amount of money; but whatever be the abundance of that, they are not able but to want. And we properly call God Himself rich; not, however, in money, but in omnipotence. Therefore they who have abundance of money are called rich, but inwardly needy if they are greedy. So also, those who have no money are called poor, but inwardly rich if they are wise.

> Latin: Quam uero eleganter rationem huius nominis reddiderunt! uocatur Pecunia, inquiunt, uocatur, quod eius sunt omnia>.s o magnam rationem diuini nominis! Immo uero ille, cuius sunt omnia, uilissime et contumeliosissime Pecunia nuncupatur. Ad omnia enim, quae caelo et terra continentur, quid est pecunia in omnibus omnino rebus, quae ab hominibus nomine pecuniae possidentur? Sed nimirum hoc auaritia Ioui nomen inposuit, ut, quisquis amat pecuniam, non quemlibet deum, sed ipsum regem omnium sibi amare uideatur. Longe autem aliud esset, si diuitiae uocaretur. Aliud namque sunt diuitiae, aliud pecunia. Nam dicimus diuites sapientes, iustos, bonos, quibus pecunia uel nulla uel parua est; magis enim sunt uirtutibus diuites, per quas eis etiam in ipsis corporalium rerum necessitatibus sat est quod adest: pauperes uero auaros, semper inhiantes et egentes; quamlibet enim magnas pecunias habere possunt, sed in earum quantacumque abundantia non egere non possunt. Et Deum ipsum uerum recte dicimus diuitem, non tamen pecunia, sed omnipotentia. Dicuntur itaque et diuites pecuniosi; sed interius egeni, si cupidi: item dicuntur pauperes pecunia carentes; sed interius diuites, si sapientes.

[¶9] What, then, ought the wise man to think of this theology, in which the king of the gods receives the name of that thing “which no wise man has desired?” For had there been anything wholesomely taught by this philosophy concerning eternal life, how much more appropriately would that god who is the ruler of the world have been called by them, not money, but wisdom, the love of which purges from the filth of avarice, that is, of the love of money!

> Latin: Qualis ergo ista theologia debet esse sapienti, ubi rex deorum eius rei nomen accepit, ‘quam nemo sapiens concupiuit’? Quanto enim facilius, si aliquid hac doctrina quod ad uitam pertineret aeternam salubriter disceretur, deus mundi rector non ab eis Pecunia, sed Sapientia uocaretur, cuius amor purgat a sordibus auaritiae, hoc est ab amore pecuniae!

### That When It is Expounded What Saturn Is, What Genius Is, It Comes to This, that Both of Them are Shown to Be Jupiter.

[¶11] Chapter 13.—That When It is Expounded What Saturn Is, What Genius Is, It Comes to This, that Both of Them are Shown to Be Jupiter.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quod, dum exponitur quid Saturnus quidue sit Genius, uterque unus Iuppiter esse doceatur.

[¶12] But why speak more of this Jupiter, with whom perchance all the rest are to be identified; so that, he being all, the opinion as to the existence of many gods may remain as a mere opinion, empty of all truth? And they are all to be referred to him, if his various parts and powers are thought of as so many gods, or if the principle of mind which they think to be diffused through all things has received the names of many gods from the various parts which the mass of this visible world combines in itself, and from the manifold administration of nature. For what is Saturn also? “One of the principal gods,” he says, “who has dominion over all sowings.” Does not the exposition of the verses of Valerius Soranus teach that Jupiter is the world, and that he emits all seeds from himself, and receives them into himself?

> Latin: Sed quid de hoc Ioue plura, ad quem fortasse ceteri referendi sunt, ut inanis remaneat deorum opinio plurimorum, cum hic ipse sint omnes, siue quando partes eius uel potestates existimantur, siue cum uis animae, quam putant per cuncta diffusam, ex partibus molis huius, in quas uisibilis mundus iste consurgit, et multiplici administratione naturae quasi plurium deorum nomina accepit? Quid est enim et Saturnus? ‘Unus, inquit, de principibus deus, penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est.’ Nonne expositio uersuum illorum Valerii Sorani sic se habet, Iouem esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere?

[¶13] It is he, then, with whom is the dominion of all sowings. What is Genius? “He is the god who is set over, and has the power of begetting, all things.” Who else than the world do they believe to have this power, to which it has been said:

> Latin: Ipse est igitur penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est.

[¶14] “Almighty Jove, progenitor and mother?”

[¶15] And when in another place he says that Genius is the rational soul of every one, and therefore exists separately in each individual, but that the corresponding soul of the world is God, he just comes back to this same thing,—namely, that the soul of the world itself is to be held to be, as it were, the universal genius. This, therefore, is what he calls Jupiter. For if every genius is a god, and the soul of every man a genius, it follows that the soul of every man is a god. But if very absurdity compels even these theologists themselves to shrink from this, it remains that they call that genius god by special and pre-eminent distinction, whom they call the soul of the world, and therefore Jupiter.

> Latin: Quid est Genius? ‘Deus, inquit, qui praepositus est ac uim habet omnium rerum gignendarum.) Quem alium hanc uim habere credunt quam mundum, cui dictum est: ‘luppiter progenitor genetrixque?’ Et cum alio loco genium dicit esse uniuscuiusque animum rationalem et ideo esse singulos singulorum, talem autem mundi animum Deum esse: ad hoc idem utique reuocat, ut tamquam uniuersalis genius ipse mundi animus esse credatur. Hic est igitur quem appellant Iouem. Nam si omnis genius deus et omnis uiri animus genius, sequitur ut sit omnis uiri animus deus; quod si et ipsos abhorrere absurditas ipsa conpellit, restat ut eum singulariter et excellenter dicant deum Genium, quem dicunt mundi animum ac per hoc Iouem.

### Concerning the Offices of Mercury and Mars.

[¶17] Chapter 14.—Concerning the Offices of Mercury and Mars.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De Mercurii et Martis officiis.

[¶18] But they have not found how to refer Mercury and Mars to any parts of the world, and to the works of God which are in the elements; and therefore they have set them at least over human works, making them assistants in speaking and in carrying on wars. Now Mercury, if he has also the power of the speech of the gods, rules also over the king of the gods himself, if Jupiter, as he receives from him the faculty of speech, also speaks according as it is his pleasure to permit him—which surely is absurd; but if it is only the power over human speech which is held to be attributed to him, then we say it is incredible that Jupiter should have condescended to give the pap not only to children, but also to beasts—from which he has been surnamed Ruminus—and yet should have been unwilling that the care of our speech, by which we excel the beasts, should pertain to him. And thus speech itself both belongs to Jupiter, and is Mercury. But if speech itself is said to be Mercury, as those things which are said concerning him by way of interpretation show it to be;—for he is said to have been called Mercury, that is, he who runs between, because speech runs between men: they say also that the Greeks call him ῾Ερμῆς, because speech, or interpretation, which certainly belongs to speech, is called by them ἑρμηνεία: also he is said to preside over payments, because speech passes between sellers and buyers: the wings, too, which he has on his head and on his feet, they say mean that speech passes winged through the air: he is also said to have been called the messenger, because by means of speech all our thoughts are expressed;—if, therefore, speech itself is Mercury, then, even by their own confession, he is not a god. But when they make to themselves gods of such as are not even demons, by praying to unclean spirits, they are possessed by such as are not gods, but demons. In like manner, because they have not been able to find for Mars any element or part of the world in which he might perform some works of nature of whatever kind, they have said that he is the god of war, which is a work of men, and that not one which is considered desirable by them. If, therefore, Felicitas should give perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But if war itself is Mars, as speech is Mercury, I wish it were as true that there were no war to be falsely called a god, as it is true that it is not a god.

> Latin: Mercurium uero et Martem quo modo referrent ad aliquas partes mundi et opera Dei, quae sunt in elementis, non inuenerunt, et ideo eos saltem operibus hominum praeposuerunt, sermocinandi et belligerandi administros. Quorum Mercurius si sermonis etiam deorum potestatem gerit, ipsi quoque regi deorum dominatur, si secundum eius arbitrium Iuppiter loquitur aut loquendi ab illo accepit facultatem; quod utique absurdum est. Si autem illi humani tantum sermonis potestas tributa perhibetur, non est credibile ad lactandos mamma non solum pueros, sed etiam pecora, unde Ruminus cognominatus est, Iouem descendere uoluisse, et curam nostri sermonis, quo pecoribus antecellimus, ad se pertinere noluisse; ac per hoc idem ipse est Iouis adque Mercurius. Quod si sermo ipse dicitur esse Mercurius, sicut ea, quae de illo interpretantur, ostendunt (nam ideo Mercurius quasi medius currens dicitur appellatus, quod sermo currat inter homines medius; ideo ‛Ερμη̃ς Graece, quod sermo uel interpretatio, quae ad sermonem utique pertinet, ἑρμηνεία dicitur; ideo et mercibus praeesse, quia inter uendentes et ementes sermo fit medius; alas eius in capite et pedibus significare uolucrem ferri per aera sermonem; nuntium dictum, quoniam per sermonem omnia cogitata enuntiantur) — si ergo Mercurius ipse sermo est, etiam ipsis confitentibus deus non est. Sed cum sibi deos faciunt eos, qui nec daemones sunt, inmundis supplicando spiritibus possidentur ab eis, qui non di, sed daemones sunt. Item quia nec Marti aliquod elementum uel partem mundi inuenire potuerunt, ubi ageret opera qualiacumque naturae, deum belli esse dixerunt, quod opus est hominum et optabilius non est. Si ergo pacem perpetuam Felicitas daret, Mars quid ageret non haberet. Si autem ipsum bellum est Mars, sicut sermo Mercurius: utinam quam manifestum est, quod non sit deus, tam non sit et bellum, quod uel falso uocetur deus.

### Concerning Certain Stars Which the Pagans Have Called by the Names of Their Gods.

[¶20] Chapter 15.—Concerning Certain Stars Which the Pagans Have Called by the Names of Their Gods.

> Latin: Caput XV. De stellis quibusdam, quas pagani deorum suorum nominibus nuncuparunt.

[¶21] But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. For they call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the names of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give to him no small property besides,—namely, all seeds. There also is that brightest of them all which is called by them Venus, and yet they will have this same Venus to be also the moon:—not to mention how Venus and Juno are said by them to contend about that most brilliant star, as though about another golden apple. For some say that Lucifer belongs to Venus, and some to Juno. But, as usual, Venus conquers. For by far the greatest number assign that star to Venus, so much so that there is scarcely found one of them who thinks otherwise. But since they call Jupiter the king of all, who will not laugh to see his star so far surpassed in brilliancy by the star of Venus? For it ought to have been as much more brilliant than the rest, as he himself is more powerful. They answer that it only appears so because it is higher up, and very much farther away from the earth. If, therefore, its greater dignity has deserved a higher place, why is Saturn higher in the heavens than Jupiter? Was the vanity of the fable which made Jupiter king not able to reach the stars? And has Saturn been permitted to obtain at least in the heavens, what he could not obtain in his own kingdom nor in the Capitol?

> Latin: Nisi forte illae stellae sunt hi di, quas eorum appellauere nominibus. Nam stellam quandam uocant Mercurium, quandam itidem Martem. Sed ibi est et illa quam uocant Iouem, et tamen eis mundus est Iouis; ibi quam uocant Saturnum, et tamen ei praeterea dant non paruam substantiam, omnium uidelicet seminum; ibi est et illa omnium clarissima, quae ab eis appellatur Venus, et tamen eandem Venerem esse etiam Lunam uolunt; quamuis de illo fulgentissimo sidere aput eos tamquam de malo aureo Iuno Venusque contendant. Luciferum enim quidam Veneris, quidam dicunt esse Iunonis; sed, ut solet, Venus uincit. Nam multo plures eam stellam Veneri tribuunt, ita ut uix eorum quisquam reperiatur, qui aliud opinetur. Quis autem non rideat, cum regem omnium Iouem dicant, quod stella eius ab stella Veneris tanta uincitur claritate? Tanto enim esse debuit ceteris illa fulgentior, quanto est ipse potentior. Respondent ideo sic uideri, quia illa, quae putatur obscurior, superior est adque a terris longe remotior. Si ergo superiorem locum maior dignitas meruit, quare Saturnus ibi est Ioue superior? An uanitas fabulae, quae regem Iouem facit, non potuit usque ad sidera peruenire, et quod non ualuit Saturnus in regno suo neque in Capitolio, saltem obtinere est permissus in caelo?

[¶22] But why has Janus received no star? If it is because he is the world, and they are all in him, the world is also Jupiter’s, and yet he has one. Did Janus compromise his case as best he could, and instead of the one star which he does not have among the heavenly bodies, accept so many faces on earth? Again, if they think that on account of the stars alone Mercury and Mars are parts of the world, in order that they may be able to have them for gods, since speech and war are not parts of the world, but acts of men, how is it that they have made no altars, established no rites, built no temples for Aries, and Taurus, and Cancer, and Scorpio, and the rest which they number as the celestial signs, and which consist not of single stars, but each of them of many stars, which also they say are situated above those already mentioned in the highest part of the heavens, where a more constant motion causes the stars to follow an undeviating course? And why have they not reckoned them as gods, I do not say among those select gods, but not even among those, as it were, plebeian gods?

> Latin: Quare autem Ianus non accepit aliquam stellam? Si, quia mundus est et omnes in illo sunt: et Ionis mundus est et habet tamen. An iste causam suam conposuit ut potuit et pro una stella, quam non habet inter sidera, tot facies accepit in terra? Deinde si propter solas stellas Mercurium et Martem partes mundi putant, ut eos deos habere possint, quia utique sermo et bellum non sunt partes mundi, sed actus hominum: quur Arieti et Tauro et Cancro et Scorpioni ceterisque huius modi, quae caelestia signa numerant et stellis non singulis, sed singula pluribus constant superiusque istis in summo caelo perhibent conlocata, ubi constantior motus inerrabilem meatum sideribus praebet, nullas aras, nulla sacra, nulla templa fecerunt, nec deos, non dico inter hos selectos, sed ne inter illos quidem quasi plebeios habuerunt?