--- title: "City of God · De civitate Dei" author: "Augustine" translator: "Marcus Dods" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Church Fathers" section: 38 of 116 url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/38/ cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 38. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/38/" --- # 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. ## 38. Concerning the Earth, Which Varro Affirms to Be a Goddess, Because that Soul of the World Which He Thinks to Be God Pervades Also This Lowest Part of His Body, and Imparts to It a Divine Force. Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/38/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/38/#p-N [¶0] Chapter 23.—Concerning the Earth, Which Varro Affirms to Be a Goddess, Because that Soul of the World Which He Thinks to Be God Pervades Also This Lowest Part of His Body, and Imparts to It a Divine Force. > Latin: Caput XXIII. De Terra, quam Varro deam esse confirmat, eo quod ille animus mundi, quem opinatur deum, etiam hanc corporis sui infimam partem permeet eique uim diuinam inpertiat. [¶1] Surely the earth, which we see full of its own living creatures, is one; but for all that, it is but a mighty mass among the elements, and the lowest part of the world. Why, then, would they have it to be a goddess? Is it because it is fruitful? Why, then, are not men rather held to be gods, who render it fruitful by cultivating it; but though they plough it, do not adore it? But, say they, the part of the soul of the world which pervades it makes it a goddess. As if it were not a far more evident thing, nay, a thing which is not called in question, that there is a soul in man. And yet men are not held to be gods, but (a thing to be sadly lamented), with wonderful and pitiful delusion, are subjected to those who are not gods, and than whom they themselves are better, as the objects of deserved worship and adoration. And certainly the same Varro, in the book concerning the select gods, affirms that there are three grades of soul in universal nature. One which pervades all the living parts of the body, and has not sensation, but only the power of life,—that principle which penetrates into the bones, nails and hair. By this principle in the world trees are nourished, and grow without being possessed of sensation, and live in a manner peculiar to themselves. The second grade of soul is that in which there is sensation. This principle penetrates into the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and the organs of sensation. The third grade of soul is the highest, and is called mind, where intelligence has its throne. This grade of soul no mortal creatures except man are possessed of. Now this part of the soul of the world, Varro says, is called God, and in us is called Genius. And the stones and earth in the world, which we see, and which are not pervaded by the power of sensation, are, as it were, the bones and nails of God. Again, the sun, moon, and stars, which we perceive, and by which He perceives, are His organs of perception. Moreover, the ether is His mind; and by the virtue which is in it, which penetrates into the stars, it also makes them gods; and because it penetrates through them into the earth, it makes it the goddess Tellus, whence again it enters and permeates the sea and ocean, making them the god Neptune. > Latin: Nempe una est terra, quam plenam quidem uidemus animalibus suis; uerum tamen ipsam magnum corpus in elementis mundique infimam partem, quur eam uolunt deam? An quia fecunda est? Quur ergo non magis homines di sunt, qui eam fecundiorem faciunt excolendo; sed cum arant, non cum adorant? Sed pars animae mundi, inquiunt, quae per illam permeat. deam facit. Quasi non euidentior sit in hominibus anima, quae utrum sit nulla fit quaestio; et tamen homines di non habentur et, quod est grauiter dolendum, his, qui di non sunt et quibus ipsi meliores sunt, colendis et adorandis mirabili et miserabili errore subduntur. Et certe idem Varro in eodem de dis selectis libro tres esse adfirmat animae gradus in omni uniuersaque natura: unum, qui omnes partes corporis, quae uiuunt, transit et non habet sensum, sed tantum ad uiuendum ualetudinem; hanc uim in nostro corpore permanare dicit in ossa, ungues, capillos; sicut in mundo arbores sine sensu aluntur et crescunt et modo quodam suo uiuunt: secundum gradum animae, in quo sensus est; hanc uim peruenire in oculos, aures, nares, os, tactum: tertium gradum esse animae summum, quod uocatur animus, in quo intellegentia praeminet; hoc praeter hominem omnes carere mortales. Hanc partem animae mundi dicit Deum, in nobis autem genium uocari. Esse autem in mundo lapides ac terram, quam uidemus, quo non permanat sensus, ut ossa, ut ungues Dei; solem uero, lunam, stellas, quae sentimus quibusque ipse sentit, sensus esse eius; aethera porro animum eius; cuius uim, quae peruenit in astra, ea quoque facere deos, et per ea quod in terram permanat, deam Tellurem; quod autem inde permanat in mare adque oceanum, deum esse Neptunum. [¶2] Let him return from this, which he thinks to be natural theology, back to that from which he went out, in order to rest from the fatigue occasioned by the many turnings and windings of his path. Let him return, I say, let him return to the civil theology. I wish to detain him there a while. I have somewhat to say which has to do with that theology. I am not yet saying, that if the earth and stones are similar to our bones and nails, they are in like manner devoid of intelligence, as they are devoid of sensation. Nor am I saying that, if our bones and nails are said to have intelligence, because they are in a man who has intelligence, he who says that the things analogous to these in the world are gods, is as stupid as he is who says that our bones and nails are men. We shall perhaps have occasion to dispute these things with the philosophers. At present, however, I wish to deal with Varro as a political theologian. For it is possible that, though he may seem to have wished to lift up his head, as it were, into the liberty of natural theology, the consciousness that the book with which he was occupied was one concerning a subject belonging to civil theology, may have caused him to relapse into the point of view of that theology, and to say this in order that the ancestors of his nation, and other states, might not be believed to have bestowed on Neptune an irrational worship. What I am to say is this: Since the earth is one, why has not that part of the soul of the world which permeates the earth made it that one goddess which he calls Tellus? But had it done so, what then had become of Orcus, the brother of Jupiter and Neptune, whom they call Father Dis? And where, in that case, had been his wife Proserpine, who, according to another opinion given in the same book, is called, not the fecundity of the earth, but its lower part? But if they say that part of the soul of the world, when it permeates the upper part of the earth, makes the god Father Dis, but when it pervades the nether part of the same the goddess Proserpine; what, in that case, will that Tellus be? For all that which she was has been divided into these two parts, and these two gods; so that it is impossible to find what to make or where to place her as a third goddess, except it be said that those divinities Orcus and Proserpine are the one goddess Tellus, and that they are not three gods, but one or two, whilst notwithstanding they are called three, held to be three, worshipped as three, having their own several altars, their own shrines, rites, images, priests, whilst their own false demons also through these things defile the prostituted soul. Let this further question be answered: What part of the earth does a part of the soul of the world permeate in order to make the god Tellumo? No, says he; but the earth being one and the same, has a double life,—the masculine, which produces seed, and the feminine, which receives and nourishes the seed. Hence it has been called Tellus from the feminine principle, and Tellumo from the masculine. Why, then, do the priests, as he indicates, perform divine service to four gods, two others being added,—namely, to Tellus, Tellumo, Altor, and Rusor? We have already spoken concerning Tellus and Tellumo. But why do they worship Altor? Because, says he, all that springs of the earth is nourished by the earth. Wherefore do they worship Rusor? Because all things return back again to the place whence they proceeded. > Latin: Redeat ergo ab hac, quam theologian naturalem putat, quo uelut requiescendi causa ab his ambagibus adque anfractibus fatigatus egressus est; redeat, inquam, redeat ad ciuilem; hic eum adhuc teneo, tantisper de hac ago. Nondum dico, si terra et lapides nostris sunt ossibus et unguibus similes, similiter eos intellegentiam non habere, sicut sensu carent; aut si idcirco habere dicuntur ossa et ungues nostri intellegentiam,. quia in homine sunt qui habet intellegentiam, tam stultum esse qui hos in mundo deos dicit, quam stultus est qui in nobis ossa et ungues homines dicit. Sed haec cum philosophis fortassis agenda sunt; nunc autem istum adhuc politicum uolo. Fieri enim potest, ut, licet in illam naturalis theologiae ueluti libertatem caput erigere paululum uoluisse uideatur, adhuc tamen hunc librum uersans et se in illo uersari cogitans, eum etiam inde respexerit et hoc propterea dixerit, ne maiores eius siue aliae ciuitates Tellurem adque Neptunum inaniter coluisse credantur. Sed hoc dico: pars animi mundani, quae per terram permeat, sicut una est terra, quur non etiam unam fecit deam, quam dicit esse Tellurem? Quod si ita fecit, ubi erit Orcus, frater Iouis adque Neptuni, quem Ditem patrem uocant? ubi eius coniunx Proserpina, quae secundum aliam in eisdem libris positam opinionem non terrae fecunditas, sed pars inferior perhibetur? Quod si dicunt animi mundani partem, cum permeat terrae partem superiorem, Ditem patrem facere deum; cum uero inferiorem, Proserpinam deam: Tellus illa quid erit? Ita enim totum, quod ipsa erat, in duas istas partes deosque diuisum est, ut ipsa tertia quae sit aut ubi sit inuenire non possit; nisi quis dicat simul istos deos Orcum adque Proserpinam unam deam esse Tellurem et non esse iam tres, sed aut unam aut duos; et tamen tres dicuntur, tres habentur, tres coluntur aris suis, delubris suis, sacris, simulacris, sacerdotibus suis, et per haec etiam fallacibus prostitutam animam constuprantibus daemonibus suis. Adhuc respondeatur, quam partem terrae permeet pars mundani animi, ut deum faciat Tellumonem? Non, inquit, sed una eademque terra habet geminam uim, et masculinam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat adque nutriat; inde a ui feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem. Quur ergo pontifices, ut ipse indicat, additis quoque aliis duobus quattuor dis faciunt rem diuinam, Telluri, Tellumoni, Altori, Rusori? De Tellure et Tellumone iam dictum est. Altori quare? Quod ex terra, inquit, aluntur omnia quae nata sunt. Rusori quare? Quod rursus, inquit, cuncta eodem reuoluuntur. ### Concerning the Surnames of Tellus and Their Significations, Which, Although They Indicate Many Properties, Ought Not to Have Established the Opinion that There is a Corresponding Number of Gods. [¶4] Chapter 24.—Concerning the Surnames of Tellus and Their Significations, Which, Although They Indicate Many Properties, Ought Not to Have Established the Opinion that There is a Corresponding Number of Gods. > Latin: Caput XXIV. De Telluris cognominibus eorumque significationibus, quae etiamsi erant multarum rerum indices, non debuerunt multorum deorum firmare opiniones. [¶5] The one earth, then, on account of this fourfold virtue, ought to have had four surnames, but not to have been considered as four gods,—as Jupiter and Juno, though they have so many surnames, are for all that only single deities,—for by all these surnames it is signified that a manifold virtue belongs to one god or to one goddess; but the multitude of surnames does not imply a multitude of gods. But as sometimes even the vilest women themselves grow tired of those crowds which they have sought after under the impulse of wicked passion, so also the soul, become vile, and prostituted to impure spirits, sometimes begins to loathe to multiply to itself gods to whom to surrender itself to be polluted by them, as much as it once delighted in so doing. For Varro himself, as if ashamed of that crowd of gods, would make Tellus to be one goddess. “They say,” says he, “that whereas the one great mother has a tympanum, it is signified that she is the orb of the earth; whereas she has towers on her head, towns are signified; and whereas seats are fixed round about her, it is signified that whilst all things move, she moves not. And their having made the Galli to serve this goddess, signifies that they who are in need of seed ought to follow the earth for in it all seeds are found. By their throwing themselves down before her, it is taught,” he says, “that they who cultivate the earth should not sit idle, for there is always something for them to do. The sound of the cymbals signifies the noise made by the throwing of iron utensils, and by men’s hands, and all other noises connected with agricultural operations; and these cymbals are of brass, because the ancients used brazen utensils in their agriculture before iron was discovered. They place beside the goddess an unbound and tame lion, to show that there is no kind of land so wild and so excessively barren as that it would be profitless to attempt to bring it in and cultivate it.” Then he adds that, because they gave many names and surnames to mother Tellus, it came to be thought that these signified many gods. “They think,” says he, “that Tellus is Ops, because the earth is improved by labor; Mother, because it brings forth much; Great, because it brings forth seed; Proserpine, because fruits creep forth from it; Vesta, because it is invested with herbs. And thus,” says he, “they not at all absurdly identify other goddesses with the earth.” If, then, it is one goddess (though, if the truth were consulted, it is not even that), why do they nevertheless separate it into many? Let there be many names of one goddess, and let there not be as many goddesses as there are names. > Latin: Debuit ergo una terra propter istam quatergeminam uim quattuor habere cognomina, non quattuor facere deos; sicut tot cognominibus unus Iuppiter et tot cognominibus una Iuno, in quibus omnibus uis multiplex esse dicitur ad unum deum uel unam deam pertinens, non multitudo cognominum deorum etiam multitudinem faciens. Sed profecto sicut aliquando etiam ipsas uilissimas feminas earum, quas libidine quaesierunt, taedet paenitetque turbarum: sic animam uilem factam et inmundis spiritibus prostitutam deos sibi multiplicare, quibus contaminanda prosterneretur, sicut plurimum libuit, sic aliquando et piguit. Nam et ipse Varro quasi de ipsa turba uerecundatus unam deam uult esse Tellurem. ‘Eandem, inquit, dicunt Matrem Magnam; quod tympanum habeat, significari esse orbem terrae; quod turres in capite, oppida; quod sedens fingatur, circa eam cum omnia moueantur, ipsam non moueri. Quod Gallos huic deae ut seruirent fecerunt, significat, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; in ea quippe omnia reperiri. Quod se aput eam iactant, praecipitur, inquit, qui terram colunt, ne sedeant; semper enim esse quod agant. Cymbalorum sonitus ferramentorum iactandorum ac manuum et eius rei crepitum in colendo agro qui fit significant; ideo aere, quod eam antiqui colebant aere, antequam ferrum esset inuentum. Leonem, inquit, adiungunt solutum ac mansuetum, ut ostendant nullum genus esse terrae tam remotum ac uehementer ferum, quod non subigi colique conueniat. Deinde adiungit et dicit, Tellurem matrem et nominibus pluribus et cognominibus quod nominarunt, deos existimatos esse conplures. (Tellurem, inquit, putant esse Opem, quod opere fiat melior; Matrem, quod plurima pariat; Magnam, quod cibum pariat; Proserpinam, quod ex ea proserpant fruges; Vestam, quod uestiatur herbis. Sic alias deas, inquit, non absurde ad hanc reuocant.’ Si ergo una dea est, quae quidem consulta ueritate nec ipsa est, interim quid itur in multas? Unius sint ista multa nomina, non tam deae multae quam nomina. [¶6] But the authority of the erring ancients weighs heavily on Varro, and compels him, after having expressed this opinion, to show signs of uneasiness; for he immediately adds, “With which things the opinion of the ancients, who thought that there were really many goddesses, does not conflict.” How does it not conflict, when it is entirely a different thing to say that one goddess has many names, and to say that there are many goddesses? But it is possible, he says, that the same thing may both be one, and yet have in it a plurality of things. I grant that there are many things in one man; are there therefore in him many men? In like manner, in one goddess there are many things; are there therefore also many goddesses? But let them divide, unite, multiply, reduplicate, and implicate as they like. > Latin: Sed errantium maiorum auctoritas deprimit et eundem Varronem post hanc sententiam trepidare conpellit. Adiungit enim et dicit: Cum quibus opinio maiorum de his deabus, quod plures eas putarunt esse, non pugnat.’ Quo modo non pugnat, cum ualde aliud sit unam deam nomina habere multa, aliud esse deas multas? ‘Sed potest, inquit, fieri ut eadem res et una sit, et in ea quaedam res sint plures.’ Concedo in una homine esse res plures, numquid ideo et homines plures? Sic in una dea esse res plures, numquid ideo et deas plures? Verum sicut uolunt, diuidant conflent, multiplicent replicent inplicent. [¶7] These are the famous mysteries of Tellus and the Great Mother, all of which are shown to have reference to mortal seeds and to agriculture. Do these things, then,—namely, the tympanum, the towers, the Galli, the tossing to and fro of limbs, the noise of cymbals, the images of lions,—do these things, having this reference and this end, promise eternal life? Do the mutilated Galli, then, serve this Great Mother in order to signify that they who are in need of seed should follow the earth, as though it were not rather the case that this very service caused them to want seed? For whether do they, by following this goddess, acquire seed, being in want of it, or, by following her, lose seed when they have it? Is this to interpret or to deprecate? Nor is it considered to what a degree malign demons have gained the upper hand, inasmuch as they have been able to exact such cruel rites without having dared to promise any great things in return for them. Had the earth not been a goddess, men would have, by laboring, laid their hands on it in order to obtain seed through it, and would not have laid violent hands on themselves in order to lose seed on account of it. Had it not been a goddess, it would have become so fertile by the hands of others, that it would not have compelled a man to be rendered barren by his own hands; nor that in the festival of Liber an honorable matron put a wreath on the private parts of a man in the sight of the multitude, where perhaps her husband was standing by blushing and perspiring, if there is any shame left in men; and that in the celebration of marriages the newly-married bride was ordered to sit upon Priapus. These things are bad enough, but they are small and contemptible in comparison with that most cruel abomination, or most abominable cruelty, by which either set is so deluded that neither perishes of its wound. There the enchantment of fields is feared; here the amputation of members is not feared. There the modesty of the bride is outraged, but in such a manner as that neither her fruitfulness nor even her virginity is taken away; here a man is so mutilated that he is neither changed into a woman nor remains a man. > Latin: Haec sunt Telluris et Matris Magnae praeclara mysteria, unde omnia referuntur ad mortalia semina et exercendam agriculturam. Itane ad haec relata et hunc finem habentia tympanum, turres, Galli, iactatio insana membrorum, crepitus cymbalorum, confictio leonum uitam cuiquam pollicentur aeternam? Itane propterea Galli abscisi huic Magnae deae seruiunt, ut significent, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; quasi non eos ipsa potius seruitus semine faciat indigere? Utrum enim sequendo hanc deam, cum indigeant, semen adquirunt, an potius sequendo hanc deam, cum habeant, semen amittunt? Hoc interpretari est an detestari? Nec adtenditur, quantum maligni daemones praeualuerint, qui nec aliqua magna his sacris polliceri ausi sunt, et tam crudelia exigere potuerunt. Si dea terra non esset, manus ei homines operando inferrent, ut semina consequerentur per illam, non et sibi saeuiendo, ut semina perderent propter illam; si dea non esset, ita fecunda fieret manibus alienis, ut non cogeret hominem sterilem fieri manibus suis. Iam quod in Liberi sacris honesta matrona pudenda uirilia coronabat spectante multitudine, ubi rubens et sudans, si est ulla frons in hominibus, adstabat forsitan et maritus; et quod in celebratione nuptiarum super Priapi scapum noua nupta sedere iubebatur: longe contemtibiliora adque leuiora sunt prae ista turpitudine crudelissima uel crudelitate turpissima, ubi daemonicis ritibus sic uterque sexus inluditur, ut neuter suo uulnere perimatur. Ibi fascinatio timetur agrorum, hic membrorum amputatio non timetur. Ibi sic dehonestatur nouae nuptae uerecundia, ut non solum fecunditas, sed nec uirginitas adimatur; hic ita amputatur uirilitas, ut nec conuertatur in feminam nec uir relinquatur. ### The Interpretation of the Mutilation of Atys Which the Doctrine of the Greek Sages Set Forth. [¶9] Chapter 25.—The Interpretation of the Mutilation of Atys Which the Doctrine of the Greek Sages Set Forth. > Latin: Caput XXV. Quam interpretationem de abscisione Attidis Graecorum sapientium doctrina reppererit [¶10] Varro has not spoken of that Atys, nor sought out any interpretation for him, in memory of whose being loved by Ceres the Gallus is mutilated. But the learned and wise Greeks have by no means been silent about an interpretation so holy and so illustrious. The celebrated philosopher Porphyry has said that Atys signifies the flowers of spring, which is the most beautiful season, and therefore was mutilated because the flower falls before the fruit appears. They have not, then, compared the man himself, or rather that semblance of a man they called Atys, to the flower, but his male organs,—these, indeed, fell whilst he was living. Did I say fell? nay, truly they did not fall, nor were they plucked off, but torn away. Nor when that flower was lost did any fruit follow, but rather sterility. What, then, do they say is signified by the castrated Atys himself, and whatever remained to him after his castration? To what do they refer that? What interpretation does that give rise to? Do they, after vain endeavors to discover an interpretation, seek to persuade men that that is rather to be believed which report has made public, and which has also been written concerning his having been a mutilated man? Our Varro has very properly opposed this, and has been unwilling to state it; for it certainly was not unknown to that most learned man. > Latin: Et Attis ille non est commemoratus nec eius ab isto interpretatio requisita est, in cuius dilectionis memoriam Gallus absciditur. Sed docti Graeci adque sapientes nequaquam rationem tam sanctam praeclaramque tacuerunt. Propter uernalem quippe faciem terrae, quae ceteris est temporibus pulchrior, Porphyrius, philosophus nobilis, Attin flores significare perhibuit, et ideo abscisum, quia flos decidit ante fructum. Non ergo ipsum hominem uel quasi hominem, qui est uocatus Attis, sed uirilia eius flori conparauerunt. Ipsa quippe illo uiuente deciderunt; immo uero non deciderunt neque decerpta, sed plane discerpta sunt; nec illo flore amisso quisquam postea fructus, sed potius sterilitas consecuta est. Quid ergo ipse reliquus, et quidquid remansit absciso? quid eo significari dicitur? quo refertur? quae interpretatio inde profertur? An haec frustra moliendo nihilque inueniendo persuadent illud potius esse credendum, quod de homine castrato fama iactauit litterisque mandatum est? Merito hinc auersatus est Varro noster, neque hoc dicere uoluit; non enim hominem doctissimum latuit. ### Concerning the Abomination of the Sacred Rites of the Great Mother. [¶12] Chapter 26.—Concerning the Abomination of the Sacred Rites of the Great Mother. > Latin: Caput XXVI. De turpitudine sacrorum Matris Magnae. [¶13] Concerning the effeminates consecrated to the same Great Mother, in defiance of all the modesty which belongs to men and women, Varro has not wished to say anything, nor do I remember to have read anywhere aught concerning them. These effeminates, no later than yesterday, were going through the streets and places of Carthage with anointed hair, whitened faces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from the people the means of maintaining their ignominious lives. Nothing has been said concerning them. Interpretation failed, reason blushed, speech was silent. The Great Mother has surpassed all her sons, not in greatness of deity, but of crime. To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus is to be compared. His deformity was only in his image; hers was the deformity of cruelty in her sacred rites. He has a redundancy of members in stone images; she inflicts the loss of members on men. This abomination is not surpassed by the licentious deeds of Jupiter, so many and so great. He, with all his seductions of women, only disgraced heaven with one Ganymede; she, with so many avowed and public effeminates, has both defiled the earth and outraged heaven. Perhaps we may either compare Saturn to this Magna Mater, or even set him before her in this kind of abominable cruelty, for he mutilated his father. But at the festivals of Saturn, men could rather be slain by the hands of others than mutilated by their own. He devoured his sons, as the poets say, and the natural theologists interpret this as they list. History says he slew them. But the Romans never received, like the Carthaginians, the custom of sacrificing their sons to him. This Great Mother of the gods, however, has brought mutilated men into Roman temples, and has preserved that cruel custom, being believed to promote the strength of the Romans by emasculating their men. Compared with this evil, what are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, and the base and flagitious deeds of the rest of them, which we might bring forward from books, were it not that they are daily sung and danced in the theatres? But what are these things to so great an evil,—an evil whose magnitude was only proportioned to the greatness of the Great Mother,—especially as these are said to have been invented by the poets? as if the poets had also invented this that they are acceptable to the gods. Let it be imputed, then, to the audacity and impudence of the poets that these things have been sung and written of. But that they have been incorporated into the body of divine rites and honors, the deities themselves demanding and extorting that incorporation, what is that but the crime of the gods? nay more, the confession of demons and the deception of wretched men? But as to this that the Great Mother is considered to be worshipped in the appropriate form when she is worshipped by the consecration of mutilated men, this is not an invention of the poets, nay, they have rather shrunk from it with horror than sung of it. Ought any one, then, to be consecrated to these select gods, that he may live blessedly after death, consecrated to whom he could not live decently before death, being subjected to such foul superstitions, and bound over to unclean demons? But all these things, says Varro, are to be referred to the world. Let him consider if it be not rather to the unclean. But why not refer that to the world which is demonstrated to be in the world? We, however, seek for a mind which, trusting to true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but for the sake of God praises the world as a work of God, and, purified from mundane defilements, comes pure to God Himself who founded the world. > Latin: Itemque de mollibus eidem Matri Magnae contra omnem uirorum mulierumque uerecundiam consecratis, qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis facie dealbata, fluentibus membris incessu femineo per plateas uicosque Carthaginis etiam a propolis unde turpiter uiuerent exigebant, nihil Varro dicere uoluit nec uspiam me legisse commemini. Defecit interpretatio, erubuit ratio, conticuit oratio. Vicit Matris Magnae omnes deos filios non numinis magnitudo, sed criminis. Huic monstro nec Iani monstrositas conparatur. Ille in simulacris habebat solam deformitatem, ista in sacris deformem crudelitatem; ille membra in lapidibus addita, haec in hominibus perdita. Hoc dedecus tot Iouis ipsius et tanta stupra non uincunt. Ille inter femineas corruptelas uno Ganymede caelum infamauit; ista tot mollibus professis et publicis et inquinauit terram et caelo fecit iniuriam. Saturnum fortasse possemus huic in isto genere turpissimae crudelitatis siue conferre siue praeferre, qui patrem castrasse perhibetur; sed in Saturni sacris homines alienis manibus potius occidi quam suis abscidi potuerunt. Deuorauit ille filios, ut poetae ferunt, et physici ex hoc interpretantur quod uolunt; ut autem historia prodit, necauit; sed quod ei Poeni suos filios sacrificati sunt, non recepere Romani. At uero ista Magna deorum Mater etiam Romanis templis castratos intulit adque istam saeuitiam moremque seruauit, credita uires adiuuare Romanorum exsecando uirilia uirorum. Quid sunt ad hoc malum furta Mercurii, Veneris lasciuia, stupra ac turpitudines ceterorum, quae proferremus de libris, nisi cottidie cantarentur et saltarentur in theatris? Sed haec quid sunt ad tantum malum, cuius magnitudo Magnae Matri tantummodo conpetebat? Praesertim quod illa dicuntur a poetis esse conficta, quasi poetae id etiam finxerint, quod ea sint dis grata et accepta. Ut ergo canerentur uel scriberentur, sit audacia uel petulantia poetarum; ut uero diuinis rebus et honoribus eisdem imperantibus et extorquentibus numinibus adderentur, quid est nisi crimen deorum, immo uero confessio daemoniorum et deceptio miserorum? Verum illud, quod de abscisorum consecratione Mater deum coli meruit, non poetae confinxerunt, sed horrere magis quam canere maluerunt. Hisne dis selectis quisquam consecrandus est, ut post mortem uiuat beate, quibus consecratus ante mortem honeste non potest uiuere, tam foedis superstitionibus subditus et inmundis daemonibus obligatus? Sed haec omnia, inquit, referuntur ad mundum. Videat ne potius ad inmundum. Quid autem non potest referri ad mundum, quod esse demonstratur in mundo? Nos autem animum quaerimus, qui uera religione confisus non tamquam deum suum adoret mundum, sed tamquam opus Dei propter Deum laudet mundum, et mundanis sordibus expiatus mundus perueniat ad Deum, qui condidit mundum. ### Concerning the Figments of the Physical Theologists, Who Neither Worship the True Divinity, Nor Perform the Worship Wherewith the True Divinity Should Be Served. [¶15] Chapter 27.—Concerning the Figments of the Physical Theologists, Who Neither Worship the True Divinity, Nor Perform the Worship Wherewith the True Divinity Should Be Served. > Latin: Caput XXVII. De figmentis physiologorum, qui nec ueram diuinitatem colunt, nec eo cultu quo colenda est uera diuinitas. [¶16] We see that these select gods have, indeed, become more famous than the rest; not, however, that their merits may be brought to light, but that their opprobrious deeds may not be hid. Whence it is more credible that they were men, as not only poetic but also historical literature has handed down. For this which Virgil says, > Latin: Istos uero deos selectos uidemus quidem clarius innotuisse quam ceteros, non tamen ut eorum inlustrarentur merita, sed ne occultarentur obprobria; unde magis eos homines fuisse credibile est, sicut non solum poeticae litterae, uerum etiam historicae tradiderunt. [¶17] “Then from Olympus’ heights came down [¶18] Good Saturn, exiled from his throne [¶19] By Jove, his mightier heir;” [¶20] and what follows with reference to this affair, is fully related by the historian Euhemerus, and has been translated into Latin by Ennius. And as they who have written before us in the Greek or in the Latin tongue against such errors as these have said much concerning this matter, I have thought it unnecessary to dwell upon it. When I consider those physical reasons, then, by which learned and acute men attempt to turn human things into divine things, all I see is that they have been able to refer these things only to temporal works and to that which has a corporeal nature, and even though invisible still mutable; and this is by no means the true God. But if this worship had been performed as the symbolism of ideas at least congruous with religion, though it would indeed have been cause of grief that the true God was not announced and proclaimed by its symbolism, nevertheless it could have been in some degree borne with, when it did not occasion and command the performance of such foul and abominable things. But since it is impiety to worship the body or the soul for the true God, by whose indwelling alone the soul is happy, how much more impious is it to worship those things through which neither soul nor body can obtain either salvation or human honor? Wherefore if with temple, priest, and sacrifice, which are due to the true God, any element of the world be worshipped, or any created spirit, even though not impure and evil, that worship is still evil, not because the things are evil by which the worship is performed, but because those things ought only to be used in the worship of Him to whom alone such worship and service are due. But if any one insist that he worships the one true God,—that is, the Creator of every soul and of every body,—with stupid and monstrous idols, with human victims, with putting a wreath on the male organ, with the wages of unchastity, with the cutting of limbs, with emasculation, with the consecration of effeminates, with impure and obscene plays, such a one does not sin because he worships One who ought not to be worshipped, but because he worships Him who ought to be worshipped in a way in which He ought not to be worshipped. But he who worships with such things,—that is, foul and obscene things,—and that not the true God, namely, the maker of soul and body, but a creature, even though not a wicked creature, whether it be soul or body, or soul and body together, twice sins against God, because he both worships for God what is not God, and also worships with such things as neither God nor what is not God ought to be worshipped with. It is, indeed, manifest how these pagans worship,—that is, how shamefully and criminally they worship; but what or whom they worship would have been left in obscurity, had not their history testi fied that those same confessedly base and foul rites were rendered in obedience to the demands of the gods, who exacted them with terrible severity. Wherefore it is evident beyond doubt that this whole civil theology is occupied in inventing means for attracting wicked and most impure spirits, inviting them to visit senseless images, and through these to take possession of stupid hearts. > Latin: Nam quod Vergilius ait: Primus ab aetherio uenit Saturnus Olympo, Arma Iouis fugiens et regnis exul ademtis, et quae ad hanc rem pertinentia consequuntur, totam de hoc Euhemerus pandit historiam, quam Ennius in Latinum uertit eloquium; unde quia plurima posuerunt, qui contra huius modi errores ante nos uel Graeco sermone uel Latino scripserunt, non in eo mihi placuit inmorari. Ipsas physiologias cum considero, quibus docti et acuti homines has res humanas conantur uertere in res diuinas, nihil uideo nisi ad temporalia terrenaque opera naturamque corpoream uel etiamsi inuisibilem, tamen mutabilem potuisse reuocari; quod nullo modo est uerus Deus. Hoc autem si saltem religiositati congruis significationibus ageretur, esset quidem dolendum non his uerum Deum adnuntiari adque praedicari, tamen aliquo modo ferendum tam foeda et turpia non fieri nec iuberi; at nunc cum pro Deo uero, quo solo anima se inhabitante fit felix, nefas sit colere aut corpus aut animam, quanto magis nefarium est ista sic colere, ut nec salutem nec decus humanum corpus aut anima colentis obtineat! Quam ob rem si templo sacerdote sacrificio, quod uero Deo debetur, colatur aliquod elementum mundi uel creatus aliquis spiritus, etiamsi non inmundus et malus: non ideo malum est, quia illa mala sunt, quibus colitur, sed quia illa talia sunt, quibus ille solus colendus sit, cui talis cultus seruitusque debetur. Si autem stoliditate uel monstrositate simulacrorum, sacrificiis homicidiorum, coronatione uirilium pudendorum, mercede stuprorum, sectione membrorum, abscisione genitalium, consecratione mollium, festis inpurorum obscenorumque ludorum unum uerum Deum, id est omnis animae corporisque creatorem, colere se quisque contendat: non ideo peccat, quia non est colendus quem colit, sed quia colendum non ut colendus est colit. Qui uero et rebus talibus, id est turpibus et scelestis, et non Deum uerum, id est animae corporisque factorem, sed creaturam quamuis non uitiosam colit, siue illa sit anima siue corpus siue anima simul et corpus. bis peccat in Deum, quod et pro ipso colit, quod non est ipse, et talibus rebus colit, qualibus nec ipse colendus est nec non ipse. Sed hi quonam modo, id est quam turpiter nefarieque coluerint, in promtu est; quid autem uel quos coluerint, esset obscurum, nisi eorum testaretur historia ea ipsa, quae foeda et turpia confitentur, numinibus terribiliter exigentibus reddita; unde remotis constat ambagibus nefarios daemones adque inmundissimos spiritus hac omni ciuili theologia inuisendis stolidis imaginibus et per eas possidendis etiam stultis cordibus inuitatos. ### That the Doctrine of Varro Concerning Theology is in No Part Consistent with Itself. [¶22] Chapter 28.—That the Doctrine of Varro Concerning Theology is in No Part Consistent with Itself. > Latin: Caput XXVIII. Quod doctrina Varronis de theologia in nulla sibi parte concordet. [¶23] To what purpose, then, is it that this most learned and most acute man Varro attempts, as it were, with subtle disputation, to reduce and refer all these gods to heaven and earth? He cannot do it. They go out of his hands like water; they shrink back; they slip down and fall. For when about to speak of the females, that is, the goddesses, he says, “Since, as I observed in the first book concerning places, heaven and earth are the two origins of the gods, on which account they are called celestials and terrestrials, and as I began in the former books with heaven, speaking of Janus, whom some have said to be heaven, and others the earth, so I now commence with Tellus in speaking concerning the goddesses.” I can understand what embarrassment so great a mind was experiencing. For he is influenced by the perception of a certain plausible resemblance, when he says that the heaven is that which does, and the earth that which suffers, and therefore attributes the masculine principle to the one, and the feminine to the other, not considering that it is rather He who made both heaven and earth who is the maker of both activity and passivity. On this principle he interprets the celebrated mysteries of the Samothracians, and promises, with an air of great devoutness, that he will by writing expound these mysteries, which have not been so much as known to his countrymen, and will send them his exposition. Then he says that he had from many proofs gathered that, in those mysteries, among the images one signifies heaven, another the earth, another the patterns of things, which Plato calls ideas. He makes Jupiter to signify heaven, Juno the earth, Minerva the ideas. Heaven, by which anything is made; the earth, from which it is made; and the pattern, according to which it is made. But, with respect to the last, I am forgetting to say that Plato attributed so great an importance to these ideas as to say, not that anything was made by heaven according to them, but that according to them heaven itself was made. To return, however,—it is to be observed that Varro has, in the book on the select gods, lost that theory of these gods, in whom he has, as it were, embraced all things. For he assigns the male gods to heaven, the females to earth; among which latter he has placed Minerva, whom he had before placed above heaven itself. Then the male god Neptune is in the sea, which pertains rather to earth than to heaven. Last of all, father Dis, who is called in Greek Πλουτων, another male god, brother of both (Jupiter and Neptune), is also held to be a god of the earth, holding the upper region of the earth himself, and allotting the nether region to his wife Proserpine. How, then, do they attempt to refer the gods to heaven, and the goddesses to earth? What solidity, what consistency, what sobriety has this disputation? But that Tellus is the origin of the goddesses,—the great mother, to wit, beside whom there is continually the noise of the mad and abominable revelry of effeminates and mutilated men, and men who cut themselves, and indulge in frantic gesticulations,—how is it, then, that Janus is called the head of the gods, and Tellus the head of the goddesses? In the one case error does not make one head, and in the other frenzy does not make a sane one. Why do they vainly attempt to refer these to the world? Even if they could do so, no pious person worships the world for the true God. Nevertheless, plain truth makes it evident that they are not able even to do this. Let them rather identify them with dead men and most wicked demons, and no further question will remain. > Latin: Quid igitur ualet, quod uir doctissimus et acutissimus Varro uelut subtili disputatione hos omnes deos in caelum et in terram redigere ac referre conatur? Non potest; fluunt de manibus, resiliunt, labuntur et decidunt. Dicturus enim ‘de feminis, hoc est deabus: ‘Quoniam, inquit, ut primo libro dixi de locis, duo sunt principia deorum animaduersa de caelo et terra, a quo di partim dicuntur caelestes, partim terrestres: ut in superioribus initium fecimus a caelo, cum diximus de Iano, quem alii caelum, alii dixerunt esse mundum, sic de feminis scribendi facimus initium a Tellure.) Sentio quantam molestiam tale ac tantum patiatur ingenium. Ducitur enim quadam ratione uerisimili, caelum esse quod faciat, terram quae patiatur, et ideo illi masculinam uim tribuit, huic rem femininam, et non adtendit eum potius esse qui haec facit, qui utrumque fecit. Hinc etiam Samothracum nobilia mysteria in superiore libro sic interpretatur eaque se, quae nec suis nota sunt, scribendo expositurum eisque missurum quasi religiosissime pollicetur. Dicit enim se ibi multis indiciis collegisse in simulacris aliud significare caelum, aliud terram, aliud exempla rerum, quas Plato appellat ideas; caelum Iouem, terram Iunonem, ideas Mineruam uult intellegi; caelum a quo fiat aliquid, terram de qua fiat, exemplum secundum quod fiat. Qua in re omitto dicere, quod Plato illas ideas tantam uim habere dicit, ut secundum eas non caelum aliquid fecerit, sed etiam caelum factum sit. Hoc dico, istum in hoc libro selectorum deorum rationem illam trium deorum, quibus quasi cuncta conplexus est, perdidisse. Caelo enim tribuit masculos deos, feminas terrae; inter quas posuit Mineruam, quam supra ipsum caelum ante posuerat. Deinde masculus deus Neptunus in mari est, quod ad terram potius quam ad caelum pertinet. Dis pater postremo, qui Graece Πλούτων dicitur, etiam ipse masculus frater amborum terrenus deus esse perhibetur, superiorem terram tenens, in inferiore habens Proserpinam coniugem. Quo modo ergo deos ad caelum, deas ad terram referre conantur? Quid solidum quid constans, quid sobrium quid definitum habet haec disputatio? Illa est autem Tellus initium dearum, Mater scilicet Magna, aput quam mollium et abscisorum seseque secantium adque. iactantium insana perstrepit turpitudo. Quid est ergo quod dicitur caput deorum Ianus, caput dearum Tellus? Nec ibi facit unum caput error, nec hic sanum furor. Quur haec frustra referre nituntur ad mundum? Quod etsi possent, pro Deo uero mundum nemo pius colit; et tamen eos nec hoc posse ueritas aperta conuincit. Referant haec potius ad homines mortuos et ad daemones pessimos, et nulla quaestio remanebit.