The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen.Book I.

Arnobius (Cont.)

(Adversus Gentes.)

1. Since I have found some who deem themselves very wise in their opinions, acting as if they were inspired,1 and announcing with all the authority of an oracle,2 that from the time when the Christian people began to exist in the world the universe has gone to ruin, that the human race has been visited with ills of many kinds, that even the very gods, abandoning their accustomed charge, in virtue of which they were wont in former days to regard with interest our affairs, have been driven from the regions of earth, – I have resolved, so far as my capacity and my humble power of language will allow, to oppose public prejudice, and to refute calumnious accusations; lest, on the one hand, those persons should imagine that they are declaring some weighty matter, when they are merely retailing vulgar rumours;3 and on the other, lest, if we refrain from such a contest, they should suppose that they have gained a cause, lost by its own inherent demerits, not abandoned by the silence of its advocates. For I should not deny that that charge is a most serious one, and that we fully deserve the hatred attaching to public enemies,4 if it should appear that to us are attributable causes by reason of which the universe has deviated from its laws, the gods have been driven far away, and such swarms of miseries have been inflicted on the generations of men.

 

2. Let us therefore examine carefully the real significance of that opinion, and what is the nature of the allegation; and laying aside all desire for wrangling,5 by which the calm view of subjects is wont to be dimmed, and even intercepted, let us test, by fairly balancing the considerations on both sides, whether that which is alleged be true. For it will assuredly be proved by an array of convincing arguments, not that we are discovered to be more impious, but that they themselves are convicted of that charge who profess to be worshippers of the deities, and devotees of an antiquated superstition. And, in the first place, we ask this of them in friendly and calm language: Since the name of the Christian religion began to be used on the earth, what phenomenon, unseen before,6 unheard of before, what event contrary to the laws established in the beginning, has the so-called “Nature of Things” felt or suffered? Have these first elements, from which it is agreed that all things were compacted, been altered into elements of an opposite character? Has the fabric of this machine and mass of the universe, by which we are all covered, and in which we are held enclosed, relaxed in any part, or broken up? Has the revolution of the globe, to which we are accustomed, departing from the rate of its primal motion, begun either to move too slowly, or to be hurried onward in headlong rotation? Have the stars begun to rise in the west, and the setting of the constellations to take place in the east? Has the sun himself, the chief of the heavenly bodies, with whose light all things are clothed, and by whose heat all things are vivified, blazed forth with increased vehemence? has he become less warm, and has he altered for the worse into opposite conditions that well-regulated temperature by which he is wont to act upon the earth? Has the moon ceased to shape herself anew, and to change into former phases by the constant recurrence of fresh ones? Has the cold of winter, has the heat of summer, has the moderate warmth of spring and autumn, been modified by reason of the intermixture of ill-assorted seasons? Has the winter begun to have long days? has the night begun to recall the very tardy twilights of summer? Have the winds at all exhausted their violence? Is the sky not collected7 into clouds by reason of the blasts having lost their force, and do the fields when moistened by the showers not prosper? Does the earth refuse to receive the seed committed to it, or will not the trees assume their foliage? Has the flavour of excellent fruits altered, or has the vine changed in its juice? Is foul blood pressed forth from the olive berries, and is oil no longer supplied to the lamp, now extinguished? Have animals of the land and of the sea no sexual desires, and do they not conceive young? Do they not guard, according to their own habits and their own instinct, the offspring generated in their wombs? In fine, do men themselves, whom an active energy with its first impulses has scattered over habitable lands, not form marriages with due rites? Do they not beget dear children? do they not attend to public, to individual, and to family concerns? Do they not apply their talents as each one pleases, to varied occupations, to different kinds of learning? and do they not reap the fruit of diligent application? Do those to whom it has been so allotted, not exercise kingly power or military authority? Are men not every day advanced in posts of honour, in offices of power? Do they not preside in the discussions of the law courts? Do they not explain the code of law? do they not expound the principles of equity? All other things with which the life of man is surrounded, in which it consists, do not all men in their own tribes practise, according to the established order of their country’s manners?

 

3. Since this is so, and since no strange influence has suddenly manifested itself to break the continuous course of events by interrupting their succession, what is the ground of the allegation, that a plague was brought upon the earth after the Christian religion came into the world, and after it revealed the mysteries of hidden truth? But pestilences, say my opponents, and droughts, wars, famines, locusts, mice, and hailstones, and other hurtful things, by which the property of men is assailed, the gods bring upon us, incensed as they are by your wrong-doings and by your transgressions. If it were not a mark of stupidity to linger on matters which are already clear, and which require no defence, I should certainly show, by unfolding the history of past ages, that those ills which you speak of were not unknown, were not sudden in their visitation; and that the plagues did not burst upon us, and the affairs of men begin to be attacked by a variety of dangers, from the time that our sect8 won the honour9 of this appellation. For if we are to blame, and if these plagues have been devised against our sin, whence did antiquity know these names for misfortunes? Whence did she give a designation to wars? By what conception could she indicate pestilence and hailstorms, or how could she introduce these terms among her words, by which speech was rendered plain? For if these ills are entirely new, and if they derive their origin from recent transgressions, how could it be that the ancients coined terms for these things, which, on the one hand, they knew that they themselves had never experienced, and which, on the other, they had not heard of as occurring in the time of their ancestors? Scarcity of produce, say my opponents, and short supplies of grain, press more heavily on us. For, I would ask, were the former generations, even the most ancient, at any period wholly free from such an inevitable calamity? Do not the very words by which these ills are characterized bear evidence and proclaim loudly that no mortal ever escaped from them with entire immunity? But if the matter were difficult of belief, we might urge, on the testimony of authors, how great nations, and what individual nations, and how often such nations experienced dreadful famine, and perished by accumulated devastation. Very many hailstorms fall upon and assail all things. For do we not find it contained and deliberately stated in ancient literature, that even showers of stones10 often ruined entire districts? Violent rains cause the crops to perish, and proclaim barrenness to countries: – were the ancients, indeed, free from these ills, when we have known of11 mighty rivers even being dried up, and the mud of their channels parched? The contagious influences of pestilence consume the human race: – ransack the records of history written in various languages, and you will find that all countries have often been desolated and deprived of their inhabitants. Every kind of crop is consumed, and devoured by locusts and by mice : – go through your own annals, and you will be taught by these plagues how often former ages were visited by them, and how often they were brought to the wretchedness of poverty. Cities shaken by powerful earthquakes totter to their destruction: – what ! did not bygone days witness cities with their populations engulphed by huge rents of the earth?12 or did they enjoy a condition exempt from such disasters?

 

4. When was the human race destroyed by a flood? was it not before us? When was the world set on fire,13 and reduced to coals and ashes? was it not before us? When were the greatest cities engulphed in the billows of the sea? was it not before us? When were wars waged with wild beasts, and battles fought with lions?14 was it not before us? When was ruin brought on whole communities by poisonous serpents?15 was it not before us? For, inasmuch as you are wont to lay to our blame the cause of frequent wars, the devastation of cities, the irruptions of the Germans and the Scythians, allow me, with your leave, to say, – In your eagerness to calumniate us, you do not perceive the real nature of that which is alleged.

 

5. Did we bring it about, that ten thousand years ago a vast number of men burst forth from the island which is called the Atlantis of Neptune,16 as Plato tells us, and utterly ruined and blotted out countless tribes? Did this form a prejudice against us, that between the Assyrians and Bactrians, under the leadership of Ninus and Zoroaster of old, a struggle was maintained not only by the sword and by physical power, but also by magicians, and by the mysterious learning of the Chaldeans? Is it to be laid to the charge of our religion, that Helen was carried off under the guidance and at the instigation of the gods, and that she became a direful destiny to her own and to after times? Was it because of our name, that that mad-cap Xerxes let the ocean in upon the land, and that he marched over the sea on foot? Did we produce and stir into action the causes, by reason of which one youth, starting from Macedonia, subjected the kingdoms and peoples of the East to captivity and to bondage? Did we, forsooth, urge the deities into frenzy, so that the Romans lately, like some swollen torrent, overthrew all nations, and swept them beneath the flood? But if there is no man who would dare to attribute to our times those things which took place long ago, how can we be the causes of the present misfortunes, when nothing new is occurring, but all things are old, and were unknown to none of the ancients?

 

6. Although you allege that those wars which you speak of were excited through hatred of our religion, it would not be difficult to prove, that after the name of Christ was heard in the world, not only were they not increased, but they were even in great measure diminished by the restraining of furious passions. For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, (Cf. Mat_5:39) that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature. But if all without exception, who feel that they are men not in form of body but in power of reason, would lend an ear for a little to His salutary and peaceful rules, and would not, in the pride and arrogance of enlightenment, trust to their own senses rather than to His admonitions, the whole world, having turned the use of steel into more peaceful occupations, would now be living in the most placid tranquillity, and would unite in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties.

 

7. But if, say my opponents, no damage is done to human affairs by you, whence arise those evils by which wretched mortals are now oppressed and overwhelmed? You ask of me a decided statement,17 which is by no means necessary to this cause. For no immediate and prepared discussion regarding it has been undertaken by me, for the purpose of showing or proving from what causes and for what reasons each event took place; but in order to demonstrate that the reproaches of so grave a charge are far removed from our door. And if I prove this, if by examples and18 by powerful arguments the truth of the matter is made clear, I care not whence these evils come, or from what sources and first beginnings they flow.

 

8. And yet, that I may not seem to have no opinion on subjects of this kind, that I may not appear when asked to have nothing to offer, I may say, What if the primal matter which has been diffused through the four elements of the universe, contains the causes of all miseries inherent in its own constitution? What if the movements of the heavenly bodies produce these evils in certain signs, regions, seasons, and tracts, and impose upon things placed under them the necessity of various dangers? What if, at stated intervals, changes take place in the universe, and, as in the tides of the sea, prosperity at one time flows, at another time ebbs, evils alternating with it? What if those impurities of matter which we tread trader our feet have this condition imposed upon them, that they give forth the most noxious exhalations, by means of which this our atmosphere is corrupted, and brings pestilence on our bodies, and weakens the human race? What if – and this seems nearest the truth – whatever appears to us adverse, is in reality not an evil to the world itself? And what if, measuring by our own advantages all things which take place, we blame the results of nature through ill-formed judgments? Plato, that sublime head and pillar of philosophers, has declared in his writings, that those cruel floods and those conflagrations of the I world are a purification of the earth; nor did that wise man dread to call the overthrow of the human race, its destruction, ruin, and death, a renewal of things, and to affirm that a youthfulness, as it were, was secured by this renewed strength.19

 

9. It rains not from heaven, my opponent says, and we are in distress from some extraordinary deficiency of grain crops. What then, do you demand that the elements should be the slaves of your wants? and that you may be able to live more softly and more delicately, ought the compliant seasons to minister to your convenience? What if, in this way, one who is intent on voyaging complains, that now for a long time there are no winds, and that the blasts of heaven have for ever lulled? Is it therefore to be said that that peacefulness of the universe is pernicious, because it interferes with the wishes of traders? What if one, accustomed to bask himself in the sun, and thus to acquire dryness of body, similarly complains that by the clouds the pleasure of serene weather is taken away? Should the clouds, therefore, be said to hang over with an injurious veil, because idle lust is not permitted to scorch itself in the burning heat, and to devise excuses for drinking? All these events which are brought to pass, and which happen under this mass of the universe, are not to be regarded as sent for our petty advantages, but as consistent with the plans and arrangements of Nature herself.

 

10. And if anything happens which does not foster ourselves or our affairs with joyous success, it is not to be set down forthwith as an evil, and as a pernicious thing. The world rains or does not rain: for itself it rains or does not rain; and, though you perhaps are ignorant of it, it either diminishes excessive moisture by a burning drought, or by the outpouring of rain moderates the dryness extending over a very long period. It raises pestilences, diseases, famines, and other baneful forms of plagues: how can you tell whether it does not thus remove that which is in excess, and whether, through loss to themselves, it does not fix a limit to things prone to luxuriance?

 

11. Would you venture to say that, in this universe, this thing or the other thing is an evil, whose origin and cause you are unable to explain and to analyze?20 And because it interferes with your lawful, perhaps even your unlawful pleasures, would you say that it is pernicious and adverse? What, then, because cold is disagreeable to your members, and is wont to chill21 the warmth of your blood, ought not winter on that account to exist in the world? And because you are unable22 to endure the hottest rays of the sun, is summer to be removed from the year, and a different course of nature to be instituted under different laws? Hellebore is poison to men; should it therefore not grow? The wolf lies in wait by the sheepfolds; is nature at all in fault, because she has produced a beast most dangerous to sheep? The serpent by his bite takes away life; a reproach, forsooth, to creation, because it has added to animals monsters so cruel.

 

12. It is rather presumptuous, when you are not your own master, even when yon are the property of another, to dictate terms to those more powerful; to wish that that should happen which you desire, not that which you have found fixed in things by their original constitution. Wherefore, if you wish that your complaints should have a basis, you must first inform us whence you are, or who you are; whether the world was created and fashioned for you, or whether you came into it as sojourners from other regions. And since it is not in your power to say or to explain for what purpose you live beneath this vault of heaven, cease to believe that anything belongs to you; since those things which take place are not brought about in favour of a part, but have regard to the interest of the whole. 

 

13. Because of the Christians, my opponents say, the gods inflict upon us all calamities, and ruin is brought on our crops by the heavenly deities. I ask when you say these things, do you not see that you are accusing us with bare-faced effrontery, with palpable and clearly proved falsehoods? It is almost three hundred years23 – something less or more – since we Christians24 began to exist, and to be taken account of in the world. During all these years, have wars been incessant, has there been a yearly failure of the crops, has there been no peace on earth, has there been no season of cheapness and abundance of all things? For this must first be proved by him who accuses us, that these calamities have been endless and incessant, that men have never had a breathing time at all, and that without any relaxation25 they have undergone dangers of many forms.

 

14. And yet do we not see that, in these years and seasons that have intervened, victories innumerable have been gained from the conquered enemy, – that the boundaries of the empire have been extended, and that nations whose names we had not previously heard, have been brought under our power, – that very often there have been the most plentiful yields of grain, seasons of cheapness, and such abundance of commodities, that all commerce was paralyzed, being prostrated by the standard of prices? For in what manner could affairs be carried on, and how could the human race have existed26 even to this time, had not the productiveness of nature continued to supply all things which use demanded?

 

15. Sometimes, however, there were seasons of scarcity; yet they were relieved by times of plenty. Again, certain wars were carried on contrary to our wishes.27 But they were afterwards compensated by victories and successes. What shall we say, then? – that the gods at one time bore in mind our acts of wrong-doing, at another time again forgot them? If, when there is a famine, the gods are said to be enraged at us, it follows that in time of plenty they are not wroth, and ill-to-be-appeased; and so the matter comes to this, that they both lay aside and resume anger with sportive whim, and always renew their wrath afresh by the recollection of the causes of offence.

 

16. Yet one cannot discover by any rational process of reasoning, what is the meaning of these statements. If the gods willed that the Alemanni28 and the Persians should be overcome because Christians dwelt among their tribes, how did they grant victory to the Romans when Christians dwelt among their peoples also? If they willed that mice and locusts should swarm forth in prodigious numbers in Asia and in Syria because Christians dwelt among their tribes too, why was there at the same time no such phenomenon in Spain and in Gaul, although innumerable Christians lived in those provinces also?29 If among the Gaetuli and the Tinguitani30 they sent dryness and aridity on the crops on account of this circumstance, why did they in that very year give the most bountiful harvest to the Moors and to the Nomads, when a similar religion had its abode in these regions as well? If in any one state whatever they have caused many to die with hunger, through disgust at our name, why have they in the same state made wealthier, ay, very rich, by the high price of corn, not only men not of our booty, but even Christians themselves? Accordingly, either all should have had no blessing if we are the cause of the evils, for we are in all nations; or when you see blessings mixed with misfortunes, cease to attribute to us that which damages your interests, when we in no respect interfere with your blessings and prosperity. For if I cause it to be ill with you, why do I not prevent it from being well with you? If my name is the cause of a great dearth, why am I powerless to prevent the greatest productiveness? If I am said to bring the ill luck of a wound being received in war, why, when the enemy are slain, am I not an evil augury; and why am I not set forth against good hopes, through the ill luck of a bad omen?

 

17. And yet, O ye great worshippers and priests of the deities, why, as you assert that those most holy gods are enraged at Christian communities, do you not likewise perceive, do you not see what base feelings, what unseemly frenzies, you attribute to your deities? For, to be angry, what else is it than to be insane, to rave, to be urged to the lust of vengeance, and to revel in the troubles of another’s grief, through the madness of a savage disposition? Your great gods, then, know, are subject to and feel that which wild beasts, which monstrous brutes experience, which the deadly plant natrix contains in its poisoned roots. That nature which is superior to others, and which is based on the firm foundation of unwavering virtue, experiences, as you allege, the instability which is in man, the faults which are in the animals of earth. And what therefore follows of necessity, but that from their eyes flashes dart, flames burst forth, a panting breast emits a hurried breathing from their mouth, and by reason of their burning words their parched lips become pale?

 

18. But if this that you say is true, – if it has been tested and thoroughly ascertained both that the gods boil with rage, and that an impulse of this kind agitates the divinities with excitement, on the one hand they are not immortal, and on the other they are not to be reckoned as at all partaking of divinity. For wherever, as the philosophers hold, there is any agitation, there of necessity passion must exist. Where passion is situated, it is reasonable that mental excitement follow. Where there is mental excitement, there grief and sorrow exist. Where grief and sorrow exist, there is already room for weakening and decay; and if these two harass them, extinction is at hand, viz. death, which ends all things, and takes away life from every sentient being.

 

19. Moreover, in this way you represent them as not only unstable and excitable, but, what all agree is far removed from the character of deity, as unfair in their dealings, as wrong-doers, and, in fine, as possessing positively no amount of even moderate fairness. For what is a greater wrong than to be angry with some, and to injure others, to complain of human beings, and to ravage the harmless corn crops, to hate the Christian name, and to ruin the worshippers of Christ with every kind of loss?

 

20. 31Do they on this account wreak their wrath on you too, in order that, roused by your own private wounds, you may rise up for their vengeance? It seems, then, that the gods seek the help of mortals; and were they not protected by your strenuous advocacy, they are not able of themselves to repel and to avenge32 the insults offered them. Nay rather, if it be true that they burn with anger, give them an opportunity of defending themselves, and let them put forth and make trial of their innate powers, to take vengeance for their offended dignity. By heat, by hurtful cold, by noxious winds, by the most occult diseases, they can slay us, they can consume33 us, and they can drive us entirely from all intercourse with men; or if it is impolitic to assail us by violence, let them give forth some token of their indignation,34 by which it may be clear to all that we live under heaven subject to their strong displeasure.

 

21. To you let them give good health, to us bad, ay, the very worst. Let them water your farms with seasonable showers; from our little fields let them drive away all those rains which are gentle. Let them see to it that your sheep are multiplied by a numerous progeny; on our flocks let them bring luckless barrenness. From your olive-trees and vineyards let them bring the full harvest; but let them see to it that from not one shoot of ours one drop be expressed. Finally, and as their worst, let them give orders that in your mouth the products of the earth retain their natural qualities; but, on the contrary that in ours the honey become bitter, the flowing oil grow rancid, and that the wine when sipped, be in the very lips suddenly changed into disappointing vinegar.

 

22. And since facts themselves testify that this result never occurs, and since it is plain that to us no less share of the bounties of life accrues, and to you no greater, what inordinate desire is there to assert that the gods are unfavourable, nay, inimical to the Christians, who, in the greatest adversity, just as in prosperity, differ from you in no respect? If you allow the truth to be told you, and that, too, without reserve, these allegations are but words, – words, I say; nay, matters believed on calumnious reports not proved by any certain evidence.

 

23. But the true35 gods, and those who are worthy to have and to wear the dignity of this name, neither conceive anger nor indulge a grudge, nor do they contrive by insidious devices what may be hurtful to another party. For verily it is profane, and surpasses all acts of sacrilege, to believe that that wise and most blessed nature is uplifted in mind if one prostrates himself before it in humble adoration; and if this adoration be not paid, that it deems itself despised, and regards itself as fallen from the pinnacle of its glory. It is childish, weak, and petty, and scarcely becoming for those whom the experience of learned men has for a long time called demigods and heroes,36 not to be versed in heavenly things, and, divesting themselves of their own proper state, to be busied with the coarser matter of earth.

 

24. These are your ideas, these are your sentiments, impiously conceived, and more impiously believed. Nay, rather, to speak out more truly, the augurs, the dream interpreters, the soothsayers, the prophets, and the priestlings, ever vain, have devised these fables; for they, fearing that their own arts be brought to nought, and that they may extort but scanty contributions from the devotees, now few and infrequent, whenever they have found you to be willing37 that their craft should come into disrepute, cry aloud, The gods are neglected, and in the temples there is now a very thin attendance. Former ceremonies are exposed to derision, and the time-honoured rites of institutions once sacred have sunk before the superstitions of new religions. Justly is the human race afflicted by so many pressing calamities, justly is it racked by the hardships of so many toils. And men – a senseless race – being unable, from their inborn blindness, to see even that which is placed in open light, dare to assert in their frenzy what you in your sane mind do not blush to believe.

 

25. And lest any one should suppose that we, through distrust in our reply, invest the gods with the gifts of serenity, that we assign to them minds free from resentment, and far removed from all excitement, let us allow, since it is pleasing to you, that they put forth their passion upon us, that they thirst for our blood, and that now for a long time they are eager to remove us from the generations of men. But if it is not troublesome to you, if it is not offensive, if it is a matter of common duty to discuss the points of this argument not on grounds of partiality, but on those of truth, we demand to hear from you what is the explanation of this, what the cause, why, on the one hand, the gods exercise cruelty on us alone, and why, on the other, men barn against us with exasperation. You follow, our opponents say, profane religious systems, and you practise rites unheard of throughout the entire world. What do you, O men, endowed with reason, dare to assert? What do you dare to prate of? What do you try to bring forward in the recklessness of unguarded speech? To adore God as the highest existence, as the Lord of all things that be, as occupying the highest place among all exalted ones, to pray to Him with respectful submission in our distresses, to cling to Him with all our senses, so to speak, to love Him, to look up to Him with faith, – is this an execrable and unhallowed religion,38 full of impiety and of sacrilege, polluting by the superstition of its own novelty ceremonies instituted of old?

 

26. Is this, I pray, that daring and heinous iniquity on account of which the mighty powers of heaven whet against us the stings of passionate indignation, on account of which you yourselves, whenever the savage desire has seized you, spoil us of our goods, drive us from the homes of our fathers, inflict upon us capital punishment, torture, mangle, barn us, and at the last expose us to wild beasts, and give us to be torn by monsters? Whosoever condemns that in us, or considers that it should be laid against us as a charge, is he deserving either to be called by the name of man, though he seem so to himself? or is he to be believed a god, although he declare himself to be so by the mouth of a thousand39 prophets? Does Trophonius,40 or Jupiter of Dodona, pronounce us to be wicked? And will he himself be called god, and be reckoned among the number of the deities, who either fixes the charge of impiety on those who serve the King Supreme, or is racked with envy because His majesty and His worship are preferred to his own?

Is Apollo whether called Delian or Clarian Didymean, Philesian, or Pythian, to be reckoned divine, who either knows not the Supreme Ruler, or who is not aware that He is entreated by us in daily prayers? And although he knew not the secrets of our hearts, and though he did not discover what we hold in our inmost thoughts, yet he might either know by his ear, or might perceive by the very tone of voice which we use in prayer, that we invoke God Supreme, and that we beg from Him what we require.

 

27. This is not the place to examine all our traducers, who they are, or whence they are, what is their power, what their knowledge, why they tremble at the mention of Christ, why they regard his disciples as enemies and as hateful persons; but with regard to ourselves to state expressly to those who will exercise common reason, in terms applicable to all of us alike, – We Christians are nothing else than worshippers of the Supreme King and Head, under our Master, Christ. If you examine carefully, you will find that nothing else is implied in that religion. This is the sum of all that we do; this is the proposed end and limit of sacred duties. Before Him we all prostrate ourselves, according to oar custom; Him we adore in joint prayers; from Him we beg things just and honourable, and worthy of His ear. Not that He needs our supplications, or loves to see the homage of so many thousands laid at His feet. This is our benefit, and has a regard to our advantage. For since we are prone to err, and to yield to various lusts and appetites through the fault of our innate weakness, He allows Himself at all times to be comprehended in our thoughts, that whilst we entreat Him and strive to merit His bounties, we may receive a desire for purity, and may free ourselves from every stain by the removal of all our shortcomings.41

 

28. What say ye, O interpreters of sacred and of divine law?42 Are they attached to a better cause who adore the Lares Grundules, the Aii Locutii,43 and the Limentini,44 than we who worship God the Father of all things, and demand of Him protection in danger and distress? They, too, seem to you wary, wise, most sagacious, and not worthy of any blame, who revere Fauni and Fatuae, and the genii of states,45 who worship Pausi and Bellonae: – we are pronounced dull, doltish, fatuous, stupid, and senseless, who have given ourselves up to God, at whose nod and pleasure everything which exists has its being, and remains immoveable by His eternal decree. Do you put forth this opinion? Have you ordained this law? Do you publish this decree, that he be crowned with the highest honours who shall worship your slaves? that he merit the extreme penalty of the cross who shall offer prayers to you yourselves, his masters? In the greatest states, and in the most powerful nations, sacred rites are performed in the public name to harlots, who in old days earned the wages of impurity, and prostituted themselves to the lust of all;46 and yet for this there are no swellings of indignation on the part of the deities. Temples have been erected with lofty roofs to cats, to beetles, and to heifers:47 – the powers of the deities thus insulted are silent; nor are they affected with any feeling of envy because they see the sacred attributes of vile animals put in rivalry with them. Are the deities inimical to us alone? To us are they most unrelenting, because we worship their Author, by whom, if they do exist, they began to be, and to have the essence of their power and their majesty, from whom, having obtained their very divinity, so to speak, they feel that they exist, and realize that they are reckoned among things that be, at whose will and at whose behest they are able both to perish and be dissolved, and not to be dissolved and not to perish?48 For if we all grant that there is only one great Being, whom in the long lapse of time nought else precedes, it necessarily follows that after Him all things were generated and put forth, and that they burst into an existence each of its kind. But if this is unchallenged and sure, you49 will be compelled as a consequence to confess, on the one hand, that the deities are created,50 and on the other, that they derive the spring of their existence from the great source of things. And if they are created and brought forth, they are also doubtless liable to annihilation and to dangers; but yet they are believed to be immortal, ever-existent, and subject to no extinction. This is also a gift from God their Author, that they have been privileged to remain the same through countless ages, though by nature they are fleeting, and liable to dissolution.

 

29. And would that it were allowed me to deliver this argument with the whole world formed, as it were, into one assembly, and to be placed in the hearing of all the human race! Are we therefore charged before you with an impious religion? and because we approach the Head and Pillar51 of the universe with worshipful service, are we to be considered – to use the terms employed by you in reproaching us – as persons to be shunned, and as godless ones? And who would more properly bear the odium of these names than he who either knows, or inquires after, or believes any other god rather than this of ours? To Him do we not owe this first, that we exist, that we are said to be men, that, being either sent forth from Him, or having fallen from Him, we are confined in the darkness of this body?52 Does it not come from Him that we walk, that we breathe and live? and by the very power of living, does He not cause us to exist and to move with the activity of animated being? From this do not causes emanate, through which our health is sustained by the bountiful supply of various pleasures? Whose is that world in which you live? or who hath authorized you to retain its produce and its possession? Who hath given that common light, enabling us to see distinctly all things lying beneath it, to handle them, and to examine them? Who has ordained that the fires of the sun should exist for the growth of things, lest elements pregnant with life should be numbed by settling down in the torpor of inactivity? When yon believe that the sun is a deity, do you not ask who is his founder, who has fashioned him? Since the moon is a goddess in your estimation, do you in like manner care to know who is her author and framer?

 

30. Does it not occur to you to reflect and to examine in whose domain you live? on whose property you are? whose is that earth which you till?53 whose is that air which you inhale, and return again in breathing? whose fountains do you abundantly enjoy? whose water? who has regulated the blasts of the wind? who has contrived the watery clouds? who has discriminated the productive powers of seeds by special characteristics? Does Apollo give you rain? Does Mercury send yon water from heaven? Has Aesculapius, Hercules, or Diana devised the plan of showers and of storms? And how can this be, when you give forth that they were born on earth, and that at a fixed period they received vital perceptions? For if the world preceded them in the long lapse of time, and if before they were born nature already experienced rains and storms, those who were born later have no right of rain-giving, nor can they mix themselves up with those methods which they found to be in operation here, and to be derived from a greater Author.

 

31. O greatest, O Supreme Creator of things invisible! O Thou who art Thyself unseen, and who art incomprehensible! Thou art worthy, Thou art verily worthy – if only mortal tongue may speak of Thee – that all breathing and intelligent nature should never cease to feel and to return thanks; that it should throughout the whole of life fall on bended knee, and offer supplication with never-ceasing prayers. For Thou art the first cause; in Thee created things exist, and Thou art the space in which rest the foundations of all things, whatever they be. Thou art illimitable, unbegotten, immortal, enduring for aye, God Thyself alone, whom no bodily shape may represent, no outline delineate; of virtues inexpressible, of greatness indefinable; unrestricted as to locality, movement, and condition, concerning whom nothing can be clearly expressed by the significance of man’s words. That Thou mayest he understood, we must be silent; and that erring conjecture may track Thee through the shady cloud, no word must be uttered. Grant pardon, O King Supreme, to those who persecute Thy servants; and in virtue of Thy benign nature, forgive those who fly from the worship of Thy name and the observance of Thy religion. It is not to be wondered at if Thou art unknown; it is a cause of greater astonishment if Thou art clearly comprehended.54

But perchance some one dares – for this remains for frantic madness to do – to be uncertain, and to express doubt whether that God exists or not; whether He is believed in on the proved truth of reliable evidence, or on the imaginings of empty rumour. For of those who have given themselves to philosophizing, we have heard that some55 deny the existence of any divine power, that others56 inquire daily whether there be or not; that others57 construct the whole fabric of the universe by chance accidents and by random collision, and fashion it by the concourse of atoms of different shapes; with whom we by no means intend to enter at this time on a discussion of such perverse convictions.58 For those who think wisely say, that to argue against things palpably foolish, is a mark of greater folly.

 

32. Our discussion deals with those who, acknowledging that there is a divine race of beings, doubt about those of greater rank and power, whilst they admit that there are deities inferior and more humble. What then? Do we strive and toil to obtain such results by arguments? Far hence be such madness; and, as the phrase is, let the folly, say I, be averted from us. For it is as dangerous to attempt to prove by arguments that God is the highest being, as it is to wish to discover by reasoning of this kind that He exists. It is a matter of indifference whether you deny that He exists, or affirm it and admit it; since equally culpable are both the assertion of such a thing, and the denial of an unbelieving opponent.

 

33. Is there any human being who has not entered on the first day of his life with an idea of that Great Head? In whom has it not been implanted by nature, on whom has it not been impressed, aye, stamped almost in his mother’s womb even, in whom is there not a native instinct, that He is King and Lord, the ruler of all things that be? In fine, if the dumb animals even could stammer forth their thoughts, if they were able to use our languages; nay, if trees, if the clods of the earth, if stones animated by vital perceptions were able to produce vocal sounds, and to utter articulate speech, would they not in that case, with nature as their guide and teacher, in the faith of uncorrupted innocence, both feel that there is a God, and proclaim that He alone is Lord of all?

 

34. But in vain, says one, do you assail us with a groundless and calumnious charge, as if we deny that there is a deity of a higher kind, since Jupiter is by us both called and esteemed the best and the greatest; and since we have dedicated to him the most sacred abodes, and have raised huge Capitols. You are endeavouring to connect together things which are dissimilar, and to force them into one class, thereby introducing confusion. For by the unanimous judgment of all, and by the common consent of the human race, the omnipotent God is regarded as having never been born, as having never been brought forth to new light, and as not having begun to exist at any time or century. For He Himself is the source of all things, the Father of ages and of seasons. For they do not exist of themselves, but from His everlasting perpetuity they move on in unbroken and ever endless flow. Yet Jupiter indeed, as you allege, has both father and mother, grandfathers, grandmothers, and brothers: now lately conceived in the womb of his mother, being completely formed and perfected in ten months, he burst with vital sensations into light unknown to him before. If, then, this is so, how can Jupiter be God supreme, when it is evident that He is everlasting, and the former is represented by you as having had a natal day, and as having uttered a mournful cry, through terror at the strange scene?

 

35. But suppose they be one, as you wish, and not different in any power of deity and in majesty, do you therefore persecute us with undeserved hatred? Why do you shudder at the mention of our name as of the worst omen, if we too worship the deity whom you worship? or why do you contend that the gods are friendly to you, but inimical, aye, most hostile to us, though our relations to them are the same? For if one religion is common to us and to you, the anger of the gods is stayed;59 but if they are hostile to us alone it is plain that both you and they have no knowledge of God. And that that God is not Jove, is evident by the very wrath of the deities.

 

36. But, says my opponent, the deities are not inimical to you, because you worship the omnipotent God; but because you both allege that one born as men are, and put to death on the cross, which is a disgraceful punishment even for worthless men, was God, and because you believe that He still lives, and because you worship Him in daily supplications. If it is agreeable to you, my friends, state clearly what deities those are who believe that the worship of Christ by us has a tendency to injure them? Is it Janus, the founder of the Janiculum, and Saturn, the author of the Saturnian state? Is it Fauna Fatua,60 the wife of Faunus, who is called the Good Goddess, but who is better and more deserving of praise in the drinking of wine? Is it those gods Indigetes who swim in the river, and live in the channels of the Numicius, in company with frogs and little fishes? Is it Aesculapius and father Bacchus, the former born of Coronis, and the other dashed by lightning from his mother’s womb? Is it Mercury, son of Maia, and what is more divine, Maia the beautiful? Is it the bow-bearing deities Diana and Apollo, who were companions of their mother’s wanderings, and who were scarcely safe in floating islands? Is it Venus, daughter of Dione, paramour of a man of Trojan family, and the prostituter of her secret charms? Is it Ceres, born in Sicilian territory, and Proserpine, surprised while gathering flowers? Is it the Theban or the Phoenician Hercules, – the latter buried in Spanish territory, the other burned by fire on Mount Oeta? Is it the brothers Castor and Pollux, sons of Tyndareus, – the one accustomed to tame horses, the other an excellent boxer, and unconquerable with the untanned gauntlet? Is it the Titans and the Bocchores of the Moors, and the Syrian61 deities, the offspring of eggs? Is it Apis, born in the Peloponnese, and in Egypt called Serapis? Is it Isis, tanned by Ethiopian suns, lamenting her lost son and husband torn limb from limb? Passing on, we omit the royal offspring of Ops, which your writers have in their books set forth for your instruction, telling you both who they are, and of what character. Do these, then, hear with offended ears that Christ is worshipped, and that He is accepted by us and regarded as a divine person? And being forgetful of the grade and state in which they recently were, are they unwilling to share with another that which has been granted to themselves? Is this the justice of the heavenly deities? Is this the righteous judgment of the gods? Is not this a kind of malice and of greed? is it not a species of base envy, to wish their own fortunes only to rise, – those of others to be lowered, and to be trodden down in despised lowliness?

 

37. We worship one who was born a man. What then? do you worship no one who was born a man? Do you not worship one and another, aye, deities innumerable? Nay, have you not taken from the number of mortals all those whom you now have in your temples; and have you not set them in heaven, and among the constellations? For if, perchance, it has escaped you that they once partook of human destiny, and of the state common to all men, search the most ancient literature, and range through the writings of those who, living nearest to the days of antiquity, set forth all things with undisguised truth and without flattery: you will learn in detail from what fathers, from what mothers they were each sprung, in what district they were born, of what tribe; what they made, what they did, what they endured, how they employed themselves, what fortunes they experienced of an adverse or of a favourable kind in discharging their functions. But if, while you know that they were born in the womb, and that they lived on the produce of the earth, you nevertheless upbraid us with the worship of one born like ourselves, you act with great injustice, in regarding that as worthy of condemnation in us which you yourselves habitually do; or what you allow to be lawful for you, you are unwilling to be in like manner lawful for others.

 

38. But in the meantime let us grant, in submission to your ideas, that Christ was one of us – similar in mind, soul, body, weakness, and condition; is He not worthy to be called and to be esteemed God by us, in consideration of His bounties, so numerous as they are? For if you have placed in the assembly62 of the gods Liber, because he discovered the use of wine; Ceres, because she discovered the use of bread; Aesculapius, because he discovered the use of herbs; Minerva, because she produced the olive; Triptolemus, because he invented the plough; Hercules, because he overpowered and restrained wild beasts and robbers, and water-serpents of many heads, – with how great distinctions is He to be honoured by us, who, by instilling His truth into our hearts, has freed us from great errors; who, when we were straying everywhere, as if blind and without a guide, withdrew us from precipitous and devious paths, and set our feet on more smooth places; who has pointed out what is especially profitable and salutary for the human race; who has shown us what God is,63 who He is, how great and how good; who has permitted and taught us to conceive and to understand, as far as our limited capacity can, His profound and inexpressible depths; who, in His great kindness, has caused it to be known by what founder, by what Creator, this world was established and made; who has explained the nature of its origin64 and essential substance, never before imagined in the conceptions of any; whence generative warmth is added to the rays of the sun; why the moon, always uninjured65 in her motions, is believed to alternate her light and her obscurity from intelligent causes;66 what is the origin of animals, what rules regulate seeds; who designed man himself, who fashioned him, or from what kind of material did He compact the very build of bodies; what the perceptions are; what the soul, and whether it flew to us of its own accord, or whether it was generated and brought into existence with our bodies themselves; whether it sojourns with us, partaking of death, or whether it is gifted with an endless immortality; what condition awaits us when we shall have separated from our bodies relaxed in death; whether we shall retain our perceptions,67 or have no recollection of our former sensations or of past memories;68 who has restrained69 our arrogance, and has caused our necks, uplifted with pride, to acknowledge the measure of their weakness; who hath shown that we are creatures imperfectly formed, that we trust in vain expectations, that we understand nothing thoroughly, that we know nothing, and that we do not see those things which are placed before our eyes; who has guided us from false superstitions to the true religion, – a blessing which exceeds and transcends all His other gifts; who has raised our thoughts to heaven from brutish statues formed of the vilest clay, and has caused us to hold converse in thanksgiving and prayer with the Lord of the universe.

 

39. But lately, O blindness, I worshipped images produced from the furnace, gods made on anvils and by hammers, the bones of elephants, paintings, wreaths on aged trees;70 whenever I espied an anointed stone and one bedaubed with olive oil, as if some power resided in it I worshipped it, I addressed myself to it and begged blessings from a senseless stock.71 And these very gods of whose existence I had convinced myself, I treated with gross insults, when I believed them to be wood, stone, and bones, or imagined that they dwelt in the substance of such objects. Now, having been led into the paths of truth by so great a teacher, I know what all these things are, I entertain honourable thoughts concerning those which are worthy, I offer no insult to any divine name; and what is due to each, whether inferior72 or superior, I assign with clearly-defined gradations, and on distinct authority. Is Christ, then, not to be regarded by us as God? and is He, who in other respects may be deemed the very greatest, not to be honoured with divine worship, from whom we have already received while alive so great gifts, and from whom, when the day comes, we expect greater ones?

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 The words insanire, bacchari, refer to the appearance of the ancient seers when under the influence of the deity. So Virgil says, Insanam vatem aspicies (Aen., iii. 443), and, Bacchatur vates (Aen., vi. 78). The meaning is, that they make their asseverations with all the confidence of a seer when filled, as he pretended, with the influence of the god.

2 Et velut quiddam promptum ex oraculo dicere, i.e., to declare a matter with boldness and majesty, as if most certain and undoubted.

3 Popularia verba, i.e., rumours arising from the ignorance of the common people.

4 The Christians were regarded as “public enemies,” and were so called.

5 Or, “all party zeal.”

6 So Meursius, – the MS. reading is inusitatum, “extraordinary.”

7 So Gelenius; MS., coartatur, “pressed together.”

8 Or, “race,” gens, i.e., the Christian people.

9 The verb mereri, used in this passage, has in Roman writers the idea of merit or excellence of some kind in a person, in virtue of which he is deemed worthy of some favour or advantage; but in ecclesiastical Latin it means, as here, to gain something by the mere favour of God, without any merit of one’s own.

10 See Livy, i. 31, etc.; and Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii. 38.

11 The MS. reads, flumina cognoverimus ingentia, lim-in-is ingentia siccatis, “that mighty rivers shrunk up, leaving the mud,” etc.

12 So Tertullian, Apologet., 40, says, – “We have read that the islands Hiera, Anaphe, Delos, Rhodes, and Cos were destroyed, together with many human beings.”

13 Arnobius, no doubt, speaks of the story of Phaethon, as told by Ovid; on which, cf. Plato, Tim., st. p. 22.

14 Nourry thinks that reference is here made to the contests of gladiators and athletes with lions and other beasts in the circus. But it is more likely that the author is thinking of African tribes who were harassed by lions. Thus Aelian (de Nat Anim., xvii. 24) tells of a Libyan people, the Nomaei, who were entirely destroyed by lions.

15 The city of Amyclae in Italy is referred to, which was destroyed by serpents.

16 In the Timaeus of Plato, c. vi. st. p. 24, an old priest of Saïs, in Egypt, is represented as telling Solon that in times long gone by the Athenians were a very peaceful and very brave people, and that 9,000 years before that time they had overcome a mighty host which came rushing from the Atlantic Sea, and which threatened to subjugate all Europe and Asia. The sea was then navigable, and in front of the pillars of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar) lay an island larger than Africa and Asia together: from it travellers could pass to other islands, and from these again to the opposite continent. In this island great kings arose, who made themselves masters of the whole island, as well as of other islands, and parts of the continent. Having already possessions in Libya and Europe, which they wished to increase, they gathered an immense host; but it was repelled by the Athenians. Great earthquakes and storms ensued, in which the island of Atlantis was submerged, and the sea ever after rendered impassible by shoals of mud produced by the sunken island. For other forms of this legend, and explanations of it, see Smith’s Dictionary of Geography, under Atlantis; [also Ancient America, p. 175, Harpers, 1872. This volume, little known, seems to me “stranger than fiction,” and far more interesting].

17 The MS. here inserts a mark of interrogation.

18 So the MS., si facto et, corrected, however, by a later copyist, si facio ut, “if I cause that,” etc.

19 Plato, Tim., st. p. 22.

20 “To analyze” – dissolvere – is in the MS. marked as spurious.

21 In the MS. we find “to chill and numb” – congelare, constringere; but the last word, too, is marked as spurious.

22 MS. sustinere (marked as a gloss), “to sustain;” perferre, “to endure.”

23 See Introduction.

24 [Our author thus identifies himself with Christians, and was, doubtless, baptized when he wrote these words.]

25 Sine ullis feriis, a proverbial expression, “without any holidays;” i.e., without any intermixture of good.

26 For qui durare Ursinus would read quiret durare; but this seems to have no MS. authority, though giving better sense and an easier construction.

27 That is, unsuccessfully.

28 Alemanni, i.e., the Germans; hence the French Allemagne. The MS. has Alamanni.

29 [“Innumerable Christians:” let this be noted.]

30 The Gaetuli and Tinguitani were African tribes. For Tinguitanos, another reading is tunc Aquitanos; but Tinguitanos is much to be preferred on every ground.

31 The MS. reads at, “but.”

32 Defendere is added in the MS., but marked as a gloss.

33 Consumere is in like manner marked as a gloss.

34 So Orelli, for the MS. judicationis, “judgment.”

35 The carelessness of some copyist makes the MS. read ve-st-ri, “your,” corrected as above by Ursinus.

36 So Ursinus, followed by Heraldus, LB., and Orelli, for the MS. errores, which Stewechius would change into errones – “vagrants” – referring to the spirits wandering over the earth: most other edd., following Gelenius, read, “called demigods, that these indeed” – daemonas appellat, et hos, etc.

37 So the MS., which is corrected in the first ed. “us to be willing” – nos velle: Stewechius reads, “us to be making good progress, are envious, enraged, and cry aloud, etc. – nos belle provenire compererunt, invident, indignantur, declamitantque, etc.; to both of which it is sufficient objection that they do not improve the passage by their departure from the MS.

38 [A beautiful appeal, and one sufficient to show that our author was no longer among catechumens.]

39 So LB. and Orelli; but the MS. reads, “himself to be like a god by his prophets,” etc. – se esse similem profiteatur in vatibus.

40 So corrected by Pithoeus for the MS. profanus.

41 [Evidences of our author’s Christian status abound in this fine passage.]

42 So Gelenius, followed by Orelli and others, for the MS., reading divini interpretes viri (instead of juris) – “O men, interpreters of the sacred and divine,” which is retained by the 1st ed., Hildebrand, and Oehler.

43 Aii Locutii. Shortly before the Gallic invasion, B.C. 390, a voice was heard at the dead of night announcing the approach of the Gauls, but the warning was unheeded. After the departure of the Gauls, the Romans dedicated an altar and sacred enclosure to Aius Locutius, or Loquens, i.e., “The Announcing Speaker,” at a spot on the Via Nova, where the voice was heard. The MS. reads aiaceos boetios, which Gelenius emended Aios Locutios.

44 So emended by Ursinus for the MS. libentinos, which is retained in the 1st ed., and by Gelenius, Canterus, and others. Cf. iv. 9, where Libentina is spoken of as presiding over lusts.

45 As a soul was assigned to each individual at his birth, so a genius was attributed to a state. The genius of the Roman people was often represented on ancient coins.

46 Thus the Athenians paid honours to Leaena, the Romans to Acca Laurentia and Flora.

47 The superstitions of the Egyptians are here specially referred to.

48 That is, by whose pleasure and at whose command they are preserved from annihilation.

49 So Orelli, adopting a conjecture of Meursius, for the MS. nobis.

50 That is, not self-existent, but sprung from something previously in being.

51 Columen is here regarded by some as equal to culmen; but the term “pillar” makes a good sense likewise.

52 This is according to the doctrine of Pythagoras, Plato, Origen, and others, who taught that the souls of men first existed in heavenly beings, and that on account of sins of long standing they were transferred to earthly bodies to suffer punishment. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 433.

53 The Peripatetics called God the locus rerum, τόπος πάντων, the “locality and the area of all things;” that is, the being in whom all else was contained.

54 [This prayer of Arnobius is surely worthy of admiration.]

55 Diagoras of Melos and Theodorus of Cyrene, called the Atheists. The former flourished about B.C. 430, the latter about B.C. 310. See Cic., Nat. Deor., i. 2. [Note the universal faith, cap. 34, infra.]

56 Protagoras of Abdera, b B.C. 480, d. 411.

57 Democritus of Abdera, b. B.C. 460, and Epicurus, b. B.C. 342, d. 270.

58 Obstinatione, literally “stubbornness;” Walter conjectures opinatione, “imaginings,” which Orelli approves.

59 So the MS.; for which Meursius would read, nobis vobisque, communis esset (for cessat) – “is to us and to you, the anger of the gods would be shared in common.”

60 So Ursinus, followed by most edd., for the reading of the MS. Fenta Fatua, cf. v. 18. A later writer has corrected the MS. Fanda, which, Rigaltius says, an old gloss renders “mother.”

61 So restored by Salmasius for Dioscuri, and understood by him as meaning Dea Syria, i.e., Venus, because it is said that a large egg having been found by the fish in the Euphrates, was pushed up by them to the dry land, when a dove came down, and sat upon it until the goddess came forth. Such was the form of the legend according to Nigidius; but Eratosthenes spoke of both Venus and Cupid as being produced in this manner. The Syrian deities were therefore Venus, Cupid, and perhaps Adonis. It should be remembered, however, that the Syrians paid reverence to pigeons and fish as gods (Xen., Anab., i. 4, 9), and that these may therefore be meant.

62 So all edd., except those of Hildebrand and Oehler, for the MS. censum – “list.”

63 That is, that God is a Spirit. [Note our author’s spirit of faith in Christ.]

64 Orelli would refer these words to God; he thinks that with those immediately following they may be understood of God’s spiritual nature, – an idea which he therefore supposes Arnobius to assert had never been grasped by the heathen.

65 So Gelenius, followed by Orellis and others, for the corrupt reading of the MS., idem ne quis; but possibly both this and the preceding clause have crept into the text from the margin, as in construction they differ from the rest of the sentence, both that which precedes, and that which follows.

66 The phrase animalibus causis is regarded by commentators as equal to animatis causis, and refers to the doctrine of the Stoics, that in the sun, moon, stars, etc., there was an intelligent nature, or a certain impulse of mind, which directed their movements.

67 Lit. “shall see” – visuri, the reading of the MS.; changed in the first ed. and others to victuri – “shall live.”

68 Some have suggested a different construction of these words – memoriam nullam nostri sensus et recordationis habituri, thus – “have no memory of ourselves and senses of recollection;” but that adopted above is simpler, and does not force the words as this seems to do.

69 The MS. and 1st and 2nd Roman edd. read, qui constringit – “who restrains.”

70 It was a common practice with the Romans to hang the spoils of an enemy on a tree, which was thus consecrated to some deity. Hence such trees were sacred, and remained unhurt even to old age. Some have supposed that the epithet “old” is applied from the fact that the heathen used to offer to their gods objects no longer of use to themselves; thus it was only old trees, past bearing fruit, which were generally selected to hang the spolia upon.

71 [This interesting personal confession deserves especial note.]

72 Vel personae vel capiti.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book I. (Cont.)

Arnobius (Cont.)

40. But He died nailed to the cross. What is that to the argument? For neither does the kind and disgrace of the death change His words or deeds, nor will the weight of His teaching appear less; because He freed Himself from the shackles of the body, not by a natural separation, but departed by reason of violence offered to Him. Pythagoras of Samos was burned to death in a temple, under an unjust suspicion of aiming at sovereign power. Did his doctrines lose their peculiar influence, because he breathed forth his life not willingly, but in consequence of a savage assault? In like manner Socrates, condemned by the decision of his fellow-citizens, suffered capital punishment: have his discussions on morals, on virtues, and on duties been rendered vain, because he was unjustly hurried from life? Others without number, conspicuous by their renown, their merit, and their public character, have experienced the most cruel forums of death, as Aquilius, Trebonius, and Regulus: were they on that account adjudged base after death, because they perished not by the common law of the fates, but after being mangled and tortured in the most cruel kind of death? No innocent person foully slain is ever disgraced thereby; nor is he stained by the mark of any baseness, who suffers severe punishment, not from his own deserts, but by reason of the savage nature of his persecutor.73

 

41. And yet, O ye who laugh because we worship one who died an ignominious death, do not ye too, by consecrating shrines to him, honour father Liber, who was torn limb from limb by the Titans? Have you not, after his punishment and his death by lightning, named Aesculapius, the discoverer of medicines, as the guardian and protector of health, of strength, and of safety? Do you not invoke the great Hercules himself by offerings, by victims, and by kindled frankincense, whom you yourselves allege to have been burned alive after his punishment,74 and to have been consumed on the fatal pyres? Do you not, with the unanimous approbation of the Gauls, invoke as a propitious75 and as a holy god, in the temples of the Great Mother,76 that Phrygian Atys77 who was mangled and deprived of his virility? Father Romulus himself, who was torn in pieces by the hands of a hundred senators, do you not call Quirinus Martius, and do you not honour him with priests and with gorgeous couches,78 and do you not worship him in most spacious temples; and in addition to all this, do you not affirm that he has ascended into heaven? Either, therefore, you too are to be laughed at, who regard as gods men slain by the most cruel tortures; or if there is a sure ground for your thinking that you should do so, allow us too to feel assured for what causes and on what grounds we do this.

 

42. You worship, says my opponent, one who was born a mere human being. Even if that were true, as has been already said in former passages, yet, in consideration of the many liberal gifts which He has bestowed on us, He ought to be called and be addressed as God. But since He is God in reality and without any shadow of doubt, do you think that we will deny that He is worshipped by us with all the fervour we are capable of, and assumed as the guardian of our body? Is that Christ of yours a god, then? some raving, wrathful, and excited man will say. A god, we will reply, and the god of the inner powers;79 and — what may still further torture unbelievers with the most bitter pains — He was sent to us by the King Supreme for a purpose of the very highest moment. My opponent, becoming more mad and more frantic, will perhaps ask whether the matter can be proved, as we allege. There is no greater proof than the credibility of the acts done by Him, than the unwonted excellence of the virtues He exhibited, than the conquest and the abrogation of all those deadly ordinances which peoples and tribes saw executed in the light of day,80 with no objecting voice; and even they whose ancient laws or whose country’s laws He shows to be full of vanity and of the most senseless superstition, (even they) dare not allege these things to be false. 

 

43. My opponent will perhaps meet me with many other slanderous and childish charges which are commonly urged. Jesus was a Magian;81 He effected all these things by secret arts. From the shrines of the Egyptians He stole the names of angels of might,82 and the religious system of a remote country. Why, O witlings, do you speak of things which you have not examined, and which are unknown to you, prating with the garrulity of a rash tongue? Were, then, those things which were done, the freaks of demons, and the tricks of magical arts? Can you specify and point out to me any one of all those magicians who have ever existed in past ages, that did anything similar, in the thousandth degree, to Christ? Who has done this without any power of incantations, without the juice of herbs and of grasses, without any anxious watching of sacrifices, of libations, or of seasons? For we do not press it, and inquire what they profess to do, nor in what kind of acts all their learning and experience are wont to be comprised. For who is not aware that these men either study to know beforehand things impending, which, whether they will or not, come of necessity as they have been ordained? or to inflict a deadly and wasting disease on whom they choose; or to sever the affections of relatives; or to open without keys places which are locked; or to seal the month in silence; or in the chariot race to weaken, urge on, or retard horses; or to inspire in wives, and in the children of strangers, whether they be males or females, the flames and mad desires of illicit love?83 Or if they seem to attempt anything useful, to be able to do it not by their own power, but by the might of those deities whom they invoke.

 

44. And yet it is agreed on that Christ performed all those miracles which He wrought without any aid from external things, without the observance of any ceremonial, without any definite mode of procedure, but solely by the inherent might of His authority; and as was the proper duty of the true God, as was consistent with His nature, as was worthy of Him, in the generosity of His bounteous power He bestowed nothing hurtful or injurious, but only that which is helpful, beneficial, and full of blessings good84 for men.

 

45. What do you say again, oh you85 — ? Is He then a man, is He one of us, at whose command, at whose voice, raised in the utterance of audible and intelligible words,86 infirmities, diseases, fevers, and other ailments of the body fled away? Was He one of us, whose presence, whose very sight, that race of demons which took possession of men was unable to bear, and terrified by the strange power, fled away? Was He one of us, to whose order the foul leprosy, at once checked, was obedient, and left sameness of colour to bodies formerly spotted? Was He one of us, at whose light touch the issues of blood were stanched, and stopped their excessive flow?87 Was He one of us, whose hands the waters of the lethargic dropsy fled from, and that searching88 fluid avoided; and did the swelling body, assuming a healthy dryness, find relief? Was He one of us, who bade the lame run? Was it His work, too, that the maimed stretched forth their hands, and the joints relaxed the rigidity89 acquired even at birth; that the paralytic rose to their feet, and persons now carried home their beds who a little before were borne on the shoulders of others; the blind were restored to sight, and men born without eyes now looked on the heaven and the day?

 

46. Was He one of us, I say, who by one act of intervention at once healed a hundred or more afflicted with various infirmities and diseases; at whose word only the raging and maddened seas were still, the whirlwinds and tempests were lulled; who walked over the deepest pools with unwet foot; who trod the ridges of the deep, the very waves being astonished, and nature coining under bondage; who with live loaves satisfied five thousand of His followers: and who, lest it might appear to the unbelieving and bard of heart to be an illusion, filled twelve capacious baskets with the fragments that remained? Was He one of us, who ordered the breath that had departed to return to the body, persons buried to come forth from the tomb, and after three days to be loosed from the swathings of the undertaker? Was He one of us, who saw clearly in the hearts of the silent what each was pondering,90 what each had in his secret thoughts? Was He one of us, who, when He uttered a single word, was thought by nations far removed from one another and of different speech to be using well-known sounds, and the peculiar language of each?91 Was He one of us, who, when He was teaching His followers the duties of a religion that could not be gainsaid, suddenly filled the whole world, and showed how great He was and who He was, by unveiling the boundlessness of His authority? Was He one of us, who, after His body had been laid in the tomb, manifested Himself in open day to countless numbers of men; who spoke to them, and listened to them; who taught them, reproved and admonished them; who, lest they should imagine that they were deceived by unsubstantial fancies, showed Himself once, a second time, aye frequently, in familiar conversation; who appears even now to righteous men of unpolluted mind who love Him, not in airy dreams, but in a form of pure simplicity;92 whose name, when heard, puts to flight evil spirits, imposes silence on soothsayers, prevents men from consulting the augurs, causes the efforts of arrogant magicians to be frustrated, not by the dread of His name, as you allege, but by the free exercise of a greater power?

 

47. These facts set forth in sanctuary we have put forward, not on the supposition that the greatness of the agent was to be seen in these virtues alone.93 For however great these things be, how excessively petty and trifling will they be found to be, if it shall be revealed from what realms He has come, of what God He is the minister! But with regard to the acts which were done by Him, they were performed, indeed, not that He might boast Himself into empty ostentation, but that hardened and unbelieving men might be assured that what was professed was not deceptive, and that they might now learn to imagine, from the beneficence of His works, what a true god was. At the same time we wish this also to be known,94 when, as was said, an enumeration of His acts has been given in summary, that Christ was able to do not only those things which He did, but that He could even overcome the decrees of fate. For if, as is evident, and as is agreed by all, infirmities and bodily sufferings, if deafness, deformity, and dumbness, if shrivelling of the sinews and the loss of sight happen to us, and are brought on us by the decrees of fate and if Christ alone has corrected this, has restored and cared man, it is clearer than the sun himself that He was more powerful than the fates are when He has loosened and overpowered those things which were bound with everlasting knots, and fixed by unalterable necessity.

 

48. But, says some one, you in vain claim so much for Christ, when we now know, and have in past times known, of other gods both giving remedies to many who were sick, and healing the diseases and the infirmities of many men. I do not inquire, I do not demand, what god did so, or at what time; whom he relieved, or what shattered frame he restored to sound health: this only I long to hear, whether, without the addition of any substance — that is, of any medical application — he ordered diseases to fly away from men at a touch; whether he commanded and compelled the cause of ill health to be eradicated, and the bodies of the weak to return to their natural strength. For it is known that Christ, either by applying His hand to the parts affected, or by the command of His voice only, opened the ears of the deaf, drove away blindness from the eyes, gave speech to the dumb, loosened the rigidity of the joints, gave the power of walking to the shrivelled, — was wont to heal by a word and by an order, leprosies, agues, dropsies, and all other kinds of ailments, which some fell power95 has willed that the bodies of men should endure. What act like these have all these gods done, by whom you allege that help has been brought to the sick and the imperilled? for if they have at any time ordered, as is reported, either that medicine or a special diet be given to some,96 or that a draught be drunk off, or that the juices of plants and of blades be placed97 on that which causes uneasiness or have ordered that persons should walk, remain at rest, or abstain from something hurtful, — and that this is no great matter, and deserves no great admiration, is evident, if you will attentively examine it — a similar mode of treatment is followed by physicians also, a creature earth-born and not relying on true science, but founding on a system of conjecture, and wavering in estimating probabilities. Now there is no special merit in removing by remedies those ailments which affect men: the healing qualities belong to the drugs — not virtues inherent in him who applies them; and though it is praiseworthy to know by what medicine or by what method it may be suitable for persons to be treated, there is room for this credit being assigned to man, but not to the deity. For it is, at least, no discredit that he98 should have improved the health of man by things taken from without: it is a disgrace to a god that he is not able to effect it of himself, but that he gives soundness and safety only by the aid of external objects.

 

49. And since you compare Christ and the other deities as to the blessings of health bestowed, how many thousands of infirm persons do you wish to be shown to you by us; how many persons affected with wasting diseases, whom no appliances whatever restored, although they went as suppliants through all the temples, although they prostrated themselves before the gods, and swept the very thresholds with their lips — though, as long as life remained, they wearied with prayers, and importuned with most piteous vows Aesculapius himself, the health-giver, as they call him? Do we not know that some died of their ailments? that others grew old by the torturing pain of their diseases? that others began to live a more abandoned life after they had wasted their days99 and nights in incessant prayers, and in expectation of mercy?100 Of what avail is it, then, to point to one or another who may have been healed, when so many thousands have been left unaided, and the shrines are full of all the wretched and the unfortunate? Unless, perchance, you say that the gods help the good, but that the miseries of the wicked are overlooked. And yet Christ assisted the good and the bad alike; nor was there any one rejected by Him, who in adversity sought help against violence and the ills of fortune. For this is the mark of a true god and of kingly power, to deny his bounty to none, and not to consider who merits it or who does not; since natural infirmity and not the choice of his desire, or of his sober judgment, makes a sinner. To say, moreover, that aid is given by the gods to the deserving when in distress, is to leave undecided and render doubtful what you assert: so that both he who has been made whole may seem to have been preserved by chance, and he who is not may appear to have been unable to banish infirmity, not because of his demerit, but by reason of a heaven-sent weakness.101

 

50. Moreover, by His own power He not only performed those miraculous deeds which have been detailed by us in summary, and not as the importance of the matter demanded; but, what was more sublime, He has permitted many others to attempt them, and to perform them by the use of His name. For when He foresaw that you were to be the detractors of His deeds and of His divine work, in order that no lurking suspicion might remain of His having lavished these gifts and bounties by magic arts, from the immense multitude of people, which with admiring wonder strove to gain His favour, He chose fishermen, artisans, rustics, and unskilled persons of a similar kind, that they being sent through various nations should perform all those miracles without any deceit and without any material aids. By a word He assuaged the racking pains of the aching members; and by a word they checked the writhings of maddening sufferings. By one command He drove demons from the body, and restored their senses to the lifeless; they, too, by no different command, restored to health and to soundness of mind those labouring under the inflictions of these demons.102 By the application of His hand He removed the marks of leprosy; they, too, restored to the body its natural skin by a touch not dissimilar. He ordered the dropsical and swollen flesh to recover its natural dryness; and His servants in the same manner stayed the wandering waters, and ordered them to glide through their own channels, avoiding injury to the frame. Sores of immense size, refusing to admit of healing, He restrained from further feeding on the flesh, by the interposition of one word; and they in like manner, by restricting its ravages, compelled the obstinate and merciless cancer to confine itself to a scar. To the lame He gave the power of walking, to the dark eyes sight, the dead He recalled to life; and not less surely did they, too, relax the tightened nerves, fill the eyes with light already lost, and order the dead to return from the tombs, reversing the ceremonies of the funeral rites. Nor was anything calling forth the bewildered admiration of all done by Him, which He did not freely allow, to be performed by those humble and rustic men, and which He did not put in their power.

 

51. What say ye, O minds incredulous, stubborn, hardened? Did that great Jupiter Capitolinus of yours give to any human being power of this kind? Did he endow with this right any priest of a curia, the Pontifex Maximus, nay, even the Dialis, in whose name he is revealed as the god of life?103 I shall not say, did he impart power to raise the dead, to give light to the blind, restore the normal condition of their members to the weakened and the paralyzed, but did he even enable any one to check a pustule, a hang-nail, a pimple, either by the word of his mouth or the touch of his hand? Was this, then, a power natural to man, or could such a right be granted, could such a licence be given by the mouth of one reared on the vulgar produce of earth; and was it not a divine and sacred gift? or if the matter admits of any hyperbole, was it not more than divine and sacred? For if you do that which you are able to do, and what is compatible with your strength and your ability, there is no ground for the expression of astonishment; for you will have done that which you were able, and which your power was bound to accomplish, in order that there should be a perfect correspondence104 between the deed and the doer. To be able to transfer to a man your own power, share with the frailest being the ability to perform that which you alone are able to do, is a proof of power supreme over all, and holding in subjection the causes of all things, and the natural laws of methods and of means.

 

52. Come, then, let some Magian Zoroaster105 arrive from a remote part of the globe, crossing over the fiery zone,106 if we believe Hermippus as an authority. Let these join him too — that Bactrian, whose deeds Ctesias sets forth in the first book of his History; the Armenian, grandson of Hosthanes;107 and Pamphilus, the intimate friend of Cyrus; Apollonius, Damigero, and Dardanus; Velus, Julianus, and Baebulus; and if there be any other one who is supposed to have especial powers and reputation in such magic arts. Let them grant to one of the people to adapt the mouths of the dumb for the purposes of speech, to unseal the ears of the deaf, to give the natural powers of the eye to those born without sight, and to restore feeling and life to bodies long cold in death. Or if that is too difficult, and if they cannot impart to others the power to do such acts, let themselves perform them, and with their own rites. Whatever noxious herbs the earth brings forth from its bosom, whatever powers those muttered words and accompanying spells contain — these let them add, we envy them not; those let them collect, we forbid them not. We wish to make trial and to discover whether they can effect, with the aid of their gods, what has often been accomplished by unlearned Christians with a word only.

 

53. Cease in your ignorance to receive such great deeds with abusive language, which will in no wise injure him who did them, but which will bring danger to yourselves — danger, I say, by no means small, but one dealing with matters of great,108 aye, even the greatest importance, since beyond a doubt the soul is a precious thing, and nothing can be found dearer to a man than himself. There was nothing magical, as you suppose, nothing human, delusive, or crafty in Christ; no deceit lurked in Him,109 although you smile in derision, as your wont is, and though you split with roars of laughter. He was God on high, God in His inmost nature, God from unknown realms, and was sent by the Ruler of all as a Saviour God; whom neither the sun himself, nor any stars, if they have powers of perception, not the rulers and princes of the world, nor, in fine, the great gods, or those who, reigning themselves so, terrify the whole human race, were able to know or to guess whence and who He was — and naturally so. But110 when, freed from the body, which He carried about as but a very small part of Himself, He allowed Himself to be seen, and let it be known how great He was, all the elements of the universe bewildered by the strange events were thrown into confusion. An earthquake shook the world, the sea was heaved up from its depths, the heaven was shrouded in darkness, the sun’s fiery blaze was checked, and his heat became moderate;111 for what else could occur when He was discovered to be God who heretofore was reckoned one of us?

 

54. But you do not believe these things; yet those who witnessed their occurrence, and who saw them done before their eyes — the very best vouchers and the most trustworthy authorities — both believed them themselves, and transmitted them to us who follow them, to be believed with no scanty measure of confidence. Who are these? you perhaps ask. Tribes, peoples, nations, and that incredulous human race; but112 if the matter were not plain, and, as the saying is, clearer than day itself, they would never grant their assent with so ready belief to events of such a kind. But shall we say that the men of that time were untrustworthy, false, stupid, and brutish to such a degree that they pretended to have seen what they never had seen, and that they put forth under false evidence, or alleged with childish asseveration things which never took place, and that when they were able to live in harmony and to maintain friendly relations with you, they wantonly incurred hatred, and were held in execration?

 

55. But if this record of events is false, as you say, how comes it that in so short a time the whole world has been filled with such a religion? or how could nations dwelling widely apart, and separated by climate and by the convexities of heaven,113 unite in one conclusion? They have been prevailed upon, say my opponents, by mere assertions, been led into vain hopes; and in their reckless madness have chosen to incur voluntarily the risks of death, although they had hitherto seen nothing of such a kind as could by its wonderful and strange character induce them to adopt this manner of worship. Nay, because they saw all these things to be done by Christ Himself and by His apostles, who being sent throughout the whole world carried with them the blessings of the Father, which they dispensed in benefiting114 as well the minds as the bodies of men; overcome by the force of the very truth itself they both devoted themselves to God, and reckoned it as but a small sacrifice to surrender their bodies to you and to give their flesh to be mangled.

 

56. But our writers, we shall be told, have put forth these statements with false effrontery; they have extolled115 small matters to an inordinate degree, and have magnified trivial affairs with most pretentious boastfulness. And116 would that all things could have been reduced to writing, — both those which were done by Himself, and those which were accomplished by His apostles with equal authority and power. Such an assemblage of miracles, however, would make you more incredulous; and perhaps you might be able to discover a passage from which117 it would seem very probable, both that additions were made to facts, and that falsehoods were inserted in writings and commentaries. But in nations which were unknown to the writers, and which themselves knew not the use of letters, all that was done could not have been embraced in the records or even have reached the ears of all men; or, if any were committed to written and connected narrative, some insertions and additions would have been made by the malevolence of the demons and of men like to them, whose care and study it is to obstruct118 the progress of this truth: there would have been some changes and mutilations of words and of syllables, at once to mar the faith of the cautious and to impair the moral effect of the deeds. But it will never avail them that it be gathered from written testimony only who and what Christ was; for His cause has been put on such a basis, that if what we say be admitted to be true, He is by the confession of all proved to have been God.

 

57. You do not believe our writings, and we do not believe yours. We devise falsehoods concerning Christ, you say; and you put forth baseless and false statements concerning your gods: for no god has descended from heaven, or in his own person and life has sketched out your system, or in a similar way thrown discredit on our system and our ceremonies. These were written by men; those, too, were written by men — set forth in human speech; and whatever you seek to say concerning our writers, remember that about yours, too, you will find these things said with equal force. What is contained in your writings you wish to be treated as true; those things, also, which are attested in our books, you must of necessity confess to be true. You accuse our system of falsehood; we, too, accuse yours of falsehood. But ours is more ancient, say you, therefore most credible and trustworthy; as if, indeed, antiquity were not the most fertile source of errors, and did not herself put forth those things which in discreditable fables have attached the utmost infamy to the gods. For could not falsehoods have been both spoken and believed ten thousand years ago, or is it not most probable that that which is near to our own time should be more credible than that which is separated by a long term of years? For these of ours are brought forward on the faith of witnesses, those of yours on the ground of opinions; and it is much more natural that there should be less invention in matters of recent occurrence, than in those far removed in the darkness of antiquity.

 

58. But they were written by unlearned and ignorant ripen, and should not therefore be readily believed. See that this be not rather a stronger reason for believing that they have not been adulterated by any false statements, but were put forth by men of simple mind, who knew not how to trick out their tales with meretricious ornaments. But the language is mean and vulgar. For truth never seeks deceitful polish, nor in that which is well ascertained and certain does it allow itself to be led away into excessive prolixity. Syllogisms, enthymemes, definitions, and all those ornaments by which men seek to establish their statements, aid those groping for the truth, but do not clearly mark its great features. But he who really knows the subject under discussion, neither defines, nor deduces, nor seeks the other tricks of words by which an audience is wont to be taken in, and to be beguiled into a forced assent to a proposition.

 

59. Your narratives, my opponent says, are overrun with barbarisms and solecisms, and disfigured by monstrous blunders. A censure, truly, which shows a childish and petty spirit; for if we allow that it is reasonable, let us cease to use certain kinds of fruit because they grow with prickles on them, and other growths useless for food, which on the one hand cannot support us, and yet do not on the other hinder us from enjoying that which specially excels, and which nature has designed to be most wholesome for us. For how, I pray you, does it interfere with or retard the comprehension of a statement, whether anything be pronounced smoothly119 or with uncouth roughness? whether that have the grave accent which ought to have the acute, or that have the acute which ought to have the grave? Or how is the truth of a statement diminished, if an error is made in number or case, in preposition, participle, or conjunction? Let that pomposity of style and strictly regulated diction be reserved for public assemblies, for lawsuits, for the forum and the courts of justice, and by all means be handed over to those who, striving after the soothing influences of pleasant sensations, bestow all their care upon splendour of language. But when we are discussing matters far removed from mere display, we should consider what is said, not with what charm it is said nor how it tickles the ears, but what benefits it confers on the hearers, especially since we know that some even who devoted themselves to philosophy, not only disregarded refinement of style, but also purposely adopted a vulgar meanness when they might have spoken with greater elegance and richness, lest forsooth they might impair the stern gravity of speech and revel rather in the pretentious show of the Sophists. For indeed it evidences a worthless heart to seek enjoyment in matters of importance; and when you have to deal with those who are sick and diseased, to pour into their ears dulcet sounds, not to apply a remedy to their wounds. Yet, if you consider the true state of the case, no language is naturally perfect, and in like manner none is faulty. For what natural reason is there, or what law written in the constitution of the world, that paries should be called hic,120 and sella hoec? — since neither have they sex distinguished by male and female, nor can the most learned man tell me what hic and hoec are, or why one of them denotes the male sex while the other is applied to the female. These conventionalities are man’s, and certainly are not indispensable to all persons for the use of forming their language; for paries might perhaps have been called hoec, and sella hic, without any fault being found, if it had been agreed upon at first that they should be so called, and if this practice had been maintained by following generations in their daily conversation. And yet, O you who charge our writings with disgraceful blemishes, have you not these solecisms in those most perfect and wonderful books of yours? Does not one of you make the plural of uter, utria? another utres?121 Do you not also say coelus and coelum, filus and filum, crocus and crocum, fretus and fretum? Also hoc pane and hic panis, hic sanguis and hoc sanguen? Are not candelabrum and jugulum in like manner written jugulus and candelaber? For if each noun cannot have more than one gender, and if the same word cannot be of this gender and of that, for one gender cannot pass into the other, he commits as great a blunder who utters masculine genders under the laws of feminines, as he who applies masculine articles to feminine genders. And yet we see you using masculines as feminines, and feminines as masculines, and those which yon call neuter both in this way and in that, without any distinction. Either. therefore, it is no blunder to employ them indifferently, and in that case it is vain for you to say that our works are disfigured with monstrous solecisms; or if the way in which each ought to be employed is unalterably fixed, you also are involved in similar errors, although you have on your side all the Epicadi, Caesellii, Verrii, Scauri, and Nisi.

 

60. But, say my opponents, if Christ was God, why did He appear in human shape, and why was He cut off by death after the manner of men? Could that power which is invisible, and which has no bodily substance, have come upon earth and adapted itself to the world and mixed in human society, otherwise than by taking to itself some covering of a more solid substance, which might bear the gaze of the eyes, and on which the look of the least observant might fix itself? For what mortal is there who could have seen Him, who could have distinguished Him, if He had decreed to come upon the earth such as He is in His own primitive nature, and such as He has chosen to be in His own proper character and divinity? He took upon Him, therefore, the form of man; and under the guise of our race He imprisoned His power, so that He could be seen and carefully regarded, might speak and teach, and without encroaching on the sovereignty and government of the King Supreme, might carry out all those objects for the accomplishment of which He had come into the world.

 

61. What, then, says my opponent, could not the Supreme Ruler have brought about those things which He had ordained to be done in the world, without feigning Himself a man? If it were necessary to do as you say, He perhaps would have done so; because it was not necessary, He acted otherwise. The reasons why He chose to do it in this way, and did not choose to do it in that, are unknown, being involved in so great obscurity, and comprehensible by scarcely any; but these you might perhaps have understood if you were not already prepared not to understand, and were not shaping your course to brave unbelief, before that was explained to you which you sought to know and to hear.

 

62. But, you will say, He was cut off by death as men are. Not Christ Himself; for it is impossible either that death should befall what is divine, or that that should waste away and disappear in death which is one in its substance, and not compounded, nor formed by bringing together any parts. Who, then, you ask, was seen hanging on the cross? Who dead? The human form,122 I reply, which He had put on,123 and which He bore about with Him. It is a tale passing belief, you say, and wrapt in dark obscurity; if you will, it is not dark, and is established by a very close analogy.124 If the Sibyl, when she was uttering and pouring forth her prophecies and oracular responses, was filled, as you say, with Apollo’s power, had been cut down and slain by impious robbers,125 would Apollo be said to have been slain in her? If Bacis,126 if Helenus, Marcius,127 and other soothsayers, had been in like manner robbed of life and light when raving as inspired, would any one say that those who, speaking by their mouths, declared to inquirers what should be done,128 had perished according to the conditions of human life? The death of which you speak was that of the human body which He had assumed,129 not His own — of that which was borne, not of the bearer; and not even this death would He130 have stooped to suffer, were it not that a matter of such importance was to be dealt with, and the inscrutable plan of fate131 brought to light in hidden mysteries.

 

63. What are these hidden and unseen mysteries, you will say, which neither men can know, nor those even who are called gods of the world can in any wise reach by fancy and conjecture; which none can discover,132 except those whom Christ Himself has thought fit to bestow the blessing of so great knowledge upon, and to lead into the secret recesses of the inner treasury of wisdom? Do you then see that if He had determined that none should do Him violence, He should have striven to the utmost to keep off from Him His enemies, even by directing His power against them?133 Could not He, then, who had restored their sight to the blind, make His enemies blind if it were necessary? Was it hard or troublesome for Him to make them weak, who had given strength to the feeble? Did He who bade134 the lame walk, not know how to take from them all power to move their limbs,135 by making their sinews stiff?136 Would it have been difficult for Him who drew the dead from their tombs to inflict death on whom He would? But because reason required that those things which had been resolved on should be done here also in the world itself, and in no other fashion than was done, He, with gentleness passing understanding and belief, regarding as but childish trifles the wrongs which men did Him, submitted to the violence of savage and most hardened robbers;137 nor did He think it worth while to take account of what their daring had aimed at, if He only showed to His disciples what they were in duty bound to look for from Him. For when many things about the perils of souls, many evils about their …; on the other hand, the Introducer,138 the Master and Teacher directed His laws and ordinances, that they might find their end in fitting duties;139 did He not destroy the arrogance of the proud? Did He not quench the fires of lust? Did He not check the craving of greed? Did He not wrest the weapons from their hands, and rend from them all the sources140 of every form of corruption? To conclude, was He not Himself gentle, peaceful, easily approached, friendly when addressed?141 Did He not, grieving at men’s miseries, pitying with His unexampled benevolence all in any wise afflicted with troubles and bodily ills,142 bring them back and restore them to soundness?

 

64. What, then, constrains you, what excites you to revile, to rail at, to hate implacably Him whom no man143 can accuse of any crime?144 Tyrants and your kings, who, putting away all fear of the gods, plunder and pillage the treasuries of temples; who by proscription, banishment,145 and slaughter, strip the state of its nobles? who, with licentious violence, undermine and wrest away the chastity of matrons and maidens, — these men you name indigites and divi; and you worship with couches, altars, temples, and other service, and by celebrating their games and birthdays, those whom it was fitting that you should assail with keenest146 hatred. And all those, too, who by writing books assail in many forms with biting reproaches public manners; who censure, brand, and tear in pieces your luxurious habits and lives; who carry down to posterity evil reports of their own times147 in their enduring writings; who seek to persuade men that the rights of marriage should be held in common;148 who lie with boys, beautiful, lustful, naked; who declare that you are beasts, runaways, exiles, and mad and frantic slaves of the most worthless character, — all these with wonder and applause you exalt to the stars of heaven, you place in the shrines of your libraries, you present with chariots and statues, and as much as in you lies, gift with a kind of immortality, as it were, by the witness which immortal titles bear to them. Christ alone you would tear in pieces,149 you would rend asunder, if you could do so to a god; nay, Him alone you would, were it allowed, gnaw with bloody months, and break His bones in pieces, and devour Him like beasts of the field. For what that He has done, tell, I pray you, for what crime?150 What has He done to turn aside the course of justice, and rouse you to hatred made fierce by maddening torments? Is it because He declared that He was sent by the only true King to be your soul’s guardian. and to bring to you the immortality which you believe that you already possess, relying on the assertions of a few men? But even if you were assured that He spoke falsely, that He even held out hopes without the slightest foundation, not even in this case do I see any reason that you should hate and condemn Him with bitter reproaches. Nay, if you were kind and gentle in spirit, you ought to esteem Him even for this alone, that He promised to you things which you might well wish and hope for; that He was the bearer of good news; that His message was such as to trouble no one’s mind, nay, rather to fill all with less anxious expectation.151

 

65. Oh ungrateful and impious age, prepared152 for its own destruction by its extraordinary obstinacy! If there had come to you a physician from lands far distant and unknown to you before, offering some medicine to keep off from you altogether every kind of disease and sickness, would you not all eagerly hasten to him? Would you not with every kind of flattery and honour receive him into your houses, and treat him kindly? Would you not wish that that kind of medicine should be quite sure, and should be genuine, which promised that even to the utmost limits of life you should be free from such countless bodily distresses? And though it were a doubtful matter, you would yet entrust yourselves to him; nor would you hesitate to drink the unknown draught, indited by the hope of health set before you and by the love of safety.153 Christ shone out and appeared to tell us news of the utmost importance, bringing an omen of prosperity, and a message of safety to those who believe. What, I pray you, means154 this cruelty, what such barbarity, nay rather, to speak more truly, scornful155 pride, not only to harass the messenger and bearer of so great a gift with taunting words; but even to assail Him with fierce hostility, and with all the weapons which can be showered upon Him, and with all modes of destruction? Are His words displeasing, and are you offended when you hear them? Count them as but a soothsayer’s empty tales. Does He speak very stupidly, and promise foolish gifts? Laugh with scorn as wise men, and leave Him in His folly156 to be tossed about among His errors. What means this fierceness, to repeat what has been said more than once; what a passion, so murderous? to declare implacable hostility towards one who has done nothing to deserve it at your hands; to wish, if it were allowed you, to tear Him limb from limb, who not only did no man any harm, but with uniform kindness157 told His enemies what salvation was being brought to them from God Supreme, what must be done that they might escape destruction and obtain an immortality which they knew not of? And when the strange and unheard-of things which were held out staggered the minds of those who heard Him, and made them hesitate to believe, though master of every power and destroyer of death itself He suffered His human form to be slain, that from the result158 they might know that the hopes were safe which they had long entertained about the soul’s salvation, and that in no other way could they avoid the danger of death.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

73 So all the later edd.; but in the MS., 1st and 2nd Roman edd., and in those of Gelenius and Canterus, this clause reads, cruciatoris perpetitur saevitatem — “but suffers the cruelty of his persecutor.”

74 The words post poenas in the text are regarded as spurious by Orelli, who supposes them to have crept in from the preceding sentence: but they may be defended as sufficiently expressing the agonies which Hercules suffered through the fatal shirt of Nessus.

75 The words deum propitium are indeed found in the MS., but according to Rigaltius are not in the same handwriting as the rest of the work.

76 Cybele, whose worship was conjoined with that of Atys.

77 So Orelli, but the MS. Attis.

78 This refers to the practice of placing the images of the gods on pillows at feasts. In the temples there were pulvinaria, or couches, specially for the purpose.

79 The phrase potentiarum interiorum is not easily understood. Orelli is of the opinion that it means those powers which in the Bible are called the “powers of heaven,” the “army of heaven,” i.e., the angels. The Jews and the early Fathers of the Church divided the heaven into circles or zones, each inhabited by its peculiar powers or intelligent natures, differing in dignity and in might. The central place was assigned to God Himself, and to Christ, who sat on His right hand, and who is called by the Fathers of the Church the “Angel of the Church,” and the “Angel of the New Covenant.” Next in order came “Thrones,” “Archangels,” “Cherubim and Seraphim,” and most remote from God’s throne, the “Chorus of Angels,” the tutelar genii of men. The system of zones and powers seems to have been derived from the Chaldeans, who made a similar division of the heavens. According to this idea, Arnobius speaks of Christ as nearest to the Father, and God of the “inner powers,” who enjoyed God’s immediate presence. Reference is perhaps made to some recondite doctrine of the Gnostics. It may mean, however, the more subtile powers of nature, as affecting both the souls of men and the physical universe.

80 So Orelli with most edd., following Ursinus, for the MS. suo ge-ne-ri-s sub limine, which might, however, be retained, as if the sense were that these ordinances were coeval with man’s origin, and translated, “tribes saw at the beginning of their race.”

81 Magus, almost equivalent to sorcerer.

82 Arnobius uses nomina, “names,” with special significance, because the Magi in their incantations used barbarous and fearful names of angels and of powers, by whose influence they thought strange and unusual things were brought to pass.

83 All these different effects the magicians of old attempted to produce: to break family ties by bringing plagues into houses, or by poisons; open doors and unbind chains by charms (Orig., contra Cels., ii.); affect horses in the race — of which Hieronymus in his Life of Hilarion gives an example; and use philters and love potions to kindle excessive and unlawful desires.

84 So Orelli and most edd., following a marginal reading of Ursinus, auxiliaribus plenum bonis (for the MS. nobis).

85 In the height of his indignation and contempt, the writer stops short and does not apply to his opponents any new epithet.

86 This is contrasted with the mutterings and strange words used by the magicians.

87 So the MS. according to Oehler, and seemingly Heraldus; but according to Orelli, the MS, reads immoderati (instead of — os) cohibebant fluores, which Meursius received as equivalent to “the excessive flow stayed itself.”

88 Penetrabilis, “searching,” i.e., finding its way to all parts of the body.

89 So Orelli, LB., Elmenhorst, and Stewechius, adopting a marginal reading of Ursinus, which prefixes im — to the MS. mobilitates — “looseness” — retained by the other edd.

90 Cf. Joh_2:25. [He often replies to thoughts not uttered.]

91 No such miracle is recorded of Christ, and Oehler suggests with some probability that Arnobius may have here fallen into confusion as to what is recorded of the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

92 The Latin is, per purae speciem simplicitatis, which is not easily understood, and is less easily expressed.

93 [I have already directed attention to Dominic Diodati’s essay, De Christo Graece loquente, ed. London, 1843.]

94 So almost all edd.; but the MS. and 1st and 2nd Roman edd. read scire — “to know,” etc.

95 See book ii. chap. 36, infra.

96 The gods in whose temples the sick lay ordered remedies through the priests.

97 So all edd. except LB., which reads with the MS. superponere — “that (one) place the juices,” etc.

98 That is, the physician.

99 So the edd., reading tri-v-erunt, for the MS. tri-bu-erunt — “given up,” which is retained in the first ed.

100 Pietatis, “of mercy,” in which sense the word is often used in late writers. Thus it was from his clemency that Antoninus, the Roman emperor, received the title of Pius.

101 So most edd., following a marginal reading of Ursinus, which prefixes in — to the MS. firmitate.

102 “They, too, … those labouring under the infliction of these:” so LB., with the warm approval of Orelli (who, however, with previous edd., retains the MS. reading in his text) and others, reading sub eorum t-ortantes (for MS. p — )et illi se casibus; Heraldus having suggested rotantes. This simple and elegant emendation makes it unnecessary to notice the harsh and forced readings of earlier edd.

103 So understood by Orelli, who reads quo Dius est, adopting the explanation of Dialis given by Festus. The MS., however, according to Crusius, reads, Dialem, quod ejus est flaminem isto jure donavit; in which case, from the position of the quod, the meaning might be, “which term is his,” or possibly, “because he (i.e., the priest) is his,” only that in the latter case a pronoun would be expected: the commentators generally refer it to the succeeding jure, with this “right,” which is his. Canterus reads, quod majus est, i.e., than the Pontifex Maximus. [Compare vol. 4. p. 74, note 4.]

104 So the MS reading aequalitas, which is retained by Hild. and Oehler; all other editions drop the ae — “that the quality of deed and doer might be one.”

105 This passage has furnished occasion for much discussion as to text and interpretation. In the text Orelli’s punctuation has been followed, who regards Arnobius as mentioning four Zoroasters — the Assyrian or Chaldean, the Bactrian (cf. c. 5 of this book), the Armenian, and finally the Pamphylian, or Pamphilos, who, according to Clem. Alex. (Strom. [vol. 2. p. 469]), is referred to in Plato’s Republic, book x., under the name Er; Meursius and Salmasius, however, regarding the whole as one sentence, consider that only three persons are so referred to, the first being either Libyan or Bactrian, and the others as with Orelli. To seek to determine which view is most plausible even, would be a fruitless task, as will be evident on considering what is said in the index under Zoroaster. [Jowett’s Plato, ii. 121.]

106 So Orelli, reading venieat qu-is su-per igneam zonam. LB. reads for the second and third words, quae-so per — “let there come, I pray you, through,” etc., from the MS quae super; while Heraldus would change the last three words into Azonaces, the name of the supposed teacher of Zoroaster. By the “fiery zone” Salmasius would understand Libya; but the legends should be borne in mind which spoke of Zoroaster as having shown himself to a wondering multitude from a hill blazing with fire, that he might teach them new ceremonies of worship, or as being otherwise distinguished in connection with fire. [Plato, Rep., p. 446, Jowett’s trans.]

107 So Stewechius, Orelli, and others, for the MS Zostriani — “grandson of Zostrianus,” retained in the 1st ed. and LB.

108 So the edd., reading in rebus eximiis for the MS exi-gui-is, which would, of course, give an opposite and wholly unsuitable meaning.

109 So generally, Heraldus having restored delitu-it in Christo from the MS, which had omitted -it, for the reading of Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus, delicti — “no deceit, no sin was,” etc.

110 So emended by Salmasius, followed by most later edd. In the earlier edd. the reading is et merito exutus a corpore (Salm. reading at instead of a, and inserting a period after mer.) — “and when rightly freed from the body,” etc.

111 It may be instructive to notice how the simpler narrative of the Gospels is amplified. Matthew (Mat_27:51) says that the earth trembled, and Luke (Luk_23:45) that the sun was darkened; but they go no further. [See p. 301, note 21, supra.]

112 Or, “which if … itself, would never,” etc. [Not the confidence of this appeal to general assent.]

113 That is, by the climate and the inclination of the earth’s surface.

114 So the 1st ed., Ursinus, Elmenhorst, Orelli, and Hildebrand, reading munerandis, which is found in the MS in a later handwriting, for the original reading of the MS is munera dis.

115 According to Rigaltius the MS reads ista promiserunt in immensum — “have put forth (i.e., exaggerated) these things to an immense degree falsely, small matters and trivial affairs have magnified, etc.; while by a later hand has been superscribed over in immensum, in ink of a different colour, extulere — “have extolled.”

116 So the MS, 1st ed., and Hildebrand, while all others read atqu-i — “but.”

117 So LB., reading quo for the MS quod.

118 So most edd., reading intercip-ere for the MS intercipi — “it is that the progress be obstructed,” etc.

119 So Orelli and Hildebrand, reading glabre from a conjecture of Grotius, for the MS grave.

120 i.e., that the one should be masculine, the other feminine.

121 i.e., does not one of you make the plural of uter masc., another neut.? [Note the opponent’s witness to the text of the Gospels.]

122 So the MS, followed by Hildebrand and Oehler, reads and punctuates quis mortuus? homo, for which all edd. read mortuus est? “Who died?”

123 Here, as in the whole discussion in the second book on the origin and nature of the soul, the opinions expressed are Gnostic, Cerinthus saying more precisely that Christ having descended from heaven in the form of a dove, dwelt in the body of Jesus during His life, but removed from it before the crucifixion.

124 So the MS by changing a single letter, with LB. and others, similitudine proxim-a (MS o) constitutum; while the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, Orelli, and others, read -dini proxime — “settled very closely to analogy.”

125 In the original latronibus; here, as in the next chapter, used loosely to denote lawless men.

126 So emended by Mercerus for the MS vatis.

127 So read in the MS — not -tius, as in LB. and Orelli.

128 Lit., “the ways of things” — vias rerum.

129 The MS reads unintelligibly assumpti-o hominis fuit, which was, however, retained in both Roman edd., although Ursinus suggested the dropping of the o, which has been done by all later edd.

130 The MS reads, quam nec ipsam perpeti succubuisset vis — “would his might,” i.e., “would He with His great power have stooped.” Orelli simply omits vis as Canterus, and seemingly the other later edd. do.

131 The MS and 1st ed. read sati-s, which has clearly arisen from f being confounded with the old form of s.

132 The construction is a little involved, quae nulli nec homines scire nec ipsi qui appellantur dii mundi queunt — “which none, neither men can know, nor those … of the world can reach, except those whom,” etc.

133 In the Latin, vel potestate inversa, which according to Oehler in the MS reading, while Orelli speaks of it as an emendation of LB. (where it is certainly found, but without any indication of its source), and with most edd. reads universa — “by His universal power.”

134 So the MS according to Hildebrand, reading praecipi-bat. Most edd., however, following Gelenius, read faciebat — “made them lame.”

135 Lit., “to bind fast the motions of the members,” adopting the reading of most edd., motus alligare membrorum (MS c-al-igare)

136 The MS reads nervorum duritia-m, for which Ursinus, with most edd., reads as above, merely dropping m; Hildebrand and Oehler insert in, and read, from a conjecture of Ursinus adopted by Elmenhorst, c-ol-ligare — “to bind into stiffness.”

137 Ursinus suggested di-, “most terrible,” for the MS durissimis.

138 So the MS reading, multa mala de illarum contra insinuator (mala is perhaps in the abl., agreeing with a lost word), which has been regarded by Heraldus and Stewechius, followed by Orelli, as mutilated, and is so read in the first ed., and by Ursinus and LB. The passage is in all cases left obscure and doubtful, and we may therefore be excused discussing its meaning here.

139 Lit., “to the ends of fitting duties.”

140 In the original, seminaria adscidit, — the former word used of nurseries for plants, while the latter may be either as above (from abscindo), or may mean “cut off” (from abscido); but in both cases the general meaning is the same, and the metaphor is in either slightly confused.

141 Lit., “familiar to be accosted,” — the supine, as in the preceding clause.

142 So the edd., reading corporalibus affectos malis, but the MS inserts after malis the word morbis (“with evil bodily diseases”); but according to Hildebrand this word is marked as spurious.

143 So the edd., reading nemo h-om-i-n-um, except Hildebrand and Oehler, who retain the MS om-n-i-um — “no one of all.”

144 Joh_7:46: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?”

145 So Heraldus and LB., followed by later edd., reading exiliis for the MS ex-uis, for which Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus read et suis — “and by their slaughters.”

146 Here, as frequently in Arnobius, the comparative is used instead of the superlative.

147 “To posterity evil reports of their own time” — sui temporis posteris notas — so emended by Ursinus, followed by Orelli and Hildebrand, for the MS in temporis posteri-s, retained by LB., and with the omission of s in the 1st ed.; but this requires our looking on the passage as defective.

148 The reference is clearly to the well-known passage in Plato’s Republic. [See the sickening details, book v. p. 282, Jowett’s trans.]

149 So Gelenius, LB., and Orelli, reading con-v-ell-e-re for the MS con-p-ell-a-re, “to accost” or “abuse,” which is out of place here. Canterus suggested com-p-il-are, “to plunder,” which also occurs in the sense “to cudgel.”

150 Supply, “do you pursue Him so fiercely?”

151 These words are followed in the edition of Gelenius by ch. 2-5 of the second book, seemingly without any mark to denote transposition; while Ursinus inserted the same chapters — beginning, however, with the last sentence of the first chapter (read as mentioned in the note on it) — but prefixed an asterisk, to mark a departure from the order of the MS. The later editors have not adopted either change.

152 So Ursinus suggested in the margin, followed by LB. and Orelli, reading in privatum perniciem p-a-r-atum for the MS p-r-iv-atum, which is clearly derived from the preceding privatam, but is, though unintelligible also, retained in the two Roman edd. The conclusion of the sentence is, literally, “obstinacy of spirit.”

153 In the original, spe salutis proposita atque amore incolumitatis.

154 Lit., “is” — est.

155 So all the edd., reading fastidi-os-um supercilium, which Crusius says the MS reads with os omitted, i.e., “pride, scorn.”

156 So the edd., reading fatuita-tem, for the MS fatuita-n-tem, which may, however, point to a verb not found elsewhere.

157 i.e., to friends and foes alike. The MS reads aequaliter benignus hostibus dicere, which is retained by Orelli, supposing an ellipsis of fuerit, i.e., “He was kind to say,” which might be received; but it is more natural to suppose that -t has dropped off, and read diceret as above, with the two Roman editions and LB. Gelenius, followed by Ursinus, emended omnibus docuerit — “with uniform kindness taught to all.” It may be well to give here an instance of the very insufficient grounds on which supposed references to Scripture are sometimes based. Orelli considers that Arnobius here refers (videtur respexisse, he says) to Col_1:21, Col_1:22, “You, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death,” to which, though the words which follow might indeed by thought to have a very distant resemblance, they can in no way be shown to refer.

158 i.e., from His resurrection, which showed that death’s power was broken by Him.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book II.

Arnobius (Cont.)

Book II.1

1. Here, if any means could be found, I should wish to converse thus with all those who hate the name of Christ, turning aside for a little from the defence primarily set up: – If you think it no dishonour to answer when asked a question, explain to us and say what is the cause, what the reason, that you pursue Christ with so bitter hostility? or what offences you remember which He did, that at the mention of His name you are roused to bursts of mad and savage fury?2 Did He ever, in claiming for Himself power as king, fill the whole world with bands of the fiercest soldiers; and of nations at peace from the beginning, did He destroy and put an end to some, and compel others to submit to His yoke and serve Him? Did He ever, excited by grasping3 avarice, claim as His own by right all that wealth to have abundance of which men strive eagerly? Did He ever, transported with lustful passions, break down by force the barriers of purity, or stealthily lie in wait for other men’s wives? Did He ever, puffed up with haughty arrogance, inflict at random injuries and insults, without any distinction of persons? (B) And He was not worthy that you should listen to and believe Him, yet He should not have been despised by you even on this account, that He showed to you things concerning your salvation, that He prepared for you a path4 to heaven, and the immortality for which you long; although5 He neither extended the light of life to all, nor delivered all from the danger which threatens them through their ignorance.6

 

2. But indeed, some one will say, He deserved our hatred because He has driven religion7 from the world, because He has kept men back from seeking to honour the gods.8 Is He then denounced as the destroyer of religion and promoter of impiety, who brought true religion into the world, who opened the gates of piety to men blind and verily living in impiety, and pointed out to whom they should bow themselves? Or is there any truer religion – one more serviceable,9 powerful, and right – than to have learned to know the supreme God, to know how to pray to God Supreme, who alone is the source and fountain of all good, the creator,10 founder, and framer of all that endures, by whom all things on earth and all in heaven are quickened, and filled with the stir of life, and without whom there would assuredly be nothing to bear any name, and have any substance? But perhaps you doubt whether there is that ruler of whom we speak, and rather incline to believe in the existence of Apollo, Diana, Mercury, Mars. Give a true judgment;11 and, looking round on all these things which we see, any one will rather doubt whether all the other gods exist, than hesitate with regard to the God whom we all know by nature, whether when we cry out, O God, or when we make God the witness of wicked deeds,12 and raise our face to heaven as though He saw us.

 

3. But He did not permit men to make supplication to the lesser gods. Do you, then, know who are, or where are the lesser gods? Has mistrust of them, or the way in which they were mentioned, ever touched you, so that you are justly indignant that their worship has been done away with and deprived of all honour?13 But if haughtiness of mind and arrogance,14 as it is called by the Greeks, did not stand in your way and hinder you, you might long ago have been able to understand what He forbade to be done, or wherefore; within what limits He would have true religion lie;15 what danger arose to you from that which you thought obedience? or from what evils you would escape if you broke away from your dangerous delusion.

 

4. But all these things will be more clearly and distinctly noticed when we have proceeded further. For we shall show that Christ did not teach the nations impiety, but delivered ignorant and wretched then from those who most wickedly wronged them.16 We do not believe, you say, that what He says is true. What, then? Have you no doubt as to the things which17 you say are not true, while, as they are only at hand, and not yet disclosed18 they can by no means be disproved? But He, too, does not prove what He promises. It is so; for, as I said, there can be no proof of things still in the future. Since, then, the nature of the future is such that it cannot be grasped and comprehended by any anticipation,19 is it not more rational,20 of two things uncertain and hanging in doubtful suspense, rather to believe that which carries with it some hopes, than that which brings none at all? For in the one case there is no danger, if that which is said to be at hand should prove vain and groundless; in the other there is the greatest loss, even21 the loss of salvation, if, when the time has come, it be shown that there was nothing false in what was declared.22

 

5. What say you, O ignorant ones, for whom we might well weep and be sad?23 Are you so void of fear that these things may be true which are despised by you and turned to ridicule? and do you not consider with yourselves at least, in your secret thoughts, lest that which to-day with perverse obstinacy you refuse to believe, time may too late show to be true,24 and ceaseless remorse punish you? Do not even these proofs at least give you faith to believe,25 viz., that already, in so short and brief a time, the oaths of this vast army have spread abroad over all the earth? that already there is no nation so rude and fierce that it has not, changed by His love, subdued its fierceness, and with tranquillity hitherto unknown, become mild in disposition?26 that men endowed with so great abilities, orators, critics, rhetoricians, lawyers, and physicians, those, too, who pry into the mysteries of philosophy, seek to learn these things, despising those in which but now they trusted? that slaves choose to be tortured by their masters as they please, wives to be divorced, children to be disinherited by their parents, rather than be unfaithful to Christ and cast off the oaths of the warfare of salvation? that although so terrible punishments have been denounced by you against those who follow the precepts of this religion, it27 increases even more, and a great host strives more boldly against all threats and the terrors which would keep it back, and is roused to zealous faith by the very attempt to hinder it? Do you indeed believe that these things happen idly and at random? that these feelings are adopted on being met with by chance?28 Is not this, then, sacred and divine? Or do you believe that, without God’s grace, their minds are so changed, that although murderous hooks and other tortures without number threaten, as we said, those who shall believe, they receive the grounds of faith with which they have become acquainted,29 as if carried away (A) by some charm, and by an eager longing for all the virtues,30 and prefer the friendship of Christ to all that is in the world?31

 

6. But perhaps those seem to you weak-minded and silly, who even now are uniting all over the world, and joining together to assent with that readiness of belief at which you mock.32 What then? Do you alone, imbued33 with the true power of wisdom and understanding, see something wholly different34 and profound? Do you alone perceive that all these things are trifles? you alone, that those things are mere words and childish absurdities which we declare are about to come to us from the supreme Ruler? Whence, pray, has so much wisdom been given to you? whence so much subtlety and wit? Or from what scientific training have you been able to gain so much wisdom, to derive so much foresight? Because you are skilled in declining verbs and nouns by cases and tenses, and35 in avoiding barbarous words and expressions; because you have learned either to express yourselves in36 harmonious, and orderly, and fitly-disposed language, or to know when it is rude and unpolished;37 because you have stamped on your memory the Fornix of Lucilius,38 and Marsyas of Pomponius; because you know what the issues to be proposed in lawsuits are, how many kinds of cases there are, how many ways of pleading, what the genus is, what the species, by what methods an opposite is distinguished from a contrary, – do you therefore think that you know what is false, what true, what can or cannot be done, what is the nature of the lowest and highest? Have the well-known words never rung in39 your ears, that the wisdom of man is foolishness with God?

 

7. In the first place, you yourselves, too,40 see clearly that, if you ever discuss obscure subjects, and seek to lay bare the mysteries of nature, on the one hand you do not know the very things which you speak of, which you affirm, which you uphold very often with especial zeal, and that each one defends with obstinate resistance his own suppositions as though they were proved and ascertained truths. For how can we of ourselves know whether we41 perceive the truth, even if all ages be employed in seeking out knowledge – we whom some envious power42 brought forth, and formed so ignorant and proud, that, although we know nothing at all, we yet deceive ourselves, and are uplifted by pride and arrogance so as to suppose ourselves possessed of knowledge? For, to pass by divine things, and those plunged in natural obscurity, can any man explain that which in the Phaedrus43 the well-known Socrates cannot comprehend – what man is, or whence he is, uncertain, changeable, deceitful, manifold, of many kinds? for what purposes he was produced? by whose ingenuity he was devised? what he does in the world? (C) why he undergoes such countless ills? whether the earth gave life to him as to worms and mice, being affected with decay through the action of some moisture;44 or whether he received45 these outlines of body, and this cast of face, from the hand of some maker and framer? Can he, I say, know these things, which lie open to all, and are recognisable by46 the senses common to all, – by what causes we are plunged into sleep, by what we awake? in what ways dreams are produced, in what they are seen? nay rather – as to which Plato in the Theoetetus47 is in doubt – whether we are ever awake, or whether that very state which is called waking is part of an unbroken slumber? and what we seem to do when we say that we see a dream? whether we see by means of rays of light proceeding towards the object,48 or images of the objects fly to and alight on the pupils of our eyes? whether the flavour is in the things tasted, or arises from their touching the palate? from what causes hairs lay aside their natural darkness, and do not become gray all at once, but by adding little by little? why it is that all fluids, on mingling, form one whole; that oil, on the contrary, does not suffer the others to be poured into it,49 but is ever brought together clearly into its own impenetrable50 substance? finally, why the soul also, which is said by you to be immortal and divine,51 is sick in men who are sick, senseless in children, worn out in doting, silly,52 and crazy old age? Now the weakness and wretched ignorance of these theories is greater on this account, that while it may happen that we at times say something which is true,53 we cannot be sure even of this very thing, whether we have spoken the truth at all.

 

8. And since you have been wont to laugh at our faith, and with droll jests to pull to pieces our readiness of belief too, say, O wits, soaked and filled with wisdom’s pure drought, is there in life any kind of business demanding diligence and activity, which the doers54 undertake, engage in, and essay, without believing that it can be done? Do you travel about, do you sail on the sea without believing that you will return home when your business is done? Do you break up the earth with the plough, and fill it with different kinds of seeds without believing that you will gather in the fruit with the changes of the seasons? Do you unite with partners in marriage,55 without believing that it will be pure, and a union serviceable to the husband? Do you beget children without believing that they will pass56 safely through the different stages of life to the goal of age? Do you commit your sick bodies to the hands of physicians, without believing that diseases can be relieved by their severity being lessened? Do you wage wars with your enemies, without believing that you will carry off the victory by success in battles?57 Do you worship and serve the gods without believing that they are, and that they listen graciously to your prayers?

 

9. What, have you seen with your eyes, and handled58 with your hands, those things which you write yourselves, which you read from time to time on subjects placed beyond human knowledge? Does not each one trust this author or that? That which any one has persuaded himself is said with truth by another, does he not defend with a kind of assent, as it were, like that of faith? Does not he who says that fire59 or water is the origin of all things, pin his faith to Thales or Heraclitus? he who places the cause of all in numbers, to Pythagoras of Samos, and to Archytas? he who divides the soul, and sets up bodiless forms, to Plato, the disciple of Socrates? he who adds a fifth element60 to the primary causes, to Aristotle, the father of the Peripatetics? he who threatens the world with destruction by fire, and says that when the time comes it will be set on fire, to Panaetius, Chrysippus, Zeno? he who is always fashioning worlds from atoms,61 and destroying them, to Epicurus, Democritus, Metrodorus? he who says that nothing is comprehended by man, and that all things are wrapt in dark obscurity,62 to Archesilas,63 to Carneades? – to some teacher, in fine, of the old and later Academy?

 

10. Finally, do not even the leaders and founders of the schools64 already mentioned, say those very things65 which they do say through belief in their own ideas? For, did Heraclitus see things produced by the changes of fires? Thales, by the condensing of water?66 Did Pythagoras see them spring from number?67 Did Plato see the bodiless forms? Democritus, the meeting together of the atoms? Or do those who assert that nothing at all can be comprehended by man, know whether what they say is true, so as to 68 understand that the very proposition which they lay down is a declaration of truth?69 Since, then, you have discovered and learned nothing, and are led by credulity to assert all those things which you write, and comprise in thousands of books; what kind of judgment, pray, is this, so unjust that you mock at faith in us, while you see that you have it in common with our readiness of belief?70 But you say you believe wise men, well versed in all kinds of learning! – those, forsooth, who know nothing, and agree in nothing which they say; who join battle with their opponents on behalf of their own opinions, and are always contending fiercely with obstinate hostility; who, overthrowing, refuting, and bringing to nought the one the other’s doctrines, have made all things doubtful, and have shown from their very want of agreement that nothing can he known.

 

11. But, supposing that these things do not at all hinder or prevent your being bound to believe and hearken to them in great measure;71 and what reason is there either that you should have more liberty in this respect, or that we should have less? You believe Plato,72 Cronius,73 Numenius, or any one you please; we believe and confide in Christ.74 How unreasonable it is, that when we both abide75 by teachers, and have one and the same thing, belief, in common, you should wish it to be granted to you to receive what is so76 said by them, but should be unwilling to hear and see what is brought forward by Christ! And yet, if we chose to compare cause with cause, we are better able to point out what we have followed in Christ, than you to point out what you have followed in the philosophers. And we, indeed, have followed in him these things – those glorious works and most potent virtues which he manifested and displayed in diverse miracles, by which any one might be led to feel the necessity of believing, and might decide with confidence that they were not such as might be regarded as man’s, but such as showed some divine and unknown power. What virtues did you follow in the philosophers, that it was more reasonable for you to believe them than for us to believe Christ? Was any one of them ever able by one word, or by a single command, I will not say to restrain, to check77 the madness of the sea or the fury of the storm; to restore their sight to the blind, or give it to men blind from their birth; to call the dead back to life; to put an end to the sufferings of years; but – and this is much easier78 – to heal by one rebuke a boil, a scab, or a thorn fixed in the skin? Not that we deny either that they are worthy of praise for the soundness of their morals, or that they are skilled in all kinds of studies and learning; for we know that they both speak in the most elegant language, and that their words flow in polished periods; that they reason in syllogisms with the utmost acuteness; that they arrange their inferences in due order;79 that they express, divide, distinguish principles by definitions; that they say many things about the different kinds of numbers, many things about music; that by their maxims and precepts80 they settle the problems of geometry also. But what has that to do with the case? Do enthymemes, syllogisms, and other such things, assure us that these men know what is true? or are they therefore such that credence should necessarily be given to them with regard to very obscure subjects? A comparison of persons must be decided, not by vigour of eloquence, but by the excellence of the works which they have done. He must not81 be called a good teacher who has expressed himself clearly,82 but he who accompanies his promises with the guarantee of divine works.

 

12. You bring forward arguments against us, and speculative quibblings,83 which – may I say this without displeasing Him – if Christ Himself were to use in the gatherings of the nations, who would assent? who would listen? who would say that He decided84 anything clearly? or who, though he were rash and utterly85 credulous, would follow Him when pouring forth vain and baseless statements? His virtues have been made manifest to you, and that unheard-of power over things, whether that which was openly exercised by Him or that which was used86 over the whole world by those who proclaimed Him: it has subdued the fires of passion, and caused races, and peoples, and nations most diverse in character to hasten with one accord to accept the same faith. For the deeds can be reckoned up and numbered which have been done in India,87 among the Seres, Persians, and Medes; in Arabia, Egypt, in Asia, Syria; among the Galatians, Parthians, Phrygians; in Achaia, Macedonia, Epirus; in all islands and provinces on which the rising and setting sun shines; in Rome herself, finally, the mistress of the world, in which, although men are88 busied with the practices introduced by king89 Numa, and the superstitious observances of antiquity, they have nevertheless hastened to give up their fathers’ mode of life,90 and attach themselves to Christian truth. For they had seen the chariot91 of Simon Magus, and his fiery car, blown into pieces by the mouth of Peter, and vanish when Christ was named. They had seen him, I say, trusting in false gods, and abandoned by them in their terror, borne down headlong by his own weight, lie prostrate with his legs broken; and then, when he had been carried to Brunda,92 worn out with anguish and shame, again cast himself down from the roof of a very lofty house. But all these deeds you neither know nor have wished to know, nor did you ever consider that they were of the utmost importance to you; and while you trust your own judgments, and term that wisdom which is overweening conceit, you have given to deceivers – to those guilty ones, I say, whose interest it is that the Christian name be degraded – an opportunity of raising clouds of darkness, and concealing truths of so much importance; of robbing you of faith, and putting scorn in its place, in order that, as they already feel that an end such as they deserve threatens them, they might excite in you also a feeling through which you should run into danger, and be deprived of the divine mercy.

 

13. Meantime, however, O you who wonder and are astonished at the doctrines of the learned, and of philosophy, do you not then think it most unjust to scoff, to jeer at us as though we say foolish and senseless things, when you too are found to say either these or just such things which you laugh at when said and uttered by us? Nor do I address those who, scattered through various bypaths of the schools, have formed this and that insignificant party through diversity of opinion. You, you I address, who zealously follow Mercury,93 Plato, and Pythagoras, and the rest of you who are of one mind, and walk in unity in the same paths of doctrine. Do you dare to laugh at us because we94 revere and worship the Creator and Lord95 of the universe, and because we commit and entrust our hopes to Him? What does your Plato say in the Theotetus, to mention him especially? Does he not exhort the soul to flee from the earth, and, as much as in it lies, to be continually engaged in thought and meditation about Him?96 Do you dare to laugh at us, because we say that there will be a resurrection of the dead? And this indeed we confess that wee say, but maintain that it is understood by you otherwise than we hold it. What says the same Plato in the Politicus? Does he not say that, when the world has begun to rise out of the west and tend towards the east,97 men will again burst forth from the bosom of the earth, aged, grey-haired, bowed down with years; and that when the remoter98 years begin to draw near, they will gradually sink down99 to the cradles of their infancy, through the same steps by which they now grow to manhood?100 Do you dare to laugh at us because we see to the salvation of our souls? – that is, ourselves care for ourselves: for what are we men, but souls shut up in bodies? – You, indeed, do not take every pains for their safety,101 in that you do not refrain from all vice and passion; about this you are anxious, that you may cleave to your bodies as though inseparably bound to them.102 – What mean those mystic rites,103 in which you beseech some unknown powers to be favourable to you, and not put any hindrance in your way to impede you when returning to your native seats?

 

14. Do you dare to laugh at us when we speak of hell,104 and fires105 which cannot be quenched, into which we have learned that souls are cast by their foes and enemies? What, does not your Plato also, in the book which he wrote on the immortality of the soul, name the rivers Acheron, Styx,106 Cocytus, and Pyriphlegethon, and assert that in them souls are rolled along, engulphed, and burned up? But though a man of no little wisdom,107 and of accurate judgment and discernment, he essays a problem which cannot be solved; so that, while he says that the soul is immortal, everlasting, and without bodily substance, he yet says that they are punished, and makes them suffer pain.108 But what man does not see that that which is immortal, which is simple,109 cannot be subject to any pain; that that, on the contrary, cannot be immortal which does suffer pain? And yet his opinion is not very far from the truth. For although the gentle and kindly disposed man thought it inhuman cruelty to condemn souls to death, he yet not unreasonably110 supposed that they are cast into rivers blazing with masses of flame, and loathsome from their foul abysses. For they are cast in, and being annihilated, pass away vainly in111 everlasting destruction. For theirs is an intermediate112 state, as has been learned from Christ’s teaching; and they are such that they may on the one hand perish if they have not known God, and on the other be delivered from death if they have given heed to His threats113 and proffered favours. And to make manifest114 what is unknown, this is man’s real death, this which leaves nothing behind. For that which is seen by the eyes is only a separation of soul from body, not the last end – annihilation:115 this, I say, is man’s real death, when souls which know not God shall116 be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire, into which certain fiercely cruel beings shall116 cast them, who were unknown117 before Christ, and brought to light only by His wisdom.

 

15. Wherefore there is no reason that that118 should mislead us, should hold out vain hopes to us, which is said by some men till now unheard of,119 and carried away by an extravagant opinion of themselves, that souls are immortal, next in point of rank to the God and ruler of the world, descended from that parent and sire, divine, wise, learned, and not within reach of the body by contact.120 Now, because this is true and certain, and because we have been produced by Him who is perfect without flaw, we live unblameably, I suppose, and therefore without blame; are good, just, and upright, in nothing depraved; no passion overpowers, no lust degrades us; we maintain vigorously the unremitting practice of all the virtues. And because all our souls have one origin, we therefore think exactly alike; we do not differ in manners, we do not differ in beliefs; we all know God; and there are not as many opinions as there are men in the world, nor are these divided in infinite variety.121

 

16. But, they say, while we are moving swiftly down towards our mortal bodies,122 causes pursue us from the world’s circles,123 through the working of which we become bad, ay, most wicked; burn with lust and anger, spend our life in shameful deeds, and are given over to the lust of all by the prostitution of our bodies for hire. And how can the material unite with the immaterial? or how can that which God has made, be led by weaker causes to degrade itself through the practice of vice? Will you lay aside your habitual arrogance,124 O men, who claim God as your Father, and maintain that you are immortal, just as He is? Will you inquire, examine, search what you are yourselves, whose you are, of what parentage you are supposed to be, what you do in the world, in what way you are born, how you leap to life? Will you, laying aside all partiality, consider in the silence of your thoughts that we are creatures either quite like the rest, or separated by no great difference? For what is there to show that we do not resemble them? or what excellence is in us, such that we scorn to be ranked as creatures? Their bodies are built up on bones, and bound closely together by sinews; and our bodies are in like manner built up on bones, and bound closely together by sinews. They inspire the air through nostrils, and in breathing expire it again; and we in like manner drew in the air, and breathed it out with frequent respirations. They have been arranged in classes, female and male; we, too, have been fashioned by our Creator into the same sexes.125 Their young are born from the womb, and are begotten through union of the sexes; and we are born from sexual embraces, and are brought forth and sent into life from our mothers’ wombs. They are supported by eating and drinking, and get rid of the filth which remains by the lower parts; and we are supported by eating and drinking, and that which nature refuses we deal with in the same way. Their care is to ward off death-bringing famine, and of necessity to be on the watch for food. What else is our aim in the business of life, which presses so much upon us,126 but to seek the means by which the danger of starvation may be avoided, and carking anxiety put away? They are exposed to disease and hunger, and at last lose their strength by reason of age. What, then? are we not exposed to these evils, and are we not in like manner weakened by noxious diseases, destroyed by wasting age? But if that, too, which is said in the more hidden mysteries is true, that the souls of wicked men, on leaving their human bodies, pass into cattle and other creatures,127 it is even more clearly shown that we are allied to them, and not separated by any great interval, since it is on the same ground that both we and they are said to be living creatures, and to act as such. 

 

17. But we have reason, one will say, and excel the whole race of dumb animals in understanding. I might believe that this was quite true, if all men lived rationally and wisely, never swerved aside from their duty, abstained from what is forbidden, and withheld themselves from baseness, and if no one through folly and the blindness of ignorance demanded what is injurious and dangerous to himself. I should wish, however, to know what this reason is, through which we are more excellent than all the tribes of animals. Is it because we have made for ourselves houses, by which we can avoid the cold of winter and heat of summer? What! do not the other animals show forethought in this respect? Do we not see some build nests as dwellings for themselves in the most convenient situations; others shelter and secure themselves in rocks and lofty crags; others burrow in the ground, and prepare for themselves strongholds and lairs in the pits which they have dug out? But if nature, which gave them life, had chosen to give to them also hands to help them, they too would, without doubt, raise lofty buildings and strike out new works of art.128 Yet, even in those things which they make with beaks and claws, we see that there are many appearances of reason and wisdom which we men are unable to copy, however much we ponder them, although we have hands to serve us dexterously in every kind of work.

 

18. They have not learned, I will be told, to make clothing, seats, ships, and ploughs, nor, in fine, the other furniture which family life requires. These are not the gifts of science, but the suggestions of most pressing necessity; nor did the arts descend with men’s souls from the inmost heavens, but here on earth have they all been painfully sought out and brought to light,129 and gradually acquired in process of time by careful thought. But if the soul130 had in itself the knowledge which it is fitting that a race should have indeed which is divine and immortal, all men would from the first know everything; nor would there be an age unacquainted with any art, or not furnished with practical knowledge. But now a life of want and in need of many things, noticing some things happen accidentally to its advantage, while it imitates, experiments, and tries, while it fails, remoulds, changes, from continual failure has procured for itself131 and wrought out some slight acquaintance with the arts, and brought to one issue the advances of many ages.

 

19. But if men either knew themselves thoroughly, or had the slightest knowledge of God,132 they would never claim as their own a divine and immortal nature; nor would they think themselves something great because they have made for themselves gridirons, basins, and bowls,133 because they have made under-shirts, outer-shirts, cloaks, plaids, robes of state, knives, cuirasses and swords, mattocks, hatchets, ploughs. Never, I say, carried away by pride and arrogance, would they believe themselves to be deities of the first rank, and fellows of the highest in his exaltation,134 because they135 had devised the arts of grammar, music, oratory, and geometry. For we do not see what is so wonderful in these arts, that because of their discovery the soul should be believed to be above the sun as well as all the stars, to surpass both in grandeur and essence the whole universe, of which these are parts. For what else do these assert that they can either declare or teach, than that we may learn to know the rules and differences of nouns, the intervals in the sounds of different tones, that we may speak persuasively in lawsuits, that we may measure the confines of the earth? Now, if the soul had brought these arts with it from the celestial regions, and it were impossible not to know them, all men would long before this be busied with them over all the earth, nor would any race of men be found which would not be equally and similarly instructed in them all. But now how few musicians, logicians, and geometricians are there in the world! how few orators, poets, critics! From which it is clear, as has been said pretty frequently, that these things were discovered under the pressure of time and circumstances, and that the soul did not fly hither divinely136 taught, because neither are all learned, nor can all learn; and137 there are very many among them somewhat deficient in shrewdness, and stupid, and they are constrained to apply themselves to learning only by fear of stripes. But if it were a fact that the things which we learn are but reminiscences138 – as has been maintained in the systems of the ancients – as we start from the same truth, we should all have learned alike, and remember alike – not have diverse, very numerous, and inconsistent opinions. Now, however, seeing that we each assert different things, it is clear and manifest that we have brought nothing from heaven, but become acquainted with what has arisen here, and maintain what has taken firm root in our thoughts.

 

20. And, that we may show you more clearly and distinctly what is the worth of man, whom you believe to be very like the higher power, conceive this idea; and because it can be done if we come into direct contact with it, let us conceive it just as if we came into contact. Let us then imagine a place dug out in the earth, fit for dwelling in, formed into a chamber, enclosed by a roof and walls, not cold in winter, not too warm in summer, but so regulated and equable that we suffer neither cold139 nor the violent heat of summer. To this let there not come any sound or cry whatever,140 of bird, of beast, of storm, of man – of any noise, in fine, or of the thunder’s141 terrible crash. Let us next devise a way in which it may be lighted not by the introduction of fire, nor by the sight of the sun, but let there be some counterfeit142 to imitate sunlight, darkness being interposed.143 Let there not be one door, nor a direct entrance, but let it be approached by tortuous windings, and let it never be thrown open unless when it is absolutely necessary.

 

21. Now, as we have prepared a place for our idea, let us next receive some one born to dwell there, where there is nothing but an empty void,144 – one of the race of Plato, namely, or Pythagoras, or some one of those who are regarded as of superhuman wit, or have been declared most wise by the oracles of the gods. And when this has been done, he must then be nourished and brought up on suitable food. Let us therefore provide a nurse also, who shall come to him always naked, ever silent, uttering not a word, and shall not open her mouth and lips to speak at all, but after suckling him, and doing what else is necessary, shall leave him fast asleep, and remain day and night before the closed doors; for it is usually necessary that the nurse’s care should be near at hand, and that she should watch his varying motions. But when the child begins to need to be supported by more substantial food, let it be borne in by the same nurse, still undressed, and maintaining the same unbroken silence. Let the food, too, which is carried in be always precisely the same, with no difference in the material, and without being re-cooked by means of different flavours; but let it be either pottage of millet, or bread of spelt, or, in imitation of the ancients, chestnuts roasted in the hot ashes, or berries plucked from forest trees. Let him moreover, never learn to drink wine, and let nothing else be used to quench his thirst than pure cold water from the spring, and that if possible raised to his lips in the hollow of his hands. For habit, growing into second nature, will become familiar from custom; nor will his desire extend145 further, not knowing that there is anything more to be sought after.

 

22. To what, then, you ask, do these things tend? We have brought them forward in order that – as it has been believed that the souls of men are divine, and therefore immortal, and that they come to their human bodies with all knowledge – we may make trial from this child, whom we have supposed to be brought up in this way, whether this is credible, or has been rashly believed and taken for granted, in consequence of deceitful anticipation. Let us suppose, then, that be grows up, reared in a secluded, lonely spot, spending as many, years as you choose, twenty or thirty, – nay, let him be brought into the assemblies of men when he has lived through forty years; and if it is true that he is a part of the divine essence, and146 lives here sprung from the fountains of life, before he makes acquaint-ante with anything, or is made familiar with human speech, let him be questioned and answer who he is, or from what father in what regions he was born, how or in what way brought up; with what work or business he has been engaged during the former part of his life. Will he not, then, stand speechless, with less wit and sense than any beast, block, stone? Will he not, when brought into contact with147 strange and previously unknown things, be above all ignorant of himself? If you ask, will he be able to say what the sun is, the earth, seas, stars, clouds, mist, showers. thunder, snow. hail? Will he be able to know what trees are, herbs, or grasses, a bull, a horse, or ram, a camel, elephant, or kite? 148

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 There has been much confusion in dealing with the first seven chapters of this book, owing to the leaves of the MS having been arranged in wrong order, as was pointed out at an early period by some one who noted on the margin that there was some transposition. To this circumstance, however, Oehler alone seems to have called attention; but the corruption was so manifest, that the various editors gave themselves full liberty to re-arrange and dispose the text more correctly. The first leaf of the MS concludes with the words sine ullius personae discriminibus inrogavit, “without any distinction of person,” and is followed by one which begins with the words (A, end of c. 5) et non omnium virtutum, “and (not) by an eager longing,” and ends tanta experiatur examina, “undergoes such countless ills” (middle of c. 7). The third and fourth leaves begin with the words (B, end of c. 1) utrum in cunctos … amoverit? qui si dignos, “Now if He was not worthy” (see notes), and run on to end of c. 5, quadam dulcedine, “by some charm;” while the fifth (C, middle of c. 7) begins atque ne (or utrumne) illum, “whether the earth,” and there is no further difficulty. This order is retained in the first ed., and also by Hildebrand, who supposes three lacunae at A, B, and C, to account for the abruptness and want of connection; but it is at once seen that, on changing the order of the leaves, so that they shall run B A C, the argument and sense are perfectly restored. This arrangement seems to have been first adopted in LB., and is followed by the later editors, with the exception of Hildebrand.

2 Lit., “boil up with the ardours of furious spirits.”

3 Lit., “by the heats of.”

4 So Meursius, reading a- for the MS o-ptaret, which is retained by LB., Orelli, and others. The MS reading is explained, along with the next words vota immortalitatis, by Orelli as meaning “sought by His prayers,” with reference to Joh_17:24, in which he is clearly mistaken. Heraldus conjectures p-o-r-ta-s a-p-er-taret, “opened paths … and the gates of immortality.”

5 The words which follow, ut non in cunctos, etc., have been thus transposed by Heraldus, followed by later editors; but formerly they preceded the rest of the sentence, and, according to Oehler, the MS gives utrum, thus: “(You ask) whether He has both extended to all … ignorance? who, if He was not,” etc. Cf. book i. note 3, supra.

6 So the MS, reading periculum i-g-n-ora-tionis, for which Meursius suggests i-n-teri-tionis – “danger of destruction.”

7 Pl.

8 This seems the true rationale of the sentence viewed in relation to the context. Immediately before, Arnobius suggests that the hatred of Christ by the heathen is unjustifiable, because they had suffered nothing at His hands; now an opponent is supposed to rejoin, “But He has deserved our hatred by assailing our religion.” The introductory particles at enim fully bear this out, from their being regularly used to introduce a rejoinder. Still, by Orelli and other editors the sentence is regarded as interrogative, and in that case would be, “Has He indeed merited our hatred by driving out,” etc., which, however, not merely breaks away from what precedes, but also makes the next sentence somewhat lame. The older editors, too, read it without any mark of interrogation.

9 i.e., according to Orelli, to the wants of men; but possibly it may here have the subjunctive meaning of “more full of service,” i.e., to God.

10 So the MS, reading perpetuarum pater, fundator conditor rerum, but all the editions pa-ri-ter, “alike,” which has helped to lead Orelli astray. He suggests et fons est perpetu us pariter, etc., “perpetual fountain, … of all things alike the founder and framer.” It has been also proposed by Oehler (to get rid of the difficulty felt here) to transfer per metathesin, the idea of “enduring,” to God; but the reference is surely quite clear, viewed as a distinction between the results of God’s working and that of all other beings.

11 So the MS and almost all edd., reading da verum judicium, for which Heraldus suggested da naturae, or verum animae judicium, “give the judgment of nature,” or “the true judgment of the soul,” as if appeal were made to the inner sense; but in his later observations he proposed de puerum judicem, “give a boy as judge,” which is adopted by Orelli. Meursius, merely transposing d-a, reads much more naturally ad – “at a true judgment.”

12 The MS reading is illum testem d-e-um constituimus improbarum, retained in the edd. with the change of -arum into -orum. Perhaps for deum should be read r-e-r-um, “make him witness of wicked things.” With this passage compare iii. 31-33.

13 It seems necessary for the sake of the argument to read this interrogatively, but in all the edd. the sentence ends without any mark of interrogation.

14 Typhus – τῦφος.

15 Lit., “He chose … to stand.”

16 Lit., “the ignorance of wretched men from the worst robbers,” i.e., the false prophets and teachers, who made a prey of the ignorant and credulous. Joh_8:46.

17 Lit., “Are the things clear with you which,” etc.

18 So the MS, followed by both Roman edd., Hildebrand and Oehler, reading passa, which Cujacius (referring it to patior, as the editors seem to have done generally) would explain as meaning “past,” while in all other editions cassa, “vain,” is read.

19 Lit., “the touching of no anticipation.”

20 Lit., “purer reasoning.”

21 Lit., “that is.” This clause Meursius rejects as a gloss.

22 i.e., If you believe Christ’s promises, your belief makes you lose nothing should it prove groundless; but if you disbelieve them, then the consequences to you will be terrible if they are sure. This would seem too clear to need remark, were it not for the confusion of Orelli in particular as to the meaning of the passage.

23 Lit., “most worthy even of weeping and pity.”

24 Redarguat. This sense is not recognised by Riddle and White, and would therefore seem to be, if not unique, at least extremely rare. The derivative redargutio, however, is in late Latin used for “demonstration,” and this is evidently the meaning here.

25 Fidem vobis faciunt argumenta credendi. Heraldus, joining the two last words, naturally regards them as a gloss from the margin; but read as above, joining the first and last, there is nothing out of place.

26 Lit., “tranquillity being assumed, passed to placid feelings.”

27 Res, “the thing.”

28 Lit., “on chance encounters.”

29 Rationes cognitas. There is some difficulty as to the meaning of these words, but it seems best to refer them to the argumenta credendi (beginning of chapter, “do not even these proofs”), and render as above. Hildebrand, however, reads tortiones, “they accept the tortures which they know will befall them.”

30 The MS reads et non omnium, “and by a love not of all the virtues,” changed in most edd. as above into atque omnium, while Oehler proposes ut novo omnium, “and by fresh love of all,” etc. It will be remembered that the transposition of leaves in the MS (note on ii. 1) occurs here, and this seems to account for the arbitrary reading of Gelenius, which has no MS authority whatever, but was added by himself when transposing these chapters to the first book (cf. p. 432, n. 152), atque nectare ebrii cuncta contemnant – “As if intoxicated with a certain sweetness and nectar, they despise all things.” The same circumstance has made the restoration of the passage by Canterus a connecting of fragments of widely separated sentences and arguments.

31 Lit, “all the things of the world.” Here the argument breaks off, and passes into a new phase, but Orelli includes the next sentence also in the fifth chapter.

32 Lit., “to the assent of that credulity.”

33 So the MS, reading conditi vi mera, for which Orelli would read with Oudendorp, conditae – “by the pure force of recondite wisdom.” The MS, however, is supported by the similar phrase in the beginning of Joh_8:1-59, where tincti is used.

34 So the MS, reading aliud, for which Stewechius, adopting a suggestion of Canterus, conjectures, altius et profundius – “something deeper and more profound.” Others propose readings further removed from the text; while Obbarius, retaining the MS reading, explains it as “not common.”

35 Lit., “because you are,” etc.

36 Lit., “either yourselves to utter,” etc.

37 Incomptus, for which Heraldus would read inconditus, as in opposition to “harmonius.” This is, however, unnecessary, as the clause is evidently opposed to the whole of the preceding one.

38 No trace of either of these works has come down to us, and therefore, though there has been abundance of conjecture, we can reach no satisfactory conclusion about them. It seems most natural to suppose the former to be probably part of the lost satires of Lucilius, which had dealt with obscene matters, and the author of the latter to be the Atellane poet of Bononia. As to this there has been some discussion; but, in our utter ignorance of the work itself, it is as well to allow that we must remain ignorant of its author also. The scope of both works is suggested clearly enough by their titles – the statue of Marsyas in the forum overlooking nightly licentious orgies; and their mention seems intended to suggest a covert argument against the heathen, in the implied indecency of the knowledge on which they prided themselves. For Fornicem Lucilianum (MS Lucialinum) Meursius reads Caecilianum.

39 Lit., “Has that thing published never struck,” etc. There is clearly a reference to 1Co_3:19, “the wisdom of this world.” The argument breaks off here, and is taken up from a different point in the next sentence, which is included, however, in this chapter by Orelli.

40 So Gelenius, followed by Canterus and Orelli, reading primum et ipsi, by rejecting one word of the MS (et quae). Canterus plausibly combines both words into itaque – “therefore.” LB. reads ecquid – “do you at all,” etc., with which Orelli so far agrees, that he makes the whole sentence interrogative.

41 So restored by Stewechius; in the first ed. perspiciam (instead of am-us) “if I perceive the truth,” etc.

42 So the MS very intelligently and forcibly, res … invida, but the common reading is invid-i-a – “whom something … with envy.” The train of thought which is merely started here is pursued at some length a little later.

43 The MS gives fedro, but all editions, except the first, Hildebrand, and Oehler, read Phaedone, referring, however, to a passage in the first Alcibiades (st. p. 129), which is manifestly absurd, as in it, while Alcibiades “cannot tell what man is,” Socrates at once proceeds to lead him to the required knowledge by the usual dialectic. Nourry thinks that there is a general reference to Phaedr., st. p. 230, – a passage in which Socrates says that he disregards mythological questions that he may study himself. [p. 447, note 237, infra.]

44 Lit., “changed with the rottenness of some moisture.” The reference is probably to the statement by Socrates (Phaedo, st. p. 96) of the questions with regard to the origin of life, its progress and development, which interested him as a young man.

45 So the MS, LB., and Oehler, but the other edd. make the verb plural, and thus break the connection.

46 Lit., “established in the common senses.”

47 Arnobius overstates the fact here. In the passage referred to (Th., st. p. 158), Socrates is represented as developing the Protagorean theory from its author’s standpoint, not as stating his own opinions.

48 Lit., “by the stretching out of rays and of light.” This, the doctrine of the Stoics, is naturally contrasted in the next clause with that of Epicurus.

49 Lit., “oil refuses to suffer immersion into itself,” i.e., of other fluids.

50 So LB., followed by Orelli, reading impenetrabil-em, for the MS impenetrabil-is, which is corrected in both Roman edd. by Gelenius, Canterus, and Elmenhorst -e, to agree with the subject oleum – “being impenetrable is ever,” etc.

51 Lit., “a god.”

52 So the edd., generally reading fatua for the MS futura, which is clearly corrupt. Hildebrand turns the three adjectives into corresponding verbs, and Heinsius emends deliret (MS -ra) et fatue et insane – “dotes both sillily and crazily.” Arnobius here follows Lucr., iii. 445 sqq.

53 Lit., “something of truth.”

54 The MS has a-t-tor-o-s, corrected by a later writer a-c-tor-e-s, which is received in LB. and by Meursius and Orelli.

55 Lit., “unite marriage partnerships.”

56 Lit., “be safe and come.”

57 Or, “in successive battles” – proeliorum successionibus.

58 Lit., “with ocular inspection, and held touched.”

59 “Fire” is wanting in the text.

60 Arnobius here allows himself to be misled by Cicero (Tusc., i. 10), who explains ἐντελέχεια as a kind of perpetual motion, evidently confusing it with ἐνδελέχεια (cf. Donaldson, New Crat., § 399 sqq.), and represents Aristotle as making it a fifth primary cause. The word has no such meaning, and Aristotle invariably enumerates only four primary causes: the material from which, the form in which, the power by which, and the end for which anything exists (Physics, ii. 3; Metaph., iv. 2, etc.).

61 Lit., “with indivisible bodies.”

62 Pl.

63 So the MS, LB., and Hildebrand, reading Archesilae, while the others read Archesilao, forgetting that Arcesilas is the regular Latin form, although Archesilaus is found.

64 Sententiarum is read in the first ed. by Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus, and seems from Crusius to be the MS reading. The other edd., however, have received from the margin of Ursinus the reading of the text, sectarum.

65 In the first ed., and that of Ursinus, the reading is, nonne apud ea, “in those things which they say, do they not say,” etc., which Gelenius emended as in the text, nonne ipsa ea.

66 Cf. Diog. Laert. ix. 9, where Heraclitus is said to have taught that fire – the first principle – condensing becomes water, water earth, and conversely; and on Thales, Arist., Met., A, 3, where, however, as in other places Thales is merely said to have referred the generation and maintenance of all things to moisture, although by others he is represented as the doctrine ascribed to him above. Cf. Cic., de Nat. Deor., i. 10, and Heraclides, Alleg. Hom., c. 22, where water evaporating is said to become air, and settling, to become mud.

67 There is some difficulty as to the reading: the MS, first ed., and Ursinus give numera s-c-ire, explained by Canterus as meaning “that numbers have understanding,” i.e., so as to be the cause of all. Gelenius, followed by Canterus, reads -os scit – “does Pyth. know numbers,” which is absurdly out of place. Heraldus approved of a reading in the margin of Ursinus (merely inserting o after c), “that numbers unite,” which seems very plausible. The text follows an emendation of Gronovius adopted by Orelli, -o ex-ire.

68 So the MS, reading ut; but Orelli, and all edd. before him, aut – “or do they.”

69 i.e., that truth knowable by man exists.

70 So the MS reading nostra in-credulitate, for which Ursinus, followed by Stewechius, reads nostra cum. Heraldus conjectured vestra, i.e., “in your readiness of belief,” you are just as much exposed to such ridicule.

71 Heraldus has well suggested that plurimum is a gloss arising out of its being met with in the next clause.

72 So the MS and edd., reading Platoni; but Ursinus suggested Plotino, which Heraldus thinks most probably correct. There is, indeed, an evident suitableness in introducing here the later rather than the earlier philosopher, which has great weight in dealing with the next name, and should therefore, perhaps, have some in this case also.

73 The MS and both Roman edd. give Crotonio, rejected by the others because no Crotonius is known (it has been referred, however, to Pythagoras, on the ground of his having taught in Croton). In Orelli, who is mentioned by Eusebuis (Hist. Eccl., vi. 19, 3) with Numenius and others as an eminent Pythagorean, and by Porphyry (de Ant. Nymph., xxi.), as a friend of Numenius, and one of those who treated the Homeric poems as allegories. Gelenius substitutes Plotinus, followed by most edd.

74 [Thus everywhere he writes as a Christian.]

75 Stemus, the admirable correction of Gelenius for the MS temp-us.

76 Orelli, following Stewechius, would omit ita.

77 Hildebrand thinks compescere here a gloss, but it must be remembered that redundancy is a characteristic of Arnobius.

78 The superlative is here, as elsewhere, used by Arnobius instead of the comparative.

79 i.e., so as to show the relations existing between them.

80 Perhaps “axioms and postulates.”

81 According to Crusius, non is not found in the MS

82 White and Riddle translate candidule, “sincerely,” but give no other instance of its use, and here the reference is plainly to the previous statement of the literary excellence of the philosophers. Heraldus suggests callidule, “cunningly,” of which Orelli approves; but by referring the adv. to this well-known meaning of its primitive, all necessity for emendation is obviated.

83 Lit., “subtleties of suspicions.” This passage is certainly doubtful. The reading translated, et suspicionum argutias profertis, is that of LB., Orelli, and the later edd. generally; while the MS reads -atis – “Bring forward arguments to us, and” (for which Heraldus conjectures very plausibly, nec, “and not”) “subtleties,” etc., which, by changing a single letter, reads in the earlier edd. pro-fer-etis – “Will you,” or, “You will bring forward,” etc.

84 Meursius conjectures in- (for MS ju-) dicare – “pointed out,” of which Orelli approves.

85 So the MS and both Roman edd., supported by Heraldus, reading solidae facilitatis, changed by the edd. into stolidae – “stupid.”

86 So all the edd. except Oehler; but as the first verb is plural in the MS, while the second is singular, it is at least as probable that the second was plural originally also, and that therefore the relative should be made to refer both to “virtues” and “power.”

87 Orelli notes that by India is here meant Ethiopia. If so, it may be well to remember that Lucan (x. 29 sq.) makes the Seres neighbours of the Ethiopians, and dwellers at the sources of the Nile.

88 Instead of sint, Stewechius would read essent – “were.”

89 Instead of the MS reading, Numae regis artibus et antiquis superstitionibus, Stewechius, followed by Heraldus, would read ritibus – “with the rites of Numa,” etc.

90 So the MS, reading res patrias, for which Heraldus, ritus patrios – “rites.”

91 So the MS, although the first five edd., by changing r into s, read cur-s-um – “course.” This story is of frequent occurrence in the later Fathers, but is never referred to by the earlier, or by any except Christian writers, and is derived solely from the Apostolic Constitutions. In the Greek version of the Apost. Const. the sixth book opens with a dissertation on schisms and heresies, in which the story of Simon and others is told; but that this was interpolated by some compiler seems clear from the arguments brought forward by Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, more particularly vol. ii. pt. 2, § 2, and the second appendix).

92 Brunda or Brenda, i.e., Brundisium.

93 Hermes Trismegistus. See index.

94 So the MS, Elmenh., LB., Hildebrand, and Oehler, reading quod, for which the other edd. read qui – “who.”

95 This seems to be the reading intended by the MS, which according to Hild. gives dom, i.e., probably dominum, which Oehler adopts, but all other edd. read deum – “god.”

96 Arnobius rather exaggerates the force of the passage referred to (st. p. 173), which occurs in the beautiful digression on philosophers. Plato there says that only the philosopher’s body is here on earth, while his mind, holding politics and the ordinary business and amusements of life unworthy of attention, is occupied with what is above and beneath the earth, just as Thales, when he fell into a ditch, was looking at the stars, and not at his steps.

97 In cardinem vergere qui orientis est solis seems to be the reading of all edd.; but according to Crusius the MS reads vertere – “to turn.” Hildebrand, on the contrary, affirms that instead of t, the MS gives c.

98 i.e., originally earlier.

99 So most edd., reading desituros, for which Stewechius suggests desulturos – “leap down;” LB. exituros – “go out.”

100 Reference is here made to one of the most extraordinary of the Platonic myths (Pol., 269-274), in which the world is represented as not merely material, but as being further possessed of intelligence. It is ever in motion, but not always in the same way. For at one time its motion is directed by a divine governor (τοῦ παντὸς ὁ μὲν κυβερνήτης); but this does not continue, for he withdraws from his task, and thereupon the world loses, or rather gives up its previous bias, and begins to revolve in the opposite direction, causing among other results a reverse development of the phenomena which occurred before, such as Arnobius describes. Arnobius, however, gives too much weight to the myth, as in the introduction it is more than hinted that it may be addressed to the young Socrates, as boys like such stories, and he is not much more than a boy. With it should be contrasted the “great year” of the Stoics, in which the universe fulfilled its course, and then began afresh to pass through the same experience as before (Nemesius, de Nat. Hom., c. 38).

101 LB. makes these words interrogative, but the above arrangement is clearly vindicated by the tenor of the argument: You laugh at our care for our souls’ salvation; and truly you do not see to their safety by such precautions as a virtuous life, but do you not seek that which you think salvation by mystic rites?

102 Lit., “fastened with beam” (i.e., large and strong) “nails.”

103 Cf. on the intercessory prayers of the Magi, c. 62, infra.

104 Pl. Cf. Milman’s note on Gibbon, vol. 2, c. xi. p. 7.

105 Lit., “certain fires.”

106 Plato, in the passage referred to (Phaedo, st. p. 113, § 61), speaks of the Styx not as a river, but as the lake into which the Cocytus falls. The fourth river which he mentions in addition to the Acheron, Pyriphlegethon, and Cocytus, which he calls Stygian, is the Ocean stream.

107 So the MS, according to Hild., reading parvae; but acc. to Rigaltius and Crusius, it gives pravae – “of no mean.”

108 So LB., Hild., and Oehler, reading doloris afficiat sensu, by merely dropping m from the MS sensu-m; while all other edd. read doloribus sensuum – “affects with the pains of the senses.”

109 i.e., not compounded of soul and body.

110 Or, “not unsuitably,” absone.

111 Lit., “in the failure (or ‘disappointment’) of,” etc.

112 i.e., neither immortal nor necessarily mortal.

113 So Gelenius emended the unintelligible MS reading se-mina by merely adding s, followed by all edd., although Ursinus in the margin suggests se mîam, i.e., mi-sericordiam – “pity;” and Heraldus conjectures munia – “gifts.”

114 So almost all edd., from a conjecture of Gelenius, supplying ut, which is wanting in the MS, first ed., and Oehler.

115 It is worth while to contrast Augustine’s words: “The death which men fear is the separation of the soul from the body. The true death, which men do not fear, is the separation of the soul from God.” (Aug. in Ps. xlviii., quoted by Elmenhorst).

116 In the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, and Orelli, both verbs are made present, but all other edd. follow the MS as above.

117 Lit., “and unknown.” Here Arnobius shows himself ignorant of Jewish teaching, as in iii. 12.

118 So the MS and LB., followed by Oehler; in the edd. id is omitted.

119 The MS reading is a no-b-is quibusdam, for which LB. reads nobis a qu. – “to us,” and Hild. a notis – “by certain known;” but all others, as above, from a conjecture of Gelenius, a no-v-is, although Orelli shows his critical sagacity by preferring an emendation in the margin of Ursinus, a bonis – “by certain good men,” in which he sees a happy irony!

120 Lit., “not touchable by any contact of body,” neque ulla corporis attrectatione contiguas.

121 Arnobius considers the reductio ad absurdum so very plain, that he does not trouble himself to state his argument more directly.

122 There has been much confusion as to the meaning of Arnobius throughout this discussion, which would have been obviated if it had been remembered that his main purpose in it is to show how unsatisfactory and unstable are the theories of the philosophers, and that he is not therefore to the be identified with the views brought forward, but rather with the objections raised to them.

123 Cf. c. 28, p. 440, note 114.

124 So the MS, followed by Orelli and others, reading institutum superciliumque – “habit and arrogance,” for the first word of which LB. reads istum typhum – “that pride of yours;” Meursius, isti typhum – “Lay aside pride, O ye.”

125 So the edd., reading in totidem sexus for the MS sexu – “into so many kinds in sex.”

126 Lit., “in so great occupations of life.”

127 Cf. Plato, Phaedo, st. p. 81.

128 So, by a later writer in the margin of the MS, who gives artificiosa-s novitates, adopted by Stewechius and Oehler, the s being omitted in the text of the MS itself, as in the edd., which drop the final s in the next word also – “would raise and with unknown art strike out lofty buildings.”

129 Lit., “born.”

130 Throughout this discussion, Arnobius generally uses the plural, animae – “souls.”

131 So Elmenhorst, Oberthür, and Orelli, reading par-a-v-it sibi et for the MS parv-as et, “from continual failure has wrought out indeed slight smattering of the arts,” etc., which is retained in both Roman edd., LB., and Hild.; while Gelenius and Canterus merely substitute sibi for et, “wrought out for itself slight,” etc.

132 Lit., “or received understanding of God by the breath of any suspicion.”

133 The MS gives c-etera-que, “and the rest,” which is retained in both Roman edd., and by Gelenius and Canterus, though rather out of place, as the enumeration goes on.

134 Lit., “equal to the highness (summitati) of the prince.”

135 So LB. and Orelli, reading qui-a; the rest, qui – “who.”

136 So Gelenius, reading divinitus for the MS divinas, i.e., “with a divine nature and origin,” which is retained in the first ed. and Orelli.

137 The MS, both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler, read ut, “so that there are.”

138 Cf. on this Platonic doctrine, ch. 24, p. 443, infra.

139 Lit., “a feeling of cold.”

140 Lit., “sound of voice at all.”

141 Lit., “of heaven terribly crashing.”

142 So the later edd., adopting the emendation of Scaliger, nothum – “spurious,” which here seems to approach in meaning to its use by Lucretius (v. 574, sq.), of the moon’s light as borrowed from the sun. The MS and first four edd. read notum, “known.”

143 According to Huet (quoted by Oehler), “between that spurious and the true light;” but perhaps the idea is that of darkness interposed at intervals to resemble the recurrence of night.

144 Lit., “born, and that, too (et wanting in almost all edd.), into the hospice of that place which has nothing, and is inane and empty.”

145 So most edd., reading porrigetur for the MS corrigetur – “be corrected,” i.e., need to be corrected, which is retained in the first ed.

146 So Gelenius, followed by Canterus, Elmenh., and Oberthür, reading portione-m et, while the words tam laetam, “that he is so joyous a part,” are inserted before et by Stewechius and the rest, except both Roman edd., which retain the MS portione jam laeta.

147 Lit., “sent to.”

148 So the MS, reading milvus, for which all edd. (except Oberthuer) since Stewechius read mulus, “a mule.”



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book II. (Cont.)

Arnobius (Cont.)

23. If you give a grape to him when hungry, a must-cake, an onion, a thistle,149 a cucumber, a fig, will he know that his hunger can be appeased by all these, or of what kind each should be to be fit for eating?150 If you made a very great fire, or surrounded him with venomous creatures, will he not go through the midst of flames, vipers, tarantulae,151 without knowing that they are dangerous, and ignorant even of fear? But again, if you set before him garments and furniture, both for city and country life, will he indeed be able to distinguish152 for what each is fitted? to discharge what service they are adapted? Will he declare for what purposes of dress the stragula153 was made, the coif,154 zone,155 fillet, cushion, handkerchief, cloak, veil, napkin, furs,156 shoe, sandal, boot? What, if you go on to ask what a wheel is, or a sledge,157 a winnowing-fan, jar, tub, an oil-mill, ploughshare, or sieve, a mill-stone, plough-tail, or light hoe; a carved seat, a needle, a strigil, a layer, an open seat, a ladle, a platter, a candlestick, a goblet, a broom, a cup, a bag; a lyre, pipe, silver, brass, gold,158 a book, a rod, a roll,159 and the rest of the equipment by which the life of man is surrounded and maintained? Will he not in such circumstances, as we said, like an ox160 or an ass, a pig, or any beast more senseless, look161 at these indeed, observing their various shapes, but162 not knowing what they all are, and ignorant of the purpose for which they are kept? If he were in any way compelled to utter a sound, would he not with gaping mouth shout something indistinctly, as the dumb usually do?

 

24. Why, O Plato, do you in the Meno163 put to a young slave certain questions relating to the doctrines of number, and strive to prove by his answers that what we learn we do not learn, but that we merely call back to memory those things which we knew in former times? Now, if he answers you correctly, – for it would not be becoming that we should refuse credit to what you say, – he is led to do so not by his real knowledge,164 but by his intelligence; and it results from his having some acquaintance with numbers, through using them every day, that when questioned he follows your meaning, and that the very process of multiplication always prompts him. But if you are really assured that the souls of men are immortal and endowed with knowledge when they fly hither, cease to question that youth whom you see to be ignorant165 and accustomed to the ways of men;166 call to you that man of forty years, and ask of him, not anything out of the way or obscure about triangles, about squares, not what a cube is, or a second power,167 the ratio of nine to eight, or finally, of four to three; but ask him that with which all are acquainted – what twice two are, or twice three. We wish to see, we wish to know, what answer he gives when questioned – whether he solves the desired problem. In such a case will he perceive, although his ears are open, whether you are saying anything, or asking anything, or requiring some answer from him? and will he not stand like a stock, or the Marpesian rock,168 as the saying is, dumb and speechless, not understanding or knowing even this – whether you are talking with him or with another, conversing with another or with him;169 whether that is intelligible speech which you utter, or merely a cry having no meaning, but drawn out and protracted to no purpose?

 

25. What say you, O men, who assign to yourselves too much of an excellence not your own? Is this the learned soul which you describe, immortal, perfect, divine, holding the fourth place under God the Lord of the universe, and under the kindred spirits,170 and proceeding from the fountains of life?171 This is that precious being man, endowed172 with the loftiest powers of reason, who is said to be a microcosm, and to be made and formed after the fashion of the whole universe, superior, as has been seen, to no brute, more senseless than stock or stone; for he is unacquainted with men, and always lives, loiters idly in the still deserts although he were rich,173 lived years without number, and never escaped from the bonds of the body. But when he goes to school, you say, and is instructed by the teaching of masters, he is made wise, learned, and lays aside the ignorance which till now clung to him. And an ass, and an ox as well, if compelled by constant practice, learn to plough and grind; a horse, to submit to the yoke, and obey the reins in running;174 a camel, to kneel down when being either loaded or unloaded; a dove, when set free, to fly back to its master’s house; a dog, on finding game, to check and repress its barking; a parrot, too, to articulate words; and a crow to utter names.

 

26. But when I hear the soul spoken of as something extraordinary, as akin and very nigh to God, and as coming hither knowing all about past times, I would have it teach, not learn; and not go back to the rudiments, as the saying is, after being advanced in knowledge, but hold fast the truths it has learned when it enters its earthly body.175 For unless it were so, how could it be discerned whether the soul recalls to memory or learns for the first time that which it hears; seeing that it is much easier to believe that it learns what it is unacquainted with, than that it has forgot what it knew but a little before, and that its power of recalling former things is lost through the interposition of the body? And what becomes of the doctrine that souls, being bodiless, do not have substance? For that which is not connected with176 any bodily form is not hampered by the opposition of another, nor can anything be led177 to destroy that which cannot be touched by what is set against it. For as a proportion established in bodies remains unaffected and secure, though it be lost to sight in a thousand cases; so must souls, if they are not material, as is asserted, retain their knowledge178 of the past, however thoroughly they may have been enclosed in bodies.179 Moreover, the same reasoning not only shows that they are not incorporeal, but deprives them of all180 immortality even, and refers them to the limits within which life is usually closed. For whatever is led by some inducement to change and alter itself, so that it cannot retain its natural state, must of necessity be considered essentially passive. But that which is liable and exposed to suffering, is declared to be corruptible by that very capacity of suffering.

 

27. So then, if souls lose all their knowledge on being lettered with the body, they must experience something of such a nature that it makes them become blindly forgetful.181 For they cannot, without becoming subject to anything whatever, either lay aside their knowledge while they maintain their natural state, or without change in themselves pass into a different state. Nay, we rather think that what is one, immortal, simple, in whatever it may be, must always retain its own nature, and that it neither should nor could be subject to anything, if indeed it purposes to endure and abide within the limits of true immortality. For all suffering is a passage for death and destruction, a way leading to the grave, and bringing an end of life which may not be escaped from; and if souls are liable to it, and yield to its influence and assaults, they indeed have life given to them only for present use, not as a secured possession,182 although some come to other conclusions, and put faith in their own arguments with regard to so important a matter.

 

28. And yet, that we may not be as ignorant when we leave you as before, let us hear from you183 how you say that the soul, on being enwrapt in an earthly body, has no recollection of the past; while, after being actually placed in the body itself, and rendered almost senseless by union with it, it holds tenaciously and faithfully the things which many years before, eighty if you choose to say so, or even more, it either did, or suffered, or said, or heard. For if, through being hampered by the body, it does not remember those things which it knew long ago, and before it came into this world,184 there is more reason that it should forget those things which it has done from time to time since being shut up in the body, than those which it did before entering it,185 while not yet connected with men. For the same body which186 deprives of memory the soul which enters it,187 should cause what is done within itself also to be wholly forgotten; for one cause cannot bring about two results, and these opposed to each other, so as to make some things to be forgotten, and allow others to be remembered by him who did them. But if souls, as you call them, are prevented and hindered by their fleshly members from recalling their former knowledge,188 how do they remember what has been arranged189 in these very bodies, and know that they are spirits, and have no bodily substance, being exalted by their condition as immortal beings?190 how do they know what rank they hold in the universe, in what order they have been set apart from other beings? how they have come to these, the lowest parts of the universe? what properties they acquired, and from what circles,191 in gliding along towards these regions? How, I say, do they know that they were very learned, and have lost their knowledge by the hindrance which their bodies afford them? For of this very thing also they should have been ignorant, whether their union with the body had brought any stain upon them; for to know what you were, and what to-day you are not, is no sign that you have lost your memory,192 but a proof and evidence that it is quite sound.193

 

29. Now, since it is so, cease, I pray you, cease to rate trifling and unimportant things at immense values. Cease to place man in the upper ranks, since he is of the lowest; and in the highest orders, seeing that his person only is taken account of,194 that he is needy, poverty-stricken in his house and dwelling,195 and was never entitled to be declared of illustrious descent. For while, as just men and upholders of righteousness, you should have subdued pride and arrogance, by the evils196 of which we are all uplifted and puffed up with empty vanity; you not only hold that these evils arise naturally, but – and this is much worse – you have also added causes by which vice should increase, and wickedness remain incorrigible. For what man is there, although of a disposition which ever shuns what is of bad repute and shameful, who, when he hears it said by very wise men that the soul is immortal, and not subject to the decrees of the fates,197 would not throw himself headlong into all kinds of vice, and fearlessly198 engage in and set about unlawful things? who would not, in short, gratify his desires in all things demanded by his unbridled lust, strengthened even further by its security and freedom from punishment?199 For what will hinder him from doing so? The fear of a power above and divine judgment? And how shall he be overcome by any fear or dread who has been persuaded that he is immortal, just as the supreme God Himself, and that no sentence can be pronounced upon him by God, seeing that there is the same immortality in both, and that the one immortal being cannot be troubled by the other, which is only its equal?200

 

30. But will he not be terrified by201 the punishments in Hades, of which we have heard, assuming also, as they do, many forms of torture? And who202 will be so senseless and ignorant of consequences,203 as to believe that to imperishable spirits either the darkness of Tartarus, or rivers of fire, or marshes with miry abysses, or wheels sent whirling through the air,204 can in any wise do harm? For that which is beyond reach, and not subject to the laws of destruction, though it be surrounded by all the flames of the raging streams, be rolled in the mire, overwhelmed by the fall of overhanging rocks and by the overthrow of huge mountains, must remain safe and untouched without suffering any deadly harm.

Moreover, that conviction not only leads on to wickedness, from the very freedom to sin which it suggests, but even takes away the ground of philosophy itself, and asserts that it is vain to undertake its study, because of the difficulty of the work, which leads to no result. For if it is true that souls know no end, and are ever205 advancing with all generations, what danger is there in giving themselves up to the pleasures of sense – despising and neglecting the virtues by regard to which life is more stinted in its pleasures, and becomes less attractive – and in letting loose their boundless lust to range eagerly and unchecked through206 all kinds of debauchery? Is it the danger of being worn out by such pleasures, and corrupted by vicious effeminacy? And how can that be corrupted which is immortal, which always exists, and is subject to no suffering? Is it the danger of being polluted by foul and base deeds? And how can that be defiled which has no corporeal substance; or where can corruption seat itself, where there is no place on which the mark of this very corruption should fasten?

But again, if souls draw near to the gates of death,207 as is laid down in the doctrine of Epicurus, in this case, too, there is no sufficient reason why philosophy should be sought out, even if it is true that by it208 souls are cleansed and made pure from all uncleanness.209 For if they all210 die, and even in the body211 the feeling characteristic of life perishes, and is lost;212 it is not only a very great mistake, but shows stupid blindness, to curb innate desires, to restrict your mode of life within narrow limits, not yield to your inclinations, and do what our passions have demanded and urged, since no rewards await you for so great toil when the day of death comes, and you shall be freed from the bonds of the body.

 

31. A certain neutral character, then, and undecided and doubtful nature of the soul, has made room for philosophy, and found out a reason for its being sought after: while, that is, that fellow213 is full of dread because of evil deeds of which he is guilty; another conceives great hopes if he shall do no evil, and pass his life in obedience to214 duty and justice. Thence it is that among learned men, and men endowed with excellent abilities, there is strife as to the nature of the soul, and some say that it is subject to death, and cannot take upon itself the divine substance; while others maintain that it is immortal, and cannot sink under the power of death.215 But this is brought about by the law of the soul’s neutral character:216 because, on the one hand, arguments present themselves to the one party by which it is found that the soul217 is capable of suffering, and perishable; and, on the other hand, are not wanting to their opponents, by which it is shown that the soul is divine and immortal.

 

32. Since these things are so, and we have been taught by the greatest teacher that souls are set not far from the gaping218 jaws of death; that they can, nevertheless, have their lives prolonged by the favour and kindness of the Supreme Ruler if only they try and study to know Him, – for the knowledge of Him is a kind of vital leaven219 and cement to bind together that which would otherwise fly apart, – let them,220 then, laying aside their savage and barbarous nature, return to gentler ways, that they may be able to be ready for that which shall be given.221 What reason is there that we should be considered by you brutish, as it were, and stupid, if we have yielded and given ourselves up to God our deliverer, because of these fears? We often seek out remedies for wounds and the poisoned bites of serpents, and defend ourselves by means of thin plates222 sold by Psylli223 or Marsi, and other hucksters224 and impostors; and that we may not be inconvenienced by cold or intense heat,225 we provide with anxious and careful diligence coverings in226 houses and clothing.

 

33. Seeing that the fear of death, that is, the ruin of our souls, menaces227 us, in what are we not acting, as we all are wont, from a sense of what will be to our advantage,228 in that we hold Him fast who assures us that He will be our deliverer from such danger, embrace Him, and entrust our souls to His care,229 if only that230 interchange is right? You rest the salvation of your souls on yourselves, and are assured that by your own exertions alone231 you become gods; but we, on the contrary hold out no hope to ourselves from our own weakness, for we see that our nature has no strength, and is overcome by its own passions in every strife for anything.232 You think that, as soon as you pass away, freed from the bonds of your fleshly members, you will find wings233 with which you may rise to heaven and soar to the stars. We shun such presumption. and do not think234 that it is in our power to reach the abodes235 above, since we have no certainty as to this even, whether we deserve to receive life and be freed from the law of death. You suppose that without the aid of others236 you will return to the master’s palace as if to your own home, no one hindering you; but we, on the contrary, neither have any expectation that this can be unless by the will of the Lord of all, nor think that so much power and licence are given to any man.

 

34. Since this is the case, what, pray, is so unfair as that we should be looked on by you as silly in that readiness of belief at which you scoff, while we see that you both have like beliefs, and entertain the same hopes? If we are thought deserving of ridicule because we hold out to ourselves such a hope, the same ridicule awaits you too, who claim for yourselves the hope of immortality. If you hold and follow a rational course, grant to us also a share in it. If Plato in the Phaedrus,237 or another of this band of philosophers, had promised these joys to us – that is, a way to escape death, or were able to provide it and bring us to the end which he had promised,238 it would have been fitting that we should seek to honour him from whom we look for so great a gift and favour. Now, since Christ has not only promised it, but also shown by His virtues, which were so great, that it can be made good, what strange thing do we do, and on what grounds are we charged with folly, if we bow down and worship His name239 and majesty from whom we expect to receive both these blessings, that we may at once escape a death of suffering, and be enriched with eternal life?240

 

35. But, say my opponents, if souls are mortal and241 of neutral character, how can they from their neutral properties become immortal? If we should say that we do not know this, and only believe it because said by242 One mightier than we, when will our readiness of belief seem mistaken if we believe243 that to the almighty King nothing is hard, nothing difficult, and that244 what is impossible to us is possible to Him and at His command?245 For is there anything which may withstand His will, or does it not follow246 of necessity that what He has willed must be done? Are we to infer from our distinctions what either can or cannot be done; and are we not to consider that our reason is as mortal as we ourselves are, and is of no importance with the Supreme? And yet, O ye who do not believe that the soul is of a neutral character, and that it is held on the line midway between life and death, are not all whatever whom fancy supposes to exist, gods, angels, daemons, or whatever else is their name, themselves too of a neutral character, and liable to change247 in the uncertainty of their future?248 For if we all agree that there is one Father of all, who alone is immortal and unbegotten, and if nothing at all is found before Him which could be named,249 it follows as a consequence that all these whom the imagination of men believes to be gods, have been either begotten by Him or produced at His bidding. Are they250 produced and begotten? they are also later in order and time: if later in order and time, they must have an origin, and beginning of birth and life; but that which has an entrance into and beginning of life in its first stages, it of necessity follows, should have an end also.

 

36. But the gods are said to be immortal. Not by nature, then, but by the good-will and favour of God their Father. In the same way, then, in which the boon251 of immortality is God’s gift to these who were assuredly produced,252 will He deign to confer eternal life upon souls also, although fell death seems able to cut them off and blot them out of existence in utter annihilation.253 The divine Plato, many of whose thoughts are worthy of God, and not such as the vulgar hold, in that discussion and treatise entitled the Timaeus, says that the gods and the world are corruptible by nature, and in no wise beyond the reach of death, but that their being is ever maintained254 by the will of God, their King and Prince;255 for that that even which has been duly clasped and bound together by the surest bands is preserved only by God’s goodness; and that by no other than256 by Him who bound their elements together can they both be dissolved if necessary, and have the command given which preserves their being.257 If this is the case, then, and it is not fitting to think or believe otherwise, why do you wonder that we speak of the soul as neutral in its character, when Plato says that it is so even with the deities,258 but that their life is kept up by God’s259 grace, without break or end? For if by chance you knew it not, and because of its novelty it was unknown to you before, now, though late, receive and learn from Him who knows and has made it known, Christ, that souls are not the children of the Supreme Ruler, and did not begin to be self-conscious, and to be spoken of in their own special character after being created by Him;260 but that some other is their parent, far enough removed from the chief in rank and power, of His court, however, and distinguished by His high and exalted birthright.

 

37. But if souls were, as is said, the Lord’s children, and begotten by261 the Supreme Power, nothing would have been wanting to make them perfect, as they would have been born with the most perfect excellence: they would all have had one mind, and been of one accord; they would always dwell in the royal palace; and would not, passing by the seats of bliss in which they had learned and kept in mind the noblest teachings, rashly seek these regions of earth, that262 they might live enclosed in gloomy bodies amid phlegm and blood, among these bags of filth and most disgusting263 vessels of urine. But, an opponent will say, it was necessary that these parts too should be peopled, and therefore Almighty God sent souls hither to form some colonies, as it were. And of what use are men to the world, and on account of what are they necessary,264 so that they may not be believed to have been destined to live here and be the tenants of an earthly body for no purpose? They have a share, my opponent says, in perfecting the completeness of this immense mass, and without their addition this whole universe is incomplete and imperfect. What then? If there were not men, would the world cease to discharge its functions? would the stars not go through their changes? would there not be summers and winters? would the blasts of the winds be lulled? and from the clouds gathered and hanging overhead would not the showers come down upon the earth to temper droughts? But now265 all things must go on in their own courses, and not give up following the arrangement established by nature, even if there should be no name of man heard in the world, and this earth should be still with the silence of an unpeopled desert. How then is it alleged that it was necessary that an inhabitant should be given to these regions, since it is clear that by man comes nothing to aid in perfecting the world, and that all his exertions regard his private convenience always, and never cease to aim at his own advantage?

 

38. For, to begin with what is important, what advantage is it to the world that the mightiest kings are here? What, that there are tyrants, lords, and other innumerable and very illustrious powers? What, that there are generals of the greatest experience in war, skilled in taking cities; soldiers steady and utterly invincible in battles of cavalry, or in fighting hand to hand on foot? What, that there are orators, grammarians, poets, writers, logicians, musicians, ballet-dancers, mimics, actors, singers, trumpeters, flute and reed players? What, that there are runners, boxers, charioteers, vaulters,266 walkers on stilts, rope-dancers, jugglers? What, that there are dealers in salt fish, salters, fishmongers, perfumers, goldsmiths, bird-catchers, weavers of winnowing fans and baskets of rushes? What, that there are fullers, workers in wool, embroiderers, cooks, confectioners, dealers in mules, pimps, butchers, harlots? What, that there are other kinds of dealers? What do the other kinds of professors and arts, for the enumeration of which all life would be too short, contribute to the plan and constitution267 of the world, that we should believe268 that it could not have been founded without men, and would not attain its completeness without the addition of269 a wretched and useless being’s exertion?270 

 

39. But perhaps, some one will urge, the Ruler of the world sent hither souls sprung from Himself for this purpose – a very rash thing for a man to say271 – that they which had been divine272 with Him, not coming into contact with the body and earthly limits,273 should be buried in the germs of men, spring from the womb, burst into and keep up the silliest wailings, draw the breasts in sucking, besmear and bedaub themselves with their own filth, then be hushed by the swaying274 of the frightened nurse and by the sound of rattles.275 Did He send souls hither for this reason, that they which had been but now sincere and of blameless virtue should learn as276 men to feign, to dissemble, to lie, to cheat,277 to deceive, to entrap with a flatterer’s abjectness; to conceal one thing in the heart,278 express another in the countenance; to ensnare, to beguile279 the ignorant with crafty devices, to seek out poisons by means of numberless arts suggested by bad feelings, and to be fashioned280 with deceitful changeableness to suit circumstances? Was it for this He sent souls, that, living till then in calm and undisturbed tranquillity, they might find in281 their bodies causes by which to become fierce and savage, cherish hatred and enmity, make war upon each other, subdue and overthrow states; load themselves with, and give themselves up to the yoke of slavery; and finally, be put the one in the other’s power, having changed the condition282 in which they were born? Was it for this He sent souls, that, being made unmindful of the truth, and forgetful of what God was, they should make supplication to images which cannot move; address as superhuman deities pieces of wood, brass, and stones; ask aid of them283 with the blood of slain animals; make no mention of Himself: nay more, that some of them should doubt their own existence, or deny altogether that anything exists? Was it for this He sent souls, that they which in their own abodes had been of one mind, equals in intellect and knowledge, after that they put on mortal forms, should be divided by differences of opinion; should have different views as to what is just, useful, and right; should contend about the objects of desire and aversion; should define the highest good and greatest evil differently; that, in seeking to know the truth of things, they should be hindered by their obscurity; and, as if bereft of eyesight, should see nothing clearly,284 and, wandering from the truth,285 should be led through uncertain bypaths of fancy?

 

40. Was it for this He sent souls hither, that while the other creatures are fed by what springs up spontaneously, and is produced without being sown, and do not seek for themselves the protection or covering of houses or garments, they should be under the sad necessity286 of building houses for themselves at very great expense and with never-ending toils, preparing coverings for their limbs, making different kinds of furniture for the wants287 of daily life, borrowing help for288 their weakness from the dumb creatures; using violence to the earth that it might not give forth its own herbs, but might send up the fruits required; and when they had put forth all their strength289 in subduing the earth, should be compelled to lose the hope with which they had laboured290 through blight, hail, drought; and at last forced by291 hunger to throw themselves on human bodies; and when set free, to be parted from their human forms by a wasting sickness? Was it for this that they which, while they abode with Him, had never had any longing for property, should have become exceedingly covetous, and with insatiable craving be inflamed to an eager desire of possessing; that they should dig up lofty mountains, and turn the unknown bowels of the earth into materials, and to purposes of a different kind; should force their way to remote nations at the risk of life, and, in exchanging goods always catch at a high price for what they sell, and a low one292 for what they buy, take interest at greedy and excessive rates, and add to the number of their sleepless nights spent in reckoning up thousands293 wrung from the life-blood of wretched men; should be ever extending the limits of their possessions, and, though they were to make whole provinces one estate, should weary the forum with suits for one tree, for one furrow; should hate rancorously their friends and brethren?

 

41. Was it for this He sent souls, that they which shortly before had been gentle and ignorant of what it is to be moved by fierce passions, should build for themselves markets and amphitheatres, places of blood and open wickedness, in the one of which they should see men devoured and torn in pieces by wild beasts, and themselves slay others for no demerit but to please and gratify the spectators,294 and should spend those very days on which such wicked deeds were done in general enjoyment, and keep holiday with festive gaiety; while in the other, again, they should tear asunder the flesh of wretched animals, some snatch one part, others another, as dogs and vultures do, should grind them with their teeth, and give to their utterly insatiable295 maw, and that, surrounded by296 faces so fierce and savage, those should bewail their lot whom the straits of poverty withheld from such repasts;297 that their life should be298 happy and prosperous while such barbarous doings defiled their mouths and face? Was it for this He sent souls, that, forgetting their importance and dignity as divine, they should acquire gems, precious stones, pearls, at the expense of their purity; should entwine their necks with these, pierce the tips of their ears, bind299 their foreheads with fillets, seek for cosmetics300 to deck their bodies,301 darken their eyes with henna; nor, though in the forms of men, blush to curl their hair with crisping-pins, to make the skin of the body smooth, to walk with bare knees, and with every other kind of wantonness, both to lay aside the strength of their manhood, and to grow in effeminacy to a woman’s habits and luxury?

 

42. Was it for this He sent souls, that some should infest the highways and roads,302 others ensnare the unwary, forge303 false wills, prepare poisoned draughts; that they should break open houses by night, tamper with slaves, steal and drive away, not act uprightly, and betray their trust perfidiously; that they should strike out delicate dainties for the palate; that in cooking fowls they should know how to catch the fat as it drips; that they should make cracknels and sausages,304 force-meats, tit-bits, Lucanian sausages, with these305 a sow’s udder and iced306 puddings? Was it for this He sent souls, that beings307 of a sacred and august race should here practise singing and piping; that they should swell out their cheeks in blowing the flute; that they should take the lead in singing impure songs, and raising the loud din of the castanets,308 by which another crowd of souls should be led in their wantonness to abandon themselves to clumsy motions, to dance and sing, form rings of dancers, and finally, raising their haunches and hips, float along with a tremulous motion of the loins?

Was it for this He sent souls, that in men they should become impure, in women harlots, players on the triangle309 and psaltery; that they should prostitute their bodies for hire, should abandon themselves to the lust of all,310 ready in the brothels, to be met with in the stews,311 ready to submit to anything, prepared to do violence to their mouth even?312

 

43. What say you, O offspring and descendants of the Supreme Deity? Did these souls, then, wise, and sprung from the first causes, become acquainted with such forms of baseness, crime, and bad feeling? and were they ordered to dwell here,313 and be clothed with the garment of the human body, in order that they might engage in, might practise these evil deeds, and that very frequently? And is there a man with any sense of reason who thinks that the world was established because of them, and not rather that it was set up as a seat and home, in which every kind of wickedness should be committed daily, all evil deeds be done, plots, impostures, frauds, covetousness, robberies, violence, impiety, all that is presumptuous, indecent, base, disgraceful,314 and all the other evil deeds which men devise over all the earth with guilty purpose, and contrive for each other’s ruin?

 

44. But, you say, they came of their own accord not sent315 by their lord. And 316 where was the Almighty Creator, where the authority of His royal and exalted place,317 to prevent their departure, and not suffer them to fall into dangerous pleasures? For if He knew that by change of place they would become base – and, as the arranger of all things,318 He must have known-or that anything would reach them from without which would make them forget their greatness and moral dignity, – a thousand times would I beg of Him to pardon my words, – the cause of all is no other than Himself, since He allowed them to have freedom to wander319 who He foresaw would not abide by their state of innocence; and thus it is brought about that it does not matter whether they came of their own accord, or obeyed His command, since in not preventing what should have been prevented, by His inaction He made the guilt His own, and permitted it before it was done by neglecting to withhold them from action.

 

45. But let this monstrous and impious fancy be put320 far from us, that Almighty God, the creator and framer, the author321 of things great and invisible, should be believed to have begotten souls so fickle, with no seriousness, firmness, and steadiness, prone to vice, inclining to all kinds of sins; and while He knew that they were such and of this character, to have bid322 them enter into bodies, imprisoned in which,323 they should live exposed to the storms and tempests of fortune every day, and now do mean things, now submit to lewd treatment; that they might perish by shipwreck, accidents, destructive conflagrations; that poverty might oppress some, beggary, others; that some might be torn in pieces by wild beasts, others perish by the venom of flies;324 that some might limp in walking, others lose their sight, others be stiff with cramped325 joints; in fine, that they should be exposed to all the diseases which the wretched and pitiable human race endures with agony caused by326 different sufferings; then that, forgetting that they have one origin, one father and head, they should shake to their foundations and violate the rights of kinship, should overthrow their cities, lay waste their lands as enemies, enslave the free, do violence to maidens and to other men’s wives, hate each other, envy the joys and good fortune of others; and further, all malign, carp at, and tear each other to pieces with fiercely biting teeth.

 

46. But, to say the same things again and again,327 let this belief, so monstrous and impious, be put far from us, that God, who preserves328 all things, the origin of the virtues and chief in329 benevolence, and, to exalt Him with human praise, most wise, just, making all things perfect, and that permanently,330 either made anything which was imperfect and not quite correct,331 or was the cause of misery or danger to any being, or arranged, commanded, and enjoined the very acts in which man’s life is passed and employed to flow from His arrangement. These things are unworthy of332 Him, and weaken the force of His greatness; and so far from His being believed to be their author, whoever imagines that man is sprung from Him is guilty of blasphemous impiety, man, a being miserable and wretched, who is sorry that he exists, hates and laments his state, and understands that he was produced for no other reason than lest evils should not have something333 through which to spread themselves, and that there might always be wretched ones by whose agonies some unseen and cruel power,334 adverse to men, should be gratified.

 

47. But, you say, if God is not the parent and father of souls, by what sire have they been begotten, and how have they been produced? If you wish to hear unvarnished statements not spun out with vain ostentation of words, we, too,335 admit that we are ignorant of this, do not know it;336 and we hold that, to know so great a matter, is not only beyond the reach of our weakness and frailty, but beyond that also of all the powers which are in the world, and which have usurped the place of deities in men’s belief. But are we bound to show whose they are, because we deny that they are God’s? That by no means337 follows necessarily; for if we were to deny that flies, beetles, and bugs, dormice, weevils, and moths,338 are made by the Almighty King, we should not be required in consequence to say who made and formed them; for without incurring any censure, we may not know who, indeed, gave them being, and yet assert that not by the Supreme339 Deity were creatures produced so useless, so needless, so purposeless,340 nay more, at times even hurtful, and causing unavoidable injuries.

 

48. Here, too, in like manner, when we deny that souls are the offspring of God Supreme, it does not necessarily follow that we are bound to declare from what parent they have sprung, and by what causes they have been produced. For who prevents us from being either ignorant of the source from which they issued and came, or aware that they are not God’s descendants? By what method, you say, in what way? Because it is most true and certain341 that, as has been pretty frequently said, nothing is effected, made, determined by the Supreme, except that which it is right and fitting should be done; except that which is complete and entire, and wholly perfect in its342 integrity. But further, we see that men, that is, these very souls – for what are men but souls bound to bodies? – themselves show by perversely falling into343 vice, times without number, that they belong to no patrician race, but have sprung from insignificant families. For we see some harsh, vicious, presumptuous, rash, reckless, blinded, false, dissemblers, liars, proud, overbearing, covetous, greedy, lustful, fickle, weak, and unable to observe their own precepts; but they would assuredly not be so, if their original goodness defended344 them, and they traced their honourable descent from the head of the universe.

 

49. But, you will say, there are good men also in the world, – wise, upright, of faultless and purest morals. We raise no question as to whether there ever were any such, in whom this very integrity which is spoken of was in nothing imperfect. Even if they are very honourable men, and have been worthy of praise, have reached the utmost height of perfection, and their life has never wavered and sunk into sin, yet we would have you tell us how many there are, or have been, that we may judge from their number whether a comparison345 has been made which is just and evenly balanced.346 One, two, three, four, ten, twenty, a hundred, yet are they at least limited in number, and it may be within the reach of names.347 But it is fitting that the human race should be rated and weighed, not by a very few good men, but by all the rest as well. For the part is in the whole, not the whole in a part; and that which is the whole should draw to it its parts, not the whole be brought to its parts. For what if you were to say that a man, robbed of the use of all his limbs, and shrieking in bitter agony,348 was quite well, because in349 one little nail he suffered no pain? or that the earth is made of gold, because in one hillock there are a few small grains from which, when dissolved, gold is produced, and wonder excited at it when formed into a lump?350 The whole mass shows the nature of an element, not particles fine as air; nor does the sea become forthwith sweet, if you cast or throw into it a few drops of less bitter water, for that small quantity is swallowed up in its immense mass; and it must be esteemed, not merely of little importance, but even of none, because, being scattered throughout all, it is lost and cut off in the immensity of the vast body of water.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

149 Carduus, no doubt the esculent thistle, a kind of artichoke.

150 So, according to an emendation in LB., esui, adopted by Orelli and others, instead of the MS reading et sui.

151 There has been much discussion as to whether the solifuga or solipuga here spoken of is an ant or spider.

152 The MS reads discriminare, discernere, with the latter word, however, marked as spurious.

153 A kind of rug.

154 Mitra.

155 Strophium, passing round the breast, by some regarded as a kind of corset.

156 Mastruca, a garment made of the skins of the muflone, a Sardinian wild sheep.

157 Tribula, for rubbing out the corn.

158 Aurum is omitted in all edd., except those of LB., Hild., and Oehler.

159 Liber, a roll of parchment or papyrus, as opposed to the preceding codex, a book of pages.

160 The MS reads vobis unintelligibly, corrected by Meursius bovis.

161 So Orelli and modern edd.; but Crusius gives as the MS reading conspici-etur (not -et), as given by Ursinus, and commonly received – “Will he not … be seen?”

162 The MS and first five edd. read et – “and,” changed in LB. to sed.

163 In this dialogue (st. p. 81) Socrates brings forward the doctrine of reminiscence as giving a reasonable ground for the pursuit of knowledge, and then proceeds to give a practical illustration of it by leading an uneducated slave to solve a mathematical problem by means of question and answer.

164 Lit., “his knowledge of things.”

165 So the MS and edd., reading i-gnarum rerum, except LB., which by merely omitting the i gives the more natural meaning, “acquainted with the things,” etc.

166 Lit., “established in the limits of humanity.”

167 i.e., a square numerically or algebraically. The MS, both Roman edd., and Canterus read di-bus aut dynam-us, the former word being defended by Meursius as equivalent to binio, “a doubling,” – a sense, however, in which it does not occur. In the other edd., cubus aut dynamis has been received from the margin of Ursinus.

168 Aeneid, vi. 472.

169 This clause is with reason rejected by Meursius as a gloss.

170 Founded on Plato’s words (Phaedrus, st. p. 247), τῷ δ ̓ (i.e. Zeus) επεται στρατιὰ θεῶν τε καὶ δαιμόνων, the doctrine became prevalent that under the supreme God were lesser gods made by Him, beneath whom again were daemons, while men stood next. To this Orelli supposes that Arnobius here refers.

171 The vessels in which, according to Plato (Timaeus, st. p. 41), the Supreme Being mixed the vital essence of all being. Cf. c. 52.

172 Lit., “and endowed.”

173 The text and meaning are both rather doubtful, and the edd. vary exceedingly. The reading of Orelli, demoretur iners, valeat in aere quamvis, has been translated as most akin to the MS, with which, according to Oehler, it agrees, although Orelli himself gives the MS reading as aer-io.

174 Lit., “acknowledge turnings in the course.”

175 Lit., “but retaining its own things, bind itself in earthly bodies.”

176 Lit., “of.”

177 So the MS and edd., reading sua-de-ri, for which Oehler reads very neatly sua de vi – “can anything of its own power destroy,” etc.

178 Lit., “not suffer forgetfulness.”

179 Lit., “however the most solid unions of bodies may have bound them round.”

180 So the edd., reading privat immortalitate has omni, for which, according to Hildebrand, the MS reads -tatem has omnis – “all these of immortality.”

181 Lit., “put on the blindness of oblivion.”

182 Cf. Lucretius, iii. 969, where life is thus spoken of.

183 The MS reads ne videamu-s, changed in both Roman edd. into -amur – “that we may not be seen by you (as ignorant), how say you,” etc. Gelenius proposed the reading of the text, audiamus, which has been received by Canterus and Orelli. It is clear from the next words – quemadmodum dicitis – that in this case the verb must be treated as a kind of interjection, “How say you, let us hear.” LB. reads, to much the same purpose, scire avemus, “we desire to know.”

184 Lit., “before man.”

185 Lit., “placed outside.”

186 Quod enim.

187 Rebus ingressis.

188 So read by Orelli, artes suas antiquas, omitting atque, which, he says, follows in the MS. It is read after suas, however, in the first ed., and those of Gelenius, Canterus, Hildebrand; and according to Oehler, it is so given in the MS, “its own and ancient.” Oberthür would supply res – “its own arts and ancient things.”

189 So the MS, reading constitut-a, followed by all edd. except those of Ursinus, Hildebrand, and Oehler, who read -ae, “how do they remember when established in the bodies,” which is certainly more in accordance with the context.

190 Lit., “of immortality.”

191 Cf. 1Co_16:1-24, p. 440.

192 Lit., “of a lost memory.”

193 Lit., “of (a memory) preserved.”

194 Capite cum censeatur.

195 Lit., “poor in hearth, and of a poor hut.”

196 So the MS, reading malis, for which Ursinus suggested alis, “on the wings of which.”

197 i.e., to death.

198 The MS reads securus, intrepidus – “heedless, fearless;” the former word, however, being marked as a gloss. It is rejected in all edd., except LB.

199 Lit., “by the freedom of impunity.”

200 Lit., “the one (immortality) … in respect of the equality of condition of the other” – nec in alterius (immortalitatis) altera (immortalitata) possit aequalitate conditionis vexari; the reference being clearly to the immediately preceding clause, with which it is so closely connected logically and grammatically. Orelli, however, would supply anima, ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ, as he puts it, of which nothing need be said. Meursius, with customary boldness, emends nec vi alterius altera, “nor by the power of one can the other,” etc.

201 So the ellipse is usually supplied, but it seems simpler and is more natural thus: “But punishments (have been) spoken of” (memoratae), etc.

202 So MS and Oehler, for which the edd. read ec quis, “will any one.”

203 Lit., “the consequences of things,”

204 Lit., “the moving of wheels whirling.”

205 Lit., “in the unbroken course of ages” – perpetuitate aevorum.

206 Lit., “and to scatter the unbridled eagerness of boundless lust through,” etc.

207 Lucretius (iii. 417 sqq.) teaches at great length that the soul and mind are mortal, on the ground that they consist of atoms smaller than those of vapour, so that, like it, on the breaking of their case, they will be scattered abroad; next, on the ground of the analogy between them and the body in regard to disease, suffering, etc.; of their ignorance of the past, and want of developed qualities; and finally, on the ground of the adaptation of the soul to the body, as of a fish to the sea, so that life under other conditions would be impossible.

208 The MS and first four edd. read has, “that these souls,” etc.; in the other edd., hac is received as above from the margin of Ursinus.

209 Cf. Plato, Phaedo (st. p. 64, sq.), where death is spoken of as only a carrying further of that separation of the soul from the pleasures and imperfections of the body which the philosopher strives to effect in this life.

210 Lit., “in common.”

211 Pl.

212 This refers to the second argument of Lucretius noticed above.

213 i.e., the abandoned and dissolute immortal spoken of in last chapter.

214 Lit., “with.”

215 Lit., “degenerate into mortal nature.”

216 Arnobius seems in this chapter to refer to the doctrine of the Stoics, that the soul must be material, because unless body and soul were of one substance, there could be no common feeling or mutual affection (so Cleanthes in Nemes. de Nat. Hom., ii. p. 33); and to that held by some of them, that only the souls of the wise remained after death, and these only till the conflagration (Stob., Ecl. Phys., p. 372) which awaits the world, and ends the Stoic great year or cycle. Others, however, held that the souls of the wise became daemons and demigods (Diog., Laert., vii. 157 and 151).

217 Lit., “they” – eas.

218 Lit., “from the gapings and,” etc.

219 There may be here some echo of the words (Joh_17:3), “This is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God,” etc.; but there is certainly not sufficient similarity to found a direct reference on, as has been done by Orelli and others.

220 i.e., souls.

221 This passage presents no difficulty in itself, its sense being obviously that, as by God’s grace life is given to those who serve Him, we must strive to fit ourselves to receive His blessing. The last words, however, have seemed to some fraught with mystery, and have been explained by Heraldus at some length as a veiled or confused reference to the Lord’s Supper, as following upon baptism and baptismal regeneration, which, he supposes, are referred to in the preceding words, “laying aside,” etc. [It is not, however, the language of a mere catechumen.]

222 These “thin plates,” laminae, Orelli has suggested, were amulets worn as a charm against serpents.

223 MS Phyllis.

224 So the edd., reading instit-oribus for the MS instit-ut-oribus, “makers.”

225 Lit., “that colds and violent suns may not,” etc.

226 Lit., “of.”

227 Lit., “is set before.”

228 So the MS, first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Hildebrand, reading ex commodi sensu, for which all the other edd., following Ursinus and Meursius, read ex communi – “from common sense,” i.e., wisely.

229 Perhaps, as Orelli evidently understands it, “prefer Him to our own souls” – animis praeponimus.

230 So Oehler, reading ea for the MS ut, omitted in all edd.

231 Lit., “by your own and internal exertion.”

232 Lit., “of things.”

233 Lit., “wings will be at hand.”

234 The MS reads di-cimus, “say;” corrected du, as above.

235 The first four edd. read res, “things above,” for which Stewechius reads, as above, sedes.

236 Sponte.

237 Here, as in c. 7, p. 436, n. 43, the edd. read Phaedone, with the exception of the first ed., LB., Hildebrand, and Oehler, who follow the MS as above.

238 Lit., “to the end of promising.”

239 Meursius suggests numini, “deity,” on which it may be well to remark once for all, that nomen and numen are in innumerable places interchanged in one or other of the edd. The change, however, is usually of so little moment, that no further notice will be taken of it.

240 So the MS, according to Rigaltius and Hildebrand, reading vitae aeternitate, while Crusius asserts that the MS gives vita et – “with life and eternity.”

241 The MS reading is, mortalis est qualitatis. The first five edd. merely drop est – “of mortal, of neutral,” etc.; LB. and the others read, es et, as above.

242 Lit., “heard from.”

243 So the MS, according to Crusius, the edd. reading cred-id-imus – “have believed.”

244 Lit., “if we believe that.”

245 So the MS, reading ad modum obsecutionis paratum – “prepared to the mode of compliance;” for which the edd. read adm. executioni – “quite prepared for performing,” except Hildebrand, who gives adm. obsecutioni – “for obedience.”

246 So the MS, according to Crusius, but all edd. read sequ-a-tur (for i) – “Is there anything which He has willed which it does not follow,” etc.

247 So all edd., reading mutabiles, except the two Roman edd. and Oehler, who gives, as the reading of the MS, nu. – “tottering.”

248 Lit., “in the doubtful condition of their lot.”

249 Lit., “which may have been of a name.”

250 LB., followed by the later edd., inserted si, “if they are,” which is certainly more consistent with the rest of the sentence.

251 The MS reading is utterly corrupt and meaningless – immortalitatis largiter est donum dei certa prolatis. Gelenius, followed by Canterus, Oberthür, and Orelli, emended largi-tio … certe, as above. The two Roman edd. read, -tatem largitus … certam – “bestowed, assured immortality as God’s gift on,” etc.

252 i.e., who must therefore have received it if they have it at all.

253 Lit., “out, reduced to nothing with annihilation, not to be returned from.”

254 Lit., “they are held in a lasting bond,” i.e., of being.

255 Plato makes the supreme God, creator of the inferior deities, assure these lesser gods that their created nature being in itself subject to dissolution, His will is a surer ground on which to rely for immortality, than the substance or mode of their own being (Timaeus, st. p. 41; translated by Cicero, de Univ., xi., and criticised de Nat. Deor., i. 8 and iii. 12).

256 The MS and both Roman edd. read neque ullo ab-olitio-nis unintelligibly, for which Gelenius proposed nexusque abolitione – “and by the destruction of the bond;” but the much more suitable reading in the margin of Ursinus, translated above, ullo ab alio nis-i, has been adopted by later edd.

257 Lit., “be gifted with a saving order.” So the MS, reading salutari iussione, followed by both Rom. edd.; LB. and Orelli read vinctione – “bond;” Gelenius, Canterus, Elmenh., and Oberthür, m-issione – “dismissal.”

258 Lit., “that to the gods themselves the natures are intermediate.”

259 Lit., “supreme” – principali.

260 Cf. i. 48. On this passage Orelli quotes Irenaeus, i. 21, where are enumerated several gnostic theories of the creation of the world and men by angels, who are themselves created by the “one unknown Father.” Arnobius is thought, both by Orelli and others, to share in these opinions, and in this discussion to hint at them, but obscurely, lest his cosmology should be confounded by the Gentiles with their own polytheistic system. It seems much more natural to suppose that we have here the indefinite statement of opinions not thoroughly digested.

261 Lit., “a generation of.”

262 Canterus, Elmenhorst, Oberthür, and Orelli omit ut, which is retained as above by the rest.

263 Lit., “obscene.”

264 Elmenhorst endeavours to show that Arnobius coincides in this argument with the Epicureans, by quoting Lucr. v. 165 sqq. and Lact. vii. 5, where the Epicurean argument is brought forward, What profit has God in man, that He should have created him? In doing this, it seems not to have been observed that the question asked by Arnobius is a very different one: What place has man in the world, that God should be supposed to have sent him to fill it?

265 i.e., so far from this being the case.

266 i.e., from one horse to another – desultores.

267 Rationibus et constitutionibus.

268 Lit., “it should be believed.”

269 Lit., “unless there were joined.”

270 So the MS, reading contentio, which Orelli would understand as meaning “contents,” which may be correct. LB. reads conditio – “condition,” ineptly; and Ursinus in the margin, completio – “the filling up.”

271 So the later edd., from the margin of Ursinus, reading quod temeritatis est maximae for the MS quem – “whom it shows the greatest rashness to speak of.”

272 Lit., “goddesses.”

273 So Gelenius (acc. to Orelli), reading as in the margin of Ursinus, terrenae circumscriptiones, for the unintelligible reading of the MS, temerariae, retained in both Roman edd., Canterus, and (acc. to Oehler) Gelenius. LB. reads metariae – “a limiting by boundaries.”

274 Lit., “motions.”

275 Cf. Lucr., v. 229 sq. The same idea comes up again in iv. 21.

276 Lit., “in.”

277 According to Hildebrand, the MS reads dissimular-ent circumscribere, so that, by merely dropping nt, he reads, “to dissemble and cheat;” but according to Crispus, iri is found in the MS between these two words, so that by prefixing m Sabaeus in the first ed. read m-ent-iri as above, followed by all other edd.

278 Lit., “to roll … in the mind.”

279 Rigaltius and Hildebrand regard decipere as a gloss.

280 So the MS, reading formari, followed by Hildebrand and Oehler; but all the other edd. give the active form, -are.

281 Lit., “from.”

282 The condition, i.e., of freedom.

283 LB., seemingly received by Orelli, though not inserted into his text, reads poscerent eos for the MS -entur, which Hildebrand modifies -ent ea as above.

284 Lit., “certain.”

285 Lit., “by error.”

286 Lit., “the sad necessity should be laid upon them, that,” etc.

287 Lit., “for the want of daily things,” diurnorum egestati, for which Stewechius would read diurna egestate – “from daily necessity.”

288 Lit., “of.”

289 Lit., “poured forth all their blood.”

290 Lit., “of their labour.”

291 Lit., “at last by force of.”

292 So the MS and edd., reading vilitatem, for which Meursius proposed very needlessly utilitatem – “and at an advantage.”

293 So, adhering very closely to the MS, which gives e-t sanguine supputandis augere-t insomnia milibus, the t of e-t being omitted and n inserted by all. The first five edd read, -tandi se angerent insania: millibus – “harass themselves with the madness of reckoning; by miles should extend,” etc., – the only change in Heraldus and Orelli being a return to insomnia – “harass with sleeplessness,” etc.

294 So restored by Cujacius, followed by LB. and Orelli, reading in grat-i-am (MS wants i) voluptatemque, while the first five edd. merely drop -que – “to the grateful pleasure,” etc.

295 Lit., “most cruel.”

296 Lit., “among,” in oris, the MS reading, and that of the first four edd., for which the others have received from the margin of Ursinus moribus – “(indulging) in so fierce and savage customs.”

297 Lit., “tables.”

298 Lit., “they should live.”

299 Lit., “lessen.”

300 In the MS this clause follows the words “loss of their purity,” where it is very much in the way. Orelli has followed Heraldus in disposing of it as above, while LB. inserts it after “tips of their ears.” The rest adhere to the arrangement of the MS, Ursinus suggesting instead of his – “with these,” catenis – “with chains;” Heraldus, linis – “with strings (of pearls);” Stewechius, taeniis – “with fillets.”

301 So LB. and Orelli, reading con-fic-iendis corporibus for the MS con-sp-iendis, for which the others read -spic-, “to win attention.” A conjecture by Oudendorp, brought forward by Orelli, is worthy of notice – con-spu-endis, “to cover,” i.e., so as to hide defects.

302 Lit., “passages of ways.”

303 Lit., “substitute.”

304 So the later edd., reading botulos; the MS and early edd. give boletos – “mushrooms.”

305 For his, Heinsius proposes hiris – “with the intestines.”

306 Lit., “in a frozen condition.” As to the meaning of this there is difference of opinion: some supposing that it means, as above, preserved by means of ice, or at least frozen; while others interpret figuratively, “as hard as ice.” [Our Scottish translators have used their local word, “iced haggises:” I have put puddings instead, which gives us, at least, an idea of something edible. To an American, what is iced conveys the idea of a drink. The budinarius, heretofore noted, probably made these iced saucisses.]

307 Lit., “things” – res.

308 Scabilla were a kind of rattles or castanets moved by the feet.

309 Sambuca, not corresponding to the modern triangle, but a stringed instrument of that shape. Its notes were shrill and disagreeable, and those who played on it of indifferent character.

310 So the MS and first four edd., reading virilitatem sui populo publicarent. Meursius emended utilitatem – “made common the use,” etc.; and Orelli, from the margin of Ursinus, vilitatem – “their vileness.”

311 The MS reads in fornicibus obvi-t-ae, which, dropping the t, is the reading translated, and was received by Elmenhorst, LB., and Hildebrand, from the margin of Ursinus. The other edd insert nc before t – “bound.”

312 The translation does not attempt to bring out the force of the words ad oris stuprum paratae, which are read by Orelli after Ursinus and Gelensius. The text is so corrupt, and the subject so obscene, that a bare reference to the practice may be sufficient.

313 The MS reads, habitare atque habitare juss-e-r-unt. All edd. omit the first two words, the first ed. without further change; but the active verb is clearly out of place, and therefore all other edd. read jussae sunt, as above. Oehler, however, from habitare omitted by the others, would emend aditare, “to approach,” – a conjecture with very little to recommend it.

314 These are all substantives in the original.

315 So the MS, reading non missione – “not by the sending;” but, unaccountably enough, all edd. except Hildebrand and Oehler read jussione – “not by the command.”

316 So the MS.

317 Lit., “royal sublimity.”

318 Lit., “causes.”

319 The MS and both Roman edd. read abscondere – “to hide,” for which the other edd. read, as above, abscedere, from the margin of Ursinus.

320 Lit., “go.”

321 By Hildebrand and Oehler, procreator is with reason regarded as a gloss.

322 The MS, both Roman edd., and Hildebrand read jussisset; but this would throw the sentence into confusion, and the other edd. therefore drop t.

323 LB., Hildebrand, and Oehler read quorum indu-c-tae carceribus – “led into the prisons of which,” all other edd. omitting c as above. According to Oehler, the MS has the former reading.

324 The MS and both Roman edd. read in-f-ernarum paterentut aliae laniatus muscularum, which has no meaning, and is little improved by Gelenius changing ut into ur, as no one knows what “infernal flies” are. LB. and Orelli, adopting a reading in the margin of Ursinus, change intern. into ferarum, and join musc. with the words which follow as above. Another reading, also suggested by Ursinus, seems preferable, however, internorum … musculorum – “suffer rendings (i.e., spasms) of the inner muscles.”

325 Lit., “bound.”

326 Lit., “dilaceration of.”

327 Lit., “again and more frequently.”

328 Lit., “the salvation of.”

329 Lit., “height of.”

330 Lit., “things perfect, and preserving the measure of their completeness;” i.e., continuing so.

331 So the MS, LB., Oberthür, and Oehler, reading claudum et quod minus esset a recto. All other edd. read eminus – “at a distance from the right.”

332 Lit., “less than.”

333 Lit., “material.”

334 Lit., “some power latent and cruelty.”

335 So the MS and all edd.; but Orelli would change item into iterum, not seeing that the reference is to the indicated preference of his opponents for the simple truth.

336 Nescire Hildebrand, with good reason, considers a gloss.

337 Nihil for the MS mihi, which makes nonsense of the sentence.

338 This somewhat wide-spread opinion found an amusing counterpart in the doctrines of Rorarius (mentioned by Bayle, Dict. Phil.), who affirmed that the lower animals are gifted with reason and speech, as we are.

339 Lit., “superior.”

340 Lit., “tending to no reasons.”

341 Omni vero verissimum est certoque certissimum – the superlative for the comparative.

342 Lit., “finished with the perfection of.”

343 Lit., “by perversity” – s-c-aevitate, the reading of the MS, LB., Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, all others omitting c – “by the rage;” except Stewechius, who reads servitute – “slavery.”

344 Or, perhaps, “the goodness of the Supreme planted” – generositas eos adsereret principalis.

345 Lit., “opposition;” i.e., “the setting of one party against the other.”

346 Lit., “weighed with balancing of equality.”

347 Lit., “bounded by the comprehensions of names;” i.e., possibly, “the good are certainly few enough to be numbered, perhaps even to be named.”

348 So LB., reading ex cruciatibus for the MS scruc.

349 Lit., “of.”

350 Lit., “admiration is sought for by the putting together” – congregatione.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book II. (Cont.)

Arnobius (Cont.)

50. You say that there are good men in the human race; and perhaps, if we compare them with the very wicked, we may be led351 to believe that there are. Who are they, pray? Tell us. The philosophers, I suppose, who352 assert that they alone are most wise, and who have been uplifted with pride from the meaning attached to this name,353 – those, forsooth, who are striving with their passions every day, and struggling to drive out, to expel deeply-rooted passions from their minds by the persistent354 opposition of their better qualities; who, that it may be impossible for them to be led into wickedness at the suggestion of some opportunity, shun riches and inheritances, that they may remove355 from themselves occasions of stumbling; but in doing this, and being solicitous about it, they show very clearly that their souls are, through their weakness, ready and prone to fall into vice. In our opinion, however, that which is good naturally, does not require to be either corrected or reproved;356 nay more, it should not know what evil is, if the nature of each kind would abide in its own integrity, for neither can two contraries be implanted in each other, nor can equality be contained in inequality, nor sweetness in bitterness. He, then, who struggles to amend the inborn depravity of his inclinations, shows most clearly that he is imperfect,357 blameable, although he may strive with all zeal and stedfastness.

 

51. But you laugh at our reply, because, while we deny that souls are of royal descent, we do not, on the other hand, say in turn from what causes and beginnings they have sprung. But what kind of crime is it either to be ignorant of anything, or to confess quite openly that you do not know that of which you are ignorant? or whether does he rather seem to you most deserving of ridicule who assumes to himself no knowledge of some dark subject; or he who thinks that he358 knows most clearly that which transcends human knowledge, and which has been involved in dark obscurity? If the nature of everything were thoroughly considered, you too are in a position like that which you censure in our case. For you do not say anything which has been ascertained and set most clearly in the light of truth, because you say that souls descend from the Supreme Ruler Himself, and enter into the forms of men. For you conjecture, do not perceive360 this; surmise, do not actually know it; for if to know is to retain in the mind that which you have yourself seen or known, not one of those things which you affirm can you say that you have ever seen – that is, that souls descend from the abodes and regions above. You are therefore making use of conjecture, not trusting clear information. But what is conjecture, except a doubtful imagining of things, and directing of the mind upon nothing accessible? He, then, who conjectures, does not comprehend,360 nor does he walk in the361 light of knowledge. But if this is true and certain in the opinion of proper and very wise judges, your conjectures, too, in which you trust, must be regarded as showing your ignorance.

 

52. And yet, lest you should suppose that none but yourselves can make use of conjectures and surmises, we too are able to bring them forward as well,362 as your question is appropriate to either side.363 Whence, you say, are men; and what or whence are the souls of these men? Whence, we will ask, are elephants, bulls, stags, mules,364 asses? Whence lions, horses, dogs, wolves, panthers; and what or whence are the souls of these creatures? For it is not credible that from that Platonic cup,365 which Timaeus prepares and mixes, either their souls came, or that the locust,366 mouse, shrew, cockroach, frog, centipede, should be believed to have been quickened and to live, because367 they have a cause and origin of birth in368 the elements themselves, if there are in these secret and very little known means369 for producing the creatures which live in each of them. For we see that some of the wise say that the earth is mother of men, that others join with it water,370 that others add to these breath of air, but that some say that the sun is their framer, and that, having been quickened by his rays, they are filled with the stir of life.371 What if it is not these, and is something else another cause another method, another power, in fine, unheard of and unknown to us by name, which may have fashioned the human race, and connected it with things as established;372 may it not be that men sprang up in this way, and that the cause of their birth does not go back to the Supreme God? For what reason do we suppose that the great Plato had – a man reverent and scrupulous in his wisdom – when he withdrew the fashioning of man from the highest God, and transferred it to some lesser deities, and when he would not have the souls of men formed373 of that pure mixture of which he had made the soul of the universe, except that he thought the forming of man unworthy of God, and the fashioning of a feeble being not beseeming His greatness and excellence?

 

53. Since this, then, is the case, we do nothing out of place or foolish in believing that the souls of men are of a neutral character, inasmuch as they have been produced by secondary beings,374 made subject to the law of death, and are of little strength, and that perishable; and that they are gifted with immortality, if375 they rest their hope of so great a gift on God Supreme, who alone has power to grant such blessings, by putting away corruption. But this, you say, we are stupid in believing. What is that to you? In so believing, we act most absurdly, sillily. In what do we injure you, or what wrong do we do or inflict upon you, if we trust that Almighty God will take care of us when we leave376 our bodies, and from the jaws of hell, as is said, deliver us?

 

54. Can, then, anything be made, some one will say, without God’s will? We377 must consider carefully, and examine with no little pains, test, while we think that we are honouring God378 by such a question, we fall into the opposite sin, doing despite to His supreme majesty. In what way, you ask, on what ground? Because, if all things are brought about by His will, and nothing in the world can either succeed or fail contrary to His pleasure, it follows of necessity that it should be understood that379 all evils, too, arise by His will. But if, on the contrary, we chose to say that He is privy to and produces no evil, not referring to Him the causes of very wicked deeds, the worst things will begin to seem to be done either against His will, or, a monstrous thing to say, while He knows it not, but is ignorant and unaware of them. But, again, if we choose to say that there are no evils, as we find some have believed and held, all races will cry out against us and all nations together, showing us their sufferings, and the various kinds of dangers with which the human race is every moment380 distressed and afflicted. Then they will ask of us, Why, if there are no evils, do you refrain from certain deeds and actions? Why do you not do all that eager lust has required or demanded? Why, finally, do you establish punishments by terrible laws for the guilty? For what more monstrous381 act of folly can be found than to assert that there are no evils, and at the same time to kill and condemn the erring as though they were evil?382

 

55. But when, overcome, we agree that there are these things,383 and expressly allow that all human affairs are full of them, they will next ask, Why, then, the Almighty God does not take away these evils, but suffers them to exist and to go on without ceasing through all the ages?384 If we have learned of God the Supreme Ruler, and have resolved not to wander in a maze of impious and mad conjectures, we must answer that we do not know these things, and have never sought and striven to know things which could be grasped by no powers which we have, and that we, even thinking it385 preferable, rather remain in ignorance and want of knowledge than say that without God nothing is made, so that it should be understood that by His will386 He is at once both the source of evil387 and the occasion of countless miseries. Whence then, you will say, are all these evils? From the elements, say the wise, and from their dissimilarity; but how it is possible that things which have not feeling and judgment should be held to be wicked or criminal; or that he should not rather be wicked and criminal, who, to bring about some result, took what was afterwards to become very bad and hurtful,388 – is for them to consider, who make the assertion. What, then, do we say? whence? There is no necessity that we should answer, for whether we are able to say whence evil springs, or our power fails us, and we are unable, in either case it is a small matter in our opinion; nor do we hold it of much importance either to know or to be ignorant of it, being content to have laid down but one thing, – that nothing proceeds from God Supreme which is hurtful and pernicious. This we are assured of, this we know, on this one truth of knowledge and science we take our stand, – that nothing is made by Him except that which is for the well-being of all, which is agreeable, which is very full of love and joy and gladness, which has unbounded and imperishable pleasures, which every one may ask in all his prayers to befall him, and think that otherwise389 life is pernicious and fatal.

 

56. As for all the other things which are usually dwelt upon in inquiries and discussions – from what parents they have sprung, or by whom they are produced – we neither strive to know,390 nor care to inquire or examine: we leave all things to their own causes, and do not consider that they have been connected and associated with that which we desire should befall us.391 For what is there which men of ability do not dare to overthrow, to destroy,392 from love of contradiction, although that which they attempt to invalidate is unobjectionable393 and manifest, and evidently bears the stamp of truth? Or what, again, can they not maintain with plausible arguments, although it may be very manifestly untrue, although it may be a plain and evident falsehood? For when a man has persuaded himself that there is or is not something, he likes to affirm what he thinks, and to show greater subtlety than others, especially if the subject discussed is out of the ordinary track, and by nature abstruse and obscure.394 Some of the wise think that the world was not created, and will never perish;395 some that it is immortal, although they say that it was created and made;396 while a third party have chosen to say that it both was created and made, and will perish as other things must.397 And while of these three opinions one only must be true, they nevertheless all find arguments by which at once to uphold their own doctrines, and undermine and overthrow the dogmas of others. Some teach and declare that this same world is composed of four elements, others of two,398 a third party of one; some say that it is composed of none of these, and that atoms are that from which it is formed,399 and its primary origin. And since of these opinions only one is true, but400 not one of them certain, here too, in like manner, arguments present themselves to all with which they may both establish the truth of what they say, and show that there are some things false401 in the others’ opinions. So, too, some utterly deny the existence of the gods; others say that they are lost in doubt as to whether they exist anywhere; others, however, say that they do exist, but do not trouble themselves about human things; nay, others maintain that they both take part in the affairs of men, and guide the course of earthly events.402

 

57. While, then, this is the case, and it cannot but be that only one of all these opinions is true, they all nevertheless make use of arguments in striving with each other, – and not one of them is without something plausible to say, whether in affirming his own views, or objecting to the opinions of others. In exactly the same way is the condition of souls discussed. For I this one thinks that they both are immortal, and survive the end of our earthly life; that one believes that they do not survive, but perish with the bodies themselves: the opinion of another, however, is that they suffer nothing immediately, but that, after the form of man has been laid aside, they are allowed to live a little longer,403 and then come under the power of death. And while all these opinions cannot be alike true, yet all who hold them so support their case by strong and very weighty arguments, that you cannot find out anything which seems false to you, although on every side you see that things are being said altogether at variance with each other, and inconsistent from their opposition to each other;404 which assuredly would not happen, if man s curiosity could reach any certainty, or if that which seemed to one to have been really discovered, was attested by the approval of all the others. It is therefore wholly405 vain, a useless task, to bring forward something as though you knew it, or to wish to assert that you know that which, although it should be true, you see can be refuted; or to receive that as true which it may be is not, and is brought forward as if by men raving. And it is rightly so, for we do not weigh and guess at406 divine things by divine, but by human methods; and just as we think that anything should have been made, so we assert that it must be.

 

58. What, then, are we alone ignorant? do we alone not know who is the creator, who the former of souls, what cause fashioned man, whence ills have broken forth, or why the Supreme Ruler allows them both to exist and be perpetrated, and does not drive them from the world? have you, indeed, ascertained and learned any of these things with certainty? If you chose to lay aside audacious407 conjectures, can you unfold and disclose whether this world in which we dwell408 was created or founded at some time? if it was founded and made, by what kind of work, pray, or for what purpose? Can you bring forward and disclose the reason why it does not remain fixed and immoveable, but is ever being carried round in a circular motion? whether it revolves of its own will and choice, or is turned by the influence of some power? what the place, too, and space is in which it is set and revolves, boundless, bounded, hollow, or409 solid? whether it is supported by an axis resting on sockets at its extremities, or rather itself sustains by its own power, and by the spirit within it upholds itself? Can you, if asked, make it clear, and show most skilfully,410 what opens out the snow into feathery flakes? what was the reason and cause that day did not, in dawning, arise in the west, and veil its light in the east? how the sun, too, by one and the same influence,411 produces results so different, nay, even so opposite? what the moon is, what the stars? why, on the one hand, it does not remain of the same shape, or why it was right and necessary that these particles of fire should be set all over the world? why some412 of them are small, others large and greater, – these have a dim light, those a more vivid and shining brightness?

 

59. If that which it has pleased us to know is within reach, and if such knowledge is open to all, declare to us,413 and say how and by what means showers of rain are produced, so that water is held suspended in the regions above and in mid-air, although by nature it is apt to glide away, and so ready to flow and run downwards. Explain, I say, and tell what it is which sends the hail whirling through the air, which makes the rain fall drop by drop, which has spread out rain and feathery flakes of snow and sheets of lightning;414 whence the wind rises, and what it is; why the changes of the seasons were established, when it might have been ordained that there should be only one, and one kind of climate, so that there should be nothing wanting to the world’s completeness. What is the cause, what the reason, that the waters of the sea are salt;415 or that, of those on land, some are sweet, others bitter or cold? From what kind of material have the inner parts of men’s bodies been formed and built up into firmness? From what have their bones been made solid? what made the intestines and veins shaped like pipes, and easily passed through? Why, when it would be better to give us light by several eyes, to guard against the risk of blindness, are we restricted to two? For what purpose have so infinite and innumerable kinds of monsters and serpents been either formed or brought forth? what purpose do owls serve in the world, – falcons, hawks? what other birds416 and winged creatures? what the different kinds of ants and worms springing up to be a bane and pest in various ways? what fleas, obtrusive flies, spiders, shrew, and other mice, leeches, water-spinners? what thorns, briers, wild-oats, tares? what the seeds of herbs or shrubs, either sweet to the nostrils, or disagreeable in smell? Nay more, if you think that anything can be known or comprehended, say what wheat is, – spelt, barley, millet, the chick-pea, bean, lentil, melon, cumin, scallion, leek, onion? For even if they are useful to you, and are ranked among the different kinds of food, it is not a light or easy thing to know what each is, – why they have been formed with such shapes; whether there was any necessity that they should not have had other tastes, smells, and colours than those which each has, or whether they could have taken others also; further, what these very things are, – taste, I mean,417 and the rest; and from what relations they derive their differences of quality. From the elements, you say, and from the first beginnings of things. Are the elements, then, bitter or sweet? have they any odour or418 stench, that we should believe that, from their uniting, qualities were implanted in their products by which sweetness is produced, or something prepared offensive to the senses?

 

60. Seeing, then, that the origin, the cause, the reason of so many and so important things, escapes you yourselves also, and that you can neither say nor explain what has been made, nor why and wherefore it should not have been otherwise, do you assail and attack our timidity, who confess that we do not know that which cannot be known, and who do not care to seek out and inquire into those things which it is quite clear cannot be understood, although human conjecture should extend and spread itself through a thousand hearts? And therefore Christ the divine, – although you are unwilling to allow it, – Christ the divine, I repeat, for this must be said often, that the ears of unbelievers may burst and be rent asunder, speaking in the form of man by command of the Supreme God, because He knew that men are naturally419 blind, and cannot grasp the truth at all, or regard as sure and certain what they might have persuaded themselves as to things set before their eyes, and do not hesitate, for the sake of their420 conjectures, to raise and bring up questions that cause much strife, – bade us abandon and disregard all these things of which you speak, and not waste our thoughts upon things which have been removed far from our knowledge, but, as much as possible, seek the Lord of the universe with the whole mind and spirit; be raised above these subjects, and give over to Him our hearts, as yet hesitating whither to turn;421 be ever mindful of Him; and although no imagination can set Him forth as He is,422 yet form some faint conception of Him. For Christ said that, of all who are comprehended in the vague notion of what is sacred and divine,423 He alone is beyond the reach of doubt, alone true, and one about whom only a raving and reckless madman can be in doubt; to know whom is enough, although you have learned nothing besides; and if by knowledge you have indeed been related to424 God, the head of the world, you have gained the true and most important knowledge.

 

61. What business of yours is it, He425 says, to examine, to inquire who made man; what is the origin of souls; who devised the causes of ills; whether the sun is larger than the earth, or measures only a foot in breadth:426 whether the moon shines with borrowed light, or from her own brightness, – things which there is neither profit in knowing, nor loss in not knowing? Leave these things to God, and allow Him to know what is, wherefore, or whence; whether it must have been or not; whether something always existed,427 or whether it was produced at the first; whether it should be annihilated or preserved, consumed, destroyed, or restored in fresh vigour. Your reason is not permitted to involve you in such questions, and to be busied to no purpose about things so much out of reach. Your interests are in jeopardy, – the salvation, I mean,428 of your souls; and unless you give yourselves to seek to know the Supreme God, a cruel death awaits you when freed from the bonds of body, not bringing sudden annihilation, but destroying by the bitterness of its grievous and long-protracted punishment.

 

62. And be not deceived or deluded with vain hopes by that which is said by some ignorant and most presumptuous pretenders,429 that they are born of God, and are not subject to the decrees of fate; that His palace lies open to them if they lead a life of temperance, and that after death as men, they are restored without hindrance, as if to their father’s abode; nor by that which the Magi430 assert, that they have intercessory prayers, won over by which some powers make the way easy to those who are striving to mount to heaven; nor by that which Etruria holds out in the Acherontic books,431 that souls become divine, and are freed from the law432 of death, if the blood of certain animals is offered to certain deities. These are empty delusions, and excite vain desires. None but the Almighty God can preserve souls; nor is there any one besides who can give them length of days, and grant to them also a spirit which shall never die,433 except He who alone is immortal and everlasting, and restricted by no limit of time. For since all the gods, whether those who are real, or those who are merely said to be from hearsay and conjecture, are immortal and everlasting by His good-will and free gift, how can it be that others434 are able to give that which they themselves have,435 while they have it as the gift of another, bestowed by a greater power? Let Etruria sacrifice what victims it may, let the wise deny themselves all the pleasures of life,436 let the Magi soften and soothe all lesser powers, yet, unless souls have received from the Lord of all things that which reason demands, and does so by His command, it437 will hereafter deeply repent having made itself a laughing-stock,438 when it begins to feel the approach439 of death.

 

63. But if, my opponents say, Christ was sent by God for this end, that He might deliver unhappy souls from ruin and destruction, of what crime were former ages guilty which were cut off in their mortal state before He came? Can you, then, know what has become of these souls440 of men who lived long ago?441 whether they, too, have not been aided, provided, and cared for in some way? Can you, I say, know that which could have been learned through Christ’s teaching; whether the ages are unlimited in number or not since the human race began to be on the earth; when souls were first bound to bodies; who contrived that binding,442 nay, rather, who formed man himself; whither the souls of men who lived before us have gone; in what parts or regions of the world they were; whether they were corruptible or not; whether they could have encountered the danger of death, if Christ had not come forward as their preserver at their time of need? Lay aside these cares, and abandon questions to which you can find no answer.443 The Lord’s compassion has been shown to them, too, and the divine kindness444 has been extended to445 all alike; they have been preserved, have been delivered, and have laid aside the lot and. condition of mortality. Of what kind, my opponents ask, what, when? If you were free from presumption, arrogance, and conceit, you might have learned long ago from this teacher.

 

64. But, my opponents ask, if Christ came as the Saviour of men, as446 you say, why447 does He not, with uniform benevolence, free all without exception? I reply, does not He free all alike who invites all alike? or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him, – to men of high rank, to the meanest slaves, to women, to boys? To all, He says, the fountain of life is open,448 and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking.449 If you are so fastidious as to spurn the kindly450 offered gift, nay, more, if your wisdom is so great that you term those things which are offered by Christ ridiculous and absurd, why should He keep on inviting 451 you, while His only duty is to make the enjoyment of His bounty depend upon your own free choice?452 God, Plato says, does not cause any one to choose his lot in life;453 nor can another’s choice be rightly attributed to any one, since freedom of choice was put in His power who made it. Must you be even implored to deign to accept the gift of salvation from God; and must God’s gracious mercy be poured into your bosom while you reject it with disdain, and flee very far from it? Do you choose to take what is offered, and turn it to your own advantage? You will in that case have consulted your own interests. Do you reject with disdain, lightly esteem, and despise it? You will in this case have robbed yourself of the benefit of the gift.454 God compels no one, terrifies no one with overpowering fear. For our salvation is not necessary to Him, so that He would gain anything or suffer any loss, if He either made us divine,455 or allowed us to be annihilated and destroyed by corruption.

 

65. Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises. This, then, is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God, but a childish and vain456 strife in seeking to get the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unwilling, to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive, and shrink from; to injure before benefiting, and to bring to another way of thinking and feeling, by taking away the former? You who wish yourself to be changed,457 and to suffer violence, that you may do and may be compelled to take to yourself that which you do not wish, why do you refuse of your own accord to select that which you wish to do, when changed and transformed? I am unwilling, He says, and have no wish. What, then, do you blame God as though He failed you? do you wish Him to bring you help,458 whose gifts and bounties you not only reject and shun, but term empty459 words, and assail with jocose witticisms? Unless, then, my opponent says, I shall be a Christian, I cannot hope for salvation. It is just as you yourself say. For, to bring salvation and impart to souls what should be bestowed and must be added, Christ alone has had given into His charge and entrusted460 to Him by God the Father, the remote and more secret causes being so disposed. For, as with you, certain gods have fixed offices, privileges, powers, and you do not ask from any of them what is not in his power and permitted to him, so it is the right of461 Christ alone to give salvation to souls, and assign them everlasting life. For if you believe that father Bacchus can give a good vintage, but cannot give relief from sickness; if you believe that Ceres can give good crops, Aesculapius health, Neptune one thing, Juno462 another, that Fortune, Mercury, Vulcan, are each the giver of a fixed and particular thing, – this, too, you must needs receive from us,463 that souls can receive from no one life and salvation, except from Him to whom the Supreme Ruler gave this charge and duty. The Almighty Master of the world has determined that this should be the way of salvation, – this the door, so to say, of life; by Him464 alone is there access to the light: nor may men either creep in or enter elsewhere, all other ways being shut up and secured by an impenetrable barrier.

 

66. So, then, even if you are pure, and have been cleansed from every stain of vice, have won over and charmed465 those powers not to shut the ways against you and bar your passage when returning to heaven, by no efforts will you be able to reach the prize of immortality, unless by Christ’s gift you have perceived what constitutes this very immortality, and have been allowed to enter on the true life. For as to that with which you have been in the habit of taunting us, that our religion is new,466 and arose a few days ago, almost, and that you could not abandon the ancient faith which you had inherited from your fathers, and pass over to barbarous and foreign rites, this is urged wholly without reason. For what if in this way we chose to blame the preceding, even the most ancient ages, because when they discovered how to raise crops,467 they despised acorns, and rejected with scorn the wild strawberry; because they ceased to be covered with the bark of trees and clad in the hides of wild beasts, after that garments of cloth were devised, more useful and convenient in wearing; or because, when houses were built, and more comfortable dwellings erected, they did not cling to their ancient huts, and did not prefer to remain under rocks and caves like the beasts of the field? It is a disposition possessed by all, and impressed on us almost from our cradles even, to prefer good things to bad, useful to useless things, and to pursue and seek that with more pleasure which has been generally regarded468 as more than usually precious, and to set on that our hopes for prosperity and favourable circumstances.

 

67. Therefore, when you urge against us that we turn away from the religion469 of past ages, it is fitting that you should examine why it is done, not what is crone, and not set before you what we have left, but observe especially what we have followed. For if it is a fault or crime to change an opinion, and pass from ancient customs to new conditions and desires, this accusation holds against you too, who have so often changed your habits and mode of life, who have gone over to other customs and ceremonies, so that you are condemned by470 past ages as well as we. Do you indeed have the people distributed into five471 classes, as your ancestors once had? Do you ever elect magistrates by vote of the people? Do you know what military, urban, and common472 comitia are? Do you watch the sky, or put an end to public business because evil omens are announced? When you are preparing for war,473 do you hang out a flag from the citadel, or practise the forms of the Fetiales, solemnly474 demanding the return of what has been carried off? or, when encountering the dangers of war, do you begin to hope also, because of favourable omens from the points of the spears?475 In entering on office, do you still observe the laws fixing the proper times? with regard to gifts and presents to advocates, do you observe the Cincian and the sumptuary laws in restricting your expenses? Do you maintain fires, ever burning, in gloomy sanctuaries?476 Do you consecrate tables by putting on them salt-cellars and images of the gods? When you marry, do you spread the couch with a toga, and invoke the genii of husbands? do you arrange the hair of brides with the hasta caelibaris? do you bear the maidens’ garments to the temple of Fortuna Virginalis? Do your matrons work in the halls of your houses, showing their industry openly do they refrain from drinking wine? are their friends and relations allowed to kiss them, in order to show that they are sober and temperate?

 

68. On the Alban hill, it was not allowed in ancient times to sacrifice any but snow-white bulls: have you not changed that custom and religious observance, and has it not been enacted by decree of the senate, that reddish ones may be offered? While during the reigns of Romulus and Pompilius the inner parts, having been quite thoroughly cooked and softened, were burnt up in sacrificing to the gods, did you not begin, under king Tullius,477 to hold them out half-raw and slightly warm, paying no regard to the former usage? While before the arrival of Hercules in Italy supplication was made to father Dis and Saturn with the heads of men by Apollo’s advice; have you not, in like manner, changed this custom too, by means of cunning deceit and ambiguous names?478 Since, then, yourselves also have followed at one time these customs, at another different laws, and have repudiated and rejected many things on either perceiving your mistakes or seeing something better, what have we done contrary to common sense and the discretion all men have, if we have chosen what is greater and more certain, and have not suffered ourselves to be held back by unreasoning respect for impostures?

 

69. But our name is new, we are told, and the religion which we follow arose but a few days ago. Granting for the present that what you urge against us is not untrue, what is there, I would ask, among the affairs of men that is either done by bodily exertion and manual labour, or attained by the mind’s learning and knowledge, which did not begin at some time, and pass into general use and practice since then? Medicine,479 philosophy, music, and all the other arts by which social life has been built up and refined, – were these born with men, and did they not rather begin to be pursued, understood, and practised lately, nay, rather, but a short time since? Before the Etruscan Tages saw the480 light, did any one know or trouble himself to know and learn what meaning there was in the fall of thunderbolts, or in the veins of the victims sacrificed?481 When did the motion of the stars or the art of calculating nativities begin to be known? Was it not after Theutis482 the Egyptian; or after Atlas, as some say, the bearer, supporter, stay, and prop of the skies?

 

70. But why do I speak of these trivial things? The immortal gods themselves, whose temples you now enter with reverence, whose deity you suppliantly adore, did they not at certain times, as is handed down by your writings and traditions, begin to be, to be known and to be invoked by names and titles which were given to them? For if it is true that Jupiter with his brothers was born of Saturn and his wife, before Ops was married and bore children Jupiter had not existed both the Supreme and the Stygian,483 no, nor the lord of the sea, nor Juno, nay more, no one inhabited the heavenly seats except the two parents; but from their union the other gods were conceived and born, and breathed the breath of life. So, then, at a certain time the god Jupiter began to be, at a certain time to merit worship and sacrifices, at a certain time to be set above his brothers in power.484 But, again, if Liber, Venus, Diana, Mercury, Apollo, Hercules, the Muses, the Tyndarian brothers,485 and Vulcan the lord of fire, were begotten by father Jupiter, and born of a parent sprung from Saturn, before that Memory, Alcmena, Maia, Juno, Latona, Leda, Dione, and Semele also bore children to Diespiter; these deities, too, were nowhere in the world, nor in any part of the universe, but by Jupiter’s embraces they were begotten and born, and began to have some sense of their own existence. So then, these, too, began to be at a certain time, and to be summoned among the gods to the sacred rites. This we say, in like manner, of Minerva. For if, as you assert, she burst forth from Jupiter’s head ungenerated,486 before Jupiter was begotten, and received in his mother’s womb the shape and outline of his body,487 it is quite certain that Minerva did not exist, and was not reckoned among things or as existing at all; but from Jove’s head she was born, and began to have a real existence. She therefore has an origin at the first, and began to be called a goddess at a certain time, to be set up in temples, and to be consecrated by the inviolable obligations of religion. Now as this is the case, when you talk of the novelty of our religion, does your own not come into your thoughts, and do you not take care to examine when your gods sprung up, – what origins, what causes they have, or from what stocks they have burst forth and sprung? But how shameful, how shameless it is to censure that in another which you see that you do yourself, – to take occasion to revile and accuse others for things which can be retorted upon you in turn!

 

71. But our rites are488 new; yours are ancient, and of excessive antiquity, we are told. And what help does that give you, or how does it damage our cause and argument? The belief489 which we hold is new; some day even it, too, will become old: yours is old; but when it arose, it was new and unheard of. The credibility of a religion, however, must not be determined by its age, but by its divinity; and you should consider not when, but what you began to worship. Four hundred years ago, my opponent says, your religion did not exist. And two thousand years ago, I reply, your gods did not exist. By what reckoning, you ask, or by what calculations, can that be inferred? They are not difficult, not intricate, but can be seen by any one who will take them in hand even, as the saying is. Who begot Jupiter and his brothers? Saturn with Ops, as you relate, sprung from Coelus and Hecate. Who begot Picus, the father of Faunus and grandfather of Latinus? Saturn, as you again hand down by your books and teachers? Therefore, if this is the case, Picus and Jupiter are in consequence united by the bond of kinship, inasmuch as they are sprung from one stock and race. It is clear, then, that what we say is true. How many steps are there in coming down490 from Jupiter and Picus to Latinus? Three, as the line of succession shows. Will you suppose Faunus, Latinus, and Picus to have each lived a hundred and twenty years, for beyond this it is that man’s life cannot be pro longed? The estimation is well grounded and clear. There are, then, three hundred and sixty years garter these?491 It is just as the calculation shows. Whose father-in-law was Latinus? Aeneas’. Whose father was he?492 He was father of the founder of the town Alba. How many years did kings reign in Alba? Four hundred and twenty almost. Of what age is the city Rome shown to be in the annals? It reckons ten493 hundred and fifty years, or not much less. So, then, from Jupiter, who is the brother of Picus and father of the other and lesser gods, down to the present time, there are nearly, or to add a little to the time, altogether, two thousand years. Now since this cannot be contradicted, not only is the religion to which you adhere shown to have sprung up lately; but it is also shown that the gods themselves, to whom you heap up bulls and other victims at the risk of bringing on disease, are young and little children, who should still be fed with their mothers’ milk.494

 

72. But your religion precedes ours by many years, and is therefore, you say, truer, because it has been supported by the authority of antiquity. And of what avail is it that it should precede ours as many years as you please, since it began at a certain time? or what495 are two thousand years, compared with so many thousands of ages? And yet, lest we should seem to betray our cause by so long neglect, say, if it does not annoy you, does the Almighty and Supreme God seem to you to be something new; and do those who adore and worship Him seem to you to support and introduce an unheard-of, unknown, and upstart religion? Is there anything older than Him? or can anything be found preceding Him in being,496 time, name? Is not He alone uncreated, immortal, and everlasting? Who is the head497 and fountain of things? is not He? To whom does eternity owe its name? is it not to Him? Is it not because He is everlasting, that the ages go on without end? This is beyond doubt, and true: the religion which we follow is not new, then, but we have been late in learning what we should follow and revere, or where we should both fix our hope of salvation, and employ the aid given to save us. For He had not yet shone forth who was to point out the way to those wandering from it, and give the light of knowledge to those who were lying in the deepest darkness, and dispel the blindness of their ignorance.

 

73. But are we alone in this position?498 What! have you not introduced into the number of your gods the Egyptian deities named Serapis and Isis, since the consulship of Piso and Gabinius?499 What! did you not begin both to know and be acquainted with, and to worship with remarkable honours, the Phrygian mother – who, it is said, was first set up as a goddess by Midas or Dardanus – when Hannibal, the Carthaginian, was plundering Italy and aiming at the empire of the world?500 Are not the sacred rites of mother Ceres, which were adopted but a little while ago, called Graeca because they were unknown to you, their name bearing witness to their novelty? Is it not said501 in the writings of the learned, that the rituals of Numa Pompilius do not contain the name of Apollo? Now it is clear and manifest from this, that he, too, was unknown to you, but that at some time afterwards he began to be known also. If any one, therefore, should ask yon why you have so lately begun to worship those deities whom we mentioned just now, it is certain that you will reply, either because we were till lately not aware that they were gods, or because we have now been warned by the seers, or because, in very trying circumstances, we have been preserved by their favour and help. But if you think that this is well said by you, you must consider that, on our part, a similar reply has been made. Our religion has sprung up just now; for now He has arrived who was sent to declare it to us, to bring us to its truth; to show what God is; to summon us from mere conjectures, to His worship.

 

74. And why, my opponent says, did God, the Ruler and Lord of the universe, determine that a Saviour, Christ, should be sent to you from the heights of heaven a few hours ago, as it is said? We ask you too, on the other hand, what cause, what reason is there that the seasons sometimes do not recur at their own months, but that winter, summer, and autumn come too late? why, after the crops have been dried up and the corn502 has perished, showers sometimes fall which should have dropped on them while yet uninjured, and made provision for the wants of the time? Nay, this we rather ask, why, if it were fitting that Hercules should be born, Aesculapius, Mercury, Liber, and some others, that they might be both added to the assemblies of the gods, and might do men some service, – why they were produced so late by Jupiter, that only later ages should know them, while the past ages503 of those who went before knew them not? You will say that there was some reason. There was then some reason here also that the Saviour of our race came not lately, but to-day. What, then, you ask, is the reason? We do not deny that we do not know. For it is not within the power of any one to see the mind of God, or the way in which He has arranged His plans.504 Man, a blind creature, and not knowing himself even, can505 in no way learn what should happen, when, or what its nature is: the Father Himself, the Governor and Lord of all, alone knows. Nor, if I have been unable to disclose to you the causes why something is done in this way or that, does it straightway follow, that what has been done becomes not done, and that a thing becomes incredible, which has been shown to be beyond doubt by such506 virtues and507 powers.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

351 Lit., “a comparison of the worst may effect that we,” etc.

352 So all edd. except Hildebrand, who gives as the reading of the MS, qui-d – “what! do they assert.”

353 Lit., “by the force of,” vi, – an emendation of Heraldus for the MS in.

354 So most edd., reading pertinaci for the MS -ium – “by the opposition of persistent virtues,” which is retained in both Roman edd., Gelenius, Canterus, Hildebrand, and Oehler.

355 So Stewechius and later edd., reading ut … auferant, except Hildebrand, who gives as the MS reading, et … -unt – “shun … and remove,” etc. The first four edd. read ne … afferant – “that they may not bring upon themselves,” etc.

356 So the MS and first four edd., Orelli (who, however, seems to have meant to give the other reading), and Oehler, reading corri-p-i, for which the others read -igi – “corrected,” except Hildebrand, who without due reason gives -rumpi – “corrupted.”

357 In the MS imperfectum is marked as a gloss, but is retained in all edd., while improbabilem is omitted, except in LB., when im is omitted, and probabilem joined to the next clause – “however he may strive to be acceptable,” in order to provide an object for “strive;” and with a similar purpose Orelli thrusts in contrarium, although it is quite clear that the verb refers to the preceding clause, “struggles to amend.”

358 The MS reads se esse, without meaning, from which LB., followed by Hildebrand, and Oehler derived se ex se – “himself of himself.” The rest simply omit esse as above.

360 Lit., “hold.”

361 Lit., “set in the.”

362 Lit., “utter the same (conjectures),” easdem, the reading of LB. and Hildebrand, who says that it is so in the MS; while Crusius asserts that the MS has idem, which, with Orelli’s punctuation, gives – “we have the same power; since it is common (i.e., a general right) to bring forth what you ask,” i.e., to put similar questions.

363 i.e., may be retorted upon you.

364 Here, as elsewhere, instead of muli, the MS reads milvi – “kites.”

365 Cf. Plato, Timaeus, st. p. 41, already referred to.

366 Or, perhaps, “cray-fish,” locusta.

367 The MS reads quidem – “indeed,” retained by the first four edd., but changed into quia – “because,” by Elmenhorst, LB., and Orelli, while Oehler suggests very happily si quidem – “if indeed,” i.e., because.

368 Lit., “from.”

369 Rationes.

370 Cf. chs. 9 and 10 [p. 416, supra].

371 Orelli, retaining this as a distinct sentence, would yet enclose it in brackets, for what purpose does not appear; more especially as the next sentence follows directly from this in logical sequence.

372 Lit., “the constitutions of things.”

373 Lit., “did not choose the souls of the human race to be mixtures of the same purity,” noluit, received from the margin of Ursinus by all except the first four edd., which retain the MS voluit – “did choose,” which is absurd. Arnobius here refers again to the passage in the Timaeus, p. 41 sq., but to a different part, with a different purpose. He now refers to the conclusion of the speech of the Supreme God, the first part of which is noticed in ch. 36 (cf. p. 447, n. 255). There the Creator assures the gods He has made of immortality through His grace; now His further invitation that they in turn should form men is alluded to. That they might accomplish this task, the dregs still left in the cup, in which had been mixed the elements of the world’s soul, are diluted and given to form the souls of men, to which they attach mortal bodies.

374 Lit., “things not principal.” Orelli here quotes from Tertullian, de Anim., xxiii., a brief summary of Gnostic doctrines on these points, which he considers Arnobius to have followed throughout this discussion.

375 Si was first inserted in LB., not being found in the MS, though demanded by the context.

376 Lit., “have begun to leave.”

377 The MS and first three edd. read vobis – “you,” corrected nobis, as above, by Ursinus.

378 So the MS; but most edd., following the Brussels transcript, read dominum – “Lord.”

379 Ut is omitted in the MS, first four edd., and Hild.

380 So LB., reading p-uncta for the MS c-uncta.

381 So the MS, Hild, and Oehler, reading imman-ior; LB., from the margin of Ursinus, major – “greater;” the rest, inanior – “more foolish.”

382 The difficulty felt by Arnobius as to the origin of evil perplexed others also; and, as Elmenhorst has observed, some of the Fathers attempted to get rid of it by a distinction between the evil of guilt and of punishment, – God being author of the latter, the devil of the former (Tertullian, adv. Marcionem, ii. 14). It would have been simpler and truer to have distinguished deeds, which can be done only if God will, from wickedness, which is in the sinful purpose of man’s heart.

383 i.e., ills.

384 Lit., “with all the ages, in steady continuance.”

385 The MS, followed by Oehler alone, reads ducetis – “and you will think;” while all the other edd. read, as above, ducentes.

386 Here, too, there has been much unnecessary labour. These words – per voluntatem – as they immediately follow sine deodicere nihil fieri – “to say that without God nothing is made” – were connected with the preceding clause. To get rid of the nonsense thus created, LB. emended dei … voluntate – “without God’s will;” while Heraldus regards them as an explanation of sine deo, and therefore interprets the sentence much as LB. Orelli gets rid of the difficulty by calling them a gloss, and bracketing them. They are, however, perfectly in place, as will be seen above.

387 Pl.

388 It would not be easy to understand why Orelli omitted these words, if we did not know that they had been accidentally omitted by Oberthür also.

389 Lit., “that apart from these it is pernicious.”

390 It must be observed that this sentence is very closely connected with the last words of the preceding chapter, or the meaning may be obscured. The connection may be shown thus: This one thing – that God is author of no evil – we are assured of; but as for all other questions, we neither know, nor care to know, about them.

391 This seems the most natural arrangement; but the edd. punctuate thus: “have been connected and associated with us for that which we desire.” The last part of the sentence is decidedly obscure; but the meaning may perhaps be, that the circumstances of man’s life which absorb so much attention and cause such strife, have no bearing, after all, upon his salvation.

392 So the MS, reading labefactare dissolvere; the latter word, however, being marked as spurious.

393 Lit., “pure.”

394 Lit., “hidden and enwrapt in darkness of nature,” abdita et caligine involuta naturae, – the reading of all edd. except Hild. and Oehler, who follow the MS abditae cal. – “enwrapt in darkness of hidden nature.”

395 This has been supposed to refer to Heraclitus, as quoted by Clem. Alex., Stromata, v. p. 469 B., where his words are, “Neither God nor man made the world; but there was always, and is, and will be, an undying flame laying hold if its limits, and destroying them;” on which cf. p. 437. n. 66, supra. Here, of course, fire does not mean that perceived by the senses, but a subtle, all-penetrating energy.

396 Cf. ch. 52, p. 453.

397 Lit., “by ordinary necessity.” The Stoics (Diog. Laert., vii. 134) said that the world was made by God working on uncreated matter, and that it was perishable (§ 141), because made through that of which perception could take cognizance. Cf. ch. 31, n. 216, p. 446.

398 Orelli thinks that there is here a confusion of the parts of the world with its elements, because he can nowhere find that any philosopher has fixed the number of the elements either above or below four. The Stoics, however (Diog. Laert., vii. 134), said “that the elements (ἀρχάς) of the world are two – the active and passive;” while, of course, the cosmic theories of the early philosophers affirm that the world sprang from one, and it seems clear enough that Arnobius here uses the word “element” in this sense.

399 Lit., “its material.”

400 A conjecture of Meursius adopted by Oehler, merely dropping u from aut – “or,” which is read in the MS and edd.

401 Lit., “refute falsities placed.”

402 Cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deor., i. 1, 12, 19, 23, etc.

403 Lit., “something is given to them to life.” So the Stoics taught, although Chrysippus (cf. n. 216, ch. 31, p. 446) held that only the souls of the wise remained at all after death.

404 The MS, first four edd., and Oehler read et rerum contrarietatibus dissonare – “and that they disagree from the oppositions of things.” Hild. reads dissonora, a word not met with elsewhere, while the other edd. merely drop the last two letters, -re, as above; a reading suggested in the margin of Ursinus.

405 Lit., “a most vain thing,” etc.

406 So the MS, LB., Elmenh., Hild., and Oehler, reading conjectamus, the other edd. reading commetamur or -imur – “measure,” except Gelenius and Canterus, who read commentamur – “muse upon.”

407 Lit., “audacity of.”

408 Lit., “world which holds us.”

409 The first five edd. insert the mark of interrogation after “hollow:” “Whether does a solid axis,” etc.

410 So the edd. except Hild., who retains the MS reading in scientissime – “most unskillfully” (the others omitting in-), and Oehler, who changes e into i – “and being most witless show,” etc.

411 Lit., “touch.”

412 So the later edd., reading from the margin of Ursinus figi? cur alia, for the MS figuralia, except LB., which reads figurari – “be formed.”

413 So the MS; but all edd. except Hild. and Oehler omit nobis.

414 So the MS, reading folgora dilatarit, followed by LB.

415 Salsa, corrected from the MS sola.

416 Alites et volucres; i.e., according to Orelli, the birds from whose flight auguries were drawn, as opposed to the others.

417 So Heraldus, whose punctuation also is here followed, omitting id est sapor – “that is, taste,” which Meursius and LB., followed by Orelli, amend, ut est – “as taste is” in each thing.

418 Vel is here inserted in all edd., most of which read, as above, oloris, which is found in the MS, in later writing, for the original, coloris – “colour,” retained by Ursinus, LB., and Oehler.

419 Lit., “that the nature of man is.”

420 So the MS, according to Crusius, reading nec pro suis; while, according to Hild., the reading is prorsus – “and are utterly without hesitation,” adopted in the edd. with the substitution of et for nec – “and that they altogether hesitate,” which, besides departing from the MS, runs counter to the sense.

421 Lit., “transfer to Him the undecided conversions of the breast.”

422 Lit., “He can be formed by no imagination.”

423 Lit., “which the obscurity of sacred divinity contains;” which Orelli interprets, “the most exalted being holds concealed from mortals.”

424 Lit., “and being fixed on.”

425 i.e., Christ.

426 As Heraclitus is reported to have said.

427 The MS, first five edd., and Oehler read supernatum, for which the other edd. read, as above, semper natum, from the margin of Ursinus. The soul is referred to.

428 So the later edd., following Elmenhorst, who emended dico for the MS dici, omitted by the first four edd.

429 So most edd., reading sciolis, from the emendation of Gelenius; but the MS, first five edd., Hild., and Oehler read scholis – “by some schools, and (these) arrogating very much to themselves.”

430 Cf. Rom_13:1-14, p. 439; Plato, Rep., ii. st. p. 364, where Glaucon speaks of certain fortune-telling vagrant seers, who persuade the rich that they have power from the gods, by means of charms and sacrifices, to cleanse from guilt; and also Origen, contra Cels., i. 69, where the Magi are spoken of as being on familiar terms with evil powers, and thus able to accomplish whatever is within these spirits’ power.

431 Mentioned by Servius (on Aen., viii. 399) as composed by Tages, cap. 69 [p. 460, supra], and seemingly containing directions as to expiatory sacrifices.

432 Pl.

433 Lit., “a spirit of perpetuity.”

434 i.e., than the Supreme God.

435 Lit., “are.”

436 Lit., “all human things.”

437 i.e., reason.

438 The MS reads fuisse me risui, which has no meaning; corrected, fuisse irrisui in most edd., derisui by Meursius, Hild., and Oehler, – the sense being in either case as above.

439 Lit., “when it begins to approach to the feeling,” cum ad sensum; so read by Gelenius for the unintelligible MS cum absens cum.

440 So the edd., reading quid sit cum eis animis actum for the MS cum ejus nimis.

441 Lit., “of ancient and very old men.”

442 So the MS, LB., Hild., Oehler, reading vinctionis; the other edd. junctionis – “union.”

443 Lit., “unknown questions.”

444 Pl.

445 Lit., “has run over.”

446 So the Ms and Oehler, reading ut, which is omitted in all other edd.; in this case, the words in italics are unnecessary.

447 So Orelli, reading cur (quur in most edd.) for the MS quos. Instead of non – “not,” which follows, the MS, according to Oehler, reads nos, and he therefore changes quos into quaeso – “I ask, does He free all of us altogether?”

448 There is clearly no reference here to a particular passage of Scripture, but to the general tone of Christ’s teaching: “Him that cometh unto me, I will in nowise cast out.” Orelli, however, with his usual infelicity, wishes to see a direct reference, either to Christ’s words to the woman of Samaria (Joh_4:13-15), or, which is rather extraordinary, to Joh_6:35-37: “I am the bread of life,” etc. Cf. n. 464, p. 459.

449 Lit., “the right kind of drinking.”

450 Lit., “the kindness of.”

451 Lit., “what waits He for, inviting,” quid invitans expectat; the reading of the MS, both Roman edd., and Oehler. Gelenius, followed by Canterus and Elmenhorst, changed the last word into peccat – “in what does He sin,” adopted by the other edd., with the addition of in te – “against you.”

452 Lit., “exposes under decision of your own right.”

453 Cf. Plato, Rep., ii. st. p. 379: “of a few things God would be the cause, but of many He would not;” and x. st. p. 617 fin.

454 So LB., Orelli, Oehler, adopting the emendation of Ursinus, tu te muneris commoditate privaveris, for the unintelligible reading of the MS, tuti m. c. probaveris.

455 i.e., immortal, deos, so corrected by Gelenius for the MS deus – “if either God made us.”

456 So most edd., reading inanis for the MS animi; retained, though not very intelligible, in LB., while Hild. reads anilis – “foolish.”

457 So the MS now reads verti; but this word, according to Pithoeus, is in a later handwriting, and some letters have been erased.

458 So the edd., reading tibi desit? opem desideras tibi, except Hild and Oehler, who retain the MS reading, t. d. o. desideranti – “as though He failed you desiring Him to bring help.”

459 So Ursinus, reading in ania cognomines for the MS in alia, which Orelli would interpret, “call the reverse of the truth.”

460 Lit., “For the parts of bringing … has enjoined and given over,” partes … injunctum habet et traditum, where it will be important to notice that Arnobius, writing rapidly, had carried with him only the general idea, and forgotten the mode in which this was expressed.

461 Pontificium.

462 Here, too, according to Pithoeus, there are signs of erasure.

463 i.e., admit.

464 This passage at once suggests Joh_10:9 and Joh_14:6, and it is therefore the more necessary to notice the way in which Arnobius speaks (“so to say”), which is certainly not the tone of one quoting a passage with which he is well acquainted. [Elucidation I.]

465 Lit., “bent.”

466 Cf. i. 13 and 58.

467 Lit., “crops being invented.”

468 So the later edd., reading constiterit from the margin of Ursinus; but in the MS and first four edd. the reading is constituerit – “has established,” for which there is no subject.

469 So the later edd., reading aversionem ex (LB., and preceding edd. a) relîgione for the MS et religionem – “against us the hatred and religion of past ages.”

470 Lit., “with the condemnation of.”

471 This shows that the division of the people into classes was obsolete in the time of Arnobius.

472 Turnebus has explained this as merely another way of saying the comitia centuriata, curiata and tributa.

473 So the edd., reading cum paratis bella (Oehler reads reparantes) for the MS reparatis.

474 i.e., per clarigationem, the solemn declaration of war, if restitution was not made within thirty-three days.

475 This seems the most natural way to deal with the clause of et ex acuminibus auspicatis, looking on the last word as an adjective, not a verb, as most edd. seem to hold it. There is great diversity of opinion as to what this omen was.

476 The MS reads in penetralibus et coliginis. LB., followed by Orelli, merely omits et, as above, while the first five edd. read in pen. Vestae ignis – “do you maintain the hearths of Vesta’s fire.” Many other readings and many explanations of the passage are also proposed.

477 i.e., Servius Tullius. The first four edd. read Tullo, i.e., Tullus Hostilius.

478 Cf. v. c. 1.

479 The MS reads edi in filosophia; the first four edd., Philos.; Elmenh. and Orelli, Etenim phil. – “For were phil.;” LB., Ede an phil. – “say whether phil.,” which is, however, faulty in construction, as the indicative follows. Rigaltius, followed by Oehler, emended as above, Medicina phil.

480 Lit., “reached the coasts of.”

481 Lit., “of the intestines” – extorum.

482 In both Roman edd., Theutatem, i.e., Theutas. Cf. Plato, Phaedrus, st. p. 274.

483 i.e., Pluto.

484 Pl.

485 Lit., “Castors,” i.e., Castor and Pollux.

486 i.e., sine ullius seminis jactu.

487 Lit., “forms of bodily circumspection.”

488 Lit., “what we do is.”

489 Lit., “thing.”

490 Lit., “how many steps are there of race.”

491 i.e., Jupiter and Picus.

492 The MS reads genitor … Latinus cujus, some letters having been erased. The reading followed above – genitor is cujus – was suggested to Canterus by his friend Gifanius, and is found in the margin of Ursinus and Orelli.

493 Cf. above, “four hundred years ago,” etc., and i. ch. 13. It is of importance to note that Arnobius is inconsistent in these statements. [In the Edinburgh edition we have here “fifteen hundred years;” but it was changed, in the Errata, to ten hundred and fifty.]

494 Lit., “be nursed with the breasts and dropt milk.”

495 Lit., “of what space.”

496 i.e., re.

497 So the MS, according to Crusius and Livineius, reading ac; all edd. except Oehler read aut – “head (i.e., source) or fountain.”

498 The MS reads unintelligibly vertitur solae; for which LB., followed by the later edd., reads, as above, vertimur soli.

499 Dr. Schmitz (Smith’s Dict., c. v. Isis) speaks of these consuls as heading the revolt against the decree of the senate, that the statues of Isis and Serapis should be removed from the Capitol. The words of Tertullian (quoting Varro as his authority) are very distinct: “The consul Gabinius … gave more weight to the decision of the senate than the popular impulse, and forbade their altars (i.e., those of Serapis, Isis, Arpocrates, and Anubis) to be set up” (ad Nationes, i. 10, cf. Apol., 6).

500 Cf. vii. 49.

501 Lit., “contained.”

502 Pl.

503 Lit., “antiquity.”

504 Lit., “things.”

505 So Gelenius emended the MS, reading potens – “being able,” which he changed into potest, as above, followed by later edd.

506 Lit., “by such kinds of.”

507 The MS and first edd. read et potestatibus potestatum – “and by powers of powers;” the other edd. merely omit potestatibus, as above, except Oehler, who, retaining it, changes potestatum into protestata – “being witnessed to by,” etc.; but there is no instance adduced in which the participle of this verb is used passively.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book II. (Cont.)

Arnobius (Cont.)

75. You may object and rejoin, Why was the Saviour sent forth so late? In unbounded, eternal ages, we reply, nothing whatever should be spoken of as late. For where there is no end and no beginning, nothing is too soon,508 nothing too late. For time is perceived from its beginnings and endings, which an unbroken line and endless509 succession of ages cannot have. For what if the things themselves to which it was necessary to bring help, required that as a fitting time? For what if the condition of antiquity was different from that of later times? What if it was necessary to give help to the men of old in one way, to provide for their descendants in another? Do ye not hear your own writings read, telling that there were once men who were demi-gods, heroes with immense and huge bodies? Do you not read that infants on their mothers’ breasts shrieked like. Stentors,510 whose bones, when dug up in different parts of the earth, have made the discoverers almost doubt that they were the remains of human limbs? So, then, it may be that Almighty God, the only God, sent forth Christ then indeed, after that the human race, becoming feebler, weaker, began to be such as we are. If that which has been done now could have been done thousands of years ago, the Supreme Ruler would have done it; or if it had been proper, that what has been done now should be accomplished as many thousands after this, nothing compelled God to anticipate the necessary lapse511 of time. His plans512 are executed in fixed ways; and that which has been once decided on, can in no wise be changed again.513

 

76. Inasmuch then, you say, as you serve the Almighty God, and trust that He cares for your safety and salvation, why does He suffer you to be exposed to such storms of persecution, and to undergo all kinds of punishments and tortures? Let us, too, ask in reply, why, seeing that you worship so great and so innumerable gods, and build temples to them, fashion images of gold, sacrifice herds of animals, and all heap up514 boxfuls of incense on the already loaded altars, why you live subject to so many dangers and storms of calamity, with which many fatal misfortunes vex you every day? Why, I say, do your gods neglect to avert from you so many kinds of disease and sickness, shipwrecks, downfalls, conflagrations, pestilences, barrenness, loss of children, and confiscation of goods, discords, wars, enmities, captures of cities, and the slavery of those who are robbed of their rights of free birth?515 But, my opponent says, in such mischances we, too, are in no wise helped by God. The cause is plain and manifest. For no hope has been held out to us with respect to this life, nor has any help been promised or516 aid decreed us for what belongs to the husk of this flesh, — nay, more, we have been taught to esteem and value lightly all the threats of fortune, whatever they be; and if ever any very grievous calamity has assailed us, to count as pleasant in that misfortune517 the end which must follow, and not to fear or flee from it, that we may be the more easily released from the bonds of the body, and escape from our darkness and518 blindness.

 

77. Therefore that bitterness of persecution of which you speak is our deliverance and not persecution, and our ill-treatment will not bring evil upon us, but will lead us to the light of liberty. As if some senseless and stupid fellow were to think that he never punished a man who had been put into prison519 with severity and cruelty, unless he were to rage against the very prison, break its stones in pieces, and burn its roof, its wall, its doors; and strip, overthrow, and dash to the ground its other parts, not knowing that thus he was giving light to him whom he seemed to be injuring, and was taking from him the accursed darkness: in like manner, you too, by the flames, banishments, tortures, and monsters with which you tear in pieces and rend asunder our bodies, do not rob us of life, but relieve us of our skins, not knowing that, as far as you assault and seek to rage against these our shadows and forms, so far you free us from pressing and heavy chains, and cutting our bonds, make us fly up to the light.

 

78. Wherefore, O men, refrain from obstructing what you hope for by vain questions; nor should you, if anything is otherwise than you think, trust your own opinions rather than that which should be reverenced.520 The times, full of dangers, urge us, and fatal penalties threaten us; let us flee for safety to God our Saviour, without demanding the reason of the offered gift. When that at stake is our souls’ salvation and our own interests, something must be done even without reason, as Arrhianus approves of Epictetus having said.521 We doubt, we hesitate, and suspect the credibility of what is said; let us commit ourselves to God, and let not our incredulity prevail more with us than the greatness of His name and power, lest, while we are seeking out arguments for ourselves, through which that may seem false which we do not wish and deny to be true, the last day steal upon us, and we be found in the jaws of our enemy, death. 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

508 These words having been omitted by Oberthür, are omitted by Orelli also, as in previous instances.

509 The MS and first ed. read etiam moderata continuatio; corrected, et immod. con. by Gelenius.

510 So the edd., reading infantes stentoreos, except Oehler, who retains the MS reading centenarios, which he explains as “having a hundred” heads or hands, as the case might be, e.g., Typhon, Briareus, etc.

511 Lit., “measure.”

512 Lit., “things.”

513 Lit., “can be changed with no novelty.”

514 Lit., “provide,” conficiatis, which, however, some would understand “consume.”

515 Lit., “slaveries, their free births being taken away.”

516 Lit., “and.”

517 So the MS, first five edd., Hild., and Oehler, reading adscribere infortunio voluptatem, which is omitted in the other edd. as a gloss which may have crept in from the margin.

518 Lit., “our dark.”

519 The MS and both Roman edd. read in carcerem natum inegressum; LB. and later edd. have received from the margin of Ursinus the reading translated above, datum, omitting the last word altogether, which Oehler, however, would retain as equivalent to “not to be passed from.”

520 Lit., “than an august thing.”

521 Orelli refers to Arrh., i. 12; but the doctrine there insisted on is the necessity of submission to what is unavoidable. Oehler, in addition, refers to Epict., xxxii. 3, where, however, it is merely attempted to show that when anything is withheld from us, it is just as goods are unless paid for, and that we have therefore no reason to complain. Neither passage can be referred to here, and it seems as though Arnobius has made a very loose reference which cannot be specially identified.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book III.

Arnobius (Cont.)

1. All these charges, then, which might truly be better termed abuse, have been long answered with sufficient fulness and accuracy by men of distinction in this respect, and worthy to have learned the truth; and not one point of any inquiry has been passed over, without being determined in a thousand ways, and on the strongest grounds. We need not, therefore, linger further on this part of the case. For neither is the Christian religion unable to stand though it found no advocates, nor will it be therefore proved true if it found many to agree with it, and gained weight through its adherents.1 Its own strength is sufficient for it, and it rests on the foundations of its own truth, without losing its power, though there were none to defend it, nay, though all voices assailed and opposed it, and united with common rancour to destroy all faith2 in it.

 

2. Let us now return to the order from which we were a little ago compelled to diverge, that our defence may not, through its being too long broken off, be said to have given our detractors cause to triumph in the establishing of their charge. For they propose these questions: If you are in earnest about religion, why do you not serve and worship the other gods with us, or share your sacred rites with your fellows, and put the ceremonies of the different religions on an equality? We may say for the present: In essaying to approach the divine, the Supreme Deity3 suffices us, – the Deity, I say, who is supreme, the Creator and Lord of the universe, who orders and rules all things: in Him we serve all that requires our service; in Him we worship all that should be adored, – venerate4 that which demands the homage of our reverence. For as we lay hold of the source of the divine itself from which the very divinity of all gods whatever is derived,5 we think it an idle task to approach each personally, since we neither know who they are, nor the names by which they are called; and are further unable to learn, and discover, and establish their number.

 

3. And as in the kingdoms of earth we are in no wise constrained expressly to do reverence to those who form the royal family as well as to the sovereigns, but whatever honour belongs to them is found to be tacitly6 implied in the homage offered to the kings themselves; in just the same way, these gods, whoever they be, for whose existence you vouch, if they are a royal race, and spring from the Supreme Ruler, even though we do not expressly do them reverence, yet feel that they are honoured in common with their Lord, and share in the reverence shown to Him. Now it must be remembered that we have made this statement, on the hypothesis only that it is clear and undeniable, that besides the Ruler and Lord Himself, there are still other beings,7 who, when arranged and disposed in order, form, as it were, a kind of plebeian mass. But do not seek to point out to us pictures instead of gods in your temples, and the images which you set up, for you too know, but are unwilling and refuse to admit, that these are formed of most worthless clay, and are childish figures made by mechanics. And when we converse with you on religion, we ask you to prove this, that there are other gods than the one Supreme Deity in nature, power, name, not as we see them manifested in images, but in such a substance as it might fittingly be supposed that perfection of so great dignity should reside.

 

4. But we do not purpose delaying further on this part of the subject, lest we seem desirous to stir up most violent strife, and engage in agitating contests.

Let there be, as you affirm, that crowd of deities, let there be numberless families of gods; we assent, agree, and do not examine too closely, nor in any part of the subject do we assail the doubtful and uncertain positions you hold. This, however, we demand, and ask you to tell us, whence you have discovered, or how you have learned, whether there are these gods,8 whom you believe to be in heaven and serve, or some others unknown by reputation and name? For it may be that beings exist whom you do not believe to do so; and that those of whose existence you feel assured, are found nowhere in the universe. For you have at no time been borne aloft to the stars of heaven, at no time have seen the face and countenance of each; and then established here the worship of the same gods, whom you remembered to be there, as having been known and seen by you. But this, too, we again would learn from you, whether they have received these names by which you call them, or assumed them themselves on the days of purification.9 If these are divine and celestial names, who reported them to you? But if, on the other hand, these names have been applied to them by you, how could you give names to those whom you never saw, and whose character or circumstances you in no wise10 knew?

 

5. But let it be assumed that there are these gods, as you wish and believe, and are persuaded; let them be called also by those names by which the common people suppose that those meaner gods11 are known.12 Whence, however, have you learned who make up the list of gods under these names?13 have any ever become familiar and known to others with whose names you were not acquainted?14 For it cannot be easily known whether their numerous body is settled and fixed in number; or whether their multitude cannot be summed up and limited by the numbers of any computation. For let us suppose that you do reverence to a thousand, or rather five thousand gods; but in the universe it may perhaps be that there are a hundred thousand; there may be even more than this, – nay, as we said a little before, it may not be possible to compute the number of the gods, or limit them by a definite number. Either, then, you are yourselves impious who serve a few gods, but disregard the duties which you owe to the rest;15 or if you claim that your ignorance of the rest should be pardoned, you will procure for us also a similar pardon, if in just the same way16 we refuse to worship those of whose existence we are wholly ignorant.

 

6. And yet let no one think that we are perversely determined not to submit to17 the other deities, whoever they are! For we lift up pious minds, and stretch forth our hands in prayer,18 and do not refuse to draw near whithersoever you may have summoned us; if only we learn who those divine beings are whom you press upon us, and with whom it may be right to share the reverence which we show to the king and prince who is over all. It is Saturn, my opponent says, and Janus, Minerva, Juno, Apollo, Venus, Triptolemus, Hercules, Aesculapius, and all the others, to whom the reverence of antiquity dedicated magnificent temples in almost every city. You might, perhaps, have been able to attract us to the worship of these deities you mention, had you not been yourselves the first, with foul and unseemly fancies, to devise such tales about them as not merely to stain their honour, but, by the natures assigned to them, to prove that they did not exist at all. For, in the first place, we cannot be led to believe this, – that that immortal and supreme nature has been divided by sexes, and that there are some male, others female. But this point, indeed, has been long ago fully treated of by men of ardent genius, both in Latin and Greek; and Tullius, the most eloquent among the Romans, without dreading the vexatiousness of a charge of impiety, has above all, with greater piety,19 declared – boldly, firmly, and frankly – what he thought of such a fancy; and if you would proceed to receive from him opinions written with true discernment, instead of merely brilliant sentences, this case would have been concluded; nor would it require at our weak hands20 a second pleading,21 as it is termed.

 

7. But why should I say that men seek from him subtleties of expression and splendour of diction, when I know that there are many who avoid and flee from his books on this subject, and will not hear his opinions read,22 overthrowing their prejudices; and when I hear others muttering angrily, and saying that the senate should decree the destruction23 of these writings by which the Christian religion is maintained, and the weight of antiquity overborne? But, indeed, if you are convinced that anything you say regarding your gods is beyond doubt, point out Cicero’s error, refute, rebut his rash and impious words,24 and show that they are so. For when you would carry off writings, and suppress a book given forth to the public, you are not defending the gods, but dreading the evidence of the truth.

 

8. And yet, that no thoughtless person may raise a false accusation against us, as though we believed God whom we worship to be male, – for this reason, that is, that when we speak of Him we use a masculine word, – let him understand that it is not sex which is expressed, but His name, and its meaning according to custom, and the way in which we are in the habit of using words.25 For the Deity is not male, but His name is of the masculine gender: but in your ceremonies you cannot say the same; for in your prayers you have been wont to say whether thou art god or goddess,26 and this uncertain description shows, even by their opposition, that you attribute sex to the gods. We cannot, then, be prevailed on to believe that the divine is embodied; for bodies must needs be distinguished by difference of sex, if they are male and female. For who, however mean his capacity,27 does not know that the sexes of different gender have been ordained and formed by the Creator of the creatures of earth, only that, by intercourse and union of bodies, that which is fleeting and transient may endure being ever renewed and maintained?28

 

9. What, then, shall we say? That gods beget and are begotten?29 and that therefore they have received organs of generation, that they might be able to raise up offspring, and that, as each new race springs up, a substitution, regularly occurring,30 should make up for all which had been swept away by the preceding age? If, then, it is so, – that is, if the gods above beget other gods, and are subject to these conditions of sex,31 and are immortal, and are not worn out, by the chills of age, – it follows, as a consequence, that the world32 should be full of gods, and that countless heavens could not contain their multitude, inasmuch as they are both themselves ever begetting, and the countless multitude of their descendants, always being increased, is augmented by means of their offspring; or if, as is fitting, the gods are not degraded by being subjected to sexual impulses,33 what cause or reason will be pointed out for their being distinguished by those members by which the sexes are wont to recognise each other at the suggestion of their own desires? For it is not likely that they have these members without a purpose, or that nature had wished in them to make sport of its own improvidence,34 in providing them with members for which there would be no use. For as the hands, feet, eyes, and other members which form our body,35 have been arranged for certain uses, each for its own end, so we may well36 believe that these members have been provided to discharge their office; or it must be confessed that there is something without a purpose in the bodies of the gods, which has been made uselessly and in vain.

 

10. What say you, ye holy and pure guardians of religion? Have the gods, then, sexes; and are they disfigured by those parts, the very mention of whose names by modest lips is disgraceful? What, then, now remains, but to believe that they, as unclean beasts, are transported with violent passions, rush with maddened desires into mutual embraces, and at last, with shattered and ruined bodies, are enfeebled by their sensuality? And since some things are peculiar to the female sex, we must believe that the goddesses, too, submit to these conditions at the proper time, conceive and become pregnant with loathing, miscarry, carry the full time, and sometimes are prematurely delivered. O divinity, pure, holy, free from and unstained by any dishonourable blot! The mind longs37 and burns to see, in the great halls and palaces of heaven, gods and goddesses, with bodies uncovered and bare, the full-breasted Ceres nursing Iacchus,38 as the muse of Lucretius sings, the Hellespontian Priapus bearing about among the goddesses, virgin and matron, those parts39 ever prepared for encounter. It longs, I say, to see goddesses pregnant, goddesses with child, and, as they daily increase in size, faltering in their steps, through the irksomeness of the burden they bear about with them; others, after long delay, bringing to birth, and seeking the midwife’s aid; others, shrieking as they are attacked by keen pangs and grievous pains, tormented,40 and, under all these influences, imploring the aid of Juno Lucina. Is it not much better to abuse, revile, and otherwise insult the gods, than, with pious pretence, unworthily to entertain such monstrous beliefs about them?

 

11. And you dare to charge us with offending the gods, although, on examination, it is found that the ground of offence is most clearly in ourselves, and that it is not occasioned by the insult which you think41 we offer them. For if the gods are, as you say, moved by anger, and burn with rage in their minds, why should we not suppose that they take it amiss, even in the highest degree, that you attribute to them sexes, as dogs and swine have been created, and that, since this is your belief, they are so represented, and openly exposed in a disgraceful manner? This, then, being the case, you are the cause of all troubles – you lead the gods, you rouse them to harass the earth with every ill, and every day to devise all kinds of fresh misfortunes, that so they may avenge themselves, being irritated at suffering so many wrongs and insults from you. By your insults and affronts, I say, partly in the vile stories, partly in the shameful beliefs which your theologians, your poets, you yourselves too, celebrate in disgraceful ceremonies, you will find that the affairs of men have been ruined, and that the gods have thrown away the helm, if indeed it is by their care that the fortunes of men are guided and arranged. For with us, indeed, they have no reason to be angry, whom they see and perceive neither to mock, as it is said, nor worship them, and to think,42 to believe much more worthily than you with regard to the dignity of their name.

 

12. Thus far of sex. Now let us come to the appearance and shapes by which yon believe that the gods above have been represented, with which, indeed, you fashion, and set them up in their most splendid abodes, your temples. And let no one here bring up against us Jewish fables and those of the sect of the Sadducees,43 as though we, too, attribute to the Deity forms;44 for this is supposed to be taught in their writings, and asserted as if with assurance and authority. For these stories either do not concern us, and have nothing at all in common with us, or if they are shared in by us, as you believe, you must seek out teachers of greater wisdom, through whom you may be able to learn how best to overcome the dark and recondite sayings of those writings. Our opinion on the subject is as follows: – that the whole divine nature, since it neither came into existence at any time, nor will ever come to an end of life, is devoid of bodily features, and does not have anything like the forms with which the termination of the several members usually. completes the union of parts.45 For whatever is of this character, we think mortal and perishable; nor do we believe that that can endure for ever which an inevitable end shuts in, though the boundaries enclosing it be the remotest.

 

13. But it is not enough that you limit the gods by forms: – you even confine them to the human figure, and with even less decency enclose them in earthly bodies. What shall we say then? that the gods have a head modelled with perfect symmetry,46 bound fast by sinews to the back and breast, and that, to allow the necessary bending of the neck, it is supported by combinations of vertebrae, and by an osseous foundation? But if we believe this to be true, it follows that they have ears also, pierced by crooked windings; rolling eyeballs, overshadowed by the edges of the eyebrows; a nose, placed as a channel,47 through which waste fluids and a current of air might easily pass; teeth to masticate food, of three kinds, and adapted to three services; hands to do their work, moving easily by means of joints, fingers, and flexible elbows; feet to support their bodies, regulate their steps, and prompt the first motions in walking. But if the gods bear these things which are seen, it is fitting that they should bear those also which the skin conceals under the framework of the ribs, and the membranes enclosing the viscera; windpipes, stomachs, spleens, lungs, bladders, livers, the long-entwined intestines, and the veins of purple blood, joined with the air-passages,48 coursing through the whole viscera.

 

14. Are, then, the divine bodies free from these deformities? and since they do not eat the food of men, are we to believe that, like children, they are toothless, and, having no internal parts, as if they were inflated bladders, are without strength, owing to the hollowness of their swollen bodies? Further, if this is the case, you must see whether the gods are all alike, or are marked by a difference in the contour of their forms. For if each and all have one and the same likeness of shape, there is nothing ridiculous in believing that they err, and are deceived in recognising each other.49 But if, on the other hand, they are distinguished by their countenances, we should, consequently, understand that these differences have been implanted for no other reason than that they might individually be able to recognise themselves by the peculiarites of the different marks. We should therefore say that some have big heads, prominent brows, broad brows, thick lips; that others of them have long chins, moles, and high noses; that these have dilated nostrils, those are snub-nosed; some chubby from a swelling of their jaws or growth of their cheeks, dwarfed, tall, of middle size, lean, sleek, fat; some with crisped and curled hair, others shaven, with bald and smooth heads. Now your workshops show and point out that our opinions are not false, inasmuch as, when you form and fashion gods, you represent some with long hair, others smooth and bare, as old, as youths, as boys, swarthy, grey-eyed, yellow, half-naked, bare; or, that cold may not annoy them, covered with flowing garments thrown over them.

 

15. Does any man at all possessed of judgment, believe that hairs and down grow on the bodies of the gods? that among them age is distinguished? and that they go about clad in dresses and garments of various shapes, and shield themselves from heat and cold? But if any one believes that, he must receive this also as true, that some gods are fullers, some barbers; the former to cleanse the sacred garments, the latter to thin their locks when matted with a thick growth of hair. Is not this really degrading, most impious, and insulting, to attribute to the gods the features of a frail and perishing animal? to furnish them with those members which no modest person would dare to recount, and describe, or represent in his own imagination, without shuddering at the excessive indecency? Is this the contempt you entertain, – this the proud wisdom with which you spurn us as ignorant, and think that all knowledge of religion is yours? You mock the mysteries of the Egyptians, because they ingrafted the forms of dumb animals upon their divine causes, and because they worship these very images with much incense, and whatever else is used in such rites: you yourselves adore images of men, as though they were powerful gods, and are not ashamed to give to these the countenance of an earthly creature, to blame others for their mistaken folly, and to be detected in a similarly vicious error.

 

16. But you will, perhaps, say that the gods have indeed other forms, and that you have given the appearance of men to them merely by way of honour, and for form’s sake50 which is much more insulting than to have fallen into any error through ignorance. For if you confessed that you had ascribed to the divine forms that which you had supposed and believed, your error, originating in prejudice, would not be so blameable. But now, when you believe one thing and fashion another, you both dishonour those to whom yon ascribe that which you confess does not belong to them, and show your impiety in adoring that which you fashion, not that which you think really is, and which is in very truth. If asses, dogs, pigs,51 had any human wisdom and skill in contrivance, and wished to do us honour also by some kind of worship, and to show respect by dedicating statues to us, with what rage would they inflame us, what a tempest of passion would they excite, if they determined that our images should bear and assume the fashion of their own bodies? How would they, I repeat, fill us with rage, and rouse our passions, if the founder of Rome, Romulus, were to be set up with an ass’s face, the revered Pompilius with that of a dog, if under the image of a pig were written Cato’s or Marcus Cicero’s name? So, then, do you think that your stupidity is not laughed at by your deities, if they laugh at all? or, since you believe that they may be enraged, do you think that they are not roused, maddened to fury, and that they do not wish to be revenged for so great wrongs and insults, and to hurl on you the punishments usually dictated by chagrin, and devised by bitter hatred? How much better it had been to give to them the forms of elephants, panthers, or tigers, bulls, and horses! For what is there beautiful in man, – what, I pray you, worthy of admiration, or comely, – unless that which, some poet52 has maintained, he possesses in common with the ape?

 

17. But, they say, if you are not satisfied with our opinion, do you point out, tell us yourselves, what is the Deity’s form. If you wish to hear the truth, either the Deity has no form; or if He is embodied in one, we indeed know not what it is. Moreover, we think it no disgrace to be ignorant of that which we never saw; nor are we therefore prevented from disproving the opinions of others, because on this we have no opinion of our own to bring forward. For as, if the earth be said to be of glass, silver, iron, or gathered together and made from brittle clay, we cannot hesitate to maintain that this is untrue, although we do not know of what it is made; so, when the form of God is discussed, we show that it is not what you maintain, even if we are still able to explain what it is.

 

18. What, then, some one will say, does the Deity not hear? does He not speak? does He not see what is put before Him? has He not sight? He may in His own, but not in our way. But in so great a matter we cannot know the truth at all, or reach it by speculations; for these are, it is clear, in our case, baseless, deceitful, and like vain dreams. For if we said that He sees in the same way as ourselves, it follows that it should be understood that He has eyelids placed as coverings on the pupils of the eyes, that He closes them, winks, sees by rays or images, or, as is the case in all eyes, can see nothing at all without the presence of other light. So we must in like manner say of hearing, and form of speech, and utterance of words. If He nears by means of ears, these, too, we must say, He has, penetrated by winding paths, through which the sound may steal, bearing the meaning of the discourse; or if His words are poured forth from a mouth, that He has lips and teeth, by the contact and various movement of which His tongue utters sounds distinctly, and forms His voice to words.

 

19. If you are willing to hear our conclusions, then learn that we are so far from attributing bodily shape to the Deity, that we fear to ascribe to so great a being even mental graces, and the very excellences by which a few have been allowed with difficulty to distinguish themselves. For who will say that God is brave, firm, good, wise? who will say that He has integrity, is temperate, even that He has knowledge, understanding, forethought? that He directs towards fixed moral ends the actions on which He determines? These things are good in man; and being opposed to vices, have deserved the great reputation which they have gained. But who is so foolish, so senseless, as to say that God is great by merely human excellences? or that He is above all in the greatness of His name, because He is not disgraced by vice? Whatever you say, whatever in unspoken thought you imagine concerning God, passes and is corrupted into a human sense, and does not carry its own meaning, because it is spoken in the words which we use, and which are suited only to human affairs. There is but one thing man can be assured of regarding God’s nature, to know and perceive that nothing can be revealed in human language concerning God.

 

20. This, then, this matter of forms and sexes, is the first affront which you, noble advocates in sooth, and pious writers, offer to your deities. But what is the next, that you represent to us53 the gods, some as artificers, some physicians, others working in wool, as sailors,54 players on the harp and flute, hunters, shepherds, and, as there was nothing more, rustics? And that god, he says, is a musician, and this other can divine; for the other gods cannot,55 and do not know how to foretell what will come to pass, owing to their want of skill and ignorance of the future. One is instructed in obstetric arts, another trained up in the science of medicine. Is each, then, powerful in his own department; and can they give no assistance, if their aid is asked, in what belongs to another? This one is eloquent in speech, and ready in linking words together; for the others are stupid, and can say nothing skilfully, if they must speak.

 

21. And, I ask, what reason is there, what unavoidable necessity, what occasion for the gods knowing and being acquainted with these handicrafts as though they were worthless mechanics? For, are songs sung and music played in heaven, that the nine sisters may gracefully combine and harmonize pauses and rhythms of tones? Are there on the mountains56 of the stars, forests, woods, groves, that57 Diana may be esteemed very mighty in hunting expeditions? Are the gods ignorant of the immediate future; and do they live and pass the time according to the lots assigned them by fate, that the inspired son of Latona may explain and declare what the morrow or the next hour bears to each? Is he himself inspired by another god, and is he urged and roused by the power of a greater divinity, so that he may be rightly said and esteemed to be divinely inspired? Are the gods liable to be seized by diseases; and is there anything by which they may be wounded and hurt, so that, when there is occasion, he58 of Epidaurus may come to their assistance? Do they labour, do they bring forth, that Juno may soothe, and Lucina abridge the terrible pangs of childbirth? Do they engage in agriculture, or are they concerned with the duties of war, that Vulcan, the lord of fire, may form for them swords, or forge their rustic implements? Do they need to be covered with garments, that the Tritonian59 maid may, with nice skill,60 spin, weave cloth for them, and make61 them tunics to suit the season, either triple-twilled, or of silken fabric? Do they make accusations and refute them, that the descendant62 of Atlas may carry off the prize for eloquence, attained by assiduous practice?

 

22. You err, my opponent says, and are deceived; for the gods are not themselves artificers, but suggest these arts to ingenious men, and teach mortals what they should know, that their mode of life may be more civilized. But he who gives any instruction to the ignorant and unwilling, and strives to make him intelligently expert in some kind of work, must himself first know that which he sets the other to practise. For no one can be capable of teaching a science without knowing the rules of that which he teaches, and having grasped its method most thoroughly. The gods are, then, the first artificers; whether because they inform the minds of men with knowledge, as you say yourselves, or because, being immortal and unbegotten, they surpass the whole race of earth by their length of life.63 This, then, is the question; there being no occasion for these arts among the gods, neither their necessities nor nature requiring in them any ingenuity or mechanical skill, why you should say that they are skilled,64 one in one craft, another in another, and that individuals are pre-eminently expert65 in particular departments in which they are distinguished by acquaintance with the several branches of science?

 

23. But you will, perhaps, say that the gods are not artificers, but that they preside over these arts, and have their oversight; nay, that under their care all things have been placed, which we manage and conduct, and that their providence sees to the happy and fortunate issue of these. Now this would certainly appear to be said justly, and with some probability, if all we engage in, all we do, or all we attempt in human affairs, sped as we wished and purposed. But since every day the reverse is the case, and the results of actions do not correspond to the purpose of the will, it is trifling to say that we have, set as guardians over as, gods invented by our superstitious fancy, not grasped with assured certainty. Portunus66 gives to the sailor perfect safety in traversing the seas; but why has the raging sea cast up so many cruelly-shattered wrecks? Consus suggests to our minds courses safe and serviceable; and why does an unexpected change perpetually issue in results other than were looked for? Pales and Inuus67 are set as guardians over the flocks and herds; why do they, with hurtful laziness,68 not take care to avert from the herds in their summer pastures, cruel, infectious, and destructive diseases? The harlot Flora,69 venerated in lewd sports, sees well to it that the fields blossom; and why are buds and tender plants daily nipt and destroyed by most hurtful frost? Juno presides over childbirth, and aids travailing mothers; and why are a thousand mothers every day cut off in murderous throes? Fire is under Vulcan’s care, and its source is placed under his control; and why does he, very often, suffer temples and parts of cities to fall into ashes devoured by flames? The soothsayers receive the knowledge of their art from the Pythian god; and why does he so often give and afford answers equivocal, doubtful, steeped in darkness and obscurity? Aesculapius presides over the duties and arts of medicine; and why cannot men in more kinds of disease and sickness be restored to health and soundness of body? while, on the contrary, they become worse under the hands of the physician. Mercury is occupied with70 combats, and presides over boxing and wrestling matches; and why does he not make all invincible who are in his charge? why, when appointed to one office, does he enable some to win the victory, while he suffers others to be ridiculed for their disgraceful weakness?

 

24. No one, says my opponent, makes supplication to the tutelar deities, and they therefore withhold their usual favours and help. Cannot the gods, then, do good, except they receive incense and consecrated offerings?71 and do they quit and renounce their posts, unless they see their altars anointed with the blood of cattle? And yet I thought but now that the kindness of the gods was of their own free will, and that the unlooked-for gifts of benevolence flowed unsought from them. Is, then, the King of the universe solicited by any libation or sacrifice to grant to the races of men all the comforts of life? Does the Deity not impart the sun’s fertilizing warmth, and the season of night, the winds, the rains, the fruits, to all alike, – the good and the bad, the unjust and the just,72 the free-born and the slave, the poor and the rich? For this belongs to the true and mighty God, to show kindness, unasked, to that which is weary and feeble, and always encompassed by misery, of many kinds. For to grant your prayers on the offering of sacrifices, is not to bring help to those who ask it, but to sell the riches of their beneficence. We men trifle, and are foolish in so great a matter; and, forgetting what73 God is, and the majesty of His name, associate with the tutelar deities whatever meanness or baseness our morbid credulity can invent.

 

25. Unxia, my opponent says, presides over the anointing of door-posts; Cinxia over the loosening of the zone; the most venerable Victa74 and Potua attend to eating and drinking. O rare and admirable interpretation of the divine powers! would gods not have names75 if brides did not besmear their husbands’ door-posts with greasy ointment; were it not that husbands, when now eagerly drawing near, unbind the maiden-girdle; if men did not eat and drink? Moreover, not satisfied to have subjected and involved the gods in cares so unseemly, you also ascribe to them dispositions fierce, cruel, savage, ever rejoicing in the ills and destruction of mankind.

 

26. We shall not here mention Laverna, goddess of thieves, the Bellonae, Discordiae, Furiae thieves, the Bellonae, Discordiae Furiae; and we pass by in utter silence the unpropitious deities whom you have set up. We shall bring forward Mars himself, and the fair mother of the Desires; to one of whom you commit wars, to the other love and passionate desire. My opponent says that Mars has power over wars; whether to quell those which are raging, or to revive them when interrupted, and kindle them in time of peace? For if he clams the madness of war, why do wars rage every day? but if he is their author, we shall then say that the god, to satisfy his own inclination, involves the whole world in strife; sows the seeds of discord and variance between far-distant peoples; gathers so many thousand men from different quarters, and speedily heaps up the field with dead bodies; makes the streams flow with blood, sweeps away the most firmly-founded empires, lays cities in the dust, robs the free of their liberty, and makes them slaves; rejoices in civil strife, in the bloody death of brothers who die in conflict, and, in fine, in the dire, murderous contest of children with their fathers.

 

27. Now we may apply this very argument to Venus in exactly the same way. For if, as you maintain and believe, she fills men’s minds with lustful thoughts, it must be held in consequence that any disgrace and misdeed arising from such madness should be ascribed to the instigation of Venus. Is it, then, under compulsion of the goddess that even the noble too often betray their own reputation into the hands of worthless harlots; that the firm bonds of marriage are broken; that near relations burn with incestuous lust; that mothers have their passions madly kindled towards their children; that fathers turn to themselves their daughters’ desires; that old men, bringing shame upon their grey hairs, sigh with the ardour of youth for the gratification of filthy desires; that wise and brave76 men, losing in effeminacy the strength of their manhood, disregard the biddings of constancy; that the noose is twisted about their necks; that blazing pyres are ascended;77 and that in different places men, leaping voluntarily, cast themselves headlong over very high and huge precipices?78

 

28. Can any man, who has accepted the first principles even of reason, be found to mar or dishonour the unchanging nature of Deity with morals so vile? to credit the gods with natures such as human kindness has often charmed away and moderated in the beasts of the field? How,79 I ask, can it be said that the gods are far removed from any feeling of passion? that they are gentle, lovers of peace, mild? that in the completeness of their excellence they reach80 the height of perfection, and the highest wisdom also? or, why should we pray them to avert from us misfortunes and calamities, if we find that they are themselves the authors of all the ills by which we are daily harassed? Call us impious as much as you please, contemners of religion, or atheists, you will never make us believe in gods of love and war, that there are gods to sow strife, and to disturb the mind by the stings of the furies. For either they are gods in very truth, and do not do what you have related; or if81 they do the things which you say, they are doubtless no gods at all.

 

29. We might, however, even yet be able to receive from you these thoughts, most full of wicked falsehoods, if it were not that you yourselves, in bringing forward many things about the gods so inconsistent and mutually destructive, compel us to withhold our minds from assenting. For when you strive individually to excel each other in reputation for more recondite knowledge, you both overthrow the very gods in whom you believe, and replace them by others who have clearly no existence; and different men give different opinions on the same subjects,82 and you write that those whom general consent has ever received as single persons are infinite in number. Let us, too, begin duty, then, with father Janus, whom certain of you have declared to be the world, others the year, some the sun. But if we are to believe that this is true, it follows as a consequence, that it should be understood that there never was any Janus, who, they say, being sprung from Coelus and Hecate, reigned first in Italy, founded the town Janiculum, was the father of Forts,83 the son-in-law of Vulturnus, the husband of Juturna; and thus you erase the name of the god to whom in all prayers you give the first place, and whom you believe to procure for you a hearing from the gods. But, again, if Janus be the year, neither thus can he be a god. For who does not know that the year is a fixed space84 of time, and that there is nothing divine in that which is formed85 by the duration of months and lapse of days? Now this very argument may, in like manner, be applied to Saturn. For if time is meant under this title, as the expounders of Grecian ideas think, so that that is regarded as Kronos,86 which is chronos,87 there is no such deity as Saturn. For who is so senseless as to say that time is a god, when it is but a certain space measured off88 in the unending succession of eternity? And thus will be removed from the rank of the immortals that deity too, whom the men of old declared, and handed down to their posterity, to be born of father Coelus, the progenitor of the dii magni, the planter of the vine, the bearer of the pruning-knife.89

 

30. But what shall we say of Jove himself, whom the wise have repeatedly asserted to be the sun, driving a winged chariot, followed by a crowd of deities;90 some, the ether, blazing with mighty flames, and wasting fire which cannot be extinguished? Now if this is clear and certain, there is, then, according to you, no Jupiter at all; who, born of Saturn his father and Ops his mother, is reported to have been concealed in the Cretan territory, that he might escape his father’s rage. But now, does not a similar mode of thought remove Juno from the list of gods? For if she is the air, as you have been wont to jest and say, repeating in reversed order the syllables of the Greek name,91 there will be found no sister and spouse of almighty Jupiter, no Fluonia,92 no Pomona, no Ossipagina, no Februtis, Populonia, Cinxia, Caprotina; and thus the invention of that name, spread abroad with a frequent but vain93 belief, will be found to be wholly94 useless.

 

31. Aristotle, a man of most powerful intellect, and distinguished for learning, as Granius tells, shows by plausible arguments that Minerva is the moon, and proves it by the authority of learned men. Others have said that this very goddess is the depth of ether, and utmost height; some have maintained that she is memory, whence her name even, Minerva, has arisen, as if she were some goddess of memory. But if this is credited, it follows that there is no daughter of Mens, no daughter of Victory, no discoverer of the Olive, born from the head of Jupiter, no goddess skilled in the knowledge of the arts, and in different branches of learning. Neptune, they say, has received his name and title because he covers the earth with water. If, then, by the use of this name is meant the outspread water, there is no god Neptune at all; and thus is put away, and removed from us, the full brother of Pluto and Jupiter, armed with the iron trident, lord of the fish, great and small, king of the depths of the sea, and shaker of the trembling earth.95

 

32. Mercury, also, has been named as though he were a kind of go-between; and because conversation passes between two speakers, and is exchanged by them, that which is expressed by this name has been produced.96 If this, then, is the case, Mercury is not the name of a god, but of speech and words exchanged by two persons; and in this way is blotted out and annihilated the noted Cyllenian bearer of the caduceus, born on the cold mountain top,97 contriver of words and names, the god who presides over markets, and over the exchange of goods and commercial intercourse. Some of you have said that the earth is the Great Mother,98 because it provides all things living with food; others declare that the same earth is Ceres, because it brings forth crops of useful fruits;99 while some maintain that it is Vesta, because it alone in the universe is at rest, its other members being, by their constitution, ever in motion. Now if this is propounded and maintained on sure grounds, in like manner, on your interpretation, three deities have no existence: neither Ceres nor Vesta are to be reckoned in the number100 of the gods; nor, in fine, can the mother of the gods herself, whom Nigidius thinks to have been married to Saturn, be rightly declared a goddess, if indeed these are all names of the one earth, and it alone is signified by these titles.

 

33. We here leave Vulcan unnoticed, to avoid prolixity; whom you all declare to be fire, with one consenting voice. We pass by Venus, named because lust assails all, and Proserpina, named because plants steal gradually forth into the light, – where, again, you do away with three deities; if indeed the first is the name of an element, and does not signify a living power; the second, of a desire common to all living creatures; while the third refers to seeds rising above ground, and the upward movements101 of growing crops. What! when you maintain that Bacchus, Apollo, the Sun, are one deity, increased in number by the use of three names, is not the number of the gods lessened, and their vaunted reputation overthrown, by your opinions? For if it is true that the sun is also Bacchus and Apollo, there can consequently be in the universe no Apollo or Bacchus; and thus, by yourselves, the son of Semele and the Pythian god are blotted out and set aside, – one the giver of drunken merriment, the other the destroyer of Sminthian mice.

 

34. Some of your learned men102 – men, too, who do not chatter merely because their humour leads them – maintain that Diana, Ceres, Luna, are but one deity in triple union;103 and that there are not three distinct persons, as there are three different names; that in all these Luna is invoked, and that the others are a series of surnames added to her name. But if this is sure, if this is certain, and the facts of the case show it to be so, again is Ceres but an empty name, and Diana: and thus the discussion is brought to this issue, that you lead and advise us to believe that she whom you maintain to be the discoverer of the earth’s fruits has no existence, and Apollo is robbed of his sister, whom once the horned hunter104 gazed upon as she washed her limbs from impurity in a pool, and paid the penalty of his curiosity.

 

35. Men worthy to be remembered in the study of philosophy, who have been raised by your praises to its highest place, declare, with commendable earnestness, as their conclusion, that the whole mass of the world, by whose folds we all are encompassed, covered, and upheld, is one animal105 possessed of wisdom and reason; yet if this is a true, sure, and certain opinion,106 they also will forthwith cease to be gods whom you set up a little ago in its parts without change of name.107 For as one man cannot, while his body remains entire, be divided into many men; nor can many men, while they continue to be distinct and separate from each other,108 be fused into one sentient individual: so, if the world is a single animal, and moves from the impulse of one mind, neither can it be dispersed in several deities; nor, if the gods are parts of it, can they be brought together and changed into one living creature, with unity of feeling throughout all its parts. The moon, the sun, the earth, the ether, the stars, are members and parts of the world; but if they are parts and members, they are certainly not themselves109 living creatures; for in no thing can parts be the very thing which the whole is, or think and feel for themselves, for this cannot be effected by their own actions, without the whole creature’s joining in; and this being established and settled, the whole matter comes back to this, that neither Sol, nor Luna, nor Aether, Tellus, and the rest, are gods. For they are parts of the world, not the proper names of deities; and thus it is brought about that, by your disturbing and confusing all divine things, the world is set up as the sole god in the universe, while all the rest are cast aside, and that as having been set up vainly, uselessly, and without any reality.

 

36. If we sought to subvert the belief in your gods in so many ways, by so many arguments, no one would doubt that, mad with rage and fury, you would demand for us the stake, the beasts, and swords, with the other kinds of torture by which you usually appease your thirst in its intense craving for our blood. But while you yourselves put away almost the whole race of deities with a pretence of cleverness and wisdom, you do not hesitate to assert that, because of us, men suffer ill at the hands of the gods;110 although, indeed, if it is true that they anywhere exist, and burn with anger and111 rage, there can be no better reason for their showing anger against you,112 than that you deny their existence, and say that they are not found in any part of the universe.

 

37. We are told by Mnaseas that the Muses are the daughters of Tellus and Coelus; others declare that they are Jove’s by his wife Memory, or Mens; some relate that they were virgins, others that they were matrons. For now we wish to touch briefly on the points where you are shown, from the difference of your opinions, to make different statements about the same thing. Ephorus, then, says that they are three113 in number; Mnaseas, whom we mentioned, that they are four;114 Myrtilus115 brings forward seven; Crates asserts that there are eight; finally Hesiod, enriching heaven and the stars with gods, comes forward with nine names.116

If we are not mistaken, such want of agreement marks those who are wholly ignorant of the truth, and does not spring from the real state of the case. For if their number were clearly known, the voice of all would be the same, and the agreement of all would tend to and find issue in the same conclusion.117

 

38. How, then, can you give to religion its whole power, when you fill into error about the gods themselves? or summon us to their solemn worship, while you give us no definite information how to conceive of the deities themselves? For, to take no notice of the other118 authors, either the first119 makes away with and destroys six divine Muses, if they are certainly nine; or the last120 adds six who have no existence to the three who alone really are; so that it cannot be known or understood what should be added, what taken away; and in the performance of religious rites we are in danger121 of either worshipping that which does not exist, or passing that by which, it may be, does exist. Piso believes that the Novensiles are nine gods, set up among the Sabines at Trebia.122 Granius thinks that they are the Muses, agreeing with Aelius; Varro teaches that they are nine,123 because, in doing anything, that number is always reputed most powerful and greatest; Cornificius,124 that they watch over the renewing of things,125 because, by their care, all things are afresh renewed in strength, and endure; Manilius, that they are the nine gods to whom alone Jupiter gave power to wield his thunder.126 Cincius declares them to be deities brought from abroad, named from their very newness, because the Romans were in the habit of sometimes individually introducing into their families the rites127 of conquered cities, while some they publicly consecrated; and lest, from their great number, or in ignorance, any god should be passed by, all alike were briefly and compendiously invoked under one name – Novensiles.

 

39. There are some, besides, who assert that those who from being men became gods, are denoted by this name, – as Hercules, Romulus, Aeculapius, Liber, Aeneas. These are all, as is clear, different opinions; and it cannot be, in the nature of things, that those who differ in opinion can be regarded as teachers of one truth. For if Piso’s opinion is true, Aelius and Granius say what is false; if what they say is certain, Varro, with all his skill,128 is mistaken, who substitutes things most frivolous and vain for those which really exist. If they are named Novensiles because their number is nine,129 Cornificius is shown to stumble, who, giving them might and power not their own, makes them the divine overseers of renovation.130 But if Cornificius is right in his belief, Cincius is found to be not wise, who connects with the power of the dii Novensiles the gods of conquered cities. But if they are those whom Cincius asserts them to be, Manilius will be found to speak falsely, who comprehends those who wield another’s thunder under this name.131 But if that which Manilius holds is true and certain, they are utterly mistaken who suppose that those raised to divine honours, and deified mortals, are thus named because of the novelty of their rank. But if the Novensiles are those who have deserved to be raised to the stars after passing through the life of men,132 there are no dii Novensiles at all. For as slaves, soldiers, masters, are not names of persons comprehended under them,133 but of officers, ranks, and duties, so, when we say that Novensiles is the name134 of gods who by their virtues have become135 gods from being men, it is clear and evident that no individual persons are marked out particularly, but that newness itself is named by the title Novensiles.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 The MS, followed by Oehler, reads neque enim res stare … non potest, Christiana religio aut – “for neither can a thing not stand, … nor will the Christian religion,” etc., while LB. merely changes aut into et – “for neither can a thing, i.e., the Christian religion, … nor will it,” etc. All other edd. read as above, omitting et.

2 According to Crusius and others, the MS reads finem; but, according to Hild., fidem, as above.

3 Deus primus, according to Nourry, in relation to Christ; but manifestly from the scope of the chapter, God as the fountain and source of all things.

4 Lit., “propitiate with veneration.”

5 So the MS, reading ducitur; for which Oberthür, followed by Orelli, reads dicitur – “is said.”

6 Lit., “whatever belongs to them feels itself to be comprehended with a tacit rendering also of honour in,” etc., tacita et se sentit honorificentia, read by later edd. for the MS ut se sentit – “but as whatever,” retained by Hild. and Oehler; while the first four edd. read vi – “feels itself with a silent force comprehended in the honour in,” etc.

7 So LB. and Orelli, reading alia etiamnum capita for the MS alienum capita, read in the first five edd., alia non capita – “are others not chiefs;” Hild., followed by Oehler, proposes alia deûm capita – “other gods.”

8 According to Orelli’s punctuation, “whether there are these gods in heaven whom,” etc.

9 So LB. and later edd., from a conj. of Meursius, reading diebus lustricis for the MS ludibriis; read by some, and understood by others, as ludicris, i.e., festal days.

10 The MS, followed by Hild. and Oehler, reads neque … in ulla cognatione – “in no relationship,” for which the other edd. give cognitione, as above.

11 So all edd., reading populares, except Hild. and Oehler, who receive the conj. of Rigaltius, populatim – “among all nations;” the MS reading popularem.

12 Censeri, i.e., “written in the list of gods.”

13 Otherwise, “how many make up the list of this name.”

14 So Orelli, receiving the emendation of Barth, incogniti nomine, for the MS in cognitione, -one being an abbreviation for nomine. Examples of such deities are the Novensiles, Consentes, etc., cc. 38-41.

15 Lit., “who, except a few gods, do not engage in the services of the rest.”

16 Orelli would explain pro parte consimili as equivalent to pro uno vero Deo – “for the one true God.”

17 Lit., “take the oaths of allegiance,” or military oaths, using a very common metaphor applied to Christians in the preceding book, c. 5.

18 Lit., “suppliant hands.” It has been thought that the word supplices is a gloss, and that the idea originally was that of a band of soldiers holding out their hands as they swore to be true to their country and leaders; but there is no want of simplicity and congruity in the sentence as it stands, to warrant us in rejecting the word.

19 i.e., than the inventors of such fables had shown.

20 Lit., “from us infants;” i.e., as compared with such a man as Cicero.

21 Secundas actiones. The reference is evidently to a second speaker, who makes good his predecessor’s defects.

22 Lit., “are unwilling to admit into their ear the reading of opinions,” etc.

23 Both Christians and heathen, it is probable, were concerned in the mutilation of de Nat. Deorum.

24 So Gelenius, reading dicta for the MS dictitare. The last verb is comprobate, read reprobate – “condemn,” by all edd. except Hild. and Oehler.

25 Lit., “with familiarity of speech.”

26 A formula used when they sought to propitiate the author of some event which could not be traced to a particular deity; referring also to the cases in which there were different opinions as to the sex of a deity.

27 Lit., “even of mean understanding.”

28 Lit., “by the renewing of perpetual succession.”

29 Lit., “that gods are born.”

30 Lit., “recurring,” “arising again.”

31 Lit., “make trial of themselves by these laws of sex.”

32 Lit., “all things,” etc.

33 Lit., “if the impurity of sexual union is wanting to the gods.”

34 So the first five edd.

35 Lit., “the other arrangement of members.”

36 Lit., “it is fitting to believe.”

37 The MS, followed by Hild., reads habet et animum – “has it a mind to, and does it,” etc.; for which Gelenius, followed by later edd., reads, as above, avet animus.

38 Cererum ab Iaccho, either as above, or “loved by Iacchus.” Cf. Lucret. iv. 1160: At tumida et mammosa Ceres est ipsa ab Iaccho.

39 Sensu obscoeno.

40 The first five edd. read hortari – “exhorted,” for which LB., followed by later edd., received tortari, as above, – a conjecture of Canterus.

41 So Orelli, reading nec in contumelia quam opinamini stare for the MS et, which is retained by all other edd.; Oehler, however, inserts alia before quam – “and that it is found in an insult other than you think.”

42 So later edd., omitting quam, which is read in the MS, both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler, “to think much more … than you believe.”

43 It is evident that Arnobius here confuses the sceptical Sadducees with their opponents the Pharisees, and the Talmudists.

44 The MS reads tribuant et nos unintelligibly, for which LB. and Hild. read et os – “as though they attribute form and face;” the other edd., as above, tribuamus et nos.

45 Lit., “the joinings of the members.”

46 Lit., “with smooth roundness.” [Cf. Xenoph., Mem., i. cap. 4.]

47 Lit., “the raised gutter of the nose, easily passed by,” etc.

48 The veins were supposed to be for the most part filled with blood, mixed with a little air; while in the arteries air was supposed to be in excess. Cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deor. ii. 55: “Through the veins blood is poured forth to the whole body, and air through the arteries.”

49 Lit., “in the apprehension of mutual knowledge.”

50 The MS and first four edd. read dotis causa – “for the sake of a dowry:” corrected as above, dicis causa in the later edd.

51 This argument seems to have been suggested by the saying of Xenophanes, that the ox or lion, if possessed of man’s power, would have represented, after the fashion of their own bodies, the gods they would worship. [“The fair humanities of old religion.” – Coleridge (Schiller).]

52 Ennius (Cic., de Nat. Deor., i. 35): Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis.

53 So the MS, followed by Oehler, reading nobis, for which all other edd. give vobis – “to you.”

54 Meursius would read naccas – “fullers,” for nautas; but the latter term may, properly enough, be applied to the gods who watch over seamen.

55 Or, “for the others are not gods,” i.e., cannot be gods, as they do not possess the power of divination. Cf. Lact., i. 11: Sin autem divinas non sit, ne deus quidem sit.

56 The MS, followed by LB and Hild., reads sidereis motibus – “in the motions of the stars;” i.e., can these be in the stars, owing to their motion? Oehler conjectures molibus – “in the masses of the stars;” the other edd. read montibus, as above.

57 The MS, both Roman edd., and Oehler read habetur Diana – “is Diana esteemed;” the other edd., ut habeatur, as above.

58 i.e., Aesculapius.

59 i.e., Minerva. [Elucidation II. Conf. n. 44, p. 467, supra.]

60 “With nice skill … for them,” curiose iis; for which the MS and first five edd. read curiosius – “rather skillfully.”

61 The MS reads unintelligibly et imponere, for which Meursius emended componat, as above.

62 Mercury, grandson of Atlas by Maia.

63 Lit., “by the long duration of time.”

64 Lit., “skilled in notions” – perceptionibus; for which praeceptionibus, i.e., “the precepts of the different arts,” has been suggested in the margin of Ursinus.

65 Lit., “and have skill (sollertias) in which individuals excel.”

66 According to Oehler, Portunus (Portumnus or Palaemon – “the god who protects harbours”) does not occur in the MS, which, he says, reads per maria praestant – “through the seas they afford;” emended as above by Ursinus, praestat Portunus. Oehler himself proposes permarini – “the sea gods afford.”

67 Pales, i.e., the feeding one; Inuus, otherwise Faunus and Pan.

68 Otherwise, “from the absence of rain.”

69 So the margin of Ursinus, reading meretrix; but in the first four edd., LB., and Oberthür, genetrix – “mother,” is retained from the MS.

70 So LB., reading cura-t, the MS omitting the last letter.

71 Lit., “salted fruits,” the grits mixed with salt, strewed on the victim.

72 Supplied by Ursinus.

73 So the edd. reading quid, except Hild. and Oehler, who retain the MS qui – “who.”

74 The MS reads Vita.

75 [i.e., these names are derived from their offices to men. Have they no names apart from these services?]

76 i.e., those who subdue their own spirits. “Constancy” is the εὐπάθεια of the Stoics.

77 Referring to Dido.

78 As despairing lovers are said to have sought relief in death, by leaping from the Leucadian rock into the sea.

79 Lit., “where, I ask, is the (assertion) that,” etc.

80 Lit., “hold.”

81 In the MS these words, aut si, are wanting.

82 Stewechius and Orelli would omit rebus, and interpret “about the same gods.” Instead of de – “about,” the MS has deos.

83 The MS reads fonti, corrected by Meursius Fontis, as above.

84 Lit., “circuit.”

85 Lit., “finished.”

86 i.e., the god.

87 i.e., time.

88 Lit., “the measuring of a certain space included in,” etc.

89 Cf. vi. 12.

90 Cf. Plato, Phaedr., st. p. 246.

91 Lit., “the reversed order of the Greek name being repeated,” i.e., instead of η-ρα, ἀ-ήρ.

92 The MS gives Fluvionia.

93 Lit., “with the frequency (or fame) of vain,” etc.

94 Lit., “very.”

95 So Meursius emended the MS sali – “sea.”

96 Lit., “the quality of this name has been adjusted.”

97 So Orelli, reading monte vertice; the last word, according to Oehler, not being found in the MS.

98 i.e., Cybele. Cf. Lucr., ii. 991 sqq.

99 Lit., “seeds.”

100 Fasti – “list,” “register.”

101 Lit., “motions.”

102 Cf. Servius ad Virg., Georg., i. 5: “The Stoics say that Luna, Diana, Ceres, Juno, and Proserpina are one; following whom, Virgil invoked Liber and Ceres for Sol and Luna.”

103 Triviali – “common,” “vulgar,” seems to be here used for triplici.

104 Actaeon.

105 Plato, Timaeus, st. p. 30.

106 Lit., “of which things, however, if the opinion,” etc.

107 i.e., deifying parts of the universe, and giving them, as deities, the same names as before.

108 Lit., “the difference of their disjunction being preserved” – multi disjunctionis differentia conservata, suggested in the margin of Ursinus for the MS multitudinis junctionis d. c., retained in the first five edd.

109 Lit., “of their own name.”

110 Lit., “for the sake of our name, men’s affairs are made harassing.”

111 Lit., “with flames of,” etc.

112 The MS, according to Crusius, reads nos – “us.”

113 Three was the most ancient number; and the names preserved by Pausanias, are Μελέτη, Ἀιοδή, Μνήμη.

114 Cicero (de Nat. Deor., iii. 21, a passage where there is some doubt as to the reading) enumerates as the four Muses, Thelxiope, Aoede, Arche, Melete.

115 The MS reads Murtylus. Seven are said to have been mentioned by Epicharmus, – Neilous, Tritone, Asopous, Heptapolis, Acheloïs, Tipoplous, and Rhodia.

116 The nine are Clio, Euterpe, Thalia, Melpomone, Terpsichore, Erato, Polymnia, Ourania, and Calliope (Theog., 77-79).

117 Lit., “into the end of the same opinion.”

118 Lit., “in the middle,” “intermediate.”

119 i.e., Ephorus.

120 i.e., Hesiod.

121 Lit., “the undertaking of religion itself is brought into the danger,” etc.

122 An Umbrian village.

123 Lit., “that the number is nine.” [i.e., a triad of triads; the base a triad, regarded, even by heathen, as of mystical power.]

124 A grammarian who lived in the time of Augustus, not to be confused with Cicero’s correspondent.

125 Novitatum.

126 The Etruscans held (Pliny, H. N., ii. 52) that nine gods could thunder, the bolts being of different kinds: the Romans so far maintained this distinction as to regard thunder during the day as sent by Jupiter, at night by Summanus.

127 So LB., reading relig- for the MS reg-iones.

128 Lit., “the very skilful.”

129 Lit., “if the number nine bring on the name of,” etc.

130 Lit., “gives another’s might and power to the gods presiding.”

131 Lit., “the title of this name.”

132 Lit., “after they have finished the mortality of life,” i.e., either as above, or “having endured its perishableness.”

133 Lit., “lying under.”

134 So most edd., following Gelenius, who reads esse nomen for the MS si omnes istud.

135 Lit., “who have deserved to,” etc.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book III. (Cont.)

Arnobius (Cont.)

40. Nigidius taught that the dii Penates were Neptune and Apollo, who once, on fixed terms, girt Ilium136 with walls. He himself again, in his sixteenth book, following Etruscan teaching, shows that there are four kinds of Penates; and that one of these pertains to Jupiter, another to Neptune, the third to the shades below, the fourth to mortal men, making some unintelligible assertion. Caesius himself, also, following this teaching, thinks that they are Fortune, and Ceres, the genius Jovialis,137 and Pales, but not the female deity commonly received,138 but some male attendant and steward of Jupiter. Varro thinks that they are the gods of whom we speak who are within, and in the inmost recesses of heaven, and that neither their number nor names are known. The Etruscans say that these are the Consentes and Complices,139 and name them because they rise and fall together, six of them being male, and as many female, with unknown names and pitiless dispositions,140 but they are considered the counsellors and princes of Jove supreme. There were some, too, who said that Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva were the dii Penates, without whom we cannot live and be wise, and by whom we are ruled within in reason, passion, and thought. As you see, even here, too, nothing is said harmoniously, nothing is settled with the consent of all, nor is there anything reliable on which the mind can take its stand, drawing by conjecture very near to the truth. For their opinions are so doubtful, and one supposition so discredited141 by another, that there is either no truth in them all, or if it is uttered by any, it is not recognised amid so many different statements.

 

41. We can, if it is thought proper, speak briefly of the Lares also, whom the mass think to be the gods of streets and ways, because the Greeks name streets laurae. In different parts of his writings, Nigidius speaks of them now as the guardians of houses and dwellings; now as the Curetes, who are said to have once concealed, by the clashing of cymbals,142 the infantile cries of Jupiter; now the five Digiti Samothracii, who, the Greeks tell us, were named Idoei Dactyli. Varro, with like hesitation, says at one time that they are the Manes,143 and therefore the mother of the Lares was named Mania; at another time, again, he maintains that they are gods of the air, and are termed heroes; at another, following the opinion of the ancients, he says that the Lares are ghosts, as it were a kind of tutelary demon, spirits of dead144 men.

 

42. It is a vast and endless task to examine each kind separately, and make it evident even from your religious books that you neither hold nor believe that there is any god concerning whom you have not145 brought forward doubtful and inconsistent statements, expressing a thousand different beliefs. But, to be brief, and avoid prolixity,146 it is enough to have said what has been said; it is, further, too troublesome to gather together many things into one mass, since it is made manifest and evident in different ways that you waver, and say nothing with certainty of these things which you assert. But you will perhaps say, Even if we have no personal knowledge of the Lares, Novensiles, Penates, still the very agreement of our authors proves their existence, and that such a race147 takes rank among the celestial gods. And how can it be known whether there is any god, if what he is shall be wholly unknown?148 or how can it avail even to ask for benefits, if it is not settled and determined who should be invoked at each inquiry?149 For every one who seeks to obtain an answer from any deity, should of necessity know to whom he makes supplication, on whom he calls, from whom he asks help for the affairs and occasions of human life; especially as you yourselves declare that all the gods do not have all power, and150 that the wrath and anger of each are appeased by different rites.

 

43. For if this deity151 requires a black, that152 a white skin; if sacrifice must be made to this one with veiled, to that with uncovered head;153 this one is consulted about marriages,154 the other relieves distresses, – may it not be of some importance whether the one or the other is Novensilis, since ignorance of the facts and confusion of persons displeases the gods, and leads necessarily to the contraction of guilt? For suppose that I myself, to avoid some inconvenience and peril, make supplication to any one of these deities, saying, Be present, be near, divine Penates, thou Apollo, and thou, O Neptune, and in your divine clemency turn away all these evils, by which I am annoyed,155 troubled, and tormented: will there be any hope that I shall receive help from them, if Ceres, Pales, Fortune, or the genius Jovialis,156 not Neptune and Apollo, shall be the dii Penates? Or if I invoked the Curetes instead of the Lares, whom some of your writers maintain to be the Digiti Samothracii, how shall I enjoy their help and favour, when I have not given them their own names, and have given to the others names not their own? Thus does our interest demand that we should rightly know the gods, and not hesitate or doubt about the power, the name of each; lest,157 if they be invoked with rites and titles not their own, they have at once their ears stopped against our prayers, and hold us involved in guilt which may not be forgiven.

 

44. Wherefore, if you are assured that in the lofty palaces of heaven there dwells, there is, that multitude of deities whom you specify, you should make your stand on one proposition,158 and not, divided by different and inconsistent opinions, destroy belief in the very things which you seek to establish. If there is a Janus, let Janus be; if a Bacchus, let Bacchus be; if a Summanus,159 let Summanus be: for this is to confide, this to hold, to be settled in the knowledge of something ascertained, not to say after the manner of the blind and erring, The Novensiles are the Muses, in truth they are the Trebian gods, nay, their number is nine, or rather, they are the protectors of cities which have been overthrown; and bring so important matters into this danger, that while you remove some, and put others in their place, it may well be doubted of them all if they anywhere exist.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

136 The MS reads immortalium, corrected in the edd. urbem Ilium.

137 Supposed to be either the genius attending Jupiter; the family god as sent by him; or the chief among the genii, sometimes mentioned simply as Genius.

138 Lit., “whom the commonalty receives.”

139 Consentes (those who are together, or agree together, i.e., councillors) and Complices (confederate, or agreeing) are said by some to be the twelve gods who composed the great council of heaven; and, in accordance with this, the words una oriantur et occidant una might be translated “rise and sit down together,” i.e., at the council table. But then, the names and number of these are known; while Arnobius says immediately after, that the names of the dii Consentes are not known, and has already quoted Varro, to the effect that neither names nor number are known. Schelling (über die Gotth. v. Samothr., quoted by Orelli) adopts the reading (see following note), “of whom very little mention is made,” i.e., in prayers or rites, because they are merely Jove’s councillors, and exercise no power over men, and identifies them with the Samothracian Cabiri – Κάβειροι and Consentes being merely Greek and Latin renderings of the name.

140 So the MS and all edd. reading miserationis parcissimae, except Gelenius, who reads nationis barbarissimae – “of a most barbarous nation;” while Ursinus suggested memorationis parc. – “of whom very little mention is made,” – the reading approved by Schelling.

141 Lit., “shaken to its foundations.”

142 Aeribus. Cf. Lucretius, ii. 633-636.

143 The MS reads manas, corrected as above by all edd. except Hild., who reads Manias.

144 The MS reads effunctorum; LB. et funct., from the correction of Stewechius; Gelenius, with most of the other edd., def.

145 The MS and first ed. omit non.

146 Lit., “because of aversion.”

147 Lit., “the form of their race.”

148 i.e., ignorabitur et nescietur.

149 The MS reads consolationem – “for each consolation,” i.e., to comfort in every distress.

150 The MS omits et.

151 The dii inferi.

152 The dii superi.

153 Saturn and Hercules were so worshipped.

154 Apollo.

155 The MS, first five edd., and Oehler read terreor – “terrified;” the other tor., as above, from the conjecture of Gifanius.

156 Cf. ch. 40, note 137. It may further be observed that the Etruscans held that the superior and inferior gods and men were linked together by a kind of intermediate beings, through whom the gods took cognizance of human affairs, without themselves descending to earth. These were divided into four classes, assigned to Tina (Jupiter), Neptune, the gods of the nether world, and men respectively.

157 So LB., Hild., and Oehler, reading nomine ne; all others ut, the MS having no conjunction.

158 Lit., “it is fitting that you stand in the limits of,” etc.

159 i.e., Summus Manium, Pluto.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book IV.

Arnobius (Cont.)

1. We would ask you, and you above all, O Romans, lords and princes of the world, whether you think that Piety, Concord, Safety, Honour, Virtue, Happiness, and other such names, to which we see you rear1 altars and splendid temples, have divine power, and live in heaven?2 or, as is usual, have you classed them with the deities merely for form’s sake, because we desire and wish these blessings to fall to our lot? For if, while you think them empty names without any substance, you yet deify them with divine honours,3 you will have to consider whether that is a childish frolic, or tends to bring your deities into contempt,4 when you make equal, and add to their number vain and feigned names. But if you have loaded them with temples and couches, holding with more assurance that these, too, are deities, we pray you to teach us in our ignorance, by what course, in what way, Victory, Peace, Equity, and the others mentioned among the gods, can be understood to be gods, to belong to the assembly of the immortals?

 

2. For we – but, perhaps, you would rob and deprive us of common-sense – feel and perceive that none of these has divine power, or possesses a form of its own;5 but that, on the contrary, they are the excellence of manhood,6 the safety of the safe, the honour of the respected, the victory of the conqueror, the harmony of the allied, the piety of the pious, the recollection of the observant, the good fortune, indeed, of him who lives happily and without exciting any ill-feeling. Now it is easy to perceive that, in speaking thus, we speak most reasonably when we observe7 the contrary qualities opposed to them, misfortune, discord, forgetfulness, injustice, impiety, baseness of spirit, and unfortunate8 weakness of body. For as these things happen accidentally, and9 depend on human acts and chance moods, so their contraries, named10 after more agreeable qualities, must be found in others; and from these, originating in this wise, have arisen those invented names.

 

3. With regard, indeed, to your bringing forward to us other bands of unknown11 gods, we cannot determine whether you do that seriously, and from a belief in its certainty; or, merely playing with empty fictions, abandon yourselves to an unbridled imagination. The goddess Luperca, you tell us on the authority of Varro, was named because the fierce wolf spared the exposed children Was that goddess, then, disclosed, not by her own power, but by the course of events? and was it only after the wild beast restrained its cruel teeth, that she both began to be herself and was marked by12 her name? or if she was already a goddess long before the birth of Romulus and his brother, show us what was her name and title. Praestana was named, according to you, because, in throwing the javelin, Quirinus excelled all in strength;13 and the goddess Panda, or Pantica, was named because Titus Tatius was allowed to open up and make passable a road, that he might take the Capitoline. Before these events, then, had the deities never existed? and if Romulus had not held the first place in casting the javelin, and if the Sabine king had been unable to take the Tarpeian rock, would there be no Pantica, no Praestana? And if you say that they14 existed before that which gave rise to their name, a question which has been discussed in a preceding section,15 tell us also what they were called.

 

4. Pellonia is a goddess mighty to drive back enemies. Whose enemies, say, if it is convenient? Opposing armies meet, and fighting together, hand to hand, decide the battle; and to one this side, to another that, is hostile. Whom, then, will Pellonia turn to flight, since on both sides there will be fighting? or in favour of whom will she incline, seeing that she should afford to both sides the might and services of her name? But if she indeed16 did so, that is, if she gave her good-will and favour to both sides, she would destroy the meaning of her name, which was formed with regard to the beating back of one side. But you will perhaps say, She is goddess of the Romans only, and, being on the side of the Quirites alone, is ever ready graciously to help them.17 We wish, indeed, that it were so, for we like the name; but it is a very doubtful matter. What! do the Romans have gods to themselves, who do not help18 other nations? and how can they be gods, if they do not exercise their divine power impartially towards all nations everywhere? and where, I pray you, was this goddess Pellonia long ago, when the national honour was brought under the yoke at the Caudine Forks? when at the Trasimene lake the streams ran with blood? when the plains of Diomede19 were heaped up with dead Romans when a thousand other blows were sustained in countless disastrous battles? Was she snoring and sleeping; ([1Ki_18:27]) or, as the base often do, had she deserted to the enemies’ camp?

 

5. The sinister deities preside over the regions on the left hand only, and are opposed to those20 on the right. But with what reason this is said, or with what meaning, we do not understand ourselves; and we are sure that you cannot in any degree cause it to be clearly and generally understood.21 For in the first place, indeed, the world itself has in itself neither right nor left neither upper nor under regions, neither fore nor after parts. For whatever is round, and bounded on every side by the circumference22 of a solid sphere, has no beginning, no end; where there is no end and beginning, no part can have23 its own name and form the beginning. Therefore, when we say, This is the right, and that the left side, we do not refer to anything24 in the world, which is everywhere very much the same, but to our own place and position, we being25 so formed that we speak of some things as on our right hand, of others as on our left; and yet these very things which we name left, and the others which we name right, have in us no continuance, no fixedness, but take their forms from our sides, just as chance, and the accident of the moment, may have placed us. If I look towards the rising sun, the north pole and the north are on my left hand; and if I turn my face thither, the west will be on my left, for it will be regarded as behind the sun’s back. But, again, if I turn my eyes to the region of the west, the wind and country of the south are now said to be on26 my left. And if I am turned to this side by the necessary business of the moment, the result is, that the east is said to be on the left, owing to a further change of position,27 – from which it can be very easily seen that nothing is either on our right or on our left by nature, but from position, time,28 and according as our bodily position with regard to surrounding objects has been taken up. But in this case, by what means, in what way, will there be gods of the regions of the left, when it is clear that the same regions are at one time on the right, at another on the left? or what have the regions of the right done to the immortal gods, to deserve that they should be without any to care for them, while they have ordained that these should be fortunate, and ever accompanied by lucky omens?

 

6. Lateranus,29 as you say, is the god and genius of hearths, and received this name because men build that kind of fireplace of unbaked bricks. What then? if hearths were made of baked clay, or any other material whatever, will they have no genii? and will Lateranus, whoever he is, abandon his duty as guardian, because the kingdom which he possesses has not been formed of bricks of clay? And for what purpose,30 I ask, has that god received the charge of hearths? He runs about the kitchens of men, examining and discovering with what kinds of wood the heat in their fires is produced; he gives strength31 to earthen vessels that they may not fly in pieces, overcome by the violence of the flames; he sees that the flavour of unspoilt dainties reaches the taste of the palate with their own pleasantness, and acts the part of a taster, and tries whether the sauces have been rightly prepared. Is not this unseemly, nay – to speak with more truth – disgraceful, impious, to introduce some pretended deities for this only, not to do them reverence with fitting honours, but to appoint them over base things, and disreputable actions?32

 

7. Does Venus Militaris, also, preside over the evil-doing33 of camps, and the debaucheries of young men? Is there one Perfica,34 also, of the crowd of deities, who causes those base and filthy delights to reach their end with uninterrupted pleasure? Is there also Pertunda, who presides over the marriage35 couch? Is there also Tutunus, on whose huge members36 and horrent fascinum you think it auspicious, and desire, that your matrons should be borne? But if facts themselves have very little effect in suggesting to volt a right understanding of the truth, are you not able, even from the very names, to understand that these are the inventions of a most meaningless superstition, and the false gods of fancy?37 Puta, you say, presides over the pruning of trees, Peta over prayers; Nemestrinus38 is the god of groves; Patellana is a deity, and Patella, of whom the one has been set over things brought to light, the other over those yet to be disclosed. Nodutis is spoken of as a god, because he39 brings that which has been sown to the knots: and she who presides over the treading out of grain, Noduterensis;40 the goddess Upibilia41 delivers from straying from the right paths; parents bereaved of their children are under the care of Orbona, – those very near to death, under that of Naenia. Again,42 Ossilago herself is mentioned as she who gives firmness and solidity to the bones of young children. Mellonia is a goddess, strong and powerful in regard to bees, caring for and guarding the sweetness of their honey.

 

8. Say, I pray you, – that Peta, Puta, Patella may graciously favour you, – if there were no43 bees at all on the earth then, or if we men were born without bones, like some worms, would there be no goddess Mellonia;44 or would Ossilago, who gives bones their solidity, be without a name of her own? I ask truly, and eagerly inquire whether you think that gods, or men, or bees, fruits, twigs, and the rest, are the more ancient in nature, time, long duration? No man will doubt that you say that the gods precede all things whatever by countless ages and generations. But if it is so, how, in the nature of things, can it be that, from things produced afterwards, they received those names which are earlier in point of time? or that the gods were charged with the care45 of those things which were not yet produced, and assigned to be of use to men? Or were the gods long without names; and was it only after things began to spring up, and be on the earth, that you thought it right that they should be called by these names46 and titles? And whence could you have known what name to give to each, since you were wholly ignorant of their existence; or that they possessed any fixed powers, seeing that you were equally unaware which of them had any power, and over what he should be placed to suit his divine might?

 

9. What then? you say; do you declare that these gods exist nowhere in the world, and have been created by unreal fancies? Not we alone, but truth itself, and reason, say so, and that common-sense in which all men share. For who there who believes that there are gods of gain, and that they preside over the getting of it, seeing that it springs very often from the basest employments, and is always at the expense of others? Who believes that Libentina, who that Burnus.47 is set over those lusts which wisdom bids us avoid, and which, in a thousand ways, vile and filthy wretches48 attempt and practise? Who that Limentinus and Lima have the care of thresholds, and do the duties of their keepers, when every day we see the thresholds of temples and private houses destroyed and overthrown, and that the infamous approaches to stews are not without them? Who believes that the Limi49 watch over obliquities? who that Saturnus presides over the sown crops? who that Montinus is the guardian of mountains; Murcia,50 of the slothful? Who, finally, would believe that Money is a goddess, whom your writings declare, as though she were the greatest deity, to give golden rings,51 the front seats at games and shows, honours in the greatest number, the dignity of the magistracy, and that which the indolent love most of all, – an undisturbed ease, by means of riches.

 

10. But if you urge that bones, different kinds of honey, thresholds, and all the other things which we have either run over rapidly, or, to avoid prolixity, passed by altogether, have52 their own peculiar guardians, we may in like manner introduce a thousand other gods, who should care for and guard innumerable things. For why should a god have charge of honey only, and not of gourds, rape, cunila, cress, figs, beets, cabbages? Why should the bones alone have found protection, and not the nails, hair, and all the other things which are placed in the hidden parts and members of which we feel ashamed, and are exposed to very many accidents, and stand more in need of the care and attention of the gods? Or if you say that these parts, too, act under the care of their own tutelar deities, there will begin to be as many gods as there are things; nor will the cause be stated why the divine care does not protect all things, if you say that there are certain things over which the deities preside, and for which they care.

 

11. What say you, O fathers of new religions, and powers?53 Do you cry out, and complain that these gods are dishonoured by us, and neglected with profane contempt, viz. Lateranus, the genius of hearths; Limentinus, who presides over thresholds; Pertunda,54 Perfica, Noduterensis:55 and do you say that things have sunk into ruin, and that the world itself has changed its laws and constitution, because we do not bow humbly in supplication to Mutunus56 and Tutunus? But now look and see, lest while you imagine such monstrous things, and form such conceptions, you may have offended the gods who most assuredly exist, if only there are any who are worthy to bear and hold that most exalted title; and it be for no other reason that those evils, of which you speak, rage, and increase by accessions every day.57 Why, then, some one of you will perhaps say, do you maintain58 that it is not true that these gods exist? And, when invoked by the diviners, do they obey the call, and come when summoned by their own names, and give answers which may be relied on, to those who consult them? We can show that what is said is false, either because in the whole matter there is the greatest room for distrust, or because we, every day, see many of their predictions either prove untrue or baffled expectation to suit the opposite issues.

 

12. But let them59 be true, as you maintain, yet will you have us also believe60 that Mellonia, for example, introduces herself into the entrails, or Limentinus, and that they set themselves to make known61 what you seek to learn? Did you ever see their face, their deportment, their countenance? or can even these be seen in lungs or livers? May it not happen, may it not come to pass, although you craftily conceal it, that the one should take the other’s place, deluding, mocking, deceiving, and presenting the appearance of the deity invoked? If the magi, who are so much akin to62 soothsayers, relate that, in their incantations, pretended gods63 steal in frequently instead of those invoked; that some of these, moreover, are spirits of grosser substance, 64 who pretend that they are gods, and delude the ignorant by their lies and deceit, – why65 should we not similarly believe that here, too, others substitute themselves for those who are not, that they may both strengthen your superstitious beliefs, and rejoice that victims are slain in sacrifice to them under names not their own?

 

13. Or, if you refuse to believe this on account of its novelty,66 how can you know whether there is not some one, who comes in place of all whom yon invoke, and substituting himself in all parts of the world,67 shows to you what appear to be68 many gods and powers? Who is that one? some one will ask. We may perhaps, being instructed by truthful authors, be able to say; but, lest you should be unwilling to believe us, let my opponent ask the Egyptians, Persians, Indians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and all the others who have seen and become acquainted with these things in the more recondite arts. Then, indeed, you will learn who is the one God, or who the very many under Him are, who pretend to be gods, and make sport of men’s ignorance.

Even now we are ashamed to come to the point at which not only boys, young and pert, but grave men also, cannot restrain their laughter, and men who have been hardened into a strict and stern humour.69 For while we have all heard it inculcated and taught by our teachers, that in declining the names of the gods there was no plural number, because the gods were individuals, and the ownership of each name could not be common to a great many;70 you in forgetfulness, and putting away the memory of your early lessons, both give to several gods the same names, and, although you are elsewhere more moderate as to their number, have multiplied them, again, by community of names; which subject, indeed, men of keen discernment and acute intellect have before now treated both in Latin and Greek.71 And that might have lessened our labour,72 if it were not that at the same time we see that some know nothing of these books; and, also, that the discussion which we have begun, compels us to bring forward something on these subjects, although it has been already laid hold of, and related by those writers.

 

14. Your theologians, then, and authors on unknown antiquity, say that in the universe there are three Joves, one of whom has Aether for his father; another, Coelus; the third, Saturn, born and buried73 in the island of Crete. They speak of five Suns and five Mercuries, – of whom, as they relate, the first Sun is called the son of Jupiter, and is regarded as grandson of Aether; the second is also Jupiter’s son, and the mother who bore him Hyperiona;74 the third the son of Vulcan, not Vulcan of Lemnos, but the son of the Nile; the fourth, whom Acantho bore at Rhodes in the heroic age, was the father of Ialysus; while the fifth is regarded as the son of a Scythian king and subtle Circe. Again, the first Mercury, who is said to have lusted after Proserpina,75 is son of Coelus, who is above all. Under the earth is the second, who boasts that he is Trophonius. The third was born of Maia, his mother, and the third Jove;76 the fourth is the offspring of the Nile, whose name the people of Egypt dread and fear to utter. The fifth is the slayer of Argus, a fugitive and exile. and the inventor of letters in Egypt. But there are five Minervas also, they say, just as there are five Suns and Mercuries; the first of whom is no virgin but the mother of Apollo by Vulcan; the second, the offspring of the Nile, who is asserted to be the Egyptian Sais; the third is descended from Saturn, and is the one who devised the use of arms; the fourth is sprung from Jove, and the Messenians name her Coryphasia; and the fifth is she who slew her lustful77 father, Pallas.

 

15. And lest it should seem tedious and prolix to wish to consider each person singly, the same theologians say that there are four Vulcans and three Dianas, as many Aesculapii and five Dionysi, six Hercules and four Venuses, three sets of Castors and the same number of Muses, three winged Cupids, and four named Apollo;78 whose fathers they mention in like manner, in like manner their mothers, and the places where they were born, and point out the origin and family of each. But if it is true and certain, and is told in earnest as a well-known matter, either they are not all gods, inasmuch as there cannot be several under the same name, as we have been taught; or if there is one of them, he will not be known and recognised, because he is obscured by the confusion of very similar names. And thus it results from your own action, however unwilling you may be that it should be so, that religion is brought into difficulty and confusion, and has no fixed end to which it can turn itself, without being made the sport of equivocal illusions.

 

16. For suppose that it had occurred to us, moved either by suitable influence or violent fear of you,79 to worship Minerva, for example, with the rights you deem sacred, and the usual ceremony: if, when we prepare sacrifices, and approach to make the offerings appointed for her on the flaming altars, all the Minervas shall fly thither, and striving for the right to that name, each demand that the offerings prepared be given to herself; what drawn-out animal shall we place among them, or to whom shall we direct the sacred offices which are our duty?80 For the first one of whom we spoke will perhaps say: “The name Minerva is mine, mine81 the divine majesty, who bore Apollo and Diana, and by the fruit of my womb enriched heaven with deities, and multiplied the number of the gods.” “Nay, Minerva,” the fifth will say, “are you speaking,82 who, being a wife, and so often a mother, have lost the sanctity of spotless purity? Do you not see that in all temples83 the images of Minervas are those of virgins, and that all artists refrain from giving to them the figures of matrons?84 Cease, therefore, to appropriate to yourself a name not rightfully85 yours. For that I am Minerva, begotten of father Pallas, the whole band of poets bear witness, who call me Pallas, the surname being derived from my father.” The second will cry on hearing this: “What say you? Do you, then, bear the name of Minerva, an impudent parricide, and one defiled by the pollution of lewd lust, who, decking yourself with rouge and a harlot’s arts, roused upon yourself even your father’s passions, full of maddening desires? Go further, then, seek for yourself another name for this belongs to me, whom the Nile, greatest of rivers, begot from among his flowing waters, and brought to a maiden’s estate from the condensing of moisture.86 But if you inquire into the credibility of the matter, I too will bring as witnesses the Egyptians, in whose language I am called Neith, as Plato’s Timaeus87 attests.” What, then, do we suppose will be the result? Will she indeed cease to say that she is Minerva, who is named Coryphasia, either to mark her mother, or because she sprung forth from the top of Jove’s head, bearing a shield, and girt with the terror of arms? Or are we to suppose that she who is third will quietly surrender the name? and not argue88 and resist the assumption of the first two with such words as these: “Do you thus dare to assume the honour of my name, O Sais,89 sprung from the mud and eddies of a stream, and formed in miry places? Or do you usurp90 another’s rank, who falsely say that you were born a goddess from the head of Jupiter, and persuade very silly men that you are reason? Does he conceive and bring forth children from ms head? That the arms you bear might be forged and formed, was there even in the hollow of his head a smith’s workshop? were there anvils, hammers, furnaces, bellows, coals, and pincers? Or if, as you maintain, it is true that you are reason, cease to claim for yourself the name which is mine; for reason, of which you speak, is not a certain form of deity, but the understanding of difficult questions.” If, then, as we have said, five Minervas should meet us when we essay to sacrifice,91 and contending as to whose this name is, each demand that either fumigations of incense be offered to her, or sacrificial wines poured out from golden cups; by what arbiter, by what judge, shall we dispose of so great a dispute? or what examiner will there be, what umpire of so great boldness as to attempt, with such personages, either to give a just decision, or to declare their causes not founded on right? Will he not rather go home, and, keeping himself apart from such matters, think it safer to have nothing to do with them, test he should either make enemies of the rest, by giving to one what belongs to all, or be charged with folly for yielding92 to all what should be the property of one?

 

17. We may say the very same things of the Mercuries, the Suns, – indeed of all the others whose numbers you increase and multiply. But it is sufficient to know from one case that the same principle applies to the rest; and, lest our prolixity should chance to weary our audience, we shall cease to deal with individuals, lest, while we accuse you of excess, we also should ourselves be exposed to the charge of excessive loquacity. What do you say, you who, by the fear of bodily tortures, urge us to worship the gods, and constrain us to undertake the service of your deities? We can be easily won, if only something befitting the conception of so great a race be shown to us. Show us Mercury, but only one; give us Bacchus, but only one; one Venus, and in like manner one Diana. For you will never make us believe that there are four Apollos, or three Jupiters, not even if you were to call Jove himself as witness, or make the Pythian god your authority.

 

18. But some one on the opposite side says, How do we know whether the theologians have written what is certain and well known, or set forth a wanton fiction,93 as they thought and judged? That has nothing to do with the matter; nor does the reasonableness of your argument depend upon this, – whether the facts are as the writings of the theologians state, or are otherwise and markedly different. For to us it is enough to speak of things which come before the public; and we need not inquire what is true, but only confute and disprove that which lies open to all, and which men’s thoughts have generally received. But if they are liars, declare yourselves what is the truth, and disclose the unassailable mystery. And how can it be done when the services of men of letters are set aside? For what is there which can be said about. the immortal gods that has not reached men’s thoughts from what has been written by men on these subjects?94 Or can you relate anything yourselves about their rights and ceremonies, which has not been recorded in books, and made known by what authors have written? Or if you think these of no importance, let all the books be destroyed which have been composed about the gods for you by theologians, pontiffs, and even some devoted to the study of philosophy; nay, let us rather suppose that from the foundation of the world no man ever wrote95 anything about the gods: we wish to find out, and desire to know, whether you can mutter or murmur in mentioning the gods,96 or conceive those in thought to whom no idea97 from any book gave shape in your minds. But when it is clear that you have been informed of their names and powers by the suggestions of books,98 it is unjust to deny the reliableness of these books by whose testimony and authority you establish what you say.

 

19. But perhaps these things will turn out to be false, and what you say to be true. By what proof, by what evidence, will it be shown? For since both parties are men, both those who have said the one thing and those who have said the other, and on both sides the discussion was of doubtful matters, it is arrogant to say that that is true which seems so to you, but that that which offends your feelings manifests wantonness and falsehood. By the laws of the human race, and the associations of mortality itself, when you read and hear, That god was born of this father and of that mother, do you not feel in your mind99 that something is said which belongs to man, and relates to the meanness of our earthly race? Or, while you think that it is so,100 do you conceive no anxiety lest you should in something offend the gods themselves, whoever they are, because you believe that it is owing to filthy intercourse …101 that they have reached the light they knew not of, thanks to lewdness? For we, lest any one should chance to think that we are ignorant of, do not know, what befits the majesty of that name, assuredly102 think that the gods should not know birth; or if they are born at all, we hold and esteem that the Lord and Prince of the universe, by ways which He knew Himself, sent them forth spotless, most pure, undefiled, ignorant of sexual pollution,103 and brought to the full perfection of their natures as soon as they were begotten? 104

 

20. But you, on the contrary, forgetting how great105 their dignity and grandeur are, associate with them a birth,106 and impute to them a descent,106 which men of at all refined feelings regard as at once execrable and terrible. From Ops, you say, his mother, and from his father Saturn, Diespiter was born with his brothers. Do the gods, then, have wives; and, the matches having been previously planned, do they become subject to the bonds of marriage? Do they take upon themselves107 the engagements of the bridal couch by prescription, by the cake of spelt, and by a pretended sale?108 Have they their mistresses,109 their promised wives, their betrothed brides, on settled conditions? And what do we say about their marriages, too, when indeed you say that some celebrated their nuptials, and entertained joyous throngs, and that the goddesses sported at these; and that some threw all things into utter confusion with dissensions because they had no share in singing the Fescennine verses, and occasioned danger and destruction110 to the next generation of men?111 

 

21. But perhaps this foul pollution may be less apparent in the rest. Did, then, the ruler of the heavens, the father of gods and men, who, by the motion of his eyebrow, and by his nod, shakes the whole heavens and makes them tremble, – did he find his origin in man and woman? And unless both sexes abandoned themselves to degrading pleasures in sensual embraces,112 would there be no Jupiter, greatest of all; and even to this time would the divinities have no king, and heaven stand without its lord? And why do we marvel that you say Jove sprang from a woman’s womb, seeing that your authors relate that he both had a nurse, and in the next place maintained the life given to him by nourishment drawn from a foreign113 breast? What say you, O men? Did, then, shall I repeat, the god who makes the thunder crash, lightens and hurls the thunderbolt, and draws together terrible clouds, drink in the streams of the breast, wail as an infant, creep about, and, that he might be persuaded to cease his crying most foolishly protracted, was he made silent by the noise of rattles,114 and put to sleep lying in a very soft cradle, and lulled with broken words? O devout assertion of the existence of gods, pointing out and declaring the venerable majesty of their awful grandeur! Is it thus in your opinion, ask, that the exalted powers115 of heaven are produced? do your gods come forth to the light by modes of birth such as these, by which asses, pigs, dogs, by which the whole of this unclean herd116 of earthly beasts is conceived and begotten?

 

22. And, not content to have ascribed these carnal unions to the venerable Saturn,117 you affirm that the king of the world himself begot children even more shamefully than he was himself born and begotten. Of Hyperiona,118 as his mother, you say, and Jupiter, who wields the thunderbolt, was born the golden and blazing Sun; of Latona and the same, the Delian archer, and Diana,119 who rouses the woods; of Leda and the same,120 those named in Greek Dioscori; of Alcmena and the same, the Theban Hercules, whom his club and hide defended; of him and Semele, Liber, who is named Bromius, and was born a second time from his father’s thigh; of him, again, and Maia, Mercury, eloquent in speech, and bearer of the harmless snakes. Can any greater insult be put upon your Jupiter, or is there anything else which will destroy and ruin the reputation of the chief of the gods, further than that you believe him to have been at times overcome by vicious pleasures, and to have glowed with the passion of a heart roused to lust after women? And what had the Saturnian king to do with strange nuptials? Did Juno not suffice him; and could he not stay the force of his desires on the queen of the deities, although so great excellence graced her, such beauty, majesty of countenance, and snowy and marble whiteness of arms? Or did he, not content with one wife, taking pleasure in concubines, mistresses, and courtezans, a lustful god, show121 his incontinence in all directions, as is the custom with dissolute122 youths; and in old age, after intercourse with numberless persons, did he renew his eagerness for pleasures now losing their zest? What say you, profane ones; or what vile thoughts do you fashion about your love? Do you not, then, observe do you not see with what disgrace you brand him? of what wrong-doing you make him the author? or what stains of vice, how great infamy you heap upon him?

 

23. Men, though prone to lust, and inclined, through weakness of character, to yield to the allurements of sensual pleasures, still punish adultery by the laws, and visit with the penalty of death those whom they find to have possessed themselves of others rights by forcing the marriage-bed. The greatest of kings, however, you tell us, did not know how vile, how infamous the person of the seducer and adulterer was; and he who, as is said, examines our merits and demerits, did not, owing to the reasonings of his abandoned heart, see what was the fitting course for him to resolve on. But this misconduct might perhaps be endured, if you were to conjoin him with persons at least his equals, and if he were made by you the paramour of the immortal goddesses. But what beauty, what grace was there, I ask you, in human bodies, which could move, which could turn to it123 the eyes of Jupiter? Skin, entrails, phlegm, and all that filthy mass placed under the coverings of the intestines, which not Lynceus only with his searching gaze can shudder at, but any other also can be made to turn from even by merely thinking. 

 

24. If you will open your minds’ eyes, and see the real124 truth without gratifying any private end, you will find that the causes of all the miseries by which, as you say, the human race has long been afflicted, flow from such beliefs which you held in former times about your gods; and which you have refused to amend, although the truth was placed before your eyes. For what about them, pray, have we indeed ever either imagined which was unbecoming, or put forth in shameful writings that the troubles which assail men and the loss of the blessings of life125 should be used to excite a prejudice against us? Do we say that certain gods were produced from eggs,126 like storks and pigeons? Do we say that the radiant Cytherean Venus grew up, having taken form from the sea’s foam and the severed genitals of Coelus? that Saturn was thrown into chains for parricide, and relieved from their weight only on his own days?127 that Jupiter was saved from death128 by the services of the Curetes? that he drove his father from the seat of power, and by force and fraud possessed a sovereignty not his own? Do we say that his aged sire, when driven out, concealed himself in the territories of the Itali, and gave his name as a gift to Latium,129 because he had been there protected from his son? Do we say that Jupiter himself incestuously married his sister? or, instead of pork, breakfasted in ignorance upon the son of Lycaon, when invited to his table? that Vulcan, limping on one foot, wrought as a smith in the island of Lemnos? that Aeculapius was transfixed by a thunderbolt because of his greed and avarice, as the Boeotian Pindar130 sings? that Apollo, having become rich, by his ambiguous responses, deceived the very kings by whose treasures and gifts he had been enriched? Did we declare that Mercury was a thief? that Laverna is so also, and along with him presides over secret frauds? Is the writer Myrtilus one of us, who declares that the Muses were the handmaids of Megalcon,131 daughter of Macarus?132

 

25. Did we say133 that Venus was a courtezan, deified by a Cyprian king named Cinyras? Who reported that the palladium was formed from the remains of Pelops? Was it not you? Who that Mars was Spartanus? was it not your writer Epicharmus? Who that he was born within the confines of Thrace? was it not Sophocles the Athenian, with the assent of all his spectators? Who that he was born in Arcadia? was it not you? Who that he was kept a prisoner for thirteen months?134 was it not the son of the river Meles? Who said that dogs were sacrificed to him by the Carians, asses by the Scythians? was it not Apollodorus especially, along with the rest? Who that in wronging another’s marriage couch, he was caught entangled in snares? was it not your writings, your tragedies? Did we ever write that the gods for hire endured slavery, as Hercules at Sardis135 for lust and wantonness; as the Delian Apollo, who served Admetus, as Jove’s brother, who served the Trojan Laomedon, whom the Pythian also served, but with his uncle; as Minerva, who gives light, and trims the lamps to secret lovers? Is not he one of your poets, who represented Mars and Venus as wounded by men’s hands? Is not Panyassis one of you, who relates that father Dis and queenly Juno were wounded by Hercules? Do not the writings of your Polemo say that Pallas136 was slain,137 covered with her own blood, overwhelmed by Ornytus? Does not Sosibius declare that Hercules himself was afflicted by the wound and pain he suffered at the hands of Hipocoon’s children? Is it related at our instance that Jupiter was committed to the grave in the island of Crete? Do we say that the brothers,138 who were united in their cradle, were buried in the territories of Sparta and Lacedaemon? Is the author of our number, who is termed Patrocles the Thurian in the titles of his writings, who relates that the tomb and remains of Saturn are found139 in Sicily? Is Plutarch of Chaeronea140 esteemed one of us, who said that Hercules was reduced to ashes on the top of Mount Oeta, after his loss of strength through epilepsy?

 

26. But what shall I say of the desires with which it is written in your books, and contained in your writers, that the holy immortals lusted after women? For is it by us that the king of the sea is asserted in the heat of maddened passion to have robbed of their virgin purity Amphitrite,141 Hippothoe, Amymone, Menalippe, Alope?142 that the spotless Apollo, Latona’s son, most chaste and pure, with the passions of a breast not governed by reason, desired Arsinoe, Aethusa, Hypsipyle, Marpessa, Zeuxippe, and Prothoe, Daphne, and Sterope?141 Is it shown in our poems that the aged Saturn, already long covered with grey hair, and now cooled by weight of years, being taken by his wife in adultery, put on the form of one of the lower animals, and neighing loudly, escaped in the shape of a beast? Do you not accuse Jupiter himself of having assumed countless forms, and concealed by mean deceptions the ardour of his wanton lust? Have we ever written that he obtained his desires by deceit, at one time changing into gold, at another into a sportive satyr; into a serpent, a bird, a bull; and, to pass beyond all limits of disgrace, into a little ant, that he might, forsooth, make Clitor’s daughter the mother of Myrmidon, in Thessaly? Who represented him as having watched over Alcmena for nine nights without ceasing? was it not you? – that he indolently abandoned himself to his lusts, forsaking his post in heaven? was it not you? And, indeed, you ascribe143 to him no mean favours; since, in your opinion, the god Hercules was born to exceed and surpass in such matters his father’s powers. He in nine nights begot144 with difficulty one son; but Hercules, a holy god, in one night taught the fifty daughters of Thestius at once to lay aside their virginal title, and to bear a mother’s burden. Moreover, not content to have ascribed to the gods love of women, do you also say that they lusted after men? Some one loves Hylas; another is engaged with Hyacinthus; that one burns with desire for Pelops; this one sighs more ardently for Chrysippus; Catamitus is carried off to be a favourite and cup-bearer; and Fabius, that he may be called Jove’s darling, is branded on the soft parts, and marked in the hinder.

 

27. But among you, is it only the males who lust; and has the female sex preserved its purity?145 Is it not proved in your books that Tithonus was loved by Aurora; that Luna lusted after Endymion; the Nereid after Aeacus; Thetis after Achilles’ father; Proserpina after Adonis; her mother, Ceres, after some rustic Jasion, and afterwards Vulcan, Phaeton,146 Mars; Venus herself, the mother of Aeneas, and founder of the Roman power, to marry Anchises? While, therefore, you accuse, without making any exception, not one only by name, but the whole of the gods alike, in whose existence you believe, of such acts of extraordinary shamefulness and baseness, do you dare, without violation of modesty, to say either that we are impious, or that you are pious, although they receive from you much greater occasion for offence on account of all the shameful acts which you heap up to their reproach, than in connection with the service and duties required by their majesty, honour, and worship? For either all these things are false which you bring forward about them individually, lessening their credit and reputation; and it is in that case a matter quite deserving, that the gods should utterly destroy the race of men; or if they are true and certain, and perceived without any reasons for doubt, it comes to this issue, that, however unwilling you may be, we believe them to be not of heavenly, but of earthly birth.

 

28. For where there are weddings, marriages, births, nurses, arts,147 and weaknesses; where there are liberty and slavery; where there are wounds, slaughter, and shedding of blood; where there are lusts, desires, sensual pleasures; where there is every mental passion arising from disgusting emotions, – there must of necessity be nothing godlike there; nor can that cleave to a superior nature which belongs to a fleeting race, and to the frailty of earth. For who, if only he recognises and perceives what the nature of that power is, can believe either that a deity had the generative members, and was deprived of them by a very base operation; or that he at one time cut off the children sprung from himself, and was punished by suffering imprisonment; or that he, in a way, made civil war upon his father, and deprived him of the right of governing; or that he, filled with fear of one younger when overcome, turned to flight, and hid in remote solitudes, like a fugitive and exile? Who, I say, can believe that the deity reclined at men’s tables, was troubled on account of his avarice, deceived his suppliants by an ambiguous reply, excelled in the tricks of thieves, committed adultery, acted as a slave, was wounded, and in love, and submitted to the seduction of impure desires in all the forms of lust? But yet you declare all these things both were, and are, in your gods; and you pass by no form of vice, wickedness, error, without bringing it forward, in the wantonness of your fancies, to the reproach of the gods. You must, therefore, either seek out other gods, to whom all these reproaches shall not apply, for they are a human and earthly race to whom they apply; or if there are only these whose names and character you have declared, by your beliefs you do away with them: for all the things of which you speak relate to men.

 

29. And here, indeed, we can show that all those whom you represent to us as and call gods, were but men, by quoting either Euhemerus of Acragas,148 whose books were translated by Ennius into Latin that all might be thoroughly acquainted with them; or Nicanor149 the Cyprian; or the Pellaean Leon; or Theodorus of Cyrene; or Hippo and Diagoras of Melos; or a thousand other writers, who have minutely, industriously, and carefully150 brought secret things to light with noble candour. We may, I repeat, at pleasure, declare both the acts of Jupiter, and the wars of Minerva and the virgin151 Diana; by what stratagems Liber strove to make himself master of the Indian empire; what was the condition, the duty, the gain152 of Venus; to whom the great mother was bound in marriage; what hope, what joy was aroused in her by the comely Attis; whence came the Egyptian Serapis and Isis, or for what reasons their very names153 were formed.

 

30. But in the discussion which we at present maintain, we do not undertake this trouble or service, to show and declare who all these were. But this is what we proposed to ourselves, that as you call us impious and irreligious, and, on the other hand, maintain that you are pious and serve the gods, we should prove and make manifest that by no men are they treated with less respect than by you. But if it is proved by the very insults that it is so, it must, as a consequence, be understood that it is yon who rouse the gods to fierce and terrible rage, because you either listen to or believe, or yourselves invent about them, stories so degrading. For it is not he who is anxiously thinking of religious rites,154 and slays spotless victims, who gives piles of incense to be burned with fire, not he must be thought to worship the deities, or alone discharge the duties of religion. True worship is in the heart, and a belief worthy of the gods; nor does it at all avail to bring blood and gore, if you believe about them things which are not only far remote from and unlike their nature, but even to some extent stain and disgrace both their dignity and virtue.

 

31. We wish, then, to question you, and invite you to answer a short question, Whether you think it a greater offence to sacrifice to them being neither wishes nor desires these; or, with foul beliefs, to hold opinions about them so degrading, that they might rouse any one’s spirit to a mad desire for revenge? If the relative importance of the matters be weighed, you will find no judge so prejudiced as not to believe it a greater crime to defame by manifest insults any one’s reputation, than to treat it with silent neglect. For this, perhaps, may be held and believed from deference to reason; but the other course manifests an impious spirit, and a blindness despaired of in fiction. If in your ceremonies and rites neglected sacrifices and expiatory offerings may be demanded, guilt is said to have been contracted; if by a momentary forgetfulness155 any one has erred either in speaking or in pouring wine;156 or again,157 if at the solemn games and sacred races the dancer has halted, or the musician suddenly become silent, – you all cry out immediately that something has been done contrary to the sacredness of the ceremonies; or if the boy termed patrimus let go the thong in ignorance,158 or could not hold to the earth:159 and yet do you dare to deny that the gods are ever being wronged by you in sins so grievous, while you confess yourselves that, in less matters, they are often angry, to the national ruin?

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 Lit., “see altars built.”

2 Lit., “in the regions of heaven.”

3 The MS reads tam (corrected by the first four edd. tamen) in regionibus – “in the divine seats;” corrected, religionibus, as above, by Ursinus.

4 Lit., “to the deluding of your deities.”

5 Lit., “is contained in a form of its own kind.”

6 i.e., manliness.

7 Lit., “which it is easy to perceive to be said by us with the greatest truth from,” etc., – so most edd. reading nobis; but the MS, according to Crusius, gives vobis – “you,” as in Orelli and Oberthür.

8 Lit., “less auspicious.”

9 The MS, first four edd., and Elmenhorst, read quae – “which;” the rest, as above, que.

10 Lit., “what is opposed to them named,” nominatum; a correction by Oehler for the MS nominatur – “is named.”

11 The MS and both Roman edd. read signatorum – “sealed;” the others, except Hild., ignotorum, as above.

12 Lit., “drew the meaning of her name.”

13 Lit., “excelled the might of all.”

14 MS, “that these, too,” i.e., as well as Luperca.

15 No such discussion occurs in the preceding part of the work, but the subject is brought forward in the end of Rom_8:1-39, p. 478, infra.

16 In the first sentence the MS reads utrique, and in the second utique, which is reversed in most edd., as above.

17 Lit., “ever at hand with gracious assistances.”

18 Lit., “are not of.”

19 i.e., the field of Cannae.

20 Lit., “the parts.”

21 Lit., “it cannot be brought into any light of general understanding by you.”

22 Lit., “convexity.”

23 Lit., “be of.”

24 Lit., “to the state of the world.”

25 Lit., “who have been so formed, that some things are said by us,” nobis, the reading of Oberthür and Orelli for the MS in nos – “with regard to us,” which is retained by the first four edd., Elm., Hild., and Oehler.

26 i.e., transit in vocabulum sinistri; in being omitted in the MS and both Roman edd.

27 Lit., “the turning round of the body being changed.”

28 So Oehler, reading positione, sed tempore sed, for the MS positionis et temporis et.

29 No mention is made of this deity by any other author.

30 Lit., “that he may do what.”

31 Lit., “good condition,” habitudinem.

32 Lit., “a disreputable act.”

33 So the MS, reading flagitiis, followed by all edd. except LB and Orelli, who read plagiis – “kidnapping.”

34 Of this goddess, also, no other author makes mention but the germ may perhaps be found in Lucretius (ii. 1116-7), where nature is termed perfica, i.e., “perfecting,” or making all things complete. [The learned translator forgets Tertullian, who introduces us to this name in the work Arnobius imitates throughout. See vol. 3. p. 140.]

35 i.e., in cubiculis praesto est virginalem scrobem effodientibus maritis.

36 The first five edd. read Mutunus. Cf. Rom_11:1-36. [I think it a mistake to make Mutunus = Priapus. Their horrible deformities are diverse, as I have noted in European collections of antiquities. The specialty of Mutunus is noted by our author, and is unspeakably abominable. All this illustrates, therefore, the Christian scruples about marriage-feasts, of which see vol. 5. note 30, p. 435.]

37 Lit., the “fancies” or “imaginations” of false gods. Meursius proposed to transpose the whole of this sentence to the end of the chapter, which would give a more strictly logical arrangement; but it must be remembered that Arnobius allows himself much liberty in this respect.

38 Of these three deities no other mention is made.

39 The MS, LB., Hild., and Oehler read qui – “who brings;” the other edd., as above, quia.

40 So the MS (cf. Rom_11:1-36), first five edd., Oberth., Hild., and Oehler; the other edd. read Nodutim Ter.

41 So the MS, both Roman edd., and Oehler; the other edd. reading Vibilia, except Hild., Viabilia.

42 The MS reads nam – “for,” followed by all edd. except Orelli, who reads jam as above, and Oehler, who reads etiam – “also.”

43 Orelli omits non, following Oberthür.

44 Both in this and the preceding chapter the MS reads Melonia.

45 Lit., “obtained by lot the wardships.”

46 Lit., “signs.”

47 So the MS, both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler; the others reading Liburnum, except Elm., who reads -am, while Meursius conjectured Liberum – “Bacchus.”

48 Lit., “shameful impurity seeks after;” expetit read by Gelenius, Canterus, and Oberthür, for the unintelligible MS reading expeditur, retained in both Roman edd.; the others reading experitur – “tries.”

49 The MS reads Lemons; Hild. and Oehler, Limones; the others, Limos, as above.

50 The MS, Hild., and Oehler read Murcidam; the others, Murciam, as above.

51 i.e., equestrian rank.

52 The MS reading is quid si haberet in sedibus suos, retained by the first five edd., with the change of -ret into -rent – “what if in their seats the bones had their own peculiar guardians;” Ursinus in the margin, followed by Hild. and Oehler, reads in se divos suos – “if for themselves the bones had gods as their own peculiar,” etc.; the other edd reading, as above, si habere insistitis suos.

53 i.e., deities. So LB. and Orelli, reading quid potestatum? – “what, O fathers of powers.” The MS gives qui – “what say you, O fathers of new religions, who cry out, and complain that gods of powers are indecently dishonoured by us, and neglected with impious contempt,” etc. Heraldus emends thus: “… fathers of great religions and powers? Do you, then, cry out,” etc. “Fathers,” i.e., those who discovered, and introduced, unknown deities and forms of worship.

54 The MS reads pertus quae- (marked as spurious) dam; and, according to Hild., naeniam is written over the latter word.

55 So the MS. Cf. Rom_7:1-25 [note 40, p. 478, supra.]

56 The MS is here very corrupt and imperfect, – supplices hoc est uno procumbimus atque est utuno (Orelli omits ut-), emended by Gelenius, with most edd. supp. Mut-uno proc. atque Tutuno, as above; Elm. and LB. merely insert humi – “on the ground,” after supp. [See p. 478, note 36, supra.]

57 Meursius is of opinion that some words have slipped out of the text here, and that some arguments had been introduced about augury and divination.

58 Contendis, not found in the MS.

59 i.e., the predictions.

60 Lit., “will you make the same belief.”

61 Lit., “adapt themselves to the significations of the things which.”

62 Lit., “brothers of.”

63 i.e., demons.

64 Perhaps “abilities” – materiis.

65 The MS reads cum – “with similar reason we may believe,” instead of cur, as above.

66 Lit., “novelty of the thing.”

67 Lit., “of places and divisions,” i.e., places separated from each other.

68 Lit., “affords to you the appearance of.”

69 Lit., “a severity of stern manner” – moris for the MS mares.

70 Orelli here introduces the sentence, “For it cannot be,” etc., with which this book is concluded in the MS. Cf. ch. 37, n. 196, infra.

71 There can be no doubt that Arnobius here refers to Clemens Alexandrinus (Λόγος Προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Ἑλλῆνας), and Cicero (de Nat. Deor.), from whom he borrows most freely in the following chapters, quoting them at times very closely. We shall not indicate particular references without some special reason, as it must be understood these references would be required with every statement. [Compare Clement, vol. 2. pp. 305-13, and Tertullian, vol. 3. p. 34.]

72 Lit., “given to us an abridging,” i.e., an opportunity of abridging.

73 Lit., “committed to sepulture and born in,” etc.

74 Arnobius repeats this statement in ch. 22, or the name would have been regarded as corrupt, no other author making mention of such a goddess; while Cicero speaks of one Sun as born of Hyperion. It would appear, therefore, to be very probable that Arnobius, in writing from memory or otherwise, has been here in some confusion as to what Cicero did say, and thus wrote the name as we have it. It has also been proposed to read “born of Regina” (or, with Gelenius, Rhea), “and his father Hyperion,” because Cybele is termed βασίλεια; for which reading there seems no good reason. – Immediately below, Ialysus is made the son, instead of, as in Cicero, the grandson of the fourth; and again, Circe is said to be mother, while Cicero speaks of her as the daughter of the fifth Sun. These variations, viewed along with the general adherence to Cicero’s statements (de N. D., iii. 21 sqq.), seem to give good grounds for adopting the explanation given above.

75 i.e., in Proserpinam genitalibus adhinnivisse subrectis.

76 Lit., “of Jupiter, but the third.”

77 i.e., incestorum appetitorem.

78 So Cicero (iii. 23); but Clemens [vol. 2. p. 179, above note 17] speaks of five, and notes that a sixth had been mentioned.

79 Lit., “by the violence of your terror.” The preceding words are read in the MS ideo motos – “so moved by authority,” and were emended idonea, as in the text, by Gelenius.

80 Lit., “to what parts shall we transfer the duties of pious service.”

81 The MS reads cum numen; Rigalitus, followed by Oehler, emending, as above, meum; the first four edd. with Oberthür, tum – “then the deity is mine;” while the rest read cum numine – “with the deity.”

82 So LB., Orelli, and Oehler, reading tu tinnis for the MS tutunis.

83 Capitoliis. In the Capitol were three shrines, – to Jove, Juno, and Minerva; and Roman colonies followed the mother-state’s example. Hence the present general application of the term, which is found elsewhere in ecclesiastical Latin.

84 Lit., “Nor are the forms of married persons given to these by all artists;” nec read in all edd. for the MS et – “and of married,” etc., which is opposed to the context.

85 Lit., “not of your own right.”

86 Concretione roris – a strange phrase. Cf. Her., iv. 180: “They say that Minerva is the daughter of Poseidon and the Tritonian lake.”

87 St. p. 21. The MS reads quorum Nili lingua latonis; the two Roman edd. merely insert p., Plat.; Gelenius and Canterus adding dicor – “in whose language I am called the Nile’s,” Nili being changed into Neith by Elmenhorst and later edd.

88 Lit., “take account of herself.”

89 So Ursinus suggested in the margin for the MS si verum.

90 The third Minerva now addresses the fourth.

91 Lit., “approaching the duties of religion.”

92 According to the MS sic – “for so (i.e., as you do) yielding,” etc.

93 So all the edd., though Orelli approves of fictione (edd. -em), which is, he says, the MS reading, “set forth with wanton fiction.”

94 The MS and earlier edd., with Hild. and Oehler, read ex hominum de scriptis; LB. and Orelli inserting his after de, as above.

95 The MS and both Roman edd. read esse, which is clearly corrupt; for which LB. gives scriptisse (misprinted scripse), as above.

96 i.e., “speak of them at all.”

97 Lit., “an idea of no writing.”

98 Lit., “been informed by books suggesting to you,” etc.

99 Lit., “does it not touch the feeling of your mind.”

100 Ursinus would supply eos – “that they are so.”

101 Atque ex seminis, actu, or jactu, as the edd. except Hild. read it.

102 The MS reads dignitati-s aut; corrected, as above, d. sane, in the first five edd., Oberthür, and Orelli. [Joh_10:35]

103 Quaesit foeditas ista coeundi.

104 Lit., “as far as to themselves, their first generation being completed.”

105 Lit., “forgetting the so great majesty and sublimity.”

106 Both plural.

107 The MS, first four edd., and Oberthür read conducunt – “unite;” for which the rest read condic-unt, as above.

108 i.e., usu, farre, coemptione.

109 The word here translated mistresses, speratas, is used of maidens loved, but not yet asked in marriage.

110 Lit., “dangers of destructions.”

111 Instead of “occasioned,” sevisse, which the later editions give, the MS and first four edd. read saevisse – “that danger and destruction raged against,” etc.

112 Copulatis corporibus.

113 i.e., not his mother’s, but the dug of the goat Amalthea.

114 Lit., “rattles heard.”

115 Lit., “the eminence of the powers.”

116 Lit., “inundation.”

117 Lit., “Saturnian gravity.”

118 Cf. Joh_14:1-31, note 74, supra.

119 It is worth while to compare this passage with Joh_16:1-33. Here Arnobius makes Latona the mother of Apollo and Diana, in accordance with the common legend; but there he represents the first Minerva as claiming them as her children.

120 In the MS there is here an evident blunder on the part of the copyist, who has inserted the preceding line (“the archer Apollo, and of the woods”) after “the same.” Omitting these words, the MS reading is literally, “the name in Greek is to the Dioscori.” Before “the name” some word is pretty generally supposed to have been lost, some conjecturing “to whom;” others (among them Orelli, following Salmasius) “Castores.” But it is evidently not really necessary to supplement the text.

121 Lit., “scatter.”

122 Orelli reads, with the MS, LB., and Hild., babecali, which he interprets belli, i.e., “handsome.”

123 MS and first five edd. read inde – “thence;” the others in se, as above. [Elucidation III.]

124 Orelli, without receiving into the text, approves of the reading of Stewechius, promptam, “evident,” for the MS, propriam.

125 Lit., “the benefits diminished by which it is lived.”

126 The MS reads ex Jovis; the first five edd. Jove – “from Jove,” which is altogether out of place; the others, as above, ex ovis. Cf. i. 36.

127 The MS reads et ablui diebus tantis … elevari; LB., Hild., and Oehler, statis or statutis … et levari – “and was loosed and released on fixed days;” Elm., Oberthür, and Orelli receive the conjecture of Ursinus, et suis diebus tantum … rel., as above.

128 Cf. iii. [cap. 41, p. 475, and cap. 30, p. 472].

129 i.e., hiding-place. Virg., Aen., viii. 311: Quoniam latuisset tutus in oris.

130 Pyth., iii. 102 sq.

131 MS Meglac.

132 The MS and most edd. give filias, making the Muses daughters of Macarus; but Orelli, Hild., and Oehler adopt, as above, the reading of Canterus, filiae, in accordance with Clem. Alex.

133 So the MS reading numquid dictatum, which would refer this sentence to the end of the last chapter. Gelenius, with Canth., Oberth., and Orelli, reads quis ditatam, and joins with the following sentence thus: “Who related that Venus, and courtezan enriched by C., was deified …? who that the palladium,” etc. Cf. v. 19.

134 The MS reads quis mensibus in Arcadia tribus et decem vinctum – “Who that he was bound thirteen months in Arcadia? was it not the son,” etc. To which there are these two objections, – that Homer never says so; and that Clemens Alexandrinus [vol. 2. p. 179, at note 17, this series], from whom Arnobius here seems to draw, speaks of Homer as saying only that Mars was so bound, without referring to Arcadia. The MS reading may have arisen from carelessness on the part of Arnobius in quoting (cf. Joh_14:1-31, n. 74), or may be a corruption of the copyists. The reading translated is an emendation by Jortin, adopted by Orelli.

135 Sardibus, – a conjecture of Ursinus, adopted by LB., Hild., and Oehler for the MS sordibus; for which the others read sordidi – “for the sake of base lust.”

136 Lit., “the masculine one.”

137 As this seems rather extravagant when said of one of the immortals, laesam, “hurt”, has been proposed by Meursius.

138 Castor and Pollux.

139 Lit., “contained.”

140 The MS reads Hieronymus Pl. – “is Hier., is Pl.,” while Clem. Alex. mentions only “Hieronymus the philosopher.”

141 These names are all in the plural in the original.

142 So LB. and Orelli, reading Alopas, from Clem. Alex., for the MS Alcyonas.

143 Lit., “you add.”

144 In the original, somewhat at large – unam potuit prolem extundere, concinnare, compingere.

145 All edd. read this without mark of interrogation.

146 The MS reads Phaetontem: for which, both here and in Clem., Potter proposed Phaonem, because no such amour is mentioned elsewhere.

147 i.e., either the arts which belong to each god (cf. the words in ii. 18: “these (arts) are not the gifts of science, but the discoveries of necessity”), or, referring to the words immediately preceding, obstetric arts.

148 Lit., “Euhemerus being opened.”

149 So Elm. and Orelli, reading Nicanore for the MS Nicagora, retained by all other edd.

150 Lit., “with the care of scrupulous diligence.”

151 Meursius would join virginis to Minerva, thinking it an allusion to her title Παρθένος.

152 These terms are employed of hetaerae.

153 Lit., “the title itself of their names was.”

154 Qui sollicite relegit. Relegit is here used by Arnobius to denote the root of religio, and has therefore some such meaning as that given above. Cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deorum, ii. 28.

155 Lit., “an error of inadvertence.”

156 Lit., “with the sacrificial bowl.”

157 So the MS, both Roman edd., Elm., Hild., and Oehler, reading rursus; the others in cursu – “in the course.”

158 Patrimus, i.e., one whose father is alive, is probably used loosely for patrimus et matrimus, to denote one both of whose parents were alive, who was therefore eligible for certain religious services.

159 So the MS reading terram tenere, for which Hild. would read tensam, denoting the car on which were borne the images of the gods, the thongs or reigns of which were held by the patrimus et matrimus; Lipsius, siserram, the sacrificial victim. The reading of the text has been explained as meaning to touch the ground with one’s hands; but the general meaning is clear enough, – that it was unlucky if the boy made a slip, either with hands or feet.



The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Cont.)Book IV

Arnobius (Cont.)

32. But all these things, they say, are the fictions of poets, and games arranged for pleasure. It is not credible, indeed, that men by no means thoughtless, who sought to trace out the character of the remotest antiquity, either did not160 insert in their poems the fables which survived in men’s minds161 and common conversation;162 or that they would have assumed to themselves so great licence as to foolishly feign what was almost sheer madness, and might give them reason to be afraid of the gods, and bring them into danger with men. But let us grant that the poets are, as yon say, the inventors and authors of tales so disgraceful; you are not, however, even thus free from the guilt of dishonouring the gods, who either are remiss in punishing such offences, or have not, by passing laws, and by severity of punishments, opposed such indiscretion, and determined163 that no man should henceforth say that which tended to the dishonour,164 or was unworthy of the glory of the gods.165 For whoever allows the wrongdoer to sin, strengthens his audacity; and it is more insulting to brand and mark any one with false accusations, than to bring forward and upbraid their real offences. For to be called what you are, and what you feel yourself to be, is less offensive, because your resentment is checked by the evidence supplied against you on privately reviewing your life;166 but that wounds very keenly which brands the innocent, and defames a man’s honourable name and reputation.

 

33. Your gods, it is recorded, dine on celestial couches, and in golden chambers, drink, and are at last soothed by the music of the lyre, and singing. You fit them with ears not easily wearied;167 and do not think it unseemly to assign to the gods the pleasures by which earthly bodies are supported, and which are sought after by ears enervated by the frivolity of an unmanly spirit. Some of them are brought forward in the character of lovers, destroyers of purity, to commit shameful and degrading deeds not only with women, but with men also. You take no care as to what is said about matters of so much importance, nor do you check, by any fear of chastisement at least, the recklessness of your wanton literature; others, through madness and frenzy, bereave themselves, and by the slaughter of their own relatives cover themselves with blood, just as though it were that of an enemy. You wonder at these loftily expressed impieties; and that which it was fitting should be subjected to all punishments, you extol with praise that spurs them on, so as to rouse their recklessness to greater vehemence. They mourn over the wounds of their bereavement, and with unseemly wailings accuse the cruel fates; you are astonished at the force of their eloquence, carefully study and commit to memory that which should have been wholly put away from human society,168 and are solicitous that it should not perish through any forgetfulness. They are spoken of as being wounded, maltreated, making war upon each other with hot and furious contests; you enjoy the description; and, to enable you to defend so great daring in the writers, pretend that these things are allegories, and contain the principles of natural science.

 

34. But why do I complain that you have disregarded the insults169 offered to the other deities? That very Jupiter, whose name you should not have spoken without fear and trembling over your whole body, is described as confessing his faults when overcome by lust170 of his wife, and, hardened in shamelessness, making known, as if he were mad and ignorant,171 the mistresses he preferred to his spouse, the concubines he preferred to his wife; you say that those who have uttered so marvellous things are chiefs and kings among poets endowed with godlike genius, that they are persons most holy; and so utterly have you lost sight of your duty in the matters of religion which you bring forward, that words are of more importance, in your opinion, than the profaned majesty of the immortals. So then, if only you felt any fear of the gods, or believed with confident and unhesitating assurance that they existed at all, should you not, by bills, by popular votes, by fear of the senate’s decrees, have hindered, prevented, and forbidden any one to speak at random of the gods otherwise than in a pious manner?172 Nor have they obtained this honour even at your hands, that you should repel insults offered to them by the same laws by which you ward them off from yourselves. They are accused of treason among you who have whispered any evil about your kings. To degrade a magistrate, or use insulting language to a senator, you have made by decree a crime, followed by the severest punishment. To write a satirical poem, by which a slur is cast upon the reputation and character of another, you determined, by the decrees of the decemvirs, should not go unpunished; and that no one might assail your ears with too wanton abuse, you established formulae173 for severe affronts. With you only the gods are unhonoured, contemptible, vile; against whom you allow any one liberty to say what he will, to accuse them of the deeds of baseness which his lust has invented and devised. And yet you do not blush to raise against us the charge of want of regard for deities so infamous, although it is much better to disbelieve the existence of the gods than to think they are such, and of such repute.

 

35. But is it only poets whom you have thought proper174 to allow to invent unseemly tales about the gods, and to turn them shamefully into sport? What do your pantomimists, the actors, that crowd of mimics and adulterers?175 Do they176 not abuse your gods to make to themselves gain, and do not the others177 find enticing pleasures in178 the wrongs and insults offered to the gods? At the public games, too, the colleges of all the priests and magistrates take their places, the chief Pontiffs, and the chief priests of the curiae; the Quindecemviri take their places, crowned with wreaths of laurel, and the flamines diales with their mitres; the augurs take their places, who disclose the divine mind and will; and the chaste maidens also, who cherish and guard the ever-burning fire; the whole people and the senate take their places; the fathers who have done service as consuls, princes next to the gods, and most worthy of reverence; and, shameful to say, Venus, the mother of the race of Mars, and parent of the imperial people, is represented by gestures as in love,179 and is delineated with shameless mimicry as raving like a Bacchanal, with all the passions of a vile harlot.180 The Great Mother, too, adorned with her sacred fillets, is represented by dancing; and that Pessinuntic Dindymene181 is, to the dishonour of her age, represented as with shameful desire using passionate gestures in the embrace of a herdsman; and also in the Trachiniae of Sophocles,182 that son of Jupiter, Hercules, entangled in the toils of a death-fraught garment, is exhibited uttering piteous cries, overcome by his violent suffering, and at last wasting away and being consumed, as his intestines soften and are dissolved.183 But in these tales even the Supreme Ruler of the heavens Himself is brought forward, without any reverence for His name and majesty, as acting the part of an adulterer, and changing His countenance for purposes of seduction, in order that He might by guile rob of their chastity matrons, who were the wives of others, and putting on the appearance of their husbands, by assuming the form of another.

 

36. But this crime is not enough: the persons of the most sacred gods are mixed up with farces also, and scurrilous plays. And that the idle onlookers may be excited to laughter and jollity, the deities are hit at in jocular quips, the spectators shout and rise up, the whole pit resounds with the clapping of hands and applause. And to the debauched scoffers184 at the gods gifts and presents are ordained, ease, freedom from public burdens, exemption and relief, together with triumphal garlands, — a crime for which no amends can be made by any apologies. And after this do you dare to wonder whence these ills come with which the human race is deluged and overwhelmed without any interval, while you daily both repeat and learn by heart all these things, with which are mixed up libels upon the gods and slanderous sayings; and when185 you wish your inactive minds to be occupied with useless dreamings, demand that days be given to you, and exhibition made without any interval? But if you felt any real indignation on behalf of your religious beliefs, you should rather long ago have burned these writings, destroyed those books of yours, and overthrown these theatres, in which evil reports of your deities are daily made public in shameful tales. For why, indeed, have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? our meetings to be cruelly broken up,186 in which prayer is made to the Supreme God, peace and pardon are asked for all in authority, for soldiers, kings, friends, enemies, for those still in life, and those freed from the bondage of the flesh;187 in which all that is said is such as to make men humane,188 gentle, modest, virtuous, chaste, generous in dealing with their substance, and inseparably united to all embraced in our brotherhood?189

 

37. But this is the state of the case, that as you are exceedingly strong in war and in military power, you think you excel in knowledge of the truth also, and are pious before the gods,190 whose might you have been the first to besmirch with foul imaginings. Here, if your fierceness allows. and madness suffers, we ask you to answer us this: Whether you think that anger finds a place in the divine nature, or that the divine blessedness is far removed from such passions? For if they are subject to passions so furious,191 and are excited by feelings of rage as your imaginings suggest. — for you say that they have often shaken the earth with their roaring,192 and bringing woful misery on men, corrupted with pestilential contagion the character of the times,193 both because their games had been celebrated with too little care, and because their priests were not received with favour, and because some small spaces were desecrated, and because their rites were not duly performed, — it must consequently be understood that they feel no little wrath on account of the opinions which have been mentioned. But if, as follows of necessity, it is admitted that all these miseries with which men have long been overwhelmed flow from such fictions, if the anger of the deities is excited by these causes, you are the occasion of so terrible misfortunes, because you never cease to jar upon the feelings of the gods, and excite them to a fierce desire for vengeance. But if, on the other hand, the gods are not subject to such passions, and do not know at all what it is to be enraged, then indeed there is no ground for saying that they who know not what anger is are angry with us, * and they are free from its presence,194 and the disorder195 it causes. For it cannot be, in the nature of things, that what is one should become two; and that unity, which is naturally uncompounded, should divide and go apart into separate things.196

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

160 Oberthür and Orelli omit non.

161 Lit., “notions.”

162 Lit., “placed in their ears.”

163 Lit., “and it has not been established by you,” — a very abrupt transition in the structure of the sentence.

164 Lit., “which was very near to disgrace.”

165 So the margin of Ursinus, followed by later edd., prefixing d before the MS -eorum.

166 Lit., “has less bite, being weakened by the testimony of silent reviewing,” recognitionis.

167 Lit., “most enduring.”

168 Coetu. The MS and most edd. read coalitu, — a word not occurring elsewhere; which Gesner would explain, “put away that it may not be established among men,” the sense being the same in either case.

169 Lit., “complain of the neglected insults of the other gods.”

170 Lit., “as a lover by.” Cf. Homer, Il., 14, 312.

171 i.e., of himself.

172 Lit., “except that which was full of religion.”

173 i.e., according to which such offences should be punished.

174 Lit., “have willed.”

175 Lit., “full-grown race,” exoleti, a word frequently used, as here sensu obscoeno.

176 i.e., the actors, etc.

177 i.e., the crowd of adulterers, as Orelli suggests.

178 Lit., “draw enticements of pleasures from.”

179 Or, “Venus, the mother … and loving parent,” etc.

180 Lit., “of meretricious vileness.”

181 i.e., Cybele, to whom Mount Dindymus in Mysia was sacred, whose rites, however, were celebrated at Pessinus also, a very ancient city of Galatia.

182 MS Sofocles, corrected in LB. Sophocles. Cf. Trach. 1022 sqq.

183 Lit., “towards (in) the last of the wasting consumed by the softening of his bowels flowing apart.”

184 Lit., “debauched and scoffers.”

185 So Orelli, reading et quando; MS and other edd. et si — “and if ever.”

186 Arnobius is generally thought to refer here to the persecution under Diocletian mentioned by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., viii. 2.

187 The service in which these prayers were offered was presided over by the bishop, to whom the dead body was brought; hymns were then sung of thanksgiving to God, the giver of victory, by whose help and grace the departed brother had been victorious. The priest next gave thanks to God, and some chapters of the Scriptures were read; afterwards the catechumens were dismissed; the names of those at rest were then read in a clear voice, to remind the survivors of the success with which others had combated the temptations of the world. The priest again prayed for the departed, at the close beseeching God to grant him pardon, and admission among the undying. Thereafter the body was kissed, anointed, and buried. — Dionysius, Eccl. Hier., last chapter quoted by Heraldus. Cf. Const. Apost., viii. 41. With the Church’s advance in power there was an accession of pomp to these rites. [Elucidation IV.]

188 Cf. the younger Pliny, Epist., x. 97: “They affirmed that they bound themselves by oath not for any wicked purpose, but to pledge themselves not to commit theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break faith, or prove false to a trust.”

189 Lit., “whom our society joins together,” quos solidet germanitas. [Lardner justly argues that this passage proves our author’s familiarity with rites to which catechumens were not admitted. Credibil., vol. iii. p. 458.]

190 i.e., in their sight or estimation.

191 Lit., “conceive these torches.”

192 Lit., “have roared with tremblings of the earth.”

193 The MS reads conru-isse auras temporum, all except the first four edd. inserting p as above. Meursius would also change temp. into ventorum — “the breezes of the winds.”

194 So the MS, reading comptu — tie, according to Hild., followed by LB. and Orelli.

195 Lit., “mixture.”

196 The words following the asterisk (*) are marked in LB. as spurious or corrupt, or at least as here out of place. Orelli transposes them to ch. 13, as was noticed there, although he regards them as an interpolation. The clause is certainly a very strange one, and has a kind of affected abstractness, which makes it seem out of place; but it must be remembered that similarly confused and perplexing sentences are by no means rare in Arnobius. If the clause is to be retained, as good sense can be made from it here as anywhere else. The general meaning would be: The gods, if angry, are angry with the pagans; but if they are not subject to passion, it would be idle to speak of them as angry with the Christians, seeing that they cannot possibly at once be incapable of feeling anger, and yet at the same time be angry with them. [See cap. 13, note 70, p. 480, supra.]