Книга вторая

In this book, having begun to discuss the misfortunes that the Romans suffered before Christ, under the dominance of the cult of false gods, St. Augustine first of all proves that the care of the false gods not only did not free the Romans from moral actions and mental vices, which should be considered either the only or the greatest evil, but, on the contrary, increased their mass. Chapter I. On the limit to which reasoning is obligatory If the weak understanding inherent in man did not dare to resist the obvious truth, but subjected his weakness to the saving doctrine, as a cure, until the divine help received from pious faith healed him, then people of sound minds and expressing their opinions with sufficient clarity would not need to waste many words in order to prove the fallacy of this or that falsely formed idea. But the most common and disgusting disease of stupid souls at the present time is that they defend their unreasonable movements as if they were reason itself and truth itself, even if someone presents to them a completely clear proof of their erroneousness, insofar as such can be presented by one person to another - they defend either due to extreme blindness, due to which they do not see the obvious, or due to their extreme stubbornness, due to which they do not even recognize what they see. Therefore, we have to speak at length about the most obvious things: not in order to present them to those who can see, but in order to let those who feel and have their eyes closed feel them. Nevertheless, where would be the end of our reasoning and the measure of our words if we thought that a new answer must be given to every objection? For those who either cannot understand what is being said, or are so stubborn that, although they understand, do not want to agree, those, as it is written, “spew out impudent speeches” (Ps. 93:4) and are tirelessly deceitful. If we were to undertake to refute their objections every time they set a stubborn intention, not caring what they say, to somehow contradict our reasoning, then you can see for yourself how endless, and difficult, and useless this would be. Therefore, I would like that neither you yourself, my son Marcellinus, nor others who will benefit from my present work and give a noble occupation in the love of Christ, should not be such judges of my composition who want to receive more and more new answers, hearing that there is any objection to what they read; otherwise they will be like those women whom the apostle mentions: “Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7). Chapter II. What is said in the first book So, in the previous book, when I began to talk about the city of God, to which, with the help of God, I decided to devote this entire work, I considered it necessary first of all to give an answer to those that the wars that devastate our world, especially the recent defeat of Rome, are attributed to the Christian religion, which prohibits the service of vile demons; Meanwhile, they would rather attribute to Christ the fact that the barbarians, for the sake of His name, contrary to the rules and customs of war, provided them with sacred and most extensive places for refuge, and not only to the actual servants of Christ, but in many cases to impostors, they showed such respect that even what was permitted in relation to them by the law of war they considered impermissible for themselves. Hence the question arose: why were wicked and ungrateful people awarded such divine mercies and, conversely, why did the cruelties committed by the enemy fall not only on wicked people, but also on pious ones? On the resolution of this question, which many ask in view of the fact that everything in general, both the gifts of God and human sorrows, for the most part fall equally and indifferently to the lot of virtuous people and to the lot of vicious people, I stopped a little more than was necessary in the interests of the work undertaken; This was done mainly for the sake of consoling saints and piously immaculate women, over whom their enemies had done something that offended their modesty, although it did not take away their chastity: so that those who have no reason to reproach themselves for lewdness would not be burdened with life. Then I said a few words against those who, with shameless impudence, dishonor Christians who have suffered the aforementioned misfortunes, especially those who have suffered violence against pure and holy women; while these slanderers themselves are extremely indecent people and do not deserve any respect, degenerate descendants of those Romans whose glorious deeds are often remembered and glorified by history. They disgrace the glory of their ancestors, for this Rome, founded and exalted by the labors of the ancients, they disfigured much more during its outwardly prosperous existence than its destruction disfigured; during its destruction, stones and logs fell, and in their lives, when their hearts burned with the most destructive lusts, like the roofs of a city with fire, all sorts of strongholds and decorations, not of walls, but of morals, fell. With this I finished the first book. Then I thought of talking about what misfortunes this city had suffered from its very foundation, both at home and in the provinces belonging to it - misfortunes that would have been attributed to the Christian religion, if even then the gospel teaching had thundered with its bold testimony against their false and deceitful gods. Chapter III. That it is necessary to turn to history, from which it is revealed what misfortunes befell the Romans at the time when they worshiped the gods, before the Christian religion spread Do not forget, however, that in saying all this, I was still dealing with uneducated people, whose ignorance gave rise to the well-known common proverb: “there is no rain, the reason is Christians.” But among them there are also educated people who love history, from which they know all this perfectly well, but pretend ignorance in order to arouse hostile crowds of ignoramuses against us. They are trying to spread the opinion among the people that the disasters that the human race is subjected to here and there from time to time are due to the fault of the Christian religion, which, in spite of their gods, is spreading everywhere with such great glory and with such splendor. Let them reconsider with us how frequent and varied calamities the Roman state was subjected to before Christ appeared in the flesh, before His name, which they envy, was glorified among the nations; and let them after this defend, if they can, their gods, as long as they honor them so that their followers do not suffer these misfortunes. If they experience something similar now, they claim that we should be blamed for it. So why did these gods allow what I intend to talk about to happen to their worshipers, and at a time when the preaching of Christ had not yet annoyed them and did not forbid their sacrifices? Chapter IV. The fact that the worshipers of the gods never received any instructions from their gods about a virtuous life, and in the form of a cult they committed all sorts of abominations to them First, why did not their gods take care that their morals were not extremely corrupt? The true God deservedly left in his care those who did not honor Him: but why did those gods, about the prohibition of whose cult these ungrateful people complain, not guard the virtuous life of their worshipers with any laws? Justice demanded that just as people cared in one way or another about the cult of their gods, so these gods cared about the behavior of people. But, they say, every person is bad of his own free will. Nobody denies this. Nevertheless, the task of the advisory gods was not to hide the commandments of a virtuous life from the people who respect them, but to offer them in public preaching, admonishing and restraining those who sin through the prophets, threatening those who do wrong with punishments, and promising rewards to those who live virtuously. Has the strong and all-encompassing voice of the gods ever been heard in their churches about anything like this? Once upon a time, in the days of our youth, we also went to sacrilegious spectacles, looked at the demons, listened to singers, amused ourselves with the most vile games that were given in honor of the gods and goddesses, in honor of the heavenly maiden and mother of all Verekinthia. Before the bed of this latter, on the holiday of her ablution, obscene actors publicly chanted such things that would not be appropriate to listen to not only the mother of the gods, but also the mothers of some senators or generally any honest husbands, even the mothers of these actors themselves. There is a certain human modesty in relation to parents, which even lewdness cannot eradicate. The actors themselves, at home rehearsals, were ashamed to perform this vile mess of vile words and actions in front of their mothers; and publicly, before the mother of the gods, in the presence of a large gathering of people of both sexes, they performed it. If a multitude of people gathered from everywhere came, attracted by curiosity, to these actions, they should immediately leave in embarrassment, with an offended sense of chastity. What after this will we call sacrilege if it is sacred service, or what will be desecration if it is ablution? And this was called ferculi, as if some kind of feast was being held, at which the wicked demons seemed to be fed with their own food. For who does not understand what kind of spirits delight in such abominations? - unless one who either does not know at all that there are some wicked spirits who deceive under the name of gods, or lives a life in which he expects mercy and fears the wrath of these spirits more than the mercy and wrath of the true God. Chapter V. About the abominations with which the mother of the gods was honored by her fans As a judge in this matter, I would in no way wish to have one of those who try to enjoy the immorality of the most shameful custom rather than fight against it, but would like to have as such the same Scipio Nazica, who was declared by the Senate to be the best of men and by whose hands the idol of this demon was accepted and transported to Rome. Let him tell us whether he would have wished that his mother had rendered such great services to the state that divine honors would have been established for her, just as the Greeks, Romans and other nations established them for certain mortals, whose benefactions these peoples valued very highly and whom they considered to have become immortal and accepted among the gods? Without any doubt, he would wish his mother such happiness. Then, if we had asked him whether he would have agreed that these abominations should be performed on her as part of the divine honors, would he not have exclaimed that he would rather have his mother lie dead without any feeling than live as a goddess in order to have the pleasure of hearing such things? No, this Roman senator, gifted with such insight of mind that he forbade the construction of a theater in the city of courageous people, would not want his mother to be revered in such a way that, to appease the goddess, such things were done, the very talk of which would be an insult to a noble woman. He would never have believed that the modesty of the praiseworthy matron, through her assimilation of divinity, would change to such an extent that her admirers would be able to call on her with such praises, from which, if they were thrown as a reproach to some woman still living among people, her relatives, her husband, and children would blush for her, if they did not stop their ears and walk away. Such a mother of the gods, which even the worst person would be ashamed to have as a mother, intending to take over the Roman minds, demanded the best husband for herself - not one whom she would make the best by teaching the best, but one whom she would seduce by deception (she is similar to the one about whom it is written: “a wife catches a dear soul” (Prov. 6:26)), - demanded so that a spirit richly endowed with natural gifts, having been elevated by this, as it were, divine testimony in his own eyes and considering himself truly the best, he did not seek true piety and religion, without which the most praiseworthy talents disappear and decline. For for what other purpose than this insidious purpose did this goddess desire the best husband for herself, if in her cult she demanded such things as the best men, abhorring such things, do not allow at their feasts? Chapter VI. The pagan gods never made sacred the teachings of a virtuous life That is why these deities did not care about the life and morals of the cities and peoples in whom they were revered: without any prohibitions that would inspire fear, they allowed them to become worse and suffer great and disgusting losses, losses not in the sense of estates and vineyards, not in money and economy, not in those matters, finally, that are subordinate to the mind, but in the soul itself - the ruler of the body. But maybe they forbade it? In this case, let them show it to us more clearly, let them prove it. Let them not whisper in our ears about some things being transmitted under the guise of an allegedly secret religion, in which they say teachings about a virtuous life and purity are set forth; let them show us or remind us where those places are dedicated to such meetings, where games would not be played with shameless singing and dancing of histrions, where fugalia 19 would be celebrated, giving full scope to all obscenity (these are truly fugalia (exile), but fugalia of modesty and honor), but such where the people would hear what the gods command regarding the moderation of greed, destruction scams, curbing luxury; where the unfortunate would learn what Perseus advised them to learn, saying: Learn, unfortunate ones, see the roots of things: Who are we, why are we born in this life; What order there is everywhere; where, why and what In the race of life there are turning points; Look for moderation in everything that is useful or desirable for you; What is good about money, as far as one's homeland and sweethearts are concerned? It is fitting for you to be generous; as God commanded you to remain; What are the obligations to people? 20 Let them tell you in what places they had the custom of proclaiming such commandments of the mentor gods, just as we point out the churches established for this purpose everywhere where the Christian faith is widespread. Chapter VII. Philosophical discoveries that do not have divine authority are useless, as soon as anyone with an inclination towards vices follows what the gods did rather than what people affirmed Perhaps they will remind us of the schools and reasonings of philosophers. But, firstly, all this is not Roman, but Greek; and if it is Roman because Greece became a Roman province, then still these are not the commandments of the gods, but the revelations of people who, being gifted with the most insightful mind, tried in one way or another, through inferences, to explore what was hidden in the nature of things, what should be desired in this life and what to avoid, what in the very rules of inference is given as a direct conclusion, and where inconsistency or even contradiction is revealed. Some of them, to the extent that they benefited from divine help, discovered something great, but to the extent that they encountered obstacles in human weakness, they fell into error. Divine Providence quite rightly opposed their pride in order, in contrast to them, to indicate the beginning of the path to heaven in humility. But we will discuss and talk about all this, if it is the will of the true Lord God, in another place. However, if philosophers discovered something that could be sufficient for a virtuous life and for the acquisition of bliss, then wouldn’t it be much fairer to establish divine honors for them? Isn’t it much better and more honest to read his books in the church of Plato than to castrate the Gauls in the churches of demons, so that then they, who have become effeminate, are solemnly dedicated, forcing the extravagant ones to torture themselves and do many other things, either cruel, or shameful, or shamefully cruel, or cruelly shameful, that is usually done in the churches of such gods? Wouldn't it be much more useful for teaching youth justice to publicly proclaim the laws of the gods than to vainly boast about the laws and regulations of our ancestors? After all, all the admirers of such gods, as soon as they are overcome by lust, seasoned, as Perseus says, with burning poison, 21 they rather look at what Jupiter did than at what Plato taught or what Cato thought. Thus, Terence portrayed a young rake, who, having seen a certain fresco on which it was depicted how Jupiter had once deceived Danae by pouring golden rain into her bosom, immediately saw here a justification for his dishonorable deed, proud that in this regard he was imitating God: Great god, the heavenly church shook with thunder! Well, how can I not do the same, a small person? 22 Chapter VIII. About stage games in which the gods are not insulted, but are appeased by the display of their dishonorable deeds But everything like this is taught not by the cults of the gods, but by the fables of poets. I do not claim that the accessories of the sacraments are more shameful than the accessories of spectacles. I assert one thing (and those who deny this will be convicted by history) that these games themselves, the main content of which are the inventions of poets, were not introduced by the Romans out of ignorant servility into the cult of their gods, but the gods themselves sternly demanded and in some way tortured them, that these games be held and dedicated in their honor. I mentioned this in the first book. For from the very beginning stage games in Rome were established by the determination of the pontiffs during the pestilence. Who, after this, will not come to the conclusion that in his way of life he should rather follow what is presented in the spectacles established by divine decree, than what is written in the laws established by human wisdom? After all, if the poets had falsely exposed Jupiter as an adulterer, then the immaculate gods would have to be angry and take revenge because such an insult to the deity was invented by human games, and not because these games are not carried out. Meanwhile, these are the most moderate of stage plays, that is, comedies and tragedies, fables of poets; written for performance at shows, although they are very shameless in content, they are not shameless, at least like many others, in presentation. Elderly people even force their youths to read and study them among those sciences that are called honest and free. Chapter IX. The ancient Romans considered it necessary to limit poetic arbitrariness, which the Greeks, following the way of thinking of the gods, wanted to leave free What the ancient Romans thought about this is evidenced by Cicero in the books he wrote about the republic: there Scipio, reasoning, says this: “Comedies could never show their abominations in theaters if morals did not allow it.” This time, the ancient Greeks even carried out their corrupt way of thinking with some consistency: they were allowed by law to say anything and about anyone in comedy, even calling them by name. “And therefore,” continues (Scipio) Africanus, “who was not touched by comedy, who was not offended, who was spared? Let her disgrace the worthless people who curried favor with the people and caused rebellions in the state: Cleon, Cleophon, Hyperbole. We would reconcile ourselves with this, although it would be better if this kind of citizens were branded with disgrace by a censor, and not by a poet: but to disgrace Pericles in verse, after he held supreme power in his hands for many years in peace and war, and to play them on stage is as indecent as if our Plautus or Naevius decided to dishonor Publius and Gnaeus Scipios, or Caecilius - Marcus Cato." And a little further he adds: “Our Twelve Tables, on the contrary, having prescribed criminal penalties for very few crimes, they found it fair to include among these crimes if someone sang or wrote poetry that dishonors or disgraces another. And that's great. Our life should belong to the court of magistrates and legal proceedings, and not to the imagination of poets; and we should hear shameful things about ourselves only on the condition that we can answer and defend ourselves in court.” I have found it necessary to extract these quotations from Cicero's fourth book on the Republic, omitting and changing a few things for the sake of clarity. For this relates directly to the question which I have undertaken to explain as best I can. He says further and much more and ends this passage with the fact that the ancient Romans, according to him, did not allow anyone living to either praise or blame on stage. But the Greeks, as I said, showing in this regard, although less shame, but more consistency, allowed this, because they believed that their gods were pleased and pleased with things told in stage fables that dishonor not only people, but also the gods themselves (whether these things were invented by poets, or in the theaters their actual debaucheries were remembered and presented - oh, if only their fans found all this worthy only of laughter, and not imitation!). For it would be extreme pride to spare the good name of state authorities and citizens where the gods did not want to spare their honor. Chapter X. With what art of harm the demons wanted false or real crimes to be told about them Precisely what is given as justification: that, they say, everything told about the gods is not true, but fictitious and false, if considered from the point of view of religious piety, seems even more criminal, and if we take into account the cunning of demons, extremely cunning and designed to seduce. After all, if shameful things are told about the supreme ruler of the fatherland, a good and useful ruler, are they not even more disgusting the farther from the truth and alien to his life? What punishments can be sufficient if this kind of lawlessness, if such the greatest insult is allowed in relation to God? But the evil spirits, whom they consider gods, want such shameful things to be told about them that they did not do, so that with ideas of this kind they entangle human minds like nets and lead with them to the intended punishment. Whether these shameful things were committed by people who are considered gods for the pleasure of (demons), rejoicing in human errors, instead of which, through a thousand harmful and insidious tricks, they present themselves for honoring themselves, or whether these crimes were actually not committed by any of the people - the most insidious spirits willingly allow them to invent them about deities, so that for the commission of atrocities and abominations they would be brought to earth as if from heaven itself an encouraging example. Therefore, the Greeks, considering themselves slaves of such deities, believed that the poets should not spare them themselves, since they had already dishonored so many gods in the theaters. They either wanted to become like their gods through this, or were afraid to arouse their anger if suddenly their name turned out to be more honest and, thus, they would become better than them. Chapter XI. About the actors admitted by the Greeks to the functions of the state on the ground that it would be unfair on the part of people to despise the propitiators of the gods Accordingly, they considered the actors who acted out these fables to be people worthy of considerable civic honor. So, - this is also mentioned in the book about the republic, - the Athenian Aeschines, a most eloquent man, managed the affairs of the state, although, as a youth, they acted out tragedies; Likewise, Aristodemus, also a tragic actor, was often sent by the Athenians as ambassador to Philip on very important matters, both peaceful and military. Indeed, if they saw that art and theatrical games themselves were pleasing to the gods, then it would be logically incongruous to look at those who play them as inglorious people. This was, of course, shameful for the Greeks, but completely consistent in relation to their gods: they did not dare to defend the lives of citizens from the caustic language of poets and histrions, as long as they knew that these dishonored the lives of the gods; and since these people presented in the theaters something that, according to their concepts, was pleasing to the deities to whom they were submissive, then the Greeks considered these people themselves not only not deserving the slightest contempt in the state, but also worthy of the greatest honor. In fact, on what basis would they, honoring the priests because through them sacrifices pleasing to the gods are made, would consider the actors despicable people, through whom they received the opportunity, at the direction of the gods themselves, to bring pleasure and honor to the gods, who demanded it and were angry if this was not done? And this is especially after Labeo, who is considered a great expert in things of this kind, distinguished the good and evil gods by different cults, for the evil deities, as he argued, are propitiated by bloody sacrifices and mournful prayers, and the good ones by cheerful and playful worship, for example, games, feasts and lectisteria 23. What all this is like, God willing, we’ll talk about it in more detail later. As for the present subject, whether all gods are given equal veneration, as good gods (since it is indecent for gods to be evil, although, rather, they are all evil gods, since they are unclean spirits), or with a certain difference: one - one thing, another - another, as Labeo demanded - in any case, the Greeks acted logically, considering both the priests who perform sacrifices and the actors equally worthy of honor, who perform theatrical games. They cannot be reproached for offending their gods, either to everyone, if the games are pleasant to them all, or, what would be even worse, to those who are considered good, if the games are loved only by these latter. Chapter XII. The fact that the Romans, prohibiting poets from freedom of speech in relation to people and allowing it in relation to the gods, had a better opinion of themselves than of the gods Meanwhile, the Romans - which Scipio is so proud of in the same essay on the republic - did not want their life and good name to be subject to censure and insult from poets, having decided by law to subject to criminal punishment anyone who dared to compose poetry of such content. By this decree they expressed a rather respectful opinion of themselves, but in relation to their gods it was arrogant and impious. If they knew that the gods accepted insults and slander from the poets not only patiently, but also willingly, then they considered themselves less deserving of these insults than the gods, and protected themselves from them by law, and gave insults to the gods a place at sacred festivals. Do you really, Scipio, praise the Romans because they forbade poets the freedom to ridicule any of their citizens, when you see that they showed no mercy to any of your gods? Do you really think that your curia should be respected more than the Capitol, Rome alone, than the whole sky, so that your citizens are protected from the slander of poets by laws, and your gods are calmly showered with insults by poets: and not a single senator, not a single censor, not a single dignitary, not a single pontiff prevents them from doing this! It was indecent for Plautus or Naevius to slander Publius and Gnaeus Scipio, or Caecilia - Marcus Cato, but was it decent for your Terence to incite young men to debauchery by describing the atrocities of the all-good and supreme Jupiter? Chapter XIII. The Romans should have realized that their gods, who demanded worship consisting of vile games, were not worthy of divine honors But, if Scipio were alive, he might have objected to me like this: “How could we punish something that is sacred by the will of the gods themselves? For the theatrical games in which all this is told and presented were introduced into Roman customs by the gods themselves and commanded that this should be dedicated and performed in their honor.” But why, in this case, did not the Romans understand from this that these gods are not true gods and do not deserve at all for the republic to give them divine honors? After all, if they had demanded games that dishonored the Romans themselves, they would have been indecent and should not have been venerated: how, I ask, were they considered deities worthy of worship, and not vile spirits, if, out of a desire to deceive, they demanded that their atrocities be glorified under the guise of worship? It should be noted that the Romans, although they were subject to a harmful superstition consisting in the veneration of gods who demanded that theatrical abominations be dedicated to them, nevertheless did not forget their dignity and sense of shame: they did not, like the Greeks, have any respect for the authors of these fables, but, as the same Scipio says in Cicero, “considering all stage and theatrical art to be completely shameful, decided: this kind of people should not only be deprived of the honor that belongs to other citizens, but even expelled from the tribes by order of the censor.” Wisdom is remarkable and fully deserves to be included among the Roman virtues; but I would like her to be consistent and true to herself. It is correct that anyone among the Roman citizens who would like to be an actor not only loses all right to respect, but is also expelled from his tribe by censor order. It is you, jealous of civil honor, the true Roman spirit! But let them answer me, on what basis are actors completely deprived of honor, and theatrical games are related to actions performed in honor of the gods? For a long time, Roman valor did not know the theatrical arts. If they were introduced to gratify human lust, they would have a harmful effect on human morals. It was the gods who demanded that they be given to them. How is it that the actor through whom God is honored is considered despicable? On what basis is an actor acting out a theatrical abomination subject to contempt if the god who demanded it is revered? In relation to this subject, the Greeks and Romans differ among themselves. According to the Greeks, they rightly respect actors, since through actors the gods, the inventors of theatrical games, are revered; in the opinion of the Romans, the actors would have dishonored even the plebeian tribe, much less the senatorial curia. The essence of the issue in this disagreement is resolved by the following syllogism. The Greeks say: “If this kind of gods should be revered, then, of course, people of this kind should also be respected.” The Romans add a second premise: “But people of this kind should not be respected.” Christians conclude: “Consequently, one should not worship this kind of gods.” Chapter XIV. That Plato, who in his ideal state did not give place to poets, was better than those gods who wished to be honored with theatrical games Let us further ask why poets, compilers of this kind of fables, who are forbidden by the law of the Twelve Tables to insult the good name of citizens, but who, meanwhile, shower the gods with such insulting ridicule, are not considered contemptible, like actors. On what basis are actors who act out the inventions of poets and portray shameful gods considered contemptible, while the authors themselves are respected? Shouldn't we rather give preference to the Greek Plato, who, depicting an ideal state, believed that poets should be expelled from it as enemies of truth? On the one hand, he looked with indignation at the insults of the gods, on the other hand, he did not want the spirit of the citizens to be corrupted and distorted by inventions. Now compare the humanity of Plato, who expels poets from the state to prevent the corruption of citizens, with the divinity of the gods, who demand theatrical games in their honor. Plato, with his reasoning, if not convinced, then at least advised the frivolous and morally loose Greeks that works of this kind should not even be written; on the contrary, the gods urgently demanded from the respectable and moderate Romans that such works be performed on stage, and not only performed, but dedicated and solemnly performed in their honor. To whom, one might ask, should the state give divine honors with greater solemnity - Plato, who forbids all kinds of abomination and obscenity, or the demons, who take pleasure in such deception of people whom Plato could not convince of the truth? Labeo believed that Plato should be considered a demigod, like Hercules and Romulus; He placed demigods above heroes, although he classified both of them as deities. But I think that the one he calls a demigod should be placed above not only the heroes, but also the gods themselves. Roman laws are also similar to Plato's views in that Plato condemns all kinds of poetic inventions, and Roman laws prohibit poets from speaking offensively about people; Plato expels poets from the state, while Roman laws deprive the citizenship rights of actors acting out poetic fables, and, perhaps, would expel them from the state completely if they were not afraid of the gods, who demanded theatrical games for themselves. So, the Romans could in no case receive or expect from the gods laws aimed at cultivating good morals and correcting bad ones, for they themselves surpassed them with their laws: the gods demand theatrical games in honor of themselves, and the Romans exclude actors from any positions associated with honor; the gods command that their shameful deeds be glorified by poetic fiction, and the Romans do not allow the shamelessness of poets to disgrace people. The demigod Plato also rebels against the debauchery of such gods, and shows what the common sense inherent in the Romans should have done: he resolutely does not allow poets to live in a well-ordered state who either lie shamelessly or offer the most disgusting deeds of the so-called gods for poor people to imitate. We do not consider Plato to be either a god or a demigod; We do not compare him with the holy angel of the Most High God, or with a true prophet, or with any of the apostles, or with any martyr of Christ, or with any Christian. Why this is so, we, with God's help, will explain in the proper place. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that they themselves revere him as a demigod, we think that he should be preferred, if not to Romulus and Hercules (although none of the historians or poets said of Plato that he killed his brother or committed any other crime), then at least to Priapus, or a certain Cynocephalus, or, finally, Fever - deities whom the Romans partly borrowed from outside, partly idolized themselves. So, how would such gods begin to eliminate with good commandments and laws the terrible evil that threatened the soul and morals, or take care of the destruction of the evil that had already taken root, who, on the contrary, themselves tried to sow and multiply lawlessness, desiring that through theatrical performances the people would learn about such divine deeds that the most indecent human lust was kindled by itself, as if relying on divine authority? Cicero in vain pointed this out when speaking about poets: “While the approving cry of the people reaches them, as if from some great and wise teacher, what darkness they spread! What fears they instill! How they kindle the worst passions!” Chapter XV. That the Romans introduced some gods not out of rational motives, but out of flattery And even in the very election of false gods, what else were they primarily guided by, if not flattery? Plato, who is considered a demigod, for so many of his studies aimed at protecting morals from corruption by spiritual evil, which is especially to be feared, they did not even honor a small church; and they placed their Romulus above many gods, although, according to the secret doctrine, he is considered more of a demigod than a god. For they even established a Flaminus for him, which type of priesthood in the cult of the Romans enjoyed (as the cap of the Flaminians shows) such superiority that there were only three Flaminians, established for the three gods: the Jupiterian Flaminus - to Jupiter, the Marsian - to Mars, and the Quirinalian - to Romulus (for the latter, as if by the favor of the citizens, accepted among the heavenly gods, they later called Quirinus). Thus, he was preferred to Neptune and Pluto, the brothers of Jupiter, and even to Saturn, their father, so that the same kind of priesthood that is inherent in Jupiter was also inherent in him, and Mars, probably already thanks to Romulus, whose father he was considered. Chapter XVI. That if the gods cared at all about justice, then the Romans should have received the rules of life from them rather than borrow laws from other people Then, if the Romans could have received laws for life from their gods, they would not have borrowed the laws of Solon from the Athenians, a few years after the founding of Rome; and, moreover, they did not contain these laws in the form in which they adopted them, but tried to improve and correct them. Although Lycurgus boasted that he drew up laws for the Lacedaemonians at the behest of Apollo, the Romans wisely did not believe this and did not adopt the laws from there. They say that the successor of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, issued some laws, although decisively insufficient for governing the state, by which he established many sacred services; but no one says that he received these laws from the gods. Thus, the gods of the Romans did not care at all about turning away from their worshipers spiritual evil, the evil of life and morals, which is so great that their most learned men claim that republics perish from it, even with cities intact; but, on the contrary, they tried in every possible way so that, as was said above, this evil would increase even more. Chapter XVII. About the abduction of the Sabine women and other injustices that occurred in the Roman state and in praised times But perhaps the gods did not prescribe laws to the Roman people because, as Sallust says, “their sense of truth and goodness was strong more by nature than by laws” 24 . I believe that under the influence of precisely this sense of truth and goodness the Sabine women were abducted... Indeed, what could be fairer and better than the abduction by force of other people’s daughters, lured into a trap under the pretext of a spectacle? For if the Sabines acted unfairly in not wanting to marry off the daughters they were asked to marry, how much more unfair was it to kidnap those who were not given away? It would be fairer to fight a people who did not want to hand over their daughters to their neighbors when they were asked to do so, than to fight a people who demanded the return of kidnapped women. It would be better if Mars helped his son to take revenge with an armed hand for the insult he had suffered and thus provided him with the opportunity to obtain the women he was looking for. In such a case he would, perhaps, by some law of war, justly take away those whom he had been unjustly denied; but he had no grounds or rights in peacetime to kidnap girls and wage an unjust war with their justly angry parents. What followed was more useful and successful: although a circus show was established in memory of this deception, the act itself was not set as an example to be followed by either the people or the government; and the Romans, by enrolling Romulus among the gods after this injustice, made an easier mistake than if they had allowed him to imitate him in the abduction of women by any law or custom. Under the influence, further, of this very feeling of truth and goodness, after the expulsion with the children of King Tarquinius, whose son committed violence against Lucretia, the consul Junius Brutus forced him to resign from his post and expelled from the state of Tarquinius Collatinus, Lucretia’s husband, his comrade, a good and innocent man, for the sole reason that he bore the name of Tarquinius and was a relative of them. Brutus committed this atrocity with the consent or permission of the people, from whom Collatinus, like Brutus himself, received the consulate. Under the influence of the same feeling of truth and goodness, Marcus Camillus was also treated with dignity: this noble man, after a ten-year war with the most cruel enemies of the Roman people, the Veitei, - a war during which the unfortunate battles exhausted the Roman army to the extreme and Rome itself already despaired and feared for its future - won a victory over these enemies and took possession of their richest city; but because of envious people who reproached his valor and the shamelessness of the tribunes of the people, he was put on trial and found the state he liberated to be so ungrateful that, confident of his condemnation, he voluntarily went into exile and, in his absence, was sentenced to a fine of ten thousand asses. And they did the same with a man who soon after took revenge on the Gauls for their ungrateful fatherland! I don’t even want to remember those countless abominations and injustices that worried the Roman state at a time when the strong tried to subjugate the people, but the people did not want to submit to them, and when the defenders of both sides tried only for victory, without caring at all about truth and goodness. Chapter XVIII. What does the story of Sallust convey about Roman morals, which were either curbed by fear, or fell into licentiousness when assured of security? So, I will not speak for myself and will turn to the testimony of Sallust. Although Sallust expressed the above words: “the sense of truth and goodness was strong rather from nature than thanks to the laws” in praise of the Romans, attributing this praise actually to the time when, after the expulsion of the kings, the republic in a short period reached an incredibly high prosperity; nevertheless, at the very beginning of the first book of his history, Sallust admits that within a very short period of time, after the republic began to be governed by consuls instead of kings, oppression began in Rome from the strongest, and as a result of this, feuds between the people and the patricians and all kinds of unrest began. For, having mentioned that the Roman people in the period between the second and last Punic wars were distinguished by excellent morals and the greatest harmony, and saying that the reason for this was not love of truth, but fear, which was generated by the consciousness of the unreliability of the world during the existence of Carthage (why Scipio, caring about the elimination of licentiousness and the preservation of these excellent morals, did not want to destroy Carthage, so that vices would be curbed fear), Sallust continues: “But after the destruction of Carthage, discord intensified, greed, ambition and other types of evil that usually appear in the midst of prosperity increased.” By this he makes it clear that all this happened before. Further, explaining why he said so, Sallust says: “For from the very beginning there appeared grievances on the part of the strongest and, as a result, discord between the plebeians and the patricians and other domestic disagreements; justice and impartiality were observed only until, after the expulsion of the kings, they were afraid of Tarquin, and until the cruel war with Etruria ended.” Note that even during that short period of time when, after the expulsion of the kings, justice and impartiality were observed, the reason for this, according to Sallust, was fear: because the Romans were afraid of the war that Tarquinius, expelled from the state and deprived of the throne, waged against them in alliance with the Etruscans. Now listen to what Sallust says further: “Then the patricians began to enslave the people, dispose of their lives and goods with truly royal power, deprive them of their fields and rule the state alone, excluding others from participation. Exhausted from patience by these cruelties and especially by debts, when continuous wars demanded both taxes and military service, the armed people retired to the sacred Aventine hill and there elected themselves tribunes of the people and established other rights. The Second Punic War put an end to these discords and strife.” Do you see when, that is, quite a short time after the expulsion of the kings, and what the Romans became, about whom Sallust says that they “had a strong sense of truth and goodness rather by nature than thanks to the laws”! If such are the times when the Roman Republic, as they say, was in the most excellent and best condition, then what should we say and think about the subsequent time when, in the words of the same historian, “little by little changing, from the most beautiful and the best became the most corrupt and licentious,” namely, the time after the destruction of Carthage? In what words Sallust depicts and describes these times, what types of moral evil that appeared in the midst of prosperity he points to as the reason that even gave rise to internecine wars - you can read about this in his history. “From that time,” he says, “the morals of the ancestors did not deteriorate gradually, as before, but were crushed, as it were, by some kind of avalanche: the youth were corrupted to such an extent by luxury and greed that people appeared who could neither have a farm themselves nor tolerate others having one.” Then Sallust talks a lot about the vices of Sulla and other abominations of the times of the republic; Other writers also talk about this, although not with such eloquence. Now, I believe, you see (and anyone who pays attention to this will understand very easily) into what a deep abyss of moral corruption the Roman state was plunged before the coming of our Most High King. For all this happened not only before Christ began to teach, appearing in the flesh, but also before He was born of the Virgin. So, if such a great evil, previously still tolerable, and after the destruction of Carthage unbearable and terrible, they do not dare to attribute to their gods, who with malicious cunning rooted in human minds the beliefs from which such kind of vices grew, then why do they attribute real evil to Christ, Who, with his most salutary teaching, prohibits the veneration of false and deceitful gods and, condemning with divine by the power of harmful and vile human passions, from the decaying world lying in evil, he little by little lifts up His family and creates from it an eternal and by the judgment of truth, and not by vain approval, the most glorious city? Chapter XIX. On the corruption of the Roman Republic prior to Christ's abolition of the worship of the gods So, the Roman Republic “changing little by little, from the most beautiful and the best became the most corrupt and licentious” (this is not me saying, but much earlier than the coming of Christ, their authors said so, who taught us this for money). Thus, before the coming of Christ, shortly after the destruction of Carthage, “the morals of the ancestors did not deteriorate gradually, as before, but were crushed, as it were, by some kind of avalanche: the youth were corrupted ... by luxury and greed.” Let them read to us the instructions against luxury and greed given to the Roman people by their gods. Oh, if only they hid from him the demands of purity and moderation, but no: they also imposed shameful and dishonorable instructions on him, imparting to them a destructive authority with their imaginary divinity! Let them now read our many injunctions against luxury and greed, taught by the prophets, and the holy gospels, and the acts of the apostles, and the epistles - injunctions that so wonderfully and so divinely thunder and are heard everywhere where people gather for this reading, and they are heard not as from philosophical bickering, but as if from the clouds and oracles of God. And yet, they do not attribute to their gods the fact that their republic, as a result of luxury and greed, as a result of rude and vile morals even before the coming of Christ, became the most depraved and licentious, and they blame any of its troubles at the present time, as long as it affects their pride and effeminacy, on the Christian religion! Meanwhile, if the commandments prescribed by this religion were equally obeyed and tried to fulfill them “all the kings of the earth and all the nations, the princes and all the judges of the earth, young men and maidens, elders and youths” (Ps. CXLVIII: 11-12), every gender and age, and even publicans and soldiers, whom John the Baptist mentions (Luke III, 12:14), a similar state would exist in this life would give happiness to its subjects, and would take the highest place in the future most blessed kingdom of eternal life. But since these commandments are listened to by one and despised by another, and the majority of people love vices with their temptations more than virtue with its useful severity, then the servants of Christ, whether they are kings or princes, judges or warriors, whether inhabitants of the provinces, rich or poor, free or slaves, of one sex or another, are commanded to endure, as long as it is necessary, even the most corrupt and dissolute republic, and with this patience prepare for yourself the brightest place in the most holy and sacred senate of angels and in the heavenly kingdom, where the will of God is the law. Chapter XX. What kind of happiness would they like to enjoy and what kind of life would those who blame the times of the Christian religion want to live? But these admirers and worshipers of the gods, who gladly imitate them in atrocities and lewdness, are not at all worried that their republic is the most depraved and licentious. “If only,” they say, “she prospered, filled with wealth and glorified by victories, or, even better, enjoyed peace. What more could we want? All we want is for everyone to get rich, so that there is always enough for everyday needs and for the enslavement of the weak. Let the poor serve the rich, receiving food for it, and let the latter spend their lives in idleness and bliss. Let the nations applaud not those who give them good advice, but those who give them various kinds of pleasure. Let difficult things not be prescribed, let unclean things not be forbidden. Let kings care not that their subjects are kind, but that they are obedient. Let the provinces serve the kings not as guardians of morals, but as owners of the greatest pleasures; let them not respect them heartily, but slavishly fear them. Let the laws ensure that they do not harm other people's vineyards, and not their own lives. Let only those who harm other people's property or health be brought to trial, but if no one disagrees, let them do what they want. Let the lupanaria multiply, so that none of the lovers of fornication will be denied. Let the most extensive estates be built, magnificent feasts given; let them play until they are completely fed up, and drink until they vomit, day and night. Let the theaters be filled, let any, even the most bestial, spectacles be performed in them. And let him be considered an enemy of society who does not like this kind of well-being; Let them not listen to such people, let them drive them out of sight, erase them from the face of the earth. Let those gods who prescribe all these pleasures be revered, let them demand any kind of games, let them be given everything they want, as long as this happy life is never overshadowed by anything: neither fear of the enemy, nor any infection, nor anything else.” What sane person would not compare such a republic, I will not say with the Roman Empire, but with the house of Sardanapalus, who, once a king, was so devoted to pleasure that he ordered an inscription to be made on his tomb that now he, dead, has only what lavished his voluptuousness during life? If they had such a lenient king towards all licentiousness, they would have dedicated a church and a flame to him more readily than the ancient Romans did to Romulus. Chapter XXI. What was Cicero's opinion of the Roman Republic? But if they do not want to listen to those who call the Roman Republic the most depraved and shameful, not caring in the least about what kind of ulcer of moral depravity it is subject to and what dishonor, but only that it remains intact and powerful, then let them listen not to Sallust, but to Cicero, during whose time it was already completely destroyed. Cicero introduces Scipio into his reasoning, the same one who destroyed Carthage, putting into his mouth thoughts about the republic, while it was already obvious to Cicero that the republic was about to collapse because of its depravity, which Sallust spoke about. For Cicero began his work when one of the Gracchi, from whom, according to Sallust, the strongest disturbances began, had already been killed. At the end of the second book, Scipio says that just as when playing various instruments, as well as when singing, a certain ratio must be observed between high, middle and low sounds and the intervals between them, from which their harmonic combination and a certain structure are formed, so also from a reasonable combination of different segments of the population, their rights and duties, civil society is formed; and what musicians call harmony is called harmony in the state, which is the lasting and best foundation for prosperity and justice in any republic. Then Scipio dwells in detail on how useful justice is for the state and how harmful its absence is. At this time, a certain Phil enters the conversation, demanding that justice itself be considered, for there is an opinion that a republic cannot be governed without some amount of untruth. To this Scipio replies that neither what he said earlier about the republic, nor what he still intends to say, has any meaning unless one recognizes the truth of the idea that to govern a republic well means to govern fairly. This is where the second book ends, and the continuation of the dispute is set out in the third book. Phil undertakes to defend the opinion of supporters of untruth, warning in advance that he himself does not share this opinion. His opponent, at the request of those gathered, is Laelius. When both sides thoroughly examine all the arguments of the parties, Scipio returns to his interrupted speech, proposing to accept the definition of the republic, according to which it is a people's affair. He calls the people not a certain crowd, but a collection of people united by agreement in the sense of defining rights and mutual benefit. Then, having shown how useful definitions are in competitions, he, on the basis of his definitions, concludes that a republic, that is, a people's cause, exists when it is governed fairly, although the forms of government can be different, namely: royal, aristocratic or popular. If the king is unjust (he calls such a king, in the Greek manner, a “tyrant”), or the nobles are unjust (he calls their agreement a “conspiracy”), or, finally, the people themselves are unjust (here he does not find an appropriate name, proposing to consider the people “tyrant”), then, as follows from the definitions proposed earlier, the republic cannot even be called unjust: it simply disappears. Indeed, it can in no way be considered a people's cause if power in it is maliciously seized by a tyrant or conspirators, and even if the people themselves are the tyrant, then even here they cease to be a community of people united by consent, i.e. they cease to be a people. So, if the republic was as Sallust describes it, then it was no longer the most corrupt and dissolute of all republics, but simply was no longer a republic. This is what Tullius (Cicero) himself asserts, and not on behalf of Scipio, but on his own behalf. At the beginning of the fifth book, quoting a verse from Ennius: The Roman Republic adheres to ancient customs, he says: “This verse, in its brevity and truth, reminds me of the saying of an oracle. For neither men, if there were no state with such morals, nor morals, if such men had not ruled the state, could neither have founded nor maintained for so long a republic so extensive and so justly governing. So, just as fatherly morals gave birth to glorious men, so glorious men supported the ancient morals and institutions of their ancestors. Our century, having inherited a beautiful, but somewhat faded and faded republic, did not at least try to preserve what it received. For what remains now of those ancient customs? Not only are they not followed, but they have even been completely forgotten. There is nothing to say about husbands, because morals have perished due to the lack of husbands. For all this we must not only give a strict account, but also stand trial as criminals. It is precisely because of our vices that we preserve our republic only in words, but in reality we have lost it long ago.” This is what Cicero says, speaking long after the death of Scipio, whom he brings out as a contender in his book, but still before the coming of Christ. But even if they all lived in Christian times, which of them would even think of blaming Christians for this decline? Why didn’t their gods take care of preserving the republic, which Cicero so bitterly mourned long before the incarnation of Christ? Anyone who praises her as she was in ancient times can also, looking closely, see that even then she was not so much morally alive as simply decorated and dressed up. This, while extolling her in every possible way, was unconsciously noted by Cicero himself. But we'll talk about this elsewhere. Then, based on Cicero’s own brief definitions of what a republic is and what a people are (either those expressed by him, or those that he put into the mouths of his heroes), I will try to show that the Roman republic was never a republic, because there was never justice there. According to more precise definitions, it was still a republic of its kind, governed by the ancients much better than by the present. But there is no true justice anywhere except in that republic, the Founder and Ruler of which is Christ, if you want to call this latter a republic, since it cannot be denied that it is a people’s cause. But since in our case this name may seem somewhat unusual, let’s say this: true justice exists only in that city about which Scripture says: “Glorious things are proclaimed about you, city of God” (Ps. LXXXVI, 3). Chapter XXII. The Roman gods did not care at all that the republic did not perish from the corruption of morals As for the present question, no matter how much their authors praise the ancient republic, they all admit that long before the coming of Christ it became the most licentious and depraved; or that even she did not exist at all, for she died from corrupt morals. Moreover, its guardian gods should have taken care to give instructions about the morals and way of life to this people, who erected so many churches in their honor, appointed so many priests, made so many sacrifices and established so many festivals and magnificent games. But these demons cared only about themselves, and corrupted their admirers in every possible way. If the situation was different, then let them tell us their good instructions, let them read those divine laws that the Gracchi transgressed, sowing disorder and arbitrariness around them, which were further violated by Marius, Cinna and Carbo, who unleashed internecine wars that were fought with unheard-of cruelty, which were finally neglected by Sulla, whose life, deeds and morals, described by Sallust and many others historians, terrify everyone. Who doesn’t understand that the republic perished back in those days? But perhaps, in defense of their gods, they will dare to refer to the passage in Virgil, which says that due to the decline in the morals of the citizens Leaving the churches and altars, they left The gods by whom the kingdom was held? 25 But if this is so, then, firstly, there is no reason to complain about the Christian religion, that, they say, the gods withdrew because they were offended by it, because they were driven away, numerous and small, like flies, by the corrupted morals of their ancestors. However, here one should ask, where were these gods then, when morals were not yet corrupted, and meanwhile Rome was captured and burned by the Gauls? Or were they present but overslept? For while the city had already been taken by the enemy, the Romans had only the Capitoline Hill left, and even that would have perished if the geese had fallen asleep when the gods slept. Having established a holiday in honor of geese, the Romans in their superstition became like the Egyptians, who honored animals and birds. However, I do not intend to talk about all these physical adversities that do not concern the soul yet. Now we are talking about the decline of morals that crushed the republic at a time when the walls of its cities were still strong. The gods, perhaps, would have the right to leave the churches and retire if the citizens violated the instructions given to them by these gods about a virtuous life and justice. But in our case it is appropriate to ask what were these gods who did not want to live with the people who revered them, whom they, when they began to live viciously, did not teach them to live virtuously? Chapter XXIII. The difference in temporary welfare does not depend on the favor or hatred of demons, but on the determinations of the true God Well, what if they even contributed to the satisfaction of their passions, instead of curbing them? For who helped Marius, this upstart plebeian, bloodthirsty instigator and culprit of civil wars? Who helped him to be consul seven times, to die an old man during the seventh consulate and not to fall into the hands of Sulla, who in the end turned out to be the winner? If the gods did not help him in all this, then a very curious conclusion follows from this: a person, even when the gods are unfavorable to him, may well achieve the great temporary well-being he desires; and men like Mary can, despite the wrath of the gods, enjoy health, strength, wealth, honor and longevity; on the contrary, people like Regulus, despite the love of the gods for them, can languish and die in captivity, slavery, poverty, insomnia and severe torment. If they agree that this is so, then they will also be forced to admit that their gods are of no use and they are worshiped in vain. Indeed, if in relation to spiritual virtues and a good life, rewards for which should be expected after death, the gods ordered that the people should learn rather the opposite; if, further, and in relation to transient, temporary benefits, they either do not harm at all those whom they hate, or do not help in any way those whom they love, then what is the point of honoring these gods? Why approach them with such zeal? Why, during times of difficulty and hard times, grumble about the fact that they have moved away, and because of this, blaspheme Christianity in the most unworthy way? If in the area of ​​​​these goods they are capable of doing good or evil, then why did they patronize Mary, an unusually bad person, but did not provide such protection to the most worthy Regulus? Or did they want to show that they themselves were extremely unjust and evil? But if we assume that it is precisely because of this that they should be feared and revered, then in reality it turns out that this is not so. For Regulus revered them no less than Marius. But from the fact that they patronized Mary more than Regulus, it also does not follow that one should prefer the worst life. For Metellus, the most praiseworthy of the Romans, who had five sons as consuls, was happy in temporary blessings; and Catiline, a most vicious man, depressed by poverty and defeated in his villainous war, on the contrary, was unhappy. True and lasting happiness is enjoyed by virtuous worshipers of God, who alone can bestow it. So, when the Roman Republic was perishing from the corruption of morals, the gods did nothing to correct and improve them in order to save it from destruction; on the contrary, they contributed in every possible way to corruption and the deterioration of morals so that she would perish. Let them not pretend to be kind in the sense that they allegedly left, offended by the depravity of the citizens. No, they were there; their presence is fully evident: although they did not come to the rescue with instructions, they were not able to hide themselves in silence. I am not talking about how Marius was taken to a grove dedicated to the goddess Marika, and was entrusted to her protection by the pitying Minturnians, and how, happily escaping the danger that threatened him, this vile man led his ferocious army against Rome. How bloody, how inhuman, how much more brutal than any enemy’s victory was, let those who are interested read about it from historians. As I said, I pass over this in silence, and Mary’s bloody happiness is attributed not to some Marika, but to the mysterious providence of God, which wished to stop their lips and free from error those who can impartially and prudently investigate such phenomena. For if demons have some power in the field of such objects, then only to the extent that the hidden will of the Almighty allows them, so that we are not proud of earthly happiness, which is very often granted to evil people like Mary; but at the same time, they did not consider this happiness itself to be something evil, seeing that, in spite of the demons, it was also enjoyed by many pious and virtuous admirers of the one God; and they did not think that for the sake of these earthly goods or evils one should propitiate or fear unclean spirits. Both evil people and evil spirits cannot do everything they want, but only what is allowed to them by the order of Him, whose fate no one can comprehend or justly reproach. Chapter XXIV. About the actions of Sulla, in which demons appeared as his assistants Sulla's times were such that they made everyone remember with longing the times that preceded them, for which he was an avenger. Meanwhile, according to Livy, when Sulla was preparing for the first campaign against Rome against Marius, he received such happy omens during the sacrifice that the haruspex Postumius, who examined the insides of the sacrificial animals, offered to take himself into custody and execute him if Sulla’s plans were not realized with such obvious assistance of the gods. So, the gods did not retire, leaving churches and altars, if they predicted Sulla about the successful outcome of his case, but did not try to correct him himself. They promised him great happiness, but did not try to curb his evil passions. Then, when Sulla was waging a war with Mithridates in Asia, Jupiter, through Lucius Titius, ordered to inform him that he would win the long-awaited victory, which is what happened. After this, when Sulla was about to return to Rome and take revenge for the insults inflicted on him, shedding the blood of his fellow citizens abundantly, the same Jupiter, through a certain soldier of the sixth legion, again promised him victory and power. When Sulla asked what the one who appeared to the soldier looked like, it turned out that it was the same one who appeared to Lucius and predicted victory over Mithridates. Again, the question arises: why did the gods rush to report such supposed prosperity, without doing anything to contribute to the correction of Sulla himself, who, with his villainous internecine wars, caused so much evil that not only desecrated, but also completely destroyed the republic? Truly, they were demons, as I have already said more than once and as the divine Scriptures clearly testify to, and their very deeds make it clear that their only goal was to achieve that they were revered as gods and did things in their honor for which those who did them with them would receive the same punishment at the judgment of God. Then, when Sulla arrived in Tarentum and made a sacrifice there, he saw the likeness of a golden crown in the upper part of the calf's liver. The same haruspex Postumius said that this omen foretells a glorious victory for Sulla, and ordered him alone to eat all the entrails. A little later, the slave of some Lucius Pontius shouted in a prophetic frenzy: “I come as a messenger from Bellona; Sulla, victory is yours! Then he added that the Capitol would burn. The Capitol actually burned down. Of course, it was not difficult for the demon to foresee this and immediately announce it. But pay attention to what kind of gods those who blaspheme the Savior, who delivers the faithful from the dominion of demons, would like to live under. The man shouted: “Sulla, your victory,” and so that they would believe that he was shouting at the inspiration of the divine spirit, he also announced something that was soon to happen and actually happened. But, however, he did not shout: “Sulla, refrain from atrocities,” from those terrible atrocities that, having won the victory, were committed by the one who saw the golden crown in the calf’s liver. If such signs were given by just gods, and not by wicked demons, they would sooner point to some future evil vile and harmful to Sulla himself. For this victory did not so much enhance his dignity as destroy it: it was the reason that, having become proud and indulged in the satisfaction of his immoderate desires, he himself died morally rather than physically destroy his enemies. Their gods did not announce these truly sad and deplorable things either in the entrails of sacrificial animals, or through augurs, or in a dream or prophecy. For they were more afraid that he would not reform than that he would remain defeated. They even specifically tried to ensure that, having become a triumphant conqueror of his fellow citizens, but defeated and captivated by vile vices, he would thereby submit even more slavishly to unclean demons. Chapter XXV. To what extent do evil spirits incite people to shameful deeds when, by their example, they give them, as it were, divine authority to commit atrocities? Who will not understand, who will not discern (except, of course, who prefers to imitate precisely such gods instead of trying, with the help of the grace of God, to withdraw from communication with them), to what extent these crafty spirits are trying by their example to give, as it were, divine authority to commit atrocities, when on one vast plain of Campania, where shortly after the events described, a cruel battle of the civil war flared up, they themselves even before the battle entered into battle with each other? First, a terrible roar was heard in that place, and then, as many eyewitnesses said, for several days two armies seemed to be fighting there. And when the battle stopped, there were traces of many people and horses. So, if the deities really fought among themselves, then by this they seemed to completely excuse and justify civil wars. But the deceit and insignificance of such gods deserves attention. Presenting themselves as fighting, they did this only so that the Romans, waging an internecine war, would not seem to be committing a crime. For civil wars had already begun and several sacrilegious bloodsheds had already taken place in damnable battles. Many were shocked and horrified when one warrior, robbing the corpse of an enemy he had killed, discovered that it was his brother, and then he, cursing civil wars, immediately killed himself. And so, so that such evil would no longer cause disgust, but, on the contrary, the thirst for villainous bloodshed would flare up more and more hour by hour, the demons, whom they revered and worshiped as gods, decided to appear to people as if fighting with each other, so that human villainy would find an excuse for itself in this supposedly divine example. With the same cunning, the evil spirits once ordered the inclusion of vile games into religious activities and dedicated to them, as I have already spoken about above, games in which such atrocities of the gods were glorified with theatrical songs and dramatic actions, so that everyone, whether he believed or not that the gods committed such atrocities, saw, however, that they wanted such things to be shown to them and, thus, as if they approved of them. And lest anyone should think that the poets, in mentioning that the gods fought with each other, rather blasphemed them than ascribed to them something worthy, they, for the purpose of seduction, confirmed the legends, presenting to the eyes of people their battles not only on the stage, but also in person in the open field. We were forced to point this out, because their own writers were not at all embarrassed to say that the Roman Republic, due to the extremely corrupt morals of its citizens, perished even earlier and did not survive until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. They do not blame this destruction on their gods, but the transitory evil from which the good, whether they live or die, cannot perish, they blame our Christ! Meanwhile, Christ gave numerous commandments in favor of the best morals and against debauchery, and their gods, with no commandments to the people who honored them, did anything that could prevent the death of the republic; Moreover, by their example they aggravated the corruption, contributing to this destruction. I think no one would dare to say that she died at that time because as friends, they say, of virtues, offended by human vices. That the gods were present is proven by the many omens that were then in the entrails of animals, in the flight of birds, in divinations, in which they with great pleasure presented themselves as foreknowledge of the future and assistants in battles. Without all this, the Romans' own passions would not have aroused them to civil wars to such an extent as demonic incitement. Chapter XXVI. About the secret demonic instructions relating to good morality, parallel to how openly in their religious institutions people were taught all sorts of debauchery If this is so, if outrages combined with cruelty were clearly exhibited, shameful deeds and crimes of deities, real or fictitious, were exhibited at their own request and under the threat of anger in case of failure to comply with this demand - even on the days of the holidays dedicated to them, determined by them; if all this was done for the knowledge and in front of everyone, as offered for imitation, then what significance did it have that these same demons who revealed themselves in all this as unclean spirits - what significance did it have that the same demons inside their sanctuaries and in hiding places inaccessible to the people gave some good instructions regarding morals to one of the persons dedicated to them, as if to chosen people? If everything happened exactly like this, then this is even more evidence of their cunning. For the power of goodness and moral purity is such that all or almost all people regard it with respect and few people reach such a degree of moral depravity as to lose all sense of decency. Therefore, the cunning of demons succeeds in deception only if they pretend from time to time to be angels of light (II Cor. XI, 14), as we know from our Scriptures. And so, outside the churches, dirty lawlessness is solemnly and loudly preached to the people, and inside purity is feignedly whispered to a few; public places are reserved for shame, secluded hiding places for praiseworthy deeds; decency is hidden, ugliness is open; whatever bad is done is done for everyone, whatever good is said is said for a few: this seems to make it clear that the honest should be ashamed, and the dishonest should be boasted. Where is this possible if not in demon churches? Where if not in the haven of lies? And one thing is done in order to deceive the most honest, of whom there are few, and the other is done so that the majority of the dishonest do not reform. Where and when the servants of Celeste heard the commandments about purity, we do not know. But in front of the church itself, where this idol was erected, we, flocking from different places, could observe the games taking place, and, moving our gaze, we saw in one place the triumph of debauchery, in another - the virgin goddess; they worshiped her on their knees, and they committed obscenity in front of her. At the same time, we did not meet there any shy mime, nor even the least modest actress: all the required obscenities were performed with a thoroughness that deserves better use. Thus, it seemed to be made clear what the virgin deity wanted and what the matron, admonished by this, was supposed to take home with her from the church! Some, more shy, turned their faces away from the disgusting gestures presented on stage, furtively learning the art of shamelessness. Ashamed of those around them, they did not dare to look directly at the obscenity being committed, however, they did not condemn the cult of the one whom they revered with their pure hearts. What was taught in secret in the church was openly taught, leading to extreme embarrassment because people were forbidden to openly satisfy their shameless desires, which they had to learn with reverence from the gods, and they knew that the gods would be angry if all this was not exposed to the public. What other spirit, if not the most unclean one, arouses vicious thoughts, incites adultery and takes pleasure in such religious institutions, erecting images of demons in churches, and bringing out images of vices in games? He secretly whispers about justice in order to seduce the good few, and openly sets the snares of debauchery in order to keep many bad ones in his power. Chapter XXVII. With what harm to public order did the Romans perform their obscene games to appease the gods? A good husband, although a bad philosopher, Tullius, being an aedile, complained to his fellow citizens that, among other duties, he had to appease the goddess Flora with games 26; and these games, it should be noted, were performed with greater need, and with greater shamelessness. In another place, he, already a consul, says that under extremely dangerous circumstances for the state, the games were held for ten days and nothing was forgotten that related to the propitiation of the gods 27: as if it were not more useful to anger such gods with abstinence than to appease them with excess; to provoke hostility with decency than to soften it with such ugliness! Their revenge would have harmed people less than the corruption of morals that these games caused and supported. In order to ward off what the enemy threatened the bodies with, the mercy of the gods was attracted by means by which virtue was destroyed in the souls. Such a propitiation of such deities, full of unbridledness, abominations, shamelessness, absurdities and impurity, the performers of which the innate Roman sense of valor deprived the rights to honorable positions, removed from the tribes and recognized as shameful and dishonorable - such, I say, a shameful and contrary to the true religious feeling, the propitiation of such deities - these seductive and obscene fables about crimes, meanness, atrocities and the vile thoughts of the gods - all this was publicly studied by the whole state with its eyes and ears: it saw that the gods liked all this, and therefore believed that this was precisely an example to follow, and not at all what was said (if it was said at all) to a few and so secretly. Chapter XXVIII. On the Salvation of the Christian Religion And they also complain that the name of Christ freed people from the Tartar yoke of these unclean authorities and the criminal association with them, and from this night of disastrous dishonor led them to the light of saving piety! And they grumble, the unjust and ungrateful, because people flock to churches, where they hear how well they must spend this temporary life in order to deserve a blessed and eternal life after it, where the Holy Scripture and the teaching of justice are proclaimed from an elevated place and open to everyone, which those who fulfill it listen with benefit, and those who do not fulfill it, with condemnation. Even if those who scoff at such commandments appear there, their insolence either disappears as a result of an unexpected change in them, or is suppressed by fear or shame. Nothing bad or shameful is offered to them for contemplation and imitation where the commandments of the true God are taught, where His miracles are narrated, where His gifts are praised or mercy is asked. Chapter XXIX. An exhortation to the Romans to abandon the cult of the gods Turn to this, the Roman people, so richly endowed by nature, the descendants of the Reguli, Scaevoli, Scipioni, Fabricii! Turn and prefer this to the vile emptiness and insidious malevolence of demons. If anything beautiful is given to you by nature, it will be purified and improved through true piety; dishonor will destroy him and bring punishment upon him. So choose now what to follow, so that your glory has support not in yourself, but in the true God. You once had such glory, but you had no true religion. Awake, for the day has come: awaken, as the best of your sons have already awakened, whose valor, suffering and even death for the true faith bought us a real fatherland. We call you to this fatherland and persuade you to join the ranks of its citizens. Do not listen to your degenerates who distract you from Christ and complain about supposedly bad times: they desire times that would not so much ensure the peace of life as the safety of their debauchery. But you yourself never approved of this in your earthly fatherland. Now take possession of the heavenly, work for it and you will reign in it truly and forever. There is no longer the hearth of Vesta, not the stone of the Capitol, but the one and true God “will not indicate the boundaries of power, will not set a limit to time, but will give dominion without end” 28. Seek no more for your false and deceitful gods, abandon them and come to us to find true freedom. They are not gods, but evil spirits, for whom your eternal bliss is execution. It was not so much Juno who envied the Trojans, from whom you trace your carnal origins in the hills of Rome 29 **, as these demons, whom you consider gods, envy the entire human race in its eternal abodes. You yourself condemned them when, appeasing them with games, you classified those who performed these games as dishonest. Prove your freedom from these dishonorable spirits, who have imposed on you the obligation to dedicate to them and celebrate their shameful deeds. It’s great that you, at your own discretion, did not want to recognize civil rights for histrions and actors; sober up your thought even more: divine greatness can in no way be propitiated by such arts that offend human dignity. How can you think that such gods can be among the heavenly Powers? The highest city, where victory is truth, where dignity is holiness, where peace is bliss, where life is eternity, is incomparably nobler than you. Moreover, he cannot have such gods in his midst if you are ashamed to have such citizens among yourself. Therefore, if you want to reach the blessed city, avoid the company of demons. It is shameful for honest people to honor those who are propitiated by dishonest people. May Christian purification remove them from your piety in the same way as the censor’s mark removed the latter from you. About the physical goods that bad people alone want to enjoy, and about the evil of the body, which they alone would not want to endure, about the fact that in this regard demons do not have the power that is attributed to them (although, however, if they had it, we would rather despise all this than for the sake of this to honor them, and, by honoring them, deprive ourselves of the opportunity to achieve what they envy us for) - we will talk about this after so that I can finish the real book now. A holiday dedicated to the expulsion of kings. Terent. in Eunucho, act. 3, sc. 6. Lectisternius is a feast in honor of a particular deity, and the idol of this deity was seated at the table with everyone else. Sallust., de conjurat. Catilina_e, cap. 9. Aeneid, book. 2, Art. 351–352. Virg. A_Eneid. 1, v. 278–279 In the “modern edition” there is no “in the hills of Rome”; added from the 1905 edition. In the original “arces videtur invidisse Romanas” - Ed. "ABCs of Faith" You might be interested in: