Книга четвертая

This book proves that the vastness and long-term existence of the Roman empire should not be attributed to Jupiter and the pagan gods, each of which individually is recognized as capable of protecting only individual things and performing actions of a lower order, but to the one true God - the author of bliss, by the power and by whose determination earthly states arise and are maintained. Chapter I. What was discussed in the first book Having begun to talk about the city of God, I considered it necessary first of all to answer those of its enemies who, chasing after earthly joys and striving for transitory objects, for everything that they endure in this regard that is unpleasant - although they endure rather out of the mercy of the admonishing God than the severity of the punishing God - they condemn the Christian religion, the only true and saving religion. And since they (although there is an ignorant mob among them) are incited with the greatest hatred against us on the basis of supposedly scientific premises, imagining that what unusual happens to them in their time, in other, previous times, as a rule, did not happen, and those who know the falsity of their opinions seem to tacitly agree with them, so that the murmur against us seems fair, then, relying on the evidence that their writers left for posterity to study the history of past centuries, it was necessary to show that things were completely different from what they think. At the same time, it was necessary to prove that the false gods, whom they revered openly, and some of whom they still honor secretly, are unclean spirits and insidious demons - unclean and insidious to such an extent that they delight in their either real or fictitious atrocities, having commanded to glorify these atrocities on the days of their holidays; this is so that weak human nature cannot refrain from reprehensible actions, as soon as it is presented with a kind of divine example to follow in this. This we have proven, based not on guesswork, but partly on fresh examples, since we ourselves saw that such things were done in honor of their gods, and partly on the writings of those who left posterity a description of all this not as a reproach, but to glorify their gods. This is what Varro did, for example, a man of great learning and enjoying the greatest authority among them: when compiling his books, some about human objects, others about divine objects, classifying some objects, according to the dignity of each thing, as human, others as divine, he placed stage plays not at all in the category of human things, but precisely divine; although, if society consisted only of good and honest people, stage games should not even be among human things. He did this, of course, not at his own discretion, but because, being born and raised in Rome, he found them among the divine objects. And since at the end of the first book we briefly spoke about what should have been discussed further and set out some of this in the two subsequent books, let us see what the expectations of our readers still remain unsatisfied. Chapter II. About the contents of the second and third books So, we promised to say something against those who attribute the defeats of the Roman Republic to our religion, and to tell about those - which only and as far as they could remember - the disasters that befell Rome or the provinces under its rule before their sacrifices were prohibited: all these disasters they would undoubtedly have attributed to us, if our religion had already been known to them and had forbidden them, as now, their sacrilegious cults. We tried to accomplish this task in the second and third books, in the second when we talked about moral evil, which should be considered either the only or the greatest evil, and in the third when we talked about disasters that only foolish people fear (that is, about physical and external disasters, which virtuous people very often suffer); while the evil that makes them evil, they endure not only patiently, but also willingly. And how little we have said about Rome and its empire alone! - not all even from the times preceding Caesar Augustus. But what would happen if I wanted to remember and list not the disasters that people inflict on each other, such as the devastation and defeat of those at war, but those that earthly life is exposed to from the action of the world’s elements; What does Apuleius lightly touch upon in one place in his essay “On the World” when he says that everything earthly is subject to change, vicissitudes and destruction? He says (I will use his own words) that as a result of powerful earthquakes the earth opened up and cities were swallowed up along with their inhabitants; that entire regions were washed away by sudden rains; that such areas, which were formerly continents, were turned into islands, and others, due to the lowering of the sea (level), became easily passable for pedestrians; that cities were destroyed by winds and storms; that the clouds produced fires, from which the eastern countries incinerated by them perished, and the western countries were subjected to similar disasters from the water seeping from the ground and flooding the area; that from the craters that opened up on the tops of Etna, under the influence of heavenly fire, streams of fiery rivers once rushed down its slopes. If I wanted to enumerate these and similar disasters that history tells of, would I ever finish the story of what happened in those times when the religion of Christ had not yet curbed their vain and destructive beliefs for true salvation? I also promised to show for what their morals and for what reason the true God, in whose power all kingdoms are, was pleased to contribute to the increase of their empire; and how little help they received, or better yet, how much they were harmed by their lies and deceit by those whom they consider gods. I consider it necessary to talk about this now. I will mainly talk about the expansion of the Roman Empire. For I have already said a lot about how much harm the harmful deceitfulness of the demons, whom they worship as gods, has caused to their morals in the second book. In all three completed books, where it seemed convenient, we tried to indicate how much and in what way, through the name of Christ, to which the barbarians, contrary to military customs, gave so much respect, - how much and in what way, amid the disasters of war, God provided help to the good and the evil, who makes His sun shine on the good and the evil and allows the rain to fall on the righteous and the unjust (Matt. V, 45). Chapter III. Should the vastness of an empire, which is created exclusively by wars, be considered one of the blessings of people, either wise or happy? So, let us now consider how much impudence there is in the fact that they attribute the vastness and longevity of the existence of the Roman Empire to these gods of theirs, and they even consider it a decent thing to worship them by performing vile games through vile people. But first I would like to examine how thoroughly and wisely they boast of the greatness and vastness of the empire, since people cannot be considered happy who constantly live in dark fear and with bloodthirsty instincts amid the disasters of war and streams of blood - whether fellow citizens or enemies, but still people - in order to acquire a momentary joy, glowing with a fragile brilliance, while being in constant fear of suddenly losing it. To make it easier for us to discuss this subject, let us not go into empty pomposity and tire the attention of the readers with big words like: “nations”, “kingdoms”, “provinces”, but let us take two separate people, for each individual person, like a letter in a sentence, represents a kind of element of the state, no matter how extensive it may be. Of these, let us imagine one as poor, or, even better, as a man of mediocre fortune, and the other as very rich, but greatly depressed by fears, consumed by sadness, overwhelmed by desires, not having a moment of calm and mental peace, living in an atmosphere of constant hostile disputes, multiplying his property to infinity at the cost of these misfortunes, and with its increase multiplying the most difficult worries; a person of mediocre fortune - content with his small and meager belongings, dear to his family, living in peace with relatives, neighbors and friends, religiously reverent, affable in character, healthy in body, thrifty in life, pure in morals and calm in his conscience. I don't know if anyone would be so crazy as to doubt which of them to give preference to. But just as this applies to two individuals, so to two families, to two peoples and to two states; Drawing such a parallel, we will very easily see, if we are observant, where vanity is and where happiness is. Therefore, when the true God is revered and worshiped through real sacred rites and good morals, the powerful and long-term government of virtuous people is useful. And it is useful not so much for themselves as for those whom they manage. As for themselves, for their true happiness, in which the present life is well spent, and then eternal life is obtained, piety and honesty, which are the great gifts of God, are sufficient. So, in the present world, the reign of virtuous people is beneficial not so much for themselves as for the well-being of their subjects. On the contrary, the reign of the evil is most harmful for the rulers themselves, who destroy their souls through the unbridledness of their vices; those who are under their power are harmed by nothing except their own depravity. For, no matter what evil the righteous suffer from unjust rulers, this evil is not a punishment for a crime, but a test of virtue. Therefore, a virtuous person, even if he was in slavery, is free; on the contrary, he is evil, even if he reigned, a slave, and a slave not of one person, but what is much worse - of as many masters as he is subject to how many vices. Holy Scripture says, discussing these vices: “Whoever is overcome by someone is his slave” (2 Pet. II, 19). Chapter IV. To what extent are states alien to justice similar to bandits of robbers? So, in the absence of justice, what are states if not large gangs of robbers; since the robber gangs themselves are nothing more than states in miniature. And they also represent societies of people, governed by the authority of a superior, bound by mutual agreement and dividing the spoils according to a voluntarily established law. When such a gang of lost people grows to such a size that it seizes regions, establishes settled dwellings, takes possession of cities, and subjugates peoples to its power, then it openly accepts the name of a state, which is already fully assigned to it not by suppressed greed, but by acquired impunity. One captured pirate answered beautifully and correctly to Alexander the Great. When the king asked him what right he had to rob at sea, he boldly answered: “The same as you: but since I do this on a small ship, they call me a robber; You have a huge fleet, and that’s why they call you emperor.” Chapter V. About the former gladiators, whose power was like royal dignity I don’t ask what kind of people Romulus recruited for himself - these people were greatly benefited by the fact that, having received the rights of citizenship after their life of robbery, they stopped thinking about those punishments, the fear of which prompted them to even greater atrocities; so that they became more peaceful in relation to the conditions of human life. I will dwell on the fact that the Roman Empire itself, which became great thanks to the conquest of many peoples and became formidable for others, was forced to experience a bitter feeling, strong fear and work hard to avoid a cruel defeat. It was then that several gladiators who had fled from the games in the campaign recruited a large army, installed three leaders and began to devastate Italy with ferocious cruelty. Let them tell you what god helped them from the state of a small and despicable band of robbers to move into the category of a kind of state, which the Romans with so many of their armies and fortresses had to fear? Will they say that they did not benefit from help from above because they did not exist for long? But is the life of each individual person long? In this case, the gods do not help anyone in achieving power, because each person lives very short, and one should not consider it a blessing that in each individual person, and hence in all people, disappears like steam in a short time. What, in fact, is the benefit to people who worshiped the gods under Romulus and died long ago in the fact that after their death the Roman state achieved great power, when they themselves have long been reckoning in the underworld for their personal deeds (whether good or bad, this is not relevant to the present subject)? And this is how one should think about all those who, during their short existence, slid like a quickly disappearing shadow over the Roman state (although it itself did not cease to exist in the succession of those dying alive), taking with them the burden of their deeds. If the benefits of these short-lived existences should be attributed to the help of the gods, then they also provided considerable assistance to those gladiators who threw off the shackles of slavery, fled, gathered a large and very strong army and, obeying the advice and orders of their leaders, became very terrible for Roman greatness, and for so many Roman commanders - invincible, taking much into their hands; having won many victories, they indulged in the pleasures they desired; They did what lust inspired, and lived like kings, until, finally, with the greatest difficulty they were defeated. But let's move on to more significant examples. Chapter VI. About the greed of King Nin, who was the first to start fighting with his neighbors in order to spread his rule Justin, who, following Trogus Pompey, not only, like him, wrote Greek or, better to say, world history in Latin, but also made certain abbreviations from it, begins his work like this: “From the beginning of the world, kings had power over regions and peoples, to whom the right to this supreme dignity was given not by the vanity of peoples, but by moderation tested in the eyes of virtuous people. The peoples did not have any laws: the will of the sovereigns served as law for them. The custom was to protect the borders of the state rather than expand them; These borders were located within each person’s native homeland. Nin, the king of Assyria, was the first of all to violate, due to greed for power, this ancient and, as it were, ancestral custom for the peoples. He was the first to start fighting with his neighbors and to the very borders of Libya he conquered peoples who were not yet skilled in defense.” And a little further: “Nin strengthened the vastness of the acquired dominance by the continuity of possession. So, having conquered neighboring peoples, he moved on to others with increased strength and courage, and since each new victory was a means for the next, he conquered the peoples of the entire East.” Whatever the degree of truthfulness with which Justin or Trogus wrote (some more trustworthy sources show that they lied something), it is known, however, on the basis of the books of other writers that the kingdom of Assyria was greatly expanded by King Ninus. It existed for so long that the Roman state cannot yet match it in its years. For, as writers of historical chronology show, this kingdom existed for 1240 years, counting from the first year of the reign of Ninus until it passed to the Medes. But to attack neighbors and, having conquered them, move on, crush and conquer harmless peoples solely out of motives of lust for power - what can you call this, if not the greatest robbery? Chapter VII. Do the gods help earthly kingdoms in their expansion and do they leave them with their help when they weaken? If this state became so great and ruled for so long without any help from the gods, then why are the Roman gods credited with the expansion and longevity of the Roman Empire? For whatever may be the cause (of power) there, it is the same here. And if they say that (the power) of that state should be attributed to the help of the gods, then I ask: whose? For those other peoples whom Nin conquered and subjugated did not worship other gods. And if the Assyrians had special gods who were in some way more skillful in creating and preserving the state, then did these gods die when the Assyrians lost their power, or, not receiving the expected reward or receiving the promise of a greater reward, preferred to go to the Medes, and from them to the Persians, where Cyrus lured them with a more advantageous offer? The latter people, having survived the extensive but short-lived monarchy of Alexander the Great, continue to reign to this day, occupying considerable space in the East. If this is so, then the gods are either treacherous if they leave their own and go over to their enemies (which even the man Camillus did not do when, being the winner and conqueror of an enemy city, he met ingratitude from Rome, for whom he won the victory, and nevertheless, forgetting this injustice and caring for the fatherland, subsequently liberated it from the Gauls), or they are not as strong as the gods should be strong, and therefore can be defeated politics or the power of people. But perhaps the gods wage war among themselves and are defeated not by people, but by other gods, whom this or that state considers its own: therefore, they are at enmity with each other. In this case, the state should not honor its gods more than strangers if they are allies of their gods. Finally, no matter what we consider it to be: the betrayal of the gods, or their flight, or relocation, or defeat in battle, in any case, in those times and in those countries the name of Christ had not yet been preached, when the mentioned kingdoms, as a result of terrible military defeats, were destroyed or passed into the power of others. Meanwhile, if at the time when the kingdom was taken away from the Assyrians after more than one thousand two hundred years, the Christian religion had already preached there about another, eternal kingdom, and had prohibited the sacrilegious veneration of false gods, wouldn’t the vain people of that people have said that their state, which had existed for so long, perished precisely because their religions were abandoned and the Christian religion was adopted? Let the Romans hear in this supposed voice of vanity the expression of their own opinion, and let them be ashamed of such complaints, if there is still any shame in them. However, the Roman state was rather upset than destroyed; similar things happened to him in earlier times, before Christianity, and he recovered from such a disorder. You shouldn’t despair about this even now. For who knows the will of God regarding this? Chapter VIII. With the help of which gods, according to the Romans, their state increased and was preserved, if they believe that each individual of their gods was entrusted with the protection of only individual objects Let's see, further, if you like, which of this crowd of gods whom the Romans revered, most of all, in their opinion, expanded and preserved their empire? After all, they will not dare to attribute any participation in this so beautiful and most majestic matter to the goddess Cloacina, or Volupia, so named from sensual pleasure (voluplas), or Libentina, whose name comes from the word lust (libido), or to the Vatican, which is in charge of the cries (vagitus) of babies, or Cunina, who guards their cradles (cuna). But is it possible in one place in this book to remember all the names of gods or goddesses, which they could hardly fit into entire huge volumes, assigning a special deity to each individual thing? They did not even consider it possible to entrust the protection of villages to any one god, but above the trees (rura) they placed the goddess Ruzina, above the peaks (juga) of the mountains - the god Yugatin; above the hills (collis) - the goddess Collatina, above the valleys (vallym) - Wallonia. They did not even invent such a Segetia, to whom alone they could entrust their harvests (segeles), but the sown seeds, while they are in the ground, are subject, in their opinion, to the jurisdiction of the goddess Segetia, and when they come out of the ground and form stubble (Seges) - to the goddess Segetia; finally, when the bread was threshed and harvested, its safe preservation (tutum) was entrusted to the goddess Tugilina. Who would have thought that while the seeds emerge from the ground like grass and produce ripe ears, Segetia alone is not enough? And yet, for people who love many gods, so that a poor soul, having despised pure communion with the one true God, should be given over to a crowd of demons to be mocked, Segetia alone was not enough. They placed Proserpina to the green seedlings; to the knees and nodes (nodus) of the stems - the god Nodut; to the covers (involumenta) of the ears - the goddess Volutina; when the covers open (patesco) to give way to the ears of corn, they were entrusted to the goddess Patelana; when the fields are covered with new ears - to the goddess Gostilina, since, by being covered with new ones, they compensate (hostire) for the old ones; the blossoming (florens) harvests were entrusted to the goddess Flora; pouring (tactesco) - to the god Lakturnu; those who ripen (maturesco) - to the goddess Matuga; compressed (runco) - to the goddess Runtsina. I don’t mention everything, because what they are not ashamed of bores me. I have said this very little in order to show that they can in no way say that the Roman Empire was founded, expanded and preserved by those deities, each of whom had a specific duty, so that none of them was entrusted with a common task. Indeed, how could Segetia think about the state when she was not allowed to look along with the harvest and behind the trees? How could Kunina think about battles when she could not leave the cradles of the babies assigned to her? How would Nodut begin to help in the war when he had only to do with the knees of the trunk, and nothing to do with the covers of the ears? Each person assigns only one gatekeeper to his house, and since he is a man, he is quite enough; but they placed three gods: Forculus to the doors (fores), Cardea to the hinges (cardo), Limentina to the threshold (limentum). Thus, Forculus could not guard either the hinges or the threshold at the same time. Chapter IX. Can the vastness and long-term existence of the Roman Empire be attributed to Jupiter, who is revered by his admirers as the highest god? So, leaving completely or putting aside for a while this crowd of small gods, we must consider the activities of the most important gods, thanks to which Rome became so powerful that for a long time it ruled over many nations. Without any doubt, this is the work of Jupiter. They consider him the king of all gods and goddesses; this is what his scepter and Capitol on a high hill mean. About this god, they say, it is said quite successfully, albeit by a poet: Varro thinks that he is also revered by those who worship the one God, without representing him in a bodily form, but only call him by a different name. If this is so, then why did Rome (as well as other nations) honor him so badly that they built an idol for him? Varro himself did not like this so much that, although he was infected with the wicked custom of Rome, he did not hesitate at all to say and write that those who commanded the people to erect idols reduced the fear (of the gods) and increased delusions. Chapter X. What ideas guided those who assigned different gods to different parts of the world But why does Juno join him as his wife, who is called both his sister and wife 53? Then they answer that we feel Jupiter in the ether, and Juno in the air; these two elements are connected together, although one of them is higher and the other lower. In this case, it is not about him that it is said: if some part (of the world) is filled by Juno. Or do they both fill these elements, and these spouses are in both elements, in each of them together? Why, then, is the ether assigned to Jupiter, and the air to Juno? Finally, these two would be enough: why then is the sea given to Neptune, and the earth to Pluto? In turn, they are not left without a spouse and these latter are given Salacia to Neptune, and Proserpina to Pluto. This, they say, is because just as the lower part of the sky, that is, the air, is ruled by Juno, so the lower part of the sea is ruled by Salia, and the lower part of the earth is controlled by Proserpina. They try to correct the myths, but do not find a way. After all, if this were so, then their ancestors would have pointed to three elements, and not four, in order to give each element a special pair of gods. At present, it has been finally decided that ether is one thing, and air is quite another. But water, whether upper or lower, is still water: even if it is different, but is it so different that it is not water? And what can the lower earth be other than earth, no matter how different it may be (from the upper)? But let the entire physical world consist of these three or four elements: where then should we place Minerva? What will she be in charge of? what to fill with yourself? After all, she is placed in the Capitol with them, although she is not the daughter of either one. Or, perhaps, they will say that Minerva is in charge of the upper part of the ether and that this is why the poets came up with the idea that she was born from the head of Jupiter: in this case, why not honor her as the queen of the gods, since she is higher than Jupiter? Is it because it is indecent to prefer a daughter to a father? Then why is this justice not observed in relation to the father of Jupiter - Saturn? Is it because the latter was defeated? So they fought? No, they say these are all myths. This means that myths should not be believed and we need to think better about gods. Then why is not the father of Jupiter given, if not the highest, then at least an equal place? Therefore, they say that Saturn means the length of time. So those who revere Saturn revere time; it turns out that the king of the gods, Jupiter, was born in time. And why is it indecent to say that Jupiter and Juno were born in time, if he is heaven and she is earth, when heaven and earth were undoubtedly created? This is what their scholars and sages say in their books; and Virgil bases himself not on poetic fictions, but on philosophical books, when he says: At that time the almighty Ether was the life-giving rain 54 spilled into the bosom of his cheerful wife, that is, into the bosom of tellurium, or earth. But even in this case, in their opinion, there is some difference: and in the earth itself, in their opinion, one thing is Earth, another is Tellurium, and another is Tellumon. And they consider all of them to be gods, each having their own name, endow them with special duties, and honor them with separate altars and cults. The same Earth is also called the mother of the gods; so that the poets in their fictions are even more moderate than they are, since according to their not poetic, but sacred books, Juno turns out to be not only the sister and wife, but also the mother of Jupiter. They also consider the same earth to be Ceres, and also Vesta; although it is more often claimed that Vesta is the fire contained in the hearths, without which the state cannot exist; and the reason why virgins, in fact, usually serve fire is that nothing is born either from a virgin or from fire. The One who was born precisely from the Virgin had to destroy and eradicate all this empty superstition. Who, in fact, will come to terms with the fact that, attributing so much honor and, as it were, purity to fire, they sometimes without blushing call Vesta and Venus, so that the venerable virginity of her servants turns out to be a worthless thing? Indeed, if Vesta is Venus, then on what basis should virgins who maintain their chastity serve her? Or are there two Venuses, one a virgin, the other a woman? Or even three: one for virgins (aka Vesta), the other for married women, the third for sluts? The Phoenicians even offered the virginity of their daughters to this latter before they got married. Which one is Vulcan's wife? Of course, not a virgin, since she had a husband. And so as not to offend the son of Juno and the comrade-in-arms of Minerva, let her not be a libertine. So, that means married; but we would not like her to be imitated in what she did with Mars. Again, they will say, you are returning to myths. But is it fair to be angry with us because we say such things about their gods, but not to be angry with ourselves because in the theaters they look at these crimes of their gods with the greatest pleasure? Meanwhile, all these stage performances of the crimes of their gods are arranged in honor of the same gods: which would be incredible if it were not confirmed in the most irrefutable way. Chapter XI. About the many gods whom pagan scientists defend, saying that all these gods are one and the same Jupiter Therefore, let them prove as much as they like on the basis of natural laws and their own considerations that Jupiter is only the soul of the real corporeal world, which fills and moves this world mass, composed and united from four or as many elements as they like; that he either cedes some parts of it to his sister and brothers, then represents the ether, which on top embraces the air spread under him, that is, Juno, then together with the air he himself represents the whole sky, and fertilizes the earth as a wife and mother (this is not considered vile in divine relations) with life-giving rains and seeds, then, finally (we do not need to dwell on all this), he is the one god, about whom, in the opinion of many, it was said famous poet: God walks through the spaces of the earth and the depths of the sea, Let him be Jupiter in the ether; in the air - Juno; in the sea - Neptune; in the depths of the sea - Salacia; in the earth - Pluto; in the depths of the earth - Proserpina; at home - Vesta; in the blacksmiths' furnace - Vulcan; in the heavenly bodies - the sun, moon and stars; in soothsayers - Apollo; in trade - Mercury; in Janus - the beginner; in Termina – the finisher; Saturn - in time; Mars and Bellona are at war; Liber - in the vineyards; Ceres - in grain crops; Diana - in the forests; Minerva - in the sciences and arts. Let him also be in this crowd of a kind of plebeian gods: under the name of Libera, let him be in charge of the male seed, and under the name of Libera - the female seed; let him be Diespiter, who brings the fruit into the light (dies); let him be Mena, in charge of the monthly cleansing of women; let him be Luciana, who is called upon by those in labor; let him give help (ops) to those being born, taking them to the bosom of the earth, and be called Opa; let him open their mouth to cry (vagitus) and be called God the Vatican; let him raise (levo) them from the ground and call himself the goddess Levana; let him himself guard the cradles (cuna) and be called the goddess Cuna; let him, and not anyone else, under the guise of those goddesses who predict the fate of those born, be called Carmenti; let him rule the lots and be called Fortune; let him, under the guise of the goddess Rumina, insert the baby's nipples, since the ancestors' nipples were called ruma, under the guise of the goddess Potina, give them a drink (potio), in the person of the goddess Educa, nourish them; let it be called Paventia from the fright (pavor) of babies; Venilia from the coming (venio) hope; from the pleasure of Volupia; from the action of Agenora; from excitement (stimula), which dispose a person to extraordinary actions, by the goddess Stimula; the goddess Strenia because she makes a person agile (strenuus); Numeria, which teaches us to count; Stones, teaching to sing; let him also be the god Consus and give advice; and the goddess Juventa, who after adolescence protects the first beginnings of adolescence; let him also be Fortuna Barbata, who covers adults with a beard (they did not want to give them the honor of calling him, no matter what deity there was, at least by a man’s name, even from his beard, for example, Barbatus, like Nodut - from his knees: or not Fortuna, but Fortunatus, because he wears a beard); let him unite the spouses in the god Yugatin; let him be invoked when the newlywed's belt is untied, and be called the goddess Virginiensia; let him be Mutun or Tugun, who is the same as Priapus among the Greeks. If they are not ashamed, let all these gods about which I have spoken, as well as those about whom I have not spoken (I do not think that it is necessary to talk about all of them), - let all of them, both gods and goddesses, be represented by one Jupiter: let them all be either his parts, as some think, or his powers, as those who like to call him the soul of the world think - an opinion shared by many great scientists. If this is so (I do not yet enter into the study of what this opinion is), then what would they have lost if they had worshiped, with a prudent elimination of excesses, the one God? In fact, what would be left out in him if it were he who was revered? If they had to be afraid that the bypassed and forgotten parts of it would become angry, then all this life did not have the appearance of the life of one, as they think, living being, in which all the gods would be located either as its forces, or as members, or as parts. Each part would have its own life, separate from the other parts, since one could be angry independently of the other, one could be appeased, the other could be irritated. To say that all the parts are together, i.e. the whole of Jupiter could be offended if its parts were not revered individually and each separately, which would mean saying stupidity. Not one of these parts would be left out if one were to honor him alone, who contains all. After all, even now, when they say, for example (I’m omitting much else), that the luminaries are parts of Jupiter, that they all live, have rational souls and therefore, undoubtedly, are gods; Don’t they see how many of them are not revered, how many do not build churches, do not erect altars, although it was considered necessary for a small number of them to erect altars and make special sacrifices? So, if the luminaries, who are not particularly revered, are angry for this, then why are they, while appeasing a few, not afraid to live under the whole angry sky? If the stars are revered by all, because they are in Jupiter, to whom worship is given, then in the same abbreviated order it would be possible to worship all in him alone. In this case, not a single one of them would have been angry, since not a single one would have been left out in it - she would not have been much more angry than now, when, with the veneration of only some of them, a fair reason is given to be angry with those, and moreover, the most numerous, who are bypassed with veneration; and this is all the more so since Priam, standing in vile nakedness, is preferred to them, shining from the heights of heaven. Chapter XII. About the opinion of those who represented God as the soul of the world, and the world as the body of God What then? Surely this should not confuse people endowed with a discerning mind; moreover, any people at all? For it does not require great intelligence to, taking an impartial point of view, understand that if God is the soul of the world, and the world is the body of this soul, so that one living being is obtained, consisting of body and soul; and that if this God, as if in some kind of his natural womb, contains everything within himself, so that from His soul, which animates this entire mass, flow both the life and the soul of everything living according to the kind of each one that is born, then absolutely nothing remains that is not a part of God. And if this is so, then who does not see what wicked and blasphemous consequences follow from this? Anyone, for example, who tramples something with his feet, tramples a part of God; every time he kills an animal, he kills a part of God. I don’t want to say everything that may come to mind, but cannot be expressed due to natural shyness. Chapter XIII. About those who claim that only rational animals are parts of the one God If they say that only rational animals, for example people, are parts of God, then I do not understand how they separate irrational animals from His parts, since God is the whole world? However, why should we argue over this? In the reasoning of the most intelligent animal, that is, man, what could be more unfortunate than the thought that when a child is punished, God is punished? Who, except a completely madman, can also admit that the parts of God are lustful, unjust, wicked and deserving of all condemnation? Finally, why is God angry with those who do not honor Him, when His own parts do not honor Him? It remains for them, therefore, to say that all the gods have their own life, that each of them lives by himself and that none of them forms a part of another; but that one should honor those of them who can be known and venerated; because there are so many of them that it is impossible to know and honor them all. And since Jupiter rules over all the gods as king, I think that, in their opinion, it was he who founded and expanded the Roman kingdom. For if this was not done by him, then which other of the gods could, in their opinion, accomplish such a great work, when each of these gods is busy with his own duties and affairs and does not interfere with the duties and affairs of others? So, the kingdom of people could only be expanded and expanded by the king of the gods. Chapter XIV. Attributing the spread of states to Jupiter is incongruous: if, as they think, there is a goddess of Victory, then she alone should be sufficient for this matter But, one might ask, why isn’t the state itself some kind of god? Why wouldn't this be so if there is a goddess of Victory? Or why is Jupiter needed in this case, if Victory is favorable, merciful and always comes to the aid of those whom it wants to make winners? With the favor and favor of this goddess, even if Jupiter is inactive or does something else, what nations will not be defeated, what kingdoms will stand? Or maybe good people don’t like to fight for unjust and empty reasons, and for the sake of expanding the state, they unreasonably call neighbors to war who live calmly and completely harmlessly? If they think this way, I fully approve and praise them. Chapter XV. Is it proper for good people to wish for an extension of their reign? Let them really think about whether good people should really rejoice at the expansion of the state. There is no doubt that the growth of the state was facilitated by the injustice of those with whom just wars were fought. The state would inevitably remain small if the peace and justice of its neighbors did not cause any offense to war against them; and under happier conditions of human life all states would remain small, enjoying the friendliness of their neighbors, so that there would be as many states of different nations in the world as there are in a city quite many houses of different citizens. Therefore, waging wars and expanding the state by conquering peoples seems to be a good thing for bad people, but for good people it is only a matter of necessity. This may be called a good deed, but only because it would be worse if more unjust people dominated more just ones. But there is no doubt that having a kind and peaceful neighbor is greater happiness than subjugating a bad and warlike neighbor. The desire to hate or fear someone so that there is someone to defeat is a bad desire. But be that as it may, if the Romans were able to create such a great state, waging just wars for legitimate and serious reasons, then shouldn’t they have worshiped other people’s injustice as some kind of goddess? After all, we see that this injustice greatly contributed to the expansion of their empire, causing people to commit illegal actions, so that they would have someone to wage war with and thereby increase the state. Why can’t injustice, at least the injustice of foreign peoples, be a goddess if Fear, Fear and Fever were honored to be Roman gods? Thus, the Roman state increased thanks to these two, i.e., foreign injustice and the goddess Victory, with the complete inaction of Jupiter: injustice gave reasons for war, and Victory brought these wars to a happy end. And what participation could Jupiter have in this case, when what could be called his benefit was itself considered, called and revered as a god and invoked in itself? It would take part in this only if it were called the State, just as it was called Victory. Or if the state is a gift from Jupiter, then why was victory not considered his gift? This, of course, would be the case if in the Capitol there was not a stone and the object of veneration, but the true King of kings and Lord of lords (Apoc. XIX, 16). Chapter XVI. Why did the Romans, having appointed separate gods for each thing and each phenomenon, decide to build the Church of Peace outside the city gates? I am only extremely surprised why, having appointed separate gods for each thing and for almost every phenomenon, calling on the goddess Agenora, so that she causes activity, Stimulus, so that she excites even excessive activity, Murcia, so that she does not excite beyond measure, but makes a person, in the words of Pomponius, murcidum, i.e., completely lazy and inactive, String, so that she makes him agile - why, sending all these gods and goddesses have public cults, they did not want to worship Quite, whom they prayed to make a person calm (quetum), by building her a church outside the Collin Gate? Was this a sign of a restless spirit? Or, better, didn’t it mean that he who zealously revered this crowd not of gods, but of demons, could not have that peace to which the true Physician calls, saying: “Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt. XI, 29)? Chapter XVII. If Jupiter is supreme, should the Goddess of Victory be honored? Perhaps they will tell us that the goddess Victory is sent by Jupiter, and she, obeying him as a king, goes to those whom he commands and takes their side? This is true, but not in relation to Jupiter, whom they picture in their imagination as the king of the gods, but in relation to that true King of the ages, Who sends not Victory, which has no substance, but His angel, and makes the winner whom He wants; Whose advice may be hidden, but cannot be unjust. After all, if victory is a goddess, then why is not God triumph, and why is he not united with victory either as a husband, or as a brother, or as a son? Truly, they invented such things about their gods that, if they had been invented by poets and examined by us, they themselves would have called inventions worthy of laughter, but not applicable to the true deities; but since they read such nonsense not from poets, but revered it in churches, they did not laugh at themselves. So, they had to turn to Jupiter with requests for everything and pray to him alone. For, wherever he sent Victory, she should not have resisted him and fulfilled her will, if she was a goddess subject to him as a king. Chapter XVIII. On what basis do those who worship Fortune and Fortune as goddesses differentiate them? On what basis is the goddess of Happiness? A church was built for her, an altar was dedicated to her, and a proper cult was performed. Let at least one thing be honored. For what good can there not be where there is happiness? Why, then, is Fortuna also revered and recognized as a goddess? Is Happiness one thing and Fortune another? Because (they say) fortune can also be evil: happiness would not be happiness if it were evil. But in fact, we should consider all gods of both sexes (if they have sex) to be good. This is what Plato said, 55 this is what other philosophers and the best rulers of states and peoples say. How is it that the goddess Fortuna is sometimes good and sometimes evil? Or maybe when she is evil, she ceases to be a goddess and suddenly turns into an evil demon? And then, how many such goddesses are there? Probably as many as there are people gifted with fortune, that is, those who benefit from good Fortune. But since together, i.e. at the same time, with them there are a lot of people who have evil fortune, then is it really Fortune, if this is what it is, that can be both good and evil at the same time - for some it is one, for others it is another? Or is she who is considered a goddess always good? In this case, she is the same as Happiness; why then two names? However, one can still come to terms with this: very often the same thing is called by two names. But why different churches, different altars, different cults? There is, they say, a reason for this: virtuous people enjoy happiness for preliminary merits, and Fortune, called good, falls to the lot of virtuous and vicious people without any merit, by chance (fortuitu), which is why it is called Fortuna. But how is it good if it comes indiscriminately to both the virtuous and the vicious? And why is she revered if she is so blind that she attacks anyone, very often bypassing her admirers and becoming attached to those who despise her? And if her admirers partly achieve the fact that she pays attention to them and loves them, then she gets it on merit and does not come by chance. How, then, is the above definition of fortune justified? How did she get her name from chance? After all, if she is truly fortune, then there is no benefit from honoring her. If she prefers to choose her fans in order to assist them, then she is no longer lucky. Or does Jupiter send Fortune to whomever he pleases? In this case, let them honor him alone: ​​since Fortune cannot disobey him when he orders her and sends her where he wants. Or, at least, let her be revered only by vicious people who do not want to have merits with which they could attract the Goddess of Happiness to themselves. Chapter XIX. About women's fortune They attribute so much to this imaginary deity, which is called Fortuna, that they entered into their history as if the statue of Fortuna, dedicated to her by the matrons (and called the female Fortuna 56), even spoke 57: she allegedly said, not once, but twice, that the matrons honored her as they should. If this were the case, one should not be surprised. It is not very difficult for evil demons to seduce in this way: they would have to use their tricks and cunning in the present case, first of all, because it was precisely the goddess who spoke who does good by chance, and does not come according to deserts. In fact, Fortune turned out to be the speaker, and Happiness was mute: what is this for, if not for people not to try to live virtuously, relying on Fortune, which would make them happy apart from any merit on their part? And if Fortune really spoke, then at least let it be not female, but male Fortune that spoke, so that there would not be a suspicion that such a miracle was invented out of female talkativeness by themselves (the matrons) who dedicated the statue to her. Chapter XX. That the pagans honored virtue and faith with temples and cults, bypassing other blessings - which should have been honored in the same way, if the deity was correctly attributed to them They also made Virtue a goddess, which, if she were truly a goddess, should have been preferred by many. And since she is not a goddess, but a gift from God, she herself must be asked from the One who alone can bestow her; the whole crowd of false gods must disappear. But why was Vera made a goddess, and even received a church and an altar? Anyone who wisely listens to her becomes her church. But how do they know what faith is, the first and most important thing of which is to believe in the true God? So, why weren’t you content with virtue? Isn't that where faith lies? In their opinion, virtue should be divided into four types: prudence, justice, courage and moderation. Each of these species has, in turn, its own subspecies; Thus, justice also contains faith as a subspecies. For us, faith occupies the most important place and each of us knows what the words mean: “The righteous will live by his faith” (Habak. II, 4). But if faith is a goddess, I wonder at these lovers of the crowd of gods, why, by their neglect, they offended so many other goddesses, to whom, just like faith, they could dedicate churches and altars? Why was moderation not honored to be the goddess, since thanks to it some Roman sovereigns gained considerable fame? Why, further, not the goddess - the courage that manifested itself in Mutius when he held his right hand in the fire; in Curtius, when he rushed into the abyss for his fatherland; in Decius the father and Decius the son, when they doomed themselves to death for the army (if only there was true courage in all of them, which I am not talking about yet)? Why are prudence and wisdom not given any place among the gods? Is it not because they are all revered under the common name of virtue? But in the same way one could worship one God, of Whom all other gods are recognized as parts. But in virtue lies both faith and modesty, which, however, are awarded external altars in special churches. Chapter XXI. That those who do not understand the gifts of God should at least be content with Virtue and Happiness All these goddesses were created not by truth, but by vanity. They are all gifts of the true God, and not independently existing goddesses. Moreover, what else is lacking where virtue and happiness are found? How can one be satisfied who is not satisfied with virtue and happiness? Virtue embraces everything that needs to be done; well-being is all that should be desired. If they revered Jupiter so that he would bestow virtue and happiness; and the vastness and long-term existence of the state is fortunate, if this is the essence of something good for us, then why didn’t they understand that virtue and happiness are gifts of God, and not separate goddesses? And if they already recognized them as goddesses, then at least they shouldn’t invent the rest of the crowd of gods and goddesses. In fact, having reviewed all the duties that they wanted to invent for their gods and goddesses in accordance with their own imagination, let them point out something that a person who has virtue and enjoys happiness could still receive from some god? What instructions should we ask from Mercury or Minerva, when virtue contains everything? For, according to the definition of the ancients, virtue is the art of living well and justly. Therefore, from the Greek word ἀρετή, which means virtue, the Latins are believed to have borrowed the terms ars and artis, art. But if virtue can only come to a person who is witty, then what was the need for God Katia, the father who makes people catos, that is, sharp in mind, when this could give Happiness? After all, being born witty is happiness. True, a person who was not yet born could not worship the goddess of Happiness, so that, propitiated by him, she would grant him wit; but she could help his parents, her admirers, so that their sons would be born witty. What need was there for women in labor to call on Lucina, when in the presence of Happiness they could give birth not only safely, but also to good babies? Why was it necessary to entrust those born to the goddess Opa, those who scream to the god Vatican, those lying in the cradle to the goddess Kunina, those who are breastfeeding to the goddess Rumina, those standing to the god Statilin, those who come to the goddess Adeone, those who leave to Abeone; goddess Mente, so that they have a good mind; to the god Volumnus and the goddess Volumna, so that they wish good things; to the marriage gods, so that they are happy in marriage; to the gods of the field, especially Fructese herself, to gather the most abundant fruits; To Mars and Bellona, ​​so that they may fight happily; Goddess Victoria to remain victorious; to the god Honor, so that they will be honored; to the goddess Pecunia, so that they have money; to the god Esculanus and his son Argentina, so that they could have copper and silver money? Aesculanus is called the father of Argentina because copper coins first came into circulation, and then silver coins. I’m only surprised that Argentina did not give birth to Aurin, because a gold coin came after the silver coin. If they had this god, they would prefer him to both Father Argentina and grandfather Aesculanus, just as they preferred Jupiter to Saturn. So, what was the need for the sake of these, whether spiritual or physical external goods, to honor and invoke such a darkness of gods (of which I do not remember all of them, and they themselves could not indicate special and special for all human goods, dividing them into types and considering them separately), when all this could be explained more easily and briefly by the goddess of Happiness alone; so that there was no need for some other god, not only to obtain good, but also to eliminate evil? Why, in fact, was it necessary to call upon the goddess Thessonia for the tired, the goddess Pellonia for the expulsion of enemies, the physician Apollo or Aesculapius for the sick, or, in case of great danger, both together? There would be no need to beg either the god Spiniensis to destroy the thorns (spinoe) in the fields, or the goddess Rubiga (rust) not to approach the fields: the presence of the goddess Happiness alone would not allow evil to appear and would quite easily eliminate it. Finally (we mean, in fact, two goddesses: Virtue and Happiness), if well-being is a reward for virtue, it is no longer a goddess, but a gift from God; if it is a goddess, then why can’t we say that it communicates virtue itself, since having virtue is great happiness? Chapter XXII. About the art of honoring the gods, which was communicated to the Romans by Varro, as he himself boasts of it On what basis does Varro boast that he did his fellow citizens a great benefit by not only mentioning the gods that the Romans should honor, but also talking about what concerns each of these gods? “How completely useless,” he says, “to know the name and appearance of any doctor, but not to know what a doctor is; it is also completely useless to know that there is a god Aesculapius if you do not know that he helps health and if you do not know, therefore, what you should pray to him for.” He confirms this idea with another comparison, saying that not only can one live well, but no one can live at all without knowing what a craftsman, baker, plasterer is, to whom he could turn in case of any need - not knowing who to choose as an assistant, who as a leader, who as a teacher; and adds that knowledge of the gods is just as useful - knowledge of what power, ability and authority each god has in relation to every thing. “From here,” he says, “we can find out which god and what we must call and beg for, and not act like comedians: do not ask Liber for water, or Lymph for wine.” Indeed, great benefit! Who would not thank him if he taught the truth: taught people to honor the one true God, from Whom all good things come? Chapter XXIII. About Happiness, to which the Romans, worshipers of many gods, did not give divine honors for a long time, although it alone could replace all But if their books and religious institutions are true and if Happiness is truly a goddess, then why is she not the only one who can give everything; in a word, make you happy? For whose desires are not limited to being happy? Why did Lucullus build a church to this goddess so late, after so many Roman rulers? Why didn’t Romulus himself, who wanted to build a happy city, first of all erect a church for her? He had no need to pray to other gods for anything when, under the protection of this goddess, he would have had everything. After all, he himself would not have become first a king, and then, as they believe, a god, if this goddess had not been merciful to him. Why did he establish gods for the Romans: Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Picus, Faun, Tiberinus, Hercules and many others? Why did Titus Tatius add to these Saturn, Opus, the Sun, the Moon, Vulcan, Light and some others, and, by the way, the goddess Cloacina, neglecting Happiness? Why did Numa add so many gods and goddesses, but did not add Happiness? Is it because he couldn’t notice her in such a crowd? King Hostilius would not, of course, have introduced new gods, Fear and Horror, if he had known and honored this goddess. For in the presence of Happiness, all fear and horror would not move away, appeased, but would run away, driven out. Further, what does it mean that the Roman state had already existed for a long time and had reached vast limits, and no one had yet revered Happiness? Or was that why it was more expansive than happy? For how could there be true happiness where there was no true piety? True piety is the worship of the true God, and not the veneration of as many gods as there are demons. But even after Happiness was already accepted among the gods, the great misfortune of civil wars began. Was, perhaps, Happiness justifiably offended that she was invited so late, and then not for honor, but rather for desecration, since Priapus, Cloacina, Fear, Horror, Fever, and others were worshiped along with her: rather the crimes of the venerated than the deities worthy of veneration? Finally, if they found it necessary to venerate such a goddess together with the most unworthy crowd, then why didn’t they at least venerate her above the rest? For who is not annoyed that (the goddess) Happiness is not placed either among the advisory gods (Consenses), who are supposedly invited to council with Jupiter, or among the gods who are called the chosen ones (selecti)? She should have built a church that would be distinguished by both the sublimity of the place and the superiority of architecture. Why not even build her something better than Jupiter himself? After all, who, if not Happiness, gave Jupiter himself to reign, if only he was happy during his reign? Yes, happiness is even better than the kingdom. Everyone will agree that it is not difficult to find a person who would be afraid, perhaps, to be a king; but you cannot find anyone who would not want to be happy. Let them ask about this, with the help of augurs, or in any other way in which they consider it possible to ask the gods - let them ask the gods themselves: would they like to give way to Happiness? I think that Jupiter himself would have given her even the top of the Capitoline Hill if it turned out that the place where the most extensive and sublime church could be built for Happiness was already occupied by churches and altars of other gods. For no one will resist Happiness, except perhaps the one who would like to be unhappy, but this is an impossible case. Jupiter, if asked, would under no circumstances have done what the three gods did to him: Mars, Terminus and Juventa, who resolutely did not want to give up their place to their elder and king. For when King Tarquinius, as their written monuments say, wanted to build the Capitol, this place, in his opinion more decent and worthy (of Jupiter), turned out to be occupied by other gods. Not daring to act in any way contrary to the will of these gods and thinking that they would willingly give up this place to so great a deity and their head, he, through the augurs, asked the gods, of whom there were many on the spot where the Capitol was now erected, whether they would not like to give it up to Jupiter? All the gods agreed to yield, except for the three mentioned: Mars, Terminus and Iuventa. That is why the Capitol was built in such a way that these three gods were inside it; but their statues were so hidden that the most learned people hardly knew about it. Yes, Jupiter himself would not have dared not to respect Happiness, just as those three gods did not respect him. But even they, who did not yield to Jupiter, would, without any doubt, yield to Happiness, which made Jupiter king over them. And even if they had not given in, they would have done so not out of disrespect, but because they would have rather lived unknown in the house of Happiness than to show off in their places without him. If the goddess of Happiness were installed in the most extensive and elevated place, citizens would know where to ask for help in every good desire. So, according to the inspiration of nature itself, leaving behind the excessive multitude of other gods, they would honor Happiness alone, they would pray to her alone; her church would be visited by all those citizens who would like to be happy (and none of them would want to be happy); therefore, she alone would be asked for everything that is asked of all the gods. For who desires to receive anything from any god except Happiness, if what he desires necessarily relates to happiness? Therefore, if happiness has the power to be with this or that person (and it has this power if it is a goddess), then isn’t it extremely stupid to beg this or that god for it, when it is possible to ask it from him himself? Thus, they should have honored this goddess in comparison with other gods and in the most honorable place. The ancient Romans themselves, as we read from their own writers, revered a certain Summanus, to whom they attributed night lightning, more than Jupiter, to whom daylight lightning belongs. But after a vast and lofty church was built for Jupiter, because of the importance of the church, the crowd flocked to it so that it is hardly possible now to find a person who would at least remember that the name of Summan was venerated. If happiness is not a goddess, since (which is completely true) it is a gift of God, then one should look for that God who can bestow it, and leave the harmful multitude of demons, for a senseless crowd of madmen serves him, making gods for themselves out of the gifts of God, and insults God himself, whose gifts they are, with the stubbornness of a proud will. After all, he cannot avoid misfortune who honors happiness as a goddess and leaves God, the Giver of happiness, just as he cannot help but experience hunger who licks the bread painted in a picture and does not ask for it from a person who has real bread. Chapter XXIV. What arguments do pagans justify for honoring divine gifts among the gods? But it is advisable to listen to their reasoning. Is it likely, they say, that our ancestors were so unreasonable that they did not know: all these are gifts of God, and not gods? They knew that all this could not be attributed to anyone except some benevolent god; but since they could not discover the names of these gods, they called them by the names of those things that, in their opinion, are given by them, changing these names somewhat in the endings: for example, from the word bellum (war) they borrowed the name Bello_ena, from cuna (cradle) - Cunina, from seges (grain bread) - Segetia, from pomum (apple) - Pomona, from bus (bull) - Bubona; or without any change, completely in the form in which the things themselves are called: for example, the name Pecunia is the goddess who gives money (pecuia), the name Virtus is the goddess who imparts virtue (virtus), the name Honor is the god who gives honor, the name Concordia is the goddess who communicates agreement (concordia), the name Victoria is the goddess who gives victory (victoria). In exactly the same way, they say, when Happiness is called a goddess, it is not the object itself that is given that is meant, but the deity that gives happiness. Chapter XXV. About the veneration of God alone, who, although unknown by name, is recognized as the giver of happiness Having listened to these reasonings, it will be much easier, perhaps, for us to convince those of them whose hearts have not yet become too hardened of what we want. After all, if human weakness has already realized that happiness can only be granted by some god; if those who revered so many gods, and among others, their king, Jupiter, were aware of this, since, not knowing the name of the one who bestows happiness, they called it the name of the very thing that, in their opinion, is sent down, then by this they have already sufficiently expressed that happiness cannot be sent down by Jupiter himself, whom they already revered, but it is sent down by the One whom they considered it necessary to honor under the name of Happiness itself. I affirm with complete confidence that they believed that happiness was bestowed by some God whom they did not know. Let them therefore seek Him, let them worship Him, and that will be enough. Let them despise the gnashing of countless demons: only this God will not be enough for those for whom His gift is not enough. Let him who is satisfied with him (for there is nothing for man that he should desire more) serve the one God, the Giver of happiness. This is not the god who is called Jupiter. For if they recognized Jupiter as the giver of happiness, then, under the name of happiness, they would not, of course, look for another or someone else by whom it is bestowed - and Jupiter himself would not be revered with such insults. They call him an adulterer, a shameless lover and a kidnapper of a beautiful boy. Chapter XXVI. About theatrical games, the performance of which the gods demanded from their worshipers “But,” says Tullius, “Homer invented all this; he transferred human actions to the gods; I would prefer the opposite.” Indeed, a serious person should not have liked a poet who was an inventor of divine crimes. But why then were theatrical games, in which these deeds are narrated, sung, presented and brought to the honor of the gods, considered by the most learned people to be among divine things? In this case, Cicero should have complained not about the inventions of the poets, but about the institutions of his ancestors. But shouldn’t our ancestors, in turn, have exclaimed: “What are we to blame for? The gods themselves insisted that all this be done in their honor, strictly commanded us to do this and threatened us with disasters if we did not do it; they strictly took revenge when something was not fulfilled, and were merciful when what was not fulfilled was fulfilled.” For my part, I will tell you about the following event, which tradition classifies as one of their virtues and miracles. Titus Latinius, a Roman villager and father of the family, was ordered in a dream to announce in the Senate that the Roman games would be held again, since on the first day of these games the execution of one criminal was carried out in front of the people: the gods, who were looking for fun entertainment in the games, were unpleasant such actions of the authorities, causing sadness. When the one to whom the order was given in a dream did not dare to carry it out the next morning, then the next night it was repeated to him with greater severity; and since he did not fulfill this time either, he lost his son. On the third night he was told that even greater punishment awaited him if he did not do as he was ordered. When he did not dare to do this even after this, he fell into a painful and terrible illness. Then, on the advice of friends, he brought this to the attention of the government and was carried to the Senate on a stretcher. When he conveyed his dream there, he immediately recovered and left the Senate on his own feet. Amazed by this miracle, the Senate decided to resume the games, allocating four times the amount for them. Who, having a sound mind, will not understand from this that people who were subject to the power of evil demons, from which only the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ liberates, were forced by force to carry out such things in honor of such gods that under other circumstances would seem vile? It was in these games that the crimes of the gods, imagined by the poets, were celebrated, and these same games were resumed at the behest of the Senate, forced to do so by the gods. In these games, the most vile histrions sang, imagined and delighted the molester of chastity - Jupiter. If it had been imaginary, he should have been angry; if he delighted in his crimes, even if they were fictitious, then when they honored him, didn’t they serve him like the devil? Was it really he who created, spread and preserved the Roman state - he who was more disgusting than any Roman, in whose opinion these things were vile? Is it really he who sends down happiness - he who was honored as evil and who was even more angry if he was not honored in this way? Chapter XXVII. About the three kinds of gods, which Pontiff Scaevola discussed In written monuments there is a mention that the most learned pontiff Scaevola divided the gods into three kinds: one of them was introduced by poets, another by philosophers, and the third by state authorities. He calls the first kind mythical, because it represents many unworthy fictions about the gods; the second considers it unsuitable for the state, because there is something superfluous in it, and something that would be harmful for the people to know. We don’t stop at unnecessary things; and lawyers often say: “Excess is not harmful.” But what does he mean by the fact that if it reaches the people, it will be harmful? “It is harmful,” he says, “the belief that Hercules, Aesculapius, Castor and Pollux are not gods, since philosophers prove that they lived as people and died as people. What else? The opinion that states do not have actual images of those beings who are gods; that the true God has neither gender, nor age, nor specific body parts.” The Pontiff does not want the people to know these things, because he himself considers all this to be true. Therefore, in his opinion, it is useful for states to err in the field of religion. Varro expressed precisely the same opinion in his books on the divine. Religion is good if the weak resort to it for salvation, and yet, instead of the saving truth that he seeks, deception is considered useful to him! The same written monuments also give the reasons why Scaevola rejects the race of gods introduced by the poets. This reason is that “among the poets, the gods are disfigured to such an extent that they turn out to be worse than decent people: they force one of them to steal, another to commit adultery; they also force them to do and say various things, shameful and absurd; they represent three goddesses arguing among themselves about the reward for beauty, and two of them, defeated by Venus, destroying Troy; Jupiter himself is represented as turning either into a bull or a swan in order to have intercourse with some woman; Saturn - devouring his children; goddess - marrying a man; it is impossible to think of such a miracle and such a vice that they would not have, although this is not compatible with the divine nature.” Eh, the great pontiff Scaevola! Destroy the games if you can; order the peoples not to give the immortal gods such honors in which the crimes of the gods would cause surprise and, as far as possible, imitation. If the people answer you: “You, the pontiffs, introduced this among us,” then ask the gods themselves, at whose insistence you made such orders, to order them not to give themselves such honors. If these honors are bad and therefore absolutely incompatible with the greatness of the gods, then they represent the greatest insult to the gods, about whom they are invented with impunity. But the gods do not listen to you: they are demons, and therefore they teach evil and rejoice in shameful things; They not only do not consider it an insult if such things are invented about them, but rather they are not able to bear the insult if they are not given such honors. Let us assume that you make a complaint about them to Jupiter, especially since many of his own crimes are presented at theatrical games; but, although you call him a god who rules this whole world, don’t you inflict the greatest insult on him just by the fact that you consider it necessary to honor him with them and recognize him as their king? Chapter XXVIII. Was it useful for the Romans to honor the gods to establish and spread their state? So, the gods who are propitiated, or, rather, accused by such honors, so that it is a greater crime on their part that they delight in this lie than if the truth were told about them, such gods could in no case increase and support the Roman state. If they could do this, then they would sooner convey such a great gift to the Greeks, who in this kind of divine things, that is, theatrical games, served them with much greater reverence and respect, since they did not exclude themselves from the caustic ridicule to which the poets subjected the gods, giving them the freedom to mock whatever people they pleased, and considered the actors themselves not despicable people, but worthy of high respect. The Romans could have had a gold coin, although they did not worship the god Aurin; They could just as easily have had silver and copper coins if they had not revered either Argentina or his father Esculanus. The same can be said about everything that I don’t want to talk about again. So, without the will of the true God, they could in no way have a kingdom; but if they did not know or rejected these many and false gods, but knew the one true God and served Him with sincere faith and morality, then here they would have a better kingdom, and then they would inherit an eternal kingdom, regardless of whether they had a kingdom here or not. Chapter XXIX. About the falsity of that omen, which, in their opinion, indicated the strength and inviolability of the Roman state According to them, it was a most wonderful omen that, as I mentioned above, Mars, Terminus and Iuventa did not want to give way to the king of the gods, Jupiter. This meant, they say, that the generation of Mars, that is, the Roman people, would not yield to anyone the place they owned; that, thanks to Terminus, no one will move the Roman borders; that the Roman youth, thanks to the goddess Juventa, will not yield to anyone. How then do they look at the king of their gods, who gave the whole kingdom, when that omen exposes him as an enemy, to whom it is a wonderful thing not to make concessions? However, if the omen is true, they have absolutely nothing to fear. They will not agree that the gods, who did not want to make concessions to Jupiter, yield to Christ. For they could yield to Christ, while the borders of the empire were inviolable, by withdrawing only from their places, and most importantly, from the hearts of believers. But before Christ came in the flesh, before what we have quoted from their books was written, although after the aforementioned omen was given under King Tarquin, the Roman troops were defeated several times and put to flight, and the omen that Juventa would not yield to Jupiter turned out to be false; and the family of Mars, during the victory and invasion of the Gauls, was exterminated in Rome itself; finally, the borders of the empire were reduced to the extreme at a time when many cities fell away and took the side of Hannibal. Thus, the beautiful side of the omen turned out to be nonsense; What remained valid was only stubbornness against Jupiter, and not the gods, but the demons. For not giving in means one thing, but returning again to the place that was given up is completely different. However, the Roman borders, especially in the eastern part of the empire, were changed later, by the will of Hadrian. Namely, he ceded three excellent provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria to the Persian state; so that the god Terminus, who, according to the Romans, guarded the Roman borders and in that wonderful omen did not give way to Jupiter, turned out to be more afraid of the king of people Hadrian than the king of the gods Jupiter. Likewise, when the provinces were then returned, Terminus made a concession again almost within our memory. This was when Julian, who believed the oracles of the gods, issued a reckless order - to burn ships loaded with food supplies; the army deprived of them - when he himself subsequently died from a wound inflicted by the enemy - fell into such need that no one would have returned from there (because the enemy from everywhere pressed on the soldiers, dismayed by the death of the emperor), if, according to the peace treaty, the borders had not been established where they are now - established, however, not with such damage as was suffered by Hadrian, but also not where they passed before, and in the middle between these points. Thus, by empty omen, the god Terminus did not yield to Jupiter, but to the will of Hadrian, even to the recklessness of Julian and the extremity of Jovian, he yielded. The most prudent and serious of the Romans understood this, but were powerless against the custom of a city devoted to demonic rites. And they themselves, although aware of the emptiness of all this, thought that the religious veneration due to God should be given to the nature of things, which is under the power and control of the one true God; “We served,” as the apostle says, “creatures instead of the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rom. I, 25). The help of that true God was needed, Who sends holy and truly pious men who die for the true religion in order to deliver the living from false religion. Chapter XXX. What thoughts did their most admirers have about the gods? Cicero, himself an augur, laughs at the auguries and reproaches people who base their everyday enterprises on the cry of a raven or crow 58 . But this academician, who doubts everything, has no authority in such things. In his second book, Lucilius Balbus discusses the nature of the gods, and although he derives superstitions from the nature of things, presenting them as philosophical and physical, he is indignant at the introduction of statues and mythologized judgments, saying thus: “So, don’t you see that physical discoveries, which served for good and benefit, gave rise to the invention of false gods? This is where false judgments, gross misconceptions and old woman superstitions were born. After all, we know the figures of the gods, and their ages, and clothes, and decorations; childbirth, marriage, family ties and everything else are transferred to them by analogy with human weakness. They are presented to us as experiencing emotional disturbances: we have heard about the desires, sorrows and anger of the gods. There were even wars and battles between the gods (as the fables say). According to Homer, the gods not only defended two hostile armies, one one, the other another, but also waged their own wars with the titans or giants. Talking about this, believing this is extremely reckless: all this is extremely empty and frivolous” 59. That's what the defenders of the pagan gods say! Then, having said that all this relates to superstition, and to religion - what he says, obviously, from the point of view of the Stoics, he continues: “Not only philosophers, but also our ancestors separated religion from superstition. They called those superstitious (superstiliosi) who spent whole days praying to the gods and making sacrifices so that their children would outlive them (superstites essent) "60. Who will not understand that, fearing a custom widespread among citizens, he tries to praise the religion of his ancestors and wants to separate superstition from it, but does not know how to do this? For if the ancestors called those who prayed and made sacrifices all day long superstitious, will those who introduced statues of gods at different ages and different clothes, childbirth, marriages and family ties of gods be superstitious? After all, if these things are condemned as superstitious, then the ancestors who introduced and honored the statues of the gods will be to blame for them; He himself will also be to blame, who, no matter how eloquently he tried to break free, considered it necessary to honor them: he will also be guilty of the fact that what he so eloquently discusses in the above conversation, he does not dare to even hint at in the people’s assembly. Let us give thanks, Christians, to the Lord our God; let us give thanks not to heaven and earth, as Balbus says, but to Him who created heaven and earth. Who, through the greatest humility of Christ, the preaching of the apostles, the faith of the martyrs who died for the truth and live with the truth, tore out those superstitions that Balbus lightly, as if burr (balbutiens), condemns, not only from pious hearts, but also from superstitious churches, captivating them into his free slavery. Chapter XXXI. About the opinions of Varro, who, having rejected popular prejudices, although he did not reach the knowledge of the true God, nevertheless believed that one should honor the one God And Varro himself, about whom we spoke with regret that he, even if not out of his own conviction, placed theatrical games in the category of divine things - Varro himself, although, being a pious man, in many places of his writings he urges to honor the gods, does not admit that he follows the religion existing in the Roman state not out of his own conviction, when he decides to express the idea that if he had to build a new city, he would borrow the system of gods and names are they most likely from nature? But living, as he said, among the ancient people, he considered himself obliged to adhere to the history accepted by the ancestors about the names and nicknames of the gods in the form in which she transmitted them to posterity, and what he wrote and researched, wrote and researched with the aim that the people would be disposed to honor these gods rather than despise them. With these words, he, a very subtle man, makes it sufficiently clear that he does not reveal everything that would not only be despicable for him, but would seem despicable to the people if it were not passed over in silence. This could be considered only my assumption if he himself, in another place, speaking about religion, had not clearly said that there is (in religion) a lot of truth that it is harmful for the people to know; equally, if there is something false, then it is useful for the people to look at it differently: that is why the Greeks fenced off their sacraments and mysteries with walls and silence. In this case, he really gave us the secret thought of the supposedly wise men who ruled states and peoples. However, such deceptions are used with amazing cunning by evil demons, who equally hold in their power both those who deceive and those who are deceived, and nothing can liberate from this power except the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The same very subtle and learned author says that, in his opinion, only those who understood what God is are those who imagined him as a soul governing the world through reason and movement. And therefore, although he had not yet reached the truth itself, for God is not a soul, but the Creator and Giver of souls, however, if he could get rid of prejudices, he would recognize and be convinced himself that one should honor the one God, Who rules the world with movement and reason; so the only difference we have with him regarding this is that, according to him, God is a soul, and not the Creator of souls. He also says that the ancient Romans honored the gods without idols for more than one hundred and seventy years. “If,” he notes, “it were so now, then the gods would be revered with greater purity.” In support of this opinion, he points, among other things, to the Jewish people, and in conclusion says that the first, by erecting statues of gods for the people, destroyed fear in their states and increased error; it seemed to him, and not without reason, that the gods could easily be despised because of the absurdity of the statues. And the fact that he does not use the expression “introduced error,” but “increased,” makes it clear that error already existed even when the statues did not yet exist. Who will not understand from this how close he was to the truth when he said that only those understood what God is who represented Him as the soul governing the world, and when he believed that religion is preserved in greater purity without idols? And if he were able to do something against this long-standing error, he would, of course, admit that there is only one God who rules the world, and that He must be honored without idols; and being so close to the truth, he would easily, perhaps, be convinced of the changeability of the soul; so that one would understand that the true God is an unchanging essence that created the soul itself. And if so, then no matter what absurdities such men said about many gods in their books, they, prompted by the hidden will of God, rather brought these absurdities to light than tried to convince them of them. Therefore, if we cite evidence from them, we bring it as a reproach to those who do not want to understand from what and to what extent the evil power of demons frees us by the only sacrifice of such holy shed blood and the gift of the Spirit asked for us. Chapter XXXII. For what kind of benefit did the rulers want false religions to remain among the peoples under their control? He also says that regarding the genealogies of the gods, the peoples leaned more towards the side of the poets than the physicists; and therefore his ancestors, that is, the ancient Romans, believed in gender and in the genealogies of the gods, as well as in their marriage unions. All this became obvious precisely because supposedly rational and supposedly wise people took care of how to deceive the people in religion, and thereby not only honor demons, but also imitate them, filled with the greatest passion for deception. For they, like demons, can only possess those whom they deceive; in the same way, human rulers, not just, of course, but similar to demons, presented what they knew as false to the people on behalf of religion as true, binding them with this, as it were, closer civil union, in order, like demons, to command the obedient. And what weak and unlearned person could resist the joint liars - the rulers of the state and the demons? Chapter XXXIII. That the times of all kings and kingdoms are determined by the judgment and authority of the true God So, this God, the Author and Giver of happiness - since one is the true God - himself distributes earthly kingdoms to both the good and the evil. And He does this not indiscriminately and as if by chance (for He is God, and not Fortune), but in accordance with the order of things and times - an order that is hidden to us, but completely known to Him. He is not subordinate to this order, however, slavishly, but reigns over it as a Master and rules over it as a Ruler. But He bestows happiness only on the good. Subjects may or may not have this happiness, and rulers may or may not have it. It will be complete in the life where no one will be a slave anymore. Therefore, He gives earthly kingdoms to both the good and the evil, so that His admirers, still infants in their spiritual perfection, do not desire these gifts from Him as something great. This is the mystery of the Old Testament, in which the New Testament was hidden, that it also promised earthly gifts: people who lived a spiritual life even then understood, although they did not openly preach yet, both what those temporary things meant, and in what gifts of God lies true happiness. Chapter XXXIV. About the kingdom of Judah, which was founded by the one and true God and preserved by Him until then, while the Jews were faithful to the true religion So, in order to make it clear that earthly blessings, which are sought by those who are not able to think about the best, are in the power of the one true God, and not many false gods whom the Romans previously worshiped, God multiplied His people from several people in Egypt and freed them from there with miraculous signs. The Jewish women did not call upon Lucina when God himself freed and protected the babies born to them from the hands of the Egyptians, who persecuted and killed all the children, so that they would multiply in an amazing way and so that this people would grow beyond belief. The children were breastfed without the goddess Rumina, lay in cradles without the goddess Kupina: they took food and drink without Eduka and Potina, they were brought up without all this multitude of children's gods; married without marriage gods; copulated with spouses without the cult of Priapus. Without calls to Neptune, the sea divided as they crossed it, and covered the enemies pursuing them with reunited waves. They did not make any goddess Mannia an object of worship when they received manna from heaven, and they did not honor the Nymphs and Lymphs when the stone from the blow of the rod brought out water for them, who were thirsty. Without the extravagant cults of Mars and Bellona, ​​they fought wars and won, although not without victory, but they considered her not a goddess, but a gift from God. Even without Segetia, they had harvests, without Bubo - oxen, without Mellon - honey, without Pomona - apples - in a word, everything for which the Romans considered it necessary to pray to such a crowd of gods, they received with much greater happiness from the one true God. And if, carried away by unholy curiosity, as if by some kind of magical spell, they had not sinned against Him, first falling away to foreign gods and idols, and then killing Christ, then they would have continued to live in the same kingdom, if not particularly vast, then at least happy. And at present, the fact that they are scattered across almost all countries and peoples is the work of the providence of the one and true God. From their sacred books one can verify how, long before this, the widespread destruction of idols, altars, groves and churches of false gods and the prohibition of sacrifices were prophetically predicted; otherwise, reading about this, someone might perhaps think that all this was invented by us. Read about the future in the next book; now it’s time to know the honor. Virgil. Eclog. III. v. 60. Virgil., A_Eneid., lib. I, v. 47. Virgil., Georg., lib. II, v. 325:326 Plutarch., in Coriolano et lib. de Fortuna Romana. De divination, lib 2. c. 37 De natura deor, lib. 2. c. 28 Lactant. Div. Inst. lib. IV. cap.28. You might be interested in: