Книга третья

As in the previous book bl. Augustine spoke about moral and spiritual evil, so in the present he talks about physical and external disasters, showing that the Romans from the very foundation of Rome constantly endured them, and that the false gods did nothing to avert this kind of evil, although before the coming of Christ they were freely worshiped. Chapter I. About those disasters that only bad people fear, and which the world has always endured while it honored the gods I think that regarding moral and spiritual evil, which we should especially beware of, I have already said enough: the false gods did not at all try to help the people who revered them free themselves from the mass of evils of this kind, but, on the contrary, made sure that this mass oppressed them as much as possible. Now I find it necessary to talk about those disasters that they do not want to endure under any circumstances, which are: hunger, disease, war, loss of property, captivity, violent death and others of a similar kind, which we briefly mentioned in the first book. For only these disasters, which do not make people evil, are the only ones considered evil by the evil ones; and in the presence of those goods that they consider to be goods, they themselves are not ashamed to remain evil; Moreover, they are more likely to be dissatisfied with bad luck than with a bad life. As if the greatest good for a person was to have everything good except himself! But even from this kind of evil, which they only fear, the gods did not protect them at the time when they were openly revered by them. When at different times and in different places before the coming of our Redeemer, the human race was wiped out from the face of the earth by countless and sometimes even incredible disasters, did the world honor other gods than these, with the exception of one people, the Jews, and some individuals outside this people, whom divine grace and the mysterious and just judgment of God found anywhere worthy of it? In order not to go too far, I will keep silent even about the most serious disasters of other nations. I will only talk about what concerns Rome and the Roman Empire, that is, about what the city itself and those regions that were united with it as allies or conquered by force of arms and were part of the body of its republic suffered before the coming of Christ. Chapter II. Did these gods, who were equally revered by the Romans and Greeks, have any reason to allow the destruction of Ilion? Firstly, why was Troy itself defeated, taken and destroyed by the Greeks, or Ilion, where the Roman people trace their origins - Troy, which had and revered the same gods (I do not find it possible to pass over in silence what I touched upon already in the first book)? They say that Priam was punished for the perjury of his father Laomedon 30. In this case, it is true that Apollo and Neptune served with that same Laomedon for hire. For they say that he promised to pay them generously for their work and deceived them. I’m surprised how Apollo, called a soothsayer, worked so much, not knowing that Laomedont would refuse to fulfill his promise. However, it did not suit Neptune himself, his uncle, the brother of Jupiter and the king of the seas, not to know the future. After all, Homer represents him as predicting something great regarding the generation of Aeneas, whose descendants built Rome, although the poet lived, as they say, before the founding of Rome 31; Neptune even carries away this Aeneas in a cloud, so that, as he himself says, he would not be killed by Achilles, while Neptune wanted to overthrow the walls of the perjured Troy, built with his own hands. Virgil talks about this. 32 So, gods like Neptune and Apollo, willingly or unwillingly, built the Trojan walls, not knowing that Laomedont would refuse to pay them. Let them understand, is it not a more serious sin to believe in such gods than to break an oath given to such gods? Homer himself did not particularly believe the latter: because, imagining Neptune fighting against the Trojans, he portrays Apollo as fighting for the Trojans; although the fable tells that they were both offended by perjury. So, if they believe these fables, let them be ashamed to have such gods; and if they do not believe, let them not refer to the Trojan oath; or let them explain the strangeness that the Trojan gods punished perjury, but the Roman gods loved it. For how else would Catalina’s conspiracy acquire in such a vast and so depraved city such a mass of supporters, “whose hands and tongue were fed with perjury and the blood of their fellow citizens” 33 . And so many senators who judged not according to their conscience, but the whole people in elections and in other matters that were decided at their meetings, what else did they sin, if not perjury? With the extreme corruption of morals, the ancient custom of swearing was preserved not in order to restrain from crime through fear of religion, but in order to add perjury to other crimes. Chapter III. The gods could not be offended by the adultery of Paris, because, according to stories, it often happened between themselves So, if the gods, who are said to have held that state, turn out to be defeated by the stronger Greeks, then there is no reason to imagine them angry at the perjury of the Trojans. Neither did the adultery of Paris anger them to such an extent that they could leave Troy, as some of their defenders try to imagine to us. For they are accustomed to being accomplices and teachers of sins, and not avengers for them. “The city of Rome, as I heard,” says Sallust, “was originally founded and maintained by the Trojans, who, having fled under the leadership of Aeneas, wandered to and fro without a definite refuge.” 34 Therefore, if the gods had considered it necessary to avenge the adultery of Paris, divine punishment would most likely have been found on the Romans, or at least including the Romans, for Aeneas’s mother also committed adultery. Indeed, on what basis would they be unkind to the shameful deed of that (Paris), if they were merciful to the adultery of their friend Venus, committed by her (not to mention others) with Anchises, from whom she gave birth to Aeneas? Is it because the first was done with Menelaus’s indignation against him, and the last with the consent of Vulcan? The gods, I believe, are not jealous of their wives to such an extent that they consider it decent to share their favor even with people. But, perhaps, they will think that I am laughing at fables, and not discussing seriously a subject of such importance. So, let us not, if you like, believe that Aeneas was the son of Venus. I will make this concession if Romulus was not the son of Mars. If one, then why not the other? Or are gods allowed to have sex with mortal women, but men are not allowed to have sex with goddesses? The condition is unpleasant or, rather, incredible: what was possible for Mars with the permission of Venus, was not possible for Venus herself. But both are equally confirmed by Roman documents. The later Caesar also believed that his grandmother was Venus, just as the ancient Romulus believed that his father was Mars. Chapter IV. About the opinion of Varro, who considered it useful for people to invent that they were born of the gods Someone will say: “Do you really believe this? Personally, I don’t believe it.” Indeed, their most learned husband Varro, although not decisively and not with complete confidence, still recognizes all this as false. However, he considers it useful for the state for outstanding people to consider themselves born of the gods, even if this was a lie: so that because of this, the human spirit, feeding, so to speak, the self-confidence of the divine offspring, would more boldly begin to accomplish great things, carry them out with greater ardor and, by virtue of its very confidence, carry them out happier. You see for yourself what a vast area of ​​lies this opinion of Varro opens up, which I, as best I could, expressed in my own words. Let us understand that very much that is sacred and seemingly religious could be invented where lies about the gods themselves were considered useful for citizens. Chapter V. There is no evidence that the gods punished the adultery of Paris if they did not avenge the adultery of Romulus’s mother The question of whether Venus could have given birth to Aeneas from copulation with Anchises, or whether Mars from copulation with the daughter of Numitor could have given birth to Romulus, we will leave open. Almost the same question arises when reading our Scriptures. They ask: weren’t the criminal angels mixed with the daughters of men (Gen. VI, 4), and at a certain time the earth was filled with the giants born from this, that is, people of extraordinary stature and strength? Our reasoning can apply equally to both. So, if what is written about the mother of Aeneas and the father of Romulus is true, then why could the gods not like human adultery when they allowed it to themselves? And if it is false, then even in this case those who delight in their own, even if fictitious, cannot become angry at real human adulteries. Moreover, if one is incredible in relation to Mars, as the other is in relation to Venus, then the crime of Romulus’s mother does not find justification in any divine copulation. After all, Sylvia was a priestess of Vesta, and therefore the gods for her sacrilegious crime should have taken revenge on the Romans much more severely than they took revenge on the Trojans for the adultery of Paris. The ancient Romans themselves buried the priestesses of Vesta, convicted of adultery, in the ground even alive, while women who committed adultery, although they were punished in a certain way, were not subjected to the death penalty; to such an extent they more strictly guarded the inviolability of the divine shrine in comparison with the inviolability of the human bed. Chapter VI. About the fratricide of Romulus, for which the gods did not take revenge I will also add the following: if these gods were so dissatisfied with human crimes that, offended by the act of Paris, they betrayed Troy, abandoned by them, to fire and sword, then the murdered brother of Romulus should have armed them even more against the Romans than the offended Greek husband armed them against the Trojans; the fratricide of the nascent state should have angered more than the adultery of the one already in force. For the question with which we are concerned in this case, it is not of particular importance whether Romulus ordered this to be done or did it himself; which many shamelessly deny, many question out of shame, and many pass over in silence out of regret. We will not dwell on a more thorough investigation of the already verified evidence on this subject of many writers. There is no doubt that Romulus's brother was killed, and not by enemies or strangers. Whether Romulus did it or only ordered it to be done, in any case, he was more the head of the Romans than Paris was the head of the Trojans. Why did that kidnapper of another man's wife bring the wrath of the gods upon the Trojans, and why did this murderer of his brother attract the Romans under the protection of the same gods? If, both by deed and by command, Romulus was alien to this crime, then, since it still had to be avenged, it was committed by the whole city, since the whole city did not pay attention to him; and he killed not his brother, but what is even more criminal - his father. For both were the founders of the city, in which one of them was not allowed to reign by the villainous death caused. In my opinion, it is impossible to point out anything so bad that Troy would deserve to be abandoned by the gods and to be destroyed as a result, and nothing so good that Rome would deserve to have the gods dwell in it and rise as a result, except perhaps that the gods fled from those, having been defeated, and moved to these in order to deceive them as well. However, they remained there in order, according to their custom, to deceive those who again populated those same regions; and here, having given their art of deception much greater brilliance, they acquired even greater honor. Chapter VII. About the destruction of Ilion, destroyed by Fimbria, the leader Mariev Because Ilium did something bad already during the civil wars, that it was destroyed by Fimbrias, a wicked man from the supporters of Marius, destroyed with much greater brutality and cruelty than in ancient times by the Greeks. Then many left it, and many, having been captured, remained at least alive, although they were enslaved. Fimbria began by promulgating an edict, which ordered that no one should be spared, and he burned the entire city and all the people in it. Ilion was repaid with this not by the Greeks, whom he brought out of patience with his injustice, but by the Romans, for the sake of whose strengthening he sacrificed his well-being, and the common gods did not help, or rather, could not help in preventing this. Really, even then, the gods who held this city together after its restoration after the invasion of the ancient Greeks from the ashes and ruins left, leaving churches and altars? If they really left, I look for reasons; and I find that the citizens acted as much better on their part as the gods did worse. They closed the gates in front of Fimbria in order to keep the city in the power of Sulla: for this Fimbria, angry, destroyed, or, more precisely, completely wiped them off the face of the earth. And Sulla at that time was still at the head of the best part of the citizens, making efforts to restore the republic by force of arms: he did not give his good undertakings a bad outcome. Could the citizens of this city have done better, more honestly, more conscientiously and more worthy of their kinship with the Romans, than they did, preserving the city for the better part of the Romans and closing the gates against the murderer of the Roman Republic? Let the defenders of the gods pay attention to how this contributed to their destruction. Let the gods leave the adulterers and leave Ilion to the fire of the Greeks, so that a more chaste Rome would be born from its ashes, but why did they then abandon the same city when it was related to the Romans, did not rebel against its noble brainchild, Rome, but maintained with the greatest constancy and conscientiousness the loyalty of its most honest part, and allowed it to be destroyed not by brave Greek men, but by the meanest man from Romans? Or did the gods not like the cause of Sulla’s supporters, for whom the unfortunates wanted to preserve the city by closing the gates? But in this case, why did they promise and predict so much good to the same Sulla? Or even in this case do they show themselves to be happy flatterers rather than defenders of the unfortunate? For even at this time Ilion was not destroyed because it was abandoned by them. The demons, extremely diligent in everything related to seduction, did everything they could for their part. At that time, when all the statues of the gods were destroyed and burned along with the city, one statue of Minerva, as Livia writes, turned out to be standing intact under the ruins of her church. This did not happen, of course, so that to their honor it could be said that they are gods of the fathers, under whose protection Troy is always located, but so that it would not be possible to say in their defense: “Leaving the churches and altars, all the gods left.” They were given the opportunity to do not what could serve as proof of their power, but what would serve as proof of their presence. Chapter VIII. Should Rome be entrusted to the gods of Ilion for preservation? On what reasonable basis, after the experience of the unfortunate Troy, was Rome entrusted to the gods of Ilion for the preservation? Someone will say that they were already living in Rome at the time when Fimbria, having captured Ilion, destroyed it. In this case, why did the statue of Minerva survive? Then, if they were in Rome at the time when Fimbrias destroyed Ilium, then probably they were in Ilium at the time that Rome itself was taken and burned by the Gauls; but since they have very keen hearing and speed of movement, they quickly returned back to the cry of the geese in order to preserve, at least, the Capitol, which remained intact; In order to protect other things, they were notified a little late. Chapter IX. Should we think that the peace that characterized the reign of Numa was bestowed by the gods? It is believed that thanks to their help, Numa Pompilius, the successor of Romulus, enjoyed peace throughout his reign and closed the doors of the church of Janus, which usually stood open during wars; and this is supposedly as a reward for the fact that he established many sacred rites for the Romans. This man would deserve gratitude for such a world if he had been able to use it for useful things and, abandoning inquisitiveness of the most harmful nature, sought the true God with true piety. Under these conditions, it was not the gods who gave him this peace; but it is possible that they would have had time to seduce him less if they had found him less calm. The less busy they found him, the more they managed to occupy him themselves. Varro reports what he did and by what means he was able to enter into communication with such gods himself and involve the entire city in this communication. If the Lord wills, we will talk about this in more detail in its proper place. In the present case, since we are talking about their benefits, we note that peace is indeed a great benefit, but for the most part, like the sun, like rain, like other things useful for life, it is a benefit of the true God to the ungrateful and worthless. If those gods delivered this great benefit to Rome or Pompilius, then why did they never deliver it to the Roman state, even in more praiseworthy times? Or were sacred rites more useful at the time when they were established than at the time when they were performed? But then they didn’t exist yet, they were only introduced so that they would exist; then they already existed and were observed in order to be beneficial. What does it mean that those forty-three years, or, according to other sources, thirty-nine years of the reign of Numa were spent in such a long peace, and then, when the sacred rites were established and the gods themselves, attracted by these very rites, appeared as protectors and guardians - then, during the long period of time from the founding of Rome to Augustus, it is scarcely mentioned as a great miracle, one year after the first Punic war, in which the Romans were able to close the doors of the church of Janus. Chapter X. Should one have wanted the Roman state to expand through such cruel wars, when it could have been both calm and safe, following the policy through which it strengthened under Numa? Will they answer that the Roman state could not have grown so widely and acquired such enormous glory if it had not waged constant wars, continuously following one after another? Nothing to say, good reason! Why should a state, in order to become great, not have peace? Isn’t it better, as far as the human body is concerned, to have an average height in addition to health, than to achieve some gigantic size through constant torment, and upon achieving this not to calm down, but to be subjected to even greater disasters, the larger the members? Would it really be bad if those times continued that Sallust outlined, saying: “So, in the beginning, kings (for this was at first the name of earthly authorities), holding different opinions, some educated the mind, others - the body: at that time people lived, not yet carried away by the passion of greed, and everyone was content with his own" 35? Is it really necessary for such an expansion of the state to be what Virgil curses, saying: But gradually a bad time replaced them, The frenzy of wars, the insatiable thirst for profit 36? True, in initiating and waging so many wars, the Romans had sufficient justification in the fact that when they were brazenly attacked by enemies, they were forced to resist not by greed for glory, but by the need to protect their own well-being and freedom. Let it be so; “for,” as the same Sallust writes, “when their state, which had become stronger thanks to laws, morals and the expansion of its possessions, seemed happy enough and powerful enough, its welfare, as is most often the case among people, aroused envy. And so the neighboring kings and peoples began to attack them with hostility, and few of their friends gave them help. The rest, succumbing to fear, retreated from danger. But the Romans, equally devoted to internal and military affairs, did not waste time, armed themselves, inspired each other and went to meet their enemies, defending freedom, their homeland and their parents with weapons. Then, when by their valor they eliminated the dangers that threatened them, they helped their allies and friends and gained friendship not so much by receiving themselves as by providing benefits to others.” 37 With this course of action, the rise of Rome was well deserved. But during the reign of Numa, when peace lasted for so long, did unscrupulous neighbors attack him and challenge him to war? or nothing like that happened, and therefore this peace was not disturbed? After all, if Rome was attacked at that time, but weapons were not opposed to weapons, then as it was done then, that the enemies stopped, without being defeated in any battle, without being intimidated by any military onslaught, the same could have always been done, and Rome would always reign behind the closed doors of Janus. If this was impossible, then Rome enjoyed peace not as long as its gods wanted it, but as long as the people surrounding it on one side or another wanted it, and did not challenge it to war; or do gods of this kind dare to present to man as coming from them that which another person desires or does not desire? It is perhaps true that demons are allowed to frighten or excite evil souls; but the important thing is how much it is allowed. If they could always do this, and the highest mysterious power did not do much contrary to their efforts, they would always have in their power both peace and military successes, since the latter almost always depend on the excitement of human souls; but that for the most part they happened against their will, this is evidenced not only by fables, which tell a lot of lies and very little of the truth, but also Roman history itself. Chapter XI. About the statue of Apollo of Cumae, the cry of which was recognized as indicating the defeat of the Greeks, whom Apollo could not help After all, it was not for any other reason that the famous Apollo of Cumae wept, as they say, for four days during the war against the Achaeans and King Aristonicus. Alarmed by this extraordinary phenomenon, the haruspices believed that the statue should have been thrown into the sea; but the old men intervened in the matter and reported that a similar phenomenon had been noticed during the war of Antiochus and Perseus, and since the matter ended happily for the Romans, then, by definition of the Senate, they said, gifts were sent to this same Apollo. Then the newly summoned, supposedly more knowledgeable haruspices responded that Apollo’s cry was a happy omen for the Romans: because the Cumaean colony was a Greek colony, and Apollo’s cry indicated disaster and defeat to those native countries from which he was brought, that is, Greece itself. Then the news was received that King Aristonicus was defeated and taken prisoner; although Apollo did not at all want him to be defeated, he grieved about it and showed it even with the tears that flowed from his stone. Therefore, the customs of demons, which are described in the poems of poets, do not seem absurd, although fabulous, but similar to the truth. In Virgil, for example, Diana mourns Camilla and Hercules mourns the death of Pallante. Therefore, perhaps, Numa Pompilius, enjoying the world, but not knowing and not searching to whom he owed this world, when he thought in his spare time about which gods to entrust the Roman welfare and kingdom for the preservation - and on the one hand, he did not think that the highest, true and omnipotent God would think about these earthly things, and on the other hand, he recalled that the Trojan gods brought Aeneas, could not preserve for a long time either the kingdoms of Troy or Lavinia, founded by Aeneas himself, - he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to stock up on others, adding them to the previous ones (whether they moved to Rome with Romulus, or could move to it later when Alba was destroyed) or as guards, as capable of fleeing at the first danger, or as assistants, as to the weak. Chapter XII. About the multitude of gods that the Romans added to themselves beyond those established by Numa, and which, however, did not help them in any way Rome, however, did not find it possible to be content with these shrines, of which Pompilius established many of them. Thus, he did not yet have the most important of the churches, the church of Jupiter. The Capitol was built there by King Tarquinius. And from Epidaurus Aesculapius attracted the hearts of Rome to himself, so that, as the most knowledgeable physician, he could practice his art with greater glory in the most famous city. The mother of the gods also appeared from some Pessinunt. For it was indecent that at a time when her son was already ruling the Capitoline sky, she herself should be hiding in such an insignificant place. Being the mother of all the gods, she not only came to Rome after some of her sons, but also walked ahead of others, who soon followed her. I would just like to know if she gave birth to Cynocephalus, who came from Egypt much later? Whether the goddess Fever was born from her - let her great-grandson, Aesculapius, decide. But no matter who she was born from, I think that foreign gods will not dare to call her low in origin, she is a goddess and a Roman citizen! Placed under the protection of so many gods (gods that cannot be counted: native and foreign, heavenly, earthly, underground, sea, spring, river and, as Varro says, known and unknown; gods of various kinds, both animals and men and women) - placed, I say, under the protection of so many gods, Rome would not have to endure and suffer so many great and terrible disasters, of which I I'll just mention a few. With the high rising smoke of his incense, as if a deliberate sign, he gathered for his protection an extraordinary multitude of gods: but by establishing for them churches, altars, sacrifices and priesthood, he offended the highest and true God, to whom alone these rites of religious veneration should belong. And although he lived happier with fewer gods, he decided that as much as he himself increased, he also needed to increase their number, like sailors on a ship. I believe that he did not hope that their small number, with which he lived better in comparatively worse conditions, would be sufficient to maintain his greatness. But even under the kings themselves, with the exception of Numa Pompilius, whom I spoke about above, to what extent did the evil of hostile disagreement reach if it led to the murder of brother Romulus? Chapter XIII. By what right and on what conditions did the Romans with Jupiter in their favor How could Juno, who later took Jupiter under her protection? Romans, masters of the universe, toga-wearing people 38, not even Venus, native to the offspring of Aeneas, was able to help the Romans get wives in an honest and peaceful way, and they found themselves in such a difficult situation that they kidnapped them in an insidious manner and were subsequently forced to fight with their fathers-in-law; so that the unfortunate women, who had not yet had time to become attached to the husbands who committed violence against them, received from them the blood of their parents as a marriage gift? But the Romans defeated their neighbors in this clash. And how many and what wounds and deaths did such victories of relatives over relatives and neighbors over neighbors cost both sides? Because of only one father-in-law, Caesar, and one son-in-law, Pompey, when Caesar’s daughter and Pompey’s wife were no longer alive, with what deep and just sorrow does Lucan exclaim: We write about wars that were sadder than civil ones, When on the fields of Emathia there was no crime Yes, the Romans won, so that with their hands stained with the blood of their fathers-in-law, they could find the pathetic embrace of their daughters! And the latter did not dare to mourn their murdered fathers, so as not to offend the victorious spouses. Even when they fought, they did not know which of them to wish victory. It was not Venus, but Bellona who awarded the Romans with such marriages; or, perhaps, Alecto, the famous hellish fury, at a time when Juno was already patronizing them, had a greater opportunity to harm them than when Juno aroused her against Aeneas with her requests 40? Andromache's captivity was happier than these Roman marriages: after her embrace, although slavish, Pyrrhus did not kill any of the Trojans. The Romans put fathers to death in battles after they had already embraced their daughters on the marriage bed. She, having fallen under the power of the winner, could mourn her already dead relatives and not fear for the living; and these, bound by ties of cohabitation with the combatants, were afraid of the death of their fathers when their husbands went on a campaign, mourned it when they returned, and could not freely express either their fears or grief. They had to either, out of a sense of family love, lament the death of their fellow citizens, relatives, brothers, fathers, or, suppressing pity within themselves, rejoice at the victories of their husbands. Added to this was the fact that some of them lost their husbands from their fathers’ weapons, and some lost both fathers and husbands at the same time. For the Romans were also exposed to considerable dangers of this kind. It came to the siege of Rome, and the Romans defended themselves by closing the gates. When the latter were discovered through deception and the enemies penetrated the walls, a criminal and extremely cruel battle took place between the fathers-in-law and the extremely cruel battle in the city square itself. And so these kidnappers even began to suffer defeat, and, hiding in their homes in large numbers, they covered their yesterday’s victories, already shameful and regrettable, with even greater shame. At this time, Romulus, no longer relying on his bravery, asked Jupiter to stop: after this event, Jupiter received the name Stator. But there would have been no end to this great disaster if the kidnapped women had not jumped out with their hair down and, falling at the feet of their fathers, had not softened their extremely just anger not with a victorious weapon, but with pleading love. After this, Romulus, who could not stand joint participation in the rule of his brother, was forced to accept the king of the Sabines, Titus Tatius, as co-ruler; but could someone who did not want to tolerate his brother and twin endure him for long? Therefore, having killed this one too for greater divine dignity, he began to reign alone. What kind of marriage law is this? what are the motives for war? what are the grounds for kinship, property, community, adoration? What kind of state life is it, finally, under the auspices of so many gods? You see for yourself how much could be said on this subject if our attention were not directed to what remains ahead, and the speech was not in a hurry to move on to something else. Chapter XIV. Of the impious character of the war which the Romans began against the Albanians, and of the victory won by the passion of domination And what then, after Numa, under other kings? With what great disaster, not only for themselves, but also for the Romans, were the Albanians called to war - called because the too long peace under Numa had lost its value? What frequent defeats did the Roman and Albanian troops suffer and to what point of impotence did both states reach? That Alba, which was built by Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, and which was the mother of Rome closer than Troy itself, began the war, being summoned by King Tullus Hostilius; but, having entered into the struggle, it was either repelled, or reflected itself, until both sides became bored with this meaningless and fruitless set of battles. Then they decided to end the war with the battle of three twin brothers from each side. On the Roman side there were three Horatii, and on the Albanian side there were three Curiatians. Three Curatii defeated and killed two Horatii; but Horace alone defeated and killed three Curiatii. So, Rome turned out to be the winner in the last battle, and of the six alive, only one returned home. Who suffered damage on both sides? Who had grief if not the family of Aeneas, the descendants of Ascanius, the tribe of Venus, the great-grandchildren of Jupiter? After all, this war was sadder than the civil war: cities fought among themselves, being in relation to each other like daughter and mother. Another cruel and terrible evil joined the last battle of the three twin brothers. Since both peoples were formerly friendly (for they were neighbors and relatives), the sister of the Horatii was betrothed to one of the Curatii. When the latter saw the weapon taken from the murdered groom from her victorious brother, she was killed by the same brother herself because she cried. In my opinion, the feeling of this one woman was much more humane than the feeling of the entire Roman people. I think that her tears were not criminal, whether she was mourning her husband, whom, according to this word, she already considered her own, or grieving for the brother who killed him. In Virgil himself, the pious Aeneas expresses a commendable feeling of grief for the enemy killed by his own hand. And Marcellus mourned Syracuse, remembering shortly before that their greatness and glory had been destroyed by his hands, and reflecting on fate. Let human feeling not consider it a crime that a woman mourned her fiancé, who was killed by her brother, if for men it was commendable that they mourned even the enemies they had defeated. So, when the said woman was mourning the death of her fiancé, killed by her brother, at that very time Rome was triumphant that she had inflicted such a terrible defeat on the mother city and won a victory with such shedding of kindred blood on both sides. Why do they expose to me the so-called glory and splendor of victory? Having eliminated this cover of meaningless glory, consider, weigh, discuss the bare facts. Let the guilt of Alba be shown, just as the adultery of Troy was shown. Nothing like that, nothing like that turns out to be the case; but only one thing is exposed: that Tulla needed to call to arms “the lazy men and the troops unaccustomed to triumphs 41. So, the atrocity of the civil and related war was accomplished thanks to the vice that Sallust touches on in passing. Having mentioned with praise in a few words the most ancient times, when people lived their lives without greed and each was completely satisfied with his own, he says: “Afterwards, when in Asia Cyrus, and in Greece the Lacedaemonians and Athenians began to conquer cities and peoples, having a passion for domination as the motive for war and considering the greatest glory to be the greatest power ...” 42 and so on, according to the course of his speech. It is enough for me to dwell on these words of his. This passion for domination torments and destroys the human race with great disasters. Defeated by this passion, Rome at that time considered it a triumph for itself that he had defeated Alba and called the stories of his villainy glory. “For the wicked,” says our Scripture, “glories in the lust of his soul; the covetous man pleases himself” (Ps. IX. 24). So, let false coverings and deceptive embellishments be removed from things in order to subject them to impartial judgment. Let no one tell me that such and such is a great man because he fought with such and such and won. Gladiators also fight and win; and inhumanity of this kind is rewarded with praise. But, in my opinion, it is better for anyone to be punished for inaction than to achieve the glory of their exploits. And yet, if gladiators, one of whom was the father and the other the son, entered the arena to fight each other, who would endure it? who wouldn't be outraged? How then could an armed struggle between states, one of which was the mother and the other the daughter, be glorious? Wasn’t the difference that the arena was different, and much more extensive fields were covered with the corpses of not two gladiators, but many people from among two nations, and that these battles did not take place within the walls of the amphitheater, but in front of the whole world, and the unholy spectacle was given to both contemporaries and descendants to whom rumors of it reached? Despite this, the patron gods of the Roman government allowed the cruelty of the duel and remained, as it were, theatrical spectators of such battles until, for the three killed Curiatii, the Horatii sister was added to the two brothers with a brotherly sword; This is probably so that Rome, which won, would have no less dead. Then, in the form of benefits brought by the victory, Alba was destroyed, where after Ilion, destroyed by the Greeks, and after Lavinius, in which Aeneas founded a temporary and transitional kingdom, the notorious Trojan gods lived in the third place. But maybe, according to their custom, they had already migrated from there, and that’s why Alba was destroyed? Leaving the churches and altars, they left The gods by whom the kingdom was held? In this case, they withdrew for the third time in order to receive from prudent people under their protection the fourth city, Rome. They did not like Alba, where Amulius reigned, having expelled his brother; but I liked Rome, where Romulus, who killed his brother, reigned. But, they say, before Alba was destroyed, its population was transferred to Rome, so that one city could be formed from two. So be it. But still, the royal city of Ascania and the third residence of the Trojan gods was destroyed by its daughter city. And in order for the remnants of the two peoples to curl up into one miserable cottage cheese after the war, it was necessary to first shed a lot of blood from each of them. I will not go into details of how many times under subsequent kings those same wars were resumed, which seemed to have ended in victories, and how, ending in more and more bloodshed, after treaties and peace between sons-in-law and fathers-in-law and between their generation and posterity, they were repeated again and again. A clear sign of this disaster was that not one of these kings closed the doors of war. None of them, therefore, reigned peacefully under so many guardian gods. Chapter XV. What was the life and death of the Roman kings What was the death of these kings? There is fabulous flattery about Romulus, as if he was taken to heaven. Some of the writers also tell (about his death), but they claim that he was cut into pieces by the Senate for cruelty and that some Julius Proculus was commissioned to spread the rumor that he appeared to him and ordered through him the Roman people to honor him as a deity; and thus the people, who were beginning to be indignant at the Senate, were stopped and calmed. In addition, there was a solar eclipse. The ignorant mob, not knowing that it had a definite cause in the solar movement, attributed it to the merits of Romulus. Meanwhile, if this eclipse were the lamentation of the sun, one would sooner come to the conclusion about it that Romulus was killed and that the fact of the crime was proven by the fact that the daylight turned away. This was actually the case at the time when the Lord was crucified because of the cruelty and dishonor of the Jews. That in the latter case the solar eclipse did not occur due to the correct course of the planets is sufficiently evident from the fact that at that time it was the Jewish Passover; the latter is celebrated on the full moon, and an ordinary solar eclipse occurs only when the moon is damaged. This acceptance of Romulus into the ranks of the gods is quite clearly portrayed by Cicero as more expected than actual, when, giving a generally commendable review of Romulus, he says in his books on the Republic through the mouth of Scipio: “He achieved so much that when, after a solar eclipse, he was unexpectedly absent, they came to the conclusion that he had been transferred to the ranks of the gods: no mortal could ever instill such an opinion of himself in others unless he was adorned with extraordinary virtues.” 43 In the place where Cicero says that he was suddenly absent, of course, of course, either the fury of the storm, or a secret murder, a secret atrocity. For other of their writers coincide with a solar eclipse and an unexpected storm, which, undoubtedly, either made it possible to commit an atrocity, or itself destroyed Romulus. And about Tullus Hostilius, who was the third king after Romulus and was killed by lightning, the same Cicero says in the same books: “It was not believed about him that by this kind of death he was accepted among the gods; this is probably because the Romans did not want to make ordinary, that is, insignificant, what they managed to convince about Romulus: what would have happened if they had willingly attributed the same thing to another.” In his accusatory speeches, he openly says: “We elevated Romulus to the rank of immortal gods because of our goodwill towards him and our good opinion of him,” 44 in order to show that this did not really happen, but was told and divulged this way out of goodwill towards him and for the sake of his valor. In “Hortensia,” speaking about eclipses subject to precise calculations, he notes: “The darkness is the same as that which occurred during the murder of Romulus, which occurred during a solar eclipse.” This time he was not afraid to talk about murder because he was engaged in serious research on the issue, and not in praise. And the rest of the kings of the Roman people, with the exception of Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, died of illness, what a terrible end they had! Tullus Hostilius, the conqueror and destroyer of Alba, was, as I said above, burned with his entire house by lightning. Priscus Tarquinius was killed by the children of his predecessor. Servius Tullius died from the vile crime of his son-in-law Tarquin the Proud, who inherited the kingdom after him. And after such a parricide, the victim of which was the best king of this people, these gods did not leave, leaving churches and altars, about whom they say that they did this to the unfortunate Troy, leaving it to Paris for destruction! On the contrary, Tarquinius succeeded his father-in-law, who had been killed by him. The gods did not retreat from this vile criminal, who reigned thanks to the murder of his father-in-law, became famous in addition for many wars and victories and built the Capitol from the spoils of war, but, on the contrary, they guarded everything and watched over everything and allowed their king Jupiter to become the head and command himself from this greatest church, that is, from the building erected by the parricide. For it was not the case that he had built the Capitol before, when he was innocent, and then was expelled from Rome for crimes; but in such a way that he received the very kingdom in which the Capitol was built through his brutal crime. And what the Romans subsequently deprived him of his kingdom and removed him from the walls of the city was for the dishonor inflicted on Lucretia not by himself, but by his son, and not only without his knowledge, but even in his absence. At that time he was besieging the city of Ardea and waging war for the Roman people. What he would have done if his son’s vile act had been brought to his attention, we do not know. Without asking his opinion and without trying to appeal to his court, the people took away his power, took away the army from which he was ordered to leave, and then closed the gates, not allowing him to enter the city when he returned. Nevertheless, after the most cruel wars, with which, having aroused neighboring nations, he exhausted these same Romans, and after, having been abandoned by everyone on whose help he had hoped, he found himself unable to return the kingdom, he lived, as they say, in the city of Tusculum, neighboring Rome, for fourteen years as a private citizen in complete peace; Together with his wife, he reached old age and died, probably, a more desirable death than his father-in-law, who died from the atrocity of his son-in-law and, not without the knowledge, as they add, of his daughter. The Romans, however, called this Tarquin not Cruel or Villainous, but Proud; probably because they could not stand his royal pride because of another kind of arrogance. They paid so little attention to the murder of their father-in-law, the best of their kings, that they made him their king: was it not an even greater crime to give such a reward for such a crime? And yet, the gods did not leave, leaving churches and altars. Will anyone, perhaps, defend them in the sense that they remained in Rome for this purpose, so as to be able not so much to provide benefits to the Romans, but to punish them by captivating them with empty victories and exterminating them in difficult wars? Such was the life of the Romans under the kings during that praiseworthy period of state life, which lasted almost two hundred and forty-three years, until the exile of Tarquin the Proud; a period during which all those victories, purchased at the cost of so much blood and such great disasters, barely extended the boundaries of the state to twenty miles from the city - a space with which even the territory of any small Gothic city cannot now be compared! Chapter XVI. About the first consuls to the Romans, of whom one expelled the other from the fatherland, and then, after a brutal parricide, died in Rome, receiving a wound from a wounded heart Let us add to this period the time when, according to Sallust, justice and impartiality were still observed, when Tarquin was still feared and a cruel war was waged with Etruria. For while the Etruscans were assisting Tarquin in his efforts to regain the kingdom, a cruel war was shaking Rome. That is why, says Sallust, justice and impartiality were observed in public administration - they were observed under the pressure of fear, and not by instilling a sense of justice. But even in this short period of time, what a sad year it was in which, after the abolition of royal power, the first consuls were appointed! They had not even lived the year for which they were elected when Junius Brutus expelled his defrocked comrade Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus from Rome; and then fell in battle from wounds that he exchanged with the enemy, having first killed his own sons and his wife’s brothers, because he learned that they had plotted to restore Tarquin. Although Virgil speaks with praise of this act, he nevertheless expresses some horror after it. For, having said: ...children stirring up new wars, The father who defended the good of freedom put to death, he immediately exclaims. No matter how posterity judges it - unfortunate! Let, he says, posterity judge such actions as they please, that is, let them justify and extol them, but he who kills his children is unhappy. And then, as if consoling the unfortunate man, he adds: Thus, love and an immeasurable thirst for glory for the fatherland prevailed. 45 Is it not obvious that on this Brutus, who killed his own sons and, being struck by the one whom he struck, did not outlive his enemy, the son of Tarquin, but was outlived by the same Tarquin, the innocence of his comrade Collatinus was avenged, who, being a good citizen, suffered the same thing after the expulsion of Tarquin as Tarquin himself? After all, this same Brutus, as they say, was a relative of Tarquin. Meanwhile, Collatinus was ruined only by the similarity of the name: he was also called Tarquinius. In this case, let them force him to change his name, but not his homeland. Let him, finally, not have this name in his name; let him simply be called Lucius Collatinus. But he was not deprived of what he could have lost without any harm to himself, in order to force him, as First Consul, to lose his son, and as a good citizen, his citizenship. Is it not this disgusting and in all respects useless severity for the republic that constitutes the glory of Junius Brutus? Was it not for the sake of its implementation that the love and thirst for immeasurable glory for the fatherland conquered? Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the husband of Lucretia, in any case was made consul along with Brutus immediately after the expulsion of the tyrant Tarquinius. To what extent did the people treat the matter fairly when they paid attention to a citizen’s character and not his name? And to what extent did Brutus unjustly deprive his comrade in this first and new power of his fatherland and power, when he could only deprive him of his name if the name offended him? Such evil deeds have been done, such disasters have occurred, when justice and impartiality were observed in this republic. Likewise, Lucretius, who was chosen to replace Brutus, died of illness before that year was over. Afterwards, Valerius, who was the successor of Collatinus, and Horace, who was elected to replace the deceased Lucretius, ended this funeral and hellish year, which had five consuls - the year in which the Roman Republic first established a new rank and the power of the consulate itself. Chapter XVII. After the first years of the consulate, what disasters were tormented by the Roman Republic, which did not receive help from the gods it revered? Then, when the fear subsided somewhat - not because the wars had subsided, but because they were no longer pressing with such great weight - at the end of that, so to speak, time in which impartiality and justice were observed, followed what Sallust himself briefly describes: “Then the patricians began to enslave the people, dispose of their lives and goods with truly royal authority, deprive them of their fields and rule the state alone, with the exclusion of participation in that of the rest. 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.” 46 So, why should I go into such long descriptions and draw the attention of my readers to them? To what extent was the republic unhappy during such a long period, for so many years before the second Punic War, when wars did not cease to disturb it from the outside, and discord and rebellion within, Sallust spoke about this. Therefore, the famous victories of Rome were not the true joy of completely satisfied people, but a vain consolation for the unfortunate and a deceptive incentive to endure new useless suffering for restless people. Let the good and prudent Romans not be angry with us for saying such things; although they should neither be asked nor convinced of this, since, undoubtedly, they will not be angry. For we express no more harshly and no more cruel things than they are expressed by writers who far surpass us in eloquence and detail of presentation; and meanwhile, they themselves worked on studying them, and force their children to work on it. And those who are angry, will they listen to me calmly if I say only what Sallust says? “Very frequent riots, uprisings and, finally, civil wars arose, when the strong few, whom many tried to please, under the plausible pretext of protecting the interests of the patricians or plebeians, began to strive for dominance; and they began to be called good and bad citizens not for their services to the republic, since everyone was equally corrupt, but the one who was the richest and could inflict more offense was considered good, as long as he defended this state of affairs.” 47 Further, if the above-mentioned historians believed that true freedom should not remain silent about the diseases of their state, which in many respects they involuntarily extolled in praise, for for them there was no other, more true state, which should be composed of eternal citizens, then what is it fitting for us to act, who, the better and surest hope we have in God, the greater should we have freedom when our Christ is charged with the diseases of the present time, so that the weaker and simpler force minds to abandon that state in which alone a continuous and blissful life is possible? Yes, we don’t even say more terrible things about their gods than what their own writers, whom they read and praise, say every now and then. What we say, we take it from these very writers, and at the same time we are by no means able to express everything (that they said) with the same force. So, where were these gods, who are considered necessary to be worshiped for the sake of short and deceptive happiness in this world - where were they when such disasters befell the Romans, to whom they with an insidious lie presented themselves for worship? Where were they when the consul Valerius was killed, courageously defending the Capitol, which was set on fire by exiled slaves? Rather, he himself could benefit the church of Jupiter than the crowd of so many deities with their greatest and supreme king, whose church he defended, was able to help him. Where were they when, exhausted by continuous riots and somewhat calmed down in anticipation of the ambassadors sent to Athens to borrow laws, the city was devastated by severe famine and pestilence? Where were they when the people, again suffering from hunger, appointed the first prefect of grain reserves; and when, with the intensification of famine, Spurius Melius, who was distributing bread to the starving mob, was accused of harassing the royal power, and at the insistence of the same prefect and the order of the dictator Quintius, decrepit from old age, was killed by Quintus Servilius, master of the horsemen, in the greatest and most dangerous confusion of the city? Where were they when, with the advent of a terrible pestilence, the people, who had suffered for a long time and helplessly, came to the idea of ​​arranging new lectisternia for gods who were useless to them, something they had never done before? The beds were laid in honor of the gods (lecti sternebantur), and this is where the religious rite itself, or rather sacrilege, got its name. Where were they when the Roman army, fighting unsuccessfully, suffered constant and terrible defeats near Veii for ten years, until Furius Camillus finally helped him, who was then condemned by ungrateful citizens? Where were they when Rome was taken, plundered, burned and filled with corpses by the Gauls? Where were they when that extraordinary plague caused the greatest devastation, from which this Furius Camillus, who defended the ungrateful republic from the Veyennes, and then liberated it from the Gauls, also died? This was the same ulcer during which stage games brought a new ulcer not into the bodies of the Romans, but, what is much more destructive, into their morals. Where were they when another terrible ulcer appeared from the use, as it is believed, of poisons by matrons, whose morals, many of them from the most noble families, turned out to be worse than any ulcer? Or when both consuls with an army, besieged by the Samnites in the Caudian gorges, were forced to conclude a shameful treaty; so that, leaving six hundred Roman horsemen as hostages, the rest, having laid down their arms and deprived by the enemies of all their armor, had to go through the enemy in one dress? Or when, while others were suffering from severe and contagious diseases, many in the army died from lightning strikes? Or when, also during another unbearable plague, Rome was forced to summon Aesculapius from Epidaurus and accept Aesculapius among the gods as a physician god, because the king of all gods, Jupiter, who had long been sitting in the Capitol, was apparently not allowed by the voluptuousness to which he had indulged since his youth to study medicine? Or when the enemies who once entered into a conspiracy: the Lucans, Bruttians, Samnites, Etruscans and Gauls - first killed the ambassadors, and then defeated the army led by the praetor, and seven tribunes and thirteen thousand soldiers died? Or when, after cruel and prolonged strife in Rome, as a result of which the people retreated from the robbery characteristic of enemies to the Janiculum, the disaster assumed such a formidable character that for this reason, as was usually done in extreme dangers, Hortensius was installed as dictator; and when this Hortensius, having returned the people, died while exercising his office, which had never happened to any dictator before and which served as an even more severe reproach for these gods, what happened already in the presence of Aesculapius? After this, various wars intensified to such an extent that, due to the lack of soldiers, proletarians began to be recruited for military service, who got their name because, not being able to carry out military service due to poverty, they were exempted from it to have children (proles). Pyrrhus, the Greek (Epirus) king, who at that time enjoyed extreme fame, also became an enemy of the Romans, summoned by the Tarentines. By the way, when he asked about the possible outcome of his enterprise, Apollo quite wittily gave him such an ambiguous prediction that he could remain a prophet, no matter what happened next. He said: "Dico te, Pyrhe, vincere posse Romanos." Therefore, whether Pyrrhus defeated the Romans, or the Romans defeated Pyrrhus, the fortune teller could calmly expect any outcome. What then and to what extent were the terrible defeats of the troops of both sides? Sometimes Pyrrhus seemed victorious, so that he could already interpret Apollo’s prediction in his favor; but after that the Romans emerged victorious from another battle. With such deaths from wars, a severe pestilence appeared among women. They died while pregnant before the pregnancy was completed. I think that Aesculapius this time excused himself by the fact that he was in the position of a doctor, and not a midwife. Cattle also died in the same way, so that even the extinction of the animal race was feared. And what would they say if that memorable winter happened in our time, so incredibly severe that snow of terrible depth even in the Forum lay for forty days, and the Tiber was frozen in ice? And that terrible plague that raged for so long and killed so many? When this ulcer continued the next year, taking on even more terrible proportions, then, in view of the uselessness of the presence of Aesculapius, they turned to the Sibylline books. In predictions of this kind, as Cicero mentions in his books on fortune-telling, people usually believed more in interpreters who expressed their assumptions about doubtful things as best they could or as they wanted. It was then said that the cause of the plague was that many, having seized a significant number of sacred buildings, kept them in private possession. Aesculapius was thus acquitted of the heavy charge of ignorance or inaction. But why did many take possession of the mentioned churches without encountering any obstacles from anyone, if not because they prayed to such a crowd of gods for a long time without any benefit; and therefore, gradually these places were abandoned by admirers, so that they could, without causing displeasure on anyone’s part, because they were empty, be used for the needs of people. After all, if these churches, which were returned and restored at that time, supposedly to stop the plague, were not subsequently forgotten in the same way as abandoned and passed into private ownership, then Varro would not be credited with the fact that in his essay on sacred buildings he mentions so many unknown ones. However, at that time the concern was not about successfully ending the plague, but about skillfully justifying the gods. Chapter XVIII. How many defeats did the Romans suffer during the Punic Wars, waiting in vain for help from the gods? And during the Punic wars - when victory remained doubtful for a long time and fluctuated between one state and another, when the two most powerful people directed the most courageous and most powerful blows at each other - how many small kingdoms were wiped off the face of the earth? How many vast and famous cities have been destroyed? How many suffered, how many civil societies died? Over what enormous distances were the devastations of so many countries and regions carried out? How many times have those who were defeated at first become winners later? How many people were exterminated both from among the warriors who fought and from among the peoples who did not take up arms? How many ships were partly destroyed in sea battles, and partly perished in storms? If we decided to tell or remember all this, we would be forced to become a historian. Alarmed by strong fears, Rome at that time resorted to vain and ridiculous means. At the direction of the Sibylline books, the hundred-year-old games were restored. Their celebration was established after a hundred years; but under happier circumstances it stopped, because it was simply forgotten. The pontiffs also resumed the sacred games in honor of the dead, which had also fallen out of use in previous better times. Of course, at the time when they were renewed, the kingdom of the dead, which was enriched by so many dying, was pleased to be amused: but the unfortunate people were already giving great games in honor of the demons and making rich sacrifices to the underworld, waging these furious wars, showing bloody courage and celebrating murderous victories here and there. But nothing more worthy of regret happened during the first Punic War, such as the defeat of the Romans, as a result of which even the famous Regulus, mentioned by us in the first and second books, a truly great man, who was before this winner and conqueror of the Carthaginians, was captured. He would have ended the first Punic War itself if, due to an excessive desire for glory, he had not prescribed conditions more severe for the Carthaginians, weakened by the war, than those they could accept. And the unexpected captivity of this husband, and his extremely outrageous slavery, as well as his fidelity to the oath and extremely cruel death - all this, if does not make the gods blush, is perhaps because they are airy and have no blood. At that time there was no shortage of grave disasters within the walls of Rome. Almost all one-story houses in the city were destroyed by the unusually strong flood of the Tiber River; some were unable to withstand the rapid pressure of the waves, while others became wet and crumbled from standing in the water for a long time. The disaster from the water was followed by an even more destructive disaster from the fire, which, having engulfed some of the most magnificent buildings near the Forum, did not spare the church of Vesta closest to it, where it was usually, as it were, given eternal life by the diligent laying of firewood, not so much by the venerable ones as by the virgins condemned to a kind of punishment. But at that time the fire did not live here, but raged. Horrified by his swiftness, the virgins were unable to save these fatal shrines, which had already destroyed the three cities in which they were located. Pontiff Metellus, half scorched, rushed after them, risking his life, and pulled them out. Either the fire did not recognize him, or there was no longer a single god left who would not have already fled, if there was one. So, a person could bring more benefit to the shrine of Vesta than she could bring to a person. If she could not protect herself from fire, then how could she help the city, whose welfare they thought she was protecting, against water and fire? The case itself showed with complete clarity that she absolutely could not help. We would not raise any objection on our part if they said that this shrine was established not to protect present temporal goods, but to designate eternal goods, and therefore, if it happens that it, as a bodily and visible thing, perishes, there is no harm from this for the sake of which it was erected, and it can be restored again for the same use. But due to their amazing blindness, they believe that thanks to this very shrine, which perishes from time to time, the earthly well-being and temporary happiness of the state cannot perish. Therefore, when it is pointed out to them that even during the existence of the shrine, prosperity fell or disasters struck, they are ashamed to change their opinion, which they are unable to defend. Chapter XIX. About the disasters of the second Punic War, which were exhausted by the forces of both sides It would be too long to list all the disasters that both peoples endured during the Second Punic War, having fought each other for so long and stubbornly. Even those writers who set themselves the task not so much of describing Roman wars as of praising Roman rule admit that the winner often resembled the vanquished. When Hannibal set out from Spain, crossed the Pyrenees Mountains, walked through Gaul, crossed the Alps, and with forces increased during such a detour, devastating and conquering everything, burst like a stormy stream into the mouths of Italy - what bloody wars followed, how many battles? How many times were the Romans defeated? How many cities were surrendered to the enemy without a fight, how many were taken by force of arms and destroyed? What fierce battles were there and how many of them were there, glorious for Hannibal in the defeat of the Romans? What can I say about this catastrophe at Cannes, where Hannibal, although he was extremely cruel, however, having had enough of the terrible shedding of the blood of his enemies, ordered, they say, to spare them? From there he sent three quadrangles of gold rings to Carthage. From this they should have understood that so many Roman nobles fell in this battle that it was easier to determine their number by measure than by count; and how many ordinary troops fell, which in general are more numerous the lower in social status, which lay without rings, can rather be assumed than stated. Then there followed such a shortage of soldiers that the Romans collected those convicted of crimes, freeing them from punishment, gave slaves freedom and not so much replenished them as formed a shameful army from them. But the slaves, and so as not to offend them, I will say that the freed ones, did not have enough weapons to fight for the Roman Republic. Weapons were taken from churches; The Romans seemed to say this to their gods: “Put down the weapons that you have held for so long without any use; perhaps our slaves will be able to do some good where you, our gods, could not do anything.” At the same time, the state treasury turned out to be too poor to pay the troops; private wealth went to the public cause, and everyone gave everything they had, and even senators, and even more so other states and tribes, did not keep anything of gold except gold rings, one for each, and bulls, one for each: pitiful signs of dignity 48. Who would endure all this if things came to such an extreme in our time, when we can hardly bear the present, when for the sake of empty amusements the histrions are given much more than was collected by the legions at that time, in a time of extreme danger? Chapter XX. About the disastrous end of the Saguntians, who were not helped by the Roman gods when they died because of the Romans Of all these disasters of the Second Punic War, there was not a single one that deserved more regret and complaints than the death of Saguntum. This Spanish city, very friendly to the Roman people, was destroyed because it was faithful to this people. For Hannibal, having broken the treaty concluded with the Romans, was looking for a reason to induce them to war. To this end, he brazenly besieged Saguntum. When rumors of this reached Rome, ambassadors were sent to Hannibal to persuade him to lift the siege. Not receiving any attention, the ambassadors went to Carthage and complained there about the violation of the treaty; but, having achieved nothing, they returned to Rome. While all this was going on, the unfortunate city, the richest and most treasured by both Spain and the Roman Republic, was destroyed by the Carthaginians in the eighth or ninth month of the siege. It is terrible to read about his death, and even more terrible to describe it. However, I will briefly remind you of it; it is closely related to the subject in question. At first he was exhausted by hunger to such an extent that some even ate the corpses of their loved ones. Then, having exhausted all possible means, he, in order not to be captured by Hannibal, built a huge fire together, and when this fire flared up, everyone threw themselves into it and abandoned their families, even stabbing and stabbing themselves. And did their gods, gluttons and rogues somehow manifest themselves in this case, greedily coveting the sacrificial fat and fooling people, darkening their minds with imaginary revelations in false fortune-telling? What did they do, did they in any way help the city that was most friendly to the Roman people, did they not allow it to perish when it perished as a result of its loyalty? They themselves were present, undoubtedly, as intermediaries when he entered into an alliance with the Roman Republic, concluding a treaty with it. And so, faithfully keeping the agreement that he concluded, relying on their protection, confirmed with his word of honor, secured with an oath, he was subjected to siege, capture, and extermination by the treacherous enemy. If these same gods then terrified Hannibal with storms and lightning when he was near the Roman walls and forced him to retreat, then they should have done something similar then, from the very beginning. I dare say that it would have been more honest on their part to burst into a storm for the friends of the Romans, who died for not breaking the oath of allegiance, although they received no help, than for the Romans themselves, who fought for themselves and had sufficient forces to resist Hannibal. If they were the guardians of Roman prosperity and glory, they should have prevented the death of Saguntum from becoming an indelible stain on this glory. Otherwise, isn’t it stupid to believe that thanks to their defense, Rome did not perish at the hands of the conqueror Hannibal, when they were unable to help the city that was dying for friendship with Rome? If the population of Saguntum were Christian and suffered something similar for the faith of the Gospel, they would not have used either sword or fire against themselves, and having been subjected to extermination for this faith, they would have endured it in the hope that they would have placed in Christ, in the expectation of a reward not short-term, but boundless and eternal. But these gods present themselves for veneration for this reason, and for this reason people find it necessary to venerate them, so that no danger threatens well-being in perishing and transitory things. What will their defenders and admirers answer us in defense of these gods when asked about the dead Saguntians, if not the same as when asked about the tortured Regulus? The difference is that there is one person, and here is a whole city; but in both cases the cause of death was the preservation of the oath. For the sake of this preservation, he decided to return to the enemies, but this one did not want to surrender to them. So, keeping an oath angers the gods? Or, under the protection of the gods, not only individual people, but even entire cities can perish? Let them choose one of the two that they want. If these gods are annoyed by keeping an oath, let them seek out oathbreakers for their veneration. If, even with their protection, people and cities can perish under the blows of many grave disasters, then their veneration is completely useless for earthly happiness. Let those who think that, having lost the cult of their gods, they have become unhappy, stop being angry. After all, they could not only preserve this cult, but also with the favorable attitude of the gods towards them, as now, grumble about misfortunes, but also, like Regulus and the Saguntians then, completely perish after terrible tortures. Chapter XXI. How ungrateful Rome was to its liberator Scipio and what were its morals during the period in which Sallust portrays it as its best Further, in the interval between the second and last Carthaginian war, when, according to Sallust, the Romans were distinguished by the best morals and complete agreement (for I am omitting a lot so as not to give the essay too much length), - so, at this very time of the best morals and complete agreement, the famous Scipio (I mean Scipio Africanus, the elder), the liberator of Rome and Italy, the famous and amazing finisher of this very the second Punic War, - a war so terrible, so murderous, so disastrous - the winner of Hannibal and the conqueror Carthage, who, as they write about him, dedicated his life to the gods from his youth and was brought up in the churches - this Scipio turned out to be powerless against the accusations of his enemies and, having lost his fatherland, to which he had returned prosperity and freedom with his valor, spent the rest of his life and died in the town of Linter, to such an extent after his famous triumph did not want to return to Rome that, they say, he made an order that even after death he would not be buried in the ungrateful fatherland. After this, Asian luxury was brought to Rome by Gnaeus Manlius, the conqueror of the Galatians, which turned out to be more terrible than any enemy. Then for the first time copper beds and precious coverings appeared; then the custom was introduced of inviting singers and other dissolute liberties to feasts. But in the present case, I am more inclined to talk about the evil that people suffer involuntarily, and not about the evil that they themselves do of their own free will. What I mentioned about Scipio, that, finding himself powerless against his enemies, he died outside the fatherland that he had liberated, I mentioned because it relates to the subject of my present discussion, that is, to show that the Roman deities, revered solely for the sake of earthly happiness, from whose churches he forced Hannibal to flee, did not repay him in kind. But since Sallust asserts that the morals of that time were the best in Rome, I thought it necessary to mention Asian luxury in order to make it clear that Sallust says this only in comparison with other times, when morals were much worse and manifested themselves in the strongest disagreements. For at the same time, that is, in the interval between the second and last Carthaginian war, the well-known law of Voconius was issued, which forbade anyone to make a woman, even his only daughter, the heir of his property. I don’t know whether it is possible to issue or come up with a regulation more unfair than this law. However, during this interval between the two Punic Wars, the state of affairs was still quite tolerable. Only the army perished from external wars, but it also found consolation in victories; Inside, no disagreements raged, as in other times. But in the last Punic War, with one onslaught of another Scipio (the younger), who also received the nickname Africanus, the rival of Roman power was destroyed to the ground; and after that, such a mass of evils fell upon the Roman Republic that, with happiness and security, which, with the depravity of morals, accumulated this mass of evil, the destroyed Carthage, as it turned out, in a very short time harmed Rome much more than it had harmed it before with its long enmity. During this entire period of time, continuing until Caesar Augustus, who decisively took away from the Romans, and in their opinion no longer glorious, but quarrelsome and dissolute freedom, subordinated everything to his will and restored and renewed the republic, as if decrepit from painful old age, - during this entire period I will remain silent about new and new, for one reason or another, military defeats, and about the Numantian world, which tainted Rome suffered a terrible disgrace (the latter happened due to the fact that chickens flew away from the cage and gave the consul Mancinus, as they say, a bad omen; as if for so many years, during which this small besieged town (Numantium) successfully repelled the attacks of the Roman army and was already beginning to terrify the Roman Republic itself, other chickens prophesied evil for it). Chapter XXII. About the edict of Mithridates, by which he ordered the death of all Roman citizens who were found within Asia About all this, as I said, I will keep silent; but I will not keep silent about how the king of Asia, Mithridates, ordered the death in one day everywhere of all the Roman citizens who traveled throughout Asia and in countless numbers went about their business there; which was carried out. What a pitiful picture it was when suddenly, unexpectedly and treacherously they killed everyone, no matter where they were found, in the field, on a bed, at a feast? What was the groan of the dying, what were the tears from the spectators, and perhaps from those who killed themselves? What a cruel necessity for people who provided hospitality not only to see these godless murders in their homes, but also to commit them themselves; from the friendly affection of philanthropy, suddenly changing appearance, move on to hostile actions during peace, inflicting, I can say, mutual wounds: since the one who was struck received wounds in the body, and the one who struck - in the soul? Have all these people really neglected bird divination? Did they not have either domestic or public gods to whom they could turn with questions when they set out from their place of residence on this irrevocable journey? If all this is so, then they have no reason to complain in this regard about our times. Since ancient times, the Romans have neglected such trifles. If they turned to the gods with questions, then let them tell us how this helped? Chapter XXIII. About the internal disasters that plagued the Roman Republic; which was preceded by a strange omen, which consisted in the rage of all animals serving man Now let us briefly recall, as much as we can, those disasters that, since they were internal, were therefore more worthy of regret, namely: civil, or rather, anti-civil strife, and not only strife, but even shameless wars, in which so much blood was shed, in which the mutual enmity of the parties was no longer expressed by disputes in assemblies and the division of votes on one side or the other, but by open weapons and battles. The so-called allied wars, slave wars, civil wars - how much Roman blood they shed, what devastation and desolation they brought to Italy! But before the allied Latium rebelled against Rome, all the animals serving man, such as dogs, horses, donkeys, cows and others, until that time submissive to human power, suddenly, having gone wild and forgetting the meekness inherent in domestic animals, abandoned their homes, began to randomly wander here and there and did not allow not only strangers, but also their owners, to approach them, threatening death or, at least, danger to those who dared to approach him. What great calamity was a sign, if it was a sign, such evil is certainly no small evil, even if it was not a sign? If this happened in our time, they (the pagans) would treat us with more rage than their animals treated them. Chapter XXIV. About the civil discord excited by the disturbances of the Gracchi The civil wars began with the indignation of the Gracchi, caused by agrarian laws. They wanted to divide among the people the lands that were unjustly owned by noble people. But deciding to eradicate long-standing injustice was very dangerous; even, as experience has shown, extremely disastrous. How many funerals were there when the first (Tiberius) Gracchus was killed? And how much later, when a short time later his other brother was killed? Both nobles and ignorant were killed not on the basis of laws or by order of the authorities, but in crowds and in armed clashes. After the killing of another Gracchus (Gaius), the consul Lucius Opisnius, who took up arms against him inside Rome and after capturing and killing him along with his comrades, carried out a brutal extermination of the citizens, only later, when he carried out an investigation, prosecuting the rest through legal proceedings, they say he killed three thousand people. From this one can understand what mass of dead an armed dump could have left behind during a popular uprising, if so many were put to death as a result of a seemingly impartial trial. The murderer of Gracchus himself sold his head to the consul for as much gold as the head itself weighed. A condition of this kind was concluded even before the murder. At the same time, the former consul Marcus Fulvius was killed with his children. Chapter XXV. About the Church of Concord, built by definition of the Senate on the site of riots and murders According to the definition of the Senate, which was too complicated, on the very spot where this bloody rebellion took place and where so many citizens of all states fell, the Church of Concord was built so that, as a witness to the execution of the Gracchi, he would prick the eyes of those who would speak to the people and wound their memory. But what was it, if not a mockery of the gods, to build a church to that goddess, who, if present in the city, the latter would not have been destroyed, torn apart by such strife? Was it perhaps decided to imprison the Goddess of Concord in this church, as in a prison, as the culprit of the atrocity that had taken place, because she abandoned the souls of the citizens? For if they wanted something more in keeping with the course of things, then why didn’t they build a church of Discord there? Or, perhaps, some reason has been given for why Concord could be a goddess, and Discord not, when, according to Labeo’s definition, the first is a good goddess, and the second is evil? The latter was obviously guided by the fact that he had found churches in Rome for both Fever and Health. Consequently, the church not only of Concord, but also of Discord had to be built in the same exact way. Therefore, the Romans acted very riskily, deciding to have such an evil goddess irritated against them and forgetting that the original reason for the death of Troy lay in her anger. After all, it was she who, by tossing the golden apple, started a quarrel between the three goddesses because she, along with the other gods, was not invited to the feast: because of this quarrel - enmity between the deities, the victory of Venus, the abduction of Helen, the destruction of Troy. Perhaps indignant precisely at the fact that she was not honored in Rome with any church next to the other gods, she at that time subjected the city to such great confusion; how much could her anger intensify when, at the site of the mentioned bloodshed, that is, at the place of the work of her hands, she saw a church built for her opponent? These learned and wise men get angry when we laugh at such trifles; nevertheless, for them, as worshipers of the gods good and evil, the question of Concord and Discord remains valid: either they neglected the cult of these goddesses and preferred Fever and Bellona to them, to which they built ancient churches; or they were revered when the enraged goddess of Discord brought them, with the removal of Concord, even to civil wars. Chapter XXVI. About the various wars that followed the construction of the Church of Concord Yes, they came up with a truly intricate remedy against rebellion, contrasting the speaking people with the Church of Concord, as a witness to the defeat and execution of the Gracchi. How much benefit this brought is shown by subsequent, much worse events. The people's leaders then cared not about avoiding the course of action and the fate of the Gracchi, but about going beyond their assumptions. Such were Lucius Saturninus, the tribune of the people, and Gaius Servilius, the praetor, and then, much later, Marcus Drusus. From their indignation, first cruel bloodshed began, and then allied wars, which dealt terrible blows to Italy and brought it to ruin and desolation. Then came slave revolts and civil wars. How many battles were fought during the latter, how much blood was shed in order to pacify, as if some barbarian horde, almost all the peoples of Italy, who primarily constituted the strength of the Roman state? The slave revolt was started by an extremely small number of people, less than seventy gladiators, a number that surpassed the number of emperors of the Roman people; and meanwhile, what size it reached, what strength and cruelty, how many and to what extent it devastated cities and regions - all this was hardly able to be conveyed by those who wrote history. And this was not the only slave revolt. Even before that, the province of Macedonia was devastated, and then Sicily and the coastal side. How many and what kind of terrible predatory attacks were committed on land, and how strong the maritime predatory wars were then waged, hardly anyone is able to describe. Chapter XXVII. About the civil war between Maria and Sulla Marius had already stained himself with the blood of citizens, having killed many people of the party opposed to himself, when, being defeated, he fled from Rome; but barely, in the words of Cicero 49, the city had time to catch its breath when Cinna, in alliance with Marius, won the victory. Subsequently, after the death of the most famous men, the lights of state went out. Sulla later took revenge for this cruelty of the victors; but there is no need to say what extermination of citizens and what disaster for the republic was accompanied by this revenge. Lucan says about this revenge, which was much more disastrous than the impunity of the atrocities against which it was directed: The treatment has crossed the borders, and the hand has gone there, Chasing diseases where there were none before - Criminals have been punished. But if At least some of them survived Then a new space for hostility would open up, And anger, no longer restrained by the reins of laws, In addition to those who fell outside Rome in the ranks of the army, inside Rome itself during this war of Mary and Sulla, the streets, courtyards, squares, theaters, and churches were filled with corpses; so it was difficult to judge when the victors committed more murders: whether first in order to gain victory, or after, due to the fact that they had won. Here is victory on the side of Marius, when he himself returns from exile. With the exception of the murders that were committed everywhere and anywhere, the head of Octavius, the consul, was placed on the pulpit from which speeches were made to the people; Caesar and Fimbria are killed in their homes; two Crasses, father and son, are stabbed to death in front of each other; Bebius and Numitorius die with their entrails torn to pieces when they are dragged with hooks; Catullus escapes the hands of his enemies by taking poison; Merula, the flamen of Jupiter, having cut the veins, makes a libation to Jupiter with her own blood. In front of Maria himself, those to whom he did not want to extend his hands in response to a greeting are constantly being killed. Chapter XXVIII. What was the victory of Sulla, who was the avenger of the cruelty of Marius As retribution for this cruelty, Sulla's victory followed. But after so much blood of citizens, by the shedding of which it was acquired, this victory - when the war was already over, but hatred was still alive - was expressed in times of peace with great cruelty. Already the young Marius and Carbolus, who belonged to the party of Marius, added new, even more cruel ones to the previous murders of the elder Marius. When Sulla was just advancing, they, despairing not only of victory, but also of their own salvation, filled everything with the murders of their own and others. In addition to the widespread bloodshed, even the Senate was besieged, and from the very place of its meetings, as if from a prison, they were taken to execution. The high priest Mucius Scaevola was killed at a time when, considering the church of Vesta the greatest shrine of the Romans, he embraced her altar: with his blood he almost extinguished the fire that was constantly burning thanks to the vigilant care of the virgins. Then Sulla entered Rome victoriously. On the Campus Martius (place of popular meetings), no longer during a war, but a cruel peace, he exterminated seven thousand people who had surrendered to him and therefore were unarmed - he exterminated not in a battle with him, but simply by ordering to exterminate. And in general, in Rome, every supporter of Sulla killed whomever he wanted. Therefore, there was no way to determine the number of murders committed. Finally, it was reported to Sulla that some should be allowed to live, so that the victors would have someone to command. The frantic freedom of murder, which raged everywhere indiscriminately, was thus curbed. To the great joy of all, a list was published containing two thousand names of citizens from two noble classes, equestrian and senatorial, destined for death and exile. The quantity was alarming, but the certainty was reassuring; They no longer mourned so much for the many who died, but rather rejoiced at the safety of the rest. But those who remained in this security shuddered when they learned what kind of executions those who were condemned to death would be subjected to. For one was torn apart by hand without any weapons: people tore apart a living person with greater brutality than animals would tear apart a discarded corpse. Another, having gouged out his eyes and cut off his limbs one by one, was forced to live a long time in such torment, or, rather, die for a long time. Some notable cities, like some farmsteads, were sold at public auction. And one city was executed in its entirety, just as one criminal is condemned to execution. All this was done in peacetime; not in order to hasten the hour of victory, but so that no one would think of neglecting the victory already won. This time the world challenged the brutality of war and won. The war killed the armed, and he killed the unarmed. The war was so that the one being killed, if he was able, would kill himself; and the world is not so that he who has escaped death will live, but so that when he dies he will not defend himself. Chapter XXIX. Comparison of the Gothic invasion with the defeats that the Romans suffered from both the Gauls and the instigators of civil wars What cruelty of foreign peoples, what cruelty of barbarians can be compared with this victory of citizens over citizens? What was more disastrous, more shameful, more disgusting for Rome: the invasion of the Gauls in ancient times and, shortly before that, the Goths, or the unbridledness of Marius and Sulla and other famous men from both sides, decorations of society, who committed atrocities against its own members? True, the Gauls killed as many senators as they could find in the whole of Rome, with the exception of the Capitol, which alone was somehow defended; but to those who lived on the Capitoline hill, they provided at least the opportunity to redeem in gold life, which, if they could not take away with weapons, they could exhaust by siege. The Gauls spared so many senators that it was more surprising that they killed some. But while Sulla was still alive, Marius, by right of victory, occupied the Capitol, which was safe from the Gauls, in order to order murders from there; and when Marius escaped, only to return later more cruel and bloodthirsty, Sulla, in the Capitol itself, deprived many of the lives and property of many by decision of the Senate. And for the supporters of Marius, in the absence of Sulla, what was so holy that they would spare, when they did not even spare Mucius, citizen, senator, high priest, who held in his arms the very altar with which, as they say, the very destinies of Rome were connected? Finally, not to mention countless other murders, one last list of Sulla killed more senators than the Goths were able to rob. Chapter XXX. About the continuous succession of many, and most difficult, wars one after another until the coming of Christ So, with what face, with what heart, with what shamelessness, with what foolishness, or, more precisely, with what madness do they not blame their gods for everything described, but blame our Christ for this last 51? Ruthless civil wars, as recognized by their own writers, more disastrous than any wars with external enemies - wars that are considered not only to undermine, but also to completely destroy the republic - all of them began much earlier than the coming of Christ - and according to the successive continuation of the criminal affairs of the parties, they passed from the wars of Marius and Sulla to the wars of Sertorius and Catiline, of which the first was an exile, and the last a pupil of Sulla; then - into the war between Lepilus and Catulus, one of whom wanted to destroy, and the other to defend the cause of Sulla; further, in the wars of Pompey and Caesar, of which the first was a follower of Sulla and equaled him or even surpassed him in power, and Caesar could not stand Pompey’s power (but could not stand it because he himself did not have it: when Pompey was defeated and killed, he surpassed Pompey); then, in the wars of another Caesar, later called Augustus, during whose reign Christ was born. For Augustus also waged civil wars with many, and in these wars many noble men also perished, among whom was Cicero, a famous eloquent artist in the administration of the republic. The reason was that some of the noble senators, who entered into a conspiracy supposedly for the sake of saving republican freedom, killed Pompey’s winner, Gaius Caesar, in the place of the Senate meetings, for his alleged harassment of royal power - Caesar, who condescendingly used his civil victory and saved the life and social position of his enemies. Then Antony, who was far from being like him in morals, a spoiled man and stained himself with all kinds of vices, began to seek Caesar’s power. Cicero strenuously opposed him in the name of the same supposed freedom of the fatherland. Then a remarkably talented young man emerged, another Caesar, the adopted son of the first Gaius Caesar, later named, as I said, Augustus. In order to present Antony as a rival, Cicero patronized this young man Caesar. He hoped that, after the removal and destruction of Antony's rule, Caesar would restore the freedom of the republic; but he turned out to be so blind and improvident that this same young man, whose exaltation and power he contributed, allowed Cicero himself, as if through some kind of amicable deal, to kill Anthony, and subordinate the freedom of the republic, for which he fought so much, to the yoke of his own power. Chapter XXXI. That those who are not allowed to worship the gods shamelessly blame Christ for the real misfortunes, how quickly such great disasters happened at a time when the gods were worshiped Let those who are ungrateful to our Christ for such great benefits accuse their gods of such great evil. After all, when this evil was committed, when citizens shed so much blood of citizens everywhere, and not only somewhere on the side, but also at the altars of these gods, at that very time the altars of the gods burned with fire and emitted the smell of Sabaean incense and fresh garlands; the clergy were in high honor; the churches amazed with their brilliance; abundant sacrifices were made; Numerous and magnificent games were given; The churches were filled with frenzy. Tullius did not choose the church as a place of refuge, because he chose Mucius, and in vain. These same persons, who attack Christian times with the greatest bitterness, either sought refuge in places dedicated to Christ, or were taken there by the barbarians themselves to preserve their lives. I know one thing, and in this everyone who judges the matter impartially will easily agree with me, namely: if before the Punic Wars (about many other things that I mentioned, and about much more that I considered it necessary to keep silent about for the sake of brevity of the story, I do not say) the human race had adopted Christianity and that terrible devastation had followed, to which Europe and Africa were subjected during those wars, then each of those persons with whom we are dealing would have attributed This would undoubtedly be an evil for the Christian religion. They would have held their tongues even less if, as far as the Romans were concerned, the adoption and spread of Christianity had been followed by the well-known invasion of the Gauls, or the devastation of Rome by the Tiber River and fires, or the aforementioned civil wars, surpassing all disasters. Even such types of evil, which previously seemed so incredible that they were considered miraculous (prodigia), if they happened in Christian times, who else would be blamed if not Christians? I will not talk about those phenomena that were more surprising than harmful, for example: about talking bulls, about children who uttered certain words even before birth from the wombs of their mothers, about flying snakes, about women and hens turned into males, and about others of the same nature that are described in their books, not fabulous, but historical, and which, whether they are real or false, do not cause death to people, but only cause amazement. But when the earth fell as rain, when chalk fell as rain, when stone rain fell, real stone rain, and not hail, which is usually called by this name, then such phenomena really caused great harm. We read from them that from the fire of Etna, flowing from the top of the mountain to the nearest shore, the sea boiled to such an extent that the rocks melted and the tar on the ships spread. And this caused considerable harm, although it was incredible and amazing. They further write that due to the same action of fire, Sicily was covered with such a mass of hot ash that the roofs of the city of Catana, littered and crushed by it, collapsed; Touched by such a disaster, the Romans liberated the city from taxes that year. They also write that in Africa, when it was already a Roman province, a monstrous mass of locusts once appeared. Having destroyed the fruits and leaves of the trees, she, as they say, descended into the sea in a huge cloud that surpasses all description. Having died there and thrown ashore, she then infected the air and produced such a terrible pestilence that in one kingdom of Massinissa, they say, eighty thousand people died, and in the countries closest to the shores - even more. In Utica, of the thirty thousand young men who were there at that time, only ten are said to have survived. Which of this, if it had happened in Christian times, would not attribute to the Christian religion the idle talk that we must listen to and to which we are forced to respond? And yet, they do not attribute this to their gods: they demand the restoration of their cult in order not to experience even lesser disasters of a similar nature, while before, when the gods were revered, those mentioned above experienced much greater ones from them! Virg. A_Eneid. 5, v. 810–811. Sallust. Catil. cap. XIV. Sallust, in Catiline. cap. II. Virg. A_Eneid. 8. v.326–327. Sallust. in Catil. cap. 6. Virg. A_Eneid. 1.v. 282. Virg. A_Eneid. 7. v.319 et sqq. Virg. A_Eneid. 6.v. 813–814. Virg. A_Eneid. lib. 6. v.820–823. Sallust. Ilistor. lib. I. Bulls were the name given to gold jewelry, which, as distinctive signs, was worn by the children of noble families, while gold rings were worn exclusively by senators, horsemen and high magistrates. You might be interested in: