Книга шестая

Hitherto the speech was directed against those, according to whom the gods should be revered for the sake of this present temporary life, but now the speech begins against those, according to whose idea the gods should be revered for the sake of the future life. Having in mind in the next five books to refute the ideas of these latter, Augustine in this book shows what an absurd opinion about the gods was held by Varro himself, the best pagan theological writer. He cites the three types of pagan theology that Varro speaks of, namely, fabulous, natural and civil: and then he proves that the fabulous and civil types of this theology absolutely do not provide anything for the bliss of the future life. In the five previous books, it seems to me, I have sufficiently refuted those in the opinion of which many and false gods, whom the Christian religion recognizes as useless idols or unclean spirits and dangerous demons - in any case, creatures, and not the Creator - should be revered for the sake of the benefits of this mortal life and earthly goods - revered by rites and service, called in Greek λατρεία and befitting the one true God. But who does not understand that for extreme madness or stubbornness not only these five, but also as many books as you like, will not be enough, since they find the emptiest glory in not yielding to any arguments of truth to destruction, of course, those over whom such great vices reign? For, despite all the skill of the doctor, the disease may remain invincible not due to the doctor’s fault, but due to the patient’s reluctance to be treated. Those who, having understood and discussed what they read, treat it either without any stubbornness, or, at least, without the great and extreme stubbornness characteristic of an old error, will say that with our five completed books we would have done, perhaps, much more than the questions we raised required, if we had spread less; for them there can be no doubt that all the hatred that, due to the disasters of real life and the vicissitudes and changeability of earthly things, is felt by ignorant people towards the Christian religion - while learned people, under the influence of insane disrespect, not only condone, but even patronize it contrary to their conscience - all this hatred is completely devoid of any reasonable basis and, on the contrary, is filled with frivolous insolence and the most dangerous enthusiasm. Chapter I. About those who say that they honor the gods not for the sake of present, but for the sake of eternal life So, according to the plan we have proposed, now those in whose opinion the pagan gods, crushed by the Christian religion, should be revered not for the sake of present life, but for the sake of the life that will come after death, must now be refuted and exposed. I would like to begin my discussion on this subject with the following words, full of truth, of the holy psalm: “Blessed is the man who puts his hope in the Lord and does not turn to the proud and to those who turn aside to lies” (Ps. XXXIX, 5). But amid this vanity and false idle talk, philosophers should be listened to with much greater condescension: they did not like such opinions and delusions of peoples who erected idols to the gods and about those who are called immortal gods, invented many false and unworthy things, or believed these fabrications, and mixed their beliefs with cults and sacred rites. With these people, who, if not openly, then at least in a whisper from time to time, spoke disapprovingly of such things, it is worth reflecting on the question posed above, namely, whether for the sake of life that comes after death, one should worship not one God, who created all spiritual and physical creatures, but many gods, who, in the opinion of some, and, moreover, the best and most famous philosophers, owe their existence and supreme position to this one God? However, who would listen to speeches and reasoning that eternal life is given by any of those gods that I mentioned in the fourth book, to whom each individually is assigned his own special duties concerning the smallest objects? Or these very knowledgeable and intelligent men (who are proud as a great blessing that with their writings they taught people why each of the gods needs to pray, what to ask from each, so that with the most disgusting antics, which are often observed among mimes, they did not ask Liber for water, and for Lymphs - wine), will give one of the people - when he begins to pray to the immortal gods and in response to the request of Lymphs - wine will receive an answer from them: “We have water, ask Liber for wine,” - is there a basis for saying: “If you do not have wine, give me at least eternal life”? What could be more monstrous than this absurdity? Will not these laughing ones (they are usually very funny) say - unless they, like demons, try to deceive - in response to this petitioner: “Can you, my dear, think that it is in our power to dispose of life (vitam), when you know that we do not even have a grapevine (vitem)?” So, it would be the most senseless stupidity to ask or hope for eternal life from such gods who, in the present short-term and calamitous life and as regards its support and reinforcement, are considered to oversee such small details that if one of them were asked for something that is in the power and control of the other, it would seem incongruous and absurd to such an extent that it would be very similar to the tomfoolery of mimes. It's funny when done by skilled comedians in the theater; It's even funnier when done by ignorant fools in life. So, as far as the gods that were introduced into use in the state are concerned, learned people carefully examined and passed on to posterity what and which god or goddess should be prayed for; about which, for example, to Liber, about which to the Lymphs, about which to Vulcan and other gods, whom I partly mentioned in the fourth book, but partly I did not consider it necessary to mention. Then, if you ask Ceres for wine, Liber for bread, Vulcan for water, or Lymph for fire, then this will already be a delusion, how much more madness should it be to pray to one or another of these gods for eternal life? When we talked about the earthly kingdom and dwelled on the question of which of the gods or goddesses people could consider to be the givers of this kingdom, then, having gone through all of them, we found it alien to all truth to think that any of these many and false gods was organizing even these earthly kingdoms. After this, would it not be the most senseless dishonor to believe that any of them can give eternal life, which, without any doubt or comparison, should be preferred to all earthly kingdoms? After all, it is not because such gods were not able to give even an earthly kingdom, because they are supposedly great and glorious, but this is small and despicable, so that taking care of it would be incompatible with their greatness. Let the rapidly perishing earthly kingdoms due to human weakness deserve contempt in anyone’s opinion; but the gods themselves are such that they turned out to be unworthy of granting them the grant and preservation of even these kingdoms. If (as can be seen from what was said in the two previous books) out of this entire crowd of aristocratic and plebeian gods, not one is able to bestow mortal kingdoms on mortals, then how much less can he make mortals immortal? But we are already talking with those who believe that the gods should be revered not for the sake of the present, but for the sake of the future life - they should be revered not for what, contrary to the truth, is attributed to them on the basis of an empty opinion, as belonging and characteristic of their power (as is believed by those who consider the veneration of the gods necessary for the sake of the benefits of this mortal life and which, as far as I could, I have refuted in the five previous books). If the situation were such that the worshipers of the goddess Juventa would be in their prime, and those who despised her either died in their youth, or, as youths, fell into senile decrepitude; if the bearded Fortune covered the cheeks of her admirers with thicker and more luxuriant hair, and we would see those who reject her beardless or having a thin beard; then we would have every reason to say that the power of each of these goddesses ends there, that they are in some way limited in their actions, and therefore we should neither ask Juventa for a future life if she is not able to give a beard, nor expect anything good from the bearded Fortune in a future life, when in the present she does not have the slightest power to tell the very age at which a person becomes covered with a beard. But if there is no need to honor these goddesses for the sake of what is considered to be in their power, because many of the worshipers of Juventa decidedly do not enjoy blooming youth, and of those who do not honor her, many enjoy youthful strength; Likewise, many admirers of the bearded Fortune either do not have a beard at all, or have not a beard, but a goatee, and no matter how much they bow to her, they still remain the subject of ridicule from her bearded ill-wishers, then wouldn’t the human heart be crazy if, finding the veneration of the gods empty and ridiculous because of temporary and transitory gifts, of which one turns out to be subject to the knowledge of one god, and the other to the knowledge of another, it admits this worshiping usefulness for the sake of the future life? That these gods give eternal life, this was not even dared to be said by those who, believing that there were an extremely large number of gods, divided among them temporary actions, for which they would be revered by maddened crowds, so that not one of them would sit idle. Chapter II. What should be the opinion of the gods of Varro, who brought to light such clans and their cults that he would have acted towards them with greater respect if he had not spoken about them at all? Who examined all this more carefully than Marcus Varro? Who has made more learned discoveries, provided deeper reflections, more ingenious connections, more complete descriptions? True, he was not particularly distinguished by his eloquence; but he was distinguished to such an extent by his erudition and breadth of conclusions that in all branches of knowledge, which we call secular, and they call free, enriches the student of science with factual information to the same extent as Cicero gives pleasure to the student of eloquence. This is confirmed by Tullius himself, saying in his academic books that the competition that is described in these books was fought with Marcus Varro, “a man,” he notes, “undoubtedly the wittiest and, undoubtedly, the most learned of all.” He does not say “eloquent,” because in this respect Varro is significantly inferior to Cicero, but “undoubtedly the wittiest.” And in those books in which he questions everything, i.e. academic ones, he adds: “undoubtedly, the most learned.” This means that in this respect he was so sure that doubt, which extends to everything, in this case eliminates; as if, speaking in defense of the doubts of academicians, regarding this one point he forgot that he himself is an academician. And in the first book, giving a commendable review of Varro’s literary works, he. says: “In our own city we were strangers and wandered like visiting guests; your books seemed to bring us back home, so that we would finally know who we are and where we are. You acquainted us with the chronology of the fatherland, its history, with sacred law, with priestly, domestic and public discipline, with the situation of countries and places, with the names, genders, meanings and causes of things divine and human.” So, this man, so famous and renowned for his experience (about him even Terentian says in a very elegant poem: “Varro, a learned man in all respects”), who read so much that you are surprised how he had time to write anything else, and wrote so much that you can hardly believe that he could read any author - this, I say, a man of such great intelligence and erudition is unlikely to be among those supposedly divine things that he described, described so much worthy laughter, contempt and disgust, if I were an opponent and persecutor of these things and if I considered them to relate not to religion, but to superstition. And here he was, who revered the gods and found them worthy of veneration to such an extent that, as he himself says in the aforementioned work, he was afraid that they would perish not from the invasion of enemies, but from the negligence of the citizens, from which he, as from a kind of death, in his own words, saved them and, thanks to his books, sheltered and preserved in the memory of virtuous people much more reliably than Metellus - the church of Vesta from the fire, and Aeneas - the Penates from the fire. Trojan defeat - he himself passed on to posterity for reading such things as, in the eyes of both reasonable and unreasonable people, seem deserving of contempt and extremely hostile to religious truth. What does this mean if not that this most witty and very knowledgeable man, but not liberated by the Holy Spirit, was under the yoke of the customs and laws of his state; and yet, under the guise of praising religion, he did not want to remain silent about what troubled his soul. Chapter III. How Varro divides his books, compiled by him on the antiquities of human and divine things Varro wrote forty-one books on antiquities; divided them into human and divine things; He devoted twenty-five books to human things, and sixteen to divine things. The basis for this division was his desire to leave four parts of six books each about human things; he paid attention to who is doing it, where he is doing it, when he is doing it, what he is doing. Thus, in the first six books he talks about people, in the other six about places, in the next six about times, in the last six about things. Four times six is ​​only twenty four; but he puts one special book at the beginning, speaking in it first about all these subjects in a general way. And in relation to divine things, he maintained the same principle of division, as far as what should be done in honor of the gods is concerned. For cults are performed, performed by people, performed in certain places and at certain times. He examines each of these four subjects I have mentioned in three special books: in the first three he talks about people, in the other three about places, in the next three about times, in the last three about cults, exploring here with the finest distinction: by whom, where, when and what is sent. But since it was necessary to say about the one to whom it was sent, and the reader was especially looking forward to this, he added the last three books about the gods themselves, so that out of three, taken five times, there were fifteen. All the books, as we said, are sixteen, because at the beginning of these books he put one special one, which serves as a general introduction to them. Having written this book, he subdivides each of the five parts sequentially. He divides the first three books concerning people in such a way that the first of them talks about pontiffs, the second about augurs, the third about church quindecemvirs. Of the second group of books dealing with places, the first deals with chapels, the second with churches, and the third with religious places; the next three, concerning times, i.e. holidays, are divided so that the first of them speaks of the days of sacrifice, the second - of circus games, the third - of theatrical games; in the fourth group of books relating to cult, the first has sanctification as its subject, the second is private cult, the third is public cult. Behind this, so to speak, magnificent procession in the last three books appear the gods themselves, for whom this entire cult is organized: in the first - the known gods, in the second - the unknown gods, in the third, the very last - the chosen and main gods. Chapter IV. That according to Varro's research, among the worshipers of the gods, human things turn out to be more ancient than divine things That it would be in vain to wish or hope in all this grace and subtlety of successive divisions and distinctions to find eternal life - this is obvious to every person who is not hostile to himself due to the stubbornness of his heart, it is obvious from what we have already said, and will become even more obvious from what will be said below. In fact, all these institutions are institutions either of people or of demons, including those demons whom they call good; we will say frankly: all, without exception, unclean and undoubtedly evil spirits, who, out of envy, secretly put harmful opinions into the thoughts of wicked people, destroying the human soul and depriving it of the opportunity to agree with the unchangeable and eternal truth and cleave to it, and sometimes openly act on their feelings and, as far as they can, confirm in harmful opinions with various seductions. Varro himself admits that he wrote about human things first, and about divine things later, because states appeared first, and then divine things were established by them. Meanwhile, true religion is not established by any earthly state, but itself creates the heavenly city. It is instilled and taught to his true worshipers by the true God, the Giver of eternal life. So, Varro, by his own admission, first wrote about human, and then about divine things, because divine things were established by people; in support of this, he says the following: “Just as a painter,” he writes, “exists before a painting, an architect before a building, just as states appeared earlier than what they established.” He adds, however, that he would first write about the gods, and then about people, if he wrote about the whole and every nature of the gods. As if in his books he writes only about some, and not about the entire nature of the gods, or as if the nature of the gods, although not all, but only some, should not be considered earlier than the nature of people! Then, when he carefully describes in the next three books the gods known, unknown and chosen, it seems that he did not miss a single nature of the gods? So, what do his words mean: “If we wrote about the whole nature of gods and people, we would talk first about the gods, and then about people”? Either he wrote about all and every nature of the gods, or about some, or about one that does not exist at all. If about everything and everyone, then divine things would certainly have to be placed before human ones; if about some, then why not even in this case talk about divine things before human things? Do not even some of the gods deserve preference over all people? If the preference of a certain part of the gods over the whole world of human things seemed too great a matter, then this part deserved preference over things, at least Roman ones. After all, in his books about human things, he describes things not so far as they relate to the entire globe, but only so far as they relate to Rome alone. However, Varro himself says that in the order of writing a book about human things, he deservedly placed before books about divine things, just as a painter is put before a painting, an architect before a building, showing very clearly that the divine things he described were invented by people, like a painting or a building. It remains, therefore, to conclude that he wrote about the nature of the gods that does not exist at all; but he did not want to say this openly, but left it to the readers to guess. After all, when Varro says that he writes “not about the whole and every nature of the gods,” then we can understand this expression in such a way that he writes about some nature of the gods, but we can also understand in such a way that he writes about a nature that does not exist at all: because a nature that does not exist is neither all nor any. Indeed, when he says that if he were to write about the whole and every nature of the gods, then in the order of description it would have to be placed before human things; but when, after this, it is not he who says, but the truth itself that says that although not all and every, but at least some truly divine nature should be placed ahead of Roman affairs, and yet placed after, and placed fairly, then it remains to conclude that this nature does not exist. So, Varro wanted to prefer not human things to divine things, but true things to false ones. After all, in what he wrote about human things, he followed historical stories; what, if not an empty belief in things that do not even exist in the world, did he follow when he spoke about the so-called divine things? This, undoubtedly, he wanted to make clear with a subtle hint, not only by describing human things before divine ones, but also by giving reasons why he did so. If he had kept silent about this, others would have explained what he did, perhaps, differently. But by adding this reason, he took away any possibility of making arbitrary guesses to others on this score, and at the same time showed quite clearly that he preferred people to human institutions, and not human nature to divine nature. Thus, he confessed that the books about divine things were written by him not about the truth inherent in nature, but about the lies inherent in error. Elsewhere, as I mentioned in the fourth book, he expresses himself more clearly on this matter, saying that if he himself had built a new city, he would have taken a model for it from nature; but since he had already found an old city, he could not help but follow its customs. Chapter V. About the three kinds of theology according to Varro, namely, fabulous, natural and civil Then, according to the same Varro, there are three kinds of theology, that is, theories explaining divine things, of which one is called mythical, the other physical, the third civil; What are these three kinds of theology? That type of theology, which Varro puts first, in Latin we would call fabulous; but we will call it fabulous, since it is called mythical from fables: the Greek word μùθος means fable. Let the second one be called natural according to the usual usage. The third, finally, is what Varro himself calls civil in Latin. “Mythical,” continues Varro, “is the type (of theology) that poets predominantly use; physical - philosophers; civil - peoples. In the type that I named first, many things have been invented that are contrary to the dignity and nature of immortals. It is said here that one god is born from the head, another from the thigh, a third from drops of blood; that the gods steal, commit adultery, serve people; finally, something is immediately attributed to the gods that is characteristic not only of man in general, but also of the most despicable person.” This time Varro dared, considering himself in complete safety in this case, to clearly and unequivocally say what an insult to the nature of the gods was caused by false fables. For in this case he was not talking about natural and civil theology, but about fable theology, which he found it possible to openly condemn. Let us now see what he says about the second kind. “About the second kind, indicated by me,” Varro writes, “philosophers have left us many works, which show who the gods are, where they are, what their origin and properties are, since when they exist or have always been; whether they are from fire, as Heraclitus thought, or from numbers, as Pythagoras believed, or from atoms, as Epicurus said; and much more that is more convenient to listen to within the walls of schools than on the forum.” In this kind of theology, which is called physical and owes its origin to philosophers, Varro does not condemn anything; mentions only the disputes between the philosophers themselves, thanks to which many different sects arose. However, he removes this kind of theology from the forum, that is, from the people, and locks it within the walls of schools. Meanwhile, the first kind of theology, the most deceitful and vile kind, is granted the right of citizenship. Such is the pious rumor of the people, even among the Romans themselves! What the philosophers say about the immortal gods, he cannot stand, and what the poets sing and the histrions imagine, although it is invented contrary to the dignity and nature of the gods and may be characteristic not only of man in general, but also of the most despicable person, he not only endures, but also listens with pleasure. Moreover, they even think that all such things are pleasing to the gods themselves and that they should be used to appease them. Someone will say: “Let us separate these two kinds of theology, mythical and physical, that is, fabulous and natural, from the civil, which is now in our turn and which Varro himself singled out, and then let us see how he explains this civil.” Why the fabulous race should be separated from the civil race, I understand: the reason is that it is false, vile and shameful. But the desire to separate the natural from the civil - what can we call it other than an expression of recognition that the civil itself is false? Indeed, if it is natural, then what is blameworthy about it, for which it should be excluded? On the other hand, if the so-called civil theology is an unnatural theology, then what is its merit, what should it be accepted for? This is the real reason why Varro wrote about human things before, and about divine things after: it is that in divine things he dealt not with nature, but with human institutions. Let us now turn to civil theology. “The third class,” says Varro, “is something that citizens should know and understand, and especially priests in civil societies. It talks about which gods should be worshiped publicly, what rituals and sacrifices should be performed for each of them.” Let's listen to what is said next. “The first theology,” he notes, “is adapted primarily to the theater, the second to the world, the third to civil society.” Who does not understand to which clan Varro gave the palm? Of course, the second, which, as mentioned above, belongs to philosophers. This genus, according to him, is adapted to the world, and according to philosophers, there is nothing more excellent in things than the world. But, one wonders, did he separate or unite those two theologies, the first and the third, that is, the theology of theater and (theology of) civil society? We see that what belongs to the city does not always belong to the world, although the city exists in the world: it may happen that, on the basis of false opinions, in the city they worship and believe that which has never existed either in the world or even outside the world. Where is the theater if not in the city? Who established the theater if not the state? What did it set it up for, if not for stage play? Where are these stage games if not among the divine things about which these books are written with such skill? Chapter VI. About mythical theology, i.e. fabulous and civil, against Varro Although you, Marcus Varro, are a witty and highly learned man, yet you are not God, but a man, and, moreover, a man who has not been led by the Spirit of God to the knowledge of truth and freedom, so that he can contemplate and discover something divine. You perhaps see how divine things must differ from human falsity and emptiness; but in matters of public worship you are afraid to touch upon erroneous popular opinions and customs, although when you look at them one way or another and you yourself admit, and all your literature proclaims, that they do not agree with the nature of even such gods as the weak human mind imagines in the elements of this world. How did human reason, even the best one, help you in this case? How did human, although comprehensive and most extensive, learning help you in such difficult circumstances? You want to honor the natural gods, but you force us to honor the civil gods. You invented fable gods in order to more freely express your thoughts about them; but at the same time you condemn, willy-nilly, the civil gods. You say that the mythical gods are adapted to the theater, the natural gods to the world, and the civil gods to the city; but the world is a divine matter, and cities and theaters are human; and in theaters it is not other gods who are ridiculed, but the same ones who are worshiped in churches; and you give games not to other gods, but to the same ones to whom you make sacrifices. Wouldn't you make a much more worthy and more subtle distinction than a free thinker if you said that some gods are natural gods, while others are established by people; that regarding those established by people, the books of poets say one thing, and the books of priests say something completely different; but do they both so agree with each other in lies that they are equally liked by demons who are hostile to the teaching of truth? Let us leave for now the so-called natural theology, which will be discussed later, and ask: is it prudent to ask and expect eternal life from the poetic, theatrical, and stage gods? Of course not; May the true God save us from such extreme and sacrilegious madness! How could one ask for eternal life from such gods who like such things and whom they appease when they bring their crimes to light? I believe that no one has ever reached such wild dishonor in their madness. So, no one receives eternal life either from fable or from civil theology. That one, inventing shameful things about the gods, sows, and this one, favoring her, reaps. The first one sows lies, the last one collects. The first defiles divine things with invented crimes, the latter introduces playful representations of crimes into the number of divine things. The former sings vile fictions about the gods in the verses of poets, the latter dedicates them to the gods during the festivals of the gods themselves. The former glorifies, the latter makes the atrocities and crimes of the gods the object of love. This one betrays or invents, this one either confirms the real or delights in the false. Both of them are vile; both are worthy of contempt; but this one, the theatrical one, preaches public lewdness, and this one, the civil one, is decorated with this lewdness. Is it, one might ask, why one should expect eternal life, by which the present short-lived life is also defiled? Or does the community of bad people, when they ingratiate themselves with us, defile life, but the community of demons, when they are honored for their own crimes, does not defile life? After all, if their crimes are real crimes, then how evil they are in this case! If they are false, then how poorly they are revered! Reading this, a person who is extremely ignorant of things of this kind may perhaps think that only that which is unworthy of divine greatness and worthy of ridicule is divulged about the gods in a criminal manner, which is sung in the verses of poets and presented on the stage; but those sacred actions that are performed not by histrions, but by priests, are free and alien to this abomination. If this were so, then no one would ever come up with the idea of ​​performing theatrical abominations in honor of the gods, and the gods themselves would never demand them for themselves. But that is why there was no shame in doing such things to please the gods in theaters, because similar things were done in churches. Varro himself, trying to distinguish civil theology as something special from fabulous and natural theology, made it clear that it was rather formed from both than completely separate from them. According to him, the works of poets provide less than what the people need to know, and the works of philosophers, on the contrary, provide more than is useful for the people to reason about. “Both of them,” he says, “should have been avoided, and therefore a lot was taken from both genera for civilian purposes. Therefore, along with civil things, we also describe what they have in common with poets, although in this respect we have more in common with philosophers than with poets.” This means that there is something in common with poets. But in another place Varro says that regarding the generations of the gods, the peoples leaned more towards the side of the poets than the physicists. It is obvious that in the first case he speaks about what should be, and in the other about what actually is. According to him, physicists wrote for benefit, and poets for pleasure. Therefore, what people should not follow from what the poets have written is a description of the crimes of the gods. Meanwhile, these crimes bring pleasure to both the people and the gods themselves! He says that poets write for pleasure, not for profit. But they write, however, what the gods expect from the peoples, and the peoples give! Chapter VII. On the similarity and agreement between fabulous and civil theology So, let us compare with civil theology the fable, theatrical and stage theology, full of lewdness and abomination, and all of it, deservedly recognized as worthy of blame and disgust, will turn out to be a part of that which supposedly should be respected and revered - moreover, not such a part (as I intend to prove) that is not in harmony with the whole and, thus, as if alien to the general body, connected and linked to it inappropriately and out of place, but completely consistent and closely connected with it, i.e., an organic part of this body. What, in fact, do these statues, shapes, ages, gender and clothes of the gods indicate? Is it really true that only poets have a bearded Jupiter and a beardless Mercury, and not pontiffs? Is it really true that only mimes, and not priests, commit vile outrages in honor of Priapus? Or is he exhibited in one way for worship in sacred places and in a completely different way appears in the theater, serving as an object of general amusement? Old man Saturn and young Apollo - are they just histrion masks, but not at all statues standing in churches? Why are Forculus, who guards the doors, and Limentin, who guards the threshold, male gods, and Cardea, who guards the hinges, is a female deity? Is there anything in books about divine things that serious poets would consider shameful for their poems? Is it only the theatrical Diana who carries weapons, and the city Diana just a maiden? Or does the stage Apollo play the zither, but the Delphic one does not master this art? But this is among other abominations - still quite tolerable. What did those who installed his nurse in the Capitol not think about Jupiter himself? Could it be that they were brought to light by Euhemerus, according to whose description, which was by no means filled with fabled nonsense, but compiled with historical care, all such gods were also mortal people? Having placed the gods-hangers-on, parasites, at the table of Jupiter, what else did they want to do, if not establish clownish rituals? If a mime were to say that parasites were invited to Jupiter's table, it would seem that he wanted to cause laughter. But Varro said it; said not in mockery of the gods, but for their glorification; This is proven by the fact that he wrote this in books about divine things, and not in books about human things - he wrote it not where he talks about stage games, but where he talks about the morals of the Capitol. In the end such things get the better of him, and he confesses that since the gods were endowed with human forms, they began to believe that they enjoyed human pleasures. Such harmful beliefs did not miss the opportunity to support evil spirits, making fun of human minds. So it turned out that the servant of the church of Hercules, having nothing to do in his free time, began to play dice with himself, alternately with both hands, one for Hercules, the other for himself, with the condition: if he wins, then with the income of the church he will prepare dinner for himself and bring his mistress; if Hercules remains the winner, then he will offer other things at his own expense to Hercules. Having lost to himself, he offered the god Hercules the promised dinner and the famous harlot Larentina. This latter, having fallen asleep in the church, saw in a dream that Hercules addressed her and told her that the reward that she thought she would receive from Hercules, she would receive from the young man whom she met first when leaving the church. When she left, the very rich young man Tarutiy was the first to meet her, lived with her for a long time in a love affair and died, leaving her as his heir. Having received enormous money, she, in order not to seem ungrateful for the divine gift, did what she considered most pleasing to the gods: she wrote a will in favor of the Roman people; when she died, her will was found. They say that for such a service she was even awarded divine honors. If poets had invented this, if mimes had acted it out, it would undoubtedly have been classified as fable theology and recognized as incompatible with the dignity of civil theology. But since such a famous writer speaks about this kind of abominations - abominations that are found not among poets, mimes and in theaters, but among the people, in cults and in churches, then it is not the histrions in vain that such great obscenity of the gods are presented in entertainment games, but on the contrary, the priests are in vain trying to portray in rituals the non-existent nobility of these gods. There is a cult of Juno - it takes place on her favorite island of Samos - in which she marries Jupiter; there is a cult of Ceres, in which Proserpina, kidnapped by Pluto, is wanted; there is a cult of Venus, in which her favorite, the most beautiful young man Adonis, is mourned for being torn to pieces by a boar; there is a cult of the Mother of the gods, in which the ill-fated fate of the handsome young man Atys, loved by her and castrated out of female jealousy, is mourned with the participation of the unfortunate eunuchs, called Gauls. All these are things much uglier than all kinds of stage abomination. Why, in this case, are they trying to separate the mythical, theater-related inventions of poets about gods from civil theology, which supposedly has a relationship with the city, as from something honorable and worthy - unworthy and vile? Rather, one should thank the histrions for sparing the modesty of people and not showing at the spectacles everything that is hidden behind the sacred walls of the churches. What good can one think about their innermost shrine, when there is so much vileness in what is on display? What is secretly done among them by castrated and effeminate people - this, of course, they alone know. But they could not hide these people themselves, unfortunate, disgustingly disfigured and disfigured. Let them convince whomever they can that something sacred is being accomplished through such people; they cannot deny that these people themselves are considered by them to belong to their shrine. What is going on with them, we do not know; but through what people it is accomplished, we know. We know what is presented on their stage; and never, even in the choir of harlots, has a castrated and effeminate person entered the stage, although on this stage they give performances by obscene and dishonest people, and honest people should not give them. What, then, is the cult for the celebration of which holiness has chosen such people as theatrical abomination abhors? Chapter VIII. About the interpretations borrowed from natural laws that pagan scientists try to give to their gods But all this, they say, has some physiological meaning, that is, borrowed from natural laws. As if in this discussion we are dealing with physiology, and not with theology, we are talking about nature, and not about God! For, although the true God is God not by opinion, but by nature, yet not all nature is God; because man, and cattle, and wood, and stone have nature, but not one of these objects is God. If the essence of the interpretation that is attached to the cult of the Mother of the gods is that the Mother of the gods is the earth, then why ask further, to conduct research about the rest? What more clearly confirms the opinion of those who say that all these gods were men? In this case, they are all earth-born, just like their mother earth. In true theology, the earth is God’s creation, not a mother. However, no matter how her cult is interpreted and no matter how it is compared with the nature of things, in any case, for men to be in the role of women is not in the order of nature, but against it. This illness, this crime, this shame is openly confessed in her cult, whereas in the most vicious human morals recognition of it is hardly achieved through torture. Finally, if this cult, more disgusting than stage abominations, is excused and purified by the fact that there are a kind of interpretations regarding it, according to which it signifies the nature of things, then why are not poetic fabrications excused and purified in the same way? After all, many interpret these fabrications in exactly the same way; Even the most cruel and terrible myth about Saturn devouring his sons is interpreted by some in the sense that time, which is designated under the name of Saturn, itself destroys everything that it gives birth to; or, as Varro thought, Saturn signifies the seeds that return again to the earth from which they come. Others explained in a different way both the same and the rest. Nevertheless, this theology is called fabulous, and, despite all such interpretations, it is condemned, rejected and disapproved. It is distinguished not only from natural theology, which belongs to philosophers, but also from civil theology, which we are talking about, which, as they say, has to do with cities and nations - it is distinguished as one that should rightly be rejected for having invented unworthy things about the gods. The calculation in this case is obvious. The wittiest and most learned people who wrote about these things believed that both theologies, fable and civil, were equally deserving of blame; but they dared to condemn the first, but not the last. Therefore, they presented the first as worthy of blame, and the last presented for comparison as similar to the first; this is not so that the latter is chosen in preference to the former, but so that it is clear that the latter, equally with the former, deserves contempt; and in order, therefore, not to openly condemn civil theology, but to teach the best minds to reject both the one and the other, and to follow the so-called natural theology. For civil and fable theology are both fabulous and both civil. Both of them will be found fabulous by those who prudently consider the emptiness and abomination of both; both will be found civil, who, in the festivities of the civil gods and in the city divine things, will pay attention to the stage games that actually relate to fabulous theology. How, one may ask, can the power to give eternal life be attributed to anyone from such gods, the statues and cults of which show that in their forms, their age, gender, clothes, generations and rituals, they are very similar to the fabulous gods, which are most clearly rejected. All these gods are either people who, during their life or death, were honored with cults and festivals at the instigation and insistence of demons, or at least unclean spirits, creeping up on a person at every opportunity in order to incline his mind to error. Chapter IX. About the duties belonging to each god The very duties of the gods, limited to such trifles and trifles, requiring, in their opinion, that each of them be prayed for the gift subject to his care (we have already spoken about many of these duties, although not all), are not more characteristic of the buffoonery of mimes than the dignity of the gods? If someone invited two nurses to his child, one of whom would give him only food, and the other only drink, just as they call two goddesses for these purposes, Educa and Potina, we would undoubtedly decide that this person is crazy and does something similar to mime in his house. According to them, Liber is so named from liberation (liberamentum), because by his grace men are freed from semen when they emit it during copulation; in relation to women - since they also represent them as emitting semen - the same role is played by Libera, whom they also consider Venus. Therefore, in the church of Libera the male member is exhibited, and in the church of Libera the female member is exhibited. Moreover, Liber is offered both women and wine to incite lust. Therefore, bacchanalia is carried out with the greatest madness. Varro himself admits that such things could be done by those committing bacchanalia only during a mental frenzy. Subsequently, however, the bacchanalia aroused the just disapproval of the sensible Senate, and he ordered their destruction. Perhaps they finally realized, at least in this case, what unclean spirits, whom they considered gods, could do in the minds of people. Such things were not done in the theater. They play there, but they don’t go crazy; although, however, to consider as gods those who enjoy theatrical games is worthy of madness. And what does the following mean: believing the difference between superstition and religion is that superstition tends to fear the gods, while religion only honors them as parents, and not fears them as enemies, and thus presenting the gods as so good that they would rather spare the guilty than harm the innocent, Varro mentions, however, that after giving birth, three guardian gods are assigned to a woman so that he does not come near her at night and do not torment her god Sylvan. As a sign of their presence, three people walk around the thresholds of the house, one of whom hits the threshold with an ax, the other with a pestle, the third sweeps it with a broom, in order to prevent the god Silvan from entering the house with these farming tools; because you can neither cut down and clear a tree without an axe, nor grind grain without a pestle, nor gather fruit into a heap without a broom. From these three objects are taken the names of the three gods who protect the woman in labor from the violence of Silvanus: namely, Intercidon - from the cutting (intercisio) ax, Pilumnus - from the pestle (pilum) and Deverre - from the broom (revenge - deverre). Thus, protection from the cruelty of an evil god by the good gods is valid only when many are armed against one and when they are protected from this rude, terrible, wild forest god by symbols of agriculture. Is this, one might ask, the kindness and consent of the gods? Are these deities beneficent of cities, more worthy of laughter than theatrical ridicule? When a man and woman marry, the god Yugatin is invoked: so be it. But the bride must be brought into the house: the god Domiduk is also timed. So that she stays in the house, the god Domitius is appointed; so that she stays with her husband, the goddess Manturna is given. What else? Human modesty should be spared: let the lust of flesh and blood finish the rest, preserving the secret of shame. Why is the bedroom filled with a crowd of deities when the groom’s friends also leave it? And why is it being filled? It is filled not so that, knowing about their presence, they take care of chastity, but so that a woman, weak of sex and at first timid, is deflowered with their assistance: here are the goddess Virginiencia, and the god Subig - the father, and the goddess Prema - the mother, and the goddess Pertunda, and Venus, and Priapus. Why is this? If a man needs help from the gods in this case, isn’t one or one of them enough? Is it really not enough for Venus alone, who, they say, got her name because without her assistance a woman does not cease to be a maiden? If people have even a drop of shame, which the gods do not have, then isn’t the spouses imbued with such shame when they imagine that so many gods of both sexes are present and delving into this matter, that one demands less, and the other resists more? But let the goddess Virginiencia be present so that the newlywed’s virginal belt can be untied; May God Subig so that she submits to her husband; goddess Prema - so that, having submitted, she maintains a submissive position: what is the goddess Pertunda doing there? Let her be ashamed: let her go out. The husband himself must do something! It is highly disgraceful if the role from which she takes her name is performed by anyone other than her husband. But perhaps her presence is tolerable because she is a goddess, not a god. If she were a god and called Pertund, then, saving his wife’s chastity, the husband would, perhaps, demand help against him much sooner than a woman in labor against the god Silvanus. But why am I saying this when Priapus, a monster male, is there, on whose enormous and most disgusting phallus, according to the very honorable and pious custom of matrons, the newlywed is advised to sit on? Let them make still further efforts and, with whatever subtlety they please, distinguish civil theology from fabulous, cities from theatres, churches from stages, the sacred rites of pontiffs from the verses of poets, as things honorable from vile, true from false, important from empty, serious from humorous, those that should be strived for, those that should be rejected. We understand what they are doing. They know that fabulous theology depends on civil theology and reflects it in the verses of poets, as in a mirror; and therefore, having expounded civil theology, which they do not dare to condemn, they with great boldness accuse and condemn its image, so that people who understand what they want turn away from the original itself, the image of which is the fabulous theology. However, the gods themselves love this image, seeing themselves in it as if in a mirror; so that from both theologies together it is best seen who they are and what they are. That is why, with threatening commands, they forced their admirers to devote themselves to the abomination of fabulous theology, to display it in their festivities and count it among the divine things; and thus showed with greater clarity that they themselves are the most unclean spirits, and that that despicable and disgusting theatrical theology is an integral part of the civil theology, supposedly high and praiseworthy, so that one part of it is contained in the books of the priests, the other in the verses of the poets, being on the whole false and vile and containing in itself imaginary gods. Whether it has other parts is a separate question; in the present case, regarding the division made by Varro, I have shown, I think, quite clearly that both civil and theatrical theologies belong equally to civil theology. And since both of them are equally vile, absurd, obscene and false, then pious people should not expect eternal life from either one or the other. Finally, Varro himself - although the list of gods begins from the moment of human conception, placing Janus in first place - and this family brings the old people to death, concluding the number of gods related to human existence by the goddess Nenia, sung at the burial of old people; then he goes on to list other gods that are related not to human life itself, but to the conditions of his life, food, clothing and everything that is necessary in real life, showing at the same time what duty belongs to each god and what each of them should pray for - in all this series of gods he does not indicate or name those from whom we should ask for eternal life, for the sake of which alone we became Christians. Who, one may ask, would be so slow-witted as not to understand that, on the one hand, by expounding and revealing civil theology with such care, and on the other, by presenting it as similar to fabulous theology, obscene and despicable theology, and thus showing that this latter is a part of the former, he is clearing a place in the minds of people for that kind of natural theology, which, according to him, belongs to philosophers? But he does this with such subtle skill that he condemns fabulous theology, and civil theology, without daring to condemn it either, presents it as deserving of contempt for its very content; and therefore, since both theologies, in the opinion of sensible people, turn out to be contemptible, only natural theology remains worthy of respect. In our place we will talk about the latter in more detail. Chapter X. About the independent way of thinking of Seneca, who condemns civil theology much more strongly than Varro the fabulous The freedom which Varro lacked in disapproving of civil theology, which was quite similar to theatrical theology, as openly as of the latter, was to a certain extent, though not entirely, characteristic of Annaeus Seneca, who, judging by some indications, lived in the time of our apostles. He was distinguished by this freedom in his writings, although he was not different in life. In an essay written against superstition, he condemns this state and civil theology much more comprehensively and strongly than Varro - theatrical and fabulous. Thus, speaking about idols, he says: “The sacred, immortal and incorruptible (gods) are worshiped under the guise of despicable and lifeless matter; They give them images of people, animals and fish, and some are clothed with bodies of mixed gender; they are called deities, but if these deities were suddenly endowed with life, they would be considered monsters.” Then, a little further, having approved natural theology and cited the opinions of some philosophers, he puts forward the following objection: “To this, someone will say: Am I really supposed to believe that heaven and earth are gods and that some of them are above the moon, others under the moon? Should I really agree with Plato or the peripatetic Strabo, of whom one makes the gods incorporeal, and the other soulless? Answering this question, he says: “So what? Do you find the dreams of Titus Tatius, or Romulus, or Hostilius more true? Tatius made Cloacina a goddess, Romulus - Picus and Tiberinus, Hostilius - Fear and Paleness, these most disgusting affects of man, one of which represents the movement of a frightened mind, and the other is not even a disease, but the color of the body. Do you prefer to believe in these deities and leave heaven to them?” And with what courage does he speak about the rituals themselves, vile and cruel? One, he says, cuts off his genitals, the other dissects the severed ones. When do they fear the wrath of the gods, if at this time they enjoy their mercy? Gods should not be revered if they demand such things. Such is the fury of a frustrated and confused mind that, to please the gods, they commit such atrocities that even the most despicable and legendary people do not commit. The tyrants cut off some members, but did not order anyone to cut off their own. To please the royal whim, some were castrated, but no one, by order of the master, committed suicide, so as not to be a man. In the churches they chop themselves up and persuade them to mercy with their own wounds and blood. If someone had free time to look closely at what they were doing there and what they were suffering, he would find so much that was shameful for respectable people, obscene for free people, indecent for sane people, that he would not hesitate to call them insane if there were not so many of them; but at present all this is passed off as common sense by a crowd of people devoid of common sense. He also mentions what is usually done in the Capitol itself, and condemns it with complete freedom. Who would believe that this was done by anyone other than scoffers or mad people? Indeed, having laughed at the way in which the Egyptian cult mourns the loss of Osiris, and then indulges in great joy that he has been found; how this loss and this discovery are presented as fictitious, and joy and sadness are expressed by people who have lost nothing and found nothing - sincerely, Seneca says: “This madness has its definite time. It’s still tolerable: to go crazy once a year. Come to the Capitol, you will be ashamed of the open lies that useless madness charges itself with. One lists the names of deities to God, the other reports to Jupiter what time it is; one is a lictor, the other is a rubber with ointments, imitating the anointer with the movement of his hands. There are those who braid the hair of Juno and Minerva; standing even far from the church, and not just from the statue, they make movements with their fingers, as if they were really decorating the head. There are those who hold a mirror; and those who ask the gods to be their sureties. There are those who submit complaints to the gods and tell them about their litigations. The learned foreman of mimes, an old man of advanced years, demonstrates his jokes every day in the Capitol, as if the gods willingly look at the abandoned person. All kinds of skilled people crowd around the immortal gods.” “However,” he continues a little further, “these are doing something, it’s true, completely unnecessary, but not shameful or dishonorable. But in the Capitol there are also women who consider themselves lovers of Jupiter - they are not even afraid of Juno, who, according to the poets, has a very angry disposition.” Varro did not have such courage: he dared to condemn only poetic theology, but did not dare to condemn civil theology, although he dealt a mortal blow to it. But if we listen to the voice of truth, then the churches where these kinds of things are performed will turn out to be much worse than the theaters where they are presented. Therefore, in the cult of civil theology, Seneca preferred the theatrical part for the sage, so as not to contain it in the religion of the spirit, but to depict it in actions. “All this,” he says, “the sage will observe as prescribed by law, and not as pleasing to the gods.” “What does it mean,” he says a little lower, “that we enter into marriages between gods, even marriages between brothers and sisters, which, of course, is wicked? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to Neptune. Some of the gods we leave, however, unmarried; probably there was no suitable party for them, especially considering the fact that some of the goddesses are widows, for example Populonia, Fulgora and the divine Rumina herself; I’m not surprised that there was no finder for them. We will honor this entire little-known crowd of gods, which superstition has accumulated over a long series of centuries, so as to remember that their veneration is a simple custom and does not relate to anything real.” Thus, neither laws nor custom established anything in civil theology that would please the gods and would relate to the essence of the matter. But he himself, whom philosophy supposedly made a free thinker, he himself, for the reason that he was a noble senator of the Roman people, revered what he condemned, did what he denounced, respected what he despised. He did this because philosophy, they say, taught him something great: not to be superstitious in society, but out of respect for folk laws and customs, if not to perform on stage, then to imitate in the church what is presented in the theater! And this deserves all the more condemnation because what he did feignedly, he did so that the people considered it sincere; meanwhile, being an actor, he would amuse more with his acting than he would mislead with deception. Chapter XI. What thoughts did Seneca have about the Jews? Among other superstitions of civil theology, Seneca also condemns the rites of the Jews, especially the Sabbath, arguing that they do this in vain, because, by celebrating the Sabbath every seven days, they waste almost a seventh part of their lives and by inaction cause damage to many things that are necessary according to the demands of time. But he decided not to classify Christians, to whom even then the Jews were extremely hostile, to either side: he did not praise them, so as not to offend the ancient customs of his fatherland, but he did not blame them, so as not to contradict his real intentions. Speaking about the Jews, he speaks in this way: “Meanwhile, the custom of this villainous people acquired such force that it was already accepted throughout the entire earth: having been defeated, they gave laws to the victors.” He said this with surprise and not knowing what was happening by order from above; However, he expressed an opinion that showed what he thought about the meaning of Jewish rituals. “They,” he says, “know the basis of their rite; most of the people act without knowing why they act this way.” But we have already spoken about the sacraments of the Jews, for what purpose and for what time they were established by divine authority, and how later, at a certain time, they were abolished by the same authority for the people of God, to whom the secret of the future life was revealed, we have already spoken elsewhere, especially when we were speaking against the Manichaeans; let's say in this essay, but in a more convenient case. Chapter XII. That once the emptiness of the pagan gods is revealed, there is no doubt that those who cannot provide help in temporary life are not able to give eternal life If what we have said in this book about the three theologies, which in the Greeks are called mythical, physical and political, and in Latin can be called fabulous, natural and civil, namely: that eternal life can be expected neither from fabulous theology, which the admirers of many false gods themselves condemn, nor from civil theology, which turns out to be similar to fabulous and even in some ways worse - if this said seems to someone insufficient, let him take into account those judgments that we expressed in previous books, especially the judgments about God, the Giver of happiness, set forth in the fourth book. For who else, if not happiness, should people pray for a future life, if happiness is a goddess? Since it is not a goddess, but a gift from God, which God, other than the Giver of happiness, should we pray to, loving eternal life with pious love, in which lies true and complete happiness? For after what we have said, no one, I believe, will doubt that the giver of happiness cannot be any of those gods who are honored so shamefully and who are even more shamefully angry if they are not honored in this way, thereby exposing themselves as unclean spirits. And if someone does not give happiness, then how can he give eternal life? For we call eternal life that in which endless happiness is found. If the soul is subjected to eternal punishment, in which the unclean spirits themselves will suffer, then this is rather eternal death than life. There is no worse or greater death than when death does not die. But since the nature of the soul, due to the fact that it was created immortal, cannot exist without some kind of life, then the highest death for it is alienation from God in an eternity of torment. Thus, eternal life, that is, endless happiness, is given by the One Who gives true happiness. Since it is known that those gods whom pagan theology reveres cannot give it, they should not be revered even for the sake of the temporal and earthly, as we showed in the five previous books; and even more so for the sake of eternal life, which must come after death, as we have proven with the help of their own writers in this book. But since the power of an old custom is too deeply rooted, if it seems to anyone that I have not sufficiently proved that civil theology deserves contempt and disgust, let him turn to the next book, which, with the help of God, we will add to the present one. You might be interested in: