Binding 13
Author: Chloe Walsh
Date: 2018-07-24 07:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Romance; Contemporary; Young Adult
Description: Johnny Kavanagh has everything going for him. On the rugby pitch, he's a force to be reckoned with. Primed for stardom, he's heading straight for the top. Nothing can possibly get in his way, right? Not even the shy new girl at Tommen College. The one with the sad eyes and hidden bruises. The one that distracts him like no one ever has.Plagued with a hidden injury and desperate to impress the scouts watching his every move, Johnny has been placed on a pedestal so high, he has no room to make mistakes. Striving to maintain balance, and on the crest of the International Summer Campaign, Johnny n
Publisher: Bloom Books

AUGUSTINE

De Civitate Dei

Books III & IV

ARIS & PHILLIPS CLASSICAL TEXTS

AUGUSTINE

De Civitate Dei

Books III & IV
edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary by P.G. Walsh

Aris & Phillips is an imprint of

Oxbow Books

© P.G. Walsh 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means
including photocopying without prior permission of the publishers in writing.

ISBN 978-0-85668-758-7 Paperback

ISBN 978-0-85668-759-4 Hardback

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Contents

Preface.........................................................................................................ix

Abbreviations & Bibliography................................................................... xii

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1

TEXT & TRANSLATION OF BOOK III..................................................16

TEXT & TRANSLATION OF BOOK IV................................................104

COMMENTARY ON BOOK III..............................................................187

COMMENTARY ON BOOK IV..............................................................219

Indices.......................................................................................................247

Preface

Since this volume is a continuation of the edition of Books I–II of The City of God (Aris & Phillips, 2005), I have not found it necessary to repeat all the acknowledgements made there. The text reproduced here is that of Dombart–Kalb (4th ed., Leipzig 1928–9) with one or two minor changes of readings and revision of punctuation. The Loeb editions of McCracken (Books I–III), and Green (Books IV–VII), and the Commentaries of Bardy ( Oeuvres de saint Augustin 33 (Paris 1959)) and Welldon (London 1924) have been at my side throughout. For details of other editions, translations and further bibliography I must refer readers to the earlier edition of Books I–II.

The tragically sudden death of Malcolm Willcock has deprived me of the careful review of these books which he previously undertook for Books I–II, but I am most grateful to John Trappes-Lomax, who has stepped into the breach and immeasurably improved this edition. I should also like to acknowledge the helpful cooperation of Clare Litt at Oxbow Books and the meticulous work of Mya Padget in preparing this book for publication.

P.G.W.

ix

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Balsdon

J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (London 1969) CAH

Cambridge Ancient History

C.D.

De Ciuitate Dei

Cod. Theod.

Codex Theodosianus

Cicero

Acad.

Academica

De or.

De oratore

Diu.

De diuinatione

Leg.

De legibus

N.D.

De natura deorum

Off.

De officiis

Phil.

Philippics

Sest.

Pro Sestio

Tusc.

Tusculan Disputations

CQ

Classical Quarterly

CSEL

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna) Earl

D.C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge 1961) GR

Greece and Rome

Gardner

Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (London 1986) Greenidge-Clay

Sources for Roman History, 133-70 BC (rev. E.W. Gray, Oxford 1960) How and Wells

W.W. How- J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus (2 vols., Oxford 1957)

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

Kleine Pauly

Der Kleine Pauly (6 vols., Stuttgart 1964) Latte

K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1967) Long-Sedley

A.A. Long – D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols., Cambridge 1967)

Mus. Helv.

Museum Helveticum

OCD 3

Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd edn., Oxford 1999) O’Daly

Gerard O’Daly, Augustine’s City of God (Oxford 1999) Ogilvie

R.M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy I-V (Oxford 1965) ORF 4

H.

Malcovati,

Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta (Turin 1976-9) Platner-Ashby

S.B. Platner-T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1929)

Rawson

Elizabeth Rawson, Cicero (London 1975)

Scullard (1)

H.H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World 753-146 BC

(London 1959)

Scullard (2)

H.H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero (London 1959) Syme

Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) Varro, L.L.

Varro, De lingua latina

Walbank on Pol.

F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (3 vols., Oxford 1957-79)

Walsh, Livy XXI

P.G. Walsh, Livy, Book XXI (Bristol 1985)

xi

Introduction

I

Books III and IV of The City of God cannot be studied wholly in isolation from the rest of the work. Augustine, the trained rhetorician, repeatedly signals to his readers the overall plan of the treatise. His letter to Firmus, sent to accompany the work, and the mature reconsideration of it in the Retractations, both indicate that he has divided it into two main parts.1 The first ten books refute the claim that the Roman deities assured the denizens of their earthly city unbroken success in the growth of empire (Books I–V), and guaranteed them a blessed life in the hereafter (Books VI–X). Having thus rejected the gods of the earthly city and the manner of life that they foster, Augustine devotes the second half of his work to the origins (Books XI–XIV), the development (Books XV–XVIII), and the destiny (Books XIX–XXII) of the two cities of Babylon and Jerusalem, though with greater emphasis on the city of God.

Books III–IV thus form the central core of the first pentad, and there are further indications of the aims of these books in letters written in the course of their composition. Letter 169, addressed to Evodius and composed in AD 415, states: “To the three books written on the city of God in opposition to its enemies, the worshippers of demons, I have added two others. In these five books enough, I think, has been said to counter those who maintain that the gods must be worshipped to ensure prosperity in the present life, and who, in the belief that this prosperity is hindered by us, are hostile to the Christian name.”2 Again, in Letter 184A, written between AD 417 and 419, Augustine speaks of “the first five books which refute those who claim that to attain or to preserve earthly life and temporal happiness in human affairs, what is necessary is not the worship of the one supreme and true God, but that of a large number of gods.”3 The letter then continues with discussion of the content of the later books.

______________________________________________________

1

Ep. Ad Firmum 1A*; Retractationes 2.69. I supply the Latin with translation of the two documents as Appendices I and II in my edition of Books I–II (Aris and Phillips 2005).

2 Ep.

169.1 (CSEL 44): Nam tribus illis libris de ciuitate dei contra daemonicolas inimicos eius duos alios addidimus, quibus quinque libris satis disputatum arbitror aduersus eos qui propter praesentis uitae felicitatem deos colendos putant, eamque felicitatem a nobis impediri opinantes Christiano nomini infesti sunt.

3 Ep.

184A.5 (CSEL 44): Decem uolumina non parua confeci, quorum priora quinque illos redarguunt qui propter adipiscendam uel retinendam humanarum rerum uitam terrenam temporalemque felicitatem non unius summi et ueri, sed multorum deorum cultum necessarium esse contendunt.

2

INTRODUCTION

In Book I Augustine’s immediate aim was to play down the significance of the recent fall of Rome to the Goths, for his adversaries were blaming this on the imperial proscription of pagan ritual and the destruction of pagan temples. He rebuts the charge by demonstrating that throughout Rome’s history many comparable disasters had befallen the city, and that the pagan gods had failed to avert them. At the same time he was anxious to offer guidance to his Christian flock, who had suffered harsh tribulations, by reminding them that their true happiness lay not in the goods of this transient world, but in the blessedness of the world to come. In Book II he commences his systematic attack on the illusory belief of the pagans that the Rome presided over by their gods had been an ideal state. In that book he concentrates on the moral decline of Rome, skilfully adducing the evidence of Roman spokesmen, especially Cicero and Sallust, to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy into which it had descended.

II

Book III opens with a programmatic statement in which Augustine states that having demonstrated that Roman gods (the demons) had encouraged rather than stemmed the moral degeneration of the community, he will now show that they likewise failed to alleviate the physical hardships and disasters, which had plagued Rome since its foundation. So now follows a selective review of the history of Rome from the Regal period to the principate of Augustus. It outlines not merely the reverses and miseries endured by the Roman people, but also the manifold injustices inflicted both on foreign nations and on fellow-citizens. Augustine does not take his review beyond the Augustan age because the Christian era begins then with the birth of Christ.

Before turning to the history of Rome proper, Augustine devotes no fewer than five chapters to the fall of Troy. The ostensible reason for this is the Roman sentimental belief that their city was descended from Troy, and that the pagan gods had quitted Troy to take up residence at Rome. Hence their inability to save their native city was hardly an encouraging augury for their tenure when translated to Rome! But Augustine exploits the tradition of Troy’s fall also to scoff at the story of Laomedon’s cheating Neptune and Apollo, which reveals them as both simplistic and vindictive, and at the suggestion that Paris’s adultery with Helen was the reason why the deities punished Troy, when they themselves indulged in similar misbehaviour! (2, 4–5). He accepts that educated pagans like Varro do not believe in these stories, but ridicules his claim that such untruths form a theological framework beneficial for Roman society. It is hard to believe that the educated opponents of Augustine would have been impressed by this literal

INTRODUCTION

3
interpretation of the fall of Troy, but Augustine writes primarily to boost the morale of his fellow-Christians.

With ch. 6 Augustine turns to Rome’s foundation to discuss Romulus’s murder of Remus as a reprehensible deed that the gods failed to punish. He bridges the shift in his account from Troy to Rome by recalling the second destruction of Troy by Fimbria in the Civil Wars of the first century, a calamity which the gods were powerless to avert (7). So should the Romans have adopted such impotent guardians for their new city? (8).

The long era of peace which the second king, Numa Pompilius, had inaugurated, was impressive, but can the gods be credited with it, and if so, why did it not endure subsequently, and why did Rome resort to warfare to extend the empire? (10) In fact the deities were unable to avert calamities, as the example of the weeping statue of Apollo at Cumae demonstrates. Moreover, the reinforcement of the Roman pantheon by the introduction of foreign gods (Aesculapius, Cybele, Cynoscephalus) brought no improvement.

With ch. 13 Augustine adverts to the injustices endemic in that early society, as evidenced by the rape of the Sabine women (when the gods failed to find legitimate ways for the Romans to acquire wives) and the impious destruction of Alba Longa (14). He reviews successively the deaths of the kings, pouring scorn on the alleged apotheosis of Romulus and still more of that of Tullus Hostilius, and depicting the violent end of most of the rest, again with the implication that the gods stood idly by.

Having thus summarised the Regal period as an era in which violence and injustice were rife, he details the tragic events of the first year of Roman liberty (16), and proceeds to offer a potted account of the period from 508 BC to the first two Punic Wars. In a long chapter (17), he recounts the threefold hardships and disasters that afflicted the Roman state: the internal struggle between the orders, the successive external threats (from Veii, the Gauls, the Samnites, and Pyrrhus of Epirus), and finally the recurrent plagues. In none of these crises were the gods prominent in lending aid.

A chapter each (18–19) is next devoted to the two Punic Wars. The discussion of the first war is dominated by the heroic behaviour of Regulus when he was taken prisoner by the Carthaginians. In spite of his exemplary piety, the gods allowed him to be tortured to death. The Second Punic War afforded Augustine numerous examples of military crises, and this chapter is followed by a detailed critique of the Romans’ shameful betrayal of their allies the Saguntines (20), whose city was captured and sacked by Hannibal while the Roman gods looked passively on.

The period between the Second Punic War and the outbreak of the Third (201–

149 BC) was conventionally regarded as the golden age of Roman manners, but Augustine has no difficulty in selecting targets to attack. His first target is the

4

INTRODUCTION

Romans’ indictment of their greatest military hero, Scipio Africanus, who was prosecuted for peculation following the war with Antiochus. The indifference of the gods towards his humiliation was the more heinous because of his notable piety. To this evidence of injustice Augustine next appends the return of Manlius Vulso from his campaign in Asia, which Roman historians heralded as the beginning of moral decadence at Rome. Then, signalling with Sallust and other historians the fall of Carthage as the watershed, he turns to the half-century of turmoil that followed, laying particular emphasis on the Roman perfidy and humiliation in Spain (21).

A review of first-century history now begins, with the massacre of 80,000

Italians by Mithradates of Pontus, and with mention of the Social, Slave, and Civil Wars (22). There is some evidence of haste of composition here, for these events are untidily introduced before the account of the political and economic measures of the Gracchi, and the civil strife and bloodshed that attended them. In this connection he indulges in heavy irony about the dedication of the temple of Concord, a topic that allows him to pass satirical judgement on the proliferation of abstract deities at this period (23–25).

With ch. 26 begins the most effective indictment of the alleged providential protection of the Roman state by its guardian gods. Augustine begins with the Social War, the Slave Wars, and the wars with the pirates (26). He next turns to the bitter and bloody civil war between Marius and Sulla (27–28), with particular reference to the two rounds of slaughter of Sullan adherents in 87 and 82, including, among others, the fall of the pontifex maximus, the bloody engagement at the Colline Gate, and the still more gruesome carnage which attended Sulla’s entry into the city. This exposé of the most shameful years of Rome’s entire history allows Augustine to return to the theme of the recent sack of Rome, and to argue that by comparison with these (and with the earlier sack of Rome by the Gauls) the slaughter and plunder by the Gothic invaders were considerably less severe (29).

These evidences of the neglect by the Roman gods of the welfare of the Roman state are reinforced by a review of the subsequent struggles between citizen and citizen – the resistance by Sertorius to the Sullan regime, the conspiracy of Catiline, the power-struggle between Pompey and Julius Caesar, and the final rounds of civil war which preceded the consolidation of the position of Augustus as head of the Roman state. Augustine draws attention in particular to the murder of Cicero, not merely because he was a moderating influence in this period of indiscriminate violence, but also because he was a witness to the decline of pagan Rome (30).

The final chapter of the book (31) allows Augustine to draw the obvious conclusion. Since the guardian gods of Rome have clearly failed to promote the

INTRODUCTION

5
welfare of the state, it is futile for his pagan opponents to attribute the lesser troubles of their era to the new Christian dispensation.

III

Book Four turns from the disasters and injustices endemic in Rome’s history, which the demons not merely failed to avert but actively promoted. He now proposes to investigate the nature and the roles of the gods that the demons impersonate. His purpose is to demonstrate that the pagan religion is riddled with illogicalities and improbabilities. The discussion is divided into three themes: the deities to whom the Romans ascribe the prosperity of their empire (8–13), the prominence of abstract deities (14–26), and the attitudes of Roman intellectuals towards their gods (27–32). But before he embarks on this central theme of the book, he first summarises the content of the earlier three books (1–2), and inserts a disquisition on the morality or otherwise of military conquest in general (3–7).

The relevance of this topic is clear; he is calling into question the justice of the achievements that Romans ascribe to their gods.

Augustine begins this disquisition by roundly condemning rampant imperialism. States are the sum of individuals; the overbearing empire is to the ambitious plutocrat what the small kingdom is to the unpretentious bourgeois. The man with less lavish possessions has the happier life, and a fortiori so has the state of modest size (3). The empire, which has expanded unjustly, is nothing but a robber-band writ large – the equivalent of the army of slaves raised by Spartacus (4–5), which, by its military successes, incidentally demonstrated that the Roman gods had no care for the welfare of the state.

With ch. 6 the scope of the discussion is widened. Augustine cites the evidence of Pompeius Trogus (mediated through Justin) to claim that Ninus, king of the Assyrians, was the first ruler in history to launch aggressive wars on his neighbours. He accepts the dubious calculation of Eusebius that the Assyrian kingdom lasted for twelve hundred years. In this isolated excursion into non-Roman history, his purpose is two-fold: to puncture any expectation that the Roman empire is immortal (he observes that as yet it has not attained the length of years of the Assyrian), and to demonstrate the impotence of the Assyrian deities to keep that empire in being. God alone decides the destinies of nations (7).

Augustine now (ch. 8) begins his attack on the monstrous regiment of Roman divinities, beginning with the minor figures. He draws on Varro on the one hand for their names and their roles, and on the earlier Christian apologists on the other for scathing criticism of them. Given the petty functions to which each deity is assigned, they are too insignificant to be regarded as custodians of the empire (8).

He therefore turns to the greater gods, and in particular to Jupiter, whom Romans

6

INTRODUCTION
regard as the architect of their empire, and whom Varro equates with the God of Israel (9). But their scholars simultaneously suggest that other deities wield sway over parts of the universe; while Jupiter reigns on high, Juno controls the lower air, Neptune the waters, Pluto the earth, and Proserpina the nether realm. But this rationalization raises problems: why has Minerva, one of the Capitoline Triad, no sphere of authority? Or Saturn? – but he is Time personified. Why are other deities, Ceres and Vesta, also charged with suzerainty over the earth? And Vesta is sometimes identified with Venus, who already has three classes of devotees, not only virgins and matrons, but prostitutes as well. Augustine concedes that such traditions are regarded as mere fables, but he castigates his opponents for enacting them on the stage (10).

But in this critique of the Roman theology the significant conflict is with those philosophers who postulate a single divine force operating in nature, and who rationalize the various deities as symbols or titles of Jupiter in his various spheres (11). Jupiter, the sole god, is the Stoic pneuma, the world-soul, and thus the world is his body. Augustine’s knockabout arguments against this doctrine, as against the Stoic notion that as rational souls form part of the world-soul so human bodies form part of the divine body, can scarcely be taken seriously (12–13).

Having established that the logic of pagan thought demands belief in one God, who alone is credited with the growth of kingdoms, Augustine next turns to consider the abstract gods as possible rivals to Jupiter in this role. Victory is an obvious candidate (14), a topical choice in view of the controversy about the removal or retention of her altar in the senate-house, conducted between Symmachus and Ambrose. As he reflects on the catalogue of injustices assembled in Book Three, Augustine registers surprise that Injustice has not become a goddess, especially as the Romans have already canonized Fear, Pallor, and Fever (15). After citing other abstract deities with petty functions, he wonders why Quies has been excluded from the city-precincts (16), and sardonically asks why Triumph has not been deified as Victory’s consort or offspring (17). He questions whether there was room for both Felicity and Fortune among the deities, and he is dismissive of Fortune since she is blind, and encourages garrulous women (18–

19).

With ch. 20 Augustine embarks upon discussion of two abstract concepts that have different resonances for the pagan and the Christian; these are Virtus and Fides. When the Romans deified Virtus, she was to supervise courage in war, but Augustine prefers to visualise her in the philosophical sense of moral probity.

Christians inherited this Platonist-Stoic concept, which embraced the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance; thus courage is only one of the four subdivisions. Fides (good faith) is for the pagan a subdivision of justice, adherence to vows and promises solemnly made with other states or with fellow-citizens; for the Christian it further entails belief in the one true God. Augustine

INTRODUCTION

7
pursues the Stoic-Christian sense of uirtus to demand why the other cardinal virtues besides iustitia, namely wisdom, fortitude, and temperance, have not been installed as deities, but he concedes that Virtue in company with Felicity would suffice for all ethical norms and successes in human activities. Rather tediously, he again catalogues petty gods (mostly already mentioned in chs. 8, 10–11), which would be wholly superfluous, since Felicity could perform all their roles (20–21), and in view of this, Varro’s recommendation that worshippers learn the appropriate deities to whom to address their particular needs is likewise wholly superfluous (22).

Felicity continues to dominate Augustine’s discussion in the chapters immediately following. Why did she not become a deity until after the fall of Carthage, considering that the early kings had established numerous other cults?

Why was she not appointed to Jupiter’s select band of advisers, when she deserved to replace even the king of the gods himself? Had she been lent such prominence, the citizens would have been persuaded to abandon the horde of lesser gods (23). He accepts that pagans regard her not as the mere personification of success, but as the deity who confers it; since they created her (and likewise other abstract deities) because they could not identify the divine dispenser of gifts, they should search out the one true God, who cannot be Jupiter, since his immoral activities disqualify him (25).

Augustine has now concluded his discussion of the abstract deities, but before turning to the final topic of the book, which is the attitude of pagan intellectuals towards the state religion, he recounts a celebrated anecdote already recorded by Cicero, by Livy, and by Macrobius. A countryman had been warned by the gods in a dream to inform the Roman senate that the ludi Romani must be re-enacted because the earlier performance of them had been disfigured. He ignored the instruction until the death of his son and his own sudden relapse into ill-health finally compelled him to co-operate. Augustine accepts the story as factual, interpreting it as proof that the malignant demons demanded a further presentation of the gods’ immoral activities on the stage (26). It is inserted here as introduction to the final section of the book; if Roman intellectuals dismiss as fiction the scandalous accounts of divine misdeeds as depicted by the poets, why do they allow them to be mounted on stage?

Ch. 27 begins by citing the statement of the chief pontiff Mucius Scaevola that there were three distinct conceptions of the gods, as depicted by poets, philosophers, and statesmen respectively. The views of poets were mere trifles ( nugatoria) because they presented the deities in an unworthy light; the philosophers’ accounts were superfluous ( superuacua) in part, and in part harmful to the perceptions of the commons. What is assumed, but is left unsaid, is that the leaders of the state propound the views that are appropriate. Augustine first deals with the philosophical tenets pronounced harmful, namely that some gods were

8

INTRODUCTION
originally mere mortals, and that representations of gods as endowed with human appearances and faculties do not correspond with the truth. Augustine reasonably concludes that suppression of these doctrines imposes on the masses a form of intellectual bondage by deceit. As for the mendacious descriptions of the gods by the poets, why do the leaders of the state countenance the presentation of such lies upon the stage?

So could the demons, delighting as they do in the scandalous misrepresentation of divine activities, have possibly ensured the growth of empire? Assuredly not (28). The interpretation placed on the myth of the refusal of Mars, Terminus and Juventas to yield their place to Jupiter, that the Roman youth would prevail in war and in the extension of the boundaries of empire, is repudiated by the citation of historical examples to the contrary; Roman armies routed and imperial frontiers drawn back under the emperors Hadrian and Julian the Apostate (29).

In ch. 31 Augustine turns to Cicero’s De natura deorum and the Stoic spokesman Balbus to emphasise the distinction between poetic accounts of the pagan gods, which are condemned as superstition, and the Stoic interpretation of them as natural forces, which Balbus claims justifies the traditional religion (30).

What this alleged distinction means, however, is that Varro, traditionalist and philosopher both, is compelled to admit that if he were founding Rome afresh he would dedicate gods and name them according to the pattern of nature; but in view of the Romans’ ancient lineage, he sees it as his duty to persuade the citizens to worship the existing deities. And since Varro elsewhere argues that it is expedient for the common folk to remain ignorant of some truths and to regard falsehoods as true (including investing deities with human faculties), Augustine concludes that he should have declared belief in one unchanging God who created all things (31). He argues that Roman statesmen, by their deceitfulness, were counterparts of the demons (32).

In the final two chapters of the book, Augustine presents as contrast to the mendacious polytheism of Roman religion the one Christian God who orders all things sweetly. The Jews of the Old Testament had embraced such monotheism, and the New Testament made explicit the hidden meanings contained in the Old.

The Jews (God’s people) prospered for long by avoiding the sinful ritual and practices of the Romans, but through ‘unholy curiosity’ they turned to worship of alien gods and idols. Had they avoided such practices (and not sought Christ’s death), they would have retained their kingdom and not been scattered throughout the world.

INTRODUCTION

9

IV

To underwrite his thesis that the pagan gods, so far from ensuring unbroken prosperity for the earthly city, had presided over its progressive corruption and consequent eclipse, Augustine in his first two books had drawn predominantly on the secular testimony of the trinity of Cicero, Sallust, and Livy. Cicero provided the political message that the Roman republic was doomed; Sallust offered an analysis of the progressive moral corruption that had brought the state to its knees; and Livy provided the historical framework within which these political and moral assessments were set. The synthesis of the three provided powerful secular testimony to justify Augustine’s thesis.4

Since Book III is, in essence, a selective review of Roman history from the foundation to the birth of Christ, it was inevitable that the dominant authority throughout the book, directly or indirectly, should be Livy. The Ab Vrbe Condita, which covered the history of Rome from 753 to 9 BC, had become the classic account of the Roman republic. The work is cited directly only twice (at II.24.1, III.7.7), but ancient writers are notoriously cavalier in their failure to signal their authorities.5

There has been argument over whether Livy was consulted directly, or through the summaries of each book ( Periochae), which had increasingly become ‘the essential Livy’ for students in the late empire. But detailed research has established that at several points Augustine’s account contains greater detail than appears in the epitomes.6 The summaries doubtless proved useful for consultation in Augustine’s rapid review, but he turned to the full text when he wished to present an event in more elaborate detail.

In addition to the Periochae, Augustine was able to consult the shorter accounts by writers in the Livian tradition, notably Florus and Eutropius. Lucius Annaeus Florus composed in the second century AD an account of Roman history up to the age of Augustus. Though chiefly dependent on Livy, he draws occasionally on other sources. There are five chapters in this book in which similarities of fact and phraseology indicate consultation of Florus; at two other points Eutropius appears to have been the source.7 Eutropius wrote a summary of ______________________________________________________

4

For the sources of Books I–II, see the Introduction to my edition, section VI.

5

For the sources in Books III–IV, see S. Angus, The Sources of the First Ten Books of Augustine’s De ciuitate Dei (Princeton 1906); H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics (Stockholm 1967).

6 See

Hagendahl,

650–666.

7

For Florus, see Hagendahl, 176–9. I signal the relevant passages at 13.5, 15.1, 19.4, 27.5, 28.4–5. Hagendahl’s list is not exhaustive; see also 19.1. For Eutropius, Hagendahl, 172–5; see the nn. at 15.14, 19.3.

10

INTRODUCTION

Roman history in ten books, which extended from the foundation to 364 AD; Augustine is to exploit the later section in Book IV.8 An older contemporary of Augustine, he was present in Julian the Apostate’s expedition into Persia in AD

363.

Julius Obsequens, whose Liber prodigiorum assembled Livy’s lists of prodigies between 249 and 12 BC with some historical glossing, probably published his work in Augustine’s lifetime. There is no evidence that Augustine consulted it, but the surviving entries (covering the years 190–12 BC) usefully enhance our knowledge of Livy’s prodigy-lists in the lost books after 167 BC. It is uncertain whether Augustine was acquainted with the nine books of Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Deeds and Words, composed under the emperor Tiberius, but it was certainly not a significant source.

Sallust’s role in this book is chiefly to gloss the historical survey with his moralising observations. His favoured passages from the Catilin e and the Histories become refrains.9 Cicero is even more inconspicuous, though Augustine draws on the De republica, the Catilinarians, and the Hortensius in discussion of the deaths of the kings in early Rome, and upon the Catilinarians again for criticism of the civil war between Cinna and Marius on the one side and Sulla on the other.10

Virgil’s Aeneid is a conspicuous source throughout the book. Augustine treats the poem as a historical document for the events at Troy, which occupy the first five chapters. Thereafter the poem is cited in no fewer than eight chapters, initially in refutation of the claim that the Trojan gods abandoned the city at its fall (ch. 7; echoed at 15), and later as evidence of the impotence of Roman gods to lend aid to Aeneas and his descendants (chs. 11 and 13). Thereafter the citations offer apposite commentary on the actions of the Trojan hero and his future progeny (chs. 14 and 16). Finally, in summary of the failure of the Roman gods to avert the evils that Rome endured throughout its history, the epic is harnessed to show that the ritual observance had always been shown (ch. 31). Such extended quotation is included to demonstrate Augustine’s Classical learning to lovers of Latin literature hovering on the threshold of the Church.

Lucan’s De bello ciuili is exploited in two citations in this book. In ch. 13

Augustine quotes the first two lines of the epic as evidence of the horrors endured by the Roman people in the Great Civil War of 49–45 BC. The second passage (in ch. 27) passes judgement on the atrocities committed in the earlier civil war ______________________________________________________

8 See

IV.29.3n.

9 Thus

Cat. 2.1f. is cited in ch. 10.4 and 14.8; Cat. 6.1 at ch. 3.2 is followed by citation of Cat. 6.3–5 at ch. 10.4. Other citations from the Catiline appear at 2.4, 7.4, 21.5.

More strikingly, Histories, fr. 1.11–12 M. is cited at 16.1, 16.6, 17.1, 17.5, 21.1.

10 See ch. 15 and the nn. there; ch. 27.1–2.

INTRODUCTION

11
fought between Sulla and Marius. Both citations document the failure or inability of the pagan gods to protect their Roman devotees.

Two other authorities, Cornelius Labeo and Terentius Varro, are cited as experts on Roman religion rather than on historical events. Labeo, a third-century Neoplatonist, is quoted at ch. 27.2 for his view that the deities (which elsewhere he identifies as demons) fall into two groups: the benevolent and the malevolent.

His works are known to us through Macrobius’ Saturnalia as well as through Arnobius and Augustine (he is cited nine times in the C.D. ). From Macrobius we learn that he wrote a Fasti, together with other works called De dis penatibus and De oraculo Apollinis Clarii. The good and evil deities are distinguished from each other by differences of worship – the malevolent being propitiated by blood-sacrifices and lugubrious ritual, while the benevolent are celebrated by joyful festivals. Labeo describes Plato as a demigod (C.D. 8.13; cf. 2.14.5); he attempted to accommodate the Roman gods to his Neoplatonist philosophy.11

The second religious authority exploited by Augustine is Marcus Terentius Varro, named or quoted in four chapters (4, 9, 12, 17) of this book. He is to become the dominant figure in Augustine’s discussion of Roman religion in Book IV, and accordingly he merits detailed scrutiny in the next section.

V

In devoting an entire book to the nature and ritual worship of the Roman gods, and to the attempt by Roman intellectuals to rationalise the traditional cults, Augustine naturally turned to Varro (116–27 BC) who, after his political ambitions were cut short, became in retirement the greatest polymath and the most prolific writer in the history of Rome. His writings on Roman religion, with which we are solely concerned, reflect only one aspect of his many-sided learning; his tally of more than seventy works totalled over six hundred books.12

Varro’s researches into Roman religion were incorporated into his Antiquitates rerum humanarum et diuinarum, composed in forty-one books in 47 BC. The final sixteen books were devoted to res diuinae. After an introductory book ( RD I), three books each were devoted to the priesthoods ( De hominibus, RD II–IV), the sacred places ( De locis, RD V–VII), the calendar of religious events ( De temporibus, RD VIII–X), the religious rites ( De sacris, RD XI–XIII), and the gods ( De diis, RD XIV–XVI). Augustine exploited in particular the introductory book ______________________________________________________

11 See P. Nastandrea, Un Neoplatonico latino Cornelio Labeone (Leiden 1978).

12 See the entry in OCD 3 , with bibliography.

12

INTRODUCTION

( RD I) and the books on the gods ( RD XIV–XVI), from which virtually all the citations of Varro come.13

In RD I Varro sought to reconcile his philosophical convictions with his respect for Roman tradition. Though he pronounced himself an Academic like his friend Cicero, as a former pupil of the ecumenical Academic Antiochus of Ascalon, in physics he adopted the Stoic thesis that god was the creative force in the universe, governing all things with motion and reason. On the other hand, as a Roman who venerated the city’s origins, he believed that the traditional religion had played a vital role in sustaining the cohesive fabric of the state. The fragments cited by Augustine from RD I reflect these contradictory convictions.

Thus the philosophical presuppositions emerge in C.D. 4.9–12 where Varro argues that there is one god in nature, identical with the God of Israel; though different parts of the universe are assigned to the protection of different deities, they are mere titles for the one god Jupiter. Again, at ch. 27, Varro is quoted to the effect that the deities’ images in the temples are not the representations of the true God, for he has no human appurtenances. From Augustine’s viewpoint the most telling citation of all is at ch. 31, where Varro states that if he were founding Rome afresh he would rename the gods according to their function in nature, but given the hallowed antiquity of the city, its venerable deities must be worshipped by the citizens. Varro’s conviction that the well-being of the state demanded adhesion to the traditional religion is reflected in such passages as Book 4.22, where Varro offers advice on the appropriate deity to supplicate for a particular favour, or again at Book 3.9, where he claims that it is beneficial for Romans to believe that their warriors are descended from gods.

Thus RD I afforded Augustine a general insight into Varro’s philosophy of religion. The other books to which he devoted close attention in composing Book Four were RD XIV–XVI, the account of the Roman gods. Varro devoted XIV to De diis certis, XV to De diis incertis, and XVI to De diis praecipuis atque selectis.14 Augustine is to resume investigation of these books in C.D. 6–7; here he concentrates especially on RD XIV and XVI.

The dii certi discussed in RD XIV were the gods whose nature and role could be established with certainty. Thus the catalogue of minor deities satirically discussed by Augustine in 4.14, the accounts of Felicitas and Fortuna in 4.18–19

______________________________________________________

13 The fragments from RD I and XIV–XVI were assembled and edited by R. Agahd, M.

Terenti Varronis Antiquitatum rerum diuinarum libri I, XIV–XVI (Leipzig 1898; repr.

N.Y. 1975). B. Cardauns reproduced them with added commentary in Hagendahl, 265–316, 589–630; he later edited the whole of RD I–XVI (2 vols., Wiesbaden 1976).

14 Augustine informs us of the contents of each of these books at C.D. 7.17. For discussion, see G. Wissowa, ‘Echte und falsche Sondergötter in der römischen Religions – und Stadtgeschichte’ (Munich 1904), 304–326.

INTRODUCTION

13
and 21, and of Virtus and Fides in 4.20, are all derived from RD XIV; so too is the discussion of deities taking their name from the objects that they superintend in 4.24. The dii praecipui atque selecti are the twenty deities who Augustine describes later at 7.17 as “the public gods of the Roman people, to whom they have consecrated temples and whom they have notably honoured by many decorations.”15 Chs. 10 and 11 include sections indebted to Varro’s account of these deities.

. . . . . . . . . .

Of the other secular authors utilised in Book Four, Cicero and Virgil are the most prominent. The most important of the Ciceronian citations is appropriately from The Nature of the Gods, in Book II of which the spokesman Balbus echoes Varro’s criticisms of the fictions of the poets and the representations of deities with human features and human frailties, and expounds the Stoic doctrine of the god of nature (4.30). Augustine has a little earlier cited a similar criticism from Cicero’s Tusculans (4.26). Reminiscences of both De officiis and De republica appear at the beginning of the book.16 Virgil is less in evidence in this book than in the previous three, but in chs. 9–11 there are quotations from Eclogue s, Georgics, and Aeneid, all of them inserted by Augustine to gloss the philosophical views of Varro.

Evocations of other authors have less relevance to the central theme of the book. At ch. 2 the citation from Apuleius’ De mundo adds to the catalogue of natural disasters recounted in Book Three to illustrate the privations suffered before Christ’s coming. The exploitation of Eutropius in ch. 5 and of Justin in ch.

6 lends support to Augustine’s initial theme in this book of the injustice of imperial conquest.

______________________________________________________

15 For the twenty ‘public gods’, see 4.23.3nn.

16 See ch. 4 and nn. there.

DE CIVITATE DEI

BOOK THREE

(Translations of these headings, which do not belong to Augustine’s text, are provided at the head of each chapter in the Notes) I

De aduersitatibus, quas solas mali metuunt, et quas semper passus est mundus, cum deos coleret.

II

An dii, qui et a Romanis et a Graecis similiter colebantur, causas habuerint quibus Ilium paterentur exscindi.

III

Non potuisse offendi deos Paridis adulterio, quod inter ipsos traditur frequentatum.

IV

De sententia Varronis, qua utile esse dixit ut se homines diis genitos mentiantur.

V

Non probari quod dii adulterium Paridis punierint, quod in Romuli matre non ulti sunt.

VI

De parricidio Romuli, quod dii non uindicarunt.

VII

De euersione Ilii, quod dux Marii Fimbria excidit.

VIII

An debuerit diis Iliacis Roma committi.

IX

An illam pacem quae sub Numae regno fuit deos praestitisse credendum sit.

X

An optandum fuerit ut tanta bellorum rabie Romanum augeretur imperium, cum eo studio, quo sub Numa actum est, et quietum esse potuisset et tutum.

XI

De simulacro Cumani Apollinis, cuius fletus creditus est cladem Graecorum, quibus opitulari non poterat, indicasse.

XII

Quantos sibi deos Romani praeter constitutionem Numae adiecerint, quorum eos numeritas nihil iuuerit.

XIII

Quo iure, quo foedere Romani obtinuerint prima coniugia.

XIV

De impietate belli quod Albanis Romani intulerunt, et de uictoria dominandi libidine adepta.

XV

Qualis Romanorum regum uita atque exitus fuerit.

XVI

De primis apud Romanos consulibus, quorum alter alterum patria pepulit, moxque ipse post atrocissima parricidia a uulnerato hoste uulneratus interiit.

XVII Post initia consularis imperii quibus malis uexata fuerit Romana respublica, diis non opitulantibus quos colebat.

XVIII Quantae clades Romanos sub bellis Punicis triuerint, frustra deorum praesidiis expetitis.

XIX

De afflictione belli Punici secundi, qua uires utriusque partis consumptae sunt.

17

XX

De exitu Saguntinorum, quibus propter Romanorum amicitiam pereuntibus dii Romani auxilium non tulerunt.

XXI

Quam ingrata fuerit Romana ciuitas Scipioni liberatori suo et in quibus moribus egerit quando eam Sallustius optimam fuisse describit.

XXII De Mithridatis edicto, quo omnes ciues Romanos qui intra Asiam inuenirentur iussit occidi.

XXIII De interioribus malis quibus Romana respublica exagitata est, praecedente prodigio quod in rabie omnium animalium quae hominibus seruiunt fuit.

XXIV De discordia ciuili, quam Gracchiae seditiones excitauerunt.

XXV De aede Concordiae ex senatus consulto in loco seditionum et caedium condita.

XXVI De diuersis generibus belli, quae post conditam aedem Concordiae sunt secuta.

XXVII De bello ciuili Mariano atque Sullano.

XXVIII Qualis fuerit Sullana uictoria uindex Marianae crudelitatis.

XXIX De comparatione Gothicae inruptionis cum eis cladibus quas Romani uel a Gallis uel a bellorum ciuilium auctoribus acceperunt.

XXX De conexione bellorum, quae aduentum Christi plurima et grauissima praecesserunt.

XXXI Quam impudenter praesentia incommoda Christo imputent qui deos colere non sinuntur, cum tantae clades eo tempore quo colebantur extiterint.

LIBER III

I

[1] Iam satis dictum arbitror de morum malis et animorum quae praecipue cauenda sunt, nihil deos falsos populo cultori suo quo minus eorum malorum aggere premeretur subuenire curasse, sed potius ut maxime premeretur egisse.

[2] Nunc de illis malis uideo dicendum quae sola isti perpeti nolunt, qualia sunt fames morbus bellum exspoliatio captiuitas trucidatio et si qua similia iam in primo libro commemorauimus. Haec enim sola mali deputant mala, quae non faciunt malos; nec erubescunt inter bona quae laudant ipsi mali esse qui laudant, magisque stomachantur si uillam malam habeant quam si uitam, quasi hoc sit hominis maximum bonum, habere bona omnia praeter se ipsum.

[3] Sed neque talia mala quae isti sola formidant dii eorum quando ab eis libere colebantur, ne illis acciderent obstiterunt. Cum enim uariis per diuersa temporibus ante aduentum Redemptoris nostri innumerabilibus nonnullisque etiam incredibilibus cladibus genus contereretur humanum, quos alios quam istos deos mundus colebat, excepto uno populo Hebraeo et quibusdam extra ipsum populum, ubicumque gratia diuina digni occultissimo atque iustissimo dei iudicio fuerunt?

[4] Verum ne nimis longum faciam, tacebo aliarum usquequaque gentium mala grauissima. Quod ad Romam pertinet Romanumque imperium tantum loquar, id est ad ipsam proprie ciuitatem et quaecumque illi terrarum uel societate coniunctae uel condicione subiectae sunt, quae sint perpessae ante aduentum Christi, cum iam ad eius quasi corpus reipublicae pertinerent.

BOOK THREE

I

[1] So far as the vices of behaviour and of attitudes are concerned, against which we should be especially vigilant, I think that now I have sufficiently explained that the false gods made no effort to help the people who worshipped them from being oppressed by the accumulation of such vices.

Indeed, they saw to it that such oppression was as grievous as possible.

[2] I realise that I must now speak of those evils that alone our adversaries are unwilling to bear, such as famine, disease, war, pillage, captivity, massacre, and similar sufferings such as we recounted in the first book. For the only things that evil men regard as evil are those which do not make men evil, and though surrounded by the blessings that they praise, they show no shame at being themselves evil even as they praise them. They are more indignant at owning a bad estate than at living a bad life, as though the greatest blessing that a man can have is to have everything good about him except himself.

[3] Yet their gods, even when receiving unstinted worship from these devotees, did not prevent them from suffering such ills as alone cause them to tremble. At different times and in different places before the coming of our Redeemer the human race was afflicted by countless disasters, some of them utterly beyond belief. What gods other than these did the world worship, with the sole exception of the Jewish people and a few outside that nation, wherever by God’s most secret and most just judgement men were worthy of divine grace?

[4] But to keep my account brief, I shall not mention the most grievous ills suffered by other nations everywhere. I shall discuss only the trials relevant to Rome and the Roman empire, that is, to the city of that name specifically and to the countries joined in alliance to it or in status subject to it, which they suffered before the coming of Christ, at the time when they were attached to the body, so to say, of the republic.

20

LIBER III

II

[1] Primum ipsa Troia uel Ilium, unde origo est populi Romani (neque enim praetereundum aut dissimulandum est quod et in primo libro attigi), eosdem habens deos et colens cur a Graecis uictum, captum atque deletum est? ‘Priamo’ inquiunt ‘sunt reddita Laomedontea paterna periuria.’ Ergo uerum est quod Apollo atque Neptunus eidem Laomedonti mercennariis operibus seruierunt? Illis quippe promisisse mercedem falsumque iurasse perhibetur. [2] Miror Apollinem nominatum diuinatorem in tanto opificio laborasse, nescientem quod Laomedon fuerat promissa negaturus.

Quamquam nec ipsum Neptunum patruum eius, fratrem Iouis, regem maris, decuit ignarum esse futurorum. Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris Roma est, cum ante illam urbem conditam idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem, quem etiam nube rapuit, ut dicit, ne ab Achille occideretur,
cuperet cum uertere ab imo

(quod apud Vergilium confitetur)

structa suis manibus periurae moenia Troiae.

Nescientes igitur tanti dii, Neptunus et Apollo, Laomedontem sibi negaturum esse mercedem structores moenium Troianorum gratis et ingratis fuerunt. Videant ne grauius sit tales deos credere quam diis talibus peierare. [3] Hoc enim nec ipse Homerus facile credidit, qui Neptunum quidem contra Troianos, Apollinem autem pro Troianis pugnantem facit, cum illo periurio ambos fabula narret offensos.

Si igitur fabulis credunt, erubescant talia colere numina; si fabulis non credunt, non obtendant Troiana periuria, aut mirentur deos periuria punisse Troiana, amasse Romana. [4] Vnde enim coniuratio Catilinae in tanta tamque corrupta ciuitate habuit etiam eorum grandem copiam quos manus atque lingua periurio aut sanguine ciuili alebat? Quid enim aliud totiens

BOOK THREE

21

II

[1] The first question we pose is why Troy itself, also known as Ilium, from which the Roman people have their origin (for we are not to leave unmentioned or to hide topics broached also in the first book), was conquered, captured, and destroyed by the Greeks, when the gods it possessed and worshipped were the same as those of the Greeks. Our adversaries claim that Priam was repaid for the perjuries of his father Laomedon. Is it true, then, that Apollo and Neptune served as hired hands of this Laomedon? The story goes that he promised them payment, and broke his oath. [2] I find it surprising that Apollo, in spite of his fame as prophet, toiled at that massive project all unaware that Laomedon was to break his promise. Mind you, it was inappropriate that Neptune too, uncle of Apollo and brother of Jupiter and king of the sea, should be unaware of future events. For Homer, the poet who is said to have lived before the foundation of Rome, presents Neptune as prophesying that something great would emerge from the descendants of Aeneas, and Rome was founded by his progeny. Homer also states that Neptune bore up Aeneas in a cloud, to prevent his being killed by Achilles.

Though he desired to raze the very walls,

Which his own hands had raised, of perjured Troy,
as Neptune himself admits in Virgil’s account.

So gods as great as Neptune and Apollo were unaware that Laomedon would refuse to reimburse them, when they built those walls of Troy for nothing and for ungrateful citizens. Our adversaries must consider whether believing in such gods is not more grievous than swearing falsely by them.

[3] Even Homer himself did not find that account easy to credit, for he depicts Neptune fighting against the Trojans and Apollo fighting on their behalf, whereas the story has it that both had taken umbrage at the breaking of the oath.

If, then, our opponents believe the stories, they must be ashamed to worship such deities. If they do not believe the stories, they must not adduce Trojan perjuries as the cause of the city’s destruction, nor must they express surprise that the gods punished Trojan perjuries but were benevolent to those of the Romans. [4] How else did the conspiracy of Catiline, in so great and so corrupt a city, gather such a huge body of men whose hands and tongues were nurtured by perjury and by the blood of citizens? What other sin did senators, so often bribed in the law courts,

22

LIBER III
senatores corrupti in iudiciis, totiens populus in suffragiis uel in quibusque causis, quae apud eum contionibus agebantur, nisi etiam peierando peccabant? Namque corruptissimis moribus ad hoc mos iurandi seruabatur antiquus, non ut ab sceleribus metu religionis prohiberentur, sed ut periuria quoque sceleribus ceteris adderentur.

III

[1] Nulla itaque causa est quare dii, quibus, ut dicunt, steterat illud imperium, cum a Graecis praeualentibus probentur uicti, Troianis peierantibus fingantur irati. Nec adulterio Paridis, ut rursus a quibusdam defenduntur, ut Troiam desererent, suscensuerunt. Auctores enim doctoresque peccatorum esse adsolent, non ultores. [2] ‘Vrbem Romam’

inquit Sallustius ‘sicuti ego accepi, condidere atque habuere initio Troiani, qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis uagabantur.’ Si ergo adulterium Paridis uindicandum numina censuerunt, aut magis in Romanis aut certe etiam in Romanis puniendum fuit, quia Aeneae mater hoc fecit. [3] Sed quomodo in illo illud flagitium oderant qui in sua socia Venere non oderant (ut alia omittam) quod cum Anchise commiserat, ex quo Aenean pepererat? An quia illud factum est indignante Menelao, illud autem concedente Vulcano? Dii enim, credo, non zelant coniuges suas, usque adeo ut eas etiam cum hominibus dignentur habere communes.

[4] Inridere fabulas fortassis existimor nec grauiter agere tanti ponderis causam. Non ergo credamus, si placet, Aenean esse Veneris filium; ecce concedo, si nec Romulum Martis. Si autem illud, cur non et illud? An deos fas est hominibus feminis, mares autem homines deabus misceri nefas? [5]

Dura uel potius non credenda condicio, quod ex iure Veneris in concubitu Marti licuit, hoc in iure suo ipsi Veneri non licere. At utrumque firmatum

BOOK THREE

23
or the people when voting at elections or on issues put to them at meetings of the assembly, commit but perjury? For at the time when morals were at the most corrupt, the ancient custom of swearing oaths was preserved, not so that men would be deterred from crimes through fear inspired by religion, but so that perjuries could be added to their other crimes.

III

[1] So there is no reason why the gods, who according to the accounts had kept the dominion of Troy alive, should be depicted as angry at the perjury of the Trojans at the time when they are known to have been overcome by the superior forces of the Greeks. Nor were they so infuriated by the adultery of Paris as to abandon Troy, as some claim in another defence of the gods. In fact the gods are wont to sponsor and teach such sins rather than take vengeance for them. [2] “I am informed,” says Sallust “that the Trojans first founded and inhabited the city of Rome; as fugitives under the leadership of Aeneas, they were wanderers of no fixed abode.” So if the deities decreed that the adultery of Paris should be avenged, punishment should have been visited rather on the Romans, or at any rate on them as well, since the mother of Aeneas was responsible for the sin.

[3] But how was it that the gods loathed the outrage when Paris was the guilty party, whereas they did not loathe it when their associate Venus committed it with Anchises (I refrain from citing other instances) and Aeneas was born in consequence? Was it because Menelaus was infuriated by the behaviour of Paris, whereas Vulcan was complaisant in the second case? I suppose gods are not provoked to jealousy by their wives, and they deign even to share them with men!

[4] Perhaps I am thought to be scoffing at these tales, and not to be treating seriously a matter of such great moment. So, if you like, let us refuse to believe that Aeneas was the son of Venus; notice that I grant it as long as Romulus was not the son of Mars either. But if you argue for the one, why not the other as well? Or is it religiously lawful for gods to mate with human females, but unlawful for human males to mate with goddesses? [5] It would be a harsh and indeed an incredible stipulation that Venus’ exercise of her rights should allow Mars to practise copulation, but should herself not be permitted to do of her own authority what Mars was permitted to do by her authority. In fact, both genealogies are confirmed

24

LIBER III
est auctoritate Romana. Neque enim minus credidit recentior Caesar auiam Venerem quam patrem antiquior Romulus Martem.

IV

[1] Dixerit aliquis: ‘Itane tu ista credis?’ Ego uero ista non credo. Nam et uir doctissimus eorum Varro falsa haec esse, quamuis non audacter neque fidenter, paene tamen fatetur. Sed utile esse ciuitatibus dicit ut se uiri fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, diis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus humanus uelut diuinae stirpis fiduciam gerens res magnas adgrediendas praesumat audacius, agat uehementius et ob hoc impleat ipsa securitate felicius. [2] Quae Varronis sententia expressa, ut potui, meis uerbis cernis quam latum locum aperiat falsitati, ut ibi intellegamus plura iam sacra et quasi religiosa potuisse confingi, ubi putata sunt ciuibus etiam de ipsis diis prodesse mendacia.

V

[1] Sed utrum potuerit Venus ex concubitu Anchisae Aenean parere uel Mars ex concubitu filiae Numitoris Romulum gignere, in medio relinquamus. Nam paene talis quaestio etiam de scripturis nostris oboritur, qua quaeritur utrum praeuaricatores angeli cum filiabus hominum concubuerint, unde natis gigantibus, hoc est nimium grandibus ac fortibus uiris, tunc terra completa est.

[2] Proinde ad utrumque interim modo nostra disputatio referatur. Si enim uera sunt quae apud illos de matre Aeneae et de patre Romuli lectitantur, quo modo possunt diis adulteria displicere hominum, quae in se ipsis concorditer ferunt? Si autem falsa sunt, ne sic quidem possunt irasci ueris adulteriis humanis, qui etiam falsis delectantur suis. [3] Huc accedit quoniam, si illud de Marte non creditur ut hoc quoque de Venere non

BOOK THREE

25
on Roman authority, for in later times Caesar believed that Venus was his forbear just as strongly as in more ancient days Romulus believed that Mars was his father.

IV

[1] Someone will ask: “Do you believe these tales?” I certainly do not.

Why, even Varro, the most learned of Romans, virtually admits that they are falsehoods, though not boldly or confidently. What he does say is that it is beneficial to communities for their men of valour to believe that they are sprung from gods, even if this is untrue; for as a result, the human mind, secure in what it believes is its divine lineage, may in this way more boldly undertake great enterprises, conduct them more single-mindedly, and thus more successfully accomplish them because of that sense of security. [2] You realise how this sentiment of Varro, which I have paraphrased as best I can, leaves the field wide open for falsehood. It makes us aware that a number of rituals regarded as sacrosanct may have been fabricated, since lies even about the gods themselves have been adjudged advantageous to citizens.

V

[1] Let us however leave open the question whether Venus could have given birth to Aeneas following intercourse with Anchises, or whether Mars could have begotten Romulus by intercourse with the daughter of Numitor. For much the same question arises also from our scriptures, namely whether the apostate angels had intercourse with the daughters of men, as a result of which giants of excessive stature and strength were born and filled the earth. [2] For the moment, then, our discussion must concentrate on these alternatives. If the stories commonly read in Roman accounts about the mother of Aeneas and the father of Romulus are true, how can adulteries committed by men be offensive to the gods when they are complaisant about those committed among themselves? If, on the other hand, the tales are false, the gods cannot be indignant about Roman adulteries actually perpetrated, since they take pleasure in those falsely told about themselves. [3] And besides, if the assumption that Mars’

26

LIBER III
credatur, nullo diuini concubitus obtentu matris Romuli causa defenditur.

Fuit autem sacerdos illa Vestalis, et ideo dii magis in Romanos sacrilegum illud flagitium quam in Troianos Paridis adulterium uindicare debuerunt.

[4] Nam et ipsi Romani antiqui in stupro detectas Vestae sacerdotes uiuas etiam defodiebant, adulteras autem feminas, quamuis aliqua damnatione, nulla tamen morte plectebant. Vsque adeo grauius quae putabant adyta diuina quam humana cubilia uindicabant.

VI

[1] Aliud adicio quia, si peccata hominum illis numinibus displicerent ut offensi Paridis facto desertam Troiam ferro ignibusque donarent, magis eos contra Romanos moueret Romuli frater occisus quam contra Troianos Graecus maritus inlusus; magis inritaret parricidium nascentis quam regnantis adulterium ciuitatis. Nec ad causam quam nunc agimus interest utrum hoc fieri Romulus iusserit aut Romulus fecerit, quod multi impudentia negant, multi pudore dubitant, multi dolore dissimulant.

[2] Nec nos itaque in ea re diligentius requirenda per multorum scriptorum perpensa testimonia demoremur. Romuli fratrem palam constat occisum, non ab hostibus, non ab alienis. Si aut perpetrauit aut imperauit hoc Romulus, magis ipse fuit Romanorum quam Paris Troianorum caput; cur igitur Troianis iram deorum prouocauit ille alienae coniugis raptor, et eorundem deorum tutelam Romanis inuitauit iste sui fratris exstinctor?

[3] Si autem illud scelus a facto imperioque Romuli alienum est, quoniam debuit utique uindicari, tota hoc illa ciuitas fecit quod tota contempsit, et non iam fratrem sed patrem, quod est peius, occidit. Vterque

BOOK THREE

27
adultery is incredible makes that concerning Venus likewise incredible, then the mother of Romulus cannot plead in her defence that she had any intercourse with a divinity. Now she was a priestess of Vesta, and accordingly the gods ought to have taken vengeance on the Romans for that sacrilegious outrage rather than punished the Trojans for the adultery that Paris committed. [4] Why, even the ancient Romans themselves, if they found priestesses of Vesta guilty of copulation, went so far as to bury them alive, whereas ordinary women, though meriting some condemnation, did not suffer the penalty of death. So much the more rigorously did the Romans punish offences against the shrines that they considered divine than those committed against the marriage-beds of human beings.

VI

[1] I append another argument. If men’s sins so angered those deities that their displeasure at the misbehaviour of Paris led them to abandon Troy and to consign it to fire and sword, the murder of Romulus’ brother would have aroused them more violently against the Romans than the cuckolding of a Greek husband would have incited them against the Trojans.

Fratricide in an infant city would have incensed them more than adultery in a ruling kingdom. Whether Romulus commissioned the murder or carried it out himself does not affect the present argument; the second possibility elicits shameless denial from many, shamefaced doubt from many, and distressed concealment from many.

[2] So likewise let us not linger on more diligent research in this matter by weighing the evidence provided by many historians. It is clear as daylight that the brother of Romulus was slain, and not by enemies or foreigners. If Romulus did execute the murder or order it to be done, it was the work of the head of the Romans, whereas Paris was not the head of the Trojans. So why did Paris unleash the anger of the gods against the Trojans by bearing off another man’s wife, whereas Romulus attracted the protection of those same gods on behalf of the Romans by slaughtering his own brother?

[3] However, even if the crime was neither committed nor commanded by Romulus, it none the less merited punishment. The entire community was responsible for the deed, since they all disregarded it, and the one they

28

LIBER III
enim fuit conditor, ubi alter scelere ablatus non permissus est esse regnator. [4] Non est, ut arbitror, quod dicatur quid mali Troia meruerit ut eam dii desererent quo posset exstingui, et quid boni Roma ut eam dii inhabitarent quo posset augeri, nisi quod uicti inde fugerunt et se ad istos quos pariter deciperent contulerunt. Immo uero et illic manserunt ad eos more suo decipiendos, qui rursus easdem terras habitarent, et hic easdem artes fallaciae suae magis etiam exercendo maioribus honoribus gloriati sunt.

VII

[1] Certe enim ciuilibus iam bellis scatentibus quid miserum commiserat Ilium ut a Fimbria, Marianarum partium homine pessimo, euerteretur multo ferocius atque crudelius quam olim a Graecis? Nam tunc et multi inde fugerunt et multi captiuati saltem in seruitute uixerunt; porro autem Fimbria prius edictum proposuit ne cui parceretur, atque urbem totam cunctosque in ea homines incendio concremauit.

[2] Hoc meruit Ilium non a Graecis quos sua inritauerat iniquitate, sed a Romanis quos sua calamitate propagauerat, diis illis communibus ad haec repellenda nihil iuuantibus seu, quod uerum est, nihil ualentibus. Numquid et tunc ‘abscessere omnes adytis arisque relictis di’, quibus illud oppidum steterat post antiquos Graecorum ignes ruinasque reparatum?

[3] Si autem abscesserant, causam requiro, et oppidanorum quidem quanto inuenio meliorem, tanto deteriorem deorum. Illi enim contra Fimbriam portas clauserant ut Sullae seruarent integram ciuitatem; hinc eos iratus incendit uel potius penitus exstinxit. [4] Adhuc autem meliorum partium ciuilium Sulla dux fuit, adhuc armis rempublicam recuperare

BOOK THREE

29
slew was not their brother, but their father, which was worse; for both twins were founders of the city, but one was dispatched by a crime and not allowed to reign there. [4] I find it impossible to explain why Troy so merited ill-treatment as to be abandoned by the gods and thereby exposed to destruction, while Rome deserved such favour that the gods took up residence there to enable the city to expand – unless the gods, when defeated, fled from Troy and migrated to the Romans to deceive them likewise. But no, they both remained in Troy to continue their practices, deceiving those who succeeded the Trojans as inhabitants of those territories, while here at Rome, by deploying the identical tactics of their native guile to still greater effect, they have boasted in the greater honours paid to them.

VII

[1] At any rate, following upon the violent outbreak of the civil wars, what had wretched Troy done to deserve being destroyed by Fimbria, that utter scoundrel of the Marian faction – and much more savagely and cruelly than the Greeks destroyed it earlier? For on that earlier occasion many escaped from the city, and though many were captured, they at least remained alive as slaves. But Fimbria went further. He issued a prior directive that no-one was to be spared. He set fire to the whole city, consuming in the blaze all who dwelt there.

[2] This treatment Troy suffered at the hands, not of the Greeks, whom she had provoked by her wickedness, but of the Romans, whose city she had peopled following her own disaster. The gods shared by both nations did nothing – or, if the truth be told, could do nothing – to ward off this fate. So on this second occasion too did “all the gods, quitting the shrines and altars, make off”, after earlier enabling the town, which was restored following the arson and destruction wrought by the Greeks of old, to continue to exist?

[3] If they did make off, I demand to know why. As I see it, the stronger the townsfolk’s case, the weaker is that of the gods. For the townsfolk had closed their gates against Fimbria to preserve the city unharmed for Sulla, which was why Fimbria in anger set fire to them, or rather utterly obliterated them. [4] Now at this time Sulla was still in command of the better faction of the citizens, and as yet was striving to

30

LIBER III
moliebatur; horum bonorum initiorum nondum malos euentus habuit. Quid ergo melius ciues urbis illius facere potuerunt, quid honestius, quid fidelius, quid Romana parentela dignius quam meliori causae Romanorum ciuitatem seruare et contra parricidam Romanae reipublicae portas claudere?

[5] At hoc eis in quantum exitium uerterit, attendant defensores deorum. Deseruerint dii adulteros Iliumque flammis Graecorum reliquerint ut ex eis cineribus Roma castior nasceretur. Cur et postea deseruerunt eandem ciuitatem Romanis cognatam, non rebellantem aduersus Romam nobilem filiam, sed iustioribus eius partibus fidem constantissimam piissimamque seruantem, eamque delendam reliquerunt non Graecorum uiris fortibus sed uiro spurcissimo Romanorum? [6] Aut si displicebat diis causa partium Sullanarum, cui seruantes urbem miseri portas clauserant, cur eidem Sullae tanta bona promittebant et praenuntiabant? An et hic agnoscuntur adulatores felicium potius quam infelicium defensores?

[7] Non ergo Ilium etiam tunc ab eis cum desereretur euersum est.

Nam daemones ad decipiendum semper uigilantissimi, quod potuerunt, fecerunt. Euersis quippe et incensis omnibus cum oppido simulacris solum Mineruae sub tanta ruina templi illius, ut scribit Liuius, integrum stetisse perhibetur, non ut diceretur

Di patrii, quorum semper sub numine Troia est,
ad eorum laudem, sed ne diceretur

Excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis
di,
ad eorum defensionem. Illud enim posse permissi sunt, non unde probarentur potentes, sed unde praesentes conuincerentur.

BOOK THREE

31
restore the republic by force of arms. Not yet had he reduced these honourable beginnings to an evil end. So what better or more honourable or more faithful course could the inhabitants of that city have adopted, or what more worthy of her kinship with Rome, than to preserve their city for Rome’s better cause, and to shut their gates against that parricide of the Roman republic?

[5] Those who take up the cudgels for the gods should realise the depths of destruction into which this brought them. Even if we concede that the gods forsook adulterers and abandoned Troy to the fires of the Greeks so that a purer Rome could rise from its ashes, why did they quit that same city again subsequently, in spite of its shared kinship with the Romans? Troy was not revolting against Rome her celebrated daughter, but was maintaining the most steadfast and devoted faith with the more just faction within it. Yet the gods abandoned it to be destroyed, not by the brave warriors of the Greeks, but by that most disgusting of Romans. [6]

Or if the cause of the Sullan faction, for which the wretched townsfolk sought to preserve the city when they closed the gates, was repugnant to the gods, why did they promise and prophesy such great blessings to the same Sulla? Do we here too recognise them toadying to the fortunate rather than defending the unfortunate?

[7] So on that later occasion too Troy was not levelled as a result of being abandoned by the demons, for they always keep close watch in order to deceive, and they did all that they were able to do. For when all other statues were overturned and burnt with the town, only that of Minerva, according to Livy’s account, is recorded as having stood undamaged beneath the widespread ruins of her temple. Its survival was not to support the claim

Ancestral gods, Troy stands for ever ‘neath your sway, in praise of them, but rather to rebut the words

Quitting the shrines and altars, all the gods

Made off,
offered in their defence. They were granted sufficient discretion not to demonstrate their power, but merely to be convicted of having been present.

32

LIBER III

VIII

[1] Diis itaque Iliacis post Troiae ipsius documentum qua tandem prudentia Roma custodienda commissa est? Dixerit quispiam iam eos Romae habitare solitos quando expugnante Fimbria cecidit Ilium. Vnde ergo stetit Mineruae simulacrum? Deinde, si apud Romam erant quando Fimbria deleuit Ilium, fortasse apud Ilium erant quando a Gallis ipsa Roma capta et incensa est; [2] sed ut sunt auditu acutissimi motuque celerrimi, ad uocem anseris cito redierunt, ut saltem Capitolinum collem qui remanserat tuerentur; ceterum ad alia defendenda serius sunt redire commoniti.

IX

[1] Hi etiam Numam Pompilium successorem Romuli adiuuisse creduntur, ut toto regni sui tempore pacem haberet, et Iani portas, quae bellis patere adsolent, clauderet, eo merito scilicet quia Romanis multa sacra constituit.

[2] Illi uero homini pro tanto otio gratulandum fuit, si modo id rebus salubribus scisset impendere et perniciosissima curiositate neglecta deum uerum uera pietate perquirere. Nunc autem non ei dii contulerunt illud otium, sed eum minus fortasse decepissent si otiosum minime repperissent.

[3] Quanto enim minus eum occupatum inuenerunt, tanto magis ipsi occupauerunt. Nam quid ille molitus sit et quibus artibus deos tales sibi uel illi ciuitati consociare potuerit, Varro prodit; quod, si Domino placuerit, suo diligentius disseretur loco.

[4] Modo autem quia de beneficiis eorum quaestio est, magnum beneficium est pax, sed dei ueri beneficium est, plerumque etiam sicut sol, sicut pluuia uitaeque alia subsidia super ingratos et nequam. Sed si hoc tam magnum bonum dii illi Romae uel Pompilio contulerunt, cur imperio Romano per ipsa tempora laudabilia id nunquam postea praestiterunt? An utiliora erant sacra cum instituerentur quam cum instituta celebrarentur?

BOOK THREE

33

VIII

[1] So was it wise, I ask, to entrust Rome to the protection of the Trojan gods when Troy itself had served as a warning? It may be claimed that they had become accustomed to reside at Rome when Troy fell before the onset of Fimbria. How, then, did the statue of Minerva stand intact? Again, if the gods were at Rome when Fimbria destroyed Troy, perhaps they were at Troy when Rome itself was seized and burnt by the Gauls. [2] But their remarkably sharp hearing and great speed of movement enabled them at the cackling of a goose to make a swift return, and to protect, if nothing else, the Capitoline hill that had survived the attack. But the warning came too late for them to return to defend the rest.

IX

[1] Those gods are believed also to have lent aid to Numa Pompilius, the successor of Romulus, with the result that he enjoyed peace throughout his reign, and closed the gates of the temple of Janus that customarily lie open in times of war. Doubtless he had deserved this because of the many religious rites that he introduced for the Romans. [2] He would have deserved plaudits for this lengthy tranquillity if only he had known how to devote this untroubled period to wholesome pursuits, to jettison that most ruinous curiosity of his, and with true devotion to seek the true God. But in fact the gods did not bestow that leisure on him; they would perhaps have been less successful in beguiling him if they had found him fully occupied,

[3] for the less busy they found him, the more they busied themselves with him. Varro records what his purposes were, and the means that he used to enlist such gods as allies for himself or for the state. I shall discuss this more attentively, if the Lord is willing, in its due place.

[4] But at present we are concerned with the blessings that the gods conferred. Peace is indeed a great boon, but it is bestowed by the true God, and like the sun, the rain, and other aids to living it is frequently bestowed on the ungrateful and the wicked. But if the gods bestowed that great blessing on the Rome of that era or on Pompilius, why did they never bestow it subsequently on the Roman Empire, even in the days when it was deserving of praise? Were the rituals more useful at the time of inauguration than when they were celebrated once established? Yet at first

34

LIBER III

Atqui tunc nondum erant, sed ut essent addebantur; postea uero iam erant, quae ut prodessent custodiebantur. [5] Quid ergo est quod illi quadraginta tres, uel ut alii uolunt triginta et nouem anni, in tam longa pace transacti sunt regnante Numa, et postea sacris institutis diisque ipsis, qui eisdem sacris fuerant inuitati, iam praesidibus atque tutoribus uix post tam multos annos ab urbe condita usque ad Augustum pro magno miraculo unus commemoratur annus post primum bellum Punicum, quo belli portas Romani claudere potuerunt?

X

[1] An respondent quod nisi assiduis sibique continuo succedentibus bellis Romanum imperium tam longe lateque non posset augeri et tam grandi gloria diffamari? Idonea uero causa! Vt magnum esset imperium, cur esse deberet inquietum? Nonne in corporibus hominum satius est modicam staturam cum sanitate habere quam ad molem aliquam giganteam perpetuis adflictionibus peruenire, nec cum perueneris requiescere, sed quanto grandioribus membris, tanto maioribus agitari malis?

[2] Quid autem mali esset ac non potius plurimum boni si ea tempora perdurarent quae perstrinxit Sallustius ubi ait: ‘Igitur initio reges (nam in terris nomen imperii id primum fuit) diuersi pars ingenium, alii corpus exercebant; etiam tum uita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur. Sua cuique satis placebant.’ An ut tam multum augeretur imperium, debuit fieri quod Vergilius detestatur, dicens

Deterior donec paulatim ac decolor aetas

Et belli rabies et amor successit habendi?

[3] Sed plane pro tantis bellis susceptis et gestis iusta defensio Romanorum est, quod inruentibus sibi importune inimicis resistere cogebat non auiditas adipiscendae laudis humanae, sed necessitas tuendae salutis et libertatis. [4] Ita sit plane. Nam ‘postquam res eorum’ sicut scribit ipse Sallustius ‘legibus moribus agris aucta satis prospera satisque pollens uidebatur, sicut pleraque mortalium habentur, inuidia ex opulentia orta est.

BOOK THREE

35
they did not as yet exist, but were introduced as additions, whereas later they did exist, and were preserved to be of service. [5] How is it, then, that the forty-three years (or as others calculate them, thirty-nine) of Numa’s reign were spent in such an extended peace, whereas subsequently, when the rites were established and the gods had been invited in to preside over and to protect them, in all the many years from the foundation of the city to the reign of Augustus there is just one year following the First Punic War when it is recorded as a momentous miracle that the Romans were able to close the gates of war?

X

[1] Our adversaries perhaps reply that it was only by continual wars waged one after another that the Roman empire could have been extended so far and wide, and with such illustrious fame noised abroad. An impressive argument indeed! Why should an empire be always on the move to be great? As with human bodies, it is surely better to be modest in size and healthy, rather than to grow to monstrous proportions by unremitting exertions, and having attained such size to take no rest, but to be plagued with pains commensurate with the size of the limbs?

[2] Would it have been at all harmful, or rather would it not have been the best situation possible, if the tenor of those times that Sallust touched upon had continued? This is what he says: “So to begin with, the kings (the first title on earth allotted to sovereignty) differed from each other, so that some cultivated the intellect and others the body. At that time, too, men lived their lives without greed, for each was satisfied with what he had.” Was it necessary that in order to extend the empire so widely the situation should ensue as excoriated by Virgil?

Till by degrees an age worse and debased

Brought rage in war, and lust for ownership.

[3] Clearly, however, some defence of the Romans for having undertaken those large-scale wars and projects was justifiable. Enemies made unjust onslaughts upon them, and what compelled the Romans to resist them was not greed to win men’s praise, but the need to defend their safety and freedom. [4] This we must clearly allow, for as Sallust himself writes:

“Once their state was enhanced by laws, traditions, and territories, and seemed essentially prosperous and powerful, their wealth gave rise to

36

LIBER III

Igitur reges populique finitimi bello temptare; pauci ex amicis auxilio esse, nam ceteri metu perculsi a periculis aberant. At Romani domi militiaeque intenti festinare parare, alius alium hortari, hostibus obuiam ire, libertatem patriam parentesque armis tegere. Post ubi pericula uirtute propulerant, sociis atque amicis auxilia portabant, magisque dandis quam accipiendis beneficiis amicitias parabant.’

[5] Decenter his artibus Roma creuit. Sed regnante Numa, ut tam longa pax esset, utrum inruebant improbi belloque temptabant, an nihil eorum fiebat ut posset pax illa persistere? Si enim bellis etiam tum Roma lacessebatur nec armis arma obuia ferebantur, quibus modis agebatur ut nulla pugna superati, nullo Martio impetu territi sedarentur inimici, his modis semper ageretur et semper Roma clausis Iani portis pacata regnaret.

[6] Quodsi in potestate non fuit, non ergo Roma pacem habuit quamdiu dii eorum, sed quamdiu homines finitimi circumquaque uoluerunt, qui eam nullo bello prouocauerunt; nisi forte dii tales etiam id homini uendere audebunt quod alius homo uoluit siue noluit. [7] Interest quidem iam uitio proprio malas mentes quatenus sinantur isti daemones uel terrere uel excitare; sed si semper hoc possent nec aliud secretiore ac superiore potestate contra eorum conatum saepe aliter ageretur, semper in potestate haberent paces bellicasque uictorias, quae semper fere per humanorum animorum motus accidunt; quas tamen plerumque contra eorum fieri uoluntatem non solae fabulae multa mentientes et uix ueri aliquid uel indicantes uel significantes, sed etiam ipsa Romana confitetur historia.

XI

[1] Neque enim aliunde Apollo ille Cumanus, cum aduersus Achiuos regemque Aristonicum bellaretur, quadriduo fleuisse nuntiatus est; quo prodigio haruspices territi cum id simulacrum in mare putauissent esse

BOOK THREE

37
envy, as usually occurs in human affairs. So neighbouring kings and communities made war on them, and few of their friends assisted them, for the rest were paralysed with fear, and stood aloof from the dangers. But the Romans both at home and in war made vigorous haste with their preparations. They spurred each other on, confronted their enemies, and defended their freedom, their native land, and their parents by armed force.

Once they had repelled the dangers by their courage, they lent aid to their allies and friends, and by bestowing favours rather than receiving them, they established friendships.”

[5] By these methods, Rome made honourable advances. But how are we to explain the lengthy peace in Numa’s reign? Did unscrupulous men invade and test them in war, or did no such attacks occur, allowing that peace to develop? For if even then Rome was assailed in wars, but did not meet armed force with armed force, those techniques which they used to keep their enemies quiet without overcoming them in any battle or deterring them by any military attack could have been invariably employed, and Rome could have ruled in peace with the gates of Janus permanently closed. [6] But if this did not lie within their control, then Rome enjoyed peace not for so long as the gods willed it, but for so long as it pleased the nations surrounding her, who refrained from challenging her in war. But perhaps such gods will have the gall even to sell to one man the decision of another to act or not to act! [7] True, it is in the interest of those demons to frighten or to rouse minds that are already corrupt through their own defects, in so far as they are allowed to do so.

But if this possibility was always open to them, and no other process often frustrated their efforts through a more hidden and a higher power, they would always be able to establish periods of peace and victories in war, for these almost invariably result from impulses of human minds. But usually these occur against the gods’ wishes, as not only the myths with their abundant lies and almost complete absence of factual or symbolic truth, but also the actual history of Rome attests.

XI

[1] It was for no other reason that the famous statue of Apollo at Cumae was reported to have wept for four days in the war against the Achaeans and king Aristonicus. The soothsayers were terrified by this prodigy, and

38

LIBER III
proiciendum, Cumani senes intercesserunt, atque rettulerunt tale prodigium et Antiochi et Persis bello in eodem apparuisse figmento, et quia Romanis feliciter prouenisset, ex senatus consulto eidem Apollini suo dona missa esse testati sunt. [2] Tunc uelut peritiores acciti haruspices responderunt simulacri Apollinis fletum ideo prosperum esse Romanis, quoniam Cumana colonia Graeca esset, suisque terris unde accitus esset, id est ipsi Graeciae, luctum et cladem Apollinem significasse plorantem.

Deinde mox regem Aristonicum uictum et captum esse nuntiatum est, quem uinci utique Apollo nolebat et dolebat, et hoc sui lapidis etiam lacrimis indicabat.

[3] Vnde non usquequaque incongrue quamuis fabulosis tamen ueritati similibus mores daemonum describuntur carminibus poetarum. Nam Camillam Diana doluit apud Vergilium, et Pallantem moriturum Hercules fleuit. [4] Hinc fortassis et Numa Pompilius pace abundans, sed quo donante nesciens nec requirens, cum cogitaret otiosus quibusnam diis tuendam Romanam salutem regnumque committeret – nec uerum illum atque omnipotentem summum deum curare opinaretur ista terrena, atque recoleret Troianos deos quos Aeneas aduexerat neque Troianum neque Lauiniense ab ipso Aenea conditum regnum diu conseruare potuisse –
alios prouidendos existimauit, quos illis prioribus, qui siue cum Romulo iam Romam transierant siue quandoque Alba euersa fuerant transituri, uel tamquam fugitiuis custodes adhiberet uel tamquam inualidis adiutores.

XII

[1] Nec his sacris tamen Roma dignata est esse contenta, quae tam multa illic Pompilius constituerat. Nam ipsius summum templum nondum habebat Iouis; rex quippe Tarquinius ibi Capitolium fabricauit.

Aesculapius autem ab Epidauro ambiuit ad Romam, ut peritissimus medicus in urbe nobilissima artem gloriosius exerceret. Mater etiam deum

BOOK THREE

39
believed that the statue should be thrown into the sea. But the elders of Cumae intervened. They recounted that a similar prodigy had been visible on the same statue during the wars with Antiochus and with Perseus, and they testified that because the outcome proved favourable to the Romans, gifts had been sent to this same Apollo of theirs in accordance with a senatorial decree. [2] Then soothsayers allegedly more expert were summoned. Their response was that the tears of the statue of Apollo were favourable to the Romans because Cumae was a Greek colony, and that the weeping Apollo presaged grief and disaster for his own territories from which he had been summoned, namely Greece itself. Soon afterwards it was reported that king Aristonicus had been defeated and captured. Apollo had certainly not wished him to be conquered, and the god’s grief was shown when even his stone statue was shedding tears.

[3] This indicates that the behaviour of the demons as recounted by works of the poets was not wholly bizarre; though fictitious, they approximate to the truth. So, for example, Diana lamented Camilla in Virgil, and Hercules wept over the future death of Pallas. [4] This is possibly why Numa Pompilius, in his enjoyment of the long period of peace without knowing or investigating who was responsible, gave leisurely consideration to which gods he should entrust the defence of Rome’s safety and sovereignty. It did not enter his head that the true, almighty, supreme God had regard for affairs on earth, and he recalled that the Trojan gods introduced by Aeneas had been unable to preserve for long either the Trojan kingdom or that of Lavinium, which was founded by Aeneas himself. So he thought that he must make provision for others additional to the earlier ones who had already crossed to Rome with Romulus, or were to do so some time in the future when Alba had been levelled. He would appoint these as protectors for the divine refugees, or as helpers for them in their weakness.

XII

[1] But Rome did not deign to content herself with the numerous rites that Pompilius had inaugurated for her, for as yet she did not have her most important temple, that of Jupiter. It was king Tarquin who built the Capitoline temple there. Aesculapius made the journey to Rome from Epidaurus to win greater fame as the most expert physician in the city of

40

LIBER III
nescio unde a Pessinunte; indignum enim erat ut, cum eius filius iam colli Capitolino praesideret, adhuc ipsa in loco ignobili latitaret. [2] Quae tamen si omnium deorum mater est, non solum secuta est Romam quosdam filios suos, uerum et alios praecessit etiam secuturos, Miror sane, si ipsa peperit Cynocephalum, qui longe postea uenit ex Aegypto. Vtrum etiam dea Febris ex illa nata sit, uiderit Aesculapius pronepos eius; sed undecumque nata sit non, opinor, audebunt eam dicere ignobilem dii peregrini deam ciuem Romanam.

[3] Sub hoc tot deorum praesidio – quos numerare quis potest, indigenas et alienigenas, caelites terrestres, infernos marinos, fontanos fluuiales, et, ut Varro dicit, certos atque incertos, in omnibusque generibus deorum, sicut in animalibus, mares et feminas? – sub hoc ergo tot deorum praesidio constituta Roma non tam magnis et horrendis cladibus, quales ex multis paucas commemorabo, agitari adfligique debuit.

[4] Nimis enim multos deos grandi fumo suo tamquam signo dato ad tuitionem congregauerat, quibus templa altaria, sacrificia sacerdotes instituendo atque praebendo summum uerum deum, cui uni haec rite gesta debentur, offenderet. [5] Et felicior quidem cum paucioribus uixit, sed quanto maior facta est, sicut nauis nautas, tanto plures adhibendos putauit; credo, desperans pauciores illos, sub quibus in comparatione peioris uitae melius uixerat, non sufficere ad opitulandum granditati suae. Primo enim sub ipsis regibus, excepto Numa Pompilio, de quo iam supra locutus sum, quantum malum discordiosi certaminis fuit, quod fratrem Romuli coegit occidi!

BOOK THREE

41
greatest renown. Then too the mother of the gods came from Pessinus, wherever that is, for since her son was now presiding over the Capitoline hill, it was beneath her dignity to continue to lurk hidden in that little-known place. [2] But seeing that she is the mother of all the gods, she not only followed some of her sons to Rome; she also preceded others who were to follow. Mind you, I am surprised that she gave birth to Cynocephalus, who arrived from Egypt so long afterwards. Whether the goddess Febris too was her daughter I leave to her great-grandson Aesculapius to decide. But whatever her lineage was, I hardly imagine that those immigrant deities will dare to pronounce her low-born, since she is a Roman citizen-goddess!

[3] So Rome was under the protection of all these deities, their number beyond counting, natives and foreigners, celestial and terrestrial, dwelling below the earth and in the seas, in springs and rivers, and in Varro’s words, ‘certain’ and ‘doubtful’; male and female of every divine species, as in the animal kingdom. And since she was set under the protection of all these gods, Rome ought not to have been harassed and troubled by such great and dreadful disasters. I shall mention only a few out of many of these.

[4] The trouble was that she had assembled for her protection too many deities, signalling to them, as it were, with great billows of smoke that she raised. So by providing temples and altars, and establishing sacrifices and priests, she alienated the supreme and true God, to whom alone these rituals are justly offered. [5] Indeed, her life was more successful when she had fewer of them, but the larger she grew the more of them she thought she must take aboard, as a ship takes on sailors. I imagine that she became less confident that the smaller number, under whose guidance her existence had proved better than in her worse days subsequently, was sufficient to support her huge size. At the very outset under the kings what great evil was done – I except Numa Pompilius, already discussed earlier –
through the discord and rivalry between them that caused the murder of Romulus’ brother!

42

LIBER III

XIII

[1] Quo modo nec Iuno, quae cum Ioue suo iam fouebat

Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam,
nec Venus ipsa Aeneidas suos potuit adiuuare ut bono et aequo more coniugia mererentur, cladesque tanta inruit huius inopiae, ut ea dolo raperent moxque compellerentur pugnare cum soceris, ut miserae feminae nondum ex iniuria maritis conciliatae iam parentum sanguine dotarentur?

[2] At enim uicerunt in hac conflictione Romani uicinos suos. Quantis et quam multis utrimque uulneribus et funeribus tam propinquorum et confinium istae uictoriae constiterunt! Propter unum Caesarem socerum et unum generum eius Pompeium, iam mortua Caesaris filia uxore Pompei, quanto et quam iusto doloris instinctu Lucanus exclamat: Bella per Emathios plus quam ciuilia campos

Iusque datum sceleri canimus.

[3] Vicerunt ergo Romani, ut strage socerorum manibus cruentis ab eorum filiabus amplexus miserabiles extorquerent, nec illae auderent flere patres occisos ne offenderent uictores maritos, quae adhuc illis pugnantibus pro quibus facerent uota nesciebant. Talibus nuptiis populum Romanum non Venus sed Bellona donauit; aut fortassis Allecto illa inferna furia iam eis fauente Iunone plus in illos habuit licentiae quam cum eius precibus contra Aenean fuerat excitata.

[4] Andromacha felicius captiuata est quam illa coniugia Romana nupserunt. Licet seruiles, tamen post eius amplexus nullum Troianorum Pyrrhus occidit; Romani autem soceros interficiebant in proeliis quorum iam filias amplexabantur in thalamis. Illa uictori subdita dolere tantum suorum mortem potuit, non timere; illae sociatae bellantibus parentum suorum mortes procedentibus uiris timebant, redeuntibus dolebant, nec

BOOK THREE

43

XIII

[1] How was it that neither Juno, who already then with her husband Jupiter,

Cherished the Romans, lords of earth and toga-clad, nor Venus either could aid her descendants, sons of Aeneas, to contract marriages by good and just custom? How was it that this shortage precipitated a calamity so dire that they carried off marriage-partners by guile, and were later compelled to battle with their fathers-in-law, with the result that the wretched women, who after the wrong committed against them were not yet reconciled to their husbands, were then presented with a dowry of their fathers’ blood?

[2] “But in that engagement the Romans overcame their neighbours.”

Yes, but those victories were gained at the price of such savage and numerous wounds on both sides, and the deaths of such close relatives and neighbours! Yet what deep and appropriate feelings of grief did Lucan utter over that single father-in-law, Caesar, and that single son-in-law of his, Pompey, after the death of Caesar’s daughter, Pompey’s wife: We sing of wars yet worse than civil strife

On Thessaly’s plains, and licence lent to crime.

[3] So the Romans conquered, and the outcome was that with hands blood-stained from the slaughter of their fathers-in-law, they forced reluctant embraces from their daughters. Those women did not dare to grieve for their slain fathers for fear of provoking their victorious husbands, and as long as the fighting lasted they did not know for whom to offer their vows.

It was Bellona and not Venus who conferred such marriages on the Roman people; or perhaps Allecto, the Fury from Hell, had a freer hand in her dealings with the Romans now that Juno supported them than when at that goddess’s entreaty she was roused against Aeneas.

[4] Andromache’s captivity was a happier lot than the Roman marriages contracted by those women. Though she endured embraces as a slave, once she yielded them, Pyrrhus did not slay a single Trojan, whereas the Romans slew their fathers-in-law in battles when they were already embracing their daughters in their marriage-chambers. Andromache, when subject to the victor, could merely mourn the deaths of her kin with no fear of further deaths, but the Sabine women wed to combatants both feared the deaths of their fathers as their husbands marched out and grieved for them on their return, yet without being able openly to show that fear or grief.

44

LIBER III
timorem habentes liberum nec dolorem. Nam propter interitum ciuium propinquorum fratrum parentum aut pie cruciabantur aut crudeliter laetabantur uictoriis maritorum.

[5] Huc accedebat quod, ut sunt alterna bellorum, aliquae parentum ferro amiserunt uiros, aliquae utrorumque ferro et parentes et uiros. Neque enim et apud Romanos parua fuerunt illa discrimina, si quidem ad obsidionem quoque peruentum est ciuitatis, clausisque portis se tuebantur; quibus dolo apertis admissisque hostibus intra moenia, in ipso foro scelerata et nimis atrox inter generos socerosque pugna commissa est, et raptores illi etiam superabantur et crebro fugientes inter domos suas grauius foedabant pristinas, quamuis et ipsas pudendas lugendasque uictorias.

[6] Hic tamen Romulus de suorum iam uirtute desperans Iouem orauit ut starent, atque ille hac occasione nomen Statoris inuenit; nec finis esset tanti mali nisi raptae illae laceratis crinibus emicarent, et prouolutae parentibus iram eorum iustissimam non armis uictricibus sed supplici pietate sedarent. [7] Deinde Titum Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre compulsus est, germani consortis impatiens; sed quando et istum diu toleraret, qui fratrem geminumque non pertulit? Vnde et ipso interfecto ut maior deus esset regnum solus obtinuit.

[8] Quae sunt ista iura nuptiarum, quae inritamenta bellorum, quae foedera germanitatis adfinitatis societatis diuinitatis? Quae postremo sub tot diis tutoribus uita ciuitatis? Vides quanta hinc dici et quam multa possent, nisi quae supersunt nostra curaret intentio, et sermo in alia festinaret.

BOOK THREE

45

Their devotion caused them acute pain at the deaths of their fellow-citizens

– relatives, brothers, fathers – or else the victories of their husbands lent them inhuman joy.

[5] Moreover, the see-saw of warfare caused some to lose their husbands by their fathers’ swords, and others both fathers and husbands through the weapons wielded by both sides. The Romans indeed experienced no trivial dangers, for the warfare extended even to blockade of the city, in which they defended themselves behind closed gates. Those gates were opened by treachery, and the enemy were admitted within the walls. An unholy, all too savage battle was joined between fathers-in-law and sons-in-law in the very forum. Those ravishers even began to be worsted, and the repeated rout of them among their own dwellings attached more grievous disrepute to their earlier victories, which were themselves shameful and deserving of mourning.

[6] At that moment, however, Romulus, who had renounced all hope in the courage of his troops, implored Jupiter that they should stand fast ( starent); this was the moment when the god gained his title of Stayer.

Even this would not have brought the great evil to a close had not the abducted women darted out with their hair torn. They prostrated themselves before their fathers and softened their wholly justified anger, not with the weapons of victory but with the devotion of suppliants. [7]

Thereafter Romulus was forced to accept the Sabine king Titus Tatius as his associate in the kingship, and this after refusing to share it with his brother. Yet since he refused to accept his own twin brother, how could he have borne with Tatius likewise for long? So Tatius too was slain, and Romulus occupied the throne alone so as to become a greater god.

[8] What rights of marriage were there, what incitements to warfare, what ties of brotherhood and kinship, of fellowship and divinity? And finally, what sort of life did the city lead under the protection of all these gods? You see how many important issues could be raised in consequence, if I were not anxious to discuss what lies before us. So I must hasten on to other topics.

46

LIBER III

XIV

[1] Quid deinde post Numam sub aliis regibus? Quanto malo non solum suo sed etiam Romanorum in bellum Albani prouocati sunt, quia uidelicet pax Numae tam longa uiluerat! Quam crebrae strages Romani Albanique exercitus fuerunt et utriusque comminutio ciuitatis! [2] Alba namque illa, quam filius Aeneae creauit Ascanius, Romae mater propior ipsa quam Troia, a Tullo Hostilio rege prouocata conflixit, confligens autem et adflicta est et adflixit, donec multorum taederet pari defectione certaminum. [3] Tunc euentum belli de tergeminis hinc atque inde fratribus placuit experiri. A Romanis tres Horatii, ab Albanis autem tres Curiatii processerunt. A Curiatiis tribus Horatii duo, ab uno autem Horatio tres Curiatii superati et exstincti sunt. [4] Ita Roma extitit uictrix ea clade etiam in certamine extremo ut de sex unus rediret domum. Cui damnum in utrisque, cui luctus nisi Aeneae stirpi, nisi Ascanii posteris, nisi proli Veneris, nisi nepotibus Iouis? Nam et hoc plus quam ciuile bellum fuit, quando filia ciuitas cum ciuitate matre pugnauit.

[5] Accessit aliud huic tergeminorum pugnae ultimae atrox atque horrendum malum. Nam ut erant ambo populi prius amici, (uicini quippe atque cognati), uni Curiatiorum desponsata fuerat Horatiorum soror; haec postea quam sponsi spolia in uictore fratre conspexit, ab eodem fratre quoniam fleuit occisa est. Humanior huius unius feminae quam uniuersi populi Romani mihi fuisse uidetur affectus. Illa quem uirum iam fide media retinebat, aut forte etiam ipsum fratrem dolens qui eum occiderat cui sororem promiserat, puto quod non culpabiliter fleuerit.

[6] Vnde enim apud Vergilium pius Aeneas laudabiliter dolet hostem etiam sua peremptum manu? Vnde Marcellus Syracusanam ciuitatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen et gloriam sub manus suas subito concidisse communem cogitans condicionem flendo miseratus est? Quaeso

BOOK THREE

47

XIV

[1] What happened next after Numa, under other kings? What a great evil it was that the Albans were provoked to war, an evil not only for themselves but for the Romans as well! The reason for it, I suppose, was that the peace of Numa, having lasted so long, ceased to be valued. How often did the Roman and Alban armies suffer massacres, with the subsequent drain on both communities! [2] What happened was that Alba, founded by Aeneas’ son Ascanius, and the mother-city of Rome more closely than was Troy, was challenged by king Tullus Hostilius, and engaged in warfare, in the course of which engagement it both suffered and inflicted heavy casualties, until the parties wearied of the numerous struggles that caused equal losses to both. [3] They then decided to entrust the outcome of the war to triplets on each side. The three Horatii sallied forth on behalf of the Romans, and the three Curiatii for the Albans. Two of the Horatii were overcome and slain by the three Curiatii, but they were overcome and slain by the one Horatius. [4] Thus at the close of the combat Rome emerged victorious from the slaughter. Only one of the six returned home; on whom did the loss and grief on both sides fall but on the stock of Aeneas, the descendants of Ascanius, the progeny of Venus, and the grandsons of Jupiter? This struggle too was “worse than civil strife”, for daughter-city fought with mother-city.

[5] This struggle to the death between the triplets had a further outcome both harsh and dreadful. Since the two communities had earlier been friendly (for they were neighbours and interrelated), a sister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of the three Curiatii. When the girl saw the spoils of her betrothed being borne by her victorious brother, she burst into tears; thereupon her brother killed her. The reaction of this one woman seems to me to have been more befitting a human being than the attitude of the entire Roman people. I do not regard as blameworthy the tears of one who with loyalties now divided grieved for the man to whom she had remained betrothed, or perhaps for that very brother who had slain the man to whom he had pledged his sister.

[6] For why was it that Aeneas the true in Virgil gained praise for grieving over the very foe slain by his own hand? Why did Marcellus weep with pity over the city of Syracuse, upon recalling that but recently, before it suddenly fell at his own hands, it had been at the peak of its glory, and he reflected that this was the lot that all shared? Human sentiment, I

48

LIBER III
ab humano impetremus affectu, ut femina sponsum suum a fratre suo peremptum sine crimine fleuerit, si uiri hostes a se uictos etiam cum laude fleuerunt. Ergo sponso a fratre inlatam mortem quando femina illa flebat, tunc se contra matrem ciuitatem tanta strage bellasse, et tanta hinc et inde cognati cruoris effusione uicisse Roma gaudebat.

[7] Quid mihi obtenditur nomen laudis nomenque uictoriae? Remotis obstaculis insanae opinionis facinora nuda cernantur, nuda pensentur, nuda iudicentur. Causa dicatur Albae, sicut Troiae adulterium dicebatur. Nulla talis, nulla similis inuenitur; tantum ut resides moueret ‘Tullus in arma uiros et iam desueta triumphis agmina’. [8] Illo itaque uitio tantum scelus perpetratum est socialis belli atque cognati, quod uitium Sallustius magnum transeunter attingit. Cum enim laudans breuiter antiquiora commemorasset tempora, quando ‘uita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur et sua cuique satis placebant’, ‘Postea uero’, inquit, ‘quam in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia Lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere urbes atque nationes subigere, libidinem dominandi causam belli habere, maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare’, et cetera quae ipse instituerat dicere. [9] Mihi huc usque satis sit eius uerba posuisse. Libido ista dominandi magnis malis agitat et conterit humanum genus. Hac libidine Roma tunc uicta Albam se uicisse triumphabat, et sui sceleris laudem gloriam nominabat, quoniam laudatur, inquit scriptura nostra, peccator in desideriis animae suae, et qui iniqua gerit benedicitur.

[10] Fallacia igitur tegmina et deceptoriae dealbationes auferantur a rebus, ut sincero inspiciantur examine. Nemo mihi dicat: ‘Magnus ille atque ille, quia cum illo et illo pugnauit et uicit.’ Pugnant etiam gladiatores, uincunt et ipsi, habet praemia laudis et illa crudelitas; sed puto esse satius cuiuslibet inertiae poenas luere quam illorum armorum quaerere gloriam. [11] Et tamen si in harenam procederent pugnaturi inter se gladiatores, quorum alter filius alter esset pater, tale spectaculum quis ferret? Quis non auferret? Quomodo ergo gloriosum alterius matris,

BOOK THREE

49
insist, supports our claim that if men have wept over conquered foes and indeed have won praise thereby, then it was not wrong for a woman to shed tears over her betrothed when he was slain by her brother. At the very time, then, when this woman was lamenting the death inflicted by her brother on her betrothed, Rome was rejoicing at having made war with such dreadful carnage on her mother-city, and at having prevailed with so much bloodshed of kin on both sides.

[7] Why, I ask, are the words ‘praise’ and ‘victory’ invoked as a smoke-screen? Away with lunatic sentiments that block the view. Let us see, weigh, and judge openly these evil deeds. Let us hear the case against Alba stated, like the charge of adultery made against Troy. Nothing of that kind is revealed, nothing like it; the sole motive of Tullus was to rouse his supine troops, “to fire his men and his columns, now unused to triumphs, to take up arms”. This, then, was the moral failing that unleashed the signal crime of war between allies and relatives. [8] Sallust touches on this great failing in passing, for after describing the days of old in brief but glowing terms, when “men lived their lives without greed, and each was satisfied with what he had”, he adds: “But after Cyrus in Asia, and the Spartans and Athenians in Greece, began to subdue cities and nations, to regard lust for domination as a pretext for war, and to believe that the greatest glory lay in the greatest empire”, and the rest that he had proceeded to say. [9] For my purpose it must suffice to cite his words up to this point. This lust to control both disturbs and oppresses the human race with many evils. When Rome gloried over her conquest of Alba, and imposed the title of ‘glory’ on praise of her crime, she was herself vanquished by this lust. In the words of our scriptures, For the sinner wins praise in fulfilling the desires of his soul, and he who does wicked things wins esteem.

[10] So smoke-screens that deceive, and whitewashing that misleads, are to be cleared away from events, to be scrutinized by honest assessment.

No-one must tell me that such and such are great men because they have fought with such and such, and gained a victory. Why, even gladiators fight and win, and the cruelty that they evince obtains its rewards of praise.

But I think it preferable to pay the penalty for inactivity however supine, rather than to seek the glory of such armed combat. [11] And if two gladiators marched into the arena to do battle, and one was a son and the other his father, who could bear to watch such an exhibition? Who would not ban it? How then could armed combat between a mother-city and a

50

LIBER III
alterius filiae ciuitatis inter se armorum potuit esse certamen? [12] An ideo diuersum fuit quod harena illa non fuit, et latiores campi non duorum gladiatorum sed in duobus populis multorum funeribus implebantur, nec amphitheatro cingebantur illa certamina sed uniuerso orbi, et tunc uiuis et posteris quo usque ista fama porrigitur impium spectaculum praebebatur?

[13] Vim tamen patiebantur studii sui dii illi praesides imperii Romani et talium certaminum tamquam theatrici spectatores, donec Horatiorum soror propter Curiatios tres peremptos etiam ipsa tertia ex altera parte fraterno ferro duobus fratribus adderetur, ne minus haberet mortium etiam Roma quae uicerat. [14] Deinde ad fructum uictoriae Alba subuersa est, ubi post Ilium, quod Graeci euerterunt, et post Lauinium, ubi Aeneas regnum peregrinum atque fugitiuum constituerat, tertio loco habitauerant numina illa Troiana. Sed more suo etiam inde fortasse migrauerant; ideo deleta est. Discesserant uidelicet ‘omnes adytis arisque relictis di, quibus imperium illud steterat’. [15] Discesserant sane ecce iam tertio ut eis quarta Roma prouidentissime crederetur. Displicuerat enim et Alba, ubi Amulius expulso fratre, et Roma placuerat ubi Romulus occiso fratre regnauerat. Sed antequam Alba dirueretur transfusus est, inquiunt, populus eius in Romam ut ex utraque una ciuitas fieret. Esto ita factum sit; urbs tamen illa, Ascanii regnum et tertium domicilium Troianorum deorum, ab urbe filia mater euersa est; ut autem belli reliquiae ex duobus populis unum facerent, miserabile coagulum, multus ante fusus utriusque sanguis fuit.

[16] Quid iam singillatim dicam sub ceteris regibus totiens eadem bella renouata quae uictoriis finita uidebantur, et tantis stragibus iterum iterumque confecta, iterum iterumque post foedus et pacem inter soceros et generos et eorum stirpem posterosque repetita? Non paruum indicium

BOOK THREE

51
daughter-city win the meed of fame? [12] Does it make a difference that in this case there was no arena, and that wider expanses were filled with the bodies not of two gladiators, but of numerous citizens from two communities? And that those struggles were ringed not by an amphitheatre but by the entire world, and that the sacrilegious show was mounted for both the living and their descendants, for as long as report of it is recorded?

[13] Yet the gods who were guardians of the Roman empire and who took their seats, so to say, as spectators of such conflicts, viewed passively the violence of their pastime, until the sister of the Horatii could be joined by her brother’s sword to the two brothers as a third victim on the opposing side to balance the three slaughtered Curiatii. This was to ensure that Rome in her victory would not have fewer deaths. [14] Then, as reward for Rome’s victory, Alba was destroyed. This was the third abode where the Trojan deities had dwelt after Troy, which the Greeks had levelled, and after Lavinium, where Aeneas had established a foreign kingdom for his refugees. But perhaps the gods by then had after their fashion moved out of Alba as well, and so it was destroyed. Doubtless Omitting the shrines and altars, all the gods,

By whom that empire had stood firm, made off.

[15] Notice, then, that by now they had ‘made off’ a third time, so that by this most far-sighted provision Rome might be the fourth city entrusted to them; for Alba too, where Amulius had been king after driving out his brother, had lost their favour, whereas Rome, where Romulus reigned after murdering his brother, had become their favourite. But our adversaries make the point that before Alba was destroyed, its population was merged with that of Rome, so that one community could be created from the two.

Granted that this did happen, yet the city that was the kingdom of Ascanius and the third residence of the Trojan gods was the mother-city destroyed by its daughter. Then, too, much blood was shed earlier on both sides, so that the remnants of the war could form a wretched conglomerate of the two peoples.

[16] Why should I recount one by one the regular renewal of the same wars under the other kings? They seemed to have been concluded by victories, and brought to a close over and over again by such great massacres. But over and over again after treaties of peace they were regularly resumed between fathers-in-law and sons-in-law, and with their offspring and descendants. The fact that not one of these kings closed the

52

LIBER III
calamitatis huius fuit quod portas belli nullus clausit illorum. Nullus ergo illorum sub tot diis praesidibus in pace regnauit.

XV

[1] Ipsorum autem regum qui exitus fuerunt? De Romulo uiderit adulatio fabulosa qua perhibetur receptus in caelum; uiderint quidam scriptores eorum, qui eum propter ferocitatem a senatu discerptum esse dixerunt, subornatumque nescio quem Iulium Proculum, qui eum sibi apparuisse diceret eumque per se populo mandasse Romano ut inter numina coleretur, eoque modo populum, qui contra senatum intumescere coeperat, repressum atque sedatum. Acciderat enim et solis defectio, quam certa ratione sui cursus effectam imperita nesciens multitudo meritis Romuli tribuebat.

[2] Quasi uero si luctus ille solis fuisset, non magis ideo credi deberet occisus ipsumque scelus auersione etiam diurni luminis indicatum, sicut re uera factum est cum Dominus crucifixus est crudelitate atque impietate Iudaeorum. Quam solis obscurationem non ex canonico siderum cursu accidisse satis ostendit quod tunc erat pascha Iudaeorum. Nam plena luna sollemniter agitur, regularis autem solis defectio non nisi lunae fine contingit.

[3] Satis et Cicero illam inter deos Romuli receptionem putatam magis significat esse quam factam, quando et laudans eum in libris De republica Scipionisque sermone: ‘Tantum est’ inquit ‘consecutus ut, cum subito sole obscurato non comparuisset, deorum in numero conlocatus putaretur, quam opinionem nemo umquam mortalis adsequi potuit sine eximia uirtutis gloria.’ (Quod autem dicit eum subito non comparuisse, profecto ibi intellegitur aut uiolentia tempestatis aut caedis facinorisque secretum; nam et alii scriptores eorum defectioni solis addunt etiam subitam tempestatem, quae profecto aut occasionem sceleri praebuit aut Romulum ipsa consumpsit.)

BOOK THREE

53
gates of war was no small indication of this disastrous sequence. So not one of them ruled in peace, though they were under the protection of so many gods.

XV

[1] How did these kings end their lives? So far as Romulus is concerned, let us leave it to the fictitious flattery that records that he was assumed into heaven. Let us leave it to some of the Roman historians who have declared that his uncivilized behaviour led to his dismemberment by the Roman senate, and that someone called Julius Proculus was suborned to claim that Romulus had appeared to him, and through him had instructed the Roman people that he was to be worshipped among the Roman deities. They add that this was how the commons, who had begun to revolt against the senate, were subdued and pacified. A solar eclipse had also occurred as a result of the sun’s undeviating course, but the naïve crowd in its ignorance attributed it to the merits of Romulus.

[2] If this phenomenon had expressed the sun’s grief, it should rather have fostered the belief that Romulus had been murdered, and that the withdrawal of daylight was proof of the crime. This actually happened when the Lord was crucified by the cruel and sacrilegious act of the Jews.

The fact that it occurred at the time of the Jewish Passover is a clear enough indication that an eclipse did not ensue in the regular course of the heavenly bodies. For the Passover is celebrated annually at the time of the full moon, whereas an eclipse regularly occurs when the moon has waned.

[3] Cicero too makes it sufficiently clear that the admission of Romulus to the company of the gods was a supposition rather than an occurrence, for even when he praises him in his books On the Republic, where Scipio is his spokesman, he declares: “So great were his achievements that even when he suddenly failed to appear after an eclipse of the sun, it was believed that he had been assigned a place among the gods, a reputation that no mortal could ever have obtained without outstanding renown for virtue.” His phrase “he suddenly failed to appear” in the context certainly gives us to understand that his disappearance was caused by the violence of either a storm or a foul deed of murder, for other Roman writers state that besides the solar eclipse there was also a sudden storm. This clearly offered an opportunity for the crime, or itself enveloped Romulus.

54

LIBER III

[4] De Tullo quippe etiam Hostilio, qui tertius a Romulo rex fuit, qui et ipse fulmine absumptus est, dicit in eisdem libris idem Scipio propterea et istum non creditum in deos receptum tali morte, quia fortasse quod erat in Romulo probatum, id est persuasum, Romani uulgare noluerunt, id est uile facere, si hoc et alteri facile tribueretur. [5] Dicit etiam aperte in inuectiuis:

‘Illum qui hanc urbem condidit Romulum ad deos immortales beniuolentia famaque sustulimus’, ut non uere factum sed propter merita uirtutis eius beniuole iactatum diffamatumque monstraret. In Hortensio uero dialogo cum de solis canonicis defectionibus loqueretur: ‘Vt easdem’ inquit

‘tenebras efficiat quas effecit in interitu Romuli, qui obscuratione solis est factus.’ Certe hic minime timuit hominis interitum dicere, quia disputator magis quam laudator fuit.

[6] Ceteri autem reges populi Romani, excepto Numa Pompilio et Anco Marcio, qui morbo interierunt, quam horrendos exitus habuerunt! Tullus, ut dixi, Hostilius, uictor et euersor Albae, cum tota domo sua fulmine concrematus est. Priscus Tarquinius per sui decessoris filios interemptus est. [7] Seruius Tullius generi sui Tarquinii Superbi, qui ei successit in regnum, nefario scelere occisus est. Nec ‘discessere adytis arisque relictis di’, tanto in optimum illius populi regem parricidio perpetrato, quos dicunt, ut hoc miserae Troiae facerent eamque Graecis diruendam exurendamque relinquerent, adulterio Paridis fuisse commotos; sed insuper interfecto a se socero, Tarquinius ipse successit. [8] Hunc illi dii nefarium parricidam soceri interfectione regnantem, insuper multis bellis uictoriisque gloriantem et de manubiis Capitolium fabricantem non abscedentes, sed praesentes manentesque uiderunt et regem suum Iouem in illo altissimo templo, hoc est in opere parricidae, sibi praesidere atque regnare perpessi sunt. Neque enim adhuc innocens Capitolium struxit et postea malis meritis Vrbe pulsus est, sed ad ipsum regnum in quo Capitolium fabricaret immanissimi sceleris perpetratione peruenit.

BOOK THREE

55

[4] As for king Tullus Hostilius, third in line from Romulus and likewise killed by a lightning shaft, Cicero in those same books states that it was not believed that by such a death he had been admitted to the company of the gods. Perhaps the reason was that the Romans refused to vulgarize or cheapen the tradition approved, that is, believed, with regard to Romulus, as would have happened if it had been readily accepted in a second instance. [5] Cicero further frankly states in his invectives: “We have raised the celebrated Romulus, founder of this city, to the company of the immortal gods through our affection and his renown.” He thus makes it clear that it did not actually happen, but because of his deserving virtue it was affectionately claimed and noised abroad. Indeed, in his dialogue the Hortensius, where he discussed the regularity of solar eclipses, he remarks:

“…to produce the same darkness as at the death of Romulus, which occurred when the sun was obscured.” Here at any rate Cicero did not in the least shrink from speaking of the death of the man, because this was not an encomium but a philosophical discussion.

[6] As for the other kings of the Roman people, Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius excepted since their deaths followed illness, what horrific ends they met! Tullus Hostilius, who conquered and levelled Alba, was as I have said burnt to ashes by a bolt of lightning, together with his entire household. Tarquinius Priscus was murdered by the sons of his predecessor. [7] Servius Tullius was slain by the sacrilegious crime of his son-in-law Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him as king. Nor did “all the gods, quitting the shrines and altars, make off” when this foul family-murder was perpetrated against the best king that the Roman people had, as our opponents claim they did at wretched Troy in anger at the adultery of Paris, leaving the city to be demolished and burnt by the Greeks. In fact Tarquin, after murdering his father-in-law, himself succeeded to the throne. [8] Those gods did not make off, but remained on the spot to observe that wicked parricide occupying the throne after killing his father-in-law, and further exulting in many wars and victories, and from the spoils building the Capitoline temple. In that most lofty temple built by the parricide the gods allowed their king Jupiter to preside and rule over them.

It was not that Tarquin built the Capitoline temple while still guiltless, and only later was expelled from the city as his evil deeds merited; for he attained the kingship, during which he was to build the Capitoline temple, by committing a most heinous crime.

56

LIBER III

[9] Quod uero eum regno Romani postea depulerunt ac secluserunt moenibus ciuitatis, non ipsius de Lucretiae stupro sed filii peccatum fuit, illo non solum nesciente sed etiam absente commissum. Ardeam ciuitatem tunc oppugnabat, pro populo Romano bellum gerebat; nescimus quid faceret si ad eius notitiam flagitium filii deferretur; et tamen inexplorato iudicio eius et inexperto ei populus ademit imperium, et recepto exercitu, a quo deseri iussus est, clausis deinde portis non siuit intrare redeuntem.

[10] At ille post bella grauissima, quibus eosdem Romanos concitatis finitimis adtriuit, postea quam desertus ab eis quorum fidebat auxilio regnum recipere non eualuit, in oppido Tusculo Romae uicino quattuordecim, ut fertur, annos priuatam uitam quietus habuit et cum uxore consenuit, optabiliore fortassis exitu quam socer eius, generi sui facinore nec ignorante filia, sicut perhibetur, exstinctus.

[11] Nec tamen istum Tarquinium Romani crudelem aut sceleratum sed superbum appellauerunt, fortasse regios eius fastus alia superbia non ferentes. Nam scelus occisi ab eo soceri optimi regis sui usque adeo contempserunt ut eum regem suum facerent; ubi miror si non scelere grauiore mercedem tantam tanto sceleri reddiderunt. Nec ‘discessere adytis arisque relictis di’, nisi forte quispiam sic defendat istos deos ut dicat eos ideo mansisse Romae, quo possent magis Romanos punire suppliciis quam beneficiis adiuuare, seducentes eos uanis uictoriis et bellis grauissimis conterentes.

[12] Haec fuit Romanorum uita sub regibus laudabili tempore illius reipublicae usque ad expulsionem Tarquinii Superbi per ducentos ferme et quadraginta et tres annos, cum illae omnes uictoriae tam multo sanguine et tantis emptae calamitatibus uix illud imperium intra uiginti ab urbe milia dilatauerint; quantum spatium absit ut saltem alicuius Getulae ciuitatis nunc territorio comparetur.

BOOK THREE

57

[9] Mind you, when the Romans later removed him from the throne, and expelled him beyond the city-walls, it was not he but his son who sinned by raping Lucretia. Not only was the father ignorant of the deed, but he was also absent. At that time he was attacking the city of Ardea, waging war on behalf of the Roman people. We do not know what he would have done if the outrage committed by his son had been reported to him. However, the people deprived him of his supreme office without enquiring or ascertaining how he regarded the crime, and when they had taken over that army (for the troops were ordered to desert him), the citizens closed the gates, and did not allow him entrance back into the city.

[10] After most gruelling wars in which he roused neighbouring communities to arms and harassed these same Romans, he was abandoned by the allies on whose aid he relied, and was unable to recover the kingdom. The tradition records that for fourteen years he settled at Tusculum, a town close to Rome, living in peaceful privacy and growing old in company with his wife. The manner of his death was perhaps preferable to that of his father-in-law, who had been snuffed out by the crime of his son-in-law with the connivance, it is said, of his own daughter.

[11] But the Romans did not label this Tarquin ‘The Cruel’ or ‘The Wicked’, but ‘The Proud’. Perhaps it was a different kind of pride that made them unable to bear his kingly arrogance, for they regarded his criminal murder of his father-in-law, who was their best king, so lightly that they made him their monarch. I speculate that to reward so great a crime with so great a prize was a more grievous crime still. Nor did “the gods, quitting the shrines and altars, make off”. But perhaps someone will defend them by suggesting that they remained at Rome so as to be able to inflict punishment on the Romans rather than to aid them with kindnesses, by enticing them with vain victories, and exhausting them in the harshest wars.

[12] Such was the life of the Romans under the kings, the praiseworthy period of the state, lasting for two hundred and forty-three years until Tarquinius Superbus was driven out. All these victories purchased at the cost of so much bloodshed and such great disasters barely extended Rome’s dominion as far as twenty miles from the city. It would be ridiculous to compare that extent of territory with that of any Gaetulian city of today!

58

LIBER III

XVI

[1] Huic tempori adiciamus etiam tempus illud quo usque dicit Sallustius aequo et modesto iure agitatum, dum metus a Tarquinio et bellum graue cum Etruria positum est. Quamdiu enim Etrusci Tarquinio in regnum redire conanti opitulati sunt, graui bello Roma concussa est. Ideo dicit aequo et modesto iure gestam rempublicam metu premente, non persuadente iustitia. [2] In quo breuissimo tempore quam funestus ille annus fuit quo primi consules creati sunt expulsa regia potestate! Annum quippe suum non compleuerunt. Nam Iunius Brutus exhonoratum eiecit urbe collegam Lucium Tarquinium Collatinum; deinde mox ipse in bello cecidit mutuis cum hoste uulneribus, occisis a se ipso primitus filiis suis et uxoris suae fratribus, quod eos pro restituendo Tarquinio coniurasse cognouerat. [3] Quod factum Vergilius postea quam laudabiliter commemorauit, continuo clementer exhorruit. Cum enim dixisset Natosque pater noua bella mouentes

Ad poenam pulchra pro libertate uocabit,
mox deinde exclamauit, et ait

Infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores.

Quomodolibet, inquit ea facta posteri ferant, id est praeferant et extollant, qui filios occidit infelix est. Et tamquam ad consolandum infelicem subiunxit:

Vincit amor patriae laudumque immensa cupido.

[4] Nonne in hoc Bruto, qui et filios occidit et a se percusso hosti filio Tarquinii mutuo percussus superuiuere non potuit eique potius ipse Tarquinius superuixit, Collatini collegae uidetur innocentia uindicata, qui bonus ciuis hoc Tarquinio pulso passus est quod tyrannus ipse Tarquinius?

[5] Nam et idem Brutus consanguineus Tarquinii fuisse perhibetur; sed Collatinum uidelicet similitudo nominis pressit, quia etiam Tarquinius uocabatur. Mutare ergo nomen non patriam cogeretur; postremo in eius nomine hoc uocabulum minus esset, L. Collatinus tantummodo uocaretur.

BOOK THREE

59

XVI

[1] Let us now append to that era the period that Sallust says continued to uphold the regimen of justice and moderation, until apprehension of Tarquin and oppressive war with Etruria were set aside. For Rome was shattered with oppressive war for so long as the Etruscans lent aid to Tarquin in his attempt to recover his kingdom. According to Sallust, the state was governed with the regimen of justice and moderation through looming fear rather than through the prompting of justice. [2] In this very brief period how sepulchral was the year in which the kingly power was removed, and the first consuls were appointed! For they did not complete their year of office. Junius Brutus deposed and banished from the city his fellow-consul Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and shortly afterwards he himself fell in warfare after he and his foe wounded each other. Moreover, before this he had executed his sons and the brothers of his wife because he discovered that they had conspired to restore Tarquin. [3] Virgil later recorded this deed with praise, but at once also expressed compassionate horror, for after stating

Their father, when his sons unleash fresh wars,

Will punish them for noble freedom’s sake,
he then cried out

Poor wretch, however later men will judge these deeds!

What he is saying is that however posterity will judge these deeds (in other words, approve and praise them), the man who kills his sons is wretched indeed. As though to console the poor man, he added: Love of his land, insatiate thirst for praise prevail.

[4] With regard to this Brutus, we can surely say – in view of the fact that he both executed his sons and himself failed to survive his foe, Tarquin’s son, after they had mortally wounded each other, whereas Tarquin himself survived him – that the innocence of his fellow-consul Collatinus seems to have been avenged, for Collatinus was a good citizen, yet following Tarquin’s expulsion he suffered the same fate as that tyrant. [5] We are in fact told that Brutus was a blood-relative of Tarquin; doubtless the similarity of name caused Collatinus’ downfall, for he bore the additional name of Tarquinius. He ought accordingly to have been compelled to change his name rather than his native land. In short, this part of his name should have counted for less, and he should have been called merely Lucius Collatinus. The reason why he did not discard what he could have

60

LIBER III

Sed ideo non amisit quod sine ullo detrimento posset amittere, ut et honore primus consul et ciuitate bonus ciuis carere iuberetur. Etiamne ista est gloria, Iunii Bruti detestanda iniquitas et nihilo utilis reipublicae? Etiamne ad hanc perpetrandam ‘uicit amor patriae laudumque immensa cupido’?

[6] Iam expulso utique Tarquinio tyranno consul cum Bruto creatus est maritus Lucretiae L. Tarquinius Collatinus. Quam iuste populus mores in ciue, non nomen attendit! Quam impie Brutus collegam primae ac nouae illius potestatis, quem posset si hoc offendebatur nomine tantum priuare, et patria priuauit et honore! Haec mala facta sunt, haec aduersa acciderunt, quando in illa republica ‘aequo et modesto iure agitatum est’. [7] Lucretius quoque, qui in locum Bruti fuerat subrogatus, morbo antequam idem annus terminaretur absumptus est. Ita P. Valerius, qui successerat Collatino, et M. Horatius, qui pro defuncto Lucretio suffectus fuerat, annum illum funereum atque tartareum, qui consules quinque habuit, compleuerunt, quo anno consulatus ipsius nouum honorem ac potestatem auspicata est Romana respublica.

XVII

[1] Tunc iam deminuto paululum metu, non quia bella conquieuerant sed quia non tam graui pondere urgebant, finito scilicet tempore quo ‘aequo iure ac modesto agitatum est’, secuta sunt quae idem Sallustius breuiter explicat: ‘Dein seruili imperio patres plebem exercere, de uita atque tergo regio more consulere, agro pellere et ceteris expertibus soli in imperio agere. [2] Quibus saeuitiis et maxime faenore oppressa plebes, cum adsiduis bellis tributum et militiam simul toleraret, armata montem sacrum atque Auentinum insedit, tumque tribunos plebis et alia iura sibi parauit.

Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum bellum Punicum.’

BOOK THREE

61
discarded without suffering any loss was so that he would be ordered to forgo as the first consul his magistracy, and as a good citizen his citizenship. So does Junius Brutus’ despicable unfairness, which was of no service to the state, still redound to his glory? Did “love of his land, insatiate thirst for glory prevail” even in committing this injustice?

[6] It was certainly the case that when the tyrant Tarquin was banished, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, husband of Lucretia, was appointed consul with Brutus. How right the people were to show regard for this citizen’s character rather than his name! And how wicked it was of Brutus to deprive his colleague, at the outset of the new magistracy, of his native land and his office, when he could have stripped him merely of his name if it alienated people! These evils were perpetrated, these unhappy events occurred when “the regimen of justice and moderation was upheld” in the state. [7] Then too Lucretius, elected in Brutus’ stead, took ill and died before the close of the year. So Publius Valerius, who had taken the place of Collatinus, and Marcus Horatius, who had been appointed to replace the dead Lucretius, saw out that year of death and hell in which there were five consuls. This was the year in which the Roman state initiated the new office of the consulship and its power.

XVII

[1] These fears then lessened very slightly, not because there had been a respite from wars, but because they were not so grievously oppressive.

This marked the close of the era in which “the regimen of justice and moderation was upheld”. There followed events briefly described again by Sallust. “After that the Fathers oppressed the common folk, ruling them as slaves. They bore hard on their lives and their persons, as the kings had habitually done. They drove them off the land, and they alone wielded the supreme power, in which the rest had no part. The common folk were downtrodden by such harsh treatment, and especially by the interest on their debts. [2] Enduring as they did both tribute and military service simultaneously in continual wars, they took up arms and occupied the Sacred Mount and the Aventine. They then won for themselves plebeian tribunes and other rights. The Second Punic War brought an end to the disputes and struggles on both sides.”

62

LIBER III

[3] Quid itaque ego tantas moras uel scribens patiar, uel lecturis adferam? Quam misera fuerit illa respublica, tam longa aetate per tot annos usque ad secundum bellum Punicum bellis forinsecus inquietare non desistentibus et intus discordiis seditionibusque ciuilibus, a Sallustio breuiter intimatum est. Proinde uictoriae illae non solida beatorum gaudia fuerunt, sed inania solacia miserorum et ad alia atque alia sterilia mala subeunda inlecebrosa incitamenta minime quietorum. [4] Nec nobis, quia hoc dicimus, boni Romani prudentesque suscenseant, quamquam de hac re nec petendi sint nec monendi, quando eos minime suscensuros esse certissimum est. Neque enim grauius uel grauiora dicimus auctoribus eorum et stilo et otio multum impares; quibus tamen ediscendis et ipsi elaborauerunt et filios suos elaborare compellunt.

[5] Qui autem suscensent, quando me ferrent si ego dicerem quod Sallustius ait? ‘Plurimae turbae, seditiones et ad postremum bella ciuilia orta sunt dum pauci potentes, quorum in gratiam plerique concesserant, sub honesto patrum aut plebis nomine dominationes adfectabant; bonique et mali ciues appellati, non ob merita in rempublicam, omnibus pariter corruptis, sed uti quisque locupletissimus et iniuria ualidior, quia praesentia defendebat, pro bono ducebatur.’

[6] Porro si illi scriptores historiae ad honestam libertatem pertinere arbitrati sunt mala ciuitatis propriae non tacere, quam multis locis magno praeconio laudare compulsi sunt, cum aliam ueriorem, quo ciues aeterni legendi sunt, non haberent, quid nos facere conuenit, quorum spes quanto in deo melior et certior, tanto maior debet esse libertas, cum mala praesentia Christo nostro imputant, ut infirmiores imperitioresque mentes alienentur ab ea ciuitate in qua sola iugiter feliciterque uiuendum est? [7]

Nec in deos eorum horribiliora nos dicimus quam eorum identidem auctores, quos legunt et praedicant, quando quidem et ex ipsis quae diceremus accepimus, et nullo modo dicere uel talia uel cuncta sufficimus.

BOOK THREE

63

[3] Why, then, should I saddle myself with writing, or my readers with reading, an account that would detain us at length? Sallust has indicated in a few words the wretched plight of the Roman state: how, for the long period of all the years up to the Second Punic War, fighting abroad and civil dissensions and rebellions at home never ceased to plague them. So the victories they won did not bring secure joys to contented citizens, but empty consolations to them in their misery, and alluring incentives to utterly restless men to undertake one series of barren hardships after another. [4] Romans who are good and wise should not be angry with me for saying this. Indeed, there is no need to beg or to cajole them on this score, for it is quite certain that they will feel no anger at all. The charges I make are no more serious or more seriously made than are those levelled by their own historians, to whom I am greatly inferior in both style and the application of leisure. Romans of today have slaved at memorizing them, and they compel their sons to do the same. [5] So how can they be angry with me, since they would bear with me for saying what Sallust has to say?

“Numerous disturbances, rebellions, and eventually civil wars broke out, while a few powerful men, to whom most citizens had bowed to win their favour, sought tyrannical powers under the honourable pretext of defending the senators or the commons. They were given the titles of

‘good citizens’ and ‘evil citizens’, not according to their services to the state, since they were all equally corrupt, but according as each had the greatest wealth and greater powers of wronging others, he was accounted

‘good’ because he maintained the status quo.”

[6] Moreover, if those historians thought it consonant with honourable freedom not to maintain silence about the ills of their republic (whereas at many points in their narrative they were constrained to lavish great praise on it, since they did not own that other, truer city where citizens are to be chosen for all time), what is it appropriate for us to do? Our freedom of expression should be greater as our hope in God is better and more secure, when our opponents attribute the present ills to our Christ, so that weaker, less knowledgeable minds may become estranged from that city in which alone we are to live happily for ever. [7] Our criticisms of their gods are no more scathing than are the repeated criticisms by their own authors whom they read and praise. Indeed, it is from them that we have derived our own comments, for we ourselves are wholly unable to pronounce on such specific issues, or on their history in general.

64

LIBER III

[8] Vbi ergo erant illi dii, qui propter exiguam fallacemque mundi huius felicitatem colendi existimantur, cum Romani, quibus se colendos mendacissima astutia uenditabant, tantis calamitatibus uexarentur? Vbi erant quando Valerius consul ab exulibus et seruis incensum Capitolium cum defensaret occisus est, faciliusque ipse prodesse potuit aedi Iouis quam illi turba tot numinum cum suo maximo atque optimo rege, cuius templum liberauerat, subuenire? [9] Vbi erant, quando densissimis fatigata ciuitas seditionum malis, cum legatos Athenas missos ad leges mutuandas paululum quieta opperiretur, graui fame pestilentiaque uastata est? [10]

Vbi erant quando rursus populus, cum fame laboraret, praefectum annonae primum creauit, atque illa fame inualescente Spurius Maelius, quia esurienti multitudini frumenta largitus est, regni adfectati crimen incurrit, et eiusdem praefecti instantia per dictatorem L. Quinctium aetate decrepitum a Quinto Seruilio magistro equitum cum maximo et periculosissimo tumultu ciuitatis occisus est?

[11] Vbi erant, quando pestilentia maxima exorta diis inutilibus populus diu multumque fatigatus noua lectisternia, quod numquam antea fecerat, exhibenda arbitratus est? Lecti autem sternebantur in honorem deorum, unde hoc sacrum, uel potius sacrilegium, nomen accepit. Vbi erant quando per decem continuos annos male pugnando crebras et magnas clades apud Veios exercitus Romanus acceperat, nisi per Furium Camillum tandem subueniretur, quem postea ciuitas ingrata damnauit? [12] Vbi erant quando Galli Romam ceperunt spoliauerunt incenderunt caedibus impleuerunt?

Vbi erant cum illa insignis pestilentia tam ingentem stragem dedit, qua et ille Furius Camillus exstinctus est, qui rempublicam ingratam et a Veientibus ante defendit et de Gallis postea uindicauit? In hac pestilentia scaenicos ludos aliam nouam pestem non corporibus Romanorum sed, quod est multo perniciosius, moribus intulerunt.

BOOK THREE

65

[8] So my question is: where were those gods who for the sake of meagre and deceptive happiness in this world are thought worthy of worship, when the Romans were harassed by such great disasters? After all, they repeatedly and with most fraudulent guile peddled themselves to them as worthy of their worship. Where were they when the consul Valerius was killed in defence of the Capitol when it was set on fire by exiles and slaves? Valerius himself was more promptly able to lend succour to the shrine of Jupiter than that mob of innumerable deities with their king, greatest and best, whose temple Valerius had rescued, was able to come to the aid of Valerius.

[9] Where were they when the state, exhausted by the evils of uprisings that came thick and fast, was enjoying momentary peace as it awaited the ambassadors dispatched to Athens to adopt the laws from there, and was ravaged by oppressive famine and plague? [10] Where were they when the citizens were again suffering from famine, and for the first time appointed a prefect for the corn supply? When the famine was at its height, Spurius Maelius was accused of designs on the kingship because he distributed corn to the hungry populace. At the prompting of that same prefect, and on the orders of the senile dictator Lucius Quinctius, Manlius was executed by Quintus Servilius, Master of Horse, provoking extreme disturbances of the most dangerous kind.

[11] Where were the gods when during the outbreak of a monstrous plague the people, afflicted by lengthy and grievous exhaustion, decided that they should institute the lectisternia, a new and unprecedented ceremony, to their ineffective deities? Couches were set out in honour of the gods; this is how the sacred, or rather sacrilegious, ritual derived its name. Where were they when for ten years running the Roman army performed poorly at Veii, and would have continued to suffer many large-scale disasters had not relief finally arrived in the person of Furius Camillus, who was subsequently condemned by the ungrateful citizenry?

[12] Where were they when the Gauls captured, plundered, burnt, and filled with slain corpses the city of Rome? Where were they when that memorable plague caused such huge casualties? That was the occasion on which the same Furius Camillus, who had earlier defended the ungrateful state against the Veientines and had later exacted revenge from the Gauls, met his death. In the course of that plague the authorities introduced the stage-shows, an additional new plague that pervaded not the bodies of the Romans but their way of life, a much more deadly infection.

66

LIBER III

[13] Vbi erant quando alia pestilentia grauis de uenenis matronarum exorta credita est, quarum supra fidem multarum atque nobilium mores deprehensi sunt omni pestilentia grauiores? Vel quando in Caudinas furculas a Samnitibus obsessi ambo cum exercitu consules foedus cum eis foedum facere coacti sunt, ita ut equitibus Romanis sescentis obsidibus datis ceteri amissis armis aliisque spoliati priuatique tegminibus sub iugum hostium in uestimentis singulis mitterentur?

[14] Vel quando graui pestilentia ceteris laborantibus multi etiam in exercitu icti fulmine perierunt? Vel quando item alia intolerabili pestilentia Aesculapium ab Epidauro quasi medicum deum Roma aduocare atque adhibere compulsa est, quoniam regem omnium Iouem, qui iam diu in Capitolio sedebat, multa stupra, quibus adulescens uacauerat, non permiserant fortasse discere medicinam?

[15] Vel cum conspirantibus uno tempore hostibus Lucanis Bruttiis Samnitibus Etruscis et Senonibus Gallis primo ab eis legati perempti sunt, deinde cum praetore oppressus exercitus septem tribunis cum illo pereuntibus et militum tredecim milibus? [16] Vel quando post longas et graues Romae seditiones, quibus ad ultimum plebs in Ianiculum hostili diremptione secesserat, huius mali tam dira calamitas erat ut eius rei causa, quod in extremis periculis fieri solebat, dictator crearetur Hortensius, qui plebe reuocata in eodem magistratu exspirauit, quod nulli dictatori ante contigerat, et quod illis diis iam praesente Aesculapio grauius crimen fuit?

[17] Tum uero tam multa bella ubique crebruerunt ut inopia militum proletarii illi, qui eo quod proli gignendae uacabant ob egestatem militare non ualentes hoc nomen acceperant, militiae conscriberentur. Accitus etiam a Tarentinis Pyrrhus, rex Graeciae, tunc ingenti gloria celebratus, Romanorum hostis effectus est. Cui sane de rerum futuro euentu consulenti satis urbane Apollo sic ambiguum oraculum edidit ut, e duobus

BOOK THREE

67

[13] Where were the gods when another grievous plague broke out, which was believed to have stemmed from poisons administered by married women whose numbers and nobility defied belief? They were found guilty of misbehaviour more grievous than any plague. Or where were they when the two consuls with their army were besieged by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks, and were compelled to conclude a humiliating treaty with them? Six hundred cavalry were surrendered as hostages; the rest of the army forfeited their arms, were stripped of other accoutrements, deprived of their shields, and with one garment each were driven beneath the enemy yoke.

[14] Or when the rest of the population was afflicted with a grievous plague, and many in the army also died when struck by a lightning-shaft?

Or again, when in the course of another intolerable plague, Rome was compelled to call in Aesculapius from Epidaurus, and to adopt him as their god of healing? Perhaps this was because Jupiter king of all, now enthroned on the Capitol, had idled away his youth in many bouts of sexual intercourse that had left him no time to study medicine!

[15] Where were they when Lucanians, Bruttians, Samnites, Etruscans, and Senonian Gauls simultaneously combined forces as foes, and first murdered Roman ambassadors, and then brought low the army and its praetor in command, with the slaughter, in addition to him, of seven military tribunes and thirteen thousand troops? [16] Or when, after protracted and grievous uprisings at Rome, in which the common folk finally broke off relations like an enemy and retired to the Janiculum, so grim was this disastrous evil that to meet the emergency, Hortensius was appointed dictator, a procedure usually adopted at times of extreme danger? After summoning back the common folk, he died during tenure of that office, a fate that had never before befallen any dictator. This was an indictment of those gods all the more serious because Aesculapius was now at hand.

[17] At that time so many wars had erupted thick and fast on every side that because of the shortage of troops the proletarii were enrolled for military service. They had acquired this name because they had leisure to beget children ( proles), being too poor to qualify for military service. To compound the situation, Pyrrhus, king of Greece and a man of great and widespread fame, was invited in by the Tarentines and became an enemy of the Romans. It was doubtless in response to his enquiry about the future outcome that Apollo quite wittily issued an oracular reply of such studied

68

LIBER III
quidquid accidisset, ipse diuinus haberetur. Ait enim: ‘Dico te, Pyrrhe, uincere posse Romanos’; atque ita, siue Pyrrhus a Romanis siue Romani a Pyrrho uincerentur, securus fatidicus utrumlibet expectaret euentum. Quae tunc et quam horrenda utriusque exercitus clades! In qua tamen superior Pyrrhus exstitit, ut iam posset Apollinem pro suo intellectu praedicare diuinum, nisi proxime alio proelio Romani abscederent superiores.

[18] Atque in tanta strage bellorum etiam pestilentia grauis exorta est mulierum. Nam priusquam maturos partus ederent, grauidae moriebantur.

Vbi se, credo, Aesculapius excusabat quod archiatrum non obstetricem profitebatur. Pecudes quoque similiter interibant, ita ut etiam defecturum genus animalium crederetur. [19] Quid? Hiems illa memorabilis tam incredibili immanitate saeuiens ut niuibus horrenda altitudine etiam in foro per dies quadraginta manentibus Tiberis quoque glacie duraretur, si nostris temporibus accidisset, quae isti et quanta dixissent!

[20] Quid? Illa itidem ingens pestilentia quamdiu saeuiit, quam multos peremit! Quae cum in annum alium multo grauius tenderetur frustra praesente Aesculapio, aditum est ad libros Sibyllinos. In quo genere oraculorum, sicut Cicero in libris De diuinatione commemorat, magis interpretibus ut possunt seu uolunt dubia coniectantibus credi solet. [21]

Tunc ergo dictum est eam esse causam pestilentiae, quod plurimas aedes sacras multi occupatas priuatim tenerent; sic interim a magno imperitiae uel desidiae crimine Aesculapius liberatus est. Vnde autem a multis aedes illae fuerant occupatae nemine prohibente, nisi quia tantae numinum turbae diu frustra fuerat supplicatum, atque ita paulatim loca deserebantur a cultoribus, ut tamquam uacua sine ullius offensione possent humanis saltem usibus uindicari? [22] Namque tunc uelut ad sedendam pestilentiam diligenter repetita atque reparata nisi postea eodem modo neglecta atque usurpata latitarent, non utique magnae peritiae Varronis tribueretur, quod

BOOK THREE

69
ambiguity as to show that he was inspired, whichever of two possibilities ensued. What he said was: “I proclaim that you, Pyrrhus, the Romans can conquer.” So whether Pyrrhus was conquered by the Romans, or the Romans by Pyrrhus, the prophet could confidently await either outcome.

What disaster then ensued, and how dreadful it was for both armies!

Pyrrhus emerged superior in that conflict, so that his reading of the situation allowed him to proclaim that Apollo was a true prophet. But unfortunately shortly afterwards the Romans came off better in a further battle.

[18] Suddenly in the midst of the great carnage in these wars, a grievous plague broke out among the women as well, for they died in pregnancy before they could bring their offspring to full term. I suspect that Aesculapius excused himself in this instance by claiming that he was the physician-in-chief, and not an obstetrician! Cattle likewise died in such numbers that it was believed that the whole of the animal species would be wiped out. [19] Moreover, that winter was notable for such incredible severity that the snow remained piled up to a monstrous height for forty days even in the forum, and the Tiber was frozen over with solid ice as well. If this had happened in our day what a loud outcry would our adversaries have raised against us!

[20] Again, there was that widespread plague that carried off so many in its savage course. When it extended into a second year much more grievously, and the presence of Aesculapius proved fruitless, recourse was had to the Sibylline books. As Cicero observes in his books On Divination, this type of oracle inspires greater belief, when its interpreters hazard uncertain explanations according to their abilities or fancies. [21] So on this occasion it was claimed that the plague had arisen because many people were using numerous consecrated shrines as private residences. So for the moment Aesculapius was acquitted on the serious charge of incompetence or idleness. But for what reason had those shrines been taken over by many without opposition, except that prayers to that massive crowd of deities had for long been vain, so that gradually the sites were abandoned by worshippers, with the result that they could at any rate be claimed for human use without affecting anyone, since they were unoccupied? [22] On that occasion they were conscientiously recovered and repaired to allay the plague. But if thereafter they did not fall into disuse in the same way to be taken over unnoticed, Varro’s considerable expertise would not be acknowledged, when he remarks in his writings

70

LIBER III
scribens de aedibus sacris tam multa ignorata commemorat. Sed tunc interim elegans non pestilentiae depulsio, sed deorum excusatio procurata est.

XVIII

[1] Iam uero Punicis bellis, cum inter utrumque imperium uictoria diu anceps atque incerta penderet, populique duo praeualidi impetus in alterutrum fortissimos et opulentissimos agerent, quot minutiora regna contrita sunt! Quae urbes amplae nobilesque deletae, quot adflictae, quot perditae ciuitates! Quam longe lateque tot regiones terraeque uastatae sunt!

Quotiens uicti hinc atque inde uictores! Quid hominum consumptum est uel pugnantium militum uel ab armis uacantium populorum! Quanta uis nauium marinis etiam proeliis oppressa, et varietate diuersarum tempestatum varietate submersa est! Si enarrare uel commemorare conemur, nihil aliud quam scriptores etiam nos erimus historiae.

[2] Tunc magno metu perturbata Romana ciuitas ad remedia uana et ridenda currebat. Instaurati sunt ex auctoritate librorum Sibyllinorum ludi saeculares, quorum celebritas inter centum annos fuerat instituta felicioribusque temporibus memoria neglegente perierat. Renouarunt etiam pontifices ludos sacros inferis et ipsos abolitos annis retrorsum melioribus.

[3] Nimirum enim quando renouati sunt tanta copia morientium ditatos inferos etiam ludere delectabat, cum profecto miseri homines ipsa rabida bella et cruentas animositates funereasque hinc atque inde uictorias magnos agerent ludos daemonum et opimas epulas inferorum. [4] Nihil sane miserabilius primo Punico bello accidit quam quod ita Romani uicti sunt ut etiam Regulus ille caperetur, cuius in primo et in altero libro mentionem fecimus, uir plane magnus et uictor antea domitorque Poenorum, qui etiam ipsum primum bellum Punicum confecisset nisi auiditate nimia laudis et gloriae duriores condiciones quam ferre possent fessis Carthaginiensibus imperasset. Illius uiri et captiuitas inopinatissima

BOOK THREE

71
that the whereabouts of so many sacred shrines were unknown. But for the present, though there was no riddance of the plague, a specious excuse for the gods was adduced.

XVIII

[1] Again, in the Punic wars, when in doubt and uncertainty victory was for long finely balanced between the two empires, and those two extremely powerful peoples attacked each other with the utmost strength and abundant resources, how many smaller kingdoms were trodden underfoot!

How many great and famous cities were destroyed, and how many communities were oppressed and ruined! How many regions and countries far and wide were ravaged! How often were the conquerors on both sides later conquered! What heavy loss of life there was among soldiers on active service, and among non-combatant communities! What a huge array of ships was crippled in engagements at sea, or sunk in all kinds of foul weather! If I were to try to recount or to record those events, my role would be no other than that of historical chronicler.

[2] At that time the Roman state was in confusion and great alarm, and had hasty recourse to remedies both futile and laughable. On the authority of the Sibylline Books, the Secular Games were renewed. This ceremony had been mounted a century before, but in happier times it was forgotten and dropped. The priests also revived the games sacred to the gods of the underworld; these too had been abandoned in happier years earlier. [3]

When they were renewed, the shows were certainly an additional source of pleasure to the gods below; they were already enriched by the great number of the dead, for undoubtedly wretched men were conducting those mad wars, bloody disputes and death-laden victories on both sides as great sport for demons and as lavish banquets for the subterranean gods. [4]

Certainly in the First Punic War no more wretched event occurred than that Roman defeat that led also to the capture of Regulus, whom I discussed in the first and second books. He was a great man indeed; earlier he had defeated and crushed the Carthaginians, and he would also have brought an end to the First Punic War if unbounded greed for praise and glory had not led him to impose upon the weary Carthaginians peace-terms more stringent than they could bear. If his totally unexpected captivity, his most unmerited slavery, his most scrupulous oath, and his most cruel death

72

LIBER III
et seruitus indignissima et iuratio fidelissima et mors crudelissima si deos illos non cogit erubescere, uerum est quod aerii sunt et non habent sanguinem.

[5] Nec mala illo tempore grauissima intra moenia defuerunt. Nam exundante nimis ultra morem fluuio Tiberino paene omnia urbis plana subuersa sunt, aliis impetu quasi torrentis impulsis, aliis uelut stagno diuturno madefactis atque sublapsis. [6] Istam deinde pestem ignis perniciosior subsecutus est, qui correptis circa forum quibusque celsioribus etiam templo Vestae suo familiarissimo non pepercit, ubi ei ueluti uitam perpetuam diligentissima substitutione lignorum non tam honoratae quam damnatae uirgines donare consuerant. Tunc uero illic ignis non tantum uiuebat, sed etiam saeuiebat. Cuius impetu exterritae uirgines sacra illa fatalia, quae iam tres in quibus fuerant presserant ciuitates, cum ab illo incendio liberare non possent, Metellus pontifex suae quodam modo salutis oblitus inruens ea semiustus abripuit. [7] Neque enim uel ipsum ignis agnouit, aut uero erat ibi numen quod non etiam si fuisset fugisset.

Homo igitur potius sacris Vestae quam illa homini prodesse potuerunt. Si autem a se ipsis ignem non repellebant, ciuitatem cuius salutem tueri putabantur quid contra illas aquas flammasque poterant adiuuare? Sicut etiam res ipsa nihil ea prorsus potuisse patefecit.

[8] Haec istis nequaquam obicerentur a nobis si illa sacra dicerent non tuendis his bonis temporalibus instituta, sed significandis aeternis, et ideo cum ea quod corporalia uisibiliaque essent, perire contingeret, nihil his rebus minui, propter quas fuerant instituta, et posse ad eosdem usus denuo reparari. Nunc uero caecitate mirabili eis sacris quae perire possent fieri potuisse existimant ut salus terrena et temporalis felicitas ciuitatis perire non posset. Proinde cum illis etiam manentibus sacris uel salutis contritio uel infelicitas inruisse monstratur, mutare sententiam quam defendere nequeunt erubescunt.

BOOK THREE

73
did not bring a blush to the cheeks of those gods, they are certainly unsubstantial and have no blood in them.

[5] At that time, too, most grievous ills were not lacking within the city-walls, for most unusually the river Tiber overflowed, covering virtually all the level areas of the city, so that some buildings were uprooted by torrential violence and others collapsed from damp caused by the long-standing water around them. [6] This bane was then followed by a fire more destructive still. It took hold of all the higher buildings around the forum, and did not spare even the temple of Vesta to which it was closely related, for in it the Virgins customarily bestowed a sort of undying life upon it by most assiduously replenishing it with wood – a role not so much a distinction as a punishment. On that occasion the fire in the temple not only remained lit but also burned fiercely. The virgins were panic-stricken by its violence, and could not rescue from the blaze the sacred objects whose link with destiny had already afflicted the three cities in which they had been preserved. So the priest Metellus, seemingly indifferent to his safety, rushed in and extricated them. [7] In so doing he was badly burnt, for the fire did not recognise even its priest, and any deity who happened to be present would not have failed to beat a retreat. So a man was better able to be of service to Vesta’s sacred objects than the deities could be of service to him. Now if they did not fend off the fire from themselves, how could they lend aid to the city, whose safety they were believed to protect, against those floods and flames? The course of events revealed precisely that they had no influence whatever.

[8] There would be no force at all in these objections of ours if our opponents claimed that these rites were established not to protect these temporal goods on earth, but to signal the goods that are eternal; and accordingly that though these material and visible objects happened to be destroyed, this did not affect the things for which they had been established, and they could be restored afresh for the same purposes. But as things stand, their surprising myopia leads them to think that the existence of sacred objects subject to destruction ensured that the earthly safety and the temporal happiness of the state could not be destroyed. So when it is demonstrated that even with the survival of those sacred objects the safety of the state was eroded or assailed by misfortune, they are ashamed to relinquish a belief that they cannot defend.

74

LIBER III

XIX

[1] Secundo autem Punico bello nimis longum est commemorare clades duorum populorum tam longe secum lateque pugnantium, ita ut his quoque fatentibus qui non tam narrare bella Romana quam Romanum imperium laudare instituerunt, similior uicto fuerit ille qui uicit. [2] Hannibale quippe ab Hispania surgente et Pyrenaeis montibus superatis, Gallia transcursa Alpibusque disruptis, tam longo circuitu auctis uiribus cuncta uastando aut subigendo torrentis modo Italiae faucibus inruente, quam cruenta proelia gesta sunt, quotiens Romani superati! Quam multa ad hostem oppida defecerunt, quam multa capta et oppressa! Quam dirae pugnae et totiens Hannibali Romana clade gloriosae! [3] De Cannensi autem mirabiliter horrendo malo quid dicam, ubi Hannibal, cum esset crudelissimus, tamen tanta inimicorum atrocissimorum caede satiatus parci iussisse perhibetur?

Vnde tres modios anulorum aureorum Carthaginem misit, quo intellegerent tantam in illo proelio dignitatem cecidisse Romanam ut facilius eam caperet mensura quam numerus, atque hinc strages turbae ceterae tanto utique numerosioris quanto infimioris, quae sine anulis iacebat, conicienda potius quam nuntianda putaretur.

[4] Denique tanta militum inopia secuta est ut Romani reos facinorum proposita impunitate colligerent, seruitia libertate donarent atque illis pudendus non tam suppleretur quam institueretur exercitus. Seruis itaque, immo ne faciamus iniuriam, iam libertis, pro Romana republica pugnaturis arma defuerunt. Detracta sunt templis tamquam Romani diis suis dicerent:

‘Ponite quae tam diu inaniter habuistis, ne forte aliquid utile inde facere possint nostra mancipia, unde nostra numina facere non potuistis.’

[5] Tunc etiam stipendiis sufficiendis cum defecisset aerarium, in usus publicos opes uenere priuatae, adeo unoquoque id quod habuit conferente, ut praeter singulos anulos singulasque bullas, miserabilia dignitatis

BOOK THREE

75

XIX

[1] It would be too lengthy a task to recount the disasters suffered by both peoples who fought with each other over so wide an area in the Second Punic War. Even those historians whose purpose was not so much to recount Rome’s wars as to praise her dominion confess that the conqueror emerged more like the conquered. [2] For when Hannibal set out from Spain, crossed the Pyrenees, marched through Gaul, and broke through the Alps, he increased his resources during that lengthy detour by plundering or crushing all in his path, and when like a raging torrent he burst through the passes into Italy, what bloody battles were fought, and how often the Romans were defeated! How numerous were the towns that seceded to the enemy, and how numerous those captured and reduced! How grim were the conflicts, and how often did they bring Hannibal glory through Roman disasters! [3] How can I describe the incredible horror of the disaster at Cannae? In that battle for all his cruelty Hannibal is said to have given the instruction to spare the enemy, since he had gorged himself with the wholesale slaughter of his most ruthless enemies. As booty from that battle he shipped to Carthage gold rings filling three modii. This was to indicate to them that in that battle the Roman nobility had fallen in such great numbers that it was easier to measure them than to count them, and this would give them an idea of the scale of the slaughter of the rest lying there without rings, more numerous because they were of lower rank. The number was to be guessed at rather than reported.

[4] In the outcome such a shortage of troops ensued that the Romans mobilized condemned criminals with promise of impunity, and gave slaves their freedom. With these they did not so much reinforce their army as create a force of contemptibles. These slaves – or rather, to avoid insulting them, these new freedmen – who were to fight for the Roman state, had no weapons. So arms were removed from the temples, as though the Romans were saying to their gods: “Surrender your arms which for so long have been your pointless possessions, preventing our slaves from being able to make some use of them, whereas you who are our deities could not.”

[5] On that occasion too since the treasury had insufficient funds to meet the soldiers’ pay, the resources of private individuals were harnessed for use by the state. Each individual contributed what he had, so that senators left themselves without gold apart from the one ring and the one medal that each had as the pitiful marks of his high rank; and that was

76

LIBER III
insignia, nihil sibi auri senatus ipse quanto magis ceteri ordines tribusque relinquerent. Quis ferret istos, si nostris temporibus ad hanc inopiam cogerentur, cum eos modo uix feramus, quando pro superflua uoluptate plura donantur histrionibus quam tunc legionibus pro extrema salute conlata sunt?

XX

[1] Sed in his omnibus belli Punici secundi malis nihil miserabilius ac miserabili querella dignius quam exitium Saguntinorum fuit. Haec quippe Hispaniae ciuitas amicissima populi Romani, dum eidem populo fidem seruat, euersa est. Hinc enim Hannibal fracto foedere Romanorum causas quaesiuit quibus eos inritaret ad bellum. [2] Saguntum ergo ferociter obsidebat. Quod ubi Romae auditum est, missi legati ad Hannibalem ut ab eius obsidione discederet. Contempti Carthaginem pergunt querimoniamque deponunt foederis rupti, infectoque negotio Romam redeunt. Dum hae morae aguntur, misera illa ciuitas opulentissima, suae reipublicae Romanaeque carissima, octauo uel nono a Poenis mense deleta est.

[3] Cuius interitum legere, quanto magis scribere, horroris est. Breuiter tamen eum commemorabo; ad rem quippe quae agitur multum pertinet.

Primo fame contabuit; nam etiam suorum cadaueribus a nonnullis pasta perhibetur. Deinde omnium fessa rerum, ne saltem captiua in manus Hannibalis perueniret, ingentem rogum publice struxit, in quem ardentem ferro etiam trucidatos omnes se suosque miserunt. [4] Hic aliquid agerent dii helluones atque nebulones, sacrificiorum adipibus inhiantes et fallacium diuinationum caligine decipientes; hic aliquid agerent, ciuitati populi Romani amicissimae subuenirent, fidei conseruatione pereuntem perire non sinerent.

[5] Ipsi utique medii praefuerunt cum Romanae reipublicae interiecto foedere copulata est. Custodiens itaque fideliter, quod ipsis praesidibus

BOOK THREE

77
more than the lower orders and members of the tribes had to keep. If in our own day our adversaries were reduced to such poverty, how could anyone bear with them? Even as it is, we find them hard to bear, when more money is spent on actors satisfying men’s pointless pleasures than was contributed to the legions when they were desperately defending the city’s safety.

XX

[1] But of all the ills of the Second Punic War, none was sadder or more deserving of sad lamentation than the destruction of the Saguntines; for this city in Spain, which enjoyed the closest friendship with the Roman people, was overthrown through keeping faith with them. When Hannibal broke his treaty with the Romans, Saguntum was the source of his pretexts for inciting the Romans to war. [2] So he launched a fierce siege of the city. When this news reached Rome, ambassadors were despatched to Hannibal to bid him to abandon the siege of the city. When they were held to scorn, they journeyed on to Carthage and registered a complaint at the breaking of the treaty. These negotiations were unsuccessful, and they returned to Rome. In the course of these delays, that wretched city of enormous wealth, which was cherished by its own state and by that of Rome, suffered destruction in the eighth or ninth month at the hands of the Carthaginians.

[3] To read of its end is horrifying, and to write about it much more so.

But I shall briefly recount it, for it is closely relevant to our discussion.

Initially the city was wasted by famine; some say that men feasted on the corpses of her citizens. Then, when total exhaustion set in, to avoid captivity at all costs at the hands of Hannibal, a massive fire was built by the community. As it blazed, they all put their families to the sword, and threw themselves and their corpses on it. [4] Those gods, gluttons and scoundrels as they were, slobbering over fat sacrificial victims and beguiling men with the fog of deceitful prophecies, should have acted at that time. They should have acted and aided that city so closely allied to the Roman people. They should not have allowed it to perish, for it perished through keeping faith.

[5] When Saguntum was allied to the Roman state by a treaty between them, the gods certainly presided as middlemen. So it was while faithfully

78

LIBER III
placito iunxerat, fide uinxerat, iuratione constrinxerat, a perfido obsessa oppressa consumpta est. Si ipsi dii tempestate atque fulminibus Hannibalem postea Romanis proximum moenibus terruerunt longeque miserunt, tunc primum tale aliquid facerent. [6] Audeo quippe dicere honestius illos pro amicis Romanorum ideo periclitantibus ne Romanis frangerent fidem et nullam opem tunc habentibus, quam pro ipsis Romanis, qui pro se pugnabant atque aduersus Hannibalem opulenti erant, potuisse tempestate saeuire.

[7] Si ergo tutores essent Romanae felicitatis et gloriae, tam graue ab ea crimen Saguntinae calamitatis auerterent. Nunc uero quam stulte creditur diis illis defensoribus Romam uictore Hannibale non perisse, qui Saguntinae urbi non potuerunt, ne pro eius periret amicitia, subuenire! [8]

Si Saguntinorum Christianus populus esset et huius modi aliquid pro fide euangelica pateretur, quamquam se ipse nec ferro nec ignibus corrupisset, sed tamen si pro fide euangelica excidium pateretur, ea spe pateretur qua in Christum crediderat, non mercede breuissimi temporis sed aeternitatis interminae. [9] Pro istis autem diis, qui propterea coli perhibentur, propterea colendi requiruntur ut harum labentium atque transeuntium rerum felicitas tuta sit, quid nobis defensores et excusatores eorum de Saguntinis pereuntibus respondebunt, nisi quod de illo Regulo exstincto?

Hoc quippe interest, quod ille unus homo, haec tota ciuitas; utriusque tamen interitus causa conseruatio fidei fuit. Propter hanc enim ad hostes et redire ille uoluit, et noluit ista transire.

[10] Conseruata ergo prouocat deorum iram fides? An possunt et diis propitiis perire non solum quique homines uerum etiam integrae ciuitates?

Vtrum uolunt eligant. Si enim fidei seruatae irascuntur illi dii, quaerant perfidos a quibus colantur; si autem etiam illis propitiis multis grauibusque

BOOK THREE

79
observing this treaty, which under the presidency of the gods it had contracted by agreement, pledged by solemn promise, and ratified by oath, that it was besieged, crushed and destroyed by a man who had broken his word. If those gods wielded tempests and thunderbolts to terrify Hannibal as later he drew near to the walls of Rome, and drove him a distance away, they ought to have done something similar on that first occasion. [6]

Indeed, I make bold to claim that it would have been more honourable to have succeeded in raising a fierce storm in defence of the friends of the Romans, for they endangered themselves to avoid breaking faith with the Romans, and at that time they had no resources. This would have been better than aiding the Romans themselves in that way, for the Romans fought on their own behalf, and had rich resources with which to confront Hannibal.

[7] So if the gods were custodians of Roman success and fair fame, they should have acquitted their city on that serious charge of causing the disaster at Saguntum. But in actuality what foolishness it is to believe that Rome did not fall before a victorious Hannibal owing to the protection of those gods, when they could not lend aid to the city of Saguntum and prevent the destruction caused by her friendship with Rome! [8] If the Saguntines had been Christians and had suffered such a fate because of their belief in the gospel (they would not, of course, have taken their own lives by fire and sword, but assuming that their belief in the gospel caused them to suffer destruction), their suffering would have been relieved by the hope, inspired by faith in Christ, not of the most short-lived reward, but of eternity without end. [9] But the Roman gods, it is claimed, are worshipped and are required to be worshipped so that success in this frail and transitory world of matter may be assured. So what response will those who defend and excuse them make to us about the destruction of the Saguntines other than that which they make about the murder of Regulus?

True, there is this difference between them, that one was an individual and the other an entire city. But the reason why both were destroyed was that they kept faith, for this was why Regulus decided to return to the enemy, and why Saguntum refused to change sides.

[10] So does keeping faith rouse the gods’ anger? Or even if the gods favour them, can entire cities as well as individuals be wiped out? Our adversaries must opt for one of two choices. If the gods are angry when people keep faith, they must seek the worship of perfidious men. But if men and states, even when the gods are well-disposed, can be eliminated

80

LIBER III
cruciatibus adflicti interire homines ciuitatesque possunt, nullo fructu felicitatis huius coluntur. [11] Desinant igitur suscensere qui sacris deorum suorum perditis se infelices esse factos putant. Possent enim illis non solum manentibus uerum etiam fauentibus non sicut modo de miseria murmurare, sed sicut tunc Regulus et Saguntini excruciati horribiliter etiam penitus interire.

XXI

[1] Porro inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, quando Sallustius optimis moribus et maxima concordia dixit egisse Romanos (multa enim praetereo suscepti operis modum cogitans), [2] eodem ipso ergo tempore morum optimorum maximaeque concordiae Scipio ille Romae Italiaeque liberator eiusdemque belli Punici secundi tam horrendi, tam exitiosi, tam periculosi praeclarus mirabilisque confector, uictor Hannibalis domitorque Carthaginis, cuius ab adulescentia uita describitur diis dedita templisque nutrita, inimicorum accusationibus cessit, carensque patria, quam sua uirtute saluam et liberam reddidit, in oppido Liternensi egit reliquam compleuitque uitam, post insignem suum triumphum nullo illius urbis captus desiderio, ita ut iussisse perhibeatur ne saltem mortuo in ingrata patria funus fieret. [3] Deinde tunc primum per Gnaeum Manlium proconsulem de Gallograecis triumphantem Asiatica luxuria Romam omni hoste peior inrepsit. Tunc enim primum lecti aerati et pretiosa stragula uisa perhibentur; tunc inductae in conuiuia psaltriae et alia licentiosa nequitia.

[4] Sed nunc de his malis quae intolerabiliter homines patiuntur, non de his quae libenter faciunt, dicere institui. Vnde illud magis quod de Scipione commemoraui, quod cedens inimicis extra patriam quam liberauit mortuus est, ad praesentem pertinet disputationem, quod ei Romana numina, a quorum templis auertit Hannibalem, non reddiderunt uicem, quae propter istam tantummodo coluntur felicitatem.

BOOK THREE

81
after subjection to many grievous tortures, worship of those gods brings no reward of earthly happiness. [11] So those who imagine that the misfortunes they have suffered are attributable to the loss of ritual worship of their gods must cease to be angry; for even if the gods were not merely present but also well-disposed, these men might not be grumbling now at their harsh lot, but be subjected to appalling torture and even total destruction, like Regulus and the Saguntines in former days.

XXI

[1] The period between the second and final war with Carthage was said by Sallust to have been the age when the Romans lived out their lives with the worthiest manners and the greatest harmony. (In view of the limits of my chosen theme, I am passing over much of their history.) [2] So it was in that very era of ‘worthiest manners and greatest harmony’ that the celebrated Scipio, liberator of Rome and Italy, the outstanding and remarkable man who brought the dreadful, deadly, hazardous Second Punic War to a close, overcame Hannibal and subdued Carthage. It is stated that his life from early manhood was devoted to the gods and nurtured in the temples. Yet he gave way before the accusations of his enemies, was sundered from his country, which by his courage he had made safe and free, and spent the rest of his days at Liternum, where he died. In spite of his outstanding triumph earlier, he felt no longing for the city he had quitted; he is said to have left instructions that even after death he should not be buried in his ungrateful native land. [3] After him Asian decadence, more deadly than any foe, first crept into Rome through Gnaeus Manlius, who as proconsul triumphed over the Gallograecians. It was then for the first time that bronze couches and costly coverlets are said to have made their appearance; then too female harpists were introduced at banquets with other uninhibited vices.

[4] But at this time I am minded to recount not the vices in which men willingly indulge, but ills beyond bearing that they endure. More relevant to my discussion is the treatment of Scipio that I mentioned. He yielded to his enemies, and died outside his native land, which he had liberated. The Roman deities, whose temples he had preserved from Hannibal, did not reward him in return, though the sole reason for worshipping them is to obtain such happiness.

82

LIBER III

[5] Sed quia Sallustius eo tempore ibi dixit mores optimos fuisse, propterea hoc de Asiana luxuria commemorandum putaui, ut intellegatur etiam illud a Sallustio in comparationem aliorum temporum dictum, quibus temporibus peiores utique in grauissimis discordiis mores fuerunt.

Nam tunc, id est inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, lata est etiam lex illa Voconia, ne quis heredem feminam faceret, nec unicam filiam. Qua lege quid iniquius dici aut cogitari possit, ignoro. Verum tamen toto illo interuallo duorum bellorum Punicorum tolerabilior infelicitas fuit. Bellis tantummodo foris conterebatur exercitus, sed uictoriis consolabatur; domi autem nullae, sicut alias, discordiae saeuiebant.

[6] Sed ultimo bello Punico uno impetu alterius Scipionis, qui ob hoc etiam ipse Africani cognomen inuenit, aemula imperii Romani ab stirpe deleta est, ac deinde tantis malorum aggeribus oppressa Romana respublica ut prosperitate ac securitate rerum, unde nimium corruptis moribus mala illa congesta sunt, plus nocuisse monstretur tam cito euersa quam prius nocuerat tam diu aduersa Carthago.

[7] Hoc toto tempore usque ad Caesarem Augustum, qui uidetur non adhuc uel ipsorum opinione gloriosam, sed contentiosam et exitiosam et plane iam eneruem ac languidam, libertatem omni modo extorsisse Romanis et ad regale arbitrium cuncta reuocasse, et quasi morbida uetustate conlapsam ueluti instaurasse ac renouasse rempublicam. [8] Toto ergo isto tempore omitto ex aliis atque aliis causis etiam atque etiam bellicas clades et Numantinum foedus horrenda ignominia maculosum; uolauerant enim pulli de cauea, et Mancino consuli, ut aiunt, augurium malum fecerant. Quasi per tot annos, quibus illa exigua ciuitas Romanum circumsessa exercitum adflixerat, ipsique Romanae reipublicae terrori esse iam coeperat, alii contra eam alio augurio processerunt.

BOOK THREE

83

[5] Now Sallust stated that this was the era of worthiest manners. It was for this reason that I thought that I should make mention of Asian degeneracy, so that it may be realised that Sallust made this claim only in comparison with other eras, during which behaviour was worse, especially in episodes of most grievous disharmony. In fact at this time between the second and the final war with Carthage, the notorious Voconian law was passed, enjoining that no-one should name a woman, not even an only daughter, as inheritor. I do not know what can be said or imagined more unjust than this law. However, during that entire period between the two Punic wars Rome’s unhappiness was easier to endure. The wars that wearied the army were all fought solely abroad, and the victories were comforting; at home there were no savage conflicts as at other times.

[6] But in the final Punic war, in a single attack launched by that other Scipio, who by virtue of this campaign also obtained the surname Africanus, the rival of the Roman empire was eradicated root and branch.

It was then that the Roman state was ground down by such an accumulation of evils that the speedy overthrow of Carthage demonstrably dealt more damage than her lengthy hostility had done previously. This was because material prosperity and security had led to extreme corruption of morals and a consequent horde of those evils.

[7] Consider now the entire period down to Caesar Augustus. It seems clear that he robbed the Romans totally of the freedom that even in their own eyes was no longer glorious, but argumentative and destructive, now clearly lacking all vigour, and exhausted; and that he re-imposed monarchical control over the whole society, restoring, so to say, and renewing the state when it had foundered through diseased old age. [8] So in discussion of this whole period, I refrain from mentioning the repeated disasters in war that had various causes, and also the treaty with Numantia, which was stained with shameful disgrace. The historians state that the flight of chickens from their coop had portended disaster for the consul Mancinus. To think that during all those years in which that insignificant city, though blockaded, had oppressed the Roman army, and had begun to cause apprehension in the Roman state itself, different commanders who campaigned against it did so having taken auguries quite different!

84

LIBER III

XXII

[1] Sed haec, inquam, omitto, quamuis illud nequaquam tacuerim, quod Mithridates rex Asiae ubique in Asia peregrinantes ciues Romanos atque innumerabili copia suis negotiis intentos uno die occidi iussit; et factum est. Quam illa miserabilis rerum facies erat, subito quemque, ubicumque fuisset inuentus, in agro in uia in oppido, in domo in uico in foro, in templo in lecto in conuiuio, inopinate atque impie fuisse trucidatum! [2]

Quis gemitus morientium, quae lacrimae spectantium, fortasse etiam ferientium fuerunt! Quam dura necessitas hospitum non solum uidendi nefarias illas caedes domi suae, uerum etiam perpetrandi, ab illa blanda comitate humanitatis repente mutatis uultibus ad hostile negotium in pace peragendum, mutuis dicam omnino uulneribus, cum percussus in corpore et percussor in animo feriretur!

[3] Num et isti omnes auguria contempserant? Num deos et domesticos et publicos, cum de sedibus suis ad illam inremeabilem peregrinationem profecti sunt, quos consulerent non habebant? Hoc si ita est, non habent cur isti in hac causa de nostris temporibus conquerantur; olim Romani haec uana contemnunt. Si autem consuluerunt, respondeatur quid ista profuerunt, quando per humanas dumtaxat leges nemine prohibente licuerunt.

XXIII

[1] Sed iam illa mala breuiter quantum possumus commemoremus, quae quanto interiora, tanto miseriora exstiterunt, discordiae ciuiles uel potius inciuiles, nec iam seditiones sed etiam ipsa bella urbana, ubi tantus sanguis effusus est, ubi partium studia non contionum dissensionibus uariisque uocibus in alterutrum, sed plane iam ferro armisque saeuiebant; bella socialia, bella seruilia, bella ciuilia quantum Romanum cruorem fuderunt, quantam Italiae uastationem desertionemque fecerunt!

BOOK THREE

85

XXII

[1] But as I say, I pass over these events. But I certainly cannot leave unmentioned the decree of Mithradates king of Asia, that Roman citizens resident abroad throughout Asia, countless numbers of them involved in their business affairs, were to be assassinated on a single day. This actually happened. How wretched the spectacle was! Suddenly every individual, wherever he was found – in the countryside, or on a journey, or in a town; in his home or in the street; in the forum, or in a temple; in bed, or at table

– was without warning sacrilegiously butchered. [2] Think of the groaning of the dying, the tears shed by onlookers and perhaps by the assassins!

How grim that compulsion laid on hosts not merely to witness these wicked acts of slaughter in their homes, but also to execute them! Think of their faces, suddenly transformed from courteous and kindly amiability to adopt the role of enemies in time of peace! Wounds, I may say, were undoubtedly sustained on both sides, by the slain in their bodies, and by the slayers in their hearts!

[3] Surely all these victims had not disdained the auspices? When they left their homes to journey abroad, never to return, there were surely both household-gods and state-deities to consult? If such is the case, our adversaries have no reason to complain about our own times, so far as auguries are concerned, for the Romans long ago disregarded such signs as idle. But if those victims did consult the auspices, let us be told in answer what use these were at the time when they were permitted by human laws at least, and no-one sought to forbid them.

XXIII

[1] But let me now briefly narrate as best I can the ills that were all the more wretched because they were internal. These were civil, or rather uncivil, disturbances, no longer mere seditions but actual urban wars in which there was widespread bloodshed, and the passions of the factions raged not in disputes in assemblies, nor in altercations with each other, but openly with the steel and with weapons of war. How much Roman blood these social, slave, and civil wars shed! What huge tracts of Italy they ravaged and left deserted!

86

LIBER III

[2] Namque antequam se aduersus Romam sociale Latium commoueret, cuncta animalia humanis usibus subdita, canes equi asini boues, et quaeque alia pecora sub hominum dominio fuerunt, subito efferata et domesticae lenitatis oblita, relictis tectis libera uagabantur, et omnem non solum aliorum, uerum etiam dominorum auersabantur accessum, non sine exitio uel periculo audentis, si quis de proximo urgeret.

Quanti mali signum fuit, si hoc signum fuit, quod tantum malum fuit, si etiam signum non fuit! Hoc si nostris temporibus accidisset, rabidiores istos quam sua illi animalia pateremur.

XXIV

[1] Initium autem ciuilium malorum fuit seditiones Gracchorum agrariis legibus excitatae. Volebant enim agros populo diuidere, quos nobilitas perperam possidebat. Sed iam uetustam iniquitatem audere conuellere periculosissimum, immo uero, ut res ipsa docuit, perniciosissimum fuit.

Quae funera facta sunt, cum prior Gracchus occisus est! [2] Quae etiam, cum alius frater eius non longo interposito tempore! Neque enim legibus et ordine potestatum, sed turbis armorumque conflictibus nobiles ignobilesque necabantur. [3] Post Gracchi alterius interfectionem Lucius Opimius consul, qui aduersus eum intra urbem arma commouerat, eoque cum sociis oppresso et exstincto ingentem ciuium stragem fecerat, cum quaestionem haberet iam iudiciaria inquisitione ceteros persequens, tria milia hominum occidisse perhibetur. [4] Ex quo intellegi potest quantam multitudinem mortium habere potuerit turbidus conflictus armorum, quando tantam habuit iudiciorum uelut exanimata cognitio. Percussor Gracchi ipsius caput, quantum graue erat, tanto auri pondere consuli uendidit; haec enim pactio caedem praecesserat. In qua etiam occisus est cum liberis Marcus Fuluius consularis.

BOOK THREE

87

[2] What happened was that before the allied region of Latium roused itself to war against Rome, all animals subdued for human uses – dogs, horses, asses, oxen, and other livestock controlled by men – suddenly turned wild, and without thought of gentle domesticity left their sheds and wandered free. They repelled every approach not only of others but also of their masters, which resulted in some deaths and dangers to anyone daring to draw near to apply pressure on them. What a great ill this portended, if it was a portent, and even if it was not, what a great evil it was! If this had occurred in our own day, we would have endured more rabid opposition from our adversaries than those Romans suffered from their animals.

XXIV

[1] The civil disturbances originated with revolts provoked by the agrarian laws of the Gracchi, who sought to divide among the common folk the lands that the nobility unjustly possessed. But to dare to eradicate a long-standing injustice was highly hazardous, or rather utterly ruinous, as events proved. Think of the deaths that followed the assassination of the elder Gracchus, [2] and the others not long after when the other Gracchus his brother was likewise killed. Noblemen and men of common stock alike were murdered, not legally by the due process of the magistrates, but by mobs and armed conflicts. [3] After the murder of the younger Gracchus, the consul Lucius Opimius, who had taken up arms against him inside the city, and had suppressed and murdered him together with his comrades, and perpetrated a massive slaughter of citizens, later launched an investigation, and exploited the judicial process to pursue the rest of Gracchus’ supporters. He is said to have executed 3,000 of them. [4] This enables us to assess the huge number of deaths that could have resulted from the riotous armed conflict, when what purported to be a judicial investigation resulted in so many condemnations. The assassin of Gracchus sold the victim’s head to the consul for its weight in gold, for this had been agreed before the slaughter. A further victim of the killing was Marcus Fulvius an ex-consul, together with his children.

88

LIBER III

XXV

[1] Eleganti sane senatus consulto eo ipso loco, ubi funereus tumultus ille commissus est, ubi tot ciues ordinis cuiusque ceciderunt, aedes Concordiae facta est, ut Gracchorum poenae testis contionantium oculos feriret memoriamque compungeret. Sed hoc quid aliud fuit quam inrisio deorum, illi deae templum construere, quae si esset in ciuitate, non tantis dissensionibus dilacerata conrueret? Nisi forte sceleris huius rea Concordia, quia deseruerat animos ciuium, meruit in illa aede tamquam in carcere includi.

[2] Cur enim, si rebus gestis congruere uoluerunt, non ibi potius aedem Discordiae fabricarunt? An ulla ratio redditur cur Concordia dea sit et Discordia dea non sit, ut secundum Labeonis distinctionem bona sit ista, illa uero mala? Nec ipse aliud secutus uidetur quam quod aduertit Romae etiam Febri sicut Saluti templum constitutum. Eo modo igitur non solum Concordiae uerum etiam Discordiae constitui debuit. [3] Periculose itaque Romani tam mala dea irata uiuere uoluerunt, nec Troianum excidium recoluerunt originem ab eius offensione sumpsisse. Ipsa quippe quia inter deos non fuerat inuitata, trium dearum litem aurei mali suppositione commenta est; unde rixa numinum et Venus uictrix, et rapta Helena, et Troia deleta. Quapropter si forte indignata quod inter deos in urbe nullum templum habere meruit, ideo iam turbabat tantis tumultibus ciuitatem quanto atrocius potuit inritari, cum in loco illius caedis, hoc est in loco sui operis, aduersariae suae constitutam aedem uideret!

[4] Haec uana ridentibus nobis illi docti sapientesque stomachantur, et tamen numinum bonorum malorumque cultores de hac quaestione Concordiae Discordiaeque non exeunt, siue praetermiserint harum dearum cultum eisque Febrem Bellonamque praetulerint, quibus antiqua fana

BOOK THREE

89

XXV

[1] What an urbane senatorial decree that was, as a result of which a shrine to Concord was erected in the very place where that murderous disturbance occurred, and where so many citizens of every rank had fallen, so that as witness to the punishment of the Gracchi, it would strike the eyes and impinge on the memory of those who made speeches to the commons! What else was this but mockery of the gods, to build a temple to the goddess whose presence in the city would have prevented it from being torn to pieces and collapsing under such widespread disagreements!

Unless perhaps Concord was guilty of this crime, because she had deserted the minds of the citizens, and so deserved to be confined in that shrine as though in gaol.

[2] If they had wanted to make the shrine apposite to the events, why did they not erect it to Discord instead? Can any reason be given why Concord should be a goddess, and Discord not? In keeping with the distinction made by Labeo, one would be good, and the other evil. Labeo seems to have made precisely this distinction from observing that at Rome a temple had been raised to Fever, as one had been raised to Health. So in the same way a shrine ought to have been erected to Discord, and not merely to Concord. [3] As it was, the Romans chose to live hazardously under the angry shadow of so evil a goddess. They did not remember that Troy’s destruction dated from having alienated her, for because she had not been offered a place among the gods, she fomented the disagreement between the three goddesses by setting before them the golden apple. The outcome was a brawl between those deities and victory for Venus, the abduction of Helen, and the destruction of Troy. So if Discord was already pitching the city into turmoil with such large-scale insurrections, because she was angry at failing to obtain a temple at Rome like the other deities, how much more savagely could she have been provoked when she saw a shrine to her adversary erected on the site of the slaughter, the scene of her own handiwork?

[4] When we smile at these empty fantasies, our learned and wise adversaries become angry. Yet since they worship both good and evil deities, they do not avoid this problem concerning Concord and Discord.

They either neglected worship of these goddesses, and promoted Fever and Bellona above them (for they erected shrines to these goddesses in days of

90

LIBER III
fecerunt, siue et istas coluerint, cum sic eos discedente Concordia Discordia saeuiens usque ad ciuilia bella perduxerit.

XXVI

[1] Praeclarum uero seditionis obstaculum aedem Concordiae, testem caedis suppliciique Gracchorum, contionantibus opponendam putarunt.

Quantum ex hoc profecerint, indicant secuta peiora. Laborarunt enim deinceps contionatores non exemplum deuitare Gracchorum, sed superare propositum, Lucius Saturninus tribunus plebis et Gaius Seruilius praetor et non multo post Marcus Drusus, quorum omnium seditionibus caedes primo iam tunc grauissimae, deinde socialia bella exarserunt, quibus Italia uehementer adflicta et ad uastitatem mirabilem desertionemque perducta est. Bellum deinde seruile successit et bella ciuilia.

[2] Quae proelia commissa sunt, quid sanguinis fusum, ut omnes fere Italae gentes, quibus Romanum maxime praepollebat imperium, tamquam saeua barbaries domarentur! Iam ex paucissimis, hoc est minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribus quem ad modum bellum seruile contractum sit, ad quantum numerum et quam acrem ferocemque peruenerit, quos ille numerus imperatores populi Romani superauerit, quas et quomodo ciuitates regionesque uastauerit, uix qui historiam conscripserunt satis explicare potuerunt. [3] Neque id solum fuit seruile bellum, sed et Macedoniam prouinciam prius seruitia depopulata sunt, et deinde Siciliam oramque maritimam. Quanta etiam et quam horrenda commiserint primo latrocinia, deinde ualida bella piratarum, quis pro magnitudine rerum ualeat eloqui?

XXVII

[1] Cum uero Marius ciuili sanguine iam cruentus multis aduersarum sibi partium peremptis uictus urbe profugisset, uix paululum respirante ciuitate,

BOOK THREE

91
old), or they worshipped them as well, though Concord let them down like this, and Discord in fury led them on as far as the Civil Wars.

XXVI

[1] The powers that be thought that they should counter demagogues in the assembly by building a shrine to Concord; this would serve as a conspicuous stumbling-block to rebellion, for it would witness to the punitive slaughter of the Gracchi. The deterioration that followed showed just how much good this did them, for one after another the demagogues strenuously sought not to stray from the precedent set by the Gracchi, but to advance their programme further. These were the plebeian tribune Lucius Saturninus, the praetor Gaius Servilius, and not much later Marcus Drusus. The uprisings that they initiated then first fanned the flames of most grievous slaughter, and subsequently those of the Social Wars with which Italy was sorely afflicted, and was reduced to astonishing depths of devastation and desolation. These conflicts were followed by the Slave War and the Civil Wars.

[2] Think of the battles then joined, and the blood then shed! Virtually all the peoples of Italy, who had ensured Rome’s massive imperial dominance, were crushed like some brutal horde of barbarians. Then too the historians have found it hard satisfactorily to explain how the Slave War arose from a tiny band of gladiators, less than seventy of them, who expanded into a huge number of fierce and ferocious men; the generals of the Roman people whom that force overcame, the cities and districts that they ravaged, and how they did it. [3] And this was not the only slave war, for earlier, slaves had plundered the province of Macedonia, and later, Sicily and the coastline of Italy. And again, whose eloquence could match the importance of the subject in describing first the scale of the dreadful pillaging perpetrated by the pirates, and then the fierce wars in which they engaged?

XXVII

[1] When Marius, whose hands were already red with the blood of large numbers of slaughtered citizens from the opposing faction, had been

92

LIBER III
ut uerbis Tullianis utar, ‘Superauit postea Cinna cum Mario. Tum uero clarissimis uiris interfectis lumina ciuitatis exstincta sunt. [2] Vltus est huius uictoriae crudelitatem postea Sulla, ne dici quidem opus est quanta deminutione ciuium et quanta calamitate reipublicae.’ De hac enim uindicta, quae perniciosior fuit quam si scelera quae puniebantur impunita relinquerentur, ait et Lucanus:

[3] Excessit medicina modum, nimiumque secuta est qua morbi duxere manum. Periere nocentes;
sed cum iam soli possent superesse nocentes.

[4] Illo bello Mariano atque Sullano exceptis his, qui foris in acie ceciderunt, in ipsa quoque urbe cadaueribus uici plateae fora theatra templa completa sunt, ut difficile iudicaretur quando uictores plus funerum ediderint, utrum prius ut uincerent an postea quia uicissent; [5] cum primum uictoria Mariana, quando de exilio se ipse restituit, exceptis passim quaqua uersum caedibus factis, caput Octauii consulis poneretur in rostris, Caesares a Fimbria domibus trucidarentur suis, duo Crassi pater et filius in conspectu mutuo mactarentur, Baebius et Numitorius unco tracti sparsis uisceribus interirent, Catulus hausto ueneno se manibus inimicorum subtraheret, Merula flamen dialis praecisis uenis Ioui etiam suo sanguine litaret. In ipsius autem Marii oculis continuo feriebantur quibus salutantibus dexteram porrigere noluisset.

XXVIII

[1] Sullana uero uictoria secuta, huius uidelicet uindex crudelitatis, post tantum sanguinem ciuium quo fuso fuerat comparata, finito iam bello inimicitiis uiuentibus crudelius in pace grassata est. Iam etiam post Marii maioris pristinas ac recentissimas caedes additae fuerant aliae grauiores a Mario iuuene atque Carbone earundem partium Marianarum, qui Sulla

BOOK THREE

93
defeated and had fled from the city, the state enjoyed the mere hint of a breathing space. But then, to quote Cicero’s words, “Cinna and Marius later gained the upper hand. Then when our most celebrated men were murdered, the lights of the state were extinguished. [2] Later, Sulla avenged the cruelty of that victory. There is no need even to mention the decline in numbers of the citizens and the scale of the disaster to the state.”

This vengeance of Sulla was more wicked than if the crimes that were punished had been left unpunished. As Lucan too put it,

[3] The remedy transgressed all bounds, pursued too far Where the disease guided the surgeon’s hand.

Yes, guilty men had died, yet those who did survive Could only be the guilty.

[4] In that war between Marius and Sulla, quite apart from those who fell in battle outside, the corpses in the city itself filled the neighbourhoods, the streets, the squares, the theatres, the temples. It was difficult to decide whether the victors inflicted more deaths before the victory in order to achieve it, or after it because they had achieved it. [5] To begin with, when Marius was victorious on securing his return from exile (I need not mention the butchery that had taken place on every side), the head of the consul Octavius was impaled on the rostra, the Caesars were murdered in their own homes by Fimbria, the Crassi, father and son, were butchered before each other’s eyes, Baebius and Numitorius were slain, having been dragged along by a hook, and their entrails scattered along the way, Catulus escaped the clutches of his enemies by drinking poison, and Merula, priest of Jupiter, poured a libation of his blood to that god by opening his veins. And those to whom Marius refused to extend his right hand in response to their greeting were at once struck down before his eyes.

XXVIII

[1] There followed the victory of Sulla that exacted vengeance for this cruelty. After all the shedding of the blood of citizens by which the victory had been won, even though the war was now over, enmities lived on, and that victory stalked more cruelly in time of peace. Already, after both the initial and the most recent bouts of butchery perpetrated by the elder Marius, further more grievous carnage had been the work of young Marius

94

LIBER III
imminente non solum uictoriam uerum etiam ipsam desperantes salutem cuncta suis aliis caedibus impleuerunt. [2] Nam praeter stragem late per diuersa diffusam obsesso etiam senatu de ipsa curia tamquam de carcere producebantur ad gladium. Mucius Scaeuola pontifex, quoniam nihil apud Romanos templo Vestae sanctius habebatur, aram ipsam amplexus occisus est, ignemque illum qui perpetua uirginum cura semper ardebat, suo paene sanguine exstinxit.

Vrbem deinde Sulla uictor intrauit, qui in uilla publica non iam bello sed ipsa pace saeuiente septem milia deditorum, unde utique inermia, non pugnando sed iubendo prostrauerat.

[3] In urbe autem tota quem uellet Sullanus quisque feriebat, unde tot funera numerari omnino non poterant, donec Sullae suggereretur sinendos esse aliquos uiuere, ut essent quibus possent imperare qui uicerant. Tunc iam cohibita quae hac atque illac passim furibunda ferebatur licentia iugulandi, tabula illa cum magna gratulatione proposita est, quae hominum ex utroque ordine splendido, equestri scilicet atque senatorio, occidendorum ac proscribendorum duo milia continebat. Contristabat numerus, sed consolabatur modus; nec quia tot cadebant tantum erat maeroris quantum laetitiae quia ceteri non timebant.

[4] Sed in quibusdam eorum qui mori iussi erant etiam ipsa licet crudelis ceterorum securitas genera mortium exquisita congemuit.

Quemdam enim sine ferro laniantium manus diripuerunt, immanius homines hominem uiuum quam bestiae solent discerpere cadauer abiectum. Alius oculis effossis et particulatim membris amputatis in tantis cruciatibus diu uiuere, uel potius diu mori, coactus est. [5] Subhastatae sunt etiam tamquam uillae quaedam nobiles ciuitates; una uero, uelut unus reus duci iuberetur, sic tota iussa est trucidari. Haec facta sunt in pace post bellum, non ut acceleraretur obtinenda uictoria, sed ne contemneretur obtenta. Pax cum bello de crudelitate certauit et uicit. Illud enim prostrauit

BOOK THREE

95
and of Carbo, who belonged to that same Marian faction. With Sulla close at hand, they lost hope not just of victory but also of their own safety, and they filled all Rome with their fresh bouts of slaughter. [2] In addition to the widespread carnage in different areas, they laid siege even to the senate, and senators were led out from the senate-house as though from prison to face the sword. Since the Romans regarded nothing more sacred than the temple of Vesta, the pontiff Mucius Scaevola clung to the very altar there, but was slain; his blood virtually extinguished the fire that was always kept burning under the ceaseless supervision of the Virgins.

Sulla then entered the city as victor. The war was now at an end, but peace had adopted its savagery. In the State Residence, not in conflict but by command, he struck down seven thousand men who had surrendered and were therefore unarmed.

[3] Throughout the entire city each man of the Sullan faction cut down all at will; the huge number of corpses was beyond all counting. Finally it was put to Sulla that some should be allowed to live so that the conquerors could have some citizens under their sway. So then, once that crazed discretion to slit men’s throats that was raging at random on every side had been restrained, the notorious list was published to great acclaim. It contained the names of two thousand men from the two distinguished ranks of equestrians and senators who were to be killed and to have their property confiscated. The number was a cause of grief, but the restriction was some consolation. Sorrow at the large number of victims was not so great as delight that the rest had nothing now to fear.

[4] But the refined modes of death suffered by some of those sentenced were a source of lamentation to the rest, however hard-hearted their own immunity made them. One was torn to pieces by men’s bare hands without use of a sword. Men tore a living person to pieces more monstrously than beasts are wont to mangle an abandoned corpse. Another had his eyes gouged out and his limbs dismembered one by one, compelled while suffering such harsh tortures to go on living, or rather to go on dying, for a long time. [5] Some famous cities, too, were put under the auctioneer’s hammer as if they were country-estates; indeed, in one of them the whole population was ordered to be slaughtered like some individual found guilty and ordered to be led out for execution. These events took place in the peace that followed the war, not so that victory would be won more swiftly, but so that once won it would not be regarded lightly. Peace challenged war in a contest of cruelty, and prevailed, for whereas war

96

LIBER III
armatos, ista nudatos. Bellum erat ut qui feriebatur, si posset, feriret; pax autem, non ut qui euaserat uiueret, sed ut moriens non repugnaret.

XXIX

[1] Quae rabies exterarum gentium, quae saeuitia barbarorum huic de ciuibus uictoriae ciuium comparari potest? Quid Roma funestius taetrius amariusque uidit, utrum olim Gallorum et paulo ante Gothorum inruptionem an Marii et Sullae aliorumque in eorum partibus uirorum clarissimorum tamquam suorum luminum in sua membra ferocitatem? [2]

Galli quidem trucidauerunt senatum, quidquid eius in urbe tota praeter arcem Capitolinam, quae sola utcumque defensa est, reperire potuerunt; sed in illo colle constitutis auro uitam saltem uendiderunt, quam etsi ferro rapere non possent, possent tamen obsidione consumere, Gothi uero tam multis senatoribus pepercerunt, ut magis mirum sit quod aliquos peremerunt.

[3] At uero Sulla uiuo adhuc Mario ipsum Capitolium, quod a Gallis tutum fuit, ad decernendas caedes uictor insedit, et cum fuga Marius lapsus esset ferocior cruentiorque rediturus, iste in Capitolio per senatus etiam consultum multos uita rebusque priuauit. [4] Marianis autem partibus Sulla absente quid sanctum cui parcerent fuit, quando Mucio ciui senatori pontifici aram ipsam ubi erant, ut aiunt, fata Romana, miseris ambienti amplexibus non pepercerunt? Sullana porro tabula illa postrema, ut omittamus alias innumerabiles mortes, plures iugulauit senatores quam Gothi uel spoliare potuerunt.

XXX

[1] Qua igitur fronte, quo corde, qua impudentia, qua insipientia uel potius amentia illa diis suis non imputant, et haec nostro imputant Christo?

Crudelia bella ciuilia omnibus bellis hostilibus, auctoribus etiam eorum

BOOK THREE

97
struck down armed men, peace crushed them when they were exposed.

Warfare allowed the person who was struck to strike back, if he could, but peace did not allow a survivor to live on. He died, unable to retaliate.

XXIX

[1] What mad fury of foreign nations, what savagery of barbarians can be compared with that victory of citizens over citizens? Which was the more deadly, foul, and bitter for Rome to witness, the invasions by the Gauls long ago, and again by the Goths only recently, or the savagery of Marius and Sulla and of other men of the greatest distinction in their factions, the eyes of the body-politic, so to say, attacking their own limbs? [2] True, the Gauls slaughtered such senators as they could meet throughout the city except in the Capitoline citadel, which alone contrived to be defended, but at least they traded the lives of those who had established themselves on that hill in exchange for gold. They were unable to dispatch them quickly by the sword, but they could have ended their lives by blockading them.

The Goths for their part spared so many senators that the greater surprise is that they killed any at all.

[3] By contrast, Sulla, while Marius still lived, established himself on the Capitol, which had been safe from the Gauls, to issue his directive for deeds of slaughter. Then, when Marius slipped away in flight intending to return more savagely and bloodthirstily than before, Sulla on the Capitol exploited a senatorial decree to deprive many of their lives and property.

[4] As for the Marian faction, in the absence of Sulla what did they regard as sufficiently sacred to spare, when they did not spare Mucius, citizen, senator, pontiff, as he clung in pathetic embrace to the very altar where the destiny of Rome is claimed to have resided? Moreover, that proscription-list of Sulla, the culminating episode (to pass over other countless deaths), executed more senators than the Goths were able merely to plunder.

XXX

[1] What shamelessness, what stupidity, what brazenness, what foolishness or rather madness is it, then, for our adversaries to refuse to attribute these events to their gods, and yet to hold our Christ responsible for these recent

98

LIBER III
fatentibus, amariora, quibus illa respublica nec adflicta sed omnino perdita iudicata est, longe ante aduentum Christi exorta sunt, [2] et sceleratarum concatenatione causarum a bello Mariano atque Sullano ad bella Sertorii et Catilinae (quorum a Sulla fuerat ille proscriptus, ille nutritus), inde ad Lepidi et Catuli bellum (quorum alter gesta Sullana rescindere, alter defendere cupiebat), [3] inde ad Pompei et Caesaris (quorum Pompeius sectator Sullae fuerat, eiusque potentiam uel aequauerat uel iam etiam superauerat. Caesar autem Pompei potentiam non ferebat, sed quia non habebat, quam tamen illo uicto interfectoque transcendit), hinc ad alium Caesarem, qui post Augustus appellatus est, peruenerunt, quo imperante natus est Christus.

[4] Nam et ipse Augustus cum multis gessit bella ciuilia, et in eis etiam multi clarissimi uiri perierunt, inter quos et Cicero disertus ille artifex regendae reipublicae. Pompei quippe uictorem Gaium Caesarem, qui uictoriam ciuilem clementer exercuit suisque aduersariis uitam dignitatemque donauit, tamquam regni adpetitorem quorumdam nobilium coniuratio senatorum uelut pro reipublicae libertate in ipsa curia trucidauit.

[5] Huius deinde potentiam multum moribus dispar uitiisque omnibus inquinatus atque corruptus adfectare uidebatur Antonius, cui uehementer pro eadem illa uelut patriae libertate Cicero resistebat. Tunc emerserat mirabilis indolis adulescens ille alius Caesar, illius Gai Caesaris filius adoptiuus, qui, ut dixi, postea est appellatus Augustus. [6] Huic adulescenti Caesari, ut eius potentia contra Antonium nutriretur, Cicero fauebat, sperans eum depulsa et oppressa Antonii dominatione instauraturum reipublicae libertatem, usque adeo caecus atque improuidus futurorum ut ille ipse iuuenis cuius dignitatem ac potestatem fouebat, et eundem Ciceronem occidendum Antonio quadam quasi concordiae pactione permitteret et ipsam libertatem reipublicae pro qua multum ille clamauerat dicioni propriae subiugaret.

BOOK THREE

99
calamities! Those cruel civil wars, which as the Roman authors themselves confess were more bitter than any conflict with external enemies, were judged not merely to have pressed hard on the Roman state, but to have destroyed it totally, yet those wars broke out long before Christ’s coming.

[2] The chain of criminal causes extends from the war between Marius and Sulla to those initiated by Sertorius and Catiline; Sulla had outlawed the first of these, and had nurtured the other. It stretched next to the war between Lepidus and Catulus; the first sought to rescind Sulla’s measures, and the second to defend them. [3] It then progressed to the struggle between Pompey and Caesar; Pompey had been a follower of Sulla, and by this time he had equalled or even surpassed his power, whereas Caesar refused to countenance Pompey’s power because he himself did not wield it. But once Pompey was defeated and killed, Caesar’s power transcended it. The next stage was reached with the other Caesar, later called Augustus; it was in his reign that Christ was born.

[4] Augustus too waged civil wars with many, in the course of which numerous men of the highest distinction died. Among them was Cicero, that eloquent specialist in the theory of civil government. What happened was that after Gaius Caesar prevailed over Pompey, he exercised his victory over the citizens mercifully, allowing his opponents to keep their lives and their positions. But a conspiracy between certain noble senators, who claimed to be defending freedom in the state, cut him down in the very senate-house on the grounds that he was aiming at kingship. [5] Next, Antony was seen to covet Caesar’s power; he was a very different character, being blackened and corrupted by every vice. Cicero fiercely opposed him in the name of that same freedom of the fatherland. At that juncture a young man of remarkable ability had become prominent. He was the other Caesar, the adopted son of his predecessor Gaius Caesar. As I have mentioned, the youth was later called Augustus. [6] Cicero lent support to the young Caesar to sustain the youth’s power-base against Antony, hoping that he would bring down and crush Antony’s supremacy, and restore the freedom of the republic. In this he was blind, without vision of the future, for the young man whose position and power he had fostered made an agreement that seemed to reconcile him with Antony. It allowed Antony to assassinate Cicero, while the young man himself brought under his own sway the freedom of the republic, on behalf of which Cicero had raised so loud an outcry.

100

LIBER III

XXXI

[1] Deos suos accusent de tantis malis qui Christo nostro ingrati sunt de tantis bonis. Certe quando illa mala fiebant, calebant arae numinum Sabaeo thure sertisque recentibus halabant, clarebant sacerdotia, fana renidebant, sacrificabatur ludebatur furebatur in templis, quando passim tantus ciuium sanguis a ciuibus non modo in ceteris locis, uerum etiam inter ipsa deorum altaria fundebatur. [2] Non elegit templum quo confugeret Tullius, quia frustra elegerat Mucius. Hi uero qui multo indignius insultant temporibus Christianis aut ad loca Christo dicatissima confugerunt aut illuc eos ut uiuerent etiam ipsi barbari deduxerunt.

[3] Illud scio, et hoc mecum quisquis sine studio partium iudicat facillime agnoscit (ut omittam cetera quae multa commemoraui et alia multo plura quae commemorare longum putaui), si humanum genus ante bella Punica Christianam reciperet disciplinam et consequeretur rerum tanta uastatio quanta illis bellis Europam Africamque contriuit, nullus talium quales nunc patimur nisi Christianae religioni mala illa tribuisset.

[4] Multo autem minus eorum uoces tolerarentur quantum attinet ad Romanos, si Christianae religionis receptionem et diffamationem uel inruptio illa Gallorum uel Tiberini fluminis igniumque illa depopulatio uel, quod cuncta mala praecedit, bella illa ciuilia sequerentur. Mala etiam alia, quae usque adeo incredibiliter acciderunt ut inter prodigia numerarentur, si Christianis temporibus accidissent, quibus ea nisi Christianis hominibus tamquam crimina obicerent? [5] Omitto quippe illa quae magis fuerunt mira quam noxia, boues locutos, infantes nondum natos de uteris matrum quaedam uerba clamasse, uolasse serpentes, feminas et gallinas et homines in masculinum sexum fuisse conuersas et cetera huius modi quae in eorum libris non fabulosis sed historicis, seu uera seu falsa sint, non inferunt hominibus perniciem sed stuporem.

[6] Sed cum pluit terra, cum pluit creta, cum pluit lapidibus (non ut grando appellari solet hoc nomine, sed omnino lapidibus), haec profecto

BOOK THREE

101

XXXI

[1] Those who show no gratitude to our Christ for the great blessings that they have received should accuse their gods of responsibility for such great evils, for it is certainly the case that when those evils arose, the altars of the deities were “steaming with Sabaean incense, and fragrant with fresh-cut flowers”. The priesthoods were esteemed, the shrines were resplendent, the sacrifices and games and frenzied activities were in evidence in the temples, at the time when all that blood of the citizens was being shed by fellow-citizens on every side, not merely in other places but also among the very altars of the gods. [2] Cicero did not seek sanctuary in a temple, because Mucius’ choice of such an escape had been vain. By contrast, those who now level abuse with much less justification at this Christian era either sought refuge in places specially dedicated to Christ, or were led to them by those very barbarians to ensure that their lives were saved.

[3] But I am well aware, and any unprejudiced individual quite readily acknowledges this as I do – and this without my citing the numerous other instances mentioned earlier, and the much greater number that I thought too wearisome to quote – that if the human race had embraced Christian teaching before the Punic Wars, and if plunder of property had ensued on the scale that afflicted Europe and Africa in those wars, none of such men whose slights we now endure would have attributed those ills to anything other than the Christian religion. [4] Their criticisms would have been much harder to bear, so far as the history of the Romans is concerned, if the invasion of the Gauls, the depredations of the river Tiber and of the fires, or the greatest evils of all, the civil wars had occurred after the acceptance and diffusion of the Christian religion. If those other evils, too, whose occurrence was so astonishing that they were numbered among prodigies, had taken place in Christian days, on whose shoulders would our adversaries have laid them as criminal charges but on those of Christians? [5] I do not mention those that were remarkable rather than harmful, such as talking oxen, unborn children crying out certain words from their mothers’ wombs, flying serpents, hens and women becoming males, and other such phenomena as are recorded not in Roman works of fiction but of history, whether they are true or false, and that astonish men rather than harm them.

[6] But when earth or clay or stones fall as rain (by ‘stones’ I do not mean hail, which is often so called, but actual stones), these could

102

LIBER III
etiam grauiter laedere potuerunt. Legimus apud eos Aetnaeis ignibus ab ipso montis uertice usque ad litus proximum decurrentibus ita mare ferbuisse ut rupes urerentur, ut pices nauium soluerentur. Hoc utique non leuiter noxium fuit quamuis incredibiliter mirum. [7] Eodem rursus aestu ignium tanta ui fauillae scripserunt oppletam esse Siciliam ut Catinensis urbis tecta obruta et pressa dirueret; qua calamitate permoti misericorditer eiusdem anni tributum ei relaxauere Romani. Lucustarum etiam in Africa multitudinem prodigii similem fuisse, cum iam esset populi Romani prouincia, litteris mandauerunt; consumptis enim fructibus foliisque lignorum ingenti atque inaestimabili nube in mare dicunt esse deiectam; qua mortua redditaque litoribus atque hinc aere corrupto tantam ortam pestilentiam ut in solo regno Masinissae octingenta hominum milia perisse referantur, et multo amplius in terris litoribus proximis. Tunc Vticae ex triginta milibus iuniorum quae ibi erant, decem milia remansisse confirmant.

[8] Talis itaque uanitas qualem ferimus eique respondere compellimur, quid horum non Christianae religioni tribueret si temporibus Christianis uideret? Et tamen diis suis ista non tribuunt, quorum cultum ideo requirunt ne ista uel minora patiantur, cum ea maiora pertulerint a quibus antea colebantur.

BOOK THREE

103
certainly cause serious damage. We read in those historians that when the fires of Aetna rained down from the mountain-top to the nearest coastline, the sea boiled over so much that rocks caught fire, and the pitch on ships melted. This certainly caused no little damage, but the surprise it created was beyond belief. [7] The historians further record that Sicily was covered with such a quantity of ash from that same fiery heat that houses in the city of Catana were crushed and collapsed under the weight. The Romans were moved to compassion by this disaster, and remitted the city’s taxes for that year. Historians have also put on record that a huge swarm of locusts, which approximated to a prodigy, appeared in Africa after it had become a province of the Roman people. They devoured the fruit and foliage on the trees, and according to the accounts, then plunged into the sea in a huge cloud beyond measure. The corpses were cast up on shore; the air became polluted with them, and as a result a plague of such dimensions broke out that in Masinissa’s kingdom alone eighty thousand people are said to have died, and many more in the area close to the coast.

The historians maintain that on that occasion at Utica only ten thousand out of thirty thousand men of military age stationed there survived.

[8] So given the fatuous criticism that we endure and to which we are compelled to respond, which of these calamities would its spokesmen not have attributed to the Christian religion, had they witnessed them in the Christian era? Yet they do not assign those disasters to their own gods, and they demand the right to worship them so as to avoid suffering even the lesser tribulations of today, though the men who earlier worshipped them endured those that were greater.

BOOK FOUR

(Translations of these headings are provided in the notes) I

De his quae primo uolumine disputata sunt.

II

De his quae libro secundo et tertio continentur.

III

An latitudo imperii, quae non nisi bellis adquiritur, in bonis siue sapientium habenda sit siue felicium.

IV

Quam similia sint latrociniis regna absque iustitia.

V

De fugitiuis gladiatoribus, quorum potentia similis fuerit regiae dignitati.

VI

De cupiditate Nini regis, qui ut latius dominaretur primus intulit bella finitimis.

VII

An regna terrena inter profectus suos atque defectus deorum iuuentur uel deserantur auxilio.

VIII

Quorum deorum praesidio putent Romani imperium suum auctum atque seruatum, cum singulis uix singularum rerum tuitionem committendam esse crediderint.

IX

An imperii Romani amplitudo et diuturnitas Ioui fuerit adscribenda, quem summum deum cultores ipsius opinantur.

X

Quas opiniones secuti sint qui diuersos deos diuersis mundi partibus praefecerunt.

XI

De multiis diis, quos doctiores paganorum unum eundemque Iouem esse defendunt.

XII

De opinione eorum qui deum animam mundi et mundum corpus dei esse putauerunt.

XIII

De his qui sola rationalia animantia partes esse unius dei asserunt.

XIV

Augmenta regnorum Ioui incongruenter adscribi cum, si Victoria ut uolunt dea est, ipsa huic negotio sola sufficeret.

XV

An congruat bonis latius uelle regnare.

XVI

Quid fuerit quod Romani omnibus rebus et omnibus motibus deos singulos deputantes aedem Quietis extra portas esse uoluerunt.

XVII

An, si Iouis summa potestas est, etiam Victoria dea debuerit aestimari.

XVIII Felicitatem et Fortunam qui deas putant, qua ratione secernunt.

XIX

De Fortuna Muliebri.

XX

De Virtute et Fide, quae pagani templis et sacris honorauerunt praetermittentes alia bona quae similiter colenda fuerunt si recte illis diuinitas tribuebatur.

XXI

Quod unum non intellegentes deum, Virtute saltem et Felicitate debuerint esse contenti.

105

XXII

De scientia colendorum deorum, quam a se Varro gloriatur conlatam esse Romanis.

XXIII De Felicitate, quam Romani multorum ueneratores deorum diu non coluerunt honore diuino, cum pro omnibus sola sufficeret.

XXIV Qua ratione defendant pagani quod inter deos colant ipsa dona diuina.

XXV

De uno tantum colendo deo, qui licet nomine ignoretur, tamen felicitatis dator esse sentitur.

XXVI De ludis scaenicis, quos sibi dii celebrari a suis cultoribus exegerunt.

XXVII De tribus generibus deorum de quibus Scaeuola pontifex disputauit.

XXVIII An ad obtinendum dilatandumque regnum profuerit Romanis cultus deorum.

XXIX De falsitate auspicii quo Romani regni fortitudo et stabilitas uisa est indicari.

XXX

Qualia de diis gentium etiam cultores eorum se sentire fateantur.

XXXI De opinionibus Varronis, qui reprobata persuasione populari, licet ad notitiam ueri dei non peruenerit, unum tamen deum colendum esse censuerit.

XXXII Ob quam speciem utilitatis principes gentium apud subiectos sibi populos falsas religiones uoluerunt permanere.

XXXIII Quod iudicio et potestate dei ueri omnium regum atque regnorum ordinata sint tempora.

XXXIV De regno Iudaeorum, quod ab uno et uero deo institutum atque seruatum est, donec in uera religione manserunt.

LIBER IV

I

[1] De ciuitate dei dicere exorsus prius respondendum putaui eius inimicis qui terrena gaudia consectantes rebusque fugacibus inhiantes, quidquid in eis triste misericordia potius admonentis dei quam punientis seueritate patiuntur, religioni increpitant Christianae, quae una est salubris et uera religio. Et quoniam, cum sit in eis etiam uulgus indoctum, uelut doctorum auctoritate in odium nostrum grauius inritantur, existimantibus imperitis ea quae suis temporibus insolite acciderint per alia retro tempora accidere non solere, eorumque opinionem etiam his qui eam falsam esse nouerunt, ut aduersus nos iusta murmura habere uideantur, suae scientiae dissimulatione firmantibus; [2] de libris quos auctores eorum ad cognoscendam praeteritorum temporum historiam memoriae mandauerunt, longe aliter esse quam putant demonstrandum fuit, et simul docendum deos falsos, quos uel palam colebant uel occulte adhuc colunt, eos esse immundissimos spiritus et malignissimos ac fallacissimos daemones, usque adeo ut aut ueris aut fictis etiam, suis tamen criminibus delectentur, quae sibi celebrari per sua festa uoluerunt, ut a perpetrandis damnabilibus factis humana reuocari non possit infirmitas, dum ad haec imitanda uelut diuina praebetur auctoritas.

[3] Haec non ex nostra coniectura probauimus, sed partim ex recenti memoria, quia et ipsi uidimus talia ac talibus numinibus exhiberi, partim ex litteris eorum qui non tamquam in contumeliam, sed tamquam in honorem deorum suorum ista conscripta posteris reliquerunt, ita ut uir doctissimus apud eos Varro et grauissimae auctoritatis, cum rerum humanarum atque diuinarum dispertitos faceret libros, alios humanis, alios diuinis pro sua cuiusque rei dignitate distribuens non saltem in rebus humanis sed in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos poneret, cum utique, si tantummodo boni et honesti homines in ciuitate essent, nec in rebus

BOOK FOUR

I

[1] Upon embarking on The City of God, I thought I must first answer its enemies, who in pursuit of earthly joys and their obsession with fleeting goods, censure the Christian religion, the one sound and true religion, for such melancholy sufferings as they bear at the hands of God, who is mercifully counselling them rather than harshly punishing them. Those foes include the illiterate masses, whose hatred of us is aggravated by what they regard as the authority of learned men. In their ignorance they imagine that the unusual events of their own day were not a usual feature of earlier times. This belief of theirs is fostered even by those who know that it is false, but they conceal their knowledge so that our adversaries may seem to have just cause for grumbling against us. [2] I was therefore constrained to show, from the books that their own authors had recorded in order to acquaint us with the history of past times, that the facts were far different from their assumptions. At the same time I wished to point out that the false gods which they formerly worshipped openly or which they worship in secret today, are in fact most unclean spirits and most malicious and deceitful demons, who go so far as to take delight in accusations, true or false, which they have sought to have laid against them in the course of their festivals. Their purpose is to ensure that human frailty cannot be restrained from performing execrable deeds for so long as what appears to be divine sanction is afforded for imitating such actions.

[3] In demonstrating these facts, I have relied not on inferences of my own, but in part on events fresh in the memory (for I have myself witnessed such spectacles mounted in honour of deities like these) and in part on the writings of those who have bequeathed accounts of them to posterity, written not in censure but with the intention of honouring their gods. Thus Varro, in Roman eyes a man of profound learning and the weightiest authority, wrote books that he divided between human and divine questions. In devoting some of them to human topics, and the rest to divine affairs according to the importance of individual subjects, he discussed stage-performances not just among human events but also as relating to divine matters, though if only there had been good and honourable men in the community, stage-shows should not have found a

108

LIBER IV
humanis ludi scaenici esse debuissent. Quod profecto non auctoritate sua fecit, sed quoniam eos Romae natus et educatus in diuinis rebus inuenit.

[4] Et quoniam in fine primi libri quae deinceps dicenda essent breuiter posuimus, et ex his quaedam in duobus consequentibus diximus, expectationi legentium quae restant reddenda cognoscimus.

II

[1] Promiseramus ergo quaedam nos esse dicturos aduersus eos qui Romanae reipublicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent uel satis esse uiderentur mala quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent si iam uel illis clareret nostra religio uel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet.

[2] Haec in secundo et tertio libro satis, quantum existimo, absoluimus, in secundo agentes de malis morum, quae mala uel sola uel maxima deputanda sunt, in tertio autem de his malis quae stulti sola perpeti exhorrent, corporis uidelicet externarumque rerum, quae plerumque patiuntur et boni; illa uero mala non dico patienter, sed libenter habent quibus ipsi fiunt mali.

[3] Et quam pauca dixi de sola ipsa ciuitate atque eius imperio! Nec inde omnia usque ad Caesarem Augustum. Quid si commemorare uoluissem et exaggerare illa mala quae non sibi inuicem homines faciunt, sicut sunt uastationes euersionesque bellantium, sed ex ipsius mundi elementis terrenis accidunt rebus, quae uno loco Apuleius breuiter stringit in eo libello quem de mundo scripsit, terrena omnia dicens mutationes, conuersiones et interitus habere. [4] Namque immodicis tremoribus terrarum, ut uerbis eius utar, dissiluisse humum et interceptas urbes cum populis dicit: abruptis etiam imbribus prolutas totas esse regiones; illas

BOOK FOUR

109
place even among human activities. He certainly did not act on his own authority in so doing, but as a man born and bred in Rome who found the shows treated as divine matters.

[4] At the close of the first book, I briefly outlined what was to follow next, and in the two subsequent books, I discussed some of those issues.

So I realise that I must meet the expectation of my readers by discussion of those still outstanding.

II

[1] I had promised, then, to say something in answer to those who ascribe the disasters suffered by the Roman state to our religion, and to recount the ills (as many as could come to mind and seemed sufficient for the purpose) which the Roman state, or the provinces under its dominion, endured before their pagan sacrifices were outlawed. Undoubtedly our adversaries would have blamed all of them on us if our religion had by then become known to them, or had forbidden them then as now to perform their sacrilegious rites.

[2] I discharged this task sufficiently, I think, in Books Two and Three.

In Book Two I discussed moral evils (these should be regarded as the only evils, or as the greatest of them), and in Book Three the sole ills which foolish folk shudder to endure, namely bodily and external evils, which good people too often suffer. Those moral evils which make our adversaries themselves evil, they endure not with patience, I must say, but gladly.

[3] How few were the evils I related which affected the city of Rome and its empire alone! I did not extend the catalogue of them to include all up to the time of Caesar Augustus. I could have decided to recount and accumulate not the evils which men inflict on each other, like the ravages and destruction caused by soldiers in war, but those which damage the properties of the earth through elemental forces in the world itself.

Apuleius briefly alludes to these in one passage from the book that he composed on the universe. He states there that all earthly things undergo changes, transformations, and destruction. [4] To quote him verbatim, he says that in severe earthquakes the ground has split asunder, and cities and their inhabitants have been engulfed. Whole areas have been washed away

110

LIBER IV
etiam, quae prius fuerant continentes, hospitibus atque aduenis fluctibus insulatas aliasque desidia maris pedestri accessu peruias factas; uentis ac procellis euersas esse ciuitates; incendia de nubibus emicasse quibus Orientis regiones conflagratae perierunt, et in Occidentis plagis scaturrigines quasdam ac proluuiones easdem strages dedisse; sic ex Aetnae uerticibus quondam effusis crateribus diuino incendio per decliuia torrentis uice flammarum flumina cucurrisse. Si haec atque huius modi quae habet historia, unde possem colligere uoluissem, quando finissem?

Quae illis temporibus euenerunt, antequam Christi nomen ulla istorum uana et uerae saluti perniciosa comprimeret.

[5] Promiseram etiam me demonstraturum quos eorum mores et quam ob causam deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adiuuerint hi quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint. Vnde nunc mihi uideo esse dicendum, et magis de incrementis imperii Romani.

Nam de noxia fallacia daemonum, quos uelut deos colebant, quantum malorum inuexerit moribus eorum, in secundo maxime libro non pauca iam dicta sunt. Per omnes autem absolutos tres libros, ubi oportunum uisum est, commendauimus etiam in ipsis bellicis malis quantum solaciorum deus per Christi nomen, cui tantum honoris barbari detulerunt praeter bellorum morem, bonis malisque contulerit, quo modo qui facit solem suum oriri super bonos et malos, et pluit super iustos et iniustos.

III

[1] Iam itaque uideamus quale sit quod tantam latitudinem ac diuturnitatem imperii Romani illis diis audent tribuere, quos etiam per turpium ludorum obsequia et per turpium hominum ministeria se honeste coluisse contendunt.

BOOK FOUR

111
by cloudbursts, and what were mainland areas have become islands when visited by extraneous floods from outside, and other islands have become accessible on foot because the sea has deserted them. Some cities have been destroyed by gales and storms. Fires have flashed forth from the clouds, as a result of which eastern regions have been set on fire and destroyed. In areas of the west, waterspouts and floods have caused the same destruction. For example, the craters on the summit of Mt Aetna at one time burst open, and rivers of fire poured down the slopes like a torrent, flames sent from heaven. Had I wished to assemble these and their like, which history records, from every source available to me, when would I have exhausted the list? These phenomena occurred in the days before the name of Christ could suppress all the pointless practices of theirs, which are destructive of true salvation.

[5] I had further promised to reveal what the Romans’ manners were like, why the true God, in whose control all kingdoms lie, deigned to assist them to extend the empire; how those who they believe are gods did nothing to help them; and the great harm which instead the gods dealt them by deception and trickery. So I realise that I must now discuss these, in particular the growth of the Roman Empire. As for the baleful deceit of the demons that they worshipped as gods, I have already discussed at some length, especially in Book Two, the numerous evils that it inflicted on Roman morals. On the other hand, throughout all three books that I have completed, I have drawn favourable attention, at what seemed every apposite point, to the numerous consolations that God has bestowed on good and evil men alike, even in the very evils of war, through Christ’s name. The barbarians accorded great honour to that name in defiance of the conventions of war. In this way God makes his sun rise on the good and the bad, and sends rain on the just and unjust alike.

III

[1] Let us now, therefore, examine the basis of our opponents’

presumptuous claim to assign the great extent and long duration of the Roman Empire to the gods which they claim to have worshipped with honour, though they did this through the subservience of debased shows and the services of debased men.

112

LIBER IV

[2] Quamquam uellem prius paululum inquirere quae sit ratio, quae prudentia, cum hominum felicitatem non possis ostendere, semper in bellicis cladibus et in sanguine ciuili uel hostili tamen humano, cum tenebroso timore et cruenta cupiditate uersantium, ut uitrea laetitia comparetur fragiliter splendida, cui timeatur horribilius ne repente frangatur, de imperii latitudine ac magnitudine uelle gloriari.

[3] Hoc ut facilius diiudicetur, non uanescamus inani uentositate iactati atque obtundamus intentionis aciem altisonis uocabulis rerum, cum audimus populos regna prouincias; sed duos constituamus homines (nam singulus quisque homo, ut in sermone una littera, ita quasi elementum est ciuitatis et regni, quantalibet terrarum occupatione latissimi), quorum duorum hominum unum pauperem uel potius mediocrem, alium praediuitem cogitemus; sed diuitem timoribus anxium, maeroribus tabescentem, cupiditate flagrantem, numquam securum, semper inquietum, perpetuis inimicitiarum contentionibus anhelantem, augentem sane his miseriis patrimonium suum in immensum modum, atque illis augmentis curas quoque amarissimas aggerantem; mediocrem uero illum re familiari parua atque succincta sibi sufficientem, carissimum suis, cum cognatis uicinis amicis dulcissima pace gaudentem, pietate religiosum, benignum mente, sanum corpore, uita parcum, moribus castum, conscientia securum.

Nescio utrum quisquam ita desipiat ut audeat dubitare quem praeferat. Vt ergo in his duobus hominibus, ita in duabus familiis, ita in duobus populis, ita in duobus regnis regula sequitur aequitatis, qua uigilanter adhibita si nostra intentio corrigatur, facillime uidebimus ubi habitet uanitas et ubi felicitas.

[4] Quapropter si uerus deus colatur eique sacris ueracibus et bonis moribus seruiatur, utile est ut boni longe lateque diu regnent; neque hoc tam ipsis quam illis utile est quibus regnant. Nam quantum ad ipsos pertinet, pietas et probitas eorum, quae magna dei dona sunt, sufficit eis ad ueram felicitatem, qua et ista uita bene agatur et postea percipiatur aeterna.

BOOK FOUR

113

[2] But first I should like to take a moment to ask what logic or what wisdom there is in seeking to boast about the breadth and greatness of empire. For one cannot demonstrate that men are happy when continually engaged in the disasters of war and the bloodshed of citizens or foes, human beings both, and living under the shadow of fear and craving for blood. Their joy can be compared with the fragility of gleaming glass, for one has the quite terrifying fear that it may suddenly be shattered.

[3] In order more easily to form a judgement about this, we must not be rendered ineffectual by windy nonsense of no account, nor blunt the sharpness of our concentration with high-sounding expressions, when we hear of ‘peoples’ and ‘kingdoms’ and ‘provinces’. Let us propose for consideration two men, for every individual among us is like a letter in a word, an element, so to say, in a state or kingdom, no matter the breadth of that kingdom extended by seizure of territories. So let us picture one of these two men as poor or preferably middle class, and the other extremely rich. The rich man is neurotic with fears, wasted with anxieties, burning with ambition, never untroubled, always on edge, breathless in unending clashes of personal enmities, and though doubtless increasing his family estate beyond measure by these wretched preoccupations, also accumulating most bitter anxieties by these acquisitions. On the other hand, the man from the middle class finds sufficiency in his small and compact estate. He is much loved by his family; he enjoys most pleasurable harmony with relatives, neighbours, and friends. He is devoutly religious, kindly disposed, sound in limb, thrifty in life-style, chaste in morals, and untroubled in conscience. I doubt if anyone is such a fool as to presume to hesitate about which he prefers. So the same rule of due proportion as applies in the case of the two men likewise applies in two households, two communities, and two kingdoms. If we guide our thinking by watchful application of this rule, we shall most readily observe where stupidity dwells, and where happiness finds its home.

[4] Thus if the true God is worshipped and attended with truthful observance and good morals, it is advantageous for good men to rule far and wide for long. This is advantageous not so much for rulers as for those over whom they rule. Indeed, so far as rulers are concerned, their religious devotion and their worthy conduct, both great gifts from God, are sufficient for them to achieve the true happiness which allows them to live fulfilled lives here and now, and to attain eternal life thereafter. So on this

114

LIBER IV

In hac ergo terra regnum bonorum non tam illis praestatur quam rebus humanis; malorum uero regnum magis regnantibus nocet, qui suos animos uastant scelerum maiore licentia; his autem qui eis seruiendo subduntur non nocet nisi propria iniquitas. Nam iustis quidquid malorum ab iniquis dominis inrogatur, non est poena criminis sed uirtutis examen. Proinde bonus etiamsi seruiat, liber est; malus autem, etiamsi regnet, seruus est, nec unius hominis sed, quod est grauius, tot dominorum quot uitiorum. De quibus uitiis cum ageret scriptura diuina, A quo enim quis, inquit, deuictus est, huic et seruus addictus est.

IV

[1] Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia? Quia et latrocinia quid sunt nisi parua regna? Manus et ipsa hominum est, imperio principis regitur, pacto societatis astringitur, placiti lege praeda diuiditur.

Hoc malum si in tantum perditorum hominum accessibus crescit ut et loca teneat, sedes constituat, ciuitates occupet, populos subiuget, euidentius regni nomen adsumit, quod ei iam in manifesto confert non dempta cupiditas, sed addita impunitas. Eleganter enim et ueraciter Alexandro illi Magno quidam comprehensus pirata respondit. Nam cum idem rex hominem interrogaret quid ei uideretur ut mare haberet infestum, ille libera contumacia: ‘Quod tibi’ inquit ‘ut orbem terrarum; sed quia id ego exiguo nauigio facio, latro uocor; quia tu magna classe, imperator.’

V

[1] Proinde omitto quaerere quales Romulus congregauerit, quoniam multum eis consultum est ut ex illa uita dato sibi consortio ciuitatis poenas debitas cogitare desisterent, quarum metus eos in maiora facinora

BOOK FOUR

115
earth the kingship held by good men is bestowed not so much on them as on human society, whereas kingship wielded by evil men does more harm to the rulers, for they lay their own souls waste because of their greater freedom to commit crimes. As for those subjected to the service of evil rulers, they come to no harm except through their own wickedness, for such evils as are imposed on the just by wicked masters are not a punishment for a crime, but a trial of virtue. Accordingly, even if a good man is enslaved, he is free, whereas an evil man even if he rules is a slave

– and a slave not to one man, but what is more oppressive, to as many masters as he has vices. The comment of divine scripture on these vices is: A man is a slave to whatever masters him.

IV

[1] So if kingdoms dispense with justice, what are they but robber-bands on a large scale, for what are robber-bands but miniature kingdoms? The robber-band too is a body of men ruled by the command of a leader, bound by a compact of alliance, its booty allotted according to agreed law. If this bane by the enrolment of desperadoes grows to the point of occupying a region, establishes a permanent base there, takes over cities, and subjugates communities, it quite clearly adopts the title of kingdom. What openly bestows this title upon it is not the abandonment of greed but the attainment of impunity. That was a neat and true riposte made by a captured pirate to the celebrated Alexander the Great, when the king asked him why he was minded to make the sea so hazardous. The pirate cheekily replied: “For the same reason that you make the world hazardous. But because I do it in a tiny ship, I am called a pirate; you do it with a massive fleet, so you are called a general.”

V

[1] I shall not investigate next the sort of men assembled by Romulus, for close regard was shown for their welfare, so that after abandoning their mode of life they were given partnership in the state, and they ceased to contemplate the punishment which was their due, fear of which was

116

LIBER IV
propellebat, ut deinceps pacatiores essent rebus humanis.

[2] Hoc dico, quod ipsum Romanum imperium iam magnum multis gentibus subiugatis ceterisque terribile acerbe sensit, grauiter timuit, non paruo negotio deuitandae ingentis cladis oppressit, quando paucissimi gladiatores in Campania de ludo fugientes magnum exercitum compararunt, tres duces habuerunt, Italiam latissime et crudelissime uastauerunt. Dicant quis istos deus adiuuerit ut ex paruo et contemptibili latrocinio peruenirent ad regnum tantis iam Romanis uiribus arcibusque metuendum. An quia non diu fuerunt, ideo diuinitus negabuntur adiuti?

Quasi uero ipsa cuiuslibet hominis uita diuturna est. Isto ergo pacto neminem dii adiuuant ad regnandum quoniam singuli quique cito moriuntur, nec beneficium deputandum est quod exiguo tempore in unoquoque homine ac per hoc singillatim utique in omnibus uice uaporis euanescit.

[3] Quid enim interest eorum, qui sub Romulo deos coluerunt et olim sunt mortui, quod post eorum mortem Romanum tantum creuit imperium, cum illi apud inferos causas suas agant? Vtrum bonas an malas, ad rem praesentem non pertinet. Hoc autem de omnibus intellegendum est, qui per ipsum imperium (quamuis decedentibus succedentibusque mortalibus in longa spatia protendatur) paucis diebus uitae suae cursim raptimque transierunt, actuum suorum sarcinas baiulantes.

[4] Sin uero etiam ipsa breuissimi temporis beneficia deorum adiutorio tribuenda sunt, non parum adiuti sunt illi gladiatores; seruilis condicionis uincla ruperunt, fugerunt, euaserunt, exercitum magnum et fortissimum collegerunt, oboedientes regum suorum consiliis et iussis multum Romanae celsitudini metuendi et aliquot Romanis imperatoribus insuperabiles multa ceperunt, potiti sunt uictoriis plurimis, usi uoluptatibus quibus uoluerunt, quod suggessit libido fecerunt, postremo donec uincerentur, quod difficillime factum est, sublimes regnantesque uixerunt.

BOOK FOUR

117
inciting them to greater crimes. So they subsequently became more amenable to civilized ways.

[2] What I do mention is an event that caused the Roman Empire itself acute embarrassment and considerable fear, when by then it had become mighty through subjugation of many nations, and was awe-inspiring to the rest. After experiencing no little difficulty in avoiding a great disaster, Rome suppressed the revolt after a mere handful of gladiators escaped from their school in Campania, and raised a huge army. Commanded by three leaders, they ravaged Italy most cruelly far and wide. Our adversaries should tell us which god aided these slaves to expand from a small and risible robber-band into a kingdom which provoked fear in the now mighty forces and strongholds of Rome. Perhaps they will claim that the rebels were not lent divine help, on the grounds that the revolt did not last long.

But is this life of each and every one of us so long? If we allow that argument, the gods aid no-one to attain the kingship, for each individual soon dies, and we must not account as a favour what vanishes like a puff of smoke in the brief period of an individual’s life, and consequently in the lives of all if considered one by one.

[3] For how does it benefit those who worshipped the gods when Romulus was king, and are now long dead, that after their death the Roman Empire grew so great? Why, they are conducting their defence in the underworld! Whether the causes they plead are good or bad bears no relevance to the issue before us. The same judgement is to be made about all who have held imperial office cursorily and momentarily for a few days of their lives and have passed on, bearing the heavy burden of their deeds, despite the fact that the empire’s existence continues over long periods as some depart and others replace them.

[4] But if we are to assign even those benefits of the shortest duration to the help of the gods, then those gladiators received no little assistance.

They burst through the bonds of their servile status; they fled, they succeeded in escaping, they assembled a huge and very brave army. They showed obedience to the plans and commands of their kings, they were a cause of considerable fear to the lofty power of Rome, and they remained unconquered in the face of several Roman generals. They captured much booty, won numerous victories, enjoyed such pleasures as they sought, followed the prompting of their desires, and in short, until they were overcome with the greatest difficulty, they lived idyllic and regal lives.

118

LIBER IV

Sed ad maiora ueniamus.

VI

[1] Iustinus, qui Graecam uel potius peregrinam Trogum Pompeium secutus non Latine tantum, sicut ille, uerum etiam breuiter scripsit historiam, opus librorum suorum sic incipit: ‘Principio rerum gentium nationumque imperium penes reges erat, quos ad fastigium huius maiestatis non ambitio popularis, sed spectata inter bonos moderatio prouehebat. Populi nullis legibus tenebantur, fines imperii tueri magis quam proferre mos erat, intra suam cuique patriam regna finiebantur.

Primus omnium Ninus rex Assyriorum ueterem et quasi auitum gentibus morem noua imperii cupiditate mutauit. Hic primus intulit bella finitimis et rudes adhuc ad resistendum populos ad terminos usque Libyae perdomuit.’

Et paulo post: ‘Ninus’ inquit ‘magnitudinem quaesitae dominationis continua possessione firmauit. Domitis igitur proximis cum accessione uirium fortior ad alios transiret et proxima quaeque uictoria instrumentum sequentis esset, totius Orientis populos subegit.’

[2] Qualibet autem fide rerum uel iste uel Trogus scripserit (nam quaedam illos fuisse mentitos aliae fideliores litterae ostendunt), constat tamen et inter alios scriptores regnum Assyriorum a Nino rege fuisse longe lateque porrectum. Tam diu autem perseuerauit ut Romanum nondum sit eius aetatis. Nam sicut scribunt qui chronicam historiam persecuti sunt, mille ducentos et quadraginta annos ab anno primo quo Ninus regnare coepit, permansit hoc regnum donec transferretur ad Medos.

[3] Inferre autem bella finitimis et in cetera inde procedere, ac populos sibi non molestos sola regni cupiditate conterere et subdere, quid aliud quam grande latrocinium nominandum est?

BOOK FOUR

119

But let us now turn to more important matters.

VI

[1] Justin, who emulated Pompeius Trogus in writing Greek, or rather, foreign history, and wrote not merely in Latin like Trogus, but also in summary fashion, begins the books of his work as follows: “When history began, dominion over races and nations was in the hands of kings. They advanced to the summit of their eminence not by canvassing popular support, but because their moderation was approved among good men.

Communities were not constrained by laws. It was customary to maintain rather than to extend the boundaries of empire, and the rule of each was confined within his own land. Ninus, king of the Assyrians, was the first to change this long-standing ancestral convention among nations through his lust for empire. He was the first to wage aggressive wars on his neighbours, and he subdued communities as far as the borders of Libya, since as yet they lacked the expertise to resist.” A little later he adds:

“Ninus strengthened the massive power he had gained by extending his holdings. So once he had subdued his neighbours, with this accession to his strength he turned with greater force against other nations. Every fresh victory was the means of winning the next; thus he subdued the peoples of the entire East.”

[2] Whatever the historical reliability of the writings of Justin or Trogus (for other more reliable accounts reveal that they lied about some things), other writers as well make it clear that the kingdom of the Assyrians was extended far and wide by king Ninus. It endured so long that the Roman Empire has not yet survived for the same lengthy period. Those who have taken up the study of chronology write that the kingdom endured for twelve hundred and forty years, from the beginning of the reign of Ninus until power passed to the Medes.

[3] To wage war on neighbours, and subsequently to advance against other nations, in order to crush and subdue peoples who had not provoked them, and this merely out of lust for kingship – what else can this be termed but large-scale brigandage?

120

LIBER IV

VII

[1] Si nullo deorum adiutorio tam magnum hoc regnum et prolixum fuit, quare diis Romanis tribuitur Romanum regnum locis amplum temporibusque diuturnum? Quaecumque enim causa est illa, eadem est etiam ista. Si autem et illud deorum adiutorio tribuendum esse contendunt, quaero quorum. Non enim aliae gentes quas Ninus domuit et subegit alios tunc colebant deos. Aut si proprios habuerunt Assyrii, quasi peritiores fabros imperii construendi atque seruandi, numquidnam mortui sunt quando et ipsi imperium perdiderunt, aut mercede non sibi reddita uel alia maiore promissa ad Medos transire maluerunt, atque inde rursus ad Persas Cyro inuitante et aliquid commodius pollicente? Quae gens non angustis Orientis finibus post Alexandri Macedonis regnum magnum locis, sed breuissimum tempore in suo regno adhuc usque perdurat.

[2] Hoc si ita est, aut infideles dii sunt, qui suos deserunt et ad hostes transeunt (quod nec homo fecit Camillus quando uictor et expugnator aduersissimae ciuitatis Romam, cui uicerat, sensit ingratam, quam tamen postea oblitus iniuriae, memor patriae a Gallis iterum liberauit); aut non ita fortes sunt ut deos esse fortes decet, qui possunt humanis uel consiliis uel uiribus uinci; aut si, cum inter se belligerant, non dii ab hominibus, sed dii ab aliis diis forte uincuntur, qui sunt quarumque proprii ciuitatum, habent ergo et ipsi inter se inimicitias quas pro sua quisque parte suscipiunt. Non itaque deos suos debuit colere ciuitas magis quam alios a quibus adiuuarentur sui.

[3] Postremo quoquo modo se habeat deorum iste uel transitus uel fuga uel migratio uel in pugna defectio, nondum illis temporibus atque in illis terrarum partibus Christi nomen fuerat praedicatum quando illa regna per ingentes bellicas clades amissa atque translata sunt. Nam si post mille ducentos et quod excurrit annos, quando regnum Assyriis ablatum est, si

BOOK FOUR

121

VII

[1] If that kingdom, so huge and so protracted, received no assistance from the gods, why is the wide extent and long duration of Roman rule attributed to the Roman deities? Whatever cause applies to Assyria applies also to Rome. But if our opponents claim that even the rise of Assyria is to be ascribed to divine help, I ask what gods were these? For the other nations conquered and subjugated by Ninus worshipped no other deities at that time. Or if the Assyrians had their own separate gods who were, so to say, more experienced craftsmen at building and preserving an empire, was it that they died at the same time as their devotees lost their empire?

Or was it that they did not receive their wages or the greater sum promised to them, and they preferred to desert to the Medes, and from them to turn to the Persians, when Cyrus invited them and promised them some greater advantages? The Persians, in the wake of the huge expansion but extremely short-lived reign of Alexander of Macedon, have continued to survive up to the present day in their kingdom, the eastern territories of which are by no means puny.

[2] If this is the case, there are three possibilities. First, the gods are faithless, for they abandon their own and desert to the enemy; this course was not taken even by Camillus, a mere human, when though he had conquered and stormed a most hostile city, he found that Rome, for whom he had won the victory, was ungrateful; yet subsequently he shrugged off the injustice, and mindful of his native land he delivered her once more, this time from the Gauls. Or secondly, the gods are not so powerful as gods ought to be, seeing that they can be worsted by the designs or the strength of men. Or thirdly, perhaps gods are worsted not by men but by other gods waging war on one another as patrons attached specifically to individual states; accordingly they are at odds with each other as each takes issue for his own side. It follows that no state ought to have worshipped its own gods in preference to others who were helping their own devotees.

[3] Finally, whatever the facts of the gods’ change of allegiance or their flight, whether they migrated or deserted in battle, the name of Christ had not yet been proclaimed in those days and in those regions of the world, at the time when those kingdoms were lost and consigned to others through great disasters in war. If, when the Assyrians were deprived of their

122

LIBER IV
iam ibi Christiana religio aliud regnum praedicaret aeternum et deorum falsorum cultus sacrilegos inhiberet, quid aliud illius gentis uani homines dicerent nisi regnum, quod tam diu conseruatum est, nulla alia causa nisi suis religionibus desertis et illa recepta perire potuisse? In qua uoce uanitatis, quae poterat esse, isti adtendant speculum suum, et similia conqueri, si ullus in eis pudor est, erubescant. Quamquam Romanum imperium adflictum est potius quam mutatum, quod et aliis ante Christi nomen temporibus ei contigit, et ab illa est adflictione recreatum, quod nec istis temporibus desperandum est. Quis enim de hac re nouit uoluntatem dei?

VIII

[1] Deinde quaeramus, si placet, ex tanta deorum turba quam Romani colebant quem potissimum uel quos deos credant illud imperium dilatasse atque seruasse. Neque enim in hoc tam praeclaro opere et tantae plenissimo dignitatis audent aliquas partes deae Cluacinae tribuere aut Volupiae, quae a uoluptate appellata est, aut Lubentinae, cui nomen est a libidine, aut Vaticano, qui infantum uagitibus praesidet, aut Cuninae, quae cunas eorum administrat. Quando autem possunt uno loco libri huius commemorari omnia nomina deorum et dearum quae illi grandibus uoluminibus uix comprehendere potuerunt, singulis rebus propria dispertientes officia numinum? Nec agrorum munus uni alicui deo committendum arbitrati sunt, sed rura deae Rusinae, iuga montium deo Iugatino: collibus deam Collatinam, uallibus Valloniam praefecerunt. Nec saltem potuerunt unam Segetiam talem inuenire cui semel segetes commendarent, sed sata frumenta, quamdiu sub terra essent, praepositam uoluerunt habere deam Seiam; cum uero iam essent super terram et segetem facerent, deam Segetiam; frumentis uero collectis atque reconditis, ut tuto seruarentur deam Tutilinam praeposuerunt.

BOOK FOUR

123
kingdom after twelve hundred years and more, the Christian religion had already been proclaiming a different and everlasting kingdom there, and had been restricting the sacrilegious rites of false gods, what other explanation would the mindless men of that nation have given except that their kingdom, which had been preserved for so long, could have fallen for no reason other than that their own religious rites had been abandoned, and Christianity ushered in? In that fatuous explanation which could have been made, our opponents should see themselves mirrored, and if they have any sense of shame they should blush to make a similar complaint now.

However, the Roman Empire has been mauled rather than replaced, as has happened to her at other periods before Christianity appeared, and she has recovered from that mauling. So there is no need to despair now either, for who is to know the will of God in this respect?

VIII

[1] If you agree, let us next investigate which god in particular, or which gods, out of the huge crowd of deities which Romans worshipped, they are to believe extended and preserved that empire of theirs; for in such an impressive achievement of boundless grandeur they do not presume to allocate any role to the goddess Cluacina of sewers, or to Volupia who gets her name from pleasure, or to Lubentina, whose name is derived from lust, or to Vaticanus, the patron of children’s wailings, or to Cunina, who is charged with their cradles. But how in a single passage of this book can I record all the names of the gods and goddesses, for those who have allocated them to their several duties, each to his own province, could scarcely find room for them all in massive volumes? They decided that they should not allot even supervision of the land alone to a single deity, but they put the goddess Rusina in charge of the countryside, the god Jugatinus over the mountain ridges, the goddess Collatina over the hills, and Vallonia over the valleys. They could not designate even a single goddess Segetia to whom to entrust once and for all the crops, but so long as the seed-corn was below ground, they decided to put the goddess Seia in charge of it, but once it appeared above ground to form the grain, they made the goddess Segetia responsible, and once the corn was gathered and stored, they made the goddess Tutilina guard it safely.

124

LIBER IV

[2] Cui non sufficere uideretur illa Segetia, quamdiu seges ab initiis herbidis usque ad aristas aridas perueniret? Non tamen satis fuit hominibus deorum multitudinem amantibus, ut anima misera daemoniorum turbae prostitueretur, unius dei ueri castum dedignata complexum. Praefecerunt ergo Proserpinam frumentis germinantibus, geniculis nodisque culmorum deum Nodutum, inuolumentis folliculorum deam Volutinam; cum folliculi patescunt, ut spica exeat, deam Patelanam, cum segetes nouis aristis aequantur, quia ueteres aequare hostire dixerunt, deam Hostilinam; florentibus frumentis deam Floram, lactescentibus deum Lacturnum, maturescentibus deam Matutam; cum runcantur, id est a terra auferuntur, deam Runcinam. Nec omnia commemoro, quia me piget quod illos non pudet.

[3] Haec autem paucissima ideo dixi ut intellegeretur nullo modo eos dicere audere ista numina imperium constituisse auxisse conseruasse Romanum, quae ita suis quaeque adhibebantur officiis ut nihil uniuersum uni alicui crederetur. Quando ergo Segetia curaret imperium, cui curam gerere simul et segetibus et arboribus non licebat? Quando de armis Cunina cogitaret, cuius praepositura paruulorum cunas non permittebatur excedere? Quando Nodutus adiuuaret in bello, qui nec ad folliculum spicae, sed tantum ad nodum geniculi pertinebat? Vnum quisque domui suae ponit ostiarium, et quia homo est, omnino sufficit; tres deos isti posuerunt, Forculum foribus, Cardeam cardini, Limentinum limini. Ita non poterat Forculus simul et cardinem limenque seruare.

IX

[1] Omissa igitur ista turba minutorum deorum uel aliquantum intermissa officium maiorum deorum debemus inquirere, quo Roma tam magna facta

BOOK FOUR

125

[2] Who would not have imagined that Segetia would have sufficed for the entire period during which the corn progressed from its green shoots to its dry ears? Yet this was not enough for men so in love with a horde of gods that each of their wretched souls disdained the chaste embrace of the one true God, and prostituted itself to a crowd of demons. So it was that they put Proserpina in charge of the sprouting corn, the god Nodutus over the joints and knots of the stalks, and the goddess Volutina over the sheaths of the follicles. The goddess Patelana was designated for when the follicles open to allow the ears to emerge, the goddess Hostilina for when the corn stands level with new ears (for the ancients used the word hostire for levelling); the goddess Flora for when the grain flowers; the god Lacturnus for when it grows milky; the goddess Matuta for when it ripens; and the goddess Runcina for when the plants are grubbed up, in other words pulled out of the earth. I do not recount all of the deities, for though they do not shame our opponents, they weary me.

[3] The reason why I have given these severely limited examples is to make it clear that our adversaries do not on any account presume to claim that these deities established, increased, and preserved the Roman Empire.

Each and every one of them was assigned so closely to his or her particular tasks that no general supervision was entrusted to any of them. So how could Segetia have looked after the empire when she was not allowed to be in charge of trees as well as grain? How could Cunina have turned her attention to weapons, when her supervision of babies was not permitted to go beyond their cradles? How could Nodutus have lent aid in warfare when his remit was not the follicles of the ears, but merely the knots on the stalks? Each home-owner appoints a single doorman for his house, and as he is a mortal man, that is quite sufficient; but the Romans set three deities in charge, Forculus over the doors, Cardea over the hinges, and Limentinus over the threshold. So Forculus was unable to supervise hinges and threshold as well!

IX

[1] We must accordingly abandon or postpone for a while consideration of this mob of petty gods, and investigate the role of the greater deities, by which Rome became so great that it held sway for long over so many

126

LIBER IV
est ut tam diu tot gentibus imperaret. Nimirum ergo Iouis hoc opus est.

Ipsum enim deorum omnium dearumque regem uolunt; hoc eius indicat sceptrum, hoc in alto colle Capitolium. De isto deo quamuis a poeta dictum conuenientissime praedicant: ‘Iouis omnia plena.’ Hunc Varro credit etiam ab his coli qui unum deum solum sine simulacro colunt, sed alio nomine nuncupari. Quod si ita est, cur tam male tractatus est Romae, sicut quidem et in ceteris gentibus, ut ei fieret simulacrum? Quod ipsi etiam Varroni ita displicet ut, cum tantae ciuitatis peruersa consuetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere et scribere dubitaret quod hi, qui populis instituerunt simulacra, et metum dempserunt et errorem addiderunt.

X

[1] Cur illi etiam Iuno uxor adiungitur quae dicatur ‘soror et coniunx’?

Quia Iouem, inquiunt, in aethere accipimus, in aëre Iunonem, et haec duo elementa coniuncta sunt, alterum superius, alterum inferius. Non est ergo ille de quo dictum est ‘Iouis omnia plena’, si aliquam partem implet et Iuno. An uterque utrumque implet, et ambo isti coniuges et in duobus istis elementis et in singulis simul sunt? Cur ergo aether datur Ioui, aër Iunoni?

Postremo ipsi duo satis essent; quid est quod mare Neptuno tribuitur, terra Plutoni? Et ne ipsi quoque sine coniugibus remanerent, additur Neptuno Salacia, Plutoni Proserpina. Nam sicut inferiorem caeli partem, id est aërem, inquiunt, Iuno tenet, ita inferiorem maris Salacia et terrae inferiorem Proserpina.

[2] Quaerunt quem ad modum sarciant fabulas, nec inueniunt. Si enim haec ita essent, tria potius elementa mundi esse, non quattuor, eorum ueteres proderent, ut singula deorum coniugia diuiderentur singulis elementis. Nunc uero omni modo adfirmauerunt aliud esse aetherem, aliud aërem. Aqua uero siue superior siue inferior, utique aqua est; puta quia

BOOK FOUR

127
nations. Undoubtedly this was Jupiter’s doing, for they claim that he is king over all the gods and goddesses, as his sceptre and the Capitol on the lofty hill reveal. “All things are full of Jupiter” is what our opponents most aptly proclaim of the god, though this is the expression of a poet. Varro believes that he is worshipped also by those who worship the one God alone without an image, though they call him by another name. If this is the case, why was he so demeaned at Rome, and indeed among other nations, by having a statue set up for him? Even Varro himself was disgusted with this, for though this misguided custom of that great city weighed heavily on him, he certainly did not hesitate to say and write that the man who had established statues of him for their communities had both banished fear of him and promoted error.

X

[1] Then, too, why is Juno associated with Jupiter as his wife, to be given the title of ‘sister and spouse’? Our opponents state that it is because they believe that Jupiter is in the aether, and Juno is in the lower air, and that the two elements are interlinked, the one higher and the other lower. It follows that the statement ‘All things are full of Jupiter’ is not true of him, seeing that Juno too fills some part of the world. Or is it the case that each fills both elements, and as husband and wife are both occupying the two elements, and are together in each one? In that case why is the aether allotted to Jupiter, and the lower air to Juno? And finally, the pair of them would have sufficed, so why is the sea allotted to Neptune, and the earth to Pluto? Then, so that these two as well should not be left without wives, Salacia is joined to Neptune, and Proserpina to Pluto, for what they claim is that just as Juno occupies the lower end of the heavens, the lower air, so Salacia occupies the lower part of the sea, and Proserpina the lower part of the earth.

[2] What they are trying to do is to patch up the popular stories, but without success. If it had been as they claim, the Romans of old would have laid it down that there were three rather than four elements in the universe, so that each married pair of deities was allotted one element each. But the reality is that they undoubtedly maintained that the aether and the lower air were separate. As for water, whether it is above or below,

128

LIBER IV
dissimilis, numquid in tantum ut aqua non sit? Et inferior terra quid aliud potest esse quam terra, quantalibet diuersitate distincta?

[3] Deinde ecce iam totus in his quattuor uel tribus elementis corporeus completus est mundus. Minerua ubi erit? Quid tenebit? Quid implebit?

Simul enim cum his in Capitolio constituta est, cum ista filia non sit amborum. Aut si aetheris partem superiorem Mineruam tenere dicunt, et hac occasione fingere poetas quod de Iouis capite nata sit, cur non ergo ipsa potius deorum regina deputatur quod sit Ioue superior? An quia indignum erat praeponere patri filiam? Cur non de Ioue ipso erga Saturnum iustitia ista seruata est? An quia uictus est? Ergo pugnarunt?

Absit, inquiunt, fabularum est ita garrulitas. Ecce fabulis non credatur et de diis meliora sentiantur; cur ergo non data est patri Iouis, etsi non sublimior, aequalis certe sedes honoris? Quia Saturnus, inquiunt, temporis longitudo est. Tempus ergo colunt qui Saturnum colunt, et rex deorum Iuppiter insinuatur natus ex tempore. Quid enim indignum dicitur, cum Iuppiter et Iuno nati dicuntur ex tempore, si caelum est ille, et illa terra, cum facta sint utique caelum et terra?

[4] Nam hoc quoque in libris suis habent eorum docti atque sapientes.

Neque de figmentis poeticis, sed de philosophorum libris a Vergilio dictum est:

Tum pater omnipotens fecundis imbribus aether
coniugis in gremium laetae descendit,
id est, in gremium telluris aut terrae. Quia et hic aliquas differentias uolunt esse, atque in ipsa terra aliud Terram, aliud Tellurem, aliud Tellumonem putant, et hos omnes deos habent suis nominibus appellatos, suis officiis distinctos, suis aris sacrisque ueneratos. Eandem terram etiam matrem deum uocant, ut iam poetae tolerabiliora confingant, si secundum istorum non poeticos, sed sacrorum libros non solum Iuno ‘soror et coniunx’ sed etiam mater est Iouis. Eandem terram Cererem, eandem etiam Vestam

BOOK FOUR

129
it is simply water; even supposing that it is not all the same, is the difference so great that it ceases to be water? And the earth below, what else can it be but earth, no matter how diversely they distinguish it?

[3] But notice next that the whole physical universe now comprises these three or four elements. So where will Minerva be? What role will she have, or what region will she fill? She is established with Jupiter and Juno in the Capitol, though she is not the daughter of the two of them. If the Romans claim that she occupies the upper area of the aether, and that on this pretext the poets invent the story that she was sprung from the head of Jupiter, why is she not accordingly reckoned queen of the gods, as being higher than Jupiter? Was it because it was improper to advance the daughter above the father? So why was this propriety not observed in the case of Jupiter vis-à-vis Saturn? Was it because Saturn was worsted? Oh, so they warred with each other, did they? Heaven forbid, say our opponents; that is just the tittle-tattle of fables. Notice that we are not to believe fables, and we should think better of the gods. Why, then, was Jupiter’s father not given at least an equal seat of honour as his son, if not a higher one? It is because, they say, Saturn symbolises extent of time. So those who worship Saturn worship time, and this implies that Jupiter, king of the gods, was born of time. What, then, is improper about claiming that Jupiter and Juno are said to be born of time, if Jupiter is the sky and Juno is the earth, since both sky and earth were certainly created?

[4] The fact is that learned and wise men make this claim too in their books. Those lines of Virgil were taken not from the fiction of poets, but from the books of the philosophers:

The all-powerful Father, Air of heaven, at once descends Into the womb of his glad spouse with fruitful showers, in other words, into the womb of Tellus or Terra, for here again Romans would have it that there are certain distinctions between these, and they believe that in reference to the earth Terra is one thing, Tellus another, and Tellumo another. All these deities they designate with their separate names, they distinguish them by their roles, and they worship them on their own altars with their own ritual. They also designate the earth as the mother of the gods, so that here the poets’ fictions are more easily borne, since according to the Romans’ books – not those of the poets but those of sacred rites – Juno is not merely ‘sister and spouse’ of Jupiter, but also his mother. They claim that not only Ceres, but also Vesta is the earth, though

130

LIBER IV
uolunt, cum tamen saepius Vestam non nisi ignem esse perhibeant pertinentem ad focos, sine quibus ciuitas esse non potest, et ideo illi uirgines solere seruire quod sicut ex uirgine, ita nihil ex igne nascatur.

Quam totam uanitatem aboleri et exstingui utique ab illo oportuit, qui est natus ex uirgine.

[5] Quis enim ferat quod, cum tantum honoris et quasi castitatis igni tribuerint, aliquando Vestam non erubescunt etiam Venerem dicere, ut uanescat in ancillis eius honorata uirginitas? Si enim Vesta Venus est, quo modo ei rite uirgines a Veneris operibus abstinendo seruierunt? An Veneres duae sunt, una uirgo, altera mulier? An potius tres, una uirginum, quae etiam Vesta est, alia coniugatarum, alia meretricum? Cui etiam Phoenices donum dabant de prostitutione filiarum antequam eas iungerent uiris. Quae illarum est matrona Vulcani? Non utique uirgo, quoniam habet maritum. Absit autem ut meretrix, ne filio Iunonis et cooperario Mineruae facere uideamur iniuriam. Ergo haec ad coniugatas intellegitur pertinere, sed eam nolumus imitentur in eo quod fecit illa cum Marte.

[6] Rursus, inquiunt, ad fabulas redis. Quae ista iustitia est, nobis suscensere, quod talia dicimus de diis eorum, et sibi non suscensere, qui haec in theatris libentissime spectant crimina deorum suorum? Et (quod esset incredibile, nisi contestatissime probaretur) haec ipsa theatrica crimina deorum in honorem instituta sunt eorundem deorum.

XI

[1] Quodlibet igitur physicis rationibus et disputationibus adserant. Modo sit Iuppiter corporei huius mundi animus, qui uniuersam istam molem ex quattuor uel quot eis placet elementis constructam atque compactam implet et mouet, modo inde suas partes sorori et fratribus cedat. Modo sit

BOOK FOUR

131
quite frequently they state that Vesta is nothing other than the fire which is lit on hearths, without which they say that the community cannot survive, and the reason why virgins customarily tend it is because just as nothing is born of a virgin, so nothing is born from fire. It was necessary that all this claptrap should be utterly abolished and doused by him who was born of a virgin.

[5] Who can possibly regard it as tolerable that though such great honour and such chastity, so to speak, is ascribed to fire, Romans are not ashamed to call Vesta on occasion Venus, so that the virginity honoured in her handmaids flies out of the window? For if Vesta and Venus are one and the same, how have virgins duly ministered to Vesta by abstaining from the activities of Venus? Or are there perhaps two Venuses, one a virgin and the other a non-virgin? Or rather, three Venuses, one for virgins who is also Vesta, one for matrons, and one for harlots? To this third Venus too Phoenicians used to present a gift from money obtained by putting out their daughters to prostitution before marrying them off to their husbands. Which of these Venuses is the spouse of Vulcan? Certainly not the virgin, since she has a husband, nor again the harlot, I hope, in case we seem to be wronging the son of Juno and co-worker with Minerva. So we realise that she is the Venus of married women, but we are reluctant to allow those matrons to imitate her misbehaviour with Mars.

[6] But you are again harking back to the fables, our opponents say.

However, is it fair for them to be annoyed with us for making these points about their gods, and not with themselves for taking extreme pleasure in watching the evil deeds of their gods enacted on stage? Hard though it would be to believe, unless it were proved by most reputable testimony, those very misdemeanours of deities performed on stage were established in honour of those very gods.

XI

[1] So they can rationalize as much as they like with explanations and arguments drawn from the physical world. Let Jupiter at one moment be the soul of this material universe, who fills and activates this entire mass constructed and composed from the elements, which number four or as many as they like. Or at another let him yield part of his role to his sister

132

LIBER IV
aether, ut aërem Iunonem subterfusam desuper amplectatur, modo totum simul cum aëre sit ipse caelum, terram uero tamquam coniugem eandemque matrem, quia hoc in diuinis turpe non est, fecundis imbribus et seminibus fetet.

[2] Modo autem, ne sit necesse per cuncta discurrere, deus unus de quo multi a poeta nobilissimo dictum putant:

deum namque ire per omnes

Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum.

Ipse in aethere sit Iuppiter, ipse in aëre Iuno, ipse in mari Neptunus, in inferioribus etiam maris ipse Salacia, in terra Pluto, in terra inferiore Proserpina, in focis domesticis Vesta, in fabrorum fornace Vulcanus, in sideribus sol et luna et stellae, in diuinantibus Apollo, in merce Mercurius, in Iano initiator, in Termino terminator, Saturnus in tempore, Mars et Bellona in bellis, Liber in uineis, Ceres in frumentis, Diana in siluis, Minerua in ingeniis.

[3] Ipse sit postremo etiam in illa turba quasi plebeiorum deorum. Ipse praesit nomine Liberi uirorum seminibus et nomine Liberae feminarum.

Ipse sit Diespiter qui partum perducat ad diem; ipse sit dea Mena quam praefecerunt menstruis feminarum, ipse Lucina quae a parturientibus inuocetur; ipse opem ferat nascentibus excipiendo eos sinu terrae et uocetur Opis, ipse in uagitu os aperiat et uocetur deus Vaticanus; ipse leuet de terra et uocetur dea Leuana, ipse cunas tueatur et uocetur dea Cunina; non sit alius sed ipse in illis deabus quae fata nascentibus canunt et uocantur Carmentes, praesit fortuitis uoceturque Fortuna; in diua Rumina mammam paruulo inmulgeat, quia rumam dixerunt ueteres mammam; in diua Potina potionem ministret, in diua Educa escam praebeat; de pauore infantum Pauentia nuncupetur, de spe quae uenit Venilia, de uoluptate Volupia, de actu Agenoria; de stimulis quibus ad nimium actum homo impellitur, dea Stimula nominetur; Strenia dea sit strenuum faciendo,

BOOK FOUR

133
and brothers. Or again, he can be the aether, embracing from above Juno who is the air spread out below. Or he himself can be the entire sky and lower air together, with fruitful showers and seeds impregnating the earth, which is, as it were, both his wife and his mother (for this practice is not shameful in the realm of heaven!).

[2] But to save ourselves the necessity of ranging through all the possibilities, let him now be the one God who in the view of many is indicated by the most celebrated of poets:

For through all elements does God pass,

Through lands and tracts of sea, and sky above.

Let him be Jupiter in the aether, Juno in the lower air, Neptune in the sea, Salacia too in the lower reaches of the sea, Pluto in the earth, Proserpina in the lower earth, Vesta in the family-hearth, Vulcan in the forge of craftsmen, the sun, moon, and stars among the constellations, Apollo among seers, Mercury in the sphere of trade, Janus who activates and Terminus who forecloses, Saturn as time, Mars and Bellona in wars, Liber in vineyards, Ceres in fields of grain, Diana in forests, Minerva in creative arts.

[3] Finally, let him appear in the crowd of what we may call plebeian gods. As Liber, let him govern men’s seed, and as Libera that of women.

Let him be Diespiter to bring offspring into the light of day; and the goddess Mena, who the Romans have charged with women’s periods, and Lucina to be invoked by those in labour. He is to lend help to infants at birth by welcoming them under the name of Ops in the bosom of the earth; he is to open their mouths for wailing as the god Vaticanus. Bearing the name of the goddess Levana, he is to raise them from the earth, and as the goddess Cunina to protect their cradles. It is to be Jupiter and no other who under the guise of the goddesses called Carmentes sings of the destinies of children at birth. He is to preside over the realm of chance under the title of Fortuna. As the goddess Rumina he is to provide babies with milk from the breast, for the ancients called the breast ruma; in the guise of the goddess Potina he is to proffer drink, and as the goddess Educa he is to provide food. He is to be called Paventia when children show fear, and Venilia at the arrival of hope. Pleasure is to see him as Volupia, and action as Agenoria. He is to acquire the name of the goddess Stimula from the goads that rouse a man to excessive activity. He is to become the goddess Strenia by making men perform strenuous deeds, Numeria for teaching

134

LIBER IV

Numeria quae numerare doceat, Camena quae canere; ipse sit et deus Consus praebendo consilia et dea Sentia sententias inspirando.

[4] Ipse dea Iuuentas, quae post praetextam excipiat iuuenalis aetatis exordia, ipse sit et Fortuna Barbata, quae adultos barba induat (quos honorare noluerunt, ut hoc qualecumque numen saltem masculum deum, uel a barba Barbatum, sicut a nodis Nodutum, uel certe non Fortunam, sed quia barbas habet Fortunium nominarent); ipse in Iugatino deo coniuges iungat, et cum uirgini uxori zona soluitur, ipse inuocetur et dea Virginensis uocetur; ipse sit Mutunus uel Tutunus, qui est apud Graecos Priapus.

[5] Si non pudet, haec omnia quae dixi et quaecumque non dixi (non enim omnia dicenda arbitratus sum), hi omnes dii deaeque sit unus Iuppiter, siue sint, ut quidam uolunt, omnia ista partes eius siue uirtutes eius, sicut eis uidetur, quibus eum placet esse mundi animum, quae sententia uelut magnorum multumque doctorum est.

[6] Haec si ita sunt (quod quale sit nondum interim quaero), quid perderent si unum deum colerent prudentiore compendio? Quid enim eius contemneretur, cum ipse coleretur? Si autem metuendum fuit ne praetermissae siue neglectae partes eius irascerentur, non ergo ut uolunt, uelut unius animantis haec tota uita est, quae omnes continet deos, quasi suas uirtutes uel membra uel partes; sed suam quaeque pars habet uitam a ceteris separatam, si praeter alteram irasci altera potest, et alia placari, alia concitari. Si autem dicitur omnes simul, id est totum ipsum Iouem, potuisse offendi, si partes eius non etiam singillatim minutatimque colerentur, stulte dicitur. Nulla quippe illarum praetermitteretur, cum ipse unus qui haberet omnia coleretur. Nam ut alia omittam quae sunt innumerabilia, cum dicunt omnia sidera partes Iouis esse, et omnia uiuere atque rationales animas habere, et ideo sine controuersia deos esse, non uident quam multos non colant, quam multis aedes non construant, aras

BOOK FOUR

135
counting, Camena for teaching singing. He is also to be the god Consus for providing counsel, and the goddess Sentia for inspiring sentiments.

[4] As the goddess Iuventas, he is to supervise the early stages of youth when the toga praetexta is abandoned, and to become the Bearded Fortuna who endows youths with a beard when they grow up. (The Romans refused to honour them by giving this deity, such as it is, a male name; it could have been Barbatus, from barba, a beard, just as they form Nodutus from the word for a knot, or at any rate Fortunius rather than Fortuna, since the deity has whiskers!) As the god Iugatinus, he is to yoke married couples together, and when in womanhood a maiden’s girdle is untied we are to invoke him and call him by the name of the goddess Virginensis. He is to become Mutunus or Tutunus as the counterpart of Priapus among the Greeks.

[5] If it does not embarrass our adversaries, all the names I have mentioned and those I have not (for I did not think it necessary to cite them all) represent all the gods and goddesses who are to be Jupiter and no other, whether they are all, as some would have it, parts of him, or alternatively powers of him, a view which appeals to those who regard him as the world-soul. This is what those who are the would-be great and immensely learned believe.

[6] If all this is true (I do not probe its validity here) what would our opponents lose by worshipping the one God in more prudent economy?

What facet of him would be scorned, since he himself was being worshipped? If anxiety were to arise that personified parts might be affronted at being passed over or ignored, the inference would be that his entire existence was not as they claim – that of a single living being, embracing all the deities as his powers or limbs or parts. Rather, each part would have its own life distinct from the rest, if one part can be angered apart from another, and one can be appeased while another is enraged. But if the suggestion is that all the parts together, that is, Jupiter himself in the round, could be alienated if they were not worshipped individually bit by bit, that is a fatuous notion; for none of those parts would be passed over, since he who himself alone embodies all of them would be worshipped. To pass over other innumerable instances, when they cite all the constellations as parts of Jupiter, claiming that they are all alive and have rational souls, and are therefore incontrovertibly deities, they are oblivious of the many which they do not worship, of the many which do not have shrines built or

136

LIBER IV
non statuant, quas tamen paucissimis siderum statuendas esse putauerunt et singillatim sacrificandum. Si igitur irascuntur qui non singillatim coluntur, non metuunt paucis placatis toto caelo irato uiuere?

[7] Si autem stellas omnes ideo colunt quia in Ioue sunt quem colunt, isto compendio possent in illo uno omnibus supplicare (sic enim nemo irasceretur, cum in illo uno nemo contemneretur) potius quam cultis quibusdam iusta irascendi causa illis qui praetermissi essent multo numerosioribus praeberetur, praesertim cum eis de superna sede fulgentibus turpi nuditate distentus praeponeretur Priapus.

XII

[1] Quid? Illud nonne debet mouere acutos homines uel qualescumque homines (non enim ad hoc ingenii opus est excellentia), ut deposito studio contentionis adtendant, si mundi animus deus est eique animo mundus ut corpus est, ut sit unum animal constans ex animo et corpore, atque iste deus est sinu quodam naturae in se ipso continens omnia, ut ex ipsius anima qua uiuificatur tota ista moles, uitae atque animae cunctorum uiuentium pro cuiusque nascendi sorte sumantur, nihil omnino remanere quod non sit pars dei. Quod si ita est, quis non uideat quanta impietas et inreligiositas consequatur ut quod calcauerit quisque partem dei calcet, et in omni animante occidendo pars dei trucidetur? Nolo omnia dicere quae possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem sine uerecundia non possunt.

BOOK FOUR

137
altars raised to them, for they have decreed that very few of the constellations are to have these erected to them or sacrifices instituted for each individually. So if those not worshipped individually are angry, are our opponents not afraid to live, when only a few are appeased and the whole sky is enraged?

[7] But if they worship all the stars because they are embodied in Jupiter whom they worship, by such economy they could address their prayers to all in him alone, and in this way none would be angry, since in prayer to him alone none would be spurned. This would be better than worshipping some of them and giving just cause for anger to the much larger number who were passed over. This would be the outcome especially since Priapus, his parts distended in shameful nudity, was preferred to them, though they shine out from their abode in the heavens.

XII

[1] The following issue too must surely cause those with sharp minds – or in fact men of any intelligence, for there is no need of outstanding cleverness in this regard – to lay aside their enthusiasm for polemics, and to concentrate their minds on it. Is God the soul of the world, and is the world a sort of body for that soul, so that it forms one living being consisting of soul and body? Does this God reside in the bosom of nature, so to say, containing all things within himself, so that from his soul, which gives life to that whole mass, the lives and souls of all living things, each according to its lot at birth, are subsumed, and nothing whatever is left over which is not a part of God? If this is so, who would not be aware of the distressing lack of devotion and piety which would follow? For wherever a man set foot, he would trample on a part of God, and whenever a living creature was killed, a part of God would be slaughtered. I am reluctant to raise all the possible outcomes which can strike reflective minds and which cannot be voiced without a sense of shame.

138

LIBER IV

XIII

[1] Si autem sola animalia rationalia, sicut sunt homines, partes dei esse contendunt, non uideo quidem, si totus mundus est deus, quomodo bestias ab eius partibus separent; sed obluctari quid opus est? De ipso rationali animante, id est homine, quid infelicius credi potest quam dei partem uapulare cum puer uapulat? Iam uero partes dei fieri lasciuas, iniquas, impias atque omnino damnabiles quis ferre possit, nisi qui prorsus insanit?

Postremo quid irascitur eis a quibus non colitur, cum a suis partibus non colatur?

[2] Restat ergo ut dicant omnes deos suas habere uitas, sibi quemque uiuere, nullum eorum esse partem cuiusquam, sed omnes colendos qui cognosci et coli possunt, quia tam multi sunt ut omnes non possint.

Quorum Iuppiter quia rex praesidet, ipsum credo ab eis putari regnum constituisse uel auxisse Romanum. Nam si hoc ipse non fecit, quem alium deum opus tam magnum potuisse adgredi credant, cum omnes occupati sint officiis et operibus propriis, nec alter inruat in alterius? A rege igitur deorum regnum hominum potuit propagari et augeri.

XIV

[1] Hic primum quaero cur non etiam ipsum regnum aliquis deus est. Cur enim non ita sit, si Victoria dea est? Aut quid ipso Ioue in hac causa opus est, si Victoria faueat sitque propitia et semper eat ad illos quos uult esse uictores? Hac dea fauente et propitia, etiam Ioue uacante uel aliud agente, quae gentes non subditae remanerent? Quae regna non cederent? An forte displicet bonis iniquissima improbitate pugnare et finitimos quietos nullamque iniuriam facientes ad dilatandum regnum bello spontaneo prouocare? Plane si ita sentiunt approbo et laudo.

BOOK FOUR

139

XIII

[1] If, however, our opponents assert that only rational animals like men form parts of God, I do not see how they isolate the brute beasts from those parts, seeing that the whole world is God. But there is no need to press this objection. So far as man as rational creature is concerned, what more wretched idea can be imagined than that a part of God is beaten when a boy is beaten? And further, who but a raving lunatic can countenance the notion that parts of God become wanton, wicked, irreligious, and utterly doomed to damnation? Finally, what point is there in God’s being angry with those who do not worship him, since those who fail to do so are parts of himself?

[2] So the only recourse for our opponents is to say that all the gods live their separate lives, that each lives for himself, that none of them are parts of one individual, but that all who can be recognised and worshipped should be worshipped, it being impossible to take in all of them because they are so many. Since Jupiter presides over them as king, I believe that Romans think that he established and extended Roman rule, for if he did not do it, what other god are they to believe could have undertaken so massive a task, for all of them are busy with their own duties and tasks, and one does not interfere with those of another? Thus the rule of men could have been extended and enlarged by the king of the gods.

XIV

[1] The first question I raise at this point is: why is rule itself not a god?

Why should it not be, since Victory is a goddess? What need is there for Jupiter himself for this task, since Victory is so supportive and kindly, and always sides with those whom she wishes to be victorious? If she offers support and kindness, even if Jupiter is on holiday or otherwise engaged, would any nations survive unsubdued? What kingdoms would not yield to them? But is it possible that honourable men are averse to most despicable and unscrupulous warring, and to challenging in unprovoked fighting neighbours who are peaceful, and inflict no injustice so as to extend their rule? If this is their attitude, I certainly commend and praise it.

140

LIBER IV

XV

[1] Videant ergo ne forte non pertineat ad uiros bonos gaudere de regni latitudine. Iniquitas enim eorum cum quibus iusta bella gesta sunt regnum adiuuit ut cresceret, quod utique paruum esset si quies et iustitia finitimorum contra se bellum geri nulla prouocaret iniuria ac sic felicioribus rebus humanis omnia regna parua essent concordi uicinitate laetantia, et ita essent in mundo regna plurima gentium ut sunt in urbe domus plurimae ciuium. Proinde belligerare et perdomitis gentibus dilatare regnum malis uidetur felicitas, bonis necessitas. Sed quia peius esset ut iniuriosi iustioribus dominarentur, ideo non incongrue dicitur etiam ista felicitas. Sed procul dubio felicitas maior est uicinum bonum habere concordem quam uicinum malum subiugare bellantem.

[2] Mala uota sunt optare habere quem oderis uel quem timeas, ut possit esse quem uincas. Si ergo iusta gerendo bella non impia, non iniqua, Romani imperium tam magnum adquirere potuerunt, numquid tamquam aliqua dea colenda est eis etiam iniquitas aliena? Multum enim ad istam latitudinem imperii eam cooperatam uidemus quae faciebat iniuriosos, ut essent cum quibus iusta bella gererentur et augeretur imperium. Cur autem et iniquitas dea non sit uel externarum gentium, si Pauor et Pallor et Febris dii Romani esse meruerunt? His igitur duabus, id est aliena iniquitate et dea Victoria, dum bellorum causas iniquitas excitat, Victoria eadem bella feliciter terminat, etiam feriato Ioue creuit imperium. Quas enim hic partes Iuppiter haberet, cum ea quae possent beneficia eius putari dii habentur, dii uocantur, dii coluntur, ipsi pro suis partibus inuocantur? Haberet hic autem etiam ille aliquam partem, si Regnum etiam ipse appellaretur, sicut appellatur illa Victoria. Aut si regnum munus est Iouis, cur non et Victoria

BOOK FOUR

141

XV

[1] Our adversaries must accordingly take note that it may perhaps be inappropriate for good men to take pleasure in extending their dominion.

What fostered the growth of the empire was the injustice of those against whom just wars were waged; it would certainly have remained small if their neighbours had peaceably and justly refrained from making any unprovoked and unjust war against them. By such conduct human affairs would have been more blessed; all kingdoms would have been small, rejoicing in harmony with neighbours, and there would thus have existed in the world numerous kingdoms of nations, just as in a city there are numerous homes of citizens. So waging war and extending their rule by subduing nations is considered a blessing by evil men, but a necessity by those who are good. But because it would be worse if those who commit injustice lorded it over the more righteous, such necessity too is not unfittingly called a blessing. But undoubtedly it is a greater blessing to live in harmony with a good neighbour than to subdue an evil one who makes war.

[2] It is an evil aspiration to long to have someone to hate or to fear, so that one can have someone to conquer. If, then, the Romans were able to obtain so huge an empire by waging wars that were just and not unholy or wicked, is there not a case for their worshipping in addition External Injustice as a goddess? We see that her co-operation has made a large contribution to this extension of empire, since she made others unjust so that the Romans would have foes with whom they could wage just wars and extend their empire. Why should not Injustice, at any rate the injustice of foreign nations, be a goddess, if Fear and Pallor and Fever deserved to be Roman gods? So it was through these two, foreign injustice and the goddess Victory – injustice by stirring up pretexts for wars, and Victory by successfully concluding them – that the empire grew, even though Jupiter was on holiday. For what part could Jupiter have played in this, when the things that could be considered his favours are regarded and named and worshipped as gods, and invoked as parts of him? Mind you, he could have played some part in this if he had received the additional title of Rule, just as the goddess Victory acquired her name. Alternatively, if rule is the gift of Jupiter, why is victory too not regarded as his gift? It would surely

142

LIBER IV
munus eius habeatur? Quod profecto haberetur, si non lapis in Capitolio, sed uerus rex regum et dominus dominantium cognosceretur atque coleretur.

XVI

[1] Miror autem plurimum quod, cum deos singulos singulis rebus et paene singulis motibus adtribuerent, uocauerunt deam Agenoriam, quae ad agendum excitaret, deam Stimulam, quae ad agendum ultra modum stimularet, deam Murciam, quae praeter modum non moueret ac faceret hominem, ut ait Pomponius, murcidum, id est nimis desidiosum et inactuosum, deam Streniam, quae faceret strenuum, his omnibus diis et deabus publica sacra facere susceperunt, Quietem uero appellantes, quae faceret quietum, cum aedem haberet extra portam Collinam, publice illam suscipere noluerunt. Vtrum indicium fuit animi inquieti, an potius ita significatum est qui illam turbam colere perseueraret non plane deorum, sed daemoniorum, eum quietem habere non posse? Ad quam uocat uerus medicus dicens: Discite a me, quoniam mitis sum et humilis corde, et inuenietis requiem animabus uestris.

XVII

[1] An forte dicunt quod deam Victoriam Iuppiter mittat, atque illa tamquam regi deorum obtemperans ad quos iusserit ueniat et in eorum parte considat? Hoc uere dicitur non de illo Ioue quem deorum regem pro sua opinione confingunt, sed de illo uero rege saeculorum, quod mittat non Victoriam, quae nulla substantia est, sed angelum suum et faciat uincere quem uoluerit; cuius consilium occultum esse potest, iniquum non potest.

[2] Nam si Victoria dea est, cur non deus est et triumphus, et victoriae iungitur uel maritus uel frater uel filius? Talia quippe isti de diis opinati sunt qualia si poetae fingerent atque a nobis exagitarentur, responderent isti ridenda esse figmenta poetarum, non ueris adtribuenda numinibus; et

BOOK FOUR

143
be so regarded if he, and not the stone on the Capitol, were recognised and worshipped as the king of kings and the lord of lords.

XVI

[1] What causes me the greatest surprise is the following. The Romans assigned a particular god to every object and to virtually every activity.

The goddess who was to rouse them to action they called Agenoria; the goddess who was to goad them to spirited action, Stimula; the one who was to make a man wholly inactive, and as Pomponius expresses it, murcidus or extremely lazy and lethargic, Murcia; the one who was to make him energetic, Strenia; and they undertook to mount official ceremonies to all these gods and goddesses. But to the one they called Quies, who was to make men restful, they refused to lend public recognition, and they placed her shrine outside the Colline Gate. Was this to denote her restless mind, or did it rather signify that anyone continuing to worship that crowd who were clearly not gods but demons could not obtain rest? To that rest the true Physician summons us when he says: Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

XVII

[1] Do they perhaps claim that Jupiter commissions the goddess Victory, and that in apparent obedience to the king of the gods she repairs to those whom he prescribes, and takes their side? That claim is true not of Jupiter, whom according to their belief they fabricate as king of the gods, but rather of the true king of ages, because he sends not Victory, who has no actual existence, but his angel, and he ensures victory for the one he wills; his design may be hidden, but it cannot be unjust.

[2] For if Victory is a goddess, why is triumph not a god too, joined to Victory as spouse or brother or son? Our opponents have indeed entertained such views of the gods as these, but if the poets invented similar accounts and we belaboured them, our opponents would retort that these were the risible fantasies of the poets, and were not to be enrolled

144

LIBER IV
tamen se ipsi non ridebant, cum talia deliramenta non apud poetas legebant sed in templis colebant. Iouem igitur de omnibus rogarent, ei uni tantummodo supplicarent. Non enim quo misisset Victoriam, si dea est et sub illo rege est, posset ei audere resistere et suam potius facere uoluntatem.

XVIII

[1] Quid, quod et Felicitas dea est? Aedem accepit, aram meruit, sacra congrua persoluta sunt. Ipsa ergo sola coleretur. Vbi enim ipsa esset, quid boni non esset? Sed quid sibi uult quod et Fortuna dea putatur et colitur?

An aliud est felicitas, aliud fortuna? Quia fortuna potest esse et mala; felicitas autem si mala fuerit, felicitas non erit. Certe omnes deos utriusque sexus (si et sexum habent) non nisi bonos existimare debemus. Hoc Plato dicit, hoc alii philosophi, hoc excellentes reipublicae populorumque rectores. Quomodo ergo dea Fortuna aliquando bona est, aliquando mala?

An forte quando mala est, dea non est, sed in malignum daemonem repente conuertitur? Quot sunt ergo deae istae? Profecto quotquot homines fortunati, hoc est bonae fortunae. Nam cum sint et alii plurimi simul, hoc est uno tempore, malae fortunae, numquid, si ipsa esset, simul et bona esset et mala, his aliud, illis aliud? An illa, quae dea est, semper est bona?

Ipsa est ergo Felicitas; cur adhibentur diuersa nomina?

[2] Sed hoc ferendum est; solet enim et una res duobus nominibus appellari. Quid diuersae aedes, diuersae arae, diuersa sacra? Est causa, inquiunt, quia felicitas illa est quam boni habent praecedentibus meritis; fortuna uero quae dicitur bona sine ullo examine meritorum fortuito accidit hominibus et bonis et malis, unde etiam Fortuna nominatur. Quomodo ergo bona est, quae sine ullo iudicio uenit et ad bonos et ad malos? Vt quid autem colitur, quae ita caeca est passim in quoslibet incurrens ut suos

BOOK FOUR

145
with the true deities. Yet they did not laugh at themselves when they did not read such absurdities in the poets, but worshipped them in the temples.

So what they ought to have done was to beseech Jupiter for everything, and to make their entreaties to him alone, for no matter where he sent Victory, assuming that she is a goddess and under his kingship, she could not presume to oppose him and to implement her own wishes instead.

XVIII

[1] Then, too, there is the problem of Felicity considered as a goddess; she has been awarded a shrine, she has deserved an altar, and suitable rites have been addressed to her. The logic of this is that she alone should have been worshipped, for what blessing would be absent when she was present? But what point is there in regarding and worshipping Fortune as a goddess as well? Are felicity and fortune two different things? Yes, comes the answer, for fortune can be evil as well, whereas if felicity is evil it will not be felicity. But we are surely to believe that all deities of both sexes (assuming that deities too are sexual) are nothing but good. This is what Plato maintains, as do other philosophers, and also outstanding rulers of the Roman state and of other nations. How, then, is the goddess Fortune sometimes good and sometimes evil? Is she perhaps when evil not a goddess, but suddenly transformed into a baleful demon? So how many goddesses are there like these? Surely there are as many as there are fortunate men, that is, men of good fortune. And since numerous other men too are afflicted with ill-fortune simultaneously, that is, at the same time, would she if she existed be at the same time both good and bad, good to some and bad to others? Or since she is a goddess, is she always good?

If so she must be Felicity, so why is she accorded different names?

[2] However, we can bear with this, for one thing is often called by two names. But why separate shrines, separate altars, separate rituals? Our adversaries state that it is because felicity is what good men enjoy through their earlier merits, whereas the fortune called good happens by chance to both good men and bad, without any scrutiny of their merits, and this is why the goddess is called Fortune. How, then, is she good, if she attends both good and evil men indiscriminately? Why do men worship her, seeing that she is so blind in her random encounters with each and every one that

146

LIBER IV
cultores plerumque praetereat et suis contemptoribus haereat? Aut si aliquid proficiunt cultores eius, ut ab illa uideantur et amentur, iam merita sequitur, non fortuito uenit. Vbi est definitio illa Fortunae? Vbi est quod a fortuitis etiam nomen accepit? Nihil enim prodest eam colere, si Fortuna est. Si autem suos cultores discernit ut prosit, Fortuna non est. An et ipsam quo uoluerit Iuppiter mittit? Colatur ergo ipse solus; non enim potest ei iubenti et eam quo uoluerit mittenti Fortuna resistere. Aut certe istam mali colant, qui nolunt habere merita quibus dea possit Felicitas inuitari.

XIX

[1] Tantum sane huic uelut numini tribuunt, quam Fortunam uocant, ut simulacrum eius quod a matronis dedicatum est et appellata est Fortuna Muliebris, etiam locutum esse memoriae commendauerint atque dixisse non semel sed iterum quod eam rite matronae dedicauerint. Quod quidem si uerum sit, mirari nos non oportet. Non enim malignis daemonibus etiam sic difficile est fallere, quorum artes atque uersutias hinc potius isti aduertere debuerunt, quod illa dea locuta est quae fortuito accidit, non quae meritis uenit. Fuit enim Fortuna loquax et muta Felicitas. Vt quid aliud nisi ut homines recte uiuere non curarent conciliata sibi Fortuna, quae illos sine ullis bonis meritis faceret fortunatos? Et certe si Fortuna loquitur, non saltem Muliebris sed Virilis potius loqueretur, ut non ipsae quae simulacrum dedicauerunt putarentur tantum miraculum muliebri loquacitate finxisse.

XX

[1] Virtutem quoque deam fecerunt, quae quidem si dea esset multis fuerat praeferenda. Et nunc quia dea non est sed donum dei est, ipsa ab illo

BOOK FOUR

147
she often ignores her devotees and clings to those who despise her? If on the other hand her devotees gain some advantage so that they are recognised and loved by her, she attends on merit, and does not appear by chance. In that case, what has happened to that definition of Fortune, and to the fact that her name too she took from chance events? There is no advantage in worshipping her if she is mere chance, but if she marks out her devotees to benefit them, she is not Fortune. But does Jupiter perhaps dispatch her to where he wishes? If so, he alone should receive worship, for Fortune cannot oppose his instructions as he sends her where he will.

Or at any rate, only evil men will worship her, for they refuse to attain the merits by which the goddess Felicity can be enticed to them.

XIX

[1] The fact is that they attach such significance to this alleged deity which they call Fortune that they have preserved the account of how her statue, which matrons dedicated and called Woman’s Fortune, actually spoke, saying not once but twice that the matrons had duly conducted the dedication. If this is actually true it should cause us no surprise, for it is not difficult for malicious demons to beguile us in this further way. Our adversaries ought to have taken note of their tricks and wiles from the fact that the goddess who spoke was the one who comes by chance, not the one who rewards merits, for Fortune was talkative, but Felicity stayed dumb.

Her purpose was none other than that men should fail to take thought for right living, since Fortune had been won over to them, so that she could make them fortunate without their showing any deserving merit. However, if Fortune does speak, it should at any rate have been the male rather than the female Fortune who did the talking, for this would have removed the suspicion that the women who dedicated the statue had mendaciously reported that considerable miracle in women’s jabbering.

XX

[1] The Romans made Virtue too a goddess, and indeed if she was divine she would have deserved advancement before many. But in fact virtue is

148

LIBER IV
impetretur a quo solo dari potest, et omnis falsorum deorum turba uanescet. Sed cur et Fides dea credita est, et accepit etiam ipsa templum et altare? Quam quisquis prudenter agnoscit, habitaculum illi se ipsum facit.

Vnde autem sciunt illi quid sit fides, cuius primum et maximum officium est ut in uerum credatur deum? Sed cur non suffecerat Virtus? Nonne ibi est et fides? Quando quidem uirtutem in quattuor species distribuendam esse uiderunt, prudentiam, iustitiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam; et quoniam et istae singulae species suas habent, in partibus iustitiae fides est, maximumque locum apud nos habet, quicumque scimus quid sit quod iustus ex fide uiuit.

[2] Sed illos miror adpetitores multitudinis deorum, si Fides dea est, quare aliis tam multis deabus iniuriam fecerint praetermittendo eas, quibus similiter aedes et aras dedicare potuerunt? Cur temperantia dea esse non meruit, cum eius nomine nonnulli Romani principes non paruam gloriam compararint? Cur denique fortitudo dea non est, quae adfuit Mucio cum dexteram porrexit in flammas, quae adfuit Curtio cum se pro patria in abruptam terram praecipitem dedit, quae adfuit Decio patri et Decio filio, cum pro exercitu se uouerunt? Si tamen his omnibus uera inerat fortitudo (unde modo non agitur), quare prudentia, quare sapientia nulla numinum loca meruerunt? An quia in nomine generali ipsius Virtutis omnes coluntur? Sic ergo posset et unus deus coli, cuius partes ceteri dii putantur.

Sed in illa una uirtute et fides est et pudicitia, quae tamen extra in aedibus propriis altaria meruerunt.

XXI

[1] Has deas non ueritas sed uanitas facit; haec enim ueri dei munera sunt, non ipsae sunt deae. Verum tamen ubi est uirtus et felicitas, quid aliud quaeritur? Quid ei sufficit, cui uirtus felicitasque non sufficit? Omnia

BOOK FOUR

149
not a goddess, but a gift of God, so it should be obtained by entreaty from him who alone can confer it. If this is done, the whole mob of false gods will disappear. But why was Faith too regarded as a goddess, and had a temple and altar awarded to her? Anyone who prudently acknowledges her turns himself into a dwelling-place for her. But how do our opponents know what faith is, when its first and greatest duty is to instil belief in the true God? But why was Virtue not sufficient for them? Surely virtue embraces faith as well? They did in fact realise that virtue is to be divided into four aspects, prudence, justice, courage, and temperance, and since each of these likewise has its own aspects, faith is a subdivision of justice, and enjoys the highest place among those of us who know the meaning of the words The just man lives by faith.

[2] But what surprises me about those who long for a multitude of gods is this. If Faith is a goddess, why have they wronged so many other goddesses by passing over them, though they could have dedicated shrines and altars likewise to them? Why has temperance not deserved to be a goddess, when a number of Roman leaders gained no little glory in her name? Again, why is courage not a goddess, since it attended on Mucius, when he thrust his right hand into the flames, and on Curtius, when he threw himself headlong into the yawning earth to save his fatherland? And on the Decii, father and son, when they vowed their lives on behalf of the army? (This is presuming that they were all animated by true courage, an issue irrelevant to our present discussion.) Why have prudence and wisdom not deserved a place among the deities? Is it because all such are subsumed and worshipped under the collective heading of virtue itself? It follows that the one God could be worshipped likewise, with the other gods regarded as parts of him. But both faith and chastity are parts of that single virtue, yet they have deserved to have altars independently in their own shrines.

XXI

[1] Insincerity, not truth, is the creator of these goddesses, for they are the gifts of the true God and not deities themselves. But where virtue and felicity reside, what is additionally required? If virtue and felicity do not satisfy someone, what does? For virtue embraces all that one should do,

150

LIBER IV
quippe agenda complectitur uirtus, omnia optanda felicitas. Si Iuppiter ut haec daret ideo colebatur quia, si bonum aliquid est latitudo regni atque diuturnitas, ad eandem pertinet felicitatem, cur non intellectum est dona dei esse, non deas? Si autem putatae sunt deae, saltem alia tanta deorum turba non quaereretur. Consideratis enim officiis deorum dearumque omnium, quae sicut uoluerunt pro sua opinatione finxerunt, inueniant, si possunt, aliquid quod praestari ab aliquo deo possit homini habenti uirtutem, habenti felicitatem. Quid doctrinae uel a Mercurio uel a Minerua petendum esset, cum uirtus omnia secum haberet? Ars quippe ipsa bene recteque uiuendi uirtus a ueteribus definita est. Vnde ab eo quod Graece arete dicitur uirtus, nomen artis Latinos traduxisse putauerunt. Sed si uirtus non nisi ad ingeniosum posset uenire, quid opus erat deo Catio patre, qui catos, id est acutos, faceret, cum hoc posset conferre felicitas?

[2] Ingeniosum quippe nasci felicitatis est, unde, etiamsi non potuit a nondum nato coli dea Felicitas ut hoc ei conciliata donaret, conferret hoc parentibus eius cultoribus suis, ut eis ingeniosi filii nascerentur. Quid opus erat parturientibus inuocare Lucinam cum, si adesset Felicitas, non solum bene parerent sed etiam bonos? Quid necesse erat Opi deae commendare nascentes, deo Vaticano uagientes, deae Cuninae iacentes, deae Ruminae sugentes, deo Statilino stantes, deae Adeonae adeuntes, Abeonae abeuntes; deae Menti ut bonam haberent mentem, deo Volumno et deae Volumnae ut bona uellent; diis nuptialibus ut bene coniugarentur, diis agrestibus ut fructus uberrimos caperent, et maxime ipsi diuae Fructeseae; Marti et Bellonae ut bene belligerarent, deae Victoriae ut uincerent; deo Honori ut honorarentur; deae Pecuniae ut pecuniosi essent; deo Aesculano et filio eius Argentino ut haberent aeream argenteamque pecuniam? Nam ideo patrem Argentini Aesculanum posuerunt, quia prius aerea pecunia in usu coepit esse, post argentea. Miror autem quod Argentinus non genuit

BOOK FOUR

151
and felicity all that one should desire. If Jupiter was worshipped so that he would bestow these qualities (for if breadth and longevity of rule are a good, that good is embraced in felicity), why was it not realised that they are God’s gifts and not goddesses? But if they were regarded as goddesses, at any rate the rest of that huge crowd of gods should not have been sought out. Our opponents should reflect on the duties of all the gods and goddesses as they have invented them according to their wishes and beliefs, and if they can, they should find anything that can be bestowed by any god on a man who possesses virtue and felicity. What learning was there to be sought from Mercury or Minerva, when virtue contained everything within itself? Indeed, virtue was defined by the ancients as the art of good and upright living. This is what inspired the belief that the Latins derived the word art itself from arete, the Greek word that means virtue. But if Virtue could visit only a talented person, what need was there of father Catius, the god who made men cati or shrewd, when Felicity could have bestowed this gift?

[2] It is true that to be born with talent is a mark of felicity, and so although the goddess Felicity could not be worshipped by one not yet born to ensure that she would be won over and bestow her gift on him, she could proffer to his parents who were her devotees the gift of talented offspring later born. So what need had women in labour to invoke Lucina when, if Felicity were present, they would not merely have a safe delivery but would bear good children? Why was it vital to entrust the new-born to the goddess Ops, or when they cried to the god Vaticanus, or to the goddess Cunina when they lay in the cradle, or to the goddess Rumina when they were suckled, or to the god Statilinus when they could stand, or when they could walk towards someone to the goddess Adeona, or to the goddess Abeona when they were walking away? Or to the goddess Mens to be of sound mind, to the god Volumnus and the goddess Volumna to want blessings, to the nuptial deities to marry well, to the rustic gods and in particular the goddess Fructesea to obtain most fruitful harvests, to Mars and Bellona for success on the battlefield, to the goddess Victoria to gain victory, to the god Honos to win honour, to the goddess Pecunia to become wealthy, to the god Aesculanus and his son Argentinus to obtain bronze and silver coins? (The reason why they made Aesculanus the father of Argentinus was because bronze money came into use earlier, and silver money later. It surprises me that Argentinus did not father a son Aurinus

152

LIBER IV

Aurinum, quia et aurea subsecuta est. Quem deum isti si haberent, sicut Saturno Iouem, ita et patri Argentino et auo Aesculano Aurinum praeponerent.

[3] Quid ergo erat necesse propter haec bona uel animi uel corporis uel externa tantam deorum turbam colere et inuocare (quos neque omnes commemoraui, nec ipsi potuerunt omnibus bonis humanis minutatim singillatimque digestis deos minutos et singulos prouidere), cum posset magno facilique compendio una dea Felicitas cuncta conferre, nec solum ad bona capienda quisquam alius, sed neque ad depellenda mala quaereretur? Cur enim esset inuocanda propter fessos diua Fessona, propter hostes depellendos diua Pellonia, propter aegros medicus uel Apollo uel Aesculapius uel ambo simul, quando esset grande periculum?

Nec deus Spiniensis ut spinas ex agris eradicaret, nec dea Robigo ut non accederet, rogaretur; una Felicitate praesente et tuente uel nulla mala exorerentur, uel facillime pellerentur.

[4] Postremo quoniam de duabus istis deabus Virtute et Felicitate tractamus, si felicitas uirtutis est praemium, non dea sed dei donum est; si autem dea est, cur non dicatur et uirtutem ipsa conferre, quando quidem etiam uirtutem consequi felicitas magna est?

XXII

[1] Quid est ergo, quod pro ingenti beneficio Varro iactat praestare se ciuibus suis, quia non solum commemorat deos quos coli oporteat a Romanis, uerum etiam dicit quid ad quemque pertineat? ‘Quoniam nihil prodest’ inquit ‘hominis alicuius medici nomen formamque nosse, et quod sit medicus ignorare.’ Ita dicit nihil prodesse scire deum esse Aesculapium si nescias eum ualetudini opitulari, atque ita ignores cur ei debeas supplicare. Hoc etiam alia similitudine adfirmat dicens non modo bene uiuere sed uiuere omnino neminem posse, si ignoret quisnam sit faber, quis pistor, quis tector, a quo quid utensile petere possit, quem adiutorem

BOOK FOUR

153
because gold coins too arrived next. If they had established Aurinus as a god, they would have ranked him above his father Argentinus and his grandfather Aesculanus, just as they rank Jupiter above Saturn!)

[3] What need, then, was there to worship and invoke such a huge crowd of gods to obtain these blessings of mind and body and external goods? I have not mentioned all such deities; moreover, Romans were unable to subdivide all human goods into tiny component parts, or to provide petty gods individually to each. By one large-scale simplification the goddess Felicity alone could have imparted all these gifts. No other deity would have been required not merely for obtaining blessings, but also for warding off evils. Why was it necessary to call on the goddess Fessona to support the weary, or the goddess Pellonia to repel the foe, or one or other or both of the physicians Apollo and Aesculapius, when a life was in mortal danger? Likewise they need not have asked Spiniensis to uproot thorns from the fields, or Robigo to keep her distance. If Felicity had been there alone and on guard, no evils would have arisen, or they would have been dispelled with the greatest ease.

[4] Since we are discussing those two goddesses Virtue and Felicity, the final point to be made is that if felicity is the reward of virtue, Felicity is not a goddess, but a gift from God. But if she is a goddess, why is she not credited with also bestowing virtue, since acquiring virtue also spells great felicity?

XXII

[1] What, then, of the service which Varro boasts that he provides with huge benefit to his fellow-citizens, namely that he not merely records the gods which Romans should worship, but also states the function relevant to each? “It does not help”, he says, “to identify the name and appearance of a physician while being unaware that he is a physician.” He states that likewise it does not help to know that Aesculapius is a god if you are unaware that he relieves sickness, and accordingly you do not know why you ought to entreat him. He underlines the point with another comparison. Not merely can a man not live well, he says, but he cannot live at all if he is unaware of who is a craftsman, or a baker, or a plasterer, or to whom to go to obtain something he needs, or whom to call on to

154

LIBER IV
adsumere, quem ducem, quem doctorem; eo modo nulli dubium esse asserens ita esse utilem cognitionem deorum, si sciatur quam quisque deus uim et facultatem ac potestatem cuiusque rei habeat. ‘Ex eo enim poterimus’ inquit ‘scire quem cuiusque causa deum aduocare atque inuocare debeamus, ne faciamus, ut mimi solent, et optemus a Libero aquam, a Lymphis uinum.’ Magna sane utilitas! Quis non huic gratias ageret si uera monstraret, et si unum uerum deum, a quo essent omnia bona, hominibus colendum doceret?

XXIII

[1] Sed (unde nunc agitur) si libri et sacra eorum uera sunt, et Felicitas dea est, cur non ipsa una quae coleretur constituta est, quae posset uniuersa conferre, et compendio facere felicem? Quis enim optat aliquid propter aliud quam ut felix fiat? Cur denique tam sero huic tantae deae post tot Romanos principes Lucullus aedem constituit? Cur ipse Romulus felicem cupiens condere ciuitatem non huic templum potissimum struxit, nec propter aliquid diis ceteris supplicauit, quando nihil deesset si haec adesset? Nam et ipse nec prius rex nec, ut putant, postea deus fieret, si hanc deam propitiam non haberet. Vt quid ergo constituit Romanis deos Ianum Iouem Martem Picum Faunum Tiberinum Herculem, et si quos alios? Vt quid Titus Tatius addidit Saturnum Opem Solem Lunam Vulcanum Lucem et quoscumque alios addidit, inter quos etiam deam Cluacinam, Felicitate neglecta? Vt quid Numa tot deos et tot deas sine ista? An eam forte in tanta turba uidere non potuit? Hostilius certe rex deos et ipse nouos Pauorem atque Pallorem propitiandos non introduceret si deam istam nosset aut coleret. Praesente quippe Felicitate omnis pauor et pallor non propitiatus abscederet, sed pulsus aufugeret.

[2] Deinde quid est hoc, quod iam Romanum imperium longe lateque crescebat, et adhuc nemo Felicitatem colebat? An ideo grandius imperium quam felicius fuit? Nam quomodo ibi esset uera felicitas, ubi uera non erat

BOOK FOUR

155
assist or guide or teach you. He maintains that similarly no-one doubts that knowledge of the gods is useful only if you know the power, skill, and competence which individual gods possess in their particular spheres. “It is this knowledge”, he says, “which will enable us to know which god we should summon and invoke for a particular purpose; in this way we shall avoid doing what mimic actors often do, begging Liber for water, and the water-nymphs for wine.” This is indeed most useful advice, but who would not have thanked him if he had pointed to the truth, informing us that men must worship the one true God, from whom all blessings flow?

XXIII

[1] But to revert to the subject before us, if the books and ritual of the Romans are true, and Felicity is a goddess, why was she not established as the only one to be worshipped, seeing that she could bestow all benefits and thus by a short cut make a man successful? For who expresses any wish for a purpose other than to attain success? In short, why did the establishment of a shrine to the great goddess by Lucullus come so late, after so many Roman leaders had ignored her? Why did Romulus himself, when he longed to found a successful Roman state, fail to raise a temple to her above all, and to cease praying to other gods for anything, since her presence would have ensured that nothing was lacking? He himself would not have become king earlier, nor a god (as they believe) later, if this goddess had not shown favour to him. So why did he establish as gods for the Romans Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and whoever? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sol, Luna, Vulcan, Lux, and others too, even including Cluacina, but ignore Felicity? Why did Numa create so many gods and so many goddesses, but not Felicity?

Could he perhaps not identify her in that dense crowd? King Hostilius too would surely not have admitted Pavor and Pallor as new gods to be appeased if he had known or worshipped this goddess, for if Felicity had been present all fear and pallor would not have retired because appeased, but would have taken to their heels because routed!

[2] Again, how strange it was that the Roman Empire was extending far and wide, yet no-one as yet was worshipping Felicity! So was the empire greater in size than in success? How could there have been true success in

156

LIBER IV
pietas? Pietas est enim uerax ueri dei cultus, non cultus falsorum tot deorum quot daemoniorum. Sed et postea iam in deorum numerum Felicitate suscepta magna bellorum ciuilium infelicitas subsecuta est. An forte iuste est indignata Felicitas quod et tam sero et non ad honorem sed ad contumeliam potius inuitata est, ut cum ea coleretur Priapus et Cluacina et Pauor et Pallor et Febris et cetera non numina colendorum, sed crimina colentium?

[3] Ad extremum si cum turba indignissima tanta dea colenda uisa est, cur non uel inlustrius ceteris colebatur? Quis enim ferat quod neque inter deos Consentes, quos dicunt in consilium Iouis adhiberi, nec inter deos quos selectos uocant, Felicitas constituta est? Templum aliquod ei fieret quod et loci sublimitate et operis dignitate praemineret. Cur enim non aliquid melius quam ipsi Ioui? Nam quae etiam Ioui regnum nisi Felicitas dedit? Si tamen cum regnaret felix fuit. Et potior est felicitas regno. Nemo enim dubitat facile inueniri hominem qui se timeat fieri regem; nullus autem inuenitur qui se nolit esse felicem. Ipsi ergo dii si per auguria uel quolibet modo eos posse consuli putant, de hac re consulerentur utrum uellent Felicitati loco cedere, si forte aliorum aedibus uel altaribus iam fuisset locus occupatus, ubi aedes maior atque sublimior Felicitati construeretur; etiam ipse Iuppiter cederet ut ipsum uerticem collis Capitolini Felicitas potius obtineret. Non enim quispiam resisteret Felicitati nisi, quod fieri non potest, qui esse uellet infelix.

[4] Nullo modo omnino, si consuleretur, faceret Iuppiter quod ei fecerunt tres dii Mars, Terminus, et Iuuentas, qui maiori et regi suo nullo modo cedere loco uoluerunt. Nam sicut habent eorum litterae, cum rex Tarquinius Capitolium fabricari uellet eumque locum qui ei dignior aptiorque uidebatur, ab diis aliis cerneret praeoccupatum, non audens aliquid contra eorum facere arbitrium, et credens eos tanto numini suoque principi uoluntate cessuros, quia multi erant illic ubi Capitolium constitutum est, per augurium quaesiuit utrum concedere locum uellent

BOOK FOUR

157
the absence of true piety? True piety is worship of the true God, not worship of as many false gods as there are demons. Yet later, when Felicity was adopted into the ranks of the gods, the great infelicity of the Civil Wars ensued. Was it perhaps that Felicity was justly angry that the invitation to her came so late, and was not so much a distinction as an insult to be associated in worship with Priapus, Cluacina, Pavor, Pallor, Febris, and the rest, who were not so much deities set among gods worthy of worship as indictments of those who worshipped them?

[3] Finally, if this great goddess seemed worthy to receive worship in company with that most unworthy mob, why was she not accorded even greater distinction in worship than those others? Who could tolerate the fact that Felicity has not been given a place among either the Di Consentes, who they say are Jupiter’s privy counsellors, or among the gods whom they call the elite? Some temple should have been erected to her that towered above the rest and excelled them in imposing architecture.

Why did she not obtain one better than that for Jupiter himself, for what goddess but Felicity bestowed on Jupiter his very kingship? But I qualify this with the proviso ‘if his kingship was felicitous’. Felicity is preferable to kingship, for no-one doubts that men can easily be found who fear to become king, whereas no-one is found who does not wish to be successful.

So if the gods themselves had been consulted – assuming that our adversaries believe that they can be consulted by augury or by some other method – on whether they were willing to give place to Felicity so that a greater and loftier shrine might be built to her in some location already occupied by shrines or altars of other gods, even Jupiter himself would have retired and allowed Felicity in preference to occupy the very peak of the Capitoline hill. For not one of them would be opposed to Felicity, unless someone wished to be unsuccessful, and that is out of the question.

[4] If he had been consulted, Jupiter would certainly not have done what the three deities Mars, Terminus, and Iuventas did to him when they totally refused to give place to their superior and king. Roman accounts record that when king Tarquin wished to build the Capitoline temple, and saw that the site which he considered worthier and more suitable was already in possession of other gods, he did not presume to defy their wishes, but he believed that they would voluntarily give place to a deity as important as their own leader. So because there were many occupying the site of the Capitol, he used augury to enquire whether they were willing to

158

LIBER IV

Ioui. Atque ipsi inde cedere omnes uoluerunt praeter illos quos commemoraui, Martem Terminum Iuuentatem; atque ideo Capitolium ita constructum est ut etiam isti tres intus essent tam obscuris signis ut hoc uix homines doctissimi scirent.

[5] Nullo modo igitur Felicitatem Iuppiter ipse contemneret, sicut a Termino Marte Iuuentate contemptus est. Sed ipsi etiam qui non cesserant Ioui profecto cederent Felicitati, quae illis regem fecerat Iouem. Aut si non cederent, non id contemptu eius facerent, sed quod in domo Felicitatis obscuri esse mallent quam sine illa in locis propriis eminere.

[6] Ita dea Felicitate in loco amplissimo et celsissimo constituta discerent ciues unde omnis boni uoti petendum esset auxilium, ac sic ipsa suadente natura aliorum deorum superflua multitudine derelicta coleretur una Felicitas, uni supplicaretur, unius templum frequentaretur a ciuibus qui felices esse uellent, quorum esset nemo qui nollet, atque ita ipsa a se ipsa peteretur, quae ab omnibus petebatur. Quis enim aliquid ab aliquo deo nisi felicitatem uelit accipere uel quod ad felicitatem existimat pertinere?

Proinde si Felicitas habet in potestate cum quo homine sit (habet autem, si dea est), quae tandem stultitia est ab aliquo eam deo petere quam possis a se ipsa impetrare?

[7] Hanc ergo deam super deos ceteros honorare etiam loci dignitate debuerunt. Sicut enim apud ipsos legitur, Romani ueteres nescio quem Summanum, cui nocturna fulmina tribuebant, coluerunt magis quam Iouem, ad quem diurna fulmina pertinerent. Sed postquam Ioui templum insigne ac sublime constructum est, propter aedis dignitatem sic ad eum multitudo confluxit ut uix inueniatur qui Summani nomen, quod audire iam non potest, se saltem legisse meminerit. Si autem felicitas dea non est quoniam, quod uerum est, munus est dei, ille deus quaeratur qui eam dare possit, et falsorum deorum multitudo noxia relinquatur, quam stultorum

BOOK FOUR

159
give place to Jupiter. They all agreed to retire except those whom I have mentioned – Mars, Terminus and Iuventas. So the Capitoline temple was built there in such a way as to house these three within as well, but their statues were so inconspicuous that the most learned men were scarcely aware of the situation.

[5] So Jupiter would by no means have despised Felicity as he himself was despised by Terminus, Mars and Iuventas. Yet these too, though they had refused to yield to Jupiter, would certainly have yielded to Felicity, who had made Jupiter their king. Or if they had not given place, it would not have been because they despised her, but because they preferred to lurk unseen in the abode of Felicity, rather than be prominent without her in their own abodes.

[6] If, then, Felicity had been installed in the most extensive and lofty residence, the citizens would have learnt from where they must seek help for every honourable request, and at the prompting of nature herself they would have forsaken that horde of other gods as surplus to their needs.

Felicity alone would have been worshipped – to her alone would entreaties have been addressed; her temple alone would have been thronged by citizens desirous of success. Not one of them would have been reluctant, and thus what all men were seeking would have been sought from the goddess herself. Who would wish to obtain anything except felicity, or whatever a man thinks leads to felicity, from any deity? Accordingly, if Felicity thinks that it lies within her discretion to choose which individual on whom to attend (and she has that discretion if she is a goddess), what stupidity is it, I ask, to seek from any god the success that you can successfully beg from the goddess of success?

[7] Accordingly the Romans ought to have honoured this goddess above the other deities also by the worth of her abode. As we read in Roman literature, their men of old worshipped some god called Summanus, whom they considered responsible for lightning at night, in preference to Jupiter who was charged with lightning during daylight. But once that notable and lofty temple was raised to Jupiter, because of that imposing shrine the common herd flocked in such droves to him that one can scarcely find a person who remembers even having read of Summanus, for his name now goes unheard. Now if felicity is not a goddess since it is actually a gift of God, we must seek the God who can bestow it, and we must forsake the baleful crowd of false gods that the

160

LIBER IV
hominum multitudo uana sectatur, dei dona deos sibi faciens et ipsum cuius ea dona sunt obstinatione superbae uoluntatis offendens. Sic enim carere non potest infelicitate qui tamquam deam felicitatem colit et deum datorem felicitatis relinquit, sicut carere non potest fame qui panem pictum lingit et ab homine qui uerum habet non petit.

XXIV

[1] Libet autem eorum considerare rationes. ‘Vsque adeone’ inquiunt

‘maiores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est ut haec nescirent munera diuina esse, non deos?’ Sed quoniam sciebant nemini talia nisi aliquo deo largiente concedi, quorum deorum nomina non inueniebant, earum rerum nominibus appellabant deos quas ab eis sentiebant dari, aliqua uocabula inde flectentes, sicut a bello Bellonam nuncupauerunt, non Bellum; sicut a cunis Cuninam, non Cunam; sicut a segetibus Segetiam, non Segetem; sicut a pomis Pomonam, non Pomum; sicut a bubus Bubonam, non Bouem; aut certe nulla uocabuli declinatione sicut res ipsae nominantur, ut Pecunia dicta est dea quae dat pecuniam, non omnino pecunia dea ipsa putata est; ita Virtus quae dat uirtutem, Honor qui honorem, Concordia quae concordiam, Victoria quae dat uictoriam. Ita, inquiunt, cum Felicitas dea dicitur, non ipsa quae datur sed numen illud adtenditur a quo felicitas datur.

XXV

[1] Ista nobis reddita ratione multo facilius eis quorum cor non nimis obduruit persuadebimus fortasse quod uolumus. Si enim iam humana

BOOK FOUR

161
empty-headed herd of foolish men attend. Such men convert God’s gifts into their own deities, and through the stubbornness of their arrogant will they thereby incur the displeasure of him who bestows these gifts. For the person who worships felicity as though it were a goddess, and abandons God who bestows it, cannot avoid lack of success, just as a man who licks the painting of a loaf of bread, and does not seek a real one from the person possessing it, cannot avoid going hungry.

XXIV

[1] We can happily ponder their reasons for doing this. What they say is: Are we to believe that our ancestors were such idiots as not to realise that these are not gods but gifts from heaven? But since they were aware that such gifts were granted to a person only by the generosity of some god, in cases where they did not find the names of such deities they bestowed on them the names of things which they imagined were conferred by them, but they amended some of the words slightly. For example, they called the war-goddess Bellona, not Bellum; likewise Cunina, not Cuna, from the word for cradles; from the word for crops they formed Segetia, not Seges; from the word for fruits Pomona, not Pomum; and from the word for oxen Bubona, not Bos. Alternatively, the deities are actually given the names of the objects themselves without adjustment to the words. So the goddess who bestows money was called Pecunia; it was certainly not the money itself that was thought to be a goddess. Likewise the one who bestows virtue was called Virtus, the one who bestows honour, Honor, the one who confers concord, Concordia, and the one who gives victory, Victoria. In the same way, they say, when Felicity is called a goddess, their observance is bestowed on the power by whom success is granted, and not on the felicity which is bestowed.

XXV

[1] Through this explanation given to us, we shall perhaps be able much more easily to win over as we wish those whose hearts have not been hardened excessively. People in their weakness, we may assume, realised

162

LIBER IV
infirmitas sensit non nisi ab aliquo deo dari posse felicitatem, et hoc senserunt homines qui tam multos colebant deos, in quibus et ipsum eorum regem Iouem, quia nomen eius a quo daretur felicitas ignorabant, ideo ipsius rei nomine, quam credebant ab illo dari, eum appellare uoluerunt.

Satis ergo indicarunt nec ab ipso Ioue dari posse felicitatem, quem iam colebant, sed utique ab illo quem nomine ipsius felicitatis colendum esse censebant.

[2] Confirmo prorsus a quodam deo, quem nesciebant, eos credidisse dari felicitatem; ipse ergo quaeratur, ipse colatur, et sufficit. Repudietur strepitus innumerabilium daemoniorum; illi non sufficiat hic deus cui non sufficit munus eius. Illi, inquam, non sufficiat ad colendum deus dator felicitatis, cui non sufficit ad accipiendum ipsa felicitas. Cui autem sufficit (non enim habet homo quid amplius optare debeat), seruiat uni deo datori felicitatis. Non est ipse quem nominant Iouem. Nam si eum datorem felicitatis agnoscerent, non utique alium uel aliam a qua daretur felicitas nomine ipsius felicitatis inquirerent, neque ipsum Iouem cum tantis iniuriis colendum putarent. Iste alienarum dicitur adulter uxorum, iste pueri pulchri impudicus amator et raptor.

XXVI

[1] Sed ‘fingebat haec Homerus’ ait Tullius ‘et humana ad deos transferebat; diuina mallem ad nos.’ Merito displicuit uiro graui diuinorum criminum poeta confictor. Cur ergo ludi scaenici, ubi haec dictitantur cantitantur actitantur, deorum honoribus exhibentur, inter res diuinas a doctissimis conscribuntur? Hic exclamet Cicero non contra figmenta poetarum, sed contra instituta maiorum. An exclamarent et illi, ‘Quid nos fecimus?’ Ipsi dii ista suis honoribus exhibenda flagitauerunt,

BOOK FOUR

163
that felicity could come only when bestowed by some god; a fact grasped by men who worshipped such numerous gods including Jupiter himself their king. So because they did not know the name of the one who bestowed felicity, they decided to call the deity by the name of what they believed that deity bestowed. Hence they sufficiently showed that this felicity could not be conferred by Jupiter himself whom they already worshipped, and by no other but the one who they decreed should be worshipped under the name of Felicity itself.

[2] I am truly confident that they believed that felicity was granted by some deity whom they did not know, so his identity must be sought out.

He is to be worshipped; no other is needed. The din of the demons, countless in number, must be brushed aside. The only person whom this god would not satisfy is he whom the god’s gift does not satisfy. I repeat: God who bestows felicity would fail to satisfy as a deity to be worshipped only him who remains unsatisfied in receiving it. But the person satisfied by it – there is nothing greater to which man should aspire – should serve the one God who bestows it. He is not the one they call Jupiter, for if they had acknowledged him as the one who confers felicity, they would certainly not have searched for another male or female by whom it was to be bestowed, giving her the actual name Felicity. Nor would they have thought that Jupiter himself was to be worshipped when he was saddled with such great insults, for he is described as one who seduced others’

wives, and as the digusting lover and ravisher of a handsome boy.

XXVI

[1] But Cicero says: “Homer invented these stories, and imputed the deeds of men to the gods. I should have preferred him to impute the deeds of the gods to us men.” The poet who invented tales of the gods’ wicked deeds was rightly out of favour with that man of high seriousness. Why then were the stage-shows, in which these tales are repeatedly told and sung and performed, mounted in honour of the gods, and written as part of the divine ceremonial by men of the greatest learning? Cicero’s cry of protest should be against this, not against poetic fictions but against ancestral customs. Should not those forbears too have cried out, “What did we do?”

The gods themselves demanded and sharply bade these shows to be

164

LIBER IV
atrociter imperarunt, cladem nisi fieret praenuntiarunt; quia neglectum est aliquid, seuerissime uindicarunt; quia id quod neglectum fuerat factum est, placatos se esse monstrarunt.

[2] Inter eorum commemoratur uirtutes et miranda facta quod dicam.

Tito Latinio rustico Romano patri familias dictum est in somnis in senatum nuntiaret ut ludi Romani instaurarentur, quod primo eorum die in quodam scelerato, qui populo spectante ad supplicium duci iussus est, numinibus uidelicet ex ludis hilaritatem quaerentibus triste displicuisset imperium.

Cum ergo ille qui somnio commonitus erat postero die iussa facere non ausus esset, secunda nocte hoc idem rursus seuerius imperatum est; amisit filium quia non fecit. Tertia nocte dictum est homini quod maior ei poena si non faceret immineret. Cum etiam sic non auderet, in morbum incidit acrem et horribilem. Tum uero ex amicorum sententia ad magistratus rem detulit, atque in lectica allatus est in senatum; expositoque somnio, recepta continuo ualetudine pedibus suis sanus abscessit. Tanto stupefactus miraculo senatus quadruplicata pecunia ludos censuit instaurari.

[3] Quis non uideat qui sanum sapit subditos homines malignis daemonibus, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum, ui compulsos esse exhibere talibus diis quae recto consilio poterant turpia iudicari? In illis certe ludis poetica numinum crimina frequentantur, qui ludi cogentibus numinibus iussu senatus instaurabantur. In illis ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iouem turpissimi histriones cantabant agebant placebant. Si illud fingebatur, ille irasceretur; si autem suis criminibus etiam fictis delectabatur, quando coleretur, cui nisi diabolo seruiretur? Itane iste Romanum conderet dilataret conseruaret

BOOK FOUR

165
celebrated in their honour, prophesying disaster if this were not done.

Why, they imposed the harshest punishment on any neglect of their bidding, and they indicated that they were appeased when anything that had been disregarded was then performed.

[2] What I shall recount is recorded among the virtues and reputable deeds of the Romans. A Roman peasant and father of a household, called Titus Latinius, was ordered as he slept to report to the senate that the Roman games should be mounted afresh, because on the first day of the games a certain criminal had been bidden to be led out to execution before the eyes of the people, and this grim instruction had offended the deities, who were doubtless looking for amusing entertainment from the shows.

Well, the man who had received this instruction in a dream did not dare to carry out the command next day, so on the second night the same injunction was again laid upon him more harshly, for he lost his son for failing to carry it out. On the third night he was told that a greater punishment was in store for him if he failed to do what was bidden. When even so he did not dare to do it, he contracted an excruciating and dreadful illness. So then on the advice of friends he did indeed report the matter to the magistrates. He was borne into the senate-house on a litter, and once he had recounted his dream he suddenly regained his health, and left on his feet safe and well. The senate was dumbstruck by this remarkable event, and decided that the games should be mounted afresh, with four times the previous amount of money allocated.

[3] Can any person of sound mind not see that men were in thrall to malignant demons, deliverance from whose tyranny can come only by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and that they were forcibly constrained to celebrate before gods like these shows which men of right judgement could have pronounced disgusting? At any rate, in those shows the sinful deeds of the gods as recounted by the poets are repeatedly mounted. These were the shows that were staged afresh by order of the senate under pressure from the deities. In them most disreputable actors would sing and play the part of Jupiter as the corruptor of chastity, and would please him thereby. If it was all fiction, he should have been angry.

But if he was delighted by the presentation of his wicked deeds, even if they were untrue, how could he have been worshipped? This must have been slavish attendance on a devil. So could this Jupiter have founded, extended, and preserved the Roman Empire, a creature more sordid than

166

LIBER IV
imperium, quouis Romano cui talia displicebant homine abiectior? Iste daret felicitatem, qui tam infeliciter colebatur, et nisi ita coleretur, infelicius irascebatur?

XXVII

[1] Relatum est in litteras doctissimum pontificem Scaeuolam disputasse tria genera tradita deorum, unum a poetis, alterum a philosophis, tertium a principibus ciuitatis. Primum genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de diis fingantur indigna; secundum non congruere ciuitatibus, quod habeat aliqua superuacua, aliqua etiam quae obsit populis nosse.

[2] De superuacuis non magna causa est; solet enim et a iuris peritis dici: ‘Superflua non nocent.’ Quae sunt autem illa quae prolata in multitudinem nocent? ‘Haec:’ inquit, ‘non esse deos Herculem Aesculapium Castorem Pollucem; proditur enim ab doctis quod homines fuerint et humana condicione defecerint.’ Quid aliud? ‘Quod eorum qui sint dii non habeant ciuitates uera simulacra, quod uerus deus nec sexum habeat nec aetatem nec definita corporis membra.’ Haec pontifex nosse populos non uult; nam falsa esse non putat. Expedire igitur existimat falli in religione ciuitates. Quod dicere etiam in libris rerum diuinarum Varro ipse non dubitat. Praeclara religio, quo confugiat liberandus infirmus, et cum ueritatem qua liberetur inquirat, credatur ei expedire quod fallitur!

[3] Poeticum sane deorum genus cur Scaeuola respuat, eisdem litteris non tacetur: quia sic uidelicet deos deformant, ut nec bonis hominibus comparentur, cum alium faciant furari, alium adulterare, sic item aliquid aliter turpiter atque inepte dicere ac facere; tres inter se deas certasse de praemio pulchritudinis, uictas duas a Venere Troiam euertisse; Iouem ipsum conuerti in bouem aut cygnum ut cum aliqua concumbat; deam

BOOK FOUR

167
any Roman who was alienated by such shows? Could he have bestowed felicity when he was worshipped so infelicitously, and was still more infelicitously angered if he was not worshipped in this way?

XXVII

[1] It is recorded that the pontiff Scaevola, a most learned man, argued that three categories of gods have been transmitted to us – the first by the poets, the second by the philosophers, and the third by the statesmen. He states that the first type is trivial, incorporating many unworthy fictions about the gods. The second did not meet the needs of political communities, for knowledge of it contained some features that were superfluous, and others that were detrimental to their peoples.

[2] The superfluous features are of no great concern, for as the jurists like to put it, “What is superfluous does no harm”. But what are the features which if broadcast to the public at large are harmful to them? “The notion that Hercules, Aesculapius, Castor and Pollux are not gods”, he says, “for learned men record that they were men, and as a consequence of their human condition they ceased to exist.” What else besides this?

“States do not possess true representations of gods, because the true God possesses neither sex nor age, and he is not confined to bodily form.” The pontiff does not wish communities to be alive to these matters. He does not believe that the statements are false, so he thinks it expedient for states to be misled in matters of religion. Varro himself likewise does not hesitate to say the same things in his books on divine affairs. This is a splendid religion indeed, in which the weak are to take refuge for deliverance, and when they seek the truth to set them free, it is thought better for them to be deceived!

[3] That same account does not hide the reason why Scaevola abhors the sort of gods presented by the poets. It is clearly because they so distort the gods’ nature that they are not comparable even to good men, for they depict one as a thief, another as an adulterer, and portray them speaking and behaving in other respects in loathsome and idiotic fashion. They state that three goddesses competed with each other for a prize for beauty, and that when two of them were defeated by Venus, they overthrew the city of Troy. They tell that Jupiter himself was transformed into a bull or a swan

168

LIBER IV
homini nubere, Saturnum liberos deuorare; nihil denique posse confingi miraculorum atque uitiorum quod non ibi reperiatur atque ab deorum natura longe absit.

[4] O Scaeuola pontifex maxime, ludos tolle, si potes. Praecipe populis ne tales honores diis immortalibus deferant ubi crimina deorum libeat mirari et quae fieri possunt placeat imitari. Si autem tibi responderit populus: ‘Vos nobis importastis ista pontifices’, deos ipsos roga quibus instigantibus ista iussistis ne talia sibi iubeant exhiberi. Quae si mala sunt et propterea nullo modo de deorum maiestate credenda, maior est deorum iniuria, de quibus impune finguntur.

[5] Sed non te audiunt; daemones sunt, praua docent, turpibus gaudent; non solum non deputant iniuriam, si de illis ista fingantur, sed eam potius iniuriam ferre non possunt si per eorum sollemnia non agantur. Iam uero si aduersus eos Iouem interpelles, maxime ob eam causam quia eius plura crimina ludis scaenicis actitantur, nonne, etiamsi deum Iouem nuncupatis a quo regitur totus atque administratur hic mundus, eo illi fit a uobis maxima iniuria, quod eum cum istis colendum putatis eorumque regem esse perhibetis?

XXVIII

[1] Nullo igitur modo dii tales, qui talibus placantur uel potius accusantur honoribus ut maius sit crimen quod eis falsis oblectantur quam si de illis uera dicerentur, Romanum imperium augere et conseruare potuissent. Hoc enim si possent, Graecis potius donum tam grande conferrent, qui eos in huiusce modi rebus diuinis, hoc est ludis scaenicis, honorabilius digniusque coluerunt, quando et a morsibus poetarum, quibus deos

BOOK FOUR

169
to have intercourse with some woman. They say that a goddess marries a man, and that Saturn devours his children. In short, nothing of an extraordinary and depraved nature can be invented which is not to be found in these accounts and it is far removed from the gods’ true nature.

[4] O Scaevola, chief pontiff, abolish the shows, if you can! Bid communities not to bestow on the immortal gods honours such as induce them to take pleasure in admiring the gods’ wicked deeds, and to decide to imitate them so far as they can. But if the citizens make this retort to you,

“You pontiffs have instituted these practices among us”, then you must entreat the gods, at whose prompting you ordered the shows to be mounted, to refrain from bidding such presentations to be made to them. If the deeds enacted are evil, and are therefore on no account to be believed of the high dignity of the gods, the injustice to them is the greater when the stories about them are invented with impunity.

[5] But the gods do not hearken to you, for they are demons. They teach what is depraved, and take pleasure in what is foul. Not only do they not regard it as an insult if these stories are invented about them, but instead they cannot endure the indignity if these tales are not performed in the course of their festivals. Moreover, if you solicit the aid of Jupiter against them, especially because his wicked deeds are more often the theme of the stage-shows, even though you pontiffs call him Jupiter the god by whom the whole world is governed and administered, do you not do him the greatest injustice because you believe that he is to be worshipped in company with them, and you style him their king?

XXVIII

[1] Thus since such gods as these are appeased – I should rather say indicted – by such honours paid to them (these make their sin all the greater, because those falsehoods give them more pleasure than if the truth were told about them), in no way could they have been able to enlarge and to preserve the Roman Empire. If they had wielded such power, they would by preference have bestowed such a great gift upon the Greeks, who worshipped them in religious ceremonial of this kind, namely in stage-shows, with greater honour and dignity. I say this because they did not exempt themselves as men from the biting attacks of the poets, by whom

170

LIBER IV
dilacerari uidebant, se non subtraxerunt, dando eis licentiam male tractandi homines quos liberet, et ipsos scaenicos non turpes iudicauerunt, sed dignos etiam praeclaris honoribus habuerunt.

[2] Sicut autem potuerunt auream pecuniam habere Romani quamuis deum Aurinum non colerent, sic et argenteam habere potuerunt et aeream si nec Argentinum nec eius patrem colerent Aesculanum, et sic omnia quae retexere piget. Sic ergo et regnum inuito quidem deo uero nullo modo habere possent; diis uero istis falsis et multis ignoratis siue contemptis, atque illo uno cognito et fide sincera ac moribus culto et melius hic regnum haberent, quantumcumque haberent, et post haec acciperent sempiternum, siue hic haberent siue non haberent.

XXIX

[1] Nam illud quale est quod pulcherrimum auspicium fuisse dixerunt, quod paulo ante commemoraui, Martem et Terminum et Iuuentatem nec Ioui regi deorum loco cedere uoluisse? Sic enim, inquiunt, significatum est Martiam gentem, id est Romanam, nemini locum quem teneret daturam; Romanos quoque terminos propter deum Terminum neminem commoturum; iuuentutem etiam Romanam propter deam Iuuentatem nemini esse cessuram. Videant ergo quomodo habeant istum regem deorum suorum et datorem regni sui, ut eum auspicia ista pro aduersario ponerent, cui non cedere pulchrum esset. Quamquam haec si uera sunt, non habent omnino quid timeant. Non enim confessuri sunt quod dii cesserint Christo qui Ioui cedere noluerunt; saluis quippe imperii finibus Christo cedere potuerunt et de sedibus locorum et maxime de corde credentium.

[2] Sed antequam Christus uenisset in carne, antequam denique ista scriberentur quae de libris eorum proferimus, sed tamen postea quam factum est sub rege Tarquinio illud auspicium, aliquotiens Romanus

BOOK FOUR

171
they watched the gods being torn to pieces. They allowed the poets free rein to handle roughly whatever men they wished, and they did not regard the performers as scurrilous, but even reckoned them worthy of outstanding honours.

[2] The Romans, however, were able to possess gold coinage without worshipping a god called Aurinus, and in the same way they could have possessed silver and bronze coins without worshipping Argentinus and his father Aesculanus. The same is true of everything else, which would be tedious to retrace. Likewise with their empire, then; they could certainly not have possessed it against the will of the true God, but if they had ignored or despised those numerous counterfeit gods and acknowledged the one God and worshipped him in purity of faith and morals, they would certainly have had a better kingdom here on earth, whatever its size, and they would have gained an everlasting kingdom hereafter, whether they possessed a kingdom here or not.

XXIX

[1] Let us investigate the nature of what the Romans called a truly splendid augury, which I mentioned a moment ago – the fact that Mars, Terminus, and Iuventas refused to yield even to Jupiter, king of the gods. They claim that this was a sign that the race of Mars, that is, the Roman people, would yield the place they occupied to no man; moreover, thanks to the god Terminus no-one would beset the Roman frontiers; and again, that thanks to the goddess Iuventas, Roman youth would give place to no-one. So Romans must decide for themselves their attitude towards this king of their gods who bestowed their dominion on them, for this augury depicted him as an opponent to whom it was honourable not to yield. Yet even if this is true, they have no grounds whatever for fear, since they will not admit that the gods who refused to yield to Jupiter have yielded to Christ. In fact, they were able to yield to Christ without damage to the boundaries of empire, as they retired from their physical abodes, and above all from the hearts of their believers.

[2] Yet before Christ’s coming in the flesh, and indeed before those words were written which we have quoted from Roman books, but after that augury which occurred in the time of king Tarquin, the Roman army

172

LIBER IV
exercitus fusus est, hoc est uersus in fugam, falsumque ostendit auspicium quo Iuuentas illa non cesserat Ioui, et gens Martia superantibus atque inrumpentibus Gallis in ipsa urbe contrita est, et termini imperii deficientibus multis ad Hannibalem ciuitatibus in angustum fuerant coartati. Ita euacuata est pulchritudo auspiciorum; remansit contra Iouem contumacia non deorum sed daemoniorum.

[3] Aliud est enim non cessisse, aliud unde cesseras redisse.

Quamquam et postea in orientalibus partibus Hadriani uoluntate mutati sunt termini imperii Romani. Ille namque tres prouincias nobiles, Armeniam Mesopotamiam Assyriam Persarum concessit imperio, ut deus ille Terminus, qui Romanos terminos secundum istos tuebatur et per illud pulcherrimum auspicium loco non cesserat Ioui, plus Hadrianum regem hominum quam regem deorum timuisse uideatur. Receptis quoque alio tempore prouinciis memoratis nostra paene memoria retrorsus Terminus cessit, quando Iulianus deorum illorum oraculis deditus immoderato ausu naues iussit incendi quibus alimonia portabatur; qua exercitus destitutus, mox etiam ipso hostili uulnere extincto, in tantam est redactus inopiam ut inde nullus euaderet undique hostibus incursantibus militem imperatoris morte turbatum, nisi placito pacis illic imperii fines constituerentur ubi hodieque persistunt, non quidem tanto detrimento quantum concesserat Hadrianus, sed media tamen compositione defixi.

[4] Vano igitur augurio deus Terminus non cessit Ioui, qui cessit Hadriani uoluntati, cessit etiam Iuliani temeritati et Iouiani necessitati.

Viderunt haec intellegentiores grauioresque Romani, sed contra consuetudinem ciuitatis, quae daemonicis ritibus fuerat obligata, parum ualebant, quia et ipsi, etiamsi illa uana esse sentiebant, naturae tamen

BOOK FOUR

173
on several occasions was routed, that is, put to flight. This demonstrates the falsity of the augury in accordance with which the goddess Iuventas had not yielded to Jupiter. Then too the race of Mars was ground beneath the heel of the victorious invading Gauls in the city of Rome itself. The boundaries of empire were narrowly confined when many communities deserted to Hannibal. So that glorious augury became an empty sham.

What remained was defiance shown to Jupiter, not by gods but by demons.

[3] It is one thing not to have yielded, and quite another to have returned to regions from which you have yielded. In any case, at a later date the boundaries of the Roman Empire suffered change in eastern regions by the decision of Hadrian, for he ceded three notable provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, to the dominion of the Persians.

Thus that famous god Terminus, who, so the Romans claim, used to protect Roman frontiers, and who in accordance with that most splendid augury had refused to yield to Jupiter, seems to have been in fear more of Hadrian king of men, than of the king of the gods. Then again, the provinces I have mentioned were recovered at a later date, but once again Terminus backed off. This occurred virtually within our own recollection when Julian, in deference to the oracles of those gods, showed undisciplined rashness in ordering the ships that carried food-supplies to be burnt. The army was thus left without sustenance, and shortly afterwards Julian died of a wound inflicted by the enemy. The foe launched attacks from all sides on the soldiers when they were in turmoil at the death of their commander, and the troops were reduced to such extremities that not one of them would have escaped if peace-terms had not been agreed by which the boundaries of the empire were laid down where they continue to be even today. The loss of territory was not actually so great as that which Hadrian had yielded; the borders were established midway between this settlement and the earlier one.

[4] So the refusal of the god Terminus to yield to Jupiter was the outcome of an augury that proved groundless, for the god yielded to the decision of Hadrian and likewise to the rashness of Julian and the compulsion laid on Jovian. The more perceptive and responsible Romans realised this, but their efforts proved ineffectual against the custom of the city, which was closely tied to the ritual of the demons. This was because, though they were aware that such ritual was pointless, they believed that the religious worship owed to God should be directed to the natural world,

174

LIBER IV
rerum sub unius ueri dei regimine atque imperio constitutae religiosum cultum qui deo debetur exhibendum putabant, seruientes, ut ait apostolus, creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula. Huius dei ueri erat auxilium necessarium, a quo mitterentur sancti uiri et ueraciter pii, qui pro uera religione morerentur, ut falsae a uiuentibus tollerentur.

XXX

[1] Cicero augur inridet auguria, et inridet homines corui et corniculae uocibus uitae consilia moderantes. Sed iste Academicus, qui omnia esse contendit incerta, indignus est qui habeat ullam in his rebus auctoritatem.

Disputat apud eum Quintus Lucilius Balbus in secundo de deorum natura libro, et cum ipse superstitiones ex natura rerum uelut physicas et philosophicas inserat, indignatur tamen institutioni simulacrorum et opinionibus fabulosis, ita loquens:

[2] ‘Videtisne igitur ut a physicis rebus bene atque utiliter inuentis ratio sit tracta ad commenticios et fictos deos? Quae res genuit falsas opiniones erroresque turbulentos et superstitiones paene aniles. Et formae enim nobis deorum et aetates et uestitus ornatusque noti sunt, genera praeterea coniugia cognationes, omniaque traducta ad similitudinem imbecillitatis humanae. Nam et perturbatis animis inducuntur; accepimus enim deorum cupiditates aegritudines iracundias. Nec uero, ut fabulae ferunt, dii bellis proeliisque caruerunt; nec solum, ut apud Homerum, cum duos exercitus contrarios alii dii ex alia parte defenderent, sed etiam, ut cum Titanis aut cum Gigantibus, sua propria bella gesserunt. Haec et dicuntur et creduntur stultissime et plena sunt uanitatis summaeque leuitatis.’

[3] Ecce interim quae confitentur qui defendunt deos gentium. Deinde, cum haec ad superstitionem pertinere dicat, ad religionem uero quae ipse

BOOK FOUR

175
which has been established under the government and dominion of the one true God. As the Apostle puts it, they were serving the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. The aid of this true God was essential; he was to send holy, truly devoted men to die for the true religion, so that false religions could be detached from men then alive.

XXX

[1] Cicero though an augur laughs at augury and sneers at men who regulate their strategy of living according to the cries of the raven and the crow. But as he is an Academic, he maintains that all things are uncertain, so that he does not deserve to wield any authority in these matters. In one of his writings, Book Two of The Nature of the Gods, Quintus Lucilius Balbus is the spokesman. Though he himself introduces what we may call natural and philosophical superstitions deriving from the material universe, he expresses annoyance at the erection of statues and at beliefs based on fables. This is what he says:

[2] “So do you now realise how the admirable and useful discoveries about the natural world have resulted in the creation of false and fictitious deities? The process has given rise to false beliefs, confused misapprehensions, and superstitions that are virtually old wives’ tales. We are informed what the gods look like, how old they are, what clothes they wear and what arms they bear, as well as their family backgrounds, marriages, and kinships; all these details about them are reduced to the level of human frailties. They are even presented as emotionally disturbed, for we are told of their lusts, anxieties, and outbursts of anger. Those tales also have it that they participate in wars and battles, not merely as in the Homeric accounts where they separate and take sides on behalf of opposing armies, but also waging their private wars, for example with the Titans and with the Giants. These idiotic narratives induce idiotic beliefs; they are utterly empty and frivolous.”

[3] Notice for the moment this admission by those who champion the pagan gods. But next, though he states that such tales fall under the heading of superstition, he seems to teach that his own Stoic doctrine is

176

LIBER IV
secundum Stoicos uidetur docere: ‘Non enim philosophi solum’ inquit

‘uerum etiam maiores nostri superstitionem a religione separauerunt; nam qui totos dies precabantur’ inquit ‘et immolabant, ut sibi sui liberi superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati.’

[4] Quis non intellegat eum conari, dum consuetudinem ciuitatis timet, religionem laudare maiorum eamque a superstitione uelle seiungere, sed quomodo id possit non inuenire? Si enim a maioribus illi sunt appellati superstitiosi, qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, numquid et illi qui instituerunt (quod iste reprehendit) deorum simulacra diuersa aetate et ueste distincta, deorum genera coniugia cognationes? Haec utique cum tamquam superstitiosa culpantur, implicat ista culpa maiores talium simulacrorum institutores atque cultores; implicat et ipsum qui, quantolibet eloquio se in libertatem nitatur euoluere, necesse habebat ista uenerari; nec quod in hac disputatione disertus insonat, muttire auderet in populi contione.

[5] Agamus itaque Christiani domino deo nostro gratias non caelo et terrae, sicut iste disputat, sed ei qui fecit caelum et terram, qui has superstitiones, quas iste Balbus uelut balbutiens uix reprehendit, per altissimam Christi humilitatem, per apostolorum praedicationem, per fidem martyrum pro ueritate morientium et cum ueritate uiuentium non solum in cordibus religiosis, uerum etiam in aedibus superstitiosis libera suorum seruitute subuertit.

XXXI

[1] Quid? Ipse Varro, quem dolemus in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos, quamuis non iudicio proprio, posuisse, cum ad deos colendos multis locis uelut religiosus hortetur, nonne ita confitetur non se illa iudicio suo sequi quae ciuitatem Romanam instituisse commemorat ut, si eam ciuitatem nouam constitueret, ex naturae potius formula deos nominaque eorum se fuisse dedicaturum non dubitet confiteri? Sed iam quoniam in uetere

BOOK FOUR

177
relevant to religion. “It was not merely the philosophers”, he says, “but also our ancestors who distinguished superstition from religion. Those who spent all their days praying and sacrificing in the hope of having their children survive them were called superstitious.”

[4] Who can fail to realise that Cicero, while registering apprehensions about the customs of the city, seeks to praise the religion of his ancestors, and to detach it from superstition without being able to find a way to do so? If the persons who spent entire days praying and sacrificing were called superstitious by his ancestors, surely those who erected statues of the gods (a practice he condemns) depicting them as of differing ages, with variations of dress, with divine genealogies and marriages and family connections, are likewise superstitious? When such practices are arraigned as superstitious, such condemnation implicates the ancestors who erected and worshipped such statues. It implicates Cicero as well, for however forceful the eloquence by which he strives to disentangle and free himself, he considered it necessary to revere them. He would never have dared to mumble in a public assembly what he eloquently proclaims in this treatise.

[5] So let us Christians give thanks to the Lord our God, not to heaven and earth as Cicero maintains, but to him who made heaven and earth.

These superstitions which Cicero’s Balbus in his stammering, ineffectually condemns, God has undermined through the humility of Christ which rises so high, through the apostles’ preaching, through the faith of the martyrs who died for the truth and lived with the truth. He has undermined them not only in pious hearts, but also in the shrines of superstition, through the servitude of his people, which has set them free.

XXXI

[1] What of Varro’s own views? We lament that he included stage-shows among divine affairs, though this was not his own assessment of them, for though at many points he piously, so to speak, urges worship of the gods, he surely admits that against his own judgement he conforms with practices established, as he relates, by the Roman state. In consequence, he does not hesitate to maintain that had he established the state afresh, he would have instituted gods and their names more in accord with the pattern of nature. But he says that living as he does in a community of long

178

LIBER IV
populo esset, acceptam ab antiquis nominum et cognominum historiam tenere ut tradita est debere se dicit, et ad eum finem illa scribere ac perscrutari, ut potius eos magis colere quam despicere uulgus uelit. Quibus uerbis homo acutissimus satis indicat non se aperire omnia quae non sibi tantum contemptui essent sed etiam ipsi uulgo despicienda uiderentur, nisi tacerentur.

[2] Ego ista conicere putari debui, nisi euidenter alio loco ipse diceret de religionibus loquens multa esse uera quae non modo uulgo scire non sit utile, sed etiam, tametsi falsa sunt, aliter existimare populum expediat, et ideo Graecos teletas ac mysteria taciturnitate parietibusque clausisse. Hic certe totum consilium prodidit uelut sapientium per quos ciuitates et populi regerentur. Hac tamen fallacia miris modis maligni daemones delectantur, qui et deceptores et deceptos pariter possident, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum.

[3] Dicit etiam idem auctor acutissimus atque doctissimus quod hi soli ei uideantur animaduertisse quid esset deus qui crediderunt eum esse animam motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ac per hoc, etsi nondum tenebat quod ueritas habet (deus enim uerus non anima sed animae quoque est effector et conditor), tamen si contra praeiudicia consuetudinis liber esse posset, unum deum colendum fateretur atque suaderet motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ut ea cum illo de hac re quaestio remaneret, quod eum diceret esse animam non potius et animae creatorem.

[4] Dicit etiam antiquos Romanos plus annos centum et septuaginta deos sine simulacro coluisse. ‘Quod si adhuc’ inquit ‘mansisset, castius dii obseruarentur.’ Cui sententiae suae testem adhibet inter cetera etiam gentem Iudaeam; nec dubitat eum locum ita concludere ut dicat qui primi simulacra deorum populis posuerunt eos ciuitatibus suis et metum dempsisse et errorem addidisse, prudenter existimans deos facile posse in

BOOK FOUR

179
standing, he must maintain the tradition of names and surnames inherited from the ancients, and that he was penning and studying them so that the common folk would be willing to worship the gods rather than despise them. By such words that shrewdest of men shows clearly enough that he was not saying all that there is to be said, that there are things not merely contemptible in his own eyes, but which would also appear contemptible to the common folk if he did not suppress them.

[2] This would have to be regarded as guesswork on my part but for his clear statement elsewhere. In discussing religious matters, he states that not only were there many truths about them which it was not beneficial for the common folk to know, but there were also beliefs which though false it was better for people to take as true. He says that for this reason the Greeks have conducted their mystery-rites in silence behind closed doors.

These words of his undoubtedly revealed the entire strategy of the would-be sages who governed states and communities. The baleful demons take astonishing delight in this deceit, controlling as they do deceivers and deceived alike. The sole deliverance from their tyranny is through the grace of God diffused through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[3] This same author, the shrewdest and most learned of men, further states that in his view the only persons who have realised what God is are those who have believed that he is the soul who governs the universe with motion and reason. Thus though as yet he did not grasp the content of the truth (for the true God is not a soul but the creator and founder of soul as of all else), nevertheless, if he could have detached himself from the pressures of convention, he would have admitted and urged that men should worship the one God who governs the world by motion and reason.

It follows that the one remaining issue to be debated with him would have been his claim that God is a soul, and not one who creates the soul as all else.

[4] He further states that the Romans of old for more than one hundred and seventy years worshipped the gods without having images of them. “If this practice had continued until now”, he states, “our worship of the gods would be purer.” To support this view of his, he calls as witness with other evidence the Jewish nation. He does not hesitate to round off this passage with the claim that those who first exhibited statues of their gods before their communities both removed the sense of awe from their cities and compounded their misconceptions, for he wisely thought that gods could

180

LIBER IV
simulacrorum stoliditate contemni. Quod uero non ait ‘errorem tradiderunt’ sed ‘addiderunt’, iam utique fuisse etiam sine simulacris uult intellegi errorem. Quapropter cum solos dicit animaduertisse quid esset deus qui eum crederent animam mundum gubernantem, castiusque existimat sine simulacris obseruari religionem, quis non uideat quantum propinquauerit ueritati? Si enim aliquid contra uetustatem tanti posset erroris, profecto et unum deum a quo mundum crederet gubernari, et sine simulacro colendum esse censeret; atque in tam proximo inuentus facile fortasse de animae mutabilitate commoneretur ut naturam potius incommutabilem, quae ipsam quoque animam condidisset, deum uerum esse sentiret.

[5] Haec cum ita sint, quaecumque tales uiri in suis litteris multorum deorum ludibria posuerunt, confiteri ea potius occulta dei uoluntate compulsi sunt quam persuadere conati. Si qua igitur a nobis inde testimonia proferuntur, ad eos redarguendos proferuntur qui nolunt aduertere de quanta et quam maligna daemonum potestate nos liberet singulare sacrificium tam sancti sanguinis fusi et donum spiritus impertiti.

XXXII

[1] Dicit etiam de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos, et ideo et sexum et generationes deorum maiores suos, id est ueteres credidisse Romanos et eorum constituisse coniugia. Quod utique non aliam ob causam factum uidetur nisi quia hominum uelut prudentium et sapientium negotium fuit populum in religionibus fallere, et in eo ipso non solum colere sed imitari etiam daemones, quibus maxima est fallendi cupiditas. Sicut enim daemones nisi eos quos fallendo deceperint possidere non possunt, sic et homines principes, non sane iusti sed daemonum similes, ea quae uana esse

BOOK FOUR

181
easily be despised once their cloddish statues were in view. The fact that he said ‘compounded’ and not ‘transmitted’ those misconceptions indicates that he wishes it to be understood that misconceptions certainly existed even before the statues were introduced. So when he states that those who believe that God is the soul controlling the universe are the only ones who have realised what God is, and when he considers that religious observance is purer without images, who would not appreciate how close to the truth he has come? If only he could have marshalled some resistance to that long-standing and signal error, he would certainly have realised both that the one God, by whom he believed that the universe was guided, should be worshipped, and that without recourse to images. And since he was seen to be so close to the truth, he could perhaps have been readily schooled on the changeable nature of the soul, and could thus have come to realise that the true God is rather the unchangeable nature which has created the soul as well as all else.

[5] In view of this, whenever men like Varro in their writings made the host of gods a laughing-stock, they were constrained to make such admissions by the will of God rather than in attempting to persuade citizens of the truth. Accordingly any testimonies that we adduce from this source are cited to refute those unwilling to appreciate the strength and malice of the demons’ power, from which we are freed by the unique sacrifice of such sacred bloodshed, and by the gift of the Spirit bestowed on us.

XXXII

[1] On the genealogy of the gods, Varro further states that communities tended to listen to the poets rather than to the natural philosophers, and for that reason their ancestors (the Romans of old) gave credence to the sexual activity and procreation by the gods, and established marriages between them. It certainly seems that this was for no other reason than that men of foresight and wisdom were concerned to deceive the people in matters of religion, and in so doing not merely to worship but also to imitate the demons whose greatest aspiration is to deceive. There is a parallel between the demons, who can control only those whom they have beguiled by deceit, and political leaders, who with no sense of justice aped the demons

182

LIBER IV
nouerant religionis nomine populis tamquam uera suadebant, hoc modo eos ciuili societati uelut aptius alligantes quo similiter subditos possiderent. Quis autem infirmus et indoctus euaderet simul fallaces et principes ciuitatis et daemones?

XXXIII

[1] Deus igitur ille felicitatis auctor et dator, quia solus est uerus deus, ipse dat regna terrena et bonis et malis, neque hoc temere et quasi fortuito, quia deus est non fortuna, sed pro rerum ordine ac temporum occulto nobis, notissimo sibi; cui tamen ordini temporum non subditus seruit, sed eum ipse tamquam dominus regit moderatorque disponit; felicitatem uero non dat nisi bonis. Hanc enim possunt et non habere et habere seruientes, possunt et non habere et habere regnantes; quae tamen plena in ea uita erit ubi nemo iam seruiet. Et ideo regna terrena et bonis ab illo dantur et malis, ne eius cultores adhuc in prouectu animi paruuli haec ab eo munera quasi magnum aliquid concupiscant.

[2] Et hoc est sacramentum ueteris testamenti, ubi occultum erat nouum, quod illic promissa et dona terrena sunt, intellegentibus et tunc spiritalibus quamuis nondum in manifestatione praedicantibus, et quae illis temporalibus rebus significaretur aeternitas, et in quibus dei donis esset uera felicitas.

XXXIV

[1] Itaque ut cognosceretur etiam illa terrena bona, quibus solis inhiant qui meliora cogitare non possunt, in ipsius unius dei esse posita potestate non in multorum falsorum, quos colendos Romani antea crediderunt, populum suum in Aegypto de paucissimis multiplicauit et inde signis mirabilibus

BOOK FOUR

183
and sought to persuade their peoples of the truth, in issues of religion, of what they knew to be false. In this way they bound them more suitably, so to say, to the community, so that like the demons they could subject and control them. How could any weak and ignorant person escape the clutches of political leaders and demons, both of them deceivers?

XXXIII

[1] Thus the one who creates and bestows happiness, since he alone is the true God, is the one who apportions earthly kingdoms to good and evil men alike. Because he is God and not fortune, he does not do this in a random and capricious way, but according to the dispensation of affairs and eras, which is hidden from us, but wholly known to him. He is not subject to or controlled by this sequence of eras, but rules, directs, and apportions it as its master. As for happiness, he bestows it only on the good. Those who are subjects can both fail to attain it and attain it, and those who rule can both fail to attain it and attain it. But it will be enjoyed in fullness in the life in which no-one will be a subject. Earthly kingdoms are bestowed by him on both good and evil men for this reason, so that his worshippers who are still as infants in mental growth may not aspire to these gifts from him as though they were something great.

[2] This is the sacred mystery of the Old Testament, in which the New lay concealed. In the Old, the promises and gifts are earthly, but even then spiritual men realised, without as yet proclaiming it openly, both the eternity denoted by those temporal affairs and the gifts of God in which true happiness lay.

XXXIV

[1] Therefore God was concerned to make it known that even earthly blessings (men who cannot contemplate the better goods aspire to these alone) lie in the power of the one God and not in that of the many false deities which the Romans of old believed they should worship. So in Egypt he multiplied his people from being pitiably few in number, and he delivered them from that country by wondrous signs. The women of that

184

LIBER IV
liberauit. Nec Lucinam mulieres illae inuocauerunt quando earum partus, ut miris modis multiplicarentur et gens illa incredibiliter cresceret, ab Aegyptiorum persequentium et infantes omnes necare uolentium manibus ipse seruauit. Sine dea Rumina suxerunt, sine Cunina in cunis fuerunt, sine Educa et Potina escam potumque sumpserunt, sine tot diis puerilibus educati sunt, sine diis coniugalibus coniugati, sine cultu Priapi coniugibus mixti. Sine inuocatione Neptuni mare transeuntibus diuisum patuit, et sequentes eorum inimicos fluctibus in se redeuntibus obruit. Nec consecrauerunt aliquam deam Manniam quando de caelo manna sumpserunt, nec quando sitientibus aquam percussa petra profudit, nymphas Lymphasque coluerunt. Sine insanis sacris Martis et Bellonae bella gesserunt, et sine uictoria quidem non uicerunt, non eam tamen deam sed dei sui munus habuerunt. Sine Segetia segetes, sine Bubona boues, mella sine Mellona, poma sine Pomona, et prorsus omnia pro quibus tantae falsorum deorum turbae Romani supplicandum putarunt, ab uno uero deo multo felicius acceperunt.

[2] Et si non in eum pecassent, impia curiositate tamquam magicis artibus seducti ad alienos deos et ad idola defluendo, et postremo Christum occidendo, in eodem regno etsi non spatiosiore, tamen feliciore mansissent. Et nunc quod per omnes fere terras gentesque dispersi sunt, illius unius ueri dei prouidentia est ut, quod deorum falsorum usquequaque simulacra arae luci templa euertuntur, et sacrificia prohibentur, de codicibus eorum probetur quem ad modum hoc fuerit tanto ante prophetatum, ne forte, cum legeretur in nostris, a nobis putaretur esse confictum.

[3] Iam quod sequitur in uolumine sequenti uidendum est, et hic dandus huius prolixitati modus.

BOOK FOUR

185
race did not invoke Lucina, for God himself preserved their offspring from the clutches of the Egyptians, who sought to search them out and to slay all their children. Thus in wondrous fashion they multiplied, and their race expanded amazingly. Infants sucked at the breast without the goddess Rumina, they lay in their cradles without Cunina, they took food and drink without Educa and Potina, they were reared without the horde of gods who supervised childhood, they married without the gods of wedlock, they had intercourse with their wives without worshipping Priapus; without their calling on Neptune the sea divided and opened before them as they crossed it, and then it overwhelmed with its returning waters the enemy who pursued them. They did not solemnly deify a goddess Mannia when they ate manna from heaven, nor did they worship nymphs and Lymphs when, as they thirsted, the rock was struck and poured forth water. They waged wars without conducting lunatic rites to Mars and Bellona. Though they did not conquer without gaining victory, they did not regard it as a goddess, but as a gift of their god. They obtained crops without Segetia, oxen without Bubona, honey without Mellona, fruits without Pomona. In short, all those things for which the Romans believed they should supplicate the massive crowd of false gods they received much more successfully from the one true God.

[2] If they had not sinned against him through being inveigled by unholy curiosity as though by magic arts, as they relapsed into worship of alien gods and idols, and finally put Christ to death, they would have remained in the same kingdom of theirs which would have been more successful even if not more widespread. And the fact that the Jews are now scattered among virtually all lands and nations is to be attributed to the providence of the one true God. His purpose in this was to demonstrate from their writings how the universal overthrow of statues, altars, groves, and temples belonging to the false gods, and the prohibition of sacrifice, was prophesied long ago – and thus to discourage the possible belief, when this prophecy was read in our books, that this was an invention by us Christians.

[3] What follows from this must be scrutinised in the next book, for limits must be imposed on the excessive length of this one.

Commentary

BOOK THREE

I The misfortunes which alone are feared by evil men, and which the world has always endured, even when it worshipped the gods

1

The false gods made no effort: Augustine inherits from earlier Christian apologists from Tertullian onwards the view that malignant demons pose as the Roman gods. The presence of malignant spirits in the world is claimed in the New Testament ( 1 Cor.

10.20; cf. 1 Tim. 4.1). Belief in their existence is widespread in Augustine’s day, fostered by the doctrines of the later Platonists. In Africa, especially influential are the doctrines of Apuleius, which are critically assessed in Books 8–9 of The City of God.

For Augustine’s earlier condemnation of the malign influence of the demons posing as gods, see Book 2.4, 2.22ff.

2
such as we recounted in the first book: Book 1 was devoted to the sack of Rome and the hardships endured by its citizens as summarized here. Many of them had in consequence sought refuge in Africa, and were loud in blaming Christianity for the evils that they had suffered.

3
did not prevent them from suffering such ills: Augustine’s thesis in what follows is that Rome (and other nations) throughout history have suffered similar misfortunes, which the pagan deities did not or could not prevent.

a few outside that nation…worthy of divine grace: Elsewhere Augustine insists that God allots grace to all who are worthy of it. So at Ep. 102.15 he states: “The salvation provided by this religion…was never wanting to anyone who was worthy of it.” At Retract. 2.31 he glosses this in the spirit of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans by stressing that this is not because of human merit, but according to God’s own purpose and freely dispensed grace.

4
only the trials relevant to Rome: Tertullian earlier ( Apol. 40), followed by Arnobius and Cyprian, had recounted a catalogue of disasters that had afflicted various cities including Rome. Augustine’s decision to concentrate on Roman disasters led him to encourage his protégé Arnobius to complement his account with calamities suffered by other cities; see Book 3 of Adversus nationes.

II Had the gods, worshipped alike by both Romans and Greeks, good reasons for allowing Troy to be levelled?

1 Troy…from which the Roman people have their origin: Augustine accepts the authorized version that Rome was founded from Troy, though this is the stuff of legend and not history. Roman pride in their traditions led Livy to perpetuate the legend, though he enters a preliminary caveat ( Praef. 6). For Augustine’s earlier discussion mentioned here, see Book 1.4.1 and n.

188

COMMENTARY BOOK III

the gods…were the same: Augustine bases this assumption on Greek and Roman epic. Since the first Greek colonists did not settle in Asia until c. 700 BC, long after the traditional date of the fall of Troy (1184 BC), it is clearly untrue.

Priam…his father Laomedon: The story of how Laomedon broke his word, and deprived Neptune and Apollo of their wages for building the walls of Troy, was familiar to Augustine from his anguished reading of Homer ( Iliad 21.441–60) as a schoolboy (see Conf. 1.14.23), and from the allusions in Virgil ( Georg. 1.502, Aen.

4.542) and Horace ( Odes 3.3.21–4).

2 Apollo…Neptune: Augustine enjoys some sport with the notion that gods allegedly endowed with the gift of prophecy were so short-sighted as to be hoodwinked by a mere mortal. For the prophecy of Poseidon-Neptune about Aeneas’ descendants as rulers of Troy, see Iliad 20.307ff.

said to have lived before the foundation of Rome: From the sixth century BC
onwards there were numerous accounts of the life and times of Homer. Augustine was perhaps conversant with the theory bequeathed by Eratosthenes at Alexandria, who dated Homer to a century after the Trojan war (see R. Pfeiffer, A History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968), 164). But the obvious source is Cicero, Rep. 2.18f. (‘It may be inferred that Homer lived many years before Romulus’), for Augustine cites this passage at C.D. 22.6.

Homer also states: See Iliad 20.318f.

in Virgil’s account: The lines are at Aen. 5.810f., where Neptune accedes to the plea of Venus to grant her son Aeneas and the Trojans safe passage from Sicily to Italy, and reminds her that he has already rescued Aeneas from Achilles’ clutches.

than swearing falsely: As Laomedon did.

3

Neptune fighting against…Apollo fighting on their behalf: In the Iliad, while Poseidon-Neptune continued to exercise his grievance against Laomedon by taking the side of the Greeks, Apollo, the god of order and justice, supports the Trojans against the arrogant Agamemnon, who had seized the daughter of the priest Chryses to be his concubine.

4 the conspiracy of Catiline: Sallust is frequently exploited by Augustine to attest Roman moral decline; he was a favourite school-author, and the phrase used here, ‘in tanta tamque corrupta ciuitate’, is a direct citation of Catiline 14.1. Later in that same chapter, Sallust (§3) describes how Catiline enrolled in his conspiracy of 63 BC
desperadoes guilty of every moral outrage, including perjury, ‘quos manus atque lingua periurio aut sanguine ciuili alebat’, the identical phrase used here by Augustine.

the ancient custom of swearing oaths: Augustine may have in mind Cicero’s discussion in De officiis 3.104ff. and 111ff., where the contrast is drawn between Regulus’ scrupulous adhesion to his oath at the cost of his life, and the readiness of subsequent commanders to renounce their vows. Oaths ( sacramenta) were taken not only in sealing treaties or other agreements with foreign states, but also domestically in legal claims and in swearing allegiance to military commanders.

III The gods would not have been alienated by the adultery of Paris, for tradition has it that it was frequently practised among themselves 1
the perjury of the Trojans: See 2.2n. above ( Priam…his father Laomedon).

COMMENTARY BOOK III

189

the adultery of Paris: The early epic Cypria recounted how this son of Priam, bribed by the promise that Helen would be his, chose Aphrodite in a contest of beauty over Hera and Athena. His abduction of Helen, wife of Menelaus, precipitated the Trojan war. The theme of the contest between the goddesses was taken up in plays by Sophocles and Euripides, and thereafter became a commonplace in ancient literature.

2 says

Sallust: The account of Rome’s foundation is from Sallust’s Catiline 6.1. Sallust was summarizing the version of Cato’s Origines I, which became canonical in filling the alleged gap of 432 years between the fall of Troy and the foundation of Rome by a detailed account of the relations between Trojans and Latins. See Ogilvie, 34.

the mother of Aeneas was responsible: Venus, goddess of love, as the Roman counterpart of Aphrodite had promised Helen to Paris; see n. on §1 above.

3

Venus committed it with Anchises: The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 53ff., recounts the union between Aphrodite and Anchises “as he was tending cattle on the steep hills of Mt Ida, in form like to the immortal gods”.

Menelaus: The king of Sparta and the younger brother of Agamemnon when cuckolded by Paris was the moving figure in the war against Troy.

Vulcan
was
complaisant: Augustine is ‘scoffing’ (§4). Hephaestus, the Greek counterpart of Vulcan, gets no mention in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (see the n.

above), but in a famous passage of the Odyssey (8.267ff.) when Aphrodite his wife lies with Ares, “wild rage got hold of him” as he exposed the erring couple before the eyes of the gods.

4

Romulus…not the son of Mars: For the tradition of the rape of the Vestal Virgin Rhea Silvia by Mars, see Livy 1.4.2ff. with Ogilvie’s nn.

5 Caesar believed that Venus was his forbear: According to Suetonius, Julius 6, Caesar declared in a panegyric over his aunt Julia in 67 BC that the Iulii were descended from Venus.

IV The statement of Varro that it was expedient for men to claim falsely that they were descended from gods

1

Varro, the most learned of Romans: See the Introduction, §V. Augustine repeatedly praises his learning and intelligence. (See C.D. 4.31; 6.2 and 6 “undoubtedly the most acute and learned of men”.) At 6.3 he describes succinctly the contents of the Antiquitates. Varro dealt with Roman religion as a human creation, and from this standpoint he investigated earlier accounts of the deities in the Roman pantheon and the roles that the Romans allotted to each. For bibliography, see the entry in OCD 3.

virtually admits that they are falsehoods: Though Varro attached great importance to the dynamic of religion in the growth of Rome, and accordingly urged its continuance, as a devotee of the Academic school of philosophy (see Cicero, Acad.

1.4) he was sceptical of the beliefs that underlay it.

2
which I have paraphrased: Augustine’s citations here and elsewhere are our most important source of Varro’s writings on religion.

190

COMMENTARY BOOK III

V That the gods punished the adultery of Paris is not credible, because they did not avenge the adultery of Romulus’ mother

1
the apostate angels had intercourse with the daughters of men: The reference is to the cryptic biblical passage at Gen. 6.1ff., which describes how ‘the sons of God’ took wives on the earth who bore children to them; these became ‘the heroes of old, warriors of renown’. ‘The sons of God’ was in the apocryphal Book of Enoch 6–16
interpreted as the fallen angels, condemned to eternal punishment. Augustine offers no guidance on the passage at this point, but at C.D. 15.23 discusses it in detail.

2 they take pleasure in those falsely told about themselves: In Books 1–2 (see especially 2.8) Augustine repeatedly censures the theatrical shows that depicted the immoral activities of the gods. At 1.32 he claims that the shows were inaugurated at the bidding of the deities themselves.

3
a priestess of Vesta: This is Rhea Silvia; see 3.4n. above. The six Vestal Virgins at Rome were required to live celibate lives for a fixed period of thirty years. See Mary Beard, ‘The Sexual Status of Vestal Virgins’, JRS (1980), 12–27; also ‘Re-reading (Vestal) Virginity’, in R. Hawley–B. Levick (eds.), Women in Antiquity (London 1993), ch. 11.

4
went so far as to bury them alive: This punishment, by which the offending priestess was beaten with rods and immured alive close to the Colline Gate, (see Livy 8.15.8, 22.57.2f.), survived at least till the time of Domitian (see Pliny, Ep. 4.11.5ff.) The seducer was in earlier days punished by scourging (Livy 22.57.3).

ordinary women…did not suffer the penalty of death: Augustine is describing the situation after the lex Iulia of 18 BC, which forbade a husband to kill a guilty wife.

Earlier, if a wife had passed into the manus of her husband, he was permitted to kill her for adultery. See Gardner, 129.

VI The gods did not exact vengeance on Romulus for fratricide

1 the murder of Romulus’ brother: Livy (1.6.4ff.) records two different traditions about the murder of Remus. In the first, rivalry for the throne was the cause of the killing; in the second, Remus was slain for mocking the foundation of the city by leaping over the rising walls. The first explanation, which made Romulus a villainous assassin, was advanced by Cicero, De officiis 3.41 (a passage which may have inspired Augustine here) and by Horace, Epodes 7.17ff., who sees in the deadly conflict between the twins a foreshadowing of the civil wars.

Whether Romulus commissioned the murder or carried it out himself: Plutarch, Romulus 10, states that either Romulus or his associate Celer struck the blow.

2 the evidence provided by many historians: Plutarch ( loc. cit.) states that Fabius Pictor, the father of Roman history, and Diocles of Peparethos “seem to have been the first historians of Rome’s foundation”. Fabius was followed by numerous others, including Cato. Augustine will have contented himself by reading the accounts of Cicero and Livy.

3
since they all disregarded it: Augustine’s view is anachronistic. Rome was not yet a city, let alone a community, according to Livy’s account.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

191

VII The destruction of Troy, razed by Marius’ lieutenant Fimbria 1 Fimbria: In 86 BC when Sulla was routing Mithradates’ forces in Greece, his opponents at Rome under Cinna appointed the suffect consul Valerius Flaccus to replace him in the Mithradatic command. When this army reached Asia, indiscipline set in, and a member of Flaccus’ staff, C. Flavius Fimbria, had Flaccus assassinated and established himself as commander. He was a competent but ruthless leader, sacking any city that closed its gates against him, including Nicomedia and Cyzicus.

Augustine will have based his account of the burning of Ilium and the slaughter of its inhabitants on Livy (see Epit. 83). For further detail, see Appian Mithr. 53; J.G.F.

Hind, CAH IX2 ch. 5; A. Erskine, Troy between Greece and Rome (Oxford 2001), 237ff. Fimbria was later confronted by Sulla, and when his soldiers began to desert him, he committed suicide (Appian, Mithr. 59).

2

‘all the gods’, etc.: So Virgil, Aen. 2.351f., a passage rhetorically repeated from Book 2.22, where Augustine claims that his opponents used it as a stock explanation of the gods’ innocence of outrageous conduct. Quoting from memory, Augustine has abscessere for excessere here, but excessere correctly at §7 below.

3
the townsfolk had closed their gates: According to Appian, Mithr. 53, they opened their gates to Fimbria, but told him they were entrusting themselves to Sulla.

4
still in command of the better faction…striving to restore the republic: Augustine follows the interpretation of his main sources, that Sulla’s return from the East in 83

BC marked the turning point in his conduct; ‘bonis initiis malos euentus habuit’

(Sallust, Cat. 11.4), a view echoed by Cicero and Livy.

5
that most disgusting of Romans: namely, Fimbria (§1 above).

6
why did they…prophesy such great blessings?: At Book 2.24 Augustine has already cited in detail the various prophecies and prodigies by which the demons allegedly presaged Sulla’s successes.

7
only that of Minerva: So Appian, Mithr. 53: “Some claim that the statue of Athena, which they call the Palladium and which they believe fell from heaven, was found unbroken at that time, the collapsing walls having covered it.” Livy’s lost account to which Augustine refers was in Book 83.

‘Ancestral
gods’, etc.: So Virgil, Aen. 9.247. (The Trojans are encircled by the Rutulian enemy, whereupon Nisus and Euryalus volunteer to break out and to summon Aeneas from Pallanteum. This is the prooemium of Aletes’ eager response to them.)

‘Quitting the shrines’, etc.: See §2 above.

VIII Should Rome have been entrusted to the Trojan gods?

1

How, then, did the statue of Minerva stand intact? Augustine attributes the survival of the statue of Athena-Minerva (see 7.7 above) to divine protection.

2
at the cackling of a goose: Already in Book 2 Augustine has exploited the fall of Rome in 390 BC to show that the recent sack was not unprecedented. At 2.22.8 he recalls that on that occasion the gods slept but the geese remained awake to give the alarm when the Gauls sought to seize the Capitol. At Livy 5.47 we read how the cackling gave wind of the enemy’s approach, allowing M. Manlius (thereafter

192

COMMENTARY BOOK III

Capitolinus) to repel them. Here Augustine jokes that if the gods were still at Troy in 390, their sharp hearing must have enabled them to react quickly to save the Capitol.

IX Are we to believe that the gods established the peace when Numa was king?

1 Numa

Pompilius: Romulus’ legendary successor, a Sabine from the town of Cures, is fashioned by the sources to become the priest-king who traditionally follows the warrior-king. He is allotted a lengthy reign (715–673 BC in Livy) because of the numerous innovations, religious and political, with which he is credited. These included the inauguration of priesthoods, shrines, and ritual, the reform of the calendar, and the establishment of laws and customs appropriate for a community at peace. So Livy (1.19.1) summarizes: ‘urbem nouam conditam ui et armis, iure eam legibusque ac moribus de integro condere parat.’ See Ogilvie, 88–109.

closed the gates of the temple of Janus: So Livy 1.19.2, adding that this was done only on two later occasions, first in 235 BC after the First Punic War, and then in 31

BC after the battle of Actium.

2
that most ruinous curiosity of his: Augustine follows Tertullian and other Christian apologists by condemning as ‘curiosity’ all paths to knowledge of God other than the Christian religion. See A. Labhardt, ‘Curiositas’, Mus. Helv. 17 (1960), 206ff.

Throughout The City of God, as earlier in his Confessions, Augustine condemns such

‘curiosity’; see my paper, ‘The Rights and Wrongs of Curiosity: Plutarch to Augustine’, GR 35 (1988), 73ff.

3

Varro records what his purposes were…in its due place: For Varro’s importance as Augustine’s main source on Roman religion, see 4.1n. above. At C.D. 7.34 he discusses the so-called books of Numa Pompilius containing ‘secrets of the demons acquired by unlawful curiosity’. For these crude forgeries, see Livy 40.29 and my commentary thereon ( Livy Book 40, Aris & Phillips 1996).

4
bestowed on the ungrateful and wicked: See Matt. 5.45, “He makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous.”

5 forty-three…thirty-nine: Livy (1.21.4) is the authority for the first number, Cicero ( Rep. 2.27) for the second, acknowledging the authority of Polybius (see Walbank on Pol. 6.11a).

there is just one year: 235 BC; see n. on §1 above.

X Was it desirable that the Roman Empire should have been extended by such savagery in wars, when it could have remained untroubled and safe, following the policy under Numa?

2

Sallust…this is what he says: The citation is from the philosophic prologue of the Catiline, 2.1. The idealised picture of moral probity in early Rome is later modified by Sallust in the Histories (fr. 1.11 M.). See my note on Book 2.18.7, and Earl, 41f.

as excoriated by Virgil: The quotation is from Aen. 8.326f., where Evander, king of Pallanteum, relates to Aeneas and Ascanius how Saturn established the Golden Age in Latium, which was then succeeded by an age of base metal. Thus the Virgil passage glosses the citation of Sallust.

3

Enemies made unjust onslaughts on them: Augustine recalls the early struggles of Rome as outlined by Livy – conflicts with the Etruscans, with the cities of the Latin

COMMENTARY BOOK III

193

League, with the incursions of the hill-tribes Aequi, Volsci, and Sabines, and finally with the Gallic invasions.

4
as Sallust himself writes: The extended quotation is from Cat. 6.3–5. Augustine reads legibus moribus at the outset for Sallust’s ciuibus moribus, a corruption perhaps inspired by Livy 1.19.1, where Numa ‘iure eam (urbem) legibusque ac moribus de integro condere parat’.

5
those techniques which they used: Augustine has in mind Livy 1.19.4, ‘cum omnium circa finitimorum societate ac foederibus iunxisset animos’, and 1.21.2, “When the citizens modelled themselves on the unique example of their king, the neighbouring peoples were induced to show such respect that they considered it sacrilegious to attack a state wholly devoted to worship of the gods.”

6
the gall even to sell to one man the decision of another: Augustine argues that the demons posturing as gods were not responsible for the lengthy peace, but claimed the credit from the Romans for the decisions of neighbouring communities.

7
in so far as they are allowed to do so: The thesis here (often presented by Augustine elsewhere) is that God (“the higher power”) allows the demons limited discretion over human affairs through their impact on human minds, but that he himself ultimately directs the course of human history.

XI The statue of Apollo at Cumae, whose weeping is believed to have presaged disaster for the Greeks, because he could not aid them

1 in the war against the Achaeans and king Aristonicus: Augustine’s account is confused. The war against the states of the Achaean League occurred in 146 BC, when Q. Caecilius Metellus (later Macedonicus) defeated them, and his successor Mummius sacked their city of Corinth. The war against Aristonicus, natural son of Eumenes II of Pergamum, has no connection with that warfare. When Attalus of Pergamum died, he bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. Aristonicus laid claim to the kingdom in 133 BC, but was defeated four years later, and was executed at Rome. It seems clear that Augustine, in associating Aristonicus with the Achaeans, has confused him with Andriscus, pretender to the Macedonian throne, who was put down in 148 BC by Caecilius Metellus before the Roman general marched against the Achaeans.

the soothsayers were terrified by this prodigy: According to Obsequens 28 (87), the prodigy occurred in 130 BC: “Publius Crassus was killed in an engagement against Aristonicus. The statue of Apollo wept for four days.”

during the wars with Antiochus and with Perseus: Rome confronted Antiochus III of Syria first in Greece and subsequently in Asia in 191–189 BC. The Third Macedonian War against Perseus of Macedon lasted from 172 to 167 BC. It is not clear whether the elders of Cumae claimed that the prodigy had occurred previously on two occasions, or whether they referred to a single occurrence during the period 191–167. Or perhaps Augustine’s chronology is suspect. Livy (43.13.4) reports under 169 BC: ‘Cumis in arce Apollo triduum ac tres noctes lacrimauit.’ Obsequens is no help, since he reports no prodigies before 190 BC, nor any between the years 174 and 168 BC.

gifts had been sent: Obsequens reports that the Romans deposited gifts in the temple at Cumae in 130 BC, but has no mention of such a gesture earlier.

194

COMMENTARY BOOK III

2 Soothsayers…their
response: Obsequens 28 (87) similarly states that they prophesied disaster for Greece.

Cumae was a Greek colony: Cumae, lying about ten miles north-west of Naples, was the earliest Greek colony on the Italian mainland, having been founded from Euboea c.

740 BC.

Aristonicus had been defeated and captured: So the statue wept for a reverse on the Greek mainland, but it occurred at Pergamum! Augustine continues to confuse Aristonicus with Andriscus.

3

Diana lamented Camilla…Hercules wept over…Pallas: Augustine suggests that the helplessness of Apollo indicates such limitations among the demons/gods generally.

Camilla in the Aeneid was a Volscian princess famed for horsemanship, who enrolled under Turnus’ banner against the Trojans. Arruns, an Etruscan ally of Aeneas, aided by Apollo, dispatched her with a spear (11.794ff., but it was not Diana, but her attendant nymph Opis who mourned Camilla’s death (841ff.). Pallas, son of king Evander of Pallanteum, fought on the side of the Trojans, but was dispatched by Turnus (10.479ff.). He had invoked the aid of Hercules, who was powerless to save him, and who “stifled a heavy groan and shed useless tears” for the hapless youth.

4 This is possibly why Numa Pompilius, etc.: Augustine’s suggestion is that Numa thought other gods were needed since the existing deities were ineffectual.

or that of Lavinium: The tradition was that after Aeneas landed in Latium, he made an alliance with king Latinus, married his daughter Lavinia, and called the city, which he then founded, Lavinium after her (Livy 1.1.10).

crossed to Rome: That is, from Lavinium.

when Alba had been levelled: Livy (1.28f.) describes how the Alban leader Mettius Fufetius treacherously broke the alliance with Tullus Hostilius, as a result of which the Roman king levelled Alba and transferred the population to Rome.

XII The large number of gods introduced by the Romans to add to those established by Numa did not benefit them

1 It was king Tarquin who built the Capitoline temple: Augustine, perhaps deliberately, does not credit Priscus or Superbus with the entire project, since, according to Livy, Priscus laid the foundations that he had vowed in the Sabine war (1.38.6ff.) and Superbus built upon them (1.55.2ff.).

Aesculapius…from

Epidaurus: Livy (10.47.7) reports that in 293 BC a serious pestilence compelled the Romans to consult the Sibylline books, which declared that Aesculapius should be invited from Epidaurus. The statue was transported in the following year, and a shrine established to the god on the island in the Tiber (Livy Epit. 11; Val. Max. 1.8.2; Ovid, Met. 15.626–745; Latte, 225ff.) For his role as the Greek god of healing, see OCD 3, s.v. Asclepius.

the mother of the gods came from Pessinus: For the occasion in 205 BC, when, after consultation of the Sibylline books, legates brought the statue of Cybele (the Magna Mater) from Pessinus in Phrygia, see Livy 29.10.4ff. Augustine has already briefly discussed the goddess in Book 1, 30.1, and Book 2, 4.3; see the notes there.

2
she gave birth to Cynocephalus…the goddess Febris: Augustine has already (Book 2, 14.10) satirically cited these two together as examples of ludicrous deities.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

195

Cynocephalus (‘Dog’s head’) is the Greek title of the Egyptian deity Anubis, who carries a dog’s head on a human body. He appears at Rome in the liturgy of Serapis and Isis as early as the first century BC. Febris (Fever) had three temples at Rome (Val. Max. 2.8.6); Cicero ( Leg. 2.28, N.D. 3.43) criticizes her as unworthy to be a deity. Augustine jokes that the physician-god must decide whether Fever can be sprung from the mother of the gods.

her great-grandson Aesculapius: Augustine identifies Cybele with Rhea, mother of Zeus, who fathered Apollo, who in turn fathered Aesculapius.

3
their number beyond counting: This is a recurrent theme in these books; see Book 4
below, esp. chs. 8 and 11.

4 great billows of smoke: There is a lively account of Roman sacrifices in R.M.

Ogilvie, The Romans and their Gods (London 1969), ch. 3. The ‘billows of smoke’

were a familiar sight in the city; for example, following the accession of Caligula, 160,000 beasts were sacrificed and roasted within three months (so Suetonius, Caligula 14.1).

5 At the very outset, etc.: Augustine argues that though the early Romans enjoyed greater prosperity under fewer gods, the disharmony introduced by the murder of Remus caused them to think otherwise.

XIII By what right and by what treaty the Romans gained their first marriages 1 cherished
the

Romans, etc.: An adaptation of Virgil, Aen. 1.281f., where Jupiter responds to Venus’ resentment at his permitting the persecution of her son Aeneas, and promises a brighter future for his race. Juno, the inveterate foe of the Trojans, will in due time come to cherish ( fouebit) the Romans ( Aen. 12.841).

they carried off marriage-partners by guile: For Livy’s celebrated account of the rape of the Sabine women, which led to the amalgamation of the two communities under the joint kingship of Romulus and Titus Tatius, see 1.9; also Ovid, Fasti 3.195ff.

what…feelings of grief did Lucan utter: Augustine refers to the entire theme of Lucan’s De bello ciuili, the Great Civil War which broke out in 49 BC when the returning Caesar refused to bow to the authority of the senatorial government dominated by Pompey. In 59 BC Caesar had strengthened his alliance with Pompey by giving him his daughter Julia in marriage, but she died in childbirth in 54 BC, and the alliance foundered. The two lines cited are the exordium (1.1f.) of Lucan’s epic, which he composed in ten books in 62–5 AD, and which he left unfinished at his death.

3

Bellona not Venus: The goddess of war, not the goddess of love.

Allecto…had a freer hand: Virgil at Aen. 7.323ff. describes how Juno in her unremitting enmity of the Trojans summons the Fury Allecto from Hell to rouse the Latins against the immigrant Trojans. Juno then exercised control over her by dispatching her back to Hades once her mission was completed (7.557ff.). For Juno’s ultimate change of heart, see the n. on §1 above.

4 Andromache’s
captivity: After the fall of Troy, Andromache, Hector’s wife, became the concubine of Achilles’ son Neoptolemus, and bore him three sons. Augustine’s account draws not on the Greek epic tradition but on Virgil, Aen. 3.294ff., where Neoptolemus bears the name of Pyrrhus. But neither here nor in the account of the fall

196

COMMENTARY BOOK III
of Troy in Book 2 does Virgil state that Pyrrhus refrained from further slaughter after Andromache submitted to him.

5 The Romans…experienced no trivial dangers: In Livy’s account (1.10f.) the parents, when deprived of their daughters, arouse neighbouring communities to attack Rome, but they are severally defeated. The Sabines, however, suborn the daughter of the commander of the Roman citadel, and thus seize the Capitol.

6 Romulus…implored

Jupiter: So Livy 1.12.4ff. For Jupiter’s title of Stator, see Livy 1.12.6, ‘Hic ego (sc. Romulus) tibi templum Statori Ioui…uoueo.’ The role of the Sabine daughters as mediators follows in Livy 1.13. Florus (1.1.13) may be Augustine’s source here.

7
forced to accept…Titus Tatius…So Tatius too was slain: Augustine continues to paint a hostile picture of Romulus. Livy’s account of the establishment of the joint kingship with Tatius (1.13.4f.) is more positive. The murder of Tatius was, in Livy, the result of a dispute with Lavinium, and though the historian states that Romulus did not grieve at his death, this was because of the shortcomings of Tatius (14.3). But Plutarch ( Numa 5.4) reports that Romulus was suspected of complicity in his death.

so as to become a greater god: A fittingly sardonic note on which to end the episode.

Augustine’s motive in criticizing the career of Romulus is to demonstrate his unworthiness to become a deity.

XIV The unholy war waged against the Albans by the Romans, and the victory gained by the lust for power

1 the Albans were provoked to war: Augustine has earlier discussed the reign of Numa (chs. 9–12 above), so he now passes to Livy’s account of the third king of Rome Tullus Hostilius. The patterning of antithetical kingships makes him a warrior (‘ferocior etiam quam Romulus’, Livy 1.22.2). Augustine’s phrase, “the Albans were provoked to war”, is a fair summary of Livy’s account of Tullus Hostilius’ crafty occupation of the high ground.

2

Alba, founded by…Ascanius: See Livy 1.3.3.

heavy casualties…numerous struggles: Augustine exaggerates; see Livy 1.22.2.

3

The three Horatii…the three Curiatii: For this episode, see Livy 1.24.1–26.12, with Ogilvie’s nn. Augustine does not explain that the one surviving Horatius had escaped injury, whereas the three Curiatii were wounded, so that he was able to pick them off one by one.

4

‘worse than civil strife’: Augustine harks back to the citation of Lucan at 13.2.

5
a further outcome: For the sister’s grief and her brother’s enraged reaction, see Livy 1.26.2ff., who adds that Horatius was then indicted, but upon appeal to the people, he was acquitted, ‘admiratione magis uirtutis quam iure causae’ (1.26.12). Hence the criticism of the Roman people here.

perhaps for that very brother: Augustine means that she would have been equally justified in grieving for her brother if her betrothed had killed him.

6 Aeneas…gained
praise: At Virgil, Aen. 10.821ff., Aeneas slays the youthful Lausus, the dutiful son of Mezentius of Caere. Remembering his own devoted love for his father Anchises, he laments the tragic death of one so young, the enemy counterpart of his young comrade Pallas, likewise slain.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

197

Why did Marcellus weep…over…Syracuse?: Augustine has already exploited this incident, recorded by Livy 25.24.11, in Book 1, 6.4, where he contrasts the restraint shown by the Goths in the sack of Rome with the Romans’ plundering of captured cities.

7

“to fire his men” , etc.: A citation from Virgil, Aen. 6.814f., where Anchises in the underworld describes the future role of Tullus Hostilius.

8

“men lived their lives without greed” , etc.: So Sallust, Cat. 2.1, already cited at 10.2
above; see the n. there.

“But after Cyrus in Asia” , etc.: So Cat. 2.2. Cyrus the Great was the first Persian king to unite disparate Asian territories into a single imperial framework (550–530

BC). When Sallust refers to Athenian imperialism, he thinks of the Delian League, initially (478–7 BC) a defensive alliance against Persia, but later an oppressive empire. Though earlier Sparta had dominated the Peloponnese, Sallust refers to Spartan expansion after defeating Athens in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), when she extended her control over central and northern Greece, parts of Asia Minor and Sicily.

9 the words of our scriptures: See Ps. 10.3, where the Vulgate has iniquus for Augustine’s qui iniqua gerit.

10 No-one must tell me, etc.: Augustine’s condemnation of aggressive imperialism here echoes the Preface to Book 1, where he states that the earthly city “in its quest for domination is dominated by that very lust for dominion”.

even gladiators fight and win: In the Confessions (6.8.13), Augustine devotes a celebrated passage to condemnation of his friend Alypius’ obsession with the gory gladiatorial shows at Rome. Though these had been prohibited by Constantine I in AD

325 in the east ( Cod. Theod. 15.12.1), they continued to be held in the west until AD

404 (see S. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (London 1899), 56), and indeed in Africa after that time, as this passage indicates. Augustine again condemns the shows in De fide et operibus 33 (AD 413).

14 Lavinium, where Aeneas had established a foreign kingdom: So Livy 1.7.10:

‘Oppidum condunt; Aeneas ab nomine uxoris Lauinium appellat.’

Quitting the shrines, etc.: Augustine repeats the lines of Aen. 2.351f. (but with illud for hoc) from Book 2.22, partly cited earlier in the present book at 7.2, 7.7 above.

15 where Amulius had been king: According to Augustine’s source Livy (1.3.4ff.; also Virgil, Aen. 8.42), thirty years elapsed between the foundation of Lavinium and that of Alba Longa, established in 1152 BC. Livy provides a fictional list of kings (so also Dionysius, Diodorus Siculus, and the Elder Pliny; see OCD 3, s.v. Alba Longa), up to Amulius, who expelled his brother Numitor (‘pulso fratre Amulius regnat’, Livy 1.3.10), and appointed Numitor’s daughter Rhea Silvia a Vestal Virgin. She was to become the mother of Romulus and Remus.

its population was merged with that of Rome: See Livy’s affecting description of the evacuation of the town before its demolition (1.29).

16 the regular renewal of the same wars: In fact Alba Longa was not rebuilt, and Augustine must refer more generally to Rome’s struggles with the Latins, culminating in the battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC. Thus the reference to wars between fathers-in-law and sons-in-law is inaccurate.

not one…closed the gates of war: See 9.1n. above.

198

COMMENTARY BOOK III

XV How the Roman kings lived and died

1
led to his dismemberment by the Roman senate: Livy (1.16.4) records this hostile tradition concerning Romulus, but adds that it is a ‘perobscura fama’. “I believe” he states “that then as now there were some who covertly claimed that he had been dismembered at the hands of the senators.” Plutarch ( Romulus 26ff.) gives a detailed account of this tradition: Romulus became increasingly despotic, and senators after killing him in the temple of Vulcan dismembered him, and each carried off a limb in the folds of their clothing.

Someone called Iulius Proculus: Augustine’s dismissive nescio quem is at odds with Plutarch’s “one of the noblest patricians…one of the original colonists from Alba”

( Romulus 28). The message that he delivers in Livy’s account is a prophecy of Roman future greatness with no demand that Romulus be worshipped as a god. But the apotheosis-story goes back to Ennius (see Cicero, Tusc. 1.28), and Plutarch ( Romulus 28) recounts a message incorporating both the prophecy of future Roman dominion and the divine status of Romulus; so also Florus 1.1.18.

he was to be worshipped: Cf. Cicero, Laws 1.3. Earlier at Book 2.15 Augustine signals the high dignity accorded to Romulus, who with Jupiter and Mars is assigned a flamen or ritual priest.

a solar eclipse had occurred: In this and the next section, Augustine is concerned to contrast the darkness at Romulus’ death with that at the crucifixion of Christ. He stresses that the first was a solar eclipse in the natural order, whereas the second was a supernatural occurrence. On the first, Livy (1.16.1) carefully avoids mention of an eclipse: there was a violent thunderstorm and cloud so thick that the assembled citizens lost sight of Romulus. Plutarch ( Romulus 27) states that the sun’s light was extinguished, and Cicero, Rep. 1.25 (clearly Augustine’s authority here), says: “Nature carried Romulus to his human end, but tradition has it that his virtue raised him to heaven.”

2
when the Lord was crucified: The darkness is attested in the synoptic gospels ( Matt.

27.45, Mark 11.33, Luke 23.44f., “the sun’s light failed”), but not by John.

an eclipse did not ensue: Augustine adopts the traditional Christian argument that the darkness was a supernatural occurrence, perhaps drawing on Tertullian, Apol. 21: “At that same moment the daylight was removed, though the sun was signalling its mid-course. Those who were unaware that this too had been prophesied (cf. Amos 8.9) thought it was an eclipse.”

the time of the Jewish Passover…the time of the full moon: The Passover was celebrated in the middle of the first month in the Jewish calendar, the 14/15th Nisan.

an eclipse regularly occurs when the moon is waning: Augustine obtained this knowledge from Cicero, Rep. 1.25: “It can happen only at the fixed time between the months ( certo intermenstruo tempore).

3
in his books On the Republic: This work of Cicero is a main source for Augustine in these early books. The citation here from 2.17 (and earlier at 1.25) eulogizes Romulus while leaving open the question of his apotheosis. The spokesman in both passages is Scipio Aemilianus.

other Roman writers state: Augustine clearly refers to Livy (1.16.1: ‘subito coorta tempestas’). For the possible crime, see Livy 1.16.4.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

199

4

Cicero in those same books: This section of the De republica containing a disavowal of the apotheosis of Tullus Hostilius appeared at the close of 2.31, but it is lost. Livy’s account (1.31.6) records the tradition that he was killed by a lightning-shaft after rousing Jupiter’s anger by a defective sacrifice. Livy makes no mention of apotheosis.

5 Cicero…in his invectives: Augustine quotes from the exordium of Cicero’s Third Catilinarian ( Romulum does not appear in the original). Cicero is claiming for himself a glory commensurate with that gained by Romulus.

in his dialogue the Hortensius: This was the introductory work to Cicero’s comprehensive survey of Hellenistic philosophy, which he wrote in retirement between late 46 and late 44; it was an exhortation to study philosophy that Augustine claims ( Conf. 3.4.7) made him long for ‘the immortality of wisdom’. For the fragments of this lost work, see the edition of A. Grilli (Milan 1962); P. MacKendrick, The Philosophical Books of Cicero (London 1989), 109ff.

6 Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius…their deaths: Augustine may have drawn upon Cicero, Rep. 2.27 and 2.33, or on Eutropius 1.3, 5 for their uneventful deaths.

Plutarch, Numa 21, states that Numa died “by sheer decay from old age”.

7

Tullus Hostilius…by a bolt of lightning: See §4 above.

Servius Tullius…by the sacrilegious crime: For his assassination by the agents of Tarquinius Superbus, see Livy 1.48.4.

‘all the gods’, etc.: See above, 14.14n.

in anger at the adultery of Paris: See 3.1ff., 5.3 above.

8
from the spoils building the Capitoline temple: The source is Livy 1.53.2f., who states that after capturing Suessa Pometia from the Volsci, Tarquin sold the booty for forty talents and used the money to build the temple. For an account of the temple, with bibliography, see Ogilvie on Livy 1.56.1ff.

allowed their king Jupiter to preside: The temple was dedicated in the first year of the Republic to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Juno, and Minerva; see Livy 2.8.6ff.

9
his son who sinned by raping Lucretia: The celebrated story of the rape of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquinius, and her subsequent suicide (Livy 1.58), which was the watershed for the expulsion of the kings from Rome, had already been treated by Augustine in Book 1.19, in the context of the morality of suicide.

he was attacking the city of Ardea: So Livy 1.57. This Rutulian city lay about twenty miles south-east of Rome.

when they had taken over the army: I base this rendering on Livy 1.60.2: ‘Tarquinio clausae portae; …liberatorem urbis laeta castra accepere…’.

10 After most gruelling wars: Tarquinius, thus exiled, sought to be restored to the throne by enlisting the aid of Etruscan cities, first Veii and Tarquinii, and then Clusium under Lars Porsena (Livy 2.6.1ff., 9.1ff.). According to Livy, Porsena after attacking Rome was induced to make peace; in reality the city fell (so Tacitus, Hist.

3.72.1, Pliny, NH 34.139).

for fourteen years he settled at Tusculum: This is a careless summary of the accounts of Cicero and Livy. The date of death (495 BC) accords with Livy 2.21.5, but in both Cicero, Tusc. 2.27, and Livy, Tarquin earlier joins the revolt of the Latins at Lake Regillus led by his son-in-law Octavius Mamilius of Tusculum, and after the defeat he retires to Cumae to seek refuge with the tyrant Aristodemus, where he dies

‘senio et aegritudine…confectus’ (so Cicero).

200

COMMENTARY BOOK III

with the connivance…of his own daughter: The tradition recorded that Tarquin and his moderate brother Arruns married the daughters of Servius Tullius, the one gentle (wed to Tarquin) and the other violent (wed to Arruns). Through the baleful influence of the savage Tullia, her gentle sister and the moderate Arruns were removed, and Superbus and the virago then married. Superbus was then induced by his new wife to dispose of her father, and Tullia herself rode her carriage over his dead body (Livy 1.46.3–48.7; Eutropius 1.6: ‘…scelere generi sui…et filiae suae, quam Tarquinius habebat uxorem.’)

11 the gods, quitting the shrines…: See 14.14n.

12 lasting for 243 years: This is the figure (753–510 BC) given by Eutropius 1.8.3
whereas Livy (1.60.3) gives 244 years (753–509). Eutropius is therefore the source here, and clearly Augustine has consulted both him and the fuller account of Livy for his general review of the regal period. Eutropius wrote his summary of Roman history, from the foundation to 364 AD, in the later fourth century, using the epitome of Livy and other sources for the Republican period.

as far as twenty miles from the city: Eutropius 1.8.3 writes: ‘…cum adhuc Roma, ubi plurimum uix usque ad quintum decimum miliarium possideret.’ Augustine enlarges this estimate while contrasting it with Gaetulian settlements in the desert area of what is now southern Algeria. For a modern estimate, see Scullard (1), 23, who reviews the Roman advances on the various fronts and concludes that in the regal period the ager Romanus extended about thirty-five miles round the city.

XVI The first Roman consuls, one of whom banished the other from his fatherland and who subsequently, following family-murders of the most dreadful kind, died after wounding a foe and being wounded by him

1 the period that Sallust says, etc.: Augustine harks back to Book 2.18, where he quoted from the first book of Sallust’s Histories (fr. 1.11 M.); there as here he refers to the brief period after the expulsion of the kings when Tarquin was attempting to regain the throne (see 15.10n. above).

2 Junius Brutus deposed…his fellow-consul: According to Livy (1.60.4), L. Iunius Brutus and L. Tarquinius Collatinus, husband of Lucretia, became the first consuls at Rome (more probably, as Polybius 3.22.1 attests, Brutus’ colleague was M. Horatius), but the name Tarquin was so hated that Brutus induced Collatinus to resign from the consulship and retire into exile (Livy 2.2.3ff.).

shortly
afterwards, etc.: The first major threat to Rome’s new-found liberty was, according to the tradition, internal; there was a conspiracy to restore Tarquin to the throne by a band of youths including the Vitellii, brothers of Brutus’ wife, and Titus and Tiberius, Brutus’ own sons. Their execution before their father’s eyes is affectingly described by Livy at 2.5.6ff. An external threat immediately follows when the towns of Tarquinii and Veii attempt to restore Tarquin to the throne; in the battle, Brutus and Arruns, son of Tarquin, slay each other (Livy 2.6.9).

3 Virgil later recorded this deed with praise: The passages that follow are from Anchises’ prophecy to Aeneas. After recounting the exploits of the kings, he details Brutus’ execution of his two sons ( Aen. 6.820–3). R.G. Austin in his edition of Aeneid VI praises Augustine’s appreciation of this passage.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

201

4
he suffered the same fate: That is, he was exiled.

5 Brutus was a blood-relative of Tarquin: So Livy 1.56.7, ‘L. Iunius Brutus, Tarquinia sorore regis natus’.

The
reason
why, etc.: Augustine is expressing his scepticism about the thesis of Sallust, that in the years after the kingship justice prevailed; see §6 below.

6
how right the people were: That is, when they elected Collatinus as consul, not when they exiled him.

‘the regimen of justice’, etc.: See §1 above.

7 Lucretius…took ill and died: So Livy 2.8.4, “He was old and his strength was insufficient to shoulder consular tasks, and he died within a few days.”

Marcus

Horatius: See §2n. above. Horatius was closely associated with the dedication of the Capitoline temple (see Ogilvie on Livy 2.8.4); hence his sudden appearance here.

that year of death and hell: So much, implies Augustine, for the protection of the Roman gods!

XVII The evils that plagued the Roman state after the beginnings of consular power. The gods whom they worshipped offered no help

1 they were not so grievously oppressive: Augustine omits here the military engagements between Tarquin’s final appearance at Lake Regillus (496 BC) and the beginning of the Second Punic War (219 BC), in order to concentrate on the domestic injustices in the state, which the gods failed to remedy. But later in this chapter and the next he does refer in passing to the Gallic capture and sack of Rome (390 or 387 BC), to the exhausting struggles with the Samnites (326–290 BC), to the war with Pyrrhus (280–75 BC), and to the vicissitudes of the First Punic War (264–41 BC).

described…by

Sallust: Augustine here cites at greater length the passage from Sallust’s first book of the Histories (fr. 1.11 M.), to which he briefly referred in Book 2.18 (see 16.1n. above), in order to introduce the struggle of the orders as a further example of Roman injustice.

drove them off the land…interest on their debts: For the problems of land-tenure and the harsh laws of debt, see Scullard (1), ch. 5.

2
occupied the Sacred Mount and the Aventine: In the long struggle for social justice, the plebeians withdrew on these two occasions from public life and military service. In 494 BC they retired to the Sacred Mount (so Livy 2.31.7ff.), and as a result gained the establishment of the plebeian tribunate. In 449 they again seceded, this time to the Aventine (Livy 3.50ff.), a revolt that spelt the end of the oppressive rule of the Decemvirs.

4
by their own historians: Roman historians were at one in ascribing the disastrous era of the first-century civil wars to a moral decline originating in the previous century.

Augustine refers especially to his trinity of main sources, Cicero, Sallust, and Livy.

When he modestly yields to them et stilo et otio, he infers that his busy life as Christian leader does not allow him to devote all his hours to study of historical events and to felicitous description of them. See his comments at the end of §7 below.

have slaved at memorizing them, and they compel their sons to do the same: With Terence and Virgil, Augustine’s three main sources formed the nucleus of Latin

202

COMMENTARY BOOK III
writers in the school-curriculum of Augustine’s day. See R. Herzog (ed.), Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike V (Munich 1989), 16 (with bibliography).

5 “Numerous
disturbances” , etc.: Augustine resumes citation of Book I of Sallust’s Histories (fr. 1.12 M.). Here Sallust has moved on to a review of the late second and first century BC before embarking on his chosen period, which began with 78 BC.

Already in Book 2.22 Augustine has named as leading culprits Marius, Cinna, and Carbo on the one side, and Sulla on the other.

6
when our opponents attribute the present ills to our Christ: This reaction by the pagans to the sack of Rome by the Goths was the immediate stimulus inducing Augustine to embark on The City of God.

7
the repeated criticisms by their own authors: But such criticisms in his three main sources are directed not against the deities, but at the Roman community and its leaders.

8
when the consul Valerius was killed: Livy (3.15.5) records how in 461 BC a band of exiles and slaves under the Sabine Appius Herdonius occupied the Capitol. When a combined force of Romans and Tusculans dislodged them, the consul P. Valerius was killed in the precincts of the temple. Livy makes no mention of a fire in the temple; Augustine has embroidered the story to underline the helplessness of the gods to protect their own shrine.

9 the ambassadors dispatched to Athens: Already at Book 2.16 Augustine had recounted this mission to Athens in 454 BC to obtain a copy of Solon’s laws and to investigate her other institutions (Livy 3.31.8). Immediately after reporting this (probably fictitious) visit, Livy like Augustine turns to the outbreak of famine and plague that followed (3.32.2).

10 appointed a prefect for the corn-supply: In his perusal of Livy’s pages for further evidence of Roman crises, Augustine moves on to 440 BC, when L. Minucius was appointed praefectus annonae at a time of critical shortage of grain. His failure to meet the emergency led an equestrian, Spurius Maelius, to purchase corn as a private citizen from Etruria, and to distribute it. He was accused of soliciting support to gain the kingship, and L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, appointed dictator, ordered his Master of Horse Gaius Servilius Ahala (not Quintus, as here) to arrest him. When he resisted, Ahala cut him down (Livy 4.12.8–14.6).

11 they should institute the lectisternia: Augustine moves on to 399 BC and Livy 5.13.6, who states that this was the first occasion on which the ceremony, an adaptation of the Greek theoxenia, was instituted. It was usually a form of supplication to avert plague or enemy attack. See Ogilvie, ad loc.

the Roman army performed poorly at Veii: Already in Book 2.17 Augustine has made brief reference to the ten-year siege of Veii, as here in condemning the ingratitude of the citizens towards Camillus. Livy dates the war from 406 to 396

(4.58.6, 5.22.8) but both length (compare the siege of Troy) and dates are unreliable.

See Ogilvie, 629.

Furius Camillus…subsequently condemned: According to Livy 5.32.8f. he was accused of peculation in connection with the booty at Veii and fined 15,000 sesterces, a figure like all fines in the early books wholly fictitious; Augustine at Book 2.17
states that the fine was 10,000 sesterces.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

203

12 when the Gauls captured…Rome: This has already been cited at Book 2.22 as a significant example of the neglect shown by Roman gods. Livy (5.39–43.5) dates the occupation of Rome to 390 BC, some 800 years before the recent sacking of the city by the Goths, a significant reminder that the calamity was not unprecedented.

that memorable plague: The year 365 BC was notable for this outbreak (Livy 7.1.7ff.). Augustine regards it as especially significant because it led to the establishment of stage-shows, which he earlier (Book 1.32, Book 2.8ff.) designates as an important moment in the development of moral decline set in motion by the gods.

As Livy puts it “The Romans’ minds were overcome by superstition, and the stage-shows are said to have been established as one of the means of placating the anger of heaven.”

13 another grievous plague: Livy records this pestilence at 8.18, and states that it arose seu intemperie caeli seu humana fraude. With apparent reluctance he recounts the tradition that a maidservant led the consuls to where poison was being brewed. Two patrician women claimed that the drink was medicinal, but when asked to sample it they died. About 170 matrons were condemned as associates. See S.P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy VI–X (Oxford 1998), II 34.

the Caudine Forks: For this signal defeat in the Second Samnite War in 321 BC, see Livy 9.2.6ff. The two consuls were Titus Veturius and Spurius Postumius. For the surrender as hostages of 600 equites, see Livy 9.5.5; the passage under the yoke, 9.6.1ff.

14 afflicted with a grievous plague: Augustine moves on to Livy 10.31.8, a passage which reports a pestilentia grauis in 295 BC, and that during the same period several soldiers in the army of Appius Claudius fighting the Samnites were struck by lightning.

another intolerable plague: Livy 10.47.6 reports that in 293 BC the Sibylline books were consulted because of a further plague. They advised that Aesculapius the healing god be summoned from Epidaurus. See 12.1n. above; Orosius 4.5.6 (after Livy).

many bouts of sexual intercourse: Ovid in his Metamorphoses records that Jupiter had offspring by four goddesses, and by nymphs and mortals numbering twelve in all.

15 when Lucanians, etc.: After the Romans had defeated this motley alliance at the battle of Sentinum in 295 BC, the Senones besieged Arretium, and in 284 defeated and killed the commander Caecilius Metellus and 13,000 of his troops who were trying to relieve the town. See Livy, Epit. 12; Orosius 3.22.14 (after Livy).

16 the common folk…retired to the Janiculum: This was the so-called Third Secession in 287 BC, when grievances about the heavy burden of debt induced the common folk to withdraw over the Tiber to the Janiculum. A plebeian, Q. Hortensius, was appointed dictator, and mollified the plebeians by carrying a law that gave resolutions of their assembly ( plebiscita) the force of law. See Livy, Epit. 11.

17 the
proletarii: The political (originally military) classification of the Roman people (dating from c. 400 BC) grouped the citizens into five classes according to property-tenure. Below these were individuals without significant property ( capite censi) who were required neither to pay taxes nor to register for military service. The proletarii were either an alternative name for capite censi, or a subsection of them. See OCD 3, s.v. proletarii; Scullard (1), 47.

204

COMMENTARY BOOK III

leisure to beget children: Augustine adopts this explanation of the title from Cicero, Rep. 2.40: “He (Servius) called them proletarii; their children, were, it seemed, to be the future generation in the state.”

Pyrrhus…invited in by the Tarentines: Pyrrhus of Epirus (319–272 BC) was hardly

‘king of Greece’, though he had effective control of western areas, when he was invited by the Tarentines to oppose Roman dominance in southern Italy. He landed at Tarentum in 280 BC with a force of 25,000 troops, and by deploying his elephants defeated the Romans at Heraclea; 7,000 Romans fell, but also 4,000 of Pyrrhus’ army, a Pyrrhic victory “dreadful for both armies”. Later (275 BC) the Romans gained revenge at Malventum (later Beneventum), the ‘further battle’ mentioned by Augustine, and in 274 he retired to Greece, where he died in street-fighting at Argos in 272 BC. See P.R. Franke, CAH VII 22, 456–83 (with bibliography).

an oracular reply of such studied ambiguity: Augustine found this story (with rebuttal of its authenticity) in Cicero, Div. 2.116, where the prophecy is cited as a line of Ennius ( Annals 174 Warmington).

18 a grievous plague…among the women: Augustine will have read of this in Livy Book 13 (the abbreviator presumably did not find room for it in Epit. 13 because of the need to report Pyrrhus’ extensive operations). Orosius 4.2.14 likewise draws on Livy for his account.

19 that
winter…notable
for…severity: This likewise will have appeared in Livy 13.

If this had happened in our day: In his Enarr. in Ps. 80, Augustine cites the popular prejudice against Christians: “If God does not send rain, blame the Christians.” See Book 2.3 with my n.

20 that
widespread
plague: See Orosius 4.5.6, like Augustine following Livy.

in his books On Divination: Augustine summarizes Cicero’s lengthy observation (2.116ff.) on the nature of the Sibylline oracles, which he insists are not frenzied utterances, but carefully phrased to apply to a variety of situations. Augustine elsewhere discusses at length and with approval the Sibylline prophecies of Christ’s coming ( C.D. 18.23).

22 Varro’s considerable expertise: In Book 6.3, where Augustine describes the 41
books of Varro’s Antiquities divided between ‘Things Divine’ (16 books) and ‘Things Human’ (25 books), he speaks of a group of three books on shrines, sacred temples, and religious places respectively. See the Introduction, p. 11.

XVIII The large-scale disasters which oppressed the Romans in the Punic Wars as they vainly sought the gods’ protection

1 in the Punic Wars: This chapter, apart from the preliminary generalisations, is devoted to the First Punic War (264–41), which Rome fought with Carthage for control of Sicily.

a huge array of ships was crippled: The First Punic War was primarily fought at sea.

The Romans, though lacking previous experience of naval warfare, gained a series of five crushing victories between 260 and 255. But they suffered a severe reverse at Drepana (249 BC), and on three occasions lost fleets in storms.

2 the Secular Games were renewed: The Centenary Games are said to have been established in 509 BC by Valerius Publicola (Censorinus, De die natali 17.10). This is

COMMENTARY BOOK III

205
implicitly contradicted by Valerius Maximus (2.4.5), who attributes the inauguration to a shadowy figure Volusianus in 348 BC. But most probably the Games were not introduced at Rome until a century later in 249 BC, for Censorinus cites the authority of Varro at 17.8: “After the appearance of many portents, and when the wall and the tower between the Colline and Esquiline gates were struck by lightning, the XVuiri consulted the Sibylline Books and reported that Tarentine Games should be held…and that they should be mounted every hundredth year.”

the games sacred to the gods of the underworld: Augustine appears to regard these as distinct from the Ludi Saeculares, but both Varro and Valerius Maximus (see the references above) make it clear that they were one and the same. They were to be held

“on three nights in the Campus Martius in honour of father Dis and Proserpina” (so Varro). The reference to ‘Tarentime’ Games, also attested by Valerius Maximus, suggests that the ceremonies were earlier practised at Tarentum.

4 that Roman defeat…the capture of Regulus: As indicated here, Augustine had already discussed Regulus at Book 1.15 and 24, and at Book 2.23. M. Atilius Regulus (consul 267, 256 BC) commanded the Roman army that invaded Africa and captured Tunis. But in 255 BC he was defeated and captured by the Carthaginians under the mercenary commander Xanthippus. The legend (almost certainly fictitious) grew up that he was sent to Rome to negotiate an exchange of prisoners, having sworn to return in case of failure. He kept his oath, duly returned, and was tortured and executed. See OCD 3, s.v. Atilius Regulus, M.

5 At that time too…: The Regulus saga was reported by Livy in Book 18 (see the Epitome) under 247 BC. The flooding reported here and by Orosius 4.11 will have been derived from the same book.

6
a fire more destructive still: This incident is likewise reported by Augustine and by Orosius (4.11) from Livy: cf. Epit. 19: ‘cum templum Vestae arderet, Caecilius Metellus pontifex maximus ex incendio sacra rapuit.’ This dramatic rescue of the sacred objects is related at length by Ovid Fasti 6.437ff. ‘The three cities’ mentioned here are Troy, Lavinium, and Alba, for the sacred objects rescued included the Palladium, which according to pious legend had been brought by Aeneas from Troy.

not so much a distinction as a punishment: The six Vestal Virgins at Rome (in fact, they could have been married earlier) retired if they wished after thirty years in office.

Family ambition, more than glorification of the virgin state, dictated entry into the sisterhood. Augustine’s shrewd comment is directed towards the deprivation of the consolations of marriage and family.

7
than the deities could be of service to him: Strictly speaking, illa = sacra rather than numina, but as Augustine makes clear, since he believes that the statues were inhabited by demons posing as deities, the deities are in this sense virtually identical with the statues they inhabit.

8
their surprising myopia: Augustine inherits this condemnation of Roman superstition shown in the concern to save the statues not only from Christian apologies but also from Varro and Cicero.

206

COMMENTARY BOOK III

XIX The scourge of the Second Punic War, which exhausted the strength of both combatants

1
the conqueror emerged more like the conquered: Augustine echoes the sentiment of Livy’s prefatory comment at 21.1.2: ‘adeo uaria fortuna belli ancepsque Mars fuit, ut propius periculum fuerint qui uicerunt.’ But Florus is the source here: ‘ut…similior uicto sit populus qui uicit’ (1.22.6).

2 when Hannibal set out, etc.: For Hannibal’s march from Spain into Italy, see Polybius 3.33.5–57.9, with F.W. Walbank’s Commentary, I 361ff.; Livy 21.23.1–37.6
with the annotations in my edition of Livy XXI, 164ff.

how often the Romans were defeated!: Already before the disaster at Cannae (216

BC) which Augustine mentions here, the Romans had sustained defeats and disasters at the skirmish of the Ticinus (Livy 21.46), at the Trebia (Livy 21.55.5ff.) and at Lake Trasimene (Livy 22.4ff.), where some 25,000 Romans were killed or captured in addition to the 15,000 who fell at the Trebia.

3
the disaster at Cannae: In this, the worst defeat in the history of Rome (see Polybius 3.107ff., Livy 22.36ff.), 25,000 Romans fell and 10,000 were captured.

the instruction to spare the enemy: Florus 1.22.17 is the source: ‘…donec Hannibal diceret militi suo: “Parce ferro”.’

gold rings filling three modii: Such rings were worn only by senators and equestrians. The modius is a dry measure, the equivalent of just less than two gallons.

Livy (23.12.1ff.) records Mago’s claim that Hannibal had sent to Carthage ‘supra tres modios’, but adds that it was more likely that they filled no more than one. Florus (1.22.18) speaks of two modii, Eutropius (3.11.1, Augustine’s probable source here) of three.

4
the Romans mobilised condemned criminals…and gave slaves their freedom: For the recruitment of 6,000 criminals, see Livy 23.14.5f. The historian earlier (22.57.11) states that 8,000 slaves were purchased from their masters, and enrolled; according to Appian ( Hannibal 27) they were given their freedom immediately, but Livy states (24.14.5, 16.9) that it came two years later.

so arms were removed from the temples: Cf. Florus 1.22.23: ‘arma non erant, detracta sunt templis’. Livy (23.14.4) states that the slaves were armed with Gallic weapons carried in C. Flaminius’ triumph in 223 BC; they will have been lodged as offerings in the temples meanwhile.

5
the resources of private individuals were harnessed…by the state: Though Livy mentions loans by private individuals in the years after Cannae, this incident occurred later in 210 BC (Livy 26.36.5), when the consul M. Valerius Laevinus inspired senators to show an example. Each left “only a ring for himself, his wife and his children, and a medal ( bulla) for his son”. The equites then followed the example of the senators.

how could anyone bear with them? Augustine indicates that their complaints would be intolerable, blaming Christianity for causing the hardships they suffered.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

207

XX The end of the Saguntines, to whom the Roman gods lent no aid, though they died because of their friendship with Rome

1
the destruction of the Saguntines: In the years following the First Punic War, the Carthaginians sought to expand their interests in Spain. The Ebro treaty, concluded with the Romans in 226/5, bound them not to cross that river to make war (Polybius 2.13.7). They assumed that this allowed them dominance south of the Ebro. Rome, however, had made an alliance with Saguntum, lying 100 miles south of the river, and the treaty of 241 BC stipulated that each side should refrain from attacking the allies of the other. The allegiance of Saguntum to Rome represented a challenge to Hannibal. He laid siege to the town in April–May 219 BC. Rome failed to come to its aid, and it fell in December–January 219–18 BC. See Polybius 3.17 with Walbank’s nn.; Livy 21.7.1ff. with my nn.

when Hannibal broke his treaty: Augustine accepts Livy’s version of the Ebro treaty, which claimed that “the freedom of the Saguntines, midway between the dominion of the two peoples, should be preserved”. Polybius has no mention of such a clause, nor was Saguntum ‘midway’ between the two spheres of interest.

2 ambassadors were dispatched…they journeyed on to Carthage: Roman ambassadors had already visited Hannibal at New Carthage in autumn 220 BC before the siege of Saguntum began (Pol. 3.15.3ff.). Livy’s claim that they sought to remonstrate with Hannibal during the siege, and having been refused access went on to Carthage, falsifies the chronology to save Roman face. Ambassadors were sent to Carthage later, in March–April 218, to demand restitution or to declare war (Livy 21.18).

3 Some say that men feasted on the corpses of her citizens: This theme of cannibalism at Saguntum does not appear in the historians, but its presence in the comic novel of Petronius (141.9) suggests that it was a staple topic in the schools of rhetoric.

threw themselves and their corpses on it: So Livy 21.14.1–4.

5
allied to the Roman state by a treaty: The treaty was probably signed in 231 BC
when Roman envoys visited Hamilcar; see Walbank on Pol. 2.13.7.

tempests and thunderbolts to terrify Hannibal: Augustine refers to the situation in 211 BC, when Hannibal moved up to the river Anio, three miles from Rome. As the opposing armies confronted each other, “a torrential downpour of rain and hail caused such confusion that both returned to camp, hardly able to hold their weapons”. When the same thing happened the next day, “the Carthaginians took it as a religious impediment” (Livy 26.11.2ff.).

6
more honourable…in defence of the friends of the Romans: Augustine floats the possibility that the demons posing as gods raised the storm that saved Rome, but failed to do so to save Saguntum. But this is a mere rhetorical flourish, as the next section indicates.

7 what
foolishness, etc.: Augustine makes it clear that the demons could not affect the course of history in this way. He believes that such issues lie in the hands of Providence. See Book 1.23.

8

If the Saguntines had been Christians: An implicit comparison is being made with the recent fall of Rome to the Goths. Christians are reminded that suicide is not

208

COMMENTARY BOOK III
permitted in such circumstances (see Book 1.16–27, and Appendix III in my edition), and that they should be sustained by hope of happiness in the future life.

9
the murder of Regulus: In Book 1.15 (see also 1.24) Augustine discusses at length Regulus’ scrupulous observance of the oath he had taken to return to Carthage if negotiations at Rome were unsuccessful. But the gods did not reward such fidelity to his word, just as they failed to reward the fidelity of the Saguntines. The response of pagans mentioned here is that Regulus could have been happy in spite of his suffering, because of his adhesion to virtue, which in Stoic eyes is the sole good.

11 So those who imagine, etc.: Augustine is able to conclude that the advent of Christianity has proved beneficial to victims of the sack of Rome, for if the pagan gods were still presiding, they could well be suffering as Regulus and the Saguntines did.

XXI The ingratitude of the Roman state to their liberator Scipio, and the morality in that era which Sallust depicts as the best

1
said by Sallust: This passage, already cited by Augustine at Book 2.18, is from the Histories fr. 1.11 M., a part of the prologue to that work, in which he praises the period 201–149 BC as the golden age of Roman morality.

2
the celebrated Scipio: See OCD 3 s.v. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, Publius. Augustine chooses him as a signal example of the injustice in Roman society, and of the failure of the gods to reward a most deserving devotee.

liberator…overcame

Hannibal: After being appointed to the Spanish command in 210 BC at the age of 26, Africanus expelled the Carthaginians from Spain, and after invading Africa in 204 BC he brought the war to a close with victory over Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC. He was ‘liberator of Rome and Italy’ only in the sense that he compelled Hannibal to retire to Africa to defend his native land; the other Roman heroes, Fabius Cunctator and Claudius Marcellus, bore the brunt of operations in Italy.

devoted to the gods and nurtured in the temples: In a famous sketch of Scipio’s religious practices, Livy (26.19.3ff.) states that Scipio claimed that most of his actions were motivated by warnings from heaven, “whether because his mind was in thrall to some superstition, or to ensure that his men carried out his orders and plans without delay, as though they emerged from an oracular utterance”. Polybius 10.2 is sceptical of the first explanation. Augustine mentions this alleged hotline to heaven to stress Scipio’s devotion to the gods, which goes unrewarded.

the accusations of his enemies: In 188 BC the brothers Scipio had stipulated that as part of the peace-terms, Antiochus of Syria should make an immediate payment of 500
talents. Enemies at Rome accused the consul Lucius of peculation in 187 BC, and he was fined. In 184 BC the indictment of Africanus followed. Africanus was so disgusted that he retired from the suit in voluntary exile to Liternum, where he died in 183 BC. Augustine draws his information from Livy 38.50–60; see my edition of that book (Aris and Phillips 1993), especially 4ff.

Liternum: This is the correct form of the town on the Campanian coast, 100 miles south of Rome.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

209
left
instructions: So Livy 38.53.8ff.: “They say that as he was dying he gave instructions that he was to be buried in that same country area…so that his funeral should not be held in his ungrateful native city.”

3

Asian decadence…crept into Rome through Gnaeus Manlius: Cn. Manlius Vulso (consul 189 BC) led a punitive expedition into Galatia once the war with Antiochus of Syria was concluded. According to Livy and the ultimate source Calpurnius Piso, his army was infected by Asiatic luxury, and their return to Rome brought with them foreign manners that heralded the beginning of moral decline. Livy cites in evidence

“bronze couches, costly coverlets, counterpanes, one-legged tables, sideboards, female lutists and harpists, and elegant cookery”. But Livy adds that these were merely the seeds of the extravagance to follow (39.6.7ff.).

as proconsul triumphed: Volso’s command in Asia was extended into 188 BC (Livy 38.37.1). Thus he was still a proconsul when awarded a triumph on his return (38.46.10ff.), but not when he celebrated the triumph, which he delayed until March 5, 186 BC (39.6.3ff.).

4
whose temples he had preserved: See the n. on §2 ( liberator).

5 the notorious Voconian law: In 169 BC, Q. Voconius Saxa proposed a law that forbade testators in the highest census class to nominate women as heirs ( ORF 158).

Augustine derived his knowledge of this law from Cicero, Rep. 3.17; Livy 41 (see the Epitome). For full discussion, with bibliography, see Gardner, 170ff.

6
in a single attack: Scipio Aemilianus in fact took over the command in early 147 BC
and blockaded the city. The assault to which Augustine refers took place a year later in the spring of 146 BC. For six days and nights the Roman army advanced through the city to the Byrsa, levelling buildings as they went. Augustine’s source was presumably Livy 51; cf. Florus 1.31.14ff.

It
was
then, etc.: Though Roman historians proposed different starting-points for Roman moral decline, they were virtually unanimous that the destruction of Carthage was the watershed. Sallust, Cat. 10.1ff. was especially influential with Augustine.

7
the entire period down to Caesar Augustus: Augustine followed the conventional interpretation of historians like Sallust and Livy – that the moral decline resulting from the fall of Carthage led to the political anarchy of the first century BC. He accepts the Tacitean interpretation, which became ever clearer by his day, that the renewal of the Roman state had been achieved by the loss of political freedom and the introduction of monarchical rule, a gradual process from 27 BC onwards.

8
the repeated disasters in war: Augustine refers here to Roman engagements in the half-century following the fall of Carthage. Reverses were sustained in Spain against the Lusitani until their leader Viriathus was treacherously murdered in 139 BC, and against the Celtiberi (see the next n.). In Africa, Jugurtha inflicted defeats on Roman forces until first Metellus and later Marius gained the upper hand. On the northern front the Cimbri and their allies inflicted defeats on the Romans in Noricum (113 BC), and in Gaul at Arausio (105 BC).

the treaty with Numantia: There were intermittent engagements with the Celtiberi in Spain from as early as 195 BC, in which the Romans sustained frequent reverses. In 137 BC the consul C. Hostilius Mancinus was defeated by the Numantines, and his quaestor (none other than the celebrated Tiberius Gracchus) was forced to conclude a

210

COMMENTARY BOOK III
humiliating peace. The senate, however, repudiated the agreement, and Mancinus was delivered up to the Numantines (Cicero, Off. 3.109) who refused to accept him.

the flight of chickens…had portended disaster: See Livy, Epit. 55: ‘C. Hostilio Mancino consule sacrificante, pulli ex cauea euolauerunt.’ Augustine implies that since operations against Numantia were repeatedly disastrous, the prodigies indicative of the gods’ will should have been uniformly unfavourable, whereas Livy cites only this one divine warning.

XXII The edict of Mithradates, that all Roman citizens found in Asia should be killed 1 the decree of Mithradates, king of Asia: Augustine now moves on to Roman disasters sustained in the first century BC. Mithradates, king of Pontus rather than of Asia (for his conquests were limited to Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia), proclaimed himself the liberator of Asia from Roman dominion, and in 88 BC issued an edict by which all Italians (including women and children) were to be massacred on an appointed day; they numbered 80,000. See Livy, Epit. 78; Florus 1.40.7; Appian, Mithr. 22.

3
the Romans long ago disregarded such signs as idle: Horace, Odes 3.27, has fun in enumerating the evil omens disregarded by impious men setting out on a journey.

Cicero draws attention to the general neglect of such auguries: see Div. 1.25, 1.98; N. D. 2.9; Leg. 2.33 with the comments of Mary Beard, CAH IX2, 742ff. As Livy, 43.13.1, puts it, “I am well aware that because of the religious indifference inspiring the general belief today that the gods foretell nothing, no prodigies are publicly reported…”.

XXIII The domestic ills that troubled the Roman state when preceded by a prodigy, which took the form of madness affecting all animals serving the needs of man 1 these social, slave, and civil wars: The Social War of 90–88 BC arose out of the frustration of the Italian allies, who shouldered military burdens but were refused Roman citizenship; it was brought to a close when that citizenship was extended, eventually being awarded to all communities south of the Po; see Livy, Epit. 72ff.

Slave-insurrections had broken out earlier in Sicily in 133 BC and again in 104–2 BC, but Augustine here thinks primarily of the revolt of Spartacus in 73 BC, in which that ex-gladiator eventually mustered 70,000 followers, and defeated Roman forces before being crushed by Crassus (Livy, Epit. 95ff.). The Civil War between Sulla and Marius obtains separate coverage in ch. 27 below.

2
before…Latium roused itself to war: In fact “the Latin allies did not join in, but every one with the single exception of Venusia remained loyal to Rome” (so Scullard (2), 66. The Marsi in the north, and the Samnites in the south, were at the heart of the insurrection.

all animals…suddenly turned wild: See Obsequens 54 (91 BC): “When the Latins were driving their herds and flocks from the countryside into Rome, there was widespread slaughter of the population. The flocks were roused to such madness that by ravaging their masters they foreshadowed a war with enemies…”. Cf. Orosius 5.18.9, which like Augustine will have drawn on Livy, Book 71.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

211

XXIV The civil disharmony that the disturbances of the Gracchi unleashed 1
the agrarian laws of the Gracchi: In 133 BC Tiberius Gracchus proposed that all those holding more than 500 iugera (= 300 acres) of public land (with an additional 250 iugera for each son, up to a maximum of 1,000 iugera) should surrender the excess to be distributed to landless citizens in small allotments. Instead of following the normal procedure of presenting the bill first to the senate, he took it directly to the Concilium Plebis, but it was vetoed there by a fellow-tribune M. Octavius, whereupon Tiberius proposed that he be deposed from office. Both this and the land-bill were passed. Ten years later, Tiberius’ younger brother Gaius, who had served on his brother’s land-commission, and was elected as tribune for 123 and 122 BC
successively, re-enacted his brother’s land-bill, established new colonies, and by a lex frumentaria arranged for state distribution of corn at a price slightly below the market rate.

1–2 Think of the deaths: In 133 BC the senate, outraged more by Tiberius’ political manoeuvring than by his economic measures, resorted to mob-law, and P. Scipio Nasica led a band which slaughtered Tiberius and 300 of his supporters. In 121 BC the senate passed a senatus consultum ultimum, which approved the arming of senators and equestrians. Under the consul L. Opimius, they murdered the supporters of Gaius who had occupied the Aventine. Augustine’s source for these events was Livy, Books 58 and 60–61; see the Epitomes. For further details see Plutarch’s lives of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, which are probably based on Livy.

3
the judicial process…executed three thousand: See Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus 18:

“Opimius, the first man to have exercised dictatorial power in the office of consul, condemned without trial 3,000 citizens…”.

4
sold the victim’s head: So Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus 17: “It is said that a man cut off the head of Gaius…it was taken from him by a friend of Opimius named Septimuleius, for proclamation had been made that those who brought the heads of Gaius and Fulvius should receive their weight in gold.” The anecdote further claims that Septimuleius took out the brain and replaced it with lead, so that the head weighed 17

2/3 lbs.

Marcus Fulvius…together with his children: Marcus Fulvius Flaccus (consul 125

BC) in his zeal to support Gaius’ reforms had become his colleague as tribune in 122

BC. According to Plutarch, he and his elder son were murdered together ( Gaius Gracchus 16); his younger son had been seized before the affray on the Aventine, and was later murdered ( Gaius Gracchus 17).

XXV The shrine of Concord, built by senatorial decree at the place where the uprisings and the slaughter took place

1
an urbane senatorial decree: Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.26, further reports that there was a lustration of the city. Augustine’s heavy irony reflects vehement criticism of Opimius expressed by Plutarch (the dedication of the temple “was viewed as evidence of his insolence and arrogance”, Gaius Gracchus 17).

a shrine to Concord: The deification of such abstractions is defended by the Stoic Balbus in Cicero, N. D. 2.61: “The impact of these concepts was so great that it could

212

COMMENTARY BOOK III
be controlled only by a god, and thus the concepts themselves gained the titles of gods.” Concord was the first of these impersonal virtues to receive a temple at Rome; it was said to have been dedicated by Camillus in 367 BC, doubtless under the influence of the Greek Homonoia (Plutarch, Camillus 42; Ovid, Fasti 1.637ff.).

Opimius restored this temple, which lay at the north-west corner of the forum; see Platner-Ashby, 138ff. Augustine’s claim that it was built on the site of the massacre (the Aventine) is a rhetorical flight of fancy; Appian ( Bell. Civ. 1.26) confirms that it was located in the forum.

2
to Discord instead: Discord is created a goddess in the literary imagination of Virgil ( Aen. 6.280, 8.702, this last on the shield of Aeneas portraying the civil conflict at Actium), but she plays no role in Roman religion. Augustine’s suggestion is not original; according to Plutarch ( Gaius Gracchus 17) a graffito was appended to the temple-inscription with the words “The work of Discord built the temple of Concord”.

Labeo: Cornelius Labeo, a philosopher of the third century AD, is frequently cited by Augustine (2.11 and 14; 8.13; 9.19; 2.28). He wrote works on Roman religious institutions from a Neoplatonist standpoint; these writings are known chiefly from citations in the Saturnalia of Macrobius. See the Introduction, p. 10f.

a temple…to Fever, as one…to Health: Augustine has already (see ch. 12.2 and n.

above) commented satirically on Fever as a deity. Salus had a temple dedicated to her on the Quirinal by Iunius Bubulcus in 302 BC (Livy 10.1.9), but at that date she was a goddess of safety rather than health. From the second century BC onwards she became associated with the Greek goddess Hygiaea; see OCD 3, s.v. Salus, with bibliography.

3
the disagreement between the three goddesses: The Cypria, one of the poems of the Epic Cycle, recounted how the goddesses Aphrodite, Athena, and Hera appointed the shepherd Paris to reward the most beautiful of them with the award of a golden apple.

Aphrodite/Venus suborned him with the promise of Helen, whose abduction was the cause of the Trojan war.

on the site of the slaughter: See the n. on §1 above ( a shrine to Concord).

4
these empty fantasies: Augustine thus dissociates himself from such pagan beliefs, while demonstrating that on their own terms they are illogical.

XXVI The varying types of warfare which ensued after the shrine was built to Concord 1
the plebeian tribune…the praetor Gaius Servilius: As tribune in 103 BC and again in 100 BC, Saturninus proposed a series of political and economic measures in the face of the ruling oligarchy. They included a corn law, reviving the provisions of Gaius Gracchus’ measure, and a proposal to provide allotments of 100 iugera in Africa for the veterans of Marius, whose interests he more generally supported. See OCD 3, s.v. Appuleius Saturninus, L.; Scullard (2), 56ff. The Epitome of Livy Book 69
indicates that the historian devoted the major part of that book to the disturbances that these measures provoked. Gaius Servilius Glaucia, tribune 101 BC and praetor 100

BC, co-operated with Saturninus; both were assassinated when the senate issued a senatus consultum ultimum after they had occupied the Capitol (Scullard (2), 62).

not much later, Marcus Drusus: Marcus Livius Drusus was an aristocrat who successfully sought the tribunate for 91 BC (hence the necessary addition of Vives,

<non> multo post, “not much later”). Drusus’ main thrust was political, seeking the

COMMENTARY BOOK III

213
franchise for the Italian allies, but he also carried a bill to distribute allotments of land, and organized the distribution of cheap corn. His political proposal provoked selfish opposition from hawkish elements in the senate and their followers; Drusus was assassinated (Livy Epit. 71; Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.35f.).

2
the battles then joined: The revolting Italians (listed in Livy, Epit. 72 and Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.39) numbered 100,000. A summary of the military engagements in Appian (1.41–53) suggests that over half of them were killed; Roman casualties (not all specified) may have numbered some 20,000. Augustine’s “virtually all the peoples of Italy” is an exaggeration; see 23.2n. above.

the Slave War: See 23.1n. above. The generals defeated by Spartacus in 72 BC
included both consuls and the propraetor Q. Arrius in three separate battles, and subsequently the proconsul C. Cassius Longinus in a fourth engagement. See Livy Epit. 95; Plutarch, Crassus 9; Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.116–18.

3
slaves had plundered…Macedonia: Augustine seems to have confused the rising of Andriscus with the revolt of Aristonicus, which Diodorus 34.2.26 describes as a slave-revolt. See above, 11.1n.; Greenidge-Clay, 17.

later, Sicily and the coastline of Italy: The slave-revolts in Sicily took place in 134–

132 BC and 103–99 BC. See Livy, Epit. 56–9, 69; Florus 3.19; Diodorus 34.2, 36.3, who states that the second war spread to Heraclea on the bay of Tarentum.

the pirates…the fierce wars: Piracy in the eastern Mediterranean was a perpetual threat to Rome’s trade. The praetor M. Antonius went in 102 BC to secure bases in Pamphylia and Cilicia, but in the early 70s the corn-supply of Rome itself was under threat. Attempts were then made to dislodge the pirates from Cilicia, Cyrene, and Crete, but it was only with the appointment of Pompey by the lex Gabinia of 67 BC
that the seas were cleared. Cf. Livy, Epit. 99 (Augustine’s source); Plutarch, Pompeius 24–8; Appian, Mithr. 94–6.

XXVII The civil war between Marius and Sulla 1 When

Marius, etc.: Augustine has already in Book 2.23–24 presented the conflict between Marius and Sulla as evidence that the demons posturing as Roman gods were not concerned to reform Roman manners and thus to prevent the collapse of the Republic. Marius, already consul six times between 107 and 100 BC, became involved in a power-struggle with his former lieutenant Sulla. When the latter was elected consul for 88 BC, Marius was forced to flee from Rome. Earlier, Marius’ hands were

“already red with blood of slaughtered citizens”; see Plutarch, Marius 35, Sulla 8–9; Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.56.

1–2 to quote Cicero’s words: This citation from the Third Catilinarian (24) describes how at the close of 87 BC, while Sulla confronted Mithradates in the east, Cinna (consul for this year but declared a public enemy by the senate) and Marius marched on Rome and assumed control. Marius butchered many Sullan adherents including the consul Octavius, the celebrated orator Antonius (consul 99 BC), and Q. Catulus (consul 102 BC). See Cicero, De or. 3.8 for a fuller list. After the death of Marius in January 86, Cinna effectively ruled Rome as consul till he was assassinated in 84 BC.

Sulla landed in Italy in 83 BC, and when he gained control of Rome in 82, a massacre of his opponents followed; see the next chapter.

214

COMMENTARY BOOK III

2–3 as Lucan too put it: See Bell. Civ. 2.142–4. (In line 143, the reading manus, as subject of secuta est, is better attested than Augustine’s manum). Lucan’s poem, already cited in 13.2 above, was grist to Augustine’s mill in depicting Roman disharmony before the onset of Christianity.

5 Marius…on his return from exile: See 1–2n. above for this slaughter in 87 BC.

Augustine lists other victims from Livy, Book 80: the brothers Gaius (a famous wit; see Cicero, Brutus 177, Off. 1.109) and Lucius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (consul 90, censor 89) (for Fimbria who murdered them, see 7.1n. above); P. Licinius Crassus (consul 97 BC) who killed himself when his son was murdered by Fimbria (cf. Cicero De or. 3.10). Appian Bell. Civ. 1.72 says that he killed his son before committing suicide); L. Cornelius Merula, suffect consul after Cinna had been expelled (Diodorus 38.3), committed suicide in the Capitoline temple; Baebius and Numitorius, figures of lesser account, received the treatment of convicted criminals whose corpses were impaled on hooks and dumped in the Tiber (Cicero, Phil. 1.5, Juvenal 10.66). Appian ( Bell. Civ. 1.74) records that when a certain Q. Anchorius saluted Marius in the Capitoline temple, Marius ordered that he be cut down. Augustine has garnered these details from Florus 2.9.14–17.

XXVIII The nature of Sulla’s victory when he took revenge for the cruelty of Marius 1
the victory of Sulla…the shedding of the blood of citizens: After his return to Italy in 83 BC, Sulla was joined by Crassus and by Pompey with his three legions. The combined force easily prevailed over the consuls of 83; and the consuls for 82, the younger Marius and Papirius Carbo, were similarly worsted. Carbo retired to Africa, but Marius, blockaded in Praeneste, with his Samnite allies made a sudden attack on Rome. At the Colline Gate (November 82) Sulla prevailed in a bloody engagement (Livy, Epit. 88; Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.93, claims that 50,000 fell). Marius committed suicide when Praeneste surrendered; his head was exhibited in the forum.

1–2 carnage…the work of young Marius and of Carbo: For this massacre by the anti-Sullan party in 82 BC, see Livy, Epit. 86: ‘L. Damasippus praetor ex uoluntate C.

Marii consulis cum senatum conuocasset, omnem quae in urbe erat nobilitatem trucidauit.’

2
senators were led out: Appian ( Bell. Civ. 1.88) further states that two were killed in the senate-house, and two after they ran out. One of these was the pontifex maximus Scaevola; his murder in the temple of Vesta is underlined by Augustine to show that Roman gods failed their chief priest in that hallowed shrine. Livy’s Epitome states that he was killed ‘in uestibulo’; Augustine’s rhetoric embellishes the sacrilege, though Florus too states that Scaevola clung to the altar (2.9.21), and he may be the direct source.

Sulla then entered the city…In the State Residence: For the texts attesting Sulla’s bloody vengeance, see Greenidge-Clay, 198ff. Orosius 5.21 (doubtless after Livy) speaks of more that 12,000 immediately slaughtered. Various figures are given for the mass murder of Marian supporters who were unarmed captives in the Villa Publica, the state building in the Campus Martius used for housing foreign legations. The Epitome of Livy Book 88 speaks of 8,000; Florus (2.9.24) of 4,000.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

215

3

Finally it was put to Sulla, etc.: Orosius (5.21) states that the advice came from Q.

Lutatius Catulus (consul 78 BC); Plutarch, Sulla 31, credits C. Metellus with it.

the notorious list: Appian ( Bell. Civ. 1.95) states that this was the first occasion when a proscription-list was issued, and adds that 40 senators and 1600 equestrians were named, augmented later by names of other senators. Plutarch ( Sulla 31) speaks more modestly of 520, but adds that those harbouring them were also executed; the figure in Orosius (5.21) is 580. Augustine’s figure of 2,000 derives from Florus 2.9.25, ‘duo milia electi qui mori iuberentur’.

4 The refined modes of death: What follows summarises the account of Florus (2.9.26): “Baebius was torn to pieces without use of a sword, after the manner of wild beasts; Marius, brother of the faction’s leader, had his eyes gouged out and his hands and limbs hacked off, but he was kept alive for some time so that he might die limb by limb.” Cf. Livy, Epit. 88.

5 some famous cities…under the auctioneer’s hammer: Florus 2.9.27 is again the source for these cities that opposed Sulla; he names them as Spoletium, Interamnium, Praeneste, and Florentia. The city whose entire population was led out for execution is cited as Sulmo.

XXIX A comparison between the Gothic invasion and the disasters sustained by the Romans at the hands of the Gauls or the instigators of the Civil Wars

2

True, the Gauls…etc.: Augustine (ch. 17.12 above) has already signalled the invasion of the Gauls in 390 BC as evidence of the neglect of Rome by the guardian-gods; here he exploits it as a lesser evil than the self-inflicted wounds of the Civil Wars. For the slaughter of senators by the Gauls, see Livy 5.41.9.

in exchange for gold: For Livy’s account of the bargain struck between the military tribune Q. Sulpicius and the Gallic chief Brennus, see 5.48.8.

the greater surprise: Augustine purposefully underplays the slaughter and plundering by the Goths, but they emerge in his discussion of the morality of suicide in Book 1.16ff.

3

Sulla…on the Capitol: Augustine here summarizes the events of 88 BC when Sulla was consul. For the texts, see Greenidge-Clay, 164ff. Twelve of Sulla’s opponents, including Marius and his son, were named as public enemies on this occasion.

4

As for the Marian faction: For Marius’ return to Rome in 87 BC, and the slaughter including that of the pontifex maximus Mucius Scaevola, see 27.5 above and n.

XXX The interlocked series of numerous most repressive wars prior to Christ’s coming 1 as the Roman authors themselves confess: Augustine thinks of the despairing comments of Cicero, as at Off. 2.3, “Once the republic…ceased wholly to exist”, and 3.4, “since the republic was overthrown”. He similarly laments the loss of the republic at Rep. 5.1, which Augustine quotes at Book 2.21.

2
those initiated by Sertorius and Catiline: Q. Sertorius had served under Marius, and became an ally of Cinna, acting as a moderating influence during Marius’ reign of terror in 87 BC. Following Sulla’s rise to power, he led the anti-Sullan resistance in Spain, where he became legendary for his skill as soldier and diplomat. He was

216

COMMENTARY BOOK III
assassinated by his lieutenant Perperna in 73 BC. L. Sergius Catilina, a former lieutenant of Pompey, joined Sulla on that leader’s return to Italy in 83 BC. He governed Africa as praetor and propraetor in 68–66 BC, but when his path to the consulship was blocked by charges of extortion, he organized the conspiracy that was put down by the consul Cicero in 63 BC.

the war between Lepidus and Catulus: M. Aemilius Lepidus (consul 78 BC) was earlier a supporter of Sulla and he enriched himself during the proscriptions, but later he became estranged from him and sought to rescind the Sullan settlement. He was opposed by his fellow-consul Q. Lutatius Catulus, and raised the standard of civil war.

When he marched on Rome, he was defeated by Catulus, and retired to Sardinia, where he died. For the texts, see Greenidge-Clay, 234ff.

3
the struggle between Pompey and Caesar: After their earlier informal alliance in the so-called ‘First Triumvirate’ of 60 BC, their ways parted, and when Caesar’s command in Gaul ended in 50 BC, and he refused to demobilize his troops on returning to Italy, the Great Civil War began in March 49 BC. After Pompey and the senatorial forces were defeated at Pharsalus in August 48, Pompey retired to Egypt and was assassinated there.

4 Augustus too waged civil wars with many: For the triumvirate established with Mark Antony and Lepidus in November 43, followed by the proscription of numerous senators (the figures in the sources vary between 130 and 300) and equestrians, see Syme, 191. Subsequently Antony and Octavian crushed the senatorial rump under Brutus and Cassius at Philippi in October 42 (“No battle of all the Civil Wars was so murderous to the aristocracy”, Syme, 205). The final round of the Civil Wars came after the parting of the ways between Octavian and Mark Antony, first in the sea-battle at Actium in 31 BC, and then at Alexandria in the following year, after which Antony committed suicide.

Among them was Cicero: He was marked down by Antony, his greatest enemy, at the head of the proscription-list. Livy’s account of his death in Book 120 has been preserved by the Elder Seneca in his Suasoriae 6.17; the passage appears in the Loeb Livy vol. 14, fr. 50. Cicero abandoned the attempt to escape by sea from Caieta, and was murdered in December 43. His head and hands were hacked off and exhibited on the Rostra at Rome.

that…specialist in the theory of civil government: Cicero’s Republic and Laws are at the forefront of Augustine’s mind (as against his speeches and rhetorical and philosophical works) because he draws on them so extensively in this work.

a conspiracy between certain noble senators: For the party of the Liberators, headed by the praetors Brutus and Cassius, see Syme, 97ff. and 198.

5 Cicero fiercely opposed him: For the fourteen Philippics delivered (except the Second) against Antony between Sept. 44 and April 43, see the edition of D.R.

Shackleton-Bailey (Chapel Hill 1986).

6

Cicero lent support to the young Caesar: For the emergence of the eighteen year-old and Cicero’s naïve support of him, see Rawson, 274ff.

made an agreement: On the Triumvirate, see §4 above.

COMMENTARY BOOK III

217

XXXI Since such great disasters occurred in the era when the gods were worshipped, those not now permitted to worship them are shameless in attributing the present troubles to Christ

1

“steaming with Sabaean incense” , etc.: At Aen. 1.416ff., Virgil recounts how Venus, in the guise of a huntress, intercepted Aeneas en route to Carthage to inform him about Dido and her kingdom. She then departed to her shrine at Paphos in Cyprus, ‘ubi templum illi, centumque Sabaeo/ ture calent arae, sertisque recentibus halant’. (The Sabaei in south-west Arabia were famous for their frankincense; see Pliny, N. H.

6.154). Augustine cites Virgil both to demonstrate his literary knowledge and to appeal to his more literate readers.

frenzied activities: It is clear from such passages as this and Book 2.4 that arrepticii (‘men possessed’) formed part of the spectacle.

2

Mucius’ choice of such an escape: For the assassination of Mucius Scaevola in the Capitoline temple, see 28.2 above; for Cicero’s death, see 30.4 above.

in places…dedicated to Christ…led to them by those very barbarians: See Book 1.1. Jerome, Ep. 127.12f., exemplifies such enlightened behaviour by some Goths, many of whom were Christians of the Arian persuasion, and therefore moved by Christian piety.

5
such as talking oxen, etc.: Livy includes eight such prodigy-lists in his account of the Second Punic War, and a list in his account of each year thereafter. Julius Obsequens, probably contemporary with or slightly later than Augustine, composed a book of such prodigies derived from Livy; they are extant for the years 190–12 BC.

6
when earth or clay or stones fall: As the lists in Livy and Obsequens indicate, this was the most regularly reported phenomenon.

the fires of Aetna, etc.: Augustine refers to the eruption in 126 BC, reported by Obsequens 29 as follows: “Mount Aetna erupted and scattered fires far and wide round the summit. Off the Liparaean islands the sea boiled up ( efferbuit), certain ships caught fire, and several sailors choked with the fumes.”

7
houses in the city of Catana were crushed: Under the year 122 BC, Obsequens 32
reports: ‘Aetnae incendio Catina consumpta.’ Orosius 5.13.3 records this event, which he and Augustine will have drawn from Book 61 of Livy.

a huge swarm of locusts: Obsequens 30 records this extraordinary event under 125

BC; hence Augustine’s “after it had become a province”, that is, after 146 BC. The prodigy is also reported in Livy, Epit. 60; Orosius 5.11.1ff. Obsequens reports that when the wind blew the locusts into the sea and the waves cast up their bodies on the shore, they caused a serious plague at Cyrene, and 800,000 people died. These details do not tally with the report in Augustine, where the effects are felt further west at Utica in the Roman province and in Numidia.

in Masinissa’s kingdom 80,000 people: At the close of the Second Punic War Scipio Africanus conferred on Masinissa his ancestral kingdom of Numidia with its capital at Cirta (Constantine); see Livy 30.44.12. Masinissa’s subsequent hostile incursions into Carthaginian territory were the immediate cause of the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage; see JRS (1965), 149ff. It is curious that Augustine should refer to the kingdom as Masinissa’s, since he had died in 148 BC, but that may have been ignorance on Augustine’s part. Still more curious is the disparity between the

218

COMMENTARY BOOK III
numbers of the dead in Augustine and those in Obsequens, whose figure of 800,000
seems clearly excessive, and is possibly an error in transmission for 80,000.

BOOK FOUR

After recapitulation of the topics of the previous three books (1–2), Augustine discusses the morality of military conquest (3–6), the gods to whom Roman successes are ascribed (7–

13), the prominence of abstract deities (14–26), attitudes of Roman intellectuals (27–32), and the ordinance of the true God (33–34).

I The issues discussed in Book One

1

Upon embarking on The City of God: Augustine had published Books 1–3 in AD

413; in Ep. 169 to Evodius, bishop of Uzalis, he indicates that Books 4–5 were written in 415 (see Introduction, p. 1).

mercifully counselling them: At the outset of this work (1.1ff.), Augustine discusses at length the role of suffering as a testing-ground for Christian commitment. This had become a traditional theme in earlier Fathers; see ‘Suffering as a Test of Virtue’, in Divine Providence and Human Suffering (ed. J. Walsh and P.G. Walsh, Wilmington 1985), 105ff.

the illiterate masses…the authority of learned men: It was a favourite gibe of educated pagans to describe Christians as a uulgus indoctum, and Augustine here fields and returns the insult. He repeatedly lays the charge against educated pagans that they deliberately conceal their knowledge of history in the interests of anti-Christian polemic; see ch. 32 below, and the Preface to Book 6.

2 their own authors: Especially the trinity of Sallust, Cicero, and Livy; see my Introduction to Books I–II, p. 9f.

or which they worship in secret today: Following the edict of Theodosius I outlawing all pagan sacrifices, officials from the emperor Honorius, Gaudentius and Jovius, visited Carthage in 399 and “demolished the temples of the false gods, and broke up their images” (so C. D. 18.54).

3

I have myself witnessed such spectacles: The mature Augustine elsewhere expresses contrition for his youthful enthusiasm for stage-shows; cf. Conf. 1.10, 3.2, and in C. D.

2.4.3.

books…divided between human and divine questions: See C. D. 6.3.

4

At the close of the first book: See 1.36.

II The topics contained in Books Two and Three 1
had forbidden them…as now: See 1.2n. above.

2
moral evils…bodily and external evils: This contrast, on which Augustine structured Books 2 and 3, is based on the central tenet of Stoic ethics, that virtue is the only good, and vice the only evil; bodily and external concerns are ‘things indifferent’. See, e.g., F.H. Sandbach, The Stoics (London 1975), 29ff.

3
which affected the city of Rome…alone: Augustine left to his young protégé Orosius the task of demonstrating, in the seven books of his Histories against the Pagans, that other civilisations had likewise suffered calamities before the Christian era.

Apuleius briefly alludes to these: Apuleius (born c. AD 125) of Madauros in present-day Algeria, is chiefly known today as the author of the comic romance The Golden

220

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

Ass, but in late antiquity he was celebrated chiefly as a Middle Platonist. Augustine, a fellow-African, was a close student of his philosophy, and Books 8–9 of this work draw heavily upon his De deo Socratis for the extended discussion on demons. The work cited at length here is the De mundo, a close adaptation of Ps-Aristotle, Peri Kosmou composed a century or two before Apuleius, whose work is divided into two sections, on cosmology and theology respectively. For a recent discussion, see Stephen Harrison, Apuleius, a Latin Sophist (Oxford 2000), ch. 5.

4

To quote him verbatim: For the Apuleian text, see De mundo 34 (ed. J. Beaujeu, Paris 1973). Augustine’s citation (which begins from terrena omnia in the previous sentence and continues to flumina cucurrisse) turns Apuleius’ direct speech into indirect discourse, and makes minor changes and omissions to dispense with rhetorical flourishes, notably at ‘quibus Orientis regiones conflagratae perierunt’, where Apuleius has ‘cum Orientis regiones Phaethontis ruina, ut quidam putant, conflagratae perierunt’.

true
salvation: Augustine here uses salus in the Christian sense of ‘salvation’ rather than the secular sense of ‘health’.

5

I had further promised: See 1.36.

God makes his sun rise, etc.: So Matt. 5.45; text as in the Vulgate, but with slight variation in word order.

III Is widespread dominion, attainable only through wars, to be regarded as one of the blessings of wise or happy mortals?

3
like a letter in a word, an element: Augustine puns on two senses of elementum, a letter of the alphabet and more generally a particle of a substance .

one…middle-class, and the other extremely rich: This theme of the happiness of the person of modest means contrasted with the miseries of the man of power or great wealth is a commonplace in Greek and Latin literature; see, for example, Euripides,

Iphigenia at Aulis, 16ff. Augustine probably adverts to Horace, for whom it was a favourite topic; see e.g. Epode 2, ‘Beatus ille qui procul negotiis’ (with emphasis on the joys of family); Epistle 1.7 (the anecdote of Philippus and Volteius Mena), etc.

4 advantageous for good men to rule: There is a certain inconsequentiality in the argument here. Augustine begins the chapter by a condemnation of rampant imperialism; here he suggests that it is advantageous for good men to preside over such dominion. It would have been helpful to insert the pragmatic point that since such a far-flung empire exists, it is better for it to be governed by good rather than evil men.

Even if a good man…an evil man…is a slave: Augustine here draws upon both scripture and traditional Stoic thought. For scripture, see John 8.34: “Jesus said to them, anyone who sins is a slave to sin.” See also the citation in the next note. For the Stoic sentiment, see Seneca, Ep. 47.17: “A man is a slave? But perhaps he is free in mind…Show me one who is not a slave. One man is a slave to lust, another to greed, another to ambition…”.

A man is a slave to whatever masters him: So 2 Peter 2.19. Augustine quotes either from memory or from a pre-Vulgate text. The Vulgate has: ‘A quo enim quis superatus est, huius et seruus est.’

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

221

IV Unjust kingdoms resemble robber-bands 1
what are they but robber-bands?: Perhaps recalling Seneca’s condemnation of the excesses of Macedonian imperialism in particular: Nat. Quaest. 3. Praef. 5: ‘quanto potius deorum opera celebrare quam Philippi aut Alexandri latrocinia, ceterorumque qui exitio gentium clari non minores fuere pestes mortalium quam inundatio…, quam conflagratio.’ The description of their activities as latrocinia is striking.

bound by…alliance, its booty allotted according to…law: Cicero’s discussion at Off. 2.40 is recalled here. Bardylis the Illyrian and Viriathus the Lusitanian are cited as examples. “As for the pirate-king so called, should he not allocate the booty fairly, he would be killed or abandoned by his comrades; indeed, it is said that bandits have their laws which they must obey and keep.”

establishes a permanent base: During the period of the later Roman republic, pirate-communities occupied extensive lands in the eastern Mediterranean, notably in Cilicia.

Augustine doubtless recalls the threats made to Roman corn-supplies, which necessitated large-scale operations against their bases, notably by P. Servilius in 78–77

BC, and by Pompey in 67 BC. See CAH IX2, 232f., 249f.

a neat and true riposte: This anecdote is derived from Cicero, Rep. 3.24, a fragmentary passage preserved in Nonius Marcellus: ‘Nam cum quaereretur ex eo quo scelere impulsus mare haberet infestum uno myoparone (=‘galley’), ‘Eodem’ inquit

‘quo tu orbem terrae’.

V The runaway gladiators, whose power rivalled the stature of kings 1
the sort of men assembled by Romulus: The sequence of thought from the previous chapter is this: unjust kingdoms are merely large-scale robber-bands. Romulus welcomed such a band (cf. Livy 1.8.6, ‘turba omnis, sine discrimine liber an seruus, auida nouarum rerum’) but made them responsible citizens, so they are not an apposite example, such as Spartacus’ band (which now follows) affords.

2

Rome suppressed the revolt: Augustine has already alluded in Book 3 (23.1, 26.2) to the insurrection raised by Spartacus in 73–71 BC; see the nn. on these passages for the detail of Roman defeats and the sources, which are gathered in Greenidge-Clay, 261, 263, and (for the final defeat by Crassus) 268ff.

three
leaders: Spartacus and his two lieutenants Oenomaus and Crixus (so Orosius 5.24, drawing on Livy, Book 96, the Epitome of which cites Crixus). Eutropius 6.7.2
is the source here.

which god aided these slaves: Augustine’s initial motive for retailing the Servile War was to demonstrate that the robber-band exemplifies in microcosm the injustice of aggressive imperialism. He now changes tack to demonstrate that the reason for Spartacus’ success, however short-lived, was the support of a demon playing the role of a Roman god. Such an attribution carries with it the implication that Rome’s own imperial successes were not achieved through the gods’ support.

4
enjoyed such pleasures…followed…their desires: The implication here is that the divine assistance lent to the slaves encouraged debased behaviour. This is the continuation of the theme of Book 2, which ascribes the collapse of the Roman state to the immorality prompted by malevolent demons.

222

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

VI The greed of Ninus, the first king to make war on his neighbours in order to win wider dominion

1 Justin, who emulated Pompeius Trogus: Marcus Iunonius Iustinus (date and provenance unknown) composed between the second and fourth centuries AD an epitome in Latin of the Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus, a native of Narbonese Gaul writing in the Augustan age. Trogus’ work of 44 books (now lost) was devoted largely to the history of Macedon and of the Hellenistic kingdoms (Books 7–40), but he prefaced this with an account of the kingdoms of the Near East and of the Greek states (Books 1–6), and he appended a history of Parthia down to 20 BC

(Books 41–42), together with an account of the Roman regal period followed by a survey of the history of Gaul and Spain (43–44). There is a Teubner text of Justin (ed.

O. Seel, third edn. 1971), and an English translation by J.C. Yardley (with Intro. and notes by R. Develin, Atlanta 1994).

“when history began” , etc.: Trogus/Justin began with an account of Assyria, the kingdom on the upper Tigris in modern Iraq. For a useful summary of what is known of the earlier Assyrian empire (Tigiath-paleser I is the first Assyrian to reach the Mediterranean, c. 1230 BC) and the second Empire (ninth to seventh centuries), the era of the great warrior-kings, who ruled from Media to the Mediterranean, see How and Wells, Appendix II. Justin depicts this dawn of civilization as a Golden Age, an age of peace and plenty as described in Hesiod, Works and Days 106ff. (see the notes of M.L. West; and W.K.C. Guthrie, In the Beginning (London 1957), ch. 4). Justin’s declaration that monarchy was the earliest form of government is inherited from Plato (e.g., Laws 680D) and Aristotle ( Politics 1252B). At Rome, the nostalgia is mirrored in such passages as Ovid, Met. 1.89ff.

Ninus, king of the Assyrians: Justin’s account of the eponymous founder of Nineveh is paralleled in Diodorus Siculus 2.1ff. Both go back to the same source, Ctesias, a court-physician of Artaxerxes (c. 400 BC). His Persika, written in 23 books, is a compilation of romantic stories based on oral tradition. As Augustine indicates, in antiquity his version of Near Eastern history was sceptically regarded. Ninus became the hero of the ideal romance Ninus and Semiramis, in which the lady survives him to found the city of Babylon. For the fragments of the romance, see S.A. Stephens–J.J.

Winkler, Ancient Greek Novels, the Fragments (Princeton 1995), esp. 23–71; B.E.

Perry, The Ancient Romances (Berkeley 1967), 153ff.

2
other more reliable accounts: Ctesias’ account was discredited a century after him by Berosus, who about 290 BC wrote a history of Babylon. Augustine more probably refers to the Chronicle of Eusebius, a work now lost which synthesised chronologically the history of the near East, of Greece and Rome, and of the Old Testament. The work became widely known through the translation by Jerome, on which see J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome (London 1971), 72ff.

the kingdom endured for 1240 years: Augustine takes this figure from Jerome, Ad ann. Abr. 1197 (ed. Helm, 1.83), who in turn adopted it from Eusebius: “All the years of the Assyrian kingdom…are reckoned as 1240 years.” Eusebius dated the birth of Abraham in 2016 BC, ‘the 53rd year of Ninus’ reign’; on this reckoning, the Assyrian kingdom lasted from 2069 to 829 BC. By contrast Herodotus (1.96) claims that the kingdom endured for only 520 years, from 1220 to 700 BC (see How and Wells,

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

223

1.439). Given that Nineveh finally fell c. 606 BC, Herodotus’ terminus ad quem is the likelier. For a modern survey of the history of the kingdom, see the entry in the Kleine Pauly, s.v. ‘Assyria’.

The Roman empire has not yet survived for the same lengthy period: It seems likely that Augustine works from the traditional foundation-date of 753 BC. As he was composing this book in AD 415, the period would fall short of 1240 by some seventy years.

VII Are earthly kingdoms as they prosper and decline aided or abandoned by the support of the gods?

1 I ask what gods were these?: Augustine is forgivably ignorant of the worship of Ishtar, the Assyrian queen of the gods, and of Assur and his spouse Mylitta, worshipped at Babylon. See Herodotus 1.131.3 with the n. of How and Wells.

they did not receive their wages: The comic suggestion is prompted by Augustine’s recollection of the fall of Troy, attributed to the failure of Laomedon to reward Apollo and Neptune for building the walls; see C.D. 3.2 above.

when Cyrus invited them: Cyrus the Great conquered the Medes in 550–549 and thereafter the Babylonian empire and central Asia; see OCD 3, s.v. ‘Cyrus’. For the welcome given by Persia to foreign deities (“no race is so ready to adopt foreign ways as the Persians”, Herodotus 1.135.1) see How and Wells on 1.131.3.

the…short-lived
reign of Alexander: During his brief kingship (336–323 BC), Alexander dominated the territories of the Persians from central Asia to Egypt, but without fundamentally affecting their administration and culture. From 247 BC their successors, the Parthians, ruled the lands from the Euphrates to the Indus.

up to the present day: Persia remained a great power up to Augustine’s time. For her generally harmonious relations with Rome from the time of Diocletian to the era of Justinian, see A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284–602 (Oxford 1973), 1030f.

2 even by Camillus: See Book 2.17.8f. As explained in my note there, after Furius Camillus captured and destroyed the hostile city of Veii, he was accused of peculation, and retired into exile. Legend has it that he was recalled to deliver Rome from the Gallic invasion, though the story is dubious. See Livy 5.1ff. (capture of Veii); 5.32.8ff.

(exile); 5.43.6ff. (the Gauls). Camillus is briefly mentioned again at 3.17.11 above.

gods waging war on one another: See, for example, 2.25.1 where the demons are said to have joined battle with each other in 83 BC to encourage mortals to imitate them. But more probably Augustine alludes here to the behaviour of gods in Greek and Roman epic.

3
they should blush to make a similar complaint: At 3.17.6 above, Augustine makes a similar observation after recounting disasters sustained by Romans in the past.

who is to know the will of God?: Augustine here, as elsewhere, expresses the conviction that demons may affect the short term but that God decides the ultimate destiny of nations. See ch. 33 below and 2.23.11, “(the demons) can achieve only as much as the hidden will of the Almighty allows”.

224

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

VIII Which are the gods under whose protection Romans are to believe that their empire has expanded and been preserved, when they believed that care of individual aspects of their society could scarcely be entrusted to any one of them?

1

The huge crowd of deities: For the rest of this book Augustine outlines and criticizes the roles of the numerous minor deities and of the major gods, and thereafter the ways in which Roman thinkers rationalize these beliefs. He derives his information predominantly from Varro, on whom see the Introduction, p. 11f., and Book 3, 4.1n.

His scathing criticism in this chapter of the horde of petty gods with their strictly delineated tasks of supervision is an extension of the theme in earlier Christian apologetics as represented by Tertullian, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius.

the goddess of sewers: Cluacina/Cloacina, a cult-title of Venus (‘Purifier’; Pliny, N.H. 15.119, ‘cluere enim antiqui purgare dicebant’) had a shrine on the north side of the Roman forum (see Livy 3.48 with Ogilvie’s n.). The etymological connection with the cloaca maxima attracted the derision of the Christian apologists; see the references in Latte, 126 n.3.

Volupia: Macrobius mentions her shrine and altar at Sat. 1.10.7f.; cf. Varro, L.L.

5.104.

Lubentina: For this cult-title of Venus, see Varro, L.L. 6.47; Cicero, N.D. 2.61.

Amongst Christian apologists Arnobius (4.9) cites it before Augustine.

Vaticanus: Varro (ap. Gell. 16.17.2) makes the connection with uagire, to wail, but Vaticanus was probably the deity of the Vatican hill.

Cunina: Lactantius ( Div. Inst. 1.20) cites this deity before Augustine.

Rusina: This goddess, to be distinguished from Rumina (see ch. 11 below) appears in Tertullian, Ad nationes 2.11 as Rucinia.

Jugatinus: Below at 11.4 and again at Book 6.9, this god presides over the yoke ( iugum) of marriage, whereas here his charge is the mountain ridges ( iuga). In the absence of other evidence, we are to assume that Varro extended the god’s remit from the primary to the secondary sense of iugum, as here.

Collatina…and

Vallonia: Neither is attested elsewhere.

Segetia…Seia…Tutilina: Not surprisingly in view of the interrelation of their functions, the three are cited together both by Pliny, N.H. 18.8, and by Macrobius, Sat.

1.16.8.

2 Proserpina: Her mother, Ceres, is the ancient Italo-Roman goddess of corn, later identified by syncretism with the Greek goddess Demeter. Proserpina then appears as the Roman Persephone, daughter of Demeter, probably via Etruria (see Latte, 247). On Persephone, see OCD 3.

Nodutus…Volutina…Patelana…Hostilina: Arnobius links the first and third together at 4.7; the others are attested only here.

Flora…Lacturnus…Matuta…Runcina: Flora was a goddess familiar to Romans because of her spring festival the Floralia, celebrated from April 28 to May 3 (see Ovid Fasti 5.183ff.). Augustine elsewhere condemns the lewdness of the shows mounted then (see Book 2.27 with my n. there). Lacturnus is attested by Servius in his gloss on Virgil, Georgics 1.314ff. (‘…et cum / frumenta in uiridi stipula lactentia turgent’, “and when the corn on its green stem swells with milk”). Matuta Mater is better known as an Italian goddess of the dawn (cf. Lucretius 5.656) and as such

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

225
equated with the Greek goddess Leucothea (Cicero, Tusc. 1.28). H.J. Rose however argues ( CQ 1934, 156ff.) with Varro that she is originally a goddess of growth.

Runcina is not otherwise attested, but she may be identical with Rusina/Rucinia in §1
above.

3

The reason why I have given these…examples: Augustine prepares the way for the contention that Jupiter, whom Varro equates with the god of Judaism, must be the deity whom Romans are to credit with the growth of empire. But simultaneously, following in the steps of earlier Christian apologists, he ridicules the Roman polytheism that these petty deities represent. Throughout the discussions that follow,

“the underlying assumption is that monotheism is the rational norm” (O’Daly, 91).

Forculus…Cardea…Limentinus: Tertullian, De corona mil. 13, assembles the same trinity, but with Janus in addition. Limentinus is also attested in Arnobius 4.9.

IX Was the extension and duration of the Roman empire to be entrusted to Jupiter, whom his devotees regard as the supreme god?

1 his sceptre and the Capitol: Augustine thinks of the terra-cotta statue of Jupiter bearing a sceptre which stood in the central shrine of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; see Strong, i.15f.

“All things are full of Jupiter”: So Virgil, Ecl. 3.60, echoing the proem of Aratus, Phaenomena 1ff.: “Let us begin with Zeus, whose name men never leave unspoken; all the streets and market-places of men are full of Zeus…Everywhere we are dependent on Zeus.” (see R. Coleman, Vergil, Eclogues (Cambridge 1977), 117).

Aratus was the pupil of the Stoic founder Zeno, and the sentiment is highly Stoic, since Jupiter was for the Stoics equated with the fiery pneuma that pervades all things; see, e.g., Cicero, N.D. 2.4.

the one God alone without an image: Varro refers here to the God of the Jews, as is indicated at 4.31.5 below and at Augustine, De consensu euang. 1.30: ‘Varro autem ipsorum quo doctiorem apud se neminem inuenerunt, deum Iudaeorum Iouem putauit, nihil interesse censens quo nomine nuncupetur, dum eadem res intelligatur.’ The Mosaic law forbade the erection of any images because of the danger of idolatry; see Exod. 20.4.

by another name: Varro avoided the difficulty of citing the Tetragrammaton (probably pronounced ‘Jahweh’), and its substitute Adonai (Dominus in Latin) may have been unknown to him.

both banished fear…and promoted error: Augustine repeats this criticism of images at 31.5 below. On the attitude of Christians towards them (Western Christianity was much slower to approve them than most Christians in the Greek-speaking world), see OCD 3 s.v. ‘Images’, with bibliography.

X The beliefs held by those who appointed different deities over different parts of the universe

1 Juno…given the title of ‘sister and spouse’: See Cicero, N.D. 2.66; Virgil, Aen.

1.46f., ‘diuum…regina, Iouisque et soror et coniunx’. The ancient Italian goddess, who was translated from Etruscan Veii to Rome c. 396 BC (Livy 5.22.4ff.) adopted

226

COMMENTARY BOOK IV
the persona of the Greek goddess Hera, wife and sister of Zeus, once the cult of Hera spread to the Greek colonies of the west.

Jupiter is in the aether, and Juno is in the lower air: Augustine’s account in what follows is close to Cicero, N.D. 2.64ff., where Jupiter’s traditional role as sky-god is complemented by the Stoics’ identification of Juno with the lower air (“because it bears a resemblance to the aether, and is joined to it”). Earlier, Greek philosophers had suggested that Hera’s name was a corruption of Greek aër; see Plato, Cratylus 404 b-c, and other references in J.B. Mayor’s edn. of Cicero, N.D. (Cambridge 1883), II 174.

…the sea allotted to Neptune, and the earth to Pluto: Cicero’s discussion likewise moves on to Neptune and Pluto ( N.D. 2.66) but without mentioning Salacia, to whom Varro gave prominence (see C.D. 6.10, 7.22).

Proserpina…the lower part of the earth: Proserpina “is identical with Persephone”

and is “the seed of the harvest” (so Cicero, N.D. ); the myth of Persephone’s abduction to Hades symbolic of the death of growth in winter, and her role as queen of the underworld, is rationalized by identifying her with the lower earth.

2 three rather than four elements: So Homer, Iliad 15.187ff., where Poseidon explains that the world is apportioned between Zeus, himself and Hades, with Zeus charged with the region of the entire sky. Cf. Cicero, N.D. 2.66, “Thus the fables established a division into three kingdoms.”

3

Where will Minerva be?: Since she is one of the three major deities, as her presence in the Capitoline temple with Jupiter and Juno attests, Augustine asks why she is not charged with control over part of the universe. Minerva was guardian of handicrafts; it is uncertain whether she is indigenous or imported from Greece via Etruria to become the Roman Athena. Like Athena sprung from the head of Zeus (Hesiod, Theog. 886–

90), she is sprung from the head of Jupiter; hence Augustine moots the possibility that she might control the upper aether. This is probably a reference to Varro’s thesis (see C.D. 7.28) that Minerva stands for Plato’s ideas or forms.

Jupiter vis-à-vis Saturn: Saturn, an Italian agricultural deity, was early identified with the Greek god Kronos, who was expelled from Olympus by his son Zeus. Hence Saturn was likewise ousted by his son Jupiter, and Virgil ( Aen. 8.319ff.) describes how he settled in Latium and civilized the natives, establishing the Golden Age.

Saturn symbolizes extent of time: Cf. Cicero, N.D. 2.64 for the explanation advanced by the Stoics: “By Saturn they seek to represent that power which maintained the cyclic course of times and seasons. This is the sense that the Greek name of that god bears, for he is called Kronos, which is the same as Chronos, or Time.” For this widespread misapprehension of etymology, see Macrobius, Sat. 1.8.7; Arnobius 3.29. The Ciceronian passage continues: “Saturn for his part got his name because he was ‘sated’ with years; the story that he regularly devoured his children is explained by the fact that time devours the courses of the seasons.”

Juno is the earth: The abrupt switch from Juno as the lower air to this new role is explained in the following section.

4 Those lines of Virgil: See Georgics, 2.325f. As L.P. Wilkinson, The Georgics of Virgil (Cambridge 1967), 146f., observes, Jupiter “is in a mythological tradition going back to Hesiod, and no doubt far beyond – more elemental, less personal than the supreme intelligence who was the god of the philosophers.” But Augustine is wholly

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

227
concerned here with the Stoics’ attempt to rationalize such archetypal myths descriptive of the role of the deities.

Terra…Tellus…Tellumo: Augustine at C.D. 7.23–28 returns to Varro’s discussion of the Roman deities that symbolize the earth. Varro himself (see 7.24) believes that all are one and the same, and identical with Magna Mater. In 7.23 he is cited as distinguishing Tellus from Tellumo as the female force from the male. Tellumo as the male produces the seed, and Tellus the female receives and nurtures it. Tellus is the ancient earth-goddess, whereas Terra Mater is a late arrival, attested only from the second century BC; in so far as their roles are distinguished, “Terra describes the elemental world, Tellus is the name of the protecting deity” (so OCD 3 ‘Tellus’, with bibliography).

not only Ceres, but also Vesta is the earth: At Cicero, N.D. 1.40, Velleius the Epicurean spokesman states that Chrysippus, the third President of the Stoa, identifies Ceres with the earth; likewise the Stoic spokesman Balbus states (2.67) that she is the divinity of the earth, the Roman counterpart of the Greek Demeter, the etymology of which is (wrongly) claimed to be Ge-meter, Mother Earth. Vesta’s province is usually regarded as ‘altars and hearths’ ( N.D. 2.67), but Augustine at C.D. 7.16, presumably echoing Varro, writes: “Vesta too has been accounted the greatest of the goddesses, because she is the earth”, and Macrobius, Sat. 1.23.8, in discussion of Vesta’s Greek counterpart Hestia, states that “we regard her as the earth”. Arnobius (3.32) identifies Vesta with Ceres, and both with Terra.

virgins customarily tend it: It is mildly surprising that Augustine did not follow Ambrose in stressing that the Vestals were not necessarily virgins. See Mary Beard, JRS 70 (1980), 13ff.

5 to call Vesta on occasion Venus: In Macrobius, Sat. 1.21.1, Venus represents the higher hemisphere of the earth, whereas Vesta is the earth ( Sat. 1.23.8).

two Venuses…or rather three: At N.D. 3.60, Cicero (doubtless drawing on Varro) distinguishes four Venuses, the third of which, “daughter of Jupiter and Dione, was married to Vulcan, but her son Anteros is said to have been fathered by Mars”. But Augustine here distinguishes three Venuses not by their origins, but by their devotees.

He may have had in mind Apuleius’ doctrine of the two Venuses, the sensual as opposed to the chaste and spiritual (see Apol. 12).

the

Phoenicians: The allegation that Phoenicians made an offering to Astarte from money obtained from prostitution is similar to a passage in Athanasius, Contra Gentes (ed. R.W. Thomson, Oxford 1971), 26: “Of old, women in Phoenicia used to squat before idols, offering the price of their bodies to their gods, believing that by prostitution they propitiated their goddess, and won her favour by this means.” For prostitution practised in the cult of Astarte, see Donald Harden, The Phoenicians (London 1962), 132 and 185.

the son of Juno and co-worker with Minerva: This is Vulcan, whose Greek counterpart Hephaestus was the son of Hera, Greek counterpart of Juno; see Hesiod, Theog. 907. For the Athenian cult that Hephaestus shared with Athena, counterpart of Minerva, see OCD 3, s.v. ‘Hephaestus’; for the texts, see Homeric Hymn 20, Plato, Politicus 274c.

228

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

her misbehaviour with Mars: For Aphrodite’s misbehaviour with Ares (Greek counterparts of Venus and Mars), see first Homer, Od. 8.266ff., and thereafter frequently in Greek and Roman literature.

6
the evil deeds of their gods enacted on stage: Mention of Venus’ adultery with Mars leads Augustine to reiterate his obsessive condemnation of Roman stage-shows; see Book 2, chs. 4–5, 8–10, 13–14, 26–27.

XI The numerous gods, all of whom are defended by more learned pagans as being no other than Jupiter

1

So they can rationalize, etc.: In summarising these various mythological accounts of deities which the Stoics rationalize as personifications of the world-soul, the pneuma which activates the material world, Augustine draws on Cicero, N.D. 1.40, 2.66.

2 For through all elements, etc.: So Virgil, Georgics 4.221f., the climax of his description of Jupiter’s divine dispensation to the bees, which is their share in his intelligence made manifest in their communal harmony. The second line is a repetition of Ecl. 4.51. Virgil introduces the lines with quidam…dixere, probably a reference to Varro (see C.D. 7.6), here adopting Stoic physics.

Let him be Jupiter, etc.: Most of the deities cited in this paragraph are repeated from the previous chapter; see the nn. there. For “the sun, moon, and stars”, whose presence in the aether identifies them with Jupiter, see Cicero, N.D. 1.36, 2.4, 2.65.

Apollo…Mercury…Janus…Terminus: For Apollo among the seers, see Book 3.11
and 17 above. For Mercury’s role as guide in commerce, allegedly from 495 BC, see Livy 2.27.5 with Ogilvie’s nn., and for his wider functions, OCD 3 and Latte, 163.

Janus as controller of the door and more generally of beginnings, see OCD 3, with bibliography. Terminus becomes prominent in chs. 23–24 below, and in C.D. 5.21, 7.7.

Mars…Bellona…Liber…Diana:

Whether Mars, the most important Roman god after

Jupiter, was in origin a god of war or a god of agriculture, remains uncertain (see RE

142 (1930), cols. 1934–7), but his role in war became increasingly predominant. He was treated as a wild spirit whose help was needed, but who had to be kept at a distance. But Augustus welcomed his presence within the city (see W. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford 1979), 86). Bellona is less prominent, but at Livy 8.9.6 she is invoked as goddess of war while Mars is addressed as father of the realm. Liber in this context as god of wine is closely identified with his Greek counterpart Dionysus; similarly, Diana as the goddess of the forests has taken on the persona of the Greek huntress-deity Artemis.

3 Liber…Libera: Augustine, and Varro before him, distinguishes between this Liber and Liber-Dionysus just mentioned; Cicero, N.D. 2.62 likewise distinguishes them.

Liber and Libera formed with Ceres the triad of deities in the Aventine temple. In Book 7.2 Augustine identifies Libera with Venus. The festival of the Liberalia, held on March 17, celebrated the fertility, human and agricultural, with which the deities were charged. Augustine condemns the rude conduct of the festival at Book 7.21.

Let him be Diespiter: Augustine appears to regard this archaic title of Jupiter as the name of a separate deity. See Varro, L.L. 5.66, ‘antiquius Iouis nomen; nam olim Diouis et Diespiter dictus, id est Dies Pater.’

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

229

Mena…Lucina: Again at C.D. 7.2 Augustine mentions Mena as the obscure goddess who presides over women’s menstrual flow, a role shared with Juno Lucina, who as goddess of childbirth (see Terence, Adelphi 487, etc.) shares this role with Diana (e.g., Catullus 34.13f.)

Ops…Vaticanus…Levana…Cunina: Ops is abundance personified; she was considered an ancient goddess (see Varro, L.L. 5.74), wife and sister of Saturn (Ovid, Met. 9.498); as the goddess of the harvest she had two festivals. The citation of her here as Opis (so also Plautus, Bacchides 893) and her role as goddess of the newly born (see ch. 21 below) have prompted the suggestion that this is a separate goddess, but the identification of Ops with Tellus and Magna Mater (so Book 7 ch. 24) makes this distinction improbable. For Vaticanus and Cunina, see 8.1n. above. Levana was the goddess charged with the ceremonial raising of the newly-born by the father to acknowledge the child as his; see Latte, 95 n.2.

Carmentes: There was initially a single Italian deity (Carmenta or Carmentis) whom the ancients regarded as the goddess of childbirth (so Varro, ap. Gell. 16.16.4; Ovid, Fasti 1.617ff.), and who under Greek influence becomes the mother of Evander, founder of Pallanteum on the site of the future Rome. The popular etymology of her name, ‘quae nomen habes a carmine dictum’ (Ovid, Fasti 1.467) led to her being invested with prophetic powers. Later the Carmentes became two in number; see Varro, loc. cit. and Ovid, Fasti 1.653f.

Fortuna…Rumina: Fors Fortuna, a deity of Etruscan origin, had as her province ‘the incalculable element in human life’ (Warde Fowler, Roman Festivals (London 1899), 67ff.). Horace, Odes 1.35 is addressed to her in this role. She was especially worshipped at Praeneste as Fortuna Primigenia, goddess of the first-born. Here, and at ch. 21 below, Augustine, following Varro, explains Rumina’s role as supervision of suckling mothers. For this and the alternative explanation as based on Etruscan etymology, see Ogilvie’s n. on Livy 1.4.8.

Potina…Educa: It is made clear at ch. 34 below and Book 6.9 that these minor deities were charged with control over the drinking and eating of infants, not of the population as a whole.

Paventia…Venilia…Volupia…Agenoria: Paventia (Paventina in Tertullian Ad nat.

2.11) ministers to fearful infants, and as such is to be distinguished from Pavor, the personification of fear, on which see Livy 1.27.7. Venilia is the mother of Turnus in Virgil’s Aeneid (10.76) and Janus’ partner in Ovid, Met. 14.334; this unlikely etymology from uenire is Varro’s (see L.L. 5.72). For Volupia, see 8.1n. above.

Agenoria is cited again at ch. 16 below as the goddess who impels to action, a sense derived from the improbable etymology from agere; Varro therefore clearly distinguished her from the better-known Angerona, on whom see OCD 3.

Stimula…Strenia…Numeria…Camena…Consus…Sentia:

The reference to

Stimula here and at 16.1 below, coupled with mention of a grove on the Tiber in Ovid, Fasti 5.603ff., ‘Lucus erat; dubium Semelae Stimulaene uocetur’, strengthens the case for reading Stimulae (with Gronovius) at Livy 39.12.4 as the deity who was the patroness of the grove in which the scandalous ritual of the Bacchanalia was conducted. Strenia, probably as suggested here (and in ch. 16 below) the deity who guarantees vigour, supervised the grove from which laurel twigs were sent as New Year greetings on March 1st (see OCD 3 s.v. ‘strenae’). Numeria and Sentia are

230

COMMENTARY BOOK IV
otherwise unknown. Camena as the goddess of song seems to be distinguished by Varro ( L.L. 7.27) from the Camenae, goddesses of the spring outside the Porta Capena from which the Vestals drew water; they were later identified with the Muses. It is generally agreed that Varro and Augustine are mistaken about the etymology of Consus; her name derives from condere, to store (see Latte, 72 n.1). She was the goddess of the granary, with festivals appropriately on August 21 (for the harvest) and December 15 (for drawing winter supplies).

4 Iuventas…the bearded Fortuna…Nodutus…Iugatinus…Virginensis: Iuventas becomes the Roman counterpart of Hebe, the female attendant of Zeus and the Greek gods (Homer, Iliad 4.2, etc.); her statue was in the cella of Minerva in the Capitoline temple (Livy 5.54.7). Later in Book 6.1 Augustine pours scorn on the belief that those who neglect her are doomed to die or to decline in their youth. The toga praetexta, worn by upper-class boys, was abandoned for the toga uirilis at the age of sixteen or more; it was donned at an imposing ceremony at the Liberalia. See Balsdon, (London 1969), 120. The role of bearded Fortune in endowing the cheeks of young worshippers with a handsome beard is witheringly dismissed by Augustine at Book 6.1; for Tertullian’s earlier comment, see Ad nationes 2.11. For Nodutus and Iugatinus, see 8.2, 8.1 above. Virginensis is attested also at Book 6.9 but not elsewhere.

Mutinus or Tutinus…Priapus: Sexual satisfaction in marriage is the role visited on them here. There is a conflict of evidence about whether there is a single god Mutinus Tutinus (also found as Mutunus Tutunus) or two separate deities. Festus speaks of a shrine to Mutinus Tutinus, to whom veiled women were accustomed to sacrifice; see OLD s.v. Mutinus; also Latte 96, n.2. The Christian apologists regard them as two; see Arnobius 4.11, Tertullian Ad nat. 2.11, and Augustine here. This Roman deity, singular or plural, later acquires the persona of the Greek god Priapus, who superintends gardens as well as sexual activity. Priapus becomes a familiar figure at Rome, for the short poems known as Priapea are composed in Latin as well as in Greek, and he is prominent in other forms of literature. It is probably at this later stage that the custom of requiring brides to perch upon the phallus of the god, as described in Book 6.9, developed.

5
those who regard him as the world-soul: These are the Stoics, to whom Augustine turns in the next chapter. For the notion that other deities are parts or powers of Jupiter, see Cicero, N.D. 1.36, 1.40, 2.65ff.

6
all alive and have rational souls: This Stoic doctrine that the stars are divine and endowed with intelligence (see Cicero, N.D. 2.39, 42f., 55) is inherited from the Timaeus of Plato and the De Philosophia of Aristotle (though Aristotle may have changed his stance in the De Caelo; see W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy VI (Cambridge 1981), 256, n.2).

7 Priapus: See §4n. above.

XII The view of those who have believed that God is the soul of the world, and that the world is the body of God

1 is God the soul of the world…?: Augustine now turns his attention to the central doctrine of Stoic physics, which offered a philosophic rationale for the polytheism of Roman religion. For the texts, see Long-Sedley, i. 268ff., esp. 319, for the central

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

231
tenets. Augustine probably drew above all on Cicero, N.D. 2 for his understanding of the doctrine.

all the possible outcomes: It is difficult to decide whether Augustine is wholly serious or merely skittish in his suggestions that God’s body (the universe) could be damaged by being trampled on or by being partially slaughtered. This final sentence hints that the sexual behaviour of humans would be unworthy of God’s body. Here and in the next chapter the concept of the universe as analogous to a human body can hardly be taken seriously as a philosophic argument.

XIII Those who maintain that rational creatures only are parts of the one God 1 only rational animals like men form parts of God: Augustine refers here to the view of later Stoics who are at one with Neoplatonists in resurrecting the doctrine of the Timaeus, that the world-soul and human souls “consist of the same basic “stuff” ”, and again, that “our souls are derived form the cosmic soul” (so P. Merlan in Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge 1967), 24; cf. also p. 131).

2
all the gods live their separate lives: This conclusion follows not from ch. 12, which must be regarded as an observation in parenthesis, but from the arguments advanced in ch. 11.

by the king of the gods: Not that Augustine subscribes to this thesis, but he concedes it at this point to dismiss the possible claims of the other deities. He next proceeds to argue against it.

XIV It is inappropriate to attribute the growth of kingdoms to Jupiter. If Victory, as they argue, is a goddess, she alone would have been competent for this task 1

Victory is a goddess: As the counterpart of the Greek Nike, Victory had a temple as early as 294 BC (Livy 10.33.9) on the Clivus Victoriae leading up to the Palatine (Livy 29.14.14). In the late fourth century AD her altar in the Curia was repeatedly removed and replaced until in 382 AD the Christian emperor Gratian, at the instigation of Ambrose, finally refused the plea of Symmachus to restore it. Victoria (and her statue) was thus at the centre of the conflict between pagan and Christian in Augustine’s own day. For bibliography, see OCD 3, s.v. ‘Victoria’.

XV Is it appropriate for good men to seek to extend their dominion?

1 inappropriate for good men, etc.: “In a rare glimpse of his political preferences, Augustine suggests that a plurality of small kingdoms living in harmony with one another is preferable to and safer than dominant powers.” (O’Daly, 91f.).

Such necessity too is not unfittingly called a blessing: In spite of his preference for small states living in harmony, Augustine here acknowledges that Roman imperialism has been a blessing, in spite of the catalogue of injustices and disasters recounted in Book 3. When he argues here that the empire grew of necessity in the course of sustaining unjust attacks, he tacitly accepts the views of his three main sources, Cicero ( Rep. Book 2), Sallust ( Cat. 7ff.), and Livy ( Praef. 11) that at least till the fall of Carthage the empire was a beneficent institution which grew only in response to unjust

232

COMMENTARY BOOK IV
attacks. Such a view is perhaps defensible in reference to the period of the unification of Italy, but is singularly unpersuasive thereafter; see, for example, the classic study of E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 264–70 BC (Oxford 1958).

2 Fear and Pallor and Fever: Augustine cites abstract gods that personify negative concepts rather than Roman virtues, so that Injustice would be in appropriate company. The first two, Pavor and Pallor, appear in the tradition as early as the Regal period, for at Livy 1.27.7 Tullus Hostilius vows shrines to them. But modern scholars are rightly sceptical (Latte, 56, citing Wissowa in support; Ogilvie, ad loc.: “They are added to the story to provide Homeric colouring.”) They are again cited at ch. 23
below; and at Book 6.10 a lost work of the Younger Seneca is cited in criticism of such concepts of deity. On Febris, see 3.12.2 and n. above. Cicero, N.D. 3.43 mentions her temple on the Palatine, and Valerius Maximus 2.5.6 states that there were three shrines dedicated to her containing remedial objects that had been attached to invalids.

not the stone on the Capitol: Augustine refers to the statue of Jupiter, which stood in the central cella of the Capitoline temple. See Strong, 16.

XVI Why the Romans allotted individual deities to each object and each activity, but decreed that the shrine of Quies should stand outside the gates 1 Agenoria…Stimula…Strenia: See 11.3nn. above.

as Pomponius expresses it, murcidus…Murcia: There are several notable figures bearing this plebeian gentile name, but it is reasonably certain that Augustine refers to the writer of Atellane farces, L. Pomponius, who according to Jerome flourished c. 89

BC. He was a source for grammarians (see Kleine Pauly 4.1038) investigating such recondite usages as murcidus here. Augustine probably took the citation at second-hand from Varro, who mentions the goddess Murcia at L.L. 5.154, equating her with Venus. The temple of Venus Murcia was close to the Circus Maximus; see Livy 1.26.5; Apuleius, Met. 6.8.2 with Kenney’s n.; Latte, 137, n.2 for other references.

the one they called Quies: Livy (4.41.8) situates a shrine to Quies on the via Labicana, the road from Labici, 15 miles south-east of Rome. Latte, 130, speculates that the goddess was associated with Vulcan, thus guaranteeing safety from fire; this may account for the siting of the shrine outside the city precincts.

the true Physician: This is a favourite theme of Augustine and of the Fathers generally; see H. Arbesmann, ‘The concept of Christus Medicus in St Augustine’, Traditio 12 (1954), 1ff.

Learn from me, etc.: Matt. 11.29. Text as in the Vulgate except for quoniam replacing quia.

XVII If Jupiter wields supreme power, should Victory too be reckoned a deity?

1
of the true king of ages: It is notable how Augustine visualises the Christian god with his retinue of angels, much as pagan Romans see Jupiter with his attendant deities. For rege saeculorum, see Ps. 9.16, ‘Dominus regnabit…in saeculum saeculi’.

he ensures victory for the one he wills: Augustine repeatedly visualises divine Providence dictating the future of nations; see especially the extended discussion in

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

233

De Genesi ad litteram 5.20ff. God ‘sends his angel’, as at Gen. 24.7; 1 Paral. 21.15; Dan. 6.22, to achieve his will.

his design may be hidden, but it cannot be unjust: Later in Book 20.2 Augustine argues that on Judgement Day, ‘not only the judgements passed there,…but all judgements made from the beginning…will be clearly fair.’

2 such views of the gods as these: With reference to the genealogies of the Roman gods; the family-connections were intensified by the syncretism with Greek deities.

XVIII The arguments on which those who believe Felicity and Fortune to be goddesses distinguish them from each other

1
she has been awarded a shrine: It is important to realise that the cult of Felicitas was greatly enhanced at Rome under the emperors. Her prominence in dedications and on coins lent her great prestige in the eyes of Augustine’s pagan contemporaries. At ch.

23 below we learn that a temple was raised to her by L. Licinius Lucullus (consul 151

BC) shortly after 146 following his campaigns in Spain. It was situated in the Velabrum, the busy quarter between the Capitol and the Palatine. There is no mention of her cult earlier, but Sulla, Pompey, and Julius Caesar enhanced her popularity, associating her with Venus. For the details, see Kleine Pauly, 2.521.

Fortune: See above, 11.3n.

Fortune can be evil as well: There was in fact an altar dedicated to Mala Fortuna on the Esquiline, as Cicero ( Laws 2.26, N.D. 3.63) attests.

what Plato maintains: See his extended discussion at Rep. 379ff. At C.D. 8.13

Augustine reverts to Plato’s observations.

as do other philosophers: Notably the later writers in the Platonist tradition, who distinguished between gods and demons; see C.D. 8.20f.

as many as there are fortunate men: Augustine visualises numerous Fortunes attending on individual humans.

2
so blind in her random encounters: Fortune’s capricious visitations led to the epithet

‘blind’ being linked with her name. So in Apuleius, Met. 11.15, Fortune ‘in her blind course’ is contrasted with Isis, ‘the Fortune with eyes’. The portrayal of Fortune here and in Book 7.3 is a formative influence on the depiction of her in Boethius’

Consolation of Philosophy.

only evil men will worship her: That is, because virtuous pagans will concentrate their devotion on Felicity, because she rewards merit.

XIX Woman’s Fortune

1
her statue…actually spoke: Livy (2.40.12) records that a shrine to Fortuna Muliebris was erected on the Via Latina four miles from Rome, after Veturia and Volumnia had induced Coriolanus to abandon his plan of leading the Volsci to capture the city.

Augustine may have read the account of the talking statue in Valerius Maximus 1.8.4: non semel sed bis locutum (sc. simulacrum) constitit…‘rite me, matronae, dedistis riteque dicastis’. See further Ogilvie on the Livy passage; Latte, 181.

the male rather than the female Fortune: Fortuna Virilis was later regarded as the goddess guiding the fortunes of men, but originally she was the patroness of women

234

COMMENTARY BOOK IV
seeking to appear attractive to the opposite sex. The Tabula Praenestina states that on April 1st ‘frequenter supplicant Fortunae Virili; humiliores etiam in balneis, quod in iis ea parte corporis utique uiri nudantur qua feminarum gratia desideratur.’ This ritual is confirmed by Ovid, Fasti 4.147ff. See Latte, 181.

XX On Virtue and Faith, deities honoured with temples and ritual by pagans, who neglected other good qualities similarly deserving of worship, if divinity was rightly bestowed on the two mentioned

1 The Romans made Virtue too a goddess: She was initially joined with Honos,

‘personifying military courage and its reward’ ( OCD 3 s.v. ‘Honos’). Three temples were raised to them, commemorating military achievement. The one outside the Porta Capena, originally dedicated to Honos alone, was enlarged and dedicated to both in 205 BC to commemorate the victories of Claudius Marcellus (Livy 29.11.13); another was built by C. Marius to Virtus (Cicero, Sest. 116). But Augustine takes virtue not in this narrower sense but in the broader concept of moral excellence.

a whole mob of false gods will disappear: Augustine thinks of the subdivisions of virtue which Cicero discusses in De officiis I, and which he regards likewise as gifts of God.

why was Faith too regarded as a goddess?: Here too Augustine interprets the concept in a Christian rather than a traditional Roman sense. The goddess Fides governed the sanctity of oaths and solemn agreements, whether made at the level of negotiations of state or in private contracts. Though the Romans attributed the institution of her cult to Numa (Livy 1.21.4), her temple on the Capitol was not built until 254 BC (Cicero, N.D. 2.61). For the importance attached by the Romans to fides, see Cicero, Off. 3.104ff.

Virtue is to be divided into four aspects: The four cardinal virtues enumerated here go back to Plato’s Republic (427d–434c), but the Stoics expanded their scope to make way for Aristotelian concepts in the Nicomachean Ethics; thus in Cicero, De officiis, courage becomes magnanimity, and temperance the fitting.

faith is a subdivision of justice: So Cicero, Off. 1.23: “The foundation of justice is good faith, in other words truthfully abiding by our words and agreements.”

The just man lives by faith: So Rom. 1.17 (citing Habb. 2.4); also Gal. 3.11, Hebr.

10.38.

2

Why has temperance, etc.: It is true that the Romans did not canonize temperantia.

On the one hand they were late in recognising it as a virtue, and on the other Sophrosune never acquired a widespread cult in Greece (see Kleine Pauly on her modest role). As exemplars of temperantia the Scipios were doubtless in Augustine’s mind. In the Hannibalic War in Spain, Cn. Scipio “had been the first to show a specimen iustitiae temperantiaeque Romanae” (Livy 25.36.6), a tribute later echoed in a speech of Scipio Nasica during the trials of the Scipios, when he said of both brothers in Spain that they had demonstrated ‘temperantiae fideique specimen illis gentibus’ (Livy 38.58.6). The great Scipio Africanus lectured Masinissa after his brief flirtation with Sophoniba on the need to control base pleasures with temperantia (Livy 30.14.7).

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

235

why is courage not a goddess…?: It is true that fortitudo was never canonized, doubtless because Virtus was the deity who supervised courage in war; see §1 above.

it attended on Mucius: At Livy 2.12 this noble youth C. Mucius was apprehended in the Etruscan camp when he sought to assassinate Lars Porsena. To demonstrate uirtus Romana, he thrust his right hand into the flames, thus acquiring the cognomen Scaevola (‘Lefty’).

Curtius:

Livy (7.6) describes how in 362 BC an earthquake left a deep chasm in the middle of the forum. After vain attempts to fill it in, an oracular response decreed that

‘the chief resource of the Roman people’ should be dedicated to it. M. Curtius interpreted this as ‘Roman arms and courage ( uirtus)’, and in full armour he rode headlong into the pit. Perhaps this was an aetiological story to account for the existence of the lacus Curtius there, which had dried up by the time of Augustus. See Ogilvie on Livy 1.12–13.5.

the Decii, father and son: P. Decius Mus is said to have sacrificed himself in the Latin War in 340 BC to protect the Roman army; see Livy 8.9.6, who cites the formal prayer of deuotio. His son of the same name emulated the voluntary death of the father at the battle of Sentinum in 295 (Livy 10.28.12ff.)

why have prudence and wisdom not deserved a place…?: Augustine has purposefully noted that three of the cardinal virtues have failed to obtain a cult. The fourth, Iustitia, had a temple erected to her by the emperor Augustus (see Latte, 300).

When Augustine groups wisdom and prudence together, it seems clear that he is recalling Cicero’s discussion in De officiis, where together they form the first subdivision of the honestum, which Cicero equates with virtue. At Off. 1.153 he explains the distinction between them; prudentia is ‘knowledge of things to be sought and things to be avoided’, and is thus practical wisdom.

both faith and chastity: For faith deified, see §1 above. Pudicitia, the virtue of chastity in women, originally had a cult frequented by patrician matrons at a temple in the Forum Boarium. In 296 BC, however, Verginia, a patrician lady who had married the plebeian consul Volumnius and had thus surrendered patrician status, successfully agitated for the extension of the cult to plebeian matrons, for whom she built a shrine in her residence in the Vicus Longus; see Livy 10.23.3ff. Later the goddess safeguarded chastity in all women, not merely matrons who had married only once.

See Kleine Pauly, 4.1240f.; Latte 239, n.3.

XXI Those who did not know the one God ought at least to have contented themselves with Virtue and Felicity

1
learning…sought from Mercury and Minerva: Minerva was the Italian goddess of handicrafts, and was identified with Athena, Greek goddess of arts and crafts. The theory that Minerva was actually Athena who reached Rome via Etruria is seductive, for this would explain her pre-eminent position in the Capitoline Triad established in Etruscan Rome. Her temple on the Aventine was the centre for writers and actors during the Hannibalic War; see OCD 3, and for further detail, Latte, 163ff. It is more surprising to find Mercury joined with her as patron of learning; as the god of circulation, he protected businessmen and their merchandise, and mediated between gods and men, and between the dead and the living. Augustine associates him with

236

COMMENTARY BOOK IV
learning, not only because he acts as a guide in his various capacities, but also because his Greek counterpart Hermes becomes in later days the god of schools and of education: see H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (London 1956), 129, 392.

virtue…the art of good and upright living: The discussions of Sallust and Cicero are especially relevant here. For Sallust’s analysis of uirtus, see Earl, ch. 3, ‘Sallust’s concept of uirtus’, esp. p.31: “True uirtus demands also ingenium bonum expressed in
bonae artes.” Cicero in several treatises defines uirtus similarly, but at greatest length in De officiis I.

derived…art…from arete…which means virtue: Note that the spurious etymology is ascribed to Roman authors, presumably including Varro. But when Donatus on Terence, Andria 31 makes this connection, Terence is referring to the art of cookery, and Donatus accordingly interprets arete in its primary sense of ‘excellence’, not as moral goodness.

what need…of father Catius, etc.: Augustine’s knowledge of this otherwise obscure god derives from Varro, who at L.L. 7.46 explains the meaning of catus as acutus, a gloss which Augustine echoes here.

2 Lucina…Ops…Vaticanus…Cunina…Rumina: See the nn. on ch. 11 above.

Statilinus…Adeona…Abeona: These deities are known only through Augustine’s citations of Varro here and at Book 7.2.

Mens: Her temple on the Capitol was vowed as one of the religious measures following the Roman disaster at Lake Trasimene in 217 BC (Livy 23.9.9), and it was restored by Aemilius Scaurus, the eminent princeps senatus, shortly before 100 BC

(Cicero, N.D. 2.61).

Volumnus…Volumna…Fructesea: Volumna must be an alternative spelling of Voltumna, perhaps introduced to explain the bogus etymology from uolo. Voltumna was a major Etruscan deity with a shrine at Volsinii (modern Orvieto), the religious centre of the Etruscan League; see Livy 4.20.5; 6.2.2 with S.P. Oakley’s learned n. It follows that Volumnus is a corrupt form of Vortumnus, the chief god at Volsinii (see Propertius, 4.2.4), who was later transferred to Rome. See Latte, 191. Fructesea is otherwise unknown.

Mars…Bellona…Victoria…Honos: See nn. on 11.2, 14.1, 20.1.

Pecunia: This minor goddess attracted little attention from other writers apart from Arnobius (4.9). Juvenal 1.113 indicates that she had no temple. Cicero, N.D. 3.47 lists Moneta disparagingly among other abstract deities, including ‘any concept imaginable’, but she may be goddess of the Mint.

Aesculanus…Argentinus:

These gods are otherwise unknown. Augustine correctly indicates the evolution of Roman coinage. Bronze coins are issued following the practice of Greek cities in southern Italy in the late fourth century BC, soon followed by the minting of silver. Gold coins were first issued in the later years of the Hannibalic War. See the summary account in OCD 3, s.v. ‘Coinage, Roman’.

Jupiter above Saturn: See 10.3n. above.

3 Fessona…Pellonia: Fessona is otherwise unknown; Pellonia has isolated mention in Arnobius 4.4, ‘pellendorum hostium dea potens.’

Apollo and Aesculapius: Apollo, as healing god, was adopted at Rome as early as 433 BC when, to avert a plague, a temple was dedicated to him between the Circus

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

237

Flaminius and the Forum Holitorium (Livy 4.25.3, with Ogilvie’s n.). This was the only temple of Apollo Medicus at Rome; his role as healer was overshadowed by his son Aesculapius, brought from Epidaurus during a similar plague in 293 BC (Livy 10.47.7; Ovid, Met. 15.626ff.; Latte, 225). His temple and sanctuary on the island in the Tiber became a centre of healing, though it is significant that neither Galen nor Celsus refers to the cult, which perhaps suggests that it afforded spiritual rather than medicinal therapy.

Spiniensis…Robigo: Spiniensis is otherwise unknown. Robigo is the goddess who protects the crops from mould. Presumably her undesired intervention came only when the corn was showing damage (Ovid, Fasti 4.911: ‘Aspera Robigo, parcas cerialibus herbis!’) The festival of the Robigalia on April 25th indicates the importance of the goddess; for the numerous references to it, especially in the Christian apologists, see Latte, 67 n.3.

XXII Knowledge of how to worship the gods such as Varro boasts he has conferred on the Romans

1 the service which Varro boasts that he provides: For Varro’s researches, see Introduction, p. 11f.; C.D. 3.4.1n. For Cicero’s heartfelt tribute, see Acad. 1.9.

the name and appearance: The implication here is that Varro’s contemporaries can recognise representations of deities, but are ignorant of their roles.

what mimic actors often do: Such broad humour would be appropriate in mimes performed at the Liberalia; see 11.3 above.

XXIII The Romans revered many gods, but for a long time they did not accord divine honours to Felicity in worship, though she alone could have stood in competently for all of them

1
a shrine…by Lucullus: See 18.1n. above. This Lucullus is not the celebrated consul of 74 BC, but his grandfather (consul 151 BC) who built the temple after his operations in Spain.

Janus,

Jupiter, etc.: These lists of deities whose cults were allegedly inaugurated by the first three kings of Rome were doubtless assembled by Varro, from whom Seneca will have drawn in his lost treatise De superstitionibus. Later in the C.D. Augustine (Book 6.10) cites this work to inform the reader that Picus and Tiberinus were awarded cults by Romulus, Cluacina by Titus Tatius, and Pavor and Pallor by Tullus Hostilius. At Livy 1.19.2 the shrine of Janus presumably predates the reign of Numa, and Livy (1.10.9) states that the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was the first to be dedicated at Rome. The shrine of Mars is implicitly ascribed to Romulus by Cicero, Div. 1.30 (cf. Plutarch, Camillus 33.6). For the cults of Faunus (not actually attested until 195 BC; Livy 33.42.10) and of Hercules, see Livy 1.7.2: ‘sacra dis aliis Albano ritu, Graeco Herculi (Romulus)…facit.’

Why did Titus Tatius…Cluacina?: The Sabine king Tatius amalgamated his kingship with that of Romulus after their communities were reconciled (Livy 1.13.4).

All the deities associated with him here are, with the exception of Lux, ascribed to him by Varro, L.L. 5.74. For Cluacina, see the n. above.

238

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

Numa: In the legendary account of the Regal period, he was the second king (715–

673 BC) after Romulus. He was regarded as the originator of the systematised Roman religion, as the founder of various cults, priesthoods, and calendar reforms. ‘Inclita iustitia religioque ea tempestate Numae Pompili erat’ (Livy 1.18.1).

King Hostilius…Pavor and Pallor: Tullus Hostilius, the third king (672–641 BC), was depicted in the tradition as a warlike figure; hence the cults of Pavor and Pallor appositely attributed to him. See 15.2n.

2

When Felicity was adopted: See 18.1n. Augustine mistakenly assumes that it was the grandson (consul 74 BC) and not the grandfather who founded the shrine. The younger Lucullus served with Sulla in the Civil War.

Priapus,

Cluacina, etc.: For these deities, see above, 11.4, 6.1, 23.1, 15.2, and nn.

3 the Di Consentes: Varro, De re rustica 1.1.4 writes of these ‘gods in harmony’:

‘…deos Consentes, quorum imagines ad forum auratae stant, sex mares et feminae totidem.’ The twelve are commonly identified with those that were assembled at the lectisternium in 217 BC following the disaster of Lake Trasimene. Livy 22.10.9 lists them as Jupiter and Juno, Neptune and Minerva, Mars and Venus, Apollo and Diana, Vulcan and Vesta, Mercury and Ceres.

the gods whom they call the elite: At C.D. 7.2 Augustine lists these twenty select deities, stating that Varro ‘encloses them within a single book’; they are the twelve Di Consentes together with Janus, Saturn, Genius, Sol, Orcus, Liber pater, Tellus, and Luna.

4
what…Mars, Terminus, and Iuventas did to him: Varro’s account must have made mention of all three shrines. Cato (fr. 24 P) states that only the shrine of Terminus was exempted from destruction, and this is echoed in the accounts of Livy 1.55.3 and Ovid, Fasti 2.669ff. Terminus was worshipped in the form of a rough stone; see Lactantius, Inst. 1.20.37. At C.D. 5.21 Augustine again refers to Terminus, ‘qui non cesserat Ioui’, but the passage does not exclude the other two shrines. Livy’s version of the speech of Camillus at 5.54.7 includes Iuventas with Terminus in their refusal to make way for the temple of Jupiter; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 3.69. The refusal of Mars is not recorded elsewhere.

he used augury: So Livy 1.55.3, ‘cum omnium sacellorum exaugurationes admitterent aues, in Termini fano non addixere.’

5 to lurk unseen: That is, to have their statues mounted inconspicuously within the shrine of Felicitas, rather than to give place and be sited more prominently elsewhere.

7
some god called Summanus: See Latte, 208f. It seems probable that originally the name was an epithet of Jupiter, since his statue was set on the roof of the Capitoline temple (Cicero, Div. 1.16, Livy, Per. 14). After the statue was beheaded by a thunderbolt in 278 BC, the god was granted a separate temple in the Circus Maximus (see Livy 32.29.1 with Briscoe’s n.). His supervision of lightning in the hours of darkness is mentioned also by Pliny, N.H. 2.138.

XXIV The basis on which the pagans defend their worship of divine gifts as though they were gods

1 not gods, but gifts from heaven: This justification of the deification of abstract qualities echoes the Stoic explanation advanced by Balbus in Cicero, N.D. 2.60f.: “Our

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

239
own ancestors have set up and lent names to many…divine natures because of the great benefits which they have conferred…They did this because they believed that anything which bestows some great service on the human race did not originate without divine beneficence.” The examples adduced by Balbus in this passage, and echoed by Augustine here, include Virtus, Honos, Concordia, and Victoria.

Bellona…Cunina…Segetia…Pomona…Bubona:

The first three have already been
listed in chs. 8 and 11 above; see the nn. there. Pomona was important enough to have her own flamen, though he was the lowest in rank; see OCD 3 and Latte, 74. She is mentioned again in association with Bubona at ch. 34 below; Bubona is otherwise unattested.

Pecunia…Virtus…Honos…Victoria: For these goddesses, see the nn. on chs. 20–21
above.

XXV Worship of the one God alone who is felt to bestow felicity, though his name is unknown

1
those whose hearts have not been hardened: An indication is given here that the treatise is directed not only at fellow-Christians, to sustain faltering faith, but also at pagans of good will who are ready to entertain rational arguments.

they sufficiently showed: This translates the transmitted reading indicarunt, but there is a strong case for reading iudicarunt (“they were sufficiently convinced”).

2
one who seduced others’ wives: Jupiter’s amours are mostly with single women, but Leda and Alcmena both bore him children (see Ovid, Met. 6.108, 9.23).

ravisher of a handsome boy: Augustine doubtless thinks of Virgil, Aen. 1.28, ‘rapti Ganymedis honores’. R.G. Austin’s n. on that passage traces the Greek tradition, beginning with Homer, Il. 20.231ff., of the acquisition of the cup-bearer.

XXVI The stage-shows which the gods demanded to have mounted in their honour by their devotees

1

But Cicero says: At Tusc. 1.65 Cicero passes this comment in the course of criticism of Homer’s account of the rape of Ganymede (hence a connection with the previous chapter) and the punishment of Laomedon. Cicero did not originate the bon mot; it had already been coined earlier by Xenophanes (so Diogenes Laertius 9.18). Such condemnation of Homer for ascribing immoral behaviour to the gods was thus voiced by the Presocratics, and became commonplace after Plato’s criticism at Rep. 377d ff.

Augustine was familiar with it especially from Cicero, N.D. 1.42, 2.70 (“Those idiotic narratives induce idiotic beliefs”).

that man of high seriousness: Augustine had proclaimed himself a devotee of Cicero at the age of eighteen ( Conf. 3.4.7), and he cites his philosophical and political works, notably the Republic, repeatedly in the course of the C.D. For his lifelong attachment to Cicero, see M. Testard, Augustin et Cicéron, 2 vols. (Paris 1958). The tribute here echoes the earlier judgement at Book 2.27, ‘uir grauis’.

the
stage-shows: As often, Augustine echoes his condemnation of these in Book 1.32, Book 2.4–8, 13–14.

240

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

2
among the virtues and reputable deeds: The phraseology appears to make reference to the handbook of Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri nouem, composed in the reign of Tiberius. There are apparent echoes of V.M. 1.7.4
here, but equally there are parallels with the versions in Cicero ( Div. 1.55) and in Livy (2.36). All three accounts may derive ultimately from a common source, presumably Varro, though Cicero indicates that “all our historians, the Fabii and the Gellii, record it”.

A curious twist to the story is that Macrobius ( Sat. 1.11.3ff.) dates it to 279 BC, and the recipient of the dream in his account is Annius, not Latinius. It is persuasively argued (see Ogilvie on Livy 2.38) that the story was transferred back to 494 BC as an incident in the war with the Latins; hence the substitution of the name Latinius for Annius.

on the first day of the games: These were the ludi maximi, allegedly instituted by Tarquinius Priscus; see Livy 1.35.9, ‘Sollemnes deinde annui mansere ludi, Romani Magniue uarie appellati.’ But they may not have become annual until 366 BC; see Balsdon, 245ff., with bibliography.

four times the previous amount of money: This detail does not appear in any of the other accounts (though Livy speaks of ‘ludi quam amplissimi’), encouraging the speculation that Varro is the source.

XXVII The three categories of gods discussed by the pontiff Scaevola 1
the pontiff Scaevola: Quintus Mucius Scaevola (consul 95 BC, pontifex maximus 89

BC) was the leading lawyer of the day; Cicero De oratore 1.180 bestows lavish praise on him (“among lawyers the best orator, among orators the best lawyer”). As a partisan of Sulla, he was slain by the pro-Marian city-praetor Brutus Damasippus in 82

BC “in front of the statue of Vesta” (Cicero, N.D. 3.80). He composed a book of definitions ( Horoi) from which this classification of the gods may have come. See OCD 3, s.v. ‘Mucius Scaevola, Quintus’.

three categories of gods: It is probable that Scaevola adopted this classification from the Stoic philosopher Panaetius; see the discussion in J.M. Rist, Stoic Philosophy (Cambridge 1969), 178ff. Varro in his turn adopted the scheme from Scaevola; see J.

Pepin, ‘La théologie tripartite de Varron’, Revue des études Augustiniennes 2 (1956), 265–94. Varro is Augustine’s source here, as the citation later in this chapter indicates.

superfluous…detrimental: This criticism of the philosophers’ view of the gods suggests that this was Scaevola’s gloss on Panaetius, the view of the pragmatic statesman rather than the philosopher.

2
what is superfluous does no harm: So the codex Iustinianus 6.23.17.

Hercules, Aesculapius…are not gods: The reference to ‘learned men’ is chiefly to Euhemerus of Messene (fl. 300 BC), who wrote a travel-story, ‘The Sacred Scripture’, in which he described a monument on the island of Panchaea which depicted Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus as earthly kings. Ennius wrote an Euhemerus based on it, depicting Jupiter, among others, as a hero-turned-god. The term ‘Euhemerism’ was subsequently coined for the process by which meritorious humans were deified after death.

Persaeus, a minor Stoic, introduced the concept into Stoic theology (Cicero, N.D.

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

241

1.119). The four deities mentioned here are all cited by the Stoic Balbus in Cicero, N.D. 2.62 as men deified for outstanding service to mankind.

States do not possess true representations of gods: The observation that statues do not represent the gods’ true nature was already voiced by the Presocratics (e.g.

Xenophanes, fr. 23, “One god, greatest among gods and men, is in no way similar to mortals either in body or in thought.”) In Hellenistic philosophy the Academics criticised the Epicureans for their belief that the gods possessed human features since they were more beautiful than those of other creatures (Cf. Cicero, N.D. 1.81ff.). For the same reason statues were forbidden in Hebraic religion; cf. Deut. 5.8, etc.

Varro…does not hesitate to say the same things: See Book 3.4 and nn.

3
one as a thief, another as an adulterer: The criticism is as old as Xenophanes, fr. 11:

“Homer and Hesiod have assigned to the gods all that is a shame and a reproach among men – thieving, adultery, and deceiving each other.” Plato takes up the theme at Rep. 377e ff. The classic example of divine theft is Mercury’s theft of Apollo’s cattle; see e.g. Horace, Odes 1.10.9ff. For Jupiter’s adultery, see ch. 25.2 above.

three goddesses competed with each other: For the judgement of Paris and its sequel, see Book 3.3.1n.

Jupiter…a bull or a swan: Jupiter became a bull to captivate Europa; see Horace, Odes 3.27, etc. He became a swan to copulate with Leda; see e.g. Ovid, Met. 6.109ff.

The two are likewise combined in Arnobius 5.22.

a goddess marries a man…Saturn devours his children: Augustine doubtless thinks of Venus’ love-liaison with Anchises, or her marriage to Adonis (Cicero, N.D.

3.59). For Saturn devouring his children (and the Stoic symbolic interpretation) see Cicero, N.D. 2.64.

4

“You pontiffs have instituted these practices”: See Book 1.32.1–2nn., citing Livy 7.2 for the institution of shows to relieve the plague in 364 BC.

5
for they are demons: See Book 2.10, 24–25, 29, etc.

XXVIII Did worship of their gods help the Romans to obtain and to extend their empire?

1
they did not exempt themselves, etc.: At Book 2.9f., Augustine makes a distinction between the Greeks, who allowed their poets licence to attack living persons as well as gods, and the Romans, who vetoed such attacks on their statesmen while permitting denigration of the gods.

even reckoned them worthy of outstanding honours: A distinction is likewise made in Book 2.11f. between the Greek practice of allowing actors to secure public office, and the Romans in refusing even the citizenship to them. See the nn. in my edition.

2 Aurinus…Argentinus…Aesculanus: See ch. 21.2 above and n.

XXIX The bogus nature of the prophecy which seemed to presage the strength and stability of Roman rule

1
a truly splendid augury, which I mentioned a moment ago: See ch. 23.4. It was augury in the strict sense of bird-watching, as the Livy passage makes clear (1.55.3).

Presumably the gloss on the roles of the three deities was appended by Varro.

from their physical abodes: That is, their temples.

242

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

2
the falsity of the augury: The augury had merely forbidden the shrines of the three deities to be destroyed to make way for the temple of Jupiter. Augustine takes over Varro’s (?) claim that the augury portended the future protection of Rome by the three deities.

the victorious invading Gauls: See C.D. 2.17.8, 4.7.2 for the fall of Rome to the Gauls in 390 BC (so Livy).

many communities deserted to Hannibal: For the list of defecting cities, see Polybius 3.118.3; Livy 22.61.12. But these communities for the most part did not actively support Hannibal after they deserted Rome; see CAH VIII2, 52f.

3
the decision of Hadrian: Hadrian’s predecessor Trajan went to war with Parthia in AD 113–17 to establish Rome’s nominee on the throne of Armenia. He first conquered Armenia and established it as a province in 114; Mesopotamia likewise became a province in 115, and perhaps also Assyria in 116–17. But Trajan died in 117
with his operations incomplete, and Hadrian (emperor 118–37) immediately renounced the conquests to avoid becoming embroiled in further hostilities, and restored the Euphrates as Rome’s eastern frontier. See F. Millar, The Roman Empire and its Neighbours (London 1967), 117; in greater detail, Th. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire (London 1909), ii.66ff. Eutropius 8.6.2 is Augustine’s source here.

Julian, in deference to the oracles: Julian the Apostate (emperor AD 361–3) nurtured an ambition to settle by force Rome’s long-running dispute with Sapor II of Persia. Having marched down the Euphrates from Antioch in March 363, he defeated the Persian army before Ctesiphon, but was dissuaded from attempting to storm the city. Harassment by enemy forces induced him to attempt to join up with the Roman supporting army under Procopius on the upper Tigris. Ammianus (24.7.4) reports that he ordered all his ships to be burnt except twelve smaller vessels so that they would not fall into enemy hands. The claim that he did this in obedience to oracles may be a Christian gloss on Ammianus’ comment that the ships were burnt ‘tamquam funesta face Bellonae’, a goddess to whom he was especially devoted; see J. Fontaine’s commentary in the Budé Ammianus, V.192.

the borders were established midway: See the next n.

4 the compulsion laid on Jovian: Julian died through enemy action en route from Ctesiphon, and was succeeded as emperor by his senior staff-officer Jovian, who died eight months later in February 364. Julian had left the Roman army in severe difficulty through lack of supplies and the harassment of the enemy, and Jovian was compelled to accept an humiliating settlement in order to extricate his forces. Five of the nine satrapies beyond the Tigris were ceded to Persia, together with fifteen fortresses and the towns of Nisibis, Singara, and Castra Maurorum. See Ammianus 25.7.9–12.

religious worship…directed to the natural world: Augustine refers to the symbolic interpretation of Roman deities as representing the fiery pneuma at work throughout the creation. At Div. 2.149, Cicero states: “We must perpetuate religious belief which is closely associated with the knowledge of nature.” See also the citation in the next chapters, and the texts in Long-Sedley, i.266ff.

as the Apostle puts it: The citation is from Romans 1.25, text as in the Vulgate.

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

243

XXX What on their own admission the worshippers of the pagan gods believe about them 1

Cicero, though an augur: The augurs were one of the four main colleges of priests, instituted under Etruscan influence in the Regal period to divine the future from the flight of birds. Cicero was appointed to the college on the proposal of Pompey and Hortensius in 53 BC. He did not believe in augury, but the priesthood was a coveted decoration for a prominent politician. See Rawson, 139f.

laughs at augury: The passage in Augustine’s mind is Div. 2.70–73, where Cicero speaks propria persona, beginning: “You may say that an augur finds it difficult to argue against augury. Yes, for a Marsian perhaps, but for a Roman it is very easy. We Roman augurs are not such as foretell the future by scrutiny of the flight of birds and the other signs.”

an Academic, he maintains that all things are uncertain: In his journey towards Christian conversion, Augustine at Milan briefly adopted the scepticism of the Academics ( Conf. 5.10.19), and subsequently at Cassiciacum he wrote his Contra Academicos. Thus he was thoroughly acquainted with Cicero’s philosophical stance.

Cicero adopted from Carneades (214–129 BC), founder of the Third Academy, the view that no objective certainty could be established, and that we must base our attitudes on what is probable at any time. For the views of Carneades, see Cicero Acad. 2.99, and for a robust defence of Cicero’s own stance, see Off. 2.7–8. For the Academics in general, see the texts in Long-Sedley, 1.438ff., and Long, Hellenistic Philosophy, 75ff., 223ff.

Balbus: He was little known in political life, but celebrated as a Stoic philosopher.

See Cicero, N.D. 1.15: “His studies among the Stoics were so advanced that he bore comparison with the outstanding Greeks of his school.” See also Cicero, Brutus 154.

2

“So do you now realise” , etc.: See N.D. 2.70. I reproduce my translation from the edition in the Oxford World’s Classics (1998), 72. Augustine’s text is identical with that of the Teubner (ed. W. Ax, Leipzig 1961), except that the transmitted text has tracta ratio sit for Augustine’s ratio sit tracta; ut cum Gigantibus for Augustine’s aut cum Gigantibus; and at the close of the passage inutilitatis for Augustine’s uanitatis.

the Titans…and the Giants: The Titans, led by Kronos, warred with Zeus; see Hesiod, Theog. 137f., 154ff. For the gods’ struggle with the Giants, who were repelled to earth, see Apollodorus 1.6.1.

3

‘It was not merely the philosophers…’: So N.D. 2.71f. (text as in Ax). The derivation of superstitiosus from superstes must be correct, but the suggestion made here is fanciful. Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4.28, suggests instead that surviving children ( superstites) used to worship their departed parents as divine. But more probably the word superstes implies ‘a state of religious exaltation’ (so OCD 3), from the literal sense of super-stare.

4

Cicero…seeks…to detach it (sc. religion) from superstition: Cicero repeatedly and emphatically distinguishes the two, above all in the extended discussion at the close of De diuinitate (2.148f.). For Cicero, as for Varro before him, superstitio implied the renunciation of reason in submitting to servitude under tyrannical deities. It was regarded as especially characteristic of foreign cults like the Bacchanalia (see Livy 39.16.9f.). Later at Book 6.9 Augustine quotes Varro’s dictum that superstitious individuals regard and fear the gods as enemies, whereas religious people love them as

244

COMMENTARY BOOK IV
parents. The reverence for tradition, which characterises Roman thinking, exposes Cicero to the just criticism of Augustine here.

5

Let us Christians give thanks…to him who made heaven and earth: The liturgical echoes are striking. The Preface of the Mass is introduced with ‘Gratias agamus domino deo nostro’, and the verse from Ps. 123.8, ‘Adiutorium nostrum in nomine domini, qui fecit caelum et terram’ was said at the beginning of Mass.

through the humility of Christ: For Augustine, humility is a pre-eminent virtue; in his treatise De sancta uirginitate (ed. Walsh, Oxford 2001) he devotes a long excursus to it, with Christ as the supreme exemplar (35ff.).

XXXI The views of Varro, who censured popular beliefs. Though he did not attain knowledge of the supreme God, he argued that we should worship the one God 1 included
stage-shows
among divine affairs: Augustine has already alluded to this in ch. 1 above. For a detailed account of the division between human and divine affairs in Varro’s work, see Introduction, p. 11; C.D. 6.3.

more in accord with the pattern of nature: See 29.4n. above.

2 their mystery-rites in silence behind closed doors: Varro makes the point that mystery-religions such as those practised at Eleusis demanded a personal commitment leading to intense communion with a particular deity and a freedom from the fear-bound superstition of many official cults. Augustine as always has in mind the exemplar of Isis-worship as described in the final book of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.

For Varro, such attachment to the worship of a single deity draws close to his recommendation of worship of the world-soul.

3 the soul who governs the universe with motion and reason: Varro claimed adherence to the Academic school as Cicero did, but unlike Cicero, who reflects the views of Carneades, he was greatly influenced by study at Athens under Antiochus of Ascalon, founder of the Fifth Academy, whose views drew close to those of Stoicism (see Cicero, Acad. 2.132). Varro’s view of God as detailed here echoes the Stoic doctrine as outlined by Cicero at N.D. 1.4.

the true God is not a soul: Augustine here discusses soul in the Stoic sense of the material pneuma, which activates all nature.

4 for more than one hundred and seventy years: Varro was responsible for the establishment of the conventional date of the foundation of Rome in 753 BC, so he claims here that no cult-statues existed at Rome until c. 580 BC in the reign of Tarquinius Priscus. This accords with the tradition that Priscus’ father, Demaratus, brought from Corinth to Italy three artists who taught Etruscans the art of sculpture in terracotta. Veii became an artistic centre of such work, and Varro was presumably alluding to the statue of Jupiter, moulded by the Veian sculptor Vulca, which stood in the Capitoline temple, as the first statue to appear in Rome. See Pliny, N.H. 25, 152ff., 157; R. Bloch, The Origins of Rome (London 1960), 107f.; Strong, I 16.

he calls as witness…the Jewish nation: Varro refers to the prohibition of graven images as evidenced at Exod. 20.4, 34.17; Deut. 27.15. Christian apologists in the west adopted a similar stance; hence Augustine’s approval of Varro’s attitude here.

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

245

how close to the truth he has come: At numerous points in the C.D. (3.4.1, 3.17.22; 6.2; 6.7; 7.5, etc.) Augustine expresses admiration for Varro’s intelligence and scholarship; such passages as this reveal the main reason for the respect shown to him.

5
the unique sacrifice…the gift of the Spirit: The sacrifice is Christ’s crucifixion. For the gift of the Spirit, see John 14.26.

XXXII The ostensible advantage which led rulers of nations to seek to have false religions continuing among the people subject to them

1
gave credence to the sexual activity, etc.: It is surprising that Varro does not stress that this was more characteristic of Greek concepts of deity (later adopted by the Romans) than of Roman primitive ideas of the gods.

they bound them more suitably: It is tempting to adopt the variant artius (‘more closely’), but aptius is better attested.

XXXIII The eras of all kings and all kingdoms have been laid down by the judgement and power of the true God

1
since he alone is the true God, etc.: In both the Retractationes and in the letter to Firmus (both published as Appendices in Books I–II) Augustine states that the first ten books of the C.D. are to be a critique of the pagan city, but that from time to time he will intersperse apposite observations in contrast about the city of God. These final two chapters of Book Four round off the criticisms of the pagan gods and the dissolute morals that they foster with the contrasting virtues of the Jerusalem to come.

earthly kingdoms to good and evil men alike: Given that the death of Julian the Apostate had been followed by Christian rulers, Augustine’s remarks here and at the close of the preceding chapter seem jaundiced. But on the one hand his reflections are offered in summary of the good and evil leaders in Rome’s history, and on the other

“the Christian Roman empire had come to be ruled by a small group of men, violent, petty, and corrupt” (so Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 337, with reference notably to recent events in Carthage, including the execution of Marcellus, a devout Christian, in 413).

the dispensation…hidden from us, but wholly known to him: This Leitmotiv of God’s dispensation, the justice of which is hidden from us, appears most explicitly at C.D. 20.2; see also 2.23.11, 4.7.3, 4.17.1, 5.19, etc.

2 the sacred mystery of the Old Testament: In pre-Christian Rome, sacramentum (‘that which makes sacred’) was used to specify an oath taken over a civil contract, or for swearing military allegiance. In Christian Latin it translates the Greek musterion at Eph. 5.32, thus describing marriage as a sacred mystery of allegiance. Thereafter it came to mean a visible sign of invisible grace, with specific reference to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, and more generally to other tokens of divine reality. For Augustine, the Old Testament is a sacramentum in this sense, its earthly blessings being symbols of divine verities. He had learnt to interpret the Old Testament (earlier a stumbling-block to conversion) in this way from Ambrose. See Conf. 6.5.7.

246

COMMENTARY BOOK IV

in which the New lay concealed: Augustine exemplifies this at C.D. 16.26 with the interpretation of Gen. 17. He adds there: “What is that which we call the New Testament but the revelation of the Old?”

XXXIV The kingdom of the Jews which was established and preserved by the one true God for so long as they continued in the true religion 1
he multiplied his people: So Exod. 1.7 and 20.

Lucina, etc.: For the assemblage of these petty deities, see chs. 11 and 21.

to slay all their children: At Exod. 1.16, the Pharaoh instructs the midwives to kill the boys but not the girls.

the sea divided, etc.: See Exod. 14.21–30.

when they ate manna from heaven: Exod. 16.14ff.

the rock was struck: See Exod. 17.6.

Mellona:

This is the only deity mentioned here who did not appear in the earlier lists.

She appears in Arnobius (4.7) as Mellonia.

2 unholy
curiosity: On the prominence of this concept in the C.D. , stigmatized as the vice by which men seek to attain knowledge of God by paths other than the Christian religion, see Book 3.4.2n. Elsewhere he calls it sacrilega curiositas, a phrase apparently borrowed from Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 5.6.

worship of alien gods and idols: Augustine refers to such O.T. passages as the worship of the golden calf ( Exod. 32.2ff.), the misconduct of Manasseh ( 2 Chron.

33.2ff.), and condemnations by the prophets ( Isa. 2.8ff., Hosea 4.12ff., etc.).

the Jews are now scattered: Augustine speaks from personal experience. There was a large colony of Jews at Hippo, to which he makes frequent reference. See Serm. 9.3, 129.3, 196.4, etc.

was prophesied long ago: Augustine argues that the reason why the Jews were dispersed throughout the world was because they surrendered to false beliefs, and refused to acknowledge Christ’s coming, in spite of their prophetic books which foretold it. He expounds this thesis at greater length in Book 18.46. Here he argues that the same prophetic utterances foretold the end of all false beliefs and practices, including those of the Romans, with the onset of the Christian era.

3

What follows from this: Augustine is to argue in Book 5 that since the Christian God is the true God, all blessings must be conferred by him, including the providential growth and continuity of the Roman Empire.

Indices

( References are to Book, Chapter and Section)

1. SCRIPTURE

Genesis

Romans

6.1ff.: III 5.1

1.17: IV 20.1

Psalms

1.25: IV 29.4

10.3: III 14.9

2 Peter

Matthew

2.19: IV 3.4

5.45: IV 2.5

11.29: IV 16.1

2. THE ROMAN GODS

Abeona IV 21.2

Diana III 11.3; IV 11.2

Adeona IV 21.2

Diespiter IV 11.3

Aesculanus IV 21.2, 28.2

Aesculapius III 12.1ff., 17.14ff.;

Educa IV 11.3, 34.1

IV 21.2, 22.1, 27.2

Agenoria IV 11.3, 16.1

Faunus IV 23.1

Apollo III 2.1f., 11.1f., 17.17;

Fear (Pavor) IV 15.2, 23.1f.

IV 11.2, 21.3

Felicity IV 18.1f., 19.1, 22.1ff., 23.1ff.,

Argentinus IV 21.2, 28.2

24.1, 25.1

Fessona IV 21.3

Bellona III 13.3, 25.4;

Fever III 12.2, 25.4; IV 15.2, 23.2

IV 11.2, 21.2, 24.1, 34.1

Faith (Fides) IV 20.8ff.

Bubona IV 24.1, 34.1

Flora IV 8.2

Forculus IV 8.3

Camena IV 11.3

Fortuna IV 11.3f., 18.1f.

Cardea IV 8.3

Fortuna Barbata IV 11.4

Carmentes IV 11.3

Fortuna Muliebris IV 19.1

Castor IV 27.2

Fructesea IV 21.2

Catius IV 21.1

Ceres IV 11.2

Health (Salus) III 25.2

Cluacina IV 8.1, 23.1f.

Hercules III 11.3; IV 23.1, 27.2

Collatina IV 8.1

Honos IV 21.2, 24.1

Concord III 25.1ff., 26.1; IV 24.1

Hostilina IV 8.2

Consus IV 11.3

Cunina IV 8.1ff., 11.3, 21.2, 24.1, 34.1

Janus III 9.1, 10.5; IV 11.2, 23.1

Cybele III 12.1ff.

Jugatinus IV 8.1, 11.4

Cynoscephalus III 12.2

Juno III 13.1ff.; IV 10.1ff., 11.1f.

Jupiter passim

248

INDICES

Juventas IV 11.4, 23.4f., 29.1f.

Quies IV 16.1

Lacturnus IV 8.2

Robigo IV 21.3

Levana IV 11.3

Rumina IV 21.2, 34.1

Liber, god of wine IV 11.2, 22.1

Runcina IV 8.2

Liber, god of seeds IV 11.3

Libera IV 11.3

Salacia IV 10.1, 11.2

Limentinus IV 8.3

Saturn IV 8.3, 11.2, 21.2, 23.1, 27.3

Lubentina IV 8.1

Segetia IV 8.1ff., 24.1, 34.1

Lucina IV 11.3, 21.2, 34.1

Seia IV 8.1

Luna IV 23.1

Sentia IV 11.3

Lux IV 23.1

Sol IV 23.1

Spiniensis IV 21.3

Mars III 3.4, 5.1ff.; IV 11.2, 21.2, 23.1,

Statilinus IV 21.2

23.4f., 29.1, 34.1

Stimula IV 11.3, 16.1

Matuta IV 8.2

Strenia IV 11.3, 16.1

Mellona IV 34.1

Mena IV 11.3

Tellumo IV 10.4

Mens IV 21.2

Tellus IV 19.4

Mercury IV 11.2, 21.1

Terminus IV 11.2, 23.4f., 29.1ff.

Minerva III 7.7, 8.1;

Terra IV 10.4

IV 10.3, 10.5, 11.2, 21.1

Tiberinus IV 23.1

Murina IV 16.1

Tutilina IV 8.1

Mutinus or Tutinus IV 11.4

Tutinus see Mutinus

Neptune III 2; IV 10.1, 11.2, 24.1

Vallonia IV 8.1

Nodutus IV 8.2f., 11.4

Vaticanus IV 8.1, 11.3, 21.2

Venilia IV 11.3

Ops IV 11.3, 21.2

Venus III 3.3f., 5.1, 13.1, 13.3, 14.4,

25.3; IV 10.5, 27.3

Pallor IV 15.2, 23.1f.

Vesta III 5.3f., 18.6f., 28.2;

Patelina IV 8.2

IV 10.4f., 11.2

Paventia IV 11.3

Victory IV 14.1, 15.2, 17.1f., 21.2, 24.1

Pecunia IV 21.2, 24.1

Virginensis IV 11.4

Pellonia IV 21.3

Picus IV 23.1

Virtue IV 20.1, 21.1, 21.4, 24.1

Pluto IV 10.1, 11.2

Volumna IV 21.2

Pollux IV 27.2

Volumnus IV 21.2

Pomona IV 24.1, 34.1

Volupia IV 8.1, 11.3

Potina IV 11.3, 34.1

Volutina IV 8.2

Priapus IV 11.4, 11.7, 23.2, 34.1

Vulcan III 3.3; IV 10.5, 11.2, 23.1

Proserpina IV 8.2, 10.1, 11.2

INDICES

249

3. GENERAL

Achaeans III 11.1

Cicero III 30.4ff., 31.2; IV 30.1, 30.4f.

Achilles III 2.2

• Republic III 15.3ff.

Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos 78 BC)

• Third Catilinarian III 15.5, 27.1

III 30.2

• Hortensius III 15.5

Aeneas III 2.2, 3.2ff., 5.1f., 11.4, 13.1,

• On Divination III 17.20

14.6. 14.14

• Tusculans IV 26.1

Aetna III 31.6; IV 2.4

• Nature of the Gods IV 30.2ff.

Alexander the Great IV 4.1

Cinna III 27.1

Alba Longa III 11.4, 14.1ff., 14.7,

Claudius Marcellus, M. (cos I 222 BC)

14.14f., 15.6

III 14.6

Allecto III 13.3

Cornelius Labeo III 25.2

Amulius III 14.15

Cornelius Merula, L. III 27.5

Anchises III 5.1

Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, P. III 15.3,

Ancus Marcius III 15.6

21.6

Andromache III 13.4

Cornelius Scipio Africanus, P. III 21.2ff.

Antiochus III (‘the Great’) III 11.1

Cornelius Sulla Felix, L. III 7.3ff.,

Antonius, M. (Mark Antony) III 30.4ff.

27.2ff., 28.1ff., 29.1ff., 30.2f.

Appuleius Saturninus, L. III 26.1

Crassus see Licinius

Apuleius IV 2.3f.

Cumae III 11.1f.

Ardea III 15.9

Curiatii III 14.3, 14.5, 14.13

Aristonicus III 11.1f.

Curtius, M. IV 20.2

Armenia IV 29.3

Cyrus, king of Persia III 14.8; IV 7.1

Ascanius III 14.2, 14.4

Assyria, Assyrians IV 6.1, 7.1, 7.3, 29.3

Decii IV 20.2

Athens, Athenians III 14.8, 17.9

Di Consentes IV 23.3

Augustus III 9.4, 21.7, 30.5ff.; IV 2.3

Drusus see Livius

Baebius, C. III 27.5

Egypt, Egyptians IV 34.1

Balbus see Lucilius

Epidaurus III 12.1, 17.14

Bruttians III 17.15

Etruscans III 17.15

Caecilius Metellus, L. (cos 251 BC)

Fimbria see Flavius

III 18.6

Flavius Fimbria, C. III 7.1, 7.3, 8.1, 27.5

Camilla III 11.3

Fulvius Flaccus, M. (cos 125 BC) III 24.4

Camillus see Furius

Furius Camillus, M. (dictator I 396 BC)

Campania IV 5.2

III 17.11; IV 7.2

Cannae III 19.2

Carthage, Carthaginians III 18.4, 19.2,

Gaetulian city III 15.12

20.2, 21.1f., 21.5f.

Gallograecians III 21.3

Catana III 31.7

Gauls III 8.1, 17.12, 24.1f., 31.4; IV 7.2

Catiline see Sergius

Goths III 29.1f.

Catulus see Lutatius

Gracchi III 24.1ff., 25.1

Caudine Forks III 17.13

250

INDICES

Hadrian, emperor IV 29.3f.

Mancinus see Hostilius

Hannibal III 19.2f., 20.1ff., 21.2, 21.4

Manlius Vulso, Cn. III 21.3

Helen III 25.3

Marcellus see Claudius

Homer III 2.2f.

Marius, C. (cos I 107) III 27.1ff., 28.1,

Horatii III 14.3, 14.5, 14.13

29.1ff., 30.2

Horatius, M. (cos 509) III 16.7

Marius, C. (cos 82) III 28.1

Hortensius, Q. (dictator 287 BC)

Masinissa III 31.7

III 17.16

Medes IV 7.1

Hostilius see Tullus

Menelaus III 3.3

Hostilius Mancinus, C. III 21.7

Mesopotamia IV 29.3

Metellus see Caecilius

Janiculum III 17.16

Mithradates III 22.1

Jews, Jewish monotheism IV 31.4, 34.2

Mucius Scaevola, C. IV 20.2

Jovian, emperor IV 29.4

Mucius Scaevola, Q. (cos 95 BC)

Julian the Apostate IV 29.3f.

III 28.2, 29.4; IV 27.1ff.

Julius Caesar, C. III 3.4, 13.3, 30.3f.

Julius Proculus III 15.1

Ninus IV 6.1f., 7.1

Junius Brutus, L. (cos 509)

Numa Pompilius III 9.1, 9.4f., 10.5, 11.4,

III 16.2, 16.4f.

12.1, 12.5, 14.1, 15.6, 23.1

Justin IV 6.1f.

Numantia III 21.7

Numitor III 5.1

Labeo see Cornelius

Numitorius III 27.5

Laomedon III 2.1f.

Latinius, T. IV 26.2

Octavius, C. (cos 87 BC) III 27.5

Latium III 23.2

Old and New Testaments IV 33.2

Lavinium III 11.4, 14.4

Opimius, L. III 24.3
lectisternia III 17.11

Lepidus see Aemilius

Pallas III 11.3

Libya IV 6.1

Papirius Carbo, Cn. (cos I 85 BC)

Licinius Crassus, P. (cos 97 BC) III 27.5

III 28.1

Licinius Lucullus, L. (cos 151 BC)

Paris III 3.1ff., 5.3, 6.1f., 15.7

IV 23.1

Passover III 15.2

Liternum III 21.2

Perseus III 11.1

Livius Drusus, M. III 26.2

Persians IV 7.1, 29.3

Livy III 7.7

Pessinus III 12.1

Lucan III 18.2, 27.3

Phoenicians IV 10.6

Lucilius Balbus, Q. IV 30.1ff.

Plato IV 18.1

Lucretia III 15.9

Pompeius Magnus, Cn. III 13.2, 30.3f.

Lucretius, Sp. III 16.7

Pompeius Trogus IV 6.1f.

Lucullus see Licinius

Pomponius, L. IV 16.1

Lutatius Catulus, Q. (cos 102 BC)

Priam III 2.1

III 27.5
proletarii III 17.17

Lutatius Catulus, Q. (cos 78 BC) III 30.2

Punic Wars, First III 18; Second III 19f.;

Third, III 21.6

Macedonia III 26.3

Pyrrhus of Epirus III 17.17

Maelius, Sp. III 17.10

Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) III 13.4

INDICES

251

Quinctius, L. III 17.10

Tarquins III 12.1; Priscus III 15.6;

IV 23.4, 29.2; Superbus III 15.7f.,

Regulus III 18.4, 20.9, 20.11

15.11f., 16.1, 16.6

Romulus III 3.4, 5.1ff., 6.1ff., 9.1, 11.4,

Tatius, Titus III 13.7; IV 23.1

13.6f., 14.15, 15.1ff.; IV 5.1, 5.3, 23.1

Terentius Varro, M. III 4.2, 9.3, 12.3,

17.22; IV 1.3, 9.1, 22.1, 27.2, 31.1ff.,

Saguntum, Saguntines III 20.1ff.

32.1

Sallust III 3.2, 10.2, 10.4, 14.8, 16.1,

Tiber III 18.5, 31.4

17.1ff., 17.5, 21.1, 21.5

Troy III 2f., 6.3, 7.1f., 8.1, 14.7, 14.14,

Samnites III 17.14

15.7, 25.3, 27.3

Saturninus see Appuleius

Tullus Hostilius III 14.2, 14.7, 15.4,

Scaevola see Mucius

15.6; IV 23.1

Scipio see Cornelius

Tusculum III 15.10

Secular Games III 18.2

Senonian Gauls III 17.15

Utica III 31.7

Sergius Catilina, L. III 2.4, 30.2

Servilius Glaucia, C. III 26.1

Valerius, P. (cos 509) III 16.7

Sertorius, Q. III 30.2

Valerius, P. (cos 461) III 17.8

Servilius, Q. III 17.10

Varro see Terentius

Servius Tullius III 15.7

Veii III 17.11

Sibylline Books III 17.20, 18.2

Virgil III 6.2, 7.7, 10.2, 11.3, 13.1, 14.7,

Sparta, Spartans III 14.8

14.14, 16.3, 31.1; IV 10.4, 11.2

Sulla see Cornelius

Voconian Law III 21.5

Syracuse III 14.6

Document Outline

- Cover
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations & Bibliography
- Introduction
- Text & Translation of Book III
- Text & Translation of Book IV
- Commentary on Book III
- Commentary on Book IV
- Indices

Table of Contents

- Cover
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations & Bibliography
- Introduction
- Text & Translation of Book III
- Text & Translation of Book IV
- Commentary on Book III
- Commentary on Book IV
- Indices