Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput V: De tribus generibus theologiae secundum Varronem, id est uno fabuloso, altero naturali tertioque ciuili.

Deinde illud quale est, quod tria genera theologiae dicit esse, id est rationis quae de dis explicatur, eorumque unum mythicon appellari, alterum physicon, tertium ciuile? Latine si usus admitteret, genus, quod primum posuit, fabulare appellaremus; sed fabulosum dicamus; a fabulis enim mythicon dictum est, quoniam μῦθος Graece fabula dicitur. secundum autem ut naturale dicatur, iam et consuetudo locutionis admittit. tertium etiam ipse Latine enuntiauit, quod ciuile appellatur. deinde ait: mythicon appellant, quo maxime utuntur poetae; physicon, quo philosophi; ciuile, quo populi. primum, inquit, quod dixi, in eo sunt multa contra dignitatem et naturam inmortalium ficta. in hoc enim est, ut deus alius ex capite, alius ex femore sit, alius ex guttis sanguinis natus; in hoc, ut di furati sint, ut adulterarint, ut seruierint homini; denique in hoc omnia dis adtribuuntur, quae non modo in hominem, sed etiam quae in contemptissimum hominem cadere possunt. hic certe ubi potuit, ubi ausus est, ubi inpunitum putauit, quanta mendacissimis fabulis naturae deorum fieret iniuria, sine caligine ullius ambiguitatis expressit. loquebatur enim non de naturali theologia, non de ciuili, sed de fabulosa, quam libere a se putauit esse culpandam. uideamus quid de altera dicat. secundum genus est, inquit, quod demonstraui, de quo multos libros philosophi reliquerunt; in quibus est, di qui sint, ubi, quod genus, quale; a quodam tempore an a sempiterno fuerint di; ex igni sint, ut credit Heraclitus, an ex numeris, ut Pythagoras, an ex atomis, ut ait Epicurus. sic alia, quae facilius intra parietes in schola quam extra in foro ferre possunt aures. nihil in hoc genere culpauit, quod physicon uocant et ad philosophos pertinet, tantum quod eorum inter se controuersias commemorauit, per quos facta est dissidentium multitudo sectarum. remouit tamen hoc genus a foro, id est a populis; scholis uero et parietibus clausit. illud autem primum mendacissimum atque turpissimum a ciuitatibus non remouit. o religiosas aures populares atque in his etiam Romanas. quod de dis inmortalibus philosophi disputant, ferre non possunt; quod uero poetae canunt et histriones agunt, quia contra dignitatem ac naturam inmortalium ficta sunt, quia non modo in hominem, sed etiam in contemptissimum hominem cadere possunt, non solum ferunt, sed etiam libenter audiunt. neque id tantum, sed dis quoque ipsis haec placere et per haec eos placandos esse decernunt. dixerit aliquis: haec duo genera mythicon et physicon, id est fabulosum atque naturale, discernamus ab hoc ciuili, de quo nunc agitur, unde illa et ipse discreuit, iamque ipsum ciuile uideamus qualiter explicet. uideo quidem, cur debeat discerni fabulosum: quia falsum, quia turpe, quia indignum est. naturale autem a ciuili uelle discernere quid est aliud quam etiam ipsum ciuile fateri esse mendosum? si enim illud naturale est, quid habet reprehensionis, ut excludatur? si autem hoc quod ciuile dicitur naturale non est, quid habet meriti, ut admittatur? haec nempe illa causa est, quare prius scripserit de rebus humanis, posterius de diuinis, quoniam in diuinis rebus non naturam, sed hominum instituta secutus est. intueamur sane et ciuilem theologian. tertium genus est, inquit, quod in urbibus ciues, maxime sacerdotes, nosse atque administrare debent. in quo est, quos deos publice, quae sacra ac sacrificia colere et facere quemque par sit. adhuc quod sequitur adtendamus. prima, inquit, theologia maxime adcommodata est ad theatrum, secunda ad mundum, tertia ad urbem. quis non uideat, cui palmam dederit? utique secundae, quam supra dixit esse philosophorum. hanc enim pertinere testatur ad mundum, quo isti nihil esse excellentius opinantur in rebus. duas uero illas theologias, primam et tertiam, theatri scilicet atque urbis, distinxit an iunxit? uidemus enim non continuo, quod est urbis, pertinere posse et ad mundum, quamuis urbes esse uideamus in mundo; fieri enim potest, ut in urbe secundum falsas opiniones ea colantur et ea credantur, quorum in mundo uel extra mundum natura sit nusquam: theatrum uero ubi est nisi in urbe? quis theatrum instituit nisi ciuitas? propter quid instituit nisi propter ludos scaenicos? ubi sunt ludi scaenici nisi in rebus diuinis, de quibus hi libri tanta sollertia conscribuntur?

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 5.--Concerning the Three Kinds of Theology According to Varro, Namely, One Fabulous, the Other Natural, the Third Civil.

Now what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely, that there are three kinds of theology, that is, of the account which is given of the gods; and of these, the one is called mythical, the other physical, and the third civil? Did the Latin usage permit, we should call the kind which he has placed first in order fabular, ¹ but let us call it fabulous, ² for mythical is derived from the Greek muthos, a fable; but that the second should be called natural, the usage of speech now admits; the third he himself has designated in Latin, call ing it civil. ³ Then he says, "they call that kind mythical which the poets chiefly use; physical, that which the philosophers use; civil, that which the people use. As to the first I have mentioned," says he, "in it are many fictions, which are contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For we find in it that one god has been born from the head, another from the thigh, another from drops of blood; also, in this we find that gods have stolen, committed adultery, served men; in a word, in this all manner of things are attributed to the gods, such as may befall, not merely any man, but even the most contemptible man." He certainly, where he could, where he dared, where he thought he could do it with impunity, has manifested, without any of the haziness of ambiguity, how great injury was done to the nature of the gods by lying fables; for he was speaking, not concerning natural theology, not concerning civil, but concerning fabulous theology, which he thought he could freely find fault with.

Let us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind. "The second kind which I have explained," he says, "is that concerning which philosophers have left many books, in which they treat such questions as these: what gods there are, where they are, of what kind and character they are, since what time they have existed, or if they have existed from eternity; whether they are of fire, as Heraclitus believes; or of number, as Pythagoras; or of atoms, as Epicurus says; and other such things, which men's ears can more easily hear inside the walls of a school than outside in the Forum." He finds fault with nothing in this kind of theology which they call physical, and which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their controversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in schools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and among them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what the philosophers dispute concerning the gods! But when the poets sing and stage-players act such things as are derogatory to the dignity and the nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a man merely, but the most contemptible man, they not only bear, but willingly listen to. Nor is this all, but they even consider that these things please the gods, and that they are propitiated by them.

But some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kinds of theology, the mythical and the physical,--that is, the fabulous and the natural,--from this civil kind about which we are now speaking. Anticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see now how he explains the civil theology itself. I see, indeed, why it should be distinguished as fabulous, even because it is false, because it is base, because it is unworthy. But to wish to distinguish the natural from the civil, what else is that but to confess that the civil itself is false? For if that be natural, what fault has it that it should be excluded? And if this which is called civil be not natural, what merit has it that it should be admitted? This, in truth, is the cause why he wrote first concerning human things, and afterwards concerning divine things; since in divine things he did not follow nature, but the institution of men. Let us look at this civil theology of his. "The third kind," says he, "is that which citizens in cities, and especially the priests, ought to know and to administer. From it is to be known what god each one may suitably worship, what sacred rites and sacrifices each one may suitably perform." Let us still attend to what follows. "The first theology," he says, "is especially adapted to the theatre, the second to the world, the third to the city." Who does not see to which he gives the palm? Certainly to the second, which he said above is that of the philosophers. For he testifies that this pertains to the world, than which they think there is nothing better. But those two theologies, the first and the third,--to wit, those of the theatre and of the city,--has he distinguished them or united them? For although we see that the city is in the world, we do not see that it follows that any things belonging to the city pertain to the world. For it is possible that such things may be worshipped and believed in the city, according to false opinions, as have no existence either in the world or out of it. But where is the theatre but in the city? Who instituted the theatre but the state? For what purpose did it constitute it but for scenic plays? And to what class of things do scenic plays belong but to those divine things concerning which these books of Varro's are written with so much ability?