Edition Hide
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput VI: De theologia mythica, id est fabulosa, et de ciuili contra Varronem.

O Marce Varro, cum sis homo omnium acutissimus et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimus, sed tamen homo, non deus, nec spiritu dei ad uidenda et adnuntianda diuina in ueritatem libertatemque subuectus, cernis quidem quam sint res diuinae ab humanis nugis atque mendaciis dirimendae; sed uitiosissimas populorum opiniones et consuetudines in superstitionibus publicis uereris offendere, quas ab deorum natura abhorrere uel talium, quales in huius mundi elementis humani animi suspicatur infirmitas, et sentis ipse, cum eas usquequaque consideras, et omnis uestra litteratura circumsonat. quid hic agit humanum quamuis excellentissimum ingenium? quid tibi humana licet multiplex ingensque doctrina in his angustiis suffragatur? naturales deos colere cupis, ciuiles cogeris. inuenisti alios fabulosos, in quos liberius quod sentis euomas, unde et istos ciuiles uelis nolisue perfundas. dicis quippe fabulosos adcommodatos esse ad theatrum, naturales ad mundum, ciuiles ad urbem, cum mundus opus sit diuinum, urbes uero et theatra opera sint hominum, nec alii derideantur in theatris, quam qui adorantur in templis, nec aliis ludos exhibeatis, quam quibus uictimas immolatis. quanto liberius subtiliusque ista diuideres, dicens alios esse deos naturales, alios ab hominibus institutos, sed de institutis aliud habere litteras poetarum, aliud sacerdotum, utrasque tamen ita esse inter se amicas consortio falsitatis, ut gratae sint utraeque daemonibus, quibus doctrina inimica est ueritatis. sequestrata igitur paululum theologia, quam naturalem uocant, de qua postea disserendum est, placet ne tandem uitam aeternam peti aut sperari ab dis poeticis theatricis, ludicris scaenicis? absit; immo auertat deus uerus tam inmanem sacrilegamque dementiam. quid? ab eis dis, quibus haec placent et quos haec placant, cum eorum illic crimina frequententur, uita aeterna poscenda est? nemo, ut arbitror, usque ad tantum praecipitium furiosissimae inpietatis insanit. nec fabulosa igitur nec ciuili theologia sempiternam quisquam adipiscitur uitam. illa enim de dis turpia fingendo seminat, haec fauendo metit; illa mendacia spargit, haec colligit; illa res diuinas falsis criminibus insectatur, haec eorum criminum ludos in diuinis rebus amplectitur; illa de dis nefanda figmenta hominum carminibus personat, haec ea deorum ipsorum festiuitatibus consecrat; facinora et flagitia numinum illa cantat, haec amat; illa prodit aut fingit, haec autem aut adtestatur ueris aut oblectatur et falsis. ambae turpes ambaeque damnabiles; sed illa, quae theatrica est, publicam turpitudinem profitetur; ista, quae urbana est, illius turpitudinis ornatur. hincine uita aeterna sperabitur, unde ista breuis temporalisque polluitur? an uero uitam polluit consortium nefariorum hominum, si se inserant adfectionibus et adsensionibus nostris, et uitam non polluit societas daemonum, qui coluntur criminibus suis? si ueris, quam male. si falsis, quam mali. haec cum dicimus, uideri fortasse cuipiam nimis harum rerum ignaro potest ea sola de dis talibus maiestati indigna diuinae et ridicula detestabilia celebrari, quae poeticis cantantur carminibus et ludis scaenicis actitantur; sacra uero illa, quae non histriones, sed sacerdotes agunt, ab omni esse dedecore purgata et aliena. hoc si ita esset, numquam theatricas turpitudines in eorum honorem quisquam celebrandas esse censeret, numquam eas ipsi di praeciperent sibi met exhiberi. sed ideo nihil pudet ad obsequium deorum talia gerere in theatris, quia similia geruntur in templis. denique cum memoratus auctor ciuilem theologian a fabulosa et naturali tertiam quandam sui generis distinguere conaretur, magis eam ex utraque temperatam quam ab utraque separatam intellegi uoluit. ait enim ea, quae scribunt poetae, minus esse quam ut populi sequi debeant; quae autem philosophi, plus quam ut ea uulgum scrutari expediat. quae sic abhorrent, inquit, ut tamen ex utroque genere ad ciuiles rationes adsumpta sint non pauca. quare quae erunt communia, una cum propriis ciuilibus scribemus; e quibus maior societas debet esse nobis cum philosophis quam cum poetis. non ergo ulla cum poetis. et tamen alio loco dicit de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos. hic enim dixit quid fieri debeat, ibi quid fiat. physicos dixit utilitatis causa scripsisse, poetas delectationis. ac per hoc ea, quae a poetis conscripta populi sequi non debent, crimina sunt deorum, quae tamen delectant et populos et deos. delectationis enim causa, sicut dicit, scribunt poetae, non utilitatis; ea tamen scribunt, quae di expetant, populi exhibeant.

Translation Hide
The City of God

Chapter 6.--Concerning the Mythic, that Is, the Fabulous, Theology, and the Civil, Against Varro.

O Marcus Varro! thou art the most acute, and without doubt the most learned, but still a man, not God,--now lifted up by the Spirit of God to see and to announce divine things, thou seest, indeed, that divine things are to be separated from human trifles and lies, but thou fearest to offend those most corrupt opinions of the populace, and their customs in public superstitions, which thou thyself, when thou considerest them on all sides, perceivest, and all your literature loudly pronounces to be abhorrent from the nature of the gods, even of such gods as the frailty of the human mind supposes to exist in the elements of this world. What can the most excellent human talent do here? What can human learning, though manifold, avail thee in this perplexity? Thou desirest to worship the natural gods; thou art compelled to worship the civil. Thou hast found some of the gods to be fabulous, on whom thou vomitest forth very freely what thou thinkest, and, whether thou willest or not, thou wettest therewith even the civil gods. Thou sayest, forsooth, that the fabulous are adapted to the theatre, the natural to the world, and the civil to the city; though the world is a divine work, but cities and theatres are the works of men, and though the gods who are laughed at in the theatre are not other than those who are adored in the temples; and ye do not exhibit games in honor of other gods than those to whom ye immolate victims. How much more freely and more subtly wouldst thou have decided these hadst thou said that some gods are natural, others established by men; and concerning those who have been so established, the literature of the poets gives one account, and that of the priests another,--both of which are, nevertheless, so friendly the one to the other, through fellowship in falsehood, that they are both pleasing to the demons, to whom the doctrine of the truth is hostile.

That theology, therefore, which they call natural, being put aside for a moment, as it is afterwards to be discussed, we ask if any one is really content to seek a hope for eternal life from poetical, theatrical, scenic gods? Perish the thought! The true God avert so wild and sacrilegious a madness! What, is eternal life to be asked from those gods whom these things pleased, and whom these things propitiate, in which their own crimes are represented? No one, as I think, has arrived at such a pitch of headlong and furious impiety. So then, neither by the fabulous nor by the civil theology does any one obtain eternal life. For the one sows base things concerning the gods by feigning them, the other reaps by cherishing them; the one scatters lies, the other gathers them together; the one pursues divine things with false crimes, the other incorporates among divine things the plays which are made up of these crimes; the one sounds abroad in human songs impious fictions concerning the gods, the other consecrates these for the festivities of the gods themselves; the one sings the misdeeds and crimes of the gods, the other loves them; the one gives forth or feigns, the other either attests the true or delights in the false. Both are base; both are damnable. But the one which is theatrical teaches public abomination, and that one which is of the city adorns itself with that abomination. Shall eternal life be hoped for from these, by which this short and temporal life is polluted? Does the society of wicked men pollute our life if they insinuate themselves into our affections, and win our assent? and does not the society of demons pollute the life, who are worshipped with their own crimes?--if with true crimes, how wicked the demons! if with false, how wicked the worship!

When we say these things, it may perchance seem to some one who is very ignorant of these matters that only those things concerning the gods which are sung in the songs of the poets and acted on the stage are unworthy of the divine majesty, and ridiculous, and too detestable to be celebrated, whilst those sacred things which not stage-players but priests perform are pure and free from all unseemliness. Had this been so, never would any one have thought that these theatrical abominations should be celebrated in their honor, never would the gods themselves have ordered them to be performed to them. But men are in nowise ashamed to perform these things in the theatres, because similar things are carried on in the temples. In short, when the fore-mentioned author attempted to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous and natural, as a sort of third and distinct kind, he wished it to be understood to be rather tempered by both than separated from either. For he says that those things which the poets write are less than the people ought to follow, whilst what the philosophers say is more than it is expedient for the people to pry into. "Which," says he, "differ in such a way, that nevertheless not a few things from both of them have been taken to the account of the civil theology; wherefore we will indicate what the civil theology has in common with that of the poet, though it ought to be more closely connected with the theology of philosophers." Civil theology is therefore not quite disconnected from that of the poets. Nevertheless, in another place, concerning the generations of the gods, he says that the people are more inclined toward the poets than toward the physical theologists. For in this place he said what ought to be done; in that other place, what was really done. He said that the latter had written for the sake of utility, but the poets for the sake of amusement. And hence the things from the poets' writings, which the people ought not to follow, are the crimes of the gods; which, nevertheless, amuse both the people and the gods. For, for amusement's sake, he says, the poets write, and not for that of utility; nevertheless they write such things as the gods will desire, and the people perform.