Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput VIII: De interpretationibus naturalium rationum, quas doctores pagani pro dis suis conantur ostendere.

At enim habent ista physiologicas quasdam, sicut aiunt, id est naturalium rationum interpretationes. quasi uero nos in hac disputatione physiologian quaerimus et non theologian, id est rationem non naturae, sed dei. quamuis enim qui uerus deus est non opinione, sed natura deus sit: non tamen omnis natura deus est, quia et hominis et pecoris, et arboris et lapidis utique natura est, quorum nihil est deus. si autem interpretationis huius, quando agitur de sacris Matris deum, caput est certe quod Mater deum terra est, quid ultra quaerimus, quid cetera perscrutamur? quid euidentius suffragatur eis, qui dicunt omnes istos deos homines fuisse? sic enim sunt terrigenae, sic eis mater est terra. in uera autem theologia opus dei est terra, non mater. uerumtamen quoquo modo sacra eius interpretentur et referant ad rerum naturam: uiros muliebria pati non est secundum naturam, sed contra naturam. hic morbus, hoc crimen, hoc dedecus habet inter illa sacra professionem, quod in uitiosis hominum moribus uix habet inter tormenta confessionem. deinde si ista sacra, quae scaenicis turpitudinibus conuincuntur esse foediora, hinc excusantur atque purgantur, quod habent interpretationes suas, quibus ostendantur rerum significare naturam: cur non etiam poetica similiter excusentur atque purgentur? multi enim et ipsa ad eundem modum interpretati sunt, usque adeo ut, quod ab eis inmanissimum et infandissimum dicitur, Saturnum suos filios deuorasse, ita nonnulli interpretentur, quod longinquitas temporis, quae Saturni nomine significatur, quidquid gignit ipsa consumat, uel, sicut idem opinatur Varro, quod pertineat Saturnus ad semina, quae in terram, de qua oriuntur, iterum recidunt. itemque alii alio modo et similiter cetera. et tamen theologia fabulosa dicitur et cum omnibus huiuscemodi interpretationibus suis reprehenditur abicitur inprobatur, nec solum a naturali, quae philosophorum est, uerum etiam ab ista ciuili, de qua agimus, quae ad urbes populosque adseritur pertinere, eo quod de dis indigna confinxerit, merito repudianda discernitur, eo nimirum consilio, ut, quoniam acutissimi homines atque doctissimi, a quibus ista conscripta sunt, ambas inprobandas intellegebant, et illam scilicet fabulosam et istam ciuilem, illam uero audebant inprobare, hanc non audebant; illam culpandam proposuerunt, hanc eius similem conparandam exposuerunt, - non ut haec prae illa tenenda eligeretur, sed ut cum illa respuenda intellegeretur, atque ita sine periculo eorum, qui ciuilem theologian reprehendere metuebant, utraque contempta ea, quam naturalem uocant, apud meliores animos inueniret locum. nam et ciuilis et fabulosa ambae fabulosae sunt ambaeque ciuiles; ambas inueniet fabulosas, qui uanitates et obscenitates ambarum prudenter inspexerit; ambas ciuiles, qui scaenicos ludos pertinentes ad fabulosam in deorum ciuilium festiuitatibus et in urbium diuinis rebus aduerterit. quomodo igitur uitae aeternae dandae potestas cuiquam deorum istorum tribuitur, quos sua simulacra et sacra conuincunt dis fabulosis apertissime reprobatis esse simillimos formis aetatibus, sexu habitu, coniugiis generationibus ritibus, in quibus omnibus aut homines fuisse intelleguntur et pro uniuscuiusque uita uel morte sacra eis et sollemnia constituta, hunc errorem insinuantibus firmantibus que daemonibus, aut certe ex qualibet occasione inmundissimi spiritus fallendis humanis mentibus inrepsisse?

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 8.--Concerning the Interpretations, Consisting of Natural Explanations, Which the Pagan Teachers Attempt to Show for Their Gods.

But all these things, they say, have certain physical, that is, natural interpretations, showing their natural meaning; as though in this disputation we were seeking physics and not theology, which is the account, not of nature, but of God. For although He who is the true God is God, not by opinion, but by nature, nevertheless all nature is not God; for there is certainly a nature of man, of a beast, of a tree, of a stone,--none of which is God. For if, when the question is concerning the mother of the gods, that from which the whole system of interpretation starts certainly is, that the mother of the gods is the earth, why do we make further inquiry? why do we carry our investigation through all the rest of it? What can more manifestly favor them who say that all those gods were men? For they are earth-born in the sense that the earth is their mother. But in the true theology the earth is the work, not the mother, of God. But in whatever way their sacred rites may be interpreted, and whatever reference they may have to the nature of things, it is not according to nature, but contrary to nature, that men should be effeminates. This disease, this crime, this abomination, has a recognized place among those sacred things, though even depraved men will scarcely be compelled by torments to confess they are guilty of it. Again, if these sacred rites, which are proved to be fouler than scenic abominations, are excused and justified on the ground that they have their own interpretations, by which they are shown to symbolize the nature of things, why are not the poetical things in like manner excused and justified? For many have interpreted even these in like fashion, to such a degree that even that which they say is the most monstrous and most horrible,--namely, that Saturn devoured his own children,--has been interpreted by some of them to mean that length of time, which is signified by the name of Saturn, consumes whatever it begets; or that, as the same Varro thinks, Saturn belongs to seeds which fall back again into the earth from whence they spring. And so one interprets it in one way, and one in another. And the same is to be said of all the rest of this theology.

And, nevertheless, it is called the fabulous theology, and is censured, cast off, rejected, together with all such interpretations belonging to it. And not only by the natural theology, which is that of the philosophers, but also by this civil theology, concerning which we are speaking, which is asserted to pertain to cities and peoples, it is judged worthy of repudiation, because it has invented unworthy things concerning the gods. Of which, I wot, this is the secret: that those most acute and learned men, by whom those things were written, understood that both theologies ought to be rejected,--to wit, both that fabulous and this civil one,--but the former they dared to reject, the latter they dared not; the former they set forth to be censured, the latter they showed to be very like it; not that it might be chosen to be held in preference to the other, but that it might be understood to be worthy of being rejected together with it. And thus, without danger to those who feared to censure the civil theology, both of them being brought into contempt, that theology which they call natural might find a place in better disposed minds; for the civil and the fabulous are both fabulous and both civil. He who shall wisely inspect the vanities and obscenities of both will find that they are both fabulous; and he who shall direct his attention to the scenic plays pertaining to the fabulous theology in the festivals of the civil gods, and in the divine rites of the cities, will find they are both civil. How, then, can the power of giving eternal life be attributed to any of those gods whose own images and sacred rites convict them of being most like to the fabulous gods, which are most openly reprobated, in forms, ages, sex, characteristics, marriages, generations, rites; in all which things they are understood either to have been men, and to have had their sacred rites and solemnities instituted in their honor according to the life or death of each of them, the demons suggesting and confirming this error, or certainly most foul spirits, who, taking advantage of some occasion or other, have stolen into the minds of men to deceive them?