Augustine, Saint, De civitate dei

Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel ante conditam Romam uel ab eius exortu et imperio: legant et proferant sic ab alienigenis aliquam captam esse ciuitatem, ut hostes, qui ceperant, parcerent eis, quos ad deorum suorum templa confugisse compererant, aut aliquem ducem barbarorum praecepisse, ut inrupto oppido nullus feriretur, qui in illo uel illo templo fuisset inuentus. Nonne uidit Aeneas Priamum per aras Sanguine foedantem quos ipse sacrauerat ignes? Nonne Diomedes et Ulixes caesis summae custodibus arcis Corripuere sacram effigiem manibusque cruentis Virgineas ausi diuae contingere uittas? Nec tamen quod sequitur uerum est: Ex illo fluere ac retro sublabsa referri Spes Danaum. Postea quippe uicerunt, postea Troiam ferro ignibusque dele. uerunt, postea confugientem ad aram Priamum obtruncauerunt. Nec ideo Troia periit, quia Mineruam perdidit. Quid enim prius ipsa Minerua perdiderat, ut periret? an forte custodes suos? Hoc sane uerum est; illis quippe interemtis potuit auferri. Neque enim homines a simulacro, sed simulacrum ab hominibus seruabatur. Quo modo ergo colebatur, ut patriam custodiret et ciues, quae suos non ualuit custodire custodes?

So many wars have been recorded in writing, waged either before Rome was founded or since its rise and empire: let them read and bring forward [a case] where some city was taken by foreigners in such a way that the enemies who had taken it spared those whom they found had fled to the temples of their own gods, or where some barbarian commander ordered that, once the town was broken into, no one should be struck down who had been found in this or that temple. Did not Aeneas see Priam ‘among the altars, defiling with his blood the fires that he himself had consecrated’? Did not Diomedes and Ulysses, ‘having slain the guards of the citadel's height, seize the sacred image, and with bloody hands dare to touch the virgin goddess's fillets’? Yet what follows is not true: ‘From that time the hope of the Danaans ebbed and, slipping back, was borne away.’ For afterwards they conquered; afterwards they destroyed Troy with sword and fire; afterwards they butchered Priam as he fled to the altar. Nor did Troy perish because it lost Minerva. For what had Minerva herself lost first, that she should perish? Her guards, perhaps? That indeed is true; for once they were killed, she could be carried off. For it was not the men who were kept safe by the image, but the image by the men. How then was she worshipped so that she might guard the fatherland and its citizens, when she was unable to guard her own guards?

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 conpellerentur pugnare cum soceris, ut miserae feminae nondum ex iniuria maritis conciliatae iam parentum sanguine dotarentur? 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. 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. Andromacha felicius captiuata est, quam illa conubia 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 timorem habentes liberum nec dolorem. Nam propter interitum ciuium propinquorum, fratrum parentum aut pie cruciabantur. aut crudeliter laetabantur uictoriis maritorum. Huc accedebat, quod, ut sunt alterna bellorum, aliquae parentum ferro amiserunt uiros, aliquae utrorumque ferro et parentes et uiros. Neque enim et aput 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. Hic tamen Romulus de suorum iam uirtute desperans Iouem orauit ut starent, adque 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. Deinde [Titum] Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre conpulsus est, germani consortis inpatiens: sed quando et istum diu toleraret, qui fratrem geminumque non pertulit? Unde et ipso interfecto, ut maior deus esset, regnum solus obtinuit. Quae sunt ista iura nuptiarum, quae inritamenta bellorum, quae foedera germanitatis adfinitatis, societatis diuinitatis? quae postremo sub tot dis tutoribus uita ciuitatis? Vides quanta hinc dici et quam multa possent, nisi quae supersunt nostra curaret intentio et sermo in alia festinaret.

How was it that neither Juno, who together with her Jupiter was already cherishing ‘the Romans, masters of the world, the toga-clad race’, nor Venus herself was able to help her descendants of Aeneas to win marriages in a good and fair way, and that so great a disaster from this lack befell them that they carried off [wives] by trickery and were soon compelled to fight with their fathers-in-law, so that the wretched women, not yet reconciled to their husbands after the wrong done them, were already dowered with their parents' blood? But, they say, the Romans defeated their neighbours in this conflict. At the cost of how great and how many wounds and deaths, on both sides, of men so closely related and so near, were those victories bought! Because of one man, Caesar, a father-in-law, and one man, Pompey, his son-in-law, when Caesar's daughter, Pompey's wife, was already dead, with how great and how just a prompting of grief does Lucan cry out: ‘Wars more than civil across the Emathian plains, and right given to crime, we sing.’ So the Romans conquered, that with hands bloody from the slaughter of their fathers-in-law they might wring pitiable embraces from those men's daughters; and those women did not dare to weep for their slain fathers, lest they offend their victorious husbands, though while the men were still fighting they had not known for which side to make their vows. It was not Venus but Bellona who presented the Roman people with such marriages; or perhaps Allecto, that Fury of the underworld, now that Juno favoured them, had more licence against them than when she had been roused against Aeneas by Juno's prayers. Andromache was made captive more happily than those Roman brides were married. After her embraces, slavish though they were, Pyrrhus killed none of the Trojans; but the Romans were killing in battle the fathers-in-law whose daughters they were already embracing in the bedchamber. She, subjected to the victor, could only grieve for the death of her kin, not fear it; these women, joined to the combatants, feared the deaths of their parents when their husbands went out, and grieved for them when they came back, and had neither their fear nor their grief free. For at the destruction of their fellow citizens, kinsmen, brothers and parents, they were either dutifully tormented or cruelly glad at their husbands' victories. Added to this was the fact that, as the fortunes of war go back and forth, some lost their husbands by their fathers' swords, and some lost both fathers and husbands by the swords of both. For among the Romans too those dangers were not small, since it came even to a siege of the city, and they defended themselves behind closed gates; and when these had been opened by treachery and the enemy admitted within the walls, a wicked and exceedingly savage battle was fought in the very forum between sons-in-law and fathers-in-law; and those abductors were actually being beaten, and, fleeing again and again among their own houses, they more grievously disgraced their earlier victories, shameful and lamentable as these too were. Here, however, Romulus, now despairing of the courage of his men, prayed to Jupiter that they might stand firm, and on this occasion Jupiter acquired the name Stator [the Stayer]; nor would there have been an end to so great an evil, had not those abducted women rushed out with torn hair and, throwing themselves before their parents, calmed their most just anger, not with victorious arms but with suppliant devotion. Then Romulus, who could not bear his own brother as a partner, was compelled to accept [Titus] Tatius, king of the Sabines, as a partner in the kingship: but how long would he tolerate this man either, he who did not put up with his brother, and his twin at that? So this man too was killed, and, that he might be a greater god, Romulus held the kingship alone. What rights of marriage are these, what provocations to war, what bonds of brotherhood, of kinship by marriage, of alliance, of divinity? What, finally, is this life of a city under so many guardian gods? You see how much, and how many things, could be said on this, were it not that my purpose is concerned with what remains and my discourse hastens on to other matters.

Sed (unde nunc agitur) si libri et sacra eorum uera sunt et Felicitas dea est, quur non ipsa una quae coleretur constituta est, quae posset uniuersa conferre et conpendio facere felicem? Quis enim optat aliquid propter aliud quam ut felix fiat? Quur denique tam sero huic tantae deae post tot Romanos principes Lucullus aedem constituit? Quur ipse Romulus felicem cupiens condere ciuitatem non huic templum potissimum struxit nec propter aliquid dis 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. Ut quid ergo constituit Romanis deos Ianum, Iouem, Martem, Picum, Faunum, Tiberinum, Herculem et si quos alios? Ut quid Titus Tatius addidit Saturnum, Opem, Solem, Lunam, Vulcanum, Lucem et quoscumque alios addidit, inter quos etiam deam Cloacinam, Felicitate neglecta? Ut 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 adque Pallorem propitiandos non introduceret, si deam istam nosset aut coleret. Praesente quippe Felicitate omnis pauor et pallor non propitiatus abscederet, sed pulsus aufugeret.

But (to come to the present question) if their books and rites are true, and Felicity is a goddess, why was she not established as the one to be worshipped, since she could bestow everything and make a man happy by the shortest way? For who wishes for anything for any other reason than to become happy? Why, finally, did Lucullus set up a temple to so great a goddess so late, after so many Roman leaders? Why did Romulus himself, wishing to found a happy city, not build a temple to her above all, and not pray to the other gods for anything, since nothing would be lacking if she were present? For he himself would neither first have become king, nor, as they think, afterwards a god, if he had not had this goddess favourable to him. Why then did he establish for the Romans as gods Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and whatever others there were? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sol, Luna, Vulcan, Lux, and whatever others he added, among them even the goddess Cloacina, while Felicity was neglected? Why did Numa [establish] so many gods and so many goddesses without her? Or perhaps he could not see her in so great a crowd? King Hostilius certainly would not have introduced, he too, new gods to be propitiated, Fear and Pallor, if he had known or worshipped this goddess. For with Felicity present, all fear and pallor would depart not by being propitiated, but would flee, driven out.

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 quo modo 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 di cesserint Christo, qui Ioui cedere noluerunt; saluis quippe imperii finibus Christo cedere potuerunt et de sedibus locorum et maxime de corde credentium. 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 exercitus fusus est, hoc est uersus in fugam, falsumque ostendit auspicium, quo Iuuentas illa non cesserat Ioui, et gens Martia superantibus adque 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. 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 inmoderato 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 conpositione defixi. Uano igitur augurio deus Terminus non cessit Ioui, qui cessit Hadriani uoluntati, cessit etiam Iuliani temeritati et Iouiani necessitati. Uiderunt haec intelle- gentdores grauioresque Romani; sed contra consuetudinem ciuitatis, quae daemonicis ritibus fuerat obligata, parum ualebant, quia et ipsi, etiamsi illa uana esse sentiebant, naturae tamen rerum sub unius ueri Dei regimine adque 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.

For what sort of thing is that which they called a most beautiful omen, which I mentioned a little earlier, that Mars and Terminus and Juventas refused to yield their place even to Jupiter, king of the gods? For thus, they say, it was signified that the race of Mars, that is, the Roman race, would give up to no one any place it held; that no one would move the Roman boundaries, because of the god Terminus; and that the Roman youth too would yield to no one, because of the goddess Juventas. Let them consider, then, how they regard this king of their gods and giver of their kingdom, when those omens set him down as an adversary to whom it was a fine thing not to yield. And yet, if these things are true, they have nothing at all to fear. For they will not admit that the gods who refused to yield to Jupiter have yielded to Christ; for, with the borders of the empire intact, they could have yielded to Christ both from the seats they held in places and above all from the hearts of believers. But before Christ had come in the flesh, before, indeed, these things were written that we quote from their books, but still after that omen occurred under King Tarquin, the Roman army was several times routed, that is, turned to flight, and showed false the omen in which that Juventas had not yielded to Jupiter; and the race of Mars was crushed in the City itself when the Gauls overcame it and burst in; and the boundaries of the empire had been squeezed into a narrow space when many cities defected to Hannibal. Thus the beauty of the omens was emptied out, and what remained was defiance against Jupiter, not of gods but of demons. For it is one thing not to have yielded, another to have come back to the place from which you had given way. Moreover, later, in the eastern regions, the boundaries of the Roman empire were changed by the will of Hadrian. For he ceded three noble provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria, to the empire of the Persians, so that that god Terminus, who according to these people guarded the Roman boundaries and by that most beautiful omen had not yielded his place to Jupiter, seems to have feared Hadrian, a king of men, more than the king of the gods. Again, when the provinces mentioned had been recovered at another time, almost within our own memory Terminus gave ground backwards, when Julian, devoted to the oracles of those gods, with reckless daring ordered the ships carrying the provisions to be burned; the army, deprived of these, and soon with Julian himself also killed by an enemy wound, was reduced to such want that no one would have escaped from there, as the enemy attacked from every side the soldiers thrown into disorder by the emperor's death, had not the borders of the empire been fixed there by a peace agreement, where they remain to this day: not indeed with as great a loss as Hadrian had conceded, but still fixed by a compromise settlement. So it was an empty augury in which the god Terminus did not yield to Jupiter, he who yielded to the will of Hadrian, yielded also to the rashness of Julian and to the necessity of Jovian. The more intelligent and serious Romans saw this; but they had little power against the custom of the city, which had been bound to demonic rites, because they themselves too, even if they felt those things to be empty, nevertheless thought that the religious worship that is owed to God should be offered to the nature of things, which was established under the rule and command of the one true God, ‘serving’, as the apostle says, ‘the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever’. The help of this true God was needed, by whom holy and truly pious men might be sent, to die for the true religion, so that the false ones might be removed from among the living.

Dicit etiam idem auctor acutissimus adque doctissimus, quod hi soli ei uideantur animum aduertisse 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 adque 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. Dicit etiam antiquos Romanos plus annos centum et septuaginta deos sine simulacro coluisse. <Quod si adhuc, inquit, mansisset, castius di 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 demsisse et errorem addidisse, prudenter existimans deos facile posse in 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; adque in tam proximo inuentus facile fortasse de animae mutabilitate commoneretur, ut naturam potius incommutabilem, quae ipsam quoque animam condidisset, Deum uerum esse sentiret. Haec cum ita sint, quaecumque tales uiri in suis litteris multorum deorum ludibria posuerunt, confiteri ea potius occulta Dei uoluntate conpulsi 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 inpertiti.

The same most acute and most learned author also says that those alone seem to him to have grasped what God is who believed him to be a soul governing the world by motion and reason; and hence, although he did not yet hold what the truth contains (for the true God is not a soul, but the maker and founder of the soul as well), yet if he could have been free against the prejudices of custom, he would have confessed and urged that one God should be worshipped, governing the world by motion and reason, so that the question remaining with him on this matter would be that he said God was a soul, and not rather the creator of the soul as well. He also says that the ancient Romans worshipped the gods without an image for more than one hundred and seventy years. ‘If this had continued till now,’ he says, ‘the gods would be observed more purely.’ For this opinion of his he brings forward as a witness, among other things, the Jewish people as well; and he does not hesitate to close that passage by saying that those who first set up images of the gods for the peoples both took away fear from their cities and added error, wisely judging that the gods could easily be despised in the dullness of images. But in that he does not say ‘they handed down error’ but ‘they added’ it, he certainly means it to be understood that error already existed even without images. Therefore, when he says that they alone grasped what God is who believed him to be a soul governing the world, and judges that religion is observed more purely without images, who does not see how near he came to the truth? For if he had had any power against the antiquity of so great an error, he would surely have held both that one God should be worshipped, by whom he believed the world to be governed, and that he should be worshipped without an image; and, being found so near [the truth], he might perhaps easily have been reminded of the changeableness of the soul, so as to perceive that the true God is rather an unchangeable nature, which had created the soul itself as well. Since this is so, whatever mockeries of the many gods such men have set down in their writings, they were compelled by the hidden will of God to confess them rather than tried to persuade [people of] them. If, then, we bring forward any testimonies from that source, they are brought forward to refute those who refuse to notice from how great and how malignant a power of demons we are set free by the singular sacrifice of such holy blood poured out and by the gift of the Spirit imparted.

Frustra itaque adfertur nobile illud commentum de figuli rota, quod respondisse ferunt Nigidium hac quaestione turbatum, unde et Figulus appellatus est. Dum enim rotam figuli ui quanta potuit intor?isset, currente illa bis numero de atramento tamquam uno eius loco summa celeritate percussit; deinde inuenta sunt signa, quae fixerat, desistente motu, non paruo interuallo in rotae illius extremitate distantia. <Sic, inquit, in tanta rapacitate caeli, etiamsi alter post alterum tanta celeritate nascatur, quanta rotam bis ipse percussi, in caeli spatio plurimum est: hinc sunt, inquit, quaecumque dissimillima perhibentur in moribus casibusque geminorum.\' Hoc figmentum fragilius est quam uasa, quae illa rotatione finguntur. Nam si tam multum in caelo interest, quod constellationibus conprehendi non potest, ut alteri geminorum hereditas obueniat, alteri non obueniat: quur audent ceteris, qui gemini non sunt, cum inspexerint eorum constellationes, talia pronuntiare, quae ad illud secretum pertinent, quod nemo potest conprehendere et momentis adnotare nascentium? Si autem propterea talia dicunt in aliorum genituris, quia haec ad productiora spatia temporum pertinent; momenta uero illa partium minutarum, quae inter se gemini possunt habere nascentes, rebus minimis tribuuntur, de qualibus mathematici non solent consuli (quis enim consulat quando sedeat, quando deambulet, quando uel quid prandeat?): numquid ista dicimus, quando in moribus operibus casibusque geminorum plurima plurimumque diuersa monstramus? *

In vain, then, is that famous invention about the potter's wheel brought forward, which they say Nigidius gave as an answer when he was troubled by this question, and from which he was also called Figulus [Potter]. For when he had spun a potter's wheel with all the force he could, while it was turning he struck it twice with ink, at the greatest speed, as if on one spot of it; then, when the motion stopped, the marks he had made were found on the rim of that wheel, standing apart by no small interval. ‘So,’ he said, ‘in so rapid a sweep of the heavens, even if one is born after the other with as much speed as I myself struck the wheel twice, it amounts to a very great distance in the expanse of the heavens: from this,’ he said, ‘come all the very great dissimilarities that are reported in the characters and fortunes of twins.’ This fiction is more fragile than the vessels that are shaped by that turning. For if there is so great a difference in the heavens, one that cannot be grasped by constellations, that an inheritance falls to one twin and does not fall to the other, why do they dare, when they have inspected the constellations of others who are not twins, to pronounce for them such things as belong to that secret which no one can grasp and note down in the moments of those being born? But if they say such things in the nativities of others because these belong to longer stretches of time, while those moments of minute parts, which twins can have between them as they are born, are assigned to the smallest matters, about which astrologers are not usually consulted (for who would consult them on when to sit, when to take a walk, when or what to eat for lunch?), is it of such things that we speak, when we point out very many and very great differences in the characters, actions and fortunes of twins?

Reuocatur igitur ad theologian ciuilem theologia fabulosa theatrica scaenica, indignitatis et turpitudinis plena, et haec tota, quae merito culpanda et respuenda iudicatur, pars huius est, quae colenda et obseruanda censetur; non sane pars incongrua, sicut ostendere institui, et quae ab uniuerso corpore aliena inportune illi conexa adque suspensa sit, sed omnino consona et tamquam eiusdem corporis membrum conuenientissime copulata. Quid enim aliud ostendunt illa simulacra formae aetates sexus habitus deorum? Numquid barbatum Iouem, inberbem Mercurium poetae habent, pontifices non habent? Numquid Priapo mimi, non etiam sacerdotes enormia pudenda fecerunt? An aliter stat adorandus in locis sacris, quam procedit ridendus in theatris? Num Saturnus senex, Apollo ephebus ita personae sunt histrionum, ut non sint statuae delubrorum? Quur Forculus, qui foribus praeest, et Limentinus, qui limini, di sunt masculi, adque inter hos Cardea femina est, quae cardinem seruat? Nonne ista in rerum diuinarum libris reperiuntur, quae graues poetae suis carminibus indigna duxerunt? Numquid Diana theatrica portat arma et urbana simpliciter uirgo est? Numquid scaenicus Apollo citharista est et ab hac arte Delphicus uacat? Sed haec honestiora sunt in conparatione turpiorum. Quid de ipso Ioue senserunt, qui eius nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? Nonne adtestati sunt Euemero, qui omnes tales deos non fabulosa garrulitate, sed historica diligentia homines fuisse mortalesque conscripsit? Epulones etiam deos, parasitos Iouis, ad eius mensam qui constituerunt, quid aliud quam mimica sacra esse uoluerunt? Nam parasitos Iouis ad conuiuium eius adhibitos si mimus dixisset, utique risum quaesisse uideretur. Varro dixit! non cum inrideret deos, sed cum commendaret hoc dixit; diuinarum, non humanarum rerum libri hoc eum scripsisse testantur, nec ubi ludos scaenicos exponebat, sed ubi Capitolina iura pandebat. Denique talibus uincitur et fatetur, sicut forma humana deos fecerunt, ita eos delectari humanis uoluptatibus credidisse.

So the fabulous, theatrical, stage theology, full of unworthiness and baseness, is brought back to the civil theology; and the whole of the former, which is rightly judged blameworthy and to be rejected, is a part of the latter, which is deemed worthy to be cultivated and observed; not indeed an incongruous part, as I have set out to show, nor one which, alien to the whole body, has been awkwardly joined and hung onto it, but wholly in harmony with it, and most fittingly attached like a limb of the same body. For what else do those images, the forms, ages, sexes and dress of the gods show? Do the poets have a bearded Jupiter and a beardless Mercury, and the pontiffs not have them? Did the mime-actors give Priapus enormous private parts, and not the priests as well? Or does he stand to be adored in sacred places in any other form than that in which he comes forward to be laughed at in theatres? Are old Saturn and the youthful Apollo characters played by actors in such a way that they are not also statues in shrines? Why are Forculus, who presides over doors, and Limentinus, who [presides over] the threshold, male gods, and between them Cardea is female, who guards the hinge? Are these things not found in the books on divine matters, things which serious poets judged unworthy of their poems? Does the theatre's Diana carry arms, while the city's is simply a virgin? Is the stage Apollo a lyre-player, while the Delphic one has nothing to do with this art? But these things are decent in comparison with baser ones. What did they think of Jupiter himself, who placed his nurse on the Capitol? Did they not bear witness for Euhemerus, who wrote, not with the chatter of fable but with the diligence of history, that all such gods had been men and mortals? And those who set gods as banqueters, Jupiter's parasites, at his table, what else did they intend than that the rites be mime-shows? For if a mime had spoken of Jupiter's parasites brought to his banquet, he would surely seem to have been seeking a laugh. Varro said it! He said it not when he was mocking the gods, but when he was commending them; the books of divine, not human, matters bear witness that he wrote this, and not where he was setting out the stage games, but where he was laying open the laws of the Capitol. In short, he is overcome by such things and admits that, just as they made the gods in human form, so they believed them to be delighted by human pleasures.

Libertas sane, quae huic defuit, ne istam urbanam theologian [tam diligenter exponendo] theatricae simillimam aperte sicut illam reprehendere auderet, Annaeo Senecae, quem nonnullis indiciis inuenimus apostolorum nostrorum claruisse temporibus, non quidem ex toto, uerum ex aliqua parte non defuit. Adfuit enim scribenti, uiuenti defuit. Nam in eo libro, quem contra superstitiones condidit, multo copiosius adque uehementius reprehendit ipse ciuilem istam et urbanam theologian quam Varro theatricam adque fabulosam. Cum enim de simulacris ageret: \'Sacros, inquit, inmortales, inuiolabiles in materia uilissima adque inmobili dedicant, habitus illis hominum ferarumque et piscium, quidam uero mixto sexu, diuersis corporibus induunt; numina uocant, quae si spiritu accepto subito occurrerent, monstra haberentur. Deinde aliquanto post, cum theologian naturalem praedicans quorundam philosophorum sententias digessisset, obposuit sibi quaestionem et ait: \'Hoc loco dicit aliquis: Credam ego caelum et terram deos esse et supra lunam alios, infra alios? Ego feram aut Platonem aut Peripateticum Stratonem, quorum alter fecit deum sine corpore, alter sine animo?\' Et ad hoc respondens: \'Quid ergo tandem, inquit, ueriora tibi uidentur Titi Tatii aut Romuli aut Tulli Hostilii somnia? Cloacinam Tatius dedicauit deam, Picum Tiberinumque Romulus, Hostilius Pauorem adque Pallorem, taeterrimos omnium adfectus, quorum alter mentis territae motus est, alter corporis ne morbus quidem, sed color. Haec numina potius credes et caelo recipies?\' De ipsis uero ritibus crudeliter turpibus quam libere scripsit! Ille, inquit, uiriles sibi partes amputat, ille lacertos secat. Ubi iratos deos timent, qui sic propitios merentur? Di autem nullo debent coli genere, si hoc uolunt. Tantus est perturbatae mentis et sedibus suis pulsae furor, ut sic di placentur, quem ad modum ne quidem homines saeuiunt taeterrimi et in fabulas traditae crudelitatis. Tyranni lacerauerunt aliquorum membra, neminem sua lacerare iusserunt. In regiae libidinis uoluptatem castrati sunt quidam; sed nemo sibi, ne uir esset, iubente domino manus intulit. Se ipsi in templis contrucidant, uulneribus suis ac sanguine supplicant. Si cui intueri uacet, quae faciunt quaeque patiuntur, inueniet tam indecora honestis, tam indigna liberis, tam dissimilia sanis, ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere eos, si cum paucioribus furerent; nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba.\'

The freedom, indeed, which this man lacked, so that he did not dare to censure openly, as he did the theatrical theology, this urban theology so very like the theatrical [by expounding it so carefully], was not lacking to Annaeus Seneca, who we find by certain indications flourished in the times of our apostles: not wholly, it is true, but in some part. For he had it when writing; he lacked it in living. For in the book he composed against superstitions, he censures this civil and urban theology much more fully and vehemently than Varro did the theatrical and mythical. For when he was treating of images, he says: ‘They dedicate the holy, the immortal, the inviolable in the cheapest and most lifeless material; they clothe them in the shapes of men and beasts and fishes, and some indeed with mixed sex and composite bodies; they call them divinities, things which, if they took on breath and suddenly came to meet them, would be held to be monsters.’ Then, somewhat later, when in commending natural theology he had set out the opinions of certain philosophers, he put a question to himself and said: ‘At this point someone says: Am I to believe that heaven and earth are gods, and that some are above the moon and others below it? Am I to put up with either Plato or Strato the Peripatetic, one of whom made god without a body, the other without a mind?’ And in reply to this he says: ‘What then, do the dreams of Titus Tatius or Romulus or Tullus Hostilius seem truer to you? Tatius dedicated Cloacina as a goddess, Romulus Picus and Tiberinus, Hostilius Panic and Pallor, the foulest of all human feelings, of which one is the agitation of a frightened mind, the other not even a disease of the body but a colour. Will you rather believe these to be divinities and receive them into heaven?’ And about the cruelly shameful rites themselves, how freely he wrote! ‘One man,’ he says, ‘cuts off his male parts, another slashes his arms. How do they fear the gods when angry, who earn their favour like this? But gods should not be worshipped in any manner at all, if they want this. So great is the frenzy of a mind disordered and driven from its seat that the gods are appeased in a way in which not even the foulest men rage, men of a cruelty handed down in legend. Tyrants have torn the limbs of some; they have ordered no one to tear his own. Some have been castrated for the pleasure of a king's lust; but no one, at a master's command, has laid hands on himself so as not to be a man. They butcher themselves in the temples, they make their supplication with their own wounds and blood. If anyone has the leisure to observe what they do and what they suffer, he will find things so unbecoming to the honourable, so unworthy of the free, so unlike the sane, that no one would have doubted that they were mad, if they were mad in smaller numbers; as it is, the crowd of the insane is their warrant of sanity.’

Hos certe deos selectos Varro unius libri contextione commendat: Ianum, Iouem, Saturnum, Genium, Mercurium, Apollinem, Martem, Vulcanum, Neptunum, Solem, Orcum, Liberum patrem, Tellurem, Cererem, Iunonem, Lunam, Dianam, Mineruam, Venerem, Vestam; in quibus omnibus ferme uiginti duodecim mares, octo sunt feminae. Haec numina utrum propter maiores in mundo administrationes selecta dicuntur, an quod populis magis innotuerunt maiorque est eis cultus exhibitus? Si propterea, quia opera maiora ab his administrantur in mundo, non eos inuenire debuimus inter illam quasi plebeiam numinum multitudinem minutis opusculis deputatam. Nam ipse primum Ianus, cum puerperium concipitur, unde illa cuncta opera sumunt exordium minutatim minutis distributa numinibus, aditum aperit recipiendo semini. Ibi est et Saturnus propter ipsum semen; ibi Liber, qui marem effuso semine liberat; ibi Libera, quam et Venerem uolunt, quae hoc idem beneficium conferat feminae, ut etiam ipsa emisso semine liberetur. Omnes hi ex illis sunt, qui selecti appellantur. Sed ibi est et dea Mena, quae menstruis fluoribus praeest, quamuis Iouis filia, tamen ignobilis. Et hanc prouinciam fluorum menstruorum in libro selectorum deorum ipsi Iunoni idem auctor adsignat, quae in dis selectis etiam regina est et hic tamquam Iuno Lucina cum eadem Mena priuigna sua eidem cruori praesidet. Ibi sunt et duo nescio qui obscurissimi, Vitumnus et Sentinus, quorum alter uitam, alter sensus puerperio largiuntur. Et nimirum multo plus praestant, cum sint ignobilissimi, quam illi tot proceres et selecti. Nam profecto sine uita et sensu, quid est illud totum, quod muliebri utero geritur, nisi nescio quid abiectissimum limo ac pulueri conparandum?

These, at any rate, are the select gods that Varro commends in the course of a single book: Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, Genius, Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, Sol, Orcus, Father Liber, Tellus, Ceres, Juno, Luna, Diana, Minerva, Venus, Vesta; among all these, about twenty, twelve are male and eight female. Are these deities called select because of greater administrations in the world, or because they became better known to the peoples and greater worship was paid to them? If it is because greater works in the world are administered by them, we ought not to have found them among that, so to speak, plebeian multitude of deities assigned to petty little tasks. For first of all Janus himself, when a child is conceived (the point from which all those works take their beginning, parcelled out bit by bit to petty deities), opens the way in to receive the seed. Saturn too is there, on account of the seed itself; there is Liber, who frees the male by the pouring out of the seed; there is Libera, whom they also take to be Venus, who confers this same benefit on the female, that she too may be freed by the emission of seed. All these are among those called select. But there too is the goddess Mena, who presides over the menstrual flow; though a daughter of Jupiter, she is of no renown. And this province of the menstrual flow the same author, in the book of the select gods, assigns to Juno herself, who among the select gods is even queen; and here, as Juno Lucina, she presides over that same blood together with that same Mena, her stepdaughter. There too are two very obscure ones, I know not who, Vitumnus and Sentinus, of whom one bestows life, the other the senses, on the conceived child. And surely they provide much more, though they are of the lowest renown, than all those many chiefs and select ones. For indeed, without life and sense, what is that whole thing which is carried in a woman's womb, but some most abject something, to be compared to mud and dust?

Istos uero deos selectos uidemus quidem clarius innotuisse quam ceteros, non tamen ut eorum inlustrarentur merita, sed ne occultarentur obprobria; unde magis eos homines fuisse credibile est, sicut non solum poeticae litterae, uerum etiam historicae tradiderunt. Nam quod Vergilius ait: Primus ab aetherio uenit Saturnus Olympo, Arma Iouis fugiens et regnis exul ademtis, et quae ad hanc rem pertinentia consequuntur, totam de hoc Euhemerus pandit historiam, quam Ennius in Latinum uertit eloquium; unde quia plurima posuerunt, qui contra huius modi errores ante nos uel Graeco sermone uel Latino scripserunt, non in eo mihi placuit inmorari.

These select gods, we see, have indeed become better known than the others, yet not so that their merits might be brought to light, but so that their disgraces might not be hidden; from which it is the more credible that they were men, as not only poetic but also historical writings have handed down. For as to what Virgil says, ‘First came Saturn from heavenly Olympus, fleeing the arms of Jupiter, an exile with his kingdoms taken from him’, and what follows on this matter, Euhemerus lays open the whole history of it, which Ennius turned into Latin speech; and since those who wrote against errors of this kind before us, in Greek or in Latin, have set down a great deal on it, I have not chosen to dwell on it.

Nam et ipse Numa, ad quem nullus Dei propheta, nullus sanctus angelus mittebatur, hydromantian facere conpulsus est, ut in aqua uideret imagines deorum uel potius ludificationes daemonum, a quibus audiret, quid in sacris constituere adque obseruare deberet. Quod genus diuinationis idem Varro a Persis dicit adlatum, quo et ipsum Numam et postea Pythagoram philosophum usum fuisse commemorat; ubi adhibito sanguine etiam inferos perhibet sciscitari et νεϰοιομαντείαν Graece dicit uocari, quae [siue hydromantia] siue necromantia dicatur, id ipsum est, ubi uidentur mortui diuinare. Quibus haec artibus fiant, ipsi uiderint. Nolo enim dicere has artes etiam ante nostri Saluatoris aduentum in ipsis ciuitatibus gentium legibus solere prohiberi et poena seuerissima uindicari. Nolo, inquam, hoc dicere; fortassis enim talia tunc licebant. His tamen artibus didicit sacra illa Pompilius, quorum sacrorum facta prodidit, causas obruit (ita timuit et ipse quod didicit), quarum causarum proditos libros senatus incendit. Quid mihi ergo Varro illorum sacrorum alias nescio quas causas uelut physicas interpretatur? quales si libri illi habuissent, non utique arsissent, aut et istos Varronis ad Caesarem pontificem scriptos adque editos patres conscripti similiter incendissent. Quod ergo aquam egesserit, id est exportauerit, Numa Pompilius, unde hydromantian faceret, ideo nympham Egeriam coniugem dicitur habuisse, quem ad modum in supradicto libro Varronis exponitur. Ita enim solent res gestae aspersione mendaciorum in fabulas uerti. In illa igitur hydromantia curiosissimus rex ille Romanus et sacra didicit, quae in libris suis pontifices haberent, et eorum causas, quas praeter se neminem scire uoluit. Itaque eas seorsum scriptas secum quodam modo mori fecit, quando ita subtrahendas hominum notitiae sepeliendasque curauit. Aut ergo daemonum illic tam sordidae et noxiae cupiditates erant conscriptae, ut ex his tota illa theologia ciuilis etiam aput tales homines execrabilis appareret, qui tam multa in ipsis sacris erubescenda susceperant; aut illi omnes nihil aliud quam homines mortui prodebantur, quos tam prolixa temporis uetustate fere omnes populi gentium deos inmortales esse crediderant, cum et talibus sacris idem illi daemones oblectarentur, qui se colendos pro ipsis mortuis, quos deos putari fecerant, quibusdam fallacium miraculorum adtestationibus subponebant. Sed occulta Dei ueri prouidentia factum est, ut et Pompilio amico suo illis conciliati artibus, quibus hydromantia fieri potuit, cuncta illa confiteri permitterentur, et tamen, ut moriturus incenderet ea potius quam obrueret, admonere non permitterentur; qui ne innotescerent nec aratro, quo sunt eruta, obsistere potuerunt, nec stilo Varronis, quo ea, quae de hac re gesta sunt, in nostram memoriam peruenerunt. Non enim possunt quod non sinuntur efficere; sinuntur autem alto Dei summi iustoque iudicio pro meritis eorum, quos ab eis uel adfligi tantum, uel etiam subici ac decipi iustum est. Quam uero perniciosae uel a cultu uerae diuinitatis alienae illae litterae iudicatae sint, hinc intellegi potest, quod eas maluit senatus incendere, quas Pompilius occultauit, quam timere quod timuit, qui hoc audere non potuit. Qui ergo uitam nec modo habere uult piam, talibus sacris quaerat aeternam; qui autem cum malignis daemonibus non uult habere societatem, non superstitionem, qua coluntur, noxiam pertimescat, sed ueram religionem, qua produntur et uincuntur, agnoscat.

For Numa himself too, to whom no prophet of God and no holy angel was sent, was driven to practise hydromancy, so that he might see in water images of the gods, or rather the mockeries of demons, from whom he might hear what he ought to establish and observe in the sacred rites. This kind of divination, Varro likewise says, was brought from the Persians, and he records that both Numa himself and later the philosopher Pythagoras made use of it; he states that in it, when blood is applied, the dead below are also questioned, and he says it is called in Greek nekyomanteia; but whether it is called [hydromancy] or necromancy, it is the very same thing, a practice in which the dead appear to divine. By what arts these things are done, let them see to that themselves. For I do not wish to say that these arts, even before the coming of our Saviour, were customarily forbidden by law in the very cities of the gentiles and punished with the severest penalty. I do not wish, I say, to say this; for perhaps such things were permitted then. Yet it was by these arts that Pompilius learned those rites, of which he published the practices but buried the reasons (so much did even he fear what he had learned); and when the books setting out those reasons came to light, the senate burned them. Why then does Varro expound to me some other reasons for those rites, I know not what, as if they were natural ones? If those books had contained reasons of that sort, they would surely not have been burned; or else the conscript fathers would likewise have burned these books of Varro too, written and published for Caesar as pontiff. So, because Numa Pompilius drew off water, that is, carried it out, to perform hydromancy with, he is therefore said to have had the nymph Egeria as his wife, as is explained in the aforementioned book of Varro. For this is how real events are commonly turned into myths by a sprinkling of lies. In that hydromancy, then, that most inquisitive Roman king learned both the rites, which the pontiffs were to keep in their books, and the reasons for them, which he wanted no one but himself to know. So he had these reasons written down separately and in a way made them die with him, since he took care that they should be thus withdrawn from human knowledge and buried. Either, then, the desires of the demons recorded there were so foul and harmful that from them that whole civil theology would have appeared detestable even to men such as these, who had admitted so many shameful things into the rites themselves; or else all those [gods] were revealed to be nothing other than dead men, whom, over so long a stretch of time, nearly all the peoples of the gentiles had come to believe were immortal gods, while those same demons also took delight in such rites, putting themselves forward, by certain attestations of deceptive miracles, to be worshipped in place of the very dead men whom they had caused to be thought gods. But by the hidden providence of the true God it came about that [the demons], won over by those arts through which hydromancy could be performed, were permitted to confess all those things to Pompilius their friend, and yet were not permitted to warn him to burn them, when he was about to die, rather than bury them; nor could they, to keep them from becoming known, stand in the way either of the plough by which they were dug up, or of the pen of Varro, through which what happened in this affair has come down to our memory. For they cannot bring about what they are not allowed to; but they are allowed, by the deep and just judgement of the supreme God, according to the deserts of those whom it is just that they should merely afflict, or even subjugate and deceive. How pernicious, indeed, and how alien to the worship of the true divinity those writings were judged to be can be understood from this: the senate preferred to burn what Pompilius had hidden, rather than to fear what he feared, who could not bring himself to dare this. Let him, then, who does not want to have a godly life even now, seek eternal life through such rites; but let him who does not want to have fellowship with malignant demons not dread the harmful superstition by which they are worshipped, but acknowledge the true religion by which they are exposed and overcome.

Omnium, inquiunt, animalium, in quibus est anima rationalis, tripertita diuisio est, in deos, homines, daemones. Di excelsissimum locum tenent, homines infimum, daemones medium. Nam deorum sedes in caelo est, hominum in terra, in aere daemonum. Sicut eis diuersa dignitas est locorum. ita etiam naturarum. Proinde di sunt hominibus daemonibusque potiores; homines uero infra deos et daemones constituti sunt, ut elementorum ordine, sic differentia meritorum. Daemones igitur medii, quem ad modum dis, quibus inferius habitant, postponendi, ita hominibus, quibus superius, praeferendi sunt. Habent enim cum dis communem inmortalitatem corporum, animorum autem cum hominibus passiones. Quapropter non est mirum, inquiunt, si etiam ludorum obscenitatibus et poetarum figmentis delectantur, quando quidem humanis capiuntur adfectibus, a quibus di longe absunt et modis omnibus alieni sunt. Ex quo colligitur, Platonem poetica detestando et prohibendo figmenta non deos, qui omnes boni et excelsi sunt, priuasse ludorum scaenicorum uoluptate, sed daemones.

Of all living beings that have a rational soul, they say, there is a threefold division: into gods, men and demons. The gods hold the highest place, men the lowest, demons the middle. For the seat of the gods is in heaven, that of men on earth, that of demons in the air. As the dignity of their places differs, so too does that of their natures. Accordingly the gods are superior to men and demons, while men are placed below gods and demons, as in the order of the elements, so in the difference of their merits. The demons, then, being in the middle, are to be ranked below the gods, beneath whom they dwell, and to be preferred to men, above whom they dwell. For they share with the gods immortality of body, but with men the passions of the mind. Therefore, they say, it is no wonder if they also delight in the obscenities of the games and the fictions of the poets, since they are seized by human feelings, from which the gods are far removed and in every way estranged. From this it is concluded that Plato, by detesting and forbidding the fictions of poetry, deprived not the gods, who are all good and exalted, of the pleasure of stage shows, but the demons.

Haec si ita sunt (quae licet aput alios quoque reperiantur, Apuleius tamen Platonicus Madaurensis de hac re sola unum scripsit librum, cuius esse titulum uoluit \'de deo Socratis\', ubi disserit et exponit, ex quo genere numinum Socrates habebat adiunctum et amicitia quadam conciliatum, a quo perhibetur solitus admoneri, ut desisteret ab agendo, quando id quod agere uolebat, non prospere fuerat euenturum; dicit enim apertissime et copiosissime adserit non illum deum fuisse, sed daemonem, diligenti disputatione pertractans istam Platonis de deorum sublimitate et hominum humilitate et daemonum medietate sententiam) — haec ergo si ita sunt, quonam modo ausus est Plato, etiamsi non dis, quos ab omni humana contagione semouit, certe ipsis daemonibus poetas urbe pellendo auferre theatricas uoluptates, nisi quia hoc pacto admonuit animum humanum, quamuis adhuc in his moribundis membris positum, pro splendore honestatis inpura daemonum iussa contemnere eorumque inmunditiam detestari? Nam si Plato haec honestissime arguit et prohibuit, profecto daemones turpissime poposcerunt adque iusserunt. Aut ergo fallitur Apuleius et non ex isto genere numinum habuit amicum Socrates aut contraria inter se sentit Plato modo daemones honorando, modo eorum delicias a ciuitate bene morata remouendo, aut non est Socrati amicitia daemonis gratulanda, de qua usque adeo et ipse Apuleius erubuit, ut de deo Socratis praenotaret librum, quem secundum suam disputationem, qua deos a daemonibus tam diligenter copioseque discernit, non appellare de deo, sed de daemone Socratis debuit. Maluit autem hoc in ipsa disputatione quam in titulo libri ponere. Ita enim per sanam doctrinam, quae humanis rebus inluxit, omnes uel paene omnes daemonum nomen exhorrent, ut, quisquis ante disputationem Apulei, qua daemonum dignitas commendatur, titulum libri de daemone Socratis legeret, nequaquam illum hominem sanum fuisse sentiret. Quid autem etiam ipse Apuleius quod in daemonibus laudaret inuenit praeter subtilitatem et firmitatem corporum et habitationis altiorem locum? Nam de moribus eorum, cum de omnibus generaliter loqueretur, non solum nihil boni dixit, sed etiam plurimum mali. Denique lecto illo libro prorsus nemo miratur eos etiam scaenicam turpitudinem in rebus diuinis habere uoluisse, et cum deos se putari uelint, deorum criminibus oblectari potuisse, et quidquid in eorum sacris obscena sollemnitate seu turpi crudelitate uel ridetur uel horretur, eorum adfectibus conuenire.

If these things are so (and although they are found in other writers too, yet Apuleius, the Platonist of Madauros, wrote one book on this subject alone, to which he chose to give the title “On the God of Socrates”, where he discusses and explains to what class of divine powers belonged the being that Socrates had attached to him and bound to him by a kind of friendship, by which he is said to have been regularly warned to desist from acting when what he wanted to do was not going to turn out well; for he says most plainly and asserts most fully that it was not a god but a demon, treating with careful argument that view of Plato's about the loftiness of the gods, the lowliness of men and the middle place of demons) — if these things, then, are so, how did Plato dare, by driving the poets from the city, to take away the pleasures of the theatre, if not from the gods, whom he set apart from all contact with humanity, then certainly from the demons themselves, unless it was that in this way he admonished the human mind, though still placed in these dying limbs, to despise the impure commands of demons for the sake of the splendour of virtue, and to detest their uncleanness? For if Plato acted most honourably in censuring and forbidding these things, then surely the demons acted most shamefully in demanding and ordering them. Either, then, Apuleius is mistaken and Socrates did not have a friend of that class of divine powers; or Plato holds views that contradict each other, now honouring demons, now removing their delights from a well-ordered city; or Socrates is not to be congratulated on the friendship of a demon, of which even Apuleius himself was so ashamed that he headed his book “On the God of Socrates”, when by his own argument, in which he distinguishes gods from demons so carefully and fully, he ought to have called it not “On the God” but “On the Demon of Socrates”. But he preferred to put this in the argument itself rather than in the title of the book. For through the sound teaching that has shone upon human affairs, all or nearly all people so shudder at the name of demons that anyone who read the title of a book “On the Demon of Socrates” before reading Apuleius's argument, in which the dignity of demons is commended, would think that man by no means sane. And what did even Apuleius himself find to praise in demons, apart from the fineness and durability of their bodies and the higher place of their dwelling? For of their characters, when he spoke of them all in general, he said not only nothing good but a great deal that was bad. In short, once that book has been read, no one at all is surprised that they wanted to have even the shamefulness of the stage among divine things, and that, while they wish to be thought gods, they could take delight in the crimes of the gods, and that whatever in their rites, through obscene solemnity or shameful cruelty, is either laughed at or shuddered at, suits their passions.

* Porro aduersus magicas artes, de quibus quosdam nimis infelices et nimis inpios etiam gloriari libet, nonne ipsam publicam lucem testem citabo? Quur enim tam grauiter ista plectuntur seueritate legum, si opera sunt numinum colendorum? An forte istas leges Christiani instituerunt, quibus artes magicae puniuntur? Secundum quem alium sensum, nisi quod haec maleficia generi humano perniciosa esse non dubium est, ait poeta clarissimus: Testor, cara, deos et te, germana, tuumque Dulce caput, magicas inuitam accingier artes? Illud etiam, quod alio loco de his artibus dicit: Adque satas alio uidi traducere messes, eo quod hac pestifera scelerataque doctrina fructus alieni in alias terras transferri perhibentur, nonne in duodecim tabulis, id est Romanorum antiquissimis legibus, Cicero commemorat esse conscriptum et ei, qui hoc fecerit, supplicium constitutum? Postremo Apuleius ipse numquid aput Christianos iudices de magicis artibus accusatus est? Quas utique sibi obiectas si diuinas et pias esse nouerat et diuinarum potestatum operibus congruas, non solum eas confiteri debuit, sed etiam profiteri, leges culpans potius, quibus haec prohiberentur et damnanda putarentur, quae haberi miranda et ueneranda oporteret. Ita enim uel sententiam suam persuaderet iudicibus, uel, si illi secundum iniquas leges saperent eumque talia praedicantem adque laudantem morte multarent, digna animae illius daemones dona rependerent, pro quorum diuinis operibus praedicandis humanam uitam sibi adimi non timeret; sicut martyres nostri, cum eis pro crimine obiceretur Christiana religio, qua nouerant se fieri saluos et gloriosissimos inaeternum, non eam negando temporales poenas euadere delegerunt, sed potius confitendo profitendo praedicando et pro hac omnia fideliter fortiterque tolerando et cum pia securitate moriendo leges, quibus prohibebatur, erubescere conpulerunt mutarique fecerunt. Huius autem philosophi Platonici copiosissima et disertissima extat oratio, qua crimen artium magicarum a se alienum esse defendit seque aliter non uult innocentem uideri nisi ea negando, quae non possunt ab innocente committi. At omnia miracula magorum, quos recte sentit esse damnandos, doctrinis fiunt et operibus daemonum, quos uiderit quur censeat honorandos, eos necessarios adserens perferendis ad deos precibus nostris, quorum debemus opera deuitare, si ad Deum uerum preces nostras uolumus peruenire. Deinde quaero, quales preces hominum dis bonis per daemones adlegari putat, magicas an licitas? Si magicas, nolunt tales; si licitas, nolunt per tales. Si autem peccator paenitens preces fundit, maxime si aliquid magicum admisit, itane tandem illis intercedentibus accipit ueniam, quibus inpellentibus aut fauentibus se cecidisse plangit in culpam? an et ipsi daemones, ut possint paenitentibus mereri indulgentiam, priores agunt, quod eos deceperint, paenitentiam? Hoc nemo umquam de daemonibus dixit, quia, si ita esset, nequaquam sibi auderent diuinos honores expetere, qui paenitendo desiderarent ad gratiam ueniae peruenire. Ibi enim est detestanda superbia, hic humilitas miseranda.

Further, against the magic arts, in which some, too unhappy and too impious, even like to glory, shall I not call the light of day itself, open to all, as witness? For why are these things punished so heavily by the severity of the laws, if they are the works of divine powers that ought to be worshipped? Or was it perhaps Christians who established these laws by which the magic arts are punished? In what other sense, except that there is no doubt these evil practices are destructive to the human race, does the most famous poet say: “I call the gods to witness, dear sister, and you and your sweet head, that I arm myself against my will with magic arts”? And that too which he says of these arts in another place: “And I have seen [him] lead sown crops away to another field” — because by this pestilent and wicked lore the crops of others are said to be transferred to other lands — does not Cicero record that it was written in the Twelve Tables, that is, in the most ancient laws of the Romans, and that a punishment was laid down for anyone who did this? Lastly, was it before Christian judges that Apuleius himself was accused of the magic arts? If he knew that these arts charged against him were divine and holy and in keeping with the works of divine powers, he ought not only to have confessed them but to have professed them, blaming instead the laws by which things were forbidden and judged worthy of condemnation that ought to be held marvellous and venerable. For in this way he would either have persuaded the judges of his opinion, or, if they followed unjust laws in their thinking and punished him with death for proclaiming and praising such things, the demons, for proclaiming whose divine works he would not have feared to have his human life taken from him, would have repaid his soul with gifts worthy of it; just as our martyrs, when the Christian religion was charged against them as a crime — the religion by which they knew they were made safe and most glorious for eternity — did not choose to escape temporal punishments by denying it, but rather, by confessing, professing and proclaiming it, by enduring everything for it faithfully and bravely, and by dying with devout serenity, compelled the laws by which it was forbidden to blush, and caused them to be changed. But there survives a very full and very eloquent speech of this Platonic philosopher, in which he defends himself by arguing that the charge of magic arts has nothing to do with him, and he wishes to appear innocent in no other way than by denying those things which cannot be committed by an innocent man. Yet all the wonders of the magicians, whom he rightly judges should be condemned, are done by the teachings and works of demons — let him see why he thinks they should be honoured, asserting that they are needed to carry our prayers to the gods — whose works we ought to shun if we want our prayers to reach the true God. Next I ask: what kind of human prayers does he think are presented to the good gods through demons, magical or lawful? If magical, the gods do not want such prayers; if lawful, they do not want them through such [go-betweens]. But if a penitent sinner pours out prayers, especially if he has committed something magical, does he then really receive pardon through the intercession of those at whose urging or with whose favour he laments that he fell into guilt? Or do the demons themselves too, so that they may be able to earn pardon for penitents, first do penance for having deceived them? No one has ever said this of demons, because if it were so, they would never dare to seek divine honours for themselves, since they would be beings who desired by repenting to attain the grace of pardon. For in the one case there is a pride to be detested, in the other a humility to be pitied.

Nam diuersa de illis Hermes Aegyptius, quem Trismegistum uocant, sensit et scripsit. Apuleius enim deos quidem illos negat; sed cum dicit ita inter deos et homines quadam medietate uersari, ut hominibus aput ipsos deos necessarii uideantur, cultum eorum a supernorum deorum religione non separat. Ille autem Aegyptius alios deos esse dicit a summo Deo factos, alios ab hominibus. Hoc qui audit, sicut a me positum est, putat dici de simulacris, quia opera sunt manuum hominum; at ille uisibilia et contrectabilia simulacra uelut corpora deorum esse adserit; inesse autem his quosdam spiritus inuitatos, qui ualeant aliquid siue ad nocendum siue ad desideria nonnulla conplenda eorum, a quibus eis diuini honores et cultus obsequia deferuntur. Hos ergo spiritus inuisibiles per artem quandam uisibilibus rebus corporalis materiae copulare, ut sint quasi animata corpora illis spiritibus dicata et subdita simulacra, hoc esse dicit deos facere eamque magnam et mirabilem deos faciendi accepisse homines potestatem. Huius Aegyptii uerba, sicut in nostram linguam interpretata sunt, ponam. \'Et quoniam de cognatione, inquit, et consortio hominum deorumque nobis indicitur sermo, potestatem hominis, o Asclepi, uimque cognosce. Dominus, inquit, et Pater uel quod est summum Deus ut effector est deorum caelestium, ita homo fictor est deorum, qui in templis sunt humana proximitate contenti.\' Et paulo post: \'Ita humanitas, inquit, semper memor naturae et originis suae in illa diui- . nitatis imitatione perseuerat, ut, sicuti Pater ac Dominus, ut sui similes essent, deos fecit aeternos, ita humanitas deos suos ex sui uultus similitudine figuraret.\' Hic cum Asclepius, ad quem maxime loquebatur, ei respondisset adque dixisset: \'Statuas dicis, o Trismegiste?) tum ille: \'Statuas, inquit, o Asclepi, uides quatenus tu ipse diffidas; statuas animatas sensu et spiritu plenas tantaque facientes et talia, statuas futurorum praescias eaque sorte uate somniis multisque aliis rebus praedicentes, inbecillitates hominibus facientes easque curantes, tristitiam laetitiamque pro meritis. An ignoras, o Asclepi, quod Aegyptus imago sit caeli, aut, quod est uerius, translatio aut descensio omnium quae gubernantur adque exercentur in caelo. Ac si dicendum est uerius, terra nostra mundi totius est templum. Et tamen quoniam praescire cuncta prudentem decet, istud uos ignorare fas non est: Futurum tempus est, quo appareat Aegyptios incassum pia mente diuinitatem sedula religione seruasse.\'

For Hermes the Egyptian, whom they call Trismegistus, thought and wrote differently about them. For Apuleius indeed denies that they are gods; but when he says that they move in a kind of middle position between gods and men, in such a way that they seem necessary to men in dealings with the gods themselves, he does not separate their worship from the religion of the gods above. But that Egyptian says that some gods were made by the highest God, others by men. Whoever hears this, as I have put it, thinks it is said of images, since they are the works of men's hands; but he asserts that the visible and tangible images are as it were the bodies of the gods, and that in them dwell certain spirits who have been invited in, who have some power either to harm or to fulfil certain desires of those by whom divine honours and the services of worship are paid to them. To join these invisible spirits, then, by a certain art, to visible things of bodily matter, so that the images dedicated and subjected to those spirits are as it were ensouled bodies: this, he says, is to make gods, and men have received this great and wonderful power of making gods. I shall set down this Egyptian's words, as they have been translated into our language. “And since,” he says, “our discourse is appointed to be about the kinship and partnership of men and gods, learn, Asclepius, the power and strength of man. As the Lord,” he says, “and Father, or, what is highest, God, is the maker of the heavenly gods, so man is the fashioner of the gods who are in temples, content with nearness to humans.” And a little later: “Thus humanity,” he says, “ever mindful of its nature and origin, persists in that imitation of divinity, so that, just as the Father and Lord made the gods eternal, so that they should be like himself, so humanity should fashion its gods after the likeness of its own countenance.” Here, when Asclepius, to whom he was chiefly speaking, had answered him and said, “Do you mean statues, Trismegistus?”, then he [said]: “Statues,” he says, “Asclepius, you see how far you yourself are doubting; statues ensouled, full of sense and spirit, and doing such great things and of such a kind; statues that foreknow the future and foretell it by lot, by seer, by dreams and by many other means; that cause weaknesses in men and cure them; [that give] sadness and joy according to deserts. Or do you not know, Asclepius, that Egypt is the image of heaven, or, what is truer, the transfer or descent of all things that are governed and set in motion in heaven? And if it must be said more truly, our land is the temple of the whole world. And yet, since it befits a wise man to foreknow all things, it is not right that you should be ignorant of this: a time is coming when it will appear that the Egyptians kept the divinity with pious mind and diligent religion in vain.”

Dicit quidem et animas hominum daemones esse et ex hominibus fieri lares, si boni meriti sunt; lemures, si mali, seu laruas; manes autem deos dici, si incertum est bonorum eos seu malorum esse meritorum. In qua opinione quantam uoraginem aperiant sectandis perditis moribus, quis non uideat, si uel paululum adtendat? Quando quidem quamlibet nequam homines fuerint, uel laruas se fieri dum opinantur, uel dum manes deos, tanto peiores fiunt, quanto sunt nocendi cupidiores, ut etiam quibusdam sacrificiis tamquam diuinis honoribus post mortem se inuitari opinentur, ut noceant. Laruas quippe dicit esse noxios daemones ex hominibus factos. Sed hinc alia quaestio est. Inde autem perhibet appellari Graece beatos εὐδαίμονας, quod boni sint animi, hoc est boni daemones, animos quoque hominum daemones esse confirmans.

He says indeed that the souls of men are also demons, and that from men they become lares [household gods] if they are of good desert; lemures or larvae [ghosts] if of bad; and that they are called manes gods [spirits of the dead] if it is uncertain whether they are of good or bad desert. In this opinion, who would not see, if he pays even a little attention, what an abyss they open up for the pursuit of depraved conduct? For, however wicked men may have been, as long as they believe they will become either larvae or manes gods, they become the worse the more eager they are to do harm, so that they even believe they are invited after death by certain sacrifices, as if by divine honours, in order to do harm. For he says that larvae are harmful demons made from men. But that is another question. He states, moreover, that the blessed are called in Greek eudaimones for this reason, that they are good souls, that is, good demons, thus confirming that the souls of men also are demons.

Haec et alia multa huiusce modi, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, fiebant ad commendandum unius Dei ueri cultum et multorum falsorumque prohibendum. Fiebant autem simplici fide adque fiducia pietatis, non incantationibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte conpositis, quam uel magian uel detestabiliori nomine goetian uel honrabiliori theurgian uocant, qui quasi conantur ista discernere et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos uulgus appellat (hos enim ad goetian pertinere dicunt), alios autem laudabiles uideri uolunt, quibus theurgian deputant; cum sint utrique ritibus fallacibus daemonum obstricti sub nominibus angelorum.

These and many other things of this kind, which it would take too long to recount in full, were done to commend the worship of the one true God and to forbid that of the many false ones. And they were done by simple faith and the confidence of piety, not by incantations and spells composed by the art of an impious curiosity, which is called either magic, or by a more detestable name goetia [sorcery], or by a more honourable one theurgy, by those who try, as it were, to distinguish these things, and who want some of those devoted to illicit arts to seem damnable, those whom the common people also call malefici [evildoers] (for these, they say, belong to goetia), but others praiseworthy, to whom they assign theurgy; whereas both are bound by the deceitful rites of demons under the names of angels.

Melius sapuit iste Porphyrius, cum ad Anebontem scribit Aegyptium, ubi consulenti similis et quaerenti et prodit artes sacrilegas et euertit. Et ibi quidem omnes daemones reprobat, quos dicit ob inprudentiam trahere humidum uaporem et ideo non in aethere, sed in aere esse sub luna adque in ipso lunae globo; uerum tamen non audet omnes fallacias et malitias et ineptias, quibus merito mouetur, omnibus daemonibus dare. Quosdam namque benignos daemones more appellat aliorum, cum omnes generaliter inprudentes esse fateatur. Miratur autem quod non solum di adliciantur uictimis, sed etiam conpellantur adque cogantur facere quod homines uolunt; et si corpore et incorporalitate di a daemonibus distinguuntur, quo modo deos esse existimandum sit solem et lunam et uisibilia cetera in caelo, quae corpora esse non dubitat; et si di sunt. quo modo alii benefici, alii malefici esse dicantur; et quo modo incorporalibus, cum sint corporei, coniungantur. Quaerit etiam ueluti dubitans, utrum in diuinantibus et quaedam mira facientibus animae sint passiones an aliqui spiritus extrinsecus ueniant, per quos haec ualeant; et potius uenire extrinsecus conicit, eo quod lapidibus et herbis adhibitis et adligent quosdam, et aperiant clausa ostia, uel aliquid eius modi mirabiliter operentur. Unde dicit alios opinari esse quoddam genus, cui exaudire sit proprium, natura fallax, omniforme, multimodum, simulans deos et daemones et animas defunctorum, et hoc esse quod efficiat haec omnia quae uidentur bona esse uel praua; ceterum circa ea, quae uere bona sunt, nihil opitulari, immo uero ista nec nosse, sed et male conciliare et insimulare adque inpedire nonnumquam uirtutis sedulos sectatores, et plenum esse temeritatis et fastus, gaudere nidoribus, adulationibus capi, et cetera, quae de hoc genere fallacium malignorumque spirituum, qui extrinsecus in animam ueniunt humanosque sensus sopitos uigilantesue deludunt, non tamquam sibi persuasa confirmat, sed tam tenuiter suspicatur aut dubitat, ut haec alios adserat opinari. Difficile quippe fuit tanto philosopho cunctam diabolicam societatem uel nosse uel fidenter arguere, quam quaelibet anicula Christiana nec cunctatur esse, et liberrime detestatur. Nisi forte iste et ipsum, ad quem scribit, Anebontem tamquam talium sacrorum praeclarissimum antistitem et alios talium operum tamquam diuinorum et ad deos colendos pertinentium admiratores uerecundatur offendere.

This Porphyry showed better sense when he wrote to Anebo the Egyptian, where, in the guise of someone seeking advice and asking questions, he both exposes the sacrilegious arts and overthrows them. And there indeed he condemns all demons, who, he says, through lack of wisdom draw in moist vapour, and are therefore not in the ether but in the air below the moon and in the very globe of the moon; yet he does not dare to attribute to all demons all the deceptions and malice and follies by which he is rightly troubled. For, following the custom of others, he calls some demons benign, though he admits that all of them in general are without wisdom. He wonders, moreover, that the gods are not only enticed by sacrificial victims but also compelled and forced to do what men want; and, if gods are distinguished from demons by body and incorporeality, how the sun and moon and the other visible things in the sky are to be thought gods, since he does not doubt that they are bodies; and, if they are gods, how some can be called beneficent and others maleficent; and how they can be joined to incorporeal beings, when they are corporeal. He asks too, as if in doubt, whether in those who divine and perform certain wonders there are passions of the soul, or whether some spirits come from outside through whom they have this power; and he infers that they rather come from outside, on the ground that by applying stones and herbs they both bind certain people and open closed doors, or work some such thing marvellously. Hence he says that others hold that there is a certain kind [of being] whose property it is to hearken to prayers, deceitful by nature, taking every form, manifold in its ways, impersonating gods and demons and the souls of the dead, and that it is this that brings about all these things that seem to be good or bad; but that with regard to the things that are truly good it gives no help at all, and indeed does not even know them, but both discredits and slanders, and sometimes obstructs, the earnest followers of virtue; and that it is full of rashness and arrogance, delights in the reek of sacrifices, and is captivated by flattery; and the rest that he says about this kind of deceitful and malignant spirits, which come into the soul from outside and delude human senses whether asleep or awake: these he does not affirm as things he is himself convinced of, but suspects or doubts them so faintly that he asserts that it is others who hold these opinions. For it was difficult for so great a philosopher either to recognize or confidently to denounce the whole diabolical fellowship, which any little old Christian woman does not hesitate [to say] exists, and most freely detests. Unless perhaps he is shy of offending both Anebo himself, to whom he writes, as a most distinguished high priest of such rites, and others who admire such works as divine and as pertaining to the worship of the gods.

Illa quippe miracula deorum gentilium, quae commendat historia (non ea dico, quae interuallis temporum occultis ipsius mundi causis, uerum tamen sub diuina prouidentia constitutis et ordinatis monstrosa contingunt; quales sunt inusitati partus animalium et caelo terraque rerum insolita facies, siue tantum terrens siue etiam nocens, quae procurari adque mitigari daemonicis ritibus fallacissima eorum astutia perhibentur; sed ea dico, quae ui ac potestate eorum fieri satis euidenter apparet, ut est quod effigies deorum Penatium, quas de Troia Aeneas fugiens aduexit, de loco in locum migrasse referuntur; quod cotem Tarquinius nouacula secuit: quod Epidaurius serpens Aesculapio nauiganti Romam comes adhaesit; quod nauem, qua simulacrum matris Phrygiae uehebatur, tantis hominum boumque conatibus inmobilem redditam una muliercula zona adligatam ad suae pudicitiae testimonium mouit et traxit; quod uirgo Vestalis, de cuius corruptione quaestio uertebatur, aqua inpleto cribro de Tiberi neque perfluente abstulit controuersiam) — haec ergo adque huius modi nequaquam illis, quae in populo Dei facta legimus, uirtute ac magnitudine conferenda sunt; quanto minus ea, quae illorum quoque populorum, qui tales deos coluerunt, legibus iudicata sunt prohibenda adque plectenda, magica scilicet uel theurgica! quorum pleraque specie tenus mortalium sensus imaginaria ludificatione decipiunt, quale est lunam deponere, (donee subpositas, ut ait Lucanus, propior despumet in herbas;\' quaedam uero etsi nonnullis piorum factis uideantur opere coaequari, finis ipse, quo discernuntur, incomparabiliter haec nostra ostendit excellere. Illis enim multi tanto minus sacrificiis colendi sunt, quanto magis haec expetunt; his uero unus commendatur Deus, qui se nullis talibus indigere et scripturarum suarum testificatione et eorundem postea sacrificiorum remotione demonstrat. Si ergo angeli sibi expetunt sacrificium, praeponendi eis sunt, qui non sibi, sed Deo creatori omnium, cui seruiunt. Hinc enim ostendunt quam sincero amore nos diligant, quando per sacrificium non sibi, sed ei nos subdere uolunt, cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt, et ad eum nos peruenire, a quo ipsi non recesserunt. Si autem angeli, qui non uni sed plurimis sacrificia fieri uolunt, non sibi, sed eis dis uolunt, quorum deorum angeli sunt: etiam sic eis praeponendi sunt illi, qui unius Dei deorum angeli sunt, cui sacrificari sic iubent, ut alicui alteri uetent, cum eorum nullus huic uetet, cui uni isti sacrificari iubent. Porro si, quod magis indicat eorum superba fallacia, nec boni nec bonorum deorum angeli sunt. sed daemones mali, qui non unum solum ac summum Deum, sed se ipsos sacrificiis coli uolunt: quod maius quam unius Dei contra eos eligendum est praesidium, cui seruiunt angeli boni, qui non sibi, sed illi iubent ut sacrificio seruiamus, cuius nos ipsi esse sacrificium debemus?

For those miracles of the gentile gods which history commends (I do not mean those portents that occur at intervals of time from hidden causes in the world itself, causes nonetheless established and ordered under divine providence, such as unusual births of animals and an unwonted appearance of things in sky and earth, whether only terrifying or also harmful, which, by the demons' most deceitful cunning, are said to be expiated and allayed by demonic rites; but I mean those which quite evidently appear to be done by their force and power, such as that the images of the Penates gods, which Aeneas brought with him when he fled from Troy, are reported to have moved from place to place; that Tarquin cut a whetstone with a razor; that the Epidaurian serpent attached itself as a companion to Aesculapius as he sailed to Rome; that one slight woman, in proof of her chastity, moved and drew by her girdle tied to it the ship carrying the image of the Phrygian Mother, which had been rendered immovable despite such great efforts of men and oxen; that a Vestal virgin, whose violation was under inquiry, put an end to the dispute by filling a sieve with water from the Tiber, which did not run through) — these, then, and things of this kind are in no way to be compared in power and greatness with those we read were done among the people of God; how much less those which even by the laws of the very peoples who worshipped such gods were judged things to be forbidden and punished, namely magical or theurgic acts! Most of these deceive mortal senses in appearance only, with imaginary trickery, as with bringing down the moon, “until, coming nearer,” as Lucan says, “she lets her foam drip on the herbs set beneath”; and some, though they may seem to equal in effect certain deeds of the pious, are distinguished by their very end, which shows that ours excel beyond comparison. For by those [wonders] the many are to be worshipped with sacrifices all the less, the more they demand them; but by these the one God is commended, who shows that he needs nothing of the kind, both by the testimony of his scriptures and by the later removal of those same sacrifices. If then angels demand sacrifice for themselves, those are to be preferred to them who [demand it] not for themselves but for God, the creator of all, whom they serve. For by this they show with how sincere a love they love us, when through sacrifice they wish to make us subject not to themselves but to him in contemplation of whom they too are blessed, and [wish] us to come to him from whom they themselves have not departed. But if the angels who want sacrifices made not to one but to very many want them made not to themselves but to those gods whose angels they are, even so those are to be preferred to them who are angels of the one God of gods, to whom they command sacrifice to be made in such a way as to forbid it to any other, while none of the others forbids it to this one, to whom alone these command sacrifice to be made. Further, if, as their proud deceit rather indicates, they are neither good nor angels of good gods, but evil demons, who want not the one sole and highest God but themselves to be worshipped with sacrifices: what greater protection against them is to be chosen than that of the one God, whom the good angels serve, who command us to serve with sacrifice not themselves but him whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be?

Illud etiam, quod ait de diabolo Iohannes: Ab initio diabolus peccat, non intellegunt, si natura talis est, nullo modo esse peccatum. Sed quid respondetur propheticis testimoniis, siue quod ait Esaias sub figurata persona principis Babyloniae diabolum notans: Quo modo cecidit Lucifer. qui mane oriebatur; siue quod Hiezechiel: In deliciis paradisi Dei fuisti, omni lapide pretioso ornatus es? Ubi intellegitur fuisse aliquando sine peccato. Nam expresses ei paulo post dicitur: Ambulasti in diebus tuis sine uitio. Quae si aliter conuenientius intellegi nequeunt, oportet etiam illud, quod dictum est: In ueritate non stetit, sic accipiamus, quod in ueritate fuerit, sed non permanserit; et illud, quod ab initio diabolus peccat, non ab initio, ex quo creatus est, peccare putandus est, sed ab initio peccati, quod ab ipsius superbia coeperit esse peccatum. Nec illud, quod scriptum est in libro Iob, cum de diabolo sermo esset: Hoc est initium figmenti Domini, quod fecit ad inludendum ab angelis suis (cui consonare uidetur et psalmus, ubi legitur: Draco hic, quem finxisti ad inludendum ei), sic intellegendum est, ut existimemus talem ab initio creatum, cui ab angelis inluderetur, sed in hac poena post peccatum ordinatum. Initium ergo eius figmentum est Domini; non enim est ulla natura etiam in extremis infimisque bestiolis, quam non ille constituit, a quo est omnis modus, omnis species, omnis ordo, sine quibus nihil rerum inueniri uel cogitari potest; quanto magis angelica creatura, quae omnia cetera, quae Deus condidit, naturae dignitate praecedit!

As for that saying of John about the devil, “The devil sins from the beginning”, they do not understand that, if he is such by nature, it is in no way sin. But what answer is made to the prophetic testimonies, whether what Isaiah says, denoting the devil under the figurative person of the prince of Babylon: “How Lucifer has fallen, who rose in the morning!”; or what Ezekiel says: “You were in the delights of the paradise of God, you were adorned with every precious stone”? From this it is understood that he was once without sin. For a little later it is said to him more expressly: “You walked in your days without fault.” If these words cannot be understood more fittingly in any other way, then we must also take the saying “He did not stand in the truth” to mean that he was in the truth but did not remain in it; and as for “The devil sins from the beginning”, he is to be thought to sin not from the beginning in which he was created, but from the beginning of sin, because sin began from his pride. Nor is what is written in the book of Job, when the discussion was about the devil, “This is the beginning of the Lord's handiwork, which he made to be mocked by his angels” (with which the psalm also seems to agree, where we read: “This dragon, which you formed for mocking him”), to be understood in such a way that we suppose he was created from the beginning such as to be mocked by the angels; rather, he was assigned to this punishment after his sin. His beginning, then, is the handiwork of the Lord; for there is no nature, even among the least and lowest of little creatures, that was not established by him from whom comes all measure, all form, all order, without which nothing at all can be found or conceived; how much more the angelic creation, which surpasses in dignity of nature all the other things that God has made!

Peccasse autem quosdam angelos et in huius mundi ima detrusos, qui eis uelut carcer est, usque ad futuram in die iudicii ultimam damnationem apostolus Petrus apertissime ostendit dicens, quod Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercerit. sed carceribus caliginis inferi retrudens tradiderit in iudicio puniendos reseruari. Inter hos ergo et illos Deum uel praescientia uel opere diuisisse quis dubitet? illosque lucem merito appellari quis contradicat? quando quidem nos adhuc in fide uiuentes eorum aequalitatem adhuc sperantes, utique nondum tenentes, iam lux dicti ab apostolo sumus: Fuistis enim, inquit, aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino. Istos uero desertores tenebras aptissime nuncupari profecto aduertunt, qui peiores esse hominibus infidelibus siue intellegunt siue credunt. Quapropter, etsi alia lux in isto huius libri loco intellegenda est, ubi legimus: Dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, et aliae tenebrae significatae sunt in eo quod scriptum est: Diuisit Deus inter lucem et tenebras: nos tamen has duas angelicas societates, unam fruentem Deo, alteram tumentem typho; unam cui dicitur: Adorate eum omnes angeli eius, aliam cuius princeps dicit: Haec omnia tibi dabo, si prostratus adoraueris me: unam Dei sancto amore flagrantem, alteram propriae celsitudinis inmundo amore fumantem; et quoniam, sicut scriptum est, Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam, illam in caelis caelorum habita.item, istam inde deiectam in hoc infimo aerio caelo tumultuantem; illam luminosa pietate tranquillam, istam tenebrosis cupiditatibus turbulentam; illam Dei nutu clementer subuenientem, iuste ulciscentem, istam suo fastu subdendi et nocendi libidine exaestuantem; illam, ut quantum uult consulat, Dei bonitati ministram, istam, ne quantum uult noceat, Dei potestate frenatam; illam huic inludentem ut nolens prosit persecutionibus suis, hanc illi inuidentem, cum peregrinos colligit suos, — nos ergo has duas societates angelicas inter se dispares adque contrarias, unam et natura bonam et uoluntate rectam, aliam uero natura bonam, sed uoluntate peruersam, aliis manifestioribus diuinarum scripturarum testimoniis declaratas, quod etiam in hoc libro, cui nomen est genesis, lucis tenebrarumque uocabulis significatas existimauimus, etiamsi aliud hoc loco sensit forte qui scripsit, non est inutiliter obscuritas huius pertractata sententiae, quia, etsi uoluntatem auctoris libri huius indagare nequiuimus, a regula tamen fidei, quae per alias eiusdem auctoritatis sacras litteras satis fidelibus nota est, non abhorruimus. Etsi enim corporalia hic commemorata sunt opera Dei, habent procul dubio nonnullam similitudinem spiritalium, secundum quam dicit apostolus: Omnes enim uos filii lucis estis et filii diei, non sumus noctis neque tenebrarum. Si autem hoc sensit etiam ille qui scripsit, ad perfectiorem disputationis finem nostra peruenit intentio, ut homo Dei tam eximiae diuinaeque sapientiae, immo per eum Spiritus Dei in commemorandis operibus Dei, quae omnia sexto die dixit esse perfecta, nullo modo angelos praetermisisse credatur siue in principio, quia primo fecit, siue quod conuenientius intellegitur, in principio, quia in Verbo unigenito fecit, scriptum sit: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram; quibus nominibus uniuersalis est significata creatura, uel spiritalis et corporalis, quod est credibilius, uel magnae duae mundi partes, quibus omnia quae creata sunt continentur, ut primitus eam totam proponeret ac deinde partes eius secundum mysticum dierum numerum exsequeretur.

That certain angels sinned and were thrust down into the lowest regions of this world, which is for them a kind of prison, until their final damnation to come on the day of judgement, the apostle Peter shows most plainly when he says that God did not spare the angels who sinned, but, thrusting them back into the prisons of the gloom of the underworld, handed them over to be kept for punishment at the judgement. Who then would doubt that God, whether by foreknowledge or by deed, made a division between these and those? And who would deny that those are rightly called light? For even we, still living by faith, still hoping for equality with them and certainly not yet possessing it, have already been called light by the apostle: “For you were once darkness,” he says, “but now light in the Lord.” But that these deserters are most fittingly named darkness is surely recognised by those who either understand or believe that they are worse than unbelieving men. Therefore, even if a different light is to be understood in that place of this book where we read, “God said: Let there be light, and light was made,” and a different darkness is signified in what is written, “God divided between the light and the darkness,” yet we — these two angelic societies, the one enjoying God, the other swelling with pride; the one to which it is said, “Worship him, all his angels,” the other whose prince says, “All these things I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me”; the one burning with the holy love of God, the other smoking with the unclean love of its own exaltation; and since, as it is written, “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble,” the one dwelling in the heaven of heavens, the other cast down from there and in turmoil in this lowest, airy heaven; the one tranquil in luminous piety, the other turbulent with dark desires; the one, at God's nod, mercifully bringing help and justly taking vengeance, the other seething with its own arrogance and with the lust to subjugate and to harm; the one a minister to God's goodness, so that it may help as much as it wishes, the other bridled by God's power, so that it may not harm as much as it wishes; the one mocking the other, so that against its will it does good by its persecutions, the other envying the first when it gathers in its pilgrims — we, then, in that we have judged that these two angelic societies, unlike and opposed to each other, the one both good by nature and upright in will, the other good by nature but perverse in will, which are declared by other, plainer testimonies of the divine Scriptures, are signified also in this book, whose name is Genesis, by the words light and darkness: even if the one who wrote perhaps meant something else in this place, the obscurity of this passage has not been discussed to no purpose, because, even though we have been unable to track down the intention of the author of this book, we have not strayed from the rule of faith, which is well enough known to the faithful through other sacred writings of the same authority. For even if bodily works of God are recorded here, they doubtless bear some likeness to spiritual ones, in accordance with which the apostle says: “For you are all sons of light and sons of the day; we are not of the night nor of darkness.” But if the one who wrote also meant this, our inquiry has reached a more complete conclusion to the discussion: that the man of God of such outstanding and divine wisdom — or rather, through him, the Spirit of God — in recounting the works of God, all of which he said were completed on the sixth day, may be believed in no way to have passed over the angels, whether “In the beginning God made heaven and earth” was written “in the beginning” because he made them first, or, as is more fittingly understood, “in the beginning” because he made them in the only-begotten Word; by which names the whole of creation is signified, either spiritual and bodily, which is more credible, or the two great parts of the world in which all created things are contained, so that he might first set forth the whole of it and then go through its parts according to the mystical number of the days.

Quam quaestionem nos transeunter commemoratam in tertio huius operis libro reliquimus insolutam, utrum possint angeli, cum spiritus sint, corporaliter coire cum feminis. Scriptum est enim: Qui facit angelos suos spiritus, id est eos, qui natura spiritus sunt, facit esse angelos suos, iniungendo eis officium nuntiandi. Qui enim Graece dicitur SyyeXoi, quod nomen Latina declinatione angelus perhibetur, Latina lingua nuntius interpretatur. Sed utrum eorum corpora consequenter adiunxerit dicendo: Et ministros suos ignem ardentem, an quod caritate tamquam igne spiritali feruere debeant ministri eius, ambiguum est. Apparuisse tamen hominibus angelos in talibus corporibus, ut non solum uideri, uerum etiam tangi possent, eadem ueracissima scriptura testatur. Et quoniam creberrima fama est multique se expertos uel ab eis, qui experti essent, de quorum fide dubitandum non esset, audisse confirmant, Siluanos et Panes, quos uulgo incubos uocant, inprobos saepe extitisse mulieribus et earum adpetisse ac peregisse concubitum; et quosdam daemones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, adsidue hanc inmunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque adseuerant, ut hoc negare inpudentiae uideatur: non hinc aliquid audeo definire, utrum aliqui spiritus elemento aerio corporati (nam hoc elementum etiam cum agitatur flabello sensu corporis tactuque sentitur) possint hanc etiam pati libidinem, ut, quo modo possunt, sentientibus feminis misceantur. Dei tamen angelos sanctos nullo modo illo tempore sic labi potuisse crediderim; nec de his dixisse apostolum Petrum: Si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit, sed carceribus caliginis inferi retrudens tradidit in iudicio puniendos reseruari; sed potius de illis, qui primum apostatantes a Deo cum diabolo suo principe ceciderunt, qui primum hominem per inuidiam serpentina fraude deiecit. Angelos autem fuisse etiam Dei homines nuncupatos eadem scriptura sancta locupletissima testis est. Nam et de Iohanne scriptum est: Ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit uiam tuam, et Malachiel propheta propria quadam, id est proprie sibi inpertita gratia dictus est angelus.

This question, which we mentioned in passing in the third book of this work, we left unresolved: whether angels, since they are spirits, can have bodily intercourse with women. For it is written: “Who makes his angels spirits,” that is, those who are spirits by nature he makes to be his angels, by laying on them the office of bearing messages. For the one who in Greek is called angelos, a name that with a Latin inflection is given as angelus, is rendered in the Latin language nuntius [messenger]. But whether he went on to add their bodies when he said, “And his ministers a burning fire,” or meant that his ministers ought to glow with charity as with a spiritual fire, is uncertain. Yet the same most truthful Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men in such bodies that they could not only be seen but also touched. And since there is a very widespread report, and many confirm that they have experienced it themselves or heard it from those who had experienced it, whose good faith there was no reason to doubt, that Silvani and Pans, whom people commonly call incubi, have often shown themselves wanton towards women and have sought and achieved intercourse with them; and that certain demons, whom the Gauls call Dusii, constantly both attempt and carry out this uncleanness — so many and such people assert this that it seems impudent to deny it — I do not dare to determine anything from this, as to whether some spirits embodied in the element of air (for this element, even when it is stirred by a fan, is felt by the bodily sense of touch) can also undergo this lust, so that, in whatever way they can, they may unite with women who perceive it. Yet I would not believe that the holy angels of God could in any way have fallen like this at that time; nor that it was of them that the apostle Peter spoke when he said: “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but, thrusting them back into the prisons of the gloom of the underworld, handed them over to be kept for punishment at the judgement”; but rather of those who first apostatised from God and fell with the devil, their prince, who through envy cast down the first man by the serpent's deceit. And that men of God too have been called angels, the same holy Scripture is a most abundant witness. For of John too it is written: “Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way”; and the prophet Malachi was called an angel by a certain special grace, that is, one bestowed on him in particular.

Per ea tempora regnum finitum est Argiuorum, translatum ad Mycenas, unde fuit Agamemnon, et exortum est regnum Laurentum, ubi Saturni filius Picus regnum primus accepit. iudicante aput Hebraeos femina Debbora; sed per illam Dei spiritus id agebat; nam etiam prophetissa erat, cuius prophetia minus aperta est, quam ut possimus eam sine diuturna expositione de Christo demonstrare prolatam. Iam ergo regnabant Laurentes utique in Italia, ex quibus euidentior ducitur origo Romana post Graecos; et tamen adhuc regnum Assyrium permanebat, ubi erat rex uicensimus et tertius Lampares, cum primus Laurentum Picus esse coepisset. De huius Pici patre Saturno uiderint quid sentiant talium deorum cultores, qui negant hominem fuisse; de quo et alii scripserunt, quod ante . Picum filium suum in Italia ipse regnauerit, et Vergilius notioribus litteris dicit: Is genus indocile et dispersum montibus altis Conposuit legesque dedit Latiumque uocari Maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris. Aurea quae perhibent illo sub rege fuere Saecula.

About those times the kingdom of the Argives came to an end and was transferred to Mycenae, where Agamemnon came from, and the kingdom of the Laurentines arose, where Picus, son of Saturn, was the first to receive the kingship, while a woman, Deborah, was judge among the Hebrews; but it was the Spirit of God doing this through her; for she was also a prophetess, whose prophecy is too obscure for us to be able to show, without a lengthy exposition, that it was uttered about Christ. So the Laurentines were by then reigning, in Italy of course, from whom the Roman origin is more clearly traced, after the Greeks; and yet the Assyrian kingdom still continued, where the twenty-third king was Lampares when Picus had begun to be the first [king] of the Laurentines. As for Saturn, the father of this Picus, let the worshippers of such gods, who deny that he was a man, see what they think; about him others too have written that he himself reigned in Italy before his son Picus, and Vergil says in better-known writings: “He brought together the unteachable race, scattered over the high mountains, and gave them laws, and chose that it be called Latium, since he had lain hidden safe within these shores. The golden ages they tell of were under that king.”

Sed haec poetica opinentur esse figmenta et Pici patrem Stercen potius fuisse adseuerent, a quo peritissimo agricola inuentum ferunt, ut fimo animalium agri fecundarentur, quod ab eius nomine stercus est dictum; hunc quidam Stercutium uocatum ferunt. Qualibet autem ex causa eum Saturnum appellare uoluerint, certe tamen hunc Stercen siue Stercutium merito agriculturae fecerunt deum. Picum quoque similiter eius filium in talium deorum numerum receperunt, quem praeclarum augurem et belligeratorem fuisse adserunt. Picus Faunum genuit, Laurentum regem secundum; etiam iste deus illis uel est uel fuit. Hos ante Troianum bellum diuinos honores mortuis hominibus detulerunt.

But let them consider these to be poetic fictions, and assert rather that Picus' father was Sterces, a most skilled farmer, by whom, they say, it was discovered that fields could be made fertile with the dung of animals, which from his name is called stercus [dung]; some say he was called Stercutius. For whatever reason they chose to call him Saturn, at any rate they made this Sterces or Stercutius a god for the merit of [his] farming. Likewise they also received Picus, his son, into the number of such gods, who, they assert, was a distinguished augur and warrior. Picus begot Faunus, the second king of the Laurentines; he too is or was a god to them. On these dead men they conferred divine honours before the Trojan War.

Sed de ista tanta ludificatione daemonum nos quid dicamus, qui haec legent, fortassis exspectent. Et quid dicemus, nisi de medio Babylonis esse fugiendum? Quod praeceptum propheticum ita spiritaliter intellegitur, ut de huius saeculi ciuitate, quae profecto et angelorum et hominum societas inpiorum est, fidei passibus, quae per dilectionem operatur, in Deum uiuum proficiendo fugiamus. Quanto quippe in haec ima potestatem daemonum maiorem uidemus, tanto tenacius Mediatori est inhaerendum, per quem de imis ad summa conscendimus. Si enim dixerimus ea non esse credenda, non desunt etiam nunc, qui eius modi quaedam uel certissima audisse uel etiam expertos se esse adseuerent. Nam et nos cum essemus in Italia audiebamus talia de quadam regione illarum partium, ubi stabularias mulieres inbutas his malis artibus in caseo dare solere dicebant quibus uellent seu possent uiatoribus, unde in iumenta ilico uerterentur et necessaria quaeque portarent postque perfuncta opera iterum ad se redirent; nec tamen in eis mentem fieri bestialem, sed rationalem humanamque seruari. sicut Apuleius in libris, quos asini aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto ueneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicauit aut finxit.

But those who read this may perhaps be waiting to hear what we say about this great trickery of the demons. And what shall we say, except that we must flee from the midst of Babylon? This prophetic command is understood spiritually, in this sense: that we should flee from the city of this world, which is indeed a fellowship of ungodly angels and men, by advancing toward the living God with the steps of faith, which works through love. For the greater we see the power of demons to be over these lowest things, the more firmly we must cling to the Mediator, through whom we climb from the lowest to the highest. For if we say these things are not to be believed, there are not lacking even now people who assert that they have either heard some things of this kind as utterly certain, or even experienced them themselves. For we too, when we were in Italy, used to hear such things about a certain district of those parts, where, they said, women who kept inns, steeped in these evil arts, were accustomed to give [something] in cheese to whichever travellers they wished or could, so that these were at once turned into beasts of burden and carried whatever was needed, and after the work was done returned to themselves again; and yet their mind did not become bestial, but was kept rational and human; just as Apuleius, in the books he entitled The Golden Ass, either reported or invented that it happened to himself that, having taken a drug, he became an ass while his human mind remained.

Haec uel falsa sunt uel tam inusitata, ut merito non credantur. Firmissime tamen credendum est omnipotentem Deum posse omnia facere quae uoluerit, siue uindicando siue praestando, nec daemones aliquid operari secundum naturae suae potentiam (quia et ipsa angelica creatura est, licet proprio uitio sit maligna) nisi quod ille permiserit, cuius iudicia occulta sunt multa, iniusta nulla. Nec sane daemones naturas creant, si aliquid tale faciunt, de qualibus factis ista uertitur quaestio; sed specie tenus, quae a uero Deo sunt creata, commutant, ut uideantur esse quod non sunt. Non itaque solum animum, sed ne corpus quidem ulla ratione crediderim daemonum arte uel potestate in membra et liniamenta bestialia ueraciter posse conuerti, sed phantasticum hominis, quod etiam cogitando siue somniando per rerum innumerabilia genera uariatur et, cum corpus non sit, corporum tamen similes mira celeritate formas capit, sopitis aut obpressis corporeis hominis sensibus ad aliorum sensum nescio quo ineffabili modo figura corporea posse perduci; ita ut corpora ipsa hominum alicubi iaceant, uiuentia quidem, sed multo grauius adque uehementius quam somno suis sensibus obseratis; phantasticum autem illud ueluti corporatum in alicuius animalis effigie appareat sensibus alienis talisque etiam sibi esse homo uideatur, sicut talis sibi uideri posset in somnis, et portare onera; quae onera si uera sunt corpora, portantur a daemonibus, ut inludatur hominibus, partim uera onerum corpora, partim iumentorum falsa cernentibus. Nam quidam nomine Praestantius patri suo contigisse indicabat, ut uenenum illud per caseum in domo sua sumeret et iaceret in lecto suo quasi dormiens, qui tamen nullo modo poterat excitari. Post aliquot autem dies eum uelut euigilasse dicebat et quasi somnia narrasse quae passus est, caballum se scilicet factum annonam inter alia iumenta baiulasse militibus, quae dicitur Retica, quoniam ad Retias deportatur. Quod ita, ut narrauit, factum fuisse conpertum est; quae tamen ei sua somnia uidebantur. Indicauit et alius se domi suae per noctem, antequam requiesceret, uidisse uenientem ad se philosophum quendam sibi notissimum sibique exposuisse nonnulla Platonica, quae antea rogatus exponere noluisset. Et cum ab eodem philosopho quaesitum fuisset, quur in domo eius fecerit, quod in domo sua petenti negauerat: "Non feci, inquit, sed me fecisse somniaui." Ac per hoc alteri per imaginem phantasticam exhibitum est uigilanti, quod alter uidit in somnis.

These things are either false or so unusual that they are rightly disbelieved. Yet it must be believed most firmly that almighty God can do whatever he wills, whether in punishing or in bestowing, and that demons accomplish nothing by the power of their nature (for that nature too is an angelic creation, though malign by its own fault) except what he permits, whose judgments are many of them hidden, none of them unjust. Nor indeed do demons create natures, if they do any such thing as the deeds this question turns on; but they change, in appearance only, things created by the true God, so that they seem to be what they are not. So I would by no means believe that not only the mind but even the body can truly be turned by the art or power of demons into the limbs and features of beasts; but [I would believe] that a man's phantasticum [image-forming part], which in thinking or dreaming too is varied through countless kinds of things, and, though it is not a body, yet takes on with wonderful speed forms like bodies, can, while the man's bodily senses are lulled or overpowered, be brought in bodily shape to the senses of others in some inexpressible way; so that the men's bodies themselves lie somewhere, alive indeed, but with their senses locked up far more heavily and forcefully than in sleep, while that phantasticum, as though embodied in the likeness of some animal, appears to the senses of others, and the man even seems to himself to be such, just as he could seem such to himself in dreams, and to carry loads; and these loads, if they are real bodies, are carried by demons, so that men are mocked, seeing partly the real bodies of the loads, partly the false bodies of the beasts of burden. For a certain man named Praestantius reported that it had happened to his father that he took that drug in cheese in his own house and lay in his bed as if asleep, and yet could by no means be woken. After some days, he said, his father as it were woke up and told what he had undergone as if they were dreams: namely, that he had been made a packhorse and, among other beasts of burden, had carried for soldiers the supplies called Raetic, because they are conveyed to the Raetias. And it was found that this had happened just as he told it; yet to him these seemed to be his own dreams. Another man also reported that in his own house at night, before he went to rest, he saw coming to him a certain philosopher very well known to him, who expounded to him some Platonic points which he had earlier refused to expound when asked. And when this same philosopher was asked why he had done in that man's house what he had refused him when he asked in his own house, he said: “I did not do it, but I dreamed that I did.” And so what one saw in his dreams was shown to the other, awake, by means of a phantasmal image.

Hic forte respondeant: Trorsus nec ista sunt nec ista credimus; falsa de his dicta, falsa conscripta sunt\'; et adiciant ratiocinantes adque dicentes: \'Si talia credenda sunt, credite et uos quod in easdem litteras est relatum, fuisse uel esse quoddam Veneris fanum adque ibi candelabrum et in eo lucernam sub diuo sic ardentem, ut eam nulla tempestas, nullus imber exstingueret, unde sicut ille lapis, ita ista λύχνος ἄσβεστος, \t id est lucerna inexstinguibilis, nominata est.\' Quod propterea poterunt dicere, ut respondendi nobis angustias ingerant; quia si dixerimus non esse credendum, scripta illa miraculorum infirmabimus; si autem credendum esse concesserimus, firmabimus numina paganorum. Sed nos, sicut iam in libro duodeuicensimo huius operis dixi, non habemus necesse omnia credere, quae historia continet gentium, cum et ipsi inter se historici, sicut ait Varro, quasi data opera et quasi ex industria per multa dissentiant; sed ea, si uolumus. credimus, quae non aduersantur libris, quibus non dubitamus oportere nos credere. De his autem miraculorum locis nobis ad ea, quae futura persuadere incredulis uolumus, satis illa sufficiunt, quae nos quoque possumus experiri, et eorum testes idoneos non difficile est inuenire. De isto autem fano Veneris et lucerna inexstinguibili non solum in nullas coartamur angustias, uerum etiam latitudinis nobis campus aperitur. Addimus enim ad istam lucernam inexstinguibilem et humanarum et magicarum, id est per homines daemonicarum artium et ipsorum per se ipsos daemonum multa miracula; quae si negare uoluerimus, eidem ipsi cui credimus sacrarum litterarum aduersabimur ueritati. Aut ergo in lucerna illa mechanicum aliquid de lapide asbesto ars humana molita est aut arte magica factum est, quod homines illo mirarentur in templo, aut daemon quispiam sub nomine Veneris tanta se efficacia praesentauit, ut hoc ibi prodigium et appareret hominibus et diutius permaneret. Inliciuntur autem daemones ad inhabitandum per creaturas, quas non ipsi, sed Deus condidit, delectabilibus pro sua diuersitate diuersis, non ut animalia cibis, sed ut spiritus signis, quae cuiusque delectationi congruunt, per uaria genera lapidum herbarum, lignorum animalium, carminum rituum. Ut autem inliciantur ab hominibus, prius eos ipsi astutissima calliditate seducunt, uel inspirando eorum cordibus uirus occultum uel etiam fallacibus amicitiis apparendo, eorumque paucos discipulos suos faciunt plurimorumque doctores. Neque enim potuit, nisi primum ipsis docentibus, disci quid quisque illorum adpetat, quid exhorreat, quo inuitetur nomine, quo cogatur; unde magicae artes earumque artifices exstiterunt. Maxime autem possident corda mortalium, qua potissimum possessione gloriantur, cum se transfigurant in angelos lucis. Sunt ergo facta eorum plurima, quae quanto magis mirabilia confitemur, tanto cautius uitare debemus; sed ad hoc, unde nunc agimus, nobis etiam ipsa proficiunt. Si enim haec inmundi daemones possunt, quanto potentiores sunt sancti angeli, quanto potentior est his omnibus Deus, qui tantorum miraculorum effectores etiam ipsos angelos fecit!

Here perhaps they may reply: “These things do not exist at all, nor do we believe them; false things have been said about them, false things have been written down.” And they may add, reasoning and saying: “If such things are to be believed, then you too believe what is reported in the same writings: that there was, or is, a certain shrine of Venus, and in it a lampstand, and on it a lamp burning in the open air in such a way that no storm, no rain could put it out; whence, like that stone, this too was named lychnos asbestos, that is, the unquenchable lamp.” They will be able to say this in order to force us into a tight corner in answering; because if we say that it is not to be believed, we shall weaken those written accounts of wonders; but if we grant that it is to be believed, we shall confirm the deities of the pagans. But we, as I have already said in the eighteenth book of this work, are under no necessity of believing everything that the history of the nations contains, since the historians themselves, as Varro says, disagree with one another on many points, as if on purpose and as if by design; but we believe, if we wish, those things which do not contradict the books which we do not doubt we ought to believe. As for these places of wonders, for the things which we want to persuade unbelievers will come to pass, those amply suffice us which we too can experience, and for which it is not hard to find fit witnesses. But as for that shrine of Venus and the unquenchable lamp, not only are we not forced into any tight corner, but a broad field is even opened to us. For to that unquenchable lamp we add many wonders, both of human arts and of magical ones, that is, of demonic arts worked through men, and of the demons themselves acting by themselves; and if we chose to deny these, we would be opposing the truth of the very sacred writings that we believe. So either human art contrived some mechanical device in that lamp from the asbestos stone, or it was done by magic art, so that men might marvel at it in that temple, or some demon under the name of Venus made himself present with such efficacy that this prodigy both appeared to men there and lasted for a long time. Now demons are lured to take up their dwelling by means of creatures, which not they but God created, by delights varied according to their own variety, not as animals by food, but as spirits by signs that suit each one's delight, through various kinds of stones, herbs, woods, animals, spells, rites. But in order to be lured by men, they first lead those men astray with the most cunning craft, either by breathing a hidden poison into their hearts or even by appearing to them in deceitful friendships, and they make a few of them their disciples and the teachers of very many. For it could not have been learned, unless they themselves first taught it, what each of them desires, what each shrinks from, by what name each is invited, by what name compelled; whence the magic arts and their practitioners arose. But most of all they possess the hearts of mortals, a possession in which they glory above all, when they transform themselves into angels of light. So there are very many deeds of theirs which, the more wonderful we confess them to be, the more cautiously we ought to avoid; but for the point we are now treating, even these serve us. For if unclean demons can do these things, how much more powerful are the holy angels, how much more powerful than all these is God, who made even the angels themselves, the workers of such great wonders!

Quam ob rem si tot et tanta mirifica, quae μηχανήματα appellant, Dei creatura utentibus humanis artibus fiunt, ut ea qui nesciunt opinentur esse diuina (unde factum est,\' ut in quodam templo lapidibus magnetibus in solo et camera proportione magnitudinis positis simulacrum ferreum aeris illius medio inter utrumque lapidem ignorantibus, quid sursum esset ac deorsum, quasi numinis potestate penderet: quale aliquid etiam in illa lucerna Veneris de lapide asbesto ab artifice fieri potuisse iam diximus); si magorum opera, quos nostra scriptura ueneficos et incantatores uocat, in tantum daemones extollere potuerunt, ut congruere hominum sensibus sibi nobilis poeta uideretur, de quadam femina, quae tali arte polleret, dicens: Haec se carminibus promittit soluere mentes Quas uelit, ast aliis duras inmittere curas, Sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro;- Nocturnosque ciet manes: mugire uidebis Sub pedibus terram et descendere montibus ornos: quanto magis Deus potens est facere quae infidelibus sunt incredibilia, sed illius facilia potestati; quando quidem ipse lapidum aliarumque uim rerum et hominum ingenia, qui ea miris utuntur modis, angelicasque naturas omnibus terrenis potentiores animantibus condidit, uniuersa mirabilia mirabili uincente uirtute et operandi iubendi sinendique sapientia, utens omnibus tam mirabiliter, quam creauit.

Therefore, if so many and such great marvels, which they call mēchanēmata [contrivances], are produced from God's creation by those using human arts, so that people who do not know them suppose them to be divine (whence it came about that in a certain temple, with lodestones placed in the floor and in the vault in proportion to their size, an iron image hung in the middle of the air between the two stones, as if by the power of a deity, to those who did not know what was above and below; something of which kind, as we have already said, could also have been done by a craftsman in that lamp of Venus with the asbestos stone); if demons could raise the works of magicians, whom our scripture calls poisoners and enchanters, so high that a famous poet thought he was in keeping with men's beliefs when he said of a certain woman who was powerful in such an art: “She promises with her spells to set free the minds of whom she will, but to send harsh cares on others, to halt the water in the rivers and turn the stars back; and she stirs up the ghosts of the night: you will see the earth bellow beneath her feet and the ash trees come down from the mountains”: how much more is God able to do things that are incredible to unbelievers, but easy for his power, since he himself created the force of stones and of other things, and the talents of men who use them in wonderful ways, and the angelic natures more powerful than all earthly living things, with a wonderful power surpassing all wonders, and with the wisdom of working, commanding and permitting, using all things as wonderfully as he created them.

Hic occurrit quaerere: Si non erit ignis incorporalis, sicut est animi dolor, sed corporalis, tactu noxius, ut eo possint corpora cruciari: quo modo in eo erit etiam poena spirituum malignorum? Idem quippe ignis erit, supplicio scilicet hominum adtributus et daemonum, dicente Christo: Discedite a me. maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius. Nisi quia sunt quaedam sua etiam daemonibus corpora, sicut doctis hominibus uisum est, ex isto aere crasso adque umido, cuius inpulsus uento flante sentitur. Quod genus elementi si nihil igne perpeti posset, non ureret feruefactus in balneis. Ut enim urat, prior uritur facitque cum patitur. Si autem quisquam nulla habere corpora daemones adseuerat, non est de hac re aut laborandum operosa inquisitione aut contentiosa disputatione certandum. Quur enim non dicamus, quamuis miris, tamen ueris modis etiam spiritus incorporeos posse poena corporalis ignis adfligi, si spiritus hominum, etiam ipsi profecto incorporei, et nunc potuerunt includi corporalibus membris et tunc poterunt corporum suorum uinculis insolubiliter adligari? Adhaerebunt ergo, si eis nulla sunt corpora, spiritus daemonum, immo spiritus daemones, licet incorporei corporeis ignibus cruciandi, non ut ignes ipsi, quibus adhaerebunt, eorum iunctura inspirentur et animalia fiant, quae constent spiritu et corpore, sed, ut dixi, miris et ineffabilibus modis adhaerendo, accipientes ex ignibus poenam, non dantes ignibus uitam; quia et iste alius modus, quo corporibus adhaerent spiritus et animalia fiunt, omnino mirus est nec conprehendi ab homine potest, et hoc ipse homo est.

Here the question arises: if the fire will not be incorporeal, as pain of the mind is, but corporeal, harmful to the touch, so that bodies can be tormented by it, how will the punishment of evil spirits also be in it? For it will be the same fire, assigned, that is, to the punishment of both men and demons, since Christ says: “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.” Unless it is that demons too have certain bodies of their own, as learned men have held, made of this thick and moist air whose thrust is felt when the wind blows. If this kind of element could suffer nothing from fire, it would not burn when heated in the baths. For in order to burn, it is first burned, and it acts while it is acted upon. But if anyone maintains that demons have no bodies, there is no need either to toil over this matter with laborious inquiry or to contend over it in quarrelsome dispute. For why should we not say that even incorporeal spirits can, in ways that are wondrous yet real, be afflicted by the punishment of corporeal fire, if the spirits of men, which are themselves certainly incorporeal too, both could now be enclosed in bodily limbs and will then be able to be bound indissolubly by the bonds of their bodies? So, if they have no bodies, the spirits of demons — or rather the demons, who are spirits — though incorporeal, will cling to corporeal fires, to be tormented by them, not so that the fires themselves to which they cling are animated by being joined to them and become living beings made up of spirit and body, but, as I said, by clinging in wondrous and ineffable ways, receiving punishment from the fires, not giving life to the fires; for that other way too, in which spirits cling to bodies and become living beings, is altogether wondrous and cannot be grasped by man; and this is man himself.