now again (that there be no need to run through them all) let him be the one God, of whom many think it was said by the most noble poet: 'For God pervades all lands and the tracts of the sea and the deep heaven' — let him himself be Jupiter in the aether, himself Juno in the air, himself Neptune in the sea, himself Salacia in the lower parts of the sea also, himself Pluto in the earth, Proserpina in the lower earth, Vesta in domestic hearths, Vulcan in the forge of smiths, in the heavenly bodies sun and moon and stars, Apollo among diviners, Mercury in trade, Janus as opener, Terminus as boundary-setter, Saturn in time, Mars and Bellona in wars, Liber in vineyards, Ceres in grain, Diana in forests, Minerva in talents;
and finally let him be even in that crowd of, as it were, plebeian gods; let him himself preside under the name of Liber over the seed of men, and under the name of Libera over that of women; let him be Diespater, who brings the birth forth to the day; let him be the goddess Mena, whom they set over the menses of women; himself Lucina, who is invoked by women in labour; let him bring aid to the newborn by receiving them in the lap of the earth, and be called Opis; let him open the mouth in the first cry and be called the god Vaticanus; let him lift the infant from the earth and be called the goddess Levana; let him watch over cradles and be called the goddess Cunina; let it be no other but himself in those goddesses who chant the fates to the newborn and are called Carmentes; let him preside over chance events and be called Fortune;
let him in the goddess Rumina press milk into the mouth of the little one, because the ancients called the breast 'ruma'; in the goddess Potina let him minister drink, in the goddess Educa let him furnish food; from the terror of infants let him be named Paventia; from hope that comes, Venilia; from pleasure, Volupia; from action, Agenoria; from the goads by which a man is driven to excessive action, let him be named the goddess Stimula; let him be the goddess Strenia by making men vigorous, Numeria who teaches to count, Camena who teaches to sing; let him be also the god Consus by furnishing counsels, and the goddess Sentia by inspiring sentiments;
let him be the goddess Juventas, who after the boyhood robe receives the beginnings of youthful age; let him be also Fortuna Barbata, who clothes the grown with a beard (whom they were unwilling to honour so as to make this deity, whatever it be, at least a male god, or to name him Barbatus from the beard, as Nodutus from the knots, or at least not Fortuna, but, because it has a beard, Fortunius); let him in the god Jugatinus join spouses, and when the girdle is loosed for the virgin wife, let him be invoked and be called the goddess Virginensis; let him be Mutunus or Tutunus, who among the Greeks is Priapus:
if there is no shame, let all these things which I have said, and whatsoever I have not said (for I did not judge that everything ought to be said), let all these gods and goddesses be the one Jupiter — whether they are, as some hold, all these things his parts, or his powers, as it seems to those to whom it is pleasing that he be the soul of the world, which opinion is, as it were, that of the great and very learned. If these things are so (what sort of thing this may be, I do not for the moment yet inquire), what would they lose if they worshipped one God by a wiser shortcut? For what of him would be despised, when he himself were worshipped? But if it was to be feared lest his parts, being passed over or neglected, should grow angry:
then it is not, as they hold, as though there were one living thing whose whole life this is, which contains all the gods as its own powers or members or parts; but each part has its own life separate from the rest, if the one can grow angry apart from the other, and one be appeased, another provoked. But if it is said that all together, that is, Jupiter himself as a whole, could have been offended, if his parts were not worshipped individually and severally, it is foolishly said. For not one of them would be passed over, when he himself, the one who possessed all, were worshipped.
For, to pass over other things which are innumerable, when they say that all the heavenly bodies are parts of Jupiter and that all live and have rational souls, and therefore beyond dispute are gods, they do not see how many they do not worship, for how many they build no temples, set up no altars — whereas they thought that for very few of the stars altars should be set up and sacrifice offered individually. If, then, those grow angry who are not worshipped individually, do they not fear to live with a few appeased while the whole heaven is angry?
But if they worship all the stars because they are in Jupiter whom they worship, by this shortcut they could supplicate all of them in that one (for thus no one would grow angry, since in that one no one would be despised), rather than that, certain ones being worshipped, a just cause of anger should be given to those, far more numerous, who had been passed over — especially since Priapus, distended with shameful nakedness, would be set before those shining from their heavenly seat. [XII] What?
Ought not this to move keen men, or even men of any sort (for excellence of talent is not needed for this), so that, laying aside the zeal of contention, they should attend to this: if the soul of the world is God, and to that soul the world is as a body, so that there is one living being consisting of soul and body, and this God is a certain bosom of nature containing all things within Himself, so that from His own soul, by which this whole mass is quickened, the lives and souls of all living things are taken according to each one's lot of birth — then nothing at all remains that is not a part of God. And if this is so, who does not see how great impiety and irreligion follow: that whatever anyone treads upon, he treads upon a part of God, and in killing every living thing a part of God is slaughtered?
I do not wish to say all the things that can occur to those who think about it, but they cannot be said without shame. [XIII] But if they contend that only rational animals, such as men, are parts of God, I do not indeed see, if the whole world is God, how they separate the beasts from His parts; but what need is there to struggle over it? Concerning the rational animal itself, that is, man, what more wretched thing can be believed than that a part of God is beaten, when a boy is beaten? And now, that parts of God should become wanton, unjust, impious, and altogether damnable — who could endure this, save one who is utterly mad? Finally, why is He angry with those by whom He is not worshipped, since He is not worshipped by His own parts?
It remains, then, for them to say that all the gods have their own lives, that each lives for himself, that none of them is a part of any other, but that all are to be worshipped who can be known and worshipped, since they are so many that all cannot be. Over whom, because Jupiter presides as king, I believe he is thought by them to have established or enlarged the Roman kingdom. For if he himself did not do this, what other god do they believe could have undertaken so great a work, since all are occupied with their own offices and works, nor does one intrude into another's? By the king of the gods, then, the kingdom of men could be propagated and increased. [XIV] Here first I ask, why is not the kingdom itself also some god? For why should it not be so, if Victory is a goddess?
Or what need is there of Jupiter himself in this matter, if Victory is favourable and propitious and always goes to those whom she wills to be victors? With this goddess favouring and propitious, even with Jupiter idle or doing something else, what nations would remain unsubdued? What kingdoms would not yield? Or does it perhaps displease good men to fight with most iniquitous wickedness, and to provoke by voluntary war their quiet neighbours who do no wrong, in order to enlarge the kingdom? Plainly, if they feel thus, I approve and praise it. [XV] Let them then see whether perhaps it does not pertain to good men to rejoice in the breadth of a kingdom.
For the iniquity of those against whom just wars were waged helped the kingdom to grow — a kingdom that would certainly have been small if the quiet and justice of neighbours had provoked no war by any wrong to be waged against them; and thus, human affairs being more happy, all kingdoms would be small, rejoicing in concordant neighbourhood, and there would be in the world very many kingdoms of nations, as there are in a city very many houses of citizens. Accordingly, to wage war and, by subduing nations, to enlarge a kingdom seems felicity to the wicked, necessity to the good. But because it would be worse that the injurious should rule over the more just, therefore not unfittingly is even this called felicity. Yet beyond doubt it is a greater felicity to have a good and concordant neighbour than to subjugate a bad one by fighting.
They are evil wishes, to desire to have one whom you hate or fear, so that there may be one whom you may conquer. If, then, by waging just, not impious nor iniquitous, wars, the Romans were able to acquire so great an empire, is another's iniquity to be worshipped by them as though some goddess? For we see that she cooperated greatly toward this breadth of empire, she who made men injurious, so that there should be those against whom just wars might be waged and the empire increased. And why should not Iniquity also be a goddess — at least of foreign nations — if Fear and Pallor and Fever deserved to be Roman gods?
By these two, then — that is, by another's iniquity and by the goddess Victory — while iniquity stirs up the causes of wars, and this same Victory brings the wars to a happy end, the empire grew even while Jupiter kept holiday. For what parts would Jupiter have here, when those things which could be thought his benefits are held to be gods, are called gods, are worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own parts? He would have some part here too, however, if the Kingdom too were itself called by his name, just as that Victory is so called. Or if the kingdom is the gift of Jupiter, why should not victory too be held to be his gift? And this indeed would be held, if not a stone in the Capitol, but the true King of kings and Lord of lords were acknowledged and worshipped.
[XVI] But I wonder exceedingly that, though they assigned individual gods to individual things and to almost individual motions, calling the goddess Agenoria who would rouse to action, the goddess Stimula who would stimulate to action beyond measure, the goddess Murcia who would not move a man beyond measure and would make him, as Pomponius says, 'murcidus,' that is, too slothful and inactive, the goddess Strenia who would make him vigorous — for all these gods and goddesses they undertook to perform public rites; yet Quies, whom they called her who would make one quiet, though she had a temple outside the Colline gate, they were unwilling to receive publicly.
Was this a sign of an unquiet mind, or was it rather thus signified that he who should persevere in worshipping that crowd — not indeed of gods, but of demons — could not have quiet? To which the true Physician calls, saying: 'Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls.' [XVII] Or do they perhaps say that Jupiter sends the goddess Victory, and that she, obeying as it were the king of the gods, comes to those whom he has commanded and settles on their side? This is truly said, not of that Jupiter whom, according to their own opinion, they feign to be king of the gods, but of that true King of the ages, that He sends not Victory — which is no substance — but His angel, and makes whom He wills to conquer;
whose counsel can be hidden, but cannot be unjust. For if Victory is a goddess, why is not Triumph also a god, and joined to Victory as either husband or brother or son? Such things indeed these men have imagined about the gods, that, if the poets feigned them and they were assailed by us, these men would answer that they are the laughable fictions of poets, not to be attributed to true divinities; and yet they did not blush at themselves, when they read such ravings not in the poets but worshipped them in the temples. They should therefore ask Jupiter about all things, and supplicate him alone. For Victory, if she is a goddess and is under him as king, could not, wherever he had sent her, dare to resist him and rather do her own will. [XVIII] What of the fact that Felicity too is a goddess?
She received a temple, deserved an altar, fitting rites were duly rendered. She alone, therefore, should be worshipped. For where she was, what good would not be there? But what does it mean that Fortune too is thought to be a goddess and is worshipped? Is Felicity one thing, Fortune another? Because Fortune can also be bad; but Felicity, if it were bad, would not be Felicity. Certainly we ought to esteem all gods of either sex (if they even have a sex) to be none but good. This Plato says, this other philosophers say, this excellent rulers of the commonwealth and of peoples say. How, then, is the goddess Fortune sometimes good, sometimes bad? Or is it perhaps that when she is bad she is not a goddess, but is suddenly turned into a malignant demon? How many, then, are these goddesses?
Surely as many as there are fortunate men, that is, men of good fortune. For since there are also very many others at the same time, that is, at one time, of bad fortune, would she — if it were she herself — be at once both good and bad, one thing to these, another to those? Or is she who is the goddess always good? Then she herself is Felicity: why are different names applied? But this can be borne; for even one thing is wont to be called by two names. Why the different temples, different altars, different rites? There is a reason, they say, because that is Felicity which good men have by preceding merits; but Fortune, which is called good, befalls men both good and bad by chance, without any examination of merits, whence also she is named Fortune.
How, then, is she good, who comes without any judgment both to the good and to the bad? And to what end is she worshipped, who is so blind, rushing indiscriminately upon anyone at all, that she for the most part passes by her own worshippers and clings to those who despise her? Or if her worshippers profit anything, so that they are seen and loved by her, then she follows merits, she does not come by chance. Where is that definition of Fortune? Where is that she took even her name from chance events? For it profits nothing to worship her, if she is fortune. But if she distinguishes her worshippers so as to profit them, she is not fortune. Or does Jupiter send her too wherever he wills? Then let him alone be worshipped; for Fortune cannot resist him when he commands and sends her wherever he wills.
Or at least let the wicked worship her, who are unwilling to have the merits by which the goddess Felicity may be invited. [XIX] Yet so much indeed do they attribute to this, as it were, divinity whom they call Fortune, that they have committed to memory that her image — which was dedicated by matrons and called Fortuna Muliebris (Fortune of Women) — even spoke, and said not once but twice, that the matrons had duly dedicated her. Which indeed, if it be true, we ought not to wonder at. For it is not even so difficult for malignant demons to deceive, whose arts and craftiness these men ought rather to have marked from this: that that goddess spoke who befalls by chance, not she who comes by merits.
For Fortune was loquacious and Felicity mute — to what end, unless that men, having conciliated Fortune to themselves, should not care to live rightly, since she would make them fortunate without any good merits? And surely, if Fortune speaks, at least let her not speak as a woman, but rather as a man, lest the very women who dedicated the image be thought to have feigned so great a miracle by womanly loquacity. [XX] Virtue too they made a goddess; and if indeed she were a goddess, she was to be preferred to many. And now, because she is not a goddess but a gift of God, let her herself be obtained from Him by whom alone she can be given, and the whole crowd of false gods will vanish. But why has Faith too been believed to be a goddess, and has herself received a temple and altar?
Whoever prudently acknowledges her makes himself her dwelling-place. But whence do those men know what faith is, whose first and greatest office is that one should believe in the true God? But why did Virtue not suffice? Is not Faith also there? Since indeed they saw that virtue is to be distributed into four kinds — prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance — and since these several kinds too have their own kinds, faith is among the parts of justice and holds the greatest place among us, whoever we are that know what it is that 'the just lives by faith.'
But I wonder at those admirers of the multitude of gods, that, if Faith is a goddess, why they did injury to so many other goddesses by passing them over, to whom they could similarly have dedicated temples and altars. Why did Temperance not deserve to be a goddess, though by her name not a few Roman leaders acquired no small glory? Why, finally, is Fortitude not a goddess, who was present to Mucius when he stretched forth his right hand into the flames; who was present to Curtius when he cast himself headlong for his fatherland into the yawning earth; who was present to Decius the father and Decius the son when they vowed themselves for the army? — if indeed true fortitude was in all these, of which we are not now treating. Why did Prudence, why did Wisdom, deserve no places among the divinities?
Is it because they are all worshipped in the general name of Virtue itself? Thus, then, one God could also be worshipped, whose parts the rest of the gods are thought to be. But in that one Virtue are both Faith and Chastity, which nonetheless merited altars outside, in their own temples. [XXI] Not truth but vanity makes these goddesses; for these are the gifts of the true God, they are not themselves goddesses. Yet still, where there is virtue and felicity, what else is sought? What is lacking to him for whom virtue and felicity do not suffice? For virtue embraces all things to be done, felicity all things to be desired.
If Jupiter was worshipped in order that he might give these things, because — if breadth and long duration of a kingdom is any good — it pertains to that same felicity: why was it not understood that these are gifts of God, not goddesses? But if they were thought to be goddesses, at least so great a crowd of other gods would not be sought. For, considering the offices of all the gods and goddesses, which they feigned as they pleased according to their own opinion, let them find, if they can, anything that could be furnished by any god to a man having virtue, having felicity. What learning would have to be sought either from Mercury or from Minerva, when virtue had all things with itself? For the very art of living well and rightly was defined by the ancients as virtue.
Whence they thought that the Latins derived the name of art (ars) from that which in Greek is called 'aretē,' that is, virtue. But if virtue could come only to the talented, what need was there of the god Catius the father, who would make men 'cati,' that is, shrewd, when felicity could confer this? For to be born talented is a matter of felicity; whence, even if the goddess Felicity could not be worshipped by one not yet born, so as to grant him this once conciliated, she could confer this upon his parents, her worshippers, so that talented sons might be born to them. What need was there for women in labour to invoke Lucina, when, if Felicity were present, they would not only bear well but bear good children?
What need was there to commend the newborn to the goddess Ops, the wailing to the god Vaticanus, those lying down to the goddess Cunina, those sucking to the goddess Rumina, those standing to the god Statilinus, those coming to the goddess Adeona, those going away to Abeona; to the goddess Mens, that they might have a good mind; to the god Volumnus and the goddess Volumna, that they might will good things; to the nuptial gods, that they might be well married; to the rural gods, that they might reap most abundant fruits, and especially to the goddess Fructesea herself; to Mars and Bellona, that they might war well; to the goddess Victory, that they might conquer; to the god Honos, that they might be honoured; to the goddess Pecunia, that they might be moneyed; to the god Aesculanus and his son Argentinus, that they might have bronze and silver money?
For they made Aesculanus the father of Argentinus for this reason, that bronze money first came into use, afterward silver. But I wonder that Argentinus did not beget Aurinus, since gold money too followed after. And if these men had such a god, then, just as they set Jupiter above Saturn, so they would set Aurinus above his father Argentinus and his grandfather Aesculanus.
What need, then, was there, on account of these goods whether of soul or of body or external, to worship and invoke so great a crowd of gods (whom I have neither all mentioned, nor could they themselves, having parcelled out all human goods minutely and severally, provide petty and individual gods for each), when by a great and easy shortcut the one goddess Felicity could confer all things, and no other need be sought either for obtaining goods or even for driving away evils? For why should the goddess Fessona be invoked on account of the weary, the goddess Pellonia on account of enemies to be driven away, on account of the sick a physician — either Apollo or Aesculapius or both together — when there was grave danger? Nor the god Spiniensis, that he might root out the thorns from the fields;
nor need the goddess Robigo be entreated not to draw near: with Felicity alone present and watching over us, either no evils would arise at all, or they would most easily be driven off. Finally, since we are treating of these two goddesses, Virtue and Felicity: if felicity is the reward of virtue, it is not a goddess but a gift of God; but if it is a goddess, why should it not be said to confer virtue itself also, seeing that even to attain virtue is a great felicity? [XXII] What is it, then, that Varro boasts of bestowing upon his fellow citizens as some vast benefit, in that he not only records the gods whom the Romans ought to worship, but also states what each one is concerned with? For, he says, it is of no use to know the name and appearance of some man who is a physician, and yet not to know that he is a physician:
so he says it is of no use to know that Aesculapius is a god, if you do not know that he gives aid to health, and thus are ignorant of why you ought to supplicate him. He affirms this by yet another comparison, saying that no one can not only live well, but live at all, if he is ignorant of who is a smith, who a baker, who a plasterer, from whom he may seek what utensil, whom he may take as a helper, whom as a guide, whom as a teacher; asserting that in this way it is doubtful to no one that the knowledge of the gods is thus useful, if it be known what power, faculty, and authority each god has over each thing.
"For from this," he says, "we shall be able to know which god we ought to summon and invoke for the sake of each thing, lest we do as mimes are wont to do, and beg water from Liber and wine from the Lymphae." A great utility indeed! Who would not give him thanks, if he pointed out the truth, and if he taught that the one true God, from whom all good things come, is to be worshipped by men? [XXIII] But (to come to the point) if their books and rites are true, and Felicity is a goddess, why was she not appointed as the one to be worshipped, since she could confer all things and make men happy by a short cut? For who desires anything for any other reason than that he may become happy? Why, in short, so late, after so many Roman leaders, did Lucullus set up a temple to this so great goddess?
Why did Romulus himself, desiring to found a happy city, not build a temple to her above all, nor supplicate the other gods for anything, since nothing would be lacking if she were present? For not even he himself would have become first a king, and afterwards, as they suppose, a god, if he had not had this goddess propitious. Why, then, did he set up for the Romans the gods Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and any others? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, the Sun, the Moon, Vulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, among whom even the goddess Cloacina, while Felicity was neglected? Why did Numa appoint so many gods and so many goddesses without her? Or could he perhaps not see her in so great a throng?
Certainly King Hostilius would not have introduced the new gods Fear and Pallor to be propitiated, if he had known or worshipped this goddess. For with Felicity present, all fear and pallor would have withdrawn — not propitiated, but driven off in flight. Furthermore, what is the meaning of this: that the Roman empire was already growing far and wide, and yet no one as yet worshipped Felicity? Or was the empire for that reason greater rather than happier? For how could there be true felicity where there was not true piety? For piety is the true worship of the true God, not the worship of so many false gods as there are demons. But even afterwards, when Felicity had already been received into the number of the gods, a great unhappiness of civil wars followed.
Or was Felicity perhaps justly indignant, because she was invited both so late, and not to honor but rather to insult, in that she was worshipped together with Priapus and Cloacina and Fear and Pallor and Fever and the rest, which are not the divinities of those who should be worshipped, but the crimes of those who worship? At last, if it seemed right that so great a goddess should be worshipped along with a most unworthy rabble, why was she not at least worshipped more illustriously than the others? For who could endure this — that Felicity was placed neither among the Consentes gods, whom they say are admitted to Jupiter's council, nor among those they call the Select? Some temple should have been made for her, which would surpass the rest both in the loftiness of its site and the dignity of its structure. Why indeed not something better than for Jupiter himself? For who gave even Jupiter his kingdom, if not Felicity?
— that is, if while he reigned he was happy. And felicity is preferable to a kingdom. For no one doubts that a man can easily be found who would fear to be made a king; but no one is found who would be unwilling to be happy. The gods themselves, therefore, if it is thought that they can be consulted through auguries or by any means whatever, should be consulted on this matter, whether they would be willing to yield place to Felicity, if perchance the place were already occupied by the shrines or altars of others, where a larger and loftier temple might be built for Felicity; even Jupiter himself would yield, so that Felicity might rather occupy the very summit of the Capitoline hill. For no one would resist Felicity, unless — which cannot be — one who wished to be unhappy.
By no means at all, if he were consulted, would Jupiter do what three gods — Mars, Terminus, and Juventas — did to him, who by no means were willing to yield place to their greater one and their king. For, as their own writings record, when King Tarquin wished to build the Capitol, and perceived that the place which seemed to him more worthy and fitting had been pre-occupied by other gods, not daring to do anything against their will, and believing that they would yield of their own accord to so great a divinity and their prince, since there were many gods there where the Capitol was established, he inquired by augury whether they were willing to concede the place to Jupiter; and all of them from thence were willing to yield, except those whom I have mentioned, Mars, Terminus, Juventas;
and therefore the Capitol was so constructed that these three also were inside, with signs so obscure that even the most learned men scarcely knew it. By no means, then, would Jupiter himself despise Felicity, as he was despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But even those very gods who had not yielded to Jupiter would assuredly yield to Felicity, who had made Jupiter king over them. Or if they did not yield, they would do so not out of contempt for her, but because they would rather be obscure in the house of Felicity than be eminent in their own places without her.