City of God 4.7–4.19

Chapter 7. Whether earthly kingdoms, in their rises and falls, are helped or deserted by the aid of the gods.

If this kingdom was so great and long-lasting without any help from the gods, why is the Roman kingdom, broad in extent and long in duration, attributed to the Roman gods? For whatever the cause of the one, the same is the cause of the other. But if they argue that the former too is to be attributed to the help of the gods, I ask which gods. For the other nations which Ninus subdued and subjugated did not then worship other gods. Or if the Assyrians had their own gods, as more skilled craftsmen of building and preserving an empire, did they die when the Assyrians too lost their empire? Or, their wages not being paid them, or some greater reward being promised by another, did they prefer to go over to the Medes, and from there again to the Persians, when Cyrus invited them and promised something more advantageous? That nation, after the kingdom of Alexander of Macedon, which was great in extent but very short in duration, still endures in its own kingdom within no narrow borders of the East. If this is so, then either the gods are faithless, who desert their own and go over to the enemy (which not even the man Camillus did, when, as victor and conqueror of a most hostile city, he found Rome, for which he had conquered, ungrateful, yet afterwards, forgetting the injury and mindful of his country, freed it again from the Gauls), or they are not as strong as it befits gods to be strong, since they can be defeated by human counsels or forces; or, if when they make war on one another it is not the gods who are defeated by men but gods who are perhaps defeated by other gods, those who belong to particular cities, then they too have enmities among themselves, which each takes up for his own side. So a city ought not to have worshipped its own gods more than others, by whom its own might have been helped. Finally, however that crossing over or flight, migration or desertion in battle, of the gods may stand, the name of Christ had not yet been preached in those times and in those parts of the earth when those kingdoms were lost and transferred through immense disasters of war. For after twelve hundred years and more, when the kingdom was taken from the Assyrians, if the Christian religion had already been preaching another, eternal kingdom there and had forbidden the sacrilegious worship of false gods, what else would the vain men of that nation have said but that the kingdom, preserved so long, could have perished for no other reason than that its own religions had been deserted and this one received? In this voice of vanity, which could have been raised, let these people look at themselves as in a mirror, and blush, if they have any shame, to complain of similar things. Yet the Roman empire has been afflicted rather than changed, which happened to it at other times too before the name of Christ, and it was restored from that affliction; which is not to be despaired of in these times either. For who knows the will of God in this matter?

Chapter 8. Under the protection of which gods the Romans think their empire was increased and preserved, when they believed that to single gods the protection of single things could scarcely be entrusted.

Next let us ask, if you please, out of so great a crowd of gods as the Romans worshipped, which god in particular, or which gods, they believe enlarged and preserved that empire. For in so splendid a work, so full of great dignity, they do not dare to assign any part to the goddess Cloacina, or to Volupia, who is named from pleasure (voluptas), or to Lubentina, whose name comes from lust (libido), or to Vaticanus, who presides over the wailing (vagitus) of infants, or to Cunina, who looks after their cradles (cunae). But how could all the names of the gods and goddesses be recalled in one place of this book, which they could scarcely contain in great volumes, dividing the proper duties of the deities among particular things? Nor did they think the care of the fields should be entrusted to any one god, but they put the countryside (rura) under the goddess Rusina, the ridges of mountains (iuga) under the god Jugatinus, the hills (colles) under the goddess Collatina, the valleys (valles) under Vallonia. Nor could they even find one Segetia to whom they might entrust the crops (segetes) once for all; but they wanted the sown grain, as long as it was under the earth, to have the goddess Seia in charge; when it was above ground and forming a crop, the goddess Segetia; and when the grain was gathered and stored, they put the goddess Tutilina in charge, so that it might be kept safe (tuto). To whom would that Segetia not seem sufficient for the whole time the crop took to go from its first green blades to dry ears? Yet it was not enough for men who loved a multitude of gods that the wretched soul should prostitute itself to a crowd of demons, disdaining the chaste embrace of the one true God. So they put Proserpina in charge of the sprouting grain, the god Nodutus over the joints and knots (nodi) of the stalks, the goddess Volutina over the wrappings (involumenta) of the husks; when the husks open (patescunt) so that the ear may come out, the goddess Patelana; when the crops are made even with new ears, the goddess Hostilina, because the ancients said hostire for “to make even”; over the flowering grain the goddess Flora, over the milky grain the god Lacturnus, over the ripening grain the goddess Matuta; when the crops are weeded (runcantur), that is, removed from the earth, the goddess Runcina. I do not recount them all, because I am ashamed of what they are not ashamed of. I have mentioned these very few only so that it might be understood that they by no means dare to say that these deities established, increased, and preserved the Roman empire, since each was so applied to its own duties that nothing as a whole was entrusted to any one of them. When, then, would Segetia take care of the empire, who was not allowed to care for crops and trees at the same time? When would Cunina think about arms, whose charge was not allowed to go beyond the cradles of little children? When would Nodutus help in war, who had to do not even with the husk of the ear, but only with the knot of the joint? Each man sets one doorkeeper for his house, and because he is a man, he is quite sufficient; these people set three gods: Forculus for the doors (fores), Cardea for the hinge (cardo), Limentinus for the threshold (limen). So Forculus could not guard the hinge and threshold at the same time.

Chapter 9. Whether the greatness and duration of the Roman empire should be ascribed to Jupiter, whom his worshippers think the supreme god.

So, leaving aside that crowd of petty gods, or setting it aside for a while, we must inquire into the work of the greater gods, by which Rome was made so great that it ruled so many nations for so long. No doubt, then, this is Jupiter's work. For they want him to be the king of all the gods and goddesses: his scepter shows this, the Capitol on the high hill shows this. Of this god they proclaim, as most fitting, what was said, though by a poet: “All things are full of Jupiter.” Varro believes that he is worshipped even by those who worship one God alone without an image, but is called by another name. If this is so, why was he so badly treated at Rome, as indeed among other nations too, that an image was made of him? This displeases Varro himself so much that, although he was weighed down by the perverse custom of so great a city, he did not hesitate at all to say and write that those who set up images for the peoples both took away fear and added error.

Chapter 10. What opinions were followed by those who set different gods over different parts of the world.

Why is Juno also joined to him as wife, who is called “sister and spouse”? Because, they say, we take Jupiter to be in the ether and Juno in the air, and these two elements are joined, one above, the other below. Then he is not the one of whom it was said, “All things are full of Jupiter,” if Juno too fills some part. Or does each fill both, and are both these spouses in both these elements and in each at once? Why then is the ether given to Jupiter and the air to Juno? Finally, these two would be enough: why is the sea assigned to Neptune and the earth to Pluto? And so that these too should not remain without wives, Salacia is added to Neptune and Proserpina to Pluto. For just as Juno, they say, holds the lower part of the heaven, that is, the air, so Salacia holds the lower part of the sea and Proserpina the lower part of the earth. They look for a way to patch up their fables and do not find it. For if these things were so, their ancients would have taught that there are three elements of the world rather than four, so that each divine marriage might be assigned to each element. But in fact they have affirmed in every way that ether is one thing and air another. Water, whether higher or lower, is certainly water; suppose it is different: is it so different that it is not water? And what can the lower earth be but earth, however distinguished by difference? Then, see, the whole bodily world is already complete in these four, or three, elements: where will Minerva be? What will she hold? What will she fill? For she was set up in the Capitol together with them, although she is not the daughter of both. Or if they say that Minerva holds the upper part of the ether, and that for this reason the poets feign that she was born from Jupiter's head, why then is she not rather counted queen of the gods, since she is higher than Jupiter? Or was it because it was unworthy to put the daughter before the father? Why was this justice not kept by Jupiter himself toward Saturn? Because he was defeated? Did they fight, then? Far from it, they say; that is the chatter of fables. See, let the fables not be believed, and let better things be thought of the gods: why then was not the father of Jupiter given a seat of honor, if not higher, at least equal? Because, they say, Saturn is the length of time. Then those who worship Saturn worship time, and Jupiter, king of the gods, is insinuated to have been born of time. For what unworthy thing is said when Jupiter and Juno are said to have been born of time, if he is the heaven and she the earth, since heaven and earth were certainly made? For their learned and wise men have this too in their books. And it was not from poetic fictions but from the books of philosophers that Virgil said: “Then the almighty father Ether comes down with fertile showers into the lap of his glad spouse,” that is, into the lap of Tellus, or the earth. For here too they want there to be some differences, and in the earth itself they think Terra is one thing, Tellus another, Tellumo another, and they have all these as gods called by their own names, distinguished by their own functions, venerated with their own altars and rites. They also call this same earth the mother of the gods, so that the poets' fictions become more tolerable, if, according not to the poetic books but to the books of their rites, Juno is not only sister and spouse but also mother of Jupiter. They want this same earth to be Ceres, and also Vesta, though more often they declare that Vesta is nothing but the fire that belongs to hearths, without which a city cannot exist, and that virgins are therefore accustomed to serve her, because as nothing is born of a virgin, so nothing is born of fire. All this vanity ought certainly to have been abolished and extinguished by him who was born of a virgin. For who could bear that, while they gave so much honor and, as it were, chastity to fire, they sometimes do not blush to call Vesta Venus too, so that the virginity honored in her handmaids vanishes? For if Vesta is Venus, how did virgins rightly serve her by abstaining from the works of Venus? Or are there two Venuses, one a virgin, the other a woman? Or rather three, one of virgins, who is also Vesta, another of married women, another of harlots? To her the Phoenicians used to give a gift from the prostitution of their daughters before they joined them to husbands. Which of them is the wife of Vulcan? Certainly not the virgin, since she has a husband. Far be it that it should be the harlot, lest we seem to do wrong to the son of Juno and fellow worker of Minerva. So this one is understood to belong to married women; but we do not want them to imitate her in what she did with Mars. Again, they say, you go back to the fables. What justice is this, to be angry with us for saying such things of their gods, and not to be angry with themselves, who most gladly watch these crimes of their gods in the theaters? And (what would be incredible if it were not most thoroughly proved) these very theatrical crimes of the gods were instituted in honor of those same gods.

Chapter 11. On the many gods whom the more learned of the pagans maintain to be one and the same Jupiter.

Let them assert, then, as many physical theories and arguments as they like: now let Jupiter be the soul of this bodily world, which fills and moves this whole mass constructed and compacted of four, or as many as they please, elements; now let him yield parts of it to his sister and brothers; now let him be the ether, so as to embrace from above Juno, the air spread beneath; now let him be himself the whole heaven together with the air, and impregnate the earth, as his wife and likewise mother (for this is not shameful among the divine), with fertile showers and seeds; now (so that it may not be necessary to run through everything) let him be the one god of whom many think it was said by the most famous poet: “For God goes through all lands and tracts of sea and the deep heaven”; let him be Jupiter in the ether, Juno in the air, Neptune in the sea, Salacia too in the lower parts of the sea, Pluto on the earth, Proserpina in the lower earth, Vesta in household hearths, Vulcan in the smiths' furnace, sun, moon, and stars in the heavenly bodies, Apollo in diviners, Mercury in trade, the beginner in Janus, the ender in Terminus, Saturn in time, Mars and Bellona in wars, Liber in vineyards, Ceres in grain, Diana in forests, Minerva in talents; let him be, finally, in that crowd, as it were, of plebeian gods too; let him preside over the seed of men under the name of Liber and over that of women under the name of Libera; let him be Diespater, who brings the birth to the day; let him be the goddess Mena, whom they put in charge of women's menstruation; let him be Lucina, who is invoked by women in labor; let him bring help (opem) to the newborn by receiving them in the lap of the earth, and be called Opis; let him open the mouth in wailing and be called the god Vaticanus; let him lift the child from the earth and be called the goddess Levana; let him guard the cradles and be called Cunina; let no one else, but himself, be in those goddesses who sing the fates to the newborn and are called Carmentes; let him preside over chance events and be called Fortuna; in the goddess Rumina let him give the breast to the little one, because the ancients called the breast ruma; in the goddess Potina let him provide drink, in the goddess Educa let him give food; let him be called Paventia from the fear (pavor) of infants, Venilia from the hope that comes (venit), Volupia from pleasure, Agenoria from action; let him be named the goddess Stimula from the goads (stimuli) by which a man is driven to excessive action; let him be the goddess Strenia by making strenuous, Numeria who teaches to count (numerare), Camena who teaches to sing (canere); let him be both the god Consus by giving counsel and the goddess Sentia by inspiring opinions (sententiae); let him be the goddess Juventas, who receives the beginnings of youthful age after the boy's toga; let him be also bearded Fortune, who clothes adults with a beard (whom they did not wish to honor so far as to call this deity, whatever it is, at least a male god, either Barbatus from the beard (barba), as Nodutus from the knots, or certainly not Fortuna, but, because it has a beard, Fortunius); let him in the god Jugatinus join spouses, and when the girdle of a virgin wife is loosed, let him be invoked and called the goddess Virginensis; let him be Mutunus or Tutunus, who among the Greeks is Priapus: if they are not ashamed, let all these I have mentioned, and whatever I have not (for I did not think everything should be said), all these gods and goddesses, be one Jupiter, whether, as some would have it, all these are parts of him or his powers, as it seems to those who hold that he is the soul of the world, an opinion which is supposedly that of great and very learned men. If these things are so (what that means I do not yet ask for now), what would they lose if they worshipped one God by a wiser short cut? For what of him would be despised when he himself was worshipped? But if it was to be feared that his parts, passed over or neglected, would be angry, then it is not, as they would have it, the whole life of one living being, containing all the gods as its powers or members or parts; but each part has its own life separate from the others, if one can be angry apart from another, and one be appeased while another is stirred up. But if it is said that all together, that is, the whole Jupiter himself, could have been offended if his parts were not also worshipped one by one and in detail, it is said foolishly. For none of them would be passed over when he himself, the one who had them all, was worshipped. For, to omit other things, which are innumerable, when they say that all the stars are parts of Jupiter and that all live and have rational souls and are therefore, without dispute, gods, they do not see how many they do not worship, to how many they do not build temples or set up altars, which they thought should be set up to very few of the stars, and sacrifices offered to them singly. If, then, those not worshipped singly are angry, are they not afraid to live with the whole heaven angry, having appeased a few? But if they worship all the stars because they are in Jupiter, whom they worship, by this short cut they could supplicate all in that one (for so no one would be angry, since in that one no one would be despised), rather than, by worshipping some, give a just cause for anger to those passed over, who are far more numerous; especially when, over them as they shine from their heavenly seat, Priapus, swollen in foul nakedness, is preferred.

Chapter 12. On the opinion of those who have thought that God is the soul of the world and the world the body of God.

Should not this move acute men, or men of any kind (for no outstanding talent is needed for this), to lay aside the zeal of contention and take note: if God is the soul of the world, and the world is to that soul as a body, so that there is one living being consisting of soul and body, and this is God, containing all things in himself in a kind of bosom of nature, so that from his soul, by which this whole mass is given life, the lives and souls of all living things are taken according to the lot of each one's birth, then nothing at all remains that is not a part of God? If this is so, who does not see what great ungodliness and irreligion follow, that whatever anyone treads on, he treads on a part of God, and in killing any living being a part of God is slaughtered? I do not want to say all the things that can occur to those who think about it, but cannot be said without shame.

Chapter 13. On those who assert that only rational living beings are parts of the one God.

But if they contend that only rational living beings, such as men, are parts of God, I do not see, if the whole world is God, how they separate the beasts from his parts; but what need is there to struggle? As for the rational living being itself, that is, man, what more unhappy thing can be believed than that a part of God is beaten when a boy is beaten? And who could bear that parts of God become wanton, unjust, ungodly, and altogether damnable, except someone utterly mad? Finally, why is he angry with those by whom he is not worshipped, when he is not worshipped by his own parts? It remains, then, that they should 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 should be worshipped who can be known and worshipped, because they are so many that all cannot be. And since Jupiter presides over them as king, I suppose they think that he established or enlarged the Roman kingdom. For if he did not do it himself, what other god do they believe could have undertaken so great a work, since all are busy with their own duties and works, and one does not intrude on another's? So by the king of the gods the kingdom of men could be extended and increased.

Chapter 14. That the growth of kingdoms is inappropriately ascribed to Jupiter, since, if Victory is a goddess, as they would have it, she alone would suffice for this business.

Here I first ask why the kingdom itself is not 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 favors and is propitious and always goes to those whom she wants to be victors? With this goddess favoring and propitious, even if Jupiter were idle or doing something else, what nations would remain unsubdued? What kingdoms would not yield? Or perhaps it displeases good men to fight with most unjust wickedness and to provoke peaceful neighbors who do no wrong by a war of their own choosing in order to enlarge their kingdom? Clearly, if that is what they think, I approve and praise it.

Chapter 15. Whether it befits good men to wish to reign more widely.

Let them consider, then, whether it perhaps does not befit good men to rejoice in the breadth of their kingdom. For the iniquity of those against whom just wars were waged helped the kingdom to grow; it would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of its neighbors had provoked no war against it by any wrong; and so, human affairs being happier, all kingdoms would be small, rejoicing in harmonious neighborliness, and there would be many kingdoms of nations in the world as there are many houses of citizens in a city. So to wage war and enlarge a kingdom by subduing nations seems happiness to the wicked, necessity to the good. But because it would be worse for the wrongdoers to rule over the more just, this too is not inappropriately called happiness. But without doubt it is a greater happiness to have a good neighbor in harmony than to subjugate a bad neighbor at war. It is a bad wish to desire to have someone to hate or fear so that there may be someone to conquer. If, then, by waging just wars, not ungodly, not unjust ones, the Romans were able to acquire so great an empire, must they worship even the iniquity of others as some goddess? For we see that it cooperated greatly toward this breadth of empire, by making men wrongdoers, so that there might be those against whom just wars could be waged and the empire increased. And why should not Iniquity, at least of foreign nations, be a goddess too, if Fear and Pallor and Fever deserved to be Roman gods? By these two, then, that is, foreign iniquity and the goddess Victory, the empire grew even while Jupiter took a holiday, while Iniquity stirred up the causes of wars and Victory brought those same wars to a happy end. For what part would Jupiter have here, when the things that could be thought his benefits are held to be gods, called gods, worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own parts? He too would have some part here if he himself were called Kingdom, as that one is called Victory. Or if the kingdom is the gift of Jupiter, why should not victory too be held his gift? It certainly would be, if not a stone in the Capitol but the true King of kings and Lord of lords were known and worshipped.

Chapter 16. Why the Romans, who assigned single gods to all things and all movements, wanted the temple of Quiet to be outside the gates.

I wonder very much that, while they assigned single gods to single things and almost to single movements, and named a goddess Agenoria, to rouse to action (agere); a goddess Stimula, to goad to action beyond measure; a goddess Murcia, who would not move a man beyond measure and would make him, as Pomponius says, murcidus, that is, too lazy and inactive; a goddess Strenia, to make him strenuous; and undertook to offer public rites to all these gods and goddesses, they were unwilling to receive publicly the one they called Quiet, who would make a man quiet, though she had a temple outside the Colline gate. Was it a sign of a restless mind, or was it rather signified thus that whoever persisted in worshipping that crowd, not of gods at all but of demons, could not have quiet? To which the true Physician calls, saying: “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”

Chapter 17. Whether, if the supreme power belongs to Jupiter, Victory too ought to have been regarded as a goddess.

Or perhaps they say that Jupiter sends the goddess Victory, and that she, obeying him as king of the gods, comes to those he has ordered and takes her seat on their side? This is truly said, not of that Jupiter whom they imagine king of the gods according to their opinion, 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 conquer; his counsel can be hidden, but it cannot be unjust. For if victory is a goddess, why is triumph not also a god, and joined to victory as husband or brother or son? For these people have held such opinions about the gods that, if the poets invented them and we attacked them, they would answer that the poets' fictions are to be laughed at, not attributed to true deities; and yet they did not laugh at themselves when they read such ravings, not in the poets, but worshipped them in the temples. Let them, then, ask Jupiter for everything, and supplicate him alone. For wherever he had sent Victory, if she is a goddess and under that king, she could not dare to resist him and do her own will instead.

Chapter 18. By what reasoning those who think Felicity and Fortune goddesses distinguish them.

What of the fact that Felicity too is a goddess? She received a temple, earned an altar, fitting rites were paid to her. Then let her alone be worshipped. For where she was, what good would be lacking? But what does it mean that Fortune too is thought a goddess and worshipped? Is felicity one thing and fortune another? Because fortune can also be bad; but felicity, if it is bad, will not be felicity. Certainly we ought to think that all gods of both sexes (if they even have sex) are only good. Plato says this, other philosophers say it, excellent rulers of states and peoples say it. How then is the goddess Fortune sometimes good, sometimes bad? Or perhaps when she is bad she is not a goddess, but is suddenly turned into a malign 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 she were one, be both good and bad at once, one thing to these, another to those? Or is she who is a goddess always good? Then she is Felicity: why are different names used? But this can be borne; for one thing is often called by two names. Why different temples, different altars, different rites? There is a reason, they say: felicity is what the good have by preceding merits, while fortune, which is called good, befalls men, both good and bad, by chance (fortuito), without any weighing of merits, which is why she is called Fortune. How then is she good, who comes to good and bad without any judgment? And why is she worshipped, who is so blind that she runs into anyone at random, so that she often passes by her worshippers and clings to those who despise her? Or if her worshippers gain something, so that they are seen and loved by her, then she follows merits and does not come by chance. Where is that definition of Fortune? Where is the fact that she took her very name from chance events? For it is useless to worship her if she is fortune. But if she distinguishes her worshippers so as to benefit 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 where he wills. Or at least let the wicked worship her, who do not want to have the merits by which the goddess Felicity might be invited.

Chapter 19. On Fortuna Muliebris.

They attribute so much to this supposed deity whom they call Fortune that they have recorded that her image, which was dedicated by the matrons and called Fortuna Muliebris (the Fortune of women), even spoke, and said not once but twice that the matrons had dedicated her rightly. If this is true, we need not wonder. For it is not hard for malign demons to deceive even in this way; and these people ought rather to have noticed their arts and tricks from the fact that the goddess who spoke was the one who comes by chance, not the one who comes by merits. For Fortune was talkative and Felicity dumb, for what other purpose than that men should not care to live rightly, once they had won over Fortune, who would make them fortunate without any good merits? And certainly, if Fortune speaks, it would rather be not the womanly but the manly one who spoke, so that it might not be thought that the women themselves who dedicated the image invented so great a miracle out of womanly talkativeness.