THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES f DE NATURA DEORUM MARCI TULLII CICERONIS DE NATURA DEORUM BY FRANCIS BROOKS, M.A. rOBMEBLY CLASSICAL SCHOLAB OF BALLIOL COLLEGE OXFOED ; AND LECTUBEE IN CLASSICS AT UNIVEESITY COLLEGE, BEISTOL METHUEN & CO. 36 ESSEX STREET, W.C. LONDON 1896 ?A 10-508 T)3^B79 PREFACE The text made use of in this translation is that of the Rev. J. B. Mayor in the Cambridge University Press. Words bracketed in that text have not been translated. In some few cases they have been in- dicated in a footnote. I should like to express very fully my great obliga- tions to Mr. Mayor''s commentary. My best thanks are also due to him for the personal kindness which he has shown in reading through my translation, and enabling me to profit by his criticisms and suggestions. The introduction prefixed to the translation makes no pretence to originality, and is scarcely more than an abstract of the introductions in Mr. Mayor's edition, with a few additions from Zeller and Ueberweg. Both in the introduction and notes, references to passages in the De Natura are made by means of books and chapters. 1410^31) INTRODUCTION Cicero's death occurred in 43 B.C., when he was almost sixty-four years old, and his philosophical works belong to the two years immediately preceding. The circum- stances under which they were undertaken he indicates himself in his preface to the present work (i., 4). He was, he says, urged to them as a means of relief from the irk- some political inactivity to which he was reduced by the supremacy in the state of Julius Caesar, and he also hoped to find in them a distraction from the grief caused him by the death of his daughter Tullia. He felt, too, that for the sake of the national credit it was right that the philosophy of Greece should be brought before his countrymen in their own tongue, and in the case of the special branch of philosophy discussed in the De Nahira he had another and more pressing motive. For it was necessary there to consider those theological questions the answers to which de- termined the character and even the possibility of religion, and therefore, in his opinion, of morality as well. If the very existence of divine beings were denied, as some philosophers had denied it, clearly religion, and with it morality, at once disappeared (i., 2), Nor was the case much imj)roved if the view of the Epicureans were adopted. It was true that they had released mankind from a superstitious fear of the gods, but only by holding out deities who were absolutely 1 1 INTRODUCTION regardless of the world and its affairs, who led a shadowy and undefined existence, and were for practical purposes non-existent. Religious worship as directed to such beings could only be an empty form, and it was impossible for morality to flourish upon a basis of insincerity. The Stoics gave a noble account of the divine government of the universe and care for man, but their excessive dogmatism exposed them to the criticisms of the Academy. It is of this latter school that Cicero in i., 3 professes himself an adherent. Its original founder was Plato, but in its later development it had come to neglect the positive side of his teaching, and to base itself solely upon the negative dialectic which always played so impor- tant a part in his system. By means of this weapon Car- neades (213-129 B.C.), the most important representa- tive of the Middle or Sceptical Academy, set himself to controvert the Stoic doctrine of certain knowledge, endeavouring to show that real knowledge was impos- sible, and a greater or less degree of probability all that could be attained. He was also a formidable critic of the argument from design employed by the Stoics, and of their conception of God as a living, rational being. This purely negative attitude was modified by the later Academics of Cicero's own time, who formed what is called the New Academy. Philo {ob. about 80 b.c.) made a partial return to Stoicism, attempting a com- promise on the lines indicated in i., 5, ad Jin., between mere probability and absolute certainty. A much stronger tendency towards eclecticism was shown by his disciple Antiochus {ob. 68 e.g.), who thought that truth might be .found in that upon which all philo- sophers were agreed, and tried to prove, inevitably 2 INTRODUCTION without much success, that the Academic, Stoic and Peripatetic systems were in substantial harmony (i., 7). Cicero himself should really be ranked as an eclectic. At the close of this dialogue he declares that he finds a greater appearance of " probability " in the arguments of the Stoic disputant, and there is no doubt that though ready to adopt the standpoint of the Academics where abstract questions of metaphysics were concerned, and though in sympathy with them as an orator because of the effective use to which their method could be put in oratory, he was of too serious a temper to apply their scepticism to beliefs which affected practical life and conduct. He was a Stoic in regarding the consensus gentium as valid testimony to the existence of a supreme being, and as a statesman and patriot was convinced that it was the duty of a good citizen to accept and maintain the national religion. As a student of philosophy Cicero held a foremost place among his contemporaries. He remained in touch with it during the whole of a busy life, not only, as his letters show, as a reader, but also as a writer of trans- lations and adaptations, of which he left a large number behind. In his youth he had known as teachers the chief representatives of three schools. In 88 B.C., when eighteen years old, he had studied at Rome imder Phtedrus the Epicurean and Philo the Academic; in 1[) B.C., at Athens, imder the Epicureans Pha'drus and Zeno and the Academic Antiochus, and in the following year under Posidonius the Stoic in Rhodes. Diodotus the Stoic was for some years an inmate of his house. The Stoics most fre(jiiently quoted in this dialogue are Zeno, the founder of the school {circ. .'i42-ii70 B.C.), Cleanthes (3.'n-251 h.c.) and Chrysippus (280-20f) B.C.). INTRODUCTION Pana-tius (180-111 B.C.), who is mentioned in ii., 46, was the chief exponent of Stoicism amongst the Romans. He Uved in Rome for several years as the friend of Scipio yEmiUanus, and a member of the " Scipionic circle " which did so much to foster the first growth of culture in Rome. Posidonius, who died about 50 B.C., was a disciple of his. The Peripatetic school is only referred to once in the De Naliira (i., 7). It was identical with the Lyceum, the school founded by Aristotle, and in Cicero's time m as mainly occupied in the task of re-editing and commenting on Aristotle. It held a high position, but was comparatively colour- less, and had nothing like the same hold on men's minds as the three other systems. Cicero himself speaks of it elsewhere with respect, but without enthusiasm. The dialogue is supposed to take place in Rome at the house of Caius Aurelius Cotta. Cotta was born in 124 B.C., and was a member of that party in the senate which, under the leadership of Drusus, urged the extension of the Roman citizenship to the Italian allies. The murder of Drusus in 91 b.c. was followed by the insurrection of the allies, and Cotta with many others was banished as having been guilty of high treason in encouraging the revolt ; he did not return to Rome until order was restored by Sulla in 82 b.c. In this dialogue he appears as pontiff, but not as consul. We know that he was made pontiff soon after 82 B.C., and consul in 75 b.c, and as Cicero, who is present at the dialogue as a listener, did not return from Athens till 77 B.C., its date is limited to some time between the years 77 and 75 b.c, when Cicero would be about thirty years of age, and Cotta about forty-eight. Cotta 4 INTRODUCTION represents the Academics. He was a distinguished orator, and appears as one of the speakers in the De Oratore, where he is represented as saying (Z)e Oral., iii., 145) that he will not rest till he has mastered the Academic method as a part of his training in oratory. It is interesting to note that while an Academic in opinion, he is as pontiff the champion of orthodoxy (i., 22 ; iii., 2). The Epicureans are represented by Caius Velleius, and the Stoics by Quintus Lucilius Balbus, of both of whom scarcely anything is known beyond what is gathered from the dialogue itself. Cicero had also introduced Balbus as a speaker in the lost dialogue Hortensius, which was an appeal for the study of philo- sophy. The present work is dedicated to Marcus Junius Brutus, afterwards the murderer of Caesar. He was a man of considerable philosophical attainments, an adherent of the Stoicised Academy of Antiochus, and himself an author. Cicero, who was twenty-one years his senior, must have thought highly of him, as he dedicated to him four of his other treatises, and named after him the dialogue De Claris Oraloribus, in which he takes part. The De Natura itself was very possibly not published until after Cicero's death, and was certainly not revised by him. This is shown, apart from various' obscurities and inconsistencies which occur in it, by the allusions made to the time which the dialogue occupies. It is really supposed to take up one day, but in ii., 29 it is represented as having reached its second day, and in iii., 7 its third. In this, as in his other philosophical works, which he himself calls dTTf/ypof/ja, or "adaptations," Cicero borrowed largely from Greek sources. There are many INTRODUCTION points of resemblance between the Epicurean section of book i. and a religious treatise of Philodemus discovered in an imperfect state amongst the Herculanean MSS. Philodemus was a leading Epicurean, a disciple of Zeno, and a contemporary of Cicero, who mentions him with praise, and it is generally supposed that he borrowed directly from him. But Mayor points out that the divergences are even more striking, and thinks that they both copied from an earlier authority. It is a strong argument in support of this that in both cases the list of philosophers criticised stops at the middle of the second century b.c. The rest of book i., which consists of Cotta's criticism of the Epicurean position, is derived in great part from the Stoic Posidonius, who is also followed in the second book, which contains the Stoic exposition. The Academic criticism of the Stoics, which comes in book iii., is taken from the Academic Clitomachus (circ. 180-110 B.C.), the disciple and ex- ponent of Carneades, who himself left no written re- mains. The speech of Velleius, which opens the discussion, begins with a criticism of the Platonic and Stoic theo- logies (i., 8-10). The style is rather blustering, in accordance with the Epicurean reputation for arrogance and self-sufficiency, and the questions asked may in more than one case be answered out of the very writer criticised. The best points made are those which deal with the difficulty of supposing the creation of the universe to have taken place at a particular period of time, and with the question of what were the motives of the Creator in undertaking the work. These points, unfortunately, are not directly met by subsequent speakers, a fault observable through the entire work, 6 INTRODUCTION which suffers from a want of cohesion attributable to the hasty use by Cicero of authorities who themselves wrote independently of one another. The critical section is succeeded by the historical (i., 10-15), which consists of a summary of the views of a large number of philosophers, together with criticisms upon them. It is an undeniable blot upon the book, being throughout full of inaccuracies and mis-statements, of which it is probable that Cicero himself was to a great extent un- conscious ; if they were intended to illustrate the ignorance, upon which the Epicureans prided themselves, of any writings besides their own, one would have ex- pected a hint to that effect, if not a correction of blunders. Cotta, moreover, is made to compliment Velleius afterwards upon the accuracy of his sketch. The principle upon which the criticism proceeds is that the Epicurean idea of (jod as a j)erfectly happy, eternal being, possessed of reason, and in human form, is th^ only tenable one, and the mere statement of different opinions is regarded as a sufficient proof of their worth- lessness. There is much more positive value in the Epicurean exposition which follows (i., l()-20). The Academic criticism, which takes up the rest of tlie book, is flippant, amusing, often obviously unjust, but often acute and to the point. The objections to endowing God with a human form (i., 27-^7) are well put, and there is real humour in tlie bantering to which Epi- curus is subjected in i,, 2(). The S(;cond book will always rank as one of tiie chief attempts made in ancient literature to prove the divine existence, the providential ordering of tlie universe, and the providential care for man. In dis- cussing the second of these points a number of details 7 INTRODUCTION are introduced in connection with astronomy, animal and vegetable life, and the physiology of man, which make the book important in another way as a contribu- tion to our knowledge of ancient science. The astro- nomical section is extended by selections from Cicero's Aratea, a translation which he made in early youth of the Phoeiiomena of the Stoic poet Aratus. The verses are spirited, and have received the honour of several imitations by Lucretius, but they might well have been spared in exchange for a fuller treatment of the dealings of Providence with the individual, such as would in all probability be contained in the original from which Cicero was borrowing. As it is, the problem of how to account for the presence of misery and disaster in a world providentially governed is only hurriedly touched upon at the end of the book. Though we may be sure that Cicero would have been in sympathy with the main outlines of the Stoic exposi- tion, we know from his other writings that he would not have agreed in the identification of heat with intelligence (ii., 10), or in ascribing life and thought to the universe and the heavenly bodies (ii., 13, 15), or in the attempts made to explain the gods of the popular religion ('ii., 23-27). In this last connection chapters 25-27 are noticeable for their etymological explanations of the names of divinities. Of the last book a large portion, probably more than one third, has been lost. This includes the whole of the section on the providential government of the uni- verse, and part of that on the care of the gods for men. The Academic criticism here has the same general faults and merits as that in book i., but is more serious in tone. There is force in the objections brought in chapters 4-6 INTRODUCTION against the arguments in support of the divine existence which the Stoics derived from the general belief of mankind^ the recorded appearances of gods^ and the practice of divination. Chapter 1 5 is interesting as an attempt to show that virtue, as it is imderstood by man, is incompatible with the divine nature. The ten chapters following are devoted to a tedious and dis- proportionably lengthy discussion of the Stoic mytho- logy. The arguments underlying it have a logical and philosophical value, but instances are multiplied to an inordinate extent. Chapters 21-23 contain a descriptive list of deities bearing the same name, and are designed to show that though the Stoics may wish to retain, by means of their allegorical explanations, the gods be- lieved in by the people, it is impossible to decide out of so many claimants to a title which is the true god. The mythology in these three chapters is throughout eccentric ; many of the particulars given are opposed to the ordinary account, and many are found nowhere else. At the same time it is singularly incomplete, deities so well known as Juno, Ceres, Neptune, Mars, Pluto, Hecate, and Proserpina being omitted. The original author of this part of the mythological section was probably one of the learned anticjuarics of Alexandria, of whose laljour Carneades or Clitomachus availed them- selves for polemical purposes. The remainder of the book is devoted to a vigorous attack upon the Stoic doctrine of the providential care for man. Two statements in it may be noted as incon- sistent with statements already made in book ii. In iii., 3(y it is said that all men are agreed in considering virtue to come from oneself and not from (Jod, but the opposite was explicitly stat«'d in ii., HI, and in iii., liy the 9 INTRODUCTION Stoics are quoted as saying that the divine care does not extend to individuals^ which again is contradicted by iu, 66. In both cases it is probable that the earlier Stoics did hold the beliefs in question, and the discrep- ancy illustrates the difficulty under which Cicero lay in answering a later Stoic treatise out of an earlier Academic one. We find that when speaking in his own person he inclines rather to the Stoic view of the misfortunes of the good and prosperity of the bad, and in ascribing a divine origin to virtue and conscience he is again at variance with the Academics. The impres- sion sometimes produced by this third book may be seen from the statement of Arnobius (circ. 300 a.d.) that many of the pagans themselves were scandalised by Cicero's religious writings, and thought that they should be destroyed. On the other hand, the Stoic exposition, and passages of a similar tendency in other works, led to Christians recognising in Cicero an element of positive Christianity. Besides Arnobius, the Christian writers Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Lactantius, and Augustine were acquainted with the De Natura, and their argu- ments against polytheism are largely borrowed from it. Nor can the dialogue be regarded as without consider- able claims upon our own attention. It possesses a unique historical interest as summing up, in the genera- tion preceding the birth of Christ, the religious opinions of the chief schools of ancient thought, and though much in it has been superseded, the main topics with which it is concerned are still the subjects of inquiry and controversy in the modern world. 10 BOOK I. I. While there are many questions in philosophy wliich have not as yet been by any means satisfactorily cleared up, there is in particular, as you, Brutus, are well aware, much difiiciilty and much obscurity attaching to the inquiry with reference to the nature of the gods, an inquiry which is ennobling in the recognition which it affords of the nature of the soul, and also necessary for the regulation of religious practices. The opinions of the greatest thinkers with regard to it conflict and vary to an extent which should be taken as strong evidence that the cause of their doing so is ignorance, and that the Academics were wise in refusing to make positive assertions upon uncertain data. Is there anything, indeed, so discreditable as rashness, and is there any- thing rasher and more unworthy of the dignity and strength of character of a wise man than the holding of a false opinion, or the unhesitating defence of what has not been grasped and realised with proper thorough- ness ? In this in(|uiry, to give an instance of the diversity of opinion, the greater number of authorities have affirmed the existence of the gods ; it is the most likely conclusion, and one to which we are all led by the guidance of nature ; but Protagoras said that he was doubtful, and Diagoras the Melian and Theodorus of Cyrcne thouglit that there were no such beings at all. Tliose, further, wlio have asserted tlieir exist- IJ DE NATURA DEORUM ence present so much diversity and disagreement that it would be tedious to enumerate their ideas separately. For a great deal is said about the forms of the gods, and about their locality, dwelling-places, and mode of life, and these points are disputed with the utmost difference of opinion among philosophers ; while upon the question in which our subject of discussion is mainly comprised, the question whether the gods do nothing, project nothing, and are free from all charge and administration of affairs, or whether, on the other hand, all things were from the beginning formed and established by them, and are throughout infinity ruled and directed by them, — on this question, especially, there are great differences of opinion, and it is inevitable, unless these are decided, that mankind should be in- volved in the greatest uncertainty, and in ignorance of things which are of supreme importance. II. For there are and have been philosophers who thought that the gods had absolutely no direction of human affairs, and if their opinion is true, what piety can there be, and what holiness, and what obliga- tion of religion ? It is right that these should be accorded, in purity and innocence of heart, to the divinity of the gods, but only if the offering is observed by them, and if something has been accorded by the immortal gods to humanity. But if they have neither the power nor the wish to aid us, if they have no care at all for us and take no notice of what we do, if there is nothing that can find its way from them to human life, what reason is there for our rendering to them any worship, or honour, or prayers ? On the other hand, in an empty and artificial pretence of faith piety cannot find a place any more than the other virtues ; with 12 DE NATURA DEORUM piety it is necessary that holiness and religious obliga- tion should also disappear, and when these are gone a great confusion and disturbance of life ensues ; indeed, when piety towards the gods is removed, I am not so sure that good faith, and human fraternity, and justice, the chief of all the virtues, are not also removed. But there is another school of philosophers, and a great and high-minded one it is, who hold that the entire universe is ordered and ruled by the mind and the intelligence of the gods, and, more than this, that the gods also take counsel and forethought for the life of men ; for they think that the crops and other produce of the earth, the variations in the weather, the succession of the seasons, and the changing phenomena of the sky, by means of which everything that the earth bears is ripened and comes to maturity, are gifts bestowed by the immortal gods upon mankind, and they adduce many instances which will be mentioned in the course of these books, and which are of such a kind as to almost make it seem that the immortal gods manu- factured these precise things for the benefit of man ! Against this school Carneades advanced many argu- ments, with the result of rousing men of intelligence to a desire for investigating the truth ; for there is no question on which there is such marked disagreement, not only amongst the unlearned, but the learned as well, and the fact of their opinions being so various and so mutually opposed makes it of course possible, upon the one hand, tliat not one of them is true, and certainly impossible, upon the other, that more than one should be true. III. Now, with regard to my own works, which within a short space of time I havf put forth in con- 13 DE NATURA DEORUM siderable number, I notice that a good deal of comment of different kinds has been spreading, proceeding partly from those who wondered whence I had acquired this sudden enthusiasm for philosophy, and partly from those who wished to know what definite convictions I held upon particular points. I have also been conscious that many regarded it as strange that that philosophy, rather than others, should commend itself to me, which, as they would say, robs us of the light and casts a kind of darkness over things, and that the defence of an abandoned and long-neglected system should have been unexpectedly undertaken by me. Well, upon these counts I can pacify friendly objectors and confute malignant fault-finders in a way which will make the latter repent of having taken me to task, and the former glad that they have learnt the truth, for those who admonish in a friendly spirit deserve to be instructed, while those who assail in an unfriendly spirit deserve to meet with a repulse. Now I have not turned suddenly to philosophy, and from an early period of life I have expended no little attention and care upon that study, and when I seemed least devoted to it I was in reality most so. This is shown by the frequency with which the opinions of philosophers occur in my speeches, and by my friend- ship with the learned, an honour which my house has always enjoyed, and by the fact of such leading men as Diodotus, Philo, Antiochus and Posidonius having been my teachers. If, moreover, all the precepts of philo- sophy have a bearing upon life, I consider that both in my public and private capacity I have carried out what reason and principle prescribed. IV. But if any one asks what considerations induced me to make, at so late a date, these contributions to 14 DE NATURA DEORUM letters, there is nothing I can more easily explain. It was at the time when I was feeling the languor of in- action, and the condition of the state necessitated its being directed by the will and guidance of one man, that I reflected that philosophy ought, in the first place for the state's own sake, to be brought before our fellow-countrymen. For I thought that it nearly con- cerned our honour and glory as a nation that so impor- tant and exalted a study should have a place in the Latin literature as well, and I regret my undertaking the less as it is easy for me to perceive how many persons' enthusiasm I have aroused, not only for learning, but also for exposition. The fact is that several who had been trained in the Greek school were kept from sharing their learning with their country- men by a doubt whetlier the knowledge that they had received from the Greeks could be expressed in Latin, but in this department I seem to have been so far successful myself as not to be outdone by the Greeks even in abundance of vocabulary. A second inducement for betaking myself to these studies was my unhappiness of mind in consequence of a great and serious blow dealt me by fortune. If I could have found any greater relief for this unhappiness I would not have taken refuge in this form of it particularly, but there were no means by which I could better enjoy relief itself than by devoting myself not merely to the reading of books, but also to an examination of the whole of philosophy. And all its parts and members are most easily recognised when (juestions are followed out in all their bearings in writing, for there is in philosophy a notable kind of continuity and connection of subject, so that one part seems to 15 DE NATURA DEORUM depend upon another, and all to be fitted and joined together. V. As for those who ask to know my own opinion upon each point, they display more curiosity than is necessary, for in discussion it is not so much authorities as determining reasons that should be looked for. In fact the authority of those who stand forward as teachers is generally an obstacle in the way of those who wish to learn, for the latter cease to apply their own judgment, and take for granted the conclusions which they find arrived at by the teacher whom they approve. Nor am I in the habit of commending the custom of which we hear in connection with the Pythagoreans, of whom it is said that when they affirmed anything in argument, and were asked why it was so, their usual reply was "the master said it," "the master " being Pythagoras, and the force of precon- ceived opinion being so great as to make authority prevail even without the support of reason. To those, again, who wonder at my having followed this school in preference to others, I think that a sufficient answer has been made in the four books of the Academica. Certainly it is no abandoned and neglected system that I have undertaken to defend, for opinions do not also perish because individuals die, though it may happen that they are denied the illumination which is given by an expositor. For instance the philosophical method in question, the method of meeting every position with criticism, and upon no point delivering a straight- forward judgment, which started with Socrates, and was taken up again by Arcesilas, and placed upon a firm foundation by Carneades, continued to flourish down to our own times, and yet I see that at the 16 DE NATURA DEORUM present moment in Greece itself it is left almost in the condition of an orphan.^ This I think has come about not through the fault of the Academy, but as a conse- quence of men's dulness, for if it is a formidable matter to make oneself master of single systems, how much more so is it to make oneself master of all, as must be done by those who look forward to speaking, with a view to the discovery of truth, both for all philosophers, and also against all philosophers. To the mastery of anything so high and difficult as that I do not profess to have attained, though I do make bold to say that I have endeavoured to attain. Still it is impossible that the school which proceeds on this method should have no principle to follow. This is a point which, it is true, has been more thoroughly discussed in another work, but there are some people so dull and unreceptive as to seem to need to be reminded of it frequently. Our school, then, is not one to which nothing seems to be true, but one which says that to all true sensations there are certain false ones attached, which are so like them that the true ones can show no unmistakable mark by which to be judged and accepted as true. PVom this comes our conclusion that there are many sensations probal)ly true, by which, though they do not represent full perception, the life of a wise man may be directed because they have something marked and distinct in their appearance. VI. But now, in order to free myself from all odium, I will bring forward the opinions of philosopliers with regard to the nature of the gods, and on this matter methinks the whole world should be summoned to determine which of the opinions is the true one, and I ' Through the death of the Academic Philo. 2 17 DE NATURA DEORUM shall only regard the Academy as presumptuous in case either all philosophers prove to be agreed, or some one is discovered who has ascertained the truth. I feel in- clinedj then, to exclaim in the words of the Synephebi, " By heaven, I invoke and demand, beseech and entreat, weep for and implore the protection of all our fellow- countrymen, of all young men," not in regard to some mere trifle, as the character in that play complains that " Capital crimes are being committed in the state, a light of love refuses to take money from her lover," but in order that they may be present, and make inquiry, and take cognizance as to what our convictions ought to be with regard to religious obligation, and piety, and holiness, and ceremonial rites, and honour, and an oath, and with regard to temples, and shrines, and the stated sacrifices, and those very auspices over which our college presides, — for all these questions ought to be considered as connected with our present inquiry concerning the immortal gods. Surely even those who think that they possess some certain knowledge will be forced to begin to doubt by the marked difference of opinion, amongst those of most instruction, on a matter of such great importance. I have often noticed this difference on other occasions, but I did so most of all at the time of a remarkably thorough and careful discussion on the subject at the house of my friend Caius Cotta. I had gone there at the time of the Latin holidays, at his own request and summons, and found him sitting in a recess off the hall, engaged in discussion with Caius Velleius, a member of the senate, to whom the Epicureans assigned at that time the first place amongst our countrymen. There was also present Quintus Lucilius Balbus, who was so great 18 DE NATURA DEORUM a proficient in the philosophy of the Stoics as to be compared with the leading Greeks in that field. When Cotta saw me, You come, he said, verj^ opportunely, for a dispute is arising between me and Velleius on a subject of importance, and considering your interest in such matters it is not inappropriate that you should be present at it. VII. I too, I said, think that I have come, as you say, opportunely, for here you are met together as the three chief members of three schools, and if Marcus Piso ^ were present, not one of, at any rate, the most highly esteemed philosophies would be without a re- presentative. If, replied Cotta, our excellent Antiochus speaks truth in the work which he has latel}' dedicated to Balbus here, there is no reason why you should re- jrret the absence of your friend Piso, for according to Antiochus the Stoics agree with the Peripatetics in substance, and only differ from them in words. I should like to know what you think of this work, Balbus. What I think ? said Balbus. I am surprised that a man of such remarkable acuteness as Antiochus should not have seen that there is a very great differ- ence between the Stoics who separate things honour- able from things advantageous not merely in title, but in their entire nature, and the Peripatetics who class them together, making them dissimilar in importance, and, as it were, gradation, l)ut not in nature ; for this is no slight difference in words, l)ut a very considerable one in essence. However, that point let us discuss at some other time ; for the present let us turn, if you have no objection, to what we had begun upon. 1 certainly have no objection, said Cotta ; but in order ' Representing the Peripatetics, DE NATURA DEORUM that our friend here — looking at me — who came in upon us, may not be in the dark as to what is being discussed, let me explain that the subject was the nature of the gods, and that I, feeling it, as I always do, to be one of great obscurity, was inquiring from Velleius the opinion of Epicurus. So, if you do not mind, Velleius, let us have your first remarks again. I will certainly, he said, though our friend has not come as my auxiliary, but as yours, for you have both of you, he said with a smile, learnt from the same Philo to be sure of nothing. To which I replied : As for what we have learnt, that is Cotta's business, but I do not wish you to think that I have come as his adherent, but as a hearer, an unbiassed one, moreover, free to judge, and under no obligation to defend, whether I wish it or not, some fixed opinion. VIII. Velleius then began, displaying, as is usual with his school, no lack of confidence, and afraid, beyond all things, of seeming to be in doubt upon any point, just as though he had that moment come down from the assembly of the gods and the inter-mundane spaces ^ of Epicurus. Listen, he said, to no groundless and fanciful beliefs ; no fabricator and builder of the world, like the god from Plato's Timseus ; no prophetic beldame like the Trpovoia of the Stoics (whom in our own language we may call providence) ; no world itself, either, endowed with mind and sensation, a round and glowing and whirling deity, — the prodigies and marvels of philosophers who do not reason but dream. Why, by what manner of means could Plato, your pet authority, have beheld the construction of this great work, the construction with which he represents the world as ^ In which Epicurus supposed the gods to reside. 20 DE NATURA DEORUM being put together and built by God ? How was so vast a fabric set about ? What were the tools, and levers, and machines, and agents employed in it ? On the other hand how could air, fire, water, and earth have been obedient and submissive to the architect's will ? And whence did those five forms arise ^ from which the other elements are formed, and which are so conveniently adapted for affecting the mind, and pro- ducing sensation ? ^ It would be tedious to remark upon all his theories, which have more the appearance of day dreams than of ascertained results, but the prize instance is the following : he represented the world not merely as having come into existence, but as having been almost turned out by hand, and yet asserted that it would be everlasting. Now do you think that a man like this, who thinks that anything that has come into being can be eternal, has put, as the saying is, even the surface of his lips to pki/.sio/ogia, in other words, to natural philosophy ? For is there any agglomeration that cannot be dissolved, or anything that, having a beginning, has not also an end ? As for your TrporoLa, Lucilius, if it is the same as the power we have been discussing, I ask, as I did just now, for the agents, machines, and all the planning and ordering of the entire ' The reference is to the Tima:us. The " five forms " are the five solids, and the " other elements " are those just mentioned, earth, air, fire, and water, which are represented in the Tiniitus as resulting from the impression of the figures of four of the solids upon original matter. The universe itself was the result of the application of the fifth solid. ' According to the explanation of sensation which is given in the Timajus, the soul and the organs of perception are themselves composed of the same elements of air, fire, etc., as the material objects of perception, so that " like is known by like ". 21 DE NATURA DEORUM work. If, on the other hand, it is something different, I ask why it made the world hable to perish/ instead of making it everlasting, as was done by the god of Plato. IX. And from both of you - I inquire why these powers suddenly appeared as constructors of the world, and why for innumerable ages they were asleep, for it does not follow, if there was no world, that there were no ages. By ages 1 do not now mean those that are made up of a number of days and nights by means of the yearly revolutions, for I acknowledge that ages in that sense could not have been attained without a rotatory movement of the heavens, but from infinitely far back there has existed an eternity, the nature of which in point of extent can be conceived, though it was not measured by periods of time.^ I ask, then, Balbus, why during that limitless extent of time your Trpovota refrained from action. Was it labour that it shunned ? But God was not affected by that, nor was there any, since all the elements, the air of heaven, the bodies composed of fire, the lands, and seas, were obedient to the divine will. What reason, again, was there why God should be desii-ous of decking the world, like an a^dile, with figures and lights ?"* If he did so in order ^ An allusion to the cyclic conflagration of the universe in which the Stoics believed. ^ i.e., Balbus and Plato. ^ MSS. here give: Quod ne in cogitationcm quidem cadit, lit fiicrit tcmptis aliquod, nullum cum tempus esset. The words are bracketed in Mayor's text, but he would now restore them, accept- ing the rendering of A. Goethe in his German ed. (1887), "But it is impossible to conceive that there could have been a time when there was no (previous) time ". •• A double reference to the constellations of the sky and the statues and illuminations with which the sediles on festal occasions adorned Rome. 22 DE NATURA DEORUM that he himself might be better lodged, it is clear that for an infinite amount of time previously he had been living in all the darkness of a hovel. And do we regard him as afterwards deriving pleasure from the diversity with which we see heaven and earth adorned ? What delight can that be to God ? And if it Avere a delight, he would not have been able to go without it for so long. Or was this universe, as your school is accustomed to assert, established by God for the sake of men ? Does that mean for the sake of wise men ? In that case it was on behalf of but a small number that so vast a work was constructed. Or was it for the sake of the foolish ? In the first place there was no reason why God should do a kindness to the bad, and in the second place what did he effect, seeing that the lot of all the foolish is undoubtedly a most miserable one .'' The chief reason for this is the fact that they are foolish, for what can we name as being more miserable than folly ? and the second is the fact that there are so many ills in life that, while the wise alleviate them by a balance of good, the foolish can neither avoid their approach nor endure their presence. X. As for those ^ who declared that the world itself was animate and wise, they were far from understand- ing to what kind of figure - it is possible for the quality of rational intelligence to belong, a point on which I will myself speak a little later. For the present I will not go farther than to express my astonishment at the dulness of those who represent an animate being, that is immortal and also blessed, as round, l)t'cause Plato says that there is no shape more beautiful than tiiat. ' Plato and the Stoics. ^ i.e., according to the Epicureans, the human figure, 2.'i bE NATURA DEORUM Yet I find more beauty in the shape either of a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid. And what kind of life is assigned to this round divinity ? Why, a kind which consists in his being whirled along at a rate of speed, the like of which cannot even be conceived, and in which I do not see where a foothold can be found for a steadfast mind and blessed life. Why, again, should not that be considered painful in the case of God, which would be painful if it were evidenced ^ to the slightest extent in our own bodies .'' For the earth, since it is a part of the world, is also of course a part of God. But we see vast tracts of the earth uninhabitable and un- cultivated, some through being parched by the beating of the sun's rays, and others through being bound with snow and frost owing to the distance to which the sun withdraws from them ; and these, if the world is God, must, since they are parts of the world, be respectively described as glowing and frozen members of God ! These, Lucilius, are the beliefs of your school, but to show what their character is I will retrace them from their farthest source in the past. Thales, then, of Miletus, who was the first to inquire into such subjects, said that water was the first principle of things, and that God was the mind that created everything from water. Now if there can be divinity without sensation, why did he mention mind in addition to water ? On the other hand, if mind can exist by itself apart from matter, why did he mention water in addition to mind ? Anaximander's opinion is that the gods have come into ^ A probably impossible rendering of the MS. reading significe- tur, which Mayor obelizes. A conjecture is sic incitetur, " pain- ful in our own body if it were hurried along in that way". 24 DE NATURA DEORUM being, emerging and disappearing at far distant inter- vals in the form of innumerable Avorlds ; but how can we conceive of God except as immortal ? Anaximenes, who lived later, declared that air was God, that it had come into existence, and that it was unmeasured, in- finite, and always in motion ; as though air could be God when it is without form, especially when we con- sider that it is fitting that God should possess not merely some kind of form, but the most beautiful, or as though mortality did not overtake everything that has known a beginning. XI. Next Anaxagoras, who derived his system from Anaximenes, was the first to hold that the order and measure of all things was planned and accomplished by the power and intelligence of an infinite mind, in saying which he failed to see that there can be no activity joined with, and allied to, sensation ^ in what is infinite, and no sensation at all in anvthino; that does not feel through its own nature being acted upon. In the next place, if he intended this mind of his to be some kind of living thing, there will be some inner part on the strength of which it may be called living ; but there is no part more inward tlian mind ; let mind, therefore, be surrounded with an outer body. Since he objects to this, what we get is pure, unbodied mind, with nothing added by means of which it may be able to receive sensation, a state of things which seems to surpass the powers of conception possessed by man's understanding. Alcmaeo of Croton, who assigned divinity to the sun, and moon, and other heavenly bodies, and also to the ' i.e., no rationality, of which activity and sensation are the conditions. 25 DE NATURA DEORUM soul, was unaware that he was endowing the perishable ^ with immortality. As for Pythagoras, who held that the whole nature of things was traversed and permeated by a soul, from which our own souls are taken, he failed to see that by this division into human souls the divine soul was rent and lacerated, and that when the human souls experienced pain, as most of them would, -^ a portion of the divine soul also suffered, which is impossible. Why, moreover, should the human soul, if it were God, be ignorant of anything ? and how, again, would this God, if he were nothing but soul, be either implanted in the universe, or infused into it ? Then Xenophanes, who held that the infinite sum of things, combined with mind, constituted divinity, is subject, on the score of mind itself, to the same censure as the others, and to severer censure on the score of infinity, in which there can be no sensation and no connection with anything external.^ As to Parmenides, he evolves an imaginary something resembling a crown (his word for it is cTTecjidvr]), a bright ring of unbroken fire which girds the sky, and which he calls God, but in which no one can look for a divine form or for sensation. He is the parent, too, of many other extravagances, for he ranks under the head of divinity war, and strife, and desire, and the other principles of the same kind, which are liable to be brought to an end alike by illness, sleep, ' According to Epicurus the stars and the soul were composed of atoms and therefore dissoluble. - Or " as most of them, he thought, did ". Mayor now prefers this rendering by which the sentiment is attributed to Pythagoras instead of, as above, to the Epicurean speaker. ^ And therefore none with mind, because mind, like everything else, is included within infinity. 26 DE NATURA DEORUM forgetftilness, or old age ; he makes also the same claim in the case of the stars, but as that has been censured in another it need not now be dwelt upon in him. XII. Empedocles, in addition to many other blunders, goes most discreditably astray in his conception of the gods, for he would have the four natural elements, from which he believes that all things are compounded, to be divine, though it is clear that these come into being, and suffer extinction, and lack all sensation. Nor does Protagoras, who denies absolutely the possession of any definite conviction as to their existence, non-existence, or character, seem to have the faintest conception of the divine nature. As for Democritus, when at one moment he reckons among the number of the gods the images of things ^ and their revolutions, at another the natural power that disperses these images and sends them forth, and at another our own apprehension and intelligence, is he not involved in the greatest error ? And when he further declares positively that nothing is eternal, because nothing remains perpetually in the self-same state, does he not do away with divinity with a completeness which leaves no idea of it remaining .'' Then again, how can air, which Diogenes of Apollonia represents as being God, possess sensation or divine form ? In the inconsistency of Plato we come to a subject which it would be tedious to discuss. He says in the Timaeus that the father of this world cannot be named, and also lays down in the books of the Laws ' i.e., the replicas which, according to Ucmocritus, material objects fornied of themselves by casting off atoms in the same order and number as in the original object. Mental impressions he con- sidered to arise from the contact of these replicas with our own bodily organisation. 27 DE NATURA DEORUM that no inquiry at all ouoht to be made into the nature of God, and yet both in the Timteus and the Laws he attributes divinity to the world, the sky, the stars, the earth, the souls of men, and the deities that we have received from the religious system of our forefathers, views which are clearly false in themselves and in direct opposition to each other. As to his belief that God exists without a body of any kind, that he is, as the Greeks say, da-w^aro?, it is impossible to conceive what such a condition could be like, for he must then be without sensation, forethought, and pleasure, all of which qualities we embrace in our idea of God. Xeno- phon, too, makes in fewer words very much the same mistakes. In the record that he has given of the say- ings of Socrates he represents Socrates as arguing that the form of God ought not to be made a subject of in- quiry, and at the same time asserting the divinity both of the sun and of the soul, and as speaking of God at one moment in the singular, and at another in the plural, which statements are involved in pretty much the same error as those which we quoted from Plato. XIII. Antisthenes, again, destroys the significance and essential nature of the gods when he declares in the work entitled " On Natural Philosophy," that there are many gods believed in by the people, but only one that is known to nature. Nor is Speusippus far dif- ferent ; following in the steps of Plato, who was his uncle, he attempts to wrest from our minds our know- ledge of the gods by describing the deity as a kind of living energy, by which all things are directed. Aristotle gives a most confused account, on the same lines as his master,^ in the third book of his treatise 1 Plato. 28 DE NATURA DEORUM " On Philosophy," where at one moment he ascribes absolute divinity to mind, at another represents the world itself as divine, at another places the world under the dominion of some other power, to which he assigns the function of guiding and preserving, by means of a kind of retrograde movement, the world's motion, and at another speaks of the ethereal heaven as God, not understanding that the heaven is a part of that world to which he has himself given the title of God else- where. How, moreover, could the divine consciousness of the heaven be maintained when moving at such speed ? and where will a place be found for the great number of other gods,i if we also count the heaven as God? When he further declares that God is incorporeal, he deprives him of all consciousness, and also of fore- thought ; besides, if God has no body, how can he be moved ? on the other hand, if he is constantly in motion, how can he know peace and happiness ? Nor is any more discernment in these matters shown by Aristotle's fellow-pupil Xenocrates, in whose books on the nature of the gods there is no description of a divine form. His account is that there are eight gods, five whom we name in naming the wandering stars, and one formed from all the fixed stars that are in the sky, as though from a number of scattered limbs, whom we are to regard as a single god ; for a seventh he adds the sun, and for an eightli the moon,— but how these deities ' Referring, probably, to the many gods of the popular religion, rather than to the just-mentioned alternative deities of Aristotle, which are too few in number to be spoken of in such terms. The argument is : These gods reside in the sky as their heaven ; con- sequently if the sky itself is God, we get the absurdity of one God being included in another. 'id DE NATURA DEORUM can be conscious of happiness it is impossible to con- ceive. Heraclides of Pontus, who also belongs to Plato's school, filled his books with childish stories, and believes at one moment in the divinity of the world, and at another in the divinity of mind ; and he also assigns divinity to the wandering stars, thus depriving God of feeling and representing his form as variable, and yet again in the same book he enrols earth and sky among the gods. The inconsistency of Theophras- tus is equally insufferable ; in one place he ascribes sovereign divinity to mind, in another to the sky, and in another to the stars and constellations of the heavens. Nor does his pupil Strato, who is called the natural philosopher, deserve to be listened to ; he holds that all divine force is resident in nature, which contains, he says, the principles of birth, increase, and decay, but which lacks, as we could remind him, all sensation and form. XIV. Zeno is of opinion, to come now to your school, Balbus, that the law of nature is divine, and that it fulfils its function by enjoining what is right, and for- bidding what is wrong ; we cannot understand, how- ever, how he makes this law animate, which neverthe- less is what we undoubtedly require God to be. He also speaks elsewhere of aether as God, if that is a con- ceivable God which is without feeling, and which never presents itself to us at the time of prayers, or petitions, or vows ; in other works he supposes a certain reason that pervades the whole nature of things, to be endowed with divine power, and this attribute of divinity he further assigns to the stars, and also to the years, the months, and the different seasons of the year. But it is when he interprets Hesiod's O^oyovia., or " birth 30 DE NATURA DEORUM of the gods," that he simply puts an end to the ordin- ary, well-apprehended ideas on the subject of the gods, for he does not include in their number either Jupiter, or Juno, or Vesta, or any one similarly addressed, but declares that these names were assigned with some sort of allegorical meaning to mute and inanimate objects. No less erroneous are the opinions of Zeno's pupil Aristo, who holds that no form of God is conceiv- able, and denies him sensation, and is in a state of complete uncertainty as to whether he is, or is not, animate. Cleanthes, who studied under Zeno at the same time as the last-named writer, asserts at one moment that the world itself is God, at another bestows that title upon the mind and intelligence of nature as a whole, and at another finds an undoubted God in the farthest and highest fiery element, called by him aether, which extends in a circle on every hand, surrounding and enclosing the universe on the outside. In the volumes, moreover, which contain his inditement of pleasure, he seems to take leave of his senses, for in one place he delineates a kind of divine form and aspect, in another he ascribes divinity in its fullest sense to the stars, and in another declares that there is nothing so divine as reason, the result of which is that nowhere at all is that god disclosed whom our minds make known to us, and whom we wish to make correspond with the ideal in our soul, as though with an im])riiitcd outline of himself XV. Persaeus, who also was a pupil of Zeno, says that it was men who had discovered some great aid to civil- isation that were regarded as gods, and that the names of divinities were also bestowed upon actual material objects of use and profit, so that he is not even content 31 DE NATURA DEORUM to describe these as the creations of God, but makes out that they are themselves divine. Yet what can compare with the absurdity either of endowing mean and unshapely objects with the honours of divinity, or of ranking among the gods men already cut off by death, whose worship would have had to consist entirely in mourning ? We come next to Chrysippus, who is considered the most skilful exponent of the fantastic notions of the Stoics, and who gathers together a large band of deities so utterly removed from knowledge that, although our mind seems able to picture in imagination anything whatever, we cannot even form an idea of them by conjecture. For he tells us that divine power resides in reason and in the soul and mind of nature taken as a whole, and then again he declares that the world itself is God and the univer- sal outpouring of its soul, then that it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality which embraces all existence, then the fore- ordained might and necessity of the future, then fire and the principle of aether that we have mentioned before, then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air, then the sun, the moon, the stars, the universal exist- ence in which all things are contained, and also those human beings who have attained immortality. He further maintains that sether is that which men call Jove, and that the air which permeates the seas is Neptune, and that the earth is what is known by the name of Ceres, and he treats in similar style the titles of the other gods. He also identifies Jove with the power of uninterrupted, eternal law, the guide of life, as 32 DE NATURA DEORUM it may be called, and mistress of duty, which he also describes as fore-ordained necessity and the eternal truth of the future, though none of these qualities are such as to give an appearance of divine power being resident in them. All this is in his first book on the nature of the gods ; in the second his aim is to harmonise the stories of Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod, and Homer with what he has himself said on the subject of the immortal gods in the first book, so that even the oldest poets, who had not so much as a conception of such things, are made to seem to have been Stoics. Diogenes of Babylon follows in his steps in the work entitled De Minerva, where he removes from mythology the travail of Jupiter, and birth of the maiden goddess, and transfers them to natural philosophy. XVI, I have been setting forth what are more like the ravings of madmen than the judgments of philo- sophers. In fact, there is not much more absurdity in the utterances, the very attractiveness of which has been the cause of harm, that have been poured forth by the poets, when they have introduced the gods inflamed with anger and furious with desire, and have made us behold their wars, battles, contests, and wounds, their enmities, moreover, and feuds, and discords, their births and deaths, their complaints and lamentations, their passions expending themselves in uiiineasured licence, their adulteries, their imj)risonments, their unions with mankind, and the generation of a mortal progeny from an innnortal being. And witli the mis- taken notions of the poets may be classed the extrava- gances of the magi, the delusions entertained on the same subject by the Egyptians, and also the l)clicfs 3 " ' 'SA DE NATURA DEORUM of the common people, which from ignorance of the truth are involved in the greatest inconsistency. Any one who should reflect how unthinkingly and reck- lessly these ideas are advanced, ought to reverence Epicu- rus and place him among the number of those very beings that form the subject of this inquiry, for it was he alone who perceived, in the first place, the fact of the existence of the o-ods from the idea of them which nature herself had implanted in all men's minds. For what nation or race of men is there that does not possess, inde- pendently of instruction, a certain preconception of them ? It is this which Epicurus calls by the name of irpoXrjij/is, that is, a certain idea of a thing formed by the mind beforehand, without which nothing can be understood, or investigated, or discussed ; and we have learnt the purport and advantage of this exercise of the reason from that divine volume of his upon criterion and judgment. XVII. You see, then, that what constitutes the foundation of this inquiry is excellently well laid, for since the belief in question was determined by no ordinance, or custom, or law, and since a steadfast unanimity continues to prevail amongst all men with- out exception, it must be understood that the gods exist. For we have ideas of them implanted, or rather innate, within us, and as that upon which the nature of all men is agreed must needs be true, their existence must be acknowledged. Since their existence is pretty universally admitted not only among philosophers but also among those who are not philosophers, let us own that the following fact is also generally allowed, namely, that we possess a "preconception," to use my former word, or "previous notion'' of the gods (new 34 DE NATURA DEORUM designations that have to be employed when the objects of designation are new, just as Epicurus himself applied the term iTp6X.i^\piae^wv ; it completes the same round of the twelve signs in twelve years, and performs in its course the same variations as the planet of Saturn. The circle next below it is held by Ilwpdet?, which is called the planet of Mars, and traverses the same round as the two planets above it in four and twenty months, all but, I think, six days. Beneath this is the planet of Mercury, which is called by the Greeks St/A/Siov ; it traverses the round of the zodiac in about the time of the year's revolution, and never withdraws more than one sign's distance from the sun, moving at one time in advance of it, and at another in its rear. The lowest of the five wandering stars, and the one nearest the earth, is the planet of Venus, which is called 4>a)cr^dpos in Greek, and Lucifer in Latin, when it is preceding the sun, but "EcTTrepos when it is following it ; it completes its course in a year, traversing the zodiac both latitu- dinally and longitudinally, as is also done by the planets above it, and on whichever side of the sun it is, it never departs more than two signs' distance from it. XXL This constancy, then, among the stars, this marked agreement of times through the whole of eternity, though the movements are so various, I cannot 102 DE NATURA DEORUM understand as existing without mind and reason and forethought, and since we find that these qualities are possessed by the heavenly bodies, we cannot but assign to those bodies themselves their place among the number of divine beings. Nor indeed are what are called the fixed stars without indications of the same intelligence and foresight. Their revolution is a daily one, and is uniform and constant ; their movement is neither caused by the iether. nor, as most writers say in their ignorance of natural science, is it bound up with the movement of the heavens. For the aether is not of such a nature as to envelop the stars and to urge them along by its own force ; being rare, and trans- parent, and suffused with equable heat, it does not seem very well adapted for keeping them in place. The fixed stars have, then, a sphere of their own, which is distinct from the pervading aether, and free. Tlieir movements, which are never-ending and unbroken, and marked by a wonderful and incredible harmony, make it so clear that a divine force and intelligence are resi- dent in them, that the man who did not perceive that these very bodies are possessed of the force of divine beings would seem incapable of perceiving anything at all. In the heavens, then, tliere is no chance, irregu- larity, deviation, or falsity, but on the other hand the utmost order, reality, method, and consistency. The things which are without tliese (jualities, phantasmal, unreal, and erratic, move in and around the earth below the moon, whicji is the lowest of all the lieavenly bodies. Any one, therefore, who thinks that there is no intelli- gence in the marvellous order of tlu- stars and in their extraordinary regularity, from which the preservation and the entire well-being of ill tilings proceed, ought lO'.i DE NATURA DEORUM to be considered destitute of intelligence himself. Having laid this foundation, I shall not, I think, do wrong if I make the discussion of this question ^ begin with him who led the way in the investigation of truth. XXII. Zeno, then, defines nature by saying that it is artistically working fire, which advances by fixed methods to creation. For he maintains that it is the main func- tion of art to create and produce, and that what the hand accomplishes in the productions of the arts which we employ, is accomplished much more artistically by nature, that is, as I said, by artistically working fire, which is the master of the other arts. Indeed, on this principle every department of nature is artistic, since it has, so to speak, a path and prescribed course to follow. But in the case of the universe itself, which encloses and contains all things in its embrace, he says that the nature which exists in that is not only artistic, but in the fullest sense an artificer, taking counsel and provision for everything serviceable and advantageous. And just as it is by their own seeds that the other parts of nature are severally created and increased, and in their own seeds that they are contained, so all the movements which belong to universal nature, and its strivings and desires, which the Greeks call op/xal, are self-imparted, and it fits these with corresponding actions in the same way that we ourselves do, who are moved by feelings and sensations. The mind of the universe being, then, of such a kind, may in consequence be rightly described either as foresight or providence, its Greek name being irpovoia, and what it is mainly provident for, and chiefly busied with, is in the first 1 i.e. , of the god-head, or, firom the Stoic point of view, nature. 104 DE NATURA DEORUM place that the universe may be as well equipped as possible for permanence, and in the second that it may lack nothing, but may possess in the highest degree exquisite beauty and completeness of adornment. XXIII. We have discussed the universe as a whole, and also the stars, with the result that a multitude of divine beings is now almost apparent who are not idle, and yet perform what they do without laborious and oppressive toil. For they are not made up of veins and nerves and bones, they do not live upon such food or drink as to contract a too sharp or sluggish condition of the vital juices, and their bodies are not of a kind to make them dread a fall or a blow, or be afraid of illness as a consequence of fatiguing the limbs, possibilities the fear of which made Epicurus invent gods who existed only in outline, and did nothing. No ; these gods are endowed with a form of the utmost beauty, and have their place in the purest region of the sky, and seem from their movements, and the way in which they direct their course, to have combined together for the pre- servation and protection of all things. But there are many other divinities to which on account of their great services a status and a name have been given, not without reason, both by the wisest men of Greece and by our own ancestors, for they thought that whatever conferred great advantage upon the human race did not come into existence except by divine benevolence towards men. And so they used sometimes to describe the object produced by the god by the name of the god himself, as when we speak of corn as Ceres, and wine as Liber, which is tlie origin of the line of Terence — Without Ceres and Liber Venus languishes. 105 DE NATURA DEORUM Sometimes, again, the actual quality in which some superior potency resides is itself called by the name of god, as in the case of Faith and Mind, both of which we see to have been enshrined upon the Capitol, on the latest occasion by Marcus ^Emilius Scaurus, but before that Faith had been installed by Aulus Atilius Calatinus. You see the temple of Virtue, and the temple of Honour, the latter restored by Marcus Marcellus, and dedicated not many years before in the Ligurian war by Quintus Maximus. Why should I speak of those of Plenty, Safety, Concord, Liberty, and Victory ? It was because the potency of each of these qualities was too strong to be controlled except by a god 1 that the quality itself was given the title of god. Under this class the terms Cupido, Voluptas, and Venus Lubentina have been deified, qualities which, though Velleius thinks otherwise, are vicious and not according to nature ; at the same time they are vices by which nature is often fiercely shaken. The greatness of the benefits was, then, the reason why the gods who pro- duced the different benefits received divine rank, and the power residing in each god is indicated by these titles which have just been quoted. XXIV. Furthermore, the life and common practice of mankind have admitted of their exalting to the realms above, as the recipients of fame and gratitude, individuals who have excelled in well-doing. To this we owe Hercules, Castor, Pollux, .^sculapius, and also Liber, — I mean by him Liber the son of ' This description is not so applicable to the abstractions of the previous clause as to those which follow. Mayor is now inclined to accept Goethe's emendation hiti'llegi for rcgi, " to be under- stood without a god". 106 DE NATURA DEORUM Semele, not the one whom our forefathers solemnly and piously consecrated in connection with Ceres and Libera, the nature of which consecration may be under- stood from the mysteries. It was in consequence of liberi being the term that we use of our own children that the children of Ceres were named Liber and Libera, a use which is retained in the case of Libera, but not so in that of Liber. To this we also owe Romulus, who is thought to be the same as Quirinus. These men, since their souls survived and enjoyed im- mortality, were rightly regarded as gods, for they were of the noblest nature and also immortal. There is, too, another method, and one moreover based upon natural science, from which a great number of gods have resulted, the clothing of whom in mortal form has supplied poets with stories, but has saturated human life with every kind of superstition. This sub- ject has been treated by Zeno, and afterwards worked out more at length by Cleanthes and Chrysippus. For instance, a long-established belief prevailed over Greece that Ca?lus had been mutilated by his son Saturn, and Saturn himself bound by his son Jupiter, but in these im- pious stories a physical tiieory was contained which was not witi)out point, for they meant that the element which holds the topmost position in the sky, the element of a,'ther, or fire, which creates all things l)y its own agency, is without that part of the body which in order to generate needs the conjunction of a second part. XXV'. By Saturn, again, they meant him who con- trolled the course and revolution of periods and times, the god who in Cireek bears that actual name, for he is called Kf)uvo<;, which is the same as )(p6vos, that is, a 107 DE NATURA DEORUM period of time. And he was named Saturn because, it was supposed, he was " made full " [saturo) with years, for it is because time swallows up the periods of time, and is loaded, without being satisfied, with the years of the past, that Saturn is represented as having been accustomed to devour his own offspring, and it was in order that he might not have an unrestricted course, and that Jupiter might fetter him with the yoke of the stars,^ that he is represented as having been bound by Jupiter. Jupiter himself, that is, juvcms paier, to whom, by a change of inflections, we give the name of Jove {romjiivare, is called by the poets "father of gods and men," and by our forefathers " best and greatest," "best,'' indeed, that is, most beneficent, before "greatest," because it is a greater, or at any rate a more acceptable thing, to be of universal benefit than to possess great power ; well, he, as I said before, is described by Ennius in the following terms : — Look upon yonder dazzling sky, which all address as Jove, a clearer statement than when he says elsewhere : — Wherefore with all my might will I curse yonder shining sky, whatsoever that is. He is defined in the same way by our augurs, when they say, " when Jove lightens and thunders ".^ Euripides also made, as he often did, an admirable remark when he said : — ' Whose movements impose a kind of limitation upon time. " Followed in the MSS. by dicunt enim ccbIo fulgente, totiante, "for they mean when the sky lightens and thunders ". Mayor brackets the words as a gloss. 108 DE NATURA DEORUM You behold the boundless sether diffused on high, which with soft embrace encompasses the earth : consider this the highest god, hold this as Jove. XXVI. Air, again, which has its place between the sea and the sky, is, as the Stoics maintain, consecrated under the name of Juno, who is the sister and wife of Jove, because it has both a Ukeness to aether and the very closest connection with it. Their making it feminine and assigning it to Juno was due to the fact that there is nothing softer than air. As to the name Juno, I believe it to have been derived from juvare. Water and earth remained, so that there might accord- ing to the legends be a division into three kingdoms. To Neptune, therefore, who is, they say, one of the two brothers of Jove, the whole of the kingdom of the sea was given, and the name Neptunus was lengthened from iiare, like Portunus from partus, the first letters being slightly changed. The whole principle and element of earth, on the other hand, was dedicated to father Dis, that is, Dives, " the wealthy god," like UXovTwv ^ amongst the Greeks, because all things return to the earth and proceed from it. His wife, they tell us, was Proserpina, a name which comes from the Greeks, for she is the goddess who is called in Greek nepn-cfyovr] ; they identify her with the corn-seed, and have a fancy that when she has been concealed in the ground her mother seeks for her. Tiie name of the mother, derived from the bearing of corn (grrcrc), is Ceres, as thougli (i(;res, and the first letter, as it happened, was changed just as it was by the Greeks, for they on their side iiaincd her At^/xt/tt;/* as the ecpiiva- ' Which was supposed to be connected with irKovros, wealth. 10.9 DE NATURA DEORUM lent of Tr]ixrjT7]p. Mayors, again, was so called because he was the overturner of greatness (magna verteret), and Minerva either because she lessened (mirmeret) or threatened (in'maretur). XXVII. Since, moreover, in all things the beginning and the end are of most importance, they assigned the first place in sacrifice to Janus, whose name is derived from ire, to go, the word from which a through way of passage is called janus, and the doors at the entrance of private houses januce. As for Vesta,^ her name is taken from the Greeks, for she is the goddess who is styled by them 'Eo-rta. Her functions relate to altars and hearths, and consequently, as she is the guardian of what is most closely domestic, it is with her that all prayer and sacrifice conclude. Not far different from her functions are those of the Penates, whether so called from their name being derived from pemis, which is the word used of everything that men eat, or from the fact that they have their abode far within (peuitus), on which account they are also called by the poets pene- trates. The name of Apollo, in the next place, is Greek, and they hold that he is Sol, while they think that Diana is the same as Luna, Sol being so called either because he alone (solus) of the heavenly bodies is of such a size, or because, when he has risen, all are obscured, and he alone is to be seen, and Luna being named from lucere, to shine, as appears from her other title being Lucina. Just as, therefore, among the Greeks it is Diana,^ with the added designation of Lucifera,3 that is invoked in child-birth, so among us ^ Introduced here because, as the next sentence shows, corre- sponding to Janus as the end to the beginning. * In Greek Artemis. * A translation of