|
Now what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely, that there
are three kinds of theology, that is, of the account which is given of
the gods; and of these, the one is called mythical, the other
physical, and the third civil? Did the Latin usage permit, we
should call the kind which he has placed first in order fabular, but
let us call it fabulous, for mythical is derived from the Greek
muqos, a fable; but that the second should be called natural, the
usage of speech now admits; the third he himself has designated in
Latin, calling it civil. Then he says, "they call that kind
mythical which the poets chiefly use; physical, that which the
philosophers use; civil, that which the people use. As to the first
I have mentioned," says he, "in it are many fictions, which are
contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For we find in it
that one god has been born from the head, another from the thigh,
another from drops of blood; also, in this we find that gods have
stolen, committed adultery, served men; in a word, in this all
manner of things are attributed to the gods, such as may befall, not
merely any man, but even the most contemptible man." He certainty,
where he could, where he dared, where he thought he could do it with
impunity, has manifested, without any of the haziness of ambiguity,
how great injury was done to the nature of the gods by lying fables;
for he was speaking, not concerning natural theology, not concerning
civil, but concerning fabulous theology, which he thought he could
freely find fault with.
Let us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind. "The
second kind which I have explained," he says, "is that concerning
which philosophers have left many books, in which they treat such
questions as these: what gods there are, where they are, of what kind
and character they are, since what time they have existed, or if they
have existed from eternity; whether they are of fire, as Heraclitus
believes; or of number, as Pythagoras; or of atoms, as Epicurus
says; and other such things, which men's ears can more easily hear
inside the walls of a school than outside in the Forum." He finds
fault with nothing in this kind of theology which they call physical,
and which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their
controversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a
multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind
from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in
schools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not
removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and
among them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what
the philosophers dispute concerning the gods! But when the poets sing
and stage-players act such things as are derogatory to the dignity and
the nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a man merely, but
the most contemptible man, they not only bear, but willingly listen
to. Nor is this all, but they even consider that these things please
the gods, and that they are propitiated by them.
But some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kinds of
theology, the mythical and the physical, that is, the fabulous and
the natural, from this civil kind about which we are now speaking.
Anticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see now
how he explains the civil theology itself. I see, indeed, why it
should be distinguished as fabulous, even because it is false, because
it is base, because it is unworthy. But to wish to distinguish the
natural from the civil, what else is that but to confess that the civil
itself is false? For if that be natural, what fault has it that it
should be excluded? And if this which is called civil be not natural,
what merit has it that it should be admitted? This, in truth, is the
cause why he wrote first concerning human things, and afterwards
concerning divine things; since in divine things he did not follow
nature, but the institution of men. Let us look at this civil
theology of his. "The third kind," says he, "is that which
citizens in cities, and especially the priests, ought to know and to
administer. From it is to be known what god each one may suitably
worship, what sacred rites and sacrifices each one may suitably
perform." Let us still attend to what follows. "The first
theology," he says, "is especially adapted to the theatre, the
second to the world, the third to the city." Who does not see to
which he gives the palm? Certainly to the second, which he said above
is that of the philosophers. For he testifies that this pertains to
the world, than which they think there is nothing better. But those
two theologies, the first and the third, to wit, those of the theatre
and of the city, has he distinguished them or united them? For
although we see that the city is in the world, we do not see that it
follows that any things belonging to the city pertain to the world.
For it is possible that such things may be worshipped and believed in
the city, according to false opinions, as have no existence either in
the world or out of it. But where is the theatre but in the city?
Who instituted the theatre but the state? For what purpose did it
constitute it but for scenic plays? And to what class of things do
scenic plays belong but to those divine things concerning which these
books of Varro's are written with so much ability?
|
|