Chap. xii.—that the stoics transfer the figments of the poets to a philosophical system.

Since we have brought to light the mysteries of the poets, and have found out the parents of Saturn, let us return to his virtues and actions. He was, they say, just in his rule. First, from this very circumstance he is not now a god, inasmuch as he has ceased to be. In the next place, he was not even just, but impious not only towards his sons, whom he devoured, but also towards his father, whom he is said to have mutilated. And this may perhaps have happened in truth. But men, having regard to the element which is called the heaven, reject the whole fable as most foolishly invented; though the Stoics, (according to their custom) endeavour to transfer it to a physical system, whose opinion Cicero has laid down in his treatise concerning the Nature of the Gods. They held, he says, that the highest and ethereal nature of heaven, that is, of fire, which by itself produced all things, was without that part of the body which contained the productive organs. Now this theory might have been suitable to Vesta, if she were called a male. For it is on this account that they esteem Vesta to be a virgin, inasmuch as fire is an incorruptible element; and nothing can be born from it, since it consumes all things, whatever it has seized upon. Ovid in the Fasti says:40    vi. 291. [Tayler Lewis (ut supra), note xii. p. 119.]   “Nor do you esteem Vesta to be anything else than a living flame; and you see no bodies produced from flame. Therefore she is truly a virgin, for she sends forth no seed, nor receives it, and loves the attendants of virginity.”  

This also might have been ascribed to Vulcan, who indeed is supposed to be fire, and yet the poets did not mutilate him. It might also have been ascribed to the sun, in whom is the nature and cause of the productive powers. For without the fiery heat of the sun nothing could be born, or have increase; so that no other element has greater need of productive organs than heat, by the nourishment of which all things are conceived, produced, and supported. Lastly, even if the case were as they would have it, why should we suppose that Cœlus was mutilated, rather than that he was born without productive organs? For if he produces by himself, it is plain that he had no need of productive organs, since he gave birth to Saturn himself; but if he had them, and suffered mutilation from his son, the origin of all things and all nature would have perished. Why should I say that they deprive Saturn himself not only of divine, but also of human intelligence, when they affirm that Saturn is he who comprises the course and change of the spaces and seasons, and that he has that very name in Greek? For he is called Cronos, which is the same as Chronos, that is, a space of time. But he is called Saturn, because he is satiated with years. These are the words of Cicero, setting forth the opinion of the Stoics: “The worthlessness of these things any one may readily understand. For if Saturn is the son of Cœlus, how could Time have been born from Cœlus, or Cœlus have been mutilated by Time, or afterwards could Time have been despoiled of his sovereignty by his son Jupiter? Or how was Jupiter born from Time? Or with what years could eternity be satiated, since it has no limit?”41    De Nat. deor., ii. 64.    

CAPUT XII. Quod stoici figmenta poetarum ad philosophicam tranferunt rationem.

Quoniam revelavimus mysteria poetarum, et Saturni parentes invenimus, ad virtutes ejus et facta redeamus. Justus in regno fuit. Primum ex hoc ipso jam Deus non est, quod fuit: Deinde quod ne justus quidem fuit; sed impius, non modo in filios quos necavit, verum etiam in patrem, cujus dicitur abscidisse 0184B genitalia; quod forsitan vere acciderit. Sed 0185A homines respectu elementi, quod dicitur coelum, totam fabulam explodunt tamquam ineptissime fictam: quam tamen stoici (ut solent) ad rationem physicam 0185A conantur traducere; quorum sententiam Cicero, de Natura deorum (lib. II, cap. 24) disserens, posuit: «Coelestem, inquit, altissimam aetheriamque naturam, id est igneam, quae per sese omnia gigneret, vacare voluerunt ea parte corporis, quae conjunctione alterius egeret ad procreandum: quae ratio in Vestam potuit convenire, si mas diceretur. Idcirco enim virginem putant Vestam, quia ignis inviolabile sit elementum, nihilque nasci possit ex eo, quippe qui omnia quae arripuerit absumat.» Ovidius in Fastis (Lib. VI, v. 291 sqq.): Nec tu aliud Vestam, quam vivam intellige flammam; Nataque de flamma corpora nulla vides. 0185B Jure igitur virgo est, quae semina nulla remittit, Nec capit, et comites virginitatis amat.Vulcano quoque id potuit adscribi, qui quidem putatur ignis; et tamen eum poetae non absciderunt. Potuit et Soli, in quo est natura et causa gignentium; nam sine Solis igneo calore neque nasci quidquam, neque augeri potest: ut nulli alii elemento magis opus sit genitalibus, quam calori, cujus fotu concipiuntur, nascuntur, sustentantur omnia. Postremo etiamsi ita sit (ut volunt) qui magis abscissum esse Coelum putemus, quam omnino sine genitalibus natum? Nam si per se gignit, non indigebat utique genitalibus, 0186A cum Saturnum ipsum procrearet. Si vero habuit, et a filio abscissa sunt, ortus rerum, et natura omnis interisset. Quid, quod ipsi Saturno non divinum modo sensum, sed humanum quoque adimunt, cum affirmant eum esse Saturnum, qui cursum et conversionem spatiorum et temporum continet; eumque graece id ipsum nomen habere. Κρόνος enim dicitur, quod est idem, quod χρόνος, id est spatium temporis. Saturnus autem est appellatus, quod saturetur annis. Haec Ciceronis verba sunt exponentis sententiam stoicorum (Lib. II de Nat. deor, c. 64): «Quae quam vana sit, cuivis intelligere promptissimum est. Si enim Saturnus Coeli est filius, quomodo potuit aut tempus a Coelo gigni, aut Coelum a tempore abscidi, aut postea tempus imperio spoliari a filio Jove? 0186B Aut quomodo Jupiter natus est ex tempore? Aut quibus annis saturari possit aeternitas, cui nullus est finis?»