Chapter IV.—Wrong Derivation of the Word Θεός. The Name Indicative of the True Deity. God Without Shape and Immaterial. Anecdote of Thales.

Some affirm that the gods (i.e.θεοί) were so called because the verbs θέειν and σείσθαι signify to run and to be moved.377    This seems to mean: “because θέειν has also the sense of σείεσθαι (motion as well as progression).” This term, then, is not indicative of any majesty, for it is derived from running and motion, not from any dominion378    “Dominatione” is Oehler’s reading, but he approves of “denominatione” (Rigault’s reading); this would signify “designation of godhead.” of godhead. But inasmuch as the Supreme God whom we worship is also designated Θεός, without however the appearance of any course or motion in Him, because He is not visible to any one, it is clear that that word must have had some other derivation, and that the property of divinity, innate in Himself, must have been discovered. Dismissing, then, that ingenious interpretation, it is more likely that the gods were not called θεοί from running and motion, but that the term was borrowed from the designation of the true God; so that you gave the name θεοί to the gods, whom you had in like manner forged for yourselves.  Now, that this is the case, a plain proof is afforded in the fact that you actually give the common appellation θεοί to all those gods of yours, in whom there is no attribute of course or motion indicated. When, therefore, you call them both θεοί and immoveable with equal readiness, there is a deviation as well from the meaning of the word as from the idea379    Opinione. of godhead, which is set aside380    Rescinditur. if measured by the notion of course and motion. But if that sacred name be peculiarly significant of deity, and be simply true and not of a forced interpretation381    Interpretatorium. in the case of the true God, but transferred in a borrowed sense382    Reprehensum. to those other objects which you choose to call gods, then you ought to show to us383    Docete. that there is also a community of character between them, so that their common designation may rightly depend on their union of essence. But the true God, on the sole ground that He is not an object of sense, is incapable of being compared with those false deities which are cognizable to sight and sense (to sense indeed is sufficient); for this amounts to a clear statement of the difference between an obscure proof and a manifest one. Now, since the elements are obvious to all, (and) since God, on the contrary, is visible to none, how will it be in your power from that part which you have not seen to pass to a decision on the objects which you see? Since, therefore, you have not to combine them in your perception or your reason, why do you combine them in name with the purpose of combining them also in power?  For see how even Zeno separates the matter of the world from God: he says that the latter has percolated through the former, like honey through the comb. God, therefore, and Matter are two words (and) two things. Proportioned to the difference of the words is the diversity of the things; the condition also of matter follows its designation. Now if matter is not God, because its very appellation teaches us so, how can those things which are inherent in matter—that is, the elements—be regarded as gods, since the component members cannot possibly be heterogeneous from the body? But what concern have I with physiological conceits? It were better for one’s mind to ascend above the state of the world, not to stoop down to uncertain speculations. Plato’s form for the world was round. Its square, angular shape, such as others had conceived it to be, he rounded off, I suppose, with compasses, from his labouring to have it believed to be simply without a beginning.384    Sine capite. Epicurus, however, who had said, “What is above us is nothing to us,” wished notwithstanding to have a peep at the sky, and found the sun to be a foot in diameter.  Thus far you must confess385    Scilicet. men were niggardly in even celestial objects.  In process of time their ambitious conceptions advanced, and so the sun too enlarged its disk.386    Aciem. Accordingly, the Peripatetics marked it out as a larger world.387    Majorem orbem. Another reading has “majorem orbe,” q.d. “as larger than the world.” Now, pray tell me, what wisdom is there in this hankering after conjectural speculations?  What proof is afforded to us, notwithstanding the strong confidence of its assertions, by the useless affectation of a scrupulous curiosity,388    Morositatis. which is tricked out with an artful show of language? It therefore served Thales of Miletus quite right, when, star-gazing as he walked with all the eyes he had, he had the mortification of falling389    Cecidit turpiter. into a well, and was unmercifully twitted by an Egyptian, who said to him, “Is it because you found nothing on earth to look at, that you think you ought to confine your gaze to the sky?” His fall, therefore, is a figurative picture of the philosophers; of those, I mean,390    Scilicet. who persist in applying391    Habituros. their studies to a vain purpose, since they indulge a stupid curiosity on natural objects, which they ought rather (intelligently to direct) to their Creator and Governor.

0590D 4. Aiunt quidam propterea deos fuisse appellatos, quod θέειν et σείεσθαι, procurrere ac motari interpretatio est. Sane vocabulum istud non est alicujus majestatis; a cursu enim et motu, non ab divinitatis denominatione formatum est. Sed cum etiam ille unus Deus quem colimus, θεὸς cognominetur, nec tamen aut motus ullus aut cursus ejus appareat, quia nec visibilis cuiquam sit, palam est, ut vocabulum istud . . . . . . . sumptum propriumque, quia se nativum, 0591A divinitatis inventum. . . . . . . . interpretationis ejus astutia, verisimilius est non a cursu et motu θεοὺς dictos, sed de appellatione veri dei mutuatum, uti quos aeque deos excudissetis, θεοὺς cognominaretis. Denique quam ita sit, probatio suppetit, cum etiam universos deos vestros, in quibus nullius cursus aut motus officium denotatur, θεοὺς communiter appelletis. Itaque si aeque θεοὺς aeque immobiles, disceditur vocabuli interpretatione pariter et divinitatis opinione, quae a cursu et motu modulata rescinditur. Quod si nomen istud proprium divinitatis et simplex, nec interpretatorium in illo deo reprehensum, in caetera, quae deos vultis, docete etiam qualitatis inter illos esse consortium, ut jure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiae. Porro ΘΕΟΣ ille jam hoc solo, 0591B quod non sit in promptu, vacat a comparatione eorum, quae in promptu sunt et visui et sensui; sed sensui satis, quod est testimonii ad diversitatem occulti et manifesti renuntiatio; si elementa palam proposita omnibus, si contra deus nemini, quomodo poteris ex ea parte, quam non vidisti, quae vides, congredi? Cum ergo non habes conjungere sensu. . . . ratione, quid vocabulo conjungis, ut conjungas etiam potestate? Ecce enim Zeno quoque materiam mundialem a Deo separat, vel eum per illam, tanquam mel per favos transisse dicit. Itaque materia et Deus duo vocabula, duae res. Pro discrimine vocabulorum etiam res separantur, etiam materiae conditio vocabulum sequitur. Quod si materia non est, quia sic et 0591C appellatio praescribit, quomodo quae sunt in materia, id est elementa, dei habebuntur, cum membra a corpore alig. . . . esse non possint? Sed quid ego cum argumentationibus physiologicis? S. . . . . ascendere debuit de statu mundi, non incerta descen . . . . . . . . lo platonica forma quadratum eum angulatumque com. . . . . . . do circino rotunda ita collegit, quod sine capite solum credi laborat. Sed Epicurus, qui dixerat, quae super nos, nihil ad nos, cum et ipse coelum inspicere desiderat, solis orbem pedalem deprehendit. Adhuc scilicet frugalitas et in coelis agebatur. Denique ut ambitio profecit, etiam sol aciem suam extendit, ita illum orbem majorem peripatetici denotaverunt. Oro vos, quid sapit conjecturarum libido? Quid probat tanta praesumptione asseverationis otium affectatae morositatis eloquii 0592A artificio adornatum? Merito ergo Milesius Thales dum totum coelum examinat et ambulat oculis, in puteum cecidit. . . . . . r, multum irrisus Aegyptio illi: In terra, inquit, nihil perspiciebas, coelum tibi speculandum existimas? Itaque casus ejus per figuram . . . . . . s notat, scilicet eos qui stupidam exerceant curiositatem. . . . . naturae, quam prius in artificem ejus et praesidem, in vacuum. . . . . n dum habituros.