Chap. iv.—of images, and the ornaments of temples, and the contempt in which they are held even by the heathens themselves.

What majesty, then, can images have, which were altogether in the power of puny man, either that they should be formed into something else, or that they should not be made at all? On which account Priapus thus speaks in Horace:121    Horat., 1 Serm. 8. 1.    

Who would not be at ease with such a guardian as this? For thieves are so foolish as to fear the figure of Priapus; though the very birds, which they imagine to be driven away by fear of his scythe, settle upon the images which are skilfully made, that is, which altogether resemble men, build their nests there, and defile them. But Flaccus, as a writer of satire, ridiculed the folly of men. But they who make the images fancy that they are performing a serious business. In short, that very great poet, a man of sagacity in other things, in this alone displayed folly, not like a poet, but after the manner of an old woman, when even in those most highly-finished123    The Georgics, which are much more elaborately finished than the other works of Virgil.   books he orders this to be done:—  

Therefore they adore mortal things, as made by mortals. For they may be broken, or burnt, or be destroyed. For they are often apt to be broken to pieces, when houses fall through age, and when, consumed by conflagration, they waste away to ashes; and in many instances, unless aided by their own magnitude, or protected by diligent watchfulness, they become the prey of thieves. What madness is it, then, to fear those objects for which either the downfall of a building, or fires, or thefts, may be feared! What folly, to hope for protection from those things which are unable to protect themselves! What perversity, to have recourse to the guardianship of those which, when injured, are themselves unavenged, unless vengeance is exacted by their worshippers! Where, then, is truth? Where no violence can be applied to religion; where there appears to be nothing which can be injured; where no sacrilege can be committed.  

But whatever is subjected to the eyes and to the hands, that, in truth, because it is perishable, is inconsistent with the whole subject of immortality. It is in vain, therefore, that men set off and adorn their gods with gold, ivory, and jewels, as though they were capable of deriving any pleasure from these things. What is the use of precious gifts to insensible objects? Is it the same which the dead have? For as they embalm the bodies of the dead, wrap them in spices and precious garments, and bury them in the earth, so they honour the gods, who when they were made did not perceive it, and when they are worshipped have no knowledge of it; for they did not receive sensibility on their consecration. Persius was displeased that golden vessels should be carried into the temples, since he thought it superfluous that that should be reckoned among religious offerings which was not an instrument of sanctity, but of avarice. For these are the things which it is better to offer as a gift to the god whom you would rightly worship:—  

A noble and wise sentiment. But he ridiculously added this: that there is this gold in the temples, as there are dolls127    Pupæ, dolls or images worn by girls, as bullæ were by boys. On arriving at maturity, they dedicated these images to Venus. See Jahn’s note on the passage from Persius.   presented to Venus by the virgin; which perhaps he may have despised on account of their smallness. For he did not see that the very images and statues of the gods, wrought in gold and ivory by the hand of Polycletus, Euphranor, and Phidias, were nothing more than large dolls, not dedicated by virgins, to whose sports some indulgence may be granted, but by bearded men. Therefore Seneca deservedly laughs at the folly even of old men. We are not (he says) boys twice,128    The allusion is to the proverb that “old age is second childhood.”   as is commonly said, but are always so. But there is this difference, that when men we have greater subjects of sport. Therefore men offer to these dolls, which are of large size, and adorned as though for the stage, both perfumes, and incense, and odours: they sacrifice to these costly and fattened victims, which have a mouth,129    An allusion to Ps. cxv. 5: “They have mouths, but they speak not.”   but one that is not suitable for eating; to these they bring robes and costly garments, though they have no need of clothing; to these they dedicate gold and silver, of which they who receive them are as destitute130    Quæ tam non habent qui accipiunt, quam qui illa donarunt. The senseless images can make no use of the treasures.   as they who have given them.  

And not without reason did Dionysius, the despot of Sicily, when after a victory he had become master of Greece,131    Justin relates that Græcia Magna, a part of Italy, was subdued by Dionysius. Cicero says that he sailed to Peloponnesus, and entered the temple of the Olympian Jupiter. [De Nat. Deor., iii. 34.]   despise, and plunder and jeer at such gods, for he followed up his sacrilegious acts by jesting words. For when he had taken off a golden robe from the statue of the Olympian Jupiter, he ordered that a woollen garment should be placed upon him, saying that a golden robe was heavy in summer and cold in winter, but that a woollen one was adapted to each season. He also took off the golden beard from Æsculapius, saying that it was unbecoming and unjust, that while his father Apollo was yet smooth and beardless, the son should be seen to wear a beard before his father. He also took away the bowls, and spoils, and some little images132    Sigilla. The word is also used to denote seals, or signets.   which were held in the extended hands of the statues, and said that he did not take them away, but received them: for that it would be very foolish and ungrateful to refuse to receive good things, when offered voluntarily by those from whom men were accustomed to implore them. He did these things with impunity, because he was a king and victorious. Moreover, his usual good fortune also followed him; for he lived even to old age, and handed down the kingdom in succession to his son. In his case, therefore, because men could not punish his sacrilegious deeds, it was befitting that the gods should be their own avengers. But if any humble person shall have committed any such crime, there are at hand for his punishment the scourge, fire, the rack,133    Equuleus: an instrument of torture resembling a horse, on which slaves were stretched and tortured.   the cross, and whatever torture men can invent in their anger and rage. But when they punish those who have been detected in the act of sacrilege, they themselves distrust the power of their gods. For why should they not leave to them especially the opportunity of avenging themselves, if they think that they are able to do so? Moreover, they also imagine that it happened through the will of the deities that the sacrilegious robbers were discovered and arrested; and their cruelty is instigated not so much by anger as by fear, lest they themselves should be visited with punishment if they failed to avenge the injury done to the gods. And, in truth, they display incredible shallowness in imagining that the gods will injure them on account of the guilt of others, who by themselves were unable to injure those very persons by whom they were profaned and plundered. But, in fact, they have often themselves also inflicted punishment on the sacrilegious: that may have occurred even by chance, which has sometimes happened, but not always. But I will show presently how that occurred. Now in the meantime I will ask, Why did they not punish so many and such great acts of sacrilege in Dionysius, who insulted the gods openly, and not in secret? Why did they not repel this sacrilegious man, possessed of such power, from their temples, their ceremonies, and their images? Why, even when he had carried off their sacred things, had he a prosperous voyage—as he himself, according to his custom, testified in joke? Do you see, he said to his companions who feared shipwreck, how prosperous a voyage the immortal gods themselves give to the sacrilegious? But perhaps he had learnt from Plato that the gods have no134    Nihil esse [= are nothing.]   power.  

What of Caius Verres? whom his accuser Tully compares to this same Dionysius, and to Phalaris, and to all tyrants. Did he not pillage the whole of Sicily, carrying away the images of the gods, and the ornaments of the temples? It is idle to follow up each particular instance: I would fain make mention of one, in which the accuser, with all the force of eloquence—in short, with every effort of voice and of body—lamented about Ceres of Catina, or of Henna: the one of whom was of such great sanctity, that it was unlawful for men to enter the secret recesses of her temple; the other was of such great antiquity, that all accounts relate that the goddess herself first discovered grain in the soil of Henna, and that her virgin daughter was carried away from the same place. Lastly, in the times of the Gracchi, when the state was disturbed both by seditions and by portents, on its being discovered in the Sibylline predictions that the most ancient Ceres ought to be appeased, ambassadors were sent to Henna. This Ceres, then, either the most holy one, whom it was unlawful for men to behold even for the sake of adoration, or the most ancient one, whom the senate and people of Rome had appeased with sacrifices and gifts, was carried away with impunity by Caius Verres from her secret and ancient recesses, his robber slaves having been sent in. The same orator, in truth, when he affirmed that he had been entreated by the Sicilians to undertake the cause of the province, made use of these words: “That they had now not even any gods in their cities to whom they might betake themselves, since Verres had taken away the most sacred images from their most venerable shrines.” As though, in truth, if Verres had taken them away from the cities and shrines, he had also taken them from heaven. From which it appears that those gods have nothing in them more than the material of which they are made. And not without reason did the Sicilians have recourse to you, O Marcus Tullius, that is, to a man; since they had for three years experienced that those gods had no power. For they would have been most foolish if they had fled for protection against the injuries of men, to those who were unable to be angry with Caius Verres on their own behalf. But, it will be urged, Verres was condemned on account of these deeds. Therefore he was not punished by the gods, but by the energy of Cicero, by which he either crushed his defenders or withstood his influence.135    The allusion is to the efforts made by the partisans of Verres to prevent Cicero from obtaining the necessary evidence for the condemnation of Verres. But all these efforts were unavailing: the evidence was overwhelming, and before the trial was over Verres went into exile.   Why should I say that, in the case of Verres himself, that was not so much a condemnation as a respite from labour? So that, as the immortal gods had given a prosperous voyage to Dionysius when he was carrying off the spoils of gods, so also they appear to have bestowed on Verres quiet repose, in which he might with tranquility enjoy the fruits of his sacrilege. For when civil wars afterwards raged, being removed from all danger and apprehension, under the cloak of condemnation he heard of the disastrous misfortunes and miserable deaths of others; and he who appeared to have fallen while all retained their position, he alone, in truth, retained his position while all fell; until the proscription of the triumvirs,—that very proscription, indeed, which carried off Tully, the avenger of the violated majesty of the gods,—carried him off, satiated at once with the enjoyment of the wealth which he had gained by sacrilege, and with life, and worn out by old age. Moreover, he was fortunate in this very circumstance, that before his own death he heard of the most cruel end of his accuser; the gods doubtless providing that this sacrilegious man and spoiler of their worship should not die before he had received consolation from revenge.  

CAPUT. IV. De Simulacris, ornamentisque templorum, et eorum contemptu, etiam ab ipsis Gentilibus.

Quid igitur majestatis possunt habere simulacra, quae fuerunt in homunculi potestate, vel ut aliud 0268B fierent, vel ut omnino non fierent? Idcirco apud Horatium Priapus ita loquitur: Olim truncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum; Cum faber incertus, scamnum faceretne Priapum, Maluit esse deum. Deus inde ego, furum aviumque Maxima formido.Quis non sit tanto hoc custode securus? Fures enim tam stulti sunt, ut Priapi tentiginem timeant; cum aves ipsae, quas terrore falcis aut inguinis abigi existimant, simulacris fabrefactis, id est, hominum plane similibus, insidant, nidificent, inquinent. Sed Flaccus, ut satyrici carminis scriptor, derisit hominum vanitatem. Verum ii qui faciunt, seriam se facere rem opinantur. Denique poeta maximus, homo in caeteris prudens, in hoc solo non poetice, sed aniliter desipuit; cum in illis emendatissimis libris 0268C etiam fieri hoc jubet: 0269A Et custos 0269A furum atque avium, cum falce saligna, Hellespontiaci servet tutela Priapi.Adorant ergo mortalia, ut a mortalibus facta. Frangi enim, cremari, perire possunt. Nam et tectis vetustate labentibus saepe comminui solent, et consumpta incendio dilabuntur in cinerem, et plerumque (nisi sua illis magnitudo subvenerit, aut custodia diligens sepserit) in praedam furibus cedunt. Quae igitur insania est, ea timere, pro quibus aut ruinae, aut ignes, aut furta timeantur? Quae vanitas, aliquam ab his sperare tutelam, quae tueri semetipsa non possunt? Quae perversitas, ad eorum praesidia decurrere, quae ipsa, cum violantur, inulta sunt, nisi a colentibus 0270A vindicentur? Ubi ergo veritas est? ubi nulla vis adhiberi potest Religioni; ubi nihil, quod violari possit, apparet; ubi sacrilegium fieri non potest.

Quidquid autem oculis manibusque subjectum est, id vero, quia fragile est, ab omni ratione immortalitatis est alienum. Frustra igitur homines auro, ebore, gemnis deos excolunt et exornant; quasi vero ex his rebus ullam possint capere voluptatem. Quis usus est pretiosorum munerum nihil sentientibus? an ille qui mortuis? Pari enim ratione defunctorum corpora, odoribus ac pretiosis vestibus illita et convoluta, humi condunt, qua deos honorant, qui neque cum fierent, sentiebant, neque cum coluntur, sciunt; nec 0271A enim sensum consecratione sumpserunt. Non placebat Persio, quod aurea vasa templis inferantur, 0271A supervacuum putanti esse inter religiones, quod non sanctitatis, sed avaritiae sit instrumentum. Illa enim satius est Deo, quem recte colas, inferre pro munere. Compositum jus, fasque animi, sanctosque recessus Mentis, et incoctum generoso pectus honesto.Egregie, sapienterque sensit. Verum illud ridicule subdidit: hoc esse aurum in templis, quod sint, Veneri donatae a virgine pupae:quas ille ob minutiem fortasse contempserit. Non videbat enim, simulacra ipsa et effigies deorum, Polycleti, et Euphranoris, et Phidiae manu ex auro atque ebore perfectas, nihil aliud esse quam grandes pupas, 0272A non a virginibus, quarum lusibus venia dari potest, sed a barbatis hominibus consecratas. Merito igitur etiam senum stultitiam Seneca deridet. Non, inquit, bis pueri sumus (ut vulgo dicitur); sed semper. Verum hoc interest, quod majora nos ludimus. Ergo his ludicris, et ornatis, et grandibus pupis et unguenta, et thura, et odores inferunt: his opimas et pingues hostias immolant, quibus est quidem os, sed carens officio dentium: his peplos et indumenta pretiosa, quibus usus velaminis nullus est: his aurum et argentum consecrant, quae tam non habent qui accipiunt, quam qui illa donarunt.

Nec immerito Dionysius, Siciliae tyrannus, post victoriam Graecia potitus, deos tales contempsit, spoliavit, 0273A illusit: siquidem sacrilegia sua jocularibus etiam dictis prosequebatur. Nam cum Jovi Olympio aureum amiculum detraxisset, 0273A laneum jussit imponi, dicens, aestate grave esse aureum, hyeme frigidum, laneum vero utrique tempori aptum. Idem auream barbam detrahens Aesculapio, incongruens et iniquum esse ait, cum Apollo pater ejus imberbis esset adhuc, ac laevis, priorem filium quam patrem barbatum videri. Item pateras, et exuvias, et parva quaedam sigilla, quae simulacrorum protentis manibus tenebantur, detrahebat: et accipere se illa, non auferre dicebat; perquam enim stultum esse et ingratum, nolle accipere ab his ultro porrigentibus, a quibus bona sibi homines precarentur. Haec ille fecit impune, quia rex et victor fuit. Quin etiam secuta est eum solita felicitas: 0273B vixit enim usque ad senectutem, regnumque per manus filio tradidit. In eo igitur, quia homines sacrilegia vindicare non poterant, oportuit deos ipsos sui vindices esse. At si humilis quispiam tale quid commiserit, huic praesto sunt flagella, ignes, equulei, cruces, et quidquid excogitare iratis et furentibus licet. Sed cum puniunt deprehensos in sacrilegio, ipsi de deorum suorum potestate diffidunt. Cur enim illis 0274A potissimum non relinquant ulciscendi sui locum, si eos posse aliquid arbitrantur? Quin etiam putant illorum numine accidisse, ut praedones rerum sacrarum deprehensi tenerentur; et saeviunt non tam ira, quam metu, ne si deorum injuriam non vindicaverint, ipsos expetant poenae; incredibili scilicet vanitate, qui nocituros sibi deos putent ob aliena scelera, qui ipsis, a quibus violati spoliatique sunt, per seipsos nihil nocere potuerunt. At enim saepe ipsi quoque in sacrilegos vindicaverunt: potest id vel casu accidisse, quod aliquando, non semper. Sed tamen paulo post, quomodo id acciderit, ostendam. Nunc interim quaero, cur illi tot et tanta sacrilegia in Dionysio non vindicaverunt, qui non furtim, sed palam deos ludibrio habuit? Cur hunc tam potentem sacrilegum a templis, 0274B a ceremoniis, ab imaginibus suis non arcuerunt? Cur etiam sacris rebus ablatis, prospere navigavit? quod joco ipse testatus est (ut solebat). Videtisne (inquit comitibus suis naufragium timentibus) quam prospera sacrilegis navigatio ab ipsis diis immortalibus tribuatur? Sed hic fortasse a Platone didicerat, deos nihil esse.

0275A Quid Caius Verres? quem Tullius, accusator 0275A ejus, eidem Dionysio, et Phalaridi, et tyrannis, omnibus comparat. Nonne omnem Siciliam compilavit, sublatis deorum simulacris, ornamentisque fanorum? Otiosum est persequi singula. Unum libet commemorare (Vid. Verrin. IV) in quo accusator omnibus eloquentiae viribus, omni denique conatu vocis et corporis deploravit, de Cerere Catinensi, vel Ennensi; quarum alterius tanta fuit religio, ut adire templi ejus secreta penetralia viris nefas esset; alterius antiquitas tanta, ut omnes historiae loquantur ipsam deam fruges in Ennae solo primum reperisse, filiamque ejus virginem ex eodem loco raptam. Denique Gracchanis temporibus, turbata republica et seditionibus et ostentis, cum repertum esset in carminibus Sibyllinis 0275B antiquissimam Cererem debere placari, legati sunt Ennam missi. Haec igitur Ceres vel religiosissima, quam videre maribus ne adorandi quidem gratia licebat, vel antiquissima, quam Senatus Populusque Romanus sacrificiis donisque placaverat, ex arcanis et vetustis penetralibus, a Caio Verre, immissis latronibus servis, impune sublata est. Idem vero cum affirmaret se a Siculis, ut causam provinciae susciperet, oratum, his verbis usus est: «Sese jam ne deos quidem in suis urbibus, ad quos confugerent, habere; quod eorum simulacra sanctissima C. Verres ex delubris religiosissimis sustulisset:» quasi vero si Verres ex urbibus delubrisque sustulerat, de coelo quoque sustulerat. Unde apparet istos deos nihil habere in se amplius quam 0275C materiam de qua sunt fabricati. Nec immerito ad te, 0276A Marce Tulli, hoc est, ad hominem, Siculi confugerunt; quoniam triennio sunt experti deos illos nihil valere. Essent enim stultissimi, si ad eos ob defendendas injurias hominum confugissent, qui Caio Verri nec pro seipsis irati esse potuerunt. At enim Verres ob haec facinora damnatus est. Non ergo dii vindicaverunt, sed Ciceronis industria, qua vel defensores ejus oppressit, vel gratiae restitit. Quid, quod apud ipsum Verrem non fuit illa damnatio, sed vacatio? ut quemadmodum Dionysio deorum spolia gestanti dii immortales bonam dederant navigationem, sic etiam Verri bonam quietem tribuisse videantur, in qua sacrilegiis suis tranquille frui posset. Nam frementibus postea civilibus bellis, sub obtentu damnationis ab omni periculo et metu remotus, aliorum graves casus 0276B et miserabiles exitus audiebat, et qui cecidisse solus universis stantibus videbatur, is vero universis cadentibus solus stetit, donec illum et opibus sacrilegio partis et vita satiatum, ac senectute confectum, proscriptio triumviralis auferret, eadem scilicet quae Tullium violatae deorum majestatis ultorem. Quin etiam felix in eo ipso fuit, quod ante suam mortem crudelissimum exitum sui accusatoris audivit; diis videlicet providentibus, ut sacrilegus ac praedo ille religionum suarum, non ante moreretur quam solatium de ultione cepisset.