[4818] Lit., "it is a thing of long and much speech."
[4819] Lit., "the fortunes of perils."
[4820] The ms. reading is hoc est unus, corrected honestus--"honourable" (which makes the comparison pointless, because there is no reason why a rich man, if good, should not be succored as well as a poor), in all edd., except Oehler, who reads seclestus, which departs too far from the ms. Perhaps we should read, as above, inhonestus.
[4821] So the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler, and the other edd., adding et auxilium--"and help."
[4822] Lit., "whom not his mind, but the necessity of his property, made restricted."
[4823] Lit., "inclines thither whence."
[4824] i.e., the decision.
[4825] Lit., "both nations."
[4826] Lit., "the favours of good work," boni operis favor-es et, the reading of Hild. and Oehler (other edd. -em--"the favour of its service") for ms. fabore sed.
13. We have shown sufficiently, as I suppose, that victims, and the things which go along with them, are offered in vain to the immortal gods, because they are neither nourished by them, nor feel any pleasure, nor lay aside their anger and resentment, so as either to give good fortune, or to drive away and avert the opposite. We have now to examine that point also which has been usually asserted by some, and applied to forms of ceremony. For they say that these sacred rites were instituted to do honour to the gods of heaven, and that these things which they do, they do to show them honour, and to magnify the powers of the deities by them. What if they were to say, in like manner, that they keep awake and sleep, walk about, stand still, write something, and read, to give honour to the gods, and make them more glorious in majesty? For what substance is there added to them from the blood of cattle, and from the other things which are prepared in sacrificing? what power is given and added to them? For all honour, which is said to be offered by any one, and to be yielded to reverence for a greater being, is of a kind having reference to the other; and consists of two parts, of the concession of the giver, and the increase of honour of the receiver. As, if any one, on seeing a man famed for his very great power [4827] and authority, were to make way for him, to stand up, to uncover his head, and leap down from his carriage, then, bending forward to salute him with slavish servility and [4828] trembling agitation, I see what is aimed at in showing such respect: by the bowing down of the one, very great honour is given to the other, and he is made to appear great whom the respect of an inferior exalts and places above his own rank. [4829]
[4827] Lit., "of most powerful name."
[4828] Lit., "imitating a slave's servility"--ancillatum, the emendation of Hemsterhuis, adopted by Orelli, Hild., and Oehler for the unintelligible ms. ancillarum.
[4829] Lit., "things."
14. But all this conceding and ascribing of honour about which we are speaking are met with among men alone, whom their natural weakness and love of standing above their fellows [4830] teach to delight in arrogance, and in being preferred above others. But, I ask, where is there room for honour among the gods, or what greater exaltation is found to be given [4831] to them by piling up [4832] sacrifices? Do they become more venerable, more powerful, when cattle are sacrificed to them? is there anything added to them from this? or do they begin to be more truly gods, their divinity being increased? And yet I consider it almost an insult, nay, an insult altogether, when it is said that a god is honoured by a man, and exalted by the offering of some gift. For if honour increases and augments the grandeur of him to whom it is given, it follows that a deity becomes greater by means of the man from whom he has received the gift, and the honour conferred on him; and thus the matter is brought to this issue, that the god who is exalted by human honours is the inferior, while, on the other hand, the man who increases the power of a deity is his superior. [4833]
[4830] Lit., "in higher places."
[4831] Lit., "what eminences is it found to be added," addier. So Hild. and Oehler for the reading of ms., first four edd., and Oberthür addere--"to add," emended in rest from margin of Ursinus accedere, much as above.
[4832] So the ms., reading conjectionibus, which is retained in no edd., although its primary meaning is exactly what the sense here requires.
[4833] The last clause was omitted in first four edd. and Elmh., and was inserted from the ms. by Meursius.
15. What then! some one will say, do you think that no honour should be given to the gods at all? If you propose to us gods such as they should be if they do exist, and such as [4834] we feel that we all mean when we mention [4835] that name, how can we but give them even the greatest honour, since we have been taught by the commands which have especial power over us, [4836] to pay honour to all men even, of whatever rank, of whatever condition they may be? What, pray, you ask, is this very great honour? One much more in accordance with duty than is paid by you, and directed to [4837] a more powerful race, we reply. Tell, us, you say, in the first place, what is an opinion worthy of the gods, right and honourable, and not blameworthy from its being made unseemly by something infamous? We reply, one such that you believe that they neither have any likeness to man, nor look for anything which is outside of them and comes from without; then--and this has been said pretty frequently--that they do not burn with the fires of anger, that they do not give themselves up passionately to sensual pleasure, that they are not bribed to be of service, that they are not tempted to injure our enemies, that they do not sell their kindness and favour, that they do not rejoice in having honour heaped on them, that they are not indignant and vexed if it is not given; but--and this belongs to the divine--that by their own power they know themselves, and that they do not rate themselves by the obsequiousness of others. And yet, that we may see the nature of what is said, what kind of honour is this, to bind a wether, a ram, a bull before the face of a god, and slay them in his sight? What kind of honour is it to invite a god to a banquet of blood, which you see him take and share in with dogs? What kind of honour is it, having set on fire piles of wood, to hide the heavens with smoke, and darken with gloomy blackness the images of the gods? But if it seems good to you that these actions should be considered in themselves, [4838] not judged of according to your prejudices, you will find that those altars of which you speak, and even those beautiful ones which you dedicate to the superior gods, [4839] are places for burning the unhappy race of animals, funeral pyres, and mounds built for a most unseemly office, and formed to be filled with corruption.
[4834] Lit., "whom."
[4835] Lit., "say in the proclamation of."
[4836] Lit., "more powerful commands," i.e., by Christ's injunctions. It seems hardly possible that any one should suppose that there is here any reference to Christ's command to His disciples not to exercise lordship over each other, yet Orelli thinks that there is perhaps a reference to Mark x. 42, 43. If a particular reference were intended, we might with more reason find it in 1 Pet. ii. 17, "Honour all men."
[4837] Lit., "established in."
[4838] Lit., "weighed by their own force," vi.
[4839] i.e., altariaque hæc pulchra.
16. What say you, O you--! is that foul smell, then, which is given forth and emitted by burning hides, by bones, by bristles, by the fleeces of lambs, and the feathers of fowls,--is that a favour and an honour to the deity? and are the deities honoured by this, to whose temples, when you arrange to go, you come [4840] cleansed from all pollution, washed, and perfectly [4841] pure? And what can be more polluted than these, more unhappy, [4842] more debased, than if their senses are naturally such that they are fond of what is so cruel, and take delight in foul smells which, when inhaled with the breath, even those who sacrifice cannot bear, and certainly not a delicate [4843] nose? But if you think that the gods of heaven are honoured by the blood of living creatures being offered to them, why do you not [4844] sacrifice to them both mules, and elephants, and asses? why not dogs also, bears, and foxes, camels, and hyænas, and lions? And as birds also are counted victims by you, why do you not sacrifice vultures, eagles, storks, falcons, hawks, ravens, sparrow-hawks, owls, and, along with them, salamanders, water-snakes, vipers, tarantulæ? For indeed there is both blood in these, and they are in like manner moved by the breath of life. What is there more artistic in the former kind of sacrifices, or less ingenious in the latter, that these do not add to and increase the grandeur of the gods? Because, says my opponent, it is right to honour the gods of heaven with those things by which we are ourselves nourished and sustained, and live; which also they have, in their divine benevolence, deigned to give to us for food. But the same gods have given to you both cumin, cress, turnips, onions, parsley, esculent thistles, radishes, gourds, rue, mint, basil, flea-bane, and chives, and commanded them to be used by you as part of your food; why, then, do you not put these too upon the altars, and scatter wild-marjoram, with which oxen are fed, over them all, and mix amongst them onions with their pungent flavour?
[4840] Lit., "you show yourselves," præstatis.
[4841] Lit., "most." So Tibullus (Eleg., ii. 1, 13): "Pure things please the gods. Come (i.e., to the sacrifice) with clean garments, and with clean hands take water from the fountain,"--perfect cleanliness being scrupulously insisted on.
[4842] This Heraldus explains as "of worse omen," and Oehler as "more unclean."
[4843] Ingenuæ, i.e., such as any respectable person has.
[4844] To this the commentators have replied, that mules, asses, and dogs were sacrificed to certain deities. We must either admit that Arnobius has here fallen into error, or suppose that he refers merely to the animals which were usually slain, or find a reason for his neglecting it in the circumstances of each sacrifice.
17. Lo, if dogs--for a case must be imagined, in order that things may be seen more clearly--if dogs, I say, and asses, and along with them water-wagtails, if the twittering swallows, and pigs also, having acquired some of the feelings of men, were to think and suppose that you were gods, and to propose to offer sacrifices in your honour, not of other things and substances, but of those with which they are wont to be nourished and supported, according to their natural inclination,--we ask you to say whether you would consider this an honour, or rather a most outrageous affront, when the swallows slew and consecrated flies to you, the water-wagtails ants; when the asses put hay upon your altars, and poured out libations of chaff; when the dogs placed bones, and burned human excrements [4845] at your shrines; when, lastly, the pigs poured out before you a horrid mess, taken from their frightful hog-pools and filthy maws? Would you not in this case, then, be inflamed with rage that your greatness was treated with contumely, and account it an atrocious wrong that you were greeted with filth? But, you reply, you honour the gods with the carcasses of bulls, and by slaying [4846] other living creatures. And in what respect does this differ from that, since these sacrifices, also, if they are not yet, will nevertheless soon be, dung, and will become rotten after a very short time has passed? Finally, cease to place fire upon [4847] your altars, then indeed you will [4848] see that consecrated flesh of bulls, with which you magnify the honour of the gods, swelling and heaving with worms, tainting and corrupting the atmosphere, and infecting the neighbouring districts with unwholesome smells. Now, if the gods were to enjoin you to turn these things [4849] to your own account, to make your meals from them [4850] in the usual way; you would flee to a distance, and, execrating the smell, would beg pardon from the gods, and bind yourselves by oath never again to offer such sacrifices to them. Is not this conduct of yours mockery, then? is it not to confess, to make known that you do not know what a deity is, nor to what power the meaning and title of this name should be given and applied? Do you give new dignity to the gods by new kinds of food? do you honour them with savours and juices, and because those things which nourish you are pleasing and grateful to you? do you believe that the gods also flock up to enjoy their pleasant taste, and, just as barking dogs, lay aside their fierceness for mouthfuls, and pretty often fawn upon those who hold these out?