[4845] [The wit of Arnobius must be acknowledged in this scorching satire. Compare the divine ordinances, Exod. xxix. 13, 14.]
[4846] Lit., "by slaughters of," cædibus.
[4847] Lit., "under," i.e., under the sacrifices on your altars.
[4848] So all edd., reading cerne-, except both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler, who retain the ms. cerni-tis--"you see."
[4849] In translating thus, it has been attempted to adhere as closely as possible to the ms. reading (according to Crusius) qua si--corrected, as above, quæ in LB.; but it is by no means certain that further changes should not be made.
[4850] Lit., "prepare luncheons and dinners thence," i.e., from the putrefying carcasses.
18. And as we are now speaking of the animals sacrificed, what cause, what reason is there, that while the immortal gods--for, so far as we are concerned, they may all be gods who are believed to be so--are of one mind, or should be of one nature, kind, and character, all are not appeased with all the victims, but certain deities with certain animals, according to the sacrificial laws? For what cause is there, to repeat the same question, that that deity should be honoured with bulls, another with kids or sheep, this one with sucking pigs, the other with unshorn lambs, this one with virgin heifers, that one with horned goats, this with barren cows, but that with teeming [4851] swine, this with white, that with dusky [4852] victims, one with female, the other, on the contrary, with male animals? For if victims are slain in sacrifice to the gods, to do them honour and show reverence for them, what does it matter, or what difference is there with the life of what animal this debt is paid, their anger and resentment put away? Or is the blood of one victim less grateful and pleasing to one god, while the other's fills him with pleasure and joy? or, as is usually done, does that deity abstain from the flesh of goats because of some reverential and religious scruple, another turn with disgust from pork, while to this mutton stinks? and does this one avoid tough ox-beef that he may not overtax his weak stomach, and choose tender [4853] sucklings that he may digest them more speedily? [4854]
[4851] The ms. and first four edd. read ingentibus scrofis--"with huge breeding swine," changed by rest, as above, incient-, from the margin of Ursinus.
[4852] Or "gloomy," tetris, the reading of ms. and all edd. since LB., for which earlier edd. give atris--"black."
[4853] Lit., "the tenderness of."
[4854] [The law of clean and unclean reflects the instincts of man, as here appealed to; but compare and patiently study these texts: Lev. x. 10 and Ezek. xxii. 26; Lev. xi. and Acts x. 15; Rom. xiv. 14 and Luke xi. 41.]
19. But you err, says my opponent, and fall into mistakes; for in sacrificing female victims to the female deities, males to the male deities, there is a hidden and very [4855] secret reason, and one beyond the reach of the mass. I do not inquire, I do not demand, what the sacrificial laws teach or contain; but if reason has demonstrated, [4856] and truth declared, that among the gods there is no difference of species, and that they are not distinguished by any sexes, must not all these reasonings be set at nought, and be proved, be found to have been believed under the most foolish hallucinations? I will not bring forward the opinions of wise men, who cannot restrain their laughter when they hear distinctions of sex attributed to the immortal gods: I ask of each man whether he himself believes in his own mind, and persuades himself that the race of the gods is so distinguished that they are male and female, and have been formed with members arranged suitably for the begetting of young?
But if the laws of the sacrifices enjoin that like sexes should be sacrificed to like, that is, female victims to the female gods, male victims, on the contrary, to the male gods, what relation is there in the colours, so that it is right and fitting that to these white, to those dark, even the blackest victims are slain? Because, says my opponent, to the gods above, and those who have power to give favourable omens, [4857] the cheerful colour is acceptable and propitious from the pleasant appearance of pure white; while, on the contrary, to the sinister deities, and those who inhabit the infernal seats, a dusky colour is more pleasing, and one tinged with gloomy hues. But if, again, the reasoning holds good, that the infernal regions are an utterly vain and empty name, [4858] and that underneath the earth there are no Plutonian realms and abodes, this, too, must nullify your ideas about black cattle and gods under the ground. Because, if there are no infernal regions, of necessity there are no dii Manium also. For how is it possible that, while there are no regions, there should be said to be any who inhabit them?
[4855] Lit., "more."
[4856] So the ms., Elm., LB., Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, reading vicerit, for which the others read jusserit--"has bidden."
[4857] Lit., "prevailing with favourableness of omens," ominum, for which the ms. and first four edd. read h---"of men."
[4858] That Arnobius had good reason to appeal to this scepticism as a fact, is evident from the lines of Juvenal (ii. 149-152): "Not even children believe that there are any Manes and subterranean realms."
20. But let us agree, as you wish, that there are both infernal regions and Manes, and that some gods or other dwell in these by no means favourable to men, and presiding over misfortunes; and what cause, what reason is there, that black victims, even [4859] of the darkest hue, should be brought to their altars? Because dark things suit dark, and gloomy things are pleasing to similar beings. What then? Do you not see--that we, too, may joke with you stupidly, and just as you do yourselves [4860] --that the flesh of the victims is not black, [4861] nor their bones, teeth, fat, the bowels, with [4862] the brains, and the soft marrow in the bones? But the fleeces are jet-black, and the bristles of the creatures are jet-black. Do you, then, sacrifice to the gods only wool and little bristles torn from the victims? Do you leave the wretched creatures, despoiled it may be, and shorn, to draw the breath of heaven, and rest in perfect innocence upon their feeding-grounds? But if you think that those things are pleasing to the infernal gods which are black and of a gloomy colour, why do you not take care that all the other things which it is customary to place upon their sacrifices should be black, and smoked, and horrible in colour? Dye the incense if it is offered, the salted grits, and all the libations without exception. Into the milk, oil, blood, pour soot and ashes, that this may lose its purple hue, that the others may become ghastly. But if you have no scruple in introducing some things which are white and retain their brightness, you yourselves do away with your own religious scruples and reasonings, while you do not maintain any single and universal rule in performing the sacred rites.
[4859] Lit., "and." Immediately after, the ms. is corrected in later writing color-es (for -is)--"and the darkest colours."
[4860] Similiter. This is certainly a suspicious reading, but Arnobius indulges occasionally in similar vague expressions.
[4861] Lit., "is white."
[4862] Or, very probably, "the membranes with (i.e., enclosing) the brains," omenta cum cerebris.
21. But this, too, it is fitting that we should here learn from you: If a goat be slain to Jupiter, which is usually sacrificed to father Liber and Mercury, [4863] or if the barren heifer be sacrificed to Unxia, which you give to Proserpine, by what usage and rule is it determined what crime there is in this, what wickedness or guilt has been contracted, since it makes no difference to the worship offered to the deity what animal it is with whose head the honour is paid which you owe? It is not lawful, says my opponent, that these things should be confounded, and it is no small crime to throw the ceremonies of the rites and the mode of expiation into confusion. Explain the reason, I beg. Because it is right to consecrate victims of a certain kind to certain deities, and that certain forms of supplication should be also adopted. And what, again, is the reason that it is right to consecrate victims of a certain kind to certain deities, and that certain forms of supplication should be also adopted, for this very rightfulness should have its own cause, and spring, be derived from certain reasons? Are you going to speak about antiquity and custom? If so, you relate to me merely the opinions of men, and the inventions of a blind creature: but I, when I request a reason to be brought forward to me, wish to hear either that something has fallen from heaven, or, which the subject rather requires, what relation Jupiter has to a bull's blood that it should be offered in sacrifice to him, not to Mercury or Liber. Or what are the natural properties of a goat, that they again should be suited to these gods, should not be adapted to the sacrifices of Jupiter? Has a partition of the animals been made amongst the gods? Has some contract been made and agreed to, so that [4864] it is fitting that this one should hold himself back from the victim which belongs to that, that the other should cease [4865] to claim as his own the blood which belongs to another? Or, as envious boys, are they unwilling to allow others to have a share in enjoying the cattle presented to them? or, as is reported to be done by races which differ greatly in manners, are the same things which by one party are considered fit for eating, rejected as food by others?
[4863] Goats were sacrificed to Bacchus, but not, so far as is known, to Mercury. Cf. c. 16, p. 524, n. 3.
[4864] Lit. "by the paction of some transaction is it," etc.
[4865] So all except both Roman edd., which retain the ms. reading desi-d-eret (corrected -n- by Gelenius)--"wish."
22. If, then, these things are vain, and are not supported by any reason, the very offering [4866] of sacrifices also is idle. For how can that which follows have a suitable cause, when that very first statement from which the second flows is found to be utterly idle and vain, and established on no solid basis? To mother Earth, they say, is sacrificed a teeming [4867] and pregnant sow; but to the virgin Minerva is slain a virgin calf, never forced [4868] by the goad to attempt any labour. But yet we think that neither should a virgin have been sacrificed to a virgin, that the virginity might not be violated in the brute, for which the goddess is especially esteemed; nor should gravid and pregnant victims have been sacrificed to the Earth from respect for its fruitfulness, which [4869] we all desire and wish to go on always in irrepressible fertility. [4870] For if because the Tritonian goddess is a virgin it is therefore fitting that virgin victims be sacrificed to her, and if because the Earth is a mother she is in like manner to be entertained with gravid swine, then also Apollo should be honoured by the sacrifice of musicians because he is a musician; Æsculapius, because he is a physician, by the sacrifice of physicians; and because he is an artificer, Vulcan by the sacrifice of artificers; and because Mercury is eloquent, sacrifice should be made to him with the eloquent and most fluent. But if it is madness to say this, or, to speak with moderation, nonsense, that shows much greater madness to slaughter pregnant swine to the Earth because she is even more prolific; pure and virgin heifers to Minerva because she is pure, of unviolated virginity.
[4866] So the ms., Hild., and Oehler, reading d-atio, approved of by Stewechius also. The others read r---"reasoning on behalf."
[4867] Inci-ens, so corrected in the margin of Ursinus for ms. ing---"huge." Cf. ch. 18, p. 524, n. 10.
[4868] The ms. reads excitata conatus (according to Hild.); corrected, as above, by the insertion of ad.
[4869] Quam, i.e., the earth.
[4870] Singularly enough, for fecunditate Oberthür reads virginitate--"inextinguishable virginity," which is by no means universally desired in the earth. Orelli, as usual, copies without remark the mistake of his predecessor.
23. For as to that which we hear said by you, that some of the gods are good, that others, on the contrary, are bad, and rather inclined to indulge in wanton mischief, [4871] and that the usual rites are paid to the one party that they may show favour, but to the others that they may not do you harm,--with what reason this is said, we confess that we cannot understand. For to say that the gods are most benevolent, and have gentle dispositions, is not only pious and religious, but also true; but that they are evil and sinister, should by no means be listened to, inasmuch as that divine power has been far removed and separated from the disposition which does harm. [4872] But whatever can occasion calamity, it must first be seen what it is, and then it should be removed very far from the name of deity.