Then, supposing that we should agree with you that the gods promote good fortune and calamity, not even in this case is there any reason why you should allure some of them to grant you prosperity, and, on the other hand, coax others with sacrifices and rewards not to do you harm. First, because the good gods cannot act badly, even if they have been worshipped with no honour,--for whatever is mild and placid by nature, is separated widely from the practice and devising of mischief; while the bad knows not to restrain his ferocity, although he should be enticed to do so with a thousand flocks and a thousand altars. For neither can bitterness change itself into sweetness, dryness into moisture, the heat of fire into cold, or what is contrary to anything take and change into its own nature that which is its opposite. So that, if you should stroke a viper with your hand, or caress a poisonous scorpion, the former will attack you with its fangs, the latter, drawing itself together, will fix its sting in you; and your caressing will be of no avail, since both creatures are excited to do mischief, not by the stings of rage, but by a certain peculiarity of their nature. It is thus of no avail to wish to deserve well of the sinister deities by means of sacrifices, since, whether you do this, or on the contrary do not, they follow their own nature, and by inborn laws and a kind of necessity are led to those things, to do which [4873] they were made. Moreover, in this way [4874] both kinds of gods cease to possess their own powers, and to retain their own characters. For if the good are worshipped that they may be favourable, and supplication is made in the same way to the others, on the contrary, that they may not be injurious, it follows that it should be understood that the propitious deities will show no favour if they receive no gifts, and become bad instead of good; [4875] while, on the contrary, the bad, if they receive offerings, will lay aside their mischievous disposition, and become thereafter good: and thus it is brought to this issue, that neither are these propitious, nor are those sinister: or, which is impossible, both are propitious, and both again sinister.
[4871] Lit., "more prompt to lust of hurting."
[4872] Lit., "nature of hurting."
[4873] The ms. reads ad ea quæ facti sunt, understood seemingly as above by the edd., by supplying ad before quæ. Oehler, however, proposes quia--"because they were made for them." The reading must be regarded as doubtful.
[4874] i.e., if sacrifices avail to counteract the malevolent dispositions of the gods.
[4875] Lit., "these." This clause, omitted by Oberthür, is also omitted without remark by Orelli.
24. Be it so; let it be conceded that these most unfortunate cattle are not sacrificed in the temples of the gods without some religious obligation, and that what has been done in accordance with usage and custom possesses some rational ground: but if it seems a great and grand thing to slay bulls to the gods, and to burn in sacrifice the flesh of animals whole and entire, what is the meaning of these relics connected with the arts of the Magi which the pontifical mysteries have restored to a place among the secret laws of the sacred rites, and have mixed up with religious affairs? What, I say, is the meaning of these things, apexaones, hirciæ, silicernia, longavi, which are names and kinds of sausages, [4876] some stuffed with goats' blood, [4877] others with minced liver? What is the meaning of tædæ, uæniæ, offæ, not those used by the common people, but those named and called offæ penitæ?--of which the first [4878] is fat cut into very small pieces, as dainties [4879] are; that which has been placed second is the extension of the gut by which the excrements are given off after being drained of all their nourishing juices; while the offa penita is a beast's tail cut off with a morsel of flesh. What is the meaning of polimina, omenta, palasea, or, as some call it, plasea?--of which that named omentum is a certain part enclosed by the reservoirs of the belly are kept within bounds; the plasea is an ox's tail [4880] besmeared with flour and blood; the polimina, again, are those parts which we with more decency call proles,--by the vulgar, however, they are usually termed testes. What is the meaning of fitilla, frumen, africia, gratilla, catumeum, cumspolium, cubula?--of which the first two are names of species of pottage, but differing in kind and quality; while the series of names which follows denotes consecrated cakes, for they are not shaped in one and the same way. For we do not choose to mention the caro strebula which is taken from the haunches of bulls, the roasted pieces of meat which are spitted, the intestines first heated, and baked on glowing coals, nor, finally, the pickles [4881] which are made by mixing four kinds of fruit. In like manner, we do not choose to mention the fendicæ, which also are the hiræ, [4882] which the language of the mob, when it speaks, usually terms ilia; [4883] nor, in the same way, the ærumnæ, [4884] which are the first part of the gullet, [4885] where ruminating animals are accustomed to send down their food and bring it back again; nor the magmenta, [4886] augmina, and thousand other kinds of sausages or pottages which you have given unintelligible names to, and have caused to be more revered by common people.
[4876] So the edd., reading farciminumfor the ms. facinorum, corrected by Hild. fartorum--"of stuffings." Throughout this passage hardly one of the names of these sacrificial dainties is generally agreed upon; as many are met with nowhere else, the ms. has been adhered to strictly.
[4877] i.e., probably the hirciæ: of the others, silicernia seem to have been put on the table at funerals.
[4878] i.e., tæda.
[4879] So Salmasius and Meursius corrected the ms. catillaminu-a-m by omitting a.
[4880] i.e., tail-piece.
[4881] Salsamina, by which is perhaps meant the grits and salt cast on the victim; but if so, Arnobius is at variance with Servius (Virgil, Ecl., viii. 81), who expressly states that these were of spelt mixed only with salt; while there is no trace elsewhere of a different usage.
[4882] The first four edd. retain the unintelligible ms. diræ.
[4883] i.e., the entrails. The ms., first four edd., and Elm. read illa.
[4884] So the ms., LB., Oberthür, Orelli, Hild., and Oehler; but ærumnæ is found in no other passage with this meaning.
[4885] Lit., "first heads in gullets."
[4886] By this, and the word which follows, we know from the etymology that "offerings" to the gods must be meant, but we know nothing more.
25. For if whatever is done by men, and especially in religion, should have its causes,--and nothing should be done without a reason in all that men do and perform,--tell us and say what is the cause, what the reason, that these things also are given to the gods and burned upon their sacred altars? For here we delay, constrained most urgently to wait for this cause, we pause, we stand fast, desiring to learn what a god has to do with pottage, with cakes, with different kinds of stuffing prepared in manifold ways, and with different ingredients? Are the deities affected by splendid dinners or luncheons, so that it is fitting to devise for them feasts without number? Are they troubled by the loathings of their stomachs, and is variety of flavours sought for to get rid of their aversion, so that there is set before them meat at one time roasted, at another raw, and at another half cooked and half raw? But if the gods like to receive all these parts which you term præsiciæ, [4887] and if these gratify them with any sense of pleasure or delight, what prevents, what hinders you from laying all these upon their altars at once with the whole animals? What cause, what reason is there that the haunch-piece [4888] by itself, the gullet, the tail, and the tail-piece [4889] separately, the entrails only, and the membrane [4890] alone, should be brought to do them honour? Are the gods of heaven moved by various condiments? After stuffing themselves with sumptuous and ample dinners, do they, as is usually done, take these little bits as sweet dainties, not to appease their hunger, but to rouse their wearied palates, [4891] and excite in themselves a perfectly voracious appetite? O wonderful greatness of the gods, comprehended by no men, understood by no creatures! if indeed their favours are bought with the testicles and gullets of beasts, and if they do not lay aside their anger and resentment, unless they see the entrails [4892] prepared and offæ bought and burned upon their altars.
[4887] i.e., cut off for sacrifice.
[4888] Caro strebula.
[4889] Plasea.
[4890] The ms. reads unintelligibly nomen quæ, corrected by Gelenius omentum, as above.
[4891] Lit., "admonish the ease of the palate;" a correction of Salmasius, by omitting a from the ms. palati-a admoneant.
[4892] Næniæ.
26. We have now to say a few words about incense and wine, for these, too, are connected and mixed up with your ceremonies, [4893] and are used largely in your religious acts. And, first, with respect to that very incense which you use, we ask this of you particularly, whence or at what time you have been able to become acquainted with it, and to know it, so that you have just reason to think that it is either worthy to be given to the gods, or most agreeable to their desires. For it is almost a novelty; and there is no endless succession of years since it began to be known in these parts, and won its way into the shrines of the gods. For neither in the heroic ages, as it is believed and declared, was it known what incense was, as is proved by the ancient writers, in whose books is found no mention [4894] of it; nor was Etruria, the parent and mother of superstition, acquainted with its fame and renown, as the rites of the chapels prove; nor was it used by any one in offering sacrifice during the four hundred years in which Alba flourished; nor did even Romulus or Numa, who was skilful in devising new ceremonies, know either of its existence or growth, as the sacred grits [4895] show with which it was customary that the usual sacrifices should be performed. Whence, therefore, did its use begin to be adopted? or what desire of novelty assailed the old and ancient custom, so that that which was not needed for so many ages took the first place in the ceremonies? For if without incense the performance of a religious service is imperfect, and if a quantity of it is necessary to make the celestials gentle and propitious to men, the ancients fell into sin, nay rather, their whole life was full of guilt, for they carelessly neglected to offer that which was most fitted to give pleasure to the gods. But if in ancient times neither men nor gods sought for this incense, it is proved that to-day also that is offered uselessly and in vain which antiquity did not believe necessary, but modern times desired without any reason. [4896]
[4893] Lit., "these kinds of ceremonies, too, were coupled and mixed," etc.
[4894] On this Oehler remarks, that the books of Moses show that it was certainly used in the East in the most ancient times. But Arnobius has expressly restricted his statement to the use of incense "in these parts."
[4895] Pium far.
[4896] [See p. 519, note 1, supra.]
27. Finally, that we may always abide by the rule and definition by which it has been shown and determined that whatever is done by man must have its causes, we will hold it fast here also, so as to demand of you what is the cause, what the reason, that incense is put on the altars before the very images of the deities, and that, from its being burned, they are supposed to become friendly and gentle. What do they acquire from this being done, or what reaches their minds, so that we should be right in judging that these things are well expended, and are not consumed uselessly and in vain? For as you should show why you give incense to the gods, so, too, it follows that you should manifest that the gods have some reason for not rejecting it with disdain, nay more, for desiring it so fondly. We honour the gods with this, some one will perhaps say. But we are not inquiring what your feeling is, but the gods'; nor do we ask what is done by you, but how much they value what is done to purchase their favour. But yet, O piety, what or how great is this honour which is caused by the odour of a fire, and produced from the gum of a tree? For, lest you should happen not to know what this incense is, or what is its origin, it is a gum flowing from the bark of trees, just as from the almond-tree, the cherry-tree, solidifying as it exudes in drops. Does this, then, honour and magnify the celestial dignities? or, if their displeasure has been at any time excited, is it melted away before the smoke of incense, and lulled to sleep, their anger being moderated? Why, then, do you not burn indiscriminately the juice of any tree whatever, without making any distinction? For if the deities are honoured by this, and are not displeased that Panchæan gums are burned to them, what does it matter from what the smoke proceeds on your sacred altars, or from what kind of gum the clouds of fumigation arise?