[4973] 39 in Orelli.
[4974] So all edd., rejecting s from ms. contemptu-s.
[4975] Lit., "draughts of air."
[4976] So, by omitting two letters, all edd. except 1st and Ursinus, which retain ms. adult-er-ae--"adulterous."
[4977] Lit., "light."
43. [4978] If Jupiter sought to have his games celebrated, and that afresh, [4979] with greater care; if he honestly sought to restore [4980] the people to health, and that the evil which he had caused should go no further and not be increased, would it not have been better that he should come to the consul himself, to some one of the public priests, the pontifex maximus, or to his own flamen Dialis, and in a vision reveal to him the defect in the games occasioned by the dancer, and the cause of the sadness of the times? What reason had there been that he should choose to announce his wishes and procure the satisfaction desired, a man accustomed to live in the country, unknown from the obscurity of his name, not acquainted with city matters, and perhaps not knowing what a dancer is? And if he indeed knew, as he must have known if he was a diviner, [4981] that this fellow would refuse to obey, would it not have been more natural and befitting a god, to change the man's mind, and constrain him to be willing to obey, than to try more cruel methods, and vent his rage indiscriminately, without any reason, as robbers do? For if the old rustic, not being quick in entering upon anything, delayed in doing what was commanded, being kept back by stronger motives, of what had his unhappy children been guilty, that Jupiter's anger and indignation should be turned upon them, and that they should pay for another's offences by being robbed of their lives? And can any man believe that he is a god who is so unjust, so impious, and who does not observe even the laws of men, among whom it would be held a great crime to punish one for another, and to avenge one man's offences upon others? [4982] But, I am told, he caused the man himself to be seized by the cruel pestilence. Would it not then have been better, nay rather, juster, if it seemed that this should be done, that dread of punishment should be first excited by the father, who [4983] had been the cause of such passion by [4984] his disobedient delay, than to do violence to the children, and to consume and destroy innocent persons to make him sorrowful? [4985] What, pray, was the meaning of this fierceness, this cruelty, which was so great that, his offspring being dead, it afterwards terrified the father by his own danger! But if he had chosen to do this long before, that is, in the first place, not only would not the innocent brothers have been cut off, but the indignant purpose of the deity also would have been known. But certainly, it will be said, when he had done his duty by announcing the vision, the disease immediately left him, and the man was forthwith restored to health. And what is there to admire in this if he removed [4986] the evil which he had himself breathed into the man, and vaunted himself with false pretence? But if you weigh the circumstances thoroughly, there was greater cruelty than kindness in his deliverance, for Jupiter did not preserve him to the joys of life who was miserable and wishing to perish after his children, but to learn his solitariness and the agonies of bereavement.
[4978] 40 in Orelli. The ms., 1st edd., and Ursinus want si.
[4979] Lit., "and restored." [Conf. Pont. Max. here named, with vol. iv. p. 74.]
[4980] The ms. and Ursinus read reddere-t--"if he was to restore;" corrected, as above, by omission of t.
[4981] i.e., if he is a god. Cf. iii. 20; [specially, note 3, p. 469].
[4982] Lit., "the necks of."
[4983] Lit., "the terror of coercion should begin from the father with whom."
[4984] Lit., "even," et.
[4985] Lit., "to his grief."
[4986] The ms. reads rett-ulit, emended ret---"gave back," i.e., got rid of, by 1st ed. and Ursinus; and rep-, as above, by Gelenius and others.
44. [4987] In like manner we might go through the other narratives, and show that in these also, and in expositions of these, something far different from what the gods should be is said and declared about them, as in this very story which I shall next relate, one or two only being added to it, that disgust may not be produced by excess. [4988] After certain gods were brought from among nations dwelling beyond the sea, you say, and after temples were built to them, after their altars were heaped with sacrifices, the plague-stricken people grew strong and recovered, and the pestilence fled before the soundness of health which arose. What gods, say, I beseech? Æsculapius, you say, the god of health, from Epidaurus, and now settled in the island in the middle of the Tiber. If we were disposed to be very scrupulous in dealing with your assertions, we might prove by your own authority that he was by no means divine who had been conceived and born from a woman's womb, who had by yearly stages reached that term of life at which, as is related in your books, a thunderbolt drove him at once from life and light. But we leave this question: let the son of Coronis be, as you wish, one of the immortals, and possessed of the everlasting blessedness [4989] of heaven. From Epidaurus, however, what was brought except an enormous serpent? If we trust the annals, and ascribe to them well-ascertained truth, nothing else, as it has been recorded. What shall we say then? That Æsculapius, whom you extol, an excellent, a venerable god, the giver of health, the averter, preventer, destroyer of sickness, is contained within the form and outline of a serpent, crawling along the earth as worms are wont to do, which spring from mud; he rubs the ground with his chin and breast, dragging himself in sinuous coils; and that he may be able to go forward, he draws on the last part of his body by the efforts of the first.
[4987] 41 in Orelli. [See Appendix, note 1, p. 539.]
[4988] In the ms. and both Roman edd. the section translated on p. 539 is inserted here. Ursinus, however (pp. 210-211), followed by Heraldus (312-313), enclosed it in brackets, and marked it with asterisks. In all other edd. it is either given as an appendix, or wholly rejected.
[4989] Lit., "sublimity."
45. [4990] And as we read that he used food also, by which bodily existence is kept up, he has a large gullet, that he may gulp down the food sought for with gaping mouth; he has a belly to receive it, and [4991] a place where he may digest the flesh which he has eaten and devoured, that blood may be given to his body, and his strength recruited; [4992] he has also a draught, by which the filth is got rid of, freeing his body from a disagreeable burden. Whenever he changes his place, and prepares to pass from one region to another, he does not as a god fly secretly through the stars of heaven, and stand in a moment where something requires his presence, but, just as a dull animal of earth, he seeks a conveyance on which he may be borne; he avoids the waves of the sea; and that he may be safe and sound, he goes on board ship along with men; and that god of the common safety trusts himself to weak planks and to sheets of wood joined together. We do not think that you can prove and show that that serpent was Æsculapius, unless you choose to bring forward this pretext, that you should say that the god changed himself into a snake, in order that he might be able [4993] to deceive men as to himself, who he was, or to see what men were. But if you say this, the inconsistency of your own statements will show how weak and feeble such a defence is. [4994] For if the god shunned being seen by men, he should not have chosen to be seen in the form of a serpent, since in any form whatever he was not to be other than himself, but always himself. But if, on the other hand, he had been intent on allowing himself to be seen--he should not have refused to allow men's eyes to look on him [4995] --why did he not show himself such as he knew that he was in his own divine power? [4996] For this was preferable, and much better, and more befitting his august majesty, than to become a beast, and be changed into the likeness of a terrible animal, and afford room for objections, which cannot be decided, [4997] as to whether he was a true god, or something different and far removed from the exalted nature of deity.
[4990] 42 in Orelli.
[4991] So the edd., reading et for ms. ut (according to Crusius).
[4992] Lit., "restoration be supplied to his strength."
[4993] So Gelenius, merely adding t to the ms. posse. The passage is, however, very doubtful.
[4994] Lit., "how weakly and feeble it is said."
[4995] These words, non debuit oculorum negare conspectui, should, Orelli thinks, be omitted; and certainly their connection with the rest of the sentence is not very apparent.
[4996] Lit., "he was, and such as he had learned that he was, contained in the power of his divinity."
[4997] Lit., "to ambiguous contradictions."
46. [4998] But, says my opponent, if he was not a god, why, after he left the ship, and crawled to the island in the Tiber, did he immediately become invisible, and cease to be seen as before? Can we indeed know whether there was anything in the way under cover of which he hid himself, or any opening in the earth? Do you declare, say yourselves, what that was, or to what race of beings it should be referred, if your service of certain personages is in itself certain. [4999] Since the case is thus, and the discussion deals with your deity, and your religion also, it is your part to teach, and yours to show what that was, rather than to wish to hear our opinions and to await our decisions. For we, indeed, what else can we say than that which took place and was seen, which has been handed down in all the narratives, and has been observed by means of the eyes? This, however, undoubtedly we say was a colubra [5000] of very powerful frame and immense length, or, if the name is despicable, we say it was a snake, [5001] we call it a serpent, [5002] or any other name which usage has afforded to us, or the development of language devised. For if it crawled as a serpent, not supporting itself and walking on feet, [5003] but resting upon its belly and breast; if, being made of fleshly substance, it lay stretched out in [5004] slippery length; if it had a head and tail, a back covered with scales, diversified by spots of various colours; if it had a mouth bristling with fangs, and ready to bite, what else can we say than that it was of earthly origin, although of immense and excessive size, although it exceeded in length of body and greatness of might that which was slain by Regulus by the assault of his army? But if we think otherwise, we subvert [5005] and overthrow the truth. It is yours, then, to explain what that was, or what was its origin, its name, and nature. For how could it have been a god, seeing that it had those things which we have mentioned, which gods should not have if they intend to be gods, and to possess this exalted title? After it crawled to the island in the Tiber, forthwith it was nowhere to be seen, by which it is shown that it was a deity. Can we, then, know whether there was there anything in the way under cover of which it hid itself, [5006] or some opening in the earth, or some caverns and vaults, caused by huge masses being heaped up irregularly, into which it hurried, evading the gaze of the beholders? For what if it leaped across the river? what if it swam across it? what if it hid itself in the dense forests? It is weak reasoning from this, [5007] to suppose that that serpent was a god because with all speed it withdrew itself from the eyes of the beholders, since, by the same reasoning, it can be proved, on the other hand, that it was not a god.
[4998] 43 in Orelli.
[4999] Lit., "if your services of certain persons are certain," i.e., if these facts on which your worship is built are well ascertained.
[5000] What species of snake this was, is not known; the Latin is therefore retained, as the sentence insists on the distinction.