📜 Verbum
Scripture and the Fathers, read aloud in the original

← All books · Latin Fathers › Divine Institutes & On the Deaths of the Persecutors

Lactantius

Divine Institutes & On the Deaths of the Persecutors 1 part 5/6

Latin original · 37 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 1:148–1:184 (191 verses in all)

ch. 2 →
← prev partnext part →
1:148
Eum colorem secutus in Fastis poeta, non ignobilem nympham fuisse narrauit, quae sit Chloris uocitata, eamque Zephyro nuptam, quasi dotis loco id accepisse muneris a marito, ut haberet omnium florum potestatem. Honeste quidem ista dicuntur; sed inhoneste turpiterque creduntur. Nec debent (cum ueritas quaeritur) huiusmodi nos uelamenta decipere. Celebrantur ergo illi ludi cum omni lasciuia, conuenienter memoriae meretricis. Nam praeter uerborum licentiam, quibus obscoenitas omnis effunditur, exuuntur etiam uestibus populo flagitante meretrices, quae tunc mimarum funguntur officio, et in conspectu populi usque ad satietatem impudicorum luminum cum pudendis motibus detinentur.
Following this pretext, the poet in the Fasti narrated that she was no ignoble nymph, who was called Chloris, and that she, married to Zephyr, received this as a gift from her husband, as it were in place of a dowry, that she should have power over all flowers. These things, indeed, are spoken honorably; but they are believed dishonorably and basely. Nor ought such veils to deceive us, when the truth is being sought. Those games, then, are celebrated with every wantonness, fittingly to the memory of a harlot. For besides the license of words, by which all obscenity is poured forth, the harlots, at the demand of the populace, are also stripped of their garments—they who then perform the office of mime-actresses—and in the sight of the people they are held back, with shameful movements, even to the satiety of unchaste eyes.
詩人在《歲時記》中循此藉口敘述說,她並非什麼卑微的寧芙,她名叫克洛里斯,嫁給了西風神澤費洛斯,並從丈夫得了這份禮物,彷彿是嫁妝,叫她得以掌管一切花卉的權柄。這些話固然說得體面;可是人們所信的卻是不體面、卑下的事。當我們尋求真理時,這類遮蓋物也不該欺哄我們。如此,那些競技便以一切放蕩來慶祝,正與一個妓女的記念相稱。因為除了言語的放縱——藉此傾倒出一切淫穢——還有:在民眾的要求下,那些妓女竟被剝去衣裳,她們此時擔任默劇女演員之職,並在百姓眼前以淫褻的動作被留滯著,直到淫邪眼目飽看為止。
1:149
Cloacinae simulacrum in cloaca maxima repertum Tatius consecrauit, et quia cuius esset effigies ignorabat, ex loco illi nomen imposuit. Pauorem, Palloremque Tullus Hostilius figurauit et coluit. Quid de hoc dicam, nisi dignum fuisse, qui semper deos suos (sicut optari solet) praesentes haberet? Ab hoc illud M- Marcelli de consecratione Honoris atque Virtutis, honestate nominum differt, re congruit. Eadem uanitate Mentem quoque inter deos collocauit senatus: quam profecto si habuisset, eiusmodi sacra nunquam suscepisset. Magnum Cicero audaxque consilium suscepisse Graeciam dicit, quod Cupidinum et Amorum simulacra in gymnasiis consecrasset;
The image of Cloacina, found in the Great Sewer, Tatius consecrated; and because he did not know whose likeness it was, he imposed a name on it from the place. Tullus Hostilius fashioned and worshiped Fear (Pavor) and Pallor. What shall I say of this, except that he deserved always to have his gods present with him (as one is wont to wish)? From this differs, in the dignity of the names, that consecration of Honor and Virtue by Marcus Marcellus, but it agrees in substance. With the same vanity the senate also placed Mind (Mens) among the gods; which, surely, if it had possessed, it would never have undertaken rites of this sort. Cicero says that Greece undertook a great and bold plan, in that it consecrated images of the Cupids and Loves in its gymnasiums;
塔提烏斯把在大下水道中發現的克洛阿基娜的塑像奉為神聖;又因他不曉得那是誰的肖像,便照那地方給它起了名。圖盧斯·霍斯提利烏斯塑造並敬拜「驚恐」(Pavor)與「蒼白」(Pallor)。對此我能說什麼呢?只能說:他配得(如人所慣常祈願的那樣)使自己的這些神常與他同在!與此不同的,是馬庫斯·馬凱盧斯把「榮譽」與「德能」奉為神聖之事——在名稱的尊貴上有別,在實質上卻相符。元老院也以同樣的虛妄把「心智」(Mens)列入諸神之中;它倘若真有心智,斷不會承擔這等祭禮。西塞羅說,希臘承擔了一項偉大而大膽的計畫,就是在它的健身場中把丘比特與愛神的塑像奉為神聖;
1:150
adulatus est uidelicet Attico, et irrisit hominem familiarem. Non enim illud magnum, aut omnino consilium dicendum fuit, sed impudicorum hominum perdita et deplorata nequitia, qui liberos suos, quos erudire ad honesta deberent, prostituerunt libidini iuuentutis; a quibus flagitiorum deos, et in illis potissimum locis ubi nuda corpora corruptorum luminibus patent, et in illa coli aetate uoluerunt, quae simplex et improuida prius irretiri, et in laqueos potest cadere, quam cauere. Quid mirum si ab hac gente uniuersa flagitia manarunt? apud quam ipsa uitia religiosa sunt, eaque non modo non uitantur, uerum etiam coluntur. Et ideo huic sententiae, tanquam Graecos prudentia uinceret, adiecit:
he was flattering Atticus, of course, and mocking his familiar friend. For that was not a great, nor by any means to be called a plan, but the lost and deplorable wickedness of unchaste men, who prostituted their own children—whom they ought to have trained toward honorable things—to the lust of the young; by whom they wished gods of disgrace to be worshiped, and that too in those very places where the naked bodies of the corrupters lie open to the eyes, and at that very age which, simple and improvident, can sooner be ensnared and fall into the snares than be on its guard. What wonder if from this nation all manner of disgraces have flowed?—among whom the very vices are religious, and these are not only not avoided, but even worshiped. And therefore to this opinion, as though he were surpassing the Greeks in prudence, he added:
他這當然是在奉承阿提庫斯,並譏諷他這位密友。因為那絕非什麼偉大的、甚至根本不配稱為計畫的事,而是淫穢之徒那敗壞可悲的邪惡;他們把本當教導向善的親生兒女,獻給少年人的情慾去糟蹋;又藉著這些兒女,意欲使羞恥之神受敬拜,而且還偏要在那些誘姦者赤裸身體袒露於眼目之地,並偏要在那種年紀——那單純無防備的年紀,未及提防便先被誘陷、墮入網羅之中——使之被敬奉。倘若一切羞恥之事都從這民族流出,又何足為奇?——在他們中間,連惡習本身都成了宗教的,這些不僅不被避忌,反倒被敬拜。因此,對這見解,他彷彿在審慎上勝過希臘人似的,又補充說:
1:151
«Virtutes enim oportere, non uitia consecrari. Quod si recipis, o Marce Tulli, non uides fore ut irrumpant uitia cum uirtutibus, quia mala bonis adhaerent, et in animis hominum potentiora sunt; quae si uetas consecrari, respondebit tibi illa eadem Graecia, se alios deos colere, ut prosint, alios, ne noceant.» Haec enim semper excusatio est eorum, qui mala sua pro diis habent, ut Romani Rubiginem ac Febrem. Si ergo uitia consecranda non sunt, in quo tibi assentior, ne uirtutes quidem.
«For it is virtues, not vices, that ought to be consecrated. But if you admit this, O Marcus Tullius, do you not see that the result will be that vices burst in along with the virtues, because evils cleave to goods and are the more powerful in the minds of men? And if you forbid these to be consecrated, that same Greece will answer you that it worships some gods that they may profit, and others that they may not harm.» For this is always the excuse of those who hold their own evils as gods, as the Romans hold Mildew (Rubigo) and Fever (Febris). If, then, vices are not to be consecrated—in which I agree with you—neither are the virtues.
「因為當被奉為神聖的乃是諸德能,而非諸惡習。但你若承認這一點,啊馬庫斯·圖利烏斯,你豈不看出,結果必是惡習隨著德能一同闖入嗎?因為惡黏附於善,且在人心中更為有力。你若禁止這些(惡習)被奉為神聖,那同一個希臘便會回答你說:它敬拜某些神是為求其賜福,敬拜另一些神是為免其加害。」因為這向來是那些把自己的禍患當作神的人的藉口,正如羅馬人把「銹病」(Rubigo)與「熱病」(Febris)當作神。那麼,倘若惡習不該被奉為神聖——這一點我同意你——德能也照樣不該。
1:152
Non enim per se sapiunt, aut sentiunt, neque intra parietes, aut aediculas luto factas, sed intra pectus collocandae sunt, et interius comprehendendae, ne sint falsae, si extra hominem fuerint collocatae. Itaque praeclaram illam legem tuam derideo, quam ponis his uerbis: «Ast illa, propter quae datur homini ascensus in coelum, mentem, uirtutem, pietatem, fidem, earumque laudum delubra sunto.» Atqui haec separari ab homine non possunt. Si enim colenda sunt, in homine ipso sint necesse est. Si autem sunt extra hominem, quid opus est ea colere quibus careas? Virtus enim colenda est, non imago uirtutis:
For they neither have wisdom nor perception of themselves, nor are they to be placed within walls or in little shrines made of mud, but within the breast, and to be grasped inwardly—lest they be false, if they have been placed outside the man. And so I laugh at that splendid law of yours, which you lay down in these words: «But as for those things through which ascent into heaven is granted to man—Mind, Virtue, Piety, Faith—let there be shrines of these praises.» And yet these cannot be separated from man. For if they are to be worshiped, they must necessarily be within the man himself. But if they are outside the man, what need is there to worship those things which you lack? For virtue is to be worshiped, not the image of virtue:
因為它們本身既無智慧,也無知覺,不該被安置在牆垣之內,或泥土所造的小神龕之中,乃該被安置在胸懷之內,並要從內裡把握住——免得它們若被安置在人之外,便成了虛假的。因此,我嗤笑你那條冠冕堂皇的律法,你用這些話訂立它:「至於那些藉以使人得以升天的——心智、德能、虔敬、信德——當為這些值得讚美之德立廟。」然而這些是不能與人分開的。因為它們若要受敬拜,就必然得在人自身之內。但它們若在人之外,那麼去敬拜你自己所沒有的,又有何用?因為當被敬拜的是德能本身,而非德能的肖像:
1:153
et colenda est non sacrificio aliquo, aut thure, aut precatione solemni, sed uoluntate sola atque proposito. Nam quid est aliud colere uirtutem, nisi eam comprehendere animo, et tenere? quod unusquisque simul ac coepit uelle, consequitur. Hic solus uirtutis est cultus; nam religio et ueneratio nulla alia, nisi unius Dei tenenda est. Quid igitur opus est, o uir sapientissime, superuacuis extructionibus loca occupare, quae possint humanis usibus cedere? quid sacerdotes constituere uana et insensibilia culturos? quid immolare uictimas? quid tantos sumptus uel fingendis, uel colendis imaginibus impendere? Firmius et incorruptius templum est pectus humanum:
and it is to be worshiped not by any sacrifice, or incense, or solemn prayer, but by the will alone and by purpose. For what else is it to worship virtue, than to grasp it with the mind and to hold it fast?—which each man attains as soon as he begins to will it. This alone is the worship of virtue; for religion and veneration must be held toward none other than the one God. What need is there, then, O most wise man, to occupy with superfluous structures places which could be given over to human uses? Why establish priests to tend things vain and insensible? Why immolate victims? Why expend such great costs in either fashioning or worshiping images? Firmer and more incorruptible is the temple of the human breast:
並且,當敬拜德能,不是藉著任何祭物、或乳香、或莊嚴的禱告,乃是單憑意志與心志。因為敬拜德能,除了用心智把握住並持守住它,又是什麼呢?——這事每個人一旦開始願意,便能企及。唯獨這才是對德能的敬拜;因為宗教與敬奉,除了獨一的神之外,不可向任何別的持守。那麼,啊最有智慧的人,有什麼必要用多餘的建築去佔據那些本可撥作人用的地方呢?何必設立祭司去看守那些虛空無知覺之物?何必獻祭牲?何必在塑造或敬拜肖像上耗費如此鉅大的開支?人的胸懷乃是更堅固、更不朽壞的廟宇:
1:154
hoc potius ornetur, hoc ueris illis nominibus impleatur. Has ergo falsas consecrationes sequitur, quod necesse est. Qui enim uirtutes sic colunt, id est qui umbras atque imagines uirtutum consectantur, ea ipsa, quae uera sunt, tenere non possunt. Itaque nulla in quoquam uirtus est, uitiis ubique dominantibus; nulla fides, omnia pro se unoquoque rapiente; nulla pietas, nec consanguineis nec parentibus parcente auaritia, et cupiditate in uenena et in ferrum ruente; nulla pax, nulla concordia, publice bellis saeuientibus, priuatim uero inimicitiis usque ad sanguinem furentibus; nulla pudicitia, libidinibus effrenatis omnem sexum et omnes corporis partes contaminantibus:
let this rather be adorned, let this be filled with those true names. From these false consecrations, then, follows what must necessarily follow. For those who thus worship the virtues—that is, who pursue the shadows and images of the virtues—cannot hold fast those very things which are true. And so there is no virtue in anyone, with vices everywhere dominating; no faith, since each man seizes everything for himself; no piety, since avarice spares neither kindred nor parents, and lust rushes into poison and into the sword; no peace, no concord, since publicly wars rage, and privately enmities run mad even to bloodshed; no chastity, since unbridled lusts defile every sex and every part of the body:
倒不如把這廟宇加以裝飾,倒不如把這廟宇充滿那些真實的名分。那麼,從這些虛假的奉獻,便隨之而來那必然要隨之而來的。因為那些如此敬拜諸德能的人——即那些追逐諸德能的影子與肖像的人——卻無法持守那些真實的德能本身。因此,在惡習處處轄制之下,無人身上有德能;既然各人為自己攫取一切,便無信實;既然貪婪連親屬與父母都不顧惜,情慾竟奔向毒藥與刀劍,便無虔敬;既然公然處戰爭肆虐、私下裡仇恨狂逞乃至流血,便無平安,無和睦;既然放縱的情慾玷污一切性別、一切肢體,便無貞潔:
1:155
nec tamen desinunt ea colere, quae fugiunt et oderunt. Colunt enim thure ac summis digitis, quae sensibus intimis horrere debuerunt: qui error omnis ex illius principalis ac summi boni ignoratione descendit. Urbe a Gallis occupata, obsessi in Capitolio Romani, cum ex mulierum capillis tormenta fecissent, aedem Veneri Caluae consecrarunt. Non igitur intelligunt, quam uanae sint religiones, uel ex eo ipso, quod eas his ineptiis cauillantur. A Lacedaemoniis fortasse didicerant, deos sibi ex euentis fingere, qui cum Messenios obsiderent, et illi furtim deceptis obsessoribus egressi, ad diripiendam Lacedaemonem cucurrissent, a Spartanis mulieribus fusi fugatique sunt.
and yet they do not cease to worship those very things which they flee and hate. For with incense and the tips of their fingers they worship those things which they ought to have shuddered at in their inmost senses: which whole error descends from ignorance of that principal and supreme Good. When the City was occupied by the Gauls and the Romans were besieged on the Capitol, having made torsion-engines from the hair of their women, they consecrated a temple to Bald Venus (Venus Calva). They do not understand, then, how vain their religions are—even from this very fact, that they mock them with these absurdities. They had learned, perhaps, from the Lacedaemonians to fashion gods for themselves out of events; for when these were besieging the Messenians, and the Messenians, having stealthily deceived the besiegers and gone out, ran to plunder Lacedaemon, they were routed and put to flight by the Spartan women.
然而他們卻仍不停止敬拜那些他們所逃避、所憎恨的事物。因為他們用乳香、用指尖去敬拜那些本當在內心深處戰慄以對的事物:這整個謬誤都是從對那首要至高之善的無知而來。當羅馬城被高盧人佔據、羅馬人被圍困在卡庇托山時,他們用婦女的頭髮製作了扭力弩砲,便把一座廟獻給「禿頭維納斯」(Venus Calva)。如此,他們竟不明白自己的宗教何等虛妄——單從這一點便可看出,就是他們用這些荒謬之事來戲弄這些宗教。他們或許是從拉刻代蒙人學會了拿事件來為自己造神;因為當拉刻代蒙人圍攻墨塞尼亞人時,墨塞尼亞人暗中欺騙了圍攻者而出城,奔去劫掠拉刻代蒙,卻被斯巴達的婦女擊潰逐退了。
1:156
Cognitis autem dolis hostium, Lacedaemonii sequebantur. His armatae mulieres obuiam longius exierunt; quae cum uiros suos cernerent parare se ad pugnam, quod putarent Messenios esse, corpora sua nudauerunt. At illi uxoribus cognitis, et aspectu in libidinem concitati, sicuti erant armati, permisti sunt utique promiscue; nec enim uacabat discernere. Sic iuuenes ab iisdem antea missi, misti cum uirginibus, ex quibus sunt Partheniae nati, propter huius facti memoriam aedem Veneri armatae, simulacrumque posuerunt: quod tametsi ex causa turpi uenit, tamen honestius uidetur armatam Venerem consecrasse, quam caluam.
But when the enemy's wiles were discovered, the Lacedaemonians pursued. The women, armed, went out a good distance to meet them; and when they saw their own husbands preparing themselves for battle—because they supposed them to be Messenians—they bared their bodies. But the men, recognizing their wives, and excited to lust by the sight, armed as they were, mingled with them indiscriminately at once; for there was no leisure to discriminate. Thus the young men, sent away by these same women beforehand, mingled with the maidens, from whom the Partheniae were born; and because of the memory of this deed they set up a temple and an image to Armed Venus (Venus Armata): which, although it came from a base cause, yet seems more honorable to have consecrated an Armed Venus than a Bald one.
但當敵人的詭計被識破,拉刻代蒙人便追了上去。那些武裝的婦女走出老遠去迎他們;當她們看見自己的丈夫正預備迎戰——因為她們以為那是墨塞尼亞人——便袒露了自己的身體。但那些男子認出了自己的妻子,又因目睹之下被激動起情慾,便全副武裝地立刻與她們不分彼此地交合了;因為已無暇分辨。如此,那些先前被這同一批婦女遣走的青年,便與那些少女交合,帕耳忒尼亞人即由此而生;為記念此事,他們便為「武裝的維納斯」(Venus Armata)立了一座廟並一尊塑像:這事雖出於卑下的緣由,然而奉獻一位武裝的維納斯,似乎比奉獻一位禿頭的維納斯還體面些。
1:157
Eodem tempore Ioui quoque Pistori ara posita est, quod eos in quiete monuisset, ut ex omni frumento, quod habebant, panem facerent, et in hostium castra iactarent; eoque facto soluta esset obsidio, desperantibus Gallis inopia subigi posse Romanos. Quae ista religionum derisio est? Si earum defensor essem, quid tam grauiter queri possem, quam deorum nomen in tantum uenisse contemptum, ut turpissimis nominibus ludibrio habeatur? Quis non rideat Fornacem deam, uel potius doctos uiros celebrandis Fornacalibus operari? Quis, cum audiat deam Mutam, tenere risum queat? Hanc esse dicunt, ex qua sint nati Lares, et ipsam Laram nominant, uel Larundam.
At the same time an altar was also set up to Jupiter Pistor (the Baker), because he had warned them in their sleep to make bread out of all the grain they had and to throw it into the enemy camp; and once this was done, the siege was lifted, since the Gauls despaired of being able to subdue the Romans by famine. What a mockery of religion is this! If I were a defender of these cults, what could I complain of more bitterly than that the name of the gods has fallen into such contempt that it is held up to ridicule under the most disgraceful titles? Who would not laugh at the goddess Fornax (Oven), or rather at learned men busying themselves with celebrating the Fornacalia? Who, on hearing of the goddess Muta (the Mute), could keep from laughing? They say that she is the one from whom the Lares were born, and they call her Lara, or Larunda.
在同一時期,人們也為「烤餅者朱庇特」(Iupiter Pistor)立了一座祭壇,因為他曾在睡夢中提醒他們,把所有現有的穀物都做成餅,投擲到敵人的營中;這樣做之後,圍城便被解除了,因為高盧人絕望了,認為無法用饑荒制服羅馬人。這對宗教是何等的嘲弄啊!倘若我是這些信仰的辯護者,我還能有什麼比這更沉痛的怨言──就是諸神之名竟落到如此被輕蔑的地步,以致被冠以最可恥的名號而遭人戲弄?誰不會嘲笑「火爐女神」(Fornax)呢?或者更該嘲笑那些有學問的人煞費苦心地慶祝「火爐節」(Fornacalia)?誰聽見「啞女神」(Muta)這名號時,能忍住不笑呢?他們說,家神(Lares)就是從她而生的,並稱她為拉拉(Lara)或拉倫達(Larunda)。
1:158
Quid praestare colenti potest, quae loqui non potest? Colitur et Caca, quae Herculi fecit indicium de furto boum, diuinitatem consecuta, quia prodidit fratrem; et Cunina, quae infantes in cunis tuetur, ac fascinum submouet; et Stercutus, qui stercorandi agri rationem primus induxit; et Tutinus, in cuius sinu pudendo nubentes praesident, ut illarum pudicitiam prior deus delibasse uideatur: et mille alia portenta, ut iam uaniores qui haec colenda susceperint, quam Aegyptios esse dicamus, qui monstruosa et ridicula quaedam simulacra uenerantur. Et haec tamen habent aliquam imaginem. Quid? qui lapidem colunt informem atque rudem, cui nomen est Terminus?
What can she who cannot speak bestow on her worshipper? They also worship Caca, who gave Hercules information about the theft of his oxen and so attained divinity because she betrayed her brother; and Cunina, who watches over infants in their cradles and wards off the evil eye; and Stercutus, who first introduced the practice of manuring fields; and Tutinus, in whose obscene lap brides are made to sit, so that the god may seem to have been the first to take the first taste of their chastity; and a thousand other monstrosities, so that we may now call those who undertook to worship such things even more foolish than the Egyptians, who venerate certain monstrous and ridiculous images. Yet these at least have some semblance of a figure. But what of those who worship a shapeless and rough stone, whose name is Terminus?
那不能說話的女神,又能賜給敬拜她的人什麼呢?他們還敬拜卡卡(Caca),她曾向赫拉克勒斯告發了盜牛之事,因為出賣了自己的兄弟而獲得神性;又敬拜庫尼娜(Cunina),她看守搖籃中的嬰孩、驅除邪眼;還有斯特庫圖斯(Stercutus),他最先發明了施肥田地的方法;以及圖提努斯(Tutinus),新娘要坐在他那猥褻的膝上,彷彿這位神先嘗了她們貞潔的頭一口;此外還有千百種荒誕怪物,以致我們如今可以說,那些著手敬拜這等事物的人,比埃及人還要愚妄──埃及人至少敬拜的是某些怪異可笑的偶像。然而這些偶像至少還有個形象。那又怎麼說呢?那些敬拜一塊無形粗糙、名叫「界石神」(Terminus)的石頭的人呢?
1:159
Hic est, quem pro Ioue Saturnus dicitur deuorasse; nec immerito illi honos tribuitur. Nam cum Tarquinius Capitolium facere uellet, atque in eo loco multorum deorum sacella essent, consuluit eos per auguria, utrum Ioui cederent; et cedentibus caeteris, solus Terminus mansit. Unde illum poeta "Capitoli immobile saxum" uocat. Iam ex hoc ipso quam magnus Iupiter inuenitur, cui non cessit lapis, ea fortasse fiducia, quod illum de paternis faucibus liberauerat. Facto itaque Capitolio, supra ipsum Terminum foramen est in tecto relictum: ut quia non cesserat, libero coelo frueretur; quo ne ipsi quidem fruebantur, qui lapidem frui putauerunt.
This is the one whom Saturn is said to have devoured in place of Jupiter; and not without reason is honour paid to him. For when Tarquin wished to build the Capitol, and on that site there were shrines of many gods, he consulted them through auguries as to whether they would yield to Jupiter; and while all the others yielded, Terminus alone remained. Hence the poet calls him 'the immovable rock of the Capitol.' Now from this very fact we may see how great Jupiter is found to be, to whom a stone did not yield—perhaps out of the confidence that Saturn had delivered him from his father's jaws. And so, when the Capitol was built, an opening was left in the roof above Terminus himself, so that, since he had not yielded, he might enjoy the open sky—which not even those enjoyed who supposed that the stone enjoyed it.
這就是據說撒登(Saturn)代替朱庇特吞下的那一位;對他的尊崇也並非毫無緣由。原來當塔克文(Tarquinius)想要建造朱庇特神殿(Capitolium)時,那地方原有許多神明的小祠,他便藉占卜詢問這些神是否願意讓位給朱庇特;其餘諸神都讓了位,唯獨界石神留了下來。因此詩人稱他為「朱庇特神殿那不可移動的巨石」。從這件事本身就可看出,朱庇特被當作何等偉大──連一塊石頭都不肯向他讓位,這石頭或許是仗著它曾把他從父親的咽喉裡救出來的自信。於是當神殿建成後,便在界石神正上方的屋頂留了一個洞,好讓這既不曾讓位的石頭得以享受露天;然而連那些以為石頭能享受露天的人,自己也享受不到這露天。
1:160
Et huic ergo publice supplicacatur, quasi custodi finium deo: qui non tantum lapis, sed etiam stipes interdum est. Quid de iis dicam, qui colunt talia? nisi ipsos potissimum lapides ac stipites esse? [1,21] CAPUT XXI. Diximus de diis ipsis, qui coluntur: nunc de sacris ac mysteriis eorum pauca dicenda sunt. Apud Cyprios humanam hostiam Ioui Teucrus immolauit; idque sacrificium posteris tradidit, quod est nuper Hadriano imperante sublatum. Erat lex apud Tauros, inhumanam et feram gentem, uti Dianae hospites immolarentur; et id sacrificium multis temporibus celebratum est. Galli Hesum atque Teutatem humano cruore placabant.
And so to this one too public supplications are offered, as to a god who guards boundaries—a god who is not only a stone but sometimes even a wooden stake. What shall I say of those who worship such things, except that they themselves are most of all stones and stakes? CHAPTER 21. We have spoken of the gods themselves who are worshipped; now a few things must be said about their sacred rites and mysteries. Among the Cyprians, Teucer sacrificed a human victim to Jupiter, and he handed down that sacrifice to posterity—a custom that was only recently abolished in the reign of Hadrian. Among the Tauri, an inhuman and savage people, there was a law that strangers should be sacrificed to Diana; and that sacrifice was carried out for many ages. The Gauls used to appease Hesus and Teutates with human blood.
因此人們也公開向這位界石神祈求祭拜,彷彿向一位看守疆界的神──然而這神不僅是一塊石頭,有時甚至只是一根木樁。對於敬拜這等事物的人,我還能說什麼呢?豈不就是說他們本身最像石頭與木樁麼?第二十一章。我們已論過那些受人敬拜的諸神本身;如今要略談他們的祭儀與祕儀。在塞浦路斯人中間,透克爾(Teucer)曾向朱庇特獻上人牲,並把這祭祀傳給了後代;這習俗直到不久前哈德良(Hadrianus)在位時才被廢除。在陶里人(Tauri)這野蠻殘暴的民族中,曾有一條律法,要把外鄉人獻給狄安娜(Diana);這祭祀延續了許多世代。高盧人則用人血來安撫赫蘇斯(Hesus)和透塔特斯(Teutates)。
1:161
Nec Latini quidem huius immanitatis expertes fuerunt, siquidem Latialis Iupiter etiamnunc sanguine colitur humano. Quid a diis boni precantur, qui sic sacrificant? Aut quid tales dii hominibus praestare possunt, quorum poenis propitiantur? Sed de Barbaris non est adeo mirandum, quorum religio cum moribus congruit. Nostri uero, qui semper mansuetudinis et humanitatis gloriam sibi uindicarunt, nonne sacrilegis his sacris immaniores reperiuntur? Hi enim potius scelerati sunt habendi, qui, cum sint liberalium disciplinarum studiis expoliti, ab humanitate desciscunt, quam qui rudes et imperiti ad mala facinora bonorum ignoratione labuntur.
Nor indeed were the Latins free of this barbarity, since the Latian Jupiter is even now worshipped with human blood. What good do those pray for from the gods who sacrifice in such a way? Or what can such gods bestow on men, when they are propitiated by punishments? But as for barbarians, it is not so much to be wondered at, since their religion agrees with their character. But our own people, who have always claimed for themselves the glory of gentleness and humanity—are they not found to be more savage than these sacrilegious rites? For these men are rather to be reckoned wicked who, though they are polished by the study of the liberal disciplines, fall away from humanity, than those who, being rough and untaught, slip into evil deeds through ignorance of what is good.
拉丁人也並非沒有沾染這種殘暴,因為「拉提烏姆的朱庇特」(Latialis Iupiter)至今仍以人血受人敬拜。那些如此獻祭的人,向諸神祈求的是什麼好處呢?又或這等神明,既要藉刑罰才得平息,能賜給人什麼好處呢?至於蠻族,這倒不足為奇,因為他們的宗教與其品性相合。但我們自己的人,向來自詡擁有溫和與仁愛之榮耀,豈不顯得比這些褻瀆的祭儀更野蠻麼?因為這等人更該被算為邪惡:他們雖受過自由學科的薰陶,卻背離了仁道;倒不如那些粗野無知、因不識善而誤陷惡行的人。
1:162
Apparet tamen antiquum esse hunc immolandorum hominum ritum: siquidem Saturnus in Latio eodem genere sacrificii cultus est, non quidem ut homo ad aram immolaretur, sed uti in Tiberim de ponte Miluio mitteretur. Quod ex responso quodam factitatum Varro auctor est; cuius responsi ultimus uersus est talis: "g-Kai g-kephalos g-Aideh g-kai g-toh g-patri g-pempete g-phohta." Quod quia uidetur ambiguum et fax illi, et homo iaci solet. Verum id genus sacrificii ab Hercule, cum ex Hispania rediret, dicitur esse sublatum, ritu tamen permanente, ut pro ueris hominibus imagines iacerentur ex scirpo; ut Ouidius in Fastis docet:
Yet it is plain that this rite of sacrificing human beings is ancient, since Saturn was worshipped in Latium with the same kind of sacrifice—not indeed that a man was slaughtered at the altar, but that he was cast into the Tiber from the Milvian bridge. Varro is the authority that this used to be done in accordance with a certain oracle, the last verse of which runs thus: 'And send heads to Hades, and a man to the father.' Because this seems ambiguous, both a torch and a man used to be thrown to him. But that kind of sacrifice is said to have been abolished by Hercules when he was returning from Spain, the rite nevertheless remaining, so that instead of real men effigies of rushes were thrown; as Ovid teaches in the Fasti:
然而顯然這種獻人為牲的儀式由來已久,因為撒登在拉提烏姆也曾以同樣的祭祀方式受敬拜──雖不是在祭壇上宰殺活人,乃是從米爾維烏斯橋(pons Miluius)把人拋入台伯河。瓦羅(Varro)是這事的見證者,說這曾照某神諭施行,那神諭的末句如此:「把頭顱送往冥府,把人送給那父神。」因為這句話顯得含糊,人們便既向他拋火把,也拋人。但據說這種祭祀後來被赫拉克勒斯從西班牙歸來時廢除了,儀式雖仍保留,卻改用蘆葦做成的人像代替真人投擲;正如奧維德(Ovidius)在《歲時記》(Fasti)中所教導的:
1:163
"Donec in haec uenit Tirynthius arua, quotannis Tristia Leucadio sacra peracta modo. Illum stramineos in aquam misisse Quirites: Herculis exemplo corpora falsa iace." Haec sacra Vestales uirgines faciunt, ut ait idem : "Tum quoque priscorum uirgo simulacra uirorum Mittere roboreo scirpea ponte solet". Nam de infantibus, qui eidem Saturno immolabantur propter odium Iouis quid dicam, non inuenio; tam barbaros, tam immanes fuisse homines, ut parricidium suum, id est tetrum atque execrabile humano generi facinus, sacrificium uocarent:
'Until the Tirynthian (Hercules) came to these fields, every year the gloomy rites were performed after the Leucadian manner. He bade the Quirites cast straw figures into the water: after the example of Hercules, throw counterfeit bodies.' These rites the Vestal virgins perform, as the same poet says: 'Then too the maiden is wont to throw from the oaken bridge the rush-made effigies of the men of old.' But of the infants who were sacrificed to that same Saturn because of his hatred of Jupiter, what to say I cannot find—that men should have been so barbarous, so savage, as to call their parricide, that is, a deed foul and accursed to the human race, a sacrifice:
「直到提林斯人(即赫拉克勒斯)來到這片田地,那陰慘的祭儀每年都按琉卡狄亞(Leucadium)的方式舉行。他吩咐羅馬人把麥稈人像投入水中:依著赫拉克勒斯的榜樣,去拋擲假造的軀體。」這些祭儀由維斯塔貞女(Vestales uirgines)施行,正如同一位詩人所說:「那時,少女也慣於從橡木橋上,投下用蘆葦做成的古人之像。」至於那些因撒登恨惡朱庇特而被獻給他的嬰孩,我實在不知該說什麼好──人竟能如此野蠻殘暴,把弒親之舉,就是這對人類而言污穢可憎的罪行,稱作獻祭:
1:164
cum teneras atque innocentes animas, quae maxime est aetas parentibus dulcior, sine ullo respectu pietatis extinguerent, immanitatemque omnium bestiarum, quae tamen foetus suos amant, feritate superarent! O dementiam insanabilem! Quid illis isti dii amplius facere possent, si essent iratissimi, quam faciunt propitii? cum suos cultores parricidiis inquinant, orbitatibus mactant, humanis sensibus spoliant? Quid potest esse his hominibus sancti? Aut quid in profanis locis facient, qui inter aras deorum summa scelera committunt? Pescennius Festus in libris Historiarum per Satyram refert, Carthaginenses Saturno humanas hostias solitos immolare:
when, without any regard for natural affection, they extinguished tender and innocent souls—an age that is most sweet to parents—and in their cruelty surpassed the savagery of all the beasts, which nevertheless love their own offspring! O incurable madness! What more could those gods do to them, if they were most enraged, than they do when propitious? when they defile their own worshippers with parricides, butcher them by bereavements, and strip them of human feeling? What can be sacred to these men? Or what will they do in unhallowed places, who commit the greatest crimes among the altars of the gods? Pescennius Festus relates in his books of Histories, in satirical form, that the Carthaginians were accustomed to sacrifice human victims to Saturn:
他們竟毫不顧念骨肉之情,把幼嫩無辜的生命──那對父母最為甜蜜的年紀──就此扼殺,其殘忍超過了一切野獸的兇暴,而連野獸尚且疼愛自己的幼崽呢!何等無可救藥的瘋狂啊!這等神明縱然極其震怒,又能對他們作出什麼,比它們「施恩」時所作的更甚呢?──就是叫敬拜它們的人沾染弒親之罪,藉喪子之痛屠戮他們,剝奪他們的人性?對這等人還有什麼是神聖的呢?又有什麼是他們在不潔之地不敢作的呢?這些人連在諸神的祭壇之間都犯下滔天大罪。佩斯肯尼烏斯·費斯圖斯(Pescennius Festus)在他的《歷史》各卷中以諷刺體記述,迦太基人慣於向撒登獻人為牲:
1:165
et cum uicti essent ab Agathocle, rege Siculorum, iratum sibi Deum putauisse; itaque ut diligentius piaculum soluerent, ducentos nobilium filios immolasse. "Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum, Quae peperit saepe scelerosa, atque impia facta". Cui ergo dementissimi homines illo sacrificio consulebant? cum tantam partem ciuitatis occiderent, quantam fortasse ne Agathocles quidem uictor occiderat. Ab isto genere sacrorum non minoris insaniae iudicanda sunt publica illa sacra: quorum alia sunt matris deum, in quibus homines suis ipsi uirilibus litant; amputato enim sexu, nec uiros se, nec foeminas faciunt:
and that, when they had been defeated by Agathocles, king of the Sicilians, they supposed the god was angry with them; and so, in order to atone more diligently, they sacrificed two hundred sons of the nobility. 'So much evil could religion prompt!' which has often given birth to wicked and impious deeds. To whom, then, did these utterly mad men make supplication by that sacrifice? when they slew so great a part of the citizenry as perhaps not even Agathocles the victor had slain. Of no less insanity than that kind of rites are those public ceremonies to be judged: of which some belong to the Mother of the gods, in which men make offering of their own manhood; for, having cut off their sex, they make themselves neither men nor women:
又說,當他們被西西里王阿加托克勒斯(Agathocles)打敗時,便以為那神向他們發了怒;於是為要更殷勤地贖罪,竟把二百名貴族子弟獻為祭。「宗教竟能慫恿出這麼多的邪惡!」它屢屢孳生出窮兇極惡、不敬虔的行徑。那麼,這些極度瘋狂的人藉那獻祭究竟在向誰祈求呢?他們所屠殺的市民之眾,恐怕連得勝者阿加托克勒斯也未曾殺得那麼多。與這類祭儀同等瘋狂的,還有那些公眾祭典:其中有些屬於「眾神之母」(Mater deum),人們在其中竟以自己的男根為祭物;因為他們割去了性別,使自己既不成男也不成女:
1:166
alia Virtutis, quam eamdem Bellonam uocant, in quibus ipsi sacerdotes non alieno, sed suo cruore sacrificant. Sectis namque humeris, et utraque manu districtos gladios exerentes, currunt, efferuntur, insaniunt. Optime igitur Quintilianus in Fanatico; «Istud, inquit, si Deus cogit, iratus est.» Etiamne haec sacra sunt? Nonne satius est pecudum more uiuere, quam deos tam impios, tam profanos, tam sanguinarios colere? Sed unde isti errores et haec tanta flagitia manauerint, suo loco disseremus: interim uideamus et caetera, quae carent scelere, ne studio insectandi uideamur eligere peiora. Isidis Aegyptia sacra sunt, quatenus filium paruulum uel perdiderit, uel inuenerit.
others belong to Virtus, whom they also call Bellona, in which the priests themselves sacrifice not with another's blood but with their own. For with their shoulders gashed, and brandishing drawn swords in either hand, they run about, are carried away in frenzy, and rave. Most aptly, then, did Quintilian say in his 'Fanatic': 'If a god compels this, he is angry.' Are even these things sacred? Is it not better to live after the manner of beasts than to worship gods so impious, so profane, so bloodthirsty? But whence these errors and such great enormities have flowed, we shall discuss in its proper place: meanwhile let us look at the rest also, those that are free of crime, lest in our zeal to attack we should seem to be picking out the worst. The rites of Isis are Egyptian, in so far as she either lost or found her little son.
另有些祭儀屬於「勇德女神」(Virtus),他們又稱她為貝羅娜(Bellona);在這些祭儀中,祭司不是用別人的血,乃是用自己的血獻祭。原來他們割破自己的肩膀,雙手各揮舞著出鞘的刀劍,狂奔、癲狂、發瘋。所以昆體良(Quintilianus)在其《狂信者》一文中說得最妙:「倘若是神逼人這樣做,那神是發了怒。」這等事也算神聖麼?與其敬拜這般不敬虔、褻瀆、嗜血的神明,豈不如照野獸的樣式活著還更好?至於這些謬誤與如此重大的醜行從何而來,我們將在適當的地方加以討論:此刻且讓我們也看看其餘那些不含罪行的祭儀,免得我們似乎出於攻訐之心而專挑最壞的。伊西斯(Isis)的祭儀是埃及的,無非是因她或失去、或尋回了她那年幼的兒子。
1:167
Nam primo sacerdotes eius, deglabrato corpore, pectora sua tundunt; lamentantur, sicut ipsa, cum perdidit, fecerat. Deinde puer producitur quasi inuentus, et in laetitiam luctus ille mutatur: ideo Lucanus: "- - - Nunquamque satis quaesitus Osiris". Semper enim perdunt, et semper inueniunt. Refertur ergo in sacris imago rei, quae uere gesta est, quae profecto, si quid sapimus, declarat mortalem mulierem fuisse, ac pene orbam, nisi unicum reperisset. Quod illum ipsum poetam minime fugit, apud quem Pompeius adolescens, morte patris audita, haec loquitur: "Euoluam busto iam numen gentibus Isim; Et tectum ligno spargam per uulgus Osirim".
For first her priests, their bodies shaven, beat their breasts and lament, just as she herself had done when she lost him. Then a boy is brought forth as though found, and that mourning is turned into joy: hence Lucan says, 'and Osiris never sufficiently sought.' For they are always losing and always finding him. There is presented therefore in the rites an image of a thing that really happened, which, if we have any sense, plainly declares that she was a mortal woman, and all but bereaved, had she not found her only child. This did not escape that very poet, in whose work Pompey the younger, on hearing of his father's death, speaks thus: 'I will now drag forth from the tomb Isis as a deity for the nations, and scatter Osiris, sheltered in his wooden coffin, among the common people.'
原來她的祭司起初剃光全身,捶打自己的胸膛、哀哭,正如她自己失去兒子時所行的。隨後便抬出一個男孩,彷彿是找回的,那哀悼便轉為歡欣:因此盧坎(Lucanus)說:「永遠尋不夠的奧西里斯(Osiris)。」因為他們總是失去他,又總是尋回他。所以這祭儀中所呈現的,乃是一件真實發生過之事的縮影;倘若我們稍有見識,這分明說明她原是個必死的婦人,若不是尋回了她那獨生的孩子,幾乎就要喪子了。這一點連那位詩人也毫未忽略,在他筆下,少年龐培(Pompeius)聽聞父親的死訊時,如此說道:「我如今要把伊西斯從墳墓裡拖出來、立作萬民的神祇,並把那藏在木棺中的奧西里斯撒散在群眾之間。」
1:168
Hic est Osiris, quem Serapim uel Serapidem uulgus appellat. Solent enim mortuis consecratis nomina immutari; credo, ne quis putet eos homines fuisse. Nam et Romulus post mortem Quirinus factus est; et Leda, Nemesis; et Circe, Marica; et Ino, postquam se praecipitauit, Leucothea, materque Matuta; et Melicertes filius eius, Palaemon, atque Portumnus. Sacra uero Cereris Eleusinae non sunt his dissimilia. Nam sicut ibi Osiris puer planctu matris inquiritur; ita hic ad incestum patrui matrimonium rapta Proserpina: quam quia facibus ex Aetnae uertice accensis quaesisse in Sicilia Ceres dicitur, idcirco sacra eius ardentium taedarum iactatione celebrantur.
This is Osiris, whom the common folk call Serapis or Serapides. For it is customary to change the names of the dead who have been deified—I suppose, lest anyone should think they had been men. For Romulus too after his death was made Quirinus; and Leda became Nemesis; and Circe, Marica; and Ino, after she hurled herself down, became Leucothea and Mother Matuta; and Melicertes her son became Palaemon and Portumnus. But the rites of Ceres of Eleusis are not unlike these. For just as there the boy Osiris is sought with his mother's lamentation, so here Proserpina, carried off to an incestuous marriage with her uncle: and because Ceres is said to have sought her in Sicily with torches kindled from the peak of Aetna, therefore her rites are celebrated with the brandishing of burning torches.
這就是奧西里斯,平民稱他為塞拉皮斯(Serapis)或塞拉皮德斯(Serapides)。原來慣例是要更改那些被神化的死者之名──我想,是免得有人以為他們原是凡人。因為羅慕路斯(Romulus)死後也成了奎里努斯(Quirinus);勒達(Leda)成了涅墨西斯(Nemesis);喀耳刻(Circe)成了瑪里卡(Marica);伊諾(Ino)投身而下後成了琉科忒亞(Leucothea)並馬圖塔之母(mater Matuta);她兒子墨利刻爾忒斯(Melicertes)則成了帕萊蒙(Palaemon)和波爾圖努斯(Portumnus)。但厄琉西斯的刻瑞斯(Ceres Eleusina)的祭儀與這些也不相異。因為正如那裡藉母親的哀哭尋找男孩奧西里斯,這裡則尋找被擄去與叔父亂倫成婚的普羅塞庇娜(Proserpina):因為據說刻瑞斯曾在西西里用從埃特納火山頂點燃的火炬尋找她,所以她的祭儀便藉揮舞燃燒的火炬來慶祝。
1:169
Apud Lampsacum Priapo litabilis uictima est asellus: cuius sacrificii ratio in Fastis haec redditur: Cum dii omnes ad festum matris magnae conuenissent, epulisque satiati noctem lusibus ducerent, quieuisse humi Vestam, somnumque cepisse: ibi Priapum somno eius ac pudicitiae insidiatum; sed illam intempestiuo clamore aselli, quo Silenus uehebatur excitatam, libidinem uero insidiatoris esse deceptam; hac de causa Lampsacenos asellum Priapo, quasi in ultionem, mactare consueuisse; apud Romanos uero eumdem Vestalibus sacris in honorem pudicitiae conseruatae panibus coronari. Quid turpius? quid flagitiosius? quam si Vesta beneficio asini uirgo est? At poeta fabulam finxit.
Among the people of Lampsacus the victim acceptable to Priapus is a little ass: the reason for which sacrifice is given thus in the Fasti. When all the gods had assembled at the festival of the Great Mother, and, sated with feasting, were passing the night in games, Vesta rested on the ground and fell asleep: there Priapus lay in wait against her sleep and her chastity; but she, roused by the untimely braying of the ass on which Silenus rode, the lust of the would-be assailant was foiled; for this reason the people of Lampsacus were wont to slaughter an ass to Priapus, as it were by way of vengeance; but among the Romans the same animal is crowned with loaves at the rites of Vesta, in honour of the chastity that was preserved. What is more shameful? what more disgraceful? than that Vesta is a virgin by the good office of an ass? But the poet invented the fable.
在蘭普薩庫斯人(Lampsacus)中間,獻給普里阿普斯(Priapus)所喜悅的祭牲是一頭小驢:這祭祀的緣由在《歲時記》中如此記述。當眾神都聚集到「大母神」(mater magna)的節慶上,飽享筵席之後在嬉戲中消磨夜晚時,維斯塔(Vesta)便躺臥在地上睡著了;於是普里阿普斯暗中窺伺她的睡眠與貞潔;但她被西勒努斯(Silenus)所騎那頭驢不合時宜的嘶鳴驚醒,那行兇者的淫慾便落了空;因此之故,蘭普薩庫斯人便慣於宰殺一頭驢獻給普里阿普斯,彷彿是為了報復;而在羅馬人中間,這同一種牲畜卻在維斯塔的祭儀中被人用麵餅加冠,以紀念那得以保全的貞潔。還有什麼比這更可恥?什麼比這更醜惡?竟說維斯塔是靠一頭驢的恩惠才成了童貞女?但這不過是詩人所編造的寓言罷了。
1:170
Num ergo illud est uerius, quod referunt ii, qui Fainoumena conscripserunt, cum de duabus Cancri stellis loquuntur, quas Graeci g-onous uocant? asellos fuisse, qui Liberum patrem transuexerint, cum amnem transire non posset; quorum alteri hoc praemium dederit, ut humana uoce loqueretur: itaque inter eum, Priapumque ortum esse certamen de obscoeni magnitudine; Priapum uictum et iratum, interemisse uictorem. Hoc uero multo magis ineptum est; sed poetis licet quidquid uelint: non excutio tam deforme mysterium, nec Priapum denudo, ne quid appareat risu dignum. Finxerunt haec sane poetae; sed necesse est alicuius maioris turpitudinis tegendae gratia ficta sint. Quae sit ergo quaeramus.
Is then that other account truer, which those report who wrote the 'Phaenomena,' when they speak of the two stars of Cancer, which the Greeks call 'the asses'? that they were the little asses which carried Father Liber across when he could not cross a river; to one of which he gave this reward, that it should speak with a human voice: and so a contest arose between it and Priapus over the size of the obscene member; and Priapus, defeated and angry, slew the victor. But this is far more absurd; yet poets are allowed whatever they please: I do not shake out so unseemly a mystery, nor do I lay Priapus bare, lest anything ridiculous should appear. These things, to be sure, the poets invented; but it must be that they were feigned to cover up some greater shamefulness. Let us therefore inquire what that may be.
那麼,那些撰寫《天象》(Phaenomena)的人所報導的另一說法是否更真實呢?他們論到巨蟹座的兩顆星──希臘人稱之為「驢」──說那是兩頭小驢,曾在酒神巴克斯(Liber pater)無法渡河時把他馱了過去;他便賜給其中一頭這樣的獎賞,使牠能說人話:於是牠與普里阿普斯之間就那猥褻部位的大小起了爭競;普里阿普斯落敗、惱怒,便殺了那得勝者。但這就更加荒謬了;不過詩人盡可隨意虛構:我不去抖開這如此不雅的祕儀,也不把普里阿普斯赤裸示眾,免得有什麼可笑之物顯露出來。這些事固然是詩人所編造,但必定是為了遮蓋某種更大的醜事而虛構出來的。那麼讓我們來探究那究竟是什麼。
1:171
At ea profecto manifesta est. Nam sicut Lunae taurus mactatur, quia similiter habet cornua, et "Placat equo Persis radiis Hyperiona cinctum, Ne detur celeri uictima tarda Deo." Ita in hoc quia magnitudo membri uirilis enormis est, non potuit ei monstro aptior uictima reperiri, quam quae ipsum, cui mactatur, posset imitari. Apud Lindum, quod est oppidum Rhodi, Herculis sacra sunt, quorum a caeteris longe diuersus est ritus: siquidem non g-euphehmia (ut Graeci appellant), sed maledictis, et execratione celebrantur; eaque pro uiolatis habent, si quando inter solemnes ritus uel imprudenti alicui exciderit bonum uerbum. Cuius rei haec ratio redditur, si tamen ulla esse in rebus uanissimis potest:
But that is surely plain. For just as a bull is slaughtered to the Moon, because it likewise has horns, and 'the Persian appeases Hyperion (the Sun), girt with rays, with a horse, lest a slow victim be offered to the swift god'—so in this case, because the size of the male member is enormous, no victim more fitting could be found for that monstrous figure than one that could imitate the very thing to which it is sacrificed. At Lindus, which is a town of Rhodes, there are rites of Hercules whose ritual is far different from all others: for they are celebrated not with 'fair speech' (as the Greeks call it), but with curses and execration; and they reckon it a desecration if at any time, in the midst of the solemn rites, a good word should escape even some careless person. The reason given for this is as follows, if any reason can exist in matters so utterly empty:
但這緣由其實顯而易見。因為正如人向月神宰殺公牛,因牠同樣長有角,又「波斯人用馬安撫那被光芒環繞的許珀里翁(即太陽神),免得把行動遲緩的祭牲獻給疾行的神」──照樣,在此事上,因男根之大異乎尋常,便再也找不到比這更合適於那怪物的祭牲,唯有能模仿那受獻對象本身的才合宜。在羅得島的城邑林杜斯(Lindus),有敬拜赫拉克勒斯的祭儀,其儀式與其餘一切大不相同:因為它們不是以「吉言」(希臘人如此稱呼)來舉行,乃是以咒罵與詛咒;他們甚至認為,倘若在莊嚴的祭儀中,連某個粗心的人不慎說出一句好話,便算是褻瀆。對此所給的緣由如下──倘若在這等虛妄之事上還能有什麼緣由的話:
1:172
Hercules, cum eo delatus esset, famemque pateretur, aratorem quemdam aspexit operantem, ab eoque petere coepit, ut sibi unum bouem uenderet. Enimuero ille negauit fieri posse, quia spes sua omnis colendae terrae duobus illis iuuencis niteretur. Hercules, solita uiolentia usus, quia unum accipere non potuit, utrumque sustulit. At ille infelix, cum boues suos mactari uideret, iniuriam suam maledictis ultus est. Quod homini eleganti et urbano gratissimum fuit. Nam dum comitibus suis epulas apparat, dumque alienos boues deuorat, illum sibi amarissime conuiciantem, cum risu et cachinnis audiebat.
Hercules, when he had been brought there and was suffering hunger, saw a certain ploughman at work, and began to ask him to sell him a single ox. But the man said it could not be done, because all his hope of tilling the land rested on those two bullocks. Hercules, using his accustomed violence, since he could not get one, carried off both. But that unhappy man, when he saw his oxen being slaughtered, avenged his injury with curses. This was most agreeable to a man of refinement and wit. For while he was preparing a feast for his companions, and while he was devouring another man's oxen, he listened with laughter and loud guffaws to the man reviling him most bitterly.
赫拉克勒斯被帶到那裡、正忍受著飢餓時,看見有個農夫在耕作,便開口求他賣給自己一頭牛。但那人說這不可能,因為他耕種田地的全部指望都繫於那兩頭牛犢。赫拉克勒斯施展他慣用的暴力,既得不到一頭,便把兩頭都搶走了。那不幸的人眼見自己的牛被宰殺,便用咒罵來報復自己所受的損害。這對於這位風雅又詼諧的人物(赫拉克勒斯)卻是極為受用的。因為當他為同伴們預備筵席、吞食著別人的牛時,竟帶著大笑與哄笑,聽那人對他極盡刻薄的咒罵。
1:173
Sed postquam Herculi diuinos honores ob admirationem uirtutis deferri placuit, a ciuibus ei ara posita est, quam de facto bouuzugon nominauit, ad quam duo iuncti boues immolarentur, sicut illi quos abstulerat aratori; eumque ipsum sibi constituit sacerdotem, ac praecepit, ut iisdem maledictis semper in celebrandis sacrificiis uteretur, quod negaret se unquam epulatum esse iucundius. Haec iam non sacra sunt, sed sacrilegia, in quibus id sanctum dicitur, quod in aliis, si fiat, etiam seuerissime uindicatur. Ipsius autem Cretici Iouis sacra quid aliud quam quomodo sit aut subtractus patri, aut nutritus ostendunt? Capella est Amaltheae nymphae, quae uberibus suis aluit infantem;
But after it was decided that divine honours should be paid to Hercules out of admiration for his prowess, an altar was set up to him by the citizens, which from the deed he named 'bouzygon' (ox-yoke), at which two yoked oxen were to be sacrificed, like those he had carried off from the ploughman; and he appointed that very man his priest, and ordered that he should always use the same curses in celebrating the sacrifices, because he declared he had never feasted more pleasantly. These are now not sacred rites but sacrileges, in which that is called holy which in other contexts, if it be done, is punished even most severely. But the rites of Cretan Jupiter himself—what else do they show but how he was either taken away from his father or reared? There is the she-goat of the nymph Amalthea, who nourished the infant with her udders;
但既經決定要因敬慕赫拉克勒斯的勇武而向他獻上神聖之榮,城裡的居民便為他立了一座祭壇,他從那件事取名為「牛軛壇」(bouzygon),在其上要宰殺兩頭同軛的牛,就像他從那農夫手中搶去的兩頭一樣;他並指派那農夫本人作他的祭司,吩咐他在舉行祭祀時要始終使用同樣的咒罵,因為他聲稱自己從未筵席得這麼暢快。這些如今已不是聖儀,而是褻瀆──在這裡被稱為神聖之事,倘若在別處去行,反倒要受最嚴厲的懲罰。至於克里特的朱庇特本身的祭儀,豈不正顯明他是如何被人從父親手中藏起、或如何被養育的麼?那裡有寧芙阿瑪爾忒亞(Amalthea)的母山羊,牠以乳房哺養了那嬰孩;
1:174
de qua Germanicus Caesar in Arataeo carmine sic ait: "- - - Illa putatur Nutrix esse Iouis; si uere Iuppiter infans Ubera Cretaeae mulsit fidissima caprae, Sidere quae claro gratum testatur alumnum." Huius capellae corio usum esse pro scuto Iouem contra Titanas dimicantem Musaeus auctor est: unde a poetis aiigiuocoû nominatur. Ita quidquid est gestum in abscondendo puero, id ipsum per imaginem geritur in sacris. Sed et matris eius mysterium idem continet, quod Ouidius exponit {in Fastis, lib. IV, v. 207} : "Ardua iamdudum resonat tinnitibus Ide; Tutus ut infanti uagiat ore puer. Pars clypeos sudibus, galeas pars tundit inanes: Hoc Curetes habent, hoc Corybantes opus.
concerning which Germanicus Caesar in his poem on Aratus speaks thus: 'She is thought to be the nurse of Jupiter; if indeed the infant Jupiter sucked the udders of the most faithful Cretan she-goat, who by a bright star bears witness to her grateful nursling.' Musaeus is the authority that Jupiter, fighting against the Titans, used the hide of this she-goat as a shield: whence by the poets he is called 'aegis-bearing' (aegiochos). Thus whatever was done in the hiding of the boy is itself enacted in image in the rites. But the mystery of his mother too contains the same thing, which Ovid expounds (in the Fasti, book IV, v. 207): 'Long since does steep Ida resound with tinklings, that the boy might wail safely with infant lips. Some beat shields with stakes, some empty helmets: this is the task of the Curetes, this of the Corybantes.
關於這事,日耳曼尼庫斯·凱撒(Germanicus Caesar)在其論阿拉圖斯(Aratus)的詩中如此說:「她被認為是朱庇特的乳母;倘若嬰孩朱庇特果真吸吮了那最忠誠的克里特母山羊的乳房,她便藉一顆明亮的星見證她那受人感念的乳兒。」繆塞俄斯(Musaeus)是這事的見證:朱庇特與提坦諸神爭戰時,曾用這母山羊的皮作盾牌:因此被詩人稱為「持神盾者」(aegiochos)。如此,凡在藏匿那孩童時所行的一切,便照樣在祭儀中以縮影演出。但他母親的祕儀也含有同一內容,奧維德在《歲時記》卷四第二〇七行中闡釋說:「陡峭的伊達山(Ide)早已迴響著叮噹之聲,好叫那孩童得以用嬰兒之口安然啼哭。有些人用木棍敲打盾牌,有些人敲打空盔:這是庫瑞忒斯(Curetes)的工作,這是科律班忒斯(Corybantes)的工作。
1:175
Res latuit, priscique manent imitamina facti; Aera deae comites raucaque terga mouent, Cymbala pro galeis, pro scutis tympana pulsant: Tibia dat Phrygios, ut dedit ante, modos". Hanc totam opinionem, quasi a poetis fictam, Salustius respuit, uoluitque ingeniose interpretari, cur altores Iouis dicantur Curetes fuisse; et sic ait: Quia principes intelligendi diuini fuerunt, uetustatem ut caetera in maius componentem, altores Iouis celebrauisse. Quantum errauerit homo eruditus, iam res ipsa declarat. Si enim princeps est Iupiter, et deorum et religionum; si ante illum dii nulli colebantur uulgo, quia nondum nati fuerant, qui coluntur;
The matter was kept hidden, and to this day the imitations of the ancient deed remain; the goddess's attendants strike bronze and rasping hides, and beat cymbals instead of helmets, drums instead of shields: the flute gives Phrygian strains, as it gave before.' This whole opinion, as feigned by the poets, Sallust rejects, and wished ingeniously to interpret why the Curetes are said to have been the foster-fathers of Jupiter; and thus he says: Because they were the chief men of divine understanding, antiquity—as in other matters magnifying things—celebrated them as the foster-fathers of Jupiter. How greatly the learned man erred, the very fact now declares. For if Jupiter is the chief, both of the gods and of religions; if before him no gods were worshipped by the common people, because those who are worshipped had not yet been born;
此事被隱藏起來,而那古老行徑的摹仿至今仍存;女神的侍從敲擊銅器與粗糙的獸皮,以鐃鈸代盔、以鼓代盾來擊打:笛子奏出弗里吉亞(Phrygia)的曲調,正如從前所奏的。」對於這整套被詩人虛構出的說法,撒路斯特(Salustius)卻予以摒棄,並想要別出心裁地解釋為何說庫瑞忒斯是朱庇特的養育者;他如此說:因為他們是通曉神事的首要人物,而古人──正如在別的事上慣於誇大──便把他們頌揚為朱庇特的養育者。這位博學之士錯得何等離譜,如今事實本身就足以說明。因為倘若朱庇特乃是諸神與諸宗教之首;倘若在他之前,平民並不敬拜任何神明,因為那些受敬拜的神尚未出生;
1:176
apparet Curetes ex diuerso principes fuisse diuini non intelligendi, per quos error omnis inductus est, et Dei ueri memoria sublata. Ex ipsis itaque mysteriis et ceremoniis intelligere debuerunt, hominibus se mortuis supplicare. Non igitur exigo, ut aliquis poetarum fictionibus credat. Qui hos mentiri putat, Pontificum ipsorum scripta consideret, et quidquid est litterarum ad sacra pertinentium reuoluat: plura fortasse, quam nos afferimus, inueniet, ex quibus intelligat, inania inepta, commentitia esse omnia, quae pro sanctis habentur. Si quis autem, percepta sapientia, deposuerit errorem, profecto ridebit ineptias hominum pene dementium;
it appears, on the contrary, that the Curetes were the foremost in a divine ignorance, through whom every error was introduced and the memory of the true God was abolished. From the very mysteries and ceremonies, therefore, they ought to have understood that they were making supplication to dead men. I do not, then, require anyone to believe the fictions of the poets. Whoever thinks that these men lie, let him consider the writings of the pontiffs themselves, and let him turn over whatever literature pertains to the sacred rites: he will perhaps find more than we bring forward, from which he may understand that all the things held to be holy are empty, foolish, and fabricated. But if anyone, having received wisdom, lays aside his error, he will surely laugh at the follies of men who are all but mad;
那麼恰恰相反,顯然庫瑞忒斯乃是在神事上一無所知的首要人物,藉著他們,一切謬誤被引進,真神的記念被廢除了。因此,他們本當從這些祕儀與祭典中明白,自己所祈求的不過是些死人罷了。所以我並不要求任何人去相信詩人的虛構。凡認為這些詩人在說謊的,且讓他思考祭司們自己的著作,並翻閱凡與祭儀有關的一切典籍:他所發現的或許比我們所提出的更多,從中他便可明白,凡被當作神聖的,原都是空虛、愚妄、捏造之物。然而倘若有人領受了智慧、撇下了謬誤,他必嗤笑那些近乎瘋狂之人的愚行;
1:177
illos dico, qui uel inhonesto saltatu tripudiant, uel qui nudi, uncti, coronati, personati, aut luto obliti currunt. Quid de scutis iam uetustate putridis dicam? quae cum portant, deos ipsos se gestare humeris suis arbitrantur. Nam Furius Bibaculus inter praecipua pietatis exempla numeratur, qui cum praetor esset, tamen lictoribus praeeuntibus, ancile portauit, cum haberet, magistratus beneficio, muneris eius uacationem. Non ergo ille Furius, sed plane furiosus fuit, qui praeturam hoc ministerio se putauit ornare. Merito igitur, cum haec a uiris non imperitis ac rudibus fiant, Lucretius exclamat: "O stultas hominum mentes, o pectora caeca!
I mean those who either dance with shameful capering, or who run about naked, anointed, garlanded, masked, or smeared with mud. What shall I say of the shields already rotten with age? which, when they carry them, they suppose they are bearing the very gods on their own shoulders. For Furius Bibaculus is reckoned among the foremost examples of piety, who, though he was praetor, nevertheless, with lictors going before him, carried the sacred shield (ancile), although by the privilege of his office he had exemption from that duty. Not Furius then, but plainly frenzied (furiosus), was he who thought he was adorning the praetorship by this service. Rightly therefore, when these things are done by men not unskilled or rough, Lucretius exclaims: 'O foolish minds of men, O blind hearts!
我說的是那些或以可恥的跳躍蹦跳之人,或赤身、塗油、戴花冠、戴面具、抹滿泥漿四處奔跑之人。那些早已朽爛的盾牌,我又該說什麼呢?他們扛抬這些盾牌時,竟以為自己正用肩膀馱著諸神。原來富里烏斯·比巴庫盧斯(Furius Bibaculus)被算為虔敬的傑出榜樣之一,他雖身為大法官(praetor),卻仍在扈從吏(lictores)前導下親自扛抬聖盾(ancile),雖然按其職位的特權,他本可免去這項職責。所以那人不是「富里烏斯」,分明是「發狂者」(furiosus):他竟以為藉這差役能為大法官之職增添光彩。因此,當這等事出自並非無知粗野之人之手時,盧克萊修(Lucretius)就理所當然地驚呼:「啊,人類愚蒙的心智,啊,瞎眼的胸懷!
1:178
Qualibus in tenebris uitae, quantisque periclis Degitur hoc aeui, quodcumque est!" Quis haec ludibria non rideat, qui habeat aliquid sanitatis? cum uideat homines uelut mente captos ea serio facere, quae si quis faciat in lusu, nimis lasciuus et ineptus esse uideatur. [1,22] CAPUT XXII. Harum uanitatum apud Romanos auctor et constitutor Sabinus ille rex fuit, qui maxime animos hominum rudes atque imperitos nouis superstitionibus implicauit: quod ut faceret aliqua cum auctoritate, simulauit cum dea Egeria nocturnos se habere congressus. Erat quaedam spelunca peropaca in nemore Aricino, unde riuus perenni fonte manabat;
In what darkness of life and in how great dangers is passed this span of years, whatever it is!' Who would not laugh at these mockeries, who has any sanity? when he sees men, as though mad, doing in earnest things which, if anyone were to do them in play, would seem too wanton and foolish. CHAPTER 22. The author and founder of these vanities among the Romans was that Sabine king (Numa), who above all entangled the rude and untaught minds of men in new superstitions: and that he might do this with some authority, he pretended that he had nightly meetings with the goddess Egeria. There was a certain very dark cave in the grove of Aricia, whence a brook flowed from a perennial spring;
這片歲月,無論它是多少,竟在何等的人生黑暗、何等的危難中度過!」凡稍有理智的人,誰不嗤笑這些荒唐之舉呢?當他看見人們彷彿瘋了一般,鄭重其事地去做那些事──倘若有人在玩笑中去做,倒會顯得過於放縱可笑。第二十二章。在羅馬人中間,這些虛妄之事的創始者與奠基者,乃是那位薩賓族的王(即努馬 Numa);他尤其用新奇的迷信纏住了人們粗野無知的心思:為要使這事帶有某種權威,他便假稱自己夜間與女神埃格利亞(Egeria)相會。在阿里奇亞(Aricia)的樹林中有一個極幽暗的洞穴,從那裡有一道泉源長流不息的溪水湧出;
1:179
huc, remotis arbitris, se inferre consueuerat, ut mentiri posset, monitu deae coniugis ea sacra populo se tradere quae acceptissima diis essent: uidelicet astutiam Minois uoluit imitari: qui se in antrum Iouis recondebat, et ibi diu moratus, leges tamquam sibi a Ioue traditas afferebat, ut homines ad parendum non modo imperio, sed etiam religione constringeret. Nec difficile sane fuit persuadere pastoribus. Itaque pontifices, flamines, salios, augures creauit, deos per familias descripsit. Sic noui populi feroces animos mitigauit, et ad studia pacis a rebus bellicis auocauit. Sed cum alios falleret, seipsum tamen non fefellit;
hither, with witnesses removed, he was wont to betake himself, so that he might pretend, at the prompting of the goddess his consort, to deliver to the people those rites which were most acceptable to the gods: doubtless he wished to imitate the cunning of Minos, who used to hide himself in the cave of Jupiter, and there, lingering long, would bring forth laws as though delivered to him by Jupiter, in order to bind men to obedience not only by command but also by religion. Nor indeed was it difficult to persuade shepherds. And so he created pontiffs, flamens, Salii, augurs, and assigned the gods among the families. Thus he softened the fierce spirits of the new people and called them away from warlike pursuits to the pursuits of peace. But while he deceived others, yet he did not deceive himself;
他慣於屏退旁人,獨自前往這裡,好假稱是在他那身為配偶的女神指示下,把諸神最為悅納的祭儀交付給百姓:他無疑是想效法米諾斯(Minos)的詭計,米諾斯慣於把自己藏在朱庇特的洞穴裡,在那裡久久逗留後,便拿出律法來,彷彿是朱庇特親自交給他的,為要使人不僅因命令、更因宗教而順服受約束。要說服牧人們自然也並非難事。於是他設立了祭司(pontifices)、火神司祭(flamines)、撒利祭司團(Salii)、占卜官(augures),並把諸神分派給各家族。如此,他便緩和了這新興民族兇悍的性情,把他們從戰爭之事引向太平之業。但他雖欺騙了別人,卻終究欺騙不了自己;
1:180
nam post annos plurimos, Cornelio et Bebio coss., in agro scribae Petilii sub ianiculo arcae duae lapideae sunt repertae a fossoribus, quarum in altera corpus Numae fuit, in altera septem latini libri de iure pontificio, item graeci totidem de disciplina sapientiae scripti, quibus religiones, non eas modo, quas ipse instituerat, sed omnes praeterea dissoluit. Qua re ad senatum delata, decretum est, ut hi libri abolerentur: ita eos Q- Petilius Praetor urbanus in concione populi concremauit, insipienter id quidem. Quid enim profuit, libros esse combustos? cum hoc ipsum, quod sunt ideo combusti, quia religionibus derogabant, memoriae sit traditum? Nemo ergo tunc in senatu non stultissimus.
for after very many years, in the consulship of Cornelius and Baebius, in the field of the scribe Petilius, beneath the Janiculum, two stone chests were discovered by diggers, in one of which was the body of Numa, in the other seven Latin books on pontifical law, and as many Greek ones written on the discipline of wisdom, by which he abolished the religions—not only those which he himself had instituted, but all the others besides. When this matter was reported to the Senate, it was decreed that these books should be destroyed: and so Q. Petilius, the city praetor, burned them in an assembly of the people—unwisely indeed. For what did it profit that the books were burned? when this very fact, that they were burned because they detracted from the religions, has been handed down to memory? No one then in the Senate was anything but most foolish.
因為過了許多年後,在科爾涅利烏斯與貝比烏斯(Cornelius et Bebius)任執政官之年,在書記官佩提利烏斯(Petilius)位於雅尼庫盧姆(Ianiculum)山下的田地裡,挖掘工人發現了兩個石櫃,其中一個裝著努馬的屍體,另一個裝著七卷論祭司法的拉丁文書,並同樣數目的、論智慧之道的希臘文書;他憑這些書廢除了諸宗教──不僅是他自己所創立的那些,連其餘一切也都廢了。此事報到元老院後,便議決把這些書銷毀:於是城市大法官昆圖斯·佩提利烏斯(Q. Petilius)在民眾的集會上把它們焚燒了──這實在愚不可及。書被燒了又有何益處呢?正是這件事──它們被燒,乃因有損於諸宗教──竟流傳於後人的記憶之中。可見當時元老院裡,無一人不是極其愚昧的。
1:181
Potuerunt enim et libri aboleri, et res tamen in memoriam non exire. Ita dum uolunt etiam posteris approbare quanta pietate defenderint religiones, auctoritatem religionum ipsarum testando minuerunt. Sed ut Pompilius apud Romanos institutor ineptarum religionum fuit: sic ante Pompilium Faunus in Latio, quin et Saturno auo nefaria sacra constituit, et Picum patrem inter deos honorauit, et sororem suam Fatuam Faunam, eamdemque coniugem consecrauit; quam Gabius Bassus Fatuam nominatam tradit, quod mulieribus fata canere consueuisset, ut Faunus uiris. Eamdem Varro scribit tantae pudicitiae fuisse, ut nemo eam, quoad uixerit, praeter uirum suum mas uiderit, nec nomen eius audierit.
For the books might have been destroyed, and yet the matter not pass into memory. Thus, while they wish to prove even to posterity with how great piety they defended the religions, by bearing witness they diminished the authority of the religions themselves. But as Pompilius (Numa) was among the Romans the institutor of foolish religions, so before Pompilius, Faunus in Latium established wicked rites—indeed to his grandfather Saturn—and honoured his father Picus among the gods, and consecrated his own sister Fatua Fauna, who was also his wife; whom Gabius Bassus reports to have been named Fatua because she was accustomed to chant fates to women, as Faunus did to men. The same woman Varro writes was of such great modesty that, as long as she lived, no male except her own husband saw her, nor heard her name.
其實那些書本可以銷毀,而事情卻不至傳入記憶。如此,他們本想連向後人也證明自己以何等的虔敬捍衛了諸宗教,卻反因作見證而削減了諸宗教本身的權威。但正如龐皮利烏斯(即努馬)在羅馬人中是愚妄宗教的設立者,照樣在龐皮利烏斯之前,福努斯(Faunus)在拉提烏姆設立了邪惡的祭儀──竟是向他祖父撒登所設的──並把他父親皮庫斯(Picus)尊奉在諸神之列,又把他自己的姊妹法圖阿·福娜(Fatua Fauna)、同時也是他的妻子加以神化;加比烏斯·巴蘇斯(Gabius Bassus)記載她得名「法圖阿」,是因她慣於向婦女宣示命運,正如福努斯向男子所行的。瓦羅則記述同一婦人有極大的貞潔,以致她一生之中,除了自己的丈夫,沒有任何男子見過她,也未曾聽過她的名字。
1:182
Idcirco illi mulieres in operto sacrificant, et bonam deam nominant. Et Sextus Clodius in eo libro, quem graece scripsit, refert Fauni hanc uxorem fuisse, quae quia contra morem decusque regium clam uini ollam ebiberat, et ebria facta erat, uirgis myrteis a uiro usque ad mortem caesa. Postea uero cum eum facti sui poeniteret, et desiderium eius ferre non posset, diuinum illi honorem detulisse; idcirco in sacris eius obuolutam uini amphoram poni. Reliquit ergo posteris Faunus quoque non parum erroris, quem tamen prudentes quique perspiciunt. Nam Lucilius eorum stultitiam, qui simulacra deos putant esse, deridet his uersibus:
For this reason women sacrifice to her in secret, and call her the Good Goddess (Bona Dea). And Sextus Clodius, in the book which he wrote in Greek, relates that she was the wife of Faunus, who, because contrary to custom and royal dignity she had secretly drunk off a jar of wine and become drunk, was beaten to death with myrtle rods by her husband. But afterwards, when he repented of his deed and could not bear his longing for her, he conferred divine honour upon her; and for this reason in her rites a wine-jar wrapped in cloth is set out. Faunus too, therefore, left to posterity no small amount of error, which nevertheless all the prudent see through. For Lucilius mocks the folly of those who think that images are gods, in these verses:
因此婦女們暗中向她獻祭,並稱她為「善女神」(Bona Dea)。賽克斯圖斯·克洛狄烏斯(Sextus Clodius)在他用希臘文所寫的書中記述,她原是福努斯的妻子;因她違背習俗與王家體統,暗中喝乾了一壇酒、醉了,便被丈夫用桃金孃枝條鞭打至死。但後來當他為自己的行為懊悔、又難忍對她的思念時,便把神聖之榮歸給了她;因此之故,在她的祭儀中要擺上一個用布裹著的酒罈。所以福努斯也給後人留下了不少謬誤,然而凡明智的人都能看穿。因為盧奇利烏斯(Lucilius)用這幾行詩嘲笑那些以為偶像就是神明的人之愚妄:
1:183
"Terricolas Lamias Fauni, quas Pompiliique Instituere Numae, tremit has; hic omnia ponit. Ut pueri infantes credunt signa omnia ahena Viuere, et esse homines: sic isti omnia ficta Vera putant; credunt signis cor inesse in ahenis. Pergula pictorum; ueri nihil: omnia ficta." Poeta quidem stultos homines infantibus comparauit. At ego multo imprudentiores esse dico. Illi enim simulacra homines putant esse, hi deos. Illos aetas facit putare quod non est, hos stultitia. Illi utique breui desinunt falli, horum uanitas et durat, et semper crescit.
'The earth-dwelling Lamiae, which the Fauni and the Numa Pompilii established—at these he trembles; on these he stakes everything. As little children believe that all bronze statues live and are men: so these men think all fictions are true; they believe there is a heart in bronze statues. A painter's booth; nothing real: all is fiction.' The poet indeed compared foolish men to infants. But I say they are far more imprudent. For those think images are men, these think them gods. Their age makes the former suppose what is not so; folly makes the latter. The former soon cease to be deceived; the vanity of the latter both endures and ever grows.
「那些住在地上的拉米亞(Lamiae)女妖──福努斯一輩與努馬·龐皮利烏斯一輩所設立的──他對它們戰戰兢兢;他把一切都押在它們身上。正如年幼的孩童以為一切銅像都活著、都是人:照樣這些人把一切虛造之物當作真的;他們相信銅像裡有心。一個畫匠的攤棚罷了;毫無真實可言:全是虛造。」詩人固然把愚人比作嬰孩。但我說他們遠比嬰孩更糊塗。因為嬰孩以為偶像是人,這些人卻以為偶像是神。是年幼使前者以為不存在之事為真,是愚妄使後者如此。前者不久就不再受騙,後者的虛妄卻既持久又不斷增長。
1:184
Sacra Liberi Patris primus Orpheus induxit in Graeciam, primusque celebrauit in monte Boeotiae Thebis, ubi Liber natus est, proximo, qui cum frequenter citharae cantu personaret, Citeron appellatus est. Ea sacra etiamnunc Orphica nominantur, in quibus ipse postea dilaceratus, et carptus est, et fuit per eadem fere tempora, quibus Faunus. Sed quis aetate praecesserit, dubitari potest: siquidem per eosdem annos Latinus Priamusque regnauerunt; item patres eorum Faunus et Laomedon, quo regnante, Orpheus cum Argonautis ad Iliensium littus accessit. Procedamus igitur ulterius, et quaeramus, quis omnino colendorum deorum primus auctor extiterit.
The rites of Father Liber, Orpheus first introduced into Greece, and first celebrated them on a mountain of Boeotia near Thebes, where Liber was born; which, because it resounded frequently with the music of the lyre, was called Cithaeron. These rites are even now called Orphic, in which he himself was afterwards torn apart and rent in pieces; and he lived in about the same times as Faunus. But which preceded the other in age may be doubted: since during the same years Latinus and Priam reigned; likewise their fathers Faunus and Laomedon, during whose reign Orpheus, with the Argonauts, reached the shore of the Trojans. Let us therefore proceed further, and inquire who was altogether the first author of worshipping the gods.
酒神巴克斯(Liber pater)的祭儀,是俄耳甫斯(Orpheus)最先引進希臘的,他也最先在波奧提亞(Boeotia)靠近底比斯、酒神出生之地的一座山上舉行;那山因屢屢迴響著豎琴的樂聲,便被稱為基泰戎(Citeron)。這些祭儀至今仍稱為「俄耳甫斯祕儀」,他自己後來就在其中被撕裂、被肢解;他大致與福努斯同時代。但兩者孰先孰後,則難以斷定:因為在同一些年間,拉提努斯(Latinus)與普里阿摩斯(Priamus)在位;他們的父親福努斯與拉俄墨冬(Laomedon)也同時在位,俄耳甫斯就是在後者在位時隨阿耳戈船英雄(Argonautae)抵達伊利昂(Ilium)的海岸。那麼讓我們再往下探究,看究竟誰才是敬拜諸神的最初創始者。
← prev partnext part →
ch. 2 →
12