📜 Verbum · 聖言
原文誦讀聖經與教父文獻

← 回書卷目次 · 拉丁教父 › 神聖原理與論逼迫者之死

拉克坦提烏斯

神聖原理與論逼迫者之死 第 1 章 第 3/6 段

拉丁文原文.36 節.部分字詞可點開查義.本章太長已分段,此段為 1:75–1:110(全章共 191 節)

第 2 章 →
← 上一段下一段 →
1:75
esse fata, quibus dii omnes, et ipse Iupiter pareat. Si Parcarum tanta uis est, ut plus possint quam coelestes uniuersi, quamque ipse rector ac dominus, cur non illae potius regnare dicantur, quarum legibus ac statutis parere omnes deos necessitas cogit? Nunc cui dubium est, quin is, qui alicui rei obsequitur, maximus non sit? nam si sit, non accipiat fata, sed faciat. Nunc ad aliud, quod omiseram, redeo. In una itaque sola fuit continentior, cum eam deperiret; non uirtute aliqua, sed metu successoris. Quae formido utique eius est, qui sit et mortalis, et imbecillus, et nihili: quippe qui potuit et tunc, cum nasceretur, extingui, sicut frater eius ante genitus, extinctus est:
就是說,有所謂「命運」,諸神並朱庇特自己都順從它。倘若帕耳開(命運三女神)的權能如此之大,竟能勝過一切天上的神、勝過那統治者與主宰自己,為何不寧說是她們掌權呢?既然必然性迫使眾神都順從她們的法度與命令?如今誰能懷疑:凡順服於某物的,便不是至大者?因為他若是至大者,便不會領受「命運」,而會制定「命運」。如今我回到我先前略去的另一點。所以,他唯獨對一個女子更為克制,雖然他正狂戀著她;這並非出於甚麼德行,而是出於對承嗣者的懼怕。這懼怕無疑是那既會死、又軟弱、又毫無價值之人的懼怕:因為他甚至在出生之時就可能被滅絕,正如比他先生的兄弟被滅絕一樣:
namely, that there are Fates, which all the gods, and Jupiter himself, obey. If the power of the Parcae is so great that they can do more than all the heavenly ones, and than the ruler and lord himself, why are not they rather said to reign, by whose laws and decrees necessity compels all the gods to obey? Now who can doubt that he who is obedient to some thing is not the greatest? for if he were, he would not receive the Fates, but make them. Now I return to another point which I had omitted. So, in one woman alone he was more continent, when he was desperately in love with her; not by any virtue, but by fear of a successor. Which dread surely is the dread of one who is both mortal, and weak, and worth nothing: inasmuch as he could even then, when he was being born, have been extinguished, just as his brother, born before him, was extinguished:
1:76
qui si uiuere potuisset, nunquam minori concessisset imperium. Ipse autem furto seruatus, furtimque nutritus, g-zeus siue g-zehn appellatus est; non, ut isti putant, a feruore coelestis ignis, uel quod uitae sit dator, uel quod animantibus inspiret animas, quae uirtus solius Dei est (quam enim possit inspirare animam, qui ipse accepit aliunde?), sed quod primus ex liberis Saturni maribus uixerit. Potuerunt igitur homines alium deum habere rectorem, si Saturnus non fuisset ab uxore delusus. At enim poetae ista finxerunt. Errat quisquis hoc putat. Illi enim de hominibus loquebantur; sed ut eos ornarent, quorum memoriam laudibus celebrabant, deos esse dixerunt.
他若能存活,就絕不會把帝權讓給一個較小者。但他自己卻是偷偷被保全、偷偷被養大,被稱為宙斯(Zeus)或「澤恩」(Zen);不是如那些人所以為的,出於天火的熾熱,或因他是生命的賜予者,或因他將魂吹入活物——這能力唯獨屬於神(因為他自己尚且從別處領受了魂,又怎能吹入魂呢?)——而是因為他是薩圖恩的眾男孩中頭一個存活的。所以,倘若薩圖恩沒有被他的妻子所欺,世人本可有另一位神作統治者。「可是,」有人反駁說,「這些事乃詩人所虛構。」凡這樣想的人都錯了。因為他們所談論的本是人;只是為要以稱讚來裝飾那些他們所頌揚紀念的人,便說他們是神。
who, if he had been able to live, would never have yielded the empire to a lesser one. But he himself, saved by stealth and reared by stealth, was called Zeus or Zen; not, as those people suppose, from the heat of the celestial fire, or because he is the giver of life, or because he breathes souls into living creatures—which power belongs to God alone (for how could he breathe in a soul, who himself received it from elsewhere?)—but because he was the first of the male children of Saturn to live. Men, then, could have had another god as ruler, if Saturn had not been deceived by his wife. 'But,' it is objected, 'the poets feigned these things.' Whoever thinks this errs. For they were speaking of men; but in order to adorn those whose memory they celebrated with praises, they said they were gods.
1:77
Itaque illa potius ficta sunt, quae tamquam de diis, non illa quae tamquam de hominibus locuti sunt: quod clarum fiet exemplo, quod inferemus. Danaen uiolaturus, aureos nummos largiter in sinum eius infudit. Haec stupri merces fuit. At poetae, qui quasi de Deo loquebantur, ne auctoritatem creditae maiestatis infringerent, finxerunt ipsum in aureo imbre delapsum, eadem figura, qua imbres ferreos dicunt, cum multitudinem telorum sagittarumque describunt. Rapuisse dicitur in aquila Catamitum: poeticus color est. Sed aut per legionem rapuit, cuius insigne aquila est; aut nauis, in qua est impositus, tutelam habuit in aquila figuratam, sicut taurum, cum rapuit et transuexit Europam.
因此,他們彷彿論到諸神所說的那些事,倒是虛構的,而非他們彷彿論到人所說的那些。這必藉著我們即將引述的例子而顯明。他想要玷污達娜厄,便把大量金幣傾倒在她懷中;這就是他姦淫的代價。但詩人們既彷彿在論及一位神,唯恐損及人們所信他那威嚴的權柄,便虛構說他化作一陣金雨降下——所用的正是同一種修辭,正如他們描述眾多飛矛與箭時,稱之為「鐵雨」一般。據說他化作老鷹擄走了卡塔米圖斯:這是詩意的潤飾。但他其實或是藉一支以鷹為徽號的軍團將他擄去,或是他被安置上的那船以鷹為其守護的圖徽,正如他擄走並渡載歐羅巴時,那守護是一頭公牛。
And so the things they spoke as though about gods are rather the fictions, not the things they spoke as though about men. This will become clear by an example that we shall bring forward. About to violate Danaë, he poured a heap of golden coins into her lap; this was the wage of her seduction. But the poets, who spoke as though about a god, lest they undermine the authority of the majesty believed in him, pretended that he himself glided down in a golden shower—using the same figure of speech by which they say 'iron showers' when they describe a multitude of darts and arrows. He is said to have carried off Catamitus by means of an eagle: this is a poetic coloring. But either he carried him off by a legion, whose emblem is the eagle, or the ship on which he was put had as its tutelary figure an eagle, just as it had a bull when he carried off and bore across Europa.
1:78
Eodem modo conuertisse in bouem traditur Io Inachi filiam, quae, ut iram Iunonis effugeret, ut erat iam setis obsita, iam bos tranasse dicitur mare, in Aegyptumque uenisse, atque ibi, recepta pristina specie, dea facta quae nunc Isis uocatur. Quo igitur argumento probari potest, nec Europam in Tauro sedisse, nec Io factam bouem? Quod certus dies habetur in Fastis, quo Isidis nauigium celebratur: quae res docet non tranasse illam, sed nauigasse. Igitur qui sapere sibi uidentur, quia intelligunt uiuum terrenumque corpus in coelo esse non posse, totam Ganymedeam fabulam pro falso repudiant; ac sentiunt in terra id esse factum, quia res ac libido ipsa terrena est.
同樣,伊那科斯的女兒伊俄據傳被變成了母牛;她為逃避朱諾的忿怒,當時已渾身覆滿鬃毛、已成母牛,據說泅渡過海,來到埃及,並在那裡恢復了原先的形貌,被立為女神,如今稱為伊西斯。那麼,能用什麼論據證明歐羅巴未曾騎在公牛上、伊俄未曾變為母牛呢?乃在於曆書中定有一日,慶祝伊西斯的航行——這事正說明她並非泅渡,而是乘船航渡。因此那些自以為有智慧的人,因明白活的、屬地的身體不能在天上,便將整個伽倪墨得斯的故事斥為虛假;他們也察覺此事乃發生在地上,因為那事與那情慾本身都是屬地的。
In the same way Io the daughter of Inachus is reported to have been turned into a cow; she, to escape the wrath of Juno, being now covered with bristles and already a cow, is said to have swum across the sea and to have come into Egypt, and there, having recovered her former appearance, to have been made a goddess, who is now called Isis. By what argument, then, can it be proved either that Europa did not sit upon a bull, or that Io was not turned into a cow? By the fact that a fixed day is kept in the calendars on which the sailing of Isis is celebrated—a circumstance which teaches that she did not swim across but sailed. Therefore those who seem wise to themselves, because they understand that a living and earthly body cannot be in heaven, reject the whole tale of Ganymede as false; and they perceive that this thing was done on earth, because the matter and the lust itself are earthly.
1:79
Non ergo ipsas res gestas finxerunt poetae; quod si facerent, essent uanissimi: sed rebus gestis addiderunt quemdam colorem. Non enim obtrectantes illa dicebant, sed ornare cupientes. Hinc homines decipiuntur: maxime quod, dum haec omnia ficta esse arbitrantur a poetis, colunt quod ignorant. Nesciunt enim, qui sit poeticae licentiae modus; quousque progredi fingendo liceat: cum officium poetae sit in eo, ut ea, quae gesta sunt uere, in alias species obliquis figurationibus cum decore aliquo conuersa traducat. Totum autem, quod referas, fingere, id est ineptum esse, et mendacem potius quam poetam. Sed finxerint ista, quae fabulosa creduntur;
如此說來,詩人們並未捏造事蹟本身;他們若這樣做,便是極其無聊的;他們乃是在已發生的事蹟上添加了某種潤飾。因為他們述說這些,不是出於毀謗,而是出於渴慕加以妝點。人就由此受了欺騙——尤其因為,當他們以為這一切都是詩人捏造時,便敬拜了自己所不認識的。因為他們不曉得詩的容許有何分寸,虛構可進行到何種地步:然而詩人的職分正在於此,就是把真實發生的事,用婉轉的修辭加以幾分妝飾,轉化成別的樣貌而傳述出來。但若把所述的全部加以捏造,那就是愚拙,是說謊者而非詩人。然而就算他們捏造了那些被信以為寓言的事;
The poets, then, did not invent the deeds themselves; for if they did so, they would be utterly worthless: rather, to deeds that were done they added a certain coloring. For they spoke these things not out of disparagement, but from a desire to adorn. Hence men are deceived—chiefly because, while they suppose all these things to have been invented by the poets, they worship what they do not know. For they do not know what is the measure of poetic license, how far one may proceed in inventing: whereas the poet's office consists in this, that he should transmit those things which were truly done, transformed by oblique figures with some grace into other appearances. But to invent the whole of what one relates—that is to be silly, and a liar rather than a poet. But grant that they invented those things which are believed to be fables;
1:80
num etiam illa, quae de diis foeminis, deorumque connubiis dicta sunt? Cur igitur sic figurantur, sic coluntur? nisi forte non tantum poetae, sed pictores etiam fictoresque imaginum mentiuntur. Si enim hic est Iupiter, qui a uobis dicitur deus, si non is est, qui ex Saturno et Ope natus est, non oportuit nisi solius simulacrum in templis omnibus collocari. Quid sibi mulierum effigies uolunt? quid sexus infirmus? in quem si cecidit hic Iupiter, eum uero ipsi lapides hominem fatebuntur. Mentitos aiunt esse poetas, et his tamen credunt; immo uero non esse mentitos, re ipsa probant, ita enim deorum simulacra confingunt, ut ex ipsa diuersitate sexus appareat, uera esse quae dicunt poetae.
那麼,那些論到女神與諸神婚配的事,他們是否也是捏造的呢?若是,為何把這些如此塑造、如此敬拜呢?——除非或許不僅詩人在說謊,連畫家與鑄像者也都在說謊。因為若這位被你們稱為神的是朱庇特,若他不是那由薩圖恩與俄普斯所生的,那麼一切廟宇中就只該安放他一人的像。那些婦女的形像意指什麼?那較軟弱的性別又意指什麼?——這朱庇特若曾落在其上,那麼連石頭本身也要承認他是一個人。他們說詩人撒了謊,卻又信他們;不,反倒藉著這事本身證明詩人並未撒謊,因為他們鑄造諸神的像時,從性別的差異上正顯出詩人所言為真。
do they also invent those things which are told of the female deities, and of the marriages of the gods? Why then are they thus represented, thus worshiped?—unless perhaps not only the poets, but the painters too and the makers of images, are lying. For if this is Jupiter who is called a god by you, if he is not the one who was born of Saturn and Ops, then the likeness of him alone ought to have been set up in all the temples. What do the effigies of women mean? what means the weaker sex?—into which if this Jupiter fell, then the very stones will confess him to be a man. They say that the poets have lied, and yet they believe them; nay rather, by the very thing they prove that the poets did not lie, for they so fashion the images of the gods that from the very difference of sex it appears that what the poets say is true.
1:81
Nam quod aliud argumentum habet imago Catamiti, et effigies aquilae, cum ante pedes Iouis ponuntur in templis, et cum ipso pariter adorantur: nisi ut nefandi sceleris ac stupri memoria maneat in aeternum? Nihil igitur a poetis in totum fictum est: aliquid fortasse traductum, et obliqua figuratione obscuratum, quo ueritas inuoluta tegeretur; sicut illud de sortitione regnorum. Aiunt enim Ioui coelum obtigisse, Neptuno mare, inferna Plutoni. Cur non terra potius in sortem tertiam uenit; nisi quod in terra gesta res est. Ergo illud in uero est, quod regnum orbis ita partiti sortitique sunt, ut Orientis imperium Ioui cederet; Plutoni, cui cognomen Agesilao fuit, pars Occidentis obtingeret:
卡塔米圖斯的像與鷹的形像,當被安置在廟中朱庇特腳前、並與他一同受敬拜時,除了要使那不可言說之罪行與姦淫的記憶永遠長存以外,還能有什麼別的意義呢?因此,詩人並沒有完全憑空捏造什麼:或許只是把某事轉移了,用婉轉的修辭加以遮掩,使真理得被包裹遮蔽;正如那分封各國的事。因為他們說天歸了朱庇特,海歸了涅普頓,陰間歸了普路托。為何地不寧可落入第三份呢?——除非因為這事是在地上成就的。所以這事裡有真理,就是他們如此瓜分並抽籤分配世界的統治,使東方的帝國歸了朱庇特,而西方那份歸了綽號阿革西勞斯的普路托;
For what other meaning has the image of Catamitus and the figure of the eagle, when they are placed before the feet of Jupiter in the temples and adored together with him, except that the memory of an unspeakable crime and seduction may abide forever? Nothing, then, has been wholly invented by the poets: something perhaps has been transposed and obscured by an oblique figure, that the truth might be covered, wrapped up; as in that matter of the casting of lots for the realms. For they say that heaven fell to Jupiter, the sea to Neptune, the underworld to Pluto. Why did not the earth rather come into the third lot—unless because the affair was carried out on earth? Therefore there is truth in this, that they so divided and allotted the rule of the world that the empire of the East fell to Jupiter, and to Pluto, who had the surname Agesilaus, the portion of the West fell;
1:82
eo quod plaga Orientis, ex qua lux mortalibus datur, superior; Occidentis autem inferior esse uideatur. Sic ueritatem mendacio uelauerunt, ut ueritas ipsa persuasioni publicae nihil derogaret. De Neptunii sorte manifestum est, cuius regnum tale fuisse dicimus, quale Marci Antonii fuit infinitum illud imperium; cui totius orae maritimae potestatem Senatus decreuerat, ut praedones persequeretur, ac mare omne pacaret. Sic Neptuno maritima omnia cum insulis obuenerunt. Quomodo id probari potest? Nimirum ueteres historiae docent.
原因在於:賜給世人光明的東方似乎較為崇高,而西方則似乎較為低下。他們就這樣用謊言遮蔽真理,使真理本身絲毫不減損民間的信念。至於涅普頓那一份,則是顯明的:我們說他的國度,正如馬庫斯·安東尼烏斯那廣闊無邊的權柄一般;元老院曾把全部海岸的權力授予他,使他得以追剿海盜、平靖整個大海。因此一切沿海之地連同各島都歸了涅普頓。這如何能得證明呢?無疑,古代的史書教導了這事。
for the reason that the region of the East, from which light is given to mortals, seems superior, while that of the West seems inferior. Thus they veiled the truth with falsehood, that the truth itself might detract nothing from the popular belief. As for Neptune's lot, it is manifest: we say his kingdom was such as was that boundless command of Marcus Antonius, to whom the Senate had decreed power over the whole sea-coast, that he might pursue the pirates and pacify the whole sea. Thus to Neptune fell all maritime regions together with the islands. How can this be proved? Doubtless the ancient histories teach it.
1:83
Antiquus auctor Euhemerus, qui fuit ex ciuitate Messene, res gestas Iouis, et caeterorum qui dii putantur, collegit, historiamque contexuit ex titulis, et inscriptionibus sacris, quae in antiquissimis templis habebantur, maximeque in fano Iouis Triphylii; ubi auream columnam positam esse ab ipso Ioue titulus indicabat, in qua columna gesta sua perscripsit, ut monumentum esset posteris rerum suarum. Hanc historiam et intepretatus est Ennius, et secutus; cuius haec uerba sunt: «Ubi Iupiter Neptuno imperium dat maris, ut in insulis omnibus et quae secundum mare loca essent, omnibus regnaret.» Vera sunt ergo quae loquuntur poetae, sed obtentu aliquo specieque uelata.
古代作者歐赫墨魯斯,出身於墨塞涅城,蒐集了朱庇特以及其餘被當作神祇者的事蹟,並從那些保存於最古老廟宇、尤其是特里菲利烏斯的朱庇特神龕中的聖匾與題刻,編織成一部歷史——那裡有一塊題匾顯示,有一根金柱乃朱庇特親自所立,他在柱上刻下自己的事蹟,好為後世留下其作為的紀念。這部歷史,恩尼烏斯既加以翻譯,也予以承襲;他的話是這樣:「朱庇特把海洋的統治權賜給涅普頓,使他得以統管一切島嶼以及沿海的各處。」由此可見詩人所言乃是真實的,只是用某種藉口與外表加以遮掩了。
The ancient author Euhemerus, who was from the city of Messene, collected the deeds of Jupiter and of the others who are reckoned gods, and wove together a history from the sacred titles and inscriptions which were kept in the most ancient temples, and especially in the shrine of Jupiter Triphylius—where a title showed that a golden column had been set up by Jupiter himself, on which column he had inscribed his deeds, that there might be a monument of his doings for posterity. This history Ennius both translated and followed; whose words are these: «Where Jupiter gives to Neptune the rule of the sea, that he might reign over all the islands and the places that lay along the sea.» True, then, are the things the poets speak, but veiled under some pretext and appearance.
1:84
Potest et mons Olympus figuram poetis dedisse, ut Iouem dicerent coeli regnum esse sortitum; quod Olympus ambiguum nomen est et montis, et coeli. In Olympo autem Iouem habitasse docet historia eadem, quae dicit: «Ea tempestate Iupiter in monte Olympo maximam partem uitae colebat, et eo ad eum in ius ueniebant, si quae res in controuersia erant. Item, si quis quid noui inuenerat, quod ad uitam humanam utile esset, eo ueniebat, atque Ioui ostendebat.» Multa in hunc modum poetae transferunt, non ut in eos mentiantur quos colunt, sed ut figuris uersicoloribus uenustatem ac leporem carminibus suis addant.
奧林波斯山也可能給詩人提供了一個比喻,使他們說朱庇特抽籤得了天的國度;因為「奧林波斯」是個含糊的名稱,既指那山,也指天。而朱庇特曾住在奧林波斯,那同一部歷史也教導,它說:「那時候朱庇特一生的大部分都住在奧林波斯山上,若有爭執之事,人們就到那裡來受他審斷。同樣,若有人發明了對人生有益的新事物,也來到那裡,向朱庇特展示。」詩人們以這種方式轉述許多事,不是要對他們所敬拜的妄加謊言,而是要用斑斕多彩的修辭,為自己的詩歌增添秀美與風趣。
Mount Olympus too may have furnished the poets with a figure, so that they said Jupiter had obtained by lot the kingdom of heaven; for Olympus is an ambiguous name, both of the mountain and of heaven. And that Jupiter dwelt on Olympus, the same history teaches, which says: «At that time Jupiter spent the greatest part of his life on Mount Olympus, and men came to him there for judgment, if there were any matters in dispute. Likewise, if anyone had invented something new that was useful for human life, he came there and showed it to Jupiter.» Many things in this manner the poets transfer, not that they may lie against those whom they worship, but that they may add charm and grace to their songs with variegated figures.
1:85
Qui autem non intelligunt, quomodo aut quare quidque figuretur, poetas uelut mendaces et sacrilegos insequuntur. Hoc errore decepti etiam philosophi, quod ea, quae de Ioue feruntur, minime in Deum conuenire uidebantur, duos Ioues fecerunt, unum naturalem, alterum fabulosum. Viderunt ex parte, quod erat uerum, eum scilicet, de quo poetae loquuntur hominem fuisse: in illo autem naturali Ioue, uulgari consuetudine religionis inducti, errauerunt, quod in Deum nomen hominis transtulerunt; qui (ut supra diximus) quia solus est, non indiget nomine. Iouem autem illum esse, qui sit ex Ope Saturnoque natus, negari non potest. Vana igitur persuasio est eorum, qui nomen Iouis summo Deo tribuunt.
但那些不明白每件事如何或為何被象徵性地表述的人,便攻擊詩人為說謊者與褻瀆者。連哲學家也被這謬誤所欺,因為論到朱庇特的那些事似乎絕不適合神,便造出兩位朱庇特,一位是自然的,一位是傳說的。他們有一部分看見了真實的,就是詩人所論的那位原是個人;但對那自然的朱庇特,他們卻被宗教的俗例所誤導而犯了錯,因為他們把一個人的名字加在神身上——而神(如我們上文所說),因祂獨一自存,並不需要名字。然而那朱庇特乃是由俄普斯與薩圖恩所生的,這不能否認。因此,那些把朱庇特之名歸給至高神的人,其信念是虛妄的。
But those who do not understand how or why each thing is figuratively represented attack the poets as liars and sacrilegious. Deceived by this error, even the philosophers, because the things told of Jupiter seemed by no means to befit God, made two Jupiters, one natural, the other fabulous. In part they saw what was true, namely that the one of whom the poets speak was a man; but in that natural Jupiter, led astray by the common custom of religion, they erred, because they transferred the name of a man to God—who (as we have said above), because He alone exists, needs no name. But that Jupiter is the one who was born of Ops and Saturn cannot be denied. Vain, therefore, is the persuasion of those who attribute the name of Jupiter to the supreme God.
1:86
Solent enim quidam errores suos hac excusatione defendere; qui conuicti de uno Deo, cum id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere affirmant, uerum hoc sibi placere, ut Iupiter nominetur: quo quid absurdius? Iupiter enim sine contubernio coniugis filiaeque coli non solet. Unde quid sit, apparet: nec fas est id nomen eo transferri, ubi nec Minerua est ulla, nec Iuno. Quid? quod huius nominis proprietas non diuinam uim exprimit, sed humanam? Iouem enim, Iunonemque a iuuando esse dictos, Cicero interpretatur. Et Iupiter, quasi Iuuans pater dicitur; quod nomen in Deum minime congruit; quia iuuare hominis est, opis aliquid conferentis in eum, qui sit alienus, et exigui beneficii.
因為某些人慣常用這種藉口為自己的謬誤辯護:當他們在獨一神的事上被駁倒、無法否認時,便聲稱他們所敬拜的正是這位神,只是樂意稱祂為朱庇特。還有什麼比這更荒謬呢?因為朱庇特向來不單獨受敬拜,總要有妻有女相伴。由此便顯明他是何等人物:也不可把那名字挪用到既無彌涅耳瓦、又無朱諾的對象上。再者,這名字本身的含義所表達的並非神性,而是人性。因為西塞羅解釋說,朱庇特與朱諾乃是因「幫助」(iuvare)而得名。朱庇特彷彿被稱為「幫助之父」(Iuvans pater)——這名字絕不合於神;因為幫助乃是人的行為,是把些許援助賜給與己無干的人,是微小的恩惠。
For certain men are wont to defend their errors with this excuse: when, being convicted concerning the one God, they cannot deny it, they affirm that it is Him whom they worship, but that it pleases them that He be named Jupiter. Than which what could be more absurd? For Jupiter is not wont to be worshiped without the consortship of a wife and a daughter. From which it is plain what he is: nor is it lawful to transfer that name to where there is neither any Minerva nor any Juno. What further? The very meaning of this name expresses not a divine power but a human one. For Cicero interprets that Jupiter and Juno were so called from 'helping' (iuvare). And Jupiter is named as it were 'Helping Father' (Iuvans pater)—a name which by no means suits God; because to help is the act of a man bestowing some aid upon another who is a stranger to him, and a slight benefit.
1:87
Nemo sic Deum precatur, ut se adiuuet; sed ut seruet, ut uitam salutemque tribuat: quod multo plus ac maius est quam iuuare. Et quoniam de patre loquimur, nullus pater dicitur filios iuuare, cum eos generat, aut educat. Illud enim leuius est, quam ut eo uerbo magnitudo paterni beneficii exprimatur. Quanto id magis inconueniens est Deo, qui uerus est pater; per quem sumus, et cuius toti sumus, a quo fingimur, animamur, illuminamur; qui nobis uitam impertit, salutem tribuit, uictum multiplicem subministrat. Non intelligit beneficia diuina, qui se iuuari tantummodo a Deo putat. Ergo non imperitus modo, sed etiam impius est, qui nomine Iouis uirtutem summae potestatis imminuit.
沒有人向神禱告求祂幫助,乃是求祂拯救,求祂賜生命與救恩:這遠比幫助更多、更大。既然我們在論父親,那麼沒有哪位父親在生養或撫育兒女時被說成是「幫助」他們。因為那太輕微,不足以用這字眼表達父恩之大。這對神就更不合宜了,神乃是真正的父;我們藉祂而存在,全然屬祂,由祂塑造、賦予生命、得蒙光照;祂把生命分賜給我們,把救恩賜給我們,並供應我們多樣的養生之物。那以為自己只是受神幫助的人,並不明白神的恩惠。因此,凡藉朱庇特之名而貶損至高權能之大能者,不僅是無知,更是不虔。
No one prays to God that He may help him, but that He may save him, that He may grant life and salvation: which is far more and greater than to help. And since we are speaking of a father, no father is said to help his children when he begets or rears them. For that is too slight a thing for the greatness of a father's benefit to be expressed by such a word. How much more unsuitable is this for God, who is the true Father; through whom we are, and whose we are wholly, by whom we are fashioned, animated, enlightened; who imparts to us life, grants us salvation, and supplies us with manifold sustenance. He does not understand the divine benefits, who thinks himself only to be helped by God. Therefore not only unskilled but also impious is he who, by the name of Jupiter, diminishes the power of the supreme might.
1:88
Quare si Iouem et ex rebus gestis et ex moribus hominem fuisse, in terraque regnasse deprehendimus, superest ut mortem quoque eius inuestigemus. Ennius in sacra Historia, descriptis omnibus quae in uita sua gessit, ad ultimum sic ait: Deinde Iupiter, postquam quinquies terras circuiuit, omnibusque amicis atque cognatis suis imperia diuisit, reliquitque hominibus leges, mores frumentaque parauit, multaque alia bona fecit, immortali gloria, memoriaque affectus, sempiterna monimenta suis reliquit: aetate pessum acta, in Creta uitam commutauit, et ad deos abiit, eumque Curetes filii sui curauerunt, decoraueruntque eum;
因此,我們既已從朱庇特的事蹟與品性察知他是一個人、曾在地上掌權,剩下的便是探究他的死亡。恩尼烏斯在《聖史》中,記述了他一生所行的一切之後,末了這樣說:後來朱庇特巡行各地五次,把治權分給他一切的友朋與親屬,又為人留下律法、建立風俗、預備五穀,並行了許多別的善事,得了不朽的榮耀與記念,給他自己的人民留下永久的紀念碑:及至年老衰殘,他在克里特了結此生,歸到諸神那裡,他的兒子們庫瑞忒斯料理了他、裝飾了他;
Wherefore, if from his deeds and his character we have detected that Jupiter was a man, and reigned on earth, it remains for us to investigate his death also. Ennius in the Sacred History, after describing all that he did in his life, says at the last thus: Then Jupiter, after he had gone round the lands five times, and had divided his dominions among all his friends and kinsmen, and had left laws to men, established morals and provided grain, and done many other good things, being endowed with immortal glory and remembrance, left everlasting monuments to his own people: his life being spent with age, he changed his life in Crete, and departed to the gods, and the Curetes his sons cared for him and adorned him;
1:89
et sepulcrum eius est in Creta et in oppido Cnosso, et dicitur Vesta hanc urbem creauisse; inque sepulcro eius est inscriptum antiquis litteris graecis, g-ZAN g-KRONOU, id est latine, Iupiter Saturni. Hoc certe non poetae tradunt, sed antiquarum rerum scriptores: quae adeo uera sunt, ut ea sybillinis uersibus confirmentur; qui sunt tales: "g-Daimonas g-apsuchous, g-nekuohn g-eidohla g-kamontohn, g-Hohn g-Chrehteh g-kauchehma g-taphous g-eh g-dusmoros g-ischei". Cicero de Natura deorum, cum tres Ioues a theologis enumerari diceret, ait tertium fuisse Cretensem, Saturni filium, cuius in illa insula sepulcrum ostenditur.
他的墳墓在克里特、在克諾索斯城,據說維斯塔建造了這座城;他的墳上用古希臘字母刻著「ΖΑΝ ΚΡΟΝΟΥ」,即拉丁文「薩圖恩之子朱庇特」。這事確然不是由詩人傳下的,而是由記述古事者所傳:這些事如此真實,甚至有西比拉的詩句加以印證,其句如此:「無魂的鬼魅,已逝亡者的幻影,不幸的克里特以他們的墳墓為誇耀。」西塞羅在《論諸神的本性》中,說神學家列舉了三位朱庇特,並聲稱第三位是克里特人、薩圖恩之子,其墳墓就展示在那海島上。
and his tomb is in Crete, in the town of Cnossus, and Vesta is said to have founded this city; and on his tomb is inscribed in ancient Greek letters ZAN KRONOU, that is, in Latin, 'Jupiter, son of Saturn.' This assuredly is delivered not by poets but by writers of ancient matters: which things are so true that they are confirmed by Sibylline verses, which are such: «Demons without souls, images of the dead departed, whose tombs ill-fated Crete makes her boast.» Cicero in his work On the Nature of the Gods, when he said that three Jupiters were enumerated by the theologians, declared that the third was a Cretan, son of Saturn, whose tomb is shown on that island.
1:90
Quomodo igitur potest deus alibi esse uiuus alibi mortuus, alibi habere templum, alibi sepulcrum? Sciant ergo Romani, Capitolium suum, id est summum caput religionum publicarum, nihil esse aliud quam inane monimentum. Veniamus nunc ad eius patrem, qui ante regnauit, et qui fortasse plus habebat in se, quod ex coitu tantorum elementorum genitus esse dicatur. Videamus quid in eo fuerit deo dignum: in primis illud, quod aureum saeculum narratur habuisse; quod iustitia sub eo fuerit in terra. Teneo aliquid in hoc, quod in eius filio non fuit. Quid enim tam conueniens deo, quam iustum regimen, ac pium saeculum?
那麼,一位神怎能在這處活著、在那處死了,在這處有廟、在那處有墳呢?所以願羅馬人知道,他們的卡庇托利歐——就是公共宗教之首腦——無非是一座空洞的紀念碑罷了。如今讓我們來看他的父親,就是在他以前掌權的,那位或許在自身有更多可說的,因為據說他是由那等偉大元素的結合所生。讓我們看看他身上有什麼配得上一位神:首先,據說他有過一個黃金時代;在他治下,公義曾在地上。我承認這裡有一點是他兒子所沒有的。因為還有什麼比公正的治理與虔敬的時代更配得上一位神呢?
How then can a god be alive in one place and dead in another, have a temple in one place and a tomb in another? Let the Romans, therefore, know that their Capitol—that is, the very head of the public religions—is nothing else than an empty monument. Let us now come to his father, who reigned before him, and who perhaps had in himself something more, since he is said to have been begotten from the union of such great elements. Let us see what there was in him worthy of a god: in the first place, that he is said to have had a golden age; that justice was on earth under him. I grant something in this, which was not in his son. For what is so befitting a god as a just government and a holy age?
1:91
Sed cum eadem ratione natum esse cogito, non possum putare Deum summum, quo uideam esse aliquid antiquius, coelum scilicet atque terram. At ego Deum quaero, ultra quem nihil sit omnino, qui fons, et origo sit rerum. Hic sit necesse est, qui coelum ipsum condidit, terramque fundauit. Saturnus autem si ex his natus est (ut putatur) quemadmodum potest Deus esse principalis, qui aliis ortum suum debet? aut quis praefuit mundo, priusquam Saturnus gigneretur? Sed hoc poeticum est (ut dicebam paulo ante) figmentum. Nec enim fieri poterat, ut elementa insensibilia, tantoque interuallo separata, in unum coirent ac filium procrearent:
但當我思想他是藉著同樣的生育過程而生時,我便不能認他為至高神,因為我看見有比他更古的,就是天與地。然而我尋求的是這樣一位神:在祂以外絕無一物,祂乃萬物的源頭與本始。這位必是創造了天本身、奠定了地的那一位。但薩圖恩若是由這些(如人所設想)而生,他怎能是首要的神呢?——他既將自己的出生歸於別物。再者,在薩圖恩被生之前,是誰主宰著世界呢?然而這是詩意的虛構(如我稍前所言)。因為無感覺的元素、彼此又相隔如此遙遠,斷不能聚為一體而生出一子:
But when I consider that he was born by the same process, I cannot suppose him to be the supreme God, when I see that there is something more ancient than he, namely heaven and earth. But I seek a God beyond whom there is nothing at all, who is the fount and origin of things. This must be He who founded heaven itself and established the earth. But if Saturn was born of these (as is supposed), how can he be the principal God, who owes his origin to others? or who presided over the world before Saturn was begotten? But this is a poetic fiction (as I said a little before). For it could not happen that elements without sensation, and separated by so great an interval, should come together into one and beget a son:
1:92
aut is, qui natus esset, non potissimum genitoribus similis existeret; sed eam formam gereret, quam parentes sui non habebant. Quaeramus ergo quid ueritatis sub hac figura lateat. Minucius Felix in eo libro, qui Octauius inscribitur, sic argumentatus est: «Saturnum, cum fugatus esset a filio in Italiamque uenisset, Coeli filium dictum, quod soleamus eos quorum uirtutem miremur, aut qui repentino aduenerint, de coelo cecidisse dicere; terrae autem, quod ignotis parentibus natos, terrae filios nominemus.» Sunt haec quidem similia ueri, non tamen uera: quia constat etiam tunc cum regnaret ita esse habitum. Potuit et sic argumentari:
或是那既生的不致與他的生育者極為相像,反倒帶著他父母所沒有的形貌。那麼,讓我們尋找這比喻底下隱藏的是何等真理。米努奇烏斯·斐利克斯在題名《奧克塔維烏斯》的書中如此論證:「薩圖恩被他兒子逐走、來到義大利時,被稱為『天之子』,因為我們對那些品德令我們欽佩、或突然來到的人,慣常說他們是『從天而降』;又被稱為『地之子』,因為我們把生於不明父母者稱作『地之子』。」這些話固然近於真理,卻並非真實:因為已確定即使在他掌權之時,他就已被如此看待。他也可以這樣論證:
or that he who was born should not turn out most like his begetters, but should bear that form which his parents did not have. Let us seek, then, what truth lies hidden beneath this figure. Minucius Felix, in the book which is entitled Octavius, argued thus: «Saturn, when he had been put to flight by his son and had come into Italy, was called the son of Coelus (Heaven), because we are wont to say of those whose virtue we admire, or who have arrived suddenly, that they have fallen from heaven; and the son of Earth, because we name those born of unknown parents the sons of earth.» These things are indeed like the truth, yet not true: because it is established that even then, when he reigned, he was so regarded. He might also have argued thus:
1:93
Saturnum, cum potentissimus rex esset, ad retinendam parentum suorum memoriam, nomina eorum coelo terraeque indidisse, cum haec prius aliis uocabulis appellarentur; qua ratione et montibus et fluminibus nomina scimus imposita. Neque enim cum dicunt poetae de progenie Atlantis, aut Inachi fluminis, id potissimum dicunt, homines ex rebus sensu carentibus potuisse generari; sed eos utique significant, qui nati sunt ex his hominibus, qui uel uiui, uel mortui, nomina montibus aut fluminibus indiderunt. Nam id apud ueteres, maximeque Graecos, fuit usitatum. Sic maria eorum traxisse nomina accepimus, qui deciderant in ea, ut Aegeum, Icarium, Hellesponticum:
就是薩圖恩既是極有權勢的王,為要保存他父母的記念,便把他們的名字加給天和地,這天地原先是用別的名稱被稱呼的;正如我們知道,山與河也是這樣被取了名。因為詩人們論到阿特拉斯的後裔、或伊那科斯河的後裔時,他們主要並非說人能從無感覺之物生出來;而是確指那些由人所生的後代,那些人無論生時或死後,把自己的名字加給了山或河。因為這在古人中、尤其在希臘人中是慣常的。我們就這樣得知,眾海乃從那些墜入其中者得名,如愛琴海、伊卡羅斯海、赫勒斯滂海:
that Saturn, when he was a most powerful king, in order to preserve the memory of his parents, gave their names to heaven and earth, which had before been called by other names; in the same way that we know names were imposed on mountains and rivers. For when the poets speak of the offspring of Atlas, or of the river Inachus, they do not chiefly mean this, that men could be generated from things lacking sensation; but they certainly signify those who were born from those men who, whether living or dead, gave their names to mountains or rivers. For this was usual among the ancients, and especially the Greeks. Thus we have received that seas drew their names from those who had fallen into them, as the Aegean, the Icarian, the Hellespontic:
1:94
et in Latio Auentinus, uocabulum monti dedit, in quo sepultus est; Tiberinus uel Tiberis, amni in quo mersus est. Non ergo mirandum, si nomina eorum coelo terraeque attributa essent, qui reges genuerant potentissimos. Apparet ergo non ex coelo natum esse; quod fieri non potest: sed ex eo homine, cui nomen Urano fuit. Quod esse uerum Trismegistus auctor est: qui cum diceret admodum paucos extitisse in quibus esset perfecta doctrina, in his Uranum, Saturnum, Mercurium cognatos suos nominauit. Haec ille quia ignorauit, alio traduxit historiam; qui quomodo potuerit argumentari, ostendi: nunc dicam, quomodo, ubi, a quo sit hoc factum; non enim Saturnus hoc, sed Iupiter fecit.
在拉提烏姆,阿文提努斯把名字給了他葬身的那座山;提貝里努斯或提貝里斯則給了他溺斃的那條河。那麼,若那些生了極有權勢之王者的名字被加給天和地,就不足為奇了。由此可見,他並非生於天——這是不可能的——而是生於那名叫烏拉諾斯的人。這是真的,特里斯墨吉斯托斯可作見證:他說曾有極少數人具備完全的學問,並把烏拉諾斯、薩圖恩、墨丘利這幾位自己的親族列在其中。米努奇烏斯因不曉得這些事,便把這段歷史引到別處去了;我已說明他是怎樣論證的。如今我要說這事是怎樣、在何處、由誰所成就的;因為這事並非薩圖恩所行,乃是朱庇特所行。
and in Latium Aventinus gave his name to the mountain on which he was buried; Tiberinus or Tiberis to the river in which he was drowned. It is not to be wondered at, then, if the names of those who had begotten most powerful kings were assigned to heaven and earth. It appears, therefore, that he was not born of heaven—which cannot happen—but of that man whose name was Uranus. That this is true, Trismegistus is our authority: who, when he said that very few had existed in whom there was perfect learning, named among these Uranus, Saturn, and Mercury, his own kinsmen. Because Minucius did not know these things, he diverted the history elsewhere; and I have shown how he was able to argue. Now I will say how, where, and by whom this was done; for Saturn did not do this, but Jupiter.
1:95
In sacra Historia sic Ennius tradit: «Deinde Pan eum deducit in montem, qui uocatur coeli stela. Postquam eo ascendit, contemplatus est late terras, ibique eo in monte aram creat coelo; primusque in ea ara Iupiter sacrificauit: in eo loco suspexit in coelum quod nunc nos nominamus, idque quod supra mundum erat, quod aether uocabatur, de sui aui nomine coelo nomen indidit: idque Iupiter, quod aether uocatur, precans, primum coelum nominauit; eamque hostiam, quam ibi sacrauit, totam adoleuit.» Nec hic tantum sacrificasse Iupiter inuenitur.
在《聖史》中,恩尼烏斯這樣記述:「然後潘把他帶上那座名叫『天之柱』的山。他登上那裡之後,遠眺各地,並在那山上為『天』築了一座壇;朱庇特首先在那壇上獻祭:在那地方,他仰望我們如今稱之為『天』的穹蒼,又仰望那在世界之上、被稱為『以太』的;他便以他祖父之名,給穹蒼取名為『天』(Coelus):朱庇特向那被稱為以太的禱告時,首先把它命名為『天』(coelum);他在那裡所獻的那祭牲,全然焚燒了。」朱庇特獻祭並非只在此一處。
In the Sacred History Ennius thus relates: «Then Pan leads him up onto the mountain which is called the Pillar of Heaven. After he had ascended there, he gazed far over the lands, and there on that mountain he builds an altar to Heaven; and Jupiter first sacrificed on that altar: in that place he looked up to the sky, which we now call by that name, and to that which was above the world, which was called aether; and from the name of his grandfather he gave to the sky the name 'Coelus' (Heaven): and Jupiter, praying to that which is called aether, first named it 'sky' (coelum); and that victim which he there consecrated, he burned whole.» Nor is Jupiter found to have sacrificed here only.
1:96
Caesar quoque in Arato refert Aglaosthenem dicere, Iouem cum ex insula Naxo aduersus Titanas proficisceretur, et sacrificium faceret in littore, aquilam ei in auspicium aduolasse; quam uictor bono omine acceptam tutelae suae subiugarit. Sacra uero Historia (scilicet Ennii) etiam ante consedisse illi aquilam in capite, atque illi regnum portendisse, testatur. Cui ergo sacrificare Iupiter potuit, nisi coelo auo? quem dicit Euhemerus in Oceania mortuum, et in oppido Aulacia sepultum. [1,12] CAPUT XII. Quoniam reuelauimus mysteria poetarum, et Saturni parentes inuenimus, ad uirtutes eius et facta redeamus. Iustus in regno fuit. Primum ex hoc ipso iam Deus non est, quod fuit:
凱撒在他的《阿拉圖斯》中也報導說,阿格拉俄斯特涅斯講道:朱庇特從納克索斯島出發去攻打提坦時,正在岸邊獻祭,有一隻鷹作為徵兆向他飛來;勝利者把牠當作吉兆接納,便將牠收歸自己的守護之下。但《聖史》(自然是恩尼烏斯的)見證說,甚至在此之先,曾有一隻鷹落在他頭上,向他預示了王權。那麼朱庇特除了向他祖父「天」獻祭以外,還能向誰獻祭呢?——歐赫墨魯斯說「天」死在俄刻阿尼亞,葬於奧拉奇亞城。第十二章。我們既已揭開詩人的奧祕、查明了薩圖恩的父母,就讓我們回頭來看他的德行與作為。他在位時是公正的。首先,單從這一事實,他便已不是神,因為他曾一度存在:
Caesar too in his Aratus reports that Aglaosthenes says that when Jupiter was setting out from the island of Naxos against the Titans, and was making a sacrifice on the shore, an eagle flew to him as an omen; which, accepted by the victor as a good sign, he subjected to his own protection. But the Sacred History (that of Ennius, of course) testifies that even before, an eagle had settled upon his head, and had portended to him the kingdom. To whom, then, could Jupiter have sacrificed, except to his grandfather Heaven?—whom Euhemerus says died in Oceania, and was buried in the town of Aulacia. CHAPTER XII. Since we have revealed the mysteries of the poets, and have found Saturn's parents, let us return to his virtues and deeds. He was just in his reign. First, from this very fact he is already not a god, that he once existed:
1:97
Deinde quod ne iustus quidem fuit; sed impius, non modo in filios quos necauit, uerum etiam in patrem, cuius dicitur abscidisse genitalia; quod forsitan uere acciderit. Sed homines respectu elementi, quod dicitur coelum, totam fabulam explodunt tamquam ineptissime fictam: quam tamen stoici (ut solent) ad rationem physicam conantur traducere; quorum sententiam Cicero, de Natura deorum {lib. II, cap. 24} disserens, posuit: «Coelestem, inquit, altissimam aetheriamque naturam, id est igneam, quae per sese omnia gigneret, uacare uoluerunt ea parte corporis, quae coniunctione alterius egeret ad procreandum: quae ratio in Vestam potuit conuenire, si mas diceretur.
其次,因為他甚至連公正也談不上;反倒是不虔的,不僅對他所殺的諸子,連對他父親亦然——據說他割了他父親的生殖器;這事或許確曾發生。但人們出於對那名為「天」之元素的顧惜,便把整個故事當作極其拙劣的捏造而從台上噓走:然而斯多亞派(一如其慣常)卻試圖把它轉化為一種物理的解釋;西塞羅在《論諸神的本性》中討論時,這樣陳述了他們的見解:「他們認為,」他說,「那屬天的、至高的、屬以太的本性,即那火性的、能憑自身生成萬物的,是不需要身體中那為生育而須與另一者結合之部分的:這推論本可適用於維斯塔,若她被說成是陽性的話。
Next, because he was not even just; but impious, not only toward the sons whom he slew, but also toward his father, whose genitals he is said to have cut off; which perhaps truly happened. But men, out of regard for the element which is called Heaven, hiss the whole tale off the stage as most ineptly invented: which nevertheless the Stoics (as is their wont) try to convert to a physical explanation; whose opinion Cicero, discussing in his work On the Nature of the Gods, set forth thus: «They held,» he says, «that the celestial, highest, and ethereal nature, that is, the fiery, which by itself generated all things, was free from that part of the body which needed the conjunction of another for procreation: which reasoning could have applied to Vesta, if she had been said to be male.
1:98
Idcirco enim uirginem putant Vestam, quia ignis inuiolabile sit elementum, nihilque nasci possit ex eo, quippe qui omnia quae arripuerit absumat.» Ouidius in Fastis {Lib. VI, u. 291 sqq.} : "Nec tu aliud Vestam, quam uiuam intellige flammam; Nataque de flamma corpora nulla uides. Iure igitur uirgo est, quae semina nulla remittit, Nec capit, et comites uirginitatis amat". Vulcano quoque id potuit adscribi, qui quidem putatur ignis; et tamen eum poetae non absciderunt. Potuit et Soli, in quo est natura et causa gignentium; nam sine Solis igneo calore neque nasci quidquam, neque augeri potest:
因為他們認為維斯塔是處女,乃是出於這緣故:火是不可侵犯的元素,從它生不出什麼來,因為它把所攫取的一切都吞滅了。」奧維德在《歲時記》中說:「你切莫把維斯塔理解為別的,乃是活的火焰;你也看不見有身體從火焰生出。所以她理當是處女,既不放出種子,也不領受種子,並愛慕貞潔的伴侶。」這也可歸於伏爾甘,他確被認作火;可詩人卻沒有把他閹割。也可歸於太陽,因生育之物的本性與成因都在其中;因為若沒有太陽的火熱,萬物既不能生,也不能長:
For they think Vesta a virgin on this account, that fire is an inviolable element, and nothing can be born from it, inasmuch as it consumes all things that it has seized.» Ovid in the Fasti: «Nor understand Vesta to be anything other than living flame; and you see no bodies born from flame. Rightly, then, is she a virgin who sends forth no seeds, nor receives any, and loves the companions of virginity.» This too might have been ascribed to Vulcan, who indeed is thought to be fire; and yet the poets did not castrate him. It might also have been ascribed to the Sun, in which is the nature and cause of things that beget; for without the fiery heat of the Sun nothing can either be born or grow:
1:99
ut nulli alii elemento magis opus sit genitalibus, quam calori, cuius fotu concipiuntur, nascuntur, sustentantur omnia. Postremo etiamsi ita sit (ut uolunt) qui magis abscissum esse Coelum putemus, quam omnino sine genitalibus natum? Nam si per se gignit, non indigebat utique genitalibus, cum Saturnum ipsum procrearet. Si uero habuit, et a filio abscissa sunt, ortus rerum, et natura omnis interisset. Quid, quod ipsi Saturno non diuinum modo sensum, sed humanum quoque adimunt, cum affirmant eum esse Saturnum, qui cursum et conuersionem spatiorum et temporum continet; eumque graece id ipsum nomen habere. G-Kronos enim dicitur, quod est idem, quod crounoû, id est spatium temporis.
以致沒有別的元素比熱更需要生殖之器,因萬物都靠它的養育而得孕、得生、得存。末了,即使果真如此(如他們所主張的),我們又何必寧可認為「天」被閹割了,而不認為它根本就生來無有生殖器呢?因為它若憑自身生育,便確實不需要生殖器,既然它生出了薩圖恩本身。但若它有,又被兒子割去,那麼萬物的本始與一切自然就都會滅亡了。再者,當他們斷言他就是那含括空間與時間之運行流轉的薩圖恩、並說他在希臘文裡正有此名時,他們不僅奪去了薩圖恩的神性之意,連人性之意也奪去了。因為他被稱為「克羅諾斯」(Kronos),這與「chronou」相同,即一段時間之間隔。
so that no other element has more need of genitals than heat, by whose fostering all things are conceived, are born, are sustained. Lastly, even if it be so (as they will have it), why should we rather suppose Heaven to have been castrated, than to have been born altogether without genitals? For if it generates of itself, it certainly had no need of genitals, since it begot Saturn himself. But if it had them, and they were cut off by the son, the origin of things and all nature would have perished. What of the fact that they take away from Saturn himself not only a divine sense, but a human one too, when they affirm that he is the Saturn who contains the course and revolution of spaces and times; and that in Greek he has this very name? For he is called Kronos, which is the same as 'chronou,' that is, an interval of time.
1:100
Saturnus autem est appellatus, quod saturetur annis. Haec Ciceronis uerba sunt exponentis sententiam stoicorum (Lib. II de Nat. deor, c. 64) : «Quae quam uana sit, cuiuis intelligere promptissimum est. Si enim Saturnus Coeli est filius, quomodo potuit aut tempus a Coelo gigni, aut Coelum a tempore abscidi, aut postea tempus imperio spoliari a filio Ioue? Aut quomodo Iupiter natus est ex tempore? Aut quibus annis saturari possit aeternitas, cui nullus est finis?» [1,13] CAPUT XIII. Si ergo uanae sunt istae rationes philosophorum, quid superest, nisi ut uere factum esse credamus, id est hominem ab homine abscissum? nisi forte aliquis existimet deum fuisse, qui timuit cohaeredem:
但他被稱為薩圖恩,乃因他被歲月所「飽足」(saturetur)。這是西塞羅闡釋斯多亞派見解時的話:「這何等虛妄,誰都極易明白。因為薩圖恩若是『天』之子,那麼時間怎能由『天』所生,『天』又怎能被時間所閹割,時間其後又怎能被其子朱庇特奪去主權?又朱庇特怎能從時間而生?或永恆——既無有窮盡——又能被多少歲月所飽足呢?」第十三章。那麼,哲學家這些推論既是虛妄的,剩下的不就是我們當信此事確曾發生,即一個人被另一個人所閹割麼?——除非或許有人以為他是個神,怕有共同的繼承者:
But he was called Saturn, because he is sated (saturetur) with years. These are the words of Cicero, expounding the opinion of the Stoics: «How vain this is, it is most easy for anyone to understand. For if Saturn is the son of Heaven, how could either time be begotten by Heaven, or Heaven be castrated by time, or time afterward be despoiled of its sovereignty by its son Jupiter? Or how was Jupiter born from time? Or by what years could eternity be sated, to which there is no end?» CHAPTER XIII. If, therefore, these reasonings of the philosophers are vain, what remains, except that we believe the thing truly happened, that is, that a man was castrated by a man?—unless perhaps someone supposes him to have been a god, who feared a co-heir:
1:101
cum, si quid diuinitatis habuisset, non patris genitalia debuerit amputare, sed propria, ne Iupiter nasceretur, qui eum regni possessione priuauit. Idem sororem suam Rheam, quam latine Opem dicimus, cum haberet uxorem, responso uetitus esse dicitur, mares liberos educare; quod futurum esset, ut a filio pelleretur: quam rem metuens, natos sibi filios non utique deuorabat (ut ferunt fabulae) sed necabat; quamquam scriptum sit in Historia sacra (scilicet Ennii) Saturnum, et Opem, caeterosque tunc homines humanam carnem solitos esitare: uerum primum Iouem, leges hominibus moresque condentem, edicto prohibuisse ne liceret eo cibo uesci. Quod si uerum est, quae potest in eo fuisse iustitia?
然而他若有任何神性,就不該砍去他父親的生殖器,而該砍去自己的,免得朱庇特出生、奪去他的王國。這同一個薩圖恩,娶了他妹妹瑞亞——我們拉丁文稱她為俄普斯——為妻,據說曾被一神諭禁止撫養男嗣;因為將有此事發生,就是他要被一個兒子逐出:他懼怕這事,便(並非如寓言所述)吞吃所生的兒子,而是把他們殺了;雖然《聖史》(自然是恩尼烏斯的)中寫道,薩圖恩、俄普斯以及那時其餘的人都慣常吃人肉:唯有朱庇特最先,當他為人立定律法與風俗時,下令禁止人以那食物為食。這若是真的,那麼他身上還能有什麼公義呢?
whereas, if he had had any divinity, he ought not to have amputated his father's genitals, but his own, lest Jupiter should be born, who deprived him of the possession of the kingdom. The same Saturn, when he had his sister Rhea—whom in Latin we call Ops—as his wife, is said to have been forbidden by an oracle to rear male children; because it would come to pass that he should be driven out by a son: fearing which thing, he did not indeed devour the sons born to him (as the fables relate), but slew them; although it is written in the Sacred History (that of Ennius, of course) that Saturn and Ops and the rest of mankind at that time were accustomed to eat human flesh: but that Jupiter first, when establishing laws and morals for men, prohibited by edict that it should be lawful to feed on that food. And if this is true, what justice could there have been in him?
1:102
Sed fictum sane putemus, Saturnum filios deuorasse, modo quum aliqua ratione: num idcirco, quod ait uulgus comedisse filios suos eum qui extulerit, sepulturaeque mandauerit? Ops autem cum Iouem peperisset, subtraxit infantem, eumque nutriendum furtim misit in Cretam. Rursum imprudentiam reprehendam necesse est. Cur enim responsum ab alio potius accepit? Cur in coelo constitutus, quae gerebantur in terra, non uidebat? Cur eum Corybantes cymbalis fefellerunt? Postremo cur extitit aliqua uis maior, quae illius uinceret potestatem? Nimirum senex a iuuene facile uictus est, ac spoliatus imperio. Fugit igitur, et in Italiam nauigio uenit, cum errasset diu;
但讓我們姑且假定薩圖恩吞吃兒子純屬虛構——只要它有某種緣由:豈不正是這緣由麼,就是(如俗眾所言)他「吃了」自己的兒子,其實是把他們埋葬、交付墳墓?而俄普斯生下朱庇特後,便把嬰孩抽出,暗暗送往克里特撫養。我又必須責備他缺乏先見。因為他為何寧可從別人那裡得那神諭的回應呢?他既設置在天上,為何看不見地上所行的事呢?庫瑞班忒斯為何用鐃鈸欺哄了他?末了,為何竟興起某種更大的力量,勝過了他的權勢呢?無疑,老者輕易就被少者擊敗,被奪去了治權。於是他逃了,在漂泊許久之後,乘船來到義大利;
But let us suppose it to be a mere fiction that Saturn devoured his sons—provided it be for some reason: was it not for this, that (as the common people say) he ate his own sons, who buried them and committed them to the grave? But Ops, when she had given birth to Jupiter, withdrew the infant and secretly sent him to be reared in Crete. Again I must necessarily reproach his lack of foresight. For why did he rather receive the oracle's response from another? Why, set in heaven, did he not see what was being done on earth? Why did the Corybantes deceive him with cymbals? Lastly, why did some greater force arise, which overcame his power? Doubtless the old man was easily conquered by the young one, and despoiled of his command. He fled, therefore, and came to Italy by ship, after he had wandered long;
1:103
sicut expulsus Ouidius in Fastorum libris (libro primo) refert: "Causa ratis superest. Thuscum rate uenit ad amnem Ante pererrato falcifer orbe Deus". Hunc errantem atque inopem Ianus excepit. Cuius rei argumenta sunt nummi ueteres, in quibus est cum duplici fronte Ianus, et in altera parte nauis; sicut idem poeta (ibidem) subiecit: "At bona posteritas puppim formauit in aere, Hospitis aduentum testificata dei." Omnes ergo non tantum poetae, sed historiarum quoque ac rerum antiquarum scriptores, hominem fuisse consentiunt, qui res eius in Italia gestas memoriae prodiderunt: Graeci, Diodorus et Thallus; Latini, Nepos et Cassius et Varro.
正如被放逐的奧維德在他《歲時記》的書中(卷一)所述:「還剩下船的緣故。這持鐮之神在巡遊過世界之後,乘船來到圖斯庫姆河。」雅努斯接待了這漂泊窮乏的人。此事的證據乃是古錢幣,幣上有雙面的雅努斯,另一面有一艘船;正如那同一詩人(在同處)所補充的:「但善良的後代在銅幣上鑄了船尾,見證這神聖賓客的到來。」因此一切人——不僅詩人,連史家及古事的記述者——都同意他是一個人,他們把他在義大利所行之事傳於後世:希臘人中有狄奧多魯斯與塔魯斯;拉丁人中有涅波斯、卡西烏斯與瓦羅。
as Ovid, when banished, relates in his books of the Fasti (in the first book): «There remains the matter of the ship. The scythe-bearing god came by ship to the Tuscan river, after he had wandered over the world.» This wandering and destitute one Janus received. The proofs of this thing are old coins, on which is Janus with a double face, and on the other side a ship; as the same poet (in the same place) subjoined: «But the good posterity formed a ship's stern on the bronze, attesting the arrival of the divine guest.» All therefore, not only the poets, but also the writers of histories and of ancient affairs, agree that he was a man, who handed down to memory his deeds done in Italy: among the Greeks, Diodorus and Thallus; among the Latins, Nepos and Cassius and Varro.
1:104
Nam cum agresti quodam more in Italia uiueretur, "Is genus indocile, ac dispersum montibus altis Composuit; legesque dedit, Latiumque uocari Maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris". Censet ne aliquis deum esse, qui pulsus est, qui fugit, qui latuit? Nemo tam stultus est. Qui enim fugit aut latet, et uim et mortem timeat necesse est. Orpheus, qui temporibus eius recentior fuit, aperte Saturnum in terra et apud homines regnasse commemorat: "G-Prohtistos g-men g-anassen g-epichthoniohn g-androhn, g-Ek g-de g-Kronou g-genet' g-autos g-anax, g-megas, g-euruopa g-Zeus". Item Maro noster: "Aureus hanc uitam in terris Saturnus agebat"; Et alio loco:
因為當義大利的生活還過得相當粗野時,「他把一個未受教化、散居於高山的族類聚集起來;又頒下律法,並寧願它被稱為拉提烏姆(Latium),因他曾在這海岸安然藏匿(latuisset)。」有誰判定一位被逐走、逃亡、藏匿的,竟是神呢?沒有人愚蠢至此。因為凡逃亡或藏匿的,必然懼怕暴力與死亡。奧菲斯比他的時代略晚,公然記述薩圖恩曾在地上、在人間掌權:「他最先統治屬地的眾人;又從克羅諾斯本身生出了王,就是那偉大、目光廣闊的宙斯。」我們自己的馬羅亦然:「黃金的薩圖恩曾在地上度此生」;又在另一處:
For when life in Italy was lived in a somewhat rustic fashion, «He brought together a race untaught and scattered over the high mountains; and he gave laws, and preferred that it be called Latium, since in these shores he had lain hidden in safety.» Does anyone judge him to be a god, who was driven out, who fled, who lay hidden? No one is so foolish. For he who flees or hides must needs fear both violence and death. Orpheus, who was later than his times, openly records that Saturn reigned on earth and among men: «First he ruled over earth-dwelling men; and from Kronos himself was begotten lord, the great, wide-seeing Zeus.» Likewise our own Maro: «Golden Saturn led this life on earth»; and in another place:
1:105
"Aureaque (ut perhibent) illo sub rege fuere Saecula: sic placida populos in pace regebat". Neque superius dixit in coelo egisse uitam, neque inferius superos in pace rexisse: unde apparet illum regem fuisse terrenum; quod alibi apertius declarat: "Aurea condet Saecula; qui rursus Latio, regnata per arua Saturno quondam". Ennius quidem in Euhemero non primum dicit regnasse Saturnum, sed Uranum patrem. Initio, inquit, primus in terris imperium summum Coelus habuit; is id regnum una cum fratribus suis instituit atque parauit. Non magna dissensio, siquidem maximorum auctorum de filio ac patre dubitatio est. Sed tamen utrumque fieri potest:
「那王治下的時代乃是黃金的(如他們所述):他就這樣在寧靜的平安中安詳地治理萬民。」他既未在上文說薩圖恩在天上度其生,也未在下文說他在平安中統治天上的諸神:由此可見他是一位屬地的王;他在別處更明白地宣示了這點:「他必開創黃金的時代;就是那曾在薩圖恩所治的拉提烏姆田地上掌權的。」恩尼烏斯在他的《歐赫墨魯斯》中確實說,最先掌權的不是薩圖恩,而是他父親烏拉諾斯。「起初,」他說,「在地上最先握有至高權力的是『天』;他與他的弟兄們一同設立並籌備了那國度。」這並無多大分歧,因為連最偉大的作者之間,對於父與子也有疑惑。然而兩者都可能發生:
«And golden (as they tell) were the ages under that king: so peacefully did he rule the peoples in calm peace.» He neither said above that he led his life in heaven, nor below that he ruled the gods above in peace: from which it appears that he was an earthly king; which elsewhere he declares more openly: «He shall found golden ages; he who once over the fields of Latium ruled by Saturn.» Ennius indeed in his Euhemerus says that not Saturn first reigned, but his father Uranus. «In the beginning,» he says, «the first to hold the supreme power on earth was Coelus; he set up and prepared that kingdom together with his brothers.» There is no great disagreement, since even among the greatest authors there is doubt about the son and the father. Yet both could have happened:
1:106
ut et primus Uranus eminere inter caeteros potentia coeperit, et principatum habere, non regnum; postea Saturnus maiores sibi opes comparauerit, ac regium nomen asciuerit. [1,14] CAPUT XIV. Nunc quoniam ab iis, quae retulimus, aliquantulum sacra Historia dissentit, aperiamus ea quae ueris litteris continentur, ne poetarum ineptias in accusandis religionibus sequi ac probare uideamur. Haec Ennii uerba sunt: «Exin Saturnus uxorem duxit Opem. Titan, qui maior natu erat, postulat ut ipse regnaret. Ibi Vesta mater eorum, et sorores Ceres atque Ops, suadent Saturno, ut de regno non concedat fratri.
就是烏拉諾斯起初開始在權力上超越其餘的人,握有首位,而非王權;其後薩圖恩為自己取得了更大的資財,並僭取了王者的稱號。第十四章。如今既然《聖史》與我們所述的略有不同,就讓我們披露那些載於真實記錄中的事,免得我們在指控諸宗教時,顯得是在跟隨並認可詩人的愚拙。這是恩尼烏斯的話:「於是薩圖恩娶了俄普斯為妻。提坦既年長為兄,便要求由自己掌權。他們的母親維斯塔,以及他們的姊妹刻瑞斯與俄普斯,在那裡力勸薩圖恩不要把王國讓給他兄弟。」
so that Uranus first began to be eminent above the rest in power, and to hold a primacy, not a kingdom; and afterward Saturn acquired greater resources for himself, and assumed the royal title. CHAPTER XIV. Now, since the Sacred History differs somewhat from the things we have related, let us disclose those things which are contained in the true records, lest we seem to follow and approve the follies of the poets in accusing the religions. These are Ennius's words: «Thereupon Saturn took Ops to wife. Titan, who was the elder by birth, demands that he himself should reign. There Vesta their mother, and their sisters Ceres and Ops, urge Saturn not to yield the kingdom to his brother.»
1:107
Ibi Titan, qui facie deterior esset, quam Saturnus, idcirco et quod uidebat matrem atque sorores suas operam dare ut Saturnus regnaret, concessit ei ut is regnaret. Itaque pactus est cum Saturno, uti si quid liberum uirilis sexus ei natum esset, ne educaret. Id eius rei causa fecit, uti ad suos gnatos regnum rediret. Tum Saturno filius qui primus natus est, eum necauerunt. Deinde posterius nati sunt gemini, Iupiter atque Iuno. Tum Iunonem Saturno in conspectum dedere, atque Iouem clam abscondunt, dantque eum Vestae educandum, celantes Saturnum. Item Neptunum clam Saturno Ops parit, eumque clanculum abscondit. Ad eumdem modum tertio partu Ops parit geminos, Plutonem et Glaucam.
「提坦相貌比薩圖恩醜陋,又因見母親與姊妹都盡力要使薩圖恩掌權,便為此緣故讓給他,由他作王。於是他與薩圖恩立約:薩圖恩若生下任何自由身、男性的子女,就不可撫養。他這樣做是為要使王國歸回自己的兒子。後來薩圖恩所生的頭一個兒子,他們就把他殺了。其後又生了雙胞胎,就是朱庇特與朱諾。他們把朱諾呈到薩圖恩眼前,卻暗暗把朱庇特藏起,交給維斯塔撫養,瞞著薩圖恩。同樣,俄普斯瞞著薩圖恩偷偷生下涅普頓,暗中把他藏起。如法第三次分娩,俄普斯生下雙胞胎,就是普路托與格勞卡。」
«There Titan, who was uglier in face than Saturn, on that account and because he saw that his mother and sisters were taking pains that Saturn should reign, conceded to him that he should reign. So he made a compact with Saturn, that if any free-born child of the male sex should be born to him, he should not rear it. He did this for this reason, that the kingdom might return to his own sons. Then they slew the first son who was born to Saturn. Afterward twins were born, Jupiter and Juno. Then they presented Juno to Saturn's sight, but secretly hid Jupiter away, and gave him to Vesta to be reared, concealing him from Saturn. Likewise Ops bears Neptune secretly from Saturn, and hides him away by stealth. In the same manner at a third birth Ops bears twins, Pluto and Glauca.»
1:108
Pluto Latine est Dispater: alii Orcum uocant. Ibi Glaucam filiam Saturno ostendunt, ac filium Plutonem celant atque abscondunt. Deinde Glauca parua emoritur.» Haec (ut scripta sunt) Iouis fratrumque eius stirps, atque cognatio in hunc modum nobis ex sacra scriptione tradita est. Item paulo post haec infert: «Deinde Titan, postquam resciuit Saturno filios procreatos, atque educatos esse clam, seducit secum filios suos qui Titani uocantur, fratremque suum Saturnum, atque Opem comprehendit, eosque muro circumegit, et custodiam his apponit.» Haec historia quam uera sit, docet Sibylla Erythraea, eadem fere dicens; nisi quod in paucis, quae ad rem non pertinent, discrepat.
「普路托在拉丁文中是狄斯帕特(Dispater):別人稱他為俄耳庫斯(Orcus)。他們在那裡把女兒格勞卡展示給薩圖恩看,卻把兒子普路托隱藏起來。後來小格勞卡夭折了。」這(一如所記)就是朱庇特與其弟兄的世系與親屬關係,是這樣從聖書傳給我們的。稍後他又補充說:「然後提坦在得知薩圖恩暗中生養了兒子之後,便帶著自己那些稱為提坦的眾子,把他兄弟薩圖恩和俄普斯一同擒住,用牆把他們圍起,並派人看守。」這段歷史何等真實,厄律特拉的西比拉可作教導,她所說的幾乎相同;只在少數與本題無關的事上有所出入。
«Pluto in Latin is Dispater: others call him Orcus. There they show Glauca, the daughter, to Saturn, but conceal and hide away the son Pluto. Then little Glauca dies.» This (as it is written) is the stock of Jupiter and his brothers, and their kinship, handed down to us in this manner from the sacred writing. Likewise a little after he adds this: «Then Titan, after he learned that sons had been begotten and reared secretly by Saturn, takes aside with him his own sons who are called Titans, and seizes his brother Saturn and Ops, and encloses them within a wall, and sets a guard over them.» How true this history is, the Erythraean Sibyl teaches, saying almost the same things; except that she differs in a few matters which do not pertain to the subject.
1:109
Iupiter ergo liberatur summi sceleris crimine, quod patrem uinxisse compedibus perhibetur: id enim Titan patruus fecit quod ille contra pactionem iusque iurandum mares liberos sustulisset. Reliqua historia sic contexitur: Iouem adultum, cum audisset patrem atque matrem custodiis circumseptos, atque in uincula coniectos, uenisse cum magna Cretensium multitudine, Titanumque ac filios eius pugnando uicisse, parentes uinculis exemisse, patri regnum reddidisse, atque ita in Cretam remeasse: Post haec deinde Saturno datam sortem, ut caueret ne filius eum regno expelleret: illum eleuandae sortis atque effugiendi periculi gratia, insidiatum Ioui, ut eum necaret:
如此,朱庇特便從那最大罪行的指控中被開脫了,這罪行就是據傳他用腳鐐捆鎖了父親:因為作這事的乃是他叔父提坦,緣由是薩圖恩違背盟約與所起的誓,撫養了他那些男嗣。其餘的歷史如此編述:朱庇特長大後,聽聞父母被守衛圍困、被投入鎖鏈,便帶著一大群克里特人前來,在交戰中勝過了提坦及其諸子,把父母從捆鎖中解救出來,將王國歸還父親,然後就這樣返回克里特。此後,薩圖恩得了一籤,要他謹防被一個兒子逐出王國:他為要避開那籤、躲過危險,便埋伏要殺朱庇特:
Jupiter, then, is freed from the charge of the greatest crime, in that he is reported to have bound his father in fetters: for it was Titan, his uncle, who did this, because Saturn, contrary to the compact and his oath, had reared his male children. The rest of the history is woven together thus: that Jupiter, grown up, when he had heard that his father and mother were surrounded by guards and cast into chains, came with a great multitude of Cretans, and overcame Titan and his sons in battle, freed his parents from their bonds, restored the kingdom to his father, and thus returned to Crete. After this, then, a lot was given to Saturn, that he should beware lest a son drive him from the kingdom: he, for the sake of warding off the lot and escaping the danger, lay in wait for Jupiter, that he might slay him:
1:110
Iouem, cognitis insidiis, regnum sibi denuo uindicasse, ac fugasse Saturnum, qui, cum iactatus esset per omnes terras, persequentibus armatis, quos ad eum comprehendendum uel necandum Iupiter miserat, uix in Italia locum, in quo lateret, inuenit. [1,15] CAPUT XV. Quibus ex rebus, cum constet illos homines fuisse, non est obscurum qua ratione dii coeperint nominari. Si enim nulli reges ante Saturnum uel Uranum fuerunt propter hominum raritatem, qui agrestem uitam sine ullo rectore uiuebant:
朱庇特得知這陰謀後,便再次為自己奪取王國,把薩圖恩逐走;薩圖恩被驅趕遍歷各地,有武裝的人追趕——就是朱庇特所差遣去擒拿或殺他的——好不容易才在義大利尋得一處可藏身之所。第十五章。從這些事既已確定他們是人,那麼他們是憑何緣由開始被稱為神的,也就不難明白了。因為若在薩圖恩或烏拉諾斯之前並無諸王,乃因人口稀少、他們過著無有統治者的粗野生活:
that Jupiter, on learning of the plot, claimed the kingdom for himself once again, and put Saturn to flight; who, when he had been tossed through all lands, with armed men pursuing—whom Jupiter had sent to seize or kill him—scarcely found in Italy a place in which to hide. CHAPTER XV. From these matters, since it is established that they were men, it is not obscure by what reasoning they began to be named gods. For if there were no kings before Saturn or Uranus, on account of the scarcity of men, who lived a rustic life without any ruler:
← 上一段下一段 →
第 2 章 →
12