[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. XIV

[sdi]

Good morning and happy Wednesday once again! This week's short chapter marks two thirds of the way through Sallustius. No footnotes this week, so let us dive right in and pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

XIV. In what sense, though the Gods never change, they are said to be made angry and appeased.

If any one thinks the doctrine of the unchangeableness of the Gods is reasonable and true, and then wonders how it is that they rejoice in the good and reject the bad, are angry with sinners and become propitious when appeased, the answer is as follows: God does not rejoice—for that which rejoices also grieves; nor is he angered—for to be angered is a passion; nor is he appeased by gifts—if he were, he would be conquered by pleasure.

It is impious to suppose that the Divine is affected for good or ill by human things. The Gods are always good and always do good and never harm, being always in the same state and like themselves. The truth simply is that, when we are good, we are joined to the Gods by our likeness to them; when bad, we are separated from them by our unlikeness. And when we live according to virtue we cling to the gods, and when we become evil we make the gods our enemies—not because they are angered against us, but because our sins prevent the light of the gods from shining upon us, and put us in communion with spirits of punishment. And if by prayers and sacrifices we find forgiveness of sins, we do not appease or change the gods, but by what we do and by our turning towards the Divine we heal our own badness and so enjoy again the goodness of the gods. To say that God turns away from the evil is like saying that the sun hides himself from the blind.

Comments

[boccaderlupo]

Not much to say on this one, but it follows. Iamblichus gets quite a bit into this and related topics in De Mysteriis, particularly with an eye toward how rituals relate to the boons (or disfavor) of the gods.

Indicative, perhaps, to reconcile the more volatile portraits of the gods we have in the myths with the elevated personas as understood in Neoplatonism. Dodds (I think) in his commentary on Proclus disparages this somewhat, but I think the philosophers' reasoning is legit...

[sdi]

FWIW, Sallustius' discussion here doesn't match my personal experience. However, per Apuleius, it seems I am interacting with dæmons in the service of the Gods rather than the Gods themselves, and so perhaps Sallustius' point simply doesn't apply!

With that said, I think your point that this discussion may be intended to head off early Christian criticism with respect to the myths is illuminating.

[boccaderlupo]

It is impious to suppose that the Divine is affected for good or ill by human things.

Incidentally, readoldthings treats this somewhat, in a Christian context, in a recent post on the sign of the cross.