{"author":null,"backreferences":[{"context_html":"<p>But Scipio, were he alive, would possibly reply: \"How\r\ncould we attach a penalty to that which the gods themselves\r\nhave consecrated? For the theatrical entertainments in which\r\nsuch things are said, and acted, and performed, were introduced\r\ninto Roman society by the gods, who ordered that they\r\nshould be dedicated and exhibited in their honour.\" But was\r\nnot this, then, the plainest proof that they were no true gods,\r\nnor in any respect worthy of receiving divine honours from\r\nthe republic? Suppose they had required that in their\r\nhonour the citizens of Rome should be held up to ridicule,\r\nevery Roman would have resented the hateful proposal. How\r\nthen, I would ask, can they be esteemed worthy of worship,\r\nwhen they propose that their own crimes be used as material\r\nfor celebrating their praises? Does not this artifice expose\r\nthem, and prove that they are detestable devils? Thus the\r\nRomans, though they were superstitious enough to serve as\r\ngods those who made no secret of their desire to be worshipped\r\nin licentious plays, yet had sufficient regard to their hereditary\r\ndignity and virtue, to prompt them to refuse to players any\r\nsuch rewards as the Greeks accorded them. On this point\r\nwe have this testimony of Scipio, recorded in Cicero: \"They\r\n[the Romans] considered comedy and all theatrical performances\r\nas disgraceful, and therefore not only debarred players\r\nfrom offices and honours open to ordinary citizens, but also\r\ndecreed that their names should be branded by the censor, and\r\nerased from the roll of their tribe.\" An excellent decree, and\r\nanother testimony to the sagacity of Rome; but I could wish\r\ntheir prudence had been more thoroughgoing and consistent.\r\nFor when I hear that if any Roman citizen chose the stage as\r\nhis profession, he not only closed to himself every laudable\r\ncareer, but even became an outcast from his own tribe, I cannot\r\nbut exclaim: This is the true Roman spirit, this is worthy of\r\na state jealous of its reputation. But then some one interrupts\r\nmy rapture, by inquiring with what consistency players are<span class=\"pagenum\"><a id=\"Page_63\">[Pg 63]</a></span>\r\ndebarred from all honours, while plays are counted among the\r\nhonours due to the gods? For a long while the virtue of\r\nRome was uncontaminated by theatrical exhibitions;<a id=\"FNanchor_99_99\"></a><a class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_99_99\">[99]</a> and if\r\nthey had been adopted for the sake of gratifying the taste of\r\nthe citizens, they would have been introduced hand in hand\r\nwith the relaxation of manners. But the fact is, that it was\r\nthe gods who demanded that they should be exhibited to\r\ngratify them. With what justice, then, is the player excommunicated\r\nby whom God is worshipped? On what pretext\r\ncan you at once adore him who exacts, and brand him who\r\nacts these plays? This, then, is the controversy in which the\r\nGreeks and Romans are engaged. The Greeks think they\r\njustly honour players, because they worship the gods who\r\ndemand plays: the Romans, on the other hand, do not suffer\r\nan actor to disgrace by his name his own plebeian tribe, far\r\nless the senatorial order. And the whole of this discussion\r\nmay be summed up in the following syllogism. The Greeks\r\ngive us the major premiss: If such gods are to be worshipped,\r\nthen certainly such men may be honoured. The Romans add\r\nthe minor: But such men must by no means be honoured.\r\nThe Christians draw the conclusion: Therefore such gods must\r\nby no means be worshipped.</p>","headings":["THE WORKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINE,","BOOK SECOND.","ARGUMENT."],"marker_anchor":null,"paragraph_id":"pg45304-paragraph-142"}],"canonical_references":[],"date_end":null,"date_start":null,"deduplication_fingerprint":"8f7f9941fbfec7267a0054e51070a579cafc27afefdb8f05166e2d29ea0ef4fe","edition_title":"The City of God, Volume I","edition_translators":["Marcus Dods","George Wilson (Book IV)","J. J. Smith (Books V-VIII)"],"edition_year":1871,"explicit_reference_candidates":[],"headings":[],"id":"pg45304-Footnote_99_99","license_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html","public_import_allowed":false,"record_kind":"original-editor-translator-note","review_required":["work and recension attribution","original-work chronology","Bible reference numbering and citation kind","English edition rights and attribution"],"review_status":"needs_review","rights_evidence":"Provider catalog reports public domain in the USA. Original transcription title leaves state T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1871; printed translator allocation retained. Gutenberg credits Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries without an exact scan identifier. Full provider license preserved with acquired original; republication and per-work metadata remain unreviewed.","source_anchor":"Footnote_99_99","source_ebook":45304,"source_html":"<div class=\"footnote\">\n<p><a id=\"Footnote_99_99\"></a><a class=\"pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_99_99\"><span class=\"label\">[99]</span></a> According to Livy (vii. 2), theatrical exhibitions were introduced in the\r\nyear 392 <span class=\"smcap\">a. u. c.</span> Before that time, he says, there had only been the games of the\r\ncircus. The Romans sent to Etruria for players, who were called \"histriones,\"\r\n\"hister\" being the Tuscan word for a player. Other particulars are added\r\nby Livy.</p></div>","source_sha256":"d89e9a2b80bb59f394f0fb1bf313b39fab162f06af6642166d62c5912c1195f1","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45304/pg45304-images.html#Footnote_99_99","text_sha256":"5d5c24fbf9c5e0a39be93739986295a6021944a0bde0f59146af4dae24f3acb1","verified":false,"work_id":null}