Einheri's Channel

Plato, Phaedo, 85c-d: "One should achieve one of these things: learn the truth about these things or find it for oneself, or, if that is impossible, adopt the best and most irrefutable of men’s theories, and, borne upon this, sail through the dangers of life as upon a raft, unless someone should make that journey safer and less risky upon a firmer vessel of some divine doctrine."

🌳🗿

Woah, guys... I think I found Hyperborea 😳

Many in our circles are well-acquainted with Emperor Julian, the Roman emperor who was the last emperor to reject Christianity and who authorized the wide revival of true religion in the Empire. Julian was born into a Christian family, he was related to the Emperor Constantine and because he rejected Christianity, he is commonly referred to by Christians as Julian the Apostate. What many do not know, however, is that Julian was persuaded by his grandfather's slave tutor Mardonius. Mardonius was a Gothic man, and he remained a pagan all his life. Mardonius, as a slave, was ordered by Julian's grandfather to become a scholar of Hellenic lore. After Emperor Constantine died, his son Constantius II usurped the throne and massacred many of his own relatives to assume control, including the father of the future Emperor Julian. After he became an orphan, it was Mardonius who instructed Julian in the lore, from Homer to Plato, ignoring the orders of the Christian Emperor Constantius II, who did not want Julian to become learned in these matters. Mardonius not only risked his position, but possibly even his life. An incredible story followed, of course, but one which would not be possible if it weren't for the bravery and virtuous character of this Germanic Platonist man, Mardonius.

To avoid further confusion, we would like to clarify that our channel does not stand against "folkish paganism," at least not in its widely accepted definition. Folkish paganism is characterized by one thing only: ethnic exclusivism. But we need to address another issue. There are attempts to redefine what the term "folkish paganism" means. And if you dare speak against these attempts, you are automatically labeled as "anti-folkish," "a universalist" or "a subversive." We are very much against this. Many contemporary people think that an ethnically exclusivist tradition that recognizes universals (in the metaphysical sense) is the same as a "universalist," i.e. ethnically inclusivist tradition. What a foolish conclusion. An ethnically exclusivist tradition can affirm that a universal objective truth exists and at the same time remain ethnically exclusivist. Perhaps some unintelligent people confuse the two because they cannot discern the meanings of the words? The division into "folkish" and "universalist" paganism that we see today is an entirely modern dichotomy. While the term "folkish" in its current use has its root in early 20th century Germany, and the term "universalist" in the latter half of the same century in the US, both ultimately originate in a heavily politicized atmosphere. The fact is that among many contemporary pagans, their political inclinations are more important to them than theology, history and even practicing the religion they claim to follow. The nature of the internet allows even illiterate and dishonest people to acquire thousands of followers. This means they can effectively spread their erroneous and simplistic views on various topics. The unfortunate follower, who may not have the time or the ability to double check the information may then end up believing false information. The people running these channels rarely allow for comments and don't want their opinions corrected, because they do not care about the truth, or about their audience. This is why you can be sure our comment section will always stay open for you.

Due to the nature of the Germanic religious and historical sources, we must admit it is not exactly possible to find the same interpretation method we discussed among the ancient Greeks. But that does not mean there do not exist traces of a similar method among the Germanic people, which the scholars coined as "Interpretatio Germanica." The most obvious example of the Germanic interpretation is the adoption of the names of the days of the week at a time during which the proto-West Germanic language was spoken. This adoption had such an impact that it eventually spread to the wider Germanic sphere. We can reconstruct this ancient form of the names of the days of the week: Sunnōn dag, interpretted from Solis dies (day of the Sun), hence English Sunday. Mānini dag, interpretted from Lunae dies (day of the Moon), hence English Monday. Tīwas dag, interpretted from Martis dies (day of Mars), hence English Tuesday. And we can also reconstruct a Þingas dag, hence German Dienstag, because Tew presides over the thing. Wōdnas dag, interpretted from Mercurii dies (day of Mercury), hence English Wednesday. Þunras dag, interpretted from Jovis dies (day of Jupiter), hence English Thursday. Frījā dag, interpretted from Veneris dies (day of Venus), hence English Friday. Sāturnas dag, from Saturni dies (day of Saturn), but the god wasn't interpretted, hence English Saturday. It is important to note that the identifications of the gods aren't altogether that accurate and are based on very superficial similarities. But this is not as important as the fact that the gods worshipped by the Germanic people were identified with the gods worshipped by the Romans. Since they could be identified, we must assume the Germanic people who made this identification understood the gods as being universal and consider these identifications only as secondary. As we have already noted, the accuracy of the method is only as accurate as the knowledge of men. Which is most likely why the Roman god Saturn wasn't identified with any Germanic deity.

Auspicious time to offer a cake this full moon. 1 like = 1 blót Share this image for many blessings!

Fairly often, we see Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods being shared in our circles as a work illustrative of the authentic ancient pagan worldview and theology. On the Nature of the Gods is a dialogue between an Epicurean, a Stoic, and an Academic Sceptic. Cicero himself was rather eclectic, and his own position is somewhere in between the Stoic and the Academic Sceptic, leaning more towards Balbus' position (the Stoic), as he remarks in Book III. Therefore, we would like to share the fact that Cicero agrees with the recently discussed points in our posts. In De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), Book I, XXX: “And then do we also represent the gods as having the same names as those by which we call them? Why, in the first place, there are as many names of the gods as there are languages among men, for Vulcan has not the same name in Italy, Africa, and Spain […]”

The use of Interpretatio Graeca had many lasting effects on the Greek religion, especially in the colonies. Yet avoiding religious dialogue is nearly impossible. And no religion stays the same after it engages in a religious dialogue with another religion. There are many interesting observations to be made regarding this method. We do not wish to make haste conclusions, and the modern use of similar interpretations requires a lot of nuance. Our opinion is that its proper use can have its advantages in a mutual religious understanding between two different ethnicities. Likewise, it can provide a deeper insight into the nature of a given deity, which is especially relevant when we consider related methods like modern comparative mythology, which can provide information both about the specific nature of a deity, but also how this deity was understood in the most remote of antiquities. I would argue that conclusions such as syncretism or the mixing of religious customs are not exactly a downside of the method itself, but rather a misunderstanding of the method and not understanding the importance of following one's own ancestral customs. If one stops properly observing their ancestral customs in favor of foreign rites, it is not because they identified the gods of foreigners with those of their own, but because they failed to uphold their ancestral customs. What this means for us? What does this mean especially in the age of the internet? We would wish to invite you to a dialogue in our group or in the comments.

We have briefly touched upon the subject of the universal nature of the gods in our previous posts. We shall look at one of the practical applications of this idea in the ancient world. Interpretatio Graeca, or "Greek interpretation" is an academic term for a method that the ancient Greeks used to identify gods worshipped by foreigners with their own gods. This method rests on the common acceptance of the fact that the two identified deities in question are in fact the same god worshipped by two different ethnicities according to their own customs, thus accepting that the gods are a universal objective reality, that exists independently of these two ethnicities. Many of our contemporaries believe that this method has only appeared with the imperialist conquest of Alexander the Great (4th Century BCE), but this is not the case, in our literary records, a clear use of this method appears already in the works of Herodotus (5th Century BCE), who identified the Egyptian gods with the Greek gods. But as we have shown before, this kind of understanding was always a part of the ancient Greek religion. The accuracy of the identification of two deities via this interpretation isn't altogether that important. And mistakes in these respective identifications cannot be used to disprove the method, nor the principle upon which the method is grounded, i.e. that the gods are universal, because the method is only as accurate as the men who proceed with the identifications. Moreover, the interpretation itself does not have a clearly outlined framework of use, gods can be identified based on their mythic similarity, based on what they are said to govern, similarity of their cults, or even superficial elements of their worship such as their depictions. Thus, the resulting accuracy of the method rests on the knowledge available to the person making the identification and their overall interest in the religion of the foreign ethnicity. The interpretation was necessary whenever the Greeks encountered different ethnicities which had their own religious customs and their own understanding of the gods and engaged in a religious interaction with the Greeks. It became especially important in a multicultural setting where different ethnicities shared the same space with the Greeks, and thus shared the same temples dedicated to gods. The interpretation would become obsolete if the Greeks did not interact with the other ethnicities in a religious dialogue. Historically, the use of the interpretation was quite broad, and we can find it used in an elite religious and political setting, as well as a literary setting where it is usually used by ancient historians or ethnographers. But its use was not confined only to these settings but found its use in the common life of many ordinary Greeks, especially in the colonies as we learn from archeological records.

We have shown that the doctrine of the gods being universal was always a part of the Greek religion, but nowhere do we find a clearer formulation of the idea that the gods are universal, but worshipped by each ethnicity according to its own ethnic tradition as in Plutarch (1st Century CE), a Platonist philosopher and an honorable priest of Apollo at the famed temple in Delphi, where the sacred Oracle resided. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride (On Isis and Osiris), 67: "Nor do we think of the gods as different gods among different peoples, nor as barbarian gods and Greek gods, nor as southern and northern gods; but, just as the sun and the moon and the heavens and the earth and the sea are common to all, but are called by different names by different peoples, so for that one rationality which keeps all these things in order and the one providence which watches over them and the ancillary powers that are set over all, there have arisen among different peoples, in accordance with their customs, different honors and appellations."

Misinformation is being spread about the life of Xenophanes of Colophon (6th Century BCE), and since we have mentioned Xenophanes in our last post, we might as well discuss him again. The false claims about Xenophanes are these: 1. That he was an atheist This is ridiculous, Xenophanes advises everyone to worship the gods, as is attested in Fragments 1 and 2. The scholarly position may be summed up as follows: "Xenophanes need hardly argue that it is always good to honor the gods (when could it not be?), but he can reasonably argue that is good to honor them always." (in Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments, A Text and Translation with a Commentary, Edited by J. H. Lesher, Introduction). 2. That he criticized the gods This is untrue, no text of Xenophanes criticizes the gods anywhere, on the contrary, as we have shown above, Xenophanes teaches piety towards the gods, and for this reason, he criticized Homer and Hesiod because he believed their portrayals of the gods were misleading, thus wishing to correct these poets, cf. Fragment 11. Moreover, Xenophanes was a rhapsode, so whilst he was critical of these poets, this didn't mean he outright rejected them but continued to recite their poetry. 3. That he considered himself a moral authority above the gods As with the above claim, no such text exists to support this ridiculous notion. A man who stresses the importance of piety to the gods would hardly consider himself above them. 4. That he was exiled for impiety This is untrue, no source for this claim exists. Diogenes Laërtius merely mentions him going into exile, not providing any reasons for this. Xenophanes left Colophon when he was 25 years old as he recounts in Fragment 8, and this coincides with the time when his homeland was conquered by the Persian armies, and his home city of Colophon fell into the hands of the Persian general Mede Harpagus. The claim that he was exiled for criticizing the gods can't be true, because Xenophanes never criticized the gods anywhere. The claim that he was exiled for criticizing Homer and Hesiod can't be true either, no other men were exiled for this reason. Heraclitus lived in a neighboring city of Colophon, in Ephesus (merely 70 stadia away from each other, i.e. about 15 kms) and he criticized Homer and Hesiod extensively, even wanting to trash their works and even he wasn't exiled for such opinions. Whilst Homer and Hesiod were held in high regard, they could be criticized. The only reasonable explanation we are left with is that Xenophanes left his home city because of the Persian invasion, and this is again admitted by scholars (in Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments, A Text and Translation with a Commentary, Edited by J. H. Lesher, Commentary on Fragment 8). Lastly, we would like to point out that the author of the post quotes the Ancient City by Fustel de Coulanges but does not cite the book, making it appear that this is what Diogenes Laërtius said about Xenophanes. But since we have shown that Xenophanes was not exiled for any of the falsely claimed reasons, we might as well add that Xenophanes was never exiled from any of the other cities he visited and where he taught piety towards the gods. Whether the author deliberately lies or is simply ignorant of the historical context, this undermines his credibility as an honest source.

Many people in our circles hold that the ancients didn't see the gods as universal. The idea is that the gods worshipped by one ethnicity are not the same as the gods worshipped by a different ethnicity, and thus cannot be identified with each other. The gods then, would be limited to a certain ethnic group and would not be interchangeable with one another, regardless of the implications of such beliefs. So let us take a look at one of the most archaic European traditional lore that is available to us. We have briefly discussed Xenophanes in one of our previous posts, thus we shall not repeat what has already been said unless we deem it necessary. It is commonly affirmed, that Xenophanes (6th century BCE) was the first to formulate the idea that the gods are universal. This is mentioned in Fragment 16: "Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black; Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired." This fragment in itself does not explicitly state that the gods are universal, but when it is understood with the knowledge of Xenophanes' criticism of anthropomorphizing of the gods, then the idea becomes clearer. Xenophanes notes that there's an ethnic aspect in our understanding of the gods. If there's an ethnic aspect in their understanding, the existence of the gods must then by necessity precede the existence of the ethnicity. The implication is quite clear, the gods are common to all men, yet each ethnicity understands them within their own ethnic context. It would be very easy to say that the origin of this kind of thinking begins with Xenophanes, which would be false. While not explicitly formulated, the understanding of the gods as universal was always a part of the most ancient religion. And we can find this doctrine in the oldest sources, namely Homer (8th century BCE). His Iliad portrays a grand conflict between two parties of two different ethnicities, the Greeks and the Trojans, who were Hittites. Homer portrays both of these ethnicities as worshipping the same gods, despite the division of their sympathies between the two warring parties. Not only that, even the Ethiopians worship the same gods, e.g. Book I of the Iliad (423): "Zeus went to the blameless Ethiopians at the Ocean yesterday to feast, and the rest of the gods went with him." Later, Achilles says in Book XXIII of the Iliad (205): "I am going back to the running waters of Ocean and the Ethiopians' land, where they are making grand sacrifice to the immortals; there I, too, shall partake of the sacraments." While the exact identity of the Ethiopians in Homer's works is unclear, and the name would later be used for any dark-skinned people, Homer most likely refers to a non-Greek ethnicity living in Southern Anatolia, thus testifying that the idea that the gods are universal is a doctrine already present in the most archaic Greek religion.

In regards to how the gods are described in the Sagas, we ought to mention two Old Norse words in particular. A god can be described as an "ástvinr", which means "dear friend", "close friend" or literally "loved friend." Further, a god can be described as a "fulltrúi", which is translated as "a confidant, a patron deity" but literally means "one into whom one can put full trust." Not only does this demonstrate that the concept of a patron deity existed historically, it also demonstrates that it was common to form a personal relationship with the gods. And numerous such examples are found in the sagas.

There are some lesser known words used to refer to the gods in the Eddic and Scoldic material, and likewise in the medieval law codes and the Sagas. We shall discuss these and explain the etymology of some. One of the more obscure nouns used to refer to the gods is "feers" [fjǫrg (pl.). Its original etymological meaning can be traced via the Proto-Germanic word *fergō (pl.), which would literally translate as "vital forces." The word is closely related to Proto-Germanic *ferhuz (m.) which means "life, being, existence, oak tree," but also "body." Another quite obscure noun used to refer to the gods is "wighers" [véar (pl.)]. This word is derived from the word "wigh" [vé (n.)], which means both the idea of holiness or sacredness and a sacred site, a shrine or a sanctuary. The word wigher then means "a wigh-being, a priest" and "a sanctifier." Two very similar nouns are used to refer to the gods and they are "bands" [bǫnd (pl.)] and "hafts" [hǫpt (pl.)], both literally mean "those who bind [decide the fates of the cosmos and men]", thus the gods are to be understood as "divine powers of fate." Yet another very obscure noun used to refer to the gods is "yulens" [jóln (pl.)], whose origins is even more obscure, but generally it is being interpretted as "those who are celebrated at festivities" or "celebrated ones." There is also one noun which sticks out from the rest, which is "dies" [díar (pl.)], which is a loan word from Old Irish "día (pl. dé)", that is derived from Proto-Indo-European *deywós, thus being a doublet of the word "tew" [týr (sg.)] with essentially the same original meaning. This word is extremely rare, but it is for example used in the Ynglinga saga, c. 2.

Resuming our study of the words in the Eddic material that are used to refer to the gods that reveal their nature, we shall discuss the adjectives that describe the gods whilst keeping in mind the meanings of the nouns we discussed above. Gods are spoken of as ‘excellent gods’ (svǫ́su goð) in the Speeches of Webthrithner (Vafþrúðnismǫ́l), ss. 17, 18. Gods are spoken of as ‘most holy, sacrosanct gods’ (ginnhęilǫg goð) in the Spae of the Wallow (Vǫluspǫ́), ss. 6, 9, 22, 24; the Flyting of Lock (Lokasęnna), s. 11. Gods are spoken of as ‘helpful, beneficient reins’ (nýt ręgin) in the Speeches of Webthrithner (Vafþrúðnismǫ́l), s. 25. Gods are spoken of as ‘hold reins’ (holl ręgin) in the Flyting of Lock (Lokasęnna), s. 4; the Weeping of Ordrun (Oddrúnargrátr), s. 10, the word hold means ‘favorable, loyal, gracious.’ Gods are spoken of as ‘blithe reins’ (blíð ręgin) in the Speeches of Grimner (Grímnismǫ́l), ss. 7, 39, 43, the word blithe means ‘kind, gentle, soft, pleasant, affectionate, friendly.’ Gods are spoken of as ‘wise, knowing reins’ (fróð ręgin) in the Speeches of Webthrithner (Vafþrúðnismǫ́l), s. 26. Gods are spoken of as ‘wise reins’ (vís ręgin) in the Speeches of Webthrithner (Vafþrúðnismǫ́l), s. 39. Gods are spoken of as ‘ruling tews’ (ríkir tívar) in the Dreams of Balder (Baldrs draumar), s. 1; the Lay of Thrim (Þrymskviða), s. 14. Gods are spoken of as ‘strong and loving ease’ (ǫflgir ok ȧstkir ę̇sir) in the Spae of the Wallow (Vǫluspǫ́), s. 16.

This can be further illustrated by the theological remarks made in the Prose Edda. In the Gylfaginning, pp. 19-20: "Weden is called All-father, for he is father of all gods." Which means that all the gods share his essence (his divine nature) and thus aren't separate from each other by virtue of sharing his essence. A bit earlier on the same page we read: "Weden is highest and most ancient of the Ease. He rules all things, and mighty though the other gods are, yet they all submit to him like children to their father." Which means that all the gods act in total unison with Weden, and therefore with each other and aren't separate from each other for this reason also. Those who would want to invalidate these statements in the Prose Edda can compare with the poetic material. In the Speeches of Grimner (Grímnismǫ́l) , s. 45: “Askr Yggdrasils, · hann ’s ǿztr viða en Skíðblaðnir skipa, Óðinn ása · en jóa Slęipnir, Bilrǫst brúa · en Bragi skalda, Hábrók hauka · en hunda Garmr.” “Ugdrassle’s Ash, that is the highest of trees, but Shidebladner of ships; Weden of the Ease, but of horses Slopner; Bilrest of bridges, but Bray of scolds; Highbrook of hawks, but of hounds Garm.” Or in Þorbjǫrn dísarskáld, Poem about Þórr 1: "Þórr hęfr Yggs með ǫ́rum · Ás-garð af þręk varðan." "Thunder has, [together] with Ug’s [Weden’s] messengers [Gods], mightily defended Osyard." The gods are in this instance referred to as "Weden's messengers," clearly indicating a status of subservience. And lastly, in the Hallfreðar saga, s. 10, where the gods are referred to as "Óðins ætt", that is "Weden's family, paternal lineage, offspring."

This can be further illustrated by the Eddic and Skaldic poems. In these, the gods either act in total unison or are referred to as a totality of the divine. In the Words of Hathkin (Hákonarmál, the funerary poem for the Norwegian king Hathkin [Hákon] the Good) the king is welcomed in Walhall by the totality of the divine, s. 18: “Þá þat kynnðisk, · hvé sá konungr hafði vel of þyrmt véum, es Hǫ́kon bǫ́ðu · hęilan koma rǫ́ð ǫll ok ręgin.” “Then it was revealed, how well that king had treated the wighs [sanctuaries], when Hathkin was bidden welcome by all the Redes and Reins [Counsels and Decrees, i.e. the totality of the divine, the gods].” In the Dreams of Balder (Baldrs draumar) all the Gods act in complete unison, s. 1: “Sęnn vǫ́ru ę́sir · allir á þingi ok ǫ́synjur · allar á máli, ok of þat réðu · ríkir tívar: hví vę́ri Baldri · ballir draumar?” “Soon were the Ease all at the Thing, and the Ossens all at speech, and of this counseled the mighty Tews: Why did Balder have troubling dreams?” An identical formula is found also in the Lay of Thrim (Þrymskviða), s. 14: “Sęnn vǫ́ru ę́sir · allir á þingi ok ǫ́synjur · allar á máli, ok of þat réðu · ríkir tívar: hvé þęir Hlórriða · hamar of sǿtti.” “Soon were the Ease all at the Thing, and the Ossens all at speech, and of this counseled the mighty Tews: a how they the hammer of Loride [Thunder] would seek out.” The gods act in total unison in the Spae of the Wallow (Vǫluspǫ́), s. 6 and 9: “Þȧ gingu ręgin ǫll · ȧ rǫk-stóla, ginn-hęilǫg goð, · ok umb þat gę́ttusk: Nǫ́tt ok niðjum · nǫfn of gǫ́fu, morgin hétu · ok miðjan dag, undurn ok aptan, · ǫ́rum at tęlja.” “Then went the Reins all onto the rake-seats [judgement-seats]: the yin-holy gods, and from each other took counsel about that. To night and the moon-phases names did they give; morning they called, and middle day; afternoon and evening, the years for to tally.” [...] “Þȧ gingu ręgin ǫll · ȧ rǫk-stóla, ginn-hęilǫg goð, · ok umb þat gę́ttusk: Hvęrr skyldi dverga · drótt of skępja ór brimi blóðgu · ok ór blǫ́um lęggjum?” “Then went the Reins all onto the rake-seats: the yin-holy gods, and from each other took counsel about that: Who would shape the retinue of Dwarfs, out of the bloody surf, and out of the blue-black legs?” In the Speeches of Sighdrive (Sigrdrífumǫ́l) we find all the divinity invoked in the context of prayer, s. 3: “Hęilir ę́sir, · hęilar ǫ́synjur, hęil sjá in fjǫl-nýta fold! Mál ok man-vit · gefið okkr mę́rum tvęim ok lę́knis-hęndr meðan lifum!” “Hail the Ease! Hail the Ossens! Hail this bountiful fold [Earth]! Speech and manwit [common sense] give ye us renowned two, and healing-hands while we live.” In the Speeches of Grimner (Grímnismǫ́l) we find all the divinity invoked in a ritual context, s. 43: “Ullar hylli · hęfr ok allra goða hvęrr’s tękr fyrstr á funa, því’t opnir hęimar · verða of ása sonum, þá’s hęfja af hvera.” “The holdness [favor, grace] of Woulder [Ullr] and of all the gods has each who first touches the fire; for the Homes become open over the sons of the Ease, when the cauldrons are heaved off.” All of this goes to show, that the gods are not separate from each other, and thus necessarily neither from the first cause. This is because if the gods can act as a totality or a unity, there must be a preceding unity which is common to them all, and this is the first cause.

In the Eddic material, there is a number of words used to refer to the gods that reveal their nature. We shall discuss the nouns that refer to the gods and discuss some of the etymologies of the words that reveal their remotest meanings to us. One of the most common nouns that is used is simply "gods" [goð (pl.)]. Its original etymological meaning can be traced via the proto-Germanic word *gudą (n.) to the Proto-Indo-European word *ǵʰutós, itself derived from the root *ǵʰew-, meaning "to pour [a libation]", thus the word "god" likely originally referred to a being to whom libations are poured. Another very common noun is "reins" [regin (pl.)], literally meaning "those who rule" or "ruling powers." Another good translation is "the decrees." The earliest attestation of this noun is the Noleby stone (dated to cca 600 CE), which describes itself as a rūnō ragina-kundō "a rune born of the reins." Yet another well-known noun is "ease" [æsir (pl.)], which contrary to some modern beliefs, in practice includes all the prominent deities, and can be traced via the proto-Germanic word *ansuz (m.) to the Proto-Indo-European root *h₂ems-, meaning "to beget, to produce," thus the word "os" likely originally referred to a being who begotten, or produced [the cosmos presumably]. And last common noun we shall mention is "tews" [tívar (pl.)], literally meaning "deities." The word can be traced via the proto-Germanic word *tíwaz (m.) to the Proto-Indo-European word *deywós, itself derived from the root *dyew-, pertaining to the "daylit sky," thus the word "tew" likely originally referred to a deity associated with daylight and the sky and the gods are referred to as dwelling in heaven. All of these words refer to the gods collectively, as a totality of divinity, testifying to the fact that the gods are not separate from each other, and thus necessarily neither from the first cause. This is because if the gods can be referred to as a totality, they must share an essence (a divine nature) which is common to all, and thus precedes their own being, and this is the first cause.

To further supplement what has been said about the nature of the gods by the authors we have quoted, we shall add other important theological remarks. The correct beliefs about the gods are briefly explained by Sallust in his treatise On the Gods and the World. This treatise was both a short summary of theology of the ancestral religion and an indirect anti-Christian reaction. Sallust, On the Gods and the World, c. 1: “[…] all god [divinity] is good, free from passion, free from change. For whatever suffers change does so for the worse or the better; if for the worse, it is made bad; if for the better, it must have been bad at first.” Sallust, On the Gods and the World, c. 2: “The essences of the gods never came into existence (for that which always is never comes into existence; and that exists forever which possesses primary force and by nature suffers nothing): neither do they consist of bodies; for even in bodies the powers are incorporeal. Neither are they contained by space; for that is a property of bodies. Neither are they separate from the first cause nor from one another, just as thoughts are not separate from mind nor acts of knowledge from the soul.”