世界学术经典系列上帝之城(上、下卷)The City of God(导读注释版)(世界学术经典系列)

1.The first question I would like to ask is: Why is not Empire itself one of those gods? Surely it should be, if Victory is a goddess? Why should Jupiter himself be needed in this matter，if Victory is favourable and propitious, and always comes to those whom she wishes to be conquerors? Given her favour and sympathy, what nations would have remained unconquered, even though Jupiter had taken a holiday, or had been otherwise employed? Surely, all kingdoms would have submitted? But perhaps honest men did not like to make war with a lack of equity too unconsiderable and to enlarge their dominions by aggression against peaceful neighbours who did them no wrong? If such was their feeling,I certainly approve and applaud them. 2. As far as I can see, the distinction between victors and vanquished has not the slightest importance for security, for moral standards, or even for human dignity. It is merely a matter of the arrogance of human glory, the coin in which these men 'receive their reward', who were on fire with unlimited lust for glory, and waged their wars of burning fury. Is it the case that the conqueror's lands are exempt from taxes? Have the victors access to knowledge forbidden to the others? Are there not many senators in other lands, who do not know Rome even by sight? Take away national complacency, and what are all men but simply men? If the perverse standards of the world would allow men to receive honours proportional to their deserts, even so the honour of men should not be accounted an important matter; smoke has no weight. 3.I am going to discuss the creation of man; for it will be apparent that the two cities took their origin from that creation, as far as they are concerned with beings who are both rational and mortal. But, as I showed in my last book, the beginning of the two cities had already been seen in the angels; and so I see that I must say something about them first. I hope to demonstrate, if I can, that there is no absurdity or incongruity in asserting a fellowship between men and angels. So that there is no need to suppose four cities, or communities, one consisting of the good, angels as well as men, and the other of the evil. The contrasted aims of the good and the evil angels did not arise from any difference in nature or origin. It would be utterly wrong to have any doubt about that, since God created both, and he is good in his creation and fashioning of all substances. We must believe that the difference had its origin in their wills and desires, the one sort persisting resolutely in that Good which is common to all-- which for them is God himself-- and in his eternity, truth, and love, while the others were delighted rather with their own power, as though they themselves were their own Good.