dependent on the deity. The Power which is above these interests has a positive signification, and has itself an interest for the subject, since it is to carry out its ends. So far it simply signifies that it is a means for the realisation of its ends. This is the sneaking hypocritical element in such humility; for its own ends are and must be the content, the end of this Power. This kind of consciousness accordingly has no theoretical position in religion, i.e., it does not consist in a free contemplation of objectivity, in an honouring of these powers, but only in practical selfishness, in a demand for the satisfaction of the individual interests of this life. It is the understanding which in this religion holds fast by its finite ends, by something which has been posited in a one-sided way by itself, and which is interesting only for it, and it neither sinks such abstractions and individual details in necessity nor resolves them in reason. Thus particular ends, needs, powers, appear also as gods. The content of these gods is practical utility; they serve the common good or profit.
Thus (3) the transition is made to gods who are wholly single or particular.
The family gods belong to this or that particular citizen. The Lares, on the other hand, are connected with natural morality and piety, with the moral unity of the family. There are other gods, again, whose content or character has reference to utility pure and simple of a still more special kind.
Since human life and action of this kind appear also in a form from which the negative element of evil at all events is absent, the satisfaction of those needs which belong to life takes the shape of a simple, peaceful, primitive, natural state. The time of Saturn, the state of innocence, is the picture which floats before the mind of the Roman, and the satisfaction of the needs proper to such a condition of things is represented by a crowd of gods.
