• Start
  • Werke
  • Einführung Anleitung Mitarbeit Sponsoren / Mitarbeiter Copyrights Kontakt Impressum
Bibliothek der Kirchenväter
Suche
DE EN FR
Werke Augustinus von Hippo (354-430) De Civitate Dei

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 16.--Concerning the Philosophers Who Think that the Separation of Soul and Body is Not Penal, Though Plato Represents the Supreme Deity as Promising to the Inferior Gods that They Shall Never Be Dismissed from Their Bodies.

But the philosophers against whom we are defending the city of God, that is, His Church seem to themselves to have good cause to deride us, because we say that the separation of the soul from the body is to be held as part of man's punishment. For they suppose that the blessedness of the soul then only is complete, when it is quite denuded of the body, and returns to God a pure and simple, and, as it were, naked soul. On this point, if I should find nothing in their own literature to refute this opinion, I should be forced laboriously to demonstrate that it is not the body, but the corruptibility of the body, which is a burden to the soul. Hence that sentence of Scripture we quoted in a foregoing book, "For the corruptible body presseth down the soul." 1 The word corruptible is added to show that the soul is burdened, not by any body whatsoever, but by the body such as it has become in consequence of sin. And even though the word had not been added, we could understand nothing else. But when Plato most expressly declares that the gods who are made by the Supreme have immortal bodies, and when he introduces their Maker himself, promising them as a great boon that they should abide in their bodies eternally, and never by any death be loosed from them, why do these adversaries of ours, for the sake of troubling the Christian faith, feign to be ignorant of what they quite well know, and even prefer to contradict themselves rather than lose an opportunity of contradicting us? Here are Plato's words, as Cicero has translated them, 2 in which he introduces the Supreme addressing the gods He had made, and saying, "Ye who are sprung from a divine stock, consider of what works I am the parent and author. These (your bodies) are indestructible so long as I will it; although all that is composed can be destroyed. But it is wicked to dissolve what reason has compacted. But, seeing that ye have been born, ye cannot indeed be immortal and indestructible; yet ye shall by no means be destroyed, nor shall any fates consign you to death, and prove superior to my will, which is a stronger assurance of your perpetuity than those bodies to which ye were joined when ye were born." Plato, you see, says that the gods are both mortal by the connection of the body and soul, and yet are rendered immortal by the will and decree of their Maker. If, therefore, it is a punishment to the soul to be connected with any body whatever, why does God address them as if they were afraid of death, that is, of the separation, of soul and body? Why does He seek to reassure them by promising them immortality, not in virtue of their nature, which is composite and not simple, but by virtue of His invincible will, whereby He can effect that neither things born die, nor things compounded be dissolved, but preserved eternally?

Whether this opinion of Plato's about the stars is true or not, is another question. For we cannot at once grant to him that these luminous bodies or globes, which by day and night shine on the earth with the light of their bodily substance, have also intellectual and blessed souls which animate each its own body, as he confidently affirms of the universe itself, as if it were one huge animal, in which all other animals were contained. 3 But this, as I said, is another question, which we have not undertaken to discuss at present. This much only I deemed right to bring forward, in opposition to those who so pride themselves on being, or on being called Platonists, that they blush to be Christians, and who cannot brook to be called by a name which the common people also bear, lest they vulgarize the philosophers' coterie, which is proud in proportion to its exclusiveness. These men, seeking a weak point in the Christian doctrine, select for attack the eternity of the body, as if it were a contradiction to contend for the blessedness of the soul, and to wish it to be always resident in the body, bound, as it were, in a lamentable chain; and this although Plato, their own founder and master, affirms that it was granted by the Supreme as a boon to the gods He had made, that they should not die, that is, should not be separated from the bodies with which He had connected them.


  1. Wisdom ix. 15. ↩

  2. A translation of part of the Timaeus, given in a little book of Cicero's, De Universo. ↩

  3. Plato, in the Timaeus, represents the Demiurgus as constructing the kosmos or universe to be a complete representation of the idea of animal. He planted in its centre a soul, spreading outwards so as to pervade the whole body of the kosmos; and then he introduced into it those various species of animals which were contained in the idea of animal. Among these animals stand first the celestial, the gods embodied in the stars, and of these the oldest is the earth, set in the centre of all, close packed round the great axis which traverses the centre of the kosmos.--See the Timaeus and Grote's Plato, iii. 250 et seq. ↩

Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XVI: De philosophis, qui animae separationem a corpore non putant esse poenalem, cum Plato inducat summum deum dis minoribus promittentem, quod numquam sint corporibus exuendi.

Sed philosophi, contra quorum calumnias defendimus ciuitatem dei, hoc est eius ecclesiam, sapienter sibi uidentur inridere, quod dicimus animae a corpore separationem inter poenas eius esse deputandam, quia uidelicet eius perfectam beatitudinem tunc illi fieri existimant, cum omni prorsus corpore exuta ad deum simplex et sola et quodammodo nuda redierit. ubi si nihil, quo ista refelleretur opinio, in eorum litteris inuenirem, operosius mihi disputandum esset, quo demonstrarem non corpus esse animae, sed corruptibile corpus onerosum. unde illud est quod de scripturis nostris in superiore libro commemorauimus: corpus enim corruptibile adgrauat animam. addendo utique corruptibile. non qualicumque corpore, sed quale factum est ex peccato consequente uindicta, animam perhibuit adgrauari. quod etiamsi non addidisset, nihil aliud intellegere deberemus. sed cum apertissime Plato deos a summo deo factos habere inmortalia corpora praedicet eisque ipsum deum, a quo facti sunt, inducat pro magno beneficio pollicentem, quod in aeternum cum suis corporibus permanebunt nec ab eis ulla morte soluentur, quid est quod isti ad exagitandam Christianam fidem fingunt se nescire quod sciunt, aut etiam sibi repugnantes aduersum se ipsos malunt dicere, dum nobis non desinant contradicere? nempe Platonis haec uerba sunt, sicut ea Cicero in Latinum uertit, quibus inducit summum deum deos quos fecit adloquentem ac dicentem: uos, qui deorum satu orti estis, adtendite: quorum operum ego parens effectorque sum, haec sunt indissolubilia me inuito, quamquam omne conligatum solui potest; sed haudquaquam bonum est ratione uinctum uelle dissoluere. sed quoniam estis orti, inmortales uos quidem esse et indissolubiles non potestis; neutiquam tamen dissoluemini, neque uos ulla mortis fata periment, nec erunt ualentiora quam consilium meum, quod maius est uinculum ad perpetuitatem uestram, quam illa quibus estis tum, cum gignebamini, conligati. ecce deos Plato dicit et corporis animaeque conligatione mortales, et tamen inmortales dei a quo facti sunt uoluntate atque consilio. si ergo animae poena est in qualicumque corpore conligari, quid est quod eos adloquens deus tamquam sollicitos, ne forte moriantur, id est dissoluantur a corpore, de sua facit inmortalitate securos; non propter eorum naturam, quae sit conpacta, non simplex, sed propter suam inuictissimam uoluntatem, qua potens est facere, ut nec orta occidant nec conexa soluantur, sed incorruptibiliter perseuerent? et hoc quidem utrum Plato uerum de sideribus dicat, alia quaestio est. neque enim ei continuo concedendum est globos istos luminum siue orbiculos luce corporea super terras seu die seu nocte fulgentes suis quibusdam propriis animis uiuere eisque intellectualibus et beatis, quod etiam de ipso uniuerso mundo, tamquam uno animali maximo, quo cuncta cetera continerentur animalia, instanter adfirmat. sed haec, ut dixi, alia quaestio est, quam nunc discutiendam non suscepimus. hoc tantum contra istos commemorandum putaui, qui se Platonicos uocari uel esse gloriantur, cuius superbia nominis erubescunt esse Christiani, ne commune illis cum uulgo uocabulum uilem faciat palliatorum tanto magis inflatam, quanto magis exiguam paucitatem; et quaerentes, quid in doctrina Christiana reprehendant, exagitant aeternitatem corporum, tamquam haec sint inter se contraria, ut et beatitudinem quaeramus animae et eam semper esse uelimus in corpore, uelut aerumnoso uinculo conligatam; cum eorum auctor et magister Plato donum a deo summo dis ab illo factis dicat esse concessum, ne aliquando moriantur, id est a corporibus, quibus eos conexuit, separentur.

  Drucken   Fehler melden
  • Text anzeigen
  • Bibliographische Angabe
  • Scans dieser Version
Editionen dieses Werks
De civitate Dei (CCSL)
Übersetzungen dieses Werks
La cité de dieu vergleichen
The City of God
Zweiundzwanzig Bücher über den Gottesstaat (BKV) vergleichen
Kommentare zu diesem Werk
The City of God - Translator's Preface

Inhaltsangabe

Theologische Fakultät, Patristik und Geschichte der alten Kirche
Miséricorde, Av. Europe 20, CH 1700 Fribourg

© 2025 Gregor Emmenegger
Impressum
Datenschutzerklärung