Edition ausblenden
De Trinitate

XI.

[XI] Habet ergo animus nonnullam speciei notae similitudinem sive cum ea placet sive cum eius privatio displicet. Quocirca in quantum deum novimus similes sumus, sed non ad aequalitatem similes quia nec tantum eum novimus quantum ipse se. Et quemadmodum cum per sensum corporis discimus corpora fit aliqua eorum similitudo in animo nostro quae phantasia memoriae est (non enim omnino ipsa corpora in animo sunt cum ea cogitamus sed eorum similitudines, itaque cum eas pro illis approbamus erramus; error est namque pro alio alterius approbatio; melior est tamen imaginatio corporis in animo quam illa species corporis in quantum haec in meliore natura est, id est in substantia vitali sicuti est animus), ita cum deum novimus, quamvis meliores efficiamur quam eramus antequam nossemus maximeque cum eadem notitia etiam placita digneque amata verbum est fitque aliqua dei similitudo illa notitia, tamen inferior est qui in inferiore natura est; creatura quippe animus, creator autem deus. Ex quo colligitur quia cum se mens ipsa novit atque approbat sic est eadem notitia verbum eius ut ei sit par omnino et aequale atque identidem quia neque inferioris essentiae notitia est sicut corporis neque superioris sicut dei. Et cum habeat notitia similitudinem ad eam rem quam novit, hoc est cuius notitia est, haec habet perfectam et aequalem qua mens ipsa quae novit est nota. Ideoque et imago et verbum est quia de illa exprimitur cum cognoscendo eidem coaequatur, et est gignenti aequale quod genitum est.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[XII 17] Quid ergo? Amor non erit imago, non verbum, non genitus? Cur enim mens notitiam suam gignit cum se novit, et amorem suum non gignit cum se amat? Nam si propterea est notionis suae causa quia noscibilis est, amoris etiam sui causa est quia est amabilis. Cur itaque non utrumque genuerit difficile est dicere. Haec enim quaestio etiam de ipsa summa trinitate, omnipotentissimo creatore deo, ad cuius imaginem homo factus est solet movere homines quos veritas dei per humanam locutionem invitat ad fidem, cur non spiritus quoque sanctus a patre deo genitus vel creditur vel intellegitur, ut filius etiam ipse dicatur.

Quod nunc in mente humana utcumque vestigare conamur ut ex inferiore imagine in qua nobis familiarius natura ipsa nostra quasi interrogata respondet exercitatiorem mentis aciem ab inluminata creatura ad lumen incommutabile dirigamus; si tamen veritas ipsa persuaserit, sicut dei verbum filium esse nullus christianus dubitat, ita caritatem esse spiritum sanctum. Ergo ad illam imaginem quae creatura est, hoc est ad rationalem mentem diligentius de hac re interrogandam considerandamque redeamus ubi temporaliter exsistens nonnullarum rerum notitia quae ante non erat, et aliquarum rerum amor quae antea non amabantur, distinctius nobis aperit quid dicamus quia et ipsi locutioni temporaliter dirigendae facilior est ad explicandum res quae in ordine temporum comprehenditur.

[18] Primo itaque manifestum sit posse fieri ut sit aliquid scibile, id est quod sciri possit, et tamen nesciatur; illud autem fieri non posse ut sciatur quod scibile non fuerit. Unde liquido tenendum est quod omnis res quamcumque cognoscimus congenerat in nobis notitiam sui; ab utroque enim notitia paritur, a cognoscente et cognito. Itaque mens cum se ipsa cognoscit sola parens est notitiae suae; et cognitum enim et cognitor ipsa est. Erat autem sibi ipsa noscibilis et antequam se nosset, sed notitia sui non erat in ea cum se ipsa non noverat. Quod ergo cognoscit se parem sibi notitiam sui gignit quia non minus se novit quam est nec alterius essentiae est notitia eius non solum quia ipse novit, sed etiam quia se ipsam sicut supra diximus.

Quid igitur de amore dicendum est cur non etiam cum se amat ipsum quoque amorem sui genuisse videatur? Erat enim amabilis sibi et antequam se amaret quia poterat se amare, sicut erat sibi noscibilis et antequam se nosset quia se poterat nosse. Nam si non sibi esset noscibilis, numquam se nosse potuisset; ita si non sibi esset amabilis, numquam se amare potuisset. Cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam? An eo quidem manifeste ostenditur hoc amoris esse principium unde procedit? Ab ipsa quippe mente procedit quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet, atque ita principium est amoris sui quo se amat. Sed ideo non recte dicitur genitus ab ea sicut notitia sui qua se novit quia notitia iam inventum est quod partum vel repertum dicitur, quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura. Nam inquisitio est appetitus inveniendi, quod idem valet si dicas reperiendi. Quae autem reperiuntur quasi pariuntur, unde proli similia sunt. Ubi nisi in ipsa notitia? Ibi enim quasi expressa formantur. Nam etsi iam erant res quas quaerendo invenimus, notitia tamen ipsa non erat quam sicut prolem nascentem deputamus. Porro appetitus ille qui est in quaerendo procedit a quaerente et pendet quodam modo, neque requiescit fine quo intenditur nisi id quod quaeritur inventum quaerenti copuletur. Qui appetitus, id est inquisitio, quamvis amor esse non videatur quo id quod notum est amatur (hoc enim adhuc ut cognoscatur agitur), tamen ex eodem genere quiddam est. Nam voluntas iam dici potest quia omnis qui quaerit invenire vult, et si id quaeritur quod ad notitiam pertineat, omnis qui quaerit nosse vult. Quod si ardenter atque instanter vult, studere dicitur, quod maxime in assequendis atque adipiscendis quibusque doctrinis dici solet. Partum ergo mentis antecedit appetitus quidam quo id quod nosse volumus quaerendo et inveniendo nascitur proles ipsa notitia, ac per hoc appetitus ille quo concipitur pariturque notitia partus et proles recte dici non potest. Idemque appetitus quo inhiatur rei cognoscendae fit amor cognitae dum tenet atque amplectitur placitam prolem, id est notitiam gignentique coniungit. Et est quaedam imago trinitatis, ipsa mens et notitia eius, quod est proles eius ac de se ipsa verbum eius, et amor tertius, et haec tria unum atque una substantia. Nec minor proles dum tantam se novit mens quanta est, nec minor amor dum tantum se diligit quantum novit et quanta est.

Übersetzung ausblenden
The Fifteen Books of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop of Hippo, on the Trinity

Chapter 11.--That the Image or Begotten Word of the Mind that Knows Itself is Equal to the Mind Itself.

16. But all knowledge according to species is like the thing which it knows. For there is another knowledge according to privation, according to which we speak a word only when we condemn. And this condemnation of a privation is equivalent to praise of the species, and so is approved. The mind, then, contains some likeness to a known species, whether when liking that species or when disliking its privation. And hence, in so far as we know God, we are like Him, but not like to the point of equality, since we do not know Him to the extent of His own being. And as, when we speak of bodies by means of the bodily sense, there arises in our mind some likeness of them, which is a phantasm of the memory; for the bodies themselves are not at all in the mind, when we think them, but only the likenesses of those bodies; therefore, when we approve the latter for the former, we err, for the approving of one thing for another is an error; yet the image of the body in the mind is a thing of a better sort than the species of the body itself, inasmuch as the former is in a better nature, viz. in a living substance, as the mind is: so when we know God, although we are made better than we were before we knew Him, and above all when the same knowledge being also liked and worthily loved becomes a word, and so that knowledge becomes a kind of likeness of God; yet that knowledge is of a lower kind, since it is in a lower nature; for the mind is creature, but God is Creator. And from this it may be inferred, that when the mind knows and approves itself, this same knowledge is in such way its word, as that it is altogether on a par and equal with it, and the same; because it is neither the knowledge of a lower essence, as of the body, nor of a higher, as of God. And whereas knowledge bears a likeness to that which it knows, that is, of which it is the knowledge; in this case it has perfect and equal likeness, when the mind itself, which knows, is known. And so it is both image and word; because it is uttered concerning that mind to which it is equalled in knowing, and that which is begotten is equal to the begetter.

Chapter 12.--Why Love is Not the Offspring of the Mind, as Knowledge is So. The Solution of the Question. The Mind with the Knowledge of Itself and the Love of Itself is the Image of the Trinity.

17. What then is love? Will it not be an image? Will it not be a word? Will it not be begotten? For why does the mind beget its knowledge when it knows itself, and not beget its love when it loves itself? For if it is the cause of its own knowing, for the reason that it is knowable, it is also the cause of its own love because it is lovable. It is hard, then, to say why it does not beget both. For there is a further question also respecting the supreme Trinity itself, the omnipotent God the Creator, after whose image man is made, which troubles men, whom the truth of God invites to the faith by human speech; viz. why the Holy Spirit is not also to be either believed or understood to be begotten by God the Father, so that He also may be called a Son. And this question we are endeavoring in some way to investigate in the human mind, in order that from a lower image, in which our own nature itself as it were answers, upon being questioned, in a way more familiar to ourselves, we may be able to direct a more practised mental vision from the enlightened creature to the unchangeable light; assuming, however, that the truth itself has persuaded us, that as no Christian doubts the Word of God to be the Son, so that the Holy Spirit is love. Let us return, then, to a more careful questioning and consideration upon this subject of that image which is the creature, that is, of the rational mind; wherein the knowledge of some things coming into existence in time, but which did not exist before, and the love of some things which were not loved before, opens to us more clearly what to say: because to speech also itself, which must be disposed in time, that thing is easier of explanation which is comprehended in the order of time.

18. First, therefore, it is clear that a thing may possibly be knowable, that is, such as can be known, and yet that it may be unknown; but that it is not possible for that to be known which is not knowable. Wherefore it must be clearly held that everything whatsoever that we know begets at the same time in us the knowledge of itself; for knowledge is brought forth from both, from the knower and from the thing known. When, therefore, the mind knows itself, it alone is the parent of its own knowledge; for it is itself both the thing known and the knower of it. But it was knowable to itself also before it knew itself, only the knowledge of itself was not in itself so long as it did not know itself. In knowing itself, then, it begets a knowledge of itself equal to itself; since it does not know itself as less than itself is, nor is its knowledge the knowledge of the essence of some one else, not only because itself knows, but also because it knows itself, as we have said above. What then is to be said of love; why, when the mind loves itself, it should not seem also to have begotten the love of itself? For it was lovable to itself even before it loved itself since it could love itself; just as it was knowable to itself even before it knew itself, since it could know itself. For if it were not knowable to itself, it never could have known itself; and so, if it were not lovable to itself, it never could have loved itself. Why therefore may it not be said by loving itself to have begotten its own love, as by knowing itself it has begotten its own knowledge? Is it because it is thereby indeed plainly shown that this is the principle of love, whence it proceeds? for it proceeds from the mind itself, which is lovable to itself before it loves itself, and so is the principle of its own love by which it loves itself: but that this love is not therefore rightly said to be begotten by the mind, as is the knowledge of itself by which the mind knows itself, because in the case of knowledge the thing has been found already, which is what we call brought forth or discovered; ¹ and this is commonly preceded by an inquiry such as to find rest when that end is attained. For inquiry is the desire of finding, or, what is the same thing, of discovering. ² But those things which are discovered are as it were brought forth, whence they are like offspring; but wherein, except in the case itself of knowledge? For in that case they are as it were uttered and fashioned. For although the things existed already which we found by seeking, yet the knowledge of them did not exist, which knowledge we regard as an offspring that is born. Further, the desire (appetitus) which there is in seeking proceeds from him who seeks, and is in some way in suspense, and does not rest in the end whither it is directed, except that which is sought be found and conjoined with him who seeks. And this desire, that is, inquiry,--although it does not seem to be love, by which that which is known is loved, for in this case we are still striving to know,--yet it is something of the same kind. For it can be called will (voluntas), since every one who seeks wills (vult) to find; and if that is sought which belongs to knowledge, every one who seeks wills to know. But if he wills ardently and earnestly, he is said to study (studere): a word that is most commonly employed in the case of pursuing and obtaining any branches of learning. Therefore, the bringing forth of the mind is preceded by some desire, by which, through seeking and finding what we wish to know, the offspring, viz. knowledge itself, is born. And for this reason, that desire by which knowledge is conceived and brought forth, cannot rightly be called the bringing forth and the offspring; and the same desire which led us to long for the knowing of the thing, becomes the love of the thing when known, while it holds and embraces its accepted offspring, that is, knowledge, and unites it to its begetter. And so there is a kind of image of the Trinity in the mind itself, and the knowledge of it, which is its offspring and its word concerning itself, and love as a third, and these three are one, and one substance. ³ Neither is the offspring less, since the mind knows itself according to the measure of its own being; nor is the love less, since it loves itself according to the measure both of its own knowledge and of its own being.