Traduction
Masquer
The Confessions of St. Augustin In Thirteen Books
Chapter XXIII.--That Time is a Certain Extension.
29. I have heard from a learned man that the motions of the sun, moon, and stars constituted time, and I assented not. 1 For why should not rather the motions of all bodies be time? What if the lights of heaven should cease, and a potter's wheel run round, would there be no time by which we might measure those revolutions, and say either that it turned with equal pauses, or, if it were moved at one time more slowly, at another more quickly, that some revolutions were longer, others less so? Or while we were saying this, should we not also be speaking in time? Or should there in our words be some syllables long, others short, but because those sounded in a longer time, these in a shorter? God grant to men to see in a small thing ideas common to things great and small. Both the stars and luminaries of heaven are "for signs and for seasons, and for days and years." 2 No doubt they are; but neither should I say that the circuit of that wooden wheel was a day, nor yet should he say that therefore there was no time.
30. I desire to know the power and nature of time, by which we measure the motions of bodies, and say (for example) that this motion is twice as long as that. For, I ask, since "day" declares not the stay only of the sun upon the earth, according to which day is one thing, night another, but also its entire circuit from east even to east,--according to which we say, "So many days have passed" (the nights being included when we say "so many days," and their spaces not counted apart),--since, then, the day is finished by the motion of the sun, and by his circuit from east to east, I ask, whether the motion itself is the day, or the period in which that motion is completed, or both? For if the first be the day, then would there be a day although the sun should finish that course in so small a space of time as an hour. If the second, then that would not be a day if from one sunrise to another there were but so short a period as an hour, but the sun must go round four-and-twenty times to complete a day. If both, neither could that be called a day if the sun should run his entire round in the space of an hour; nor that, if, while the sun stood still, so much time should pass as the sun is accustomed to accomplish his whole course in from morning to morning. I shall not therefore now ask, what that is which is called day, but what time is, by which we, measuring the circuit of the sun, should say that it was accomplished in half the space of time it was wont, if it had been completed in so small a space as twelve hours; and comparing both times, we should call that single, this double time, although the sun should run his course from east to east sometimes in that single, sometimes in that double time. Let no man then tell me that the motions of the heavenly bodies are times, because, when at the prayer of one the sun stood still in order that he might achieve his victorious battle, the sun stood still, but time went on. For in such space of time as was sufficient was that battle fought and ended. 3 I see that time, then, is a certain extension. But do I see it, or do I seem to see it? Thou, O Light and Truth, wilt show me.
-
Compare Gillies (Analysis of Aristotle, c. 2, p. 138): "As our conception of space originates in that of body, and our conception of motion in that of space, so our conception of time originates in that of motion; and particularly in those regular and equable motions carried on in the heavens, the parts of which, from their perfect similarity to each other, are correct measures of the continuous and successive quantity called Time, with which they are conceived to co-exist. Time, therefore, may be defined the perceived number of successive movements; for, as number ascertains the greater or lesser quantity of things numbered, so time ascertains the greater or lesser quantity of motion performed." And with this accords Monboddo's definition of time (Ancient Metaphysics, vol. i. book 4, chap. i.), as "the measure of the duration of things that exist in succession by the motion of the heavenly bodies." See xii. sec. 40, and note, below. ↩
-
Gen. i. 14. ↩
-
Josh. x. 12-14. ↩
Traduction
Masquer
Les confessions de Saint Augustin
CHAPITRE XXIII. NATURE DU TEMPS.
29. J’ai entendu dire à un savant que le temps, c’est le mouvement du soleil, de la lune et des astres; je ne suis pas de cet avis; car, pourquoi le mouvement de tout autre corps ne serait-il pas le temps? Quoi! le cours des astres demeurant suspendu, si la roue d’un potier continuait à tourner, n’y aurait-il plus de temps pour mesurer ses tours? Ne nous serait-il plus possible d’exprimer l’égalité de leurs intervalles ou la différence de leurs mouvements, si les vitesses sont différentes? Et en énonçant ces rapports, ne serait-ce pas dans le temps que nous parlerions? N’y aurait-il dans nos paroles ni longues, ni brèves? Et comment les reconnaître, sinon à l’inégale durée de leur son? O Dieu! accordez à l’homme de trouver en un point la lumière- qui lui découvre toute grandeur et toute petitesse! Il est, je le sais, des astres et dès flambeaux célestes qui mesurent les saisons, les temps, les années et les jours (Gen. I, 14). C’est une vérité, et je ne prétendrais jamais que le mouvement de cette roue du potier fût notre jour, sans lui refuser toutefois d’être un temps, n’en déplaise à ce philosophe.
30. Ce que je veux savoir, moi, c’est la puissance et la nature du temps, qui nous sert de mesure aux mouvements des corps, et nous permet de dire, par exemple: Tel mouvement dure une fois plus que tel autre; car enfin le jour n’est pas seulement la présence rapide du soleil sur l’horizon, mais encore le cercle qu’il décrit de l’orient à l’orient, et qui règle le nombre des jours écoulés, les nuits mêmes comprises, dont le compte n’est jamais séparé. Ainsi le jour n’étant accompli que par le mouvement du soleil et sa révolution d’orient en orient, est-ce le mouvement, est-ce la durée du mouvement, est-ce l’un et l’autre ensemble qui forment le jour? Est-ce le mouvement? Alors, une heure serait le jour, si cet espace de temps suffisait au soleil pour achever sa carrière:
Est-ce le jour entier? Alors il n’y aurait point de jour si, d’un lever à l’autre, il ne s’écoulait pas plus d’une heure, et s’il fallait vingt-quatre révolutions solaires pour former le jour. Est-ce à la fois le mouvement et le temps? Alors le soleil accomplirait son tour en une heure, et, supposé qu’il s’arrêtât, le même intervalle que sa course mesure d’un matin à l’autre se serait écoulé, qu’il n’y aurait pas eu de véritable jour.
Ainsi, je ne me demande plus, qu’est-ce qu’on nomme le jour, mais qu’est-ce que le temps? ce temps, mesure du mouvement solaire, que nous dirions moindre de moitié, si (482) douze heures avaient suffi au parcours de l’espace accoutumé. En comparant cette différence de temps, ne dirions-nous pas que l’un est double de l’autre, tors même que la course du soleil d’orient en orient serait tantôt plus longue, tantôt plus courte de moitié ? Qu’on ne vienne donc plus me dire: Le temps, c’est le mouvement des corps célestes. Quand le soleil s’arrêta à la prière d’un homme (Josué, X, 13), pour lui laisser le loisir d’achever sa victoire, le temps s’arrêta-t-il avec le soleil? Et n’est-ce point dans l’espace de temps nécessaire que le combat se continua et finit? Je vois donc enfin que le temps est une sorte d’étendue. Mais n’est-ce pas une illusion? suis-je bien certain de. le voir? Q vérité, ô lumière! éclairez-moi.