Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XIII: De sententia Platonis, qua definiuit deos non esse nisi bonos amicosque uirtutum.

Quamquam ergo a nobis et in aliis multis rebus magnisque dissentiant, in hoc tamen, quod modo posui, quia neque parua res est et inde nunc quaestio est, primum ab eis quaero, quibus dis istum cultum exhibendum arbitrentur, utrum bonis an malis an et bonis et malis. sed habemus Platonis sententiam dicentis omnes deos bonos esse nec esse omnino ullum deorum malum. consequens est igitur, ut bonis haec exhibenda intellegantur; tunc enim dis exhibentur, quoniam nec di erunt, si boni non erunt. hoc si ita est - nam de dis quid aliud decet credere? - , illa profecto uacuatur opinio, qua nonnulli putant deos malos sacris placandos esse, ne laedant, bonos autem, ut adiuuent, inuocandos. mali enim nulli sunt di; bonis porro debitus, ut dicunt, honor sacrorum est deferendus. qui sunt ergo illi, qui ludos scaenicos amant eosque diuinis rebus adiungi et suis honoribus flagitant exhiberi? quorum uis non eos indicat nullos, sed iste adfectus nimirum indicat malos. quid enim de ludis scaenicis Plato senserit, notum est, cum poetas ipsos, quod tam indigna deorum maiestate atque bonitate carmina conposuerint, censet ciuitate pellendos. qui sunt igitur isti di, qui de scaenicis ludis cum ipso Platone contendunt? ille quippe non patitur deos falsis criminibus infamari; isti eisdem criminibus suos honores celebrari iubent. denique isti cum eosdem ludos instaurari praeciperent, poscentes turpia etiam maligna gesserunt, Tito Latinio auferentes filium et inmittentes morbum, quod eorum abnuisset imperium, eumque morbum retrahentes, cum iussa conplesset; iste autem illos nec tam malos timendos putat, sed suae sententiae robur constantissime retinens omnes poetarum sacrilegas nugas, quibus illi inmunditiae societate oblectantur, a populo bene instituto remouere non dubitat. hunc autem Platonem, quod iam in secundo libro commemoraui, inter semideos Labeo ponit. qui Labeo numina mala uictimis cruentis atque huiusmodi supplicationibus placari existimat, bona uero ludis et talibus quasi ad laetitiam pertinentibus rebus. quid est ergo quod semideus Plato non semideis, sed deis, et hoc bonis, illa oblectamenta, quia iudicat turpia, tam constanter audet auferre? qui sane di refellunt sententiam Labeonis; nam se in Latinio non lasciuos tantum atque ludibundos, sed etiam saeuos terribilesque monstrarunt. exponant ergo nobis ista Platonici, qui omnes deos secundum auctoris sui sententiam bonos et honestos et uirtutibus sapientium socios esse arbitrantur aliterque de ullo deorum sentiri nefas habent. exponimus, inquiunt. adtente igitur audiamus.

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 13.--Concerning the Opinion of Plato, According to Which He Defined the Gods as Beings Entirely Good and the Friends of Virtue.

Therefore, although in many other important respects they differ from us, nevertheless with respect to this particular point of difference, which I have just stated, as it is one of great moment, and the question on hand concerns it, I will first ask them to what gods they think that sacred rites are to be performed,--to the good or to the bad, or to both the good and the bad? But we have the opinion of Plato affirming that all the gods are good, and that there is not one of the gods bad. It follows, therefore, that these are to be performed to the good, for then they are performed to gods; for if they are not good, neither are they gods. Now, if this be the case (for what else ought we to believe concerning the gods?), certainly it explodes the opinion that the bad gods are to be propitiated by sacred rites in order that they may not harm us, but the good gods are to be invoked in order that they may assist us. For there are no bad gods, and it is to the good that, as they say, the due honor of such rites is to be paid. Of what character, then, are those gods who love scenic displays, even demanding that a place be given them among divine things, and that they be exhibited in their honor? The power of these gods proves that they exist, but their liking such things proves that they are bad. For it is well-known what Plato's opinion was concerning scenic plays. He thinks that the poets themselves, because they have composed songs so unworthy of the majesty and goodness of the gods, ought to be banished from the state. Of what character, therefore, are those gods who contend with Plato himself about those scenic plays? He does not suffer the gods to be defamed by false crimes; the gods command those same crimes to be celebrated in their own honor.

In fine, when they ordered these plays to be inaugurated, they not only demanded base things, but also did cruel things, taking from Titus Latinius his son, and sending a disease upon him because he had refused to obey them, which they removed when he had fulfilled their commands. Plato, however, bad though they were, did not think they were to be feared; but, holding to his opinion with the utmost firmness and constancy, does not hesitate to remove from a well-ordered state all the sacrilegious follies of the poets, with which these gods are delighted because they themselves are impure. But Labeo places this same Plato (as I have mentioned already in the second book ¹ ) among the demi-gods. Now Labeo thinks that the bad deities are to be propitiated with bloody victims, and by fasts accompanied with the same, but the good deities with plays, and all other things which are associated with joyfulness. How comes it, then, that the demi-god Plato so persistently dares to take away those pleasures, because he deems them base, not from the demi-gods but from the gods, and these the good gods? And, moreover, those very gods themselves do certainly refute the opinion of Labeo, for they showed themselves in the case of Latinius to be not only wanton and sportive, but also cruel and terrible. Let the Platonists, therefore, explain these things to us, since, following the opinion of their master, they think that all the gods are good and honorable, and friendly to the virtues of the wise, holding it unlawful to think otherwise concerning any of the gods. We will explain it, say they. Let us then attentively listen to them.