Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XXI: An daemonibus nuntiis et interpretibus di utantur fallique se ab eis aut ignorent aut uelint.

Sed nimirum tantae huius absurditatis et indignitatis est magna necessitas, quod scilicet deos aetherios humana curantes quid terrestres homines agerent utique lateret, nisi daemones aerii nuntiarent; quoniam aether longe a terra est alteque suspensus, aer uero aetheri terraeque contiguus. o mirabilem sapientiam. quid aliud de dis isti sentiunt, quos omnes optimos uolunt, nisi eos et humana curare, ne cultu uideantur indigni, et propter elementorum distantiam humana nescire, ut credantur daemones necessarii et ob hoc etiam ipsi putentur colendi, per quos di possint et quid in rebus humanis agatur addiscere et ubi oportet hominibus subuenire? hoc si ita est, dis istis bonis magis notus est daemon per corpus uicinum quam homo per animum bonum. o multum dolenda necessitas, an potius inridenda uel detestanda uanitas, ne sit uana diuinitas. si enim animo ab obstaculo corporis libero animum nostrum uidere di possunt, non ad hoc indigent daemonibus nuntiis; si autem animorum indicia corporalia, qualia sunt locutio uultus motus, per corpus suum aetherii di sentiunt et inde colligunt quid etiam daemones nuntient, possunt et mendaciis daemonum decipi. porro si deorum diuinitas a daemonibus non potest falli, eadem diuinitate quod agimus non potest ignorari. uellem autem mihi isti dicerent, utrum dis daemones nuntiauerint de criminibus deorum poetica Platoni displicere figmenta et sibi ea placere celauerint, an utrumque occultauerint deosque esse maluerint totius rei huius ignaros, an utrumque indicauerint, et religiosam erga deos Platonis prudentiam et in deos iniuriosam libidinem suam, an sententiam quidem Platonis, qua noluit deos per inpiam licentiam poetarum falsis criminibus infamari, ignotam dis esse uoluerint, suam uero nequitiam, qua ludos scaenicos amant, quibus illa deorum dedecora celebrantur, prodere non erubuerint uel timuerint. horum quattuor, quae interrogando proposui, quodlibet eligant et in quolibet eorum quantum mali de dis bonis opinentur adtendant. si enim primum elegerint, confessuri sunt non licuisse dis bonis habitare cum bono Platone, quando eorum iniurias prohibebat, et habitasse cum daemonibus malis, quando eorum iniuriis exultabant, cum di boni hominem bonum longe a se positum nonnisi per malos daemones nossent, quos uicinos nosse non possent. si autem secundum elegerint et utrumque occultatum a daemonibus dixerint, ut di omnino nescirent et Platonis religiosissimam legem et daemonum sacrilegam delectationem: quid in rebus humanis per internuntios daemones di nosse utiliter possunt, quando illa nesciunt, quae in honorem bonorum deorum religione bonorum hominum contra libidinem malorum daemonum decernuntur? si uero tertium elegerint et non solum sententiam Platonis deorum iniurias prohibentem, sed etiam daemonum nequitiam deorum iniuriis exultantem per eosdem daemones nuntios dis innotuisse responderint: hoc nuntiare est an insultare? et di utrumque sic audiunt, sic utrumque cognoscunt, ut non solum malignos daemones deorum dignitati et Platonis religioni contraria cupientes atque facientes a suo accessu non arceant, uerum etiam per illos malos propinquos Platoni bono longinquo dona transmittant? sic enim eos elementorum quasi catenata series conligauit, ut illis, a quibus criminantur, coniungi possint, huic, a quo defenduntur, non possint, utrumque scientes, sed aeris et terrae transmutare pondera non ualentes. iam, quod reliquum est, si quartum elegerint, peius est ceteris. quis enim ferat, si poetarum de dis inmortalibus criminosa figmenta et theatrorum indigna ludibria suamque in his omnibus ardentissimum cupiditatem et suauissimam uoluptatem dis daemones nuntiauerunt, et quod Plato philosophica grauitate de optima republica haec omnia censuit remouenda tacuerunt; ut iam di boni per tales nuntios nosse cogantur mala pessimorum, nec aliena, sed eorundem nuntiorum, atque his contraria non sinantur nosse bona philosophorum, cum illa sint in iniuriam, ista in honorem ipsorum deorum?

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 21.--Whether the Gods Use the Demons as Messengers and Interpreters, and Whether They are Deceived by Them Willingly, or Without Their Own Knowledge.

But herein, no doubt, lies the great necessity for this absurdity, so unworthy of the gods, that the ethereal gods, who are concerned about human affairs, would not know what terrestrial men were doing unless the aerial demons should bring them intelligence, because the ether is suspended far away from the earth and far above it, but the air is contiguous both to the ether and to the earth. O admirable wisdom! what else do these men think concerning the gods who, they say, are all in the highest degree good, but that they are concerned about human affairs, lest they should seem unworthy of worship, whilst, on the other hand, from the distance between the elements, they are ignorant of terrestrial things? It is on this account that they have supposed the demons to be necessary as agents, through whom the gods may inform themselves with respect to human affairs, and through whom, when necessary, they may succor men; and it is on account of this office that the demons themselves have been held as deserving of worship. If this be the case, then a demon is better known by these good gods through nearness of body, than a man is by goodness of mind. O mournful necessity, or shall I not rather say detestable and vain error, that I may not impute vanity to the divine nature! For if the gods can, with their minds free from the hindrance of bodies, see our mind, they do not need the demons as messengers from our mind to them; but if the ethereal gods, by means of their bodies, perceive the corporeal indices of minds, as the countenance, speech, motion, and thence understand what the demons tell them, then it is also possible that they may be deceived by the falsehoods of demons. Moreover, if the divinity of the gods cannot be deceived by the demons, neither can it be ignorant of our actions. But I would they would tell me whether the demons have informed the gods that the fictions of the poets concerning the crimes of the gods displease Plato, concealing the pleasure which they themselves take in them; or whether they have concealed both, and have preferred that the gods should be ignorant with respect to this whole matter, or have told both, as well the pious prudence of Plato with respect to the gods as their own lust, which is injurious to the gods; or whether they have concealed Plato's opinion, according to which he was unwilling that the gods should be defamed with falsely alleged crimes through the impious license of the poets, whilst they have not been ashamed nor afraid to make known their own wickedness, which make them love theatrical plays, in which the infamous deeds of the gods are celebrated. Let them choose which they will of these four alternatives, and let them consider how much evil any one of them would require them to think of the gods. For if they choose the first, they must then confess that it was not possible for the good gods to dwell with the good Plato, though he sought to prohibit things injurious to them, whilst they dwelt with evil demons, who exulted in their injuries; and this because they suppose that the good gods can only know a good man, placed at so great a distance from them, through the mediation of evil demons, whom they could know on account of their nearness to themselves. ¹ If they shall choose the second, and shall say that both these things are concealed by the demons, so that the gods are wholly ignorant both of Plato's most religious law and the sacrilegious pleasure of the demons, what, in that case, can the gods know to any profit with respect to human affairs through these mediating demons, when they do not know those things which are decreed, through the piety of good men, for the honor of the good gods against the lust of evil demons? But if they shall choose the third, and reply that these intermediary demons have communicated, not only the opinion of Plato, which prohibited wrongs to be done to the gods, but also their own delight in these wrongs, I would ask if such a communication is not rather an insult? Now the gods, hearing both and knowing both, not only permit the approach of those malign demons, who desire and do things contrary to the dignity of the gods and the religion of Plato, but also, through these wicked demons, who are near to them, send good things to the good Plato, who is far away from them; for they inhabit such a place in the concatenated series of the elements, that they can come into contact with those by whom they are accused, but not with him by whom they are defended,--knowing the truth on both sides, but not being able to change the weight of the air and the earth. There remains the fourth supposition; but it is worse than the rest. For who will suffer it to be said that the demons have made known the calumnious fictions of the poets concerning the immortal gods, and also the disgraceful mockeries of the theatres, and their own most ardent lust after, and most sweet pleasure in these things, whilst they have concealed from them that Plato, with the gravity of a philosopher, gave it as his opinion that all these things ought to be removed from a well-regulated republic; so that the good gods are now compelled, through such messengers, to know the evil doings of the most wicked beings, that is to say, of the messengers themselves, and are not allowed to know the good deeds of the philosophers, though the former are for the injury, but these latter for the honor of the gods themselves?