Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 2.--Concerning the Two Schools of Philosophers, that Is, the Italic and Ionic, and Their Founders.

As far as concerns the literature of the Greeks, whose language holds a more illustrious place than any of the languages of the other nations, history mentions two schools of philosophers, the one called the Italic school, originating in that part of Italy which was formerly called Magna Graecia; the other called the Ionic school, having its origin in those regions which are still called by the name of Greece. The Italic school had for its founder Pythagoras of Samos, to whom also the term "philosophy" is said to owe its origin. For whereas formerly those who seemed to excel others by the laudable manner in which they regulated their lives were called sages, Pythagoras, on being asked what he professed, replied that he was a philosopher, that is, a student or lover of wisdom; for it seemed to him to be the height of arrogance to profess oneself a sage. ¹ The founder of the Ionic school, again, was Thales of Miletus, one of those seven who were styled the "seven sages," of whom six were distinguished by the kind of life they lived, and by certain maxims which they gave forth for the proper conduct of life. Thales was distinguished as an investigator into the nature of things; and, in order that he might have successors in his school, he committed his dissertations to writing. That, however, which especially rendered him eminent was his ability, by means of astronomical calculations, even to predict eclipses of the sun and moon. He thought, however, that water was the first principle of things, and that of it all the elements of the world, the world itself, and all things which are generated in it, ultimately consist. Over all this work, however, which, when we consider the world, appears so admirable, he set nothing of the nature of divine mind. To him succeeded Anaximander, his pupil, who held a different opinion concerning the nature of things; for he did not hold that all things spring from one principle, as Thales did, who held that principle to be water, but thought that each thing springs from its own proper principle. These principles of things he believed to be infinite in number, and thought that they generated innumerable worlds, and all the things which arise in them. He thought, also, that these worlds are subject to a perpetual process of alternate dissolution and regeneration, each one continuing for a longer or shorter period of time, according to the nature of the case; nor did he, any more than Thales, attribute anything to a divine mind in the production of all this activity of things. Anaximander left as his successor his disciple Anaximenes, who attributed all the causes of things to an infinite air. He neither denied nor ignored the existence of gods, but, so far from believing that the air was made by them, he held, on the contrary, that they sprang from the air. Anaxagoras, however, who was his pupil, perceived that a divine mind was the productive cause of all things which we see, and said that all the various kinds of things, according to their several modes and species, were produced out of an infinite matter consisting of homogeneous particles, but by the efficiency of a divine mind. Diogenes, also, another pupil of Anaximenes, said that a certain air was the original substance of things out of which all things were produced, but that it was possessed of a divine reason, without which nothing could be produced from it. Anaxagoras was succeeded by his disciple Archelaus, who also thought that all things consisted of homogeneous particles, of which each particular thing was made, but that those particles were pervaded by a divine mind, which perpetually energized all the eternal bodies, namely, those particles, so that they are alternately united and separated. Socrates, the master of Plato, is said to have been the disciple of Archelaus; and on Plato's account it is that I have given this brief historical sketch of the whole history of these schools.

Übersetzung ausblenden
La cité de dieu

CHAPITRE II.

DES DEUX ÉCOLES PHILOSOPHIQUES, L’ÉCOLE ITALIQUE ET L’ÉCOLE IONIENNE, ET DE LEURS CHEFS.

Si l’on consulte les monuments de la langue grecque, qui passe pour la plus belle de toutes les langues des gentils, on trouve deux écoles de philosophie, l’une appelée italique, de cette partie de l’Italie connue sous le nom de grande Grèce, l’autre ionique, du pays qu’on appelle encore aujourd’hui la Grèce. Le chef de l’école italique fut Pythagore de Samos, de qui vient, dit-on, le nom même de philosophie. Avant lui on appelait sages ceux qui paraissaient pratiquer un genre de vie supérieur à celui du vulgaire; mais Pythagore, interrogé sur sa profession, répondit qu’il était philosophe, c’est-à-dire ami de la sagesse, estimant que faire profession d’être sage, c’était une arrogance extrême. Thalès de Muet fut le chef de (156) la secte ionique. On le compte parmi les sept sages, tandis que les six autres ne se distinguèrent que par leur manière de vivre et par quelques préceptes de morale, Thalès s’illustra par l’étude de la nature des choses, et, afin de propager ses recherches, il les écrivit. Ce qui le fit surtout admirer, c’est qu’ayant saisi les lois de l’astronomie, il put prédire les éclipses du soleil et aussi celles de la lune. Il crut néanmoins que l’eau était le principe de toutes choses, des éléments du monde, du monde lui-même et de tout ce qui s’y produit, sans qu’aucune intelligence divine préside à ce grand ouvrage, qui paraît si admirable à quiconque observe l’univers¹. Après Thalès vint Anaximandre², son disciple, qui se forma une autre idée de la nature des choses. Au lieu de faire venir toutes choses d’un seul principe, tel que l’humide de Thalès, il pensa que chaque chose naît de principes propres. Et ces principes, il en admet une quantité infinie, d’où résultent des mondes innombrables et tout ce qui se produit en chacun d’eux; ces mondes se dissolvent et renaissent pour se maintenir pendant une certaine durée, et il n’est pas non plus nécessaire qu’aucune intelligence divine prenne part à ce travail des choses. Anaximandre eut pour disciple et successeur Anaximène, qui ramena toutes les causes des êtres à un seul principe, l’air. Il ne contestait ni ne dissimulait l’existence des dieux; mais, loin de croire qu’ils ont créé l’air, c’est de l’air qu’il les faisait naître. Telle ne fut point la doctrine d’Anaxagore, disciple d’Anaximène; il comprit que le principe de tous ces objets qui frappent nos yeux est dans un esprit divin. Il pensa qu’il existe une matière infinie, composée de particules homogènes, et que de là sortent tous les genres d’êtres, avec la diversité de leurs modes et de leurs espèces, mais tout cela par l’action de l’esprit divin³. Un autre disciple d’Anaximène, Diogène, admit aussi que l’air est la matière où se forment toutes choses, l’air lui-même étant animé par une raison divine, sans laquelle rien n’en pourrait sortir. Anaxagore eut pour successeur son disciple Archélaüs, lequel soutint, à son exemple, que les éléments constitutifs de l’univers sont des particules homogènes d’où proviennent tous les êtres particuliers par l’action d’une intelligence partout présente, qui, unissant et séparant les corps éternels, je veux dire ces particules, est le principe de tous les phénomènes naturels. On assure qu’Archélaüs eut pour disciple Socrate⁴, qui fut le maître de Platon, et c’est pourquoi je suis rapidement remonté jusqu’à ces antiques origines.