Chapter 15.—In Opposition to the Reminiscence of Plato and Pythagoras. Pythagoras the Samian. Of the Difference Between Wisdom and Knowledge, and of Seeking the Trinity in the Knowledge of Temporal Things.

24. And hence that noble philosopher Plato endeavored to persuade us that the souls of men lived even before they bare these bodies; and that hence those things which are learnt are rather remembered, as having been known already, than taken into knowledge as things new. For he has told us that a boy, when questioned I know not what respecting geometry, replied as if he were perfectly skilled in that branch of learning. For being questioned step by step and skillfully, he saw what was to be seen, and said that which he saw.783    [This fine specimen of the “obstetric method” of Socrates is given in Plato’s dialogue, Meno.—W.G.T.S.] But if this had been a recollecting of things previously known, then certainly every one, or almost every one, would not have been able so to answer when questioned. For not every one was a geometrician in the former life, since geometricians are so few among men that scarcely one can be found anywhere. But we ought rather to believe, that the intellectual mind is so formed in its nature as to see those things, which by the disposition of the Creator are subjoined to things intelligible in a natural order, by a sort of incorporeal light of an unique kind; as the eye of the flesh sees things adjacent to itself in this bodily light, of which light it is made to be receptive, and adapted to it. For none the more does this fleshly eye, too, distinguish black things from white without a teacher, because it had already known them before it was created in this flesh. Why, lastly, is it possible only in intelligible things that any one properly questioned should answer according to any branch of learning, although ignorant of it? Why can no one do this with things sensible, except those which he has seen in this his present body, or has believed the information of others who knew them, whether somebody’s writings or words? For we must not acquiesce in their story, who assert that the Samian Pythagoras recollected some things of this kind, which he had experienced when he was previously here in another body; and others tell yet of others, that they experienced something of the same sort in their minds: but it may be conjectured that these were untrue recollections, such as we commonly experience in sleep, when we fancy we remember, as though we had done or seen it, what we never did or saw at all; and that the minds of these persons, even though awake, were affected in this way at the suggestion of malignant and deceitful spirits, whose care it is to confirm or to sow some false belief concerning the changes of souls, in order to deceive men. This, I say, may be conjectured from this, that if they really remembered those things which they had seen here before, while occupying other bodies, the same thing would happen to many, nay to almost all; since they suppose that as the dead from the living, so, without cessation and continually, the living are coming into existence from the dead; as sleepers from those that are awake, and those that are awake from them that sleep.

25. If therefore this is the right distinction between wisdom and knowledge, that the intellectual cognizance of eternal things belongs to wisdom, but the rational cognizance of temporal things to knowledge, it is not difficult to judge which is to be preferred or postponed to which. But if we must employ some other distinction by which to know these two apart, which without doubt the apostle teaches us are different, saying, “To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit:” still the difference between those two which we have laid down is a most evident one, in that the intellectual cognizance of eternal things is one thing, the rational cognizance of temporal things another; and no one doubts but that the former is to be preferred to the latter. As then we leave behind those things which belong to the outer man, and desire to ascend within from those things which we have in common with beasts, before we come to the cognizance of things intelligible and supreme, which are eternal, the rational cognizance of temporal things presents itself. Let us then find a trinity in this also, if we can, as we found one in the senses of the body, and in those things which through them entered in the way of images into our soul or spirit; so that instead of corporeal things which we touch by corporeal sense, placed as they are without us, we might have resemblances of bodies impressed within on the memory from which thought might be formed, while the will as a third united them; just as the sight of the eyes was formed from without, which the will applied to the visible thing in order to produce vision, and united both, while itself also added itself thereto as a third. But this subject must not be compressed into this book; so that in that which follows, if God help, it may be suitably examined, and the conclusions to which we come may be unfolded.

CAPUT XV.

24. Contra reminiscentiam Platonis et Pythagorae. Samius Pythagoras. De differentia sapientiae a scientia, et de quaerenda trinitate in scientia temporalium. Unde Plato ille philosophus nobilis persuadere conatus est vixisse hic animas hominum, et antequam ista corpora gererent: et hinc esse quod ea quae discuntur, reminiscuntur potius cognita, quam cognoscuntur nova. Retulit enim, puerum quemdam nescio quae de geometrica interrogatum, sic respondisse, tanquam esset illius peritissimus disciplinae. Gradatim quippe atque artificiose interrogatus, videbat quod videndum erat, dicebatque quod viderat. Sed si recordatio haec esset rerum antea cognitarum, non utique omnes vel pene omnes, cum illo modo interrogarentur, hoc possent. Non enim omnes in priore vita geometrae fuerunt, cum tam rari sint in genere humano, ut vix possit aliquis inveniri: sed potius credendum est mentis intellectualis ita conditam esse naturam, ut rebus intelligibilibus naturali ordine, disponente Conditore, subjuncta sic ista videat in quadam luce sui generis incorporea, quemadmodum oculus carnis videt quae in hac corporea luce circumadjacent, cujus lucis capax eique congruens est creatus. Non enim et ipse ideo sine magistro alba et nigra discernit, quia ista jam noverat antequam in hac carne crearetur. Denique cur de solis rebus intelligibilibus id fieri potest, ut bene interrogatus quisque respondeat quod ad quamque pertinet disciplinam, etiamsi ejus ignarus est? Cur hoc facere de rebus sensibilibus nullus potest, nisi quas isto vidit in corpore constitutus, 1012 aut eis quae noverant indicantibus credidit, seu litteris cujusque, seu verbis? Non enim acquiescendum est eis qui Samium Pythagoram ferunt recordatum fuisse talia nonnulla quae fuerat expertus , cum hic alio jam fuisset in corpore: et alios nonnullos narrant alii, ejusmodi aliquid in suis mentibus passos: quas falsas fuisse memorias, quales plerumque experimur in somnis, quando nobis videmur reminisci quasi egerimus aut viderimus, quod nec egimus omnino nec vidimus; et eo modo affectas esse illorum mentes etiam vigilantium, instinctu spirituum malignorum atque fallacium, quibus curae est de revolutionibus animarum falsam opinionem ad decipiendos homines firmare vel serere, ex hoc conjici potest, quia si vere illa recordarentur quae hic in aliis antea positi corporibus viderant, multis ac pene omnibus id contingeret: quandoquidem ut de vivis mortuos, ita de mortuis vivos, tanquam de vigilantibus dormientes, et de dormientibus vigilantes, sine cessatione fieri suspicantur.

25. Si ergo haec est sapientiae et scientiae recta distinctio, ut ad sapientiam pertineat aeternarum rerum cognitio intellectualis; ad scientiam vero, temporalium rerum cognitio rationalis: quid cui praeponendum sive postponendum sit, non est difficile judicare. Si autem alia est adhibenda discretio, qua dignoscantur haec duo, quae procul dubio distare Apostolus docet, dicens, Alii datur quidem per Spiritum sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae secundum eumdem Spiritum; tamen etiam istorum duorum quae nos posuimus evidentissima differentia est, quod alia sit intellectualis cognitio aeternarum rerum, alia rationalis temporalium, et huic illam praeponendam esse ambigit nemo. Relinquentibus itaque nobis ea quae sunt exterioris hominis, et ab eis quae communia cum pecoribus habemus introrsum ascendere cupientibus, antequam ad cognitionem rerum intelligibilium atque summarum quae sempiternae sunt veniremus, temporalium rerum cognitio rationalis occurrit. Etiam in hac igitur inveniamus, si possumus, aliquam trinitatem, sicut inveniebamus in sensibus corporis, et in iis quae per eos in animam vel spiritum nostrum imaginaliter intraverunt; ut pro corporalibus rebus quas corporeo foris positas attingimus sensu, intus corporum similitudines haberemus impressas memoriae, ex quibus cogitatio formaretur, tertia voluntate utrumque jungente: sicut formabatur foris acies oculorum, quam voluntas, ut visio fieret, adhibebat rei visibili, et utrumque jungebat, etiam illic ipsa se admovens tertiam. Sed non est hoc coarctandum in hunc librum, ut in eo qui sequitur, si Deus adjuverit, convenienter possit inquiri, et quod inventum fuerit explicari.