On the Soul, to Tatian · §1 · Gregory Thaumaturgus

Opening address and plan of the treatise

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

Gregory opens the work by addressing Tatian, explaining why he agreed to write on the soul without scriptural testimonies and outlining the order of inquiry he will follow.

Most excellent Tatian, you asked me to send you a written discourse and disputation on the soul, using effective arguments or proofs, and in this matter to employ no scriptural testimonies. This method of teaching, though it is true and—for those who wish to think piously—more certain than any human reasoning and better suited to proving a point, is nevertheless what you want from me. You do not ask this to satisfy yourself, since you are already so instructed that you cling to the divine Scriptures, traditions, and ordinances, and you do not allow yourself to be moved from your conviction by any human arguments. Rather, you want it to convince those who think otherwise and refuse to believe the divine Scriptures, who use their skill in disputation to circumvent and deceive people unaccustomed to such debate.

I was persuaded by these reasons not to avoid this treatise as if frightened off by some ignorance. Instead, trusting in your goodwill toward me, I have promptly complied with your command and wish. For you know, in your kindness and friendship toward me, how to bring into the light of day the things that have turned out well, and how to overlook and conceal whatever seems to have been said less correctly. Knowing this, I have boldly set myself to writing.

I will use the same method and order of inquiry that those who profess such subjects are accustomed to follow with knowledge and skill. First, then, I will propose the criterion by which the soul can be grasped according to nature. Next, I will show by what arguments its existence is demonstrated. Then, in turn, whether it is a substance or an accident. After that, in order, whether it is a body or incorporeal. Further, whether it is simple or composite. Then again, whether it is mortal or immortal. Finally, whether it is rational or lacking in reason. For these are the questions that are usually investigated in a disputation on the soul, as being most proper to it and best expressing its power and nature.

For proving and confirming the points to be discussed here, I will use, in place of proofs, those common notions by which assent is usually obtained for things that are handled by the hands. For the sake of brevity and usefulness, I will now use only those reasonings that are most effective for demonstrating the things under investigation, so that, equipped with their clear and easily grasped notions and proofs, we may be more ready to meet those who oppose us. Let the beginning of our discourse and disputation, then, be drawn from here.

Latin

Praestantissime Tatiane, ut cum efficacibus argumentis sive demonstrationibus sermonem atque disputationem de Anima tibi conscriptam mitterem; eaque in re nullis Scripturarum uteret testimoniis. Quae quidem docendi ratio etsi vera sit, et illis qui pie sentire velint, quavis humana ratiocinatione certior et ad probandum aptior; quia tamen id a me sic fieri cupis, non ut tibi ipse satisfacias, quippe qui iam ita sis instructus, ut Divinis et Scripturis, et traditionibus atque constitutionibus adhaereas, neque ullis humanis rationibus de sententia dimoveri te sinas; sed ad eos convincendos qui aliter sentiunt, et Scripturis divinis fidem habere nolunt; quadam autem differendi facultate homines disputationi eiusmodi haud assuetos circumvenire ac fallere nituntur. Quibus adductus sum rationibus, ut non, velut aliqua deterritus imperitia, hanc tractationem subterfugerim; sed tua in me confisus benevolentia, tuae promptius morem gesserim iussioni ac voluntati. Nosti enim pro tua in me benignitate atque amicitia, quae praeclara effecta sunt, ea in hominum lucemque proferre; quae autem minus recte dicta esse videantur, ea dissimulare atque contegere. Haec sciens, audacter me ad scribendum contuli. Ea vero differendi ratione et ordine utar, qua et illi, qui res huiusmodi profitentur, scienter ac perite inquirere solent. Primum igitur proponam, quo criterio anima secundum naturam apprehendi queat. Deinde, quibus rationibus esse ostendatur. Tum deinceps, substantia ne sit, an accidens. Deinde consequenter, corpus ne sit, an incorporea. Praeterea, simplex ne, an composita. Tum rursus, mortalis ne, an immortalis. Postremo autem, rationis particeps ne sit, an illius expers. Haec enim in Disputatione de Anima, ut maxime propria, et vim atque naturam eius melius exprimentia, inquiri solent. Ad ea porro, de quibus hic differendum erit, probanda ac confirmanda, pro demonstrationibus, notionibus illis utemur communibus, per quas rebus quae manibus tractantur, assensus comparari solet. Brevitatis vero utilitatisque causa, iis duntaxat nunc ratiocinationibus utemur, quae ad demonstranda illa, quorum fit investigatio, potissimum valent: ut manifestis perceptuque facilioribus earum notionibus atque probationibus instructi, promptiores occurramus repugnantibus. Hinc igitur sermonis nostri atque Disputationis ducatur principium.

Report a mistake in this passage

About this text

Gregory Thaumaturgus, On the Soul, to Tatian: a fresh English translation of the whole short treatise. Arguing from reason alone, without Scripture proofs, it shows that the soul is known by its effects, exists, is a substance, is not a body, is simple, is immortal and shares in reason. Scholars dispute whether Gregory wrote it.

Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213–c. 270) wrote this treatise to his friend Tatian. Gregory was bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus and had studied with Origen in Caesarea in Palestine. Tatian asked him to send a discourse and disputation on the soul, and Gregory complied promptly, trusting in Tatian's goodwill toward him.

Tatian did not need the work for his own assurance, since he was already instructed in the divine Scriptures and traditions. He wanted it for confuting people who refuse to believe the Scriptures and who use clever speech to circumvent and deceive those unaccustomed to such debate. Gregory therefore agreed to write using only human reasoning and common notions, not scriptural testimonies.

The treatise follows the customary order of inquiry for such subjects. Gregory first proposes the criterion by which the soul can be grasped according to nature, then shows by what arguments its existence is demonstrated. He examines whether the soul is substance or accident, body or incorporeal, simple or composite, mortal or immortal, and finally whether it is rational. For proofs he uses only common notions by which assent is usually obtained for evident things, choosing the reasonings most effective for demonstrating each point. He then carries out this plan: the soul is known from what it does; it exists, since it moves the body and gives it life; it is a substance, not a body; it is simple; it is immortal; and it is rational.

Printed text used

Translated from Opera omnia, Greek and Latin (Paris: Sonnius, Morel and Cramoisy, 1622), page images (Latin column (Greek damaged))
Also checked Archive DjVu machine-read text (Latin/Greek mixed machine-read text)
Translated from Latin preface (Latin)

Where the prints differ

Preface — Long-s and column joins expanded from the Latin face; sense checked against the inquiry program that follows.

We have not yet re-checked this work against its source. We made this study translation with AI help. No scholar has yet certified it as faithful and complete. Open Latin on any section, or the Latin source link, to see the source text. It is not a critical edition.

Report a mistake