Preface to Tatian: argue the soul without Scripture proofs
Most excellent Tatian, you asked me to send you a discourse and disputation on the soul, laid out with effective arguments and demonstrations, and in that matter to use no testimonies from the Scriptures. That way of teaching is true, and for those who want to think piously it is more certain and better fitted for proof than any human reasoning. Yet you want me to do it this way not so that you yourself may be satisfied — for you are already so formed that you cling to the divine Scriptures and to the traditions and constitutions, and you do not let yourself be moved from your conviction by any human reasonings — but in order to convince those who think otherwise, who refuse to give credit to the divine Scriptures, and who try, by a kind of skill in debate, to surround and deceive people unaccustomed to such disputes.
For these reasons I was led not to shrink from this treatment as if scared by inexperience, but, trusting your goodwill toward me, to obey your command and wish the more readily. You know, from your kindness and friendship toward me, how to bring into the light among people what is finely done, and how to pass over and cover what seems less rightly said. Knowing this, I have boldly set myself to write. I will use the order and method of arguing that those who profess such matters usually employ when they inquire with skill.
First, then, I will ask by what criterion the soul can be grasped according to its nature. Next, by what reasons it is shown to exist. Then, whether it is a substance or an accident. Next, whether it is a body or incorporeal. Further, whether it is simple or composite. Then again, whether it is mortal or immortal. Last, whether it shares in reason or is without it. These are the questions usually asked in a disputation on the soul as most proper to it, and as better marking out its force and nature. To prove and confirm what we must discuss here, we will use, as demonstrations, those common notions by which assent is usually won about things handled by the hands. For brevity and use we will now employ only those reasonings that most strongly demonstrate the matters under inquiry, so that, equipped with clear and easier notions and proofs, we may meet the gainsayers more readily. From this, then, let the beginning of our discourse and disputation be drawn.
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.
About this text
Gregory Thaumaturgus, On the Soul, to Tatian: the preface and plan of inquiry. Scholars dispute whether Gregory wrote it.
English densified from locked Vossius 1684 Latin column for tip preface + program; Greek column OCR too damaged to lock; scholia stripped; ANF 6 consulted only as sense check; earlier scaffold paraphrase discarded.
Catalogue & scope
densify preface + inquiry program; Greek column OCR damaged
Witnesses
- Copy-text Vossius 1684 Opera omnia (Latin column (Greek damaged))
- Checked print Archive DjVu OCR (Latin/Greek mixed OCR)
- Copy-text Locked 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.
This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.