Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XIX: De Lucretia, quae se ob inlatum sibi stuprum peremit.

An forte huic perspicuae rationi, qua dicimus huic perspicuae rationi, qua dicimus corpore obpresso nequaquam proposito castitatis ulla in malum consensione mutato illius tantum esse flagitium, qui obprimens concubuerit, non illius, quae obpressa concumbenti nulla uoluntate consenserit, contradicere audebunt hi, contra quos feminarum Christianarum in captiuitate obpressarum non tantum mentes, uerum etiam corpora sancta defendimus? Lucretiam certe, matronam nobilem ueteremque Romanam, pudicitiae magnis efferunt laudibus. huius corpore cum uiolenter obpresso Tarquinii regis filius libidinose potitus esset, illa scelus inprobissimi iuuenis marito Collatino et propinquo Bruto, uiris clarissimis et fortissimis, indicauit eosque ad uindictam constrinxit. deinde foedi in se commissi aegra atque inpatiens se peremit. quid dicemus? adultera haec an casta iudicanda est? quis in hac controuersia laborandum putauerit? egregie quidam ex hoc ueraciterque declamans ait: mirabile dictu, duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit. splendide atque uerissime. intuens enim in duorum corporum commixtione unius inquinatissimam cupiditatem, alterius castissimam uoluntatem, et non quid coniunctione membrorum, sed quid animorum diuersitate ageretur adtendens: duo, inquit, fuerunt, et adulterium unus admisit. sed quid est hoc, quod in eam grauius uindicatur, quae adulterium non admisit? nam ille patria cum patre pulsus est, haec summo est mactata supplicio. si non est illa inpudicitia qua inuita obprimitur, non est haec iustitia qua casta punitur. uos appello, leges iudicesque Romani. nempe post perpetrata facinora nec quemquam scelestum indemnatum inpune uoluistis occidi. si ergo ad uestrum iudicium quisquam deferret hoc crimen uobisque probaretur non solum indemnatam, uerum etiam castam et innocentem interfectam esse mulierem, nonne eum, qui id fecisset, seueritate congrua plecteretis? hoc fecit illa Lucretia; illa, illa sic praedicata Lucretia innocentem, castam, uim perpessam Lucretiam insuper interemit. proferte sententiam. quod si propterea non potestis, quia non adstat quam punire possitis, cur interfectricem innocentis et castae tanta praedicatione laudatis? quam certe apud infernos iudices etiam tales, quales poetarum uestrorum carminibus cantitantur, nulla ratione defenditis, constitutam inter illos scilicet, qui sibi letum insontes peperere manu lucemque perosi proiecere animas; cui ad superna redire cupienti fas obstat, tristisque palus inamabilis undae adligat. an forte ideo ibi non est, quia non insontem, sed male sibi consciam se peremit? quid si enim - quod ipsa tantummodo nosse poterat - quamuis inueni uiolenter inruenti etiam sua libidine inlecta consensit idque in se puniens ita doluit, ut morte putaret expiandum? quamquam ne sic quidem se occidere debuit, si fructuosam posset apud deos falsos agere paenitentiam. uerumtamen si forte ita est falsumque est illud, quod duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit, sed potius ambo adulterium commiserunt, unus manifesta inuasione, altera latente consensione, non se occidit insontem, et ideo potest a litteratis eius defensoribus dici non esse apud inferos inter illos, qui sibi letum insontes peperere manu. sed ita haec causa ex utroque latere coartatur, ut, si extenuatur homicidium, adulterium confirmetur; si purgatur adulterium, homicidium cumuletur; nec omnino inuenitur exitus, ubi dicitur: si adulterata, cur laudata; si pudica, cur occisa? nobis tamen hoc tam nobili feminae huius exemplo ad istos refutandos, qui Christianis feminis in captiuitate conpressis alieni ab omni cogitatione sanctitatis insultant, sufficit quod in praeclaris eius laudibus dictum est: duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit. talis enim ab eis Lucretia magis credita est, quae se nullo adulterino potuerit maculare consensu. quod ergo se ipsam, quoniam adulterum pertulit, etiam non adultera occidit, non est pudicitiae caritas, sed pudoris infirmitas. puduit enim eam turpitudinis alienae in se commissae etiamsi non se cum, et Romana mulier, laudis auida nimium, uerita est ne putaretur, quod uiolenter est passa cum uiueret, libenter passa si uiueret. unde ad oculos hominum testem mentis suae illam poenam adhibendam putauit, quibus conscientiam demonstrare non potuit. sociam quippe facti se credi erubuit, si, quod alius in ea fecerat turpiter, ferret ipsa patienter. non hoc fecerunt feminae Christianae, quae passae similia uiuunt tamen nec in se ultae sunt crimen alienum, ne aliorum sceleribus adderent sua, si, quoniam hostes in eis concupiscendo stupra commiserant, illae in se ipsis homicidia erubescendo committerent. habent quippe intus gloriam castitatis, testimonium conscientiae; habent autem coram oculis dei sui nec requirunt amplius, ubi quid recte faciant non habent amplius, ne deuient ab auctoritate legis diuinae, cum male deuitant offensionem suspicionis humanae.

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 19.--Of Lucretia, Who Put an End to Her Life Because of the Outrage Done Her.

This, then, is our position, and it seems sufficiently lucid. We maintain that when a woman is violated while her soul admits no consent to the iniquity, but remains inviolably chaste, the sin is not hers, but his who violates her. But do they against whom we have to defend not only the souls, but the sacred bodies too of these outraged Christian captives,--do they, perhaps, dare to dispute our position? But all know how loudly they extol the purity of Lucretia, that noble matron of ancient Rome. When King Tarquin's son had violated her body, she made known the wickedness of this young profligate to her husband Collatinus, and to Brutus her kinsman, men of high rank and full of courage, and bound them by an oath to avenge it. Then, heart-sick, and unable to bear the shame, she put an end to her life. What shall we call her? An adulteress, or chaste? There is no question which she was. Not more happily than truly did a declaimer say of this sad occurrence: "Here was a marvel: there were two, and only one committed adultery." Most forcibly and truly spoken. For this declaimer, seeing in the union of the two bodies the foul lust of the one, and the chaste will of the other, and giving heed not to the contact of the bodily members, but to the wide diversity of their souls, says: "There were two, but the adultery was committed only by one."

But how is it, that she who was no partner to the crime bears the heavier punishment of the two? For the adulterer was only banished along with his father; she suffered the extreme penalty. If that was not impurity by which she was unwillingly ravished, then this is not justice by which she, being chaste, is punished. To you I appeal, ye laws and judges of Rome. Even after the perpetration of great enormities, you do not suffer the criminal to be slain untried. If, then, one were to bring to your bar this case, and were to prove to you that a woman not only untried, but chaste and innocent, had been killed, would you not visit the murderer with punishment proportionably severe? This crime was committed by Lucretia; that Lucretia so celebrated and lauded slew the innocent, chaste, outraged Lucretia. Pronounce sentence. But if you cannot, because there does not appear any one whom you can punish, why do you extol with such unmeasured laudation her who slew an innocent and chaste woman? Assuredly you will find it impossible to defend her before the judges of the realms below, if they be such as your poets are fond of representing them; for she is among those

"Who guiltless sent themselves to doom,

And all for loathing of the day,

In madness threw their lives away."

And if she with the others wishes to return,

"Fate bars the way: around their keep

The slow unlovely waters creep,

And bind with ninefold chain." ¹

Or perhaps she is not there, because she slew herself conscious of guilt, not of innocence? She herself alone knows her reason; but what if she was betrayed by the pleasure of the act, and gave some consent to Sextus, though so violently abusing her, and then was so affected with remorse, that she thought death alone could expiate her sin? Even though this were the case, she ought still to have held her hand from suicide, if she could with her false gods have accomplished a fruitful repentance. However, if such were the state of the case, and if it were false that there were two, but one only committed adultery; if the truth were that both were involved in it, one by open assault, the other by secret consent, then she did not kill an innocent woman; and therefore her erudite defenders may maintain that she is not among that class of the dwellers below "who guiltless sent themselves to doom." But this case of Lucretia is in such a dilemma, that if you extenuate the homicide, you confirm the adultery: if you acquit her of adultery, you make the charge of homicide heavier; and there is no way out of the dilemma, when one asks, If she was adulterous, why praise her? if chaste, why slay her?

Nevertheless, for our purpose of refuting those who are unable to comprehend what true sanctity is, and who therefore insult over our outraged Christian women, it is enough that in the instance of this noble Roman matron it was said in her praise, "There were two, but the adultery was the crime of only one." For Lucretia was confidently believed to be superior to the contamination of any consenting thought to the adultery. And accordingly, since she killed herself for being subjected to an outrage in which she had no guilty part, it is obvious that this act of hers was prompted not by the love of purity, but by the overwhelming burden of her shame. She was ashamed that so foul a crime had been perpetrated upon her, though without her abetting; and this matron, with the Roman love of glory in her veins, was seized with a proud dread that, if she continued to live, it would be supposed she willingly did not resent the wrong that had been done her. She could not exhibit to men her conscience but she judged that her self-inflicted punishment would testify her state of mind; and she burned with shame at the thought that her patient endurance of the foul affront that another had done her, should be construed into complicity with him. Not such was the decision of the Christian women who suffered as she did, and yet survive. They declined to avenge upon themselves the guilt of others, and so add crimes of their own to those crimes in which they had no share. For this they would have done had their shame driven them to homicide, as the lust of their enemies had driven them to adultery. Within their own souls, in the witness of their own conscience, they enjoy the glory of chastity. In the sight of God, too, they are esteemed pure, and this contents them; they ask no more: it suffices them to have opportunity of doing good, and they decline to evade the distress of human suspicion, lest they thereby deviate from the divine law.