Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XI: An quisquam simul et uiuens esse possit et mortuus.

Si autem absurdum est, ut hominem, antequam ad mortem perueniat, iam esse dicamus in morte - cui enim propinquat peragendo uitae suae tempora, si iam in illa est? - , maxime quia nimis est insolens, ut simul et uiuens esse dicatur et moriens, cum uigilans et dormiens simul esse non possit, quaerendum est quando erit moriens. etenim antequam mors ueniat, non est moriens, sed uiuens; cum uero mors uenerit, mortuus erit, non moriens. illud ergo est adhuc ante mortem, hoc iam post mortem. quando ergo in morte? tunc enim est moriens, ut, quemadmodum tria sunt cum dicimus .ante mortem, in morte, post mortem, ita tria singulis singula .uiuens, moriens mortuus que. reddantur. quando itaque sit moriens, id est in morte, ubi neque sit uiuens, quod est ante mortem, neque mortuus, quod est post mortem, sed moriens, id est in morte, difficillime definitur. quamdiu quippe est anima in corpore, maxime si etiam sensus adsit, procul dubio uiuit homo, qui constat ex anima et corpore, ac per hoc adhuc ante mortem, non in morte esse dicendus est; cum uero anima abscesserit omnemque abstulerit corporis sensum, iam post mortem mortuusque perhibetur. perit igitur inter utrumque, quo moriens uel in morte sit; quoniam si adhuc uiuit, ante mortem est; si uiuere destitit, iam post mortem est. numquam ergo moriens, id est in morte, esse conprehenditur. ita etiam in transcursu temporum quaeritur praesens, nec inuenitur, quia sine ullo spatio est, per quod transitur ex futuro in praeteritum. nonne ergo uidendum est, ne ista ratione mors corporis nulla esse dicatur? si enim est, quando est, quae in ullo et in qua ullus esse non potest? quandoquidem si uiuitur, adhuc non est, quia hoc ante mortem, non in morte; si autem uiuere iam cessatum est, iam non est, quia et hoc post mortem est, non in morte. sed rursus si nulla mors est, ante quid uel post quid est quod dicitur ante mortem siue post mortem? nam et hoc inaniter dicitur, si mors nulla est. atque utinam in paradiso bene uiuendo egissemus, ut reuera nulla mors esset. nunc autem non solum est, uerum etiam tam molesta est, ut nec ulla explicari locutione possit nec ulla ratione uitari. loquamur ergo secundum consuetudinem - non enim aliter debemus - et dicamus ante mortem, priusquam mors accidat; sicut scriptum est: ante mortem me laudes hominem quemquam. dicamus etiam cum acciderit: post mortem illius uel illius factum est illud aut illud. dicamus et de praesenti tempore ut possumus uelut cum ita loquimur: moriens ille testatus est, et: illis atque illis illud atque illud moriens dereliquit; quamuis hoc nisi uiuens omnino facere non posset et potius hoc ante mortem fecerit, non in morte. loquamur etiam sicut loquitur scriptura diuina, quae mortuos quoque non post mortem, sed in morte esse non dubitat dicere. hinc enim est illud: quoniam non est in morte, qui memor sit tui. donec enim reuiuescant, recte esse dicuntur in morte, sicut in somno esse quisque, donec euigilet, dicitur; quamuis in somno positos dicamus dormientes, nec tamen eo modo possumus dicere eos, qui iam sunt mortui, morientes. non enim adhuc moriuntur, qui, quantum adtinet ad corporis mortem, de qua nunc disserimus, iam sunt a corporibus separati. sed hoc est, quod dixi explicari aliqua locutione non posse, quonam modo uel morientes dicantur uiuere uel iam mortui etiam post mortem adhuc esse dicantur in morte. quomodo enim post mortem, si adhuc in morte? praesertim cum eos nec morientes dicamus, sicuti eos, qui in somno sunt, dicimus dormientes, et qui in languore, languentes, et qui in dolore, utique dolentes, et qui in uita, uiuentes; at uero mortui, priusquam resurgant, esse dicuntur in morte, nec tamen possunt appellari morientes. unde non inportune neque incongrue arbitror accidisse, etsi non humana industria, iudicio fortasse diuino, ut hoc uerbum, quod est moritur, in Latina lingua nec grammatici declinare potuerint, ea regula qua cetera talia declinantur. namque ab eo quod est oritur, fit uerbum praeteriti temporis ortus est.; et si qua similia sunt, per temporis praeteriti participia declinantur. ab eo uero, quod est moritur, si quaeramus praeteriti temporis uerbum, responderi adsolet mortuus est, u littera geminata. sic enim dicitur mortuus, quomodo fatuus, arduus, carduus, conspicuus et si qua similia, quae non sunt praeteriti temporis, sed quoniam nomina sunt, sine tempore declinantur. illud autem, quasi ut declinetur, quod declinari non potest, pro participio praeteriti temporis ponitur nomen. conuenienter itaque factum est, ut, quemadmodum id quod significat non potest agendo, ita ipsum uerbum non posset loquendo declinari. agi tamen potest in adiutorio gratiae redemptoris nostri, ut saltem secundam mortem declinare possimus. illa est enim grauior et omnium malorum pessima, quae non fit separatione animae et corporis, sed in aeternam poenam potius utriusque conplexu. ibi e contrario non erunt homines ante mortem atque post mortem, sed semper in morte; ac per hoc numquam uiuentes, numquam mortui, sed sine fine morientes. numquam enim erit homini peius in morte, quam ubi erit mors ipsa sine morte.

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 11.--Whether One Can Both Be Living and Dead at the Same Time.

But if it is absurd to say that a man is in death before he reaches death (for to what is his course running as he passes through life, if already he is in death?), and if it outrage common usage to speak of a man being at once alive and dead, as much as it does so to speak of him as at once asleep and awake, it remains to be asked when a man is dying? For, before death comes, he is not dying but living; and when death has come, he is not dying but dead. The one is before, the other after death. When, then, is he in death so that we can say he is dying? For as there are three times, before death, in death, after death, so there are three states corresponding, living, dying, dead. And it is very hard to define when a man is in death or dying, when he is neither living, which is before death, nor dead, which is after death, but dying, which is in death. For so long as the soul is in the body, especially if consciousness remain, the man certainly lives; for body and soul constitute the man. And thus, before death, he cannot be said to be in death, but when, on the other hand, the soul has departed, and all bodily sensation is extinct, death is past, and the man is dead. Between these two states the dying condition finds no place; for if a man yet lives, death has not arrived; if he has ceased to live, death is past. Never, then, is he dying, that is, comprehended in the state of death. So also in the passing of time,--you try to lay your finger on the present, and cannot find it, because the present occupies no space, but is only the transition of time from the future to the past. Must we then conclude that there is thus no death of the body at all? For if there is, where is it, since it is in no one, and no one can be in it? Since, indeed, if there is yet life, death is not yet; for this state is before death, not in death: and if life has already ceased, death is not present; for this state is after death, not in death. On the other hand, if there is no death before or after, what do we mean when we say "after death," or "before death?" This is a foolish way of speaking if there is no death. And would that we had lived so well in Paradise that in very truth there were now no death! But not only does it now exist, but so grievous a thing is it, that no skill is sufficient either to explain or to escape it.

Let us, then, speak in the customary way,--no man ought to speak otherwise,--and let us call the time before death come, "before death;" as it is written, "Praise no man before his death." ¹ And when it has happened, let us say that "after death" this or that took place. And of the present time let us speak as best we can, as when we say, "He, when dying, made his will, and left this or that to such and such persons,"--though, of course, he could not do so unless he were living, and did this rather before death than in death. And let us use the same phraseology as Scripture uses; for it makes no scruple of saying that the dead are not after but in death. So that verse, "For in death there is no remembrance of thee." ² For until the resurrection men are justly said to be in death; as every one is said to be in sleep till he awakes. However, though we can say of persons in sleep that they are sleeping, we cannot speak in this way of the dead, and say they are dying. For, so far as regards the death of the body, of which we are now speaking, one cannot say that those who are already separated from their bodies continue dying. But this, you see, is just what I was saying,--that no words can explain how either the dying are said to live, or how the dead are said, even after death, to be in death. For how can they be after death if they be in death, especially when we do not even call them dying, as we call those in sleep, sleeping; and those in languor, languishing; and those in grief, grieving; and those in life, living? And yet the dead, until they rise again, are said to be in death, but cannot be called dying.

And therefore I think it has not unsuitably nor inappropriately come to pass, though not by the intention of man, yet perhaps with divine purpose, that this Latin word moritur cannot be declined by the grammarians according to the rule followed by similar words. For oritur gives the form ortus est for the perfect; and all similar verbs form this tense from their perfect participles. But if we ask the perfect of moritur, we get the regular answer mortuus est, with a double u. For thus mortuus is pronounced, like fatuus, arduus, conspicuus, and similar words, which are not perfect participles but adjectives, and are declined without regard to tense. But mortuus, though in form an adjective, is used as perfect participle, as if that were to be declined which cannot be declined; and thus it has suitably come to pass that, as the thing itself cannot in point of fact be declined, so neither can the word significant of the act be declined. Yet, by the aid of our Redeemer's grace, we may manage at least to decline the second. For that is more grievous still, and, indeed, of all evils the worst, since it consists not in the separation of soul and body, but in the uniting of both in death eternal. And there, in striking contrast to our present conditions, men will not be before or after death, but always in death; and thus never living, never dead, but endlessly dying. And never can a man be more disastrously in death than when death itself shall be deathless.