Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput III: An consequens sit, ut corporeum dolorem sequatur carnis interitus.

Sed nullum est, inquiunt, corpus, quod dolere possit nec possit mori. et hoc unde scimus? nam de corporibus quis certus est daemonum, utrum in eis doleant, quando se adfligi magnis cruciatibus confitentur? quodsi respondetur terrenum corpus solidum scilicet atque conspicuum nullum esse, atque ut uno potius nomine id explicem, nullam esse carnem, quae dolere possit morique non possit, quid aliud dicitur, nisi quod sensu corporis homines et experientia collegerunt? nullam namque carnem nisi mortalem sciunt; et haec est eorum tota ratio, ut, quod experti non sunt, nequaquam esse posse arbitrentur. nam cuius rationis est dolorem facere mortis argumentum, cum uitae potius sit indicium? etsi enim quaerimus, utrum semper possit uiuere, certum tamen est uiuere omne quod dolet doloremque omnem nisi in re uiuente esse non posse. necesse est ergo ut uiuat dolens, non est necesse ut occidat dolor, quia nec corpora ista mortalia et utique moritura omnis dolor occidit, et ut dolor aliquis possit occidere, illa causa est, quoniam sic est anima conexa huic corpori, ut summis doloribus cedat atque discedat; quoniam et ipsa conpago membrorum atque uitalium sic infirma est, ut eam uim, quae magnum uel summum dolorem facit, non ualeat sustinere. tunc autem tali corpori anima et eo conectetur modo, ut illud uinculum, sicut nulla temporis longitudine soluetur, ita nullo dolore rumpatur. proinde etiamsi caro nunc talis nulla est, quae sensum doloris perpeti possit mortem que non possit, erit tamen tunc talis caro, qualis nunc non est, sicut talis erit et mors qualis nunc non est. non enim nulla, sed sempiterna mors erit, quando nec uiuere anima poterit deum non habendo nec doloribus corporis carere moriendo. prima mors animam nolentem pellit e corpore, secunda mors animam nolentem tenet in corpore; ab utraque morte communiter id habetur, ut quod non uult anima de suo corpore patiatur. adtendunt autem isti contradictores nullam esse nunc carnem, quae dolorem pati possit mortemque non possit, et non adtendunt esse tamen aliquid tale quod corpore maius sit. ipse quippe animus, cuius praesentia corpus uiuit et regitur, et dolorem pati potest et mori non potest. ecce inuenta res est, quae, cum sensum doloris habeat, inmortalis est. hoc igitur erit tunc etiam in corporibus damnatorum, quod nunc esse scimus in animis omnium. si autem consideremus diligentius, dolor, qui dicitur corporis, magis ad animam pertinet. animae est enim dolere, non corporis, etiam quando ei dolendi causa exsistit a corpore, cum in eo loco dolet, ubi laeditur corpus. sicut ergo dicimus corpora sentientia et corpora uiuentia, cum ab anima sit corpori sensus et uita, ita corpora dicimus et dolentia, cum dolor corpori nisi ab anima esse non possit. dolet itaque anima cum corpore in eo loco eius, ubi aliquid contingit ut doleat; dolet et sola, quamuis sit in corpore, cum aliqua causa etiam inuisibili tristis est ipsa corpore incolumi; dolet etiam non in corpore constituta; nam utique dolebat diues ille apud inferos, quando dicebat: crucior in hac flamma. corpus autem nec exanime dolet nec animatum sine anima dolet. si ergo a dolore argumentum recte sumeretur ad mortem, ut ideo mors possit accidere, quia potuit accidere et dolor, magis ad animam pertineret mori, ad quam magis pertinet et dolere. cum uero illa, quae magis dolere potest, non possit mori, quid momenti adfert cur illa corpora, quoniam futura sunt in doloribus, ideo etiam moritura esse credamus? dixerunt quidem Platonici ex terrenis corporibus moribundisque membris esse animae et metuere et cupere et dolere atque gaudere; unde Vergilius: hinc, inquit - id est ex moribundis terreni corporis membris - metuunt cupiunt que, dolent gaudent que. sed conuicimus eos in duodecimo huius operis libro, habere animas secundum ipsos ab omni etiam corporis labe purgatas diram cupiditatem, qua rursus incipiunt in corpora uelle reuerti. ubi autem potest esse cupiditas, profecto etiam dolor potest. frustrata quippe cupiditas, siue non perueniendo quo tendebat, siue amittendo quo peruenerat, uertitur in dolorem. quapropter si anima, quae uel sola uel maxime dolet, habet tamen quandam pro suo modo inmortalitatem suam, non ideo mori poterunt illa corpora, quia dolebunt. postremo si corpora faciunt, ut animae doleant, cur eis dolorem possunt, mortem uero inferre non possunt, nisi quia non est consequens, ut mortem faciat quod dolorem facit? cur ergo incredibile est ita ignes illis corporibus dolorem posse inferre, non mortem, sicut ipsa corpora dolere animas faciunt, quas tamen non ideo mori cogunt? non est igitur necessarium futurae mortis argumentum dolor.

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 3.--Whether Bodily Suffering Necessarily Terminates in the Destruction of the Flesh.

But, say they, there is no body which can suffer and cannot also die. How do we know this? For who can say with certainty that the devils do not suffer in their bodies, when they own that they are grievously tormented? And if it is replied that there is no earthly body--that is to say, no solid and perceptible body, or, in one word, no flesh--which can suffer and cannot die, is not this to tell us only what men have gathered from experience and their bodily senses? For they indeed have no acquaintance with any flesh but that which is mortal; and this is their whole argument, that what they have had no experience of they judge quite impossible. For we cannot call it reasoning to make pain a presumption of death, while, in fact, it is rather a sign of life. For though it be a question whether that which suffers can continue to live for ever, yet it is certain that everything which suffers pain does live, and that pain can exist only in a living subject. It is necessary, therefore, that he who is pained be living, not necessary that pain kill him; for every pain does not kill even those mortal bodies of ours which are destined to die. And that any pain kills them is caused by the circumstance that the soul is so connected with the body that it succumbs to great pain and withdraws; for the structure of our members and vital parts is so infirm that it cannot bear up against that violence which causes great or extreme agony. But in the life to come this connection of soul and body is of such a kind, that as it is dissolved by no lapse of time, so neither is it burst asunder by any pain. And so, although it be true that in this world there is no flesh which can suffer pain and yet cannot die, yet in the world to come there shall be flesh such as now there is not, as there will also be death such as now there is not. For death will not be abolished, but will be eternal, since the soul will neither be able to enjoy God and live, nor to die and escape the pains of the body. The first death drives the soul from the body against her will: the second death holds the soul in the body against her will. The two have this in common, that the soul suffers against her will what her own body inflicts.

Our opponents, too, make much of this, that in this world there is no flesh which can suffer pain and cannot die; while they make nothing of the fact that there is something which is greater than the body. For the spirit, whose presence animates and rules the body, can both suffer pain and cannot die. Here then is something which, though it can feel pain, is immortal. And this capacity, which we now see in the spirit of all, shall be hereafter in the bodies of the damned. Moreover, if we attend to the matter a little more closely, we see that what is called bodily pain is rather to be referred to the soul. For it is the soul not the body, which is pained, even when the pain originates with the body,--the soul feeling pain at the point where the body is hurt. As then we speak of bodies feeling and living, though the feeling and life of the body are from the soul, so also we speak of bodies being pained, though no pain can be suffered by the body apart from the soul. The soul, then, is pained with the body in that part where something occurs to hurt it; and it is pained alone, though it be in the body, when some invisible cause distresses it, while the body is safe and sound. Even when not associated with the body it is pained; for certainly that rich man was suffering in hell when he cried, "I am tormented in this flame." ¹ But as for the body, it suffers no pain when it is soulless; and even when animate it can suffer only by the soul's suffering. If, therefore, we might draw a just presumption from the existence of pain to that of death, and conclude that where pain can be felt death can occur, death would rather be the property of the soul, for to it pain more peculiarly belongs. But, seeing that that which suffers most cannot die, what ground is there for supposing that those bodies, because destined to suffer, are therefore, destined to die? The Platonists indeed maintained that these earthly bodies and dying members gave rise to the fears, desires, griefs, and joys of the soul. "Hence," says Virgil (i.e., from these earthly bodies and dying members),

"Hence wild desires and grovelling fears,

And human laughter, human tears." ²

But in the fourteenth book of this work ³ we have proved that, according to the Platonists' own theory, souls, even when purged from all pollution of the body, are yet pos sessed by a monstrous desire to return again into their bodies. But where desire can exist, certainly pain also can exist; for desire frustrated, either by missing what it aims at or losing what it had attained, is turned into pain. And therefore, if the soul, which is either the only or the chief sufferer, has yet a kind of immortality of its own, it is inconsequent to say that because the bodies of the damned shall suffer pain, therefore they shall die. In fine, if the body causes the soul to suffer, why can the body not cause death as well as suffering, unless because it does not follow that what causes pain causes death as well? And why then is it incredible that these fires can cause pain but not death to those bodies we speak of, just as the bodies themselves cause pain, but not therefore death, to the souls? Pain is therefore no necessary presumption of death.