Traduction Masquer
La cité de dieu

CHAPITRE XV.

LA PIÉTÉ DE RÉGULUS, SOUFFRANT VOLONTAIREMENT LA CAPTIVITÉ POUR TENIR SA PAROLE ENVERS LES DIEUX, NE LE PRÉSERVA PAS DE LA MORT.

Les païens ont parmi leurs hommes illustres un exemple fameux de captivité volontairement subie par esprit de religion. Marcus Attilius Régulus, général romain, avait été pris par les Carthaginois¹. Ceux-ci, tenant moins à conserver leurs prisonniers qu’à recouvrer ceux qui leur avaient été faits par les Romains, envoyèrent Régulus à Rome avec leurs ambassadeurs, après qu’il se fut engagé par serment à revenir à Carthage, s’il n’obtenait pas ce qu’ils désiraient. Il part, et convaincu que l’échange des captifs n’était pas avantageux à la république, il en dissuade le sénat; puis, sans y être contraint autrement que par sa parole, il reprend volontairement le chemin de sa prison. Là, les Carthaginois lui réservaient d’affreux supplices et la mort. On l’enferma dans un coffre de bois garni de pointes aigües, de sorte qu’il était obligé de se tenir debout, ou, s’il se penchait, de souffrir des douleurs atroces ; ce fut ainsi qu’ils le tuèrent en le privant de tout sommeil. Certes, voilà une vertu admirable et qui a su se montrer plus grande que la plus grande infortune! Et cependant quels dieux avait pris à témoin Régulus, sinon ces mêmes dieux dont on s’imagine que le culte aboli est la cause de tous les malheurs du monde? Si ces dieux qu’on servait pour être heureux en cette vie ont voulu ou permis le supplice d’un si religieux observateur de son serment, que pouvait faire de plus leur colère contre un parjure? Mais je veux tirer de mon raisonnement une double conclusion nous avons vu que Régulus porta le respect pour les dieux jusqu’à croire qu’un serment ne lui permettait pas de rester dans sa patrie, ni de se réfugier ailleurs, mais lui faisait une loi de retourner chez ses plus cruels ennemis. Or, s’il croyait qu’une telle conduite lui fût avantageuse pour la vie présente, il était évidemment dans l’illusion, puisqu’il n’en recueillit qu’une affreuse mort. Voilà donc un homme dévoué au culte des dieux qui est vaincu et fait prisonnier; le voilà qui, pour ne pas violer un serment prêté en leur nom, périt dans le plus affreux et le plus inouï des supplices! Preuve certaine que le culte des dieux ne sert de rien pour le bonheur temporel. Si vous dites maintenant qu’il nous donne après la vie la félicité pour récompense, je vous demanderai alors pourquoi vous calomniez le christianisme, pourquoi vous prétendez que le désastre de Rome vient de ce qu’elle a déserté les autels de ses dieux, puisque, malgré le culte le plus assidu, elle aurait pu être aussi malheureuse que le fut Régulus? Il ne resterait plus qu’à pousser l’aveuglement et la démence jusqu’à prétendre que si un individu a pu, quoique fidèle au culte des dieux, être accablé par l’infortune, il n’en saurait être de même d’une cité tout entière, la puissance des dieux étant moins faite pour se déployer sur un individu que sur un grand nombre. Comme si la multitude ne se composait pas d’individus!

Dira-t-on que Régulus, au milieu de sa captivité et de ses tourments, a pu trouver le bonheur dans le sentiment de sa vertu? Que l’on se mette alors à la recherche de cette vertu véritable qui seule peut rendre un Etat heureux. Car le bonheur d’un Etat et celui d’un individu viennent de la même source, un Etat n’étant qu’un assemblage d’individus vivant dans un certain accord. Au surplus, je ne discute pas encore la vertu de Régulus; qu’il me suffise, par l’exemple mémorable d’un homme qui aime mieux renoncer à la vie que d’offenser les dieux, d’avoir forcé mes adversaires de convenir que la conservation des biens corporels et de tous les avantages extérieurs de la vie n’est pas le véritable objet de la religion. Mais que peut-on attendre d’esprits aveuglés qui se glorifient d’un semblable citoyen et qui craignent d’avoir un Etat qui lui ressemble? S’ils ne le craignent pas, qu’ils avouent donc que le malheur de Régulus a pu² arriver à une ville aussi fidèle que lui au culte des dieux, et qu’ils cessent de calomnier le christianisme. Mais puisque nous avons soulevé ces questions au sujet des chrétiens emmenés en captivité, je dirai à ces hommes qui sans pudeur et sans prudence prodiguent l’insulte à notre sainte religion: Que l’exemple de Régulus vous confonde ! Car si ce n’est point une chose honteuse à vos dieux qu’un de leurs plus fervents admirateurs, pour garder la foi du serment, ait dû renoncer à sa patrie terrestre, sans espoir d’en trouver une autre, et mourir lentement dans les tortures d’un supplice inouï, de quel droit viendrait-on tourner à la honte du nom chrétien la captivité de nos fidèles, qui, l’oeil fixé sur la céleste patrie, se savent étrangers jusque dans leurs propres foyers³.

Traduction Masquer
The City of God

Chapter 15.--Of Regulus, in Whom We Have an Example of the Voluntary Endurance of Captivity for the Sake of Religion; Which Yet Did Not Profit Him, Though He Was a Worshipper of the Gods.

But among their own famous men they have a very noble example of the voluntary endurance of captivity in obedience to a religious scruple. Marcus Attilius Regulus, a Roman general, was a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians. But they, being more anxious to exchange their prisoners with the Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a special envoy with their own embassadors to negotiate this exchange, but bound him first with an oath, that if he failed to accomplish their wish, he would return to Carthage. He went and persuaded the senate to the opposite course, because he believed it was not for the advantage of the Roman republic to make an exchange of prisoners. After he had thus exerted his influence, the Romans did not compel him to return to the enemy; but what he had sworn he voluntarily performed. But the Carthaginians put him to death with refined, elaborate, and horrible tortures. They shut him up in a narrow box, in which he was compelled to stand, and in which finely sharpened nails were fixed all round about him, so that he could not lean upon any part of it without intense pain; and so they killed him by depriving him of sleep. ¹ With justice, indeed, do they applaud the virtue which rose superior to so frightful a fate. However, the gods he swore by were those who are now supposed to avenge the prohibition of their worship, by inflicting these present calamities on the human race. But if these gods, who were worshipped specially in this behalf, that they might confer happiness in this life, either willed or permitted these punishments to be inflicted on one who kept his oath to them, what more cruel punishment could they in their anger have inflicted on a perjured person? But why may I not draw from my reasoning a double inference? Regulus certainly had such reverence for the gods, that for his oath's sake he would neither remain in his own land nor go elsewhere, but without hesitation returned to his bitterest enemies. If he thought that this course would be advantageous with respect to this present life, he was certainly much deceived, for it brought his life to a frightful termination. By his own example, in fact, he taught that the gods do not secure the temporal happiness of their worshippers; since he himself, who was devoted to their worship, as both conquered in battle and taken prisoner, and then, because he refused to act in violation of the oath he had sworn by them, was tortured and put to death by a new, and hitherto unheard of, and all too horrible kind of punishment. And on the supposition that the worshippers of the gods are rewarded by felicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniate the influence of Christianity? why do they assert that this disaster has overtaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since, worship them as assiduously as it may, it may yet be as unfortunate as Regulus was? Or will some one carry so wonderful a blindness to the extent of wildly attempting, in the face of the evident truth, to contend that though one man might be unfortunate, though a worshipper of the gods, yet a whole city could not be so? That is to say, the power of their gods is better adapted to preserve multitudes than individuals,--as if a multitude were not composed of individuals.

But if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisoner and enduring these bodily torments, might yet enjoy the blessedness of a virtuous soul, ² then let them recognize that true virtue by which a city also may be blessed. For the blessedness of a community and of an individual flow from the same source; for a community is nothing else than a harmonious collection of individuals. So that I am not concerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Regulus possessed; enough, that by his very noble example they are forced to own that the gods are to be worshipped not for the sake of bodily comforts or external advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather than offend the gods by whom he had sworn. But what can we make of men who glory in having such a citizen, but dread having a city like him? If they do not dread this, then let them acknowledge that some such calamity as befell Regulus may also befall a community, though they be worshipping their gods as diligently as he; and let them no longer throw the blame of their misfortunes on Christianity. But as our present concern is with those Christians who were taken prisoners, let those who take occasion from this calamity to revile our most wholesome religion in a fashion not less imprudent than impudent, consider this and hold their peace; for if it was no reproach to their gods that a most punctilious worshipper of theirs should, for the sake of keeping his oath to them, be deprived of his native land without hope of finding another, and fall into the hands of his enemies, and be put to death by a long-drawn and exquisite torture, much less ought the Christian name to be charged with the captivity of those who believe in its power, since they, in confident expectation of a heavenly country, know that they are pilgrims even in their own homes.