What Augustine Said
If you’ve been following Nancy Pelosi’s comments lately and the subsequent remarks by bishops and those in the blogosphere, you may have seen that the blog “Aliens in this World” has posted a translation of what St Augustine said.
A friend sent the Latin to me:
Utrum quod in utero formatum adhuc est, animatum posset intellegi.
80. (21, 22–25) Si autem litigabunt duo viri, et percusserint mulierem in utero habentem, et exierit infans eius nondum formatus; detrimentum patietur, quantum indixerit vir mulieris, et dabit cum postulatione.
Mihi videtur significationis alicuius causa dici haec, magis quam Scripturam circa huiusmodi facta occupatam. Nam si illud attenderet, ne praegnans mulier percussa in abortum compelleretur, non poneret duos litigantes viros, cum possit et ab uno hoc admitti, qui cum ipsa muliere litigaverit, vel etiam non litigaverit, sed alienae posteritati nocere volendo id fecerit. Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur.
Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intellegi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat.
Sequitur enim et dicit: Si autem formatum fuerit, dabit animam pro anima. Ubi quid aliud intellegitur, nisi, et ipse morietur? Nam hoc et in caeteris ex hac occasione iam praecipit: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede, combustionem pro combustione, vulnus pro vulnere, livorem pro livore: talionis videlicet aequitate. Quae Lex ideo constituit, ut demonstraret quae vindicta debeatur. Nisi enim per Legem sciretur quid vindictae deberetur, unde sciretur quid venia relaxaret, ut dici posset: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris? Debitores igitur Lege monstrantur, ut quando ignoscitur appareat quid dimittatur. Neque enim debita dimitteremus, nisi quid nobis deberetur Lege indice disceremus. Si ergo illud informe puerperium iam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita. Quod autem dixit: Et dabit cum postulatione quod maritus mulieris, informi excluso, dandum constituerit, non est in promptu intellegere: quippe, quod graecus habet, pluribus modis intellegitur, et tolerabilius cum postulatione dictum est, quam si aliud diceretur. Fortassis enim postulabit ut det, ut eo modo satis Deo faciat, etiamsi maritus mulierve non expetat.
This is my own rendering:
Whether what is not yet formed in the womb can be understood as being ensouled.
80. (21, 22-25) “If two men quarrel and strike a pregnant woman, and the child (infans) that is not yet formed is expelled … he will pay whatever penalty the woman’s husband declares, and he will render it upon request.”
It seems to me that this is said for the sake of signifying something rather than that Scripture is concerned about deeds of this kind. For if did address it, so that a pregnant woman who has been struck would not be forced to miscarry, it would not suppose that there were two men fighting since this could also be perpetrated by one, who fought with the woman herself, or even if he did not fight with her, still willingly acted to harm another’s offspring. But it did not wish to regard the death of an unformed child as homicide, nor did it think what is borne in the womb to be a man.
Here the question regarding the soul usually comes up, whether what is not formed cannot be understood as ensouled, and therefore it would not be homicide since it cannot be said to be determined, if it still did not have a soul.
For it goes on to say: “If it was been formed, he will give a life for a life.” What else then should be understood except that he also should die? For it has established this already in the other cases of this type: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a would for a wound, a bruise for a bruise”: namely the justice of retribution. So the law established it to show what retributions would be owed. For unless it is known by the Law what retributions are owed, how would it be known what a pardon looses, as can be said: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive those in debt to us”? Debtors, therefore, are shown by the Law, as when it is not known it would be apparent what would be forgiven. For we would not forgive debts unless we had learned what is owed to us as the Law indicates. If therefore the offspring was unformed, but still in a certain way formlessly ensouled (since the great question concerning the soul must not be bound by the fear of an untested opinion), therefore the Law has did not wish to regard it as homicide, because it cannot yet be said that there is a living soul in a body that lacks sense, if it is such, not yet formed in the flesh, and therefore not yet provided with the senses. But, however, it said: “And he will render upon request what the woman’s husband established would be given for the expelled unformed offspring.” It is not easy to understand: naturally “Asioma,” what the Greek holds, is understood in several ways, and “upon request” is said to be more tolerable, than if it were said to be something else. For perhaps he would offer to render something, in order to satisfy God in this way, even if the husband or the woman did not ask.
I didn’t have a lot of time, so there may be errors.
