That the Opinion of the Platonists Regarding the Nature of Body and Soul is Not So Censurable as that of the Manichæans, But that Even It is Objectionable, Because It Ascribes the Origin of Vices to the Nature of The Flesh.

Chapter 5.—That the Opinion of the Platonists Regarding the Nature of Body and Soul is Not So Censurable as that of the Manichæans, But that Even It is Objectionable, Because It Ascribes the Origin of Vices to the Nature of The Flesh.

Caput V. Quod de corporis animaeque natura tolerabilior quidem Platonicorum quam Manichaeorum sit opinio, sed et ipsa reprobanda, quoniam uitiorum omnium causas naturae carnis adscribunt.

There is no need, therefore, that in our sins and vices we accuse the nature of the flesh to the injury of the Creator, for in its own kind and degree the flesh is good; but to desert the Creator good, and live according to the created good, is not good, whether a man choose to live according to the flesh, or according to the soul, or according to the whole human nature, which is composed of flesh and soul, and which is therefore spoken of either by the name flesh alone, or by the name soul alone. For he who extols the nature of the soul as the chief good, and condemns the nature of the flesh as if it were evil, assuredly is fleshly both in his love of the soul and hatred of the flesh; for these his feelings arise from human fancy, not from divine truth. The Platonists, indeed, are not so foolish as, with the Manichæans, to detest our present bodies as an evil nature; for they attribute all the elements of which this visible and tangible world is compacted, with all their qualities, to God their Creator. Nevertheless, from the death-infected members and earthly construction of the body they believe the soul is so affected, that there are thus originated in it the diseases of desires, and fears, and joy, and sorrow, under which four perturbations, as Cicero calls them, or passions, as most prefer to name them with the Greeks, is included the whole viciousness of human life. But if this be so, how is it that Æneas in Virgil, when he had heard from his father in Hades that the souls should return to bodies, expresses surprise at this declaration, and exclaims:

Non igitur opus est in peccatis uitiisque nostris ad Creatoris iniuriam carnis accusare naturam, quae in genere adque ordine suo bona est; sed deserto Creatore bono uiuere secundum creatum bonum non est bonum, siue quisque secundum carnem siue secundum animam siue secundum totum hominem, qui ex anima constat et carne (unde et nomine solius animae et nomine solius carnis significari potest) eligat uiuere. Nam qui uelut summum bonum laudat animae naturam et tamquam malum naturam carnis accusat, profecto et animam carnaliter adpetit et carnem carnaliter fugit, quoniam id uanitate sentit humana, non ueritate diuina. Non quidem Platonici sicut Manichaei desipiunt, ut tamquam mali naturam terrena corpora detestentur, cum omnia elementa, quibus iste mundus uisibilis contrectabilisque conpactus est, qualitatesque eorum Deo artifici tribuant; uerum tamen ex terrenis artubus moribundisque membris sic adfici animas opinantur, ut hinc eis sint morbi cupiditatum et timorum et laetitiae siue tristitiae; quibus quattuor uel perturbationibus, ut Cicero appellat, uel passionibus, ut plerique uerbum e uerbo Graeco exprimunt, omnis humanorum morum uitiositas continetur. Quod si ita est, quid est quod Aeneas aput Vergilium, cum audisset a patre aput inferos animas rursus ad corpora redituras, hanc opinionem miratur exclamans: O pater, anne aliquas ad caelum hinc ire putandum est Sublimes animas iterumque ad tarda reuerti Corpora?

“O father! and can thought conceive

That happy souls this realm would leave,

And seek the upper sky,

With sluggish clay to reunite?

This direful longing for the light,

Whence comes it, say, and why?”

Quae lucis miseris tam dira cupido?

This direful longing, then, does it still exist even in that boasted purity of the disembodied spirits, and does it still proceed from the death-infected members and earthly limbs? Does he not assert that, when they begin to long to return to the body, they have already been delivered from all these so-called pestilences of the body? From which we gather that, were this endlessly alternating purification and defilement of departing and returning souls as true as it is most certainly false, yet it could not be averred that all culpable and vicious motions of the soul originate in the earthly body; for, on their own showing, “this direful longing,” to use the words of their noble exponent, is so extraneous to the body, that it moves the soul that is purged of all bodily taint, and is existing apart from any body whatever, and moves it, moreover, to be embodied again. So that even they themselves acknowledge that the soul is not only moved to desire, fear, joy, sorrow, by the flesh, but that it can also be agitated with these emotions at its own instance.

Numquidnam haec tam dira cupido ex terrenis artubus moribundisque membris adhuc inest animarum illi praedicatissimae puritati? Nonne ab huius modi corporeis, ut dicit, pestibus omnibus eas adserit esse purgatas, cum rursus incipiunt in corpora uelle reuerti? Unde colligitur, etiamsi ita se haberet, quod est omnino uanissimum, uicissim alternans incessabiliter euntium adque redeuntium animarum mundatio et inquinatio, non potuisse ueraciter dici omnes culpabiles adque uitiosos motus animarum eis ex terrenis corporibus inolescere, si quidem secundum ipsos illa, ut locutor nobilis ait, dira cupido usque adeo non est ex corpore, ut ab omni corporea peste purgatam et extra omne corpus animam constitutam ipsam esse conpellat in corpore. Unde etiam illis fatentibus non ex carne tantum adficitur anima, ut cupiat metuat, laetetur aegrescat, uerum etiam ex se ipsa his potest motibus agitari.

Chapter 6.—Of the Character of the Human Will Which Makes the Affections of the Soul Right or Wrong.

Caput VI. De qualitate uoluntatis humanae, sub cuius iudicio adfectiones animi aut prauae habentur aut rectae.

But the character of the human will is of moment; because, if it is wrong, these motions of the soul will be wrong, but if it is right, they will be not merely blameless, but even praiseworthy. For the will is in them all; yea, none of them is anything else than will. For what are desire and joy but a volition of consent to the things we wish? And what are fear and sadness but a volition of aversion from the things which we do not wish? But when consent takes the form of seeking to possess the things we wish, this is called desire; and when consent takes the form of enjoying the things we wish, this is called joy. In like manner, when we turn with aversion from that which we do not wish to happen, this volition is termed fear; and when we turn away from that which has happened against our will, this act of will is called sorrow. And generally in respect of all that we seek or shun, as a man’s will is attracted or repelled, so it is changed and turned into these different affections. Wherefore the man who lives according to God, and not according to man, ought to be a lover of good, and therefore a hater of evil. And since no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil by vice, he who lives according to God ought to cherish towards evil men a perfect hatred, so that he shall neither hate the man because of his vice, nor love the vice because of the man, but hate the vice and love the man. For the vice being cursed, all that ought to be loved, and nothing that ought to be hated, will remain.

Interest autem qualis sit uoluntas hominis; quia si peruersa est, peruersos habebit hos motus; si autem recta est, non solum inculpabiles, uerum etiam laudalibes erunt. Voluntas est quippe in omnibus; immo omnes nihil aliud quam uoluntates sunt. Nam quid est cupiditas et laetitia nisi uoluntas in eorum consensione quae uolumus? Et quid est metus adque tristitia nisi uoluntas in dissensione ab his quae nolumus? Sed cum consentimus adpetendo ea quae uolumus, cupiditas; cum autem consentimus fruendo his quae uolumus, laetitia uocatur. Itemque cum dissentimus ab eo quod accidere nolumus, talis uoluntas metus est; cum autem dissentimus ab eo quod nolentibus accidit, talis uoluntas tristitia est. Et omnino pro uarietate rerum, quae adpetuntur adque fugiuntur, sicut adlicitur uel offenditur uoluntas hominis, ita in hos uel illos adfectus mutatur et uertitur. Quapropter homo, qui secundum Deum, non secundum hominem uiuit, oportet ut sit amator boni; unde fit consequens ut malum oderit. Et quoniam nemo natura, sed quisquis malus est, uitio malus est: perfectum odium debet malis, qui secundum Deum uiuit, ut nec propter uitium oderit hominem nec amet uitium propter hominem, sed oderit uitium, amet hominem. Sanato enim uitio totum quod amare, nihil autem quod debeat odisse remanebit.

Chapter 7.—That the Words Love and Regard (Amor and Dilectio) are in Scripture Used Indifferently of Good and Evil Affection.

Caput VII. Amorem et dilectionem indifferenter et in bono et in malo aput sacras litteras inueniri.

He who resolves to love God, and to love his neighbor as himself, not according to man but according to God, is on account of this love said to be of a good will; and this is in Scripture more commonly called charity, but it is also, even in the same books, called love. For the apostle says that the man to be elected as a ruler of the people must be a lover of good. And when the Lord Himself had asked Peter, “Hast thou a regard for me (diligis) more than these?” Peter replied, “Lord, Thou knowest that I love (amo) Thee.” And again a second time the Lord asked not whether Peter loved (amaret) Him, but whether he had a regard (diligeret)for Him, and, he again answered, “Lord, Thou knowest that I love (amo) Thee.” But on the third interrogation the Lord Himself no longer says, “Hast thou a regard (diligis) for me,”but “Lovest thou (amas) me?” And then the evangelist adds, “Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, “Lovest thou (amas) me?” though the Lord had not said three times but only once, “Lovest thou (amas) me?” and twice “Diligis me ?” from which we gather that, even when the Lord said “diligis,” He used an equivalent for “amas.” Peter, too, throughout used one word for the one thing, and the third time also replied, “Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love (amo) Thee.”

Nam cuius propositum est amare Deum et non secundum hominem, sed secundum Deum amare proximum, sicut etiam se ipsum: procul dubio propter hunc amorem dicitur uoluntatis bonae, quae usitatius in scripturis sanctis caritas appellatur; sed amor quoque secundum easdem sacras litteras dicitur. Nam et amatorem boni apostolus dicit esse debere, quem regendo populo praecipit eligendum, et ipse Dominus Petrum apostolum interrogans cum dixisset: Diligis me plus his? ille respondit: Domine, tu scis quia amo te; et iterum Dominus quaesiuit, non utrum amaret, sed utrum diligeret eum Petrus; at ille respondit iterum: Domine, tu scis quia amo te; tertia uero interrogatione et ipse Iesus non ait: Diligis me?’ sed: Amas me? ubi secutus ait euangelista: Contristatus est Petrus, quia dixit ei tertio: Amas me? cum Dominus non tertio, sed semel dixerit: Amas me? bis autem dixerit: Diligis me? Unde intellegimus, quod etiam cum dicebat Dominus: Diligis me? nihil aliud dicebat quam: Amas me? Petrus autem non mutauit huius unius rei uerbum, sed etiam tertio: Domine, inquit, tu omnia scis, tu scis quia amo te.

I have judged it right to mention this, because some are of opinion that charity or regard (dilectio) is one thing, love (amor) another. They say that dilectio is used of a good affection, amor of an evil love. But it is very certain that even secular literature knows no such distinction. However, it is for the philosophers to determine whether and how they differ, though their own writings sufficiently testify that they make great account of love (amor) placed on good objects, and even on God Himself. But we wished to show that the Scriptures of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever, make no distinction between amor, dilectio, and caritas; and we have already shown that amor is used in a good connection. And if any one fancy that amor is no doubt used both of good and bad loves, but that dilectio is reserved for the good only, let him remember what the psalm says, “He that loveth (diligit) iniquity hateth his own soul;” and the words of the Apostle John, “If any man love (diligere) the world, the love (dilectio) of the Father is not in him.” Here you have in one passage dilectio used both in a good and a bad sense. And if any one demands an instance of amor being used in a bad sense (for we have already shown its use in a good sense), let him read the words, “For men shall be lovers (amantes) of their own selves, lovers (amatores) of money.”

Hoc propterea commemorandum putaui, quia nonnulli arbitrantur aliud esse dilectionem siue caritatem, aliud amorem. Dicunt enim dilectionem accipiendam esse in bono, amorem in malo. Sic autem nec ipsos auctores saecularium litterarum locutos esse certissimum est. Sed uiderint philosophi utrum uel qua ratione ista discernant; amorem tamen eos in bonis rebus et erga ipsum Deum magni pendere, libri eorum satis loquuntur. Sed scripturas religionis nostrae, quarum auctoritatem ceteris omnibus litteris anteponimus, non aliud dicere amorem, aliud dilectionem uel caritatem, insinuandum fuit. Nam et amorem in bono dici iam ostendimus. Sed ne quis existimet amorem quidem et in malo et in bono, dilectionem autem non nisi in bono esse dicendam, illud adtendat quod in psalmo scriptum est: Qui autem diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam, et illud apostoli Iohannis: Si quis dilexerit mundum, non est dilectio Patris in illo. Ecce uno loco dilectio et in bono et in malo. Amorem autem in malo (quia in bono iam ostendimus) ne quisquam flagitet, legat quod scriptum est: Erunt enim homines se ipsos amantes, amatores pecuniae.

The right will is, therefore, well-directed love, and the wrong will is ill-directed love. Love, then, yearning to have what is loved, is desire; and having and enjoying it, is joy; fleeing what is opposed to it, it is fear; and feeling what is opposed to it, when it has befallen it, it is sadness. Now these motions are evil if the love is evil; good if the love is good. What we assert let us prove from Scripture. The apostle “desires to depart, and to be with Christ.” And, “My soul desired to long for Thy judgments;” or if it is more appropriate to say, “My soul longed to desire Thy judgments.” And, “The desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom.” Yet there has always obtained the usage of understanding desire and concupiscence in a bad sense if the object be not defined. But joy is used in a good sense: “Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, ye righteous.” And, “Thou hast put gladness in my heart.” And, “Thou wilt fill me with joy with Thy countenance.” Fear is used in a good sense by the apostle when he says, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” And, “Be not high-minded, but fear.” And, “I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” But with respect to sadness, which Cicero prefer to calls sickness (œgritudo), and Virgil pain (dolor) (as he says, “Dolent gaudentque”), but which I prefer to call sorrow, because sickness and pain are more commonly used to express bodily suffering,—with respect to this emotion, I say, the question whether it can be used in a good sense is more difficult.

Recta itaque uoluntas est bonus amor, et uoluntas peruersa malus amor. Amor ergo inhians habere quod amatur, cupiditas est, id autem habens eoque fruens laetitia; fugiens quod ei aduersatur, timor est, idque si acciderit sentiens tristitia est. Proinde mala sunt ista, si malus amor est; bona, si bonus. Quod dicimus, de scripturis probemus. Concupiscit apostolus dissolui et esse cum Christo; et: Concupiuit anima mea desiderare iudicia tua, uel si adcommodatius dicitur: Desiderauit anima mea concupiscere iudicia tua; et: Concupiscentia sapientiae perducit ad regnum. Hoc tamen loquendi obtinuit consuetudo, ut, si […] ditas uel concupiscentia dicatur nec addatur cuius rei sit, non nisi in malo possit intellegi. Laetitia in bono est: Laetamini in Domino et exultate iusti; et: Dedisti laetitiam in cor meum; et: Adinplebis me laetitia cum uultu tuo. Timor in bono est aput apostolum, ubi ait: Cum timore et tremore uestram ipsorum salutem operamini; et: Noli altum sapere, sed time; et: Timeo autem, ne, sicut serpens Euam seduxit astutia sua. sic et uestrae mentes corrumpantur a castitate, quae est in Christo. De tristitia uero, quam Cicero magis aegritudinem appellat, dolorem autem Vergilius, ubi ait: (dolent gaudentque’, (sed ideo malui tristitiam dicere, quia aegritudo uel dolor usitatius in corporibus dicitur) scrupulosior quaestio est, utrum inueniri possit in bono.

Chapter 8.—Of the Three Perturbations, Which the Stoics Admitted in the Soul of the Wise Man to the Exclusion of Grief or Sadness, Which the Manly Mind Ought Not to Experience.

Caput VIII. De tribus perturbationibus, quas in animo sapientis Stoici esse uoluerunt, excluso dolore siue tristitia, quam uirtus animi sentire non debeat.

Those emotions which the Greeks call εὐπαθείαι, and which Cicero calls constantiœ, the Stoics would restrict to three; and, instead of three “perturbations” in the soul of the wise man, they substituted severally, in place of desire, will; in place of joy, contentment; and for fear, caution; and as to sickness or pain, which we, to avoid ambiguity, preferred to call sorrow, they denied that it could exist in the mind of a wise man. Will, they say, seeks the good, for this the wise man does. Contentment has its object in good that is possessed, and this the wise man continually possesses. Caution avoids evil, and this the wise man ought to avoid. But sorrow arises from evil that has already happened; and as they suppose that no evil can happen to the wise man, there can be no representative of sorrow in his mind. According to them, therefore, none but the wise man wills, is contented, uses caution; and that the fool can do no more than desire, rejoice, fear, be sad. The former three affections Cicero calls constantiœ, the last four perturbationes. Many, however, calls these last passions; and, as I have said, the Greeks call the former εὐπαθείαι, and the latter πάθη. And when I made a careful examination of Scripture to find whether this terminology was sanctioned by it, I came upon this saying of the prophet: “There is no contentment to the wicked, saith the Lord;” as if the wicked might more properly rejoice than be contented regarding evils, for contentment is the property of the good and godly. I found also that verse in the Gospel: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them?” which seems to imply that evil or shameful things may be the object of desire, but not of will. Indeed, some interpreters have added “good things,” to make the expression more in conformity with customary usage, and have given this meaning, “Whatsoever good deeds that ye would that men should do unto you.” For they thought that this would prevent any one from wishing other men to provide him with unseemly, not to say shameful gratifications,—luxurious banquets, for example,—on the supposition that if he returned the like to them he would be fulfilling this precept. In the Greek Gospel, however, from which the Latin is translated, “good” does not occur, but only, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them,” and, as I believe, because “good” is already included in the word “would;” for He does not say “desire.”

Quas enim Graeci appellant eDrcadetac, Latine autem Cicero constantias nominauit, Stoici tres esse uoluerunt pro tribus perturbationibus in animo sapientis, pro cupiditate uoluntatem, pro laetitia gaudium, pro metu cautionem; pro aegritudine uero uel dolore, quam nos uitandae ambiguitatis gratia tristitiam maluimus dicere, negauerunt esse posse aliquid in animo sapientis. Voluntas quippe, inquiunt, adpetit bonum, quod facit sapiens: gaudium de bono adepto est, quod ubique adipiscitur sapiens; cautio deuitat malum, quod debet sapiens deuitare; tristitia porro quia de malo est, quod iam accidit, nullum autem malum existimant posse accidere sapienti, nihil in eius animo pro illa esse posse dixerunt. Sic ergo illi loquuntur, ut uelle gaudere cauere negent nisi sapientem; stultum autem non nisi cupere laetari, metuere contristari; et illas tres esse constantias, has autem quattuor perturbationes secundum Ciceronem, secundum autem plurimos passiones. Graece autem illae tres, sicut dixi, appellantur eorcatetai; istae autem quattuor πάθη. Haec locutio utrum scripturis sanctis congruat, cum quaererem quantum potui diligenter, illud inueni quod ait propheta: Non est gaudere inpiis, dicit Dominus; tamquam inpii laetari possint potius quam gaudere de malis, quia gaudium proprie bonorum et piorum est. Item illud in euangelio: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, haec et uos facite illis, ita dictum uidetur, tamquam nemo possit aliquid male uel turpiter uelle, sed cupere. Denique propter consuetudinem locutionis nonnulli interpretes addiderunt ‘bona et ita interpretati sunt: ‘Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines bona.’ Cauendum enim putauerunt, ne quisquam inhonesta uelit sibi fieri ab hominibus, ut de turpioribus taceam, certe luxuriosa conuiuia, in quibus se, si et ipse illis faciat, hoc praeceptum existimet iupleturum. Sed in Graeco euangelio, unde in Latinum translatum est, non legitur […] sed: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, haec et uos facite illis; credo propterea, quia in eo quod dixit uultis, iam uoluit intellegi ‘bona. Non enim ait ‘cupitis).

Yet though we may sometimes avail ourselves of these precise proprieties of language, we are not to be always bridled by them; and when we read those writers against whose authority it is unlawful to reclaim, we must accept the meanings above mentioned in passages where a right sense can be educed by no other interpretation, as in those instances we adduced partly from the prophet, partly from the Gospel. For who does not know that the wicked exult with joy? Yet “there is no contentment for the wicked, saith the Lord.” And how so, unless because contentment, when the word is used in its proper and distinctive significance, means something different from joy? In like manner, who would deny that it were wrong to enjoin upon men that whatever they desire others to do to them they should themselves do to others, lest they should mutually please one another by shameful and illicit pleasure? And yet the precept, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them,” is very wholesome and just. And how is this, unless because the will is in this place used strictly, and signifies that will which cannot have evil for its object? But ordinary phraseology would not have allowed the saying, “Be unwilling to make any manner of lie,” had there not been also an evil will, whose wickedness separates if from that which the angels celebrated, “Peace on earth, of good will to men.” For “good” is superfluous if there is no other kind of will but good will. And why should the apostle have mentioned it among the praises of charity as a great thing, that “it rejoices not in iniquity,” unless because wickedness does so rejoice? For even with secular writers these words are used indifferently. For Cicero, that most fertile of orators, says, “I desire, conscript fathers, to be merciful.” And who would be so pedantic as to say that he should have said “I will” rather than “I desire,” because the word is used in a good connection? Again, in Terence, the profligate youth, burning with wild lust, says, “I will nothing else than Philumena.” That this “will” was lust is sufficiently indicated by the answer of his old servant which is there introduced: “How much better were it to try and banish that love from your heart, than to speak so as uselessly to inflame your passion still more!” And that contentment was used by secular writers in a bad sense that verse of Virgil testifies, in which he most succinctly comprehends these four perturbations,—

Non tamen semper his proprietatibus locutio nostra frenanda est, sed interdum his utendum est; et cum legimus eos, quorum auctoritati resultare fas non est, ibi sunt intellegendae, ubi rectus sensus alium exitum non potest inuenire; sicut ista sunt, quae exempli gratia partim ex propheta, partim ex euangelio commemorauimus. Quis enim nescit inpios exultare laetitia? et tamen: Non est gaudere inpiis, dicit Dominus. Unde, nisi quia gaudere aliud est, quando proprie signateque hoc uerbum ponitur? Item quis negauerit non recte praecipi hominibus, ut quaecumque ab aliis sibi fieri cupiunt, haec eis et ipsi faciant; ne se inuicem turpitudine inlicitae uoluptatis oblectent? et tamen saluberl’imum uerissimumque praeceptum est: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, eadem et uos facite illis. Et hoc unde, nisi quia hoc loco modo quodam proprio uoluntas posita est, quae in malo accipi non potest? Locutione uero usitatiore, quam frequentat maxime consuetudo sermonis, non utique diceretur: Noli uelle mentiri omne mendacium, nisi esset et uoluntas mala, a cuius prauitate illa distinguitur, quam praedicauerunt angeli dicentes: Pax in terra hominibus bonae uoluntatis. Nam ex abundanti additum est (bon.ae si esse non potest nisi bona. Quid autem magnum in caritatis laudibus dixisset apostolus, quod non gaudeat super iniquitate, nisi quia ita malignitas gaudet? Et aput auctores saecularium litterarum talis istorum uerborum indifferentia reperitur. Ait enim Cicero orator amplissimus: (Cupio, patres conscripti, me esse clementem.) Quia id uerbum in bono posuit. quis tam peruerse doctus existat, qui non eum […] sed ‘Volo potius dicere debuisse contendat? Porro aput Terentium flagitiosus adulescens insana flagrans cupidine:. Nihil nolo aliud, inquit, nisi Philumenam. Quam uoluntatem fuisse libidinem responsio, quae ibi serui eius sanioris inducitur, satis indicat. Ait namque domino suo: Quanto satius est, Te id dare operam, qui istum amorem ex animo amoueas tuo, Quam id loqui, quo magis libido frustra accendatur tua? Gaudium uero eos et in malo posuisse ille ipse Vergilianus testis est uersus, ubi has quattuor perturbationes summa breuitate conplexus est: Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque.

“Hence they fear and desire, grieve and are content”

The same author had also used the expression, “the evil contentments of the mind.” So that good and bad men alike will, are cautious, and contented; or, to say the same thing in other words, good and bad men alike desire, fear, rejoice, but the former in a good, the latter in a bad fashion, according as the will is right or wrong. Sorrow itself, too, which the Stoics would not allow to be represented in the mind of the wise man, is used in a good sense, and especially in our writings. For the apostle praises the Corinthians because they had a godly sorrow. But possibly some one may say that the apostle congratulated them because they were penitently sorry, and that such sorrow can exist only in those who have sinned. For these are his words: “For I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of, but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For, behold, this selfsame thing that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you!” Consequently the Stoics may defend themselves by replying, that sorrow is indeed useful for repentance of sin, but that this can have no place in the mind of the wise man, inasmuch as no sin attaches to him of which he could sorrowfully repent, nor any other evil the endurance or experience of which could make him sorrowful. For they say that Alcibiades (if my memory does not deceive me), who believed himself happy, shed tears when Socrates argued with him, and demonstrated that he was miserable because he was foolish. In his case, therefore, folly was the cause of this useful and desirable sorrow, wherewith a man mourns that he is what he ought not to be. But the Stoics maintain not that the fool, but that the wise man, cannot be sorrowful.

Dixit etiam idem auctor: Mala mentis gaudia. Proinde uolunt cauent gaudent et boni et mali; adque ut eadem aliis uerbis enuntiemus, cupiunt timent laetantur et boni et mali; sed illi bene, isti male, sicut hominibus seu recta seu peruersa uoluntas est. Ipsa quoque tristitia, pro qua Stoici nihil in animo sapientis inueniri posse putauerunt, reperitur in bono et maxime aput nostros. Nam laudat apostolus Corinthios, quod contristati fuerint secundum Deum. Sed fortasse quis dixerit illis apostolum fuisse congratulatum, quod contristati fuerint paenitendo, qualis tristitia, nisi eorum qui peccauerint, esse non potest. Ita enim dicit: Video quod epistula illa, etsi ad horam, contristauit uos; nunc gaudeo, non quia contristati estis, sed quia contristati estis in paenitentiam. Contristati enim estis secundum Deum, ut in nullo detrimentum patiamini ex nobis. Quae enim secundum Deum est tristitia, paenitentiam in salutem inpaenitendam operatur; mundi autem tristitia mortem operatur. Ecce enim id ipsum secundum Deum contristari quantam perfecit in uobis industriam. Ac per hoc possunt Stoici pro suis partibus respondere, ad hoc uideri utilem esse tristitiam, ut peccasse paeniteat; in animo autem sapientis ideo esse non posse, quia nec peccatum in eum cadit, cuius paenitentia contristetur, nec ullum aliud malum, quod perpetiendo et sentiendo sit tristis. Nam et Alcibiadem ferunt (si me de nomine hominis memoria non fallit), cum sibi beatus uideretur, Socrate disputante et ei quam miser esset, quoniam stultus esset, demonstrante fleuisse. Huic ergo stultitia fuit causa etiam huius utilis optandaeque tristitiae, qua homo esse se dolet, quod esse non debet. Stoici autem non stultum, sed sapientem aiunt tristem esse non posse.