even more loudly, saying that they had still greater charges against
Stephen. So they set forth that a Roman whose name was Tarquin had come
to Athens, and since he was an alien and had no kindred there, he
thought that he might need help from Stephen in his important affairs,
seeing that Stephen was judge and ruler over the whole city; and he gave
Stephen a fine horse on condition that he was to have justice and
equity. Then the Judge decreed that, if Stephen had sold justice for
money, he should follow that profit to destruction. But when Stephen was
questioned whether this charge was true or not, he denied the accusation
and declared that he could not remember ever having taken fee or gift
for justice. Now since Stephen had denied the charge, it was ordered
that Tarquin himself should be called to straighten the matter. When
Tarquin came, he declared that this was not a true charge against
Stephen; for he asserted that Stephen had never taken fees for justice
so far as he knew. “But having come there a stranger,” said Tarquin, “I
thought that I might need the good will of such a man and gave him the
horse on my own volition and not at his request.” When the accusers
heard that they would surely fail in this indictment too, they cried
even more loudly, saying that they had a new charge against Stephen,
much greater than either of the others. They asserted that he had
arbitrarily and illegally saved three men from the death penalty, whom
both law and equity and a just sentence would have condemned. When
Stephen was asked whether he was guilty of this charge, he admitted that
he had saved the men from death, but declared that he had always
regretted having saved them by arbitrary and illegal means. Then the
Judge decreed that, if he had rescued men from death by violence whom
justice had condemned to die, he must suffer death for it, unless he
would do penance where the offence was committed. Then the priest Justin
asked Saint Lawrence to help in Stephen’s defense, seeing that he had
forgiven him the matter that he had against him and no indictment had
been found true except the one that was now being considered. So
Lawrence and Justin went in haste to the queen and, falling at her feet,
begged her to request this favor, that the verdict be modified so that
Stephen might be allowed to do penance in the place where he had
offended. When the queen interceded for Stephen, her request was
granted. Thereupon he was brought back to Athens, and he arose at the
moment when his body was to be carried to the grave. He lived three
winters after that and did penance for his guilt according to the
instruction of the bishop who was in charge of that city.
There are many such examples that could be brought up in this talk, if
it were thought necessary; and you should now conclude from what I set
forth in my last speech that the judgments passed here must be carefully
scrutinized, and that it is very important for those who are appointed
to be judges to make sure whether the decisions are properly stated and
the findings correct. For you heard how precisely the decrees were
weighed before the king’s son, when the scales were held up before him
but would never balance; and how he was threatened with death, if he
should pronounce a different judgment from the one that would balance
the scales. You also heard how God punished the king and the city of
Themar, because the king had distorted a just decision. Though the
people did not hold the true faith about God, He punished the deed
nevertheless, because they believed that a wrong decision could never
come from Themar. And in the last example you heard how Stephen was held
to account for all the dooms that he had pronounced, and suffered a
reprimand for having taken a gift from a friend; and he was condemned to
die for having saved men from death, though many would regard that as a
good rather than an evil deed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIX
WHEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE SEVERE AND WHEN THEY SHOULD BE MERCIFUL
_Son._ The more examples of this sort I hear, the more difficult seems
the position of those who are appointed to judge. I will ask you,
therefore, to indicate some test by which I can know when the judgments
ought to be severe and when they should be more lenient.
_Father._ It is difficult to state that in definite terms: still, all
causes that are brought before the men who have authority to judge will
be decided in some way. But I believe that a purpose to judge as they
think is right will do the most to keep them from falling into guilt
before God. For Stephen was acquitted of the charge that he had caused
the church of Saint Lawrence to forfeit land by the fact that he did not
know that his decision was wrong; and yet he did not wholly escape
punishment, though in some respects he was punished less than he would
have been, if he had known that his verdict was wrong. Now there are
four things which he who goes into the judgment hall must leave outside
and never allow to come into the judgment seat with him or even inside
the door. The first is avarice; the second, enmity; the third,
obstinacy; the fourth, friendship. For you heard that Stephen was
ordered to disclose whether he had accepted a gift from Tarquin and had
promised to secure justice for him in return for the fee. And the
judgment was, that if he had sold justice for money, he should follow
the fee to destruction. You heard this, too, that he was condemned to
die for having saved men from death by force and in defiance of law. You
also heard in the earlier account how the king and the city of Themar
perished because the king, being friendly to one side and very hostile
to the other, had distorted a just decision. Now for such reasons those
four things must be excluded, lest any one of them should cause a
righteous doom to be distorted.
You have also asked when the sentence should be lenient and when severe,
and that question can now be answered in a few words. Careful account
should be taken of the circumstances of the man’s case who is accused.
If a charge is brought against one who is anxious to keep the peace but
is driven to violence by the selfishness and arrogance of another, and,
regretting his guilt, is anxious to atone for it,—if such are the
circumstances, there should be lenient judgment in his case. Likewise,
if a man breaks the law who is ignorant and does not know that he is
transgressing, and would not have done the deed had he known it to be
contrary to law, his case, too, calls for a lenient sentence. Even when
the ugliest cases that are known among men, such as theft and robbery,
come up, one should investigate how the crime came about. If a man is so
hard bestead that he can get no food either by begging or buying and
cannot get work, while hunger and his physical nature drive him beyond
endurance, the judge should be lenient with him, even though he be taken
in guilt; and whenever necessity drives a man into crime and
law-breaking, the judgment should be tempered.
However, if the accused are men who have been led into crime by
insolence, ambition, avarice, or selfishness, the dooms ought to be
severe, though justice and the law of the land must be observed in every
instance. And in cases like those to which we have just referred the
sentence should be as severe as the law permits; while in the cases
mentioned earlier the law should be applied with due allowance for the
difficulties that were at hand. If the distress that led to the trouble
is considered great, the judgment should be tempered accordingly. But if
a king or any ruler who is a judge and has power to punish, takes life
as a punishment, he should always do it with great reluctance, in his
heart lamenting the death and ill-fortune of the offender. He must take
heed, however, lest he slay out of his own cruelty or in anger and
hatred for the one who is to die. Let him slay him in just punishment
and out of love for those who live after; because he believes that they
will live in greater security and lead better lives after having seen
the death and troubles of such a one; and because he intends that the
fear and terror which the misfortunes of another have brought upon him
shall guide those to rectitude and good morals, whom nature is unable to
guide because of their excessive ambition or stupidity. A famous man, an
upright and excellent emperor, once ordained respecting the decrees of
kings, that if a king should become so angry with any one that he
planned his death, and if his guilt were not so evident that he could
with justice be condemned at once to an immediate death, that man should
be kept in the king’s garth or in custody forty days before his case
should be finally determined.[314] And it would be well if every king
would observe this enactment, in order that he might frame his decisions
with regard for reason and justice and not in sudden anger. If a man is
convicted of an offence for which law and justice impose a fine but not
death, the king, or the lord who governs the land, shall seize his
wealth, not because he loves and covets the money, but because a just
penalty and the laws of the land demand it. If all these things which we
have now set forth are carefully observed, I believe that those who are
appointed to be judges will suffer no great reproaches from God.
Footnote 314:
This is probably an allusion to the edict of Theodosius II “which
interposes a salutary interval of thirty days between the sentence and
the execution.” Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, III,
176; Mommsen and Meyer (editors), _Theodosiani Libri_ XVI, I, part 2,
503 (viii, 40:13). The edict was probably a part of the penance
exacted from the Emperor after his massacre of the Thessalonians. See
_Ambrosius Saga_ in _Heilagra Manna Sögur_, I, 40.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LX
THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED
_Son._ It seems reasonable that a land, which is placed in charge of a
ruler who attends carefully to these things, will be well governed; and
the people ought to show proper appreciation of his government. Still
with your permission I shall now ask about certain matters that interest
me concerning rightful verdicts. You referred to an order given by an
emperor as to punishments decreed by a king (which looks to me like good
law), that a man who had incurred the king’s wrath should be given a
reprieve of forty days in the king’s custody, lest a verdict be rendered
too quickly in his case and in violent anger; and it seems to me that a
king will need to possess much good nature, if he is to spare a man in
his anger. But even so righteous and holy a man as Moses was could not
control his wrath on that day, when he came in anger to the people of
Israel; for I am told that his wrath rose to such violence that he
dashed the two tables of stone, which he bore in his arms and upon which
God Himself had written the ten commandments of His law with His own
fingers, against a rock and broke them into fragments in his fury; and
rushing at once to arms, he and the men who were with him slew many
hundred persons that day.[315] I have also heard that David in sudden
wrath ordered the man, who came from the battle in which Saul fell,
bringing the tidings that Saul was dead, to be slain immediately;[316]
and he did not order him to be kept for further inquiry.
Footnote 315:
_Exodus_, xxxii.
Footnote 316:
_II Samuel_, i.
_Father._ Remember what I called to your attention in an earlier remark,
namely, that these laws are intended for men who do not fall into such
evident transgressions that a rightful verdict can condemn them to
immediate death. But when Moses came away from God, he knew God’s wrath
toward all the people of Israel, and consequently did a deed of kindness
and not of hatred when by this chastisement he turned them from error
and evil ways; just as I have told you that a king in punishing should
be moved by kindness and not by hatred. For all penalties that are
inflicted because of hatred are murder; while punishment inflicted for
the sake of love and justice is a holy deed and not murder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LXI
CONCERNING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
_Son._ Now, if you permit, I wish to ask more fully about penalties; for
few men, indeed, are able to comprehend how it can be a good, holy, and
loving deed to take a man’s life; wherefore I with many others on the
outside should like to have you explain briefly how it can be a good and
proper deed to slay men in righteous punishment; inasmuch as all gentle
and peaceful persons have a great aversion to manslaughter, regarding it
as evil and sinful.
_Father._ The subjects that we are now discussing are clearly
illustrated in the case of Moses. Holy man as he was and meek and
right-minded in every way, had he known that his act of punishment was
sinful like any other slaughter, he would not have ordered it. But if he
had been so zealous in his obstinate wrath that he had done this deed in
anger rather than for the sake of justice, God’s righteousness would
surely have punished him with a severe chastisement and stern revenge
for the great slaughter that he committed. For Moses commanded every man
who took up arms with him to spare none, neither father nor brother nor
other kinsmen, if they had been guilty of the deed that had called God’s
anger down upon them. Moses showed a threefold righteousness in this
chastisement: for those who were with him in the slaughter sanctified
their hands in the blood of those whom they slew, since in their deed
they rendered obedience to their leader and fulfilled the sacred laws.
Those who survived regretted their sins and turned their hearts to
penitence for having broken the law, while those who were slain were
cleansed in their penance and in the pangs which they suffered when they
died. And it was much better for them to suffer a brief pain in death
than a long torture in hell. Of the same character are the penalties
that kings impose; for a king cleanses himself in the blood of the
unjust, if he slays them as a rightful punishment to fulfil the sacred
laws. Moreover, there are many capable men who fear punishment alone,
and would commit crimes if they were not in terror of the king’s
revenge. But one who is to suffer punishment will confess his sins and
repent of his misdeeds; though if he did not see a sudden death prepared
for him, he would show no repentance. He is, therefore, saved by his
repentance and the pangs which he suffers in his death. And it is better
for him to suffer a brief punishment here than endless agony and
torture; for God never punishes the same sin twice. Consequently the
king’s punishment becomes a good and kind deed toward all those who are
subject to him, for he would rather have the one who is to be punished
suffer a brief pain here for his wickedness than to be lost forever, in
the world to come. Through this kindness he also saves the righteous and
peaceable from the avarice and the wickedness of the violent. We may,
therefore, conclude that punishment is a good deed, if it is exacted
according to a righteous verdict; for King Saul was deposed from his
kingship because he failed to punish according to God’s orders at the
time when he invaded the kingdoms of Amalek and the Amorites.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LXII
THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED
_Son._ Now I wish to ask you why David slew the man of whom we spoke
earlier, him who brought the tidings that Saul had fallen, and whether
he slew him justly or did it from sudden anger.
_Father._ When the man had told these tidings, David asked how he knew
them. And he said that he had lifted up weapons against Saul at the
king’s own request. When David heard this, he spoke thus: “A wretched
creature you are, who dared to lay hands on the Lord’s anointed; and it
is better for you to suffer a swift punishment here than to have this
crime pursue you into everlasting hell.” Thereupon David ordered him to
be slain. But when he who had hoped to receive a joyous welcome and good
gifts for his tidings, saw that death was to be his reward, he repented
that he had falsely imputed this crime to himself and would gladly have
withdrawn his words, if he had been permitted to do so. But David spoke
thus: “Your own testimony condemns you and not I; for you have charged
yourself with this murder of the Lord’s anointed.” We have other and
similar instances in the case of the men who slew Ishbosheth, the son of
Saul, hoping thereby to win David’s friendship; and they fared to David
with the news that they had slain his enemy who had planned to rise up
against him and his kingship. But when David heard these tidings he
answered in this wise; “Wretches you are for this deed, having slain
your lord, though you were Ishbosheth’s own men; you have committed a
vile and treacherous crime in laying hands upon your lord, and you have
not acted as if you were my men and did this out of loyalty to me. Now
it will be necessary for you to suffer a swift revenge and a prompt
punishment, lest this deed draw you into everlasting torment.” Then
David ordered his men to cut off their hands and feet and afterwards to
hang them beside a pool in a city called Hebron.[317]
Footnote 317:
_II Samuel_, iv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LXIII
THE JUDGMENTS OF GOD ILLUSTRATED BY THE STORY OF DAVID AND SAUL
_Son._ I will venture to ask one more question about those cases in
which it seems to me that God has passed rather strange sentences. I am
asking chiefly because I find it hard to understand what reason or
circumstance can have caused the difference in these decrees which I now
intend to bring up. You stated earlier in your speech that God deprived
Saul of his kingdom because he was too lenient in cases of homicide,
though a man will think that this was no great offence, as it is easy
enough to slay multitudes if that be regarded a better deed than to let
them live. Still, this leniency proved such a grievous fault that God
said He regretted having chosen Saul king over his people, and
immediately threatened—what He later carried out—that the kingship
should never be transmitted to his descendants; and immediately, though
Saul was still living, He appointed another to be king after his days.
But after David had become king, he committed a crime which will
scarcely seem less when reflected upon; for he committed adultery with
the wife of Uriah his knight, a good and faithful man, and afterwards
contrived his death, not as a just penalty but because he wanted his
wife. But later, when Nathan the prophet pointed out the sin to David
and he confessed, he was forgiven at once; indeed, it seemed as if his
kingship was more stable after that time than before. Now I do not know
which is the worse crime, to kill an innocent man and violate his wife,
or to let the guilty have their lives. Many a man, who is ignorant as to
the reason why, may indeed imagine that God loved David more than Saul,
and that David’s crime was counted less for that reason. But inasmuch as
God always judges according to justice and without regard to persons, it
would be sinful to hold wrong ideas about this; and it would be well if
you could add a few words in explanation, unless you think that my
questions are stupid. It may also be that great lords who are chosen to
be judges will get a better insight into these things, if they are
clearly expressed.
_Father._ This question is of such a character that it will demand an
extended answer, if it is to be fully understood. But since it has been
brought up, I shall be glad to answer it as far as I can and as briefly
as I can. First it is necessary to recall what I said in an earlier
speech when we talked about dooms,—when they should be severe and when
lenient: I then brought out the fact that if a good and peace-loving man
should fall into sin and his deed should seem evil to him and he were
anxious to do penance, then the judgment ought to be merciful in his
case on account of human nature; for human nature is so frail that no
one can be so careful as never to fall into sin. But some add to their
offence by taking pride in it, and they are not careful to avoid falling
into another sin. Now David was of all men the most adroit in the use of
weapons in warfare and he was by nature quite severe in righteous
chastisement; but he was a kind-hearted man, friendly toward everyone,
and sympathetic toward all who suffered misfortunes. He was also
trustworthy in every respect, honest and faithful in friendship and in
all his promises, and so virtuous that he would allow nothing vicious
about his person,—indeed his like was not found among all the people of
Israel; for when God chose David to be king, He testified in these
words, saying that He had found a man after His own heart. But human
frailty caused him to fall in the matter that we mentioned earlier: he
violated Uriah’s wife. But after he had fallen into this transgression
and when he was once more alone, he repented deeply, sighing and
weeping. Inasmuch as the rules of the law would condemn this crime as a
shameful reproach, if it were rumored among the people, David planned to
keep the matter quiet, letting God see his repentance but keeping the
people in ignorance of his offence, lest they should take his misdeed as
an example and regard it as less serious to fall into sin and
transgression if they knew of his guilt. So David sought to hide his
guilt by a crafty design: for as soon as he learned that Bathsheba,
Uriah’s wife, was pregnant, he sent for Uriah, and hoping to avoid
taking his life, he ordered him to lie with his wife so that the
offspring might be known as his, while David would atone in secret for
the sin of his whoredom and never afterward come near Uriah’s wife. But
when he found that Uriah happened to be unwilling to lie with his wife,
he contrived to conceal his sin from men, though he increased it in the
sight of God. Later, when Nathan the prophet charged David with all this
guilt, he answered as if condemning himself, speaking these words: “So
heavy and evil is my transgression that I am worthy of death because of
this thing; a wretch am I to have set such an example before God’s
people, over whom He has appointed me ruler and judge; rather would I
now suffer a speedy death than have this misdeed pursue me to hell. Now
since I have set an evil example before the people of God by my sin, I
am ready to suffer punishment according to the Lord’s will as a warning
to the people not to fall into such transgression.” But when Truth and
Justice saw David’s penitence, they permitted Mercy to pass the
judgment; for the prophet Nathan replied in this wise: “God sees your
repentance, and He does not desire you to suffer death for your sin, but
He will punish you with an endurable chastisement for this deed before
you die.” Now you must know that God did not forgive David’s crime so
completely as to excuse him from just punishment; for this was the first
penalty that the king suffered from God: the child which he had begotten
with Bathsheba was a man child and very lovely, wherefore David much
desired that it might live; but it did not please God to let him enjoy
the child which he had begotten in such a sinful way. Nevertheless,
David lay seven days upon the earth in the raiment of mourning, fasting
and imploring God to let the child live. But God would not hear his
prayer, and the child expired on the seventh day.[318] And this was the
second punishment, that God refused to let David build him a
temple;[319] God even called him a murderer, because he had deprived
Uriah of life. But for the adultery which he had committed with Uriah’s
wife, he had to suffer this disgrace, that his son Absalom, in the sight
of all the people, went in unto David’s concubines and thus dishonored
his father before all the people.[320]
Footnote 318:
The story of David’s great sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah and its
consequences is told in _II Samuel_, xi-xii, but it is probable that
the author’s source is some Biblical paraphrase rather than the
Vulgate itself.
Footnote 319:
_I Chronicles_, xxii, 8.
Footnote 320:
_II Samuel_, xvi, 21-22.