« back to search

"Does not Tully, disputing of the difference of governments, ... say, that we command our bodily members as sons, they are so obedient, and that we must keep a harder form of rule over our mind's vicious parts, as our slaves?"

— St. Augustine (354-430)

Author

St. Augustine (354-430)

Work Title

De civitate Dei [The City of God]

Date

413-427

Metaphor

"Does not Tully, disputing of the difference of governments, ... say, that we command our bodily members as sons, they are so obedient, and that we must keep a harder form of rule over our mind's vicious parts, as our slaves?"

Metaphor in Context

But he that says that there should have been neither copulation nor propagation but for sin, what does he else but make sin the origin of the holy number of saints ? For if they two should have lived alone, not sinning, seeing sin (as these say) was their only means of generation, then verily was sin necessary to make the number of saints more than two. But if it be absurd to hold this, it is fit to hold that the number of God's citizens should have been as great then, if no man had sinned, as now shall be gathered by God's grace out of the multitude of sinners, as long as this worldly multiplication of the sons of the world shall endure; and therefore that marriage, that was held fit to be made in paradise, should have had increase, but no lust, had not sin been. How this might be, here is no fit place to discuss: but it need not seem incredible that one member might serve the will without lust then, so many serving it now. Do we now move our hands and feet so easily when we will unto their offices without resistance, as we see in ourselves and others, chiefly handicraftsmen, where industry has made dull nature nimble; and may we not believe that those members might have served our first father unto procreation, without their having been seized with lust, the reward of his disobedience, as well as all his others served him to other acts? Does not Tully, disputing of the difference of governments (in his treatise Of the Commonwealth), and drawing a simile from man's nature, say, that we command our bodily members as sons, they are so obedient, and that we must keep a harder form of rule over our mind's vicious parts, as our slaves? In order of nature the soul is above the body, yet is it harder to rule than the body. But this lust whereof we speak is the more shameful in this, that the soul does neither rule itself therein, so that it may not lust, nor the body either, so that the will rather than lust might move these parts, which, if it were so, would be nothing to be ashamed of. But now the soul is ashamed that the body its inferior should resist it. It feels less shame in other rebellious emotions, because the resistance in this case comes from itself; and when it is conquered of itself, it conquers itself (although it be inordinately and viciously); for although these parts be reasonless that conquer it, yet are they parts of itself, and so, as I say, it is conquered of itself. For when it conquers itself in an orderly manner, and brings all the parts under reason, this is a laudable and virtuous conquest, if the soul be God's subject. But it is less ashamed when it is resisted by the vicious parts of itself, than when the body disobeys it, because the body is under it, depends on it, and cannot live without it. But so long as the other members are all under the will, without which members nothing can be performed against the will by those members which are incited by lust so to do, the chastity is kept unviolated, and the delight in sin is not permitted. This contention, fight, and altercation of lust and will, this need of lust to the sufficiency of the will, had not been laid upon wedlock in paradise, unless disobedience had become the punishment for the sin of disobedience. Otherwise these members had obeyed their wills as well as the rest. The seed of generation should have been sown in the vessel, as corn is now in the field. What I would say more in this kind, modesty bids me forbear a little, and first ask pardon of chaste ears. I need not do it, but might proceed in any discourse pertinent to this theme freely, and without any fear to be obscene, or imputation of impurity to the words, being as honestly spoken of these as others are of any other bodily members. Therefore he that reads this with unchaste suggestions, let him accuse his own guilt, not the nature of the question: and let him brand the effect of turpitude in himself, not the words necessity compels us to use, which the chaste and religious reader will easily allow us to use in confuting our experienced (not our credulous) adversary, who draws his arguments from proof not from belief. For he that abhors not the apostle's reprehension of the horrible beastliness of women, "who perverted natural use and acted against nature," will read this without offence, especially seeing we neither rehearse nor reprehend that damnable bestiality that he condemns, but are investigating the emotions of human generation, yet with avoidance of obscene terms, as much as he avoids them.
(XIV.xxiii)