For the sanctity of the body does not consist in the integrity of its members, nor in their exemption from all touch; for they are exposed to various accidents which do violence to and wound them, and the surgeons who administer relief often perform operations that sicken the spectator.A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or through unskillfulness)destroyed the virginity of some girl, while endeavoring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity.And thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose which sanctifies even the body, the violence done by another's lust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by one's own persistent continence.Suppose a virgin violates the oath she has sworn to God, and goes to meet her seducer with the intention of yielding to him, shall we say that as she goes she is possessed even of bodily sanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed that sanctity of soul which sanctifies the body? Far be it from us to so misapply words.Let us rather draw this conclusion, that while the sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is violated, though the body itself remains intact.And therefore a woman who has been violated by the sin of another, and without any consent of her own, has no cause to put herself to death;much less has she cause to commit suicide in order to avoid such violation, for in that case she commits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is uncertain as yet, and not her own.
CHAP.19.--OF LUCRETIA, WHO PUT AN END TO HER LIFE BECAUSE OF THE OUTRAGEDONE HER.
This, then, is our position, and it seems sufficiently lucid.We maintain that when a woman is violated while her soul admits no consent to the iniquity, but remains inviolably chaste, the sin is not hers, but his who violates her.But do they against whom we have to defend not only the souls, but the sacred bodies too of these outraged Christian captives,--do they, perhaps, dare to dispute our position? But all know how loudly they extol the purity of Lucretia, that noble matron of ancient Rome.When King Tarquin's son had violated her body, she made known the wickedness of this young profligate to her husband Collatinus, and to Brutus her kinsman, men of high rank and full of courage, and bound them by an oath to avenge it.Then, heart-sick, and unable to bear the shame, she put an end to her life.What shall we call her? An *****eress, or chaste? There is no question which she was.Not more happily than truly did a declaimer say of this sad occurrence: "Here was a marvel: there were two, and only one committed *****ery." Most forcibly and truly spoken.For this declaimer, seeing in the union of the two bodies the foul lust of the one, and the chaste will of the other, and giving heed not to the contact of the bodily members, but to the wide diversity of their souls, says: "There were two, but the *****ery was committed only by one."But how is it, that she who was no partner to the crime bears the heavier punishment of the two? For the *****erer was only banished along with his father; she suffered the extreme penalty.If that was not impurity by which she was unwillingly ravished, then this is not justice by which she, being chaste, is punished.To you I appeal, ye laws and judges of Rome.Even after the perpetration of great enormities, you do not suffer the criminal to be slain untried.If, then, one were to bring to your bar this case, and were to prove to you that a woman not only untried, but chaste and innocent, had been killed, would you not visit the murderer with punishment proportionably severe? This crime was committed by Lucretia; that Lucretia so celebrated and landed slew the innocent, chaste, outraged Lucretia.Pronounce sentence.
But if you cannot, because there does not appear any one whom you can punish, why do you extol with such unmeasured laudation her who slew an innocent and chaste woman? Assuredly you will find it impossible to defend her before the judges of the realms below, if they be such as your poets are fond of representing them; for she is among those.
"Who guiltless sent themselves to doom, And all for loathing of the day, In madness threw their lives away."And if she with the others wishes to return, ' Fate bars the way: around their keep The slow unlovely waters creep, And bind with ninefold chain."(1)Or perhaps she is not there, because she slew herself conscious of guilt, not of innocence? She herself alone knows her reason; but what if she was betrayed by the pleasure of the act, and gave some consent to Sextus, though so violently abusing her, and then was so affected with remorse, that she thought death alone could expiate her sin? Even though this were the case, she ought still to have held her hand from suicide, if she could with her false gods have accomplished a fruitful repentance.
However, if such were the state of the case, and if it were false that there were two, but one only committed *****ery; if the truth were that both were involved in it, one by open assault, the other by secret consent, then she did not kill an innocent woman; and therefore her erudite defenders may maintain that she is not among that class of the dwellers below "who guiltless sent themselves to doom." But this case of Lucretia is in such a dilemma, that if you extenuate the homicide, you confirm the *****ery: if you acquit her of *****ery, you make the charge of homicide heavier; and there is no way out of the dilemma, when one asks, If she was *****erous, why praise her? if chaste, why slay her?