2.1. Metodología del trabajo
2.1.4. Procesamiento y análisis de la información
• ( MX Y I I . Sed tam en earum causaxum quae non s u n t • ^ c o n s ta n te s a l i a e s u n t p e r s p ic u a e , a l i a e l a t e n t . : 7 7; ! { > P e r s p ic u a e s u n t quae a p p e titio n e m a n im i i u d i c i - v V
v. ,7 7 :
uinque t a n g u n t ; l a t e n t 'q u a e s u b ie c ta e s u n t f o r t u n a e . ; . .77\.,'.7-7 /.7 7 ;7 : V:--7 Cum e nim n i h i l s in e c a u s a f i a t , hoc ip s u m e s t f o r - . :/ ^ ; i V a tu n a , q u i e v e n tu s o b s c u ra c a u s a e t l a t e n t e r e f - ! \ i ; ;j :’ •• J f i c i t u r . E tia m ea quae f i u n t p a r t i m s u n t i g n o r a t a ' ;r ; : : p a r t i m v o l u n t a r i a ; i g n o r a t a , quae n e c e s s it a t e e f -
i'i.'h.
v f e c t a s u n t ; s o l u n t a r i a , quae c o n s i l i o . [NOTE: - • 7 7 7 : H u b ba rd s t a t e s , and I i n c l u d e , t h i s f o o t n o t e t o
’ ^ . ;t h i s p a s s a g e : ’’A f t e r c o n S i l i o th e MSS. have Quae ’ ■ 7 7 autem f o r t u n a , v e l ig n o r a t a v e l v o l u n t a r i a (W hat 7 7 i s a c c o m p lis h e d b y F o r tu n e i s e i t h e r u n i n t e n t i o n a l . _ ; o r v o l u n t a r y ) : b r a c k e te d b y S c h u e tz (1 8 04 e d i t i o n ) ] ; ? 7 ; , Nam ia c e r e te lu m v o l u n t a t i s e s t , f e r i r e quern n o - -’,7 7^7/7-
7:
/ :7' 7;.'7777 •' 7 l u e r i s f o r t u n a e . Ex quo a r i e s s u b i c i t u r i l l e i n : 7} ; ; 7 7 77 7; v e s t r i s a c t i o n i b u s : s i te lu m manu f u g i t m a g is quam : .7 . ; ,iecitv ;Cadunt etiam in ignorationem atque im- v 7
7 7 ;; : prudentiam perturbationes animi; quae quamquam :
7* 7 ; ;7 7 . s u n t v o l u n t a r i a e - o b i u r g a t io n e enim e t a d m o n itio n e , 7 7 • ; . d e i c i u n t u r — tam en h a b e n t t a n t o s m o tu s , u t ea •
7V quae v o l u n t a r i a s u n t a u t h e c e s s a r ia in te r d u m a u t : . 7 .. c e r t e i g n o r a t a v i d e a n t u r T o p ic a , X V II,6 3 -? 6 5 , J
777-7 777' -7
7
- p p . 4 3 0 - 3 1 . ) . * : 7 - 7 -' 7 . ' . ::9:
7: 7v;7;,7* The p assa g e i t s e l f has r e f e r e n c e t o a fra g m e n t o f The T w e lv e T a b le s (L o eb e d i t i o n b y E .H .W a rm in g to n : H einem ann, 1 9 6 7 ), fra g m e n t
i
4 a t page . . 4 9 3 : ’’ I f m i s s i l e has sped fro m h a n d , and h o ld e r h a s n o t aim e d i t . . . ” ■ v , ; [7 S i te lu m manu f u g i t m a (g is quam i e c i t ) > One may a ls o r e a d i n 7 : 7 S t . A u g u s t in e 's De L ib e r o A r b i t r i o V o l u n t a t i s , Book One, C h a p te r IV ,t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a l l e l : " E . I f : t o m u rd e r means t o k i l l a man, m u rd e r - 7 : ca n o c c u r som etim es w it h o u t s i n . F o r when th e s o l d i e r k i l l s an enemy , . 7 , 7 o r th e ju d g e o f o f f i c i a l p u t s a c r i m i n a l t o d e a th , o r when, [ i t a l i c s
m in e ] b y c h a n c e , a man u n w i l l i n g l y o r u n w is e ly l e t s a weapon e scape fro m h i s h a n d , I do n o t t h i n k t h a t th e s e men s in when t h e y s la y a man. A u g u s tin e : I a g r e e . " ( E n g lis h e d i t i o n b y A .S .B e n ja m in and L .H .H a c k - 7 . s t a f f [ B o b b s - M e r r il l Company, I n c . , New Y o r k , 1964] a t page 9 . ) . : ,
E v o d iu s .a fe w l i n e s down a t s e c t i o n 2 7, u s e s t h i s la n g u a g e :’’The la w 7 is n o t a t a l l w ro n g t o p u n is h t h e man who w i l l f u l l y and k n o w in g ly m u rd e rs • •• 7 h i s m a s te r .* 1, an7 e xam ple o f la n g u a g e n o t unknown t o A u g u s tin e , and
7 d e r iv e d , i t a p p e a r s , fr o m h i s s t u d y o f C ic e r o . One may a ls o r e f e r t o
The I n s t i t u t e s o f J u s t i n i a n , L ib , i v , : T i t , x v i i i , D. 5 .3 4 . a t pages .7 7 5 0 5 -6 f o r p a s s in g r e f e r e n c e t o th e same passa g e fro m th e T a b le s i n
7
. u 7 th e e d i t i o n , L a t i n - E n g l i s h , p re p a r e d b y T .C .S a n d a rs (L o n d o n : Longm ans, 7 . G re e n , and C o .,1 8 8 3 [ 7 t h e d i t i o n ] ) . 7 •. . 7 .116
The legal grammar of Cicero is not replete with intentional
operators, If responsibility is to be assigned to an agent for what
he did, then one looks for verbs which show a conative or a volitive f
disposition. The transition from an affective source or disposition
to an esoteric quality, in part, reveals itself in Augustine when he
centres human responsibility in the Will (as any number of his major
writings reveal). But I think it would be a mistaken judgement to • / ,
argue that Augustine invented an ’intentional1 operator by which to .
account for or with which to assign guilt to human failing. He remained
within the volitive tradition however much he hypostasized the Will as
a faculty. [>'• '.V,‘ fk tu.
• k ' V One may cite two works of St. Augustine in which, if ond
were to argue for intention as a central concept to his ethical theory,
intention plays a relatively small part in the language of the works. •/,
Reviewing De Mendacio and Contra Mendacium Ad Consentium * will re
veal how little the word ’intentio' is used throughout the two treatises,
yet it could be argued how appropriate would be that term, were it a
developed ethical concept which functioned as the pivotal term of a
system, to function as a central metaphor or vehicle when discussing
so deliberate an act as ’lying* . :• - >,:
42. I have used the Latin texts which are.printed in J. P. Migne’s
Patrologia Latina ( Paris, 1865 ). 40.487-548; the editions run :
; consecutively, D.M. then C.M.A.C. The English translation of
each text I have consulted appears in volume.16 of THE FATHERS '
••/ OF THE CHURCH ( Edited by Roy J. Deferrari: Fathers of The ■
Church, Inc., New York, 1952 ), "St. Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects.” Lying ( De Mendacio ) is translated by
\ Sister M.S.Muldowney,S .S .J ., Ph.D. , and: appears on pp. 47-110 : V ;
' of that volume; Against Lying ( Contra Mendacium Ad Consent ium )
■ ; was translated by Harold B, Jaffee, Ph.D. ,and is printed on pp.:. ; : 113-179. Both translators used the text as prepared by J .Zycha,
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 41(Vienna, 1900 ), but this edition was not available to me. However, both trans-
•V lators .consulted' Migne. /• ; ' '.J- .i; k kV-k/v, ;''k
117
it is clear that for Augustine the example of lying, as well
as blaspheming, provided a strong model for that kind of human activity
in which one course of action contradicted another course of action.
The extra-mental and public, that statement which one might assert (al
though Augustine did not confine lying to utterances; one could
lie by silence), could be in conflict with the intra-mental and the
private. The danger latent in this model, I would suggest, is to at
tempt to equate the concept of intention with that of the act of lying.
As a concept, ’intention* in part grows out of the Christian heritage
which condemned lying. But that is not the whole of the concept. One
can observe, as I hope the examples from Cicero indicated, that Roman
law contained many rhetorical models of what reasons for an action or
legal omission might be presented to exculpate or legally to blame.
any oath, by heaven, word be Yes for Yes, it.1* When one turns
43. It will be recalled that in Sermon 180 the passage from Scripture