Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1977, Blaðsíða 16

14
‘Si tabulam de naufragio stultus arripuerit, extorquebitne
eam sapiens, si potuerit?’ Negat, ‘quia sit iniurium.’ - ‘Quid
dominus navis? eripietne suum?’ ‘Minime, non plus quam
navigantem in alto eicere de navi velit, quia sua sit. Quoad
enim perventum est eo, quo sumpta navis est, non domini est
navis sed navigantium.’ ‘Quid? si una tabula sit, duo nau-
fragi eique sapientes, sibine uterque rapiat an alter cedat
alteri?’ ‘Cedat vero, sed ei cuius magis intersit vel sua vel rei
publicae causa vivere.’ — ‘Quid? si haec paria in utroque?’
‘Nullum erit certamen, sed quasi sorte aut micando victus
alteri cedet alter.’
The second passage is in St Ambrose’s De officiis ministrorum,
written after A.D. 386 (Ambrose died in 397). This influential
work, “the first comprehensive presentation of Christian ethics”7,
follows the model of Cicero’s books but with profound modifica-
tion of many of their lessons. It is not surprising to find that the
considerations of rectitude, expediency and chance offered by
Hekaton in the cases propounded do not count for much in the
face of overriding Christian principles of self-denial and charity.
St Ambrose says (III 27)8:
Quaerunt aliqui, si sapiens in naufragio positus insipienti nau-
frago tabulam extorquere possit: utrum debeat? Mihi quidem,
etsi praestabilius communi videatur usui sapientem de nau-
fragio quam insipientem evadere tamen non videtur quod vir
christianus, et iustus, et sapiens quaerere sibi vitam aliena
morte debeat: utpote qui etiam si latronem armatum incidat,
ferientem referire non possit; ne dum salutem defendit, pie-
tatem contaminet.
The Ciceronian questions deny any right to claims by force or
ownership in the shipwreck predicament; if the choice is between
7 B. Altaner, Patrology, transi. Hilda C. Graef (1960), pp. 447—48.
8 A. Cavasin, Sant’’ Ambrogio: Dei doveri degli ecclesiasticif Corona patrum Sale-
siana, Series Latina V (1938), p. 425. J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina 16 (1845),
cols. 152-53.