160 (197). To Diodorus
SAINT BASIL
holy by nature, and the Son holy by nature, we ourselves do not dare to separate and sever from the Divine and Blessed
Trinity, and we do not approve those who carelessly reckon Him among creatures.
Let these words, briefly set forth, suffice for your Reverence.
For, from scant seeds you will produce the more fruit of piety, if the Holy Spirit is working with you. 'Give an occasion to a wise man, and wisdom shall be added to him.'7 But, we shall hold over a more complete explanation until we meet, when it will be possible to confute the objections, to furnish more detailed testimony from the Scriptures, and to confirm every sound rule of faith. For the present, however, pardon my brevity. For, to begin with, I would not have written at all if I had not thought that to refuse the request altogether would be greater harm than to fulfill it inadequately.
160. To Diodorus1 A letter has reached us which bears the name of Diodorus, but which seems in all that follows to belong to anyone else rather than to Diodorus. In fact, it appears to me that some clever fellow, masquerading in your person, wished in this way to make himself seem trustworthy to his hearers. When asked by someone if it was allowable for him to marry the sister of his dead wife, he did not shudder in horror at the question, but even listened calmly, and very nobly and gloriously supported the wanton desire. Now, if I had the letter at hand I would have sent it, and you would have been able to defend both yourself and the truth. But, he who showed the 7 Provo 9.9.
1 For Diodorus, d. Letter 155 n. 1. This letter was written in 575 or 574.
LETTERS
letter took it away again, and carried it around like some trophy against us, since we had forbidden the act from the beginning; moreover, he declared that he had the permission in writing. Therefore, I have now written to you so that we may attack with twofold force that spurious document and leave it no power to harm easily those who read it.
First of all, then-a point which is of the utmost importance in such matters--there is the custom among us which we can bring forward and which has the force of law because of the fact that the regulations were handed down to us by holy men. This custom is as follows: If anyone being overcome at any time by the vice of impurity falls into an unlawful union with two sisters, this is neither considered marriage, nor, in short, are they admitted to the membership of the Church before they have separated from each other. Consequently, even if it were possible to say nothing else, the custom would suffice to safeguard what is right. But, since he who wrote the letter has attempted by misleading argumentation to bring such an evil into men's lives, we must not forego the assistance of reasoning, although in matters which are perfectly obvious the instinctive convinction of each is mightier than the argument.
It has been written in Leviticus,2 he says: 'Thou shalt not take thy wife's sister for a harlot, to rival her, neither shalt thou discover her nakedness, while she is yet living.' He says that it is evident, therefore, from these words that it is permitted to take her when his wife is dead. Now, in answer to this I shall say, first of all, that whatever the law says, it says to those who are within the law; otherwise, we shall be subject to circumcision, to the observance of the sabbath, and to abstinence from meats. For, if we find something that agrees with our pleasure, we certainly shall not place ourselves under the yoke of servitude to the law, but, if some custom seems dif2 Lev. 18.18.
SAINT BASIL
ficult, then have recourse to the freedom in Christ. We have been asked if it is written that he may take a woman as wife after her sister. We said what is in our opinion sound and true, that it is not written. But, to deduce by the application of inference a point which was passed over in silence is the right of him who frames the laws, not his who recites the laws, since in the latter case anyone who wishes can dare to take the sister even while his wife is still living. Now, this same sophism he also adapts to the following. For it is written, he says: 'Thou shalt not take they wife's sister for a harlot, to rival her,' so that the law did not forbid to take her except as a matter of rivalry. Of course, he who is advocate for the vice will declare that the distinctive trait of sisters is freedom from envy. Therefore, since the cause is removed for which the law forbade the cohabitation with both, what will prevent him from taking the sisters? But, this is not written, we shall say. Yet, neither was the former point defined. The sense of the deduction, however, gives permission for taking both sisters. Now, we must free ourselves from the difficulty by turning back a little to matters preceding the legislation.
The legislator, in fact, does not seem to embrace every type of sin, but to be forbidding particularly those of the Egyptians, from whom Israel had departed, and those of the Chanaanites, to whom Israel was migrating. The words are as follows: 'You shall not do according to the custom of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt; neither shall you act according to the manner of the country of Chanaan, into which I will bring you, nor shall you walk in their ordinances.'3
Consequently, it is very probable that this form of sin had not at that time been introduced among the Gentiles, and on this account the legislator did not need to guard against it, but was satisfied with the accepted custom for withstanding
3 Cf. Lev. 18.3.
LETTERS
the pollution. How, then, was it that, when he had forbidden the greater, he passed over the lesser sin in silence? It was because it seemed that the example of the Patriarch4 was harmful to many carnal men, so that they cohabited with sisters stilI living.
But, what must we do? Say what is written, or work out for ourselves what has been passed over in silence? For example, it is not written in these laws that a father and son should not have one concubine, but it was thought to be deserving of a most serious charge by the Prophet. 5 'For,' he says, 'the son and the father have gone to the same young woman.' How many other forms of the unclean vices has the school of the demons discovered, yet Holy Scripture has passed them over in silence, not wishing to defile its holiness with the names of these disgraceful acts, but has condemned impurities in general terms! Thus, the Apostle Paul says:
'But immorality and every uncleanness ... let it not even be named among you, as becomes saints,'6 embracing in the name of 'uncleanness' the unmentionable practices of both men and women. Therefore, silence assuredly does not bring permission to the lovers of pleasure.
But, I do not say that this class of sin was passed over in silence; rather, the legislator forbade it very emphatically.
For the command, 'Thou shalt not approach to her that is near of kin to uncover her nakedness,'7 embraces also this form of relationship. For, what could be more closely related to a man than his wife, rather than his own flesh? For 'they are no longer two, but one flesh.'s Therefore, through the wife the sister enters into relationship with the husband. In fact,
4 Probably Jacob; cf. Gen. 29ff.
5 Amos 2.7.
6 Eph. 5.3.
7 Cf. Lev. 18.6.
8 Matt. 19.6.
SAINT BASIL
as he will not take the mother of his wife, nor the daughter of his wife, because he will not take his own mother nor his own daughter, so neither will he take his wife's sister, because he will not take his own sister. And, contrariwise, it will not be possible for the wife to cohabit with relatives of the husband, for the lawful claims of relationship are common to both. And I solemnly affirm to everyone who is deliberating about marriage that 'this world as we see it is passing away,'9 and 'the time is short, ... that those who have wives be as if they had none.'10 And, if he reads for me in a wrong sense the words, 'Increase and multiply,HI I laugh at him for not discerning the times of the legislation. A second marriage is a remedy against fornication, not a means for licentiousness. 'If they do not have self-control, let them marry,'12 it is said; but, even if they marry, let them not transgress the law.
But, those who are blinded in soul by the disgraceful passion do not even regard nature, which long ago distinguished the titles of kinship. Now, of what kinship will such call their children? Will they call them brothers of each other or cousins? For, both names will fit them as a result of the confusion. Do not, 0 Sir, make the aunt the stepmother of your little ones, and do not arm with cruel jealousy her who ought to cherish them in the place of a mother. For, it is only the race of stepmothers that carries its hatred even after death.
Rather, others who were hostile to the dead become reconciled, but stepmothers begin their hatred after death.13
9 I Cor. 7.51.
10 Cf. I Cor. 7.29.
11 Gen. 1.28.
12 I Cor. 7.9.
13 Cf. Herodotus 4.154 and Euripides. Alcestis 509. In antiquity, the unkindness of stepmothers was proverbial.