Title

egoque ipse multa quae nesciebam scribendo me didicisse confitear. trin. 3. pro. 1

ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum. Prov. 10.19

Aureli Augustini: The praenomen is thinly attested. Neither A. nor any of his correspondents or polemical opponents use it, and it has been thought to be a misreading of something in Orosius (A. M. LaBonnardière, Rev. Bén. 91[1981], 231-237, citing Oros. liber apologeticus 1.4); but its frequent occurrence in early manuscript colophons (cf. M. M. Gorman, JThS 35 [1984], 475-480) cannot be explained as a vulgar error. See also Mandouze 71-74 on A.'s name and attempts (mainly drawing on the names of Monnica and Adeodatus) to give A. a non-Roman genealogical and cultural background (e.g.,W. H. C. Frend, JThS 43[1942], 188-191, reprised in his The Donatist Church [Oxford, 1952], 230). More objective is C. Lepelley, Atti-1986 1.104, showing the extreme rarity in Africa of the names Augustinus (3 others attested in Mandouze, Pros. chr. and CIL 8), Patricius (2 others), and Monnica (1 other), with a certain (perhaps remote) aristocratic pretension in the names of father and son. Whatever the facts, and whatever `African' character in the luxuriance of A.'s style, this text is thoroughly Latin, Roman, and Christian.

A. never mentions his own name in conf., and does so rarely elsewhere, usually self-consciously (en. Ps. 36. s. 3.20, saying how he would have his congregation defend him against critics: `Augustinus episcopus est in ecclesia catholica, sarcinam suam portat, rationem redditurus est deo'; c. Sec. 1, `senti de Augustino quidquid libet, sola me in oculis dei conscientia non accuset').

confessionum libri tredecim: Title directly attested at retr. 2.6.1, `confessionum mearum libri tredecim'; cf. also persev. 20.53, ep. 231.6, and Possidius, indiculum (ed. Wilmart MA 2.161-208) 103.6.

confessionum: It is perhaps a rhetorical gesture when A. says at en. Ps. 30. en. 1.11, `vita mea est confiteri te,' but it is also a warning that `confession' runs beyond the pages of this text and a suggestion that the relationship of this text to A.'s life is not that of signifier to signified.

On the term, see M. Verheijen, Eloquentia Pedisequa (Nijmegen, 1949), 11-81, and J. Ratzinger, REAug 3(1957), 375-392. There are biblical roots; note esp. Ps. 9.2, `confitebor tibi, domine, in toto corde meo; narrabo omnia mirabilia tua'; Ps. 31.18, `confitebor adversum me iniustitiam meam domino, et tu remisisti impietatem peccati mei'; Ps. 34.18, `confitebor tibi in ecclesia magna.' The connotations of praise and thanksgiving are innate in the word's biblical usage (Verheijen 69), but not in classical usage (Ratzinger 376f cites ps.-Quint. decl. 314, `ego enim confessionem existimo qualemcumque contra se pronuntiationem. . . . immo ea natura est omnis confessionis, ut possit videri demens qui de se confitetur. furore impulsus est: alius ebrietate, alius errore, alius dolore, quidam quaestione. nemo contra se dicit, nisi aliquo cogente.'), and other Christian writers at least acknowledge them. Origen in Ps. 135.2 (PG 12.1653-1655), h( e)comolo/ghsis th\n eu)xaristi/an kai\ docologi/an shmai/nei: kei=tai de\ kai\ e)pi\ th=j e)comologh/sews tw=n a(martiw=n We encounter the theme in Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. 66.6, `invenimus confessionem duplici ratione tractandam: esse unam confessionem peccatorum . . . aliam laudationis dei'--he was probably following Origen or Eusebius [so Jerome at A., ep. 75.6.20]), and in Jerome as well, e.g., in Is. 2.38, `confessioque in hoc loco non pro paenitentia sed pro gloria et laude accipitur.' For the influence of Christian martyrdom on the one hand and of penitence on the other in shaping the attitude that A. embodies, see Ratzinger 380-382.

Confiteri is a verb of speaking, and confessio is speech that is made possible, and hence authorized, by God: 1.5.5, `miserere ut loquar' (and cf. adn. Iob on 6.10, `non alia dixit quam audivit a deo, id est de homine generaliter prophetantis, quia auxilio indiget in confessione'). God is ordinarily the addressee of this speech, but not exclusively (e.g., 10.37.62, `confitear oraturis pro me fratribus meis'). Depending on the subject, the effect may be that of praise (confessio laudis), self-blame (confessio peccatorum), or (least common in A. and in conf.) determined avowal (confessio fidei). That there is one confessio taking different forms in different circumstances is clear from 10.1.1, `cum enim malus sum, nihil est aliud confiteri tibi quam displicere mihi; cum vero pius, nihil est aliud confiteri tibi quam hoc non tribuere mihi' (sim. at en. Ps. 105.2).

A. knew he was insisting on a breadth of meaning that was not always felt by his listeners, who had our specialized sense clearly in mind, as at en. Ps. 141.19, `duobus autem modis confessio intellegitur, et in peccatis nostris, et in laude dei. in peccatis nostris nota est confessio, et ita nota omni populo, ut quando auditum fuerit nomen confessionis in lectione, sive in laude dicatur, sive de peccatis dicatur, currant pugni ad pectus.' (Sim. at en. Ps. 78.17, 137.2, ss. 29.2.2, 67.1.1.)

The verb confiteor and noun confessio occur 111 times in conf. (Verheijen 11-21). Some notes:

By presenting his words as a `confession', A. claims not to claim authority for his own text (and by so doing does exactly what he claims not to do), but refers those who question his authority for speaking to a higher authority. He turns away skeptics by telling them (at 10.3.3) that his text is for those who are joined to him in caritas (again invoking the higher authority), and that it is not surprising if others refuse to believe what they read in it. This strategy aims to freeze out the hostile or skeptical reader. A. admits that the text has no authority with such a reader, but implies that this failure is the fault of the reader, not of the writer. His business is with his God, for the edification of those who are chosen by his God to benefit from the text; other readers are left to shift for themselves.

A.'s comments on his own work are few and all date from the last years of his life, when he often found himself going back over old ground, especially in his quarrel with Julian of Eclanum.

retr. 2.6.1 (426/7), `confessionum mearum libri tredecim et de malis et de bonis meis deum laudant iustum et bonum, atque in eum excitant humanum intellectum et affectum. interim quod ad me attinet, hoc in me egerunt cum scriberentur et agunt cum leguntur. quid de illis alii sentiant, ipsi viderint; multis tamen fratribus eos multum placuisse et placere scio. a primo usque ad decimum de me scripti sunt, in tribus ceteris de scripturis sanctis, ab eo quod scriptum est: “in principio fecit deus caelum et terram,” usque ad sabbati requiem.'

persev. 20.53 (428/9), `quid autem meorum opusculorum frequentius et delectabilius innotescere potuit quam libri confessionum mearum? cum et ipsos ediderim antequam pelagiana haeresis extitisset, in eis certe dixi deo nostro et saepe dixi: “da quod iubes et iube quod vis.” [10.29.40] quae mea verba Pelagius Romae, cum a quodam fratre coepiscopo meo fuissent eo praesente commemorata, ferre non potuit et contradicens aliquanto commotius paene cum eo qui illa commemoraverat litigavit. . . . et in eisdem etiam libris quod de mea conversione narravi, deo me convertente ad eam fidem quam miserrima et furiossima loquacitate vastabam, nonne ita narratum esse meministis, ut ostenderem me fidelibus et cotidianis matris meae lacrimis [see on 3.11.19-12.21] ne perirem fuisse concessum?'

ep. 231.6 (to Darius: 428/9), `sume itaque, mi fili, sume, vir bone et non in superficie sed christiana caritate christiane, sume, inquam, etiam libros quos desiderasti confessionum mearum; ibi me inspice, ne me laudes ultra quam sum, ibi non aliis de me crede sed mihi, ibi me attende et vide quid fuerim in me ipso per me ipsum. [Cf. 10.3.3-10.4.6] et si quid in me tibi placuerit, lauda ibi mecum quem laudari volui de me, neque enim me, quoniam “ipse fecit nos et non ipsi nos” [Ps. 99.3, see on 9.10.25, 10.6.9]; nos autem perdideramus nos, sed qui fecit refecit. cum autem ibi me inveneris, ora pro me, ne deficiam sed perficiar.'

The last words of doctr. chr. (4.31.64; written about the same time as retr.) reflect a similar spirit: `ego tamen deo nostro ago gratias, quod in his quattuor libris non qualis ego essem, cui multa desunt, sed qualis esse debeat qui in doctrina sana, id est christiana, non solum sibi sed aliis etiam laborare studet, quantulacumque potui facultate disserui.'

The 13th chapter of Tobias (a book not often quoted by A., but accepted as canonical at doctr. chr. 2.8.13, and cf. 10.34.52, `o lux quam videbat Tobis'), the canticle of Tobias, resembles conf. both for content and structure (Vg. text).1 Italics here indicate the most notable parallels to conf.:

1. aperiens autem Tobias senior os suum benedixit dominum et dixit:

`magnus es domine in aeternum [1.1.1]

et in omnia saecula regnum tuum, [Bk. 11 generally]

2. quoniam tu flagellas et salvas, [2.2.4, 3.3.5]

deducis ad infernum et reducis, [1.2.2]

et non est qui effugiat manum tuam.

3. confitemini domino filii Israhel

et in conspectu gentium laudate eum, [1.16.26 et saep.]

4. quoniam ideo dispersit vos inter gentes quae ignorant eum,

ut vos narretis mirabilia eius et faciatis scire eos, [4.15.24, 8.6.14, etc.]

quia non est alius deus omnipotens praeter eum.

5. ipse castigavit nos propter iniquitates nostras

et ipse salvabit nos propter misericordiam suam.

6. aspicite ergo quae fecit vobiscum

et cum timore et tremore confitemini illi [see on 2.3.6]

regemque saeculorum exaltate in operibus vestris.

7. ego autem in terra captivatitis meae confitebor illi, [see on 2.10.18]

quoniam ostendit maiestatem suam in gentem peccatricem.

8. convertimini itaque peccatores et facite iustitiam coram deo,

credentes quod faciat vobiscum misericordiam suam.

9. ego autem et anima mea in eo laetabimur.

10. benedicite dominum omnes electi eius,

agite dies laetitiae, confitemini illi

11. Hierusalem civitas dei, castigavit te dominus: [see esp. 12.16.23]

in operibus manuum tuarum

12. confitere domino in bonis et benedic deum saeculorum,

ut reaedificet in te tabernaculum suum

et revocet ad te omnes captivos [2.6.14, 7.21.27, 8.5.12]

et gaudeas in omnia saecula saeculorum. [13.38.53]

13. luce splendida fulgebis et omnes fines terrae adorabunt te. [10.2.2, 10.6.8]

. . .

19. anima mea, benedic dominum,

quoniam liberavit Hierusalem civitatem suam

20. beatus ero si fuerint reliquiae seminis mei

ad videndam claritatem Hierusalem.

. . .

23. benedictus dominus qui excitavit eam,

ut sit regnum eius in saecula saeculorum super eam. amen.

A similar set of parallels obtains between conf. and the text of Ps. 4; see on 9.4.8 for text and see 9.4.8-11 for exegesis. Other, earlier Christian analogues to A.'s self-analysis are few, sketchy, and not really comparable to this confessio: see J.-M. Le Blond, Les conversions de saint Augustin (Paris, 1950) 5n1, and cf. Hil. Pict. trin. 1.1-15. P. Frassinetti, Gior. Ital. Filol. 2(1949), 50-59, adduces Arnob. nat. 1.31, `o maxime, o summe rerum visibilium et invisibilium procreator, o ipse invisibilis et nullis umquam comprehense naturis, dignus, dignus es vere, si modo te dignum mortali dicendum est ore, cui spirans omnis intellegensque natura et habere et agere numquam desinat gratias.' Liturgical usage and the developing vocabulary of prayer undoubtedly lie behind such expressions. A.'s genius lay in making a book of such discourse, and making a good book.

The claim that A.'s confessio is related to the annual Manichean confession of sins at the Bema festival (A. Adam, Zschr. für Kirchengesch. 69[1958], 7: `Was Augustin als manichäischer Katechumen Jahr um Jahr hat wiederholen müssen, das hat er in den Konfessionen auf seine christliche Existenz übertragen. Er hat sogar ein anderes kennzeichnendes Stilmittel des manichäischen Denkens dabei übernommen: die überquellende Bildhaftigkeit, die in keiner seiner übrigen Schriften in gleicher Weise festzustellen ist.') has not been sustained (see Brown 179n1 citing div. qu. Simp. 1.2.21; cf. also doctr. chr. 1.33.37, `vicinissime dicitur frui “cum delectatione uti.”' In phrasing the matter that way, Brown approaches the position of Cornelius Jansen, who distinguished delectatio from voluntas, and made the former a determining force on the latter; for an orthodox critique of that view (taking what is indeed the more defensible position that for A. `delight' and `will' are two names for the same thing), see E. Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine (New York, 1960), 321n81-323n84.

Book One

1.1.1 - 1.5.6
  • Proem
    • 1.6.7 - 1.7.12
  • Infantia
    • 1.8.13 - 1.19.30
  • Pueritia
    • 1.20.31
  • Gratiarum actio

    • The narrative of childhood is not specially Christian. Cic. Tusc. 3.1.2 - 3.2.3 displays the same pattern and could stand as a summary of what A. says: `simul atque editi in lucem et suscepti sumus, in omni continuo pravitate et in summa opinionum perversitate versamur, ut paene cum lacte nutricis errorem suxisse videamur. cum vero parentibus redditi, dein magistris traditi sumus, tum ita variis imbuimur erroribus, ut vanitati veritas et opinioni confirmatae natura ipsa cedat. (3.2.3) accedunt etiam poetae, qui cum magnam speciem doctrinae sapientiaeque prae se tulerunt, audiuntur leguntur ediscuntur et inhaerescunt penitus in mentibus.'

    text of 1.1.1

    1.1.1

    There have been various attempts to find precedents for this form of opening, 2 but in the history of Latin literature, its originality and oddity are clear. Most Latin prose works begin with a dedicatory epistle or a formal proem: this work has neither. 3 It begins abruptly, with speech directed to a silent God - but speech chosen from the words of that God himself. The first sentence is followed by a reflective pause for inquiry, which should not blur the main purpose: invocation, an opening more appropriate to poetry than prose. The work is not verse, but it is not conventional prose either: study of its rhythms has shown that the pattern of the work's sentence endings is neither quantitative nor accentual, and sui generis in A.'s own works (see prolegomena, n. 126). A. invented a form and style unique in his own oeuvre and in the traditions he inherited. In retrospect we can see him working towards this style through earlier, far more conventional works (e.g. sol., where the dialogue form prevails, and the prayer of invocation is carefully set off within the dialogue at sol. 1.1.2-6, but conf. represents a breakthrough for A.

    This opening can give rise to the disconcerting feeling of coming into a room and chancing upon a man speaking to someone who isn't there. He gestures in our direction and mentions us from time to time, but he never addresses his readers. As literary text, conf. resembles a one-sided, non-fiction epistolary novel, enacted in the presence of the silence (and darkness) of God. 4 What A. attempts is a radical turn away from common sense - seen as tragically flawed by mad self-love - towards the wholly other, and thus towards the true self - for to him, we are not who we think we are (see on 10.8.15). 5

    magnus es, domine: The work begins with confessio laudis. 6 Strictly speaking, these two lines contain a complete confession (see en. Ps. 143.12 [quoted on 8.2.4], which shows the proud of this world giving way and confessing thus: `dicturi sunt: tu magnus, domine') that renders the remaining 78,000 or so words of the text superfluous. This exclamation is self-sufficient; nothing more need be said, ever. But the fall from eternity into time brought with it the fall from timeless immutability of discourse into a restless and open-ended search for God in the inspired texts. Cf. en. Ps. 145. 6, `quando implet laudator excellentiam laudati?' Hence he adds another line of Psalm-text, a link to what will follow.

    Ps. 95.4, `quoniam magnus dominus et laudabilis valde'; Ps. 144.3, `magnus dominus et laudabilis valde, et magnitudinis eius non est finis'; Ps. 47.2, `magnus dominus et laudabilis valde, in civitate dei nostri, in monte sancto eius'; cf. Tob. 13.1, `magnus es domine in aeternum' (see preceding comm. above on Tob. 13). en. Ps. 95.4, `quis “dominus”, nisi Iesus Christus, “magnus et laudabilis nimis”?' (The text at en. Ps. 95.4 has nimis for valde with the Roman Psalter; but the Verona Psalter has valde, and the adverb is the same in the LXX at all three texts cited here: sfo/dra.) Psalm-citation is not (v. Knauer passim) mere ostentation of erudition: en. Ps. 26. en. 2. 1, `voces istae psalmi quas audivimus et ex parte cantavimus, si dicamus quod nostrae sint, verendum est quemadmodum verum dicamus; sunt enim voces magis spiritus dei quam nostrae. rursum si dicamus nostras non esse, profecto mentimur.'

    domine: A. speaks to God alone. At 11.1.1, after canvassing his own past (Bks. 1- 9) and present (Bk. 10), he expects his readers to be able to join him in the present: `sed affectum meum excito in te et eorum qui haec legunt, ut dicamus omnes: “magnus dominus et laudabilis valde”' (see notes there). The second person direct address to God pervades conf., occurring in 381 of the work's 453 paragraphs (measured by the presence of vocatives, second person singular pronouns, and verb forms: but the second person verb form does not seem to occur addressed to God without either a vocative or a pronoun to specify the reference). Paragraphs without such address include some notably desolate and God-less passages (e.g., 6.15.25, on the banishment of his mistress), but not all are of that sort; see in particular on 10.6.9 for the longest stretch without such address. On the forms of address to God in conf., see Knauer 31-74 and J. Morán, Aug. Stud. 4(1973), 141-157, with a catalogue of 165 passages at 152-157.

    magna virtus tua et sapientiae tuae non est numerus: Ps. 146.5, `magnus dominus noster et magna virtus eius et sapientiae eius non est numerus'; en. Ps. 146.11, `conticescant humanae voces, requiescant humanae cogitationes; ad incomprehensibilia non se extendant quasi comprehensuri, sed tamquam participaturi; participes enim erimus.' 1 Cor. 1.24, `Christum dei virtutem, et dei sapientiam'; this is the first scriptural text A. cites in his surviving works, at c. acad. 2.1.1 and beata v. 4.34; from c. Faust. 20.2 (where Faustus cites the text to claim that virtus resides in the sun and sapientia in the moon) it is clear that to call Christ virtus and/or sapientia would particularly irritate Manichees - the text is also cited against them at c. Fort. 9. Cf. 5.3.5, `sed non noverunt viam, verbum tuum . . . et sapientiae tuae non est numerus'.

    virtus . . . sapientiae: God in action . . . God at rest.

    non est numerus: Io. ev. tr. 39. 4, `pater et filius et spiritus sanctus trinitas. si tres, quid tres? deficit numerus. ita deus nec recedit a numero, nec capitur numero. quia tres sunt, tamquam est numerus; si quaeris quid tres, non est numerus. unde dictum est, “magnus dominus noster et magna virtus eius, et sapientiae eius non est numerus.” ubi cogitare coeperis, incipis numerare: ubi numeraveris, quid numeraveris non potes respondere.' The second person of the trinity is Word par excellence, but for A. he is also Number: see on 5.4.7.

    et laudare te vult homo: Cf. Verheijen, 90-95, on et and its frequency of use in conf.: abundant in some passages, rare in others, often occurring where a more restrictive conjunction (sed, cum, si) would be expected. V. estimates that in Bk. 8 et occurs with more than `la simple valeur copulative' more than 100 times, in Bk. 1 more than 75 (cautioning that such calculations are subjective). A. on the force of the conjunction, hinting that its part in the struggle to restore integrity to language is not insignificant: en. Ps. 4. 4 (on Ps. 4.4 - see on 9.4.8-11), `sed si quem movet coniunctio superaddita, quod ait, “et scitote”, facile est ut in scripturis animadvertat huius locutionis genus familiare esse illi linguae qua prophetae locuti sunt. nam saepe invenis ita coeptum: “et dixit dominus ad illum; et factum est verbum domini ad illum.” quae iunctura coniunctionis, cum sententia non praecesserit cui sequens adnectatur, mirabiliter fortassis insinuat prolationem veritatis in voce cum ea visione quae fit in corde esse coniunctam.'

    For comparison, in sample works of Cicero, et appears with the following relative frequencies: Brutus 3.6%, de amicitia 2.4%, pro Caelio 1.8%; from A., in civ., approx. 3.3%, in en. Ps. approx. 4.5%, and in trin. approx. 5.2%; in conf. 5.8% (4585 out of 78,858 words).

    laudare . . . vult: not laudat, for the praise in the first two lines is imperfect, the expression in words more wish than deed (cf. 2.1.1, `recordari volo'). A. seeks to praise. In the implicit question whether he succeeds is encompassed the tension of the whole text. At the moment of giving praise, his words fall back into self-reflection and doubt. His mortality might well seem a good reason for not praising the creator who made him mortal: but already in that objection, the explanation begins to obtrude.

    homo: A. means not homo quidam, but speaks directly of himself, his own act of attempted praise in the first lines. An exact parallel at 1.7.11, `exaudi, deus: vae peccatis hominum! et homo dicit haec, et misereris eius, quoniam tu fecisti eum [cf. here `fecisti nos ad te'] et peccatum non fecisti in eo.' In both cases the author's voice is heard in spontaneous exclamation, followed immediately by a less spontaneous, more detached reflection on what that first exclamation means in view of the creature/creator relation of humankind to God. Cf. also 7.1.1, `homo et talis homo'. (To be sure, the form of expression emphasizes A.'s representativeness, hence inviting readers to share in the inquiry and praise that follow; a similar representativeness underlies the whole of Bks. 11-13.)

    mortalitatem: a fact that speaks of A. (`testimonium peccati'), and of God (`testimonium quia superbis resistis'), evidence of alienation, a pretext perhaps for angry avoidance of praise. But instead, praise prevails. Cf. 10.4.6 (of Christian believers), `sociorum gaudii mei et consortium mortalitatis meae': mortality is the counterweight of the joy from which praise might rightly be expected to rise. Death is punishment already at mus. 6. 33, 6.46, and Gn. c. man. 1.16.26, 1.18.29, 2.26.38 and elsewhere, then at vera rel. 26.48 (`erga eos qui peccato mortalitatem meruerunt'), and consistently afterwards. For the expression here, cf. s. dom. m. 2.9.35, `istam mortalitatem circumferimus' (sim. at s. 49.3.3).

    quia superbis resistis: Prov. 3.34 (VL), `deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam'; quoted at 1 Pet. 5.5 and Jas. 4.6 in the same form (following the LXX). The second half of the text is here unspoken (as at 4.15.26; spoken at 3.5.9, 4.3.5, 7.9.13, 10.36.59). Cf. civ. 1. pr., `rex enim et conditor civitatis huius de qua loqui instituimus in scriptura populi sui sententiam divinae legis aperuit, qua dictum est: “deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.” hoc vero, quod dei est, superbae quoque animae spiritus inflatus adfectat amatque sibi in laudibus dici: [Aen. 6.853]“parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.”' The Vergilian juxtaposition suggests a partial explanation for the appeal of the scriptural text to A. Cf. La Bonnardière, Biblia Augustiniana: Proverbes 202-204, for a list of 42 other citations of the text in A.'s œuvre. The verse may have been a recent discovery: before doctr. chr. the verse appears only at en. Ps. 18. en. 1.8, 18. en. 1.15, and s. dom. m. 1.11.32. Note doctr. chr. 3.23.33, `nulla enim fere pagina est sanctorum librorum in qua non sonet quod “deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.”' 7 On superbia in conf., see the catalogue and discussion by M. Testard in Homo Spiritalis (Festschrift Verheijen: Würzburg, 1987), 136-170.

    et tamen: One of A.'s commonest ways (59x in conf., 12x in Bk. 1) of asseverating in the face of apparent contradiction and paradox. See Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 10 (but he undercounts the frequency).

    excitas: 16x in conf.; cf. 5.1.1, `accipe sacrificium confessionum mearum de manu linguae meae (quam formasti et excitasti, ut confiteatur nomini tuo)'; 11.1.1, `affectum meum excito in te'; cf. 10.3.4, `confessiones praeteritorum malorum meorum . . . excitant cor ne dormiat in desperatione.' Cf. retr. 2.6.1 (quoted more fully above), `confessionum . . . libri . . . excitant humanum intellectum et affectum'; sol. 1.1.3, `deus, cui nos fides excitat, spes erigit, caritas iungit' (and fides is basis of confessio, as the remainder of this paragraph demonstrates). See E. Feldmann, Augustinus 31(1986), 113-122.

    laudare te delectet: Brown 155, `Augustine came to view “delight” as the mainspring of human action,' citing div. qu. Simp. 1.2.21; cf. also doctr. chr. 1.33.37, `vicinissime dicitur frui “cum delectatione uti.”' In phrasing the matter that way, Brown approaches the position of Cornelius Jansen, who distinguished delectatio from voluntas, and made the former a determining force on the latter; for an orthodox critique of that view (taking what is indeed the more defensible position that for A. `delight' and `will' are two names for the same thing), see E. Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine (New York, 1960), 321n81-323n84.

    The role of delectatio is strongly foreshadowed in the rhetorical tradition. Cf. Cic. or. 21.69, `erit igitur eloquens . . . qui in foro causisque civilibus ita dicet, ut probet, ut delectet, ut flectat' (quoted with slight modifications at doctr. chr. 4.12.27), with parallels at Brut. 49.185, de or. 2.28.121, opt. gen. or. 1.3. Between probare (the establishment of a fact) and flectere (stirring the audience to act), delectare is the crucial moment of motivation. See on 1.6.7.

    inquietum . . . requiescat: This initial disquiet is answered by the adumbration of eternal rest at 13.35.50 - 13.38.53, the last lines of the text; cf. also 1.5.5, `quis mihi dabit adquiescere in te?' This restlessness arises from disorder: 13.9.10, `minus ordinata inquieta sunt; ordinantur et quiescunt.' For ordo, see on 1.7.12 and see further on 13.9.10. Cf. en. Ps. 38.5, `coepit esse inquietum cor meum. . . . et suspirans in finem quendam, ubi ista non erat passurus, in illum, inquam, finem quo dicturus est bono erogatori dominus, “intra in gaudium domini tui.”' (Mt. 25.21: cf. 9.10.25, where the same scriptural quotation is the culmination of the Ostia vision); cf. also en. Ps. 91.2, 48. s. 2.6. This phrase has evoked an abundant literature: A. Di Giovanni, L'inquietudine dell'anima (Rome, 1964), esp. 87n8; A. Pincherle, Augustinus 13(1968), 353-368 (on requies and the link to the last pages of conf.); E. Maccagnolo, Riv. di Filos. Neo-scolastica 71(1979), 314-325; G. Lawless, REAug 26(1980), 45-61 (on `interior peace'); and generally de la Peza (see next note).

    cor: 10.3.4, `ad cor meum, ubi ego sum quicumque sum' . E. de la Peza, El significado de `cor' en San Agustin (Paris, 1962); in summary form in REAug 7(1961), 339-368; and cf. A. Maxsein, Philosophia cordis. Das Wesen der Personalität bei Augustin (Salzburg, 1966), 46-52. Cor in A. is a word whose use is demonstrably influenced by contact with its scriptural employment; it is in A. an expression for the indivisible, authentic center of human life, where the tensions of a sinful world are most clearly felt. The term is, as others have observed, unphilosophical, even untheological, but it is eminently scriptural, and Augustinian. Cf. Ps. 37.11, `cor meum conturbatum est et deseruit me fortitudo mea'; en. Ps. 37.15, `haec patitur homo intus, ibi secum, in seipso, et seipsum, de nemine ad neminem praeter se.'

    donec: Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 13, `Donec pare il termine-chiave dell' espressione.' The temporal dimension of disquiet is both an important manifestation of the problem itself (as Bk. 11 will make clear) and at the same time a suggestion here of hope.

    da mihi: 11.3.5, `da et mihi haec intellegere'. (See above on `magnus es domine' for ref. to 11.1.1: Bk. 11 marks a renewed beginning in several ways.) Cf. Ps. 118.34, `da mihi intellectum, et scrutabor legem tuam, et custodiam illam in toto corde meo' ; en. Ps. 118. s. 11.4, `quid habeat utilitatis etiam hoc ipsum quod “lex subintravit, ut abundaret delictum,” [Rom. 5.20] nemo comprehendit, nisi a domino acceperit intellectum; unde iste adiungit et dicit: “da mihi intellectum, et scrutabor legem tuam, et custodiam illam in toto corde meo.” cum enim quisque legem scrutatus fuerit, et ad eius alta pervenerit in quibus tota pendet, profecto debet deum diligere ex toto corde, ex tota anima, ex tota mente, et proximum suum tamquam seipsum. [cf. Mt. 22.37]' On the quest of faith for understanding (Io. ev. tr. 29.6, `noli quaerere intellegere ut credas, sed crede ut intellegas' ), see R. Holte, Béatitude et Sagesse (Paris, 1962), and O. du Roy, L'Intelligence de la foi en la trinité selon saint Augustin (Paris, 1966); when expressed in its fullest form as in the passage just cited, the understanding is (a) scriptural, (b) allegorical, and (c) directed beyond intellection to action. The inquiry introduced here by these words is itself about the proper form of inquiry, and shares implicitly all three of those qualities. Placed here, it reflects the intrinsic importance to A. of the content of the inquiry, but also sets a paradigmatic model of the search for understanding that ends in praise here on the first page. (For the form of expression, cf. Tiberianus [4th c. AD], versus Platonis, ed. Baehrens, PLM 3.268, lines 26f: `da nosse volenti', and further M. Zepf, Augustins Confessiones [Tübingen, 1926], 64n4.)

    Only God can give this gift: cf. the last words of conf. (with an echo of Mt. 7.7, also echoed below in 1.1.1): 13.38.53, `et hoc intellegere quis hominum dabit homini? quis angelus angelo? quis angelus homini? a te petatur, in te quaeratur, ad te pulsetur: sic, sic accipietur, sic invenietur, sic aperitur.'

    scire: The sense here is probably not distinguished sharply from credere, hence the passage is congruent with A.'s treatment of faith and understanding. Cf. sol. 1.3.8, `omne autem quod scimus recte fortasse etiam credere dicimur'; retr. 1.14.3 (demurring at a sharp distinction between scire and credere at util. cred. 11.25), `proprie quippe cum loquimur, id solum scire dicimus quod mentis firma ratione comprehendimus. cum vero loquimur verbis consuetudini aptioribus, sicut loquitur etiam scriptura divina, non dubitemus dicere scire nos et quod percipimus nostri corporis sensibus et quod fide dignis credimus testibus, dum tamen inter haec et illud quid distet intellegamus.'

    An alternate view is possible, according to which scire and intellegere here would be hendiadys: mag. 11.37 (of exegetical difficulties raised by the three boys in Daniel), `haec autem omnia quae in illa leguntur historia ita illo tempore facta esse ut conscripta sunt, credere me potius quam scire confiteor: neque istam differentiam idem ipsi quibus credimus nescierunt. ait enim propheta, “nisi credideritis, non intellegetis.” (Is. 7.9 [VL])'

    The former view is to be preferred. It imparts to the text a tension between present and future that is at home on this page: scire (= credere) would apply to the inquiry in the present paragraph, while intellegere would anticipate the fuller comprehension to be worked out through the remainder of conf. and through the rest of A.'s life. Against that, the hendiadys is flat and far from obvious; such redundancy of expression is out of place with the concise and carefully chosen style of this opening page.

    invocare . . . laudare . . . scire: Ps. 104.1, `confitemini domino, et invocate nomen eius' ; en. Ps. 104.1, `praemissa enim laude, invocatio sequi solet . . . exaudit quippe invocantem, quem laudantem videt: laudantem videt; quem probat amantem.'

    aliud . . . pro alio: G-M: `A. probably has in mind the objects of his own worship in his Manichaean days,' when he invoked God without faith. Cf. sol. 1.1.6, `fac et me, pater, vindica me ab errore: quaerenti te mihi nihil aliud pro te occurrat' ; sim. at doctr. chr. 2.6.7, en. Ps. 78.9; qu. hept. 1 pr., `nonnulla enim pars inventionis est nosse quid quaeras.' Cf. 5.5.9, `aliud pro alio sentientem' .

    quomodo autem: Rom. 10.13-14, `qui invocaverit nomen domini salvus erit' [Joel 2.32]. quomodo autem invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? (14) aut quomodo credent, quem non audierunt? quomodo autem audient, sine praedicante? aut quomodo praedicabunt, si non mittantur.' Text from s. 57.1.1, where he explains: `missi sunt ergo praedicatores, praedicaverunt Christum. illis praedicantibus populi audierunt, audiendo crediderunt, credendo invocaverunt' (the verse is quoted similarly at the outset of each of A.'s sermons on the Lord's prayer for competentes [ss. 56.1.1, 57.1.1, 58.1.1, and 59.1.1], and cf. s. 115.1.1 is taken to show that fides is the fons orationis); cf. div. qu. Simp. 1.2.7 and 1.2.10. The principle invoked is one that A. much later marked as one that distinguished his mature thought from that which preceded the watershed div. qu. Simp.: praed. sanct. 3.7, `credere non possemus, si non praecederet praeconium veritatis; ut autem praedicato nobis evangelio consentiremus, nostrum esse proprium, et nobis ex nobis esse arbitrabar. quem meum errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indicant, ante episcopatum meum scripta' ; in the next paragraph there A. retracts exp. prop. Rom. and endorses div. qu. Simp.

    credent: credent C D G O2 Maur. Knöll  (ss. 56.1.1, 57.1.1; c. Faust. 12.45; div. qu. Simp. 1.2.10):   credunt O1 S Eug. Skut. Ver.  (s. Guelf. 1.1; div. qu. Simp. 1.2.7)
    The Greek NT has the aorist subjunctive (pisteu/swsin), as for the other verbs in the passage. A. regularly omits the ei that occurs after credent in the Vg. The passage was apparently condensed for rhetorical effectiveness.

    et laudabunt . . . requirunt eum: Ps. 21.27, `edent pauperes, et saturabuntur. et laudabunt dominum qui requirunt eum. vivent corda eorum in saeculum saeculi'; en. Ps. 21. en. 2.27, `quare sunt pauperes? quia dominum laudant, et dominum quaerunt. dominus est divitiae pauperum; ideo inanis est domus, ut cor plenum divitiis sit. . . . pauperes quaerunt unde cor impleant; et cum impleverint, laudant dominum qui requirunt eum.' The verse recurs in the last words of Bk. 10 (10.43.70--see there for important eucharistic overtones), completing what is begun here, preparatory to beginning again in 11.1.1.

    quaerentes enim inveniunt eum: Mt. 7.7, `petite et dabitur vobis; quaerite et invenietis; pulsate et aperietur vobis.' Echoes and citations in conf.: 6.4.5, 6.11.18, 6.11.20, 11.2.3, 11.22.28, 12.1.1, 12.12.15, 12.15.22, 12.24.33, 13.38.53 (last words of conf.). At s. 51.5.6, he describes the errors of his youth as a failure to knock and seek.

    The verse was significant from before his baptism: c. acad. 2.3.9 (one of very few scriptural echoes at Cassiciacum), `nam mihi credite, vel potius illi credite qui ait, “quaerite et invenietis,” nec cognitionem desperandam esse, et manifestiorem futuram quam sunt illi numeri'; cf. sol. 1.1.3, 1.1.6. A. throws the verse up to the Manichees as one they were fond of: mor. 1.17.31, `nam si sapientia et veritas non totis animi viribus concupiscatur, inveniri nullo pacto potest. at si ita quaeratur ut dignum est, subtrahere sese atque abscondere a suis dilectoribus non potest. hinc est illud quod in ore habere etiam vos soletis, quod ait, "petite et accipietis, quaerite et invenietis, pulsate et aperietur vobis. nihil est occultum quod non revelabitur."' It recurs in anti-Manichean polemic, e.g., Gn. c. man. 2.2.3 (of exegesis).

    Linked to the search of faith for understanding, it also appears at lib. arb. 2.2.6, `nisi enim et aliud esset credere aliud intellegere et primo credendum esset quod magnum et divinum intellegere cuperemus, frustra propheta dixisset: “nisi credideritis, non intellegetis.” 8 ipse quoque dominus noster . . . iam credentibus dicit, “quaerite et invenietis,” nam neque inventum dici potest quod incognitum creditur, neque quisquam inveniendo deo fit idoneus, nisi ante crediderit quod est postea cogniturus.' Cf. lib. arb. 3.20.58. See also A.'s plea to Valerius for time for strengthening his grasp of scripture (ep. 21.4), and elsewhere in the years before conf. it occurs with ease and frequency, e.g., ep. 23.7, util. cred. 14.30, with formal exposition at s. dom. m. 2.21.71, 9 `petite et dabitur . . . pulsanti aperietur: petitio pertinet ad impetrandam sanitatem firmitatemque animi, ut ea quae praecipiuntur implere possimus, inquisitio autem ad inveniendam veritatem. cum enim beata vita actione et cognitione compleatur, actio facultatem virium, contemplatio manifestationem rerum desiderat. horum ergo primum petendum, secundum quaerendum est, ut illud detur, hoc inveniatur. sed cognitio in hac vita viae prius quam ipsius possessionis est. sed cum quisque veram viam invenerit, perveniet ad ipsam possessionem, quae tamen pulsanti aperietur.' Cf. also Jer. 29.12-13, `et invocabitis me, et ibitis; et orabitis me, et ego exaudiam vos. (13) quaeretis me, et invenieritis, cum quaesieritis me in toto corde vestro.'

    The questions posed here by A. (from `da mihi, domine' to `ut sciaris') are met by a sequence of authoritative scriptural dicta, collected from three different sources, in part themselves questions--but only rhetorical questions (on that device see below on 1.3.3). These citations together provide the data required to answer the questions that precede. (The phrase `invenientes laudabunt eum' does not come with clear scriptural warrant: it appears as a conclusion drawn by A. himself.)

    The scriptural data may be schematized thus:

    These reduce without difficulty to:

    The inquiry arose from a moment of unfulfilled intention (`et laudare te vult homo') that is now situated in its context. Such a quest leads to discovery and praise, but arises from invocation, which arises from belief, which in turn finally arises from the antecedent act of preaching (the only act in the sequence performed by someone other than the speaker). Invocation, therefore, is the possible and necessary place to begin for a search that will end, for purposes of this book, at 13.38.53, and that will end for A., in the fullness of divine requies. But invocation itself (as the next paragraph will develop) is problematical.

    Listening precedes speech elsewhere in conf.: 12.15.22, `quid igitur ex his quae clamavit cor meum ad deum meum, cum audiret interius vocem laudis eius, quid tandem falsum esse contenditis?' 11.8.10, `sic in evangelio per carnem ait, et hoc insonuit foris auribus hominum ut crederetur et intus quaereretur et inveniretur in aeterna veritate, ubi omnes discipulos bonos et solus magister docet.' So also, grace precedes invocation: 1.10.16, `libera etiam eos qui nondum te invocant, ut invocent te et liberes eos.' Cf. s. 17.4.4, `qui vult audiri a deo, carissimi, prius audiat deum.'

    inveniunt: inveniunt G O1 S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   invenient C D O2 Maur.

    per humanitatem filii tui: The incarnation of the Word is the fundamental act of revelation.

    per ministerium praedicatoris tui: Who is the praedicator? Ambrose? (So Pusey ad loc. in his translation.) Christ? (So Courcelle, Recherches 43n5.) Paul? (div. qu. Simp. 1.2.22, `repente ex evangelii mirabili persecutore mirabilior praedicator effectus est,' with the same transformation of Paul from persecutor to praedicator at least 10x elsewhere in A., and cf. 10.23.34, where Paul is `homo tuus verum praedicans'; suggested to me by Prof. Paula Fredriksen.) Perhaps the generic should be allowed to stand unspecified.

    text of 1.2.2

    1.2.2

    Invocation is postponed by consideration of the problems it raises. Every half-assertion to be inferred from a rhetorical question seems cancelled by later questions. This paragraph and the next pursue the inquiry preliminary to the attempt at invocation itself beginning in 1.4.4. The organization of the pattern is similar to a series of concentric circles: homo within caelum et terra within quidquid est. The paradox is that of calling down into a man a God who is already there. This concern with the `place' of God, is tied up with A.'s pre-conversion notion of God permeating all matter (see on 7.1.2 and cf. 7.5.7, `spongiam quamlibet magnam'). See also 13.1.1 for renewed invocation (and confirmation that the speaker's invocation is preceded by divine speech). Of many parallel passages (see others below), n.b. en. Ps. 74.2, `noli antequam confitearis invocare; confitere, et invoca' (reading Ps. 74.2, `confitebimur tibi, deus, confitebimur tibi, et invocabimus nomen tuum').

    A. acts up to his training as grammarian when he chooses to explore difficulty through etymology; cf. Marrou 127-128, but even he underestimates the practicality of the device for A. as a way of opening discussion of a difficult subject. For an exact parallel, cf. en. Ps. 30. en. 2 s. 3.4, `invocas deum, quando in te vocas deum. hoc est enim illum invocare, illum in te vocare, quodam modo eum in domum cordis tui invitare.' Sim. at en. Ps. 30. en. 2 s. 3.4, 52.8, 85.8, s. 47.7.8. Two passages offer further nuances: en. Ps. 79.14, `“et nomen tuum invocabimus” (Ps. 74.19); id est, te diligemus'; en. Ps. 144.22, `ergo qui deum ipsum, a quo accepit de quibus gaudet, praeponit his omnibus rebus quas accepit, ipse invocat deum in veritate. . . . tunc eris rectus, cum in omnibus bonis quae facit, deus tibi placet; in omnibus malis quae pateris, deus tibi non displicet. hoc est invocare deum in veritate.'

    vocabo vocabo C D O Maur. Ver.:   invocabo G S Eug. Knöll Skut.

    qui fecit caelum et terram: Gn. 1.1, `in principio fecit deus caelum et terram.' (The fecit is characteristic of the version in which Augustine quotes Genesis: for text, see on 13.1.1.) Because Bks. 11-13 comment at length on the first chapter of Genesis, this verse offers the most frequently repeated verbal pattern in conf.

    caelum et terram: See on 12.2.2ff for full discussion (and cf. also Gn. litt. 1). The phrase may mean either the visible heaven and earth as representative of all of visible creation, or it may be taken to represent both invisible and visible creation--on that reading, terra represents all that is material and visible, while caelum becomes the caelum caeli (12.2.2). A.'s interpretation ensures that the phrase remains all-embracing, even for readers who do not share the cosmology of the author of Genesis.

    inferi: inferi C D G O1 S Knöll Skut.:   inferis sum O2:   in infernis Maur:   in <profundis> inferi Ver
    (cf. 3.6.11, `in profunda inferi') Interpretation is controversial:

    nam etsi descendero: Ps. 138.8, `si ascendero in caelum, tu ibi es; si descendero in infernum, ades'; en. Ps. 138.11, `etiam illic ades, ut vindices. quo ergo iturus sum, ut a facie tua fugiam, id est, iratum te non sentiam?' This descent is not ethically neutral, but implies sin, flight, and avoidance. On that, cf. Cassian conl. 1.14.2 quoting Ps. 113.17-18 and adding a parenthetical gloss: `“non mortui laudabunt te, domine: neque omnes qui descendunt in infernum” (sine dubio: peccati).'

    As in 1.1.1, the method is to proceed by questioning (quaerere); adducing scriptural authority, this is the first declarative sentence in the paragraph. The second declarative sentence that follows makes explicit the conclusion authorized by scripture. He then (`an potius . . . omnia') revises the conclusion just reached through further inquiry culminating in renewed citation of scriptural authority. The revision is affirmed in the elliptical sentence to follow (`etiam sic . . .').

    ex quo omnia: Not an echo only of Rom. 11.36, `quoniam ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. amen.' du Roy 479-485 shows that this is a liturgical doxology based on the Romans verse but fused with 1 Cor. 8.6 (`ex quo omnia . . . per quem omnia'). Both the `doxology' and a more accurate `citation' of the Romans verse occur at all periods of A.'s career, but the `doxology' form appears as early as quant. an. 34.77 and mor. 1.14.24, hence (on du Roy's argument) attests a liturgical influence at an early period that scholars have tended to see as intellectualist and Platonic rather than churchly. (Only here so fully in conf.; echoes with a light touch at 1.6.10, 4.12.18, 4.15.24, 7.20.26, 12.7.7, 12.19.28 [some so indirect as to be unable to tell whether they reflect the `doxology' or the `citation'; where it is possible to judge, these echoes favor the `doxology', but they are not on du Roy's list]).

    qui dixit: Jer. 23.24, `numquid non caelum et terram ego impleo? dicit dominus.' This passage is regularly used as an affirmative statement, not even a rhetorical question, by Augustine: cons. ev. 1.23.31, civ. 12.26, 22.29, trin. 2.5.7, `ubique enim erat qui ait “caelum et terram ego impleo.”'

    The collocation of Ps. 138.8 + Rom. 11.36 (both as `citation' and as `doxology') + Jer. 23.24 is frequent in A. as evidence for the ubiquity of God-as-trinity: Knauer 132. So trin. 2.5.7, en. Ps. 49.18, ep. 187.4.14, and (only Ps. + Jer.) Io. ev. tr. 36.8. (See also 4.9.14, Jer. with Ps. 138.7.) Ps. + Rom. at trin. 5.8.9, `nam et . . . dicitur . . . et “si ascendero in caelum tu ibi es,” quod ad locum [dicitur]. . . . itaque omnipotens pater, omnipotens filius, omnipotens spiritus sanctus, nec tamen tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens, “ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia; ipsi gloria.” quidquid ergo ad se ipsum dicitur deus et de singulis personis ter dicitur patre et filio et spiritu sancto, et simul de ipsa trinitate non pluraliter sed singulariter dicitur.'

    text of 1.3.3

    1.3.3

    Argument by rhetorical question: There are almost 700 question marks in the text of conf.: many are explicitly `rhetorical' (`put not to elicit information, but as a more striking substitute for a statement of contrary effect': Fowler, Modern English Usage), and most of the rest are like those in the last two sentences here, open-ended when asked, but swiftly resolved by A. This is a high frequency of interrogation, but ancient practice was more abundant in this regard than modern: in 31 OCT pages of Cic. har. resp., e.g., there are 38 question marks (about half the conf. rate), while in a comparable piece of modern expository prose, there are only 15 (less than a quarter the conf. rate). Where it is difficult to speak of God (cf. the end of 1.4.4), the rhetorical question has the effect of sharing the burden of direct assertion with the audience; and where quaerere is a theme, the audience can share that as well.

    ergone: Enclitic interrogative -ne occurs 33 times in conf., 17 in the form of nonne (then always in first position in phrase or clause); in every case save this one, the word to which -ne is attached stands first in the caesum or membrum (twice the word is ergone: 4.14.22, 10.37.61).

    refundis: refundis O C D Maur Skut Ver:   refundes G S Knöll
    Present time is required by `restat', `imples', and the context.

    quoquam: quoquam C D O1 S1 edd.:   a quoquam G O2 S2

    effunderis: Act. 2.17, 18, `effundam de spiritu meo': Peter's first speech, quoting Joel 2.28-29 (Vg.), `effundam spiritum meum super omnem carnem; . . . (29) in diebus illis effundam spiritum meum' (following Vg. Joel); in the divine voice also elsewhere in OT, e.g., Is. 44.3, `effundam spiritum meum'.

    erigis: Ps. 145.8, `dominus erigit elisos'; en. Ps. 145.17, `quare elisi sunt? quia erecti erant. quare eriguntur? quia humilati sunt. cecidit atque elisus est Adam: ille cecidit, Christus descendit. quare descendit qui non cecidit, nisi ut levaretur qui cecidit?' Cf. 9.10.24 (Ostia), `erigentes nos ardentiore affectu in idipsum'.

    conligis nos: Is. 11.12, `et levabit signum in nationes et congregabit profugos Israhel et dispersos Israhel conliget.' (The context is messianic: cf. 11.1ff, `radix Iesse'.) Ps. 146.2, `aedificans Hierusalem dominus, et dispersiones Israhel conligens'; en. Ps. 146.4, `induit enim se ille mortalitatem carnis, et ibi erat sanguis quo fuso redimeremur. illo sanguine conlegit dispersiones Israel.' s. 96.6.6, `a multis curre ad unum, dispersa conlige in unum.' The notion recurs in conf.: cf. 1.4.4, 2.1.1, `conligens me a dispersione' (sim. at 10.11.18, 12.16.23), 10.29.40, `per continentiam quippe conligimur et redigimur in unum, a quo in multa defluximus,' 10.40.65. The scriptural language has a neo-Platonic correlate (e.g., Plotinus 4.8.4.14-15, [yu/xh] me/ros genome/nh monou=tai/ te kai\ a)sqenei= kai\ polupragmonei= kai\ pro\s me/ros ble/pei; Plotinus 6.9.1.1-14, pa/nta ta\ o)/nta tw=| e(ni/ e)stin o)/nta ... kai\ dh\ kai\ ta\ twn futw=n kai\ zw|/wn sw/mata e(\n o)/nta e(/kasta ei) feu/goi to\ e(\n e)is plh=qos qrupto/mena, th\n ou)si/an au(tw\n, h(\n ei)=xen, a)pw/lesen ou)ke/ti o)/nta a(\ n)=n), but neither scripture nor Plotinus is ever a wholly sufficient explanation for such expressions.

    (1) Though it may seem self-evident that A. found such notions in his neo-Platonic sources, then sought out the scriptural warrants that would support them, the process is likely to have been more complicated. What he found in the neo-Platonists that appealed to him had some correspondence to what he knew and thought before ever he read the platonicorum libri, for he did not come to those texts in any specially naive or untaught way. What he selected of the neo-Platonists to retain by the time of writing conf. was further influenced by what of their doctrine he thought compatible with (better: thought to be a reflection of) Christian doctrine. Moderns find his mature doctrine (that Christian teaching is the antecedent and lucid whole, neo-Platonism the derivative and imperfect reflection) to be the reverse of what we expect, and we now portray an A. who manufactured Christian doctrines from neo-Platonic cloth: the argument may perhaps be sustained, but we should never forget that to A. it seemed otherwise.

    (2) Here, moreover, a doctrine of dispersion of divine being into material fragments, and the hope of restoration of wholeness, was central to the Manichees: ep. 236.2, `animas non solum hominum sed etiam pecorum de dei esse substantia et omnino partes dei esse arbitrantur. deum denique bonum et verum dicunt cum tenebrarum gente pugnasse et partem suam tenebrarum principibus miscuisse eamque toto mundo inquinatam et ligatam per cibos electorum suorum et per solem ac lunam purgari asseverant et, quod purgari de ipsa dei parte non potuerit, in fine saeculi aeterno ac poenali vinculo conligari'. The coincidence points to a late antique habit of thought that perceived the world-as-experienced as a place of shards and fragments, and supplemented that perception with a yearning for wholeness. A. knew Manichean, Platonic, and Christian forms of that perception and that yearning and chose to use Christian ones here, without having to abjure echoes of other forms.

    ubique totus: Again at 3.7.12, 6.3.4 (`ubique totus es'), 12.2.2. For the phrase in A., see du Roy 469-470, at 470: `Chez Augustin en tout cas, ce thème est certainement d' origine plotinienne et provient sans doute de Enn. 6.4-5. . . . Ce thème n'apparaît donc qu'en 388, au moment du séjour d'Augustin à Rome.' For a more ambitious attempt to find roots in Plotinian thought, see R. J. O'Connell, REAug 9(1963), 1-39. Note also Mart. Cap. 7.731 predicating `ubique totum' of the Monad (see on 4.15.24), and Macrob. somn. Scip. 1.17.11 applying `ubique tota, ubique perfecta' to the `world soul' in a paragraph expressly citing Plotinus (prob. Plot. 2.2.1.39-40, e)/ti pantaxou= ou)=sa h( yuxh\ o(/lh; the same idea, less verbally apposite, at Porph. sent. 2, a)sw/mata ... pantaxh= e)stin ... a)merws).

    Of the numerous parallels in fourth-century Christian writers cited by du Roy, the most important is Amb., de fide 1.16.106 (in form not unlike conf. 1.4.4), `complens omnia, nusquam ipse confusus, penetrans omnia, nusquam ipse penetrandus, ubique totus eodemque tempore vel in caelo, vel in terris, vel in novissimo maris praesens.' Since A. attributes his doctrine of divine being (and the confutation of the notion that Christianity required anthropomorphism) to Ambrose, the bishop's formulation may have had a more proximate influence than the philosopher's. (Other Christian texts cited by du Roy include: the Latin Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Arnobius adv. nat. 6.4, `ubique esse totos', Hil. Pict. trin. 2.6, `totus ubicumque est' [and 3x in his Psalm comms.], Hier., in Eph. 1.2, `totus ubique'; the thought without the ipsissima verba is in Paulinus of Nola, ep. 24.1, `qui unus atque idem ubique terrarum'; ep. 30.2, `unus atque idem . . . ubique'.)

    Appearances in A. begin in 388 and continue throughout his career (this list substantially expands du Roy 469-470, but is probably not complete): mor. 1.11.19 (`postremo quis me locus ab eius caritate divellet, qui non ubique totus esset si ullo contineretur loco'); lib. arb. 2.14.38, c. ep. fund. 15.20 (`ubique integram, ubique praesentem'), 16.16, div. qu. Simp. 2.6, trin. 5.1.2, 13.19.24, and 14.15.22, Gn. litt. 11.33.43, Io. ev. tr. 1.8, 31.9, 34.6, 78.1, civ. 1.29, 7.30, 11.5, 11.10, 16.5, and 22.29 (quoting Jer. 23.24: see on 1.2.2 above), qu. hept. 2.151, 5.10, Dulc. qu. 8.1, haer. 86, epp. 92.3, 118.4.23 (`qui enim didicerit deum non distendi aut diffundi per locos neque finitos neque infinitos, quasi in aliqua parte maior sit in aliqua minor, sed totum ubique esse praesentem'), 120.3.14-17 (3x), 137.2.4-7 (2x), 137.3.12, 140.3.6, 147.12.29, 148.1.1-3 (4x), 155.4.13 (`qui ubique praesens est et ubique totus, non pedibus licet ire licet sed moribus': on `non pedibus', see on 1.18.28), 162.9, 166.2.4, 187.4.14, 187.5.17, 187.6.18, 187.8.29, 187.12.35, 187.13.38, and 187.13.41, ss. 12.12.12, 52.5.15, 53.8.7, 120.2-3 (3x: here it is the Verbum that is ubique totum), 264.4, 277.13.13 (2x), 277.19.18, 341.2.2, and 377.1, s. Mai 158.4, en. Ps. 18. en. 2.3, 67.7, 99.5.

    text of 1.4.4

    1.4.4

    Invocation at last: A. calling on his God to give power to his speech. Once again inquiry finds its answer in a scriptural text--again a rhetorical question.

    The paragraph is a tissue of paradoxes, with a submerged polemical purpose. The commonest antitheses are between the apparent mutability and this-worldly action of God and the immutability and otherwordliness that orthodoxy proclaims. One effect of asserting those pairs of opposites is to rule out Manichean criticism of the God of the Old Testament. For the criticism as A. saw it, cf. mor. 1.10.16, `desinite errare, non colimus paenitentem deum, non invidum, non indigum, non crudelem, non quaerentem de hominum vel pecorum sanguine voluptatem, non cui flagitia et scelera placeant, non possessionem suam terrae quadam particula terminantem. in has enim atque huiusmodi nugas graviter copioseque invehi soletis.'

    For the form of the paragraph, cf. Amb. de fide 1.16.106 (quoted above on 1.3.3, `ubique totus'). Detailed discussion of this paragraph by W. Simon, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 45(1982), 130-157; he collects many more biblical parallels for the expressions here, confining himself less strictly to specific verbal echoes.

    es: es C D G O Maur. Ver.:   est S Knöll Skut.
    For the comma after `ergo', see B. Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56(1981), 105.

    quis enim dominus: Ps. 17.32, `quoniam quis deus, praeter dominum? et quis deus praeter deum nostrum?' The MSS are unanimous in favor of `dominus' against the Ps.-text.

    summe, optime . . .: Cf. Wisd. 7.22, `sanctus, unicus, multiplex, subtilis, disertus, mobilis, incoinquinatus, certus, suavis, amans bonum, acutus'. See below on `innovans omnia'.

    summe: `furthest above', viewed from beneath, not from afar (contrast `altissimus' : Ps. 7.18 and often elsewhere in OT); 6.3.4, `altissime et proxime'.

    omnipotentissime: Language here is pressed beyond its own extremes; omnipotens strictly should have no comparative or superlative, but it is used, e.g. by A. at civ. 21.9, `per miraculum omnipotentissimi creatoris', and by Macrob., somn. Scip. 1.17.12, `deus ille omnipotentissimus'.

    misericordissime et iustissime: Paradox is another way beyond the limits of language. Here, as often, it has scriptural warrant: Ps. 114.5, `misericors dominus et iustus, et deus noster miseretur'; en. Ps. 114.5, `misericors primum, quia inclinavit aurem suam mihi; et nesciebam propinquasse aurem dei mei ori meo, nisi per illos speciosos pedes excitarer, ut invocarem; quis enim eum invocavit, nisi quem ipse prior vocavit? hinc ergo primum misericors. iustus autem, quia flagellat.' Cf. also c. adv. leg. 1.20.40 quoted below on `paenitet te'.

    Though the comparative and superlative of misericors are not unexampled elsewhere, A. is noticeably fond of the superlative particularly. TLL 8.1128 reports the comparative once each in Plautus and Cicero as well as ps.-Quintilian and 3x in civ.; the superlative is only attested from A. `saepe' (56x; in conf. at 6.5.7, 6.8.13, 9.2.4), ps.-Amb. s. 17.2, and Leo Magnus s. 2.2.

    secretissime et praesentissime: `Most hidden away and most at hand'. Not merely facts about place, but attributions of mystery and benevolence; cf. 6.3.4, `secretissime et praesentissime,' quant. an. 34.77, `quo nihil sit secretius, nihil praesentius,' and civ. 1.29, `deus meus ubique praesens, ubique totus [see on 1.3.3], nusquam inclusus, qui possit adesse secretus, abesse non motus.' Both the remoteness and the presence of God are evoked later, in approximately equal proportions. secretus: 1.18.29 (`quam tu secretus es'), 5.6.11, 9.7.16 (`in thesauro secreti tui'), 10.42.67, 10.43.68, 11.2.3, 11.31.41. praesens: 5.2.2, 5.8.14 (`et praesentissima in nos misericordia tua'), 5.9.16 (`tu autem ubique praesens'), 7.1.2, 9.8.18, 9.9.22, 12.11.12.

    pulcherrime: See on 10.27.38 (`pulchritudo').

    incomprehensibilis: Jn. 1.5, `et tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt'; Jer. 32.19, `magnus consilio, et incomprehensibilis cogitatu'; Rom. 11.33, `quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius!'

    G-M: `A's rhetorical ingenuity finds play in the series of antitheses which follow.' The matter is more serious than that. Here it is the elusiveness--the incomprehensibility--of God that reduces A. to the rhetoric of paradox (see en. Ps. 146.11, quoted on 1.1.1, `magna virtus tua').

    immutabilis: The immutability of God is a principle firmly held, and often stated, by A. at all periods--even, to hear him tell it, in his Manichean phase; cf. on 1.6.10, `non mutaris' , and on 7.1.1, `incommutabilem'. en. Ps. 43.5, `“tu es ipse rex meus et deus meus.” tu es ipse, non enim mutatus es. tempora mutata video, creator temporum non mutatur.'

    innovans omnia: Wisd. 7.27, `in se ipsa manens innovat omnia' (cf. trin. 2.8.14, `eadem quippe incommutabilitas eius commemorata est ut diceretur, “in se ipsa manens innovat omnia”'). Also at 7.11.17, 9.10.24, and often echoed and cited, e.g., lib. arb. 2.17.45, `conficitur itaque ut corpus et animus forma quadam incommutabili et semper manente formentur.'

    in vetustatem perducens: Job 9.5, `qui in vetustatem perducit montes et nesciunt'; adn. Iob on 9.5, `qui in vetustatem perducit montes et nesciunt: id est ad infirmitatem, ut est, “inveteravi in omnibus inimicis meis.”' (Ps. 6.8) Cf. Gal. 6.15, `nova creatura', et sim. For the substitution of superbos for montes, en. Ps. 143.12, `montes superbos' (see on 8.2.4).

    quietus: 13.38.53, `tu autem bonum nullo indigens [cf. `et non egens' here] bono semper quietus es, quoniam tua quies tu ipse es'; cf. 13.36.51.

    conligens: See on 1.3.3, `conligis nos'.

    non egens: Act. 17.25 (Paul on the Areopagus), `nec manibus colitur indigens aliquo, cum ipse det omnibus vitam, et inspirationem, et omnia.' Divine self-sufficiency is classical from Plato Tim. 29d on (cf. Plotinus 5.4.1.); cf. 13.4.5, `non ex indigentia' , and see on 13.8.9.

    implens: Cf. 1.3.3.

    zelas . . . paenitet . . . irasceris: c. adv. leg. 1.20.40, `non enim sicut hominem paenitet deum; sed sicut deum, quemadmodum non sicut homo irascitur nec sicut homo miseretur nec sicut homo zelat, sed omnia sicut deus. paenitentia dei non est post errorem; ira dei non habet perturbati animi ardorem; misericordia dei non habet compatientis miserum cor, unde in latina lingua nomen accepit; zelus dei non habet mentis livorem. . . . [see quotation below on `diximus'] . . . sic ergo quando eum paenitet, non mutatur et mutat; sicut quando irascitur, non movetur et vindicat; et quando miseretur, non dolet et liberat; et quando zelat, non cruciatur et cruciat.' The parallel between the present passage of conf. and the quotation (from 420) suggests that the emotions predicated of God, which do not seem to occur together in any scriptural passage, were grouped this way in controversy known to A. before he wrote conf., probably from Manichee days. Cf. the following scriptural occurrences (samples only):

    usuras exigis: Mt. 25.14-30, the parable of the talents; for the conventional expression, cf. Amb. off. 1.32.168, `si ipse non exigas avarus'.

    supererogatur: cf. Lk. 10.35, `quodcumque supererogaveris, ego cum rediero reddam tibi.'

    et quis habet: 1 Cor. 4.7, `quid autem habes quod non accepisti?' Cf. gr. et lib. arb. 6.15, `dona sua coronat deus, non merita tua; si tibi a te ipso, non ab illo sunt merita tua.'

    reddis: reddis C G O Maur. Skut. Ver.:   reddens S Knöll
    Cf. 9.13.36, `dimissa debita sua ab eo cui nemo reddet quod pro nobis non debens reddit'; Mt. 6.12, `dimitte nobis debita nostra'.

    donas: donas C D G O S1 Maur. Skut. Ver.:   donans S2 Knöll

    diximus: i.e., in this very paragraph. Invocation is inadequate. Io. ev. tr. 13.5, `omnia possunt dici de deo et nihil digne dicitur de deo'; c. adv. leg. 1.20.40 (ellipsis from passage quoted above: the `adversary of the Law' shared with the Manichees a disdain for the Old Testament), `unde iste qui tam loquaciter exagitavit dei paenitentiam, discat primo vix inveniri aliquid quod digne de deo dici possit, sed plurima et paene omnia nos de illo dicere loquendi necessitate, quae magis homines ex hominibus metiuntur. . . . propter quod providentissime scriptura divina de illo ineffabili loquens ad quaedam etiam verba descendit, quae iam hominibus et ipsis carnalibus, cum de deo sermo est, videntur absurda et indigna: ut, cum timentur ista sic accipi quomodo in hominibus solet et discutiuntur quemadmodum de deo bene accipi possint, ibi discatur etiam illa quae humanis sensibus in eisdem scripturis deo digna videbantur, non secundum hominum mores intellegi vel credi oportere.' Sim. at doctr. chr. 1.6.6 (`diximusne aliquid et sonuimus aliquid dignum deo?'), Gn. c. man. 1.8.14 (`nihil enim de deo digne dici potest'), s. 117.10.15 (`illud verbum, de quo tanta et tam multa diximus, et nihil dignum diximus'), s. 341.7.9 (`quid ergo de deo digne dicitur? . . . qui autem et ista transcenderit et de deo, quantum homini conceditur, digne cogitare coeperit, inveniet silentium ineffabili cordis voce laudandum.'). For concise summary of an important subject, R. Flores, Aug. Stud. 6(1975), 1-13; sim. in M. Colish, The Mirror of Language (rev. ed. Lincoln, Neb., 1983), 17-48.

    vita mea: Jn. 11.25, `ego sum resurrectio et vita'; Jn. 14.6, `ego sum via veritas et vita.' As vocative to God again at 1.13.20, 1.17.27, 3.6.10, 7.1.2, 9.13.35, 10.17.26, 12.25.34.

    dulcedo mea sancta: See on 1.6.9. `dulcedo mea'.

    tacentibus: Cf. Ps. 31.3, `quoniam tacui, inveteraverunt ossa mea'; en. Ps. 31. en. 1.3 paraphrases: `quoniam non protuli ore confessionem ad salutem'; en. Ps. 31. en. 2.13, `tacuit confessionem, clamavit praesumptionem. “tacui” enim dixit, “non sum confessus.”'

    quoniam loquaces muti sunt: `For though they say much [about other things] they are mute [in all that matters]'; 10 BA: `Et malheur à ceux qui se taisent sur toi puisque, bavards, ils sont muets.'. The oxymoron (mutus offers the natural antonym for loquax at civ. 4.19, `Fortuna loquax et muta Felicitas') has puzzled. The preceding sentence (`et quid diximus . . . cum de te dicit') treats those who, like A., do speak of God; this sentence refers to those who say nothing at all of God--or better, who utter many words but succeed in saying nothing that genuinely speaks of the God who is. The phrase recurs at 7.2.3, `sat erat mihi . . . adversus . . . loquaces mutos [sc. manichaeos] . . . illud quod . . . proponi solebat'. Its use there does not suggest that the persons referred to in the present passage are well-intentioned. The Manichees are models of curiositas (see on 3.6.10); at 7.6.8, there is a parallel case of curiosi (astrologers) who rattle on, their language out of control, so much so that they even foretell the future correctly by pure chance sometimes, and cf. civ. 18.24, `philosophorum subtilis et acuta loquacitas'; en. Ps. 144.7, `eloquentes muti, laudantes creaturam, obliviscentes creatorem'. Cf. 5.7.12, where `loquaces . . . dicentes nihil,' also refers to the Manichees; cf. also 8.10.22, `vaniloqui et mentis seductores' --of Manichees (sim. association at civ. 5.26, `quid est loquacius vanitate?': vanitas linked with loquacitas at least 17x in A.'s works); they are the frequent, but not exclusive, targets of the same reproach often elsewhere (e.g., Gn. c. man. 1.16.26-17.27, 2.25.38 [`nulli enim loquacius']; of himself as a Manichee at persev. 2.55, `quam [fidem catholicam] miserrima et furiosissima loquacitate vastabam').

    An alternate interpretation is not uncommon: Pusey: `Yet woe to him that speaketh not, since mute are even the most eloquent.' J. M. Campbell and M. R. P. McGuire, The Confessions of Saint Augustine (New York, 1931, ad loc.: `even the most eloquent in his praise are as if mute'. Others equivocate (e.g., G-M: `since those who say most are no better than dumb'). W. Simon, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 45(1982), 156-157, turns the expression on its head by seeing in `loquaces muti sunt' allusion to Gospel passages where the mute are made to speak (Pellegrino/Carena suggest the same link), but he does not discuss the force of loquax in A.

    Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 26 and 26n95, wavers between two translations: `dal momento che anche chi è muto ne parla' (silence speaks volumes--this the version he mainly prefers: but if our silence praises God anyway, then why worry whether we speak or not?), and `dal momento che anche chi ne parla è muto' (speaking much says nothing). Neither reading takes into account the pejorative quality of loquaces. Pizzolato also cites several parallel passages, corroborating A.'s insistence on the ineffability of God, but not pertinent here: doctr. chr. 4.19.38, en. Ps. 32. en. 2 s. 1.8, en. Ps. 148.3, en. Ps. 134.11 (`ipsum voluisse laudasse est. non enim verba a te quaerit deus, sed cor'). To the same end, see also en. Ps. 102.8, `ergo si non possumus dicere, et prae gaudio non permittitur tacere, nec loquamur, nec taceamus. quid ergo faciamus, non loquentes et non tacentes?'

    If loquacitas is most at this period a fault charged to the Manichees, it becomes for A. the pre-eminent flaw of Julian's character: from the first paragraph of c. Iul. imp., the accusation occurs no fewer than 78 times in that work. Thus faults of speech were at all times ones that A. felt strongly about, and feared to fall into (n.b. also late in life, retr. pr. 2 quoting Prov. 10.19, `ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum' as a caution prior to reviewing his own abundant literary output).11

    text of 1.5.5

    1.5.5

    adquiescere: Cf. 1.1.1, `inquietum'; 13.38.53.

    inebries: en. Ps. 22.5, `inebrians . . . oblivionem praestans priorum vanarum delectationum'; see further on 5.13.23, `sobriam vini ebrietatem'.

    amplectar: See on 10.6.8.

    quid mihi es? . . . quid tibi sum ipse: sol. 1.1.7, `(A.) ecce oravi deum. (Ratio) quid ergo scire vis? (A.) haec ipsa omnia quae oravi. (Ratio) breviter ea conlige. (A.) deum et animam scire cupio. (Ratio) nihilne plus? (A.) nihil omnino.' sol. 2.1.1, `deus semper idem, noverim me, noverim te.'

    miserere ut loquar: cont. 1.1, `nam qui eam [continentiam] donat continentibus fidelibus suis, ipse dat sermonem de illa loquentibus ministris suis.' s. Caill. 2.5.1, `inde loquamur quod ipse donabit.' (See on 6.3.3 for other expressions of the way a bishop preaches not his own words but those given him by God for the occasion.) A.'s regular recourse to scriptural language is a sign of a deliberate attempt to accept--or to appropriate--the divine language for his own discourse.

    miserere . . . irascaris: en. Ps. 59.3, `merito “iratus es, et misertus es nostri.” non miserereris nisi irascereris. destruxisti nos in ira tua; sed ira tua in vetustatem nostram fuit, ut destrueretur vetustas. sed misertus es nostri propter novitatem'.

    per miserationes tuas: Here, it is not A. that confesses, but the merciful acts of God in A. speaking for him: Ps. 106.8, `confiteantur domino miserationes eius.' The verse occurs 4x in the Psalm as A. reads it (verses 8, 15, 21, 31); he makes this the pretext for an extended discussion of four kinds of temptation (liberation from which leads to this repeated prayer: Solignac, Lectio X-XIII 13, describes parallels to conf.): en. Ps. 106.8, `prima temptatio erroris et famis verbi [e.g., of one completely untouched by the word of God--A. when young]; secunda difficultatis vincendarum concupiscentiarum [e.g., A. in Bk. 8]; tertia taedii atque fastidii [cf. en. Ps. 106.6, `iam non te illicit adulterium, nec tamen delectat dei verbum' --an anticipation of monastic accidie]; quarta tempestatis et periculorum in gubernandis ecclesiis [cf. 10.36.59ffff]; et in his omnibus exclamationes, et liberationes, et miserationum dei confessiones.' Elsewhere, with variations, at 1.15.24, 5.10.20, 7.6.8.

    ecce: 115x in conf., evenly distributed; less common in his other works of sustained exposition (over a comparable amount of text in civ., 17x, in trin., 24x), but common in en. Ps. (85x in one sample of comparable length). A spoken punctuation mark, adding emphasis.

    aures cordis: Cf. 1.20.31, `interiore sensu' (lib. arb. 2.4.10, `arbitror etiam illud esse manifestum, sensum illum interiorem non ea tantum sentire quae accepit a quinque sensibus corporis, sed etiam ipsos ab eo sentiri'); see on 10.6.9-10 for the interior homo and interior sensus. The connection, giving reality to what began as metaphor, is already implied in `amplectar'.

    dic animae meae: Ps. 34.3, `dic animae meae, salus tua ego sum'; en. Ps. 34. s. 1.5, `cum dixeris animae meae, “salus tua ego sum,” iuste vivet [anima], ut neminem in adiutorium praeter te quaeram.' A. seeks divine help to speak; to signify his intention of accepting that help, he cites scripture; the scripture he cites contains the word of another man asking God to speak to him. The verse recurs significantly at 10.4.6, where it marks another transition from hearing to independent speech. On this verse in conf., see M. Pellegrino, Augustinianum 7(1967), 221-257.

    noli abscondere: Exod. 33.20 (on Sinai), `non poteris videre faciem meam: non enim videbit me homo et vivet.' en. Ps. 12.1, `avertere autem deus faciem dicitur, dum non dat animae notitiam sui, quae adhuc purum mentis oculum non habet'; en. Ps. 9.5, `“a facie” dei, id est a cognitione dei'. See on 1.18.28, `quaesivi vultum tuum' (Ps. 26.9). On facies, cf. on 1.18.28.

    moriar, ne moriar, ut eam videam: s. 231.3.3, `qui autem nondum mortuus est, nec resurrexit, male adhuc vivit: et si male vivit, non vivit: moriatur, ne moriatur. quid est, moriatur, ne moriatur? mutetur, ne damnetur. . . . “mortui enim estis, et vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in deo.” [Col. 3.3]' That passage is decisive against misreadings, e.g., G-M: `Lit. I would die to see it, lest I die (by not seeing it).' Pusey's note is closer to the truth (`i.e., Let me see the face of God, though I die, since if I see it not, but it be turned away, I must needs die, and that “the second death”'); the alternate punctuation of G. Wijdeveld, Vig. Chr. 10(1956), 229-231 (as already in an old note by J. le Clercq [1657-1736] reprinted at PL 47.204), is likewise excluded.

    text of 1.5.6

    1.5.6

    domus animae meae: en. Ps. 100.4, `domus enim nostra interior, cor nostrum est'; cf. Is. 49.20, `angustus est mihi locus, fac spatium mihi ut habitem'; Mt. 8.8, `non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum.' In a different sense, but not long before conf., cf. ep. 27.1 (to Paulinus of Nola), `quo modo ergo non doleam, quod nondum faciem tuam novi, hoc est domum animae tuae, quam sicut meam novi?'

    For metaphor introduced as epexegetic genitive, see Verheijen, Eloquentia Pedisequa, 135-136, and cf. 1.7.12, `oblivionis tenebrae'; 1.16.26, `vinum erroris'; also common in biblical Latin, e.g., Ps. 59.5, `vinum compunctionis', Job 3.5, `tenebrae mortis'.

    quo: Wijdeveld (REAug 5[1959], 33), proposed repunctuation: `angusta est domus animae meae. Quo venias ad eam, dilatetur abs te.' Against that punctuation is the arrangement of the following two sentences (`refice eam' parallels `dilatetur abs te', while `quae offendant oculos tuos' offers a parallel for the subordinate clause) and the construction itself: in conf. quo introduces a purpose clause without comparative (LHS 679-680) at least three times (6.13.23, 8.3.7, 9.12.32), but in those cases the quo-clause comes second in the sentence. It is not easy to find parallels for the construction and arrangement Wijdeveld proposes.

    ruinosa: Ezech. 36.10, `et habitabuntur civitates, et ruinosa instaurabuntur'; Ezech. 36.33, `et instauravero ruinosa.' At s. 86.1.1, `domus terrena ruinosa est: domus caelestis aeterna est,' offers a metaphor for the contrast between the mortal body and the resurrected body. The image in different context: s. 311.17.14, `sed mala, inquis, fiunt in mundo, aspera immunda, odiosa. foedus est, non ametur. ecce talis est, et sic amatur. ruinosa est domus, et piget migrare.'

    fateor: first occurrence of fateor; confiteor not until 1.6.9.

    ab occultis: Ps. 18.13-14, `delicta quis intellegit? ab occultis meis munda me, domine, et ab alienis parce servo tuo.' lib. arb. 3.10.29, `cum enim duae sint origines peccatorum, una spontanea cogitatione, alia persuasione alterius, quo pertinere arbitror quod propheta dicit, “ab occultis meis munda me, domine, et ab alienis parce servo tuo.”' Identical interpretation with noteworthy continuity of opinion at en. Ps. 18. en. 1.14 (392) and en. Ps. 18. en. 2.13 (411/12). See also on 2.9.17, `delicta quis intellegit?'

    propter quod: speech the earnest of faith: Ps. 115.10, `credidi propter quod locutus sum, ego autem humilatus sum nimis'; 2 Cor. 4.13, `habentes autem eundem spiritum fidei, sicut scriptum est, “credidi propter quod locutus sum,” et nos credimus, propter quod et loquimur'; en. Ps. 115.2, `hoc est, perfecte credidi. non enim perfecte credunt qui quod credunt loqui nolunt.' Cf. 11.22.28. The punctuation is from B. Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56(1981), 105, with evidence on position of vocatives.

    tu scis: Knauer 76-77 lists the nineteen occurrences of `tu scis', an expression with strong biblical and Psalmish overtones. The phrase emphasizes the personal tone, and is markedly `confessional'. God could tell this story better than A., if only he would.

    prolocutus sum: The rare verb means `reveal, expound, expose'; cf. 5.3.3, `proloquar in conspectu dei mei annum illum undetricensimum aetatis meae.' The word is a curio here. It is not infrequent in comedy, but it is entirely unattested in classical prose except in archaic quotations (e.g., Cic. orat. 43.147, quoting `pervulgatissimus ille versus, qui vetat “artem pudere proloqui quam factites.”' [Sandys ad loc.: `proloqui = profiteri, non dissimulare']; cf. Cic. Tusc. 3.26.63. for an instance from Ennius). Varro ling. lat. 6.56 (Müll.) defines: `prolocutum [dicimus], cum animo quod habuit, extulit loquendo'; so one would read a line of Ennius cited by Nonius 232.24 (Lindsay).

    But we should not assume that the word in A. reflects the conclusions of either ancient or modern lexicographers. Note a related word in a work nearly contemporaneous with conf.: Amm. Marc. 29.1.38, `imperator cognitorum consultationi respondens, sub uno proloquio cunctos iubet occidi'; see also 28.1.11, `[imperator] efferatus . . . uno proloquio . . . omnes . . . statuit tormentis affligi.' Better to take the verb as to `speak judgment against' --here, his own past sins, in 5.3.3, a dismal year of spiritual disarray. In support of that, note that Ps. 31.5 is clearly cited 5x in A. with proloquor for pronuntiabo: s. Caill. 2.11.5, s. Denis 9.4, ss. 323.3.4, 352.1.2, and s. Lambot 10 (reading in every case: `dixi, proloquar aduersum me delictum meum domino deo meo, et tu dimisisti impietatem cordis mei'); at en. Ps. 31. en. 1.5 and en. Ps. 31. en. 2.15-16, A. reads with the Ps. Rom. pronuntiabo--the closest reading in any of the versions reported by Weber, Psautier Romain is eloquar, in a sixth-century Paris MS and in the Psalt. Mediol.)

    The word itself occurs in A. 18x, sometimes neutrally, sometimes with an overtone of `accusation' filtered in from the Psalm reading. Neutral readings include dial. 4, cat. rud. 2.4, c. litt. Pet. 3.27.32, adult. coniug. 1.4.4, and s. 37.1.1. More interesting are those that seem to parallel the present use: adn. Iob on 19.7, `“ecce rideo opprobrio et non loquor”: utilitatem dicit confessionis, quia, si uellet ridere peccatum suum et non illud proloqui, clamaret et non exaudiretur'; also c. Cresc. 4.36.43, c. Iul. imp. 1.21. See also on 5.3.3.

    non iudicio contendo tecum: Jer. 2.29, `utquid vultis mecum iudicio contendere?' en. Ps. 42.7, `noli ergo iudicio contendere; da operam esse iustus; et quantumcumque fueris, confitere te peccatorem.' Cf. Job 9.3 (VL), `si enim velit iudicio contendere cum eo, non respondebit ei unum de mille.'

    qui veritas es: Jn. 14.6, `ego sum via, et veritas, et vita.' The nouns of that sentence, esp. via and veritas, are extremely common in conf.. Are we to assume that at each occurrence, A. means us to think of via or veritas as another name of the second person of the trinity? Had he so imbibed the teaching of scripture that there is no question of what he `means us to think' but simply of what he himself habitually thought? On the available evidence, it is hard to rule out the Christological overtones of those words; see on via at 7.7.11; on veritas at 10.23.33. But questions of author's intention are difficult (as A. himself says at length: 12.23.32) and lead to no verifiable conclusions. Better not to prescribe to these words what they must mean, but to allow them at every turn to mean what, on the purely textual evidence of A.'s writings and without speculation as to his intentions, they certainly may have meant. If in this way we arrive at a reading of conf. that is more expressly Christ-centered than some would think A. intended, but a reading demonstrably in the spirit of his texts, something of value has been gained.

    The line of interpretation suggested here is one A. himself practiced, e.g., en. Ps. 39.18, `“veritatem tuam et salutare tuum dixi.” [Ps. 39.11] Christum tuum dixi, hoc est, “veritatem tuam et salutare tuum dixi.” unde veritas Christus? “ego sum veritas.” unde salutare ipsius Christus? Simeon agnovit infantem in manibus matris in templo, et dixit: “quoniam viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum.”'

    et ego nolo: The same sentiment generalized at 10.23.33 (`multos expertus sum . . .'); cf. Jas. 1.22, `estote autem factores verbi, et non auditores tantum, fallentes vosmetipsos.'

    ne mentiatur: Ps. 26.12, `et mentita est iniquitas sibi.'

    si iniquitates: Ps. 129.3, `si iniquitates observaveris, domine, domine, quis sustinebit? ne intres in iudicium cum servo tuo, quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens'; en. Ps. 129.2, `ecce aperuit de quo profundo clamaret. . . . vidit enim prope totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suis, accusari omnes conscientias cogitationibus suis, non inveniri cor castum praesumens de sua iustitia.'

    The sequence of verses here is typical of A.'s habits of scriptural association: in some cases, the connection is substantive (from `veritas' to `fallere' to `mentiatur'), in others verbal (from `iniquitas' to `iniquitates'). But notice also that Ps. 129.3 occurs elsewhere in connection (suggested by the second half of the verse) with Jer. 2.29 (cited again here in the words immediately preceding), as at en. Ps. 42.7 (`“si iniquitates observaveris domine, . . . omnis vivens.” . . . nam ex alio propheta arrogantes et superbos identidem sic obiurgat, “utquid vultis mecum iudicio contendere?”') and at en. Ps. 128.9 (`sed iactas te de meritis tuis, “et vis mecum”, inquit deus, “iudicio contendere, intrare mecum ad iudicum”; cum debeas in reatu tuo satisfacere deo, et clamare ad illum, quod clamatur in alio psalmo, “si iniquitates observaveris, domine, domine, quis sustinebit?”').

    text of 1.6.7

    1.6.7

    The most sensitive and successful attempt to read A.'s treatment of infancy in light of modern psychological interpretation is M. Miles, Jour. Amer. acad. Rel. 50(1982), 349-364. See also B. Shaw, Past and Present 115 (May, 1987), 3-51.

    The emphasis in conf. is on the inclination to irrational conduct already in infants; later A. chose to emphasize their suffering as a sign of the burden of original sin. Non-polemically, at trin. 14.5.7 he inquires whether the mind of an infant can be said to know itself--unlikely for they are so eager to gobble up the sensible world that if you leave them with a night-light where they can see it, they will develop a squint from staring at it all night long. Polemically, a raft of texts from the anti-Pelagian period and especially against Julian can be instanced, e.g., c. Iul. imp. 2.22, `catholica illa est, quae ostendit iustum deum in tot ac tantis poenis et cruciatibus parvulorum' . See also c. Iul. 4.16.83, c. Iul. imp. 3.48, 3.154 (reminiscent of conf.: `natosque ipsos omnes flentes, sero ridentes, serius loquentes et hoc balbutientes, in scholas postea duci ut litteras discant, sub loris ferulis virgisque plorantes, pro varietatibus ingeniorum distributa varietate poenarum'), and 3.187. At c. Iul. 4.60, A. is careful to show that his melancholy view finds precedent in Cicero's de republica; on the classical view and its Christian permutations, see A. Goulon, REAug 18(1972), 3-26.

    sine me loqui apud misericordiam tuam: cf. 1.5.5, `miserere ut loquar.' For divine control of recalcitrant speech, cf. Mk. 1.34, `non sinebat [Jesus] ea [daemonia] loqui, quoniam sciebant eum' (in the parallel at Lk. 4.41: `quia sciebant eum esse Christum').

    me terram et cinerem: Gn. 18.27, `loquar ad dominum meum, cum sim terra et cinis.' Job 42.6 (VL), `ideo despexi memetipsum et distabui et aestimavi me terram et cinerem' (Job's last spoken words: at civ. 22.29, A. wonders whether Job was at this moment seeing God as he really is); en. Ps. 147.24, `dixit enim quaedam scriptura, “despexi meipsum et distabui, et aestimavi me terram et cinerem.” haec est humilitas paenitentis. quando Abraham loquitur ad deum suum et quando vult sibi aperiri incendium Sodomorum: “ego”, inquit, “terra et cinis sum.”' Also Sirach 10.9, `quid superbit terra et cinis?' , Sirach 17.31, and Ps. 14.102, `memento, quia pulvis sumus.' Also at 7.8.12 and 10.5.7.

    inrisor: At 10.36.59ff, A. acknowledges lingering vulnerability to the temptations of vanity; he presents himself indeed, like `Jean-Baptiste Clamence' in Camus's La Chute, as a man who could hear the laughter behind him even when it was not there. Some confirmation may be found in the frequency and context in conf. of real and imagined mockery directed at A., particularly as a spur to confessio (as at 4.1.1): First, A.'s own sensitivity to mockery (even that from God) in the narrative books: 1.6.9 (`an inrides me ista quaerentem teque de hoc, quod novi, laudari a me iubes et confiteri me tibi?'), 1.7.11, 1.9.15, 3.3.6, 3.10.18, 4.1.1, 4.3.6, 5.10.20, 5.14.24, 6.5.7, 6.6.9, 6.14.24, 8.11.27, 9.12.33, 10.12.19, 10.12.19. Second, his own mockeries past: 3.10.18 (`inridebam illos sanctos servos et prophetas tuos. et quid agebam, cum inridebam eos, nisi ut inriderer abs te?'), 4.4.8, 6.7.12, 7.6.10. Finally, a revealing passage in which `mockers' are a ready example of evil undertaken for the gratuitous pleasure of doing evil: 3.8.16, `libido est nocendi . . . sola voluptate alieni mali, sicut spectatores gladiatorum aut inrisores aut inlusores quorumlibet.'

    conversus misereberis mei: Ps. 70.20, `et conversus vivificasti me. . . . et conversus consolatus es me.' Jer. 12.15, `et cum evulsero, convertar et miserebor eorum, et reducam eos.'

    vitam mortalem an mortem vitalem: `in this life that dies, this death that lives.' Cf. Lucr. 3.869, `mortalem vitam mors cum immortalis ademit'.

    nescio: At every stage of A.'s life, he refused to take a definite position on the origin of the soul, an ambivalence he later compared to the canniness of the sailor avoiding Scylla and Charybdis: nat. et or. an. 2.13.18. The fundamental doubt is expressed early: lib. arb. 3.21.59, `harum autem quatuor de anima sententiarum, (1) utrum de propagine veniant, (2) an in singulis quibusque nascentibus novae fiant, an in corpora nascentium iam alicubi existentes (3) vel mittantur divinitus, (4) vel sua sponte labantur, nullam temere adfirmare oportebit. aut enim nondum ista quaestio a divinorum librorum catholicis tractatoribus pro merito suae obscuritatis et perplexitatis evoluta atque inlustrata est, aut si iam factum est, nondum in manus nostras huiuscemodi litterae pervenerunt.' For his late insistence on his ignorance, retr. 1.1.3, `nam quod attinet ad eius originem, qua fit ut sit in corpore, utrum de illo uno sit qui primum creatus est, quando “factus est homo in animam vivam,” an similiter fiant singulis singuli, nec tunc sciebam nec adhuc scio.' For the best statement of what he was willing to affirm, dating from not too long after conf., see Gn. litt. 7.28.43; see generally Gn. litt. books 7 and 10 (with note at BA 49.537-539 on the significance of the problem for infant baptism) and the later (anti-Pelagian) nat. et or. an. For the most authoritative presentation and interpretation of the evidence (including the nuances that emerged in A.'s later works), see O'Daly 15-20 and 199-203. For the minority position of R. J. O'Connell, who holds that at Cassiciacum, and for some time after, A. inclined to the third or fourth of these views (which on that reading he owed mainly to Plotinus), see his St. Augustine's Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 148-152; the thesis is revised, expanded, and defended with vigor if not circumspection in his The Origin of the Soul in St. Augustine's Later Works (New York, 1987). O'Connell's position refuses to acknowledge A.'s willingness to leave such a significant question radically open and not feel a philosopher's qualm that his system is thus undermined. A. had no system, despite what we try to make of him, but found himself following the teachings of a God who did not always make everything perfectly clear. A. managed, with great difficulty, to make his peace with the uncertainties of that condition: not all his students since have been so successful.

    A.'s agnosticism gave him both advantage and disadvantage in polemical situations. To be noncommittal on an essential issue left him open to one kind of criticism, but to have asserted any form of transmission of souls from Adam would have given Pelagians more grounds for attacking A. as a crypto-Manichee (cf. c. Iul. imp. 2.178), and he was also eager himself to avoid taking a position the Manichees could attack (c. Fort. 11., `si quaeris utrum a deo descenderit anima, magna quidem quaestio est; sed sive a deo descendit sive non, illud de anima respondeo non esse deum').

    consolationes: Cf. 11.2.2, `hortamenta tua et omnes terrores tuos et consolationes et gubernationes'; en. Ps. 93.22, `multi dolores, sed multae consolationes: amara vulnera, sed suavia medicamenta.'

    ex quo et in qua: ex Patricio et in Monnica.

    formasti: At civ. 13.24, A. prefers to render Gn. 2.7, e)/plasen (of the creation of Adam and Eve), by formavit rather than finxit. See on 12.3.3 for species/forma and Bk. 12 generally for `formatio' in creation.

    non enim ego memini: `non . . . memini' again at 1.6.8, 1.6.10, 1.7.11, and 1.7.12--all dealing with infancy; see on 6.5.7 for the importance of such examples in persuading the adult A. that faith has a place in our scheme of knowledge. At util. cred. 12.26 he argues that fides has a place in human affairs because you have to believe your mother for who your father is, and nurses and midwives and servants for who your mother is; sim. at ep. 147.5. On the numerous inadequacies of memory in conf., see the express discussion of forgetfulness at 10.16.24 and Courcelle, Recherches 32-35.

    lactis humani: For the nursing practices, see A. Rousselle, Porneia 51-58.

    mater mea vel nutrices meae: For a less direct way of making a mother's nurture stand for divine generosity, cf. en. Ps. 30. en. 2 s. 1.9, `sicut enim mater lactans eandem escam, cui sumendae idoneus infans non est, per carnem traicit, et lac infundit . . ., sic dominus sapientiam suam ut lac nobis faceret, carne indutus venit ad nos.'

    A.'s mother plays, as many know who never read this work, a large part in his narrative and in his life. We must forego that knowledge to see the slow development of her character in the narrative. This first allusion to her is noteworthy for its ambivalence: in the mist of infant oblivion, not surely distinguished from the wet nurses she employed. (With younger siblings [at least one sister and one brother: cf. Mandouze, Pros. chr. s.v. Monnica], A. could recall clearly other nurses like those who had tended him.) For implicit criticism, cf. en. Ps. 49.27, `sunt enim matres quae cum pepererint, dant nutricibus; illae quae pepererunt, non fovent filios suos, quia nutriendos dederunt.'

    alimentum: L. C. Ferrari, Aug. Stud. 9(1978), 1-14, counts `no less than one hundred and fifty different words connected with the acts of eating and drinking' in conf.

    ordinatum affectum: On the trinitarian view of humanity, affectus represents the will in action, and as such the part of the human being that corresponds to the third person of the trinity (see on 13.11.12); ordo, in another of A.'s triads (modus/species/ordo: see on 1.7.12), represents the action of the same third person of the trinity. Ordinatus affectus, then, is carefully phrased to identify the place of the impulse to offer nourishment both in human affairs (whence it arises) and in divine affairs (whence it is governed)--the love of a mother that offers this nurture is human love in harmony with divine love.

    salus: Cf. 1.5.5 (= Ps. 34.3), `salus tua ego sum.'

    clamante: in OT common, always of humans (90%+: addressing God); only exception, Mic. 6.9, `vox domini ad civitatem clamat.' In Mt./Mk./Lk. of Jesus only on the cross; but frequent in John, as 7.28, `clamabat ergo Jesus in templo docens'; cf. Gal. 4.6, `misit deus spiritum filii sui in corda vestra clamantem, abba pater.' For the underlying idea, cf. Rom. 1.20 (see on 7.9.14): God gives all things (Gn. 33.11, `deus tribuens omnia') and speaks through them.

    intus et foris: 34x and 19x respectively in conf., signally at 10.27.38 (q.v.). It would be possible to ascribe the prominence of this disjunction in A. and his successors to a philosophical influence (comparanda can be found in neo-Platonism) or to a late antique psychic alienation; but both hypotheses are in the end unverifiable. There is no comprehensive treatment of the theme in A.; best is a collection of texts with some comments and a few parallels at Courcelle, Recherches ed. 2, 393-404; for conf., see W. Schmidt-Dengler, REAug 14(1968), 69-89; and there is much in P. Cambronne, Recherches sur la structure de l'imaginaire dans les Confessions de saint Augustin (microfiche thèse, Paris, 1982). See also `Foris-intus', Aug.-Lex. (forthcoming).

    tunc: The tension between past and present is marked by the adverbs tunc and nunc, for whose intricate interplay see J. Morán, Augustinianum 8(1968), 147-154.

    delectationibus: sc. carnis meae. The infant is almost an Epicurean: cf. Cic. fin. 1.16.54., for the appeal of such a view by a proponent as A. would have known it: `quodsi . . . voluptas autem est sola quae nos vocet ad se et alliciat suapte natura, non potest esse dubium quin id sit summum atque extremum bonorum omnium, beateque vivere nihil aliud sit nisi cum voluptate vivere.' For the licit role of delectatio, see on 1.1.1; in Bk. 1, delectare and delectatio are mainly negative and self-indulgent: 1.9.15, 1.15.24, 1.16.26, 1.19.30. Anticipation of better things returns near the end of the book at 1.18.28 (`sitientem delectationes tuas') and 1.20.31 (`veritate delectabar').

    text of 1.6.8

    1.6.8

    First consciousness is accompanied by the attempted expression of will, frustrated by the discovery of the distance separating inner from outer worlds. This first attempt to participate in human society (by asserting the autonomous authority of the self) ends in failure and tears. Cic. fin. 5.20.55., `omnes veteres philosophi, maxime nostri, ad incunabula accedunt, quod in pueritia facillime se arbitrantur naturae voluntatem posse cognoscere. videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint.' Cf. Cic. Tusc. 3.1.2-3.2.3, quoted on 1.1.1 above.

    ridere: Modern medicine ascribes the apparent smile of a sleeping newborn to flatulence; see on 1.7.11. sol. 2.20.34, `(Ratio) at si tibi quispiam dicat te post paucos dies risisse quam natus es, non audes dicere falsum esse et si auctor sit cui fides habenda est, non recordaturus, sed crediturus es; totum enim tempus illud validissima tibi oblivione sepultum est.' Sim. at civ. 21.14, buttressed by an anecdote about Zoroaster in the cradle also known from Pliny the elder (cf. BA 37.803-804).

    indicatum est: a favored verb (28x) in conf.

    nec . . . valebant introire: The dilemma recurs at 10.2.2-3.3, fortified there by an echo of 1 Cor. 2.11, `nemo scit hominum quid agatur in homine, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est.'

    iactabam membra et voces: See on 8.12.28, `iactabam voces'.

    signa: doctr. chr. 1.2.2, `omnis doctrina vel rerum est vel signorum, sed res per signa discuntur.' All knowing is interpretation of signs, a risky business: doctr. chr. 3.5.9, `ea demum est miserabilis animi servitus, signa pro rebus accipere; et supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum aeternum lumen levare non posse' (so cf. Rom. 1.20: see on 7.9.14). In conf., cf. esp. 1.8.13, 13.23.34-13.25.38. The classic study is R.A. Markus, Phronesis 2(1957), 60-83, with further discussion, particularly of Stoic antecedents, by B. D. Jackson, REAug 15(1969), 9-49 (both repr. in Markus, Augustine [Garden City, NY, 1972]). Cf. U. Duchrow, Sprachverständnis und biblisches Hören bei Augustin (Tübingen, 1965), with a thoroughgoing attempt to show that an inherently suspicious attitude towards language and its powers underlies even A.'s most logocentric doctrines; and Mayer, Zeichen (two volumes published, three more projected). Despite the contemporary critical interest, there is no satisfactory study to integrate the Augustinian data with contemporary theory and discussion. The present passage has had an influence arising from its appearance on the first page of Wittgenstein's Philosophische Untersuchungen, on which see F. Kerr, Theology after Wittgenstein (Oxford, 1986), 38-42, with M. Burnyeat, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 1987, 1-24.

    vere similia: vere similia ODonnell  scripsi:   veresimilia C D G O1 S Skut. Ver.:   verisimilia O2 Maur. Knöll Pell.
    The question here is not the relation of the signa to the truth (verisimilitude was a central concern of the Academics, to whom A. turned later: see on 5.10.19), but their resemblance to (and hence effectiveness at communicating) Augustine's velleities. He claims that his first discovery in the realm of human communication was the arbitrariness of signs and the inability of signs in and of themselves to communicate voluntates (without some prior convention of agreement). For similar wordplay, cf. c. acad. 3.10.23, `istam sententiam Carneades falsae esse similem doceat.'

    non subditis maioribus et liberis non servientibus: The oxymorons underscore the misdirection of the infant's first expressions of voluntas.

    text of 1.6.9

    1.6.9

    The juxtaposition of present and past time is a leit-motif, recapitulated in full in Bk. 10. The evocation of the divine present (from `tu autem domine') gives those juxtapositions a context. There is, nevertheless, a perceptible difference in texture between what we may call the narrative juxtaposition (see, e.g., on 1.6.7, `non enim ego memini'), where the tension is between the two versions of the past, as lived and as recalled, and this more substantive contrast, between the past as lived and the present state of the author. One effect of the frequent recourse to this substantive contrast is to keep the reader's awareness rooted in the author's present, not in the narrative past. Some narratives are framed by a narrator's present, where an author sets a scene, presents one or more characters, and creates a mood within which to place the narrative placed in the mouth of one of his own characters (even, or especially, when that narrator is identified with the author). The effect of that device may be to make the narrative itself seem yet more authentic: one thinks of such disparate works as the Sherlock Holmes stories, Moby-Dick, and Heart of Darkness. This book, however, is different, and the analogues in our literature fewer--Dante's Vita Nuova comes to mind.

    ante omne: Cf. 11.12.14, answering those who ask `quid faciebat deus, antequam faceret caelum et terram?'

    instabilium . . . : Cf. 1.4.4, `stabilis . . . immutabilis . . . numquam novus, numquam vetus'; n.b. below, `misericors misero'. A.'s zeal for distinguishing and defining leads him to risk that God will seem to be no more than the antithesis of creation (or creation only the antithesis of God); these juxtapositions, however, depend on the verbal sense of paradox they evoke to suggest the relationship between God and creature--it is in that relationship (and only in that relationship, A. hints) that both are known.

    inrationalium: inrationalium O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   inrationabilium C D G Maur.
    13.32.47 (`inrationabilibus') and 13.34.49 (`rationabilem') both imply creatures (or the actions of creatures) possessing the faculty of reason (the same is true of the three occurrences in en. Ps.: 42.7, 77.3, 82.3); rationalis, by contrast, means more nearly `formed according to ratio,' which suits the context here. (The line between the words is, however, not hard and clear in A.'s use over time.) The words, indeed the notion of ratio itself (see on 1.7.11), are notoriously un-Ciceronian: reason and reasonableness arise from other philosophical traditions, however indirectly.

    sempiternae . . . rationes: on the `rationes causales', see the lucid and extensive note at BA 48.653-668, with bibliography. The connections to Plotinian thought are controversial, and investigation has been derailed repeatedly by attempts to juxtapose A.'s teaching to that of evolutionary biology. In A., the idea (as a tertium quid) reconciles the immutability and eternity of the creating God with the mutable, temporal (that is to say, sequential) multifariousness of creation. This need is raised most forcefully by the particular form of the Genesis narratives of creation, featuring both simultaneous creation of all things and sequential creation through six days. Cf. Gn. litt. 4.33.51, `quapropter quam facilis ei efficacissimus motus est, tam facile deus condidit omnia, quoniam per illam sunt condita, ut hoc, quod nunc videmus temporalibus intervallis ea moveri ad peragenda quae suo cuique generi competunt, ex illis rationibus insitis veniat quas tamquam seminaliter sparsit deus in ictu condendi, cum “dixit, et facta sunt; mandavit et creata sunt.” [Ps. 32.9]'

    vidi: The first person perfect is strong and vivid, used 4x in conf. of eyewitness testimony (1.7.11 [2x], 6.3.3); see on 7.10.16 for its adaptation to mystical experience.

    dulcedo: Not used to address God in Vg., but cf. Ps. 30.20, 67.11 (`in dulcedine tua'); used both in address (1.4.4, 1.20.31, `dulcedo mea et honor meus et fiducia mea' --see notes there, 2.1.1, `dulcedo non fallax, dulcedo felix et secura') and of abstract nouns and metaphors closely associated with God (8.1.2, 9.6.14, 10.3.4 [sim. at 13.23.33], 10.40.65, `introrsus ad nescio quam dulcedinem' , 12.9.9, 13.30.45); identified with divine iustitia at civ. 21.24; much earlier, cf. ep. 11.4 (388/91, to Nebridius: suavitas associated with the third person of the trinity). Such metaphor is slippery when applied to God: it seems that we know of sweetness in ordinary life, and predicate a greater, more perfect sweetness of our conception of God. A. would hold that this procedure is a necessary consequence of the fall of language, but that insofar as the expression is true and useful it is rather that the sweetness that we know in ordinary life is a pale reflection of the authentic and original sweetness of God. See J. Ziegler, Dulcedo dei (= Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 13.2, Münster 1937); on A., pp. 88-98 (with abundant references).

    inrides: See on 1.6.7. Cf. Ps. 36.13, `dominus autem inridebit eum'; en. Ps. 36. s. 2.2, `“dominus autem inridebit eum.” quem? utique peccatorem stridentem super iustum dentibus suis.'

    confiteri: First in conf. here, where A. faces the possibility that he may have strayed from his purpose.

    text of 1.6.10

    1.6.10

    This `confessional' paragraph is interposed between the more or less objective description of infancy and the (more famous) moral assessment of 1.7.11. The meditation on time anticipates Bk. 11 (Knauer 108n2).

    muliercularum: The diminutive is pejorative; elsewhere in conf. only at 6.14.24, derisively of the wives and wives-to-be whose objections derailed the plan for a community in philosophical retirement; elsewhere in A., rare and always pejorative; e.g., en. Ps. 103. s. 4.7.

    eram . . . vivebam . . . et signa . . . quaerebam: Cf. 1.20.31, `eram . . . vivebam atque sentiebam' (n.b. `sensa' immediately here); as here A. assesses his infantia, so at 1.20.31, he judges his pueritia.

    sensa: not only `perceptions' but `ideas, opinions' as matter for speech: doctr. chr. 2.3.4, `signorum igitur quibus inter se homines sua sensa communicant'; sim. at nat. et or. an. 2.4.8. Cic. de or. 3.14.55, `sensa mentis et consilia verbis sic explicat'; cf. de or. 1.8.32, Quint. 8.5.1.. Cf. 1.8.13, 9.6.14 (`sensa omnia quae inseruntur ibi [in libro de magistro]').

    iam in fine infantiae: A. is mindful of the etymology of infantia, implying that speech properly belongs to the next stage of his life.

    artifex: Wisd. 7.21, `omnium . . . artifex docuit me sapientia', 14.2, `artifex sapientia fabricavit sua'; cf. Heb. 11.10, `cuius artifex et conditor deus.'

    summe esse: Mayer Zeichen 2.118n36: `Die adverbialen Bestimmungen des Seins als summe esse, vere esse, optime esse etc. entstammen dem Vulgärlatein der Jahrhunderte um die Zeitwende.' See on 1.4.4, `summe, optime' --the beginning of the list there; cf. mor. 2.1.1, `hoc enim maxime esse dicendum est, quod semper eodem modo sese habet, quod omnimodo sui simile est, quod nulla ex parte corrumpi ac mutari potest, quod non subiacet tempori, quod aliter nunc se habere quam habebat antea non potest. id enim est quod esse verissime dicitur'; lib. arb. 2.15.39, `est enim deus et vere summeque est'; c. ep. fund. 40.46 (quoted on 1.7.12).

    idipsum: Ps. 4.9, `in pace in idipsum obdormiam et somnum capiam'; tied, through Exod. 3.14, `ego sum qui sum' (see on 7.10.16) to A.'s doctrine of the being of God; see on 9.4.11 and 9.10.24.

    es: es C D O2 Maur.:   est G O1 S Knöll Skut. Ver.

    et non mutaris: See on 1.4.4 and 7.1.1.

    peragitur: See on 4.10.15.

    quia in te sunt: Rom. 11.35, `et in ipso sunt omnia' , hence `et ista' here.

    anni tui non deficiunt: Ps. 101.28, `tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient' (variously echoed also at 11.13.16, 12.11.13, 13.18.22); en. Ps. 101. s. 2.12-14, `illi anni tui non deficient, illi anni tui qui erunt in generatione generationum, non deficient. haec ergo sciens, exiguitatem dierum meorum quaererem a te, nisi scirem omnes dies saeculi ab initio usque in finem exiguos esse in comparatione aeternitatis tuae. . . . (14) speremus ergo etiam immutationem corporum nostrorum, sed tamen ab illo qui erat et ante nos, et manet post nos; a quo sumus quod sumus, ad quem veniemus cum fuerimus mutati; mutantem, non mutatum; facientem, non factum; et moventem, sed manentem; et quomodo intellegi a carne et sanguine potest: “ego sum qui sum” [Exod. 3.14]; “tu vero idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient.” sed nos ad illos annos cum his pannosis annis quid sumus? . . . ergo speremus venturos nos ad hos annos stantes, in quibus non circuitu solis peraguntur dies, sed manet quod est sicuti est, quia hoc solum vere est.'

    ex illo acceperunt modos: See on 1.7.12, `a quo est omnis modus'.

    tu autem idem ipse es: Ps. 101.28 again; cf. 7.21.27, `te, qui es semper idem', and passages cited above.

    omniaque: omniaque D2 O2 Maur. Knöll Skut. Ver.  (O2 ut vid.; O1 unclear):   omniaquae C D1 G S

    quid ad me: c. acad. 1.3.7, `placuit enim Ciceroni nostro [in Hortensio], beatum esse qui veritatem investigat, etiamsi ad eius inventionem non valeat pervenire'; c. acad. 1.2.6, `quoniam igitur alteri vestrum videtur beatam vitam sola investigatione veritatis, alteri non nisi inventione posse contingere . . .'; but the flavor here is distinctly Augustinian rather than Academic; cf. ord. 2.18.47, `ipsum parentem universitatis, cuius nulla scientia est in anima nisi scire quomodo eum nesciat'; sim. e.g. at lib. arb. 3.2.5, Io. ev. tr. 2.3. Cf. 11.31.41, `qui intellegit, confiteatur tibi, et qui non intellegit, confiteatur tibi.'

    quid est hoc: Exod. 13.14, 16.15, Sirach 39.26; see on 7.6.10.

    text of 1.7.11

    1.7.11

    exaudi, deus: Ps. 54.2, `exaudi, deus, deprecationem meam, et ne despexeris precem meam: intende mihi, et exaudi me'; en. Ps. 54.4, `satagentis, solliciti, in tribulatione positi, verba sunt ista. orat multa patiens, de malo liberari desiderans.' Cf. Ps. 60.2, Ps. 63.2. In conf. 17x where God is the subject (approx. 183x in Vg. OT, 7x in NT, almost always with God as subject); in CL, only poetic in this sense and not common. Knauer 71n.4: `wohl antwortend auf 1.6.10 “confiteor . . . terrae.”' See on 1.15.24.

    vae peccatis hominum!: Is. 1.4, `vae genti peccatrici, populo gravi iniquitate, semini nequam, filiis sceleratis'; Mt. 23.13, `vae vobis scribae et pharisaei, hypocritae.' en. Ps. 130.2, `“vae eis qui trahunt peccata velut restem longam.” [Is. 5.18] illi autem trahunt peccata sicut restem longam, qui addunt peccata peccatis'; sim. at en. Ps. 139.9. Though in Latin, vae may be a general imprecation without a specific forboding implication (as Gk. ou)ai/ [in Mt. 23.13, just cited]), for A. the word seems always to have the force of `alas for [usu. dative object], because evil [perhaps specified] will befall you.' The effect is thus more compassionate than angry. Hence in conf., 1.4.4, 1.16.25, 2.9.17, 3.6.11, 6.16.26, 9.13.34, and esp. 10.28.39 (`vae prosperitatibus saeculi semel et iterum. . . . vae adversitatibus saeculi semel et iterum et tertio').

    et homo: See on 1.1.1, `et laudare te vult homo' for parallel.

    commemorat: With the personal accusative: `unusual' (G-M, who instance mag. 1.1, `ut commemoremus vel alios vel nos ipsos'); perhaps influenced by the use of the passive in scriptural texts (Gn. 19.29 apud Tyconius, reg. 7, and Gn. 42.9 apud A. qu. hept. 1.138, and Sirach 49.11 [= LXX 49.9]--in each case translating Gk. e)mnh/sqh).

    nemo mundus: Job 14.4-5 (VL), `quis enim erit mundus absque sorde? nec unus quidem, etiamsi unius diei fuerit vita eius super terram.'

    A.'s mature doctrine of original sin was far from inevitable in 397. From the vast literature, most pertinent and interesting here is A. Sage's study at REAug 13(1967), 212-248, though many would differ with some details of his reconstruction; the case for greater continuity and less development is made by P. Rigby, Original Sin in Augustine's `Confessions' (Ottawa, 1987). More venturesome is the attempt of P. F. Beatrice, Tradux peccati (Milan, 1978), to affiliate A.'s doctrine in second century Encratite teachings; such a context helps explain the intensity of the reaction A. stirred up. The shifts over time are perhaps more clearly visible when looked at in a less theological way: see W. Eborowicz, Studia Patristica 14(1976), 410-416. A. himself speaks in defense of the consistency of his position, but he is unlikely to convince the most careful readers of his own works: c. Iul. 6.13.39, `nam ego per unum hominem in mundum intrasse peccatum, et per peccatum mortem, et ita in omnes homines pertransisse, in quo peccaverunt omnes, ab initio conversionis meae sic tenui semper ut teneo. exstant libri quos adhuc laicus recentissima mea conversione conscripsi, etsi nondum sicut postea sacris litteris eruditus, tamen nihil de hac re iam tunc sentiens, et ubi disputandi ratio poposcerat dicens, nisi quod antiquitus discit et docet omnis ecclesia.' The term `original sin' enters A.'s writings in div. qu. Simp. 1.1.10-11, expounding Rom. 7.18-20 (2x; at 1.1.11, `quod perficere bonum non est in potestate, ad meritum pertinet originalis peccati'), recurring next at conf. 5.9.16, and infrequently thereafter until the Pelagian controversy.12 A useful comparandum for div. qu. Simp. is lib. arb. 3.20.55 (prob. 395), where everything but the term is already present.

    On infant baptism, see J.-C. Didier, REAug 2(1956), 109-129; there is no suggestion of the practice in conf. (A. was himself as infant only registered as a catechumen: see 1.11.17). In quant. an. 36.80, there is credulous incomprehension: `iamvero etiam puerorum infantium consecrationes quantum prosint, obscurissima quaestio est, nonnihil tamen prodesse credendum est. inveniet hoc ratio, cum quaeri oportuerit'; at lib. arb. 3.23.67 (written as priest), `etiam illud perscrutari homines solent, sacramentum baptismi Christi quid parvulis prosit, cum eo accepto plerumque moriuntur priusquam ex eo quicquam cognoscere potuerint. qua in re satis pie recteque creditur prodesse parvulo eorum fidem a quibus consecrandus offertur. et hoc ecclesiae commendat saluberrima auctoritas'. By 411/12, he has discovered and accepted the encouragement of Cyprian (pecc. mer. 3.5.10 quotes Cyp. ep. 64.), even as he doubts infants guilty of actual sin; cf. pecc. mer. 1.17.22 and 1.35.65, concluding (in rhetorical question): `nihil mali commiserint infantes, qui propter hoc vocantur ab omnibus innocentes? nonne tanta infirmitas animi et corporis, tanta rerum ignorantia, tam nulla omnino praecepti capacitas, nullus vel naturalis vel conscriptae legis sensus aut motus, nullus in alterutram partem rationis usus, hoc multo testatiore silentio quam sermo noster proclamat atque indicat?' He shows himself more tolerant of infant iniquity than one might expect from the present passage: pecc. mer. 1.35.66, `vellem tamen quisquis hoc sapit diceret quod peccatum viderit vel putarit infantis recentis ab utero, cui redimendo fatetur iam baptismum necessarium, quid mali in hac propria sua vita per animum proprium corpusve commiserit. si forte quod plorat taedioque est maioribus, mirum si hoc iniquitati non infelicitati potius deputandum est. an quod ab ipso fletu nulla sua ratione, nulla cuiusquam prohibitione compescitur? at hoc ignorantiae est, in qua profundissima iacet, qua etiam matrem, cum post exiguum tempus valuerit, percutiet iratus et saepe ipsas eius mammas, quas, dum esurit, exigit. haec non modo feruntur, verum etiam diliguntur in parvulis, et hoc quo affectu nisi carnali'. He seems there to have in mind opponents who would claim that infant baptism is needed only because of actual sins, and not for original sin, and hence he forces the distinction and recovers his tolerance.

    But the Job text is prominent in 411: pecc. mer. 1.24.34, `porro si a salute ac vita aeterna hominem nisi peccata non separant, per haec sacramenta non nisi peccati reatus in parvulis solvitur, de quo reatu scriptum est neminem esse mundum “nec si unius diei fuerit vita eius.” unde est et illud in psalmis: “ego enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum et in peccatis mater mea me in utero aluit.” [Ps. 50.7]' Noteworthy here are the liturgical frame of reference and the link--here mediated by the text from Ps. 50 (the juxtaposition recurs at c. ep. pel. 4.4.4 and 4.10.27)--between the culpability of the newborn infant and the culpability of the procreative process. The same link has been forged already by Jerome, as A. himself quotes at pecc. mer. 3.7.13, where from the adv. Iov. 2.1, Job 14.5 appears with Ps. 50.7, in a nest of proof-texts (for the interpretation in this context of Ps. 50.7, see below on 1.7.12); cf. pecc. mer. 2.10.14-15, 3.6.12. By 415, A. can quote Pelagius' disciple Caelestius (at perf. iust. 11.23) as thinking that Job 14.4-5 is a common (but, Caelestius thinks, ill-chosen) proof-text of the enemies of free will; Caelestius seems to think Job 12.4 an adequate response: `iustus enim vir et sine querela factus sum in derisu.' A. counters that Caelestius misunderstands a figure of speech, `non intellegens posse dici hominem iustum, qui perfectioni iustitiae plurimum accessit, ita ut ei proximus fieret: quod multos etiam in hac vita potuisse, in qua ex fide vivitur, non negamus.' (Job 14.4-5 quoted with a frequency to confirm Caelestius: gr. et pecc. or. 2.32.37, nupt. et conc. 2.29.50, civ. 20.26, and c. Iul. 1.3.10, 5.13.49, 6.26.83, etc.)

    uberibus inhiabam plorans: The infant's avidity at the breast can also be positive: c. acad. 1.1.4, `philosophia est enim, a cuius uberibus se nulla aetas queretur excludi. ad quam avidius retinendam et hauriendam quo te incitarem, quamvis tuam sitim bene noverim, gustum tamen mittere volui'; sim. at util. cred. 1.2.

    reprehendi: reprehendi C D2 G2 O2 edd.:   reprehendendi D1 G1 O1 S

    ratio: Can be both the faculty (10.6.10 [`iudex ratio'], 10.33.49 [`dum rationi sensus non ita comitatur'], and 13.24.37 [`et dominatur ei ratio']) and (more classical and more frequent, as here) the substance of its function (5.3.6 [`et occurrebat mihi ratio . . . et non mihi occurrebat ratio']; 9.9.19 [`rationem facti sui reddebat']). The evidence of the senses might inspire anger and reprimand, but by an odd collusion, ordinary human weakness and a superior human faculty conspire to hold it in check.

    nam extirpamus: cf. Jn. 15.2, `omnem [palmitem] qui fert fructum, purgabit [pater meus] eum, ut fructum plus afferat.'

    indignari: Recalls 1.6.8, `indignabar'; the verb specifies anger directed at another apart from any action taken to give the anger force--cf. 9.4.8. As with the first smiles (see on 1.6.8), A. oversteps himself by failing to distinguish observation from interpretation. For him an infant is a small adult, lacking various powers but experiencing the world just as an adult would. He cannot speak or make his indignatio efficacious, but he is capable of all the emotions and the velleities that arise from them. Such a view of the infant is eminently compatible with a doctrine of infant baptism, but is philosophically problematic.

    dicunt: In the absence of exact parallels, it is unclear whether some particular superstition is implied; the use of expiare leads in that direction. Of 91x in A., only here is expiation in any sense trivial; the only passage even remotely comparable in weakness of offence is ep. 167.6.20, `peccata cotidiana, sine quibus hic non vivitur, cotidianis remediis expientur'). The ordinary mode of `expiation' is sacrifice, often in OT contexts, and sometimes contrasted to the regeneration of baptism: e.g., nat. et or. an. 2.15.21, `nec abluendas baptismo nec expiandas Christi corporis et sanguinis sacrificio et in aeternum damnandas'; though baptism can have `expiatory' effect as well when the contrast is not being emphasized: e.g., ep. 157.3.13, `a quo delicto parvuli per baptismum expiantur'. Thus it is likely that the nurses found the infant behavior disturbing and used means to `expiate' that it were some form of `pagan' ritual. (The one `pagan' practice to which A. applies the word elsewhere is at en. Ps. 57.4, `respondet forte aliqua dura et mala mathematicus; curritur ad aruspicem ut expietur; respondet haruspex non se posse expiare; maleficus quaeritur.' There the sacrificial implication is probably also present; cf. conf. 4.2.3, where consulting a haruspex implies consenting to sacrifice.) Cf. en. Ps. 30. en. 2 s. 2.12, `forte utiliter et in malum incidisti quem bonum putasti, ut in ubere quasi materno amaritudinem invenires, et ea offensione repellereris, et ad cibum validiorem invitareris. faciunt enim hoc nutrices mammothreptis, ut aliqua amara ponant in papillis suis, quibus offensi parvuli ab ubere resiliant et ad mensam inhient.' (The same lore at s. 311.17.14.)

    nisi vero et ista innocentia est: In cataloguing the errancy of boyhood, he comes to the same ironic phrase: 1.19.30, `istane est innocentia puerilis?'

    licet probes: The generic second person is rare in conf. (here a momentary lapse in the nominal address of the whole text to God), and here with the only occurrence of licet governing subjunctive in a main clause (but licet only 5x in conf.).

    text of 1.7.12

    1.7.12

    This apostrophe marks the conclusion of the treatment of infantia, the speechless time before memory, to be followed (1.8.13) by pueritia that brought speech and initiated memory. There are parallels here to 1.20.31, the concluding paragraph on pueritia.

    quod: `for the reason that', explaining `iubes me laudare' below: n.b. `in istis', resuming the content of the quod-clause. Arts 95-6 counts 38 quod-causal with indicative, 32 with subjunctive; she claims that his use of the moods follows regular classical practice, but n.b. that here the subjunctive could have been employed, to ascribe the reason to the will of God--but `ut videmus' emphasizes the factuality of the reason. Quia occurs 444x (15x already in Bk. 1, where this is the first quod-causal).

    instruxisti . . .: Theological preoccupation and rhetorical habit join forces: three actions of God regarding individual aspects of the infant's bodily life (`instruxisti sensibus, compegisti membris, figura decorasti') are followed by a single action affecting the whole (`proque eius universitate': cf. 1.20.31, `meamque incolumitatem, vestigium secretissimae unitatis' --and see on 1.20.31 for the trinitarian sense there). To ascribe a conscious trinitarian intent and to deny a trinitarian resonance would be equally rash.

    proque: `and on behalf of', i.e., `in order to assure' its `completeness in oneness' and `safety' --all the efforts of the `living being' (animantis: a careful word here, used elsewhere in the singular only at 1.20.31, `in tali animante'; in plural elsewhere of `living things', e.g. 4.2.3, `necaturus . . . in sacrificiis suis animantia').

    psallere: Only here in conf., but laudare, confiteri, and psallere are closely related. Ps. 91.1-2, `psalmus cantici in diem sabbati. bonum est confiteri domino et psallere nomini tuo, altissime'; en. Ps. 91.3, `psallere autem quid est, fratres? psalterium organi genus est; chordas habet. opus nostrum, psalterium nostrum est; quicumque manibus operatur opera bona, psallit deo; quicumque ore confitetur, cantat deo. canta ore, psalle operibus.'

    une: Appropriate of the Father, as unicus of the Son: see BA 72.234n34 with parallels.

    a quo est omnis modus, formosissime, qui formas omnia et lege tua ordinas omnia: The choice of words is careful and precise, constituting an invocation of all three persons of the trinity. The triad modus/species/ordo is significant in A.'s thought and expression in the late 390s and recurs, more and less obtrusively, throughout conf. See also on 5.4.7, where the parallel triad from Wisd. 11.21 (mensura/numerus/pondus) is discussed (there are frequent conflations, e.g., Gn. c. man. 1.21.32, `mensuras et numeros et ordines', as at lib. arb. 2.20.54 and c. ep. fund. 29.32; cf. Gn. litt. 4.3.7, civ. 5.11, 11.15); see du Roy 421-424 and TeSelle 118-119; W. J. Roche, New Scholasticism 15(1941), 350-376, treats the two triads as one, with useful discussion. There are numerous permutations of the basic triad:13 ep. 11.3, causa/species/manentia; mus. 6.17.56, unum/species/bonitas; vera rel. 7.13, esse/species/ordo and unum/species/ordo; vera rel. 55.113, principium/forma/gratia; nat. b. 3, modus/species/ordo; c. Faust. 21.6 (quoted on 2.5.10), modus/pulchritudo/ordo, Gn. litt. 4.3.7, modus/species/quies; trin. 3.2.8, moles/species/ordo; trin. 6.10.12, unitas/species/ordo; civ. 5.11, modus/species/ordo; civ. 11.28, modo esse/specie contineri/ordinem appetere.

    That God's threeness is reflected in the modus, species, and ordo of created things is adumbrated in c. ep. fund. (just cited, and also 30.33, 31.34, 33.36, 41.47) and becomes a central idea of the anti-Manichean nat. b. of 398: nat. b. 3, `nos enim catholici christiani deum colimus, a quo omnia bona sunt seu magna seu parva; a quo est omnis modus, sive magnus sive parvus; a quo omnis species, sive magna sive parva; a quo omnis ordo, sive magnus sive parvus. . . . deus itaque supra omnem creaturae modum est, supra omnem speciem, supra omnem ordinem; . . . a quo omnis modus, omnis species, omnis ordo. haec tria . . . ubi nulla sunt, nulla natura est. omnis ergo natura bona est.' Hence nat. b. 4 defines malum: `corruptio vel modi vel speciei vel ordinis naturalis'. The triad recurs in that work in chs. 9, 10, 13, 18, 23, 30, 36, 37, 38; at ch. 21 the main triad is linked to the alternate triad of mensura/numerus/pondus; and at ch. 41 it is linked to a counter-triad, `immoderationem, deformitatem, perversitatem'.14 See also vera rel. 43.81, quoted below.

    By modus A. understands `manner of being' and thinks of the initial creation of unformed matter and hence sees a parallel to the creative act of the first person of the trinity. The concept arises in Ciceronian texts and is present in A. as a unique synthesis of Platonic and Ciceronian ideas from the first works at Cassiciacum: see du Roy 152-158 and B. J. Cooke, Modern Schoolman 23(1946), 180-182 and 24(1947), 44-45.

    Species was interchangeable with forma in Latin to represent Plato's i)de/a as early as Cicero; in A. at div. qu. 46.2, `ideas igitur latine possumus vel formas vel species dicere', and cf. Tusc. 1.24.58 and or. 3.10 and 29.101. In particular, forma occurs for the plural (where species is rare: cf. Cic. top. 7.30) and formare supplies the lack of any verb derived from species. By species A. means (from sol. 2.18.32 on) `principle of individuation or differentiation', both the outward appearance and the intrinsic structure (Mayer, Zeichen 2.148), by which the unformed matter is made into a unique created thing. Hence he sees a parallel to the action of the creative Word; species is the sine qua non of existence (imm. an. 8.13-15). The dialectical antithesis of species is therefore corruptio (c. ep. fund. 40.46, `species aucta cogit esse et deum fatemur summe esse; corruptio vero aucta cogit non esse, et constat quod non est nihil esse'). Cf. also du Roy 288.15

    Modus and species, products of the first two stages of creation, present a world of isolated things, which is given pattern and dynamic (anything but the docile stasis we might expect in medieval ideas of order) by the addition of ordo, the animating and governing force of the third person of the trinity. The ordo of ord. is cosmic and irresistible--even evil is subsumed in it (ord. 2.7.23; cf. mor. 2.6.8), but in the watershed div. qu. Simp. 1.2.18 (see R. A. Markus, Conversion and Disenchantment [Villanova, 1989], 25) inordinatio is explicitly identified with peccatum; from then on in A.'s thought, the old high notion of cosmic order exists side by side with a dynamic view that allows for momentary disorder arising from sin, to be put right quickly enough by God. So civ. 15.22, `unde mihi videtur quod definitio brevis et vera virtutis ordo est amoris; propter quod in sancto cantico canticorum cantat sponsa Christi, civitas dei: “ordinate in me caritatem.” [Cant. 2.4]' See also the close ties between ordo and pax expounded at length at civ. 19.13-20; for the association of ordo and pondus, cf. s. 242.3.5-7.9, on the ordo ponderum (see also on 13.9.10 below), and s. Casin. 1.133.1, `inordinate amans deficit sub pondere passionis' . The standard discussion of the ordo amoris is Burnaby 113-137. So vera rel. 41.77, `nihil enim est ordinatum quod non sit pulchrum. et, sicut ait apostolus, omnis ordo a deo est' (where the latter phrase, representing Rom. 13.1, is a misquotation under the influence of the idea of `order'; at retr. 1.13.8 he owns to the error, for Paul actually wrote `quae autem sunt a deo ordinata sunt').

    For the triad read in light of the neo-Platonic tradition (Gk.: ou)si/a, ei)=dos, ta/cis), see W. Theiler, P.u.A. 11-12 and esp. 32-34, who makes of Wisd. 11.21 a mere pretext, or scriptural corroboration. Even if we accept Theiler's (questionable) willingness to see in disparate elements attested in Porphyry a source for a clear and repeated pattern of expression in A., surely it was as much the coincidence of scriptural and Platonic doctrine that impressed A. in a matter such as this as it was either element independently.16 (The most careful refutation of Theiler's assertion of Porphyry as the source of A.'s triad theology is du Roy 402-408.) The triad has evident connections with a view ascribed to Aristotle on the first page of Amb.'s exameron (1.1.1): `alii quoque, ut Aristoteles cum suis disputandum putavit, duo principia ponerent, materiam et speciem, et tertium cum his, quod operatorium dicitur, cui subpeteret competenter efficere quod adoriendum putasset.' The origins of that doctrine and its transmission are studied at length in J. Pépin, Théologie cosmique et théologie chrétienne (Paris, 1964), but he does not explore the connection to A.; for operatorium, note especially mor. 1.16.27, `cumque ibi dictum sit, dei filium, dei virtutem esse atque sapientiam: cumque virtus ad operationem [3], sapientia vero ad disciplinam [2] pertinere intellegatur . . .';17 also mor. 2.6.8, Gn. litt. imp. 4.12 quoted below, and Gn. litt. imp. 15.51. The exameron consists of sermons delivered by Ambrose, probably during Holy Week, perhaps in 386.18 Another possible partial precedent is Hilary of Poitiers, whose de trinitate 2.1 is quoted and discussed in trin. 6.10.11 (twenty years after conf.) for the triad `aeternitas in patre [1], species in imagine [2], usus in munere [3].' A.'s discussion there refines that triad to unitas/species/ordo (trin. 6.10.12).

    The whole triad is anticipated in two Ciceronian texts: off. 1.4.14, `nec vero illa parva vis naturae est rationisque, quod unum hoc animal sentit quid sit ordo [3], quid sit quod deceat [2], in factis dictisque qui modus [1]'; fin. 2.14.47, `atque his tribus generibus honestorum notatis quartum sequitur et in eadem pulchritudine [2] et aptum ex illis tribus, in quo inest ordo [3] et moderatio [1]. cuius similitudine perspecta in formarum specie ac dignitate transitum est ad honestatem dictorum atque factorum'; cf. Cic. leg. 3.24, Cic. Tim. 3.9.

    Adumbrations of this triad in the earliest works can be identified, but not all are equally compelling: beata v. 4.34-35, `sed quid putatis esse sapientiam, nisi veritatem? etiam hoc enim dictum est: “ego sum veritas.” [Jn. 14.6] veritas autem ut sit, fit per aliquem summum modum, a quo procedit et in quem se perfecta convertit. ipsi autem summo modo nullus alius modus imponitur; . . . sed etiam summus modus necesse est ut verus modus sit. ut igitur veritas modo gignitur, ita modus veritate cognoscitur. neque igitur veritas sine modo, neque modus sine veritate umquam fuit. quis est dei filius? dictum est, “veritas.” quis est qui non habet patrem? quis alius quam summus modus? quisquis igitur ad summum modum per veritatem venerit, beatus est. . . . (35) hoc est beata vita, pie perfecteque cognoscere a quo inducaris in veritatem [3], qua veritate perfruaris [2], per quid conectaris summo modo [1]. quae tria unum deum intellegentibus unamque substantiam exclusis vanitatibus variae superstitionis ostendunt.' 19 c. acad. 2.2.4, `quod quaero intentissimus veritatem [2], quod invenire iam ingredior, quod me ad summum ipsum modum [1] perventurum esse confido' (and behind that passage lurks the shadow of Jn. 14.6, `ego sum via et veritas et vita; nemo venit ad patrem, nisi per me'). ord. 2.19.51, `cum autem se composuerit [1] et ordinarit [3] atque concinnam pulchramque [2] reddiderit, audebit iam deum videre'. Cf. also imm. an. 8.15, `mutabilitas non adimit corpori corpus esse [1], sed de specie in speciem [2] transire facit motu ordinatissimo [3].' Clearer is Gn. litt. imp. 4.12, `chaos graece dicitur. . . . haec materies [1] quae consequenti operatione [3] dei in rerum formas [2] ordinata [3] distinguitur.' Sim. at ep. 11.3; undatable and perhaps early at div. qu. 18., `omne quod est aliud est quo constat, aliud quo discernitur, aliud quo congruit'; cf. div. qu. 6., `ubi autem aliqua species, necessario est aliquis modus; et modus aliquid boni est.' Then in 392, f. et symb. 2.2, `nullo modo credendum est illam ipsam materiam . . . quamvis informem . . . per se ipsam esse potuisse tamquam coaeternam et coaevam deo; sed quemlibet modum suum quem habebat ut quoquo modo esset et distinctarum rerum formas posset accipere, non habebat nisi ab omnipotente deo. . . . si de aliqua materia factus est mundus, eadem ipsa materia de nihilo facta est, ut ordinatissimo dei munere prima capacitas formarum fieret, ac deinde formarentur quaecumque formata sunt.' Sim. at lib. arb. 3.12.35, 3.21.60 (`domino deo auctore et formatore et ordinatore rerum omnium').

    An instructive passage is vera rel. 43.81, `ipse autem ordinis [3] modus [1] vivit in veritate [2] perpetua nec mole vastus nec protractione volubilis, sed potentia supra omnes locos magnus, aeternitate supra omnia tempora immobilis, sine quo tamen nec ullius molis vastitas in unum redigi nec ullius temporis productio potest ab errore cohiberi et aliquid esse vel corpus, ut corpus sit, vel motus, ut motus sit. ipsum est unum principale nec per finitum nec per infinitum crassum'. This is the best statement of what modus means; as it appears here in conjunction with two words evoking the other two persons of the trinity, the allusion seems clear and definite. Cf. vera rel. 7.13, where the substitution is Being and Oneness for modus: `id est unum ipsum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, qua trinitate quantum in hac vita datum est cognita, omnis intellectualis et animalis et corporalis creatura ab eadem trinitate creatrice [1] esse in quantum est et speciem suam habere20 [2] et ordinatissime administrari [3] sine ulla dubitatione perspicitur. . . . omnis enim res vel substantia vel essentia vel natura vel si quo alio verbo melius enuntiatur simul habet haec tria: ut et [1] unum aliquid sit, et [2] specie propria discernatur a ceteris, et rerum [3] ordinem non excedat'. Cf. also agon. 14.16, of those who do not know the trinity: `nesciunt enim principium ex quo sunt omnia, et imaginem eius per quam formantur omnia, et sanctitatem eius in qua ordinantur omnia.' 21

    The pattern of this triad also matches another triad imprinted on A.'s way of thinking: the rhetorical distinction of three kinds of quaestiones from at least Cicero on in Latin: Cic. or. 14.45, `quidquid est quod in controversia aut in contentione versetur, in eo aut sitne aut quid sit aut quale sit quaeritur' (see on 10.10.17, `tria genera esse quaestionum, an sit, quid sit, quale sit,' for other references to Cicero, Quintilian, and Martianus Capella). A. himself mentions the three kinds of questions in works (div. qu. 18. and ep. 11.4, both passages cited above) almost contemporaneous with the extensive use of the triad in vera rel. (du Roy 385-386: du Roy does not want to see here a `source' [as had A. Schindler, Wort und Analogie in Augustins Trinitätslehre (Tübingen, 1965), 56-60]; it is best to take this as an example of the practice du Roy [386] describes: `Augustin charge souvent des expressions de sa culture latine et surtout cicéronienne d' un sens néo-platonicien qui en est une réinterprétation').

    A.'s penchant for `triad theology' is one aspect of his thought that rarely found a sympathetic response in other writers, either late antique or modern. Hence a formula such as modus/species/ordo tends to be overlooked more often than not; for conf. see esp. discussions below on 1.10.16, 5.4.7, and 13.9.10. There are numerous more or less close parallels in civ.; cf. civ. 12.6 (`res ipsa quaecumque . . . procul dubio bona est, habens modum et speciem suam in genere atque ordine suo'), civ. 8.4, (`[deus], causa [1] subsistendi, ratio [2] intellegendi, et ordo [3] vivendi'), civ. 11.24 (`origo [1] et informatio [2] et beatitudo [3]'). For one sign of afterlife, cf. Aquinas, s.t. 1. q.39. a.8, `ad pulchritudinem tria requiruntur. primo quidem, integritas sive perfectio [1]; . . . et debita proportio sive consonantia [3]; et iterum claritas [2]' --paraphrased by Joyce in Portrait of the Artist (New York, 1964), 212.

    The three dialogues of Cassiciacum are not without interest in light of this triad. c. acad. is devoted to the nature of truth; beata v. ends (4.34-35: quoted above) with an extensive and important discussion of modus that links that concept to the first person of the trinity; and the third dialogue is expressly about ordo. Note further that beata v. and ord. each record dialogues that extended over three days, while c. acad. is broken in two sections of three days each. There are twelve days of discussion in all, and seven days elapse between the two halves of c. acad. See on 9.4.7 for the probability that beata v. and c. acad. are constructed to end, with expressly Christian remarks, on Sundays.

    quam (me vixisse): quam G O Maur. Ver. Pell.:   qua S C Knöll Skut.:   de qua D
    At 2.5.10, `vita quam hic vivimus', OS have quam, CDG have qua. en. Ps. 104.3, `tota vita ista qua hic vivitur' is appropriate for the passive.

    non memini: trin. 14.5.8, `sed hanc aetatem omittamus quae nec interrogari potest quid in se agatur et nos ipsi eius valde obliti sumus.'

    quam (vivo): quam G O S Maur Knöll Skut. Ver.:   qua C D

    quam vivo in hoc saeculo: Tit. 2.12-14, `erudiens nos, ut abnegantes impietatem et saecularia desideria sobrie et iuste et pie vivamus in hoc saeculo, (13) expectantes beatam spem et adventum gloriae magni dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, (14) qui dedit semet ipsum pro nobis.'

    in hoc saeculo: For comparison of mundus (more spatial in original meaning) and saeculum (more temporal) in conf., see L. Verheijen, Studi in onore di Alberto Pincherle (= Studi e Materiali di Storia delle religioni . . .), 38(1967), 665-682, though on Verheijen's evidence one might better use objective/subjective as the distinction (or world-as-constructed-by-reason against world-as-lived-by-fallen-men); cf. R. A. Markus, Saeculum (Cambridge, 1969); in conf. w/hoc only at 1.9.14, 8.6.13, and 4 times in Bk. 13 (13.13.14, 13.21.30, 13.21.31, 13.22.32) quoting Rom. 12.2, `nolite conformari huic saeculo.'

    oblivionis: civ. 16.43, `quam profecto aetatem primam demergit oblivio, sicut aetas prima generis humani est deleta diluvio. quotus enim quisque est, qui suam recordetur infantiam?' Sim. many years earlier at Gn. c. man. 1.23.35.

    si et in iniquitate: Ps. 50.7, `ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis mater mea me in utero aluit'; en. Ps. 50.10, `quid est quod se dicit in iniquitate conceptum, nisi quia trahitur iniquitas ex Adam? . . . [quotes Job 14.4: see on 1.7.11] . . . non ergo ideo in iniquitate concipiuntur homines, et in peccatis in utero a matribus aluntur, quia peccatum est misceri coniugibus; sed quia illud quod fit, utique fit de carne poenali. poena enim carnis mors est, et utique inest ipsa mortalitas. . . . opus hoc castum in coniuge non habet culpam, sed origo peccati trahit secum debitam poenam.'

    ego, servus tuus: Ps. 115.16(7), `o domine, ego servus tuus; ego servus tuus et filius ancillae tuae.' See on 9.1.1, and cf. 12.24.33.

    omitto: Infancy in the end eludes him, unrecoverable and shadowed, and so he lets it slip from his hands here to go on to surer subjects.

    text of 1.8.13

    1.8.13

    pueritiam: Already marked as the age of consent: nat. et or. an. 1.10.12 (with sim. at nat. et or. an. 3.9.12), `nam illius aetatis [aet. 7] pueri et mentiri et verum loqui et confiteri et negare iam possunt. et ideo cum baptizantur, iam et symbolum reddunt et ipsi pro se ad interrogata respondent.' Easy and trivial memories of this time are elided, appearing infrequently elsewhere: en. Ps. 76.20, `solebamus pueri suspicari, cum audiremus tonitrua de caelo, quasi vehicula de stabulo processisse'; quant. an. 21.36, `cur ergo puer multo amplius itineris conficiebam sine defectu, cum aucupandi studio in ambulando exercerer, quam adolescens, cum me ad alia studia, quibus sedere magis cogebar, contulissem, si accedenti aetati et per hanc animae crescenti vires ampliores tribuendae sunt?'

    The six days of creation, the six ages of human history, and the six ages of a man: each of these schemes throws light on the others for A., and each is finally referred to the sabbath they share, the day of rest without beginning or end that is reached in anticipation on the last page of conf. A.'s narrative of his early life in Bks. 1-7 follows this pattern, which is then abandoned (a reason for this is suggested below). L. Pizzolato, Le `Confessioni' di sant'Agostino (Milan, 1968), saw in the six age pattern the underlying structure of conf. as a whole: in so doing, he (a) minimizes A.'s abandonment of the pattern after Bk. 7, (b) fails to do justice to other important structural elements in the text, and (c) finally succumbs to the temptation to think that a work of the breadth and complexity of conf. can be interpreted authoritatively in terms of a single key pattern. With those reservations, however, it must be said that the pattern he detects is present, one among several.

    The other explicit texts from this scheme are 2.1.1 (`exarsi enim aliquando satiari inferis in adulescentia') and 7.1.1 (`iam mortua erat adulescentia mea mala et nefanda et ibam in iuventutem'). No further mention is made of the pattern, but it should be borne in mind that A. at the time of writing c. 397 was approaching the next juncture of ages on that scheme, the one separating iuventus from the fifth age (variously named: see below) at age 45;22 the last boundary, crossed at age 60, found A. at another decisive moment in his literary career, finishing several major works while beginning civ. and the anti-Pelagian campaign. The pattern employed here is entirely literary and textual, perhaps anachronistic (P. Veyne, A History of Private Life [Cambridge, Mass., 1987], 1.23-25): A. interpreted his life by a textual tradition.

    For concise treatment with refs., see B. Kötting and W. Geerlings, Aug.-Lex. 1.150-158. For backgrounds, see A. Luneau, L'histoire du salut chez les Pères de l'église: La doctrine des âges du monde (Paris, 1964), and G. Ladner, The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), 222-238. Ladner traces (224) the correlation between the six days and the six historical ages to Ps.-Barnabas, Justin and Irenaeus; its origins are related to millenarism--six historical ages of 1000 years each, ending in the final millennium; A. himself has millenarian tendencies in his earlier writings (e.g., s. 259.2 [393? certainly not after 400], `octavus ergo iste dies in fine saeculi novam vitam significat: septimus quietem futuram sanctorum in hac terra'; he qualifies his earlier opinions at civ. 20.7, `etiam nos hoc opinati fuimus aliquando'; cf. G. Folliet REAug 2[1956], 371-390 and see on 13.35.50, `pacem sabbati'). More recently J. A. Burrow, The Ages of Man (Oxford, 1986), 61 underscores the significance of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20.1-8), treated since Origen as a five-age scheme. (A. once adapts this by skipping infantia: s. 49.2.2; at another, he forces the pattern by omitting adulescentia: s. 87.5.7.) Burrow is good on the medieval literary afterlife, while E. Sears, The Ages of Man (Princeton, 1986), emphasizes visual materials in the tradition.

    The most explicit and decisive texts on the subject in A. come in vera rel. For the basic six-day pattern, vera rel. 26.48: `prima huius [aetas] infantia in nutrimentis corporalibus agitur, penitus obliviscenda crescenti. eam pueritia sequitur, unde incipimus aliquid meminisse. huic succedit adolescentia, cui iam propagationem prolis natura permittit, et patrem facit. porro adolescentiam iuventus excipit, iam exercenda muneribus publicis et domanda sub legibus. . . . post labores autem iuventutis, seniori pax nonnulla conceditur. inde usque ad mortem deterior aetas ac decolor, et morbis subiectior debilisque perducit. haec est vita hominis viventis ex corpore, et cupiditatibus rerum temporalium conligati. hic dicitur vetus homo, et exterior, et terrenus'. This version of the scheme comes without a seventh day.

    The scheme is clearly not carried beyond the turn from adulescentia to iuventus at 7.1.1. Then conversion supervenes and the pattern is abandoned. One relevance of this is that the conversion occurs when A. is about the same age as that at which Christ was crucified, as A. noted at s. 88.10.9, `natus est de virgine Maria. . . . per aetates cucurrit usque ad iuventutem. . . . infantiae pueritia, pueritiae adolescentia, adolescentiae iuventus transeunti cedentique successit.' Since conversion entails death, burial, and rebirth in Christ (i.e., baptism: see on 9.1.1), the pattern is complete and parallel--howbeit only implicitly so--in Christ and in A.

    There is moreover an important variant of the basic pattern, a seven-day pattern for the New Man, discussed only at vera rel. 26.49: `iste dicitur novus homo, et interior, et caelestis, habens et ipse proportione non annis sed provectibus distinctas quasdam spiritales aetates suas: primam in uberibus utilis historiae quae nutrit exemplis;23 secundam iam obliviscentem humana et ad divina tendentem, in qua non auctoritatis humanae continetur sinu sed ad summam et incommutabilem legem passibus rationis innititur;24 tertiam iam fidentiorem et carnalem appetitum rationis robore maritantem gaudentemque intrinsecus in quadam dulcedine coniugali, cum anima menti copulatur et velamento pudoris obnubitur, ut iam recte vivere non cogatur sed, etiamsi omnes concedant, peccare non libeat;25 quartam iam id ipsum multo firmius ordinatiusque facientem et emicantem in virum perfectum, atque aptam et idoneam omnibus et persecutionibus et mundi huius tempestatibus ac fluctibus sustinendis atque frangendis;26 quintam pacatam atque omni ex parte tranquillam, viventem in opibus et abundantia incommutabilis regni summae atque ineffabilis sapientiae;27 sextam omnimodae mutationis in aeternam vitam et usque ad totam oblivionem vitae temporalis transeuntem, perfecta forma quae facta est ad imaginem et similitudinem dei;28 septima enim iam quies aeterna est et nullis aetatibus distinguenda beatitudo perpetua. ut enim finis veteris hominis mors est, sic finis novi hominis vita aeterna. ille namque homo peccati est, iste iustitiae.' The seven-day scheme is as importantly parallel to the narrative of conf. as is the six-day scheme. A.'s conversion marks a shift from the scheme appropriate to the Old Man to that of the New. In one early text, he characterizes the transition as natural and appropriate to the third age: div. qu. 49., `quorum duorum populorum differentiam etiam in unoquoque nostrum licet advertere, cum quisque ab utero matris veterem hominem necesse est agat, donec veniat ad iuvenilem aetatem, ubi iam non est necesse carnaliter sapere, sed potest ad spiritalia voluntate converti et intrinsecus regenerari. quod ergo in uno homine recte educato ordine naturae disciplinaque contingit, hoc proportione in universo genere humano fieri per divinam providentiam peragique pulcherrimum est.' The repression of the six- (or seven-) age scheme in conf. reflects a decline in A.'s willingness to impose an optimistic determinism on the life of the redeemed Christian, and with it his growing aversion to millenarian interpretations of scripture. Pincherle, Aug. Stud. 7(1976), 132-133, links the repression of the six-age scheme to the `new course his thoughts had taken' in the div. qu. Simp.

    The fullest elaboration of the common scheme is Gn. c. man. 1.23.35-41:29 1. infantia (Adam --> Noe): (35) `quasi vespera huius diei fit diluvium, quia et infantia nostra tamquam oblivionis diluvio deletur.' 2. pueritia (Noe --> Abraham): (36) `sed nec ista aetas secunda generavit populum dei, quia nec pueritia apta est ad generandum.' 3. adulescentia (Abraham --> David): (37) `haec enim aetas potuit iam generare populum deo, quia et tertia aetas, id est adolescentia, filios habere iam potest.' 4. iuventus (David --> Babylonian captivity): (38) `haec aetas similis iuventutis est. et re vera inter omnes aetates regnat iuventus, et ipsa est firmum ornamentum omnium aetatum.' 5. no special name here--see below (Babylonian captivity --> Christ): (39) `declinatio a iuventute ad senectutem, nondum senectus sed iam non iuventus. . . . et re vera sic ista aetas a regni robore inclinata et fracta est in populo Iudaeorum, quemadmodum homo a iuventute fit senior.' 6. senectus (from the time of Christ --> the end of the age): (40) `incipit sextus, in quo senectus veteris hominis apparet. . . . tunc fit homo ad imaginem et similitudinem dei, sicut in ista sexta aetate nascitur in carne dominus noster. . . . et quemadmodum in illo die masculus et femina, sic et in ista aetate Christus et Ecclesia. . . . ut ab eo [Christo] domarentur atque mansuescerent homines, vel carnali concupiscentiae dediti sicut pecora, vel tenebrosa curiositate obscurati quasi serpentes, vel elati superbia quasi aves.' 30 7. (41) `huius autem aetatis quasi vespera . . .' div. qu. 58. has a similar list, specifying gravitas to name the fifth age;31 on the historical six ages, A.'s opinions do not vary significantly through his career (the influence of Mt. 1.17, the genealogy, is often acknowledged by A.); for the same pattern, see div. qu. 64.2, s. 259.2, cat. rud. 22.39, c. Faust. 12.8, Io. ev. tr. 9.6, 15.9, trin. 4.4.7, ss. 125.4, 259.2, and frequently in civ. 15-18, where the pattern provides the frame for A.'s survey of human history, and cf. civ. 16.43, 21.16, and 22.30 (last paragraph of civ.).

    The native Roman tradition (see Kötting and Geerlings, art. cit.) knew at most five ages. So Seneca quoted by Lact. inst. 7.15.14-17 and Varro according to Censorinus de die natali 14.2, `Varro quinque gradus aetatis aequabiliter putat esse divisos, unumquemque scilicet praeter extremum in annos quindecim. itaque primo gradu usque annum quintum decimum pueros dictos, quod sint puri, id est inpubes. secundo ad tricensimum annum adulescentes, ab alescendo sic nominatos. in tertio gradu qui erant usque quinque et quadraginta annos, iuvenes appellatos eo quod rem publicam in re militari possent iuvare. in quarto autem adusque sexagensimum annum seniore vocitatos, quod tunc primum senescere corpus inciperet. inde usque finem vitae uniuscuiusque quintum gradum factum, in quo qui essent, senes appellatos, quod ea aetate corpus iam senio laboraret.' Cf. Varro according to Servius on Aen. 5.295: `aetates omnes Varro sic dividit: infantiam, pueritiam, adulescentiam, iuventutem, senectam'; Aul. Gell. 10.28, `de aetatum finibus pueritiae iuventae senectae ex Tuberonis historia sumptum'. A similar tradition is reflected in Amb. Abr. 2.9.65, `quattuor . . . aetates sunt hominibus; pueritia, adulescentia, iuventus, maturitas.'

    farer: imperf. subj. < fari: figura etymologica with infans. TLL 6.1029 lists the form only from the present passage (cf. G-M).

    et memini hoc: After the string of things that he does not remember (`non . . . memini' at 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.6.10, 1.7.11, 1.7.12), speech and memory enter together. On language learning, cf. mag. 1.2, `qui enim loquitur, suae voluntatis signum foras dat per articulatum sonum,' and mag. 10.33, `etenim cum primum istae duae syllabae, cum dicimus “caput”, aures meas impulerunt, tam nescivi quid significarent quam cum primo audirem legeremve “sarabaras”.32 sed cum saepe diceretur “caput”, notans atque animadvertens quando diceretur, repperi vocabulum esse rei quae mihi iam erat videndo notissima.' See below.

    didiceram: didiceram O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   didicerim C D G Maur.
    Indicative in indirect question is well-attested in conf. (35x, against c. 120x subjunctive), but it is a laxity he does not allow himself so frequently in civ. (indicative only 6x in the whole work: figures from Arts 94).

    non . . . docebant me: 1.14.23, `non a docentibus' .

    cum gemitibus et vocibus variis: Cf. 1.6.8 (`itaque iactabam et membra et voces') and 1.6.10 (`signa quibus sensa mea nota aliis facerem').

    prensabam: prensabam O Z Ver. Solignac Pell. Pizzolato  Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 45n170:   pensabam C D S A F H2 Knöll Skut.:   pensabo H1:   praesonabam E G Maur. Pusey  (that verb occurs nowhere else in A. and is rare besides):   personabam M:   praesentabam V:   praestabam B P

    Prensabam is preferable for the palaeographical reason that all the other readings may be explained as deriving from it and for the substantive reason that it well depicts the infant who would speak grasping willfully at the words, as well as the things, of his world--and A.'s memory is a storehouse of such acquisitions (10.8.12-14). The verb is not otherwise attested in A., but occurs 4x in the Aeneid, a reputable authority for A.'s use. Note `tenebam' just below, common in A. in the sense of `hold in memory' (see on 1.13.20), and continuing the implied metaphor. (Note also that penso is regularly used without a specifying instrumental ablative in the sense `to weigh in the mind, ponder, consider' [OLD]; to use it here with mente and memoria would be doubly redundant. In A., moreover, the word is used 40+ times, most often in contexts where something is to be evaluated; the only cases with an instrumental ablative: ep. 258.2, `[res humanas] rerum divinarum cognitione pensamus'; civ. 9.4, `pari tamen aestimatione pensentur').

    The punctuation is difficult. The Maurists read praesonabam (Pusey translates: `practise the sounds in my memory') and placed the full stop after `memoria'. Knöll read pensabam with his favorite manuscript, and put the period after `omnibus' (G-M accepted his reading, but restored the original punctuation). Skutella retained the reading and the punctuation. Verheijen and Pellegrino abandon the reading--but all editors since 1935 retain the period before `p(r)ensabam'. (In its defense, see M. Burnyeat, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplemental Volume 1987, 2n3; but he did not realize that `prensabam' was an alternative, nor what it entailed.)

    In avoiding a difficulty of syntax, however, these editors introduce a difficulty of sense. If their punctuation is followed, then `ego' has no expressed verb and one must be supplied. Sc. me docebam? `My elders taught me not, but rather I [taught myself], when the circumstances of infancy left me frustrated at being unable to express my will.' To which G-M: `it would perhaps have been more in accordance with A.'s style to write “sed ego me ipsum,” but the sentence ends awkwardly with the long subordinate clause, and the next begins abruptly.' Is not the logical connection between the frustration expressed by the cum-clauses and the grasping reaction expressed by `prensabam'? `My elders taught me not, but rather I, when the circumstances of infancy left me frustrated at being unable to express my will, grasped with my memory: when they named something, I . . .' It is true (and indeed notable) that mens and memoria overlap significantly for A. (mens does not appear at all in the discussion of memory in Bk. 10: when A. needs a word there with similar meaning, he uses animus); if the two appear here guiltily yoked in syntax, the best explanation seems to be a slight anacoluthon caused by the length of the intervening clauses. (The reading memoriam [in MSS AHVG] is a vulgar error independently arrived at; note that it makes nonsense of G's own reading of the verb, praesonabam.)

    cum ipsi . . . enuntiabam: These lines are quoted at the outset of Wittgenstein's Philosophische Untersuchungen (New York, 1953), 2. He goes on: `In diesen Worten erhalten wir, so scheint es mir, ein bestimmtes Bild von dem Wesen der menschlichen Sprache. Nämlich dieses: Die Wörter der Sprache benennen Gegenstände--Sätze sind Verbindungen von solchen Benennungen. --In diesem Bild von der Sprache finden wir die Wurzeln der Idee: Jedes Wort hat eine Bedeutung. Diese Bedeutung ist dem Wort zugeordnet. Sie ist der Gegenstand, für welchen das Wort steht. Von einem Unterschied der Wortarten spricht Augustinus nicht.' This `Vorstellung einer primitiven Sprache', as W. characterizes it, then forms the basis for extended reflections on the philosophical defects of such a system. The weakness of W.'s meditation is that it does not do justice to the ethical context in which A. is careful to situate his own recollections: the aim of language-learning for the infant A. was not any disinterested attempt to utter true propositions about the world, but a much more self-interested attempt to control the world and other people, using whatever rough-and-ready tools were at hand. (A. himself partly forestalls Wittgenstein's criticism many years later in a passage not known to W.: ep. 187.7.25 [to Dardanus in 417], `annon videmus, etiam cum articulatae vocis qualiacumque signa edere coeperint atque ad initium fandi transire ab infantia, adhuc eos talia sentire ac dicere, in quibus si remansissent annisque accedentibus tales esse persisterent nullus eos vel fatuus nimium fatuos esse dubitaret?' It remains true, nonetheless, that the Augustinian view of language learning presumes a coherent `self' who learns to speak, where Wittgenstein emphasizes the effect of learning to speak in shaping the `self' that emerges.)

    videbam et tenebam: `I saw and kept in memory' (see on 1.13.20).

    ceterorumque: ceterorumque C D O2 V B P Z E F G M Maur. Knöll Skut.:   ceteroque O1 S A H Ver.
    Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 45n171: `A ulteriore sostegno di questa scelta si può invocare il costrutto, che precede di poco questo: variis membrorum motibus, dove membrorum sta ancora racchiuso tra attributo e complemento di cui esso è specificazione.' But ceterorum is more precise (`the rest of the activity of the limbs' rather than `the activity of the other limbs') and cetero is the wrong number: the singular occurs nowhere else in conf. (55x attributively or substantively).33

    voluntatum enuntiandarum: Speech begins in the fallen man as the assertion of voluntas; cf. 1.6.8 and note that the present paragraph contains: `vellem', `voluntati', `volebam', `volebam', `vellent', `velle', `voluntates', `voluntatum', as well as like expressions (e.g., `affectionem animi in petendis, habendis, reiciendis fugiendisve rebus'). The speech Augustine acquired as a puer was thus not the divine gift that he prayed for at 1.5.5 (`miserere ut loquar').

    communicavi: `shared', but in the active sense from which arises the sense retained in English `communicate'.

    procellosam societatem: Speech makes us human, introduces us to society, even the dangerous society that arises after the fall. Though in CL procella can be used of a torrent of speech, there is little to suggest that A. makes so explicit a connection between speech and the misfortunes of human life. See on 13.20.28, `genus humanum profunde curiosum [2] et procellose tumidum [1] et instabiliter fluuidum [3],' where the trinitarian pattern and juxtaposition of tumidum make it likely that the vice particularly in mind is pride. beata v. 1.1, `cum enim in hunc mundum, sive deus sive natura sive necessitas sive voluntas nostra sive coniuncta horum aliqua sive simul omnia . . . velut in quoddam procellosum salum nos quasi temere passimque proiecerit . . .' Cf. also en. Ps. 76.20 (`vita humana amara est, et procellis ac tempestatibus subdita'); sim. at en. Ps. 64.9, 25. en. 2.4, 118.s. 19.3.

    auctoritate: 32x in conf., frequent in civ., less obtrusive in en. Ps. The usage here is not identical with the common Christian application to scripture, but that is also common in A. (6.5.8, `auctoritate sanctarum litterarum'). As used here, it represents a characteristic concern of A., one that emerges in his writing from his lifelong dialogue with the classical past. At every stage of the search he narrates in conf., A. is seeking a reason to abandon himself to authoritative doctrine, and seeking a doctrine to which to attribute this authority. Auctoritas is notably, as here, a parental quality.

    Auctoritas is the crutch that supports the weakened faculty of ratio: vera rel. 24.45, `auctoritas fidem flagitat et rationi praeparat hominem.' See Holte, Béatitude et Sagesse (Paris, 1962), esp. 304-310, who measures the extent and limits of A.'s originality here. The yoking of ratio and auctoritas (Holte 308) `n'a pas de parfait équivalent chez les théologiens occidentaux antérieurs comme Tertullien, Lactance ou Ambroise, quoique la terminologie elle-même soit attestée chez ce dernier.'

    The juxtaposition of ratio and auctoritas is familiar in Cicero, e.g., Cic. Lucullus 18.60, `quae sunt tandem ista mysteria, aut cur celatis quasi turpe aliquid sententiam vestram? “ut qui audient” inquit “ratione potius quam auctoritate ducantur.” quid si utrumque, num peius est? unum tamen illud non celant, nihil esse quod percipi possit. an in eo auctoritas nihil obest? mihi quidem videtur vel plurimum.' If it is doubtful whether A. knew this earlier version of that work (cf. Hagendahl 1.60), it is not impossible that similar expressions occurred in the acad. post., which survives in only in fragments; and there are other similar passages in C. (see W. Görler, Untersuchungen zu Ciceros Philosophie [Heidelberg, 1974], 22). At c. acad. 1.3.8, Trygetius seems to share Cicero's preference for ratio in claiming to have thrown off the iugum auctoritatis in the name of that libertas which philosophia promises. But a characteristically Augustinian view is also present: c. acad. 3.20.43, `nulli autem dubium est gemino pondere nos impelli ad discendum, auctoritatis atque rationis. mihi autem certum est nusquam prorsus a Christi auctoritate discedere; non enim reperio valentiorem.'

    In most of A.'s early works, auctoritas appears in benevolent guise (e.g., vera rel. 29.52, `auctoritatis beneficentia'), but a particularly clear series of texts revealing ambiguity and marked by the lingering anxiety of the search for authority, appears in util. cred.: util. cred. 8.20-11.25, `occurrebat igitur inexplicabilis silva, cui demum inseri multum pigebat; atque inter haec sine ulla requie cupiditate reperiendi veri animus agitabatur. . . . (9.21) nam vera religio . . . omnino sine quodam gravi auctoritatis imperio inire recte nullo pacto potest. . . . (11.25) quod intellegimus igitur, debemus rationi, quod credimus, auctoritati, quod opinamur, errori.'

    nutuque: nutuque C D S Maur. Knöll Skut. Ver.:   natuque G O

    text of 1.9.14

    1.9.14

    A. spent a quarter century in the schools of literary culture of late antiquity. The standard work on the implications of this immersion is Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique; that can now be supplemented on some aspects from R. A. Kaster, Guardians of Language (Berkeley, 1988).

    deus meus: Knauer 31-32, `Es sei nur bemerkt, daß Augustin sie [die Wendung deus meus] gern an den Anfang neuer Abschnitte setzt, besonders dann, wenn er sein eigenes Handeln, das er schildern will oder geschildert hat, von Gottes Handeln absetzen möchte.'

    quas ibi miserias expertus sum: Ter. adelphoe 867, quoted to epitomize the ills of social life at civ. 19.5: `audiant apud comicos suos hominem cum sensu atque consensu omnium hominum dicere, “duxi uxorem; quam ibi miseriam vidi! nati filii, alia cura.”' The text is Demea's palinode for a life wasted on ill-tempered selfishness. Here, cf. 1.8.13, `vitae humanae procellosam societatem'.

    ludificationes: apparently `mockings, triflings'; little if any other attestation in TLL for the sense here, but when found elsewhere in A., usu. of demons: Gn. litt. 7.11.16 (`ludificationibus daemonum'), civ. 6.7, 7.35, 8.23, 10.16, 10.27, 18.18; qu. hept. 2.21, s. 214.8.

    excellerem: Cf. 3.3.6, `excellerem in eis [studiis]'.

    linguosis artibus: s. 9.2.2, `ante ultimum iudicium dei tui compone causam tuam. non est unde praesumas; cum ille venerit, nec falsos testes adduces, quibus ille fallatur, nec patronum fraudulentis circumventionibus et linguosis artibus adhibebis, nec ambies aliquo modo ut iudicem possis corrumpere.' Cf. Ps. 139.12, `vir linguosus non dirigetur super terram'; en. Ps. 139.15, `vir linguosus amat mendacia. . . . gaudium tibi sit in auditione dei, necessitas tibi sit in locutione tua; et non eris vir linguosus.'

    in scholam: On elementary and secondary education, see R. A. Kaster, TAPA 113(1983), 323-346, arguing against a rigid distinction between the two categories. H. Chadwick, Augustine (Oxford, 1986), 7: `He never wrote with admiration or gratitude about any of his teachers.'

    litteras: To balance the rhetorical posturing of this memoir, cf. the more conventional and sober sol. 2.11.19, `est autem grammatica vocis articulatae custos et moderatrix disciplina; cuius professionis necessitate cogitur humanae linguae omnia etiam figmenta conligere quae memoriae litterisque mandata sunt, non ea falsa faciens, sed de his veram quandam docens adserensque rationem.'

    vapulabam: Such punishment was common and disdain for it conventional (Quint. 1.3.13-17, `caedi vero discipulos, quamlibet et receptum sit . . ., minime velim'); with A., cf. disc. chr. 11.12, `quare vapulasti? quare tanta mala in pueritia pertulisti? ut disceres. quid disceres? litteras. quare? ut haberetur pecunia, aut ut compararetur honor, et teneatur sublimitas dignitatis. . . . novi, dicturus es mihi: quare et vos, episcopi, non litteras legistis; quare non divinas scripturas in ipsa litteratura tractatis. ita vero, sed non ad hoc didicimus litteras. non enim parentes nostri, quando nos in scholam mittebant, hoc nobis dicebant: discite litteras, ut habeatis unde legere possitis codices dominicos.' Sim. at s. 70.2.2; as proverbial terror, cf. sol. 2.11.20, s. Guelf. 1.11 (`ferulas et virgas grammaticorum'), civ. 21.14 and 22.22, and nat. et gr. 1.1 (`paedagogi timor'). Hardness of heart and sympathy in a single formulation: s. 56.13.17, `puto enim quod filium tuum diligis et quando caedis. lacrimas vapulantis non curas, quia ei haereditatem servas.' Punishment is probably part of the monastic life for A. as well: cf. ord. mon. 10. That text is probably not by A., but may have been known to him: see Verheijen, La Règle de saint Augustin (Paris, 1967), 2.125-174, and Lawless, Rule 167-171. The longer and more authentic praec. does not contain any provision for corporal punishment. Cf. also the whole of corrept.

    L.C. Ferrari, Aug. Stud. 5(1974), 1-14, links these beatings to the image of the scourging God found in A.; elsewhere in conf. at 2.2.4, 3.3.5, 4.1.1, 6.6.9 (`baculo disciplinae tuae confringebas ossa mea'), 8.11.25, 9.4.12; earliest, according to Ferrari, in quotations of Heb. 12.6 in div. qu. 73. and Gn. c. man.; see Ferrari for other references to God as the scourge of human wickedness in A. Ferrari thinks Patricius was the sort of father likely to beat his children (since he seems to have beaten his wife: 9.9.19), but admits there is no evidence. A. makes much of schoolhouse beatings and not of any at home.

    et multi ante nos . . . filiis Adam: To be reminded of Adamic descent is not a pleasant thing: 8.9.21 (`et tenebrosissimae contritiones filiorum Adam'); cf. 8.10.22, 13.21.30. Cf. Sirach 40.1, `iugum grave super filios Adam, a die exitus de ventre usque in diem sepulturae in matrem omnium'; Jer. 32.19, `cuius oculi aperti sunt super omnes vias filiorum Adam'; Gn. 3.16, `et mulieri dixit: multiplicans multiplicabo tristitias tuas et suspiria tua et in doloribus paries filios tuos' (text follows Gn. c. man. 2.1.2.); cf. 6.6.9, `aerumnosis anfractibus et circuitibus ambiebam'.

    invenimus: The first narrated encounter with the Christian religion, in the observation of others' prayer and the attempt to imitate it. He ascribes the failure of that first attempt, the first in a long series of false starts to be narrated, to the faulty knowledge of God on which it was based (`sentientes te, ut poteramus, esse magnum aliquem'). A. regularly emphasizes accurate knowledge of God as a prerequisite for spiritual progress, with the most explicit discussion from 7.1.1. Note `invocationem' and cf. with discussion above on 1.1.1ff--especially for the way invocatio unties his tongue and makes speech possible where before there was silence; confessio could have begun here, but did not.

    exaudire: 17x in conf.; see on 1.7.11.

    subvenire: Less common than exaudire: 6x in conf. (3x in Vg. OT, not in NT; never combined with exaudire); not specially associated with answered prayers.

    auxilium et refugium meum: The phrase has a scriptural ring, but no one definite antecedent. Closest: Ps. 93.22, `et factus est mihi dominus in refugium et deus meus in auxilium spei meae.' Knauer 36 catalogues both auxilium and refugium in Psalm-language, but auxilium is used there not in address to God but as something predicated of him. Refugium occurs in collocations of addresses, as Ps. 17.3, `firmamentum meum et refugium meum et liberator meus, deus meus adiutor meus'. `Dieses Beispiel zeigt, dass Augustin sich nicht an wörtliche Zitate zu binden braucht, sondern dazu neigt, aus verschiedenen Elementen, die ihm aus den Psalmen geläufig sind, neue Gruppierungen zu bilden, die den Eindruck eines wörtlichen Zitates hervorrufen.' en. Ps. 17.3, `refugium meum . . . quia refugi ad te; refugi autem quia liberasti me. . . . deus meus, qui mihi adiutorium prius vocationis tuae praestitisti, ut sperare in te possim.'

    nam puer coepi rogare te: This first mimetic prayer goes astray; scripture provides a context and an explanation. Ps. 21.2-3, `verba delictorum meorum: (3) deus meus, clamabo ad te per diem et non exaudies et nocte et non ad insipientiam mihi' (text follows en. Ps. 21. en. 2.3-4); en. Ps. 21. en. 1.3, `nec exaudies. deus meus, clamabo ad te in rebus prosperis huius vitae, ut non mutentur; nec exaudies, quia verbis delictorum meorum ad te clamabo. et nocte . . . et in adversis utique huius vitae clamabo ut prosperentur, et similiter non exaudies. neque hoc facis ad insipientiam mihi, sed potius ut sapiam quid clamare me velis; non verbis delictorum ex desiderio temporalis vitae, sed verbis conversionis ad te in vitam aeternam.'

    non erat ad insipientiam mihi: The phrase is difficult, reflecting the LXX: kai\ ou)k ei)s a)/noian e)moi\; the Hebrew has a different sense. A.'s own translators have not achieved either clarity or mutual agreement; best is Pusey, `not thereby giving me over to foolishness.' The leap of thought for A. seems to have been: `you heeded not my prayer, so that I would not end in folly (which would have been the result had you granted my wish).' en. Ps. 21. en. 2.4, `sed non ad insipientiam, sed ad sapientiam.' (The same etymological opposition at, e.g., Cic. fin. 1.14.46. and Tusc. 3.5.10 [`ita fit ut sapientia sanitas sit animi, insipientia autem quasi insanitas quaedam'].) The word is rare in CL, but more common in scripture representing Gk. a)/noia. Elsewhere in A. in passages echoing this verse: en. Ps. 43.2, 53.5 (`ut intellegerem quid a te petere deberem'), 59.7, civ. 21.14, ep. 140.7.19 (and often in that letter).

    mali: A. has no rigorous distinction between malum as a term for moral evil (`wrong-doing') and malum as a term for natural evil (`suffering': here `who wanted nothing bad to happen to me'); the former meaning greatly preponderates. Though he repeatedly asks (from 3.7.12 to 7.7.11) `unde malum,' in all of conf., only the following passages besides the present one certainly refer to natural evil: 3.8.16 (`vel evitandi mali . . . vel sola voluptate alieni mali'), 7.5.7 (`certe vel timor ipse malum est') and in a medical context 8.3.7 (`et vena eius malum renuntiat').

    plagae: Cf. `vapulabam'; 1.17.27, `plagarum metu' (also of school).

    text of 1.9.15

    1.9.15

    When he wrote these lines, A. would have recognized with a wry smile the sentiments of a child's prayer at baptism recorded in Eustratius, vita Eutychii 8 (PG 86.2283-2284; sixth century): ku/rie, a)gaqo\n nou=n xa/risai/ moi, i(/na ma/qw ta\ gra/mmata kai\ nikw= tou\s e(tai/rous mou.

    estne . . . affligebamur?: G-M: `An unusually long, invertebrate sentence.' We are to imagine a devout man, so devout that when faced himself with the tortures of the state, he thinks nothing of them (though others fear them bitterly)--the measurement of how little he thinks of them is the unconcern of parents over the punishment of their children in school. Just as we marvel at the unconcern of the martyr, so the child marvels at the unconcern of his parents.

    eculeos et ungulas: For particularly harsh torture, as is made clear at ep. 133.2, to the imperial commissioner Marcellinus: `noli perdere paternam diligentiam, quam in ipsa inquisitione servasti, quando tantorum scelerum confessionem non extendente eculeo, non sulcantibus ungulis, non urentibus flammis sed virgarum verberibus eruisti.' Cf. also ep. 43.4.13 and s. 13.6.7.

    diligens: G-M: `concessive, “though he loves”.' BA follows for its translation the correction found in one manuscript (and printed by the Maurists), deridens.

    minus ea metuebamus aut minus: sc. quam homines qui tormenta metuunt.

    et peccabamus tamen: The admission of actual sin, well-remembered: not for inability did he not study, but out of a delight in play. It never occurs to him that the child's idleness could be anything but culpable. The right of the teachers to punish this sin, on the other hand, is brought severely into question. The system in which young A. was being brought up was profoundly disordered and ungodly; it was not for his failure to participate in that system as such that he was worthy of punishment, but for other reasons (see next paragraph).

    delectabat ludere: Cf. `amore ludendi' (1.10.16, 1.19.30); on delectare, see on 1.6.7.

    maiorum nugae negotia vocabantur: Cf. 1.10.16 (`in spectacula, ludos maiorum'); s. 3, `omnis lusus puerorum simulacrum est negotii maioris.' Lactant. inst. 2.4.14, `merito igitur etiam senum stultitiam Seneca [frg. 121] deridet: “non”, inquit, “bis pueri sumus, ut vulgo dicitur, sed semper: verum hoc interest, quod maiora nos ludimus.”'

    bonus rerum arbiter: ironic.

    deformius: Adj./adv. in conf. used of those things that do not bear the pattern that God imparts (cf. 10.27.38, `et in ista formosa quae fecisti deformis inruebam')--a negative counterpart of the second person of the trinity (see above on 1.7.12).

    quaestiuncula: The talent for quaestiunculae is one that A. exploited as a Manichee (3.12.21, `quod . . . nonnullis quaestiunculis iam multos imperitos exagitassem'). Ironic depreciation of pedantry is as essential to an educational system as pedantry itself; quaestiuncula in Latin has no other force (cf. Cic. de or. 1.22.102, `“quid? mihi vos nunc” inquit Crassus “tamquam alicui graeculo otioso et loquaci et fortasse docto atque erudito quaestiunculam . . . ponitis?”'). The irony can be pleasant and indulgent, or dismissive: in A., indulgent at epp. 13.2 (to Nebridius, still in the atmosphere of Cassiciacum), 37.3 (to Simplicianus), and 80.2 (to Paulinus and Therasia), dismissive at mag. 8.21, util. cred. 6.13, and c. Faust. 33.8 (and directed against A. by Petilian at c. litt. Pet. 3.52.64 and by Faustus at c. Faust. 1.2).

    text of 1.10.16

    1.10.16

    tamen: For all that he can criticize the punishment he received at the time, he still deserved it; cf. 1.9.15, `peccabamus tamen' of the same event.

    ordinator [1]: See on 1.7.12. Earliest at Gn. litt. imp. 5.25, `et umbrae in picturis eminentiora quaeque distinguunt, ac non specie sed ordine placent. nam et vitiorum nostrum non est auctor deus, sed tamen ordinator est. . . . iustos et facit et ordinat; peccatores autem in quantum peccatores sunt non facit sed ordinat tantum. . . . privationes autem specierum defectusque naturarum non facit sed ordinat tantum.' Sim. at en. Ps. 7.19, 9.20, c. Faust. 22.78, Gn. litt. 1.17.33, 1.17.34, 3.24.37, 8.9.18, civ. 11.15-18, esp. 11.17 (`sed deus sicut naturarum bonarum optimus creator est, ita malarum voluntatum iustissimus ordinator'), and civ. 14.26, with discussion at civ. 19.13.

    amore ludendi [3] . . . superbas victorias [1] . . . curiositate [2]: At 10.30.41, A. uses 1 Jn. 2.16 (`quoniam omne quod in mundo est, concupiscentia carnis est, et concupiscentia oculorum, et ambitio saeculi') to arrange the examination of conscience he there undertakes. This commentary will identify the earlier occasions where that triple pattern reflects itself in A.'s analysis of his fall into sin and dereliction and later in his narrative of his reascent to God's favor; see Kusch and prolegomena. W. Theiler, P.u.A. 37 insists that the pattern gains its hold over A. via Porphyry; as with the triad modus/species/ordo at 1.7.12, he holds that the scriptural text is pretext or corroboration for a philosophical doctrine. But here Theiler cannot show the three temptations as a triad in Porphyry; he begs the question by arguing, to prove that the origin is Porphyrian, that the triad occurs without the biblical citation at lib. arb. 2.19.53; similarly to show (as Theiler tries to do at P.u.A. 41-42) that A.'s treatment of the temptations in Bk. 10 reflects various unconnected passages of Porphyry's de abstinentia would not show a priority of influence, only a happy confluence (and some originality on A.'s part). R. J. O'Connell, Traditio 19(1963), 24ff, claims descent from Plotinus. See further on 10.30.41.

    Here it seems certain that `amore ludendi' reflects the concupiscentia carnis [3] that will be A.'s most acute temptation, `superbas victorias' seems self-evidently to describe the fruit of the ambitio saeculi [1] (in other biblical translations sometimes superbia vitae), and `curiositate' [2] (n.b. `magis magisque per oculos emicante') represents concupiscentia oculorum. The presence of all three temptations in nuce here shows that the puer Augustine was completely innocent in no essential way: the decline traced through Bks. 2-5 is then not the primeval fall from grace, but a further fall into actual sin, leaving a double redemption for Bks. 6-9 to recount.

    scalpi aures meas falsis fabellis: 2 Tim. 4.3-4, `erit enim tempus cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes auribus, (4) et a veritate quidem auditum avertent; ad fabulas autem convertentur'; also echoed at 4.8.13. Cf. adn. Iob on 31.40, `“pro tritico germinet mihi urtica”: pro spiritalibus doctoribus magistri prurientium auditu per confricationes hominum mente corruptorum et a veritate destitutorum.' The itching ears belong to the Manichees particularly at c. Sec. 26.

    ludos: ludos O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   ludosque C D G Maur.  blunting the point.
    On ludi and spectacula, see on 3.2.2 and 6.8.13.

    ad talia edenda: Whatever the niveau of A.'s family (see on 2.3.5), his education and career led him among the higher orders of late Roman society, where his education was naturally supposed to lead to a social eminence entailing public responsibilities. A. never completely joined that class, but never completely quit it either. Every page of civ., e.g., vaunts his savoir faire, even as he protests his aloofness.

    vide ista: Ps. 24.16-18, `respice in me, et miserere mei, quoniam unicus et pauper sum ego. (17) tribulationes cordis mei multiplicatae sunt; de necessitatibus meis libera me. (18) vide humilitatem meam et laborem meum.' 34 Ps. 78.9, `propter gloriam nominis tui, domine, libera nos'; en. Ps. 78.12, `sic ergo nos liberas, id est, eruis a malis, cum et adiuvas nos ad faciendam iustitiam, et propitius es peccatis nostris, sine quibus in hac vita non sumus.' Cf. Mt. 6.13 (the Lord's prayer), `sed libera nos a malo'.

    The sense of `vide' here (`to look upon with favor': cf. `vidisti' in 1.11.17) is biblical rather than classical. The same imperative recurs through conf., corresponding to the assertions that confession proceeds in conspectu dei (see on 1.16.26): 1.18.29, 4.6.11, 6.6.9, 10.33.50, 11.2.4, 12.25.35, 13.18.22.

    libera . . . eos . . . ut invocent te: See on 1.1.1.

    text of 1.11.17

    1.11.17

    audieram: The verb occurs 175x in conf., repeatedly, as here, for the means of transmission of Christian teachings, not always completely understood--cf. 7.3.5, `quod audiebam, liberum voluntatis arbitrium causam esse'. Here he emphasizes that already in boyhood he had heard the core of the gospel message and undergone sacramental initiation short of baptism. As many have said, A. was never a `pagan' in the conventional acceptation of that word; his assertion here is designed to make it clear that he was even more `without excuse' (Rom. 1.20, `ut sint inexcusabiles': see on 7.9.14) than the traditional `pagans'.

    per humilitatem domini dei nostri: i.e., by the incarnation: cf. Phil. 2.8, `humilavit se factus oboediens usque ad mortem' (cited at 7.9.14); cf. 7.9.13 (`via humilitatis'), 8.2.3 (`humilitatem Christi'), 8.2.4 (`de sacramentis humilitatis verbi tui'), and 10.43.68 (`verax autem mediator, quem . . . misisti ut eius exemplo etiam ipsam discerent humilitatem').

    signabar: Catechumenate represented sacramental (bapt. 4.21.28, `catechumeni sacramentum'; s. Mai 94.1, `catechumeni, quos iam nonnullo sacramento mater concepit ecclesia') admission to the Christian community, but not full membership. This `of-but-not-in' status `was not an anomaly in Greco-Roman antiquity, but a familiar religious posture', even in Judaism (J. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias [Cambridge, 1987], 88). Even infants at the breast were eligible (s. 324). The only mention of his infancy after Bk. 1 recalls this event when he has resumed the status acquired thereby: 6.4.5 (`mihi nomen Christi infanti est inditum'); the mention here in the section devoted to pueritia is out of narrative place. See van der Meer 365-366 on the ritual (he may understate its force at 366: `None of this seems very precise, and one cannot help thinking that this particular rite had, by Augustine's day, become little more than a ceremony. . . . No doubt the majority of catechumens will have thought of some kind of safeguard against spiritual corruption--a kind of antidemonic specific'). The salt may have been received repeatedly (a eucharist surrogate for catechumens?--it is the least documented part of the rite): brev. Hippon. canon 3 (CCSL 149.33), `ut etiam per sollemnissimos paschales dies sacramentum catechumenis non detur, nisi solitum sal.' The best source is cat. rud. 26.50 (how the rite was modified for infantes is unclear): `his dictis, interrogandus est an haec credat atque observare desideret. quod cum responderit, solemniter utique signandus est et ecclesiae more tractandus.' In that passage, A. expressed a desire for what he had not himself gotten, that the rite be supplemented by doctrine to good effect; he continues, `deinde monendus est ex hac occasione, ut si quid etiam in scripturis audiat quod carnaliter sonet, etiamsi non intellegit, credat tamen spiritale aliquid significari quod ad sanctos more futuramque vitam pertineat. hoc autem ita breviter discit, ut quidquid audierit ex libris canonicis quod ad dilectionem aeternitatis et veritatis et sanctitatis et ad dilectionem proximi referre non possit, figurate dictum vel gestum esse credat; atque ita conetur intellegere, ut ad illam geminam referat dilectionem.' At s. 215.5 (authenticity doubtful), he speaks only of the signing with the cross: `quando primum credidisti, signum Christi in fronte tamquam in domo pudoris accepisti.'

    Later, he qualifies the force of the rite in the heat of anti-Pelagian controversy, but there is little anachronism: pecc. mer. 2.26.42, `non unius modi est sanctificatio; nam et catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi et orationem manus impositionis puto sanctificari. . .. sanctificatio catechumeni, si non fuerit baptizatus, non ei valet ad intrandum regnum caelorum aut ad peccatorum remissionem.' (That matches closely what Ambrose would have said: Amb. myst. 4.20, `credit autem etiam catechumenus in crucem domini Iesu qua et ipse signatur, sed nisi baptizatus fuerit . . . remissionem non potest accipere.')

    The application of the sign of the cross (not necessarily only at the moment of entering the catechumenate) was often reflected later: Io. ev. tr. 118.5, `postremo quid est, quod omnes noverunt, signum Christi, nisi crux Christi? quod signum nisi adhibeatur sive frontibus credentium [i.e., catechumenate], sive ipsi aquae ex qua regenerantur [baptism], sive oleo quo chrismate unguntur [anointing], sive sacrificio quo aluntur [the mass], nihil eorum rite perficitur.' Cf. also cat. rud. 20.34 (the cross like the sign of passover on the doorposts), Io. ev. tr. 11.4, 50.2, s. Den. 17.8, s. Mai 94.1, and s. 160.5. See also Morin's note at MA 1.89n6: `equidem scio nequaquam id proprie, sed de ductis digito lineis accipiendum: verumtamen saepe miratus sum, cum in Africa septentrionali brevi tempore versarer, plerosque indigenas, etsi multis saeculis Islamitico iugo subditos, ac religioni christianae infensos, crucis signum caeruleis notis fronte compuncta aperte gestare; quo se a parentibus iuxta morem a maioribus receptum protinus a nativitate insignitos esse, haud sine evidenti fastidio mihi confessi sunt.'

    quae multum speravit in te: The first hint of Monnica's piety.

    custos meus: Skut. and Ver. adduce Job 7.20, `quid faciam tibi o custos hominum?' and Gn. 28.15, `et ero custos tuus quocumque perrexeris,' but in VL neither text contained the word custos (Gn. 28.15 quoted at civ. 16.38 with `custodiens te').

    dei et domini mei: Jn. 20.28, `respondit Thomas et dixit ei, “dominus meus et deus meus.”'

    flagitavi: The same verb recalls this event at 5.9.16. This rush to baptism was unsatisfactory to some, though A. himself c. 408 was tolerant: ep. 98.5, `nec illud te moveat, quod quidam non ea fide ad baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam, sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere vel recipere sanitatem.'

    matris omnium nostrum: Gal. 4.26, `illa autem quae sursum est Hierusalem libera est, quae est mater nostra.' This is the only scriptural warrant for what is a common form of expression for A. (who is notably more favorable toward mothers than fathers): 6.3.4 (`matre catholica'), 7.1.1, 9.13.37, 12.15.20, 12.16.23; elsewhere cf. e.g. en. Ps. 26. en. 2.18, ep. 243.8. The image is ancient and widespread (J. C. Plumpe, Mater Ecclesia [Washington, D. C., 1943]) and frequent in A. (P. Rinetti, Aug. Mag. 2.827-834). See excursus below on mothers and fathers in conf.

    sacramentis: For sacramentum in A., see C. Couturier, in H. Rondet, et al., eds., études augustiniennes (Paris, 1953), 161-332; see also Mayer 1.284-331 and 2.454-457. The word occurs first at mor. 1.7.12 (of incarnation: `suscepti hominis sacramento'), recurs importantly in vera rel., a sign of the transformation already occurring in that work; and as a word that helps bridge the gap between things and signs: sacraments are signs that are also things (cf. doctr. chr. 1.2.2, etc.).

    confitens in remissionem peccatorum: Mk. 1.4-5, `baptismum paenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum; (5) . . . et baptizabantur ab illo in Iordane flumine, confitentes peccata sua.' Not for the last time, a chance for confessio lost.

    recreatus essem: He was revived in a lesser but not in a greater way: cf. e.g., en. Ps. 45.14, 142.17 (`“tu es deus meus,” qui creator meus, qui creasti me per verbum tuum, et recreasti me per verbum'), Io. ev. tr. 1.12.

    dilata est: See 1.11.18 for fuller discussion of the deferral.

    mundatio mea: Levit. 16.30 (prescribing Yom Kippur), `in hac die expiatio erit vestri atque mundatio ab omnibus peccatis vestris coram domino mundabimini.' en. Ps. 94.11, `“ascendentium de lavacro” [Cant. 6.5: n.b. `lavacrum' here]; id est, ascendentium de mundatione' (the Cant. passage has baptismal overtones for A.: doctr. chr. 2.6.7.

    quasi necesse esset . . .: Apoc. 22.10-12, `et dicit mihi, ne signaveris verba prophetiae libri huius: tempus enim prope est. (11) qui nocet, noceat adhuc; et qui in sordibus est, sordescat adhuc; et iustus iustitiam faciat adhuc; et sanctus sanctificetur adhuc; (12) ecce venio cito.' N.B. here, `quasi'.

    post lavacrum illud: Tit. 3.5-6, `salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis spiritus sancti, (6) quem effudit in nos abunde per Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum.'

    ita iam credebam: The observation is almost casual--for to A., without baptism, `faith' was of little value.

    nisi pater solus: Patricius' status in a household where women led the way to Christianity was not uncommon (cf. P. Brown, JRS 51[1961], 1-11), nor was his deathbed baptism (9.9.22); Possidius, who knew conf. but was not overly attentive, could say of A. (vit. 1.1) that he was `parentibus honestis et christianis progenitus'. There is no evidence that there was ever anything `pagan' (i.e., devoted to cults other than Christian) about Patricius.

    ut tu mihi pater esses: Ps. 26.10, `pater meus et mater mea dereliquerunt me; dominus autem adsumsit me'; en. Ps. 26. en. 2.18, `exceptis etiam illis duobus parentibus, de quorum carne nati sumus . . . habemus hic alium patrem et aliam matrem, vel potius habuimus. pater secundum saeculum diabolus est, et fuit nobis pater cum essemus infideles; nam infidelibus dicit dominus, “vos a patre diabolo estis.” [Jn. 8.44] . . . cognovimus alium patrem, deum; reliquimus diabolum.' We have thus an obscure description of a struggle that may not have been entirely the product of imagination. The tension of the sentence arises from M.'s duty to serve her husband, a duty that in some sense she violated in the struggle over A.'s paternity. A higher authority is invoked to justify her, but if the struggle was more than figurative (quarrels about religion, paternal opposition to distracting the boy with religion, etc.), her part must have seemed at least a daring one. `Tamen' and `non evicit' in the preceding sentence both seem to speak of the same struggle.

    serviebat: See on 13.32.47 for A.'s habit of substituting servire for subdi when speaking of M. in terms of this scriptural language; as at 9.9.19, 9.13.37.

    text of 1.11.

    EXCURSUS: Mothers and Fathers in conf.

    The other real-life mothers in conf. are noticeably less spiritual than Monnica, but the metaphorical applications are mainly generous if various (for metaphorical application to the church, see above): 3.10.18 (Manichean doctrine about plants), 3.12.21 (ex-Manichee Christian bishop given in youth to the Manichees by his own `seducta mater'), 5.5.9 (`a caritate matre sustinetur'), 6.1.1 (the mother of the son raised from dead at Lk. 7.12-15), 6.10.17 (Nebridius' mother not following him to Italy), 7.6.8 (mother of Firminus having a dream); 8.11.27 (`ipsa continentia nequaquam sterilis, sed fecunda mater filiorum gaudiorum'), 9.7.15 (mother of Valentinian), 9.8.17 (Monnica's mother, who neglected her daughter's welfare), 9.9.20 (Monnica's mother-in-law), 13.6.7 (`obsecro te per matrem caritatem'), 13.14.15 (`nox, mater iniquorum'), 13.19.24 (`honorem matris et patris et dilectionem proximi'), 13.32.47 (`herbarumque atque arborum mater'). On a specific maternal image applied to God, see on 4.1.1, `sugens lac tuum'.

    On the other hand, a non-mortal pater is always God--there are no other metaphors: a much more limited role! A complete list of patres other than God or Patricius follows: most appear in no good light.

    1.6.10 (ancestors generically), as also 3.2.3 (`deo patrum nostrorum'), 3.7.14 (`reprehendebam caecus pios patres [Veteris Testamenti]'), 6.7.11f (the father of Alypius, with whom A. quarreled), 7.6.8f (the father of Firminus, who had taught him astrology), 8.2.3 (the only non-physiological father: `Simplicianum, patrem in accipienda gratia tunc episcopi Ambrosii et quem vere ut patrem diligebat'), 9.8.17f (Monnica's father [also not in a good light]), 10.34.52 (Jacob, son of Isaac and father of Joseph), 13.18.23.

    Most interesting, Patricius' death is only noted in passing at 3.4.7 (`iam defuncto patre ante biennium'), and at 3.6.10 we have the first vocative to God the Father (`mi pater summe bone'). The only earlier ref. to God as A.'s father is anticipatory here, `nam illa satagebat ut tu mihi pater esses'. See on 12.16.23 then for the eventual displacement of Monnica by `Hierusalem mater'.

    On fathers and sons in A., see B. Shaw, Past and Present 115(1987), 19-28, interpreting A.'s `distant, formal and somewhat fearful' relations with Patricius as not uncommon in the time and place: `his concomitant attachment to his mother, brother and sister, do[es] not seem so unusual.' Indeed not, if we think of another ancient nuclear family that has had much attention in after times: the household of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

    For the most responsible psychological interpretation arising out of these data, see C. Kligerman, Jour. Amer. Psychoan. Assoc. 5(1957), 469-484. He lays emphasis on the Dido/Monnica parallel (see on 5.8.15), suggesting that A. interprets his life as living out the same story he wept over as a child and sees in Faustus and Ambrose potential father figures, the first of whom disappoints, the second of whom never fully satisfies. (A reader who sets a higher value on baptism than Kligerman does would disagree: Ambrose does become A.'s father, but in an unexpected way, and that in another way it is God who becomes A.'s father, in accord with M.'s expressed wish here--and the fulfillment of such a mother's wish is significant). On the other hand, the suggestion made by Rebecca West in her Saint Augustine (London, 1930), and revived by E. TeSelle, Jour. Sci. Stud. Rel. 25(1986), 93-94, that A. came to resemble Patricius more and more as he aged (`increasingly high-handed, officious, authoritarian') is an elegant example of the cloud-ranching to which psychohistory can easily lead.

    If of the three temptations (see above on 1.10.16), the one that A. least securely vanquishes is ambitio saeculi (see on 10.36.59ff), the implication remains in the air like mist that it is God the father with whom A. is never on completely comfortable terms. And of course, the theme of the prodigal son is as much about fathers and estrangement as it is about sons, and there are some surprising ramifications to that observation: see on 1.18.28.

    text of 1.11.18

    1.11.18

    vellem: The imperfect of an optative subjunctive denotes the wish as unaccomplished in present time, but the following clause, `si tu etiam velles', creates a present contrary-to-fact condition: A. does not know, because God does not will him to know. confessio forgoes wanting to know out of deference to that will of God, and thus separates itself from curiositas. Only the earthly reason for the delay (M.'s prudence) is specified below.

    (non laxata) sunt: sunt C D G O1 Maur. Ver.:   sint O2 S Knöll Skut.
    The subjunctive is appropriate only if punctuated to include this clause in the preceding indirect question. The arrangement printed here (after Verheijen) is correct: `Was it for my good that the reins of sin were, after a fashion, loosed for me? Or were they really?' (De Marchi 310-311 had previously suggested deleting the second `laxata sunt/sint'.)

    etiam nunc: Cf. van der Meer 148-151 on the practice of deferral and A.'s episcopal campaigns against it.

    sonat undique: Voices on all sides drove him in directions he should not have gone; the one voice he should have heeded was inaudible; cf. 1.13.21, `et fornicanti sonabat undique'.

    recepta salus animae meae: Ps. 34.3, `dic animae meae, “salus tua ego sum.”' See on 1.5.5.

    melius vero: A bittersweet reflection on the past. What follows is not reason but rationalization, reason manipulated by worldly prudence.

    noverat eos iam illa mater: She foresees (but escapes reproach) what Patricius is criticized for observing (2.3.6).

    terram: Cf. Gn. 1.2 as interpreted throughout Bk. 12 (where it = informis materia) and employed at 13.12.13, `et terra nostra antequam acciperet formam doctrinae invisibilis erat et incomposita et ignorantiae tenebris tegebamur'; Gn. 2.7, `et finxit deus hominem de limo terrae' (regularly but not always in this form in A.; see VL [Beuron]). Cf. also 9.11.28, `ut coniuncta terra amborum coniugum terra tegeretur', of the mortal remains of Monnica and Patricius.

    per eos: per eos:   potius Knöll Vega  coni. Knöll, followed by Vega

    effigiem: infrequent in A., only here in conf. Take the sentence thus: `But how many and what great waves of temptation were to be seen threatening the other side of boyhood: that mother of mine already knew them, and wanted to risk in them the Earth from which I would afterwards be given shape, rather than the new Image itself.' The parallel at 13.12.13 just quoted and the `iam' are decisive in what has been a crux interpretum. But `unde' need not refer to `terram': it may perhaps to `eos' [sc. fluctus], making the `waters' both the floods of temptation and the water from which he would be baptized. Grammatically this solution (suggested to me by Prof. Henry Chadwick) is slightly superior to all others.

    Cf. Mk. 16.12 (of the risen Christ), `post haec autem duobus ex eis ambulantibus ostensus est in alia effigie euntibus in villam.' Effigies is therefore the person created by the regeneration of baptism, replacing the old, outworn earth, formless and void, emphasizing the physical form of the baptized body: clearest at trin. 11.1.1, where the `vestigium trinitatis' is sought no longer in the inner person but now in the outer: `in hoc ergo qui corrumpitur quaeramus quemadmodum possumus quandam trinitatis effigiem'; cf. civ. 20.9, where he speaks of sham Christians thus: `fingunt enim se esse quod non sunt, vocanturque non veraci effigie sed fallaci imagine christiani' (see also civ. 17.5); Io. ev. tr. 31.3, `secundum carnem et effigiem hominis quam gerebat [Christus]'. The incarnate Christ and carved statues can both be effigies. The operative Genesis echoes are 1.2 and 1.26; 2.7 only indicates the way in which the human condition can be read into 1.2 (see preceding note for quotations). Cf. Van Bavel 45: `effigies hominis' occurs 2x in Aug.'s oeuvre of Christ, and should be seen in a series of rough incarnational synonyms: filius hominis, forma servi, forma hominis, effigies hominis, forma humana. (This interpretation anticipated by J. le Clercq, PL 47.204.)

    committere: Cf. en. Ps. 32. en. 1.16, `nec quisquis . . . salvus erit, si se suae fortitudini multum commiserit'; en. Ps. 36. s. 3.7, `hoc est semen tuum; . . . terrae committis, et tanto amplius conligis; Christo committis, et perdis?' And so forth, abundantly with the dative. On close examination of every occurrence of committo in en. Ps. and conf., the only senses are (1) with the acc. in the sense of `committing sins' and (2) with acc. + dat. in the sense of entrusting x to y. From OLD and TLL 3.1909, it is clear that it can also occur with acc. + in + acc., `entrusting x to y.' There seems to be no parallel for the use here, with acc. + per + acc., which is the difficulty that has exercised the critics.35 Knöll's emendation at least goes to the likeliest focus of the problem, but to read potius takes away the indirect object; and in the sense of `entrust/risk' committo always takes an explicit or implied indirect object, which is the function that in spite of its oddity per eos does indeed fulfill (Arts 24 counts 170x in conf. where per + acc. expresses instrument or means).

    text of 1.12.19

    1.12.19

    This paragraph makes one twofold thematic statement about A. and his God: that A. did not like to study (`non amabam litteras'), and that God guided A. through his studies to a good end (`et bene mihi fiebat abs te'). The rest of the paragraph is a meditation on those assertions in a way characteristic of conf.: other people appear in it, but as bit players in the main drama between A. and God. Where human actions seem to be determinative, A. seeks to show that they are not. A meditation of this nature is more attractive to us than when he preaches predestinate grace against the Pelagians; but the latter crusade is of a piece with this passage.

    tamen: Boyhood has perils enough; cf. `adulescentia' with `post pueritiam' just above in 1.11.18.

    fiebat: the (virtual) passive for contrast with what follows: `nec faciebam', `nec . . . faciebant'). With `tu bene faciebas mihi', the shift from passive to active shifts attention to God's action away from A.'s experience of that action.

    non enim discerem: `enim' introduces the minor premise; `autem' the major premise; the conclusion is what has already been stated, `bene mihi fiebat', and will be restated with the addition of `abs te' presently.

    nemo autem invitus . . . quod facit: The sentiment resembles the tenor and development of Amb. ep. 37., addressed to Simplicianus (see on 8.1.1), itself heavily influenced by Philo. Amb. ep. 37.19-20, `sapiens ergo liber, quoniam qui ea facit quae vult liber est. . . . sapiens omnia quae facit bene facit. . . . (20) etenim qui neque cogi potest neque prohiberi, is nequaquam servus. sapientis autem est neque cogi neque prohiberi non est igitur servus sapiens. . . . quod si cogitur, manifestum est quod invitus faciat. . . . unde liquet quia nihil invitus facit sapiens neque cogitur, qui si servus esset, cogeretur.' Cf. the gloss of Prosper of Aquitaine, who quotes the lemmatized words of conf. and adds (sent. 173), `quia nihil prodest spiritus timoris, ubi non est spiritus caritatis.'

    autem: autem C D G O Ver.:   enim S Knöll Skut.
    This is one of many places where Verheijen has altered the text he received from Skutella (and, in this case, Knöll) without reconsidering the punctuation.

    quo referrem: `to what use I would put'. What is stated in doctr. chr. 1.22.20ff about `use' and `enjoyment' appears more frequently in A. as a matter of the goal to which something is `referred'. Cf. civ. 10.6, `quanto magis anima ipsa cum se refert ad deum, ut igne amoris eius accensa formam concupiscentiae saecularis amittat eique tamquam incommutabili formae subdita reformetur, hinc ei placens, quod ex eius pulchritudine acceperit, fit sacrificium.'

    cupiditates: 31x in conf., never in a good sense; cf. 10.41.66, `in cupiditate triplici'.

    copiosae: for the antithesis with inopia, 2.4.9, `nec copiosus adactum inopia'; for a similar oxymoron, 12.1.1, `copiosa est egestas humanae intellegentiae'.

    capilli capilli G O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   capilli capitis C D Maur.  by assimilation to Mt. 10.30, `capilli capitis vestri omnes numerati sunt.'
    The text offers an argument against fear of death (see on 6.16.26), in favor of resurrection of the flesh: s. 65.2.3, `quid timeo ne carnem perdam, qui nec capillum perdo? . . . ipsum corpus quod percuti et occidi potest ad tempus cinis erit, in aeternum immortale erit'; en. Ps. 78.5, `ex occultis naturae sinibus totum redintegraturo illo, cui et capilli nostri numerati sunt.'

    meo: sc. errore. These lines (through `omnis inordinatus animus') demonstrate the ordinatio peccatorum suggested above at 1.10.16, and hence the role of ordo (1.7.12).

    tantillus . . . tantus: cf. en. Ps. 36. s. 2.16, `miraberis tantum dari pro tantillo labore.'

    de non: de non Maur. Pell.  supported by two minor manuscripts (one offering the reading only in a correction):   non de C D G O S Skut. Ver.
    The text insists on being taken in the way the Maurists' correction implies. The sense of the paragraph is not (as non de would make it) that there were people doing good whom God disdained to use, but that there were people doing no good but God used them anyway to do good for A. A. could not have written non de facientibus to mean de non facientibus. The sequence non de is common enough (14x in conf.; see below) to facilitate the change from de non; the latter is rare,36 but does occur once, for a precisely similar antithetical effect to that which is required here: 10.39.64, `sed sibi placentes multum tibi displicent non tantum de non bonis quasi bonis, verum etiam de bonis tuis quasi suis.' (With the correction, `non bene facientibus' may perhaps be taken to include both A. and those who pressed him to his studies.) For non between preposition and its object, cf. also 3.8.16, `vel in non concessa'; 6.7.11, `quae in non magna aetate satis eminebat'. It is clear on the other hand that the sequence non de occurs elsewhere only where the non modifies some other element than the object of de. Occurrences in conf.: 3.6.10, 8.4.9, 10.23.33 (`quoniam qui non de te gaudere volunt'), 10.23.33, 10.31.46, 11.2.4, 12.7.7 (`fecisti enim caelum et terram non de te'), 12.17.25, 12.28.38, 13.23.33, 13.30.45, 13.33.48.

    retribuebas: Ps. 141.8, `me sustinebunt iusti, quoadusque retribuas mihi.' The verb occurs 7x in conf., recurring importantly to voice the same idea as here, God's influence in forestalling A.'s wrongdoing and bringing good out of evil: 13.1.1, `tu enim, domine, delevisti omnia mala merita mea, ne retribueres manibus meis, in quibus a te defeci, et praevenisti omnia bona merita mea, ut retribueres manibus tuis, quibus me fecisti'.

    text of 1.13.20

    1.13.20

    A.'s past remains unintelligible to him except as a history of self-will. His hostility to Greek is momentarily called to mind, then dropped (to return at 1.14.23) in favor of reflection on his course of study in Latin. The habits of misreading implanted here obstructed his approach to scripture for a long time.

    quid autem: Usually punctuated thus: `quid autem erat causae, cur graecas litteras oderam, quibus puerulus imbuebar, ne nunc quidem mihi satis exploratum est.'

    graecas litteras: On A.'s Greek studies, the consensus (after Marrou 27-46 and 631-637, Courcelle, LLW 149-165, B. Altaner, Kleine Patristische Schriften [Berlin, 1967], 129-153 along with Altaner's numerous articles on A.'s specific debts to Greek patristic literature) is that A. had limited but usable knowledge throughout his career (sufficient, e.g., to check readings in the Greek scriptures: see esp. D. de Bruyne, MA 2.521-606), and that he enhanced that skill later in life (in the 410s) to expand his knowledge of Greek patristic literature. His own remarks are strongly marked by rhetorical self-depreciation, e.g., c. litt. Pet. 2.38.91, `et ego quidem graecae linguae perparum assecutus sum et prope nihil.' Greek texts never came to A. unmediated. (What was possible in Africa at this time is another story; Ferrandus' life of Fulgentius of Ruspe [b. c. 467] makes ambitious claims for his Greek studies under a Monnica-like influence: `Fulgentium religiosa mater moriente celeriter patre graecis litteris imbuendum primitus tradidit et quamdiu totum simul Homerum memoriter reddidisset, Menandri quoque multa percurreret, nihil de latinis permisit litteris edoceri' [PL 65.119]. But, as Courcelle, LLW 221-222, shows, his demonstrable competence is modest; perhaps the Ferrandus text is best taken as evidence of the survival of the prestige of the language.)

    adamaveram: Similarly of the liking for a learned study at util. cred. 7.16, `cum igitur ad haec studia nos multitudo invitaverit, quae imperitorum parte copiosa est, ut id quod pauci adipisci possunt adamaremus . . .' Hensellek, Anzeiger Akad. Wien 115(1978), 17, renders `affectare, appetere'.

    primi magistri . . . grammatici: Cf. R. Kaster, art. cit. on 1.9.14.

    legere et scribere et numerare: The same triad at 1.15.24; foreshadowing the colloquial English `Three “R”s' (in English they do note antedate a jocular toast offered in 1795 by the Lord Mayor of London, Sir William Curtis, distinguished in the DNB as a man the object of more ridicule than any other of his time).

    vanitate vitae: = ambitio saeculi [1] < 1 Jn. 2.16 (see on 1.10.16). Successes in his schooling and teaching are regular examples of his weakness before this temptation.

    qua: qua C D G O1 S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   quia O2 Maur. Ps. Rom.  (except the Veronensis, which has quoniam)
    LXX has o(/ti. Here A. has grafted the Ps.-citation into his own context: `the life by which I was flesh' is periphrasis for vita carnalis. Ps. 77.39, `et recordatus est quia caro sunt, spiritus vadens et non revertens' (text follows en. Ps. 77.22; Ps. Rom. has memoratus for recordatus--which is in the Vulgate).

    ambulans: vadens in Ps. Rom. and Vg., poreuo/menon in LXX; but in en. Ps. cited below he quotes Prov. 2.19, `omnes qui ambulant in ea, non revertentur,' as a parallel text. en. Ps. 77.24, `per seipsos redire non possent. quomodo enim redit caro, spiritus ambulans et non revertens, urgente se in ima atque longinqua (see on 2.3.6, `inclinatae in ima', and 1.18.28, `in longinqua regione') malorum pondere meritorum, nisi per electionem gratiae?'

    illae quibus: i.e., litterae grammaticorum.

    tenere: of memorizing; cf. `oblitus' in the next line and 1.13.22, `oblivisci errores.' The expression is common in A., esp. in the discussion of memory in Bk. 10, e.g., 10.13.20 (`haec omnia memoria teneo'); cf. 10.13.20 (2x more), 10.15.23, 10.16.25, 10.16.25, 10.17.26, 10.18.27 (2x), 10.19.28, 10.20.29 (2x).

    Aeneae nescio cuius: This phrase and `cuiusdam Ciceronis' at 3.4.7 (more controversial: see notes there) contain an undeniable air of mild disdain (cf. Cic. de orat. 1.20.91., where Antonius is deprecating the learned tradition among rhetoricians: `cum repeteret usque a Corace nescio quo et Tisia', where the names were scarcely less familiar than Aeneas' here), but there is no pretense (even a merely rhetorical one) not to know the name; the disdain must not be overemphasized. (Such disdain needed not be absolute and his practice could vary: cf. 5.3.6, `cum dictis Manichaei', with 5.5.8, `Manichaeum nescio quem'.) Testard 1.14n3 wants this to hint at the fabulous quality of the Aeneas story; in view of the other figures treated in a similar way elsewhere, this is unlikely. Vergil's power to linger in memory is expressly recognized at civ. 1.3, `apud Vergilium, quem propterea parvuli legunt, ut videlicet poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus atque teneris ebibitus animis non facile oblivione possit aboleri.' And it was not only as a text that Aeneas came to A.: s. 242.5.5, `pauci nostis in libris, multi in theatris, quia Aeneas descendit ad inferos . . ..'

    Some useful parallels: s. 105.7.10 (`poeta illorum quidam' [=Vergil], where A. goes on to quote `imperium sine fine dedi' in order to disagree); Io. ev. tr. 43.6 (`ait quidam' [Vergil]), civ. 10.1 (`quidam latini eloquii magnus auctor' [=Vergil]), doctr. chr. 4.10.24 (`unde ait quidam' [=Cicero]), doctr. chr. 4.12.27 (`dixit enim quidam' [=Cicero]), vera rel. 34.64 (`Roma . . . quam circa Tiberim nescio quis Romulus dicitur condidisse'), ep. 125.3 (`nescio quis ille Regulus': writing to Alypius), c. Faust. 13.15 (`nescio quis Hermes'), c. Faust. 28.2 and 28.4 (`nescio cui Persae' [i.e., Mani]). For a more disdainful expression, cf. civ. 14.8, `nam et Alcibiadem ferunt (si me de nomine hominis memoria non fallit) . . .'

    errores: 29x in conf.; the antonym is peregrinatio. Used equally and without distinction for the sense represented by English `error' and that here of `wandering astray'; as here, 4.1.1, `praeteritos circuitus erroris mei'; clearly in the other sense, 4.7.12, `sed vanum phantasma et error meus erat deus meus'; somewhere between, 1.20.31, `atque ita inruebam in dolores, confusiones, errores'. See G. J. P. O'Daly, Augustinus 26(1981), 187*-94* (summarized at O'Daly 93-94).

    plorare: His second tears of this book: 1.7.11, `an quia uberibus inhiabam plorans'. For tears shed again for imaginary characters when there are better reasons to weep, see on 3.2.4.

    Didonem: H. Jacobson, HThR 65(1972), 296-297, shows similar self-reproach for taking fiction seriously in ps.-Andocides, Plutarch, and Aelian.

    vita mea: see on 1.4.4.

    text of 1.13.21

    1.13.21

    quid enim: The rhetorical question reestablishes tension between A.'s past and God's authority, but the idea is still conventional: cf. Sen. ep. 88.7, `quaeris Ulixes ubi erraverit potius quam efficias ne nos semper erremus?' The implicit approval of an ordinate self-love may owe something to Sirach 30.24, `miserere animae tuae placens deo' (frequently quoted by A.): cf. O'Donovan, The Problem of Self-Love in St. Augustine (New Haven, 1980), 46 and 178n22.

    lumen cordis mei: Jn. 1.9, `erat lumen verum quod inluminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum' (cf. 4.15.25); Io. ev. tr. 2.7, `veniebat enim ad mentes informes, ad corda saucia, ad aciem animae lippientis.' Cf. Jn. 3.19-21, `lux venit in mundum, et dilexerunt homines magis tenebras quam lucem . . . (21) qui autem facit veritatem, venit ad lucem, ut manifestentur eius opera, quia in deo sunt facta'; 1 Jn. 1.5, `deus lux est.' A partial list of parallel expressions in conf.: 3.4.8 (`tu, lumen cordis mei'), 4.16.30, 5.3.4, 7.9.13, 7.9.13, 8.10.22, 9.4.11, 10.17.26 (`te, dulce lumen'), 12.10.10 (`o veritas, lumen cordis mei'), 13.2.3, 13.4.5, 13.6.7, 13.16.19, 13.24.36.

    panis: Jn. 6.35, `ego sum panis vitae: qui venit ad me non esuriet.' Like lumen, panis designates the second person of the trinity. The same image also only at 6.3.3 (`de pane tuo').

    virtus: Texts such as 1 Cor. 1.24, `Christum dei virtutem et dei sapientiam', and 2 Cor. 6.7, `in verbo veritatis, in virtute dei', suggest that the focus on the second person of the trinity is maintained. Cf. 10.1.1, 11.2.3 (`lux caecorum et virtus infirmorum, statim lux videntium et virtus fortium').

    maritans: maritare elsewhere in A. chiefly in the perfect participle, of a married person; except for such occurrences, only 2x in all the rest of A., s. Étaix 2.1, `mox viri nesciam sermo dei maritat,' and vera rel. 26.49, `tertiam [aetatem] iam fidentiorem et carnalem appetitum rationis robore maritantem gaudentemque intrinsecus in quadam dulcedine coniugali, cum anima menti copulatur et velamento pudoris obnubitur'.

    sinum cogitationis meae: en. Ps. 57.17, `“alligabit quis ignem in sinu suo, et vestimenta sua non comburet?” [Prov. 6.27-29] gestas in sinu prunas, perforatur tunica; gestas in cogitatione adulterium, et integra est anima?' Cf. 9.2.3 (`sinum cogitationis'), 10.8.13 (`sinus memoriae'), 10.8.14 (`ipso ingenti sinu animi mei').

    fornicabar abs te: Ps. 72.27-28, `ecce qui longe se faciunt a te, peribunt; perdidisti omnem qui fornicatur abs te. (28) mihi autem adhaerere deo bonum est' (vs. 28 cited at 7.11.17 [where see notes], 12.15.22, 13.2.3). The image here elsewhere in conf. at 2.6.14, 4.2.3, 5.12.22. Since God must be spoken of in metaphor, exegesis has the task of delimiting metaphor: en. Ps. 72.33, `illi vero longe recesserunt, quia non solum terrena desideraverunt, sed ea a daemonibus et a diabolo petierunt. . . . et quid est, longe a deo fieri? “perdidisti omnem qui fornicatur abs te.” huic fornicationi contrarius est amor castus. quis est amor castus? amat iam anima sponsum suum.' Sim. at en. Ps. 78.8; at s. dom. m. 1.16.43 he debates whether `fornication' in divorce cases is purely sexual or applies to `omnem inlicitam corruptionem, sicut est idolatria vel avaritia, et ex eo iam omnis transgressio legis propter inlicitam concupiscentiam.' Though he softens his eventual position at retr. 1.19.6, the text shows how seriously he took metaphorical fornicatio, considering it even where the literal sense is obviously more apt.

    `euge! euge!': Exclamations of worldly (and therefore false) praise. Ps. 39.16, `ferant confestim confusionem suam, qui dicunt mihi: euge, euge'; en. Ps. 39.26, `respexit ad aliud genus dolose malevolum et falso benedicum: “ferant . . . euge.” laudant falso: magnus vir, bonus vir, litteratus, doctus, sed quare christianus? et tua laudant, quae nolles laudari.' Also at Ps. 34.21, 34.24-25, 69.4, and cf. en. Ps. 69.5, `quare enim me laudant? laudent deum. quis enim ego sum, ut lauder in me? aut quid ego feci? quid habeo quod non accepi?' For the link to his self-reproaches at the time of conf., see ep. 95.2, quoted on 10.36.59, and n.b. there the repetition of `euge! euge!'

    amicitia enim mundi huius: Jas. 4.4, `adulteri, nescitis quia amicitia huius mundi inimica est dei?'

    et (flebam): et C D G S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   sed O Maur.
    (cf. `autem' above).

    exstinctam ferroque extrema secutam: Aen. 6.456-457:

    infelix Dido, verus mihi nuntius ergo
    venerat exstinctam ferroque extrema secutam?

    Why the literal citation? He says thereby not merely `for the dead Dido', but `for the dead Dido as incorporated in the text of the Aeneid'. It was not just a story or a figure of myth that appealed to him, but a text: the authorized version. He invokes scriptural texts the same way all the time. (Donatus thought highly of this passage--which is not from the narrative of Dido's fate, but the pathetic encounter of Aeneas with her shade in the underworld: interp. verg. ad 6.457, `dictio ista mira arte concepta est et pro personarum et pro causarum ratione composita.' He emphasizes Aeneas's acknowledgement of his own blame for Dido's death.) J. Bernhart, in a note ad loc. in his German translation, offers a further suggestion: `Extrema sequi im Vergil-Zitat wird hier unvermittelt in Sinne neuplatonischer Eschatologie vom moralischen Tod der Hingabe an die Materie verstanden.' This cannot be ruled out if A. knew any full or partial (on the underworld parts of Aeneid 6 only?) neoplatonizing Vergil commentary (see on 8.2.3).

    sequens ipse extrema: G-M: `the point of connexion being purely verbal'. Better, given the verbal connection, the result is a transmutation of Vergil's text into something A. finds better and truer. The primae litterae thus demonstrate their usefulness apart from the misuses of the schools.

    relicto te: Cf. 2.2.4, `sed efferbui miser, sequens impetum fluxus mei relicto te'.

    terra iens in terram: Gn. 3.19 (VL), `terra es, et in terram ibis'; this is the death A. was pursuing to correspond to that of Dido: civ. 20.20, `“in terram” quippe “ibis” est: “in hoc ibis amissa vita, quod eras antequam sumeres vitam”; id est, hoc eris exanimatus, quod eras antequam esses animatus (terrae insufflavit deus in faciem flatum vitae, cum factus est homo in animam vivam); tamquam diceretur, “terra es animata, quod non eras; terra eris exanimis, sicut eras.”' That interpretation also appeared at civ. 13.23, but at civ. 13.15 (`mors altera, de qua deus peccatum adhuc puniens homini dixerat, “terra es et in terram ibis”'), he took this phrase to allude to the secunda mors of the soul, at least as apt a reading here.

    tali: tali C D G:   talis OS Maur. Knöll Skut. Ver.
    The want of a demonstrative pronoun (e.g., haec) with `litterae' has led editors to retain with the better manuscripts the improbable reading talis. Nothing in A., or in Latin, parallels the construction, difficult first for the awkward change of number, and second, for the odd equation dementia = litterae, the more so because the verb of the sentence is a verb of mental activity that dementia would qualify very well in the ablative. Latin dementia denotes activity of mind, which might perhaps with difficulty be extended to apply to sayings uttered in a state of dementia (though there is no parallel even for that, e.g., haec sententia dementia est). Even examples of dementia in the nominative with a copulative verb are rare, and then the only example in A. equates dementia to a verb of mental activity: civ. 1.3, `quae dementia est existimare his tutoribus Romam sapienter fuisse commissam'. Further, tali(s) denotes what has immediately gone before, the folly of the young A. sorry when he could not read what would give him sorrow. It is impossible to equate that dementia with `honestiores et uberiores litterae'.

    Translate thus: `by madness such as that evinced by the student A., that literary study is thought more highly of than the study of the elements of reading and writing.'

    litterae: The disdain for such `litterae' is part of A.'s post-conversion habits of thought and expression: mus. 6.1.1, `qui litteris saecularibus dediti magnis implicantur erroribus . . . nescientes quid ibi delectet.'

    text of 1.13.22

    1.13.22

    in anima mea clamet deus meus, et veritas tua dicat: Anticipates a main topic of Bk. 10; see 10.24.35. Cf. Micah 6.9, `vox domini ad civitatem clamat.'

    prorsus: a very Augustinian adverb; emphatic: Hensellek, Anzeiger Akad. Wien 120(1983), 98-100. In conf. 13x in all.

    doctrina: Common in A. in both secular and religious senses. Biblical: in Latin OT, mainly in Proverbs and Sirach; in NT infrequent in Gospels (and once only in the mouth of Jesus: Jn. 7.16, `mea doctrina non est mea, sed eius qui misit me'), but common in Paul. The word furnishes A. and those of his cultural background (cf. Marrou 554-558) with an instrument by which Christian teaching was gradually assimilated to the norms and techniques of the prevailing secular culture. At Mt. 16.12, the doctrina of the Pharisees and Sadducees is deprecated, and no one mistook Jesus for a schoolmaster or conventional rabbi. The difference between A. the bishop and A. the schoolmaster is not so pronounced (for the parallel development in the Greek east, see C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen zur Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese [Cologne/Bonn, 1974]).

    oblivisci errores Aeneae: Cf. on 1.13.20, `tenere'.

    at enim: `To be sure': presenting a possible objection to his view. His response, `sed non illa magis honorem secreti . . . significant', makes explicit the implication of the objection. He has found these studies disreputable; he imagines the objection, `but the higher studies are carried on in the dignified privacy provided by the velum'; and responds, `the velum is there not to provide privacy but to conceal error.' This expression is classical (OLD s.v. at 4) and is the exclusive use of the collocation in A. The phrase does not occur elsewhere in conf., once only in en. Ps. (31. en. 2.16), but is common in civ. (13x), particularly the earlier books of rhetorical parry and thrust. In every case, at enim introduces a single sentence or clause containing a possible objection to A.'s position, and is followed immediately by A.'s rejoinder, often marked by an adversative conjunction: e.g., civ. 1.10, `at enim quidam boni etiam christiani tormentis excruciati sunt, ut bona sua hostibus proderent. illi vero nec prodere nec perdere potuerunt bonum quo ipsi boni erant.'

    vela: The adaptation here parallels that of doctrina. The under-master watched by the curtain at the entrance: s. 178.7.8, `pauperrimus homo . . . nobis apud Mediolanum constitutis . . . tam pauper ut proscholus esset grammatici: sed plane christianus, quamvis ille esset paganus grammaticus; melior ad velum, quam in cathedra.' Cf. s. 51.4.5, `quanto enim quisque honoratior est, tanto plura vela pendent in domo eius. vela faciunt honorem secreti: sed honorantibus levantur vela.'

    quos: i.e., `venditores grammaticae vel emptores' (below).

    malarum viarum mearum: Ps. 118.101, `ab omni via maligna prohibui pedes meos, ut custodiam verba tua' (text follows en. Ps. 118. s. 22.5; Ps. Rom. has mala for maligna, while Veronensis reads maligni; LXX ponhra/s). Jer. 18.11, `[Dominus dicit] revertatur unusquisque a via sua mala et dirigite vias vestras et studia vestra'; Jer. 26.3, `si forte audiant et convertantur unusquisque a via sua mala.'

    respondent: respondent C D O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   respondebunt G Maur.

    quo: quo C D O Maur. Knöll Skut. Ver.:   quod G S

    poetica illa figmenta: civ. 4.26 (quoting the same passage of Cic. Tusc. quoted below: see on 1.16.25, `dicentem'), `hic exclamet Cicero non contra figmenta poetarum, sed contra instituta maiorum'; sim. at civ. 2.14; see also on 4.2.3, `figmentis'.

    et dulcissimum spectaculum [2] vanitatis [1]

    ipsius umbrae Creusae: Aen. 2.772, `infelix simulacrum atque ipsius umbra Creusae'. As at 1.13.21, the ipsissima verba emphasize that the folly is not merely in the story, but in the received textual version. The episodes evoked by these echoes are among the most pathetic in Vergil: the irrevocable loss by Aeneas of the two women who loved him. (A. also abandons two women in conf.: Monnica temporarily at 5.8.15 [with strong echoes of Dido--see notes there], his concubine permanently at 6.15.25 [and she, like Creusa, leaves A. with a son].)

    text of 1.14.23

    1.14.23

    There is no scripture in this paragraph and little in the one before. The unscriptural text is at center stage, infecting the narrative. The implicit assertion, exemplified by this paragraph, is that divine power goes even where the scriptural word is missing.

    graecam . . . grammaticam: See on 1.13.20.

    Homerus: Wherever A. has specific information about Homer's text, it proves on examination to have come to him from the scholiastic tradition on Vergil (e.g., at civ. 3.2, cf. Serv. on Aen. 5.810). None of the few and scattered references to Homer elsewhere in A. gives any sign of direct knowledge or of a more than conventional respect. Outside of civ. and conf., H. is named only at haer. 7, on the Carpocratians, one of whom, one Marcellina, `colebat imagines Iesu et Pauli et Homeri et Pythagorae adorando incensumque ponendo'.

    peritus: peritia for A. is always a secular or worldly skill (particularly apt therefore to artes such as medicine: cf. 4.3.5), and may even apply to non-Christian religious expertise, but he seems never to speak of it as an excellence associated with the Christian religion. Expertise is often misdirected; hence, though peritus may be used in a neutral and even laudatory way (e.g., civ. 18.43, `temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et omnium trium linguarum peritus'), it often carries a slight overtone of criticism (e.g., en. Ps. 101. s. 1.1, `etiamsi periti senes, quid illorum peritia ad verbum dei? quid illorum peritia ad sapientiam dei?').

    mihi: mihi C D G O Ver.  (preceded by a period):   et mihi S Maur. Knöll Skut.  (with no punctuation preceding)

    difficultas (2): difficultas C D S Knöll Skut. Ver.:    G O

    cum me urgeret: Willfulness again at the origins of human speech; cf. 1.6.8, 1.6.10, 1.8.13. `parienda' --> `parturiebam' (below).

    ± et qua ± : ±et qua± Skut.:   et qua C D S E F M1 PZ AH Vega Pell. Ver.:   et quae B G:   et quia M2 O V:   quae Maur.:   id quod Knöll

    esset: esset C D G S E F M P Z A H V Knöll Skut. Ver.:   essent B O:   possem Maur.

    A. Sizoo, Mnemosyne ser. 3, 13(1947), 141-142, emended to atque ea nata non essent, instancing nascor in trin. 9.7.12-9.9.14, and 15.10.19.

    Verheijen ed. xxxvii: `et qua non esset: et il n'y aurait pas de via qua, c'est-à-dire cela serait imposssible.' Carena: `perché il mio cuore stesso mi sollecitava a dare alla luce i suoi pensieri. Ma non c' era la via, se non avessi imparato qualche vocabolo, piú che a scuola da chi insegnava, dalla voce di chi parlava, nelle cui orecchie a mia volta deponevo i miei sentimenti.' Verheijen and Carena are probably right as to the sense, but wrong as to the language. The ellipsis is too harsh; on their view, the traditional emendation quae non possem, is far simpler and clearer, if palaeographically improbable. Skutella is correct to stigmatize the passage; one or more words have fallen out.

    in quorum et ego auribus: The hyperbaton of an extraneous element (here `et ego') in mid-phrase (`in quorum . . . auribus') is fairly common with quorum/quarum and especially where the interjected element is a first person pronoun. Cf. 4.16.28, 6.11.20 (`quarum mihi non eram conscius'), 6.12.21 (`a quorum ego quidem granditate animi longe aberam'), 8.2.4, 8.6.15 (`quorum nos nihil sciebamus'), 10.3.3 (`quorum mihi aures caritas aperit'), 10.11.18, 12.14.17 (`quorum ecce ante nos superficies blandiens parvulis'), 12.27.37, 13.20.26.

    curiositatem . . . illius fluxum: On curiositas, see on 1.10.16 and on 10.35.54. Fluxus always represents for A. the instability of the material world; cf. particularly 9.8.18, `fluxum saeculorum ordinate turbulentum' (see on 1.10.16, `ordinator peccatorum'); defluere provides the corresponding verb and is used in similar ways: 2.10.18 (`defluxi abs te ego et erravi'), 10.29.40, 12.10.10, 13.7.8.

    meticulosam: Here = metuendus, for which sense the only other attestation in TLL is Plaut. most. 1101, `nescis quam meticulosa res sit venire ad iudicem'; the ordinary active sense, `timorous, anxious', is not apt. Occurs only 3x in all A.'s works; ep. 28.4.6, `meticulosam potius . . . quam iustam tulisse sententiam' (sense as here); at c. Iul. 3.1.5, Julian contrasts the adj. to prudens (the conventional sense). (Perhaps better spelled metuculosus: see OLD and TLL and cf. the reading of Shere: metulosam.)

    legibus tuis . . . legibus tuis . . . legibus tuis: The pleonasm compels translators either to omit one occurrence of the phrase or to supply a verb with `a magistrorum . . . martyrum'.

    usque ad temptationes martyrum: For similar melodramatic link between the schoolboy's and the martyr's torments, see 1.9.15.

    recessimus a te: A recurrent theme (on reditus, see on 1.18.28): cf. 1.2.2, 2.6.14, 3.3.5 (`ad longe recedendum a te'), 4.16.31, 5.3.4, 6.16.26, 8.10.22, 10.26.37 (`et nusquam locus, et recedimus et accedimus, et nusquam locus'), 10.40.65.

    text of 1.15.24

    1.15.24

    The memoirs of infancy and boyhood are at an end; A. returns to the confessional mode, to comment rather than remember, to judge rather than to describe. How artificial is the high-minded austerity that values in school studies nothing but a kind of education that could have been gotten less damagingly elsewhere? A similar doubt intrudes for us at civ. 1.9, when he suggests that the sufferings of the just arise from no active fault but from their failure to reproach the wickedness of others. His weakest arguments seem to have been excogitated but not felt.

    exaudi: Ps. 60.2, `exaudi, deus, deprecationem meam, intende orationi meae'; cf. Ps. 54.2; see on 1.9.14; for the imperative, cf. 1.7.11, 9.4.8, 9.13.35, 10.33.50, 11.2.4, and see Knauer 64-74.

    deficiat: Ps. 83.3, `desiderat et deficit anima mea in atria domini'.

    disciplina: Pizzolato, Le fondazioni dello stile delle "Confessioni" (Milan, 1972), 31n3, aptly cites Gn. c. man. 1.25.43, `secundo die tamquam firmamentum disciplinae, quo discernit inter carnalia et spiritalia'; if pueritia is the second age, then disciplina is the appropriate gift here (but not received in the right way); see on 2.1.1 for a similar correlation with the third day in adulescentia. Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 63-64: `La disciplina è quindi correttivo della curiositas esasperata, che tutto ricerca “experiendi noscendique libidine,” (10.35.55) finendo col rovinare lo stesso piacere; ed è ugualmente un correttivo della meticulosa necessitas, che dà ordine al sapere, ma negandone la piacevolezza e facendo leva sulla paura (metus).' Cf. below, `tu disciplinam dabas mihi'; elsewhere often in a secular sense (esp. disciplinae liberales; see excursus on 4.16.30) and applied to bringing up a child in the Christian religion (9.6.14, of Adeodatus); for something closer to the sense here, see in conf. only 6.6.9, `baculo disciplinae tuae'. The disciplina of God is, however, important in A., with particular connection to the second person of the trinity (cf. div. qu. 38, `natura [1], disciplina [2], usus [3]').

    deficiam in: Hensellek, Anzeiger Akad. Wien 114(1977), 150: the construction is unusual, but cf. util. cred. 6.13, `in quaestiuncula magistro deficienti . . . suscensemus'.

    in confitendo tibi: `Immer aber, wenn Augustin das Wort “confiteri” benutzt, bedeutet es ein erneutes Hinwenden zu Gott.' (Knauer 78)

    omnibus viis meis pessimis: 2 Kgs. 17.13, `dominus . . . dicens revertimini a viis vestris pessimis et custodite praecepta mea et caerimonias'; sim. at 2 Par. 7.14, Jer. 36.3 and 36.7, `revertatur unusquisque a via sua pessima'. N.B. `via tuta est' below.

    dulcescas: See on 1.6.9, `dulcedo'.

    totis praecordiis meis: cf. Sirach 33.5, `praecordia fatui sicut rota carri.'

    et eruas me ab omni temptatione: Ps. 17.30, `quoniam a te eruar a temptatione' (text from en. Ps. 17 and Psalt. Veronensis); cf. Mt. 6.13, `ne nos inferas in temptationem'; 10.31.46, `eripe me ab omni temptatione'.

    eruas: almost always in conf. of God's rescuing hand: 1.18.28 (`et nunc eruis de hoc immanissimo profundo'), 3.11.19, 6.8.13, 9.4.7.

    usque in finem: See Knauer 75n1. Ps. 15.10, `adimplebis me laetitia . . . usque in finem'; cf. Ps. 37.7, 67.17, 1 Cor. 1.8. In conf., at 8.3.8, 13.15.18, but with the addition of a genitive, which has a limiting (or literalizing) force absent in the present phrase and the scriptural texts. The common phrase `in finem' in the tituli of the Psalms is interpreted by A. at its first appearance thus: en. Ps. 4.1, `in finem . . . “finis legis Christus ad iustitiam omni credenti.” [Rom. 10.4] hic enim finis perfectionem significat, non consumptionem.'

    rex meus et deus meus: Ps. 5.3, `intende voci obsecrationis meae, rex meus et deus meus'; Ps. 43.5, `tu es ipse rex meus et deus meus.' The first of these texts is linked to the second person of the trinity: en. Ps. 5.3, `quamvis et filius deus, et pater deus, et simul pater et filius unus deus; et si interrogemur de spiritu sancto, nihil aliud respondendum est, nisi quod deus sit; . . . tamen regem filium solent appellare scripturae.' But the interpretation given of the second twenty years later (en. Ps. 43.5, `“tu es ipse rex meus et deus meus.” tu es ipse, non enim mutatus es. tempora mutata video, creator temporum non mutatur.') leans slightly towards directing the reference to the first person. Rex of the first person at 1.19.30, 8.4.9; for the second person see on 10.35.56.

    quod loquor: 1.8.13, `iam puer loquens eram'.

    et scribo et lego et numero: See on 1.13.20.

    in eis vanis: G-M connect with `delectationum' by hyperbaton; unlikely, because that reading would make the demonstrative `eis' superfluous. The more obvious reading, `the sins of my delights', should be preferred.

    via: Jn. 14.6, `ego sum via et vita et veritas.' See on 7.7.11.

    ambularent: Earlier editors, seeing here a connection with `dimisisti' in the last sentence, hark back to the parable of the paralytic (cf. Mk. 2.5-10, Lk. 5.23): Mt. 9.5, `quid enim est facilius, dicere: “dimittuntur peccata tua,” aut dicere: “surge et ambula.”' If there is a hint of that, it would suggest again the second person of the trinity.

    text of 1.16.25

    1.16.25

    flumen: Cf. 1.16.26, `o flumen tartareum'; en. Ps. 65.11, `quid est flumen? flumen est omnis mortalitas saeculi' (sim. at en. Ps. 143.2).

    quis resistet tibi?: Ps. 75.8, `quis resistet tibi [domine] tunc ab ira tua?'

    Evae filios: en. Ps. 126.8, `in cuius figura etiam Eva “mater vivorum” appellata est.' Cf. Gn. 3.20 (apud Gn. litt. 11.1.1), `et vocavit Adam nomen mulieris suae “Vita”, quoniam haec est mater omnium viventium.' `Vita' is an occasional idiosyncrasy in VL texts, but the more familiar name prevailed.

    transeunt: ep. 55.1.2, `transitur, ut dixi, de morte ad vitam . . . in quo [hebraeo] eloquio pascha transitus dicitur.'

    lignum: Gn. 3.1 (apud Gn. litt. 11.1.1), `de fructu ligni quod est in medio paradiso'; to which A. connects (at civ. 13.20) Prov. 3.18, `lignum vitae est amplectentibus eam'; cf. Wisd. 14.7, `benedictum est enim lignum per quod fit iustitia.' That lignum in turn suggests the ark, the cross, and the church: civ. 15.26, `procul dubio [arca] figura est peregrinantis in hoc saeculo civitatis dei, hoc est ecclesiae, quae fit salva per lignum, in quo pependit mediator dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.' In A., the image that predominates is the cross: Io. ev. tr. 2.2, `sic ad illam stabilitatem nostram ubi quod est est . . . volumus pervenire, interiacet mare huius saeculi qua imus, etsi iam videmus quo imus: nam multi nec quo eant vident. . . . nemo enim potest transire mare huius saeculi, nisi cruce Christi portatus.' Sim. at cat. rud. 19.32, en. Ps. 103. s. 4.4, 136.4.

    in te legi: L. Herrmann, Aug. Mag. 1.136-137 thinks te an abbreviation for `Terentio'; this is unnecessarily literal-minded.

    tonantem: civ. 7.9, `unde satius esset eis alium aliquem Iovis nomine nuncupare, dignum turpibus et flagitiosis honoribus, supposito vano figmento quod potius blasphemarent . . . quam istum deum dicere et tonantem et adulterantem.' Tonans is a standard epithet of Jupiter from the cult tradition, common in inscriptions and formal prose; adulterans offers a mocking parallel from the mythic tradition (cf. ep. 138.4.18, `tot stuprorum auctor et perpetrator, quem Iovem nominant'). Christ steals Jove's thunder at 4.12.19, `et descendit huc ipsa vita nostra . . . et tonuit clamans, ut redeamus hinc ad illum.'

    ad imitandum: ad imitandum G O Maur. Pell.:   imitandum CDS Knöll Skut. Ver.
    But `verum adulterium' is probably the subject of `haberet'; cf. W. Schmidt-Dengler, Stilistische Studien zum Aufbau der Konfessionen Augustins (Diss., Vienna, 1965), 69. Cf. 8.5.10, `exarsi ad imitandum'.

    paenulatorum: The paenula was originally a close-fitting hood to protect against wet weather; we find it put to more formal use at Tac. dial. 39.1, `quantum humilitatis putamus eloquentiae attulisse paenulas istas, quibus adstricti et velut inclusi cum iudicibus fabulamur?' Cf. Ambstr. in 2 Tim. 4.13, of Paul's appeal as Roman citizen: `idcirco necesse est eos et curiam habere, in qua more Romanorum paenulati conveniant.' Of paenulatos discipulos (less well-turned-out than togatos, but presentable): Gell. 13.22.1. At Mart. Cap. 3.223, Grammatica enters: `ritu Romuleo . . . senatum deum ingressa est paenulata' (cf. 3.325).

    ex eodem pulvere: Not the dust of which Adam is created in Genesis, but the dust of the competitive arena--the other magistri will be aroused to contentious denial by such a statement. The metaphor is implicit: it was commonplace (e.g., Hor. carm. 1.1.3 and 1.8.4) to speak of the pulvis of the real arenas.

    dicentem: Cic., Tusc. 1.26.65, `fingebat haec Homerus et humana ad deos transferebat: divina mallem ad nos.' Here the authority of the line is implicit, to be recognized or not by one reader or another; contrast civ. 4.26, `sed “fingebat haec Homerus”, ait Tullius, “et humana ad deos transferebat: divina mallem ad nos.” merito displicuit viro gravi divinorum criminum poeta confictor.' See on 1.13.22, `poetica illa figmenta'.

    flagitia: See on 3.8.16.

    imitatus: Mimesis is a recognized path to behavior acquisition (22x in conf.), but how models are treated determines whether the behavior is good or bad. It is wrong to imitate God in the wrong way (2.6.13, `nam et superbia celsitudinem imitatur'; 2.6.14, `perverse te imitantur omnes'), but very right to imitate Christ or even those who imitate him (13.21.31, `imitando imitatores Christi tui'), and careful presentation of models can inspire praiseworthy zeal (8.5.10, `exarsi ad imitandum [Victorinum]').

    text of 1.16.26

    1.16.26

    o: The interjection occurs frequently, preponderantly in addresses to the nominal second person audience of the text--God, but with a wide and curious miscellany of other persons and things as well, particularly in the treatment of the pear-theft (2.6.12ff). Here A. presents himself as uncomfortable with the personification implied, and in a few more lines turns emphatically to formal address directed again to God.

    O addressed to God: 1.17.27, 2.2.2, 3.3.5, 3.6.10, 3.11.19, 4.16.31, 7.10.16, 9.4.11 (3x), 10.29.40, 11.2.3, 11.11.13, 11.31.41, 12.15.21, 12.25.34, 13.6.7, 13.24.35, 13.29.44. Addressed to other than God: here and 2.6.12, `o furtum meum, o facinus illud meum nocturnum', 2.6.14, `o putredo, o monstrum vitae et mortis profunditas', 2.9.17, `o nimis inimica amicitia', 4.7.12, `o stultum hominem immoderate humana patientem', 6.11.18, `o magni viri academici', 6.16.26, `o tortuosas vias', 12.11.12, `o beata [sc. creatura]', 13.13.14, `o stulti Galatae', 13.26.40, `o Paule magne'; but several of those cases are more exclamatory that apostrophic, like a few other cases where the interjection expresses a fervent wish, with no literal expression of any particular auditor: 9.4.10, `et o si fatigentur inedia et dicant', 9.4.10, `o si viderent internum aeternum', 9.13.34, `o si cognoscant se homines homines', 12.14.17, `o si occidas eos de gladio bis acuto'.

    tartareum: Cf. 3.1.1, `de tartaro libidinis', and 8.4.9, `tartaro caecitatis'. en. Ps. 140.2, `amor iste tartareus est: viscum habet quo deiciat in profundum, non pennas quibus levet in caelum.' For the rivers of hell in metaphor in this life, cf. Macrob. somn. Scip. 1.10.11, `pari interpretatione Phlegethontem ardores irarum et cupiditatum putarunt, Acherontem quidquid fecisse dixisseve usque ad tristitiam humanae varietatis more nos paenitet, Cocytum quidquid homines in luctum lacrimasque compellit, Stygem quidquid inter se humanos animos in gurgitem mergit odiorum.'

    filii: filii C2 G O Maur. Pell.:   fili C1 D S Knöll Skut. Ver.
    The shorter form, if indeed it represents a lingering trace of A.'s practice, is a nicety too poorly attested to be insisted upon; fili for A. is a regular form of the vocative singular (9.10.26, 13.12.13 [2x]). It is printed once by Skutella and Verheijen for the vocative plural (4.12.19) inconsistently, since they also print the exact same citation of Ps. 4.3 at 9.4.9 with filii; the text at 4.12.19 is attested as here by C1 DS for fili and C2 GO for filii; the other ninth-century manuscripts are similarly consistent in their treatment of the two passages with one minor exception. But filii hominum occurs elsewhere and is uniformly attested in the MSS in the longer form and so printed at 1.18.29 and 12.8.8. Where the nominative plural is required elsewhere, filii is unanimously attested: 8.4.9, 13.14.15 (4x).

    cum mercedibus: `with the fees' they will pay.

    cum hoc agitur publice in foro: Cf. 1.13.22, `at enim vela pendent liminibus grammaticarum scholarum', where the emphasis was on the comparative privacy sought in the public place. Marrou, History of Education (New York, 1964 [part 3, chapter 5]), 370 summarizes their status; cf. Kaster (art. cit. on 1.9.14) for qualifications.

    supra mercedem salaria: merces was what the student paid privately to a teacher (5.12.22, `ne mercedem magistro reddant'; sim. at civ. 2.19), the salarium what the state provided over and above: civ. 1.3, `nec suscensent auctoribus suis, quos ut ediscerent mercedem dederunt doctoresque ipsos insuper et salario publico et honoribus dignissimos habuerunt'; these passages supplement the evidence collected by Kaster, Guardians of Language, 118n96.

    saxa: en. Ps. 136.3, `multum sonat, strepitus aquae saxa percutit.'

    imbrem aureum: imbrem aureum C D G O2 Maur. Skut.:   imbrem et aureum O1 S Knöll Ver.

    Terentius: Ter. eun. 583-591:37

    dum apparatur, virgo in conclavi sedet
    suspectans tabulam quandam pictam: ubi inerat pictura haec, Iovem
    quo pacto Danaae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium imbrem aureum.
    egomet quoque id spectare coepi, et quia consimilem luserat
    iam olim ille ludum, impendio magis animu' gaudebat mihi
    deum sese in hominem convortisse atque in alienas tegulas
    venisse clanculum per impluvium fucum factum mulieri.
    at quem deum! `qui templa caeli summa sonitu concutit.'
    ego homuncio hoc non facerem? ego vero illud ita feci ac lubens.

    The quotation marks in 590 mark words that Donatus describes as `parodia de Ennio'. The character admiring this picture attacks a young woman ten lines later. Note particularly this image of Jupiter adulterans taking human form: wickedly like and unlike Christian incarnation. A.'s moralizing reading of the passage is matched by that of Donatus (on eun. 3.5.36-38: cf. C. Bennett, REAug 34[1988], 58n21). So the same passage provokes similar reflections at ep. 91.4-5 (91.5: `tot locis pingitur, funditur, tunditur, sculpitur, scribitur, legitur, agitur, cantatur, saltatus Iupiter, adulteria tanta committens') and at civ. 2.7-8. A. also knew of Jove's example simultaneously mocked and presented for emulation in the ludi Romani (civ. 4.26, `in illis ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iovem turpissimi histriones cantabant, agebant, placebant'). The myth is given a moral reading at civ. 18.13, `quicumque finxerunt . . . Danaes per imbrem aureum appetisse concubitum, ubi intellegitur pudicitia mulieris auro fuisse corrupta'. For wall painting as a standard art-form (of which A. has a low opinion), see vera rel. 51.100 and c. ep. fund. 34.39.

    All four standard school authors of A.'s time (Cicero [1.16.25], Vergil [1.13.21-22], Terence [here], and Sallust [2.5.11]) are expressly cited in the early pages of conf. (They were canonized in a celebrated work of Arusianus Messius [a senator and comes primi ordinis; the work was dedicated to the consuls Olybrius and Probinus in 395--hence contemporary38 ], exempla elocutionum ex Virgilio, Sallustio, Terentio, Cicerone digesta per litteras [Keil 7.449ff]; cf. Cassiod. inst. 1.15.7, `regulas . . . elocutionum latinorum, id est quadrigam Messii,' treating it as a standard textbook.)

    libidinem: 27x in conf., never in a good sense; see on 2.2.2.

    vero illud feci: vero illud feci G O2 S Maur. Knöll Skut.  The MSS of civ. 2.7 quoting this passage are unanimous for this reading.:   illud vero feci C D O1 Ver.

    electa: electa C D G O Ver. Pell.  (comparing Act. 9.15, `vas electionis', and 1 Pet. 2.6, `lapidem electum, pretiosum'):   lecta S Knöll Skut.
    Contrast Io. ev. tr. 1.8, `cotidie dicendo verba viluerunt nobis, quia sonando verba et transeundo viluerunt et nihil aliud videntur quam verba.'

    pretiosa . . . erroris . . . propinabatur . . . biberemus: s. 312.2.2, `quid enim ei pagano proderat eloquentia, qua tamquam poculo pretioso et bibebat mortiferos, et propinebat errores?' Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 21, rightly sees an analogy, if unconscious, to 1.3.3, `non enim vasa quae te plena sunt stabilem te faciunt, quia etsi frangantur non effunderis'; words `contain' God as inadequately as a human being does. The apparent container is really the thing permeated, underpinned, and itself contained by the divine.

    ebriis: See on 5.13.23.

    in cuius conspectu: This work itself exists before the silent, seeing presence of God, which is often evoked in these pages: 3.11.20, 5.3.3 (`proloquar in conspectu dei mei'), 6.2.2, 7.8.12, 9.2.2, 9.7.16, 9.12.33, 10.2.2 (`confessio itaque mea, deus meus, in conspectu tuo tibi tacite fit et non tacite'; cf. Ps. 95.6, `confessio et pulchritudo in conspectu eius'), 10.4.5, 10.5.7, 10.35.57, 11.2.4, 12.11.11 (2x), 12.11.13, 13.21.29. (Here there is the additional contrast with `in conspectu legum' above.) Knauer 75n3 discusses but his list derives from Skutella's citations and is not reliable.

    delectabar: See on 1.1.1 and 1.6.7.

    et ob hoc bonae spei puer appellabar: doctr. chr. 3.18.26, `spei bonae homines'; the phrase is applied to a minor child in a convent at s. 355.2.3, `filia . . . bonae spei est', and cf. persev. 21.55; it occurs in scripture (Wisd. 12.19) but may be commonplace (cf. Cic. fin. 2.35.117., `ergo in iis adolescentibus bonam spem esse dicemus et magnam indolem'; Tac. Agr. 9.7, `egregiae . . . spei filiam').

    text of 1.17.27

    1.17.27

    C. Bennett, REAug 34(1988), 48: `The Bible should have replaced Vergil (1.17.27). This position is not surprising; what is, is that there was also a safe way to read Vergil--a way the Confessions itself illustrates.'

    sine me . . . dicere: Prayer for the gift of speech marked the beginning of the main exposition of Bk. 1 (1.6.7, `sine me loqui apud misericordiam tuam'), now recurs to introduce the concluding section.

    in quibus: The asyndeton of the relative clause is a little harsh, because the construction is not quite parallel: `Let me say something even of my ingenium, your gift, [and let me say] by what acts of madness it was squandered.'

    deliramentis: of specific instances (thoughts, words, or deeds) of a disordered intellect, where dementia (see on 1.13.21) is used of a pattern of such activity indicating, and virtually identified with, an underlying disorder.

    inquietum: in an active sense, `disquieting' (G-M).

    plagarum metu: See on 1.9.14.

    irascentis et dolentis: Cf. below, `irae ac doloris'; Aen. 1.8-11:

    musa, mihi causas memora, quo numine laeso
    quidve dolens regina deum tot volvere casus
    insignem pietate virum, tot adire labores
    impulerit. tantaene animis caelestibus irae?

    Juno dwells in the regions of the air (cons. ev. 1.29.45: Jupiter is in the ether or, variously the heaven, above) and was to be identified with Astarte (qu. hept. 7.16).

    quod non posset: Aen. 1.37-38:

    haec secum: `mene incepto desistere victam
    nec posse Italia Teucrorum avertere regem!'

    A.'s meditation on the fall of Rome in s. 81 (taking a rather harder anti-Roman line than in civ.) ends with the recollection of Juno's speech to Aeolus, to argue that the Romans themselves were, as Trojans, once fugitives from a sacked city, and that a mighty goddess even then hounded them and opposed the founding of their new city: s. 81.9, `inducitur a poeta ipsorum Iuno irascens Aeneae et Troianis fugientibus, et dicit,

    gens inimica mihi Tyrrhenum navigat aequor,
    illum in Italiam portans victosque penates.'

    (Aen. 1.67-68). The same lines also at civ. 1.3.

    The exercise was traditional: Quint. 1.9.2., `[condiscant] versus primo solvere, mox mutatis verbis interpretari, tum paraphrasi audacius vertere, qua et breviare quaedam et exornare salvo modo poetae sensu permittitur.' Another memory of a similar exercise occurs at civ. 1.19: discussing the history of Lucretia, A. asks rhetorically, `quid dicemus? adultera haec an casta iudicanda est? quis in hac controversia laborandum putaverit? egregie quidam ex hoc veraciterque declamans ait, “mirabile dictu, duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit.”' For surviving examples on this theme, cf. the undistinguished African pastiche, the epistula Didonis ad Aeneam (Baehrens, PLM 4.271-277), or Ennodius, dictio 28 (`nec tibi diva parens').

    quae numquam . . . audieram: De Marchi 311-312 is right that the phrase is meant to specify that the exercise was creative, not merely recitative.

    errantes: The errores of Aeneas (1.13.20, 1.13.22) imitated by the student.

    solutis verbis . . . versibus: `prose . . . verse.' As in `verbis sententias' (cf. e.g. Cic. or. 13.42, `dulce igitur orationis genus et solutum et fluens, sententiis argutum, verbis sonans'), A. employs the vocabulary of the schools.

    vera vita: Jn. 14.6 etc. (see on 1.4.4); the last similar expression, at 1.13.20 (`deus, vita mea'), also occurred in a meditation on the way he read the Aeneid.

    quod: quod C D G O Maur. Vega Ver. Pell.:   quid S Knöll Skut.

    conlectoribus: Apparently first here in the surviving literature (cf. only Evod. ad Aug. in A. ep. 158.10, `condiscipulus et conlector') and rare (next attestations two hundred years later in Greg. Mag. and Ildef. Tolet.). The same word in the more obvious cognate sense `gatherer' also appears, approximately as rare and as late: cf. TLL s.v.

    fumus et ventus: Cf. s. 22.8.8, `ergo superbus sic se erigit contra deum, quomodo fumus contra caelum; restat ut ita deficiat, et tamquam in ventos suae vanitatis elatione dissipatus intereat'; Io. ev. tr. 10.6, `quid enim prodest adquirere in hoc saeculo quodlibet temporale et transitorium, sive sit pecunia, sive sit voluptas ventris et gutturis, sive sit honor in laude humana? nonne omnia fumus et ventus?'

    laudes tuae: i.e., `your praises, had I exercised my talent and tongue in uttering them.'

    palmitem: Jn. 15.4, `sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semetipso, nisi manserit in vite; sic nec vos, nisi in me manseritis. ego sum vitis, vos palmites.' The scriptural language usually evokes from A. discussions (e.g., Io. ev. tr. 80-81) of pruning fruitless branches; here the modification is slight but optimistic. The passage has proved difficult for translators to render with much literal fidelity. Pine-Coffin rarely strives for literal fidelity, and so perhaps expresses the metaphor most effectively here: `I might have used them [wits and tongue] O Lord, to praise you in the words of your Scriptures, which could have been a prop to support my heart, as if it were a young vine, so that it would not have produced the crop of worthless fruit, fit only for the birds to peck at.'

    praeda volatilibus: volatilia is the regular word in conf. for birds (two exceptions only, the volucrum of Rom. 1.23 at 5.3.5 and 7.9.15).

    non . . . uno modo: The conventional acceptation of `paganism' leaves no room for the young A., brought up in a Christian milieu, always flirting with the church (Brown 41: `Paganism meant nothing to Augustine'); but his view was that anything but full church membership was rank heathenism, and he stretches to assimilate his behavior to his own preconception. Cf. his use of Jer. 2.27 at 2.3.6.

    sacrificatur: 4.2.3, `daemonibus, quibus me illa superstitione ipse sacrificabam'.

    angelis: for the fall of the angels, cf. 7.3.5, `ex bono angelo diabolus factus est'; see civ. 12.1-9, and for the Christian identification of the fallen angels as daemones, civ. 9.19; for the further inference that the gods of `paganism' are those same transgressores angeli, civ. 2.24, `nempe intelleguntur daemones, sicut saepe dixi notumque nobis est in litteris sacris resque ipsae satis indicant, negotium suum agere, ut pro diis habeantur et colantur.'

    text of 1.18.28

    1.18.28

    foras: `outwards', as against foris, `outside': see on 1.6.7. See s. 96.2.2, `quid is foras' --quoted further below on `filius ille tuus minor'.

    barbarismo aut soloecismo: Suetonius frg. 176, `soloecismus in sensu fit, barbarismus in voce'; cf. doctr. chr. 2.13.19, quoted below on 1.18.29. In cat. rud. 9.13, A. advises the catechist to take care that well-educated proselytes not take offense at what they encounter in church: `ita enim non inridebunt, si aliquos antistites et ministros ecclesiae forte animadverterint vel cum barbarismis et soloecismis deum invocare, vel eadem verba quae pronuntiant non intellegere perturbateque distinguere.' But as bishop he loses his fastidiousness: en. Ps. 36. s. 3.6, `quid ad nos quid grammatici velint? melius in barbarismo nostro vos intellegitis quam in nostra disertitudine vos deserti eritis'; sim. at en. Ps. 138.20. He was himself when young very fastidious, but the transformation can be plotted with a curious passage, stepping outside the tradition while drawing on and paying homage to it: ord. 2.17.45, `soloecismos autem quos dicimus fortasse quisque doctus diligenter attendens in oratione mea reperiet; non enim defuit qui mihi nonnulla huius modi vitia ipsum Ciceronem fecisse peritissime persuasisset. barbarismorum autem genus nostris temporibus tale compertum est ut et ipsa eius oratio barbara videatur qua Roma servata est.' (Poetic license turned what might otherwise be barbarismi et soloecismi into figures of speech--schemata et metaplasmi: ord. 2.4.13 and c. Faust. 22.25.) For collection and discussion of texts, see G. Bellissima, Aug. Mag. 1.39-40.

    copiose ornateque: c. acad. 3.18.41, `copiosissime atque ornatissime'; doctr. chr. 4.5.7, `acute, ornate, vehementer'; cf. Gn. c. man. 1.1.1, `ornato politoque sermone'; c. litt. Pet. 1.1.1, `cultum ornatumque'. The categories are Ciceronian: Cic. Tusc. 1.4.7., `hanc enim perfectam philosophiam semper iudicavi, quae de maximis quaestionibus copiose posset ornateque dicere'; Cic. or. 28.97, `tertius est ille amplus copiosus gravis ornatus, in quo profecto vis maxima est. hic est enim, cuius ornatum dicendi et copiam admiratae gentes eloquentiam in civitatibus plurimum valere passae sunt.' Cf. Cic. Sull. 4.12, Brut. 5.21.

    longanimis . . . et verax: Ps. 85.15, `et tu domine deus meus miserator et misericors, longanimis et multum misericors et verax'; en. Ps. 85.20, `quare “longanimis et multum misericors et miserator”? quia in cruce pendens ait, “pater, ignosce illis, quia nesciunt quid faciunt.”'

    et verax: Io. ev. tr. 39.8, `verax est deus, non participando sed generando veritatem.'

    de immanissimo profundo: Ps. 85.13, `et eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiore.'

    immanissimo: superlative in conf.: 1.18.29, 6.8.13, 7.9.13.

    sitientem: Ps. 41.3-4, `sitivit anima mea ad deum vivum: (4) quando veniam et apparebo ante faciem dei?'; en. Ps. 41.5, `sitio in peregrinatione, sitio in cursu; satiabor in adventu.' Ps. 62.2, `sitivit tibi anima mea'; en. Ps. 62.5, `omnis qui sibi vult aliquid praestari, in ardore est desiderii: ipsum desiderium sitis est animae.'

    quaesivi vultum tuum: Ps. 26.8-9, `tibi dixit cor meum, “quaesivi vultum tuum, vultum tuum domine requiram, (9) ne avertas faciem tuam a me, ne declines in ira a servo tuo.”' (Verse 8 echoed at 9.3.6.) en. Ps. 26. en. 2.16, `“tibi dixit cor meum, quaesivi vultum tuum, vultum tuum domine, requiram. ne avertas faciem tuam a me; ne declines in ira a servo tuo.” magnifice, nihil dici divinius potest. sentiunt hoc qui vere amant.' Cf. en. Ps. 26. en. 2.15, `cor nostrum cui dicit, “quaesivi vultum tuum,” nisi ei qui pertinet ad oculum cordis? . . . vis illam lucem quae videtur oculis cordis videre, quia ipsa lux deus est.'

    As in CL, vultus is properly `expression' (cf. 1.8.13, `quae fiunt vultu et nutu oculorum ceterorumque membrorum actu') and facies is properly `face' (i.e., the front of the head--cf. 2.3.6, `qui ponunt tergum ad te et non faciem'); but already in CL the two were loosely interchangeable in many contexts, and that holds true even more for A., who is under the influence of scriptural texts where the Latin words are inconsistently used to translate Greek translations of the Hebrew; here, at Ps. 26.8, the Greek is pro/swpon; at Ps. 104.4, `quaerite faciem eius semper,' the Greek is still pro/swpon. Whether A. noticed that inconsistency or not, the substantive context is so similar that his exegesis is relevant here. Similar longing for the face of God (in a work that transpires in conspectu dei--see on 1.16.26) is expressed (with various scriptural warrants noted ad loc.) frequently--facies is the most common word: 1.5.5, 4.10.15, 8.10.22, 9.4.10, 10.5.7, 10.41.66, 12.15.21, 12.17.24, 13.8.9, 13.14.15, 13.15.18, 13.21.30.

    For A.'s exegesis concerning the `face of God', see en. Ps. 104.3, `“quaerite”, inquit, “faciem eius semper.” quae est facies domini, nisi praesentia dei? . . . scio quidem quia mihi adhaerere deo bonum est [Ps. 72.28: see on 7.11.17]; sed si semper quaeritur, quando invenitur? an “semper” dixit, in tota vita ista qua hic vivitur, ex quo id nos facere debere cognovimus, quando et inventus quaerendus est? iam quippe illum invenit fides, sed adhuc eum quaerit spes. caritas autem et invenit eum per fidem, et eum quaerit habere per speciem, ubi tunc sic invenietur ut sufficiat nobis et ulterius non quaeratur. . . . et nimirum hoc est, “quaerite faciem eius semper,” ut non huic inquisitioni, qua significatur amor, finem praestet inventio, sed amore crescente inquisitio crescat inventi.'

    nam longe: `eram must be understood.' (G-M)

    longe: Over and over in the first 10 books, the distance separating God from his human creature, variously to be bridged or minimized or denied, is denoted with this poignant word. The last three books are, in this way and others (see on 3.2.4, `lacrimae') more optimistic: 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4 (`ubi eram? et quam longe exulabam a deliciis domus tuae'), 2.6.14, 3.3.5, 3.3.5, 3.6.10, 3.6.11, 3.6.11 (`et longe peregrinabar abs te'), 4.5.10, 4.12.18, 4.16.31, 5.2.2, 5.3.3, 5.13.23, 7.10.16, 9.11.28 (`“nihil” inquit [Monnica] “longe est deo”), 10.27.38, 10.35.54, 10.35.56, 10.42.67, 10.42.67, 11.31.41, 12.11.13. See Io. ev. tr. 2.4: Platonists understand the doctrine of the Logos: `illud potuerunt videre quod est, sed viderunt de longe: noluerunt tenere humilitatem Christi . . . et sorduit eis crux Christi.'

    non enim pedibus: This paragraph ends with a vivid synthesis of two texts that epitomize A.'s principal spiritual authorities. For an early expression of the image, with no clear verbal echo of either Plot. or scripture, see sol. 1.1.5, `recipe, oro, fugitivum tuum, domine, clementissime pater: iamiam satis poenas dederim, satis inimicis tuis, quos sub pedibus habes, servierim, satis fuerim fallaciarum ludibrium. accipe me ab istis fugientem famulum tuum, quia et isti me quando a te fugiebam acceperunt alienum ad te mihi redeundum esse sentio: pateat mihi pulsanti ianua tua.'

    Plotinus 1.6.8.16-27, feu/gwmen dh\ fi/lhn e)s patri/da [Iliad2.140], a)lhqe/steron a)/n tis parakeleu/oito. ti/s ou)=n h( fugh\ kai\ pw=s; . . . patri\s dh\ h(mi=n, o(/qen parh/lqomen, kai\ path\r e)kei=. ti/s ou)=n o( sto/los kai\ h( fugh/; ou) posi\ dei= dianu/sai: pantaxou= ga\r fe/rousi po/des e)pi\ gh=n a)/llhn a)p' a)/llhs: ou)de/ se dei= i(/ppwn o)/xhma h)/ ti qala/ttion paraskeua/sai, a)lla\ tau=ta pa/nta a)fei=nai dei= kai\ mh\ ble/pein, a)ll' oi(=on mu/santa o)/yin a)/llhn a)lla/casqai kai\ a)negei=rai, h(\n e)/xei me\n pa=s, xrw=ntai de\ o)li/goi.

    We are missing the Latin version in which A. encountered the text, but there is a clear echo at civ. 9.17, `ubi est illud Plotini, ubi ait, “fugiendum est igitur ad carissimam patriam, et ibi pater, et ibi omnia. quae igitur, inquit, classis aut fuga? similem deo fieri” [see on 7.10.16].' In spite of that echo, a priori argument has been employed to trace allegiance here to Porphyry (W. Theiler P.u.A., 60 `unserer Auffassung nach Zitat des Porphyrios' : see also Theiler 43-53), but no consensus arises from such methods; cf. Courcelle, Recherches 128-129. Ambrose independently follows Plotinus: Amb. Isaac 8.78-79, `fugiamus ergo in patriam . . . (79) non utique pedum, qui sunt corporis . . . nec navibus fugiamus, aut curribus aut equis.'

    Other Augustinian passages corroborate the echo, but do not further clarify how it came to him: 8.8.19, `et non illuc ibatur navibus aut quadrigis aut pedibus'. mor. 1.12.21, `quanto ergo magis longe discedit a deo, non loco sed affectione atque cupiditate ad inferiora quam est ipse, tanto magis stultitia miseriaque completur. dilectione igitur reditur in deum.' doctr. chr. 1.10.10, `purgandus est animus, ut et perspicere illam lucem valeat et inhaerere perspectae. quam purgationem quasi ambulationem quandam et quasi navigationem ad patriam esse arbitremur. non enim ad eum qui ubique praesens est locis movemur, sed bono studio bonisque moribus.' Cf. ss. 141.4.4, 344.1, en. Ps. 94.2, 144.3, 149.5, epp. 145.4, 155.8.13, and see du Roy 98n1.

    itur abs te aut reditur ad te: A phrase echoed constantly through the prodigal Augustine's story (redeo in the ordinary sense of motion from place to place occurs only half as often as this metaphorical sense in conf.): 2.6.14 (`nisi cum redit ad te'), 3.4.7, 3.8.16, 4.11.16, 4.12.18, 4.12.19 (3x), 4.16.31, 5.12.22, 7.7.11 (2x), 8.3.8, 8.4.9, 10.42.67, 11.8.10, 12.10.10.

    filius ille tuus minor: The image of the prodigal recurs in many ways throughout conf., as throughout A.'s writings; the echoes almost always recall the first part of the story, the going astray.39 Lk. 15.11-18: `homo quidam habuit duos filios; (12) et dixit adulescentior ex illis patri, “pater, da mihi portionem substantiae quae me contingit,” et divisit illis substantiam, (13) et non post multos dies congregatis omnibus adulescentior filius peregre profectus in regionem longinquam et ibi dissipavit substantiam suam vivendo luxuriose. (14) et postquam omnia consummasset facta est fames valida in regione illa et ipse coepit egere, (15) et abiit et adhesit uni civium regionis illius et misit illum in villam suam ut pasceret porcos, (16) et cupiebat implere ventrem suum de siliquis quas porci manducabant et nemo illi dabat. (17) in se autem reversus dixit, "quanti mercennarii patris mei abundant panibus, ego autem hic fame pereo? (18) surgam et ibo ad patrem meum.'

    The best treatment is G. N. Knauer, Hermes 85(1957), 216-248; see also L. Ferrari, RA 12(1977), 105-118 (who offers the interesting suggestion that A.'s own brother Navigius [who appears at 9.11.27] bears some resemblances to the elder brother of the parable). There is a suggestive note by A.-M. La Bonnardière in Annuaire de l'école pratique des Hautes études, Ve section, Sc. Relig. 73 (1965-1966), 154-155. For a provocative reading that may not be far wrong, bear in mind Rilke, Malte Laurids Brigge: `Man wird mich schwer davon überzeugen, dass die Geschichte des verlorenen Sohnes nicht die Legende dessen ist, der nicht geliebt werden wollte.' 40 But note the essential difference. The acquisition of the Bible by cultured Greeks and Latins imported a huge collection of narratives against which to measure their own experience. These stories, for all their subtleties of construction, were at bottom unsubtle, black-and-white without shades of gray, cast in the desert sunlight of divine judgment. The breathing room for a re-reading of the story that Rilke finds was not there for A. and is indeed utterly alien to a scriptural reading of the story.

    The `literal sense' of the parable is the story told by Jesus about a man and his two sons, without special explanation. The two sons can then represent those who have been faithful and those who stray--in some contexts, this can imply the contrast between Jew and Gentile, but A. also takes the story back to the garden and asserts that the departure from home is equated with original sin (as at en. Ps. 24.5, `neque enim dimissus a te de paradiso et in longinquam regionem peregrinatus, per meipsum redire possum, nisi occurras erranti'). By the flexibility of that allegorical reading, the story then becomes the story of A. himself, a man whose relationship with his own father was difficult and strained, apparently unmarked by any final reconciliation. When A. is baptized (which on the theological level represents a return of the prodigal to the paternal God), he is at the same time being reconciled with Patricius--or at least with Patricius' own final disposition to accept baptism. Hence the possibility of prayer invoked for both Monnica and Patricius at 9.13.37.

    A.'s fullest exposition of this parable, almost contemporary with conf., deserves to be quoted somewhat fully as well, and parts of it will be cited again in other contexts:41 qu. ev. 2.33, `homo habens duos filios, deus habens duos populos intellegitur, tamquam stirpes duas generis humani, unam eorum qui permanserunt in unius dei cultu, alteram eorum qui usque ad colenda idola deseruerunt deum. . . . minorem in regionem longinquam profectum esse dicit. petiit enim ut sibi pars substantiae quae eum tangeret daretur a patre, tamquam anima potestate sua delectata, id quod illi est vivere, intellegere, meminisse, ingenio alacri excellere. omnia ista divina sunt munera, quae in potestatem accipiens per liberum arbitrium . . . minor filius in regionem longinquam profectus est . . . relicto ipso creatore. quod non post multos dies dixit factum, ut congregatis omnibus peregre proficisceretur in regionem longinquam, quia non multo post institutionem humani generis placuit animae per liberum arbitrium . . . deserere eum a quo condita est. . . . regio itaque longinqua oblivio dei est. fames autem in illa regione est indigentia verbi veritatis. unus civium regionis illius, aliquis aerius princeps ad militiam diaboli pertinens. . . . siliquae quibus porcos pascebat42 saeculares doctrinae sterili vanitate resonantes, de quibus laudes idolorum fabularumque ad deos gentium pertinentium vario sermone atque carminibus percrepant, quibus daemonia delectantur. . . . "in se autem reversus," iam scilicet ab eis quae forinsecus frustra inliciunt et seducunt in conscientiae interiora reducem faciens intentionem suam. . . . meretrices autem cum quibus dissipasse substantiam suam filius iunior accusatus est recte intelleguntur superstitiones relicto uno connubio legitimo verbi dei cum turba daemoniorum cupiditate turpissima fornicari.'

    For other treatments of the parable of varying length, see esp. s. Caill. 2.11 (c. 400), then Gn. litt. 6.20.31, 6.27.38, 8.4.8, Io. ev. tr. 107.2, civ. 11.28, en. Ps. 18. en. 2.3, 95.5, 118. s. 5.2, 138.5-7, ss. 96.2.2, 330.3, adn. Iob on 9.25. For a hint of the elements of the story's interpretation that survived A.'s whole career, cf. retr. 1.8.3, `“vellem”, inquam, “hinc plura dicere ac me ipsum constringere, dum quasi tibi praecipio ut nihil aliud agerem quam redderer mihi, cui me maxime debeo,” [quant. an. 28.55] ubi videor dicere potius debuisse, “redderer deo, cui me maxime debeo.” sed quoniam prius sibi ipse homo reddendus est, ut illic quasi gradu facto inde surgat atque attollatur ad deum, sicut filius ille minor prius reversus est ad semet ipsum et tunc ait, “surgam et ibo ad patrem meum,” ideo sic sum locutus.'

    pinna visibili: Cf. 8.7.18 (`umerisque liberioribus pinnas recipiunt') and Amb., fuga saec. 5.30, `qui vult igitur manu Christi levari ante ipse evolet, habeat pennas suas (qui fugit saeculum pennas habet) et si suas non habet (ne forte ille solus habeat suas qui potestatem habet volandi), si suas inquam non habet, ab eo qui habet accipiat.'

    regione: See on 4.16.31.

    text of 1.18.29

    1.18.29

    Two patterns of order are superimposed on each other here, with their similarities drawn out to contrast the values they represent. Order and law exist in human language as it is used here, but it is all shown to be a fraud, and a killing one at that, by the hidden order and law of God that works in and through even the deeds of his most perverse opponents.

    vide: see on 1.10.16.

    pacta . . . pacta . . . placita: Cf. 1.13.22, `secundum id pactum et placitum quo inter se homines ista signa firmarunt'. Caution remains in spite of this principled disdain for such fastidiousness; at doctr. chr. 4.10.24 (from the section of the work completed c. 427), he advises that it is better to say ossum than os, because African ears aren't good at catching longs and shorts; he goes on: `qui ergo docet, vitabit verba omnia quae non docent; et si pro eis alia quae intellegantur integra potest dicere, id magis eliget; si autem non potest, sive quia non sunt sive quia in praesentia non occurrunt, utetur etiam verbis minus integris, dum tamen res ipsa doceatur atque discatur integre'; cf. doctr. chr. 3.3.7. Cf. also Io. ev. tr. 2.14, `non timeamus ferulas grammaticorum, dum tamen ad veritatem solidam et certiorem perveniamus.'

    hominem (dixerit): hominem C D G O1 S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   ominem O2 Maur. Pell.

    inimicando: deponent (Souter renders `have hostile feelings'); originally biblical Latin (Sirach 28.6, `desine inimicari' [LXX pau=sai e)xqrai/nwn]); in A. it occurs at en. Ps. 58. s. 1.21, ep. 93.12.50, and cf. s. 90.9, `ecce homo est inimicus tuus: responde mihi, quid in illo inimicetur tibi? numquid hoc quod homo est, inimicatur tibi? non. sed quid? quod malus est. quod homo est, quod ego feci, non tibi inimicatur. . . . quod ipse fecit, hoc tibi inimicatur: unde malus, tibi inimicus est; non unde homo est.'

    scripta conscientia: Rom. 2.15, `qui ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis, testimonium reddente illis conscientia ipsorum et inter se invicem cogitationum accusantium aut etiam defendentium' (for `reddente' en. Ps. 5.13 and 9.9 suggest `perhibente'). Cf. 2.5.11, 4.9.14 (`ut rea sibi sit humana conscientia'), 5.6.11, 8.7.18 (`et increparet in me conscientia mea'), 10.2.2, 10.3.4, 10.6.8, 10.30.41, 12.18.27. util. cred. 16.34, `interior nescio quae conscientia deum quaerendum deoque serviendum meliores quosque animos quasi publice privatimque hortatur'; Io. ev. tr. 32.4, `venter interioris hominis conscientia cordis est.'

    se alteri facere: se alteri facere CDGOS Knöll Skut. Ver. Pell.:   se alteri non facere Z2 Ramorino:   ne alteri facere Vega
    The emendations are pointless: though the allusion to the scriptural texts is clear, `conscience' reminds us when we have done unto others what we would rather not suffer. The OT text is closest here: Tob. 4.16, `quod ab alio odis fieri tibi, vide ne alteri tu aliquando facias'; Mt. 7.12, `omnia ergo quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines, et vos facite eis'; Lk. 6.31, `et prout vultis ut faciant vobis homines, et vos facite illis similiter'. Cf. Otto Sprichwörter 16: the sentiment is not securely attested in Latin outside of scripture before the 390s (`Lampridius', Alex. Sev. 51--and there attributed to `Iudaeis sive christianis'). But cf. also an odd inscription from Salona, usually dated fourth century, emended to make it perhaps more ecumenical in spirit than it originally was: `quitquit [pag]ani sive iude/i vel crissi[ani colunt] / colent e[t deo]s manis. unus / quisque quot sibi fi/[e]ri non vu[lt] facere non debet.' (AE 1959, no. 251, with much discussion; see L. Cracco Ruggini, Augustinianum 14[1974], 427n59). A more likely supplement for the second word is [Rom]ani, but the golden rule is undoubtedly present in the second sentence.

    quam tu secretus es, habitans in excelsis in silentio: The remoteness of God again (cf. `taces' in 1.18.28 above).

    secretus: see on 1.4.4, `secretissime et praesentissime'.

    in excelsis: Is. 33.5 (VL), `sanctus deus qui habitat in excelsis.'

    in silentio: en. Ps. 7.1, `silentio . . . id est altissimo secreto . . . ad hoc profundum secretum altumque silentium cum venisset apostolus, exclamavit quasi quodam ipsius altitudinis horrore perculsus: “o altitudo . . . quis consiliarius illius fuit?” [Rom. 11.33-36] ita magnum illud silentium non expositione magis aperit, quam admiratione commendat.'

    cupiditates: 1 Jn. 2.16 (see on 1.10.16); but no threefold distinction is suggested here.

    quaeritans: quaeritans G O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   quaerit stans C D:   quaerit astans Maur.  (supported by two minor MSS)

    (inter) hominibus: hominibus C D O Maur. Knöll Ver.:   homines S G:   omines Knöll (ed. min.) Skut. Pell.
    G-M think omines a better example of `barbarism' (see below, 1.19.30, `ubi magis timebam barbarismum facere') than hominibus, which would be a `solecism', and they have A.'s own authority, almost contemporary with conf., to support them: doctr. chr. 2.13.19, `nam soloecismus qui dicitur, nihil est aliud quam cum verba non ea lege sibi coaptantur qua coaptaverunt qui priores nobis non sine auctoritate aliqua locuti sunt. utrum enim “inter homines” an “inter hominibus” dicatur, ad rerum non pertinet cognitorem. item barbarismus quid aliud est nisi verbum non eis litteris vel sono enuntiatum quo ab eis qui ante nos latine locuti sunt enuntiari solet? utrum autem “ignoscere” producta an correpta tertia syllaba dicatur . . .' (At mus. 2.2.2, he confines barbarismus to an error in pronunciation of vowel quantity.)

    But (1) it is hard to imagine a scribe finding an unexceptionable text (homines) and, having been paying attention closely to what they were copying, conjecturally emending to insert a grammatical fault--likelier that hominibus was there, and that it was regularized to homines by a solicitous but inattentive scribe; and (2) he has given an example of barbarism in this paragraph already (`sine adspiratione primae syllabae hominem dixerit') and is here complementing it with an example of solecism, still using the word homo as his touchstone, to give moral weight to his comparison above (`quam si contra tua praecepta hominem oderit, cum sit homo').

    text of 1.19.30

    1.19.30

    ego: 224x in conf.; with miser at 2.6.12, 2.8.16, 3.2.4, 6.16.26, 8.7.17 (`at ego adulescens miser valde'), and cf. 10.34.53 (`nam ego capior miserabiliter'). On the hyperbaton, see on 1.14.23.

    palaestra: The metaphor is common and Ciceronian (e.g., or. 56.186, 68.228-229).

    proiectus: Ps. 30.23, `ego dixi in ecstasi mea, “proiectus sum a facie oculorum tuorum.” exaudisti domine vocem orationis meae'; en. Ps. 30. en. 2 s. 3.10, `quia confessus sum, quia dixi: “proiectus sum . . . tuorum,” quia non superbus exstiti, sed cor meum accusavi, et in tribulatione mea titubans ad te exclamavi, exaudisti orationem meam.' Cf. 10.41.66.

    paedagogum: Presumably the family servant who accompanied the young boy to school.

    amore ludendi, studio spectandi nugatoria et imitandi ludicra inquietudine: There are three ways to take the last three words. (1) `ludicra inquietudine' as ablative, parallel to `amore' and `studio' and governing the genitive gerund `imitandi' (the reading of the BA translation); (2) `inquietudine' as ablative, parallel to `amore' and `studio' and governing the genitive gerund `imitandi', with `ludicra' as neuter plural object of `imitandi' (the reading of Arts 118); (3--assumed for the punctuation here) `imitandi' as genitive governed by `studio' (and parallel with `spectandi') and `ludicra inquietudine' as ablative of the manner in which this gawping and aping takes place.

    furta . . . faciebam: Anticipation of the pear-theft of 2.4.9. The sort of sin that A. thought possible even among children: Gn. litt. 10.13.23, `non enim de pueris grandiusculis agimus, quibus quidem peccatum proprium nolunt adtribuere quidam nisi ab anni quarti decimi articulo, cum pubescere coeperint. quod merito crederemus, si nulla essent peccata nisi quae membris genitalibus admittuntur. quis vero audeat adfirmare furta, mendacia, periuria non esse peccata, nisi qui talia vult inpune committere? at his plena est puerilis aetas, quamvis in eis non ita ut in maioribus punienda videantur, quod sperentur annis accedentibus, quibus ratio convalescat, posse praecepta salutaria melius intellegere eisque libentius oboedire.' The errors of boyhood include curiositas (`studio spectandi nugatoria'), concupiscentia carnis (`gula imperitante'), and superbia (`vana excellentiae cupiditate victus'): 1 Jn. 2.16 (see on 1.10.16).

    excellentiae: See on 6.3.3.

    deprehenderem: deprehenderem C D O2 S Maur. Knöll Skut. Ver. Pell.:   deprehenderer G O1

    id quod aliis faciebam: the golden rule, as above, 1.18.29.

    innocentia puerilis: What he said of infancy (1.7.11, `ita imbecillitas membrorum infantilium innocens est, non animus infantium'), he says again of boyhood. P. De Labriolle, Rev. de Philologie 54(1928), 47-49 (see Courcelle, Recherches 50) cites parallels to Seneca, const. sap. 12.1 (not acknowledged by Hagendahl): `non ideo quicquam inter illos puerosque interesse quis dixerit, quod illis talorum nucumve et aeris minuti avaritia est, his auri argentique et urbium, quod illi inter ipsos magistratus gerunt et praetextam fascesque imitantur, hi eadem in campo foroque et in curia serio ludunt. . . . ergo par pueris longiusque progressis, sed in alia maioraque error est.' (For the rarity of A.'s allusions to Seneca, see on 5.6.11.)

    a nucibus et pilulis et passeribus: `nuts [= marbles?], balls, and sparrows': only the first regularly attested as a plaything for small boys (as at Io. ev. tr. 26.5).

    talium est: Mt. 19.14, `sinite pueros venire ad me: talium est enim regnum caelorum' : n.b. pueros, not infantes, hence the applicability here. A. regularly insists that the gospel text uses children as symbols, by their small stature, of humility, not of childish innocence: qu. ev. 1.24, `“qui autem scandalizaverit unum ex pusillis istis,” [Mt. 18.6] id est, ex humilibus, quales vult esse discipulos suos'. Sim. at pecc. mer. 1.19.24, `cum verax sit ille intellectus quod humilitatis similitudinem in parva aetate posuerit'; cf. en. Ps. 112.1.

    text of 1.20.31

    1.20.31

    The first book closes with a tentative closure of the whole work: `had I died in childhood, then that childhood would have been matter enough for confession such as this.' The paragraph begins and ends with thanks to God. Just as Bk. 13 ends with anticipation of the afterlife, so see here `ero ipse tecum'.

    rectori universitatis: Phrase also at 3.8.16; cf. `unitatis' (below).

    eram . . . vivebam . . . sentiebam: Another parallel to his infancy narrative: 1.6.10, `eram enim et vivebam etiam tunc et signa, quibus sensa mea nota aliis facerem, iam in fine infantiae quaerebam.' The triple statement implies another image of the trinity (cf. du Roy 172-177), esse/vivere/intellegere (cf. sol. 2.1.1, `esse vis, vivere et intellegere, sed esse ut vivas, vivere ut intellegas'). Cf. adn. Iob on 38.20, `quis autem meminit fuisse se aut, cum esset, scire potuit esse se in lumbis patris sui? quandoquidem nec illud tempus quisquam recolit, quo non in parentibus, sed in se ipso natus est; quo tempore certe nemo dubitat quod iam erat et vivebat et sentiebat.'

    incolumitatem: 1.7.12, `proque eius [infantis] universitate atque incolumitate omnes conatus animantis insinuasti.'

    vestigium secretissimae unitatis: This emphasis on unitas [sc. dei] immediately after a triadic image confirms the trinitarian intent of the passage. On `secretissimae' see on 1.4.4. Plot. 6.9.11, pa/nta ta\ o)/nta tw=| e(ni/ e)stin o)/nta. mor. 2.6.8, `itaque in quantum quidque unitatem adipiscitur, in tantum est. unitatis est enim operatio, convenientia, et concordia, qua sunt in quantum sunt ea quae composita sunt: nam simplicia per se sunt, quia una sunt: quae autem non sunt simplicia, concordia partium imitantur unitatem, et in tantum sunt in quantum assequuntur. quare ordinatio [3] esse cogit, inordinatio vero non esse, quae perversio etiam nominatur atque corruptio. quidquid igitur corrumpitur, eo tendit ut non sit.'

    interiore sensu: See on 10.6.8 (esp. lib. arb. 2.3.8-9 quoted there).

    delectabar: See on 1.6.7.

    falli nolebam: 10.23.33, `multos expertus sum, qui vellent fallere, qui autem falli, neminem.'

    fugiebam dolorem, abiectionem, ignorantiam: cf. `voluptates, sublimitates, veritates' below, and note; cf. 2.2.2, `superba deiectione'.

    illi exulto: Ps. 2.11, `et exsultate illi cum tremore.'

    peccabam: Plotinus 1.6.8.3-6 (before the passage quoted on 1.18.28 above), i)/tw dh\ kai\ sunep/esqw ei)s to\ ei)/sw o( duna/menos e)/cw katalipw\n o)/yin o)mma/twn mhd' e)pistre/fwn au)to\n ei)s ta\s prote/ras a)glai/as swma/twn. Cf. 10.27.38.

    ceteris: ceteris C D G O Maur. Skut. Ver.:   ceteras S Knöll

    voluptates [3], sublimitates [1], veritates [2]: The desire for these things manifests itself as, respectively, concupiscentia carnis, ambitio saeculi, concupiscentia oculorum (1 Jn. 2.16: see on 1.10.16).

    dolores [3], confusiones [1], errores [2]: the search for pleasure (concupiscentia carnis) brings pain, the search for loftiness (ambitio saeculi) brings confusion, the search for knowledge (concupiscentia oculorum) brings error. See on 3.2.4, `dolere amabam'.

    dulcedo [3] . . . honor [1] . . . fiducia [2]: The authentic goals of those three ambitions should be the sweetness that comes from God, the honor (in a client relationship: God honors me, and so I honor him--hence an expression of humility), and the faithfulness (active sense mutually: from A., the opposite of curiositas).

    dulcedo: See on 1.6.9, and cf. 1.4.4 (invocation) and 2.1.1 (`ut tu dulcescas mihi, dulcedo non fallax, dulcedo felix et secura': beginning the book dominated by concupiscence). Cf. 2.6.13, where luxuria is the vice that imitates God: `luxuria satietatem atque abundantiam se cupit vocari: tu es autem plenitudo et indeficiens copia incorruptibilis suavitatis.' For explicit link to the third person of the trinity, see ep. 11.4 (quoted on 1.6.9).

    fiducia: The usage (of the person in whom one reposes confidence) is not unparallelled: see L. G. Engels, Graecitas et Latinitas Christianorum primaeva, Supplementa III (Nijmegen, 1970), 73-74 (not biblical as far as A. knew, but Jerome used it twice in his version of the Psalter from the Hebrew, at Ps. 21.10 and 70.5 [in both cases rendering Gk. e)lpi/s].

    gratias tibi de donis tuis: 2 Cor. 9.15, `gratias deo super inenarrabili dono eius.'

    1 

    The appositeness is corroborated by Possidius, v. Aug., pr. 7 (quoting Tob. 12.7 to characterize conf.), `“sacramentum igitur regis”, ut angelica auctoritate prolatum est, “bonum est abscondere: opera autem domini revelare et confiteri honorificum est.”'

    2 Most recently, e.g., Pizzolato, Lectio I-II, 9, citing a Greek grammarian's precept to quote authority at the outset of a work; more pertinently, attempts to see Manichean or pagan precedents in hymns and prayers of praise: a collection of such textual analogues is M. Zepf, Augustins Confessiones (Tübingen, 1926), 63-96.

    3 A.'s own practice varies: some works have formal separate prefaces, some dedicatory epistles, some prefaces incorporating a dedication, and some simply begin baldly (e.g., Gn. litt.): no other work of his begins with direct address to God.

    4 Eliot, `East Coker': `So the darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing'; Durrell, Justine: `Does not everything depend on our interpretation of the silence around us?'

    5 For further and more ambitious reflections in this vein, see J.-J. Goux, Tel Quel 21(1965), 67-75, e.g. at 68: `Tendu vers l'Auditeur muet, Augustin est pris par le désir de se dire tout entier'; cf. also F. E. Consolino, Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici 6(1982), 119-146 (esp. on the way sol. and util. cred. approach in places what A. does in conf.); and R. Herzog, in K. Stierle and R. Warning, eds., Das Gespräch (Munich, 1984), 213-250; in a more traditional vein, see R. Guardini, Anfang (Munich, 3rd ed., 1953). W. Theiler's display of Hermetic parallels (Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus [Berlin, 1930], 128-131) is less trenchant; see G. Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes (Cambridge, 1986), placing the Hermetic texts in a context broad enough to show how their ideas and terms entered a wider realm of discourse on which A. and others could draw.

    6  The words for `confession' are lacking in the opening paragraphs; fateor not until 1.5.6, confiteor not until 1.6.9. T. Deman, La Vie Spirituelle 39(1957), 261, noted this to ask whether the notion confessio was an original part of the work's conception, suggesting that it only really becomes prominent in Book 10. The reading of the first page proposed here demonstrates that if the exact word was not in mind, the thing for which it stood in A.'s mind is amply present.

    7  But the privilege conferred by that text is not absolute: ep. 249 (before 411? Mandouze, Pros. chr. s.v. Restitutus 7), `ita prope nulla est [sacrorum librorum pagina] quae nos non admoneat intus in ipsa societate sacramentorum quibus imbuimur ad vitam aeternam, cum his qui oderunt pacem esse debere pacificos, donec ingemiscendo nostra longinqua peregrinatio transeat (Ps. 119.5-7) atque in virtute Hierusalem matris aeternae securissima pace perfruamur'. Or cf. s. 46.14.33, `prope omnis pagina [scripturae] nihil aliud sonat quam Christum, et ecclesiam toto orbe diffusam.'

    8 

    Is. 7.9 (VL)--that thematic verse first in A. at lib. arb. 1.2.4, frequent thereafter: du Roy 213n3.

    9 

    The distinction between petitio, inquisitio and pulsatio (which does not otherwise play a part in A.'s use of the verse) is renounced by retr. 1.19.9.

    10 

    The view taken here was also that expressed, forcefully, by Wittgenstein (quoted by M. O'C. Darcy, in Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections ed. R. Rhees [Totowa, N.J., 1981], 105). The sentence `et vae . . . muti sunt' was used as a dedicatory inscription in a copy of his own Stunden-Buch by Rilke in 1912/13, at a time when he had been translating this part of Book 1 (J. Ferreiro, Rilke y San Agustin [Madrid, 1966], 7).

    11 

    Eugippius implicitly reads the passage in yet another way by presenting: `quoniam loquaces muti facti sunt'.

    12 

    Either the authenticity or the commonly accepted date (391) or the integrity from later contamination of s. 351.2.2 (which says that the faith of the sponsors suffices `ad consecrationem remissionemque originalis peccati' in infant baptism) must be contested; the authenticity has drawn various opinions (see Verbraken).

    13 

    This list is based on and supplements Mayer, Zeichen 2.131-133.

    14 

    nat. b. is probably contemporary with conf. (retr. 2.9 places it after c. Fel.of 404, but that work is out of order; see Mutzenbecher in CCSL 57.xviii-xix). Neither the retr. notice nor the work itself give any hint of circumstances, addressee, etc. Its Tendenz is anti-Manichean (it quotes their ep. fund. and thesaurus [including some strikingly `explicit' (ut nostrates aiunt) texts that discreet translators pass over]), and its emphasis on the ontology of modus/species/ordo makes explicit something often implicit in c. ep. fund. The last paragraph (nat. b. 48) is an oratio Augustini, heavily scriptural, that would not be out of place in conf. Many of the scriptural proof-texts occur frequently in conf., and it would not be surprising if nat. b. were at least in part a sketch of ideas (most of the work, chs. 1-39, is repetitive, as if A. were going over ideas and getting them straight) to be used elsewhere.

    15 

    The notion animates a passage like s. 27.6.6, `deformitas Christi te format. ille enim si deformis esse noluisset, tu formam quam perdidisti non recepisses. pendebat ergo in cruce deformis: sed deformitas illius pulchritudo nostra erat. in hac ergo vita deformem Christum teneamus. . . . huius deformitatis signum in fronte portamus: de ista deformitate Christi non erubescamus. hanc viam teneamus, et ad speciem perveniemus.'

    16 

    For a similar point of dispute, see on 1 Jn. 2.16 discussed at 1.10.16 and 10.30.41 below; see on 10.30.41 for the relevance of Cic. off. 1.4.14 (quoted in next paragraph here), where modus, pulchritudo, and ordo appear in a passage alongside foreshadowings of the triad of temptations presented by 1 Jn. 2.16.

    17 

    Throughout this commentary, the figures [1], [2], [3] mark words or phrases that form part of trinitarian triads. Sometimes they represent ideas that are predicated directly of the three persons of the trinity, and sometimes they represent parts of the world of creature (esp. of human nature) that reflect (or distort) the trinitarian structure of the creating God. The point in marking these triads is not so much theological or philosophical as rhetorical: to show how phraseology of this sort runs through A.'s texts. For the deeper issues, see du Roy passim.

    18 

    For 386, see Courcelle, Recherches 101, and Courcelle, Les Confessions 31, with concurrence of J.-R. Palanque in his review of Courcelle's Recherches at Revue d'histoire de l'église de France 28(1952), 134 (Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l'empire romain [Paris, 1933], 519 had argued for 387); other readers have held out for 387 (e.g., Madec, Saint Ambroise [Paris, 1974], 72, arguing that the Holy Week of 386 was too turbulent a period (see on 9.7.15) for such sermons--not a compelling point.

    19 

    On controversies over the reading of the triad in that last sentence, see J. Doignon, BA 4.1 (rev. ed. of 1986), note at 151-152.

    20 

    The italicized words are missing in all known MSS of vera rel., but appear in all modern editions beginning with Amerbach (1506) and are defended by the most recent editor (K.-D. Daur, Sac. Erud. 12[1961], 338); only Green in CSEL 77 rejects them; as du Roy 384 argues, they are necessary, logical, and probable, not least because Amerbach did not indulge in conjecture, so he must have had a manuscript containing them.

    21 

    The triad even invades characterization of someone else's doctrine: c. prisc. et orig. 8.9, `unde illud quod aiunt [priscillianistae], in eius sapientia iam fuisse facta omnia, antequam in istas formas et modos proprios proferentur, atque in suis ordinibus apparerent, non sobrie dicitur.'

    22 

    The fifth age was appropriate for involvement in the business of the secular world (Gn. c. man. 1.25.43, `incipiat quinto die in actionibus turbulentissimi saeculi, tamquam in aquis maris operari'), business whose burden A. acutely felt in the late 390s.

    23 

    In Bk. 6, A. learns to read the Old Testament as a series of such exempla: cf. 6.4.6f.

    24 

    Cf. 7.10.16ff.

    25 

    Cf. 8.12.29.

    26 

    The vision of Ostia (9.10.24-25) is perhaps one sign of this stage, but it may be taken as extending beyond the narrative of conf. through Cassiciacum and the first years of conversion.

    27 

    An apt description of the life at Thagaste A. enjoyed at the time of vera rel.: cf. ep. 10.2, written to Nebridius from that retirement: `magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa credulitate fiat in homine, nihil timere. hinc enim fit illud etiam solidum gaudium, nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum.'

    28 

    This is the next stage anticipated from the tranquility of Thagaste; it is this transformation that he thought he had lost and for which he shed tears at his ordination in Hippo shortly after writing vera rel.

    29 

    This text and div. qu. 58. (cited below) were the most frequently cited in the middle ages by those who took up the pattern from A.: Burrow 80-85.

    30 

    For the last three clauses, cf. 1 Jn. 2.16 (see on 1.10.16).

    31 

    en. Ps. 70. s. 2.4, `nam presbu/ths dicitur gravis, et ge/rwn senex. quia vero in latina lingua duorum istorum nominum distinctio deficit, de senectute ambo sunt posita, senecta et senium'; the latter distinction A. tries to force at qu. hept. 1.35, `seniorum aetas minor est quam senum, quamvis et senes appellentur seniores,' and qu. hept. 1.70. See also en. Ps. 127.15 (no distinct fifth age), s. 216.8.8 (fifth age called senium, the sixth senectus; with an interesting correlation to stages of spiritual growth not otherwise attested) and ep. 213.1 (fifth age called gravitas).

    32 

    Cf. G. N. Knauer, Glotta 38(1954), 100-118.

    33 

    Without examining all 3114 instances of ceterus, -a, -um in A., note that unambiguously singular forms of the word are extremely rare: ceterus appears nowhere, ceteram only 6x, and of the 74x appearances of cetero, at least 65 are in the adverbial phrase de cetero. By contrast, the unambiguously plural forms are common (e.g., ceteris 786x, ceterorum 85x). The lexica confirm the infrequency of the singular as adjective.

    34 

    D. De Bruyne, MA 2.553, uses this passage to argue that A. deliberately revised/corrected against the LXX Greek a Psalter close to the Veronensis (whose reading the citation here follows for its parallel to the text). A. in en. Ps. 24.17 reads educ (following LXX e)ca/gage) for libera. Here the Veronensis text seems to persist in memory.

    35 

    Any such collocation is extremely rare in A. and when found has a different sense, e.g., c. litt. Pet. 2.78.174, `quae vestri cotidie committunt per scelera furiosorum', where per is clearly `by means of'; so too the only other example, s. 162.2.

    36 

    The phrase de non in that order approx. 25x in Aug., with a handful of cases (ep. 186.11.38, gr. et pecc. or. 1.10.11, en. Ps. 58. s. 1.16) followed by a present participle.

    37 

    Text follows OCT but is assimilated to that of A. where the OCT apparatus indicates that readings were in the MSS of Terence; italics mark words cited here by A.

    38 

    And perhaps closer to A. than usually thought. If A. Cameron (in Christianisme et formes littéraires de l'antiquité tardive en occident [Entretiens Hardt, 23: Geneva, 1976], 7n2) is correct in seeing an allusion to A.M. in Amb. fuga saec. 3.16 (of approx. 387), then some earlier version of the work may have been in circulation in Christian circles by the time A. was in Milan.

    39 

    The story itself seems to invite reflection on the prodigality of the father as much as of the son, but this reading seems alien to the interpretation of A. and his time (or is at least ruled out if the suspicion arises: cf. Amb. in Luc. 7.213, `vides quod divinum patrimonium petentibus datur, nec putes culpam patris quod adulescentiori dedit').

    40 

    The prodigal was long familiar to Rilke's pen, from his Geschichten vom lieben Gott to his `Der Auszug des verlorenen Sohnes' of 1906 (in Neue Gedichte), his translation of Gide's treatment of the story, and elsewhere. Malte was published in 1910. A year later, Rilke began translating conf. in Paris, breaking off to go up to Duino for the winter of 1911-12, where he began the Duineser Elegien. The translation made little progress, and the papers were among those left in Paris during the war. He never returned to the task, but there are surviving fragments that may eventually be published. See J. Ferreiro, Rilke y San Agustin (Madrid, 1966).

    41 

    His discussion of this pericope is by far the longest such essay in qu. ev.

    42 

    See on 3.6.11, `a siliquis porcorum'.


    back to introduction     forward to text and commentary for book 2     only commentary on book 2     only text of book 2