In Defence of Faith, Against the Manichaeans: Critical Edition and Historical, Literary and Theological Study of the Treatise Aduersus Manichaeos, ... (Instrumenta Patristica Et Mediaevalia) 9782503589954, 2503589952

Table of contents :
Front Matter
Introduction
Chapter I. The Life of Evodius
Chapter II. Study of Manuscripts of Adversvs Manichaeos
Chapter III. Authorship of Adversvs Manichaeos
Chapter IV. Content and Language of Adversvs Manichaeos
Chapter V. The Sources of Adversvs Manichaeos
Chapter VI. The anti-Manichaean Theology of Evodius in Relation to Augustine’s Theology of Grace
Chapter VII. Adversvs Manichaeos as a Source on Manichaeism
Conclusion
Abbreviations and Bibliography
Edition and Translation
Notes
Appendices
Back Matter

Citation preview

IN DEFENCE OF FAITH, AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS

I N S T R V M E N TA PAT R I S T I C A E T M E D I A E VA L I A Research on the Inheritance of Early and Medieval Christianity

79

IN DEFENCE OF FAITH, AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS CRITICAL EDITION AND HISTORICAL, LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE TREATISE ADVERSVS MANICHAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO EVODIUS OF UZALIS

Aäron Vanspauwen

F 2020

I N S T R V M E N TA PAT R I S T I C A E T M E D I A E VA L I A Research on the Inheritance of Early and Medieval Christianity

Founded by Dom Eligius Dekkers († 1998)

Rita Beyers Alexander Andrée Emanuela Colombi Georges Declercq Jeroen Deploige Paul-Augustin Deproost Anthony Dupont Jacques Elfassi Guy Guldentops Hugh Houghton Mathijs Lamberigts Johan Leemans Paul Mattei Gert Partoens Marco Petoletti Dominique Poirel Kees Schepers Paul Tombeur Marc Van Uytfanghe Wim Verbaal

D/2020/0095/325 ISBN 978–2-503–58995-4 E-ISBN 978–2-503–58996-1 DOI 10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.120600 ISSN 1379-9878 E-ISSN 2294-8457 © 2020, Brepols Publishers n.v./s.a., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in the EU on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents Introduction . Study

.

.

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

  Chapter I: The Life of Evodius .

. .

. .

.

. .

.

. .

.

. .

.

. .

.

. .

.

. .

.

7 . 13

.

. 15

  1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    2.  Early Life of Evodius . . . . . . . . . . .    3.  Evodius and Augustine in Rome and Ostia . . . .    4.  Returned to Africa . . . . . . . . . . . .    5.  Bishop of Uzalis . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6.  Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 16 21 24 27 43

  Chapter II: Study of Manuscripts of Aduersus Manichaeos

45

  1. General Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . .   2. Paratextual Elements . . . . . . . . . . .    3.  Manuscripts that are Now Lost or Destroyed . . .    4.  Manuscripts Cited in Earlier Editions . . . . .   5.  Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 49 59 64 68

  Chapter III: Authorship of Aduersus Manichaeos .

.

.

. 71

   1.  State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2.  Re-evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3.  Adu. Man. and its Potential Author . . . . . .   4.  Provisional Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . .

71 89 113 124

  Chapter IV: Content and Language of Aduersus Manichaeos 127    1.  Structure and Summary . . . . . . . . . .    2.  Addressees of the Treatise . . . . . . . . .   3.  Adu. Man.’s anti-Manichaean Argumentation . . .    4.  The Rhetoric of Appropriation and Dissociation . .    5.  Classical Rhetorical Procedures . . . . . . . .    6.  Metrical or Accentual clausulae . . . . . . . .   Chapter V: The Sources of Aduersus Manichaeos .

.

.

127 131 132 146 152 156

. 171

   1.  Introduction to Evodius’ Use of Sources . . . . . 171    2.  The Bishop of Uzalis and the Author of Aduersus Ma    nichaeos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172    3.  Augustine’s anti-Manichaean Oeuvre . . . . . . 179

6

table of contents

   4. Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189   5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197   Chapter VI: The anti-Manichaean Theology .

.

.

.

.

199

  1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    2. Was There a pre-Augustinian African Theology of     Original Sin? . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3.  Sin, the Will, and God’s Justice . . . . . . .   4.  Anti-Manichaean Theology in an anti-Pelagian Context   5.  Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

199 202 203 211 221

  Chapter VII: Aduersus Manichaeos as a Source on Mani  chaeism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225        

1.  The Manichaean Canon . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Epistula fundamenti . . . . . . . . . . . 3.  Latin Translations of Manichaean Scripture . . . . 5.  Evodius’ Knowledge of Manichaeism . . . . . . .

 Conclusion

228 250 260 283

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 293

Abbreviations

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 305

Bibliography .

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . 307

Edition and Translation .

.

.

.

.

Notes .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 339

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . 405

Appendices .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 419

  Appendix I: Description of Manuscripts . . . . . . . 421   Appendix II: Parallel and Source Passages . . . . . 441 Indices .        

Index Index Index Index

of of of of

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Biblical Texts . . . . . Other Writings . . . . . Manuscripts . . . . . . Ancient Names and Places .

. .

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .

. .

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .

.

493

.

495 . 497 . 513 . 516

Introduction The subject of this publication is the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos, which, on the basis of manuscript testimony, has been attributed by some of its previous editors to Evodius of Uzalis. Evodius was a friend and contemporary of Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and one of the leading bishops in early fifth-century North Africa. Evodius is mostly known for installing the cult of Saint Stephen in North Africa and for his involvement in various polemical campaigns against the rivals of the Catholic Christian church, namely the Donatists, the Pelagians, and possibly the Manichaeans. Although the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos is best known under the title De fide contra Manichaeos, the title Aduersus Manichaeos is perhaps more accurate. The issue of the treatise’s proper title is taken up in chapter II. Manichaeism was a dualistic religion founded in the Sasanian Empire by its prophet Mani (216–76/77 ce). The Manichaeans believed that all reality consists of a mixture of two opposite natures or kingdoms, the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. Mani conceived of his religion as both universalistic and missionary. A first generation of Manichaean disciples had already found success in the Roman Empire by 302, when the first anti-Manichaean edict was issued.1 In the Roman Empire, Manichaeism manifested itself as an alternate form of Christianity. The Manichaean claim to a Christian identity prompted many polemical reactions from non-Manichaean Christians. Aduersus Manichaeos is an anti-Manichaean polemical treatise. Its author rejects the Manichaean claim to a Christian identity on biblical and doctrinal grounds. The treatise is an indispensible source for our knowledge of the Manichaean movement in fifth-century North Africa, offering some unique data on the now-extinct religion. In addition, it is an important witness to fifth-century African Christianity, a very influential Christian centre of its age. The religious discussions in which the African church was involved would go on to shape the history of Western Christianity. In spite 1  S. N. C.

Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire, pp. 121–25.

8

introduction

of the treatise’s importance as a witness to the African church and as a source of information regarding the Manichaean movement, Aduersus Manichaeos has not yet been the subject of a comprehensive scholarly study.2 The present publication conducts, in three parts (study, in seven chapters; critical edition and translation; two appendices), a literary, historical, and theological study of the treatise and its circumstances. The first chapter presents a biography of Evodius. 3 The biographical overview of this first chapter focusses on the most important events of Evodius’ life. Two additional subjects addressed there include the network of Evodius and the extent to which he knew Greek. One important matter, namely, the authorship of Aduersus Manichaeos, is reserved for the third chapter of the dissertation. The reason why the life of Evodius and the authorship of Aduersus Manichaeos are treated separately is mainly methodological. Since the third chapter will address the question of Aduersus Manichaeos’ authorship in detail, it would give a wrong impression to already integrate evidence from Aduersus Manichaeos in the first chapter. The first chapter, which thus focusses on what we know of Evodius outside of his potential authorship of Aduersus Manichaeos, offers the necessary background information for the subsequent discussion of his authorship in the third chapter. Preparation of a new critical edition requires the study of a treatise’s textual transmission. Earlier editors of Aduersus Manichaeos, especially the Leuven theologians (1576), the Maurists (1688), and Josephus Zycha (1892), identified and to some extent evaluated the manuscripts they consulted for their editions, but they did not have a full grasp on the transmission of the treatise. Additionally, not all the manuscripts of Aduersus Manichaeos that were ever produced have survived. For example, two manuscripts that the Leuven theologians consulted (a “manuscript from Cambron” and a “Carthusian manuscript”), may have been destroyed 2 The

two articles of François Decret (“Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”; “Exégèse et polémique chez Evodius d’Uzalis”) constitute only a partial exception to this claim. 3 The two most important previous biographical studies on Evodius are J.-H.  Féliers’ doctoral thesis on Evodius (“Evodius d’Uzalis” [1964]) and the entry on Evodius in A. Mandouze’s Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (“Evodius 1”, pp. 366–73 [1982]).

introduction

9

during the Eighty Years’ War or the French Revolutionary Wars. The current edition is based on a study of all 30 extant manuscripts in which the treatise is preserved. This new edition was first published in the journal Sacris Erudiri (2018).4 The edition in this monograph is a reprint of the Sacris Erudiri edition. The first part of the second chapter considers the relationship between all extant textual witnesses, based on a study of their textual variants. A detailed overview of common errors in the textual transmission can be consulted in the aforementioned Sacris Erudiri article. For the sake of brevity, the second chapter’s first part will only summarize the article’s main findings. The chapter then moves to a discussion of the manuscripts’ paratextual characteristics, such as their attribution of authorship, geographical circulation and composition. An overview and description of all extant manuscripts can be found in appendix I. In its editio princeps, the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos is titled De fide catholica contra Manichaeos, and the work is included among Augustine’s opera omnia (1506). The Augustinian authorship of the treatise was first questioned by cardinal Bellarmine (1613). The French Jesuit Jacques Sirmond (1648) went one step further and suggested that Evodius was its true author. Sirmond’s suggestion was confirmed by the Maurists in their influential edition of the treatise (1688). Evodius’ authorship has been commonly accepted ever since. A more reserved contribution in recent scholarship was the entry on Evodius in the Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne. There, the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos is discussed separately at the end of the lemma. The author of the lemma states that the treatise has been attributed to Evodius and sums up what Evodian authorship would imply for Evodius’ knowledge of the Manichaean movement.5 The present publication, in its third chapter, undertakes a thorough reconsideration of the treatise’s authorship on the basis of internal and external evidence. The conclusion of this reconsideration is that Evodius is indeed the most likely author of the anti-Manichaean treatise. If Evodius’ authorship is 4 A. Vanspauwen,

ichaeos”.

“The anti-Manichaean Treatise De fide contra Man-

5 “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 373.

10

introduction

accepted, then the consequences of this acceptance should be properly accounted for; so the remainder of the monograph shows how the treatise represents the thinking of an early fifth-century Catholic theologian, who throughout his life had polemicized against various so-called heterodox Christian movements. In this regard, the end of the third chapter marks a turning point in this book. Prior to that point, the identity of the treatise’s author is treated as an open question; after that point, once Evodian authorship is accepted, the monograph draws out the implications of Evodian authorship for our understanding of late antique North Africa. A tentative date for the treatise is also suggested at the end of this third chapter. The fourth chapter focuses on the content and language of the treatise itself. After a brief overview of the structure of Aduersus Manichaeos, the most important tenets of Evodius’ anti-Manichaean argumentation are addressed. In an earlier study, Decret discussed the contents of Evodius’ anti-Manichaean treatise in a 1991 article, which applies to Evodius’ treatise the classification of Manichaean concepts that Decret had established in his monumental work L’Afrique manichéenne. In so doing, however, Decret neglects the manner in which Evodius’ anti-Manichaean ideas function within the structure of his treatise. While Decret rightly states that Evodius conceives of his treatise as a compendium of anti-Manichaean argumentation, Decret does not elaborate on Evodius’ intention or method in writing. By means of a case study on Evodius’ rhetoric of appropriation and distancing, the fourth chapter makes clear that Evodius formulates his anti-Manichaean arguments with great care. His specific approach in the treatise is to focus on the Manichaean claim to a Christian identity. The extent of Evodius’ literary education has only been touched upon briefly in the scholarly literature.6 An examination of rhetorical procedures in Aduersus Manichaeos on the one hand, and of his metrical and accentual clausulae on the other hand, helps sketch a picture of Evodius’ rhetorical education and concludes the fourth chapter. It is commonly accepted that Evodius was heavily indebted to Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings and perhaps had little per6 J.-H. Féliers,

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 3–4.

introduction

11

sonal experience with Manichaeism himself. Nevertheless, the precise range of Evodius’ sources has not been examined before. The fifth chapter addresses Evodius’ source material. These sources include not only the works of Evodius’ friend Augustine, but also, as seems possible, anti-Manichaean works of Evodius’ Latin and Greek predecessors. In addition, the end of this chapter examines Evodius’ access to apocryphal sources. An extensive overview of parallels between Aduersus Manichaeos and its possible sources can be found in appendix II. The sixth chapter turns to the broader theological context of Evodius’ anti-Manichaean treatise. The Latin-speaking Catholic Church in Africa grew significantly during Evodius’ lifetime. Whereas it still constituted the minority church in North Africa at the end of the fourth century, this changed completely during the first two decades of the fifth century. Not only did the Catholic Church in Africa grow on a local level (i.e., in comparison to other Christian and non-Christian communities in North Africa), the Catholic Church in Africa also influenced the development of Catholic thinking at large, especially on the topics of grace, original sin, and infant baptism. The African church, including Evodius and especially Augustine, took the initiative in polemical discussions with Pelagius and his sympathizers. Against an excessive defence of human free will, advocated by Pelagius, the African church stressed humanity’s continual need for God’s grace. The discussions between the African church and the so-called Pelagians have shaped Western Christian thinking on the relation between human autonomy and heteronomy. Whereas it is commonly accepted that the African church took a leading role in the Pelagian controversies, the potentially innovative character of Augustine’s thinking on original sin and grace is still an open question.7 The treatise Aduersus Manichaeos is an interesting source on this topic. By defending human free will and human responsibility, the treatise corresponds to the general theological tenets of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works. However, the treatise also appears to have been written during the Pelagian controversies. The relation between the anti-Manichaean content of Aduersus Manichaeos and its anti-Pelagian context is the sub7  See

A. Dupont, “Was There an Africitas Theologica?”.

12

introduction

ject of the sixth chapter. The theological analysis of this chapter enables a better understanding of the development of African thinking on free will and grace. Since the publication of Decret’s L’Afrique manichéenne (1978), a number of scholars (J. Kevin Coyle, Johannes van Oort, and Jason BeDuhn, to name a few) have worked on the topic of Latin North African Manichaeism, and several collections of studies have been published, such as Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West (2001), Manichaeism and Its Legacy (2009), or Augustine and Manichaean Christianity (2013).8 The seventh chapter of the present volume complements this previous scholarship by attending to three aspects of Manichaeism in North Africa: first, the development of the Manichaean canon in the Latin West (with a specific discussion of Mani’s Epistula fundamenti); second, the circulation of Manichaean texts in North Africa, which is investigated via a comparison of Evodius’ citations of Latin Manichaean texts with parallel citations from Augustine; third, the extent of Evodius’ familiarity with Manichaeism when he took up the pen to refute its adherents.

8 J. van Oort, O. Wermelinger, G. Wurst, Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West; J. K. Coyle, Manichaeism and Its Legacy; J. van Oort, Augustine and Manichaean Christianity.

Study

Chapter I

The Life of Evodius 1. Introduction Evodius was a friend of Augustine of Hippo (present-day Annaba, Algeria). He became bishop of Uzalis (El Alia, Tunisia) at the turn of the fourth century.1 The most important authority on Evodius is Augustine himself. Evodius makes an appearance in several of Augustine’s works. He is, for example, Augustine’s dialogue partner in the early works An. quant. (387–88) and Lib. arb. (388–95). In Augustine’s Conf. (397), Evodius is mentioned as one of Augustine’s most intimate friends. Evodius also appears in Augustine’s corpus of letters. The epistolary exchange between Evodius (Ep. 158, 160, 161, 163) and Augustine (Ep. 159, 162, 164 and 169), which took place in the years 414–15, has been preserved among Augustine’s letters. In the twenty-second book of his Ciu. (426), Augustine refers to his fellow bishop Evodius, who had installed a cult of Saint Stephen in Uzalis. In this same period, Augustine’s sermons make occasional references to Evodius. A second corpus consists of Evodius’ own writings. These are, in the first place, his letters. As mentioned before, he wrote several letters to Augustine in the years 414–15. In 416, five bishops of the African church wrote a joint letter to Innocent I, bishop of Rome. These five bishops were Aurelius of Carthage, Alypius of Thagaste (Souk Ahras, Algeria), Augustine of Hippo, Evodius of Uzalis, and Possidius of Calama (Guelma, Algeria). This letter, to which Augustine was probably the most important contributor, condemns the teachings of Pelagius. Evodius remained concerned with Pelagianism during the final stages of his life. This concern is illustrated by his response to a community at Hadrumetum (Sousse, Tunisia) which was troubled by the implications 1 The content of this chapter is largely indebted to previous scholarship on Evodius’ life, most notably: J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, esp. pp. 1–34; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 366–73; W. Hübner, “Euodius”.

16

chapter i

of Augustine’s doctrine of grace and original sin. Representatives of this community had reached out to the nearby bishop Evodius for further clarification on this topic, and Evodius’ response to the abbot Valentinus (425) has been preserved.2 A final category of sources are anonymous documents, such as reports of African church councils, and a compilation describing miracles performed at the cultic centre of Saint Stephen in Uzalis. In order to promote the cult of Saint Stephen, Evodius issued an order in 425 for this compilation to be put together. 2. Early Life of Evodius In an address to God found in the ninth book of the Confessions, Augustine introduces his friend Evodius, whom he met in Milan in 387: “You gather like-minded people to dwell together, and so you brought into our fellowship a young man named Evodius, who was from our home town. While serving as an administrative officer in the Special Branch [agens in rebus] he had been converted to you before we were; he was then baptized and abandoned his secular career to enlist in your service”. 3

This testimony of Augustine provides most of what we know about Evodius’ early life. The town where both Augustine and Evodius were born was Thagaste. Because Augustine describes Evodius as young, he must have been born after Augustine’s own birth in 354. Although both had been born in the same town, the two apparently did not know each other before they met in Milan.4 When Augustine first encountered Evodius, the latter’s occupation

2  Ed.

by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, pp. 254–56.

3 Augustine,

Conf. IX,8,17: Qui habitare facis unanimes in domo, consociasti nobis et Euodium iuuenem ex nostro municipio. Qui cum agens in rebus militaret, prior nobis ad te conuersus est et baptizatus et relicta militia saeculari accinctus in tua; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 142, l. 36–143, l. 4; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 222. 4 P. Monceaux,

Histoire littéraire, vol. 7, pp. 42–43 states otherwise. According to him, Evodius and Augustine were good friends when both still lived in Africa. Monceaux does not substantiate this claim, however. Augustine’s Confessions does not explicitly indicate whether he already knew Evodius before meeting him (again?) in Milan.

the life of evodius

17

had been that of an agens in rebus. The agens in rebus was a function within the imperial administration.5 The agentes were imperial messengers and inspectors. Augustine does not specify when Evodius was baptized, but does mention that it took place before his own baptism (prior nobis), which took place at the Easter Vigil in 387. The order in which these two primary facts are related – Evodius’ occupation as an agens in rebus and his baptism – is significant. Augustine’s phrasing implies that Evodius was first active in the administrative military office of an agens in rebus and afterwards adopted a Christian way of life.6 It seems most likely that Evodius was baptized by Ambrose of Milan at the Easter Vigil in 386, having left the office of agens in rebus sometime before. The minimum age requirement for an agens in rebus was 20 years. This would mean that Evodius would have been born, at the latest, in 365.7 Evodius was thus born between 354 and 365 in Thagaste, which was located in the Roman province Africa proconsularis. This province had been heavily Latinized under Roman rule. As the region had no Hellenistic heritage, Latin quickly became its most important language, supplanting the Phoenician language of the earlier Carthaginian rulers. The Romans, however, could not

5  On

the office of agens in rebus, see P. Herz, “Agentes in rebus” and especially R. Delmaire, Les institutions du Bas-Empire romain, pp. 97–118. The office is described in Codex Theodosianus 6,27; ed. by T. Mommsen, P. M. Meyer, Theodosiani libri XVI, pp. 281–88. Clyde Pharr translates this office as “the secret service”. C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code, pp. 140–45. However, R. Delmaire, Les institutions du Bas-Empire romain, p. 117 disagrees with this translation, since the agentes always fulfilled their office publicly. 6 Note the use of military terminology in Augustine, Conf. IX,8,17: Qui cum agens in rebus militaret, prior nobis ad te conuersus est et baptizatus et relicta militia saeculari accinctus in tua; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 143, l. 2–4. The term militia seems to allude to the verb militaret, which Augustine used to describe Evodius’ activity as an agens in rebus. The use of the ablative absolute with a perfect participle (relicta) in conjunction with the repetition of the term militia suggests that Evodius left his office of agens in rebus before his baptism. 7 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 1–5. This reconstruction supposes 385 as the latest possible year in which Evodius’ appointment as agens in rebus would have taken place.

18

chapter i

entirely erase the Phoenician identity of North Africa.8 Among the Pagan pantheon, primarily the former Phoenician gods were objects of worship, albeit under their Latin names (e.g., Baal as Saturnus; Melqart as Hercules; Tanit as Juno).9 Similarly, some of the most popular names in North Africa were Latinized versions of traditional Carthaginian names (e.g., Saturninus, Adeodatus), although it is not always possible to distinguish these names from regular Roman names.10 During the fourth century, the religious landscape of North Africa was somewhat different than it later became during Evodius’ life as a bishop in Uzalis. The Christian communities were divided into two major parties, the “Donatist” church and the “Catholic” church.11 The distinction between the two was not always absolute: Both factions generally adhered to the same doctrines and sacraments, and often competed in the same congregation (which meant both addressed a common audience).12 Both the Catholics and the Donatists claimed to be the legitimate heirs to the See of Carthage, the most important North African bishopric. The Catholics continued to maintain good relations with Christian churches elsewhere in the Roman Empire, in particular with the church in Rome. In some sense, the Catholic Church could be seen as more universal, while the Donatists were more isolationist. Generally, the Donatists constituted the majority church in North 8 Throughout this volume, the term “North Africa” signifies the Latin Roman provinces of the African continent, especially the province Africa proconsularis, but also, albeit to a lesser extent, the province of Numidia. 9  See

D. E. Wilhite, Ancient African Christianity, pp. 59–61.

10 D. E.

Wilhite, Ancient African Christianity, pp. 53–55. Examples of such names include those that refer to the Phoenician Pantheon, such as Saturninus (17 lemmata in A. Mandouze’s Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne), or Latinized translations of Carthaginian religious phrases, such as Adeodatus (19 lemmata), Felix (104 lemmata) or Quodvultdeus (25 lemmata). 11 On the relations between these two churches in North Africa, see D. E. Wilhite, Ancient African Christianity, pp. 195–239. Wilhite prefers not to use the loaded terms “Donatist” and “Catholic” when referring to the two conflicting parties of the “Donatist controversies”. In this publication, however, I will continue to make use of those designations, because a broader audience would be more familiar with these traditional designations. See also J. D. BeDuhn, Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma 1, pp. 22–23. 12 C. Conybeare,

“Augustini Hipponensi Africitas”, p. 120.

the life of evodius

19

Africa throughout the fourth century. In response to various persecutions throughout the third and fourth centuries, of Christians in general and of Donatists in particular, the Donatists were suspicious of Roman imperial power. Perhaps this anti-Roman suspicion cannot be entirely disconnected from the Phoenician (anti-Roman) heritage of North Africa. With this general image of North African society in mind, Evodius’ Greek name is somewhat surprising.13 Although one should be wary of deducing too much from it, the name could offer some information about his background. In the Roman Empire, the name Evodius – or derivatives of it – were used by Pagans and Christians alike. With regard to Christian uses of the name, the feminine form of it, Εὐοδία, appears in the New Testament, in Paul’s letter to the Philippians.14 According to Eusebius of Caesarea the first successor of the apostle Peter in Antioch was similarly named Evodius (Εὐόδιος).15 Notwithstanding the significance of these early Christian figures, the Greek name was, evidently, first attested in the non-Christian Greek world and remained in use by non-Christians.16 None of the sources that speak about 13  See also J.-M. Lassère, “Onomastique et société à Uzalis”. Lassère distinguishes between five categories of names and applies these categories to onomastic evidence in Uzalis: a) names of Libyan origin (Zumurus); b) names transcribed from Punic (none in Uzalis); c) Latin translations of Punic names (Datiuus, Donatus [twice]); d) traditional Latin names (Concordius, Firmus, Hilara, Rusticus, Rusticianus, Vzalensis); Greek names (Euodius, Semno). Evodius’ name (Gr. Εὐόδιος) signifies “prosperous journey”. 14  Phil 4:2: Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ; ed.  E.  Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 610. 15 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica III,22: Ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐπ᾿ Εὐοδίου πρώτου καταστάντος δεύτερος ἐν τοῖς δηλουμένοις Ἰγνάτιος ἐγνωρίζετο: “Moreover, in the time mentioned, Ignatius became famous as the second bishop at Antioch where Evodius had first established the church”; ed. by E. Schwartz, T.  Mommsen (GCS, 9/1), p. 236, l. 14–15; trans. R. J. Deferrari, Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History, p. 169. Eusebius, Jerome (trans.), Chronicon II, CCV. Olymp., IIII [anno 44]: Primus Antiochiae episcopus ordinatur Euodius; ed. by R. Helm (GCS, 47), p. 179, l. 14–15. 16  Clauss

- Slaby’s database of Latin inscriptions contains 467 inscriptions with the name Euodius or similar names (e.g., Euhodia, Euodos, Euhodion). Of these 467 inscriptions, only 29 are explicitly categorized as Christian inscriptions (other inscriptions are either ambiguous/unspecified or non-Christian). The database of Greek inscriptions of the Packard Humanities Institute

20

chapter i

Evodius of Uzalis claim that he had a different name at any point during his life. His cognomen, if he had one, is unknown, and the possibility that “Evodius” was a Christian name (which he would have received during baptism) cannot be confirmed or ruled out. In any case, a Greek name could indicate that Evodius came from a family – Pagan or Christian – with possible Hellenistic (i.e., cosmopolitan) interests. If his Greek name is allowed to offer some information on his early life, then perhaps it could indicate that he and his close family, if Christian, were probably not members of the Donatist church, where Latin or Latinized Phoenician names predominated.17 If at least one of his parents was a Christian, then the baptism of Evodius, like that of Augustine, was postponed until Evodius himself chose to be baptised as an adult. Evodius had enjoyed a good education,18 as is implied by his climbing to a rather high rank within the imperial administration, the agens in rebus, at quite a young age.19 He probably also had contains 383 inscriptions with the name Εὐόδιος or a similar name (the database does not classify inscriptions as Christian or not). Evodius of Antioch himself is cited by the Byzantine historiographer John Malalas as the first Pagan convert to Christianity and the inventor of the term “Christian”. John Malalas, Chronographia X,24: καὶ ἐπὶ αὐτοῦ χριστιανοὶ ὠνομάσθησαν τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπισκόπου Εὐοδίου προσομιλήσαντος αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐπιθήσαντος αὐτοῖς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο. πρῴην γὰρ Ναζωραῖοι {ἐκαλοῦντο} καὶ Γαλιλαῖοι ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ χριστιανοί: “Christians acquired this name during his time in office, for bishop Euodios gave this name to them in his preaching; formerly Christians had been called Nazarenes and Galileans”; ed. by I. Thurn, Ioannis Malalae chronograpia, p. 187, l. 96–99; trans. E. Jeffreys et al., The Chronicle of John Malalas, p. 131. 17 Note,

however, that people with a Greek name could still have ties to the Donatist church. See, for example, “Eusebius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 374–75. 18 Although J.-H. Féliers (“Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 3–4) recognizes some rhetorical merits of the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos, attributed to Evodius, she casts doubt on whether Evodius did or did not enjoy an education from a grammaticus (probably) and a rhetor (unlikely). On education in the Roman Empire, see J. Christes, “Education”. On the literary and rhetorical style of Adu. Man., see chapter IV. 19 In

an edict promulgated in 386, it was decreed that a successful agens in rebus would receive promotion to the consular rank as a reward for his services. See Codex Theodosianus 6,27,5; ed. by T. Mommsen, P. M. Meyer, Theodosiani libri XVI, p. 283; trans. C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code, p. 141: “Since to the members of the agens in rebus We have granted imperial letters

the life of evodius

21

at least a basic understanding of Greek. In his pursuit of a secular career, Evodius had, like Augustine before him, left North Africa and travelled to Milan, the capital of the Western Roman Empire. Evodius abandoned his career when he converted to Catholic Christianity. It is not unlikely that the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, had inspired Evodius to do so. After his baptism, Evodius became a close friend of Augustine and joined him on his travels to Rome and Ostia, and later on the journey back to their home region in North Africa. However, thanks to his activities as an agens in rebus in Milan, Evodius would have been familiar with the imperial court and could have maintained relations with important magistrates in the Roman administration. As the later bishop of Uzalis, Evodius could well have made use of these relations during a diplomatic mission he undertook in 404.20 3. Evodius and Augustine in Rome and Ostia Evodius quickly became one of Augustine’s dearest friends. This group of friends also included Alypius, the later bishop of Thagaste. During his stay in Milan and Rome, Augustine authored several dialogues, which depict philosophical or theological discussions held between him and (most often) one interlocutor among his friends. Evodius plays the role of Augustine’s dialogue partner in two such dialogues, namely, De quantitate animae and De libero arbitrio. As their titles suggest, in the first dialogue Augustine and Evodius discuss the relation between the soul and the body, and whether the soul has quantifiable properties, while the second dialogue concerns free will and its significance in good or evil conduct.21 In these dialogues, the relation between Augustine and Evodius is that of master and pupil. The dialogues resemble patent to the effect that after serving as chief of office states they shall be ranked as consulars among the Elite in the Most August Senate, We prescribe also by the authority of this law that they shall be honoured with the aforesaid rank and order by all judges”. 20 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 15–17. See section 5.1 of this chapter. 21 For a short summary of the dialogues’ contents, see “Evodius 1”, in A.  Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 367–68; W. Hübner, “Euodius”, cols. 1159–60.

22

chapter i

classical (Pagan) philosophical dialogues, such as those of Plato or Cicero.22 Evodius thus plays the role of an eager, enthusiastic, but sometimes errant, interlocutor. The two dialogues An. quant. and Lib. arb. probably resemble actual conversations held between Evodius and Augustine. In one of his letters to Evodius, Augustine refers to both of these dialogues, which implies that Augustine thought they represented the discussions he held with Evodius in Rome more or less accurately, or at the very least that similar discussions between the two friends had taken place.23 In the dialogue An. quant., Augustine asks Evodius to picture Milan.24 He does this in order to prove that memory, one of the faculties of the soul, can imagine a corporeal reality without being physically present near it. At another moment, Augustine asks whether a being’s mental capacities are proportional to its physical size. As an example he gives the elephant, probably because it was the largest land animal Augustine could come up with.25

22 See E. Kenyon, Augustine and the Dialogue, and especially the chapter “From Plato to Augustine” (ibid., pp. 57–81). 23 Augustine, Ep. 162,2: quia ea fortasse oblitus es, quae te conferente mecum ac sermocinante conscripsi, siue de animae quantitate siue de libero arbitrio: “for you may have forgotten those books I wrote when you were conferring and holding a discussion with me, either The Magnitude of the Soul or Free Will”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 513, l. 4–6; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 57. 24 Augustine, An. quant. V,8: A. Meministine tandem urbis Mediolanensis? E.  Valde memini: “A.  Do you still remember the city of Milan? E.  Very much so”; ed. by W. Hörmann (CSEL, 89), p. 140, l. 15–16; trans J. J. McMahon, “The Magnitude of the Soul”, p. 67. 25 Augustine,

An. quant. XIV,24: tumor enim non absurde appellatur corporis magnitudo; quae si magnipendenda esset, plus nobis profecto elephanti saperent. Quod si quisquam eorum cognatus dicet elephantos esse sapientes – sensi enim quamuis admirans, sensi tamen etiam hinc homines saepe ambigere –, illud, quantum opinor, saltem concedet, plus asino sapere apiculam: “The magnitude of a body is not without reason called its bulk, and if bulk is to be reckoned of great value, then elephants would be wiser than we. If someone, familiar with these animals, should say that elephants are wise (I myself was astonished when I watched them, and I have observed that men are often in doubt about this point), at least he will grant, I believe, that a little bee knows more than an ass”; ed. by W. Hörmann (CSEL, 89), p. 160, l. 11–17; trans.  J. J. McMahon, “The Magnitude of the Soul”, pp. 85–86 [with minor modifications]. The only land animal that could be considered larger than the

the life of evodius

23

However, the elephant was also an animal that had a certain symbolic value for the two friends, as it was an African animal and a regional symbol.26 These references could imply that during the dialogue the two friends remember their earliest encounter in Milan together and look forward to their return to Africa. The topic of the dialogue Lib. arb. held much significance for both Augustine and Evodius. The dialogue tackles a question with which Augustine had long struggled: Where does evil come from (unde malum)? A few years before, Augustine had hoped to find an answer among the Manichaeans, who adhered to a radical dualism of good (light) and evil (dark). In Manichaean thought, good and evil correspond more or less to the soul and the body, respectively, and Manichaean ethical conduct consisted in minimizing corporeal desires. Although the Manichaeans are not addressed directly in Lib. arb., the work has a clear anti-Manichaean undertone. In the course of Evodius’ life, discussions on the origin of evil and the capabilities of the free will return during the Pelagian controversies, and will be a major topic in the argumentation of the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos. Evodius’ close relationship to Augustine extended to Augustine’s family, as is exemplified by the prominent role Evodius played in the funerary ceremony for Monnica, Augustine’s mother, in Ostia. Augustine recalls in his Conf.: “As soon as we had persuaded the boy [Adeodatus, Augustine’s son] to stop weeping, Evodius took up the psalter and began to sing a psalm”.27 Later, after Monnica’s funeral, Evodius accompanied Augustine to North Africa, where Augustine and his friends first settled down in Thagaste, the home town of Augustine, Alypius, and Evodius. elephant is the giraffe (cameloparda), but Augustine nowhere refers to this animal. 26  D. E.

Wilhite, Ancient African Christianity, pp. 50–51.

27 Augustine,

Conf. IX,12,31: cohibito ergo a fletu illo puero psalterium arripuit Euodius et cantare coepit psalmum; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 150, l. 25–26; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 232. The psalm in question is Ps 101 (100). See the response to Evodius’ singing of the Psalm in Augustine, Conf. IX,12,31: Misericordiam et iudicium cantabo tibi, domine: “I will sing to you of your mercy and justice, O Lord”; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 150, l. 27; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 232. On the name “Monnica”, see J. van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, p. 19.

24

chapter i

4. Returned to Africa In Thagaste, Augustine founded a community of like-minded friends, and Evodius was one of the members of this community. When Augustine was ordained a priest in Hippo in 391, this community, including Evodius, followed the newly ordained Augustine to Hippo. We also know from other sources that before the winter of 395, Evodius made one or two short journeys. Paulinus, the later bishop of Nola, refers to Evodius in one of his letters to Alypius, who by that time had been ordained bishop of Thagaste. In this letter, Paulinus mentions that he had met Evodius and another friend, Comes. These two came recommended by Alypius, whom Evodius had known ever since befriending Augustine. Of this meeting, Paulinus says the following: “whom we have met, your words being sufficient proofs of their love” (quos iudice caritatis ipsorum tuo sermone cognouimus).28 The Latin phrasing could imply that Paulinus only knew Evodius and Comes through the recommendation of Alypius (tuo sermone cognouimus: “whom we know from your words”). However, I believe, with Féliers,29 that this interpretation of Paulinus’ remark is inaccurate. The ablative tuo sermone forms, in combination with iudice (presupposed is the non-existing participle of esse), an ablative absolute, which signifies an auxiliary clause of reason (“since your words sufficiently proved …”). The verb cognouimus then would express that Paulinus and his wife Therasia had met Evodius and Comes in person. If Evodius had met Paulinus, Evodius would have travelled to Paulinus in Spain (before 395) or, more likely, Campania (in 395). 30 28 Paulinus, Ep. 3,3 (= Augustine, Ep. 24,3); ed. by G. de Hartel (CSEL, 29), p. 16, l. 2–3; trans. mine. For an alternative translation, see R. Teske, Letters (1–99), p. 71: “whom we know from your words that are proofs of their love”. On the companion of Evodius, see “Comes”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 215–16. 29 J.-H. Féliers, 30 J.-H. Féliers,

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 10.

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 10 mentions this encounter took place in Milan. Paulinus had moved from Spain to Nola in 394. If Evodius and Comes had met Paulinus in Nola, this meeting took place shortly after Paulinus moved there. See M. Günther, “[5] P. of Nola”, col. 630. S. Mratschek, “The Unwritten Letters of Augustine of Hippo”, p. 72 locates the meeting between Evodius and Paulinus in Rome.

the life of evodius

25

In the same letter, Paulinus says that he had asked (rogauimus) Evodius and Comes to copy Eusebius’ Chronicon. 31 They were to copy this book in Carthage, the city of Bishop Aurelius. The copy of Eusebius’ Chronicon would be given to Alypius, whereas the original book would be returned to its owner Domnio in Rome. 32 31 The

Chronicon was a historical work by Eusebius of Caesarea. Its two books provide a year-by-year overview of world history up until 325. The Greek text of Eusebius is only preserved fragmentarily. Armenian translations exist of both books, and the second book was translated by Jerome into Latin. Jerome added a supplement to Eusebius’ work, in which he treated the years 325–79. W. Hübner, “Euodius”, col. 1158 states that Evodius and Comes copied Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Similarly, E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, p. 56 believes this work of Eusebius is the Latin translation of the Ecclesiastical History by Rufinus of Aquileia. However, the description of Paulinus suggests the work Evodius copied was a universal history (de cunctis temporibus historiam: “the history of all ages”) and not the more particularistic Ecclesiastical History. It is not certain whether the book which Comes and Evodius copied was a Greek exemplar of the Chronicon, or the Latin version with Jerome’s continuation. For his Ciu., Augustine consulted Eusebius’ Chronicon, but in Jerome’s version. See G. J. P. O’Daly, “Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus”, col. 1161. P. Courcelle, Les lettres grecques en Occident, p. 187 believes Augustine’s text of the Chronicon is the same as the one Comes and Evodius copied, the Latin version of Jerome. Domnio was a correspondent of Jerome, and Jerome could have personally given Domnio his adaptation of the Chronicon. However, A. van den Hoek & J. J. Herrmann, “Paulinus, Courtyards, and Canthari”, pp. 22–23 noted parallels between Paulinus’ Ep. 13 and a panegyric on the erection of churches by Eusebius. This panegyric of Eusebius had not been translated in Latin, which “raises the question whether Paulinus could have read Eusebius’ works in Greek”. (see ibid., p. 23, n. 49). According to P. G. Walsh, Letters of St Paulinus of Nola, p. 20, Paulinus had been taught Greek and could translate and cite from Greek material. At the very least, Alypius, addressee of Paulinus’ letter, would have been able to read Greek. See J. van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, p. 24, n. 38. 32 Paulinus, Ep. 3,3: preuidi illam Eusebii uenerabilis episcopi Constantinopolitani de cunctis temporibus historiam … ut … illo tibi litteras nostras et transcriptam Carthagine membranam mittere dignaretur. quod et sanctos uiros … Comitem et Euodium rogauimus, ut scribere ipsi curarent, ne uel parenti Domnioni codex suus diutius deforet et tibi transmissus sine necessitate redhibendi maneret: “I have procured … that universal history by the venerable Eusebius, the bishop of Constantinople… so that he might deign to forward to you our letter and the manuscript after it was copied at Carthage. We have also asked of the holy men, Comes and Evodius … that they may themselves take care to write so that my father, Domnio, is not deprived for too long of

26

chapter i

Later in the letter, Paulinus asks for an additional copy of the book for himself. 33 This short episode demonstrates that Evodius was an industrious Christian, willing to help out his friends or acquaintances. These acquaintances already included Augustine, Paulinus, Alypius, and Aurelius, the bishop of Carthage. In addition, if the Chronicon he copied was the original work of Eusebius (and not Jerome’s Latin translation), this would also mean that Evodius knew Greek well enough to read and copy a Greek text. Evodius’ zeal becomes apparent in another event in the same period. This event took place in Hippo, before Augustine succeeded the Catholic bishop Valerius in 397. Evodius had encountered the Donatist bishop Proculeianus (or Proculianus) of Hippo, with whom he had a discussion about the inheritance of Christ, a topic central to the dispute between Catholics and Donatists. 34 Apparently Evodius had offended the Donatist bishop during this discussion. This incident prompted Augustine to write a letter to Proculeianus, in order to apologize for the youthful brashness of his friend. 35 As mentioned before, the Donatist Church was still the majority church in North Africa at this moment. Evidently, the manuscript and that the copy sent to you may remain without any need of returning it”; ed. by G. de Hartel (CSEL, 29), p. 15, l. 10-p. 16, l. 6; trans. R. Teske, Letters (1–99), pp. 71–72. See “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 368. 33 Paulinus, Ep. 3,6: si ipsam membranam sancti Domnionis acceperis, transcriptam nobis remittere dignaberis: “If you receive the manuscript of the saintly Domnio, be so good as to send us a copy”; ed. by G. de Hartel, p. 18, l. 20–21; trans. R. Teske, Letters (1–99), p. 73. 34 Augustine, Ep. 33,2: nam cum forte contigisset, ut in unam domum conueniretis, et sermo inter uos de spe nostra, hoc est de Christi hereditate ortus esset: “For, when it happened by chance that you gathered in one house and a discussion emerged between you about our hope, that is, about the heritage of Christ”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 34/2), p. 19, l. 8–10; trans. R. Teske, Letters (1–99), p. 115. On Proculeianus, see A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 924–26. 35 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 9–10; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 368; Augustine, Ep. 33, 3: quamquam etiam si frater Euodius aliquantum pro suae communionis defensione turbatior aliquid elatius animo comotiore dixisset, aetati hominis et necessitati causae te oporteret ignoscere: “And yet, even if Brother Evodius, a little excited in defence of his ecclesial communion, said something rather haughty because of his more agitated state, you should excuse his age and the impor-

the life of evodius

27

Augustine did not want the relations between the Donatist and Catholic factions in Hippo to deteriorate, especially since the polemical exchanges between the two movements often resulted in violence. 36 5. Bishop of Uzalis Evodius was ordained bishop of Uzalis probably at the end of the fourth century. The terminus post quem for this ordination is the aforementioned clash between him and the Donatist bishop Proculeianus in Hippo, which took place sometime between 395 and 397. The terminus ante quem is 401, when he first appears on a list of bishops at a council in Carthage. 37 A previous bishop of Uzalis, Saturninus, is known to have met Augustine, Alypius, and Aurelius. 38 Since there is no evidence of an intermediary bishop between Saturninus and Evodius, the latter could very well have been the direct successor of Saturninus. As bishop of Uzalis, Evodius would become known as a zealous defender and advocate of Catholic Christianity. 5.1. Conflicts with the Donatists In 404, a synod of African bishops was summoned. 39 The bishops decided to send Evodius, along with Theasius, bishop of Memtance of the issue”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 34/2), p. 20, l. 20–23; trans. R. Teske, Letters (1–99), p. 116. 36  D. E.

Wilhite, Ancient African Christianity, pp. 201–03.

37 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius

d’Uzalis”, p. 11; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 369; Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta 78, ed. by C. Munier (CCSL, 149), p. 203, l. 712–23. At this council, it was decided that the bishops would go to Hippo Diarrhytus (Bizerte, Tunisia; not to be confused with Augustine’s Hippo Regius) in order to decide for a replacement of the Catholic bishop Equitius. 38 See “Saturninus 6”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 1038–39. 39  Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta 93; ed. by C. Munier (CCSL, 149), pp. 211–14, l. 1005–88. For a lengthier overview of the controversies between the Catholic and Donatist churches in this era, see the second part of E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama (pp. 83–220). Hermanowicz has a double focus in her overview of the Catholic Church’s campaigns against the Donatists. She approaches the controversies primarily through the lens of

28

chapter i

blone (Sidi Ahmed Bou Fares, Tunisia, close to Uzalis),40 to Italy, in order to negotiate with the emperor concerning anti-Donatist measures. Evodius’ earlier activities as an agens in rebus could have motivated his selection for this mission. Among the African bishops, he was probably the most familiar with practices at the imperial court and perhaps still enjoyed good relations with members of the administration.41 As the Catholic Church suffered violent attacks at the hand of Donatist circumcelliones,42 the African bishops sought out imperial support. Anti-schismatic laws existed but were inconsistently enforced. Evodius and Theasius were given a letter from the synod, which they were to present to Emperor Honorius. When they arrived in Rome, they learned that the emperor, before he could have read the synodal letter, had already decided to take action against the Donatists. The Catholic bishop Maximianus of Bagai (Baghai, Algeria), along with other Catholic bishops, had visited the emperor first. These bishops were all victims of Donatist attacks, and their recent scars were convincing evidence for Honorius. This double appeal to the emperor – one official delegation by Evodius and Theasius, and another, more dramatic and informal appeal by the injured bishops – could have been part of the Catholic bishops’ strategy.43 In addition to extant Possidius of Calama. In addition, she draws attention to the juridical context of the Catholic-Donatist polemics. 40  See

“Theasius”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 1105–06. On Memblone, see S. Lancel, Actes de la Conférence de Carthage en 411, vol. 4, pp. 1422–23. 41 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius

d’Uzalis”, pp. 15–17. circumcelliones were a violent rebellious movement which spread in Numidia during the fourth century. Some Donatist bishops incited the circumcelliones to attack Catholics or to raid Catholic places of worship. See J. Scheid, “Circumcelliones”. 42 The

43 E. T.

Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, pp. 149–50. Her suggestion is based on the testimony of Augustine, Ep.  88,7: sed sic cum legati Romam uenerunt, iam cicatrices episcopi catholici Bagaitani horrendae ac recentissimae imperatorem commouerant, ut leges tales mitterentur, quales et missae sunt: “But when the legation came to Rome, the horrible and quite recent scars of the Catholic bishop of Bagai had already moved the emperor to issue the sort of laws that we had also sent for”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 34/2), p. 414, l. 6–9; trans. R. Teske, Letters (1–99), p. 355, with modifications mine (in italics). While I can agree with Hermanowicz’s hypothesis, I do not believe

the life of evodius

29

legislation, the emperor added further and harsher laws against Donatists and the Manichaeans.44 During this same trip, Evodius and Theasius visited Paulinus and his wife Therasia in Nola.45 For Evodius, it would have been the second visit to Paulinus and Therasia. This visit demonstrates that Evodius continued to enjoy a good relationship with Paulinus and Therasia. On the other hand, the visit had an additional pragmatic purpose, as Theasius and Evodius, when they returned to North Africa, could deliver a letter from Paulinus to Augustine.46 According to Duval, Evodius met Pelagius in Rome during this

that “the Latin indicates the arrival of the bishops [Evodius and Theasius] was coterminous with the bishop of Bagai’s dramatic appearance” (E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, p. 150). The Latin distinguishes between the indicative perfect (uenerunt) of Evodius and Theasius’ arrival and the indicative pluperfect (commouerant) of the other bishops’ impact on the emperor. 44 

Codex Theodosianus 16,5,38; Idem aa. et Theodosius a. edictum. nemo Manichaeum, nemo Donatistam, qui praecipue, ut comperimus, furere non desistunt, in memoriam reuocet. Vna sit catholica ueneratio … et si turbae forte conuenerint seditionis, concitatos aculeos acrioris conmotionis non dubitet exserendos. dat. prid. id. feb. Rauennae Stilichone ii et Anthemio conss. (405 febr. 12): “The same Augustuses and Theodosius Augustus: An Edict. No one shall recall to memory a Manichaean, no one a Donatist, who especially, as We have learned, do not cease their madness. There shall be one Catholic worship … If perchance seditious mobs should assemble, he shall not doubt that the sharp goads of a more severe punishment will be applied to him. Given on the day before the ides of February at Ravenna in the year of the second consulship of Stilicho and the consulship of Anthemius.-February 12,405”; ed. by T. Mommsen, P. M. Meyer, Theodosiani libri XVI, p. 867, l. 1–7; trans. C. Pharr, The Theodosian code, p. 456; J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 17; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 369. On the distinctive treatment of Manichaeans in Roman (and Byzantine) legislation, see R. Matsangou, “Real and Imagined Manichaeans”, pp. 162–63. 45 Augustine, Ep. 80,1: cum post reditum uenerabilium fratrum nostrorum collegarum meorum Theasi et Euodi primum uestri ex parte satiatus fuero: “when after the return of our venerable brothers, our colleagues Theasius and Evodius, I shall have first been satisfied in your regard”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 34/2), p. 347, l. 7–9; trans. R. Teske, Letters (1–99), p. 311; J.-H.  Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 17; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 369. E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, pp. 150–51, n. 54. 46 P. Courcelle,

“Les lacunes de la correspondance”, p. 268.

30

chapter i

trip.47 In his Perseu., Augustine describes the encounter between Pelagius and one of his friends as follows: “But what work of mine could have become known more widely and more agreeably than the books of my Confessions? And although I published them before the Pelagian heresy existed, in them I certainly said to our God and I said it often: ‘Give what you command and command what you will.’ Pelagius at Rome could not endure these words of mine, when they were recalled by a certain brother and fellow-bishop of ours in his presence, but, objecting somewhat warmly, almost quarrelled with the one who mentioned them”.48

This “brother and fellow bishop” is often identified with Paulinus of Nola himself, but Duval disagrees. He argues, against the identification with Paulinus, that when Augustine wrote letter 186 to Paulinus in 418, a letter on Pelagius, he does not refer to the incident which is purported to have taken place between Paulinus and Pelagius a decade earlier.49 In favour of the identification with Evodius, Duval argues that, although Pelagius had not been refuted nominatim by Augustine or the Catholic Church, Augustine could still refer to his teachings as if Evodius was familiar with them.50 It is true that Evodius had arrived in Rome during this mission. And the earlier clash with the Donatist bishop Pro47 Y.-M. Duval,

“Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, pp. 127–28.

48 Augustine,

Perseu. 20,53: Quid autem meorum opusculorum frequentius et delectabilius innotescere potuit, quam libri Confessionum mearum? Cum et ipsos ediderim antequam Pelagiana haeresis exstitisset; in eis certe dixi Deo nostro, et saepe dixi: «  Da quod iubes, et iube quod uis  ». Quae mea uerba Pelagius Romae, cum a quodam fratre et coepiscopo meo fuissent eo praesente commemorata, et contradicens aliquanto commotius, pene cum eo qui illa commemorauerat litigauit; ed. PL 45, col. 1026; trans. M. A. Lesousky, The De dono perseverantiae of Saint Augustine, p. 193. 49 Y.-M. Duval, 50 Y.-M. Duval,

“La date du « De natura » de Pélage”, p. 283, n. 178.

“Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, p. 128. Duval cites the evidence of Augustine, Ep. 169,13: scripsi etiam grandem quendam librum aduersus Pelagii haeresim cogentibus nonnullis fratribus, quibus contra Christi opinionem perniciosam ille persuaserat: “I also wrote a large book against the heresy of Pelagius at the urging of some brothers whom he had convinced of a destructive opinion opposed to the grace of Christ”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 20–23; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), 113. The work to which Augustine refers to is Nat. et gr.

the life of evodius

31

culeianus shows that Evodius, in his zeal for the Catholic faith, might have been susceptible to engaging in a harsh exchange of words. In any case, Evodius was later one of the five African bishops who wrote a letter to Pope Innocent I (416), condemning Pelagius’ teachings. Perhaps the encounter in Rome around 404–05 became a personal motivation for Evodius to collaborate in this joint effort by the African bishops. Evodius continued to be involved in polemics between the Catholic and Donatist churches when he returned to North Africa. In 408, while in Carthage, he fell victim to a particularly violent raid of some Donatists.51 Evodius is absent from subsequent meetings of bishops, from 408 to 411. Perhaps his absence was due to the wounds he suffered from the earlier attacks, which would have hindered his mobility. In the compilation De miraculis sancti Stephani protomartyris (425), Evodius is said to travel by means of a vehicle, a remark which may indicate that he had been permanently crippled by the Donatists’ attack in 408.52 From this incident onwards, Evodius did not carry out any activity outside of Uzalis. His vigour (or reputation) as an anti-Donatist polemicist, however, did not diminish. At the bishops’ conference of 411, at which both Donatist and Catholic bishops were present, the Donatist bishop Petilianus accused Evodius and Theasius of being unrelenting persecutors of the Donatists, although this accusation may point to their mission to the imperial court seven years earlier.53 By the end of the decade, the Donatists seem to have disappeared from

51 

Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta 106, ed. by C. Munier (CCSL, 149), p. 219, l. 1288–91. 52 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius

d’Uzalis”, pp. 18–19; De miraculis I,7: Namque cum iam praecedente die uehiculum pararetur, ut cum parte reliquiarum episcopus proficisceretur … circumdatur episcopus stipantibus turbis: “For, since already the day before a vehicle was prepared so that the bishop could proceed with a part of the relics … the bishop was carried around by a large crowd”; ed. by J. Meyers, Les miracles de Saint Étienne, p. 290, l. 18–23; trans. mine. 53 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 20; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 369. Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis III,141, ed. by S. Lancel (CCSL, 149A), p. 215, l. 20–31. See also “Petilianus”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 855–68. On the conference of 411, see E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, pp. 188–220.

32

chapter i

Uzalis. The former church of the Donatists was restored as a Catholic church and renamed Ecclesia Restituta.54 5.2. Correspondence with Augustine The epistolary corpus of Augustine contain the exchange of letters between Augustine and Evodius, which took place in 414 and 415. The letters 158, 160, 161 and 163 were written by Evodius, whereas letters 159, 162, 164 and 169 are responses of Augustine to Evodius. Allusions in these letters also imply that two additional letters, both by Evodius, have been lost: one predating Ep. 158,55 and another letter, to which Augustine responds in Ep. 169.56 Although Evodius and Augustine write to each other as friends and as equals in position, the relation between the two resembles 54  De miraculis I,7: in ecclesia hoc agebatur quae primitus a Donatistarum diuisione usurpata, postea in hodiernum unitati Catholicae est restituta. Vnde etiam uocabulum sumpsit, ut ecclesia Restituta appellari meruerit: “this was done in the church that was first seized by the Donatist schism and afterwards restored, in its present Catholic unity. It is from this circumstance that the church took its name, since it deserved to be called the Restored church”; ed. by J. Meyers, Les miracles de Saint Étienne, pp. 290–92, l. 31–34; trans. mine. P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire, vol. 7, p. 45, situates this event in 420, J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 27 situates it before 418. 55  See

the allusions in Evodius, Ep. 158,8: quid est et illud: “And what about that phenomenon ?”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 494, l. 11; trans. D. Shanzer, “Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead”, p. 292; Augustine, Ep. 162,9: mitte et illius epistulae exemplum, quae apud nos aberrans non potuit inueniri: “Send me as well a copy of that letter that has become lost and cannot be found here”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 520, l. 7–8; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 60; Augustine, Ep. 164,22: exemplum sane litterarum tuarum, quae continent interrogationem, utrum dei substantia corporaliter uelut in loco uideri possit, et apud nos nescio quo modo aberrarunt nec inueniri, cum diu quaererentur, potuerunt, iterum admoneo mittere ne graueris: “I again advise you not to hesitate to send me a copy of your letter containing the question about whether the substance of God can be seen in a bodily manner as if in a place, for in our house it has somehow or other gotten lost and cannot be found, although I looked for it for a long time”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 541, l. 7–11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 73. See “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 369, n. 47; D. Shanzer, “Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead”, pp. 292–93. 56 “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 371.

the life of evodius

33

their earlier relation of pupil (Evodius) and master (Augustine). Likewise, the subject matter of these letters is somewhat similar to that of the earlier dialogues.57 The main topics addressed in these letters are the soul, reason, the Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus, and biblical exegesis. As Augustine does in An. quant., Evodius ponders the relation between the soul and the corporeal in Ep. 158. In his diocese, Evodius had heard of apparitions of the dead. He himself had also witnessed apparitions of some of his deceased friends and acquaintances. These occurrences prompted Evodius to ask Augustine about “the post mortem condition of the human soul”.58 According to Shanzer, Evodius appears familiar with philosophical and theological ideas from the Eastern Roman Empire.59 As we have seen before, Evodius may have been capable of reading Greek texts (Eusebius’ Chronicon). In this letter 158, he also states that he knew the apocryphal Assumption of Moses.60 Ep. 160 contains a series of questions concerning the relation between God and reason. Evodius’ usage of the term alo57 See

also the concise overview in “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 370–71. 58 For

a discussion of this letter and of Augustine’s response to it, see V. Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore; D. Shanzer, “Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead”. The citation is from D. Shanzer, “Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead”, p. 275. 59 D. Shanzer, “Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead”, pp. 303–04 refers to Evodius’ acquaintance with the doctrine of the “Sleep of the Soul”. The author also states: “Evodius’ access is an oddity in a Western context, an interesting piece of mental furniture that suggests contacts with the Eastern Empire”. For a discussion of the Neoplatonic content of the epistolary exchange between Evodius and Augustine, see also M. Stróżyński, “Neoplatonism in Augustine’s Letters”, esp. pp. 126–28.32–33.39–40.43. 60 Evodius, Ep. 158,6: quamquam et in apocryphis et in secretis ipsius Moysi, quae scriptura caret auctoritate, tunc, cum ascenderet in montem, ut moreretur, ui corporis efficitur, ut aliud esset, quod terrae mandaretur, aliud, quod angelo comitanti sociaretur. sed non satis urguet me apocryphorum proferre sententiam …: “And yet, even in the apocryphal books and in the secret writings of Moses, writings that lack authority, when he ascended the mountains to die, the power of the body brings it about that what was committed to the earth was one thing, while what went along with the accompanying angel was something else. But it does not move me enough to prefer an opinion from apocryphal writings …”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 492, l. 21–25; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 43. For the apocryphal work,

34

chapter i

gus suggests a familiarity with Greek philosophical terminology.61 The central subject matter of Ep. 161 is the virgin birth of Jesus. Evodius had previously read Augustine’s opinion on this topic in several of his letters and desired further clarification.62 In this letter, Evodius states that he wanted to provide an answer to adversaries who would criticize this essential Christian doctrine.63 These adversaries are not further specified, but they may have been the Manichaeans in Uzalis. Ep. 163, the shortest letter of the correspondence, primarily concerns the pericope 1 Pe 3:18–19.64 Again Evodius seems interested in the souls of the deceased, in particular in the souls of those to whom Christ preached in hell.65 Augussee J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses. Reference to the passage of Evodius’ letter can be found at ibid., p. 284. 61 Evodius,

Ep. 160,4: an aliquando sine ratione pater alogus fuit: “Was the Father ever wordless [or irrational] without reason?”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 506, l. 14–15; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 52. 62 Evodius mentions Augustine’s Ep. 137 to Volusianus and his Ep. 92 to Italica. Evodius, Ep. 161,1: sed quia epistulas sanctitatis tuae unam ad inlustrem uirum Volusianum et alteram ad Italicam inlustrem in Christo feminam in manibus legentes habuimus, occurrit, quod in epistula de domini Iesu Christi dei nostri carnali in uirgine conceptione et ex ea natiuitate posuisti: ‘Si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile; si exemplum poscitur, non erit singulare’: “But because we had in our hands and read the letters of Your Holiness, the one to the illustrious man, Volusian, and the other to Italica, an illustrious lady in Christ, I noticed that, in the former letter on the carnal conception in the Virgin of the Lord Jesus Christ our God, you said concerning that birth, ‘if a reason is sought, it will not be a source of wonder; if an example is demanded, it will not be singular’”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 507, l. 9–14; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 53. 63 See F. Decret, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 390, n. 17; Evodius, Ep. 161,3: Non enim certamina semino, sed, quem ad modum insidiosis respondeatur, interrogo: “Now, I am not sowing the seeds of disputes; rather, I am asking how one might reply to those who are insidious”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 510, l. 15-p. 511, l. 1; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 55. 64  For

a commentary on this letter, and especially on Augustine’s response to it in Ep. 164, see A.-M. La Bonnardière, “Evodius et Augustin”. 65 Evodius,

Ep. 163: qui sunt illi spiritus, de quibus in epistula sua ponit Petrus testimonium de domino dicens: Mortificatus carne, uiuificatus spiritu, in quo et eis, qui in carcere erant, praedicauit spiritibus et cetera: “What spirits are those about which Peter testifies in his Letter concerning the Lord when he says, He was put to death in the flesh, but brought to life in the spirit, and

the life of evodius

35

tine’s Ep. 169 responds to a now-lost letter of Evodius. This letter of Evodius contained questions on the Trinity and on the dove, in whose appearance the Holy Spirit descended during the baptism of Jesus.66 Augustine generally tried to provide a thorough answer to Evodius’ inquiries. However, he did not always find these questions easy to address. Sometimes he simply recommended one or more of his own works that dealt with the same topic. Augustine suggests that Evodius could send someone to Hippo to make a copy of these works, if access to them was desired. In some cases, Augustine states that Evodius should not bother him too much with difficult questions, since they distract him from writing works that would be useful for a wider audience.67 In spite of these sometimes quite harshly sounding admonitions, Augustine and Evodius continued to enjoy an amicable relationship. Augustine never ceased to respond extensively to Evodius’ questions. As will be demonstrated in the following two sections, Evodius continued to collaborate with Augustine, and Augustine continued to speak very highly of his friend in Uzalis. 5.3. Anti-Pelagian Activities Pelagius was born in the British Isles and travelled to Rome at the end of the fourth century.68 The controversy between Pelagius and in that spirit he also preached to those spirits that were in prison, and so on?”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 521, l. 1–4; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 61. 66 “Evodius

tienne, p. 371.

1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chré-

67  E.g.,

Augustine, Ep. 169,13: haec omnia si habere uolueris, aliquem mitte, qui tibi cuncta describat. me autem permitte his uacare quaerendis atque dictandis, quae quoniam multis sunt necessaria, praeponenda esse arbitror ualde ad paucos pertinentibus inquisitionibus tuis: “If you want to have all these [aforementioned works], send someone to copy all of them for you. But allow me the free time to investigate and dictate the works that, since they are needed by many people, I think I should place before your questions, which concern very few”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 23-p. 622, l. 2; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 113. 68  For more information on the clash between the African church and Pelagius and his followers, see, for example, O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius; C. Pietri, Roma christiana, pp. 1177–1277; P. J. Carefoote, “Augustine, the

36

chapter i

the African church in fact started in Rome. Pelagius was disappointed by his encounters with many Christians there. Ever since Christianity had become the Roman state religion, conversion to Christianity did not necessarily entail a fundamental change in one’s way of life. For Pelagius, a true conversion manifested itself in an ascetic lifestyle.69 The clash between Pelagius and the African church possibly commenced in 404. At that time, a “brother and fellow-bishop” of Augustine read a section of Augustine’s Conf. to Pelagius: da quod iubes et iube quod uis.70 Pelagius became angry at the fatalistic tone of this statement and had a thorough disagreement with the friend of Augustine. We have noted that this friend might be identified with Evodius.71 Evodius had travelled to Italy with Theasius in order to negotiate with the Roman emperor concerning anti-Donatist measures. Whether Evodius can be identified with this friend of Augustine or not, Evodius certainly was involved in the Pelagian controversy thereafter. Before Alaric’s siege of Rome in 409/10, Pelagius left Rome and travelled to Palestine, by way of Sicily and Africa. In the meantime, Augustine and the African church had become more and more opposed to the teachings of Pelagius. In 411, a council was summoned for Carthage, at which the thinking of Caelestius, follower or sympathizer of Pelagius, was condemned.72 Pelagius himself was accused in 415 at a synod in Jerusalem and in Diospolis (near Jerusalem). Among the accusers at Diospolis were Orosius Pelagians and the Papacy”; and, more recently: A. Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum, pp. 35–69; L. Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien; W. A. Löhr, Pélage et le pélagianisme; M. Lamberigts, “Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy?”. 69  P. J.

Carefoote, “Augustine, the Pelagians and the Papacy”, pp. 1–3.

70  The

phrase frequently occurs in the tenth chapter of the Conf. It appears in Conf. X,29 (ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 176, l. 2 and l. 9), Conf. X,31 (ibid., p. 179, l. 52) and Conf. X,37 (ibid., p. 188, l. 3–4). See n. 48. 71 Y.-M. Duval, “Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, pp. 127–28; L. Dalmon (Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p. 36, n. 176) agrees with this identification. E. T. Hermanowicz (Possidius of Calama, p. 52) does too, but also suggests that the friend could be identified with Possidius, who travelled to Italy in 408–09. 72 O.  Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, pp. 8–11; P. J. Carefoote, “Augustine, the Pelagians and the Papacy”, pp. 58.

the life of evodius

37

the friend of Augustine, two exiled Gallic bishops named Heros and Lazarus, and Jerome. Pelagius was acquitted at the two synods in Palestine. The Greek-speaking bishops were convinced of his orthodoxy. According to Augustine, the accusers failed because they were not well-prepared for the trial.73 The acquittal seemed to undermine the earlier decision of the African bishops to condemn Caelestius’ teachings. The African bishops reacted by summoning two episcopal gatherings, one in Carthage and one in Milev (Mila, Algeria), where they reaffirmed their condemnation of Caelestius’ and Pelagius’ ideas. In a series of letters, the African church informed Innocent, bishop of Rome, of the decisions made at the two gatherings (Augustine’s Ep. 175 and 176). An additional, more personal letter by five African bishops was addressed to Innocent (Ep. 177).74 As previously noted, these five bishops were Aurelius, Alypius, Augustine, Evodius, and Possidius. Of the five, Augustine had the most significant contribution to the content of the three letters.75 Nevertheless, it is important to notice that Evodius’ name features among the authors of Ep. 177 even though he was not present at the meetings in Carthage and Milev. Evodius was certainly informed about Pelagius and his teachings. If he cannot be identified with Augustine’s friend who first encountered Pelagius in Rome in 404, he was at the very least informed of Pelagius through Augustine’s Ep. 169 (written in 415).76 Although Evodius was not present during the preceding episcopal gatherings, the four other bishops probably judged his support beneficial for their cause. His status as co-addressor of Ep. 177 suggests that Evodius was similarly familiar with the church hierarchy in Rome as were

73 “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 371; M. Lamberigts, “Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy?”, pp. 205–06. 74 M. Lamberigts,

“Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy?”, p. 207. 75 P. J.

Carefoote, “Augustine, the Pelagians and the Papacy”, p. 129; M.  Lamberigts, “Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy?”, pp. 207–08 discusses the differences between the three letters. 76 Augustine,

Ep. 169,13. See n. 50.

38

chapter i

the other four bishops.77 The order in which the bishops appear in the letter could perhaps reflect the relative importance of each bishopric in Africa: Carthage (Aurelius) and Thagaste (Alypius) appear first; Hippo (Augustine), Uzalis (Evodius) and Calama (Possidius) follow. Alternatively, perhaps the order reflects the relative date of each bishop’s consecration, with Aurelius (consecrated c. 391) as the senior, and Possidius (397) as the junior bishop of the collective. In that case, it will be possible to narrow down the date of Evodius’ consecration to a two-year period between Augustine’s (395) and Possidius’. The African bishops’ course of action was successful. In his reply to the African church, Innocent supported the condemnation of Pelagianism.78 After the death of Innocent, however, his successor Zosimus (417–18) would reconsider the Pelagian dossier. He acquitted Pelagius and Caelestius, convinced of their orthodoxy.79 Unhappy with this verdict, the African church mobilized again and held two meetings in Carthage. The second gathering (April 418) resulted in an elaborate condemnation of Pelagius’ ideas in nine canones.80 In the meantime, Zosimus experienced opposition from the clergy in Rome and from emperor Honorius.81 The emperor could not afford to lose the economic, political and military support from the African provinces, and thus had good reason to choose the side of the African church in the controver-

77 J.-H. Féliers,

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 21–22.

78  Innocent

does not seem to have thoroughly examined the topics at stake in the Pelagian controversy (such as free will and grace). He mostly repeats the Africans’ arguments and concerns. For an analysis of Innocent’s reply, see M.  Lamberigts, “Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy?”. 79  The

edition of Zosimus’ letters [= Collectio Auellana, epistulae 45–46.50] can be found in CSEL, 35/1 (ed. O. Guenther), p. 99, l. 1-p. 108, l. 5. p. 115, l. 5-p. 117, l. 3. L. Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, pp. 499– 527 suggests several corrections to the edition of Guenther. 80 For a discussion on this council and its canones, see O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, pp. 165–96. 81 O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p. 137; C. Pietri, Roma christiana, p. 1229; P. J. Carefoote, “Augustine, the Pelagians and the Papacy”, pp. 233–34; M. Lamberigts, “Co-operation of Church and State”, p. 368.

the life of evodius

39

sy.82 Zosimus submitted to the opposition from three sides – the African church, the clergy in Rome, and the imperial court in Ravenna – and officially and definitively condemned the teachings of Pelagius and Caelestius. This condemnation was issued in the Epistula tractoria, which has survived only in fragments.83 During this epoch, Evodius features in several letters by famous contemporaries. Before 419, Jerome, sending a letter to Augustine, asks the latter to convey his regards to Alypius and Evodius.84 The content of the letter is not entirely clear, though it seems Jerome describes the Pelagian controversy in apocalyptic terms.85 Jerome knew Alypius in person, and he probably knew Augustine and Evodius through Alypius’ mediation.86 Personal contact with Alypius is probably the reason why Jerome sent his greetings to Alypius in particular, as well as to Evodius, friend of both Augustine and Alypius. All three collaborated in the condemnation of Pelagius’ teachings. Galla Placidia, half-sister of Emperor Honorius, also addressed Evodius (among other bishops) in a letter written in March 419.87 She invites the bishops to a synod in Spoleto, where the successor of Zosimus as bishop of Rome would be decided. Unrest had broken out in Rome between partisans of two possible candidates, Bonifatius and Eulalius. The announced synod did not take place, and Bonifatius would succeed Zosimus.88 The letters from Jerome and from Galla Placidia show that Evodius was a well-respected bishop in his age. 82 M. Lamberigts,

“Co-operation of Church and State”, p. 369.

83 See

also F. Floëri “Le Pape Zosime et la doctrine augustinienne du péché originel”; O. Wermelinger, “Das Pelagiusdossier”. 84 “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 371. Jerome, Ep. 142: fratres tuos, dominum meum Alypium et dominum meum Euodium, ut meo nomine salutes, precor coronam tuam: “I ask your eminence to convey my personal greetings to your brothers, my lord Alypius and my lord Evodius”; ed. by I. Hilberg (CSEL, 56), p. 292, l. 5–6; trans. mine. 85 A. Fürst,

“Hieronymus”, col. 331.

86 A. Fürst,

“Hieronymus”, col. 323.

87 

Collectio Auellana, ep. 28, ed. by O. Guenther (CSEL, 35/1), p. 73, l. 23-p. 74, l. 17. 88 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 22; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, p. 371.

40

chapter i

The condemnation of Pelagius in Zosimus’ Epistula tractoria did not make a definite end to the influence of Pelagius. Julian, bishop of Eclanum, refused to sign the Epistula tractoria and opposed the doctrines of grace and original sin as Augustine formulated them in his anti-Pelagian works. Julian would accuse Augustine of Manichaeism. According to Julian, Augustine’s views on carnal concupiscence continue the Manichaeans’ negative views on the body and on procreation.89 Augustine’s anti-Pelagian teachings on human nature also troubled a religious community in Hadrumetum. One of the monks of Hadrumetum, Florus, had discovered Augustine’s Ep. 194 in Evodius’ library at Uzalis.90 In his letter, Augustine emphasizes the absolute gratuity of divine grace, rejecting the notion that humans, through their merits, could ‘deserve’ salvation. Valentinus, abbot of the community in Hadrumetum, had asked Evodius for further clarification on this topic. In his response to this request,91 Evodius gave a short exposé on the will: Humans possess a free will, but this free will has been impaired.92 Only the Lord can restore the will from its presently corrupted state to its original integral state.93 In addition to this succinct theological 89 For a thorough examination of Julian’s accusation, see J. van Oort, “Augustine and Mani on concupiscentia sexualis”; M. Lamberigts, “Was Augustine a Manichaean?”; J. van Oort, “Was Julian Right?”. 90 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 30–31; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 372–73; Y.-M. Duval, “Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, pp. 123–24; E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, p. 42. 91 Ed. G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, pp. 254–56. See also Y.-M. Duval, “Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, p. 126, for a suggested emendation of Morin’s text. Valentinus’ letter to Evodius has not been preserved. 92 Evodius, Ep. ad Val.: Est ergo in homine nunc liberum arbitrium, sed sauciatum: “Now man has free choice, but an injured choice”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 16; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42. 93 Evodius, Ep. ad Val.: Ad hoc recuperandum missus est medicus Saluator Christus, ut saluaret quod perierat, et curaret quod uitiatum fuerat … ut autem curetur et ad pristinum statum reuocetur, necessarium habet peritissimum medicum; “To recover this free choice Christ the saviour was sent as a physician in order to save what was lost and to heal what had been injured … but in order to be healed and recalled to its pristine state, it needs the most skilled physi-

the life of evodius

41

clarification, Evodius also asks the community not to be contentious when reading works of Christian authorities (in all probability alluding to Augustine, without mentioning him by name), but to strive for concordance. This letter did not entirely satisfy the community at Hadrumetum, which afterwards turned to Augustine himself for additional elucidation.94 Augustine responded to Valentinus with the two treatises Gr. et lib. arb. and Corr. grat. 5.4. The Cult of Saint Stephen Orosius, a friend of Augustine, was one of the accusers of Pelagius at the synod of Diospolis of 415. While in Palestine, Orosius also recovered some relics of Saint Stephen and brought them to Minorca. A portion of these relics was then sent to North Africa.95 At the end of the decade, Evodius installed a cult of Saint Stephen – the first such cult in North Africa – in Uzalis. At Evodius’ request, a compilation of miracles performed at the shrine of Saint Stephen was written down in 425.96 Evodius’ installation of a cult of Saint Stephen was a success. Uzalis became a popular destination for pilgrimage, attracting visitors from all over Africa and even from Cappadocia.97 The cian”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 18–23; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42. 94  See Valentinus’ letter to Augustine, which has been preserved in Augustine’s epistolary corpus. Valentinus, Ep. 216,3: proposui … ut ad dominum sanctum patrem Euodium mitteremus, ut ipse nobis de hoc sacrosancto libro propter ignaros aliquid certius rescripsisset. nec hoc accipere patientibus uoluerunt; “I proposed that we send someone to our holy father and lord Evodius, in order that he might write back to us something more certain regarding this holy book for the sake of the ignorant brothers. Nor were they willing to accept this reply with more patience …”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 57), p. 398, l. 14–17; trans. R. Teske, Letters (211–70), p. 47. 95 J.-H. Féliers,

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 23–30; “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 371–72; H. Inglebert, “Orosius”, col. 399; J. Meyers, Les miracles de saint Étienne, pp. 12–22. 96  The most recent edition of De miraculis Sancti Stephani protomartyris can be found in J. Meyers, Les miracles de saint Étienne, pp. 263–355. 97 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 23; J. Meyers, Les miracles de saint Étienne, p. 25. Augustine reports the miraculous cure of a brother and sister from Caesarea (Kayseri, Turkey) at the shrine of Saint Stephen in Hippo in Ciu. XXII,8; ed. by B. Dombart, A. Kalb (CCSL, 48), pp. 825–27,

42

chapter i

example of Uzalis influenced other dioceses to install their own cult of the first Christian martyr. Other North African communities would follow suit. Augustine, for example, received some relics of Saint Stephen from Uzalis and installed a cult in Hippo before 425. Possidius did the same for his diocese in Calama.98 In Carthage, a similar cult was established by 434 at the latest.99 Although in the past some scholars have regarded Evodius as a somewhat superficial or naive thinker, mostly pointing to his compilation of miracles and the worship of the relics of Saint Stephen, this judgment is unjustified.100 After all, Augustine praises Evodius for introducing the veneration of Saint Stephen in Uzalis,101 l. 407–81; trans. W. Babcock, The City of God (De Civitate Dei) XI–XXII, pp. 516–17. Augustine’s S. 322 contains a report from the same brother and sister on their former illness, and on the travels they undertook in order to be cured. Here, the brother Paul testifies that they also visited the shrine in Uzalis. See Augustine, S. 322: Nec Vzalim ciuitatem Africae praetermisi, ubi beatus martyr Stephanus magna praedicatur frequenter operari: “Nor did I leave out the African city of Uzalis, where the blessed martyr Stephen is reported frequently to work great miracles”; ed. PL 38, col. 1444; trans. E. Hill, Sermons (306–340A), p. 160. On the topic of Augustine’s preaching on Saint Stephen, see A. Dupont, “Imitatio Christi, imitatio Stephani”, esp. pp. 57–60 for the sermons 320–23, all on the healing of Paul and Palladia. 98  E. T.

Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, pp. 7–8.

99 D. Van

Slyke, Quodvultdeus of Carthage, p. 30.

100  See,

for example, P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire, vol. 7, p. 44: “Il avait un tour d’esprit mystique, et, bien qu’assez instruit, un fond de naïveté, qui se trahissait jusque dans ses curiosités théologiques ou métaphysiques. Il s’inquiétait beaucoup des revenants; on ne peut dire qu’il en eût peur, mais il en parlait volontiers, et il y croyait ferme. Il avait aussi la hantise du miracle: non pas du miracle évangélique et apostolique, dès longtemps consacré par la tradition chrétienne, mais du miracle vulgaire, si l’on peut dire, de ces miracles mesquins, à l’usage des badauds, qui ne sont pas pour encourager la foi au miracle”; G. de Plinval, “Évode”, col. 1789: “Intelligence souple, mais peut-être insuffisamment critique et trop superficielle, non sans quelque inclination vers le merveilleux …”. 101 Augustine, S. 323,3: Apud Vzalim ubi est episcopus frater meus Euodius, quanta miracula ibi fiant quaerite, et inuenietis: “Inquire how many miracles take place at Uzalis, where my brother Evodius is bishop, and you will find out”; ed. PL 38, col. 1446; trans. E. Hill, Sermons (306–340A), p. 163; Augustine, S. 324: coeperam de Vzali ciuitate dicere, quae est in Africa (episcopum habet fratrem meum, quem nostis, Euodium): “I had begun to speak about the city of Uzalis, which is in Africa (it has as its bishop my brother

the life of evodius

43

and he himself could have been the one who asked Evodius to undertake the compilation of miracle stories.102 6. Conclusion Evodius was a dear friend of Augustine and one of the most important African bishops of his age. He is characterized by an interest in the soul (An. quant., Ep. 158), the capabilities of free will (Lib. arb., Ep. ad Val.), and the relation between philosophical and theological knowledge (Lib. arb.; Ep. 160; Ep. 161). He was an industrious layperson and then bishop, who propagated Christian thinking either by defending the Catholic Church against other Christian adversaries (Donatism, Pelagianism) or by his installation of the cult of Saint Stephen. He was well known outside Africa. In Italy, he was probably familiar with the imperial court at Milan and Ravenna as well as with the clergy in Rome, and he certainly knew Paulinus of Nola well. Further to the East, the church father Jerome also held him in rather high regard, probably due to Evodius’ efforts in the Pelagian controversies and their common friends Augustine and Alypius. To this Evodius, bishop of Uzalis, the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos has been attributed. The earliest sources for this treatise are the manuscripts in which the text is preserved. In the following chapter, I will discuss the manuscript transmission of the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos. A subsequent chapter is then dedicated to the question of its authorship.

Evodius, whom you know)”; ed. PL 38, col. 1446; trans. E. Hill, Sermons (306–340A), p. 165. 102 Augustine, Ciu. XXII,8: Vzali etiam, quae colonia Vticae uicina est, multa praeclara per eundem martyrem facta cognouimus; cuius ibi memoria longe prius quam apud nos ab episcopo Euodio constituta est. Sed libellorum dandorum ibi consuetudo non est uel potius non fuit; nam fortasse nunc esse iam coepit: “At Uzalis also, which is a colony near Utica, I know of many outstanding miracles done through the same martyr [Saint Stephen]. His shrine there was established by Bishop Evodius long before ours at Hippo. But it is not the custom there to publish reports; or rather, it did not use to be the custom, for now, perhaps, the practice may have begun”; ed. by B. Dombart, A. Kalb (CCSL, 48), p. 824, l. 360–64; trans. W. Babcock, The City of God (De Civitate Dei) XI–XXII, pp. 514–15. See J. Meyers, Les miracles de saint Étienne, pp. 23–25.

Chapter II

Study of Manuscripts of Adversvs Manichaeos 1. General Characteristics of Aduersus Manichaeos’ Textual Transmission Aduersus Manichaeos is an anti-Manichaean treatise attributed to Evodius of Uzalis. The text is preserved in 30 extant manuscripts, which range in date from the ninth to the fifteenth century. It has previously been published by Amerbach, Erasmus, the Leuven theologians, the Maurists, and in the CSEL series by Josephus Zycha, before its current edition, which has first been published in the journal Sacris Erudiri in 2018.1 This chapter first offers a brief summary of the textual transmission of Adu. Man. There, the findings of the extensive study of textual variants of Adu. Man.’s transmission, which can be consulted in the same Sacris Erudiri article, will be summarized. After this synopsis of the manuscript transmission of Adu. Man., the chapter turns to relevant paratextual features of the manuscripts. These paratextual features either give more information on the manuscripts of Adu. Man. themselves (e.g., composition of witnesses and geographical circulation), or on the treatise in particular (division in chapters, title and closing formulae). Afterwards, these data will help assess the status of several manuscripts which have been lost, or of which the current whereabouts are unknown. A concluding section addresses the question which manuscripts were consulted by the previous editors of Adu. Man. It may be helpful to begin the overview of Adu. Man.’s textual transmission with the stemma codicum. This stemma, which has been established based on an examination of the textual variants of all manuscripts, clarifies the relation between all extant manuscripts (designated by their sigla), the archetype (Φ), and all hypothetical hyparchetypes (designated by a Greek letter). 1 A description of all manuscripts can be found in appendix I. For an in-depth discussion of the textual transmission of Aduersus Manichaeos, see A. Vanspauwen, “The anti-Manichaean Treatise De fide contra Manichaeos”.

chapter ii

46

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Ch

ε

Di

θ

Pa

P3

Ma

Ag 2

γ

ι

η

La Vl

Vt2

Ag1

Av

ζ

κ

Tr

Ag3

Bo

ν

Pm

λ

So

ξ

Φ

μ

β

Bx

Li

Bg 2

P2

?

Bg1

P1

Mü

P4

α

π

δ

ρ

Ox

F

σ

τ

Gr

Kl Vt1 Zw

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

47

With one exception, all of Adu. Man.’s 30 manuscripts can easily be assigned to one of three families (β, γ, or δ). Each of these three families contain a significant amount of common errors. The three families, which derive from the archetype (Φ), consist of the following manuscripts: β: Bo, Bg 1, Bg 2 , Bx, Li, P 2 , Pm, So γ: Ag 1, Ag 2 , Ag 3 , Av, Ch, Di, La, Ma, P 3 , Pa, Tr, Vl, Vt 2 δ: Gr, Kl, Mü, Ox, P 4 , F, Vt 1, Zw

Family β has a bipartite structure. The oldest witness of Aduersus Manichaeos, the ninth-century P 2 , constitutes the only extant member of one branch, whereas the other seven manuscripts of the family constitute the hyparchetype λ. In turn, the manuscripts of λ can be divided in two sub-groups. One group (μ) consists of the manuscripts Bg 1, Bx, and Li, the second (ν) of Bo, Bg 2 , Pm, and So.  Among these two groups, the witnesses Bg 2 and Pm derive from So, through a common ancestor (hyparchetype ξ), whereas Li constitutes, in all likelihood, a direct copy of Bx. Within family γ, manuscript Ag 3 appears to belong to a different branch than the other manuscripts, which form a separate group (ε). Common errors of Ag 1 and Ag 2 imply both derive from another hyparchetype (η). In addition, Ag 1, in particular in its readings post correctionem, corresponds to characteristic errors of Ag 3 . The common errors of Ag 1  p.c.  and Ag 3 imply that the scribes of the former manuscript had corrected it, based on an ancestor of Ag 3 (ζ). A particularly influential witness of Adu. Man. is the early-eleventh-century P 3 . Its scribes introduced a division in 49 chapters. This division (with minor adjustments) is still in use among modern editions of the treatise. In addition, the modern title De fide contra Manichaeos can be traced back to this manuscript P 3 . All remaining witnesses of γ derive from Pa, which is itself a (direct or indirect) copy of P 3 . The manuscripts depending on Pa can be assigned to one of three branches. One branch consists of Ch, a second branch (hyparchetype θ) of Di and Ma, whereas the group Av, La, Tr, Vl and Vt 2 derive from the hyparchetype ι, which represents the third branch. Within this final group, Vt 2 is a copy of Vl, which in turn was copied from La.  Thus, hyparchetype ι has three branches, of which Av, La (together with its copies Vl and Vt 2), and Tr repre-

48

chapter ii

sent one branch each. Several corrections in Tr indicate that it belongs to a contaminated branch of the transmission (represented by hyparchetype κ), although the limited data do not allow for an identification of the source of contamination. It is more difficult to determine the precise relations between the manuscripts of δ.2 Several errors, common to all manuscripts except Gr, support the assumption of the hyparchetype π. Within π, some striking similarities between Mü and F further suggest that the two derive from another hyparchetype ρ. In turn, it is likely that F is the common ancestor of all remaining manuscripts of δ. Common errors of Kl, Ox, Vt 1 and Zw, not attested in F, are evidence of another hyparchetype (σ). Finally, errors typical to Kl, Vt 1 and Zw imply that these three witnesses derive from hyparchetype τ. Now it is opportune to discuss the unique position of P 1 within the transmission of Adu. Man. P 1 shares none of the errors that are characteristic of β, γ, or δ. However, there are some instances in which P 1 shares an error with the four most ancient manuscripts of δ, namely Gr, Mü, P 4 and F.  The low frequency of these variants, and their ambiguous nature (errors influenced by the syntactical context, or presence of the same errors in other ancient manuscripts of Adu. Man.) do not allow to position P 1 firmly within family δ. Hyparchetype α represents P 1’s possible ties to family δ. To an extent, P 1 remains a manuscript sui generis. There are, however, a few instances in which P 1 shares an error with P 4 . While such readings could suggest an affinity between P 1 and P 4 , it is unclear how the two manuscripts are related. 3 It is true that the provenance and date of P 1 most closely corresponds to that of P 4 .4 The two abbeys in which these manuscripts were written could 2 Indicative of the complexity of this family is the disagreement between the stemma of H. Müller, D. Weber & C. Weidmann (Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio, p. 68) and that of P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A, pp. 347–61). In general, my observations confirm the findings of Hombert, at the very least with regard to family δ (α 3 in his overview). 3 A similar hypothesis is suggested by P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A, pp. 359–61) and by H. Müller, D. Weber & C. Weidmann (Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio, pp. 55–56) in their respective editions. 4  P 1: Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Moissac, tenth century; P 4 : Abbaye SaintVictor de Marseille, early eleventh century.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

49

perhaps have corresponded or exchanged texts. Alternatively, the common errors could perhaps hint at unusual spelling practices shared by both scriptoria. 2. Paratextual Elements of the Manuscript Transmission The following subsection will consider several paratextual elements of the manuscript transmission of Adu. Man. The topics discussed here complement the preceding examination by providing information on the extent to which the treatise was accessible in the Middle Ages, and how the material context of its exemplars may have influenced the manner in which the treatise was read and interpreted. The four aspects that will be examined are the manuscripts’ composition, their geographical circulation, the division of chapters attested in the witnesses, and the title and closing formula. The first two aspects concern the manuscripts themselves, whereas the latter two concern the treatise Adu. Man. more in particular. 2.1. Composition Most of the earliest witnesses to Adu. Man. contain a collection of seven texts. This collection is attested in all three branches of the textual transmission as well as in codex P 1. These seven works are, in the following order: Quodvultdeus’ Adu. V haer., Augustine’s Gn. adu. Man. and F. et symb., the treatise Adu. Man., Augustine’s two writings against the Arian bishop Maximinus (Conl. Max. and C. Max.), and the pseudo-Augustinian Coll. Pasc. The collection is preserved in its entirety in Ag 2 , Bx, Kl, P 1, P 3 , and F.  Because of the polemical content of all seven texts, focussing on Manichaeism (Gn. adu. Man., F. et symb. and Adu. Man.) and Arianism (Conl. Max., C.  Max., Coll. Pasc.), the collection has been dubbed Aduersus duas haereses.5 The presence of this entire collection in all major branches of the textual tradition of Adu. Man. demonstrates that the archetype of Adu. Man. consisted of this collection of seven (and no more than seven) works. Because these seven works were transmitted as a collection, it is also necessary to compare 5  See H. Müller, D. Weber & C. Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio, p. 49.

50

chapter ii

the results of the present study with the work of the previous editors of these texts, including Braun (Adu. V haer.),6 Weber and Gorman (Gn. adu. Man.),7 Zycha (F. et symb.),8 Hombert (Conl. Max.; C.  Max.),9 and Müller, Weber, and Weidmann (Coll. Pasc.).10 Such a comparison allows us to determine that the archetype of Adu. Man. corresponds either to the archetype or to a hyparchetype of these aforementioned works: hyparchetype φ of Adu. V haer., hyparchetype Ψ of Gn. adu. Man., archetype α of Conl. Max., hyparchetype α of C.  Max., and hyparchetype φ of Coll. Pasc. Zycha did not reconstruct the textual transmission of F. et symb. to the same degree of detail as these more recent editors, and so he did not make use of hyparchetypes in his edition. Considering the transmission of one of these texts as part of the larger collection instead of as a single, isolated work can be illuminating. This transmissional context is overlooked in Gorman’s stemmatological review on Weber’s edition of Gn. adu. Man. For example, Gorman mentions that no extant descendent of Gn. adu. Man.’s hyparchetype Ψ (which corresponds to our archetype, i.e., the collection Aduersus duas haereses) was copied before the tenth century.11 Afterwards, he states: “It seems more likely that Ψ was an early Carolingian exemplar that was ‘corrected’ and not a seventh- or eight- century hyparchetype. There would thus be three main families (α, β, γ) and an early source of contamination (Ψ).”12 6 R. Braun

(CCSL, 60).

7 D. Weber

(CSEL, 91); M. M. Gorman, “The Manuscript Tradition of Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos”. 8 J. Zycha

(CSEL, 41), pp. iii–vii.1–32.

9 P.-M. Hombert

(CCSL, 87A).

10 H. Müller,

D. Weber & C. Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio. In the article “The anti-Manichaean Treatise De fide contra Manichaeos”, pp. 37–39 I discussed some minor differences between my stemma and those of P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A) and H. Müller, D. Weber & C. Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio. 11  M. M. Gorman, “The Manuscript Tradition of Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos”, p. 309. In his reconstruction, manuscript R (Reims, bm, 395; tenth century) is the oldest manuscript of Gn. adu. Man.’s family Ψ. 12  M. M. Gorman, “The Manuscript Tradition of Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos”, p. 310.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

51

His estimation does not take into consideration the distinct characteristic of Ψ as a collection of works. He is correct when he claims that, for Gn. adu. Man., this collection has no extant exemplars before the tenth century. The collection as a whole, however, does have a witness that can be dated to the ninth century, namely P 2 . This manuscript derives from an earlier hyparchetype, which still contained all works of the collection (β in our overview). Contrary to what Gorman claims, then, the collection did not originate as an early Carolingian exemplar. Details of the textual transmission of Gn. adu. Man. are outside the scope of this study, so it is not for us to judge whether the text of Gn. adu. Man. in family Ψ has been contaminated.13 At the very least, however, this would have been impossible for the collection as a whole. Two works (Adu. Man. and Conl. Max.) from the group have only been preserved in this collection, hence their text could not have been contaminated. Many manuscripts of Adu. Man. contain five or six works of the collection. These manuscripts are Ag 1 (which excludes the last text, Coll. Pasc.), Li (lacking Gn. adu. Man.), Mü (lacking Adu. V haer. and Coll. Pasc.), P 2 (lacking Gn. adu. Man.), P 4 (lacking Adu. V haer.). Even in those manuscripts that transmit only two or three works of the collection (namely, Ag 3 , Bo, Bg 1, and Gr), the same sequence of works is found. In other instances (namely, Ox and Vt 1 and Zw), a majority of the works of the collection is preserved, but in a modified order.14

13  Contamination occurs when a copied text is corrected by means of a second, different model. In the case of Adu. Man.’s transmission, there are two possible cases of contamination: Ag 1 (cf. hyparchetype ζ) and Tr (cf. hyparchetype κ). 14 In Ox, the order of works is slightly altered: the works F. et symb. (fols 1r–6v) and Coll. Pasc. (fols 6v–9v) are placed at the beginning of the manuscript. Otherwise, the order of works is similar to the other manuscripts containing the seven works. Like F, the manuscript Ox includes fragments of Ambrose’s De mysteriis (fols 17r–18v) after Adu. V haer. (fols 10r–17r) and before Gn. adu. Man. (fols 19r–37r). Zw does not contain Adu. V haer. nor Gn. adu. Man. Additionally, the anti-Arian group of texts (Conl. Max., C.  Max. and Coll. Pasc.) is placed before the remaining two works (F. et symb. and Adu. Man.). Within these two groupings of works, the normal order of the collection is retained. Vt 1 does not contain the specifically anti-Arian works

52

chapter ii

One significant finding with regard to the composition of the collection helped establishing the relationship between Ox and F.  The scribe of Ox often modified the text in front of him, making changes in word order, using synonyms, abbreviating biblical citations, or revising these citations in accordance with the Vulgate. In general, it seems plausible that Ox was copied from an intermediary manuscript σ, dependent on F.  However, Ox does contain various archetypal readings not preserved in F.  The composition of both Ox and F seems to corroborate Ox’s dependence on F, the latter of the two containing the collection of seven texts described above. In addition, F contains a fragment of Ambrose’s De mysteriis sacramentorum (fols 14v–16v; des.: mundo mortuus).15 The fragment is a copy of the work until the point it breaks off abruptly, at the end of fol. 16v. On the following folio, which constitutes the beginning of the third quire of F, the text of Gn. adu. Man. begins. This work usually succeeds Adu. V haer. in the other exemplars of the collection and thus succeeded it in the original collection as well. The text of Ambrose was therefore likely inserted after Adu. V haer. in order to fill the otherwise blank pages between Quodvultdeus’ homily and Augustine’s commentary on Genesis in the third quire. The circumstances are quite different in Ox.  Here, the fragment of Ambrose’s De mysteriis sacramentorum stops as abruptly as in F (des.: mortuus mundo, albeit with altered word order) but in the middle of fol. 18v. A blank folio 18b follows, after which the text of Gn. adu. Man. begins as usual. For Ox the abrupt ending of the fragment suggests that the fragment was cut off in its model as well, as is the case in F.  This finding regarding the composition of the manuscript F corroborates the hypothesis that Ox is indeed dependent on F, and that the archetypal readings of Ox are most likely incidental or due to correction/contamination. As indicated in the stemma, one group of manuscripts consists of Pa and its subsequent (indirect) copies, namely, Av, Ch, Di, La, Ma, Tr, Vl, and Vt 2 .  The composition of Pa differs from that of its model P 3 . The manuscript P 3 contains the collection Aduersus (Conl. Max., C. Max. and Coll. Pasc.), and within the remaining four treatises, F. et symb. and Adu. Man. switch places. 15  Cf. Ambrose,

De mysteriis 4,21; ed. by O. Faller (CSEL, 73), p. 97, l. 21.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

53

duas haereses in its entirety. Pa on the other hand contains Gn. litt., Conl. Max., C.  Max., Gn. adu. Man., and Adu. Man. The manuscripts Di and Ma both have these five works in the same order.16 The other manuscripts dependent on Pa have an entirely different composition. The manuscript Ch, for example, contains only Adu. Man. The manuscripts Av and Tr also have several works in common, namely, Adu. Man. and Augustine’s S. 150 and S. 7. The relationship between the manuscripts Av, Tr, and La is discussed in a later section that addresses the contents of a now-lost manuscript from Bec. A final group belonging to the family β consists of Bg 2 , Pm, and So.  Of the seven works in the collection Aduersus duas haereses, only Adu. Man. is preserved in So.  The manuscripts Bg 2 and Pm have several treatises in common, for example, F. inuis., Gr. t. nou., Op. mon., and Diuin. daem. The first two treatises are also found in So.  The remaining treatises shared between Bg 2 and Pm perhaps belonged to their common ancestor, namely, the hyparchetype ξ. 2.2. Geographical Circulation Each family of the manuscript tradition corresponds more or less to a geographic area: northern France and Belgium for β, central France for γ (most notably Angers and Paris), and southern France and Austria for δ. The distinct geographical identity of family β (Northern France and present-day Belgium) is exemplified by its earliest representatives: P 2 (Corbie), Bx (Abbaye Saint Laurent in Liège), Bo (Abbaye Saint-Vaast in Arras), and So (Abbey of Clairmarais, close to Saint-Omer). Later witnesses of β were written in Bruges (Bg 2), Koksijde (Bg 1), Liège (Li), and Paris (Pm). Manuscript Li is, in all probability, a copy of Bx.  While these last two codices originated in close geographic proximity to the later manuscript Ch (also from Liège), the text of Ch was not influenced by any exemplar of β. Within the family γ, the prevalence of Angers is striking. Three extant manuscripts of that family were written in Angers. 16 In Ma, however, one text (Eccl. dogm., fols 183r–85v) is inserted between Gn. litt. (fols 120r–83r) and Conl. Max. (fols 185v–94r).

54

chapter ii

In addition, two hyparchetypes of the family, namely, η and ζ, can be linked exclusively to the Angers manuscripts. As these two hyparchetypes influenced only the three Angers manuscripts, the two hyparchetypes probably originated in the same region.17 Family γ also has an early exemplar from Paris (P 3 , from the abbey of Saint-Maur des Fossés). In Paris, the text of manuscript P 3 was copied, directly or indirectly, by the scribe of manuscript Pa (from Saint-Martin-des-Champs). The text of Pa then passed to the other manuscripts of the family (Av, Ch, Di, La, Ma, Tr, Vl, Vt 2). Most of these manuscripts were written in France (Av: Mont-Saint-Michel; Di: Notre-Dame de Cîteaux; La: Notre-Dame in Laon), with other exemplars from what is now Belgium (Ch: Liège) and Germany (Tr: Trier). The provenance of the remaining three manuscripts (Ma, Vl, Vt 2) is not entirely clear. Hombert believes their orthography to be indicative of France.18 For the manuscripts Vl and Vt 2 , this would make sense. Since Vl is a copy of La, the copyists of Vl must have gotten their exemplar (either La itself or a now-lost intermediary) from Laon. In turn, the copyists of Vt 2 would have had access to Vl (or, similarly, to a now-lost intermediary). Family δ has known a more dynamic circulation throughout Europe. The earliest extant manuscripts of this family originated in southern France (Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Moissac for the more exceptional manuscript P 1; Abbaye Saint-Victor de Marseille for P 4). Another, early manuscript of this family is Gr, from Grande Chartreuse in Grenoble. The exemplars of family δ first travelled through southern France, across the Rhône and on to Germany; from there they reached what is now Austria at the end of the eleventh century.19 In Austria, the text was frequently copied during the twelfth century. Besides the four or five extant manu17  However, perhaps hyparchetype η is not unique to Angers. Manuscript G of Coll. Pasc. (Paris, BnF, lat. 13371) derives from a hyparchetype (γ1), which was also a model for Ag 2 (Ag 1 does not contain Coll. Pasc.). See H. Müller, D. Weber & C. Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio, p. 69. The tenth-century manuscript G hailed from Cluny. It is, however, difficult to assess the relation between Coll. Pasc.’s hyparchetype γ1 and Adu. Man.’s hyparchetype η, and to determine whether these hyparchetypes are one and the same. 18  See

P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), pp. 273.54.55–56 respectively.

19  See

P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), p. 349.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

55

scripts (namely, F: Sankt Florian; Ox: Engelszell; Kl: Klosterneuburg; Zw: Zwettl; possibly also Vt 1: provenance unknown) in this group, the study of its variants also suggests the existence of at least two intermediary models in addition to two now-lost manuscripts (see below). The manuscript Mü was copied in the Benedictine Tegernsee Abbey, close to Munich. 2.3. Division into Chapters The current division of the treatise into 49 chapters is not (entirely) an invention of modern editors. The division of chapters in Amerbach’s editio princeps (Am.) corresponds to that of a group of manuscripts within γ. This division was originally introduced in P 3 and was subsequently retained in Pa, and then in Ch, Di, and Ma.  The group Av, La, Vl, Vt 2 , and Tr contains a similar chapter division, counting only 48 chapters instead of 49.20 All editions have retained the division into 49 chapters. The Maurists, however, slightly altered the location of the chapter divisions. Subsequent editions (Zycha’s and mine) follow the Maurists’ innovation. The following list contains the opening words of the five chapters where the Maurists did not follow the division of Amerbach (with reference to the present edition): Chapter #

Am. (~ Pa, Ch, Di, Ma)

Maur.

18

Deus magne (17,14)

Sed certe (18,1)

28

Cogitate (27,9)

Et tamen (28,1)

36

Cum autem (35,10)

Quis ista (36,1)

39

Numquid et (39,11)

Sed uos (39,1)

41

Eligite (41,5)

Sed non (41,1)

Chapter division in Am. and Maur.

While the division into 49 (or 48) chapters is only found in P 3 and its codices descripti, there is a fundamental distinction found in all branches of the transmission, namely, a distinction between the first chapter and the rest of the treatise. This distinction is marked in the manuscripts by means of a large – often coloured 20 Where Pa, Ch, Di, and Ma begin their chapter 47, the preceding chapter 46 continues in Av, La, Vl, Vt 2 , and Tr. The following chapter is number 48 in Pa, Ch, Di, and Ma, and number 47 in Av, La, Vl, Vt 2 , and Tr.

56

chapter ii

or decorated – initial, by means of a separate chapter number, or by starting the new section on a new line.21 Only the manuscripts Ag 3 , Bg 1, Gr, and So lack this division, and, in fact, these manuscripts lack any division into chapters at all. Because the distinction between the first chapter and the remainder of the treatise occurs in all branches of the transmission, it was probably an element already present in the archetype, and it may go back to the author of Adu. Man. himself. Admittedly, this division between the first chapter and the rest of the treatise could have arisen independently in different branches of the tradition. Such is probably the case for Bg 2 and Pm, or their shared model (cf. hyparchetype ξ), which was dependent on So.  Even though this first chapter division appears in both Bg 2 and Pm, it is not present in So.  The content of the first chapter seems to invite this division quite naturally. The first chapter’s prayer-like form and closing words (in saecula saeculorum, amen [1,8–9]), underline the unity of the chapter and clearly set it off from the remainder of the treatise. In addition to the division into 49 (or 48) chapters, and the distinction between the first chapter and the rest of the treatise, a third type of division into chapters can be found in two manuscripts. Adu. Man.’s text is divided into 29 chapters in Bx, 22 and the manuscript Li follows these divisions, though the chapters are not numbered there. The scribe(s) of Li, however, did miss one chapter marker of Bx.  The word falsum (3,1) was not marked by 21  This

is the case in Ag 1, Ag 2 , Av, Bo, Bg 2 , Bx, Ch, Di, Kl, La, Li, Ma, Mü, Ox, P , P , P 3 , P 4 , Pa, Pm, F, Tr, Vl, Vt 1, Vt 2 and Zw.  1

 2

22  Chapter

1: unus deus (1,1); chapter 2: huic manichaeus (2,1); chapter 3: falsum est ergo (3,1); chapter 4: rogo uos (6,1); chapter 5: iterum ipse (7,1); chapter 6: peccare enim (8,1); chapter 7: certe ergo (12,1); chapter 8: qualis interea (14,1); chapter 9: rursum cum (15,5); chapter 10: quis non (17,1); chapter 11: ait quidam (19,1); chapter 12: magna praescientia (19,8); chapter 13: item dictum (20,1); chapter 14: cum ergo (22,1); chapter 15: accipite integre (23,1); chapter 16: certe ipsum (24,1); chapter 17: incoinquinabilis enim (24,12); chapter 18: cogitate ergo (27,9); chapter 19: dominus ergo (31,1); chapter 20: omnes apostoli (32,1); chapter 21: item cum (35,1); chapter 22: ecce quanta (38,1); chapter 23: nam quale (40,1); chapter 24: eligite ergo (41,5); chapter 25: uos ergo (42,1); chapter 26: legite manichaei (45,1); chapter 27: iudicate tandem (46,1); chapter 28: si autem (48,1); chapter 29: manichaeus enim (49,1).

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

57

the rubricator of Li, and thus, unlike Bx, no new chapter starts here in Li.  Instead, the third chapter of Li starts with rogo uos (6,1). A somewhat similar, though not identical, division into chapters can also be found in the manuscripts P 2 and Ag 1. These similar chapter markers in these two manuscripts mostly coincide with obvious breaks in the treatise’s argumentation, and have likely arisen fortuitously. 2.4. Title and Authorship In manuscripts, information on the title and authorship of a text is usually found in the text’s opening formula (or “title”).23 Such a title is a short notification, often written by the rubricator of a manuscript (thus often not by the copyist of the main text). The majority of the manuscripts contain the title Aduersus Manichaeos. This title can be found in all three families. In β, it is attested in P 2 ;24 in γ, it is attested in Ag 1, Ag 2 , Ag 3 , and P 3 ; and in δ, all witnesses contain this title, although in some cases the word contra is used instead of aduersus;25 the more independent manuscript P 1 also has the title Aduersus Manichaeos. With regard to authorship, the aforementioned manuscripts offer two alternatives. The manuscripts P 3 , Gr, Ox, and Vt 1 attribute the treatise to Augustine. The remaining manuscripts (Ag 1, Ag 2 , Ag 3 , P 2 , P 1, P 4 , Mü, F, Kl, and Zw) contain the following description of the treatise’s authorship (with minor variations): utrum sancti augustini utrum sancti euodii sit, ignoratur (“whether it is of Saint Augustine or of Saint Evodius, is unknown”). The attribution to Augustine alone seems 23  See

also L. Holtz, “Titre et incipit”, pp. 477–78.

24  The

title of P 2 is a curious case. It reads incipit eiusdem contra manicheos, utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euuodii ignoratur. The term contra is written supra lineam, and manicheus seems to have been the reading of this title ante correctionem. The title ante correctionem could then have read incipit eiusdem manicheus (“here begins the manicheus, of the same author”). This rather bizarre title is probably due to human error. On the opening page of the manuscript (the leaf preceding fol. 1r), the rubricator does offer the title Aduersus Manicheos liber I (although here too the scribe had corrected Manicheus to -os), which corresponds to the title attested elsewhere in the manuscript transmission. 25  This is the case in δ’s manuscripts Gr and Ox. See also the preceding note on P 2 ’s title.

58

chapter ii

a simplification of this longer formula. As this longer formulation is attested in all three families of Adu. Man. and in P 1, it was likely a part of the title in the archetype. In branch λ of family β, it seems that the original title was lost. Instead of the traditional title Aduersus Manichaeos and the attribution to Augustine or Evodius, several other descriptions of the treatise are given in the manuscripts of λ. Bx and Li have the title De unitate trinitatis. In Bo, the title De fide catholica is found. Bg 1 has neither title nor closing formula for this text, though the text in the manuscript’s heading reads Contra Manichaeos. A similar title is attested in the group consisting of So, Bg 2 , and Pm, which has Tractatus contra Manichaeos. All manuscripts of λ attribute the work to Augustine. The diversity of titles in this branch suggests that the hyparchetype λ lacked an introductory note on the treatise’s title and authorship and had thus lost the original title. The copyists of each branch of λ therefore had to invent a new title and attribution of authorship for this anti-Manichaean treatise. As indicated before, P 3 is the common ancestor for the non-Angers manuscripts of γ. Like P 3 , these manuscripts all attribute the treatise to Augustine. The oldest copy of P 3 is Pa.  It contains the following title: aurelii augustini episcopi de fide catholica incipit liber aduersus manicheos. The second half of this title (incipit liber aduersus manicheos) is widely attested within the textual tradition of Adu. Man., as just mentioned. However, the first half of the title was originally part of the closing formula of Augustine’s F. et symb., which preceded Adu. Man. in most manuscripts (see above). Pa’s note on the title and authorship of the treatise betrays its dependence on P 3 . In P 3 , the closing formula of F. et symb. begins at the end of fol. 62v (explicit in christo iesu filio dei tractatus) and continues on fol. 63r (aurelii augustini episcopi de fide catholica). The rubricator’s text on fol. 63r continues on the following line, which states incipit liber aduersus manicheos. The scribe of Pa thus combined both elements of P 3 ’s fol. 63r and created a new title. The new title De fide catholica aduersus manicheos can be found in Av, Ch, Di, Ma, and Tr. Thus only La and its subsequent copies, Vl and Vt 2 , have a different title, namely, Contra manicheos. In their closing formula, these three manuscripts describe the work additionally as Liber xlviii questionum beati augustini contra manicheos. The 48 qu[a]estiones refer to the treatise’s division into 48 chapters in these manuscripts.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

59

To summarize, a majority of early manuscripts have the following title for the treatise (with minor variations): Aduersus Manichaeos, utrum sancti Augustini utrum sancti Euodii ignoratur. What is striking in this formula, is the doubt on the authorship. This dubitatio-formula (“whether it is of Augustine or of Evodius is not known”) is found in all branches of the transmission, and likely reflects the archetype of the treatise. However, since the oldest manuscripts of Adu. Man. can be dated, at the earliest, four centuries after the lives of Augustine and Evodius, the question presents itself whether the opening formula found in the manuscripts can be accepted as an ancient statement on the treatise’s authorship. Two solutions seem possible: Either the formula gives reliable information on the treatise’s title and authorship, or this note was invented in the earliest stages of the textual transmission, after the date of composition and prior to the archetype. In the latter case, the treatise could have been attributed originally to one author. The second author, and the dubitatio, would have been a later addition. It seems evident that a copyist would more likely have added Augustine’s name to a text that was already attributed to another author than to add Evodius’ name to a text already attributed to Augustine. After all, Augustine is the more famous figure of the two, and many other writings have been falsely attributed to him. Additionally, extant evidence of Adu. Man.’s manuscripts indicates that once a textual tradition attributes the treatise to Augustine, this attribution is never cast into doubt. To conclude, either the dubitatio is indeed the most ancient form of the title, or it constitutes an adaptation of an original attribution to Evodius alone. 3. Manuscripts that are Now Lost or Destroyed This final subsection considers several manuscripts that have been lost or whose present whereabouts are unknown. Their descriptions in older manuscript catalogues do give some information, however, concerning their composition, dating, and provenance. These data allow us, to an extent, to situate the manuscripts within the textual transmission of Adu. Man. More specifically, there are five manuscripts that are of note in this regard: Chartres 156, Bec 27*,26 Lobbes 67*,27 and several manuscripts of Salzburg and Melk 26 

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 2, p. 386.

27 F. Dolbeau,

“Un nouveau catalogue”, I, p. 20.

60

chapter ii

that are listed in fifteenth-century catalogues.28 For the two lost manuscripts which the Leuven editors consulted, see the discussion below in section 4.1. Manuscript Chartres 156 was destroyed during the Second World War. A description of the codex, however, is preserved in the Catalogue général series. In addition, there are ongoing efforts to reconstruct the contents of Chartres manuscripts, and some fragments of the manuscript 156 have been digitized.29 According to the catalogue, the manuscript contained Augustine’s C. Faust., followed by “Sancti Augustini episcopi contra Maximinum hereticum altercatio, ou Liber de fide catholica adversus Manicheos”. 30 What is striking about this reference, is the form of the title that is used: “De fide catholica adversus Manicheos”. This title is typical for the manuscripts Pa, Ch, Di, Ma and Tr.  The usage of such a specific title situates Chartres 156 within this group. Perhaps the word “ou” (“either/or”) in the description of the Chartres catalogue is misleading, and the manuscript contained both Conl. Max. (in addition to C.  Max.) and Adu. Man. The preserved digitized fragments do not allow for a conclusion, as they only contain passages of Conl. Max. and C.  Max.  The order in which the texts would have been arranged (Adu. Man. after Conl. Max. and C.  Max.) is typical for Pa, Di, and Ma.  The twelfth-century date of Chartres 156 could also indicate that the manuscript was closely linked to one of the two hyparchetypes dependent on Pa (namely, θ and ι). An interesting clue for further research has been given by Weber and Lienhard. 31 There is an unpublished study on the text of Conl. Max. and C. Max. in the archives of the Wiener Kirchenväterkommission. This study was a preparatory work by Franz Klein, who wanted to establish a new critical edition of these texts at the end of the nineteenth century. Although his work was never published, his preparation included collations of several manuscripts of the two Augustinian works against Maximinus, among which Chartres 28 P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), pp. 287–89 mentions the Chartres, Lobbes, Melk and Salzburg manuscripts. 29 See 30 

Manuscrits de Chartres, “Chartres, BM, ms. 156, (158)”.

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 11, p. 82.

31 D. Weber,

“Pierre-Marie Hombert (Hg.)”, pp. 381–82; J. Lienhard, “Augustine against Maximinus”.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

61

156. A future study, in which the variants noted by Klein and the discernible digitized fragments could be compared with the variants of the extant manuscripts such as Pa, Di, and Ma, could further clarify the position of this destroyed manuscript of Chartres within the textual transmission of Conl. Max. and C.  Max. on the one hand, and thus possibly of Adu. Man. as well, on the other hand. A twelfth-century catalogue of the collection of Bec Abbey (North-western France) mentions a now-lost manuscript (hereafter Bec) containing the following works: “de LXXXIII questionibus liber I. Sententie ab eodem dictate XXI. Sermo ejusdem de epycuris et stoicis [Sermo CL]. Item alius sermo de eo quod dictum est a Domino ad Moysem: «  Ego sum qui sum.  » [Sermo VII] De natura boni liber I. Contra Manicheos liber I. Expositionis quarundam propositionum ex epistola Pauli ad Romanos liber I.”32

The text Contra Manicheos liber I could be identified with Adu. Man. The composition of the manuscript is very similar to that of Tr, sharing Diu. qu. (fols 1r–29r), XXI sent. (fols 29v–33r), S. 150 (fols 33r–35r), S. 7 (fols 35v–36v), Adu. Man. (fols 36v– 42v), and Exp. prop. Rm. (fols 42v–51r). The composition has some similarities with Av as well. Av has the following works in common with Bec: Adu. Man. (fols 54v–67v), S. 150 (fols 68r–72v), and S. 7 (fols 72v–75r). Finally, La too shares some works with Bec, namely, Nat. b. (fols 1r–8r), Adu. Man. (fols 113r–119r), and Diu. qu. (fols 168r–197v). These similarities in composition could suggest that Bec, Tr, Av, and La constitute a subfamily within the textual tradition of Adu. Man. (cf. hyparchetype ι). The Bec manuscript can be dated no later than the twelfth century, when the catalogue was written. In addition, the dependence of Av, La, and Tr on Pa indicates that Bec would also have derived from Pa, and thus have been written no sooner than the eleventh century. In Bec, Adu. Man. is titled Contra Manicheos. This title corresponds to La, but not to Av and Tr.  The latter two have the title De fide catholica aduersus manicheos. The similarity between Bec’s title and the title found in La could suggest that Bec was a model for La, or that both manuscripts were more closely related to each other 32 

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 2, p. 386.

62

chapter ii

than to Av and Tr.  One potential argument against the hypothesis of La being a copy of Bec is the inclusion of Gn. adu. Man. in La (fols 64r–81r). La would, presumably, have copied both Gn. adu. Man. and Adu. Man. from Pa (through hyparchetype ι). Since Bec did not have Gn. adu. Man., Bec could not have been the model of La. However, a short review of variants from Gn. adu. Man. proves that the text of La does not coincide with that of family Ψ, of which Pa is a member. 33 The text of Gn. adu. Man. was then, in other words, copied from a model that was not a part of family Ψ. It remains a plausible hypothesis that Bec is a separate witness of the group of manuscripts represented by Av, La, and Tr, or that it could have been, more specifically, La’s model for Adu. Man. Dolbeau has edited a catalogue of manuscripts from Lobbes that is of interest to us. 34 Of the codices listed in this catalogue, manuscript 67 contained De fide catholica. This title could have referred either to sermons 233–36 of Augustine or to Adu. Man. 35 If the manuscript did contain Adu. Man., it is possible to surmise where the manuscript fits in the transmission of that work. The provenance of this lost or unidentified manuscript (southern Belgium) suggests that the codex was part of the λ branch of family β. Furthermore, the title of the treatise in the manuscript 67 shows a strong affinity to Bo.  If the identification of our text in manuscript 67 is correct, then both it and Bo would contain the work under the title De fide catholica. The Lobbes manuscript (written before the catalogue of 1049) would therefore probably have been a part of the ν family within β and could even be a predecessor of Bo. 33 D. Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 54. Weber’s family Ψ is, of course, the collection Aduersus duas haereses, to which all manuscripts of Adu. Man. belong. Therefore it is quite surprising that the version of Gn. adu. Man. in La does not correspond to the family Ψ of Gn. adu. Man. Examples of instances where La does not contain the typical errors of Ψ are: I,I,1, l. 5 uanitas eorum] eorum uanitas Ψ; I,I,2, l. 13 quaerunt] doceri quaerunt Ψ (contrary to Weber [CSEL, 91], p. 68, her manuscript R [Reims, bm, 395] does read doceri quaerunt here, just like A [Ag 1] and B [Bx]. Therefore, the reading doceri quaerunt is probably typical for family Ψ); I,II,3, l. 10 dominus] deus Ψ. 34 The

article “Un nouveau catalogue” was published in two subsequent volumes of Recherches augustiniennes (1978: Présentation et édition du texte [I]; 1979: Commentaire et tables [II]). 35 F. Dolbeau,

“Un nouveau catalogue”, II, p. 197.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

63

A catalogue written by Iohannes Holveld in 1433 describes the collection of manuscripts of the Bibliothek des Domkapitels in Salzburg. The eighty-second item in that list contained the following works: “Augustinus adversus quinque hereses. Item Augustinus super Genesim contra Manichaeos. Item eiusdem generalis exposicio de fide katholica secundum brevitatem simboli. Item scriptum adversum Manicheos quod incipit: “Unus Deus”; utrum eiusdem, utrum sancti Euuodii ignoratur. Item Augustinus contra Maximinum hereticum. Item Augustinus contra Maximinum hereticum. 36 Item collacio beati Augustini cum Pascencio Arriano habita in domo Anicia Ypporegio presedente Laurencio iudice delecto a Pascensio viro spectabili.”37

This manuscript contained the collection Aduersus duas haereses in its entirety. The manuscript’s provenance (Salzburg) suggests kinship with other Austrian manuscripts, such as F, Ox, Kl, and Zw (perhaps Vt 1 as well). However, within this group, only F and Kl contain the entire collection in its original order. Contrary to F and Kl, the Salzburg manuscript contained only these seven works, whereas F also contains a fragment of Ambrose’s De mysteriis sacramentorum and Kl contains an Epistula Hieronymi ad Theodosium et caeteros anachoretas after the Coll. Pasc. Four hypotheses present themselves: First this Salzburg manuscript may have been a very important manuscript within the group of Austrian witnesses, not dependent on another extant Austrian witness (since the collection retained its original form). Alternatively, the manuscript could be identified with the hyparchetype τ (model of Kl, Vt 1, and Zw) since none of these three works contains the fragments of Ambrose that F does (the Epistula in Kl would have been introduced in the Kl manuscript itself). The Salzburg manuscript could also be another copy of τ. Finally, it could perhaps be a copy of Kl, in which case the copyists of the Salzburg manuscript would have noticed that

36 This second work is, in all probability, C.  Max., whereas the preceding is Conl. Max. 37 G.  Möser-Mersky, M. Mihaliuk, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, IV, pp. 32–33. The manuscript was also referred to in a catalogue written in the thirteenth century. See ibid., p. 21, n. 13; P.-M. Hombert, (CCSL, 87A), p. 289, n. 21.

64

chapter ii

the Epistula in Kl did not fit in with the seven preceding texts and therefore would have refrained from copying it. Another trace of the transmission of Adu. Man. can be found in a 1483 catalogue describing manuscripts kept in Melk Abbey at that time. The manuscript “B 22” there is described as follows: “Augustinus contra quinque hereses. Duo libri eiusdem contra monachorum. Exposicio eiusdem de fide katholica secundum brevitatem simboli. Item liber unus adversus monachos, utrum Augustini sive Ennodii nescitur. Disputacio s. Augustini contra Maximum, episcopum Arrianum, et maxime contra Augustinum, cum in regione Yppone in unum locum convenissent et presenti multis clericis et laycis. Item illa, que beatus Augustinus post collacionem penitencium dictavit adversus Maximinum. Item liber eiusdem contra eundem Maximinum, ubi eius reprobat argumenta etc. Disputacio eiusdem cum Pascencio Arriano de omousion presente Laurencio, viro consulari. Item epistola beati Ieronimi ad Theodosium et ceteros anachoretas.”38

This entry of the catalogue contains numerous textual corruptions. The name Ennodii goes back to Euuodii (Evodius’ name is often written this way). 39 The monachos in this description should clearly be understood as Manichaeos. The manuscript described here has a composition identical to Kl, and could be probably a copy of it, or a copy of an otherwise unknown predecessor of Kl.40 The many corruptions in the text suggest it is unlikely that this exemplar was the model for Kl, although perhaps these corruptions ought to be attributed to the scribe of the medieval catalogue and not to the scribe(s) of the Melk manuscript. 4. Manuscripts Cited in Earlier Editions 4.1. Leuven Theologians It was not always the habit for early modern editors to state which manuscripts they consulted. The Leuven theologians were the first 38 T. Gottlieb,

Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, I, pp. 167–68.

39  Such

is the case in P 1, P 2 , P 4 , and, among the Austrian manuscripts, Zw and the aforementioned Salzburg manuscript. 40 P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), p. 289, n. 22 refers to a medieval catalogue of Klosterneuburg, in which Kl is described. This catalogue entry indicates that Kl and the Melk manuscript are two different books. See T. Gottlieb, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, I, p. 104.

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

65

to do so for the Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian texts they edited. In an appendix at the end of each volume of their edition of Augustine’s collected works (including spuria), the Leuven theologians indicate which manuscripts they used, with a short description of where each manuscript was kept at that moment. In this appendix, the Leuven editors also discussed some passages where their edition differs from that of their predecessor Erasmus. For Adu. Man., the Leuven editors consulted a codex chartusiensis (“Carthusian codex”) and a codex Cambronensis (“codex from Cambron”). The current whereabouts of the two manuscripts chartusiensis and Cambronensis are unknown.41 In any case, they cannot be identified with any of the witnesses consulted for the pres41 Codex chartusiensis may have hailed from the Sint-Jansbergklooster in Zelem (Limburg, Belgium, close to Diest in Flemish Brabant). One manuscript, now kept in the Royal Library of Belgium (Brussels, KBR, 1413–16) can perhaps be identified with the codex chartusiensis that the Leuven theologians consulted for Augustine’s Haer. See Lov, p. 371; M. T. Wieser, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VIII/2, p. 77. This monastery (together with its library) was set on fire in 1582 by Dutch troops of William of Orange. See F.  Hendrickx, De kartuizers en hun klooster te Zelem, p. 42. The catalogue of manuscripts and old prints belonging to the monastery in Zelem (ibid., pp. 162–269) does not list Latin manuscripts of Augustinian texts. J. K. Coyle, “Augustine’s two treatises De moribus”, p. 86 believes the manuscript Carthusianus of Mor. eccl. cath. and Mor. Man. consulted by the Leuven theologians would have come from a monastery of that order in Leuven, “but the fate of this library is unknown”. L. Ceyssens, “Le ‘Saint Augustin’ du xvii siècle”, pp. 108–09 comes to a similar conclusion: “Ils [les manuscrits] provenaient en premier lieu de Louvain même et des environs: du collège du Saint-Esprit, des maisons des jésuites, des chartreux, des windeshémiens (Saint-Martin et Bethléem) et des norbertins du Parc”. R. Plancke has edited a catalogue of manuscripts kept in the abbey of Cambron: Les catalogues de manuscrits de l’ancienne abbaye de Cambron. In his overview, no. 190 (ibid., pp. 58–59) contains De unitate trinitatis, a title supplied by the Leuven theologians for Adu. Man. Alternatively, if the note on the title De unitate trinitatis can be disregarded, perhaps no. 243 (ibid., pp. 66–67) can be identified as a manuscript containing Adu. Man. This manuscript contains (among other works) F. Petr., F. et symb. and “De fide catholica”. Because the manuscript already contains both F. Petr. and F. et symb., two works otherwise commonly referred to by the title De fide catholica, and because “De fide catholica” immediately follows F. et symb. (see section 2.1 of this chapter), perhaps this treatise De fide catholica can be identified with Adu. Man. Either way, both no. 190 and no. 243 seem to “resist further attempts at identification”, as J. K. Coyle (“Augustine’s two treatises De moribus”, p. 86) notes with

66

chapter ii

ent edition of Adu. Man. Nevertheless, some of the textual and paratextual elements of these codices, as described by the Leuven editors, may help situate these codices within the textual tradition of Adu. Man. The Leuven theologians noted one specific variant for the manuscript chartusiensis, a variant that is typical of the hyparchetype ν.42 A later variant in the Leuven text can be found in the manuscripts Bg 2 and Pm (cf. hyparchetype ξ),43 and thus the chartusiensis is likely to belong to this branch of the tradition. It also seems likely that the codex Cambronensis can be situated within the branch λ of the family β, as one paratextual element of Lov. suggests. The Leuven editors used the title De fide contra Manichaeos (which Amerbach and Erasmus had used before them), but also supplied an alternative title, namely De unitate trinitatis. This title is only used for Adu. Man. in Bx and Li of the μ branch of λ. The Leuven theologians therefore seem to have consulted two exemplars from branch λ of family β. Overall, corrections made in Lov., in comparison with the preceding Erasmus edition, are readings of λ. Additionally, the Leuven theologians generally consulted manuscripts from Belgium and northern France, the area in which the textual family β predominated. 4.2. The Maurists Like the Leuven theologians, the Maurists identified the manuscripts they consulted. Unfortunately, they did not provide an exhaustive list for Adu. Man. The manuscripts they do occasionally refer to can all be identified: codex Fossatensis (P 3), codex Corbeiensis (P 2), codex Colbertinus (P 1), codex Vaticanus (Vt 1), codex Cisterciensis (Di) and Laudunensis eccl[esiae] codex (La). In addition, the Maurists may have consulted at least two witnesses of

respect to a codex Cambronensis used by the Leuven editors for their edition of Mor. eccl. cath. and Mor. Man. Lov., p. 380: Christum venisse. Chart. interponit, in carne; 22,12 Christum uenisse] Christum in carne uenisse Bo Bg 2 Pm So (cf. hyparchetype ν). 42 

49,14 protegat deum non ualentem] protegatur a deo non ualente Bg 1 Bg Pm Lov. Note, however, that Bg 1 also reads ualente, instead of uolente found in the other manuscripts of λ. Possibly any manuscript of λ could have introduced the variant ualente instead of uolente, so the attribution of the codex chartusienses to ξ remains hypothetical. 43   2

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

67

Ag 1, Ag 3 , and P 4 .44 Generally speaking, the Maurists had access to some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts of Adu. Man., and they consulted at least one manuscript from each of the three major families, in addition to the more independent manuscript P 1. The readings of the Maurists’ main text have been included in the critical apparatus of the most recent edition. 4.3. Zycha For many of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings, the editions of Zycha, published in 1891 and 1892 in the twenty-fifth volume of the CSEL series, remain the most recent edition and the scholarly standard. Zycha’s editorial effort was monumental. He edited and published a vast amount of Augustinian texts in five (or seven) volumes.45 Zycha’s edition is the first critical edition of Adu. Man. 44 In their introduction to Aduersus Manichaeos, the Maurists note that “other manuscripts” are in agreement with the note on authorship attested in P 1 (Colbertinus) and P 2 (Corbeiensis). Maur., cols. 23–24: Corbeiensi codici consentit Colbertinus, aliique nonnulli manuscripti eamdem de auctore Augustino et Euodio dubitationem praeferentes: “The Colbertinus is in agreement with the codex Corbeiensis; some other manuscripts express the same doubt on the authorship of Augustine and Evodius”; trans. mine. This note on the authorship of the treatise is also attested in Ag 1, Ag 2 , Ag 3 , Kl, P 4 , F (in marg.), and Zw. Thus, the dubitatio is not attested in the other four Maurists’ manuscripts Di, La, P 3 and Vt 1. If we compare the list above with the reconstructions of Gorman for four major works of Augustine (Conf., Trin., Gn. litt., and Ciu.) and of Coyle for Mor. eccl. cath. and Mor. Man., it is perhaps possible to add several manuscripts to the list of those that the Maurists may have consulted for Adu. Man. See M. M. Gorman, “The Maurists’ Manuscripts”; J. K. Coyle, “Maurist Manuscript Sources”. Possible additional manuscripts are Ag 1 and/or Ag 3 (Albinensis, both from Saint-Aubin, Angers), Bo (Vedastinus, from SaintVaast, Arras), P 4 (Victorinus, from Saint-Victor in Paris at that time, but originally from Saint-Victor in Marseille), Pm (Codex ex bibliotheca RR. PP. Augustinianorum maioris conuentus, from the Couvent des Grands-Augustins, Paris), Av (Michaelinus, from Mont Saint-Michel, near Avranches), and Pa (Codex abbatiae Sancti Martini de Campis apud Parisios, from Saint-Martin des Champs, Paris; this manuscript was consulted by the Maurists for their edition of Gn. litt., see Gorman, “The Maurists’ Manuscripts”, p. 253). Since the Maurists use the plural form alii nonnulli manuscripti, they would have consulted at least two manuscripts of Ag 1, Ag 3 and P 4 , or an otherwise unknown manuscript. 45  Zycha published, in succession, CSEL’s volume 25/1 in 1891, volume 25/2 in 1892, volume 28/1 in 1894, volume 28/2 in 1895, volume 41 in 1900, volume 42, together with Urba, in 1902, and volume 60, also with Urba, in 1913.

68

chapter ii

with an express consideration of the relationship between all the manuscripts he consulted. For the establishment of his text, Zycha consulted four manuscripts (F, V, P, and M) as well as the edition of the Maurists. His manuscripts are respectively F, P 4 , P 1 and Pm in this study. One fundamental flaw of Zycha’s edition is its limited selection of manuscripts. This results in an unbalanced representation of Adu. Man.’s different branches. Family δ is well represented, and F and P 4 are excellent witnesses of that branch. P 1 is also a valuable manuscript, and while it does not convincingly pertain to a specific family, it does exhibit some minor resemblances with δ and especially with P 4 . Manuscript Pm however, is one of the least reliable witnesses of the family β. Family γ is completely absent from Zycha’s overview, while family β, as we have seen, is poorly represented. It is quite striking that Zycha consulted fewer textual witnesses than the Maurists did. His edition also includes some conjectures (e.g. 13,5 in primo libro Thesauri eorum] in eorum primo libro thesauri Zycha). The critical apparatus of the present edition reports the readings adopted by Zycha, and will allow the reader to compare the present edition with Zycha’s. 5. Conclusion The treatise Adu. Man. is transmitted in three major families of manuscripts, all of which descend from a common archetype Φ. Manuscript P 1 appears to have some ties with family δ (in particular with P 4), yet that manuscript also enjoys an independent status within the transmission of Adu. Man. Most of the extant manuscripts were written in present-day France (including representatives of all three families and P 1), Belgium (mostly from family β), and Austria (all belonging to family δ). This geographical distribution means that two important regions for the transmission of Augustinian texts, namely, the British Isles and Italy, only have secondary importance for Adu. Man. and for the collection in which Adu. Man. circulated. This chapter has also discussed the paratextual aspects of Adu. Man.’s manuscript tradition. The elements discussed here were the composition of the manuscripts, their circulation, and the chapter divisions they applied to Adu. Man. One important extra-textual element, namely, the attribution of authorship, will be addressed again

study of manuscripts of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

69

in the following chapter. A subsequent section discussed several now-lost manuscripts. Descriptions in catalogues provide some information on these manuscripts’ extra-textual characteristics. These features allow for some careful suggestions regarding the approximate position of these lost manuscripts within the textual tradition of Adu. Man. Finally, this chapter dealt with the previous editions of Adu. Man., particularly with regard to the manuscripts consulted by the previous editors. Whereas the material of the Leuven editors was quite limited, the Maurists’ selection of manuscripts was impressive. They had access to a wider variety of manuscripts than Zycha and also consulted some very important witnesses, such as the influential P 3 , as well as P 2 , the oldest manuscript of Adu. Man.

Chapter III

Authorship of Adversvs Manichaeos 1. State of the Art: Question of Authorship 1.1. The Earliest Editions 1.1.1. Amerbach The eleventh volume of Augustine’s collected works, published by Johannes Amerbach in 1506, contains our anti-Manichaean text under the title De fide contra Manichaeos. The inclusion of the work in the eleventh volume of Amerbach’s edition (hereafter Am.) implies that he considered this treatise a genuine work of Augustine, yet one which escaped mention in Augustine’s overview of his works, the Revisions (Retr.).1 The title De fide contra Manichaeos is an adaptation of one of the titles found in the manuscript transmission of Adu. Man. In Pa, a new title, based on a confusion of the closing formula of F. et symb. and the title of Adu. Man. of P 3 (the model for Pa), originated. This new title was Aurelii Augustini episcopi de fide catholica (incipit liber) aduersus manicheos. From Pa this title passed on to its descendants Av, Ch, Di, Ma, and Tr.2 Additionally, Am. divides the treatise in 49 chapters, a division which is attested in Av, Ch, Di, Ma, and Pa.  Although Am. does not clarify which manuscripts he consulted in establishing the text of Adu. Man., at least one manuscript of the aforementioned group must have been

1  … librorum diui Aurelii Augustini quorum mentionem non fecit in libris retractationum: “The books of saint Aurelius Augustine which he did not mention in his books of Revisions”; trans. mine. 2 With following exceptions: Incipit liber aurelii augustini de fide catholica aduersus manicheos (Ch); Aurelii augustini yponiensis ep[iscop]i de fide catholica liber incipit aduersus manicheos (Av); Aurelii augustini ipponensis episcopi de fide catholica incipit liber aduersus manicheos (Tr). Two manuscripts contain an additional reference to the work in their headings: de fide catholica | contra manicheos (Ma); Liber augustini de fide catholica | contra manicheos (Tr).

72

chapter iii

among his sources. 3 With regard to the question of authorship, it is important to note that these manuscripts all attribute the treatise to Augustine. As the first edition of Adu. Man., Am. had a profound influence on that work’s reception. Not only did Am. establish De fide contra Manichaeos as the title by which to refer to the Augustinian anti-Manichaean treatise, it also influenced subsequent editions in its division in 49 chapters. In addition to adopting this chapter division, Am. also gave each of these chapters a separate heading that summarizes the chapter’s content or argument. The addition of such descriptions is a typical characteristic of Am. Later editors maintained the division in 49 chapters, but not Am.’s headings. To summarize, Am. influenced subsequent editions not only because it served as the model text for these editions (in particular for Erasmus), but also because of three paratextual elements: the title De fide contra Manichaeos, the attribution to Augustine, and the division in 49 chapters. Two of these three elements are typical for Pa and its descendants. Of the aforementioned manuscripts, textual evidence further suggests that the text of Am. is (at the very least) dependent on Tr 4 and Di.5 1.1.2. Erasmus Erasmus published his edition of Aduersus Manichaeos in 1528 in Basel, again as part of Augustine’s Opera omnia. It is included in 3  In

his preface to the Opera omnia, Amerbach states that he had collected texts from Germany, France, and Italy. See B. Halporn, The Correspondence of Johann Amerbach, pp. 330–31 and A. Hartmann, Die Amerbachkorrespondenz. 1, p. 276. 4  The following unique readings (errors) are shared by Am. and Tr: 3,7 erit et] om.; 5,18–19 sua persecutione] inu.; 12,2 manichaei] o manichaei; 26,16 simus] sumus; 38,2 facta uel dicta sunt] facta sunt uel dicta; 39,18 uiderentur] indicerentur; 40,17 et parienda] om; 47,5 qui] non; 49,32 eius requie nonnulli] pro eius requie. Admittedly, these readings could also have been included in a now-lost manuscript closely related to Tr. If that were the case, this unknown manuscript would have had the characteristic readings described above as well as, in all likelihood, the title De fide catholica aduersus manicheos.

Am. shares one error with Di: 44,12 accepit] acceperit. In addition, Am. shares Di’s division in 49 chapters. Tr differs in this regard, as its text is only divided in 48 chapters. See chapter II.2.3. 5 

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

73

the sixth volume of the collective edition. This sixth volume contained Augustine’s anti-heretical literature, excluding his anti-Donatist and anti-Pelagian writings.6 Am.’s influence on Er. is apparent. Erasmus followed Am.’s example with regard to all three paratextual elements mentioned above, namely, the title De fide contra Manichaeos, the attribution to Augustine, and the division in 49 chapters. In addition, the text of Am. served as the basis for the Er. edition. Like Amerbach, Erasmus did not mention which manuscripts he consulted for his edition. At the very least, he must have consulted one manuscript of the group represented by Kl, Vt 1, and Zw (cf. hyparchetype τ).7 In addition, Erasmus also introduced conjectures into the text of Adu. Man. One particularly interesting conjecture is the addition of numen to a citation of the Manichaean Epistula fundamenti in Adu. Man. 11. The conjecture would conform the citation from Adu. Man. to parallel citations of Augustine.8 1.1.3. The Leuven Edition In the wake of the council of Trent, Erasmus became a suspect author, and his edition of Augustine suffered a similar fate. The edition of the Leuven theologians was meant to replace and correct Erasmus’ previous edition.9 The Leuven theologians, however, did not work from the ground up. Instead, it is evident that they 6 

Sextus tomus operum diui Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, continens τὰ πολεμικὰ, hoc est, decertationes aduersus haereses praecipue Iudaeorum, Manichaeorum, Priscillianistarum, Origenistarum, Arianorum, & Iouiniani: “The sixth volume of the works of Saint Aurelius Augustine, bishop of Hippo. This volume contains τὰ πολεμικὰ [the polemical writings], that is, disputations against heresies, primarily of the Jews, the Manichaeans, the Priscillianists, the Origenists, the Arians, and Jovinian”; trans. mine. found both in Er. and τ: 17,9–10 confudit] confusae; 24,18 quamquam] quam. 7  Mistakes

11,6–7: nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens opponat] nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponat Er. See also M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 28. Cf. Augustine, C. Fel. I,19, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 824, l. 21–22; Augustine, Nat. b. 42, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 877, l. 23–24; Augustine, C. Sec. 20, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 935, l. 25–26; p. 937, l. 7–8. 8 

9  See

A. S. Q. Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation, pp. 47–48.

74

chapter iii

used Erasmus’ edition as the basis for their work, both on a textual level and on a metatextual level, retaining Erasmus’ ordering of Augustine’s works in ten volumes. The title of the sixth volume of the Leuven edition repeats the title of Erasmus’, which it supplements with the note “now corrected in many passages with utmost effort by the Leuven theologians”.10 Although the resulting text of the Leuven edition is not spectacularly new – at least not for Adu. Man. – the Leuven edition was definitively innovative on a methodological level. It is the first edition of Augustine’s works in which the consulted manuscripts are listed, in a separate apparatus at the end of each volume. This apparatus also contains an overview of textual variants, along with a short explanation as to why certain variants were preferred by the editors. Another innovative aspect, in particular for Adu. Man., is the addition of an introductory note on the authorship. Like their predecessors, the Leuven theologians considered Adu. Man. a genuine work of Augustine. Unlike their predecessors, they provided an explicit rationale for this attribution:11 “Judgement: there has never been any doubt as to the author of this book, for it is clearly Augustine’s. So it is remarkable the book is mentioned neither in his Revisions, nor in the Indiculum [of Possidius]. However, the book On the unity of the Trinity against Felicianus, which Bede acknowledges as Augustine’s in [the commentary on] 1 Cor 1, is also absent from these works.”

10 

Tomus VI. operum D. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, continens τὰ πολεμικὰ, hoc est, decertationes aduersus haereses praecipue Iudaeorum, Manichaeorum, Priscillianistarum, Origenistarum, Arianorum, & Iouiniani: nunc multis in locis summo studio emendatus, per theologos louanienses; trans. mine. Cf. n. 6. 11  Lov., p. 236: Censura: de libri huius authore nulla fuit unquam dubitatio, plane enim Augustini esse uidetur: ut mirum sit nec in Retractationibus eum haberi, nec in indiculo. Sed iisdem locis abest quoque liber De unitate Trinitatis contra Felicianum: quem tamen Beda Augustini esse agnoscit, in I. Cor. I; trans. mine. The note of the Leuven theologians is not entirely accurate. De unitate trinitatis contra Felicianum is nowadays attributed to (ps-)Vigil of Thapsus. In addition, the commentary on Augustine to which the editors refer is probably the commentary of Florus of Lyons. This commentary was often (falsely) attributed to Bede. See A. Wilmart, “La collection de Bède le vénérable sur l’apôtre”; P. Chambert-Protat, “« Un thresor abbregé »”.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

75

The Leuven theologians indicate that they consulted two manuscripts for Adu. Man., namely, the codices chartusiensis (“Carthusian”) and Cambronensis (“from Cambron”).12 Both manuscripts likely belonged to branch λ of the transmission, which attributed the authorship to Augustine. 1.1.4. The Maurists The importance of the Maurists’ edition cannot be overstated. The Maurists thoroughly revised the text of previous editions after collecting and consulting many manuscripts, primarily from France and the Vatican. Once again the text of Adu. Man. is published in a volume of Augustine’s Opera omnia. In contrast to previous editions, however, Augustine’s authorship of Adu. Man. is rejected, and the work is included, together with other pseudo-Augustinian works, in an appendix to the eighth volume of Augustine’s collected works (1688). These pseudo-Augustinian works are introduced by an “admonition” regarding their authorship. The introduction of the Maurists succinctly summarizes the contemporary scholarly state of the art. First, the Maurists referred to three previous studies of Adu. Man., those of Robert Bellarmine (1613),13 Bernard Vinding (1621),14 and Jacques Sirmond (1648).15 Second, through their examination of the manuscript evidence, the Maurists verified the hypotheses of the aforementioned authors. Bellarmine was the first theologian to reject Augustine’s authorship of Adu. Man. Augustine did not refer to the treatise in his Retr. Neither was the work mentioned in the Indiculum of Possidius, the contemporary of Augustine and his earliest biographer.16 Although the Leuven editors had also noticed that Adu. Man. was missing from both 12 

Lov., p. 371: de fide contra Manichaeos ex Chartusiensi et Cambronensi.

13 R. Bellarmine,

De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, p. 108.

14 B. Vinding,

Criticus augustinianus castigatus, pp. 69–70. On Bernard Vinding, the enigmatic location Vallameria, and the printer Georgius Mundellanus, see J.-L. Quantin, “L’Augustin du XVIIe siècle?”, p. 38, n. 177. Vinding was probably a Bavarian Augustinian monk. 15 J. Sirmond, 16 On

Historia praedestinatiana, p. 5.

this list and its relation to Possidius’ biography of Augustine, see E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, pp. 157–60.

76

chapter iii

lists, they nevertheless maintained the authenticity of the treatise as Augustine’s. Bellarmine also mentioned stylistic reasons for his rejection of Augustinian authorship: the author of Adu. Man. uses phrases unusual for Augustine. He refers to the example of Adu. Man. 18,2–3: si Deus incorruptibilis est, uel omnis natura summi boni inuiolabilis, immaculabilis, inadibilis, incoinquinabilis etc. Some of these terms are indeed quite rare for Augustine. The adjective immaculabilis only occurs twice in his oeuvre,17 inadibilis is found once, as part of a confession of faith by Augustine’s Manichaean adversary Fortunatus,18 and incoinquinabilis is found five times in Augustine’s works.19 These three terms are only found in anti-Manichaean sections of Augustine’s works. The two remaining adjectives, incorruptibilis and inuiolabilis, are more commonly used by Augustine, and their usage is not limited to anti-Manichaean argumentation. Overall, the words of Adu. Man. which Bellarmine mentions do appear in Augustine’s writings, yet the combination of terms in Adu. Man. 18 is not paralleled in Augustine. Whoever the author of Adu. Man. is, he seems familiar with Augustine’s anti-Manichaean vocabulary. Bellarmine’s conclusion is justifiably so: “In any case, the book is learned, and its author is very well versed in Manichaean writings”.20 Bellarmine’s findings were confirmed by Vinding, who provides additional argumentation against Augustine’s authorship. According to Vinding, the title De fide contra Manichaeos is suspect. Elsewhere, Augustine’s titles either indicate which specific Manichaean text he refutes, as is the case in C. Faust., C. Sec., and C. ep. fund., or mention a central subject, such as in Nat. b. or Duab. an. The subject of “faith” (De fide) is also thoroughly addressed 17  Once

in En. Ps. 140,10, and once in S. 51. In both cases this term functions within an anti-Manichaean argumentation, similarly to Adu. Man. 18. Augustine, En. Ps. 140,10, ed. by E. Dekkers, I. Fraipont (CCSL, 40), p. 2033, l. 24–26; Augustine, S. 51, ed. by F. Dolbeau (CCSL, 41A), p. 13, l. 103–04. 18 Augustine,

C. Fort. 3, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 85, l. 16–18.

19  It

is used three times in C. Fort. (C. Fort. 1.11.20, ed. by J. Zycha [CSEL, 25/1], p. 83, l. 16; p. 89, l. 15–17; p. 97, l. 24–25) and twice in Nat. b. (Nat. b. 29.44, ed. by J. Zycha [CSEL, 25/2], p. 869, l. 9; p. 881, l. 5). 20 R. Bellarmine, De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, p. 108: Alioqui liber est doctus, et hominis in scriptis Manichaei uersatissimi; trans. mine.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

77

in other anti-Manichaean texts. Vinding rejects the hypothesis that the title De fide contra Manichaeos indicates Augustine conceived of this work as an ultimate refutation of Manichaean belief in its totality, for some topics which Augustine addresses in De haeresibus 46 (against the Manichaeans) are left unmentioned in Adu. Man. More convincing, however, as Vinding himself allows, is the style of Adu. Man., which differs from that of Augustine: “Anyone who would compare the immediately preceding 21 De natura boni with this work will notice how the style is very different from Augustine’s. To speak concisely, here [in De fide contra Manichaeos] some [arguments] are refuted that had already been demolished there [in De natura boni], and a rather long Manichaean text from the same [i.e., from De natura boni] is repeated word for word”.22

Vinding concludes by repeating Bellarmine’s verdict on the authorship of Adu. Man. 23 Whereas Bellarmine and Vinding rejected Augustine’s authorship, another early modern writer would go further and attribute the work to Evodius of Uzalis. Jacques Sirmond, S. J., the third author referred to by the Maurists in their foreword to Adu. Man., mentions Evodius’ authorship of Adu. Man. in passing, in the first chapter of his De historia praedestinatiana. This work describes the history of the praedestinati, a heresy first mentioned in the mid-fifth-century treatise Praedestinatus of Arnobius the Younger.24 The praedestinati misunderstood Augustine’s teachings on the relation between human free will

21 Vinding’s Criticus follows the structure of the Leuven edition, in which Nat. b. precedes Adu. Man. 22 B. Vinding, Criticus augustinianus castigatus, p. 70: … stylus, quem ab Augustiniano ualde diuersum deprehendet, quisquis mox praecedentem De natura boni cum hoc contulerit. Vt taceam, nonnulla hic refelli, quae iam conuulsa illic fuerant, et textum bene longum Manichaei indidem ad uerbum repeti; trans. mine. 23 B. Vinding, Criticus augustinianus castigatus, p. 70: Ceterum uere ait Bellarminus, librum esse doctum, et hominis in Manichaei scriptis uersatissimi: “Furthermore, Bellarmine rightfully said it was a learned book, and its author very well versed in Manichaean writings”; trans. mine. 24 On the Praedestinatus and its authorship, see F. Gori (CCSL, 25B), pp. v–xiv; D. Lambert, “Augustine and the Praedestinatus”. Recently, N. W. James (“Who was Arnobius the Younger?”) has even suggested that Julian of Eclanum was the author of the tractate.

78

chapter iii

and divine grace. Sirmond, citing Hincmar (ninth century), situates the root of the predestinationist history in the semi-Pelagian controversy. The community at Hadrametum had reached out to both Evodius and Augustine for further education on the topic of free will and divine grace. On Evodius, Sirmond writes:25 “For [a second testimony on the monks of Hadrumetum] belongs to a man who, by character, education, and society, is very close to Augustine: Evodius, bishop of Uzalis. Some of his letters are known among Augustine’s. The book De fide contra Manichaeos, which is commonly [uulgo] attributed to Augustine, also belongs to Evodius. We learned this from the Corbeiensis and other manuscripts.”

The Corbeiensis can be identified with P 2 , originally from Corbie Abbey. Sirmond does not give more information on the “other manuscripts”, but a later author, Casimir Oudin, does mention the number of manuscripts Sirmond consulted: three.26 If Sirmond had limited himself to manuscripts from Paris, he probably consulted P 1 and P 4 in addition to P 2 . The titles (including attribution of authorship) in these manuscripts are in agreement with the title found in P 2 and provided by Sirmond. The Maurists’ edition was nothing short of revolutionary, not primarily because of their synthesis of previous studies, but rather because of their thorough consultation of manuscript material. The amount and quality of those manuscripts is impressive.27 Their 25 J. Sirmond, Historia praedestinatiana, p. 5: Est enim hominis et moribus illi et doctrina uitaeque societate coniunctissimi, Euodii episcopi Uzalensis, cuius notae sunt epistolae aliquot inter Augustinianas, et cuius esse librum de Fide contra Manichaeos qui Augustino tribui uulgo solet, ex Corbeiensi et ex aliis codicibus didicimus; trans. mine. 26 C.  Oudin, Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis, vol. 1, cols. 1002–03: Scripsit [Euodius] etiam librum de fide seu de Vnitate Trinitatis contra Manichaeos, quem habes tomo 6. Operum Diui Augustini: ut euincit Jacobus Sirmondus libro de Historia Praedestinatiana cap. 1 ex fide trium Manuscriptorum Codicum, et praecipue ex uno Corbeiensis Abbatiae: “[Evodius] also wrote a book On the Faith or On the Unity of the Trinity, against the Manichaeans, which you can find in the sixth volume of the divine Augustine’s works, as Jacques Sirmond proves in the first chapter of his Historia praedestinatiana. His findings are based on three manuscripts, especially on one from Corbie Abbey”; trans. mine. 27  See

the discussion in chapter II, section 4.2.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

79

consultation of manuscript material allowed the Maurists to revise the prevailing hypotheses regarding the authorship and title of the work. In their codex Fossatensis (P 3), they found the possible reason why the treatise was given its title De fide contra Manichaeos, 28 and they assert that the more original title, found in codex Corbeiensis, is “Contra Manichaeos”. Nevertheless, throughout their edition the Maurists continue to refer to the work as De fide contra Manichaeos. Perhaps this minor inconsistency can be forgiven, as the title De fide contra Manichaeos does fulfil a pragmatic purpose by distinguishing the anti-Manichaean treatise from Augustine’s many other anti-Manichaean texts. With regard to the treatise’s authorship, the Maurists follow Bellarmine and Vinding and consider the attribution to Augustine to be false. On the one hand, they mostly repeat the arguments of Bellarmine and Vinding against Augustinian authorship: the work does not appear in the Retr., nor in Possidius’ Index; in addition, the style of the work is different from Augustine’s and its reasoning is “weaker”.29 On the 28  Maur, cols. 23–24: In antiquis codicibus reperitur proximo loco post Augustini tractatum de fide et symbolo, interiecta annotatione, quae in Fossatensi annorum octingentorum codice sic habet: Explicit in Christo Iesu Filio Dei tractatus Aurelii Augustini episcopi de fide catholica. Incipit aduersus Manichaeos: ubi spectata uocum interpunctione haud facile definias an ille de fide catholica tractatus appelletur qui explicit, an qui incipit. Atque inde factum putamus ut liber subequens tribueretur Augustino, et de fide inscriberetur. Verum isthaec inscriptio praecedenti libro bene conueniebat, non subsequenti, et eam ad praecedentem pertinere indicant alii Mss. codices in quibus est accuratior interpunctio: “In the old manuscripts, this treatise is found immediately after Augustine’s treatise de fide et symbolo, preceded by an annotation that in the eight-hundred-year-old manuscript Fossatensis [P 3 ; from Saint-Maur-des-Fossés; the dating of the Maurists is not entirely accurate] reads as follows: ‘here ends, in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, the treatise of Aurelius Augustine on the Catholic faith. Here begins Against the Manichaeans.’ In that passage, where punctuation is expected, you can only with utmost effort discern whether it is the treatise that is ending or the one that is beginning, which is called On the Catholic Faith. We believe this is the reason why the second work was attributed to Augustine and entitled On the Faith. That note, however, was appropriate for the preceding work, not the subsequent. Other manuscripts with more accurate punctuation confirm this note pertains to the preceding work”; trans. mine. 29  Maur., cols. 23–24: Non enim recensetur inter illius opuscula, nec in Retractationibus, nec in Possidii Indice. Stilus quoque ab Augustiniano diuersus est, ac debilior disputandi ratio; paraphrase/trans. mine.

80

chapter iii

other hand, the Maurists provide a more nuanced view than Sirmond on Evodius’ authorship. They indicate that the manuscript Corbeiensis, which Sirmond used, offers the following note regarding the author of the treatise: “whether it is of him [Augustine] or of Saint Euuodius [sic], is not known”. 30 The testimony of the Corbeiensis is confirmed by that of the Colbertinus (P 1) and “some other manuscripts”. 31 The Maurists acknowledge this note on the authorship and take this dubitatio seriously. Whereas Sirmond asserts that Adu. Man. was written by Evodius, the Maurists only claim that the work is attributed to Evodius. 32 The Maurists were also innovative in another regard. Like previous editors, they divided the treatise into 49 chapters and may have found such a chapter division in P 3 and Di.  However, the Maurists did slightly modify this division. In their edition, five chapters commence at a point in the text that differs from the other early editions. 33 Subsequent editions, including the current one as well as Zycha’s, have followed the Maurists’ altered chapter divisions. Thus, contrary to the previous editions Am., Er., and Lov., the structure of the most recent editions does not reflect a division into chapters attested in the manuscript tradition. 1.2. Zycha and Modern Studies 1.2.1. Zycha Zycha confirms the authorship of Evodius. He refers to the preceding studies of Sirmond and of Louis Ellies Dupin. The latter

30  Maur., cols. 23–24: Vtrum eiusdem utrum sancti Euuodii ignoratur; trans. mine. 31  Maur., cols. 23–24: Corbeiensi codici consentit Colbertinus, aliique nonnulli manuscripti eamdem de auctore Augustino et Euodio dubitationem praeferentes: “The Colbertinus is in agreement with the codex Corbeiensis; some other manuscripts express the same doubt on the authorship of Augustine and Evodius”. These “other manuscripts” are at least two manuscripts of Ag 1, Ag 3 and P 4 , or an otherwise unknown manuscript. See the discussion on the Maurists’ manuscripts in the previous chapter (section 4.2). 32 Hence the phrase Euodio tributus (“attributed to Evodius”) instead of Euodii (“of Evodius”). 33  See

also chapter II.2.3.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

81

had augmented the findings of Sirmond34 and the Maurists in his Noua bibliotheca. 35 Zycha’s argumentation is twofold. An initial series of arguments is based on extratextual evidence (i.e., information about the text, not found in the text of Adu. Man.). Zycha first rejects the attribution of Adu. Man. to Augustine. Augustine did not mention the work in his Retr., nor is it mentioned in Possidius’ Indiculum. For Zycha, this is a very significant point. Since Augustine is one of the best known and fiercest polemicists against the Manichaeans, it seems very unlikely that Adu. Man., a work shrouded in obscurity, would belong to Augustine. In addition, not a single manuscript Zycha consulted attributes the work with certainty to Augustine. 36 Instead, all such manuscripts contain the same dubitatio formula that the Maurists had noticed earlier: “whether it is of Augustine or of Evodius, is not known”. In a second series of arguments, Zycha makes use of the text of Adu. Man. itself to clarify the nature of the work and its authorship. First of all, Zycha notes that the content of “De fide contra Manichaeos” does not correspond to Augustine’s treatise De fide catholica. 37 Remarkably enough, Zycha does not comment on the title De fide contra Manichaeos, even though none of the manuscripts he consulted contains it. Second, the text of Adu. Man. is clearly indebted to Augustine’s writings against the Manichaeans; on this topic Zycha can be considered an absolute authority, since he published Adu. Man. as part of his two-volume edition of Augustinian anti-Manichaean writings. The author of Adu. Man. consulted Augustine’s works and used Augustine’s argumentation and wording in order to compose his own anti-Manichaean treatise. Zycha recognises this attitude towards Augustine in Evodius, one of the two authors to which the manuscripts attribute the work. The epistolary correspondence between Evodius and Augus34  L. E.

Dupin, Noua bibliotheca, t. 3, pp. 287–88.

35  L. E.

Dupin, Noua bibliotheca, t. 3, p. 467; see Zycha, p. lxviii.

36 Zycha

is not entirely correct here. Pm does unambiguously attribute the work to Augustine in its closing formula, and implicitly in its title. Pm, fol. 30v: Explicit tractatus b[eat]i augustini ep[iscop]i contra manicheos. Cf. Pm, fol. 25v: Explicit liber s[an]cti augustini ep[iscop]i de fide rerum inuisibilium. Incipit tractatus contra manicheos. 37  This title probably refers to Augustine’s F. et symb. or, alternatively, to the pseudo-Augustinian De fide catholica ad Petrum.

82

chapter iii

tine reveals that Evodius would often ask for Augustine’s counsel. 38 Third, Zycha qualifies Adu. Man.’s style of argumentation as membratim (one step/member at a time). He discerned a similar style, befitting the attitude of disciple, in Evodius’ letters to Augustine. Zycha gives an example from Adu. Man. 2:39 “And certainly, if he is unbegotten and not created, he is immortal in himself. But if he is immortal in himself, it would not be the case that … and the Apostle … will be a liar. But since the Apostle is not a liar, God alone does have immortality, and therefore he alone …”

According to Zycha, the same membratim style of argumentation can be found in Evodius’ Ep. 160.40 These last two arguments, namely, that the relationship between Evodius and Augustine resembles the relationship between the author of Adu. Man. and Augustine, and that the style of argumentation in Evodius’ letters is similar to that found in Adu. Man., will merit our further attention below. 1.2.2. Féliers In 1964 Jeanne-Huberte Féliers finished her thèse de troisième cycle on Evodius of Uzalis.41 She supplemented this study with an article published in the Revue des études augustiniennes two years lat-

38 

Zycha, p. lxviiii: … cum in grauibus rebus et difficilioribus Augustinum eum [sc. Euodium] consuluisse epistulae testentur. 39 

Zycha, p. lxviiii; cf. Adu. Man. 2,3–7.

40  Ed.

by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), pp. 503–06. Zycha does not give a specific example from this letter, probably because the letter contains multiple instances in which the argumentation is structured membratim. See Evodius, Ep. 160,2: ut uerbi gratia, cum mundus factus est, ratio habuit ut fieret mundus. Prior ergo ratio quam mundus est. Ea ergo quae sciuit ratio futura esse, subsecuta sunt, ut sit princeps ratio, postea mundi operatio: “For example, when the world was made, reason knew that the world would be made. Reason, therefore, is prior to the world. Those things, therefore, which reason knew were going to come followed afterward so that reason was first and the production of the world afterward”; ed. A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 503, l. 19-p. 504, l. 3; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 50. 41 J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”. Institution: Université de ParisSorbonne, Paris. Promoter: Prof. Henri-Irénée Marrou.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

83

er.42 Her doctoral thesis primarily focuses on the life of Evodius, his involvement in the Donatist controversy, and his founding of the cult of Saint Stephen in Uzalis. Although she does incorporate Adu. Man. in her presentation of Evodius’ theological thinking, her analysis of the treatise, including the question of its authorship, is not as thorough as the other sections of her study. Féliers’ work remains the most extensive study dedicated to Evodius, and provides a lively and nuanced overview of the life of the bishop of Uzalis. Féliers discusses Adu. Man. (and its authorship) in the third chapter of her dissertation.43 She first summarizes Zycha’s argumentation, with which she agrees. Féliers seems to have consulted at least one of the manuscripts of Adu. Man. herself, namely, P 4 (V in Zycha).44 On the authorship of Adu. Man., she agrees with Zycha’s thesis that, because its author was quite familiar with Augustine’s writings, it is necessary to look for a possible author among Augustine’s circle of friends. Féliers repeats Zycha when she refers to similarities in style and argumentation between Adu. Man. and Evodius’ Ep. 160. Additionally, Féliers attempts to assess when Adu. Man. was written. Although she does not identify a precise date, she estimates that 415 is a terminus post quem. The epistolary correspondence between Evodius and Augustine took place in that year. In his letters, Evodius presented his theological doubts to Augustine, who in turn responded to his questions. Evodius could have benefitted from this exchange with Augustine, especially with regard to Trinitarian matters, when he wrote Adu. Man. 45 Féliers does not seem to question the title De fide contra Manichaeos in her discussion, even though the one textual witness she likely consulted does not have this title. As a matter of fact, she seems to consider 42 J.-H. Féliers,

“La Bible dans l’œuvre d’Evodius”.

43 J.-H. Féliers,

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 82–104.

44  She

provides a more accurate transcription than Zycha of the closing formula (of De fide et symbolo) and title (of Adu. Man.) found on fol. 126v in the manuscript. J.-H. Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 82: “Explicit in Domino Christo Filio Dei Tractatus Aureli Augustini de fide catolica (sic) Incipit adversus Manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti Evvodii (sic) ignoratur”. Cf. Zycha, p. lxxii. 45 J.-H. Féliers,

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 83–84.

84

chapter iii

the title De fide contra Manichaeos a guideline for her interpretation of the treatise.46 Whereas previous studies (e.g., Sirmond, Zycha) merely asserted Evodius’ authorship or argued in favour of it, Féliers fully accepts the consequences of the identification between Evodius, the bishop of Uzalis and Evodius, the author of Adu. Man. While she does distinguish between the two contexts and genres of writing – epistolary correspondence and polemical treatise47 – generally speaking, her work brings together the theology and scriptural usage of Evodius in one encompassing overview. 1.2.3 . Decret François Decret is well known for his work on Augustine, Augustine’s anti-Manichaean controversies, and on Manichaeism in North Africa at large.48 He has also devoted two articles to Evodius and the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos.49 Questions concerning authorship and title do not occupy a significant position in these articles, yet Decret remains consistent on both points. He accepts the authorship of Evodius, as defended by Zycha, Féliers and other authors, without providing additional argumentation, and consistently refers to the treatise as “Adversus manichaeos” or “Contre les manichéens”.50 For Decret, the author of Adu. Man. is sufficiently consistent with Evodius of Uzalis, the friend and correspondent of Augustine. On the title, Decret refers to the studies on the manuscript transmission conducted by the Maurists on the one hand (codex Corbeiensis [P 2]) and by Zycha on the other hand (codices P 4 and 46 See,

p. 46.

for example, J.-H. Féliers, “La Bible dans l’œuvre d’Evodius”,

47 J.-H. Féliers,

“La Bible dans l’œuvre d’Evodius”, pp. 45–46: “a) Dans la correspondance … b) Dans le De fide …”. 48 F. Decret,

Aspects du manichéisme; L’Afrique manichéenne; Essais sur l’Église manichéenne. 49 F. Decret,

“Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens” [= , Essais sur l’Église manichéenne, pp. 125–45]; “Exégèse et polémique chez Evodius d’Uzalis”. 50 F. Decret, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 388, n. 3–4; F. Decret, “Exégèse et polémique chez Evodius d’Uzalis”, p. 384, n. 11–13. Decret also refers to following studies: P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire, vol. 7, pp. 42–45; A.-M. La Bonnardière, “Evodius, évêque d’Uzale”.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

85

P 1). All three witnesses call the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos. As is the case with Féliers, Decret’s chosen title reflects a certain emphasis in interpretation. Evodius, Decret argues, conceived of the treatise Contre les manichéens as a pragmatic compendium of anti-Manichaean argumentation.51 Evodius displays one fundamental attitude towards the pursuit and defence of theological knowledge throughout his letters and the treatise Adu. Man. His concern for a model argumentation against the Manichaeans is reflected in his Ep. 161. There, he expresses his intention to search for a reasonable and rational response to adversaries who criticize essential Christian beliefs. 52 Evodius focuses on a doctrinal and exegetical refutation of Manichaeism. In contrast to Augustine, he is not concerned with the ecclesial structure of the Manichaeans (e.g., the distinction between Hearers and the Elect), with Manichaean rites, with Manichaean mores, nor does he share his personal experiences with Manichaeans (if in fact he had any).53 1.3. Concluding Statement on the State of the Art The foregoing was an overview of the most important studies on the treatise Adu. Man., especially with regard to its authorship. Other scholars have not been considered in detail here, as they mostly summarize the more fundamental studies discussed above. These other scholars include Le Nain de Tillemont,54 51 F. Decret, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 390: “… il présente ici une sorte de ‘somme’ pratique, un argumentaire simplifié à l’usage des controversistes catholiques aux prises avec leur actifs adversaires se réclamant eux aussi de Christ et des Écritures chrétiennes”. 52 F. Decret, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 390, n. 17; Evodius, Ep. 161,3: Non enim certamina semino, sed, quem ad modum insidiosis respondeatur, interrogo: “Now, I am not sowing the seeds of disputes; rather, I am asking how one might reply to those who are insidious”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 510, l. 15-p. 511, l. 1; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 55. 53 F. Decret, 54 L.-S.  Le

“Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 409.

Nain de Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. 12, pp. 581–85, esp. p. 584: “Le P. Sirmond a reconnu aussi par l’autorité des manuscrits, que le traité intitulé De la foy, ou De l’unité de la Trinité contre les Manichéens, que les docteurs de Louvain ont laissé parmi les ouvrages de Saint Augustin, parcequ’en effet il en est digne, n’est pas néanmoins de ce Père, mais d’Evode d’Uzale”.

86

chapter iii

Alfaric,55 Monceaux,56 Caserta,57 de Plinval,58 La Bonnardière,59 Mandouze,60 Zangara,61 O’Donnell,62 Hübner,63 Duval,64 and Shanzer.65 It should also be noted here that Adu. Man. is itself an invaluable source on Manichaeism, constituting the second most extensive Latin treatment of the topic after the works of Augustine. Consequently, Adu. Man. is often cited in broader studies on Manichaeism, although these studies do not focus on the treatise in particular nor on its authorship. This overview of previous scholarship on the authorship of Adu. Man. has produced the following results. First, it appears that there are no sources or testimonies concerning Adu. Man. that are earlier than the manuscripts in which the treatise is preserved. The testimony of these witnesses is therefore of fundamental importance. Amerbach, Erasmus, and the Leuven theologians all attributed the work to Augustine. Perhaps this early communis opinio is not surprising. After all, Amerbach probably consulted Di and Tr.  These manuscripts attribute the treatise to Augustine. Erasmus consulted at the very least one exemplar of the group represented by the extant manuscripts Kl, Vt 1, and Zw (cf. hyparchetype τ). Of these three manuscripts, Vt 1 also attributed the treatise exclusively to Augustine. The Leuven theologians consulted two manuscripts of the branch λ of Adu. Man.’s transmission. No extant manuscripts of this branch attribute the treatise to any author other than Augustine. On the other hand, Sirmond confidently stated that the manuscripts he had read (he explicitly 55 P. Alfaric,

Les écritures manichéennes, vol. 1, p. 116.

56 P. Monceaux, 57 A. Caserta, 58 G. de

Histoire littéraire, vol. 7, pp. 42–45.

“Evodio di Tagaste”.

Plinval, “Évode”.

59 A.-M. La

Bonnardière, “Evodius, évêque d’Uzale”; A.-M. La Bonnardière, “Evodius et Augustin”. 60 “Evodius 1”, in A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 366–73. 61 V. Zangara, 62  J. J.

“Il vehiculum animae”; V. Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore.

O’Donnell, “Evodius of Uzalis”.

63 W. Hübner,

“Euodius”.

64 Y.-M. Duval, 65 D. Shanzer,

“Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”.

“Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead”.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

87

mentions codex Corbeiensis [P 2]) refer to Evodius as the author of Adu. Man. The Maurists nuanced this statement. They too consulted the manuscript Corbeiensis, which attaches to the treatise the dubitatio formula (“whether it is of Augustine or of Evodius, is not known”). Other manuscripts, however, simply attribute the work to Augustine (e.g., codex Fossatensis [P 3]). Second, although earlier editions accepted Augustine as the author of Adu. Man., Augustine’s authorship has been firmly rejected since the fundamental studies of Bellarmine and Sirmond, and the edition of the Maurists. The anti-Manichaean treatise Adu. Man. is mentioned neither in Augustine’s Retr., nor in Possidius’ Indiculum. In addition, the style and mode of arguing seem convincingly different from Augustine’s. Vinding and Zycha also doubted Augustine’s authorship based on the title De fide (catholica) contra Manichaeos. This last observation is not entirely relevant for the question of authorship. After all, the title De fide contra Manichaeos is of secondary origin, and it would be more accurate to refer to the treatise as Aduersus Manichaeos. Third, the manuscripts state that either Augustine or Evodius is the author of Adu. Man. Scholars argue that, since Augustine’s authorship has been sufficiently rejected, Evodius remains the sole possible author of the work. To this argument, Zycha, Féliers, and Decret have added additional indications in favour of Evodian authorship. They have noticed significant parallels between the author of Adu. Man. and Evodius, namely, the membratim mode of arguing, a disciple-teacher posture towards Augustine, and a concern for the rational defence of orthodoxy against religious adversaries. If the treatise can be attributed to Evodius, one aspect left underdeveloped by previous scholars is the dating of Adu. Man. One should also attempt to identify when Evodius wrote this treatise. Féliers, for example, estimated that Adu. Man. was written after 415. However, it should be noted that the characteristics mentioned above could befit any contemporary of Augustine who had consulted the bishop of Hippo’s polemical writings. The similarities between Adu. Man. and Evodius could be estimated as quite superficial. It should also be noted that Evodius was well known among his contemporaries, including not only Augustine, but also Aurelius of Carthage, Paulinus of Nola, and Jerome. Yet none of

88

chapter iii

these contemporaries describe him as the author of an anti-Manichaean treatise. Evodius is mostly famous for his instalment of the cult of Saint Stephen in Uzalis, the first cult in North Africa devoted to Christianity’s first martyr. By contrast, the literary legacy of Evodius is non-existent or dubious at best.66 Ultimately, the attribution of Adu. Man. to Evodius was first suggested by Sirmond, and, upon review of all the major studies on the treatise, this attribution is shown to be based exclusively on the manuscripts’ evidence, which is at the very least doubtful (the manuscripts present the attribution of authorship as an open question: “whether it is of Augustine or of Evodius, is not known”). What to make of the doubtful double attribution then? Is it possible to ignore the four centuries between Augustine and Evodius on the one hand and the earliest textual witness of Adu. Man. on the other? Is it possible, as Zycha and others did, to simply refute Augustinian authorship and subsequently consider Evodius’ authorship a given? Is it even possible to accept the manuscripts’ testimony as valid? After all, attributions in manuscripts have often proven faulty. For example, the Liber promissionum, now accepted as a work of Quodvultdeus, was attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine in the manuscript transmission.67 Another example

66 Gennadius does not make mention of Evodius in his de uiris illustribus (ed. by E. Richardson, Gennadius: Liber de viris inlustribus); Sigebert of Gembloux does mention him, but only as the author of De miraculis sancti Stephani protomartyris. Sigebert of Gembloux, De uiris illustribus 15: Euodius episcopus scripsit librum De miraculis in Africa ostensis per reliquias Stephani protomartyris nouiter inuentas, quas detulit in Africam Orosius, Augustini discipulus: “bishop Evodius wrote the book ‘On the Miracles shown in Africa, mediated through the relics recently discovered, of Stephen, the first martyr,’ which Orosius, a disciple of Augustine, brought to Africa”; ed. by R. Witte, Catalogus Sigeberti Gemblacensis, p. 56, l. 91–94. Sigebert is misinformed on Evodius’ authorship, as Evodius arranged for the work to be written, but did not write it himself. 67  See R. Braun (CCSL, 60), pp. v–xii, and ibid., p. 1. However, R. Braun (SC, 101), pp. 11–24 explains that the attribution to Prosper was probably due to Cassiodorus’ testimony concerning the work, who indeed accredited the work to Prosper. In fact, the oldest manuscript is anonymous, and the attribution to Prosper was an addition found in later manuscripts (under the influence of Cassiodorus’ testimony).

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

89

is Pelagius’ confession of faith, which was transmitted under the names of Augustine and Jerome.68 At any rate, as we have seen in the previous chapter, the dubitatio seems to have arisen very early in the transmission of the treatise. The text of Adu. Man. does not give any explicit indication as to its authorship, and the relative obscurity of Evodius as an author can be a convincing argument in favour of his authorship. It would be rather unlikely for a rubricator or scribe to come up with his name in the first place, if it did not already occur in the earliest textual witnesses. The next section discusses the text of Adu. Man. itself with regard to the historical information it furnishes, and in comparison to extant writings of Evodius. The final section re-evaluates the hypothesis of Evodius’ authorship. If there proves to be no conclusive evidence in favour of Evodian authorship, perhaps it is only possible to follow Bellarmine’s verdict: “The book is learned, and its author is very well versed in Manichaean writings”.69 2. Re-evaluation: What Information Does Adu. Man. Give? 2.1. An African Patristic Text Having cast a methodological doubt on the manuscripts’ testimony regarding Adu. Man.’s authorship, we turn to a consideration of the information that the treatise Adu. Man. itself has to offer regarding its authorship. Adu. Man. is an anti-Manichaean treatise heavily influenced by Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings. It is possible that such a treatise was composed by a later imitator of Augustine and was falsely attributed to Augustine or Evodius afterwards. In other words, can we even be sure that this treatise is an authentic patristic text, and, if patristic, African? In an article on anonymous African sermons, Dolbeau has discerned three possible criteria which may indicate the African background of a given sermon or a group of sermons.70 First, and most convincingly, a text can be assumed to be African if it refers 68 M. Lamberigts, “Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy?”, pp. 203–04. 69 R. Bellarmine, 70 F. Dolbeau,

De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, p. 108. See n. 20.

“Sermons ‘africains’”, esp. p. 22.

90

chapter iii

to “realités africaines” (contemporary African events, locations or practices). Second, biblical variants of a text may correspond to African variants of the Vetus latina, the collective name given to the most ancient Latin translations of the Bible. Third, and in itself the least convincing criterion, a text’s transmission can also provide some indication of its origins. Stylistic and linguistic characteristics of a text are generally not reliable criteria, since in the past scholars have often categorized a text or sermon as African, based on their (low) esteem for the author’s Latin style.71 2.1.1. Historical Evidence in Adu. Man. Adu. Man. was conceived as a compendium of anti-Manichaean argumentation.72 Its argumentation is thus primarily biblical and doctrinal, without reference to contemporary events or persons. In fact, the most recent figures mentioned in the treatise are Mani himself, the founder of Manichaeism, and Leucius, to whom several apocryphal Acts have been attributed.73 Other characters who make an appearance in Adu. Man. are either biblical figures (God, 71 F. Dolbeau, 72 F. Decret,

“Sermons ‘africains’”, p. 12.

“Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 390. See n. 51.

73  Adu. Man. contains three citations and one allusion to these acts. Adu. Man. 38,16–21 and Adu. Man. 38,21–28 contain two citations from the Acts of Andrew. An allusion to the Acts of John can be found in 40,22. In Adu. Man. 5,6–9, the author also cites from the “Acts of Leucius”. Although the precise provenance of the citation is unknown, scholars assume the citation belongs to either the Acts of Andrew or the Acts of John. According to J.-M. Prieur (CCSA, 5–6), pp. 25–26, the citation is more likely from the Acts of Andrew. For an English translation of the Acts of Andrew, see J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 231–302. The first passage can be situated in the Acts of Andrew 17 (J.-M. Prieur [CCSA, 5–6], pp. 26–27.462–65; J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 250). The second passage probably needs to be inserted between the Acts of Andrew 32 and 33 (J.-M. Prieur [CCSA, 5–6], pp. 26–28.480–81; J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 254–55). Several elements of the passage in Adu. Man. 38,21–28 are preserved in the Acts of Andrew 32: Maximilla and Iphidama make their way to Andrew (cum eadem Maximilla et Iphidama simul issent ad audiendum apostolum Andream); they find a beautiful young boy, who entrusts the women to Andrew’s care (puerulus quidam speciosus … commendauerit eas Andreae apostolo). The narrative is continued in Adu. Man.: the boy hastens to Aegeates’ palace, where he deceives Aegeates by imitating the voices of Maximilla and Iphidama. For the allusion to the Acts of John, see E. Junod & J.-D. Kaestli (CCSA, 1–2), pp. 129–36.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

91

Jesus, angels, apostles, Mary, Adam, Eve, Elisabeth, the Jews of the New Testament world, Lazarus), persons from Manichaean and apocryphal writings (emanations of the Manichaean God, Maximilla, Aegeates, Iphidama), or stereotypically categorized people: Manichaei (“the Manichaeans”), imperator (“an emperor”), uir sanctus (“a saint man”) None of these characters pertain exclusively to North Africa. Nevertheless, the treatise does provide us with some historical information through its use of source texts. Although the author of Adu. Man. does not cite Augustine as an authority, the treatise does reveal traces of Augustine’s works in its argumentation, as well as in its use of biblical and apocryphal sources. Most of Adu. Man.’s Augustinian sources were explicitly conceived as anti-Manichaean works, such as C.  Fort., C.  Faust., C.  Fel., Nat. b., and C.  Sec. 74 Furthermore, Adu. Man. also betrays the influence of Augustinian works that neither Augustine nor Possidius qualify as anti-Manichaean. These works include Agon. and perhaps C. adu. leg. 75 This latest work may be of particular importance for the dating of Adu. Man. since Augustine’s last explicitly anti-Manichaean works, Nat. b. and C.  Sec., were written in 405. The treatise C. adu. leg., however, was written in 419–20. If Adu. Man. does depend on that work, then the date of its composition (420) would be the terminus post quem for the dating of Adu. Man. Although the text of Adu. Man. gives no explicit information as to its author, several key details emerge: the author was heavily indebted to Augustine and probably wrote the treatise after 420, that is, after Augustine had finished his C. adu. leg. However, neither the polemical context nor the dependence on Augustine provides precise information concerning the author’s origins: Manichaeans were known in different regions in the Roman Empire, and Augustine’s fame also transcended the borders of North Africa. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the author of Adu. Man. was, as Bellarmine noted, “very well versed in Manichaean writ-

74  Adu. Man.’s possible dependence on C. Sec. could further prove its authenticity as a late antique text, for only one extant manuscript of this work is known, namely, a tenth-century manuscript of Chartres. Chartres, bm, 104. See Catalogue général, Départements, t. 11, pp. 55–56. 75  Chapter

V will deal with the sources of Adu. Man. in detail.

92

chapter iii

ings”.76 In several instances, the author of Adu. Man. cites sections of Manichaean sources. Some of these passages are not found in Augustine’s works.77 Similarly, the author of Adu. Man. alludes to some Manichaean doctrines (or terminology) which, again, are not mentioned in Augustine’s works, such as the Third ambassador (tertius legatus; Adu. Man. 17,6) and Mani’s twin (geminus; Adu. Man. 24,3–7).78 The author of Adu. Man. cites from two Manichaean sources, namely, the Epistula fundamenti and the Thesaurus. The exemplars he had access to must have differed from Augustine’s. This could suggest that the author was an authoritative figure (a bishop, for example), who had the means to access, perhaps confiscate, Manichaean books.79 The Manichaean Ep. fund. was well known to Augustine, but no fragments have been preserved outside of the Latin world. Julian of Eclanum, in his polemical writings against Augustine, also cites from a letter that could be identified with the Ep. fund., but he does not know it under that name.80 The Ep. fund. was a text particularly popular in North African Manichaean circles.81 The Thesaurus, on the other hand, was well-known throughout the Manichaean world. The author of Adu. Man. possibly could have been able to read Greek texts. In Adu. Man. 38, he paraphrases two passages from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew, which were originally written in Greek.82

76 R. Bellarmine, 77 M. Stein,

4, pp. 34–35.

De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, p. 108. See n. 20.

Manichaica latina 2, pp. 34–41; M. Stein, Manichaica latina

78 On the role of the Third ambassador in the Manichaean myth, see, for example, J. van Oort, “Was Julian Right?”, pp. 115–16. On the doctrine of Mani’s twin, see A. Hoffmann, “Erst einsehen, dann glauben”, pp. 77–78; I also discuss Evodius’ knowledge of Manichaeism briefly in A. Vanspauwen, “Selection and adaptation”. See also the discussion of chapter V, section 4.2, and chapter VII. 79  See

also K. W. Kaatz, “What did Augustine Really Know about Manichaean Cosmogony?”, p. 195. 80  See

chapter VII, section 1.3.

81 M. Scopello,

“L’epistula fundamenti à la lumière des sources manichéennes du Fayoum”, p. 216. Note, however, that this observation relies on the prominence of the Ep. fund. in Augustine’s works and in Adu. Man. 82  See also n. 73 for Adu. Man.’s citations of this text, and the appendix, for a comparison with the Greek Acts of Andrew.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

93

2.1.2. Vetus latina Citations In late antiquity, there was no authoritative Latin version of the Bible.83 Instead, a variety of Latin translations coexisted. While earlier authors such as Tertullian could translate their Greek model on the spot, this was less and less the case in the fourth and fifth centuries. At that time, distinct regional variations of the Latin Bible were in circulation. Especially in North Africa, where the knowledge of Greek was limited, especially among the common people, a Latin translation of the Bible was a necessity. These translations had an additional advantage, as the audience of a theological treatise or sermon would be more familiar with the phrasing of a local Latin translation. These Latin texts are commonly referred to as the Vetus latina (“the old Latin”), although given the diversity in these translations, perhaps the plural Veteres latinae or “Old Latin versions” would be more appropriate. The primary study tool used in this overview is the Itala of Jülicher, which presents African and non-African Latin versions of the four Gospels. Generally speaking, the biblical citations in Adu. Man. confirm the treatise’s presumed African origins. The phrasing of any particular verse either tends to be widely attested throughout the Latin world (and thus not representative of any specific regional tradition), or the citation of Adu. Man. corresponds to African parallels. Here we can only review the instances of distinctively African phrasing. Moreover, only those citations of Adu. Man. that differ from Augustine’s citations are taken into account. Otherwise, the author could have simply copied an Augustinian citation. Adu. Man. 37,19–20

Itala 84

si quis dimiserit quae habet, et omnis qui reliquerit domum septuplum aut etiam centuplum in uel fratres aut sorores aut patrem hoc saeculo accipiat aut matrem aut filios aut agros propter nomen meum, centuplum accipiet et uitam aeternam possidebit Mt 19:29 in Adu. Man. and Vetus latina 83 For more information, including the state of the art, on the history of the Old Latin Bible, see H. A. G. Houghton, The Latin New Testament. 84 A. Jülicher, Itala, 1, p. 139. “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life”; trans. NRSV.

94

chapter iii

The Old Latin manuscripts indicate the distinctive character of the verb dimittere here, as opposed to relinquere or derelinquere, found of the Itala manuscripts and Vulgate text, respectively. The only manuscript containing dimittere in this verse is e (VL 2), a manuscript of the African tradition.85 The African character of Adu. Man.’s phrasing is also confirmed by a comparison with the texts of (or attributed to) Quodvultdeus of Carthage.86 One additional element shared between Quodvultdeus and Adu. Man. is the grammatical construction si quis (“if anyone”) instead of omnis qui (“everyone who”). While this variant is not attested in any Old Latin version, it is striking that the only parallel is found in another African author. Adu. Man. 25,8–9

Itala 87

et patrem ne uocaueritis uobis et patrem nolite uocare uobis super terram: unus enim est pater super terram; unus est enim pater uester qui in caelis est uester, qui in caelis est Mt 23:9 in Adu. Man. and Vetus latina

Although the variety in phrasing in this example – ne uocaueritis instead of nolite uocare – is minor, it does seem representative of an African strand. Of the Old Latin manuscripts, only e (VL 2) and d (VL 5) contain the phrase ne uocaueritis. Both can be considered representative of African Old Latin texts.88 Evidence from

85 For

a more detailed discussion on the African character of VL 2, see R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften, p. 21; H. A. G. Houghton, The Latin New Testament, pp. 210–11. 86 Quodvultdeus, IV uirt. car. 5: si quis dimiserit domum, aut agrum, aut parentes causa nominis mei, et in hac uita centuplum accipiet, et in futuro saeculo uitam consequetur aeternam; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), pp. 370–71, l. 18–21; Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum II,37: si quis dimiserit domum aut agrum aut uxorem aut filios causa nominis mei, et hic multiplicia accipiet et uitam aeternam consequetur; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 148, l. 19–21. 87 A. Jülicher, 88  On

Itala, 1, p. 166.

VL 2, see n. 85. The character of VL 5 is somewhat mixed. R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften, p. 26 states the manuscript displays many similarities with VL 1 (k) and VL 2 (e) in the gospel of Matthew. VL 1 is considered the oldest witness of an African tradition (see R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften, p. 19; H. A. G. Houghton, The Latin New Testament, p. 210).

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

95

patristic literature once again corroborates the African character of this citation, as the only other patristic author who uses the wording ne uocaueritis is Cyprian.89 Adu. Man. 40,2–4

Vulgate90

Seminatur in corruptione, resurget in incorruptione; seminatur in contumelia, surget in gloria; seminatur in infirmitate, surget in uirtute; seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale

seminatur in corruptione, surgit in incorruptione; seminatur in ignobilitate surgit in gloria; seminatur in infirmitate, surgit in uirtute; seminatur corpus animale, surgit corpus spiritale

1 Cor 15:42–44 in Adu. Man. and Vulgate

Modern editions of the Vetus latina of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians are still in preparation.91 Therefore it has not been possible to compare the aforementioned biblical citation to the Old Latin material. Nevertheless, it is striking that this quotation in Adu. Man. corresponds closely to a citation found in one of the sermons attributed to Quodvultdeus.92 In conclusion, the biblical material in Adu. Man. seems to support the hypothesis of an African origin for the work. The appearance of Old Latin versions not preserved elsewhere, and thus not dependent on any other patristic author known today, confirms the status of the work as a late antique patristic text. 89 Cyprian, Ad Fortunatum 11: ne uocaueritis uobis patrem super terram; unus est enim pater uester qui in caelis est; ed. by G. de Hartel (CSEL, 3/1), p. 338, l. 20–22. 90 B. Fischer 91  See

et al., Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, p. 1787.

H. A. G. Houghton, The Latin New Testament, p. 116.

92 Quodvultdeus, S. I de Symbolo 11: Seminatur, inquit, in corruptione, resurget in incorruptione; seminatur in infirmitate, surget in uirtute; seminatur in contumelia, surget in gloria; seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale; ed. by Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 332, l. 17–20. One significant difference between Adu. Man. and Quodvultdeus’ version is the order in which the citation is constructed (in Quodvultdeus’ citation, the pair infirmitate-uirtute is positioned after contumelia-gloria; the order of Adu. Man. is correct). The unique similarities between Quodvultdeus and Adu. Man. are the parallel conjugation of the verbs (all future simple, ending on -et), the sequence resurget … surget … surget … surget, and the terminology contumelia versus ignobilitate. I have not found any other parallels in patristic literature in BREPOLiS’ Cross Database Searchtool.

96

chapter iii

2.1.3. African Collection The transmission of a text can offer supplementary information on said text’s provenance.93 More concretely, if a text is transmitted in a collection of African texts, the presence within such a collection can confirm the African origin of that text. Adu. Man. seems to hail from a collection of seven texts. These seven works are Quodvultdeus’ Adu. V haer.,94 Augustine’s Gn. adu. Man. and F. et symb., the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos, Augustine’s Conl. Max. and C.  Max., and a pseudo-Augustinian text Coll. Pasc. The other six texts of this collection are clearly African. Gn. adu. Man., F. et symb., Conl. Max. and C.  Max. were written by Augustine. The Coll. Pasc. is a pseudo-Augustinian work, written in an African context, most probably at the end of the fifth century, when Africa was under Vandal Arian rule.95 Adu. V haer. is one of the sermons attributed to Quodvultdeus of Carthage. In other words, the collection in which Adu. Man. has been transmitted consists solely of African texts. To conclude, the treatise Adu. Man. is in all probability a work of the patristic era. The collection in which the work is preserved and the Vetus latina variants confirm its presumed North African provenance. Dependence on Augustine’s C. adu. leg. provides the year 420 as a terminus post quem for the treatise’s composition. The author of Adu. Man. was moreover very familiar with Augustine’s anti-Manichaean output and had access to a significant number of Augustine’s texts. Additionally, he consulted apocryphal and Manichaean texts and thus had some first-hand knowledge of Manichaeism. 2.1.4. Reception in Late Antiquity Was the treatise Adu. Man. known in late antiquity? As mentioned before, the earliest sources on the treatise are the manuscripts in which the text was copied. Nevertheless, Adu. Man. may have influenced a younger contemporary of Evodius. Some 93 F. Dolbeau, 94  Attributed

to Augustine in these manuscripts.

95 H. Müller,

centio, p. 8.

“Sermons ‘africains’”, p. 22. D. Weber and C. Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pas-

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

97

sections among the sermons attributed to Quodvultdeus aim to refute the teachings of Manichaeism. Quodvultdeus was a younger contemporary of Augustine, and the addressee of Augustine’s Haer. in 428.96 The authorship of the Quodvultdean sermons has been a matter of dispute,97 but his authorship of the exegetical treatise Liber promissionum is considered secure. In their treatment of the Manichaeans, the sermons of Quodvultdeus and the liber promissionum have many characteristics in common. Elaborate refutations are found in the sermons Adu. V haer., Cant. nou., and Acc. grat. I, while the Manichaeans are more briefly addressed in the sermons C. Iud. pag. et ar., De ultima quarta feria, and De cataclysmo as well as in the Liber promissionum.98 The anti-Manichaean content of this corpus of works attributed to Quodvultdeus is relevant to the authorship of Adu. Man. The sermons of Quodvultdeus, for example, contain some parallels with Adu. Man. Since Adu. Man. is a late-antique African text, it may well have influenced Quodvultdeus. The author of the works attributed to Quodvultdeus never opposes the Manichaeans exclusively. Instead, the Manichaeans are always refuted in a series along with other heretics. Two general groupings of heresies appear in the corpus. One sequence of 96  For a succinct overview of Quodvultdeus’ life, see “Quodvultdeus 5”, in A.  Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne, pp. 947–49. 97  See D. Van Slyke, Quodvultdeus of Carthage, pp. 48–63. The most severe critic of Quodvultdeus’ authorship was Manlio Simonetti. See M. Simonetti, “Studi sulla letteratura cristiana d’Africa in età vandalica” and M. Simonetti, La produzione letteraria latina fra romani e barbari (sec. V–VIII), pp. 35–39. See also A. V. Nazzaro, “La produzione omiletica di Quoduultdeus”, for a recent analysis of the Quodvultdean sermons. Nazzaro is convinced that the correspondent of Augustine, the bishop of Carthage, the author of the Liber promissionum and the author of the homilies is the same person, namely, Quodvultdeus (ibid., p. 28). On Quodvultdeus’ authorship of the Liber promissionum, see also J. Delmulle, “Un fantôme et un pseudonyme (?)” and D. Vopřada, Quodvultdeus. 98 Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. I,9; ed. R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 262, l. 29–32; Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. V,1–15; ibid., pp. 276–79, l. 1–70; Quodvultdeus, Cant. nou. VI,1–11; ibid., p. 387, l. 1–32; Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X,2–6; ibid., p. 449, l. 3–19; Quodvultdeus, C. Iud. pag. ar. VI; ibid., p. 233, l. 1–3; Quodvultdeus, De ultima quarta feria VI; ibid., p. 403, l. 5–8; Quodvultdeus, De cataclysmo V; ibid., p. 415, l. 18–24; Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum II,6; ibid., p. 80, l. 21–26; pp. 81–82, l. 54–60.

98

chapter iii

heresies features Pagans, Jews, Manichaeans, Arians, and Sabellians (Adu. V haer., Acc. grat. I), while a second sequence concerns Manichaeans, Pelagians, and Arians (Cant. nou., C.  Iud. pag. ar., De ultima quarta feria, De cataclysmo, Liber promissionum). When Jews are addressed, Manichaeans and Jews are refuted in tandem (with the exception of the sermon C.  Iud. pag. ar.): Jews deny the divinity of Christ, whereas the Manichaeans deny the humanity of Christ (Adu. V haer., Cant. nou., Acc. grat. I). Augustine makes use of a similar opposition in his sermons. However, he opposes the Manichaeans to the Photinians instead of to the Jews.99 Quodvultdeus’ description of the Manichaeans (and Priscillianists, a gnostic and ascetic movement often associated with Manichaeans) in the Liber promissionum is very similar to a phrase used in Acc. grat. I.100 Such verbal parallels could suggest that these texts were all written by the same author, who may be identified with Quodvultdeus. Quodvultdeus is also known as the addressee of Augustine’s De haeresibus. This Augustinian treatise contains a very extensive description and refutation of the Manichaeans.101 Nevertheless, Augustine’s Haer. does not seem to have had a significant influence on Quodvultdeus’ own anti-Manichaean argumentation. Quodvultdeus may, however, have consulted the treatise Adu. Man. One important caveat should be stated first. Adu. Man. itself was fundamentally indebted to Augustine’s anti-Manichaean output.102 Quodvultdeus may have also consulted Augustine’s various anti-Manichaean works himself. Some anti-Manichaean material of Quodvultdeus’ sermons does seem directly indebted to Augustine, in particular to his C.  Faust. It must also be noted that 99 See, for example, Augustine, S. 92,3: qui negat deum christum, photinianus est: qui negat hominem christum, manichaeus est; ed. PL 38, col. 573. 100 Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum II,6: Deo ipsi capiti dum aduersarium nescio quem principem tenebrarum filii tenebrarum disputantes opponunt; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 80, l. 24–25. Cf. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: quomodo illi principem gentis tenebrarum aduersarium ponis?; ibid., p. 449, l. 9–10. 101 Augustine, Haer. 46; ed. R. Vander Plaetse, C. Beukers (CCSL, 46), pp. 312–20, l. 1–204. 102  The relation between Adu. Man. and Augustine’s works will be touched upon more thoroughly in the fifth chapter. In addition, parallel passages from Augustine and Quodvultdeus will be cited in detail in appendix II.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

99

the question as to whether Quodvultdeus consulted Adu. Man. assumes that Adu. Man. predates Quodvultdeus. In any case, the opposite hypothesis, namely, that Quodvultdeus inspired the author of Adu. Man., is highly unlikely. Quodvultdeus gives a very stereotypical presentation of the Manichaeans, while the author of Adu. Man. is much better informed on the movement. Quodvultdeus’ anti-Manichaean argumentation often centres on Christology, and more specifically on Jesus’s carnal birth and passion. This topic is discussed in detail in Adu. Man. 21–36, which treats Christ’s incarnation (22), his birth from the Virgin Mary (23–27), and his passion (28–36). Some themes discussed in the Quodvultdean sermons resemble Adu. Man. more than Augustine’s anti-Manichaean output. One of these themes is the preservation (or “incorruptibility”) of Mary’s virginity during the birth of Christ. While this theme is mentioned in Augustine’s C. ep. fund. and in C. Faust., the phrasing used by Quodvultdeus resembles the wording of Adu. Man. to a greater degree.103 Another theme that does not appear explicitly in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean oeuvre is the typological comparison between Eve and Mary. Augustine obviously knew this typological interpretation and discussed it in sermons with an implicitly anti-Manichaean content.104 However, he never really pressed this argument against the Manichaeans in his major anti-Manichaean works. This theme is dealt with in detail in Adu. Man., as part of a wider Mariological discussion (chapters 22–27).105 103 Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. V: sicut transitu meo illius non est corrupta uirginitas, sic et mea ibi non est maculata maiestas; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 278, l. 52–53. Cf. Augustine, C. ep. fund. 7: credat uirginitate Mariae uerbum dei non esse pollutum, si concubitu parentum suorum sanctum spiritum non potuisse pollui ut credamus hortatur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 200, l. 28-p. 201, l. 1–2; Augustine, C.  Faust. XI,3: nec Iesum ex semine Dauid uult accipere nec factum ex muliere, quam, non quod fuerit uel concumbendo uel pariendo corrupta, mulierem Paulus appellat sed more scripturarum loquitur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 317, l. 13–16; Adu. Man. 22,6–8. 104  See, for example, G. Bonner, “Eua”, col. 1139; and Augustine, S. 51 2,3: Decipiendo homini propinatum est uenenum per feminam: reparando homini propinetur salus per feminam; ed. by F. Dolbeau (CCSL, 41 Aa), pp. 13, l. 125–26. 105  Adu. Man. 23,1–6: Si enim intellegeretis uel crederetis certe quod apostolus dixit: per feminam nostrum genus fuisse deceptum … possitis intelligere per fem-

100

chapter iii

There are some similarities in wording between the Acc. grat. I  of Quodvultdeus and Adu. Man. that have no convincing parallels in Augustine’s works. The phrase quomodo illi principem gentis tenebrarum aduersarium ponis functions very similarly to the opening words of the second chapter of Adu. Man. 106 The term aduersarius is not used in a similar context in Augustine’s oeuvre. Neither does the phrase uerum hominem suscipere occur in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, although it does appear in Agon. 107 The phrase nulla ex parte is found frequently in Augustine, but is always connected to verbs that indicate corruption (corrumpi or noceri).108 The only exception to this trend is his early text Mor. Man., which contains the two verbs corrumpi ac mutari.109 In Acc. grat. I, however, the author uses the verb commutari without the notion of corrumpi or noceri. This restriction, that is, only using the terminology of “change”, not necessarily specified as “corruption”, is mirrored in Adu. Man. 110 It is possible that the author of the Quodvultdean sermons consulted Adu. Man. Similarities between that corpus of sermons and the Liber promissionum, at least with regard to their anti-Manichaean content, would also suggest that the sermons were authored by the same Quodvultdeus of Carthage. If Quodvultdeus had consulted Adu. Man., then he may have had a copy of the inam nostrum genus oportuisse liberari, ut quoniam per feminam mors facta est, per feminam uita recuperaretur; cf. Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. V: Eua inoboediens meruit poenam, Maria oboediens consecuta est gratiam; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 279, l. 65–66. 106  Adu. Man. 2,1–2: Huic Manichaeus aduersarium esse dicit nescio quem gentis principem tenebrarum. Cf. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: quomodo illi principem gentis tenebrarum aduersarium ponis?; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 9–10. See also n. 100. 107  Adu. Man. 26,1–2: Nos autem Christum dominum uerum hominem suscepisse credimus; Augustine, Agon. XVIII,20: Nec eos audiamus, qui non uerum hominem suscepisse dicunt filium dei; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 120, l. 16–17. 108 E.g. in Augustine, C. ep. fund. 35, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 240, l. 20–21; Augustine, C. Fort. 11, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 89, l. 16–17. 109 Augustine,

Mor. Man. I,1, ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 88, l. 11.

Adu. Man. 21,16–17: ut tamen ipse in sua substantia nulla ex parte mutaretur. Cf. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: Deus, inquit, pater omnipotens est, inuiolabilis, incorruptibilis, inuisibilis, qui nulla ex parte commutari potest; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 5–7. 110 

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

101

work in Carthage. Evodius was somewhat known in Carthage. He had copied Eusebius’ Chronicon at a scriptorium in Carthage near the end of the fourth century,111 and he continued to collaborate with Aurelius of Carthage throughout his life. Both bishops were co-authors of Augustine’s Ep. 177 to Innocent I. In Quodvultdeus’ time, the influence of Evodius is apparent in the presence of a shrine to Saint Stephen at Carthage,112 for, as we have seen, it was Evodius who introduced the cult of Saint Stephen to North Africa. The circulation of Adu. Man. in a collection of seven texts is also relevant to the reception of the treatise. The collection Aduersus duas haereses could possibly have been compiled in North Africa, perhaps in Carthage. The first work in the collection, Adu. V haer., was presumably composed by Quodvultdeus between 434 and 439.113 The final work, Coll. Pasc., can be dated to the end of the fifth century, though the location of its composition is unknown.114 The remaining works of the collection were written by Augustine and, possibly, Evodius. If the collection originated in North Africa, then the title of Adu. Man. raises intriguing questions. The opening formula suggests that the African copyists of the work were unsure whether the anti-Manichaean treatise was written by Augustine or by Evodius. This uncertainty could in turn mean that Evodius was somewhat known as an author of theological treatises, or perhaps in particular of an anti-Manichaean treatise. 2.2. The Text of Adu. Man.: Parallels with Evodius’ Letters 2.2.1. The Correspondence between Evodius and Augustine The following subsection compares the evidence of Evodius’ letters with Adu. Man. The treatise Adu. Man. is written in a straightforward and confident style that is not evident in Evodius’ letters. While the author of Adu. Man. seems determined in his argumen111  See

chapter I, section 4.

112 D. Van 113  A. V.

Slyke, Quodvultdeus of Carthage, p. 39.

Nazzaro, “La produzione omiletica di Quoduultdeus”, p. 36.

114 H. Müller,

tio, pp. 188–95.

D. Weber, C. Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pascen-

102

chapter iii

tation, the correspondent of Augustine often expresses his uncertainty. Caserta too noticed the difference in tone between these two corpora: “the style of De fide [Adu. Man.] is more clear and decisive; yet the style of the letters is a bit vague”.115 The difference in genre and context may account for this discrepancy in tone. Adu. Man. is a polemical treatise, which requires a confident stance on the part of the author. Evodius’ letters, however, were sent to Augustine precisely because Evodius wanted reassurance for personal and theological doubts, and because he knew Augustine could provide clarification. In that regard, the tone of Evodius’ letters to Augustine accords better with the portrayal of Evodius in Augustine’s dialogues An. quant. and Lib. arb. Féliers argued that Evodius wrote Adu. Man. after his correspondence with Augustine (414–15).116 Other scholars had previously situated the treatise Adu. Man. earlier in Evodius’ life. Monceaux, for example, claimed Evodius wrote the treatise before becoming involved in the Pelagian controversy, yet did not provide a rationale for this dating.117 He may have assumed that an anti-Manichaean treatise could only have been written before the Pelagian controversy. After all, Augustine and the author of Adu. Man. emphasize the choice of free will in their polemics against the Manichaeans, and such a defence of free will would become problematic after the clash with Pelagius and his followers.118 De Plinval, perhaps following Monceaux, similarly stated that Evodius probably wrote the treatise between 395 and 400.119 115 A. Caserta, “Evodio di Tagaste”, p. 152: “Lo stilo del ‘De fide’ è più chiaro e incisivo; mentre nelle lettere è un pò (sic) nebuloso”; trans. mine. 116 J.-H. Féliers,

“Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 83–84. See n. 45.

117 P. Monceaux,

Histoire littéraire, vol. 7, p. 44: “Il est probablement l’auteur de l’opuscule intitulé Sur la foi contre les Manichéens. Plus tard, il fut un des signataires de la lettre des cinq évêques au pape Innocentius sur l’hérésie de Pelage”. 118 However, it is clear that during the Pelagian controversies, Augustine continued to oppose the Manichaeans and was occasionally accused of Manichaeism by the sympathizers of Pelagius. See P. Mattei, “Notes sur le Sermon CLIII”, pp. 245.63–65; J. van Oort, “Augustine on Manichaeism in His Sermo 182”. 119  G.  de Plinval, “Évode”, col. 1788: “Entre 395–400 probablement, Évode avait composé un intéressant traité d’apologétique contre les manichéens: De fide contra manichaeos”.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

103

The dependence of Adu. Man. on C. adu. leg. (420) may corroborate Féliers’ thesis. Evodius would have benefitted from the teaching that Augustine offered in his letters. These letters to Evodius and the writings Augustine recommended to Evodius would have provided the necessary guidance for Evodius to write his own treatise. The works Augustine mentions are Gn. litt.,120 Trin.,121 the dialogues An. quant. and Lib. arb.,122 Vera rel.,123 Ciu.,124 En. Ps.

120 Augustine, Ep. 159,2: in duodecimo autem libro eorum, quos de generi scripsi: “But in the twelfth book of those I wrote on Genesis”; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 499 l. 17–18; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156– 210), p. 48; Augustine, Ep. 162,2: iam etiam ex his quaestionibus, quas modo misisti, multa soluta sunt in eis libris, quos nondum edidi, siue de trinitate siue de genesi: “Many of the questions that you just sent me have also already been resolved in the books that I have not published, either The Trinity or Genesis”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 513, l. 1–3; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 57. 121 Augustine, Ep. 162,2 (see n. 120); Augustine, Ep. 169,I,1: ita ut nec libros de trinitate, quos diu in manibus uerso nondumque compleui, modo adtendere uelim, quoniam nimis operosi sunt et a paucis eos intellegi posse arbitror: “At present I do not want to give my attention even to the books of The Trinity, which I have had in hand for a long time and have not yet completed, for they involve much work and I think they can be understood only by a few”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 612, l. 6–9; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 107. 122 Augustine, Ep. 162,2: quia ea fortasse oblitus es, quae te conferente mecum ac sermocinante conscripsi, siue de animae quantitate siue de libero arbitrio: “for you may have forgotten those books I wrote when you were conferring and holding a discussion with me, either The Magnitude of the Soul or Free Will”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 513, l. 4–6; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 57. 123 Augustine,

Ep. 162,2: habes etiam in libro de religione: “You also have in the book True Religion”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 513, l. 10; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 57. 124 Augustine, Ep. 169,I,1: nam tribus illis libris de ciuitate dei contra daemonicolas inimicos eius duos alios addidimus: “For we have added another two books to those three books on The City of God against the worshipers of demons, who are enemies of it”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 611, l. 11–12; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 106; Augustine, Ep. 169,IV,13: Praeter autem illos duos libros, quos tribus me adiunxisse supra commemoraui: “But besides those two books I mentioned above, which I have added to the three”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 620, l. 26–27; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 112.

104

chapter iii

67, 71 and 77,125 his Ep. 166,126 Ep. 167,127 C. Prisc. 128 and Nat. et gr. 129 In addition, Evodius testifies that he had read Augustine’s letters 137 and 92.130 Augustine advised Evodius to send someone 125 Augustine, Ep. 169,I,1: dictaui etiam trium psalmorum expositionem non paruis uoluminibus, sexagesimi et septimi, septuagesimi et primi, septuagesimi et septimi: “I have also dictated the explanation of three psalms in volumes of no small size, Psalms Sixty-Seven, Seventy-One, and Seventy-Seven”; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 612, l. 1–3; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156– 210), p. 107; Augustine, Ep. 169,IV,13: [Praeter] … et trium psalmorum expositionem: “and the explanation of the three psalms”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 620, l. 27; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 112. 126 Augustine, Ep. 169,IV,13: scripsi etiam librum ad sanctum presbyterum Hieronymum de animae origine: “I have also written a book for the holy priest Jerome on the origin of the soul”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 620, l. 27–29; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 112. 127 Augustine, Ep. 169,IV,13: scripsi et alium ad eundem [sc. Hieronymum], quo modo illi uideatur accipiendum esse, quod scriptum est in epistula Iacobi: quicumque autem totam legem seruauerit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus: “I also wrote another book for him on how he thinks one should interpret the verse in the letter to James, But whoever observes the whole law, but offends on one point, has become guilty of all (Jas 2:10)”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 6–8; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), pp. 112– 13. 128 Augustine, Ep. 169,IV,13: huic etiam ipsi Orosio ad quaedam interrogata, quae illum de Priscillianistarum haeresi et de Origenis quibusdam opinionibus, quas non recipit ecclesia, permouebant, uno libro non grandi quanta potui breuitate et perspicuitate respondi: “In one small book I answered with as much brevity and clarity as I could, for this same Orosius, certain questions that were troubling him about the heresy of the Priscillianists and about certain opinions of Origen that the church does not accept”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 16–20; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 113. 129 Augustine, Ep. 169,IV,13: scripsi etiam grandem quendam librum aduersus Pelagii haeresim cogentibus nonnulis fratribus, quibus contra gratiam Christi opinionem perniciosam ille persuaserat: “I also wrote a large book against the heresy of Pelagius at the urging of some brothers whom he had convinced of a destructive opinion opposed to the grace of Christ”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 20–23; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 113. 130 Evodius, Ep. 161,1: sed quia epistulas sanctitatis tuae unam ad inlustrem uirum Volusianum et alteram ad Italicam inlustrem in Christo feminam in manibus legentes habuimus, occurit, quod in epistula de domini Iesu Christi dei nostri carnali in uirgine conceptione et ex ea natiuitate posuisti: ‘Si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile; si exemplum poscitur, non erit singulare’: “But because we had in our hands and read the letters of Your Holiness, the one to the illus-

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

105

to Hippo to copy the works that Augustine was recommending, if Evodius wanted to receive more profound answers to his questions. Augustine’s phrasing in the final letter to Evodius suggests that, for future inquiries, Evodius should simply copy Augustine’s works if these works could provide a sufficient answer for his questions, instead of asking Augustine’s opinion directly. Augustine complained that Evodius’ all-too-detailed questions were distracting him from composing treatises that could find a broader resonance amongst Christians.131 Although it is a question we trious man, Volusian, and the other to Italica, an illustrious lady in Christ, I noticed that, in the former letter on the carnal conception in the Virgin of the Lord Jesus Christ our God, you said concerning that birth, ‘if a reason is sought, it will not be a source of wonder; if an example is demanded, it will not be singular’”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 507, l. 9–14; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 53. 131 Augustine, Ep. 169,IV,13: haec omnia si habere uolueris, aliquem mitte, qui tibi cuncta describat. me autem permitte his uacare quaerendis atque dictandis, quae quoniam multis sunt necessaria, praeponenda esse arbitror ualde ad paucos pertinentibus inquisitionibus tuis: “If you want to have all these [namely the works previously mentioned in Ep. 169, see n. 121.24–29], send someone to copy all of them for you. But allow me the free time to investigate and dictate the works that, since they are needed by many people, I think I should place before your questions, which concern very few”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 23-p. 622, l. 2; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 113; cf. Augustine, Ep. 162,1: Multa quaeris ab homine multum occupato et, quod est grauius, ea putas praecipitari debere dictando, quae tam sunt difficilia, ut cum magna diligentia dictata uel scripta uix perduci possint ad intellectum etiam talium, qualis ipse es. huc accedit, quia non tu et tales tantum modo cogitandi estis lecturi esse, quod scripsimus, sed utique et illi, qui minus acuto minusque exercitato ingenio praediti eo tamen studio feruntur ad cognoscendas litteras nostras siue amico siue inimico animo, ut eis subtrahi omnino non possint. ista cogitanti cernis quanta cura in scribendo esse debeat praesertim de rebus ita magnis, ut in eis et magni laborent: “You ask many questions of a very busy man and, what is worse, you think that I should rush in dictating those ideas which are so difficult that, even if they are dictated or written with great care, they can scarcely be presented to the intellect even of persons as capable as you yourself are. In addition there is the fact that we must bear in mind that it is not only you and persons like you who are going to read what we write, but there are of course also those persons who are endowed with a mind that is less sharp and less well trained but who are carried along by a desire to know our writings, whether with a friendly or a hostile intention, so that they can by no means be kept from them. You have seen how much care in writing one who ponders these questions ought to have, especially concerning topics

106

chapter iii

must reserve for later analysis, any influence of the works mentioned in this paragraph on Adu. Man. would strengthen the case for Evodius’ authorship of Adu. Man. In the meantime, it is difficult to find conclusive proof in a comparison of Adu. Man. with Evodius’ letters. Both corpora are rather limited: Adu. Man. contains around 7,200 words, and Evodius’ letters together contain around 4,500 words.132 Nevertheless, some stylistic elements are common to both Evodius’ letters to Augustine and to Adu. Man. And, as Féliers and Decret have already indicated, some topics discussed in these letters could have prepared Evodius for his anti-Manichaean treatise. Zycha described Evodius’ style of argumentation as membratim (“member by member”, “step by step”), citing Adu. Man. 2 and Ep. 160 as examples of this gradual mode of reasoning, in which Evodius takes one small yet certain and logical step at a time.133 In Ep.160, Evodius expresses his eagerness to learn what he does not yet understand of God (ut aliquid de deo non intellegentes intellegeremus). This trope returns in Adu. Man. There the author criticizes the Manichaeans for preferring to reject what they do not understand, rather than attempting to learn the true meaning of the contested biblical or doctrinal topics.134 Several short phrases in Adu. Man. are reminiscent of phrases found in Evodius’ letters. The author of Adu. Man. and Evodius both use the term “desire” (cupio, desidero) to express the pursuit of knowledge;135 so great that even great minds struggle with them”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 511, l. 13-p. 512, l. 7; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 56. 132  Ep. 158: 2,118 words; Ep. 160: 797 words; Ep. 161: 698 words; Ep. 163: 154 words; Ep. ad Valentinum: 769 words. 133  See

n. 39.

134 Evodius,

Ep. 160,4: arduum uehementerque difficile negotium iniuimus, ut aliquid de deo non intellegentes intelegeremus: “We have entered upon an arduous and very difficult task of understanding something about God, though we do not understand”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 506, l. 9–11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 51; cf. Adu. Man. 39,1–2: ut quae nescitis, potius accusare quam discere laboretis; Adu. Man. 39,13: illa uero quae non intelligentes putatis mala; Adu. Man. 39,21–22: quae non intelligitis accusare nolite, sed potius eorum intellectum desiderate. 135 Evodius, Ep. 158,12: quod intellegis me scire cupere: “what you understand that I want to know”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 497, l. 15; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 46; cf. Adu. Man. 39,21–22 (see n. 134).

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

107

the usage of the verb praesto in Ep. 160 and Adu. Man. 2 is similar;136 Adu. Man. and Ep. 160 contain several similar phrases in which the author expresses how a hypothetical line of reasoning would be out of line;137 Evodius and the author of Adu. Man. both reflect the relation between root (radix) and fruit (fructus);138 one particular syntactical construction, in which the interjection ecce plays a prominent role, is found in both Ep. 161 and Adu. Man. In both examples, the interjection ecce is used twice in succession, and afterwards followed by a relative clause: Adu. Man. 13,1

Ep. 161,2139

Ecce uictoria, ecce triumphus ecce exempla, ecce miracula, de qualem fecit Manichaei deus. quibus ratio nullatenus redditur Stylistic parallel Adu. Man. – Ep. 161: usage of ecce

There are also various similarities in content between Adu. Man. and Evodius’ letters to Augustine. In both corpora, the bodily 136 Evodius, Ep. 160,1: Perfecta ratio illa est, quae omnium rerum praestat scientiam: “That is perfect reason which offers knowledge of all things”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 503, l. 1–2; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 50; cf. Adu. Man. 2,7–8: et ideo solus potest et animis et quibus uult corporibus praestare immortalitatem. 137 Evodius, Ep. 160,2: dictu nefas est: “and this is wicked to say”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 504, l. 14; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 50; Evodius, Ep. 160,3: quod dici fas non est: “something that is impious to say”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 505, l. 9; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 51; cf. Adu. Man. 32,10: quod nefas est credere; Adu. Man. 33,4: quae rursus nefas est credere. 138 Evodius, Ep. 160,3: quia nec fructus sine radice esse potest nec radix sine fructu aliquid est?: “For there cannot be fruit without the root, nor is the root anything without the fruit”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 505, l. 18–20; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 51; cf. Adu. Man. 4,1–5,5: Sed si quisquam quaerit quid sit malum, audiat Apostolum dicentem: Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas, quam quidam appetentes a fide pererrauerunt et inseruerunt se doloribus multis. Cupiditas autem in unoquoque homine est, non naturalis, sed uoluntaria. Ideoque dixit : quam quidam appetentes. Quod enim appetendo habetur, si non appeteretur, non haberetur. Nam et dominus ostendens quod in hominis potestate sit, ait: Aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum, aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum. 139 “See the examples, see the miracles concerning which a reason is in no way given”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 508, l. 19–20; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 54.

108

chapter iii

resurrection,140 the incarnation and virgin birth of Jesus Christ,141 and the inviolability of the Son142 are important themes. Féliers first suggested that the correspondence with Augustine allowed Evodius to prepare himself thoroughly for composing Adu. Man. Decret also pointed out that Evodius, in Ep. 161, states his concern for a rational defence of the Christian faith.143 Earlier in the same letter, Evodius mentions adversaries “who did not believe a virgin could conceive”.144 The topic of the virgin birth is dealt with at length in a clearly anti-Manichaean context in Adu. Man. 145

140 Evodius,

Ep. 158,6: ita fieri potest, ut resurrectio quidem carnis istius, quae bene creditur, futura sit, tamen sic anima illa reddatur, ut corpore aliquo numquam caruisse: “Thus it is possible that there will be the resurrection of this flesh, which we do well to believe will take place, and yet that the soul will be restored to the body in such a way that it is found never to have lacked a body”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 493, l. 4–7; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 43; cf. Adu. Man. 21,18–21: ut integra et inuiolata deitate in carne mortali doceret mortales per patientiam mortem uincere et ipsius infirmae carnis futuram in melius commutationem resurrectione monstraret. The author also deals with the bodily resurrection at length in Adu. Man. 40. See A.  Vanspauwen, “‘Contra Domini uel Apostoli auctoritatem’”, pp. 408–10. 141 Evodius,

Ep. 161,1: occurrit, quod in epistula de domini Iesu Christi dei nostri carnali in uirgine conceptione et ex ea natiuitate posuisti: “I noticed that, in the former letter on the carnal conception in the Virgin of the Lord Jesus Christ our God, you said concerning that birth”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 507, l. 11–13; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 53. The author of Adu. Man. treats this topic at length in Adu. Man. 22–27. See A.  Vanspauwen, “‘Contra Domini uel Apostoli auctoritatem’”, pp. 400.07– 08. 142 Evodius, Ep. 161,2: potest tamen et in generatione aliquid tale inueniri, quod sic edat partus, ut integritas naturae non uioletur: “And in generation one can still find something like this that brings forth its offspring without violating the integrity of its nature”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 509, l. 3–4; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 54; cf. Adu. Man. 21,17–19: sicut uerbum dei, qui est filius dei, etiam ipse sicut pater incommutabilis suscepit hominem mortalem, ut integra et inuiolata deitate … 143 F. Decret,

See n. 52.

“Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 390, n. 17.

144 Evodius,

Ep. 161,2: qui non credidissent uirginem concipere posse; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 509, l. 11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 54. 145 

Adu. Man. 22–27; see n. 141.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

109

There are no parallel biblical citations in Adu. Man. and Evodius’ letters to Augustine.146 Nevertheless, some biblical images are found in both Evodius’ letters and in Adu. Man. In Ep. 158, Evodius discusses the apparition of angels, and wonders whether angels have bodies. Mt 26:53, which Evodius cites, suggests that they do.147 In addition, some angels have appeared as human beings.148 The author of Adu. Man. also alludes to Mt 26:53149 and refers in passing to the apparition of angels in human bodies.150 Additionally, the exegesis of 1 Peter, for which Evodius asks in Ep. 163 and which Augustine provides in Ep. 164, may have inspired a section in Adu. Man. The First Epistle of Peter describes Christ’s descent into hell (also qualified as carcer). A passage in Adu. Man. describes an unnamed holy man who enters prison for the consolation or liberation of another.151 This passage contains some parallels with the narrative of 1 Peter, although these similarities could well be incidental. 2.2.2. Evodius’ Epistula ad Valentinum Evodius’ letter to Valentinus152 differs somewhat from the letters Evodius wrote to Augustine. Valentinus, abbot of a community

146 See also the overview of J.-H. Féliers, “La Bible dans l’œuvre d’Evodius”, pp. 55–62. 147 Evodius, Ep. 158,6: Possem rogare patrem meum, ut duodecim mihi legiones angelorum misisset: “I could have asked my Father, and he would have sent me twelve legions of angels (Mt 26:53)”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 492, l. 15–16; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 42. 148 Evodius,

Ep. 158,6: tamen humana apparuerunt ad Abraham et ad Tobiam: “they nonetheless appeared to Abraham and to Tobit”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), 492, l. 15–16; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 43; cf. Gn 18:2–16 and Tob 5:1–12:22. 149  Adu. Man. 30,7–8: qui legionibus angelorum potuit iubere, ut Iudaei perirent uel uno uerbo suo omnes interimeret. 150  Adu. Man. 22,10–11: Sed ne dicatis: “sicut angeli apparuerunt, sic haberet corpus, ne de femina nasceretur”. 151  Adu. Man. 27,2–8. See also A. Vanspauwen & A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”, pp. 468–69. 152 Evodius, Ep. ad Val., ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, pp. 254–56; for a more thorough introduction to the historical circumstances of the letter to Valentinus, see Y.-M. Duval, “Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, pp. 123–24.

110

chapter iii

in Hadrumetum, had reached out to Evodius in the aftermath of the Pelagian controversy. The community at Hadrumetum was worried about the deterministic implications of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin and asked the bishop of Uzalis for further clarification on the matter. In his response (425–26) to Valentinus, Evodius speaks with a certain authority. The tone of this letter is more similar to the confident tone of Adu. Man. That is true despite a difference in genre: the letter to Valentinus contains a fraternal admonition to a congregation of fellow believers, whereas Adu. Man. is a polemical treatise intent on rejecting unorthodox doctrine and exegesis. Nevertheless, most similarities between Adu. Man. and the Ep. ad Val. could simply be commonplaces of late antique theological thinking. There are various terms and expressions of the Ep. ad Val. that can also be found in Adu. Man. The terms sauciatus (“injured, impaired”) and its near-synonym uitiatus (“injured, spoiled”), for example, each occur twice in Ep. ad Val.153 These rather unusual words also play a prominent role in the epilogue of Adu. Man. 154 Some grammatical constructions are also common for the two texts: Adu. Man.

Ep. ad Val.

Huic Manichaeus aduersarium esse quia nescio quae ibi quaestiones dicit nescio quem gentis princi- inter uos natae sunt 156 pem tenebrarum 155

Est ergo in potestate ut sit cupidi- Est ergo in homine nunc liberum tas, et ideo malum in potestate est 157 arbitrium, sed sauciatum 158 153 Evodius, Ep. ad Val., ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 15.16.20.21. 154  Adu. Man. 49,35–36: Si autem potest perrumpere globum, quis ei resistit et saucius, quae integros sauciauit?; Adu. Man. 49,28: quae uitiatae globo custodiendo infiguntur infirmae ac debiles. 155 

Adu. Man. 2,1–2.

156 “…

that certain questions have arisen among you”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 10; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42. 157 

Adu. Man. 9,1–2.

158 “Now

man has free choice, but an injured choice”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 16; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

111

Adu. Man.

Ep. ad Val.

Nullam ergo necessitatem patitur deus neque necessitate facit quae facit, sed summa et ineffabili uoluntate ac potestate 159

nulla hoc faciens iniquitate, sed aeterna sua incomprehensibili, quam nullus sensus humanus capere potest, aequissima ueritate 160

Stylistic parallels Adu. Man. – Ep. ad Val.

Certain general tendencies of Adu. Man. can be found in Evodius’ Ep. ad Val. as well. In both texts, the author asks his readers to pursue unity and harmony and not to cause strife. In the following passages both authors also emphasize the virtue of piety: Adu. Man.

Ep. ad Val.

Et alia multa quae diligentibus et Laudamus quidem studium uespie quaerentibus ad aedificandam trum, sed nolumus esse contenfidem innotescunt 161 tiosum; contentio enim perturbationem excitat, studium pietatem requirit 162 Magis magisque legite atque dis- Multa sunt … scripta … quae sunt cutite, sed animo aequo, non legenda, sed cum pietate, non animo inimico 163 cum contentione 164 Thematic parallels Adu. Man. – Ep. ad Val.: Exhortation to piety

Similarly, both authors dissuade their readers from criticising what they do not understand, and admonish them instead to study the controversial biblical passages or doctrines more properly. 159 

Adu. Man. 27,11–13.

160 “It

is not injustice that does this, but his eternal, incomprehensible, and just truth which no human mind can grasp”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”,, pp. 255–56, l. 58–60; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 43. 161 

Adu. Man. 39,4–5.

162  “We,

of course, commend your zeal, but we do not want it to be filled with quarrelling. For quarrelling stirs up trouble, while zeal seeks piety”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 11–13; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42. 163 

Adu. Man. 45,1–2.

164  “Many

works have been written …; they should be read, however, with piety, not with quarrelsomeness”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 24–25; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42.

112

chapter iii

Adu. Man.

Ep. ad Val.

quae non intelligentes putaue- Et quando non intellegunt, non rint mala, ea reprehendant165 cito reprehendant, sed orent ut intellegant 166 quae non intelligitis accusare Superbum est autem, tantorum et nolite, sed potius eorum intel- tam sanctorum ecclesiae magistrolectum desiderate 167 rum … sapienter libros conscriptos …, cum pie intellegere nolumus, uelle culpari uel in aliquo reprehendi168 Thematic parallels Adu. Man. – Ep. ad Val.: Exhortation to study

Two central themes of Ep. ad Val., namely, free will and the justice of God, also play an important role in Adu. Man. 4–10, where the author rejects the ontological existence of evil (or sin).169 Evil is situated in human choice, while God’s justice guarantees human accountability for sin.170 To these teachings Evodius adds in Ep. ad Val. that human free will has been impaired (sauciatum, uitiatum) and needs Christ’s salvation in order to be restored to its former state.171 165 

Adu. Man. 39,15–16.

166 “and

when they do not understand them, let them not immediately find fault, but let them pray that they may understand”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 255, l. 51–52; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 43. 167 

Adu. Man. 39,21–22.

168  “It

is pride, however, for us … to want to blame or reprehend in some respect the books wisely composed by such great and such holy teachers of the Church, when we refuse to understand them with piety”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 256, l. 60–63; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 43. 169 Evodius, Ep. ad Val.: quaestiones inter uos natae sunt de libero arbitrio et de iustitia Dei: “questions have arisen among you in your community about free choice and the justice of God”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 10–11; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42. 170  See

A. Vanspauwen & A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”.

171 Evodius,

Ep. ad Val.: ut autem curetur et ad pristinum statum reuocetur, necessarium habet peritissimum medicum: “but in order to be healed and recalled to its pristine state, it [the free choice of will] needs the most skilled physician”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 22–23; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

113

Finally, similar biblical images are used in the two texts. The author of Adu. Man. and Evodius both emphasize God’s role as a just judge. In this regard, they also allude to Rom 9:14, where Paul exclaims that it is impossible for God to be unjust.172 Evodius, in the Ep. ad Val., stresses that human free will is impaired and requires salvation through Christ, whom Evodius portrays as a physician (medicus). Only Christ can provide the necessary cure for the impaired free will.173 Although Adu. Man. does not underline Christ’s role as the saviour174 – preferring almost exclusively the image of God as a just judge – the treatise does explicitly cite a verse of Matthew, in which Christ compares himself to a medicus.175 3. Adu. Man. and its Potential Author To reiterate: Adu. Man. is an authentic patristic text, written after 420. Its author was well acquainted with Manichaeism and had good access to Augustine’s works, in particular his anti-Manichaean output. In theory, these data could correspond to any North African Christian author. The present subchapter therefore compares the testimony of Adu. Man. with other known African anti-Manichaean authors in order to underline the distinctiveness of the treatise. Afterwards, we shall return to Evodius, the most likely author of Adu. Man. 3.1 Augustine of Hippo The most famous of anti-Manichaean authors, Augustine is one of the figures to whom the treatise Adu. Man. has been attributed. Every manuscript of Adu. Man. either mentions his name in 172 Evodius, Ep. ad Val.: non est in eo iniquitas; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 255, l. 29; cf. Adu. Man. 7,6–7: non enim iniustitia est apud deum. See J.-H. Féliers, “La Bible dans l’œuvre d’Evodius”, p. 60. 173 Evodius,

l. 19.23.

Ep. ad Val.; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254,

is only described as saluator (saviour) once (Adu. Man. 28,5), as part of a citation of the Manichaean Epistula fundamenti. See A. Vanspauwen & A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”, p. 465, n. 21. 174  Christ

175 

Adu. Man. 43,9–10.

114

chapter iii

the title or otherwise implicitly suggests Augustine’s authorship (for example, by including the treatise in a series of Augustine’s works). Much has been said about Augustine and his relation to Adu. Man. already. If the work is Augustine’s, then this treatise would appear to be a summary of his anti-Manichaean teaching. The treatise would also have been written rather late in his life, since he does not refer to it in his Retr., which was composed in 427. Augustine’s authorship, however, has been sufficiently refuted by earlier scholars. The fact that it is mentioned neither in the Retr. nor in Possidius’ Indiculum is significant. In terms of style and content, the treatise also differs from Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works. As Vinding has stated, Augustine’s anti-Manichaean treatises either originated in a specific polemical context, or they focus on one particular theme.176 To the first category belong such works as C.  Fort., C.  Adim., C. ep. fund., C.  Faust., C.  Fel., and C.  Sec., which all contain refutations of a single Manichaean figure or text. Treatises of the second category also differ from Adu. Man. In these treatises, Augustine focuses on one theme in particular. For example, Augustine discusses ethics in Mor. eccl. cath. and Mor. Man., rejects the Manichaean doctrine of two souls in Duab. an., and defends the belief in one (good) nature instead of two natures in Nat. b. The argumentation of Adu. Man. is distinct from both categories of Augustinian works. The treatise does not respond to a specific Manichaean adversary or a recently discovered text, nor does it address one theme in particular. Instead, the treatise puts forward a rather general rejection of the Manichaean system. It also differs from Augustine’s in the lack of insider information it offers. Whereas Augustine frequently addresses Manichaean church structure, ethics, or his past experiences as a Manichaean, the author of Adu. Man. never does so. 3.2. Quodvultdeus of Carthage The author of Adu. Man. is likely a North African Catholic Christian who is heavily indebted to Augustine. Quodvultdeus is cred176 B. Vinding,

Criticus augustinianus castigatus, pp. 69–70.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

115

ited with having authored the Liber promissionum and several homilies. Both the Liber promissionum and some of these sermons address the Manichaeans. Certainly, there are similarities between Quodvultdeus’ works and Adu. Man. The similarities raise the question of whether Adu. Man. was authored by the same Quodvultdeus. That is unlikely to be the case. His presentation of the Manichaeans is a stereotypical one which focuses almost exclusively on the Manichaean rejection of Christ’s incarnation. This approach is very different from that of Adu. Man., which treats the Manichaeans in a much less generalizing fashion. The sermons of Quodvultdeus were delivered in a classical and polished rhetorical style.177 The style of Adu. Man. is different. Although the treatise contains some well-crafted passages, it does not consistently demonstrate the same literary qualities throughout.178 In comparison to Quodvultdeus, the author of Adu. Man. does not employ epanaphora (repetition) as often, nor does he often make use of sound effects such as alliteration or assonance. Command of Greek is another matter in which the author of Adu. Man. seems to differ from Quodvultdeus. In 427, while still a subdeacon of Carthage, Quodvultdeus asked Augustine for an overview of all heresies.179 The result would be Augustine’s Haer. At first, Augustine was none too eager to undertake this task. Instead, he suggested that Quodvultdeus consult the works of Filastrius of Brescia and especially Epiphanius of Salamis. Quodvultdeus was not entirely happy with Augustine’s response and implored the bishop of Hippo to write a new overview of heresies, more succinct than those of Filastrius and Epiphanius, and one which would also deal with the more recent heresies that had originated after those other authors had composed their heresiological works. The correspondence between Augustine and Quodvultdeus suggests that the latter was not fluent enough in Greek to read

177 On

Quodvultdeus’ rhetorical style, see G. D. Dunn, “Rhetoric in the Patristic Sermons”, pp. 117–20. 178 Aspects

chapter IV.

of Adu. Man.’s language and rhetorical style are discussed in

179 On the correspondence of Quodvultdeus and Augustine on this topic, see also T. S. Berzon, Classifying Christians, pp. 220–29.

116

chapter iii

Epiphanius’ Panarion.180 In this regard, Quodvultdeus differs from the author of Adu. Man., who was able to translate or paraphrase the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and probably also consulted a Greek anti-Manichaean source.181 In contrast, Quodvultdeus relied exclusively on Latin patristic sources – especially Augustine and perhaps Adu. Man. itself – when he refuted the Manichaeans. 3.3. Evodius of Uzalis The profile of Adu. Man.’s author corresponds to Evodius of Uzalis. A comparison with Evodius’ extant letters has revealed minor parallels in style, attitude, general topics of interest (incarnation, free will, God’s justice), and biblical imagery. The author of Adu. Man. also seems as comfortable consulting Greek works as Evodius does. Nevertheless, these similarities with Evodius may be superficial and even incidental. Ultimately, the most convincing argument in favour of Evodius’ authorship is the manuscript transmission. The archetype of Adu. Man. contained an opening formula that could reflect a historical reality. It was previously stated that Evodius was not well known as an author of letters or treatises, or for any anti-Manichaean activity. If that argument can be used to discredit the attribution to Evodius, so too can it demonstrate just how unlikely it must have been for a scribe to attribute the work to Evodius without any reason for doing so otherwise. The material context, especially the collection of texts in which Adu. Man. has been transmitted, indicates that the work is of African origin and was possibly written by Augustine or one of his close allies. If the work was penned by Evodius, this would of course have important implications for understanding the circumstances of the work as well as for Evodius’ life and times. Such implications are described below. First, the work could be seen as an authentic expression of Evodius’ thinking, representing a later stage of his development than the Evodius we find in the dialogues of Augustine (387–88) or in his letters to Augustine (414–15). In particular, the rela180  See

P. Courcelle, Les lettres grecques en Occident, pp. 192–93; D. Van Slyke, Quodvultdeus of Carthage, p. 52 and M. Scopello, “Haeresibus ad Quoduultdeum (de)”, col. 279. 181  See

chapter V.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

117

tionship between Adu. Man. and Ep. ad Val. (425) merits further consideration. In general, anti-Manichaean argumentation, clearly represented in Adu. Man., stresses the free choice of the will versus the deterministic implications of the Manichaean dualistic opposition between the good soul and the evil body. The African church, however, had opposed Pelagius and Caelestius precisely because, in the opinion of the African bishops, headed by Augustine, they excessively defended the human ability to choose the good, thereby neglecting the human need for Christ’s grace. It should not be overlooked that Evodius is one of the co-authors of the African bishops’ letter to Innocent (Ep. 177), condemning Pelagius’ teachings. If not an important contributor to the content of this text, he at the very least approved its content. The intent of Ep. ad Val. is similar; there Evodius does not wish to undermine human free will, but rather to reinstate the primordial importance of divine grace. Second, as indicated before, if Adu. Man. was written by Evodius after 420, this means that the author of Adu. Man. may have been familiar with an additional selection of Augustinian texts, of which none have a particularly anti-Manichaean undertone.182 A source analysis of Adu. Man., which is the topic of chapter V of the study, is in order. The source analysis will consider the works referred to in the correspondence between Augustine and Evodius and Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, in addition to other possible anti-Manichaean predecessors. Possible influence from authors other than Augustine cannot be excluded. For example, since Evodius lived in Milan when Ambrose was active there, it may be that Ambrose also influenced the theological development of Evodius. Third, Adu. Man. was written before or after the Ep. ad Val. In either case, the content of Adu. Man. would demonstrate that the author was capable of emphasizing different points of Christian dogma according to the polemical circumstances of the moment, sometimes stressing the capabilities of the free will against the 182 These

works are Gn. litt., Trin., the dialogues An. quant. and Lib. arb., Vera rel., Ciu., En. Ps. 67, 71 and 77, Ep. 92, Ep. 137, Ep. 166, Ep. 167, C. Prisc. and Nat. et gr. See section 2.2.1 in this chapter. As stated in the first chapter, Evodius had also read Eusebius’ Chronicon, possibly in Greek, and the apocryphal Assumption of Moses.

118

chapter iii

Manichaeans, and at other times stressing the injured state of the will against the so-called Pelagians. If Adu. Man. was written before the Ep. ad Val., then, in combination with Evodius’ (probable) consultation of Augustine’s C. adu. leg., this hypothesis would situate the treatise Adu. Man. between 420 and 425. In the second decade of the fifth century, the Manichaean movement in the Roman Empire may have known some form of revival. In any case, there is ample evidence that the Manichaeans were perceived as a threat to orthodoxy in North Africa and elsewhere in the Latin world around that time. Several of Augustine’s sermons still target the Manichaeans.183 In this period, Caelestius, Julian of Eclanum, and possibly Pelagius himself also accused Augustine of Manichaeism.184 In Haer. 46, Augustine reports on an arrest and interrogation of several Manichaeans in Carthage, which took

183  See

P. Mattei, “Notes sur le Sermon CLIII”; J. van Oort, “Augustine on Manichaeism in His Sermo 182”. The sermons discussed in these publications are dated in 417–18. 184 See, on the topic of Julian’s accusation, M. Lamberigts, “Iulianus Aeclanensis”, cols 837–40. On the validity of this accusation, see J. van Oort, “Augustine and Mani on concupiscentia sexualis”; M. Lamberigts, “Was Augustine a Manichaean?”; J. van Oort, “Was Julian Right?”. See also the overview of similar accusations in P. Mattei, “Notes sur le Sermon CLIII”, pp. 263–65. Whether Pelagius himself had accused Augustine of Manichaeism, is difficult to determine. Recently, N. A. Pedersen discussed Pelagius’ anti-Manichaean output in a paper (“Pelagius as an anti-Manichaean Author”) delivered at the conference “Manichaeism and Early Christianity” (University of Pretoria, 21–23 March 2019). Pedersen argues that Pelagius offers a rather generic refutation of the Manichaeans, and does not seem as knowledgeable about the movement as for example Augustine or Titus of Bostra were. Pedersen carefully suggested that, when Pelagius opposes the Manichaeans, he also had other opponents in mind, of which Augustine could be one. For example, in his Libellus fidei, Pelagius wrote: Liberum sic confitemur arbitrium, ut dicamus nos semper Dei indigere auxilio; et tam illos errare qui cum Manichaeis dicunt hominem peccatum uitare non posse, quam illos qui cum Iouiniano asserunt hominem non posse peccare; uterque enim tollit libertatem arbitrii: “We thus acknowledge the free choice, so that we say that we always are in need of God’s help, and just as they err who say with the Manichaeans that man is unable to avoid sin, so do they who with Jovinian claim that man cannot sin; for both groups remove free choice”; ed. PL 45, col. 1718; trans. N. A. Pedersen [paper handout “Pelagius as an anti-Manichaean Author”]. However, overt accusations of Manichaeism, levelled against Augustine, cannot be found in what is preserved of Pelagius’ oeuvre.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

119

place in 421.185 New anti-Manichaean laws were also promulgated in 423, sixteen years after the previous anti-Manichaean edicts.186 In North Africa, Augustine found a text that reminded him of the Manichaeans, to which he responded with his C. adu. leg. Certainly the Manichaeans were still active in this era, and they continued to be so. Quodvultdeus of Carthage felt urged to direct sections of his homilies (434–39) against the Manichaeans, and Pope Leo I

185 Augustinus, Haer. 46,9: Detecti sunt tamen in ecclesia, sicut scis, apud Carthaginem, iam te ibi diacono constituto, quando instante Vrso tribuno, qui tunc domui regiae praefuit aliqui adducti sunt. Vbi puella illa nomine Margarita istam nefariam turpitudinem prodidit, quae cum esset annorum nondum duodecim, propter hoc scelestum mysterium se dicebat esse uitiatam. Tunc Eusebiam quandam manichaeam quasi sanctimonialem, idipsum propter hoc ipsum passam, uix compulit confiteri, cum primo illa se asseruisset integram, atque ab obstetrice inspici postulasset. Quae inspecta et quid esset inuenta, totum illud turpissimum scelus, ubi ad excipiendum et commiscendum concumbentium semen farina substernitur, quod Margarita indicante absens non audierat similiter indicauit: “But they were exposed in the Church at Carthage, as you know, for you [Quodvultdeus] were already a deacon there at the time when, under the prosecution of Ursus the tribune, who was then prefect of the palace, some were brought to trial. At this time a girl by the name of Margarita betrayed this monstrous ugliness and claimed, though she was not yet twelve years old, that she had been violated on account of this wicked rite. Then, with difficulty, he compelled Eusebia, some kind of Manichaean nun, to confess that she had undergone the same treatment because of this very same rite, though, at first, she maintained that she was intact and insisted on being examined by a midwife. When she was examined and when her true condition was discovered, she likewise gave information on that whole extremely ugly crime at which flour is sprinkled beneath a couple in sexual intercourse to receive and commingle with their seed. This she had not heard when Margarita gave her testimony, for she had not been present”; ed. by R. Vander Plaetse, C. Beukers (CCSL, 46), p. 315, l. 67–80; trans. J. van Oort, “‘Human Semen Eucharist’ Among the Manichaeans?”, pp. 195–96. This incident took place in 421. See F. Decret, L’Afrique manichéenne, pp. 221–24; J. van Oort, “‘Human Semen Eucharist’ Among the Manichaeans?”. 186 See Codex Theodosianus 16,5,59; ed. by T. Mommsen, P. M. Meyer, Theodosiani libri XVI, p. 876 (dated April 423); Codex Theodosianus 16,10,24; ibid., p. 904 (dated June 423). Before these edicts, the last anti-Manichaean laws were promulgated in 408. See Codex Theodosianus 16,5,40; ibid., pp. 867– 68 (dated February 405); Codex Theodosianus 16,5,41; ibid., p. 868 (dated November 405); Codex Theodosianus 16,5,43; ibid., p. 869 (dated November 408).

120

chapter iii

(443–47)187 launched a large-scale campaign against the Manichaeans in Italy. At Uzalis, Evodius may have used his episcopal authority to confiscate Manichaean books and subsequently study them for the purpose of refutation. A few years later, the community at Hadrumetum asked Evodius, as a neighbouring bishop, for more clarification on grace and free will. Their letter to Evodius has not been preserved, so it is difficult to discern whether Evodius was merely being addressed because he was a nearby bishop (in whose library a brother of Hadrumetum had discovered Augustine’s anti-Pelagian Ep. 194), or because he was known to have expertise on the topic. Possibly the community wanted to know more regarding the capabilities of the free will, which was precisely one of Evodius’ main topics in Adu. Man. That could be the reason why Evodius, realising that his argumentation may have sounded quite Pelagian to the untrained ear, immediately begins his letter to Abbot Valentinus by stressing that each person has a free will, but an impaired one.188 Alternatively, Adu. Man. may have been written after the Ep. ad Val., perhaps at the end of the decade or even after 430, when Augustine died. It remains remarkable that Augustine often collaborated with Evodius and continued to praise him up until 425/26, but never mentioned any anti-Manichaean activity on the part of his friend in Uzalis. The date of Evodius’ death is unknown, but since he was younger than Augustine, it is not unlikely that Evodius outlived his friend. Possibly Augustine’s silence on the anti-Manichaean treatise of Evodius could be explained as follows: The aging bishop of Hippo was not yet informed about this treatise, or the treatise was written after his death.189 In that case, the 187 H. G. Schipper & J. van Oort, Sancti Leonis magni romani pontificis sermones et epistulae, pp. 6–7. 188 Evodius, Ep. ad Val.: Est ergo in homine nunc liberum arbitrium, sed sauciatum; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 16. 189  However, this argumentum ex silentio is certainly not conclusive. Multiple scenarios could explain Augustine’s silence on Evodius’ anti-Manichaean treatise. 1) Augustine did not or perhaps could not track all the literary activities of his acquaintances. 2) Augustine may not have been too fond of the treatise. He may have found the treatise’s defence of free will redolent of his Pelagian adversaries, and would thus not have been eager to endorse it. 3) As a gesture of friendship towards Evodius, however, Augustine did continue

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

121

year 434 may be a terminus ante quem, if one allows that Quodvultdeus consulted Adu. Man. in the preparation of his sermons. Fourth, the treatise Adu. Man. and its anti-Manichaean rhetoric can in any case be situated in Uzalis after 420. With the exception of Augustine, no other author offers as much detailed information on the Manichaeans as the author of Adu. Man. does. Later texts, such as the sermons attributed to Quodvultdeus of Carthage or the sermons of Leo the Great, continue to reject Manichaeism and thus confirm the continued existence of the movement. However, both authors reject Manichaean doctrine in a rather superficial way. Adu. Man. is a valuable source on the Manichaean movement in North Africa during the third decade of the fifth century. Fifth, Adu. Man. can also be seen as a source of information on the religious composition of Uzalis. The intent of the work as an anti-Manichaean compendium is relevant to interpreting it. The two primary religious groups addressed in the treatise are Catholic Christians and the Manichaeans, who also lay claim to a Christian identity.190 Adu. Man. also mentions Jews, but the references to them seem to pertain exclusively to the Jews of the New Testament.191 It may be that Jews still lived in Uzalis, but Evodius does not seem to consider them relevant to his anti-Manichaean work. Evodius also does not mention any other Christian groups (e.g., Donatists, Pelagians, Arians, or Sabellians) in this text. This exclusive focus on the Manichaeans probably has more to do with the specifically anti-Manichaean intent of Adu. Man. – addressing other religious movements might detract from the argumentative power of the treatise – than with the actual religious demography in Uzalis. With regard to the Donatists, it has been assumed that the movement had vanished in Uzalis at the end of the second decade of the fifth century. The originally Donatist church building had been reclaimed and renamed as the Ecclesia Restituta. The absence of any reference to Donatists in Adu. Man. is therefore not surprising.

to praise his old friend for the introduction of the cult of Saint Stephen to North Africa. 190 E.g.

Adu. Man. 39,20–21.

191 E.g.

Adu. Man. 29,1–2.

122

chapter iii

3.4. Flavius Evodius One particular Roman politician still deserves a mention here. Flavius Evodius was praefectus praetorio in Gaul between 385 and 386 and consul the following year.192 As praefectus praetorio, he put Priscillian on trial in 385, found him guilty, and Priscillian was executed the same year. Sulpicius Severus describes Flavius Evodius as harsh (acri), severe (seuero), and “more just than anyone else” (uir quo nihil umquam iustius fuit).193 Other than his name, his public offices and these short biographical notes, no information is known of him. Is it possible to identify this Flavius Evodius with Evodius of Uzalis, or with Evodius, the author to whom Adu. Man. is attributed, or with both?194 Some parallels are certainly striking. Flavius Evodius was active in Milan in 386. When Augustine travelled to Milan, Flavius Evodius was thus one of the most important politicians there. It is not unlikely that Augustine met Flavius Evodius in Milan. Perhaps Flavius Evodius was deeply inspired by Ambrose and Augustine, and became a dedicated pupil and friend of Augustine afterwards. The involvement of Flavius Evodius in the condemnation of Priscillian could anticipate the vehemence with which he, as bishop of Uzalis, came to oppose the Donatists and the Pelagians. Furthermore, since he had already opposed Priscillian (who was accused of Manichaeism),195 he is likely to have been wary of the Manichaeans’ ascetism and dualism. He would have had a personal motivation to engage in anti-Manichaean polemics (Adu.

192  “Flavius Euodius 2”, in J. R. Martindale et al., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 1, p. 297. 193  Sulpicius Severus, Chronica II,50,2: Euodio … uiro acri et seuero; ed. by G. de Senneville-Grave (SC, 441), p. 342, l. 25–26; trans. R. J. Goodrich, Sulpicius Severus, p. 179; Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini 20,4; ed. by J. Fontaine (SC, 133), p. 296; trans. R. J. Goodrich, Sulpicius Severus, p. 45. See “Flavius Euodius 2”, in J. R. Martindale et al., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 1, p. 297. 194 Such

an identification has not been suggested before. For example, in The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Evodius of Uzalis and Flavius Evodius are considered two different people. 195 C. Markschies,

“Priscillianus, Priscillianismus”, col. 340.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

123

Man.) if he saw the ghost of his earlier adversary Priscillian in the Manichaean movement. However, the age and political careers of the two Evodii do not add up. Augustine, in his Conf. and in his letter to Proculeianus, describes his friend Evodius as a young man (iuuenis).196 If Evodius was younger than Augustine, then Evodius must have been born at the very earliest in 354. Augustine also notes that Evodius, the future bishop of Uzalis was, as a young man, active as an agens in rebus. These words do not vaguely describe any public office holder, but rather refer to a specific office, that of the agentes in rebus.197 Both details seem in conflict with the career of Flavius Evodius. The offices that Flavius Evodius held, praefectus praetorio Galliae (provincial governor of Gaul) and consul (the highest office in a traditional political career; his fellow consul was the two-year-old Honorius, son of Emperor Theodosius I and future emperor of the Western Roman Empire), were considered the highest offices of a cursus honorum. Only the offices of Augusti or Caesares were considered of higher esteem.198 If Flavius Evodius were to be identified with Evodius of Uzalis, this person would have held the highest offices at the age of 29–30, and perhaps at an even younger age, since Augustine seems to emphasize Evodius’ youth. In addition, it would not make sense within one’s political career to occupy the office of agens in rebus after that of consul. After all, a successful agens in rebus would normally receive promotion to the consulary rank as a reward for his services.199 196 Augustine, Conf. IX,8,17: consociasti nobis et euodium iuuenem ex nostro municipio: “you brought into our fellowship a young man named Evodius, who was from our home town”; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 142, l. 1-p. 143, l. 2; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 222. For Augustine’s description of Evodius in the letter to Proculeianus, see chapter I, n. 34–35. 197 See

R. Delmaire, Les institutions du Bas-Empire romain, pp. 97–118, and chapter I, n. 5. 198  See

e.g. A. Gutsfeld, “Praefectus praetorio”, col. 252: “Unter Constantinus wurde das ehemals ritterliche Amt senatorisch, und es rückte sofort an die Spitze des senatorischen cursus honorum”. 199  Codex Theodosianus 6,27,5; ed. by T. Mommsen, P. M. Meyer, Theodosiani libri XVI, p. 283; trans. C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code, p. 141: “Since to the members of the agens in rebus We have granted imperial letters patent to the effect that after serving as chief of office states they shall be ranked as

124

chapter iii

Despite several striking similarities – being active in Milan in 386–87 in the (higher) imperial administration and having a vehement polemical attitude – it seems best to maintain a clear distinction between Flavius Evodius and Evodius of Uzalis. All in all, the characteristics of Adu. Man., an African patristic text, very much indebted to Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings, correspond better to Evodius of Uzalis than to Flavius Evodius, of whom nothing is known except for his activities in 384–86 as described above. 4. Provisional Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to re-evaluate the question of Adu. Man.’s authorship. A survey of all previous scholarship on this topic made clear that the attribution to Evodius relied, in the first place, on evidence from the manuscript transmission. The archetype of Adu. Man. would have contained the following title: Aduersus Manichaeos, utrum sancti Augustini utrum sancti Euodii ignoratur. This note is unlikely to have been invented or to have gradually developed during the earliest phases of the texts’ transmission. It is possible that the work was originally attributed to Evodius, and that the additional attribution to Augustine in the form of a dubitatio was added afterwards. After all, copyists often attributed patristic texts to Augustine, and the treatise was transmitted within a collection of Augustine’s works. Afterwards, the chapter focused on Adu. Man. itself and the historical-literary information it furnishes. The work can be shown to be a patristic text written in North Africa. In addition, its author was familiar with both Augustine’s writings and with Manichaean and apocryphal texts. A possible dependence on Augustine’s C. adu. leg. suggests 420 as a terminus post quem for the treatise’s composition. A following section explored parallels with Evodius’ letters. Although the genre of the letters differs from that of the polemical treatise, the texts have some characteristics in common. In view of the preceding arguments, it seems likely that Evodius of Uzalis is the author of the anti-Manichaean treatise Adu. Man. consulars among the Elite in the Most August Senate, We prescribe also by the authority of this law that they shall be honoured with the aforesaid rank and order by all judges”.

authorship of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

125

This treatise probably predates Evodius’ Ep. ad Val. and thus would have been written between 420 and 425. To this point, the name Evodius was primarily used to designate the friend of Augustine and bishop of Uzalis; from this point forward, the name Evodius will also signify the author of Adu. Man. One final note should be added here. The title De fide contra Manichaeos is an anachronism, especially when one would use the title to describe an anti-Manichaean treatise of Evodius. After all, the manuscripts which have this title (De fide catholica aduersus manichaeos) attribute the treatise exclusively to Augustine. Although De fide contra Manichaeos is a popular title in scholarly literature, it is more accurate to refer to the treatise as Aduersus Manichaeos. Nevertheless, the title De fide contra Manichaeos does have its merits. First, because this is the title by which the treatise is known to the modern audience. Second, the title corresponds well to the content of the text. The first chapter of Adu. Man. consists of a confession of faith. This confession is thoroughly incorporated in the whole of the treatise.200 Third, this title helps to set the text apart from other anti-Manichaean treatises (in particular Augustine’s), whereas the title Aduersus Manichaeos remains rather generic.

200  See also A. Vanspauwen, “‘Contra Domini uel Apostoli auctoritatem’”, pp. 399–402.

Chapter IV

Content and Language of Adversvs Manichaeos The argumentation of Adu. Man. focuses on a doctrinal and biblical refutation of the Manichaean claim to Christian identity. Its author Evodius is not primarily concerned with Manichaean ethics, and he does not refer to the Manichaean church structure of Hearer and Elect. Additionally, Evodius does not refer to any Manichaeans he may have known. His knowledge seems to rely primarily on a thorough study of written sources, including many of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean treatises as well as some Manichaean and apocryphal texts (see chapter V). The present chapter first provides a summary of Adu. Man.’s content, and then discusses its language and rhetoric. 1. Structure and Summary The modern division of the text into forty-nine chapters was not intended by Evodius. At most, some form of distinction between the first chapter, a confession of faith, and the rest of the treatise might have been an element of the original text. Nevertheless, the division into 49 chapters does correspond to several structural elements of the treatise. The author makes use of well-structured and delineated arguments. The division into chapters was introduced at some point during the transmission process, probably in order to better distinguish the author’s lines of thought.1 For modern scholars, this division has a pragmatic function in that it enables easier reference to specific sections of the treatise. The following themes are discussed in the treatise: theology stricto sensu (“doctrine of God”) (1–3), the origin of evil (4–10), the Manichaean doctrine of salvation (11–20), Christology (21– 1  For example, chapter 3 introduces a new line of thought after the argument of chapter 2 had reached a conclusion. The use of adverbs and connectors in the Latin text supports a distinction between chapters 2 and 3: the conclusion of chapter 2’s argument is marked by the words et ideo (Adu. Man. 2,7); in chapter 3, the adverb ergo indicates the beginning of a new argument (Adu. Man. 3,1: Falsum est ergo quod Manichaeus asserit).

128

chapter iv

36), the biblical canon (37–39), resurrection of the body, and eschatology (40–49). Some of these sections also contain subthemes. For example, within the larger section on Christology, the author discusses the incarnation (22), Mariology (23–27), and the Passion (28–36). The final section on eschatology summarizes the depiction of the “Catholic God” (46; 48) and the “Manichaean God” (47; 49). These tentative depictions reinforce the author’s appeal to the Manichaeans to convert to Catholic Christianity. 1.1. Theology (1–3) The opening chapter consists of an elaborate confession of faith (1). The attributes of God listed in this section play an important role throughout Adu. Man.’s argumentation. When the author introduces the teachings of Mani (2), he makes it clear that Mani’s doctrine of two natures is in disagreement with the apostle Paul, and thus with orthodox Christianity. 1.2. The Origin of Evil (4–10) Instead of accepting the existence of evil as a nature, Evodius posits that evil results from the free choice of the will. As he often does, he founds this argument on biblical (Pauline) testimony (4). A person endowed with free will can choose between good or evil. This truth is in accordance with God’s goodness and omnipotence. The author of Adu. Man. emphasizes God’s role as a just judge, qualified to punish the sinner.2 1.3. The Manichaean Conflict between Light and Darkness (11–20) Evodius attempts to demonstrate the absurdity of the Manichaean myth, citing fragments from Mani’s Epistula fundamenti and Thesaurus. He argues that the existence of a second, coeternal, and hostile nature in the Manichaean system undermines the omnipotence of God. The Manichaean myth, in which God and his kingdom of light are embroiled in a battle with the kingdom of darkness, illustrates the weakness of the Manichaean God. In this section, Evodius he denies the omnipotence of the Manichaean God, of whom a part is corrupted in its combat with evil. 2  See

also A. Vanspauwen & A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

129

Afterwards, he describes the conduct of the Manichaean God as immoral. A lengthy citation from the Manichaean Thes. (14–16) illustrates the immoral modus operandi of Mani’s God. By inciting lust in the demons of darkness, the Manichaean God attempts to liberate the particles of light that had become entangled with darkness. Thus, the Manichaean story is to be considered ridiculous, since in it salvation is achieved through the seduction of evil powers. 1.4. Christology (21–36) The author’s treatment of Christology is introduced by a hypothetical objection that he places on the lips of his adversaries. This objection turns out to be a response to Evodius’ portrayal of the immoral and suffering Manichaean God in the preceding chapter. The Manichaean objection to this criticism concerns Christ: Why would the author of Adu. Man. criticize the Manichaean system, if Christ too had suffered at the hands of the Jews? Evodius responds that Christ’s tribulations resulted from Christ’s will and intention, whereas the Manichaean God suffers out of necessity. Confronted with the threatening presence of the opposing nature of darkness, the Manichaean God involved himself in a cosmic conflict. Conversely, Christ took on human nature (in his birth from the Virgin Mary) in order to become an example to humanity. His divine nature, however, was never compromised. According to the Ep. fund., the Manichaeans deny Christ’s incarnation and his suffering on the cross (28). Evodius argues that if the Manichaeans deny that Christ had a body, they undermine the belief that Christ’s passion had a purpose within God’s plan of salvation. The Manichaeans nevertheless believe in Jesus’ suffering, as Evodius admits. Here he introduces and ridicules the Manichaean doctrine of Iesus patibilis (“the suffering Jesus”). 3 According to the Manichaeans, Christ is permanently present within the light particles of plants. Thus, when fruits or vegetables are eaten, Jesus suffers. Evodius’ conclusion is straightforward: the entirety of the Manichaean myth is a false and blasphemous story (36). 3  On this topic, see also G. Wurst, “Bemerkungen zum Glaubensbekenntnis des Faustus von Mileve”.

130

chapter iv

1.5. The Canon (37–39) This shorter section of Adu. Man. is dedicated to the continuity between the Old and New Testament. Manichaeans generally rejected the Old Testament.4 Evodius defends the unity of the two Testaments by summing up the textual parallels between them and by suggesting an allegorical and typological interpretation of the Old Testament. He exhorts the Manichaeans to accept both the Old and New Testament. If they refuse to attempt a serious study of the Old Testament and instead prefer to criticise or reject it in its entirety, their attitude testifies to their bad intent. 1.6. Resurrection of the Body and Eschatology (40–49) The final section in Adu. Man. concerns the end times. The Manichaeans deny the resurrection of the body. They believe that every being consists of a good nature (the soul) and an evil nature (the body). In the Manichaean end times, the original distinction between the two natures will be restored, which entails that the soul will be liberated from the body. Within this Manichaean framework, a resurrection of the body is impossible, since it implies a continued mixed existence of two natures. Evodius bases his defence of the resurrection of the body on Pauline testimony. In the conclusion of Adu. Man., Evodius reiterates the Catholic view of God, and contrasts this view with the God of the Manichaean system. Many characteristics of God summarized in the confession of the opening chapter recur here. The impotence of the Manichaean God results from their dualistic belief: their God has no authority over the nature of darkness. The consequences of this dualism extend, argues Evodius, to Manichaean beliefs about the end times. The Manichaean God cannot resurrect the human body; after all, he did not have the power to create it without the help of pre-existing matter (i.e., the principle of darkness). Because the Manichaean God is unable to put an end to this second principle, Manichaean eschatology (an apocalyptic distinction between light and darkness) is inherently inconclusive. The Man4 This certainly seems to have been the case for Manichaeism in North Africa. Manichaean attitudes towards the Old Testament, however, are more diverse than straightforward rejection. See N. A. Pedersen et al., The Old Testament in Manichaean Tradition.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

131

ichaeans cannot guarantee that the evil principle will not again invade the kingdom of light, which has already been weakened as a result of the present cosmic conflict. Evodius ends his treatise with a final exhortation to conversion. 2. Addressees of the Treatise In one of his discussions concerning Adu. Man., François Decret noted that the arguments of the treatise would probably not have convinced many Manichaeans.5 As a compendium of anti-Manichaean argumentation, the treatise was perhaps written, as could be the case with apologetical literature in general, to a favourable audience of Catholic Christians. Indeed, on several occasions, Evodius seems to address a Christian audience and refers to the Manichaeans as a third party.6 Nevertheless, in most cases, verbs in the second person plural (the second person singular is rare) refer unambiguously to the Manichaeans. At least formally, the Manichaeans are the addressees of the treatise. In this regard, it could be of note that the treatise’s title, at least as found in the manuscript transmission, is Aduersus Manichaeos, and not Contra Manichaeos.7 Both words signify “against” and express a contrast. However, aduersus can denote a “turning towards”, or “presenting to”.8 Should this title reflect a conscious choice of the author, it could emphasize that his addressees are the Manichaeans first and foremost. It would be difficult to find a clearer example of this fact than the direct address, nam deus uester, o Manichaei (“for your God, O Manichaeans”).9 It is very telling that, in contrast to Augustine before him and Quodvultdeus after him, Evodius never addresses his adversaries as “heretics”. The 5 F. Decret, 6  See,

“Exégèse et polémique chez Evodius d’Uzalis”.

for example, Adu. Man. 31,8–9.

7 F. Decret, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 388, n. 3–4 rightfully, on the basis of the Maurists’ study of manuscript evidence, rejects the title De fide contra Manichaeos. However, he is not consistent in his choice of either Contra Manichaeos or Aduersus Manichaeos. 8 J. van

Oort (“Iudaeos [Aduersus –]”, cols. 794–95, n. 20–22) made a similar observation with regard to Augustine’s Aduersus Iudaeos, and translates that title as “In answer to the Jews”. 9 

Adu. Man. 31,3.

132

chapter iv

treatise’s ultimate goal – not unlike the anti-Manichaean output of Augustine – is to convince the addressees to convert to the Catholic Church, and this invitation seems sincere. When the author refers to Manichaeans or Manichaean ideas in the third person, he often uses the pronoun iste (instead of uos/ uester). This pronoun can have a negative connotation, which can be the case in the example of ista impietate Manichaei (“that [vile] impiety of Mani”).10 In the first place, however, this demonstrative pronoun functions to situate the antecedent near to the addressees. An example may illustrate the ambivalence of the pronoun: Quis tam caecus est, ut ista credat, rogo uos? 11 In this quotation, Evodius directly addresses his audience in the second person plural (uos), and underlines the urgency of his message by using the lively phrase rogo uos (which, in itself, contains a rare use of the first person, here in contrast to the second person). If he is addressing a Catholic audience here, he obviously expects his audience to express its dissatisfaction with the Manichaean doctrine in question. The demonstrative pronoun ista refers to the Manichaean teachings and has the meaning of “these teachings I am discussing with you”, perhaps in addition to a negative undertone. Alternatively, if he is addressing the Manichaeans, this statement is an appeal to conversion in an affected rhetorical tone. On this interpretation, he is creating distance between the Manichaeans he is addressing, whom he wants to convert to Catholic Christianity, and the Manichaean myth. These teachings are characterised as near the second person (ista: “what those among you believe”), and the author exhorts the Manichaeans to reject Mani’s teachings. In both cases, whoever continues to believe the Manichaean myth is described as caecus (blind). 3. Adu. Man.’s anti-Manichaean Argumentation 3.1. Rejecting the Foundations of Manichaean Dualism In Roman North Africa, different religious movements claimed a Christian identity. The Manichaeans considered themselves Christians, and the Catholic polemicists also addressed the Manichae10 

Adu. Man. 42,1.

11 

Adu. Man. 17,15–16.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

133

ans as Christians.12 In contrast to more mainstream Christian communities, such as the Donatists, Catholics, and Arians, the Manichaeans adhered to a dualistic view of reality. According to this view, the cosmos consists of two natures or kingdoms: the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. God rules over the kingdom of light, whereas the kingdom of darkness is subject to the prince of darkness. In Manichaean cosmology, all elements of the kingdom of light are of equal substance. The entire kingdom of light consists of emanations from God, the pure light. The dualism of good and evil explained the existence and origin of evil. Consequently that dualism also guided Manichaean ethics by explaining that the experience of evil results from the cosmic conflict between light and darkness. The Manichaean doctrine can therefore be described as a doctrine of two natures (light and darkness) and three times (beginning, middle, and end, or protology, the present, and eschatology).13 The two primordial elements, strictly separated during the beginning (and to be separated again at the end), have become intermingled during the present age (the Manichaean second or middle period). On a microcosmic level, the human person reflects the macrocosmic conflict of light and darkness. Because darkness signifies death and lust, Manichaeans radically adhered to the principle of nonviolence, to the extent that the Manichaean Elect would not harm fruit and vegetables. In general, the Manichaeans also condemned sexual concupiscence and the begetting of children.14 Non-Manichaean or non-Gnostic Christianity, on the other hand, held that there can be only one principal cause behind reality: God. God is the cause and creator of all. Because nothing can exist on the same ontological level as God, evil cannot inhere nor precede creation. In their disputes with the Manichaeans, Catholic polemicists propounded the theory that evil is not a constitutive 12 See

J.  van Oort, “Manichaean Christians”, pp. 507–09; Adu. Man. 39,19–22. 13 See, for example, I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, p. 11; J.-D. Dubois, “Le manichéisme”, pp. 53–56. 14 On Manichaean ethics, see, for example, M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, pp. 79–89; I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, pp. 21–25.

134

chapter iv

element of reality, but is, in some sense, that which results from the imperfection of created existence. In this regard Augustine argues that evil and sin are moral rather than ontological realities. 3.1.1. Evil is not a Nature – Augustine’s anti-Manichaean Argumentation The Manichaean dualism of light and darkness is a frequent subject of Augustine’s criticism. He claims that this dualism is not a real dualism, that is, a dualism between two equivalent elements, since darkness does not exist in and of itself but is merely the absence of light. Where there is light, there cannot be darkness. Darkness only appears to exist where there is no light. Augustine criticises the Manichaean materialistic conceptualisation of God, which results from their materialistic images of the two kingdoms.15 He accuses Manichaean thinking, especially the Manichaean conceptualisation of God, of being “corporeal” (carnalis).16 This judgement of Augustine’s is probably correct. Manichaean dualism is not a strict dualism between a spiritual good and a corporeal evil, for light is also defined in quantifiable and spatial terms and has corporeal characteristics.17

15 Augustine, C. ep. fund. 21: Quid erat ergo iuxta illud latus terrae, quam inlustrem ac sanctam uocas? terra, inquit, tenebrarum. quid? de ista terra saltem concedis, quod corporea erat. necesse est te hoc dicere, quandoquidem omnia corpora inde adseris originem ducere. quid ergo? quaeso, quamuis tardi, quamuis carnales homines, ne hoc quidem aliquando animaduertitis, quod lateribus sibi iungi utraque ista terra non posset, nisi esset utraque corporea?: “But what, then, was next to the side of the land that you call bright and holy? Mani says that it was the ‘land of darkness.’ What is that? You at least concede that that land is bodily. You must say this since you say that all bodies derive their origin from it. What follows then? Though you are slow, though you are carnal human beings, I ask, ‘Do you not at last see that these two lands could not touch each other by their sides if both were not bodily?’”; ed. by J.  Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 218, l. 1–8; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, pp. 248–49. 16 Augustine, C. ep. fund. 23: ecce, ego tecum derideo carnales homines, qui nondum possunt spiritalia cogitare humana forma deum existimantes; ed. by J.  Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 220, l. 7–10; Augustine, C. Sec. 20: carnalis uestra cogitatio; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 938, l. 7. 17  See the introduction of I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, esp. p. 11 and pp. 22–23.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

135

In response to the Manichaean doctrine of a dualistic cosmos, Augustine formulated his own doctrine of creation, which harmonizes the biblical accounts of Genesis and places God – and only (the Trinitarian) God – at the centre of creation. The Augustinian doctrine of creatio de nihilo (“creation from nothing”) is perhaps most clearly formulated in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean tractate De natura boni. In this work, he distinguishes between the prepositions de and ex. Both prepositions mean “of, from, out of”. However, ex denotes a causal relation, whereas de expresses a substantial relation.18 With regard to human nature, Augustine explains that human souls are ex Deo (of God, caused by God), but not de Deo (out of God, drawing their substance from God). This distinction between ex and de was perhaps innovative, and Augustine certainly does not distinguish the two prepositions throughout his works as consistently as he does in his anti-Manichaean texts, especially Nat. b. and C. Fel. Since Augustine could not accept that God created from pre-existent matter, he formulated the doctrine of creation de nihilo (from nothing). Creation is caused by God (ex Deo) yet draws its substance from nothing (de nihilo). Because God created us from nothing, there is no source of stability and identity for human existence other than God. Human nature is thus, at its very core, relational and connected to God.19 In other words, created human nature is good because it is caused by, or created by, a good God, yet imperfect because it draws its substance from nothing. Augustine makes use of the Manichaean image of light and darkness in his refutation of the dualistic, Manichaean view of creation. Darkness is not the opposite of light, but the absence of light. Because darkness is present where there is no light, darkness too is part of God’s orderly creation.20 Making use of another metaphor, Augustine explains how silence does not exist as the oppo18 M. Drever, “Redeeming Creation”, pp. 139–40. In this article, Drever refers to Augustine’s Nat. b. 27. 19  See

M. Drever, “Redeeming Creation”, p. 141.

20 Augustine,

Nat. b. 16: nam et deus certa loca et tempora non inluminando tenebras fecit tam decenter quam dies: “For, by not giving light to certain places and times, God also made darkness just as appropriately as daylight”; ed. by J.  Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 861, l. 19–20; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, pp. 328–29.

136

chapter iv

site of sound, but in the absence of sound. These images illustrate Augustine’s concept of evil: not a substance that is the opposite of good, as the Manichaeans believed, but a privation or diminishment of good. This is the so-called doctrine of priuatio boni. Evil, understood as a diminishment or lack of good, is thus part of God’s orderly creation, though not created as such by God.21 Elsewhere, Augustine says that “natural evil” does not exist as a substance, but that when we speak of “natural evil”, two forms of evil are being described: sin (peccatum) and the punishment of sin (poena).22 Humans sin by using their free will, and God, as a righteous judge, punishes sin. God created the world as orderly, and by punishing sin, he restores order in creation. Evodius generally follows Augustine’s argumentation against the Manichaeans. Like Augustine, he maintains that evil cannot be a substance and thus does not believe that Manichaean dualism can be a real dualism.23 Natural evil does not exist. As with

21 Augustine,

Nat. b. 16: si enim nos continendo uocem decenter interponimus in loquendo silentium: quanto magis ille quarundam rerum priuationes decenter facit sicut rerum omnium perfectus artifex?: “After all, if by holding back our voice we fittingly inject a silence in our speaking, how much more did he as the perfect artisan of all things fittingly produce privations of certain things?”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 861, l. 20–23; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 329; Augustine already formulated his doctrine of evil as the privation of good in his earliest anti-Manichaean texts Mor. eccl. cath. and Mor. Man. See Augustine, Mor. Man. IV,6: Ita et malum ostenditur quomodo dicatur, non enim secundum essentiam, sed secundum priuationem uerissime dicitur: “In that way we are shown how evil is spoken of, for it is most truly spoken of not as an essence but as a privation”; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 92, l. 10–12; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 71. 22 Augustine,

C. Fort. 15: et hoc est solum, quod dicitur malum, uoluntarium nostrum peccatum. est et aliud genus mali, quod est poena peccati: “And this is the only thing that we are at present calling evil: our voluntary sin. But there is another kind of evil, which is the punishment of sin”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 91, l. 22–24; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 150; Augustine, C. Adim. 26: dupliciter enim appellatur malum: unum quod homo facit, alterum quod patitur; quod facit, peccatum est; quod patitur, poena: “For we speak of two kinds of evil: one that human beings do, another that they suffer. The evil that they do is sin; the evil that they suffer is punishment”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 184, l. 22–24; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 219. 23 

Adu. Man. 9,2–3.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

137

similar statements of Augustine, evil exists in the form of sin and punishment: “But even if we say some people are naturally evil, we say so because of the origin of the ancient sin, in which, at present, our mortality is born. And so, everything that is called evil in humans is a sin and a punishment. A sin is committed by the rational soul, which possesses a free choice of the will, and the punishment is inflicted by God’s justice, which by no means acts unjustly”.24

3.1.2. Dualism as an Argumentative Premise Although Evodius agrees with Augustine that evil cannot be a nature, he nevertheless often refutes Manichaean dualism as if it concerned a true dualism. He does not reject Manichaean dualism a priori. Instead, he first accepts, as an argumentative premise, the possibility of a dualistic reality. He then afterwards explores the implications of this dualism before refuting it outright. For example, when he discusses the primordial distinction between God and the Manichaean prince of darkness, he claims that these two cannot be true opposites, since they both share the same attributes in the Manichaean system, such as an eternal existence.25 In a later section, he also explores whether or not Manichaean dualism can offer a satisfactory response to the question of human accountability for sin.26 Thus, when refuting Manichaean dualism, Evodius takes the dualism seriously, even if he does not agree with the premise that there actually are two natures. Perhaps he thought accepting dualism as a theoretical possibility would make his later refutation of it more persuasive to the Manichaeans. The author first searches for a common ground between Manichaeans and Catholics before refuting the Manichaean position. This means of argumentation becomes especially clear in his use of biblical passages, particularly in his recourse to the testimony of the apostle Paul.27

24 

Adu. Man. 9,4–8.

25 

Adu. Man. 3,5–8.

26 

Adu. Man. 43,7–10.

27 See

on this topic also A. Vanspauwen, “‘Contra Domini uel Apostoli auctoritatem’”.

138

chapter iv

3.2. Biblical Refutation of Dualism 3.2.1. The Authority of Paul The argumentation of Adu. Man. is thoroughly biblical. Evodius takes the Manichaean claim to Christian identity seriously and, as befits a polemicist, makes strategic use of it. The strong biblical foundation of Adu. Man.’s argumentation is therefore closely connected to the Manichaean claim to Christian identity. On the one hand, the Manichaeans could perhaps disagree with the Catholics on certain interpretations or implications of biblical texts. On the other hand, however, should the Manichaeans disagree with the very contents of Scripture, their rejection of Scripture would prove that their appeal to Christian identity is not genuine. Therefore, Evodius founds his refutation of the Manichaeans first and foremost on the Bible. He remains consistent in this approach throughout the treatise. While he is certainly familiar with Augustine’s (anti-Manichaean) views of creation28 and God’s justice, he never refers to the authority of any ecclesiastical writer. Evodius does make an appeal to common sense, however, and it is clear that, according to him, the Catholic Church offers the correct understanding of Christian Scripture, in accordance with proper rational thinking.29 He contrasts his own position, in line with common reasoning and the apostles (perhaps referring to the apostolic succession which the church of Africa boasted), with Mani’s teachings. 30 Most prominent among Adu. Man.’s biblical authorities is the apostle Paul. Both the first and the last biblical reference in Adu. Man. are from the Pauline corpus. 31 The choice for Paul is probably deliberate and rhetorically effective, since Paul enjoyed a particularly high esteem among the Manichaeans. 32 By referring to a shared authoritative figure (Paul), Evodius hopes to convince 28  See,

for example, Adu. Man. 49,7–8.

29 

Adu. Man. 45,2–5. Cf. ueritatis catholicae in Adu. Man. 49,39.

30 

Adu. Man. 32,1–3.

Adu. Man. 1,2–3 cites 1 Tim 6:16; Adu. Man. 49,39, with its metaphor of ubera (breasts), alludes to Paul’s metaphor of milk in 1 Cor 3:2: “I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food” [trans. NRSV]. 31 

32 H.-J. Klimkeit,

“The Use of Scripture in Manichaeism”.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

139

the Manichaeans to adopt his position. This appeal to Paul is also prevalent in the opening chapter of Adu. Man., the confession of faith: “One God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, invisible, incomprehensible, indescribable, inviolable, unpollutable. He alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light [1 Tim 6:16]. He is the true light, the life and the truth, the good, the highest, and all that human speech can express about him; yet these attributes are granted by him in order that they can in some way be expressed. From him and through him are all things, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, and all things have been created through him and for him [Col 1:16], as is revealed in both testaments to the humble and to those who piously ask. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.”33

This confession of faith functions as the basis of the doctrinal and biblical refutation of Manichaean dualism. It defines what orthodox Christianity entails. The audience of the treatise is requested to first agree with the premises of the opening chapter before the actual refutation of the Manichaeans can proceed. The confession of faith also has an important function within the overall structure of the treatise, announcing several topics that Evodius will return to. In its immediate context, the confession becomes the subject matter in the second chapter. The first word of that chapter, huic, summarizes the depiction of God in the first chapter. The opening confession of faith reveals two central approaches that typify Adu. Man.’s anti-Manichaean rhetoric. First, the characterisation of God plays an important role in that rhetoric. Throughout the treatise, Evodius frequently reiterates the terminology of this confession. 34 He argues that God can only be considered omnipotent and incorruptible on the assumption of a non-dualistic understanding of reality. The argumentation is deductive: the author proposes several premises, which refer to characteristics of God that Manichaeans would find acceptable;35 33 

Adu. Man. 1,1–9.

34 E.g. 35 See,

Adu. Man. 18,2–3; Adu. Man. 46; Adu. Man. 48,5–7.

for example Augustine, C. Fort. 3: [Fortunatus dixit:] Et nostra professio ipsa est, quod incorruptibilis sit deus, quod lucidus, quod inadibilis, intenibilis, inpassibilis, aeternam lucem et propriam habitet: “[Fortunatus said:] And this is our confession of faith: God is incorruptible, bright, unable to be

140

chapter iv

then Evodius criticises the Manichaean system for contradicting these premises. The Manichaeans cannot guarantee God’s omnipotence; after all, they assume that there is a second primordial nature in conflict with God. Augustine similarly made use of this type of deductive argumentation, for example, in his C. Fort. 36 and in his C. ep. fund. 37 Second, and perhaps more importantly, the confession of faith highlights the biblical nature of Adu. Man.’s argumentation. Twice in this section, the author explicitly refers to Pauline citations, namely, 1 Tim 6:16 and Col 1:16. The first citation of 1 Tim seems especially well-chosen, considering its frequent occurrence in Manichaean confessions of faith. 38 This biblical verse is the basis for the author’s rejection of Manichaean dualism. Paul states that God alone has immortality. This Pauline assertion is in conflict with Mani’s doctrine, which accepts a coeternal adversary of God. Evodius’ subsequent argument is rather straightforward: Mani disagrees with the apostle, and since the apostle cannot have lied, the teaching of Mani, with its two eternal and opposite natures, is false. 39 If Evodius rejects the notion of evil as a nature or substance, he is required to explain what evil does entail. Again, his argumentation begins with a Pauline citation (1 Tim 6:10): approached, unable to be held, unable to suffer; he dwells in an eternal light of his own”; ed. J. by Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 85, l. 16–18; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 146 [with minor modifications mine]. 36 J. D. BeDuhn, “Did Augustine Win His Debate with Fortunatus?”,  p. 466. 37  K. W.

Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, p. 175.

38  Cf. Augustine,

C. Fort. 3 (see n. 35); Augustine, C. Faust. XX,2: [Faustus dixit:] Igitur nos patris quidem dei omnipotentis et Christi filii eius et spiritus sancti unum idemque sub triplici appellatione colimus numen; sed patrem quidem ipsum lucem incolere credimus summam ac principalem, quam Paulus alias inaccessibilem uocat: “[Faustus said:] We worship, then, the divinity of God the almighty Father and of Christ his Son and of the Holy Spirit, one and the same God under their three names. But we believe that the Father himself inhabits the highest and principal light, which Paul elsewhere calls inaccessible”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 536, l. 9–13; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 262 [emphasis mine]. 39 A. Vanspauwen, “‘Contra Domini uel Apostoli auctoritatem’”, pp. 401– 02; Adu. Man. 2,6–3,1.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

141

“But if someone asks what evil actually is, let him hear the Apostle saying, Desire is the root of all evil; in their pursuit of it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.”40

The citation of 1 Tim 6:10 establishes that cupiditas (desire) is the root of all evil. By using the words quam quidam appetentes (translated here as “in pursuit of it, some”), Paul makes clear that desire does not reflect an evil nature. Instead, desire has the potential to bring about evil when it misdirects the human free will. Afterwards Evodius corroborates this Pauline citation with testimony from the gospel (Adu. Man. 5,4–5, citing Mt 12:33). Within the overarching structure of Adu. Man., the citation of 1 Tim 6:10 thus introduces a second major section of the argument (Adu. Man. 4–10). In these chapters, Evodius argues that evil results from human free will and is not due to a separate nature inherent in creation. Like Augustine, Evodius regards what we call evil either as sin caused by human free will, or as punishment by God, the righteous judge.41 Throughout the treatise, Evodius frequently refers to Paul first before corroborating a Pauline statement with evidence from the Lord (dominus; i.e., the gospels). In other words, he seems more concerned with Paul’s authority than with that of Christ. This attitude likely results from the Manichaean predilection for Paul. The author is aware that Manichaeans could reject sections of the gospels,42 but does not report that they did so with Paul’s Epistles. As a scriptural authority, Paul is considered equal to,43 or even superior to, Christ. 3.2.2. Unity of the Canon Evodius explicitly addresses the unity of the canon in his treatise. Because the Manichaeans were known to reject sections of the Bible, Evodius is required to respond to this rejection. In a play 40 

Adu. Man. 4,1–3.

41  See 42 

n. 24.

Adu. Man. 22,11–14.

43 Note the parallelism between domini and apostoli in the phrase contra domini uel apostoli auctoritatem (Adu. Man. 38,9). See A. Vanspauwen, “‘Contra Domini uel Apostoli auctoritatem’”, pp. 404–05.10–11.

142

chapter iv

on words, he states that the Manichaeans’ partial acceptance of the complete Christian canon reflects their own identity as incomplete Christians.44 Two tendencies can be discerned in Evodius’ defence of Scripture’s unity. First, Evodius explicitly addresses the unity of Scripture in chapters 37–39. At the beginning of chapter 37, he cites a series of Old Testament passages. One reason the Manichaeans rejected these passages is that they contained violent language and described God as fickle and destructive. Evodius parries this objection by referring to instances in which the New Testament employs language similar to those Old Testament sections.45 He chastises the Manichaeans for rejecting the entirety of the Old Testament because they take offence at some of its passages. He then makes use of a fictional third party to prove his point. Someone else, Evodius argues, could similarly look at violent passages in the New Testament and conclude that the New Testament, as a whole, is an immoral text that should be rejected. That person would consider any passages in the New Testament that convey a virtuous message to be later falsifications, inserted so that the New Testament would appear commendable. Evodius argues the Manichaeans do the same with the Old Testament.46 Such a rejection of the Old Testament also results from a moral flaw. They choose to criticize the Old Testament and refuse to properly understand it. Evodius suggests a figurative and typological reading of the Old Testament. On this topic, he points to Christ and Paul, who both led by example.47 Second, and more subtly, Evodius continuously interweaves the testimonies of Paul and Christ (“the gospel”). These two authorities often appear together in the anti-Manichaean treatise.48 Grouping the two together is likely a conscious strategic choice on the part of Evodius, although he does not explicitly reflect on this 44  Adu. Man. 23,1: Accipite integre canonicas Scripturas, si integri esse desideratis. Emphasis mine. 45 

Adu. Man. 37,3–16.

46 

Adu. Man. 39,14–19.

Adu. Man. 38,5–7. For Paul’s testimony, Evodius’ phrasing is reminiscent of 1 Cor 10:11. No specific gospel passage, however, is identified. 47 

48 See

Adu. Man. 4,1–5,5; 22,2–3; 37,12–17; 38,6–7; 38,9.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

143

choice. Comparison with a likely source, a passage from Augustine’s C. Faust., can illustrate Evodius’ specific approach: Adu. Man. 22: “Although the Son was in himself invisible, he appeared visibly, as a man, whom he deigned to take up from a woman, as we read in the Gospel [cf. Lk 2]. The Apostle confirms, Born of a woman [Gal 4:4]. In contrast, the Manichaeans declare, ‘Why does he not say of a virgin?’, I presume because they do not understand that in the particularity of scriptural language such speech is common, as it was said of Eve, He formed it [the rib] into a woman [Gn 2:22], before she was even shown to her husband. Although Mary was not unjustly called woman, on account of her childbirth, she certainly remained a virgin, because she never had intercourse with a man, and neither was her virginity corrupted in giving birth. With regard to what the angel and Elisabeth said to Mary, Blessed are you among women [Lk 1:42], there can be no question that she is truly blessed as a virgin among women.”49 C. Faust. XI,3: “This Faustus, however, who, when asked whether he accepts the apostle Paul, replies, ‘Certainly,’ denies all these points and refuses to accept that Jesus is a descendant of David and that he was born of a woman [cf. Gal 4:4]. Paul calls her a woman not because she was corrupted either by intercourse or by giving birth. Rather, he is speaking in the manner of scriptures, which were accustomed to refer to her sex in that way, as it was said of Eve in Genesis, He formed it into a woman [Gn 2:22], though she had not yet been united to her husband.”50

The passage from Adu. Man. probably draws its inspiration from Augustine’s refutation of Faustus. Augustine defended the virgin birth of Jesus on the basis of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, and the passage from Genesis confirms that the word “woman” can be used to refer to a virgin. Evodius slightly adapted his example. Twice he adds a reference to the gospel. His first allusion affirms that Paul and the gospel are in agreement. When he cites the 49 

Adu. Man. 22,1–10.

50 Augustine,

C. Faust. XI,3: Iste autem, qui interrogatus, utrum accipiat apostolum Paulum, respondet: et maxime, haec omnia negat. nec Iesum ex semine Dauid uult accipere nec factum ex muliere, quam, non quod fuerit uel concumbendo uel pariendo corrupta, mulierem Paulus appellat sed more scripturarum loquitur, quae ipsum sexum sic appellare consueuerunt; sicut in genesi de Eua scriptum est: formauit eam in mulierem, cum commixta uiro non fuisset; ed. by J.  Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 317, l. 11–18; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, pp. 116–17.

144

chapter iv

evidence of Genesis, afterwards, he again refers to the Gospel of Luke. The testimony of Genesis, the Gospel of Luke, and Paul are intricately interwoven. As previously mentioned, the Manichaeans were apt to reject an individual passage of the Bible if they considered its contents inappropriate. Evodius seems to be aware of that and prepared an argumentative trap for his opponents. If the Manichaeans were to deny the evidence of Genesis, they would also have to reject Luke and Paul, and thus would lose any biblical support for their views. This is one way in which Evodius exploits the Manichaean claim to Christian identity. 3.3. Conflicting Views on God Catholic and Manichaean Christians share a belief in one Trinitarian God. This agreement constitutes the point of departure for Adu. Man.’s argumentation. The opening confession of faith (Adu. Man. 1) describes God in terms with which a Manichaean would agree. The two systems of belief differ, however, in their views of creation. Manichaeism is a dualistic system; Manichaeans affirm the existence of a second principle (or nature or kingdom) that is external to, and coeternal with, God. Catholic Christians, on the other hand, believe that only one principle stands at the origin of all existence, namely, God, and this God created the world out of nothing (de nihilo). These two basic views of existence, dualism and monism, have far-reaching consequences for the role God plays in the two religions. Because Evodius rejects Mani’s notion that evil is an independent nature, he is required to provide an orthodox Christian interpretation of evil and its origin. Evil is a consequence of human sin, and humans are able to sin because they possess free will. Each human being is personally responsible and accountable for his or her own sins. Therefore, sin pertains to God only to the extent that God punishes the sinner. Throughout the treatise Adu. Man., Evodius maintains a consistent conceptualisation of God. As established in its opening chapter, God is almighty and good. Because he is good, he does not allow evil to go unpunished. Because he is almighty, he is able to overcome evil. Because evil is caused by human sin, God opposes evil as a just judge.51 By 51  This topic is discussed in more detail in A. Vanspauwen & A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

145

contrast, within the Manichaean system, Evodius deems it impossible for God to oppose evil. In the Manichaeans’ dualistic worldview, God is embroiled in an eternal conflict with the powers of evil. In this cosmic conflict, Evodius argues it is impossible that the Manichaean God corresponds to God as he described in the opening chapter of Adu. Man. The conflict disproves either the Manichaean God’s goodness or omnipotence. This argument, which is employed by both Augustine and Evodius, is referred to in scholarly literature as the “Nebridian conundrum”. When Augustine was still a Manichaean and living in Carthage (during the 370s), Nebridius, at that time still a fellow Manichaean, often raised a fundamental objection to Manichaean dualism. Augustine testifies to the following in his Conf.: “Yes, I had a sufficient argument, one which Nebridius had been wont to propose ever since our days in Carthage, which left us all shaken who heard it. Those so-called powers of darkness, whom they always postulate as a horde deployed in opposition to you: what would they have done to you if you had refused to fight? If the reply is that they could have inflicted some injury on you, it would imply that you are subject to violation and therefore destructible.”52

It is clear from this report that Augustine was primarily concerned with maintaining the doctrine that God is incorruptible. The same is the case in his debate with the Manichaean Fortunatus, in which Augustine frequently makes use of the Nebridian conundrum.53 In this debate, it appears that the antagonists hold different premises about God, or at least that their emphases differ: Augustine asserts that God is omnipotent first and foremost, whereas the Manichaean Fortunatus preferred to define God in terms of prescience and wisdom.54 52 Augustine, Conf. VII,2,3: Sat erat ergo illud quod iam diu ab usque Carthagine a Nebridio proponi solebat et omnes, qui audieramus, concussi sumus: quid erat tibi factura nescio qua gens tenebrarum, quam ex aduersa mole solent opponere, si tu cum ea pugnare noluisses? Si enim responderetur aliquid fuisse nocituram, uiolabilis tu et corruptibilis fores; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 93, l. 2–8; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 160. 53 See

J. D. BeDuhn’s analysis in “Did Augustine Win His Debate with Fortunatus?”. 54  See J. D. BeDuhn, “Did Augustine Win His Debate with Fortunatus?”, pp. 466.72.

146

chapter iv

Evodius is receptive to the Manichaean emphasis on God’s goodness. He describes God (esp. in Adu. Man. 1 and 46), in accordance with his Catholic views, as both omnipotent and good, and thus criticizes the Manichaeans for failing to conceptualize God in harmony with these two attributes. The Manichaean God is not only impotent, but also morally flawed. Evodius criticizes the Manichaean God as timid,55 cruel,56 imprudent,57 and even evil.58 Criticism of the Manichaean God is always incorporated within a broader refutation of Manichaean doctrine. More specifically, there are two contexts in which Evodius addresses the immoral characteristics of the Manichaean God: when refuting the Manichaean idea of the cosmic conflict between light and darkness (Adu. Man. 11–20), and when refuting Manichaean eschatological views (Adu. Man. 40–49). 4. The Rhetoric of Appropriation and Dissociation Evodius has two objectives in his argument with Manichaeism.59 The first objective is to refute Manichaean doctrine or to refute Manichaean interpretations of, and appeals to, a common Christian heritage. The second objective is to convert his Manichaean addressees to the Catholic Church. The envisaged conversion pertains primarily to the intellect. He asks his addressees to pursue truth as taught by the Catholic Church. In order to achieve this purpose, Evodius employs the argumentative strategies of appropriation and dissociation. The term “appropriation” here refers to the use that Evodius makes of the Manichaean distinction between light and darkness, in order to demonstrate that his views correspond to light and Manichaeism corresponds to darkness. In his appeal to the Manichaeans, Evodius also distinguishes between the Manichaeans he is addressing and Mani, the founder of the Manichaean myth. By creating a rhetorical gap between Mani and 55 

Adu. Man. 12,3; 19,9; 47,2.

56 

Adu. Man. 20,4–5; 47,4.

57 

Adu. Man. 19,8; 47,7.

58 

Adu. Man. 20,3–4; 47,6.

59  A

more extensive version of the analysis of this subchapter can be found in A. Vanspauwen, “The Rhetoric of Appropriation and Dissociation in Evodius’ Aduersus Manichaeos”.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

147

the Manichaeans, Evodius attempts to win over his addressees. Evodius characterizes Mani as a deceiving teacher and thereby concludes that the Manichaeans are being misled. At the same time, Evodius establishes that the Manichaeans can yet achieve salvation. They are asked to accept Evodius’ invitation and convert to Catholic Christianity. 4.1. The Language of Light and Darkness The images of light and darkness play a fundamental role in Manichaean cosmogony and ethics. The Manichaeans distinguished between two kingdoms: the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. In the introduction to Adu. Man., Evodius describes God in terms with which Manichaeans could agree. In the confession of faith, God is twice associated with light, once in the Pauline citation of 1 Tim 6:16, and once in a very clear description: “He is the true light”.60 By employing light imagery, Evodius conveys the message that the Catholic Christians teach the truth regarding God and light. Before the author introduces the first Manichaean doctrine, he has already established that light and associated terms (God, revelation, truth, life) pertain to the Catholic Church and not to Manichaeism. He reinforces this notion immediately afterwards. The actual refutation of the Manichaeans begins with the words huic Manichaeum aduersarium esse dicit: “In opposition to Him, Mani posits an adversary”.61 Here Evodius draws a sharp contrast between huic (God, the true light; the pronoun huic expresses a proximity to Evodius’ position) on the one hand and Manichaeus (Mani and his false teachings) on the other hand. The implication that Manichaean teachings on light are false and blasphemous is repeated throughout Adu. Man. As previously mentioned, Evodius is mostly concerned with refuting the Manichaeans on a doctrinal level. Knowledge is therefore a recurring topic in Adu. Man. Evodius uses the language of light, more specifically, of clarifying (declaro, innotesco, manifesto), to describe the revelatory character of knowledge. He understands knowledge as revelatory, with both a passive component 60 

Adu. Man. 1,3.

61 

Adu. Man. 2,1.

148

chapter iv

(one should be receptive to knowledge, which reveals itself) and an active component (one should achieve a right mindset and actively seek out truth). For example, in Adu. Man. 39, the author defends the unity of Old and New Testaments by citing several Old Testament miracles that anticipated those of the New Testament. These examples become known to people (innotescunt: passive component) who are industrious and piously seek after them (diligentibus et pie quaerentibus: active component).62 The verb manifesto is used in a similar way in the opening chapter of Adu. Man. The correct teachings are revealed (manifestatur: passive component) to those who are humble (humilibus: active component) and piously seek them (pie quaerentibus: active component).63 If Evodius describes knowledge and teachings in terms of revealing and openness, he similarly accuses the Manichaeans of blindness (caecitas) and bad intent (malitia).64 The terminology of darkness – in particular, the repeated accusation that the Manichaeans are blind – situates the Manichaeans within, or close to, the realm of darkness.65 The Manichaeans would surely have been sensitive to such a metaphor. 4.2. Mani and the Manichaeans In Adu. Man., Evodius makes a distinction between Mani on the one hand and the Manichaeans on the other. The same word Manichaeus can refer to Mani (singular) or to the Manichaeans (plural). The use of Manichaeus in the singular to refer to a hypothetical or stereotypical Manichaean is not attested in Adu. Man. 66 The name Manichaeus occurs 34 times in the treatise: 27 times in the singu62 

Adu. Man. 39,4–5.

63 

Adu. Man. 1,7–8.

64 The

association of Manichaeism and blindness occurs eleven times in total in Adu. Man. The accusation of malitia occurs twice: Adu. Man. 38,14– 15; Adu. Man. 39,11–12. 65  See

in particular Adu. Man. 21,3–4.

66 Comparison

with Quodvultdeus’ sermon Adu. V Haer. is instructive on this point. There, the term Manichaeus likely refers to “a Manichaean”, and not to Mani. This use of Manichaeus by Quodvultdeus is analogous to his use of Arianus or Sabellianus instead of Arius or Sabellius. See Quodvultdeus, Adu. V Haer. VI: Vellem adhuc persequi Manichaeum, sed infestum patior Arianum; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 279, l. 1–2.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

149

lar and 7 times in plural. With the addition of references to the Manichaeans (the addressees of the treatise) and the third person plural, Evodius speaks more frequently about the Manichaeans than about Mani himself. Evodius describes Mani as blasphemous, erring, lying, bold, and disgraceful.67 Most of these characteristics also apply to the Manichaeans. Mani, however, does fulfil a more particular role as the author of the Manichaean texts. The contents of these texts are ascribed specifically to Mani,68 and the same is the case for some of the Manichaean doctrines addressed in the treatise.69 When summarizing the Manichaean myth, Evodius often employs phrases such as “Mani’s God”, whereas the phrase “your (plural) God” only occurs once.70 The distinction between Mani and the Manichaeans has pragmatic argumentative consequences; it allows the author to characterize the Manichaeans in a different way than he characterizes Mani. The Manichaeans are more specifically characterized as critics of Catholic doctrine. They “bark” (latrant) against Catholic teachings,71 and they are more eager to accuse passages of (Old Testament) Scripture than to understand them.72 This trait is accentuated by their ignorance. The accusation most frequently levelled against the Manichaeans is blindness, which signifies a lack of insight or knowledge. Because the Manichaeans do not know better, and even refuse to know better, they are inclined to criticize Christian teachings that the author describes as common sense.73 The blindness of the Manichaeans results from their bad intentions.74 67 His characterization of the Manichaeans corresponds to Latin antiManichaean literature in general and to Augustine’s anti-Manichaean language in particular. In anti-Manichaean polemical language, the Manichaeans are most frequently refuted as immoral. See I. Opelt, Die Polemik in der christlichen lateinischen Literatur, pp. 143–46. 68  See,

for example, Adu. Man. 14,1–2.

69  See,

for example, Adu. Man. 24,3–4.

70 

Adu. Man. 31,3.

71 

Adu. Man. 9,8–9.

72 

Adu. Man. 38,3.

73 See 74 

Adu. Man. 32,1–3; Adu. Man. 44,8.

Adu. Man. 21,3–4.

150

chapter iv

The centrality of the accusation of blindness underlines the concern Evodius has to refute Manichaeism on a doctrinal level. Blindness entails that one is not receptive to self-revelatory truth. The central metaphor of blindness could have an additional implication for the argument of Adu. Man. Blindness is a (medical) condition. The Manichaeans could be considered victims of this condition. They do not notice their own blindness.75 Here the distinction between Mani and the Manichaeans becomes pertinent. Mani is the founder of the false religion, the author of the Manichaean myth. The Manichaeans are being deceived by Mani;76 they believe Mani’s teachings on account of their blindness.77 By focussing on a doctrinal refutation of Manichaeism, Evodius invites the Manichaeans to reject Mani’s teachings. A clear example of Evodius’ appeal to the Manichaeans’ conscience is the opening sentence of the treatise’s penultimate chapter: “If, however, the things we say are true, then finally regard, finally see the death in which you have become entangled”.78 The author refers to true Christian teaching in the first person plural (quae dicimus): “what we [true Christians] say/believe”. By contrast, the present unbelief of the Manichaeans is very expressively described as “death”. The terms respicite and uidete both signify “seeing”, in contrast to the Manichaeans’ earlier condition of blindness. Once the Manichaeans realise their current views are wrong, they should renounce Mani’s error79 and convert to Catholic Christianity. 4.3. Summary: Creating Distance between Mani and the Manichaeans In order to draw a distinction between Mani and the Manichaeans, Evodius often singles our Mani for reproach. He characterises Mani as the errant teacher of the Manichaeans.80 Evodius attempts

75 

Adu. Man. 9,11.

76 

Adu. Man. 42,1.

77 

Adu. Man. 17,14–16.

78 

Adu. Man. 48,1–2.

79 

Adu. Man. 49,8.

80 E.g.

Adu. Man. 17,1–2.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

151

to persuade his Manichaean audience through the argumentative techniques of appropriation and dissociation, or distancing. He interacts with Manichaean terminology and appropriates one of the central images, that of light, in order to defend Catholic Christianity. Light is a universal metaphor for good, and Evodius wants to monopolize this term by situating the true knowledge of light on the side of Catholicism. In this way, Evodius establishes that whatever the Manichaeans believe about light is probably false. Evodius subtly, mostly by the metaphor of blindness, characterizes the Manichaeans as benighted and in the dark. The accusation of blindness is significant on multiple levels. First, this accusation locates the Manichaeans in the realm of darkness, which is in stark contrast to their claim to “light”. Second, the accusation refers to the central theme of knowledge. The author wants to effect a conversion of the Manichaeans on an intellectual and confessional level. Because knowledge is revelatory and reveals itself to whoever is receptive to it, Evodius accuses the Manichaeans of having wrong intentions, in hopes of persuading them to be more open to the author’s Catholic position. If the Manichaeans really want to strive for illumination, they ought to abandon Mani’s false teachings. Third, blindness is a condition from which the Manichaeans suffer, and the author wants to cure the Manichaeans of this condition. Evodius attempts to realise this cure, conversion to Catholicism, by dissociating the Manichaeans and Mani. He describes Mani as a false teacher. He states that the Manichaeans are being deceived by Mani, and he employs rhetorical strategies to create distance between Mani and the Manichaeans. Generally speaking, the author expresses little concern with the Manichaean church, with Manichaean ritual practices, or with the practical moral life of Manichaeans. Instead the treatise is devoted almost exclusively to correct doctrine and correct scriptural hermeneutics. The envisaged conversion would consist, at least initially, in a basic rejection of Manichaean teaching and in openness towards Catholic teaching. Because of its doctrinal focus, the treatise can also be seen as a pragmatic compendium of anti-Manichaean argumentation, which could help prepare Christian communities in North Africa, and later in medieval Europe, against Manichaean influence or, more

152

chapter iv

broadly, against dualistic interpretations of Christianity. In some cases, the author seems to address a Catholic audience. Formally, however, the second person plural addresses the Manichaeans. At the very least, the direct appeal to the Manichaeans functions as a rhetorical strategy well suited to a favourable audience. 5. Classical Rhetorical Procedures At first sight, literary qualities are not prevalent in Adu. Man. 81 Its first chapter contains an enumeration of divine attributes, with a few biblical citations providing some variation. Classical figures of speech, such as epanaphora, are mainly found in biblical citations or are inspired by biblical passages.82 The next few chapters do not give a different impression. There are some elements of parallelism and chiasmus found at the end of the third chapter,83 but overall, the style of the treatise thus far seems unpolished. The subsequent chapters (Adu. Man. 4–6) mostly consist of citations from a variety of sources (biblical, apocryphal, and Manichaean), and do not allow an assessment of Evodius’ own style. His words primarily function to introduce his sources.84 Two stylistic phenomena are apparent in the earliest chapter of the trea-

81 For an introduction to rhetoric in Latin Christian preaching, see G. D. Dunn, “Rhetoric in the Patristic Sermons”. 82  Epanaphora is repetition of the same word or phrase at the start of successive sentences. E.g., Adu. Man. 1,5–6: Ex quo omnia, per quem omnia; Adu. Man. 1,6: siue sedes, siue dominationes, siue principatus, siue potestates. 83  Adu. Man. 3,10–12: Non enim quia imperator in sua potestate magnus est et mediastrinus in operatione sua contemptibilis est, ideo mediastrinus non erit homo, quia homo est imperator? The imperator and mediastrinus are clearly presented in a parallel manner, with each word-pairing appearing in the same order in the sentence (imperator – mediastrinus [subject]; in sua potestate – in operatione sua [prepositional construction]; magnus est – contemptibilis est [predicate]). Elements of chiasmus can be found within one of these pairings (in sua potestate – in operatione sua [reversal of noun and adjective]) and in the conclusion (mediastrinus non erit homo [subject, verb, predicate] – homo est imperator [predicate, verb, subject]). 84 e.g. Adu. Man. 4,1: audiat apostolum dicentem; Adu. Man. 5,3–4: Nam et dominus ostendens quod in hominis potestate sit, ait; Adu. Man. 5,5–6: In Actibus etiam conscriptis a Leucio, quos ipsi accipiunt, sic scriptum est.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

153

tises: Evodius often employs repetition and makes frequent use of rhetorical questions.85 Evodius’ use of repetition had already been noted by Zycha. He qualified the style of Evodius as membratim, or “one step (lit. member) at a time”.86 This stylistic/argumentative procedure means that Evodius often repeats short phrases, but the repetition is rarely interesting from a rhetorical perspective; the author focuses instead on the cogency of his arguments. This approach could have an additional didactic function, as it allows Evodius’ audience to retrace each step of his thinking. Féliers hesitates in her assessment of Evodius’ literary training. She notes that in some cases the language of Adu. Man. seems well crafted.87 While she concedes that Evodius probably enjoyed education from a grammaticus, it is unlikely, in her opinion, that he received training in rhetoric. Never does Evodius refer in the Adu. Man. to a classical Roman author such as Virgil. And when his phrases do seem rhetorically evocative, Féliers believes these phrases result from Evodius’ strong religious zeal and personally-felt emotional reaction to the subject at hand. She adds that Evodius is so familiar with Augustine’s ideas that Augustine’s language permeates the treatise Adu. Man. These two factors – a zealous personality and a strong familiarity with Augustine’s phrasing – sufficiently explain the few instances in which the language of Evodius resembles that of an accomplished orator, according to Féliers. Féliers’ argumentation is not entirely convincing. Hence this subchapter attempts to identify the rhetorical merits of Adu. Man., and the extent to which Evodius would have enjoyed rhetorical training. Féliers only provides two brief examples of rhetorically effective phrases in Adu. Man., though more can certainly be added. One example comes from chapter 26: Nos autem Christum dominum uerum hominem suscepisse credimus et in ipso uisibiliter inuisibilem hominibus apparuisse, in ipso inter 85 E.g.

Adu. Man. 6,1–2; Adu. Man. 6,9; Adu. Man. 7,2–3.

Zycha, lxviiii. Zycha gives the example of Adu. Man. 2,3–7. See chapter III, n. 39. 86 

87 J.-H.  Féliers, “Evodius d’Uzalis”, pp. 3–4 cites Adu. Man. 13,1; Adu. Man. 17,1–2.

154

chapter iv homines conuersatum fuisse, in ipso ab hominibus humana pertulisse, in ipso homines docuisse a quibus est recedendum, quid esset perferendum, quo esset tendendum. 88

In this example, Evodius makes apt use of rhetorical figures such as epanaphora (repetition of in ipso; repetition of the relative pronoun), variation (a quibus, quid, quo), tricolon, paradox (uisibiliter inuisibilem), and some form of assonance or rhyme in the two series of verbs (apparuisse – conuersatum fuisse – pertulisse – docuisse; est recedendum – esset perferendum – esset tendendum). In another passage, Evodius makes apt use of parallelism in a comparison between necessity and free will (quantum distet inter necessitatem et uoluntatem).89 He asks his audience to imagine a prison. One person is condemned to punishment in this prison, and a second person visits the first in prison. These two people represent necessity and free will. By means of several parallel constructions, which also contrasts passive and active/deponent verbs (ille missus est – ille ingressus; ille poenam patitur – ille misericordiam facit), this contrast is made clear. On the broader level of Adu. Man.’s argumentation, this comparison additionally illustrates the difference between the involuntary and pointless suffering of the Manichaean God on the one hand, and the voluntary and salvific suffering of Christ on the other. Examples such as these prove that Evodius at least has an understanding of how rhetorical devices can be used, though he does not employ them consistently throughout the treatise. Other elements of Adu. Man.’s language suggest a context of oral performance, much in the genre of a homily. For example, the opening chapter can be seen as a collective prayer. Evodius addresses God, praises God’s attributes, and closes with the formulaic words in saecula saeculorum, at which his congregation could respond with a resounding amen. He also frequently addresses his audience with the words rogo uos. In Augustine’s oeuvre, these words are most frequently used in his sermons (including the En. Ps. and Io. eu. tr.).90 Other phrases, such as dixi (“I said”), dictum est a 88 

Adu. Man. 26,1–5.

89 

Adu. Man. 27,1–8.

90 Of the thirty-six occurrences of the phrase in Augustine, thirteen are from the En. Ps., two are from the Io. eu. tr., and sixteen are from the Sermones ad populum.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

155

quodam (“it was said by someone”), or ait quidam (“some say”), suggest that sections of Adu. Man. reflect earlier oral discussions with Manichaeans in Uzalis.91 On the whole, it does seem that Adu. Man. was conceived as a written treatise, yet some elements of the treatise could have originated in an oral context. Alternatively, Evodius wishes to evoke an oral setting in his treatise – such an evocation being in itself a rhetorical procedure. At this point, it is also necessary to briefly discuss Evodius’ dependence on other authors. Féliers believed that a lack of citations from pagan authors indicates that Evodius did not receive a proper literary education. Such a judgement is not entirely fair, since Evodius never cites from texts other than biblical, apocryphal, and Manichaean ones. In addition, Augustine’s early dialogues suggest that Evodius did know some Classical non-Christian authors.92 It may have been a conscious choice for Evodius not to cite another writer, Christian or non-Christian. On the other hand, it should be admitted that his implicit references to Augustine are more than clear, and comparable allusions to classical Roman writers seem to be missing, or at least much less apparent, in Adu. Man. The analysis of the following section, on

91 

Adu. Man. 18,5; 19,1; 19,3; 20,1; 20,3.

92 Augustine,

An. quant. XXIII,41: E. Ego prorsus nihil metuo, quoquo res modo processerit: non enim errare me sines. Sed iam incipe si quid habes [Virg., Ecl. IX,32], ne differendo potius quam aduersando defatiger: “E. I  have no fear at all, no matter how the problem may turn out, for you check me from going wrong. But begin, if you have anything to say, lest I be worn out by the delay, not by the defence”; ed. by W. Hörmann (CSEL, 89), p. 182, l. 13–14; trans. J. J. McMahon, “The Magnitude of the Soul”, p. 105. Augustine, An. quant. XXVI,50: E.  Fateor me deceptum, cum tibi concessi scientiam tunc esse cum aliquid firma ratione percipitur. Solos enim homines, cum hoc rogabas, intuebar: nam neque possum dicere ratione uti bestias, nec eis possum scientiam denegare. Sciebat enim, ut opinor, dominum suum canis, quem post uiginti annos recognouisse perhibetur [cf. Hom., Od. XVII,291–327], ut taceam de caeteris innumerabilibus: “E. I confess that I was deceived when I granted to you that knowledge exists only when something is perceived by certain reason. When you asked that, I was thinking only of men, and, of course, I cannot say that brute animals use reason and I cannot deny them knowledge. For, as I think, the dog knew his master, whom he is recounted as recognizing after twenty years”; ed. by W. Hörmann (CSEL, 89), p. 194, l. 22-p. 195, l. 3; trans. J. J. McMahon, “The Magnitude of the Soul”, p. 116.

156

chapter iv

Evodius’ use of rhythmic clausulae, sheds additional light on the extent of Evodius’ rhetorical training. 6. Metrical or Accentual clausulae in Evodius’ Oeuvre 6.1. Introduction Clausulae were important literary elements of Latin prose. Orators and grammarians such as Cicero and Quintilian extensively discussed the essentials of literary prose in various treatises.93 A clausula is a rhythmic pattern at the end of a phrase or a sentence. If the clausula is metrical, it consists of a succession of long and short syllables. An accentual clausula, on the other hand, consists of a sequence of accentuated and unaccentuated syllables. In Cicero’s age, orators exclusively made use of metrical clausulae. Of the many rhythmic patterns Cicero used, three forms were particularly favoured by subsequent authors: the cretic-trochee (–v– –v; e.g. uoluntate peccare),94 the dicretic (–v– –v–; e.g. mor talitas nascitur) and the ditrochee (–v–v; e.g. passum putetis). The three most frequently used accentual patterns derive from these metrical forms: the cursus planus imitates the cretic-trochee (/ xx/x; e.g. cárnis negátis), the cursus tardus imitates the dicretic (/xx/xx; e.g uxóre concúmberet), and the cursus uelox reflects the combination of cretic and ditrochee (/xxxx/x; e.g. ésse desiderátis).95 Note that in terms of syllable length, the cursus forms do not necessarily coincide with their metrical equivalents.96 A third system, however, combines metrical and accentual clausulae, and is referred to as the cursus mixtus. Authors who wrote in this mixed style have a high frequency of planus, tardus, and uelox patterns, in addition to a high percentage of popular metrical cadences. As a result, planus forms often coincide with the metrical cretic-trochee (e.g. iússa complére), tardus patterns with 93  M. T. 94  All

Baley, “Ciceronian Metrics and Clausulae”.

examples of metrical and accentual clausulae are from Adu. Man.

95 S.  M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “A New Statistical Analysis”, pp. 114–15. 96  This is for example the case in the clausula “conscién tia uéstra:” in terms of word accent, this clausula is a planus. However, with regard to syllable length, the clausula consists of a dactyl and a trochee (–vv–v).

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

157

the dicretic (e.g. mórtui dícimur) or cretic-tribrach (–v–vvv; e.g. quídquid at tígerit), and uelox cadences with the (cretic-)ditrochee (íncolis comparáret).97 The methodology of this subchapter is primarily based on a series of articles from Oberhelman and Hall in the journal Classical Philology.98 Since metrical and accentual forms appear to certain degree fortuitously in any Latin text, Oberhelman and Hall wanted to provide a statistical and quantifiable standard for determining the extent to which authors consciously applied metrical or accentual (or mixed) clausulae in their prose. By examining broader corpora of Latin prose, Oberhelman and Hal could map the presence of metrical and accentual clausulae in various texts in order to assess whether an author or text could qualify as metrical, accentual, “mixed”, or non-rhythmic. 6.2. Accentual clausulae In their first study, Oberhelman and Hall examined the presence of the three most common cursus forms (planus, tardus, and uelox) in prose texts. The two scholars determined that non-accentual texts contain fortuitous accentual patterns in 52.5 to 62.9% of their clausulae. The data of the two scholars confirmed that the conscious employment of accentual clausulae could not be found in the first two centuries ce, gained popularity in the third century, and was fully in use in fourth- and fifth-century rhetoric. The use of the cursus in Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome is quite ambiguous. For example, in Augustine’s Ciu., the accentual system is fully in use, while in other texts the same author must be considered non-accentual.99

97 S. M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “Meter in Accentual Clausulae”, p. 215. 98 S.  M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “A New Statistical Analysis”; S. M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “Meter in Accentual Clausulae”; S. M. Oberhelman, “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”. A more recent study on clausulae is B. Santorelli, “Metrical and Accentual Clausulae”. In his introduction, Santorelli offers a comprehensive overview of the scholarly literature in this field. 99 S.  M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “A New Statistical Analysis”, pp. 129–30.

158

chapter iv

My examination of metrical or accentual clausulae in Adu. Man. distinguishes the words of the author of Adu. Man. from his many citations (biblical, Manichaean, and apocryphal). It has also proven necessary to determine what exactly constitutes a clausula. Modern punctuation does not always coincide with how an orator would have used pauses or breaks in speech. There is a certain rupture between spoken and written language: Does a comma always indicate that an orator would have briefly paused at that spot? Are there instances in which an orator may have paused, even if there is no comma in the written text to indicate it? In order to reduce such ambiguous cases, only the closing words of sentences (marked by a period, question mark, or exclamation point) have been taken into account. This procedure yields a corpus of 294 clausulae. The following accentual patterns can be distinguished in Adu. Man.:100 Accentual pattern

# in Adu. Man.

% in Adu. Man.

planus

81

27.55

tardus

55

18.70

uelox

36

12.24

trispondaicus

42

14.28

medius

20

6.80

dispondaicus

34

11.56

dispondeus dactylicus

15

5.10

other

11

3.74

total

294

100

Accentual patterns in Adu. Man.

It is not certain whether the forms with no clear accentual pattern, which I have categorized as “other”, were included in the analysis of Oberhelman and Hall. This category should not be confused with their category of miscellanei. Among the miscellanei are the accentual patterns of trispondaicus, medius, dispondaicus, and dis-

100 The following accentual patterns have been added to the overview: trispondaicus (/xxx/x; e.g. táles corrigántur), medius (/x/xx; e.g. própter dóminum), dispondaicus (/x/x; e.g. volúntas práua) and dispondeus dactylicus (/xxx/xx; e.g. libídine accénderet).

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

159

pondeus dactylicus.101 In the following table, the “other” clausulae have been removed: Accentual pattern

# in Adu. Man.

% in Adu. Man.

planus

81

28.62

tardus

55

19.43

uelox

36

12.72

trispondaicus

42

14.84

medius

20

7.06

dispondaicus

34

12.01

dispondeus dactylicus

15

5.30

total

283

100

Accentual patterns in Adu. Man. (excl. “other”)

In order to determine whether Adu. Man. can be considered an accentual text, it is necessary to discern the relative presence of the planus, tardus, and uelox patterns (= R) in comparison to the total of clausulae examined (= T). For Adu. Man., the following distribution obtains: Corpus

R

T

Percentage

Adu. Man. (incl. “other”)

172

294

58.50

Adu. Man. (excl. “other”)

172

283

60.77

Cursus planus, tardus and uelox in Adu. Man.

The presence of the major three forms of cursus ranges from 58.50 to 60.77%. This means that, according to the criteria of Oberhelman and Hall, the text Adu. Man. qualifies as non-accentual. These findings would imply Adu. Man. was not written in a polished literary style. 6.3. Metrical clausulae; cursus mixtus In a follow-up study, Oberhelman and Hall wanted to establish a reliable method by which to determine whether an accentual 101 See S. M. Oberhelman, “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”, p. 138, n. 8.

160

chapter iv

text can be categorized as written in a cursus mixtus style. In this mixtus style, accentual patterns coincide to a large extent with metrical cadences. By gauging the presence of metrical forms, my survey also determines whether Adu. Man., if not an accentual or a mixtus text, can be classified as a metrical text. As with the previous calculations, it is necessary to consider to what extent patterns of the cursus mixtus occur fortuitously in fifth-century Latin prose. Alternatively, because their intent was to distinguish between the use of the accentual cursus and the conscious use of the cursus mixtus, Oberhelman and Hall needed to determine how often regular cursus patterns occur in a cursus mixtus form (due to the rules of Latin accentuation, which is closely tied to the metrical length of the penultimate syllable).102 The next table presents the following data, in accordance with the method of Oberhelman and Hall:103 for each corpus (Adu. Man. with or without the clausulae previously defined as “other”), the presence of the major three cursus forms (C) is given in comparison with the other clausulae (NC). The presence of the major cursus forms determines whether or not a text can qualify as accentual. Afterwards, I examine how frequently accentual patterns coincide with metrical clausulae (M: metrical; NM: non-metrical).104 102 S. M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “Meter in Accentual Clausulae”, p. 219. 103  See S. M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “Meter in Accentual Clausulae”, pp. 220–23. 104 In this regard, Oberhelman and Hall were not entirely clear as to whether they only accepted cases in which an accentual pattern coincides with its metrical equivalent (e.g. planus with cretic-trochee) or whether they accepted all occurrences of an accentual clausula with one of the most popular metrical forms (e.g. planus with dicretic: reddendum málum pro málo). In the first case, the planus should correspond to the cretic-trochee, the tardus to the dicretic or cretic-tribrach, and the uelox to the ditrochee. Among the miscellanei, the medius typically corresponds to the metrical trochee-cretic (quísque aúctor est), the dispondaicus to the ditrochee (contigísse scríbat), the dispondeus dactylicus to the paeon 1-cretic (docére patiéntiam), and the trispondaicus to the paeon 1-trochee (mor témque patiúntur). See S. M. Oberhelman, “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”, p. 148. In this case, however, accentual clausulae would only correspond to their typical metrical parallel in 91 cases in Adu. Man. (of 294 or 283 examined clausulae), or in 30,95 to 32,16% of the cases. This number is far below the distribution of mixed clausulae which Oberhelman and Hall reported in texts without any

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

161

The distribution of cursus forms, and the rate at which the cursus patterns correspond to the most popular metrical cadences, is as follows for Adu. Man.: Corpus

C

NC

%C

M

NM

%M

Adu. Man. (incl. “other”)

172

122

58.50

153

141

52.04

Adu. Man. (excl. “other”)

172

111

60.77

149

134

52.65

Cursus mixtus in Adu. Man.

The frequency of metrical forms in Adu. Man. is significantly lower than that of texts written in the cursus mixtus style or than metrical prose, where at least 65% of all clausulae are metrical. The rate at which the most common prosaic metrical cadences are present in Adu. Man. corresponds best to the works of Jerome and Ambrose, which are considered to be of the cursus (accentual) style. The material of Oberhelman and Hall does not allow for a full comparison with Augustine’s usage of metrical or accentual clausulae. They only incorporated three of Augustine’s works. Augustine’s Ep. and Ciu. were written in the cursus mixtus style, whereas his Conf. were deemed to have “no rhythm”. Adu. Man. seems to lie between the category of “no rhythm” and that of the regular cursus. The treatise contains significantly more metrical clausulae than arrhythmical prose texts, yet the presence of the major three cursus forms does lie within the norm of these non-rhythmic texts. 6.4. A Revision of Method In 1988, Oberhelman published an important revision of the method that he and Hall developed earlier. They had previously underestimated the role of the trispondaicus and the tardus when deciding whether a text is accentual or not. Oberhelman discovered that the trispondaicus is a significant element in some, but (accentual or metrical) rhythm. Even in those texts, Oberhelman and Hall noted a simultaneous occurrence of metrical and accentual patterns in 40,1 to 42,1% of the examined clausulae. Thus, I believe the second alternative is the case. The table offers all instances in which the aforementioned cursus forms coincide with any of the most popular metrical forms. These are the cretic-trochee, dicretic, cretic-tribrach, ditrochee, trochee-cretic, paeon 1-cretic, and paeon 1-trochee.

162

chapter iv

not all, texts categorized as accentual. In addition, he found that non-accentual texts contain significantly fewer tardus patterns than accentual texts do. A renewed focus on these two criteria and on the miscellanei will enable a more accurate assessment of the accentual character of prose texts. Oberhelman concludes: “A nonaccentual text will display few tardus-forms and a high proportion of both the trispondaicus and the miscellanei; conversely, an accentual text will contain a significantly higher percentage of the tardus and significantly lower percentages of the paroxytone trispondaicus and miscellanei. Some texts may not conform to the pattern provided by all three indicators, but all texts will exhibit the pattern for at least two indicators.”105

For Adu. Man., the distribution between the relevant accentual clasulae – tardus, trispondaicus, and miscellanei 106 – is as follows: Adu. Man.

tardus

trispondaicus

miscellanei

#

55

Total

42

80 /69

294/83

% (incl. “other”) 18.71

14.29

27.21

100

% (excl. “other”) 19.43

14.84

24.38

100

107

Tardus, trispondaicus and miscellanei in Adu. Man.

By comparing these data to the comparative material offered by Oberhelman,108 the following can be concluded: (1) In terms of the tardus, Adu. Man. can be situated within the corpus of accentual texts. It exceeds the norm of non-accentual texts, where between 9.7% (Tertullian, Ad nationes) and 14.7% (Apuleius, Metamorphoses) of the clausulae were of the tardus form. (2) Similarly, the frequency of the trispondaicus in Adu. Man. corresponds to the frequency of the pattern in accentual texts. In non-accentual texts, the trispondaicus is more frequent, appearing in 18.8% (Tertullian, De spectaculis) to 28.2% (Caelius Aurelianus, Acutae passiones) of the clausulae. (3) With regard to the presence of miscellanei 105  S. M.

Oberhelman, “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”, p. 141.

106  I.e.,

the sum of all medius, dispondaicus and dispondeus dactylicus accentual patterns. 107  The

“other” clausulae have been included among the miscellanei.

108 S.  M.

pp. 142–44.

Oberhelman, “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”,

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

163

forms, however, Adu. Man. cannot unambiguously be situated within either the accentual or the non-accentual texts. The percentage of miscellanei cadences is most closely mirrored in Apuleius’ non-accentual De deo Socratis (22.5%) and Metamorphoses (24.4%).109 However, other accentual texts do have a similar attribution of miscellanei patterns in their clausulae, such as Ambrose’s In Ps. CXVLIII expositio (21.6%) and Jerome’s De uiris illustribus (35.7%).110 The percentages of accentual clausulae in Adu. Man. correspond to the norms of accentual texts in two of the three categories put forward by Oberhelman. This would indicate that Evodius made use of an accentual rhythmical system, and not a metrical or mixtus system, in Adu. Man. Oberhelman, in his conclusion, adds an important reflection on accentual systems in the fourth and fifth centuries. Some contemporary authors made use of an accentual system focussing on three patterns, namely the planus, tardus, and uelox. Other authors, such as Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, also incorporated the trispondaicus and several miscellanei patterns in their literary prose. The prose of Adu. Man. most closely resembles the second accentual system. The prose of later Christian authors such as Leo the Great and Boethius seems to indicate that by the sixth century, the style represented by Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine fell out of favour. Later Christian authors returned to the prose of authors such as Symmachus, Vegetius, and Palladius.111 The usage of accentual clausulae in Adu. Man. most closely corresponds to that of the church fathers of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. This correspondence means that Evodius likely received some form of rhetorical education, similar to these other ecclesiastical authors, and that he consciously incorporated accentual clausulae in his literary prose.

109 On Apuleius’ clausulae (and the variation in his use of clausulae), see also the introduction of J. Beaujeu in his edition of Apuleius’ philosophical writings (Opuscules philosophiques), pp. xvi–xxiii. 110 Note

that according to the previous criteria of S. M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “Meter in Accentual Clausulae”, 223, Jerome’s de uiris illustribus is non-rhythmic. 111  S. M.

Oberhelman, “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”, p. 148.

164

chapter iv

6.5. Clausulae in Evodius’ Epistulae There are two reasons to compare the presence of clausulae in Adu. Man. with Evodius’ Epistulae. First, the examination of Oberhelman and Hall shows that Christian authors used accentual or metrical clausulae, or both, in their letters, and that their epistolary usage of clausulae corresponds to their usage of clausulae elsewhere.112 Letters exhibit their author’s stylistic characteristics. Second, Evodius’ authorship of these letters is certain, while his authorship of Adu. Man. is not. Comparative study of the clausulae in works attributed to Evodius can therefore shed light on the authorship of Adu. Man. The letters represent Evodius’ baseline use of clausulae. A comparison can show the extent to which Adu. Man. corresponds to Evodius’ letters in use of accentual or metrical clausulae. Several methodological concerns need to be addressed before continuing with the comparison. The first issue is the genre of each text. Adu. Man. is a single literary whole. The Epistulae of Evodius, on the other hand, consist of separate letters, written in different circumstances. His Ep. ad Val. was written ten years after his correspondence with Augustine (Ep. 158, 160, 161 and 163). Does this chronological gap coincide with a development in the style of Evodius? Can the Epistulae simply be considered a homogenous corpus, or does each letter differ in literary style? How do different circumstances influence the literary quality of each letter? For example, at the end of Ep. 158, Evodius states that he wrote it “without skill or eloquence”.113 Is this remark consistent with his usage of accentual clausulae? A second issue concerns the length of each text. Adu. Man. numbers more than 7,000 words, and contains 283–94 accentual clausulae, whereas the Ep. are much shorter. Together, they count 280 clausulae, a sample size admittedly similar to that of Adu. Man. Each letter, however, differs significantly in length. The longest letter, Ep. 158 – which Evodius claims was written in an unpolished style – contains 134 clausulae. This is almost half of all examined clausulae 112  See

p. 223.

S. M. Oberhelman & R. G. Hall, “Meter in Accentual Clausulae”,

113 Evodius, Ep. 158,12: Imperite et rustice scripsi; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 497, l. 13; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 46.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

165

of the Ep. The shortest letter, on the other hand, Ep. 163, has only 7 clausulae. Because of the limited sample size of individual letters, conclusions can only be tentative. The accentual patterns in Evodius’ letters are as follows: Pattern

Ep. 158

Ep. 160

Ep. 161

Ep. 163

Ep. ad Val. Total

Pl

28 20.89%

17 27.41%

10 23.80%

2 28.57%

10 28.57%

67 23.92%

Ta

21 15.67%

4 6.45%

11 26.19%

1 14.28%

5 14.28%

42 15.00%

Ve

18 13.43%

3 4.83%

5 11.90%

0 0%

4 11.42%

30 10.71%

Tr

15 11.19%

14 22.58%

7 16.66%

1 14.28%

3 8.57%

40 14.28%

Me

14 10.44%

6 9.67%

3 7.12%

1 14.28%

3 8.57%

27 9.64%

Di

21 15.67%

9 14.51%

2 4.76%

2 28.57%

2 5.71%

36 12.85%

DD

5 3.73%

4 6.45%

0 0%

0 0%

5 14.28%

14 5.00%

Other

12 8.95%

5 8.06%

4 9.52%

0 0%

3 8.57%

24 8.57%

Tot.

134 100%

62 100%

42 100%

7 100%

35 100%

280 100%

Accentual clausulae in Evodius’ Ep., incl. “other” Pattern

Ep. 158

Ep. 160

Ep. 161

Ep. 163

Ep. ad Val. Total

Pl

28 22.95%

17 29.82%

10 26.31%

2 28.57%

10 31.25%

67 26.17%

Ta

21 17.21%

4 7.01%

11 28.94%

1 14.28%

5 15.62%

42 16.40%

Ve

18 14.75%

3 5.26%

5 13.15%

0 0%

4 12.50%

30 11.71

Tr

15 12.29%

14 24.56%

7 18.42%

1 14.28%

3 9.37%

40 15.62%

Me

14 11.47%

6 10.52%

3 7.89%

1 14.28%

3 9.37%

27 10.54%

Di

21 17.21%

9 15.78%

2 5.26%

2 28.57%

2 6.25%

36 14.06%

166

chapter iv

Pattern

Ep. 158

Ep. 160

Ep. 161

Ep. 163

Ep. ad Val. Total

DD

5 4.09%

4 7.01%

0 0%

0 0%

5 15.62%

14 5.46%

Tot.

122 100%

57 100%

38 100%

7 100%

32 100%

256 100%

Accentual clausulae in Evodius’ Ep., excl. “other”

Judging from this overview, it appears that Ep. 160 is quite exceptional in its use of accentual clausulae. The letter contains a very low number of tardus and uelox patterns. Conversely, the trispondaicus frequently appears in the same letter. Especially if one considers the criteria of Oberhelman’s “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”, the singularity of Ep. 160 becomes apparent: Text

tardus

trispondaicus

miscellanei

Total

Ep. 158

15.67%

11.19%

38.81%

134

Ep. 160

6.45%

22.58%

38.71%

62

Ep. 161

26.19%

16.66%

21.43%

42

Ep. 163

14.28%

14.28%

42.86%

7

Ep. ad Val.

14.28%

8.57%

37.14%

35

Ep. (tot.)

15%

14.28%

36.07%

280

Ep. (excl. 160)

17.43%

11.93%

35.32%

218

Tard., trisp. and misc. in the Ep., incl. “other”) Text

tardus

trispondaicus

miscellanei

Total

Ep. 158

17.21%

12.29%

32.79%

122

Ep. 160

7.01%

24.56%

33.33%

57

Ep. 161

28.94%

18.42%

13.16%

38

Ep. 163

14.28%

14.28%

42.86%

7

Ep. ad Val.

15.62%

9.37%

34.38%

32

Ep. (tot.)

16.40%

15.62%

30.01%

256

Ep. (excl. 160)

19.10%

13.07%

29.14%

199

Tard., trisp. and misc. in the Ep., excl. “other”)

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

167

In general, Evodius’ letters can be considered accentual. They contain a slightly higher than average percentage of clausulae of the tardus form (10–15% for non-accentual texts). The value for Ep. 160 is significantly different from Evodius’ other letters for both the tardus and the trispondaicus clausulae; the letter thus resembles the examples of non-accentual prose in Oberhelman’s overview.114 Compared to Ep. 160, the frequency of the trispondaicus is significantly lower in Evodius’ other letters. With regard to miscellanei patterns, Ep. 160 does correspond to the distribution of cursus forms in Evodius’ other letters. To conclude, it seems that, with the exception of Ep. 160, which resembles a non-accentual text, Evodius wrote his letters in the accentual cursus style. Compared to the letters as a whole, the treatise Adu. Man. has a somewhat similar distribution of accentual clausulae. Although this conclusion does not prove that the letters were written by the same author as the treatise, it certainly does not contradict the attribution of Adu. Man. to Evodius. It must also be noted that Ep. 161 seems somewhat exceptional in comparison with the other accentual letters. The high rate of tardus forms is striking (26–28%). Conversely, it contains a rather low number of miscellanei forms (13–21%). It appears that the style of this letter differs from Evodius’ habitual use of accentual clausulae, with a stronger emphasis on tardus patterns. Here, his use of accentual clausulae resembles the system which primarily focuses on the three forms planus, tardus, and uelox. What then to make of Evodius’ remark that he wrote his Ep. 158 “without skill or eloquence”?115 This remark does not seem to apply to his use of accentual clausulae. The frequency of accentual clausulae in the letter corresponds to the clausulae in his other letters, in Adu. Man., and in other Christian writings of the same era. The miscellanei patterns are quite frequent in the letter, but again, not to such a degree that it would warrant an apology from its author. Could it be possible that Evodius wants to belittle his literary merits in the form of a literary figure of speech or trope?

114 S.  M. Oberhelman, The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose”, pp. 142–44. 115 Evodius,

Ep. 158,12. See n. 113.

168

chapter iv

This may not necessarily be the case. Shanzer believes Evodius’ remark pertains to the structure of the letter: “Ep. 158 is not Augustine’s. Its structure is messy: narrative with a cluster of philosophical questions in the middle; more narrative; and a final burst of questions. At its very end Evodius apologized for his style. With reason – for he wrote in a jerky and disjointed fashion that makes his arguments and transitions difficult to follow … He employed a strictly ‘need to know’ narrative economy, for Augustine was unacquainted with the principals involved: most have no names.”116

While Shanzer refers only to Ep. 158 in the citation above, it must be noted that some elements of her analysis are also relevant for Adu. Man. At times, the transitions in Adu. Man. are difficult to follow. This becomes especially apparent when comparing the text to its Augustinian sources.117 Evodius also employs a strict narrative economy in Adu. Man. The entirety of the treatise is concerned with a scriptural and doctrinal refutation of Manichaean Christianity, a focus that is justifiable. There is not a single reference to authors or persons who would be superfluous to the argument. Rarely does Evodius refer to external authorities, and the argumentative approach remains remarkably consistent. Perhaps this is also the reason why the treatise does not refer to any classical Roman author: referring to an irrelevant author would detract from the central line of argumentation. 116 D. Shanzer, 117  Compare,

“Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead”, p. 277.

for example, the manner in which Evodius introduces his citation of Mt 12:33 in Adu. Man. 5 with his Augustinian source, Contra Felicem II,4. Adu. Man. 5,3–5: Nam et dominus ostendens quod in hominis potestate sit, ait: aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum, aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum; Augustine, C. Fel. II,4: Audi ergo de libero arbitrio primo ipsum dominum, ubi duas arbores commemorat, quarum mentionem ipse fecisti, audi dicentem: aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum … hoc ergo dominus dicens ‘aut facite illud aut facite illud’ ostendit esse in potestate quid facerent: “Listen first, then, to the Lord himself concerning free choice, where he speaks of the two trees, of which you yourself made mention. Listen to him as he says, Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad (Mt 12:33) … And so, when the Lord said, ‘Either do this or do that,’ he showed that what they would do was in their power”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 831, l. 26-p. 832, l. 13; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 301.

content and language of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

169

To conclude, although Adu. Man. is not always a model of rhetorical prose, its author does seem familiar with the prevalent literary techniques of his time. Evodius’ use of clausulae corresponds to that of contemporary Christian authors such as Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. Certainly in some instances, the rhetorical effects in Adu. Man. reinforce the argument. Evodius also seems to have applied a strategy of appropriation and dissociation in his treatise, a strategy calculated to increase the distance between the Manichaeans, who were his addressees, and the founder of their religion, Mani. This strategy is suited to the objective Evodius had in mind when preparing Adu. Man., namely, to convert the addressees to the Catholic Church. In terms of content, the Adu. Man. focuses on a refutation of Manichaeism on a doctrinal and biblical level. Evodius is sensitive to the Manichaean language of darkness and light, and he usurps the terminology of light in order to argue that knowledge and Christian truth are the prerogatives of the Catholic Church, not of Manichaeism. When addressing Manichaean dualism, Evodius seems to do more justice than some of his contemporaries to the Manichaean belief in two natures. Augustine rejects the reality of such a dualism outright: evil is only the absence of good and does not exist in itself. Evodius, on the other hand, accepts the dualism as a real dualism, but this acceptance is primarily an argumentative tool. By assuming a Manichaean position (there are two natures, one good and one evil) and exploring the implications of such a dualism, Evodius attempts to reject the Manichaean notion more convincingly than he might have done if he had merely rejected dualism a priori. Because Manichaean dualism implies that God is impotent and immoral, Evodius can reject the assumption of two independent natures a posteriori.

Chapter V

The Sources of Adversvs Manichaeos 1. Introduction to Evodius’ Use of Sources As the survey in the previous chapter demonstrated, Evodius carefully delineated the subject matter of Adu. Man. Since his aim was to write a model treatise of anti-Manichaean argumentation, he indulged in few digressions or irrelevant displays of erudition; his focus was instead to refute Manichaeism, its dualistic worldview, and the Manichaean claim to Christian identity. This claim can be considered the crux of the matter for Evodius. The primary criterion for orthodoxy is scriptural authority. Catholic Christianity, Evodius argues, interprets the canon of Christian Scripture in the correct manner. Manichaeans, on the other hand, only accept Scripture selectively. Evodius also argues that the Manichaeans misunderstand the Bible. Evodius’ practice of not referring explicitly to any external authority makes it somewhat difficult to identify the sources he consulted in preparing this anti-Manichaean treatise.1 One influence, however, is obvious: Augustine of Hippo, lifelong friend of Evodius. A friend and tutor of Evodius, and a well-known anti-Manichaean author himself, Augustine exerted a profound influence on the contents of Adu. Man. From the letters of Evodius, we know that he was familiar with many of Augustine’s works. For instance, in Ep. 161, Evodius tells Augustine that he had read Augustine’s Ep. 92 and Ep. 137 and asks for further clarification of some issues they raise. Augustine did not respond to each detail of Evodius’ requests. Instead, Augustine referred to works in which he deals with similar topics, or he simply informed Evodius of his recent literary activities. Augustine invited Evodius to send someone over to Hippo in order to copy his works, and Augustine may 1 Such a treatment of sources is common practice in patristic literature. As P.-H. Poirier & T. Pettipiece, Biblical and Manichaean Citations, p. 132 argue, Christian writers of the period generally only mention the names of authors with which they disagree.

172

chapter v

have given Evodius copies of his works when the former visited Uzalis.2 The first section of this chapter addresses the influence on Adu. Man of the works that are mentioned in the correspondence between Evodius and Augustine. Their possible influence has implications for the authorship of the treatise. Exploring the possible influence of Augustine’s works on Adu. Man. may provide an indirect way to further gauge the validity of the attribution of authorship to Evodius. The chapter’s second section examines Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works as possible sources for Adu. Man. Most of these works are not mentioned in the correspondence between Augustine and Evodius. Nevertheless, they constitute an important category of sources. Much of Evodius’ knowledge of the Manichaean system derives from Augustine, and his citations and refutations of Manichaean Scripture are often mirrored in the bishop of Hippo’s anti-Manichaean works. While it has long been accepted that Evodius consulted Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, the exact range of anti-Manichaean texts that Evodius consulted has yet to be established. 3 The third section of the chapter addresses other possible sources, which have been divided into three categories. The first such category consists of other Latin anti-Manichaean authors, the second category consists of possible Greek sources, and the third and final category of additional sources concerns the apocryphal biblical texts cited in Adu. Man. The Manichaean texts that Evodius may have consulted are only touched on in this chapter; more detailed examination of these texts may be found in chapter VII. 2. The Bishop of Uzalis and the Author of Aduersus Manichaeos Evodius is known to have read several literary works, as these works are mentioned in the historical sources on Evodius’ life. Did such works influence the wording or argumentation of Adu. Man.? 2 J. Meyers, Les miracles de saint Étienne, p. 24 states that Augustine and Evodius still corresponded in the 420s. O. Perler & J.-L. Meier, Les voyages de saint Augustin, pp. 380.472 indicate that Augustine visited Uzalis at least once in this period, namely, in the summer of 424. 3  See,

for example, F. Decret, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

173

Evodius likely enjoyed a good literary education and was able to read Greek. In the dialogue An. quant., Evodius cites Virgil’s Eclogues and alludes to a passage from Homer’s Odyssey.4 The contents of the dialogues An. quant. and Lib. arb. give the impression that Evodius felt somewhat at home in Platonic (or Neoplatonic) and Christian philosophical discussions. In this early period, Evodius also appears to be familiar with biblical literature. At the funerary ceremony of Monnica, for example, Evodius takes initiative by singing an appropriate psalm (Ps 101 [100]), to which the other attendees respond.5 When Evodius returned to North Africa, one of the first tasks Evodius fulfils for his friends Alypius, Augustine, and Paulinus, is to copy Eusebius’ Chronicon (in Jerome’s Latin version or in its original Greek) at a scriptorium in Carthage.6 These examples suggest that Evodius had read classical poetry (possibly in Greek), philosophical literature, biblical texts, and ecclesiastical authors. Although it is impossible to reconstruct the full scope of literary, philosophical, and theological works Evodius read throughout his life, it is clear he had the capacity and motivation to read in a variety of genres. 2.1. Texts Mentioned in the Correspondence between Evodius and Augustine The correspondence between Evodius and Augustine reveals Evodius’ philosophical and theological interests. He remarks that his reading prompted some of his questions. This is most clearly the case in Ep. 161, where he states that he read two of Augustine’s letters: one to Volusianus (Ep. 137) and one to Italica (Ep. 92).7 Evodius cites passages from the two letters and asks for clar-

4 Augustine, An. quant. XXIII,41; An. quant. XXVI,50. See chapter IV, n. 92. 5 Augustine, 6 Paulinus,

Conf. IX,12,31. See chapter I, n. 27.

Ep. 3,3. See chapter I, n. 32.

7 Evodius, Ep. 161,1: sed quia epistolas sanctitatis tuae, unam ad inlustrem uirum Volusianum et alteram ad Italicam inlustrem in Christo feminam in manibus legentes habuimus: “But because we had in our hands and read the letters of Your Holiness, the one to the illustrious man, Volusian, and the other to Italica, an illustrious lady in Christ”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 507, l. 9–11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 53.

174

chapter v

ification of their contents. In another letter, Evodius tells Augustine about a passage from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. The passage describes how Moses’ body was buried while his soul ascended to heaven.8 The short letter Ep. 163 is, in its entirety, concerned with the exegesis of 1 Pe 3:18–19. Throughout his letters, Evodius frequently cites or alludes to biblical passages from both Testaments.9 When responding to Evodius, Augustine often suggests some of his own works for further reading. The works in question are: his twelfth book of Gn. litt. and his Trin. (both admittedly unfinished at the time);10 his dialogues with Evodius, namely, An. quant. and Lib. arb.; the treatise Vera rel.; the first five books of Ciu.; the Enarrationes of Psalms 67, 71, and 77; two letters (Ep. 166 and Ep. 167 to Jerome, whom Evodius knew); C. Prisc.; and Nat. et gr. 11 It appears that Evodius’ interests had shifted somewhat compared to the early years of his friendship with Augustine. In the epistolary correspondence with Augustine, Evodius only cites and discusses biblical or ecclesiastical literature. Classical authors, still referred to in An. quant., do not play a role in Evodius’ letters. Decret suggested that in Ep. 161 Evodius announces his intention to write an anti-Manichaean work. This letter concerns Christ’s incarnation and birth from the Virgin Mary. The same themes occur in the central Christological section of Adu. Man. (22–27). When writing to Augustine, Evodius inquires “how one 8 Evodius,

Ep. 158,6. See chapter I, n. 60.

9 See

the overview in J.-H. Féliers, “La Bible dans l’œuvre d’Evodius”, pp. 42.55–62. 10 Augustine, Ep. 159,2: si tamen dominus donare dignatur, ut eos mihi libros, quantum possum congruenter emendatos iam liceat edere: “if the Lord deigns to grant that I may now publish those books that have been suitably correct to the extent that I could do so”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 500, l. 1–3; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 48. Augustine, Ep. 162,2: in eis libris, quos nondum edidi, siue de trinitate, siue de genesi: “in the books that I have not published, either The Trinity or Genesis”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 513, l. 2–3; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 57. Augustine, Ep. 169,I,1: nec libros de trinitate, quos diu in manibus uerso nondumque compleui: “not … even to the books of The Trinity, which I have had in hand for a long time and have not yet completed”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 612, l. 6–7; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 107. 11  See

chapter III, n. 120–29.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

175

might reply to those who are insidious”.12 Evodius had previously referred to adversaries who denied the virgin birth of Christ.13 He may be referring here to the same “heretics” (haeretici) Augustine had mentioned in his Ep. 137.14 This group can likely be identified with the Manichaeans. It is true that multiple religious movements rejected the idea of Christ’s virgin birth. Augustine’s phrasing, however, suggests that this group accepted Christ as God (or God’s virtue or power) but denied that Christ had a human nature. Though not specified by name, it may well be that both Augustine and Evodius have the same adversaries in mind, namely the Manichaeans. It is not too farfetched to assume that Evodius, when writing to Augustine in the years 414–15, had already conceived the idea of an anti-Manichaean treatise. It would make sense, then, for Evodius to have consulted the writings Augustine suggested to him, and subsequently, for these works to have left a tangible mark on Adu. Man. Such influence, however, is not immediately apparent, and most similarities between the works Augustine recommended and Adu. Man. are rather superficial. For example, the work Lib. arb. has a strong anti-Manichaean undertone and might be expected to have influenced Adu. Man. to a significant degree, since the former work reflects discussions once held between Evodius and Augustine. Nevertheless Lib. arb. does not seem to contain many similarities with Adu. Man. Many of the ideas found in Lib. arb. also appear in Augustine’s more explicitly anti-Man12 F. Decret, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens”, p. 390, n. 17; Evodius, Ep. 161,3: Non enim certamina semino, sed, quem ad modum insidiosis respondeatur, interrogo: “Now, I am not sowing the seeds of disputes; rather, I am asking how one might reply to those who are insidious”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 510, l. 15-p. 511, l. 1; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 55. 13 Evodius, Ep. 161,2: qui non credidissent uirginem concipere posse: “who did not belief a virgin could conceive”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 509, l. 11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 54. 14 Augustine, Ep. 137,9: et tamen quidam haeretici, peruerse mirando eius laudandoque uirtutem naturam humanam in eo prorsus agnoscere noluerunt: “and yet certain heretics who are wrongly amazed and who wrongly praise that power absolutely refuse to acknowledge him in a human nature”; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 31B), p. 263, l. 177–79; trans. R. Teske, Letters (100–55), p. 217.

176

chapter v

ichaean works, which were more likely consulted by Evodius (see below). Early in Lib. arb., Augustine urges Evodius to not rely too much on arguments from authority. Instead, the two should attempt to thoroughly understand the matters they are discussing and found their beliefs on reason.15 When Evodius avoids any reference to external authorities in Adu. Man., this attitude should not be attributed to Augustine’s admonition from Lib. arb., as if Evodius had just reread that dialogue before writing Adu. Man. Instead, the aforementioned passage of Ep. 161 demonstrates that Evodius already had the intention to refute his adversaries with rational arguments. One central thesis in Adu. Man. holds that evil is not a substance. Instead, evil exists only in the form of sin, which humans commit through their free will, and in the form of punishment, which God, the just judge, exacts. These core ideas are present in Lib. arb., but Augustine formulates the same doctrines in treatises such as C. Fort. and Nat. b. These latter two texts were certainly consulted by Evodius in preparation of his anti-Manichaean treatise. Of the works attested in the correspondence between Evodius and Augustine, two seem to have had an influence on Adu. Man. These works are Vera rel. and Ep. 137. Augustine’s letter to Volusianus, Ep. 137, contains two passages that could have inspired Evodius. One similarity concerns the notion that Mary did not lose her virginity when she gave birth to Christ.16 The vocabulary of Augustine’s letter also occurs in Adu. Man. Secondly, Augustine describes the resurrections performed by Elijah and Elisha. These Old Testament examples prefigure the resurrections that Christ performed. When Evodius defends the continuity of the Old 15 Augustine,

Lib. arb. I,IV,10,26: Rursus me ad auctoritatem reuocas, sed meminisse te oportet id nunc a nobis esse susceptum, ut intellegamus quod credimus: “Again you appeal to authority. But you must remember that the task we have undertaken is to understand what we believe”; ed. by W. M. Green (CCSL, 29), p. 216, l. 40–42; trans. M. Pontifex, The Problem of Free Choice, p. 42. 16 Augustine, Ep. 137,2: et tamen uirgo enixa sit solemnitate pariendi, et post haec uirginitas inuiolata permanserit: “[you ask] and whether, though a virgin, she nonetheless had the child in the ordinary manners of giving birth and whether after this her virginity remained intact”; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 31B), p. 257, l. 25–26; trans. R. Teske, Letters (100–55), p. 213. Cf. Adu. Man. 22,6–8.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

177

and the New Testaments, he states that many of the miracles of the New Testament first occurred in the Old Testament. He could have perhaps found the example of the resurrection of the dead in Augustine’s Ep. 137.17 Similarities with Vera rel. are more numerous and convincing. The central thesis of Vera rel. – Catholic Christianity is the only correct faith, against the beliefs of Manichaeans – is reminiscent of the general aim of Adu. Man. 18 Despite this fundamental similarity, the two works are quite different. Augustine’s treatise betrays Neoplatonist influences, and simultaneously refutes Paganism as well as Manichaeism. Vera rel. does not contain the same focussed anti-Manichaean argumentation as Adu. Man. does. Nevertheless, Adu. Man. does bear many resemblances to ideas and phrases of Vera rel. For example, in recounting the Manichaean myth, Evodius uses the phrase aliud quod faceret non haberet, which also appears in Augustine’s paraphrase of the same narrative.19 Vera rel. likewise seems to have influenced Evodius’ use of biblical texts in chapter 25. There, Evodius summarizes the biblical narratives the Manichaeans refer to when they deny that Christ was 17 Augustine,

Ep. 137,13: Nam in his signis quid excellentius quam mortuos resurrexisse? Fecit hoc Helias, fecit hoc Helisaeus; nam de magorum miraculis utrum etiam mortuos suscitauerint, illi uiderint, qui et Apuleium se contra magicarum artium crimina copiosissime defendentem conantur non accusando sed laudando conuincere: “From among these signs what is more excellent than that the dead rose? Elijah did this; Elisha did this. For with regard to the miracles of the magicians, let those men see whether they raised the dead who try to prove Apuleius guilty not by accusing but by praising him, as he defends himself at great length against the charges of engaging in the arts of magic”; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 31B), pp. 267–68, l. 284–89; trans. R. Teske, Letters (100–55), p. 220. Cf. Adu. Man. 39,3. 18 J. Lössl,

“Augustine on ‘The True Religion’”.

Adu. Man. 12,4–7: Nam uidemus deum Manichaei secundum eumdem Manichaeum malo necessitatis pressum, cum labes ac uastitas aduersus saecula eius impenderet, aliud quod faceret non haberet, partem suam ad pugnam dedisse. Cf. Augustine, Vera rel. IX,16: deum autem, qui aliud quod faceret non haberet et, quomodo aliter posset hosti resistere, non inueniret, necessitate oppressum misisse huc animam bonam, et quamdam particulam suae substantiae: “God, who had nothing else he could do about it and could find no other way of withstanding the enemy, so that, under the pressure of necessity, he sent good soul hither and a certain particle of his own substance”; ed. K. D. Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 198, l. 16–19; trans. E. Hill, “True Religion”, p. 40. 19 

178

chapter v

born of Mary. The combination of Jn 2:4 and Mt 12:48 could have been inspired by a passage from Vera rel.,20 and there are more sections where Evodius’ language seems to repeat the wording of Augustine’s Vera rel. All in all, I am inclined to believe Evodius did consult Vera rel. and incorporated ideas and expressions of this work in his treatise; most of his arguments, however, come from Augustine’s other anti-Manichaean works. 2.2. Evaluation Comparing Adu. Man. with the works addressed in the correspondence suggests that Evodius consulted Vera rel. and Ep. 137. There are some additional minor resemblances with Augustine’s Ep. 162 and Ep. 169 to Evodius, and with Augustine’s Ep. 166 to Jerome. Put differently, the comparison with Adu. Man. demonstrates that many of the works that Augustine mentioned to Evodius have left no trace in Adu. Man. and perhaps were not read by Evodius at all. This apparent neglect of the elder bishop’s recommendations is not entirely in conflict with the testimony of the correspondence between Augustine and Evodius. After all, Augustine only mentions or recommends various works. Evodius would not necessarily have sent someone to copy all these writings. Of the two works which most likely influenced Adu. Man., namely, Vera rel. and Ep. 137, it is certain that Evodius read them. After all, Evodius admits that his study of Ep. 137 (and Ep. 92) led him to write Ep. 161 to Augustine.21 In his response to Evodius, Augustine does not merely recommend the reading of Vera rel., but his wording suggests that Evodius was familiar with the work: “You also have Adu. Man. 25,1–3: Sed dicunt : «  Quare ergo negauit matrem suam, quando ei dixit : Quid mihi et tibi, mulier ? et quando, cum ei nuntiata esset quod eum uellet uidere, respondit. Cf. Augustine, Vera rel. XVI,31: nuntiatam sibi matrem negauit … mihi et tibi quid est?: “he renounced the mother whose presence was announced to him … what is there between you and me?”; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 206, l. 22–25; trans. E. Hill, “True Religion”, p. 48. 20 

21 Evodius, Ep. 161,1: sed quia epistulas sanctitatis tuae unam ad inlustrem uirum Volusianum et alteram ad Italicam inlustrem in Christo feminam in manibus legentes habuimus: “But because we had in our hands and read the letters of Your Holiness, the one to the illustrious man, Volusian, and the other to Italica, an illustrious lady in Christ”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 507, l. 9–11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 53.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

179

in the book True Religion points that, if you would recall and carefully examine them …”22 Only those works, which Evodius certainly knew, had any noticeable influence on the anti-Manichaean treatise. At the end of his Ep. 169, Augustine suggests that Evodius send someone to Hippo in order to copy some of the works Augustine had written.23 This procedure would have allowed Evodius to further study the theological questions he raised in his letters to Augustine. Evodius seems to have only partially heeded Augustine’s advice. Over the course of the years, he would consult and read many of Augustine’s works. He does not, however, seem to have been particularly interested in the works Augustine originally suggested. Instead, when preparing his anti-Manichaean treatise, he primarily consulted Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings. The contents and language of these writings permeate Adu. Man. 3. Augustine’s anti-Manichaean Oeuvre 3.1. Preliminary Remarks In order to assess Evodius’ dependence on Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, it will be useful to identify which works belong in that category. As Evodius intended to write a treatise against the Manichaeans, it is natural to suppose that he primarily consulted works which serve the same purpose. At Hippo, Augustine had an index of his own works, which he used when he prepared his Retractationes.24 A later redaction of this index is preserved as the Indiculum, a supplement to Possidius’ biography of Augustine. When compared to Augustine’s Retr., Possidius’ list contains several additions, most notably of Augustine’s works from the mid22 Augustine, Ep. 162,2: habes etiam in libro de religione, quae si recoleres atque perspiceres; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 513, l. 10–11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 57. 23 Augustine,

Ep. 169,IV,13: haec omnia si habere uolueris, aliquem mitte, qui tibi cuncta describat: “If you want to have all these [aforementioned works], send someone to copy all of them for you”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 23–24; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 113. 24 Augustine, Retr. II,41: in opusculorum meorum indiculo: “in the index of my works”; ed. by A. Mutzenbecher (CCSL, 57), p. 123, l. 10; trans. R. Teske, Revisions, p. 147.

180

chapter v

420s onwards, and a selection of his epistles and sermons. Because of several mistakes in the Indiculum, Hermanowicz believes the additions were not made by Possidius himself, but by someone else.25 Thus, there were at least three and perhaps four different lists of books by Augustine. The first index (1) listed all of Augustine’s works up until the early 420s. Augustine consulted this list when he prepared his Retr., which is itself a second index (2). The first index then underwent a subsequent redaction (3), which is either identical to the Indiculum of Possidius, or which underwent another redaction (4) before being appended to Possidus’ biography of Augustine. The Retr. and Possidius’ Indiculum are structured differently. In his Retr., Augustine offers a chronological overview of his works. The Indiculum, however, follows a different logic; in this overview, Augustine’s writings are first categorized according to polemical content: against pagans, against Jews, against Manichaeans, etc. And within these categories, the works are arranged by books, letters, and sermons.26 Augustine did not list his works according to genre or polemical context in the Retr. Nevertheless, he did reflect on the contents of his works. The information supplied by the Retr. allows for a reconstruction of what Augustine considered to be his anti-Manichaean works. Augustine explicitly states that the following works were written against the Manichaeans: Mor. eccl. cath., Mor. Man., 27 Lib. arb.,28 Gn. adu. Man., Vera rel.,29 Vtil.

25  E. T.

Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, pp. 57–60.

26 See

E. T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, pp. 58–59, who cites F. Dolbeau, “La survie des œuvres d’Augustin”, pp. 7–9. 27 On the question whether Mor. eccl. cath. and Mor. Man. ought to be considered two parts of one work, or two separate works, see J. K. Coyle, Augustine’s “De moribus ecclesiae catholicae”, p. 68. 28 Augustine, Retr. I,9,4: sed contra Manichaeos conscripti sunt de libero arbitrio: “… but these books on free choice were [written] against the Manichaeans”; ed. by A. Mutzenbecher (CCSL, 57), p. 26, l. 103–04; trans. R. Teske, Revisions, p. 48. 29 Augustine, Retr. I,13,1: maxime tamen contra duas naturas Manichaeorum liber hic loquitur: “Yet this book speaks in particular against the two natures of the Manichaeans”; ed. by A. Mutzenbecher (CCSL, 57), p. 36, l. 8–9; trans. R. Teske, Revisions, p. 58.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

181

cred., 30 Duab. an., C. Fort., C. Adim., C. ep. fund., C. Faust., C. Fel., Nat. b., and C. Sec. The final work of this list, C. Sec., can be dated to 405. Of these works, Lib. arb., Vera rel., are perhaps less overtly anti-Manichaean than the other aforementioned writings. Vtil. cred., on the other hand, is an admonition to a Manichaean friend rather than a typically polemical work. The anti-Manichaean works of the Indiculum coincide almost entirely with Augustine’s overview of his anti-Manichaean treatises. The list of Possidius, however, somewhat alters the order in which these works are presented and adds five of Augustine’s sermons: sermons 1, 50, 12, and two unidentified sermons. 31 Augustine’s overview also contains several quaestiones of Diu. qu. The Epistula ad Honoratum mentioned by Possidius is very likely Augustine’s Vtil. cred. and not Augustine’s Gr. t. nou. (= Ep. 140), as the Maurists once held, nor his Ep. 79, as Wilmart suggests. 32 Possidius’ list does not consider Vera rel. an anti-Manichaean work, including it instead among Augustine’s treatises against the pagans. The following table includes all the works considered 30 Augustine, Retr. I,14,1: Iam uero apud Hipponem Regium presbyter scripsi librum De utilitate credendi ad amicum meum, quem deceptum a Manichaeis adhuc eo errore noueram detineri: “When I was now a presbyter at Hippo Regius I wrote a book on the advantage of believing to a friend of mine who had been deceived by the Manichaeans. I knew that he was still being held captive by that error”; ed. by A. Mutzenbecher (CCSL, 57), p. 41, l. 2–4; trans. R. Teske, Revisions, 63. 31 For the list of anti-Manichaean works, see A. Wilmart (ed.), “Operum S. Augustini elenchus”, pp. 165–67. For the five anti-Manichaean sermons in particular, see ibid., p. 167: Tractatus aduersus memoratos (“sermons against the aforementioned”): - 29. De ‘In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram’, et ‘In principio erat Verbum’ [= S.1]. - 30. Ex eo quod in Aggeo propheta scriptum est: ‘Meum est aurum, et meum est argentum’, contra quos supra [= S. 50]. - 31. De die domini secundum Sophoniam prophetam contra quos supra. - 32. De sacrificiis spiritalibus contra quos supra. - 33. Ex eo quod in Iob scriptum est: ‘Venerunt Angeli in conspectu Dei’, et ‘diabolus in medio eorum’, et ex euangelio: ‘Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum uidebunt’, contra quos supra [= S. 12]. 32  Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi operum tomus decimus, app., col. 283: Ep. 140; A. Wilmart, “Operum S. Augustini elenchus”, p. 210: “ep. 79?”.

182

chapter v

anti-Manichaean by Augustine’s Retr. and Possidius’ Indiculum. Titles in bold font only appear in one list: Augustine, Retr.

Possidius, Indiculum

Mor. eccl. cath. et Mor. Man.

Mor. eccl. cath. et Mor. Man.

Lib. arb.

Duab. an.

Gn. adu. Man.

Lib. arb.

Vera rel.

C. Fort.

Vtil. cred.

Gn. adu. Man.

Duab. an.

C. ep. fund.

C. Fort.

C. Adim.

C. Adim.

Diu. qu. (Qu. 6, 10, 14, 21, 22, 24, 25, 40, 43, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 73)

C. ep. fund.

C. Sec.

C. Faust.

C. Fel.

C. Fel.

Nat. b.

Nat. b.

C. Faust.

C. Sec.

Ep. ad Honoratum (= Vtil. cred.)

/

S. 1

/

S. 50 S. de sacrificiis spiritualibus

/ /

S. de die domini secundum Sophoniam prophetam

/

S. 12

Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, according to the Retr. and the Indiculum

3.2. Explicitly anti-Manichaean Works A comparison of Adu. Man. with the aforementioned works reveals that Evodius was influenced by many, but not all, of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings. 33 He very likely consulted Mor. eccl. cath., Mor. Man., Vera rel., C. Fort., C. Adim., C. ep. fund., C. Faust., C. Fel., Nat. b., and C. Sec. There are many clear parallels between these works and Adu. Man. From Mor. eccl. cath.,

33  See

appendix II.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

183

many short phrases found their way into Evodius’ treatise;34 the same is the case for Mor. Man. 35 Vera rel. was discussed in the previous subchapter. C. Fort. significantly influenced Adu. Man., as is evident from Evodius’ use of the Nebridian conundrum, which exhibits striking similarities to Augustine’s use of the same argument during this debate. 36 From C. Adim., Evodius likely found many parallels between the Old Testament and the New Testament. 37 Some of the arguments in Adu. Man. seem to rely on C. ep. fund. in particular. 38 C. Faust. had a considerable influence on Adu. Man. Not surprisingly, considering the size of the work (over 33 books, and around 550 pages in the CSEL edition of Zycha), C. Faust. supplies the most parallels of any of Augustine’s works to Adu. Man. 39 Adu. Man. also has many similarities with C. Fel., Nat. b., and (to a lesser extent) with C. Sec. Evodius took inspiration from C. Fel. for the biblical, apocryphal, and Manichaean citations in Adu. Man.’s chapter 5.40 The citations of Manichaean texts in chapters 11 and 14–16 are very clearly inspired by Augustine’s

34 See, for example, Adu. Man. 37,2–3: Rabide enim ferimini in id quod scriptum est. Cf. Augustine, Mor. eccl. cath. I,1: in legem quod uetus testamentum uocatur, imperite atque impie feruntur; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 3, l. 3–4; Augustine, Mor. eccl. cath. XXIII,42: in quod illi rabide saeuiunt; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 47, l. 5. 35 See Adu. Man. 24,10: solem istum cui genu flectunt. Cf. Augustine, Mor. Man. VIII,13: Sol iste cui genu flectitis; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 99, l. 15. 36  On Augustine’s use of the Nebridian conundrum during this debate, see J. D. BeDuhn, “Did Augustine Win His Debate with Fortunatus?”. Note also the parallel in phrasing in Adu. Man. 49,27: et inuiolatam dei substantiam uiolauit, and Augustine, C. Fort. 11: substantia dei uiolatur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 89, l. 22. 37 See Adu. Man. 37,4: et deus zelans [Ex 20:5] et ignis edax [Dt 4:24]. Cf. Augustine, C. Adim. 13: addidit etiam dicens: deus uester ignis est edax et deus zelans; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 144, l. 12–13. 38 See Adu. Man. 48,4–5: Non enim deus in parte maior, in parte minor est; cf. Augustine, C. ep. fund. 15: nec in parte minorem et in parte maiorem, sed per omnia aequalem summo patri; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 212, l. 26–27. 39  Chapter

Adu. Man.

IV, n. 49–50, discusses a passage from C. Faust. that influenced

40  Adu. Man. 5,3–15; cf. Augustine, C. Fel. II,4–6; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 831, l. 26-p. 833, l. 17.

184

chapter v

citations in Nat. b. 42 and 44.41 Finally, some military metaphors in C. Sec. also occur in Adu. Man. 42 By contrast, the works Lib. arb., Vtil. cred., and Duab. an. do not seem to have influenced Adu. Man. Similarities between these works and Adu. Man. are relatively few. Ideas that appear in them and in Adu. Man. are often commonplaces of anti-Manichaean literature, and when there are parallels with other works of Augustine, the phrasing of Adu. Man. is more reminiscent of those other works. The central themes of these three writings all recur in other anti-Manichaean texts. For Lib. arb., the central question concerns the origin of evil and its relationship to human free will. On this topic, Adu. Man. more closely follows the arguments of C. Fort. and Nat. b. In Vtil. cred., Augustine discusses several ways in which Scripture, in particular the Old Testament (which the Manichaeans rejected), should be interpreted. Augustine also addresses this topic in C. Adim. and C. Faust. The treatise Duab. an. concerns the Manichaean doctrine of two souls. This rather unique doctrine does not appear in Adu. Man. 43 Instead, whenever Evodius discusses dualism, he speaks of the Manichaean doctrine of two natures, never of two souls. It is more difficult to assess whether Gn. adu. Man. was consulted by Evodius. In Gn. adu. Man., Augustine sought to interpret the two creation narratives of Genesis in response to the Manichaeans’ rejection of these biblical stories. Augustine’s allegorical exegesis of Genesis is not a theme that can be found in Adu. Man. Instead, whenever Evodius addresses the Old Testament in general or Gen41 Augustine,

Nat. b. 42; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 877, l. 17–26. Augustine, Nat. b. 44, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 881, l. 21-p. 884, l. 2. Adu. Man. 3,10–12: Non enim quia imperator in sua potestate magnus est et mediastrinus in operatione sua contemptibilis est, ideo mediastrinus non erit homo, quia homo est imperator?; cf. Augustine, C. Sec. 10: an ordine potestatis, ut imperator milite aut prouinciali; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 920, l. 12–13. Adu. Man. 24,14–16: Sicut corpus inuulnerabile aut impenetrabile : numquid illud dicimus quod non percutitur ferro, sed potius quod etiam cum percutitur non penetratur?; cf. Augustine, C. Sec. 9: Achillis corpus … inuulnerabile dictum est, quod etiam tela cum ingruerent, non penetrabatur … sicut corpus, quod est inuulnerabile, nullius rei contactu aut impetu uulneratur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 918, l. 6–12. 42 

43 C. G. Scibona, “The Doctrine of the Soul in Manichaeism and Augustine”.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

185

esis in particular, his exegesis more closely resembles Augustine’s C. Adim. and C. Faust. Similarities in phrasing are quite generic. When Adu. Man. does resemble a passage from Gn. adu. Man., similar phrases can also be found in other anti-Manichaean works, which are more likely to have been consulted by Evodius. It seems that Evodius did not consult the works which the Indiculum adds to the overview of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean oeuvre. The quaestiones (of Diu. qu.) address several generic anti-Manichaean themes, which receive more elaborate analysis from Augustine in other treatises. These treatises more convincingly parallel the wording of Evodius. In addition, Adu. Man. contains a few similarities with some of the sermons of Augustine, but not with the ones identified as anti-Manichaean in the Indiculum. These observations suggest that Evodius did not consult the book list which Possidius appended to his biography of Augustine. This conclusion does not come as a surprise, since Possidius only began working on Augustine’s biography after the bishop of Hippo had passed away. A certain discrepancy in Evodius’ consultation of anti-Manichaean works is apparent: On the one hand, Evodius seems to know and have used most of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works. On the other hand, some works in this genre, such as the wellknown treatises Lib. arb. and Gn. adu. Man., were probably not consulted. What we know of Evodius’ career could perhaps resolve this discrepancy. Ever since he befriended Augustine, Evodius was a close companion to the future bishop of Hippo. Evodius travelled with Augustine to Rome and Ostia before returning to North Africa and joining Augustine’s community of laypeople in Thagaste and Hippo. For the first decade after Augustine’s baptism, Evodius lived with Augustine. Given this amount of time spent in Augustine’s company, Evodius might have become acquainted with many of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean treatises from personal experience. His first-hand knowledge of Augustine’s works would have lasted until the years 395–401, when Evodius was ordained bishop of Uzalis. Thus, for all of the anti-Manichaean works that Augustine wrote after Evodius’ ordination, Evodius would have needed to ask Augustine, or consult a book list, in order to know which anti-Manichaean texts to ask for. Since he probably remembered some of Augustine’s earlier texts,

186

chapter v

he might have asked for a copy of only those early texts which he considered most helpful (Mor. eccl. cath., Mor. Man., C. Fort., and C. Adim.). For anti-Manichaean works written after Evodius’ move to Uzalis, he could not afford to be as selective. In any case, the very range of anti-Manichaean works Evodius had read is impressive and implies that he was well informed about the extent of Augustine’s literary productivity. 3.3. Implicitly anti-Manichaean Works Augustine’s influence on Adu. Man. does not end with his explicitly anti-Manichaean works. Evodius also seems to have consulted works with a more implicit or secondary anti-Manichaean message. These works are Agon. 44 and C. adu. leg. This latest work is of particular historical importance. Augustine’s last explicitly anti-Manichaean works, Nat. b. and C. Sec., were written in 405. The treatise C. adu. leg., however, is of a much later date, being written in 419–20. In the work, Augustine refutes an unknown adversary who rejected the Old Testament.45 Possible dependence on this work has significant implications for the date of Adu. Man. Evodius discusses the concordance between the Old and the New Testaments in Adu. Man. 37–39. An initial similarity with C. adu. leg. occurs in Adu. Man. 37, where Evodius cites a series of Old Testament and New Testament fragments. Parallels in wording or content in the Old Testament and the New Testament prove the unity of both corpora. One such comparison is between Gn 1:10 (uidit Deus quia bonum est) and Lk 7:9 (et miratus est Iesus). In this comparison, Evodius explains that God and Jesus are not amazed out of ignorance, but rather in approval of what happens. Augustine makes a similar point in C. adu. leg. I,7,10.46 In the same secfor example, the typology of Mary and Eve in Adu. Man. 23,5–6: ut quoniam per feminam mors facta est, per feminam uita recuperaretur; cf. Augustine, Agon. XXII,24: huc accedit magnum sacramentum, ut, quoniam per feminam nobis mors acciderat, uita nobis per feminam nasceretur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 125, l. 3–5. 44 See,

45 On

the religious affiliation of this adversary, see J. K. Coyle, “Revisiting the Adversary in Augustine’s Contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum”. 46 Augustine, C. adu. leg. I,7,10; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 49), pp. 42–43, l. 218–59.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

187

tion of Adu. Man. (37), Evodius posits a parallel between Lk 8:45 (quis me tetigit?) and Jn 11:34 (de Lazaro, ubi posuistis illum?). This combination is also utilised by Augustine in C. adu. leg. I,20,43.47 There, Augustine claims again that Jesus was not unknowing, but asked these questions as admonishments. Thirdly, Adu. Man.’s allusion to Mk 11:13 (Adu. Man. 37,30–31) is very similar, both in content and in phrasing, to the reference found in C. adu. leg. II,11,37.48 A fourth argument in favour of Adu. Man.’s dependence on C. adu. leg. is Augustine’s reference to the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Acts of John.49 This reference to Andrew as a main character of an apocryphal work is unique within Augustine’s oeuvre. In Adu. Man. 38, Evodius paraphrases two passages from the Acts of Andrew, which he attributes to Leucius.50 Adu. Man. 40 contains a short reference to a miracle from the Acts of John.51 As we will see below, Evodius did consult these apocryphal texts himself, and already found one apocryphal citation of Leucius in Augustine’s C. Fel. 52 The explicit presence of the names Andrew and John in C. adu. leg. may have encouraged Evodius to consult these texts for himself in order to highlight their questionable content. Although Augustine did not believe the adversary he was refuting in C. adu. leg. to be a Manichaean, the objective of

47 Augustine, C. adu. leg. I,20,43: ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 49), pp. 75–76, l. 1204–45. 48 Augustine, C. adu. leg. II,11,37: Christus autem arborem maledicto arefecit, quia nihil in ea pomorum, quorum nondum erat tempus, inuenit; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 128, l. 1222–23; cf. Adu. Man. 37,30–31: Aut quod arborem in qua fructus, quia non erat tempus, non inuenit, uerbo aridam fecit. Daur’s biblical reference [Mt 21:19] is somewhat inaccurate. The detail quorum nondum erat tempus alludes specifically to Mark’s narrative of Jesus cursing the fig tree, not Matthew’s. 49 Augustine, C. adu. leg. I,20,39: Sane de apocryphis iste posuit testimonia, quae sub nominibus apostolorum Andreae Iohannisque conscripta sunt; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 70, l. 1049–50. 50 

Adu. Man. 38,16–21: Adu. Man. 38,22–28. See subchapter 4.3.

Adu. Man. 40,22. See J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 305 and esp. E. Junod & J.-D. Kaestli (CCSA, 1–2), pp. 129–36. 51 

52  See J.-M. Prieur (CCSA, 5–6), pp. 25–26; Augustine, C. Fel. II,6; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 833, l. 12–17; cf. Adu. Man. 5,5–9. See also appendix II.

188

chapter v

the work is certainly similar to that of an anti-Manichaean work. Augustine himself mentions this similarity when he compares C. adu. leg. to his earlier refutations of the Manichaeans Adimantus and Faustus.53 In terms of content, it is not too surprising, then, that Evodius may have incorporated elements of this work into his own anti-Manichaean treatise, in particular in the section on the unity between the Old and New Testaments. Another work that deserves consideration is Augustine’s Conf., which afforded Augustine an opportunity to reflect on his life and to share with a broad audience his past as a Manichaean. In the Conf., Augustine emphasizes that he had parted from this religious movement. Some of the anti-Manichaean arguments of the Conf. also occur in Adu. Man. The arguments found in both the Conf. and Adu. Man., however, can also be found in other anti-Manichaean works from Augustine. Thus, the similarities between the two works are not compelling enough to assume that Evodius consulted the Conf. A similar story can be told for Augustine’s Ciu.,54 and for his entry concerning the Manichaeans in Haer. 46. Evodius’ account of the Manichaeans has a different focus than that of Haer. For Evodius that focus is mostly Christology and biblical exegesis, whereas Augustine also emphasizes many non-Christian elements of Manichaeism. Some information found in Haer., such as Augustine’s explanation of Mani’s name, is missing from Adu. Man. That Adu. Man. has so little in common with Haer. suggests that Evodius did not consult Augustine’s catalogue of heresies. This apparent unfamiliarity with Haer. may suggest, but does not prove, that Adu. Man. predates Augustine’s Haer., which was written in 428.

53 Augustine, C. adu. leg. II,12,41: Si autem recenseatis, quae contra Faustum Manichaeum scripsimus et contra Adimantum, qui Manichaei sectator cum ille uiueret fuisse iactatur, multa reperietis quae aduersus istum pariter ualeant: “If you review what we wrote against Faustus the Manichee and against Adimantus, who boasted that he was a follower of Mani, when Mani was still living, you will find many points that are equally valid against this fellow”; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 130, l. 1294–98; trans. R. Teske, Arianism and Other Heresies, p. 441. 54 For a discussion of all relevant anti-Manichaean passages of Ciu., see J.  van Oort, “Manichaeism in Augustine’s de civitate dei” and J. van Oort, “Reminiscences of Manichaeism in Augustine’s City of God”.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

189

Finally, Adu. Man. has some phrases and ideas in common with several of Augustine’s sermons, both in his collection Enarrationes in Psalmos and in his Sermones ad populum. Overall, however, these similarities remain rather superficial. Perhaps the most convincing similarities are found in En. Ps. 80 and especially in En. Ps. 140. In terms of date, the two En. Ps. are assumed to have been written between 403 and 411.55 If Evodius consulted these works, this dependence would again demonstrate that Evodius remained in touch with Augustine about the latter’s literary activity and, perhaps, his anti-Manichaean output in particular. In addition, this dependence would prove that Evodius not only studied Augustine’s major anti-Manichaean treatises, but also consulted Augustine’s homiletic material in preparation for his own anti-Manichaean compendium. 4. Other Sources 4.1. Latin anti-Manichaean Literature Although Augustine is the most famous anti-Manichaean polemicist of the Latin Christian world, he was not the first author to oppose Mani’s religion. Filastrius of Brescia dedicated a short section to the Manichaeans in his overview of heresies, the Diuersarum hereseon liber.56 The work does not seem to have inspired Adu. Man. The themes touched on by Filastrius are all discussed in greater detail in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean oeuvre. A second early anti-Manichaean work is Ad Iustinum Manichaeum, often attributed to Marius Victorinus but probably written by another fourth-century Catholic rhetorician.57 Similarities between this work and Adu. Man. are mostly superficial, but it is striking that the author of Ad Iustinum mentions the Acts of Andrew and Mani’s Thesaurus in his refutation of the Manichaeans.58 Both of these 55  See

H. Müller & M. Friedrowicz, “Enarrationes in Psalmos”, col. 824 for En. Ps. 140: “nicht vor 403” and ibid., col. 828 for En. Ps. 80, with hypotheses ranging from 403 to 411. 56 Filastrius, Diuersarum hereseon liber LXI,1–5; ed. by F. Heylen (CCSL, 9), pp. 242–43, l. 1–17. 57 P. Monceaux, 58 

Histoire littéraire, vol. 3, 399.

Ad Iustinum Manichaeum I: quod Manichaeus, et ut is Andreas actibus eloquitur, atque Thesauro reuelauit; ed. PL 8, 999.

190

chapter v

Manichaean works feature prominently in Adu. Man. Nevertheless, their appearance in Adu. Man. and in Ad Iustinum does not prove that Evodius consulted Ad Iustinum, since Augustine also mentions the Acts of Andrew and the Thes. in several of his works, such as C. Fel., Nat. b., and C. adu. leg. It is important to address the potential influence of Ambrose of Milan. After all, Evodius was likely baptized by Ambrose in Milan. In addition, Ambrose’s allegorical, Neoplatonic exegesis of Scripture inspired Augustine to leave Manichaeism for good. Augustine would receive baptism from the bishop of Milan soon afterwards.59 Ambrose’s anti-Manichaean teaching may have influenced Evodius as well as Augustine. Unfortunately, the references to Manichaeism in Ambrose’s corpus of written works are unsystematic.60 In fact, the rather incoherent manner in which Ambrose refuted Manichaeism led Ambrose’s eventual successor Simplician to reach out to Augustine, and not to Ambrose himself, for advice concerning the religious movement.61 It is difficult to discern any specific influence Ambrose would have exerted on Adu. Man., since most of Ambrose’s anti-Manichaean argument also returns in Augustine’s writings. Ambrose’s testimony on the Manichaeans does not strongly correspond to the contents of Adu. Man., with perhaps one exception. In his De fide ad Gratianum Augustum, Ambrose depicts a scene in which Christ condemns Mani or a Manichaean (the Latin Manichaeus is ambiguous) to punishment in hell: “Now let the Manichaean have his word: ‘I hold that the devil is the creator of our flesh.’ The Lord will answer him: ‘What, then, are you doing in the heavenly places? Depart, go your way to your creator. My will is that they be with Me, whom my Father has given Me. You, Manichaean, hold that you are a creature of the devil; hasten, then, to his abode, the place of fire and brim-

59 On the topic of Augustine’s conversion from Manichaeism to Catholicism, see J. Ries, “La conversion de saint Augustin”. 60 This presentation of Ambrose’s references to Manichaeism is indebted to H. G. Schipper & J. van Oort, Sancti Leonis magni romani pontificis sermones et epistulae, p. 11. See also F. de Capitani, “Studi su sant’Ambrogio e i manichei”. 61  J. D.

BeDuhn, Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma 2, pp. 274–75.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

191

stone, where his fire is not quenched, lest ever the punishment have an end.’”62

This passage resembles the end of Adu. Man.’s chapter 33. There, Evodius chastises the Manichaeans’ docetism. Like Ambrose, he employs a fictitious dialogue. If the Manichaeans believe that it was not Christ, but the prince of darkness (as the body of Christ), who suffered on the cross, then the Manichaeans should not expect to be liberated by Christ, but by the prince of darkness.63 The resemblance could mean that Evodius remembered a rough sketch of the argument that Ambrose employed in De fide ad Gratianum Augustum and that he may even have taught to Evodius. This possible resemblance seems to be, at most, the extent of Ambrose’s influence on Adu. Man. To conclude, it seems that Evodius did not feel compelled to consult the earlier Latin anti-Manichaean authors. 4.2. Greek Sources Evodius may have consulted Greek sources while composing Adu. Man. His use of the term ingenitus in the early chapters of Adu. Man. 64 seems to correspond to the Greek term ἀγένητος (unbegotten) rather than to the usual meaning of the Latin ingenitus (innate). Among Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, the word ingenitus is used in C. Fel. and Nat. b. In Nat. b., the term is part of a citation of the Manichaean Thesaurus and clearly means “innate”.65 On the other hand, during the debate with Felix, Augustine asks whether the Manichaeans believe that the kingdom 62 Ambrosius, De fide II,13,119: Dicat et Manichaeus: ‘Ego auctorem carnis nostrae diabolum credo.’ – Respondebit ei: ‘Ergo quid facis in caelestibus? Vade ad auctorem tuum! Ego eos uolo esse mecum quos dedit mihi pater. Tu te a diabolo, Manichaee, creatum arbitraris; ad illius ergo festina sedem, ubi ignis et sulphur, ubi non restinguitur eius incendium, ne umquam poena moriatur’; ed. by O.  Faller (CSEL, 78), p. 99, l. 46–52; trans. H. De Romestin, St Ambrose, p. 239 [with modifications]. 63 

Adu. Man. 33,10–12.

64  Sc.

in Adu. Man. 2,2–3; 3,2–4; 3,8–9.

65 Augustine,

Nat. b. 44: propter ingenitam sibi letalem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam: “on account of their innate, lethal, and most foul concupiscence”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 882, l. 9–11; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 341. Cf. Adu. Man. 14,12; S. Clackson, E. Hunter & S. N. C. Lieu, Dictionary of Manichaean Texts 1, p. 204.

192

chapter v

of light consists in emanations of God, which are unbegotten and equal in nature to God’s substance. Felix confirms that this is the case. Here, the term ingenitus is likewise used to signify “unbegotten”, but in the context of C. Fel., the term only applies to the Manichaean doctrine of God and his emanations. Evodius, on the other hand, uses the term to describe Mani’s teachings about darkness. In this regard, the term ingenitus corresponds more to the manner in which Greek anti-Manichaean polemicists employed the term ἀγένητος.66 Evodius also mentions several Manichaean doctrines or terms which are not otherwise attested in the Latin world. These two terms are the “third messenger” or “third ambassador” (tertius legatus; Adu. Man. 17,6) and Mani’s “twin” (geminus; Adu. Man. 24,3–7). The third messenger is an important deity in the Manichaean system.67 Mani’s twin is another figure central to Manichaean teaching. Mani is believed to have received revelations from his divine twin. This twin is often identified with the Holy Spirit or Paraclete.68 In the Roman Empire, the two terms have been preserved in both Coptic and Greek texts. The Coptic sources are all Manichaean documents.69 This attestation implies that Evodius’ terminology reflects an authentic Manichaean doctrine. Within the Greek corpus, the term “third messenger” (ὁ πρεσβύτης ὁ τρίτος) is found in the anti-Manichaean text Acta Archelai, and in Epiphanius’ discussion of the Manichaeans in his Panarion (which reproduces the passage from the Acta Archelai). The term “twin” (σύζυγος) is not attested in any Greek polemical source, but it does frequently occur in the Cologne Mani Codex and in Manichaean psalms preserved in Coptic. The Cologne Mani 66  See

the overview in S. Clackson, E. Hunter & S. N. C. Lieu, Dictionary of Manichaean Texts 1, p. 28 and the comparative material in P.-H. Poirier & T. Pettipiece, Biblical and Manichaean Citations, pp. 143–44, n. 2. 67 On the role of the third messenger in the Manichaean myth, see, for example, I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, pp. 15–16. 68 See I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, pp. 5.10–11. 69 For the term “third messenger”, see S. Clackson, E. Hunter & S. N. C. Lieu, Dictionary of Manichaean Texts 1, pp. 80.101.26.76. For the term “twin”, see ibid., p. 170.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

193

Codex contains a biography of Mani. A similar Manichaean text has not been discovered elsewhere. Two conclusions can be inferred from this evidence. First, Evodius knew Manichaean doctrines that are not attested in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean oeuvre. Evodius’ knowledge of these doctrines must have come from other sources. Second, those sources may have been a Greek polemical text – both the Acta Archelai and Epiphanius’ Panarion refer to the “third messenger” – or a Manichaean text. In sum, it is likely that Evodius consulted at least one Greek polemical source. In this source, he found a particular use of the term ἀγένητος, which he translates as ingenitus. If this source was either the Acta Archelai or the Panarion of Epiphanius, then Evodius would have also found in that source a reference to the “third messenger”. Both the Acta Archelai and the Panarion were known in the Latin West. For example, Filastrius of Brescia, in his refutation of the Manichaeans, refers to the account of Archelaus.70 In North Africa, Augustine mentions that he has a Greek text of Epiphanius’ Panarion in Hippo. Augustine refers to this text in his correspondence with Quodvultdeus in 428. When Quodvultdeus asks the bishop of Hippo to compile a list of heresies, Augustine first suggests that Quodvultdeus read Filastrius’ catalogue of heresies, or rather, that he have someone in Carthage translate Epiphanius’ text into Latin. Unwilling or unable to do so, Quodvultdeus insists that Augustine compile an overview of all heresies himself.71 Jerome’s De uiris illustribus mentions the anti-Manichaean works of Archelaus (Acta Archelai), Serapion of

70 Filastrius,

Diuersarum hereseon liber LXI,4: Qui ab Archelao sancto episcopo in disputatione superati, abiecti atque notati, manifestati sunt uniuersis in illo tempore; ed. by F. Heylen (CCSL, 9), p. 243, l. 11–13. 71 Augustine, Ep. 222,2: Vide ergo, ne forte librum sancti Epiphanii tibi mittere debeam; ipsum enim arbitror Filastrio doctius hinc locutum. Qui possit apud Carthaginem in Latinam linguam uerti facilius atque commodius, ut tu potius praestes nobis, quod quaeris a nobis: “Consider, then, whether I ought not to send you the book of the saintly Epiphanius; after all, I think that he spoke with more learning than Philaster. It could be more easily and suitably translated into Latin at Carthage, and thus you might instead present to us what you are asking from us”; ed. by R. Vander Plaetse, C. Beukers (CCSL, 46), p. 277, l. 28–32; trans. R. Teske, Letters (211–70) (1*-29*), p. 82.

194

chapter v

Thmuis, and Titus of Bostra.72 Even if Evodius did consult the Acta Archelai or Epiphanius’ Panarion, he must have found the notion of Mani’s twin in a Manichaean source. Evodius himself attests that he has read Mani’s Ep. fund. and Thes., and it is not unlikely that Mani referred to the origin of his revelations (his “twin”) in one of those two writings. In any case, the Manichaean sources Evodius consulted are likely to have contained details about Mani’s life. It is also possible that his two Manichaean sources, the Ep. fund. and Thes., refer to the “third messenger”.73 4.3. Apocryphal Literature Evodius notes that the Manichaeans accept some apocryphal texts as authoritative. On two occasions, he explicitly refers to Acts written by Leucius. Several apocryphal acts have been attributed to this author, including the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John.74 Evodius also alludes to content from these two apocryphal works. In Adu. Man. 38, he paraphrases two sections of the Acts of Andrew, while chapter 40 contains a brief allusion to a miracle which John performs in the Acts of John.75 Both works were originally written in Greek, though for the Acts of Andrew a Latin summary by Gregory of Tours has also been preserved. Gregory’s summary was probably based on a Latin translation of the entire Acts of Andrew, 76 but the summary does not contain the two passages to which Evodius refers. Although the possibility that Evodius consulted a Latin translation similar to the one Gregory used cannot be excluded, it is not necessary to posit dependence on a Latin versions since it appears that Evodius

72 Jerome, De uiris illustribus LXXII.XCIX.CII; ed. by E. Richardson, Hieronymus liber de viris inlustribus, p. 40, l. 10–16; p. 47, l. 22–27; p. 48, l. 23–26. 73  Evodius

mentions the “third messenger” in commenting on the Thes. In addition, the “third messenger” could have been attested in the Ep. fund. See E.  Moiseeva, “The Old Testament in Fourth-Century Christian-Manichaean Polemic”, p. 281. 74 On the authorship of Leucius, see J. K. Coyle, “Biblical Pseudepigrapha”, pp. 83–84. 75  See

E. Junod & J.-D. Kaestli (CCSA, 1–2), pp. 129–36.

76 J.-M. Prieur

(CCSA, 5–6), p. 8.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

195

was capable of reading Greek. A comparison between the Acts of Andrew and Adu. Man. 38 demonstrates that Evodius does not give precise citations but instead summarizes the two passages in question. Several of Evodius’ phrases, however, accurately reflect the original wording. A fourth fragment of one of Leucius’ acts is cited in Adu. Man. 5. In this instance, Evodius was probably inspired by Augustine’s C. Fel. As Evodius would later do in Adu. Man., Augustine cites from this text in order to prove that even the texts which the Manichaeans accept contradict Manichaean doctrine. It is not certain to which specific Acts this citation belongs, though scholars generally agree that it is either from the Acts of John or, more probably, the Acts of Andrew.77 Evodius had read both. Interestingly, his citation is not entirely identical to Augustine’s: Adu. Man. 5,6–9: Etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio uisibilium ne quidem ex propria natura procedit, sed ex eo homine qui per se ipsum deterior effectus est per seductionem.78 C. Fel. II,6: etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio uisibilium nec quidem ex propria natura procedunt, sed ex eo homine, qui per se ipsum deterior factus est per seductionem.79

Evodius’ citation differs in two regards from Augustine’s earlier citation. First, where Augustine has nec quidem, Evodius’ version reads ne quidem. Second, Evodius has effectus est instead of Augustine’s factus est. How to interpret these two differences? In any case, it is clear that Evodius imitates Augustine here. Three hypotheses present themselves. (1) It could be the case that Evodius’ readings ne quidem and effectus constitute two mistakes. Evodius may have misquoted the fragment he found in C. Fel., or Evodius’ copy of C. Fel. may have already contained these mistakes. This first hypothesis assumes that Augustine’s version is more correct than Evodius’ version. (2) Alternatively, Evodius

77 J.-M. Prieur

(CCSA, 5–6), pp. 25–26. Prieur also refers to the study of E. Junod & J.-D. Kaestli, L’histoire des Actes apocryphes des apôtres, p. 65. 78 “Surely,

fair inventions and a disingenuous showing and a coercion of visible things do not, in fact, proceed from their own nature, but from that man who of his own will has become worse through seduction”. 79  Ed.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 833, l. 13–17.

196

chapter v

may have corrected Augustine’s version, perhaps in accordance with a Greek copy of the Acts.80 (3) A third hypothesis is also possible. Evodius’ citation differs from the text of C. Fel. as presented in the modern critical edition. Its editor, Zycha, only consulted four manuscripts of the work. He did not consult the oldest textual witness of C. Fel., an eleventh-century manuscript of Montecassino. The Montecassino manuscript contains both the readings nequidem and effectus est, just as Evodius’ citation does.81 The Montecassino manuscript could then represent one of two or more branches of C. Fel.’s transmission, a second branch perhaps being represented by Zycha’s four manuscripts.82 The citation of Evodius would then correspond to the branch represented by the Montecassino manuscript. The following question then presents itself: When might C. Fel. have begun to circulate in two branches? Since the entirety of the textual transmission of C. Fel. has yet to be studied, only a provisional answer can be given to this question. The branch represented by Zycha’s witnesses may have introduced two errors in this fragment, which is more accurately cited in the Montecassino manuscript, to which the reading of Adu. Man. corresponds. Alternatively, the text of C. Fel. may have already circulated in two or more forms in Evodius’ time, and Evodius’ text may have been copied from an early predecessor of the Montecassino manuscript. In the case Zycha’s manuscripts of C. Fel. are erroneous, Evodius’ citation of this fragment would be identical to Augustine’s. Subsequently, Evodius would not have corrected the Latin citation. His allusions to, or summaries of, narratives from both the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John suggest that Evodius had access to the fragment he cites in Adu. Man. 5 in one of these two 80  The variant ne quidem could have better reflected a Greek combination of particles, such as οὐδέ or μηδέ. The construction effectus est, in turn, could have been used to more accurately express the resultative aspect of the perfect tense in Greek. 81 Montecassino, Biblioteca dell’abbazia, 15, p. 357. On this manuscript, see M. Oberleitner, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung I/2, p. 37. According to the critical apparatus of Zycha, none of the manuscripts he consulted contain the readings nequidem or effectus. 82 I.e. Paris, BnF, lat. 2083; Paris, BnF, lat. 2093; Troyes, bm, 40/2; Troyes, bm, 201.

the sources of

a dversvs ma nicha eos

197

writings. Yet he did not alter Augustine’s version of the fragment. This could mean that Evodius’ copy of the acts of Leucius contained the fragment in exactly the same wording as Augustine’s citation and was thus a Latin translation. Alternatively, Evodius could have simply decided that the Latin citation of C. Fel. adequately rendered the text of his Greek copy and did not require any correction. 5. Conclusion Evodius’ aim was to write a model of anti-Manichaean argumentation, a compendium of what he considered to be the most convincing arguments against the Manichaeans. He was quite methodological in his approach, relying on doctrinal and biblical arguments first and foremost. As we have seen, this approach does not mean that Evodius made no use of anti-Manichaean predecessors. On the contrary, he seems to have consulted a plethora of other sources, though he never refers to his ecclesiastical sources by name. This chapter has provided an overview of the sources Evodius consulted when preparing his treatise Adu. Man. The findings of this chapter harmonize with what is known about Evodius, the bishop of Uzalis. To sum up: The author may have been acquainted with Ambrose’s anti-Manichaean teachings; the author primarily relied on the writings of Augustine; the author exhibits intimate familiarity with most of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works and consulted several works which, while not explicitly intended as anti-Manichaean, nevertheless contain useful arguments against the dualistic movement (works such as Agon. and C. adu. leg.); the author may also have had access to sermons of Augustine; the author seems to have consulted at least one Greek polemical source; his knowledge of Manichaean terminology suggests that he also consulted a Manichaean source that has not been preserved in its entirety in the Latin world; finally, the author read the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John, possibly in their original Greek form; in the case of the citation that occurs in both Adu. Man. and in C. Fel., however, our author probably took the Latin citation directly from Augustine.

Chapter VI

The anti-Manichaean Theology of Evodius in Relation to Augustine’s Theology of Grace 1. Introduction Evodius’ theological argument in Adu. Man. is formulated in response to the Manichaean teachings he refutes. Evodius’ situation required him to refute the Manichaean-Christian dualistic worldview. According to that worldview, reality consists of two natures or kingdoms: a good kingdom of light, identified with God and his emanations, and an evil kingdom of darkness. The existence of these two natures or kingdoms underlies the entire Manichaean system, which thus views evil as a reality that has always existed separately from God. God did not create evil, but the Manichaean God does respond to the present commingling of good and evil natures and will overcome evil in the eschaton. Because the nature of evil is characterized by lust and violence, God cannot overcome evil by destroying it, since that would entail God also becoming destructive and evil. Instead, “the victory of light must be achieved non-violently, so to speak, by self-sacrifice”.1 Within the Manichaean system, it is futile to speculate about why evil exists, for it is simply a part of dualistic reality. The Catholic anti-Manichaean polemicists judged that such an opinion undermines belief in an omnipotent God. When refuting the Manichaeans, non-dualistic Christians would thus need to explain why and how evil originated, since it cannot be accepted as an independent reality. The origin of evil is therefore the subject matter of the first major section of Adu. Man. (1–10). Against Manichaean dualism, Evodius states that evil cannot be a nature. Only the omnipotent God stands at the origin of all reality. Hence, it is impossible that reality began as two natures. It is equally inconceivable that God created evil. The Manichaean assertion that reality began as

1  J. D.

BeDuhn, “The Leap of the Soul in Manichaeism”, p. 11.

200

chapter vi

two natures would mean that God allowed evil to exist and was thus neither all-powerful nor all-good. In a previous study, I examined with Anthony Dupont the treatise Adu. Man. with regard to Evodius’ position on topics such as evil, human free will, original sin, God’s justice, and grace.2 That preliminary study was part of a broader investigation of the context of Augustine’s thinking on original sin, which especially considers the question whether Augustine’s understanding of original sin is rooted in North African Christian thought. 3 The preliminary study, which did not have at its disposal either a secure dating for the treatise Adu. Man. or an assessment of whether Evodius knew Augustine’s fully developed anti-Pelagian thinking on original sin, concluded that Evodius’ thought resembles that of Augustine’s Pelagian opponents, “who rejected the notion of original sin based on their belief in a just God and in the ethical capacities and moral liberty of humanity”.4 The present chapter re-evaluates Evodius’ anti-Manichaean theology, taking into account the authorship of Adu. Man. as well as its Augustinian sources. The study of Evodius’ life in chapter I demonstrated that Evodius was certainly aware of the theological tensions laid bare by the Pelagian controversies and actively participated in the anti-Pelagian campaigns. In addition, the overview of Evodius’ sources in chapter V places at our disposal a selection of relevant comparative material from Augustine’s anti-Manichaean output. Central questions addressed in the present chapter are thus: To what extent does Evodius’ Adu. Man. follow Augustine’s anti-Manichaean thinking on sin and free will, and to what extent does Evodius’ participation in the Pelagian controversies influence his stance on these same issues? At various stages, Evodius was involved in the disputes between the African bishops and Pelagius. He may have been the first of Augustine’s friends who clashed with Pelagius in Rome (404).5 Although Evodius did not participate in the councils and synods of the African bishops at which the ideas of Caelestius and Pela2 A. Vanspauwen 3  See

& A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”.

also A. Dupont, “Was There an Africitas Theologica?”.

4 A. Vanspauwen 5 Y.-M. Duval,

& A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”, p. 471.

“Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, pp. 127–28.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

201

gius were condemned, he would have been informed about the teachings of Pelagius through a network of friends and fellow bishops. In a letter written to Evodius in 414–15, Augustine refers to his own work Nat. et gr. and mentions Pelagius by name.6 The African bishops allied with Augustine likely exchanged views regarding Pelagius and Caelestius. By the time the African episcopate sought support from Rome for their condemnation of Pelagius’ and Caelestius’ teachings, Evodius’ name appears among the five authors of Ep. 177, addressed to Bishop Innocent I of Rome (416). The very presence of Evodius’ name among the other leading bishops of North Africa (Aurelius of Carthage, Alypius of Thagaste, Augustine of Hippo, and Possidius of Calama) points to Evodius’ prominence within the North African church and indicates that Evodius supported the condemnation of Pelagius’ teachings concerning free will, human nature, and grace. During the so-called semi-Pelagian controversies, a community of monks in Hadrumetum asked Evodius, a nearby bishop, for more clarification on the doctrines of original sin and grace. In the library at Uzalis, they had found Augustine’s Ep. 194, in which Augustine claimed that God grants grace gratuitously, that is, without any consideration of human merit. The community felt that this opinion undermined their ascetic lifestyle, arguing that if God does not take human merits in consideration, then what would be the purpose of the community’s ascetism?7 Evodius responded to Valentinus in his Ep. ad Val. (425). The collective Ep. 177 and Evodius’ Ep. ad Val. thus represent Evodius’ anti-Pelagian thinking. After a brief introduction to current research on the African character of Augustine’s views concerning grace and original sin, the present chapter examines Evodius’ position on human free will, God’s role in salvation history, and the question of original sin, focusing on the material found in Adu. Man. A  following sec-

6 Augustine,

Ep. 169,13: scripsi etiam grandem quendam librum aduersus Pelagii haeresim cogentibus nonnullis fratribus, quibus contra Christi opinionem perniciosam ille persuaserat: “I also wrote a large book against the heresy of Pelagius at the urging of some brothers whom he had convinced of a destructive opinion opposed to the grace of Christ”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 621, l. 20–23; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 113. 7 A. Dupont,

Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum, pp. 59–60.

202

chapter vi

tion then compares Evodius’ thought in Adu. Man. on these same topics with that of his African anti-Pelagian contemporaries. 2. Was There a pre-Augustinian African Theology of Original Sin? The question of whether Augustine’s theology was rooted in his African milieu is a very old one; Augustine himself confronted it during his life. Julian of Eclanum, who refused to condemn Pelagius’ teachings and defended the capabilities of the human will, considered Augustine’s views on grace and original sin to be a peculiarly African phenomenon, not part of orthodox Christian tradition.8 The supporters of Pelagius, especially Julian, considered Augustine’s position on the corruption of human nature a relic of his Manichaean past, and they frequently accused Augustine of Manichaeism.9 Current research on the African theology of Augustine focuses on the topics at stake in the Pelagian controversies, such as (infant) baptism, (original) sin, and grace. Augustine held that Adam’s sin was inherited by all of humanity. Since people are born in a sinful state, immediate infant baptism is necessary, so as not to risk death unbaptized. Even after baptism, people cannot overcome their inclination towards evil without the ongoing assistance of grace.10 There are, of course, more aspects to Augustine’s African identity, such as the cooperation between African bishops, the relationship between the African church and other churches (in particular that of Rome), or the conflicts between the Donatist and Catholic churches. Augustine was proud of his African ancestry, and he refers to African predecessors such as Tertullian and Cyprian. Similarly, he never claimed to have invented a new doctrine of original, hereditary sin. Instead, he considered himself in line with the Catholic tradition, whereas Pelagianism was, in his judgement, a novelty in Christian culture.11

8 M. Lamberigts, “The Italian Julian of Aeclanum about the African Augustine of Hippo”, p. 102. 9 See M. Lamberigts, “Pelagius and Pelagians”, pp. 270–71; P. Mattei, “Notes sur le Sermon CLIII”, pp. 263–65. See also chapter III, n. 184. 10 A. Dupont, 11  See

“Was There an Africitas Theologica?”, pp. 320–22.

also G. Malavasi, “Pelagianism as Novelty in Augustine of Hippo”.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

203

Since many of Augustine’s views on sin and grace were, albeit in nuce, already present among his African predecessors, it is unsurprising that his African contemporaries were sensitive to the same themes.12 This theological sensitivity was apparent in the preliminary study referred to above, which found similarities between the treatise Adu. Man. and Augustine’s thinking on the body, marriage, sin, and grace. Evodius, however, does not emphasize the fallen state of humanity to the extent that Augustine in his anti-Pelagian works does. The following section of the present chapter updates the analysis of the preliminary study on these points.13 3. Sin, the Will, and God’s Justice in Adu. Man. Throughout Adu. Man., Evodius frequently addresses evil and sin. In the Manichaean system, evil is a part of reality, as it has always been and always will be. When Evodius dismisses Mani’s dualistic cosmology, he has to address the question anew: what is the source of evil? For Evodius, evil and sin are the result of human free will. Evil is thus not a primordial principle in opposition to God (the principle of good), as the Manichaeans believe; neither is sin the natural condition of humanity. The latter would imply that human nature itself is responsible for the existence of evil. Against such views, Evodius argues that human free will renders people accountable for their sins. Evodius also contends that Manichaean dualism is not able to provide a satisfactory view on human salvation. Such dualism falls short for three reasons. First, Mani’s claim that evil is eternal is in conflict with Paul, who asserts that only God is immortal and eternal.14 Second, Evodius argues the Manichaean God is impotent. In its eternal struggle with evil, the Manichaean God is not able to overcome its

12  See also A. Dupont & H. Tamas, “Two Notes on pre-Augustinian Discussions on Free Will and Human Sinfulness”; A. Vanspauwen & A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”, pp. 460–61; A. Dupont, “Original Sin in Tertullian and Cyprian”. 13 A. Vanspauwen

69.

14 

& A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”, pp. 462–

Adu. Man.  2,4–6.

204

chapter vi

opposition.15 Third, the dualistic anthropology of the Manichaeans bypasses the question of moral responsibility. If we sin through our body, which is associated with evil, then our true self – our soul, which is associated with good – remains innocent of any charge.16 Regarding evil and sin Evodius argues that (1) humans are accountable for their sins because of their free will, and (2) the one God is omnipotent, both able and authorized to punish evil. 3.1. Free Will Evodius interprets the Manichaean system as deterministic, inasmuch as it accepts the existence of a principle of evil, and asserts that this principle of evil is a part of human nature. In response to this determinism, Evodius continuously emphasizes the role of free will, appealing to a citation from Paul (1 Tim 6:10): “But if someone asks what evil actually is, let him hear the Apostle saying, Desire is the root of all evil; in their pursuit of it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.”17

Cupiditas is identified here as the root of all evil. Evodius interprets this term in a broad sense as “desire”, and not as concupiscentia (“lust”) in particular. Afterwards, he explains that the participle appetentes (“in pursuit of”) used in this biblical citation implies that desire is not something we already possess. If desire were already part of our human nature, then there would have been no need for the apostle to refer to the pursuit of it. The Pauline contention proves that desire is not part of our human condition but exists in the strivings of our free will. Evodius corroborates this Pauline teaching by appealing to Mt 12:33 (“either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad”). Evodius often invokes the twin authorities of Paul and the Gospels in his argumentation. In this case, however, Evodius is very brief in his exegesis of Mt 12:33. He only states the following in his introduction to the citation: “For the Lord as well, showing what is in a person’s capability, 15 

Adu. Man.  12,13–15.

16 

Adu. Man.  42,3–5.

17 

Adu. Man. 4,1–3.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

205

says …”18 One is left to wonder what he precisely meant by this introductory statement. After all, the biblical image of the two trees was important to the Manichaeans, who interpreted the two trees as the two natures.19 In the debates with Augustine, the Manichaeans Fortunatus and Felix both refer to this symbolism in defence of their belief in two natures. Against these claims, Augustine offered an alternative exegesis of Mt 12:33. Evodius’ usage of this verse is indebted to Augustine’s exposition in C. Fel.: Augustine clarifies that Jesus’ statement does not prove the existence of two opposite natures, but instead presents a choice (aut … aut …: “either … or …”).20 Compared to Augustine’s exegesis of Mt 12:33, the brief statement of Evodius leaves a lot to be desired. After all, he explains neither how this passage corroborates the 18 

Adu. Man. 5,3–4.

19 Augustine,

C. Fort. 14: [Fort. dixit:] arbor, quam non plantauit pater meus caelestis, eradicabitur et in ignem mittetur, quae non afferet fructus bonos, et esse arborem radicatam: “The tree that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted (Mt 15:13), because it does not bear good fruit (Mt 3:10), and there is also the tree that he has planted”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 91, l. 12–15; trans R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 149. See also F. Decret & J. van Oort, Acta contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, pp. 58–60. Augustine, C. Fel. II,2: FEL. dixit: Manichaeus dicit duas esse naturas et modo inde culpatur, quia dixit duas esse, bonam et malam. Christus in euangelio duas dicit esse arbores: arbor bona numquam facit fructum malum, et arbor mala numquam facit fructum bonum. ecce duas naturas: “Felix says: ‘Mani says that there are two natures, and now he is blamed because he said that there are two, a good nature and a evil nature. In the gospel Christ says that there are two trees: The good tree never produces bad fruit, and the bad tree never produces good fruit (Mt 7:17). There you have two natures’”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 829, l. 13–17; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 299. 20 Augustine,

C. Fel. II,4: Audi ergo de libero arbitrio primo ipsum dominum, ubi duas arbores commemorat, quarum mentionem ipse fecisti, audi dicentem: aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum … hoc ergo dominus dicens ‘aut facite illud aut facite illud’ ostendit esse in potestate quid facerent: “Listen first, then, to the Lord himself concerning free choice, where he speaks of the two trees, of which you yourself made mention. Listen to him as he says, Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad (Mt 12:33) … And so, when the Lord said, ‘Either do this or do that,’ he showed that what they would do was in their power”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 831, l. 26-p. 832, l. 13; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 301. Cf. Adu. Man. 5,3–4: Nam et dominus ostendens quod in hominis potestate sit, ait: Aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum, aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum.

206

chapter vi

Pauline testimony cited earlier, nor why the two trees do not signify the two opposite natures. Because Evodius attributes evil to the misuse of free will, his theology has an important place for divine commandments. The rational soul can accept or reject these precepts; consequently we as humans are accountable for our sins because God has given us precepts and the ability to either follow or disobey them. Evodius’ view of humankind is, at first sight, optimistic. He claims that people are capable of good deeds through the proper use of their free will, without the intervention of any exterior motivation or compulsion.21 Moreover, Evodius speaks of the human bodily condition in positive terms. In his refutation of a passage from the Acts of Andrew, for example, Evodius endorses the conjugal duties of wife and husband. There, Maximilla adheres to the ascetic teachings of the apostle Andrew and abstains from all carnal relations with her husband Aegeates, much to his frustration. Evodius criticizes the abstinence of Maximilla as excessive and in conflict with Paul.22 Likewise, in a discussion of the resurrection, Evodius defends the resurrection of the flesh. His appreciation of the body is expressed through various Pauline metaphors, such as the church being the body or bride of Christ, and the body a temple of the Holy Spirit.23 3.2. God’s Justice In Adu. Man., Evodius’ views on God harmonize with the treatise’s anthropology. Free choice makes people accountable for their own actions and consequently for their sins. Positioning sin within the domain of human action and human free will opens up a specific role for God. God is primarily considered as a judge, who does not act unjustly.24 While Manichaeism also considers God a righteous judge, the Manichaean dualism, according to Evodius, renders the Manichaean God impotent and thus unqualified to punish evil. The relation between divine commandments, free will, the nature 21 

Adu. Man. 27,8–9.

Adu. Man. 38,15–28. Evodius cites 1 Cor 7:3: “Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife in like manner to her husband”. 22 

23 

Adu. Man. 40,6–21.

24 

Adu. Man. 7,6–7.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

207

of evil, and the justice of God is aptly summarized by Evodius at the end of his discussion of the origin of evil: “But what else is true, except that the Lord gives precepts, that souls possess a free will, that evil is not a nature but rather a turning aside from God’s precepts, and that it is by a righteous judgement that God condemns sinners?” 25

Paradoxically, this positive appreciation of human nature and moral capacity brings Evodius to a conceptualization of God as rather cold and distant. God is primarily seen as a judge who punishes rather than as a God who liberates. In opposition to Mani’s weak God, Evodius intends to present the Catholic God as almighty and invulnerable. Since Evodius attributes the existence of evil solely to the acts of people who, by their free will, oppose God’s precepts, it is God’s goodness and omnipotence that cooperate in God’s function as the ultimate judge. Strikingly, it is not Evodius but rather the Manichaeans who consider God a liberator. In Adu. Man., the terms liberator or saluator only appear in Manichaean citations.26 This is all the more striking considering the prevalence of these terms in Ep. 177, the anti-Pelagian letter co-authored by Evodius.27 The conceptualisation of God in Adu. Man. is determined by two complementary factors. First, Evodius’ treatise follows a deductive approach. The first chapter of Adu. Man. contains a confession of faith which sums up attributes of God. Throughout the treatise, Evodius remains consistent towards the premises of this first chapter, such as affirming

25 

Adu. Man. 10,4–7.

Adu. Man. 5,13–14: a suo liberatore. Here Evodius cites from Mani’s Thesaurus (M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 36–37). Likewise, a Manichaean citation in Adu. Man. 28,5 describes Christ as saluator. This second citation was taken from Mani’s Epistula fundamenti (M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 34–35). Note, however, that Evodius does use the verb liberare in some instances when referring to God (Adu. Man. 23,5; 33,11; 34,6). 26 See

27  Ep. 177,1: qui [sc. inimici gratiae] naturam humanam ideo dicunt liberam, ne quaerant liberatorem, ideo saluam, ut superfluum iudicent saluatorem: “They say that human nature is free so that they do not seek a deliverer to set it free; they say that human nature is saved so that they judge a saviour unnecessary”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 669, l. 10–11; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 142.

208

chapter vi

the goodness and omnipotence of God.28 Second, Evodius’ treatise is a refutation of Manichaean dualism. In Evodius’ view, the Manichaean system cannot guarantee that God is both good and omnipotent.29 3.3. To Sin or not to Sin With these preliminary notes regarding the roles of humanity and God in mind, it is necessary to consider whether or not the doctrine of original sin is present in Adu. Man. It certainly is not a central element of the treatise. Evodius speaks once of the “origin of the old sin” (origo ueteris peccati) 30 and in one other instance he uses the term “original sin” (peccatum originale). 31 In the first instance, Evodius had just denied that evil is a nature. People do sometimes speak of “natural evil”, but according to Evodius, this expression refers to the mortal state of humankind, which it inherited on account of Adam’s sin. Evodius does not specify that the whole of humankind participates in Adam’s sin. Earlier in the treatise, Evodius asserts that everyone is individually responsible for his or her own misdeeds. 32 Rather than seeing the sin(s) of future generations as the result of Adam’s sin, Evodius conceives of mortality as the continuing consequence of that sin. He uses the term “original sin” (peccatum originale) when he discusses the resurrection of the flesh. Here again, Evodius argues that the flesh is not inherently evil but is instead weak as a result of the original sin. Our mortality constitutes the punishment for the first sin. 33 The future resurrection will cleanse the flesh from the stain

Adu. Man. 1,1–9. This deductive approach was likely inspired by Augustine in his debate against Fortunatus (392). See J. D. BeDuhn, “Did Augustine win his Debate with Fortunatus?”, p. 470. 28 

29 In this regard, Evodius’ argumentation resembles the so-called “Nebridian conundrum”, which Augustine often employed in his anti-Manichaean works. See J. D. BeDuhn, “Did Augustine win his Debate with Fortunatus?”, pp. 466–67; V. H. Drecoll & M. Kudella, Augustin und der Manichäismus, pp. 159–66. 30 

Adu. Man. 9,4–5.

31 

Adu. Man. 40,9.

32 

Adu. Man. 8,7–8.

33 

Adu. Man. 40,18–20.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

209

of the original sin. Augustine also sees mortalitas and infirmitas as (penal) consequences of Adam’s sin but goes a step further by explaining that everyone shares the guilt of that first sin and, as a result, is prone to continue in sin. Thus, in Augustine’s anti-Pelagian thinking, which he had already formulated in De peccatorum meritis et remissione in 411, unaided free will cannot keep from sinning. 34 Evodius’ usage of the word gratia in the treatise is very peculiar. The word occurs three times, twice as part of the expression uerbi gratia (“for example”). Only once does it signify grace proper: “So, regarding what he says in another passage – For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh – he does not condemn the flesh, such that we would consider it an enemy, but rather admonishes us to subject it to ourselves, so that the flesh – like a wife – might serve the spirit in desiring and bringing forth good works. This he says cannot happen except by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”35

Evodius is discussing the resurrection of the body in this passage. Against the Manichaean deprecation of the body, the bishop of Uzalis cites biblical evidence describing the body in positive terms. 36 At the same time, he also feels pressured to address Pauline testimony where Paul seems to condemn the flesh, such as

34 E.g. Augustine, Pecc. mer. II,31: Quocirca quoniam quod a deo nos auertimus, nostrum est – et haec est uoluntas mala – quod uero ad deum nos conuertimus, nisi ipso excitante atque adiuuante non possumus – et haec est uoluntas bona – quid habemus quod non accepimus?: “Our turning away from God is our own doing, and this turning is an evil will. But our turning toward God is something we cannot do unless he rouses us and helps us, and this turning is a good will. Hence, what do we have that we have not received?”; ed. by C. Urba & J. Zycha (CSEL, 60), p. 102, l. 13–16; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians I, p. 100. See L. Karfíková, Grace and the Will, p. 180. 35  Adu. Man. 40,14–18. The phrase uerbi gratia is found in Adu. Man. 27,2; 35,3. 36 Over the course of the chapter, Evodius cites 1 Cor 6:15 (“do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?”), Eph 5:29 (“for no one ever hates his own flesh, but he nourishes and cherishes it like Christ cherishes the Church”) and 1 Cor 6:19 (“your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you”).

210

chapter vi

Gal 5:17. 37 Evodius rejects a dualistic interpretation of this verse. Thus, he explains, Paul had intended this verse to serve as an admonishment. Evodius also connects the verb concupere (“to desire”) with good works (bona opera). This is remarkable since he had earlier established that cupiditas (“desire”) is the root of evil. He suggests, then, that human will is capable of performing good deeds, but only when it is aided by divine grace. Such a position was in line with Evodius’ African contemporaries. Nevertheless, it remains remarkable that this is the only instance where Evodius uses the term gratia. Also of note is that his phrasing is from Rom 7:25 (gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum), a biblical verse often cited in anti-Pelagian literature. Evodius does not really clarify how Christ brings about divine grace. He primarily considers Christ a moral teacher. By assuming human nature, he became an exemplum. 38 In the treatise, there is an uncanny balance between belief in the human capacity to choose either evil or good and the relative lack of hope in divine grace. The sacrament of baptism, 39 an essential element of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and grace, is not mentioned at all in Adu. Man. Evodius rarely refers to Adam in Adu. Man., and the typology Adam-Christ (“Adam brought sin, Christ removed sin”) is almost completely absent from the treatise.40 Evodius does mention the analogous Eve-Mary typology, yet in this section he again underlines that it is not Eve’s female nature that is to blame (culpandam), but rather her will.41 In conclusion, although Evodius manages to draw a consistent picture of a good and almighty God, who can overcome evil in this world, he does not give an adequate answer to the question 37 

Cf. Augustine, C. Fort. 21, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 103, l. 15–16, where the Manichaean Fortunatus cites the verse in defence of his position. Adu. Man. 26,1–5. For the identification of Christ as exemplum, see Adu. Man. 21,8–9; 25,5. 38 

39 Augustine,

An. et or. I,10; ed. by C. Urba, J. Zycha (CSEL, 60), p. 310, l. 19-p. 311, l. 9. See G. Bonner, “Baptismus paruulorum”, col. 592. 40 Note

the opposition between humilitas and patientia versus elatio and superbia in Adu. Man. 21,9–12. Whereas Christ gives the example of patientia, Adam is characterized by the vice of superbia. 41 

Adu. Man. 23,4–8.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

211

of whether this God will actually save people, perhaps because such an intervening salvation would bypass freedom of choice. The God of Evodius’ Adu. Man. is an all-powerful and infallible judge, but this God hardly seems to be a caring God who wants to save humanity through his love.42 Having assessed the anti-Manichaean theology of Evodius, we turn in the following section to Adu. Man.’s anti-Pelagian context. 4. Anti-Manichaean Theology in an anti-Pelagian Context At first sight, Evodius does not seem concerned with the notions of original sin, grace, and baptism as formulated by the African church during the Pelagian controversies. Many important elements of African thinking on original sin are absent from Adu. Man. Evodius scarcely refers to the concepts of original sin and grace; he does not mention baptism at all; and neither does he focus on Adam’s sin, or the manner in which Christ removes it. Evidently, the polemical context of Adu. Man. determines Evodius’ selection and presentation of theological doctrines. Those doctrines resemble Augustine’s anti-Manichaean thinking, which emphasizes the autonomy of human free will. Nevertheless, the very presence of the term peccatum originale in the treatise is telling. Throughout his anti-Manichaean writings, Augustine never employs the term, even if he does discuss related concepts, such as the inheritance of Adam’s sin in C. Fel. 43 In comparison with Augustine’s anti-Manichaean treatises, Evodius appears less optimistic in his anthropology. Perhaps 42  In fact, the terminology of divine love is very scarce in the treatise: the word caritas does not appear in the work; dilectio only appears as divine love in the verb diligit, expressing the relation between the Father and the Son (Adu. Man. 26,6–8, citing Jn 10:17); and the word amor appears twice, but not to express God’s love: Adu. Man. 5,16 cites Mani’s Epistula fundamenti, fr. 8 (M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 36); Adu. Man. 37,22 mentions human amore iustitiae (“love for justice”). 43 Augustine, C. Fel. II,11: quia enim Adam peccauerat et omnis illa massa et propago peccati maledicta erat, dominus autem carnem de ipsa massa suscipere uoluit, ut suscipiendo mortalitatem. quae de poena uenerat, solueret mortem, quod de gratia ueniebat: “For Adam had sinned and all that mass and progeny of sin was cursed. But the Lord chose to take up flesh from that mass in order that by taking up mortality, which had come from punishment, he might bring about the destruction of death, which comes from grace”; ed. by

212

chapter vi

Augustine’s anti-Pelagian views had some influence on Evodius’ Adu. Man. 44 Likewise, perhaps Evodius’ use of Rom 7:25, a popular verse in anti-Pelagian polemic, also betrays some sensitivity to the Pelagian controversies: Whereas Evodius rarely references the typically anti-Pelagian doctrine of grace in Adu. Man., his most explicit reference occurs, in the phrasing of Rom 7:25, right when Evodius had immediately before linked cupiditas to the possibility to carry out good deeds. Perhaps this unique reference to grace indicates that Evodius was at least wary not to sound too ‘Pelagian’ in his anti-Manichaean argument. The following sections discuss in which manner Evodius’ Adu. Man. can be interpreted as less optimistic than Augustine’s typical anti-Manichaean writings, and in which manner his argumentation may bear witness to anti-Pelagian sensitivities. 4.1. The Limits of Human Capacity When Evodius argues that people can choose good or evil, he focuses primarily on the latter option. After all, the polemical context required first and foremost that he refute the Manichaean view of evil. His statements on whether people can achieve the good remain somewhat ambiguous. This ambiguity becomes especially apparent in comparison to Augustine’s C. Fel. Whereas Evodius only wanted to corroborate the statement that man has free will, Augustine further explored the extent of this free will. Whoever chooses the good, will receive a reward (praemium); whoever chooses evil, punishment.45 The idea that a prize could be

J.  Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 840, l. 12–16; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 307. 44 Evodius could have encountered the term peccatum originale in Augustine’s Ep. 164,19; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 538, l. 20–24. Alternatively, he could have encountered the term in Augustine’s Nat. et gr., which Augustine recommended in his correspondence to Evodius, namely in his Ep. 169. 45 Augustine,

C. Fel. II,4: et quia si bonum eligerent, praemium eius acciperent, si malum eligerent, poenam eius sentirent: semper autem ille iustus est aut remunerator aut damnator: “And that, if they chose the good, they would receive a reward from him, while if they chose evil, they would feel punishment from him. But God is always just, whether he rewards or condemns”;

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

213

attained by pursuing the good is absent from Adu. Man. The terminology of merit in Adu. Man. is revealing: the words meritum (“merit”) and merere (“to merit”) are always used in conjunction with the words sin (peccatum) or judgement (iudicium or iudicare).46 This usage indicates that people can have merits only in so far as they can be held accountable and justly punished for personal mistakes. In this regard, Evodius’ thinking on human free will is somewhat more pessimistic than Augustine’s in his C. Fel. In other instances, Evodius can express himself positively about human capacity to achieve the good. He considers the possibility that some people can be righteous (iusti),47 or that a person is able to achieve good works on his or her own initiative.48 Another passage, from Adu. Man. 27, suggests that a person is capable of performing good deeds through free will.49 These deeds seemingly consists of obeying God’s precepts by doing works of mercy. The importance of God’s precepts is stressed throughout the treatise,50 and Evodius even states that the Old Testament saints were able to fulfil the precepts of the New Testament (prefigured as they were in the Old Testament).51 Yet the question remains unresolved as to whether a person can continuously perform good deeds all through life solely by free choice. 4.2. The Virtue of Patience As mentioned before, Evodius focuses on Christ’s role as exemplum and as a moral teacher. The exemplum of Christ pertains in particular to the virtue of patience (patientia). It is probably again Augustine’s C. Fel. that inspires Evodius to emphasize this vired. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 832, l. 14–16; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 301. 46  Adu. Man. 8,5–6: merito iudicari; Adu. Man. 27,2: merito peccati; Adu. Man. 40,19–20: peccato meruimus; Adu. Man. 42,2–3: damnationem … mereamini. 47 

Adu. Man. 8,6.

48 

Adu. Man. 10,1–3; Adu. Man. 25,6.

49 

Adu. Man. 27,2–11.

50  See, for example, Adu. Man. 8,1–2; Adu. Man. 10,1–3; Adu. Man. 10,4–7; Adu. Man. 39,5–7; Adu. Man. 44,10–15; Adu. Man. 46,14–15. 51 

Adu. Man. 39,10–11.

214

chapter vi

tue and to emphasize Christ as an example of this virtue.52 With regard to ethical conduct, patientia is quite ambiguous, as it does not clarify what one can (positively) do to achieve the good, but only what one should (passively) endure. Evodius seems to understand patientia, at least in part, as pertaining to the eschaton. When he introduces the virtue, he states that Christ taught the example of patience so that people could overcome the “weakness of the flesh;” specifically this virtue would counteract the sin of Adam, namely, the vice of pride (superbia).53 Be that as it may, the weak state of the flesh will only be perfectly remedied by the eschatological resurrection of the body, which will be achieved by God, not by man.54 Similarly, when explaining Christ’s role as moral teacher, Evodius does not make clear what people can achieve on their own ability. Instead Evodius distinguishes three categories of Christ’s instruction: Christ taught “what one ought to avoid, what one ought to endure, what one ought to strive for”.55 The first category does not indicate what people can do to achieve the good, only what they should not do. The second category, likewise, clarifies that one should endure toils and tribulations, obligations that are also imposed by the virtue of patientia. The final category explains what people should do to achieve the good, yet the description of this category is ambiguous in its phrasing. There is no indication that what one should strive for can actually be Adu. Man. 21,8–9; Adu. Man. 21,19–21. Cf. Augustine, C. Fel. II,9: praebuit enim exemplum patientiae nobis de nobis, id est homini de homine, carni de carne: “For he offered an example of patience to us from us, that is, to humans from a human, to flesh from flesh”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 838, l. 15–16; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 305 (with minor modification); Augustine, C. Fel. II,17: sed quia induit se carne, induit se re mortali, re passibili, re mutabili: in eo quod se induit, passus est quidquid uoluit ad exemplum patientiae, et reformauit hoc ad exemplum iustitiae: “But because the Word clothed himself with flesh, he clothed himself with something mortal, something able to suffer, something mutable. In that with which he clothed himself he suffered whatever he chose to suffer as an example of patience, and he refashioned it as an example of righteousness”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 846, l. 24–27; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 311. 52 

53 

Adu. Man. 21,9–12.

54 

Adu. Man. 21,20–21.

55 

Adu. Man. 26,3–5.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

215

realised: the adverb quo (“in what direction”) and the verb tendere (“to aim”) express the obligation to strive for the good, but they do not clarify whether the intended goal can, in fact, be reached in the present life. To conclude, Evodius considers Christ’s incarnation as his “most benign work of mercy”. The central purpose of this incarnation was to teach humanity the virtue of patience by example. 56 Evodius does seem convinced that people can pursue good deeds on their own power,57 yet it appears that any achievement is only partial. For instance, when he states that Christ’s example would enable humanity to overcome their fallen state (in Adu. Man. 46), Evodius uses the verb ualeret: “[a person] will be able”. The immediately following expression, however, contains a passive verb (ad aeternam uitam renouaretur: “to become renewed for eternal life”). True eternal salvation, it seems, cannot be achieved by humans, but must be granted by God. Throughout the treatise, the claims of Evodius to the effect that people can do good mostly pertain to the eschatological future or to biblical precedent; rarely do they refer to the moral ability of people living in this age. 4.3. Epilogue of Adu. Man.: A harmed Nature On first sight, the treatise Adu. Man. does not give the impression that its author has paid much attention to the theological issues at stake in the Pelagian controversies. The aforementioned preliminary study by Dupont and me on Adu. Man. concluded that Evodius’ position on original sin and free will resembled Pelagius’ thinking more than that it did the North African anti-Pelagian position.58 Nevertheless, several caveats are in order here. First, recent scholarship has demonstrated that there is a difference between what the African church claimed Pelagius believed and what Pelagius himself actually taught.59 Pelagius denies neither humanity’s dependence on grace nor the factual impossibility of avoiding sin. He primarily taught an audience of adult Chris56 

Adu. Man. 21,5–9.

57 See

Adu. Man. 44,12–14; Adu. Man. 46,14–15.

58 A. Vanspauwen 59 M. Lamberigts,

& A. Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin”, p. 471.

“Pelagius and Pelagians”, pp. 264–66; A. Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum, pp. 48–51.

216

chapter vi

tians, whom he wanted to exhort to pursue an ethical life. From this perspective, he emphasized personal responsibility. Similarly, Evodius rejected the Manichaean system which he considered deterministic, and in response, formulated an understanding of evil that underlines the human choice between good and bad conduct. Having said that, Evodius would certainly distance himself from what the African church considered to be Pelagius’ teachings. Second, perhaps the anti-Pelagian controversies have left some traces in Adu Man. Its most obvious anti-Manichaean polemical purpose would of course mean that, rather than adopting an anti-Pelagian position with regard to evil and the will, Evodius instead follows the outlines of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean thinking. Augustine too, in his anti-Manichaean rejection of evil as a nature, argues that humanity has a free choice of the will. Yet it is possible that the Pelagian controversies had some influence on Adu. Man., as Evodius seems less optimistic about human nature than Augustine was in his earlier anti-Manichaean works. Additionally, it should be pointed out that within Augustine’s works, the term “original sin” (peccatum originale) first occurred in his Ad Simplicianum (397), and was never mentioned in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings. Such influence of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian output on Adu. Man. would indicate that the doctrine of original sin and an all-embracing grace developed gradually in North Africa, and with Adu. Man. also found its way, though mostly in an oblique manner, into an anti-Manichaean treatise.60 When considering Adu. Man. among Evodius’ anti-Pelagian output, one parallel can perhaps be found between the epilogue of Adu. Man. and the Ep. ad Val., a parallel already briefly addressed in chapter III.61 There it was suggested that a development in Evodius’ thinking on human nature and grace would imply that Evodius wrote the Ep. ad Val. after his anti-Manichaean treatise. In the final chapter of Adu. Man., which criticises Manichaean eschatology, Evodius uses the terms uitiatus (“harmed”), infirmae 60  On

the development of Augustine’s and the African church’s thinking on original sin, see G. Bonner, “Les origines africaines de la doctrine augustinienne sur la chute et le péché originel”; M. Lamberigts, “Peccatum originale”. 61  See

chapter III, n. 153–54.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

217

(“weak”), saucius (“injured”), and sauciare (“to injure”).62 According to Evodius, the Manichaean narrative fails to offer an adequate depiction of the end times. Because the Manichaean God cannot put an end to the principle of evil, that principle will continue to threaten the kingdom of light. To make matters worse, Manichaean eschatology implies that the kingdom of light is harmed during the cosmic conflict. This is particularly the case for those souls who must keep watch over the powers of darkness after the latter are confined.63 How would the injured nature of light, Evodius argues, be able to resist the evil powers if a new conflict were to arise? Because the Manichaeans believe in the existence of two coeternal principles, they cannot solve such a dilemma. What is striking about this epilogue, is that the terms saucius and uitiatus occur very frequently in the anti-Pelagian works of Augustine,64 including the Ep. 177,65 as well as in Evodius’ Ep. ad 62 

Adu. Man. 49,28-29; 49,36.

63  On

Manichaean eschatology, in particular on the Manichaean doctrine of globus, see F. Decret, “Le ‘globus horribilis’”; B. Bennett, “Globus horribilis”; G. Wurst, “L’eschatologie manichéenne”. 64 A

search in the Cross Database Searchtool resulted in 252 hits among Augustine’s works for the term uitiat* (uitiare, uitiatus) and 121 hits for sauci* (saucire, saucius). Especially the term uitiat* features predominantly in Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works (194 hits of 252: C. duas ep. Pel. [2]; C. Iul. [30]; C. Iul. imp. [123]; Corr. grat. [1]; Gest. Pel. [1]; Gr. Christ. [8]; Nat. et gr. [16]; Nupt. et conc. [9]; Perf. iust. [4]. The same term only resulted in 6 hits in Augustine’s Anti-Manichaean works (including other possible sources of Adu. Man.): C. adu. leg. (1); C. Faust. (2); Lib. arb. (2); Vera rel. (1). The term sauci*, on the other hand, is not as typical for Augustine’s anti-Pelagian output (19 hits of 121: C. Iul. [2]; C. Iul. imp. [8]; Gest. Pel. [1]; Nat. et gr. [4]; Nupt. et conc. [3]; Pecc. mer. [1]), and also features in several of his anti-Manichaean works (10 hits: C. Adim. [1]; C. Faust. [4]; Gn. adu. Man. [1]; Mor. Man. [2]; Vera rel. [1]; Vtil. cred. [1]). 65  Ep. 177,11: procul dubio a corpore mortis huius, ubi alia lex repugnat legi mentis, neminem liberauit aut liberat sua possibilitas, quae perdita redemptore indiget, saucia saluatore, sed gratia dei per fidem unius mediatoris dei et hominum, hominis Christi Iesu: “one’s own ability undoubtedly has set or does set no one free from the body of this death, where another law resists the law of the mind. For that ability was lost and needs a redeemer; it was wounded and needs a saviour. But the grace of God sets it free through faith in the one mediator of God and human beings, the man Jesus Christ”; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 680, l. 4–8; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156– 210), pp. 146–47; Ep. 177,15: Quapropter, si et ante tempus legis et tempore ipso

218

chapter vi

Val. 66 These terms are used in such works to describe the fallen state of humanity after the original sin. Evodius would thus have been more or less aware of the technical meaning of these and similar terms (e.g. infirmus) when he wrote his Adu. Man. When he portrays the Manichaean kingdom of light as “injured” or “harmed” by the evil powers, is this usage of anti-Pelagian terminology conscious and deliberate? Does Evodius conceptualize Manichaean cosmology according to anti-Pelagian categories, such as referring to the Manichaean kingdom of light as an inherently corrupted nature? In any case, Evodius implies that the Manichaeans cannot guarantee the salvation of these injured inhabitants of the kingdom of light. One wonders whether Evodius himself would, according to his anti-Manichaean thinking on free will and sin, be able to respond to a similar question: How does God save humanity from its fallen state? Evodius, although he refers legis iustos patres ex fide uiuentes non possibilitas naturae infirmae et indigae ac uitiatae et sub peccato uenundatae sed dei gratia per fidem iustificabat: “Before the time of the law and at the very time of the law it was not the ability of a weak and needy nature that was damaged and sold under the power of sin but the grace of God through faith that justified our righteous forefathers who lived by faith”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 683, l. 6–9; trans. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 148. 66 Evodius,

Ep. ad Val.: Liberi arbitrii plenissimum effectum habuit homo primo procreatus, Adam dico; sed ubi male usus est munus diuinum, sauciatum est ipsum liberum arbitrium. Est ergo in homine nunc liberum arbitrium, sed sauciatum: “The man created first, I mean, Adam, had the full reality of free choice, but because he made bad use of the divine gift, the free choice of will became injured. Now man has free choice, but an injured choice”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 14–16 (with modification, see Y.-M. Duval, “Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, p. 126); trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42 (with modifications mine); Evodius, Ep. ad Val.: Ad hoc recuperandim missus est medicus Saluator Christus, ut saluaret quod perierat, et curaret quod uitiatum fuerat. Semper ergo antiquis patribus et omnibus hominibus auxilium Domini necessarium fuisse. Ex quo enim uitiatum est ipsud liberum arbitrium, ad pereundum sibi tantummodo sufficit; ut autem curetur et ad pristinum statum reuocetur, necessarium habet peritissimum medicum: “To recover this free choice Christ the saviour was sent as a physician in order to save what was lost and to heal what had been injured. The patriarchs of old and all human beings, therefore, always needed the help of the Lord. For from the moment free choice was damaged, it is for us sufficient only for perdition, but in order to be healed and recalled to its pristine state, it needs the most skilled physician”; ed. by G. Morin, “Lettres inédites”, p. 254, l. 18–23; trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians IV, p. 42.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

219

to God’s grace through Christ, would respond, first and foremost, that God has given commandments which prescribe the correct course of life, as well as a free will which gives people the capacity to fulfil these commandments. He would further argue that humanity has not been corrupted to such a degree that the will is unable to choose the good. On this subject, Evodius’ position in the Ep. ad Val. does differ from his statements of Adu. Man. The more anti-Pelagian Evodius of the Ep. ad Val. bluntly states that human nature, including the gift of the free will, is corrupted and requires God’s grace. Whereas he focuses on God’s precepts in Adu. Man., in the Ep. ad Val. Evodius now stresses the value of prayer and obedience. It is important to consider whether this difference in content between Adu. Man. and Ep. ad Val. indicates that Evodius underwent a development in his theological thinking, or whether the differences in content might simply result from a different polemical context. Evodius had already condemned (or condoned the condemnation of) the teachings of Pelagius and Caelestius in Ep. 177. His anti-Manichaean argumentation takes an entirely different approach. In Adu. Man., Evodius does not stress Christ’s role as liberator or saluator, scarcely refers to grace, and does not give the impression that human free will is unable to fulfil the commandments of God.67 When he voices his opinions in the Ep. ad Val., these themes all make their return. Even if a certain development in Evodius’ thinking could be discerned from his Adu. Man. to the Ep. ad Val., it should be clear that the polemical context probably had a much larger influence on these shifts in doctrine. Different contexts occasion theological shifts in emphasis. If the posteriority of Ep. ad Val. vis-à-vis Adu. Man. is accepted, the two works can potentially illustrate a development in Evodius’ thinking (although the influence of different polemical contexts should never be understated). It appears that Evodius had not thoroughly incorporated the African bishops’ thinking on grace 67 Cf. Ep. 177,5: Distinguenda est lex, et gratia. lex iubere nouit, gratia iuuare. nec lex iuberet, nisi esset uoluntas, nec gratia iuuaret, si sat esset uoluntas: “We must distinguish the law and grace. The law is able to command; grace is able to help. The law would not command if there were no will. Nor would grace help if the will were enough”; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 673, l. 15–17; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 143.

220

chapter vi

and original sin into his own theological views, as expressed in Adu. Man. This lack of integration would have implications on how to assess Evodius’ role in the Pelagian controversies. While he considered Pelagius a threat to orthodox Christianity, inasmuch as he supported the condemnation of Pelagius’ teachings, Evodius did perhaps not take a leading role in voicing the opinions of the African bishops. One could even argue that his support for the African bishops was primarily motivated by loyalty to his friends or by concern for unity among Christians. After all, the theology of original sin and grace played a minor role in his anti-Manichaean treatise. Augustine’s situation was somewhat different. While his last major anti-Manichaean treatises date from 404–05 (C. Fel., Nat. b., C. Sec.), he remained concerned with the Manichaeans, even at the height of the Pelagian controversy. His Sermons 153 and 182 illustrate this continued concern.68 While Augustine primarily refutes the Manichaeans in these sermons, he also incorporates many elements of his anti-Pelagian thinking on the fallen state (or corrupted nature) of humanity, on original sin, and on grace.69 68 See

P. Mattei: “Notes sur le Sermon CLIII”; J. van Oort, “Augustine on Manichaeism in His Sermo 182”. 69 Augustine,

S. 153,8: Ergo cum essemus in carne – id est in concupiscentiis carnis uersaremur, ibi totam spem nostram tamquam in nobis poneremus – passiones peccatorum, quae sunt per legem – auctae sunt per legem: “So, when we were in the flesh, that is were taken up with the lusts of the flesh, and placing all our hope there as in ourselves, the passions of sins which come through the law were increased through the law”; ed. by G. Partoens (CCSL, 41 Ba), p. 62, l. 183–86; trans. E. Hill, Sermons (148–83), p. 62; Augustine, S. 153,14: Videte ergo, fratres, uidete genus humanum a prima illius primi hominis morte fluxisse. Etenim peccatum a primo homine intrauit in hunc mundum et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines pertransiit. Pertransiit, uerbum attendite. Quod audistis, considerate. Videte. Quid est pertransiit? Pertransiit: inde est et paruulus reus. Peccatum nondum fecit, sed traxit. Etenim illud peccatum non in fonte mansit, sed pertransiit. Non in illum aut illum, sed in omnes homines pertransiit. Genuit peccatores morti obnoxios primus peccator, primus praeuaricator. Venit ad sanandos de uirgine Saluator, qui ad te non qua uenisti, uenit. Non enim ille de concupiscentia maris et feminae, non de illo uinculo concupiscentiae: “So then observe, brothers and sisters, observe how the human race has flowed from the death of that first man. Thus: Sin entered from the first man into this world, and through sin death, and thus it passed through into all men (Rom 5:12). Passed through; take note of these words you heard; reflect, and see what is meant by passed through. It passed through; as a result, even the

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

221

As we have seen, such anti-Pelagian concerns are mostly absent from Adu. Man. Yet perhaps this different emphasis should not be overstated. After all, Evodius had Augustine’s anti-Pelagian Ep. 194 in his collection in Uzalis. It was the discovery of this letter at Evodius’ library by the monk Florus of Hadrumetum which would lead to the so-called semi-Pelagian controversy (and Evodius’ Ep. ad Val.).70 In other words, Evodius continued to read the anti-Pelagian works of his African colleagues (in particular Augustine), and his thinking on the elements at stake in the Pelagian controversies could perhaps also have matured by the time he wrote his Ep. ad Val. 5. Conclusion It is evident that the polemical context of Adu. Man. had a most profound influence on the content of the treatise. The situation required that the arguments of the treatise offer an adequate response to the Manichaean claim to truth. For each major theological topic that Evodius discusses, he refutes the Manichaean position and defends his own. When he rejects the Manichaean belief in two natures (Adu. Man. 2–3), he afterwards offers an alternative explanation for evil (4–10), in which he defends the Christian belief in an all-powerful and all-good God. Evodius explains that evil only exists insofar as humans have the ability to choose between good and bad. Since the choice for evil is caused by a miss-intentioned desire (cupiditas), evil exists only baby is guilty; it hasn’t yet committed sin, but it has contracted it. You see, that sin didn’t remain in its source, but passed through, not into this person or that, but into all men. The first sinner, the first transgressor, begot sinners liable to death. To heal them, the saviour came from the virgin; because he didn’t come to you the way you came, seeing that he did not originate from the sexual appetite of male and female, not from that chain of lust”; ed. by G. Partoens (CCSL, 41 Ba), p. 71, l. 303–14; trans. E. Hill, Sermons (148–83), p. 65; Augustine, S. 182,3,3: Natura quae corrupta fuerat, reparatur; natura quae lapsa fuerat, erigitur; natura quae deformis iacebat, gratia reformatur: “the nature which had been spoiled is being restored; the nature which had fallen is being lifted up; the nature which was lying there deformed, is being reformed by grace”; ed. by S. Boodts, (CCSL, 41 Bb), p. 710, l. 91–93; trans. E. Hill, Sermons (148–83), p. 333. 70 Y.-M. Duval, “Note sur la lettre d’Evodius”, pp. 123–24. See Augustine, Ep. 216,2–3; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 57), p. 397, l. 15-p. 398, l. 21.

222

chapter vi

as a result of sin. In this way, Evodius underlines human moral capacity and responsibility. Because an all-good and almighty God cannot allow evil to go unchecked, a particular role is also reserved for God in Evodius’ anti-Manichaean theology: that of a righteous judge. According to the Catholic Christian position, God is capable of opposing evil; that is not the case for the Manichaean God. In a following major section (11–20), Evodius ridicules the cosmic conflict of light and darkness. This conflict demonstrates that the Manichaean God is both weak and immoral. The consequent suffering of the Manichaean God is entirely different from Christ’s voluntary suffering. A discussion on Christology follows in Adu. Man. 21–36. After a brief and somewhat isolated section on the unity of the Christian canon (37–39), Evodius addresses eschatology (40–49). Here Evodius attempts to demonstrate that, once again, the Manichaean system portrays God as weak and immoral, contrary to the correct Catholic belief (46). In his concluding chapter, Evodius explains that the Manichaean view of the end times cannot offer peace of mind to its adherents. By connecting the Manichaean view of eschatology to the individual Manichaean addressee, Evodius buttresses his final exhortation to convert to Catholic Christianity, which concludes the treatise. The polemical context of Adu. Man. defines its theological articulations. It should not come as a surprise that the Ep. ad Val., written in wholly different circumstances, could address different theological themes. Perhaps the argumentation in this chapter overly emphasized differences between anti-Manichaean and anti-Pelagian theology, as if there ever existed two separate trends in North-African theology. That is not the case. Instead, both polemical contexts point to the importance of two intrinsically connected concepts. In the co-authored letter 177 to Innocent I, the African bishops pointed to the complementary functions of law and grace.71 Against the Manichaeans, Evodius could focus on the ‘law’, that is, on God’s precepts, and the free will which enables 71 Augustine, Ep. 177,5: Distinguenda est lex, et gratia. lex iubere nouit, gratia iuuare. nec lex iuberet, nisi esset uoluntas; nec gratia iuuaret, si sat esset uoluntas: ‘We must distinguish the law and grace. The law is able to command; grace is able to help. The law would not command if there were no will. Nor would grace help if the will were enough’; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 673, l. 15–17; trans. R. Teske, Letters (156–210), p. 143.

the anti-manichaean theology of evodius

223

the choice for good or evil. During the Pelagian controversies, on the other hand, the African fathers stressed the efficacy of grace, and the insufficiency of the human will in itself. In his refutation of the Manichaeans, Evodius’ primary sources were Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings. The analysis of this chapter demonstrates that C. Fel. in particular had an influence on the discussion of human free will in Adu. Man. Conversely, the Pelagian controversies did not play a decisive role in the formulation of Evodius’ anti-Manichaean thinking. While aware of these controversies, Evodius did not consider the fallen state of humanity relevant or beneficial to his anti-Manichaean argument. In this regard he differs from Augustine’s more or less contemporaneous sermons, which continued to refute the Manichaeans in the midst of the Pelagian controversies. In these sermons, and in other writings, such as Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum and Contra Iulianum, Augustine positions himself simultaneously in contrast to the Manichaeans and the Pelagians. Evodius’ involvement in the Pelagian controversies has left only a minor mark on this treatise. In comparison with Augustine’s C. Fel., Evodius does seem less optimistic about humanity’s capacity to lead a good life. Perhaps it is this diminution of optimism, in conjunction with the terminology of a harmed nature in Adu. Man.’s epilogue, that constitutes the influence of contemporary African anti-Pelagian views on this anti-Manichaean treatise. The relatively minimal interaction with anti-Pelagian views could have two implications for our understanding of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin and grace. First, the limited interaction implies that the anti-Pelagian doctrine of inherited sin and the corrupted state of humanity was not a universally accepted African doctrine. That is to say, the theological themes articulated in this polemical context were not prevalent in Adu. Man., which had a wholly different polemical purpose. Contrary then to what Augustine would have us believe, the bishop of Hippo’s anti-Pelagian theology was an innovation in the (African) Christian tradition, inasmuch as its emphases were not omnipresent among contemporary African authors. Second, if the Ep. ad Val. is accepted as being written after Adu. Man., as this study has proposed, then Evodius could have, over time, come to embrace Augustine’s anti-Pelagian thinking on original sin and grace.

Chapter VII

Adversvs Manichaeos as a Source on Manichaeism Manichaeism was founded by Mani, who was born in 216 ce in the Parthian Empire.1 He and his father Patīg were members of the Elchasaites, a Judeo-Christian ascetic and baptismal movement from Mesopotamia.2 While still among the Elchasaites, Mani received revelatory visions from his “divine twin;” this happened on two occasions, once at the age of twelve and a second time when he was twenty-four years old. The second revelation marked Mani’s departure from the Elchasaites and the foundation of his own religion. For the remainder of his life, he attempted to gain followers throughout the Sasanian Empire (which had succeeded the Parthian Empire) and India. Although initially successful under the reign of the Sasanian kings Shapur I (240–73) and Hormizd I (273–74), he was put to death by Vahram I in 276 or 277. 3 Manichaeism was a syncretistic religion, with roots in JudeoChristianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. Mani viewed himself as the final prophet in a succession of prophets, which included Enoch, Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus. Mani perceived his revelations as the complete and final expression of the same message that earlier prophets taught. None of these earlier prophets, how1  On

Manichaeism in general, see M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme (trans. M. DeBevoise, Manichaeism); S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire; I. Gardner and S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, pp. 1–45; and N. J. Baker-Brian, Manichaeism. 2  According to I. Gardner & L. Rasouli-Narimani, “Patīg and Pattikios in the Manichaean Sources”, p. 99, the information on Mani’s genealogy is highly unreliable. Whereas polemical sources underline his humble origins, the hagiographical account of the Cologne Mani Codex portrays Mani as of royal parentage. Gardner and Rasouli-Narimani argue that “the identification of Patīg/Pattikios as Mani’s biological parent is secondary, unsubstantiated, and derived by inference from the elder man’s religious relationship to Mani and his senior role in the community”. 3 See I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, pp. 7–8.

226

chapter vii

ever, had written down their teachings, which, according to Mani, were corrupted by subsequent generations of followers. Mani’s system was thus in harmony with but also superseded the authentic message of these preceding religions. The syncretistic nature of Manichaeism and its universalistic missionary aim go hand in hand. From Mesopotamia the religion was propagated along the trade routes of the Sasanian Empire and the Roman Empire. Manichaean communities spanned from the Maghreb and Gaul in the West to India, the steppes of Central Asia, and the coasts of South-East China in the East. Manichaeism had a certain flexibility and openness towards other religions. In the Roman Empire, Manichaeism would manifest itself as a form of Christianity. Manichaeism was dualistic. It distinguished between a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness. The religion is often summarized as a religion of “two principles and three times”.4 These three times are the beginning, the middle, and the end. In the beginning, the two kingdoms were entirely separate. At the beginning of the middle period, the kingdom of darkness invaded the kingdom of light, and as a consequence, all present reality exists as a mixture of the two principles. In the end, the kingdom of light will overcome the kingdom of darkness and re-establish the distinction between the two natures. In Manichaean ethics, the human person is a microcosm that reflects the macrocosmic conflict between light and darkness. Every person consists of both light and dark particles. Because the element of darkness is characterized by violence and lust, Manichaean ethical precepts focus on the diminishment or annulment of the desires of darkness. In the organization of their communities, the Manichaeans distinguished between two ranks, namely, the rank of Hearer (auditor) and that of the Elect (electus/-a). Each group had a unique role in the Manichaean community. 5 The Hearers were the Manichaean common believers or the Manichaean laity, who were subject to less strict ethical precepts. The Elect on the other hand were the religious leaders in the Manichaean community and were expected to lead a truly ascetical life. The Elect depended on the Hearers 4 I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, p. 11. 5  See

the overview in M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, pp. 73–89.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

227

to provide for their daily needs. The roles of Hearer and Elect were complementary. For example, the Hearers were to supply fruit and vegetables to the Elect since the latter were not permitted to harvest crops themselves; one task of the Elect was to free the light particles from these foods by consuming them and discarding the “gross elements below”.6 By liberating these light particles, the Elect expedited God’s plan to reinstate the former distinction between light and darkness. Since Mani considered missionizing a task of fundamental importance, it is no surprise that Manichaean teachers would soon cross the borders of the Sasanian Empire. To the west, it was primarily Mani’s disciple Addas who would find success. This first-generation Manichaean missionary established a Manichaean community in Alexandria in Egypt. From Egypt, Manichaeism spread further west. In the Roman Empire, Manichaeism manifested its Christian identity more prominently than elsewhere. Addas is best known for his Disputationes, a series of teachings in which he compared Old Testament and New Testament passages in order to reject the Old Testament. He attributed the Old Testament to the workings of deceitful demons.7 Addas’ work is preserved fragmentarily in several of Augustine’s writings. Although Addas was active a century before Augustine, the latter still found it necessary to refute Addas’ teachings. The bishop of Hippo did so in his Contra Adimantum, which includes summaries of many of Addas’ (in Latin: Adimantus) arguments.8 Addas exerted considerable influence on the Christian Manichaeism of the Roman Empire; in Augustine’s lifetime, the famous Manichaean Faustus considered Addas the second highest authority after Mani.9

6  See I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts in the Roman Empire, pp. 22–23. 7 J. A. van den Berg, Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice, pp. 168–73. 8 In several of his sermons, in C. Faust., and in two of his commentaries on Genesis, Augustine addressed Addas’ teachings as well. For an overview of all possible refutations of Addas’ Disputationes, see J. A. van den Berg, Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice pp. 75–121. 9 Augustine, C. Faust. I,2: [Faustus dixit:] et solo nobis post beatum patrem nostrum Manichaeum studendo Adimanto: “Faustus said: ‘and by Adimantus,

228

chapter vii

1. The Manichaean Canon Many overviews of the Manichaean canon begin by addressing a terminological issue: what is meant by “Manichaean scripture” or “the canon of Manichaeism”?10 These expressions could refer to the Christian canon and signify “the texts of the Christian canon, which the Manichaeans accepted as authoritative”. This is, however, not the meaning of “the Manichaean canon” that will be employed here. Instead the expression will refer to those texts that set Manichaeism apart from other religions. More in particular, these are the texts authored by Mani. Mani considered himself distinct from earlier prophets inasmuch as he was both prophet and author.11 He wrote down the contents of his revelations in several books, which form a canon. According to Mani, other religions could have been founded by authoritative prophets, but these prophets were not authors. As a consequence, the original message of the prophets became obscured as that message was transmitted by disciples in subsequent generations. These texts were neither authored nor authorised by their respective prophets. In addition, Mani and the Manichaeans believed that the scriptures of other religions could become corrupted through interpolations of the devil. Manichaean scripture has the guarantee that it contains the final and ultimate revelation of God and that this revelation was written down by the prophet Mani himself, without any external interference. Manichaeism was therefore a religion of the book, and Mani’s books offered direct access to the whole of theological, cosmological and ethical truth. Wherever Manichaeans would settle, they were receptive to local religious traditions, but only to an extent. Their own scriptures constituted the norm by which other scriptures, prone to falsification, were to be assessed. This attitude becomes clear, for example, in the Manichaean stance towards Christian Scripture. In general, Manichaean Christians in North Africa preferred the Pauline epistles and rejected the Old Testament. This issue would become a major who alone after our blessed father Mani should be studied’”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 252, l. 1–3; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 69. 10 See, G.  Wurst, “L’état de la recherche sur le canon manichéen”, pp. 237–38. 11 M. Tardieu,

“La chaîne des prophètes”, p. 360.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

229

topic of disagreement between mainstream Christians and Manichaeans. It was the subject of several of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, most notably Gn. adu. Man., C. Adim., and C. Faust. The issue also occurs in Adu. Man. 37–39. That Mani had written down his revelations in a fixed canon of books had important consequences for the universal mission of Manichaeism. Manichaean teachers throughout the then-known world could have access to the full extent of Mani’s message. Mani had written his texts in a Syriac dialect, with the exception of the Middle Persian Šhābuhragān,12 a text he prepared for the Sasanian king Shapur I. To these works, Mani added a Book of Pictures (called Hikōn in Coptic sources, or Ārdhang in Parthian texts). This work is generally believed to have been an aid to visualising Mani’s teachings, and thus a means to make his teachings accessible to a broader, illiterate audience.13 From Mani, the Manichaeans would inherit a dedication to the production of books and art. Book lists of Manichaean scripture are preserved in various regions and in various languages. Most scholars agree that seven works, all originally written in Syriac, form the core of the Manichaean canon. These works are, in order: (1) the Living Gospel; (2) the Treasury of Life (Thesaurus); (3) the Pragmateia; (4) the Book of Mysteries; (5) the Book of Giants; (6) a collection of Epistles; (7) Mani’s Psalms and Prayers.14 In eastern Manichaeism, the Šhābuhragān is added, usually after the Gospel (polemicists who cited the Šhābuhragān often seem to confuse the work with the Gospel).15 Finally, although it cannot be considered part of Mani’s written canon, the Book of Pictures is also attested in most regions where Manichaean communities formed.16 The corpus of 12 It is possible this text was also originally in Syriac and translated in Middle Persian afterwards. See N. J. Baker-Brian, Manichaeism, 76. 13  For an in-depth study of Mani’s Book of Pictures, and other attestations of Manichaean pictorial art, see Z. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures. 14 M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, pp. 45–67; G. Wurst, “L’état de la recherche sur le canon manichéen”, pp. 242–43; J. C. Reeves, Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism, pp. 90–94; N. J. Baker-Brian, Manichaeism, p. 67. 15  J. C.

Reeves, Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism, p. 98.

16 However,

Z. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, pp. 48–53 notes that the Latin and Greek sources are particularly silent on Mani’s Book of Pictures.

230

chapter vii

Mani’s works thus constituted, at least in the West, a heptateuch. However, in the Coptic Kephalaia, a Manichaean text of secondary origin,17 an attempt has been made to present the Manichaean canon in the form of a pentateuch: the passage lists the Gospel, the Thesaurus, and a third work consisting of three writings, namely, the Pragmateia, the Book of Mysteries, and the Writing of the Giants; as a fourth text, the passage lists the Epistles; the fifth and final work is missing from this list, but it might have been the collection of Psalms and Prayers.18 This example shows that local Manichaean communities, although they continued to adhere to Mani’s teachings and writings, also introduced innovations, whether in the form of new redactions of Mani’s works, or of new, secondary Manichaean texts. For Latin North African Manichaeism, an example of such a secondary text was discovered at the beginning of the twentieth century. This text occupies the preserved leaves of the so-called codex Theuestinus or Tebessa codex, presently kept at the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris.19 When missionizing new areas, the Manichaeans translated Mani’s works into the local language. Papyri fragments discovered in the Dachleh oasis in Egypt underline this translational activity. A Syriac-Coptic bilingual fragment contains a translation exercise of a Coptic-speaking Manichaean, who was learning Mani’s Syriac.20 Letters of Manichaeans from the same community also stress the attention paid to the study of other languages. Such study would not only have helped adherents to understand Mani’s works in their original expression, but was also necessary for the trans-

17 T. Pettipiece. Pentadic Redaction in the Manichaean Kephalaia, p. 8 describes the Kephalaia as “representing the emergence or evolution of a scholastic, interpretive tradition, ostensibly rooted in an authoritative oral tradition analogous to those which led to the compilation of the Jewish Talmudic and Islamic Hadith traditions”. 18 See T. Pettipiece. Pentadic Redaction in the Manichaean Kephalaia, pp. 45–46.209. See also M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, p. 66. 19 Paris, BnF, NAL 1114. Its text has been published in M. Stein, Manichaica latina 3. Cf. the edition and translation in G. Harrison & J. D. BeDuhn, “The Tebessa Codex”, pp. 39–67. 20  See M. Franzmann, “The Syriac-Coptic Bilinguals”. Franzmann refers to the fragments T. Kell. Syr./Copt. 1 and T. Kell. Syr./Copt. 2, ed. M. Franzmann and I. Gardner, Kellis Literary Texts 1, pp. 115–26.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

231

lation of Mani’s writings and for missionizing new areas.21 With the exception of several recent discoveries, Manichaean scriptural works have mostly been preserved as fragments transmitted in the writings of their polemicizing opponents, in languages other than Mani’s original Syriac. This section is concerned with the circulation of Manichaean texts in the Latin Roman Empire. This circulation may be divided into three phases. A key testimony for the circulation of Manichaean texts in the Latin world is a Manichaean figure named Felix. During his debate with Augustine (of which the minutes are preserved as Augustine’s C. Fel.), Felix wants to retrieve the five works which were confiscated from him. This collection is sometimes referred to as Felix’s pentateuch. Before looking at Felix’s testimony in detail, it will first be necessary to consider the extent to which we are informed about Manichaean scripture in the Latin world prior to 404, when the debate between Felix and Augustine took place. 1.1. The Early Stages of Latin Manichaeism To recapitulate, the canon of Manichaean texts consisted of Mani’s Gospel, the Thesaurus, the Pragmateia, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Giants, Mani’s Letters, and his Psalms and Prayers. To these written texts, the Book of Pictures can be added. The earliest testimony regarding Manichaean scripture in the Latin world is Ps-Marius Victorinus’ Ad Iustinum Manichaeum. In this work, the author mentions the Thesaurus and the Acts of Andrew.22 The Manichaeans’ adherence to apocryphal writings is also attested by Filastrius, who mentions Acts of Andrew, John, Peter and Paul.23 21 See J. A. van den Berg, Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice, pp. 41–42. Van den Berg cites from one of the letters of the Coptic Manichaean community of Kellis, namely P. Kell. Copt. 20: “And Piene: The great Teacher let him travel with him, so that he might learn Latin. He teaches him well”; ed. and trans. I. Gardner, A. Alcock & W.-P. Funk, Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis 1, pp. 166–69. 22  Ad Iustinum Manichaeum I: quod Manichaeus, et ut is Andreas actibus eloquitur, atque Thesauro reuelauit; ed. PL 8, col. 999. 23 Filastrius, Diuersarum hereseon liber LXXXVIII: unde et habent manichei et alii tales Andreae beati et Iohannis actus euangelistae beati, et Petri similiter beatissimi apostoli, et Pauli pariter beati apostoli; ed. by F. Heylen (CCSL, 9), p. 256, l. 23–25.

232

chapter vii

Besides these brief notes, most of our information about the Manichaean movement comes from its most famous former member: Augustine, the later bishop of Hippo. For more than nine years Augustine was a member of the Manichaean community in North Africa and held the rank of Hearer. The extent to which Augustine knew this religion and its doctrines, and the extent to which he had access to Manichaean scripture, has often been discussed in scholarly literature.24 On the one hand, Augustine does not explicitly cite Manichaean writings until his C. ep. fund. (396 ce). Coyle argues in this regard that Augustine, as a Hearer, would have known Manichaean scripture only through oral education and through the recitation or singing of Manichaean texts during religious ceremonies.25 On the other hand, allusions to Mani’s books and their contents can be found in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works that predate the C. ep. fund. It therefore seems that Augustine’s education as a Manichaean Hearer included oral instruction as well as personal reading of Mani’s books. Augustine’s most direct reflections on his past as a Manichaean are found in his Conf. 26 He reports that the Manichaeans had many large books. The evidence of the Conf. does not give the impression that Augustine, as a Hearer, would not have had access to written scripture.27 Instead, he likely subjected the Manichaean 24  See J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism”, pp. 441–48. 25  J. K. Coyle, “What did Augustine Know about Manichaeism?”, pp. 49– 50; see also K. W. Kaatz, “What did Augustine Really Know about Manichaean Cosmogony?”, pp. 195–96. 26  On

this important source for Augustine’s acquaintance with Manichaean text and doctrine, see J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge on Manichaeism”, pp. 448–57; J. van Oort, “Manichaean Christians”, pp. 507– 13. 27  Augustine relates the following about a Catholic bishop who was once a Manichaean: Augustine, Conf. III,12,21: Respondit enim me adhuc esse indocilem, eo quod inflatus essem nouitate haeresis illius et nonnullis quaestiunculis iam multos imperitos exagitassem, sicut illa indicauerat ei. “Sed” inquit “sine illum ibi. Tantum roga pro eo dominum: ipse legendo reperiet, quis ille sit error et quanta impietas”. Simul etiam narrauit se quoque paruulum a seducta matre sua datum fuisse manichaeis et omnes paene non legisse tantum uerum etiam scriptitasse libros eorum sibique apparuisse nullo contra disputante et conuin-

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

233

books to personal study. Among these books was, possibly, the Book of Pictures of Mani. Augustine may have alluded to this work with the words phantasmata splendida (splendid hallucinations).28 Augustine also sang Manichaean songs.29 Unfortunately, he does not refer to any Manichaean works by name. He does mention the subject matter of these books, namely, astronomy: “the course of the sun, the moon, the stars”. 30 It is impossible to match a specific work of Mani to this generic description. A preserved fragment of Mani’s Thes. describes the waxing and waning of the moon, 31 but astronomy also featured in many of Mani’s other works. 32

cente, quam esset illa secta fugienda: itaque fugisse: “He replied that I was as yet unteachable; I was puffed up with the novelty of my heresy and had been tormenting plenty of unskilled persons with finicky little questions, as she told him. ‘Leave him alone,’ he advised. ‘Simply pray for him to the Lord. He will find out for himself through his reading how wrong these beliefs are, and how profoundly irreverent.’ At the same interview he told her how he had himself been handed over to the Manichees as a little boy by his mother, who had also been led astray; he had not only read nearly all their books but had even written some himself, and without anyone having to argue or persuade him it had become clear to him that the sect was something he should flee from. So he had fled”; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 39, l. 9–17; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 91. See J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge on Manichaeism”, p. 451. 28 J. van

Oort, “Manichaean Christians”, p. 510 refers to Augustine Conf. III,6,10: Et apponebantur adhuc mihi in illis ferculis phantasmata splendida, quibus iam melius erat amare istum solem saltem istis oculis uerum quam illa falsa animo decepto per oculos: “and all they set before me were dishes of glittering myths. It would have been more profitable to love the sun in the sky, which at least our eyes perceive truly, than those chimeras offered to a mind that had been led astray through its eyes”; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 31, l. 19–22; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 81. Z. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, pp. 51–52 is inclined to believe Augustine did not witness any Manichaean pictorial art during his Manichaean period. 29 Augustine,

Conf. III,7,14: et cantabam carmina: “And I sang verses”; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 34, l. 49; trans J. van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, p. 35, n. 106. 30 Augustine, Conf. V,7,12: Libri quippe eorum pleni sunt longissimis fabulis de caelo et sideribus et sole et luna: “Their books are full of interminable myths concerning sky, stars, sun and moon”; ed. by L. Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 63, l. 5–6; trans. M. Boulding, The Confessions, p. 121. See J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge on Manichaeism”, p. 455. 31 M. Stein,

Manichaica latina 4, pp. 107–38.

234

chapter vii

Throughout his anti-Manichaean works, Augustine refers, albeit infrequently, to Manichaean scripture. At the end of Mor. Man., Augustine mentions a Manichaean experiment in Rome, where an enthusiastic Manichaean Hearer wanted to install a community which would live in accordance with the precepts of “Mani’s letter”. 33 This letter is the so-called Rule of the Living. 34 The treatise Gn. adu. Man., which defends the unity of the Old and New Testaments, was written in response to either oral teaching that Augustine had received on this subject, or to the Disputationes of Adimantus. 35 The first anti-Manichaean work of major importance as a source of information regarding Manichaean scripture is Augustine’s C. Fort. Recently ordained presbyter in Hippo, Augustine challenged the local Manichaean leader Fortunatus to a public disputation in 392. Although Augustine does not cite from Mani’s works directly in C. Fort., he does summarize the Manichaean myth on several occasions 36 and employs Manichaean 32  See, for example, the Manichaean Prayer of the Emanations (trans. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, pp. 16–19). 33 Augustine, Mor. Man. XX,74: Proposita est uiuendi regula de Manichaei epistula: “When the rule of life from the letter of Mani was proposed”; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 155, l. 7–8; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 102. 34 K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 41–42. See also S. N. C. Lieu, “Precept and Practice in Manichaean Monasticism”, pp. 153–55. 35 J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge on Manichaeism” pp. 461–62; J. A. van den Berg, Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice, pp. 102–03. 36 E.g.

Augustine, C. Fort. 1: dicitis enim aliam nescio quam gentem tenebrarum aduersus dei regnum rebellasse; deum autem omnipotentem cum uideret, quanta labes et uastitas immineret regnis suis, nisi aliquid aduersae genti opponeret et ei resisteret, misisse hanc uirtutem, de cuius commixtione cum malo et tenebrarum gente mundus sit fabricatus; hinc esse, quod hic animae bonae laborant, seruiunt, errant, corrumpuntur: ut necessarium haberent liberatorem, qui eas ab errore purgaret et a commixtione solueret et a seruitute liberaret: “For you say that some sort of nation of darkness rebelled against the kingdom of God. But when almighty God saw the great ruin and devastation that threatened his kingdoms unless he set something in the way of the enemy nation and resisted it, he sent forth this power, and this world was fashioned from this power’s mingling with evil and the nation of darkness. For this reason good souls labour, are enslaved, fall into error, and are corrupted, so that

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

235

terms that are also attested in Mani’s Ep. fund. and Thes. 37 These references suggest a familiarity with the contents and phrasing of Mani’s works. In later anti-Manichaean treatises, Augustine would directly cite passages of these Manichaean texts. Augustine’s first direct citations from Manichaean scripture are found in his C. ep. fund. This work is a refutation of Mani’s Epistula fundamenti, which was particularly popular among North African Manichaeans. As a source of information concerning this letter of Mani, the value of C. ep. fund. cannot be overstated. 38 The many citations in this work form two larger continuous texts, both from the beginning of the work. 39 Moreover, Augustine’s comments on the letter are very significant. He states, for example, that the letter contains “almost everything” the Manichaeans believe.40 Immediately afterwards, he states that this letter was read aloud during Manichaean gatherings, and he remembers that listening to the letter was believed to illuminate its hearers.41 The event Augustine alludes to could be the Manichaean Bema festival.42 The opening words of the Ep. fund. are: “Mani, apostle of they need a deliverer to purify them from error, to release them from this mingling, and to set them free from slavery”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 83, l. 18-p. 84, l. 5; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 145. 37 See J. van Oort, “Heeding and Hiding their particular Knowledge?”, pp. 118–21. 38 M. Scopello, “L’epistula fundamenti à la lumière des sources manichéennes du Fayoum”, p. 216. 39  See

M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 18–27.

40 Augustine,

C. ep. fund. 5: Videamus igitur, quid me doceat Manichaeus, et potissimum illum consideremus librum, quem Fundamenti epistulam dicitis, ubi totum paene, quod creditis, continetur: “Let us see, then, what Mani teaches me, and let us especially consider the book that you call The Letter of the Foundation, in which almost the whole of what you believe is contained”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 197, l. 6–8; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 236. 41 Augustine,

C. ep. fund. 5: ipsa enim nobis illo tempore miseris quando lecta est, illuminati dicebamur a uobis: “When it was read to us poor wretches at that time, you said that we were enlightened”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 197, l. 8–10; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 236. 42 Augustine describes this feast day in C. ep. fund. 8: cum bema uestrum, id est diem, quo Manichaeus occisus est, quinque gradibus instructo tribunali et pretiosis linteis adornato atque in promptu posito et obiecto adorantibus magnis

236

chapter vii

Jesus Christ” (Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi).43 According to Augustine, Mani describes himself in this way in all his letters.44 This remark confirms that Augustine knew multiple letters of Mani, although the assertion that “all” of Mani’s letters begin in a similar way is ambiguous: it seems to mean that all the letters Augustine had seen began with Mani’s self-identification as the apostle of Jesus Christ rather than that Augustine was acquainted with all of Mani’s letters. Augustine also attests that the letter is the most famous among Mani’s writings or letters (litteras).45 The testimony of C. ep. fund. proves that Augustine knew more works

honoribus prosequamini: “… though you celebrate with great honours your Bema, that is, the day on which Mani was killed, with the lectern raised up by five steps, adorned with precious cloths, placed in the midst and facing toward the worshipers”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 202, l. 11–14; trans R.  Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 239. On this festival, see M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, pp. 90–92. 43 Augustine,

C. ep. fund. 5: Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi prouidentia dei patris: “Mani, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 197, l. 10–11; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 236. 44 Augustine, C. ep. fund. 6: certe si nihil interesse arbitratus est, cur non uarie in aliis epistolis apostolum Christi se nominat, in aliis, paracleti? sed Christi semper audiui, quotienscumque audiui, paracleti autem nec semel: “For, if Paul thought that it made no difference, why does he not call himself in various ways an apostle of Christ in some letters and in others an apostle of the Paraclete? But I have always heard ‘an apostle of Christ’ as often as I heard it, but I have never heard ‘an apostle of the Paraclete’”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 199, l. 25–200, l. 2; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 239. 45 Augustine,

C. ep. fund. 25: sed quidquid aliud inueneritis figurae, quo duae istae terrae sibi coniungantur, delere profecto Manichaei litteras non potestis: non dico alias, quibus expressius ista descripsit – fortassis enim quia paucioribus notae sunt, minus periculi habere uideantur – sed istas ipsas, de quibus nunc agitur, epistulae fundamenti, quae fere omnibus, qui apud uos illuminati uocantur solet esse notissima: “But whatever other shape you find by which these two lands might be joined to each other, you certainly cannot delete the words of Mani. I do not mean other words by which he described these things more explicitly. For, because fewer persons know them, they are perhaps thought to entail less danger. But I mean the very words from the Letter of the Foundation which we are now discussing and which all of you who are called ‘enlightened’ know very well”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 224, l. 21–28; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 253.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

237

of Mani than solely the Ep. fund. he was refuting here.46 Finally, when he reviews his C. ep. fund. in the Retr., Augustine mentions that he had wanted to refute the entirety of the letter but in fact only cited and discussed its beginning. In the same notice, he states that he had a copy of the Ep. fund. in his possession, to which he had added his own remarks.47 By far the most elaborate of all of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works is C. Faust. It constitutes a refutation in 33 books of Faustus’ Capitula. The genre to which Faustus’ Capitula belonged was popular among the Manichaeans; it is similar to the Coptic Kephalaia discovered in Medinet Madi (Egypt) in 1928.48 Texts of this genre consist of separate questions, each receiving a detailed exposition by a Manichaean teacher (Mani in the Kephalaia, Faustus in the Capitula). Faustus’ Capitula serve a pragmatic and didactic purpose. The two most frequently recurring topics in the Capitula are the incarnation of Christ and the Old Testament. To possible objections by non-Manichaean Christians, Faustus provides a model response.49 Each combination of question and answer con46  See K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 264.72, who refers to Augustine, C. ep. fund. 28: diuersa fuisse respondent et de aliis libris ita docent, quod tenebrae serpentes habuerunt: “The Manichaeans answer that there were different kinds, and thus they teach from other books that the darkness has serpents”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 229, l. 12–13; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 255. 47 Augustine,

Retr. II,2: Liber contra epistulam Manichaei quam uocant fundamenti principia eius sola redarguit; sed in ceteris illius partibus adnotationes ubi uidebatur adfixae sunt, quibus tota subuertitur et quibus commonerer, si quando contra totam scribere uacuisset: “The book in answer to the letter of Mani known as The Foundation refutes only its beginnings. But, where it seemed appropriate, annotations were added to other parts of it that undermine the whole [letter] and that would serve as reminders if there were ever time to write against all of it”; ed. by A. Mutzenbecher (CCSL, 57), p. 91, l. 3–6; trans. R. Teske, The Revisions, p. 112. 48 G. Wurst, “Bemerkungen zu Struktur und genus litterarum der Capitula des Faustus von Mileve”, pp. 308–13. 49 J. D. BeDuhn, “Am I a Christian?”, pp. 40–42 argues that Faustus’ teachings focus on the ethical conduct of the Manichaeans, and that Faustus was somewhat sceptical towards doctrinal scrutiny. However, J. van Oort, “Once Again”, pp. 242–43 disagrees with BeDuhn’s description of Faustus as a “sceptic”. S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire, pp. 154– 58.63–68 also points to the combative and critical nature of the Manichae-

238

chapter vii

stitutes one capitulum. Augustine’s C. Faust. cites and refutes the Capitula in their original (dis)order.50 In addition to his citations of Faustus’ Capitula, Augustine often alludes to other Manichaean scripture in C. Faust. For example, Augustine seems to allude to the contents of Mani’s Gospel in his second book against Faustus:51 “But why do you not rather think of the great impudence with which you call those long and wicked myths of yours the gospel? What good news is announced in them, after all, where God is said to have been unable to look out for and care for his own kingdom against I know not what rebellious, opposing, and alien nature otherwise than by sending a part of his own nature into its hungry jaws to be devoured and polluted so that, after such great labours and torments, it could not even be wholly purified? Is such bad news the gospel? Surely all who know Greek even slightly translate ‘gospel’ as ‘good news’ or ‘good message.’ But how is this good news, since God himself is reported to mourn with a veil set before his eyes until his members are restored and purified from that devastation and contamination? If at some point he ends his grieving, he will be cruel. For why did the part of him that will be bound in the sphere of darkness merit such punishment from ans. During debates, Manichaeans such as Faustus would often throw off their opponents by formulating sharp counter-questions. Manichaean debaters often argued on an ad hoc basis and did not always focus on the logical consistency of their argumentation. 50 G. Wurst, “Bemerkungen zu Struktur und genus litterarum der Capitula des Faustus von Mileve”, pp. 317–18. 51 Augustine, C. Faust. II,6: sed cur non potius cogitatis, quanta impudentia prolixas illas et impias fabulas uestras euangelium nominetis? quid enim illic boni annuntiatur, ubi dicitur deus aduersus rebellem nescio quam contrariam alienamque naturam non aliter regno suo potuisse prospicere atque consulere, nisi partem suae naturae in illius auidas fauces deuorandam mitteret, atque ita polluendam, ut post tantos labores atque cruciatus non posset saltem tota purgari? itane tam malus nuntius euangelium est? certe omnes, qui graece uel tenuiter nouerunt, euangelium bonum nuntium aut bonam annuntiationem interpretantur. quomodo est autem iste bonus nuntius, quandoquidem ipse deus uobis uelo sibi opposito lugere nuntiatus est, donec sua membra ab illa uastatione et contaminatione reparentur atque purgentur? qui si aliquando luctum finierit, crudelis erit. quid enim de illo male meruit pars illa eius, quae in globo ligabitur? quae utique in aeternum lugenda est, quia in aeternum damnabitur. sed euasimus, quod istum nuntium quisquis diligenter aduerterit, non cogitur lugere, quia malus est, sed ridere, quia falsus est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 260, l. 27-p. 261, l. 18; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, pp. 75–76.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

239

him? It must certainly be eternally mourned because it will be eternally damned. But we have escaped, since whoever considers this news carefully is not forced to mourn because it is bad but to laugh at it because it is false.”

This description appears to be the only evidence that Mani’s Gospel was known in the Latin West. We return to this testimony concerning Mani’s Gospel in the following section. In  C. Faust., as in C. ep. fund., Augustine states that all of Mani’s letters begin in the same way: “Mani, apostle of Jesus Christ”.52 This opening line corresponds to what he had identified as the beginning of the Ep. fund. In other passages Augustine cites from the same letter.53 He also frequently summarizes the account of “the seduction of the archons”, a section from the Thes. that he would cite in full later in his Nat. b. 54 He alludes twice to the 52 Augustine, C. Faust. XIII,4: omnes tamen eius epistulae ita exordiuntur: Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi: “Yet all his letters begin as follows: ‘Mani, an apostle of Jesus Christ’”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 381, l. 4–5; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 160. 53 Augustine, C. Faust. XXI,16; XXII,22. See M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 36–37. 54 See, for example, Augustine, C. Faust. XV,7: sed si nefas est coniugem concupiscere alienam, considera, quid sit concupiscendum se proponere alienis, et recordare deos tuos formosos et deas formosas praebentes se ut ardenter concupiscantur, illi a feminis principibus tenebrarum, et illae a masculis: quibus excitatis in fruendam libidinem et in suos amplexus inhianter aestuantibus, eruant ab eis illum deum tuum ubique compeditum et tanta suorum turpitudine, ut solui ualeat, indigentem: “But if it is wrong to lust after another person’s wife, consider what it is to present oneself to be lusted after by others, and recall your handsome gods and fair goddesses who presented themselves to be passionately lusted after – the males by princesses of darkness, and the females by princes of darkness. When they are aroused for the satisfaction of their lust and are ardently ablaze for their mutual embraces, they rescue from themselves that God of yours, who is shackled everywhere and who needs a great act of impurity in order to be released”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 431, l. 4–12; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 193; Augustine, C. Faust. XX,6: illud est intolerabiliter sceleratum, quod de ipsa naui puellas pulchras et pueros proponi dicitis, quorum formosissimis corporibus inardescant principes tenebrarum, ad feminas masculi et ad masculos feminae, ut in ipsa flagranti libidine et inhianti concupiscentia de membris eorum tamquam de taetris sordidisque compedibus dei uestri membra soluantur. et his obscaenissimis pannis uestris conamini assuere ineffabilem trinitatem dicentes patrem in secreto quodam lumine habitare, filii autem in sole uirtutem, in luna sapientiam, spiritum uero sanctum

240

chapter vii

terminology of another fragment of Mani’s Thes., which Evodius would cite in his anti-Manichaean treatise.55 One Manichaean work that Augustine mentions by name is the Song of the Lovers (amato-

in aere!: “But it is intolerably criminal when you say that handsome boys and beautiful girls are displayed from that ship and that the princes of darkness are inflamed with lust for their very lovely bodies, the males for the females and the females for the males, so that, in their burning lust and craving desire, members of your God may be released from their members, as if from foul and sordid shackles. And you try to stitch the ineffable Trinity to these most obscene rags of yours, saying that the Father dwells in a certain hidden light but that the power of the Son dwells in the sun and his wisdom in the moon, while the Holy Spirit dwells in the air”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 540, l. 20-p. 541, l. 3; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 265; Augustine, C. Faust. XX,8: itane uero, detestanda et anathemanda stultitia, Christus per solem lunamque distentus hic uirtute habitans, hic sapientia nec hic perfectus et plenus nec in sole sapiens nec in luna praepotens, utrobique pulchros pueros subornat concupiscendos feminis principibus tenebrarum et masculis puellas? haec legitis, haec creditis, haec docetis, ex hac fide doctrinaque uiuitis, et miramini, quia sic abominamini!: “And so, by your despicable and damnable stupidity, Christ is stretched out through the sun and the moon, dwelling in the one with power, in the other with wisdom, not complete and full either here or there, neither wise in the sun nor powerful in the moon. Does this Christ display in both places handsome youths to be lusted after by the prince of darkness? You read this; you believe this; you teach this; and you live according to that faith and teaching, and yet you wonder that you are so despised!”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 543, l. 27-p. 544, l. 6; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 267; Augustine, C. Faust. XXII,98: at uero deum uestrum quando paenitebit, quod a tartareo genere masculino ac feminino principum tenebrarum adamatus eorum libidini sua membra concessit: “But when will your God repent for having been loved by the princes and princesses of darkness from that hellish nation and for having yielded his members to their passion”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 704, l. 19–22; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 372. Cf. Augustine, Nat. b. 44 and Adu. Man. 14,2–16,15. See the discussion of this fragment in section 3.2.2. 55 Augustine, C. Faust. XVIII,7: quippe quem dicitis, ne sua membra illius impetu capta et uastata conspiciat, uelum contra se posuisse: “You of course say that he set a veil before his eyes so that he might not see his own members captured and devastated by the attack of that nation”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 496, l. 6–7; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 235; Augustine, C. Faust. XXII,12: quandoquidem deus eorum cum membra sua mersit in tenebras, uelum contra se posuit?: “After all, when their God plunged his own members into the darkness, he set up a veil before his eyes”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 600, l. 1–2; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 303. Cf. Adu. Man. 13,3–6.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

241

rium canticum).56 The details Augustine offers on the Manichaean myth are impressive. In C. Faust. XV,6 Augustine sums up five Manichaean deities. Not only do these five deities correspond to the five that are attested in the Kephalaia, Augustine also sums up all five in the same (thus presumably correct) order.57 This level of precision confirms that Augustine was well informed on the details of the Manichaean system. C. Faust. also marks the first time that Augustine refers to the Manichaean globus.58 This 56 Augustine, C. Faust. XV,5: annon recordaris amatorium canticum tuum, ubi describis maximum regnantem regem, sceptrigerum perennem, floreis coronis cinctum et facie rutilantem? quem si solum talem amares, erubescendum tibi esset; nam etiam uir unus floreis coronis cinctus pudicae coniugi displiceret: “Or do you not recall your love song, in which you describe the sovereign king in his reign, the everlasting sceptre-bearer, girded with crowns of flowers and ruddy of face? If you loved one such lover, you ought to be ashamed. For a chaste wife would not be pleased by one husband girded with crowns of flowers”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 425, l. 4–8; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 189. See S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire, pp. 170–71; J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism”, p. 460. 57 Augustine, C. Faust. XV,6: o lasciua, immunda, sine fronte adhuc ista garris, adhuc pascis uentos, adhuc amplecteris idola cordis tui! itane tu facie ad faciem uidisti regnantem regem sceptrigerum floreis coronis cinctum et deorum agmina et splenditenentem magnum, sex uultus et ora ferentem micantemque lumine, et alterum regem honoris angelorum exercitibus circumdatum; et alterum adamantem heroam belligerum dextra hastam tenentem et sinistra clipeum; et alterum gloriosum regem tres rotas impellentem, ignis, aquae et uenti; et maximum Atlantem mundum ferentem humeris, et eum genu flexo brachiis utrimque secus fulcientem?: “Oh, how foully, uncleanly, and shamelessly you mouth these ideas! You still feed the winds; you still embrace the idols of your heart! Have you seen face to face the king in his reign, the sceptre-bearer girded with crowns of flowers, the armies of the gods, the great splendorous bearer, who has six faces and mouths and shines with light, and the other king of honour, surrounded by hosts of angels? Have you seen the other inflexible warrior-hero, holding a spear in his right hand and a shield in his left, and the other glorious king, who propels the three wheels of fire, water, and wind? Have you seen the mighty Atlas, who bears the world on his shoulders and who with one knee on the ground supports it on both sides with his arms?”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 428, l. 3–13; trans. R. Teske, Answer to Faustus, p. 191. See J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism”, p. 444; J. P. Maher, “Saint Augustine and Manichaean Cosmogony”, p. 100. 58  E.g. in Augustine, C. Faust. II,5; II,6; V,7; VIII,2; XIII,6; XIII,18; XX,9; XXI,15–16; XXII,22; XXII,98; XXIII,10; XXVI,6; XXVIII,8; XXXII,19.

242

chapter vii

concept plays an important role in Manichaean eschatology. The entirety of the kingdom of darkness will be confined to the globus, which will in turn be surrounded or covered by light-particles that keep guard so that the powers of evil cannot launch a new assault on the kingdom of light. Augustine could have found this doctrine in Mani’s Ep. fund. 59 To summarize, Augustine had a good grasp on Manichaean doctrine and specific Manichaean terminology. With regard to Manichaean works, Augustine possibly alludes to Mani’s Gospel, is familiar with the contents of the Thes., knew many of Mani’s letters (including the Ep. fund. and a letter which contained a rule of living), had probably seen some books of Mani, perhaps also his Book of Pictures, and had sung Manichaean songs, including a Song of the Lovers. 60 1.2. The Pentateuch of the Manichaean Felix Felix was a Manichaean teacher in Hippo who agreed to a public discussion with Augustine. This discussion was held over two days in December 404.61 The writings of Mani featured prominently in this debate. Felix was challenged to defend the contents of Manichaean scripture. In C. Fel. I,14, Felix refers to “the five writings of Mani” which had been confiscated from him. The passage is worth citing in full:62 “Felix said: ‘And I shall prove to you whatever you ask if you bring me the writings of Mani – the five authorities that I mentioned to you.’ 59  Cf. Evodius’ 60  See

citation of the Ep. fund., fr. 8 in Adu. Man. 5,24–27.

also S. N. C. Lieu, Greek and Latin Sources, pp. 156–57.

61 F. Decret, “Felicem Manichaeum (Contra -)”, col. 1257. Cf. K.-L. E. Lee, Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good, pp. 13–14, who situates this debate in 398. 62 Augustine, C. Fel. I,14: FEL. dixit: Et ego, si attuleris mihi scripturas Manichaei, quinque auctores, quos tibi dixi, quidquid me interrogaueris, probo tibi. AUG. dixit: De ipsis quinque auctoribus est ista epistula, cuius aperuimus principium et inuenimus ibi scriptum: Manichaeus apostolus Christi Iesu – et uideo, quia ipsum non mihi principium exponis, quia non probas, quomodo sit Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi. FEL. dixit: Si in ista non probo, in secundo probo. AUG. dixit: In quo secundo? FEL. dixit: In Thesauro; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 817, l. 17–27; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 290.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

243

Augustine said: ‘This letter whose beginning we have discussed and in which we have found it written, ‘Mani, an apostle of Jesus Christ’, comes from these five authorities, and I see that you are not explaining that very beginning because you are not proving how Mani is an apostle of Jesus Christ.’ Felix said: ‘If I do not prove these things in this work, I shall prove them in the second.’ Augustine said: ‘In which second work?’ Felix said: ‘In The Treasury.’”

Augustine and Felix are discussing a collection of five of Mani’s works. Of these five works, Felix and Augustine assert that the first one was the Ep. fund., and the second was Mani’s Thes. The other three works of this collection are not mentioned. This passage has led to much scholarly speculation. It is noteworthy that, in comparison to other Manichaean book lists,63 the Ep. fund. is mentioned as the first and seemingly most important work. In other Manichaean book lists, the first position is almost always reserved for Mani’s Gospel. The second place, occupied here by the Thes., is consistent with Manichaean testimony elsewhere concerning the order of the books.64 That Felix cites the Ep. fund. as the first text suggests that it had replaced Mani’s Gospel as the most important work in North African Manichaeism. The question of the precise genre, status and contents of the Ep. fund. is subject of section 2 in this chapter. It is difficult to determine which other three auctores would have been part of Felix’s pentateuch, although it would seem logical that they can be identified with the remaining works of Mani. Of Mani’s canon, the following works remain: the Pragmateia, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Giants, the other Epistles and, finally, the Psalms and Prayers. It is possible that – as in the Coptic pentateuch of the Kephalaia – the Pragmateia, the Book of Mysteries, and the Book of Giants had begun to circulate as one work. That would result in a list of five (collections of) works, with the 63 To reiterate, most sources present the Manichaean canon as a collection of the following seven works: (1) the Living Gospel; (2) the Treasury of Life (Thesaurus); (3) the Pragmateia; (4) the Book of Mysteries; (5) the Book of Giants; (6) a collection of Epistles; (7) Mani’s Psalms and Prayers. See n. 14. 64  See the overview in G. Wurst, “L’état de la recherche sur le canon manichéen”, p. 244.

244

chapter vii

list being rounded out by Mani’s other letters and his collection of psalms and prayers. 1.3. Further Developments There are four testimonies concerning the Manichaean canon after Augustine’s debate with Felix. The first of these witnesses is Augustine himself, who continued to refute the Manichaeans, most notably in his Nat. b. and C. Sec. Secondly, Augustine’s friend and colleague Evodius wrote his own anti-Manichaean treatise. Though heavily indebted to Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, the treatise Adu. Man. offers some unique information on the Manichaean movement. A third important fifth-century author is Julian of Eclanum, who accused Augustine of Manichaeism. His accusation is partly based on Manichaean scripture, from which he cites when comparing Augustine to the movement. A fourth and final source is the fifth- or sixth-century Decretum gelasianum, which contains a catalogue of forbidden works. Several of Mani’s works appear on this list. In his final two explicitly anti-Manichaean writings, namely, Nat. b. and C. Sec., Augustine continues to refer to and cite from Manichaean scripture. This is most clearly the case in his Nat. b., in which he supplies two of the longest extant Latin Manichaean fragments, one from Mani’s Ep. fund.,65 and one from the Thes. 66 Augustine’s response to the Manichaean Secundinus also contains several citations from the Ep. fund., though Augustine does not cite any new material there. Augustine’s ability to cite large sections of Mani’s Thes. could suggest that he had obtained a copy of the book, perhaps by confiscating one in the aftermath of the debate with Felix. Evodius’ Adu. Man. also contains several Manichaean citations. Like Augustine, Evodius only cites from the Ep. fund. and the Thes. Although the manner in which he incorporates Manichaean citations in his argumentation often corresponds to Augustine’s earlier usage of Manichaean scripture, Evodius’ treatise also con65 Augustine,

Nat. b. 46; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 884, l. 29-p. 886, l. 17; M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 32–35. 66 Augustine, Nat. b. 44; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 881, l. 24-p. 884, l. 2; M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 38–43.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

245

tains some unique fragments. That he is able to situate his citations among the whole of the Ep. fund. and the Thes. indicates that he too had a copy of each work in its entirety at his disposal.67 Evodius also appears aware of the existence of Mani’s other works. His summary of their contents leaves the question as to whether he had consulted these works.68 Of particular interest is his qualification of the Ep. fund. as the caput (“head”) of all of Mani’s stories.69 The use of this term could confirm that by the time Evodius wrote his anti-Manichaean treatise, the Ep. fund. had replaced Mani’s Gospel as the most important of Mani’s writings in the Latin West.70 As we will see in what follows, the Ep. fund. may have replaced the Gospel partly because the former contained many of the same elements of Manichaean doctrine as the latter. In the previous chapter, we saw that Evodius was aware of Mani’s teaching regarding his “twin” (geminus). If the content of the Ep. fund. roughly corresponds to the content of the Gospel, then perhaps Evodius found the term twin (geminus or σύζυγος) in Mani’s Ep. fund. 71 If true, the implication would be that Evodius need not have consulted any Manichaean text other than the Ep. fund. and the Thes. Julian of Eclanum is an interesting witness to Manichaeism in Italy in the 420s. When he accuses Augustine of Manichaeism, he cites evidence from two of Mani’s letters. Much to Augustine’s sur67  For the Ep. fund., see Adu. Man. 12,13–15. For the Thes., see Adu. Man. 5,11; Adu. Man. 13,5–6; Adu. Man. 14,1–2. M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, p. 50 claims that Evodius’ remark “in secundo Thesauri libro” (Adu. Man. 14) points to the second position of the Thes. in the Manichaean canon. This, however, does not seem to be the case. The Latin of Evodius does not support this view, and Evodius always mentions from which book of the Thes. he cites. 68 

Adu. Man. 36,7–10.

69 

Adu. Man. 36,4–6.

70  Notice too in this regard the coincidental use of the expression “mise en tête”, which both M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, p. 47, and G. Wurst, “L’état de la recherche sur le canon manichéen”, p. 245 use in order to describe Mani’s Gospel as the first (and most important) work in Manichaean book lists. 71 Cf. a

Greek fragment possibly pertaining to Mani’s Gospel, preserved in the Cologne Mani Codex: ἐξαπέστειλεν ἐκεῖθεν σύζυγόν μου τὸν ἀσφαλέστατον: “he [God, the Father of Truth] sent from there my never-failing Syzygos”; ed. L. Koenen & C. Römer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex, p. 136; trans. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 3.

246

chapter vii

prise, Julian cites from an Epistula ad Menoch, a letter Augustine had never heard of before.72 Julian had received this letter from his friend Florus in Constantinople. The authenticity of the letter is much disputed.73 Augustine’s ignorance of the letter may illustrate the regional diversity of Manichaeism. After all, the Epistula ad Menoch came from the Greek world, and not from the Latin Manichaean world, which Augustine knew well. The second letter Julian refers to is a letter to a certain Patricius. Most scholars agree that this name is a misspelling of Patticius, the name of the addressee of the Ep. fund., and that the Ep. fund. and the letter to Patticius could well be one and the same.74 If this is the case, then it is striking that Julian did not know the letter by the same name as Augustine, Felix, and Evodius knew it. In al-Nadīm’s list of Manichaean letters, one letter had the title Long Epistle to Fatiq. The title by which the letter was known to Julian thus corresponds to the evidence of al-Nadīm. Consequently, the very title Epistula fundamenti may have been an innovation of the Latin Manichaean community, perhaps from North Africa in particular. The Decretum Gelasianum is a sixth-century ecclesiastical document that likely preserves fifth-century traditions. Its fifth section contains a list of forbidden works (apocryphal texts, or works from suspect authors). Although the Decretum Gelasianum contains several inaccuracies – for example, it mentions the Acts of Andrew separately from the works attributed to Leucius – it is a valuable testimony to the continued presence of Manichaeism in the Latin Roman world. Several of these forbidden works pertain to the 72 M. Lamberigts,

“Was Augustine a Manichaean?”, p. 116.

73 Scholars

have argued that it was either an authentic letter of Mani, a letter written by later Manichaeans in imitation of Mani’s style, or a falsification, perhaps by Pelagians. On this question, see G. Harrison & J. D. BeDuhn, “The Authenticity and Doctrine of (Ps.?) Mani’s Letter to Menoch”; M.  Stein, Manichaica latina 1, pp. 25–43; M. Lamberigts, “Was Augustine a Manichaean?”, pp. 116–17. Harrison and BeDuhn see no reason to reject Mani’s authorship, and consider it authentic. S. N. C. Lieu, Greek and Latin Sources, pp. 152–53, on the other hand, is not convinced of its authenticity. 74 G. Harrison & J. D. BeDuhn, “The Authenticity and Doctrine of (Ps.?) Mani’s Letter to Menoch”, p. 136, n. 38; S. N. C. Lieu. Greek and Latin Sources, p. 152; I. Gardner & L. Rasouli-Narimani. “Patīg and Pattikios in the Manichaean Sources”, p. 84.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

247

Manichaean movement. These texts are: the Acts of Andrew; the Gospel of Thomas; all the books of Leucius, who is called a “disciple of the devil” (discipulus diabuli); the book titled Fundamentum, which is undoubtedly the Ep. fund.; the book titled the Treasure (Mani’s Thes.); a Book of the giant Og; the works of the Manichaean Faustus.75 Shortly afterwards, Mani’s name features in a list of heretics.76 Some sort of structure can be discerned in this list. For example, the Acts of Andrew appear among several apocryphal Acts, and the Thes. follows immediately after the Ep. fund. The Book of the giant Og could possibly be identified with Mani’s Book of Giants, but as it features among Old Testament apocrypha (such as the Testament of Job and the Book of the Penitence of Adam), it might be a Jewish pseudepigraphical Book of Giants instead.77 The list of the Decretum Gelasianum does not mention Mani’s Gospel, and, similarly to the pentateuch of Felix, cites the Ep. fund. and the Thes. together, in this order. To conclude, not all of Mani’s works have been attested in the Latin speaking world. The relevant sources seem to indicate that the canon of Manichaean scripture underwent a development. While Augustine recalls elements of the Manichaean Gospel, during his lifetime this work may have been replaced in Latin Manichaeism by Mani’s Ep. fund., in as far as the Ep. fund. is attested as the most authoritative Manichaean work, and no other testimonia on the Gospel exist. Perhaps this innovation originated more specifically in the North African branch of Manichaeism. Augustine remembers that the Ep. fund. was read during Manichaean gatherings, possibly during the Bema festival. This experience should be situated in Africa, when Augustine was an active member of the Manichaean movement. After all, by the time he 75  Decretum Gelasianum V: Actus nomine Andreae apostoli … Euangelium nomine Thomae … Libri omnes quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, Liber qui appellatur Fundamentum, Liber qui appellatur Thesaurus … Liber de Ogia nomine gigante qui post diluuium cum dracone ab hereticis pugnasse perhibetur… opuscula Fausti Manichei …; ed. by E. von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum, pp. 49–56, l. 265–316. 76 

Decretum Gelasianum V: Haec et his similia quae … Manicheus … docuerunt uel conscripserunt; ed. by E. von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum, pp. 58–60, l. 336–49. 77  S. N. C.

Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire, p. 118.

248

chapter vii

travelled to Rome in 383, he was no longer the same studious Hearer he had been before.78 If the Ep. fund. can be identified with the Long Epistle to Fatiq of al-Nadīm’s list of Mani’s Epistles, then perhaps the very name of the letter was also adjusted in African Manichaeism. In Italy, Julian of Eclanum knew this letter as the Epistle to Patticius, which corresponds better to al-Nadīm’s testimony. By the time the work is referred to as the Fundamentum in the Decretum Gelasianum, Manichaeans from North Africa had fled to Italy and Gaul as refugees from the Vandal invasions. They would have brought their writings, and the letter entitled Epistula fundamenti, with them.79 Originally one of Mani’s letters, the Ep. fund. became the most important Manichaean work, heading all Manichaean book lists from Augustine’s debate with the Manichaean Felix onwards (i.e., Felix’s pentateuch, Evodius’ Adu. Man., the Decretum Gelasianum). The work probably began to circulate more or less independently as a single codex. This could explain why its latest known late antique testimony, the Decretum Gelasianum, considers the writing a book (liber) and not a letter. In his monumental study of African Manichaeism, Decret came to a striking conclusion: from an external point of view, the Latin African Manichaeans and the Catholic Christians were practically undiscernible.80 Nowhere else in the Roman Empire had the Manichaeans assimilated to such a degree with the mainstream church. This degree of assimilation was probably the result of Roman anti-Manichaean legislation.81 By conforming to mainstream Christianity, the African Manichaeans were attempting to avoid persecution. At the same time, the Catholic Church in the Latin West seemed less informed about the specificity of Manichaeism than in the Greek East, especially with regard to the Manichaean canon. Preserved anti-Manichaean anathemas from

78  See

J. van Oort, “Manichaean Christians”, pp. 512–13.

79 S. N. C.

Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire, pp. 204–05; H. G. Schipper & J. van Oort, Sancti Leonis magni romani pontificis sermones et epistulae, p. 1. 80 F. Decret, 81 On

L’Afrique manichéenne, p. 210.

the persecution of Manichaeism in the Latin Roman world, see S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire, pp. 192–207.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

249

the Greek world display a good knowledge of the Manichaean canon. The Manichaean works listed in these texts correspond to Manichaean book lists elsewhere. The church in the Latin world does not offer such detailed information about Manichaean scripture. The Decretum Gelasianum only refers to the Ep. fund. and the Thes., and maybe also to Mani’s Book of Giants. Latin anathemas only offer information on presumed heretical opinions of the Manichaeans, not on Mani’s writings.82 In comparison, Greek anathemas do reflect on the Manichaean canon.83 Whether this divergence between the Latin and Greek churches also hints at different developments in the Manichaean world is difficult to say. If that were the case, then it would appear that some writings of Mani fell out of favour in the Latin Manichaean world. Alternatively, it could simply mean that the Manichaeans in the Latin West were better at hiding their particular scriptures from the Catholic Christian and Roman authorities, or that the Latin

82 Ed. A. Adam, Texte zum Manichäismus, pp. 86–93. Of the three Latin anathemas edited by Adam, none mention a work of Mani by name. Instead, all focus on doctrine. 83 S. N. C. Lieu, “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism”, discusses three Greek anathemas: the Seven Chapters (ed. and trans. ibid., pp. 176–88), which is a sixth-century anathema formula attributed to Zacharias of Mytilene, the Long formula (ed. and trans. ibid., pp. 177–89), and the Short formula (trans. ibid., p. 215; ed. G. Ficker, “Eine Sammlung von Abschwörungsformeln”, pp. 446–48). Although the latter two texts derive from the Seven Chapters, the Short formula does contain unique information on the Manichaean canon. The Seven Chapters lists following works of Mani: the Thes., the Gospel, the Book of Secrets, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Recollections, the anti-Old Testament works of Addas and Adimantus (sic), the Heptalogue of Agapius, the Epistles of Mani and Mani’s Prayers. The Long formula contains a similar list, but with an altered order. It cites Mani’s Epistles first, followed by the Gospel, the Thes., the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Secrets, the Book of Recollections, the works of Addas and Adimantus, the Heptalogue of Agapius, the Theosophy of Aristocritus and Mani’s Prayers. Third, the Short formula lists the Gospel, the Thes., Mani’s Letters, the Book of Mysteries, the Treatise on the Giants, the Heptalogue of Agapius and Mani’s Prayers. The Short formula’s overview corresponds to the classical canon of Mani’s works. The title Treatise on the Giants (τὴν τῶν γιγάντων πραγματείαν) is a contraction of two titles, namely the Book of the Giants and the Treatise (or Pragmateia). See also S. N. C. Lieu, “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism”, pp. 171.97–99.

250

chapter vii

church was not as well informed about the movement as its Greek counterpart. 2. The Epistula fundamenti At this point it is opportune to discuss the nature of the Ep. fund.: what precisely is the Ep. fund.?84 A Manichaean work by this name is attested only in the Latin-speaking world, more precisely in the anti-Manichaean works of Augustine and Evodius. Hypotheses regarding this writing are many: it could be a handbook for initiates or a compendium of the Manichaean myth;85 it could simply be one of Mani’s authentic letters;86 perhaps it should be identified with the written text that accompanied Mani’s Book of Pictures.87 Scholars have also attempted to identify the Ep. fund. with other Manichaean works, such as the Kephalaia 88 or Mani’s Gospel.89 Such identifications find support in parallels between the Ep. fund. on the one hand and certain of the Manichaean works mentioned on the other.90 An interesting extension of these hypotheses is that the Ep. fund. was not identical to, but did supplant, Mani’s Gospel

84 The most serious attempt to formulate a response to this question had been undertaken by K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 21–47. See also E. Feldmann, Die “Epistula Fundamenti”, pp. 4–7. 85 M. Scopello, “L’Epistula fundamenti à la lumière des sources manichéennes du Fayoum”, pp. 216–17; S. N. C. Lieu, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 150. 86  This is the conclusion which Kaatz reached in his survey (“Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 45–47). See also I. Gardner & L. Rasouli-Narimani, “Patīg and Pattikios in the Manichaean Sources”, pp. 83–84. 87  This

hypothesis is suggested, for example, in J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism”, p. 450. Van Oort considers this possible identification an open question. 88  See K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 32–38 for a discussion (and rejection) of this hypothesis, and M. Scopello, “L’Epistula fundamenti à la lumière des sources manichéennes du Fayoum”, pp. 225– 29 for several parallels between the two works. 89 K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 25–29; I.  Gardner “The Reconstruction of Mani’s Epistles from Three Coptic Codices”, pp. 102–04. See also J. van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, pp. 79–80. 90  See, in this regard, also the commentary in E. Feldmann, Die “Epistula Fundamenti”, pp. 24–116.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

251

in the Latin West.91 This theory can be supported by the evidence in the Latin world and harmonizes with the hypotheses that the Ep. fund. was both a compendium of Manichaean teachings as well as an authentic letter of Mani. Alternative hypotheses hold that the Ep. fund. could have been a later redaction of one or more of Mani’s works. Feldmann suggests that the Ep. fund. contains elements of two different letters.92 Alternatively, the Ep. fund. could be a redaction of one of Mani’s more cosmological works – possibly the Gospel – in the form of a letter. His authentic letters would have been more pastoral in content.93 However, it must be noted that such an observation on the whole of Mani’s letters is based on fragmentary remnants of preserved letters. At a minimum, the Ep. fund. constitutes one of Mani’s letters. A non-exhaustive list of these letters has been preserved in Ibn al-Nadīm’s Fihrist. Among the 76 letters al-Nadīm sums up, a name corresponding to the Ep. fund. does not appear, though the letter might be identified with the Epistle of the Two Principles or, more likely, with the Long Epistle to Fatiq.94 The addressee of the Ep. fund. is Patticius, which corresponds to the Arabic name Fatiq or, as he was probably known to Mani, Patīg.95 Patticius had asked Mani about the generation of Adam and Eve. Mani’s response not only contains an exposition on Adam and Eve, but also on the entirety of cosmic history. The account spans the 91  This hypothesis has been addressed before in K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, p. 25 and J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism”, p. 463. 92 E. Feldmann, 93 I. Gardner,

Die “Epistula Fundamenti”, p. 34.

Kellis Literary Texts 2, pp. 13–14.

94 

Al-Nadīm’s list can be found, in translation, in J. C. Reeves, Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism, pp. 115–19. See also K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 45–46. 95 I. Gardner & L. Rasouli-Narimani, “Patīg and Pattikios in the Manichaean Sources”, pp. 97–100 distinguish between three different acquaintances of Mani with this name. The first is Mani’s father (or father figure), who had left the baptist movement of the Elchasaites together with Mani. He is thus one of the eldest members of the original Manichaean movement. The second Patīg is an addressee of Mani’s letters. The third person with this name was one of Mani’s first missionaries. He was sent on missions both in India and in the Roman Empire. It is possible that the final two persons can be identified as one and the same.

252

chapter vii

beginning to the end of time. It is difficult to assess exactly how long the Ep. fund. was. The preserved Latin fragments contain 1000 words in total. Since the entirety of the Ep. fund. could circulate as a single codex,96 the letter may have been of a length similar to Paul’s longer epistles (e.g., Rom, 1 Cor). The letter could function as a handbook because it touched on many essentials of the Manichaean system. Many stylistic parallels can be observed between the Ep. fund. and Mani’s other, preserved letters. Augustine’s remark that all letters begin in the same way (“Mani, an apostle of Jesus Christ”), can be confirmed on the basis of a comparison with extant fragments of Mani’s letters.97 Mani’s self-identification as “apostle of Jesus Christ” is well attested in other Manichaean texts. This epithet features in the opening words of Mani’s Gospel (preserved in Greek) and is inscribed (in Syriac) on a third-century Manichaean seal. The title is a central element of Mani’s religious self-awareness.98 The greeting formulae of the Ep. fund. and of the Letter 96 Augustine, C. Fel. I,1: Et cum Augustinus episcopus epistulam Manichaei, quam Fundamenti appellant, protulisset, dixit: Si legero ex hoc codice, quem me uides ferre, epistulam Manichaei quam Fundamenti appellatis, potes agnoscere an ipsa sit? FEL. dixit: Agnosco. AUG. dixit: Accipe tu ipse et lege. Et cum accepisset codicem Felix, legit: “And after Bishop Augustine had brought forth the letter of Mani known as The Foundation, he said: ‘if I read from this book, which you see that I am carrying, the letter of Mani that you call The Foundation, can you recognize whether this is it?’ Felix said: ‘I recognize it.’ Augustine said: ‘Take it yourself and read.’ And after Felix had taken the book, he read …”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 801, l. 10–16; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 280. 97  See I. Gardner, “Mani’s Letter to Marcellus”, p. 40. The Greek text of the Letter to Marcellus (cited in the Acta Archelai) corresponds with the exordium of the Ep. fund. (Μανιχαῖος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; ed.  by C.  H. Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 5, l. 22) and with preserved fragments in Coptic. The preserved beginning of Mani’s Letter of the Seal in Sogdian reads as follows (in English translation): “Mani, the apostle of Jesus Aryāmān”. See C. Reck, “A Sogdian Version of Mani’s Letter of the Seal”, p. 228. 98 For the Gospel fragment, see L. Koenen & C. Römer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex, pp.  130–31: ἐγὼ Μαννιχαῖος Ἰη(σο)ῦ Χρ(ιστο)ῦ ἀπόστολος. On the seal (Sceau de Mani), see Z. Gulácsi, “The Crystal Seal of ‘Mani, the Apostle of Jesus Christ’”, p. 251, where Gulácsi transcribes the Syriac inscription on the seal as Mānī šelīḥā dī-Īšōʿ mešīḥā (“Mani, messenger/apostle of Jesus messiah/Christ”). On the history and ritual function of this seal,

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

253

to Marcellus (preserved in the Acta Archelai) also display striking similarities. These similarities likely reflect Mani’s habitual epistolary style.99 The hypothesis that the Ep. fund. replaced Mani’s Gospel in the Latin Manichaean world is based on several observations. First, the Ep. fund. is referred to as the first work in Felix’s pentateuch.100 Other testimonia, discussed earlier, corroborate the important status it enjoyed. On multiple occasions Augustine reports that it was the most well-known of all of Mani’s works. Second, the work seems to have performed a role similar to the Gospel in Manichaean gatherings, possibly the Bema festival. Its format as a single codex would be beneficial on these occasions. Usually, during this celebration, Mani’s Gospel was read to the community.101 Although the Gospel was not the only text that was read during this festival (some Bema psalms have been preserved as well), the Ep. fund. at the very least would have fulfilled the same role during Manichaean celebrations.102 A similar development can be observed for Mani’s Letter of the Seal, which was also read during the Bema festival, according to Sogdian sources.103 which Gulácsi considers to have belonged to Mani’s personal possessions, see Z.  Gulácsi, “Exploring the Relic Function of Mani’s Seal Stone”. 99 See I.  Gardner, “Mani’s Letter to Marcellus”, pp. 41–42. Cf. Acta Archelai V: καὶ ἡ δεχιὰ τοῦ φωτὸς διατηρήσειέ σε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ καὶ τῶν συμπτωμάτων αὐτοῦ καὶ παγίδων τοῦ πονηροῦ: “And the Light’s right hand preserve you from the present evil age and its mischances, and the snares of the evil one”; ed. by C. H. Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 5, l. 24-p. 6, l. 2 (with emphasis mine); trans. F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, p. 233; Ep. fund., fr. 1: sed et dextera luminis tueatur et eripiat uos ab omni incursione maligna et a laqueis mundi: “But may the right hand of the light protect us and rescue us from every evil incursion and from the snares of the world”; ed. M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 20, l. 8–9 (emphasis mine); trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 242. 100 Augustine,

C. Fel. I,14; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 817, l. 17–27.

101 M. Tardieu,

Le manichéisme, p. 91; N. J. Baker-Brian, Manichaeism, p. 78. It might be possible that Augustine’s knowledge of the Gospel’s contents was based on such ritual readings. 102 

K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 28–29.47.

103  See

Z. Gulácsi, “The Crystal Seal of ‘Mani, the Apostle of Jesus Christ’”, p. 248, n. 13. C. Reck, “A Sogdian Version of Mani’s Letter of the Seal”, pp. 225–26.

254

chapter vii

The question whether the Ep. fund. can be identified with the Letter of the Seal must be responded negatively, based on a comparison of extant fragments.104 Third, in terms of content, the Ep. fund. contains many of the doctrines that were also part of Mani’s Gospel. One could argue that, if the Ep. fund. would have replaced the Gospel, it would have needed to cover, more or less, the same subject matter. The Manichaean Felix describes the Ep. fund. as containing “the beginning, the middle, and the end”,105 a set of terms he also uses to define Mani’s teaching in general.106 Before, Augustine already described the Ep. fund. as containing almost everything the Manichaeans believed.107 There are, in addition, several similarities between preserved fragments of the Gospel and of the Ep. fund., although it must be admitted that the Ep. fund. has elements in common with other Manichaean texts too, such as the Coptic Kephalaia or a Coptic Manichaean psalm, and that the Ep. fund. and Gospel, as far as extant evidence allows a comparison, are clearly two different texts.108 104 Cf. the opening words of the Letter of the Seal in C. Reck, “A Sogdian Version of Mani’s Letter of the Seal”, pp. 228–31 and the Ep. fund. in M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 18–20, l. 1–10, Whereas the Ep. fund. is addressed to Patticius, the Letter of the Seal is written to “all the shepherds, teachers and bishops”. 105 Hence Felix’s description in Augustine, C. Fel. II,1: ista enim epistula Fundamenti est, quod et sanctitas tua bene scit, quod et ego dixi, quia ipsa continet initium, medium et finem: “For there is the Letter of the Foundation, which Your Holiness knows well. I also said that it contains the beginning, the middle, and the end”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 828, l. 23–25; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 299. 106 Augustine, C. Fel. I,9: et quia uenit Manichaeus, et per suam praedicationem docuit nos initium, medium et finem; docuit nos de fabrica mundi, quare facta est et unde facta est, et qui fecerunt; docuit nos quare dies et quare nox; docuit nos de cursu solis et lunae: “Because Mani came and by his preaching taught us about the beginning, the middle, and the end. He taught us about the making of the world, why it was made and whence it was made and who made it. He taught us why there is day and why there is night. He taught us about the course of the sun and the moon”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 811, l. 12–16; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 286. 107  See 108 See

n. 40.

M.  Scopello, “L’epistula fundamenti à la lumière des sources manichéennes du Fayoum”, pp. 225–29 and S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

255

Augustine’s summary of what he describes as “the Gospel the Manichaeans believe” in C. Faust. 109 is an important and unique witness to the presence of Mani’s Gospel in the Latin West. The passage in question also contains many similarities to fragments of the Ep. fund. that are preserved elsewhere, as the following comparison between Augustine’s C. Faust. and his C. Fort. shows: C. Faust. II,6

C. Fort. 1110

sed cur non potius cogitatis, quanta dicitis enim aliam nescio quam impudentia prolixas illas et impias gentem tenebrarum aduersus dei fabulas uestras euangelium nomi- regnum rebellasse; deum autem

the Later Roman Empire, p. 170. On a comparison with the Gospel, see K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 25–26, who cites the opening words of the Gospel (ed. by L. Koenen, C. Römer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex, pp. 130–35) and the Ep. fund., fr. 1 (ed. by M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 18–20). See also the overview of fragments of Mani’s Gospel in T. Pettipiece, “Mani’s Evangelium”, pp. 492–95. 109 Augustine, C. Faust. II,6: sed cur non potius cogitatis, quanta impudentia prolixas illas et impias fabulas uestras euangelium nominetis? quid enim illic boni annuntiatur, ubi dicitur deus aduersus rebellem nescio quam contrariam alienamque naturam non aliter regno suo potuisse prospicere atque consulere, nisi partem suae naturae in illius auidas fauces deuorandam mitteret, atque ita polluendam, ut post tantos labores atque cruciatus non posset saltem tota purgari? itane tam malus nuntius euangelium est? certe omnes, qui graece uel tenuiter nouerunt, euangelium bonum nuntium aut bonam annuntiationem interpretantur. quomodo est autem iste bonus nuntius, quandoquidem ipse deus uobis uelo sibi opposito lugere nuntiatus est, donec sua membra ab illa uastatione et contaminatione reparentur atque purgentur? qui si aliquando luctum finierit, crudelis erit. quid enim de illo male meruit pars illa eius, quae in globo ligabitur? quae utique in aeternum lugenda est, quia in aeternum damnabitur. sed euasimus, quod istum nuntium quisquis diligenter aduerterit, non cogitur lugere, quia malus est, sed ridere, quia falsus est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 260, l. 27–261, l. 18. See n. 51. 110 Augustine, C. Fort. 1: “For you say that some sort of nation of darkness rebelled against the kingdom of God. But when almighty God saw the great ruin and devastation that threatened his kingdoms unless he set something in the way of the enemy nation and resisted it, he sent forth this power, and this world was fashioned from this power’s mingling with evil and the nation of darkness. For this reason good souls labour, are enslaved, fall into error, and are corrupted, so that they need a deliverer to purify them from error, to release them from this mingling, and to set them free from slavery”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 83, l. 18-p. 84, l. 5; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 145.

256

chapter vii

C. Faust. II,6

C. Fort. 1110

tiatur, ubi dicitur deus aduersus rebellem nescio quam contrariam alienamque naturam non aliter regno suo potuisse prospicere atque consulere, nisi partem suae naturae in illius auidas fauces deuorandam mitteret, atque ita polluendam, ut post tantos labores atque cruciatus non posset saltem tota purgari?

omnipotentem cum uideret, quanta labes et uastitas immineret regnis suis, nisi aliquid aduersae genti opponeret et ei resisteret, misisse hanc uirtutem, de cuius commixtione cum malo et tenebrarum gente mundus sit fabricatus; hinc esse, quod hic animae bonae laborant, seruiunt, errant, corrumpuntur, ut necessarium haberent liberatorem, qui eas ab errore purgaret et a commixtione solueret et a seruitute liberaret.

Allusions to the Manichaean myth in C. Faust. II,6 and C. Fort. 1

The passage from C. Fort. is often considered an allusion to the Ep. fund., and this identification seems warranted.111 It is striking, however, that the passage from C. Fort. corresponds to a significant degree to what Augustine refers to in C. Faust. as the Manichaeans’ Gospel. In neither case does Augustine cite a text; instead he summarizes the Manichaean myth. If C. Faust. summarizes elements of Mani’s Gospel, and the passage of C. Fort. is similar to that of C. Faust., then Augustine’s paraphrase in C. Fort. might have been based on his knowledge of Mani’s Gospel instead of (or in addition to) on Mani’s Ep. fund. Alternatively, it may be that Augustine summarizes his own composite version of the two narratives. Whatever the case, the passage of C. Faust. contains terminological reminiscences of other Latin Manichaean fragments from both the Ep. fund. 112 and, to a lesser extent, from the 111 Cf. Augustine, C. Fel. I,19: Lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi quod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stirpem tenebrarum, qua exstincta perpetua quies lucis incolis pararetur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 824, l. 23–29. See also the discussion below, in section 3. 112 Cf. [1]

Ep. fund., fr. 3: Lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impendere saeculae, nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stirpem tenebrarum, qua extincta perpetua quies lucis incolis pararetur: “The Father of the Blessed Light, however, knew that a

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

257

Thes. 113 In other words, the summary Augustine offers here of what he claims is the gospel the Manichaeans believe, corresponds well to extant fragments of Mani’s Ep. fund. In addition, the twelfth-century Islamic author Shahrahstānī offers some information about the contents of Mani’s Gospel (and Šhābuhragān). Shahrahstānī’s testimony contains two elements also found in a fragment of the Ep. fund.: Shahrahstānī, Kitāb al–Milal wa al-Nihal: “The sage Mănī in the first chapter of his ǰibilla [Gospel] and in the beginning of the Šhābuhragān says that the Ruler of the World of Light is in all of His land: nothing is devoid of Him, and that He is both visible and concealed, and that He has no end apart from where His land ends at the land of His foe.”114

great devastation and destruction, which was rising from the darkness and menacing his sacred Aeons, unless he opposed to it an outstanding, brilliant and powerful Divinity, through which he would at once overcome the descendants of the Darkness and destroy them, and thus, following their destruction, eternal rest might be secured for the inhabitants of the Light”; ed. by M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 28, l. 1–4 [emphasis mine]; trans. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 11; This fragment is also preserved in Adu. Man. 11,4–8. Cf. [2] Ep. fund., fr. 8,3: non igitur poterunt recipi in regna illa pacifica, sed configentur in praedicto horribili globo, cui etiam necesse est custodiam adhiberi. Vnde adhaerebunt his rebus animae eaedem, quas dilexerunt, reliciae in eodem tenebrarum globo suis meritis id sibi conquirentes: “Therefore they cannot be accepted into those peaceful kingdoms, but will be confined in this terrible ‘mass’ already mentioned, for which a guard must also be assigned. These same souls therefore will remain attached to what they have loved and stay behind in this ‘mass’ of darkness. This they have brought upon themselves through their own misdeeds”; ed. by M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 38, l. 9–12 [emphasis mine]; trans. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 13. This fragment can also be found in Adu. Man. 5,24– 28. Cf. [3] Adu. Man. 12,13–15: Dicit enim in fine ipsius epistulae, unde unum capitulum iam posuimus, ipsam dei partem quae commixta est, non totam posse reuocari ad pristinam libertatem; emphasis mine. 113 Cf. Thes., fr. 1, cited in Adu. Man. 13,1–6: Nam post amissam partem suam in luctu est, sicut Manichaeus idem dicit: “uelum contra se habet, qui dolorem eius temperet, ne corruptionem partis suae uideat. Hodie enim diuina quam commemorat substantia, subiacet genti tenebrarum, ut lutum figulo”. Hoc in primo libro Thesauri eorum scriptum est; cf. M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, p. 34, l. 1–3. Emphasis mine. 114 See J. C. Reeves, Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism, p. 97.

258

chapter vii

The phrase “nothing is devoid of Him” is similar to the Latin nullo indigente of the Ep. fund.’s fragment 2.115 The same fragment describes the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, and also refers to the border between the two kingdoms.116 To conclude, the extant evidence concerning both Mani’s Gospel and his Ep. fund. seems to indicate that the two works had some themes and phrases in common. This could further explain how the Ep. fund. may have supplanted the Gospel as the most important Manichaean text in the Latin West. The prominence of the Ep. fund. in the Latin world is a strong indication that Latin Manichaeism underwent a transformation at the turn from the fourth to the fifth century. Whereas Augustine still alluded to Mani’s Gospel and mentions that he knew other letters than the Ep. fund., the situation seems to have changed afterwards. The Ep. fund. was singled out from Mani’s letters and enjoyed a more significant status. Although evidence is fragmentary and incomplete, there are no attestations of either Mani’s Gospel or of Mani’s other Letters in North Africa from the testimony of Felix onwards.117 At this point it is also important to consider a passage from the Coptic Dublin Kephalaia. This fragmentary sentence mentions the “great Gospel”, “foundation”, an “epistle”, and a “tunic”.118 The 115 Cf. Ep.

fund. 2,6: nullo in regnis eius insignibus aut indigente; ed. by M.  Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 22–24, l. 21–22. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 9 translate this phrase as “in his splendid kingdoms [there is] no one who is poor”. The verb indigeo can also signify “to be in want of”, which could correspond to Reeves’ translation “nothing is devoid of Him”. The same fragment of the Ep. fund. can be found in Adu. Man. 11,2. 116  Ep. fund. 2,8: iuxta unam uero partem ac latus illustris illius sanctae terrae erat tenebrarum terra profunda et immensa magnitudine, in qua habitabant ignea corpora, genera scilicet pestifera: “Near the one section and side of that glorious and holy land, was situated the Land of Darkness, deep and of immeasurable extent; in it resided fiery bodies, pestilential beings”; ed. by M.  Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 24, l. 24–26; trans. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 9. 117  See 118  Ed.

sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this chapter.

by S. Giversen, The Manichaean Coptic Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library, vol. 1, p. 212, l. 12–14. I. Gardner, “The Reconstruction of Mani’s Epistles from Three Coptic Codices”, p. 103 reconstructs the phrase as follows: “Take my great Gospel, [my letter of] foundation (θεμέλιος); and the letter that I have [sealed; together] with my tunic …”; M. Stein, Manichaica

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

259

passage sums up several items which Mani, who is condemned to capital punishment, hands over to his successor Sisinnios.119 Scholars have previously hypothesized that this passage supports an identification of the Gospel and the Ep. fund. However, this hypothesis requires a specific reading/reconstruction of the Coptic fragment, and an identification of the Gospel and the Ep. fund. seems impossible, considering the attested differences between both texts. It seems more likely that this fragment does not allude to the Ep. fund. at all. This assumption, in turn, would imply that latina 2, pp. 16–17.69–70, who underlines the tentative nature of Gardner’s reconstruction, offers the following three alternative reconstructions, which he accredits to the assistance of Gregor Wurst: (1) “Nimm mein großes Evangelium, [das ich verkündet habe, als] Grundlage;” (2) “Nimm mein großes Evangelium [von Α bis Ω als] Grundlage;” (3) “Nimm mein großes Evangelium [und mein Bild (εἰκών) als] Grundlage”. Stein prefers the first of these reconstructions. See also K. W. Kaatz, “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti”, pp. 26–28. 119 See also M. Tardieu, “La nisba de Sisinnios”. The aforementioned fragment of the Coptic Kephalaia (see n. 118) runs parallel to a similar passage in a Parthian fragment (M 5569: “After the Parinirvāṇa of the Apostle of Light, his Gospel, his Ārdhang, his garment and hand [were taken to] the province … Sisin”; ed. by M. Boyce, A  Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian, pp. 47–48; trans. H.-J. Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road, pp. 214–15, with modifications Z. Gulácsi, “Exploring the Relic Function of Mani’s Seal Stone”, pp. 113–14). M. Tardieu also alludes to this fragment in “La nisba de Sisinnios”, p. 8. According to this testimony, Mani hands over his Gospel, Ārdhang (the Picture Book), garments and “hand” to Sisinnios. Both the Coptic Kephalaia passage as well as the Parthian fragment describe Mani’s entrusting of important books and objects of worship to his successor. Similarly, another (Middle Persian) fragment describes how Mani sent his Letter of the Seal to a disciple (M 454; ed. by M. Boyce, A  Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian, p. 46; trans. H.-J. Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road, p. 214; see Z. Gulácsi, “Exploring the Relic Function of Mani’s Seal Stone”, p. 115). The Kephalaia and M 5569 both mention the Gospel and Mani’s tunic/garments. According to one of Stein’s possible reconstructions of the Kephalaia passage, this Coptic text could also have mentioned the Book of Pictures (Hikōn), which would then further align with the Parthian fragment. The Kephalaia has in common with M 454 the reference to the Letter of the Seal, the final letter Mani wrote. Whatever the case, all three sources attest that Mani, at the end of his life, handed over essential documents (books and other items) to his closest disciples. Another Kephalaia passage (ed. by W.-P. Funk, Kephalaia I, p. 371, l. 20–30) similarly cites the Gospel and the Hikōn in close proximity. See also Z. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, pp. 26–29 for a discussion of this passage.

260

chapter vii

“foundation” or “fundament” (the Coptic text employs the Greek loan word θεμέλιος, which corresponds to the Latin fundamentum) had a different meaning altogether, and cannot be considered part of a title of one of Mani’s works here. Instead, it likely expresses the totalizing and complete character of the teachings Mani passed on to his disciples. The title Epistula fundamenti, which is possibly an African innovation, would then signify that the letter contained or symbolized a comprehensive summary of Mani’s doctrines. 3. Latin Translations of Manichaean Scripture The manner in which Evodius incorporates Manichaean citations in his argumentation is strongly indebted to Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works. Evodius often cites the same passage of a Manichaean text as Augustine in order to prove the same point. For example, in Adu. Man. 5 Evodius cites Mt 12:33, a fragment of Acts of Leucius, and a passage from Mani’s Thes., three passages Augustine cited earlier in C. Fel. II,4–6.120 Likewise, Evodius cites twice from the Ep. fund. in Adu. Man. 11. Augustine had contrasted these same two passages in Nat. b. 42.121 Though Evodius’ use of Manichaean scripture is similar to Augustine’s, the Evodian citations are not identical to Augustine’s in form. In several instances, Evodius cites passages from Manichaean scripture that are not attested in Augustine’s oeuvre. This means that Evodius consulted these Manichaean writings for himself and that copies of these texts were in his possession. The differences between Augustine’s citations and those of Adu. Man. prove that different copies of Mani’s texts in Latin circulated in North Africa. The study of the textual variation between Evodius’ and Augustine’s citations has important implications for our understanding of North African Manichaeism. Since Mani wrote his works in Syriac, citations from those works by Augustine and Evodius are taken from Latin translations made by Manichaeans. The origin of these Latin translations has yet to be examined. Although most scholars agree that the Latin Manichaean translators “probably”

120  Ed.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 831, l. 26–833, l. 17.

121  Ed.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 677, l. 18–26.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

261

made use of a Greek intermediary translation,122 recent discoveries have demonstrated that the Manichaeans actively learned different languages and may have been able to translate the Syriac of Mani directly into Latin.123 In what follows, I examine the textual differences between Evodian citations of the Ep. fund. and the Thes. and Augustine’s citations of the same fragments. The comparative study of these fragments can shed light on the manner in which Latin Manichaean texts circulated: Are they merely “copies” of one authoritative Latin translation, or do they derive from different translations of the same original text? More specifically, could the differences between the Latin texts be the result of independent translations from the Greek? Comparative material comes from an important corpus of religious texts originally written in Greek and preserved in many Latin translations: the Greek New Testament and its various Vetus latina translations. 3.1. The Epistula fundamenti The Ep. fund. circulated in many copies in the Latin Manichaean world. At least five different copies are attested during Augustine’s lifetime. (1) Augustine states that this work was read during Manichaean gatherings. It might be the case that when he paraphrases a section from the Ep. fund. during his debate with Fortunatus, his paraphrase is based on a memory of these gatherings; (2) by the time he wrote his C. ep. fund., Augustine had a copy of the work at his disposal in Hippo, to which he added personal notes; (3) before the debate with Felix, the Ep. fund., along with four other Manichaean works, were confiscated from Felix by civil authorities.124 Sections from the confiscated copy of the Ep. fund. were read out as evidence during the debate; (4) Evodius cites five fragments of the Ep. fund. Differences between his citations and parallels found in Augustine suggest that Evodius had his own copy of the work; (5) Julian of Eclanum probably cites from the same Ep. fund., which he described as a Letter to Patricius (or Pat-

122  S. N. C.

Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire, p. 117.

123 M. Franzmann,

“The Syriac-Coptic Bilinguals”; J. A. van den Berg, Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice, pp. 41–42. 124 F. Decret,

“Felicem Manichaeum (Contra -)”, col. 1256.

262

chapter vii

ticius).125 The fragment numbers cited in this subchapter and the following correspond to Stein’s reconstruction of the Ep. fund. and Thes. 126 3.1.1. Fr. 8 In his Adu. Man., Evodius cites from the Ep. fund. on five occasions. For three of these citations, (partial) parallels can be found in Augustine’s works. Evodius first cites from the Ep. fund. in his fifth chapter.127 Evodius’ citation constitutes the only complete version of this fragment, since Augustine only reproduces short phrases from the same passage. Adu. Man. 5,16–17

C. Faust. XXI,16 (= ibid., XXII,221; ~ ibid., XXII,22 2; ~ ibid., XXII,22 3)128

Nat. b. 42129

C. Sec. 24130

quae mundi amore errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sunt atque inimicae lumini sancto extiterunt

errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sunt et inimicae lumini sancto exstiterunt

errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sint

errare se a  priori lucida sua natura passae sunt, et inimicae luminis tunc exstiterunt

Ep. fund., fr. 8, l. 1–2 125 As

previously noted, the name Patricius likely constitutes a corrupted form of the name Patticius, the addressee of Mani’s Ep. fund. 126  For

the Ep. fund., see M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2. For the Thes., see M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4. 127 

Adu. Man. 5,15–29. See M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 36–39.

128 Ed.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 589, l. 27–28; Augustine, C. Faust. XXII,221: errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sunt et inimicae lumini sancto exstiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 612, l. 7–9; Augustine, C. Faust. XXII,22 2: errare se a priore sua lucida natura passa sunt et inimica lumini sancto exstiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 615, l. 19–20; Augustine, C. Faust. XXII,22 3: se errare a priore sua lucida natura passae sunt et inimicae lumini sancto exstiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 616, l. 9–10. 129  Ed.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 878, l. 6–7.

130  Ed.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 942, l. 25–27.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

263

There are some minor textual variations in the citations of fragment 8. Three factors can explain the differences in these seven citations. First, and this pertains specifically to C. Sec., textual variation can occur as a consequence of textual corruption. For C. Sec., this is possibly why the spelling priori is found instead of priore, but textual corruption could also explain the reading luminis tunc instead of lumini sancto. C. Sec. has known a rather poor textual transmission. The work was preserved in a single tenth-century manuscript from Chartres.131 To make matters worse, this manuscript was destroyed during the Second World War. Zycha (1892), who could still consult this manuscript for his edition of C. Sec., notes that the Chartres manuscript read cum here, which results in luminis cum. An explanation for this reading is that at one point during the early textual transmission, a copyist misread the abbreviation of sancto (sco) and added the s- from the beginning of this abbreviation to the dative form lumini. This resulted in the genitive luminis and a corrupted abbreviation (co*) which could have been interpreted as cum by the copyist of the Chartres manuscript, or by the copyist of one of its ancestors. If one supposes that such a corruption did take place, then the citation of C. Sec.’s predecessor could correspond to Augustine’s citations of the same fragment in C. Faust. A second factor can be the redactional activity of the author. When Augustine or Evodius cited a text, they may have adjusted the passage being cited to bring it into better conformity with the surrounding syntactical context. In the case of the citation in C. Faust. XXII,22 3, Augustine seems to have found it necessary to swap the words se and errare. For his citation in Nat. b. 42, Augustine may have wanted to use the subjunctive form sint in order to more clearly express the syntactical hypotaxis in his sentence, although he did not necessarily need to adjust the form of the verb. This change could have also occurred during the transmission process. Third, the variations in different versions could simply due to the existence of multiple copies of the same work. In this regard, it is striking that whereas Evodius’ citation reads atque, all of Augustine’s citations read et. It is necessary to address Evodius’ 131 

Chartres, bm, 104. See Catalogue général, Départements, t. 11, pp. 55–56.

264

chapter vii

possible editorial activity here. He could have replaced et with the near synonym atque. However, in the treatise Adu. Man., Evodius does not often use the connector atque. Of the 24 times the term is used in the treatise, 15 occurrences are from Manichaean citations (both the Ep. fund. and Thes.), and 9 occurrences are from Evodius himself. It is thus quite possible that, in this case, the variant atque reflects a difference between Evodius’ copy of the Ep. fund. and Augustine’s copy. Fragment 8 of the Ep. fund. continues in Adu. Man., but only a part of it is reflected in Augustine’s Nat. b.: Adu. Man. 5,23–28

Nat. b. 42132

Quod ideo illis eueniet, quia ita iniquis operibus se obstrinxerunt, ut a uita et libertate sanctae lucis alienarentur. Non igitur poterunt recipi in regna illa pacifica, sed configentur in praedicto horribili globo, cui etiam necesse est custodiam adhiberi. unde adhaerebunt his rebus animae eaedem quas dilexerunt, relictae in eodem tenebrarum globo, suis meritis id sibi conquirentes.

non poterunt recipi, sicut dicit, in regna illa pacifica, et a uita ac libertate sanctae lucis alienabuntur, et configentur in praedicto horribili globo: unde et adhaerebunt, inquit, iis rebus animae eaedem, quas dilexerunt, relictae in eodem tenebrarum globo, suis meritis id sibi conquirentes.

Ep. fund., fr. 8, l. 8–12

The comparison of the citations from Adu. Man. and Nat. b. demonstrates that Evodius’ version probably better reflects the original syntax of the translated Ep. fund. Augustine presents three smaller phrases of the passage, interjecting the connectors et on two occasions. For the phrase a uita ac libertate sanctae lucis alienabuntur, this means that Augustine altered the Ep. fund.’s syntax. Evodius’ version has a subordinate clause of result (ut … alienarentur), whereas Augustine’s phrasing constitutes a main clause, with the verb in the simple future (alienabuntur). Augustine, or perhaps his Latin copy of the Ep. fund., may have used the simple future tense in order to express the notion of posteriority, which

132 Ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 878, l. 20–25; M. Stein, Manicha latina 2, p. 38.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

265

is implied in a result clause. Otherwise, Evodius’ and Augustine’s versions only differ in their use of connectors. 3.1.2. Fr. 2 A similar set of textual variants can be observed in Evodius’ and Augustine’s citations of fr. 2 of the Ep. fund. The most complete citation of this passage can be found in Augustine’s C. ep. fund., and the phrasing of his citations in C. Fel., Nat. b., and C. Sec. are identical to this version: Adu. Man. 11,1–4

C. Ep. fund. 13133

Interea cum dicat idem Manichaeus deum omnibus bonis abundantem, nullo in regnis eius insignibus indigente aut infimo constituto, ita etiam fundata eiusdem splendidissima saecula, ut a nullo unquam concuti uel moueri possint

idem sanctus atque illustris pater et genitor degit nullo in regnis eius insignibus aut indigente aut infimo constituto. ita autem fundata sunt eiusdem splendidissima regna supra lucidam et beatam terram, ut a nullo umquam aut moueri aut concuti possint

Ep. fund., fr. 2, l. 21–24

There are eight differences between Augustine’s citation and that of Evodius. Three of these differences concern the use of connectors, 133 “The sacred and noble Father and Progenitor lives with them, and in his splendid kingdoms there is no one who is poor or feeble [infirmo]. Thus his shining kingdoms are founded above the light and blessed land, in such a way that they cannot be moved or shaken by anyone”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 209, l. 24–28; trans. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 9; cf. Augustine, C. Fel. I,17: ita autem fundata sunt eiusdem splendidissima regna supra lucidam et beatam terram, ut a nullo umquam aut moueri aut concuti possint; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 820, l. 10–12; Augustine, Nat. b. 42: ita autem fundata sunt eiusdem splendidissima regna supra lucidam et beatam terram, ut a nullo umquam aut moueri, aut concuti possint; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 877, l. 18–20; Augustine, C. Sec. 3: nullo, inquit, in regnis eius aut indigente, aut infimo constituto; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 909, l. 20–21. See also M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 20–27. Instead of infimo, some witnesses of Adu. Man., C. ep. fund., and C. Sec. also read infirmo. M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 82–84 believes that the variants infimo and infirmo already circulated in late antiquity. Stein believes Evodius had read infimo in his text, whereas Augustine’s copy would have had infirmo. I have followed the reading of Zycha here, which has infimo for both C. ep. fund. and C. Sec.

266

chapter vii

whereas two differences were most likely due to Evodius’ interference in the text. (1) Whereas Evodius’ citation reads a single aut (indigente aut infimo), Augustine has the construction aut … aut at the beginning of this fragment (aut indigente aut infimo). (2) Likewise, Augustine has the same construction (aut moueri aut concuti) where Evodius’ version simply reads uel (concuti uel moueri). (3) Another difference in use of connectors is Evodius’ etiam where Augustine reads autem. (4) At the beginning of the fragment, Evodius does not accurately cite, but summarizes the description of the Manichaean God and his kingdom of light as deum omnis bonis abundantem (“God [is] abundant of all things good”). (5) Evodius (or his copy of the Ep. fund.) also omits the phrase supra lucidam et beatam terram. (6) In the citation of Evodius there is an ellipsis of the verb sunt, which is attested by Augustine (fundata fundata sunt). (7) The variation saecula instead of regna constitutes the replacement of one word by a synonym. (8) Finally, the two infinitives moueri and concuti have switched position in Evodius’ citation. We will return to an evaluation of the different types of textual variants in the conclusion of this subsection. 3.1.3. Fr. 3 For the third citation of the Ep. fund. that Evodius shares with Augustine, up to five different versions of the passage may have been extant in late antiquity. The fragment recurs frequently in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean writings, from multiple allusions and paraphrases in C. Fort., to citations in his later anti-Manichaean works, up until C. Sec. The citation from Augustine’s C. Fel. may be the best witness to the text of the fragment: Lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi quod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stirpem tenebrarum, qua exstincta perpetua quies lucis incolis pararetur. 134 134 Augustine, C. Fel. I,19: “The Father of the Blessed Light, however, knew that a great devastation and destruction, which was rising from the darkness and menacing his sacred Aeons, unless he opposed to it an outstanding, brilliant and powerful Divinity, through which he would at once overcome the descendants of the Darkness and destroy them, and thus, following their destruction, eternal rest might be secured for the inhabitants of the Light”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 824, l. 23–29; trans. G. Fox & J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources, p. 11; cf. M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 28–29.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

267

The fragment as preserved by Evodius has, in comparison to the text preserved in C. Fel., two significant variants.135 First, the fragment in Evodius does not contain the noun numen (deity), and instead reads aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens (“something outstanding, brilliant and powerful”) without the noun numen at the end. Second, the fragment in Evodius does not qualify the quies at the end of the sentence as perpetua. For this fragment too it appears that Evodius had a copy of the Ep. fund. that differed from Augustine’s. What is new here is that Augustine also appears to have encountered multiple versions of the same passage. Among Augustine’s works, two groups can be discerned: one represented by C. Fel. and Nat. b., and the other by C. Sec. and Augustine’s paraphrases from C. Fort. The examples of C. Fel. and C. Sec. can best illustrate the variations between the two groups: C. Fel. I,19 (~ Nat. b. 42)136

C. Sec. 201 (~ C. Sec. 20 2; C. Fort. 1; C. Fort. 7; C. Fort. 21)137

Lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi quod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponat.

uidens magnam labem ac uastitatem aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponeret.

Different versions of Ep. fund., fr. 3 135  Adu. Man. 11, 4–8: Lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stirpem tenebrarum, qua exstincta quies lucis incolis pararetur. 136  Ed. 137  Ed.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 877, l. 21–24.

by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 935, l. 23–26; Augustine, C. Sec. 20 2: uidisse deum magnam labem ac uastitatem aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi aliquod eximium et uirtute potens numen opponeret; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 937, l. 5–8; Augustine, C. Fort. 1: deum autem omnipotentem cum uideret, quanta labes et uastitas immineret regnis suis, nisi aliquid aduersae genti opponeret et ei resisteret, misisse hanc uirtutem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 83, l. 20–22; Augustine, C. Fort. 7: deum cum uideret imminere uastitatem ac labem regnis suis, misisse uirtutem, quae cum tenebrarum gente bellaret; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 87, l. 10–12; Augustine, C. Fort. 21: tu cauisti regnis tuis, cum magna eis labes et uastitas immineret; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 101, l. 23–24.

268

chapter vii

The two traditions differ in four particulars. First, C. Fel. and Nat. b. contain the participle sciens, whereas the other group has uidens instead. Second, there is a small difference in word order: the group of C. Sec. and C. Fort. has magnam labem instead of labem magnam (attested in C. Fel., Nat. b., and Adu. Man.). Third, the citation in C. Sec. omits the relative clause quae ex tenebris surgeret. Although  C. Fort.’s allusions or paraphrases are not true citations, it is striking that in C. Fort. too, any reference to the term surgo or the expression ex tenebris is missing. Fourth, whereas C. Fel., Nat. b., and Adu. Man. have the form opponat, C. Sec. and C. Fort. have opponeret. Among the group consisting of C. Fel. and Nat. b., up to two variations can be discerned. While C. Fel. reads nisi quod, Nat. b. has nisi aliquod (which corresponds to citations of this fragment elsewhere). However, the oldest manuscript of C. Fel. – a Montecassino manuscript which Zycha did not consult138 – does have the reading aliquod. This reading could indicate that the archetype of C. Fel. (if the Montecassino manuscript were to be followed here) indeed read nisi aliquod, just like all other citations of the same passage. Likewise, Nat. b. reads aduersum, whereas other instances of the citation have aduersus. Several manuscripts of Zycha’s edition of Nat. b. have the reading aduersus, so perhaps Nat. b. originally read aduersus too. If this were the case, then the citations of C. Fel. and Nat. b. would be identical, and therefore could derive from the same copy of the Ep. fund. During the debate with Felix, Manichaean passages were read publicly from the confiscated books of Felix. If Augustine used the same book when preparing Nat. b., he may well have kept Felix’s copy for further use. In his reply to the Manichaean Secundinus, Augustine cites from a different exemplar, which had the readings uidens instead of sciens, magnam labem instead of labem magnam, and opponeret instead of opponat, and in which the phrase quae ex tenebris surgeret was missing. These textual variants can also be found in Augustine’s paraphrases of the same fragment in C. Fort. If Augustine summarizes the Manichaean myth as he had once heard it from (or read in) the Ep. fund., then one further difference between the versions of C. Sec. and C. Fort. becomes apparent: whereas C. Sec. has the reading aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen, 138  See

also chapter V, n. 81–82.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

269

Augustine’s paraphrase in C. Fort. only contains the terms aliquid and uirtus. This variation, however, could be due to the fact that Augustine is not citing but only alluding to or summarizing the Manichaean passage, or that he is doing so from memory. The variation cum uideret instead of uidens might be a way by which Augustine (or the version of the Ep. fund. he had in mind when he alluded to its contents) expresses the nuances of the participle uidens.139 3.1.4. Observations Before concluding this section on the Ep. fund., it will be opportune to discuss the extent and possible causes of textual variation in the Latin fragments of the Ep. fund. In some instances, the multiple copies of the Ep. fund. circulating in North Africa differed from each other. Yet the precise origin of their textual variants is unclear: On the one hand, not all of these textual differences are likely to have originated as errors in the (late antique or medieval) textual transmission, and neither does it seem that all variants can be attributed to the editorial activities of Augustine or Evodius. On the other hand, the Latin citations display a strong uniformity, all generally having the same syntax, word choice, and word order. The textual variations mostly concern the use of synonyms or a slightly different choice of connectors. Two hypotheses explain the textual variation in the extant fragments. First, the Latin fragments could descend from one authoritative Latin translation. Alternatively, the fragments of the Ep. fund. that are found in Augustine and those that are found in Evodius may go back to independent translations of the source text, either Syriac or Greek. In the latter case, this Greek text would have been an intermediary translation.140 Some textual variants suggest that the Ep. fund. was still being translated in fourth- and fifth-century North Africa. In fr. 3 of the Ep. fund., several witnesses read the word sciens, whereas others 139  This phenomenon can also be discerned in the Old Latin translations of Mk 12:15, where the Greek Ὁ δὲ ἰδὼν (ed.  by E.  Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 154) was translated as Videns uero Iesus as well as Iesus uero cum uidisset; see A. Jülicher, Itala, 2, p. 112. 140  See

also E. Feldmann, Die “Epistula Fundamenti”, pp. 7–8.

270

chapter vii

have uidens. These variants may derive from one verb that means both “to see” and “to know”. In the same fragment, Evodius’ version does not contain the noun numen in the longer description of a Manichaean deity: aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens [numen]. The absence of the term numen could imply that the text from which the Latin Ep. fund. derives only contained an abstract description: “something outstanding, brilliant, and powerful”. Other Manichaean translators may have found it necessary to specify that the phrase describes a godhead or deity (numen), as the citations of Augustine testify. If at least some of the different versions of the Latin Ep. fund. originated as independent translations, the various Manichaean translators probably had a nearly identical model text in front of them. They tried to translate this model very faithfully, retaining the original syntax and word order as much as possible. This manner of translation can be compared to the various Vetus latina translations of the New Testament. The following paragraph, admittedly speculative, shows how several textual variations in Latin may have their origins in the same Greek text.141 Some of the variants in the fragments of the Ep. fund. may have originated as two different attempts to render the same Greek particle or connector into Latin. For example, in Augustine’s citations, Ep. fund., fr. 2, l. 21–24 twice contains the expression aut … aut. This pairing may render the Greek connector ἢ … ἢ. Evodius’ version of the fragment has a single aut instead of the first aut … aut construction, and a single uel instead of the second aut … aut. To an extent, parallels can also be found in the Latin translations of the New Testament.142 The connectors etiam and autem 141  Here

we take into account only a hypothetical Greek Vorlage. Analysing the extant fragments of Latin Manichaean texts with a view to understanding their relationship to a possible Syriac Vorlage remains a scholarly desideratum. 142  Cf.  the Old Latin translations of Mk 10:29: ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ ἀδελφὰς ἢ μητέρα ἢ πατέρα ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγροὺς (ed.  by E.  Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 146). One of the Old Latin translations (b) had omitted the first aut in this enumeration: patrem aut matrem aut fratres aut sorores (A.  Jülicher, Itala, 2, p.  94). The translations of Lk 12:11 (ἢ τί εἴπητε; ed. by E. Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 146) demonstrate that the Greek connector ἤ can be translated as aut or as uel (Vetus latina manuscript l). See A. Jülicher, Itala, 3, p. 145.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

271

in the same fragment may be two different ways for the Latin to translate a Greek participle such as δέ, which can express a contrast (“however”; cf. autem), or introduce new information within a narrative (“furthermore”, “also”; cf. etiam).143 In Ep. fund., fr. 3, l. 1, both the participles sciens and uidens may derive from a Greek participle of the verb εἶδον (“to see”). The concepts of “seeing” and of “knowing” are intertwined in this Greek verb (its perfect tense οἶδα signifies “I know”). The same variation (sciens – uidens) also occurs in the Old Latin translations of the New Testament. However, in these cases, the Greek text itself may have read either εἰδὼς (sciens) or ἰδὼν (uidens).144 It may be that the hypothetical Greek translation of the Ep. fund. circulated in at least two versions, or, if there was only one authoritative version, it may be that some Manichaean translators misread their Greek model. Some of the smaller textual variations in the fragments of the Ep. fund. also have parallels in Old Latin translations of the New Testament, such as translating the Greek καὶ by both atque and et,145 omission of igitur,146 and omission of et in the construction unde et as a translation of ὅθεν καί.147

143 

Cf. the Old Latin translations of Lk 1:62: ἐνένευον δὲ; ed. by E. Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 182. This phrase is often translated as adnuebant autem, yet one Old Latin translation (a) has adnuebant etiam instead. See A. Jülicher, Itala, 3, p. 12. 144  See, for example, Mk 12:15 (ed. by E. Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 154) and Mt 12:25 (ed. by E. Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p.  35), where the Greek manuscripts have either εἰδὼς or ἰδὼν. Likewise, the Old Latin translations read either sciens or uidens in these passages. See A. Jülicher, Itala, 2, p. 112 and A. Jülicher, Itala, 1, p. 74 respectively. 145  See 1 Pe 1:10: περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν; ed.  by E.  Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 697. In Old Latin translations, the connector καὶ has been translated as both atque and et. See W. Thiele, Epistulae catholicae, p. 78. 146 

See Jn 16:18: ἔλεγον οὖν; ed.  by E.  Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 357. In the Vetus latina translations, the Greek connector οὖν was translated as igitur, ergo, or it was omitted (in the case of the witnesses a, b, d, and r 1). See A. Jülicher, Itala, 4, p. 176. 147  See the translations of Heb 7:25: ὅθεν καί (ed.  by E.  Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 668) as both unde and unde et (H. J. Frede, Epistulae ad Titum, Philemon, Hebraeos, pp. 1337–38).

272

chapter vii

The parallel citations of Ep. fund.’s fr. 3 confirm that the Manichaean letter circulated in copies that exhibited minor differences from each other. Among Augustine’s citations, there seems to be a distinction between the version(s) of C. Fel. and Nat. b. on the one hand and the versions of C. Sec. and C. Fort. on the other hand. Against the readings sciens, labem magnam and opponat of the first group, the second group has uidens, magnam labem, and opponeret. In addition, the versions of C. Sec. and C. Fort. omit the phrase quae ex tenebris surgeret. The variation sciens and uidens may point to a Greek intermediary translation: one Greek text, from which C. Fel. and Nat. b. derive, may have had εἰδώς (sciens), and the other ἰδών (uidens or cum uideret). Within these two groups, the citations of C. Fel. and Nat. b. likely originated from the same Latin translation. The two citations are nearly identical, and where the texts contain differences (quod versus aliquod; aduersus versus aduersum), the manuscript evidence is ambiguous. Further research on the textual transmission of both works may clarify whether the two fragments differ at all here. The testimonies of C. Fort. and of C. Sec. probably derive from two different Latin translations. One copy seems to have translated ἰδών as cum uideret (the phrasing found in C. Fort.), whereas the other seems to have translated it as uidens (as attested in C. Sec.). Evodius’ version of the Ep. fund. fragment has the readings sciens, labem magnam, opponat, and contains the phrase quae ex tenebris surgeret, which is missing from C. Sec. and C. Fort. The differing texts suggest that the variants which Adu. Man. has in common with C. Fel. and Nat. b. reflect the original Ep. fund., and that the variants which C. Sec. and C. Fort. have in common, are errors. Finally, it is necessary to assess one of Evodius’ variants: instead of the phrase aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen (“an outstanding, brilliant and powerful divinity”) Evodius has a more abstract description without numen (aliquod exmimium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens: “something outstanding, brilliant and powerful”).148 Does this more abstract formulation 148  Evodius also did not read perpetua quies, but had only quies in his citation. Because this part of the fragment does not return in C. Fort. and C. Sec.,

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

273

correspond to the original phrasing of the Ep. fund., or does this variant constitute an omission, and thus an errant reading? Interestingly, Augustine paraphrases the same fragment in C. Fort. without mentioning the term numen. This apparent agreement between Evodius and Augustine could suggest that both the versions of Adu. Man. and C. Fort. have retained the more original abstract formulation of the Ep. fund. The reading numen would then be an addition to or clarification of this formulation, perhaps in the form of a marginal note. Two objections could be made to this hypothesis. First, the testimonies from C. Fort. are summaries of, or allusions to, the passage of the Ep. fund. and are not entirely accurate. Second, the testimonies from C. Fort. are from a different branch of the Ep. fund.’s transmission than the version of Adu. Man. This would mean that two Latin translations, one being the source of the citations in C. Fel. and Nat. b.’s, and another being the source of the citations in C. Sec.’s, would have added the specification numen independently. In any case, Evodius’ citations give the impression that they derive from a separate translation of a Greek version of the Ep. fund. The comparison of connectors in the fragments as preserved by Evodius and Augustine shows that the different connectors found in Evodius’ citations may be explained as alternative translations for Greek particles and connectors. Finally, it is not certain to which of Augustine’s versions of the Ep. fund. the citations found in C. ep. fund. and C. Faust. correspond, as the comparative material discussed in this subchapter is insufficient to make the determination. Thus, based on the evidence of (primarily) Ep. fund.’s fragment 3, I propose the following – tentative – reconstruction of the circulation of the Ep. fund. in North Africa, where G represents a Greek copy (or intermediary translation), and L a Latin translation:

it is impossible to assess whether this variant reflects the original wording of the Ep. fund., or should be attributed to Evodius’ editorial activity.

274

chapter vii G 1

G 2

L 1

C. Fort.

L 2

C. Sec.

L 4

L 3

C. Fel.

Nat. b

Adu. Man.

Different versions of the Ep. fund.

The following three conclusions can be drawn from the comparative study of the Ep. fund.’s fragments. First, the Ep. fund. circulated in multiple copies that slightly differed from each other, of which Evodius had access to one, while Augustine seems to have witnessed over the course of his career three to four others. Second, the textual variation of the Ep. fund. gives the impression that these Latin witnesses originated as separate translations and were not simply copies of one authoritative Latin version. As translations, they were very faithful to their models, closely imitating word order and syntax. Third, a comparison with Old Latin translations of the Greek New Testament shows that the textual differences between the various fragments of the Latin Ep. fund. may have originated when the text was translated from a Greek model to Latin. One variant (sciens – uidens) may even suggest that there were two Greek copies of the Ep. fund., from which the extant witnesses derive. It is not possible to date these Latin translations or Greek copies. Augustine first alludes to the Ep. fund. in his C. Fort. (392). During this debate, he probably referenced the text as he had heard or read it when he was a Manichaean Hearer in North Africa (373–82). Hence, the only chronological information we have on the circulation of the Ep. fund. in North Africa, is that its oldest Latin translation would have been finished by

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

275

the time Augustine joined the Manichaeans. If the extant Latin Manichaean fragments suggest dependence from a common Greek ancestor, then perhaps the following observation, made by Iain Gardner with regard to Egyptian Manichaeism, may be of relevance for our understanding of African Manichaeism as well. In Egypt, at the beginning of the fourth century, Manichaeans first made use of Greek. A subsequent indigenous Coptic tradition then superseded the use of Greek, for documentary as well as literary texts, in Upper Egypt.149 Similarly, one could suppose that Greek speaking Manichaean missionaries had first introduced their religion to Africa, before the local production of Latin Manichaean texts and translations took place. 3.2. The Thesaurus The Thes. was one of Mani’s most well-known works. It is almost universally attested in Manichaean book lists, usually in the second place, after Mani’s Gospel. For Latin Manichaeism, we have seen how Felix’s pentateuch, Evodius’ remark in Adu. Man. 36, and the Decretum Gelasianum all list the Thes. as the second of Mani’s works, after the Ep. fund. Evodius cites the work three times. Two of his citations correspond to Augustine’s earlier citations of the same work. However, in chapter 13 of Adu. Man., Evodius cites a passage from the Thes. and mentions that he found the passage in the first book of that work.150 Since he is able to situate his citations of the Thes. among the entirety of that text, he likely consulted a copy of the work himself. Augustine cites the Thes. twice, once during the debate with Felix and once in his Nat. b. The Thes. is one of the books that was taken from the Manichaean Felix. The text of C. Fel. does not specify whether Augustine had and made use of this confiscated book, or whether he had another exemplar at his disposal. In any case, he was certainly already familiar with the contents of the Thes. by the time he wrote his C. Faust.,151 which makes clear that he had already studied the Thes. before the confiscation of Felix’s books took place.

149 I. Gardner, 150 

Kellis Literary Texts 2, p. 5.

Adu. Man. 13,2–6.

151  See

n. 54–55.

276

chapter vii

The testimony of Augustine and Evodius demonstrates the existence of three to four copies of the Thes.: (1) Augustine possibly employs Manichaean technical terms found in the Thes. during his debate with Fortunatus.152 (2) He more clearly alludes to the contents of the Thes. in C. Faust. and had possibly reread the work recently. Afterwards, in his debate with Felix, Augustine either cites from this same copy, or from (3) the confiscated book of Felix. The citation of the Thes. found in Nat. b. could derive from one of the exemplars Augustine used before. (4) Finally, Evodius consulted a copy of the Thes. while writing Adu. Man. 3.2.1. Fr. 2 Evodius first cites from the Thes. in the fifth chapter of Adu. Man. There he clearly imitates the manner in which Augustine had cited it in C. Fel. In both cases, the anti-Manichaean authors want to illustrate that Manichaean scripture teaches that humans have free will. The citations of Evodius and Augustine only differ in a single word: Adu. Man. 5,11–15153

C. Fel. II,5154

Hi uero qui negligentia sua a labe praedictorum spiritu purgari se minime permiserint mandatisque diuinis ex integro parum obtemperauerint legemque sibi a suo liberatore datam seruare plenius noluerint neque ut decebat sese gubernauerint.

hi uero, qui negligentia sua a labe praedictorum spirituum purgari se minime permiserint mandatisque diuinis ex integro parum obtemperauerint legemque sibi a suo liberatore datam seruare plenius noluerint neque ut decebat sese gubernauerint.

Thes., fr. 2

For the transmission of Adu. Man., the reading spiritu is better attested. Conversely, Zycha does not indicate that any of his man152 J.  van Oort, “Heeding and Hiding their particular Knowledge?”, pp. 118–21. 153  “Those however who by their own negligence did not allow themselves at all to be cleansed in the spirit from the stain of the aforementioned and did not obey the divine commandments in their entirety, and were unwilling to observe fully the law given by their liberator, and did not govern themselves as was fitting”; M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 36–37. 154 Augustine,

C. Fel. II,5; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 832, l. 22–27.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

277

uscripts of C. Fel. had spiritu, and neither does the eleventh-century Montecassino manuscript have this reading. In other words, whereas Evodius has spiritu here, Augustine offers the reading spirituum. The cause of this textual difference is not entirely clear. Since Evodius imitates Augustine’s use of the citation here, Evodius could have misquoted Augustine, or he could have had an erroneous copy of Augustine’s C. Fel. in his possession. In that case, the reading spiritu is an error, and only Augustine’s version is reliable. It is not entirely clear, however, how the form spirituum could have been changed to spiritu, which is most likely the archetypal reading of Adu. Man. The textual transmission of Adu. Man. illustrates that copyists often changed spiritu into spirituum, and that once spirituum became a manuscript’s reading, subsequent copies always retained it. This persistence of spirituum once introduced weakens the hypothesis that spiritu originated as a corruption of spirituum. Besides, since Evodius consulted the Thes. himself, he could have also checked the citation found in Augustine against his own copy of the Manichaean text, where he may have found the reading spiritu. If the texts of Evodius and Augustine go back to independent translations into Latin, then it appears that both translations respected the original word order. In the sequence of words praedictorum – spiritu(um) – purgari, the variant spiritu offers more information on the subsequent word, the verb purgari, whereas spirituum qualifies the preceding word praedictorum. Instead of speaking of “the aforementioned spirits” (praedictorum spirituum), Evodius’ version speaks of “to be cleansed in the spirit” (spiritu purgari). The original text – Greek or Syriac – may have been ambiguous as to whether the word for “spirit” pertained to the preceding or to the subsequent word. The immediate context in which this passage functioned within the Thes. has not been preserved. In scholarly literature, the praedictorum spirituum are often interpreted as spirits of evil.155 The adjective praedictorum indicates that Mani had introduced and discussed these spirits before. The meaning of this phrase is somewhat different in Evodius’ citation, as praedictorum does not necessarily refer to evil spirits here. The citation reads a labe prae155 M. Stein,

Manichaica latina 4, p. 105.

278

chapter vii

dictorum (from the fall of the aforementioned). The grammatical gender of praedictorum then corresponds to that of hi (masculine). Without any context, the pronoun hi seems to refer to a group of people (cf. homines). The expression labe praedictorum would then indicate that Mani described some form of determinism, in which a certain aforementioned group of people has been predicted to fall into sin or damnation. The threat of such a fall serves as a deterrent in Mani’s narrative. In terms of Manichaean ethics, the fragment then speaks of “cleansing in the spirit”. Such a statement would entail that human nature does not consist of a strict separation between the good spirit and the evil body, but that the spirit itself needs to be cleansed from the affections of evil. These evil affections probably pertain to concupiscence and violence, or as the fragment itself specifies, to disobedience towards divine commandments. 3.2.2. Fr. 3 For the large citation from the Thes. in Adu. Man. 14–16, Evodius again seems to have found inspiration in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, this time in his Nat. b. As elsewhere, there are a few differences between the citations of Evodius and Augustine: Adu. Man. 14,2–16,15156

Nat. b. 44157

Tunc beatus ille pater, qui lucidas tunc beatus ille pater, qui lucidas naues habet diuersoria et habita- naues habet diuersoria et habitacula 156  “Then that blessed Father, who has shining ships as dwellings or magnitudes as lodging places with him, in his innate clemency brings aid by which he is stripped and set free from the impious bonds and straits and torments of his own vital substance. By his invisible nod he transforms his powers, which he has in this shining ship, and causes these powers to show themselves to the opposite species, which are set in different parts of the heavens. These are of both sexes, male and female. Hence, he too makes the aforesaid powers appear at some times in the shape of beardless boys to women of the opposite species, at other times in the shape of fair virgins to males of the opposite species. He knows that all these hostile powers are easily captivated because of the deadly unclean lust that is congenital to them, and will yield to the beautiful forms which appear, and will so be dissolved. Know that our blessed father is identical with these powers of his, which for a necessary purpose he transforms into the undefiled likeness of boys and virgins. He uses these as his proper weapons, and by them accomplishes his will. The shining ships

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

279

Adu. Man. 14,2–16,15156

Nat. b. 44157

cula secum magnitudines, pro insita sibi clementia fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur ab impiis retinaculis et angustiis atque angoribus suae uitalis substantiae. Itaque inuisibili suo nutu illas suas uirtutes quae in clarissima hac naui habentur, transfigurat easque parere facit aduersis potestatibus quae in singulis caelorum tractibus ordinatae sunt. Quae quoniam ex utroque sexu masculorum ac feminarum consistunt, et ideo praedictas uirtutes partim speciem puerorum inuestium parere

seu magnitudines, pro insita sibi clementia fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur ab impiis retinaculis et angustiis atque angoribus suae uitalis substantiae. itaque inuisibili suo nutu illas suas uirtutes, quae in clarissima hac naui habentur, transfigurat easque parere facit aduersis potestatibus, quae in singulis caelorum tractibus ordinatae sunt. quae quoniam ex utroque sexu masculorum ac feminarum consistunt, ideo praedictas uirtutes partim specie puerorum inuestium parere iubet generi aduerso

are full of these divine powers which are set over against members of the infernal race as in a kind of marriage. Quickly and easily, in a moment, they achieve their purpose. When reason demands that these same holy powers should appear to males, immediately they show themselves in the form of beautiful virgins. Again, when they have come to women, they put off the appearance of virgins and take on that of beardless boys. Now at this comely sight their ardour and concupiscence grow, and in this way the fetter of their evil thoughts is broken, and the living soul which was held bound in their members is released on this occasion and escapes and mingles with the purest air which is its native element. Souls that are completely purified board the shining ships which have been prepared to carry them away and to transport them to their fatherland. Whatever still shows the taint of the opposite species goes down step by step through fiery heat, gets mixed up with trees and other plants and all crops, and is stained with diverse colours. Therefore, out of that great shining ship the figures of boys and virgins appear to the hostile powers whose home is in the heavens and who have fire as nature. At the fair sight the part of life which is held bound in their members is released and brought down by heat to earth. In the same way also the highest power, that inhabits the ship of living waters, appears through his angels by means of a similarity of boys and saintly virgins to those powers whose nature is cold and moist, which also are set in the heavens. To those who are female it appears in the form of boys, and to males in the forms of virgins. By this transformation and diversity of divine and beautiful forms the prince of cold and moist stock – in the appearance of males or of females – is dissolved and the vital element in them escapes. What remains is loosened and brought down to earth by cold and is mingled with all the species of earth”; M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 38–43. 157  Ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 881, l. 24-p. 884, l. 2.

280

chapter vii

Adu. Man. 14,2–16,15156

Nat. b. 44157

iubet generi aduerso feminarum, partim uirginum lucidarum forma generi contrario masculorum, sciens eas omnes hostiles potestates propter ingenitam sibi letalem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam facillime capi atque iisdem speciebus pulcherrimis quae parent et mancipari hocque modo dissolui. Sciatis autem hunc eumdem nostrum beatum patrem hoc idem esse quod etiam suae uirtutes, quas ob necessariam causam transformat in puerorum et uirginum intemeratam similitudinem. Vtitur autem his tanquam propriis armis atque per eas suam complet uoluntatem. Harum uero uirtutum diuinarum, quae ad instar coniugii contra inferna genera statuuntur quaeque alacritate ac facilitate id quod cogitauerint momento eodem efficiunt, plenae sunt lucidae naues. Itaque cum ratio poposcerit ut masculis appareant eaedem sanctae uirtutes, ilico etiam suam effigiem uirginum pulcherrimarum habitu demonstrant. Rursum cum ad feminas uentum fuerit, postponentes speciem uirginum puerorum inuestium speciem ostendunt. Hoc autem uisu decoro illarum ardor et concupiscentia crescit atque hoc modo uinculum pessimarum cogitationum earum soluitur uiuaque anima, quae eorumdem membris tenebatur, hac occasione laxata euadet et suo purissimo aeri miscetur, ubi penitus ablutae animae ascendunt ad lucidas naues, quae sibi ad euectionem atque ad suae patriae transfretationem sunt praeparatae. Id uero quod adhuc pars quae in earumdem membris

feminarum, partim uirginum lucidarum forma generi contrario masculorum. sciens eas omnes hostiles potestates propter ingenitam sibi letalem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam facillime capi, atque iisdem speciebus pulcherrimis, quae apparent, mancipari hocque modo dissolui. sciatis autem hunc eumdem nostrum beatum patrem hoc idem esse, quod etiam suae uirtutes, quas ob necessariam causam transformat in puerorum et uirginum intemeratam similitudinem. utitur autem his tamquam propriis armis atque per eas suam complet uoluntatem. harum uero uirtutum diuinarum, quae ad instar coniugii contra inferna genera statuuntur, quaeque alacritate ac facilitate id, quod cogitauerint, momento eodem efficiunt, plenae sunt lucidae naues. itaque cum ratio poposcerit, ut masculis appareant eaedem sanctae uirtutes, illico etiam suam effigiem uirginum pulcherrimarum habitu demonstrant. rursus, cum ad feminas uentum fuerit, postponentes species uirginum puerorum inuestium speciem ostendunt. hoc autem uisu decoro illarum ardor et concupiscentia crescit atque hoc modo uinculum pessimarum cogitationum earum soluitur uiuaque anima, quae eorumdem membris tenebatur, hac occasione laxata euadit et suo purissimo aeri miscetur, ubi penitus ablutae animae ascendunt ad lucidas naues, quae sibi ad uectationem atque ad suae patriae transfretationem sunt praeparatae. id uero, quod adhuc aduersi generis maculas portat, per aestus atque calores particulatim

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

281

Adu. Man. 14,2–16,15156

Nat. b. 44157

habetur, laxata deducitur per calores in terram. Eodem modo etiam illa altissima uirtus quae in naui uitalium aquarum habitat, similitudinem puerorum ac uirginum sanctarum per suos angelos apparet his potestatibus quarum natura frigida est atque humida quaeque in caelis ordinatae sunt. Et quidem his quae feminae sunt – in ipsis forma puerorum apparet; masculis uero, uirginum  ; ac mutatione et diuersitate personarum diuinarum ac pulcherrimarum humidae frigidaeque stirpis princeps masculi seu feminae soluuntur atque id quod in ipsis est uitale, fugit ; quod uero resederit, laxatum deducitur in terram per frigora et cunctis terrae generibus admiscetur.

descendit atque arboribus ceterisque plantationibus ac satis omnibus miscetur et caloribus diuersis inficitur. et quo pacto ex ista magna et clarissima naui figurae puerorum et uirginum apparent contrariis potestatibus, quae in caelis degunt quaeque igneam habent naturam, atque ex isto aspectu decoro, uitae pars, quae in earumdem membris habetur, laxata deducitur per calores in terram: eodem modo etiam illa altissima uirtus, quae in naui uitalium aquarum habitat, in similitudine puerorum ac uirginum sanctarum per suos angelos apparet his potestatibus, quarum natura frigida atque humida, quaeque in caelis ordinatae sunt et quidem his, quae feminae sunt, in ipsis forma puerorum apparet, masculis uero, uirginum. hac uero mutatione et diuersitate diuinarum personarum ac pulcherrimarum humidae frigidaeque stirpis principes masculi siue feminae soluuntur atque id, quod in ipsis est uitale, fugit; quod uero resederit, laxatum deducitur in terram per frigora et cunctis terrae generibus admiscetur.

Thes., fr. 3

The differences between Evodius’ and Augustine’s citations can be divided into five categories. First, in one expression the word order is different (Ev.: personarum diuinarum – Aug.: diuinarum personarum). However, Zycha’s critical apparatus does notify that many manuscripts of Nat. b. read personarum diuinarum as well, so perhaps Zycha’s text should have read so too, in accordance with the parallel found in Evodius’ Adu. Man. 158 Second, some variations 158 J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 883; see M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, p. 42, l. 39.

282

chapter vii

can be found in the use of connectors in both fragments: Evodius’ version twice adds et to an expression (et ideo – ideo; parent et – apparent). On another occasion, Augustine’s version reads hac uero as opposed to ac. Perhaps the archetype of Nat. b. originally contained ac uero. Then the connector ac may have accidentally been spelled hac 159 or deliberately changed to hac in order to correspond to the following noun mutatione. Third, many differences consist of small variations in phrasing, such as speciem – specie and quo facto – quo pacto. Fourth, and similarly, sometimes Evodius’ version contains a synonym of a word found in Augustine’s citation, such as parent instead of apparent (twice) and seu instead of siue. Fifth, sometimes the fragment in Adu. Man. has a word in the singular, where Augustine’s version has the plural. This is the case three times in this fragment (speciem – species; aestum – aestus; princeps – principes), and once in the previous fragment (spiritu – spirituum). 3.2.3. Observations The range of textual variation between Evodius’ and Augustine’s citations of the Thes. is in some regards comparable to the textual variation in the fragments of the Ep. fund. 160 There is a remarkable uniformity in the citations of the two church fathers. Again the differences mostly concern single words, of which many are connectors. Perhaps to a greater degree than the Ep. fund., Evodius’ 159  Cf. the spelling of Adu. Man.’s P 1 , which often added an initial h when a word begins with a vowel. In fact, for the fragment in Adu. Man., P 1 reads hac here too. 160 It

must be noted, however, that the Evodian citations of the Thes. do not differ as much from Augustine’s citations with regard to the use of connectors as was the case with the Ep. fund. Four differences in the use of connectors are present in the fragments of the Thes.: twice Augustine’s version omits et (et ideo – ideo; parent et – apparent). As seen in the example of Heb 7:25 (see n. 147), a Latin translator could choose not to translate a Greek καί. For the variation et – ac, parallels can be found in the Old Latin translations, where et and ac represent the connector καί. See Lk 14:4: καὶ ἀπέλυσεν (ed. by E. Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, p. 245), translated as ac or et dimisit [illum] (A. Jülicher, Itala, 3, p. 167). Finally, for the variant ac as opposed to hac uero (or ac uero), no parallels were found in Old Latin translations, but if both translations have their origin in a Greek text, this text might have had the particle δέ here.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

283

version of the Thes. contains synonyms of expressions found in Augustine. A new category of textual variation is the alternation between singular and plural forms of nouns: on four occasions, Evodius’ version has a noun in the singular where Augustine has the plural form. This is quite remarkable, as Latin (and Greek) texts clearly mark the grammatical number of a noun. It may be possible to discern here a trace of the original Syriac. That language has a consonantal writing system.161 If the text was written without vowel diacritics, it may have been possible for one translator to interpret a noun as singular, and another to interpret it as plural. At present this hypothesis requires further investigation. As with the fragments of the Ep. fund., the large extent to which the fragments of Evodius run parallel to those of Augustine is perplexing. If both citations depend on different Latin translations, then these would have been very faithful to their model, either a Syriac original, or one or two162 Greek intermediary translations. Alternatively, Evodius may have primarily imitated Augustine’s citations, occasionally correcting these citations based on a consultation of his own Latin or Greek copies of the Ep. fund. and Thes. 4. Evodius’ Knowledge of Manichaeism Without a doubt, Evodius’ treatise Adu. Man. is an important witness regarding Latin African Manichaeism. Admittedly, in many respects Evodius seems to simply rephrase Augustine’s ideas and arguments; the Adu. Man. could give the impression that Evodius was not an original theologian in the formulation of his anti-Manichaean teachings. Such observations, however, do not do justice to what Evodius intended to do. Throughout this study it has become clear that Evodius had a specific intent when he wrote Adu. Man., which was to refute the Manichaean Christians on a doctrinal and biblical basis. From the many anti-Manichaean works he consulted, he sought to distil only the most pertinent 161  S. C. 162 As

Hallan, Basics of Classical Syriac, p. 28.

the Greek language clearly differentiates between the number of nouns (singular, dual, or plural), it is unlikely that the variants spiritu – spirituum, speciem – species, aestum – aestus and princeps – principes would have been based on the same Greek text.

284

chapter vii

arguments. It is important to keep Evodius’ method and approach in mind when asking what he did or did not know about Manichaeism when he wrote his own anti-Manichaean tractate. Let us, then, recapitulate what Evodius did not know about Manichaeism, or rather on which aspects of Manichaeism he does not offer reflections. He does not refer to the hierarchical structure of the Manichaean community, which distinguished between the role of the Elect (and subdivisions within the Elect) and that of the Hearer.163 He does not seem thoroughly informed about the Manichaean canon. After all, he only seems to have consulted the Ep. fund. and the Thes. The references to these works he could have simply found in Augustine’s C. Fel. or Nat. b. He does not give detailed information about Manichaean ethics. He ridicules the Manichaean belief that Jesus resides in fruits and vegetables and that Jesus suffers in them. Yet he does not use accurate terminology in referring to this doctrine (cf. Augustine’s use of the phrase Iesus patibilis in C. Faust.). Evodius does not categorize Manichaean teachings by means of relevant Manichaean terminology. Evodius refutes the Manichaeans from the perspective of a Catholic bishop, whose authority over a Christian community is challenged by the Manichaeans. These Manichaeans claim to be true Christians but do not accept the episcopal authority of the Catholic Church. Evodius targets two audiences. First, and directly, he addresses and refutes the Manichaeans. Second, he buttresses his legitimacy as the leader of the Christian community in Uzalis. In other words, his refutation of Manichaean belief should not be disconnected from his participation in the Catholic Christian tradition. Hence, his argumentation needed to appeal to two audiences at the same time; balanced content was in order. On the one hand, Evodius generalizes Manichaean belief to such an extent that an orthodox Christian could still view Manichaean Christianity as not entirely foreign. On the other hand, through his citation of specific Manichaean texts and his use of Manichaean terms, he makes clear that he was not simply addressing any dualistic Christian movement, but the Manichaeans in particular. It is thus necessary to 163 On the hierarchy within the Manichaean movement, see M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, pp. 72–79.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

285

judge Evodius’ testimony concerning the Manichaeans in light of what seems to be his intention. Evodius does not address specific Manichaean individuals or refer to specific encounters with Manichaeans. In all likeliness, and unlike Augustine, he did not have the insider information on which a former member of the movement could avail himself. This lack of information could have been a source of frustration for the bishop of Uzalis. Evodius needed to refute the Manichaeans, whom he believed were present in his diocese. Because he did not have the personal Manichaean experience of Augustine, Evodius needed to prepare himself thoroughly by studying available Manichaean scripture and anti-Manichaean literature. The Manichaean scriptures he had were probably not copies of Augustine’s exemplars. After all, the textual differences between his and Augustine’s citations indicate that his versions go back to separate translations. Hence, it would be most likely that he acquired his copies of Manichaean works from a local Manichaean community in or near Uzalis. The likelihood that he came across Manichaean books in his city implies that the Manichaeans were very much alive and present at the time he wrote his Adu. Man. Some passages from Adu. Man. give the same impression. On several occasions Evodius uses phrases such as dixi (“I have said”) to discuss topics he did not address before in his treatise.164 In addition, phrases such as ait quidam (“some [Manichaean] says”) or dictum est a quodam (“has been said by someone”) suggest that sections of Adu. Man. could have originated from oral disputations with the Manichaeans in Uzalis.165 Alternatively, these dialogues, which Evodius does situate in a historical past, could be tendentious and fictitious dialogues. Confronted by this Manichaean presence, Evodius decided to take action. He probably did not have the necessary background to immediately provide a response to the Manichaeans in Uzalis. Instead, he looked to his friend and tutor Augustine and requested many of his works against the Manichaeans. Evodius may have already considered writing an anti-Manichaean work when he cor-

164 

Adu. Man. 18,5; 19,3; 20,3.

165 

Adu. Man. 19,1; 20,1.

286

chapter vii

responded with Augustine in 414–15.166 His study of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, as well as of a possible Greek anti-Manichaean text, and the Manichaean scripture he had access to all prepared him to write his compendium of anti-Manichaean arguments. Judging from the texts that he consulted, Evodius probably knew more about Manichaeism than he gives away at first sight. He had certainly learned about the Manichaean ecclesial structure – the distinction between Hearer and Elect – through his acquaintance with Augustine’s works, such as Mor. Man. and C. Fort. 167 One of his citations of the Ep. fund. also contains the term electos. This citation may signify that the Manichaeans believed their holy church to consist only of the Elect.168 Overall, it appears that Evodius was better informed concerning the Manichaean rank of the Elect than the rank of Hearer. From Augustine’s Mor. Man., Evodius had learned that the ethical principles of the Manichaean Elect centre on the “three seals:” the seal of the mouth, of the hands, and of the bosom.169 Possibly 166  See

chapter V, n. 12–13.

167 See,

e.g. Augustine, Mor. Man. XVII,62: quod quia fieri non potest – electi enim non edunt carnem –, temperandum esse auditoribus a nece animalium: “since this is not possible – the Elect, after all do not eat meat – the Hearers must abstain from the killing of animals”; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 143, l. 19–20; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 96; Augustine, C. Fort. 3: nostis autem me non electum uestrum, sed auditorem fuisse: “You know, however, that I was not one of your Elect but a Hearer”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 84, l. 26-p. 85, l. 1; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 146. Although the Manichaeans were forbidden to kill animals for consumption, the use of parchment (skins of animals) for Manichaean books is well attested. Adu. Man. 5,19: sanctam ecclesiam atque electos in eadem constitutos: “the holy Church and its elect, who are established in it”. See P. Brown, “Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire”, p. 99. However, in some sources the Manichaean church is said to consist of both ranks. See, for example, F. Decret, “En marge du manuscrit manichéen africain de Tébessa”, pp. 86–88, who cites from the Tebessa codex. Likewise, Augustine states in Haer. 46,5: nam his duabus professionibus, hoc est electorum et auditorum, ecclesiam suam constare uoluerunt; ed. by R. Vander Plaetse, C. Beukers (CCSL, 46), p. 313, l. 29–30. On the unique role of the Manichaean Elect, see also M. Franzmann, “The Elect Cosmic Body”. 168 

169 Augustine, Mor. Man.X,19: Quae sunt tandem ista signacula? Oris certe et manuum et sinus: “What, then, are these seals? They are, of course, those

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

287

the Ep. fund. contained similar ethical precepts.170 Evodius does not use the terminology of the three seals, yet he does refute the Manichaeans’ stance on these ethical principles. Manichaean precepts forbid the Elect to violate the three seals. The “seal of the mouth” forbids lying, blaspheming, and deceiving. Evodius criticizes precisely such behaviour among the Manichaeans.171 The “seal of the hands” pertains to the Manichaean principle of non-violence, which includes abstaining from eating meat and instead adopting a vegetarian or even a vegan diet.172 The dietary precepts of the Manichaeans go hand in hand with the Manichaean conception of reality. A part of God, in the form of light particles, is present in everything. To add to this, the Manichaeans believe that these light particles remained pure in fruits and vegetables.173 Evodius identifies the soul with this part of God.174 He compares the Manichaean concept of light particles and the soul to several passages of Scripture (Lk 8:32 and Mk 11:13) and to a section of the Acts of Andrew. In doing so, he argues that the Manichaean system is incompatible with the Christian canon175 and that the apocryphal literature the Manichaeans accept is immoral. The passage from the Acts of Andrew is relevant for the third of the Manichaean seals too, namely, the “seal of the bosom”. The of the lips, of the hands, and of the breast”; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 104, l. 17–18; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 77; Augustine, Mor. Man. XIII,30: Electus enim uester tribus signaculis praedicatus: After all, if one of your Elect, someone praised for the three seals; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 113, l. 21; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 82. 170  See 171 

E. Feldmann, Die “Epistula Fundamenti”, pp. 101–06.

Adu. Man. 31,8–9; Adu. Man. 38,14–15; Adu. Man. 38,30–32.

172 In addition to abstinence from meat and wine, the Manichaeans are also reported to not consume milk (and thus dairy) and eggs. Augustine, Mor. Man. XVI,39: Cur de thesauris dei melonem putatis esse aureum et pernae adipem rancidam uel oui medium non putatis? Cur uobis candor in lactucis praedicat deum, in lacte non praedicat?: “Why do you think that a golden melon comes from the storehouses of God and not think this of the rancid fat of ham or the yolk of an egg? Why does whiteness in lettuce announce God to you, but the whiteness of milk does not?”; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 123, l. 23-p. 124, l. 3 trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 87. 173 

Adu. Man. 35,8–10; Adu. Man. 36,2–4.

174 

Adu. Man. 44,6–7.

175 

Adu. Man. 37,28–31.

288

chapter vii

“seal of the bosom” enjoins upon the Manichaean Elect abstinence from carnal concupiscence and especially procreation. This ethical principle is exemplified by the character Maximilla in the Acts of Andrew. Before the apostle Andrew travelled to Patras, Maximilla was married to the proconsul Aegeates. After Andrew converted Maximilla to Christianity, she abandoned any physical intimacy with her husband. The asceticism of Maximilla would have been exemplary for the Manichaeans. However, Evodius criticizes Maximilla’s extreme asceticism, which contradicts Paul’s admonishment in 1 Cor that “, Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife in like manner to her husband”.176 Although Evodius does not refer to the surrounding context of 1 Cor, it is clear to him that Maximilla’s behaviour is not in line with the teaching of Paul.177 Evodius qualifies the Manichaeans’ sexual abstinence as excessive. To make matters worse, Maximilla deceived her husband Aegeates by dressing a girl-slave as herself, so that Aegeates would believe that he was sharing his bed with his wife.178 In his concluding remarks on the passage, Evodius criticizes Maximilla’s immoral behaviour not only in deceiving her husband, but also in not putting an end to the act of procreation. Here Evodius employs the phrase ligare animas in carne: “to bind souls to the flesh”.179 This phrase could allude to Manichaean terminology.180 176  1

Cor 7:3, which Evodius cites in Adu. Man. 38,18.

177  The

following citations from the same chapter of 1 Cor would also contradict Maximilla’s stance towards her husband Aegeates: 1 Cor 7:5 “Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time”; 1 Cor 7:13– 14: “And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband”. 178 

Adu. Man. 38,18–21.

179 

Adu. Man. 38,28–30.

for example Adu. Man. 5,24–26: Non igitur poterunt recipi in regna illa pacifica, sed configentur in praedicto horribili globo, cui etiam necesse est custodiam adhiberi. See M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 38. The globus is an important concept in Manichaean eschatology. On this term, see F. Decret, “Le ‘globus horribilis’”; B. Bennett, “Globus horribilis”. At the end of times, the separation between good and evil would be re-established. The evil demons would be confined to the globus, a globular mass. The souls of those 180  See,

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

289

By using these terms, Evodius claims that Maximilla did not prevent procreation but instead encouraged or at least allowed it. Her acts thus assisted in the binding of light particles (the good souls) to bodies, which corrupts these light particles.181 Within the Manichaean system, this is, of course, a grave sin and in conflict with the “seal of the bosom”. Evodius implies that Maximilla’s behaviour is hypocritical. She abstains from (legitimate) marital intercourse, yet allows illegitimate intercourse. If Maximilla functions as an example for the Manichaean Elect, the Manichaeans, it is implied, are equally hypocritical. In light of the evidence discussed in the last few paragraphs, it is possible to re-evaluate Evodius’ knowledge of Manichaeism. He was likely aware of the distinction between Manichaean Hearers and the Elect. Likewise, he knew of Manichaean ethical precepts. If he had not learned these characteristics of Manichaeism through personal experience with the religion, he nevertheless encountered them in his study of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works, and of the Manichaean writings themselves. Although he does not employ the particular terminology of the Manichaean “three seals”, he does refer to the concepts behind the terms. Evodius’ presentation of Manichaeism seems to be guided by two complementary factors. First, he is a polemical author. He does not give a neutral report about the Manichaean system, but instead wants to refute it. Like Augustine, he often generalizes when it comes to Manichaean doctrines, or interprets them according to fixed categories of Catholic Christian thinking: the distinction between light and darkness he interprets as the dichotomy between the soul and the body. Such an interpretation is not entirely in line with the Manichaean evidence, which defines light in physical terms, and which reserves a salvific function for the (Elect’s) body.182 Anti-Manichaean polemicists often interpret the Manichaean distinction between a good and an evil nature as entailing a deterministic system that denies any role for human free will or personal accountability who did not accept Mani’s teachings would become bound to this globus as a kind of covering. 181  See 182 See

also Adu. Man. 36,2–4.

I. Gardner & S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, pp. 11.22–23.

290

chapter vii

for sins.183 Yet this critique is an oversimplification of the Manichaeans’ more nuanced stance on determinism and the will.184 In addition, Evodius and Augustine view Manichaean eschatology as an errant interpretation of Christian teaching regarding heaven and hell. However, these categories of heaven and hell perhaps fail to do justice to how the Manichaeans themselves envisaged the end times.185 Second, Evodius’ audience also consisted of Catholic Christians. Hence, his presentation of the Manichaean system is catered to the expectations of his Catholic audience. Intricate details of Manichaean doctrine would detract from how convincing the argumentation would be for a Catholic Christian. Because Evodius focuses on the Manichaean claim to a Christian identity, he could engage in a biblical and doctrinal refutation within a (Catholic) Christian framework. This Christian framework does not mean that Evodius was badly informed regarding the Manichaeans. When he generalizes or misrepresents an aspect of Manichaeism, very often a parallel can be found in Augustine or in 183 See, for example, Adu. Man. 42,4–5. Many other anti-Manichaean polemicists treat the defence of free will as a central theme. Examples are the Catholic bishop Titus of Bostra (N. A. Pedersen, Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God, pp. 5–6) and the Platonist philosopher Alexander of Lycopolis (J. van Oort, “Alexander of Lycopolis”, p. 281). 184  See

J. D. BeDuhn, “The Leap of the Soul in Manichaeism”, pp. 15–21.

185  Augustine

and Evodius understand the Manichaean notion of the globus (see n. 180) as the equivalent of hell. Thus Augustine and Evodius claim that all souls that will be confined to the globus will be punished for eternity. See B.  Bennett, “Globus horribilis”, pp. 438–39. In C. Fel., Felix attempts to correct Augustine on this topic. Augustine, C. Fel. II,16: [Felix dixit:] et sic dicit Manichaeus, quia non sunt missi in regnum dei. hoc enim adseris tu, quia damnati sunt; sed Manichaeus hoc dicit, quia non damnati sunt, sed at custodiam positi sunt illius gentis tenebrarum: “And Mani says this: ‘They are not sent into the Kingdom of God’ – but you assert that they are damned. But Mani asserts that they are not damned but placed on guard over that race of Darkness”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 845, l. 8–13; trans. B. Bennett, “Globus horribilis”, p. 438. Felix’s attempt to convince Augustine seems to have failed, as Augustine continued to view the souls affixed to the globus as eternally punished, for example in Augustine, C. Sec. 24: ideo quippe dicit Manichaeus, aeterno supplicio animas in illo horribili globo damnandas: “Mani indeed says that souls will be condemned to eternal punishment in that horrible sphere”; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 942, l. 24–25; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 387.

a dversvs ma nicha eos

as a source on manichaeism

291

other anti-Manichaean polemicists. When Evodius adds information not attested elsewhere in the Latin Roman world (such as the Manichaean terminology of the third messenger and Mani’s twin), his testimony is reliable and in agreement with Manichaean sources. What Evodius learned of Manichaeism he presents in an accessible format to a mixed audience of Manichaeans and Christians. The manner in which he applies his knowledge of Manichaeism to the apocryphal Acts of Andrew is original, and his approach seems to respect authentic Manichaean doctrine. He sees parallels between Maximilla’s abstinence and the ethical precepts of the Manichaean Elect. Additionally, he finds that the example of Maximilla contradicts the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor 7. Here it must also be remarked that, although Evodius seems to reject the contents of the Acts of Andrew as a whole, he does not attribute any moral flaw to the figure of Andrew. He could perhaps have done this. After all, in that text, it is Andrew who converted Maximilla, taught her an ascetic way of life, and recommended that she distance herself from her husband Aegeates. Evodius does not agree with Maximilla’s behaviour, which the Andrew of the Acts had taught her. Although Evodius might have doubted whether the apostle Andrew is accurately represented by the Acts of Andrew, he takes no risk by not addressing this matter. Evidently, as a Catholic bishop, Evodius was unwilling to criticize under any circumstance one of the most important apostles. To conclude, since Evodius was not as familiar with Manichaeans as Augustine was, he primarily relied on studying Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works as well as his own copies of Manichaean texts. Having read these texts, Evodius would have been reasonably well informed about the movement. That he does not always refer to details of the Manichaean church, does not necessarily imply that he did not know such details. For example, he seems familiar with Manichaean ethical precepts, even if he does not name them using the proper Manichaean terms. In his refutation of Manichaeism, he attempts to present the religion in a manner which was accessible to a Catholic Christian. This approach is in line with the general focus of his anti-Manichaean argumentation. Speaking to a mixed audience of Manichaeans and Christians, Evodius addresses, on the one hand, orthodox Christian teachings

292

chapter vii

that enabled Manichaeans to claim a Christian identity, such as Trinitarian belief and adherence to Scripture, and, on the other hand, he addresses matters of Christian faith on which the Manichaeans held dangerous opinions, such as their far-reaching deprecation of the body, denial of free will, and belief in a system in which God is not both truly good and omnipotent.

Conclusion This study has discussed, in seven chapters, the activities of Evodius and the historical and theological relevance of the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos in its fifth-century North African context. In this concluding section, I reflect on several broader issues the research has raised. These issues are: (1) the uncertainties that remain, (2) the existential questions at stake, (3) polemics and diversity, (4) friendship and loyalty, and (5) prospects for future research. 1. Uncertainties During my research stay at the Academia Belgica in Rome, a colleague described the domain of ancient history as follows: “Imagine a jigsaw puzzle of 10,000 pieces that is being transported in a cardboard box. During transport, the box drops into a river. A passer-by notices this accident and wants to save what he can of the puzzle. What he ends up with, are about 50 pieces, many of which are severely damaged by the water. What scholars in ancient history attempt to do, is reconstruct the entire picture based only on those scattered fragments, for the box too has been lost”. This study attempts to reconstruct the picture of the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos. It is clear that many useful sources have been lost over time. As a result, we are confronted at many junctures with uncertainties about this anti-Manichaean treatise. One of the most persistent of these uncertainties is the question of the treatise’s authorship. There are no late antique testimonia that refer to the treatise, with the possible exception of some reminiscences in the homilies attributed to Quodvultdeus. Likewise, the extant sources do not allow a comprehensive reconstruction of Evodius’ thinking and literary activity. External evidence, namely, the manuscript tradition, indicates that either Evodius or Augustine wrote Aduersus Manichaeos. The internal evidence permits, but does not convincingly corroborate, the attribution to Evodius. This lack of internal corroboration, however, may be due in large part to the limited amount of comparative mate-

294

conclusion

rial (i.e., Evodius’ letters) that is available. The different genres of the works attributed to Evodius – a letter to his friend and tutor Augustine, an exhortative letter to a nearby community at Hadrumetum, and a polemical treatise against the Manichaeans – render it even more difficult to assess the parallels and differences between these three works. Perhaps the most that can be said is that Evodian authorship of the treatise is consistent with what we know of the bishop of Uzalis. Or, put differently, the comparative material of Evodius’ letters does not contradict Evodius’ authorship of the anti-Manichaean treatise. During the course of the publication, it was necessary to make a decision, even on the basis of incomplete evidence. Is the attribution to Evodius certain enough to consider Aduersus Manichaeos a work of his? At least Evodius has a strong case in favour of his authorship. The attribution to Evodius in the manuscript transmission would then rely on a trustworthy tradition, rather than on a mistake or accident of transmission. The chapters that follow the discussion of authorship proceed on the reasoned assumption that Evodius is indeed the author of Aduersus Manichaeos. A similar uncertainty surrounds the date of Aduersus Manichaeos. The treatise’s dependence on Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works and its North-African provenance can be asserted with reasonable confidence. However, identifying 419–20, when Augustine wrote his Contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum, as the terminus post quem for the composition of Aduersus Manichaeos relies on several similarities, some of which may be incidental, between the two works. Assigning the terminus ante quem to 425–26, the date of Evodius’ Epistula ad Valentinum, requires that one accept Evodian authorship of Aduersus Manichaeos in the first place. Residual uncertainty regarding the authorship of Aduersus Manichaeos has consequences for the four chapters that follow the discussion of that issue. It would perhaps be safest to consider Aduersus Manichaeos separately from Evodius’ letters, and to an extent, this is what has been done in chapters IV–VII. Much of the analysis of Aduersus Manichaeos can be considered a stand-alone study of that anti-Manichaean treatise. Nevertheless, comparing the evidence of Aduersus Manichaeos with elements of Evodius’ biography is a necessary part of the analysis of the treatise. The provisional nature of some of the analysis is evident in the sixth chapter, where Aduersus Manichaeos is evaluated as an anti-Man-

conclusion

295

ichaean treatise in an anti-Pelagian African context. If Aduersus Manichaeos could be shown not to belong to Evodius, then the results of a comparison between the treatise and the Episula ad Valentinum would require reinterpretation. Similarly, if one were to deny both Evodian authorship and the treatise’s dependence on Augustine’s Contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum, then the comparison with anti-Pelagian theology takes on a more general character. In that case, one could still accept that Aduersus Manichaeos is an African treatise written after 405 (Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works). The treatise could then even predate the clash between the African church and the so-called Pelagians. The comparison with anti-Pelagian material, however, would not be rendered entirely irrelevant, for the analysis of Aduersus Manichaeos’ contents has proven that Augustine’s thinking on inherited original sin, the corrupted nature of humankind, and the need for divine grace, on the one hand, did not constitute a universally accepted African theology, yet on the other hand, did nevertheless leave some marks on the anti-Manichaean treatise. The analysis of Aduersus Manichaeos in chapter VI illustrates how the polemical circumstances (anti-Manichaean, anti-Pelagian) of a theological work influence its doctrinal formulations. Another element of uncertainty concerns the reliability of our literary sources. Late antique literary sources have scarcely been preserved. The reconstruction of a text such as Aduersus Manichaeos relies on a comparison of the variant readings of medieval manuscripts. The oldest known manuscript of Aduersus Manichaeos was written at the end of the ninth century. Between this witness and the autograph of Aduersus Manichaeos lie, presumably, four centuries. How reliably the text was preserved during those four centuries is nigh impossible to ascertain. For many textual variants, manuscript evidence is ambiguous, or the reconstructed reading of the archetype is confusing (see the critical edition). This difficulty is accentuated when we turn to the comparison of parallel citations of Manichaean texts in Aduersus Manichaeos and Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works. The comparative study of Manichaean fragments assumes that the text of the critical editions reliably represents what Augustine and Evodius produced, and such comparative study must also ask whether Augustine and Evodius faithfully cited their Manichaean sources. When preparing the new critical edition of Aduersus Manichaeos, new textual

296

conclusion

variants of the Manichaean sources surfaced. It is likely that new critical editions of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works would find similar textual variation in the same Manichaean fragments. To what extent these fragmentary citations correspond to the Manichaean texts as they circulated in North Africa, is difficult to assess. 2. Existential Questions The theological discussions in which Evodius participated influenced the history of Western Christianity. Major themes of those discussions are evil and its causes, and the relationship between autonomy (the capacity of human free will) and heteronomy (human reliance on God’s grace). The experience of adversity and injustice is universal. Through the ages philosophers and theologians attempted to formulate a coherent explanation for the origin of evil, and such was also the case in late antiquity. For Christians, who believe in an all-good and almighty God, the experience of evil is unsettling in part because Christians experience evil in a reality that they hold to have been created as good by God. Manichaean Christians could explain evil as a constitutive element of reality. Reality to them was dualistic; it consisted of good and evil. Manichaeism did not speculate on the origin of evil but instead prescribed a way of life in which it was possible to do good, by liberating the light from its commingling darkness. Evodius and Augustine considered the Manichaean accounts of good and evil unsatisfactory. The two bishops defined evil not as an ontological reality, but a moral one. Evil results from humanity’s capacity to sin. By free will, each person can choose to follow or reject God and God’s commandments. While the Christian tradition has never considered human nature itself to be evil, there is certainly some ambiguity with regard to human imperfection. After all, because humans are not identical to God, they are imperfect. Nevertheless opinions differ on the capacity of humanity to realise the good. All Christians seem to agree that God’s grace is necessary. The Christian tradition values both human free will (autonomy) and divine grace (heteronomy). As the analysis of Aduersus Manichaeos shows, a typically anti-Manichaean theology portrayed God before all else as a just judge and not, in the first instance, as a caring father. Here, an

conclusion

297

emphasis on human free will leaves little room for God’s love and grace. The opposite could happen too. Pelagius considered some aspects of Augustine’s thinking on grace too deterministic. According to Pelagius, an excessive belief in God’s grace results in a pessimistic anthropology, in which the human capacity for good ethical conduct is undermined. The consequences of the Pelagian controversies are still relevant today. The African church defended the doctrine that Adam’s sin is inherited by each person at birth. In addition to voluntary sin, which is caused by human free will, each person is also born with Adam’s original sin. Humanity is in constant need of the aid of God’s grace. Since each person inherits Adam’s sin, infant baptism is a necessity, lest unbaptised babies be condemned to hell. The fifth-century debates on infant baptism influenced many Christian denominations up to this day. Infant baptism was not yet the norm at the time Evodius and Augustine were born. After all, they were both baptized as adults. The Manichaeans’ dualistic interpretation of Christianity posed a challenge for the Catholic anti-Manichaean polemicists. Evodius identified the Manichaean dualism of light and darkness with the dichotomy of soul and body. Such a dualism occurs in several biblical texts, which enjoyed popularity among the African Manichaean Christians. In response, Evodius consistently argued that it is not our body that sins; rather, sin is caused through a cooperation of soul and body. Our identity does not consist of a soul within an alien body; rather, we are a body and soul together. Against Manichaean dualism, Evodius thus defends a holistic view of human persons, and he exhibits a positive appreciation of the body. It appears that throughout its history, Christianity has encountered dualistic movements (such as the medieval Cathars) that cherish a strong disdain for the corporeal. 3. Polemics and Diversity Evodius was born after Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313) and before Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica (380). The first edict gave Christianity a legal status alongside other religions in the Roman Empire; the second affirmed Nicene Christianity as the Roman emperors’ religion of choice. Throughout Evodius’ life, the Catholic Church grew in importance, in part due to Evodius’ own contributions. His installation of the cult of Saint Stephen in Uzalis was

298

conclusion

a success and attracted visitors from all over the Roman Empire. Within his own diocese, the cult of the first Christian martyr may have been popular among (former) Donatists. The Donatists after all generally held Christian martyrs in high esteem. At the end of Evodius’ second decade as bishop, the Donatist church building in Uzalis was reinstated as a Catholic church. In other words, the Donatists lost their place of worship. Perhaps the establishment of a shrine for the relics of Saint Stephen was partly intended to placate those Christians who had belonged to the Donatist church. Such a conciliatory gesture would have been quite exceptional in Evodius’ time. When faced with religious diversity, the church fathers of late antiquity were rarely models of ecumenical or interreligious dialogue. Evodius was involved in polemical activities against Donatists, Pelagians, and Manichaeans. The theological texts that were produced during such religious controversies could, from a modern perspective, be classified as tendentious, prone to deliberate misrepresentation of the other, and intolerant; in short, they could be judged to contain hate speech. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to the African church of Augustine and Evodius. For example, during the Pelagian controversies, both parties – the African church and the so-called Pelagians – accused each other of excessively defending either the free will or grace. The African church described the Pelagians as “enemies of grace” (inimici gratiae), while the Pelagians accused Augustine, on account of his belief in inherited sin and his contempt for sexual desire, of Manichaeism. The Manichaeans too employed aggressive rhetorical strategies. Sometimes religious controversies resulted in hysteria and bloodshed. Violent incidents were reported especially in the encounters between Donatists and Catholics. Evodius himself fell victim to one such attack in 408. It is possible that this attack permanently crippled the bishop of Uzalis, as he is not reported to have travelled elsewhere afterwards. Every religious movement was convinced that it proclaimed the truth. This conviction also prevailed among the protagonists of the Catholic Church. On multiple occasions Evodius appeals to common reason, apostolic tradition, and truth. However, when comparing different texts from his hand, one has the impression that he could be somewhat flexible towards his Catholic tradition, emphasizing certain doctrines against the Manichaeans and

conclusion

299

other doctrines in the semi-Pelagian controversy. If a late antique author appears receptive to elements from other religious traditions, it is probably because that author was seeking out elements to appropriate for argumentative purposes. In the case of Aduersus Manichaeos, Evodius seems to have employed a deliberate strategy, portraying his opponents as “dark” and his own position as “light”. Open dialogue would have been rare in Evodius’ time. As a rule, polemicists propose one solution to end religious dissension, and that solution entails conversion to their own religious group. Religious polemics were not only about words. The African Catholic bishops also sought to establish and defend their primacy in North Africa by other means; foremost among these means was cooperation with the church of Rome and the Roman state. The designation “Catholic” was contested by both the so-called Donatists and the so-called Catholics. The Donatists considered themselves Catholic, inasmuch as they were the rightful successors of the traditional African church. From their perspective, the non-Donatists were the schismatics who had separated from the Catholic Church. The non-Donatist church, however, maintained that the Donatists cannot consider themselves Catholic or universal, because they were an isolated African phenomenon. The non-Donatists underlined their own ties to churches elsewhere in the Christian world, especially the church in Rome. During the Pelagian controversies too, the African bishops sought support from the bishop of Rome. The Roman bishops, in turn, were primary concerned with church politics, not with an earnest examination of doctrine. Pope Innocent supported the African bishops’ opposition to the thinking of Pelagius and Caelestius, even though his own understanding of free will and grace seems to more closely resemble that of the Pelagian opponents than that of the African church. Innocent’s successor Zosimus would at first acquit Pelagius and Caelestius, convinced as he was of their orthodoxy. Yet when met with opposition from the African church, his own clergy, and the Roman emperor, Zosimus ultimately condemned the teachings of Pelagius and his sympathizers. The Roman emperor himself had much to lose from miscalculating the religious sensitivities of the North African church. The fertile North African provinces were essential for sustaining the Roman Empire’s economy and military. By intervening in religious affairs, the Roman emperor wanted to guarantee unity in the tumultuous African provinces.

300

conclusion

When Evodius and Theasius travelled to the imperial court in 404, Emperor Honorius complied with the Catholic bishops’ requests to sharpen anti-Donatist legislation. A decade later, Honorius would pressure Pope Zosimus to condemn the teachings of Caelestius and Pelagius. Once the minority church in North Africa, Catholic Christianity became the only licit form of Christianity in the early fifth century, before the invasion of the Arian Vandals. This new prominence of Catholic Christianity does not mean that other religions vanished during this period. That Quodvultdeus (434–39) felt the need to refute Paganism, Judaism, Manichaeism, Sabellianism, Arianism (evidently), Donatism, and Pelagianism demonstrates that these different religious currents remained active – or at least present in the mind of the Catholic author – in North Africa. Perhaps these movements all enjoyed more liberty in a Vandal Empire, where the Catholic Church could not apply pressure in collaboration with the Roman state.1 4. Friendship and Loyalty One theme of Evodius’ life is the loyalty that he exhibited towards his friends. Ever since he joined Augustine and the group of friends in Milan in 386, he never left Augustine’s side. He followed Augustine to Rome and Ostia, and then travelled back to Africa, settling in Thagaste and in Hippo. When Evodius was ordained bishop of Uzalis at the end of the fourth century, he continued to correspond and collaborate with his friend. Although the friendship between Evodius and Augustine is well documented and therefore well known, Evodius’ friendship with Alypius seems to have been just as profound. We do not know whether Evodius was acquainted with Augustine from their youth in Thagaste. Augustine does not mention such a relationship when he introduces Evodius in the Confessions. It could be that Augustine first met Evodius not in Africa but in Italy. It is possible, however, that Evodius did know Alypius since youth. Born ca. 360 and also from Thagaste, Alypius would have been approximately the same age as Evodius. If the two had known each other from their younger years in Thagaste, it is possible that Alypius facilitated 1  See

also D. E. Wilhite, Ancient African Christianity, pp. 264–86.

conclusion

301

the encounter between Augustine and Evodius in Milan. Alypius and Augustine would remain Evodius’ closest friends. Evodius’ network of friends also included Aurelius of Carthage, Paulinus of Nola, and, to a lesser extent, Jerome, Possidius of Calama, and Orosius. Evodius’ social network stretched even to the imperial court and to the Greek East. He frequently accessed texts written in Greek, such as the apocryphal Assumption of Moses, the Acts of Andrew, and as seems likely, a Greek anti-Manichaean work. Evodius’ loyalty to his close friends motivated many of his actions. Perhaps the most telling example is his participation in the Pelagian controversies. He may have first opposed Pelagius in 404, during a trip to Rome to negotiate anti-Donatist measures with Emperor Honorius. Evodius clashed with Pelagius when the latter criticised an oft-repeated sentence of Augustine’s Confessions: da quod iubes et iube quod das. In other words, Evodius’ loyal defence of Augustine could have initiated the enmity with Pelagius. Second, although he is not recorded among the participants of the African councils and synods at which Pelagius’ and Caelestius’ teachings were refuted, Evodius still supported the co-authored letter of Aurelius, Alypius, Augustine, and Possidius. If Aduersus Manichaeos was written by Evodius (estimated date 420–25), then Evodius would have supported the condemnation of Pelagius’ teachings, even though the questions regarding grace and original sin were not characteristic of his own thinking elsewhere. Nevertheless, and third, he later actively studied Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works. In Evodius’ library at Uzalis, a monk from Hadrumetum would discover Augustine’s Epistula 194. When Evodius wrote his admonition to Valentinus, abbot from the same community in Hadrumetum, he is more than comfortable with anti-Pelagian ideas and terminology. Previously, Evodius may have similarly collected and studied many of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works in preparation for writing Aduersus Manichaeos, a treatise permeated with Augustine’s anti-Manichaean thought. One anecdote from Evodius’ early life deserves mention here. When Monnica, mother of Augustine, passed away at Ostia, Evodius took the initiative and played a leading role at her funeral by singing a Psalm. The other attendees responded to Evodius’ singing. This role at Monnica’s funeral shows Evodius’ closeness to the family, and could also prefigure Evodius’ future as priest and bishop (as he takes initiative in a quasi-religious ceremony). The

302

conclusion

scene of Monnica’s funeral is a popular one in Christian art, but representations of Evodius are few. One occurs in a fifteenth-century fresco at the Sant’Agostino Church in San Gimignano.2 An inscription in Latin complements the scene. It is not clear which figure in the fresco is to be identified with Evodius. It is likely that Evodius is to be identified with one of two figures to the right of Monnica’s bed. These two figures represent Evodius and Alypius. The inscription seems to support this interpretation, as it mentions the two friends Evodius and Alypius together. 3 The painting aptly visualises the intimate relation between Evodius, Alypius, and Augustine and his family. 5. Prospects for Future Research The subject of this study is the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos. Its main realisations are the establishment of a new critical edition of this treatise, a re-evaluation of the treatise’s authorship, an examination of the language, sources, and theological thinking of its author, and, finally, a study of Manichaeism in Latin North Africa, with particular attention to the testimony of Aduersus Manichaeos. In addition, this study has opened up several prospects for future research. With regard to Evodius’ theological development, the influence of Augustine’s thinking on Evodius’ letters deserves an in-depth study of its own. In addition, the dissertation has uncovered several occasions on which Evodius seems to have been aware of ideas from the Greek East. Evodius was thus able to mediate between the Greek and the Latin world. This ability would become a rarity in Africa later on, when the command of Greek diminished. Determining the range of Evodius’ knowledge of Greek ecclesiastical literature should now be recognised as a desideratum. The study has also established that, for the purposes of studying Latin Manichaean writings, Zycha’s editions of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works are not entirely sufficient. The deficiency of Zycha’s editions becomes especially clear when comparing Aduersus Manichaeos to Augustine’s Contra Felicem. The oldest manu2 B. Gozzoli, 3 B. Gozzoli,

Death of St Monica.

Death of St Monica: Assumpto nauigio cum alippio euodio eiusque filio adeodato.

conclusion

303

script of Contra Felicem, a manuscript that has been neglected in earlier editions, contains many readings that differ from those of the modern critical editions of Contra Felicem, but the differing readings are identical to those of Aduersus Manichaeos. To get a proper view of the circulation of Manichaean literature in North Africa, Augustine’s anti-Manichaean treatises need a comprehensive textual revision. A first-generation disciple of Mani, Addas, introduced Manichaeism in Alexandria. From Egypt, Manichaeism spread to the Latin West. Addas’ importance for western Manichaeism is exemplified by the praise bestowed on him by the Manichaean Faustus, and by the need Augustine felt to refute Addas’ Disputationes in his own Contra Adimantum and in several other works, all of which were written more than a century after Addas’ death. Our understanding of the relationship between Latin North African and Egyptian Manichaeism would benefit from further study. Considering that Manichaean missionaries were often multilingual merchants who made use of the Roman Empire’s trade routes, it would be worthwhile to examine the extent to which the Latin Manichaeans exchanged ideas and texts with Manichaean communities elsewhere. The study has also uncovered evidence of a possible Greek model for several of the Latin fragments of Manichaean works. In the case of the Thesaurus, some textual variants could even point to a Syriac Vorlage. Further assessment of the transmission and translation of Manichaean texts is desirable, especially by scholars trained in the languages that the Manichaeans in the Roman Empire knew, such as Syriac, Coptic, Greek, and Latin. A better understanding of the writing culture of the Manichaeans in Latin North Africa will be of assistance to future analysis of Manichaean multilingualism and interregional mobility. In terms of historical circumstances, Aduersus Manichaeos is a unique document for the study of North African religion in late antiquity. It seems to have been written in the early 420s, approximately fifteen years after Augustine had finished his last major anti-Manichaean work. Although Augustine remained concerned with the Manichaeans, during these decades he did not dedicate a treatise to dealing specifically with them. Augustine’s relationship to the Manichaeans in this era deserves further scholarly attention, especially considering the apparent tensions between

304

conclusion

anti-Manichaean theology and anti-Pelagian theology. Evodius, in his Aduersus Manichaeos, does not seem preoccupied with the Pelagian controversies. In contrast, Augustine’s Sermons 153 and 182 demonstrate that so-called anti-Pelagian views about the corruption of human nature and the necessity of grace could go hand in hand with anti-Manichaean theology. These suggested avenues for further scholarship should help to reconstruct the picture of a vibrant religious centre from the past, namely, fifth-century North Africa. There, polemical encounters between concurrent religions stimulated literary productivity, theological development, and doctrinal fine-tuning. One such encounter is represented by the treatise Aduersus Manichaeos, probably authored by Evodius of Uzalis. Confronted with the presence of Manichaeans in his diocese at Uzalis, Evodius wanted to take action. The author of the treatise adopted a careful approach. He prepared himself as best as he could, collecting and examining many of Augustine’s anti-Manichaean treatises and even examining the writings of Mani himself. It is a fortunate irony that, while the actions of Augustine, Evodius, and similar religious authorities caused Manichaeism to disappear from the Christian world, nevertheless their polemical works are a lasting testimony to this now-lost movement. Thanks to past and ongoing efforts to preserve these texts (and new discoveries of primary Manichaean documents), it is possible for a modern reader to learn about realities that have disappeared through time.

Abbreviations 1. Primary Sources [See also the list of abbreviations from the Augustinus-Lexikon] Acc. grat. I

Ps-Augustine (Quodvultdeus), De accedentibus ad gratiam I

Act. Arch.

Ps-Hegemonius, Acta Archelai

Adu. Man.

Evodius, Aduersus Manichaeos (= De fide contra Manichaeos)

Adu. V haer.

Ps-Augustine (Quodvultdeus), Aduersus quinque haere ses

Cant. nou.

Ps-Augustine (Quodvultdeus), De cantico nouo

Coll. Pasc.

Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio

C. ep. fund. Augustine, Contra epistulam quam uocant fundamenti C. Felician.

Ps-Augustine (Vigilius of Thapsus), Contra Felicianum arianum de unitate trinitatis

C. Iud. pag. ar. Ps-Augustine (Quodvultdeus), Contra Iudaeos, paganos et arianos C. Man.

Titus of Bostra, Contra Manichaeos

Dial. qu . Ps-Augustine, Dialogus quaestionum LXV Eccl. dogm.

Ps-Augustine (Gennadius?), De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus

Ep.

Epistula (unless mentioned otherwise, a number refers to a specific Epistula in Augustine’s epistolary corpus)

Ep. fund. Mani, Epistula fundamenti Ep. ad Val.

Evodius, Epistula ad abbatem Valentinum Adrumetinum

F. Petr.

Ps-Augustine (Fulgentius of Ruspe), De fide ad Petrum liber siue de regula uerae fidei

Ig. purg.

Ps-Augustine (Caesarius of Arles), Sermo de igne purgatorio (= s. app. 104)

Mir. s. script. Ps-Augustine, De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae Mor. eccl. cath. Augustine, De moribus ecclesiae catholicae Mor. Man. Augustine, De moribus Manichaeorum Pan.

Epiphanius, Panarion

Praed. gr. Augustine, De praedestinatione et gratia

306

abbreviations

IV uirt. car.

Ps-Augustine (Quodvultdeus), De quattuor uirtutibus caritatis

Retr.

Augustine, Retractationes

XXI sent. Ps-Augustine, Sententiarum XXI liber Spir. an.

Ps-Augustine (Alcher of Clairvaux?), De spiritu et anima

Thes.

Mani, Thesaurus

Vit. chr.

Ps-Augustine, De uita christiana

2. Book Series and Journals ACW

Ancient Christian Writers

BA

Bibliothèque augustinienne

BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium CCCM Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis CCSA Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum CCSG Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina CFM

Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum

CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum FC

The Fathers of the Church

GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte IPM

Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia

MS

Manichaean Studies

NHMS Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies NHS A New History of the Sermon ÖAW

Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften

PC

Papyrologica Coloniensia

PL

Patrologia Latina

RevBen Revue bénédictine REA Revue d’Études Augustiniennes/Revue des Études Augusti niennes/Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques SC

Sources chrétiennes

VC

Vigiliae Christianae

VCS

Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae

WSA

The Works of Saint Augustine

Bibliography 1. Preliminary Notes

Throughout the publication, I use an abbreviated form to refer to secondary literature. Abbreviated references offer the author’s initial and last name, the title of the work, and page/column/folium numbers. Line numbers or footnote numbers are preceded by l. or n., respectively. When referring to manuscripts of Aduersus Manichaeos, I make use of the sigla, which can be found below and in appendix I. For primary sources, I refer to the original author (if known), the Latin title, the modern editor, and the title of the article or book in which the text has been published. If a text has been published in a well-known series (e.g., CCSL, CSEL, GCS), the volume number of the series is given instead of the title of the publication. Entries for translations of primary texts can be found at the end of the bibliography of primary sources. Translations of Adu. Man. are my own, except where noted otherwise. I have harmonized the spelling in citations of Latin sources, applying the editorial policy of my edition of Adu. Man. For punctuation and capitalisation, I follow the respective editions of the Latin texts. When titles of modern publications contain a Latin phrase, the spelling of the modern publication is followed (e.g., The De dono perseverantiae of Saint Augustine). Where they exist, I use the modern English equivalent of Latin names for the sake of recognisability, instead of the Latin form (e.g., Augustine instead of Augustinus, or Evodius instead of Euodius). 2. Sigla of Adu. Man.; Editions of Adu. Man.; Other Manuscripts 2.1. Sigla [See also appendix I] Ag 1  Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 179 Ag 2 Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 180 Ag 3 Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 289 Av Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale, 84

308

bibliography

Bo Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque municipale, 49 Bg 1 Bruges, Openbare Bibliotheek, 103 Bg 2 Bruges, Openbare Bibliotheek, 112 Bx Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Bibliothèque Royale, 9349–54 Ch Chicago, University Library, 110 Di Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, 139 Gr

Grenoble, Bibliothèque municipale, 203

Kl Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, CCl 220 La Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, 128 Li

Liège, Bibliothèque de l’Université, 132

Ma Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 223 Mü Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 18083 Ox Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 175 P 1 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2077 P 2 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12218 P 3 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12219 P 4 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14301 Pa Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 245 Pm Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 635 So

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque de l’agglomération, 85

F

St Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, XI 76

Tr

Trier, Seminarbibliothek, 48

Vl

Valencia, Biblioteca Universitaria, 33 (580)

Vt 1 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 203 Vt 2 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Arch. San Pietro B. 52 Zw Zwettl, Stiftsbibliothek, 35 2.2. Editions of Adu. Man. Am.

Amerbach, Johann, Vndecima pars librorum diui Aurelii Augustini quorum mentionem non fecit in libris retractationum, Basel, 1506.

Er.

Erasmus, Desiderius, Sextus tomus operum diui Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, continens τὰ πολεμικὰ, hoc est, decertationes aduersus haereses praecipue Iudaeorum, Manichaeorum, Priscillianistarum, Origenistarum, Arianorum, & Iouiniani, Basel, 1526.

bibliography Lov.

309

Tomus VI. operum D. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, continens τὰ πολεμικὰ, hoc est, decertationes aduersus haereses prae­ cipue Iudaeorum, Manichaeorum, Priscillianistarum, Origenistarum, Arianorum, & Iouiniani: nunc multis in locis summo studio emendatus, per theologos louanienses, Antwerp, 1576.

Maur. Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi operum tomus octauus, continens opuscula polemica, aduersus haereses, Mani­ chaeorum, Priscillianistarum, & Arianorum, Louaniensium theologorum recognitionem correcta denuo ad manuscriptos codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, &c. nec non ad editiones antiquiores & castigatiores, opera et studio monachorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, e Congregatione S. Mauri, Paris, 1688. Zycha Zycha, Josephus, S. Aurelii Augustini contra Felicem, de natura boni, epistula Secundini, contra Secundinum, accedunt Euodii de fide contra Manichaeos et commonitorium Augustini quod fertur (CSEL 25/2), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1892. 2.3. Other manuscripts Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Bibliothèque Royale, 1413–16. Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, 104. Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, 156. Montecassino, Biblioteca dell’abbazia, 15. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2083. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2093. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 13371. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, nouvelles acquisitions latines, 1114 Reims, Bibliothèque municipale, 395. Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, 40/2. Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, 201. 3. Primary Sources 3.1. Texts Identified by Author or Title Acta Andreae, ed. Jean-Marc Prieur. Acta Andreae (CCSA 5–6), 2 vols., Turnhout, 1989. Acta Iohannis, ed. Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli. Acta Iohannis (CCSA 1–2), 2 vols., Turnhout, 1983.

310

bibliography

Ad Iustinum Manichaeum, ed. PL 8, Paris, 1844, cols 999–1010. Ambrose, De fide, ed. Otto Faller, Sancti Ambrosii opera pars VIII: De fide [ad Gratianum Augustum] (CSEL 78), Vienna, 1962. Ambrose, De mysteriis, ed. Otto Faller, Sancti Ambrosii opera pars VII: Explanatio symboli, de sacramentis, de mysteriis, de paenitentia, de excessu fratris, de obitu Valentiniani, de obitu Theodosii (CSEL 73), Vienna, 1955, pp. 87–116. Amerbach, Epistulae, ed. Alfred Hartmann, Die Amerbachkorrespondenz. 1: Die Briefe aus der Zeit Johann Amerbachs 1481–1513, Basel, 1942. Arnobius Iunior, Praedestinatus, ed. Franco Gori. Arnobii Iunioris praedestinatus qui dicitur (CCSL 25B), Turnhout, 2000. Augustine, De agone christiano, ed. Josephus Zycha, Sancti Aureli Augustini de fide et symbolo, de fide et operibus, de agone christiano, de continentia, de bono coniugali, de sancta uirginitate, de bono uiduitatis, de adulterinis coniugiis lib. II, de mendacio, contra mendacium, de opere monachorum, de diuinatione daemonum, de cura pro mortuis gerenda, de patientia (CSEL 41), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1900, pp. 99–138. Augustine, De ciuitate dei, ed. Bernardus Dombart and Alphonsus Kalb, Sancti Aurelii Augustini de ciuitate dei libri I–X (CCSL 47), Turnhout, 1955; Bernardus Dombart and Alphonsus Kalb, Sancti Aurelii Augustini de ciuitate dei libri XI–XXII (CCSL 48), Turnhout, 1955. Augustine, Confessiones, ed. Lucas Verheijen, Sancti Augustini confessionum libri XIII (CCSL 27), Turnhout, 1981. Augustine, Conlatio cum Maximino, ed. Pierre-Marie Hombert, Scripta Arriana latina 2: Sancti Aurelii Augustini contra Arrianos opera: Sermo Arrianorum anonymus; Contra sermonem Arrianorum; Conlatio cum Maximino; Contra Maximinum libri duo (CCSL 87A), Turnhout, 2009, pp. 381–487. Augustine, Contra Adimantum, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini de utilitate credendi, de duabus animabus, contra Fortunatum, contra Adimantum, contra epistulam fundamenti, contra Faustum (CSEL 25/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1891, pp. 113–90. Augustine, Contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum, ed. Klaus D. Daur, Sancti Aurelii Augustini contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum; commonitorium Orosii et sancti Aurelii Augustini contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas (CCSL 49). Turnhout, 1985, pp. 35–131. Augustine, Contra epistulam quam uocant fundamenti, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini de utilitate credendi, de duabus anima-

bibliography

311

bus, contra Fortunatum, contra Adimantum, contra epistulam fundamenti, contra Faustum (CSEL 25/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1891, pp. 191–248. Augustine, Contra Faustum, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini de utilitate credendi, de duabus animabus, contra Fortunatum, contra Adimantum, contra epistulam fundamenti, contra Faustum (CSEL 25/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1891, pp. 249–797. Augustine, Contra Felicem, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini contra Felicem, de natura boni, epistula Secundini, contra Secundinum, accedunt Euodii de fide contra Manichaeos et commonitorium Augustini quod fertur (CSEL 25/2), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1892, pp. 799–852. Augustine, Contra Fortunatum, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini de utilitate credendi, de duabus animabus, contra Fortunatum, contra Adimantum, contra epistulam fundamenti, contra Faustum (CSEL 25/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1891, pp. 81–112. Augustine, Contra Maximinum, ed. Pierre-Marie Hombert, Scripta Arriana latina 2: Sancti Aurelii Augustini contra Arrianos opera: Sermo Arrianorum anonymus; Contra sermonem Arrianorum; Conlatio cum Maximino; Contra Maximinum libri duo (CCSL 87A), Turnhout, 2009, pp. 489–701. Augustine, Contra Secundinum, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini contra Felicem, de natura boni, epistula Secundini, contra Secundinum, accedunt Euodii de fide contra Manichaeos et commonitorium Augustini quod fertur (CSEL 25/2), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1892, pp. 903–47. Augustine, De diuersus quaestionibus, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher, Sancti Aurelii Augustini de diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, de octo dulcitii quaestionibus (CCSL 44A), Turnhout, 1975 pp. 1–249. Augustine, De dono perseuerantiae, ed. PL 45, Paris, 1865, cols 993– 1034. Augustine, De duabus animabus, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini de utilitate credendi, de duabus animabus, contra Fortunatum, contra Adimantum, contra epistulam fundamenti, contra Faustum (CSEL 25/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1891, pp. 49–80. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 51–100, ed. Eligius Dekkers and Iohannes Fraipont, Sancti Aurelii Augustini enarrationes in Psalmos LI–C (CCSL 39), Turnhout, 1956. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 101–50, ed. Eligius Dekkers and Iohannes Fraipont, Sancti Aurelii Augustini enarrationes in Psalmos CI–CL (CCSL 40), Turnhout, 1956.

312

bibliography

Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 134–40, ed. Franco Gori and Francisca Recanatini, Augustinus, enarrationes in Psalmos 134– 40 (CSEL 95/4), Vienna, 2002. Augustine, Epistulae 1–30, ed. Alois Goldbacher, S. Aureli Augustini operum sectio II: S. Augustini epistulae, pars I: praefatio, ep. I–XXX (CSEL 34/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1895. Augustine, Epistulae 31–123, ed. Alois Goldbacher, S. Aureli Augustini operum sectio II: S. Augustini epistulae, pars II: ep. XXXI– CXXIII (CSEL 34/2), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1898. Augustine, Epistulae 56–100, ed. Klaus D. Daur, Sancti Aurelii Augustini epistulae LVI–C (CCSL 31A), Turnhout, 2005. Augustine, Epistulae 101–39, ed. Klaus D. Daur, Sancti Aurelii Augustini epistulae CI–CXXXIX (CCSL 31B), Turnhout, 2009. Augustine, Epistulae 124–84A, ed. Alois Goldbacher, S. Aureli Augustini operum sectio II: S. Augustini epistulae, pars III: ep. CXXIV– CLXXXIV A (CSEL 44), Vienna/Leipzig, 1904. Augustine, Epistulae 185–270, ed. Alois Goldbacher, S. Aureli Augustini operum sectio II: S. Augustini epistulae, pars IV: ep. CLXXXV– CCLXX (CSEL 57), Vienna/Leipzig, 1911. Augustine, De fide et symbolo, ed. Josephus Zycha, Sancti Aureli Augustini de fide et symbolo, de fide et operibus, de agone christiano, de continentia, de bono coniugali, de sancta uirginitate, de bono uiduitatis, de adulterinis coniugiis lib. II, de mendacio, contra mendacium, de opere monachorum, de diuinatione daemonum, de cura pro mortuis gerenda, de patientia (CSEL 41), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1900, pp. 1–32. Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, ed. Dorothea Weber, Augustinus: De Genesi contra Manichaeos (CSEL 91), Vienna, 1998. Augustine. De haeresibus, ed. Roel Vander Plaetse and Clemens Beukers, “De haeresibus”, in De fide rerum inuisibilium; Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate; De catechizandis rudibus; Sermo ad catechumenos de symbolo; Sermo de disciplina christiana; De utilitate ieiunii; Sermo de excidio urbis Romae; De haeresibus (CCSL 46), ed. by Michael P.  J. van den Hout et al., Turnhout, 1969, pp. 263–358. Augustine, De libero arbitrio, ed. William M. Green, “De libero arbitrio libri tres”, in Sancti Aurelii Augustini contra academicos, de beata uita, de ordine, de magistro, de libero arbitrio (CCSL 29), Turn­hout, 1970, pp. 205–321. Augustine, De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum, ed. Johannes B. Bauer. Sancti Aureli Augustini opera: De mori­

bibliography

313

bus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum (CSEL 90), Vienna, 1992. Augustine, De natura boni, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini contra Felicem, de natura boni, epistula Secundini, contra Secundinum, accedunt Euodii de fide contra Manichaeos et commonitorium Augustini quod fertur (CSEL 25/2), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1892, pp. 853–89. Augustine, De quantitate animae, ed. Wolfgangus Hörmann, Sancti Aurelii Augustini opera, sect. I pars IV: Soliloquiorum libri duo, de inmortalitate animae, de quantitate animae (CSEL 89), Vienna, 1986, pp. 129–231. Augustine, Retractationes, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher, Augustinus, Retractationum libri II (CCSL 57), Turnhout, 1984. Augustine, Sermones 1–340, ed. PL 38. Paris, 1863. Augustine, Sermones 1–50, ed. Cyrillus Lambot. Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones de uetere testamento, id est sermones I–L (CCSL 41), Turnhout, 1961. Augustine, Sermo 51, ed. François Dolbeau, “Sermo LI”, in Sermones LI-LXXA: in Matthaeum I (CCSL 41Aa), ed. by Pierre-Patrick Verbraken et al., Turnhout, 2008, pp. 3–50. Augustine, Sermo 72A, ed. Germain Morin, Miscellanea agostiniana: Testi e studi publicata a cura dell’ordine eremitano di S. Agostino nel XV centenario dalla morte del santo dottore, vol. 1: Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti, Rome, 1930, pp. 155–64. Augustine, Sermones 151–56, ed. Gert Partoens, Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones in epistolas apostolicas I: Id est sermones CLI–CLVI secundum ordinem uulgatum inserto etiam uno sermone post Maurinos reperto (CCSL 4I Ba), Turnhout, 2008. Augustine, Sermo 164A, ed. Cyrillus Lambot, “Sermon sur l’aumône à restituer à saint Augustin”, RevBen 66, (1956), pp. 149–58. Augustine, Sermo 182, ed. Shari Boodts, “Sermo CLXXXII”, in Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones in epistolas apostolicas II: Id est sermones CLVII–CLXXXIII (CCSL 41Bb), ed. by Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2016, pp. 701–14. Augustine, Sermo 375C, ed. Germain Morin. Miscellanea agostiniana: Testi e studi publicata a cura dell’ordine eremitano di S. Agostino nel XV centenario dalla morte del santo dottore, vol. 1: Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti. Rome, 1930, pp. 340–46. Augustine, De uera religione, ed. Klaus D. Daur, “De uera religione”, in Sancti Aurelii Augustini de doctrina christiana, de uera religione (CCSL 32), Turnhout, 1962, pp. 169–260.

314

bibliography

Augustine, De utilitate credendi, ed. Josephus Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini de utilitate credendi, de duabus animabus, contra Fortunatum, contra Adimantum, contra epistulam fundamenti, contra Faustum (CSEL 25/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1891, pp. 1–48. Bible [Vulgate], ed. Bonifatius Fischer et al., Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, Stuttgart, 2007. Codex Theodosianus, ed. Theodor Mommsen and Paulus M. Meyer, Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, Berlin, 41971. Codex Theuestinus, ed. Markus Stein, Manichaica latina 3: Codex Thevestinus (PC 27/3), Paderborn, 2004–06. Cologne Mani Codex, ed. Ludwig Koenen and Cornelia Römer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex: Abbildungen und diplomatischer Text (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 35), Bonn, 1985. Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio, ed. Hildegund Müller, Dorothea Weber and Clemens Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio, Vienna, 2008. Collectio Auellana, Epistulae 1–104, ed.  Ottonis Guenther, Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae Auellana quae dicitur collectio: pars I: prolegomena. Epistulae I–CIV (CSEL 35/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1895. Cyprian, Ad Fortunatum, ed. Guilelmus de Hartel, S. Thasci Caeciliani Cypriani opera omnia (CSEL 3/1), Vienna, 1868, pp. 315–47. Decretum Gelasianum, ed. Ernst von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis (Texte und Untersuchungen 38/4), Leipzig, 1912. Epiphanius, Panarion, ed. Karl Höll and Jürgen Dummer, Epiphanius Werke. 3: Panarion haer. 65–80; De fide (GCS 37), Berlin, 21985. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Eduard Schwartz and Theodor Mommsen, Eusebius Werke, zweiter Band: Die Kirchengeschichte, Erster Teil: Die Bücher I bis V (GCS 9/1), Leipzig, 1903. Eusebius, Jerome (trans.), Chronicon, ed. Rudolf Helm, Eusebius Werke, siebenter Band: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (GCS 47). Berlin, 21956. Evodius, Epistula ad Valentinum, ed. Germain Morin, “Lettres inédites de S. Augustin et du prêtre Januarien dans l’affaire des moines d’Adrumète”, RevBen 18, (1901), pp. 241–56, pp. 254–56. Filastrius of Brescia, Diuersarum hereseon liber, ed. Frans Heylen, “Filastrii episcopi Brixiensis diuersarum hereseon liber”, in Eusebius Vercellensis, Filastrius Brixiensis, appendix ad Hegemonium,

bibliography

315

Isaac Iudaeus, archidiaconus Romanus, Fortunatianus Aquileiensis, Chromatius Aquileiensis (CCSL 9), Turnhout, 1957, pp. 207–324. Gennadius, Liber de uiris illustribus, ed. Ernest C. Richardson, Hiero­ nymus liber de viris inlustribus, Gennadius liber de viris inlustribus (Texte und Untersuchungen 14/1a), Leipzig, 1896, pp. 57–97. Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis, ed. Serge Lancel, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis, anno 411: Accedit sancti Augustini breuiculis conlationis cum Donatistis (CCSL 149A), Turnhout, 1974. Ps-Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, ed. Charles Henry Beeson, Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (GCS 16), Leipzig, 1906. Jerome, Epistulae 121–54, ed. Isidorus Hilberg, S. Eusebii Hieronymi opera sect. I pars III: Epistularum pars III: Epistulae CXXI–CLIV (CSEL 56), Vienna/Leipzig, 1918. Jerome, De uiris illustribus, ed. Ernest C. Richardson, Hieronymus liber de viris inlustribus, Gennadius liber de viris inlustribus (Texte und Untersuchungen 14/1a), Leipzig, 1896, pp. 1–56. John Malalas, Chronographia, ed. Ioannes Thurn. Ioannis Malalae chronographia (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35), Berlin/New York, 2000. Kephalaia, ed. Søren Giversen, The Manichaean Coptic Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library, volume 1: Kephalaia, Facsimile Edition (Cahiers d’orientalisme 14), Geneva, 1986; Wolf-Peter Funk, Kephalaia I: Zweite Hälfte, Lieferung 15/16, Stuttgart, 2000. Liber quare, ed. Georgius Polycarpus Götz, Liber quare (CCCM 60), Turnhout, 1983. Mani, Epistula fundamenti, ed. Markus Stein, Manichaica latina 2: Manichaei epistula fundamenti (PC 27/2), Paderborn, 2002. Mani, Thesaurus, ed. Markus Stein, Manichaica latina 4: Manichaei Thesaurus (PC 27/4), Paderborn, 2016. [Ps-?]Mani, Epistula ad Menoch, ed. Markus Stein, Manichaica latina 1: Epistula ad Menoch (PC 27/1), Opladen, 1998. De miraculis Sancti Stephani protomartyris, ed. Jean Meyers, Les miracles de saint Étienne: Recherches sur le recueil pseudo-augustinien (BHL 7860–7861) (Hagiologia 5), Turnhout, 2006, pp. 263–355. New Testament, ed. Eberhard Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed., Stuttgart, 2012. New Testament [Itala], ed. Adolf Jülicher, Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung, 4 vols., Berlin, 1938–63. New Testament [Vetus latina, Epistulae ad Titum, Philemon, Hebraeos], ed. Hermann Josef Frede, Epistulae ad Titum, Philemon, Hebraeos (Vetus latina Beuron 25/2), Freiburg, 1983–91.

316

bibliography

New Testament [Vetus latina, Epistulae catholicae], ed. Walter Thiele, Epistulae catholicae (Vetus latina Beuron 26/1), Freiburg, 1956– 69. Novatus Catholicus, Sententiae de humilitate et obedientia et de calcanda superbia, ed. PL 18 Paris, 1848, cols. 67–70. Paulinus of Nola, Epistulae, ed. Guilelmus de Hartel, S. Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani opera pars I: Epistulae (CSEL 29), Prague/ Vienna/Leipzig, 1894. Pelagius, Libellus fidei, ed. PL 45, Paris, 1865, cols. 1716–18. Possidius, Indiculum, ed. [Maurists], Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi operum tomus decimus, pars secunda: In qua Opus imperfectum contra secundam Juliani responsionem, Appendix opuscula quaedam subdititia, uariaque scripta ad Pelagianam historiam pertinentia, cum Prosperi apologeticis pro Augustino complectens, Ac postremo loco Augustini uita auctore Possidio exhibetur; Omnia haec de nouo castigata ad ueteres codices & editiones insigniores, opera et studio monachorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, e Congregatione S. Mauri, Paris, 1690, appendix: cols. 281–98; André Wilmart, “Operum S. Augustini elenchus a Possidio eiusdem discipulo Calamensi episcopo digestus: post Maurinorum labores nouis curis editus critico apparatu numeris tabellis instructus”, in Miscellanea Agostiniana, vol. 2: Studi agostiniani, Rome, 1930, pp. 149–234. Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum et praedictorum dei, ed. René Braun, Quodvultdeus: Livres des promesses et des prédictions de Dieu, tome 1 (SC 101) Paris, 1964. Quodvultdeus, Opera omnia, ed. René Braun, Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi episcopo tributa (CCSL 60), Turnhout, 1976. Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta, ed. Charles Munier, Concilia Africae a. 345 - a. 525 (CCSL 149), Turnhout, 1974, pp. 173–247. Serapion of Thmuis, Aduersus Manichaeos, ed. Robert Pierce Casey, Serapion of Thmuis: Against the Manichees (Harvard Theological Studies 15), Cambridge, MA, 1931. Sigebert of Gembloux, De uiris illustribus, ed. Robert Witte, Catalogus Sigeberti Gemblacensis monachi de viris illustribus (Lateinische Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters 1), Bern, 1974. Sulpicius Severus, Chronica, ed. Ghislaine de Senneville-Grave, Sulpice Sévère: Chroniques (SC 441), Paris, 1999. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, ed. Jacques Fontaine, Suplice Sévère: Vie de Saint Martin, tome 1: Commentaire (SC 133), Paris, 1968. Titus of Bostra, Contra Manichaeos, ed. Agathe Roman et al. Titus Bostrensis contra Manichaeos libri IV: Graece et syriace (CCSG 82), Turnhout, 2013.

bibliography

317

3.2. Collections and unidentified texts, by modern editor Adam, Alfred, Texte zum Manichäismus (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 175), Berlin, 21969. Boyce, Mary, A  Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian: Texts with Notes (Acta Iranica 9), Leiden/Boston, 1975. Combefis, François, Bibliotheca patrum concionatoria: A festo Sancti Barnabae apostoli ad festum Natiuitatis Sanctae Mariae Virginis, Paris, 1662. Ficker, Gerhard, “Eine Sammlung von Abschwörungsformeln”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 27, (1906), pp. 443–64. Gardner, Iain, Anthony Alcock and Wolf-Peter Funk, Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis: Volume 1 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 9), Oxford, 1999. Gardner, Iain et al., Kellis Literary Texts: Volume 1 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 4), Oxford, 1996. Gardner, Iain et al., Kellis Literary Texts: Volume 2 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 15), Oxford, 2007. 3.3. Editions referred to, but not cited from Beaujeu, Jean, Apulée: Opuscules philosophiques (du Dieu de Socrate, Platon et sa doctrine, du monde) et fragments, Paris, 1973. Urba, Carolus F. and Josephus Zycha, Sancti Aureli Augustini de perfectione iustitiae hominis, de gestis Pelagii, de gratia Christi et de peccato originali libri duo, de nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium comitem libri duo (CSEL 42), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1902. Zycha, Josephus, S. Aureli Augustini de Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, eiusdem libri capitula, de Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus liber, locutionum in Heptateuchum libri septem (CSEL 28/1), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1894. Zycha, Josephus, S. Aureli Augustini quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII, adnotationum in Iob liber unus (CSEL 28/2), Prague/Vienna/ Leipzig, 1895. 3.4. Translations, by modern author Babcock, William, The City of God (De Civitate Dei) XI–XXII (WSA I/7), New York, 2013. Boulding, Maria, The Confessions (WSA I/1), New York, 1997. Deferrari, Roy J., Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History Books 1–5 (FC 19), New York, 1953.

318

bibliography

Elliott, James Keith, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford, 1993. Goodrich, Richard J., Sulpicius Severus: The Complete Works (ACW 70), New York, 2015. Hill, Edmund, Sermons (148–183) on the New Testament (WSA III/5), New York, 1992. Hill, Edmund, Sermons (306–340A) on the Saints (WSA III/9), New York, 1994. Hill, Edmund, “True Religion”, in On Christian Belief (WSA I/8), ed. by Boniface Ramsey, New York, 2005, pp. 13–104. Jeffreys, Elizabeth et al., The Chronicle of John Malalas: A Translation (Byzantina Australiensia 4), Melbourne, 1986. Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia, San Francisco, 1993. Lesousky, Mary Alphonsine, The De dono perseverantiae of Saint Augustine: A Translation with an Introduction and a Commentary, Washington, D.C., 1956. McMahon, John J., “The Magnitude of the Soul”, in Writings of Augustine: Vol. 2 (FC 4), New York, 1947, pp. 49–149. Pharr, Clyde, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, New York, 1952; reprint 1969. Pontifex, Mark, The Problem of Free Choice, St Augustine (ACW 22), Westminster, 1955. De Romestin, Henry, St Ambrose: Select Works and Letters (A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd series, 10), Grand Rapids, MI, 1896; reprint 1989. Teske, Roland, Arianism and Other Heresies (WSA I/18), New York, 1995. Teske, Roland, Answer to the Pelagians IV (WSA I/26), New York, 1999. Teske, Roland, Letters (1–99) (WSA II/1), New York, 2001. Teske, Roland, Letters (100–55) (WSA II/2), New York, 2003. Teske, Roland, Letters (156–210) (WSA II/3), New York, 2004. Teske, Roland, Letters (211–70) (1*-29*) (WSA II/4), New York, 2005. Teske, Roland, The Manichaean Debate (WSA I/19), New York, 2006. Teske, Roland, Answer to Faustus, a Manichaean (WSA I/20), New York, 2007. Teske, Roland, Revisions (WSA I/2), New York, 2010.

bibliography

319

Walsh, Patrick Gerard, Letters of St Paulinus of Nola (ACW 35), London, 1967. Williams, Frank, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De fide (NHMS 79), Leiden/Boston, 2 2013. 4. Secondary Literature Alfaric, Prosper, Les écritures manichéennes, vol. 1., Paris, 1918. Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 2077 (s. d.)”, http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc599714 [access June 7, 2018]. Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 12218 (s. d.)”, http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc735416 [access June 7, 2018]. Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 12219 (s. d.)”, http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc73542f [access June 7, 2018]. Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 14301 (s. d.)”, http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc750700 [access June 7, 2018]. Archives et manuscrits, “Ms-245. « Aurelii Augustini egregii doctoris super Genesim ad litteram liber  » (s. d.)”, http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc79412g [access June 7, 2018]. Baker-Brian, Nicholas J., Manichaeism: An Ancient Faith Rediscovered, London, 2011. Baley, Maynet Thomas, “Ciceronian Metrics and Clausulae”, The Classical Journal 33 (1937–38), pp. 336–50. BeDuhn, Jason David, “The Leap of the Soul in Manichaeism”, in Il manicheismo: Nuove prospettive della ricerca: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Università degli studi di Napoli l’Orientale, Napoli 2–8 settembre 2001 (MS 5), ed. by Alois van Tongerloo, Luigi Cirillo, Turnhout, 2005, pp. 9–26. BeDuhn, Jason David, Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma 1: Conversion and Apostasy, 373–88 C.E., Philadelphia, 2010. BeDuhn, Jason David, “Did Augustine Win His Debate with Fortunatus?”, in ‘In Search of Truth’: Augustine, Manichaeism and other Gnosticism. Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty (NHMS 74), ed. by Jacob Albert van den Berg et al., Leiden/Boston, 2011, pp. 463–79. BeDuhn, Jason David, Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma 2: Making a “Catholic” Self, 388–401 C.E., Philadelphia, 2013. BeDuhn, Jason David, “Am I a Christian? The Individual at the Manichaean-Christian Interface”, in Group Identity & Religious Indi-

320

bibliography viduality in Late Antiquity, ed. by Éric Rebillard, Jörg Rüpke, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 31–53.

Bellarmine, Robert, De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis liber unus: Cum adiunctis indicibus undecim, & breui Chronologia ab orbe condito usque ad annum M. DC. XII., Rome, 1613. Bennett, Byard, “Globus horribilis: The Role of the bolos in Manichaean Eschatology and Its Polemical Transformation in Augustine’s Anti-Manichaean Writings”, in ‘In Search of Truth’: Augustine, Manichaeism and other Gnosticism. Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty (NHMS 74), ed. by Jacob Albert van den Berg et al., Leiden/Boston, 2011, pp. 427–40. Berg, Jacob Albert van den, Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice: The Case of Adimantus and Augustine (NHMS 70), Leiden/Boston, 2010. Berzon, Todd S., Classifying Christians: Ethnography, Heresiology, and the Limits of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, Oakland, CA, 2016. Bischoff, Bernhard, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen), vol. 1: AachenLambach, Wiesbaden, 1998. Bischoff, Bernhard and Birgit Ebersperger, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen), vol. 3: Padua-Zwickau, Wiesbaden, 2014. La Bonnardière, Anne-Marie, “Evodius, évêque d’Uzale”, in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique, ed. by Roger Aubert, 16 (1967), pp. 133–35. La Bonnardière, Anne-Marie, “Evodius et Augustin: Lettres 163 et 164”, in Saint Augustin et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps 3), ed. by Anne-Marie La Bonnardière, Paris, 1986, pp. 213–27. Bonner, Gerald, “Les origines africaines de la doctrine augustinienne sur la chute et le péché originel”, Augustinus 12 (1967), pp. 97–116. Bonner, Gerald, “Baptismus paruuolorum”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 1 (1994), cols. 592–602. Bonner, Gerald, “Eua”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 2 (2002), cols. 1135–40. Brown, Peter, “The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire”, Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969), pp. 92–103. De Capitani, Franco, “Studi su sant’Ambrogio e i manichei”, Rivi­ sta di Filosofia neo-scolastica 74 (1982), pp. 593–610; 75 (1983), pp. 3–29.

bibliography

321

Carefoote, Pearce James, “Augustine, the Pelagians and the Papacy: An Examination of the Political and Theological Implications of Papal Involvement in the Pelagian Controversy” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Theology, KU Leuven, 1995). Caserta, Aldo, “Evodio di Tagaste amico e discepolo di S. Agostino”, Asprenas 4 (1957–58), pp. 123–52. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements publié sous les auspices du ministre de l’instruction publique, tome 1, Paris, 1849. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements publié sous les auspices du ministre d’état, tome 3, Paris, 1861. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements publié sous les auspices du ministre de l’instruction publique, tome 4, Paris, 1872. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, départements, tome 2, Paris, 1888. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, départements, tome 5, Paris, 1889. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, départements, tome 10, Paris, 1889. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, départements, tome 11, Paris, 1889. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. départements, tome 31, Paris, 1898. Ceyssens, Lucien, “Le ‘Saint Augustin’ du xvii siècle: L’édition de Louvain (1577)”, Dix-septième siècle 34 (1982), pp. 103–20. Chambert-Protat, Pierre, “« Un thresor abbregé de tout ce que les saincts peres ont escrit sur les epistres de S. Paul »? Quelques faits, réflexions et questions sur le grand œuvre de Florus”, in Les Douze compilations pauliniennes de Florus de Lyon: Un carrefour des traditions patristiques au ix e siècle, ed. by Pierre Chambert-Protat/Franz Dolveck/Camille Gerzaguet Rome, 2016, pp. 13-58. Chicago, The University of Chicago Library Catalogue, “Theological treatises: manuscript, [13–] (2015)”, https://catalog.lib. uchicago.edu/vufind/Record/2681990 [accessed June 11, 2018]. Christes, Johannes, “Education”, Brill’s New Pauly, ed. by Helmuth Schneider/Hubert Cancik, 4 (2002), cols. 815–24.

322

bibliography

Clackson, Sarah, Erica Hunter and Samuel N.  C. Lieu, Dictionary of Manichaean Texts 1: Texts from the Roman Empire (Texts in Syriac, Greek, Coptic and Latin) (CFM Subsidia II), Brepols, 1998. Conybeare, Catherine, “Augustini Hipponensi Africitas”, The Journal of Medieval Latin 25 (2015), pp. 111–30. Courcelle, Pierre, Les lettres grecques en Occident: De Macrobe à Cassiodore, Paris, 1948. Courcelle, Pierre, “Les lacunes de la correspondance entre Saint Augustin et Paulin de Nole”, Revue des Études Anciennes 53, (1951), pp. 253–300. Coxe, Henry O., Bodleian Library Quarto Catalogues, vol. II: Laudian manuscripts, Oxford, 1973. Coyle, J. Kevin, Augustine’s “De moribus ecclesiae catholicae”: A Study of the Work, Its Composition and Its Sources (Paradosis 25), Fribourg, 1978. Coyle, J. Kevin, “Augustine’s two treatises De moribus: Remarks on their textual history”, in Signum pietatis: Festgabe für Cornelius Petrus Mayer zum 60. Geburtstag (Cassiciacum 40), ed. by Adolar Zumkeller, Würzburg, 1989, pp. 75–90. Coyle, J. Kevin, “Maurist Manuscript Sources for Augustine’s Two Treatises ‘De moribus’”, in Collectanea Augustiniana: Mélanges T. J. van Bavel (BETL 92A), ed. by Bernard Bruning/Mathijs Lamberigts/Jozef Van Houtem., vol. 1, Heverlee, 1990, pp. 3–18. Coyle, J. Kevin, Manichaeism and Its Legacy (NHMS 69), Leiden/Boston, 2009. Coyle, J. Kevin, “Revisiting the Adversary in Augustine’s Contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum”, in Manichaeism and Its Legacy (NHMS 69), ed. by J. Kevin Coyle, Leiden/Boston, 2009, pp. 297–306. Coyle, J. Kevin, “What did Augustine Know about Manichaeism When He Wrote His Two Treatises De moribus?”, in Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the IAMS (NHMS 49), ed. by Johannes van Oort, Otto Wermelinger and Gregor Wurst, Leiden/Boston, ²2012, pp. 43–56. Coyle, J. Kevin, “Biblical Pseudepigrapha among North African Manichaeans”, in Mani in Dublin: Selected Papers from the Seventh International Conference of the International Association of Manichaean Studies in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, 8–12 September 2009 (NHMS 88), ed. by Siegfried G. Richter/Charles Horton/Klaus Ohlhafer, Leiden/Boston, 2015, pp. 71–100.

bibliography

323

Czerny, Albin, Die Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek St Florian, Linz, 1871. Dalmon, Laurence, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien: La correspondance entre l’Afrique et Rome à propos de l’affaire pélagienne (416– 18) (Studia Patristica, Supplement 3), Leuven, 2015. Decret, François, Aspects du manichéisme dans l’Afrique romaine: Les controverses de Fortunatus, Faustus et Felix avec saint Augustin (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 41), Paris, 1970. Decret, François, “Le ‘globus horribilis’ dans l’eschatologie manichéenne d’après les traités de saint Augustin”, in Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à H.-Ch. Puech. Paris, 1974, pp. 487–92. Decret, François, L’Afrique manichéenne, iv e-v e siècles: Étude historique et doctrinale (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 74–75), 2 vols., Paris, 1978. Decret, François, “Le traité d’Evodius contre les Manichéens: Un compendium à l’usage du parfait controversiste”, Augustinianum 31 (1991), pp. 387–409. Decret, François, Essais sur l’Église manichéenne en Afrique du Nord et à Rome au temps de saint Augustin: Recueil d’études (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 4), Rome, 1995. Decret, François, “Exégèse et polémique chez Evodius d’Uzalis”, in L’Esegesi dei padri latini: Dalle origini a Gregorio Magno (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 68), vol. 1: Parte Generale - Oriente, Africa: 383–89, Rome, 2000. Decret, François, “Felicem Manichaeum (Contra -)”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et. al. 2  (2002), cols 1256–63. Decret, François and Johannes van Oort, Acta contra Fortunatum Manichaeum (CFM Series Latina 2), Turnhout, 2004. Decret, François, “En marge du manuscrit manichéen africain de Tébessa: La mission essentielle des auditeurs dans la libération de la lumière”, in Il manicheismo: Nuove prospettive della ricerca: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Università degli studi di Napoli l’Orientale, Napoli 2–8 settembre 2001 (MS 5), ed. by Alois van Tongerloo/Luigi Cirillo, Turnhout, 2005, pp. 85–93. Dekkers, Eligius and Aemilius Gaar, Clavis patrum latinorum, Turnhout, ³1995. Delmaire, Roland, Les institutions du Bas-Empire romain, de Constantin à Justinien: I. Les institutions civiles palatines, Paris, 1995. Delmulle, Jérémy, “Un fantôme et un pseudonyme (?): « Catellus », Iohannes diaconus et l’auteur du Liber promissionum et praedictionum Dei”, RevBen 128 (2018), pp. 5–30.

324

bibliography

Derolez, Albert, The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century, Cambridge, 2003. Divjak, Johannes, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus, Band IV: Spanien und Portugal: Werkverzeichnis, Verzeichnis nach Bibliotheken, Vienna, 1974. Dolbeau, François, “Un nouveau catalogue des manuscrits de Lobbes aux xie et xiie siècles”, Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques 13 (1978), pp. 3–36; 14 (1979), pp. 191–248. Dolbeau, François, “La survie des œuvres d’Augustin: Remarques sur l’Indiculum attribué à Possidius et sur la bibliothèque d’Anségise”, in Du copiste au collectionneur: Mélanges d’histoire des textes et des bibliothèques en l’honneur d’André Vernet, ed. by Donatella Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda/Jean-François Genest, Turnhout, 1998, pp. 3–22. Dolbeau, François, “Sermons ‘africains’: Critères de localisation et exemple des sermons pour l’Ascension”, in Praedicatio Patrum: Studies on Preaching in Late Antique North Africa (IPM 75), ed. by Gert Partoens/Anthony Dupont/Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 9–35. Drecoll, Volker Henning and Mirjam Kudella, Augustin und der Manichäismus, Tübingen, 2011. Drever, Matthew, “Redeeming Creation: Creatio ex nihilo and the Imago Dei in Augustine”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 15 (2013), pp. 135–53. Dubois, Jean-Daniel, “Le manichéisme: À la lumière des documents nouveaux”, in Contre Fauste le manichéen: Livres I–XII (BA 18/A), ed. by Martine Dulaey, Paris, 2018, pp. 42–84. Dunn, Geoffrey D., “Rhetoric in the Patristic Sermons of Late Antiquity”, in Preaching in the Patristic Era: Sermons, Preachers, and Audiences in the Latin West (NHS 6), ed. by Anthony Dupont et al., Leiden/Boston, 2018, pp. 103–34. Dupin, Louis Ellies, Noua bibliotheca scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, eorum uitae historiam, operum catalogum, criticen, et chronologiam, complectens; ac eorum quae continent compendium: super eorum cum stylo, tum doctrina iudicium, nec non uariarum operum editionum enumerationem, tome 3, Cologne, 1693. Dupont, Anthony, “Imitatio Christi, imitatio Stephani: Augustine’s Thinking on Martyrdom Based on his Sermones on the Protomartyr Stephen”, Augustiniana 56 (2006), pp. 29–61. Dupont, Anthony, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum During the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different

bibliography

325

Insights? (Brill’s Series in Church History 59), Leiden/Boston, 2013. Dupont, Anthony, “Was there an Africitas Theologica? Preliminary Inquiry into the Regional Specificity of the North African and Augustinian Theology of Original Sin and Grace (ca. 200–450 ce)”, Eirene 50 (2014), pp. 317–32. Dupont, Anthony and Hajnalka Tamas, “Two Notes on pre-Augustinian Discussions on Free Will and Human Sinfulness in North African Christian Literature”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 92 (2016), pp. 505–12. Dupont, Anthony, “Original Sin in Tertullian and Cyprian: Conceptual Presence and Pre-Augustinian Content?”, REA 63 (2017), pp. 1–29. Duval, Yves-Marie, “La date du « De natura » de Pélage: Les premières étapes de la controverse sur la nature de la grâce”, REA 36 (1990), pp. 257–83. Duval, Yves-Marie, “Note sur la lettre d’Evodius à l’abbé Valentin d’Hadrumète (CPL 389)”, REA 49 (2003), pp. 123–30. Feldmann, Erich, Die “Epistula Fundamenti” der nordafrikanischen Manichäer: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion, Altenberge, 1987. Féliers, Jeanne-Huberte, “Evodius d’Uzalis: Contribution à l’étude de l’église chrétienne d’Afrique du Nord au vème siècle” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, 1964). Féliers, Jeanne-Huberte, “L’utilisation de la Bible dans l’œuvre d’Evodius”, REA 12 (1966), pp. 41–64. Floëri, Fernand, “Le Pape Zosime et la doctrine augustinienne du péché originel”, in Augustinus Magister (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 1–3), Paris, 1954–55, pp. 755–61. Fournier, Paul, Edmont-Auguste Maignien and Auguste Prudhomme, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, départements, tome 7, Paris, 1889. Fox, Greg (trans.), John Sheldon (trans.) and Samuel N. C.  Lieu (ed.). Greek and Latin Sources on Manichaean Cosmogony and Ethics (CFM Subsidia VI), Turnhout, 2010. Fraïsse, Chantal, “Un traité des vertus et des vices illustré à Moissac dans la première moitié du xie siècle”, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 42 (1999), pp. 221–42. Franzmann, Majella, “The Syriac-Coptic Bilinguals from Ismant el-Kharab (Roman Kellis): Translation Process and Manichaean

326

bibliography Missionary Practice”, in Il manicheismo: Nuove prospettive della ricerca: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Università degli studi di Napol­i l’Orientale, Napoli 2–8 settembre 2001 (MS 5), ed. by Alois van Tongerloo/Luigi Cirillo, Turnhout, 2005, pp. 115–22.

Franzmann, Majella, “The Elect Cosmic Body and Manichaeism as an Exclusive Religion”, in Manichaeism East and West (CFM Analecta Manichaica I), ed. by Samuel N. C. Lieu/Enrico Morano/ Nils Arne Pedersen, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 76–81. Fürst, Alfons, “Hieronymus”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 3 (2010), cols. 317–36. Gardner, Iain, “The Reconstruction of Mani’s Epistles from Three Coptic Codices (Ismant el-Kharab and Medinet Madi)”, in The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World (NHMS 50), ed. by Paul Mirecki/Jason David BeDuhn, Leiden/ Boston, 2001, pp. 93–104. Gardner, Iain, “Mani’s Letter to Marcellus: Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai Revisited”, in Frontiers of Faith: The Christian Encounter with Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus (NHMS 61), ed. by Jason David BeDuhn/Paul Mirecki, Leiden/Boston, 2007, pp. 33–48. Gardner, Iain and Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, Cambridge, 2004. Gardner, Iain and Leyla Rasouli-Narimani, “Patīg and Pattikios in the Manichaean Sources”, in Manichaeism East and West (CFM Analecta Manichaica I), ed. by Samuel N. C. Lieu/Enrico Morano/Nils Arne Pedersen, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 82–100. Gorman, Michael M., “The Maurists’ Manuscripts of Four Major Works of Saint Augustine: With some Remarks on their Editorial Techniques”, RevBen 91 (1981), pp. 238–79. Gorman, Michael M., “The Manuscript Tradition of Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos”, REA 47 (2001), pp. 303–11. Gottlieb, Theodor, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, band I: Niederösterreich, Vienna, 1915. Gryson, Roger, Altlateinische Handschriften. Manuscrits vieux latins: Répertoire descriptif, vol. 1: Mss 1–275 (Vetus Latina 1/2A), Freiburg, 1999. Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna, “The Crystal Seal of ‘Mani, the Apostle of Jesus Christ’ in the Bibliothèque nationale de France”, in Manichaean Texts in Syriac: First Editions, New Editions, and Studies (CFM Series Syriaca I), ed. by Nils Arne Pedersen/John Møller Larsen, Turnhout, 2013, pp. 245–67.

bibliography

327

Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna, Mani’s Pictures: The Didactic Images of the Manichaeans from Sasanian Mesopotamia to Uygur Central Asia and Tang-Ming China (NHMS 90), Leiden/Boston, 2016. Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna, “Exploring the Relic Function of Mani’s Seal Stone in the Bibliothèque nationale de France”, in Manichaeism East and West (CFM Analecta Manichaica I), ed. by Samuel N. C. Lieu/Enrico Morano/Nils Arne Pedersen, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 111–17. Günther, Matthias, “[5] P. of Nola”, Brill’s New Pauly, ed. by Helmuth Schneider/Hubert Cancik, 10 (2007), cols 630–32. Gutsfeld, Andreas. “Praefectus praetorio”, Der Neue Pauly, ed. by Hubert Cancik/Helmuth Schneider, 10 (2001), cols 249–52. Hallan, Steven C., Basics of Classical Syriac: Complete Grammar, Workbook, and Lexicon. Grand Rapids, MI, 2016. Halporn, Barbara  C. The Correspondence of Johann Amerbach: Early Printing in Its Social Context, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000. Harrison, Geoffrey and Jason David BeDuhn, “The Tebessa Codex: A Manichaean Treatise on Biblical Exegesis and Church Order”, in Emerging from Darkness: Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources (NHMS 43), ed. by Paul Mirecki/Jason David BeDuhn, Leiden/Boston, 1997, pp. 33–88. Harrison, Geoffrey and Jason David BeDuhn, “The Authenticity and Doctrine of (Ps.?) Mani’s Letter to Menoch”, in The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World (NHMS 50), ed. by Paul Mirecki/Jason David BeDuhn, Leiden, 2001, pp. 128–72. Hendrickx, Frans (ed.), De kartuizers en hun klooster te Zelem: Tentoonstelling ter gelegenheid van het negende eeuwfeest van de Orde, 1084–1984, Diest, 1984. Hermanowicz, Erika T., Possidius of Calama: A Study of the North African Episcopate. Oxford, 2008. Herz, Peter, “Agentes in rebus”, Der Neue Pauly, ed. by Hubert Cancik/Helmuth Schneider, 1 (1996), col. 247. Hoek, Annewies van den and John J. Herrmann, “Paulinus of Nola, Courtyards, and Canthari: A Second Look”, in Pottery, Pavements and Paradise: Iconographic and Textual Studies on Late Antiquity (VCS 122), ed. by Annewies van den Hoek and John J. Herrmann, Leiden/Boston, 2013, pp. 9–63. Hoffmann, Andreas, “Erst einsehen, dann glauben: Die nordafrikanischen Manichäer zwischen Erkenntnisanspruch, Glaubensforderung und Glaubenskritik”, in Augustine and Manichaeism in

328

bibliography the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the IAMS (NHMS 49), ed. by Johannes van Oort/Otto Wermelinger/Gregor Wurst, Leiden/Boston, ²2012, pp. 67–112.

Holtz, Louis, “Titre et incipit”, in Titres et articulations du texte dans les œuvres antiques (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 152), ed. by Jean-Claude Fredouille et al., Paris, 1997, pp. 469–89. Houghton, Hugh A. G., The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, Oxford, 2016. Hübner, Wolfgang, “Euodius”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 2  (2002), cols. 1158–61. Inglebert, Hervé, “Orosius”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 4/3 (2014), cols. 398–403. James, Norman W., “Who was Arnobius the Younger? Dissimulation, Deception and Disguise by a Fifth-Century Opponent of Augustine”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 69 (2018), pp. 243–61. Janssens, Herman, “Notice sur un manuscrit de Saint Augustin provenant de l’ancienne abbaye de Saint-Jacques à Liégé [sic]”, Le Musée belge 30 (1926), pp. 137–44. Junod, Eric and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, L’histoire des Actes apocryphes des apôtres du iii e au ix e siècle: Le cas des Actes de Jean, Geneva, 1982. Kaatz, Kevin W., “Augustine’s Contra Epistulam Fundamenti: A Study of the Epistula Fundamenti, Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaean Cosmogony and His Response to this Epistula, with Commentary” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Ancient History, Division of Humanities, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2003). Kaatz, Kevin W., “What did Augustine Really Know about Manichaean Cosmogony?”, In il manicheismo: Nuove prospettive della ricerca: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Università degli studi di Napoli l’Orientale, Napoli 2–8 settembre 2001 (MS 5), ed. by Alois van Tongerloo/Luigi Cirillo, Turnhout, 2005, pp. 191–201. Karfíková, Lenka, Grace and the Will According to Augustine (VCS 115), Leiden, 2012. Kenyon, Erik, Augustine and the Dialogue, Cambridge, 2018. Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, “The Use of Scripture in Manichaeism”, in Studies in Manichaean Literature and Art (NHMS 46), ed. by Manfred Heuser and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Leiden/Boston, 1998, pp. 111–22.

bibliography

329

Kurz, Rainer, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus, Band V/2: Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Westberlin: Verzeichnis nach Bibliotheken, Vienna, 1979. Lamberigts, Mathijs, “The Italian Julian of Aeclanum about the African Augustine of Hippo”, in Augustinus Afer: Saint Augustin, africanité et universalité. Actes du colloque international Alger-Annaba, 1–7 avril 2001 (Paradosis 45), ed. by Pierre-Yves Fux/Jean-Michel Roessli/Otto Wermelinger, Fribourg, 2003, pp. 83–93. Lamberigts, Mathijs, “Co-operation of Church and State in the Condemnation of the Pelagians: The Case of Zosimus”, in Religious Polemics in Context (Studies in Theology and Religion 11), ed. by Theo L. Hettema/Arie van der Kooij, Assen, 2004, pp. 363– 75. Lambergits, Mathijs, “Pelagius and Pelagians”, in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, ed. by Susan Ashbrook Harvey/ David  G. Hunter, Oxford, 2008, pp. 258–79. Lamberigts, Mathijs, “Iulianus Aeclanensis”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 3 (2010), cols 836–47. Lamberigts, Mathijs, “Was Augustine a Manichaean? The Assessment of Julian of Aeclanum”, in Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the IAMS (NHMS 49), ed. by Johannes van Oort/Otto Wermelinger/Gregor Wurst, Leiden/Boston, ²2012, pp. 113–36. Lamberigts, Mathijs, “Peccatum originale”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 4/3 (2014), cols 599–615. Lamberigts, Mathijs, “Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy? A Study of His Answers to the Letters Sent by the African Episcopacy”, in Scrinium Augustini: The World of Augustine’s Letters (IPM 76), ed.  by Przemysław Nehring/Mateusz Stróżyński/Rafał Toczko, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 203–23. Lambert, David, “Augustine and the Praedestinatus: Heresy, Authority and Reception”, Millennium 5 (2008), pp. 147–62. Lancel, Serge, Actes de la Conférence de Carthage en 411, vol. 4: Additamentum criticum, notices sur les sièges et les toponymes, notes complémentaires et index (SC 373), Paris, 1991. Lassère, Jean-Marie, “Onomastique et société à Uzalis (Onomastica Africana XIV)”, in Les miracles de saint Étienne: Recherches sur le recueil pseudo-augustinien (BHL 7860–7861) (Hagiologia 5), ed. by Jean Meyers, Turnhout, 2006, pp. 101–10. Lee, Kam-Lun Edwin. Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good (Patristic Studies 2), New York, 1999.

330

bibliography

Lienhard, Joseph, “Augustine against Maximinus: Towards a Critical Edition”, in Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1999 (Studia Patristica 36), ed. by Maurice F. Wiles/Edward  J. Yarnold, Leuven, 2001, pp. 23–27. Lieu, Samuel N. C., “Precept and Practice in Manichaean Monasticism”, Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981), pp. 153–73. Lieu, Samuel N. C., “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism: The Capita VI contra Manichaeos of ”, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26 (1983), pp. 152–218. Lieu, Samuel. N. C., Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 63), Tübingen, ²1992. Löhr, Winrich Alfried, Pélage et le pélagianisme (Les conférences de l’École pratique des hautes études 8), Paris, 2015. Lössl, Josef, “Augustine on ‘The True Religion’: Reflections of Manichaeism in De uera religione”, in Augustine and Manichaean Christianity: Selected Papers from the First South African Conference on Augustine of Hippo, University of Pretoria, 24–26 April 2012 (NHMS 83), ed. by Johannes van Oort, Leiden/Boston, 2013, pp. 137–53. Maher, John P., “Saint Augustine and Manichaean Cosmogony”, Augustinian Studies 10 (1979), pp. 91–104. Malavasi, Giulio, “Pelagianism as Novelty in Augustine of Hippo”, Humanitas Hodie 1/2 (2018), pp. 55–67. Mandouze, André et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (303– 533) (Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 1), Paris, 1982. Manuscrits de Chartres, “Chartres, BM, ms. 156, (158) (s. d.)”, https://www.manuscrits-de-chartres.fr/fr/manuscrits/chartresbm-ms-156 [access February 5, 2019]. Markschies, Christoph, “Priscillianus, Priscillianismus”, Der Neue Pauly, ed. by Hubert Cancik/Helmuth Schneider, 10 (2001), cols. 340–42. Martindale, John Robert et al. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1: A.D. 260–395, Cambridge, 1971. Matsangou, Rea, “Real and Imagined Manichaeans in Greek Patristic Anti-Manichaica (4th-6th centuries)”, in Manichaeism East and West (CFM Analecta Manichaica I), ed. by Samuel N.  C. Lieu/Enrico Morano/Nils Arne Pedersen, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 159–70.

bibliography

331

Mattei, Paul, “Notes sur le Sermon CLIII. La Loi et la chair. De la lutte contre les manichéens à la controverse antipélagienne: Les choix d’Augustin”, in Tractatio Scripturarum: Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical, and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons: Ministerium Sermonis II (IPM 65), ed. by Anthony Dupont/Gert Partoens/Mathijs Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2012, pp. 245–70. Meyers, Jean (ed.), Les miracles de saint Étienne: Recherches sur le recueil pseudo-augustinien (BHL 7860–7861) (Hagiologia 5), Turnhout, 2006. Molinier, Auguste, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, départements, tome 1, Paris, 1885. Monceaux, Paul, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne: Depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, vol. 3: Le iv e siècle, d’Arnobe à Victorin, Paris, 1905. Monceaux, Paul, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne: Depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, vol. 7: Saint Augustin et le donatisme, Paris, 1923. Moiseeva, Evgenia, “The Old Testament in Fourth-Century Christian-Manichaean Polemic”, Journal of Late Antiquity 11 (2018), pp. 274–97. Möser-Mersky, Gerlinde and Melanie Mihaliuk. Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, Band IV: Salzburg. Graz, 1966. Mratschek, Sigrid, “The Unwritten Letters of Augustine of Hippo”, in Scrinium Augustini: The World of Augustine’s Letters (IPM 76), ed.  by Przemysław Nehring/Mateusz Stróżyński/Rafał Toczko, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 57–77. Müller, Hildegund and Michael Friedrowicz, “Enarrationes in Psalmos”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 2 (2002), cols 804–58. Le Nain de Tillemont, Louis-Sébastien, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, vol. 12, Paris, 1702. Nazzaro, Antonio V., “La produzione omiletica di Quoduultdeus, vescovo di Cartagine”, in Le forme e i luoghi della predicazione: Atti del Seminario internazionale di studi - Macerata, 21–23 novembre 2006, ed. by Claudio Micaelli/Gianluca Frenguelli, Macerata, 2009, pp. 27–67. O’Daly, Gerard J. P., “Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 2 (2002), cols 1161– 62. O’Donnell, James J., “Evodius of Uzalis”, in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. by Allan D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, MI, 1999, p. 344.

332

bibliography

Oberhelman, Steven M., “The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose: A Reconsideration of Methodology”, Classical Philology 83 (1988), pp. 136–49. Oberhelman, Steven M. and Ralph G. Hall, “A New Statistical Analysis of Accentual Prose Rhythms in Imperial Latin Authors”, Classical Philology 79 (1984), pp. 114–30. Oberhelman, Steven M. and Ralph G. Hall, “Meter in Accentual Clausulae of Late Imperial Latin Prose”, Classical Philology 80 (1985), pp. 214–27. Oberleitner, Manfred, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus, Band I/2: Italien: Verzeichnis nach Bibliotheken, Vienna, 1970. Oort, Johannes van, “Augustine and Mani on concupiscentia sexualis”, in Augustiniana Traiectina: Communications présentées au colloque international d’Utrecht (13–14 novembre 1986), ed. by Jan den Boeft/Johannes van Oort, Paris, 1987, pp. 137–50. Oort, Johannes van, “Manichaeism in Augustine’s de civitate dei”, in Il De Civitate Dei: L’opera, le interpretazione, l’influsso, ed. by Elena Cavalcanti, Rome, 1996, pp. 193–214. Oort, Johannes van, “Iudaeos (Aduersus –)”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 3 (2004–2010), cols 792–96. Oort, Johannes van, “Heeding and Hiding their particular Knowledge? An Analysis of Augustine’s Dispute with Fortunatus”, in Die christlich-philosophischen Diskurse der Spätantike (Philosophie der Antike 28), ed. by Therese Fuhrer, Stuttgart, 2008, pp. 113–21. Oort, Johannes van, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism: An Analysis of the Confessiones and Some Other Relevant Texts”, VC 62 (2008), pp. 441–66. Oort, Johannes van, “Manichaean Christians in Augustine’s Life and Works”, Church History and Religious Culture 90 (2010), pp. 505– 46. Oort, Johannes van, Otto Wermelinger and Gregor Wurst (ed.), Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the IAMS (NHMS 49), Leiden/Boston, ²2012. Oort, Johannes van, “Alexander of Lycopolis, Manichaeism and Neoplatonism”, in Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World: Essays in Honour of John Turner (NHMS 82), Leiden/Boston, 2013, pp. 275–83.

bibliography

333

Oort, Johannes van (ed.), Augustine and Manichaean Christianity: Selected Papers from the First South African Conference on Augustine of Hippo, University of Pretoria, 24–26 April 2012 (NHMS 83), Leiden/Boston, 2013. Oort, Johannes van, Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study of Augustine’s City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities (VCS 14), Leiden/Boston, 1991, repr. 2013. Oort, Johannes van, “Augustine on Manichaeism in His Sermo 182”, Augustiniana 65 (2015), pp. 105–14. Oort, Johannes van, “‘Human Semen Eucharist’ Among the Manichaeans? The Testimony of Augustine Reconsidered in Context”, VC 70 (2016), pp. 193–216. Oort, Johannes van, “Once Again: Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma”, Augustiniana 66 (2016), pp. 233–45. Oort, Johannes van, “Reminiscences of Manichaeism in Augustine’s City of God;” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72/4 (2016), a3277; https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3277 [accessed January 11, 2019]. Oort, Johannes van, “Was Julian Right? A Re-evaluation of Augustine’s and Mani’s Doctrines of Sexual Concupiscence and the Transmission of Sin: Part 1”, Journal of Early Christian History 7 (2017), pp. 112–25. Opelt, Ilona, Die Polemik in der christlichen lateinischen Literatur von Tertullian bis Augustin (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenchaften, N. F., 2. Reihe, 63), Heidelberg, 1980. Oudin, Casimir, Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis, Leipzig, 1722. Pedersen, Nils Arne, Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God: A Study of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos, the Work’s Sources, Aims and Relation to Its Contemporary Theology (NHMS 56), Leiden/Boston, 2004. Pedersen, Nils Arne, “The Veil and Revelation of the Father of Greatness”, in ‘In Search of Truth’: Augustine, Manichaeism and other Gnosticism. Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty (NHMS 74), ed. by Jacob Albert van den Berg et al., Leiden/Boston, 2011, pp. 229–34. Pedersen, Nils Arne et al., The Old Testament in Manichaean Tradition: The Sources in Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, New Persian, and Arabic: With an Appendix on General References to the Bible (CFM Series Biblia Manichaica 1), Turnhout, 2017.

334

bibliography

Perler, Othmar and Jean-Louis Maier, Les voyages de saint Augustin, Paris, 1969. Pettipiece, Timothy, Pentadic Redaction in the Manichaean Kephalaia (NHMS 66), Leiden/Boston, 2009. Pettipiece, Timothy, “Mani’s Evangelium”, in Milestone Documents of World Religions: Exploring Traditions of Faith Through Primary Sources, ed. by David M. Fahey, Dallas, 2011, pp. 484–95. Pietri, Charles, Roma christiana: Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311– 440) (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 224), Rome, 1976. Plancke, Robert, Les catalogues de manuscrits de l’ancienne abbaye de Cambron, Mons, 1938. de Plinval, Georges, “Évode”, Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ed. by Marcel Viller et al., 4 (1961), cols 1788–89. Poirier, Paul-Hubert and Timothy Pettipiece, Biblical and Manichaean Citations in Titus of Bostra’s Against the Manichaeans: An Annotated Inventory (IPM 78), Turnhout, 2017. De Poorter, Alphonse, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque publique de la ville de Bruges (Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques de Belgique 2), Gembloux, 1934. Quantin, Jean-Louis, “L’Augustin du xviie siècle? Questions de corpus et de canon”, in Augustin au xvii e siècle, ed. by Laurence Devillairs, Florence, 2007, pp. 3–77. Reck, Chrstiane, “A Sogdian Version of Mani’s Letter of the Seal”, in New Light on Manichaeism: Papers from the Sixth International Congress on Manichaeism (NHMS 64), ed. by Jason David BeDuhn, Leiden/Boston, 2009, pp. 225–39. Reeves, John C., Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism, Sheffield, 2011. Ries, Julien, “La conversion de saint Augustin du manichéisme au catholicisme: Controverses anciennes et positions récentes”, in Il manicheismo: Nuove prospettive della ricerca: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Università degli studi di Napoli l’Orientale, Napoli 2–8 settembre 2001 (MS 5), ed. by Alois van Tongerloo/Luigi Cirillo, Turnhout, 2005, pp. 355–71. Römer, Franz, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus, Band II/2: Grossbritannien und Irland: Verzeichnis nach Bibliotheken. Vienna, 1972. Santorelli, Biagio, “Metrical and Accentual Clausulae as Evidence for the Date and Origin of Calpurnius Flaccus”, in Reading

bibliography

335

Roman Declamation: Calpurnius Flaccus (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 348), ed. by Martin T. Dinter/Charles Guérin/Marcos Martinho, Berlin, 2017, pp. 129–40. Scibona, Concetta Giuffrè, “The Doctrine of the Soul in Manichaeism and Augustine”, in ‘In Search of Truth’: Augustine, Manichaeism and other Gnosticism. Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty (NHMS 74), ed. by Jacob Albert van den Berg et al., Leiden/Boston, 2011, pp. 377–419. Scheid, John, “Circumcelliones”, Brill’s New Pauly, ed. by Helmuth Schneider/Hubert Cancik, 3 (2003), cols 351–52. Schipper, Hendrik Gerhard and Johannes van Oort, Sancti Leonis magni romani pontificis sermones et epistulae: Fragmenta selecta (CFM Series Latina 1), Turnhout, 2000. Scopello, Madeleine, “Haeresibus ad Quoduultdeum (de)”, Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by Cornelius Mayer et al., 3 (2010), cols 278–90. Scopello, Madeleine, “L’epistula fundamenti à la lumière des sources manichéennes du Fayoum”, in Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the IAMS (NHMS 49), ed. by Johannes van Oort/Otto Wermelinger/Gregor Wurst, Leiden/Boston, ²2012, pp. 205–29. Shanzer, Danuta, “Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead: Questions and Answers in Augustine, Epp. 158–59”, in Scrinium Augustini: The World of Augustine’s Letters (IPM 76), ed. by Przemysław Nehring/Mateusz Stróżyński/Rafał Toczko, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 273–304. Simonetti, Manlio, “Studi sulla letteratura cristiana d’Africa in età vandalica”, Reale istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere. Rendiconti 83 (1950), pp. 407–24. Simonetti, Manlio, La produzione letteraria latina fra romani e barbari (sec. V–VIII) (Sussidi patristici 3), Rome, 1986. Sirmond, Jacques, Historia praedestinatiana, quibus initiis exorta, & per quos potissimum profligata Praedestinatorum haeresis olim fuerit, & oppressa, Paris, 1648. Stróżyński, Mateusz, “Neoplatonism in Augustine’s Letters”, in Scrinium Augustini: The World of Augustine’s Letters (IPM 76), ed. by Przemysław Nehring/Mateusz Stróżyński/Rafał Toczko, Turnhout, 2017, pp. 113–48. Tardieu, Michel, Le manichéisme (Que sais-je? 1940), Paris, 1981. [Translated in English by Malcolm DeBevoise (trans.), Manichaeism, Chicago, 2008.]

336

bibliography

Tardieu, Michel, “La nisba de Sisinnios”, Altorientalische Forschungen 18 (1991), pp. 3–8. Tardieu, Michel, “La chaîne des prophètes”, Cahiers d’Asie centrale 1–2 (1996), pp. 357–66. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. II, Leipzig, 1900–06. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. V, Leipzig, 1910. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. VI1–2 , Leipzig, 1912–34. Tromp, Johannes, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary, Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1993. Van Den Gheyn, Joseph, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, vol. 2: Patrologie, Brussels, 1902. Van Slyke, Daniel, Quodvultdeus of Carthage: The Apocalyptic Theology of a Roman African in Exile (Early Christian Studies 5), Sydney, 2003. Vanspauwen, Aäron, “‘Contra Domini uel Apostoli auctoritatem’: La autoridad de Pablo en el tratado polémico ‘De fide contra Manichæos’ de Evodio de Uzala”, Augustinus 61 (2016), pp. 395–411. Vanspauwen, Aäron and Anthony Dupont, “The Doctrine of Original Sin Amongst Augustine’s African Contemporaries: The case of Evodius of Uzalis’ De fide contra Manichaeos”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 21 (2017), pp. 459–71. Vanspauwen, Aäron, “The anti-Manichaean Treatise De fide contra Manichaeos, Attributed to Evodius of Uzalis: Critical Edition and Translation”, Sacris Erudiri 57 (2018), pp. 7–116. Vanspauwen, Aäron, “Selection and Adaptation: The Polemical Treatise De fide contra Manichaeos in Dialogue with Augustine’s Manichaean Adversaries”, Humanitas Hodie 1/2 (2018), pp. 37–54. Vanspauwen, Aäron, “The Rhetoric of Appropriation and Dissociation in Evodius’ Aduersus Manichaeos: A Case Study of anti-Manichaean Polemics”, in [Conference proceedings of the conference] Religious Polemics and Encounters in Late Antiquity: Boundaries, Conversions and Persuasion (Studies on the Children of Abraham), ed. by Timo Nisula, Anni Laato, Pablo Irizar, Leiden (forthc.). Vinding, Bernard, Criticus augustinianus castigatus: Omnibus Augustini studiosis perutilis perque necessarius, Vallameria, 1621. Visser, Arnoud S. Q., Reading Augustine in the Reformation: The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620, Oxford, 2011. Vopřada, David, Quodvultdeus: A Bishop Forming Christians in Vandal Africa (VCS 154), Leiden/Boston, 2020.

bibliography

337

Weber, Dorothea, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus, Band VI/2: Österreich: Verzeichnis nach Bibliotheken, Vienna, 1993. Weber, Dorothea, Review of: “Pierre-Marie Hombert (Hg.), Scripta Arriana Latina II: Sancti Aurelii Augustini contra Arrianos opera: Sermo Arrianorum Anonymus, Contra sermonem Arrianorum, Conlatio cum Maximino, Contra Maximinum libri duo, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 87A, Turnhout (Brepols) 2009”, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 16 (2012), pp. 379–82. Wermelinger, Otto, Rom und Pelagius: Die theologische Position der römischen Bischöfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411–32 (Päpste und Paptsttum 7), Stuttgart, 1975. Wermelinger, Otto. “Das Pelagiusdossier in der Tractoria des Zosimus”, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 26 (1979), pp. 336–68. Wieser, Marie Therese, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus, Band VIII/2: Belgien, Luxemburg und Niederlande: Verzeichnis nach Bibliotheken, Vienna, 2000. Wilhite, David E., Ancient African Christianity: An Introduction to a Unique Context and Tradition, New York, 2017. Wilmart, André, “La collection de Bède le vénérable sur l’apôtre”, RevBen 28 (1926), pp. 16–52. Wurst, Gregor, “Bemerkungen zum Glaubensbekenntnis des Faustus von Mileve (Augustinus, Contra Faustum 20.2)”, in Studia Manichaica: IV. Internationaler Kongreß zum Manichäismus, Berlin, 14.– 18. Juli 1997 (Berichte und Abhandlungen 4), ed. by Ronald E. Emmerick/Werner Sundermann/Peter Zieme, Berlin, 2000, pp. 648–57. Wurst, Gregor, “L’état de la recherche sur le canon manichéen”, in Le canon du Nouveau Testament: Regards nouveaux (Le monde de la Bible 54), Geneva, 2005, pp. 237–67. Wurst, Gregor, “Bemerkungen zu Struktur und genus litterarum der Capitula des Faustus von Mileve”, in Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the IAMS (NHMS 49), ed. by Johannes van Oort/Otto Wermelinger/Gregor Wurst, Leiden/Boston, 2 2012, pp. 307–24. Wurst, Gregor, “L’eschatologie manichéenne: le globus horribilis (II, 5)”, in Contre Fauste le manichéen: Livres I–XII (BA 18/A), ed. by Martine Dulaey, Paris, 2018, pp. 397–400. Zangara, Vincenza, “Il vehiculum animae e le apparizioni dei morti nell’Ep. clviii di Evodio ad Agostino”, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 25 (1989), pp. 234–58.

338

bibliography

Zangara, Vincenza, Exeuntes de corpore: Discussioni sulle apparizioni dei morti in epoca agostiniana (Biblioteca della Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa, Studi 1), Florence, 1990. Ziegler, Charlotte, Zisterzienserstift Zwettl: Katalog der Handschriften des Mittelalters, Teil 2. Vienna and Munich, 1992. 5. Other 5.1. Databases BREPOLiS, Cross Database Searchtool. Clauss, Manfred, Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss - Slaby. Packard Humanities Institute, Searchable Greek Inscriptions: A Scholarly Tool in Progress. 5.2. Art and artefacts Gozzoli, Benozzo, Death of St Monica, Painting, fresco, 1464–65, Apsidal chapel, Sant’Agostino Church, San Gimignano. Sceau de Mani, Rock crystal seal, Third century, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques (inv.58.1384bis), Paris.

Edition and Translation

Stemma codicum

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Ch

ε

Di

θ

Pa

P3

Ma

Ag 2

γ

ι

η

La Vl

Vt2

Ag1

Av

ζ

κ

Tr

Ag3

Bo

ν

Pm

λ

So

ξ

Φ

μ

β

Bx

Li

Bg 2

P2

?

Bg1

P1

Mü

P4

α

π

δ

ρ

Ox

F

σ

τ

Gr

Kl Vt1 Zw

Conspectus siglorum Ag 1  Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 179 Ag 2 Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 180 Ag 3 Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 289 Bo Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque municipale, 49 Bg 1 Bruges, Openbare Bibliotheek, 103 Bx Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Bibliothèque Royale, 9349–54 Gr

Grenoble, Bibliothèque municipale, 203

Mü Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 18083 P 1 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2077 P 2 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12218 P 3 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12219 P 4 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14301 So

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque de l’agglomération, 85

F

St Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, XI 76

γ

consensus codicum Ag 1 Ag 2 Ag 3 P 3

β

consensus codicum P 2 Bx Bg 1 Bo So

δ

consensus codicum Gr P 4 Mü F

Maur. Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi operum tomus octauus, continens opuscula polemica, aduersus haereses, Manichaeorum, Priscillianistarum, & Arianorum, Louaniensium theologorum recognitionem correcta denuo ad manuscriptos codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, &c. nec non ad editiones antiquiores & castigatiores, opera et studio monachorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, e Congregatione S. Mauri. Paris, 1688. Zycha Zycha, Josephus. S. Aureli Augustini contra Felicem, de natura boni, epistula Secundini, contra Secundinum, accedunt Euodii de fide contra Manichaeos et commonitorium Augustini quod fertur (CSEL 25/2), Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1892.

ADVERSVS MANICHAEOS, VTRVM SANCTI AVGVSTINI VTRVM SANCTI EVODII IGNORATVR 1. Vnus deus pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, inuisibilis, incomprehensibilis, inenarrabilis, inuiolabilis, incoinquinabilis, qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem. Ipse lumen uerum, uita et ueritas, bonus, summus et quaecumque de illo humanus sermo poterit enuntiare; 5 quae tamen ab eo dantur, ut aliquo modo dici possint. Ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, siue sedes, siue dominationes, siue principatus, siue potestates; et omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt, sicut in utroque Testamento humilibus et pie quaerentibus manifestatur; ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen. 2. Huic Manichaeus aduersarium esse dicit nescio quem gentis principem tenebrarum, quem etiam asserit ingenitum, nec habere auctorem a quo creatus sit. Et utique si ingenitus et non creatus est, per se ipsum est immortalis. Et si per se immortalis est, non erit deus qui habeat solus 5 immortalitatem, et erit iam mendax apostolus, qui dicit de deo quod solus habeat immortalitatem. Sed quia apostolus mendax non est, deus solus 1, 2 / 3 I Tim. 6, 16 3 uita – ueritas] cf. Io. 14, 6 6 / 7 Col. 1, 16 2, 5 / 6 ⁠solus  –  immortalitatem]  cf.  I  Tim.  6,  16     

4 /5 cf. I Cor. 8, 6

Tit. incipit aduersus manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti eyyodii ignoratur Ag1, incipit liber aduersus manicheos qui utrum sancti augustini utrum sancti euodii ignoratur Ag2 Ag3, incipit aduersus manicheos P3, incipit eiusdem contra manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euuodii ignoratur P2, om. Bg1, incipit liber eiusdem de unitate trinitatis Bx, incipit tractatus eiusdem contra manicheos So, incipit liber sancti augustini episcopi de fide catholica Bo, incipit aduersus manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euuodii ignoratur P1 P4, incipit aduersus manicheos alius liber eiusdem sancti augustini episcopi et doctoris Mü, contra manicheos tractatus quidam beati augustini epi Gr, (tracta)tus contra ….(manich)eos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euodii ignoratur Fin marg., de fide contra manichaeos liber unus euodio tributus Maur, euodii de fide contra manichaeos Zycha incomprehen1, 1 Vnus] unus uerus Gr spiritus sanctus] inu. Ag1, spiritus Gr 2 incoinquinabilis] et -is P1 qui] quia P1 3 habitat] inhabitat sibilis] et -is P1 inaccessibilem] incessabilem Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 4 summus] sumus P4 quaecumAg3 5 eo] illo Maur possint] -unt Ag2a.c. 6 omnia] omnia in que] quicumque Bxa.c. 7 in1] sup. l. Ag1 8 gloria] gloria quo omnia Bo So principatus] prinpatus Gra.c. honor et potestas P3, gloria et honor et potestas Maur esse dicit] inu. Bo So, esse dixit P1 2, 1 aduersarium] aduerium P4a.c.(sar sup. l.) 3 utique] utque P1 3 / 4 per – immortalis1] om. Ag2 2 auctorem] actorem Ag1a.c. 1 habeat] -et γ Gra.c. 5 immorta4 est immortalis] inu. Bx, est immortalis est P erit] om. Bg1 quod] qui P4 6 habeat] -et Gr litatem] immortalitem Gra.c. 6 / 7 ⁠Sed  –    immortalitatem]  om. Gr

AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS. WHETHER IT IS WRITTEN BY SAINT AUGUSTINE OR SAINT EVODIUS IS UNKNOWN. 1. One God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, invisible, incomprehensible, indescribable, inviolable, unpollutable. He alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.1 He is the true light, the life and the truth, the good, the highest, and all that human speech can express about him; yet these attributes are granted by him in order that they can in some way be expressed. From him and through him are all things, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, and all things have been created through him and for him, as is revealed in both testaments to the humble and to those who piously ask. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. 2. In opposition to him, Mani2 posits an adversary, some prince of the race of darkness. Mani asserts that the prince, too, is unbegotten and has no maker by whom he was created. And certainly, if he is unbegotten and not created, he is immortal in himself. But if he is immortal in himself, it will not be the case that God alone has immortality, and the Apostle, who says of God that he alone has immortality, will be a liar. But since the Apostle is not a liar, God alone does have immortality, and

For scriptural quotations, I have consulted the New Revised Standard Version, adjusting the translation as necessary to reflect differences with the author’s Latin text. 2 The Latin Manichaeaus can refer to either (1) Mani, the founder of Manichaeism; or (2) a Manichaean (in this text always in plural: the Manichaeans). 1

344

edition and translation

habet immortalitatem et ideo solus potest et animis et quibus uult corporibus praestare immortalitatem. 3. Falsum est ergo quod Manichaeus asserit, nescio quam mali naturam cum principe suo non habere auctorem, sed esse ingenitam. Deinde si ingenitus deus, ingenita etiam nunc gens tenebrarum, non erit contrarium ingenitum et ingenitum, uidens et uidens, regnans et regnans, uiuens 5 et uiuens, aeternum et aeternum. Et si contrarium est bonum malo, ex aliqua ergo parte discordabit bonum a malo; ex multa uero coniunctum et concordans erit et non iam erit merum malum habendo tanta communia bona cum deo. Si uero dicunt: “ingenitum est in suo”, nihil dicunt. Nam ingenitum et ingenitum, aeternum et aeternum, in quantum ingenita et 10 aeterna sunt, numquam erunt contraria. Non enim quia imperator in sua potestate magnus est et mediastrinus in operatione sua contemptibilis est, ideo mediastrinus non erit homo, quia homo est imperator? 4. Sed si quisquam quaerit quid sit malum, audiat apostolum dicentem: radix omnium malorum est cupiditas, quam quidam appetentes a fide pererrauerunt et inseruerunt se doloribus multis. 5. Cupiditas autem in unoquoque homine est, non naturalis, sed uoluntaria. Ideoque dixit : quam quidam appetentes. Quod enim appetendo habetur, si non appeteretur, non haberetur. Nam et dominus ostendens quod in hominis potestate sit, ait: aut facite arborem bonam et fructum

4, 2 / 3 I Tim. 6, 10 5, 4 / 5 Matth. 12, 33 2, 7 habet] -eat Mü Fa.c. animis] annis uel animis Bx(uel animis sup. l.) quam] quod P1 P4 3, 1 est ergo] inu. Bo So, ergo est ergo P4a.c. (ergo1 del.) 2 habere] -eret P4 sed] se 1 / 2 naturam – principe] natura in principi P1 ingenitam] -um P1 3 tenebrarum] sit -arum Ag1(t1 sup. l.) 4 et uidens] sup. P4 5 aeternum1] ernum Ag2p.c., aeternum uel aeternus F(uel -nus sup. l.) et2] l. Ag1 1 p.c. 4 bonum malo] bono malum Gr F Maur Zycha, bono malo P Mü Fa.c. om. Ag bonum – malo] bonum malo β, malum a bono 6 discordabit] -auit Gra.c. P4 Mü F uero] ergo P1 6 / 7 ⁠coniunctum  –    concordans]  inu. Bg1 Bx Bo So 7 non P1 habendo] auendo Mü, cauendo F 8 est] esse iam] inu. Bo So Maur, non eam Ag1a.c. ingenitum2] et ienitum P1 10 contraria] Bo So 9 ingenitum1] genitum Ag3a.c. Non] num Bg1 Bx Bo So Maur Zycha quia] sup. l. Ag2 -ium P1, contriaria Gra.c. 10 / 11 sua – magnus] suam potestatem agnus Ag1a.c. Ag2a.c., suam potestatem magnus P3a.c. contemptibilis] contempla11 mediastrinus] mediastinus P2p.c. Bx Bo So Fp.c. Maur Zycha est2] sit P1 12 mediastrinus] mediastinus P2p.c. Bx Bo So tione sua contemplabilis P1 erit] erat Bg1a.c. est imperator] et imperator est P1 Fp.c. Maur Zycha quidam] -em P1 a] ad P4 pererrauerunt] 4, 2 quam] nam P2a.c., quem P4 Mü aberrauerunt Maur Zycha uoluntaria] -e P4 Fa.c. 2 quidam] -em P4 Mü 3 domi5, 1 non] sup. l. Ag3 a.c. 1 4 potestate] -as P fructum] fructums P4 nus] non dominus Gr

edition and translation

345

therefore he alone is able to bestow immortality on the souls and bodies he wishes. 3. Thus what Mani claims is false, namely, that some evil nature, together with its prince, does not have a maker, but is unbegotten. So if God is unbegotten, and the race of darkness is also now unbegotten, then there will be no contrast between uncreated and uncreated, seeing and seeing, ruling and ruling, living and living, eternal and eternal. And if good is contrary to evil, then in some regard good will be in disagreement with evil, but for the most part it will be in accord and in agreement with it, and there will no longer be pure evil, because it has so many good attributes in common with God. But if they say, “He is uncreated in himself ”, they say nothing. For uncreated and uncreated, eternal and eternal, in so far as they are uncreated and eternal, will never be opposites. Surely it is not the case that, because an emperor is great in his power, and an errand boy is lowly in his service, that therefore the errand boy is not human, because the emperor is. 4. But if someone asks what evil actually is, let him hear the Apostle saying, Desire is the root of all evil; in their pursuit of it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains. 5. Desire, however, exists in each and every person – not naturally, but by one’s free will. That is why the Apostle said, Some, in their pursuit of it. After all, what can be possessed by pursuit would not be possessed if it were not pursued. For the Lord as well, showing what is in a person’s capability,

346

edition and translation

5 eius bonum, aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum. In Actibus

10

15

20

25

etiam conscriptis a Leucio, quos ipsi accipiunt, sic scriptum est: “etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio uisibilium ne quidem ex propria natura procedit, sed ex eo homine qui per se ipsum deterior effectus est per seductionem”. Ipse etiam Manichaeus non potuit nisi fateri animas, etiam quas dicit ad dei substantiam pertinere, propria uoluntate peccare. Nam sic in secundo Thesauri libro dicit: “hi uero qui negligentia sua a labe praedictorum spiritu purgari se minime permiserint mandatisque diuinis ex integro parum obtemperauerint legemque sibi a suo liberatore datam seruare plenius noluerint neque ut decebat sese gubernauerint”, et cetera. Item in Epistula fundamenti sic dicit de illis animabus: “quae mundi amore errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sunt atque inimicae lumini sancto extiterunt aperteque in perniciem sanctorum elementorum se armarunt et igneo spiritui obsecutae sunt, infesta etiam sua persecutione sanctam ecclesiam atque electos in eadem constitutos caelestium praeceptorum obseruatores afflixerunt, a beatitudine et gloria terrae sanctae arcentur. Et quia a malo se superari passae sunt, in eadem mali stirpe perseuerabunt, pacifica illa terra et regionibus immortalibus sibimet interdictis. Quod ideo illis eueniet, quia ita iniquis operibus se obstrinxerunt, ut a uita et libertate sanctae lucis alienarentur. Non igitur poterunt recipi in regna illa pacifica, sed configentur in praedicto horribili globo, cui etiam necesse est custodiam adhiberi. Vnde adhaerebunt his 5, 6 / 9 ⁠etenim  –  seductionem]  AA  uel AJ loc. incert. Thes. 2 16 / 29 ⁠quae  –  segregarunt]  Ep.  fund.  8     

11 / 14 ⁠hi  –  gubernauerint] 

5, 5 aut – malum] om. β     fructum] -us Mü malum] Grin marg. 6 Leucio] leu2 3 4 1a.c. 1 7 ne] nec Ag P Gr 8 effectus] factus uel effectus So tio Ag P Bx Bo So Gr P 10 animas] -is Fa.c., -abus Fp.c. ad] a Müa.c. (uel effectus sup. l.) 9 nisi] om. Bg1 4 1a.c. 2a.c. 11 peccare] om. δ      Thesauri] thensauri Ag Ag P3 Bx Fa.c., substantiam] -a P dicit] dixit Maur hi] hic Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 P2a.c., his Fa.c. 11 / 12 nethensauro P2a.c. 1 12 a labe] allabore P1, a lebe P4 spiritu] -uum Ag1p.c. Ag3 Bo gligentia sua] -ie sue P permiserint] -erit P1 12 / 13 mandatisque So Gr F Maur Zycha purgari] -e P1 3in marg. 13 obtemperauerint] obtemperaueint Gra.c. legemque] legem quae diuinis] Ag liberatore] liberato F 14 noluerint] -erit P4a.c. decebat] -eat Ag2 P4 15 fundamenti] fudamenti Gra.c. 15 / 14 gubernauerint] gubernar* P1(-arunt ut uid.) 17 lumini] animabus] -antibus β      16 amore] errore γ      sua natura] sue -e P1 18 armarunt] -uerunt Ag2 P1, amarunt Gra.c. etiam] enim P1 -is P1, -e P4 Mü Fa.c. 18 / 19 sua persecutione] inu. Maur 19 electos] -us P4 Mü F sua] sue P1 constitutos] constitos Gra.c., constitutus P4 Mü Fa.c. eadem] eandem Ag1 Ag2a.c. P1 P4 Mü F 21 arcentur] -buntur Ag3 Et] om. P4 malo – superari] 20 gloria] glaria Ag1a.c. passae] -i P4 Mü malos superari P1, malis exsuperari Gr, malos exsuperare P4 Mü Fa.c. 1 1a.c. 1 22 stirpe] -em Ag 23 eueniet] ueniet Bg Bx quia] qui a P3 mali] -e P obstrinxerunt] obstrixerunt P1 25 configentur] confringentur P1, ita] om. Ag1 P2 praedicto] precepto Bo 26 etiam] etiam recipi P1 confingentur Grp.c.

edition and translation

347

says, Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad. The following is also written in the Acts authored by Leucius,3 a work they accept as authoritative, “Surely, fair inventions and a disingenuous showing and a coercion of visible things do not, in fact, proceed from their own nature, but from that man who of his own will has become worse through seduction”. Even Mani himself cannot but admit that souls, even those which he claims belong to God’s substance, sin by their own will. For in the second book of the Treasure he says, “Those however who by their own negligence did not at all allow themselves to be cleansed in the spirit from the stain of the aforementioned and did not obey the divine commandments in their entirety, and were unwilling to fully observe the law given by their liberator, and did not govern themselves as was fitting”, and so on.4 Likewise in the Fundamental epistle, he speaks as follows about those souls, “which had allowed themselves to wander off from their former light-nature by love of the world, and emerged as enemies of the sacred light, and armed themselves openly for the destruction of the sacred elements, and submitted themselves to the spirit of fire. These souls, also, by their hostile persecution did harm to the holy church and its elect, who are established in it and who keep the heavenly commandments, and are shut out of the blessedness and glory of the sacred earth. And because they allowed themselves to be overcome by evil, they shall remain within that breed of evil, forbidden from access to that peaceful earth and the immortal regions. This will happen to them because they have become so entangled in unjust works that they have become alienated from the life and freedom of the sacred light. Therefore, they cannot be received into those peaceful kingdoms, but will be confined to the aforementioned terrible clod,5 for

Five apocryphal Acts were attributed to Leucius in Antiquity: the Acts of John, Peter, Paul, Andrew, and Thomas. The provenance of this fragment is uncertain. In chapter 38, the author refers to the Acts of Andrew, and chapter 40 contains an implicit reference to the acts of John. J.-M. Prieur (CCSA, 5-6), pp. 25-26, states that the citation is probably from the Acts of Andrew. 4 For the Manicahaean fragments, I have consulted, where available, earlier translations of Latin Manichaean texts. See Greek and Latin Sources (ed. S. N. C. Lieu, trans. G. Fox and J. SheLdon), p. 5; R. TeSke , The Manichaean Debate, p. 301. On the reconstruction of the Thesaurus, see also M. STein, Manichaica latina 4, in particular p. 36 for this fragment. 5   Gr.  βῶλος  or  Lat.  globus or massa, is a technical term in Manichaean cosmology. I follow Van Oort in translating the term by “clod” as opposed to more generic translations such as “globe” or “mass”. See J. van oorT, “Augustine and Mani on concupiscentia sexualis”, p. 140. 3

348

edition and translation

rebus animae eaedem quas dilexerunt, relictae in eodem tenebrarum globo, suis meritis id sibi conquirentes. Neque enim futura haec cognoscere studuerunt atque ab iisdem, cum tempus dabatur, se segregarunt”. 6. Rogo uos: ubi audiuntur haec uerba, dubitatis adhuc Manichaeum adactum esse confiteri [non] esse peccatum propriae uoluntatis? Non enim unum uerbum inde dixit, sed tam multa, ut quemuis graui somno mersum excitaret. Dixit: “negligentia sua”; dixit: “minime permiserint”; dixit: 5 “parum obtemperauerint”; dixit: “seruare noluerint”. Item dixit: “obsecutae sunt”; dixit: “se superari passae sunt”; dixit: “se obstrinxerunt”; dixit: “suis meritis id sibi conquirentes”; dixit: “ neque enim futura haec cognoscere studuerunt atque ab iisdem, cum tempus dabatur, se segregauerunt”, et uos dubitatis dicere propria uoluntate peccari? 7. Iterum ipse dicit in eadem epistula: “lucis autem subsiciuam partem, hoc est, animas peccatrices”, et uos non dicitis peccare nisi gentem tenebrarum? Sed quid de isto loquar (qui quamuis erraret, tamen euidentissima ueritate hoc conatus est dicere), cum ipsum dominum nostrum Iesum 5 nolitis intelligere dicentem ignem praeparatum esse peccatoribus et diabolo et angelis eius, quos omnes uoluit intelligi peccatores? Non enim iniustitia est apud deum, ut damnet eos qui nihil peccauerunt.

7, 5 / 6 Matth. 25, 41

6 / 7 iniustitia  –  Deum]  cf.  Rom.  9,  14     

7, 1 / 2 ⁠lucis  –  peccatrices]  Ep.  fund.  9,  1      5, 27 eaedem] Ag1p.c. Ag2 P3p.c. P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Fp.c. Zycha, eadem Ag1a.c. Ag3 P3a.c. P2a.c. P1 quas] -a P2a.c., -os P1 relictae] -o P4, -a Mü Fa.c., -a luce P4 Mü Fa.c.. Vide adnotationes. p.c. 1 2a.c. eodem] eadem Ag Ag 28 conquirentes] non querentes P1 29 iisdem] F hisdem Ag3 δ      segregarunt] -auerunt β Gr Maur, congregarunt Mü 6, 2, adactum] Maur Zycha, edactum Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 P2a.c. P4 Mü Fa.c., coactum Ag1p.c. Ag3 Gr, & actum uel &actum P1, audactum siue sedatum Fp.c.(add. in marg. m²). Vide adnotapropriae] nisi propriae Ag3 Gr tiones. non1] om. Maur Zycha. Vide adnotationes. quemuis] quamuis δ Zycha quemuis – somno] quem uisom 3 ut] et Bo, in P4 mersum] uersum P1 4 excitaret] -are P1 permiserint] -erit P1, miseno P1 6 superari] supera P4 obstrinxerunt] obstruxerunt Ag2, obstrixerunt Gra.c. runt P4 neque enim] inu. Bg1 P1 8 iisdem] hisdem Ag2 P3 δ      cum] 7 suis] se suis P1 se] om. Ag1 Ag2 P3 P2a.c. P4 Mü Fa.c. 9 / 8 segregauerunt] -arunt Ag3 P4a.c. sup. l. P2 9 ⁠et  –    peccari]  om. δ      peccari] -e P2 epistula] -am Ag1a.c. P1 subsi7, 1 eadem] eandem Ag1a.c. Ag2a.c. P3a.c. P1 P4 Fa.c. ciuam] subciuam P2a.c., sisbciuam Bg1, succiuam Bx Bo So, subsiciuam uel succidiuam F(uel succidiuam in marg.), succisiuam Maur Zycha 2 est] om. Gr non] sup. l. Bx 4 ueritate] uarietate P1 conatus] 3 de – loquar] loquar de isto Gr isto] -a P1 5 nolitis] -ites Gra.c. intelligere] -etis P1a.c. coactus Ag3 Bg1 Gr Maur, cognatus Bo praeparatum esse] inu. P1 peccatoribus] om. Bg1 et] om. Bg1 dicentem] -es P1 4 3 7 nihil] omnino nihil P Maur Maur 6 iniustitia] iniustia P

edition and translation

349

which a guard must also be assigned. These same souls will therefore cling to what they have loved, having been abandoned to the same clod of darkness and obtaining this for themselves by their own merits. Nor did they make any effort to understand these future events, and separate themselves from these same things when time permitted”.6 6. I ask you, when these words are heard, do you still doubt whether Mani was brought to confess that there is a sin of one’s own will? For it was not one word that he said on that topic, but so many as to wake anyone from a deep sleep. He said, “By their own negligence”; he said, “Did not at all allow themselves”; he said, “Did not obey”; he said, “Were unwilling to observe”. Likewise he said, “Submitted themselves”; he said, “Have allowed themselves to be overcome”; he said, “Have become so entangled in”; he said, “Obtaining this for themselves by their own merits”; he said, “Nor did they make any effort to understand these future events, and separate themselves from these same things when time permitted”; and you hesitate to say that sins are committed by one’s own will? 7. Again he says in the same Epistle, “However, the cut-off portion of the light, that is, the sinning souls”, and you say no one sins except the race of darkness? But why should I speak of him (who, although he erred, still, in a moment of clear truth tried to admit this7), when you refuse to understand our Lord himself, Jesus Christ, when he says, The eternal fire was prepared for sinners and the devil and his angels, all of whom he wished to be understood as sinners? For there is no injustice with God, such that he would condemn those who have not sinned in the least.

6 See Greek and Latin Sources, p. 13; R. TESkE , Answer to Faustus,  p.  297;  R.  TESkE , The Manichaean Debate,  pp.  339.87.  See  also  M.  STEIN, Manichaica latina 2,  pp.  36-39. 7 I.e., that one sins of one’s own free will.

350

edition and translation

8. Peccare enim quid aliud est nisi in ueritatis praeceptis uel in ipsa non stare ueritate? Quod si non uoluntate faciunt peccatores, iniuste iudicantur. Pertinere autem et angelos ad iudicium, apostolus ostendit dicens: nescitis quoniam angelos iudicabimus? Non autem pertinerent ad iudicium quo 5 iudicantur, si non pertinerent ad peccatum quo rei fiunt, nec possint merito iudicari. Non enim homines iusti de iustis angelis iudicaturi sunt, quibus similes erunt, sed utique peccatoribus. Malefacti sui ergo per cupiditatem quisque auctor est. 9. Est ergo in potestate ut sit cupiditas, et ideo etiam malum in potestate est. In potestate ergo est quod in uoluntate esse non debet. Malum enim non potest esse natura nec substantia nec uita, quia haec bona sunt, in quantum sunt. Sed et si aliquos naturaliter dicimus malos, propter origi5 nem ueteris peccati dicimus, in quo iam nostra mortalitas nascitur. Totum itaque quod uocatur malum in hominibus, peccatum est et poena. Peccatum fit ab anima rationali, cui liberum uoluntatis arbitrium est, et poena infligitur iustitia dei, quae nihil facit iniuste. Aduersus haec solita caecitate Manichaei latrant et, cum conuincantur naturam non esse malum, sed in 10 potestate esse hominis facere bene aut male, dicunt non esse animae liberam uoluntatem, et non uident caecitatem suam. 10. Quis enim non clamet stultum esse praecepta dare ei cui liberum non est quod praecipitur facere, et iniquum esse eum damnare cui non fuit potestas iussa complere? Et has iniustitias et iniquitates miseri non intelligunt deo se ascribere. Sed quid uerum est nisi et dominum dare prae8, 1 / 2 in2 – ueritate] cf. Io. 8, 44

3 / 4 I Cor. 6, 3

8, 1 quid] ut P1 ueritatis praeceptis] inu. Bo So 1 / 2 non – ueritate] nostra 2 ueritate] -em P4 re ueritate Ag1a.c. Ag2a.c., nostra reueritate P3, nostra seueritate P2 quo] quid P2 quod P1 5 iudican4 iudicabimus] -auimus Mü Fp.c., iudiuimus Fa.c. quo] quod P1 possint] -ent Ag3 So Gr Maur 6 iudicaturi] iuditur] -arent P1 7 similes] -is Ag1a.c. erunt] eruit Ag1, om. P2 utique] utibus ut uid. Bg1 cari Ag1 8 est] est peccatoribus] de peccatoribus Maur Zycha cupiditatem] cupitatem Gra.c. id est mali F(id est mali add. in marg.) 2 est1] om. Bg1 quod] quod si β      3 enim –   9,  1 potestate2] cupiditate P1 uita] uicia P1 quia] qui P1 bona] uinatura] esse enim non potest natura P1 4 et] om. Ag1 dicimus] diximus P1 malos] aliquos P1 5 peccati] cia P1 iam nostra] iam nostra iam P1 6 et] om. P2 7 rationali] -abili P4a.c. -is Gra.c. poena] peccatum Ag3 8 iniuste] iuste Gra.c., iniustae P2a.c. soliuoluntatis] -i P1 caecitate] -em P4 9 conuincantur] -untur Maur Zycha non – mata] sola P1 lum] malum non esse Bo So 10 ⁠esse  hominis]  inu. So Gr aut] et Mü 11 non] caecitatem] cactitatem Ag1a.c. caecitatem suam] inu. Gr om. Fa.c. stultum esse] inu. Bo So 2 non1] om. β P1a.c. est] 10, 1 clamet] -at P1 4 praecipitur] praecipit Gr ⁠iniquum  –    eum]  inicum  eum  esse  P1 esse] esse P cui non] cuidam P1 4 Deo] -um P4 Mü F se] sed P2a.c. et] ad P1, est P4 4a.c. 2 dominum] deum Ag om. P

edition and translation

351

8. For what else does it mean to sin, except to fail to stand fast in the precepts of the truth, or in truth itself? If sinners do not act out of their own will, they are judged unjustly. Yet the Apostle shows that angels, too, are subject to judgment, when he says, Do you not know we are to judge angels? However, they would not pertain to the judgment by which they are judged, if they did not pertain to the sin of which they are guilty, nor could they be judged deservedly then. After all, just men will not judge the just angels, to whom they are similar, but, only the sinners. To conclude, it is through desire that every individual is the author of his or her own misdeed. 9. Thus, desire is within our power, and therefore evil, too, is within our  power. What is not necessary for our will is, then, within our power. For evil can be neither a nature nor a substance nor a life, because these concepts are good, to the extent that they exist.8 But even if we say some people are naturally evil, we say so because of the origin of the ancient sin, in which, at present, our mortality is born. And so, everything that is called evil in humans is a sin and a punishment. A sin is committed by the rational soul, which possesses a free choice of the will, and the punishment is inflicted by God’s justice, which by no means acts unjustly. In their usual blindness, the Manichaeans bark against these statements, and although they are convinced that nature is not evil, but that good or evil conduct is within a person’s power, they claim that the soul has no free will, and they do not see their own blindness. 10. For who does not proclaim that it is foolish to give precepts to one who lacks the freedom to accomplish what is ordered, and that it is unfair to condemn the one who lacked the capacity to fulfil the commands? The miserable fools do not understand that they are even ascribing these instances of injustice and unfairness to God. But what else is true, except

According to the author, evil is not an existent reality. Because God’s creation is good, everything that exists is created as good. Nevertheless, because existence is not substantially equal to God, existence is imperfect. Imperfect as they are, people commit evil when they do not direct their full desire and attention to the goodness that is God. Augustine of Hippo links this view regarding the non-existence of evil to the doctrine of creation de nihilo. See also M. DREVER , “Redeeming Creation”. 8

352

edition and translation

5 cepta et animas liberae esse uoluntatis et malum naturam non esse, sed esse

auersionem a dei praeceptis, et esse iustum iudicium dei quo damnet peccantes? 11. Interea cum dicat idem Manichaeus deum omnibus bonis abundantem, nullo in regnis eius insignibus indigente aut infimo constituto, ita etiam fundata eiusdem splendidissima saecula, ut a nullo umquam concuti uel moueri possint, in alio loco paulo post subiungit et dicit: “lucis uero 5 beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stirpem tenebrarum, qua exstincta quies lucis incolis pararetur”. 12. Certe ergo a nullo umquam concuti uel moueri potuerunt regna dei Manichaei. Si enim potuerunt, mentitus est dicendo non posse regna illa ab aliquo concuti. Et si concussa sunt necessitate aut timore, non erit deus qui sic concuti potuit. Nam uidemus deum Manichaei secundum eumdem 5 Manichaeum malo necessitatis pressum, cum labes ac uastitas aduersus saecula eius impenderet, aliud quod faceret non haberet, partem suam ad pugnam dedisse, ut uel hoc modo quietem lucis incolis compararet. Ipsa uero pars eius, hoc est, de lumine lumen, de bono bonum, de sancto sanctum, de aeterno aeternum, de deo deus, de omnipotente omnipotens, cor10 rupta sit, mortificata sit, commixta sit per omnia mundi corpora a summo

11, 1 / 4 ⁠deum  –  possint]  Ep.  fund.  2,  21-24      4 / 8 ⁠lucis  –  pararetur]  Ep.  fund.  3      10, 5 naturam] -as Soa.c. 6 damnet] -at Ag1p.c. Ag3 peccantes] peccates Ag1a.c. Gra.c., peccatores uel peccantes Bg1 Bx(uel -cantes sup. l.) 2 nullo] -um Bg1 Bx Bo So P4 indigente] -em Ag1 Ag2a.c. 11, 1 Interea] intereat P4 infimo] infirmo γ Grp.c. Fin marg. P3a.c. P2a.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So P1 P4 Mü F. Vide adnotationes. Maur, in infimo Bg1 Bx Bo So constituto] -um Bg1 Bx Bo So P1 3 saecula] se 4 paulo] om. P1 subiungit] iungit P2 Bx Bo So, adiungit Bg1 uero] scula Gra.c. 5 labem] -ens Ag1, -i Ag2, -e P1 magom. Gra.c., -e Grin marg., -a P4 Mü Fa.c., -ae Fp.c. ac] et Bg1, hac P1 P4 uastitatem] -e P1, uastatem P4 quae] quo Gr nam] -a P1 6 impendere] impedere Gra.c. alisurgeret] -ere P1, surgeret se Fp.c. (se sup. l. m²) ac] hac P1, et Mü 7 potens] potens numen Maur Zycha ac] quod] aliquo Ag3 8 qua] quo Gr, quae P4 Mü F quies] -em P1 hac P1 dei] om. P1 2 potuerunt] -uerint Ag1a.c. 12, 1 potuerunt] poterunt Bg1 Bx Bo So mentitus] -iatus Ag1a.c. 3 aliquo] -a P1 sunt] sint Ag1a.c. erit] Bg1 Bx Bo So uidemus] -eamus Ag2 erat Gr 4 sic] si P4 Mü, uero uel sic F(uel sic sup. l. m²) 5 malo] -a P1 6 saecula] sua saecula Ag1(sua sup. l.) Ag3 eius] deum] om. P4 1 impenderet] -iret Ag1p.c., impederet Gra.c., se inpenderet F(se sup. l. m²) om. γ, huius P 7 hoc] aliud] aliudque Ag1p.c. Ag3 Maur Zycha, et aliud Ag2p.c. P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr 8 hoc est] sup. l. Ag3 9 deus] -um Ag1 Ag2 P3 β om. Gr compararet] -eret Fa.c. omnipotens] -entem Ag1 P2 Bo, -ente P1 10 ⁠a  summo]  assummo  Ag1a.c. P1, P4 Mü 4 a sumo P

edition and translation

353

that the Lord gives precepts, that souls possess a free will, that evil is not a nature but rather a turning aside from God’s precepts, and that it is by a righteous judgement that God condemns sinners? 11. In the meantime, although the same Mani says that “God abounds in all things good, and that in his splendid kingdoms there is no one who is poor or low in rank. His shining aeons are also founded in such a way that they cannot be shaken or moved by anyone”;9 in another passage just a little later he adds the following and says, “The father of the most blessed light, however, knew that a great ruin and devastation would rise from the darkness and menace his sacred aeons, unless he opposed to it something outstanding, brilliant, and powerful, by which he might at once overcome the descendants of the darkness and destroy them, and thus, once they were destroyed, rest might be secured for the inhabitants of the light”.10 12. Surely, then, the kingdoms of Mani’s god can never be shaken or moved by anyone. If they could, he lied when he said that those kingdoms cannot be shaken by anyone. And if they are shaken because of necessity or fear, he who was able to be shaken in such a manner is not God. For we see that Mani’s god, according to that same Mani, was forced by the evil of necessity, when ruin and devastation menaced his aeons, and had no other choice of action but to send a portion of himself to combat, so that he might at least in this way secure rest for the inhabitants of the light. However, this portion of him – that is, the light of light, the good of good, holy of holy, eternal of eternal, god of god, almighty of almighty – would be corrupted, mortified, and mingled with all worldly bodies from the highest to the lowest, from heaven to the lowest filth of nature.11 In

M. STEIN, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 20-27, esp. p. 24; Greek and Latin sources,  p.  9;  R. TESkE , The Manichaean Debate, pp. 243.365. 10 This sentence is either an incomplete citation of the Manichaean text, or an anacoluthon. M. STEIN, Manichaica latina 2,  pp.  28-29.87-88;  Greek and Latin sources, p. 11; R. TESkE , The Manichaean Debate,  pp.  295.338.82.83. 11 Lit. “to manure” (ad stercora). 9

354

edition and translation

usque ad imum, a caelo usque ad stercora, ut et meretrices in theatris et in locis turpioribus turpiores habeant in se oppressum deum, qui liberari forte non possit. Dicit enim in fine ipsius epistulae unde unum capitulum iam posuimus, ipsam dei partem quae commixta est, non totam posse reuocari 15 ad pristinam libertatem. 13. Ecce uictoria, ecce triumphus qualem fecit Manichaei deus. Nam post amissam partem suam in luctu est, sicut Manichaeus idem dicit: “uelum contra se habet, qui dolorem eius temperet, ne corruptionem partis suae uideat. Hodie enim diuina quam commemorat substantia, subiacet 5 genti tenebrarum ut lutum figulo”. Hoc in primo libro Thesauri eorum scriptum est. 14. Qualis interea turpitudo, quam in eodem Thesauro suo inter cetera turpia in septimo libro scribit sic dicens: “tunc beatus ille pater, qui lucidas naues habet diuersoria et habitacula secum magnitudines, pro insita sibi clementia fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur ab impiis retinaculis et 5 angustiis atque angoribus suae uitalis substantiae. Itaque inuisibili suo nutu illas suas uirtutes, quae in clarissima hac naui habentur, transfigurat easque parere facit aduersis potestatibus, quae in singulis caelorum tractibus ordinatae sunt. Quae quoniam ex utroque sexu masculorum ac feminarum

13, 3 / 5 ⁠uelum  –  figulo]  Thes.  1      14, 2 / 16, 15 tunc – admiscetur] Thes. 3 12, 11 imum] summum Ag2 a caelo] accelo Ag1a.c., ad caelum P4 stercora] terra et1] om. P1a.c. 12 habeant] -ent Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3, -erent Maur Zycha oppressum] P4 qui] om. P1 liberari] -e Bg1 Bx Bo Soa.c., liberare se Sop.c. forte] Grin marg. -is Bg1 ipsius] om. Bg1 iam] quem P1 14 ⁠ipsam  –   partem] partem  13 fine] -em P4 F partem] -e P4 ipsam dei por tam P1 13, 1 uictoria] -iam Gr triumphus] -um Gr Manichaei] a -o P2, -us P1 2 amissam] admissam P1, ammissam Mü Fa.c. luctu] -us P1 Nam] non Ag2, om. P1 3p.c. Manichaeus idem] inu. Bo So dicit] ait So 3 qui] quod P So Gr Maur Zycha ne] nec P4 3 / 4 partis suae] patris sui P1 4 commemodolorem] -e Ag2 P1 P4 5 lutum] nutum P1 in – eorum] in eorum in primo libro rat] commerat Gra.c. thesauri F, in eorum primo libro thesauri Zycha Thesauri] thensauri Ag1 Ag2a.c. P3 P2 Bx Grp.c. Fa.c., tesauri P1, tesari Gra.c., th*auri Mü Thesauro] thensauro 14, 1 turpitudo] cupido Gr, turpitudo sit F eodem] eo Bg1 suo] om. P3 Bo So Maur 2 scribit] scripAg1 Ag2 P3p.c. P2a.c. Bx Fp.c., tensauro Fa.c. lucidas] licidas Ag1a.c. 3 secum] seu Ag1p.c. Ag3, secum uel sit P3 P1 δ Maur Zycha magnitudines] secundum Bg1 Bx(uel secundum sup. l.), secundum Bo So Maur Zycha qua] -udinis δ      4 clementia fert] clementi affert P4 Mü Fa.c., clementia affert Fp.c. et1] uel P1 5 angustiis quae Ag1 Ag2 P3 P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So P1  δ.  Vide  adnotationes. angoribus] langoribus Gr suae] -a Ag3 P2 uitalis] -i atque] om. Bg1 Bx Bo So substantiae] -ia Ag3 P2 6 suas uirtutes] inu. P3 hac] ac P2a.c. P4, om. Bxa.c. P1 tractibus] tractatibus P3 ordinatae] -i P1 8 ac] et Ag2, aut P1 7 aduersis] -us P1

edition and translation

355

this way even prostitutes in theatres and more scandalous people in more scandalous places would have in themselves an oppressed god, who perhaps cannot be liberated. For he says at the end of his epistle, of which we have already quoted one chapter, that this portion of god itself, which is mingled, cannot be wholly recalled to its earlier freedom. 13. Behold the victory! Behold the triumph which Mani’s god achieved! Surely, after he lost his portion he is in mourning, as Mani himself says: “He has a veil before himself, so he might soothe his pain, and so that he does not see the corruption of his own portion. For today the divine substance which he mentions is subject to the race of darkness like clay to a potter”.12 This is written in the first book of their Treasure. 14. Meanwhile, what a disgrace he describes in that same Treasure of his, when he says, among other shameful things, the following in the seventh book:13 “Then that blessed Father, who has shining ships as dwellings or magnitudes14 as lodging places with him, in his innate clemency brings aid by which he is stripped and set free from the impious bonds and straits and torments of his own vital substance. By his invisible nod he transforms his powers, which he has in this shining ship, and causes these powers to show themselves to the opposing powers, which are set in different parts of the heavens. These are of both sexes, male and female. Hence, he too

See N. A. PEDERSEN, “The Veil and Revelation of the Father of Greatness”, esp. p. 229;  M. STEIN, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 34-35. 13 What follows is a lengthy citation of the Treasure, one of the Manichaeans’ canonical writings. See M. STEIN, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 38-43, and ibid., pp. 114-38. The fragment explains how the Manichaean god liberates good particles from the evil particles. These good particles had been mingled with hostile powers. The Manichaean god transforms its emanations into the shape of beautiful boys and virgins so that the hostile powers are, in turn, aroused by these apparitions. Lust is thus the fundamental sin of the Manichaean principle of evil. As the hostile powers are distracted by the charming appearance of the boys and virgins, some good particles are able to escape their condition of being intermingled with evil and can then return to their original position in the heavens. 14 “Magnitudes” is a technical term in Manichaean cosmology. The magnitudes are God’s emanations. See M. STEIN, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 117-18. 12

356

edition and translation

consistunt, et ideo praedictas uirtutes partim speciem puerorum inuestium

10 parere iubet generi aduerso feminarum, partim uirginum lucidarum forma

generi contrario masculorum, sciens eas omnes hostiles potestates propter ingenitam sibi letalem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam facillime capi atque iisdem speciebus pulcherrimis quae parent et mancipari hocque modo dissolui. Sciatis autem hunc eumdem nostrum beatum patrem hoc idem 15 esse quod etiam suae uirtutes, quas ob necessariam causam transformat in puerorum et uirginum intemeratam similitudinem. Vtitur autem his tamquam propriis armis atque per eas suam complet uoluntatem. 15. Harum uero uirtutum diuinarum, quae ad instar coniugii contra inferna genera statuuntur quaeque alacritate ac facilitate id quod cogitauerint momento eodem efficiunt, plenae sunt lucidae naues. Itaque cum ratio poposcerit ut masculis appareant eaedem sanctae uirtutes, ilico etiam suam 5 effigiem uirginum pulcherrimarum habitu demonstrant. Rursum cum ad feminas uentum fuerit, postponentes speciem uirginum puerorum inuestium speciem ostendunt. Hoc autem uisu decoro illarum ardor et concupiscentia crescit atque hoc modo uinculum pessimarum cogitationum earum soluitur uiuaque anima, quae eorumdem membris tenebatur, hac occasione 10 laxata euadet et suo purissimo aeri miscetur, ubi penitus ablutae animae ascendunt ad lucidas naues, quae sibi ad euectionem atque ad suae patriae transfretationem sunt praeparatae.

14, 9 consistunt] constunt Gra.c. et ideo] ideo Ag2p.c. Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Maur Zyspeciem] -e Ag2p.c. Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So F Maur Zycha incha partim] post in Ag1 uestium] inuestium uel uenustorum Ag2(uenustorum add. sup. l. m²), inuestium uel inuestitorum F(-torum add. sup. l.) 10 generi] sup. l. Bx lucidarum] lucidatorum P3 1 1 eas] eos P 12 capi] cupi Ag1a.c., rapi Bo So 11 ⁠generi  contrario]  ienere  contraria  P quae] que P4 parent] apparent Maur 13 iisdem] hisdem P2 Bg1 Bo So P1 P4 Mü F hocque] et mancipari] mancipari Ag3 P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So Maur Zycha, emancipari Gr 14 dissolui] -uit P1 hunc] tunc P1 15 uirtutes] -is Ag1 hoc quoque Ag1 Ag2 P3 causam] -as Ag2, -a P1 16 intemeratam] interemerat P1 necessariam] -as Ag2p.c., -a P1 suam complet] inu. Bo So 17 atque] om. P1 ad] om. Bg1 Bx Bo So coniugii] coniungii P1 2 ge15, 1 uirtutum] -em P4 3 momento] memento P2a.c. P1 P4 efficiunt] ac] et Bo So, hac P1 nera] om. Gr plenae] -a P1 4 masculis] -us Gra.c. eaedem] Ag1p.c. Ag2p.c. P2p.c. Bx aficiunt P1 Bo So Gr Fp.c. Maur Zycha, eadem Ag1a.c. Ag2a.c. Ag3 P3 P2a.c. P1 P4 Mü Fa.c., eccem Bg1. Vide uirginum] adnotationes. ilico] illo Gr 5 effigiem] efficiem P1, effigiam P4 habitu] abitum P1 Rursum] -us Ag2 6 inuestium] inuestitu P2p.c., in-em Gra.c. berbium Gr, inuestium id est inuestitorum F(id est inuestitorum add. sup. l.) 9 tenebahac] hoc Ag2a.c. P2a.c., ac P4 Mü occasione] -em tur] -bantur P1, tenebratur P4 Mü Fa.c. 10 euadet] -it Ag3 P2p.c. So δ Maur Zycha aeri] -e P4 Mü F miscetur] P4 Mü 4 a.c. 2p.c. 11 euectionem] uectionem Ag , euectationem uel euectionem Bg1 Bx(uel -itur P F suae patriae] -em -em Ag1a.c., -a -a P1 P4 12 transeuectionem sup. l.), eleccionem P1 1 fretationem] et transfretatione P , transfretatione P4

edition and translation

357

makes the aforesaid powers appear at some times in the shape of beardless boys to women of the opposing species, at other times in the shape of fair virgins to males of the opposing species. He knows that all these hostile powers are easily captivated because of the deadly and unclean lust that is congenital to them, and will yield to the beautiful forms which appear, and will in this way be dissolved. Know that our blessed father is identical with these powers of his, which for a necessary purpose he transforms into the undefiled likeness of boys and virgins. He uses these as his own weapons and by them accomplishes his will. 15. “The shining ships are full of these divine powers, which are set over against members of the infernal race as in a kind of marriage. Quickly and easily, in a moment, they achieve their purpose. When reason demands that these same holy powers should appear to males, immediately they show themselves in the form of beautiful virgins. Again, when they have come to women, they put off the appearance of virgins and exhibit that of beardless boys. Now at this comely sight their ardour and concupiscence grow, and in this way the fetter of their evil thoughts is broken, and the living soul which was held bound in their members is released on this occasion and escapes and mingles with the purest air which is its native element. Souls that are completely purified board the shining ships which have been prepared to carry them away and to transport them to their fatherland.

358

5

10

15

5

edition and translation

16. Id uero quod adhuc aduersi generis maculas portat, per aestum atque calores particulatim descendit atque arboribus ceterisque plantationibus ac satis omnibus miscetur et coloribus diuersis inficitur. Et quo facto ex ista magna et clarissima naui figurae puerorum et uirginum parent contrariis potestatibus, quae in caelis degunt quaeque ignem habeant naturam; atque ex isto aspectu decoro uitae pars quae in earumdem membris habetur, laxata deducitur per calores in terram. Eodem modo etiam illa altissima uirtus, quae in naui uitalium aquarum habitat, similitudinem puerorum ac uirginum sanctarum per suos angelos apparet his potestatibus quarum natura frigida est atque humida quaeque in caelis ordinatae sunt. Et quidem his quae feminae sunt, in ipsis forma puerorum apparet; masculis uero uirginum; ac mutatione et diuersitate personarum diuinarum ac pulcherrimarum humidae frigidaeque stirpis princeps, masculi seu feminae, soluuntur atque id quod in ipsis est uitale, fugit; quod uero resederit, laxatum deducitur in terram per frigora et cunctis terrae generibus admiscetur”. 17. Quis non rideat uel potius doleat et detestetur istum hominem tam horrenda et exsecrabilia de diuina substantia dicentem? Ergo substantiae lucis aeternae, parti dei, in captiuitate, in calamitatibus, in aerumnis, in pressuris, in sordibus atque immunditia, secundum uestrum errorem, uestram constitutionem non poterat aliter quotidie subueniri, nisi beatus pater, qui naues lucidas habet diuersorias, quem tertium legatum appellatis, et uirtus altissima uirtutes suas in diuersi sexus naturam commutet; quas 16, 1 ⁠per  aestum]  praestum  P1 aestum] -us Zycha 2 calores] colores P1 Gr 2 / 3 ac – coloribus] om. Ag1 3 coloribus] caloribus Bg1 Bx Bo So ac] hac P1 facto] facto facto Bo, pacto Maur Zycha ex Et2] om. Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr, del. Ag1 4 et1] om. P1 clarissima] praeclarissima P1 naui] ista] exista P1, existam P4 contrariis] contra aliis P1 5 quaeque] que que P1 Mü, que quem P4 ig-e P1 habeant] -ent Ag1p.c. Ag3p.c. P2p.c. nem] -eam Ag1p.c. Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Maur Zycha 6 earumdem] eorumdem Ag1 Ag2 P3 Bxa.c., earum Gra.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Maur Zycha 7 terram] -a P1 illa altissima] inu. δ Zycha habetur] abentur P1a.c., abetur P1p.c. 1 10 ordinatae] -i P1, 8 similitudinem] -e Ag Bo So F Maur, in -e Ag3 Zycha, in -em Gr 11 his] is Gr feminae] femini P1 in] om. Ag3 ipsis] -a P1 puer-a P4 masculis] -i P1 12 ac1] hac Ag1p.c. Ag2p.c. Ag3 P1, hac uero Maur Zycha orum] om. Ag2 diuersitate] -em P1 personarum] puerorum Müa.c. ac2] mutatione] -em P1 13 princeps] -ipes Ag1p.c. Ag2p.c. Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Fp.c. Maur Zycha seu] hanc P4 14 fugit] fuit Bg1 Bx Bo quod2] quot P1 15 deducitur] reducitur P4 siue P1 in] ad γ Maur 2 horren17, 1 non] enim Bo detestetur] -atur Bg1 P4 Mü Fp.c., detastatur Fa.c. de] om. P4 3 captiuitate] -em P1 4 in2] sup. l. Mü immundida] -o P1 errorem] -am Ag1a.c. 5 constitutionem] confutationem tia] -as P2, -is Bg1 Bx Bo So subueniri] -e Gra.c. P4 6 diuersorias] Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 P2 P1 P4 Mü F, -a Ag1p.c. Ag1p.c. Ag3 appellatis] -atur Mü 7 altisAg3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Maur Zycha. Vide adnotationes. diuersi] -is P1 naturam] -a Bo So commutet] -etur Bg1 quas] sima] -i Ag2 post P1

edition and translation

359

16. “Whatever still bears the taint of the opposing species goes down step by step through fiery heat, gets mixed up with trees and other plants and all crops, and is stained with diverse colours. Therefore, out of that great shining ship the figures of boys and virgins appear to the hostile powers whose home is in the heavens and who have fire as nature. At the fair sight, the part of life which is kept in their members is released and brought down by heat to earth. In the same way, even that highest power, which inhabits the ship of living waters, appears through his angels in the likeness of boys and saintly virgins to those powers whose nature is cold and moist, which also are set in the heavens. To those who are female it appears in the form of boys, but to males in the form of virgins. By this transformation and diversity of divine and beautiful persons, the prince of cold and moist stock – whether as males or as females – is dissolved and the vital element in them escapes. What remains is loosened and brought down to earth by cold and is mingled with all the species of earth”.15 17. Who would not laugh at someone, or rather be aggrieved at, and loathe that man who says such horrible and accursed things about the divine substance? Thus, according to your error, according to your constitution, in no other way could aid be given on a daily basis to the substance of eternal light, a portion of god, in its captivity, its calamity, its distress, its anxiety, in its filth and uncleanliness, unless the blessed father, who has shining ships as lodging places, whom you call the third ambassador, together with the highest power transforms his powers into the nature of the opposing sex? You call these powers pure, yet still, just as the highest

15

Greek and Latin Sources, p. 5; R. TESkE , The Manichaean Debate, pp. 341-342.

360

10

15

5

10

5

edition and translation

quidem intemeratas dicitis, sed tamen, ut meretricum more pulchritudine sua principum tenebrarum letalem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam confudit, inuicem accendant. Non enim inuenistis uerum, quo tantam turpitudinem aliquando honestius diceretis. Et qua causa hoc faciunt? Vt eis in libidinem concitatis occasionem liberationis reperiat substantia diuina. Quid aliud sonat nisi ut etiam per genitalia daemonum uias euadendi inueniat diuina maiestas? Deus magne, subueni animis ista turpia credentibus, ista nefanda sectantibus. Quis haec non exhorreat, rogo uos? Quis tam caecus est, ut ista credat, rogo uos? 18. Sed certe respondeatur mihi ab his qui ipsum Manichaeum sequuntur: “si deus incorruptibilis est uel omnis natura summi boni inuiolabilis, immaculabilis, inadibilis, incoinquinabilis, incomprehensibilis, quid poterat facere mali natura huic tantae naturae, si nollet cum illa pugnare, ne ad tantum dedecus deduceretur?” Hoc dixi: “quid factura erat deo gens tenebrarum, si nollet cum illa pugnare?” Si mihi dicitur: “nihil”, quaero cur hodie eius pars, hoc est, dei deus, in calamitatibus, in pressuris, in captiuitate, in subiectione sit constituta, ut tam turpiter etiam liberetur et nec sic liberari tota possit; uel ipse pater, ut luctum habeat memoratae partis suae causa, quem luctum Manichaeus in suis libris apertissime praedicat? 19. Ait quidam: “nihil ei fieri poterat, sed ut ostenderet praescientiam se habere cogitationum principum tenebrarum, et ut monstraret nihil se timere, propterea pugnauit”. Cui ego dixi: “qui potuit cogitationes principum tenebrarum uidere ac neminem timere, quare non uidit luctum sibi imminentem de partis suae infelicitate, quam hodie patitur? Quam partem 17, 8 dicitis] -itas P4a.c. sed] sic Bg1 9 principum] -em P3 P2p.c., principium P1 confudit] confundit Ag1p.c. Bx Bo So, om. Bg1 Gr, confusae Maur tenebrarum] om. Ag1 Zycha. Vide adnotationes 9 / 10 confudit – accendant] inuicem accendant confun10 inuicem] -e Ag2 P3 P1 P4 Mü F accendant] -at Ag2a.c. uerum] -u dit Ag3 1a.c. 1p.c. turpitudinem] pulchritudinem Maur 11 aliquando] aliP , -i P , uerbum Gr qua] quia P3a.c. eis] in eis uel meis Ag1 12 occasionem] -e F quanto Ag3 β Grp.c. 13 genitalia] reperiat substantia] repperi ad substantiam uel repperiad substantiam P1 14 magne] man& P1 turpia] om. Bo So, turpia quia P1 ista2] gentilia Bg1 Bx 1 1a.c. 2 1 15 sectantibus] factantibus Ag Quis ] quia Bg -am P 2 omnis] -es Ag1a.c. 18, 1 his] iis Maur Zycha sequuntur] secuntur P1 Gr P4 F inadibilis] inadilis Ag1a.c., insuadibilis P1, inan3 immaculabilis] incoinquinabilis Ag3 incoinquinabilis] immaculabilis Ag3, inquoinquinabilis P1 P4 quid] dibilis Gra.c. poterat] -erit Ag2a.c. 4 si – pugnare] est si nollet natura P1 5 dequi Gra.c. dixi] -it P1 6 cum – pugnare] pugnare cum illa pugnare P1 decus] decus P1 8 sit] sic P3 P1 nec] sup. l. Ag3 9 sic] 7 deus] om. Bg1 Bx Bo So Maur, del. Ag1 4 1 2 liberari] -eretur P liberari tota] inu. Ag luctum] lutum P4a.c. parsit P 10 quem] con P1 tis] patris P1 2 principum] principium P1 nihil] om. P1   19,  1 quidam] -em P3a.c. Fp.c. ego] ergo Bg1 potuit] potui P1 principum] om. P2 3 pugnauit] -aui P1 5 partis] patris P2 infelicitate] -em P1 4 timere] temere P1

edition and translation

361

power, in the manner of prostitutes, with its beauty spread the deadly and all-too-unclean desire of the princes of darkness, they would inflame each other. For you have not found the truth, by which you might eventually describe that disgrace more rightfully. And why do they do this? So that, while these hostile princes are urged to lust, the divine substance would find an occasion to be liberated. What else does that sound like, if not that even through the genitals of demons the divine majesty finds ways of escape? Great God, aid the souls that believe such disgraceful teaching, that pursue these illicit doctrines! Who, I ask you, would not tremble at this thought? Who, I ask you, is so blind as to believe this myth?16 18. But certainly, they who follow Mani himself would respond to me, “If God is incorruptible, or if every nature of the highest good is inviolable, immaculate, unapproachable, unpollutable, incomprehensible, what could the evil nature17 do to such a nature, if God had refused to fight with it, in order to prevent being dragged down to such an infamous state?” I have said the following, “What would the race of darkness have done to God, if he had refused to fight it?” If I am told, “Nothing”, then I ask why today a portion of him, that is, god of god, is placed in calamity, in distress, in captivity, in subjection, so that he, too, is liberated in such a disgraceful manner, and cannot even in this way be liberated completely? Or why would the father himself undergo these things? So that he mourns on account of his aforementioned portion, a mourning which Mani preaches very openly in his books? 19.  Someone  says,  “Nothing  could  have  overcome  him,  but  in  order  to  demonstrate that he knew the thoughts of the princes of darkness beforehand, and to show that he feared nothing, for this reason he fought”. To him I have said: “He who was able to see the thoughts of the princes of darkness and to fear no one, why did he not see the mourning that threatened him, the mourning for the misfortune of his portion that he suffers today?

Lit., “these things” (ista). The author distinguishes between haec in the previous sentence, and ista here. An alternative translation could be “the latter” and “the former” respectively. For that reason, haec is translated here as “this thought” (i.e., the author’s conclusion regarding the cited Manichaean passage), and ista as “this myth” (i.e., the Manichaean passage or the author’s paraphrase of it). 17 Lit., “nature of evil.” 16

362

10

5

5

10

edition and translation

suam numquam recipiet integram, quia remanet inde aliquid, sicut ipse dicit, quod purgari non poterit et in globo tenebrarum in aeternum damnabitur”. Magna praescientia, uel potius inscientia et misera infirmitas, hoc est totum quod neminem timebat. Certe si se tueri aliquo modo non poterat, rogaret ut sibi parceretur, ne ad tantum dedecus integritas illa et decus omnium ornamentorum perduceretur. 20. Item dictum est a quodam: “nihil ei poterat facere gens tenebrarum, sed ipse noluit pati rem malam circa fines suos et misit qui eam debellaret”. Cui ego dixi: “si ita est ut dicis, ipse potius inuenitur malus qui rem uicinam nihil ei nocentem delere uoluit. Et sicut malus in illam, sic crudelis in suam aut ignarus futurae calamitatis eius. Cum enim putat rem bonam se posse perficere, ut in regno mali, quod ei non nocebat, regionem suam extenderet, prius non praeuidit infelicitatem quae memoratam partem eius quotidie premit; deinde quod eam totam numquam in pristinam libertatem recipere poterit”. 21. Sed cum huic obiectioni responderi minime possit, solitam imperitiam opponunt: “quid facturi erant Iudaei Christo, si nollet ab eis pati?” O utinam uidere possint quod facile uiderent, nisi per nebulas contentionis excaecarentur: quid sit imminentis mali premi necessitate, quam deum suum passum asseuerant, et quid sit misericordiae benignissimum officium, quod sapientia et uirtus dei dominus Iesus Christus uoluntate et ineffabili potestate per hominem quem suscepit ex uirgine, generi humano exhibere dignatus est, ut hominibus per hominem patientiae demonstraret exemplum! Oportebat enim – et hoc iustum erat – ut homines per patientiam humilitatis uincerent difficultatem infirmitatis carnis suae, quia in eam per elationem superbiae ceciderant, sicut in Adam primo homine nostra 21, 6 cf. I Cor. 1, 24   19,  6 numquam] quam P1 8 misera] miseria P2 Gra.c. 9 timebat] -bant P3a.c. 1 4 1 10 et] ut P se tueri] s&ueri P , se -e P Mü pati] parti Gra.c. rem] esse Bg1 20, 1 ei] sup. l. Gr 2 noluit] nolui P1 1 1 3 est] sup. l. Gr ipse] -a P inuenitur malus] inu. Bo So 3 / 2 debellaret] -arent P rem] recte Bg1 4 uoluit] uolui P1 5 futurae] in sua futumalus] manus P1 putat] -aret Bxa.c. Bo So 6 regno] -um Ag3 P1 7 extenderet] hostendera P1 quae] quam P1 8 premit] -at Maur eam] ea P1, et P4 totam] notam ret P1 pristinam] -um P1 P3a.c., totum P1 minime] in me P1 possit] -im P1, -ent Gr 21, 1 responderi] -ere Gr P4 3 possint] -ent Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So 2 Christo] de christo Bx ab eis] habeis Ag1a.c. quod] quid Ag1a.c. Ag2a.c. P3 P4 Mü F 4 excaecarentur] execrarenGr Fp.c. Maur benignissimum] -us P4 6 quod] quam tur Mü 5 asseuerant] adseuerat Fa.c. 7 hominem] homnem Ag1 suscepit] -i P1 generi Maur uoluntate] -i P2 8 hominem – exemplum] homini patientiam demonstrare exemhumano] -is -i P1 9 homines] -is P3a.c. 10 difficultatem] in difficultatem P1 infirmitatis] plo P1 quia] qui P1 11 elationem] heleccionem P1, elationis P4 ceci-em P1 P4 Mü F ⁠homine  nostra]  -i  -o  P1 derant] -erunt Fa.c.

edition and translation

363

He shall never recover that portion of him entirely, because, as Mani himself says, some of it remains that cannot be cleansed, and which will be condemned forever to the clod of darkness”. A great foreknowledge, or rather, a lack of knowledge and a miserable weakness, that is the whole reason why he feared no one. Surely, if he could not protect himself one way or another, he would have asked to be spared, so that he, integrity itself and gracefulness in all ornaments, would not be dragged down to such a disgrace. 20. Likewise, it has been said by someone, “The race of darkness could not have done anything to him, but he himself did not want to tolerate an evil presence around his borders, and he sent someone to fight the race”. To him I said: “If what you say is true, then he is rather be found evil who wanted to destroy a neighbouring presence that in no way harmed him. And just as he is evil to that neighbouring presence, he is cruel towards his own cause, or ignorant of the calamity that awaited him. For while he may think he could perform a good deed, so that he might extend his region in the kingdom of evil, which did not harm him, he first did not foresee the misfortune that every day weighs down his aforementioned portion. Afterwards, he did not foresee that he could never take that portion entirely back to its former freedom”. 21. But since it is scarcely possible to respond to this objection, they, in their usual inexperience, shout in opposition, “What would the Jews have done to Christ, if he had refused to suffer at their hands?” Oh! If only they were able to see what they could easily see, were they not blinded by the thick clouds of strife, namely, the difference between being pressed by the necessity of a threatening evil, which they declare their god to have suffered, and the most benign work of mercy. The wisdom and power of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, by his own will and his ineffable strength, through the man he assumed from a virgin, deigned to exhibit this work of mercy to the human race, so that through a man he might show to people an example of patience. For it was fitting – and this was righteous – that people through the patience of humility might overcome the difficulty posed by the weakness of the flesh, because they have fallen into this difficulty through the self-exaltation of pride, which, as our Scripture demonstrates,

364

15

20

5

10

edition and translation

Scriptura indicat. Numquid et uos potestis dicere quia erant aliqui homines quos deus uolebat docere patientiam – propterea uoluit a gente tenebrarum tanta mala pati, quemadmodum dominus a Iudaeis? Aut numquid potestis dicere quia suscepit aliquam naturam passibilem deus, in qua pateretur a gente tenebrarum quidquid ei facere potuit, ut tamen ipse in sua substantia nulla ex parte mutaretur, sicut uerbum dei, qui est filius dei, etiam ipse sicut pater incommutabilis suscepit hominem mortalem, ut integra et inuiolata deitate in carne mortali doceret mortales per patientiam mortem uincere et ipsius infirmae carnis futuram in melius commutationem resurrectione monstraret? 22. Cum ergo esset per se ipsum inuisibilis, uisibilis in homine apparuit, quem de femina suscipere dignatus est, ut in Euangelio legimus. Dicit et apostolus: factum de muliere. Et isti dicunt: “quare non ait ex uirgine?”, non intelligentes quod consuete dictum sit secundum proprietatem linguae Scripturarum, sicut de Eua dictum est: formauit eam in mulierem, antequam uel ostenderetur uiro. Quamuis Maria non incongrue propter partum dicitur mulier, uirgo uero, quod uirilem nescierit conuentionem neque pariendo uirginitas eius corrupta sit. Quod autem angelus et Elisabeth dixerunt Mariae: benedicta tu inter mulieres, nulla quaestio est quia reuera benedicta est uirgo inter mulieres. Sed ne dicatis: “sicut angeli apparuerunt, sic haberet corpus, ne de femina nasceretur”. Quid si uobis dicatur: “ubi legistis Christum uenisse?” Nonne dicturi estis: “in Euangelio”? Respondetur ergo uobis ibi esse scriptum Christum natum de uirgine, sed solita foeditate dicetis Scripturam ipsam falsam esse. Nec uidetis

22, 2 Euangelio] cf. Luc. 2 3 Gal. 4, 4 10 / 11 ⁠sicut  –  apparuerunt]  cf.  Luc.  1,  26-38     

5 Gen. 2, 22

9 Luc. 1, 42

21, 12 quia] qui P1 13 uolebat] nolebat Ag2 docere] om. Bo patientiam] -a 2 3 4 14 a] ad Ag1a.c. P1 15 dicere] sup. l. Ag3 suscepit] -i P1 deus] Ag P P a] ad P1 16 potuit] -erit P1 ipse] -a Bg1 17 nulla] sup. l. P1 om. P1 est] om. Ag1 Mü F 18 integra] integra ipsae P1 20 uincere] qui] quem Ag1 Mü ipsius] ipse Bg1 futuram] -a P1 resurrectione] -em Ag1a.c. Ag2, re-eret P1 P4p.c. surreccionemque P4(cionemque add. in marg.) proprietatem linguae] proprie talem linguae 22, 3 Et] om. Bo So 4 sit] est Bg1 usum F, proprietalem linguae usum Zycha 5 ⁠eam  –  mulierem]  in  mulierem  eam  Ag2 uiro] uirgo Bo So 6 / 7 propter – mulier] dicitur mulier prop6 uel] sup. l. P1 7 partum] pastum P4a.c. dicitur] dicit Bg1 quod] quia Bo So ter partum Ag2 1 1 10 est] es P 11 haberet] -ere Bxa.c. P1, -et δ Zycha 9 inter mulieres] in -ibus P 12 dicatur] -atis Bxa.c. uenisse] in carne uenisse Bo So Quid] quod Ag1a.c., om. P1 dicturi] dicituri Ag1a.c. Ag2 13 ibi] ubi P4 Maur Zycha Nonne] non me Ag1a.c. Mü F ⁠esse  scriptum]  scriptum  est  Maur 14 ⁠foeditate  –  Scripturam]  feritate  diipsam] istam Bg1a.c. uidetis] cui detis Ag1a.c. cente scriptura P1

edition and translation

365

happened in Adam, the first man. Now then, can you, too, say that there were some18 people whom God wanted to teach patience, and for that reason he wanted to suffer those evils at the hands of the race of darkness, just like the Lord at the hands of the Jews? Or can you say that God took up a particular passible nature, in which he underwent at the hands of the race of darkness whatever it could do to him, so that not a single portion of his substance would be subject to change, as is the case for the Word of God, who is the Son of God? Or can you say that he, too, just like the unchangeable Father, took up a mortal man, so that – while his divinity remained untouched and unscathed – he could in mortal flesh teach to mortals to overcome death through patience, and show by means of his resurrection the change for the better that will happen even to the weak flesh? 22. Although the Son was in himself invisible, he appeared visibly, as a man, whom he deigned to take up from a woman, as we read in the Gospel. The Apostle confirms, Born of a woman. In contrast, the Manichaeans declare, “Why does he not say of a virgin?”, I presume because they do not understand that in the particularity of scriptural language such speech is common, as it was said of Eve, He formed it19 into a woman, before she was even shown to her husband. Although Mary was not unjustly called woman, on account of her childbirth, she certainly remained a virgin, because she never had intercourse with a man, and neither was her virginity corrupted in giving birth. With regard to what the angel 20 and Elisabeth said to Mary, Blessed are you among women, there can be no question that she is truly blessed as a virgin among women. But do not say, “He had a body in the same way that the angels appeared, so that he was not born of a woman”. What if you were asked, “Where do you read that Christ has come?” Would you not say, “In the Gospel”? Then you will receive the answer that there it is written that Christ was born from a virgin, but in your usual foulness you declare that this passage of Scripture is spurious.

Lat. aliqui. With this term, the author could allude to the Manichaean distinction between the Elect and the Hearers; only the first group could achieve personal salvation. 19 I.e., the rib of Adam. 20 Gabriel. 18

366

edition and translation

15 aliquem similem uobis caecum hoc posse facere, ut ea quae uos dixeritis

uera, ille falsa esse dicat, et quae dicitis falsa, illa uera esse dicat. Ac sic aperiatis ianuas omni hominum errori uel sceleri, ut unusquisque prout uoluerit uel delectatus fuerit ipsas diuinas Scripturas accipiat, respuat uero quae non intelligens et offensus putauerit mala, et non iam inueniatur haec 20 regula erroris uestri unde tales corrigantur. 23. Accipite integre canonicas Scripturas, si integri esse desideratis. Si enim intelligeretis uel crederetis certe quod apostolus dixit: per feminam nostrum genus fuisse deceptum – ait enim: timeo ne sicut serpens Euam seduxit astutia sua, sic et uestrae mentes corrumpantur – possitis intelligere 5 per feminam nostrum genus oportuisse liberari, ut quoniam per feminam mors facta est, per feminam uita recuperaretur atque ita demonstraretur non ipsam creaturam femineam esse culpandam, cuius est deus conditor, sed uoluntatem qua Eua peccauit. Sed timent maiestatis illam incoinquinabilem et ineffabilem potentiam in uirginis utero credere fuisse, ne sanguine 10 eius pollueretur, cum et in apostolis et in multis dignis feminis et habitauerit et nunc habitet, qui utique corpora habent, sanguinem habent. Si enim in Maria coinquinari potuit, et in omnibus potuit; si autem non potuit in illis, utique nec in Maria potuit, in cuius uisceribus susceptionem corporis operata est dei sapientia. 24. Certe ipsum Manichaeum de patre atque matre natum fuisse non negabunt, cuius animam secundum suum errorem deum esse omnipotentem 23, 3 / 4 II Cor. 11, 3

11 habitet] cf. Io 1, 14

22, 15 aliquem] -am Ag1a.c. P4 similem] similem esse Bg1a.c. caecum] ad caecum 4 1 hoc] aut P 16 uera1] -e P2a.c., uere uel uera Bx(uel -a sup. l.) ille] P , cetum P quae] qui P1a.c., quit P1p.c. illa] -e Ag2 Ag3 Gr Fp.c. Maur Zycha -a Bg1 Bo So, -ae P1 sic] si Ag2 Bg1 P1 17 ianuas] om. β     omni] homuera esse] uera Gra.c., inu. Grp.c. ut] sup. l. Gr 18 uel] et P1 ipsas] -a Ag1 ni P1, omnium Bg1 δ     errori] -is P1 2p.c. iam] om. Mü F Zycha haec] hac Ag3 19 intelligens] intellexerit P (xerit m² sup. l.) 20 erroris] -es P4 Mü Fa.c. Zycha unde tales] und&ales P2 Gr Maur, mala ex P1 dixit] dicit P1 3 nostrum genus] inu. Bo So Maur 23, 2 apostolus] -os Ag1a.c. 4 possitis] -etis Ag1p.c. Ag3 Bg1 Bx deceptum] deiectum So timeo] timotheo Ag2 5 feminam1] -a P4 liberari] -are P1 6 mors – feminam] Bo So Gr Fp.c. Maur demonstraretur] monstraretur Ag1a.c. 7 esse] ense P1 est] sup. l. Gr om. Bg1 timent] tament Boa.c. 9 ineffabilem] inaffabilem Gra.c. 8 qua] quam Ag1a.c. Ag2 P4 sanguine] de sanguine P1 uirginis] uirgineo δ Zycha credere] sup. l. Ag3 et1 – apostolis] sup. l. Bg1 et3] om. Ag3 habitauerit] 10 pollueretur] -uetur P1 11 habitet] inhabitet Ag3 qui] quae Ag3, quae uel qui Bx(uel qui inhabitauerit P1 12 omnibus] sup. l.) sanguinem habent] om. P1, -e -ent P4, et -em -ent Maur Zycha 4 autem] enim Bo So 13 in2] ut Bo -i P 2 negabunt] -bant Bg1 ani24, 1 matre] de matre Ag1 Ag2 Ag3 P3p.c. Maur Zycha 2 3a.c. 1 4 mam] -a Ag P P P Mü F 1

edition and translation

367

And you do not see that someone blind like you could also do this: so that whatever you say is true he says is false, and whatever you say is false he says is true. And in this way you could open the doors to every human error or misdeed. For anyone could then accept those passages of divine Scripture which he preferred or in which he took delight. Likewise, he could reject those passages which, because he did not understand and took offense at them, he deemed evil. Ultimately, in accordance with your error, a normative rule by which such people could be corrected, cannot be found. 23. Wholly accept the canonical Scriptures, if you desire to be whole. For, if you understand or firmly believe what the Apostle says, that through a woman our race was deceived – for he says, I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your minds will be corrupted – then you could understand that it was proper for our race to be freed through a woman, so that, since death came about through a woman, life might be restored through a woman. Here you could find proof that not the female nature, 21 whose creator is God, is to be blamed, but rather the will by which Eve sinned. Yet they are afraid to believe that the unpollutable and ineffable power of his majesty existed in a virgin’s womb, lest he be polluted through her blood, even though he indwelt22 and now indwells both the apostles and many worthy women – and he still inspires them – who certainly all have bodies and blood. For if he could have been polluted in Mary, he could have been polluted in everyone. If, however, he could not have been polluted in the everyone, then he certainly could not have been polluted in Mary, in whose organs the wisdom of God took up a body. 24. Certainly they will not deny that Mani himself was born of a father and a mother. Similarly they will not deny that, according to their error, his

21 Lit. “the female creature itself ”. Here creatura seems not to refer to the woman Eve in particular, but to Eve’s created condition as a woman. 22 The wording resembles Jn 1,14 (“and lived among us”). The author emphasises the real presence of wisdom in the apostles and in the worthy women of the New Testament, but also in contemporary inspired Christians. This wisdom is personified as the Wisdom, namely, Christ. The author then draws a parallel between inspired Christians and Mary. Just as the inspiration of these Christians does not alter the divine substance of Christ, so too the virgin birth of Christ did not harm his divinity.

368

5

10

15

20

edition and translation

similiter non negabunt, qui se mira superbia assumptum a gemino suo, hoc est, a spiritu sancto esse gloriatur. Et utique si geminus est spiritus sancti, et ipse spiritus sanctus est et ipse deus omnipotens ut sanctus spiritus. Qui tamen Manichaeus carnem habuit, in qua si coinquinatus est spiritus sanctus aut eius anima gemina spiritus sancti, coinquinabilem deum colunt. Si uero nusquam deus coinquinatur, cum etiam lux corporum caelestium usque ad terras perueniat et non coinquinetur, cum manifestum sit solem istum cui genu flectunt, in omnibus stercoribus et putoribus radios suos expandere et eos nusquam coinquinari, desinant blasphemare et rogent deum ut ab errore liberentur. Incoinquinabilis enim substantia non ideo non coinquinatur, quia nihil attingit, sed quia permanet in sua munditia, qualecumque sit quidquid attigerit. Sicut corpus inuulnerabile aut impenetrabile: numquid illud dicimus quod non percutitur ferro, sed potius quod etiam cum percutitur non penetratur? Et ideo magis probatur filius dei non posse de sanguine feminae coinquinari, quia per feminam natus est, quamquam si non per feminam nasceretur et membra illa deuitasset, uideretur indicasse posse se inde pollui, et minus a nobis fidenter incoinquinabilis diceretur. Consecrauit autem uirginitatem, quia de uirgine nasci uoluit. Et sola illi mater in terris eligenda erat ad suscipiendum hominem, qui iam patrem habebat in caelis. 25. Sed dicunt: “quare ergo negauit matrem suam, quando ei dixit: quid mihi et tibi, mulier? et quando, cum ei nuntiata esset quod eum uellet uidere, respondit: quae est mater mea aut qui sunt fratres mei? et eos potius in hunc affectum computauit qui facerent uoluntatem patris eius?” Quia 25, 1 / 2 Io. 2, 4

3 Matth. 12, 48

24, 3 negabunt] -bant Bg1 se] sibi Bg1, om. Gra.c. mira] -e P4 assumptum] 1 gemino] genio Maur 4 a] om. Zycha geminus] minus Gra.c., geassumto P 5 spiritus sanctus] inu. Maur sanctus spiritus] inu. Ag2 minis Fa.c., genius Maur 3 1 1a.c. 6 carnem] carmen Ag 7 gemina] genia Maur Ag Bg Bx Bo So F Maur Zycha 9 coinquinetur] -atur Ag3 10 putoribus] pudoribus Mü radios] deum] -o Ag2 11 eos] eis Maur desinant] -unt P4 blasphemare] -ari P1 roradio P1a.c. 13 non] om. Bxa.c. So coinquinatur] inquo inquinatur P4 gent] -ens Ag1a.c. aut impenetrabile] sup. l. P3 15 dicimus] decimus Ag1a.c. 14 inuulnerabile] -em P1 percutitur] pereutimur P1 filius] -um Fp.c. 17 coinquinari] 16 cum] om. P1 feminam] remina P4 18 quamquam] quando quidem Ag3, quia non coinquinari P1 deuitasset] -asse P1 19 indicasse] enim iudicasse Maur quam P3a.c., quam Maur incoinquinabilis] inquoinquinabilis Ag1a.c. P3, inquoinquiposse se] se Ag3, possesse P4 21 illi] -a P1 Gra.c. P4 eligenda] erigenda P1 suscipiendum] -am P1a.c. nabiles P1 patrem] pate Gra.c. habebat] abebant P1 22 qui] quia P1 ⁠ei  –  esset]  enunciasset  P3, ei -um esset Fp.c. Maur Zycha. 25, 2 tibi] tibi est P3 Bo So Vide adnotationes. 2 / 3 uellet uidere] inu. Bo So 3 et] ac Maur Zycha 4 faceQuia] quo So rent] -eret P1

edition and translation

369

soul was the almighty God. In an astonishing display of pride, he boasted that he was adopted by his twin (that is, by the Holy Spirit). And surely, if he is the twin of the Holy Spirit, then he himself is the Holy Spirit and, as the Holy Spirit, he is almighty God himself. And yet this Mani possessed flesh. If in that flesh the Holy Spirit, or his soul, the twin of the Holy Spirit, was polluted, then they worship a god susceptible to pollution. If, however, God can in no way be polluted – since even the light of celestial bodies can reach the earth and not be polluted, for it is clear that the sun, to which they bend the knee, spreads its rays among all manure and stench, and these rays are never polluted – then let them stop blaspheming, and let them ask God to be freed from their error. Indeed, an unpollutable substance is not immune to pollution because it has no contact with anything, but because it remains in its purity, no matter what it comes into contact with. The same is the case for a body that is impervious to wounds or impenetrable: surely we do not call by that name something which is not struck by the sword, but rather something which, even when struck, is not penetrated? In this way, too, it is proven more aptly that the Son of God cannot be polluted through the blood of a woman, since he was born from a woman. If, on the other hand, he had not been born from a woman, and if he had avoided her members, he would have seemed to indicate that he could suffer pollution through these members, and then we would have called him unpollutable with less fidelity. However, he sanctified virginity because he wanted to be born from a virgin. And for the purpose of taking on a man, he only had to choose a mother on earth because he already had a father in the heavens. 25. Yet they say, “Why then did he refuse his mother, when he told her, What is it to you and me, woman? And when, at the time he received the report that she wanted to see him, why did he respond, Who is my mother and who are my brothers? And why did he rather count in this state of intimacy those people who do his Father’s will?” Because through his own

370

edition and translation

5 exemplo suo iam docebat negandos esse terrenos parentes propter deum.

Opera enim diuina facienti terrenus affectus obstrepere non debebat. Nam si propterea non habebat matrem, quia negauit matrem, nec Petrus et ceteri apostoli habebant patres, quia monuit eos dicens: et patrem ne uocaueritis uobis super terram; unus enim est pater uester, qui in caelis est. Quod ergo 10 eos monuit de patre terreno, hoc de matre prior fecit. Hoc ergo dicimus: sapientiam dei suscipiendo hominem non esse coinquinatam, sed misericorditer ad hominum salutem hominem suscepisse, ut fieret sicut apostolus dicit: mediator dei et hominum homo Iesus Christus. Non enim dubitanti discipulo suo mentiri potuit qui dixit: ego sum ueritas, quando ei cicatrices 15 uulnerum suorum, ut etiam manu tangeret, praebuit. Quomodo enim huic in aliquo securi fidem haberemus, si discipulo suo sic mentitus est? Absit talis blasphemia nec eos ipsos in sempiternum reos teneat qui hoc audent asserere aut credere, sed euigilent aliquando et intelligant quam nefaria peruersitate ista credantur. 26. Nos autem Christum dominum uerum hominem suscepisse credimus et in ipso uisibiliter inuisibilem hominibus apparuisse, in ipso inter homines conuersatum fuisse, in ipso ab hominibus humana pertulisse, in ipso homines docuisse a quibus esset recedendum, quid esset perferendum, 5 quo esset tendendum. Totum autem hoc nulla fecit necessitate. Vnde ipse dicit: propter hoc me pater diligit, quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam illam. Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a me ipso. Potestatem habeo ponendi eam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. Non 25, 8 / 9 Matth.  23,  9      13 I Tim. 2, 5 20, 27-28 14 Io. 14, 6 26, 6 / 8 Io. 10, 17-18

13 / 15 ⁠dubitanti  –  praebuit]  cf.  Io.

25, 5 negandos] negandos se Ag1a.c., negando se Ag2 P3a.c., negando suo P1, negando P4 affectus] effectus P4 obterrenos parentes] inu. Bo So 6 facienti] faciendi P1 a.c. a.c. 9 uobis] nobis F ⁠enim  est]  inu. Ag3 Bg1 Bo So Gr P4 F Maur strepere] -ebat F ergo] sup. l. Gr 11 sapientiam] -a Ag2 P1 P4 Mü Zycha 10 eos] sup. l. Ag3 2 4 12 ad] ob Maur hominum] -em Gra.c. P4a.c. 13 Iesus coinquinatam] -a Ag P dubitanti] -antur uel -antus P1 Christus] inu. P3 Bg1 Bx Bo So P4 Mü F Maur Zycha 13 / 14 dubitanti – suo] discipulo suo dubitanti Bo So 14 quando ei] quando Ag3 P4 huic] om. P4 16 in – securi] Maur Zycha, quando et β      15 manu] -um P4 est] esset Maur Zycha 17 blasphemia] -e P1 om. Gr discipulo suo] -os -os P1 18 euigilent] -ant Ag2a.c. inipsos] om. Bo So reos] sup. l. F teneat] -et P1 18 / 19 nefaria peruersitate] -am -em P1 19 credantur] -atur P1a.c. telligant] -ent P1 4 homines] per -es Gr rece26, 1 Christum] om. Maur credimus] -itur P1 esset2] esse Ag3 5 quo] quod Ag1a.c. P1 P4 tendendum] dendum] credendum P4 nulla] -o P4 6 dicit] dixit Gr 7 sumam] summam Bo P1 P4 Mü tenendum Ag2 eam2] ea P4 8 ⁠eam  –   tollit eam] eam -et P2a.c., eam -it P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So, -et ea P4 2 4in marg. sumendi] summendi P1 Mü eam2] ea P4 habeo ] anima mea et potestatem P

edition and translation

371

example he had already taught that earthly parents are to be denied in favour of God. After all, an earthly fondness must not stand in the way of someone doing divine works. For if he did not have a mother because he refused his mother, then neither did Peter nor the other apostles have a father, because he admonished them saying, And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Therefore what he admonished them to do with regard to the earthly father, he first did with regard to his mother. Therefore, we say the following, that the wisdom of God was not polluted by assuming a man, but mercifully assumed a man for the salvation of humanity, so that there might be, just as the Apostle says, a Mediator of God and humankind, the man Jesus Christ. For he who said I am the truth could not have lied to his doubting disciple, when he held forth the scars of his wounds, so that the doubting disciple could also touch them with his hand. How could we ever be secure in our faith in him, no matter the subject, if he had lied to his disciple in such a way? Perish such a blasphemous thought, and may such blasphemy not be the cause for them who dare to assert it or believe in it, to be guilty for eternity! But rather, let them finally wake up and understand how much wicked perversity is needed to believe such things. 26. We, however, believe Christ the Lord took up a true man and that he, the invisible, in him visibly appeared to humans, in him he dwelt among humans, in him he endured human ills at the hands of humans, in him he taught humans what one ought to avoid, what one ought to endure, what one ought to strive for. He did not do all of this, however, because of some necessity. Whence he says, For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my soul in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down and I have power to

372

edition and translation

ergo mali necessitate amisit eam: uoluit enim, ut illa quae in passione eius

10 facta sunt omnia fierent ad humanam naturam docendam, non ad suam

15

20

25

5

tuendam. Sicut enim nos qui ex anima et corpore constamus, cum sumus inuisibiles secundum animam, uisibiles autem secundum corpus, omnia quae uisibiliter siue honoris et beneficiorum accipimus, siue contumeliae uel iniuriae patimur, ad animam, quae inuisibilis est, tamquam ad principem necesse est ut referamus, quia ipsa corpori principatur – nam et cum simus secundum animam immortales, cum mortui corpore fuerimus, nos mortui dicimur – ita et dominus secundum carnem et formam serui, quam suscipere dignatus est, et contumelias passus et uincula et flagella et mortuus esse manifestatur, ut omnia ueridice ueritas et nihil falso fecisse credatur, quia potestate ac uoluntate uerbum caro factum est et natus et passus et mortuus et resurrexit nulla sua necessitate, sed uoluntate et potestate, cuius nulla pars aliquando depraedata, nulla nunc usque captiua est, non solum diuinae, sed nec ipsius mortalis quam suscepit, sed nec umquam capi poterit nisi ab his qui ei per fidem uoluerint mundo corde coniungi. Non sicut deus Manichaei, qui necessitatis malo pressus hodie hic ex parte, quod negare non possunt, in miseriis et calamitatibus uolutatur. 27. Intelligite sane, si potestis, etiam inter ipsos homines quantum distet inter necessitatem et uoluntatem. Si quis uerbi gratia merito peccati sui in carcerem iubente iustitia mittatur, alius adsit uir sanctus, qui eumdem carcerem ingrediatur propter illius consolationem aut liberationem, numquid ambo in carcere ex una causa constituti sunt? Ille missus est, ille ingressus; ille poenam patitur, ille misericordiam facit; ille ingressus est cum uoluit, egressus est quando uoluit; ille, nisi interueniente indulgentia, nullo iure 26, 17 formam serui] cf. Phil. 2, 7

20 uerbum – est] cf. Io. 1, 14

26, 9 necessitate] -em P4 ut] ab illo ut P1 passione] -em P1 10 huma11 nos] uos Bo corpore] -orae P1 sumus] simus Ag1p.c. Ag3 Bg1 nam] -em P1 13 quae] qua et P1 contumeliae] Bx Bo So Maur 12 inuisibiles] uisibiles P1a.c. 13 / 14 contumeliae – iniuriae] iniuriae uel contumeliae Bo So 14 iniu-a P1 patimur] -imus P4 15 quia] que P1 ipsa] -i γ      et] sup. l. Ag3, riae] -a P2 cum] sup. l. P3 16 animam] -a Mü immortales] -is P1, mortales Mü ea P1 corpore] -i Maur 16 / 17 nos mortui] inu. Bo So, nos Gr 17 dicimur] -amur Ag1a.c. manifestatur] -etur P1 ut] et P1 18 dignatus est] om. Gr 19 esse] est P4 falso] -a P4 20 potestate – uoluntate] ueridice] ueredice Ag1a.c. Fa.c., ueredicet P1 ac] a Bo, hac P1 et2] est P1 21 mortuus] mortuus est Ag3(est add. inu. Ag3 23 mortalis] -is naturae Ag3 24 his] eis sup. l.) 22 captiua est] captiuitate P1 hic] om. P1a.c. P4 ⁠ex  parte]  expressus  P1 Maur Zycha 25 necessitatis] -es P4a.c. 26 uolutatur] -untatur Ag1a.c., uoluptatur Ag2, uoluatur P2 distet] -at P4 2 merito] merit ob P1 pecca27, 1 Intelligite] intelligi P3a.c. in] sup. l. F 3 carcerem1] -e Ag3a.c. alius] aliun P2a.c. 4 illius] ti] -is Gra.c. 5 carcere] -em F illus P4

edition and translation

373

take it up again. Well then, he did not lose his soul, forced by the necessity of evil; for he wanted everything that was done in his passion to serve the instruction of human nature, not the preservation of his own nature. Just as we who consist of soul and body ought to attribute, since we are invisible with regard to the soul yet visible with regard to the body every visible honour and benefit that we receive, or every insult or injustice that we suffer, to the soul, which is invisible, as if to the ruling principle, because the soul rules over the body – for although we are immortal with regard to the soul, when we undergo bodily death, we are said to “have died” – so too the Lord, according to the flesh and the form of the servant, which he deigned to assume, openly suffered insults and fetters and flagellation, and openly died. This was so that we would believe the Truth accomplished everything truthfully, and did nothing falsely, because through his power and will, the Word became flesh, was born, suffered, died, and rose again, not by any necessity, but through his own will and power. No portion of him was ever robbed; no portion is captive up till now – no portion not only of his divine nature, but not even of the mortal nature which he assumed; nor could he ever be laid hold of, except by those who through faith want to be united to him with a pure heart. Not like Mani’s god, who is partly entangled here and now in misery and calamity, forced by the evil of necessity. This they cannot deny. 27. Understand then, if you can, how great a distance there is between necessity and will, even among humans. If, to give an example, someone were sent to prison as a punishment for his sin (should justice so demand), and someone else, a saintly man, is there, who enters the same prison for the consolation or liberation of the first, would you say both of them are located in the prison for the same reason? The first one is sent, the other entered; the first one undergoes punishment, the other acts out of compassion. The latter entered when he decided to and left at the instant he decided to; the first one, if no pardon intervenes, can be freed by no law.

374

edition and translation

poterit liberari. Et hoc homines facere possunt et praestant libere beneficium, cum aliquando sibi nihil cupiant praestari. Cogitate ergo iam si 10 deus potest pati aliquam necessitatem, cum possint homines bene facere uoluntate, nulla mercede conducti, nulla necessitate compulsi. Nullam ergo necessitatem patitur deus neque necessitate facit quae facit, sed summa et ineffabili uoluntate ac potestate. 28. Et tamen uos maxime secundum errorem uestrum non debuistis opponere istam contradictionem qua dicitis: “quid facturi erant Iudaei Christo, si nollet ab eis pati?”, quia secundum eiusdem Manichaei blasphemias Christus carnem non habuit nec aliquid a Iudaeis est passus. Sic enim 5 in Epistula fundamenti dicit: “inimicus quippe, qui eumdem saluatorem iustorum patrem crucifixisse se sperauit, ipse est crucifixus, quo tempore aliud actum est atque aliud ostensum”. Princeps itaque tenebrarum affixus est cruci idemque spineam coronam portauit cum suis sociis et uestem coccineam habuit, acetum etiam et fel bibit, quod quidam dominum potasse 10 arbitrati sunt, atque omnia quae hic sustinere uisus est, tenebrarum ducibus irrogata sunt, qui clauis etiam et lancea uulnerati sunt. 29. Vtquid ergo opponitis dicentes: “quid facturi erant Iudaei Christo, si nollet ab eis pati?”, cum de passione ipsius ita sentiatis, ut non ipsum deum passum aliquid in corpore suo, sed principem tenebrarum illa omnia passum putetis? Contra fidem autem nostram quomodo ista opponatis? 30. Nos enim credimus, ut in Euangelio scriptum est, quia Christus uoluit pati et quando uoluit passus est. Non enim quando uoluerunt, Iudaei pas28, 8 spineam – portauit] cf. Matth. 27, 29; Io. 19, 5     8 / 9 uestem – habuit] cf. Matth. 27,  28;  Io.  19,  5      9 ⁠acetum  –  bibit]  cf.  Matth.  27,  34      28, 5 / 7 ⁠inimicus  –  ostensum]  Ep.  fund.  7      27, 8 liberari] liberarie P1 ⁠facere  possunt]  faciunt  P3a.c., facere -int P2 9 cupiant] 1 iam] om. Bo So si] om. P1 10 potest pati] potest iam pati Bo So, -iunt Bg cum possint] compos sint Ag1, cum -unt Ag3 inu. Gr necessitatem] -e P4 1 1 Nullam] -a P4 12 sed] sup. l. Gr 13 ac] hac P1 11 uoluntate] om. Bg , -em P 2 opponere] hoc ponere P4 istam] -e P2(ut uid.) 28, 1 uestrum] -am P1 3 quia] qui Bg1 eiusistam contradictionem] inu. Bo So erant] sunt Bg1a.c. 4 est passus] inu. P3 P1 Maur Zycha, esse -us P4 6 crucifixisse dem] eundem P2 ipse – crucifixus] inu. Bo So se] crucifigi P2, crucifixum Bg1 Bx Bo So, crucifixisse Gr atque aliud] atque P3a.c.(aliud add. sup. l. m²), 7 actum] hauctum P1, auctum Gra.c. 8 idemque] id est quae P4 suis sociis] inu. Bg1 aliut atque aliut P1(atque sup. l.) 1 4 9 quidam] -em Gr 11 irrogata] interrogata Bg , inrogate P 2 ab – pati] pati ab eis Bo So cum] unde P4   29,  1 opponitis] hoc ponitis P4 a.c. p.c. 1 ipsius] eius Bo So 3 sed] at Bg Bx, aut Bo So illa] Mü F , unde quia F 4 nostram] uestram P1 opponatis] -itis Ag1p.c. Ag3 Maur illic P4 2 uoluerunt] -uerant Bg1 30, 1 Nos] non Ag2

edition and translation

375

People are able to do this and freely supply a benefit, without ever desiring that anything be supplied to them. Consider, then, whether God can suffer any form of necessity, since people are able to do good voluntarily, without being motivated by any reward, or compelled by necessity. Thus, God suffered no necessity, nor did he achieve what he did by necessity, but rather by his exalted and ineffable will and power. 28. And yet, especially you – if you take your own erroneous views into consideration – should not have attempted to raise that counterargument in which you say, “What would the Jews have done to Christ, if he had refused to suffer at their hands?” After all, according to the blasphemy of this same Mani, Christ did not have flesh, nor did he suffer anything at the hands of the Jews. Indeed, Mani says the following in his Fundamental epistle, “The enemy, as you can see, who hoped that he had crucified the same savior, the father of the righteous, was himself crucified. At that time one deed was accomplished, while another appeared to happen”. 23 So the prince of darkness was nailed to the cross, and he bore the crown of thorns with his allies and had the scarlet robe, drank vinegar and gall – which some supposed the Lord had drunk. Everything which he seemed to suffer here was inflicted on the chiefs of darkness, who were also the ones wounded by the nails and the lance. 29.  To  what  purpose  then  do  you  object,  saying,  “What  would  the  Jews  have done to Christ, if he had refused to suffer at their hands?” After all, concerning his passion, you suppose that God himself did not suffer anything in his body; instead you think the prince of darkness suffered all these things? In what sense do you raise this objection against our faith? 30. For we believe, as is written in the Gospel, that Christ willed to suffer and suffered when he willed. Surely it was not the Jews who wrought

23 See M. STEIN, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 34-35. Greek and Latin Sources, pp. 10-11. According to this fragment, the Manichaeans adhered to some form of Docetism. They distinguished between the body in which Jesus appeared on earth and the divine substance, which the Manichaeans refer to as Christ. The body in which Jesus appeared pertains to the prince of darkness. According to Mani, people believed they saw the suffering of Christ on the cross (aliud ostensum). In reality, only the body (the prince of darkness) suffered (aliud actum). After this citation, the author of Adu. Man. summarizes, in an ironic or cynical tone, some of the consequences of Manichaean Docetism for the Passion.

376

5

5

5

10

edition and translation

sionem ipsam fecerunt. Volebant quidem tenere eum et occidere et secundum uoluntatem suam iam perfecerant scelus quod conabantur, et iam rei erant immanissimi peccati, quia uolebant, etiamsi nihil fecissent. Tamen ille qui potestatem habuit ponendi animam suam quando uoluit, eos facere permisit, qui legionibus angelorum potuit iubere ut Iudaei perirent uel uno uerbo suo omnes interimeret. 31. Dominus ergo Christus secundum hominem quem suscepit, passus est et nullum membrum eius hodie tenetur a Iudaeis uel mortalis corporis quod susceperat, sicut supra diximus. Nam deus uester, o Manichaei, labe ac uastitate impendente pressus est, non libera uoluntate processit ad pugnam, sed necessitate compulsus est; nec praestare aliquid uoluit, sed resistere conabatur. Qui etiam in sua substantia, non in suscepto mortali corpore deuoratus atque commixtus est; qui ex parte hodie tenetur, ex parte in globo semper tenebitur. Et tamen quis ferat tam incredibiles blasphemias quas isti de ipsa passione domini proferre non dubitant? 32. Omnes apostoli, omnes linguae rationales dominum Christum passum esse clamant, omnis sana fides Christum pro nobis passum confitetur, et Manichaeus daemones omnes illas passiones asserit pertulisse. Non enim propterea dicit eos passos, quia de ipsis dominus triumphauit et de ipsis nos per patientiam triumphare docuit, sed quia dominum Christum negant habuisse carnem mortalem. Quibus dicimus: “si non habebat carnem mortalem, quid erat quod tenuerunt Iudaei? Quid erat quod in cruce pendebat? Quid confixum erat clauis in ligno? Quid est percussum lancea, unde sanguis et aqua profluxit?” Si enim uisa sunt tantum fieri et facta non sunt, phantasmata erant, quod nefas est credere. 30, 6 ⁠potestatem  –  uoluit]  cf.  Io.  10,  17      32, 8 / 9 ⁠quid  –  profluxit]  cf.  Io.  19,  34      30, 3 quidem] -am P1 tenere eum] inu. Bo So, -ere eam P1, tenere Maur 4 perfe1 et iam] a&iam P1, etiam Mü 4 / 5 rei erant] regerent P1 cerant] -icerent P 6 ille] -ae P4, -a Mü F 7 ut] et P1 P4 8 suo] om. Bo So 5 uolebant] -ent Ag1a.c. a.c. p.c. interimeret] interime Gr , -imere Gr Maur Zycha mortalis] -es Gr P4 Mü Fa.c. 4 labe ac] lab 31, 2 nullum] in nullum P4 Mü F pressus] passus Bo So non] nec Ag3 6 Qui etiam] quia &iam uel qui ea P1 in2] sup. l. Ag1, ex P1 7 deuoratus] decoratus Ag2 ex2] et ex Ag1 a&iam P1 incredibiles blasphemias] -is -a P4 8 ferat] fert Ag2 2 esse] 32, 1 rationales] rationes Fa.c., rationabiles Fp.c. (-abiles add. in marg. m²) 3 Manichaeus] manichaeus iniquus P3 Maur, -aei Gr omnes illas] inu. eum P1 asserit] -erunt Gr 4 enim] om. Bg1 dicit] -unt Gr ipsis] Ag2, illas Maur 7 mortalem] immortalem Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3a.c. quid1] qui P4 tenuerunt] -os Ag3a.c. quod2] sup. l. P1 8 confixum] -us P1 est] om. Ag3 9 proftenerunt P1 sunt tantum] inu. Bo So 10 phantasmata erant] fantasma erunt luxit] profulsit P1 δ Zycha

edition and translation

377

the passion when they willed to do so. They willed indeed to hold him captive and kill him, and as far as their will is concerned they had already performed the misdeed which they were attempting, and they were already guilty of the most horrible sin because they willed to do so, even if they had achieved nothing. Nevertheless, he who had the power to lay his soul down when he willed permitted them to act – he who could have commanded legions of angels so that the Jews would perish, or who might put an end to everyone simply by his word. 31. Thus the Lord Christ suffered according to the man he assumed, and none of his members are held captive today by the Jews, not even of the mortal body that he had assumed, as we said before. For your god, O Manichaeans, is burdened by a menacing ruin and devastation. He did not proceed to battle of his own free will but was forced by necessity; and neither did he want to undertake anything, but he attempted to resist. In addition, he was devoured and was mingled in his own substance, not in a mortal body which he had taken up. He is partly held captive today; he will partly be held captive in the clod forever. And still, who could bear this incredible blasphemy which they do not hesitate to profess concerning the Lord’s passion itself? 32. All the apostles, all rational tongues proclaim that Christ the Lord suffered. Every sound faith confesses that Christ suffered for us; yet Mani asserts that demons underwent all those sufferings. He does not say that the demons suffered because the Lord triumphed over them and taught us to triumph over them through patience; rather, it’s because the Manichaeans24 deny that the Lord Christ had mortal flesh. To them we say, “If he did not have mortal flesh, what was it then that the Jews held captive? What was it that hung on the cross? What was nailed to the wood? What was pierced by the lance, whence blood and water flowed out?” For if these things merely appeared to have happened and did not happen in fact, they were ghostly apparitions, which it is sinful to believe.

24

The author shifts from the third person singular dicit to the third person plural negant.

378

5

10

5

5

edition and translation

33. Si autem uere facta sunt, non tamen in carne mortali, sed in ipsa diuina substantia facta esse dicitis, mutabilem dicitis esse diuinam substantiam et uisibilem carneis oculis et palpabilem carneis manibus et uulnerabilem ferro, quae rursus nefas est credere. Et ideo dum timet dicere Manichaeus quia ista facta non sunt, et iterum timet dicere quia in diuina substantia facta sunt, et non uult confiteri quia nec intelligere potuit quomodo filius dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, sine aliqua mutatione, coinquinatione diuinae substantiae suae hominem cum carne susceperit, coactus est dicere quia non Christus, sed princeps tenebrarum cum suis sociis illa omnia passus est. Miseri! Non timetis ne dicatur uobis in iudicio: “Ego eos liberaui pro quibus passus sum. Ite, ille uos liberet cui meas ascribitis passiones”? 34. Dicitis tamen – magno errore, sed tamen dicitis – Christum quotidie nasci, quotidie pati, quotidie mori. Numquid forte in his qui credunt et pro nomine ipsius tribulationes mortemque patiuntur? “Non”, inquiunt, “sed in cucurbitis et in porris et portulaca et ceteris huiusmodi rebus”. Magna ridicula! Magna caecitas! Superius passionibus daemonum, hic passionibus olerum homines liberantur a peccatis. 35. Item cum eis dicimus: “quid factura erat deo gens tenebrarum, si nollet cum illa pugnare?”, dicunt: “nihil fieri potuit deo incorruptibili. Non enim si quis uerbi gratia sphaeram uitream solidam unguibus lacerare uoluerit, aliquid ei umquam faciet saeuitia unguium suorum”. Sed si uel talem substantiam diuinam isti esse fingerent, ut omnis saeuitia gentis tenebrarum talis ad illam esset, quales sunt ungues lacerantis ad sphaeram uitream, non deus Manichaei hodie luctum pateretur de partis suae abscis33, 2 substantia] -am P4 ⁠dicitis  esse]  inu. Maur 4 dicere Manichaeus] dicere -os 5 dicere] om. Ag3 6 facta] om. Bo 7 coinAg1a.c. Ag2, -us dicere β, -eret -us P4 quinatione] coniquinatione Ag1a.c., et coinquinatione Ag1p.c., uel coinquinatione Ag3 Bg1 Maur coactus] quohactus P1 9 non] non est P4 suis Zycha 8 carne] -em P4 3 11 cui meas] cum eas P1 sociis] inu. Bo So Gr 9 / 10 illa omnia] inu. Ag 2 quotidie pati] om. Ag2 his] iis Maur Zycha 34, 1 tamen1] om. Maur Zycha 2 porris] poris Zycha portulaca] postulaca Ag1a.c., lactuca et 4 in ] om. Mü F Zycha portulaca Bg1, portulaca uel lactuca Bx(uel lactuca in marg.), in portulaca Bo Maur Zycha Superius] -oribus P1 huiusmodi] huiuscemodi Bo 5 caecitas] castitas Ag1a.c. 6 homines] -is P4 Mü Fa.c. erat deo] inu. Bg1 2 cum – pugnare] pugnare cum illa 35, 1 quid] qui P4 Bo So ⁠fieri  –  deo]  potuit  fieri  deo  P2 Bg1 Bx, potuit deo fieri Bo So, fieri potherit incorruptibili] incorruptibili deo P1 3 uerbi] -is Ag1a.c. sphaeram] spedeo P1 1 1 4 p.c. 4 / 5 si uel] siue P4 5 uel] sup. l. P1 isti ram Bg Bx Bo So P Gr P Mü F gentis] -es P4 Mü 6 ad1] in Mü, ut F illam] Ag1 Ag3 So P1 Gr esse] inu. P1 lacerantis] -antes P4a.c. Maur Zycha, -a Ag2 P3 P2 Bg1 Bx Bo P4 Mü F. Vide adnotationes. ⁠ad  sphaeram]  ad  speram  Bg1 Bo So P1 Gr P4 Mü, adesphoram Fa.c., ad hanc speram Fp.c. partis suae] inu. Bo So abscissione] adscisione P1 7 non] nam P1

edition and translation

379

33. If, however, these things happened in fact, yet you say these things happened not in mortal flesh but in the divine substance itself, then you are saying that the divine substance is subject to change and visible to fleshly eyes and palpable to fleshly hands and vulnerable to a weapon, which again is sinful to believe. And thus, while Mani is afraid to say that those things did not happen, and again is afraid to say that they occurred in the divine substance, and he does not want to confess that he is unable to understand how the Son of God, through whom all things were made, without any change or pollution to his divine substance assumed a man in the flesh, he is forced to say that not Christ but the prince of darkness with his allies suffered all those things. Miserable fools! Are you not afraid that you will be told at the judgment, “I liberated those for whom I suffered. Away, let him to whom you ascribe my sufferings liberate you!” 34. You still say – with great error, but still you say – that Christ is born each day, suffers each day, dies each day. Perhaps this happens in those people who believe and who suffer tribulations and death in his name? “No”, they say, “but in cucumbers and in leeks and purslane and other things of this sort”. 25 What ridiculousness! What blindness! Above, people are freed from sin through the suffering of demons; here they are freed through the suffering of vegetables! 35. Likewise, when we say to them, “What would the race of darkness have done to God, if he had refused to fight with it?”, they respond, “Nothing could happen to the incorruptible God. If, for example, someone wanted to claw at a solid glass sphere with his nails, the savageness of his nails would not cause any harm to it”. But, if they would at least conceive of divine substance such that every savage act of the race of darkness relates to that substance like the nails of someone clawing at a glass sphere, then Mani’s god would not presently feel sorrow over the amputation or loss of

Here and in Adu. Man. 35, the author ridicules the Manichaean views about fruit, vegetables, and meat. In Manichaean cosmogony, everything consists of a mixture of light and darkness. Manichaeans believed that all light particles ought to be separated from the darkness with which they are intermingled. “The Manichaeans strove to consume food and drink with as high a percentage of light as possible, such as melons and cucumbers... the [human] body as a microcosm of the universe also acted as a machine of liberation of the divine, so that the righteous person could literally discard the gross elements below, and ... breathe forth angels to rise above” (I. GARDNER , S. N. C. LIEu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, pp. 22-23). The Manichaean Elect would eat these fruits and vegetables in order to release the light particles trapped in the food. Meat and wine, on the other hand, were seen as particularly rich in dark elements and were forbidden for Manichaeans. The distinction between fruits and vegetables on the one hand and meat on the other hand is also the subject of the author’s criticism in Adu. Man. 35. 25

380

edition and translation

sione uel amissione. Quam partem dicunt, cum in fructibus uel in herbis fuerit, id est in melone uel beta uel talibus rebus, et principium suum et 10 medietatem et finem nosse; cum autem ad carnem uenerit, omnem intelligentiam amittere, ut propterea magister hominibus missus sit, quia stulta in illis facta est pars dei, et propterea non sit missus melonibus, quia sapientem habent animam. 36. Quis ista credat uel ab hominibus aliquando uel inter homines posse dici? Sed tamen quomodo nihil mali patitur substantia dei uestri, cum et in pomis ligatur et in carne excaecatur uel cum uolens redire deicitur ad terras a gente tenebrarum? Sed si nihil ei mali contigit uel contingit, falsa 5 omnia sunt quae Manichaeus dixit in Epistula fundamenti, quae caput est omnium uanarum fabularum, uel in Thesauro, qui thesaurus est omnium turpitudinum et blasphemiorum, uel in ceteris omnibus libris, in quibus tanta loquacitate nihil aliud quam infelicitatem substantiae dei, quam commixtam dicit principibus tenebrarum et in diuinis uirtutibus tristitiam 10 propter illam magnam sollicitudinem ut liberetur, affirmat. Nam reuera nihil mali aut potuit aut poterit pati substantia dei nec aliquem habet inimicum qui eius partem ingenitam corrumpat, sed homines sunt deo, uel potius sibi inimici non obtemperando praeceptis dei et cupiditatibus se potius corrumpendo, non deum. 37. Duorum uero Testamentorum concordia: si simplici oculo intendere uelletis, o Manichaei, facillime uideretis. Rabide enim ferimini in id quod scriptum est: spiritus dei superferebatur super aquam et uidit deus 37, 3 Gen. 1, 2

3 / 4 Gen. 1, 10

35, 8 partem] -e P1 herbis] uerbis P4p.c. 9 beta] beata Ag3a.c., in beta Bx Bo So ut] om. P4, et Zycha 11 amittere] mittere Ag1a.c. 1 / 2 posse dici] post se dicit P1 2 mali] 36, 1 hominibus] omnibus P1 P4 Mü 3 ligatur] legatur P1 redire] ridere Bg1, reire P1 deicitur] dicitur Ag3a.c. om. P4 ad] a P1 4 Sed] om. Gr si] om. Ag2 Bxa.c. nihil] Bg1a.c. Bx, deitur Gra.c. mali] -e Bo So uel contingit] uel contigit Ag1a.c. P4, om. Gr falsa] michi P1 4 / 5 ⁠falsa  –  sunt]  om. β      5 quae1] quem Bg1 Bx Bo So dixit] sup. l. Bx -o P1 fabularum] -arunt P1 Thesauro] thensauro Ag1 Ag2 P3 6 uanarum] uenarum Ag2 P3 qui] quid Ag1a.c. thesaurus] thensaurus Ag1 Ag2 P3 Bx F, tesauP2 Bx F, tesauro P4 7 turpitudinum] -em P4 blasphemiorum] Ag1 Ag2 P3 rus Gr P4p.c., in tesaurus P4a.c. ceteris] P2 P1 P4, -arum Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr F, plasphemiorum Mü. Vide adnotationes omnibus] -ium P1 8 infelicitatem] -e P4 10 magnam] magnamque -ibus P1 affirmat] adfirmam P1 12 inimicum] amicum P1 Gr liberetur] liberaretur Ag2 1 4 se] sed P 13 et] sed Bg Bx Bo So si] 37, 1 concordia] -am Ag3 P3 Gr F Maur Zycha, -as Bg1 Bx Bo So. Vide adnotationes. 2 uelletis] si uelletis P3(si sup. l.) Maur, uelitis P4 Mü Zycha, uellis Fa.c. om. P3 Maur ferimini] -emini Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 P2 P1 P4 Mü F. Vide adnotationes. uideretis] -eritis P4 aquam] -as P1 Gr 3 superferebatur] ferebatur Ag3 P1 Maur

edition and translation

381

that portion of his. They say that this portion, when it is in fruit or vegetables, that is, in a melon or a beet or in similar things, knows its beginning, middle, and end. When this portion reaches flesh, however, it loses all its intelligence. Consequently the master was sent to people because God’s portion became unknowing in them. And he was not sent to melons, because they possess a knowing soul. 36. Who would believe such things could ever be said by or among people? Yet still, how is it that the substance of your god suffers no evil, when it is bound up in fruits and blinded in flesh, or when, though it wants to return, it is hurled down to earth by the race of darkness? If, however, no evil affected or affects him, then everything Mani said – be it in his Fundamental epistle, which is the origin of all the vain stories, or in his Treasure, which is the treasure chest of all their disgrace and blasphemy, or in all his other books – is false. In these books, with all his talkativeness Mani affirms nothing other than the misfortune of God’s substance (which he says is mingled with the princes of shadows) and the sadness of his divine powers, on account of his great concern to be liberated. For in truth, God’s substance neither was nor will be able to suffer any evil, nor does it have an enemy to corrupt his unbegotten portion. Instead, people are hostile to God, or rather to themselves, by not obeying God’s precepts and by corrupting not God, but rather themselves through their desires. 37. The harmony of the two testaments – if you were to consider that with an earnest eye, you would easily notice it, O Manichaeans! For you angrily get carried away against what is written, The Spirit of God moved

382

edition and translation

quia bonum est et Adam, ubi es? et deus zelans et ignis edax et gladius

5 meus et cetera talia, non considerantes quia si alius ita caecus sit, ut repre-

10

15

20

25

hendere uelit illud domini quod in Euangelio dictum est: non iurabis per caelum, quoniam sedis dei est, neque per terram, quia scabellum est pedum eius, et hoc dicat quod uos mira dementia dicere soletis: “ubi erat deus antequam esset caelum et terra?”; aut quod scriptum est: et miratus est Iesus, cum mirari nemo soleat nisi de re quae illi erat incognita – uidere autem quia bonum est, non sit ignorantis, sed quia placuit ei quod fecit; aut illud quod scriptum est dicente domino: quis me tetigit? et de Lazaro: ubi posuistis illum? et ego ueni non pacem mittere super terram, sed gladium et ignem ueni mittere in mundum et ueni ut qui non uident uideant et qui uident caeci fiant et uendite res uestras et emite uobis gladios, et apostolus: zelo dei uos zelo et reuelabitur ira dei de caelo super omnem impietatem et cetera innumerabilia ab ipso domino uel ab apostolis dicta uel facta, quae insanissime poterunt homines accusare non intelligentes. Nam et auari uel flagitiosi possunt aliter accipere quod dominus ait, ut si quis dimiserit quae habet, septuplum aut etiam centuplum in hoc saeculo accipiat, aut si aliquis uxorem, ancillam, uel etiam meretrices dimittere propter dominum uelit, spe illius multiplicationis faciat, non amore iustitiae. Possunt etiam horrere male intelligentes quod ait: si quis non manducauerit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se uitam. Nam quod ait: qui dixerit fratri suo, “ fatue”, reus erit gehennae ignis; si dicant stulti: “ecce pro conuicio gehenna minatur quem dicitis misericordem ignoscere pec37, 4 Gen.  3,  9      Exod.  20,  5      Deut.  4,  24      4 / 5 Deut. 32, 42 6 / 8 Matth. 5, 34-35 9 / 10 Luc.  7,  9      12 Luc. 8, 45 13 Io. 11, 34 Matth. 10, 34 14 Luc.  12,  49      14 / 15 Io.  9,  39      15 Luc. 22, 36 16 II Cor. 11, 2 Rom. 1, 18 19 / 20 ⁠si  –  accipiat]  cf.  Matth.  19,  29;  Marc.  10,  29-30;  Luc.  17,  29-30   23 / 24 cf. Io. 6, 53-54 24 / 25 Matth. 5, 22 es] est P1 6 uelit] uellit Ag1a.c. Ag2 P2a.c. P1 Fa.c. 37, 4 Adam] ad adam Fp.c. 1 1p.c. 3 sedis] -es Ag Ag P3p.c. P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Mü Maur 7 quoniam] quia Bg Bo So quia] quoniam Maur est2] om. Ag2 8 Zycha dei est] inu. P3 Zycha 1 dicere] -eret P4 9 et2] om. So quod uos] om. Gr dementia] clementia Bg nemo] neme P1 soleat] -et P4 10 mirari] mira Bxa.c., mirare Gra.c. P4 Mü Fa.c. 13 illum] eum Ag2 Ag3 Bo So Maur Zycha ueni non] inu. So, 11 quia1] om. P4 super terram] in mundum Bg1a.c. 14 ignem] -e P4 uenio non P1, uenti non P4a.c. 15 uobis] om. F 16 zelo2] -aui Gr 17 ab2] om. Bx mundum] terram Müa.c. 19 ut] aut P4 Mü F dimiserit] 18 poterunt] peterunt Bo uel] et P2 Bg1 Bo So 20 quae] quod Bx accipiat] haccipiet P1 aut2] ut Ag3 Bg1 demiserit Mü Fa.c. 21 meretrices] metrices Bxa.c., mereBx Bo So 20 / 21 si aliquis] si quis aliquis P2 amore] tricem Gr dominum] deum Gr 22 uelit] uellit Ag1a.c. Ag2 P2a.c. P1 Fa.c. 24 habebit] abebit P1 P4, habit Fa.c. 25 si] sic Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 -or P2a.c. Mü, -oris P1 26 conuicio] conuiuio Ag2 P4 Mü F, hoc uitio Ag3 gehenna] dicant] diant Ag1a.c. 3 1 -am Ag Bg Bx Bo So Gr Maur, geenne P1

edition and translation

383

over the water and God saw that it was good and Adam, where are you? and A jealous God and A devouring fire and My sword and other similar passages. You do not consider that if someone else were so blind as to want to criticize what the Lord said in the Gospel, Do not swear by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, such a person would also say what you – in your amazing madness – are wont to say, “Where was God before heaven and earth existed?” Or he would criticize what is written, And Jesus was amazed, because, presumably, nobody is amazed at something unless he is unfamiliar with it. However, seeing that something is good is not indicative of ignorance, but rather of being pleased with what he made. Or he could criticize what is written where the Lord says, Who touched me?, and of Lazarus, Where have you laid him?, and I have not come to send peace on the earth, but a sword, and I came to cast fire on the world, and I came so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind, and Sell your possessions and buy yourself swords, and what the Apostle says, I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God and The wrath of God will be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and countless other instances, said or done by the Lord himself or by the apostles, which only through utter madness and ignorance could anyone reproach. For greedy and disgraceful people, too, can understand differently what the Lord says, that if anyone parts with what he has, he will receive sevenfold or even a hundredfold in this age, or if anyone should want to dismiss his wife, his maidservant, or even his courtesans on account of the Lord, he would do so out of hope for this multiplication, not out of love for justice. They could also tremble when they wrongly understand what is said, If anyone will not eat my flesh or drink my blood, he will have no life in him. For with regard to what he said, Whoever says to his brother, “you fool”, will be liable to the fire of hell, if some ignoramuses say, “Look, as a reproof he whom you say mercifully forgives sins threatens with hell”, surely they do

384

30

5

10

15

edition and translation

cata”, nonne ignorant ubi caput habeant, et tamen aliquid sibi uidentur dicere? Aut quod tam multas animas necandas daemonibus in porcis tradidit, cum tales animas dicatis esse porcorum quales sunt hominum? Aut quod arborem in qua fructus, quia non erat tempus, non inuenit, uerbo aridam fecit, quam animam intelligentem dicitis habere? 38. Ecce quanta iniquissimi et caeci homines de diuinis eloquiis possunt dicere, sicut uos in ea quae mystice facta uel dicta sunt in ueteribus libris ignorantes ferimini, ut temere accusetis quod non intelligitis. Haec autem cum de Nouo Testamento uobis obiecta fuerint, dicitis diuina et spiritalia significare, Veteris autem Testamenti sanctas litteras figurate posse accipi negatis, cum et ipse dominus figurate inde quaedam dixerit et apostolus Paulus omnia illi populo in figura contigisse scribat. Nam et ipse regulam monstrans multa inde exposuit. Sed forte dicitis solita uanitate et obtuso corde contra domini uel apostoli auctoritatem loquentes Veteris Testamenti dicta exponi prorsus non posse, solum autem Nouum in talibus exponi posse, et non consideratis non uos habere quod dicere, si ab aliis impiis uobis dicatur Vetus potius exponi posse, Nouum non posse. Mens autem sana utrumque Testamentum considerans, quaecumque in uno inuenerit, expositionem admittere sine dubio in altero declarauit. Multum apparet imperitia uestra uel potius malitia. Attendite in Actibus Leuci, quos sub nomine apostolorum scribit, qualia sint quae accipitis de Maximilla uxore 37, 28 ⁠quod  –  tradidit]  cf.  Luc.  8,  32      30 / 31 ⁠quod  –  fecit]  cf.  Marc.  11,  13      38, 7 ⁠omnia  –  contigisse]  cf.  I  Cor.  10,  11      37, 26 / 27 peccata] -is Bo So 27 habeant] -eat Gr aliquid sibi] inu. Bo So necandas] negandas P4 Mü 28 quod] quomodo Ag1 Ag2 Ag3 P3p.c. Maur, quodo P3a.c. 29 dicatis] dictis Ag1a.c., -itis Ag1p.c. hominum] -es P1 F porcis] portis Ag1a.c. ⁠non  –  tempus]  tempus  non  erat  Bo So uerbo] 30 quod] quos P1, quomodo Maur 31 animam] om. P4 -a P4 ⁠uel  –  sunt] sunt uel dicta Maur 38, 2 uos] om. γ     mystice] -ae Ag2 Ag3 Bx P1 P4 4 cum] om. Bo So 3 ferimini] -emini Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 P2 P1 P4 Mü F. Vide adnotationes. fuerint] fuerit P1 5 Veteris] -i P1 uobis] si uobis Bo So obiecta] abiecta P4 2a.c. 1 6 negatis] negatis, cum et ipse dominus figurate posse acfigurate] figure P , -atur P figurate] -atae cipi negatis P3a.c.(cum et ipse dominus figurate posse accipi negatis del.) inde] indie P1 7 figura] futuram P1, figuram Gr P4 F contigisP2a.c., -atur P1 scribat] -et P1 8 dicitis] dicit P4 obtuso] obtunso Ag1p.c. Ag3 P4 se] -isset P1 9 domini] deum uel domini Gr(abbr. dm Zycha, obstuso P2a.c., obstruso Bg1 Bx Bo So Veteris] uel ueteuel dni), deum Maur, dominum Zycha loquentes] -entis P3a.c. 10 exponi] -e P1 posse] poss Ag2 11 non uos] inu. Gr quod] quid ris Ag2 dicere] dicere possitis Ag1p.c. Ag3 12 impiis] Bg1 Bx Bo So Maur Zycha, qui Gra.c. 14 expositionem] -e Ag2 P3 P1 P4 Mü declaom. Gr dicatur] -atis Bo So P1 15 Leuci] leucii Ag1 Ag3 P2 Gr F, leutii rauit] -abit Ag1p.c. Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Maur Zycha quos] quod P4 16 qualia] qua P1 sint] sunt Bg1 Bx Bo So Bg1 Bo So, leuti Mü 1 16 / 17 ⁠sint  –  nollet]  om. P

edition and translation

385

not know where their heads are. And yet they think they have something to say. And what about him handing over so many souls of pigs to demons in order to be killed, seeing that you say the souls of pigs are of the same quality as the souls of humans? What about the tree in which he found no fruit, because it was not the season? With a word he withered the tree that you claim possesses an intelligent soul. 26 38. Look at which things such unjust and blind people can say about divine pronouncements! They act like you, who out of ignorance get carried away against what has been said or done in the old books in a mystical sense, and as a result you rashly accuse what you do not understand. When these passages from the New Testament, however, are presented to you, you say they have a divine and spiritual meaning, yet you deny that the sacred records of the Old Testament can be understood figuratively, even though both the Lord himself explained some passages from it in a figurative way, and the apostle Paul writes that everything happened to that people in figures. For Paul explained many passages from the Old Testament, thereby showing the method. Perhaps, however, you will say in your usual vanity and obtuse heart, babbling against the authority of the Lord and of the Apostle, that the words of the Old Testament cannot be explained at all, but only the New Testament can be explained in those terms. Likewise, you do not consider that you would have nothing to say, if other impious people were to tell you that it is rather the Old Testament that can be explained, and the New Testament cannot. A healthy mind, however, no matter which testament it examines, has declared that whatever it finds in one testament receives without any doubt an explanation in the other. Your inexperience, or rather your malicious intent, is very clear. Consider, in the Acts of Leucius, which he wrote under the name of the apostles, what sort of information you receive regarding Maximilla, the wife of Aegeates. 27

Compare these two biblical allusions to the author’s exposé in Adu. Man. 35. These Acts are the Acts of Andrew. See; J. K. ELLIOTT, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 232.50.54-55; and esp. J.-M. PRIEuR (CCSA, 5-6), pp. 26-28. The two passages Evodius cites or recapitulates in this chapter can be situated in AA 17 (ibid. (CCSA, 5-6), pp. 46263) and after AA 32 (ibid., pp. 480-81). Instead of Aegeates, which is the form of the name in Greek sources of the Acts of Andrew, the Latin text has Egetes; and below, instead of Iphidama (sometimes Iphidamia), the Latin text has Ifidama. 26 27

386

edition and translation

Egetis, quae cum nollet marito debitum reddere, cum apostolus dixerit: uxori uir debitum reddat, similiter et uxor uiro, illa supposuerit marito suo ancillam suam Eucliam nomine, exornans eam, sicut ibi scriptum est, aduer20 sariis lenociniis et fucationibus et eam nocte pro se uicariam supponens, ut ille nesciens cum ea tamquam cum uxore concumberet. Ibi etiam scriptum est quod cum eadem Maximilla et Iphidama simul issent ad audiendum apostolum Andream, puerulus quidam speciosus, quem uult Leucius uel deum uel certe angelum intelligi, commendauerit eas Andreae apostolo; 25 et perrexerit ad praetorium Egetis et ingressus cubiculum earum finxerit uocem muliebrem quasi Maximillae murmurantis de doloribus sexus feminei et Iphidamae respondentis; quae colloquia cum audisset Egetes, credens eas ibi esse, discesserit. Quid ad haec dicitis, rogo uos? Quare non timuit Maximilla per turpissimum lenocinium ancillae suae ligare animas 30 in carne? Cum autem illum puerulum tam turpiter credatis esse mentitum, quis uobis credat loquentibus, quando si mentiamini, dominum uos dicitis imitari? 39. Sed uos temeritate pleni adhuc irruite in ueteres libros, ut quae nescitis, potius accusare quam discere laboretis. Considerate quae ibi miracula sint. Si miraculis Noui Testamenti delectamini, ibi mortui primo suscitati, 38, 18 I Cor. 7, 3 38, 17 / 21 ⁠quae  –  concumberet]  cf.  AA  17      22 / 28 ⁠cum  –  discesserit]  cf.  AA  32      38, 17 Egetis] egetes γ P2a.c. P4 Mü Fa.c., egee Bg1 Bo, egetes uel egetis Bx(uel i sup. l.), dixerit] dixit P1 egetae So. Vide adnotationes. marito] mer P1a.c., mariti P1p.c. 18 / 19 ⁠reddat  –  ancillam]  om. P1 19 Eucliam] eudiam Mü 18 uir] om. P1 eam] eum P1 ibi] ubi Bo scriptum] dictum P1 exornans] exorans P2 Bx Bo So fucationibus] fugationibus P4 F, fugacioribus Mü nocte] 20 lenociniis] lenociis Gra.c. uicariam] -ium P4 21 cum ea] sup. l. P3 22 eadem] ea noctu Bg1 Bx Bo So de Mü F Iphidama] ifidama Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 Bx Bo So P1 Gr Mü F, fidama Ag1p.c. Ag3, 1 issent] eset ifidama Bg , hifidima P4, Iphidamia Maur Zycha. Vide adnotationes. 23 puerulus] puerolus P2a.c. F Leucius] leutius Ag2 P3 So Bo P4 24 Andreae] sent P4 25 perrexerit] -rexit Ag2a.c. P2 P1 Gr, predixit P4 praetorium] preteritum P4 -a P1 et2] Egetis] egetes γ P2a.c. Bg1 Bx P4 Mü Fa.c., egeatis Bo, aeg&es P1. Vide adnotationes. ut Gr earum] eorum Maur Zycha finxerit] fingeret δ      26 ⁠Maximillae  murmurantis] -a -es Mü F de] om. Gr 27 Iphidamae] ei fidamae Ag1 Ag3, ifidamae Ag2 P2 Bx So, eifidame P3 Mü F, ifidame Bg1 Bo Gr, eius fide me P1, eifidama P4, Iphidamiae cum] quia Maur Zycha. Vide adnotationes. respondentis] -etis Bo, -entes P1 Mü F Egetes] egetis Bg1, egeates Bo 28 eas] ea Ag2 P3 P1 ibi] cum P4 Mü Fa.c. discesserit] -esserat Fa.c. Zycha haec] hoc Maur Quare] sibi Ag2 P1, ubi P4 29 lenocinium] lenocium Gra.c. ligare] om. Bo So animas] -os Bg1 Bx quasi P4 2a.c. 31 quis] Bo So 30 carne] carne ligare Bo So puerulum] puerolum P Fa.c. dominum] deum Gr P4 quid P2a.c. in] ut Gr libros] liberos F 3 mortui] -uo P1   39,  1 Sed] se Gra.c.

edition and translation

387

When she did not want to give him his conjugal rights, even though the Apostle said, Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife in like manner to her husband, she gave her maidservant, named Euclia, to her husband. She adorned her, as is written there, with hostile enticements and makeup, and during the night she substituted her in place of herself so that he, unknowingly, would sleep with her as if with his wife. There it is also written that when this same Maximilla and Iphidama went together to hear the apostle Andrew, some beautiful little boy, whom Leucius wished to be understood as God or at least as an angel, commended them to the apostle Andrew. The boy then hastened to the palace of Aegeates and, having entered their sleeping room, he feigned a female voice as of Maximilla complaining about the pains of the female sex, and of Iphidama responding to these complaints. When Aegeates heard this conversation, he left in the conviction they were truly there. What do you say to these stories, I ask you? Why did Maximilla not hesitate to use a most disgraceful enticement of her servant to bind souls to the flesh? And since you believe this little boy lied in such a disgraceful manner, who would believe what you say when – if you are lying – you claim that you are imitating the Lord? 39. But rush in your foolhardiness to the old books so that you can strive  to accuse what you do not know rather than learn about these things. Consider the miracles written there. If you find joy in the miracles of the New

388

edition and translation

ibi leprosi primo mundati et alia multa quae diligentibus et pie quaerenti-

5 bus ad aedificandam fidem innotescunt. Si autem bonis praeceptis delecta-

mini, ibi primitus scripta sunt duo illa praecepta quae sublimiter dominus laudat de diligendo deo et proximo; ibi dimittenda domus, parentes, filii et cetera propter dominum; ibi non reddendum malum pro malo; ibi oratum pro inimicis; ibi inimico ignoscendum; ibi tradenda maxilla ad accipiendam 10 alapam et quaecumque in Nouo Testamento praecepta sunt non solum ibi mandata, sed etiam a sanctis uiris omni uigilantia completa. Numquid et hoc poterit dicere malitia uestra, quaecumque bona et magnifica ibi scripta sunt, falsa esse et apposita, illa uero quae non intelligentes putatis mala, ea tantummodo uera esse? Debetis enim attendere alios similiter impios ita 15 de Nouo Testamento facere posse, ut quaecumque ibi sunt quae non intelligentes putauerint mala, ea reprehendant et dicant ipsa ibi esse sola uera, illa autem omnia quae ibi aperte magnifica sunt dicant esse falsa atque ab amatoribus domini apposita, ne omnia uiderentur fugienda, ut et uos et illi tali caecitate percussi iam iudicati et damnati fugiamini. Tandem uigi20 late et blasphemiis conquiescite atque omnium sanctarum canonicarum Scripturarum, si Christiani esse cogitatis, auctoritatem recipite et quae non intelligitis accusare nolite, sed potius eorum intellectum desiderate. 40. Nam quale est etiam illud quod resurrectionem carnis negatis? Paulus apostolus clamat: seminatur in corruptione, resurget in incorruptione; seminatur in contumelia, surget in gloria; seminatur in infirmitate, surget in uirtute; seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale. Et uos contra 40, 2 / 4 I Cor. 15, 42-44   39,  4 diligentibus] -enter Maur Zycha 5 Si] sic Ag1a.c. 6 duo illa] inu. Maur 3 deo] -um Ag1p.c. Ag3 P1 proximo] -um γ P2a.c. P1 7 de] om. γ      diligendo] -i Ag filii] et filii δ Zycha 8 oratum] orandum Ag3 P4 Fp.c.(a.c. obsc.) Maur parentes] -is P1 tradenda Zycha, oratum uel orandum So(uel orandum sup. l.) 9 inimico] -os P2 ad] maxilla] Ag3 Gr Maur Zycha, -am -am Ag1 Ag2 P3 β P1 P4 Mü F. Vide adnotationes. 12 bona] -e P1 13 esse] esset P2, om. Bxa.c. ea] et P1 14 esse] om. P4 Debetis] debitis P1 attendere] aduertere uel attendere Bg1 Bx(uel attendere esset P4 sup. l.), aduertere Maur alios] aliquos γ Maur ita] om. Bo So 15 facere] ita 16 ea] et P4 reprehendant] -ent P1 ibi] sibi facere Bo So quae] in quae P1 esse sola] inu. β, esset sola P4 17 magnifica] -ata Ag1a.c. Mü F Maur Zycha P2 Bo So 18 et2] sup. l. P3 19 tali] -e P4 Mü Fa.c. caecitate] sunt] scripta sunt Gr, om. P4 20 blasphemiis] a -is Ag1p.c.(a add. in marg.) Bg1 Bo Zycha 21 Chriscastitate Ag1a.c. esse] et esse P1 auctoritatem] -e P4 22 eorum] earum Bg1, tiani] christi Ag2 earum uel eorum Bx(uel o sup. l.) resurrectionem] -i P4a.c., -e P4p.c. 2 corruptione] -em 40, 1 quod] post P1, quo P4 resurget] -it P4 Mü F Zycha incorruptione] -em Ag1 Ag3 P2 Gr P4 Gr P4 Mü Fa.c. gloria] -am Ag1 Mü, corruptione Bo 3 surget1] resurget β, surgit P4 Mü F Zycha surget2] resurget Bx, surgit P4 Mü F Zycha 4 uirtute] -em Ag1 Ag3 P2 surAg3 P2 4 / 5 ⁠contra  reclamatis]  contra  rem  clamatis  Ag2 get] resurget Bx, surgit P4 Mü F Zycha

edition and translation

389

Testament, there28 the dead were first resurrected, there the lepers were first cleansed, and many other feats were described which, to those who are diligent and piously seek, become clear for their faith to be built up. If, however, you find joy in good precepts, there for the first time were written those two commandments, which the Lord in a lofty way praises, concerning love for God and neighbour. There you can find the commandment to leave home, parents, sons, and other earthly goods for the Lord’s sake; there you can find the commandment not to repay evil with evil; there you can find prayer for enemies; there you can find the commandment to forgive one’s enemy; there you can find the commandment to surrender your cheek to get slapped. And everything prescribed in the New Testament, you will find not only commanded there, but also accomplished with utmost carefulness by holy men. Surely your vileness cannot claim this, too, that everything beneficial and magnificent written there is spurious and added later, but those passages which you do not understand and therefore consider evil, only those you consider authentic? You really need to pay attention and see how other people, similarly impious, can interpret the New Testament in such a way that whatever it contains (which, because they do not understand it, they deem evil), they criticize and claim that only these passage are authentic;29 moreover, they claim everything in that book that is clearly marvellous, those passages are false and added by “lovers of the Lord”, lest it seem necessary to avoid everything. Ultimately, both you and they, struck by such blindness and already judged and condemned, ought to be avoided. Finally, be vigilant, cease your blasphemous teachings, and if you think you are Christians, accept the authority of all the holy, canonical Scriptures. Stop blaming things you do not understand, but rather desire to understand those passages. 40. For what is actually the reason that you deny the resurrection of the flesh? Paul the apostle exclaims, It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. It is sown a physical body, it shall rise a spiritual body.

Viz., in the old books (ueteres libros) just mentioned. The author makes use of an argumentum ad absurdum here. Whereas the Manichaeans reject the Old Testament, the author imagines here someone who rejects the New Testament on similar grounds. Any morally or theologically objectionable passages such a person might find in the New Testament, he would consider authentic, since they provide solid grounds for that person’s rejection of the New Testament as a whole. 28 29

390

edition and translation

5 reclamatis carnem hominis non posse resurgere et eam tenebrarum princi-

10

15

20

25

pem habere auctorem, cum eamdem apostolus membra Christi et templum spiritus sancti esse dicat. Nescitis, inquit, quia corpora uestra membra sunt Christi?, quod non utique secundum infirmitatem praesentis corruptionis, quae de peccati originalis poena descendit, sed secundum adoptionem futurae resurrectionis dicit, sicut alibi ait: et ipsi in nobis ingemiscimus, adoptionem exspectantes, redemptionem corporis nostri. Alibi etiam eamdem carnem ecclesiae comparauit, cum de coniugio loqueretur dicens: nemo enim umquam carnem suam odio habet, sed nutrit et fouet eam, sicut Christus ecclesiam. Quod ergo alio loco dicit: caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum, spiritus autem aduersus carnem, non carnem damnat, ut eam tamquam inimicam existimemus, sed admonet potius ut subiugemus nobis eam, ut ad bona opera concupienda et parienda uelut coniux spiritui seruiat, quod dicit non posse fieri nisi gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum. Non enim natura carnis, sed poena eius nobis reluctatur, quia peccato meruimus esse mortales. Nam iterum dicit: corpus uestrum templum est in uobis spiritus sancti. Et tamen cum ipsa caro propter praesentem infirmitatem fenum appelletur, creditis Ioannem de feno aurum fecisse, et non creditis deum omnipotentem de corpore animali spiritale corpus facere posse? Nam propter ipsam commutationem carnis, quae futura est, quoniam de ista carne caeleste corpus deus facturus est, quando erimus aequales angelis 40, 7 / 8 I Cor. 6, 15 10 / 11 Rom. 8, 23 12 / 14 Eph.  5,  29      14 / 15 Gal. 5, 17 18 gratia – nostrum] cf. Rom. 7, 25 20 / 21 I  Cor.  6,  19      21 / 22 ⁠ipsa  –   appelletur] cf. I Petr. 1, 24 (Is. 40, 6) 25 / 26 Luc. 20, 36 40, 22 ⁠creditis  –  fecisse]  cf.  AJ  loc. incert.

40, 5 tenebrarum principem] inu. Ag2 6 habere auctorem] abere principem hacto7 esse] om. Gr P4 7 / 8 sunt Christi] inu. Bg1 8 quod] que P1 ⁠non  rem P1 originalis] -i P1 adoptionem] -is Ag1 utique] inu. Bo So 9 peccati] -is Gra.c. 10 alibi] et alibi δ      adoptionem] -is P3a.c. 11 exspectantes] expectanAg2 P3 redemptionem] redemcionis P1, resurrectionem Maur nostri] tes expectantes P1 12 ecclesiae] -a P1 Mü F enim] sup. l. P4 -is Gr eamdem] eumdem P1 fouet] -it P2a.c. P4 Mü F Christus] et christus Gr(sup. l.) 13 habet] -uit Ag3 Bg1 Bo So inimicam] -a P4 16 ⁠admonet  potius]  inu. Gr ut1] ub 15 damnat] -ant Gra.c. ut ad] ad Ag1 Ag2 P3 Maur 17 concupienda] concipienda Ag1p.c. Ag3 Maur Zycha, P4 parienda] -am P4 uelut] ut uelut Ag1p.c.(ut concupiscenda Ag2 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr coniux] coniunx P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So seruiat] seruat P1 sup. l.) Maur, uelox P4 18 posse] posset P1 19 carnis] om. Ag2 reluctatur] relutatur P4 dicit] -ite P2a.c. 20 dicit] -itur P3a.c. in uobis] om. Ag2 21 cum ipsa] om. P4 peccato] -um P4 22 fenum] -u Ag2 appelletur] -atur P1 aupraesentem infirmitatem] inu. Ag2 23 deum] om. β      corpore] -ora P1 posse] -es Gr 24 Nam] rum] -o P3 commutationem] communionem Bo So, comminacionem P1, communicatioan P1 a.c. 25 deus] dominus P1 angelis] -i Ag2 nem F

edition and translation

391

Yet you, on the other hand, claim that human flesh cannot rise again, and has the prince of darkness as its maker, even though the Apostle says that the same human flesh constitutes the members of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit. He said, Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Of course, he does not say this in accordance with the weakness of its present corruption, which descended from the punishment of original sin, but rather in accordance with the adoption, that is, the future resurrection, just as he says elsewhere, And we ourselves groan inwardly, awaiting the adoption, the redemption of our body. Additionally, in another passage he compared the same flesh to the church, when he said the following, in a discussion on marriage, For no one ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. So, regarding what he says in another passage – For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh – he does not condemn the flesh, such that we would consider it an enemy, but rather admonishes us to subject it to ourselves, so that the flesh – like a wife – might serve the spirit in desiring and bringing forth good works. This he says cannot happen except by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For we struggle not with the nature of the flesh but with its punishment, because it is by sin that we deserved to be mortal. Once again he says, Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you. And yet, even though the flesh, on account of its present weakness, is called hay, you believe that John made gold from hay, but you do not believe that God almighty can make a spiritual body from an animate body?30 For, precisely because of this change of the flesh, which will be realised in the future, since God will create a heavenly body from that flesh, When we will be equal to the angels of God;

30 This anecdote most likely belongs to the Apocryphal Acts of John, which the Manichaeans accepted as an authoritative text. See J. K. ELLIOTT, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 305, and esp. E. JuNOD & J.-D. k AESTLI (CCSA, 1-2),  pp.  129-36.

392

edition and translation

dei, propterea uerissime dicit idem apostolus: caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebit. 41. Sed non mirum quod ita caeci estis, ut non posse ab omnipotente deo ista fieri putetis, cum etiam dicitis mundum uel omnia quae facta sunt, non potuisse aliter deum facere nisi magna et miserabili necessitate et nisi esset materia quae illum ad operationem mundi adiuuaret, ut inde pos5 set partem suam liberare. Eligite ergo nunc quid sequi uelitis: deum minus potentem et infirmum, qui necessitate partis suae in miseria constitutae a materia, quam ipse non fecerat, ut mundum faceret adiutus est, an deum omnipotentem, qui nulla necessitate, sed propria uoluntate et summa potestate dixit et facta sunt, mandauit et creata sunt; qui uocat ea quae non sunt, 10 tamquam quae sunt? 42. Vos ergo homines qui ista impietate Manichaei estis decepti, fugite, festinate dum licet, ne damnationem aeternam ab illo iusto iudice mereamini. Poeniteat uos peccatorum uestrorum, si cupitis liberari, et nolite audire Manichaeos dicentes: “non peccamus nos, hoc est, animae lucis, 5 sed peccat gens tenebrarum”. Si enim ita est, quare nos terrent, ut eis credamus? Non enim possunt dicere quia infidelitas non est peccatum, cum scriptum sit: qui non credit, iam iudicatus est. 43. Si ergo infidelitas peccatum est et non peccat nisi gens tenebrarum, restat ut ab omni peccato pars lucis immunis inueniatur. Omnes ergo ad regnum redeunt, quia ipsi non peccant, et nihil timendum est alicui ani-

40, 26 / 27 I Cor. 15, 50 41, 9 Ps.  32(33),  9      9 / 10 Rom. 4, 17 42, 7 Io. 3, 18 40, 26 propterea] om. Gr 27 possidebit] -bunt Ag1p.c. Bg1 Fp.c. Maur Zycha ut] et P4 2 putetis] om. P3 cum] quam P1 dicitis] 41, 1 estis] esti P4 3 4 1 mundum] nondum P quae] sup. l. P 3 potuisse] potius P4 -atis Ag Maur miserabili] -e Ag1a.c. aliter – facere] aliter facere deum P3 Maur, deum aliter facere So 2 3a.c. 2 a.c. 1 a.c. 4 1 4 posset] -it Gr 5 quid] quod Ag P P F , mirabili Bg Gr P , mirabile P uelitis] ueligitis Ag1a.c., uellitis P2a.c. 6 necessitate] -em Ag1 Ag2 P2 P1 P4 Mü Bxa.c. a] ad P1 7 materia] -e P1 ipse] -a Gra.c. an deum] ante P4 miseria] -ae P1 9 qui] quia P4 10 quae] ea quae Ag1p.c. P3 β 8 qui – necessitate] quin -am -em P1 Mü F Maur Zycha sunt] sint P2a.c. Gr F 2 licet] lucet P2a.c. P1 Gra.c. P4 Mü dam42, 1 Vos] nos Mü decepti] om. P1 iusto] -e P1 iudice] -em P4 3 peccatorum] errare peccatorum nationem] -is P1 F(errare sup. l.) uestrorum] uestorrum pondere F(pondere sup. l.) liberari] -are 4 Manichaeos] -um Ag2 non] nec Bo peccamus] -auimus Bx P1 P4 Mü Fa.c. 6 credamus] -emus Gra.c., -atis F 7 est] om. Bo 5 ita] ista P4 nisi] sup. l. Ag3 2 ut] ait Gra.c., om. P4 3 timendum] 43, 1 ergo] enim P1 timendum est] inu. Bo So tamen dum Fa.c.

edition and translation

393

for that reason the same apostle says, entirely in accordance with the truth: Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. 41. Yet it is unsurprising that you are so blind as to think that such things cannot be done by the almighty God, since you also claim that in no other way could God make the world or all that is created except by a great and miserable necessity, and unless there was matter to help him put the world in operation so that he could liberate from it a portion of him. Choose then, right now, what you want to follow: a less potent and weaker god, who, forced by necessity, because a portion of him was stuck in misery, was aided by matter, which he himself did not create, so that he could create the world, or God almighty, who, not out of necessity, but of his own will and by consummate power Spoke, and they were made, he commanded, and they were created; who Calls those things that are not, as those that are. 42. Therefore you people who are deceived by Mani’s notorious impiety, run, hurry while you still can, lest you merit eternal damnation by that just judge. May you repent your sins, if you desire to be liberated, and pay no heed to the Manichaeans, who say, “We – that is, the souls of light – do not sin; rather, the race of darkness sins”. For if that is the case, why do they try to terrify us into believing them? After all, they cannot say that faithlessness is no sin, because it is written, He that does not believe is already judged. 43. If, therefore, faithlessness is a sin and no one sins except the race of darkness, the result is that the part of light will be found free of any sin. Thus, everyone returns to the kingdom, because they do not sin, and

394

edition and translation

mae, quia nihil peccat, et falsa sunt quae Manichaeus dicit subsiciuam lucis

5 partem, hoc est animas peccatrices, damnari ad custodiam globi, ut aliqua

securitas diuinis regnis in periculo constitutis tandem aliquando compararetur. Necesse est ergo ut aut pars lucis peccet aut pars tenebrarum. Sed si pars lucis peccat, deus peccat, quod nefas est dicere. Si autem pars tenebrarum peccat, ipsa uocatur ad regnum per eum qui dixit: non ueni uocare 10 iustos, sed peccatores, quia non est opus sanis medicus, sed male habentibus. Illa autem diuinitas de diuinitate et lux de lumine tenebrarum generi degenerans in aeternum sociatur. 44. O detestandum mentis errorem talia credentium! Vellem tamen ut attenderetis et uidere uelletis eum quem naturaliter summum malum esse dicitis – non posse fieri ut malus sit. Quoniam si quidquid facit, sic facit, ut a natura sua recedere et aliter facere non possit: prorsus nihil peccat. 5 Si autem nihil peccat, nihil mali facit. Et ideo si nihil mali fecit, non est utique malus. Restat itaque ut pars dei, quae deus intelligitur, quam animam dicitis, sola sit rea omnium peccatorum et omnia illa quae accusanda insanissime putatis, in deum uestrum refundatis. Sed quid ueritas clamat? Corpus cum exanime est, peccare non posse, sed per ipsum posse peccari; 10 animam uero, irrationalem quidem, peccare non posse (quia nec praecepta rationis potest accipere neque ad beatitudinem peruenire), sed in suo gradu seruare ordinem naturae quem accepit; rationalem autem (quia potest recte factorum rationabilia praecepta percipere et recte factis ad aeternam beati43, 9 / 10 Matth.  9,  13-12      43, 4 / 5 ⁠lucis  –  globi]  Ep.  fund.  9      43, 4 quia] qui P1a.c. dicit] dixit P4 subsiciuam] subciuam Ag3a.c., succiuam Bg1 Bx 5 custodiam] Ag1p.c. Ag3 P2in marg. Bg1 Bo So, succidiuam Fin marg., succisiuam Maur Zycha p.c. 1a.c. 2 Bx Bo So Gr F Maur Zycha, custodiendam Ag Ag P3 P2 P1 P4 Mü, custodiandam Fa.c.. Vide adnotationes. 6 compararetur] comparetur Ag3 P2p.c. Bg1 Bo So Gr P4 Maur Zycha, pars1] o pars P1 Sed] aut β      9 non] comparantur Mü 7 aut1] om. P3a.c. P1 ueni] -it Gra.c. 10 est opus] inu. Bo So 11 Illa] -ae P1 degenon enim P1 nerans] degerans P4 2 uidere] uid&re P4 uelletis] uelitis P4 44, 1 detestandum] detestandaum P1 malus] -is P3a.c. 4 a] an P1, om. P4 facere] recedere Ag1a.c. 3 posse] possum P1 facit] -iat Mü F Zycha si2] sup. l. Ag3 mali2] -e P1 fecit] 5 mali1] -e P1 est] om. Gr 7 illa] om. Gr quae] quaea facit Ag3 P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So P1 Gr Maur 9 cum] enim Mü exanime] ex animae P2, ex anima Mü F est] uel qua ea P1 peccari] om. P1 esse Mü F peccare – posse1] non posse peccare Bo So 12 quem] quam Bo So accepit] -erit Maur 10 irrationalem] -abilem P3a.c. P4a.c. 13 factorum] Gr Maur Zycha, -urum Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 P2 P1 P4 Mü Fa.c., -ura Ag1p.c. Ag3, -uram recte] rect& uel rectae P3 Bg1 Bx Bo So, -arum Fp.c.. Vide adnotationes.

edition and translation

395

no soul should ever be afraid, because the soul in no way sins. And Mani speaks false words when he says the cut-off portion of light, that is, the sinning souls, are condemned to watch over the clod, so that ultimately some sort of security can finally be provided for the divine kingdoms in peril. So it is necessary that either the part of light or the part of darkness sins. But if the part of light sins, God sins, which is a wicked thing to say! If, however, the part of darkness sins, this part is summoned to the kingdom by him who said, I have not come to call the righteous but sinners, for those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick do. Moreover, that divinity from divinity and light from light is joined for eternity to the race of darkness, thus suffering degeneration. 44. What a loathsome mental mistake by people who believe such things! Nevertheless, I wish you would pay attention and be willing to see that the one you say is by nature the highest evil – that it is impossible for him to be evil. Because whatever he does, he does in such a way that he cannot abandon his nature, and cannot act otherwise. So he in no way sins. But if he in no way sins, then he does no evil deed. And so, if he does no evil deed, then he certainly is not evil. The result is, therefore, that the portion of God which is understood to be God himself and which you call the soul, is alone guilty of all sins, and everything that you, in your exuberant insanity, think blameable you attribute to your god. Yet, what does the truth declare? A body, when it is inanimate, cannot sin, but it is through the body that one can sin. A soul, then, at least the irrational kind, cannot sin, because it can neither grasp the precepts of reason, nor reach beatitude; instead, in its own position it preserves the natural order that it received. A rational soul, however, because it can perceive the rational precepts of correct conduct and can through correct conduct reach eternal beatitude – if

396

edition and translation

tudinem peruenire), si hoc peccando noluerit, iuste ad inferiora damnari,

15 quia inter ipsa et deum non separat nisi uoluntas praua.

5

5

10

15

45. Legite, Manichaei, et omni uigilantia ista discutite et magis magisque legite atque discutite, sed animo aequo, non animo inimico. Legite illud attendentes, quia erit uobis in futuro iudicio ista Scriptura testis, si agnoscentes uera esse quae dicta sunt, ad sinum matris ecclesiae catholicae, quae sola ueritatem docet, omni cursu non festinaueritis. 46. Iudicate tandem aut eligite, Manichaei, quem sequi uultis: patrem ingenitum, filium unigenitum, spiritum sanctum in patris et filii unitate communem, unum deum omnipotentem, incorruptibilem, inadibilem, incommutabilem, uerum, bonum, sanctum, clementem, iustum; qui non habet partes, quia unus est; neque eius particula separari ab eo potest, quia inseparabilis est; neque aliquid eius immutari potest, quia totus incommutabilis est; neque uel leuiter quod uellet eius substantiae corrumpi potest, quia totus incorruptibilis est; qui uoluit et facta sunt omnia quaecumque sunt quaecumque uiuunt quaecumque intelligunt; ipse enim summa substantia, summa uita, summa ueritas est; qui praecepit et ordinata sunt omnia suis locis et temporibus bona; qui rationalem creaturam omni ceterae creaturae praeficere dignatus est; qui ei per superbiam a suis legibus uoluntate lapsae et uisibilia sequenti misericorditer per suos ministros ac per se ipsum signis quibusdam uisibiliter et exemplis et praeceptis demonstratis, quibus consurgere ualeret atque ad aeternam uitam renouaretur, loqui dignatus est; quem praedicat catholica fides. 47. An illum deum qui falso dicitur incorruptus, quia postea inuenitur malo necessitatis oppressus; timidum, quia imminente labe ac uastitate compulsus ad bellum est; ignorantiae plenum, si suae parti quid contingere 44, 14 peccando] -um P1 iuste] -ae P2a.c. 15 ipsa] -am Ag3 Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr F 2a.c. Maur Zycha. Vide adnotationes praua] -am P , parua P4a.c. inimico] 45, 1 Legite] legite ista Bo So 2 atque] et β      aequo] inequo Fa.c. 2 3 quia erit] querit P1 ista – testis] testisb istaa scripturac Bx, ista iniquo Ag Gr agnoscentes] cognoscentes Ag1 5 docet] decet P4 scriptura testes P1 2 spiritum sanc46, 1 aut] atque F Zycha eligite] legite γ F elegite P2a.c. P1 P4 4 qui] quia P1 5 quia1] sup. l. Gr separari – eo] ab tum] inu. P3 P1 Gr P4 incommutabilis] inmutabilis Ag2a.c. eo separari Bo So 6 immutari] -are P1 substantiae] 7 quod uellet] quod libet Ag1p.c. Ag3 P2in marg. Maur, quod uelit Bg1 Bx Bo So 8 incorruptibilis] -e Gra.c. qui] quia Bg1 9 ipse] ibsae P1, ipsa F -a Bg1 Bx Bo So ei] et P1, ei que F(que sup. l.) uoluntate] 12 praeficere] praeferre γ, preficire Gra.c. 13 lapsae] -a est Ag1 Ag2 P3 P2a.c. F, -a P2p.c. Mü, -us P1 ac] et Mü uoluptate P1 atque] om. Ag3 16 praedi15 consurgere] surgere Gr ualeret] -et P3a.c., -ere P4 cat] -abat P3a.c. falso] -a P4 postea] om. Gr 2 malo] -a P1 P4 op47, 1 deum] om. P1 timidum] tumidum P1 labe] lab& Ag1a.c. ac] hac P1, om. Gr pressus] -os P2a.c. plenum] -e Gra.c. contingere] contigere P2 P1 3 ignorantiae] -a P4

edition and translation

397

it refuses this by sinning, it is justly condemned to hell. After all, the only separation between hell and God is a depraved will. 45. Read, Manichaeans, and discuss these things with all due vigilance, and read and discuss more and more, but do so with an impartial mind, not a hostile one. Read it carefully, because Scripture itself will be a witness against you in the future judgement, if you, despite realising that what was said is true, do not hasten with all due speed to the maternal bosom of the Catholic Church. She alone teaches the truth. 46. Finally, Manichaeans, judge or rather choose whom you intend to follow: the unbegotten Father, the only-begotten Son, the Holy Spirit, conjoined in the unity of Father and Son, the one almighty God, incorruptible, unapproachable, immutable, true, good, holy, merciful, just. He has no portions, because he is one; neither can any particle of him be separated from him, because he is inseparable; nor can anything of him be subject to change, because he is wholly immutable; nor in the slightest could any of his substance be corrupted, because he is wholly incorruptible. He willed, and all things that are, that live, that exhibit understanding, were created; for he is the highest substance, the highest life, the highest truth. He commanded, and all good things were fixed in their appropriate places and times; he deigned to place the rational creature at the head of every other creature. He deigned to speak mercifully to this rational creature (which, through pride wilfully fell away from his divine laws, and pursued visible things) through his ministers and through himself, with the revelation of certain visible signs as well as examples and commandments, by which the creature is able to rise up and be renewed for eternal life. Him the Catholic faith proclaims. 47. Or do you prefer the other god, who is falsely called uncorrupted, since he was later found to be compelled by the evil of necessity? A timid god, since he was driven to war by an imminent ruin and devastation; full

398

edition and translation

posset, uidere non potuit; crudelem, si praeuidit miseriam futuram partis

5 suae, et qui cum ea securus posset quiescere, tamen eam misit ad misera-

10

15

5

10

bilem pugnam; malum, si cum sibi fieri a mali natura nihil posset, tamen conatus est eam ipse delere; temerarium, qui ausus est congredi cum ea, a qua eius pars et captiua teneretur et in sempiternum macularetur; commutabilem, quia iam ex parte mutatus est; corruptibilem, quia iam ex parte corruptus est; ex parte meretricantem, ex parte mentientem, ex parte blasphemantem, scelera omnia ex parte facientem, quia his omnibus ex parte commixtus est; lugentem, uelo luctuoso tectum; subiacentem daemoniis ut lutum figulo et usque ad turpem personam necessitate perductum, ut in pueros et uirgines transfiguratus daemonum libidinem accenderet; quem praedicat Manichaeus? Aut certe, si potest, neget conscientia uestra. Teste uobis uero deo aeterno, qui omnes iudicaturus est, unum istorum uobis ipsis negate. 48. Si autem uera sunt quae dicimus, tandem respicite, tandem uidete in qua estis morte constituti. Humiles estote, si optatis liberari, et nolite superbe et impie dicere uos ipsos esse deum omnipotentem. Hoc enim dicitis, cum animas uestras partes eius esse asseueratis. Non enim deus in parte maior, in parte minor est. Sed potius dicite uobis: “deus incommutabilis est, nos commutabiles sumus; deus incorruptibilis est, nos cupiditatibus nostris corrumpimur; deus incoinquinabilis est, nos peccatis nostris coinquinamur; deus ipsa sapientia est, nos stulti ad sapientiam peruenire conamur; deus ipsa aeterna et beata uita est, nos peccatis nostris miseri sumus et optamus fieri beati; non ergo sumus pars substantiae eius”. Si 47, 4 posset] -it So, posse Gra.c. praeuidit] -et P1, -ens Maur 5 miserabilem] mi6 si] se P4 7 est1] om. P1 ipse] -ae P1 ⁠qui  ausus]  quia  usus  rabilem Gra.c. est2] om. Bo So congredi – ea] P2a.c., quia ausus Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr, quiahusus P1 cum ea ingredi Ag2a.c., cum ea congredi Ag2p.c., congredi cum ea est Bo So, congredi cum eam 8 teneretur] tenetur P3a.c. commutabilem] contumabilem P1 9 quia1] P1 Mü corruptibilem – iam2] om. Gr quia2] qui γ P2a.c. Mü 10 corruptus] qui Ag3 ⁠corruptus  –  parte1] om. P3 Gr Maur ex1] et ex Bo ex2] et correptus Ag1a.c. blasphemantem] menex Bo mentientem] blasphemantem Bo So ex3] et ex Bo 11 ex2] quia ex Bg1 12 uelo] uolo Bo luctientem Bo So, blasfifemantem Gra.c. subiacentem] subiectum Bo So daemoniis] demonis Ag2 ut] tuoso] -ose P4 13 lutum] luctum P4 et usque] eiusque P3a.c. ad] om. P1 14 uiruelut P1 libidinem] Ag1 Ag3 P2p.c. Bg1 Bx Bo So Gr Maur Zycha, -ae P2a.c., -e Ag2 gines] in -es P4 accenderet] accederet P4a.c. quem] que P3 P3 P2a.c. P1 P4 Mü F. Vide adnotationes 16 uobis1] sup. l. Ag3 uobis1 – deo] uobis deo uero Ag2, uero deo 15 neget] -at P4 17 ipsis] -e P1 Ag3a.c., uero uobis deo P1 1 2 estote] testote P4a.c. 3 superbe] -ae Ag2 48, 1 respicite] recipite P , resipiscite Gr dicere] dicaere P1 uos ipsos] inu. P1 4 esse] om. Bo So asseueratis] P2a.c. 7 corrumpimur] -imus P4 incoinquinabilis] asseratis Bo So 5 parte1] -em P4 8 ipsa] -e P1 sapientiam] -a P3 P4 inquoinquinabilis P2a.c. P4, coinquinabilis Müa.c. 2a.c. 9 peccatis – miseri] miseri peccatis nostris Bo So 10 non] nos P Bx So Gr P4

edition and translation

399

of ignorance, if he was unable to see what could happen to a portion of him; cruel, if he foresaw the coming misery of his portion, and although he was able to live in peace with this portion, still sent that portion to the miserable battle; evil, if, although the nature of evil could do nothing to him, he still attempted to annihilate that nature; heedless, since he dared to clash with that nature through which a portion of him is held captive and defiled for eternity; changeable, because he is already partly changed; corruptible, because he is already partly corrupted – partly prostituting himself, partly lying, partly blaspheming, partly committing every kind of misdeed, because he is partly mixed up with all these misdeeds. He mourns, covered by a mournful veil; he is subject to demons as clay is to a potter; and he is led by necessity to such a disgraceful role that, transformed into boys and girls, he arouses lust in demons. This is the one whom Mani proclaims. But certainly, if possible, let your conscience deny it. With the true, eternal God as your witness, he who will judge all, deny to yourselves one of these views on God. 48. If, however, the things we say are true, then finally regard, finally see the death in which you have become entangled. Be humble, if you wish to be liberated, and stop proudly and impiously saying that you yourselves are God almighty. For this is what you are saying when you make the claim that your souls are portions of him. For God is not greater in one part, and smaller in another. Rather, tell yourselves: “God is unchangeable; we are subject to change. God is incorruptible; we are corrupted by our desires. God is unpollutable; we are polluted by our sins. God is wisdom itself; we, fools that we are, attempt to reach wisdom. God is the eternal and blessed life itself; we are wretched in our sins and wish to become blessed. Therefore we are not part of his substance”. For if you are portions of him and

400

15

5

10

15

edition and translation

enim eius partes estis et haec tanta patimini, restat ut et ipse iam ex parte haec omnia patiatur et amplius pati potuerit quod eius contigit parti, nisi per uestram miseriam sibi prouideret. Videte uos ergo quid estis: si partes estis eius, deus estis; si geniti ab illo estis, similiter deus estis. Quid tanta peccatorum corruptione turbamini? Si autem facti ab illo estis, hoc confitemini et non iam eritis Manichaei. 49. Manichaeus enim duas dicit esse naturas, unam bonam et alteram malam, bonam quae fecit mundum, malam de qua factus est mundus. Si autem uos deus fecit, non inuenit Manichaeus unde uos deus fecerit. Si enim de se ipso uos fecit, hoc estis quod ipse. Non ergo debebatis tanta peccatorum corruptione turpari, sicut iam dictum est. Si autem de alieno uos fecit, non ad illum pertinetis, quia sic uos fecit quomodo mundum. Si autem nec de se ipso nec de alieno uos fecit, sed tantum omnipotentia sua uoluit et facti estis, hoc dicite Manichaeo et renuntiate eius errori. Sic enim decet omnipotentem facere quae uoluerit, sicut catholica dicit: ipse dixit et facta sunt; ipse mandauit et creata sunt. Dicite uobis: “non sumus partes eius, sed sumus opera eius”. Dicite uobis: “si deus necessitate passus est et euadere aliter non potuit, nisi partis suae pateretur detrimentum, quis aliquando poterit de talibus necessitatibus liberari? Aut quis erit qui †protegat deum non ualentem† se ipsum protegere? Aut quando me de hac necessitate captiuitatis poterit liberare qui me in integris regnis custodire non potuit? Non enim peccantem me inde dimisit, sed ad peccata ipse me misit. Aut quando mihi in alienis miserabiliter constituto prodesse pote  49,  9 / 10 Ps.  32(33),  9      48, 11 ⁠eius  partes]  inu. γ Maur, partes P4a.c. 12 quod] quam Bo eius] om. Ag1 parti] pati Gra.c. 13 si] et Mü partes] -is Ag1 Ag2 contigit] contingit P1 Maur 14 estis eius] eius γ Maur, inu. Bo So estis2] est P1 si geniti] P3, pars Ag3 ⁠si  –  estis4] om. Gr 15 turbamini] turpamini Ag3 P1 P4p.c. Mü F Maur seieniti P1 Zycha hoc] haec β      16 ⁠non  iam]  inu. Gr 3 uos1] nos P1 deus1] omnes Gr deus2] om.   49,  1 enim] autem Bo So P1 3a.c. 3 4 de] uos de Ag se] om. Gr uos] Gr Mü 3 / 4 Si enim] sicnim P debebatis] -eatis Ag2 P4 Mü F Zycha, -uistis Maur 5 turpari] turbari Ag2 om. Ag3 6 sic] si P3a.c. P2a.c. Bg1 Bx Bo Bo So Gr P4a.c., turbari uel turpari Bg1 Bx(uel pa sup. l.) 7 se] om. Ag3a.c. P3a.c. 9 enim decet] inu. Maur catholica] -a So P1 P4 Mü Fa.c. 11 necesscriptura Ag3(scriptura sup. l.), -e P3a.c., -a fides Gr, fides -a Mü(fides in marg.) 12 euadere] &uadere Ag3 non] sup. l. P3 13 poterit] sup. sitate] -em Ag3 Gr 14 protegat] -atur a Bg1 Bx Bo So Maur deum] Fp.c. Zycha, -o γ β P1 Gr P4 l. Ag3 a.c. 1p.c. 1a.c. ualentem] Ag Zycha, uolentem Ag Ag2 P3 P1 P4 Mü F, ualente Ag3 Mü F Maur proBg1 Maur, uolentes P2a.c., ualentes P2p.c., uolente Bx Bo So Gr. Vide adnotationes. 14 / 17 ⁠Aut  –  misit]  om. P1 14 hac] ac P4 15 captiuitatis] tegere] -eret P1 poterit liberare] inu. Bo So in] sup. l. F 16 me1] sup. l. P4 ad] a P4 -e P3 a.c. ipse] -a Maur Zycha Mü, & F

edition and translation

401

you suffer such things, the result is that he already partly suffers everything you suffer and could have suffered even more from what happened to his portion, if he had not looked after himself by means of your misery. So consider what you are: if you are portions of God, you are God; if you come forth from God, you – similarly – are God. Why are you troubled by such corruption due to sin? If, however, you were made by him, confess it, and you will be Manichaeans no more. 49.  For  Mani  says  there  are  two  natures,  one  good  and  the  other  evil.  The good nature, he says, made the world; the evil nature is what the world is made of. If, however, God made you, then Mani cannot discover what God made you from. For if God made you from himself, you are what he is. Therefore you do not need to disgrace yourselves by such corruption due to sin, as was said before. If, however, he made you from some foreign matter, you do not belong to him, because he created you just as he created the world. If, however, he made you neither from himself nor from something foreign, but in his omnipotence merely willed it and you were created, then tell this to Mani and renounce his error. For this was a fitting way for the almighty to make what he wanted, as Catholic teaching proclaims, He spoke, and it came to be, he commanded, and it stood firm. Say to yourselves: “We are not portions of him, but we are his works”. Say to yourselves, “If God suffered by necessity and could evade it in no other way than by suffering the loss of a portion of him, then who can ever be liberated from such necessity? Or who could possibly protect God, who is unable to protect himself?31 Or when could the one unable to keep me safe in his perfect kingdoms liberate me from the captivity of necessity? After all, he did not send me out from there because I sinned; rather, he is the very one who sent me to sins. Or when could he be of benefit to me, miserably situated as I am in a foreign territory, if he, to benefit himself, gave

For this sentence and textual variants of this passage, see the following section (Notes). The (presumably corrupt) archetypal text would read, in translation, “Or who could possibly protect, for God’s sake, someone unwilling to protect himself?” The Maurists’ version reads, “Or who could possibly be protected by God, who is unable to protect himself?” 31

402

20

25

30

35

edition and translation

rit qui ut sibi prodesset, me ad tantam perniciem dedit? Non pugnaret! Si incorruptibilis est ipse deus, quid ei factura erat illa mali natura, si nollet cum illa pugnare, ne nunc sic ego cruciarer? Aut quae ista iniustitia ut ad globum damner, cum ille ut modo aliquantulum securus sit, ego hic tanta sustineam? Certe quoniam et ego hoc sum quod ipse, quoniam pars eius sum, nullo in regnis eius insignibus indigenti aut infimo constituto, uicibus istam miseriam patiamur, ut et ego aliquantulum requiescam et regna illa sine periculo possint esse pacata, quamquam timendum sit ne ista natura mali nec in globo ipso inclusa custodiri possit”. Si enim incorrupta regna corrupit et inuiolatam dei substantiam uiolauit, quomodo pars illa lucis, hoc est animae peccatrices, quae uitiatae globo custodiendo infiguntur infirmae ac debiles, quomodo non absorbentur ab ea, ut iterum regna illa diuina nullo iam ualente obsistere tota conturbet? Quis enim iam audeat procedere ad bellum, quando cum illa parte quae processerat tam inique actum est, ut †eius requie nulli sui ciues† ad sempiternam globi custodiam damnarentur? Aut si non potest perrumpere globum, ut ad lucidum illum tectorium damnatarum animarum perueniat, quid opus est eam contegi diuinorum damnatione membrorum? Si autem potest perrumpere globum, quis ei resistit et saucius, quae integros sauciauit? Absit tam grauis et tam abominanda blasphemia. Nolite istam iniquitatem ad aures uestras admittere. Nolite tali negotio mortifero uos implicare. Fugite Manichaeum et ad ueritatis catholicae ubera toto desiderio conuolate.

  49,  18 Non] ne Ag1p.c. Ag3 Maur Zycha pugnaret] pugaret F 19 ei] sup. l. et del. illa] -i P2, illa uel illi Bx(uel i sup. l.) mali] -a P1 20 ne] nec Gr P4a.c. Ag1 iniustitia] in iustitia sic ego] inu. Maur ego] om. Bo So quae] quae est Bg1 2 21 ut] sup. l. F hic] haec Maur 22 Certe] -em P2 et] sup. Ag , iusticia Gr hoc] sup. l. Bx, om. Maur 23 indigenti] -e Ag3 So Maur infimo] infirmo l. P4 uicibus] sup. l. P4 25 pacata] peccata Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 Ag1a.c. Ag3 Maur, in infimo P4a.c. quamquam] quantum Ag3a.c. 25 / 26 natura mali] inu. P1 Bo P1 Gra.c., paccata Ag3 P4 3 27 inuiolatam] -a P4 26 ipso] isto ipso Mü possit] -et Mü regna] sup. l. P 27 / 39 ⁠quomodo  –  conuolate]  om. δ      28 custodiendo] custosubstantiam] -a P1 diendo uel custodiendae Bx(uel ae sup. l.) 29 absorbentur] -antur P2p.c., obsorbentur 30 nullo] -a Ag2 obsistere] existere Ag2 conturbet] -ent Bg1 Bx, -entur Bo P1 32 actum] hauctum P1 eius] pro eius Maur nonnulli] So iam2] sup. l. Ag3 ⁠sui ciues] Ag1p.c. Ag3 P2p.c. Maur conieci, nulli γ P2 P1, nulla Bg1 Bx Bo So Zycha, om. Maur sempiterZycha, sui -is Ag1a.c. Ag2 P3 P2a.c. P1, succiui Bg1 Bx Bo So. Vide adnotationes. 34 illum] illud Ag3 Maur Zycha damnatarum] -urum P1 est] om. nam] -i Ag3 est eam] inu. Maur 35 contegi] contigi P1 autem] enim Ag1a.c. Ag2 Ag3a.c. P3 36 resistit] -et Maur Zycha et] om. Bg1 Bx Bo So Maur Zycha saucius] P1 saucius quae] sauciusque Bo So, saucius qui Maur Zycha 38 Nolite sauctus Ag1a.c. tali] nolit&ali P2

edition and translation

403

me over to such destruction? He ought not to have fought! If God himself is incorruptible, what would the nature of evil have done to him, if he had refused to fight with it, so that I would not be tortured like I am now? Or what injustice is it that I am condemned to the clod, when I endure these things here so that he could be secure for only a short while? Since I too am what he is, since I am a portion of him, and considering that in his splendid kingdoms there is no one who is poor or in a lower rank, let us by all means suffer this misery in turn. In this way, I too can find repose for a little while and those kingdoms can be at peace, without any danger, though we should fear the possibility that the nature of evil itself cannot be held captive, even when it is contained in the clod”. For, if it corrupted his incorruptible kingdoms, and violated God’s inviolable substance, what about this portion of light, that is, the sinning souls, which – infirm, weak, and vitiated as they are – are stuck to the clod in order to guard it? How are these souls not swallowed up by this evil nature? Again, when there is no one left anymore with the power to resist this evil, would it not again completely disturb those divine kingdoms? For who would still dare to go to war, when that portion which previously went was so unjustly treated that, while he rests, some of his citizens are condemned to eternally guarding the clod?32 Or, if it cannot breach the clod, so as to reach that shining cover of the condemned souls, why is there a need to contain it at the cost of the condemnation of these divine members? If, however, it could breach the clod, who would, already wounded, resist that which inflicted wounds on those who were untouched? Away with such grave and execrable blasphemy. Do not let such iniquity reach your ears any more. Stop involving yourselves in such a deadly business. Flee Mani, and hasten with absolute longing to the breasts of Catholic truth.33 32 This sentence is possibly corrupt. The author seems to refer with “he” (eius) to the Manichaean god. In this concluding section, the author posits that the Manichaean cosmogony with its two natures cannot promise eternal rest at the end of time. Because the evil nature of darkness continues to exist, a new cosmic conflict between light and darkness could occur once more. I have proposed a correction to the text of the archetype (see the relevant section in Notes). This archetypal text would read, in translation, as follows, “so that he could rest and none of his citizens would be condemned”. In this version of the text, illa parte (“that part”) cannot be identified with the sui ciues (“his citizens”). The “part” of him are those souls that are condemned, while his citizens are those souls that will be exempt from this punishment. The subordinate clause then expresses a purpose: the reported misuse of “that part” served to free the other citizens from eternal damnation. The Manichaean god had sectioned off a part of himself so that he himself, and the “civilians” (ciues) who remain with him would enjoy eternal rest and be saved from eternal damnation. Zycha’s text reads, “so that, even though he will not establish any rest for himself, his citizens would be condemned”. The Maurists’ version reads, “so that, to achieve his rest his citizens would be condemned”. 33 The metaphor of breasts refers to the motherly nourishment supplied by the church, which the author described as the bride of Christ (Adu. Man. 40; Adu. Man. 45). The term ubera probably alludes to Paul’s metaphor of milk in 1 Cor. 3,2: “I fed you with milk, not solid food” [NRSV].

Notes

notes

407

5,27 eaedem] The reading eadem is found, often ante correctionem, in a significant number of manuscripts. In addition, eadem could be considered the lectio difficilior. Both eadem (“in the same way”, “similarly”) and eaedem (“the same”) are grammatically correct in this sentence. The specific meaning of eadem, however, is neither anticipated nor made entirely clear in the context, while eaedem simply emphasizes animae. The reading eaedem is preferable here for several reasons. In some medieval manuscripts, sometimes the letters a and ae (and e) are used interchangeably. The reading eadem could thus simply be the result of this sort of orthographical variation. Moreover, Augustine’s citations of this fragment of the Epistula fundamenti all preserve the form eaedem.1 6,1–2 dubitatis adhuc Manichaeum adactum esse confiteri non esse peccatum propriae uoluntatis] In chapter 5, the author appealed to Manichaean texts that assume the existence of a free will responsible for sin. It is therefore unexpected to find here the expression adactum esse confiteri non esse peccatum propriae uoluntatis (“brought to confess that there is no sin of the free will”; emphasis mine). The reading non esse, however, is clearly archetypal. In Pa, the word non was deleted post correctionem. Only Pa p.c.  and the manuscripts derived from Pa contain this innovation. This reading (the omission of non) was adopted in all previous editions of Adu. Man. I  have placed non between square brackets. The reading is archetypal, but its meaning appears to be in conflict with the content of this passage. A second important variant in this section is the participle adactum. This form occurs only in λ (Bg 1, Bx, Bo, So). The archetypal reading therefore seems to have been edactum. A third variant, coactum (Ag 1  p.c., Ag 3 , Gr), probably derived from edactum. This archetypal form, however, would either be a hapax legomenon or simply a faulty reading, for which adactum might be a reasonable conjecture. The meaning of adactum makes sense in this context, and, with regard to orthography, differs only minimally from 1 See M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, p. 38. It should be noted, however, that Evodius’ citations of Manichaean texts sometimes differ from Augustine’s citations. See, for example, M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 82–84.

408

notes

edactum (sometimes the letters a, ae, or e were used interchangeably). If edactum were considered a real word, despite being unattested elsewhere, its meaning would not be entirely clear, though the prefix e- does imply some notion of an outwards movement, in this instance perhaps of a public statement (cf. edico). 11,1–2 dicat idem Manichaeus deum omnibus bonis abundantem, nullo in regnis eius insignibus indigente aut infimo constituto] Most manuscripts read indigentem. Only Ag 2  p.c., Ag 3 , P 3  p.c., P 2  p.c., and Gr provide the reading indigente. Nevertheless, the reading indigente seems preferable here. There are three arguments against the accusative indigentem. First, if indigentem (“to miss, to lack”) were adopted here, both nullo and infimo constituto would be objects of this participle. The two objects nullo and infimo constituto, however, seem to contradict each other (“he misses no one or someone in a lower rank”). Second, parallel citations in Augustine unambiguously preserve the reading indigente.2 Third, the reading indigentem could have been introduced during the earliest stages of the transmission in analogy to the preceding participle abundantem and the noun deum. Although the manuscript evidence seems quite divided on the form infimo, in general the evidence favours infimo over infirmo (no manuscript of β has infirmo; δ contains infirmo as a reading only post correctionem or in margine; the more independent manuscript P 1 also reads infimo). In addition, a parallel later in Adu. Man. (49,23) very convincingly reads infimo. Perhaps Evodius’ citation differs in this instance from Augustine’s, and the variation between infimo and infirmo in the Manichaean text already existed in the fifth century. 3

2  See M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 20–27; Augustine, C. ep. fund. 13, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 209, l. 25; Augustine, C. Sec. 3, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 909, l. 20. 3 M. Stein, Manichaica latina 2, pp. 20–27, and esp. pp. 82–84: “Bemerkenswert ist, daß die Varianten infirmo und infimo schon zu Augustins und Euodius’ Zeit vorhanden waren. Augustinus nämlich hat in seinem Exemplar der ep. fund. infirmo gelesen… Euodius dagegen hat in deinem Exemplar der ep. fund. die Lesart infimo vorgefunden und für richtig gehalten”; Augustine, C. ep. fund. 13, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1, p. 209, l. 25–26; Augustine, C. Sec. 3, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 909, l. 21.

notes

409

14,3–4 [pater] pro insita sibi clementia fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur] The reading quae is well attested in the manuscript transmission. However, the reading qua is more logical in the context of the sentence. The relative pronoun’s antecedent is opem (“help”). The nominative quae would imply that it is the divine help itself which needs to undergo the process of liberation. Semantically speaking, then, it makes more sense if the divine help or aid is the means through which liberation is achieved. Furthermore, a parallel citation in Augustine reads qua.4 Again, this variation could be due to the interchangeable spelling a/ae. 15,4 eaedem] See the discussion of eaedem in 5,27.5 17,6 diuersorias] The author repeats the phrase beatus ille pater, qui lucidas naues habet diuersoria (14,2–3), albeit with minor modifications: beatus pater, qui naues lucidas habet diuersorias. The manuscripts which contain diuersoria can in general be categorized as innovative (Ag 1  p.c., Ag 3 , Bg 1, Bx, Bo, So, and Gr). Both diuersoria and diuersorias are correct forms. The first is the expected term, also cited previously in 14,2–3. The second is an adjectival form, analogous to naues lucidas.6 The reading diuersorias is preferred here, since it is a rarer reading, since it is attested in the generally more conservative manuscripts, and since it could be seen as an expression of irony on the part of the author (“those ‘lodging-shining-ships’”). 17,9–10 confudit] Of the fourteen manuscripts consulted for this edition of Adu. Man., only Ag 1  p.c.  and Ag 3 read confundit. An alternative reading, confusae, was first introduced by Erasmus. This reading is typical for the hyparchetype τ and is clearly secondary. The Maurists would have found this reading confirmed in their codex Vaticanus (Vt 1), and Zycha chose to follow the Maurists’ decision to retain confusae. The reading of the archetype was clearly confudit, though it is possibly corrupt. 4  See also M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, pp. 38–39; Augustine, Nat. b. 44, ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 881, l. 26. 5  See 6 See

also M. Stein, Manichaica latina 4, p. 40.

the definition of the term “deversorius”, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. V, Leipzig, 1905, c. 852: ad deuertendum idoneus.

410

notes

As I understand (and have translated) it, confudit belongs to the subordinate clause beginning with ut, the implied subject of which is uirtus altissima. The subordinate clause expresses a comparison. Just as the highest power of the Manichaean souls had (perfect tense) set a bad example (inciting lust in the princes of darkness), the minor powers (uirtutes suas) in turn (inuicem) follow this example. The author mocks the contrast between the so-called pure (intemeratas) nature of these powers and their immoral behaviour. 25,2 ei nuntiata esset] The manuscripts convincingly attest this reading, with the only exceptions being P 3 (enunciasset) and F (ei nuntiatum esset) and the manuscripts derived from them. Syntactically, nuntiata is a personal passive, its gender congruent with matrem suam (“she was reported to…”). Normally, a nominatiuus cum infinitiuo would be the expected complement. Instead, the author uses a substantive clause, introduced by quod, to express the subject of nuntiata (the content of what was reported to Jesus: quod eum uellet uidere). Although this results in an inelegant Latin expression, the manuscript evidence is certainly in favour of this reading, and the meaning of the phrase is clear. 35,6 ad illam] Manuscripts Ag 1, Ag 3 , So, P 1, and Gr read ad illam, while Ag 2 , P 3 , P 2 , Bg 1, Bx, Bo, P 4 , Mü, and F read ad illa. Although the distribution of readings would suggest ad illa as the archetypal reading, the feminine singular illam makes more sense in the immediate context, since it would refer to substantiam diuinam. By contrast, this section contains no nouns in the neuter plural, to which illa might correspond. 36,7 blasphemiorum] A significant number of conservative manuscripts (namely, Ag 1, Ag 2 , P 3 , P 2 , P 1, P 4 , and Mü) have the unusual reading blasphemiorum (neut.) instead of the expected form blasphemiarum (fem.).7 37,1 Duorum uero Testamentorum concordia] The manuscripts read either concordia, concordiam, or concordias. The nominative 7 The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. II, Leipzig, 1900–06, does mention that manuscripts sometimes read blasphemium (neuter). See “blasphemia”, cc. 2043–45; “blasphemium”, c. 2045, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. II.

notes

411

concordia is attested in all branches of the transmission (Ag 1 and Ag 2 for γ, P 2 for β, and P 4 and Mü for δ) as well as in the more independent manuscript P 1. The nominative would function as a nominatiuus pendens, which the author would then be using to announce a new topic. This nominative is not the subject of a verb, as would normally be expected of a nominative, but rather functions to, on the level of the discourse, emphasize the new subject matter. The term would also implicitly function as the object of the verb intendere. The accusative singular concordiam is attested in two branches of the transmission (namely, Ag 3 and P 3 for γ and Gr and F for δ). In this reading, the noun concordiam functions, as expected, as the object of intendere. For the sake of syntactical clarity, this variant merits consideration. It improves the clarity of the text, and the alternatives -a/-am could simply constitute variations in spelling (in other circumstances less significant), or could be due to a scribe’s misreading of an abbreviation (-ā). The third variant, concordias, only occurs in the λ branch of the β family. Because of the general quality of the manuscripts containing concordia, because of its nature as a lectio difficilior, and because of the literary-stylistic function of the nominatiuus pendens, the reading concordia is adopted here. The punctuation in the text has been adjusted accordingly. 37,2 and 38,3 ferimini] In two instances in Adu. Man., the author uses the expression ferimini (or feremini) in. The form feri­ mini is in all probability derived from fero (“to carry”) instead of from ferio (“to strike”). The use of a passive voice in combination with a prepositional object is unusual.8 The meaning of the phrase is probably “to get carried away (in a negative sentiment) with regard to something” (cf. 39,1: irruite in).9 For both instances in which this phrase occurs, a number of reliable manuscripts (Ag 1a.c., Ag 2 , P 3 , P 2 , P 1, P 4 , Mü, and F) read the future simple tense feremini instead of the present simple tense ferimini. 8 See “fero”, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. VI1–2 , Leipzig, 1912–26, cc. 527–65, and esp. c. 562, l. 54–72. 9  See also Augustine, Mor. eccl. cath. I,1, ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 3, l. 2–3: quibus in legem quod uetus testamentum uocatur, imperite atque impie feruntur: “by which they ignorantly and wickedly attack the law, which is called the Old Testament”; trans. R. Teske, The Manichaean Debate, p. 31.

412

notes

In the first instance (37,2), the future tense makes sense: “when you read these scriptural passages, you will get carried away in your anger (rabide)”. In the following instance (38,3), however, the future simple feremini is awkward in conjunction with the present tense possunt dicere (38,2). The variation between feremini and ferimini is somewhat reminiscent of other orthographical variations, such as intellegere/intelligere, which have no consequences for the meaning of the verb. Perhaps the variation between ferimini and feremini is due to a similar trend in spelling, with e occurring where modern readers could expect an i, although in this case the variable spelling distinguishes two different tenses. While the variant feremini was probably the reading of the archetype, the spelling ferimini is adopted here because the present tense better suits the context of 38,3. 38,17 and 38,25 Egetis] A significant number of manuscripts (γ, P 2a.c., Bx a.c., Mü, and F a.c.  in 38,17 γ, P 2a.c., Bg 1, Bx, P 1, P 4 , Mü, and F a.c.  in 38,25) read Egetes. The character referred to is Aegeates (Αἰγεάτης), proconsul of Achaia and the main antagonist in the apocryphal Acts of Andrew.10 In the two instances mentioned above, the spelling Egetis is retained in order to clarify the genitive case of the name. 38,22 and 38,27 Iphidama] Although the Latin manuscripts read Ifidama (with minor variations in Ag 1  p.c., Ag 3 , and P 4), the spelling Iphidama is adopted here as being closer to the Greek Ἰφιδάμα. 39,9 tradenda maxilla] Because it is so well attested in the extant manuscripts, tradendam maxillam was probably the reading of the archetype; that reading is also syntactically incorrect. Therefore, the syntactically correct form tradenda maxilla (cf. dimittenda domus 39,7) is adopted here. The faulty accusative case could have occurred under the influence of the preceding gerundives, with the suffix -um being mistakenly understood as an accusative.

10  Ed.

by J.-M. Prieur (CCSA, 5–6).

notes

413

43,5 ad custodiam globi] The manuscripts read either custodiendam (Ag 1a.c., Ag 2 , P 3 , P 2 , P 1, P 4 , Mü, and F a.c.[costudiandam]) or custodiam (Ag 1  p.c., Ag 3 , Bg 1, Bx, Bo, So, Gr, and F p.c.). The first alternative appears to have been the reading of the archetype, yet that reading is either corrupted or erroneous. The gerundive custodiendam would require a feminine singular subject in the accusative case, which would then be further qualified by the genitive globi. Perhaps the reading custodiendam is simply a mistake, in which an original gerund custodiendum was adjusted in order to correspond to its semantic subject, ea pars, resulting in custodiendam (feminine singular). The genitive globi would then function as an objective genitive. The reading custodiam is preferred here because the phrase ad custodiam globi is grammatically correct (as opposed to ad custodiendam globi) and is repeated later at 49,32–33 (ad sempiternam globi custodiam damnarentur). Although the author does make use of the phrase globo custodiendo in 49,28, no comparable variant (ad custodiendum globum) is attested in the textual witnesses to Adu. Man. here. 44,12–13 recte factorum] Although the manuscript evidence suggests that facturum was the reading of the archetype, that reading seems erroneous. I have therefore adopted the variant factorum because the difference between it and facturum is minimal (the letters o and u could have been confused in the earliest phase of transmission) and because of the parallel recte factorum – recte factis (44,13). 44,15 ipsa] The reading ipsa, attested in Ag 1, Ag 2 , P 3 , P 2 , P 1, P , and Mü, refers to inferiora, whereas ipsam, found in Ag 3 , Bg 1, Bx, Bo, So, Gr, F, and the editions Maur and Zycha, refers to animam rationalem. The Maurists were the first editors to introduce the reading ipsam (Amerbach, Erasmus, and the Leuven edition all read ipsa), and they found this reading in Vt 1. Zycha, who follows the Maurists’ decision here, found ipsam in F.  In the present edition, the reading ipsa is adopted because it is better attested in the (more conservative) manuscripts, and is, to an extent, the lectio difficilior. In terms of content, the reading ipsa would stress the capabilities of the free will: it has the choice between hell (inferiora; ipsa) and heaven (aeternam beatitudinem; deum). We must  4

414

notes

also acknowledge here that the formal difference between ipsa and ipsam could only concern a minor variation in spelling (see the note on 37,1). 47,14 libidinem] The archetypal reading, attested by a large number of manuscripts, was perhaps libidine. Nevertheless, the reading libidinem is retained in the present edition. The difference between -e and -em could have resulted either from a variation in spelling or from a misread abbreviation (-ē). The accusative libidinem functions as the object of accenderet, whereas if we were to adopt libidine, the object of accenderet would be implied but unexpressed. 49,4–5 tanta peccatorum corruptione turpari] The author repeats a phrase found in the immediately preceding chapter. In that section, the verb turbo is used instead of turpo (48,14–15: quid tanta peccatorum corruptione turbamini). One might expect that the author would make use of the same verb in both passages. Four different textual variants can be found for the verbs in 48,15 and 49,5. Some manuscripts read the same verb in these two sections, whether that verb is turbo (Ag 2 Bo So Gr P 4a.c.) or turpo (Ag 3 P 1 P 4  p.c.  Mü F). Three manuscripts (Ag 2 P 3 P 2) have the verb turbo in 48,15, and turpo in 49,5. A fourth reading can be found in Bg 1 and Bx.  There, the variant turbamini occurs in 48,15, while in 49,5, the manuscripts offer both alternatives: turbari uel turpari. The choices taken by the present edition are justified by the distribution of readings in the manuscripts. For 48,15, turbarmini is found in all three families of manuscripts (Ag 1 Ag 2 P 3 for γ, the entire family β, Gr and P 4a.c.  for δ), whereas turpamini is almost exclusively found in manuscripts of δ (P 4  p.c.  Mü F, in addition to Ag 3 and P 1). For the choice of verb in 49,5, the distribution is quite different. It would make sense for the copyists to use the same verb in the two passages. Therefore, the reading of three important early witnesses, namely, Ag 1, P 3 , and P 2 , which read turpari here instead of turbari, seems a significant lectio difficilior. The readings of Bg 1 and Bx seem to confirm that two different verbs were used in the two passages. In 48,15, all manuscripts of β read turbamini. For 49,5, the two manuscripts Bg 1 and Bx (cf. hyparchetype μ) list two possible variants: turbari or (uel) turpari. This could suggest that the passage originally read turpari

notes

415

and that turbari was was a subsequent addition. An alternative explanation, namely, that turpari was the addition, and that the passage originally read turbari, seems less likely. For the copyists, there would have been no reason to consider turbari a suspect reading (especially since they will have found turbamini a few sentences earlier), and there would be no clear indication as to why turpari would be a reasonable alternative in this passage. For the author of Adu. Man., the use of two different verbs could be a stylistic device meant to create some sort of crescendo effect (“Why are you troubled?” – “You do not need to disgrace yourselves”). 49,14 protegat deum non ualentem] The archetype seems to have been corrupt here. It probably read protegat deo non uolentem (“Or who could possibly protect, for God’s sake, someone unwilling to protect himself”). This is the reading found in Ag 1a.c., Ag 2 , P 3 , P 1, P 4 , Mü, and F a.c.. Manuscript P 2a.c.  contains an erroneous variation on this reading, having the plural uolentes instead of the singular uolentem. This archetypal text is quite problematic. With regard to the syntax, it is unclear what function deo has (I translate it as a dative of benefit), and the object of protegat, which must be uolentem, is left without further specification. In terms of content, it is strange to find the author speaking of protecting an indefinite “someone” (the unspecified object of protegat) when both the preceding and the following sentence concern the relation between the speaker and God, and God’s ostensible impotence in protecting the speaker. It is also unclear why someone would be unwilling (non uolentem) to protect himself. The remaining manuscripts contain several innovative readings which attempt to solve the difficulties of this sentence. (1) Manuscripts Bg 1, Bx, Bo, So alter the voice of the verb protegat. The active form protegat becomes the passive construction protegatur a. The form uolente (ualente Bg 1) is an adjustment which conforms the participle to the ablative deo. (2) Manuscript F p.c.  changed the ablative/dative deo into deum. Deum then becomes the object of protegat. Otherwise, the sentence remains unaltered. (3) Ag 3 and Gr have an ablative form of the participle instead of the accusative. Deo non uolente (ualente Ag 3) thus becomes an ablative absolute. The object of protegat remains unexpressed, but is implied to be God.

416

notes

(4) Ag 1  p.c.  Ag 3 P 2  p.c.  Bg 1 contain the verb ualeo instead of uolo. This would better correspond to the context of this sentence, which discusses the impotence (not the ill intent) of God. The Maurists have protegatur a deo non ualente in their edition. Among the extant manuscripts, this reading is only attested in Bg 1, Bg 2 , and Pm.  In all probability, the Maurists were following the text of the Leuven edition, since none of the six identified manuscripts of the Maurists (Di, La, P 1, P 2 , P 3 , and Vt 1) contain that reading. The Leuven editors probably found protegatur a deo non ualente in their codex chartusiensis (which also read in carne uenisse at 22,12, a reading unique to Bo, Bg 2 , Pm, and So). Zycha adapted the text he found in F p.c.. He retained the syntax of F p.c.  (accusative deum) but changed the verb uolentem into ualentem. This conjecture seems most elegant to me, since it requires the least amount of adjustment to the archetypal text of Adu. Man. A  confusion between o and a could have occurred in the earliest stages of the textual transmission (ualentem versus uolentem). The text proposed by the Maurists is a reasonable alternative as well, and one better attested in the manuscript transmission. Presumably, in their view, an early copyist misread or omitted a tilde, which would signify the suffix -tur (instead of -t). This explanation, however, does not account for the addition of an a in order to make deo the agent of protegatur. 49,32 eius requie nonnulli sui ciues] Here too the archetype appears to have been corrupt. The most convincing candidates for the archetypal reading are eius requie nulli sui ciuis (Ag 1a.c., Ag 2 , P 3 , P 2a.c., P 1) and eius requie nulli sui ciues (Ag 1  p.c., Ag 3 , and P 2  p.c.).11 Both the Maurists and Zycha prefer the reading ciues over ciuis, and that for good reason. Confusion between i and e could have occurred in earlier manuscripts (cf. the discussion of ferimini). The nominative plural ciues better corresponds with the surrounding context (congruent with sui, nulli, and the verb damnarentur) than the genitive singular ciuis does (this form could also be an accusative plural, but that case would be even more at odds with the syntax of this sentence). The reading succiui, found in Bg 1, Bx, Bo, So does not convince. The term succiu- is typical for this branch of 11  Note

that δ does not contain this final segment of Adu. Man.

notes

417

the transmission and can be found in those passages where other branches of the transmission read subsiciu- (7,1; 43,4). The reading nulli is more problematic. Manuscript evidence favours this reading, which seems odd in the context of the sentence. One would expect the author to accuse the Manichaean god of sending his citizens to eternal condemnation. The term nulli would signify exactly the opposite, unless one were to draw a distinction between the condemned souls (illa parte mentioned just before in Adu. Man.) and the citizens, none of which will be condemned (nulli sui ciues). The text does not read that way, and a reader would naturally identify the ciues with illa parte. The reading nulla, found in Bg 1, Bx, Bo, and So could solve this problem. The term would qualify requie and form an ablative absolute. The author would then be using this phrase to mock the Manichaean views of their god: he will not even secure rest for himself. This is the reading favoured by Zycha, who found nulla in Pm. In any case, the reading nulla does seem to be a secondary reading, since it is only found in one branch of the transmission. The Maurists provide an alternative solution. They followed the preceding editions (Amerbach, Erasmus, Leuven) which all read pro eius requie sui ciues, omitting nulli. In fact Amerbach found this reading in Tr (or a now-lost relative). Tr is the only manuscript known to contain these variants. Manuscripts closely related to Tr, namely, Av, La, Vl, and Vt 2 read pro eius requie nonnulli sui ciues. I would carefully suggest a different alternative to nulli, namely, the just-mentioned reading nonnulli. This suggestion would befit the context of Adu. Man.’s argument (the evil Manichaean god condemns some of his own citizens). The suggestion also leaves more or less in place the term nulli, which is the otherwise convincing reading of the archetype. The variant nulla is clearly of secondary origin. And the double negation non nulli may have been changed into a single negation during the earliest stage of the transmission. See also the relevant footnote in the English translation.

Appendices

Appendix I: Description of Manuscripts Manuscripts used by the Maurists have been marked with a single asterisk; those consulted by Zycha with a double asterisk. The following information is given for each manuscript: siglum; current repository and inventory number; if known, the place where the manuscript was written, or the oldest collection to which it belonged; the date of the manuscript; fols indicating where the text of Adu. Man. can be found; title and closing formula of the treatise Adu. Man. in the manuscript. Ag 1

Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 179; Abbaye Saint-Aubin, tenth/eleventh century, fols 46v–58r.1 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti eyyodii ignoratur. Closing formula: domino christo laudes.

The manuscript contains several Augustinian texts: Adu. V haer. (fols 1r–10v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 10v–38r), F. et symb. (fols 38r– 46v), Adu. Man. (fols 46v–58r), Conl. Max. (fols 58r–74v) and C. Max. (fols 74v–120r). These six works, along with Coll. Pasc., constitute a collection of texts found in all branches of the transmission of Adu. Man. Although the description in the Catalogue général states that the manuscript was written in the ninth century, Bischoff estimates that it belongs to the tenth or eleventh century. Ag 2

Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 180; Abbaye Saint-Serge, tenth/eleventh century, fols 55r–66v. 2 Title: incipit liber aduersus manicheos qui utrum sancti augustini sit an sancti euodii ignoratur Closing formula: domino christo laudes.

Written a little later than Ag 1, the second Angers manuscript nevertheless does not depend on the first. Ag 2 contains the seven

1  Catalogue général, Départements, t. 31, pp. 247–48; B. Bischoff, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften, vol. 1, p. 19. 2 

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 31, p. 248.

422

appendix i

works typical of the collection in which Adu. Man. was transmitted: Adu. V haer. (fols 1r–13v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 14r–47r), F. et symb. (fols 47r–55r), Adu. Man. (fols 55r–66v), Conl. Max. (fols 68r–95v), C. Max. (fols 95v–153v) and Coll. Pasc. (fols 154r– 60r). Ag 2 is a more luxurious codex than Ag 1, with large decorated initials on fol. 1r and fol. 68r, although these initials, not coloured entirely, may be unfinished. The quality of the text is excellent. Ag 3

Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 289; Abbaye Saint-Aubin, eleventh/ twelfth century, fols 127v–39r. 3 Title: incipit liber aduersus manicheos qui utrum sancti augustini an sancti euodii ignoratur. Closing formula: explicit.

Whilst of a later date than Ag 1 and originating from the same monastery, manuscript Ag 3 is not a copy of Ag 1. The composition of Ag 3 is rather atypical for the transmission of Adu. Man. The manuscript contains several works of Hilary of Poitiers, namely, Tractatus psalmi centesimi octavi decimi (fols 1r–56r) and Tractatus de psalmo centesimo quadragesimo secundo (fols 56r–59r), followed by treatises of (or attributed to) Augustine. These works are Gr. t. nou. (fols 59r–80r), Cat. rud. (fols 80r–102v), Diuin. daem. (fols 103v–09r), De paenitentiae medicina (= S. 351; fols 109v–18v), F. et symb. (fols 118v–27v), Adu. Man. (fols 127v–39r), Ig. purg. (fols 139r–42r) and Nat. b. (142r–154v). On fol. 103v, there is a table of contents that lists the Augustinian works contained in the manuscript. In this overview, Gr. t. nou. follows Nat. b. and concludes the list; the order of the list is thus at odds with the actual composition of the manuscript. Av

Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale, 84; Abbaye du Mont-Saint-Michel, twelfth century, fols 54v–67v.4 Title: aurelii augustini yponiensis episcopi de fide catholica liber incipit aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: explicit liber sancti augustini contra manicheos.

The manuscript contains a table of contents (fol. 1v), followed by Cont. (fols 2r–16r), Praed. gr. (fols 16r–26r), Ep. 191 (fols 26r– 3 

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 31, pp. 285–86.

4 

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 10, p. 38.

description of manuscripts

423

27r), Ep. 194 (fols 27r–39r), Dial. qu. (fols 39r–54v), Adu. Man. (fols 54v–67v), S. 150 (fols 68r–72v), S. 7 (fols 72v–75r), Vit. chr. (fols 75r–85v), Ep. 36 (fols 86r–91v), Adu. V haer. (fols 92r–99r), a treatise attributed to Augustine entitled Vtrum sub figura an sub ueritate corporis Christi fiat sacramentum, (fols 99r–99v: inc.: [V]eritas ait caro mea uere est cibus; expl.: incorruptionem reparatur), and Fides quam Beringerius professus est in concilio Romano (fol. 99v: inc.: [E]go Beringerius corde credo; expl.: ab ea recesserant). Bo

Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque municipale, 49; Abbaye Saint-Vaast, Arras, thirteenth century, fols 410v–18v. 5 Title: incipit liber sancti augustini episcopi de fide catholica. Closing formula: explicit tractatus beati augustini episcopi de fide catho­ lica.

This large manuscript contains various, mostly Augustinian, texts: An. quant. (fols 1r–20r), Orig. an. (fols 20r–25v), Jerome’s Ep. 134 (fols 25v–26r), Capitula in libro de quantitate animae (fols 26r–26v; inc.: [P]ropositio sex quaestionum de anima), Imm. an. (fols 27r– 32v), Duab. an. (fols 32v–39v), Spir. an. (fols 39v–50r), Beat. u. (fols 50r–57r), Mor. eccl. cath. (fols 57r–71v), Mor. Man. (fols 71v– 84v), C. ep. fund. (fols 84v–98r), Bapt. (fols 98r–150r), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 150r–69v), Eccl. dogm. (fols 169v–73v), Nat. et gr. (fols 173v– 90r), Perf. iust. (fols 190r–99v), Mend. (fols 199v–212r), C. mend. (fols 212r–24v), Disc. chr. (fols 224v–28r), Vid. deo (fols 229r–40r), Sol. (fols 240r–54v), a work titled Tractatus de oratione dominica (fols 254v–56r; inc.: [O]mnis anima pia quae fideliter Deum diligit), a Sermo de mensa Domini (fols 256r–58v; inc.: [D]ominus et saluator noster), IV uirt. car. (fols 258v–61r), Cant. nou. (fols 261r–64v), F. et symb. (fols 264v–87r), Spir. et litt. (fols 287v–305r), An. et or. (fols 305r–13v), C. adu. leg. (fols 313v–38v), Diu. qu. (fols 338v– 78r), Praes. dei (fols 378r–85r), Praed. gr. (fols 385r–91v), Ord. (fols 391v–410v) and Adu. Man. (fols 410v–18v). The manuscript was copied in an elegant gothic script, but it remains unfinished. Empty spaces indicate where a decorated initial was supposed to be inserted.

5 

Catalogue général, t. 4, pp. 604–05.

424 Bg 1

appendix i

Bruges, Openbare Bibliotheek, 103; Abdij Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Ter Duinen, Koksijde, 1489, fols 280v–85r.6 Title: / Closing formula: /

The codex consists of two parts: the first part (A) contains fols 1–188 and was written on parchment, while the second part (B) was written on paper. The first part contains a large number of works of Ambrose (treatises and letters), and a short fragment of Jerome’s Commentarii in IV epistulas Paulinas: ad Galatas (fols 186r–86v). Part B continues Jerome’s Commentarii in IV epistulas Paulinas: ad Galatas (fols 189r–219r), ad Ephesios (fols 219r–47r), ad Titum (fols 247r–57v) and ad Philemonem (fols 257v–62r). Afterwards a few (mainly) Augustinian works follow: Exp. prop. Rm. (fols 262r–69r), Exp. Gal. (fols 269r–80v), Adu. Man. (fols 280v–85r), Conl. Max. (fols 285r–93r), C. Max. (fols 293r–311v), Sententiae of Bernard of Clairvaux (fols 311v– 12v; inc.: [N]aaman princeps), Sermo 145 of Caesarius of Arles (fols 312v–13r; [F]requenter in scripturis), and an Exposicio lectionis de libro Regum of Hermannus de Runa (fols 313r–13v; inc.: Elias timuit Iezabel). The manuscript is unfinished. The second part of the manuscript has no rubrication, while in the first part red initials alternate with empty spaces, where other initials were to be inserted: presumably an alternating blue initial was supposed to be added to the codex, yet never was. Bg 2

Bruges, Openbare Bibliotheek, 112; Abdij Ter Doest, fourteenth century, fols 61v–68v.7 Title: incipit tractatus eiusdem contra manicheos. Closing formula: explicit tractatus beati augustini episcopi contra manicheos.

This manuscript contains only Augustinian works: Nupt. et conc. (fols 1r–25r), F. inuis. (fols 25r–28v), Gr. t. nou. (fols 28v–45r), Op. mon. (fols 45r–57v), Diuin. daem. (fols 57v–61v), Adu. Man. (fols 61v–68v), B. coniug. (fols 68v–78r), Mend. (fols 78r–89r), 6 A. De

Poorter, Catalogue des manuscrits, pp. 130–36; M. T. Wieser, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VIII/2, p. 30. 7 A. De Poorter, Catalogue des manuscrits, pp. 144–46; M. T. Wieser, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VIII/2, p. 32.

description of manuscripts

425

C. mend. (fols 89r–101r), Eccl. dogm. (fols 101r–04v), F. Petr. (fols 105r–17r), Vera rel. (fols 117v–37v), Ep. 153 (fols 137v–42v), C. ep. Parm. (fols 142v–70v), and Bapt. (fols 170v–221r). The text is written in elegant gothic script and is decorated by means of beautiful initials, alternating between blue and red ink. The two Bruges manuscripts are not directly related. Bx

Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Bibliothèque Royale, 9349–54; Abbaye Saint-Laurent, Liège, eleventh century, fols 158r–64v.8 Title: incipit liber eiusdem de unitate trinitatis. Closing formula: aurelii augustini episcopi finit liber de unitate trinitatis.

The manuscript was originally written and preserved in the abbey of Saint-Laurent in Liège. Its composition is rather typical for manuscripts of Adu. Man., especially from fol. 127 onwards: Trin. (fols 1v–117v), C. Felician. (fols 119v–27r), Adu. V haer. (fols 127r– 34v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 134v–53r), F. et symb. (fols 153r–58r), Adu. Man. (fols 158r–64v), Conl. Max. (fols 164v–76r), C. Max. (fols 176r–203v), Coll. Pasc. (fols 204r–07r), and a Letter of the monks of the abbey (fol. 208r). The codex was written in a very clear Carolingian minuscule. Ch

Chicago, University Library, 110; Abbaye Saint-Jacques, Liège, thirteenth/fourteenth century, fols 97r–106r.9 Title: incipit liber aurelii augustini de fide catholica aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: explicit.

The Chicago manuscript, originally from the Abbaye SaintJacques in Liège, contains the following works: Exhortationes ad quemdam comitem (fols 1r–26r; inc.: O  mi frater, si cupias scire), Cura mort. (fols 26r–36v, including Retr.), Ep. 54 (fols 36v–38v), Ep. 55 (fols 39r–49r), Ord. (fols 49r–72v, including Retr.), Nat. b.  (fols 72v–83r; Retr. have been added by a later hand in the margins on f. 72v), Ep. 93 (fols 83r–96r), S. 350 (fols 96r–97r), Adu. Man. (fols 97r–106r), F. Petr. (fols 106r–22r), and Vid. deo

8 J. Van

Den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits, vol. 2, pp. 138–39; M. T. Wieser, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VIII/2, pp. 114–15. 9 H. Janssens, “Notice sur un manuscrit de Saint Augustin”; Chicago, The University of Chicago Library Catalogue, “Theological treatises”.

426

appendix i

(fols 122v–35r, including Retr.). Ch is not directly related to the other two Liège manuscripts (Bx and Li). Di *

Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, 139; Abbaye Notre-Dame de Cîteaux, thirteenth century, fols 151v–59r.10 Title: aurelii augustini episcopi de fide catholica incipit liber aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: operum meruit scriptor | explicit liber sancti augustini de sancta trinitate et filio [?]11 | explicit liber aduersus manicheos.

This voluminous codex consists of the following (pseudo-) Augustinian works: Gn. litt. (fols 2r–89v), Conl. Max. (fols 89v–101r), C. Max. (fols 101v–30v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 130v–51v), Adu. Man. (fols 151v–59r), Cons. eu. (fols 160r–244r), C. adu. leg. (fols 244r– 70v), and Conf. (fols 271r–351r). The manuscript’s composition is explained by its dependence on the eleventh-century manuscript Pa.  This book (Di) is the codex cisterciensis consulted by the Maurists. Gr

Grenoble, Bibliothèque municipale, 203; Grande Chartreuse, thirteenth century, fols 224v–36r.12 Title: contra manicheos tractatus quidam beati augustini episcopi. Closing formula: explicit.

While the manuscript contains some works which were often transmitted along with Adu. Man., such as Gn. adu. Man. and F. et symb., its composition is rather unique: a part of Gn. adu. Man. (fols 1r–6v; inc.: dignoscentiae boni et mali dicitur; expl.: uideretur urgeri. Quod), C. mend. (fols 7r–29r), Gr. t. nou. (fols 29r–59r), Ep. 211 (fols 59v–64v), Orig. an. (fols 64v–117v), Gr. et lib. arb. (fols 117v– 61r), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 161r–94r),13 Virg. (fols 194r–215v), F. et 10 

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 5, p. 38.

11  The

writing of this closing formula in three lines is unclear at times. The letters at the end of the second line of the formula seem to resemble abbreviations of san(cta) t(rinitate) and f(ilio). 12 P. Fournier, E.-A. Maignien, & A. Prudhomme, Catalogue général, Départements, t. 7, p. 73. 13 The folia at the beginning of this codex are seemingly a copy of fols 183r–88v. These folia also start at dignoscentiae and stop at quod, where the text is interrupted. Fol. 190 then repeats quod, after which the text continues as normal.

description of manuscripts

427

symb. (fols 215v–24v), and Adu. Man. (fols 224v–36r). Contrary to the information given in the Catalogue général, the manuscript contains 236 folia (not 226) and the text is written in one broad column (not in 2 columns). The codex is rather sober. Its initials are barely decorated. Kl

Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, CCl 220; Augustiner Chorherrenstift, twelfth century, fols 41v–50r.14 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euodii ignoratur. Closing formula: /

The manuscript’s composition is typical for the textual transmission of Adu. Man. It contains Adu. V haer. (fols 1r–10v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 10v–33v), F. et symb. (fols 33v–41v), Adu. Man. (fols 41v–50r), Conl. Max. (fols 50r–65v), C. Max. (fols 65v–102r), Coll. Pasc. (fols 102v–06v), and Hieronymus’ Ep. 2 (fols 107r–18r; incipit on fol. 106v). The manuscript contains beautifully decorated initials, often incorporating animals into their design. The script is elegant and easy to read. La *

Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, 128; Notre-Dame, thirteenth century, fols 113r–19r.15 Title: liber beati augustini contra manicheos. Closing formula: explicit liber xlviii questionum beati augustini contra manicheos.

The manuscript’s composition is somewhat exceptional among the transmission of Adu. Man. The codex contains Nat. b. (fols 1r–8r), XXI sent. (fols 8r–12r), Imm. an. (fols 12r–16v), Symb. cat. (fols 17r–35r), C. adu. leg. (fols 36r–57r), Cura mort. (fols 58r–64r), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 64r–81r), Vera rel. (fols 81r–98v), Perf. iust. (fols 98v–104v), C. ep. fund. (fols 105r–12v), Adu. Man. (fols 113r– 19r), Retr.’s entry on Exp. prop. Rm. (fol. 119r), S. Ar. (fols 119v– 20v), C. s. Arrian. (fols 120v–27r), An. et or. (fols 127v–31r; inc.: Quod mihi ad te), Acad. (fols 132r–52r), Ord. (fols 152v–67v), Diu. qu. (fols 168r–97v), Quodvultdeus’ De cataclysmo (fols 198r–201r), C. Felician. (fols 201r–08r), a list of capitula of the first book 14 D. Weber, 15 

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VI/2, p. 130.

Catalogue général, t. 1, pp. 108–09.

428

appendix i

of Augustine’s Retr. (fol. 208v), Eccl. dogm. (fols 209r–10v), F. inuis. (fols 210v–12r), Ench. (fols 212v–22v), Anselm’s Monologion (fols 223r–39r), Proslogion (fols 239r–43v), Gaunilo’s Quid ad Anselmi Proslogion respondeat quidam pro insipiente (fols 243v– 44v; inc.: [D]ubitanti utrum sit uel neganti), Anselm’s response to Gaunilo (Quid ad Gaunilonem respondeat editor ipsius libelli; fols 244v–47r; inc.: [Q]uoniam non me reprehendit), his De incarnatione uerbi (fols 247r–52v), De grammatico (fols 253r–57v), and Cur deus homo (fols 257v–70v). The degree to which the manuscript is finished differs from text to text. Some of the texts lack any form of rubrication. Other texts, such as Adu. Man., seem to be in a perfectly finished state. The style of handwriting also differs from section to section within the codex. The text of Adu. Man. is written in an elegant gothic script and has a lavishly decorated initial. The text is divided into 48 chapters, and the rubricator applied a numbering scheme to these chapters. The Maurists consulted this manuscript for their edition of Adu. Man. and refer to it as the Laudunensis eccl[esiae] codex. Li

Liège, Bibliothèque de l’Université, 132; Couvent des Croisiers, thirteenth century, fols 166v–75v.16 Title: / [in marg.: incipit liber eiusdem de unitate trinitatis alibi sit]. Closing formula: /

Li consists of two parts. The first part (fols 1–6) was written in two columns, while the rest of the manuscript is written in one broad column. The codex contains unfinished Orationes sancti Augustini episcopi de sancta trinitate (fols 1v–2r; inc.: […] in uia hac qua te duce), a section of the Retr. (fols 3r–6r), Ep. 7 (fol. 7r), Trin. (fols 7r–141r), C. Felician. (fols 141v–50v), Adu. V haer. (fols 151r– 60r), F. et symb. (fols 160r–66v), Adu. Man. (fols 166v–75v), Conl. Max. (fols 175v–90v), C. Max. (fols 191r–224v), and Coll. Pasc. (fols 224v–28v). The manuscript is most probably a copy of Bx, which also originated from Liège. The codex contains some large and beautifully decorated initials (fols 141v, 151r, 160r, 166v, 175v, 191r, 224v), but these remained, to an extent, unfinished: The initials on f. 3r and 7r were not coloured with blue and golden ink, as had been done for the other initials listed above. Furthermore, 16  M. T.

Wieser, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VIII/2, pp. 197–98.

description of manuscripts

429

f. 1v contains a large gap where, presumably, the rubricator was supposed to add an initial. Ma

Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 223; Duomo di Messina, fourteenth century, fols 228r–33r.17 Title: aurelii augustini episcopi de fide catholica aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: explicit

This large codex first contains a number of works of Anselm, followed by Augustinian works. The manuscript contains Anselm’s De ueritate (fols 1r–6r), De libertate arbitrii (fols 6r–9v), De casu diaboli (fols 9v–17v), Cur deus homo (fols 17v–32r), De conceptu uirginali et de peccato originali (fols 32r–39r), De processione spi­ ritus sancti (fols 39r–47r), Ep. ad Wallerianum (fols 47r–48v), De concordia praescientiae et praedestinationis et gratiae Dei cum libero arbitrio (fols 48v–51v), De praedestinatione et libero arbitrio (fols 51v–57v), Ep. secunda ad Wallerianum de sacramentis Ecclesiae (fols 57v–58r), Monologion (fols 58r–73v), Proslogion (fols 73v–78v), Augustine’s Ench. (fols 78v–93r; capitula on fols 78v–79r), Doct. chr. (fols 93v–119v), Gn. litt. (fols 120r–83r), Eccl. dogm. (fols 183r– 85v), Conl. Max. (fols 185v–94r), C. Max. (fols 194r–214v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 214v–27v), Adu. Man. (fols 228r–33r), Conf. (fols 233r– 85r), Retr. (fols 285r–303v), and Draconius’ De diuersis haeresibus (fols 303v–09r). Fol. 309v finally contains a table of contents of the manuscript, written by a later hand. The codex is written in a typical textualis script, with elegant initials in blue and red ink.18 Due to the gothic script, Hombert assumes that the manuscript is of French origin and written in the thirteenth century.19 Nevertheless, parallels of the textualis script type in which Ma was written have been attested in other Iberian and Italian manuscripts.20 Whatever the case, the text of Adu. Man. in Ma is most closely related to Pa and Di.

17 J. Divjak,

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, IV, pp. 230–31.

18 A. Derolez,

The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books, p. 41.

19 P.-M. Hombert 20  See

(CCSL, 87A), p. 273.

A. Derolez, The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books, pp. 102– 16, pl. 49,60.74.

430 Mü

appendix i

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 18083; Kloster Tegernsee, 1483, fols 224v–32r.21 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos alius liber eiusdem sancti augustini episcopi et doctoris. Closing formula: deo gratias.

This is a large manuscript, written on paper. It contains pseudo-Chrysostom’s Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (fols 1r–199r), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 199r–218v), F. et symb. (fols 218v–24v), Adu. Man. (fols 224v–32r), Conl. Max. (fols 232r–45r), C. Max. (fols 245r–76r), and Qu. eu. (fols 276v–93v). The composition of the manuscript is rather typical for the transmission. While Mü originated at a relatively late date, it constitutes a reliable copy of an early exemplar, at least with regard to Adu. Man. and, according to Hombert, of Conl. Max. and C. Max. 22 Ox

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 175; Stift Engelszell, twelfth century, fols 37r–43v.23 Title: incipit tracatus eiusdem contra manicheos. Closing formula: /

Currently in Oxford, but once belonging to Stift Engelszell, Ox represents one of several twelfth-century Austrian manuscripts. This small manuscript contains F. et symb. (fols 1r–6v), Coll. Pasc. (fols 6v–9v), Adu. V haer. (fols 10r–17r), the beginning of Ambrose’s De mysteriis sacramentorum (expl.: mortuus mundo; fols 17r–18v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 19r–37r), Adu. Man. (fols 37r–43v), Conl. Max. (fols 44r–54r), C. Max. (fols 54r–85r), and finally, a confession of faith (inc.: Indubitanter credo unum deum esse) and an exposition of a doxological text (inc.: Iste uersiculus post unumquemque psalmum; these words seem to be the opening words of the Medieval Liber quare, app. II, add. 3, without the lemma “Quare Gloria Patri”24) conclude the manuscript. The scribe often intervened in his text. These modifications make it difficult to assess the exact position 21 R. Kurz,

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, V/2, p. 380.

22 P.-M. Hombert

(CCSL, 87A), p. 10.

23 F. Römer,

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, II/2, p. 274; H. O. Coxe, Bodleian Library, II, cols. 159–60. 24  Cf. G. P.

Götz (CCCM, 60), p. 133, l. 1.

description of manuscripts

431

of Ox within the textual transmission of Adu. Man., though the manuscript is most closely related to the extant witnesses Kl, F, Vt 1, and Zw. P 1*/**

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2077; Abbaye SaintPierre, Moissac, tenth century, fols 38r–45v.25 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euuodii ignoratur. Closing formula: domino christo laudes.

P 1 is a unique manuscript within the transmission of Adu. Man. (cf. the stemma in chapter II of the introduction). It consists of two major sections, which were incorporated into one codex. It contains a table of contents (1r; this table of contents was written at a later date), Adu. V haer. (fols 1v–10v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 10v– 32r), F. et symb. (fols 32r–38r), Adu. Man. (fols 38r–45v), Conl. Max. (fols 45v–59v), C. Max. (fols 59v–92v), Coll. Pasc. (fols 92v– 96r), Diu. qu. (fols 96r–110v), extracts of a work entitled De incarnatione domini (fols 110v–19r; inc.: Absit a nobis ita hominem), extracts of Fulgentius’ Ad Trasimundum (fols 119r–20v; inc.: Vnus idemque Christus), extracts of Prosper’s De caritate (fol. 121r; inc.: Caritas est ut mihi uidetur recta uoluntas), a series of benedictions of the cross (fols 121r–21v; inc.: Congregauit nos in unum christi amor; inc.: O crux admirabilis uirtute), and all but one verse of Paschasius Radbertus’ Carmen ad Placidum de corpore et sanguine domini (fol. 121v; inc.: Regis adire; expl.: uixeris istis). Fols 122 and 123 then seem to be inserted between fol. 121v and fol. 124r. On fol. 122r, a new section starts, written in a different ink by a different hand. It first contains the final verse of Radbertus’ poem and some unfinished fragments (fol. 122r: inc.: [A]nno DCCC simo XL o V incarnationis Christi; 122r: inc.: [I]gitur istae rotae duae duobus ferris; fols 122r–22v: inc.: [I]n natale igitur Domini in prima missa et secunda; fol. 122v: inc.: [I]n paenis costae; fols 122v–23r: inc.: In uno nempe ferro tamen magno). On fol. 124r, the final verse of Radbertus’ Carmen ad Placidum de Corpore et Sanguine Domini is repeated. Afterwards, the manuscript contains Radbertus’

25  Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 2077”; P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), pp. 277–78. On the date of this manuscript, see B. Bischoff and B. Ebersperger, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften, vol. 3, p. 60.

432

appendix i

treatise De corpore et sanguine Domini (fols 124r–50r), Eugippius’ reworking of Augustine’s S. 350 (fols 150r–51r; CPL 067626), a sermon resembling Eugippius’ adaptation of a section of Augustine’s Diu. qu. (fols 151r–51v; CPL 0676; inc.: Alius alterius onera sed hoc officium non sempiternum), some unidentified texts, probably homilies and adaptations of Augustine’s works (fols 152r– 53r: inc.: Necessitas interni doloris ipse sibi capta;27 fols 153r–54r: inc.: Lectio euangelica ostendit, fratres carissimi, mulierem in adulterio; fols 154r–55v: inc.: Secularibus aliter in ecclesia loquimur;28 fols 155v–56v: inc.: Dominus per prophetam dicit recedite exite inde), so-called Dicta Sancti Ambrosii (fols 156v–57r; inc.: Constans esse debet amicitia), a work De Maria Magdalenae [sic] (fols 157r–59r; inc.: Ecce mulier peccatrix), an Ep. consolatoria of Saint Leodegar (fols 159r–61r; inc.: Dominae et sanctissimae genetrici), the compilation De octo principalibus uitiis et unde oriuntur (fols 162r–74r; inc.: A  Paradisi gaudiis postquam), accompanied with several illustrations, 29 and two unfinished texts (fols 174r–74v: inc.: [F]raternae mortis periculum incurrit; fols 174v–75v: inc.: [R]egnante in perpetuum). Overall, the manuscript is quite unfinished. While most parts have been completed by the rubricator, other texts lack an incipit or even an initial. Furthermore, the decorated initials in the work have only been coloured in red, although their appearance suggests further colouring was still due. The illustrations of the text De octo principalibus uitiis et unde oriuntur are also unfinished. With regard to Adu. Man., it has to be noted that this manuscript contains the entire collection of seven works in which the treatise was originally transmitted. The unity of this collection is emphasized by an introduction and conclusion written by the rubricator (fols 1v and 96r). 30 The manuscript was used by Zycha 26  For

CPL numbers, see E. Dekkers & A. Gaar, Clavis patrum latinorum.

27  This

sermon has been published as a homilia beati Ioannis de sancta magdalena in F. Combefis, Bibliotheca patrum concionatoria, p. 388. 28  This

text is published in PL 18, cols. 67–70 as Sententia de humilitate et obedientia et de calcanda superbia of Novatus Catholicus. 29  On 30 

this text, see C. Fraïsse, “Un traité des vertus et des vices”.

P 1, fol. 1v: in hoc codice continentur libri VIII, id est aduersus V hereses augustini liber unus, Contra manicheos libri IIII, Contra Maximinum arrianorum episcopum libri tres, Contra Pascencium arrianum spectabilem uirum de

description of manuscripts

433

in his edition of Adu. Man. [siglum P]. Additionally, this was the codex Colbertinus used in the Maurists’ edition of the work. P 2*

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12218; Abbaye SaintPierre, Corbie, ninth century, fols 23r–35v. 31 Title: incipit eiusdem contra manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euuodii ignoratur. Closing formula: explicit liber sancti augustini contra manicheos. P 2 is the oldest extant manuscript of Adu. Man. It contains the

following texts: Adu. V haer. (fols 1r–13v), F. et symb. (fols 14r– 22v), Adu. Man. (fols 23r–35v), Conl. Max. (fols 36r–59r), C. Max. (fols 59r–112v), and Coll. Pasc. (fols 113r–18r). The manuscript thus only contains works of the traditional collection of which Adu. Man. was a part, though Gn. adu. Man. is excluded. P 2 is the codex Corbeiensis used by the Maurists in their edition of Adu. Man. It is a valuable manuscript for the textual transmission due to its early date and the quality of its text. The text was corrected by a second hand. These corrections generally seem to be normalizations of the Latin spelling (e.g., adserit ante correctionem, asserit post correctionem). P 3*

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12219; Saint-Maur-desFossés, early eleventh century, fols 63r–76r. 32 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: domino nostro iesu christo laudes.

This manuscript is another witness of the entire collection of seven works in which Adu. Man. was originally transmitted. P 3 contains Adu. V haereses (fols 1r–15v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 15v–52v), F. et symb. (fols 52v–62v), Adu. Man. (fols 63r–76r), Conl. Max. (fols 76r–99v), C. Max. (fols 99v–147v), Coll. Pasc. (fols 147v– 53v), and Chants en l’honneur de saint Vincent, notés en neumes homousion liber unus; P 1, fol. 96r: expliciunt libri numero VIII quos beatus Augustinus scripsit contra V genera hostium, necnon contra Maximianum episcopum, seu contra Pascentiu, ui [Sic] sup[ra] ab arrianis eruditum. 31  Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 12218”; P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), p. 278. On the date of the manuscript, see B. Bischoff and B. Ebersperger, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften, vol. 3, p. 191. 32  Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 12219”; P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), pp. 278–79.

434

P 4**

appendix i

(fols 153v–54v). The manuscript was copied at Saint-Maur-desFossés in Paris. The Maurists, who consulted it for their edition of Adu. Man., referred to this manuscript as codex Fossatensis. It is a very important manuscript for the transmission of Adu. Man. since it is the source of a large number of other manuscripts. The manuscript contains some beautiful and elegant decorations (see especially fol. 1r) but was probably left unfinished (cf. the initials on fols 52v and 63r). Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14301; Abbaye Saint-Victor, Marseille, early eleventh century, fols 126v–36v. 33 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euuodii ignoratur. Closing formula: /

After a table of contents (before fol. 1r) that is clearly of a later date, the manuscript consists of two parts. The first part contains a Passio Sancti Pauli Apostoli (fols 1r–3v; inc.: Cum uenisset Romam Lucas), a Sermo in S. Lucam euang. (fols 4r–5v; inc.: Cum in diuinis atque sacris uoluminibus studiose legendo), a Sermo de ui­gilia epiphaniae (fols 5v–6v; inc.: In illo tempore defuncto Herode), a Passio Sancti Cyrici et Iulittae matris eius (fols 6v–8v; inc.: Sanctorum Christi martyrorum pia certamina), and Isidore’s Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum (fols 9v–93v). 34 The second part of the codex first contains an Altercatio inter monachos s. Victoris et cano­ nicos Aquenses (fols 94v–95r), some almost entirely blank pages (fols 95r–96v; each page only containing one line of text), some songs with musical notation (fols 96v–97r; inc.: Venite omnes ad adorandum regem Christum), and then six of the seven works from the collection in which Adu. Man. was transmitted: Gn. adu. Man. (fols 97v–119v), F. et symb. (fols 119v–26v), Adu. Man. (fols 126v– 36r), Conl. Max. (fols 136r–52v), C. Max. (fols 152v–86v), and Coll. 33  Archives et manuscrits, “Latin 14301”; P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), pp. 280–81. 34  A malediction on fol. 93v marks the end of this first part of the codex: Hic est liber Sancti Victoris martiris monasterii Massiliensis. Quicumque eumdem furatus fuerit uel qualicumque malo alienauerit uel tulerit uel folium quaternumue succiderit propter malum uel hac maledictionem erraserit, sit anathema, maranatha miseriaeque et maledictioni subiaceat. Amen amen. Fiat fiat. The following page, fol. 94r, was left blank. Cf. P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), p. 280.

description of manuscripts

435

Pasc. (fols 186v–88v; interrupted early35). The manuscript was used by Zycha in his edition of Adu. Man. He gave the manuscript the siglum V, erroneously calling it Vedasti (of Saint-Vaast, Arras) instead of Victorinus (of Saint-Victor). Pa

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 245; Saint-Martin-des-Champs, eleventh century, fols 155r–61r. 36 Title: aurelii augustini episcopi de fide catholica incipit liber aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: /

Pa contains Gn. litt. (fols 1r–104v), Conl. Max. (fols 105r–15v), C. Max. (fols 115v–39v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 139v–55r), and Adu. Man. (fols 155r–61r). A table of contents of a later date follows after the treatises. The decoration in the manuscript is quite sober. Pa is important for the textual transmission of Adu. Man., as it is the oldest extant manuscript containing the title De fide catholica aduersus Manichaeos and was presumably the model, directly or indirectly, of Av, Ch, Di, La, Ma, Tr, Vl, and Vt 2 . Pm **

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 635; Couvent des Grands-Augustins, late thirteenth century, fols 25v–30v. 37 Title: incipit tractatus contra manicheos. Closing formula: explicit tractatus beati augustini episcopi contra manicheos.

Pm is a beautifully decorated manuscript with characteristics that are rather typical for codices from the thirteenth century onwards: relatively large format, textualis script, written in two columns, usage of alternating red and blue initials. It contains Gr. t. nou. (fols 1r–12r), Op. mon. (fols 12r–20v), Diuin. daem. (fols 20v–23r), F. inuis. (fols 23r–25v), Adu. Man. (fols 25v–30v), Nupt. et conc. (fols 30v–43r), Mend. (fols 43r–51v), C. mend. (fols 51v–60r), Eccl. dogm. (fols 60r–63r), Isidore’s Soliloquiorum (fols 63r–72v), and

35  See H. Müller, D. Weber, C. Weidmann, Collatio Augustini cum Pascentio, p. 98, l. 84. 36  Archives et manuscrits, “Ms-245.”; P.-M.  Hombert (CCSL, 87A), pp. 281–82. 37 A. Molinier,

Catalogue général, Départements, t. 1, pp. 282–83.

436

appendix i

Augustine’s Io. eu. tr. (fols 72v–241v). The manuscript was used by Zycha in his edition of Adu. Man. (siglum M). So

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque de l’agglomération, 85; Abbaye de Clairmarais, twelfth/thirteenth century, fols 132v–40v. 38 Title: incipit tractatus eiusdem contra manicheos. Closing formula: explicit tractatus beati augustini episcopi contra manicheos.

The composition of So is rather atypical for manuscripts of Adu. Man. The codex contains a table of contents on fol. 1v, and the following treatises: XXI sent. (fols 2r–8v), Mus. (fols 9r–59v; incipit on 8v), Gr. t. nou. (fols 59v–78v), Qu. c. pag. (fols 78v– 87r), Dulc. qu. (fols 87r–97v), Exp. prop. Rm. (fols 98r–109r), Exp. Gal. (fols 109r–28r), F. inuis. (fols 128r–32v), and Adu. Man. (fols 132v–140v). The manuscript seems unfinished. Only one initial (on fol. 9r) is completely finished in three colours (blue, red and yellow). The other initials lack one or two of these three colours. F **

St Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, XI 76; Stift Sankt Florian, twelfth century, fols 65r–79r. 39 Title: om. [in marg.: (tract)atus contra … (manich)eos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti eu(u)odii ignoratur].40 Closing formula: /

This manuscript is presumably the oldest of all the extant Austrian witnesses to our text.41 Its content is rather typical for the 38 

Catalogue général, t. 3, p. 51.

39 A. Czerny,

Die Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek St Florian, pp. 31–32; D. Weber, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VI/2, pp. 264–65. 40 The marginal note in F is difficult to read. A reconstruction between brackets can be found in J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. lxx. I would suggest, however, that the marginal text would have read aduersus instead of contra. I have not been able to discern either form in the margin of fol. 65r. 41  The descriptions of Czerny and Weber conflict with regard to the manuscript’s date. While the catalogue entry of Czerny states that the manuscript was written in the eleventh century, Weber posits a mid-twelfth-century date. The chronology of the Austrian manuscripts (Kl, Ox, F, Zw, and Vt 1) is important when considering the interdependence of these manuscripts. Conversely, the study of textual variants can help to establish a relative chronol-

description of manuscripts

437

transmission of Adu. Man.: Adu. V haer. (fols 1r–14v), the beginning of Ambrose’s De mysteriis sacramentorum (fols 14v–16v; des.: mundo mortuus), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 17r–54v), F. et symb. (fols 54v– 65r), Adu. Man. (fols 65r–79r), Conl. Max. (fols 79r–99v), C. Max. (fols 99v–137r), and Coll. Pasc. (fols 137r–40v). The manuscript F thus contains the same works as Ox.  However, F retains the original order of the collection of seven works of which Adu. Man. was part. The manuscript is untidy and unfinished. In many instances, rubrication and the application of initials is still lacking. This is also true for the title of Adu. Man. A  marginal note on fol. 65r, which was probably meant to serve as a guide for the rubricator-to-be, is still preserved. The manuscript was used in Zycha’s edition of Adu. Man. (siglum F). Tr

Trier, Seminarbibliothek, 48; Benediktinerabtei St Matthias, 1472, fols 36v–42v.42 Title: aurelii augustini ipponensis episcopi de fide catholica incipit liber aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: explicit liber sancti augustini episcopi contra manicheos.

A late manuscript, written on parchment and on paper, Tr contains Diu. qu. (fols 1r–29r), XXI sent. (fols 29v–33r), S. 150 (fols 33r–35r), S. 7 (fols 35v–36v), Adu. Man. (fols 36v–42v), Exp. prop. Rm. (fols 42v–51r), Ep. 207 (fol. 51r), C. Iul. (fols 51v–132r), Martin a Braga’s Formula uitae honestae (fols 134r–35v), Cat. rud. (fols 135v–45v), Lib. arb. (fols 145v–63r), An. quant. (fols 163v– 68r), S. 383 (fols 168v–69v), S. 46 (fols 170r–79r), S. 47 (fols 179r– 87r), Bapt. (fols 187r–249v), Pecc. mer. (fols 249v–86r), and Vn. bapt. (fols 286v–93v). Some parts of the manuscript have remained unfinished or were finished in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript. The three treatises on fols 134r–163r have their titles in black ink, underlined by the rubricator. The title of S. 383 is also written in black ink, this time underlined in black ink, and has no initial. A guide-letter remains in its stead. S. 46 lacks a title. The other treatises were finished in the normal manner,

ogy between these witnesses. P.-M. Hombert (CCSL, 87A), p. 283 agrees with Weber on a mid-twelfth-century date. 42 R. Kurz,

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, V/2, pp. 473–74.

438

appendix i

with title and initial in red ink, and with a few red highlights in the texts. Vl

Valencia, Biblioteca Universitaria, 33 (580); Monasterio de San Miguel de los Reyes, thirteenth/fourteenth century, fols 134r–39r.43 Title: liber beati augustini contra manicheos. Closing formula: explicit liber xlviii quaestionum beati augustini contra manicheos.

The size of this manuscript, with writing in two columns, gothic script, and the usage of alternating blue and red ink for initials is typical for thirteenth-century books. The manuscript’s decorations are very elegant, especially on fol. 1r. Hombert believes the gothic script indicates this manuscript is originally from France.44 It is most probably a copy of La and served as the model of Vt 2 . It contains C. Faust. (fols 1r–71v), Nat. b. (fols 72r–77r), XXI sent. (fols 77r–80v), Symb. cat. (fols 80v–94v), S. 215 (fols 94v–95v), C. adu. leg. (fols 96r–112v), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 112v–25r), C. ep. fund. (fols 125r–33v), Adu. Man. (fols 134r–39r), S. Ar. (fols 139r– 40r), C. s. Arrian. (fols 140r–46v), Acad. (fols 147r–63r), Ord. (fols 163r–75v), Quodvultdeus’ De cataclysmo (fols 175v–78r), Qu. eu. (fols 178v–89r), and Qu. Mt. (fols 189r–91v). Vt 1*

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 203; thirteenth/fourteenth century (?), fols 95v–109r.45 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos. Closing formula: /

Although this manuscript is dated to the twelfth century in the catalogue of the Vatican Library and in the description of Oberleitner, its gothic script and the alternation between red and blue initials could suggest a thirteenth- or fourteenth-century origin.46 Additionally, the gothic script could also hint at a transalpine provenance. In any case, Vt 1 is most closely related to the Austrian manuscripts Kl, Ox, F, and Zw. The codex contains Cyprian’s De dominica oratione (fols 1r–12v), De mortalitate (fols 12v–20v), 43 J. Divjak,

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, IV, p. 290.

44 P.-M. Hombert

(CCSL, 87A), p. 54.

45 M. Oberleitner, 46  Cf. A.

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, I/2, p. 250.

Derolez, The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books, pl. 54.

description of manuscripts

439

Ad Demetrianum (fols 20v–30r), De bono patientiae (fols 30r–38v), De zelo et liuore (fols 38v–44v), and De catholicae ecclesiae unitate (fols 44v–45v). After two blank folia (fols 46r–47v), a new section starts, containing Adu. V haer. (fols 48r–62r), Gn. adu. Man. (fols 62r–95v), Adu. Man. (fols 95v–109r), F. et symb. (fols 109r– 19r), Vit. chr. (fols 119v–32r), S. 351 (fols 132v–42v; des.: mors aeterna uitatur), and Ep. 205 (fols 142v–47v). Empty spaces in the manuscript (fols 46r–47v and fol. 119r) perhaps suggest that the book consists of three parts, the scribes having copied from three different models. Relevant for this study is the second section of this manuscript, which contains Adu. V haer., Gn. adu. Man., Adu. Man., and F. et symb. These works are typical for the original collection in which Adu. Man. was transmitted. The manuscript was consulted by the Maurists. It is their codex Vaticanus. Vt 2

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Arch. San Pietro B. 52; fourteenth century, fols 224v–30r.47 Title: liber beati augustini contra manicheos. Closing formula: explicit liber xlviii questionum beati augustini contra manicheos.

This manuscript is, at least with regard to the text of Adu. Man., in all probability a copy of Vl.  Hombert also deduces from its gothic script that this manuscript was of French origin. The large codex is beautifully decorated. Aside from red and blue ink, golden ink was used to decorate the manuscript (see, for example, the decorations on fols 185r, 195r, 198r and 246r). The manuscript contains a large number of Augustine’s Letters (fols 5r–184v; overview on fols 1r–3v),48 Prosper Aquitanus’ Liber sententiarum (fols 165r– 95r), Eccl. dogm. (fols 195r–98r), C. adu. leg. (fols 198r–215r), C. ep. fund. (fols 215r–24v), Adu. Man. (fols 224v–30r), S. Ar. (fols 230r– 31v), C. s. Arrian. (fols 231v–37v), Mir. s. script. (fols 238r–45v; inc.: Omnium mirabilium uelut), Ep. 207 (fol. 246r), and C. Iul. (fols 246r–314r).

47 M. Oberleitner, 48 For

Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, I/2, pp. 302–03.

a detailed enumeration of the letters, see M. Oberleitner, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, I/2, p. 302.

440 Zw

appendix i

Zwettl, Stiftsbibliothek, 35; Stift Zwettl, late twelfth century, fols 120v–27v.49 Title: incipit aduersus manicheos utrum eiusdem utrum sancti euuodii ignoratur. Closing formula: /

This manuscript contains following works: Gr. t. nou. (fols 2r–17v), C. ep. Parm. (fols 17v–44r), Ep. 250 (fols 44v–45r), Cat. rud. (fols 45r–59r), F. et op. (fols 59r–71v), Conl. Max. (fols 72r–84r), C. Max. (fols 84r–112v), Coll. Pasc. (fols 112v–15v), F. et symb. (fols 115v–20v), Adu. Man. (fols 120v–27v), Ep. 225 (fols 127v– 30r), Ep. 226 (fols 130r–32r), Praed. sanct. (fols 132r–44r), Don. pers. (fols 144v–59r), Cura mort. (fols 159r–65r), Ep. 187 (fols 165r– 71r), and Vtil. cred. (fols 171r–82r).

49 D. Weber, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, VI/2, p. 458; C. Ziegler, Zisterzienserstift Zwettl, pp. 75–77.

Appendix II: Parallel and Source Passages 1. Preliminary Note In the following appendix, a passage of Adu. Man. is cited first, with line numbers corresponding to the present edition. After each lemma, there follows one or more parallel passages. Latin and Greek texts are cited in their original language. For the fragments of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos which survive only in Syriac translation, an English translation is provided instead of the original Syriac. Words emphasised in bold indicate where the parallel fragments employ the same terminology as Evodius’ Adu. Man. I  have consulted all sources myself, with the exception of the following works (for which I make use of studies that summarize their anti-Manichaean content): -

Serapion of Thmuis, Aduersus Manichaeos.1 Titus of Bostra, Contra Manichaeos.2 Ambrose, De fide. 3 Augustine, De ciuitate dei.4

2. Parallel Passages Adu. Man. 1,1–9: Vnus deus pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, inui­ sibilis, incomprehensibilis, inenarrabilis, inuiolabilis, incoinqui­ nabilis, qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem. Ipse lumen uerum, uita et ueritas, bonus, summus et quaecumque de illo humanus sermo poterit enuntiare; quae tamen ab eo dantur, ut aliquo modo dici possint. Ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, siue sedes, siue dominationes, siue principatus, 1 G. Fox,

J. Sheldon, Greek and Latin Sources on Manichaean Cosmogony and Ethics, pp. 50–54. 2 P.-H. 

Poirier, T. Pettipiece, Biblical and Manichaean Citations, pp. 131–99. 3  H. G.

Schipper, J. van Oort, Sancti Leonis magni romani pontificis sermones et epistulae, p. 11. 4 J. van Oort, “Manichaeism in Augustine’s de civitate dei”; J. van Oort, “Reminiscences of Manichaeism in Augustine’s City of God”.

442

appendix ii

siue potestates; et omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt, sicut in utroque Testamento humilibus et pie quaerentibus manifestatur ; ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen. An. quant. XXXIV,77: Ideoque diuine ac singulariter in ecclesia catholica traditur, nullam creaturam colendam esse animae - libentius enim loquor his uerbis quibus mihi haec insinuata sunt -, sed ipsum tantummodo rerum, quae sunt, omnium creatorem, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia, id est incommutabile princi­pium, incommutabilem sapientiam, incommutabilem caritatem, unum deum uerum atque perfectum; ed. by W. Hörmann (CSEL, 89), p. 225, l. 23-p. 226, l. 4. An. quant. XXXVI,80: Deus igitur summus et uerus lege inui­ olabili et incorrupta; ed. by W. Hörmann (CSEL, 89), p. 229, l. 6–7. Mor. eccl. cath. XIV,24: Deum ergo diligere debemus trinam quamdam unitatem, patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum … ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia; haec uerba Pauli sunt. Quid deinde subiecit? ipsi gloria; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 28, l. 7–11. Duab. an. 9: ego quoque contra reciterem: omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil, et illud apostoli: unus deus, ex quo omnia, et unus dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia, et iterum eiusdem apostoli: ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia, ipsi gloria; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 61, l. 11–16. C. Fort. 1: nam et uos interrogati confitemini deum esse incorrup­ tibilem et omni modo inuiolabilem et incoinquinabilem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 83, l. 15–16. C. Fort. 3: [Fortunatus dixit:] Et nostra professio ipsa est, quod incorruptibilis sit deus, quod lucidus, quod inadibilis, intenibilis, impassibilis aeternam lucem et propriam habitet; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 85, l. 16–18. C. Adim. 1: non enim tres deos sed unum deum credimus: patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 115, l. 15–16. C. ep. fund. 1: Vnum uerum Deum omnipotentem, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia.; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 193, l. 4–5. Agon. XIII,15: Credamus ergo in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum: haec aeterna sunt et incommutabilia, id est, unus Deus, unius substantiae Trinitas aeterna; deus ex quo omnia, per quem

parallel and source passages

443

omnia, in quo omnia; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 118, l. 17–21. C. Faust. XX,2: [Faustus dixit:] sed patrem quidem ipsum lucem incolere credimus summam ac principalem, quam Paulus alias inac­ cessibilem uocat; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 536, l. 11–13. Conf. VII,1,1: Et conabar cogitare te homo et talis homo, summum et solum et uerum deum, et te incorruptibilem et inuiolabilem et incommutabilem totis medullis credebam; ed. by L.  Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 92, l. 7–10. C. Fel. II,7: non deum incorruptibilem colitis, de regi autem saeculorum immortali, inuisibili, deo honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum. deus habitat lucem inacessibilem; ed. by 25/2), p. 834, l. 3–7.

quo apostolus dicit: incorruptibili, soli Denique item dicit: J. Zycha (CSEL,

Ep. 92,3: Non ita est deus inuisibilis et incorruptibilis, qui solus habet immortalitatem, et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 31A), p. 161, l. 37–39. Ep. 169,II,5: Proinde in unum deum patrem et filium et spi­ ritum sanctum firma pietate credamus; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 614, l. 19–20.

Adu. Man. 2,1–2: Huic Manichaeus aduersarium esse dicit nescio quem gentis principem tenebrarum. Gn. adu. Man. II,XXVI,39: quod serpens ille Christus fuerit, et deum nescio quem gentis tenebrarum; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 164, l. 4–5. C. Fort. 1: dicitis eniam aliam nescio quam gentem tenebrarum aduersus dei regnum rebellasse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 83, l. 18–20. C. Faust. XVIII,7: non gentem nescio quam tenebrarum ad­uer­sum diuina regna a suo principio nascentem et rebellantem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 496, l. 3–4. C. Fel. II,1: nescio quae gens aduersa, quam fingitis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 829, l. 9. C. Sec. 19: nescio quem principem gentis tenebrarum esse contendes; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 933, l. 20–21. Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum II,6,10: nam lepra in capite Manichaeos, Priscillianos complicesque eorum demonstrat. Etenim cum uiri caput Christus sit, caput uero Christi Deus, Deo ipsi capiti dum aduersarium nescio quem principem tenebrarum filii tenebrarum disputantes opponunt; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p.  80, l. 21–25.

444

appendix ii Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: Sed si Deum patrem omnipotentem, inuiolabilem, inuisibilem, incorruptibilem credis, quomodo illi principem gentis tenebrarum aduersarium ponis?; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 7–10.

Adu. Man. 2,6: Sed quia apostolus mendax non est. C. Faust. II,4: ergo ne Paulus mendax sit, Manichaeus anathema sit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 258, l. 1–2.

Adu. Man. 3,1–2: Falsum est ergo quod Manichaeus asserit, nescio quam mali naturam cum principe suo non habere auctorem, sed esse ingenitam. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. II,39: Ὡς οὐχ ἧττον καὶ οὕτω τῷ Μάνεντι καὶ ὁ περὶ τῆς κακίας αὐτῆς, ἣν πλασάμενος ἀρχὴν ἀγένητον καλεῖ, λόγος διελέγχεται; ed.  by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), pp. 181–83, l. 7–9.

Adu. Man. 3,2–5: Deinde si ingenitus deus, ingenita etiam nunc gens tenebrarum, non erit contrarium ingenitum et ingenitum, uidens et uidens, regnans et regnans, uiuens et uiuens, aeternum et aeternum. Act. Arch. VII [= Epiphanius, Pan. 66,25,2]: οὗτος δύο σέβει θεοὺς ἀγεννήτους, αὐτοφυεῖς, ἀϊδίους, ἕνα τῳ ἑνὶ ἀντικείμενον; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 9, l. 12–13; ed. by K. Höll, J.  Dummer (GCS, 37), p. 53, l. 20-p. 54, l. 1); cf. Hic duos colit deos innatos, ex semet ipsis extantes, aeternos, unum uni aduersantem; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 9, l. 18–20. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. I,1: ἀγένητον, ὥς φησιν, ἀγενήτῳ καὶ ζῶσαν ζῶντι, ἀεὶ μὲν ἐπανισταμένην καὶ μαχομένην καὶ οὐπώποτε μὴ οὐχὶ πράγματα παρέχουσαν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι δὲ πρὸς αὐτοῦ παντελῶς μὴ δυναμένην ὡς ἀΐδιόν τε καὶ συμπεπληρωμένην τὴν οὐσίαν ὡς ἀγένητον; ed.  by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p. 9, l. 12–17. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. I,6: Γράφων τοίνυν ἐκεῖνος αὐτὸς ὁ χαλεπώτατα μανεὶς Μάνεις ἄρχεται πανταχοῦ· ἦν θεὸς καὶ ὕλη, φῶς καὶ σκότος, ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακόν, ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν ἄκρως ἐναντία ὡς κατὰ μηδὲν ἐπικοινωνεῖν θάτερον θατέρῳ, ἀγένητά τε καὶ ζῶντα ἄμφω; ed.  by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p. 19, l. 1–5. 5

Adu. Man. 3,5–8: Et si contrarium est bonum malo, ex aliqua ergo parte discordabit bonum a malo ; ex multa uero coniunctum et 5  Cf. Epiphanius,

Pan. 66,13,7–14,1 below (under adu. Man. 3,5–8).

parallel and source passages

445

concordans erit et non iam erit merum malum habendo tanta communia bona cum deo. Act. Arch. XVIII: [Archelaus dixit:] quid est quod impediat, uti ne unum atque idem eas esse opinemur? Si enim inconuersibiles sunt, non est in his naturis, quae similiter conuersibiles sunt, et similiter ingenitae, ulla discretio, neque altera ex his bona agnoscitur aut mala; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 29, l. 4–7. Epiphanius, Pan. 66,13,7–14,1: ἄρχεται γοῦν ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ βίβλῳ λέγειν ὁ αὐτὸς Μάνης· «  Ἦν θεὸς καὶ ὕλη, φῶς καὶ σκότος, ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακόν, τοῖς πᾶσιν ἄκρως ἐναντία, ὡς κατὰ μηδὲν ἐπικοινωνεῖν θάτερον θατέρῳ  »; ed.  by K.  Höll, J.  Dummer (GCS, 37), p. 36, l. 2–4. Mor. Man. IX,15: Cur quaeso in summo malo inuenio tanta bona his malis quae commemoraui contraria?; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 101, l. 5–6. C. Sec. 20: ponendo in nautra, quam non fecit deus, uitam, sensum, sermonem, modum, speciem, ordinem et alia innumerabilia bona; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 935, l. 19–21.

Adu. Man. 3,8: Si uero dicunt: “ingenitum est in suo”, nihil dicunt. Serapion of Thmuis, Adu. Man. XXX: πῶς ἀγένητοι; πῶς ἀεί; πῶς οὐδέποτε ἤρξαντο; πῶς ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν εἰσιν;; ed.  by R.  P.  Casey, Serapion of Thmuis, p. 46, l. 13–14.

Adu. Man. 3,9–10: Nam ingenitum et ingenitum, aeternum et aeternum, in quantum ingenita et aeterna sunt, nunquam erunt contraria. Epiphanius, Pan. 66,14,5: εἰ γὰρ τὰ δύο σύγχρονα, οὐδὲ κἄν τῷ ὀνόματι διήλλακται; ed. by K.  Höll, J.  Dummer (GCS, 37), p. 36, l. 15–16.

Adu. Man. 3,10–12: Non enim quia imperator in sua potestate magnus est et mediastrinus in operatione sua contemptibilis est, ideo mediastrinus non erit homo, quia homo est imperator? C. Sec. 10: an ordine potestatis, ut imperator milite aut prouinciali; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 920, l. 12–13.

Adu. Man. 5,3–5: Nam et dominus ostendens quod in hominis potestate sit, ait: aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum, aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum. C. Fort. 22: sed ut intellegas istas duas arbores sic esse a domino positas, ut ibi significaretur liberum arbitrium, non naturas esse istas duas arbores, sed uoluntates nostras, ipse ait in euangelio: aut facite

446

appendix ii arborem bonam aut facite arborem malam; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 105, l. 11–15. C. Fel. II,4: hoc ergo dominus dicens ‘aut facite illud, aut facite illud’ ostendit esse in potestate quid facerent; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 832, l. 12–13.

Adu. Man. 5,5–9: In Actibus etiam conscriptis a Leucio, quos ipsi accipiunt, sic scriptum est: “etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio uisibilium ne quidem ex propria natura procedit, sed ex eo homine qui per se ipsum deterior effectus est per seductionem”. C. Fel. II,6: in Actibus conscriptis a Leutio, quos tamquam actus apostolorum scribit, habes ita positum: etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio uisibilium nec quidem ex propria natura procedunt, sed ex eo homine, qui per se ipsum deterior factus est per seductionem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 833, l. 12–17.

Adu. Man. 5,9–15: Ipse etiam Manichaeus non potuit nisi fateri animas, etiam quas dicit ad dei substantiam pertinere, propria uolun­ tate peccare. Nam sic in secundo Thesauri libro dicit: “hi uero qui negligentia sua a labe praedictorum spiritu purgari se minime permiserint mandatisque diuinis ex integro parum obtemperaue­ rint legemque sibi a suo liberatore datam seruare plenius nolue­ rint neque ut decebat sese gubernauerint”, et cetera. C. Fel. II,5: Audi ergo iam, quemadmodum Manichaeus ipse tam peruersus, tam superbus, ut aliam introducens naturam se aequalem deo faceret, deum ad se ipsum deponeret, confessus sit tamen esse liberum arbitrium. In Thesauro uestro, cui tale nomen ad decipiendos homines indidistis, certe sic loquitur: hi uero, qui negligentia sua a labe praedictorum spirituum purgari se minime permise­ rint mandatisque diuinis ex integro parum obtemperaue­ rint legemque sibi a suo liberatore datam seruare plenius noluerint neque ut decebat sese gubernauerint, et cetera; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 832, l. 17–27. Ep. 166,II,5: Certus etiam sum animam nulla dei culpa, nulla dei necessitate uel sua sed propria uoluntate in peccatum esse collapsam; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 553, l. 9–11.

Adu. Man. 5,15–17: Item in Epistula fundamenti sic dicit de illis animabus: “quae mundi amore errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sunt atque inimicae lumini sancto extiterunt … C. Faust. XXI,16: dicit enim Manichaeus in epistula Fundamenti ideo dignas illas animas fieri tali supplicio, quod errare se a pri­

parallel and source passages

447

ore lucida sua natura passae sunt et inimicae lumini sancto extiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 589, l. 25–28. C. Faust. XXII,22: hoc enim culpae imputabitur damnandis in globo illis reliquiis, quod errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sunt et inimicae lumini sancto extiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 612, l. 6–9. C. Faust. XXII,22: quae ideo merito dicit pendere tam immane ac sine fine supplicium, quod errare se a priore sua lucida natura passa sunt et inimica lumini sancto extiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 615, l. 19–21. C. Faust. XXII,22: nam quando se errare a priore sua lucida natura passae sunt et inimicae lumini sancto extiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 616, l. 8–10. Nat. b. 42: an illae animae, quas in globo tenebrarum in aeternum configit, non erant incolae lucis, de quibus aperte dicit, quod errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sint?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 878, l. 4–7. Nat. b. 43: inimicae existerent sanctae luci; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 879, l. 28. C. Sec. 20: qua etiam lumini sancto, cuius portio est, extitit inimica; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 936, l. 20. C. Sec. 24: ideo quippe dicit Manichaeus aeterno supplicio animas in illo horribili globo damnandas, quod errare se a priore lucida sua natura passae sunt et inimicae luminis tunc extiterunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 942, l. 24–27.

Adu. Man. 5,23–29: Quod ideo illis eueniet, quia ita iniquis operibus se obstrinxerunt, ut a uita et libertate sanctae lucis alienarentur. Non igitur poterunt recipi in regna illa pacifica, sed configentur in praedicto horribili globo, cui etiam necesse est custodiam adhiberi. Vnde adhaerebunt his rebus animae eaedem quas dilexerunt, relictae in eodem tenebrarum globo, suis meritis id sibi conquirentes. Neque enim futura haec cognoscere studuerunt atque ab iisdem, cum tempus dabatur, se segregarunt. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. I,40: Ἀλλ᾿ ἔδει, φησί, δεθῆναι ταύτην· ὅταν οὖν ἀποσπασθῇ κατὰ μικρὸν ἡ κατεχομένη δύναμις, τί γενήσεται; Εὔδηλον ὡς αὖθις ἡ ὕλη πρὸς τὴν φυσικὴν ἀταξίαν ἐπανήξει. Οὔ φησιν. Ἐν γὰρ τῷ τέλει περιγενύσεται ταύτης καὶ βῶλον ἀπεργασάμενος αὐτὴν ὑφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς φλέγεσθαι παρασκευάσει; ed.  by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), pp. 91–93, l. 8–13.

448

appendix ii C. Faust. II,5: nec tamen etiam tunc totum Christum dicitis posse liberari, sed eius bonae diuinaeque naturae nouissimas residuasque particulas, quae ita sordidatae sunt, ut nullo modo dilui ualeant, damnari in aeternum confixas globo horrida tenebrarum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 258, l. 26-p. 259, l. 1. C. Faust. VIII,2: ut miserabilis pannus de regno lucis abscinderetur, et globo tenebrarum aeterna poena configeretur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 307, l. 13–14. C. Faust. XIV,1: nec fututa haec ignorauisse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 402, l. 5. Nat. b. 42: animae autem, quae hoc sunt quod deus, non pote­runt recipi, sicut dicit, in regna illa pacifica et a uita ac libertate sanctae lucis alienabuntur et configentur in praedicto horribili globo: unde et adhaerebunt, inquit, iis rebus ani­ mae eaedem, quas dilexerunt, relictae in eodem tenebra­ rum globo, suis meritis id sibi conquirentes; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 878, l. 20–25.

Adu. Man. 6,1–2: Rogo uos: ubi audiuntur haec uerba, dubitatis adhuc Manichaeum adactum esse confiteri [non] esse peccatum propriae uoluntatis? Duab. an. 14: Non igitur nisi uoluntate peccatur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 68, l. 21. C. Faust. XVI,14: tamen coactus es confiteri; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 454, l. 21–22. Nat. b. 42: ubi et nolens coactus est dicere libera eas uoluntate peccasse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 878, l. 7–8. C. Sec. 9: quia subiunxisti dicens: non enim propria uoluntate peccauit, sed alterius ductu; carnis enim commixtione ducitur, non propria uoluntate; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 917, l. 27–29.

Adu. Man. 6,2–4: Non enim unum uerbum inde dixit, sed tam multa, ut quemuis graui somno mersum excitaret. Vera rel. VIII,15: per haereticos de somno excitantur; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 197, l. 24–25. Gn. adu. Man. I,I,2: nisi per molestias et insultationes haereticorum quasi de somno excitentur; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 68, l. 13–15. En. Ps. 77,1: Quis non hic de somno excitetur?; ed. by E. Dekkers, I. Fraipont (CCSL, 39), p. 1066, l. 17.

parallel and source passages

449

Adu. Man. 6,5: dixit: “seruare noluerint”. C. Fel. II,5: non enim dixit: non potuerint sed: noluerint; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 832, l. 30.

Adu. Man. 7,1–2: Iterum ipse dicit in eadem epistula: “lucis autem subsiciuam partem, hoc est, animas peccatrices”. Duab. an. 2: quare non ego quanto decoloratius uiuat peccatrix anima; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 53, l. 9.

Adu. Man. 7,4–6: cum ipsum dominum nostrum Iesum Christum nolitis intelligere dicentem : ignem praeparatum esse peccatoribus et diabolo et angelis eius, quos omnes uoluit intelligi peccatores? C. Adim. 5: hoc autem, quod in euangelio est, uos ex patre dia­bolo estis peccatoribus et infidelibus dici; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 124, l. 12–13. C. Faust. XXI,3: quasi de alio dixerit Christus quod praeparaue­ rit ignem aeternum malis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 571, l. 24–25.

Adu. Man. 9,1–2: Est ergo in potestate ut sit cupiditas, et ideo etiam malum in potestate est. C. Faust. XXII,78: Siue autem iniquitas siue iustitia, nisi esset in uoluntate, non esset in potestate. porro si in potestate non esset, nullum praemium, nulla poena iusta esset; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 678, l. 27–29.

Adu. Man. 9,2–4: Malum enim non potest esse natura nec substantia nec uita, quia haec bona sunt, in quantum sunt. Gn. adu. Man. II,XXIX,43: Nos dicimus nullum esse malum naturale, sed omnes naturas bonas esse, et ipsum deum summam esse naturam, caeteras ex ipso esse naturas, et omnes bonas in quantum sunt, quoniam fecit deus omnia bona ualde; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 171, l. 25–28. C. ep. fund. 33: omnem naturam, in quantum natura est, bonum esse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 236, l. 25. C. Faust. XVIII,7: sed malum non esse naturam, quia contra naturam est, intellegunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 496, l. 2–3. Nat. b. 1: omnis autem natura, in quantum natura est, bonum est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 855, l. 15–16.

450

appendix ii Nat. b. 4: sed etiam ipsa corrupta, in quantum natura est, bona est; in quantum corrupta est, mala est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 857, l. 7–8. Ciu. X,24: bonus itaque uerusque mediator ostendit peccatum esse malum, non carnis substantiam uel naturam; ed. by B.  Dombart, A.  Kalb (CCSL, 47), p. 297, l. 22–24.

Adu. Man. 9,5–6: Totum itaque quod uocatur malum in hominibus, peccatum est et poena. Vera rel. XII,23: Et hoc est totum quod dicitur malum, id est, peccatum et poena peccati; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 202, l. 14–15. Vera rel. XL,76: non sit malum nisi peccatum et poena peccati; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 237, l. 62–63. C. Fort. 15: et hoc est solum, quod dicitur malum, uoluntarium nostrum peccatum. Est et aliud genus mali, quod est poena peccati; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 91, l. 22–24. C. Adim. 26: dupliciter enim appellatur malum: unum quod homo facit, alterum quod patitur; quod facit, peccatum est; quod patitur, poena; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 184, l. 22–24.

Adu. Man. 10,4–7: Sed quid uerum est nisi et dominum dare praecepta et animas liberae esse uoluntatis et malum naturam non esse, sed esse auersionem a dei praeceptis, et esse iustum iudicium dei quo damnet peccantes? Vera rel. XIV,27: habere animas liberum uoluntatis arbitrium; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 204, l. 16. Duab. an. 12: quia de quo nesciente, uel resistere non ualente quisquam quippiam mali fecerit, iuste damnari nullo modo potest; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 67, l. 13–15. C. Fort. 20: quod liberum arbitrium si non dedisset deus, iudi­ cium puniendi nullum iustum esse posse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 98, l. 5–7. C. Faust. II,5: Et nos quidem sub fato stellarum nullius hominis genesim ponimus, ut liberum arbitrium uoluntatis, qua uel bene uel male uiuitur, propter iustum iudicium dei ab omni necessitatis uinculo uindicemus; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 259, l. 11–14. C. Fel. II,8: iam enim diximus et probauimus per diuinas scripturas esse liberum arbitrium; deum autem liberi arbitrii iustum iudicem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 836, l. 12–14.

parallel and source passages

451

Haer. 46,19: Peccatorum originem non libero arbitrio uolunta­ tis, sed substantiae tribuunt gentis aduersae; ed. by R. Vander Plaetse, C. Beukers (CCSL, 46), p. 319, l. 185–86.

Adu. Man. 11,1–8: Interea cum dicat idem Manichaeus deum omnibus bonis abundantem, nullo in regnis eius insignibus indigente aut infimo constituto, ita etiam fundata eiusdem splendidissima saecula, ut a nullo unquam concuti uel moueri possint, in alio loco paulo post subiungit et dicit : “lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stirpem tenebrarum, qua exstincta quies lucis incolis pararetur”. C. Fort. 1: deum autem omnipotentem, cum uideret quanta labes et uastitas immineret regnis suis, nisi aliquid aduersae genti oppone­ ret, et ei resisteret, misisse hanc uirtutem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 83, l. 20–22. C. Faust. XIV,11: ille enim perfectus et nullius indigens; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 412, l. 6. C. Fel. I,17: Et cum legeretur et uentum esset ad locum, ubi scriptum habet: ita autem fundata sunt eiusdem splendidissima regna super lucidam et beatam terram, ut a nullo umquam aut moueri aut concuti possint; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 820, l. 9–12. C. Fel. I,19: Et cum legeret et uentum esset ad locum, ubi habet: lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastita­ tem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersus sua sancta impen­ dere saecula, nisi quod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stir­ pem tenebrarum, qua extincta perpetua quies lucis incolis pararetur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 824, l. 22–29. Nat. b. 42: deus autem illam extinguere uoluit, sicut Manichaeus apertissime in epistula ruinosi sui Fundamenti delirat. Oblitus enim, quod paulo ante dixerat: ita autem fundata sunt eiusdem splen­ didissima regna supra lucidam et beatam terram, ut a nullo umquam moueri aut concuti possint, postea dixit: lucis uero beatissimae pater sciens labem magnam ac uastitatem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, aduersum sua sancta impendere saecula, nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponat, quo superet simul ac destruat stri­ pem tenebrarum, qua extincta perpetua quies lucis incolis pararetur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 877, l. 15–26.

452

appendix ii C. Sec. 3: in ipsa epistula ruinosi Fundamenti cum de deo patre loqueretur, nullo, inquit, in regnis eius aut indigente aut infimo constituto; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 909, l. 19–21. C. Sec. 20: qua capi poterat et cui timere cogebatur: uidens magnam labem ac uastitatem aduersus sua sancta impendere sae­ cula, nisi aliquod eximium ac praeclarum et uirtute potens numen opponeret; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 935, l. 22–26. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: quomodo eum pugnasse confingis; ac ne labem in hac uastitate regni sui pateretur, timore compressum, portionem suam principi tenebrarum dedisse; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 10–12.

Adu. Man. 12,4–13: Nam uidemus deum Manichaei secundum eumdem Manichaeum malo necessitatis pressum, cum labes ac uastitas aduersus saecula eius impenderet, aliud quod faceret non haberet, partem suam ad pugnam dedisse, ut uel hoc modo quietem lucis incolis compararet. Ipsa uero pars eius, hoc est, de lumine lumen, de bono bonum, de sancto sanctum, de aeterno aeternum, de deo deus, de omnipotente omnipotens, corrupta sit, mortificata sit, commixta sit per omnia mundi corpora a summo usque ad imum, a caelo usque ad stercora, ut et meretrices in theatris et in locis turpioribus turpiores habeant in se oppressum deum, qui liberari forte non possit. Vera rel. IX,16: deum autem, qui aliud quod faceret non haberet et, quomodo aliter posset hosti resistere, non inueniret, necessitate oppressum misisse huc animam bonam, et quamdam particulam suae substantiae, cuius commixtione [atque miseria] hostem temperatum esse somniant et mundum fabricatum; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 198, l. 16–20. C. Faust. II,6: quid enim illic boni adnuntiatur, ubi dicitur deus aduersus rebellem nescio quam contrariam alienamque naturam non aliter regno suo potuisse prospicere atque consulere, nisi partem suae naturae in illius auidas fauces deuorandam mitteret atque ita polluendam, ut post tantos labores atque cruciatus non posset saltem tota purgari?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1),p. 261, l. 2–7. C. Faust. VI,3: ergone deerat deo uestro, quid ageret, ne suae naturae partem istis membris, quae sic despuitis, implicaret?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 288, l. 6–8.

Adu. Man. 13,1: Ecce uictoria, ecce triumphus qualem fecit Manichaei deus. C. Faust. XV,7: Nonne tibi deus ipse tuus in terra aliena se fabricare mentitur saecula noua, ubi post falsam uictoriam falso triumpho tumescas?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 431, l. 15.

parallel and source passages

453

Adu. Man. 13,3–4: uelum contra se habet, qui dolorem eius temperet, ne corruptionem partis suae uideat. C. Faust. XVIII,7: quippe quem dicitis, ne sua membra illius impetu capta et uastata conspiciat, uelum contra se posuisse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 496, l. 6–7. C. Faust. XXII,12: quandoquidem deus eorum cum membra sua mersit in tenebras, uelum contra se posuit?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 600, l. 1–2.

Adu. Man. 14,1–16,15 Qualis interea turpitudo, quam in eodem Thesauro suo inter caetera turpia in septimbo libro scribit sic dicens: “tunc beatus ille pater … generibus admiscetur”. Nat. b. 44: hoc infelices legunt, hoc dicunt, hoc audiunt, hoc credunt, hoc in libro septimo Thesauri eorum - sic enim appellant scripturam quamdam Manichaei, ubi istae blasphemiae conscriptae sunt - ita positum est: tunc beatus ille pater … generibus admiscetur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 881, l. 20-p. 884, l. 2.

Adu. Man. 17,1–2: Quis non rideat uel potius doleat et detestetur istum hominem tam horrenda et exsecrabilia de diuina substantia dicentem? Agon. IV,4: quis ergo ista non exsecretur?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 106, l. 12–13. C. Faust. XIII,18: quem ridentem ridendus uel potius flendus Faustus inducit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 399, l. 12–13. C. Fel. II,22: Augustinus ecclesiae catholicae episcopus iam anathemaui Manichaeum et doctrinam eius et spiritum, qui per eum tam execrabiles blasphemias locutus est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 852, l. 12–15. C. adu. leg. I,12,16: Quis autem ferat, quamuis non sit indignandum potius quam ridendum …; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 47, l. 377–78.

Adu. Man. 17,5–6: nisi beatus pater, qui naues lucidas habet diuersorias, quem tertium legatum appellatis. Act. Arch. XIII [= Epiphanius, Pan. 66,31,6]: καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτης ὁ τρίτος ὁ εν τῳ μεγάλῳ πλοίῳ; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 21, l. 11–12; ed. by K.  Höll, J.  Dummer (GCS, 37), p. 71, l. 2–3); cf. et senior tertius; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 21, l. 27.

454

appendix ii

Adu. Man. 17,15–16: Quis tam caecus est, ut ista credat, rogo uos? C. Faust. XIII,11: quis tam demens est, ut non uideat?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 390, l. 12–13. C. Sec. 3: quis tam caecus est, qui non intellegat aequales reges his, quibus regnant, omnino esse non posse?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 909, l. 21–23.

Adu. Man. 18,1–5: Sed certe respondeatur mihi ab his qui ipsum Mani­chaeum sequuntur: “si deus incorruptibilis est uel omnis natura summi boni inuiolabilis, immaculabilis, inadibilis, incoinquinabilis, incomprehensibilis, quid poterat facere mali natura huic tantae naturae, si nollet cum illa pugnare, ne ad tantum dedecus deduceretur?” C. Fort. 3: [Fortunatus dixit:] Et nostra professio ipsa est, quod incorruptibilis sit deus, quod lucidus, quod inadibilis, intenibilis, impassibilis aeternam lucem et propriam habitet; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 85, l. 16–18. C. Fort. 11: [Fortunatus dixit:] est enim deus incorruptibilis et substantia eius immaculata est et sancta; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 89, l. 27-p. 90, l. 1. Conf. VII,2,3: sat erat ergo illud quod iam diu ab usque Carthagine a Nebridio proponi solebat et omnes, qui audieramus, concussi sumus: quid erat tibi factura nescio qua gens tenebrarum, quam ex aduersa mole solent opponere, si tu cum ea pugnare noluisses? Si enim responderetur aliquid fuisse nocituram, uiolabilis tu et corruptibi­ lis fores; ed. by L.  Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 93, l. 2–8. C. Faust. XIII,6: cum enim uobis ex eius initio dictum fuerit: immortali, inuisibili, incorruptibili deo quid factura erat gens tenebrarum, si cum ea pugnare noluisset?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 384, l. 2–5. C. Faust. XXVIII,5: quia miseria sua deo suo subuenit, ne ille regno priuaretur, eiusque naturam atque substantiam usque adeo esse mutabilem, corruptibilem, uiolabilem, coinquinabilem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 742, l. 17–20. En. Ps. 140,10: Si enim incorruptibilis Deus, 6 si incontaminabilis, si immaculabilis, si impenetrabilis, quid ei factura erat gens illa? Fecisset illa quem uellet impetum; quomodo terreret impene7 et incorruptibilem?; trabilem, inuiolabilem, incontaminabilem,  6  Deus]

si incommutabilis add. Dekkers, Fraipont.

7  Incontaminabilem]

incommutabilem add. Dekkers, Fraipont.

parallel and source passages

455

ed. by F.  Gori, F.  Recanatini (CSEL, 95/4), p. 205, l. 22–26; cf.  E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 40), p. 2033, l. 24–28.

Adu. Man. 18,5–6: Hoc dixi: “quid factura erat deo gens tenebrarum, si nollet cum illa pugnare?”. Mor. Man. XII,25: quaerentes quid factura erat deo gens tene­ brarum, si cum ea nollet cum tanta suae partis calamitate pugnare; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 110, l. 3–5. C. Fort. 9: quid ei factura erat gens tenebrarum, contra quam dicitis bellum gestum esse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 88, l. 25–26. C. Adim. 28: quid ergo incorruptibili deo factura erat gens tene­ brarum, si cum ea pugnare noluisset?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 188, l. 6–8. C. Fel. I,19: quid ergo illi factura erat gens ista?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 825, l. 2–3. C. Sec. 20: quid factura erat deo gens tenebrarum, si cum ea pugnare noluisset?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 936, l. 4–5. En. Ps. 80,14: si autem dixeris incorruptibilem Deum; incorruptibilis quomodo timuit gentem tenebrarum? quid factura erat incorruptibili gens corruptionis?; ed. by E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 39), p. 1129, l. 50–53.

Adu. Man. 18,6–9: quaero cur hodie eius pars, hoc est, dei deus, in calamitatibus, in pressuris, in captiuitate, in subiectione sit constituta, ut tam turpiter etiam liberetur et nec sic liberari tota possit … C. Faust. III,6: per omnes auras ligari, opprimi, coinquinari, et nec totam postea liberari posse praedicatis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 268, l. 6–7.

Adu. Man. 19,5–8: Quam partem suam nunquam recipiet integram, quia remanet inde aliquid, sicut ipse dicit, quod purgari non poterit et in globo tenebrarum in aeternum damnabitur. Agon. IV,4: quam si aliquando uel totam purgari dicerent, magnam tamen impietatem contra omnipotentem deum affirmarent, cuius partem crederent tanto tempore in erroribus ac poenis esse iactatam sine aliquo peccati crimine. nunc uero infelices audent adhuc dicere nec totam posse purgari; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 105, l. 22-p. 106, l. 3. C. Faust. II,6: Qui si aliquando luctum finierit, crudelis erit. Quid enim de illo male meruit pars illa eius quae in globo ligabitur? quae

456

appendix ii utique in aeternum lugenda est, quia in aeternum damnabitur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 261, l. 13–16.

Adu. Man. 20,2–3: sed ipse noluit pati rem malam circa fines suos et misit qui eam debellaret. Ad Iustinum Manichaeum XI: quod alocale intelligitur, extra fines habetur, falsum dicitur; ed. PL 8, col. 1006. C. Fort. 7: misisse uirtutem, quae cum tenebrarum gente bellaret; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 87, l. 11–12.

Adu. Man. 20,3–5: Cui ego dixi: “si ita est ut dicis, ipse potius inuenitur malus, qui rem uicinam nihil ei nocentem delere uoluit. Et sicut malus in illam, sic crudelis in suam aut ignarus futurae calamitatis eius … C. Fort. 28: et hoc addo: cui noceri nihil poterat. Crudelis uoluntas fuerat mittendi animam ad tantas miserias; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 109, l. 28–30. C. Faust. II,6: qui si aliquando luctum finierit, crudelis erit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 261, l. 13–14. Nat. b. 43: unde et hoc tam magnum malum, ut deus ipse naturae suae nocere uellet, cui noceri ab hoste non poterat; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 879, l. 21–23. Nat. b. 43: unde ergo hoc in deo tam magnum ignorantiae malum, antequam ullum de gente contraria misceretur malum? Si autem futurum hoc sciebat, aut sempiterno in illo erat crudelitas, si de quae naturae futura contaminatione et damnatione nihil dolebat; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 880, l. 1–5. En. Ps. 140,10: Si ergo talis Deus, crudelis; quia sine causa huc uos misit, cui nihil noceri poterat. Quare uos misit? Ecce gens tenebrarum illi nocere non poterat; ipse autem uobis grauiter nocuit, et ipse, magis quam illa, hostis uester fuit; ed. by F. Gori, F. Recanatini (CSEL, 95/4), p. 205, l. 26–29; cf. E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 40), p. 2033, l. 28–32. S. 133,3: Numquid hoc potes de Christo dicere, quia uel non potuit implere quae uolebat, uel futura nesciebat?; ed. PL 38, col. 738.

Adu. Man. 21,3–4: O utinam uidere possint quod facile uiderent, nisi per nebulas contentionis excaecarentur. Mor. eccl. cath. XVII,32: O  utinam possetis intelligere quae dicta sunt; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 37, l. 8. C. Faust. III,3: hoc et uos, si studium contentionis non excaecaret, facile uidere possetis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 265, l. 21–22.

parallel and source passages

457

Adu. Man. 21,6–9: quod sapientia et uirtus dei dominus Iesus Christus uoluntate et ineffabili potestate per hominem quem suscepit ex uirgine, generi humano exhibere dignatus est, ut hominibus per hominem patientiae demonstraret exemplum! Vera rel. VIII,14: et non etiam iudicantur ad summi dei misericordiam, quam generi humano exhibet, pertinere; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 197, l. 13–14. C. ep. fund. 6: sicut Iesus Christus homo non a filio dei, id est uirtute et sapientia dei; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 200, l. 5–6. S. 72A,4: Voluit sexum uirilem suscipere in se, et muliebrem sexum honorare dignatus est in matre; ed. by G. Morin, Miscellanea Agostiniana 1, p. 159, l. 11–12. Ep. 169,II,5: et filius in homine, quem suscepit ex uirgine; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 615, l. 11–12.

Adu. Man. 21,13–14: propterea uoluit a gente tenebrarum tanta mala pati. Nat. b. 42: ut bona dei natura tanta mala patiatur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 877, l. 7–8.

Adu. Man. 21,16–17: ut tamen ipse in sua substantia nulla ex parte mutaretur. Mor. Man. I,1: quod nulla ex parte corrumpi ac mutari potest; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 88, l. 11. Mor. Man. XI,23: qui ex aliqua parte mutatus est et uiolatus; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 108, l. 12–13. C. Fort. 6: uoluit deum necessitatem pati nullam posse neque ex aliqua parte uiolari atque corrumpi; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 86, l. 22–23. C. Fort. 11: et qui nulla ex parte corrumpi potest; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 89, l. 16–17. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: Deus, inquit, pater omnipotens est, inuiolabilis, incorruptibilis, inuisibilis, qui nulla ex parte commutari potest; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 5–7.

Adu. Man. 21,18–21: ut integra et inuiolata deitate in carne mortali doceret mortales per patientiam mortem uincere et ipsius infirmae carnis futuram in melius commutationem resurrectione monstraret? Vera rel. LV,110: ut naturam humanam ipsa dei uirtus, et dei sapientia incommutabilis et consubstantialis patri et coaeterna suscipere

458

appendix ii dignaretur, per quam nos doceret id esse homini colendum; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), pp. 257–58, l. 62–65. Agon. XXIII,25: nec in ea per passionem ipse in deterius commutatus est, sed eam potius per resurrectionem in melius commutauit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 126, l. 11–13. Ciu. X,24: quae cum anima hominis et suscipi sine peccato potuit et haberi, et morte deponi et in melius resurrectione mutari; ed. by B.  Dombart, A.  Kalb (CCSL, 47), p. 297, l. 24–26. S. 12,12: Et ideo Christus est nostra firmitas, quia eum nostra non mutauit infirmitas. Hic agnosco prophetae illam uocem: Mutabis ea et mutabuntur; tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient. Non solum enim non eum mutauit in deterius infirmitas carnis, sed ab eo in melius ipsa mutata est; ed. by C.  Lambot (CCSL, 41), p. 173, l. 291–96.

Adu. Man. 22,1–2: Cum ergo esset per se ipsum inuisibilis, uisibilis in homine apparuit, quem de femina suscipere dignatus est. Vera rel. XVI,30: quam cum ipsa sapientia dei, id est unicus filius consubstantialis patri et coaeternus, totum hominem suscipere dignatus est, et uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis … corporeisque sensibus … non solum uisibiliter … sed hominibus in uero homine apparuit; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), pp. 205–06, l. 5–13. Vera rel. XVI,32: per hominem, quem suscipere dignatus est; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 207, l. 43–44. C. Fel. II,11: suscipere dignatus est carnem mortalem de uirgine Maria; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 840, l. 24. Nat. b. 31: qui non in sua natura, qua deus est, sed in nostra quam de femina assumpsit pro nobis mortuus est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 870, l. 2–3. Ep. 137,6: Et putamus nobis de omnipotentia dei incredibile aliquid dici, cum dicitur uerbum dei, per quod omnia facta sunt, sic assumpsisse corpus ex uirgine et sensibus apparuisse mortalibus, ut immortalitatem suam non corruperit, ut aeternitatem non mutauerit, ut potestatem non minuerit, ut administrationem mundi non deseruerit; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 31B), p. 261, l. 124–30.

Adu. Man. 22,2–6: Dicit et apostolus: factum de muliere. Et isti dicunt: “Quare non ait ex uirgine?”, non intelligentes quod consuete dictum sit secundum proprietatem linguae Scripturarum, sicut de Eua dictum est: formauit eam in mulierem, antequam uel ostenderetur uiro. C. Faust. XI,3: Iste autem, qui interrogatus, utrum accipiat apostolum Paulum, respondet: et maxime, haec omnia negat. Nec Iesum ex

parallel and source passages

459

semine Dauid uult accipere nec factum ex muliere, quam, non quod fuerit uel concumbendo uel pariendo corrupta, mulierem Paulus appellat sed more scripturarum loquitur, quae ipsum sexum sic appellare consueuerunt; sicut in genesi de Eua scriptum est: formauit eam in mulierem, cum commixta uiro non fuisset; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 317, l. 11–18.

Adu. Man. 22,6–8: Quamuis Maria non incongrue propter partum dicitur mulier, uirgo uero, quod uirilem nescierit conuentionem neque pariendo uirginitas eius corrupta sit. Ep. 137,2: et tamen uirgo enixa sit solemnitate pariendi, et post haec uirginitas inuiolata permanserit; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 31B), p. 257, l. 25–26. Ep. 162,6: cum eis responderem, qui negant esse credendum, quod Christum uirgo pepererit, uirgo permanserit; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 517, l. 4–6.

Adu. Man. 22,10–11: Sed ne dicatis: “sicut angeli apparuerunt, sic haberet corpus, ne de femina nasceretur”. Act. Arch. LVIII: dic mihi illud etiam, o Manichaee, si ais Iesum non esse ex Maria natum, sed apparuisse quidem ut hominem, cum homo non esset, praestate hoc et agente uirtute quae in ipso est; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 85, l. 23–25.

Adu. Man. 22,11–14: Quid si uobis dicatur: “ubi legistis Christum uenisse?” Nonne dicturi estis: “in Euangelio”? Respondetur ergo uobis: “ibi esse scriptum Christum natum de uirgine”. Sed solita foeditate dicetis Scripturam ipsam falsam esse. Mor. eccl. cath. XXIX,60: Falsum esse scriptum?; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 62, l. 14. Agon. XXII,24: ubi legimus etiam Christum natum esse de femi­na; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 124, l. 15. C. Faust. XXVII,2: dicis mihi: unde scis? quia hoc in euangelio ueritatis lego. si autem tibi dicam: unde scis ista, quae dicis? Manichaei mihi opponis auctoritatem, dicis esse in euangelio falsitatem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 738, l. 15–18. S. 75,VII,8: et non desunt qui sic tentent animos eorum qui sunt in naui, ut dicant Christum non fuisse natum de uirgine, nec uerum corpus habuisse, sed oculis uisum esse quod non erat; ed. PL 38, col. 477.

460

appendix ii

Adu. Man. 22,14–16: Nec uidetis aliquem similem uobis caecum hoc posse facere ut ea quae uos dixeritis uera, ille falsa esse dicat, et quae dicitis falsa, illa uera esse dicat. C. Faust. XI,2: si alius simili insania, sed tamen qua tua duritia confringatur, existat et dicat: immo illud, quod pro te sonat, fal­ sum est. hoc autem quod contra te est, uerum est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 315, l. 12–15.

Adu. Man. 23,5–6: ut quoniam per feminam mors facta est, per feminam uita recuperaretur. Agon. XXII,24: huc accedit magnum sacramentum, ut, quoniam per feminam nobis mors acciderat, uita nobis per feminam nasceretur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 125, l. 3–5. Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. V: Eua inoboediens meruit poenam, Maria oboediens consecuta est gratiam; illa gustando prohibito maledicta, haec credendo angelo est benedicta; illa nobis mortem contulit, haec uitam nobis peperit; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 279, l. 65–68.

Adu. Man. 23,6–8: atque ita demonstraretur non ipsam creaturam femineam esse culpandam, cuius est deus conditor, sed uoluntatem qua Eua peccauit. S. 51,3: Vt noueritis quod non Dei creatura mala est, sed uolun­ tas praua peruertit eam; ed. by F. Dolbeau (CCSL, 41Aa), p. 13, l. 118–19.

Adu. Man. 23,8–14: Sed timent maiestatis illam incoinquinabilem et ineffabilem potentiam in uirginis utero credere fuisse, ne sanguine eius pollueretur, cum et in apostolis et in multis dignis feminis et habitauerit et nunc habitet, qui utique corpora habent, sanguinem habent. Si enim in Maria coinquinari potuit, et in omnibus potuit; si autem non potuit in illis, utique nec in Maria potuit, in cuius uisceribus susceptionem corporis operata est dei sapientia. Act. Arch. LIV: [Manes dixit:] Absit ut dominum nostrum Iesum Christum per naturalia pudenda mulieris descendisse confitear; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 80, l. 16–17. C. Fort. 9: de ipsius dei et ineffabilis maiestatis substantia quaerimus; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 88, l. 22–23. C. ep. fund. 7: si caro humana, si concubitus uiri, si uterus mulieris non potuit inquinari spiritum sanctum, quomodo potuit uirginis uterus inquinare dei sapientiam?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 200, l. 20–22.

parallel and source passages

461

C. ep. fund. 8: timere, ne polluatur ueritas de uirginis utero; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 202, l. 19–20. Agon. XVIII,20: et, cum timent, quod fiere non potest, ne humana carne ueritas inquinetur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 121, l. 4–5. Conf. V, 10,20: Ipsumque saluatorem nostrum, unigenitum tuum, tamquam de massa lucidissimae molis tuae porrectum ad nostram salutem ita putabam, ut aliud de illo non crederem nisi quod possem uanitate imaginari. Talem itaque naturam eius nasci non posse de Maria uirgine arbitrabar, nisi carni concerneretur. Concerni autem et non inquinari non uidebam, quod mihi tale figurabam. Metue­ bam itaque credere in carne natum, ne credere cogerer ex carne inquinatum; ed. by L.  Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 69, l. 63–70. C. Faust. III,6: quamuis nec sic quidem, inquit, dignum erit, ex utero natum credere deum et deum christianorum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 267, l. 9–11. C. Faust. III,6: uos autem, cum carnem Christi uirginali utero committere horretis, ipsam diuinitatem dei, non tantum hominum, sed et canum porcorumque uteris commisistis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 267, l. 28–30. C. Faust. XX,11: compara, si audes, uirginalia uiscera tanta castitate sanctificata, cum omnibus terrae locis, ubi arbores herbaeque gignuntur. itane in illa femina exhorrescis, aut horrescere te fingis uterum pudicitiae dedicatum et in hortis omnibus circum quasque urbes ex cluacinis aquis Iesum gigni non exhorrescis? … quem cre­ dere natum esse de uirgine clamatis indignum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 549, l. 2–10. C. Faust. XX,11: aut ex gente tenebrarum mortale corpus habuisse Christum atque ita qui eius corporis matrem Mariam uirginem credere timetis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 551, l. 12–14. C. Sec. 23: qui filio dei, quem nullus contactus carnis mutare potuisset, unum uterum uirginis formidatis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 940, l. 17–19. Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. I: Manichaei dicunt phantasiam esse quod dicitur dominum Iesum Christum femineo potuisse nasci ex utero. Non enim dignum est, inquiunt, ut tanta maiestas per sordes et squalores feminae transisse credatur; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 262, l. 29–32. Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. V: Si potui fatigari cum eam facerem, potui inquinari cum ex ea nascerer. Sicut transitu meo illius non est corrupta uirginitas, sic et mea ibi non est maculata maiestas; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 278, l. 51–53.

462

appendix ii

Adu. Man. 24,1–2: Certe ipsum Manichaeum de patre atque matre natum fuisse non negabunt. C. ep. fund. 7: cur hominem susceptum ab spiritu sancto Mani­ chaeum, non putatis turpe natum ex utroque sexu praedicare; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 200, l. 16–18. C. Faust. VI,8: ipse Manichaeus, quem pater et mater concumbendo genuerunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 298, l. 29–30. C. Sec. 25: in Manichaeo spem ponere non debetis, quem de masculo et femina procreatum sicut ceteros homines in carnem fuisse conceditis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 943, l. 8–10.

Adu. Man. 24,9–11: cum manifestum sit solem istum cui genu flectunt, in omnibus stercoribus et putoribus radios suos expandere et eos nusquam coinquinari. Mor. eccl. cath. XX,37: Christiani non sint qui solem et lunam non modo diligendos sed etiam colendos putant; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 42, l. 6–8. Mor. Man. VIII,13: Sol iste cui genu flectitis; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 99, l. 15. Vtil. cred. 6,13: quod ei sol iste laudaretur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 17, l. 29. Conf. III,6,10: Et apponebantur adhuc mihi in illis ferculis phantasmata splendida, quibus iam melius erat amare istum solem saltem istis oculis uerum quam illa falsa animo decepto per oculos; ed. by L.  Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 31, l. 19–22. Agon. XVIII,20: et tamen praedicant istum uisibilem solem radios suos per omnes feces et sordes corporum spargere, et eos mundos et sinceros ubique seruare; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 120, l. 21–23. C. Faust. V,11: solem istum corporeum non pro diuina substantia et pro sapientiae luce coleretis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 284, l. 8–9. C. Faust. IX,2: et falsum Christum, quem cum sole et luna coleretis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 309, l. 15. C. Faust. XIV,11: in sole autem et luna nouerunt se seruire creaturae; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 411, l. 11–12. C. Faust. XX,1: [Faustus dixit:] cur solem colitis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 535, l. 23. Quodvultdeus, C. Iud. pag. ar. VI: lux de lumine: duo uidentur sonare luminaria. Sed absit a nobis ne nos error Manichaeorum

parallel and source passages

463

comprehendat, qui istum solem aestimant esse Christum; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 233, l. 1–3. Quodvultdeus, Adu. V haer. V: Si solis radius cloacarum sordes siccare nouit, eis inquinari non nouit; quanto magis splendor lucis aeternae, in quo nihil inquinamenti incurrit, quocumque radiauerit, mundare potest, ipse pollui non potest; ed. by R. Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 278, 54–57.

Adu. Man. 24,14–16: Sicut corpus inuulnerabile aut impenetrabile: numquid illud dicimus quod non percutitur ferro, sed potius quod etiam cum percutitur non penetratur? C. Sec. 9: Achillis corpus … inuulnerabile dictum est, quod etiam tela cum ingruerent, non penetrabatur … sicut corpus, quod est inuulnerabile, nullius rei contactu aut impetu uulneratur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 918, l. 6–12.

Adu. Man. 24,21–22: Et sola illi mater in terris eligenda erat ad suscipiendum hominem, qui iam patrem habebat in caelis. S. 51,2,3: hoc est: ut doceret nos humilitatem Dominus noster Iesus Christus, utique nascendo de femina, filius hominis factus est. Etenim si non nasceretur de Maria uirgine, quid esset minus? Dicit aliquis: “Homo esse uoluit; esset homo, non tamen de femina nasceretur: non enim et primum hominem quem fecit, ex femina fecit”. Ad hoc uide quid respondeatur. Tu dicis: “Ad nascendum utquid eligeret feminam?” Respondetur tibi: “Imo ad nascendum cur fugeret feminam?”; ed. by F. Dolbeau (CCSL, 41Aa), p. 12, l. 91–99. S. 375C,7: Natus est de matre sine patre deorsum in terris, qui iam sursum de Patre ante tempora sine matre; ed. by G.  Morin, Miscellanea Agostiniana 1, p. 346, l. 7–8.

Adu. Man. 25,1–10: Sed dicunt: “quare ergo negauit matrem suam, quando ei dixit: quid mihi et tibi, mulier? et quando, cum ei nuntiata esset quod eum uellet uidere, respondit: quae est mater mea aut qui sunt fratres mei? et eos potius in hunc affectum computauit qui facerent uoluntatem patris eius?” Quia exemplo suo iam docebat negandos esse terrenos parentes propter deum. Opera enim diuina facienti terrenus affectus obstrepere non debebat. Nam si propterea non habebat matrem, quia negauit matrem, nec Petrus et ceteri apostoli habebant patres, quia monuit eos dicens: et patrem ne uocaueritis uobis super terram; unus enim est pater uester qui in caelis est. Quod ergo eos monuit de patre terreno, hoc de matre prior fecit. Vera rel. XVI,31: nuntiatam sibi matrem negauit … mihi et tibi quid est?; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 206, l. 22–25.

464

appendix ii C. Faust. VII,2: quodsi propterea putant eum non habuisse in terra matrem uel genus, quia dixit: quae mihi mater uel qui fratres? superest, ut etiam discipulos eius, quibus hoc exemplum in se ipso praebuit, ut terreni generis necessitudinem propter regnum coelorum contemnerent, affirment non habuisse patres, quia dixit eis: ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra; unus enim est pater ues­ ter deus. quod ergo istos de patribus docuit, hoc ipse de matre et fratribus prior fecit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 303, l. 25-p. 304, l. 6. C. Faust. XXII,39: cum discipulis ait: ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra: unus est enim pater uester, qui in caelis est, cuius rei praebuit exemplum. quando et ipse dixit: quae mihi mater aut qui fratres?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 633, l. 1–4. S. 72A,6: Sed, si putas ideo Christum non habuisse matrem in terra, quia dixit quae est mater mea? nec discipuli habuerunt patres in terra, quia dixit eis ipse dominus: ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra. Domini uerba sunt: ne uobis dicatis patrem; unus est enim pater uester deus; ed. by G.  Morin, Miscellanea Agostiniana 1, p. 162, l. 5–9.

Adu. Man. 25,13–16: Non enim dubitanti discipulo suo mentiri potuit qui dixit: ego sum ueritas, quando ei cicatrices uulnerum suorum, ut etiam manu tangeret, praebuit. Quomodo enim huic in aliquo securi fidem haberemus, si discipulo suo sic mentitus est? Agon. XVIII,20: ueritatem dicunt esse mentitam; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 121, l. 5–6. Agon. XXIV,26: sacrilegum est enim credere dominum nostrum, cum ipse sit ueritas, in aliquo fuisse mentitum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 127, l. 2–4. C. Faust. V,5: et istum Christum, qui dicit: ego sum ueritas, speciem carnis, mortem crucis, uulnera passionis, cicatrices resurrectionis, mentitum esse suadetis?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 277, l. 10–12. C. Faust. VI,9: profecto Christum clamantem: ego cum falsis uulneribus occubuisse nec cum falsis rexisse credidisset, quin etiam dicit: ego fallere sentio loquor, non est ergo discipulus Christi sui, trices dubitantibus discipulis demonstrasse ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 302, l. 12–17.

sum ueritas, nec cicatricibus resurnon didici; quod quem falsas cica­ insanus opinatur;

C. Faust. XIV,2: unde etiam ipsas cicatrices post resurrectionem discipulo minus credulo demonstrauit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 404, l. 15–16.

parallel and source passages

465

C. Faust. XVI,12: quos dicere audeatis prophetasse Christum falsa carne uenturum, falsa morte passurum, falsas cicatrices dubitan­ tibus discipulis oblaturum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 451, l. 14–16. C. Faust. XVI,33: crede ergo cicatricibus Christi, quia si cicatri­ ces illae uerae erant, uera etiam illa uulnera fuerant, nec uera uul­ nera nisi uera caro habere potuisset: hoc uerum totum uestrum euertit errorem. porro si Christus falsas cicatrices dubitanti discipulo demonstrauit, et ipsum fallacem dicis ita docentem et te falli cupis ita discentem. sed quia falli nemo est qui uelit, fallere autem multi uolunt, magis te uelle intellego quasi exemplo Christi fallaciter docere quam exemplo Thomae fallaciter discere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 482, l. 16–24. C. Faust. XXIX,2: ita fit, ut et cicatrices discipulis dubitan­ tibus falsas ostenderit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 744, l. 26–27. S. 375C,2: sed illae in carne cicatrices esse permissae sunt, ut in cordibus hominum uulnus perfidiae tolleretur, et uulnerum signa uera uulnera procurarent. Ille enim qui signa clauorum et lanceae in suo corpore esse permisit, sciebat futuros aliquando tam impios et peruersos haereticos, qui dicerent dominum nostrum Iesum Christum et carnem fuisse mentitum, et discipulis suis et euangelistis nostris uerba dixisse mendacia; ed. by G.  Morin, Miscellanea Agostiniana 1, p. 341, l. 24-p. 342, l. 1. Quodvultdeus, Cant. nou. VI: o pessime haeretice Manichaee, si credere non uis Veritati dicenti dicipulis suis; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 387, l. 5–6. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: Filium eius, uerbum eius mentitum fuisse; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 12–13. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: quomodo te, Manichaee, asseris tenere ueritatem, cum ipsam ueritatem dicas esse mendacem?; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 16–17.

Adu. Man. 25,18–19: sed euigilent aliquando et intelligant quam nefaria peruersitate ista credantur. Mor. eccl. cath. XVIII,34: Obsecro, uigilate paululum; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 38, l. 16. Mor. Man. VIII,13: Respicite igitur aliquando et aduertite; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 99, l. 20–21.

Adu. Man. 26,1–5: Nos autem Christum dominum uerum hominem suscepisse credimus et in ipso uisibiliter inuisibilem hominibus

466

appendix ii

apparuisse, in ipso inter homines conuersatum fuisse, in ipso ab hominibus humana pertulisse, in ipso homines docuisse a quibus esset recedendum, quid esset perferendum, quo esset tendendum. Act. Arch. VIII: καὶ ἐφαίνετο τοῖς ἀνθρωποις ὡς ἄνθρωπος; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 12, l. 11–12); cf. et appare­ bat quidem hominibus ut homo; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 12, l. 20. Mor. eccl. cath. VIII,13: eo est omnino tendendum; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 15, l. 20. Mor. eccl. cath. XXII,41: quam sint omnia perferenda; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 46, l. 17. Agon. XI,12: itaque filius dei hominem assumpsit et in illo humana perpessus est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 115, l. 7–8. Agon. XVIII,20: Nec eos audiamus, qui non ueuerum hominem suscepisse dicunt filium dei neque natum esse de femina, sed falsam carnem et imaginem simulatam corporis humani ostendisse uidentibus; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 120, l. 16–19. C. Fel. II,9: hominibus appareret; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 838, l. 2. S. 75,I,1: Euangelii lectio quam modo audiuimus, admonet humilitatem omnium nostrum, uidere et cognoscere ubi simus, et quo nobis tendendum et festinandum sit; ed. PL 38, col. 475. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: uerum hominem non suscepisse; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 13.

Ad. Man. 26,11–15: Sicut enim nos qui ex anima et corpore constamus, cum sumus inuisibiles secundum animam, uisibiles autem secundum corpus, omnia quae uisibiliter siue honoris et beneficiorum accipimus, siue contumeliae uel iniuriae patimur, ad animam, quae inuisibilis est, tanquam ad principem necesse est ut referamus. Act. Arch. XXI: Quod si homo anima est et corpus, et non solum corpus sine anima, quae sine se inuicem subsitere non possunt; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 32, l. 27–28. Mor. eccl. cath. IV,6: ex anima et corpore nos esse compositos; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 8, l. 7–8. Mor. eccl. cath. XIX,36: totumque amorem ad inuisibilia et diuina conferre; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 41, l. 7–8. Agon. XI,12: nunc autem quia uisibiliter nos commonere dignatus est, ut ad inuisibilia praepararet; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 114, l. 15–17.

parallel and source passages

467

C. Faust. XXII,27: constat enim homo ex anima et corpore, sed hoc et pecus. nulli autem dubium est, animam corpori, naturali ordine praeponendam; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 621, l. 16–18. C. Sec. 8: inest quippe homini et inuisibile quid secundum ani­ mum et uisibile secundum corpus; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 916, l. 16–17. Ep. 166,II,3: anima hominis immortalis est secundum quemdam modum suum; ed. by A. Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 548, l. 14–15.

Adu. Man. 26,20–21: quia potestate ac uoluntate uerbum caro factum est et natus et passus et mortuus et resurrexit nulla sua necessitate, sed uoluntate et potestate. Act. Arch. LVIII: Si enim, secundum quod tu dicis, non est natus, sine dubio nec passust est; pati enim eum qui natus non est inpossibile est. Quod si non est passus, crucis nomen aufertur. Cruce autem non suscepta, nec Iesus ex mortuis resurrexit. Quod si Iesus ex mor­ tuis non resurrexit, nec alius aliquis resurget. Quod si nullus resurget, nec iudicium erit; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 84, l. 12–17. Mor. Man. XIV,32: Christus et uixit et mortuus est et resur­ rexit [Rom 14:9]; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 116, l. 18. C. Faust. XII,24: ubi Christus mortaliter natus et passus ostenditur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 352, l. 27-p. 353, l. 1. C. Faust. XVI,21: ergo ne testimonia prophetiae Christi nascituri, mira facturi, indigna passuri, morituri, resurrecturi, ascensuri; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 463, l. 24–26. C. Faust. XXIX,4: quia hoc fecit, qui nihil necessitate, sicut deus uester, faceret, sed omnia uoluntate; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 747, l. 21–22.

Adu. Man. 26,24–26: Non sicut deus Manichaei, qui necessitatis malo pressus hodie hic ex parte, quod negare non possunt, in miseriis et calamitatibus uolutatur. Gn. adu. Man. II,XXIX,43: illi dicunt naturam dei esse in mise­ ria; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 170, l. 4. Agon. IV,4: cum magnis calamitatibus et cruciatibus et miseriis membrorum suorum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 105, l. 11–12. C. Faust. XXXIII,4: deus autem uester et post aduentum saluatoris adhuc iacet in tenebris, adhuc flagitiis omnibus mergitur, adhuc in impuris omnibus uolutatur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 789, l. 16–18.

468

appendix ii

Adu. Man. 27,11: nulla necessitate compulsi. Conf. XIII,30,45: quoniam sunt quidam, quibus displicent opera tua, et multa eorum dicunt te fecisse necessitate compulsum; ed. by L.  Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 268, l. 2–4.

Adu. Man. 28,3–4: secundum eiusdem Manichaei blasphemias Christus carnem non habuit nec aliquid a Iudaeis est passus. C. Sec. 25: quia Christum carnem habuisse non creditis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 943, l. 7–8. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: aut quomodo profiteris te christianum, cum fallaciis tuis inimicum excuses Iudaeum, qui ipsum ueraciter crucifixerit Christum?; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 449, l. 17–19.

Adu. Man. 28,7–8: Princeps itaque tenebrarum affixus est cruci idemque spineam coronam portauit. Quodvultdeus, Cant. nou. VI: spiritus spineam coronam por­ tauit?; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 387, l. 13–14.

Adu. Man. 30,1–2: Nos enim credimus, ut in Euangelio scriptum est, quia Christus uoluit pati et quando uoluit passus est. Gr. t. nou. XXVI,64: qui enim, quia uoluit, mortuus est, quo modo uoluit, mortuus est; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 211, l. 11–12.

Adu. Man. 31,1: Dominus ergo Christus secundum hominem quem suscepit. C. Fort. 9: in ipso homine, quem suscepit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 88, l. 20–21.

Adu. Man. 31,8–9: Et tamen quis ferat tam incredibiles blasphemias quas isti de ipsa passione domini proferre non dubitant? Mor. Man. IX,17: Quis enim tantam peruersitatem ferat, qua dicitur in tenebrarum gente; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 103, l. 8–9. C. ep. fund. 14: quis ferat tantam fallaciam tantamque superbiam?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 212, l. 1–2. C. adu. leg. I,12,16: Quis autem ferat; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 47, l. 377. Ep. 164,13: quis ferat, quae consequuntur absurda fideique contraria?; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 533, l. 17–18.

parallel and source passages

469

Adu. Man. 32,1–2: Omnes apostoli, omnes linguae rationales dominum Christum passum esse clamant. C. Faust. XI,3: omnes linguae consentiunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 316, l. 12.

Adu. Man. 32,5–6: sed quia dominum Christum negant habuisse carnem mortalem. C. Faust. XIV,7: cum eum negant carnem habuisse mortalem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 408, l. 13–14.

Adu. Man. 32,6–9: Quibus dicimus: “si non habebat carnem mortalem, quid erat quod tenuerunt Iudaei? Quid erat quod in cruce pendebat? Quid confixum erat clauis in ligno? Quid est percussum lancea, unde sanguis et aqua profluxit?”. C. Faust. XIV,2: si enim Christus pependit in ligno, clauis utique affixus est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 404, l. 14–15. Nat. b. 20: nam uulneratum esse confixione clauorum et percus­ sum de lancea quis negat?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 863, l. 27-p. 864, l. 1. S. 5,3: Pendebat in cruce … Et tamen unus ipsorum lancea per­ cussit latus eius et profluxit sanguis et aqua; ed. by C.  Lambot (CCSL, 41), pp. 52–53, l. 91–101. Quodvultdeus, Cant. nou. VI: si spiritus fuit, quomodo cum traderet spiritum, corpus eius prope dimidium diem exanime pependit in cruce? Si spiritus fuit, quomodo latus eius perforatum est lancea?; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 387, l. 15–18.

Adu. Man. 32,9–10: Si enim uisa sunt tantum fieri et facta non sunt, phantasmata erant, quod nefas est credere. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. IV,33: “Mani has said that the appear­ ance of our Saviour was like an illusion and apparition and not in reality”; ed. by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p. 155, l. 1–2.8 Titus of Bostra, C. Man. IV,44: “He says that our Lord appeared only as an illusion, he did not really accomplish anything and was thought to suffer in imagination and not reality”; ed. by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p. 363, l. 15–17.9

8  Trans.

p. 194.

P.-H. Poirier, T. Pettipiece, Biblical and Manichaean Citations,

9  Trans. P.-H. Poirier, T. Pettipiece, Biblical and Manichaean Citations, p. 196.

470

appendix ii Gn. adu. Man. I,II,4: Si enim habet causam uoluntas dei, est ali­quid quod antecedat uoluntatem dei, quod nefas est credere; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 71, l. 19–20. C. Fort. 1: hoc ego nefas puto credere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 84, l. 5. C. Adim. 6: quod credere nefas est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 126, l. 15. Diu. qu. XIV: Si fantasma fuit corpus Christi, fefellit Christus; et si fallit, ueritas non est; est autem ueritas Christus. Non igitur fantasma fuit corpus eius; ed. by A. Mutzenbecher (CCSL, 44A), p. 20, l. 7–9. Agon. IV,4: sed per ispam naturam suam bellasse cum tenebris: quod nefas est credere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 105, l. 16–17. C. Faust. XX,11: aut in phantasmate potius quam in ueritate uisum fuisse crucifigi - qua rursus impietate quid peius est?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 551, l. 7–9. Nat. b. 43: hoc quam nefas sit dicere naturae dei natura dei sic subueniri qui uidet, anathemet; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 880, l. 13–14. S. 375C,3: Hoc et Manichaei putant, spiritum fuisse Christum, carnem non fuisse. Remane et tu in tali fide, si uoluit ibi Christus discipulos suos remanere. Qui putas spiritum fuisse Christum, et apparuisse in phantasma, id est, quasi carnem non fuisse ueram in Christo, hoc et discipuli putauerunt: uulneratus es cum discipulis, sanare cum ipsis; ed. by G.  Morin, Miscellanea Agostiniana 1, p. 342, l. 16–21. Quodvultdeus, Cant. nou. VI: non habuit, inquit, uerum corpus: phantasma fuit, spiritus fuit; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), p. 387, l. 3–4. Quodvultdeus, Acc. grat. I X: nescio quid illud phantasticum fuisse, nec nos proprio sanguine redemisse; ed. by R.  Braun (CCSL, 60), pp. 449, 13–15.

Adu. Man. 33,10–12: Miseri! Non timetis ne dicatur uobis in iudicio: “ego eos liberaui pro quibus passus sum. Ite, ille uos liberet cui meas ascribitis passiones”? Ambrosius, De fide II,13,119: Dicat et Manichaeus: ‘Ego auctorem carnis nostrae diabolum credo.’ - Respondebit ei: ‘Ergo quid facis in caelestibus? Vade ad auctorem tuum! Ego eos uolo esse mecum quos dedit mihi pater. Tu te a diabolo, Manichaee, creatum arbitraris; ad illius ergo festina sedem, ubi ignis et sulphur, ubi non restinguitur eius incendium, ne umquam poena moriatur.’; ed. by O. Faller (CSEL, 78), p. 99, l. 46–52.

parallel and source passages

471

Adu. Man. 34,1–2: Dicitis tamen - magno errore, sed tamen dicitis Christum quotidie nasci, quotidie pati, quotidie mori. C. Adim. 15: cum magno errore immundas esse dicunt escas Manichaei; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 155, l. 1–2.

Adu. Man. 34,3–6: “Non”, inquiunt, “sed in cucurbitis et in porris et portulaca et ceteris huiusmodi rebus”. Magna ridicula! Magna caecitas! Superius passionibus daemonum, hic passionibus olerum homines liberantur a peccatis. Mor. Man. XVI,39: et oleribus et floribus et pomis inesse; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 123, l. 4. Mor. Man. XVI,41: Nolite portulacam saltem carnibus anteponere; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 125, l. 6–7. Mor. Man. XVI,43: porri; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 128, l. 1. C. Faust. VI,4: accipitis ergo uiuentes cucurbitas; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 288, l. 29. C. Faust. VI,6: o beata olera; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 292, l. 16–17. C. Faust. XIII,6: et de medio eius: quomodo est incorruptibilis et incontaminabilis deus, cuius membra in pomis et oleribus manducando et digerendo conteritis ut purgetis?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 384, l. 5–7. Nat. b. 47: de pane et holeribus et pomis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 886, l. 24.

Adu. Man. 35,8–10: Quam partem dicunt, cum in fructibus uel in herbis fuerit, id est in melone uel beta uel talibus rebus, et principium suum et medietate et finem nosse. Mor. Man. XVI,39: melonem putatis esse aureum; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 123, l. 23-p. 124, l. 1. Mor. Man. XVI,40: in beta; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 124, l. 19. C. Faust. V,10: aut si melioris meriti sunt, in melones et cucumeres; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 283, l. 6–7. C. Faust. XII,47: est potius succurrendum esse meloni non sentienti; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 375, l. 25–26. C. Fel. I,6: [Felix dixit:] et in ipsis apostolis unum quaero, qui me doceat de initio, de medio, de fine; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 807, l. 15–16.

472

appendix ii En. Ps. 140,12: Membra, inquiunt, illa Dei quae capta sunt in illo praelio, mixta sunt uniuerso mundo, et sunt in arboribus, in herbis, in pomis, in fructibus; ed. by F.  Gori, F.  Recanatini (CSEL, 95/4), p. 207, l. 9–11; cf. E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 40), p. 2034, l. 10–12.

Adu. Man. 35,10–13: cum autem ad carnem uenerit, omnem intelligentiam amittere, ut propterea magister hominibus missus sit, quia stulta in illis facta est pars dei, et propterea non sit missus melonibus, quia sapientem habent animam. Mor. Man. XVII,56: Quamuis idipsum animas arborum, quamdiu sunt in arboribus, ad sapientiam non proficere, summae angustiae, quantum arbitror, uos compellunt fateri, cum a uobis quaeritur cur et arboribus non mittatur praeceptor apostolus, aut cur ille qui hominibus mittitur, non et arboribus praedicet ueritatem; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 139, l. 5–10.

Adu. Man. 36,1–2: Quis ista credat uel ab hominibus aliquando uel inter homines posse dici? Nat. b. 44: quis hoc ferat? quis hoc credat, non dico ita esse, sed uel dici potuisse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 884, l. 2–4.

Adu. Man. 36,4–7: Sed si nihil ei mali contigit uel contingit, falsa omnia sunt quae Manichaeus dixit in Epistula fundamenti, quae caput est omnium uanarum fabularum, uel in Thesauro, qui thesaurus est omnium turpitudinum et blasphemiorum. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. III,9: τὸν λεγόμενον αὐτοῦ τῆς μανίας θησαυρὸν; ed. by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p. 255, l. 11. C. Sec. 20: totamque illam fabulam, impiarum et immundissimarum blasphemiarum horrore contextam; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 937, l. 13–14.

Adu. Man. 37,1–2: Duorum uero Testamentorum concordia: si simplici oculo intendere uelletis, o Manichaei, facillime uideretis. Mor. eccl. cath. XVIII,34: uidete testamenti utriusque concor­ diam; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 38, l. 16–17. C. Adim. 4: unde clarescet bene intellegentibus utriusque testamenti manifesta concordia; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 123, l. 27–28.

Adu. Man. 37,2–5: Rabide enim ferimini in id quod scriptum est: spiritus dei superferebatur super aquam et uidit deus quia

parallel and source passages

473

bonum est et Adam, ubi es? et deus zelans et ignis edax et gladius meus et cetera talia. Mor. eccl. cath. I,1: in legem quod uetus testamentum uocatur, imperite atque impie feruntur; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 3, l. 3–4. Mor. eccl. cath. XXIII,42: in quod illi rabide saeuiunt; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 47, l. 5. C. Adim. 13: addidit etiam dicens: deus uester ignis est edax et deus zelans; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 144, l. 12–13. C. Faust. XXII,4: [Faustus dixit:] nun eum in tenebris ex aeterno uersarum dicentes et postea miratum cum uidisset lucem, nunc ignarum futuri, ut praeceptum illud quod, non esset seruaturus Adam, ei mandaret, nunc et improuidum, ut eum latentem in angulo paradisi post nuditatem cognitam uidere non posset, nunc et inuidum ac timentem, ne, si gustaret homo suus de ligno uitae, in aeternum uiueret, nunc alias et appetentem sanguinis atque adipis ex omni genere sacrificiorum zelantemque, si et aliis eadem offerentur ut sibi, et nunc irascentem in alienos, nunc et in suos, nunc perimentem milia hominum ob leuia quidem aut nulla commissa, nunc etiam comminantem uenturum se fore cum gladio; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 593, l. 19-p. 594, l. 3.

Adu. Man. 37,8–9: et hoc dicat quod uos mira dementia dicere soletis: “ubi erat deus antequam esset caelum et terra?” Mor. eccl. cath. X,17: mirae dementiae impietatisque damnabitur; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 20, l. 18–19. Gn. adu. Man. I,III,6: Quod Manichaei reprehendunt dicentes: in tene­ bris ergo erat deus, antequam faceret lucem?; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 72, l. 2–3. Conf. XI,12,14: Ecce respondeo dicenti: « Quid faciebat deus, ante­ quam faceret caelum et terram? »; ed. by L.  Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 201, l. 1–2. C. Faust. XXII,11: Nec ideo putandus est deus, antequam faceret lucem, in tenebris habitasse, quia spiritus dei superferebatur super aquas; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 599, l. 3–5.

Adu. Man. 37,10–11: uidere autem quia bonum est, non sit ignorantis, sed quia placuit ei quod fecit. Gn. adu. Man. I,VIII,13: Numquid ergo quia placet ei quod fecit, ideo non nouerat bonum?; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 79, l. 10–11.

474

appendix ii C. Faust. XXII,12: quem tamquam insolitam lucem miratum esse reprehendunt, quia scriptum est: et uidit deus lucem, quia bona est! approbat enim opera sua, quia placent ei, quae fecit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 599, l. 23–26. C. adu. leg. I,6,9: Quid est enim aliud, Vidit lucem quia bona est, nisi quia placuit ei?; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 42, l. 216–17. C. adu. leg. I,7,10: quam quod uidit deus bona esse quae fecit; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 42, l. 230.

Adu. Man. 37,16–17: et cetera innumerabilia ab ipso domino uel ab apostolis dicta uel facta. C. Faust. XXII,95: quae figurate dicta uel facta intelleguntur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 701, l. 27–28. C. Faust. XXVIII,4: et non credat facta uel dicta esse Christi, quae scripsit Matthaeus; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 741, l. 16–17.

Adu. Man. 37,22–23: Possunt etiam horrere male intelligentes quod ait. C. Faust. XIX,24: sic apparebit dominum male intelligentibus id, quod dictum est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 522, l. 27–28.

Adu. Man. 37,27–28: et tamen aliquid sibi uidentur dicere? C. Adim. 10: et magnum aliquid sibi uidentur dicere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 134, l. 15. Ep. 162,4: uideatur sibi aliquid dicere; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 515, l. 1–2.

Adu. Man. 37,28–31: Aut quod tam multas animas necandas daemonibus in porcis tradidit, cum tales animas dicatis esse porcorum quales sunt hominum? Aut quod arborem in qua fructus, quia non erat tempus, non inuenit, uerbo aridam fecit quam animam intelligentem dicitis habere? Epiphanius, Pan. 66,36,1–2: ἔργῳ γὰρ ἔδειξεν οὐχὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι ἔν τε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ ἐν τοῖς κτήνεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις. εἰ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ψυχὴ ὑπῆρχε, τίνι λόγῳ ἕνα μὲν βουλόμενος καθαρίσαι ἢ μίαν ψυχὴν σῶσαι, τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοῦ δαιμονῶντος, δισχιλίας ὁμοῦ ψυχὰς ἀπολέσαι οὐκ ἐφείσατο; ed. by K.  Höll, J.  Dummer (GCS, 37), p. 75, l. 25–29. Mor. Man. XVII,54: et in gregem porcorum daemones misit et arborem in qua fructum non inuenerat, maledicto aridam fecit; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 137, l. 1–3.

parallel and source passages

475

C. Faust. VI,5: sed uos, qui homini mendico esurienti panem non porrigitis, misericordes estis in pecora, quibus animas humanas inesse creditis. dominus autem Iesus in ea crudelis fuit, cum daemones in gregem porcorum, cum id ab eo peterent, ire permisit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 291, l. 8–12. C. Faust. XX,20: propterea enim nefas habetis pecora occidi, quia humanas animas in ea reuolui arbitramini; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 561, l. 11–12. C. Faust. XXII,72: sed plane uanitas eidem domino contradicere, cum desiderio noxio daemonum in porcos ire uolentium petentiumque permisit, praesertim quia Manichaei non solum porcos, uerum etiam minuta et abiecta animalia hominum animas habere crediderunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 669, l. 19–23. C. adu. leg. II,11,37: Christus autem arborem maledicto arefecit, quia nihil in ea pomorum, quorum nondum erat tempus, inuenit; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 128, l. 1222–23.

Adu. Man. 38,3: ut temere accusetis quod non intelligitis. C. Adim. 3: intellegenda enim sunt, non temere accusanda, quae imperitis uidentur esse contraria; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 119, l. 5–6. C. Faust. XXII,7: Proinde isti, qui ea quae non intellegunt reprehendentes; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 596, l. 17.

Adu. Man. 38,5–7: Veteris autem Testamenti sanctas litteras figurate posse accipi negatis, cum et ipse dominus figurate inde quaedam dixerit et apostolus Paulus omnia illi populo in figura contigisse scribat. C. Adim. 15: sicut dicit apostolus, in figura contingebant eis propter nos; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 155, l. 25–26. C. ep. fund. 23: quod dicunt illa, quae ab antiquis figurate in libris diuina mysteria posita sunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 221, l. 3–4. C. Faust. VIII,2: neque enim mea, sed apostoli uox est: quia omnia haec in figura contingebant illis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 306, l. 9–11. C. adu. leg. II,9,34: secundum sanae fidei regulam figurate factum uel dictum si quid exponitur; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 120, l. 1007–08.

Adu. Man. 38,14–15: Multum apparet imperitia uestra uel potius malitia. C. Adim. 15: nisi non se ignorantia, sed malitia fecisse quod fecit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 156, l. 19–20.

476

appendix ii

Adu. Man. 38,15–16: Attendite in Actibus Leuci, quos sub nomine apostolorum scribit. C. Faust. XXII,79: legunt scripturas apocryphas Manichaei, a nescio quibus sutoribus fabularum sub apostolorum nomine scriptas; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 681, l. 6–8. C. adu. leg. I,20,39: Sane de apocryphis iste posuit testimonia, quae sub nominibus apostolorum Andreae Iohannisque conscripta sunt; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 70, l. 1049–50.

Adu. Man. 38,16–21: qualia sint quae accipitis de Maximilla uxore Egetis, quae cum nollet marito debitum reddere, cum apostolus dixerit: uxori uir debitum reddat, similiter et uxor uiro, illa supposuerit marito suo ancillam suam Eucliam nomine, exornans eam, sicut ibi scriptum est, aduersariis lenociniis et fucationibus et eam nocte pro se uicariam supponens, ut ille nesciens cum ea tanquam cum uxore concumberet. Acta Andreae 17: Ἡ οὖν Μαξιμίλλα σκέπτεταί τι τοιοῦτον. Παιδίσκην πάνυ εὔμορφον καὶ φύσει ἄτακτον ὑπερβολῇ, ὀνόματι Εὐκλίαν, προσεκαλέσατο καί φησιν αὐτῇ ἥδετο καὶ ἐπεθύμει· … Ὡς γὰρ ἔθος ἐστὶ γυναικὶ εὐτρεπίζεσθαι τὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου εὐτρεπίσματα, τούτοις οἷσπερ ἂν κοσμοῦσα τὴν Εὐκλίαν, ἐπέτρεψε κατακλίνεσθαι αὐτὴν ὡς αὐτὴ τῷ Αἰγεάτῃ. ᾟ καὶ χρώμενος ὡς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ συμβίῳ ἀφίει ἀνισταμένην αυτὴν ἀπιέναι εἰς τὀν ἴδιον κοιτῶνα ἑαυτῆς· τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν τῇ Μαχιμίλλῃ ἔθος; ed.  by J.-M.  Prieur (CCSA, 6), pp. 463–65, l. 1–12.

Adu. Man. 38,21–28: Ibi etiam scriptum est quod cum eadem Maximilla et Iphidama simul issent ad audiendum apostolum Andream, puerulus quidam speciosus, quem uult Leucius uel deum uel certe angelum intelligi, commendauerit eas Andreae apostolo. Et perrexerit ad praetorium Egetis et ingressus cubiculum earum finxerit uocem muliebrem quasi Maximillae murmurantis de doloribus sexus feminei et Iphidamae respondentis. Quae colloquia cum audisset Egetes, credens eas ibi esse, discesserit. Acta Andreae 32: Ἡ δὲ Μαξιμίλλα … ἔξεισι τοῦ κοιτῶνος ἅμα τῇ Ἰφιδάμᾳ … καὶ γενομένη εἰς τὸν τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου πυλῶνα εὑρίσκει τινὰ παιδαρίσκον εὔμορφον ἑστῶτα ἠνεῳγμένων τῶν θυρῶν … καὶ προδραμὼν αὐτὸς εἴσεισι πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ανδρέαν; ed. by J.-M.  Prieur (CCSA, 6), p. 481, l. 1–9. Ad Iustinum Manichaeum I: quod Manichaeus, et ut is Andreas actibus eloquitur, atque Thesauro reuelauit; ed. PL 8, col. 999. C. Faust. XXX,4: mitto enim caeteros eiusdem domini nostri apostolos, Petrum et Andream, Thomam et illum inexpertum Veneris inter ceteros beatum Iohannem, qui per diuersa possessionem boni

parallel and source passages

477

istius inter uirgines ac pueros diuino praeconio cecinerunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 751, l. 24-p. 752, l. 1.

Adu. Man. 38,28: Quid ad haec dicitis, rogo uos? C. Faust. XII,43: quid ad haec respondetis, insani?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 370, l. 14.

Adu. Man. 38,28–30: Quare non timuit Maximilla per turpissimum lenocinium ancillae suae ligare animas in carne? C. Faust. XV,7: dum enim times, ne dei tui membrum ligetur in carne; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 430, l. 10. Nat. b. 47: qui, cum dicit in omnibus seminibus esse partem dei et concumbendo ligari; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 887, l. 16–18. Haer. 46,13: deuitent ne diuina substantia, quae in eos per alimenta ingreditur, uinculis carneis ligetur in prole; ed. by R. Vander Plaetse, C. Beukers (CCSL, 46), p. 317, l. 140–41.

Adu. Man. 39,1–2: Sed uos temeritate pleni adhuc irruite in ueteres libros, ut quae nescitis, potius accusare quam discere laboretis. Vtil. cred. 6,13: sed nihil est profecto temeritatis plenius, quae nobis tunc pueris inerat, quam quorumque librorum expositores deserere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), 17, l. 15–16. S. 1,2: qui ea quae non intelligunt, caecitate reprehendere quam pietate quaerere maluerunt?; ed. by C.  Lambot (CCSL, 41), p. 3, l. 27–28. S. 51,24,35: Illud ante omnia retinete, ut scripturis sanctis nondum intellectis non perturbemini, intellectis autem non inflemini, sed et quod non intellegitis cum honore differatis, et quod intellegitis cum caritate teneatis; ed. by F.  Dolbeau (CCSL, 41Aa), pp. 49–50, l. 1056–60.

Adu. Man. 39,3: Si miraculis Noui Testamenti delectamini, ibi mortui primo suscitati. Ep. 137,13: Nam in his signis quid excellentius quam mortuos resurrexisse? Fecit hoc Helias, fecit hoc Helisaeus; nam de magorum miraculis utrum etiam mortuos suscitauerint, illi uiderint, qui et Apuleium se contra magicarum artium crimina copiosissime defendentem conantur non accusando sed laudando conuincere; ed. by K. D. Daur (CCSL, 31B), pp. 267–68, l. 284–89.

Adu. Man. 39,4–5: et alia multa quae diligentibus et pie quaerentibus ad aedificandam fidem innotescunt. Ad Iustinum Manichaeum I: cum pie et reuerenter quaeritur; ed. PL 8, col. 999.

478

appendix ii Mor. eccl. cath. I,1: Et diligentia igitur et pietas adhibenda est; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 4, l. 6–7. Mor. eccl. cath. X,17: quaerite potius diligenter et pie; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 20, l. 4. Vera rel. X,20: diligenter et pie; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 200, l. 43. Vera rel. XXVIII,51: pie diligenterque; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 220, l. 6–7. C. ep. fund. 23: sed ibi studium pium quaerendi nutriant, ibi petant, ut accipiant, ibi pulsent, ut eis aperiatur, incipiunt spiritaliter allegorias parabolasque scripturarum intellegere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 220, l. 21–24. C. Faust. III,2: O  si pio studio legisses euangelium et ea, quae te in euangelistis tamquam repugnantia mouissent, diligenter quaerere, quam temere damnare maluisses; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 262, l. 12–14. C. adu. leg. I,13,17: tot exitus pie quaerentibus pateant, ne temere tanta reprehendatur auctoritas; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 48, l. 409–11.

Adu. Man. 39,6–7: ibi primitus scripta sunt duo illa praecepta quae sublimiter dominus laudat de diligendo deo et proximo. Mor. eccl. cath. IX,14: Ibi enim scriptum est: Diliges dominum deum tuum; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 16, l. 9–10. Mor. eccl. cath. XXVIII,57: in his duobus conuenit mihi cum Manichaeis, id est, ut deum et proximum diligamus, sed hoc ueteri testamento negant contineri; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 60, l. 3–5. C. Faust. XV,4: ibi enim sunt duo illa praecepta, dilectionis dei et dilectionis proximi, singulis tabulis explicata; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 423, l. 14–16. Ep. 137,17: duobus praeceptis, ex quibus Christus dicit totam legem prophetasque pendere, ullo modo sint comparandae: diliges domi­ num deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex tota mente tua; et, diliges proximum tuum tamquam teipsum; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 31B), p. 272, l. 392–96.

Adu. Man. 39,8–10: ibi non reddendum malum pro malo; ibi oratum pro inimicis; ibi inimico ignoscendum; ibi tradenda maxilla ad accipiendam alapam. C. Adim. 8: quod etiam in illis ueteribus libris propheta praedicat dicens: domine deus meus, si feci istud, si est iniquitas in manibus meis, si reddidi retribuentibus mihi mala, et alius propheta

parallel and source passages

479

dicit de huiusmodi uiro patiente iniuriae et lenissime tolerante: dabit percutienti se maxillam, saturabitur opprobriis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 131, l. 3–8. C. Adim. 17: quis hoc diceret, nisi qui sciret hoc deo placere, ut malum pro malo nemo reddat?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 171, l. 5–6. C. Adim. 17: ecce Dauid ille bellator impleuit praeceptum Christi, quod accepimus, ut diligamus inimicos; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 171, l. 26–28. C. Faust. XIX,28: ibi de patientia non resistendi laudatur uir praebens percutienti se maxillam et saturatus opprobiis. ibi de inimico diligendo dicitur: si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum; si sitit, potum da illi; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 530, l. 16–20. C. adu. leg. I,17,35: Nonne prius in illis ueteribus libris lectum est non reddendum malum pro malo, ubi praecipitur, ut si iumentum inimici sui errare quisque inuenerit, reuocet domino eius, et si cecidisse in uia, non pertranseat, sed leuet cum illo? Nonne ibi prius scriptum est, quod apostolus ponit: Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum, si sitit, potum da illi? Nonne ibi prius homo dei deo suo quod ei utique scit placere dicit: Domine deus meus, si feci istud, si est iniquitas in manibus meis, si reddidi teribuentibus mihi mala? Nonne ibi prius Ieremias propheta describit sancti patientiam praebentis percutienti se maxillam?; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 63, l. 853–62. S. 164A: Diligite inimicos uestros, bene facite his qui oderunt uos. Neque hoc in libris ueteribus tacitum est. Ibi enim legitur: Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum; si sitit, potum da illi, quo etiam in nouo et apostolus usus est; ed. by C.  Lambot, “Sermon sur l’aumône à restituer à saint Augustin”, p. 157, l. 27–29.

Adu. Man. 39,10–11: non solum ibi mandata, sed etiam a sanctis uiris omni uigilantia completa. Mor. eccl. cath. XXIII,42: et non solum dictum, sed etiam exemplis eorum qui dixerunt, probatum atque firmatum?; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 47, l. 3–4. C. Faust. XII,40: neque enim audent contradicere, ne illa non solum dicta, sed etiam facta; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 366, l. 27-p. 367, l. 1.

Adu. Man. 39, 14–19: Debetis enim attendere alios similiter impios ita de Nouo Testamento facere posse, ut quaecumque ibi sunt quae non intelligentes putauerint mala, ea reprehendant et dicant ipsa

480

appendix ii

ibi esse sola uera, illa autem omnia quae ibi aperte magnifica sunt dicant esse falsa atque ab amatoribus domini apposita, ne omnia uiderentur fugienda, ut et uos et illi tali caecitate percussi iam iudicati et damnati fugiamini. Mor. eccl. cath. IX,14: Haec illi solent a corruptoribus scripturarum immissa esse dicere; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 16, l. 14–15. Mor. eccl. cath. XXV,46: quos et soli reprehendunt qui non intelligunt et soli intelligere nequeunt qui reprehendunt; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 51, l. 14–15. Mor. Man. XVII,55: numquam a corruptoribus immissa esse dixistis; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 137, l. 20–21. Gn. adu. Man. I,II,3: Hoc ergo cogantur exponere, ut intellegant se non intellegere, cum temere uolunt reprehendere quod diligenter quaerere debuerunt; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 70, l. 31–33. Vtil. cred. 3,7: quam multa soleant dicere immissa esse scripturis diuinis a nescio quibus corruptoribus ueritatis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 9, l. 7–9. C. Adim. 3: quod si dicunt hoc capitulum falsum esse et a corruptoribus scripturarum esse additum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 119, l. 24–26. C. Adim. 13: et si ipsum quisquam capitulum euangelii proponeret, et sicut facit Adimantus de uetere testamento, ita euangelium calumniose accusaret laudans potius ueteris testamenti libros, ubi scriptum est: confitemini domino, quoniam bonus est, quoniam in saeculum misericordia eius, et reprehendens in nouo, quod uocatus con­uiua in tantum supplicium propter uestem mittitur, et hoc fraudulenta peruersitate assidue faceret, ut omnia loca lenitatis de uetere testamento colligeret et loca seueritatis de nouo, et haec sibi aduersa esse contenderet, laudans uetus et reprehendens nouum: similiter inueniret imperitos et diuinarum scripturarum miserabiliter ignaros, quibus persuaderet uetus potius testamentum quam nouum esse retinendum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 147, l. 11–24. C. Faust. X,3: uos quid respondetis, cum uobis dicitur: quare tenetis euangelicos libros, quorum uos ad decipiendos imperitos confingitis sectatores, et quae ibi scripta sunt, non solum non creditis, sed etiam quantis potestis uiribus oppugnatis? … uos autem, cum uobis obiecta fuerint, quae in libris noui testamenti scripta sunt, nec accipiuntur a uobis, deficientes in respondendo et manifesta ueritate faucibus pressis anhelitu saucio dicitis esse falsata; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 311, l. 19-p. 312, l. 2.

parallel and source passages

481

C. Faust. XXII,15: An forte, quae de nouo testamento simi­ lia protulimus, ipsa quoque audent dicere falsa esse atque peruersa; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 603, l. 18–19. C. Faust. XXXII,16: ex quo euangelio? Quod non totum accipitis, quod falsatum esse dicitis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 776, l. 1–3.

Adu. Man. 39,21–22: si Christiani esse cogitatis, auctoritatem recipite et quae non intelligitis accusare nolite, sed potius eorum intellectum desiderate. C. ep. fund. 38: si non capis, quiesce, et noli temere nondum intellecta damnare; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 244, l. 13. C. ep. fund. 38: quo animo si essent in ueterem legem, et multa ibi miranda intellegerent, et nondum intellecta non cum odio lacerarent, sed cum honore differrent; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 245, l. 20–22. S. 2,2: propter illos qui aduersantur legi ueteri, scripturae sanctae; quia nonnulli non intellegentes citius uolunt exagitare quod non intellegunt, quam quaerere ut intellegant; ed. by C.  Lambot (CCSL, 41), p. 10, l. 55–56.

Adu. Man. 40,14–18: Quod ergo alio loco dicit: caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum, spiritus autem aduersus carnem, non carnem damnat, ut eam tanquam inimicam existimemus, sed admonet potius ut subiugemus nobis eam ut ad bona opera concupienda et parienda uelut coniux spiritui seruiat, quod dicit non posse fieri nisi gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum. Vera rel. XVI,32: corpus animae seruiat; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 207, l. 48. Gn. adu. Man. II,XI,15: incipit exponi quomodo sit facta femina. Et facta dicitur in adiutorium uiri, ut copulatione spiritali spiritales fetus ederet, id est bona opera diuinae laudis; dum ille regit, haec obtemperat; ille a sapientia regitur, haec a uiro … ut non solum anima corpori dominaretur; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 136, l. 11–17. C. Fort. 21: [Fortunatus dixit:] namque idem sequitur, quod caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem, ut non quaecumque uultis, illa faciatis. Dicit iterum: uideo aliam legem in membra meis repugnantem legi mentis meae et captiuum me ducentem in legem peccati et mortis. Ergo miser ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius nisi gratia dei per dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, per quem mihi mundus crucifixus est et ego mundo?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 103, l. 15–23.

482

appendix ii Gr. t. nou. XXXI,75: quae intentio perennis est gloriae, qua nouit anima deo se debere, quod iustificata est ad facienda bona opera, et ideo in illo, non in se laudari amat; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 223, l. 22-p. 224, l. 2.

Adu. Man. 40,24–27: Nam propter ipsam commutationem carnis quae futura est, quoniam de ista carne caeleste corpus deus facturus est, quando erimus aequales angelis dei, propterea uerissime dicit idem apostolus: caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebit. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. IV,97,11–15: “They say that the Apostle has decreed and said: ‘Thus I say this, my brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God nor can corruption inherit what is not corrupted.’ Thus, they say, there is no resurrection of the dead”; ed. by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p.  400, l.  11–15; cf.  Οὐ τοίνυν ἐστίν, φασίν, νεκρῶν ἀνάστασις.10 C. Adim. 12: sed tamen apostolus uolens insinuare, quale corpus iustorum per immutationem in resurrectione futurum sit, quia neque nubent neque uxores ducent, sed erunt sicut angeli in caelis, hanc ergo immutationem futuram corporum sanctorum uolens insinuare dixit apostolus: dico enim uobis, fratres, quia caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt; ed J.  Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 140, l. 26-p. 141, l. 5. Agon. XXXII,34: Nec eos audiamus, qui carnis resurrectionem futuram negant, et commemorant, quod ait apostolus Paulus: caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 136, l. 14–16. C. adu. leg. II,6,22: Illud autem, quod apostolus ait (nam et hoc testimonium iste posuit): Caro et sanguis regnum dei non possi­ debit, non facit de anima, sed de resurrectione corporis quaestionem … Quia cum facta fuerit, quae in resurrecttione speratur, illa mutatio, non utique remanebit ulla corruptio; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), pp. 107–08, l. 644–58.

Adu. Man. 41,5–7: deum minus potentem et infirmum, qui necessitate partis suae in miseria constitutae a materia, quam ipse non fecerat, ut mundum faceret adiutus est. C. Fort. 13: omnipotens autem non est, qui quaerit adiuuari aliqua materia unde faciat quod uelit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 90, l. 24–25.

10  Trans. P.-H. Poirier, T. Pettipiece, Biblical and Manichaean Citations, pp. 198–99.

parallel and source passages

483

C. Fel. II,19: non de aliqua re, quam ipse non fecerat, sed ex nihilo; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 849, l. 9–10. Nat. b. 2: aliam naturam maligni spiritus et mortalis corporis, quam deus non fecerit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 856, l. 4–5. C. Sec. 4: Si uolueris quaerere, unde fecerit, et imaginari coeperis adiutoria materiae, quam ipse non fecit, ut ibi non uideatur omnipotens facere, quod uellet, nisi eum aliqua res, quam non fece­ rat, adiuuaret; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 910, l. 12–15.

Adu. Man. 41,9–10: dixit et facta sunt, mandauit et creata sunt; qui uocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam quae sunt ? Nat. b. 42: ita dicit apostolus: qui uocat ea, quae non sunt, tam­ quam sunt … et illud, quod in psalmo scriptum est: ipse dixit, et facta sunt; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 867, l. 23-p. 868, l. 2.

Adu. Man. 42,3–5: Poeniteat uos peccatorum uestrorum, si cupitis liberari, et nolite audire Manichaeos dicentes: “non peccamus nos, hoc est, animae lucis, sed peccat gens tenebrarum”. Conf. V,10,18: Adhuc enim mihi uidebatur non esse nos, qui pec­ camus, sed nescio quam aliam in nobis peccare naturam et delectabat superbiam meam extra culpam esse et, cum aliquid mali fecissem, non confiteri me fecisse, ut sanares animam meam, quoniam peccabat tibi, sed excusare me amabam et accusare nescio quid aliud, quod mecum esset et ego non essem; ed. by L.  Verheijen (CCSL, 27), p. 67, l. 6–12. En. Ps. 140,10: Quibus si dixeris: Peccasti; statim illam defensionem impiam et peiorem ceteris magisque sacrilegam proferant: 11 Non ego peccaui, sed gens tenebrarum; ed. by F.  Gori, F.  Recanatini (CSEL, 95/4), p. 204, l. 7–9; cf. E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 40), p. 2033, l. 7–10.

Adu. Man. 43,7–12: Necesse est ergo ut aut pars lucis peccet aut pars tenebrarum. Sed si pars lucis peccat, deus peccat, quod nefas est dicere. Si autem pars tenebrarum peccat, ipsa uocatur ad regnum per eum qui dixit : Non ueni uocare iustos, sed peccatores, quia non est opus sanis medicus, sed male habentibus. Illa autem diuinitas de diuinitate et lux de lumine tenebrarum generi degenerans in aeternum sociatur. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. I,17: Ὁρίζεται δὲ ψυχὴν μὲν ἅπασαν εἶναι τῆς μερίδος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, σῶμα δὲ καὶ τὴν σάρκᾳ τῆς ὕλης; ed. by A. Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p. 39, l. 24–26. 11  Proferant]

proferunt Dekkers, Fraipont.

484

appendix ii C. Fort. 11: quod nefas est dicere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 89, l. 12–13. C. Fort. 17: quaero item, indulgentia peccatorum cui detur: nobis, an genti tenebrarum. Si genti tenebrarum datur indulgentia peccatorum, regnabit et ipsa cum deo accipiens indulgentiam peccatorum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 94, l. 1–4.

Adu. Man. 44,1: O  detestandum mentis errorem talia credentium! Nat. b. 42: o scelestam et incredibilem audaciam, talia de deo cre­ dendi, talia loquendi, talia praedicandi; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 877, l. 4–5.

Adu. Man. 44,3–4: Quoniam si quidquid facit, sic facit, ut a natura sua recedere et aliter facere non possit: prorsus nihil peccat. C. Fort. 17: qui enim cogitur necessitate aliquid facere, non peccat; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 93, l. 26–27. C. Fel. II,8: gens enim tenebrarum non peccat, quia suam natu­ ram facit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 836, l. 24–25.

Adu. Man. 44,6–8: Restat itaque ut pars dei, quae deus intelligitur, quam animam dicitis, sola sit rea omnium peccatorum et omnia illa quae accusanda insanissime putatis, in deum uestrum refundatis. Mor. Man. XI,22: haec omnia in deum sacrilega opinione confertis; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 107, l. 19. Mor. Man. XI,22: siquidem pars dei deus est; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 108, l. 8.

Adu. Man. 44,10–12: animam uero, irrationalem quidem, peccare non posse (quia nec praecepta rationis potest accipere neque ad beatitudinem peruenire), sed in suo gradu seruare ordinem naturae quem accepit. Gn. adu. Man. II,XVII,26: quia pecora non amiserunt beatitu­ dinem aliquam caelestem quam numquam habuerunt, sed in sua natura quam acceperunt peragunt uitam; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 148, l. 13–15.

Adu. Man. 44,12–15: rationalem autem (quia potest recte factorum rationabilia praecepta percipere et recte factis ad aeternam beatitudinem peruenire), si hoc peccando noluerit, iuste ad inferiora damnari, quia inter ipsa et deum non separat nisi uoluntas praua. Mor. eccl. cath. XXI,39: quae illis per recte facta diuina lege subiecta sunt; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 45, l. 3–4.

parallel and source passages

485

Gn. adu. Man. II,XXI,31: cum parturitione abstinentiae, quamuis cum doloribus atque gemitibus malae consuetudini resistens bonam consuetudinem ad recte facta pepererit, mater uiuorum uocetur, id est recte factorum; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), 154, l. 19–22. Nat. b. 32: pro his iuste factis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 871, l. 6–7.

Adu. Man. 45,1–2: et magis magisque legite atque discutite, sed animo aequo, non animo inimico. Mor. eccl. cath. XVII,30: si diligenter et aequo iudicio uelitis attendere; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 34, l. 17–18. Mor. eccl. cath. XXIII,42: si quis aequo animo attendat; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 47, l. 9–10. C. ep. fund. 3: et non inimico animo; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 195, l. 17. C. Faust. XVI,14: quia inimico, quia aduerso animo legit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 454, l. 2–3. C. Sec. 10: lege itaque totum ipsum locum pia cura intentus, non pertinaci contentione turbatus; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 922, l. 13–14. Ep. 162,1: eo tamen studio feruntur ad cognoscendas litteras nostras siue amico siue inimico animo, ut eis subtrahi omnino non possint; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 511, l. 19-p. 512, l. 1.

Adu. Man. 46,1.47,1: Iudicate tandem aut eligite, Manichaei, quem sequi uultis … An … C. Sec. 9: elige igitur quid uelis: utrum … an …; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 918, l. 20–24.

Adu. Man. 46,8–9: quaecumque sunt quaecumque uiuunt quaecumque intelligunt. Lib. arb. II,XVII,46,175: Tu autem si praeter id quod est et non uiuit, et id quod est et uiuit neque intellegit, et id quod est et uiuit et intellegit inueneris aliquod aliud creaturarum genus; ed. by W. M. Green (CCSL, 29), p. 268, l. 27–29.

Adu. Man. 46,16: quem praedicat catholica fides. Duab. an. 24: deus magne, deus omnipotens, deus summae bonitatis, quem inuiolabilem atque incommutabilem credi atque intellegi fas est, trina unitas, quam catholica ecclesia colit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 79, l. 26-p. 80, l. 3.

486

appendix ii

Adu. Man. 47,1–2: An illum deum qui falso dicitur incorruptus, quia postea inuenitur malo necessitatis oppressus. Agon. IV,4: quibus affirmant omnipotentem deum necessitate oppressum esse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 41), p. 106, l. 8–9.

Adu. Man. 47,2–6: timidum, quia imminente labe ac uastitate compulsus ad bellum est; ignorantiae plenum, si suae parti quid contingere posset, uidere non potuit; crudelem, si praeuidit miseriam futuram partis suae, et qui cum ea securus posset quiescere, tamen eam misit ad miserabilem pugnam. C. Faust. XXI,16: aut si ipsae hoc futurum nesciebant, pars dei uestri prouida erat, pars improuida; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 588, l. 4–5. C. Faust. XXII,22: crudelis, si securus hoc fecit; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 612, l. 3–4. C. Faust. XXII,22: porro ipse deus, cuius illa pars erat, si eidem parti suae futurum tantum malum timebat, etiam ipsum occupauerant timoris tenebrae; si autem hoc futurum nesciebat, ignoran­ tiae tenebris caecabatur; si autem hoc parti suae futurum sciebat et non timebat, peiores sunt tenebrae tantae crudelitatis quam uel ignorantiae uel timoris; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 612, l. 14–20. En. Ps. 140,11: Si enim posset gens tenebrarum, quam fingitis, hoc tibi diceret: Quid me accusas? Potui aliquid facere Deo tuo, annon potui? Si potui, fortior illo sum; si non potui, quare me timuit? Sed non timuit? 12 quare huc te misit, ut tanta hic patiaris, cum sis membrum ipsius, cum sis substantia ipsius? si non timuit, inuidit; si hoc timore non fecit, crudelitate fecit. Quam ergo iniquus est, cui nihil noceri poterat, et fecit ut membris suis hic ita noceretur? An poterat noceri? Ergo incorruptibilis non est; ed. by F.  Gori, F.  Recanatini (CSEL, 95/4), p. 206, l. 10–18; cf. E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 40), p. 2034, l. 10–18.

Adu. Man. 47,8–10: commutabilem, quia iam ex parte mutatus est; corruptibilem, quia iam ex parte corruptus est. C. Faust. XX,9: si ista uera sunt, dei substantia commutabilis est, corruptibilis, coinquinabilis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 546, l. 15–16. En. Ps. 80,13: satagentem ne corrumpatur; ex parte tamen corruptum, ut posset esse totus saluus; sed non totus, quia ex parte corruptus; ed. by E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 39), p. 1127, l. 23–25. 12  Sed

non timuit] si non timuit Dekkers, Fraipont.

parallel and source passages

487

Adu. Man. 48,3–4: Hoc enim dicitis, cum animas uestras partes eius esse asseueratis. Epiphanius, Pan. 66,9,6: εἶναι γάρ φησιν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ Μανιχαῖοι τὴν ψυχὴν μέρος θεοῦ; ed. by K.  Höll, J.  Dummer (GCS, 37), p. 30, l. 6–7. Ciu. XI,22: animam uero … non dei partem nec eius naturae, quae dei est; ed. by B.  Dombart, A.  Kalb (CCSL, 48), p. 341, l. 46–48.

Adu. Man. 48,4–5: Non enim deus in parte maior, in parte minor est. C. ep. fund. 15: nec in parte minorem et in parte maiorem, sed per omnia aequalem summo patri; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 212, l. 26–27. Ep. 162,9: deum, qui ubique totus est nec per spatia locorum corporea mole diffunditur, in qua necesse habeat partibus maiori­ bus minoribusque constare; ed. by A.  Goldbacher (CSEL, 44), p. 519, l. 18–20.

Adu. Man. 48,6–8: deus incorruptibilis est, nos cupiditatibus nostris corrumpimur; deus incoinquinabilis est, nos peccatis nostris coinquinamur. C. ep. fund. 38: ita enim non fecit corruptionem, ut possit corruptioni eum dare qui corrumpi meruerit, id est, qui se ipse coeperit peccando corrumpere; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 244, l. 22–25.

Adu. Man. 48,10: non ergo sumus pars substantiae eius. C. Fel I,19: non sumus de substantia dei geniti, sed per eius uerbum facti a deo; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 825, l. 18–19.

Adu. Man. 48,15–16: Si autem facti ab illo estis, hoc confitemini et non iam eritis Manichaei. Mor. Man. XI,23: Manichaei utique non eritis; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 109, l. 3–4. Gn. adu. Man. II,II,3: Haec secreta uerborum si non reprehendentes et accusantes, sed quaerentes et reuerentes Manichaei mallent discutere, non essent utique Manichaei; ed. by D.  Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 120, l. 1–3. C. Faust. XXIV,2: sic delirent Manichaei; sed resipiscant et non sint Manichaei; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 724, l. 6–7. C. Faust. XXXIII,9: et Manichaei continuo non eritis; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 797, l. 6–7.

488

appendix ii C. Sec. 9: quod si credis, impius non eris, et obliuisceris Persas, et noster eris; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 919, l. 5–6.

Adu. Man. 49,1–2: Manichaeus enim duas dicit esse naturas, unam bonam et alteram malam, bonam quae fecit mundum, malam de qua factus est mundus. Act. Arch. XVI: [Manes dixit:] Ego duas naturas esse dico, unam bonam et alteram malam; ed. by C.  H.  Beeson (GCS, 16), p. 26, l. 5–6. Epiphanius, Pan. 66,8,5: ὡς ὁ μὲν Μάνης δύο ἀρχὰς εἰσηγεῖται ἀνάρχους, ἀεὶ οὔσας καὶ μηδέποτε διαλειπούσας τοῦ εἶναι, ἀντικειμένας πρὸς ἀλλήλας, καὶ τῇ μὲν μιᾷ ὄνομα τίθησι τὸ φῶς καὶ ἀγαθόν, τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ σκότος καὶ κακίαν; ed. by K.  Höll, J.  Dummer (GCS, 37), p. 29, l. 5–7. Serapion of Thmuis, Adu. Man. XII: [φασὶ γὰρ Μανιχαῖοι·] οὐκοῦν δύο ἀρχαὶ καὶ δύο οὐσίαι· καὶ ἀρχαὶ δύο γεγόνασιν αἰτίαι, καὶ ἡ μὲν σώματος κακοῦ, ἡ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀγαθῆς. ἀγαθὴ οὖν ἡ ψυχή, πονηρὸν δὲ τὸ σῶμα; ed.  by R.  P.  Casey, Serapion of Thmuis, p. 34, l. 6–8. Titus of Bostra, C. Man. I,13: Φασὶ δὲ τὸ μὲν ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ κακόν; ed. by A.  Roman et al. (CCSG, 82), p. 29, l. 1. Filastrius of Brescia, Diuersarum hereseon liber LXI,2: qui duos deos, unum bonum et unum malum esse adserentes; ed. by F. Heylen (CCSL, 9), p. 243, l. 3–4. Mor. eccl. cath. X,16: Duos enim deos, unum bonum, alterum malum esse perhibetis … deum a quo factus est mundus; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 19, l. 6–8. Vera rel. IX,16: qui duas naturas uel substantias singulis principiis aduersus inuicem rebelles esse arbitrantur … duas animas esse in uno corpore existimant: unam de deo, quae naturaliter hoc sit quod ipse, alteram de gente tenebrarum, quam deus nec genuerit, nec fecerit; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 198, l. 4–12. Vera rel. XVIII,36: de aliqua informi materia factus est mundus; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 209, l. 21–22. Duab. an. 1: nam primo animarum illa duo genera, quibus ita singulas naturas propriasque tribuerunt, ut alterum de ipsa dei esse substantia, alterius uero deum ne conditorem quidem uelint accipi; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 51, l. 9–12. Duab. an. 16: duo animarum genera esse dicunt: unum bonum, quod ita ex deo sit, ut non ex aliqua materia uel ex nihilo ab eo factum, sed de ipsa eius omnino substantia pars quaedam processisse

parallel and source passages

489

dicatur: alterum autem malum, quod nulla prorsus ex parte ad deum pertinere credunt credendeumque commendant; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 71, l. 15–20. C. Fort. 18: [Fortunatus dixit:] Trado ego duas substantias fuisse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 96, l. 3. C. Fel. II,2: [Felix dixit:]  Manichaeus dicit duas esse naturas et modo inde culpatur, quia dixit duas esse, bonam et malam; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 829, l. 13–14. Nat. b. 41: non scelestissime blasphemarent inducendo duas natu­ ras, unam bonam, quam dicunt deum, alteram malam, quam non fecerit deus; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 874, l. 22–24. C. Sec. 13: duae substantiae, una bona, altera mala; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 924, l. 27. C. adu. leg. I,8,11: de qua faceret mundum; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 44, l. 278.

Adu. Man. 49,2–3: Si autem uos deus fecit, non inuenit Manichaeus unde uos deus fecerit. C. Sec.3: quod si non genuit, sed fecit haec lumina, quaero unde fecerit?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 908, l. 22–23.

Adu. Man. 49,3–4: Si enim de se ipso uos fecit, hoc estis quod ipse. C. Fel. II,1: in quo bello naturae daemonum misceret substantiam suam, quae hoc est, quod ipse; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 827, l. 14–16. Nat. b. 10: nec corruptibiles essent, si de illo essent, quia hoc, quod ipse est, essent; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 859, l. 9–10. C. Sec. 3: si de se ipso propagauit, cur ergo inferiora sunt?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 908, l. 23–24.

Adu. Man. 49,5–6: Si autem de alieno uos fecit, non ad illum pertinetis, quia sic uos fecit quomodo mundum. C. adu. leg. I,1,1: deum tamen bonum fabricasse mundum etsi ex aliena natura atque materia confiteantur; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 49), p. 35, l. 11–12.

Adu. Man. 49,10–11: Dicite uobis: “Non sumus partes eius, sed sumus opera eius”. Vera rel. XXXIX,72: Confitere te non esse, quod ipsa est; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 234, l. 20. Gn. adu. Man. II,VIII,11: et ideo non illam [animam] esse partem dei uel naturam dei; ed. by D. Weber (CSEL, 91), p. 130, l. 12–13.

490

appendix ii S. 182,4: si autem anima hoc est quod Deus … Ideo pars Dei non sum, quia substantia Dei, natura Dei, errare non potest; ed. by S.  Boodts (CCSL, 41Bb), pp. 710–11, l. 104–18.

Adu. Man. 49,16–17: Non enim peccantem me inde dimisit, sed ad peccata ipse me misit. C. Sec. 20: cur substantiam suam corrumpendam atque uiolandam et ad peccata omnia cogendam hostibus tradidit?; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 936, l. 8–9.

Adu. Man. 49,20–22: Aut quae ista iniustitia ut ad globum damner, cum ille ut modo aliquantulum securus sit, ego hic tanta sustineam? En. Ps. 140,11: Sed non timuit? 13 quare huc te misit, ut tanta hic patiaris, cum sis membrum ipsius, cum sis substantia ipsius?; ed. by F.  Gori, F.  Recanatini (CSEL, 95/4), p. 206, l. 13–14; cf.  E.  Dekkers, I.  Fraipont (CCSL, 40), p. 2034, l. 13–15.

Adu. Man. 49,22: Certe quoniam et ego hoc sum quod ipse. Vera rel. XXXIX,72: confitere te non esse, quod ipsa est; ed. by K.  D.  Daur (CCSL, 32), p. 234, l. 20.

Adu. Man. 49,25–26: quamquam timendum sit ne ista natura mali nec in globo ipso inclusa custodiri possit. C. Faust. XXII,22: scitis et uos, quod tunc, quando uos huc misi, horrendus hostis eruperat; quod autem nunc uos hic illigo, timeo ne rursus erumpat; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 614, l. 9–11.

Adu. Man. 49,27: et inuiolatam dei substantiam uiolauit. C. Fort. 11: substantia dei uiolatur; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 89, l. 22.

Adu. Man. 49,33–34: Aut si non potest perrumpere globum, ut ad lucidum illum tectorium damnatarum animarum perueniat. C. Faust. XXI,16: missa est enim ad inexpiabilem contaminationem pars dei, ut esset, unde tegeretur globus, quo in aeternum hostis uiuus sepeliendus est; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 588, l. 28-p. 589, l. 3. C. Fel. II,7: et quia non potuit, facturum eum dicitis uelut tectorium genti tenbrarum; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 835, l. 10–11.

13  Sed

non timuit] si non timuit Dekkers, Fraipont.

parallel and source passages

491

Adu. Man. 49,38–39: Fugite Manichaeum et ad ueritatis catholicae ubera toto desiderio conuolate. Mor. eccl. cath. X,17: quasi uagientes catholicae ubera sustentant; ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), p. 21, l. 5–6. C. ep. fund. 34: resistite ergo uos ipsi Manichaeo; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/1), p. 238, l. 18. C. Sec. 25: fuge itaque, amice, tantam pestem; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 944, l. 25. C. Sec. 26: Fuge ista, obsecro, non te decipiat; ed. by J. Zycha (CSEL, 25/2), p. 945, l. 12.

INDICES Index of Biblical Texts Index of Other Writings Index of Manuscripts Index of Ancient Names and Places

Index of Biblical Texts* Gn: 52; 103 (n. 120); 135; 143; 144; 174 (n. 10); 184–85; 227 (n. 8) Gn 1:2: 380 (37,3) Gn 1:10: 186; 380–82 (37,3–4) Gn 2:22: 143; 364 (22,5) Gn 3:9: 382 (37,4) Gn 18:2–16: 109 (n. 148) Ex 20:5: 183 (n. 37); 382 (37,4) Dt 4:24: 183 (n. 37); 382 (37,4) Dt 32:42: 382 (37,4–5) Tob 5:1–12–22: 109 (n. 148) Ps [see also Augustine, En. Ps. in index II]: 104 (n. 125); 301 Ps 33 (32):9: 392 (41,9); 400 (49,9–10) Ps 67: 174 Ps 71: 174 Ps 77: 174 Ps 101 (100): 23; 173 Is 40:6: 390 (40,21–22) Mt: 113 Mt 3:10: 205 (n. 19) Mt 5:22: 382 (37,24–25) Mt 5:34–35: 382 (37,6–8) Mt 7:17: 205 (n. 19) Mt 9:13–12 [sic]: 394 (43,9–10) Mt 10:34: 382 (37,13) Mt 12:25: 271 (n. 144) Mt 12:33: 141; 168 (n. 117); 204; 205; 260; 344 (5,4–5)

Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt

12:48: 178; 368 (25,3) 15:13: 205 (n. 19) 19:29: 93; 382 (37,19–20) 21:19: 187 (n. 48) 23:9: 94; 370 (25,8–9) 25:41: 348 (7,5–6) 26:53: 109 27:28: 374 (28,8) 27:29: 374 (28,8) 27:34: 374 (28,9)

Mk Mk Mk Mk

10:29: 270 (n. 142) 10:29–30: 382 (37,19–20) 11:13: 187; 287; 384 (37,30–31) 12:15: 269 (n. 139); 271 (n. 144)

Lk: 144 Lk 1:26–38: 364 (22,10–11) Lk 1:42: 143; 364 (22,9) Lk 1:62: 271 (n. 143) Lk 2: 143; 364 (22,2) Lk 7:9: 186; 382 (37,9–10) Lk 8:32: 287; 384 (37,28–29) Lk 8:45: 187; 382 (37,12) Lk 12:11: 270 (n. 142) Lk 12:49: 382 (37,14) Lk 14:4: 282 (n. 160) Lk 17:29–30: 382 (37,19–20) Lk 20:36: 390 (40,25–26) Lk 22:36: 382 (37,15) Jn Jn Jn Jn

1:14: 366 (23,11); 367; 372 (26,20) 2:4: 178; 368 (25,1–2) 3:18: 392 (42,7) 6:53–54: 382 (37,23–24)

*   The index refers to page numbers throughout the book. If a passage, name, or manuscript is only mentioned in footnote, the footnote number is added between brackets. References to the Latin text in the edition (pp. 342–402, even-numbered pages) mention chapter and line number between brackets. The list of abbreviations and bibliography has not been indexed.

496 Jn Jn Jn Jn Jn Jn Jn Jn Jn Jn

index of biblical texts

8:44: 350 (8,1–2) 9:39: 382 (37,14–15) 10:17: 211; 376 (30,6) 10:17–18: 370 (26,6–8) 11:34: 187; 382 (37,13) 14:6: 342 (1,3); 370 (25,14) 16:18: 271 (n. 146) 19:5: 374 (28,8) 19:34: 376 (32,8–9) 20:27–28: 370 (25,13–15)

Rom: 252 Rom 1:18: Rom 4:17: Rom 5:12: Rom 7:25: Rom 8:23: Rom 9:14:

382 (37,16) 392 (41,9–10) 220 (n. 69) 210; 212; 390 (40,18) 390 (40,10–11) 113; 348 (7,6–7)

1 Cor: 252; 288 1 Cor 1: 74 1 Cor 1:24: 362 (21,6) 1 Cor 3:2: 138 (n. 31); 403 (n. 33) 1 Cor 6:3: 350 (8,3–4) 1 Cor 6:15: 209 (n. 36); 390 (40,7–8) 1 Cor 6:19: 209 (n. 36); 390 (40,20–21) 1 Cor 7: 291 1 Cor 7:3: 206 (n. 22); 288 (n. 176); 386 (38,18) 1 Cor 7:5: 288 (n. 177) 1 Cor 7:13–14: 288 (n. 177) 1 Cor 8:6: 342 (1,4–5)

1 Cor 10:11: 142 (n. 47); 384 (38,7) 1 Cor 15:42–44: 95; 388 (40,2–4) 1 Cor 15:50: 392 (40,26–27) 2 Cor 11:2: 382 (37,16) 2 Cor 11:3: 366 (23,3–4) Gal 4:4: 143; 364 (22,3) Gal 5:17: 210; 390 (40,14–15) Eph 5:29: 209 (n. 36); 390 (40,12–14) Phil 2:7: 372 (26,17) Phil 4:2: 19 (n. 14) Col 1:16: 139; 140; 341 (1,6–7) 1 Tim 2:5: 370 (25,13) 1 Tim 6:10: 140; 141; 204; 344 (4,2–3) 1 Tim 6:16: 138 (n. 31); 139; 140; 147; 342 (1,2–3; 2,5–6) Heb 7:25: 271 (n. 147); 282 (n. 160) Jas 2:10: 104 (n. 127) 1 1 1 1

Pe: 109 Pe 1:10: 271 (n. 145) Pe 1:24: 390 (40,21–22) Pe 3:18–19: 34; 174

Index of Other Writings Adimantus Disputationes: 227; 234; 303 Agapius Heptalogue: 249 (n. 83) Ambrose De fide: 190; 191; 441 II,13,119: 191 (n. 62); 470 De mysteriis: 51 (n. 14); 52; 63; 430; 437 4,21: 52 (n. 15) In Ps. CXVLIII expositio: 163 Anselm De casu diaboli: 429 De conceptu uirginale: 429 De concordia praescientiae: 429 Cur deus homo: 428: 429 Ep. ad Wallerianum: 429 Ep. secunda ad Wallerianum: 429 De grammatico: 428 De incarnatione uerbi: 428 De libertate arbitrii: 429 Monologion: 428; 429 De praedestinatione: 429 De processione spiritus sancti: 429 Proslogion: 428; 429 Quid ad Gaunilonem respondeat: 428 De ueritate: 429 Apuleius De deo Socratis: 163 Metamorphoses: 162; 163 Aristocritus Theosophy: 249 (n. 83) Assumption of Moses: 33; 117 (n. 182); 174; 301

Augustine Acad.: 427; 438 Agon.: 91; 100; 186; 197 IV,4: 453; 455; 467; 470; 486 XI,12: 466 XIII,15: 442 XVIII,20: 100 (n. 107); 461; 462; 464; 466 XXII,24: 186 (n. 44); 459; 460 XXIII,25: 458 XXIV,26: 464 XXXII,34: 482 An. et or.: 423; 427 I,10: 210 (n. 39) An. quant.: 15; 21; 22; 33; 43; 102; 103; 117 (n. 182); 173; 174; 423; 437 Capitula in libro de quantitate animae: 423 V,8: 22 (n. 24) XIV,24: 22 (n. 25) XXIII,41: 155 (n. 92); 173 (n. 4) XXVI,50: 155 (n. 92); 173 (n. 4) XXXIV,77: 442 XXXVI,80: 442 Bapt.: 423; 425; 437 Beat. u.: 423 B. coniug.: 424 Cat. rud.: 422; 437; 440 Ciu.: 15; 25 (n. 31); 67 (n. 44); 103; 117 (n. 182); 157; 161; 174; 188; 441 X,24: 450; 458 XI,22: 481 XXII,8: 41 (n. 97); 43 (n. 102) Conf.: 15; 16; 23; 30; 36; 67 (n. 44); 123; 145; 161; 188; 232; 300; 301; 426; 429 III,6,10: 233 (n. 28); 462 III,7,14: 233 (n. 29)

498

index of other writings

III,12,21: 232 (n. 27) V,7,12: 233 (n. 30) V,10,18: 483 V,10,20: 461 VII,1,1: 443 VII,2,3: 145 (n. 52); 454 IX,8,17: 16; 17 (n. 6); 123 (n. 196) IX,12,31: 23 (n. 27); 173 (n. 5) X,29: 36 (n. 70) X,31: 36 (n. 70) X,37: 36 (n. 70) XI,12,14: 473 XIII,30,45: 468 Conl. Max.: 49; 50; 51; 52 (n. 14); 53; 60; 61; 63; 64; 96; 421; 422; 424; 425; 426; 427; 428; 429; 430; 431; 433; 434; 435; 437; 440 Cons. eu.: 426 Cont.: 422 C. Adim.: 114; 181; 182; 183; 184; 185; 186; 188; 217 (n. 64); 227; 229; 303 1: 442 3: 474; 480 4: 472 5: 449 6: 470 8: 478 10: 473 12: 482 13: 183 (n. 37); 473; 480 15: 471; 474 17: 479 26: 136 (n. 22); 450 28: 455 C. adu. leg.: 91; 96; 103; 118; 119; 124; 186; 187; 188; 190; 197; 217 (n. 64); 294; 295; 423; 426; 427; 438; 439 I,1,1: 489 I,6,9: 474 I,7,10: 186; 474 I,8,11: 489 I,12,16: 453; 468 I,13,17: 478 I,17,35: 479

I,20,39: 187 (n. 49); 476 I,20,43: 187 II,6,22: 482 II,9,34: 475 II,11,37: 187; 475 II,12,41: 188 (n. 53) C. duas ep. Pel.: 217 (n. 64); 223 C. ep. fund.: 76; 99; 114; 140; 181; 182; 183; 232; 235; 236; 237; 239; 261; 265; 273; 423; 427; 438; 439 1: 442 3: 485 5: 235 (n. 40); 236 (n. 43) 6: 236 (n. 44); 457 7: 99 (n. 103); 460; 462 8: 235 (n. 42); 461 13: 265; 408 (n. 2–3) 14: 468 15: 183 (n. 38); 487 21: 134 (n. 15) 23: 134 (n. 16); 475; 478 25: 236 (n. 45) 28: 237 (n. 46) 33: 449 34: 491 35: 100 (n. 108) 38: 481; 487 C. ep. Parm.: 425; 440 C. Faust.: 60; 76; 91; 98; 99; 114; 181; 182; 183; 184; 185; 188; 217 (n. 64); 227 (n. 8); 229; 237; 238; 239; 241; 255; 256; 263; 273; 275; 276; 284; 438 I,2: 227 (n. 9) II,4: 444 II,5: 241 (n. 58); 448; 450 II,6: 238 (n. 51); 241 (n. 58); 255– 56; 452; 455; 456 III,2: 478 III,3: 456 III,6: 455; 461 V,5: 464 V,7: 241 (n. 58) V,10: 471 V,11: 462 VI,3: 452 VI,4: 471

index of other writings VI,5: 475 VI,6: 471 VI,8: 462 VI,9: 464 VII,2: 464 VIII,2: 241 (n. 58); 448; 475 IX,2: 462 X,3: 480 XI,2: 460 XI,3: 99 (n. 103); 143; 458; 469 XII,24: 467 XII,40: 479 XII,43: 477 XII,47: 471 XIII,4: 239 (n. 52) XIII,6: 241 (n. 58); 454; 471 XIII,11: 454 XIII,18: 241 (n. 58); 453 XIV,1: 448 XIV,2: 464; 469 XIV,7: 469 XIV,11: 451; 462 XV,4: 478 XV,5: 241 (n. 56) XV,6: 241 XV,7: 239 (n. 54); 452; 477 XVI,12: 465 XVI,14: 448; 485 XVI,21: 467 XVI,33: 465 XVIII,7: 240 (n. 55); 443; 449; 453 XIX,28: 479 XIX,24: 474 XX,1: 462 XX,2: 140 (n. 38); 443 XX,6: 239 (n. 54) XX,8: 240 (n. 54) XX,9: 241 (n. 58); 486 XX,11: 461; 470 XX,20: 475 XXI,3: 449 XXI,15–16: 241 (n. 58) XXI,16: 239 (n. 53); 262; 446; 486; 490 XXII,4: 473 XXII,7: 475

499

XXII,11: 473 XXII,12: 240 (n. 55); 453; 474 XXII,15: 481 XXII,22: 239 (n. 53); 241 (n. 58); 262; 263; 447; 486; 490 XXII,27: 467 XXII,39: 464 XXII,72: 475 XXII,78: 449 XXII,79: 476 XXII,95: 474 XXII,98: 240 (n. 54); 241 (n. 58) XXIII,10: 241 (n. 58) XXIV,2: 487 XXVI,6: 241 (n. 58) XXVII,2: 459 XXVIII,4: 474 XXVIII,5: 454 XXVIII,8: 241 (n. 58) XXIX,2: 465 XXIX,4: 467 XXX,4: 476 XXXII,16: 481 XXXII,19: 241 (n. 58) XXXIII,4: 467 XXXIII,9: 487 C. Fel.: 91; 114; 135; 181; 182; 183; 187; 190; 191; 192; 195; 196; 197; 205; 211; 212; 213; 220; 223; 231; 265; 266; 267; 268; 272; 273; 274; 275; 276; 277; 284; 290; 302; 303 I,1: 252 (n. 96) I,6: 471 I,9: 254 (n. 106) I,14: 242; 253 (n. 100) I,17: 265 (n. 133); 451 I,19: 73 (n. 8); 256 (n. 111); 266 (n. 134); 267; 451; 455; 487 II,1: 254 (n. 105); 443; 489 II,2: 205 (n. 19); 489 II,4: 168 (n. 117); 205 (n. 20); 212 (n. 45); 446 II,4–6: 183 (n. 40); 260 II,5: 276; 446; 449 II,6: 187 (n. 52); 195; 446 II,7: 443; 490 II,8: 450; 484

500

index of other writings

II,9: 214 (n. 52); 466 II,11: 211 (n. 43); 458 II,16: 290 (n. 185) II,17: 214 (n. 52) II,19: 483 II,22: 453 C. Fort.: 76 (n. 19); 91; 114; 140; 176; 181; 182; 183; 184; 186; 208 (n. 28); 234; 255; 256; 266; 267; 268; 269; 272; 273; 274; 276; 286 1: 76 (n. 19); 234 (n. 76); 255–56; 267; 442; 443; 451; 470 3: 76 (n. 18); 139 (n. 35); 140 (n. 38); 286 (n. 167); 442; 454 6: 457 7: 267; 456 9: 455; 460; 468 11: 76 (n. 19); 100 (n. 108); 183 (n. 36); 454; 457; 484; 490 13: 482 14: 205 (n. 19) 15: 136 (n. 22); 450 17: 484 18: 489 20: 76 (n. 19); 450 21: 210 (n. 37); 267; 481 22: 445 28: 456 C. Iul.: 217 (n. 64); 223; 437; 439 C. Iul. imp.: 217 (n. 64) C. Max.: 49; 50; 51–52 (n. 14); 53; 60; 61; 63; 64; 96; 421; 422; 424; 425; 426; 427; 428; 429; 430; 431; 433; 434; 435; 437; 440 C. Mend.: 423; 425; 426; 434 C. Prisc.: 104; 117 (n. 182); 174 C. Sec.: 76; 91; 114; 181; 182; 183; 184; 186; 220; 244; 263; 265; 266; 267; 268; 272; 273; 274 3: 265 (n. 133); 408 (n. 2–3); 452; 454; 489 4: 483 8: 467 9: 184 (n. 42); 448; 463; 485; 488 10: 184 (n. 42); 445; 485 13: 489 19: 443

20: 73 (n. 8); 134 (n. 16); 267; 445; 447; 452; 455; 472; 490 23: 461 24: 262; 290 (n. 185); 447 25: 462; 468; 491 26: 491 C. s. Arrian.: 427; 438; 439 Corr. grat.: 41; 217 (n. 64) Cura mort.: 425; 427; 440 Disc. chr.: 423 Diu. qu.: 61; 181; 182; 185; 423; 427; 431; 432; 437 XIV: 470 Diuin. daem.: 53; 422; 424; 435 Doct. chr.: 429 Don. pers.: 440 Duab. an.: 76; 114; 181; 182; 184; 423 1: 488 2: 449 9: 442 12: 450 14: 448 16: 488 24: 485 Dulc. qu.: 436 En. Ps.: 154; 189 67: 103–04; 117 (n. 182); 174 71: 104; 117 (n. 182); 174 77: 104; 117 (n. 182); 174 1: 448 80: 189 13: 486 14: 455 140 10: 76 (n. 17); 189; 454; 456; 483 11: 486; 490 12: 472 Ench.: 428; 429 Ep.: 15; 161; 439 Ep. 7: 428 Ep. 24 [see Paulinus, Ep. 3] Ep. 33 2: 26 (n. 34) 3: 26 (n. 25) Ep. 36: 423

index of other writings Ep. 54: 425 Ep. 55: 425 Ep. 79: 181 Ep. 80 1: 29 (n. 45) Ep. 88 7: 28 (n. 43); Ep. 92: 34 (n. 62); 104; 117 (n. 182); 171; 173; 178 3: 443 Ep. 93: 425 Ep. 137: 34 (n. 62); 104; 117 (n. 182); 171; 173; 175; 176; 177; 178 2: 176 (n. 16); 459 6: 458 9: 175 (n. 14) 13: 177 (n. 17); 477 17: 478 Ep. 140: 53; 181; 422; 424; 426; 435; 436; 440 XXVI,64: 468 XXXI,75: 482 Ep. 153: 425 Ep. 158: 15; 32; 33; 43; 106 (n. 132); 109; 164; 165; 166; 167; 168 6: 33 (n. 60); 108 (n. 140); 109 (n. 147–48); 174 (n. 8) 8: 32 (n. 55) 12: 106 (n. 135); 164 (n. 113); 167 (n. 115) Ep. 159: 15; 32 2: 103 (n. 120); 174 (n. 10) Ep. 160: 15; 32; 33; 43; 82; 83; 106; 107; 164; 165; 166; 167 1: 107 (n. 136) 2: 82 (n. 40); 107 (n. 137) 3: 107 (n. 137–38) 4: 34 (n. 61); 106 (n. 134) Ep. 161: 15; 32; 34; 43; 85; 106 (n. 132); 107; 108; 164; 165; 166; 167; 171; 173; 174; 176; 178 1: 34 (n. 62); 104 (n. 130); 108 (n. 141); 173 (n. 7); 178 (n. 21) 2: 107; 108 (n. 142; n. 144); 175 (n. 13)

501

3: 34 (n. 63); 85 (n. 52); 175 (n. 12) Ep. 162: 15; 32; 178 1: 105 (n. 131); 485 2: 22 (n. 23); 103 (n. 120–23); 174 (n. 10); 179 (n. 22) 4: 474 6: 459 9: 32 (n. 55); 487 Ep. 163: 15; 32; 34; 106 (n. 132); 109; 164; 165; 166; 174 Ep. 164: 15; 32; 34 (n. 64); 109 13: 468 19: 212 (n. 44) 22: 32 (n. 55) Ep. 166: 104; 117 (n. 182); 174; 178 II,3: 467 II,5: 446 Ep. 167: 104; 117 (n. 182); 174 Ep. 169: 15; 32; 35; 37; 105 (n. 131); 178; 179; 212 (n. 44) I,1: 103 (n. 121; n. 124); 104 (n. 125); 174 (n. 10) II,5: 443; 457 IV,13: 30 (n. 50); 35 (n. 67); 37 (n. 76); 103 (n. 124); 104 (n. 125–29); 105 (n. 131); 179 (n. 23); 201 (n. 6) Ep. 175: 37 Ep. 176: 37 Ep. 177: 37; 201; 207; 217; 219; 222 1: 207 (n. 27) 5: 219 (n. 67); 222 (n. 71) 11: 217 (n. 65) 15: 217 (n. 65) Ep. 187: 440 Ep. 191: 422 Ep. 194: 40; 120; 201; 221; 301; 423 Ep. 205: 439 Ep. 207: 437 Ep. 211: 426 Ep. 216,3: 41 (n. 94) Ep. 222,2: 193 (n. 71) Ep. 225: 440

502

index of other writings

Ep. 226: 440 Ep. 250: 440 Exp. Gal.: 424; 436 Exp. prop. Rm.: 61; 424; 427; 436; 437 F. inuis.: 53; 424; 428; 435; 436 F. et symb.: 49; 50; 51–52 (n. 14); 58; 63; 64; 65 (n. 41); 71; 79 (n. 28); 81 (n. 37); 83 (n. 44); 96; 421; 422; 423; 425; 426; 427; 428; 430; 431; 433; 434; 437; 439; 440 Gn. adu. Man.: 49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 62; 63; 64; 96; 180; 182; 184; 185; 217 (n. 64); 227 (n. 8); 229; 234; 421; 422; 423; 425; 426; 427; 429; 430; 431; 433; 434; 435; 437; 438; 439 I,I,1: 62 (n. 33) I,I,2: 448; 62 (n. 33) I,II,3: 62 (n. 33); 480 I,II,4: 470 I,III,6: 473 I,VIII,13: 473 II,II,3: 487 II,VIII,11: 489 II,XI,15: 481 II,XVII,26: 484 II,XXI,31: 485 II,XXVI,39: 443 II,XXIX,43: 449; 467 Gn. litt.: 53; 67 (n. 44); 103; 117 (n. 182); 174; 426; 429; 435 Gn. litt. inp.: 227 (n. 8) Gest. Pel.: 217 (n. 64) Gr. Christ.: 217 (n. 64) Gr. et lib. arb.: 41; 426 Gr. t. nou. [see Ep. 140] Haer.: 65 (n. 41); 97; 98; 115; 193 46: 77; 98 (n. 101); 118; 188 46,5: 286 (n. 168) 46,9: 119 (n. 185) 46,13: 477 46,19: 451 Imm. an.: 423; 427 Io. eu. tr.: 154 Lib. arb.: 15; 21; 22; 23; 43; 102; 103; 117 (n. 182); 173; 174; 175;

176; 180; 181; 182; 184; 185; 217 (n. 64); 437 I,IV,10,26: 176 (n. 15) II,XVII,46,175: 485 Mend.: 423; 424; 434 Mor. eccl. cath.: 65–66 (n. 41); 67 (n. 44); 114; 136 (n. 21); 180; 182; 186; 423 I,1: 183 (n. 34); 411 (n. 9); 473; 478 IV,6: 466 VIII,13: 466 IX,14: 478; 480 X,16: 488 X,17: 473; 478; 491 XIV,24: 442 XVII,30: 485 XVII,32: 456 XVIII,34: 465; 472 XIX,36: 466 XX,37: 462 XXI,39: 484 XXII,41: 466 XXIII,42: 183 (n. 34); 473; 479; 485 XXV,46: 480 XXVIII,57: 478 XXIX,60: 459 Mor. Man.: 65–66 (n. 41); 67 (n. 44); 100; 114; 136 (n. 21); 180; 182; 183; 186; 217 (n. 64); 234; 286; 423 I,1: 100 (n. 109); 457 IV,6: 136 (n. 21) VIII,13: 183 (n. 35); 462; 465 IX,15: 445 IX,17: 468 X,19: 286 (n. 169) XI,22: 484 XI,23: 457; 487 XII,25: 455 XIII,30: 287 (n. 169) XIV,32: 467 XVI,39: 287 (n. 172); 471 XVI,40: 471 XVI,41: 471 XVI,43: 471

index of other writings XVII,54: 474 XVII,55: 480 XVII,56: 472 XVII,62: 286 (n. 167) XX,74: 234 (n. 33) Mus.: 436 Nat. b.: 61; 76; 77; 91; 114; 135; 176; 181; 182; 183; 184; 186; 190; 191; 220; 239; 244; 264; 265; 267; 268; 272; 274; 275; 276; 278; 281; 282; 284; 422; 425; 427; 438 1: 449 2: 483 4: 450 10: 489 16: 135 (n. 20); 136 (n. 21) 20: 469 27: 135 (n. 18) 29: 76 (n. 19) 31: 458 32: 485 41: 489 42: 73 (n. 8); 184; 260; 262; 263; 264; 265 (n. 133); 267; 447; 448; 451; 457; 483; 484 43: 447; 456; 470 44: 76 (n. 19); 184; 191 (n. 65); 240 (n. 54); 244 (n. 66); 278– 81; 409 (n. 4); 453; 472 46: 244 (n. 65) 47: 477 Nat. et gr.: 30 (n. 50); 104; 117 (n. 182); 174; 201; 212 (n. 44); 217 (n. 64); 423 Nupt. et conc.: 217 (n. 64); 424; 435 Op. Mon.: 53; 424; 435 Ord.: 423; 425; 427; 438 Orig. an.: 423; 426 Pecc. mer.: 209; 217 (n. 64); 437 II,31: 209 (n. 34) Perf. iust.: 217 (n. 64); 423; 427 Perseu.: 30 20,53: 30 (n. 48) Praed. gr.: 422; 423 Praed. sanct.: 440 Praes. dei: 423

503

Qu. c. pag.: 436 Qu. eu.: 430; 438 Qu. Mt.: 438 Retr.: 71; 74; 75; 79; 81; 87; 114; 179; 180; 182; 237; 425; 427; 428; 429 I,9,4: 180 (n. 28) I,13,1: 180 (n. 29) I,14,1: 181 (n. 30) II,2: 237 (n. 47) II,41: 179 (n. 23) S.: 15; 154; 181; 189; 223; 227 (n. 8) 1: 181; 182 2: 477 2,2: 481 5,3: 469 7: 53; 61; 423; 437 12: 181; 182 12: 458 46: 437 47: 437 50: 181; 182 51: 76 (n. 17) 2,3: 99 (n. 104); 463 3: 460 24,35: 477 72A 4: 457 6: 464 75 I,1: 466 VII,8: 459 92,3: 98 (n. 99) 133,3: 456 150: 53; 61; 423; 437 153: 220; 304 8: 220 (n. 69) 14: 220 (n. 69) 164A: 479 182: 220; 304 3,3: 221 (n. 69) 4: 490 215: 438 233: 62 234: 62 235: 62

504

index of other writings

236: 62 320: 42 (n. 97) 321: 42 (n. 97) 322: 42 (n. 97) 323: 42 (n. 97) 3: 42 (n. 101) 324: 42 (n. 101) 350: 425; 432 351: 439 352 [= De paenitentiae medicina]: 422 375C 2: 465 3: 470 7: 463 383: 437 S. Ar.: 427; 438; 439 Ad Simplicianum: 216 Spir. et litt.: 423 Symb. cat.: 427; 438 Trin.: 67 (n. 44); 103; 117 (n. 182); 174; 425; 428 Vn. bapt.: 437 Vtil. cred.: 180–81; 182; 184; 217 (n. 64); 440 3,7: 480 6,13: 462; 477 Vera rel.: 103; 117 (n. 182); 174; 176; 177; 178; 179; 180; 181; 182; 183; 217 (n. 64); 425; 427 VIII,14: 457 VIII,15: 448 IX,16: 177 (n. 19); 452; 488 X,20: 478 XII,23: 450 XIV,27: 450 XVI,30: 458 XVI,31: 178 (n. 20); 463 XVI,32: 458; 481 XVIII,36: 488 XXVIII,51: 478 XXXIX,72: 489; 490 XL,76: 450 LV,110: 457 Vid. deo: 423; 425 XXI sent.: 61; 427; 436; 437; 438 Virg.: 426

Ps-Augustine Coll. Pasc.: 49; 50; 51; 52 (n. 14); 54 (n. 17); 63; 64; 96; 101; 421; 422; 425; 427; 428; 430; 431; 433; 434–35; 437; 440 Dial. qu.: 423 Eccl. dogm.: 53 (n. 16); 423; 425; 428; 429; 435; 439 F. Petr.: 65 (n. 41); 81 (n. 37); 425 Ig. purg.: 422 Mir. s. script.: 439 Orationes de sancta trinitate: 428 Spir. an.: 423 Vit. chr.: 423; 439 Bernard of Clairvaux Sententiae: 424 Caelius Aurelianus Acutae passiones: 162 Caesarius of Arles [see also ps-Augustine] Sermo 145 Ps-Chrysostom Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum: 430 Codex Theodosianus 6,27: 17 (n.5) 6,27,5: 20 (n. 19); 123 (n. 199) 16,5,38: 29 (n. 44) 16,5,40: 119 (n. 186) 16,5,41: 119 (n. 186) 16,5,43: 119 (n. 186) 16,5,59: 119 (n. 186) 16,10,24: 119 (n. 186) Collectio Auellana Ep. 28: 39 (n. 87) Ep. 45: 38 (n. 79) Ep. 46: 38 (79) Ep. 50: 38 (79) Cyprian De bono patientiae: 439

index of other writings De catholicae ecclesiae unitate: 439 Ad Demetrianum: 439 De dominica oratione: 438 Ad Fortunatum 11: 95 (n. 89) De mortalitate: 438 De zelo et liuore: 439 Decretum Gelasianum: 244; 246; 247; 248; 249; 275 V: 247 (n. 75–76) Draconius De diuresis haeresibus: 429 Epiphanius Panarion: 116; 192; 193; 194 66,8,5: 488 66,9,6: 487 66,13,7–14,1: 444 (n. 5); 445 66,14,5: 445 66,25,2: 444 66,31,6: 453 66,36,1–2: 474 Eugippius [Adaptations of Augustine]: 432 Eusebius Chronicon: 25; 26; 33; 101; 117 (n. 182); 173 II: 19 (n. 15) Historia ecclesiastica: 25 (n. 31) III,22: 19 (n. 15) Evodius Aduersus Manichaeos: passim 1: 128; 144; 145; 146; 207 1–3: 127; 128 1–10: 199 1,1: 56 (n. 22) 1,1–9: 139 (n. 33); 208 (n. 28) 1,2–3: 138 (n. 31 1,3: 147 (n. 60) 1,5–6: 152 (n. 82) 1,6: 152 (n. 82) 1,7–8: 148 (n. 63) 1,8–9: 56

505

2: 106; 107; 128 2–3: 221 2,1: 56 (n. 22); 147 (n. 61) 2,1–2: 100 (n. 106); 110 (n. 155) 2,2–3: 191 (n. 64) 2,3–7: 82; 153 (n. 86) 2,4–6: 203 (n. 14) 2,6–3,1: 140 (n. 39) 2,7: 127 (n. 1) 2,7–8: 107 (n. 136) 3,1: 56; 127 (n. 1) 3,2–4: 191 (n. 64) 3,5–8: 137 (n. 25) 3,7: 72 (n. 4) 3,8–9: 191 (n. 64) 3,10–12: 152 (n. 83); 184 (n. 42) 4: 128 4–6: 152 4–10: 112; 127; 128; 141; 221 4,1: 152 (n. 84) 4,1–3: 141 (n. 40); 204 (n. 17) 4,1–5,5: 107 (n. 138); 142 (n. 48) 5: 168 (n. 117); 183; 195; 196; 260 5,3–4: 152 (n. 84); 205 (n. 18; n. 20) 5,3–5: 168 (n. 117) 5,13–14: 207 (n. 26) 5,13–15: 183 (n. 40) 5,4–5: 141 5,5–6: 152 (n. 84) 5,5–9: 187 (n. 52) 5,6–9: 90 (n. 73); 195 5,11: 245 (n. 67) 5,11–15: 276 5,15–29: 262 (n. 127) 5,16: 211 (n. 42) 5,16–17: 262 5,18–19: 72 (n. 4) 5,19: 286 (n. 168) 5,24–26: 288 (n. 180) 5,24–27: 242 (n. 59) 5,23–28: 264 5,24–28: 257 (n. 112) 5,27: 407; 409 6,1: 56 (n. 22); 57 6,1–2: 153 (n. 85); 407 6,9: 153 (n. 85) 7,1: 56 (n. 22); 417

506

index of other writings 7,2–3: 153 (n. 85) 7,6–7: 113 (n. 172); 206 (n. 24) 8,1: 56 (n. 22) 8,1–2: 213 (n. 50) 8,5–6: 213 (n. 46) 8,6: 213 (n. 47) 8,7–8: 208 (n. 32) 9,1–2: 110 (n. 157) 9,2–3: 136 (n. 23) 9,4–8: 137 9,4–5: 208 (n. 30) 9,8–9: 149 (n. 71) 9,11: 150 (n. 75) 10,1–3: 213 (n. 48; n. 50) 10,4–7: 207 (n. 25); 213 (n. 50) 11: 73; 183; 260 11–20: 127; 128; 146; 222 11,1–2: 408 11,1–4: 265 11,2: 258 (n. 115) 11,4–8: 257 (n. 112); 267 (n. 135) 11,6–7: 73 (n. 8) 12,1: 56 (n. 22) 12,2: 72 (n. 4) 12,3: 146 (n. 55) 12,4–7: 177 (n. 19) 12,13–15: 204 (n. 15); 245 (n. 67); 257 (n. 112) 13: 275 13,1: 107; 153 (n. 87) 13,1–6: 257 (n. 113) 13,2–6: 275 (n. 150) 13,3–6: 240 (n. 55) 13,5: 68 13,5–6: 245 (n. 67) 14: 245 (n. 67) 14–16: 129; 183; 278 14,1: 56 (n. 22) 14,1–2: 149 (n. 68); 245 (n. 67) 14,2–3: 409 14,2–16,15: 240 (n. 54); 278–81 14,3–4: 409 14,12: 191 (n. 65) 15,4: 409 15,5: 56 (n. 22) 17,1: 56 (n. 22) 17,1–2: 150 (n. 80); 153 (n. 87)

17,6: 92; 192; 409 17,9–10: 73 (n. 7); 409 17,14: 55 17,14–16: 150 (n. 77) 17,15–16: 132 (n. 11) 18,1: 55 18,2–3: 76; 139 (n. 34) 18,5: 155 (n. 91); 285 (n. 164) 19,1: 56 (n. 22); 155 (n. 91); 285 (n. 165) 19,3: 155 (n. 91); 285 (n. 164) 19,8: 56 (n. 22); 146 (n. 57) 19,9: 146 (n. 55) 20,1: 56 (n. 22); 155 (n. 91); 285 (n. 165) 20,3: 155 (n. 91); 285 (n. 164) 20,3–4: 146 (n. 58) 20,4–5: 146 (n. 56) 21–36: 99; 127–28; 129; 222 21,3–4: 148 (n. 65); 149 (n. 74) 21,5–9: 215 (n. 56) 21,8–9: 210 (n. 38); 214 (n. 52) 21,9–12: 210 (n. 40); 214 (n. 53) 21,16–17: 100 (n. 110) 21,19–21: 214 (n. 52) 21,18–21: 108 (n. 140) 21,20–21: 214 (n. 54) 22: 99; 128 22–27: 99; 108 (n. 142; n. 145); 174 22,1: 56 (n. 22) 22,1–10: 143 22,2–3: 142 (n. 48) 22,6–8: 176 (n. 16) 22,10–11: 109 (n. 150) 22,11–14: 141 (n. 42) 22,12: 66 (n. 42); 416 23–27: 99; 128 23,1: 56 (n. 22); 142 (n. 44) 23,1–6: 99–100 (n. 105) 23,4–8: 210 (n. 41) 23,5: 207 (n. 26) 24,1: 56 (n. 22) 24,3–4: 149 (n. 69) 24,3–7: 92; 192 24,10: 183 (n. 35) 24,12: 56 (n. 22) 24,14–16: 184 (n. 42)

index of other writings 24,18: 73 (n. 7) 25: 177 25,1–3: 178 (n. 20) 25,2: 420 25,5: 210 (n. 38) 25,6: 213 (n. 48) 25,8–9: 94 26: 153 26,1–2: 100 (n. 107) 26,1–5: 154 (n. 88); 210 (n. 38) 26,3–5: 214 (n. 55) 26,6–8: 211 (n. 42) 26,16: 72 (n. 4) 27,1–8: 154 (n. 89) 27,2: 209 (n. 35); 213 (n. 46) 27,2–8: 109 (n. 151) 27,2–11: 213 (n. 49) 27,8–9: 206 (n. 21) 27,9: 55; 56 (n. 22) 27,11–13: 111 (n. 159) 28: 129 28–36: 99; 128 28,1: 55 28,5: 113 (n. 174); 207 (n. 26) 29,1–2: 121 (n. 191) 30,7–8: 109 (n. 149) 31,1: 56 (n. 22) 31,3: 131 (n. 9); 149 (n. 70) 31,8–9: 131 (n. 6); 287 (n. 171) 32,1: 56 (n. 22) 32,1–3: 138 (n. 30); 149 (n. 73) 32,10: 107 (n. 137) 33: 191 33,4: 107 (n. 137) 33,10–12: 191 (n. 63) 33,11: 207 (n. 26) 34,6: 207 (n. 26) 35: 379 (n. 25); 385 (n. 26) 35,1: 56 (n. 22) 35,3: 209 (n. 35) 35,6: 410 35,8–10: 287 (n. 173) 35,10: 55 36: 129; 275 36,1: 55 36,2–4: 287 (n. 173); 289 (n. 181) 36,4–6: 245 (n. 69)

507

36,7: 410 36,7–10: 245 (n. 68) 37: 142; 186; 187 37–39: 128; 130; 142; 186; 222; 229 37,1: 410; 414 37,2: 411; 412 37,2–3: 183 (n. 34) 37,3–16: 142 (n. 45) 37,4: 183 (n. 37) 37,12–17: 142 (n. 48) 37,19–20: 93 37,22: 211 (n. 42) 37,28–31: 287 (n. 175) 37,30–31: 187 38: 92; 187; 194; 195 38,1: 56 (n. 22) 38,2: 72 (n. 4); 412 38,3: 149 (n. 72); 411; 412 38,5–7: 142 (n. 47) 38,6–7: 142 (n. 48) 38,9:141 (n. 43); 142 (n. 48) 38,14–15: 148 (n. 64); 287 (n. 171) 38,15–28: 206 (n. 22) 38,16–21: 90 (n. 73); 187 (n. 50) 38,17: 412 38,18: 288 (n. 176) 38,18–21: 288 (n. 178) 38,21–28: 90 (n. 73) 38,22: 412 38,22–28: 187 (n. 50) 38,25: 412 38,27: 412 38,28–30: 288 (n. 179) 38,30–32: 287 (n. 171) 39: 148 39,1: 55; 411 39,1–2: 106 (n. 134) 39,3: 177 (n. 17) 39,4–5: 111 (n. 161); 148 (n. 62) 39,5–7: 213 (n. 50) 39,7: 412 39,9: 412 39,10–11: 213 (n. 51) 39,11: 55 39,11–12: 148 (n. 64) 39,13: 106 (n. 134) 39,14–19: 142 (n. 46)

508

index of other writings 39,15–16: 112 (n. 165) 39,18: 72 (n. 4) 39,19–22: 133 (n. 12) 39,20–21: 121 (n. 190) 39,21–22: 106 (n. 134–35); 110 (n. 167) 40: 108 (n. 140); 187; 194; 403 (n. 33) 40–49: 128; 130; 146; 222 40,1: 56 (n. 22) 40,2–4: 95 40,6–21: 206 (n. 23) 40,9: 208 (n. 31) 40,14–18: 209 (n. 35) 40,17: 72 (n. 4) 40,18–20: 208 (n. 33) 40,19–20: 213 (n. 46) 40,22: 90 (n. 73); 187 (n. 51) 41,1: 55 41,5: 55; 56 (n. 22) 42,1: 56 (n. 22); 132 (n. 10); 150 (n. 76) 42,3–5: 204 (n. 16) 42,4–5: 290 (n. 183) 43,4: 417 43,5: 413 43,7–10: 137 (n. 26) 43,9–10: 113 (n. 175) 44,6–7: 287 (n. 174) 44,8: 149 (n. 73) 44,10–15: 213 (n. 50) 44,12: 72 (n. 4) 44,12–13: 413 44,12–14: 215 (n. 57) 44,13: 413 44,15: 413 45: 403 (n. 33) 45,1: 56 (n. 22) 45,1–2: 111 (n. 163) 45,2–3: 213 (n. 46) 45,2–5: 138 (n. 29) 46: 128; 139 (n. 34); 146; 215; 222 46,1: 56 (n. 22) 46,14–15: 213 (n. 50); 215 (n. 57) 47: 128 47,2: 146 (n. 55) 47,4: 146 (n. 56)

47,5: 72 (n. 4) 47,6: 146 (n. 58) 47,7: 146 (n. 57) 47,14: 414 48: 128 48,1: 56 (n. 22) 48,1–2: 150 (n. 78) 48,4–5: 183 (n. 38) 48,5–7: 139 (n. 34) 48,14–15: 414 48,15: 414 49: 128 49,1: 56 (n. 22) 49,4–5: 414 49,5: 414 49,7–8: 138 (n. 28) 49,8: 150 (n. 79) 49,14: 66 (n. 43); 415 49,23: 408 49,27: 183 (n. 36) 49,28: 110 (n. 154); 413 49,28–29: 217 (n. 62) 49,32: 72 (n. 4); 416 49,32–33: 413 49,35–36: 110 (n. 154) 49,36: 217 (n. 62) 49,39: 138 (n. 29; n. 31) Ep. [see Augustine, Ep. 158, 160, 161, and 163] Ep. ad Val.: 40 (n. 92–93); 43; 106 (n. 132); 109; 110; 111; 112; 113; 117; 118; 120; 125; 164; 165; 166; 201; 216; 217–18; 219; 221; 222; 223; 294; 295; 301 Faustus [see also Augustine, C. Faust.] Capitula: 237; 238 Filastrius Diuersarum hereseon liber: 189 LXI,1–5: 189 (n. 56) LXI,2: 488 LXI,4: 193 (n. 70) LXXXVIII: 231 (n. 23) Fulgentius of Ruspe [see als Ps–Augustine]

index of other writings Ad Trasimundum: 431 Gaunilo Quid ad Anselmi Proslogion respondeat: 428 Gennadius [see also Ps–Augustine] De uiris illustribus: 88 (n. 66) Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis III,141: 31 (n. 53) Book of the Giant Og: 247 Gospel of Thomas: 247 (Ps–)Hegemonius Acta Archelai: 192; 193; 194; 252 (n. 97); 253 V: 253 (n. 99) VII: 444 VIII: 466 XIII: 453 XVI: 488 XVIII: 445 XXI: 466 LIV: 460 LVIII: 459; 467 Hermannus de Runa Exposicio lecitonis de libro Regum: 424 Hilary Tractatus psalmi centesimi octaui decimi: 422 Tractatus de psalmo centesimo quadragesimo secunco: 422

509

Ad Iustinum Manichaeum: 189; 190; 231 I: 189 (n. 58); 231 (n. 22); 476 XI: 456 Jerome Chronicon [see Eusebius, Chronicon] Commentarii in IV epistulas Paulinas: 424 Ep. 2 [ad Theodosium et caeteros anachoretas]: 63; 64; 427 Ep. 134: 423 Ep. 142: 39 (n. 84) De uiris illustribus: 163; 193 LXXII: 194 (n. 72) XCIX: 194 (n. 72) CII: 194 (n. 72) John Malalas Chronographia X,24: 20 (n. 16) Leodegar Ep. consolatoria: 432 Leucius Acts (unspecified): 90; 152 (n. 84); 194; 195; 196; 197; 247; 260; 346 (5,6–9); 347 Acts of Andrew: 90 (n. 73); 92; 116; 187; 189; 190; 194; 195; 196; 197; 206; 231; 246; 247; 287; 288; 291; 301; 346 (5,6–9); 385; 412 17: 90 (n. 73); 385 (n. 27); 386 (38,17–21); 476 32: 90 (n. 73); 385 (n. 27); 386 (38,22–28); 476 Acts of John: 90 (n. 73); 187; 194; 195; 196; 197; 231; 346 (5,6–9); 390 (40,22); 391 (n. 30) Acts of Paul: 231 Acts of Peter: 231

Homer Od.: 173 Od. XVII,291–327: 155 (n. 92)

Liber quare: 430

Isidore Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum: 434 Soliloquiorum: 435

Mani [including other Manichaean texts; see also index III, Cologne Mani codex and Paris, BnF, NAL 1114]

510

index of other writings

Epistles [see also Ep. fund.]: 229; 230; 231; 236; 243; 244; 245; 246; 248; 249 (n. 83); 250; 251; 252; 258 Long Epistle to Fatiq [= Ep. fund.?]: 246; 248; 251 Letter to Marcellus: 252–53 Epistula ad Menoch: 246 Epistle to Patricius [= Ep. fund.?]: 246; 248; 261–62 Letter of the Seal: 252 (n. 97); 253; 254; 259 (n. 119) Epistle of the Two Principles: 251 Rule of the Living: 234 Ep. fund.: 73; 92; 113; 128; 129; 194; 207 (n. 26); 211 (n. 42); 235; 236 (n. 45); 237; 239; 242; 243; 244; 245; 246; 247; 248; 249; 250; 251; 252; 253; 254; 255; 256; 257; 258; 259; 260; 261; 262; 264; 265; 266; 267; 268; 269; 270; 271; 272; 273; 274; 275; 282; 283; 284; 286; 287; 347; 349; 355; 375; 381; 407; 408 (n. 3) fr. 1: 253 (n. 99); 255 (n. 108) fr. 2: 258; 265; 270; 352 (11,1–4) fr. 2,6: 258 (n. 115) fr. 2,8: 258 (n. 116) fr. 3: 256 (n. 112); 266; 267; 269; 271; 272; 273; 352 (11,4–8) fr. 7: 374 (28,5–7) fr. 8: 242 (n. 59); 262; 263; 264; 346–48 (5,16–29) fr. 8,3: 257 (n. 112) fr. 9: 348 (7,1–2); 394 (43,9–10) Book of Giants: 229; 230; 231; 243; 247; 249 Gospel: 229; 230; 231; 238; 239; 242; 243; 245; 247; 249 (n. 83); 250; 251; 252; 253; 254; 255; 256; 257; 258; 259; 275 Kephalaia: 230; 237; 241; 243; 250; 254; 258; 259 (n. 119) M 454: 259 (n. 119) M 5569: 259 (n. 119) Book of Mysteries: 229; 230; 231; 243; 249 (n. 83)

P. Kell. Copt. 20: 231 (n. 21) Book of Pictures: 229; 231; 233; 242; 250; 259 (n. 119) Pragmateia: 229; 230; 231; 243; 249 (n. 83) Prayers: 229; 230; 231; 243; 244; 249 (n. 83) Prayer of the Emanations: 234 (n. 32) Psalms: 192; 230; 231; 243; 244; 254 Bema psalms: 253 Book of Recollections: 249 (n. 83) Mani’s Seal: 252 (n. 98) Book of Secrets [see Book of Mysteries] Šhābuhragān: 229; 257 Song of the Lovers: 240–41; 242 T. Kell. Syr./Copt. 1: 230 (n. 20) T. Kell Syr./Copt. 2: 230 (n. 20) Thes.: 68; 92; 128; 129; 189; 190; 191; 194; 207 (n. 26); 229; 230; 231; 233; 235; 239; 240; 242; 243; 244; 245; 247; 249; 257; 260; 261; 262; 264; 275; 276; 277; 278; 282; 283; 284; 303; 347; 355; 381 fr. 1: 257 (n. 113); 354 (13,3–5) fr. 2: 276; 346 (5,11–14) fr. 3: 278; 281; 354–58 (14,2– 16,15) Anti–Manichaean anathemas [see also Zacharias of Mytilene] Long formula: 249 (n. 83) Short formula: 249 (n. 83) Martin a Braga Formula uitae honestae: 437 De miraculis sancti Stephani protomartyris: 31; 41 (n. 96); 88 (n. 66) I,7: 31 (n. 52); 32 (n. 54) Al–Nadīm, Ibn Fihrist: 246; 248; 251 Novatus Catholicus Sententia de humilitate: 432

index of other writings Paulinus Ep. 3,3: 24 (n. 28); 25 (n. 32); 173 (n. 6) Ep. 3,6: 26 (n. 33) Pelagius Libellus fidei: 118 (n. 184) Book of the Penitence of Adam: 247 Possidius Indiculum: 74; 75; 79; 81; 87; 114; 179; 180; 181; 182; 185 Prosper De caritate: 431 Liber sententiarum: 439 Quodvultdeus Acc. grat. I: 97; 98; 100 X: 97 (n. 98); 98 (n. 100); 100 (n. 106; n. 110); 444; 452; 457; 465; 466; 468; 470 Adu. V haer.: 49; 50; 51; 52; 63; 64; 96; 97; 98; 101; 148 (n. 66); 421; 422; 423; 425; 427; 428; 430; 431; 433; 437; 439 I: 97 (n. 98); 461 V: 97 (n. 98); 99 (n. 103); 100 (n. 104); 460; 461; 463 VI: 148 (n. 66) Cant. nou.: 97; 98; 423 VI: 97 (n. 98); 465; 468; 469; 470 De cataclysmo: 97; 98; 427; 438 V: 97 (n. 98) C. Iud. pag. et ar.: 97; 98 VI: 97 (n. 98); 462 Liber promissionum: 88; 97; 98; 100; 115 II,6: 97 (n. 98); 98 (n. 100); 443 II,37: 94 (n. 86) IV uirt. car. 5: 94 (n. 86); 423 S. I de Symbolo 11: 95 (n. 92) De ultima quarta feria: 97; 98 VI: 97 (n. 98) Paschasius Radbertus Carmen ad Placidum de corpore et sanguine domini

511

Registri ecclesiae Carthaginiensi excerpta 78: 27 (n. 37) 93: 27 (n. 39) 106: 31 (n. 51) Serapion of Thmuis Aduersus Manichaeos: 441 XII: 488 XXX: 445 Siegebert of Gembloux De uiris illustribus 15: 88 (n. 66) Sulpicius Severus Chronica II,50,2: 122 (n. 193) Vita Martini 20,4: 122 (n. 193) Tertullian Ad nationes: 162 De spectaculis: 162 Testament of Job: 247 Titus of Bostra Contra Manichaeos: 441 I,1: 444 I,6: 444 I,13: 488 I,17: 483 I,40: 447 II,39: 444 III,9: 472 IV,33: 469 IV,44: 469 IV,97,11–15: 482 Vetus Latina [see also index I]: 90; 93; 94; 96; 261; 270; 271; 274; 282 (n. 160) (ps–)Vigil of Thapsus C. Felician.: 74; 425; 427; 428 Virgil Ecl.: 173 IX,32: 155 (n. 92)

512

index of other writings

Vulgate [see also index I, and VL manuscripts in index III]: 95 Zacharias of Mytilene Seven Chapters: 249 (n. 83) Zosimus Ep. [see Collectio Avellana, Ep. 45, 46, and 50] Epistula Tractoria: 39; 40 Varia [Adaptations of Augustine’s works]: 432 Altercatio inter monachos s. Victoris et canonicos Aquenses: 434 [Confession of faith; inc.: Indubitanter credo unum deum esse]: 430 Chants en l’honneur de saint Vincent: 433 Dicta Sancti Ambrosii: 432

Exhortationes ad quemdam comitem: 425 Fides quam Beringerius professus est in concilio Romano: 423 De incarnatione domini: 41 Letter [of monks of Saint–Laurent, Liège]: 425 De Maria Magdalenae [sic]: 432 De octo principalibus uitiis et unde oriuntur: 432 Passio Sancti Cyrici et Iulittae: 434 Passio Sancti Pauli Apostoli: 434 Sermo in S. Lucam euang.: 434 Sermo de mensa Domini: 423 Sermo de uigilia epiphaniae: 434 [Some songs]: 434 Tractatus de oratione dominica: 423 [Two unfinished texts]: 432 [Unfinished fragments]: 431 Vtrum sub figura an sub ueritate corporis Christi fiat sacramentum: 423

Index of Manuscripts Ag1 (Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 179): 46; 47; 51; 54 (n. 17); 56 (n. 21); 57; 62 (n. 33); 67; 80 (n. 31); 340; 341–402; 407; 409; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 421; 422 Ag2 (Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 180): 46; 47; 49; 54 (n. 17); 56 (n. 21); 57; 67 (n. 44); 340; 341–402; 408; 410; 411; 413; 414; 415; 416; 421; 422

Brussels, Koninklijke Bibiliotheek/ Bibliothèque Royale, 1413–16: 65 (n. 41) Bx (Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Bibliothèque Royale, 9349– 54): 46; 47; 49; 53; 56; 57; 58; 62 (n. 33); 66; 340; 341–402; 407; 409; 410; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 417; 425; 426; 428 Cambron manuscript: 8; 65; 66; 75

Ag (Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 289) 46; 47; 51; 56; 57; 67; 80 (n. 31); 340; 341–402; 407; 408; 409; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 422

Carthusian manuscript: 8; 65; 66; 75; 416

Av (Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale, 84): 46; 47; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 61; 62; 67 (n. 44); 71; 340; 407; 410; 417; 422; 435

Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, 156: 59; 60; 61

3

Bec 27*: 53; 59; 61; 62 Bo (Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque municipale, 49): 46; 47; 51; 53; 56 (n. 21); 58; 62; 66 (n. 42); 67 (n. 44); 340; 341–402; 407; 409; 410; 413; 414; 415; 416; 417; 423 Bg (Brugge, Openbare Bibliotheek, 103): 46; 47; 51; 53; 56; 58; 66 (n. 43); 340; 341–402; 407; 409; 410; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 417; 424 1

Bg2 (Brugge, Openbare Bibliotheek, 112): 46; 47; 53; 56; 58; 66; 340; 416; 424

Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, 104: 91 (n. 74); 263

Ch (Chicago, University Library, 110): 46; 47; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 60; 71; 340; 407; 410; 425; 426; 435 Cologne Mani Codex (P. Köln inv. 4780): 192–93; 225 (n. 2); 245 (n. 71); 252 (n. 98); 255 (n. 108) Di (Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, 139): 46; 47; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 60; 61; 66; 67 (n. 44); 71; 72; 80; 86; 340; 407; 410; 416; 426; 429; 435 Gr (Grenoble, Bibliothèque municipale, 203): 46; 47; 48; 51; 54; 56; 57; 340; 341–402; 407; 408; 409; 410; 411; 413; 414; 415; 426

514

index of manuscripts

Kl (Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, CCI 220): 46; 47; 48; 49; 55; 56 (n. 21); 56 (n. 21); 57; 63; 64; 67 (n. 44); 73; 86; 340; 410; 427; 431; 436 (n. 41); 438 La (Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, 128): 46; 47; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 61; 62; 66; 67 (n. 44); 340; 407; 410; 416; 417; 427; 428; 435; 438 Li (Liège, Bibliothèque de l’Université, 132): 46; 47; 51; 53; 56; 57; 58; 66; 340; 426; 428 Lobbes 67*: 59; 60 (n. 28); 62 Ma (Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 223): 46; 47; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 60; 61; 64; 71; 340; 407; 410; 429; 435 Melk B22*: 59; 60 (n. 28) Montecassino, Biblioteca dell’abbazia, 15: 196; 268; 277; 302–03

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale France, lat. 2093: 196 (n. 82)

de

P2 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12218): 46; 47; 51; 53; 56 (n. 21); 57; 64 (n. 39); 66; 67 (n. 44); 69; 78; 79; 80; 84; 87; 295; 340; 341–402; 408; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 433 P3 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12219): 46; 47; 49; 52; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 57; 58; 66; 67 (n. 44); 69; 71; 79; 80; 87; 340; 341– 402; 408; 410; 411; 413; 414; 415; 416; 433; 434 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 13371: 54 (n. 17) P4 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14301): 46; 47; 48; 51; 54; 56 (n. 21); 57; 64 (n. 39); 67; 68; 71; 78; 80 (n. 31); 83; 84; 340; 341–402; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 434; 435

Mü (Munich, Bayerische Staasbibliothek, Clm 18083): 46; 47; 48; 51; 55; 56 (n. 21); 57; 340; 341–402; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 430

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Nouvelles acquisitions latines 1114 [codex Theuestinus]: 230; 286 (n. 168)

Ox (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 175): 46; 47; 48; 51; 52; 55; 56 (n. 21); 57; 63; 340; 410; 430; 431; 436 (n. 41); 437; 438

Pa (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 245): 46; 47; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 60; 61; 62; 67 (n. 44); 71; 340; 407; 410; 426; 429; 435

P1 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2077): 46; 48; 49; 54; 56 (n. 21); 57; 58; 64 (n. 39); 66; 67; 68; 78; 80; 85; 282 (n. 159); 340; 341–402; 408; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 431; 432 (n. 30); 433

Pm (Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 635): 46; 47; 53; 56; 58; 66; 67 (n. 44); 68; 81 (n. 36); 340; 416; 417; 435; 436

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale France, lat. 2083: 196 (n. 82)

de

Reims, Bibliothèque municipale, 395: 50 (n. 11); 62 (n. 33) Salzburg 82*: 59; 60 (n. 28); 63

index of manuscripts So (Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque de l’agglomération, 85): 46; 47; 53; 56; 58; 66 (n. 42); 340; 341–402; 407; 409; 410; 413; 414; 415; 416; 417; 436 F (St Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, XI 76): 46; 47; 48; 49; 51 (n. 14); 52; 55; 56 (n. 21); 57; 63; 67 (n. 44); 68; 340; 341–402; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 431; 436; 437; 438 Tr (Trier, Seminarbibliothek, 48): 46; 47; 48; 51 (n. 13); 52; 53; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 60; 61; 62; 71; 72; 86; 340; 407; 410; 417; 435; 437 Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, 40/2: 196 (n. 82) Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, 201: 196 (n. 82) Vl (Valencia, Biblioteca Universitaria, 33 [580]): 46; 47; 52; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21); 58; 340; 407; 410; 417; 435; 438; 439 Vt1 (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 203): 46; 47; 48; 51; 55; 56 (n. 21); 57; 63; 66; 67 (n. 44); 73; 86; 340; 409; 410; 413; 416; 431; 436 (n. 41); 438; 439 Vt2 (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Arch. San Pietro B. 52): 46; 47; 52; 54; 55; 56 (n. 21);

515

58; 340; 407; 410; 417; 435; 438; 439 VL 1 (k; Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, 1163 [G.VII.15]) [on VL numbers, see R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften]: 94 (n. 88) VL 2 (e; Trent, Museo Nazionale [Castello del Buon Consiglio], s. n.; Dublin, Trinity College, 1709; London, British Library, MS Add. 40107): 94 VL 3 (a; Vercelli, Archivio Capitolare Eusebiano, s. n.): 271 (n. 143; n. 146) VL 4 (b; Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, VI): 270 (n. 142); 271 (n. 146) VL 5 (d; Cambridge, University Library, Nn. II. 41): 94; 271 (n. 146) Vl 11 (l; Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Depot Breslau 5): 270 (n. 142) VL 14 (r1; Dublin, Trinity College, MS 55): 271 (n. 146) Zw (Zwettl, Stiftsbibliothek, 35): 46; 47; 48; 51; 55; 56 (n. 21); 57; 63; 64 (n. 39); 67 (n. 44); 73; 86; 340; 410; 431; 436 (n. 41); 438

Index of Ancient Names and Places Abraham: 109 (n. 148) Achaia: 412 Achilles: 184 (n. 42) Adam: 91; 202; 208; 209; 210; 211; 214; 218 (n. 66); 251; 297; 365; 383 Adeodatus: 18 Adeodatus (son of Augustine): 23; 302 (n. 3) Adimantus, Addas: 188; 227; 234; 249 (n. 83); 303 Aegeates (Egetes): 90 (n. 73); 91; 206; 288; 291; 385; 387; 412 Africa, North Africa, Africa proconsularis: 7; 10; 11; 12; 16 (n. 4); 17; 18; 19; 21; 23; 24; 26; 29; 31; 36; 38; 41; 42 (n. 101); 43; 84; 88; 91; 93; 96; 101; 118; 119; 121; 124; 130 (n. 4); 132; 138; 151; 173; 185; 193; 201; 216; 228; 232; 246; 247; 248; 258; 260; 269; 273; 274; 275; 296; 299; 300; 302; 303; 304 Agapius: 249 (n. 83) Alaric: 36 Alexander, of Lycopolis: 290 (n. 183) Alexandria: 227; 303 Alypius, of Thagaste: 15; 21; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 37; 38; 39; 43; 173; 201; 300; 301; 302 Ambrose, of Milan: 17; 21; 51 (n. 14); 52; 63; 117; 122; 157; 161; 163; 169; 190; 191; 197; 424; 430; 437; 441; 470 Andrew, apostle: 90 (n. 73); 187; 189 (n. 58); 206; 231; 247 (n. 75); 288; 291; 347 (n. 3); 387 Anselm: 428; 429 Antioch: 19; 20 (n. 16) Anthemius: 29 (n. 44) Apuleius: 162; 163; 177 (n. 17) Aquileia [see Rufinus, of Aquileia] Aquitaine [see Prosper, of Aquitaine]

Archelaus: 193 Aristocritus: 249 (n. 83) Arius: 148 (n. 66) Arles [see Caesarius, of Arles] Arnobius the Younger: 77 Atlas: 241 (n. 57) Augustine, of Hippo: 7; 9–12; 15–17; 20–24; 25 (n. 31); 26–27; 28 (n. 43); 29–30; 32–43; 49; 52; 57–60; 62–65; 67; 71–89; 91–93; 96–110; 113–25; 127; 131–32; 134–38; 139 (n. 35); 140–41; 143; 145; 149 (n. 67); 153– 55; 157; 161; 163–64; 168–69; 171– 91; 193; 195–97; 199–203; 205; 208 (n. 28–29); 209; 210 (n. 39); 211–13; 214 (n. 52); 216–17; 220–21; 222 (n. 71); 223; 227; 229; 231–44; 246–48; 250; 252–58; 260–70; 272– 78; 281–86; 287 (n. 169; n. 172); 289–91; 293–97; 300–04; 351 (n. 8); 407–09; 411 (n. 9); 422–23; 429; 432; 436; 439; 441 Aurelius, of Carthage: 15; 25; 26; 27; 37; 38; 87; 101; 201; 301 Baal: 18 Bagai: 28; 29 (n. 43) Beda venerabilis: 74 Bernard, of Clairvaux: 424 Boethius: 163 Bonifatius, of Rome: 39 Bostra [see Titus, of Bostra] Brescia [see Filastrius, of Brescia] British Isles: 35 Buddha: 225 Caelestius: 36; 37; 38; 39; 117; 118; 200; 201; 219; 299; 300; 301 Caelius Aurelianus: 162 Caesarea [see Eusebius, of Caesarea] Caesarea (in Cappadocia): 41 (n. 97) Caesarius, of Arles: 424

index of ancient names and places Calama [see also Possidius, of Calama]: 15; 28 (n. 39); 38; 42; 201; 301 Campania: 24 Cappadocia: 41 Carthage: 15; 18; 25; 26; 27; 31; 36; 37; 38; 42; 87; 94; 96; 97 (n. 97); 100; 101; 114; 115; 118; 119; 121; 145; 173; 193; 201; 301 Cassiodorus: 88 (n. 67) Central Asia: 226 China: 226 (Ps-)Chrysostom: 430 Cicero: 22; 156 Clairvaux [see Bernard, of Clairvaux] Comes: 24; 25 Concordius: 19 (n. 13) Constantine: 297 Constantinople: 25 (n. 32); 246 Cyprian: 95; 202; 438 Dachleh oasis: 230 Datiuus: 19 (n. 13) Diospolis: 36; 41 Domnio: 25; 26 (n. 33) Donatus: 19 (n. 13) Draconius: 429 Eclanum [see Julian, of Eclanum] Egypt: 227; 230; 237; 275; 303 Elijah: 176; 177 (n. 17) Elisabeth: 91; 143; 365 Elisha: 176; 177 (n. 17) Ennodius: 64 Enoch: 225 Epiphanius, of Salamis: 115; 116; 192; 193; 194; 444; 445; 453; 474; 487; 488 Equitius, of Hippo Diarrhytus: 27 (n. 37) Euclia: 387 Eugippius: 432 Eulalius: 39 Eusebia, Manichaean: 119 (n. 185) Eusebius: 20 (n. 17) Eusebius, of Caesarea: 19; 25; 26; 33; 101; 117 (n. 182); 173 Eve: 91; 99; 100 (n. 105); 143; 186 (n. 44); 210; 251; 365; 367

517

Evodia: 19 Evodius, of Antioch: 19; 20 (n. 16) Evodius, of Uzalis: passim Faustus, Manichaean: 140 (n. 38); 143; 188; 227; 237; 238; 247; 303 Felix: 18 (n. 10) Felix, Manichaean: 191; 192; 205; 231; 242; 243; 244; 246; 247; 248; 252 (n. 96); 253; 254; 258; 261; 268; 275; 276; 290 (n. 185) Filastrius, of Brescia: 115; 189; 193; 231; 488 Firmus: 19 (n. 13) Flavius Evodius: 122; 123; 124 Florus, correspondent of Julian of Eclanum: 246 Florus, monk of Hadrumetum: 40; 221 Florus, of Lyons: 74 (n. 11) Fortunatus, Manichaean: 76; 139 (n. 35); 145; 205; 208 (n. 28); 210 (n. 37); 234; 261; 276 Fulgentius, of Ruspe: 431 Gabriel, angel: 143; 365 Galla Placidia: 39 Gaul: 122; 123; 226; 248 Gaunilo: 428 Gregory, of Tours: 194 Hadrumetum: 15; 40; 41; 78; 110; 120; 201; 221; 294; 301 Haggai: 181 (n. 31) Hercules: 18 Hermannus de Runa: 424 Heros: 37 Hilara: 19 (n. 13) Hilary, of Poitiers: 422 Hippo Diarrhytus: 27 (n. 37) Hippo (Regius): 7; 15; 24; 26; 27; 35; 38; 41 (n. 97); 42; 43 (n. 102); 73 (n. 6); 87; 105; 113; 115; 120; 171; 172; 179; 181 (n. 30); 185; 193; 201; 223; 227; 232; 234; 242; 261; 300; 351 (n. 8) Homer: 173 Honorius: 28; 38; 39; 123; 300; 301 Hormizd I: 225 Ignatius, of Antioch: 19 (n. 15)

518

index of ancient names and places

India: 225; 226; 251 (n. 95) Innocent I, of Rome: 15; 31; 37; 38; 101; 102 (n. 117); 117; 201; 222; 299 Iphidama: 90 (n. 73); 91; 385 (n. 27); 387; 412 Isidore: 434; 435 Italica: 34 (n. 62); 104–05 (n. 130); 173; 178 (n. 21) Italy: 28; 36; 43; 120; 245; 248; 300 James, apostle: 104 (n. 127) Jerome: 19 (n. 15); 25 (n. 31); 26; 37; 39; 43; 87; 89; 104 (n. 126–27); 157; 161; 163; 169; 173; 174; 178; 193; 194 (n. 72); 301; 423; 424 Jerusalem: 36 Jesus, Christ: passim Job: 181 (n. 31) John, evangelist: 187; 194; 231; 347 (n. 3); 391 John Malalas: 20 (n. 16) Jovinian: 73 (n. 6); 118 (n. 184) Julian, of Eclanum: 40; 77 (n. 24); 92; 118; 202; 244; 245; 246; 248; 261 Juno: 18 Lazarus (Gallic bishop): 37 Lazarus (of Bethany): 91; 187; 383 Leo, of Rome: 119–20; 121; 163 Leodegar: 432 Leucius: 90; 152 (n. 84); 187; 194; 195; 197; 246; 247; 260; 347; 385; 387 Luke, evangelist: 144 Lycopolis [see Alexander, of Lycopolis] Maghreb: 226 Mani, Manichaeus: 7; 12; 90; 100 (n. 106); 107; 110 (n. 155); 128–29; 132; 134 (n. 15); 138; 140; 144; 146–51; 177 (n. 19); 188 (n. 53); 189–90; 192–94; 203; 205 (n. 19); 207; 211 (n. 42); 225–40; 242–45; 247–61; 262 (n. 125); 275; 277–78; 289 (n. 180); 290 (n. 185); 291; 303; 343; 345; 347; 349; 353; 355; 361; 363; 367; 369; 373; 375; 377; 381; 393; 399; 401; 403 Margarita, Manichaean: 119 (n. 185)

(Ps–)Marius Victorinus: 189; 231 Martin a Braga: 437 Mary, mother of Jesus: 91; 99; 100 (n. 105); 104–05 (n. 130); 108; 129; 143; 174; 175 (n. 13); 176; 178; 186 (n. 44); 210; 365; 367; 369; 371 Maximianus, of Bagai: 28 Maximilla: 90 (n. 73); 91; 206; 288; 289; 291; 385; 387 Maximinus (Arian bishop): 49; 60 Medinet Madi: 237 Melqart: 18 Memblone: 27–28 Mesopotamia: 225; 226 Milan: 16; 17; 21; 22; 23; 24 (n. 30); 43; 117; 122; 124; 190; 297; 300; 301 Milev: 37 Minorca: 41 Monnica: 23; 173; 232–33 (n. 27); 301; 302 Moses: 33 (n. 60); 174 Mytilene [see Zacharias, of Mytilene] Al-Nadīm, Ibn: 246; 248; 251 Nebridius: 145 Nola: 24; 29; 30; 43; 87; 301 Novatus Catholicus: 432 (n. 28) Numidia: 18 (n. 8); 28 (n. 42) Og: 247 (n. 75) Origen: 104 (n. 128) Orosius: 36; 41; 88 (n. 66); 104 (n. 128) Ostia: 21; 23; 185; 300; 301 Palestine: 36; 37; 41 Palladia (pilgrim from Cappadocia): 42 (n. 97) Palladius: 163 Parthian Empire: 225 Patīg (Patticius, “Patricius,” Fatiq): 225; 246; 248; 251; 254 (n. 104); 262 (n. 125) Patras: 288 Paul, apostle: 113; 128; 137–44; 152 (n. 84); 203; 204; 206; 209; 210; 231; 236 (n. 44); 252; 288; 291; 343; 345; 347 (n. 3); 351; 365; 367; 371; 383; 385; 387; 389; 391

index of ancient names and places Paul (pilgrim from Cappadocia): 42 (n. 97) Paulinus, of Nola: 24; 25; 26; 29; 30; 43; 87; 173; 301 Pelagius: 11; 15; 29; 30; 31; 35–41; 89; 102; 104 (n. 129); 117–18; 200– 02; 215–16; 219–20; 297; 299–301 Peter, apostle: 19; 34 (n. 65); 231; 347 (n. 3); 371 Petilianus: 31 Piene: 231 (n. 21) Plato: 22 Poitiers [see Hilary, of Poitiers] Possidius, of Calama: 15; 28 (n. 39); 36 (n. 71); 37; 38; 42; 74; 75; 79; 81; 87; 91; 114; 179–82; 185; 201; 301 Priscillian: 122; 123 Proculeianus, of Hippo: 26; 27; 30–31; 123 Prosper, of Aquitaine: 88; 431; 439 Quintilian: 156 Quodvultdeus: 18 (n. 10) Quodvultdeus, of Carthage: 49; 52; 88; 94–101; 114–16; 119; 121; 131; 148; 193; 293; 300; 427; 438; 443–44; 452; 457; 460–63; 465–66; 468–70 Paschasius Radbertus: 431 Ravenna: 29 (n. 44); 39; 43 Roman Empire: 7; 18; 19; 20 (n. 18); 21; 33; 91; 118; 123; 192; 226; 227; 231; 248; 251 (n. 95); 297; 298; 299; 303 Rome: 15; 18; 21; 22; 24 (n. 30); 25; 28–31; 35–39; 43; 185; 200–02; 234; 248; 299–301 Rufinus, of Aquileia: 25 (n. 31) Rusticianus: 19 (n. 13) Rusticus: 19 (n. 13) Sabellius: 148 (n. 66) Salamis [see also Epiphanius, of Salamis] Sasanian Empire: 7; 225; 226; 227 Saturninus: 18 Saturninus, of Uzalis: 27 Saturnus: 18 Secundinus, Manichaean: 244; 268

519

Semno: 19 (n. 13) Serapion, of Thmuis: 193–94; 441; 445; 488 Shapur I: 225; 229 Shahrahstānī: 257 Sicily: 36 Sisinnios: 259 Spain: 24 Spoleto: 39 Stephen, martyr: 7; 15; 16; 41; 42; 43; 83; 88; 101; 121 (n. 189); 297; 298 Stilicho: 29 (n. 44) Sulpicius Severus: 122 Symmachus: 163 Tanit: 18 Tertullian: 93; 162; 202 Thagaste: 15; 16; 17; 21; 23; 24; 38; 185; 201; 300 Theasius, of Memblone: 27; 28; 29; 31; 36; 300 Theodosius: 29 (n. 44); 123; 297 Therasia: 24; 29 Thessalonica: 297 Thmuis [see Serapion, of Thmuis] Thomas, apostle: 247 (n. 75); 347 (n. 3); 371 Titus, of Bostra: 118 (n. 184); 194; 290 (n. 183); 441; 444; 447; 469; 472; 482; 483; 488 Tobit: 109 (n. 148) Tours [see Gregory, of Tours] Ursus, tribune: 119 (n. 185) Utica: 43 (n. 102) Uzalensis (Vzalensis): 19 (n. 13) Uzalis: 7; 15; 16; 18; 19 (n. 13); 20; 21; 27; 28; 31; 32; 34; 35; 38; 40–43; 45; 77; 78; 82–84; 85 (n.54); 88; 110; 116; 120–25; 155; 172; 185; 186; 197; 201; 209; 221; 284; 285; 294; 297; 298; 300; 301; 304 Vahram I: 225 Valentinus, of Hadrumetum: 16; 40; 41; 109; 110; 120; 201; 301 Valerius, of Hippo: 26 Vegetius: 163 (ps–)Vigil of Thapsus: 74 (n. 11) Virgil: 153; 173

520

index of ancient names and places

Volusianus: 34 (n. 62); 104–05 (n. 130); 173; 176; 178 (n. 21) Zacharias, of Mytilene: 249 (n. 83) Zephaniah: 181 (n. 31); 182 Zoroaster: 225

Zosimus, of Rome: 38; 39; 40; 299; 300 Zumurus: 19 (n. 13)