Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine's Letters: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Augustine's Correspondence, Torun, 25-26 June 2015 ... Et Mediaevalia) (English and Latin Edition) 9782503575162, 2503575161

Citation preview

SCRINIUM  AUGUSTINI THE WORLD OF AUGUSTINE’S LETTERS

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

76

SCRINIUM  AUGUSTINI THE WORLD OF AUGUSTINE’S LETTERS

Edited by General editor: Przemysław N ehring Associate editors: Mateusz S tróżyński & Rafał T oczko

2017

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/2017/0095/117 ISBN 978-2-503-57516-2 e-ISBN 978-2-503-57517-9 DOI 10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.112955 © 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., 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.

In memoriam Father George Lawless, OSA (1930-2016) distinguished Augustinian scholar and very good man

Contents Introduction .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

9

Abbreviations

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 15

Part I – From a Matter to the Letters Stanisław Adamiak, Asking for Human Mercy. Augus  tine’s Intercession with the Men in Power . . . . 19 David G. Hunter, Family Matters: Augustine’s Letters   as a Source for his Views on Marriage and Family Life 41 Sigrid Mratschek, The Unwritten Letters of Augustine   of Hippo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Przemysław Nehring, Misbehaviour of Clergy in the   Light of Augustine’s Letters . . . . . . . . . 79 Mateusz Stróżyński, Neoplatonism in Augustine’s  Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Rafał Toczko, Debating through the Letters vs.   Live Discussions. The Patterns of ars disputandi in   Augustine’s Correspondence . . . . . . . . . 149 Part II – From the Letter(s) to the Matters Gillian Clark, Letters and the City of God

.

.

.

. 181

Mathijs Lamberigts, Was Innocent Familiar with the   Content of the Pelagian Controversy? A  Study of his   Answers to the Letters sent by the African Episcopacy 203 Elia Marinova, “What Good Are Books?” Knowledge   and Will in Augustine’s Letter to Firmus (Ep. 2)* . 225 Philip Polcar, A  Sting in the Tail? Augustine’s Send-Off   to Nebridius in Ep. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Danuta Shanzer, Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the   Dead: Questions and Answers in Augustine, Epp.  158 159 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

8

contents

Angela Zielinski Kinney, From Ivory Tablets to   Honeybees: Deciphering Augustine’s Letter to Roma  nianus (Ep.  15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Abstracts

.

.

.

.

Notes on Contributors

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 331

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 339

Bibliography Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Secondary Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Index Ancient and Medieval Persons . . . . . . . . . 369 Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 Index of Augustine’s Works . . . . . . . . . . 379

Introduction The corpus of the preserved correspondence of Augustine consists of 308 letters, 254 of which were penned by him, while the remaining 54 were sent to him or to his close acquaintances. They vary in form and content, not least owing to the fact that the time-span of the letters ranges from the 380s to 430, i.e. to Augustine’s death. While reading them, one may find reflections of the turbulent historical events of the time (such as the sack of Rome or the barbarian invasion), but perhaps more noticeable is the way in which the letters illustrate Augustine’s views concerning doctrinal, philosophical, and social issues, views which proved fundamental for the history of western Christianity. The correspondence contains a wealth of detailed information on religious practices, everyday life, polemical struggles with heretics or pagans, the economic situation, relations between religious institutions and the state, monastic communities in North Africa, and scores of other issues. The rich variety of the matters under discussion makes the collection a source which cannot be overlooked in any subdiscipline of Augustinian studies. Yet it is always problematic in use, largely owing to the questions of literary genre, and may indeed be daunting for scholars who do their research using this collection of texts. Augustine, in his letter to Quodvultdeus concerning the work on the Retractationes, intimated: “Et plurimas iam epistolarum legeram” (ep.  224.2) - it is unfortunate, but only few scholars can subscribe to this statement and claim a similar degree of familiarity with this collection of letters. Certainly, one may refer to various thematic indexes included in editions and translations, as well as to digital databases, still growing in popularity, which make it possible to search in a matter of seconds for words and phrases in selected texts.1 In the case 1  Cf.  D. Shanzer’s remarks on compilig the data from the epistolographic material: “The data were compiled partially from my own knowledge of some of the Later Roman (primarily episcopal) letter-collections. Indices helped and kind friends provided suggestions. […]. Hunting for keywords in electronic media, however, was not an entirely adequate way to find material.” (D. Shanzer, “Some Treatments of Sexual Scandal in (Primarily) Later Latin Epistolography”, in In pursuit of Wissenschaft: Festschrift für William M.

10

introduction

of Augustine’s correspondence, it is possible to make use of such magnificent tools as the Library of Latin Texts (Brepols) and, perhaps even more importantly, the Corpus Augustinianum Gissense. However, none of these tools, indexes and databases alike, allows for swift and effective searches across Augustine’s correspondence in such a way as to follow a ‘tree of ideas’ or a ‘map of concepts’ in order to study topics and ideas of interest which can be found in the letters. In the first stage of our project focused entirely on this particular collection, we prepared an open-access digital tool, which enables users to carry out intelligent searches in Augustine’s correspondence. The second stage consisted in gathering a group of scholars working in the field of Latin early Christian epistolography and the writings of Augustine in particular, who were invited to discuss the letters with the use of various research perspectives. The book in hand is a result of this project and is intended to offer a valuable contribution to the modern tradition of research on Augustine’s correspondence. It seems worthwhile to provide the reader with a brief overview of several studies which were published fairly recently and were entirely dedicated to this collection of letters. The year 1983 saw the publication of a collection of 29 studies edited by Claude Lepelley, a series of reworked conference papers presented at a session in Paris (21-22 September 1982) following in the wake of the 1981 edition of newly discovered letters of Augustine (by Johannes Divjak who published his edition in the CSEL series in Vienna).2 The book contained studies on textological issues, but also on a number of other questions, taking both broader and more focused perspectives. The general considerations were concerned with such topics as the import of the Divjak letters on the questions of the prosopography of North Africa in the time of Augustine, the knowledge of the historical (and ecclesiastical) geography of Africa, and the issue of monasticism promoted and practiced by Augustine and his circle. For the most part, the studies contained in that volume were concentrated on detailed problems and based on evidence provided by the newly discovCalder III zum 75. Geburtstag. Spudasmata, Bd. 119, Hildesheim-New York, 2008, ed. by S. Heilen, p. 393-414, see p. 395). 2  Les lettres de saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak: communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C. Lepelley, Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1983.

introduction

11

ered letters. A  study by Frank Morgenstern, published in 1993 and devoted to the prosopography of Augustine’s correspondents, proved to be particularly valuable for research into the society of late antiquity (not only North African). 3 Another important and comprehensive analysis of the correspondence was offered by J.  Divjak, published as a long entry in the Augustinus-Lexikon in 2001.4 In his analysis, he discussed the background to the classical tradition of letter writing and, at a greater length, the formation of this particular collection. The questions of literary genre, such as the repetitive formal elements noticeable in the structure of the letters, did not escape his attention. In addition to detailed analyses of the content of selected letters he also discussed their dating. The bibliography on Augustine’s correspondence appended to this article is also a particularly noteworthy contribution, especially as, apart from studies of a more general nature, it also lists in-depth analyses of individual letters. Daniel  E. Doyle in his monograph published in 2002 offered a thorough analysis of the collection focused on Augustine’s view on the question of disciplina: the moral order incumbent on all members of the Church and overseen by Augustine as part of his episcopal duties. The book by Jennifer Ebbeler published in 2012 is an interesting study offering an original approach to interpreting the correspondence. Her perspective consisted in analysing the letters as the means used by Augustine to exercise his pastoral care: in particular, to correct the attitudes and beliefs of his correspondents.5 The studies mentioned above dealt with either the corpus of Augustine’s correspondence (Morgenstern, Divjak), the Divjak’s collection (Lepelley) or at least a sizeable portion of the letters selected on the basis of their literary form and content (Doyle, Ebbeler). In addition to these, the recent decades have also seen the publication of several new monographs on the subject, all concentrated on letters selected according to a common theme or F. Morgenstern, Die Briefpartner des Augustinus von Hippo: prosopographische, sozial- und ideologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr N. Brockmeyer, 1993. 4  J. Divjak, “Epistulae”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 2001, p. 893-1057. 5  J. Ebbeler, Disciplining Christians. Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters, Oxford, 2012. 3 

12

introduction

topic, or related to one or more correspondents. Two such monographs are particularly worth mentioning: the book by Ralph Hennings on the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine 6 and the publication of Laurence Dalmon on the exchange of letters between the bishop of Hippo and the representatives of the Church of Rome on the subject of the Pelagian controversy.7 Against the background of the studies mentioned above, our book presents a novelty in these two ways: one is the thematic scope of the addressed research questions, while the other, perhaps more important, is the innovative methodological approach to using Augustine’s correspondence as a primary source. The book is structured in such a way as to reflect two of the most important approaches to the correspondence adopted by scholars. The first of these intends to study the correspondence as a whole and analyses Augustine’s stance on various subjects, specific or general, as can be observed in his letters. The other approach begins with an individual letter (or a few closely related letters in terms of the content) and a given topic with a view to studying it in a broad analytical context. We followed these two principles while designing our digital tool in order to enhance the effectiveness of Augustinian research. Likewise, the articles contained in this book are divided according to these two methodological perspectives. The first part of the volume in hand, titled From a Matter to the Letters, presents studies which follow a comprehensive approach to the collection, and deal with such topics as Augustine’s views and practices regarding the juridical and disciplinary questions (Adamiak; Nehring), marriage and family life (Hunter), Neoplatonic motifs (Stróżyński), and the role of correspondence as a means of communication in the time of Augustine (Mratschek; Toczko). The second part - From the Letter(s) to the Matters - is composed of six articles, each of them offering a detailed commentary on individual letters. It includes a study of ep.  3 (Polcar) revealing Augustine’s intentions lurking behind his playful tone as well as R.  Hennings, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2, 11-14, Leiden, 1994. 7  L. Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien: la correspondance entre l’Afrique et Rome à propos de l’affaire pélagienne (416-418,), (Studia Patristica. Supplement 3), Leuven-Paris-Bristol, 2015. 6 

introduction

13

an arresting linguistic digression. An analysis of ep.  15 (Zielinski Kinney) proposes, among other things, a new reading of the information contained in the letter concerning contemporary writing implements. The next article on the correspondence between Augustine and the bishop of Rome (Lamberigts) offers a discussion on the actual knowledge of Pope Innocent about the Pelagian controversy. Two letters exchanged between Augustine and Evodius (epp.  158-159), read in a broad philosophical, cultural, and intertextual context, lead one of the authors (Shanzer) to new and often surprising interpretations of the alleged possession of Evodius’ body by his late secretary. The book ends with two studies on two selected letters from the collection discovered by Divjak: the one on ep.  1A focuses on the ways in which Augustine used letters to build a community of readers, who were expected to become citizens in the city of God (Clark), while the other, centred around ep. 2*, discusses the evolution of Augustine’s views on the question of how one should reach out with Christian doctrine to the well educated (Marinova). The articles contained in this book are reworked versions of conference papers presented at the symposium on Augustine’s correspondence which took place at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland) on 25-26 June 2015. The meeting coincided with the launch of an open access digital tool designed and developed under my leadership in order to facilitate the study of this particular collection of letters. The research tool in question is a database of the same title as that of this book: Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, www.scrinium.umk.pl). The work on the database, the symposium and the present book was sponsored by a grant from the Polish National Science Centre (no.  2012/05/B/HS2/04106). It is our hope that the project Scrinium Augustini will foster interest in the fascinating correspondence of Augustine and, even more importantly, draw attention to its immense literary and historical value. To this end, we are pleased to present the reader with both components of our project: the innovative digital tool and the collection of studies written by experienced scholars working on Augustine’s letters. Przemysław Nehring

Abbreviations BA ‒ Bibliothèque Augustinienne BHL ‒ Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina BT ‒ Bibliotheca Teubneriana CCSL ‒ Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina CSEL ‒ Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum CTh ‒ Codex Theodosianus FOTC – Fathers of The Church IPM ‒ Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia JbAC ‒ Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum LCL ‒ Loeb Classical Library MiAg – Miscellanea Agostiniana MGH­ ‒ Monumenta Germaniae Historica NBA – Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana PLRE ‒ The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire SChr ‒ Sources chrétiennes SPM ‒ Stromata Patristica et Mediaevalia TLL ‒ Thesaurus Linguae Latinae TTH ‒ Translated Texts for Historians WSA ‒ The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century

Part I From a Matter to the Letters

Asking for Human Mercy. Augustine’s Intercession with the Men in Power* Stanisław Adamiak (Warsaw) 1. Why intercession? Augustine of Hippo is known in the Western Church as Doctor Gratiae – “The Doctor of Grace”. This title has been given to him because of the importance of the topic of the grace of God in his teachings and writings. Augustine was a faithful follower of St Paul in underlining his unworthiness of the gift of faith that he had received in an undeserved, gratuitous, and irresistible way. Although expecting God’s grace and mercy is a pivotal issue of Augustinian theology, the bishop of Hippo had also to deal in everyday life with people who seemed nearly as mighty on earth as God in heaven: the men in power of life and death over the others. Augustine had never any contact with the emperor, the personification of this threatening capacity, but he had many dealings with lesser agents of power. And according to his biographer, Possidius, he firmly held that intercession for the condemned or other people in need is among the unpleasant duties of a bishop: “On request he also wrote letters to some concerning their temporal cases. But this work, which took him away from better things, he regarded as a kind of conscription, for his pleasure was always in the things of God or in the exhortation or conversation of intimate brotherly friendship. We know also that when his most intimate friends asked him for letters of intercession to the civil authorities he did not give them, saying that it was wise to observe the rule of a certain sage of whom it was written that out * 

The author of this article was supported by a grant of the Polish National Science Centre (2012/05/B/HS2/04106). Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 19-40 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113884

20

stanisław adamiak of great regard for his own reputation he would not be responsible for his friends. But he added the remark, which was however his own, that this was a good rule because often the authority which is petitioned afterward becomes oppressive. But if, when he was asked for it, he perceived that intercession was necessary, he did it with such sincerity and tact that not only did he not appear irritating and annoying, but rather seemed admirable.”1

Subsequently Possidius presents an excerpt from a short exchange of letters from the years 413-414 between Augustine and Macedonius,2 the vicar of Africa, which offers us a wonderful occasion of seeing the process of episcopal intercession in action, but also the doubts that it was arousing. Ep.  152 is the response of Macedonius to a lost letter of Augustine, in which the bishop of Hippo was asking for a pardon for someone. It seems that Macedonius was in fact quite flattered by the possibility of being a correspondent of the famous bishop and was pleased to grant his request immediately (sine mora). However, he seized the occasion to ask Augustine what were in fact his reasons behind asking for mercy for someone who was guilty beyond doubt. Macedonius remarked that it was a doubtful practice not only from a civil, but also from a religious point of view: was it not true that even Jesus Christ permitted penitence only after the first sin, not the second? Is not a promise of improvement a condition sine qua non of pardon? If someone forgives too easily is not he in fact approving and encouraging the wrongdoers? It results clearly from the letter of Macedonius that Augustine was not the only bishop to address him with such requests. When he started the second paragraph of the letter saying that “you [in the plural] treat the intercession for the guilty as the part of your priestly office and are offended when you are not granted your wishes”3 he might just be using the plural as a courteous way of addressing Augustine alone, but in the rest of the letter he addressed him in 1  Cf.  Possidius, Vita Augustini, 19.6-20.2 (trans. H.T.  Weiskotten; Possi­ dius, The Life of Saint Augustine, Princeton 1919). 2  See also Possidius, Vita Augustini, 20.2. We do not have any other information about him apart from that provided by Possidius and Augustine; cf. J.R.  Martindale, “Macedonius 3”, in PLRE 2, p. 697. 3  Ep. 152.2, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p. 394: “Officium sacerdotii uestri esse dicitis interuenire pro reis et, nisi obtineatis, offendi, quasi, quod erat officii uestri, minime reportetis”.

asking for human mercy

21

the second person singular; “your priestly office” means the office of all bishops, not Augustine’s alone, here. Macedonius explained in the third paragraph that he was often presented with such requests (therefore, not only by Augustine) and that he was generally happy to grant them. He made an interesting observation, however, that even if he himself wished to pardon the criminals, it was desirable that the initiative for this came from outside so that “the severity of judgment can be saved”.4 We can see from it how bishops may have played a role in the whole judicial system, mitigating its severity without infringing the general framework of the punitive retribution required by the law. Augustine’s response (ep. 153) is a short treatise on intercession. As Daniel Doyle has counted, the term intercedo and its “cognates” appear in this letter alone thirty times out of a total of thirty-six uses in the entire corpus of the letters (excluding the Divjak Letters, some of which are very important for this topic, as we shall see).5 Firstly, Augustine explains to Macedonius that the Church is not turning a blind eye to the sinners: “We excommunicate public sinners even if we have managed to save them from your laws”.6 Then, it is true that public penitence is possible only once, but the Church should not discourage those who want to act in a penitential way after sinning again – the alternative would be to encourage them to act in a totally dissolute way.7 There is also a more personal issue: one day, God will judge also the judges, and this is why they should act mercifully now in this life, to gain God’s mercy in the future one.8 Augustine is not short on biblical examples: he cites Jesus who saved the adulteress from stoning and Joseph who did not exercise the law that was ordering him to send away the Virgin Mary.9 However, Augustine recalls that Jesus was pardoning the sinner, but still condemning the sin.10 4  Ep.  152.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 395: “salua seueritate iudicii alterius merito uideatur indultum”. 5  D.E.  Doyle, Bishop as a Disciplinarian in the Letters of St Augustine, New York, 2002, p. 103. 6  Ep. 153.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 401: “nam quosdam, quorum crimina manifesta sunt, a uestra seueritate liberatos a societate tamen remouemus altaris”. 7  Ibidem 7, p. 402. 8  Ibidem 8, p. 404. 9  Ibidem 9-11, p. 405-408. 10  Ibidem 15, p. 412-413.

22

stanisław adamiak

Augustine gives also an example of an intervention in the opposite direction: Macedonius himself (together with “his friends”) interceded for a clergyman of Carthage threatened with ecclesiastical punishment. Augustine notes here two issues: that the bishop granted the forgiveness of the delict “without even suspecting” that people asking for it were in any way condoning the wrongdoing, and that anyway the guilty person was not threatened with death, which clearly shows us what was at stake in the request that caused the previous letter of Macedonius: the person in question must have been already sentenced to death.11 Later on, Augustine declares once more his respect for the existing legal system, the necessity of judges, soldiers, pater fami­ lias, and even torturers.12 He adds, however, that exactly because of this system and its efficacy, there is also a need for bishops and their intercession, which does not deny the justice of the penalty.13 He even admits possible negative consequences of a pardon: an unpunished criminal may become even more audacious, or someone else may be encouraged to follow his bad example.14 This does not deter Augustine from his emphasis on the need of mercy; he takes also here the role of a spokesman for all bishops, talking about “our” intercession.15 Augustine mentions also the theme that was not touched on by Macedonius: torturing criminals and debtors in order to obtain Ibidem 10, p. 408. Ibidem 16, p. 413-414: “Nec ideo sane frustra instituta sunt potestas regis, ius gladii cognitoris, ungulae carnificis, arma militis, disciplina dominantis, seueritas etiam boni patris. Habent ista omnia modos suos, causas, rationes, utilitates”. More generally on the attitude of Augustine towards earthly justice see: E.M.  Kuhn, “Justice Applied by the Episcopal Arbitrator: Augustine and the Implementation of Divine Justice”, Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, IX,2 (2007), p. 71-104. Cf. also T.C. McConnell, “Augustine on Torturing and Punishing An Innocent Person”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 17 (1979), p. 481-492 and G.  Watson, “Crime and Punishment in Augustine and the Philosophical Tradition”, The Maynooth Review, 8 (1983), p. 32-42. 13  Ep. 153.16 (CSEL, 44), p. 413-415. 14  Ibidem 18, p. 416. 15  Ibidem 19, p.  417. In the sermon on the day of his ordination Augustine mentions “liberating the oppressed” among chief duties of a bishop (Sermo 340.3, PL, 38, col. 1482). 11 

12 

asking for human mercy

23

information about their illegal gains or possessions that anyway should be handed to others. Augustine says that the bishops will always ask for the abandonment of such practices, because it is better to lose the money if the person in question is really in possession of it than to torture or even kill someone who does not have it.16 The bishop of Hippo says that in this case it is better to intercede directly with their creditors and not with the judges. The problem becomes even more strained when it is a bishop to whom the money is owed (or from whom it has been stolen). However, also in this case Augustine advises that in extreme cases the bishop should excommunicate the debtors, but not pass them to civil courts.17 He hints at the fact that although a magistrate can have better information than a bishop about someone’s solvency, it may be also true the other way round, and this would justify intervention in favour of the debtor.18 In his response, Macedonius once more assured Augustine about granting the requested pardon, praising the bishop of Hippo for making “reasonable” (petibile) requests, and not as many people did who were pressing him in an obnoxious way.19 The magistrate must have been happy to receive again a very long response from Augustine, this time without any particular demand. Among many philosophical and theological issues touched, Augustine excuses himself once more for bothering Macedonius with such requests, but he explains that the intercession is his duty towards God, and such duty must go even before the rights of friendship.20 Macedonius was not the only friend of Augustine in a high position, to whom he was directing his requests. Another example was Valerius. We do not know exactly who Valerius was. He was a

16  Ibidem 20, p.  419-420. See also how Augustine declined the offer of the shipping enterprise being bestowed on the Church of Hippo, citing the possibility of sailors being tortured in case of a sea disaster as one of the reasons (see Sermo 355,5, SPM, 1, p. 128). 17  Ibidem 21, p. 420-421. 18  Ibidem 22, p. 421-422. 19  Ep.  154.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 428: “Non enim instas, quod plerique homines istius loci faciunt, ut, quodcumque sollicitus uoluerit, extorqueas; sed quod tibi a iudice tot curis obstricto petibile uisum fuerit”. 20  Ep. 155.11 (CSEL, 44), p. 441.

24

stanisław adamiak

count and held a high office at the imperial court in Ravenna.21 We learn about him firstly from ep.  200. Augustine stated there that he had already written to Valerius several times and received no reply. However, now he got three letters together. He heard also high praises of Valerius as a model Christian from the bearer of one of the letters, bishop Vindemialis: “We have heard of how you do not place your hope in the uncertainty of riches but in the living God and of how you are rich in good works, of how your home is a place of rest and solace for holy persons and a place of terror for unbelievers.” 22

The friendship between Augustine and Valerius, and the high position of the latter, must have been well known in Africa, hence the many requests for Augustine’s intercession with Valerius. In this case, it is a bishop Felix who asks for a favour (we have no idea of what kind): “Hence I recommend to you a bishop of Christ who needs the help of a lofty personage. Do, therefore, what you can, because the Lord has given you great power, and we know that you deeply desire his riches.”23

Whatever was the exact nature of the request of Felix, forwarded by Augustine, one can detect a hint of a slight religious “blackmail” here: if you want God’s grace, you should help his servants! 2. Mercy even for heretics Augustine repeatedly changed his mind towards what measures should be taken towards religious dissidents, in the first place the

21  See J.R.  Martindale, “Valerius 3”, in PLRE 2, p.  1143-1144. He was possibly identical with Symmachus’ correspondent, Valerius (Symmachus, Ep. VIII, 47.57). Augustine addressed to him the two books of his treatise De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia. He should not be confused with Valerius (Aug., Ep. 247), who was an actor of Romulus. 22  Ep.  200.2, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 294; tr. R. Teske, Letters 156-210, WSA 2.3, Hyde Park, 2004, p. 355-356. 23  Ep. 206.1 (CSEL, 57), p. 340; tr. R. Teske, WSA 2.3, p. 386.

asking for human mercy

25

Donatists.24 As a young bishop, he was convinced that they could be reasoned with so as to accept the truth of the Catholic position. However, lack of willingness to dialogue on the part of the Donatists and the violent acts committed by the members of their communion were making Augustine more and more favourable towards coercing dissidents towards union with the Catholics. The point of arrival of this reasoning is the famous formula cogite (or compelle) intrare, which appears in epp.  93, 173, 208, and ep.  185 to Bonifatius, sometimes edited separately as a treatise De correctione donatistarum.25 Nevertheless, Augustine always drew the line at the capital penalty. It was not applicable directly because of the anti-heretical laws, but it could be applied because of the violent crimes committed by the Donatists, especially by circumcellions. In 408 Augustine wrote to proconsul Donatus, explaining to him that since the ecclesiastical causes could be brought to the tribunal only by the people of the Church, and since the Catholics had no intention of bringing the Donatists to death, if the capital penalty was threatened in such cases, the Catholics would have to withdraw from putting them forward altogether, and in such a way the audacity of the heretics would only grow! Augustine pleaded therefore Donatus “to forget that you had the power to kill, and not to forget our petition”.26 Donatist aggression was partly a desperate response to the increasing state pressure aimed at forcing them to accept union with the Catholics, especially after the conference of Carthage in 411, although already in 409 Honorius had issued a constitution imposing the death penalty for harassing the Catholic bishops and clergy of Africa.27 Even in this atmosphere of growing Catholic success, Augustine insists that the lives of Donatists must be spared. 24  Cf.  P.R.L.  Brown, “St Augustine’s Attitude to Religious Coercion”, Journal of Roman Studies, 54 (1964), p. 107-116; M.  Gaumer, A.  Dupont, “Understanding Augustine’s Changing Justification for State-Sponsored Religious Coercion and its Context within Donatist North Africa”, Augustinus, 54 (2009), p. 345-371. 25  Ep. 93.5, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 449; 173.10 (CSEL, 44), p. 648; 208.7 (CSEL, 57), p. 346; 185.24 (CSEL, 57), p. 23. 26  Ep. 100.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 537. 27  Const. Sirm., 14.

26

stanisław adamiak

At the end of 411 he sends three letters to the tribune Marcellinus and his brother, proconsul Apringius (epp. 133-134, 139): “I appeal through the mercy of Christ the Lord to the faith that you have in Christ that you not do this or allow it to happen at all”.28 He adds what is the quintessence of his attitude towards Christian magistrates; when he is dealing with non-Christians, he can only implore them, but his relation with Catholics is of a more complicated nature, the allegiances are crossed, Augustine has also some authority over people who have authority themselves: “I as a Christian beg the judge and as a bishop warn a Christian”.29 Augustine’s pleas were in all probability successful. On one hand, Marcellinus and Augustine both held each other in high respect, and the tribune was certainly amenable to the religious argumentation presented to him by the bishop. Then, if the bishops of the Catholic Church did not want to proceed to the full extent of the penalties foreseen by the law for their opponents, why should the state officials be stricter? Their chief concern was with public order and violent repression of the Donatists would have probably resulted in more mayhem than that had been caused by any offences committed by them. 30 We have evidence of this attitude in the doubts of the tribune Dulcitius faced with the apparently suicidal determination of Gaudentius, the Donatist bishop of Thamugadi, in 419; in response to them, Augustine underlined that there existed no law giving the tribune the power of life and death over the schismatics. 31

28  Ep.  133.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 81; tr. R. Teske, Letters 100-155, WSA 2.2, Hyde Park, 2003, p. 203. 29  Ep.  134.2 (CSEL, 44), p.  86: “christianus iudicem rogo et christianum episcopus moneo”; tr. R. Teske, WSA 2.2, p. 206. 30  See B.D.  Shaw, Sacred Violence. African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine, Cambridge, 2011, for the reevaluation of the extent of interconfessional violence in North Africa. 31  Ep. 204.3 (CSEL, 57), p. 319. Constitutions from 24 November 408 (CTh XVI, 5,44) mentioned “supplicium iustae animaduersionis” which could have been seen as death penalty, as W.H.C.  Frend, The Donatist Church. A movement of protest in Roman North Africa, Oxford, 1952, p.  271; Const. Sirm., 14, from 15 January 409, punished with capital sentence the offences (“outrages”) against Catholic clergy.

asking for human mercy

27

Augustine was not the only bishop to intercede for the Donatists: such an attitude was shared by his colleagues, as he attests in a letter to a Donatist bishop of Hippo, Januarius: “When the savagery of your clerics and the Circumcellions, which was well known to all, did not subside, the case was heard, and Proculeian was pronounced a heretic along with Crispinus. And because of the gentleness of the Catholic Church he was not permitted to suffer the fine of ten pounds of gold, which the emperors established against the heretics”. 32

The conviction of Crispinus himself was triggered by the brutal aggression against the Catholic bishop of Calama, Possidius, who subsequently personally intervened to save his Donatist counterpart from paying the fine. 33 Accidently, it is difficult to establish what was the legal basis for such indulgence after the sentence of the proconsul; this shows how flexible the Roman legal system was. On the other hand, sometimes Augustine himself was crying for punishment: this was the case of anti-Christian riots of Calama, which should not have been left unpunished, not with corporal punishments or excessive fines, but by depriving the pagans of the means “to live badly”. 34 3. On the side of the poor Some of Augustine’s letters show us a grim image of the life in the late Roman Empire, when poor people had hardly any chance in confrontation with the mighty of this world, who had the authority of the law and state power behind them. 35 Augustine several times tried to use his influence to defend the people of lower social class, among them often the clergy, in such seemingly 32  Ep. 88.7 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 413; tr. R. Teske, Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, Hyde Park, 2001, p. 355. 33  Ep. 105.4 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 598. 34  Ep. 91.9 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 433-434. 35  On the working of the Roman legal system see more in: J.  Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, 1999, and C.  Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge (Ma.), 2004. La pétition à Byzance, ed. by D.  Feissel, J.  Gascou, Paris, 2004, contains many interesting papers, dealing however mainly with the Eastern part of the Empire, rather in later times.

28

stanisław adamiak

hopeless legal battles. Many of them were concerned with taxes or other money embezzled by some people, for whom others were now held responsible. Such is the case in ep. 96, in which Augustine writes to Olympius, 36 who has recently become magister officiorum at the Ravenna court. He refers to earlier letters sent to him (they have not been preserved): “we are confident that you will welcome our letter no differently than usual, no matter to what height you have attained”. Augustine refers to Olympius the problems of Boniface, the recently ordained bishop of Cataqua in Numidia. His predecessor, Paul, tried to avoid taxes on his own possessions, combined a scheme, according to which “having received a pledge by which a certain amount of silver was owed to him, he bought, as if for the Church, these small fields from which he might support himself, under the name of a family that was very powerful at the time, in order that, when according to his custom he did not pay his taxes from them, he would suffer no problems from the tax collectors.”37

Boniface is clearly aware of the legal and moral problems related to the possessions acquired by the Church in this way. As Augustine puts it nicely: “After all, this fraud did not cease to be fraud because it was committed against the government”, 38 so he asks Olympius for help in legalizing the possessions in question,

36  J.R. Martindale, “Olympius 2”, in PLRE 2, p. 801-802. Olympius was the leader of the rebellion against Stilicho in 408. After Stilicho’s death he took the post of magister officiorum for himself. Dismissed in 409, he fled to Dalmatia. Apparently reinstated at a later date, but dismissed again and this time killed on the orders of Flavius Constantius for his role in Stilicho’s death. Zosimus maintains that Christianity was a cloak for his malice (Zosimos, Historia nova, V, 32,1), hence the note of L.  Carrozzi in the Italian edition of Augustine’s letters: “Olimpio, un Greco intrigante, ipocrita e perfido” (Sant’Agostino, Le Lettere, I, trans. by T. Alimonti, L. Carozzi, Roma, 1969 (NBA, 21), p.  905). Other information about his religiosity comes only from Augustine (Ep.  96 and 97). See also S.  Mratschek, “Te velimus…consilii participem. Augustine of Hippo and Olympius - a case study of religiouspolitical cooperation in the fifth century”, Studia Patristica, 38 (2001), p. 224232. 37  Ep. 96.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 515; tr. R. Teske, WSA 2.1, p. 422. 38  Ibidem.

asking for human mercy

29

of course without paying the taxes, so that it can be considered a gift of the emperor, and not the result of the late bishop’s cunning. We know from ep. 97 that Olympius granted the request, probably mollified by Augustine’s mixture of flattery and authority. The bishop had been acknowledging his civil position, praising his religiosity (“we know that the title of our brother in the service of Christ is the most valuable for you”), and eventually calling him a son, reminding him in this way of the obedience towards bishops. 39 In ep. 97 Augustine tries his influence in a more delicate task: convincing Olympius that the laws against Donatists, promulgated under Stilicho should be maintained, against the hopes of the dissidents who thought that with the death of the general (from the hands of Olympius, among others), these laws will be no longer applied. The constitutions published on 15 January 409 40 show that in all probability the requests of Augustine and his colleagues were fulfilled. Even more difficult was the situation of the colons of Romulus (ep.  247), who paid the taxes to a person who embezzled them. Augustine tries to persuade Romulus not to switch responsibility for it to the poor people: “You are going to say again, ‘I did not order them to pay the taxes to Ponticanus’. The answer is given you, ‘But you ordered them to obey Ponticanus’.”41

The bishop says rhetorically that he is making his petition not so much for the sake of the poor peasants, but for the sake of Romulus himself.42 Romulus was himself converted to Christianity by Augustine,43 but it seems that he was not willing to listen to his pastor. Augustine reproves him for avoiding him and presIbidem 3, p. 516. CTh XVI.5.46 and Const. Sirm., 14. Cf. M.  V. Escribano Paño, “Bishops, Judges and Emperors: CTh 16.2.31/CTh 16.5.46/Sirm. 14  (409)”, in The Role of the Bishop in Late Antiquity: Conflict and Compromise, ed. by A. Fear, J. Fernándes Urbiña, M. Marcos, London, 2013, p. 105-126. 41  Ep. 247.3 (CSEL, 57), p. 587; tr. R. Teske, Letters 211-270, 1*-29*, WSA 2.4, Hyde Park, 2005, p. 178. 42  Ep. 247.2 (CSEL, 57), p. 586-587: “non pro illis magis - nouit ille, quem timeo - sed pro te ipso te ipsum rogo”. 43  Ep.  247.2 (CSEL, 57), p. 587: “ut non grauissimo uulnere feriatur cor meum, quando sic agunt, quos in eius euangelio genui.” 39 

40 

30

stanisław adamiak

ents a very meticulous description of the affair, underlining the lack of education of the colons and possibly unclear instructions of Romulus, who nevertheless seemed determined to extract the due money anyway. We know about one occasion when Augustine went far beyond interceding for someone put in trouble by the necessity of paying debts: Augustine actually paid the debts of a certain Fascius (seventeen solids of gold), having himself borrowed the money for it and later asking the whole Catholic community of Hippo for help with repaying the money. The case is connected with the difficulties in regard to the right of asylum: Fascius had fled from his debtors “to the help of the Church”, which certainly means that he looked for asylum in ecclesiastical buildings, since his oppressors ask Augustine to hand him over to them “ita ut eis illum traderem”.44 Most certainly Augustine was not really sure about the legal basis for protecting Fascius, since he preferred to pay his debtors. He describes them as opinatores, which generally mean tax collectors concerned with extracting annona or the provisions for the army; in such case, Augustine was right to see that the Church had no legal possibility of harbouring Fascius, according to the constitution from 18 October 392, which forbade it in the case of public debtors.45 However, if they were acting in regard to some private debts, it would be interesting to know how Augustine’s congregation reacted to the letter from their bishop (absent at the moment) asking them to offer generously to cover what was essentially someone’s personal obligations! Another citizen of Hippo who had trouble with paying annona was Victorinus. Augustine tried to help him, or rather tried to make his friend bishop Novatus help him.46 Victorinus ran into other financial troubles again and he was made to flee to the church, which caused one of the asylum-related cases with which we shall deal later. In Augustine’s time, as today, financial difficulties could lead people to despair and to the edge of suicide. We have a preserved Ep. 268.1 (CSEL, 57), p. 652. CTh IX.45.1. 46  Ep.  28*.5, in Augustinus, Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. by J. Divjak, Vienna, 1981 (CSEL, 88), p. 136. 44  45 

asking for human mercy

31

letter of the bishop of Hippo in which he tries to save a certain Chrisimus from such a deed. He starts by lecturing him about the Christian hierarchy of goods, but then he comes with more tangible help: he encloses the letter to the count, which Chrisimus can use as he wishes, delivering it either personally, or by a bishop, a presbyter, or anyone at all.47 4. Between popular and imperial justice Two subsequent cases, described in the Divjak Letters, show Augustine interceding for clerics of Hippo, who tried to take justice into their own hands and so got into trouble with the law themselves. Ep. 9* is directed to Alypius. This lifelong friend of Augustine, the bishop of his home town, Thagaste, was at the time in Italy, and was made the president of the tribunal set up by Pope Celestine  I (422-432) to judge the clerics of Hippo, accused of beating a man of higher social class (honestior). The plaintiff performed municipal or judicial functions (honorem uel curiae uel fori),48 and he was either at least a decurion, or an advocate. Such a crime, if verified as actual, would have certainly caused severe punishment on Augustine’s subordinates. However, Augustine explains to Alypius that their accuser concealed a vitally important piece of information: the clerics manhandled him when they found him with a nun whom he abducted to live together with her.49 It is difficult to assess whether this abduction happened really against the will of the woman in question. Anyway, there was a strong legal basis for taking action against the man. If he was caught in flagranti, he should have been dispatched directly to be judged.50 Rape was generally punished by burning

Ep. 244.2 (CSEL, 57), p. 581. Ep. 9*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 44. 49  Ibidem 1, p.  43: “unde solus mihi remansit de hac re scrupulus, quia difficile mihi uidentur qui eum reppererunt cum illa femina quam professam sanctimonialem ad ludibrium stupri de patria duxerat ab eius corporali iniuria temperasse”. 50  CTh IX.2.5, constitution from 21 January 409. 47 

48 

32

stanisław adamiak

alive, as established by Constantine the Great.51 In 349, his son Constantius  II mitigated it to capital punishment (death or loss of citizenship), for the sake of the brevity of procedure.52 The punishments for the rape of sanctimoniales were specified in the Title 25 of the ninth book of the Theodosian Code. The constitution of Constantius  II from 22 August 354 excluded the subsequent consent to marriage as an attenuating circumstance.53 The constitution of Jovian from 20 February 364 extended capital punishment even to the solicitation of marriage directed towards consecrated maidens or widows.54 This law was weakened by Honorius, on 8 March 420 by the decision that such solicitation (ambire) should be punished with the confiscation of goods and exile by deportation.55 Rape was among crimes that were not pardoned in traditional Easter amnesties.56 Another constitution of Constantius  II, from 24 September 357, prescribed the punishment established by law for “violators of chastity”, even if they are in the imperial service (agentes in rebus).57 Augustine was certainly more or less conscious of the legal aspects of the problem, since in ep. 209 to Pope Celestine  I, while dealing with the case of Antoninus of Fussala, he mentioned that nobody was able to prove the accusation of rapes committed by the young bishop, and he called them stuprorum crimina capitalia.58 However, it seems that Augustine has no faith in the efficacy of the legal system in such cases. He complains that there is hardly Ibidem 24.1. Ibidem 24.2. 53  Ibidem 25.1. 54  Ibidem 25.2. 55  Ibidem 25.3. 56  Ibidem 38.4.6-7. 57  CTh II.1.3. For a more exact analysis of the whole legislation see B.  Sitek, “Raptores virginum vel viduarum vel diaconissarum. Studio sul rapimento delle donne votate a Dio nelle costituzioni degli imperatori romani”, Diritto@Storia, 5  (2006), http://www.dirittoestoria.it/5/TradizioneRomana/Sitek-Raptores-virginum.htm#_ftnref15 (access 21.5.2015) and N.L.  Nguyen, “Roman Rape: An overview of Roman rape laws from the republican period to Justinian’s reign”, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 13 (2006), p. 75-112. 58  Ep. 209.4 (CSEL, 57), p. 394. 51 

52 

asking for human mercy

33

any possibility of correcting people such as the offender in question: they are in many ways above the civil laws and they do not care about the ecclesiastical ones. Excommunication is not a workable option, because either they are not Christians, or they live as if they were not. In such situation, the solid beating given to the offender by the clerics is in a way the best solution: it may teach him a lesson, and it is still much more lenient than the punishment foreseen by the law. Therefore Augustine explains to Alypius that there is a strong legal case for the defence of the clerics.59 However, the whole episode shows rather how little state protection was effectively given to people of low social class. On the other hand, the violent acts of Augustine’s clerics put them in danger only because they were directed against someone above their social class. If they had administered in this way justice against some insignificant person, it would probably have gone unnoticed.60 There are similar traits in another case, shown by Augustine in ep.  10*, also directed to Alypius. This is one of the most dramatic ones. The whole letter deals with various instances of people being sold into slavery, sometimes both against the law and against their will. In one of such cases, during Augustine’s absence in Hippo, his clergy liberated 120 people from a ship in the town harbour, due to leave for Asia Minor. Only some of them were children sold by their parents, and the majority were people kidnapped from their homes. Although this fact alone should have justified the action of the clerics of Hippo, the Galatian merchants were making efforts to bring back their victims into slavery, and they started to menace the citizens of Hippo who gave shelter to them. Augustine was afraid that they might succeed, because “the Galatians do not lack patrons by means of whom they try to get

59  Despite his self-proclaimed declaration of ignorance in the matters of law, Augustine’s legal astuteness should not be undervalued; cf. N.E. Lenski, “Evidentia for the Audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine”, in Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. by R.W.  Mathisen, Oxford, 2001, p. 83-97. 60  Doyle, Bishop as a Disciplinarian, p.  111: “Neither the circumcellions nor the clerics of Hippo encountered official opposition for using physical coercion per se, but for employing it against the wrong people.”

34

stanisław adamiak

back from us those persons whom the Lord set free through the Church”.61 Therefore, Augustine’s intervention is meant here to foil the intercession of another. He knows that the imperial laws, which forbade human trafficking between provinces (not to mention kidnapping, even!), support his case, but he asks Alypius to try to make them inapplicable to the full extent of the punishments foreseen in them, namely scourging with a leaden whip, from which men may easily die.62 Augustine is absolutely convinced of the moral evil of the doings of the slave merchants, but it is enough to stop their activity (which the state seems to be unable or unwilling to do), without need to proceed to harshly against them. A somewhat similar situation appears in another of the Divjak Letters, ep.  15*, where Augustine wants the criminal to be punished, but not too harshly, and in a totally extrajudicial way. The crime in question was clearly a rape; the words uiolenta oppressione uiolauit63 leave no doubt about it. However, the victim, a nun who travelled to another village to work wool, disappears immediately from Augustine’s range of vision. He is rather concerned with the perpetrator of the crime, Cresconius (a married man, which makes the matter even worse),64 a man acting as a procurator in the estate of a rich man Dorotheus. He confessed then to this crime, was excommunicated, and was doing penance at the time. Augustine firstly writes to Dorotheus, asking him not to punish Cresconius more severely than it is asked for in the complaint of a bishop.65 Similarly Alypius, whose memorandum Augustine encloses, says that Dorotheus must promise firstly that he will not punish Cresconius too harshly, and only later read the letter of Alypius, in which he demands only the removal of the culprit from his post 61  Ep.  10*.8 (CSEL, 88), p. 50; tr. R. Teske, p.  265. Probably Augustine thinks about harbour authorities (C.  Lepelley, “Présentation générale de la Lettre 10*”, BA, 46 B, p. 470.) 62  Ep. 10*.4 (CSEL, 88), p. 48. On the circumstances of Alypius’ travels to Italy see M.F.  Berrouard, “Un tournant dans la vie de l’Église d’Afrique: les deux missions d’Alypius en Italie à la lumière des Lettres 10*, 15*, 16*, 22* et 23*A de saint Augustin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 31 (1985), p. 46-70. 63  Ep. 15*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 85. 64  Ibidem 4, p. 85. 65  Ep. 14*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 83.

asking for human mercy

35

of procurator. The whole affair is therefore resolved totally outside the official legal routine, and accordingly the punishments are much more lenient. 5. The right of asylum Victorinus, whom we already know for his troubles with paying annona, fell into some other trouble that made him seek refuge in the church, although this time the trouble was not with the state, but with his mother and father in law.66 Under Augustine’s absence the tribune Peregrinus tried to dislodge Victorinus from the church, claiming to act on the orders of the comes Africae. Augustine did not believe in this explanation and asked bishop Novatus to intervene directly with the count. What is interesting, Augustine says that due to the action of Peregrinus ecclesia grauiter perturbata est67 which should probably be understood as that there was some popular action by the faithful that prevented the seizing of Victorinus. Another insolvent debtor who sought asylum in the church was Faventius. His case shows us most clearly how far Augustine was prepared to go to help the people who had no other title to his loyalty than being the part of his flock. Faventius had fled to the church, but seemingly he became “less and less worried each day and felt safe, as if then his opponent had ceased pursuing him, but when he emerged after dinner at his friend’s, he was suddenly arrested by a certain Florentinus, an official of the governor, as is reported, with a band of armed men, as large as they thought sufficient for this purpose.”68

Augustine was sure that, without prejudicing the actual guilt of Faventius, firstly, it was unlawful to seize him in this way, and secondly, even if he was arrested according to the law, he had right, according to the constitution of Honorius from 22 January 409 to thirty days of grace under a certain surveillance in order to prepare his case and to try to pay his debts.69 66  Ep.  28*.5 (CSEL, 88), p.  136: “causam habet cum matre et uitrico suo propter quam fugit ad ecclesiam.” 67  Ibidem. 68  Ep. 115.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 161-162; tr. R. Teske, WSA 2.2, p. 99. 69  CTh IX.2.6.

36

stanisław adamiak

Augustine, however, was not really trusting in the power of the law in this case, and he rather tried to move all official and unofficial instances that could matter here, writing at least four letters. Firstly, he asked Cresconius, a tribune of the harbour at Hippo, to intercede for Faventius with Florentinus (ep.  113). Secondly, he addressed Florentinus with some asperity (ep.  114), rebuking him for his ignorance of the law of 409 in rather harsh words, and sending him the text of the imperial constitution. But Augustine apparently thought that even such a clear legal basis did not guarantee a positive outcome for Faventius, and hence his next letter, this time to Fortunatus, bishop of Cirta (ep.  115), asking him to hand personally the letter of Augustine to the governor of the province, Generosus (ep.  116). The bishop of Hippo was keen to have the letter delivered directly to the governor, because he was afraid that without it “money may not prevail before the court”,70 despite his belief in the personal integrity of Generosus, whom he addresses as dominus eximius, frater and finally filius; we can spot here again the ambiguity of the position of Augustine asking for mercy from the representative of the temporal power and at the same time appealing to his postulated obedience towards the spiritual authority of a bishop. The problem of seeking asylum in the churches appears again in other places in Augustine’s correspondence, especially in the letters from 419 that dealt with pardons issued to people who sought refuge in the churches of Carthage; we do not know what their presumed crime might have been.71 As Anne Ducloux has convincingly proved in her work the problem was by no means obvious.72 There is no clear line of development between the asylum in pagan temples (anyway often breached and limited by many stipulations), the asylum by the statues of the emperors (as confirmed by the constitution of 6 July 38673), and the asylum in the Christian churches. Ep.  151 referring to the events after the usurpaEp. 115.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 161-162. Ep. 15*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 84; 16*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 86; 23A*.1 (CSEL, 88), p. 121. 72  A.  Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere. Naissance du droit d’asile dans les églises (IVe-milieu du Ve s.), Paris, 1994. See also: K. Burczak, Prawo azylu w ustawodawstwie synodów galijskich V-VII wieku, Lublin, 2005, p. 57-65. 73  CTh IX.44.1. 70  71 

asking for human mercy

37

tion of Heraclianus in 413 shows that the asylum in the churches was respected at that time (“the walls of the church protected those who escaped there”), but the bishops were very afraid that it could have been breached; it may have been exactly because of the lack of the exact legal basis for the institution.74 The first general attempt at such regulation was made by the constitution of 1 April 409, but its content is unclear and it probably remained ineffective.75 Actually, it may very well have been the activity of Augustine (especially in 419) and the whole African Church76 that led to the first effective (and very extensive) legal regulations of such cases, in the constitutions of 21 November 41977 and 23 March 431.78 We have another case of Augustine defending the right of asylum in the church, even for the unworthy, immediately after the events of 419.79 The last case related to asylum presents us with the intercession the other way round. Count Classician was excommunicated, together with his family, by bishop Auxilius for breaching the asylum of the church. He asked Augustine for intervention in his favour. The bishop of Hippo responded to Classician,80 and he wrote to Auxilius.81 In ep. 1* Augustine accepts the explanation of 74  Ep.  151.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 384: “Quam tamen eorum corporalem salutem satis parietes ecclesiae muniebant”. The constitutions from 392-398 (CTh IX, 45,1-3) limited the possibility of asylum in the churches. 75  CTh XVI.8.19 = C.I. I.12.2; cf. Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere, p. 154157. 76  The need for such legal regulation was postulated by the Council of Carthage of 27 April 399, (CCSL, 149), p. 194: “In hoc concilio legationem susceperunt Epigonius et Vincentius episcopi, ut pro confugientibus ad ecclesiam, legem de gloriosissimis principibus mereantur, ne quis audeat eos abstrahere”. 77  Const. Sirm., 10. 78  CTh IX.45.4. 79  Sermo 302.22: “melius est ergo ut et nocentes in Ecclesia muniantur, quam innocentes de Ecclesia rapiantur”; Sermo Morin. Guelf. 25 (SPM, 1), p. 100-111. Cf. Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere, p. 170-187. 80  Ep. 1*, fragments edited as Ep. 250A. 81  Ep. 250 analysed (as the only example of asylum) by J.  Śrutwa, “Praktyka azylu kościelnego w ujęciu św. Augustyna”, in Chrześcijanie a życie publiczne w Cesarstwie Rzymskim III-IV w., ed. by J.  Śrutwa, Lublin 1998, p. 199-211. He suggests that the people who sought asylum abandoned it voluntarily, but

38

stanisław adamiak

Classician, he absolves him even from the charge of perjury, saying essentially that “those who reject the Gospel” (presumably the Donatists or some other non-Catholics) cannot actually be expelled from the church, because they have already expelled themselves from it.82 In his letter to Auxilius, Augustine concentrates on the impropriety of excommunicating the innocent, in this case the family of the officer. He then advises (or nearly orders) the young bishop (pointing out to him his age and lack of experience – he has been a bishop only for a year)83 to either pardon Classician (if he is really guilty) or to accept that he is innocent and to act accordingly.84 6. Was Augustine successful in his intercessions? We have already seen some instances, when Augustine’s intercession was clearly successful. However, it certainly was not always so. We do not have much certain information about it, possibly because Augustine chose on such unsuccessful occasions not to be immortalised in the corpus of his letters. There is one occasion when such a defeat is mentioned explicitly, and it concerns one of the most traumatic events in the life of the bishop: the trial and execution of Marcellinus and his brother Apringius in 413, when they were accused of treason and sentenced to death by Marinus (recalled from Africa and dismissed soon afterwards).85 Augustine tried in many ways to save his friends, and he was not successful. His attempts were unsuccessful, as he explained later to a friend of Marinus, Caecilian:86 “For after the impious and cruel treachery of that man, with whom we strongly insisted in vain, even through the concern that

may have been put to death afterwards, and Classician addresses Augustine because he has poor orientation in Church hierarchy and rules. 82  Ep. 1*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 3. 83  Ep. 250.2 (CSEL, 57), p. 595. 84  Ibidem 3, p. 596-598. 85  J.R.  Martindale, “Marinus 1”, in PLRE 2, p. 724. 86  Ibidem, “Caecilanus 1”, p.  244-246. His long career included various offices in Africa.

asking for human mercy

39

you shared with us, that he would not pierce our heart with that sorrow and slay his own conscience by so great a crime.”87

Caecilian was keen on keeping Augustine’s friendship and probably felt offended by Augustine avoiding Carthage and not responding to his letters. When the bishop finally responds, he explains: “For this reason I decided not to burden your mind with my letter unless it were necessary for the sake of recommending someone to whom I could not refuse this duty of making intercession. It is our custom to grant this to everyone, and it is a speaking out that, though inopportune, is by no means blameworthy. And so I did this; I  recommended my friend to Your Goodness. And  I have received from him a reply expressing his thanks, as I now thank you.”88

Augustine considered the behaviour of Caecilian during the events leading to the deaths of Marcellinus and Apringius as very ambiguous, and apparently thought him partly responsible for what had happened. Therefore, given also the reluctance of Caecilian to be baptized, Augustine was not very keen on maintaining contacts with him. However, he knew that he might use this relationship for the sake of the others, “to whom he could not refuse the duty of making intercession”. This passage shows how impor­ tant intercession was for Augustine. He was not able to save his friends (Marcellinus and Apringius), but he still tried to ask and intercede for the people who probably were not even that close to him. Augustine was not the only bishop to act in this way. His intercession may have been more efficient, since some of the men in power were eager to maintain his friendship. On the other hand, sometimes Augustine himself was using his friends as leverage on someone more powerful whom he could not approach directly (sometimes for simply geographical reasons). And sometimes probably neither Augustine nor his friends were considered powerful enough. In 399/400 two decurions of Hippo, Quintus and Felix, needed some intercession and they asked for it Symmachus, former consul and urban prefect, as he refers to it in a short letter

87  88 

Ep. 151.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 384; tr. R. Teske, WSA 2.2, p. 381. Ep. 151.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 383; tr. R. Teske, WSA 2.2, p. 381.

40

stanisław adamiak

to Apollodorus.89 They did not ask their bishop for it: either they were not Catholic (and if they were actually pagan, not Donatist, they could claim more sympathy from a staunchly pagan aristocrat), or they simply did not believe that Augustine had enough leverage to help them. It is difficult to establish the general social position of people for whom Augustine sought help. We see the colons and lower clergy on one side, and the aristocrats (Marcellinus) on the other. Sometimes Augustine was successful, high officials (like Macedonius, Olympius or Marcellinus) were delighted to grant his wishes and maintain the friendship of the famous bishop. On other occasions we can see that Augustine himself was conscious of being a rather troublesome intruder (e.g. with Romulus), and he was not sure of the results of his pains. It is possible that many of such letters that had not succeeded were not transmitted to us. On the other hand, quite often we have proofs of Augustine’s action only because he was absent from Hippo and was made to write down the pleas with which he would probably otherwise have dealt personally and orally. We have several hints at it, e.g. the entire content of ep. 268. Sometimes Augustine was asking simply for the law to be applied (e.g. the case of Faventius). Sometimes he was rather taking it for granted that it could not be enforced anyway (the cases from the Divjak Letters). It leaves us with a rather grim image of the legal situation in the early fifth century, when clearly social position was putting many people above (or below) the law, and only personal connections could change it (as in the case of Galatian slave merchants, when both they and Augustine were trying to use the intercession of their friends to influence the outcome of the contest). Possidius was right to write that Augustine considered intercession as one of his chief duties. He was always trying to help the innocent, but also to mitigate the punishment of the guilty. The bishop of Hippo was faithful to his positions explained to Macedonius in ep.  153: mercy is as needful as justice is, and the mitigating function of the Church is as necessary for the well-being of society, as the punitive power of the state. 89 

Symmachus, Ep. IX.51, (MGH AA, 6/1), p. 251.

Family Matters: Augustine’s Letters as a Source for his Views on Marriage and Family Life David G. Hunter (Lexington) 1. Introduction* In his Life of St Augustine, Possidius, bishop of Calama, observed that Augustine as bishop was reluctant to involve himself in certain worldly activities, such as arranging marriages, writing letters of recommendation for men entering military careers, and accepting dinner invitations. The reasons for his reticence, which Possidius attributed to the influence of Ambrose of Milan, were the following: “lest spouses quarrel and curse the one who had brought them together […] lest the man recommended for the military turn out badly and blame his backer; and lest the habit of temperance be lost through frequent attendance at banquets with fellow townsmen.”1 If Possidius’ description of Augustine were taken at face value, it might suggest that the bishop of Hippo lived a hermetically sealed existence, abstaining from vital human interactions, except perhaps from the safe distance of the pulpit. Of course, we know that was not the case, and Augustine’s letters present us with the portrait of a busy bishop, constantly besieged with requests for interventions and advice on a range of matters, often of a very worldly character. He was not at all reluctant to engage in correspondence and even close friendship * 

I gratefully acknowledge the assistance I have received from the Scrinium Augustini database, hosted by Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. I also wish to thank my research assistant, Felipe Vogel, for organizing the results of the electronic searches. 1  Possidius, Vita Augustini 27.4-5 (trans. M. O’Connell; Possidius, The Life of Saint Augustine, Villanova, 1988, p. 105, altered). Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 41-56 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113885

42

david g. hunter

with military men, as his letters to Boniface and Marcellinus attest. Augustine’s letters do not reveal much about his attendance at banquets, but they do show him actively engaged with a number of correspondents on matters pertaining to marriage and family life. We even see him involved in the arrangement of a marriage, contrary to what Possidius asserted, although in this case he rejected the union proposed for the young woman under his guardianship.2 Augustine’s letters, then, enable us to view his episcopal work from a different angle than that provided by his more formal treatises, for they show us how he applied the principles of his theology of marriage and social life in pastoral practice. In this essay I would like to discuss three dimensions of Augustine’s thoughts on marriage and family life that emerge from a survey of his letters. First, I  will argue that, despite his personal commitment to celibacy and to the notion that the celibate life was superior to marriage, he retained a deep respect for the conjugal union and for the traditional social structures of which it was a part. Second, I  will examine Augustine’s discussion of some of the radical sayings of Jesus regarding abandonment of household and family. Especially in ep.  157, composed under the influence of the Pelagian controversy, we see Augustine trying to reconcile the ascetical and eschatological strains in some New Testament texts with his own sense of the importance of marriage and family. Finally, I  will turn to the marital relationship itself and examine Augustine’s understanding of the centrality of marital chastity (castitas) and its role in the maintenance of marital fidelity (fides). Close attention to Augustine’s discussion of these topics will enable us to see aspects of the bishop’s teaching that have not always been sufficiently acknowledged or appreciated. 2. Marriage and human society There is no doubt that Augustine saw the human couple – specifically in its sexual and procreative aspects – as the fundamental building-block of human society. As he put it in the opening 2  The negotiations can be found in Augustine’s ep.  252 to Felix, the girl’s uncle, ep. 253 and 254 to Benenatus, the bishop who proposed the union, and in ep.  255 to Rusticus, father of the unsuccessful suitor.

family matters

43

lines of De bono coniugali, “the first natural link of human society is the link (copula) between man and wife.”3 God had originally created woman from man and ordained sexual intercourse as the natural means of procreation in order that human beings might be united to each other “not only by similarity of species but also by the bond of kinship” (cognationis uinculo).4 Similarly, in De ciuitate dei Augustine argued that marriage provided a way for the social bond of kinship to be extended to a greater and greater number of people. We know this, he argues, because brother-sister marriage, which had once been necessary at the very beginning of time, was no longer tolerated, and the same could be said, for the most part, about close-cousin marriage. Over time, Augustine noted, the human race had gradually developed a natural abhorrence of incest, with the result that “instead of being restricted to a few, the social bond would spread out across a wider number due to the abundant ties of kinship relations.”5 Augustine’s sense of the marital union as the seminarium…ciuitatis, as he put it in De ciuitate dei, was similar to the traditional Greco-Roman notion of the household as the foundation of civilised life. But, as Brent Shaw has noted in an excellent study, “The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine,” while Augustine accepted the traditional Stoic ideology of the household as part of the natural order of society, “for him the atom of society was not the ‘family,’ but the union of man and woman; 3  B. coniug. 1.1: “Prima itaque naturalis humanae societatis copula uir et uxor est.” Text and translation in P.G.  Walsh, Augustine: De bono coniugali; De sancta uirginitate, Oxford, 2001, p. 2-3. 4  Ibidem. It took some time for Augustine to develop this understanding of the original purpose of human sexual relations. See the important studies by E.A. Clark, “‘Adam’s Only Companion’: Augustine and the Early Christian Debate on Marriage”, Recherches Augustiniennes, 21 (1986), p. 139-162; and “Heresy, Asceticism, Adam and Eve: Interpretations of Gen 1-3 in the Later Latin Fathers”, in her Ascetic Piety and Women’s Faith, Lewiston, 1986, p. 353-385. 5  De ciuitate dei 15.16, ed. by B. Dombart and A. Kalb, Turnhout, 1955 (CSSL, 48), p. 477: “… adque ita se non in paucitate coartatum, sed latius atque numerosius propinquitatibus crebris uinculum sociale diffundaret.” I have adopted the English translation by W.  Babcock, The City of God, WSA 1.7; Hyde Park, 2013, p. 163. Augustine went on to argue, however, that there was a limit to the extension of this social bond; after the world was full, people preferred to take wives “from within their own extended kin” (de suo genere).

44

david g. hunter

it was the joining (copula, copulatio) of man and wife. The household was a higher-level part of the natural order stemming from the biological/creative powers of men and women.”6 Given Augustine’s strong sense of the importance of the conjugal union and its role in establishing social connections and social cohesion, it is not surprising that at many places in his letters he emphasized the importance of marital harmony and stability and insisted that his correspondents respect the traditional structures that supported marriage and family life. For example, in a series of letters addressed to Donatist bishops, Augustine frequently mentioned the negative impact of the schism on the harmony of married couples and their children. In ep. 23, written early in his presbyterate to Maximinus, a Donatist bishop in Numidia, Augustine contrasted the unity invoked by the conjugal vow with the disunity wrought by the schism: “Do we not deplore the fact that a husband and wife swear a vow to one another, usually through Christ, in order to join their bodies together in fidelity, and yet they tear apart the body of Christ himself by their separate communion?”7 Similarly, in ep.  33 to Proculeian, Donatist bishop of Hippo, written a few years later, Augustine again observed: “You see the great and miserable foulness that defiles Christian homes and families. Husbands and wives agree with each other about the bed, but disagree about the altar of Christ. They swear to each other by him in order to have peace with each other, and they cannot have peace in him. Children and their parents have one house of their own, but do not have one house of God.  They desire to be heirs of their parents with whom they quarrel about being heirs of Christ.”8 6  B. Shaw, “The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine” Past and Present 115  (1987), p.  3-51; quotation at 10-11. Shaw has in mind especially the following passage from De ciuitate dei 15.16, (CCSL, 48) p. 478: “Copulatio igitur maris et feminae, quantum adtinet ad genus mortalium, quoddam seminarium est ciuitatis.” 7  Ep. 23.5, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 69: “nonne ingemescimus, quod uir et uxor, ut fideliter coniugant corpora sua, iurant sibi plerumque per Christum et ipsius Christi corpus diuersa communione dilaniant?” 8  Ep. 33.5, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  21-22: “uides, quanta et quam miserabili foeditate Chris-

family matters

45

And in ep. 108 to Macrobius, the Donatist bishop who succeeded Proculeian in Hippo, Augustine poignantly portrayed the division within the household that occurred when spouses divided their ecclesiastical loyalties: “The husband says: ‘Hold onto unity with me because I am your husband,’ and the wife replies, ‘I am staying where my father is.’ In that way they divide Christ in one bed, while we would detest them if they divided the marriage bed.”9 Augustine’s argument about the threat to conjugal unity posed by schismatic disunity was, of course, highly rhetorical. Marital concordia had long been used as a metaphor for the harmony of the ideal state. But given that the lives of Donatists and Catholics were so intimately entwined in daily life, it seems reasonable to assume that Augustine’s point was not merely a rhetorical one. The fact that he chose to emphasize the impact of the schism on familial life, specifically in his letters to Donatist bishops, suggests that he expected his Donatist rivals to recognize the problem and to respond to it sympathetically. At the very least, Augustine’s argument reflects his own interest in supporting marital harmony and family unity. Confirmation of this can be found in several other letters, where Augustine expressed his commitment to the rights of family members in matters of material support, such as inheritance. Two well-known letters show this especially clearly. Ep.  243 to Laetus and ep.  262 to Ecdicia both reveal Augustine’s interest in fostering familial rights, even in the face of ascetic renunciation. Ep.  243 to Laetus was addressed to a young man who had entered a monastery, but left after his father’s death in order to care for his bereaved mother and other family members. While most of Augustine’s response consisted of exhortations to Laetus to return to his monastic commitment and not to be swayed by tianae domus familiaeque turpatae sint. Mariti et uxores de suo lecto sibi consentiunt et de Christi altari dissentiunt; per illum sibi iurant, ut inter se pacem habeant, et in illo habere non possunt; filii cum parentibus unam domum habent et domum dei non habent unam; succedere in eorum here­ ditatem cupiunt, cum quibus de Christi hereditate rixantur.” I have used the translation by R. Teske, Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, Hyde Park, 2001, p.  117. 9  Ep.  108.17 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  631: “dicat ille: ‘Mecum tene unitate, quia ego sum uir tuus’, respondeat illa: ‘Ibi moror, ubi est pater meus,’ ut in uno lecto diuident Christum, quos detestaremur, si diuideret lectum”; tr. Teske, Letters 100-155, WSA 2.2, Hyde Park, 2003, p.  80, slightly altered.

46

david g. hunter

his mother’s pleas, Augustine also acknowledged the importance of maintaining respect for parents and filial piety: “Christ’s militia exhorts us to put to death this carnal affection both in ourselves and in our dear ones, yet not so that anyone is ungrateful to his parents and mocks those very same benefits we mentioned, by which he was born into this life, raised, and nourished. Let him rather observe filial piety everywhere, and let these duties hold where more important ones do not call us.”10

Augustine’s proposal to Laetus was that he should return to the monastery, but only after seeing that his share of the property was distributed to his mother and other family members. “Their needs should certainly hold first place (primum…locum) in your eyes,” Augustine told Laetus, “if, in order to be perfect, you have decided to distribute such money to the poor.”11 For Augustine, the key biblical authority in this regard was 1 Timothy 5:8, which reads: “For if anyone does not provide for his own and especially for the members of his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”12 The citation of 1 Timothy 5:8 also made an important appearance in Augustine’s famous ep.  262 to Ecdicia.13 This letter concerned a woman who had unilaterally decided to adopt sexual 10  Ep.  243.7, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 574: “Hunc carnalem affectum et in nobis et in nostris militia Christiana ut perimamus hortatur nec tamen ita, ut ingratus sit quisque parentibus et eadem ipsa beneficia, quibus in hanc uitam editus, susceptus atque nutribus est, enumerata derideat. Seruet potius ubique pietatem; habeant haec locum, ubi maiora non uocant”; tr. Teske, Letters 211-270, 1*-29*, WSA 2.4, Hyde Park, 2005, p. 167. 11  Ep.  243.12 (CSEL, 57), p., 578; tr. Teske, 169: “Si quid sane pecuniae res tua familiaris habet, cuius te implicari negotio nec oportet nec decet, re uera tribuendum est matri et domesticis tuis. Horum quippe indigentia, si pauperibus, ut sis perfectus, instituisti distribuere talia tua, primum apud te locum obtinere debent.” 12  Ep. 243.12 (CSEL, 57), p.  578-579: “si quis enim suis et maxime domesticis […] non prouidet, fidem negauit et est infideli deterior.” 13  Ep. 262 has been the subject of numerous studies. See, e.g., K.  Cooper, “Insinuations of Womanly Influence: An Aspect of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy”, Journal of Roman Studies, 82 (1992), p. 150-164, esp. 158-160; C. Kock, “Augustine’s Letter to Ecdicia: A New Reading”, Augustinian Studies, 31 (2000), p. 173-180; P. Laurence, “Artemia, Ecdicia, et Ce­lantia: Trois lettres sur continence conjugale chrétienne”, in Epistulae antiquae

family matters

47

continence and wear the garb of a widow without the agreement of her husband. In addition to this breach of conjugal morality, Ecdicia had decided to give away all or most of the family possessions to two itinerant monks, again without her husband’s permission. This last infraction was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back, because it caused her husband, who had embraced continence only very reluctantly, to put aside his vow and engage in fornication. I  will deal further with Ecdicia’s sexual renunciation when I come to discuss the issue of marital fidelity. Here  I wish to observe that Augustine response to Ecdicia’s dispersal of the family property is illuminating on several levels. Part of the problem with Ecdicia’s action, as Augustine’s letter made clear, was her willingness to act on her own initiative and in violation of wifely submission. But there was another factor equally important: she had neglected to take seriously her responsibility as a parent to provide for the financial security of her son. As Augustine put it: “Why is it surprising that a father did not want their common son to be deprived by his mother of the means of support for this life, since he did not know what vocation he would pursue when he began to be a little older, whether it would be the profession of a monk or an ecclesiastical ministry or the bond of marital obligation? For although the children of holy people ought to be encouraged and trained for holy pursuits, each one, nonetheless, has his own gift from God, one this gift, another that (1 Cor 7:7).”14

At this point Augustine cited 1 Timothy 5:8 and 2 Corinthians 8:13 (“…there should not be relief for others and difficulty for you”), noting that Ecdicia and her husband should have planned together how to distribute their goods in a manner that preserved their treasure in heaven and provided for the needs of this life, both for themselves and for their son. II. Actes du IIe colloque international “Le Genre Épitolaire Antique et Ses Prolongements Européens”, ed. by L. Najdo, Louvain, 2002, p. 333-354. 14  Ep.  262.7 (CSEL, 57), p. 627: “Quid autem mirum, si pater communem filium nolebat huius uitae sustentaculis a matre nudari ignorans, qui secta­ turus esset, cum in aetate grandiuscula esset coepisset, utrum monachi professionem an ecclesiasticum ministerium an coniugalis necessitudis uinculum? Quamuis enim ad meliora excitandi et erudiendi sint filii sanctorum, unusquisque tamen proprium donum habet adeo alius sic alius sic.”

48

david g. hunter

Augustine’s response to Ecdicia, as well as his answer to Laetus, reveals the bishop of Hippo in a characteristically moderate and discerning frame of mind. Although he fully supported the practice of almsgiving and the distribution of possessions to the poor (“a good and important work about which the directives of the Lord are quite clear,” he observed),15 Augustine argued that the social bonds of marriage and family created moral responsibilities that needed to be balanced against the claims of ascetic renunciation. As he presented the case to Ecdicia: “The relation of strangers is not the same as that of persons bound together in a society. A  relation with a believer is not the same as that with a non-believer. The relation of parents to their children is not the same as that of children to their parents. Finally, still other is the relation of husband and wife, which we should especially bear in mind in these matters where a married woman may not say, ‘I do what I want with what is mine,’ since she does not belong to herself but to her head, that is, to her husband.”16

Augustine here acknowledged the importance of the social bond created by marriage and family life. The making of this union creates moral imperatives that supersede (or, at least, must be carefully balanced against) the legitimate demands of charity towards strangers. Following the lead of texts such as 1 Timothy 5:8, Augustine presented Ecdicia as “worse than an unbeliever” for failing to provide for the members of her own family. 3. Augustine and the “anti-familial” texts of scripture Augustine’s appeal to 1 Timothy 5:8 and other biblical texts raises the question that is the second topic of this essay: how did Augustine reconcile his “pro-familial” stance with those radical sayings of Jesus that could be (and often were) taken in a strongly “anti-familial” sense, especially by advocates of ascetic renuncia15  Ep.  262.9 (CSEL, 57), p.  628: “… de quo bono opere et magno tam euidentia praecepta sunt domini.” 16  Ep.  262.7 (CSEL, 57), p. 626-627: “… sed alia causa est alienarum alia necessarium in societate aliqua personarum, alia fidelis alia infidelis, alia parentum erga filios alia filiorum erga parentes, alia postremo ea, quae in his rebus uel maxime intuenda est, uiri et uxoris, ubi mulierem coniugatam non licet dicere: ‘Facio, quod uolo, de meo’, cum et ipsa non sit sua sed capitis sui, hoc est uiri sui.”

family matters

49

tion? There are several letters in which Augustine dealt with this question, the most explicit being ep.  157 to Hilary, composed in 414 or 415.17 Hilary had written to Augustine with concerns about certain views being circulated in Sicily regarding the possibility of living a sinless life and the demand that Christians should divest themselves of all wealth. Augustine noted a similarity between the views reported by Hilary and those that had been espoused in Carthage by Caelestius a few years earlier, and he responded as if the ideas in question were those of Pelagius or Caelestius.18 In his response to the problem of wealth, Augustine also discussed marriage and family life, including their biblical warrant. Augustine’s first move was to cite the example of the Old Testament patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom he presented as rich men who nonetheless valued God’s commands above all else. The example of Abraham’s willingness to obey God to the point of sacrificing his son was Augustine’s primary illustration.19 But Augustine also turned once again to the Pastoral Epistles and found there a text that explicitly affirmed the continued possession of wealth by members of the Christian community. 1 Timothy 6:17-19 reads: “Command the rich of this world not to think proud thoughts and not to put their hope in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God who offers us all things in abundance for enjoyment. Let them do good; let them be rich in good works; let them give readily, share, and store up for themselves a good foundation for the future.” 20 17  See also ep.  199.38 to Hesychius, bishop of Salona, where Augustine argued that good people, even those who eagerly await the second coming of the Lord, generally continue to “plant, build, buy, own, pursue careers and take wives […]. Do not all these use this world in all these ways? They plow, sail, do business, beget children, and act as soldiers and administrators.” Augustine also made numerous comments about the proper attitude towards wealth and the well being of family members in his ep. 130 to Proba. 18  Ep.  157.22, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p.  471. Contrary to the English translation by R.  Teske, however, Augustine did not explicitly identify his opponents as “Pelagians”. 19  Ep. 157.23 (CSEL, 44), p. 472-473. Cf. ep.  140.4, where Augustine noted that even the temporal goods given to the patriarchs were gifts of God. 20  Cited in ep. 157.26 (CSEL, 44), p. 475: “Praecipue diuitibus huius mundi non superbe sapere neque sperare in incerto diuitiarum sed in deo uiuo, qui

50

david g. hunter

Augustine argued that “Paul” would never have given such careful prescriptions about how wives and husbands, children and parents, and masters and slaves should treat each other, if he had expected them to divest themselves of all their property. “For how could they do this,” Augustine observed, “without a home and without some family property?”21 But Augustine could not be content merely to juxtapose the teaching of Paul with that of Jesus, who seemed to preach a contradictory message. After all, in Matthew 19:29 Jesus had stated “Whoever leaves all his possessions on my account will receive a hundredfold in this world and will possess eternal life in the world to come.” Did this not imply that it was necessary to abandon all possessions in order to be saved? Since Augustine could not accept that Paul and Jesus might actually contradict each other, he had to come to grips with the interpretation of the gospel logia and to explain how Jesus’ statements about radical renunciation could be harmonized with Paul’s apparent acceptance of rich Christians. Augustine’s first solution was to note that in Matthew 19:29 Jesus did not say that a person was required to “sell” everything; after all, one was not allowed to “sell” one’s wife. Jesus was referring to the necessity of “leaving” wife, children, and family, if staying with them required renouncing Christ. Augustine then observed that some Christians might choose to follow the “counsel of perfection,” sell everything, and give to the poor, although he considered this action virtuous only if they acknowledged that such renunciation was made possible through God’s grace, not on the basis of their own will. But it was entirely legitimate, he argued, for Christians to retain their possessions and to use them as though not using them. For Augustine, this meant to possess them, but not to be possessed by them; that is, the rich were not to prefer their goods to Christ. He then delineated precisely the implications of this hermeneutic for married Christians:

praestat nobis omnia abundanter ad fruendum. Bene faciant, diuites sint in operibus bonis, facile tribuant, communicent, thesaurizent sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum, ut adprehendant ueram uitam”; see also ep. 157.30 and 35. 21  Ep. 157.30 (CSEL, 44), p. 478: “[…] nam quo modo haec agi possunt sine domo et sine aliqua re familari?”

family matters

51

“For [rich Christians] have renounced the world with a sincere heart so that they place no hope in such things. These men educate with sound discipline their wives and children and their families to hold the Christian religion; their homes, warm with hospitality, receive a righteous person in the name of a righteous person in order that they may receive the reward of the righteous (cf.  Mt 10:41). They break their bread with the needy; they clothe the naked, redeem the captive, and store up for themselves a good foundation for the future in order that they might attain true life (1 Tim 6:19). And if monetary losses have to be suffered for the faith of Christ, they place no value on their own riches; if this world threatens them with the loss of or separation from members of their family for the sake of Christ, they hate their parents, brothers, children, and wives.” 22

It is clear from this passage that Augustine believed it was possible for married Christians to live lives of genuine holiness, even if they did not embrace complete celibacy or renounce all their property. On the contrary, he explicitly noted that there had been many married Christians, who did not reject wealth and property and who eventually became martyrs for the faith.23 Even those who did not attain the crown of martyrdom or accept the “great and glorious counsel about selling their possessions,” Augustine insists, are worthy of mercy and salvation, as long as they are free from grave sins and have “fed the hungry Christ, gave him drink in his thirst, clothed him when he was naked, and welcomed him when he was traveling.”24 22  Ep.  157.35 (CSEL, 44), p.  482: “Sed non sunt tales diuites Christiani, qui, licet ista teneant, non tamen ab eis ita tenentur, ut haec Christo anteponant, quia ueraci corde saeculo renuntiarunt, ut nullam spem in talibus ponant. Hi uxores et filios uniuersasque familias ad Christianam religionem tenendam sane erudiunt disciplina; horum domus hospitalitate feruentes recipiunt iustum in nomine iusti, ut mercedem iusti recipiant; frangunt esurienti panem suum, nudum uestiunt, captiuum redimunt, thesaurizant sibi fundamenum bonum in futurum, ut adprehendant ueram uitam; et si forte pro fide Christi pecunaria damna perpetienda sunt, oderunt diuitias suas; si suorum orbitates uel separationes pro Christo minatur hic mundus, oderunt parentes, fratres, filios, uxores.” 23  Ep. 157.36 (CSEL, 44), p. 483. 24  Ep. 157.36 (CSEL, 44), p. 483: “Quibus autem non prouenit corona martyrii neque illius perfectionis de uendendis rebus suis consilium tam praeclarum et tam grande receperunt et tamen a damnabilibus immunes criminibus ersurientem Christum pauerunt, sitienti potum dederunt, nudum uestierunt,

52

david g. hunter

4. Augustine and marital chastity Augustine’s observation on the possibility of holiness and even heroic virtue among rich, married Christians raises the final topic I would like to address: the nature of conjugal virtue. I  will pose it in the form of a question: did Augustine acknowledge that there was a virtue specific to the sexual lives of married persons, that is, a virtue in addition to the ones displayed in hospitality, almsgiving, and the others mentioned above? The answer is yes, and that virtue is “chastity” (castitas) or “marital purity” (pudicitia coniugalis). Chastity, for married persons, was the virtue mobilized to preserve one of the primary goods of marriage, namely marital fidelity (fides). For Augustine, fidelity had two dimensions. On the one hand, it referred to the avoidance of all sexual activity outside of marriage. One might consider this the negative aspect of fidelity, that is, what not to do. But Augustine could also speak of fidelity or chastity in a positive sense, namely, as a positive duty for married persons to engage in sex in order to assist each other in managing their sexual desires. As Augustine put it in ep. 187 to Dardanus, an imperial official, composed in 417: “For the good of marriage does not extinguish, but it moderates (modificat) the evil of the disobedient members, so that once carnal concupiscence has been limited in some way, it may become marital chastity.” 25 Augustine’s thinking on the nature of the concupiscentia carnis is well known, and there is no need to belabor it here. Let it suffice to say that this is the feature of Augustine’s theology of sex and marriage that provoked the most opposition in antiquity, most notably from Julian, bishop of Eclanum, and that has continued to trouble modern critics of Augustine.26 I do not wish to defend Augustine’s views on the origins of carnal concupiscence or peregrinantem susceperunt, non sedebunt quidem cum Christo sublimiter iudicaturi, sed ad ipsius dexteram stabunt misericorditer iudicandi.” 25  Ep.  187.31 (CSEL, 57), p. 109: “Nuptiarum bonum non extinguit, sed modificat inoboedientium membrorum malum, ut limitata quodam modo concupiscentia carnalis fiat saltem pudicitia coniugalis.” 26  The most important studies of this topic are those of Mathijs Lamberigts. See, e.g., “Augustine on Marriage: A Comparison of De bono coniu­ gali and De nuptiis et concupiscentia,” Louvain Studies 35 (2011), p. 32-52; and “A Critical Evaluation of Critiques of Augustine’s View of Sexuality”, in

family matters

53

its connection to the transmission of original sin. But I do wish to point out that Augustine’s letters enable us to view his teaching on this topic, especially as it was articulated in the later phases of the Pelagian controversy, within a wider context. As  I have argued elsewhere regarding Augustine’s sermons, when Augustine came to address actual married persons on the topic of their conjugal relations, he seems not to have been very troubled by the issue of sexual concupiscence within marriage.27 If anything, Augustine appears to have been more concerned about married persons who might be tempted to avoid sexual relations with their spouses out of enthusiasm for ascetic renunciation than he was about sex within marriage. This point is well illustrated in several letters in which he addressed married persons. For example, in ep.  262 to Ecdicia, which was discussed above, Augustine harshly rebuked Ecdicia for her decision to withdraw from her conjugal obligations without the permission of her husband. Although her husband eventually agreed to adopt sexual continence, Augustine assured Ecdicia that if her husband had not done so, her vow of continence would have been invalid. As Augustine saw it, married persons who were capable of sexual continence, were still responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of their spouses. If there was any chance that one of the partners might lapse into extra-marital relations, Augustine argued, then it was the duty of the stronger spouse to engage in sex in order to assist the weaker spouse. God would credit the stronger with the virtue of continence, since their actions were motivated by charity and mercy, not by lust. It is also worth noting that Augustine’s advice was not given only to women as part of their duty to submit to their husbands. He gave the same prescriptions to men. In fact, in ep. 220 to Boniface, Augustine told the illustrious official that Boniface could not impose his own earlier resolution about sexual continence upon his new wife. She had entered into the marriage in good faith, and Boniface had to respect her conjugal rights and live with her in marital purity (pudicitia coniugalis), if he could not persuade her Augustine and his Critics: Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner, ed. R. Dodaro, G.  Lawless, London and New York, 2000, p.  176-197. 27  D. G. Hunter, “Augustine, Sermon 354 A: Its Place in his Thought on Marriage and Sexuality”, Augustinian Studies, 33 (2002), p. 39-60.

54

david g. hunter

to adopt continence.28 Augustine exhorted Boniface to continue to love God and not the world and to fulfill his civic duties: “[…] to keep the faith and seek peace, even in the midst of wars, if it should be necessary to engage in them; to do good works with the goods of the world and not to do bad works on account of the goods of the world – in none of these matters is a wife an obstacle; at least she ought not to be.”29 It is clear from Augustine’s letters to Ecdicia and Boniface that Augustine saw the conjugal bond as the source of moral responsibilities that were incumbent on both sexes and that superseded any claims of sexual continence. Augustine’s letters show that chastity had a special place in his thinking about the married life. Letters to married men and women – especially to men in positions of power – frequently cite marital chastity as their primary virtue. For example, in 418 or 419, Augustine wrote to Valerius, an official in Ravenna, for whom he had written De nuptiis et concupiscentia. In it he explicitly praised Valerius’ chastity. Augustine indicated that he had been informed about the matter by the priest Firmus, who in turn had acquired his information from his own intimate acquaintance with Valerius. 30 Likewise in ep.  189 to Boniface, tribune of Africa and later comes, Augustine urged him to practice marital purity, sobriety, and frugality: “For it is very shameful that lust conquer a man who is not conquered by another man and that he who is not conquered by the sword is overcome by wine.”31 And, as we have seen, in ep.  220 Augustine found it necessary to rebuke Boniface for his failings in regard to marital chastity. 32 28  Ep.  220.12 (CSEL, 57), p. 440-441: “Sed si cum illa agere non potes, serua saltem pudicitiam coniugalem et roga deum, qui te de necessitatibus eruat, ut quod non potes modo, possis aliquando.” 29  Ep. 220.12 (CSEL, 57), p. 441: “Verum tamen, ut deum diligas, non diligas mundum; ut in ipsis bellis, si adhuc in eis te uersari opus est, fidem teneas, pacem quaeras; ut ex mundi bonis facias opera bona et propter mundi bona non facias opera mala, aut non impedit coniunx, aut impedire non debet.” 30  Ep.  200.3 (CSEL, 57), p.  294-295: “Porro autem de pudicitia coniugali, ut eam quoque in te laudare et amare possimus, quid audiremus nisi ab aliquo interiore familiari tuo, qui uitam tuam non in superficie sed penitus nosset?” 31  Ep.  189.7 (CSEL, 57), p.  135: “Ornet mores tuos pudicitia coniugalis, ornet sobrietas et frugalitas. Valde enim turpe est, ut, quem non uincit homo, uincat libido et obruatur uino, qui non uincitur ferro.” 32  Ep.  220.4-5 (CSEL, 57), p. 433-435.

family matters

55

Perhaps the most striking account of marital chastity in a letter to a man of power can be found in Augustine’s ep.  151, written to Caecilian, comes of Africa, regarding the death of Augustine’s friend and Caecilian’s predecessor, Marcellinus. Marcellinus and his brother Apringius had been executed in 413 for their alleged role in the revolt of Heraclian against the emperor Honorius. Augustine’s letter discussed Marcellinus’ final days in prison, stressing in a remarkable way Marcellinus’ commitment to conjugal purity. When Apringius candidly confessed to his brother that he was being punished for his sins, Marcellinus admitted that he, too, was being punished in this life, so as to be spared judgment in the next. When Augustine inquired whether Marcellinus might be harboring some hidden sins of impurity, Marcellinus grasped Augustine’s right hand with both of his and replied: “I swear by the sacraments that this hand brings to me that I have never experienced intercourse either before or after marriage except with my wife.”33 It is surely significant that Augustine should have chosen marital chastity as the virtue to commemorate on the epistolary epitaph of his friend Marcellinus. 5. Conclusion Augustine’s discussion of marital chastity and marital purity in his letters to Ecdicia and to men such as Boniface, Firmus, and Caecilian confirms the picture we have sketched throughout this chapter. Unlike many of his contemporaries who were enthusiasts for the ascetic life and outspoken critics of marriage (one thinks, of course, of Jerome), Augustine was remarkably moderate in his assessment of the value of the conjugal life. He appreciated the role of marriage and procreation in establishing the links of kinship that were the foundation of human society. As a result, he believed that the demands of charity and almsgiving had to be balanced against – and, at times, superseded by – the needs of one’s own wife, children, and family. On matters of conjugal sexuality, as well, Augustine, more than any of his contemporaries, 33  Ep. 151.9 (CSEL, 44), p. 389: “Testor, inquit, sacramenta, quae per hanc offeruntur manum, me nullum expertum esse concubitum praeter uxorem nec ante nec postea.”

56

david g. hunter

found a place for marital sex beyond the requirements of simple procreation. His understanding of pudicitia coniugalis as a moderating force against the pressures of concupiscentia carnis helped to offset the bleak character of his doctrine of original sin and its transmission via sexual intercourse. More than that, it provided a way by which human couples, subject to the constraints of the post-lapsarian life, could exercise the virtues of charity and mercy in their sexual lives. Augustine’s letters give us access to an Augustine who is not always fully evident in his more polemical or doctrinal works. We should be grateful, therefore, to the Scrinium Augustini for making this Augustine more readily available to us.

The Unwritten Letters of Augustine of Hippo* Sigrid Mratschek (Rostock) 1. Introduction: an Empire “fragile like glass” “I regard this letter as something more than a personal greeting from me to you…,” wrote Augustine’s concubine in Jostein Gaar­ der’s Vita brevis.1 “It is also a letter to the bishop of Hippo … what I write will perhaps be equally a letter to the whole Christian church, for today you are a man of great influence.” Modern scholarship on St  Augustine confirms what the fictional character from the Confessiones (6.15) suggests. Christian Tornau has convincingly shown that virtually all of Augustine’s letters were “public letters”, which forced the author to find a balance between the requirements of the individual recipient and those of the general public.2 *  This contribution is a revised and improved version of a paper that I delivered for the Late Roman Seminar of the Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity (OCLA) at Corpus Christi College on 10 March 2011 on the invitation of Neil McLynn and Bryan Ward-Perkins. A  previous version was published in German as “Die unge­schrie­be­nen Briefe des Augustinus von Hippo,” in In Search of Truth. Augustine, Manichaeism & Gnosticism. Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty, ed. by J.A. van den Berg, A. Kotzé, T. Nicklas, M. Scopello, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011, p.  109-122. I  warmly wish to thank all those involved in this publication for their encouragement, and in particular Przemek Nehring and the Polish National Science Center, to whose generosity I owe the opportunity to publish my article in English in his Scri­nium Augustini. The translation from Augustine is by the author. 1  J.  Gaarder, Vita brevis, English translation Anne Born, London, 1997, p. 29. 2  C. Tornau, Zwischen Rhetorik und Philosophie: Augustinus Argumentations­ technik in De civitate Dei und ihr bildungsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund, Berlin, 2006, p. 35, also J. Ebbeler, “The Letter Collection of Augustine of Hippo”,

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 57-77 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113886

58

sigrid mratschek

Ambrose writes that a letter is a sermo cum absentibus, a dialogue with those who are absent. 3 Pauline Allen and Mary Cunningham4 have emphasised that we usually only know half of this dialogue, and letters from laypersons and ordinary members of the congregation are missing. But the subject of this paper is neither the methodological problem of the one-sided unbalanced tradition of letter-writing that only the letters received have been handed down, nor the exclusion of social groups or the difficulties in delivering the letters. So what in fact, were Augustine’s “unwritten letters”? Breaking with the traditional division of “private and public letters” they are the secret (or private) letters which are, unusually, not intended for a broad public. Secret codes were adopted between correspondents “as Caesar, Augustus, Cicero and – among many others – Augustine did”. 5 The focus here is on what can be read either between the lines or not at all. Augustine seems to be a political marginal figure until 412 ad.6 But the evidence derived from the bishop’s own writings ed. by C. Sogno, B.K. Storin, E.J. Watts, Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide, Oakland, California, 2016, p. 241-242. 3  Ambrosius, Ep.  7.48.1, in Ambrosius, Epistulae, ed. by O.  Faller, M.  Zelzer, Vienna, 1990 (CSEL, 82/2), p.  48: “Epistularum genus propterea repertum, ut quidam nobis cum absentibus sermo sit, in dubium non uenit.” See M.  Zelzer, “Die Briefliteratur. Kommunikation durch Briefe: Ein Gespräch mit Abwesenden”, in Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft 4, Spätantike, ed. by L.J. Engels, H. Hofmann, Wiesbaden, 1997, p. 321322, and Ebbeler, “Letter Collection”, p. 248-250. 4  See the studies in Preacher and Audience. Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. by M. Cunningham, P.  Allen, Leiden, 1998, and P.  Allen, “It’s in the Post: Techniques and Difficulties of Letter-Writing in Antiquity with regard to the Letters of Augustine of Hippo”, Trendall Lecture 2005, in Proceedings of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, Canberra, 2006, p. 111-129. 5  Iulius  Victor, Ars rhetorica 448: De epistolis, ed. by R. Giomini, M.S.  Celentano, Leipzig, 1980 (BT), p. 105, l. 27-29: “solent etiam notas inter se secretiores pacisci, quod et Caesar et Augustus et alii plerique fecerunt.” See B. Neil “Continuities and changes in the practice of letter-collecting from Cicero to late antiquity”, in Collecting Early Christian letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. by B. Neil, P. Allen, Cambridge, 2015, p. 11-12. 6  See N. McLynn’s stimulating study, “Augustine’s Roman Empire”, in History, Apocalypse, and the Secular Imagination: new essays on Augustine’s

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

59

provides a picture that is incomplete, because he often remained silent about politics, before he made friends with the proconsuls and high-ranking officials of Africa, Flavius Marcellinus presiding over the Council of Carthage and Macedonius, the vicar of Africa. For once, I  would like to show the most creative of all Christian authors in a different light – as he meets us day by day in his written and unwritten letters. Augustine, a comparative outsider, began his career, unlike Cyprian of Carthage, as an involuntary antihero.7 The Empire was “fragile like glass”,8 and he had been forced, it would seem, into this intense and prickly world of the African Christians: “to live among people and live for people” – uiuendum sit uel inter eos uel propter eos.9 With his metaphor of Rome’s fragility, Augustine did not, in the City of God, discuss the greatness of the Empire in terms of decadence after the fall of Rome, but the fragile and insecure beauty of the whole dynamic human existence and its conflicts that arise as people pursue their own interests.10 That is why Augustine wrote to Aurelius, the Primate of Africa: “There are many regrettable things in my life City of God, ed. by M. Vessey, K.  Pollmann, and A. Fitzgerald, Bowling Green, 1999, p.  29-44, esp. p.  36-37, whose focus is on Augustine’s links to the Roman aristocracy and his approaches to the proconsuls of Africa, and R.  Lane Fox’ thought-provoking portrayal of his protagonist: Augustine: Con­versions to Confessions, New York, 2015, p. 478 and 481. 7  A. Brent, Cyprian and Roman Carthage, Cambridge, 2010 and G. Schöllgen, Ecclesia sordida? Zur Frage der sozialen Schichtung frühchristlicher Gemeinden am Beispiel Karthagos zur Zeit Tertullians, Münster, 1985 (JbAC Erg.  Bd. 12); on the cult of St Cyprian in Africa, see G. Bonner, St Augustine of Hippo: life and controversies, Norwich, 1997, 3rd. ed. 2002, p. 276-278. 8  Augustinus, De ciuitate Dei 4.3, ed. by B. Dombart, A. Kalb, J. Divjak, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1993 (BT, vol.  1), p.  149: “Quamquam uellem prius inquirere, quae sit ratio, quae prudentia, cum hominum felicitatem non possit ostendere, […] ut uitrea laetitia comparetur fragiliter splendida, cui timeatur horribilius ne repente frangatur, de imperio latitudine ac magnitudine uelle gloriari.” 9  Ep. 95.2, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  507 (to Paulinus 408 A.D.):”Verum omnis quaestio, quae agentes quaeren­tesque conturbat homines, qualis ego sum, illa est, quonam modo uiuendum sit uel inter eos vel propter eos […].” 10  G. Clark, “Fragile Brilliance – Augustine, decadence, and ‘other antiquity’”, in Décadence: ‘Decline and fall’ or ‘Other antiquity’?, ed. by T. Fuhrer, M.  Formisano, Heidelberg, 2014, p. 35-52, and C. Conybeare, The City of Augustine: On the Interpretation of Civitas, in Being Christian in Late Antiq-

60

sigrid mratschek

and my surroundings which I do not wish to entrust to you in a letter. On the contrary: let there be no mediator between your heart and mine apart from my mouth and your ears”.11 The reason for this was simple: in the world of Classical Antiquity, there was neither copyright nor the right to confidentiality of correspondence. Augustine therefore could expect every letter he sent to be published. Information that was personally and politically explosive, was transmitted by word of mouth or on a separate enclosed sheet.12 Augustine was afraid that his writings cannot be kept from those who could misconstrue them.13 Paulinus of Nola supplies clear evidence that Augustine himself, with later publication in mind, copied letters before sending them off.14 But an issue of equal interest is, what Augustine chose not to include in his letter collection: topics or details avoided, letters withheld.15 As Aleida Assmann has shown, his letter archives are “not only a place where documents of the past are preserved, they are also a place where the past is constructed”.16 uity. A Festschrift for Gillian Clark, ed. by C. Harrison, C. Humfress, and I.  Sandwell, Oxford, 2014, p. 138-155, esp. 153-155. 11  Ep.  22.2.9, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 61 (c. 392): “Multa sunt, quae de nostra uita et conuersatione deflerem, quae nollem per litteras ad te uenire, sed inter cor meum et cor tuum nulla essent ministeria praeter os meum et aures tuas.” 12  Zelzer, “Die Briefliteratur”, p. 331. 13  Ep.  162.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p.  511-512: “… et illi, qui minus acuto minusque exercitato ingenio praediti eo tamen studio feruntur ad cognoscendas litteras nostras siue amico siue inimico animo, ut eis substrahi omnino non possint.” See B. Neil, “Continuity and changes”, p. 13. 14  Paulinus Nolanus, Ep.  50.14 (to Augustine), in Paulinus Nolanus, Epistulae, ed. by W. von Hartel, M.  Kamptner, Vienna, 1999 (CSEL, 29), p. 417: “si habes relatam (sc. epistolam) in schedis, rogo ut mittas […]”; Aug., Ep. 162.9 (CSEL, 44), p.  520: “Mitte et illius epistulae exemplum, quae apud nos aberrans non potuit inueniri.” See Lane Fox, Augustine, p. 479 and 484. 15  E.g. in Augustine’s Ep. 80 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 346-349, see S. Mratschek, “Augustine, Paulinus, and the question of moving the monastery: Dispute between theologians or between actors of history?”, in Inter cives necnon peregrinos: Essays in honour of Boudewijn Sirks, ed. by J. Hallebeek, M. Schermaier et al., Göttingen, 2014, p. 545-561. 16  A.  Assmann, Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, 3rd ed., Munich, 2006, p.  21.

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

61

Oral transmission was always needed when there was an accident and a messenger lost his customer’s letter, or when the sender did not want to entrust him with a document in writing, whether for convenience, to save time or for reasons of security. The commentaries of the messengers explained what the letter did not reveal. Not least, this was also the intention of the person who sent the letters and commissioned the messengers, and it was in his interest. The personal role of the messenger comprised more than merely transmitting letters. It is best shown by Augustine’s answer to a woman called Ecdicia, who had dressed in widow’s clothes to show her asceticism although her husband was still alive (cf. D. Hunter in this volume). After Augustine had read Ecdicia’s letter, he said that he had questioned the messenger “on the points of the letter that had remained open” (quae interroganda restabant).17 Was this a reference to the outward appearance of her dress or to her way of life and her attitude to marriage? 2. The role of the messenger In the ancient world, the man who carried a letter was as important as the letter. The bearer of news, particularly the somewhat neglected concise salutations, was more than a mere messenger. He might be a close friend or trusted bearer of important personal or political news.18 Among the key qualifi­cations of a messenger, therefore, Augustine counted reliability in carrying out the errand (fides agendi), eagerness to obey (alacritas oboediendi) and practical experience of travelling (exercitatio peregrinandi): the presbyter Orosius was a model of this species.19 Augus17  Ep.  262.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 621: “Lectis litteris reuerentiae tuae et earum perlatore interrogato, quae interroganda restabant, uehementer dolui […].” 18  P.  Brown, Augustine von Hippo, a biography, expanded new edition, London, 1967, German translation by J. Bernard, W.  Kumpmann, Munich 2000, p. 173. 19  Ep.  166.1.2 (CSEL, 44), p.  548 (on Paulus Orosius): “Nec mihi facile occurrebat idoneus et fide agendi et alacritate oboediendi et exercitatione peregrinandi.” He also praises the learning and eloquence of his new pupil, ep. 166.1.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 547, see P. Van Nuffelen, Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, Oxford, 2012 (Oxford Early Christian Studies), p. 30.

62

sigrid mratschek

tine entrusted him with two letters addressed to Jerome (epp. 166 and 167) as well as an anti-Pelagian dossier.20 When the letter bearer arrived, depending on the contents of the letter he either handed it to the addressee or read it out aloud, or it was read out aloud by another person. But a letter from Augustine often contained no more than a salutatio;21 here, the letter bearer’s task was all the more important. In this case, after the salutation, Augustine only gave a brief recommendation for the messenger, in order that the messenger could recite the message himself and in addition could answer the addressee’s questions.22 In this way, the messenger became a mouthpiece (os tuum), a letter, better than a written message (ueriorem litteris epistolam).23 Augustine described another messenger as the “most reliable of all his letter bearers” (litterarum fidissimum perlatorem omnium nostrum), although he did not actually carry a letter.24 In exceptional cases, messages had to be transmitted orally to overcome language barriers, for example when Augustine’s letters were delivered to bishop John of Jerusalem, who spoke Greek, and the bishop had to receive the letter through the words of an interpreter.25 The leaders of the ascetic movement revived the concepts of amicitia and hospitium, and the preferred medium for generating and demonstrating solidarity (unanimitas) was the letter.26 Not merely information, but even emotions can be transmitted in this way, even if two correspondents such as Augustine and Pauli20  C.  Sotinel, “Augustine’s Information Circuits”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. by M. Vessey, Malden, MA and Ox­ford, 2012, p. 129. 21  Typical salutations are ep.  42 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 84 and ep.  45 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  122-123, which are often less than half a page long in the CSEL; cf. the wording “ecce igitur salutamus uos” (ep. 45.1: p. 122). 22  Ep. 45.2 (CSEL, 34/2), p. 122, cf. note 49. 23  Paulinus Nolanus, Carm. 24.9, ed. W. von Hartel, M.  Kamptner, Vienna, 1999 (CSEL, 30), p. 206. 24  Ep. 186.1 (CSEL, 57), p. 45, cf. note 54: “[…] litterarum fidissimum perlatorem omnium nostrum […], etiamsi non scriberemus […].” 25  Ep.  179.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 693: “Quid pluribus agam apud sanctitatem uestram, quando quidem me onerosum sentio, maxime quia per interpretem audis litteras meas?” 26  S.  Mratschek, “Friends, Friendship”, in Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, ed. by H.J. Klauck, V. Leppin et al., Berlin and Boston, 2014, p. 723-727.

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

63

nus of Nola never met in person. The imagined dialogue between writer and reader suggests the “intimate space of letters”, 27 an apparent closeness to the distant person. The sense of direct contact is emphasised by the act of personal delivery. Here, the identity and the role of the person who delivered the letter played a crucial part: for this reason, Augustine called two messengers “a second letter” from Paulinus “with voice and hearing”, because they conveyed to him part of Paulinus’ personality.28 In Classical Antiquity, the recipient saw the messenger as a representative of his correspondent, 29 as can be seen from the same letter from Augustine to Paulinus: “Whence or when or how could it ever be possible for you or could we ever wish you to tell us so much in writing as we heard from your mouth (that is, the mouths of the messengers)? In addition, as no paper can show, the joy of the narrators was also shown in their faces and their eyes  […] But this letter from you, that is, the soul of the brothers, when we read it in dialogue with them, was clearly all the more felicitous, the more it spoke about you yourself.”30

Augustine, the external reader, had the impression that – as in the case of a snapshot – he could take a quick look at the private world of the writer and his feelings. His reaction expresses the importance of the intimacy of the messengers with the writer of the letter: Romanus and Agilis who participated in Augustine’s ordination in 396, became represen­tatives of the absent writer, because their conduct and their manner contributed to the recip-

27  Ancient Letters. Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, ed. by R.  Morello, A.D.  Morrison, Oxford, 2007, VI: “Editors’ Preface”, cf.  Ebbeler, “Letter Collection”, p.  246 on “the momentary illusion of a face-to face conversation”. 28  Ep. 31.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 2: “Sanctos fratres Romanum et Agilem, aliam epistulam uestram audientem uoces atque reddentem et suauissimam partem uestrae praesentiae  […]”. 29  C.  Conybeare, Paulinus Noster. Self and Symbols in the Letters of Paulinus of Nola, Oxford, 2000, p. 39-40. 30  Ep.  31.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 2, esp. l. 18-20: “Hanc autem epistulam uestram, fraternam scilicet animam, sic in eorum conloquio legebamus, ut tanto beatior appareret nobis, quanto uberius conscripta esset ex uobis.”

64

sigrid mratschek

ient’s impression of Paulinus, whom he did not know. 31 It was an elaborate and fitting response to Paulinus who had recom­mended them to Augustine alluding to the Acts (4:32-35): “You can safely employ these men  […], for we are one heart and one soul”. 32 3. Discretion and cooperation Not only information could be transmitted by messengers, and not only sympathy or antipathy could be passed on to the recipient. Christians such as Augustine were the heirs of a great culture of letter-writing, whose pagan models, Cicero and Pliny, used letters as a powerful instrument to establish social and political networks in the Mediterranean world. Like them, Augustine did not hesitate to exercise influence, and in doing so he used the traditional means of his social class. One of these was letters of reference or recommendation – a novelty for an ascetic, but something that went without saying for a member of the ruling elites. Augustine deliberately used brief formulae of salutations or notes which referred only tersely or not at all to their occasion in delicate situations where personal and religious crises called for discretion, or in political negotiations whose aim was not intended to be public; he did this because they could not then fall into the wrong hands or be misinterpreted. In these interventions, his position as a bishop merges with that of the ascetic, whose assistance, according to Peter Brown, 33 enjoys a kind of supernatural authority. But neither Augustine’s reputation as a patron nor the conduct and identity of the person recommended could in themselves 31  On 396, not 395, as the date of Augustine’s bishopric, see D.E.  Trout, “The dates of the ordination of Paulinus of Bordeaux and of his departure for Nola”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 37 (1991), p. 237-260, on p. 238. 32  Paul. Nol. Ep. 6.3 (CSEL, 29), p. 42 = Aug. Ep. 30.3 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 125: “Per hos […] tuto facies. Sunt enim, uelim credas, unum cor et una in domino anima nobiscum.” See P.  Nehring, “Literary Sources for Everyday Life of the Early Monastic communities in North Africa”, in La vie quotidienne des moines en Orient et en Occident (IVe-Xe siècle), vol. I: L’état des sources, ed. by O.  Delouis, M.  Mossakowska-Gaubert, École Française d’Athènes, 2015, p. 325-335, esp. 331. 33  P. Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man”, Journal of Roman Studies, 61 (1971), p. 80-101.

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

65

achieve the desired effect. Litterae commendaticiae created a complex social framework between three persons: the object, the writer and the recipient of the recommendation, and it was the interaction of these that decided on success. 34 Occasionally, the facts appear agonisingly vague, because Augustine mentioned neither the occasion of the recommendation nor the curriculum vitae of the person recommended, as for example in the case of a traumatised boy called Vetustinus. In autumn 396, Augustine sent him with Romanianus on a voyage to Nola because he could hope for a miracle at the tomb of St  Felix. In addition to the early dialogues – Paulinus was offering to be Augustine’s publisher in Italy and the West 35 – Romanianus was also carrying a letter from Augustine and several commendationes, including a reference for his protégé. This showed that Vetustinus, whose misfortune even aroused pity in the “godless”, had resolved to enter the clergy. But Vetustinus was to tell his host the reason for his journey himself36 – Augustine was discreet and did not mention this. The newly consecrated bishop of Hippo had sent him to Paulinus so that he could reconsider his decision there, when he had recovered from the shock and had grown up. 37 In another case, the beneficiary remained 34  See G.W. Bowersock’s contribution to the discussion in S.  Roda, “Polifunzionalità della Lettera Com­mendaticia”, in Colloque Genevois sur Symmaque, ed. by F. Paschoud, Paris, 1986, p. 205-206 and, by way of example, S. Mratschek, “A living relic for the Vicar of Rome: Strategies of Visualization in a Civil Case”, in Literature and Society in the Fourth Century A.D. Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self, ed. by L. Van Hoof, P. Van Nuffelen, Leiden and Boston, 2015, p. 134-156. 35  Including the books Against the Academics; in each case see the introduction and commentary by T. Fuhrer, Augustin. Contra Academicos, Books 2 and 3, Berlin and New York, 1997 or K.  Schlappbach, Augustin. Contra Academicos vel De Academicis, Book 1, Berlin and New York, 2003. On the complete consignment of books, see S.  Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und soziale Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Göttingen, 2002 (Hypom­nemata, 134), p. 478-483. 36  Ep.  31.7 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  6: “Vetustinum, impiis quoque miserabilem puerum, uestrae benignitati caritati­que commendo. Causas calamitatis et peregrinationis eius audietis ex ipso.” See D.E. Trout, Paulinus of Nola. Life, Letters, and Poems, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1999, p. 205. 37  Ep. 31.7 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  6-7: “Nam et propositum eius, quo seruiturum se esse pollicetur deo, tempus prolixius et aetas robustior et transactus timor certius indicabunt.”

66

sigrid mratschek

completely in the background, as in the case of the nameless and faceless protégé of Paulinus; in contrast, the sanctae orationes of his patron were accorded all the more authority. Augustine only wrote that he consented to Paulinus’ “merciful plan”, which God had inspired in him. He explained the reasons for his positive decision by saying that “that greatly loved man had attained his goal not only through his good deeds, but also as a result of Paulinus’ sacred pleas, and had been recommended”. 38 In the atmosphere of political crises which overshadowed Africa and led to endless conflicts on religious policy with Donatists, pagans and heretics at the beginning of the fifth century, Augustine became the “architect” of the victory over the Donatists (cf. S. Adamiak in this volume). 39 The dispute was not always conducted in books, letters or heated debates as we know them from the Conference of Carthage in June 411.40 Occasionally there was icy silence between two adversaries, and so communication was only possible through messengers. When Augustine entrusted two laymen, Theodorus and Maximus, with a letter for Macrobius, who in summer 410 was his direct rival in the same city as the Donatist bishop of Hippo, Macrobius at first even refused to have the letter read out to himself.41 He then did not deign to send his adversary a reply in writing, but instead, after being intensively pressed by the messenger, allowed him to transmit his refusal by

38  Ep.  149.1 (CSEL, 44), p.  348-349: “Et adprobo misericordiae consilium, quod tibi dominus inspirauit mihique insinuare dignatus es. Ipse et hoc adiuuet, ipse prosperet, ut iam curam nostram ex magna parte leniuit, quia peruectus et commendatus est carissimus homo non solum bonis operibus, sed etiam sanctis orationibus tuis.” On the dating, see Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus, p. 361, n. 11. 39  W.H.C.  Frend, The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1971, p.  226. 40  Brilliantly described by Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 330-339 in the chapter “Unity Achieved”. 41  Ep. 107 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 611: “Ad quem [i.e. episcopum Macrobium] cum litteras beatitudinis tuae perferremus, primo negauit se, ne eidem legerentur.” On his person cf.  Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire (PCBE), vol. 1: Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (303-533), ed. by A. Mandouze, Paris, 1982, p. 662-663, s.v. Macrobius 2.

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

67

word of mouth.42 How did Augustine react to this massive violation of the rules of correspondence in classical times, which had always been based on a reciprocal obligation?43 He discredited his opponent’s attitude, but not by putting this in writing himself. Instead, he included his messenger’s report (ep.  107) with all its details in his collected letters and made it public. It is possible that Macrobius did not act out of arrogance, but on the basis that he did not want any written documents to fall into his opponent’s hands. However, Augustine simply recounted the facts and so suppressed this aspect. 4. Political crises and diplomatic activities Augustine’s correspondence with distant regions and the formation of epistolary networks led to cooperation between the leading members of the community of educated Christians spanning the entire Mediterranean.44 Among these the cooperation on religious policy between Augustine and Paulinus continued to prove its worth. In 398 the tomb of St  Felix in Nola was so famous that Augustine sent to it not only his psychological problem cases, but also his legal ones, in order to leave it to St  Felix to establish the truth by way of a kind of “divine judgement”.45 Here, he referred to the notissima sanctitas loci, the “well-known holiness of the place of worship”, “which was unequalled by any martyr’s tomb Ep.  107 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  611-612: “Deinde aliquando ex nostra suggestione commotus easdem sibi uoluit recitari, quibus relectis ait: […]  Quod necesse habuimus his litteris sanctitati tuae significare.” 43  On the conventions of correspondence in Late Antiquity, see Symmachus, Epistulae 7.129, ed. O.  Seeck, 2nd ed. Berlin, 1961 (MGH, AA 6.1), p. 213-214, cf. J.F. Matthews, “The Letters of Symmachus”, in Political Life and Culture in the Late Roman Society, ed. by J.F. Matthews, London, 1985, p. 81. 44  On the “communications revolution” generated by epistolary networks and social contacts between Christian intel­lectuals, see Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus, p. 454-591, p. 395-396, Fig. 16 and the maps of the endpapers; on the dissemination of Augustine’s ideas and his decisive spreading of controversies, cf. Sotinel, “Augustine’s Information Circuits”, p.  125-137. 45  Including young Vetustinus, Licentius and two monks who had quarrelled with each other, see Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus, p. 582585. 42 

68

sigrid mratschek

in his African home country”, and he even gave Nola precedence over Milan.46 What he failed to mention was the fact that for a decade (397/98-408) Nola also outshone Milan as a political centre, and for a short time Nola became the major stopover for the legations of the African bishops on their way to the imperial court or to the bishop of Rome. The crucial reason for this was that, especially since Alaric’s incursions into Upper Italy,47 there were better possibilities of communication with Paulinus in Campania than with the imperial court in Milan. And it is from this time that the great majority of Augustine’s unwritten letters date. Paulinus never mentioned the concerns of the visitors and Augustine only hinted at them in passing. But their stay in the Nola monastery takes on quite a different dimension, if one is aware of the religious-policy context of the journeys. The representatives of the Catholic bishops of Africa often travelled on secret missions. For many of them who visited Paulinus, even revealing their identity was a security risk. One of them who visited Paulinus in Nola had to breach the blockade of the Mediterranean, which Gildo had closed in autumn 397, in order to establish contact with Gildo’s mortal enemy Mascezel and the bishops of Rome and Milan. The political situation had worsened when the comes Gildo stopped the deliveries of wheat, which were vital for Rome, allied himself with the Donatists after the Synod of Carthage and was declared a public enemy, while his brother Mascezel, threatened by Gildo, had to seek refuge in Italy.48 There is not the slightest hint either of his name nor of the reason for 46  Ep. 78.3 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 335-336: “Multis enim notissima est sanctitas loci, ubi beati Felicis Nolensis corpus conditum est, quo (i.e. Nolam) uolui ut pergerent, quia inde nobis facilius fideliusque scribi potest, quicquid in eorum aliquo diuinitus fuerit propalatum. Nam et nouimus Mediolani apud memoriam sanctorum […].” 47  18 Nov. 401 (Pollentia), summer 402 (Verona) and 403 (new recruitment by Stilicho). 48  On Gildo as hostis publicus see Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) IX 4051, ed. T. Mommsen, Berlin, 1883, p.  383 = Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS) 795, ed. H. Dessau, repr. Berlin 1962, p. 176, Année Epigraphique 1926, p. 124, cf. A. Demandt, Die Spätantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284-565 n. Chr., 2 nd ed. Munich, 2007, p.  173-174. The Donatist bishop Optatus of Timgad was a follower of Gildo, see Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 201.

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

69

his journey in the letter which the courier presented to Paulinus in Nola: “It will be more expedient”, is Augustine’s explanation “if he tells you himself what is being done in the matter, and you may also ask him about details that have aroused your interest”.49 So great were the danger of espionage and the fear of political intrigues. Paulinus was expected to give a recommendation (commendatio). For the bearer of the message, this was a guarantee, because he feared that his addressees, who were also unnamed, “might be hostile to his good cause (the bona causa)”.50 The crisis which North Africa was undergoing at the time makes it likely that the messenger, on the instructions of Augustine and Alypius, was to contact the leading circles of the government and the Catholic Church in Italy; Mascezel was increasingly falling under their influence. It was not by chance that the African bishops emphasised their personal attachment to the messenger, whom they gave a good reference in their home country.51 The terse note ends in an implicit appeal to the recipient: when Augustine and Alypius expressed their thanks that they “could be glad of the safety of their brother in Christ, with the help of Paulinus”,52 it was a clear reference to the urgency of the commendation – and to the danger for their messenger. How highly Augustine and Alypius rated the effect of their friend’s letters on influential circles in Italy they showed once more in late autumn 417, when they indirectly called on Paulinus at the last minute to intervene against Pelagius and his followers, in order to prevent Pelagius from being officially rehabilitated. In a postscript, the two African bishops indicate what “good services” the letters of their brother Paulinus could render their cause

Ep.  45.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 122: “Quid in re agatur, commodius ipse (sc. perlator) narrabit, qui etiam ad singula, quae forte animum mouerint, interrogari potest.” 50  Ibidem: “Rogat (sc. perlator) per nos sanctimonium uestrum, ut eum commendare dignemini, cum quibus ei negotium est et apud quos ne bona causa eius opprimatur, timet.” 51  Ibidem: “Carus nobis est (sc. perlator huius epistulae), cuius aestimationi in regionibus nostris possumus non temere bonum testimonium perhibere.” 52  Ibidem, p.  123: “Nos gratissimum habemus et apud dominum deum nostrum sincerissimae uestrae benignitati gratias agimus, si per uestram operam de Christiani fratris securitate gaudeamus.” 49 

70

sigrid mratschek

once again.53 In all religious policy disputes the procedure was the same: again, the bishops sent a confidant (fidissimum perlatorem) to Nola. “Through him” Paulinus would be able to discover everything relating to Augustine’s diocese “as through a living and thinking letter – tamquam per uiuentem atque intellegentem epistulam”.54 According to Augustine, it was a rare stroke of luck to find a messenger such as the presbyter Ianuarius: it is not surprising that, following the conventions of epistolary literature, he identified him with the letter itself! As with all important news, the messenger was recommended, Augustine signed as the sender and Alypius countersigned, in order to give the matter the necessary weight.55 Although after 416 Augustine’s opinions on the Pelagians spread to the furthest corners of the Roman Empire, to Rome, Alexandria, Bethlehem and Constantinople, on 21 September 417 Pope Zosimus confirmed his “absoluta fides”56 in Pelagius. And Paulinus was diplomatic enough to wait until the problem solved itself as the result of a rescript of emperor Honorius, which on 30 April 418 ordered Pelagius to be banished.57 Augustine’s friendship 53  Ep.  186.39 (CSEL, 57), p.  78: “Deinde, ut, si quid nostra disputatione deo adiuuante possemus, tua non fides sed fidei contra tales adminicularetur assertio, sicut nos quoque in hanc facultatem tuae germanitatis litteris ad­iuuamur.” On the dating, see O.  Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius. Die theo­ logische Position der römischen Bischöfe im Pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411-432, Stuttgart, 1975 (Päpste und Papsttum, 7), p. 159. 54  Presbyter Ianuarius, cf. ep. 186.1.1 (CSEL, 57), p. 45: “Tandem aliquando prouidit nobis deus litterarum fidissimum perlatorem omnium nostrum merito carissimum fratrem Ianuarium, per quem, etiamsi non scriberemus, omnia, quae circa nos sunt, posset sinceritas tua tamquam per uiuentem atque intellegentem epistulam noscere.” On the epistle’s content, see Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p.  159-163, on the Pelagian Controversy see P. Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle. Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity, 350-550 ad, Princeton and Oxford, 2012, p. 361-373. 55  Cf. the “superscriptio” Alypius et Augustinus. 56  Zosimus papa, Ep.  3, Avell. coll. 46, Epistulae imperatorum aliorum 357553, ed. by O. Günther, Prague, Vienna and Leipzig, 1995 (CSEL, 35), p. 103 and 108; (JK 330), c. 2-3; 17. See Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, p. 370373 and Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p.  151-152, on the exchange of letters between Zosimus and Africa. 57  Fragments of the epistula tractoria in Patrologia Latina 20, col. 693-704 (JK 343), esp. frg. 2 (col. 694) and ep. 190.23 (CSEL, 57), p. 159, on Werme­ linger’s reconstruction see Rom und Pelagius, p. 209-214, on the condemnation of Pelagius see J. Lössl, Julian von Aeclanum. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinem

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

71

with him had not suffered from this reticence, as the continuity of their correspondence from 395 into the year 421 shows.58 Between 404 and 408, after Nola had become the leading ascetic centre in Italy and before Paulinus was ordained bishop of Nola, there was a rapid increase in diplomatic activities. A  letter written by Augustine in March 405 merely states that two of his fellow-bishops, Theasius and Evodius, visited Paulinus and his wife in Nola.59 He fails to mention the fact that they had been sent to negotiate at the court of emperor Honorius on the instructions of the general Synod of Carthage of 16 June of the previous year. But in fact they were to give a commonitorium for the emperor,60 which informed him of attacks by the circumcellions and called for the statutes of Theodosius against the Donatists to be enforced; these imposed a punishment of ten pounds of gold for acts of violence.61 On their arrival, however, the emissaries learnt that because of an attempted assassination of the bishop of Bagai on 12 February 405, the emperor had already taken measures that satisfied the Synod’s Werk, seiner Lehre und seiner Überlieferung, Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 2001 (Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements, 60), p.  267-272. Between epp.  149 and 186 on Pelagius no reply from Paulinus is extant – by chance or intentionally? 58  On the duration of the correspondence see Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus, p.  272. Even on his deathbed, Paulinus permitted Pelagians who had been excluded from the Church to take communion in his basilica, cf. Uran., Ep. de obitu 2 (PL 53), 860-861. See P. Brown, “The patrons of Pelagius: The Roman Aristocracy between East and West”, ed. by P. Brown, Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, London, 1972, p. 212 and Trout, Paulinus of Nola, p.  228-235 on the relations between Paulinus and Pelagius. 59  Ep. 80 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 347, see below. 60  Concilia Africae a. 345-525, Registri ecclesiae Carthaginiensis excerpta 93, ed. C. Munier, Turnhout, 1974 (CCSL, 149), p. 211: “Commonitorium fratribus Theasio et Euodio legatis ex Carthaginensi concilio ad gloriosissimos religio­sissimosque principes missis”. Recommendations were directed to the Emperor and to the bishop of Rome – “litterae ad episcopum Romanae ecclesiae de commendatione legatorum  […] uel ad alios ubi fuerit imperator”, (CCSL, 149), p. 213. J.-L. Maier, Le dossier du donatisme, vol. II: De Julien L’Apostat à Saint Jean Damascène, 361-750, Berlin, 1989, p. 130, no. 74. 61  Conc. Africae, Reg. Carth. 93 (CCSL, 149), p. 212: “Nota est enim et saepe legibus conclamata circum­cellionum qua furiunt detestabilis manus  […]. Simul etiam petendum est, ut illam legem quae a religiosae memoriae eorum patre Theodosio de auri libris decem in ordinatores uel ordinatos haereticos seu etiam in possessores, ubi eorum congregatio deprehenditur, promulgata est, ita deinceps confirmari praecipiant”.

72

sigrid mratschek

demands.62 The news of them could not have reached Africa earlier than March because the covering letter for the February edict, addressed to Diotimus, the proconsul of Africa, has been drawn up on 5 March 405.63 Paulinus had become acquainted with one of the ambassadors, Evodius of Uzalis, a former agent of the imperial secret police,64 ten years earlier in Rome (see D. Shanzer in this volume).65 It remains unclear when he and Theasius interrupted their Italian journey. Before a ship sailed to Italy, Augustine had quickly dictated some “fleeting thoughts” to Paulinus and promised to write him a longer letter later – in Augustine’s own words: “as soon as I have satisfied my curiosity about you at least in part after our revered brothers, my colleagues Theasius and Evodius, return.66 For we hope …, that you will soon come to us in their hearts and words”.67 Here too Augustine preferred private oral reports to putting the political situation in writing when he attempted to persuade his friend to evacuate his whole monastic community

62  On 12 February 405, cf. Aug. ep. 88.7 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 414; 185.7 (CSEL, 57), p. 25, see PCBE de l’Afrique chrétienne 1, p.  369, s.u. Euodius 2, and p. 1105 s.u. Theasius. 63  Codex Theodosianus (CTh) 16.11.2, ed. by T. Mommsen, P.  Krüger, Berlin 1905, repr. Hildesheim, 1990, vol. I, p. 905-906, see E. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama. A study of the North African episcopate at the time of Augustine, Oxford, 2008, p. 150 and Mratschek, “Augu­stine, Paulinus”, p. 550. 64  Augustinus, conf. 9.8.17, ed. by L. Verheijen, Turnhout, 1981 (CCSL, 27), p.  142-143: “[…] 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.” 65  In order to give him a rare codex for Alypius before he left for Africa, cf.  Paulinus Nolanus, Ep. 3.3 (CSEL, 29), p.  16: “Quod et sanctos uiros, quos indice caritatis ipsorum tuo sermone cognouimus, Comitem et Euodium rogauimus, ut scribere ipsi curarent, ne uel parenti Domnioni codex suus diutius deforet […].” 66  Ep. 80.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 347: “Proinde pauca haec ilico arripui dictanda atque mittenda prolixioris epistulae me confitens debitorem, cum post reditum uenerabilium fratrum nostrorum collegarum meorum Theasi Euodi primum uestri ex parte satiatus fuero.” 67  Ep. 80.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 347: “Uberius enim ad nos in eorum pectoribus et oribus uos esse uenturos iam iamque in Christi nomine atque adiutorio speramus.”

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

73

to Africa in view of the threat from the Goths.68 He hoped to learn more of Paulinus’ reaction to his suggestion and of the success of their legation to the imperial court when the messengers returned. Meaning often lay behind the surface. Behind a learned dialogue of two Christian philoso­phers on the will of God we discern the involvement of both actors, Augustine and Paulinus, in religious-political conflicts and major historical events like the Gothic invasion which let it appear advisable for Paulinus to seek asylum with Augustine in North Africa.69 Without success – Paulinus stayed resolutely at the Nolan tomb of his heavenly patron Saint Felix. Four years after Evodius and Theasius, another delegation led by Possidius of Calama travelled to Italy in summer 408. We know very little of their stay with Paulinus in Nola, but we are well informed of the reasons for the embassy and its circum­stances and outcome. On his visit to Nola, the bishop of Calama only gave his host Paulinus a letter of recommendation from Augustine, and then he informed him in person on the latest excesses in his diocese. “When you  […] have heard from our brother Possidius himself” wrote Augustine “what sad matter has led to him having the pleasure to visit you, you will realise that I am speaking the simple truth”.70 The messenger was at the same time both the responsible person and the person affected, since he had tried to break up a forbidden procession of pagans in Calama and had barely

68  See the artful allusion in Augustine’s plea to Paulinus “who had decided to continue in that place where he feels happy” (i.e. Nola and St  Felix), ep.  80.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  348 with the new reading of Mratschek, “Augustine, Paulinus”, p. 552-553: „[…] cum dixisses ita te illo, quo feliciter uteris, loco perseuerare decreuisse, ut, si quid de te aliud domino placuerit, eius uoluntatem praeferas tuae  […]” 69  On ep. 80 styled as a dialogue for theologians, see Mratschek, “Augustine, Paulinus”, p. 551-561; according to J. Ebbe­l er, Disciplining Christians. Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters, Oxford, 2012, p.  87,  99: “epistu­la ad familiarem type”. See Trout, Paulinus of Nola, p. 203 on Augustine as an “exegetical conferee”, and C. Conybeare, The Irrational Augustine, Oxford, 2006 (Early Christian Studies), Part  I: “Why Dialogues?”, p.  1-59 on his predilection for dialogues. 70  Ep.  95.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  506: “Proinde ad istam laetitiam, qua vobiscum est frater Possidius, cum ex ipso audieritis, quam tristis eum causa compulerit, hoc me verissime dicere cognoscetis.”

74

sigrid mratschek

escaped the town’s lynch mob.71 A second letter from Augustine to Nectarius, one of the responsible dignitaries of Calama, reveals the purpose of the legation.72 Augustine reacted immediately by sending Possidius to Ravenna by way of Nola in order to request the support of the emperor, but he did not even mention this to outsiders in a letter. He informed Nectarius, the frightened curialis of Calama, only that the decision on their punishment was not for him to make, but solely for the government.73 5. Conclusion: self-perception and strategies of communication When we analyse short notes and salutations that have as yet been scarcely investigated, and consider their integration in their historical context and the comparison with other letter collections, records of African synods and imperial constitutions, we are given a vivid picture of what impulses for early Christianity proceeded from the diocese of Augustine in Hippo to resolve conflicts between Church and state. Thus, paradoxically, it is precisely the “unwritten letters” of Augustine, which can often only be understood by reading between the lines, which reveal the broad spectrum and the whole extent of personal scandals, legal and religious conflicts within the local clergy and the merciless power struggle in the course of schisms and political crises to a far greater degree than the multitude of ordinary letters which were intended for the public. From a sermon of Augustine’s on the anniversary of For a detailed account of this, see S.  Mratschek, “Te velimus … consilii participem. Augustine of Hippo and Olympius – a case study of religiouspolitical cooperation in the fifth century”, Studia Patristica, 38, Leuven, 2001, p. 224-232, and Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, p. 156-164. 72  Ep.  91.8 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 432, cf. 104.5 (p. 585) and CTh 16.5.43, ed. Mommsen, Krüger, vol. I, p. 869; 16.10.19, ed. Mommsen, Krüger, vol. I, p.  902-903 = Constitutiones Sirmondianae (ConstSirm) 12, ed. Mommsen, Krüger, vol. I, p. 916-917, cf. Maier, Le dossier du donatisme, vol. II, p. 153157, no.  85. On Nectarius, problably a catechumen, see É.  Rebillard, “Religious Sociology: Being Christian in the time of Augustine”, in A Companion to Augustine, p. 52-53. 73  Ep.  91.9 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  434: “Quid eos, qui restant, nullane censes disciplina cohercendos et proponendum aestimas inpunitum tam immanis furoris exemplum? […]  a nobis curam officiumque oportet inpendi, quousque uidere conceditur  […].” 71 

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

75

his consecration as a bishop, Caesarius of Arles borrowed a list of what was expected of a bishop: “Rebuking troublemakers, comforting the fainthearted, looking after the weak, refuting opponents, being on guard against the devious, teaching the ignorant, rousing the lazy, restraining the quarrelsome, resisting the conceited, calming people fighting, helping the poor, liberating the oppressed, encouraging the good, tolerating the bad – and loving them all”.74

Augustine himself pointed out that the audience of his sermons included both genders and all ages and social ranks.75 In a letter of an unknown correspondent called by the meaningful name Audax he is addressed as a living “oracle of the Law” (oraculum legis) for all kind of questions that people are concerned about.76 In Augustine’s opinion, “He who governs the people” (including the bishop) “must first realise that he is the slave of many”.77 Augustine’s strategy for dealing with such borderline situations by only touching on them in cautious allusions or remaining silent about them at all shows the energy with which he pursued his goals and the care with which he styled his letters: cernis quanta cura in scribendo esse debeat, praesertim de rebus ita magnis – “you 74  Homilia sancti Augustini in natale episcopi (Aug., Serm. 340.1) in Caesarius Arelatensis, Serm. 232.1, ed. G. Morin, Turnhout, 1953 (CCSL, 104), p.  919: “Corripiendi sunt inquieti, pusillanimes consolandi, infirmi suscipiendi, contradicentes redarguendi, insidiantes cauendi, inperiti docendi, desidiosi excitandi, contentiosi cohibendi, superbientes reprimendi, desperantes erigendi, litigantes pacandi, inopes adiuuandi, oppressi liberandi, boni adprobandi, mali tolerandi, omnes amandi.” 75  Ep.  138.10 (CSEL, 44), p.  134-135: “[…] cum haec tam salubris admonitio congregationibus populorum tamquam publicis utriusque sexus atque omnium aetatum et dignitatum scholis de superiore loco personat […]”. 76  Ep. 260 (CSEL, 57), p. 616: “Thesaurum sapientiae desideraui, sed minus accepi, quam uolui, licet minus non debet dici sed munus, quod oraculum legis contulerit Augustinus, sacrator iustitiae, instaurator spiritalis gloriae, dispensator salutis aeternae.” Cf.  the pun of his name, Audax (“bold”), and Augustine’s answer in ep.  261.2 (CSEL, 57), p.  618: “I confess I’m ignorant”. On this and a broad range of other requests by letter, see H.J.  Sieben, “Augustinus als Orakel. Briefliche Anfragen an den Bischof von Hippo”, in Studien zu Werk und Wirkungs­geschichte, ed. by H.J. Sieben, Münster, 2013 (Frankfurter Theologische Studien, 69), p. 43-92. 77  Augustinus, s. 340A, ed. by G. Morin, Rome, 1930 (MiAg, 1), p. 563: “Debet enim, qui praeest populo, prius intellegere se servum esse multo­r um.”

76

sigrid mratschek

see what care is needed in writing, especially on such important subjects”, he wrote to a fellow bishop.78 It is striking that no letters are extant from the period of his nine years as a Manichaean auditor before his conversion in the year 386.79 Role-playing of the correspondents’ dialogue (colloquium) as Christian philosophers and the rhetorical construction of a teacher-pupil relation­ship evoke the genre of Quaestiones et responsa, and are often used to boost each other’s standing: the performance of these authorial figurations 80 was intended to consign Augustine’s “Manichaean past” to oblivion on the one hand,81 and the criticised inadequacy of his friend Paulinus as an exegist on the other.82 308 letters from 78  Ep. 162.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 512 to Evodius referring to De Trinitate and the Pelagians. 79  On Augustine’s silence, see Conybeare, The Irrational Augustine, p. 5-6. On his attitude to the Mani­chaeans, see Augustine and the Manichaeism in the Latin West, Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the International Associa­tion of Manichaean Studies (IAMS), ed. by J. van Oort, O.  Werme­ linger, G. Wurst, Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 2001. 80  Ep.  80.2 (CSEL, 34,2) p.  347: “Conloqui  […] cupio”; 80.3 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 349: conloquaris, see Mratschek, “Augustine, Paulinus”, passim. On philosophical dialogues as a generic mode for teaching, see also Conybeare, The Irrational Augustine, p.  20-27; on authorial „self-presentation” and „impression management” see E.  Goffman, The presentation of self in everyday life, New York, 1959,  and T.  Fuhrer, “Autor-Figurationen: Literatur als Ort der Inszenierung von Kom­petenz”, in Performanz von Wissen. Strategien der Wissensvermittlung in der Vor­moderne, ed. by T. Fuhrer, A.B.  Renger, Heidelberg, 2012, p.  129-147 with comparable examples from Augustine’s Confessiones, Sieben, “Augustinus als Orakel”, p.  88-92, and J. Ebbeler, “Mixed messages: The play of epistolary codes in two late antique Latin correspondences”, in Ancient Letters, ed. by Morello, Morrison p.  301-303 on the teacher-pupil relationship. 81  Augustinus, Contra litteras Petiliani 3.16.19. l. 4-5, ed. by M. Petschenig, Vienna, 1909 (CSEL, 52,2), p.  177: “Manichaeorum immunditias libentissime exag­geret (sc. Megalius) easque in me latrando detorquere conetur.” Augustinus, Cresc. 3.79.91-80.92, ed. M. Petschenig, Vienna, 1909 (CSEL, 52,2), p. 494-495. See Lane Fox, Augustine, p. 502-504, 520-521, R.  Lim, “Manichaeans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity”, in Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World, 300-1500, ed. by A. Cameron, R. Hoyland, Farnham, 2011 (The Worlds of Eastern Christianity), p. 29-42; Ebbeler, “Letter Collection” 239-240 and Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus, p. 528. 82  Hieronymus, Ep.  58.11, in Hieronymus, Epistulae, ed. by I. Hilberg, Vienna, 1910 (CSEL, 54), p. 540 on Paulinus’ panegyric for Theodosius: “Huic

the unwritten letters of augustine of hippo

77

his correspondence have survived, covering only a small fraction of his extensive religious and social networks (cf. G. Clark in this volume), and we have only 1/14 of his sermons, although he is estimated to have preached 8,000 times.83 It is all the more surprising that he sought his intellectual home elsewhere: “For nothing is better, nothing more pleasant than studying the divine treasures, far away from all noise,” Augustine confessed in one of his sermons.84 “It is pleasant and good; but preaching in public again and again, arguing, criticising, edifying, being available to everyone – that is a heavy burden, a great oppression, arduous labour. Who would not prefer to escape this?”

prudentiae et eloquentiae si accederet uel studium uel intelligentia scripturarum, uiderem te breui arcem tenere nostrorum et ascendentem  […].” See Conybeare, Paulinus Noster, p. 14, Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus, p. 224, and M.S. Williams, “Augustine as a Reader of His Christian Con­temporaries”, in A Companion to Augustine, p. 233-234, n. 57. 83  On the number of letters, see Sieben, “Augustinus als Orakel”, p.  43 and Zelzer, “Die Briefliteratur”, p.  346-347, cf.  Ebbeler, “Letter Collection”, 240-241. On the number of sermons, Allen “It’s in the Post”, p.  121, n.  97 with a reference to H.R.  Drobner, “Studying Augustine. An overview of recent research”, in Augustine and His Critics. Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner, ed. by R. Dodaro, G. Lawless, London and New York, 2000, p. 33, n. 15 and further literature. 84  Augustinus, s. 339.4, ed. C. Lambot, Utrecht and Brussels, 1950 (SPM, 1), p. 115: “Nihil est melius, nihil est dulcius, quam diuinum scrutari nullo strepente thesaurum: dulce est, bo­num est; praedicare autem, arguere, corripere, aedificare, pro unoquoque satagere magnum onus, magnum pondus, magnus labor. Quis non refugiet istum laborem?” It remains open whether corripere is to be understood as “knuckle down”, “fascinate, carry away” or “rebuke”. Cf.  ep.  31.4 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  4: “[…] coepiscopatus sarcina  […]”. Augustinus, Conf. 13.18.23, ed. by L. Verheijen, Turnhout, 1981 (CCSL, 27), p. 254-255 also prioritise life of con­ templation over pastoral service, see Lane Fox, Augustine, p. 548.– An enticing supple­mental account is given by C. Rapp in her chapter “The Episcopate: Work or Honor?”, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2005, p. 166-171.

Misbehaviour of Clergy in the Light of Augustine’s Letters* Przemysław Nehring (Toruń) 1. Augustine’s expectations regarding the morals of the clergy From the very beginning of his ecclesiastical career in the Church of Hippo, Augustine was a vociferous critic of the comportment of clergymen. Already in 391, soon after Valerius ordained him a presbyter, he explained to his bishop the rationale behind his initial reluctance to assume the priestly duties. On this occasion he discussed a particular view on the social standing of clergy which portrayed the life of a religious as a bed of roses, a career option for sinecurists. Augustine believed that only those bishops, presbyters, and deacons who shirk their duties and swell with pride can see their office in this way: such misdemeanours, in his view, provoked the wrath of God and deserved the harshest punishment.1 He asserted that a propensity for quarrelling, pride-driven envy, and the vain, hypocritical desire to please others bedevilled the clergy at the time.2 It has to be emphasized, *  The author of this article was supported by a grant of the Polish National Science Centre (2012/05/B/HS2/04106). 1  Ep. 21.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 49: “Ante omnia peto, ut cogitet religiosa prudentia tua, nihil esse in hac uita, et maxime hoc tempore, facilius et laetius, et hominibus acceptabilius episcopi, aut presbiteri, aut diaconi officio si perfunctorie atque adulatorie res agatur: sed nihil apud Deum miserius, et tristius, et damnabilius.” 2  Ep.  22.7 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  59: “De contentione autem et dolo quid me attinet dicere, quando ista uitia non in plebe, sed in nostro numero grauiora sunt? Horum autem morborum mater superbia est, et humanae laudis auiditas, quae etiam hypocrisim saepe generat”.

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 79-112 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113887

80

przemysław nehring

however, that his remarks on the disgraceful behaviour of clergymen, which feature in his letters to bishops (ep.  21 to Valerius of Hippo and ep.  22 to Aurelius of Carthage), are not concerned with any specific transgressions attributed to specific members of the clergy, be they bishops, presbyters, or deacons. Augustine clearly wanted to draw attention to a problem that could scandalize the faithful and consequently undermine the authority of the Church. Unsurprisingly, as he took up the office of the bishop of Hippo, first as Valerius’ coadjutor and later as the sole incumbent, the clergymen under his jurisdiction were subjected to severe moral strictures. They were required not only to respect the laws concerning the comportment of the clergy accepted in the African Church and confirmed by the council of Carthage, 3 but they also had to meet the considerably higher expectations imposed on them by their bishop. For Augustine it was self-evident that not only candidates for ecclesiastical offices, but also ordained deacons and presbyters should live in monastic communities and abide by the same rules as those observed by monks: they ought to live in celibacy, relinquish their private property, and let modesty and humility be their watchwords.4 In the Latin West of the late fourth and early fifth centuries the institutional link between an ecclesiastical career and a monastic way of life was not uncommon. Bishops who had been monks themselves before entering into episcopacy, or those fascinated with monasticism, were quite naturally inclined to exhort their subordinates to live ascetic lives and were happy to surround themselves with monks-clerics. Eusebius of Vercelli is believed to have been the first founder of a monastic clerical community, while such prominent Christian authors as Ambrose and Jerome advocated asceticism as the preferable way of life for the clergy.5 3  Breuiarium Hipponense, ed. by C. Munier, in Concilia Africae a.345–a.525, Turnhout, 1974 (CCSL, 149), p. 22-53. See D.  Doyle, The Bishop as Disciplinarian in the Letters of St Augustine, New York, 2002, p. 306. 4  Possidius, Vita Augustini 23-27, ed. by A.A.R.  Bastiaensen, Milano, 1981, 2nd edition (Vite dei Santi, 3), p. 188-202; Augustinus, Sermo 355.2, in Augustinus, Sermones selecti duodeuiginti, ed. by C.  Lambot, Utrecht, 1950 (SPM, 1), p. 126, 5  For more on this subject see: J.T.  Lienhard, “Patristic Sermons on Eusebius of Vercelli and Their Relation to His Monasticism”, Revue Bénédic-

misbehaviour of clergy

81

Augustine instituted monastic principles (celibacy, disposal of private property, communal life) as obligatory for all the clergy living with him in his episcopal household.6 This requirement was imposed in the capital of his dioecesis, but it might have become common also in other bishoprics in North Africa, even though it was certainly not perceived as the only possible solution. Possidius, before he became bishop of Calama, had been a monk in the community founded by Augustine and wrote that the monastery located in the garden of the church in Hippo soon became a seminary of sorts, which nurtured not only the clergymen for the town, but turned out to be a breeding ground for many future monastic bishops in the region far and wide.7 Augustine’s correspondence on various topics with his fellow bishops demonstrates that, in a number of African episcopal sees, clerical communities of a similar kind could come into being.8 tine 87 (1977), p. 164-172; C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley, 2005, p. 137-154 (see on p.  147-150). For the evolution of the views of Jerome, who at first argued that the monastic way of life was incompatible with that of a clergyman and later advocated that they should interlock with each other, see: A.  Cain, Jerome and the Monastic Clergy: A Commentary on Letter 52 to Nepotian, with an Introduction, Text, and Translation, Leiden-Boston, 2013, in particular p. 6-13. 6  Augustinus, Sermo 355.6 (SPM, 1), p. 130: “certe ego sum qui statueram, sicut nostis, nullum ordinare clericum, nisi qui mecum uelit manere”. See A. Zumkeller, Augustine’s Ideal of the Religious Life, New York 1986, p. 406. 7  Possidius, Vita Augustini 11 (Vite dei Santi, 3), p. 154-156: “Nam ferme decem, quos ipse noui, sanctos ac uenerabiles uiros continentes et doctos beatissimus Augustinus diuersis ecclesiis, nonnullis quoque eminentioribus, rogatus dedit. Similiterque et ipsi ex illo sanctorum proposito uenientes, Domini ecclesiis propagatis et monasteria instituerunt et, studio crescente aedificationis uerbi Dei, ceteris ecclesiis promotos fratres ad suscipiendum sacerdotium praestiterunt”. 8  It seems that in his letters to various monastic communities Augustine duly respected the forms of address. When he wrote to a bishop who presided over a community of clergymen, he addressed the bishop and the clergymen who lived with him, but the ending formula of the letter included greetings not only from himself, but also his brethren. The letters sent to monastic lay communities began with a salutation to the addressee and the addressee’s brethren, but were signed only by Augustine himself. For more on this see: J.J.  Gavigan, De vita monastica in Africa septentrionali inde a temporibus S.Augustini usque ad invasiones Arabum, Torino, 1962, p. 114; See also P.  Monceaux, „La formule. Qui mecum sunt fratres dans la correspondance

82

przemysław nehring

The moral requirements which Augustine imposed on the future clerics were even more demanding than what was expected of ordinary monks. The bishop of Hippo believed that the life of continence lived in a monastery was not enough for a devoted monk to qualify as a worthy cleric. A  candidate had to exhibit suitable intellectual competence, evidenced by his educational credentials, and possess the trait which Augustine described as the personae regularis integritas.9 The corpus of Augustine’s correspondence includes letters which illustrate that the clergy of all ranks were not always able to meet these elevated standards and that such failures demanded action from the bishop. In Augustine’s times it was the prerogative of the bishop to enforce discipline in the church. Besides vigilance over doctrinal questions, it was also the appropriate conduct of the clergy which was not restricted to good manners, but also included serious criminal violations of the ecclesiastical as well as secular law. Both criminal and civil charges against clergymen were referred to the bishop’s tribunal.10 In North Africa, by force of synodal regulations, the clergy were forbidden to appeal to civil courts.11 Our knowledge of the scope of episcopal jurisdiction in late antiquity (audientia episcopalis) is limited and uncertain.12 We cannot even de saint Augustin”, in Mélanges Paul Thomas. Recueil de memoires concernant la philologie classique, dédié à Paul Thomas, Bruges, 1930, p. 529-537. 9  Ep.  60.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Wien, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  221-222: “cum aliquando etiam bonus monachus uix bonum clericum faciat, si adsit ei sufficiens continentia, et tamen desit instructio necessaria, aut personae regularis integritas”. 10  CTh XVI.2.12 (A. 354); Sirm. 1 (A. 331-333); 3 (A. 384); 15 (A. 412); 6 (A. 425). 11  Breuiarium Hipponense, can. 9 (CCSL, 149), p. 36. 12  E.M.  Kuhn, “Justice Applied by the Episcopal Arbitrator: Augustine and the Implementation of Divine Justice”, Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 9/2 (2007), p. 71-104; J.  Lamoraux, “Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity”, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 3/2 (1995), p. 143-167; N.E. Lenski, “Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine”, in Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. by R.W. Mathisen, Oxford, 2001, p. 83-97; C.  Humfress, “Bishops and Law Courts in Late Antiquity: How (Not) to Make Sense of the Legal Evidence”, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19/3 (2011), p. 375-400; M.R. Cimma, L’episcopalis audientia nelle costituzioni imperiali da Costantino a Giustiniano, Torino, 1989; G.  Vismara, La giurisdizione civile dei vescovi (Secoli I-IX), Milano, 1995.

misbehaviour of clergy

83

take as certain the authenticity of the ruling ascribed to Constantine according to which the bishops were expected to embrace full judicial capacity in cases where only one of the contesting parties was willing to have the case heard by a bishop.13 There must have been, however, a considerable number of such instances, as Augustine was often annoyed by the burden of deciding cases14 and his biographer did not fail to note that hearing the testimonies of witnesses and other judicial work used to take several hours of his time every day.15 The moral transgressions of the clergy noted by Augustine in his correspondence result mainly from three passions which generally induce people to morally reproachable actions, namely sex, possessions, and power, the triad which is also antipodal to the fundamental monastic virtues. 2. Sexual misconduct Any revealed and confirmed sexual misdeeds of the clergy, even if they appeared innocuous, provided sufficient reason for Augustine to deprive clerics of their offices. In his correspondence one can find several instances where he argued that such harsh measures were indeed necessary. Ep.  35,16 written in the early years of his episcopate, discusses the case of the subdeacon Primus of Spanianum whose name was removed from the list of the local clergy for having acted contrary to the explicit admonition which forbade him to visit nuns. The Council of Carthage, which convened in 397 (i.e. about the time of writing of the letter in question), imposed strict conditions under which the clergy and other people living in continence could

13  For convincing arguments in favour of the claim that Constitutio Sirmondiana 1 cannot be dated to the times of Constantine, but was forged in Gaul at least two centuries later, see: A.J.B.  Sirks, „The episcopalis audientia in Late Antiquity”, Droit et cultures, 65/1 (2013), online since 10 September 2013, accessed on 27 January 2016. URL: http://droitcultures.revues.org/3005. 14  Augustinus, De opere monachorum 39.37, ed. by J.  Zycha, Vienna, 1900 (CSEL, 41), p. 586-587. 15  Possidius, Vita Augustini 19, 2-3 (Vite dei Santi, 3), p. 180. 16  Ep. 35 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 27-31.

84

przemysław nehring

stay in the company of virgins and widows.17 It remains unknown whether Augustine in writing about ordinata et sana praecepta was making reference to just these restrictions or to the rules of monastic life applied both to clerics and nuns in the church of Hippo under his leadership. Primus refused to accept this ruling submissively: exasperated by the turn of events he decided to join the Donatists together with two nuns.18 In ep.  13*,19 the date of which has not been determined with any satisfactory precision, Augustine relates the case of a deacon who was accused by a former nun of having spent a night with her.20 Interrogated by Augustine, the deacon pleaded not guilty explaining that the accusation was slanderous. He acknowledged that during one of his journeys he did meet that girl on the terrace of the house where he was about to stay the night, and had a hard time getting rid of her presence. Nevertheless, he insisted, this did not lead to anything indecent as a sudden downpour made them leave the terrace.21 Augustine explained to the addressee, the presbyter Rusticus, that he believed the deacon rather than the former nun, who by such indecorous means might have been looking for a husband. In consequence, he decided not to exclude the deacon from the clergy: the letter is in fact a letter of recommendation for the deacon, who was about to be ordained presbyter for an unspecified community.22 However, if ep.  18*,23 also hardly datable, refers to the same case (and there is evidence to support this claim)24 it turns out that eventually the deacon did not go

Breuiarium Hipponense, can. 24 (CCSL, 149), p. 40. Ep. 35.2 (CSEL 34,2), p. 28. 19  Ep. 13*, in Augustinus, Epistulae nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. by J.  Divjak, Vienna, 1981 (CSEL, 88), p. 80-82. 20  Ep. 13*.1 (CSEL, 88), p. 80-81. 21  Ep. 13*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 81-82. 22  Ep.  13*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 82. 23  Ep. 18* (CSEL, 88), p. 89-90. 24  H.  Chadwick, “The New Letters of Saint Augustine”, Journal of Theological Studies, 34,2 (1983), p. 425-452, see p. 438; D. Shanzer, „Some Treatments of Sexual Scandal in (Primarily) Later Latin Epistolography”, in In pursuit of Wissenschaft: Festschrift für William M. Calder III zum 75. Geburts­ tag. Spudasmata, Bd. 119. Hildesheim/New York, 2008, ed. by S.  Heilen, p. 393-414, see p. 406. 17 

18 

misbehaviour of clergy

85

unscathed. Augustine wrote this letter to the church of Memblibanum explaining that a deacon by the name of Gitta cannot be ordained presbyter for the community because his reputation had been blemished by a woman who claimed having had sexual intercourse with him. The deacon did not plead guilty to having had sex with her, but Augustine viewed his other comportment (to which the deacon had admitted) as undoubtedly scandalous.25 As a consequence of this affair, Gitta, who in the meantime had become a presbyter in Unapompaea, was not only deprived of this position, but also lost all reason for hope that he would be ordained for some other community elsewhere. As for the sanctimonialis who visited the deacon at night, we can only speculate whether she was a member of an ascetic community or (what I believe was the case) lived her ascetic life in the form of household monasticism. Either way, both were probably subject to a sort of monastic regulations at the moment of that scandalous meeting. Two other letters, epp.  7726 and 78,27 written at some point between 401 and 408, deal with allegations of a homosexual relationship between the presbyter Bonifatius and the monk Spes: at least it seems so, for Augustine’s remarks are cautiously inexplicit.28 Bonifatius claimed that the monk had been making some indecent propositions to him and when Augustine refused to ordain Spes to the priesthood, the monk reversed the blame on the priest and pleaded that he was himself innocent: he even demanded from Augustine that Bonifatius should be removed from office. The bishop, however, gave credence to the presbyter and decided not to take any radical disciplinary measures against him, but considering the gravity of the charges, he sent both men on a pilgrimage

Ep. 18*.1 (CSEL, 88), p. 89: “si autem illa etiam peierat et hoc solum de isto uerum est quod ipse confessus est, nec is esse clericus potest, quoniam omnes Christiani, quanto magis clerici non solum ab illicito concubitu puri esse debent, uerum etiam ab illicito osculo et ab illicito amplexu et ab omni immunditia”. 26  Ep. 77 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 329-330. 27  Ep. 78 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 331-345. 28  Ep.  78.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  333: “sed quia duo de domo nostra talem habent causam, ut unus eorum sine dubio perditus habeatur, et sit alterius fama apud quosdam mala, apud quosdam dubia, etiamsi non sit maculata conscientia”. 25 

86

przemysław nehring

to Italy, hoping that the truth would be miraculously revealed at the sanctuary of the holy martyr Felix at Nola.29 In the whole corpus of Augustine’s correspondence there is only one instance in which a clergyman was punished for, among other things, an alleged sexual relationship with a person not obliged to live in celibacy. The case is discussed in ep.  65 30 (dated 401/402) sent to Xanthippus, the primate of Numidia. A  presbyter of Strabonia by the name of Abundantius was accused of having lunched, dined, and slept at the house (or inn?) of an ill-reputed woman having no other clergyman for company. To Augustine it was all the more outrageous that it was on Christmas Eve when according to the local custom he was supposed to be fasting. Although Abundantius, shorn of his office, denied having done anything indecent, he was still reproached with the very fact of having availed himself of the hospitality offered by that woman: the witness who gave testimony as to Abundantius’ whereabouts on that day was a clergyman, formerly a member of Augustine’s community in Hippo, who was himself staying there for the night. 31 The bishop of Hippo knew all too well that the presbyter could disagree with his decision and defend his reputation by appealing to an ecclesiastical tribunal composed of six bishops. What is more, Augustine supposedly reminded him of the procedure for such appeals, which was established in the acts of the Council of Carthage of 401. 32 As a clergyman ordained to serve in a rural community within the limits of Augustine’s jurisdiction, although not in Hippo itself, Abundantius was not obliged to live a monastic life. But in a way similar to the deacon from the ep. 13* (Gitta?), accused by the former nun, he found himself in trouble for having failed to abide by the rules observed in monasteries: one of them strictly forbade the

29  More on this see: D.  Shanzer, “Augustine’s Epp.  77-78 (A Scandal in Hippo): Microhistory and Ordeal-by-Oath”, Reading Medieval Studies, 40 (2014), p. 11-33, especially p. 6. 30  Ep. 65 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 232-234. 31  Ep. 65.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 233. 32  Ep.  65.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  233-234. For the tribunal composed of six bishops hearing cases concerning presbyters, see: Breuiarium Hipponense, can. 8 (CCSL, 149), p.  35-36. For the one-year period for filing an appeal, see: Registri Ecclesiae Carthaginensis Excerpta, can. 79 (CCSL, 149 ), p. 203-204.

misbehaviour of clergy

87

monks to travel alone, 33 and yet another to eat or drink outside the monastery without express permission to do so. 34 All these cases of sexually misbehaving clergymen (save for Abundantius) have two things in common. First, they all smacked of a scandal that involved members of the clergy on one side and the monks or nuns on the other. This observation can be easily explained by the fact that the two groups lived at close quarters with one another and ecclesiastical law was very strict about possible contacts between clergymen and virgins or widows. 35 Augustine condemned the scandalous sexual conduct of the clergy much in the same way as that of the monks who contravened the rules of their monastery. He believed, certainly not without good reason, that such cases blemish the reputation of the church. Second, in Augustine’s account, none of the accused clergymen pleaded guilty. This confirms, on the one hand, that such misdemeanours by their very nature were as difficult to reveal as it was difficult to find someone guilty of them. On the other hand, this case illustrates the uncompromising attitude of Augustine, who was ruthless in defending the reputation of his church and severely punished all transgressions, no matter how minor, which contravened the elevated moral strictures imposed by himself. It is worth noting that the bishop of Hippo often viewed the people who might have been victimised by the unruly behaviour of his subordinates as accomplices in sin. The nuns who sided with the Donatists together with the subdeacon Primus, the former nun who was trying to seduce a deacon, the woman who offered board and lodging to Abundantius: all these figures were portrayed by Augustine as morally deficient. In Augustine’s view, the offended party who suffered from the sexual misdemeanours of the clergy was the community of the church and the bishop, as its leader, was supposed to protect its reputation.

33  Praeceptum 4.2, in L. Verheijen, La Règle de saint Augustin, vol. 1, Tradition manuscrite, Paris, 1967, p.  423: “Quando proceditis, simul ambulate; cum ueneritis quo itis, simul state.” 34  Ordo monasterii 8.30-31, in Verheijen, La Règle, p. 151: “Nemo extra monasterium sine praecepto manducet neque bibat.” 35  Breuiarium Hipponense, can. 24 (CCSL, 149), p. 40.

88

przemysław nehring

Mentions of incontestable sexual offences such as rape or abduction can also be found in Augustine’s correspondence, 36 but there is not a single case in which a clergyman was found guilty of a crime of this sort. 37 Although the notorious bishop of Fussala, Antoninus, was accused of serious sexual offences, all these accusations were eventually proved false. 38 Nowhere in Augustine’s correspondence do we find any mention of bishops being accused of sexual misconduct. Some of them, however, feature prominently in his accounts of improper handling of financial matters or, to put it bluntly, fraud. 3. Pecuniary matters Economic privileges granted by the emperors and the growing wealth of the church worked to the advantage of the clergy in Augustine’s time and guaranteed their high social standing. The deacons, presbyters and bishops not only benefited from being exempt from various sorts of taxation, but also enjoyed lavish salaries from the swelling purse of the church. Their salaries often exceeded those of officials of the imperial administration, which illustrates that the clergy in the early fifth century were becoming conspicuously well off. Certainly, it varied depending on the Ep. 9*.1-2 (CSEL, 88), p. 43; 15*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 85. Some scholars argue that the curialis of ep. 9*.1, who had abducted and raped a virgin, and was beaten afterwards by clergymen, is to be identified with Commodianus, whose name appears in the same paragraph of the letter, see: G.  Madec, „Du nouveau dans la correspondance augustinienne”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 27 (1981), p. 56-66, see p. 62; Ch. Pietri, „Le Lettres nouvelles et leurs témoignages sur l’histoire de l’Église romaine et de ses relations avec l’Afrique”, in Les lettres des saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C. Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p.  354; Lenski, “Evidence for the Audientia”, p.  85. However, it is difficult to understand why the presbyter, having appealed to the pope against the clergymen who had beaten him, should have told Augustine that he knew nothing on the matter in question, see: A.  Primmer, „Nachlese zur Textgestaltung der neugefundenen Augustinusbriefe”, in Les lettres de… p. 62; Kuhn, “Justice Applied”, p.  96-97 and Shanzer, „Some Treatments”, p. 396. 38  Ep.  209.4, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 349. 36  37 

misbehaviour of clergy

89

wealth of particular local churches, but bishops of sizeable cities and clergy living in episcopal capitals must have enjoyed a particularly high material status. 39 The reputation of the church as a whole suffered, for a considerable number of the clergy (some of the bishops in particular) were making use of their property in such ways that in the eyes of the faithful they hardly seemed different from those of secular aristocracy. Augustine in his letters severely condemned this attitude and repeatedly made explicit appeals that such individual cases, no matter how frequent, should not be taken as representative of the whole clergy including, quite understandably, himself. His strident criticism of the demoralizing display of wealth by the clergy was particularly vocal in his letters concerning the famous case of Pinianus, an incredibly rich Roman aristocrat and the husband of Melania the Younger, who reneged on his promise to become a member of the clergy in Hippo and surreptitiously left the city to avoid being ordained.40 In order to avoid problems of this sort, Augustine obliged the clergy in Hippo to live in the monastic community of the episcopal household and introduced the requirement for all candidates wishing to join the ranks of his clergy that they must dispose of their private property. Nevertheless, it turned out that even among his closest associates there were cases related to the handling of property which blemished the reputation of Augustine’s clergy. The presbyter Januarius kept a portion of his property undisclosed and late in his life drafted a will assigning it to the church: this scandal prompted the bishop to inventory the property owned by all members of his clergy, which was carried out immediately with extraordinary diligence.41 In so doing, the ageing Augustine was 39  For more on this issue, see: L.F. Bacchi, The Theology of Ordained Ministry in the Letters of Augustine of Hippo, San Francisco – London – Bethesda, 1998, p. 170-177; cf. A.H.M.  Jones, The Later Roman Empire, vol.  2, Oxford, 1964, p. 904-910. 40  Ep.  125.2, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p. 4: “Verum omnis haec inuidia non nisi in clericos aestuat maximeque in episcopos, quorum uidetur praeminere dominatus, qui uti fruique rebus ecclesiae tamquam possessores et domini existimantur.”; ep.  126.8 (CSEL, 44), p. 13-14: “Restat ergo, ut iste pecuniae turpissimus appetitus ex obliquo in clericos, et maxime in episcopum dirigatur. Nos enim rebus ecclesiae dominari existimamur, nos opibus frui”. 41  See Sermones 355 and 356 (SPM, 1), p. 124-143.

90

przemysław nehring

trying to convince the faithful at Hippo that against all appearances the whole of his clergy held fast, as always, to the monastic requirements and were completely rid of all of their private property.42 In Augustine’s correspondence, from among the clergy it is mainly the bishops who are mentioned in the context of property-related misdemeanours, with the exception of the presbyter Abundantius (ep.  65 sent in 402 to the Numidian primate). Apart from what has been discussed above, namely that he spent a night at the house of an ill-reputed woman, he allegedly pocketed the money entrusted to him by a certain village-dweller (rusticanus) which was supposed to go to some religious cause. We do not know much in detail: how large the sum was, where it was supposed to go, nor the way in which it was said to have been misappropriated. Augustine writes that in the course of interrogation, which he felt obliged to carry out, Abundantius was unable to give a credible account of how he had spent the sum in question.43 We are left to speculate whether his answers to Augustine’s questioning were simply unsatisfying or it is implied that he was supposed, even as a village presbyter, to document carefully the revenue and expenses of his church. We read in Possidius’ Life of Augustine that the finances of the church in Hippo were supervised by clergymen elected for a given term of office, who presented detailed yearly reports on their work: in general, they met with the customarily trustful acceptance of the bishop.44 Perhaps the presbyters in the countryside were obliged to produce similar accounts and the failure to do so on the part of Abundantius added to his other mis-

42  For a more extensive analysis of Augustine’s dealing with the case of Januarius, as well as the conscious and rhetorically impressive effort taken by the bishop to strengthen, or defend (?), his authority, see: C.  Leyser, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great, Oxford, 2000, p. 23-26; P.  Nehring, “Disposal of Private Property - Theory and Practice in the Earliest Augustinian Monastic Communities”, La vie quotidienne des moines en Orient et en Occident (IVe-Ve siècle), vol. 2, ed. by M. Mossakowska-Gaubert, O. Delouis, Athens, (forthcoming). 43  Ep. 65.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 233: “Ac primo comperi, eum pecuniam cuiusdam rusticani diuino apud se commendato interuertisse, ita ut nullam inde posset probabilem reddere rationem”. 44  Possidius, Vita Augustini 24 (Vite dei Santi, 3), p. 188-190.

misbehaviour of clergy

91

deeds (the night at the inn, failure to observe the fast, the embezzlement) which urged Augustine to expel him from the clergy. Two letters from the collection are concerned with the mishandling of finances by Paul, the bishop of Cataqua. This case must have caused much anxiety to Augustine, for Paul was probably one of those who embraced his episcopal see as monks from Augustine’s monastery,45 and consequently it would have been expected that he would meet high moral standards. Ep.  85 46 is Augustine’s response to a letter from Paul who complained of not being accepted into communion with the church at Hippo and criticized Augustine for believing the libellous attacks of his long-standing adversaries. Augustine rejected his claims and denounced his luxurious way of life, which he found inappropriate for clergymen, especially those who came from monastic circles. Although Cataqua was a Numidian town whose location cannot be determined today with any certainty, Paul’s misconduct must have tarnished the reputation of the church of Hippo, for it was there that he had received his monastic formation. Ep.  96 47 sent by Augustine in 408 to Olympius, a Catholic layman and newly nominated magister officiorum, offers more detailed information concerning Paul’s misdeeds. He avoided paying taxes and in order to cover this up he bought a small piece of land under the name of a very influential family and later handed it over to the church, so that he could evade confiscation of the debt-laden property. Paul had died before this letter was written and his successor, Bonifatius, feared that the property would eventually be sequestrated on account of the debts owed to the fisc. He was also concerned about the legal status of the land. The letter of Augustine petitions the imperial magistrate on behalf of Bonifatius to have the debt cancelled and to recognize the right of the local church to the ownership of the land acquired officially for someone else. This imbroglio called for the intervention of high-ranking Ep. 85.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 394: “Ecce iam scripsi non tantum te esse fratrem meum, sed etiam collegam meum. […] Tibi enim maxime debeo, quia in Christo Iesu per euangelium ego te genui, salubrem mordacitatem charitatis ueraciter obiurgando.”; cf.  E.L.  Smither, Augustine as Mentor: A Model for Preparing Spiritual Leaders, Nashville, 2008, p. 178. 46  Ep.  85 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 394-395. 47  Ep.  96 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 514-516. 45 

92

przemysław nehring

officials, for, as Sigrid Mratschek argues, it might have been the case that the whole affair had to do with the attempt on Stilicho’s life in August 408 and the ensuing proscription aimed against his followers. Augustine does not specify the name of the “powerful family” under the name of which Paul had bought this particular estate at an auction, paying from his private purse. If it was not a family from the local, North African elite, but rather from the highest echelons of aristocracy in close relationship with the imperial court (or with Stilicho), then they might have been facing the confiscation of their property caused by the political upheaval.48 On this occasion we can also observe that tax evasion could not be categorically denounced by the clergy as morally reprehensible at the time, as it can be seen in Augustine’s approval of the attitude of Bonifatius, who held fraud reprehensible, even if (!) the credit was owed to the state.49 Ep.  8*, 50 the date of which remains uncertain, was addressed to an otherwise unknown bishop by the name of Victor.51 It was written as a commonitorium, i.e. a piece of legal advice, and presents a case of an act in contravention of civil law committed by Victor. The bishop of Hippo acted as the arbiter whose goal was to resolve the dispute amicably and avoid trial in a court of law, which would definitely work to Victor’s disadvantage. The case was brought to Augustine by a Jew by the name of Licinius who owned a small piece of land from which he was evicted by Victor: such was the matter of his complaint made to Augustine. The case is very special, for it is the only one known from late antiquity 48  S. Mratschek, “Te velimus…consilii participem. Augustine of Hippo and Olympius - a case study of religious-political cooperation in the fifth century”, Studia Patristica, 38 (2001), p. 224-232, see p. 226-228. 49  Ep. 96.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  516: “Neque enim fraus ista, quia fisco fiebat, ideo non fiebat”. 50  Ep. 8* (CSEL, 88), p. 41-42. 51  Johannes Divjak in his edition of the letters discovered by himself argued that Victor was a bishop. This identification was deemed uncertain by Goulven Madec (“Du nouveau dans…”, p.  56-66), but his arguments were later convincingly dismissed by Jean Rougé, who provided a detailed analysis of forms used in the address by Augustine; see: J.  Rougé, “Escroquerie et brigandage en Afrique romaine au temps de saint Augustin (Epist. 8* et 9*)”, in Les lettres, p. 176-177; see also: Kuhn, “Justice Applied”, p. 92-95.

misbehaviour of clergy

93

in which a Jew sought justice by petitioning a bishop.52 According to Licinius’ testimony and documents presented to Augustine, his mother sold off a part of her property, which he purchased later on from the subsequent owners and passed to his wife as he got married. The mother, making little of these changed circumstances, sold the whole of her property to Victor including the part which had previously been alienated. The bishop, having made the transaction, evicted Licinius from the property to which the latter was legally entitled and even advised him, with an overweening haughtiness, that he should make no attempts to reclaim his possessions. The Jew also alleged that Victor cynically recommended him to settle his claims concerning ownership by taking to court his own mother. The bishop was probably aware of the fact that litigation between Jews should be subject to Jewish tribunals53 and that Jewish jurisprudence based on the Talmud prescribed harsh measures for offences against parents.54 For Augustine, the legal qualification of the case was clear and he believed that his mission was not only to do justice (effectively, restore the property to Licinius), but also – or even more importantly – to protect the reputation of the church which one of the bishops had put in jeopardy. Fortunately, the case as yet had not been revealed outside the church, given that Licinius, even though he was perfectly entitled to take Victor to the civil court, preferred Augustine’s mediation.55 Even though Augustine wrote See Vismara, La giurisdizione civile, p. 109. See H.  Castritius, “Seid weder den Juden noch den Heiden noch der Gemeinde Gottes ein Aegernis”: Zur sozialen und rechtlichen Stellung der Juden im Spätrömischen Nordafrica”, in Antisemitismus und jüdische Ge­schichte, ed. R. Erb und M.  Schidt, Berlin, 1987, p. 47-67, see p.  61-62. 54  See Rouge, “Escroquerie et brigandage”, p.  183; Kuhn, “Justice Applied”, p.  95. 55  Jean Rougé referred to the constitution promulgated by Honorius and Theodosius in 412 (CTh XVI.2.41), which empowered the bishops to pass judgments in criminal cases against the members of the clergy, and argued that for Licinius it was mandatory that he should apply with his case to an ecclesiastical tribunal, see Rougé, “Escroquerie et brigandage”, p. 180. However, the principle of priuilegium fori which was derived from this law did not refer exclusively to criminal cases (and this case certainly pertains to the domain of civil law as an issue of property rights), but additionally this principle was formulated in the emperors’ decree with the proviso ‘si quidem alibi 52 

53 

94

przemysław nehring

nothing explicit about this, the incriminated bishop must have known well that he was running the risk of excommunication or, if his case were qualified as a forceful invasion of land, even capital punishment.56 In the longer run, it would have been hard to imagine the damage that would have been caused if a Catholic bishop had lost his office by the decision of an ecclesiastical court acting in response to a complaint lodged by a Jew who was wronged by him. Augustine’s explicit recommendation, which appeared to him as the best solution for all parties involved, was the following: Victor should return the contested property to Licinius, with no delay and of his own accord.57 Thus, Licinius would have no need to take any sort of legal action against Victor. Had he done so, his mother would have been interrogated and – as it can be inferred from the second chapter of this letter – might incriminate her son, his wife and their slave girl for some offences against her. Victor, in his turn, would not have to face any more serious sanctions other than restoring the property to Licinius. Finally, Augustine would safeguard the authority of the church, which otherwise would not come unscathed through this predicament. Victor, who would lose the money spent on acquiring the estate which in fact had not belonged to the elderly woman, could thus reclaim the sum if he had already paid (pretium recipere ab eius matre, si datum est). The advice sent to Victor was not limited to urging him to give the property back to Licinius. In the second paragraph of the letter Augustine advised his fellow bishop that he should intervene directly in resolving the evident conflict which haunted the Jewish family and certainly loomed in the background of this awkward situation. The bishop of Hippo recommended that he should launch an investigation and, if the mother were found wronged, impose punishment on the offender. If the son were found guilty, non oportet’ and thus it could not make it impossible for Licinius to appeal for an ordinary civil procedure, see. Cimma, L’episcopalis audientia, p. 95; Vismara, La giurisdizione civile, p. 109; Kuhn, “Justice Applied”, p. 94. 56  CTh 9.10.2: “Si quis per uiolentiam alienum fundum inuaserit, capite puniatur”; cf. Kuhn, “Justice Applied”, p. 94. 57  Ep. 8*.1 (CSEL, 88), p.  41: “Si ergo uera mihi dixit, dignare illi reddere res suas et pretium recipere ab eius matre, si datum est. Quod pretium si forte illa tibi reddere noluerit, nec iste rem suam perdere poterit; necesse est enim ut eam recipiat intercedente iustitia clamantibus legibus”.

misbehaviour of clergy

95

he should be flogged in the presence of his mother. Should the guilt lie with Licinius’ wife, then Licinius himself would be obliged to flog her, the mother being present as well. If the slave girl were to be blamed, then the mother could punish her as she would think fit. Augustine assured Victor that Licinius had agreed to these conditions, including the potential penalty.58 This remark may indicate that the Jew belonged to the class of honestiores who under Roman law could not receive corporal punishment,59 in which case one may surmise that Licinius, having renounced this privilege, was genuinely intent on doing justice to his mother. It may be also supposed that Augustine and Licinius had made an arrangement concerning the settlement of the dispute by Victor’s tribunal, and that the question of flogging remained purely theoretical. If this agreement had indeed taken place, then it would testify to the immense diplomatic skill of Augustine. First, it offered Licinius a means to resolve the family conflict without resorting to a Jewish tribunal, which would have been disadvantageous to him, and it ensured that the case would be settled without interference of anyone who was not directly involved. Also, the scandalous misbehaviour of Victor would not become publicly known. Second, by referring to the judicial authority of his fellow bishop, Augustine certainly intended to appease his wounded ego: even though he explicitly blamed Victor for his ignorance or disrespect of the law in the first part of the letter, in the second he entrusted him with launching the investigation, finding the guilty party and administering punishment. When viewed from a psychological perspective, it would appear that if Victor had been merely obliged to admit his fault, he might have been reluctant to do so. To Augustine it seemed plausible, that Victor would be more willing to follow both pieces of advice, sent to him in one go, namely that he should give back the property, but also adjudicate on the 58  Ep.  8*.2 (CSEL, 88), p.  42: “Unde peto Sanctitatem tuam, si res ita se habet, ut et huic des uerberum disciplinam praesente ipsa matre sua, si eum matri iniuriosum esse cognoueris, quia hoc dixit se libenter pati, aut uxori eius, si ipsa fortassis in culpa est, quia et ipsa potest accipere praesente socru sua, iudicante Veneratione tua, ab ipso marito suo dignam uerberum disciplinam. Nam de ancilla facilis est causa, quia de ipsa potest mater huius multo facilius uindicari”. 59  See Castritius, “Seid weder”, p. 67.

96

przemysław nehring

family conflict which caused him trouble. Finally, also Licinius would have solid grounds for hoping that he would not only regain his misappropriated possessions, but also be reconciled with his mother and severely punish the person guilty of offences against her. His wife’s slave would have been a perfect scapegoat. Nowhere in Augustine’s account do we find any suggestion that in his view Victor had committed a crime. The bishop of Hippo, on the one hand, perfectly assessed the legal import of the case and the interests of the parties involved (based on the documents presented to him and on his legal expertise), while on the other, his psychological insight allowed for a thorough understanding of the motives and attitudes of Victor and Licinius. The letter merely suggests the desirable course of actions and Augustine seems careful to present it as a piece of friendly advice, nevertheless he candidly pointed out that ignoring it would cost Victor dearly. The fact that Licentius was a Jew was, from the judicial point of view, practically irrelevant: it was an ordinary civil case concerning property infringement and all interested parties were subject to the same legal order.60 Nevertheless, it was also critically important for safeguarding the reputation of the church, given that it pitted a Catholic bishop against a Jew who was in an advantageous position – Augustine must have been acutely aware of this while intervening. The case described in ep.  8* illustrates the power of episcopal authority in North Africa in the early fifth century. Bishop Victor felt so powerful or even unpunishable that he dared to flout or at least disregard the civil law concerning property.61 Even if he had not known that he was buying land that in fact did not belong to the seller, he certainly could have verified this later on the 60  P.  Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews. A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism, New York, 2008, p. 314. 61  In depriving Licinius of his lawfully owned property, Victor clearly and consciously contravened the law, but Paul of Cataqua was no better as he avoided paying taxes by means of various sorts of financial manoeuvring (see: ep.  96.2 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  515). Also Antoninus of Fussala, who had to face a number of charges, had been rather disrespectful towards property law in refusing to pay the owners who had sold him their estates (see ep.  20*.6 (CSEL, 88) p.  98: “emebantur aliqua nec pretium reddebatur”) or compelling them to enter into agreements which worked only to his own benefit, see ep. 20*.30 (CSEL, 88) p. 110-111.

misbehaviour of clergy

97

basis of the documents supplied by Licinius. He must have had tremendous practical power, possibly with recourse to violence (for certainly not with any judicial ruling), which enabled him to evict the lawful owner from his property. Finally, as Augustine suggests, Victor might not have paid (at all?) for the acquired land, but acted already as if he had been its lawful owner. In this context, the following suggestion of Augustine appears particularly interesting: the eviction of Licinius could have been exacted as vengeance and orchestrated by the offended mother. Knowing the unimpeachable and powerful position of the local bishop, she might have offered him the contested plots in order to deprive his son of possession or, at the least, scare the life out of Licinius.62 We do not know the outcome of the affair: whether Victor gave back the land and whether he intervened in the feud in Licinius’ family (and, if so, what the ruling was). Nonetheless, it can be said for certain that the strategy proposed by the bishop of Hippo in this commonitorium offered his colleague a chance to deal with the troublesome situation in a way that would do little or no harm to his episcopal authority and, consequently, the authority of the church. Epp.  209 63 to Pope Celestine and 20*64 to Fabiola, a mighty Roman aristocrat, relate with a fair amount of detail the case of financial misconduct of Antoninus, bishop of Fussala, and his two clerical subordinates. Both letters were written at about the same time, in 422 or 423. The weight of the scandal was so immense that Augustine came close to resigning from his office, feeling responsible for having ordained the notorious bishop and for having failed to solve the problems that this regrettable decision caused.65 The case of Antoninus of Fussala is very well known and 62  Ep.  8*.2 (CSEL, 88), p.  42: “Sane cum quaesissem ab illo ne forte aliquam iniuriam matri suae fecerit et hoc modo eam sine aliqua cupiditate possidendi res huius uindicare uoluisti magis hoc ad terrorem huius faciens”. 63  Ep. 209 (CSEL, 57), p. 347-353. 64  Ep. 20* (CSEL, 88), p. 94-112. 65  Ep. 209.10 (CSEL, 57), p.  352: “Me sane, quod confitendum est beatitudini tuae, in isto utrorumque periculo tantus timor et maeror excruciat, ut ab officio cogitem gerendi episcopatus abscedere et me lamentis errori meo con­uenientibus dedere, si per eum, cuius episcopatui per inprudentiam suffragatus sum, uastari ecclesiam dei”.

98

przemysław nehring

has been widely discussed by scholars, especially after the publication of ep. 20* in Divjak’s collection, which provided a meticulous description of this affair.66 Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to briefly remind the reader of the course of those disastrous events. It was probably in late 411 or early 412, after the Conference of Carthage which led to declaring Donatism outlawed, when Augustine decided to erect a separate bishopric in Fussala, a rural area on the outskirts of his diocese, hitherto dominated by the Donatists. He proposed a good candidate, a presbyter who could speak Punic (which was indispensable), but the would-be bishop resigned at the last minute before being ordained. We can only conjecture that a possible reason for this unexpected decision might have been related to the situation in Fussala, where the locals had been hostile towards Catholic clergy: to the designated presbyter it could have seemed too difficult and precarious to take upon himself the daunting task of establishing a new ecclesiastical administration from scratch.67 Augustine nevertheless persisted with his decision and given that he was already in Fussala, waiting for the elderly primate of Numidia who was on his way to take part in the ordination, he decided to promote Antoninus, a monk from his monastery in Hippo, who accompanied Augustine in this journey. Raised in the monastery from his childhood, Antoninus was only twenty years old and held the office of a lector in the church at Hippo.68 Even though he had no experience of leadership 66  See e.g.: W.  Frend, „Fussala, Augustine’s crisis of credibility (Epist. 20*)”, in Les lettres, p. 251-265; S. Lancel, “L’affaire d’Antoninus de Fussala: pays, choses et gens de la Numidie d’Hippone saisis dans la durée d’une procedure d’enquête épiscopale”, in ibidem, p. 267-285; J.E.  Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine, New Haven and London, 1997, p. 154-182; N. McLynn, „Augustine’s Black Sheep: The Case of Antoninus of Fussala”, in Istituzioni, carismi ed esercizio del potere, IV-VI secolo, ed. by G.  Bonamente, R.L.  Testa, Bari, 2010, p.  305-321; Idem, “Administrator: Augustine in His Diocese”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. by M.  Vessey, Malden-Oxford, 2012, p. 310-322. 67  McLynn, “Administrator: Augustine in His Diocese”, p. 319. 68  Ep.  209.3 (CSEL, 57), p. 348-349: “Quod ut fieret, aptum loco illi congruumque requirebam, qui et Punica lingua esset instructus. Et habebam, de quo cogitabam, paratum presbyterum, propter quem ordinandum sanctum senem, qui tunc primatum Numidiae gerebat, de longinquo ut ueniret, rogans litteris impetraui. Quo iam praesente omniumque in re tanta suspensis animis ad horam nos ille, qui mihi paratus uidebatur, omni modo resistendo des-

misbehaviour of clergy

99

and was below the required age, he was fluent in Punic and, undeniably, Augustine had known him well for years, having nurtured him in his own monastery. The inhabitants of Fussala, overawed by the authority of Augustine, did not oppose this nomination.69 Eventually, however, this ill-advised decision triggered a series of lamentable events, both for the community entrusted to Antoninus’ guidance and for Augustine himself. The newly ordained man, who gloated in his power and misused his privileges, began to oppress the faithful in Fussala. He had two accomplices in his misdeeds, whom he ordained himself. Both came from the monastery in Hippo: a presbyter, who was formerly a notarius in the monastery (and was flogged, having been found guilty of immoral conduct with nuns), and a deacon sent by Augustine to Fussala to help the new bishop.70 The defensor ecclesiae, a lay official, who was tituit. Ego autem, qui utique, sicut exitus docuit, differre potius debui quam periculosum praecipitare negotium, dum nolo grauissimum et sanctissimum senem ad nos usque fatigatum sine effectu, propter quem uenerat tam longe, ad propria remeare, obtuli non petentibus quendam adulescentem Antoninum, qui mecum tunc erat, in monasterio quidem a nobis a paruula aetate nutritum sed praeter lectionis officium nullis clericatus gradibus et laboribus notum. At illi miseri, quod futurum fuerat, ignorantes offerenti eum mihi oboedientissime crediderunt. Quid plura? Factum est; esse illis episcopus coepit”. 69  According to the acts of the Council of Carthage of 397 the minimum age expected of a candidate for ordination (without specifying the degree in the hierarchy) was twenty-five; see Breuiarium Hipponense, can. 1b (CCSL, 149), p.  33. Pope Siricius in his letter of 385 addressed to Himerius, the bishop of Tarrago, defined the following requirements of age: a subdeacon should be at least 30 years of age, a deacon – 35, a priest – 40, and a bishop – 50; see Siricius, ep. 1.12-13 (PL, 13), col. 1142-1143. We do not know whether any bishops other than Augustine and the primate of Numidia were taking part in Antoninus’ consecration. If not, he must have been ordained in contravention of the fourth canon of the Council of Nicaea, which stipulated that an episcopal consecration should take place in the presence of at least three bishops. 70  Ep.  20*.5 (CSEL, 88), p. 96-97: “Quam personam ut impleret, congruos sibi homines inquisiuit. Erat in monasterio nostro ex notario meo quidam qui me gemente non bonus euaserat et a praeposito monasterii eo quod inuentus fuerit solus hora importuna cum quibusdam sanctimonialibus loquens, plagis coercitus contemptibilis habebatur. Iste deserto monasterio ad episcopum de quo agimus mox ut se contulit, ab illo presbyter ordinatus est me inconsulto atque nesciente. Nam prius audiui factum quam futurum credere potuissem, etiamsi mihi aliquis cui credendum fuerat indicasset. Tum uero cor meum, cum euersionem per eum quandoque affuturam illius Ecclesiae formidarem,

100

przemysław nehring

employed to protect the local Catholic community from violence and extortion, was also implicated.71 Antoninus faced numerous and serious charges, even though, fortunately for him, the most serious ones of a sexual character were not substantiated.72 He was accused of extortion, plundering and even demolishing other people’s houses to obtain building material. His complicit offenders and he himself acted ruthlessly and had no mercy even for the poorest, including widows, who were granted special protection by the church.73 Even if it was not outright illegal, but certainly reprehensible in Augustine’s view, Antoninus rented a piece of the property from the local church, of which he as a bishop enjoyed the usufruct, and with the money collected over five years he acquired a landed estate for himself.74 The young bishop of Fussala had caused a fair deal of trouble to his diocesans for at least five or even ten years from the moment of his episcopal ordination before the disciplinary measures described in Augustine’s letters were taken. The decisions made by the bishops who were present at the session of the ecclesiastical tribunal at Hippo in 421 were intended, on the one hand, to do justice to the people oppressed by Antoninus, and on the other to safeguard the authority of the church represented by Augustine who had been responsible for promoting him to the episcopacy. The bishop of Fussala was obliged to give back all misappropriated possessions quantus maeror inuaserit credas uelim, quia explicare non possum. Dedi tamen operam occasione comperta eodem ipso episcopo de tali suo presbytero querelas apud me grauissimas depromente, ut illi communio non esset, sed patriae suae unde mihi fuerat datus redderetur. Et factum erat, sed nescio quomodo me rursus inconsulto eum suae coniunctioni amicitiaeque restituit; alium quoque diaconum fecit recto quidem ordine de monasterio sibi datum, sed nisi iam diaconus non apparuit inquietus”. 71  Ibidem, 6, p. 97. 72  Ep. 209.4 (CSEL, 57), p. 349: “In quibus causis cum stuprorum crimina capitalia, quae non ab ipsis, quibus episcopus erat, sed ab aliis quibusdam obiecta fuerant, probari minime potuissent atque ab eis, quae inuidiosissime iactabantur, uideretur esse purgatus  […].” See also Ep.  20*.8 (CSEL, 88), p. 99. 73  Ep. 20*.6 (CSEL, 88), p. 97-98. 74  Ep.  20*.29 (CSEL, 88), p. 110: “Sed ei dederam propter suam sustentationem et eorum qui cum illo erant undum Hipponiensis ecclesiae in eodem Fussalensi territorio constitutum. Hunc locauit et quinquennii totius accepta pensione pretium quo emere posset inuenit”.

misbehaviour of clergy

101

and remain excommunicated until he fulfilled this requirement. Having done this, he would not only be accepted back to the communion, but would also retain his episcopal status, although without the right to return to the former see of his diocese so as not to provoke the inhabitants who were hostile towards him. The latter resolution, however, seemed problematic because Canon 15 of the Council of Nicaea forbade transferring bishops to other episcopal sees. Thus, the bishops present at the meeting presided over by Augustine decided to carve out a part of his diocese (excluding the village of Fussala) and entrust this part to Antoninus. This stratagem would allow him to remain in his diocese, even though not in its first capital. Initially, Antoninus accepted this ruling and within days, using borrowed money (!), returned all the possessions which he had misappropriated.75 Nevertheless, when the issue appeared to have been resolved (the synod in Carthage confirmed the decisions taken in Hippo and the new bishop for Fussala was elected), Antoninus appealed to Aurelius, the primate of Numidia, on the very day when his successor was supposed to be consecrated. Even though according to ecclesiastical law the time for appealing had elapsed, the primate heard his case and proposed a conciliatory solution which stated that Antoninus was to be given jurisdiction over eight rural parishes in the vicinity. The young bishop then raised the stakes and demanded that another village be given to him, namely Thogonoetum which bordered with Fussala.76 The local colons were staunchly opposed to having Antoninus as their bishop and appealed to the owner of the estate and to Augustine, threatening that if this were the case, they would migrate from there.77 Antoninus decided to disregard the decisions of the African bishops and went to Rome to appeal to pope Bonifatius. In order to be admitted for an audience he used an endorsement letter which he had received from the primate of Numidia for a completely different occasion.78 The pope heard his case obligingly and decreed that a tribunal should be set up in Tegulata, a village near Fussala, which would adjudi75  76  77  78 

Ibidem, Ibidem, Ibidem, Ibidem,

8, p. 98. 9, p. 99-100. 10, p. 100. 11, p. 100-101.

102

przemysław nehring

cate on his reestablishment as the local bishop. The papal legates who came to attend the tribunal session found out that Antoninus had misrepresented his case in Rome and that the Numidian bishops were right in their decisions. This did not put an end to the issue either, for Antoninus demanded that the primate of Numidia should come to Fussala instead of giving credence to what was reported to him. He also declared that if the local community of Fussala were unwilling to accept him, then he would acquiesce and accept the eight parishes offered to him, however, with the addition of Thogonoetum. Aurelius again, even if he was not obliged to do so, not only agreed to these claims, but offered him five additional parishes, hoping that this would bring the issue to an end.79 Antoninus in his turn, seeing the attitude of the primate who appeared to favour him, the benefits of his contacts in Rome and the hesitancy of Augustine, decided to play for high stakes and, with recourse to the ecclesiastical law which forbade bishops to be transferred elsewhere from their sees, declared that he would either remain the bishop of Fussala or renounce his episcopal status altogether.80 The outcome of the affair is unknown. The case of Antoninus is of particular interest on many accounts for the study of the administrative practices of the institutional church in Africa at the time of Augustine. Epp.  209 and 20* offer a wealth of information on the position of ecclesiastical leaders in local communities, the role of the provincial primate in resolving conflicts in the dioceses under his jurisdiction and the relations between the African churches and the bishop of Rome. The actions of the ecclesiastical institutions described by Augustine were aimed at bringing Antoninus to heel and resolving the tension between him and at least some of his diocesans. In studying them one has to notice that at no instance in the course of events had there been any indication that the bishops seriously considered depriving him of his episcopal status. The decisions of all tribunals and courts of appeal did not become final Ibidem, 12-13, p. 101-102. Ep.  209.7 (CSEL, 57), p.  350-351: “Clamat: aut in mea cathedra sedere debui aut episcopus esse non debui, quasi nunc sedeat nisi in sua. Propter hoc enim loca illa eidem dimissa atque permissa sunt, in quibus et prius episcopus erat, ne in alienam cathedram contra statuta partum translatus inlicite diceretur”. 79 

80 

misbehaviour of clergy

103

for the sole reason that they were not fully accepted by Antoninus himself. First, he had the decision of the tribunal in Hippo adjourned for several months until the time when the provincial council was convened. Later he appealed against this decision to the primate of Numidia, even though it was filed several months after the designated date. He also managed to persuade the pope to convoke a special tribunal which would adjudicate on his case. Finally, when the decision of this tribunal, presided by papal legates, turned out to be disadvantageous for him, he demanded the presence of the Numidian primate in Fussala who would investigate the case locally, a demand which was also granted. On the one hand, the young bishop was determined in his resolve to protect his reputation and retain the diocese he had built himself. On the other, the ecclesiastical institutions engaged in deciding on disciplinary measures were astoundingly lenient given the weight of the charges brought against him, which can be seen in their accepting his appeals which he lodged after the designated time, often without legal justification.81 These two aspects suggest that the radical views on Antoninus held by Augustine should be taken with a pinch of salt. Despite adverse conditions, Antoninus managed to achieve a strong position in his diocese and in the whole province.82 He must have been trusted by the primate of Numidia, also shortly before the outbreak of the affair, which is best illustrated by the fact that he received from Aurelius an endorsement letter addressed to the bishop of Rome where he was supposed to go on an important mission to intercede at the papal court on behalf of the people imprisoned by the vicarius of Africa (most probably Celer).83 In Fussala, a minor rural settlement dominated by the Donatists, he managed to build institutional Catholic church structures: within a few years his diocese had the clergy recruited mostly, as we may presume, from the ranks of former Donatist clergymen, a clerk was employed as the defensor ecclesiae, and a night watch composed of the locals. He also had a sizeable edifice established See Merdinger, Rome and the African, p. 170. See P. Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle. Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 ad, Princeton, 2012, p.  338; McLynn, “Administrator: Augustine in His Diocese”, p. 318. 83  See Lancel, “L’affaire d’Antoninus”, p. 279-280. 81 

82 

104

przemysław nehring

to serve his purposes, which must have been viewed as a manifest sign not only of his position as the local bishop, but also of the Catholic Church in the region. Certainly, he must have been building and maintaining his position by accumulating wealth and even if he was doing so as an individual, he was still the Catholic bishop of Fussala. This in itself was not exceptional as the two competing churches in strife-torn Africa tended to prove their superiority over the other group with the volume of their possessions and the magnificence of their ecclesiastical buildings.84 Antonius’ activity must have antagonised the wealthiest and the most influential inhabitants of the Fussala region. There can be no doubt that some of them favoured the Catholic Church, and Augustine certainly could have relied on them in establishing the diocese,85 but there also must have been others who had supported the Donatists until not long before. They must have regarded the upstart protégé of Augustine with suspicion or, at the very least, with reserve, especially as Antoninus before his nomination had no experience in serving in public roles, nor had he had any significant property. There is no reason to doubt that the bishop of Fussala did engage in various suspicious actions, both against the law and against good manners, but it has to be emphasized that he must have adopted a decided and forceful approach in his contacts with the local landowners in order to stand his ground.86 In his discussion of the reproachable conduct of Antoninus, Augustine seems to turn a blind eye to the circumstances mentioned above: none of these would make Antoninus’ faults appear less destructive to him, nor would it affect his intention to provide the addressees of his letters with an unequivocally negative portrait of the bishop of Fussala. However, we know for certain that he was capable of finding excuses for various financial misdeeds of the clergy, which can best be illustrated in his handling of the so-called “Januarius’ affair” described in the sermons 355 and 356. On that occasion he accepted indiscriminately the claims of his subdeacons, deacons, and presbyters whose conduct regard-

84  85  86 

See Brown, Through the Eye, p. 334. See Frend, “Fussala, Augustine’s crisis”, p. 253. See McLynn, “Administrator: Augustine in His Dioecese”, p. 320.

misbehaviour of clergy

105

ing property rightly seemed reproachable.87 Apart from the case of Januarius itself, in all other cases he took the side of the clergymen rather than their accusers. In the case of Antoninus, he adopted a completely different approach. The young bishop had betrayed his trust both by relinquishing the monastic way of life and by undermining his personal authority: he had questioned the ruling of the tribunal in Hippo and persisted in rejecting all attempts at reaching a compromise. Augustine’s overriding concern was therefore to thwart Antoninus in his attempts to secure the support of pope Celestine and Fabiola. He staked all his authority on preventing Antoninus from being reinstituted in his former see, just as he had done previously to have him installed in Fussala. Unfortunately we do not know Antoninus’ account of the matter which he presented to the two subsequent popes, to Fabiola and to the primate of Numidia in the series of his appeals against the unfavourable decisions of African bishops. He might have explained his tribulations as a result of a personal conflict with Augustine, who not only failed to offer him enough support in exercising his episcopal power in such adverse conditions, but also, for some unknown reason, initiated a smear campaign against him to blemish his reputation in the eyes of his diocesans and other African bishops. Augustine’s letters to Celestine and Fabiola were intended to portray Antoninus in the worst possible light, but taking a closer look at them may reveal some insights into the version of the story which could be persuasively disseminated by the incriminated bishop. First, the most serious charges brought against him were not substantiated and even if his management of finances could have aroused suspicions, he compensated those who felt that they suffered because of his actions. Second, Antoninus could count on the support of some of his clergy and the ordinary people of Fussala. It is hard to believe that it was otherwise, considering the fact that he insisted that the episcopal tribunal in Tegulata, formed in accordance with the request of the pope, should hear the testimony of a presbyter who would speak on behalf of the clergy and the townsfolk of Fussala. When the latter, much to his discomfiture, made matters worse by supporting his accusers, he 87 

See Nehring, “Disposal of Private” (forthcoming).

106

przemysław nehring

demanded that the primate should come in person to the town and listen to the inhabitants on the spot.88 Surely, he would not have insisted so forcefully if he had not believed that he could muster a certain number of supporters from among his diocesans. Third, the accusations levelled at him by the inhabitants of Thogonoetum may well have been unfounded, given that they were excommunicated by the primate of Numidia for slander.89 Also, he might have been defending himself by asserting his accomplishments in building and maintaining the Catholic presence in Fussala and having put a stop to the terror inflicted on the Catholic clergy by the Donatists. Financial misdeeds, such as extortion, tax evasion, or even plunder and robbery, feature widely in Augustine’s correspondence as the habit of the bishops who took advantage of their superior and privileged social position. But it has to be said that in most cases the reprehensible actions of the bishops extended not only their own material wealth, but also the wealth of the institutional church which they represented. We cannot be sure whether Victor acquired Licinius’ property as an individual or on behalf of the church. The land appropriated by Paul of Cataqua remained at the disposal of the local church after his death. Antoninus in his turn was fiercely determined to return to Fussala where he had built a splendid episcopal residence, taken over by his successor chosen by the provincial synod. Augustine knew all too well that the blame for the instances of financial misconduct of his fellow 88  Ep.  20*.13 (CSEL, 88), p. 101-102: “Tum petiuit episcopus Antoninus, ut ingrederetur presbyter quem miserant Fussalenses; quo ingresso recitatae sunt litterae presbyterorum et Fussalensium. Quas ubi uidit aduersum se miserabilium querelarum esse plenissimas, propter quas eum episcopum recipere modis omnibus recusarent quo iuste recte[que] caruissent, ab eis missas esse non credidit et rogauit sanctum senem, ut ad loca ipsa cum aliquibus e numero episcoporum qui ei concessi fuerant dignaretur ipse accedere et presbyterorum ac populi animos explorare sub illa conditione ut, si Fussalenses de illo suscipiendo referrent, contra uoluntatem acciperet plebem Thogonoetensem illis octo additam plebibus quas antea iam tenebat, a me etiam peteret sanctus senex, ut alias de eis quinque, quas illi citra acta promiseram ut Fussalensibus non esset infestus, etiam gestis promittendo firmarem”. 89  Ibidem, 20: “Sed ad Fussalam per Thogonoetum fuerat transeundum me multum rogante ut eis communionem redderet, quia cum aduersus episcopum Antoninum apud eum grauiter tumultuarentur, excommunicauerat eos; et uehementer timebam ne per tristitiam rusticanam penitus interirent”.

misbehaviour of clergy

107

bishops would most probably fall on the institutional church, not only in the view of those who suffered, but also in the eyes of all who might have learned of all these practices. Thus, all his relevant interventions, admonishments, and disciplinary measures were intended not only to repair the damage caused by reprobate bishops, but also to safeguard the reputation of the church as the institution responsible for placing those men in positions of authority. In none of the described cases did Augustine make an explicit remark concerning the possibility of depriving any of the incriminated bishops of their office, not even in the case of Antoninus, who was to administer a small diocese carved out of his former one. It is worth remembering that in his case the penalty of excommunication was only temporary and was revoked as soon as the young bishop had paid off all his financial obligations. Other African bishops mentioned in the context of Antoninus’ affair – Priscus, Victor,90 and Laurentius, whose offences are left unspecified – faced other punishments such as the limitation of communion with other bishops or a moratorium preventing further promotion in the ranks of the church hierarchy. Nevertheless, none of them was deprived of the ability to exercise their episcopal office.91

It is difficult to argue whether this particular Victor was the addressee of ep.  8*, for at that time this name was very common among African bishops. A.  Mandouze in his prosopography of Christian Africa listed 46 bishops of this name, see Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, vol.  1 Afrique (303-533), ed. by A.  Mandouze, Paris, 1982, p. 1150-1185. 91  Ep.  209.8 (CSEL, 57), p.  351: “Existunt exempla ipsa sede apostolica iudicante uel aliorum iudicata firmante quosdam pro culpis quibusdam nec episcopali spoliatos honore nec relictos omnimodis inpunitos. Quae ut a nostris temporibus remotissima non requiram, recentia memorabo. Clamet Priscus, prouinciae Caesariensis episcopus: aut ad primatum locus sicut cete­ ris et mihi patere debuit aut episcopatus mihi remanere non debuit. Clamet alius eiusdem prouinciae Victor episcopus, cui relicto in eadem poena, in qua etiam Priscus fuit, nusquam nisi in dioecesi eius ab aliquo communicatur episcopo, clamet, inquam: aut ubique communicare debui aut etiam in meis locis communicare non debui. Clamet tertius eiusdem prouinciae Laurentius episcopus et prorsus huius uocibus clamet: aut in cathedra, cui ordinatussum, sedere debui aut episcopus esse non debui”. 90 

108

przemysław nehring

4. Turning to violence Ep.  9*, sent to Alypius c.  427, discusses a crime committed by some clergymen who had beaten a member of the municipal administration (curialis). The victimized man was probably also a lawyer and his social position guaranteed him personal immunity. Augustine did not specify the names of those involved, but described this act against the imperial law as private retribution against the curialis for having allegedly abducted and abused a woman who had professed chastity.92 Seeking justice and punishment for the perpetrators, the assaulted lawyer appealed to the pope. The bishop of Rome agreed with his arguments and commanded that the case should be adjudicated by an episcopal tribunal. One of the bishops to sit on the jury was Augustine’s best friend Alypius, the bishop of Thagasta and an experienced lawyer. This case is of particular interest on account of the social standing of the parties involved, the nature of the crime, and the disciplinary procedures instituted by the pope: all these factors led to a clash of two legal orders, one of the church and the other of the state, which made it extremely difficult to appraise the situation and decide on where the guilt lay, what sort of offence should be punished, and how the punishment should be meted out. Writing in response to Alypius’ commonitorium (a request for consultation), Augustine staunchly defended the inculpated clergymen and asserted that the battering received by the privileged man was not only a most lenient punishment for his offences, but indeed necessary and the only possible action in the given circumstances. Since the assaulted man enjoyed the privilege of personal immunity granted by imperial law, then consequently all aspects of the case should be taken into consideration. First, sexual assaults, especially if aggravated with abduction, were subject to harsh measures according to secular law, so even a severe flogging 92  Ep.  9*.1 (CSEL, 88), p.  43: “Professam sanctimonialem ad ludibrium stupri de patria duxerat”. Primmer suggested that a possible conjecture in reading this phrase might be ‘de patris abduxerat’ whereby the noun signifying ‘a household’ had been elided. The verb ‘abducere’ has clear criminal connotations and according to the scholar it better conveys the abduction of a woman who professed continence, see: Primmer, “Nachlese zur Textgestaltung”, p. 64.

misbehaviour of clergy

109

would have been much less cruel than the punishment administered by secular tribunals for such offences. According to the constitution ad populum of Constantine promulgated most probably in 326, a man found guilty of having abducted a girl without any prior consent of her parents concerning her marriage (even if the girl herself did not oppose it) deserved capital punishment. Also any accomplices in this sort of crime would have been subject to the same and molten lead would have been poured down their throats. The culprit had no right of appeal. With regard to the sort of abduction described in ep.  9* the imperial legislation provided even harsher measures. The constitution of Constantius of 354 sanctioned this crime with the capital penalty, which could not be mitigated by the subsequent consent for marriage,93 while the one of Jovian of 364 imposed a death sentence, not only on the abductor, but on everyone who dared to marry a virgin or a widow.94 Second, in appealing to the pope, the ill-treated lawyer must have concealed his fault: untruthful appeals, according to imperial law, were not only rejected, but also entailed punishment for the deceit.95 Should the case have been considered solely within the purview of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction (i.e. the episcopal tribunal established by the pope), then the potential sanctions would have been ineffective for the lack of appropriate procedures and sanctions which would guarantee a proper punishment for abduction and rape. The only possible punitive measure was excommunication, which would be meaningless for a non-Catholic or, for that matter, a non-Christian. Nor was it possible for an ecclesiastical tribunal to have the culprits imprisoned or deprived of their social privileges. Augustine was unsurprised by the act of the clergymen who caught the abductor and administered what was in his view a most lenient punishment. Moreover, he even complained that in the cases subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction the imperial law could not be applied, with all its severity. In his letter to Alypius, the bishop of Hippo described the crime and attitude of the curialis as blatantly against the most basic code of conduct laid down in the church and drew a com93  94  95 

CTh IX.25.1= Breu. 9.20.1. CTh IX.25.2= Breu. 9.20.2. C.J. I,22,5.

110

przemysław nehring

parison with less reprehensible, but still scandalous dancing in churches:96 if clergymen were supposed to react harshly against such lesser infringements, then a fortiori they should be expected to punish more severe offences. Following this interpretation, the Church appeared as the main aggrieved party, because an assault and abduction of a professed celibate woman was an insult to the institution which protected such women with great care. Considering the severity of secular law on the subject described in ep. 9*, one may wonder why a high-ranking person, most probably a professional lawyer, would have been so rash to appeal to the pope and ask for his intervention in a case which carried a death sentence. Either his fault was not evident (at least in his view), or he was convinced that it could be concealed by taking the clergymen to court, which seems to be much less plausible. It would have been naïve (or even foolish for a lawyer) to assume that the clergymen forced to vindicate themselves instead at an ecclesiastical tribunal (in the presence of Alypius, bishop and lawyer) would fail to defend themselves by pointing to the offences committed by the curialis, especially as they faced prosecution for violating his personal immunity. In Augustine’s time, lynching in North Africa was far from exceptional: more or less organized groups of hard-line Christians of low social standing opposed the manners of the higher classes which they saw as too lax. Especially notorious were the so-called circumceliones, who terrorized the wealthy and well born of the countryside, roaming from one village to another. It is hard to say with any precision who they were, where they came from, and to what sort of ideology they adhered. They were described as paramilitary Donatist raiders or a semi-revolutionary movement opposing the exploitation of agricultural workers.97 All ancient sources on circumceliones are included in Catholic writings and 96  Despite the fact that we do not know of any ecclesiastical law which would explicitly forbid dancing in churches, we may infer from canon 53 of the Council of Laodicea, which stipulated that Christians should refrain from dancing even at weddings, that the practice of dancing in churches must have been viewed as something even more reprehensible, see Kuhn, “Justice Applied”, p.  99-100. 97  A.D.  Fitzgerald, “Circumcellions”, in Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia, ed. by A.D.  Fitzgerald, Cambridge 1999, p. 193-194.

misbehaviour of clergy

111

consequently their violent behaviour is portrayed in a way to lay the blame at the door of the Donatists. The account of ep. 9* may suggest, however, that such practices were not exclusively characteristic of the Donatists. Although referring to the clerics who had beaten a curialis as ‘Catholic circumceliones’ seems to be a rather sensational comparison,98 given the nature and the circumstances of their act, it may not have been a mere oxymoron. The bishop of Hippo, so intent on protecting the reputation of the Catholic Church in Africa, could have been aware of this, and was determined to justify this undeniably violent act, so reminiscent of the notoriety of the Donatist raiders, whose behaviour he vehemently denounced in his other writings. Two other letters illustrate that the scandalous misdemeanours of clergy were used as arguments in the Catholic-Donatist polemic. Ep.  208,99 sent c.  423, was addressed to the virgin Felicia, who had recently converted from Donatism. Augustine reminded the woman, scandalized by some clergymen, that the Church is united in Christ and that this unity cannot be disrupted by the bad example shown by some members of clergy. If such accusations were raised by heretics, Augustine automatically regarded them as an element of hostile propaganda, and recommended that they should be completely ignored. Ep.  251,100 written at some point during his episcopacy, was sent to Pancarius, a layman and landowner in Germanicia. The bishop asked the addressee to protect the house of the presbyter Secundinus and the local church, which was embattled by the populace outraged by some unspecified misbehaviour of the clergyman. In Augustine’s view the crucial point in judging the case of the presbyter was to find out who made the accusation: the Catholics or the heretics. 5. Conclusions The discussed cases of disciplinary measures directed against the misdemeanours of clergy, which are described in Augustine’s 98  See L.  Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, Berkeley, 2010, p. 191-192. 99  Ep. 208 (CSEL, 57), p. 342-347. 100  Ep. 251 (CSEL, 57), p. 599-600.

112

przemysław nehring

correspondence, have several things in common. Firstly, all of the cases are dealt with by Augustine only after they had come into the limelight: they had already caused outrage or could potentially scandalize the faithful. Secondly, in Augustine’s view, the most important offended party is always the Church, both as a local community and as an institution. Thirdly, the cases of moral misbehaviour of bishops described in letters illustrate a sort of corporation-like solidarity between the high-ranking church officials. When any of their misdemeanours became known, Augustine and other bishops reacted in such a way as not only to redress grievances, but also – or even more importantly – to safeguard the jeopardized authority of the church. Nowhere in Augustine’s correspondence do we find any intimation that any incriminated bishop had been shorn of his episcopal status in a permanent and unconditional manner. Fourthly, Augustine was almost never too ready to believe the accusers. He listened to the accused who sought vindication and was inclined to accept their explanations on trust. He was convinced that these accusations may have been a weapon in the propaganda war against the Catholics or have resulted from personal conflicts and rancour. Fifthly, he was well versed in the imperial legislation and able to evaluate the misdeeds and the respective sanctions. Nevertheless, he was aware of the advantages and limitations of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in judging the cases filed against clergymen. Sixthly, Augustine believed that most of the scandalous situations could have been avoided if the clergy had held fast to the principles of monastic life: his primary expectation of the personae regularis integritas as the essential condition for prospective members of the clergy, which he formulated in his early years as a bishop, should be seen, in my opinion, in this particular context. Seventhly, one can observe that the personal authority of Augustine was not always as strong as could be expected: clergymen who were expelled or excommunicated on the strength of his decision (or a decision which he endorsed), had recourse to synods or looked for support to Rome.101

101  P.  Allen, B.  Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410-590 ce): A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Leiden; Boston, 2013, p. 181-186.

Neoplatonism in Augustine’s Letters* Mateusz Stróżyński (Poznań) 1. Augustine, Philosophy, and the Letters. The purpose of this chapter is to give an overall account of the presence of Neoplatonism throughout the whole corpus of Augustine’s letters, without going into very much detail and pursuing particular threads (this would go well beyond the scope of the present contribution). What  I think is the main advantage of such an enterprise (apart from the fact that it has not been done yet) is that, by virtue of it, we can trace the evolution of Augustine’s mind, at least to a certain degree. Robert B. Eno rightly calls the corpus of Augustine’s Letters “a vast treasure trove of his thought and feelings”.2 And yet, in the section on “Controversies” appearing in the Letters, Eno enumerates: (1) apologetics against Paganism, (2) Donatist, (3) Pelagian, (4) Arian controversies, and (5) the controversy about the origin of the soul. Eno does not even mention many of important ideas and pursuits of Augustine, which are quite often reflected in his letters. 3 Most of those topics we would consider to be “theological” rather than “philosophical”, but this distinction is obviously anachronistic and most probably would not be understood at all by Augustine himself, however it sometimes seems necessary to us. Many Augustinian scholars have commented on this distinc*  The author of this article was supported by a grant of the Polish National Science Centre (2012/05/B/HS2/04106). 2  R.B.  Eno, “Epistulae”, in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. by A. Fitzgerald et  al., Grand Rapids, 1999, p.  298-310, quotation on p. 305. 3  Ibidem, p. 310.

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 113-148 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113888

114

mateusz stróżyński

tion and the bishop of Hippo’s understanding of philosophy.4 In a bit similar vein, Christopher Stead claims that in antiquity philosophy was understood too widely and that in contemporary terms most of ancient Christian philosophy would be simply theology.5 At the same time, he seems to make an exception for Augustine who proves to be not a theologian, but “by far the ablest philosopher of late antiquity”.6 For John  M. Rist Augustine is surely a philosopher.7 He emphasizes, however, that for Augustine faith is a foundation of philosophical enquiry, so there is no point in contrasting them with each other.8 Roland Teske wrote that Augustine understood philosophy in two ways. First, as a way of life, a pursuit of happiness, a search for wisdom. Second, as knowledge of the truth about the soul and God. Teske believes that for the bishop of Hippo philosophy was an elitist path within Christianity, but the knowledge it provided was “identical with the mysteries of the Christian faith”.9 The author also contends that Augustine’s thought fulfils three conditions, pointed out by Fulbert Cayré, which make it possible to call it philosophy: (1) it is a rational enquiry going beyond simple faith, (2) its domain covers the most important philosophical problems, and (3) its intellectual solutions make a coherent whole.10 Recently, in an interesting article, Frederick van Fleteren has argued that Augustine distinguished between philosophi (actual philosophers, divided into schools, in vain seeking for the truth and happiness) and philosophia (love of the divine Truth).11 The See e.g. H.-I. Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, Paris, 1958, p. 638-643; A. Mandouze, Saint Augustin, l’aventure de la raison et de la grâce, Paris, 1968, p. 246-288; F. Cayré, Initiation à la philosophie de saint Augustin, Paris, 1947, p. 1-60. 5  C.  Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, Cambridge, 1994, p. 79-93. 6  Ibidem, p. 219. 7  J.M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, Cambridge, 1994, p. 5-10. 8  Idem, “Faith and reason”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. by E. Stump, N. Kretzmann, Cambridge, 2005, p. 26-39, see esp. p. 37-38. 9  R.  Teske, To Know God and the Soul: Essays on the Thought of Saint Augustine, Washington, 2008, p. 4-13. Quote on p. 10. 10  Ibidem, p. 16-18. 11  F.  van Fleteren, “Augustine and Philosophy”, Augustinian Studies 41,1  (2010), p.  255-274, see p.  258. Madec writes in his analysis of ep.  120 that philosophia “est pour lui un mot noble, charge de sens affectif: c’est 4 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

115

latter cannot be separated from Christianity, since Christianity is vera philosophia.12 Fleteren proposes three approaches to “philosophy” in Augustine: (1) Augustine is purely a theologian, (2) Augustine is a Christian thinker acquainted with philosophy, and (3) Augustine possesses a philosophy not only distinct, but actually separate from theology. He concludes: “All of them think of philosophy as an entity, as something distinct from the Bible. This is a perspective Augustine would not have understood, let alone appropriated.”13 Apart from his understanding of philosophy as such, another crucial issue in Augustine’s thought is its evolution, closely connected to his assimilation of Neoplatonism. It is still to some extent debated or negotiated among scholars, since Prosper Alfaric’s famous (now almost hundred years old) thesis that Augustine in 386 converted to Neoplatonism as a philosophical school and only later to Christian religion.14 The essential point in this debate was Pierre Courcelle’s study which demonstrated that Augustine in Milan actually converted to a deeply Neoplatonic version of Christianity, influenced by Ambrose of Milan and the circle of Milanese Christian intellectuals.15 Eugene Kevane wrote almost thirty years ago that the controversy is over,16 but it seems that the debate on the relationship between Christianity and Neoplatonism throughout Augustine’s life is not concluded. Some time ago, Robert Crouse claimed that the basic problem still remains open.17 For instance, Colin Starnes l’amour de la Sagesse… et la Sagesse, pour lui, est le Christ” (G.  Madec, “Pour l’amour de l’intelligence (Augustin, Lettre 120, à Consentius). Foi – Raison – Intelligence”, in Augustinus Afer. Actes du colloque international Alger-Annaba, 1-7 avril 2001. Saint Augustin: africanité et universalité, ed. by P.-Y.  Fux, J.-M. Roessli, O.  Wermelinger (Paradosis, 45, 1-2), Fribourg, 2003, p. 237-241, on p. 239). 12  Ibidem, p. 258. 13  Ibidem, p. 273. 14  P.  Alfaric, L’évolution intellectuelle de saint Augustin, Paris, 1918. 15  P.  Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin, Paris, 1968, e.g. p. 51-56, 93-153, 211-221. 16  E.  Kevane, “Christian Philosophy: the Intellectual Side of Augustine’s Conversion”, Augustinian Studies, 17 (1986), p. 49-83. 17  R.  Crouse, “Paucis mutatis verbis: St  Augustine’s Platonism”, in Augustine and His Critics: Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner, ed. by R. Dodaro,

116

mateusz stróżyński

consistently criticizes Courcelle and other scholars for claiming that Augustine ever attempted at a creative synthesis of Neoplatonism and Christianity. Not only does Starnes emphasize a difference between those two systems of thought, but is convinced about “the absolute and uncompromising nature of this difference”.18 This brief study of Neoplatonism in Augustine’s Letters may provide us with another perspective on the evolution of Augustine’s mind throughout his life, by showing how Neoplatonic ideas make their appearance in the corpus of the Letters and how they interact with Christian faith. Of course, students of Augustine’s philosophy have used, to a greater or lesser extent, his letters as a source. I  want to give but few examples to illustrate how differently it may be done. Robert  J. O’Connell in 1987 published a book The Origin of the Soul in St Augustine’s Later Works,19 which uses Augustine’s Letters in a very profound and detailed manner.20 O’Connell is not satisfied with using the, more or less established, chronology of Augustine’s main treatises or commentaries, but he eagerly reads his letters, looking for often omitted subtleties and hints, which may throw more light on Augustine’s long term hesitation about the origin of the soul. There are several letters (e.g. epp.  120,  137,  143,  164,  190), which O’Connell analyzes in detail, dealing with their language, rhetoric or the structure of argument, but quite often also the personality of the addressee, his relationship with Augustine and its impact on the expression of ideas. Maybe the most vivid example of this aspect of O’Connell’s methodology is his analysis of ep.  166 to Jerome.21 He reads it in the context of the whole correspondence between the two Saints and points out how even Augustine’s wording is shaped by his previous, “stormy” encounters with “the old lion” of Bethlehem (as G.  Lawless, London – New York, 2000, p. 37-50, esp. p. 37. 18  C.  Starnes, “The Ninth Book of the Confessions”, in Augustine: from Rhetor to Theologian, ed. by J. McWilliam, Waterloo, 1992, p. 55. 19  R.J.  O’Connell, The Origin of the Soul in St Augustine’s Later Works, New York, 1987. 20  In contrast to his St Augustine’s Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391, Cambridge, MA, 1968, where we find only two references to the Letters (to ep. 18, on p. 132 and to ep. 7, on p. 191). 21  Ibidem, p. 150-167.

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

117

O’Connell likes to call Jerome). Therefore, whether we agree with O’Connell’s conclusions or not, it is obvious that his book would not exist without an in depth reading of the Letters, forming a significant part of his argument. Another example is John  M. Rist’s Augustine: The Ancient Thought Baptized, published several years after O’Connell’s book (and quite sympathetic to his methodology and views). Rist’s work is an attempt to give an overall account of Augustine’s philosophy, especially in terms of the relationship between Platonism and Christianity. He deals with selected clusters of ideas, present in Augustine’s thought, and when he gives references to the bishop’s works, we can often find there various letters, along with dialogues, treatises or commentaries. There are three ways in which Rist refers to the Letters. Sometimes those references seem almost like an “encrustation”22 of the main argument. Second, Rist treats the Letters as just an important source for understanding Augustine’s thought, when he shows where in the bishop of Hippo’s works certain views can be found. For instance, his early belief in pre-existence is supported not only by invoking classical early dialogues such as Contra Academicos, Soliloquia or De quantitate animae, but also by ep. 7 to Nebridius.23 Augustine’s view that many Christian truths can be discovered by reason alone is supported by Rist with a reference to ep.  118 to Dioscorus24 and his understanding of the unity of the human person leads him to quote ep.  137 to Volusianus.25 Ep.  166 is referred to when Rist wants to demonstrate Augustine’s position on the nature of the soul and its relationship with the body.26

When he writes about Augustine’s attitude to pictures in general, he mentions his ep.  91.5 (Rist, Augustine, p.  32). The subject of happiness is introduced by the reference to ep. 118.13 (ibidem, p.  48). The idea that grace restores free will instead of annihilating it, is showed through ep.  157.2. Or, Augustine’s view of the “mystery” of our identity is illustrated by his statement that even if we can know our past to some degree, we cannot know at all, how we will behave tomorrow (ep. 130.4, ibidem, p. 121). 23  Ibidem, p. 50. 24  Ibidem, p. 62. 25  Ibidem, p. 94 and 100. 26  Ibidem, p. 96 and 108. Also ep. 140 with its phrase “dulce consortium” (p. 111). 22 

118

mateusz stróżyński

The third mode of using the Letters is more similar to O’Connell’s, but, of course, Rist does not go into so much detail, given the purpose of his book. However, when he studies an important, late “theory of the ‘double life’” of the soul 27 (our vita propria, in which we are responsible for our particular sins, and our vita communis “in Adam”, which makes us responsible for the original sin), he selects several letters to read them in more detail, trying to show the development of the idea.28 On the other hand, there are also important philosophical contributions, concerning Augustine’s Neoplatonism and focused on the evolution of his thought, which make very little use of the Letters. In an excellent book by Phillip Cary – Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist – we find the Letters only as “encrustations” or “ornaments”, and very rarely. The three-tiered hierarchy of being is supported by an elegant, early formula from ep. 1829 and the Plotinian notion of “integral omnipresence” in Augustine is mentioned along with references to ep. 137. 30 But those are only mentioned in the footnotes. It is similar in Brian Dobell’s book Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion: Journey from Platonism to Christianity. When the author mentions the early idea of the flight from the senses, ep. 3 to Nebridius is mentioned, along with other works, 31 or ep.  137 is quoted as a “watershed”, marking the beginning of the new views of Augustine on the unity of the body and the soul. 32 Another example of the use of a letter as a source in terms of chronology is when Dobell refers to ep. 101, because there Augustine writes about finishing his De musica. 33 Ibidem, p. 121-129. E.g. he states that while in conf. the soul is depicted as having fallen into the body, in the later ep.  98 to Boniface Augustine presents a different theory: our pre-fall “membership” not only in Adam’s soul, but also in his body (ibidem, p.  111-112). Then he presents ep.  143 to Marcellinus with its view on Adam’s “animal” and “spiritual” body (p.  114). Rist also traces the key phrase “vita propria” in the Letters (epp. 98, 190, 194 and 217). 29  P.  Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self. The Legacy of a Christian Platonist, New York, 2000, p. 184, n. 2. 30  Ibidem, p. 187-188, n. 30. 31  B.  Dobell, Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion: the Journey from Platonism to Christianity, Cambridge, 2009, p. 129. 32  Ibidem, p. 77. 33  Ibidem, p. 200. 27 

28 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

119

So it is not true that there can be no good book about Augustine’s philosophy and its development, without a serious reading of the corpus of the Letters, but certainly the corpus gives us very interesting and important clues about the development of Augustine’s thought. Unfortunately, despite the fact that scholars, writing about Neoplatonism in Augustine, have used and will use the Letters there is still no article attempting to show how this theme is present throughout the whole corpus. 34 Another, more ambitious project would be to show how Neoplatonic ideas function within particular letters or with regard to particular addressees in various periods of Augustine’s life. A  still broader study would be needed to demonstrate the links between the Letters and other Augustine’s works throughout his life. However, my purpose here is more modest, even though, as I try to argue, important: to present a survey of Neoplatonic ideas in the corpus of the Letters. Such a survey is much easier with the help of the newly created Scrinium Augustini, a tool making it possible to search through the corpus of the Letters. 35 For the sake of clarity, I  decided to divide Neoplatonic ideas in the Letters into several clusters. According to Teske, the core of Augustine’s philosophy contains ideas about incorporeal beings, God and the soul, and the concept of a timeless reality (eternity). 36 I want, however, to propose a view on a still broader set of ideas. There are, of course, contributions concerning particular letters or a set of letters to the same addressee, e.g.: M.  de Gonzague, “Un correspondant de saint Augustin: Nebridius”, in Augustinus Magister, vol.  1, Paris, 1954, p. 93-99; R.J. O’Connell, “Pre-existence in Augustine’s Seventh Letter”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 15  (1969), p.  67-73; “The Origin of the Soul in Saint Augustine’s Letter 143”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 28 (1982), p. 239-252; R. Teske, “Augustine’s Epistula  X: Another Look at deificari in otio”, Augustinianum, 32  (1992), p.  289-299; “Saint Augustine on the Incorporeality of the Soul in Letter 166”, The Modern Schoolman, 60 (1983), p. 170-183; G.  Folliet, “Deificari in otio. Augustin, Epistula 10,  2”, Recherches augustiniennes, 2  (1962), p.  225-236; “La correspondance entre Augustin et Nébri­ dius”, in L’opera letteraria di Agostino tra Cassiciacum e Milano. Agostino nelle terre di Ambrogio, ed. by G. Reale, Palermo, 1987, p.  191-215;  ”In penetralibus mentis adorare Deum (Augustin, Epistula, 10, 3)”, Sacris Erudiri, 33 (1992-1993), p. 125-133. 35  www.scrinium.umk.pl, created by P.  Nehring, R.  Toczko, S.  Adamiak, B. Marciniak, M. Stróżyński. 36  Teske, To Know God, p. 22. 34 

120

mateusz stróżyński

The second section (“Vera et diuina philosophia: Neoplatonism and Christianity”) is devoted to a general relationship between the Neoplatonic school of philosophy, represented by Plotinus and Porphyry, and Christianity as the true religion, revealed by God through the Scriptures and Jesus Christ. The third one (“Being, presence, and participation”) concerns the essential division into two great realms of reality, the spiritual and the material, in the light of the notions of presence and participation. The fourth section (“Between God and the world: the nature of the soul”) deals with the incorporeality of the soul and its metaphysical “seat” in between the Creator and the material universe. The fifth part of this chapter (“The crowd of images: sense-perception, memory, and imagination”) is devoted to the three interconnected faculties of the soul. The next one (“Light seeing light: truth, knowledge, and faith”) concerns epistemological issues, with respect to self-knowledge and the knowledge of God.  The last section (“Where did we come from? The origin of the soul”) is about the life-long Augustinian controversy concerning the origin of the human soul and its impact on his theory of original sin. As the reader can see, ethical problems are excluded from this study. This is, of course, due to limited space, since moral reflection is omnipresent in the Letters. But the lack of ethics here is not something vital, since it is other Neoplatonic ideas (metaphysical and epistemological) that inspired Augustine the most, while his ethics is more of a synthesis of Neoplatonism, Stoicism, and biblical ideas. 37 As  I am going to show, Neoplatonism is used by Augustine mostly to reflect on the nature of God, the human soul and the order of the universe – those things which the Bible often speaks poetically and quite vaguely about. When Augustine tries to clarify this vagueness, he always resorts to Neoplatonism, even though it is not simple imitation, but rather “creative appropriation”38 or “conceptual grafting”, 39 as it has been called. 37  See S.C. Byers, Perception, Sensibility, and Moral Motivation in Augustine. A Stoic- Platonic Synthesis, Cambridge, 2013. Cf. also M. Colish, The Stoic Tradition From Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, vol. II. Stoicism in Christian Latin Thought through the Sixth Century, Leiden, 1985, p. 142-238. 38  J.P. Kenney, Contemplation and Classical Christianity. A Study in Augustine, Oxford, 2013, p. 9. 39  J.  Torchia, “St Augustine’s Treatment of Superbia and Its Plotinian Affinities”, Augustinian Studies, 18 (1987), p. 66-80, see p. 77.

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

121

2. Vera et diuina philosophia: Neoplatonism and Christianity The earliest letters, written somewhere between 386 and 391, and especially the correspondence between Augustine and Nebridius, already at first glance seem to be filled with philosophical ideas, especially Neoplatonic ones. This is the period in which Augustine wrote his early dialogues, was fascinated by Plotinus 40 and had a limited knowledge of the Scriptures, particularly of the Old Testament.41 Nebridius (ep.  6.1) writes that Augustine’s letters bring him pleasure along with the names and teachings of Christ, Plato, and Plotinus. It seems, indeed, that Christian revelation here is certainly not opposed to “Plato and Plotinus”. On the contrary, there is one truth, present in the teachings of Christ, Plato, and Plotinus. We can safely assume that Nebridius testifies here not only to his own views, but also to those of Augustine. Placing the Lord’s name first by Nebridius must have also born close connection to the fact that Augustine did not imagine himself to be committed to any soteriological system which would not be based on the name of Jesus Christ.42 Moreover, Augustine himself, in the letter to Zenobius (ep.  2), calls Christianity “the true and divine

Cf. acad. 2.5. On the early phase of Augustine’s philosophy see O’Connell, St Augustine’s Early Theory. O’Connell, in general, emphasizes the influence of Plotinus on Augustine (even though he does not exclude completely a possibility that he read also some Porphyry: R.J.  O’Connell, “Where the Difference Still Lies”, Augustinian Studies, 21 (1990), p. 139-152; cf. also his “Pre-existence in Augustine’s Seventh Letter”. Folliet, on the other hand, focuses on Porphyrian influence (“Deificari in otio” and “In penetralibus mentis”). About the Porphyrian influence on Augustine cf.  W.  Theiler, “Porphyrios und Augustin”, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 10, Berlin, 1966, p.  160-251; J.J.  O’Meara, The Young Augustine. The Growth of St Augustine’s Mind up to his Conversion, London, 1954, p. 131155 and “Augustine and Neoplatonism”, Recherches augustiniennes, 1 (1958), p. 91-111; F. van Fleteren, “A Reply to Robert O’Connell”, Augustinian Studies, 21 (1990), p. 127-137; Dobell, Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion, p.  28-36. Folliet’s claim that ep.  10 is deeply Porphyrian was criticized by Teske (“Augustine’s Epistula  X”). On Plotinian sources see a good summary by P.F. Beatrice (“Quosdam Platonicorum Libros: The Platonic Readings of Augustine in Milan”, Vigiliae Christianae, 43, 3 (1989), p. 248-281). 42  See his justification of joining the Manichaeans in conf. 3.4.8. 40  41 

122

mateusz stróżyński

philosophy”.43 This is, of course, the approach taken by many Greek and Roman Christian intellectuals in Late Antiquity, trying to see Pagan and Christian wisdom not as hostile systems, but as possibly compatible ones. Chronologically, the next letter which deals with this question is ep. 118 to Dioscorus, written around year 410.44 Now almost 25 years have passed, since the newly converted Augustine professed that Christianity is the true and divine philosophy. Dioscorus asks Augustine hastily and impatiently to answer his questions concerning Cicero’s dialogues (ep. 117). It is quite obvious that one of the main motifs of the ambitious youth is to avoid (yet another?) humiliation, whenever someone asks him about philosophical ideas. This context is important, because Augustine’s reply seems, at first glance, to be a harsh critique of Pagan philosophy. He argues that it is unnecessary or even pointless to study philosophical authors, but when he gives a list of those, he carefully omits Plato and Plotinus. There is Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Stoics and Epicureans. Among this noble group we can easily recognize those philosophers that were materialists (ep. 118.12).45 Augustine’s criticism is, however, focused on the difference between “delicacies and finery” vs. “doctors and medicine”.46 He reminds Dioscorus that human beings are spiritually sick and what they need is immediate, professional help: the efficacy of this help is the second main criterion of whether a philosophy can Ep.  2.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  3: “uera et diuina philosophia”. I  have used the translation by R. Teske, Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, Hyde Park, 2001, p. 17. 44  Dioscorus was a young Greek who studied in Africa. 45  Cf.  O’Connell’s observations on Augustine’s early rejection of Stoic materialism in favour of Neoplatonism (O’Connell, St Augustine’s Early Theory, p. 97). 46  Ep.  118.13, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  677: “quod si adhuc non tenes, tam peruerse ista conquiris, quam peruerse, si aliquo corporis periculoso morbo grauareris, deliciosas et tenerrimas uestes potius quam medicamenta medicosque conquireres.” English translation: R.  Teske, Letters 100-155, WSA 2.2, Hyde Park, 2003, p.  112. Augustine probably was not aware that Plato juxtaposed authentic care of the body and the soul (gymnastics and medicine) with their fake substitutes (cosmetics and pastry baking, Gorg. 464b – c). The motif, however, in Augustine’s times, was already a part of a wider philosophical tradition. 43 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

123

be accepted or not, whereas the first one is its possession of the truth. From the practical, therapeutic or soteriological point of view, what is unacceptable in Pagan philosophy is pride which is the root of all sin (ep.  118.15). Pride appears in different forms in different schools of philosophy. The Stoics are proud, because they falsely place the highest good not in the immutable God, but in their own, mutable soul. Here for the first time Augustine praises Neoplatonists, by pointing out that they transcend the Stoic system, by placing the highest good in God as the immaterial, immutable, absolute source of all existence (ep.  118.16). Neoplatonists do not differ from Christians in their general worldview. But their pride affects their philosophical therapy: their diagnosis is roughly true, but their therapy is inefficient, because, they rely on their own powers. Augustine writes about Neoplatonists: “those philosophers of the Platonic school, having changed a few things of which Christian discipline disapproves, ought to bow their pious necks to the one king, Christ”.47 To sum up, Augustine criticizes in this letter not philosophy as such, but two things: false philosophy (more or less all schools except Neoplatonism) and superficial literary erudition, that is, those who want to “appear learned and educated”.48 The last thing is a clear hint about Dioscorus himself and his own pride. Ep.  120 to Consentius 49 is of uncertain date, but we might suppose that it was written about a similar time as the letter to Dioscorus. Here Augustine answers Consentius’ questions about faith and reason.50 He also draws a comparison between simple Christian believers (not Christian philosophers!) and Neoplatonic philosophers. The first, if they walk sincerely in the path of faith, can arrive at contemplation, even if they have nothing to do with the philosophical path of the purification of the mind. One might 47  Ep. 118.21 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 685: “ipsos quoque Platonicae gentis philosophos paucis mutatis, quae christiana inprobat disciplina, inuictissimo uni regi Christo pias ceruices oportere submittere.” English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 116. Cf. uera rel. 7. 48  Ep. 118.23 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 686: “ut docti eruditique uideamur”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p.  117. It is also a popular motif in ancient philosophy (cf. Seneca, Ep. 82.8). 49  He was a Catholic layman living in the Balearic Islands. 50  See Madec, “Pour l’amour de l’intelligence”.

124

mateusz stróżyński

think of Augustine’s mother, Monica, who is portrayed in the Confessions as an example of the path of uneducated faith.51 The second, the Neoplatonists have no Christian faith, but, nevertheless, they were able to attain true knowledge and contemplation of “the invisible, immutable, incorporeal nature”.52 In spite of that, they reject Christianity as foolish, disavow the way of “Christ crucified”, the path of humility, faith and grace. In consequence, they can contemplate God in this life, their mind is touched by his “light from afar”, but they can never “arrive at the temple of that rest” (ep. 120.4).53 Their contemplation is transitory, unstable, and they will not be saved after death (cf.  ep.  118.4). Christians enjoy a more full share of contemplation in this life and its abundance in the future life. So again, when Augustine compares Christianity with Pagan Neoplatonism, he states that both systems possess truth, but only the first one is therapeutically and soteriologically efficient. A similar view can be found in ep.  137, written about the same time, to a Pagan intellectual Volusianus, a friend of Marcellinus. Augustine says there that the two greatest Christian On this problem and the symbolic meaning of Monica see O’Connell, St Augustine’s Early Theory, p. 227-257). As Dobell demonstrates, Monica is portrayed a bit different in Cassiciacum dialogues, where she possesses also philosophical wisdom, without the need of education. In conf., on the other hand, Augustine does not need her to have intuitive philosophical capacity, it is enough that she is a person deeply devoted to God and she is able to enjoy the vision at Ostia and, actually, lead Augustine to it (Dobell, Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion, p. 118-120). See also J. K. Coyle, “In Praise of Monica: a Note on the Ostia Experience of Confessions  IX”, Augustinian Studies, 13 (1982), p. 87-96; C. Starnes, Augustine’s Conversion: A Guide to the Argument of Confessions I-IX, Waterloo, 1990, p. 257-266; K. Paffenroth, “Tears of Grief and Joy. Confessions Book 9: Chronological Sequence and Structure”, Augustinian Studies, 28,1 (1997), p. 141-154; M. Djuth, “Augustine, Monica, and the Love of Wisdom”, Augustinian Studies, 40,2 (2009), p. 217-232. 52  Ep.  120.4 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 708: “natura inuisibilis, incommutabilis, incorporea”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 132. 53  Ep.  120.4 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  708: “quid sit natura inuisibilis, incommutabilis, incorporea, utcumque iam scientes et uiam, quae ducit ad tantam beatitudinis mansionem, quoniam stulta illis uidetur, quod est Christus crucifixus, tenere recusantes ad quietis ipsius penetrale, cuius iam luce mens eorum uelut in longinqua radiante perstringitur, peruenire non possunt.” English translation: WSA 2.2, p. 132. Cf. a similar image from conf. 7.21.27, where Augustine juxtaposes the Christian way of confessio and the Pagan way of praesumptio. 51 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

125

commandments, to love God and one’s neighbour as oneself, contain “physics, ethics, and logic” (ep.  137.17), that is, three parts of philosophy.54 In short: Christianity possesses whatever is true and good in Pagan philosophy, but it has much more than that. It has Christ who is an example of humility and the dispenser of the grace of faith. Therefore, only through Christ people are able to conquer their sinful desires, become purified and attain happiness. (ep.  137.12). In ep.  155 to Macedonius55 the bishop of Hippo repeats his pivotal idea that Pagan philosophers lack true humility which makes them want to achieve happiness by their own effort (ep. 155.2). In ep.  149 there is also a critique of Pagan philosophers, based on Paul’s letter to Romans. But when Augustine criticizes those who build their knowledge on “the elements of the world”, he seems to be against their materialism rather than their philosophical endeavour of understanding, in itself. He says that those philosophers “were misled by shadows” and developed their theology “through the elements of this world”.56 This leaves Neoplatonists out of the picture and, moreover, Augustine points out that Christianity offers not only faith superior to the materialist superstition, but also direct, intellectual knowledge of Christ: “he [Paul] wanted us to understand that the head of all things is Christ, the principle of all things” (ep. 149.25).57 The reference to the “principle” is obviously “good philosophy” opposed to “bad philosophy” and not “faith against philosophy”. Also in ep.  194 Augustine admits that Pagan Neoplatonists are capable of seeing God, but they lack humility and virtue: “The apostle says that they are without excuse who were able to see his invisible reality, which had been understood through the things that have been made, and who still did not obey the truth but 54  According to the Stoics. On this tripartite division see K.  Ierodiakonou, “The Stoic Division of Philosophy”, Phronesis, 38,1 (1993), p. 57-74 and J. Annas, “Ethics in Stoic Philosophy”, Phronesis, 52,1 (2007), p. 58-87. 55  He was the vicar of Africa. 56  Ep.  149.25, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p.  371: “umbraliter seducebant  (…) theologiam per elementa huius mundi”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 373. 57  Ep.  149.25 (CSEL, 44), p.  371: “caput autem omnium Christum princi­ pium omnium uoluit intellegi”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 373.

126

mateusz stróżyński

remained unjust and sinful. For they did not lack knowledge, but knowing God, he says, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks (Rom 1:21).”58 3. Being, presence, and participation The distinction or division between the spiritual realm and the material world pervades the whole of Augustinian thinking; it was part of his great discovery, described in Book Seven of the Confessions. No wonder, then, that we find it quite often in his early letters, written shortly after his arrival to Africa. In ep. 4 to Nebridius Augustine confesses that at times he has a clear experience of the spiritual dimension of reality, that is, of God and of “imperishable things”, which both “most truly are true”.59 He speaks about the Platonic “being”, truly existing, in contrast to the realm of things that constantly arise and pass away.60 The same we can find in ep.  18 to Celestine, but here the twofold basic distinction is further elaborated into a three-level hierarchy: (1) what changes in time and its very substance, (2) what changes only in time, but its substance is imperishable, and (3) what is absolutely immutable. The first is the whole of material creation, including the human body; the second are created spirits, angels and human souls; the third is God the Creator of everything. Only God then is what truly exists, because only he is completely immutable. But this basic outlook remains rather stable in Augustine’s thought, since twenty years later, in ep.  169 to Evodius, bishop of Uzalis, we find the same idea, but expressed in a slightly different way. Augustine refers there to (1) the nature that is moved neither in time nor in place (God), (2) the nature Ep. 194.25, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p.  195: “si ergo istos inexcusabiles dicit, qui inuisibilia eius per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspicere potuerunt nec oboedierunt tamen ueritati, sed iniqui et impii permanserunt - neque enim non cognouerunt, sed cognoscentes, inquit, deum non ut deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt.” English translation: R.  Teske, Letters 156-210, WSA 2.3, Hyde Park, 2004, p. 240. Cf. also conf. 7.17.23 and 10.6.8. 59  Ep.  4.2 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  10: “in ea, quae uerissime uera sunt, adtolli coepero”. English translation, WSA 2.1, p. 23. 60  Cf. Folliet, “La correspondance entre Augustin et Nébridius”, p. 200. 58 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

127

that is moved only in time (created spirits), and (3) the nature that is moved both in time and in place (the material creation) (ep.  169.11). In the already mentioned ep.  18 Augustine also connects truly existing being with beauty and unity (ep. 18.2).61 God, created spirits and the material world can all be looked at as three levels of decreasing existence, beauty and unity, which, of course, corresponds to the model of reality that Augustine found in Plotinus’ treatises that he started to read in Milan. Augustine’s thinking about the relationship of the spiritual and material levels of reality is expressed in Plotinian terms, especially through the concept of presence or, more precisely, the omnipresence of being. This idea is a subject of Plotinus’ great work on omnipresence (Enn. 6.4-5). Even though many scholars doubt whether Augustine actually read the treatise, arguments and ideas he uses are so close to what we find there, that Robert  J. O’Connell strongly argued for the opposite, given the role that the notion of “integral omnipresence” plays in the writings of the bishop of Hippo.62 The earliest, clear mention of this concept in the corpus of Augustine’s letters can be found in ep.  92 to Italica (written around year 408), where the bishop of Hippo explains in a strikingly Plotinian way that while something corporeal always occupies smaller place with a smaller part of itself, true, incorporeal being is present as a whole in every place (ep.  92.3). The same idea is expressed in ep. 120 to Consentius (year 410), where Augustine points out that we pray “Our Father who are in heaven” not because God is in heaven and not right here, on earth. On the contrary, he “by his incorporeal presence is whole everywhere”,63 and

The beauty and unity of the material world, as bestowed upon by the immutable God, is also mentioned in ep. 138 to Marcellinus (ep. 138.5). 62  R.J.  O’Connell, “Ennead  VI, 4 and 5 in the Works of Saint Augustine”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 9  (1963), p.  1-39; “The Enneads and St  Augustine’s Image of Happiness”, Vigiliae Christianae, 17,3 (1963), p. 129164, and St Augustine’s Early Theory, p. 31-64. Cary considers it as “very likely” that Augustine read this treatise (Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self, p. 158-159, n. 11). 63  Ep. 120.14 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 716: “qui praesentia incorporea ubique totus est”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 137. 61 

128

mateusz stróżyński

the mention of heaven actually is a reference to God’s presence in “pious souls”.64 A year or two later, in ep.  137, Augustine uses the same idea not to talk about the presence of God the Father, but to answer the questions which Volusianus raised with regard to the incarnation of the Word of God.  The bishop of Hippo tries to explain the mystery of incarnation by emphasizing that Jesus actually did not come from heaven into the womb of Mary, as if he were not already present everywhere, but by becoming flesh, he simply revealed his presence in a new way.65 Similarly, his Resurrection and Ascension do not mean that he went away somewhere, but that he merely disappeared from our bodily eyes (ep.  137.7). Speaking about this, Augustine uses a phrase “not by mass but by power”.66 Curiously enough, Augustine comes up with the same metaphor as Plotinus, namely, that of sound. A  sound, when it is present in a room, is only one, but if it is heard by many ears, everyone perceives, so to speak, “his own” sound (ep. 137.7).67 About the same time, Augustine uses this concept in a long letter, or rather a whole book, sent to Honoratus (ep.  140). The Word incarnate revealed itself to the bodily eyes of people, when it had lived on this earth, and then became invisible. But, Augustine points out, it does not mean that this invisible Word cannot be seen at all. The interplay between presence and absence, reve-

Ibidem: “quorum pietati adest”. As O’Connell points out, the idea incarnation-appearance was used by Augustine also in Christmas sermons (ss. 184-196) (O’Connell, The Origin of the Soul, p. 101, n. 60). It is also present already in conf. 4.12.19. 66  Ep.  137.7 (CSEL, 44), p.  106: “neque enim mole sed uirtute magnus est deus”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p.  216. Almost exactly the same Greek phrase can be found in Enn. 6.9.6.8: “μέγιστον γὰρ ἁπάντων οὐ μεγέθει, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἀμέγεθες δυνάμει”. A  similar statement is also present in Enn. 6.7.32.19-21: “Τὸ δὲ μέγα αὐτοῦ τὸ μηδὲν αὐτοῦ εἶναι δυνατώτερον παρισοῦσθαί τε μηδὲν δύνασθαι·”. Those treatises are often omitted from those which Augustine might have read, but it seems probable to me that he read at least Enn. 6.9. Cf. for instance, conf. 4.12.8 and Enn. 6.9.7.3-5 and 6.9.9.7-11. It is, however, possible that Augustine came across those Plotinian phrases indirectly. 67  Plotinus used this image to speak about any spiritual being in his treatise on integral omnipresence (Enn. 6.4.12) and a slightly different image to speak about the omnipresence of the One in Enn. 3.8.9.26-29. 64  65 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

129

lation and hiding, is transferred here to a purely spiritual plane. The Word is present always everywhere, but the wicked do not see it with the eyes of their mind, because they are spiritually blind. Those whose mind is pure can see the Word in its invisible nature (ep. 140.6). Shortly afterwards (413/414) Augustine also linked the integral omnipresence of God to his incorporeal, spiritual nature in ep. 148 to Fortunatianus, bishop of Sicca (ep. 148.2). And three years later he repeats this in ep.  187 to Dardanus.68 In this letter, Augustine interestingly comes back to the idea that was briefly and vaguely mentioned in the letter to Consentius, namely, that God is omnipresent, but he is also present in a different, specific way in some souls, through their piety. This second mode of presence is elaborated further in the letter to Dardanus as presence by means of grace and love (ep. 187.11-21). This is almost the same, but we can see how the Pelagian controversy has already marked its presence here (year 417) by a greater emphasis on God’s grace. Moreover, in the letter to Dardanus, Augustine re-uses the image of a sound that he had employed some years earlier (ep. 187.19). Plotinus, in his treatise on the integral omnipresence of being, focused more on what we may call a “spatial” aspect of the omnipresence (being is present everywhere as a whole). But the omnipresence has also a “temporal” dimension. The One, the Intellect and the highest part of the Soul are beyond time, so they are fully present at every moment of time, which is linked to the material reality generated by the Soul. Augustine is well aware of that and he tries to explain in this manner the difference between time and eternity, writing to Marcellinus in year 411/412 (ep. 138). Here again we can find Augustine’s favorite sound metaphor. The whole material creation is like a beautiful melody or a song, which develops in time, but its beauty and order can be seen only, when we perceive it as a whole (ep.  138.5).69 The same is repeated at the

The prefect of the praetorium of the Gauls in Italy. This image was used some ten years earlier in conf. 4.10.15. Cf. also a comparison of the multiplicity of creatures as temporal “words” to the eternal Word-Creator in conf. 11.6.8 (cf. also M. Stróżyński, “Voice of the Bridegroom: Allegorical Exegesis as Spiritual Exercise in Book Eleven of Augustine’s Confessions”, Augustiniana 65 (3-4) (2015), p. 141-167, on p. 157-159). 68  69 

130

mateusz stróżyński

beginning of ep.  166 to Jerome, where Augustine is more specific by comparing the creation to a beautiful psalm (ep. 166.13). In Plato’s Phaedo presence and participation are described as two modes of relationship between material things and the Forms (100d). The incorporeal being is present in the corporeal and, the other way round, the corporeal participates in the incorporeal. Augustine most probably did not read the dialogue itself, but he surely might have heard about those Platonic concepts in Milan, in Ambrose’s philosophical circle. Anyway, he uses quite as often the concept of presence as he uses the concept of participation in the letters written in between 411 and 415.70 While writing to Consentius, Augustine says that our righteousness and our ability to see the truth (our “light”) is dependent on our participation in God who is light itself and righteousness itself (ep.  120.19-20). Two years later he uses the same idea in ep.  140. Augustine argues there that the mutable soul can become immutable by participation in the immutable God.  Moreover, it possesses the good and therefore is happy only by participating in the absolute good, that is, in God.  In the same chapter, the bishop of Hippo develops a more cosmic perspective on the participation of being. The material bodies share in the created spiritual beings (and thus they are “illumined by light and are invigorated by warmth”)71 and, in the same way, the spiritual beings partake in their Creator, becoming illumined by his immutable light. Every being becomes “better” by this participation: the bodies gain life by participating in the souls and the souls gain divine life by participating in God.  The same idea is repeated in this letter again in chapters 69 and 77. About the same time Augustine refers to participation also in ep.  153 to Macedonius. But here, he is not speaking only about participation of the souls in God as the highest good, but he says that everything that exists is good precisely because it shares in 70  This concept appears earlier, in ep.  20 to Antoninus, where Augustine explains that, if anyone loves someone whom he believes to be good, he loves in fact the goodness itself (ep. 20.2). 71  Ep.  140.56 (CSEL, 44), p. 203: “luce inluminantur et feruore uegetantur, sic incorporeae creaturae rationales ipsius creatoris fiunt participatione meliores, cum ei cohaerent purissima et sanctissima caritate”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 272.

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

131

God who created it (ep.  153.12). So while in ep.  140 participation is hierarchical (three levels, resembling Plotinus’ hypostases), in ep.  153 Augustine emphasizes its non-hierarchical dimension: everything participates directly in the Creator (in fact, it is closer to Enn. 6.4-5). In the letter to Honoratus, however, Augustine in an interesting way intertwines both concepts: participation and presence. First, he uses the concept of participation to speak about the Incarnation. Jesus through his incarnation participates in our nature, without losing his divinity, and, because of that, those who are in Christ can in turn participate in his divinity (ep.  140.9-10). Augustine invokes his favorite idea of mutability/immutability, speaking of the human souls which are changeable by nature, but become the partakers of the Word who is immutable. This is the way in which mutable spirits can become immutable through participation in the immutable (ep. 140.12). But one thing is interesting here. If Augustine wanted to be an orthodox Platonist, he should have said that human nature participates in the Word, but the Word is present in the human nature, since it is the lower beings that share in the higher ones, not the other way round. But Augustine uses the Platonic concept of participation in an unorthodox way, perhaps, because he has in mind an important Christian truth, regarded by Pagan Neoplatonists as “foolish”, namely, the union of God and human being in Jesus Christ. The Word is not only present in the human nature (that is obvious), but the union is more intimate, since it also participates in it. Probably, Augustine wanted to emphasize this intimacy between the human and the divine nature, and that is why he changed the traditional usage of the concept of participation. 4. Between God and the world: the nature of the soul In the Bible there is no conceptual, coherent exposition of the nature of the human soul, its origins, its relationship with the body,  etc. But for Augustine, since the Soliloquies (1.1.7), self-knowledge is a necessary prerequisite of the knowledge of God, so he devotes a lot of time and effort to understand what the soul is and how it functions in relationship to the material realm and to God, its Creator.

132

mateusz stróżyński

Not only Epicureans, but also one of the most influential philosophical schools of the Imperial Period, namely, Stoicism, taught that the soul is material. But Augustine, since his “intellectual” conversion in 386, was firmly convinced that the soul, like God, is completely incorporeal and this is taken for granted in his early letters. Twenty five years later, in ep.  143 to Marcellinus, Augustine mentions two philosophical positions – (1) the soul is material and death is the end of life and (2) the soul continues its existence after death (ep.  143.3). Of course, only the latter opinion is congruent with the Scriptures. Interestingly, he omits Stoic and Manichaean views, that the soul is material and, at the same time, survives death. Obviously, his intent here was to associate materialism with something contrary to the Scripture. In ep.  190 to Optatus, bishop of Milevis, he labels “perverse” the Stoic and Tertullian’s opinion that the souls are material72 and he openly calls this opinion “madness”.73 In ep.  166 Augustine mentions that certain people who believe that the soul is material74 suffer from the “slowness” of the mind.75 The soul, however, although incorporeal, is not immutable. Augustine in ep.  3 to Nebridius states the philosophical obvious, saying that the soul is better than the body (ep. 3.4) and in ep. 18 develops the idea that the soul lives between God and the material world, that is, in medio (ep.  18.2).76 This position in medio is stated, also as a matter of fact, in the later ep.  140 (ep.  140.3). As  I already pointed out, in Augustine’s view, the soul becomes better by participating in the immutable God, but he also claims that the soul as such is created as an image of God.  In the second decade of the fifth century Augustine was already working on the second part of his De Trinitate, which elaborates this idea in Neoplatonic terms. In ep.  137 (411/412) Augustine curiously observes Ep. 190.14 (CSEL, 57), p. 148: “quo peruersius quid dici potest?” Ep. 190.15 (CSEL, 57), p. 149: “dementia”. 74  Teske argues that Augustine wanted also to show Jerome that the West was different from the East in that respect, that Christians still did not understand the incorporeal nature of God and the soul. And that he, Augustine, has the unwaveringly “Eastern” understanding of those matters (Teske, “Saint Augustine on the Incorporeality of the Soul”, p. 173-175). 75  Ep. 166.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 550: “difficile tardioribus persuaderi potest”. 76  This echoes Plotinus’ expression “ἐν μέσῳ” (Enn. 3.2.8.4). 72  73 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

133

that the power of the soul is so great that it extends outside the body and lives in the whole universe, since the soul “pours out” of the body and is present in whatever it sees or hears.77 Echoes of De Trinitate are even more visible in ep.  166, where Augustine emphasizes that it is not the whole man who is the “image of God”, but only his highest part, the spirit or the rational mind (ep.  166.12). In ep.  169 to Evodius (written around the same year ‒ 415), Augustine adds that a likeness between the mind and the Trinity consists in the fact that the highest part of the soul is a trinity of memory, intellect and will (ep.  169.2 and 6).78 The idea of self-presence and self-transparence of the mind, can be also found in ep. 267 to Fabiola, where Augustine uses the same image of looking into the mirror that he used in De Trinitate (10.3.5): we cannot see our face except through the mirror, but we can see the essence of our mind by looking into the mind (ep. 267.1).79

77  Ep.  137.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 104: “sentit autem etiam praeter carnem suam. ibi quippe sentit, ubi uidet, quia et uidere sentire est; ibi sentit, ubi audit, quia et audire sentire est. aut ergo et ibi uiuit ac per hoc etiam ibi est”. Cf.  Plotinus’ treatment of the soul encompassing all material universe in Enn. 5.1.2, particularly his expression: “οἷον εἰσρέουσαν καὶ εἰσχυθεῖσαν καὶ πάντοθεν εἰσιοῦσαν καὶ εἰσλάμπουσαν”. The same chapter is clearly an inspiration for the vision at Ostia (conf. 9.10.24-26). Such a dimension of the human soul was also mentioned in the conf. 4.11.17, where such a prelapsarian “cosmic consciousness” was suggested to have been lost by our souls pro poena. Here Augustine points out that at least some experience of this type of broader consciousness is also a part of our postlapsarian condition. 78  The idea is already present in conf. 13.11.12, developed further in the second part of trin. (books 8-15). 79  The link between self-knowledge and mirrors is a commonplace in ancient tradition. It is present in First Alcibiades (132d – 133c) and in Plotinus (Enn. 5.8.11.1-8). On self-transparence and self-knowledge of the mind in trin. see e.g. E.  Booth, “St  Augustine’s ‘notitia sui’ related to Aristotle and the early neo-Platonists”, Augustiniana, 27 (1977), p. 70-132, 364-401, Augustiniana, 28 (1978), p. 183-221, Augustiniana, 29 (1979), p. 97-124; J. Cavadini, “The Structure and Intention of Augustine’s De Trinitate”, Augustinian Studies, 23 (1992), p. 103-123; J. Brachtendorf, “…prius esse cogitare quam credere. A  Natural Understanding of ‘Trinity’ in St  Augustine?”, Augustinian Studies, 29, 2 (1998), p. 35-45; M. Stróżyński, “There is No Searching for the Self: Self-Knowledge in Book Ten of Augustine’s De Trinitate”, Phronesis, 58 (2013), p. 280-300.

134

mateusz stróżyński

The human souls which are in medio can be happy only if they are turned “upwards” towards God and participate in him, but if they turn “downwards”, towards the body and the material world, they become unhappy and even worse than they really are. In ep.  140 Augustine says that the human being possesses two lives, one, whose happiness is carnal and temporal, and another, whose happiness is “internal and eternal”, that is, the life of the mind.80 The happiness of the mind consists of turning not towards itself, but towards something higher, towards God. But the human souls did not remain turned towards God, like good angels, but, by their own fault, they turned away and fell into sin, as Augustine points out in ep.  166 to Jerome (ep.  166.5). This is Plotinus’ idea of the fall of the soul, present already in Augustine’s early works, developed in the Confessions, and reformulated in his later works.81 Already in the year 401, in ep.  55 to Januarius, Augustine speaks about the fall and the way back to God, the way “in and up” (ep.  55.8-9).82 The cause of the fall is the soul’s love of what is beneath it (the body and the universe) instead of what is above it (God) (ep. 140.4). When it comes to the relationship between the soul and the body, it was always a problematic issue in the Platonic tradition. Plotinus recognizes (Enn. 4.8.1-2) that in Plato’s dialogues 80  Ep.  140.3 (CSEL, 44), p.  157: “interna atque aeterna”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p.  246. In the correspondence with Evodius (years 414-415) Augustine deals with the question whether the soul after death possesses a kind of a body (before resurrection). This was a popular view, especially in later Neoplatonism, that the souls had such subtly material “vehicles”. It appears in ep.  13.2 to Nebridius and Folliet argues that Augustine took over this view from Plotinus and Porphyry (Folliet, “La correspondance entre Augustin et Nébridius”, p.  204) In ep.  159, however, Augustine says that the soul is completely without a body after death (ep.  159.1) and in ep.  162 he develops this idea further (ep. 162.3). 81  On the fall of the soul see O’Connell, St Augustine’s Early Theory, p. 135-200 and St Augustine’s Confessions. The Odyssey of Soul, New York, 2003; R. Penascovic, “The Fall of the Soul in Saint Augustine: a Quaestio Disputata”, Augustinian Studies, 17 (1986), p. 135-145; R.J. Rombs, Saint Augustine and the fall of soul: beyond O’Connell and his critics, Washington, 2006; M. Stróżyński, “The Fall of the Soul in Book Two of Augustine’s Confessions”, Vigiliae Christianae, 70,1 (2016), p. 77-100. 82  This crucial understanding of ascent is called by Cary “in then up” (on that see Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self, p. 38-49 and 63-66).

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

135

there are two contradictory views to be found: the Phaedo and the Phaedrus claim that the soul fell into the body which is a prison and a grave for it, whereas the Timaeus teaches that the souls did not fall into the bodies through some sort of sin, but they were sent by God to govern the bodies (cf. Tim. 90a – d), so their union with the bodies is in fact providential. Augustine read this treatise of Plotinus and, as a Christian philosopher, he was much more inclined towards the latter view. In time, Augustine’s view of the body becomes gradually more and more positive. In ep.  166 he speaks about a “partnership” (societas) of the soul and the body, both in punishment and in glory (ep.  166.5). This expression suggests a Platonic rather than Aristotelian view of the body-soul relationship, even though there is no strong opposition of the two elements. Perhaps even earlier, in ep.  238 to Arian Pascentius,83 Augustine tries to emphasize the unity of the body and the soul in the human person. He compares this to the unity of the Father and the Son in the Trinity, so it is quite a unity! (ep.  238.12 and 29). The soul and the body, even though their nature is different, unlike the nature of the Father and the Son, are one man, one animal and one person. Also the relationship between the soul and the body is compared to a relationship of God and the universe: the soul is “integrally omnipresent” in the body, because it is present as a whole in every part of the body “by a certain vital intention”.84 5. The crowd of images: sense-perception, memory, and imagination In the correspondence between Augustine and Nebridius the friends discuss relationships between sense-perception, memory, and imagination, which were also a part of the Neoplatonic study of the relationship between the spiritual and the material. In ep. 6, Nebridius asks, whether imagination always receives its images from the senses or whether it can produce them from within, from It was written probably in the first decade of the fifth century. Ep. 166.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 551: “quadam uitali intentione”. English translation, WSA 2.3, p.  80. Teske sees here the influence of Enn. 4.4.19 (Teske, “Saint Augustine on the Incorporeality of the Soul”, p. 181-182). 83 

84 

136

mateusz stróżyński

itself. He inclines to this latter view, but Augustine strongly rejects this, arguing that all mental images are derived from the sensory data (ep.  7.1). At the same time, Augustine distinguishes between two different kinds of memory. When Nebridius insists that there can be no memory without sensible images, Augustine disagrees and points out that we can remember not only things that passed away (that is, corporeal), but we can also “remember”, in another sense, eternal, ever-present, incorporeal things (ep.  7.2).85 This memory of the intelligibles is what Plato taught, e.g. in Meno, as recollection (and Augustine knew through Cicero).86 But imagination is intimately linked to and dependent on the sensible memory. It means that all images produced by imagination (“fantasies”) are ultimately derived from the corporeal objects which we remember. It is true even in the case of images of things which we never actually saw, but only created (ep. 7.3-7). This serves Augustine as an argument that angels cannot by-pass the senses, if they are to bring about dream visions in the human souls. They are able to stir our bodies, which gives rise to dream images (ep. 8.3). Over twenty years later, in the letter to Consentius, Augustine maintains his views about the relationship between the senses, imagination, memory, and the higher part of the mind. He emphasizes that we cannot imagine spiritual things (like justice, wisdom,  etc.), but may perceive them only by the intuition of the mind, “seeing” them internally (ep.  120.11). But we can imagine things we never saw, if only they have material, sensible nature. Augustine says he can imagine Antioch which he never saw, because he remembers Carthage which he saw. In the same letter, Augustine refers also to the three levels of reality, saying that we can see three kinds of things: physical objects (through bodily sight), images of the mind (through the mind’s intuition), and immaterial beings (including God, through the same intuitive gaze). This resembles his treatment of the tria genera uisionum throughout Book Twelve of the De Genesi ad litteram. It is inter85  Augustine will develop this theory later in his life. Cf. D.L. Ross, “Time, the Heaven of Heavens, and Memory in Augustine’s Confessions”, Augustinian Studies, 22 (1991), p. 191-205, on p. 200-201. 86  Tusc. disput. 1.57-58. See Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self, p. 82-84.

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

137

esting that this division is already present in an early letter to Nebridius.87 In ep.  147 to Paulina, concerning the vision of God, Augustine reflects on the resurrected body as a sensible reality, which we can imagine, even though we have never seen it (ep. 147.9). This is an example of the fact that we can imagine things which we have never seen, even though imagination is dependent on the sensible memory. The power of imagination is also mentioned by Augustine in ep. 159 to Evodius, where the bishop of Hippo writes about the mind “producing” likenesses of physical objects (ep. 159.2). An example of this is the fact that Augustine can see Evodius in his own mind, while dictating the letter. He also confesses his ignorance concerning the way those representations of physical objects are produced by imagination (ep. 159.2 and 5). The same ideas are repeated by him in a later letter to the bishop of Uzalis (ep. 162.3-5). 6. Light seeing light: truth, knowledge, and faith Already in the early letters we can find a Plotinian idea that the body and the senses should be abandoned if the soul is to be able to contemplate God. In ep.  3 Augustine states that the truth (identified here with God or, more specifically, his Word) dwells within the highest part of the human mind and the senses draw us away from that; hence the need to detach the soul from the whole material dimension of reality (cf. also ep. 7.7). In another letter to Nebridius (ep.  7.5), Augustine refers to Plato’s theory of knowledge. There we can find the concept of recollection, linked to the idea of pre-existence: learning is remembering what we knew and have forgotten on entering the body and the material world (ep. 7.2-3). But, in the same letter, we can also find a Platonic distinction between the “first-hand” and “second-hand” knowledge.88 87  Ep.  7.4 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  15: “omnes has imagines, quas phantasias cum multis uocas, in tria genera commodissime ac uerissime distribui uideo, quorum est unum sensis rebus inpressum, alterum putatis, tertium ratis”. Dulaey argues that this tripartite division was influenced by Porphyry, already in the early letters (M. Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie et la pensée de saint Augustin, Paris, 1973, p. 82). 88  Rist’s interpretation of places like Meno 97a – c or Theaetetus 201b – c is that “[f]or the most basic principle of Platonic epistemology is not the

138

mateusz stróżyński

Augustine claims that only direct experience gives us reliable knowledge, so he dismisses the value of mental representation, even in comparison with the sensory data, let alone in comparison with intellectual intuition (ep. 7.5). In the early letters as well as throughout the whole corpus we can also find references to Augustine’s idea of learning and his concept of signs, expressed in the early dialogue De magistro. Signs do not convey knowledge, because they are something external; they can only point to the truth that is recognized within the mind, so we never learn anything “from outside”. All knowledge comes from within, where the true Teacher, the Word of God, which is the inner light of truth, dwells. This teaching can be found in ep.  19 to Gaius (ep.  19.1). But those ideas appear also in Augustine’s later letters (epp. 120.14; 144.1; 147.9; 166.4; 266.4). However, towards the end of fourth century, Augustine, at that time a bishop, began to stress the importance of faith and to elaborate on its relationship with reason and knowledge. In the Platonic tradition, faith was recognized as a second-hand type of knowledge, useful with regard to things that we cannot know directly at the moment. Also for Plotinus, faith is a beginning of the ascent towards a first-hand, intuitive experience of the spiritual reality. Augustine tries to reconcile the Christian reliance on faith in God’s revelation with the Neoplatonic insistence that faith is to be replaced by knowledge which is a more perfect way of cognition. In ep.  120, Augustine states that faith precedes reason, but he also adds that it has the positive function of purifying the heart so that it may receive and sustain a greater light, that of reason (ep.  120.3). At the same time, he claims along Neoplatonic lines, that faith is necessary only temporarily, until our knowledge is perfect. The knowledge Augustine speaks about is not only the perfect vision of God in paradise, it is also the contemplation of God here in this life, which Christians, as well as some Pagans, distinction between ‘intelligibles’ and ‘sensibles’ (important though it is), but the distinction between first-hand experience which gives ‘knowledge’ (epistēmē) and second- (or other-) hand experience which gives various sorts of more or less justified ‘belief’ (doxa)” (Rist, Augustine, p. 44). Regardless whether this is true in respect to Plato’s epistemology, it is certainly one of the main themes of Augustine’s theory of knowledge.

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

139

can enjoy to a certain degree, according to their inner purification. In a later letter to Honoratus (ep.  140.57) unbelievers are compared to darkness and they can become light, when they turn towards God’s light. Through this process they gradually “come from faith to vision”. However, Augustine’s view of faith is more nuanced and positive than the Neoplatonic one, since he thinks that there are many things which we simply have to believe, because we cannot know them, and they are needed for attaining happiness. Faith, as given by God, is not merely a second-hand knowledge, but it is a great gift for the human souls who live in darkness and ignorance, unable to attain true knowledge. In ep.  147, the bishop of Hippo says that our “knowledge, then, is made up of both things seen and things believed”,89 not opposing two ways of knowing, but presenting them as complementary.90 In ep.  162, Augustine gives an example of things we cannot know, so we must believe them, because they are beneficial for our happiness. This is the Virgin Birth of Jesus (ep. 162.6). A bit later, in ep. 169 (year 415), Augustine does not have a problem anymore with the fact that most Christians must rely on faith alone. He says that knowledge is not required for Christians, their faith perfectly suffices; it is only Christian philosophers that strive for understanding and knowledge that exceeds faith, wherever this is possible. The Virgin Birth or Resurrection are, of course, excluded from what we can know intellectually, but there are things which can be either believed in, or known. Augustine mentions those Christians who “are not yet able to see by certain understanding the nature of God, which they hold by faith, but also those who do not yet distinguish in their own soul its incorporeal nature from everything bodily”.91 Here the nature of the soul and the nature of God are presented as things that can be known intellectually, 89  Ep.  147.8 (CSEL, 44), p. 281: “constat igitur nostra scientia ex uisis rebus et creditis”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 323. 90  However, Cary argues convincingly that the idea that faith is completed only in direct “sight”, understanding, was never abandoned by Augustine, even in his mature period (Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self, p. 145). 91  Ep.  169.3 (CSEL, 44), p.  613: “ut non solum qui nondum ualent certa intellegentia conspicere naturam dei, quam fide tenent, uerum etiam qui non-

140

mateusz stróżyński

but only by the minority; on the other hand, the Virgin Birth, as a past occurrence, or Christ’s glorified body, as something hidden from our senses in this life, belong to the category of things that simply cannot be known “first-hand”. Faith is necessary here. Even though, as we can see, Augustine in his mature period sees faith and knowledge as complementary and appreciates belief, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of the soul, which is a prerequisite for it, are crucial matters in his philosophy. Already in the early letters, Augustine claimed that it is not only possible to see God in the depths of the mind, but that he enjoyed this experience already in his pre-ordination years (in conf. 7.10.16 he suggests that those experiences began with the reading of the libri platonicorum in Milan in 386). Augustine writes to Nebridius: “I am surprised that I at times need that argument in order to believe that those things exist that are in us with as much presence as each of us is present to himself”.92 In several letters, Augustine, in a more impersonal manner, refers to various features of this contemplative experience. In ep.  92 to Italica, Augustine says that only the mind can see God, because both are immaterial: God is light which can only be seen by the eye of the mind (ep.  92.2). In order to see God internally the mind has to become like God, by purifying itself (ep.  92.3); the idea of becoming like God is present already in the early letters (ep.  10.2).93 It means ascending the ladder of being, turning “in and up” towards God, which is a movement contrary to the movement of sin and fall, that is, the movement “down and out”, towards the material universe (ep.  92.6). The same idea of the entanglement of the mind in the matter and the necessity for purification is present also in ep.  120. There God is described as invisible, incorporeal brightness, in which we see not only himself but all things (ep. 120.10).

dum in ipsa anima sua ita incorpoream substantiam a corporis generalitate discernunt”. English translation, WSA 2.3, p. 108. 92  Ep. 4.2 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 10-11: “mirer interdum illa mihi opus esse ratiocinatione, ut haec esse credam, quae tanta insunt praesentia, quanta sibi quisque ipse fit praesens.” English translation, WSA 2.1, p. 23. 93  On the concept of deificari see Folliet, “Deificari in otio” and Teske, “Augustine’s Epistula X”.

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

141

In ep.  130 to Proba Augustine grounds this idea of God as incorporeal light in the Scriptural context, referring to that which “the eye has not seen and the ear has not heard” (1 Cor 2:9), but he emphasizes the Neoplatonic context as well (ep.  130.17). First, he explains that the eye has not seen, because God is not a colour, and the ear has not heard, because he is not a sound. So the reason that the eye has not seen and the ear has not heard is here not some metaphysical barrier between God and the soul, but simply the fact that God is incorporeal. Augustine also interprets the Pauline words “nor has it ascended into the heart” in a typically Neoplatonic way, focusing his attention on the notion of spiritual ascent itself. It has not ascended into the heart, he explains, because it is the heart that needs to ascend towards God.  Then, he can be contemplated. Even though the conditions for this contemplation are expressed ultimately in more Scriptural and relational fashion (i.e. faith, hope, and love), Augustine’s philosophical bent here is striking.94 Also in ep.  147 (413/414), Augustine presents the same view. God is described as incorporeal, so as a “something that is not seen in a location, not to be sought with the eyes, nor heard by words, held by touch, or perceived by walking, and still is seen, but only by a clean heart”.95 Augustine also adds that this contemplation is analogous to the way that the mind (which is here not distinguished from the biblical “heart”) sees itself (ep.  147.3). The light of God is invisible as the light of our mind, but the difference is that it is above our mind (ep.  147.45; cf. conf. 7.10.16). As in ep.  120, God is described as the light in which we see other things, and if we want to see the light itself, we have to turn our attention away from the objects that are enlightened and turn it towards the light (ep. 147.42). He repeats the same teaching, writKenney argues that Augustine understood the ascent of the soul in a relational, biblical way after the year 386 (Kenney, Contemplation and Classical Christianity, passim). Dobell tried to demonstrate that his understanding of ascent changed significantly in the mid-390s (Dobell, Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion, passim). 95  Ep. 147.27 (CSEL, 44), p.  301: “nec in loco uideatur nec quaerendum sit oculis nec audiatur affatu nec tactu teneatur nec sentiatur incessu et uideatur tamen sed corde mundo”. English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 333. See also a bit earlier: ep. 140.56. 94 

142

mateusz stróżyński

ing about the same time to Fortunatianus (ep.  148.3). In this letter Augustine also provides the biblical context, quoting the sixth beatitude: “blessed are the clean of heart”. In the letters from this period we can hear echoes of Augustine’s work on his De Trinitate. In ep.  169 to Evodius he refers to the self-knowledge of the mind as a recognition that the mind “lives, knows, and wills” (ep.  169.3). Knowledge of the Trinity seems to be, interestingly, something in between faith and knowledge. On the one hand, it is revealed to Christians through the Bible, but Augustine, writing De Trinitate, came to think that we can also learn about the Trinitarian nature of God through creatures, especially through our own mind. Thus, in ep. 242, to an Arian, Elpidius, Augustine speaks about “faith or knowledge of the Trinity” (ep. 242.1; emphasis mine). 7. Where did we come from? The origin of the soul Finally, I  want to touch upon the question of the origin of the soul, which appears in several letters, written from year 412 to 428.96 For Augustine himself, it is a fundamentally philosophical question, because since De libero arbitrio (3.56-59), he was aware of the four theories that can be, more or less, reconciled with the Scriptures and the Christian faith. Those four theories or “hypotheses” are: (1) souls are propagated from the first created soul of Adam (“de propagine ueniant”, traducianism), (2) are being created by God for newborn humans (“nascentibus nouae fiant”, creationism), (3) preexist and are sent by God to the bodies (“mittantur diuinitus”) and (4) preexist and come to the bodies on their own account (“sua sponte labantur”). Augustine mentions those four hypotheses in ep. 143 (412). Marcellinus asked him about what he wrote in Book Three of lib. arb. and Augustine is trying, after nearly twenty years, come back 96  As  I mentioned in the introduction, O’Connell did an outstanding work of analysing all references to the origin of the soul in Augustine’s Letters in his book (The Origin of the Soul). My ambition here is certainly neither presenting the whole, intricate and controversial argument of this brilliant scholar, nor any polemic with it. As in the case of other themes, I  just want to give a brief account of what can be found in the letters about the origin of the soul.

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

143

to the problem he discussed there (ep.  143.2). He mentions some people who criticize him on account of this problem as well as his friends who believe him to be wise and infallible (ep.  143.3). The criticism is aimed at Augustine’s supposed belief in the fall of the soul from heavens because of its sin, but the bishop of Hippo emphasizes that already in lib. arb. he had suspended his judgment and did not prefer any of the four hypotheses which he then enumerates once more (ep. 143.5-6). Around year 414 Paul Orosius arrived in Africa and made Augustine aware of the views of Origen on the origin and the fall of the soul, which the bishop of Hippo was completely ignorant about, when he had written his lib. arb. in 395.97 From this point Augustine rejects the Origenist view, which can be seen in his subsequent letters. In ep. 164 to Evodius (414/415), he repeats that he is not certain, which of the four hypotheses on the soul are true, except that he is sure that they were not “stuffed into individual bodies in accord with the merits of some previous actions of theirs”.98 It is clearly a reaction to Orosius’ Commonitorium. Around the same time Augustine writes to Jerome, presenting to him Orosius and asking his advice on the questions pertaining to the origins of the soul. He quite firmly rejects the Origenist view: “but I do not believe, I  do not accept, I  do not agree that in another previous life souls sin and are hurled down from there into prisons of flesh”.99 Jerome is a creationist, so Augustine is quite careful about expressing his (serious) doubts about creationism, but he says clearly that there is a fundamental problem that this view cannot solve: how God who is just can create new souls, knowing that they will be condemned (ep.  166.10; cf.  also chapters 17, 21, 25). Creationism, therefore, seems to leave no space for explaining how this life is a punishment for our sins, since we are created innocent, when we enter this world. On the other hand,

See O’Connell, The Origin of the Soul, p. 73-90 and 141-143. Ep. 164.20 (CSEL, 44), p. 539: “animae pro meritis nescio quorum superiorum actuum suorum singulae in singula corpora tamquam in carceres trudi”. English translation, WSA 2.3, p. 72. 99  Ep. 166.27 (CSEL, 44), p. 583: “sed in alia superiore uita peccare animas et inde praecipitari in carceres carneos non credo, non adquiesco, non consentio”. English translation, WSA 2.3, p. 92. 97 

98 

144

mateusz stróżyński

Augustine does not also want to discuss traducianism and its (materialistic) implications which he certainly does not like either. Three years later Augustine writes to Optatus, in ep. 190 (418), that the origins of the soul are still hidden and that there is no danger in maintaining this kind of skepticism about it. At the same time, he states firmly that he does not believe that the souls could have fallen into the body because of some sins in the previous life, in heaven or in some other part of the world (ep.  190.4). Here however, Augustine, as O’Connell demonstrated, uses reference to Romans 9:11 as an argument for the rejection of the Origenist view, whereas before year 417 he was opposing that view on different grounds:100 “For, when he was speaking of Rebekah’s twins, the apostle said that, before they were born, they had not as yet done anything good or bad.”101 In ep.  190, the bishop of Hippo considers two hypotheses: creationism and traducianism (ep.  190.5,  16,  24). He dissuades Optatus from “rashly giving his assent” to traducianism (ep. 190.14),102 since it comes to close to the views of Tertullian and his followers, that the souls are actually bodies – the opinion that Augustine clearly abhors.103 Augustine’s problem with creationism, as we saw, is that even though it preserves the soul’s purely incorporeal status, it can be distorted into a Manichaean blaming of God for human sufferings and his problem with traducianism is that even though it justly blames humans for their suffering, it can be distorted into believing that souls are corporeal. Quite a dilemma! Two years later, in 420, in ep.  202A, Augustine writes again to Optatus that he still does not know the origin of the soul (ep. 202A.6). We can see how the debate with the Pelagians makes it harder for Augustine to remain hesitant, the more so, because creationism is favored by Pelagians and traducianism has its own 100  O’Connell argues that Augustine’s use of Rom 9:11 points to his growing reliance on the Scripture’s authority, closely connected to the Pelagian controversy (O’Connell, The Origin of the Soul, p. 179-200). 101  Ep.  190.4 (CSEL, 57), p. 140-141: “nondum enim natos apostolus, cum de Rebeccae geminis loqueretur, nihil egisse dicit boni uel mali”. English translation, WSA 2.3, p. 265. 102  Ep. 190.14 (CSEL, 57), p. 148: “nec sic iam temere in aliam sententiam tua deflectatur assensio”. English translation, WSA 2.3, p. 269. 103  Ibidem: “quo peruersius quid dici potest?”

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

145

materialistic dangers. Nonetheless, Augustine strongly rejects his, perhaps, once preferred hypothesis about the fall of the soul from Heaven (ep. 202A.8). Again, he does not provide any philosophical argument, he just uses the authority of St  Paul. The question of the origins of the soul makes its last appearance in Augustine’s letters, towards the end of his life, in ep.  217 to Vitalis (426-428). Augustine gives there twelve propositions of Catholic faith, aimed against Pelagians (but only those which concern the question of grace and sin); the first of those propositions is the rejection of the Origenist view of the fall of the individual soul because of its sin in a previous life (ep. 217.16). Augustine’s problems with the origins of the soul, which are present in a vivid way in his letters, show both his attempt to pursue the truth by reason and to reconcile his rational conclusions with the authority of the Scripture. It also shows Augustine’s stature as a thinker, not free from his own prejudices and intellectual preferences, but always willing to question his own opinions and to search for the truth. 8. Conclusions It seems that we can draw two conclusions from this survey. The first is more descriptive: Neoplatonic ideas and theories are present especially in the pre-ordination letters written between 386 and 391 as well as in those written somewhere between 410 and 420. It is interesting that there is not much of Neoplatonism in the post-ordination letters written between 391 and 408, with the exception of the letters to Januarius (epp.  54-55, written around year 400). Philosophy is generally absent also from the letters written in the last decade of Augustine’s life, with the exception of ep.  267, where the problem of the origin of the soul is briefly mentioned. We might think of several hypotheses to explain this fact. First of all, we do not have the complete correspondence of Augustine, so it would be impossible to claim that Neoplatonism did not appear in his letters written, let us say, at the beginning of his episcopate, because it might have appeared in some letters which are now lost to us. The absence of Neoplatonic ideas in the last decade of Augustine’s life, however, is congruent with the

146

mateusz stróżyński

general evolution of his thought towards a greater reliance on the Bible than on philosophical reason alone, especially with regard to his discussion with the Pelagians. The presence or absence of philosophical ideas is also conditioned by the addressee, the purpose of the letter,  etc. With all those caveats in mind, it is somehow interesting to notice that letters written in periods of intense philosophical work (e.g. the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century) are virtually devoid of references to Neoplatonism. The second conclusion of this brief study seems to have a much greater importance for our understanding of the evolution of Augustine’s philosophy. We could see that Neoplatonic ideas are present not only in the early, pre-ordination letters, when Augustine had obviously much more knowledge of Plotinus than of the Bible and Christian doctrine. Neoplatonism is always present, whenever Augustine deals with such issues as the nature of God, the nature of the soul or the whole order of reality, and it is present throughout his mature life. This clearly contradicts Starnes’ view, quoted at the beginning, that for Augustine there is some “absolute and uncompromising” difference between Neoplatonism and Christianity. There are scholars who argue that there was a gradual evolution in Augustine from Neoplatonism to Christianity. A  long time ago Henri-Irenée Marrou divided Augustine’s post-conversion intellectual journey into two phases: (1) “la période philosophique” and (2) “la période ecclésiastique” (after 395).104 It seems, however, that Augustine, having become the bishop of Hippo, did not cease to be a philosopher, so it was not simply an end of the “philosophique” and a beginning of the “ecclésiastique”, but rather a developing synthesis of both. His understanding and use of Neoplatonic concepts is much deeper later in his life than it was after his first encounter with them in Milan. It makes sense only if Augustine’s Neoplatonism, as Phillip Cary suggests, deepened and matured along the way.105 So it is not, in the literal sense, a “journey from Platonism to Christianity” (as in the title of Dobell’s recent book, which basically agrees with Marrou’s journey from Marrou, Saint Augustin, p. 161-167. The whole book (Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self) argues for that, but e.g. see esp. the conclusions: p. 143-145. 104 

105 

neoplatonism in augustine’s letters

147

“philosophique” towards “ecclésiastique”), but it is a journey from a less mature Neoplatonic Christianity to a more mature integration of Neoplatonic philosophy and Christian revelation. However, one thing should be clarified here. The views of scholars who claim that Augustine had gradually abandoned the Neoplatonism of his youth in favour of the Christian thought of his mature years, can be accepted, if a certain misunderstanding or a terminological confusion is clarified. We need to distinguish between the Neoplatonic or Christian theory of reality (the understanding of the nature of God, the soul, the world, the fallen human condition,  etc.) on the one hand and Neoplatonic or Christian spiritual practice derived from the theory (soteriological and therapeutic doctrine). Having made this distinction, I  can completely agree with Dobell’s argument that Augustine in the mid-390s abandoned Neoplatonism in favour of Christianity in the sense that he realized that the philosophy of Plotinus and Porphyry cannot heal the human soul and lead it to the real happiness. But it does not mean that he abandoned Neoplatonic ideas or the general world-view in its totality. As John Peter Kenney convincingly shows, Augustine came to believe quite early that Neoplatonism is essentially insufficient for the therapy of the soul and its salvation, but he never rejected the epistemic value of Neoplatonism, even though he lost the faith in the salvific potential of Pagan philosophy.106 The present survey of Neoplatonic ideas in the corpus of Augustine’s letters demonstrates that for the bishop of Hippo Neoplatonism remained a fundamental intellectual framework throughout his life. Especially the letters written between 410 and 420, when Augustine was entering Pelagian controversy, show that even though his reliance on the Scripture grew stronger, he never rejected those Neoplatonic ideas which he considered to be true and valuable. However, he was also a severe critic of the faults of Neoplatonism 106  Kenney, Contemplation and Classical Christianity, p. 166-168. Also Colin Starnes believes that we can contrast Neoplatonism and Christianity in terms of praesumptio vs. confessio (Starnes, Augustine’s Conversion, p. 194197). In that sense, Augustine, of course, was in favour of “Christianity” and against “Neoplatonism”. But he assumes that there can be no humble Neoplatonism or that there is no Christian Neoplatonism. I’m arguing here, of course, for Augustine’s Christianity as Neoplatonism purged of praesumptio.

148

mateusz stróżyński

as a soteriological and therapeutic system. Because Pagan philosophers lack humility and are unaware of the need for God’s grace, they can see God as if “from afar”, but they can never arrive at a stable, permanent enjoyment of God in this life or in the next one. Whether such a stance allows us to call Augustine a “Christian (Neo)Platonist” or a “Neoplatonist philosopher” towards the end of his life, is a matter for further debate, but, perhaps, if we were not so attached to those particular terms, we could find that we agree on the essentials. It is to be hoped that a more detailed study of Augustine’s Letters will make us understand better the reality behind those terms and so it can prove useful in continuing debates over the evolution of his thought.

Debating through the Letters vs. Live Discussions. The Patterns of ars disputandi in Augustine’s Correspondence* Rafał Toczko (Toruń) 1. Prooemium The oral and literary dimensions of the ancient texts have been analysed for decades now, especially as far as the Homeric epic and Platonic dialogues are concerned. Obviously the what, when, where, why, and how of Augustine as a preacher have been studied deeply and widely. Some of the findings pertaining to Augustine’s sermons may form an apt starting point for an analysis of the epistolary debates. For instance Stanley  P. Rosenberg made recently an interesting distinction between “three modes of episcopal communication”, namely “preaching, writing, dictating”.2 Rosenberg founded his observation on one fragment in Sermo 162C where Augustine refers to his activities as a producer of texts. Augustine uses first person plural: scribimus, dictamus, loquimur, 3 and it seems more apt to define those modes as writing, dictating *  The author of this article was supported by a grant of the Polish National Science Centre (2012/05/B/HS2/04106). 2  S.P.  Rosenberg, “Beside Books: Approaching Augustine’s Sermons in the Oral and Textual Cultures of Late Antiquity”, in Tractatio Scripturarum. Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons, ed. by A.  Dupont, G.  Partoens, M.  Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2012, (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 65), p. 405-406. 3  Augustinus, Sermo 162C= Sermo Dolbeau 10D, 15.55, ed. by F. Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone, Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, Paris, 1996 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 147), p.  347: “Omnia quae scripta sunt in sanctis canonicis libris nos qui disputamus et libros scribimus,

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 149-178 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113889

150

rafał toczko

and speaking and treat them as modes of ars disputandi. During my work on Scrinium Augustini it has become only more tempting to examine Augustine’s letters in the light of these categories to see in which mode he prefers to engage in debates and what is the status of the epistolary genre in this context. This temptation led me to ask two more specific questions: Can we observe any pattern in Augustine’s attitudes to the letter as the medium of debating? If yes, are there any reasons behind such preferences? 2. Producing letters in the times of Augustine The term “production of letters” implies not only the way the signs of language found their way on the material, but also the material itself.4 It is fairly well known that there were different types of material used for writing the letters; the most popular being: wax tablets, papyrus, and parchment. Although we lack a sufficient number of testimonies to formulate some statistically valid claims, we find few even in the corpus of Augustinian correspondence. Scholars tend to suggest that in the times of Augustine parchment was the material most often used among the three,5 especially for the more elevated correspondence,6 and it seems that longe aliter scribimus, proficiendo scribimus, cottidie discimus, scrutando dictamus, pulsando loquimur.” 4  More on this subject, see Angela Zielinski Kinney’s article in this volume. 5  See ep.  15.1; 19.1; 24.3; 24.6; 31.2; 162.4. Of those, the last one is the most telling, for Augustine commenting on the ontology of visions uses an analogy to the act of writing, where parchment is the obvious choice of material, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p. 515: “cum uero eas coguntur intueri, si recte aduerterint atque compererint non eas esse corporeas sed corporum simillimas, rationem tamen de his non continuo ualent reddere, quibus causis et quem ad modum fiant, qua denique natura sua subsistant uel in quo subiecto sint, utrum ita in animo fiant ut in membrana ex atramento litterae, ubi utraque substantia est et membrana scilicet et atramentum, an sicut sigillum in cera uel figura quaelibet, cui cera subiectum est, illa in subiecto, an utroque modo fiant ista in spiritu nostro aliquando sic aliquando autem sic”. 6  Ep.  171.1 Cf. also P.  Allen, “It’s in the Post: Techniques and Difficulties of Letter-Writing in Antiquity with Regard to Augustine of Hippo, in The Australian Academy of the Humanities Proceedings 2005, Canberra, 2006, p. 115-116. Her opinion: “As a rule, it seems that in Augustine’s time in North Africa official letters were written on parchment, and that for more routine

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

151

such a conclusion is the most feasible in the light of what we know about the production of books in Late Antiquity. There is a general agreement that back then the form of codex with parchment as a writing material was already prevalent, even in the East,7 and that it succeeded in superseding the papyrus scroll.8 To corroborate this thesis with examples from the works of Augustine:9 Paulinus and Therasia writing their first letter to Augustine mention sending him a book, and they refer to it using a casual membrana;10 in his polemic against the Manichaeans Augustine mentions their elegant books written on parchment. This remark sounds congruent with our knowledge of the price difference between the papyrus scroll or codex and the parchment codex and the corollaries of this fact, namely the perception of parchment as a much more civilised or luxurious material than papyrus.11 There are however exceptions to this rule. Optatus of Milevis, commenting around 384 ad on Jeremiah 31:33 provides us with examples of charta and membranae as writing materials. Although the structure of the sentence is symmetrical, Optatus mentions papyrus before parchment.12 If it does not prove that papyrus is more popular than parchment, it certainly does show that it is a not less obvious writing-material in this period. Papyrus and parchment letters or for communications involving familiarity, papyrus was used”. See also A. Zielinski-Kinney’s paper in this volume. 7  R. Bagnall showed recently that also in the homeland of papyrus, parchment books were produced and considered more valuable, see. R.  S. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, Princeton, N.J., 2009, p. 72-79. 8  G.  Cavallo, “Libri, lettura e biblioteche nella tarda antichità: Un Panorama e qualche riflessione”, Antiquité Tardive 18  (2010), p.  10-12. However scholars disagree over the causes of this success of codex, see. Bagnall, Early Christian Books, p. 79-90 with references. 9  Easily found through www.scrinium.umk.pl. 10  Ep. 24.3; 24.6. 11  Augustinus, Contra Faustum, 13.18, see. E. Crisci, “Note sulla più antica produzione di libri cristiani nell’oriente Greco”, in Segno e Testo, 3 (2005), p. 93-145, Bagnall, Early Christian Books, p. 50-69. 12  Optatus Milevitanus, Contra Parmenianum Donatistam, 7.1: “Ergo iam secundo loco est charta, secundo loco membranae, si a Deo lex ibi scripta est unde tradi non possit!”. The English translation seems to blur the meaning: “Therefore the scroll is in the second place, the writing-material is in second place.” See Optatus, Against the Donatists, transl. by M. Edwards, Liverpool, 1997 (TTH 27), p. 132.

152

rafał toczko

occur in the same order in the text of Rufinus of Aquileia.13 One should also observe that even in the late fifth/early sixth centuries we notice the existence of a copy of De civitate Dei in central Gaul, written on papyrus.14 And as we know from ep.  15, also wax tablets used for correspondence varied in quality, some of them were even made of ivory. Whether the words landed eventually on papyrus, parchment or wax tablets, it is interesting how they crossed the ‘space’ between the thoughts of the author and the writing material. Augustine and his correspondents were still most often dictating their books and letters and, of course, listening to the received letters.15 Paul Saenger made his point while reminding us that the ancients were dictating even autograph letters, before writing them down “the author articulated to himself the phrases he composed”.16 Although Ambrose at times demonstrated a preference for writing with the autograph, for Cicero it was the most obvious choice,17 Augustine preferred to dictate the text. Only then, if he found it very important, he used the repeated formula to inform about his editorial approval, as in the ep.  238: Huic scripturae a me dictatae et relectae Augustinus subscripsi,18 ep.  239: huic scripturae meae a me dictatae et relectae Augustinus subscripsi,19 or ep.  241: Augustinus haec dictaui, et relectis subscripsi.20 At times, however, when the disputed questions were of extraordinary importance and/or complexity, the bishop at least allowed for the possibility of writ-

Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2, who mentions the writing materials in the same order. 14  Taurentius, Epistula “Litterae sanctitatis”, ed. by R.  Demeulenaere, 1985 (CCSL, 64), p.  400. English translation: R.W. Mathisen, Ruricius of Limoges and Friends: A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Gaul; Liverpool, 1999, p. 168-169. 15  Cf. ibidem, p. 114-115 and 119. 16  P.  Saenger, “Silent Reading: Its Impact on Late Medieval Script and Society”, Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 13 (1982), p. 372. 17  Cicero, ep. ad Att. 2.23.1; Ambrosius, ep. 47.1-3; Paulinus Mediolanensis, Vita s. Ambrosii, 38. 18  Ep.  238.4, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 556. 19  Ep. 239.3 (CSEL, 57), p. 559. 20  Ep. 241.2 (CSEL, 57), p. 562. 13 

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

153

ing them on his own instead of dictating.21 And Jerome seemed to be on the same page with Augustine.22 It is not surprising, for the letters as a genre itself are, apart from the literary dialogues, as close as you can get to the oral dimension, especially if they are being dictated and read aloud. The features pointing at this genetic middle ground are the salutations, the frequent use of the second person, mentions of the previous letters, references to one’s mood, health, dealings, and to the common experience of the correspondents. This extraordinary status of the epistolary genre as situated between the textual and oral culture has been observed already by the classical writers. Cicero calls letters sur21  Ep. 239.3 (CSEL, 57), p. 559: “Possum tamen, quantum deus dederit facultatis uel dictandi tibi uel scribendi, ego quoque uel dictando uel scribendo, ad quod uolueris, respondere.”; ep.  162.1 (CSEL, 44), p.  511: “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”. One must be very cautious in evaluating such expressions, for the first two paragraphs of this letter are very ironic and full of false compliments towards Evodius. The context of rhetorical prooemium is forcing the author to give reasons for taking the floor at all. One of the topoi serving this goal was to underlie the difficulty and importance of the issues discussed. On this exchange of letters see Danuta Shanzer’s paper in this volume. 22  Hieronymus, Commentarii in Isaiam (CCSL, 73), lib. 5, praef., linea 47: “dictamus haec, non scribimus: currente notariorum manu currit oratio.” Idem, In Hieremiam prophetam libri vi, (CSEL, 3), praef., linea 10: “Sicque conabor notariorum manu scribere, ut nihil desit in sensibus, cum multum desit in verbis”. I  would like to thank Philip Polcar for providing me with these and many more examples where Jerome uses the phrase accito notario or a simple dictaui. Paulo Evaristo Arns, La technique du livre d’apres Saint Jérôme, Paris, 1953, p.  42-43, claimed that Jerome picked up the habit of dictating only because of illnesses and the amount of pending writing. This argument was used by Saenger, “Silent Reading”, p.  371-372, to state that Jerome “valued the physical act of writing”. This line of thought is based mainly on one testimony from the Commentarii in epist. ad Galat., lib. 3. praef. (PL, 26), coll. 399D-400C; although elaborated, it only proves that sometimes Jerome wrote with an autograph and could give convincing reasons for such a choice.

154

rafał toczko

rogates of an actual dialogue,23 speeches in the written medium, 24 occasions to speak with an absent friend.25 And Christian writers share these sentiments, e.g. Ambrose of Milan calls letter sermo cum absentibus.26 Ancient letters, however, were in a way far more than that. Tom Standage in a book published recently, Writing on the Wall: Social Media – The first 2000 years, strives to prove a thesis that not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many had been present already in the time of Cicero.27 The great collections of Roman letters serve as a starting point for his analysis. One of the lessons we, classicists, can gain from this book is that if we read the ancient letters as a sort of blog entries we could approach them more fruitfully. Such a standpoint would allow us to see the performative character of these texts. One of their primary functions was to create an aura of authority, even celebrity surrounding the letter writer. And this is an observation that has only recently become present in the discussion on the subject.28 Thus letters are almost always a public affair, something that Pauline Allen called, using a phrase coined by another author, “public intimacy”.29

23  Cicero, ep. ad fam. 12.30.1. On the question of epistolary theory see A.J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Atlanta, Ga., 1988. 24  Cicero, ep. ad Att. 8.14.1; 9.10.1; 12.53. Cf. Seneca, ep. 75.1. 25  Cicero, ep. ad fam. 2.4.1. Cf. Seneca, ep.  75.1. 26  Allen, “It’s in the post”, p.  113. Allen had presented the same quotations from Cicero and Ambrose. In another study Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil define letter in different words: “it is one half of a dialogue or takes the place of a dialogue; it is a communication with somebody absent as if he or she were present; it is speech written down; it reflects the personality of the letter-writer”, P.  Allen, B.  Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410590 ce): A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters, Leiden, Boston, 2013, (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 121), p. 16. 27  T.  Standage, Writing on the Wall: Social Media – the First 2,000 Years, New York, 2013, p. 21-47. 28  For a very fine example, see A.  Cain, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford, New York, 2009. 29  Allen, 2005, p.  114, quoting M.  Mullett, Theophylact of Orchid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop, Aldershot, 1997, p.  17. Repeated in Allen, Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity, p. 18.

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

155

We know for instance from ep.  136 that Volusianus read to Marcellinus one letter from his correspondence with Augustine. Marcellinus even admits to having influenced Volusianus to read it to many other people. 30 At the end of the same letter the author argues that Augustine should send an answer to the Pagans in Carthage composed with the utmost care and wit. To substantiate this plea he inserts a remark proving that Augustine’s letters were circulating from hand to hand. 31 At the beginning of the fifth century Pammachius managed to convince coloni from his Numidian estates to break with Donatism. In his congratulatory letter, Augustine asks this Roman senator to read this very letter in the aristocratic circles in Rome, among his Christian friends. The misfire of Augustine’s and Jerome’s epistolary discussion on Galatians 2:11-14 started with his famous ep.  40 that came to be known in Rome as Liber contra Hieronymum. Its copies were circulating in Rome and by the Adriatic sea, and only later reached Palestine, the fact that triggered Jerome’s pointed response. 32 Augustine, on another occasion, shared his fears that his letters would be searched for and read by people without sufficient intellectual training, and, what is worse, some of (such) readers in their curiosity may be driven by hostile motivations. 33 By no means was it only Western or Augustine’s idiosyncrasy. Gregory of Nyssa provides us with a vivid image of this astonishingly fast spread of letters. In January 381 he was out in town of the Cappadocian Caesarea and his acquaintance gave him a letter from Libanius. Agitated by the fact, he opened it instantly and let everyone around him hear or read it. 34 Some of the particiEp. 136.1. Ibidem, 3 (CSEL, 44), p. 96: “Vnde, sicut beatitudo tua me cum dignatur agnoscere, ad haec omnia, quoniam multorum manibus sine dubio tradetur sanctitatis tuae desiderata responsio, plenus debet et elucubratus solutionis splendor ostendi”. 32  J. Ebbeler, Disciplining Christians. Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters, Oxford, 2012, p. 113-116; A. Fürst, Augustinus Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus, Münster, 1999, p. 96-110. 33  Ep. 162.1, quoted above [no. 472]. 34  The bombastic rhetoric does not help here: “I was overjoyed at this good fortune and threw open my gain to all who were present. All shared in it, each eagerly acquiring the whole of it, while I was none the worse of it”, A.  Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, Leiden, 2007, p. 157. 30  31 

156

rafał toczko

pants of this gathering were memorizing the phrases, some were copying them on their wiped tablets. 35 A very similar situation is described by Libanius commenting on the arrival of a letter from Basil of Caesarea. 36 In both cases the letters are presented as an extraordinary gift, a very valuable ‘thing’, a precious monument of great literary style. By sharing letters of famous authors the recipients present themselves to their acquaintances as sociable and magnanimous companions. 37 Sometimes, however, this public character of epistolary intimacy was not welcomed by the sender. Libanius once wrote irritated: “any letter you get is immediately known to people here”, 38 which Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen interpret as a hint to the indiscreetness of the letter carriers, 39 while Alan Cameron puts the blame on Themistius’ loquacity.40 Whatever the reason, it is rather clear that no distinguished letter writer could, and very often would like to, defend himself successfully against the proliferation of copies (either written or memorised) of his letters. And if not, one had to make the best of the

35  Gregorius Nyssenus, ep.  14.3-4, ed. by P.  Maraval (SChr, 363), p. 202205; Silvas, Gregory, p. 156-157. 36  Basilius Caesariensis ep.  338, London, 1961 (LCL, 270, IV), p.  294-297. These letters of Gregory and Basil provide us also with testimonies on silent reading. 37  For Antonio Garzya these examples point to the existence of a circle of admirers surrounding the addressee of a famous letter-writer. A.  Garzya, “L’epistolografia letteraria tardoantica”, in Le trasformazioni della cultura nella tarda antichità: atti del Convegno tenuto a Catania, Università degli Studi, 27 sett.-2 ott. 1982, ed. by C. Giuffrida, M. Mazza, Roma, 1985, p. 371. 38  Libanius, ep.  16, transl. by A.F.  Norman, Libanius. Autobiography and Selected Letters, London, 1992, v.1. p.  401. More examples of the public character of this correspondence from East and West, one can find in A.  Cameron, “Were Pagans Afraid to Speak Their Mind in a Christian World? The Correspondence of Symmachus”, in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, and Coexistence in the Fourth Century, ed. by M.  Salzman, M.  Sághy, R.  Lizzi Testa, Cambridge, New York, 2015, p. 87-90. 39  B.  Neil, “Continuities and changes in the practice of letter-collecting from Cicero to late antiquity”, in Collecting Early Christian Letters from the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. by B.  Neil, P.  Allen, Cambridge, New York, 2015, p. 12. 40  Cameron, “Were Pagans”, p. 89.

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

157

situation, which virtually resembles the curse and blessing of having many so-called followers in social media. What is more, as Gregory of Nazianzus put it, letters should be persuasive even to simple people (contrary to treatises): “As to clarity everyone knows that one should avoid prose-like style so far as possible, and rather incline towards conversational. To put it briefly, the best and most beautifully written letter is the one that is persuasive to the uneducated and educated alike, appearing to the former as written on the popular level, and to the latter as above that level, a letter which furthermore is understood at once. For it were as inopportune that a riddle be seen through (at once) as that a letter be in need of interpretation.”41

One must note that not every letter written by Augustine is consistent with these rules. Even worse, Augustine seems to consciously infringe them, as his ep.  137 to Volusianus shows: some issues concerning Christian doctrine are too deep and difficult for a customary short letter written in a simple, conversational style. Hence he encourages Volusianus to break free from the customs of secular epistolography and follow the examples of the Apostles. In practice Augustine wrote a few letters numbered among heavy weight theological treatises, as e.g. epp.  140, 147, 157, 166 and 187.42 Nonetheless for the most part he was faithful to the epistolary traditions. Both Cicero and Seneca agreed that one of the goals of correspondence is to present the personality of the letter writer to the addressee and to whomsoever might copy, hear, or read it.43 This feature, abundantly present in the Augustinian correspondence, may also be viewed as resembling the contemporary attempts to build your audience and authority through the social media. Augustine obeyed yet another epistolary custom. If you got involved in the exchange of letters it was your duty to pursue the cycle of answering and waiting for an answer, sort of “once in the

41  Gregorius Nazianzenus, ep. 51.1. English translation: Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, p. 58-59. 42  Some of them were copied and circulated as treatises, as e.g. ep. 140 - De gratia noui testamenti, ep. 147 - De uidendo Deo, ep. 187 - De praesentia Dei. 43  Cicero, ep. ad fam. 16.16.2; Seneca, ep. 40.1.

158

rafał toczko

Kula always in the Kula”.44 We hear many cries and murmurs of anxiety caused by the delay in answering, and both in Pagan and Christian letters of the period the introductory formulas are echoing with the word officium.45 To sum up and not weary the reader with this social media metaphor, by rule and custom letters were in many ways the most accessible of all writings and Augustine knew it and used them as such. Ep.  231 written in 429/30 is a good testimony accounting for this character of the epistolary strategies of late antique Christians. Count Darius, an important figure at the imperial court at Ravenna was sent to Africa to deal with disorder. Augustine was ill and could not meet him, but did not miss the opportunity to greet him with a short letter (ep.  229). Darius responded with a bombastic praise of the bishop’s literary skills and intellect, corroborated by his request for a copy of Confessiones (ep.  230). Ep.  231 is the third letter in this sequence. From its very beginning Augustine feels obliged to dismiss the praise, only to fill his letter with a great number of references to the classical culture in a sort of a show-off of his literary acumen. He mentions Themistocles, quotes from the Aeneid, praises Darius for his eloquence as the fruit of both nature and nurture.46 Reading parts of this letter gives us a sort of a déjà vu. It is almost as if we are dealing with Cicero, Pliny the Younger or Aurelius Symmachus. But the paradox of Christian rhetoric is that, while resembling its classical antecedent, it also strives for originality, and seeks to differ from its elder sister. Thus Augustine explains that his joy caused by the eloquence and praise evident in the letter of Darius, an example of epideictic, laudatory genre, is only conditional. He uses some derogatory terms calling the joy caused by eloquence and praise “slight and mediocre”.47 The real source of his happiness is that in the letter Darius reveals himself as a fervent Christian. That could serve Augustine as an argument well suited to move some stubborn souls, who are still Pagan (a not uncommon phenomenon 44  And it remained so even in the early medieval Gaul, cf. R.W. Mathisen, Ruricius of Limoges and Friends, p. 107. 45  Cf. C. Conybeare, Paulinus Noster: Self and Symbols in the Letters of Paulinus of Nola, Oxford, New York, 2000, p. 24-25. 46  Ep. 231.2-3. 47  Ibidem, 5.

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

159

in this Christian empire).48 What is also important is the information he gives us about the role of letters. He is utterly happy that Darius gave a testimony of his love for the Christian bishop and Christian faith in a letter. The reason is that Augustine and Darius may now copy their correspondence and share it among acquaintances (who will copy and circulate it later on), thus proving that also Christians belong to the elite. After all it is the way you speak and the things you read that serve as visible signs of social status. And there was no doubt that among Darius’ friends there were still many non-Christian or very superficially baptized people who would appreciate reading these letters. 3. Reading letters in the time of Augustine Before  I present an analysis of Augustine’s letters searching for the signs of preferences related to the use of written text or live discussions, I  need to sum up our knowledge about the tendencies and modes of reading in his time. Many issues occurring in the passages concerning reading in Augustine’s letters were put together by Matilde Caltabiano in a paper published in the special issue of the journal Antiquité Tardive dedicated to the literary and archeological evidences of the existence of libraries, books, and readers in Late Antiquity.49 She analyses also the corpus of Augustinian correspondence and comes up with some valid conclusions.50 There were problems with fluent reading aloud scriptio continua even among educated people like Firmus or Conscentius. The letters of Augustine were often accompanied by his books, and letters to Augustine were often filled with requests for copies of his books. Therefore Caltabiano suggests that we should call Augustine the promoter of reading encouraging Christians to be careful readers and listeners. But what about the bigger picture of the reading habits in this period? Firstly, scholars have observed a serious decrease in the number of literate people, particularly among women. ReadIbidem. M.  Caltabiano, “Lettura e lettori in Agostino”, Antiquité Tardive, 18 (2010), p. 151-161. 50  Ibidem, p. 156-158. 48  49 

160

rafał toczko

ing and writing is more a thing of the elites now in the times of Augustine than in classical Rome.51 Secondly, throughout the fifth and sixth centuries more and more instances are occurring that mention people reading in silence, something that Cavallo describes as a shift “Da una lettura libera e ricreativa  […] ad una lettura orientata e normativa”.52 Also Augustine’s testimonies on reading in silence indicate a sort of a starting point for the new literary culture of lectio tacita.53 Soon the phenomenon of silent reading became connected with the act of meditation.54 The Rule of Benedict and Isidore of Seville accentuated the fact that one can reflect more deeply upon the text during silent reading than while reading aloud. However in times of Augustine the old habit of reading aloud is still the most powerful one around the monasteries, in the churches, offices, and at home.55 E.g. ep. 158 of Evodius describes a young fellow, his late praiseworthy secretary:

G.  Cavallo, “Tra volumen e codex. Lettura nel mondo Romano”, in Storia della lettura nel mondo occidentale, ed. by G.  Cavallo, R.  Chartier, Roma, 1995, p.  64-65. It is true that it became more popular in the Middle Ages esp. since the Rule of Benedict, cf. M.  Parkes, “Leggere, scrivere, interpretare il testo: pratiche monastiche nell’ Alto Medioevo”, in Storia della lettura, p. 74-76. 52  Cavallo, “Tra volumen e codex”, p. 68. 53  See e.g. closing remarks of G.  Stroumsa, On the status of books in Early Christianity, in Being Christian in Late Antiquity: A Festschrift for Gillian Clark, ed. by C.  Harrison, C.  Humfress, I.  Sandwell, Oxford, 2014, p.  70-71. As B.M.W. Knox, ‘Silent Reading in Antiquity’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 9  (1968), p.  432-435, has demonstrated already that in the works of Euripides and Aristophanes instances of reading in silence could be found. But it was a very rare technique exercised by very few people, cf.  J.  Svenbro, La Graecia arcaica e classica: l’invenzione della letura silenziosa, in Storia della lettura nel mondo occidentale, p. 22-23. Augustine, conf. 6.3 acknowledges his shock at the view of Ambrose reading in silence. The discussion focuses on discerning the motive behind this observation: whether Augustine admired Ambrose’s ability to concentrate on reading in a noisy surrounding or his ability to read silently per se, cf. Stock, Augustine the Reader, p. 62. 54  Isididorus Hispalensis, Sententiae, 3.14.9, ed. by P.  Cazier (CCSL, 111), p.  240: “Acceptabilior est sensibus lectio tacita quam aperta; amplius enim intellectus instruitur quando uox legentis quiescit et sub silentio lingua mouetur. Nam clare legendo et corpus lassatur et uocis acumen obtunditur”. 55  Cf. e.g. Stock, Augustine the Reader, p. 5. 51 

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

161

“Erat autem strenuus in notis et in scribendo bene laboriosus, studiosus quoque esse coeperat lectionis, ut ipse meam tarditatem causa legendi nocturnis horis exhortaretur; nam aliquanto tempore noctis mihi ipse legebat, cum omnia siluissent, nec uolebat praeterire lectionem, nisi intellexisset, et tertio et quarto repetebat et nec dimittebat, nisi sibi apparuisset, quod quaerebat.”56

Here we see that in times of Augustine his fellow Christians used vocal reading, even repeated, to better understand and to meditate on the text. Silent reading is not as yet connected with meditation. One remark of Nebridius provides us with data for further considerations: “Erunt igitur mihi et ad audiendum propter eloquentiam dulces et ad legendum propter brevitatem faciles et ad intellegendum propter sapientiam salubres.”57

As we hear, the quality of sweetness (dulces), thus the purely esthetical value, is connected with the oral dimension of the text. It is always the ear and not the eye of the beholder that is responsive to the one of the three main aims of any rhetorician, namely delectare. And Augustine was equipped and prepared to delight audiences through his style (elocutio, eloquentia). More than 100 years ago scholars, Tadeusz Zieliński among them, discovered and documented the phenomenon of the rhythmic Latin prose, focusing at first on Cicero’s rhythmical clausulae in his speeches.58 A fine analysis by Ralph  G. Hall and Stephen  M. Oberhelman 56  Ep.  158.1 (CSEL, 44), p.  489. I  have used the translation by R. Teske, Letters 156-210, WSA 2.3, Hyde Park, 2004, p.  40-41: “He was, however, meticulous with notes and worked quite hard at writing; he had also come to enjoy reading to the point that he used to urge me on in my slowness to read at night. For he himself would read to me for some time at night when everything had fallen silent, and he did not want to pass over a passage if he had not understood it, and he repeated it a third and fourth time and did not let it go unless what he was seeking had become clear to him”. 57  Ep.  6.1 in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  12. English translation: Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, p. 25: “I am as delighted to have your letters as I am to have my own eyes. They will, therefore, be delightful for me to hear because of their eloquence, easy to read because of their shortness, and salutary to understand because of their wisdom.” 58  T.  Zieliński, Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden, Grundzüge einer oratorischen Rhythmik, Leipzig, 1904.

162

rafał toczko

proved that Augustine used in his correspondence both metrical, i.e. quantitative rhythm (at early stage), and accentual rhythm, i.e. cursus mixtus (after he became a bishop).59 But there were many other devices Augustine was eager to use in his letters to make them mellifluous. The quotation above may also serve as evidence that the notarii in Hippo used scriptio continua without the separators and punctuation. Long pieces of texts were rather hard to read and involved special abilities that could have been developed with sufficient training. Some scholars even claim that the ancients did not recognise the word as a unit of meaning.60 The famous Consentius’ reluctance to read long books may have something to do with this difficulty in discerning the exact words in the manuscripts.61 It was easier for this ambitious, but a bit laid-back intellectual to write (so probably to dictate) the texts than to read them.62 We must see, however, that Augustine in the prooemium to De trinitate, expressis verbis situates himself in the opposite position: he prefers reading to dictating.63 To sum up, it is most probable that most if not all of Augustine’s addressees absorbed the content of his letters (and his writings) through the ears. This feature is not irrelevant for the subject investigated here. 59  R.G.  Hall, S.M.  Oberhelman, “Rhythmical Clausulae in the Letters of Saint-Augustine”, in Augustiniana, 37  (1987), p.  258-278. But see also a recent contribution in L. Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p. 123-129. 60  Saenger, “Silent Reading”, p.  370-371. See also, Stock, Augustine the Reader, p. 7. 61  As  P. Saenger shows that it was the meeting with the Celtic illiterate people that caused Irish monks to separate words in their manuscripts in the eighth century, Saenger, “Silent Reading”, p. 377. 62  Ep.  12*.5, in Augustinus, Epistulae nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. by J.  Divjak, Vienna, 1981 (CSEL, 88), p. 73: “Ita factum est, ut peruerse mihi consulens mallem duo uolumina ridenda conscribere quam multa multorum admirabilia perscrutari”. 63  Augustinus, De trinitate, prooem. 3,1, ed. by W.J.  Mountain, Turnhout, 1968 (CCSL, 50), p. 127: “Credant qui uolunt malle me legendo quam legenda dictando laborare. Qui autem hoc nolunt credere, experiri uero et possunt et uolunt, dent quae legendo uel meis inquisitionibus respondeantur uel interrogationibus aliorum quas pro mea persona quam in seruitio Christi gero et pro studio quo fidem nostram aduersus errorem carnalium et animalium hominum muniri inardesco necesse est me pati, et uideant quam facile ab isto labore me temperem et quanto etiam gaudio stilum possim habere feriatum”.

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

163

4. Modes of debating in Augustine’s letters Brian Stock in his study of Augustine’s theory of reading, presented at times controversial theses.64 However, one of his valid conclusions is that in the theory of language and epistemology Augustine, contrary to Socrates, at some point commenced to value writing and reading (scilicet: written debates/teachings) more highly than speaking (scilicet: oral or live discussions). Augustine seemed to believe that through writing we can more easily get to the true signification, and thus reach the desired truth.65 It is very prominent especially in the second book of De doctrina Christiana, which is much more pro-reading than the earlier De magistro: “Reading is no longer one method among others; it lies at the root of our ability to acquire salvific knowledge.”66 Although Stock has also analysed the theory of understanding and of reading in Augustine’s letters, he did not outline any pattern in Augustine’s reflections on the epistolary genre in reference to those theories.67 In this crucial part of the paper, I  evoke and analyse these loci in the texts where Augustine unveils his preferences for the manner of debating certain issues. While the presentation of this not too widely known aspect of Augustinian correspondence is interesting in itself, it serves the purpose of answering the questions opening this study. Already in the letter to his old companion Nebridius (ep.  9, written c.  388-391) we can find that for Augustine it is not a dilemma between the oral and the written only. There are three different modes of ars disputandi: “Magna enim res est, cui tu quoque pro tua prudente perspicis, non epistola, sed aut praesenti conlocutione aut aliquo libello respondendum esse.”68 Pointed at by Mark Vessey in his review of the book for Bryn Mawr Classical Review 96.9.1, http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1996/96.09.01.html. 65  Stock, Augustine the Reader, p. 161-162, 197-198. 66  Ibidem, p. 197. 67  Ibidem, p. 127-130. 68  Ep.  9.2 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  20. English translation: Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, p. 31: “For it is an important issue, and given your prudence you too see that one ought not to reply to it by a letter, but by a face-to-face conversation or by a treatise.” 64 

164

rafał toczko

Among those three, the letters are judged to be the least useful and not really suitable for the presentation of one’s ideas on those very important questions concerning the nature of dreams. The preference is for discussion and for the treatises, more structured or systematic writing. However one should notice that live debates are mentioned before libelli in this alternative, which suggests they are considered to be more valid for the stated purpose. This remark occurs in the context of a friendly dialogue, a bit unbalanced though, for Nebridius once again plays the role of an inquiring pupil whereas Augustine is the answering master. Ep.  19 from the year 390 or 391, thus written around the same time as the ep. 9, to a Catholic layman in Carthage named Gaius, shares the same ideas about the preference for live discussion and books over letters: “Ut abs te abscessimus, dici non potest, quanta suauitate nos perfuderit recordatio tui ac saepe perfundat. Recolimus enim ardore inquisitionis tuae, cum esset mirabilis, non fuisse perturbatam modestiam disputandi. Nam neque flagrantius percontantem neque tranquillius audientem quemquam facile inuenerim. Vellem itaque tecum multum loqui; non enim multum esset, quantumcumque esset, si tecum loquerer. Sed quia difficile est, quid opus est causas quaerere? Prorsus difficile est. Erit fortasse aliquando facillimum – ita deus uelit –, nunc certe aliud est. Dedi ergo negotium fratri, per quem litteras misi, ut omnia nostra legenda praebeat prudentissimae caritati tuae. Non enim aliquid meum inculcabit inuito; noui enim quid benignitatis in nos animo geras. Quae tamen lecta si probaueris et uera peruideris, nostra esse non putes, nisi quia data sunt, eoque te conuertas licet, unde tibi quoque est, ut ea probares, datum. Nemo enim, quod legit, in codice ipso cernit uerum esse aut in eo, qui scripserit, sed in se potius, si eius menti quoddam non uulgariter candidum et a faece corporis remotissimum lumen ueritatis impressum est.”69

69  Ep. 19.1 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  46. English translation: Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, p. 52: “It is impossible to describe the amount of pleasure with which we were filled and are often filled at the remembrance of you since we left you. For we recall that, though the ardor of your search for knowledge was remarkable, it did not exceed the bounds of moderation in argument. I  would, after all, not easily find anyone who poses questions with greater passion and who listens with greater calm. I  would, therefore, like to speak much with you, for it would not be too much, no matter how much it was, if I was speaking with you. But it is difficult. What need is there to ask the reasons? It is indeed dif-

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

165

Augustine would love to talk to Gaius, but as he cannot, he sends his books to be read by Gaius instead. Interestingly though, at this point he refrains from explaining the reasons for this difficile est. Such explanations are abundant however in other letters of this sort and they repeat themselves ad nauseam: episcopal duties and bad health. On the other hand, it is clear that Augustine and Gaius have once shared a sort of philosophical otium. They must have spent it in line with the tradition: discussing philosophically interesting and important issues. At that time and not only for them it meant Christian doctrine. And whether Augustine really liked it or not, he starts the letter with a due praise of Gaius’ companionship in that intellectual enterprise, which certainly proves that it was a friendly debate and not a polemical one. On a closer look, there is the context of the theory of reading present in this one short paragraph. Augustine sees his texts as revealing the truth only because the truth was granted to him and it may be also given to Gaius by God.  This truth however is not in the text, but in the mind and heart of the writer and the reader, only because it is in accordance with the message of the Scriptures, and God helps them both to reveal it.70 But at least at this stage live discussion would seem to serve this purpose better than written communication. These are the notions presented in De magistro and in the first books of Confessiones – all written roughly in the same period. The letter stands once again on the middle ground as a medium through which the correspondents exchange technicalities, like “how to debate”, and customary politeness, not as a real medium for debates.

ficult. Perhaps at some point it will be much easier. May that be God’s will; now it is certainly something else. I, therefore, gave to the brother through whom I sent the letter the task of presenting to your most prudent charity all our writings to read. For he will not force upon you anything of mine against your will; I  know, after all, the good will you bear in your heart toward us. If, nonetheless, after having read them, you give them your approval and see their truth, do not think that it is ours except in the sense that they were given to us, and you may turn yourself toward that source from which it has also been given to you to approve them. No one, after all, sees in the book itself or in the author he reads that what he reads is true, but sees it rather in himself, if a certain light of truth is impressed upon his mind.” 70  Cf. Stock, Augustine the Reader, p. 41, 72, 159-161.

166

rafał toczko

Soon after his ordination, between 391 and 393, Augustine wrote to Aurelius bishop of Carthage and primate of Africa on the question of feasting on cemeteries (ep.  22). There are however many other topics that Augustine would like to debate on with Aurelius, namely the saddening problems of a “monastic start-up”, but he does not find the letter a suitable form for such content. The only right medium for those discreet disputes is a private conversation.71 Once more in the last decade of the fourth century (c.  396-397) the choice of live discussion is preferred to the text. This time however, as is so often the case in the correspondence with Paulinus of Nola, we find bombastic stylistics at play: “Sanctos fratres Romanum et Agilem, aliam epistolam uestram audientem uoces atque reddentem et suauissimam partem uestrae praesentiae, sed qua uobis uisendis inhiaremus auidius, cum magna in Domino iucunditate suscepimus. Unde aut quando aut quo modo uel uos praestare uel nos possemus exigere, ut nos de uobis tanta scribendo doceretis, quanta eorum ore didicimus? Aderat etiam, quod nulli chartae adesse potest, tantum in narrantibus gaudium, ut per ipsum etiam uultum oculosque loquentium uos in cordibus eorum scriptos cum ineffabili laetitia legeremus. Hoc quoque amplius erat, quod pagina quaelibet quantacumque bona scripta contineat, nihil ipsa proficit, quamuis ad profectum explicetur aliorum hanc autem epistolam uestram, fraternam scilicet animam, sic in eorum colloquio legebamus, ut tanto beatior appareret nobis, quanto uberius conscripta esset ex uobis. Itaque illam ad eiusdem beatitatis imitationem, studiosissime de uobis omnia percunctando in nostra corda transcripsimus.”72 Ep. 22.9 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 61: “Multa sunt, quae de nostra uita et conuersatione deflerem, quae nollem per litteras ad te uenire sed inter cor meum et cor tuum nulla essent ministeria praeter os meum et aures tuas”. 72  Ep.  31.2, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  2. English translation: Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, p. 103-104: “We have welcomed with great joy in the Lord the holy brothers, Romanus and Agilis [Teske has Agilus], like another letter of yours, a letter that hears my words and replies and is like the sweetest part of your presence, but which makes us desire more avidly to see you. Why or when or how could you offer or could we demand that you teach us about yourselves as much as we have learned from their lips? There was also present—something which could be present on no page—so great a joy in them as they told us of you that from their very faces and eyes as they spoke we read with an inexpressible joy you yourselves, who were written in their hearts. There was also this greater ben71 

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

167

To our astonishment messengers are metaphorically called the letter itself. Yet this metaphor, laboriously exploited here, proves nonetheless that letters are perceived by Augustine as a genre situated in the middle ground between the oral and the written. These messengers are a perfect letter because they convey not only the sense of the correspondents’ words, but represent their personae with more liveliness and vividness. They enabled a virtual sermo cum absentibus, or simulated it more truthfully than the written epistle.73 Thus, the letter is considered here as a vehicle for emotions, a sign pointing at or even invoking the real presence of Paulinus and Therasia or a lens through which one can zoom in on the inner chambers of close friends.74 The debates on more complicated ideas are not its primary goal. The letter seems to be predestined to build up bonds between the correspondents, and these metaphors used by Augustine are proving it just like other topoi of friendship present in the ancient letters.75 This peculiar living letter, namely Romanus and Agilis, was capable of live conversation and thus was – in the eyes of Augustine – much more worthy than the written page, precisely because it fulfilled the above mentioned goals of the friendly letter more fruitfully. In yet another letter exchange between Paulinus and Augustine (ep.  149, written in 416), the latter faces a particularly difficult exegetical problem posed by the former, namely the interpretation of Col.  2:18. Augustine admits that he would rather discuss it in the presence of his correspondent.76 As the Scriptural passage is efit. No page—no matter how much good the written page contains—itself derives any profit although it is opened up for the profit of others. But we read this letter of yours, namely, the soul of the brothers, in conversation with them so that their soul appeared more blessed in our eyes to the extent that it had been more fully written by you. Therefore, I  copied it into our hearts in order to imitate the same blessedness by most eagerly asking everything about you.” 73  For a complementary view of this passage, see S. Mratschek’s paper in this volume, section 2: The role of the messenger. 74  This image is present in Augustine’s letter to Pammachius (ep. 58.2). 75  Cf. Ebbeler, Disciplining Christians, p. 77-78. 76  Ep.  149.23 (CSEL, 44), p. 368-369: “In epistula porro ad Colossenses quod scriptum est: nemo uos seducat uolens in humilitate [Col.  2,18] et ce­tera, quae sequuntur, quousque tibi obscura esse dixisti, nec ego adhuc sine caligine intellego. Atque utinam praesens de me ista quaesisses. In eo quippe

168

rafał toczko

elusive, its sense not yet obvious for either of them, it demands a very subtle interpretation not achievable through any writing. Augustine underlies the need to express this sense not only through the written signs, but also through facial expressions, tones, and accents of words. Here, once again we see the preference for oral communication in debating doctrinal issues with friends. Obviously the whole letter is filled with such discussions and thus seems to be a form suitable enough for this task. However, at times an issue may occur that cannot be explained within the written medium, that asks for a face-to-face discussion. In the undatable letter to the Catholic bishop Valentinianus (ep.  5*) Augustine explains his preferences for live discussion joined by a similar argument. He betrays irritation with his addressee who had promised to visit him, but wrote a letter full of inquiries. It would have been easier for Augustine to discuss the exegetical and liturgical issues face to face because he lacks free time, and writing (dictating) is more time consuming.77 Also at the very start of his epistolary involvement in the Donatist controversy, Augustine seems to be open to the perspective of debating their issues publicly, face to face, and, obviously, we remember that it was the public debate in Carthage 410 that brought him praise and the prize. In ep.  33, written in or before 396 and addressed to the Donatist bishop of Hippo, Augustine shares his joy on the occasion of the future debate with Proculeian. But the picture gets complicated in paragraph 4 of the letter. There, Augustine insists on writing down the contents of their peaceful (tranquillius et ordinatius disseramus) conversation.78 One gets the impression that Augustine seems to propose a meeting consisting of sets of lectures, an impression only strengthened by what follows. In the next line he puts forward a strange proposition to convey, instead of a public debate, a peculiar pre-debate (prius…conferamus) either through the letters (per epistolas) or through private conversation and a lecture (per collocutionem atque sensu, quem mihi in his uerbis habere uideor, adhibenda est quaedam pronuntiatio in uultu et modo uocis, qui exprimi litteris non potest, ut ex aliqua parte aperiatur, quod ideo fit obscurius, quia non recte, sicut existimo, pronuntiatur”. 77  Ep. 5*.1. 78  Ep. 33.4 (CSEL 34,2), p.  20-21 and 33.6, p.  22: “pacifice conferendo”.

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

169

lectionem).79 Afterwards the people would be informed only about the conclusion of the private dispute, probably with a statement subscribed by both disputants, or, if Proculeian chose an epistolary debate, the audience (i.e. the brethren in church) on both sides would be able to hear the letters read. Thus it is not really a pre-debate, but the debate itself, only consisting mostly or exclusively of writings. It is very difficult to point here to Augustine’s preferences in terms of the choice of mode of debating because all three are mentioned: correspondence, live debate, and purely written form. At the risk of being accused of bias I would suggest that Augustine preferred here the epistolary form. Firstly, he proposed the same strategy earlier in the last decade of fourth century in correspondence with Maximinus, a Donatist bishop, namely exchanging letters and then reading them aloud to the brethren.80 The other reason is that he mentions here the same dangers of live debates that are also mentioned in the letters analysed below, namely the tendency to engage in quarrels, excitement and disturbance of the audience and the disputants, and last, but not least, the problems with memory. The third argument is based on the very fact that there followed letters to Donatists, Pagans and Arians, where Augustine disputed their ideas and acts. We also know that he never engaged in a live debate with Caelestius or Pelagius although he might have done so, but preferred writing polemical treatises and letters. In two letters to Donatist bishops written at some point after ep.  33, around 396 and 410 (ep.  49 to Honoratus, ep.  51 to Crispinus), the preferences of Augustine are expressed more clearly.81 79  Ibidem: p. 21: “Si placet, nullo medio interposito prius nobiscum siue per epistulas siue per conlocutionem atque lectionem, ubi placuerit, conferamus, ne forte intemperantes nonnulli auditores malint quasi nostrum expectare certamen, quam de sua salute in nostra conlocutione cogitare, ut, quod inter nos fuerit terminatum, postea per nos populus nouerit, aut, si per epistulas agi placet, ipsae plebibus recitentur, ut aliquando non plebes sed plebs una dicatur”. Ebbeler, Disciplining Christians, p.  170, is not certain what kind of lectio is on Augustine’s mind. I  propose that these are lectures or the summary of arguments prepared by both disputants beforehand with the aim of reading them at the spot. 80  Ep. 23.6. Cf. Ebbeler, Disciplining Christians, p. 69-75. 81  Cf. Ibidem, p. 169-172.

170

rafał toczko “Dignare ergo rescribere nobis, ut sciamus, quomodo fieri posit, ut ecclesiam suam Christus de toto orbe perdiderit et in uobis solis habere coeperit. Vestrum enim est haec ostendere; nam nobis sufficit ad causam nostrum, quod compleri prophetiam et scripturas sanctas per orbem terrarum uidemus. Hoc autem ego Augustinus dictaui, quia olim uolo loqui inde tecum: uidetur enim mihi uel propter ipsam uicinitatem posse nos per litteras de hac re colloqui sine aliquo tumultu adiuuante deo quantum ipsa necessitas postulat.”82

On this occasion Augustine appears to be certain that these are exactly the letters that present themselves as the best means in the field of ars disputandi. The reasons are also stated: the letters are not interrupted by the emotions of the audience and of the speakers as live debates may be (tumultus points at these two dimensions: social – the anxiety, disturbance of the listeners and individual – confusion or agitation of the disputants). The choice of letters in this case is rather extraordinary and Augustine gives a somewhat puzzling motivation for it. He mentions the vicinity of the correspondents, a feature that would logically encourage live discussions. For Jennifer Ebbeler it points at Augustine’s revolutionary stance in the tradition of friendly correspondence. I  read it differently. The specific reason is rather that Augustine does not consider Honoratus, a Donatist bishop, to be his friend. What is worse, if Augustine were to visit Honoratus for a face to face debate, he would be surrounded by the enemies of Church. Or that is how he used to perceive and name them. In such circumstances he turns to letters, as will be clear from the examples presented below. But why not treatises? I  believe it can be explained by the very features of the genre that I have highlighted above, namely this ‘social-media’ character of the letters and their immediacy; they are also relatively shorter, genetically closer to live discussions, thus they imitate them more fruitfully. Augustine’s remark 82  Ep.  49.3 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  142. English translation: Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, p.  196: “Please, then, write back to us in order that we may know how it is possible that Christ lost his Church in the whole world and began to have it among you alone. For it is up to you to show this. For us, after all, it is enough for our case that we see the prophecy and the holy scripture fulfilled throughout the world. But  I, Augustine, have dictated this because I have long wanted to speak with you about this. For  I think that we can, on account of our nearness, discuss this issue by letters without any uproar, if God helps to the extent that necessity demands.”

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

171

on the vicinity of the correspondents read in this context seems to make yet more sense. Because the correspondents live nearby they can exchange the letters one by one quite fast creating a sort of a feigned dialogue, almost a live debate. The treatises would not have allowed that. All those features are even more evident in his letter to bishop Crispinus: “Rumor ad me detulit adhuc te uelle mecum disputando experiri de quaestione, quae nostram dirimit communionem. Vide, quam breuiter omnes auferantur ambages; ad hanc epistolam responde, si placet, et fortasse sufficiet, non solum nobis sed et eis, qui nos audire desiderant, aut, si non sufficient, scripta atque rescripta, donec sufficiant, repetentur. Quid enim nobis commodius poterit exhibere urbium, quas incolimus, tanta uicinitas? Ego enim statui nihil de hac re agere uobiscum nisi per litteras, uel ne cui nostrum de memoria, quod dicitur, elabatur uel ne fraudentur talium studiosi, qui forte interesse non possunt. Soletis de praeteritis rebus gestis, qui uultis, falsa iactare forte non mentiendi studio sed errore.”83

This time Augustine explains his unusual opinion by reference to the dangers of memory which might be tricky and to the public interest in the discussed issues. Private or even public conversations and debates could not reach as large an audience as letters. As Jennifer Ebbeler has pointed out there was something more to it. By choosing the epistolary form Augustine was able to force the Donatists to express their ideas, respond to them, present their deeds, and thus leave the factual record of the controversy instead of subjective memory, and then spread it around the Christian world.84 What is more, he also managed to present himself and the Ep. 51.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 144. English translation: Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, p.  198: “Rumor has reached me that you still want to examine while debating with me the question that divides our communion. See how quickly all the evasions are removed; reply to this letter if you will, and perhaps it will suffice, not only for us, but also for those who desire to hear us. Or if it will not suffice, let us continue with letters and replies until it does suffice. What greater advantage, after all, could such great nearness of the cities we inhabit offer us? For  I have decided to do nothing with you on this issue except by letters, so that what is said may not slip from the memory of either of us or so that interested persons, who perhaps cannot be present, may not be deprived of such information. You are accustomed to toss about false statements about past events, perhaps not because you want to lie, but because you are mistaken.” 84  Ebbeler, Disciplining Christians, p. 181-184. 83 

172

rafał toczko

Catholic Church as a party only defending itself and determined to reach the truth and unity. Also in the introduction of his letter to the Donatist bishop Emeritus (ep.  87, written 405-411) there is a very fine fragment of concern for us: “Ego cum audio quemquam bono ingenio praeditum doctrinisque liberalibus eruditum, quamquam non ibi salus animae constituta sit, tamen in quaestione facillima sentire aliud quam ueritas postulat, quo magis miror, eo magis exardesco nosse hominem et cum eo colloqui uel, si id non possim, saltem litteris, quae longissime uolant, adtingere mentem eius, atque ab eo uicissim adtingi desidero.”85

Now this is his first letter in their exchange and it may be seen as presenting a contrary testimony to those presented above. However one should look deeper under the surface of one’s Vorur­ teil. Augustine begins with what gives the impression of being a compliment. It looks as though here he prefers talking to writing (magis exardesco nosse hominem et cum eo colloqui). On the other hand, he sees that letters or writings (litterae) can reach further than voice, which is both banal and conventional. The metaphor used here ‘to touch the mind of the addressee and be touched by his mind’ seems to be both inappropriate and ironic, and I suggest, should not be taken sincerely at first value. It was usually found in the letters to friends, and friendship is not the relationship that links Augustine with Emeritus. One can say that it very well suits the strategy of building his and Church’s image as friendly towards the schismatics, but this time Augustine deceivingly misrepresents the goal of communication as touching one’s mind and waiting for reciprocity, for all that he does later on is try to change the mind of Emeritus by force of arguments. But this letter is rather a harsh attack on the positions of Donatists and a sophisticated attempt to ridicule one of their leaders. And his compliment is rather ironical too. If you scratch its surface it 85  Ep. 87.1 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 397. English translation: Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, p.  344: “When  I hear that someone endowed with a good mind and educated in the liberal arts – though the salvation of the soul is not found in them – holds another view than the truth demands on a very easy question, the more I am surprised, the more I am eager to know the man and to converse with him or, if I am unable to do this, I desire to touch his mind and be touched in turn by him, at least by letters, which speed over long distances”.

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

173

sounds more like this: “How can such a well educated man as you be altogether so stupid; the more I am amazed by it, the more I want to know the man and talk to him”. Thus  I presume that also his stated preference for talking to such a personality is very ironic – “if he is in fact so stupid I would rather write to him than talk to him in person, precisely because he will not get my point and misrepresent it later on”. We have already noticed (and we will see some more of it) that Augustine is on guard against what he euphemistically called memoria of his opponents. Ep.  238 to count Pascentius, an Arian, resembles those produced during his epistolary exchange with the Donatists. So far as we know, this letter might have been written in the first decade of the fifth century, after a live debate between the two. It was not however a friendly one, like the one Augustine had with Gaius, and so the letters written in the aftermath are rather different. There followed disagreements – Pascentius claimed that the debate was a total defeat of the Catholic positions due to Augustine’s reluctance to state his faith. Augustine wrote ep.  238 to present his reasons and accuse Pascentius, who firstly had and later had not agreed to the presence of stenographers during the debate.86 Here is how Augustine justifies the reason for his letter: “Volueram quidem petente te atque instante, ut meminisse dignaris, immo uero pro merito aetatis ac dignitatis tuae iubente te de fide christiana etiam praesens cum praesente, in quantum mihi facultatem dominus largiretur, conferre sermonem. Sed quia tibi post prandium displicuit, quod inter nos mane placuerat, ut a notariis uerba nostra exciperentur, ne ulterius dicas, quod te audio non tacere, non me fuisse ausum tibi dicere fidem meam, his litteris accipe quod et tu legas et, cui uolueris, legendum tradas et, quod uolueris, uicissim scribendo ipse respondeas. Iniquum est enim, ut quisque de alio iudicare uelit et iudicari de se nolit. Et de praeterito quidem placito nostro, quod condicto meridiano implere noluisti, facile existimari potest, quis nostrum fidei suae fiduciam non habuerit, utrum qui uolebat, ut diceretur, et timebat, ne teneretur, an qui usque adeo nolebat eam disceptantium iudicio subtrahi, ut mandata litteris uellet etiam legentium memoriae commendari, ne quisquam uel obli­ vione opinatus uel dissensione inritatus diceret ab aliquo nostrum aut 86  See Possidius, Vita Augustini 17, who informs us that Pascentius, himself an important official at the imperial court, was afraid to have his opinions written down, because of the state laws against the heretics.

174

rafał toczko non esse dictum, quod dictum erat, aut dictum esse, quod dictum non erat. In his enim solent latebras suae malae defensionis inquirere, qui contentionis sunt cupidiores quam ueritatis. Hoc autem nec a te nec a me nec de te nec de me dici posset, si in fide condicti permaneres, ut uerba nostra exciperentur et scriberentur, praesertim quia tu ipse in his uerbis, quibus fidem tuam pronuntiasti, quotiens ea repetisti, totiens uariasti, quod nulla credo fraude sed obliuione factum esse.”87

This case is a bit ambiguous for our analysis. After all this letter was created as a corollary of the live debate. However one should read carefully the first quoted sentence, especially the use of etiam (that I read as ‘even’ rather than ‘certainly’) and the phrase: petente te atque instante […] immo uero pro merito aetatis ac dignitatis tuae iubente point at Augustine’s reluctance to be involved in this dispute. He seems to be forced to take part in 87  Ep. 238.1-2 (CSEL, 57), p.  533-534. English translation: Letters 211-270, WSA 2.4, p. 143: “As you may deign to remember, I  had certainly wanted, when you begged and pleaded ‒ indeed, considering the merit of your age and dignity, when you commanded us ‒ to have a conversation, even face to face, about the Christian faith, insofar as the Lord might grant me the opportunity. But, since after dinner you did not want to do what we had in the morning agreed to do, namely, to have our words taken down by stenographers so that you might not say anymore what I hear that you are in fact saying, namely, that I did not dare to state for you my faith, accept in this letter which you can both read and hand on to whom you will. And you yourself may reply with what you want by writing in return. After all, it is unfair that anyone should want to pronounce judgment on another person and not want anyone to pronounce judgment on him. And from our past agreement, which you were unwilling to implement at our afternoon meeting, it can be easily decided which of us lacked confidence in his faith—whether it was the one who was willing to state it, but was afraid to have it preserved, or the one who was so unwilling to remove it from the judgment of the disputants that he wanted what was committed to writing to be entrusted as well to the memory of readers. In that way neither of us might be either confused by forgetfulness or annoyed by the disagreement and might say that something that was said was not said or that something that was not said was said. For those who desire an argument more than the truth often seek concealment for their weak defense in such places. But this could be said neither by you nor by me, neither about you nor about me, if you remained faithful to our agreement that our words be taken down and recorded, especially since you yourself changed those words in which you stated your faith as often as you repeated them, something that was not done out of deceit, I  believe, but out of forgetfulness.”

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

175

it.88 Furthermore he insisted on writing down the acts. It appears that the debacle at the debate and the aftermath of it convinced Augustine that it was better to use the epistolary form. He gave three arguments for his preference for written debates: the infidelity of memory (this is a polite way to say that his enemies present false reports), the influence of emotions on the disputants, and the opportunity to access wider audience. Two contexts seem to stand out in the quoted passages. Firstly, the rephrasing of the Platonic Phaedrus’ dilemma. We find here exactly the same categories: the discussion of the written in the context of memory and oblivion. Secondly, the rhetoric of the old duel between philosophy (or truth) vs. rhetoric (or persuasion). Here, the very choice of the form of debate reveals the moral deficiencies of the adversary and his real evil intention: contentionis sunt cupidiores quam ueritatis. Augustine clearly ridicules his opponent under disguise of sympathy: the fact that Pascentius changed his credo a few times during the debate is for Augustine a sign of his bad memory not of his deceitfulness and intellectual flaws. Well, wait, is it? In the correspondence with Volusianus, dated c. 411, we find very fine examples of Augustine’s preference for letters as a medium of debates that also bear undertones of Phaedrus’ argument. “Magis enim hoc forte adiuuante domino potero quam praesens talia loqui te cum non solum propter occupationes uarias et meas et tuas, quoniam non, cum mihi uacat, occurrit, ut et tibi uacet, uerum etiam propter eorum inruentem praesentiam, qui plerumque non sunt apti tali negotio magis que linguae certaminibus quam scientiae luminibus delectantur. Quod autem scriptum habetur, semper uacat ad legendum, cum uacat legenti, nec onerosum fit praesens, quod, cum uoles, sumitur, cum uoles, ponitur.”89 See also Possidius, Vita Augustini, 17,1. Ep.  132.1 (CSEL, 44), p.  80. English translation: Letters 100-155, WSA 2.2, p.  202: “But if some question arises for you either when you are reading them or when you are pondering them, for the resolution of which I may seem useful, write to me in order that I may write back. For with the Lord’s help I shall perhaps be able to talk about such things in this way better than if I were present, not only on account of the many things that both you and I have to do, since it may happen that, when I am free, you are not also free, but also on account of the intruding presence of those who are not suited for such an undertaking and find more delight in contests of the tongue than in the enlightenment of knowledge. But what you have in writing is always 88  89 

176

rafał toczko

Curiously enough Augustine once again senses the need to justify his choice of debating through the letters. On this occasion he dismisses Volusianus’ invitation to come to Carthage for a sort of cena or even certamen philosophorum. His excuse is multifaceted. One good pretext is, as always in his case, the burden of his duties. The other thing is that Carthage was filled with exiled Romans, consisting also of some anti-Christian, well educated aristocrats. To accept the invitation to this lion’s den meant putting oneself in a rather disadvantageous position. The authority of Augustine would be put at risk: in a time of the decisive clash with the Donatist a rather unwelcomed circumstance. Therefore Augustine puts on the cloak of a true philosopher who disdains rhetoric and searches for truth in opposition to those lovers of “contests of the tongue”, reportedly, abundant around Volusianus. This excuse sounds very much like grumbling of Socrates in Plato’s Phaedrus. Also the last rationale seems to support Thoth’s arguments from this dialogue. It is better to debate via letters for they can be read in parts, re-read, contemplated in otio, and thus occur as a more proper instrument for the real adept of true philosophy. Volusianus sends his response packed with sophisticated critiques of Christian doctrine (ep.  135). Augustine engages in the philosophical debate with the noble Roman official in ep.  137, showing off his classical education and polished style,90 as well as phrasing Christian ideas in the language of Stoicism and Neoplatonism.91 As  I have already mentioned before,92 also in this letter Augustine shows preference for epistolary debates while encouraging his addressee to “not hesitate to propose many questions if many trouble you or to develop at somewhat greater length what you are asking in order that, to the extent that this is possible for such persons as we are, no cloud of doubt may remain to block the light of the truth”.93 In this words Augustine unveils his awareness that he overstepped the epistolary customs. Once again we should available for reading when the reader is free, and what you take up when you wish and put down when you wish is no bother when it is present.” 90  See W. Geerlings, “Die Belehrung eines Heiden: Augustins Brief über Christus an Volusianus”, Augustiniana, 40-41 (1990-1991), p. 451-454. 91  On the presence of Neoplatonism in Augustinian correspondence, see M. Stróżyński’s paper in this volume. 92  See p. 155 above. 93  Letters 100-155, WSA 2.2, p. 223.

debating through the letters vs. live discussions

177

repeat that his choice is dictated by his unwillingness to join in live philosophical dispute in Carthage among the Pagans. However, he wants to take part in the dispute on his conditions, i.e. through the letters – a written medium situated as close as it can get to the oral discussion. 5. Conclusions The analysis of the passages where Augustine comments on his preferences for engagement in debates in different forms, has found that he differentiated between the three media: live discussion, written treatises, and letters, which may fit the categories mentioned in the beginning of this paper, taken from Sermo 162C: loquimur, scribimus, dictamus. Dictated and read aloud letters are to be seen as a hybrid and ambiguous form situated on the border of the oral and the written. As such letters exemplify the ambiguous status of the culture of Late Antiquity considered to have been simultaneously textual and oral. My analysis, as I see it, supports with evidence a general observation of Stanley  P. Rosenberg, claiming that “in many ways and at multiple levels, the society of Late Antiquity was a textually based oral-aural culture”.94 Obviously, the letters are written, but in comparison with treatises they are shorter, hence easier to copy and faster in circulation, and thus they may have more immediate impact, especially locally. Simultaneously the letters have a longer lasting effect and are less vulnerable to misinterpretations than face to face debates. If we search for any pattern in Augustine’s preferences in the analysed sources, it should be stated that the chronological key does not allow us to draw any conclusions. If, however, one applies here the category of the religious status of the addressee, which takes into account Augustine’s attitude towards this person, some traces of a pattern start to occur. First of all, it is certain that the bishop of Hippo differentiated between a friendly debate and a polemic with non-Christians. The former served to satisfy the desire of his fellow Christians for advice, exhortation, consolation, explanation. It also fulfilled the goal of creating and sustaining bonds between friends.95 In this scope, he preferred either live Rosenberg, “Beside Books: Approaching Augustine’s Sermons”, p. 414. Although at times we hear also here the clash of swords. It resulted from his idea of friendly but coercive correspondence as Jennifer Ebbeler showed. 94  95 

178

rafał toczko

debates in otio, especially when the debated issue was highly complicated, or written treatises. He also very clearly signaled that letters were a sort of cross-genetic form of communication not as suitable for this goal as purely written or purely oral forms. It is in line with what we know about the epistolary genre itself. Nonetheless, it still surprises us a bit, bearing in mind that Augustine wrote some letters that have been circulated as treatises. As far as his polemics with people outside the Catholic Church are concerned, people with whom Augustine was not on friendly terms, he tended to avoid live debates, and chose to produce very elegant, multi-layered, ironical examples of the ars disputandi per epistolas. My hypothesis is that he chose the epistolary form of polemics in such cases precisely because the letters were the best tool for getting public attention. As Consentius explicitly admits, long books are too long, especially to read, not so much to write, a fact present-day scholars are quite aware of. Preference: Letter:

Live debate

9 19 22 23 31 33 40 49 51 57 87 132 137 149 238 241 5* *Ep.  2 and 20 are inconclusive

+ + +

Letter

Written treatise

Date:

+

388-391 390-391 391-393 391-395 397 Before 396 397 396-410 399-400 396-410 405-411 411-412 411-412 416 ? (400-410) ? after ep.  238 ?

+ + +

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+ + + + + +

+ +

Addressees: heretic, Catholic schismatic, Pagan + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Part II From the Letter(s) to the Matters

Letters and the City of God Gillian Clark (Bristol) 1. Introduction: Augustine’s letters to Firmus Augustine’s first surviving letter to Firmus, now numbered ep.  1A*, was a remarkable discovery. In 1939, when Dom Cyrille Lambot published the letter he had found in two late medieval manuscripts of De civitate Dei, it was only the fourth addition to Augustine’s letters since the publication, in 1688, of the Maurist edition.1 A year before Lambot’s article, Henri-Irénée Marrou had controversially presented Augustine as a typical lettre de la décadence, much better at brilliant passages than at planning and structure.2 Marrou later changed his mind, 3 but in the meantime, this letter to Firmus demonstrated that Augustine had a clear plan for De civitate Dei, the long and demanding work he composed over some thirteen years, c. 412-426.4 Augustine was given to rhetorical developments and to interesting digressions, and readers of ciu. may sometimes feel that he had lost sight of his argument. But he was aware of this problem, and he regularly set out what he intended to do, how much remained to be done, and, especially C.  Lambot, “Lettre inédite de s. Augustin relative au De civitate Dei”, Revue Bénédictine. 51  (1939), p.  109-121. The letter was known as epistula ad Firmum until Divjak numbered it 1A*. 2  H.-I.  Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, Paris, 1938. 3  H.-I.  Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique (reissued with a retractatio), Paris, 1949. 4  Ciu. 1. praef., in Augustinus, De civitate Dei, ed. B.  Dombart, A.  Kalb, Turnhout, 1955 (CCSL, 47), p.  1: “magnum opus et arduum”. Dates of composition: G. O’Daly, Augustine’s City of God: A Reader’s Guide, Oxford, 1999, p. 34-35. 1 

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 181-202 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113890

182

gillian clark

at the start of a new book, what he had argued so far.5 He also reassured his readers that he had not forgotten earlier commitments.6 The letter to Firmus demonstrates this careful planning. In response to a request from Firmus for all the books of ciu., Augustine explained how the quaterniones should be bound according to the structure of the argument:7 “Quaterniones sunt XXII, quos in unum corpus religere multum est. Et si duos uis codices fieri, ita diuidendi sunt ut decem libros habeat unus, alius duodecim. Decem quippe illis uanitates refutatae sunt impiorum, reliquis autem demonstrata atque defensa est nostra religio, quamuis et in illis hoc factum sit ubi opportunius fuit et in istis illud. Si autem corpora malueris esse plura quam duo, iam quinque oportet codices facias, quorum primus contineat quinque libros priores, quibus aduersus eos est disputatum qui felicitati uitae huius non plane deorum sed daemoniorum cultum prodesse contendunt, secundus sequentes alios quinque qui uel tales uel qualescumque plurimos deos propter uitae quae post mortem futura est per sacra et sacrificia colendos putant. Iam tres alii codices qui sequuntur quaternos libros habere debebunt. Sic enim a nobis pars eadem distributa est, ut quattuor ostenderent exortum illius ciuitatis totidemque procursum, siue dicere maluimus excursum, quattuor uero ultimi debitos fines.”8 “There are twenty-two quaterniones, which is a lot to make into one volume [corpus]. If you want two codices, they should be divided so that one has ten books and the other twelve. In the For example, at the end of book 10, the beginning of book 11, and the beginning of book 18. 6  Notably ciu. 19.21, referring back to 2.21, which he wrote a decade earlier. 7  Quaterniones (“fourfolds”) are “quires”, wide sheets of parchment or paper folded to make four pages. These were stitched together to form a codex. Augustine used quaternio as the equivalent of liber, which could be either a complete work, or a division of a work. The twenty-two libri of ciu. are equivalent to chapters in a present-day book. Except for the very long Book 18 they are of similar length, which is more than would fit on the eight sides of a single quaternio. See further L.  Holtz, “Les mots latins désignant le livre au temps d’Augustin”, in Les Débuts du codex, ed. by A. Blanchard, Turnhout, 1989, p. 109-110. 8  Ep. 1A*.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. by J. Divjak, Vienna, 1981 (CSEL, 88), p. 7-8). All translations are my own. 5 

letters and the city of god

183

ten books the futile beliefs of the impious are refuted, and in the rest our religion is set out and defended, although where it is more appropriate the second task is undertaken in the first group, and the first task in the second. If you would prefer more than two corpora, you should make five codices. The first should contain the first five books, which argue against those who maintain that worship, not so much of gods as of daemonia, is advantageous for good fortune in this life; the second, the next five against those who think that gods of this kind, or many gods of whatever kind, should be worshipped with rituals and sacrifices for the sake of life after death. The three other codices should have four books each, as I have organised that part so that four books show the origin of that city, the same number its progress or (as I preferred to say) course, and the last four its due ends.”

A postscript adds that Augustine has sent a breuiculus, which will show what is included in the twenty-two books.9 The letter also says that the request prompted Augustine to have all the books of ciu. re-read to him; this strengthened an argument that he was the author of some early corrections to the text.10 Finally, by asking Firmus to allow copying and further distribution by Christian brothers at Carthage, as well as sharing them with his own Christian and non-Christian friends, the letter showed how Augustine’s books were circulated. So Lambot’s discovery was very useful to readers of Augustine. Forty years later, Johannes Divjak made another remarkable discovery in the libraries of Marseilles and Paris. This new group of twenty-nine letters included one to Firmus, ep.  2*, which challenged the identification of this Firmus with a fellow-priest who carried letters for Augustine and others. Firmus, it now appeared, was a lay catechumen, and Augustine’s letters used his interest in the book ciu. to encourage Firmus and others into the community which is the ciuitas Dei, the city of God: that is, the community of rational beings, angels and humans, who love God rather

The breuiculus was a summary of the main points, not the list of the books with section-headings (capitula), which is found at the start of some manuscripts. These capitula are medieval aids to reading; they usually, but not always, correspond to the divisions of Augustine’s argument. See O’Daly, Augustine’s City of God, p. 277-278. 10  Lambot, “Lettre inédite de s. Augustin”, p.  116. 9 

184

gillian clark

than themselves.11 This paper considers what can be learned, from these two letters to Firmus, about Augustine’s letter-collection and about his use of letters. 2. Finding Augustine’s letters New discoveries of Augustine’s letters are possible because he did not have time to catalogue the letters he had. In his Retractationes he listed his books, in chronological order, with occasional corrections and with comments on the circumstances in which he wrote them, and on passages which could be misleading in the light of later debates. At the end, he observed that he had not yet embarked on his letters, or on the sermons he had dictated or spoken.12 In a letter of 428, he said that many, or most (plurimas), of the letters had been read to him, but before he could dictate comments, he was diverted by the need to reply to Julian of Eclanum.13 So it is not known how many letters were available to him, or how he would have organised them: by correspondent, by topic, or even in chronological order, like the books. In the complicated manuscript tradition, there is some regularity in sequences of Augustine’s letters, but there is no canonical grouping or number or order.14 Chronological ordering of letters is said to be an early modern practice, perhaps in response to a new understanding of the narrative of a life, whereas earlier collections are organised by correspondent or by theme.15 But Augustine might have chosen to organise the letters, as he did the books, by chronology (in so far as he could remember or reconstruct it), so that he could comment on the context and on the points where he had changed his mind or could be misunderstood in relation to later debates. This system has advantages, because organising by theme or by Ciu. 14.28. Retr. 2.67. 13  Ep. 224.2. 14  For a range of views on the transmission of Augustine’s letters, see the helpful survey of L.  Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien: la correspondance entre l’Afrique et Rome à propos de l’affaire pélagienne (416-418), Leuven, 2015, p. 219-223. 15  R.  Gibson, “On the nature of ancient letter collections”, Journal of Roman Studies, 102 (2012), p. 56-78. 11 

12 

letters and the city of god

185

correspondent, the method of Augustine’s friend and fellow-bishop Possidius, makes it difficult to see cross-connections and leaves a large category ‘Miscellaneous’.16 Perhaps Augustine would have weeded out some letters which did not seem important, or which said much the same as others; perhaps he would have classed some letters as commonitoria, “memoranda”.17 He also recognised the problem of distinguishing a letter from a libellus, that is, a short treatise. In an entry in Retractationes, on two books answering Januarius, Augustine noted that “the first of these books is a letter, because it has in the heading who writes to whom”; but that he listed them among the books because the second is much longer and does not have the names.18 Similarly, he mentioned in ciu. that he had discussed the evangelists on the end of the world in a letter to bishop Hesychius, and “the titulus of this letter is De fine saeculi”.19 But in a letter he referred to “librum vel epistolam meam” written to Sextus, bishop of Rome, against the Pelagians; and he listed in Retractationes, as “one book on the vision of God”, a work which is now classed as a letter to Paulina.20 Moreover, as letters were copied or filed, they could easily lose the titulus which said who was writing to whom. Augustine’s regula for monastic communities is not listed in the Retractationes, and there are debates about its 16  Possidius grouped books, letters and sermons under headings such as Contra paganos. For the letters he gave lists of addressees, sometimes adding a subject. The Maurist text of his indiculum, reprinted in PL 32:33-66, was re-edited by Wilmart (Possidius, Operum S.Augustini Elenchus a Possidio eiusdem discipulo Calamensi episcopo digestus: post Maurinorum labores novis curis editus critico apparatu numeris tabellis instructus, ed. by A. Wilmart, in Miscellanea Agostiniana, Rome, 1931, ii p.  149-233). For the agenda of Possi­ dius, see E. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama. A Study of the North African Episcopate, Oxford, 2008. 17  As suggested by W. Frend, “The Divjak Letters: new light on St Augustine’s problems, 416-428”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 34 (1983), p. 497-513, on p. 419. 18  Retr. 2.20, in Augustinus, Retractationes, ed. by A. Mutzenbecher, Turnhout, 1984 (CSEL, 57), p.  106: “quorum librorum prior epistula est; habet quippe in capite quis ad quem scribit”. 19  Ciu. 20.5 (CCSL 48), p. 705: “cuius epistulae titulus est: de fine saeculi”. 20  Ep.  214.2 on the book or letter to Sixtus, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 381; retr. 2.41 on ep.  147 to Paulina (CCSL, 57), p. 123: “de uidendo deo liber unus”.

186

gillian clark

authenticity, but perhaps he did not list it because he considered it to be a letter in response to a request for advice.21 So there are many questions about the way Augustine would have classified and organised the letters he had. He did not have a complete collection of letters sent and received: in the case of Firmus, for example, internal evidence shows that at least seven letters were exchanged, but only two have survived. Presumably some of Augustine’s correspondents had their own collections. The total now is 308 letters (more or less; depending on divisions of the text), 254 written by Augustine and the rest written to him.22 They extend over forty-three years of a very busy life, from his time in Italy in the late 380s to the Vandal invasions of Africa in the late 420s. Even without Augustine’s references to letters which have not survived, it is clear that there is nothing like a complete archive.23 Possidius listed 257 letters, including 89 which do not survive in the manuscript tradition, but present-day scholars know more letters overall than he did.24 Augustine’s letter-collection seems very big to anyone who is working on it, and it is one of the bigger collections of letters by and to bishops who were his contemporaries.25 But it is relatively small in the context of late antiquity, which is the great age of letter-collections. Christians had particular motives for collecting and copying letters from bishops, because these letters often gave authoritative guidance on exegesis and pastoral concerns, or could be used in disputes about heresies, church property, and claims of primacy.26 Christian religious communities had the time and 21  On the regula, see G. Lawless, Augustine of Hippo and his Monastic Rule, Oxford, 1987. 22  For an overview, see R. Eno, “Epistulae”, in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. by A.  Fitzgerald et al., Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 298310; for a detailed study, J. Divjak, “Epistulae”, in Augustinus-Lexikon vol. 2, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 1996-2002, p. 893-1057. 23  On missing letters, see Mratschek (this collection). 24  Possidius, Operum S. Augustini Elenchus. 25  For comparison, there are 365 letters written by or to Basil of Caesarea; Gregory of Nazianzus 243, Synesius of Cyrene 156. Figures from A.  Cain, The Letters of Jerome. Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2009, p. 220, n. 1. 26  Allen (P.  Allen, “Rationales for episcopal letter-collections in late antiquity”, in Collecting Early Christian Letters: from the Apostle Paul to Late

letters and the city of god

187

resources for further copying. But the biggest surviving collections are those of two non-Christians, Symmachus and Libanius. These include all the letters of recommendation they wrote for their friends and connections, in the case of Symmachus, and for their students, in the case of Libanius. So there are 902 letters of Symmachus and, remarkably, 1545 of Libanius, covering a period of only fifteen years, and with a twenty-three year gap in the dossier. Libanius, like Augustine, disliked travelling, so he did all his networking by letter.27 In comparison with these, Augustine’s letter-collection is small, but it is especially valuable because it extends over so many years, because it is so diverse in tone and length and content, and because Augustine had so many correspondents: 197 as against 129 for Symmachus, 73 for Jerome, 62 for John Chrysostom (but only his correspondence from exile survives) and 32 for Ambrose.28 One reason for this difference is that some collections are selected letters, organised by the author to shape the way he wished to be remembered, or by a later editor who had his own agenda. There are always debates about what survived, how it was rearranged on purpose or by chance, and how the collection or parts of it survived in different groups of manuscripts.29 Ambrose compiled an anthology of 91 letters in ten books, following the example of Pliny: books 1-9 are especially concerned with exegesis, theology, clergy behaviour, and pastoral questions, whereas book 10 is a dossier on public business, especially dealings with emperor. 30 Jerome may have made selections of letters early in his career, choosing Antiquity, ed. by B.  Neil, P.  Allen, Cambridge, 2015, p. 18-34) on letters from bishops, in a volume of papers which discuss representative collections of Christian letters. See now Late Antique Letter Collections: a critical introduction and reference guide, ed. by C.  Sogno, B.  Storin, E.  Watts, Oakland, California, 2016. 27  For an overview, see L. Van Hoof, ed., Libanius: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge, 2014. 28  C.  Sotinel, “Augustine’s Information Circuits”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. by M. Vessey, Chichester, 2012, p. 125-137, on p. 131. 29  For example, A. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, Leiden, 2007, on the letters of Basil. 30  W.  Liebeschuetz, Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, Liver­pool, 2005 (Translated Texts for Historians 43), p. 27-46. Some letters survived outside the collection.

188

gillian clark

some small collections and some individual showpieces; but he did not leave a plan for the rest, so many have been lost, and 123 authentic letters survive. 31 This lack of plan is unexpected, since Jerome took such care to list his books (as a conclusion to De uiris illustribus), and some of his letters are libelli. Letter-collections which have not been edited are more extensive and more useful to historians than Selected Letters chosen to present their author at his best; the letters of Basil and Augustine reveal much more about everyday pastoral demands than those of Ambrose. It is also more likely that new letters will come to light if there is not a canonical collection to be copied. Lambot was investigating the manuscript tradition of ciu., not looking for letters, when he found the letter to Firmus included in two manuscripts. Reims 403 dates from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, and was probably written in Italy. It begins with “Augustinus in libro Retractationum”, citing Augustine’s observations on ciu. 32 There follows “Incipit praefatio beati Augustini episcopi in libris de civitate Dei: Domino eximio…” and the rest of the letter to Firmus. After the letter comes explicit prologus, then the text of ciu. The letter to Firmus is not in fact a praefatio or a prologus to ciu., which has its own praefatio addressed to Marcellinus, but it can be used as a prologus because it sets out so clearly Augustine’s understanding of the structure of ciu. 33 Paris Saint-Geneviève 2747 has a fourteenth-century text of ciu. to which various items, including the letter to Firmus, were added in the fifteenth century. Lambot expressed polite surprise that the letter had escaped notice, but few scholars know the manuscript tradition as well as Lambot and his fellow-Benedictines. At the time of Lambot’s discovery, only four letters had been added to the standard collection, which was published in 1688 by the Benedictines of Saint-Maur. The Maurist edition was the culmination of archival work, from the late fifteenth century on,

Cain, The Letters of Jerome, argues for showpiece collections. Retr. 2.69. 33  Compare ep.  174, which Augustine asked Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, to preface to copies of trin. This letter explains the history of the text, rather than its content. 31 

32 

letters and the city of god

189

by scholars in many European countries. 34 It became standard because the editors removed duplicates and doubtful letters, and arranged the letters chronologically as far as they could do so from internal and external references; thereafter they classed the letters as undated. 35 This collection was reprinted in Patrologia Latina, with the addition of ep. 184A and ep. 202A. 36 In 1901 Dom Germain Morin published ep.  215A; Goldbacher did not see this in time for CSEL, 57  (1911), so printed it in the introduction to CSEL, 58, but he was able to add ep. 92A, ep. 173A, and the fragment ep. 185A, to his edition. 37 The letter discovered by Lambot clearly belonged to the last years of Augustine’s life, after he had finished ciu., and Lambot dated it to 427/8. He was confident that it is authentic. Nothing in the style or the content raised doubts; he also thought that as so many of Augustine’s early works were lost, a forger would not have added the request to Firmus to write back and say where he had found a copy of acad. which is the earliest work listed in the Retractationes. 38 Lambot seems not to have convinced Adalbert Hamman, editor of the second supplement to Patrologia Latina (1960), who mentioned the letter to Firmus in his account of letters which had been added to the Maurist collection reprinted in PL 33, but printed it, not together with the other new letters listed by Lambot, but in the section ‘ps-Augustinus’ with the title

34  Mentelin (c. 1471) relied on manuscripts in Munich, but Amerbach (1493) was able to print 204 letters. Erasmus (Basel 1528 and 1569) added a further 38, and the scholars of Louvain another 29 (Antwerp 1576). 35  P.-M.  Hombert, Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augustinienne, Paris, 2000, prompted many debates on revised chronology. 36  Ep. 184A in PL 33 col. 789, ep. 202A in col. 929. 37  Ep. 215A in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1923 (CSEL, 58), p. xciii; ep.  92A in Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 444; ep. 173A in Epistulae, ed. A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p. 648; ep. 185A in Epistulae, ed. A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 54. 38  Contrast the letter to Augustine’s sister, there named Perpetua, on the death of their mother Monica. The editors of the Acta Sanctorum (Maii i.473) observe that only someone who had never read Augustine could believe it to be authentic.

190

gillian clark

Epistula ad Firmum. 39 But the letter was included, unquestioned, in two major editions of ciu., published in 1955 and 1959. Both in CCSL 47 and in BA 33, the letter was printed as in the Reims manuscript, after the relevant passage of retr. and before the text, but the editors did not call it a praefatio or a prologus. When Gustave Bardy wrote (in 1952) the general introduction to the BA edition of ciu., he accepted both the authenticity of the letter and Lambot’s identification of Firmus as Augustine’s fellow-priest and letter-carrier, describing him as “en quelque sort son agent littéraire, son libraire ou son éditeur à Carthage”, and listing in the “Note complémentaire” Augustine’s other references to Firmus compresbyterus.40 3. Suscipiendus filius: who was Firmus? Firmus compresbyterus had several times carried letters to and from Augustine, and an earlier letter mentions him specifically as someone who can provide books of ciu. In 418 Augustine wrote to two fratres, Petrus and Abraham, that the questions they had raised would be fully discussed in book 14 of ciu., on which he was then working.41 He briefly explained the structure of ciu., and offered to send the books he had so far written, if Petrus and Abraham did not already have them, “per sanctum fratrem et conpresbyterum meum Firmum”42 (“by the holy brother Firmus, my fellow priest”), whom they knew and loved. It is not known where Petrus and Abraham were living at the time, but Firmus compresbyterus had travelled widely, and had long been established in Augustine’s networks of correspondence. In 405, arriving from Palestine, he brought Augustine letters from Jerome with a cover 39  PLS 2 cols  356-358, citing Lambot, for letters added to the collection. The letter to Firmus is printed cols 1373-1374. 40  Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, cinquième série, La Cité de Dieu livres 1-5. Introduction générale et notes par G.  Bardy. Paris, 1959 (BA 33); the title page of BA 33 notes that he wrote the General Introduction three years before his death (on 31 October 1955). Firmus as “agent littéraire”, p. 33, with “Note complémentaire”, p. 767, updated by G. Madec, BA 46B, p. 424-426. 41  Ep.  184A, one of those discovered after the Maurist edition. Date: O’Daly, Augustine’s City of God, p. 34-35. 42  Ep.  184A.7 (CSEL, 44), p. 736.

letters and the city of god

191

note.43 Two further letters from Jerome were brought by Cyprianus, another trusted compresbyterus of Augustine, who asked him to take letters to Italica.44 This strengthened the identification of Firmus, for the letter discovered by Lambot refers to Cyprianus, “filius meus germanus tuus”,45 Augustine’s spiritual son who is the biological brother of Firmus. In 415 Firmus conpresbyterus was back in Bethlehem, then left for Ravenna, Africa and Sicily on business concerned with the estate of Jerome’s friend Paula.46 In 418, writing to Valerius, Augustine said that Firmus, who brought letters from Valerius, was “familiarissima caritate coniunctus”47 (“linked in the closest affection”); Firmus also brought Augustine and Alypius a letter from Sixtus bishop of Rome and took back Augustine’s reply.48 All this activity made it plausible to identify Firmus the biological brother of Cyprianus with Firmus compresbyterus who carried letters for Augustine. But another remarkable discovery ruled out this identification. The letters found by Johannes Divjak, first in a fifteenth-century manuscript in Marseilles, then in a twelfth-century manuscript in Paris, were first published in 1981: twenty-seven letters written by Augustine in the last two decades of his life, including the letter to Firmus; two written to him by Consentius; and a misplaced letter from Jerome to Aurelius bishop of Carthage, written in 391-392.49 Divjak, and others, at first wondered whether they were authentic, but content and style were both convincing.50 The letter to Firmus was therefore renumbered ep.  1A*, but ep.  2*, also to Firmus, showed that he Cover note: ep. 81 = Jer., ep. 115. Letters brought by Cyprianus: ep. 82.1 Letters from Jerome, ep.  93; request to take letter to Italica, ep.  92A (also post-Maurist). 45  Ep.  1A*.1 (CSEL, 88), p. 7. 46  Ep.  172.2 = Jer., ep. 134. 47  Ep.  200.1 (CSEL, 57), p. 293. 48  Valerius, ep. 200.1; exchange with Sixtus, epp. 191 and 194.1. On trusted letter-bearers, see Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p. 159-168, especially p. 165-167 on Firmus. 49  In CSEL, 88. In BA 46B, p.  7-10, especially p.  7 n.  2, Divjak acknowledged the help of many scholars in establishing and discussing the text, and said there was now no need for him to write a commentary. 50  BA 46B, p.  8. 43 

44 

192

gillian clark

was not a priest but a layman, married to a baptized Christian but himself still a catechumen. So one more Firmus was added to those already known. Firmus was not an unusual name, nor was Cyprianus, especially in Carthage where the memory of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, was cherished.51 Ep. 2* was decisive, but the lay status of Firmus could already have been deduced from the way Augustine addressed him. Ep. 1A* begins with a salutatio, a greeting appropriate for the person addressed. Such greetings have not always survived, and those that survive have not always been considered authentic,52 but this salutatio is confirmed by repetition later in the text. The letter is addressed “domino eximio meritoque honorabili ac suscipiendo filio Firmo Augustinus in Domino salute”.53 In literal translation, this means “to the excellent and deservedly honorable lord and son to be taken up, Firmus, Augustine [sends] greeting in the Lord”. The last phrase has a double meaning which Augustine certainly intended, “Augustine [wishes] salvation in the Lord”.54 Dominus is a polite form of address used in many contexts, both within the family and to people one did not know well or at all.55 The adjectives eximius and honorabilis are general words of praise, like the address “eximietati tuae”56 (“to Your Excellence”) in the final sentences of the letter, they are not indicators of rank like illustris and spectabilis, nor are they part of a formal title. For comparison, Augustine’s salutatio to the imperial comes Valerius was “domino illustri et merito praestantissimo, atque in Christi 51  Divjak (J. Divjak, “Firmus”, in Augustinus-Lexikon vol. 3, fasc. 1-2, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 2004, p.  30-32) lists six men called Firmus, and Possi­ dius, vita 15, adds another, on whom see Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama, p. 29-30. 52  Divjak (J.  Divjak, “Epistulae”, in Augustinus-Lexikon vol. 2, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 1996-2002, p. 893-1057), p. 902-966, on letters which do or do not have a salutatio. Examples of formal salutatio, and further bibliography, in Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p. 121-122. 53  Ep.  2*.1 (CSEL, 88), p. 9. 54  In French translation (e.g. BA, 46B, p.  43) “salut dans le seigneur”. English does not offer a word which covers greeting, health, safety, and salvation. 55  E.  Dickey, Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius, Oxford, 2002, p. 77-109. 56  Ep.  2*.12 (CSEL, 88), p. 19.

letters and the city of god

193

dilectione carissimo filio Valerio, Augustinus in Domino salute” (“to the illustrious and deservedly outstanding lord, and dearest son in the love of Christ, Valerius, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord”).57 Valerius was “carissimus filius” (“dearest son”). So, in the preface to ciu., was the imperial envoy Marcellinus, “fili carissime Marcelline”,58 who in formal letters from the African bishops was addressed as “honorabili et dilectissimo filio et spectabili tribuno et notario Marcellino”59 (“to the honorable and most beloved son and respected tribune and notary”). By calling Firmus filius (even if not carissimus), Augustine claimed him as a spiritual son: not necessarily a baptized Christian, but someone who was at least interested in Christianity, perhaps a catechumen.60 Thus Augustine’s first letter to the high-ranking Volusianus, whose mother and sister were Christian, began “domino illustri et merito praestantissimo filio Volusianus, Augustinus episcopus”61 (“to the illustrious lord and deservedly outstanding son Volusianus, bishop Augustine”). Volusianus responded “domino uere sancto et merito uenerabili patri Augustino episcopo, Volusianus”62 (“to the truly holy and deservedly venerable father bishop Augustine, Volusianus”), and Augustine, replying “domino illustri et merito insigni et praestantissimo filio Volusiano”, felt able to add the greeting Ep. 200.1 (CSEL, 57), p. 293, sent to Valerius 3 (PLRE 2, p. 1143-1144), who held high office in Italy or in Africa. N.  McLynn, “Augustine’s Roman Empire”, in History, Apocalypse, and the Secular Imagination: new essays on Augustine’s City of God, ed. by M. Vessey, K.  Pollmann, and A. Fitzgerald, Bowling Green, 1999, p. 29-44, warns against assuming that Augustine was on familiar terms with many important people; B. Shaw, “Augustine and Men of Imperial Power”, Journal of Late Antiquity, 8 (2015), p. 32-61, points out that only twenty of Augustine’s letters were to imperial officials, and argues that Augustine did not already know them, but wrote with a specific request. 58  Ciu. 1. praef., (CCSL, 47), p. 1. 59  Marcellinus: epp.  128.1 and 129.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 30 and 34; Marcellinus 10 (The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 711-712), “uir clarissimus et spectabilis, tribunus et notarius”. 60  My thanks to Rafal Toczko for demonstrating this from the Scrinium database. 61  Ep.  132.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 79. 62  Ep.  135.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 89. 57 

194

gillian clark

“Augustinus in Domino salutem”.63 But he could not assume that Volusianus was a committed Christian; and ep. 2* shows that Firmus too had not made the commitment of baptism. 4. Firmus and the City of God Catechumens varied in their level of interest in Christianity, in their readiness for baptism, and in the behaviour they thought permissible.64 To become a catechumen, one was given some instruction (perhaps very brief), received blessed bread and salt with laying-on of hands, and was signed with a cross on the forehead.65 There is no evidence of formal requirements for regular church attendance or for further instruction, but Augustine often urged catechumens to become fideles, “faithful” baptized Christians, especially in the sermons he preached before Lent, the time of preparation for Easter baptisms. When he called Firmus “suscipiendus filius”, “son to be taken up”, he did not necessarily mean that Firmus was to be taken into the church by baptism.66 He used suscipere in a general sense, as when he wrote of Ambrose “suscepit me paterne ille homo Dei”, “that man of God took me up in fatherly fashion”, when Augustine arrived at Milan.67 Paulinus of Nola likewise referred to Ambrose as “suscipiendo patre nostro”, “my father in that he took me up”, and went on to explain that he was baptized by one bishop at Bordeaux and ordained by another at Barcelona, but Ambrose nurtured him and took him as one of his own clergy.68 How could Firmus, “suscipiendus filius”, be encouraged to deepen his commitment?69 He had made an earnest request, reinEp. 137.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 96. Volusianus 6 (The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol.  2, p.  1184-1185) proconsul of Africa before 412. On this exchange, see É.  Rebillard, Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa 200-450 ce, Cornell, 2012, p. 81-82. 64  Rebillard, Christians and Their Many Identities, p. 64-66. 65  W. Harmless, Augustine and the Catechumenate, Collegeville, MN, 1995. 66  In BA 46B, p. 43, the translation of suscipiendus is simply “très cher”. 67  Conf. 5.13.23. 68  Paulinus, ep. 3.4. 69  For Augustine’s arguments, see the paper by Elia Marinova in this volume. 63 

letters and the city of god

195

forced by his brother Cyprianus, for all the books of ciu., so Augustine urged him to read and re-read them; engaged to write often, God willing, to ask how Firmus was progressing; and, to keep the correspondence going, asked Firmus to write back saying how he came to have the copy of Augustine’s work on the Academics which he had mentioned in an earlier (now lost) letter. Augustine evidently hoped that Firmus would discuss ciu. with fellow-Christians and with others. He asked Firmus to accept a request from “our fratres there at Carthage” to borrow for copying the books they did not yet have. By fratres Augustine meant “brothers” in the religious sense, fellow-priests or fellow-monks; perhaps these were Petrus and Abraham. Augustine reassured Firmus that the loan would be only to one or two people, who would pass on copies to others; Firmus himself would decide how to share the books with his own friends, both those in the Christian populus who wanted to be instructed and those still in the grip of false religion (superstitio) who might, with God’s grace, be freed.70 Perhaps Augustine hoped that ciu. would become a resource for educated catechumens;71 as he showed in De catechizandis rudibus, he knew that instruction had to be tailored to the audience. But Firmus, it appears, was one of those who preferred interesting discussion to the commitment of baptism. His insistent requests for a complete copy of ciu. had been prompted by attending, with Augustine, a reading of book 18 over three afternoons.72 Other books of ciu. could be read in one session, but Book 18 is twice the usual length, and contains a remarkable range of information. Augustine acknowledged in his opening summary that, having undertaken to trace the progress of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, which are intertwined in this world, he had in the previous two books been preoccupied with the heav-

70  On the meaning of populus, see J.  Adams, The Populus of Augustine and Jerome: A Study in the Patristic Sense of Community, New Haven, 1971. 71  As argued by J. Van Oort, “Letters 1A* and 2* to Firmus and the Purpose of De Civitate Dei”, in Cappadocian Fathers, Greek Authors after Nicaea, Augustine, Donatism and Pelagianism: papers presented at the eleventh International conference on patristic studies held in Oxford 1991 (Studia Patristica 27), ed. by E. Livingstone, Oxford – Leuven, 1993, p. 417-423. 72  Ep. 2*.3.

196

gillian clark

enly city from the time of Abraham to the incarnation of Christ.73 That is, he had expounded the biblical narrative and had sought to show how the prophets foretold Christ and the Church. The second part of ciu. discusses the origins of the earthly city in the turning away from God of some angels and humans, but Augustine had little to say about its history. In the first letter to Firmus he accurately described the second part of ciu. as being about the origin, progress and due end of “that city”, namely the heavenly city. But he was careful to fulfil his commitments, so in book 18, the last of the four on progress, it was time to “outline how the other city too advanced, from the time of Abraham, as much as seems enough for the two to be compared in the reflection of readers”.74 Augustine achieved this outline with the help of the Chronicon of Eusebius, translated by Jerome, and of Varro De gente populi Romani.75 He included much fascinating material: the cults of false gods, including metamorphoses; the early history of Rome, which Firmus had no doubt studied when reading Virgil at school; a Sibylline acrostic foretelling Christ; the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible, with discussion of their antiquity in relation to Greek philosophy, and of the antiquity of the Hebrew language in relation to Egyptian; the authority of the Septuagint; the post-biblical history of the Jews; debates on the number of persecutions before the coming of Antichrist, and false predictions of the end of Christianity. It is not surprising that Firmus was enthralled and wanted more. He read books 1-10 and wrote to Augustine about them:76 these books too offer interesting material on Roman history, religion, and philosophy. But, like many later readers of ciu., Firmus had not then read books 11-22. Perhaps, Augustine gently suggested, friends had borrowed them and had not yet returned them, or perhaps Firmus, having shown that he had read books 1-10, wanted time to comment fully on books 11-22. No further letters survive to show whether he ever read them.

73  74  75  76 

He made the undertaking in ciu. 11.1. ‘That city’, ep. 1A*.1; “the other city”, ciu. 18.1. “Chronicle of Eusebius and Hieronymus”, ciu. 18.31; Varro, ciu. 18.2. Ep. 2*.2.

letters and the city of god

197

5. Augustine’s use of letters Recent work on epistolography has rightly emphasized that in classical antiquity, letters were not a transparent window on the world, or a revelation of their author’s private thoughts and feelings as distinct from his public persona. Letters were public documents, in that anyone writing a letter assumed it would be read aloud and shared, and there were generic expectations about different kinds of letter. So letters could be used for self-presentation, or for stating a position in such a way that a correspondent was obliged to agree or disagree.77 One example of this second tactic is unusual in that the recipient was a woman. Augustine had evidently warned Juliana against the teachings of Pelagius, and he quoted a polite reply in which she thanked him for the warning but assured him that it was not needed. If Juliana wrote the reply herself, rather than leaving it to a secretary, this is a very rare survival of writing by a woman. Augustine wrote some letters to women, but like everyone else, he did not keep their letters to him.78 It is useful to be warned about letters as self-presentation, and about generic expectations, but these warnings should not be taken too far. Jerome was greatly concerned for how he appeared to others, and it has been argued that so was Augustine.79 But Augustine was aware of the dangers of self-promotion, and the charitable readers for whom he asked may think he was more concerned that his writings should not lead anyone astray from the city of God.80 Charitable readers may also reflect on letters as 77  On this tactic, see R.  Miles, “Let’s (not) talk about it: Augustine and the control of epistolary dialogue”, in The End of Dialogue in Antiquity, ed. by S.  Goldhill, Cambridge, 2008, p. 135-148. 78  Juliana’s reply is cited ep.  188.2-3. Of the twenty-four extant letters to women, eighteen are to individuals. See further C.  Conybeare, “Spaces between letters: Augustine’s correspondence with women”, in Voices in Dialogue: Reading Women in the Middle Ages, ed. by L. Olson, K. Kerby-Ulton, Notre Dame, IN, 2005, p. 55-72. 79  A.  Cain, The Letters of Jerome. Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2009, on Jerome; J.J.  O’Donnell, Augustine: A New Biography, New York, 2005. 80  Conf. 10.3.3-10.4.5.

198

gillian clark

modes of friendship, rather than of self-presentation. Letter-writers often expressed longing for the presence of a friend, instead of the letter which was a poor substitute; but Paulinus wrote to a grieving friend that being permanently present in spirit, by means of a letter, is better than being physically present but absent in spirit.81 The self presented in this letter exists in relation to Christ and to fellow human souls; the letter and the letter-carrier represent, that is, make present, the author in the community of its addressee; so Christian letters may be sacraments, the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual relationship.82 Similarly, it is important to remember that there were generic expectations about particular kinds of letters, just as there are now (for example) about academic references, but it does not follow that all letters were written in accordance with the classifications in the surviving manuals, or that they fit the categories suggested by present-day scholars.83 The question to ask is “what is this letter about, what does the writer want to say?” Augustine’s letters offer several references to his own books,84 but these letters are not shaped by expectations for a “letter about one’s own books”. The first letter to Firmus is exceptional in that it is entirely about Augustine’s book and how Firmus should read it; even the postscript is about another book. Only a few letters refer explicitly to ciu., even though Augustine worked on it for thirteen years, and they do not add information except to show how far he had got and why he had not got further. For the first stages, in 413/4, there is a well-known exchange of letters with Macedonius, vicar of Africa: that is the emperor’s deputy, vicar-

Paulinus, Ep. 13.2. C.  Conybeare, Paulinus Noster: Self and Symbols in the Letters of Paulinus of Nola, Oxford, New York, 2000. 83  The Letters of Jerome, p.  207-219, offers a “taxonomy” of seventeen letter-types in Jerome. Gibson (“On the nature”) identified four main types: consolation, recommendation, praise, exhortation; B.  Neil, P.  Allen (Collecting Early Christian Letters from the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, Cambridge, New York, 2015, p.  7) add to these nine more types which they find in papal letters: polemical, dogmatic, pastoral, disciplinary, administrative, advice, admonition, decrees and judgements. 84  Augustine’s references to his own works can be traced via “Autoreferences” in the Scrinium database. 81 

82 

letters and the city of god

199

ius, of a major province.85 Augustine had asked Macedonius, as a favour to Bonifatius who carried the letter (now lost), to pardon a criminal. Macedonius did so, but raised questions about interceding for criminals, and at the end of his letter asked for the writings which Augustine had promised him, but which he had not yet received. Augustine did not mention them in his long reply, but the next letter from Macedonius shows that he had now read books which sound very like ciu. 1-3, and Augustine’s reply to that referred to “the first of those three books you have so kindly read”.86 In 415 Augustine gave his friend and fellow-bishop Evodius a list of writings he had started before Easter and had now completed, including two books added to the first three of ciu. Augustine, having dealt with those who worship the gods for blessings in this life, and must fulfil the promise made in the first book, to answer those who worship the gods for the sake of life after death.87 In 419 a letter to Possidius offered a long list of the works Augustine had dictated since returning from Carthage: about six thousand lines between mid-September and the start of December, but Augustine added “inter quae cum iam pararem redire ad libros de ciuitate Dei, subito accepi litteras”88 (“and when I was already preparing, in the midst of these, to return to the books on the city of God, I  suddenly received writings”). He had been sent two books by Victor, who was entirely unknown to him, on the nature and origin of the soul, and he had to write a response, just as he was interrupted in organizing his letters, a decade later, by the need to reply to Julian of Eclanum.89 Finally, when ciu. was completed, the two letters to Firmus show how Augustine hoped to use his books and letters to encourage people into the city of God.  His words to Firmus continue a theme which recurs in his letters:

Macedonius 3 (PLRE 2, p. 697). Ep.  155.2 (CSEL, 44), p.  432: “in primo libro trium illorum, quos benignissime et studiosissime perlegisti”. Macedonius asks for the books, ep. 152.3; Augustine replies without mentioning them, ep. 153; Macedonius has read the books, ep. 154; Augustine refers to them, ep. 155.2. 87  Ep. 169.1. 88  Ep. 23A*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 122. 89  Julian of Eclanum, ep. 224. 85 

86 

200

gillian clark “Nam quod in alia tua epistola te ab accipiendo sacramento regenerationis excusas, totum tot librorum quos amas fructum recusas; neque enim ille fructus est eorum, quod delectant legentem, nec ille, quod multa faciunt scire nescientem, sed ille, quod ciuitatem Dei persuadent uel incunctanter intrandam uel perseueranter habitandam; quorum duorum primum regeneratione, secundum iustitiae dilectione confertur. Haec in eis a quibus leguntur atque laudantur si non agunt, quid agunt?”90 When in your other letter you excuse yourself from receiving the sacrament of regeneration, you refuse all the fruit of all those books you love: for their fruit is not that they delight the reader, or that they make him know much that he does not know, but that they persuade him to enter the city of God without hesitation, or to live there with perseverance. The first of these is conferred by regeneration, the second by love of righteousness. If the books do not do this in those by whom they are read and praised, what do they do?

Firmus was a catechumen married to a baptized Christian; he had friends who were, and friends who were not, in the Christian populus. He preferred intellectual discussion to making a commitment, and Augustine wanted to stay in touch without allowing him to evade the central question. This letter-exchange, one of the latest in the collection, reflects one of the earliest, when Augustine’s former student Licentius, son of his home-town patron Romanianus, sent him a poem. In this elaborate classical composition Licentius said at great length that he finds Varro very difficult without Augustine’s help; he is ready to follow Augustine anywhere; he asks Augustine to send a copy of De musica, and to remember him at the Easter vigil, that is, in the night before the Easter baptisms. The poem reads like an attempt to continue earlier conversations, full of literary allusions, about the liberal arts as a route to wisdom.91 In his reply Augustine advised Licentius to visit Paulinus at Nola, and “learn with what riches of talent

Ep. 2*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 10-11. Ep. 26. See D. Shanzer, “Arcanum Varronis iter: Licentius’ verse epistle to Augustine”, in Revue des Études Augustiniennes 37 (1991), p. 110-143, and on Augustine’s reply, G. Clark, “In Praise of the Wax Candle: Augustine the Poet and Late Latin Literature”, in The Poetics of Late Latin Literature, ed. by J. Elsner, J. Hernández Lobato, Oxford, 2017, p. 424-46. 90  91 

letters and the city of god

201

he offers to Christ sacrifices of praise”:92 in other words, to learn how Paulinus writes Christian poetry. Augustine also wrote to Paulinus, who wrote to Romanianus and to Licentius with a copy to Augustine.93 But Augustine did not offer Licentius a poem in return, or critique of the style and metre of the poem Licentius sent. He said that Licentius would be mortified if told that his poetry was not properly ordered, and would do all he could to put it right. But it is his life which is disordered; and if he is waiting for Augustine to say “come to me”, how often had Augustine said it? Licentius needed to act. Augustine’s letter-exchange with Volusianus, in 411/12, is another example of a correspondent taking refuge in literature.94 Augustine’s first letter invoked the vota, the wishes or prayers, of the Christian mother of Volusianus, and urged him to read the scriptures and to write if Augustine can help when questions arise. He suggested that letters, which can be read at any time, would be better than discussion, both because Volusianus and Augustine were unlikely to be free at the same time, and because others might interrupt who are less interested in knowledge and more in argument. Volusianus replied with graceful thanks for his offer of help with doubtful passages (“ambigua lectionis”). Then he reported a recent conversation among friends who discussed subjects well known to Augustine: rhetoric, poetry, philosophy. “One of the many” raised a series of questions about the Incarnation: this, Volusianus observed, affected Augustine’s reputation, for religion would not suffer if another priest could not answer, but this is not the case for bishop Augustine. In other words, Volusianus did not read the Scriptures and ask about difficulties in a private exchange of letters; instead, he presented exactly the kind of general conversation, and concern for status, that Augustine wanted to avoid. His letter, Augustine wrote, read like a short version

92  Ep. 26.5 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 88: “disce, quibus opibus ingenii sacrificia laudis ei offerat”. 93  Augustine to Paulinus, ep. 27; Paulinus ep. 32. 94  Rebillard, Christians and Their Many Identities, p.  81-82, uses this exchange as one of four examples chosen to show that Augustine and his correspondents worked with different categories.

202

gillian clark

of some great philosophical dialogue.95 This is not a compliment. Augustine’s earliest works are philosophical dialogues, but he came to think that they relied too much on reason and on display of education, and that they did not communicate with ordinary people.96 He declined praise for himself; he answered the questions transmitted by Volusianus; and again he urged Volusianus to read the Scriptures and to write at whatever length was needed, unconstrained by conventional ideas about the proper length of a letter. Licentius, Volusianus, Firmus, all needed to act, not to discuss interesting literary and philosophical topics. Augustine was prepared to acknowledge the interesting topics in order to maintain contact: he was ready to send Firmus books, to encourage contact with Christian monks and laypeople, to ask how Firmus found a copy of acad. and even to ask how the young son of Firmus was progressing in his studies. But the first letter to Firmus shows how Augustine used letters and books to build a community, not of sympathetic and admiring readers, but of people, in overlapping networks, who can be helped to belong to the city of God.

95  Augustine’s first letter, ep.  132; Volusianus replies, ep.  135; Augustine replies, ep. 137. 96  G.  Clark, “Can we talk? Augustine and the possibility of dialogue”, in The End of Dialogue in Antiquity, ed. by S. Goldhill, Cambridge, 2008, p. 117-134.

Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy? A Study of his Answers to the Letters sent by the African Episcopacy1 Mathijs Lamberigts (Leuven) 1. Introduction The fate of the Pelagians continues to intrigue scholars. Indeed, on the one hand, Pelagius c.s. often were described as the enemies of grace, Pelagius himself considered to be the father of the Pelagian heresy. On the other hand, several of Pelagius writings have been preserved. In this regard, it is amazing to see how often his writings were copied in several Western monasteries. One may think of his letter to Demetrias, commentary on Paul’s letters and the Libellus fidei. As was shown by Peter van Egmond, Pelagius’ confession of faith survived in more than 300 manuscripts. Quotes from and references to this confession of faith are present in the works of important Medieval thinkers, such as Hincmar of Reims, Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham.2 Peter Lombard even quoted from

For an extensive analysis of the correspondence between the Roman bishops and the North African episcopate concerning the Pelagian controversy, see: P.J. Carefoote, 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, Leuven, 1995. 2  See P.J.  van Egmond, “A Confession without Pretence”. Text and Context of Pelagius’ Defence of 417 ad, Amsterdam, 2013 (unpublished doctoral dissertation), p. 15. 1 

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 203-223 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113891

204

mathijs lamberigts

the Libellus fidei in order to criticize Pelagian positions! In the controversy with the Protestants, Catholics such as the Sorbonne theologians based their judgement against Luther on quotations from Pelagius’ confession of faith. 3 Of course, such confidence in the orthodoxy of this confession of faith can easily be explained by the fact that it was attributed to Jerome (in most manuscripts) or to Augustine.4 However, Pelagius’ confession of faith, an answer to a request of bishop Innocent of Rome, arriving in Rome after Innocent’s death on March 12,  417, was already praised by Innocent’s successor, Zosimus, because of its orthodoxy.5 It might well be that Pelagius’ work was less controversial than sometimes suggested. In any case, there is good evidence that even in case non-African authorities joined the African condemnations of Pelagius, they did not really know what was at stake in this dossier. In this contribution, I  will focus on bishop Innocent of Rome. I  will argue that he supported the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius, without really mastering the dossier under debate. 2. Africa’s condemning reply to Diospolis Innocent’s action is to be situated in the aftermath of Pelagius’ acquittal at Diospolis (December 415).6 After Pelagius had left Africa, he lived in the East. In 415, Pelagius was attacked by the Spanish priest Orosius, who, in 414, had visited Augustine and was sent by Augustine to Jerome, with whom the bishop of

van Egmond, “A Confession without Pretence”, p. 16. It goes without saying that the reputation of the “author” facilitates the “orthodoxy” of the content. Needless to say that Pelagius’ reputation was seriously damaged by the authorities of his time, Augustine and Jerome. What was said by Pelagius became authoritative once it was attributed to his critics. 5  Zosimus, Epistula 46,3-4, in Collectio Avellana, ed. by O.  Günther, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 35,1), p. 103-104. 6  It is part of Pelagius’ tragedies that the search for a solution, intended by bishop John of Jerusalem, resulted in a resurgence of a dispute Pelagius was not looking for. On the attempts of John, see G.  De Plinval, De gestis Pelagii. Introduction, in La crise pélagienne I (BA, 21), Paris, 1994, p. 418-419. 3  4 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

205

Hippo was discussing the origin of the soul.7 In Palestine, Orosius became involved in the Pelagian affair, but proved to be “impetuous and tactless”8 and intervened in an affair about which he did not had the expertise needed or expected. Orosius’ intervention in Palestine had irritated the bishops in the East. He had no entrance to official documents and much of his information was based on “hearsays”.9 In fact, the whole anti-Pelagian action in the East is to be described as a chain of diplomatic mistakes: the Gallic bishops, sent into exile in the East, Heros and Lazarus,10 hired by Jerome, were not present at the process against Pelagius in Diospolis. Indeed, one of the two exiled bishops was sick, and thus both did not show up, a fact Augustine deplored, for because of their absence a thorough examination of Pelagius’ positions

7  On the context, see A.  Fürst, Augustinus-Hieronymus. Epistulae mutuae. Briefwechsel, vol.  1-2, Turnhout, 2002 (Fontes Christiani, 41,1-2), p. 60-70; B.  Delaroche, La question de l’origine des âmes et de leur mode d’implication dans la condition pécheresse (I,22,31; I,38,69; II,36,59), in Œuvres de saint Augustin (BA, 20A), Premières réactions antipélagiennes I. Salaire et pardon des péchés. Peccatorum meritis et remissione, Paris, 2013, p. 469-474. 8  See W.H.C. Frend, Orosius, Paulus, in Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia, ed. by A.D. Fitzgerald et al., Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 615-617, p. 615. 9  O.  Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius. Die theologische Position der römischen Bischöfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411-432, Stuttgart 1975, p. 88. On the topic under discussion, see also L. Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien: la correspondance entre l’Afrique et Rome à propos de l’affaire pélagienne (416-418) (Studia Patristica. Supplement 3), Leuven, Paris, Bristol, 2015. 10  On these bishops and their somewhat problematic career (their appointment as bishops was subject to dispute, and after their return from exile, they continued to cause problems), see L. Pietri-M.  Heijmans (eds), Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne (314-614), (Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, 4), Paris, 2013, vol.  1, s.v. Heros p. 981-984, and vol. 2, s.v. Lazarus, p.  1107-1109. Their role in the Pelagian controversy is a bit bizarre. Living in exile, not known for their expertise with regard to Pelagius’ and Caelestius’ ideas, they accept to serve as accusers on the basis of a libellus against Pelagius, probably not prepared by them, and then decide not to show up at the meeting in Diospolis, because one of them is sick. Cf. De Plinval, Introduction, p.  419-420: “(…) enfin, deux évêques gallo-romains en exil, Héros et Lazare, émergeant de leur disgrâce, munis d’un dossier qui semble avoir été hâtivement composé et qu’ils ne mirent aucun zèle à defender, déposent une plainte canonique contre Pélage, accusé d’hérésie.”

206

mathijs lamberigts

was not possible.11 Pelagius was set free in a synod at Diospolis in December 415. The accusers did not know the dossier, Heros and Lazarus were exiled bishops, while the “coordinator” of the accusations, Jerome, who seemed to consider Pelagius as rival,12 sometimes making a caricature of Pelagius’ ideas, was also not present at the synod. After the synod, Pelagius informed Augustine about his acquittal by means of a chartula,13 a report that did not please Augustine and this both on the level of the content as well as with regard to the procedure followed.14 At Augustine’s request, the minutes of the meeting were finally sent by bishop Cyril of Alexandria,15 Augustine having asked in vain John of Jerusalem to send these letters to him, an interesting detail indeed, when one takes into account that John of Jerusalem, in a sense, acted as the patron of Pelagius.16 Augustine seemingly had not been satisfied by the report as sent by Pelagius himself.17 However, it should be said that Augustine did his utmost best not to criticize the bishops, who, at Diospolis, had acquitted Pelagius, stating that they “uno eodemque modo” believed that all human beings are subjected to the sin of the first man,18 something which is rather difficult to prove. Moreover, Augustine does not really know that much about See, e.g., Gest. Pel. III.9, ed. by C.F. Urba, J. Zycha, Vienna, 1902 (CSEL, 42), p. 60; VI.17 (CSEL, 42), p. 69. 12  Contra Iulianum II.36 (PL, 44), c. 699. 13  Gest. Pel. I.1 (CSEL, 42), p.  51: “Hanc enim iam in quadam chartula, quam mihi ipse miserat (…)”. 14  Gest. Pel. I.1 (CSEL, 42), p.  51. Augustine complains about the fact that no letter was added to the dossier. 15  See ep.  4*.2, in Augustinus, Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. by J. Divjak, Vienna, 1981 (CSEL, 88), p.  26. On this letter, see J.-P. Bouhot, Une lettre d’Augustin d’Hippone à Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Epist. 4*), in Les lettres de Saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C. Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p. 147-154. 16  See ep. 179.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p. 691; see also Bouhot, Une lettre d’Augustin d’Hippone à Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Epist. 4*), p. 148-149. 17  Augustine’s accusations against Pelagius that the latter misled the bishops at Diospolis are evaluated as non-convincing; see Bouhot, Une Lettre d’Augustin d’Hippone à Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Epist. 4*), p. 149. 18  Contra Iulianum I.20 (PL, 44), 654. 11 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

207

the individual profiles of these bishops.19 One even has to say that Augustine modestly refers to the bishops in his Contra Iulianum, and that references to them even become marginal in the Opus imperfectum.20 In sum, in 416 Africa was in doubt about the precise decisions of the Synod of Diospolis. Moreover, Pelagius’ acquittal clearly questioned the African theological authority, Pelagius being linked to Caelestius, who had been disapproved at Carthage in 411. The African bishops were upset. Therefore they organized two Episcopal gatherings, one in Carthage,21 the other in Milev.22 There was a clear link between the two gatherings: the African bishops acted as a team and the bishops of Milev were well informed of the decisions as taken in Carthage.23 The two gatherings informed Rome of their decision (epp.  175-176). Furthermore, five bishops, including Aurelius of Carthage, Alypius of Thagaste, Augustine, Evodius of Uzalis, 24 and Possidius of Calama, explained in a detailed way why they wanted Pelagius to be condemned (ep.  177). It is suggested that the three letters were written by Augustine.25 I think, however, that there are some differences between epp. 175 and 176. The biblical dossier as collected in 175, is more diversified than Diospolis 11; 14; 17, in Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p. 296-297. This nuances Wermelinger’s observation in Rom und Pelagius, p. 275: “Die anfängliche Zurückhaltung gegenüber Diospolis schwindet im augustinischen Schrifttum immer mehr”. In fact, only Diospolis 11 and 14 will be quoted once in Opus imperfectum. See M. Lamberigts, “Augustine’s Use of Tradition in the Controversy with Julian of Aeclanum”, Augustiniana 60 (2010), p. 11-61, p. 40-41. 21  The letter, sent after the meeting of Carthage, mentions the names of 68 bishops. 22  The letter, sent after the meeting of Milev, mentions the names of 59 bishops. The five bishops rightly emphasize that the number of bishops present at Carthage and Milev deserves the qualification of ‘large’; see ep.  177.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 669: “[…] non paruo episcoporum numero […]”. 23  Ep. 176.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 660. See also ep. 178,2 (CSEL, 44), p. 690, where Augustine explicitly mentions this interaction between the two synods. 24  Evodius does not appear in the list of the subscribers of the decisions as approved at Carthage. 25  J. Divjak, „Epistulae”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 2001, p. 983-984: “Alle drei Schreiben an den römischen Bischof Innocentius dürften von Augustinus verfasst sein, da deren jeweiliger Inhalt und Duktus sich stark ähneln.” 19 

20 

208

mathijs lamberigts

in 176, but keystones of the Augustinian doctrine on original sin in this period, Rom. 5,12 and 1 Cor. 15,22, are absent in this letter while being quoted in ep.  176.26 The information about Pelagius and Caelestius in ep.  175 is more hesitant if not vague than in 176, something that suggests the bishops of Milev (because of Augustine?) are better informed or at least more concerned about the Pelagians.27 Augustine often uses the qualification “inimici gratiae” when dealing with the Pelagians. This qualification is present in epp.  176 and 177, but not in 175.28 The term heresy is present in ep.  176, but not in ep.  175 and not even in 177.29 The setting free of Pelagius at Diospolis is mentioned in epp.  175 and 177, not in ep. 176. The accusers Heros and Lazarus are mentioned in ep.  175, but not in 176 and 177. In passing it should be said that ep.  177 offers information about Pelagius’ stay in Rome. He lived there for a long time. 30 This reference to Pelagius’ stay in Rome can also be read as a warning to Innocent: Pelagius lived in your city! Ep.  177 nowhere mentions the name of Caelestius, even although he was the one who caused unrest in Carthage in 411. 31 I thus suggest that the three letters are the result of three different meetings, but with clear interaction between the three. While up to that moment, one cannot speak of an intense interaction between Innocent and the Africans, 32 the bishop of Rome now receives three letters!33 Innocent had, in vain, tried to negotiate between Alaric and Ravenna. He could not avoid the fall of

Ep. 176.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 666. See ep. 176.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 667. 28  Ep. 176.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 664; 177.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 669. 29  Ep.  176.2 (CSEL, 44), p.  664: “Noua quippe haeresis et nimium perniciosa temptat adsurgere inimicorum gratiae Christi, qui nobis dominicam etiam orationem impiis disputationibus conantur auferre.” 30  Ep.  177.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 670: “Audiuimus enim esse in urbe Roma, ubi ille diu uixit  […]”. 31  At the same time, it is clear that there is contact and interaction between Milev and Carthage; see the similarities between ep. 175.4 and 176.2. 32  See Wermelinger, Rome und Pelagius, p.  123. See, however, the very short ep. 184 sent to Aurelius of Carthage and Alypius of Thagaste. 33  For what follows, see M.  Lamberigts, Innocentius episcopus Romanus, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol.  3,3-4, Basel, 2006, p. 613-619. 26  27 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

209

Rome. 34 As far as we can see, the bishop of Rome did not play a remarkable role in the most important issue for the African Church, the Donatist controversy. 35 It is true that Innocent was absent from Rome in the period the Donatists were defeated (411), but also in previous years he was never involved in the affair. In any case, the Catholic bishops of Africa solved the Donatist problem without Roman involvement in it. 36 While the Donatist controversy was, all in all, an African issue, the Pelagian controversy had not only to do with Africa, but also with Rome and the East. Africa needed the support of the bishop of Rome. The letters written to Innocent – their style is rather flattering37 – show the Africans’ respect for the bishop of Rome. The Carthaginian Church asked for the support of the Apostolic See’s authority to their mediocrity, thus suggesting that Rome’s authority is needed in the case under discussion. 38 They admit that the predication by the Apostolic See deserves to be labelled as “with greater grace”, while recognizing that they themselves are “infirmiores”. 39 At the same time, the bishops present at Carthage show self-confidence. Even in case Pelagius himself is to be set free and Rome supports such a decision, the errors and piety of his adherents must be condemned.40 They take it for granted that 34  E.  Demougeot, “À propos des interventions du pape Innocent 1er dans la politique séculière”, Revue Historique 212 (1954), p. 23-38, p. 30 ff. 35  Demougeot, À propos des interventions du pape Innocent, p. 35 ff. 36  Wermelinger, Rome und Pelagius, p. 123. 37  In fact, the African style gives Innocent the opportunity to praise them, while at the same time strengthening his own position; see p.  125. Given the way in which they treated Zosimus when he initially set free Pelagius and Caelestius, I think Wermelinger is right when questioning the claims of Innocent; see Wermelinger, Rome und Pelagius, p. 126. 38  Ep.  175.2 (CSEL, 44), p.  655: “Hoc itaque gestum, domine frater, sanctae caritati tuae intimandum duximus, ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis adhibeatur auctoritas pro tuenda salute multorum et quorundam peruersitate etiam corrigenda.” 39  Ep. 175.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 657-658: “Et ueremur, ne apud te ista ipsa commemorando, quae maiore gratia de sede apostolica praedicas, inconuenienter facere uideamur; sed ideo facimus, quia eo, quod infirmiores sumus, quaqua uersum quisque nostrum uerbo Dei praedicando putatur attentior, crebrius eos patimur et audacius insurgentes.” 40  Ep. 175.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 658: “Si ergo Pelagius episcopalibus gestis, quae in oriente confecta dicuntur, etiam tuae uenerationi iuste uisus fuerit abso-

210

mathijs lamberigts

Innocent, after having read the reports on the meeting at Diospolis, will join the African position.41 Also the bishops of Milev recognize the special place of the Apostolic See, for it is a special gift of Christ’s grace, and is rooted in Scripture. They consider not informing the bishop of Rome as a sin of negligence. At the same time, they remind Innocent that he should apply his pastoral concern to the weak members of Christ, for their salvation is endangered.42 The heretics’ positions on free will and infant baptism ask for a Roman intervention,43 thus avoiding that the faithful will join this heresy.44 For both Carthage and Milev it is clear that Rome’s intervention is urgent, and, according to the Carthaginians, not intervening can be interpreted as a betrayal of the Lord.45 Also in the letter of the five bishops, respect for Innocent46 and request for an intervention go hand in hand. Pelagius is to be invited to Rome in order to be personally interrogated by Innocent.47 Through concrete examples they suggest that Pelagius

lutus, error tamen ipse et impietas, quae iam multos assertores habet per diuersa dispersos, etiam auctoritate apostolicae sedis anathemanda est.” 41  Ep.  175.6 (CSEL, 44), p.  662: “Quaecumque autem alia eis obiciuntur, non dubium uenerationem tuam, cum gesta episcopalia perspexerit, quae in oriente in eadem causa confecta dicuntur, id iudicaturum, unde omnes in Dei misericordia gaudeamus.” 42  Ep.  176.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 664: “Quia te dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in sede apostolica conlocauit talemque nostris temporibus praestitit, ut nobis potius ad culpam neglegentiae ualeat, si apud tuam uenerationem, quae pro ecclesia suggerenda sunt, tacuerimus, quam ea tu possis uel fastidiose uel neglegenter accipere, magnis periculis infirmorum membrorum Christi pastoralem diligentiam, quaesumus, adhibere digneris.” It is interesting to see that the Carthaginian bishops speak of themselves as the inferior members, while the bishops, present at Milev, ask Innocent to take care of the “infirmorum membrorum”. 43  Ep. 176.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 666-667. 44  Ep. 176.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 667-668. 45  See, e.g., ep. 175.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 659. 46  Ep. 177.15 (CSEL, 44), p. 683-684. 47  Ep.  177.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 671-672: “(…) aut ergo a tua ueneratione accersendus est Romam et diligenter interrogandus (…)”.

innocent and the pelagian controversy

211

might hold unorthodox views.48 Again, it is said that the simple faithful are disturbed.49 The letter of the five bishops is the longest and the most detailed of the three letters – they even apologize for this50 – but they will receive the shortest answer,51 because Innocent was of the opinion that he had sufficiently spoken about the issues under discussion in his previous letters.52 The five bishops offer a clear exposition on grace and its relation to sin and law.53 They emphasize the centrality of Christ’s grace in our salvation process.54 Texts such as 1 Tim 2:5, Rom. 5:12, and 7:24, “Augustinian” texts, are referred to.55 Ep. 177 pays ample attention to justification.56

Ep. 177.7 (CSEL, 44), p. 675-676. Ep. 177.3 (CSEL, 44), p.  671: “Non agitur de uno Pelagio, quia iam fortasse correctus est, quod utinam ita sit, sed tam multis, quibus loquaciter contendentibus et infirmas atque ineruditas animas uelut conuictas trahentibus, firmas autem et in fide stabiles ipsa contentione fatigantibus usque quaque iam plena sunt omnia.” 50  Ep. 177.19 (CSEL, 44), p. 688. 51  Innocent considered the three letters as a unity and thus might be of the opinion that the addressees would inform each other; see ep. 182.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 715; 183.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 724. In ep. 183.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 724, Innocent mentions that the epp.  175 and 176 were dealing with daily grace, a concept that, in these terms, does not appear in the two letters. However, it is to be said that Innocent himself pays ample attention to the concept daily grace in ep. 181: at least seven times he speaks about daily grace, daily help, daily remedies, daily prayer, and the daily by God given grace. The concept is also present in the epp.  182 and 183 (see 182.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 718; 183.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 724; 183.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 727. 52  Ep. 183.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 725: “Sed de his iam satis, ut opinor, supra diximus, cum uestris relationibus respondentes rescripsimus quid uel de illorum perfidia uel de uestra sententia sentiremus.” 53  Ep. 177.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 673-674; 177.13, p. 681; 177.14, p. 682. 54  Ep. 177.10 (CSEL, 44), p.  679. The topic is present in all letters, but the concept “gratia Christi” is only present in Innocent’s ep.  181.7; see (CSEL, 44), p. 709. 55  Ep. 177.11 (CSEL, 44), p. 679-680. 56  See ep.  177.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 670; 177.7 (CSEL, 44), p. 676; 177.8 (CSEL, 44), p. 677; 177.9 (CSEL, 44), p. 678; 177.11 (CSEL, 44), p. 679; 177.14 (CSEL, 44), p. 682; 177.15 (CSEL, 44), p. 683; 177.16 (CSEL, 44), p. 686. 48  49 

212

mathijs lamberigts

3. Innocent’s reply57 a. The authority of Rome and its bishops Innocent was aware of the fact that he was the bishop of Rome,58 and this awareness is also present in the epp.  181-183. 59 The Africans are praised for their appeal to Rome, for by doing so they respected tradition,60 both on the local level (organization of synods) 61 and global one (by consulting Rome, the Apostolic See, where he, Innocent, like all successors of Peter, wants to follow Peter, for all received their authority from him).62 As successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome know how to condemn and to praise,63 a given well understood by the Africans, when asking that Rome should decree all over the world what would be to the benefit of all.64 Matters can only be solved in a valid way when Rome’s approval is behind them.65 In this regard, he appreciated the Carthaginian bishops’ policy to observe his predecessors’ teachings.66 As far as I can see, Innocent’s predecessors did not teach about original sin and the Africans never appealed to a Roman bishop Italian material is not really helpful in the reconstruction of the affair; see Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p. 240-242. 58  See Lamberigts, Innocentius, p. 615-616; Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p.  103-104. On the broader context of Rome’s growing self-confidence, see Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p. 117-118. 59  See ep. 181.1 (CSEL, 44), p.  702: “(…) quid apostolicae sedi, cum omnes hoc loco positi ipsum sequi desideremus apostolum, debeatur, a quo ipse episcopatus et tota auctoritas nominis huius emersit.”; see also 182.1-2 (CSEL, 44), p.  715-717. Whether the letters are the result of synodal consultations or not, is unclear; cf. Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p. 596. 60  Ep. 181.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 701-702. 61  Ep. 182.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 716-717. 62  Ep. 181.1, p. 702. 63  Ep.  181.1 (CSEL, 44), p.  702: “Quem sequentes tam mala iam damnare nouimus quam probare laudanda (…)”.  64  Ep.  181.2 (CSEL, 44), p.  703: “Gratulor igitur, fratres carissimi, quod per fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum Iulium litteras ad nos destinastis et, cum illis curam geritis, quibus praesidetis, ecclesiis, sollicitudinem uestram pro omnium utilitate monstratis et per cunctas totius orbis ecclesias omnibus una, quod prosit, decernendum esse deposcitis […]”. 65  Ep. 181.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 702. 66  Ibidem. 57 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

213

as a support for their view on the fall. In fact, the bishops of Africa did not inform Rome about the reasons why Caelestius was not allowed to the priesthood, while Caelestius, during the trial in 411, suggested that the doctrine of original sin was a point of discussion.67 At length, Innocent speaks about the role of the Church as doctor medicus. Referring to this image of the doctor, Innocent wants to intervene to cut away the wound that attacked the Church – Innocent spends a whole paragraph on this metaphor, the reader still waiting for the first statement on the level of content.68 In fact, the reader of ep. 181 has to wait for paragraph 4 of this letter before the issues under discussion are discussed. b. Innocent about Pelagius and Caelestius Both in epp.  181 and 182, the reader has to wait some time before the names of Pelagius and Caelestius are explicitly mentioned.69 Where Pelagius currently stays, is not known to Innocent, who also adds that if his supporters are living in Rome, he does not know them and thus cannot affirm whether they are in Rome or not, using the large number of people in Rome as an excuse.70 However, in their letter, the five bishops were quite affirmative about the presence of Pelagian supporters in Rome, for they were speaking of “quidam”, an indication that one knows who are to be suspected. Innocent hesitates to affirm the Africans’ suggestion,71 but thinks that a condemnation of Pelagius in

67  In any case, according to Caelestius, the question of original sin was a matter of discussion, not part of a fixed doctrine; see De gratia Christi et de peccato originali II,3,3 (CSEL, 42), p. 168: “[…] de traduce peccati dubium me esse  […] quia diuersa ab eis audiui qui utique in ecclesia catholica constituti sunt presbyteri.” 68  Ep. 181.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 704-705; references to the doctor and medicines are taken up again in 181.9 (CSEL, 44), p. 712 f.; 182.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 715; 182.7 (CSEL, 44), p. 722; 183.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 730. 69  See ep.  181.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 709; 182.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 719. In ep.  183, Caelestius is not mentioned, probably because ep.  177, to which letter Innocent is answering here, does not speak of Caelestius. 70  Ep. 183.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 726. 71  Ep. 183.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 726: “Si ergo sunt aliqui (…)”. See the pertinent remarks of Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p. 563.

214

mathijs lamberigts

the city might help his “supporters” to change their mind.72 At first sight, it remains strange that Innocent does not know of the presence of Pelagians in Rome, but one should recall that up to this moment the Pelagian controversy took place outside Rome (at Carthage; in Jerusalem; at Diospolis,  etc.). At the same time, it is suggested that the Roman clergy, “formed” by the Pelagian ideals, stood aloof from the debate.73 It is difficult to underpin such claim but I suggest that the doctrinal points on the agenda had an African origin and background and were issues, Rome was not yet familiar with. Further, as we constantly see, Innocent does not add new doctrinal elements to the dossier but rephrases in a sense what was said by the Africans. Innocent does not understand – the phrase is formulated in the form of a question – why both are of the opinion that we do not have to search for or need God’s help, given the fact that all saints testify that without this help they could not do anything.74 Innocent does use strong vocabulary,75 but he seldom becomes very specific.76 In the three letters, Innocent only once speaks of noua Ibidem. Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien, p.  617 (with further literature). 74  Ep.  181.6 (CSEL, 44), p.  709: “[…] quem ad modum Pelagius Caelestiusque  […] confidunt nos adiutorium Dei nec debere quaerere nec egere, cum omnes sancti nihil se sine hoc agere posse testantur?” For a similar critique, again in the form of a question, see 182.4 (CSEL, 44), p.  719. Pelagius never denied that human beings need God’s help. He was convinced that human beings searching for the good, were helped in this effort by God; cf. Gest. Pel. 3,5 (CSEL, 42), p. 56. 75  Ep. 181.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 707: “Num quid tam mortiferum, tam praeceps uideatur ad casum, tam expositum ad omnia pericula  […]” (ep. 176.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 664 speaks of “magnis periculis”); 182.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 718: “O prauissimarum mentium peruersa doctrina”; see also 183.1 (CSEL, 44), p.  725. The idea that the ideas are perverse can be found in ep. 175.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 655; 176.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 667; 177.15 (CSEL, 44), p. 683. 76  See, e.g., ep.  181.9 (CSEL, 44), p.  713-714. The language used here is rather pompous, both with regard to the errors to be rejected and the accusers: “[…] cum nihil praetermissum a nobis, nihil constet esse suppressum, quo illi refutati et penitus agnoscantur esse conuicti. Ideoque a nobis testimonia nulla ponuntur, quia et his plana relatio est et satis constat tot doctissimos sacerdotes cuncta dixisse nec decet credere uos aliquid, quod ad causam possit proficere, praeterisse”. 72  73 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

215

haeresis.77 He uses this word when answering ep.  176, in fact the only African letter speaking of heresy.78 He states that Pelagius and Caelestius are the inuentores uocum nouarum.79 He is of the opinion that a “pertinax” Pelagius is the author of a doctrine 80 that denies that one receives anything from God and that we need God’s help.81 He qualifies this doctrine as a pestilential venom, but does so in reply to ep. 175 where this idea of pestilence is brought up in 175.4.82 On the basis of “our apostolic power”83 he decides that Pelagius, Caelestius, and their supporters are deprived of the communion with the Church until they return (quote of 2 Tim. 2:26).84 Innocent extends this excommunication to all who try to defend these ideas, but insists on the fact that people’s opinions can be remedied and that they thus deserve a second chance after having condemned their own errors: Christ does not want the death of the sinner, but that he returns and may live (cf.  Ezek 33:11; 2 Pet 3:9).85 Innocent hopes that Pelagius will turn away from his error and returns to the true faith.86 The fact that Pelagius was set free in Diospolis does not convince Innocent. Here again, Innocent gives credit to the information as sent by the Africans. The Africans stress that Pelagius and Caelestius are the authors of an error that must be condemned.87 Ep. 182.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 718. See ep. 176.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 664. 79  Ep. 182.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 721. 80  Ep. 183.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 726. 81  Ep. 183.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 725. 82  Ep. 181.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 704: “[…] qui peruersis instructi, immo destructi uerborum argutiis sub imagine catholicae fidei disputantes uelut pestiferum exhalantes uirus, ut hominum recte sentientium in deteriorem partem corda corrumpant, totam ueri dogmatis quaerunt euertere disciplinam.” 83  This term is used in ep. 175.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 658: the apostolic authority of Rome must anathematize the errors, whether they are held by Pelagius or not. 84  Ep. 182.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 721: “[…] ecclesiastica communio priuari apostolici vigoris auctoritate censemus […]”. What follows, is again, a good example of Innocent’s verbosity. 85  Ep.  182.7 (CSEL, 44), p. 722; see already 182.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 716; cf. also 181.9 (CSEL, 44), p. 713-714. 86  Ep. 183.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 727. 87  Ep. 175.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 654; 176.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 667. 77  78 

216

mathijs lamberigts

They have their doubts about Pelagius’ and Caelestius’ veracity.88 They suggest that he was misleading people,89 may be even the bishops at Diospolis,90 and that he publicly must condemn the positions under discussion, whether these writings are his or the work of others.91 It is this information that will be repeated by Innocent. However, Innocent does not offer a discussion of the Diospolis dossier. Innocent is uncertain about the validity of the documentation received, for the copies of the proceedings of Diospolis, brought by lay persons, arrived without any statement of the Council or the bishops present at it,92 a complaint also mentioned by Augustine in De gestis Pelagii I,1 (mentioned above). Pelagius’ correction should not be based on the acts of the synod but be done by a heart, converted to the Catholic faith.93 Just like the Africans, Innocent is in doubt about the accuracy of the acts of Diospolis, and thus can neither approve nor disapprove their decision. He questions Pelagius’ sincerity at Diospolis and simply suggests that if the acquittal was a correct one, Pelagius himself should come as soon as possible to Rome in order to be absolved or at least send a letter to ask forgiveness.94 In any case, Innocent is very negative about De natura.95 He has read the book and is of the opinion that many blasphemies are in it, but he does not specify this critique.96 Nothing in the book pleases while most things are displeasing and must See ep. 175.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 662 See ep. 176.4 (CSEL, 44), p.  667: “Pelagius uero, sicut a quibusdam fra­ tribus nostris missae loquuntur epistulae, Hierosolymis constitutus nonnullos fallere adseritur.” 90  Ep. 177.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 670-671; 177.15 (CSEL, 44), p. 684. 91  See ep. 177.15 (CSEL, 44), p. 683. 92  Ep.  183.3 (CSEL, 44), p.  727: “Quae utrum uera sint, dubitamus, quod sub nulla illius concilii prosecutione uenerunt nec eorum aliquas accepimus de hac re litteras, apud quos istius rei iste praestitit causas.” In fact, more than half of the letter is spent to the question of Pelagius’ sincerity at Diospolis. 93  Ep. 183.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 727: “[…] correctus non gestorum indicio sed ad catholicam fidem corde conuerso  […]”. 94  Ep. 183.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 729. 95  For a comparison between what is suggested and what is really said in De natura, see V. Drecoll, Pelagius, Pelagiani, in AL 4, 3-4, Basel, 2014, cc. 632-633 (with further literature). 96  See Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p. 132. 88  89 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

217

be condemned. He is happy that the Africans agree with him! He requests that Pelagius should anathematize his views so that his supporters may know “quid tandem habeat fides uera”, and thus can more easily be called back.97 In case Pelagius remains in his error, these people should be helped.98 c. Free will 99 By way of introduction it should be said that according to Innocent100 the first man was victim of his own free will because he unadvisedly used his own qualities and therefore submerged in such a way into the depths of prevarication101 that he was no longer able to rise from them.102 The fall of Adam is described as the result of deception by his own freedom: he would have been lost if Christ had not raised him in accord with his grace.103 Christ, Innocent continues, is needed in order to reform and restore the state of pristine freedom through rebirth.104 Nature’s capacities as such are not discussed by Innocent – it is not that clear what Innocent himself really thinks of the consequences of Adam’s fall for his progeny and one is looking in vain for a deeper reflection on concepts such as vitiated nature present in the letter of the five bishops,105 and even after having pronounced a negative judge-

Ep. 183.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 729. Ibidem: “(…) agendum est (…) ne et illis haec medicina pereat (…)”. 99  I suggest that Innocent remains rather vague if not neutral with regard to this concept. 100  Innocent does not speak that much about the fall of Adam and its effects for the progeny, probably because the case of Adam is not really developed and emphasized in the letters of the Africans. Further, he does not offer a systematic presentation of all concepts available: libertas, uoluntas, liberum arbitrium are used in the answers, without attempts to distinguish between them. 101  The concept of “praeuaricatio” is already present in ep.  177.13 (CSEL, 44), p.  681-682, but is related to the law, an issue Innocent does not pay attention to; cf. infra. 102  Ep. 181.7 (CSEL, 44), p. 709-710. 103  Ibidem. 104  Ep. 182.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 718-719. 105  Clearly present in ep. 177.15 (CSEL, 44), p. 683. 97 

98 

218

mathijs lamberigts

ment about De natura, Innocent remains more or less silent.106 In any case, Innocent does never refer to the crucial anti-Pelagian Scriptural arguments, such as Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Rom 7:14-25, an indication that the African view on these texts had not found its way in Italy or, better, that Italy, if it might have had a doctrine of original sin, had not based it on these texts. In fact, none of the Scriptural texts as present in the letters of the Africans was mentioned by Innocent, although he recognized the richness of the African’s Scriptural dossier.107 Even in case Innocent might have been impressed by the Scriptural argumentation of the Africans, he did not show it in his answers. But also concerning the consequences of the fall for Adam’s progeny such as the carnal concupiscences,108 the presence of concupiscence, causing an inner struggle even in Christians,109 or the tension between flesh and spirit,110 Innocent does not utter personal opinions. Innocent recognizes that we are born with a free will, but rejects the idea that after such gift by the Creator we no longer need his help, for our free will is not able to overcome the “terrenae labis et mundani corporis  […] errores”111 and human beings would be lost without Christ’s coming, thus offering his saving grace.112 Psalms make clear how people such as David were aware of the insufficiency of their own will.113 For Innocent, those who are of the opinion that they fulfil all the commandments by their freedom alone, thus suggesting that they do not need God’s help, will fall into the hands of the devil.114 In sum, the human free will In ep.  183.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 729, Innocent speaks “de naturae possibilitate”, but without further specifications. 107  Ep. 181.9 (CSEL, 44), p. 714; 182.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 719. 108  Ep. 175.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 655. 109  Present in ep. 177.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 672. 110  Cf. ep. 177.16 (CSEL, 44), p. 685 111  Ep. 181.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 707; cf. also 181.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 708. 112  Ep. 181.7 (CSEL, 44), p. 709. 113  Ep. 182.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 719. 114  Ep.  182.3 (CSEL, 44), p.  718: „Negantes ergo auxilium Dei inquiunt hominem sibi posse sufficere nec gratia hunc egere diuina, qua priuatus necesse est diaboli inretitus occumbat, dum ad omnia uitae perficienda mandata sola tantum modo libertate contendat.” 106 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

219

needs God’s help in order to restore the pristine liberty and to overcome evil in daily life. d. Grace Also on this issue, Innocent very much resonates what was said by the Africans in their letters, but he remains silent about crucial issues in ep.  177, such as the relation between law and grace, and justification. Innocent is of the opinion that God’s grace comes down upon us when we beg for it – that the Augustinian idea that God prepares us to beg, is absent in Innocent’s arguments, is a detail for scholars who consider Innocent a partner of the African’s – and without this grace we cannot resist earthly filth and worldly body. Only God’s grace enables us to resist to both.115 For Innocent, grace is still needed after the restoration of our first state (in Adam).116 According to Innocent, and also here the bishop of Rome takes up African theses,117 the Pelagians in no way long for God’s grace.118 Innocent is critical to those who deny that daily grace is a gift of God, the life-giver. God gives life to human beings and influences our way of living through his daily grace.119 For Innocent, we need God’s help in order to overcome evil and live a better life.120 Through the purification of a new regeneration Christ passed away past sin – Innocent clearly has in mind adults – and gave man strength to live a more correct and stable life, while continuing to offer his grace.121 Innocent insists on the fact Ep. 181.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 707-708. Ep. 182.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 720. 117  Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p.  130 observes: „Alle Einwürfe gegen die gegnerische Gnadenlehre werden in Frageform vorgetragen.”, and in fact „übernimmt Innozenz die afrikanischen Thesen”. 118  Ep.  181.4 (CSEL, 44), p.  705: “(…) nullam Dei gratiam consequuntur  (…)”. In ep.  175.2 (CSEL, 44), p.  655 it was suggested that the Pelagians leave no space for the grace of God, through which we become Christians. 119  Ep. 181.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 706. 120  Ep. 181.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 707-708. 121  Ep.  181.7 (CSEL, 44), p.  710: “[…] nisi eum post Christi pro sua gratia releuasset aduentus, qui per nouae regenerationis purificationem omne praeteritum uitium sui baptismatis lauacro purgauit et eius firmans statum, quo rectius constabiliusque procederet, tamen suam gratiam in posterum non negauit.” 115  116 

220

mathijs lamberigts

that even after the restoration of our free will, we still need the help of God’s grace in order to escape from other artifices of the devil.122 Christians long for an ethically good life and this is not possible without Christ’s grace.123 Innocent suggests that the Pelagians seem not to experience God’s grace because they are unworthy and do not deserve grace,124 thus suggesting that grace can be deserved.125 He observes that our freedom comes from God, but that we need his grace in order to fight against error and earthly defilement. For this, only God’s help can help us.126 King David, “qui cum sciat tantum in sua esse natura”, permanently asked for God’s help.127 Why then do Pelagius and Caelestius try to convince human beings not to search for God’s help?128 He claims that the help of God must be added to our free will and that this free will can do nothing when deprived from God’s help, but adds, in the letter to the bishops of Milev, “ut adseritis”, thus making clear that his knowledge on this part of the dossier is based on African information.129 The same should be said with regard to the baptism of children: Innocent rejects the idea that infants can receive the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism, an idea “quod eos uestra fraternitas adserit praedicare”,130 but which is not Ep. 182.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 720. See Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p. 129. 124  Ep.  181.8 (CSEL, 44), p. 711: “[…] ipsi nullam Dei gratiam sentient, quia nec digni sunt nec merentur […].” 125  On the idea that grace can be deserved, also see ep.  181.4 (CSEL, 44), p.  706. See the pertinent remarks of Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p.  129, n.  240. Grace does not play a role in the letters of Innocent, other than those sent to Africa. 126  Ep. 181.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 708. 127  Ep. 181.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 709. 128  I did not find a text in Pelagius, suggesting that we do not need God’s help. Given the fact that Innocent is rather vague about the concept of adiutorium, it is hard to discover what exactly he might have in mind. However, the idea that Pelagius claimed that the free will as such suffices, is clearly present in ep.  175.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 655: “[…] extollendo liberum arbitrium nullum relinquant locum gratiae Dei, qua christiani sumus […]”. 129  Ep. 182.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 719. 130  Ep.  182.5 (CSEL, 44), p.  720. On the Augustinian inspiration, see B.  Delaroche, Le baptême en langue punique: “salut”; l’eucharistie: “vie” (I,24,34), in Œuvres de saint Augustin (BA 20A), Premières réactions antipéla­ 122 

123 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

221

related by Innocent to the remission of original sin.131 One must eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood in order to receive life: the one who claims that children can receive eternal life without baptism is in fact destroying baptism and acts against Mt 19:14.132 The one who denies the help of grace is an enemy of the Catholic faith and ungrateful for God’s gifts.133 He is not worthy of communion with Rome and has fled from the true religion.134 He does not realize that grace is needed to be saved from error: already isolated, such people must be removed from the Church, in order to avoid that it becomes an incurable error. They must be banned from the community with the Church in order to give the impression to the faithful that what they hold is the correct doctrine.135 e. Prayer Prayer was an important issue for the Africans which they discussed in the three letters, emphasizing that this prayer is needed, as is suggested by the Lord’s prayer.136 They accuse the Pelagians of suggesting that there is no need for it.137 They refer to the behaviour of saints in order to prove that prayer is needed.138 It will be no surprise that this issue finds its way into the answers of Innocent. Innocent emphasizes the importance of prayer: in this regard he refers to Ps 26:9: “Be my helper; do not abandon me, and do not forsake me, O God, my savior” – it is interesting to see how often Innocent, in his three letters refers giennes I. Salaire et pardon des péchés. Peccatorum meritis et remissione, Paris, 2013, p. 477-478. 131  See the comments of Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, p. 130. With regard to this issue, it is interesting to see that Julian of Aeclanum, referring to Chrysostom, underlined the need of baptism of children because of positive arguments; see Ad Turbantium, frg. 312, (CCSL, 88), p. 393-394. 132  Ep. 182.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 720-721. 133  The Pelagians were already described as enemies of grace in the letters of the Africans; see ep.  176.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 664; 177.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 669; 177.15 (CSEL, 44), p. 683. 134  Ep. 181.8 (CSEL, 44), p. 711. 135  Ep. 181.8 (CSEL, 44), p. 711-712. 136  See ep. 176.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 664; 177.18 (CSEL, 44), p. 687. 137  Ep. 175.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 658-659. 138  Ep. 175.6, p. 662: “ (…) quae sanctorum euidentius orationibus declaratur (…)”.

222

mathijs lamberigts

to Psalms and Old Testament texts: they are quoted more often than Paul139 – in order to emphasize eloquently that prayer is needed even for people gifted with such great natural resources as David,140 David becoming one of the foci of his argument.141 People must daily pray in order to receive God’s grace142 and mercy,143 something the Pelagians seem to give up.144 4. Conclusion This contribution has made clear that Innocent, in his reply to the three letters as sent by the African bishops, first and foremost stresses his own authority at length, hereby very much helped by the tone and style of the African letters. This is clearly the case in the epp. 181 and 182. Content wise, Innocent’s answers do not add much to what can be found in the African bishops’ reports. In fact, on crucial Scriptural texts, important African concepts such as the vitiated nature, carnal concupiscence, the relation between law and grace, justification, the bishop of Rome does not really contribute anything. One has the impression that the bishop of Rome is not really interested in a discussion of these issues. In any case, it is remarkable that Innocent does not seriously discuss the rich theological arguments as developed in ep. 177. But even when the bishop discusses issues as brought in by the Africans, one does not find responses that transcend what is present in the African letters. One does not have the impression that the bishop really knows much about Pelagius and Caelestius, and that he simply shares the distrust of the Africans on the basis of their own claims. Innocent nowhere refers to the Lord’s prayer. Ep. 181.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 709. 141  Ep. 181.6 (CSEL, 44), p. 709; cf. also 182.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 718. 142  Ep. 181.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 708: “(…) magnis precibus gratia in nos inplorata descendat  (…)”. 143  Ep.  181.8 (CSEL, 44), p.  711: “(…) cotidianisque precibus  (…) Dei misericordiam consequamur  (…)”. 144  Ep.  182.3 (CSEL, 44), p. 718: “Quid enim acerbius in dominum fingere potuerunt, quam cum adiutoria diuina cassarent causamque cotidianae precationis auferrent?” 139 

140 

innocent and the pelagian controversy

223

Also with regard to topics such as free will, grace, and prayer, the bishop of Rome repeats, what is already mentioned by the Africans, and does it in such a way that even the Pelagians might have agreed with it:145 the fact that both Pelagius and Caelestius immediately wanted to defend their case in Rome, might be an indication. Of course, his Scriptural dossier is rather unique in the sense that he does not make use of or comment on the African biblical dossier, that is praised but not really used. Surely, the bishop of Rome does recognize the importance of these topics, but he does so in the sense as explained by the Africans. One cannot claim that Innocent autonomously and seriously examined himself the dossier. One may even wonder whether he would ever had reacted if he had not been alarmed by the African bishops. In any case, the answers as given by Innocent were not of such value that Augustine often made use of them in his debate with the Pelagians in general or Julian of Aeclanum in particular. In later writings, Augustine praises the bishop of Rome but makes marginal use of the content of the letter. To the defence of the bishop of Rome, it should be said that he only entered into a dispute in 416, a clear indication that up to that period the Pelagian controversy was a controversy between African bishops and people who had left Italy and lived in the East. I  suggest that Innocent, and by extension the Roman clergy, at this moment did not know what was at stake, a suggestion that is supported by the fact that upon the arrival of Caelestius and of Pelagius’ Libellus fidei in Rome, Zosimus will acquit the two and put the blame on the Africans.

145  See the remarks of J. Gross, Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbsündendogmas. Von der Bibel bis Augustinus (Geschichte des Erbsündendogmas, B. 1), München, Basel, 1960, p. 281-282.

“What Good Are Books?” Knowledge and Will in Augustine’s Letter to Firmus (Ep. 2*) Elia Marinova (Sofia) Since the discovery of Augustine’s epp.  1*–29* by Johannes Divjak the letter to the Carthaginian noble Firmus (ep.  2*) has been repeatedly discussed in various ways. It has been valued as a document about the history of the catechumenate in the early fifth century, and regarded as new evidence supporting the theory of the protreptic or even catechetic nature of the ciu.1 It was found that some passages in ep.  2* provided insight into Augustine’s theoretical views on the art of rhetoric as well as into the way of how these views were put into practice in his correspondence.2 In the first place, however, scholars became interested in Augus1  See J. Van Oort, “Letters 1A* and 2* to Firmus and the Purpose of De Civitate Dei”, in Cappadocian Fathers, Greek Authors after Nicaea, Augustine, Donatism and Pelagianism: Papers Presented at the Eleventh International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1991 (Studia Patristica 27), ed. by E.  Livingstone, Oxford, Leuven, 1993, p.  417-423. In his opinion, Letter 2* gives “further reasons for considering De civitate Dei as a protreptic-thetic writing and even as a catechetical one as well” (p. 417); see also J. van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon. A Study into Augustine’s City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 14), Leiden, Boston, 1991, p. 175. 2  A central tenet of the analysis of Chr.  Schäublin, “Zwei Bemerkungen über Literatur in den neuen Augustin-Briefen”, Museum Helveticum, 41 (1984), p. 54-61; F.  M. Catarinella, “Confutazioni epistolari: il caso Firmus (Aug. ep.  2*) o della conversione differita”, in Africa Cristiana. Storia, religione, letteratura, ed. by M. Marin, C. Moreschini, Brescia, 2002, p.  221-240, especially p. 224-225, where Catarinella states that in ep. 2* Augustine makes use of the same rhetorical and juridical practices of retorsio and confutatio, which had reached their peak in the polemic works of Plutarch, Galen and Origenes.

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 225-248 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113892

226

elia marinova

tine’s unusual and vivid account of free will and divine grace presented equally as instruction and exhortation to a doubting catechumen. 3 We intend to show that ep.  2* reveals some interesting aspects of Augustine’s way of using his correspondence to enhance the persuading effect of his major works, and to catechize men from the urban élite like Firmus. A  starting point of our study is the remarkable way in which Augustine built the structure of his letter around the notions of knowledge and free will, asking the question of how books can help one in his striving for salvation. 1. Ep.  2*: one answer to three contradictory messages? When Augustine sent at the end of the year 426 a full copy of the ciu. to the Carthaginian catechumen Firmus, he hoped in this way to give him assistance for receiving the sacrament of rebirth.4 What is more important, Firmus was expected to pass on to the Christians in Carthage the recently completed work, by following Augustine’s instructions on how best the twenty two quaterniones of the ciu. must be assembled into two or three volumes and further copied. Firmus’ friends – provided they were willing to become Christians – were allowed to make a copy as well. Augustine had good reasons to believe that his addressee would take his task to heart, since he had witnessed Firmus’ excitement and intent listening, when book eighteen of the ciu. had been read in Carthage for three afternoons running.5 Later on, Firmus had kept H.  Frohnhofen, “Anmerkungen zum Brief 2* des heiligen Augustinus”, Vigiliae Christianae, 38 (1984), p. 385-392; G.  Bonner, “Predestination and Free Will”, in Augustine. Other Latin Writers. Papers presented at the Fourteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2003 (Studia Patristica, 43), ed. by F. Young, M. Edwards, P. Parvis, Louvain, 2006, p. 15-18. 4  Peter Brown identified Firmus as a Carthaginian senator, vir illustrissimus (see P. Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 ad, Princeton, 2013, p.  357). Concerning the status of Firmus as rudis, i.e., a newcomer who needed an introduction into the Christian faith, see Van Oort, “Augustine’s Letters to Firmus”, p. 422, n. 32. 5  Ep.  2*.3, in Augustinus, Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. by J. Divjak, Vienna, 1981 (CSEL, 88), p. 10: “[…] ille textus huius operis octauus decimus, quem nobiscum pomeridiano continuo triduo cum legeretur attentus audisti”. 3 

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

227

asking with passion for this new work, until in the end he obtained all twenty two books.6 Yet, despite his promise (or rather warning) in ep.  1A*.3, that he would regularly check Firmus’ progress in reading, Augustine, under the pressure of his responsibilities, wrote again to the catechumen much later, a year or two after he had provided him with the text of the ciu.7 When he finally paid the “debt, which I have come to owe because of my own desire”,8 the first thing he did, was to look over the three letters he had received from the Carthaginian in the meantime, in order to discuss them all together. As we hope to demonstrate, there was some other reason to answer them all at the same time, apart from the obvious need for economy of time. He did not pay any special attention to the first letter of Firmus, although he was pleased to learn from it that his noble addressee had worked hard on the first ten books of the ciu. He had commented on them in such a way which guaranteed that he had read them carefully;9 nonetheless, Augustine does not seem to be absolutely positive about Firmus’ accomplishment, when saying that Firmus’ letter was – in one way or another – a conscientious attempt at arguing on the matter.10 He did not mention anything else about the content of this letter, so we do not know if this epistula gratissima was similar to Macedonius’ praises of the early books of the ciu. (ep.  154.2) or if it was some kind of recensio.11 The discussion of the second letter took about two thirds of the whole text of ep. 2* as a response to the sudden change of mind of Firmus. What Augustine obviously expected was an equally tho­ Ibidem: “[…] et ex hoc omnes ut haberes studio flagrantissimo accensus es neque, donec ad id peruenires, instare cessasti”. 7  Frohnhofen (“Anmerkungen zum Brief 2*”, p.  382) and René Braun (see Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, sixième série, Lettres 1* - 29* (BA 46B), ed. by J. Divjak, Paris, 1987, p.  428) refer to the year 428 as a probable date of ep. 2*. 8  Ep.  2*.1 (CSEL, 88), p.  9: “quod mihi optanti factum est ut deberem”. I  have used the translation by R.  Teske, Letters 211-270, 1*-29*, WSA 2.4, Hyde Park, 2005, p. 233. 9  Ep.  2*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 10: “ut eos quam bene legeris appareret”. 10  Ibidem: “diligenter quodammodo disputasti”. 11  According to Catarinella, in this first letter Firmus “ha realizzato quasi una recensione critica” (“Confutazioni epistolari”, p. 227, n. 39). 6 

228

elia marinova

rough comment on books eleven to twenty two, which (as he wrote in ep.  1A*.1) “present and defend our religion”;12 this would correspond to Firmus’ reaction during the public reading of book eighteen. Firmus, however, had surprisingly interrupted both reading and reporting on his progress; he failed to keep another promise as well, since he had put off sending a sample of the school declamations of his son (which came only with the third letter). Most importantly, he let Augustine know that he was still not ready to become a baptized Christian. In this way, the second letter of Firmus aroused alarm that something about his instruction had gone wrong. Some scholars, referring to the fact that the postponed baptism was the primary concern of the bishop of Hippo, went so far as to assert that Augustine mentioned in ep. 2* three letters of Firmus, but in fact answered only one,13 since the third letter which accompanied the rhetoric exercises of Firmus’ son, was completely irrelevant to Augustine’s worries. In the following we intend to show that this assumption contradicts the actual content of Augustine’s reply, and that his discussion of the three letters might have been planned from the beginning around a common concept. At the same time, while examining the structure and the purpose of ep.  2*, we hope to call scholars’ attention to one more specific question: if books failed to persuade a hesitating convert, how could a letter have better chances of affecting the doubting mind? If a letter was conceived as a medium for complementing and intensifying the message of Augustine’s book, how was this special function of the letter related to its length, structure, and rhetoric strategy? In our opinion, ep. 2* offers some answers to these questions. 2. Augustine discussing the (mis)use of reading a. The City of God and the main topic of ep. 2* First of all, however, we must ask what the ep.  2* was about. Undoubtedly, from the very moment that Johannes Divjak brought 12  Ep.  1A*.1 (CSEL, 88), p.  7: “demonstrata atque defensa est nostra religio”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 230. 13  See C. Schäublin, “Zwei Bemerkungen”, p.  55: “Der dritte Brief zählt kaum; Augustin tut ihn kurz ab, fast wie in einem ʻAnhangʼ (Ep. 2*, 12)”.

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

229

to light the unknown letters, a central issue in the interpretations of ep.  2* has been the fact that it provided evidence about the early fate of the ciu.14 But how much can we learn from it about the impression this tremendous book made on its first readers? To be sure, less than we can learn from ep.  1A* about the plans and expectations of the bishop of Hippo concerning the dissemination of his opus magnum. We are told that at least at the time of sending ep. 2* the ciu. had not proved to be ‘The Book’ to turn Firmus’ life around – something that young Augustine had experienced with Hortensius.15 Can we possibly assume, in that case, that in Augustine’s eyes Firmus’ postponed baptism was somehow related to the failure of the ciu. to urge him to conversion? To answer this question, one must recognize the fact that Augustine was not interested in simply discussing the effect of this specific book on this specific person, but rather in addressing a bigger audience – most likely the educated élite of Carthage willing to convert to Christianity – with the important problem of the tension between knowledge and deeds, reading and acting. The social environment of the honorary senator Firmus, both catechumens like him and non-Christians, shared more or less his superstitious hope of receiving some special sign from God, just as his doubts and fears concerning personal salvation. In this light one should revisit the answer of the question above: the topic of ep.  2* was not only the ciu., but the benefit from any instructive reading that would lead to salvation; the central problem to be solved was not only Firmus’ reluctance to accept the sacrament of rebirth (regeneratio) as an entry to the Celestial City, but his lack of determined will to stay in it (perseuerantia). b.  A well-known character of De catechizandis rudibus? The    nature of Firmus’ confusion and the second plan of ep. 2* As far as the instructive content of ep. 2* is concerned, it seems that Augustine had to exercise in his epistolary practice something he had defined as a theory in De catechizandis rudibus years ago. There, in a chapter entitled “On the method to be pursued in 14  J.  Divjak, “Augustins erster Brief an Firmus und die revidierte Ausgabe der Civitas Dei”, in Latinität und Alte Kirche (Festschrift für R. Hanslik zum 70 Geburtstag), Wien, Köln, Graz, 1977, p. 56-70. 15  See conf. 3.4.7.

230

elia marinova

catechizing those who have had a liberal education” the bishop of Hippo portrayed the type of catechumen that Firmus as a speculating procrastinator exemplified most fully. He was indisputably a learned man: he seemed to have acquired some knowledge of the Scriptures; he was familiar with Augustine’s works, and maybe even with his revised concept of free will. Especially the following lines sound as if they anticipated the case of Firmus: “For it is customary with  men  of this class to inquire carefully into all things, not at the very  time  when they are made  Christians, but previous to that, and thus early also to communicate and  reason, with any whom they can reach, on the subject of the feelings of their own minds. Consequently a brief method of procedure should be adopted  with these, […]. With this class of people books are the most effective means of moving them to associate the Church.”16

Augustine was perfectly aware that such kind of persons, who have been moved by books to desire to become Christians, were particularly susceptible to the temptations of what he called “an unenlightened knowledge” – pride and vain curiosity, and could easily fall out of the Church. That is why he recommended in cat. rud. that they should be interrogated about what books they were more familiar with, and if certain passages proved an occasion for generating some heresy, these subjects should be discussed with them. If we take for granted that Augustine’s earlier views on the methods of catechizing were still unchanged about 427, this chapter would explain the perfect balance of instruction and persuasion in ep.  2*, and Augustine’s ironic respect to Firmus’ sophisticated excuses of a well-read man. On the other hand, there was something about the structure of ep.  2* that disagreed with the recommended in cat. rud. catechetical scheme. While in other letters, like ep.  137 to young VoluCat. rud. 12, in Augustinus, De catechizandis rudibus, ed. M.P.J.  van Hout et  al., Turnhout, 1969 (CCSL, 46), p.  133: “tales enim non eadem hora qua christiani fiunt, sed ante solent omnia diligenter inquirere, et motus animi sui, cum quibus possunt, communicare atque discutere. cum his itaque breuiter agendum est  […] quibus libris familiarius inhaeserit, unde illi persuasum est, ut sociari uellet ecclesiae.” (For the translation I have used: Selected library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, ed. by Ph.  Shaff, Buffalo, 1887, p. 394). 16 

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

231

sianus,17 the presence of this scheme can be easily perceived;18 the narratio in ep.  2* had for its subject not the history of the two cities, but the relation between grace and free will. The reason, in our opinion, was that it was not only the ciu. that Firmus did not understand correctly, or to put it in the words of Francesca Catarinella, “Firmus ha fornito ad Agostino motivi per dubitare della reale assimilazione dei precetti e delle argomentazioni del De civitate Dei”.19 The nature of his excuses for delaying baptism suggests some vague knowledge of the central issues of the Pelagian controversy, but Firmus was obviously incapable of working out for himself the essence of the competing dogmas that dominated the early fifth century. He seemed to be either totally perplexed in his interpreting of the cooperation between the free human will and God’s merciful assistance, or simply trying to excuse his weakness with the difficulty of this question. As a result, it was the discussion of knowledge and will, and their intrinsic connection that constituted the structure of Augustine’s answer. The tension between knowledge and will is constantly present in the whole letter, and if we look closer, we shall notice that several different concepts of knowledge – knowledge as a privilege and a 17  R.  B. Eno maintained the resemblance between Firmus and Volusianus who exchanged letters with Augustine in the first stages of the composition of the City of God, and became a Christian only on his death bed (Saint Augustine, Letters, Volume VI (Letters 1*–29*), transl. by R.B. Eno, Washington, D.C., 1989 (FOTC, 81), p. 17-30, at p. 17). Certain repeating patterns of thought and expression emphasize the similarity in the approach of these two cultivated men to Christian mysteries: in ep.  135.1 Volusianus asks Augustine for instruction in some obscure passages in the Scriptures, “since virtue, far from its beginnings, never so reveals itself to those who pursue it that the whole of it lies open to be known” (English translation, WSA 2.2, p.  208); he needed Augustine’s decision of experience “for fear that, when mysteries are imprudently violated, harmless error might be turned into sin” (ep.  135.2, English translation, WSA 2.2, p.  209). The structure of this argument strongly reminds Firmus’ second excuse for his procrastination (ep.  2*.6): he “promises a greater reverence for the faith if, in coming to the awesome secrets of the sacred mystery, he approaches its greater depths with hesitation.” (English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 234). 18  According to Van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, p.  195: “The catechetical nature of the City of God emerges in the concurrence of its structure and content with the structure and content of the catechesis for the rudes”. 19  Catarinella, “Confutazioni epistolari”, p. 228, n. 42.

232

elia marinova

burden, shared knowledge and pretended knowledge – build something like a second plan behind the formal structure of Augustine’s letter. Only in this framework is it possible to understand completely the strange disproportion of Augustine’s brief notes on Firmus’ comment on books one to ten of the ciu., and, on the opposite, his detailed and psychologically very interesting reading of the exercise speeches of Firmus’ son, and of Firmus’ last letter asking for Augustine’s judgment about the talent of the boy. No matter how long the answer to Firmus was, its message was quite simple: there is no final knowledge of God apart from Christ; there is neither revelation outside of the canonical scriptures, nor safety outside the Church. c.  Ep. 2* on the harvest of reading A starting point of most interpretations of ep.  2* is paragraph 3, in which the bishop of Hippo blamed the hesitating catechumen for delaying baptism and described his reluctance as the same as throwing away the fruits of all those books that Firmus loved: “For, in excusing yourself in your second letter from receiving the sacrament of rebirth, you are rejecting the whole fruit of so many books that you love.” The evolution of excuso to recuso is not to be overlooked.20 At the same time he mildly reproached Firmus for inflicting upon him the tedious job of a tax-collector after such a promising sowing: “Please, I  do not want to be a demanding tax-collector after having sowed seed in abundance.”21 It is noteworthy that in this passage Augustine united the reference to the New Testament parable of the sower and the crops (Mk 4:3-8; Mt 13:3-23; Lk 8:5-15) with the image of the tax-collector (exactor) which is usually present in Enarrationes in Psalmos and in his sermons to the people of Hippo.22 The interpenetration between the letters and the sermons comes most clearly to the fore in Sermo 339, a powerful sermon on the delay of baptism and its consequences, which Augustine read about 20  Ep.  2*.3 (CSEL, 88), p.  10: “nam quod  […] te ab accipiendo sacramento regenerationis excusas, totum tot librorum quos amas fructum recusas”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 233 (slightly modified). 21  Ep. 2*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 10: “non sim molestus frugis exactor, qui sementem copiosissimam feci”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 233. 22  Cf. s. 27.3; 179.7; 148.4; 339.3; 212.2; 10.1; 59A.2.

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

233

the year 400, at the anniversary day of his Episcopal ordination. There, reflecting upon the heavy burden (sarcina) of his pastoral responsibility for the sinners who postponed the day of their rebirth, he likened himself not to a tax-collector, but rather to the person who was voluntarily paying out the public debt (erogator).23 By emphasizing the negative implications of the word, Augustine specified in both contexts what kind of authority he wished to be – not the one who was forcing somebody to pay his debt, but the one who was taking the responsibility for helping his addressee (respectively his community) to pay it willingly and on time. But what was the harvest that Firmus had to return to the generous sower? At that moment, Augustine described more explicitly than anywhere else in his works what kind of fruits he expected to be obtained through reading the ciu., as well as through reading in general: “For their fruit does not consist in delighting the reader or in making someone know many facts that he does not know but in persuading a person either to enter the city of God without hesitation or to remain there with perseverance. The first of these is obtained by rebirth, the second by a love for righteousness. If these books do not produce this in those who read and praise them, what do they accomplish?” 24

d.  The importance of “flectere” in ep. 2* and in De doctrina    Christiana That these lines are closely related to Augustine’s teaching in book four of On Christian Doctrine has been convincingly argued by several scholars.25 According to Christian Schäublin, in ep. 2*.3 Augustine referred to the classic scheme of the officia oratoris: 23  S. 339.4, in Augustinus, Sermones selecti duodeviginti, ed. C. Lambot, Utrecht, 1950 (SPM, 1), p.  115: “sed uideat quomodo audiuit, quia erogator sum, non exactor. si non erogem, et pecuniam seruem, terret me euangelium”. 24  Ep.  2*.3 (CSEL, 88), p.  10-11: “nec enim ille fructus est eorum, quod delectant legentem, nec ille, quod multa faciunt scire nescientem, sed ille, quod ciuitatem dei persuadent uel incunctanter intrandam uel perseueranter habitandam; quorum duorum primum regeneratione, secundum iustitiae dilectione confertur. haec in eis a quibus leguntur atque laudantur si non agunt, quid agunt?” English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 233. 25  According to Van Oort, “Letters 1A* and 2* to Firmus”, p.  423, the rhetorical concepts are also constituent elements in Augustine’s catecheti-

234

elia marinova

docere, delectare, flectere with the same purpose as in De doctrina Christiana 4.27, that is, to remind the orator (or the reader) about the fact that while “to teach” and “to delight” was indispensable, there was no point of speaking, if the speech (the book) did not move the audience. Subsequently Schäublin interpreted the sentence: “Haec in eis a quibus leguntur atque laudantur si non agunt, quid agunt?” as a paraphrase of the rhetoric question that was formulated in doctr. Chr.: “quid illa duo [docere et delectare] proderunt, si desit hoc tertium?”26 Our argument here follows closely the comment of Schäublin, but we would like to draw attention to one further detail. In doctr. Chr. 4.27-29 Augustine was considering the possibility that a person might have the knowledge and the understanding to do something, but still not act according to this knowledge. He asserted that it was exactly for this reason that to persuade was triumph, because it was possible that a stubborn-minded man might be taught and delighted, and yet not give his consent. On this occasion, Augustine spelled out in a most lucid way what peculiar nature of flectere was that determined its central place: “When, however, the truth taught is one that must be carried into practice, and that is taught for the very purpose of being practiced, it is useless to be persuaded of the  truth  of what is said, it is useless to be pleased with the manner in which it is said, if it be not so learned as to be practiced.” 27

Augustine’s point, then, was that a speaker was able to persuade his hearers, when he learned how “to move the minds, not telling them what they ought to do, but urging them to do what they already  know  ought to be done”.28

cal instruction. For a thorough study of the passage see Schäublin, “Zwei Bemerkungen”, p. 56-57. 26  Doctr. chr. 4.28, in Augustinus, De doctrina christiana, ed. M. Simonetti, Verona, 1994, p. 294. 27  Ibidem, p.  296: “cum uero id docetur quod agendum est, et ideo docetur ut agatur, frustra persuadetur uerum esse quod dicitur, frustra placet modus ipse quo dicitur, si non ita discitur ut agatur.” 28  Ibidem, p.  292: “[…] et quidquid aliud grandi eloquentia fieri potest ad commovendos animos auditorum, non quid agendum sit ut sciant, sed ut agant quod agendum esse iam sciunt”. I have used the translation by J.F. Shaw, in

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

235

These lines describe exactly the situation of Firmus who knew what he had to do, and still didn’t make a single step in acting. In so far Augustine’s claim in ep.  2*.2: “redde quod debes”29 and the use of the image of the tax-collector in ep.  2*.3 cannot be related only to the epistolary topics in the letters of rebuke; the assertion of the aesthetic or intellectual value of his work was not the kind of appreciation he wished to receive from Firmus; the only recompense for his literary labour ought to be Firmus’ final and decisive step to converting. When this did not happen, Augustine’s disappointment culminated in the question of what good these books were, if they had failed in convincing Firmus to enter the City of God. e. The benefit from reading and the double addressee of ep. 2* What good are books? If we examine the epistolary contexts in which Augustine gave some hint of his theoretical views on lite­ rature, we shall notice that it was a question he used to ask when self-important people like young Dioscorus averted him from his studies as to obtain an answer to problems that would be of interest to very few. The ostentatious use of knowledge was a target of Augustine’s criticism in ep.  118.2, when he questioned the advantages Dioscorus might receive from Cicero’s dialogues: “Look, if all the dialogues that you read have helped you in no way to see and grasp the end of all your actions, tell me, what good do they to you?”30 But what was the tenor of Augustine’s question when related to the effect of his own works, and, in the first place, when related to the effect of instructive reading on a catechumen? There are plenty of letters discussing the expected effect of his sent (or promised) books as well as his satisfaction or disappointment with the reaction of the recipient. For our purpose, however, it is recomNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol.  II, ed. by Ph.  Schaff, Edinburgh, 1887, p. 584. 29  Ep.  2*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 10. 30  Ep.  118.2, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1898 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 666: “ecce enim tot dialogi lecti si ad uidendum finem et capessendum omnium actionum tuarum nihil te adiuuerunt, quid prosunt?”. English translation, R.  Teske, Letters 100-155, WSA 2.2, New Haven, 2003, p. 105.

236

elia marinova

mendable to take a look at a letter which is chronologically (and by its very subject) closer to ep. 2*. In ep. 229 to Darius, a man of high rank, sent to Africa to negotiate the end of warfare, Augustine wrote he had heard that Darius would like to read his books. After that Darius received and read a book, to which Augustine refers as the book “aduersus gentiles ritus”, 31 he answered with a most flattering apology of this work. In a second letter (ep. 231, a. 429) Augustine told him he had already sent him five other books and promised to send him the Confessiones, “the mirror of his soul”, 32 as well. He was exceedingly delighted with Darius’ letter, not because of his eloquence, or because of the praises bestowed upon him, but because of the fact that the friendship of so distinguished a man would much more benefit the Church: “[…] since in that way you also regard, read, love, and praise my labors in defense of the gospel against the remnants of the wicked worshipers of demons. The result is that, the more renowned you are, the better known I am through your praises of me. For, as an illustrious man, you cast light upon my hidden works and, as a man of renown, you make them known, and where you see that they can do good, you do not allow them to remain completely unknown”. 33

Still more important was the fact that even being a third-gene­ ration-Christian, Darius acknowledged to have fully understood the vicious nature of the pagan rites only through reading Augustine’s books: “you yourself  […] were helped by my labors against the pagan rites as nowhere else. Am  I, then, to value slightly how much good our writings could bring to others, when you recommend and spread them about  […]?”34 31  Ep.  231.5, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 508. 32  Ep.  231.6, ibidem, p.  509: “ibi me adtende et uide, quid fuerim in me ipso per me ipsum.” 33  Ep.  231.5, ibidem, p.  508: “quando quidem etiam labores meos in defensione euangelii aduersus reliquias impiorum daemonicolarum sic habes, sic legis, sic amas, sic praedicas, ut in eis tanto fiam notior, quanto es ipse nobi­ lior; eos enim latentes inlustris inlustras clarusque declaras et, ubi prodesse posse perspicies, ignorari omnino non sines.” English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 121-122. 34  Ibidem: “tamen aduersus gentiles ritus ut numquam alias eisdem laboribus meis adiutum esse significas, parumne cogito, quantum boni aliis et

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

237

Darius, indeed, was the ideal reader, and his reading experience – a test case that other reading reports could be judged against. A  clear emphasis was put on his capability and willingness to facilitate the spreading of Augustine’s books. The huge importance that the bishop of Hippo attached to this fact is to be corroborated through a comparison with other letters to more or less eminent recipients, all of them being reminded that they were not instructed in Christian doctrine only so far as might suffice to their own deliverance. Accordingly, if in ep.  2* Augustine blames Firmus for the regretful waste of so many fruits of these books, he most certainly implicates the lack of care for forwarding their message as well. The gifted mind and the personal example of the catechumen ought to be of service to all around him, and not only to his individual salvation. At this point the epistolary dialogue with Firmus goes beyond the limits of the catechetic lesson. As Adolf Primmer demonstrated in his critical reconstruction of the text, 35 certain passages in ep.  2* are certainly directed to a greater audience which presumably shared the fears, doubts and moral weakness of the catechumen; Primmer gave some examples such as the appeal in Voc. Pl. to all weak men behind Firmus, “uiri quicumque”;36 he pointed also to the double addressee of the letter as a reasonable explanation of the strange shift from “sed nusquam nisi intus est tutum in religione proficere, cum iam propter aeternam uitam non timentur uitae huius incerta” to “non enim uana atque damnabili curiositate sciscitandum est, quando quisque moriatur”. 37 The abrupt change in the style of this whole passage from polished prose which mirrors that of Firmus’ letters, to a direct reproach, shows that the addressee is not Firmus anymore, but quisque, the community of readers like him, people who delayed in receiving the sacrament of rebirth till the very last hour of their earth lives. quam multis, quam claris et quam facile quamque salubriter per illos ceteris, quibus talia conueniunt, possint scripta nostra te commendante ac disseminante conferre?” English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 122. 35  A. Primmer, “Nachlese zur Textgestaltung der neugefundenen Augusti­ nusbriefe”, in Les lettres de Saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C.  Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p. 43-82, on p. 49-52. 36  Ep. 2*.4 (CSEL, 88), p. 11. 37  Ep.  2*.6 (CSEL, 88), p. 12.

238

elia marinova

To summarize, although Augustine sent the ciu. at the request of his recipient, and put so much on this person regarding his help in convincing some other potential converts in Carthage, he had to admit that the results did not match up to his hopes: “Insofar as it concerns you personally, since they were unable to produce in you the first of these, they have as yet accomplished nothing, no matter how much you praise them.”38

Is it acceptable to take this bitter conclusion to mean distrust in the persuading power of his most important work? Certainly it is not. One must not overstate the degree of Augustine’s disillusionment with the Carthaginian. A  closer reading of some passages in epp. 1A* and 2* will show that Augustine was sensitive enough to the fact that men like Firmus were interested in the first place in the literary substance of his works; let us also recollect, that Firmus, who boasted that he had obtained a copy of Contra Academicos, the first Christian work of Augustine, seemed to be fascinated about making a purchase of new books. The question “What good are books?”, then, most certainly does not put under question the protreptic power of this specific book or of any other books that Firmus loved so much (amauit); later on in ep.  2*.5 it will develop into the more general question: “What good does knowledge even of the highest good do if one does not receive the sole means by which one escapes everything evil?”39 3. The concepts of knowledge in ep. 2* a. Firmus’ third letter – why was so important to answer it? It is books and their misunderstanding (or abuse) that Augustine speaks about first of all, when opening the rebuking part of his answer, and one can notice that the discussion about speculative, self-important knowledge, on the one hand, and faith which Ep. 2*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 11: “Horum igitur quantum ad te ipsum attinet, quando nec illud quod prius est in te agere potuerunt, quantumlibet eos praedices, nihil adhuc egerunt.”English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 233. 39  Ep.  2*.5 (CSEL, 88), p.  12: “quid prodest autem scientia etiam ipsius summi boni, si non accipitur quo solo euaditur quidquid est mali?”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 234. 38 

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

239

acts through love, on the other, constitutes the frame of the letter. It is not unintentional that the letter ends with Augustine’s concern about the type of literature – Greek and Latin – which the son of Firmus was studying. Augustine was most specific when asking what kind of books the boy was reading at the rhetoric school and at home, alone or together with his father. These questions came directly after Augustine’s sharp criticism to Firmus for encouraging his son to search for the approval of the multitude instead of the better few as something which is (presumably) a condition of the very rhetorical art: “I neither agree nor desire that he should want to meet with approval not from the best people but from most people, which you said was a condition of the art of oratory. For this opinion stems from a longstanding but incorrect practice of the human race, not from the fountain of truth. If you yourself did not know this, you would not say, ‘This seems to be a condition of this very art,’ but you would say, ‘This is a condition of this very art.’”40

The quoted passage substantiates the feeling that the same repeating patterns of argumentation occur in similar epistolary contexts, pointing to a strong correlation between the type of argument and the personality of the recipient, his education and social surrounding. These repeating patterns – a kind of typification of the correspondents and the different communicative situations, appear whenever Augustine exploits the literary techniques of repetitio and correctio, in order to refute the arguments of his correspondent, by quoting them one by one, adopting in this way in his polemics the vocabulary of the opponent. Such is the case with the passage in ep. 2*.12, which is constructed as a parallel to a similar conversation with a person who seemed to share at least the pompous style of speaking of Firmus. In ep.  118 to the arrogant Dioscorus who was anxious about the contempt of the others,

40  Ep.  2*.12 (CSEL, 88), p. 20: “nec approbo +nec+ uolo, ut non se melioribus uelit probare quam plurimis, quam conditionem oratoriae artis esse dixisti. haec enim opinio more inueterato quidem, sed non recto generis humani non ex fonte ueritatis emanauit. quod si ipse nescires, non diceres: haec ipsius artis uidetur esse condicio, sed diceres: haec est artis ipsius condicio”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 240.

240

elia marinova

in case he would not be able to reply their questions, Augustine invited him to better think over the meaning of his own words: “For  I ask why you did not say, ‘They will prove that one who does not reply is unlearned and stupid,’ but said rather, ‘They will consider him unlearned and stupid,’ unless you yourself under­ stand well enough that someone who does not give such answers is not unlearned and stupid, but thought to be.”41

The vanity of Firmus’ assertion has been also exposed through alluding to pagan authorities (Cicero, De inventione 1.1; De oratore 3.55, and Cato, Ad filium, frg. 14). This was once again an occasion to place Firmus among the people “who either do not read or do not understand well or do not, after reading and understanding them, believe the better authors on the same art.”42 In this way Augustine attached special importance to the fact that Firmus’ attitude to reading and understanding both of pagan and Christian literature fell short of his proclaimed principles. Therefore, when he wrote to Firmus: “For  I have no doubt that you would want him to be better than you in every respect”,43 the implication was that the books that did not give fruits with the hesitating father, could maybe give the right harvest with his son. b.  Knowledge and salvation Regardless that Augustine is quoting only short excerpts from Firmus’ letters, it is obvious that the main preoccupation of the catechumen was one particular aspect of knowledge in its connection to faith – the safety it could guarantee, and the insight it could give into the most frightening of all questions: who will be freed from guilt, and who will be handed over to judgment. The promise of personal salvation was the subject of most of Firmus’ Ep.  118.4 (CSEL, 34,2), p.  668-669: “quaero enim, cur non dixeris: qui non responderit, indoctus et hebes manifestabitur, sed potius dixeris: indoctus et hebes putabitur, nisi quia satis etiam ipse intellegis eum, qui talia non responderit, non esse indoctum et hebetem sed putari.” English translation, WSA 2.2, p. 107. 42  Ep.  2*.12 (CSEL, 88), p. 20: “uidetur ergo esse et non est et eis uidetur qui meliores eiusdem artis auctores aut non legunt aut non bene intellegunt aut lectis intellectisque non credunt.” English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 240. 43  Ep.  2*.13 (CSEL, 88), p.  21: “non enim dubito, quod eum uelis in omnibus te ipso esse meliorem”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 240. 41 

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

241

questions, which Augustine was constantly rejecting as something beyond that which is given to men to know. In ep.  2* he directly states several times: “I do not know”, emphasizing that the ignorance of men is not without purpose. This is the sense of: “Nor would God, the cause of every good, be seen as all-powerful if he did not permit evils to exist, even if I am unable to find any good that he might make out of them.”,44 or of: “But as for when he does the former and when he does the latter, the decision and plan lies with him. It also pertains to his plan that we do not know these things, and I in fact think that we shall never know them.”45 In this way Firmus’ concept of knowledge is opposed to Augustine’s view on wisdom as pride is opposed to humility. But if the catechumen was still not capable of perceiving the full meaning of the humility, this was in direct connection with his incapacity to understand that men’s weakness and ignorance can only be overcome by Christ. When Augustine stressed humility which he set against the knowledge associated with a fascination of the world and overconfidence, he spoke with the voice of the Holy Scriptures: “We do not know his many hidden judgments, but we do know that not one of them can be unjust.”46 This affirmation made the reader come back to the central topic of the letter – the huge importance of receiving the sacrament of rebirth in time, since nobody knows the day and hour of his death: “He wanted the fact that he made the day of death uncertain to be of great benefit to those of his people with understanding so that they would not postpone the day of their rebirth.”47

44  Ep.  2*.8 (CSEL, 88), p. 16: “nec deus omnis boni effector potentissimus appareret, si mala esse non sineret, quamquam de illis quid boni faceret inuenire non possum.” English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 237. 45  Ep.  2*.10 (CSEL, 88), p.  18: “quando autem illud, quando illud faciat, arbitrium atque consilium penes ipsum est; ad quod eius consilium etiam hoc pertinet, quod ista nescimus et sane semper nos existimo nescituros.” English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 238. 46  Ep.  2*.8 (CSEL, 88), p.  15: “iudicia porro eius multa occulta nescimus”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 236. 47  Ibidem: “hoc tamen scimus, quod nullum eorum esse possit iniustum. non sane parum suis bene intellegentibus prodesse uoluit ad diem regenerationis non differendum, quod fecit diem mortis incertum.” English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 236.

242

elia marinova

On the other hand, Firmus’ intellectualizing posture was opposed to the behavior of his relatives. To start with, the doubtful advantages of his knowledge come most clearly into view, if compared to the knowledge of his wife (who was most likely baptized at that time) and his son who was still attending the rheto­ rical school. We may even say that Augustine used the distinctive features of their “ways to know” to create a vivid portrait of this Carthaginian family. Firmus’ wife represented the moral strength (“uires mentis”) 48 of the simple mind against the moral weakness of her educated husband. The example of the woman who left the man behind in what required moral strength, although he was “capacior uirtutis”, proved that the act of conversion was not a matter of comprehending some intelligible secret.49 She had not read what he had read on religious topics, but surpassed him in knowledge, since what he knew was an object of insinuare, and what she knew, she could not share with him (pandere), as the mysteries of rebirth became known only to those who had accepted them (“accipien­ tibus innotescunt”). Her knowledge was safe, she who stayed intus (inside the Church), was “sacramento securior”, while he, being foris (outside the Church), was only “doctrina instructior”. 50 The case with the son (ep. 2*.12-13) has already been discussed: Augustine was not content with the bulk of the usual for the rhetoric school exercises that Firmus sent to him, since they did not allow him to form an opinion about the mind, character and the natural aptitudes of the boy. Once again Firmus was blamed for asking Augustine to replace his genuine judgment for a formal opinion about the speaking ability of his son. c.  Knowledge and deeds An important element of Augustine’s lesson to Firmus was the assertion that knowledge is a gift only if it entails faith and deeds. This assertion can be easily extracted from the very order in which quotations and references to the Bible appear in the text. It is worth further examining that the references to the

48  49  50 

Ep.  2*.4 (CSEL, 88), p. 11. Ibidem. Ibidem, p. 12.

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

243

Holy Scriptures are concentrated in paragraph 6, while the same number is scattered in paragraphs 7-10. If we want to see how this arrangement corresponds with the structure of the letter, we shall find out that Augustine turned most often to the authority of the Bible when replying to the second and to the third excuse of Firmus, i.e. when addressing not the catechumen Firmus anymore, but the community of other readers/hearers behind him. So, while Firmus was pretending to feel too great a reverence to the mystery of rebirth lest he precipitate it, Augustine’s arguments concerned the progress one can make and the perfection51 one can attain in the Church, i.e. only after his baptism. Accordingly, the biblical references in this paragraph (ep.  2*.6) are arranged thematically around the concept of regeneratio (Jn 3:5 “Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non intrabit in regnum Dei”); the concepts of perseverantia and iustitia (Mt 5:20 “Nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plus quam scribarum et pharisaeorum non intrabitis in regnum caelorum”); the real righteousness (Jas 2:17 “sic et fides si non habeat opera mortua est in semet ipsam”); the faith and the deeds (Jas 2:18 “Sed dicet quis tu fidem habes et ego opera habeo; ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus”); faith and bad deeds (Jas 2:19 “et daemones credunt et contremiscunt”); the cooperation of faith and charity as a real way to salvation (Gal 5:6 “sed fides quae per caritatem operatur”). At the closing of this passage Augustine reassured the catechumen that in the end of our days the lack of perfection in righteousness will be completed by grace, but only if the person has taken the first step to salvation – receiving the sacrament of rebirth (Sir 5:7-9 “Ne tardes converti ad Dominum neque differas de die in diem”). In a similar way, in paragraphs 7-10 the references and the quotations from the Bible are clearly arranged around the notion of God’s omnipotent will (Wis 12:18), and God’s reward according to merits (2 Tim 4:14; Rom 1:24; Ps 100:1). The last Bible reference in the text, significantly, is to Rom 11:33; God’s judgments are inscrutable, says Augustine in one voice with the Apostle; Firmus has to stop waiting for the will of God and to convert. The whole

51  There is an exact observation on the different meanings of proficere in the arguments of Firmus and Augustine, noticed by René Braun, see Divjak, “Lettre 2*”, p.  71, n. 6.

244

elia marinova

passage recalls the simpler and more vigorous language of the sermons; the passage from the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Sir 5:7-9) – one of Augustine’s favorite, recurs several times, each time being modi­fied a little, in the same way as it reappears as a mighty refrain in s. 339: “Do not be slow to turn to the Lord, and do not put it off from day to day! For his wrath will come suddenly, and in the time of his vengeance he will destroy you.”52 4. Beyond the argumentation of the City of God. Augustine’s    special lesson on free will in ep. 2* In the eyes of the bishop of Hippo Firmus’ weakness of will that echoed closely some of Augustine’s own doubts and meditations in book eight of the Confessions, right before his conversion, had various symptoms: concupiscence of the flesh, vain curiosity and affected reverence for the sacred mysteries, confusion (pretended or not) and inability to grasp the paradox of the need for God’s privilege of grace, on the one hand, and free will, on the other. Augustine’s rebuking letter, then, worked as a diagnostics which qualified the suffering of his correspondent as being “either unknowingly deceived by your vice or knowingly conquered by it”.53 But what was the cure for that disease? What Augustine could do in his letter of rebuke and exhortation, was to further instruct and persuade the doubting catechumen to receive the sacrament of rebirth. His first logical step was to invite Firmus to finish what he had started with so much enthusiasm, i.e. to bring to an end his self-imposed task of reading and commenting the ciu. In a certain way this is exactly what Augustine did, when he closed paragraph 2 so matter-of-factly: “de duodecim posterioribus libris redde quod debes.”54 After paragraph 3, however, Augustine never came again to explicitly speaking about the ciu.; maybe simply because the arrangement of his response followed the chronology of Firmus’ letters (and Fir52  Ep.  2*.6 (CSEL, 88), p.  13: “ne tardes conuerti ad dominum neque differas de die in diem! subito enim ueniet ira eius et in tempore uindictae disperdet te”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 235. 53  Ep.  2*.11 (CSEL, 88), p. 19: “uitio tuo uel nesciens deciperis uel sciens uinceris”. English translation, WSA 2.4, p. 239. 54  Ep.  2*.2 (CSEL, 88), p. 10.

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

245

mus seems never to mention the ciu. after having commented on it in his first letter) and the same progression in which Firmus advanced his arguments for delaying baptism. Even if that is so, there still remains the question: given that the ciu. was meant to be the main tool of instruction of the catechumen, and the reading experience (experimentum) of Firmus ought to be the best vehicle of channeling his thoughts and longings to the final decision, why did not Augustine confine himself to using the central ideas and topics of his opus magnum as to finish the interrupted lesson? This would correspond to his statements about the importance of repeated and attentive reading that we can find in his correspondence. The cognitive implications of the process of relegendo are constantly present in the introductions to his epistolary treatises; e.g. in the preface of De correptione et gratia Augustine recommended to Valentinus and to the monks of the monastery Hadrumetum this new book, although he had already sent to them his early anti-Pelagian work, De spiritu et littera, as well as De gratia et libero arbitrio. The reason was that the reading of one single book could not bring sufficient understanding against the dangerous teaching of the heretics: “Verumtamen semel lectum nullo modo arbitre­ mini satis uobis innotescere potuisse. Si ergo eum fructuosissimum habere uultis, non uos pigeat relegendo habere notissimum  […]”.55 The same advice is to be found in ep.  1A*.3, which recommended to Firmus patience and perseverance in reading and re-reading the difficult passages of the ciu., so that what was still immature in him, could come to ripen: “As an educated man, however, you do not fail to recognize how much repeated reading helps one to know what one is reading. For, my excellent lord and rightly honorable and loveable son, there is either no difficulty or only a slight one in understanding if one has a facility in reading, and this facility increases with repetition, so that perseverance [brings to full understanding what inattention] had left only partially grasped.”56 So, did Augustine encourage the hesitating intellectual to simply go on reading? 55  Corrept. 1.1, in Augustinus, De correptione et gratia, ed. G. Folliet, Turnhout, 2000 (CSEL, 92), p. 1. 56  Ep.  1A*.3 (CSEL, 88), p. 8-9: “non te autem latet ut eruditum uirum, quantum adiuuet ad cognoscendum quod legitur repetitio lectionis; aut enim

246

elia marinova

Considering the same problem from Firmus’ point of view, it might seem surprising that Firmus’ excuses for deferring baptism – reproduced in some length by Augustine – appear to be the direct result of reflection on the ciu. in one single case. Most certainly, he knew (and maybe commented in his first letter?) the content of ciu. 5.9, discussing Cicero’s rejection of the prescience of future things in De divinatione. Firmus, however, seems to have missed the point, taking only one part of the argumentation in ciu. 5.9, and not taking another part which mirrored Augustine’s ante-predestinarian attitude in the early books of the ciu. He had apparently interpreted Augustine’s words that there is for God a certain order of all causes, as to conclude that there must be nothing depending on the free exercise of our own wills, failing in this way to comprehend the most important message of ciu. 5.9 – that God’s foreknowledge was not at odds with free will of man. But there could be some other more credible reason for Firmus’ strange “distraction” to notice that Augustine actually solved the apparent contradiction in ciu. 5.9, by stating that human wills themselves are included in that order of causes which is embraced by God’s foreknowledge. In our opinion, the hesitation and the unsolved questions of Firmus did not originate necessarily from his familiarity or lack of knowledge of the ciu.; they seem rather to be rooted in the general polemic to which Augustine devoted his last years, by taking a stand on the themes which the so-called Semipelagians treated in a wrong way. In fact, the nature of Firmus’ excuses points to the central topics of the Pelagian controversy, and presumes some familiarity with Augustine’s revised concept of divine grace and human responsibility for their sins. Accordingly, ep.  2* does not just repeat the central themes of the ciu. as a text of instruction (including books eleven to twenty two), but rather represents a polyphonic answer which brings together argumentation developed in De nuptiis et concupiscentia (419), De gratia et libero arbitrio (426/7) and De correptione et gratia (427). In these last works he maintained that grace does not deny free will (cf.  gr. et lib. arb. 1.1-2.2.) but that since the Fall free will availed only for sin if not assisted by divine grace. It is in nulla aut certe minima est intellegendi difficultas ubi est legendi facilitas, quae tanto maior fit quanto magis iteratur, ut assiduitate fuerat immaturum”.

knowledge and will in augustine’s

ep. 2*

247

light of these last works of Augustine, that the dispute between Firmus and Augustine in ep.  2*.9 has to be read: when Firmus says that all the learned and the unlearned agree that nothing has ever existed nor can come to be without Him, it would be waste of time to dispute further, since Firmus (as a learned man who is able to make distinction between doing and permitting) knows well what is truly said: that nothing has been done or can be done without almighty God either permitting it or doing it. At that case, Firmus recalls strongly Augustinian arguments, when steadily reaffirming God’s omnipotence, and discards them, when doubting God’s mercy. It looks that in ep.  2* Augustine envisaged a peculiar problem – Firmus was only too zealous to show utter abjection of the role of free will, so that in this specific case Augustine had to give a new meaning of “nisi deus det”, and to reassure him that free will exists, indeed, only through the assistance of caritas and divine grace.57 Some scholars consider this strategy as exception, or see a contradiction in Augustine’s concepts.58 We would rather assume that the “inconsistency” of Augustine’ teaching on free will is better to be explained in Firmus’ case as a careful consideration of the recipient’s character and culture, his favourite arguments and manner of speaking, and in the end – his specific need for instruction and his potential for making progress in the Christian religion. In conclusion, there is no explicit causal relation between the fact that Firmus did not finish reading the ciu., and the fact that he did not enter the City of God through the act of conversion. Augustine was certainly aware of this fact, and nonetheless, he built his letter around the striking metaphor of the fruits of reading, and the twofold meaning of their throwing away. Instead of 57  See A. Primmer, “Nachlese zur Textgestaltung”, p.  55-56: “Augustinus wendet sich gegen diese defätistische Auswertung seiner eigenen Gnadenlehre unter anderem mit der Distinktion zwischen Gottes positivem Wirken (facere) des Guten und seinem Zulassen (permittere) des Bösen”. 58  See Eno: “[…] only in this context (namely, Firmus’ unwillingness to take the leap), Augustine stressed the importance and indispensability of human initiative” (FOTC 81, p. 18), Bonner, “Predestination and Free Will”, p.  15-16: “[…] he nevertheless held it necessary to urge Firmus to make a decision, while at the same time maintaining his own predestinarian theological views”.

248

elia marinova

sending to Firmus further books as it was his usual habit, Augustine said clearly that he expected from Firmus to learn not only what to read but how to read, searching not for vain knowledge or delight, but for the real fruits his reading had once promised – determined will to enter the City of God.  In this way he most certainly addressed a greater audience of people like Firmus, well educated men from the high class of the Carthaginian society who deferred baptism while speculating in most abstruse terms on the Christian mysteries or readily discussing the feelings of their minds. In ep. 2* Augustine adopted the short procedure, following his own instructions in cat. rud. 12 – he encouraged Firmus to do – unlike the Pharisees – the good things of which he spoke. And – maybe ironically meant, if the catechumen was still waiting for some sign of God’s will – what else was the letter Augustine sent to him, if not an expression of God’s will: “What on earth am I doing when I say such things to you, except that you should will it?”59

59  Ep.  2*.7 (CSEL, 88), p.  14: “ego certe quid ago, cum haec tibi loquor, nisi ut uelis?”

A Sting in the Tail? Augustine’s Send-Off to Nebridius in Ep. 3 Philip Polcar (Vienna) 1. Approaching the problem In four of the five paragraphs of ep.  3 Augustine discusses in a beautiful and sophisticated soliloquium a statement of Nebridius’ that must have prompted his letter. He must have said that Augustine belonged to the truly happy (beati). Yet Augustine was not pleased by this, since Nebdridius should have read Augustine’s De uita beata. After a discussion of this and other topics, Augustine confronts his friend Nebridius with grammatical problems and invites him to discuss them. “Fortunae autem bona uerissimi sapientes, quos solos beatos fas est uocari, nec timeri uoluerunt nec cupi – an cupiri? Tu uideris! Et belle accidit. Nam uolo me declinationis huius gnarum facias. Cum enim adiungo uerba similia, incertior fio. Nam ita est cupio ut fugio, ut sapio, ut iacio, ut capio; sed utrum fugiri an fugi, utrum sapiri an sapi sit modus infinitus ignoro. Possem attendere iaci et capi, ni vererer, ne me caperet et pro ludibrio iaceret quo uellet, qui aliud iactum et captum, aliud fugitum, cupitum, sapitum esse conuinceret. Quae item tria utrum paenultima longa et inflexa, an graui breuique pronuntianda sint similiter nescio.”1 “But those who alone one is allowed to call happy wanted us neither to be afraid of the goods of fortune nor desire (cupi) them – or is it ‘cupiri’? You could look into that. And it turned out well. For, I  want you to enlighten me about the conjugation of this verb. Whenever  I compare similar verbs, I  become more and 1  Ep.  3.5.99-108, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by K.D.  Daur, Turnhout, 2004 (CCSL 31), p. 9.

Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 249-271 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113893

250

philip polcar more uncertain. For there is ‘cupio’, like ‘fugio’, ‘sapio’, ‘iacio’ and ‘capio’. But whether the infinitive passive is ‘fugiri’ or ‘fugi’, ‘sapiri’ or ‘sapi’, I  do not know. I  could have expected ‘iaci’ and ‘capi’, if I were not afraid that he (=Nebridius) would get hold of me and would throw me just for fun wherever he wanted, he who would convince me that ‘iactum’ and ‘captum’ are one thing, and ‘fugitum’, ‘cupitum’, and ‘sapitum’ another. In the same way I am ignorant whether the second to last syllable of these three has to be pronounced long and inflected, or dark and short.”

There are three problems addressed in this paragraph: The first one concerns verbs of the third –io conjugation. The words of interest are cupere – cupio, fugere – fugio, sapere – sapio, iacere – iacio, capere – capio. The question under discussion is whether the present infinitive passive is formed as in verbs of the third conjugation, whose present infinitive active ends with –ere (e.g. regere, therefore regi), or like verbs of the fourth conjugation (e.g. audire, which forms audiri). Owing to the mixed nature of its conjugation, the verb’s forms mostly look like the paradigms of audio: cupis – audis, cupit – audit,  etc. Even cupite and audite look the same, though they are not when pronounced properly. If one again looks at the present infinitive active, one sees a clear difference, i.e. cupere and audire. Augustine obviously is aware of these similarities and differences and therefore expresses confusion about how to form the present infinitive passive correctly. If one saw only cupio, it could be cupiri, but if one saw cupere, it would have to be cupi. The second problem concerns the supine. Augustine alludes to the further question about why it is iacio iactum and capio captum, since one finds fugio fugitum, cupio cupitum, and sapio sapitum. This problem arises from the desire to achieve strict analogy in grammar: The forms iactum and captum violate the analogy here. The third problem is a question about pronunciation and quantity: Is it fugĭtum or fugītum, cupĭtum or cupītum, sapĭtum or sapītum? This question is actually connected to the first one. Augustine appears unaware that there is a mixed conjugation, which also could be described as a schizophrenic conjugation.2 And, it is

2  The German term “kurzvokalische i-Konjugation” appears to be most fitting, because the conjugation’s main feature is the short vowel -i- that is

a sting in the tail?

251

the unawareness of the third conjugation –io verbs’ mixed features that leads to this question. Though the soliloquium of Augustine in the paragraphs 1-4 has been treated extensively, paragraph 5 has received little attention. The best contribution is Emmanuel Bermon’s, which shall be addressed later. 3 Aside from his work, there are only a few notes here and there that, all in all, do not help very much in explaining the paragraph.4 I wish in my analysis below to examine this passage in greater detail. 2. The problem One might ask, is it really likely that Augustine did not know the answers to these grammatical questions? He had started his career as a grammaticus at eighteen, at twenty he became a teacher of rhetoric in Carthage and remained in this position for eight years. Then he managed to become the professor of rhetoric in Milan, a position he laid aside shortly before he went to Cassiciacum, where he wrote this letter.5 Considering this, one may assume that Augustine knew the answers to his questions. Hence, the question that should be asked here first is a more general one. Could there have been a problem with these grammatical issues among native speakers of Latin at the time of Augustine? We know little about spoken Latin in the fourth century. What we do know is that Latin had changed over the centuries, and that Romanization of the Mediterranean had had its impact on inserted in almost all forms, except for cupe, cuperis, and all Imperfect Subjunctive Active forms (cuperem, etc.). 3  E. Bermon, “Lettre 3. Ce qui doit ‘être désiré’ (cupi ou cupiri?) (§ 5)”, in Œvres des Saint Augustin 40/A Lettres 1-30, Paris, 2011, p. 536-538. 4  The following works do not comment on the tone and significance of the coda and problems it poses: S.  John, E.  Rotelle (eds), Letters 1-99, The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century, Hyde Park, 2001; M. Pellegrino, L. Carrozzi (eds), Le Lettere di Sant’ Agostino, Opere di Sant’ Agostino 21, Roma, 1969; G. Folliet, “La Correspondance entre Augustin et Nébridius”, in L’Opera Letteraria di Agostino tra Cassiciacum e Milano, Palermo, 1987, p.  191-215; A.  Hoffmann, Des heiligen Kirchenvaters Aurelius Augustinus ausgewählte Briefe (1), Kempten, 1917. 5  See T. Fuhrer, Augustinus, Darmstadt, 2004, p. 15.

252

philip polcar

the language. There were also local differences. The school system, however, had not changed over the years, and the grammatici taught their students the works of the same great authors. The students learned what Henri Marrou calls une langue morte.6 The education of the rhetor, as the next step, was based on classical works too, especially on Cicero. Both handbooks for rhetors and speeches themselves show that rhetoric in Late Antiquity was executed according to ancient ideals. Augustine puts it in words: “Quid est ergo integritas locutionis, nisi alienae consuetudinis conseruatio (loquentium) ueterum auctoritate firmatae?”7 “What is correct speech but the preservation of a foreign custom, founded on the authority (of the speech) of men of old?”

Some forms that were still in use in written Latin were not to be heard anymore in the spoken language, not even in that of the upper classes, and were therefore no longer familiar to native speakers. Confusion of verbs of the third –io conjugation and the fourth conjugation, such as cupiri for cupi, could have certainly been a problem in Late Antiquity – or perhaps even earlier. As Emmanuel Bermon has shown, there are proofs for earlier confusion of the third –io conjugation and the fourth conjugation. Ovid has moriri (Ovidius, Metamorphoses 14.215), Lucretius writes cupiret (Lucretius, De rerum natura 1.71), Cato has fodiri (Cato, De agricultura 2.4), and in Plautus one can find now moriri and then again mori.8 The fact that all these examples are very early, mostly pre-classical ones, shows that before written Latin was standardized, there was confusion between the fourth and third –io conjugation, because it existed in the spoken language as well. Let us turn to the question about the supine/perfect passive participle forms cupitum, fugitum and sapitum. Augustine seems to wonder why they are not formed analogously to captum and iactum. One might even wonder if they appeared in written language at all. There is scattered evidence for the use of cupitus/-a/-um over the centuries before Augustine: We can find two uses attested in 6  H.I.  Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, Paris, 1938, p. 14. 7  Augustinus, doctr. chr. 2.19.26-28, ed. by J. Martin, Turnhout, 1962 (CCSL, 32). 8  Bermon, Lettre 3, p. 536 ff.

a sting in the tail?

253

Plautus,9 two in Lucretius,10 two in Livius,11 one in Ovid,12 one in Valerius Maximus,13 one in Seneca,14 three in Tacitus,15 two in Apuleius,16 and one in Sulpicius Apollinaris.17 Furthermore, there is one use in Dares’ Ephemeris belli Troiani,18 Rufinus uses cupitum once.19 Jerome has a form of cupitus/-a-/um twice.20 Sulpicius Severus uses it thrice,21 Hilary of Poitiers once.22 Augustine himself does not use the form at all aside from in this discussion. These instances constitute the bulk of the evidence for cupitus/-a/-um in roughly 600 years of Latin literature. This clearly shows two things: First, the perfect passive participle of cupere was used in written language. Second, the extant examples are still rare enough so as to be called infrequent. Fugitus/-a/-um and sapitus/-a/-um, however, are not attested at all in antiquity, except in Augustine’s letter and in Priscian’s Institutiones. The latter case deserves some attention. The African grammarian wrote about a century later, and he adduces all three forms: “In ‘gio’ similiter producta antepaenultima et ablata o extrema faciunt praeteritum perfectum, ut ‘fugio fugi,’ ‘confugio confugi,’ ‘perfugio perfugi,’ ‛refugio refugi.’ supinum o in ‘tum’ convertit: ‘fugio fugitum,’ ‘confugio confugitum,’ ‘perfugio perfugitum,’ ‘refugio refugitum’.” 23

Plautus, Poenulus 1271, Mercator 838-841. Lucretius, De rerum natura 3.769, 5.845. 11  Livius, Ab urbe condita 3.37.7, 26.7.3. 12  Ovidius, Fasti 3.21. 13  Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 6.9.5. 14  Seneca, Phaedra 835. 15  Tacitus, Annales 6.32.1, 14.2.2, 13.13.4. 16  Apuleius, Metamorphoses 3.21, 6.11. 17  C. Sulpicius Apollinaris, Periochae comoediarum Terentii Heautontimorumenos 52.6. 18  Dictys Cretensis, Ephemeris belli Troiani 6.8. 19  Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica. Rufini continuatio 11. 7. 20  Hieronymus, Vita Pauli 7.23.8, Ep.  78.43. 21  Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon 2.37, 2.39, 2.48. 22  Hilarius Pictaviensis, Tractatus in Psalmos. 61.8. 23  Priscianus, Institutiones Grammaticae 10.498.22, ed. by M. Hertz /H. Keil, 1855-1859 (GLK, 2) p. 498. 9 

10 

254

philip polcar “In ‘gio’ verbs the perfect tense is formed by lengthening the final third syllable and dropping the ‘o’, such as ‘fugio fugi’, ‘confugio confugi’, ‘perfugio perfugi’, refugio refugi”. To form the supine the “o” changes into “tum”: “fugio fugitum”, “confugio confugitum”, “perfugio perfugitum”, “refugio refugitum”.”

And: “supinum a ‘cupivi’ et ‘sapivi’ secundum supra dictam analogiam mutata ‘vi’ in ‘tum’ profertur: ‘cupitum’ et ‘sapitum’.” 24 “The supine of ‘cupivi’ and ‘sapivi’ is produced in analogy to what has been said above, by changing the ‘vi’ to ‘tum’: ‘cupitum’ and ‘sapitum’.”

Since the grammar of Priscian is the only evidence for fugitum and sapitum, one may assume that these forms were taught in schools by the grammatici – Augustine probably taught them himself – but they were, so to speak, “book knowledge”, grammatical peculiarities for the learned. Augustine’s question as to whether it is fugĭtum or fugītum, cupĭtum or cupītum, sapĭtum or sapītum, only makes sense if the natural perception of quantities has changed, which was indeed the case. The linguistic phenomenon called Quantitätenkollaps, a loss of various vocalic distinctions, had made an impact on the language. This loss of the classical system of vocalic distinctions varied, of course, in different areas of the Roman Empire. And since both Augustine and Nebridius were from Africa, we should focus on that region. Augustine himself had to struggle with his African origins, for even if he had mastered sophisticated Latin, he was still looked down at by Italian speakers because of his provincial accent. “Si enim dicam te facile ad eum sermonem peruenturam, qui locutionis et linguae uitio careat, profecto mentiar. Me enim ipsum, cui magna necessitas fuit ista perdiscere, adhuc in multis uerborum sonis Itali exagitant et a me uicissim, quod ad ipsum sonum attinet, reprehenduntur. Aliud est enim esse arte, aliud gente securum.” 25

24  25 

Ibidem 10.500.17, (GLK, 2), p. 500. Augustinus, ord. 2.17, ed. by W.M.  Green, Turnhout, 1970 (CCSL, 29).

a sting in the tail?

255

“If  I said that you would easily acquire a speech free from errors of grammar and pronunciation, I  would truly lie. For  I myself, who had to learn these things out of professional need, am still corrected by the Italians for my pronunciation of many words, but I in turn correct them. It is one thing to be certain in theory, another by birth.”

This quotation provides insight into what he must have experienced in Milan. In the context of pronounciation (sonus uerborum) the juxtaposition of theory (ars) and birth (gens) can only mean it was the African Latin accent was strong and distinctive. But how did the African pronounciation differ from the Italian one? In De doctrina Christiana Augustine makes a comment about the poor perception of long and short vowels by African ears. “Si enim non piguit dicere interpretes nostros: ‘Non congregabo conuenticula eorum de sanguinibus’, quoniam senserunt ad rem pertinere, ut eo loco pluraliter enuntiaretur hoc nomen, quod in Latina lingua singulariter tantummodo dicitur, cur pietatis doctorem pigeat imperitis loquentem, ‘ossum’ potius quam ‘os’ dicere, ne ista syllaba non ab eo quod sunt ossa, sed ab eo quod sunt ora intellegatur, ubi Afrae aures de correptione uocalium uel productione non iudicant?” 26 “For if our translators did not refrain from saying, ‘Non congregabo conventicula eorum de sanguinibus’, because they felt that it was important for the sense to put this noun here in the plural which in Latin is only used in the singular; why should a teacher of Christianity who is addressing an unlearned audience recoil from using ‘ossum’ instead of ‘os’, if he fears that the latter might be taken not as the singular of ‘ossa’, but as the singular of ‘ora’, seeing that African ears cannot judge the shortening and lengthening of vowels?”

Augustine fears that when the speaker says ŏs (bone) an unlearned audience understands ōs (mouth). Thus, a teacher of Christian doctrine should always choose words that are unambiguous and clear, because if they cannot be understood, they do not teach. The reason Augustine adduces is that Africans may not perceive the short “o” as an attribute for a certain word. But since Augustine clearly is afraid here that the short vowel may be taken for a long one, he might as well fear that the speaker may lengthen 26 

Augustinus, doctr. Chr. 4.24.10-18 (CCSL, 32).

256

philip polcar

the emphasized syllable. However it may be, this passage clearly shows that in Augustine’s Africa the distinctions in the quantity of vowels had been eroded. This assumption derives further support from De musica, where Augustine describes the problem even better: “Itaque uerbi gratia cum dixeris ‘cano’ uel in uersu forte posueris, ita ut uel tu pronuntians producas huius uerbi syllabam primam uel in uersu eo loco ponas, ubi esse productam oportebat, reprehendet grammaticus, custos ille uidelicet historiae, nihil aliud asserens, cur hanc corripi oporteat, nisi quod hi, qui ante nos fuerunt et quorum libri exstant tractanturque a grammaticis, ea correpta, non producta usi fuerint.” 27 “And so, for example, when you say ‘cano’, or put it in verse, in such a way as to prolong its first syllable when you pronounce it or in such a place as to make it necessarily long, the grammarian will censure you; he, of course, the guardian of history, giving no other reason why this syllable should be contracted than that those who lived before us and whose books survive and are discussed by grammarians used it as a short syllable, not as a long one.”

The magister admonishes his discipulus never to put the first syllable of cano in a metrical position where a long syllable is required. This mistake could happen because of a long pronunciation of the “a”, which must have been the natural one. The magister even emphasizes that the short vowel in cano is only right according to those qui ante nos fuerunt et quorum libri extant, i.e. the classical poets like Vergil, Horace,  etc. From this we can see that the verb canere was no longer produced with a short “a”, but, it would appear, rather with a long one. If this were not true, the magister speaking here would not see the need to explain this to his discipulus. The dialogue continues quite amusingly, and even the teacher becomes a barbarian. “M.  Dic mihi deinceps, quod ad sonum uersus attinet, quid intersit, utrum dicam ‘Arma uirumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris’ 27  Augustinus, mus. 2.1.15-20 (CSEL). Thanks to Lukas  J. Dorfbauer at the CSEL, I  can cite this new, not yet published edition.

a sting in the tail?

257

an ‘qui primĭs ab oris’. D.  Mihi uero utrumque, quantum ad illam dimensionem pertinet, idem sonat. M.  At hoc mea pronuntiatione factum est cum eo scilicet uitio, quod barbarismum grammatici uocant. Nam ‘primus’ longa est et breuis syllaba, ‘primis’ autem ambae producendae sunt. Sed ego ultimam earum corripui: Ita nihil fraudis passae sunt aures tuae. Quam ob rem illud etiam atque etiam tentandum est, utrum me pronuntiante sentias, quid sit in syllabis diu et non diu, ut nostra disputatio me interrogante ac te respondente, sicut instituimus, possit procedere. Itaque iam eundem uersum, in quo barbarismum feceram, repetam et illam syllabam, quam, ne tuae aures offenderentur, corripui, producam, ut grammatici iubent. Tu mihi renuntiato, utrum illa uersus dimensio sensum tuum eadem afficiat uoluptate. Sic enim pronuntiem: ‘Arma uirumque cano, Troiae qui primīs ab oris.’ D.  Nunc uero negare non possum nescio qua soni deformitate me offensum.” 28 “T. Tell me now the difference in respect to the sound of the verse between ‘Arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris’ and ‘qui primis ab oris’. S.  To me both sound the same in regard to this aspect. T.  Well, that is done by my pronunciation, by this mistake the grammarians call a barbarism: For in ‘primus’ there is a long and a short syllable, but in ‘primis’ both syllables must be lengthened, but I shortened the last one. That is why your ears did not have to endure any cacophony. Therefore you have to examine again and again whether you can hear when I pronounce something, which syllable is long or not long, so that our discussion in which I ask and you answer can continue as we have agreed. So, I  will repeat the same verse in which I have produced a barbarism again, and I will lengthen the syllable that I have shortened, so that your ears will not be offended. You again will tell me if the dimension of this verse grants you with the same affection. I  will pronounce it like this: Arma uirumque cano, Troiae qui primīs ab oris. S.  Now  I truly cannot deny that I was offended by some kind of cacophony.”

One should take a moment to examine what goes on here. The magister wants his discipulus to hear the mistake in the rhythm of the verse, when he inserts a long “i” into the 5th foot instead of 28 

Aug. mus. 2.2.15-31 (CSEL).

258

philip polcar

the short “u”. His didactic strategy, however, does not work out at first, because the teacher himself fails to pronounce the “i” in primis long (producta), but, with his natural feeling for the language he knows as his mother tongue, he shortens the “i”, and produces a barbarism. This is caused by a development starting in Vulgar Latin in which unemphasized vowels are shortened. By this kind of pronunciation the rhythmical problem the magister wanted to present is avoided. Subsequently, the discipulus does not hear any problem, only later, when the magister on his second attempt pronounces the vowel correctly, the discipulus hears that there is a wrong quantity in the fifth foot of the hexameter. We can conclude from all of this that Augustine is addressing difficulties that led to problems for native speakers of Latin at all times. Even more so in the fourth century – and especially in Africa, where people spoke Latin with a noticeable accent, the normative grammar, which derived its rules from normative classical authors and which had been natural in former centuries, was at times problematic to enforce. Augustine knew the answers to his questions already. So, why would Augustine discuss these things, and present himself as a confused student? In order to answer this question, the tone of the paragraph must be investigated.29 3. The tone of the paragraph Let us look at the passage that leads to the grammatical problem adduced by Augustine: “Haec placuit scribere tibi. Delectat enim me quod mihi gratias agis, si nihil te quod in buccam uenerit celem, et gaudeo quia sic tibi placeo. Apud quem igitur libentius ineptiam, quam cui displicere non possum? At si in potestate fortunae est, ut hominem amet homo, uide quam beatus sim, qui de fortuitis tam multum gaudeo et talia bona, fateor, desidero mihi ubertim accrescere.

29  A recent work that discusses the concept of obscurity in Late Latin Epistolography in a learned and problem-oriented way is R.  Schwitter, Umbrosa Lux. Obscuritas in der lateinischen Epistolographie der Spätantike, Stuttgart, 2015.

a sting in the tail?

259

Fortunae autem bona uerissimi sapientes, quos solos beatos fas est uocari, nec timeri uoluerunt nec cupi – an cupiri?”30 “I enjoyed writing this to you. For  I am delighted that you thank me when I do not hide anything from you that pops into my mouth, and I am happy that I please you as I am. With whom do I more happily engage in silliness, than with him who cannot dislike me? And if it is in the power of fortune that a man loves a man, look how happy I am, I  who accidentally am in so much delight, and who, I  confess, desire that these goods come to me in abundance. But those who alone it is allowed to call happy wanted us neither to be afraid of the goods of fortune nor desire (cupi) them – or is it ‘cupiri’?”

Before we go into detail, one notices the many expressions of pleasure and allusions to affection and friendship: placuit, delectat, gaudeo, placeo, displicere non possum, homo amet hominem, beatus sim, multum gaudeo. All of them express the warm feelings Augustine felt for his friend. This, of course, is not uncommon at the end of a letter to a friend. What stands out somewhat is the phrase quod in buccam uenerit, mainly because of the vulgar use of the word bucca: in classical Latin it means “cheek”, but in Vulgar Latin it means “mouth”. Until this point, the language of the letter is very sophisticated, but right at the beginning of this last paragraph Augustine inserts this colloquialism and unexpectedly breaks the sophisticated tone. There are only a few attestations of the phrase quod in buccam uenerit before Augustine. Most of them, four to be exact, can be found in Cicero’s letters ad Atticum. 31 One may briefly notice that Atticus was also a dear friend of Cicero’s. It is striking that the four Ciceronian examples stand at the very end of each letter; they are the letter’s final words, nothing follows them. The phrase itself can be translated as “whatever pops into your mouth”, but I believe that there is more to it. Let us look at the examples. “Tu uelim saepe ad nos scribas. Si rem nullam habebis, quod in buccam uenerit scribito.”32

Ep.  3.5.92-99 (CCSL, 31), p. 9. Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 1.2; Martialis, Epigrammata 12.24.5. 32  Cicero, ep. ad Att. 1.12.4.4-6, ed. by D.R.  Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, 1987, v. 1, p. 17. 30  31 

260

philip polcar “I want you to write to me often. If you have nothing to write about, just write what pops into your mouth.”

In this example, it is the conditional clause that gives away the following phrase’s true meaning: si rem nullam habebis – if Atticus does not have anything to write about, he can just write anything – even if it is nothing of substance. One can notice an almost identical use in another Ciceronian passage: “Haec et cetera quae ad nos pertinebunt, ut soles, cogitabis, ad meque aut quod ad rem pertineat aut, si nihil erit, quod in buccam uenerit scribes.”33 “As you are accustomed to do, think about these things and others that pertain to us, and write to me what pertains to the subject, or, if there isn’t anything, simply what pops into your mouth.”

Here Atticus should write to Cicero in any case; even if there isn’t anything to write about, he should write quod in buccam uenerit. “Tu, quaeso, crebro ad me scribe uel quod in buccam uenerit.”34 “Please write to me often, even just what pops into your mouth.”

In this case the uel is used in place of the conditional clause used in the preceding examples. “Hoc igitur habebis, noui nihil. quid ergo opus erat epistula? Quid, cum coram sumus et garrimus quicquid in buccam? Est profecto quiddam λέσχη, quae habet, etiam si nihil subest, collocutione ipsa suauitatem.”35 “You will therefore have this – nothing new. Why then was a letter necessary? Why, when we sit together und talk about anything that pops into our mouth? Such a chat is indeed wonderful, even if the conversation has no depth, it has sweetness for sure.”

The third example differs in terms of rhetorical structure, but the result is the same. A  chat without depth (λέσχη) is always

Ibidem, 14.7.2.11-13, v. 2, p. 576. Ibidem, 7.10.1.9-10, v. 1, p. 262. 35  Ibidem, 12. 1.2.7-11, ed. by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, 1987, v. 2, p. 456-457. 33 

34 

a sting in the tail?

261

worth the effort of writing, since the suauitas, “sweetness,” (i.e. of friendship) still remains. It should be clear by now that quod in buccam uenerit does not only mean “what pops into your mouth” but “what has no serious conversational content”, i.e. something a friend writes to a friend but does not contain any real substance. This, of course, could include a certain amount of silliness. One also notices that the phrase in all four examples is connected to the matter of writing a letter, and in three examples directly to inviting the addressed amicus to write something – anything – back, since not writing at all was considered equal to violating the friendship (v.i.). 36 So, quod in buccam uenerit can be used as a commonplace phrase to conclude a letter. Its use here seems to mark the following as something we would call post scriptum: the important topics have been discussed, now there is room for a frivolous addendum. Augustine, with his profound knowledge of, and love for, Cicero’s writings, which strongly influenced Latin epistolography, 37 was well aware of these nuances and implications, and used them in the same way as had the master. There are further indications that the tone of this paragraph is not so serious. In fact, when we consider the colloquialisms, we must speak of an artful neglegentia, which is, according to Symmachus, the fitting style for letters of friendship. 38 Et belle accidit is another colloquialism used to express that something that has just happened eventually turned out to be good. Again, Cicero provides a similar use: “De Varrone loquebamur: lupus in fabula. Venit enim ad me et quidem id temporis ut retinendus esset. Sed ego ita egi ut non scinderem paenulam. Memini enim tuum ‘et multi erant nosque imparati’. Quid refert? Paulo post C.  Capito cum T.  Carrinate. Horum ego uix attigi paenulam. Tamen remanserunt ceciditque belle.”39 See footnote 50. See P.  Cugusi, “L’epistola ciceroniana. Strumento di communicazione quotidiana e modello letterario”, Ciceroniana, 10 (1998), p. 163-189. 38  Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, ep.  7.9; see also Schwitter, Umbrosa Lux, p. 16 ff. 39  Cicero, ep. ad Att. 13.33a.1.1-6, v. 2, p. 550. 36  37 

262

philip polcar “We were just talking about Varro. Speak of the devil. For he came to me and at a time when he had to be received. I  did not exactly beg him to stay, but I remembered your words: ‘they were many and we were not prepared’. What does it matter? A  little later Gaius Capito and Titus Carrinas showed up, whom I did not even ask to take off their coats. They stayed anyway and it turned out well.”

In this amusing passage Cicero gives a report about unwanted guests who stayed at his house even though he was not too eager for their visit. Eventually, it turned out well – that is what ceci­ ditque belle means. In Augustine’s letter we can see an analogy. At the beginning of the fifth paragraph (Haec placuit scribere tibi…) Augustine concludes his soliloquium, and while doing so he “stumbles” over a grammatical question – a seemingly unplanned event, and a problem that obviously gave real trouble to the learned during this time. But no damage is done, on the contrary, belle accidit, because Nebridius can look into it: “Tu uideris  […] Nam uolo me declinationis huius gnarum facias. Cum enim adiungo uerba similia, incertior fio.”40 “You could look into that. […]  For, I  want you to enlighten me about the conjugation of this verb.”

The playfulness continues, as Augustine seems to be afraid that Nebridius might be angry at him, and expresses his fears by means of a word play: “Possem attendere iaci et capi, ni uererer, ne me caperet et pro ludibrio iaceret quo uellet.”41 “I could have expected ‘iaci’ and ‘capi,’ if I were not afraid that he (=Nebridius) would get hold of me and would throw me just for fun wherever he wanted.”

The paragraph concludes with a colloquial uolupe est, another proof of the less than serious tone and artful neglegentia of the end of this letter. So, starting with the phrase quod in buccam uenerit, this last paragraph shows many signs of a rather insubstantial topic. This 40  41 

Ep.  3.5.100-101 (CCSL, 31), p. 9. Ep.  3.5.104-105 (CCSL, 31), p. 9.

a sting in the tail?

263

gains further support as we read on: Apud quem igitur libentius ineptiam, quam cui displicere non possum. Let us quickly look into the meaning of ineptia or ineptiae. The TLL gives this definition: “res uel actiones ineptae siue stultae siue leues, pueriles, fabulosae (syn. uerba, nugae) siue molestae”.42 So an ineptia is always something somewhat silly. Furthermore, both ineptia and its synonym nuga trigger some famous verses of Catullus, where the poet’s persona speaks of his own ineptiae and nugae.43 In the case of Catullus, ineptiae were frivolities for the exquisite taste of the Roman upper classes. They were amusing and obscene at times, but they were directed at a well-educated and literarily spoiled audience. The ineptia Augustine had in mind was not the same as Catullus’ but both have in common the insinuation of silliness on a high intellectual level. If one looks at the use of ineptia in the context of rhetoric and grammar, one finds it used in this passage by Quintilian: “Nunc, quoniam diximus quae sit loquendi regula, dicendum quae scribentibus custodienda, quod Graeci ὀρθογραφίαν uocant, nos recte scribendi scientiam nominemus. Cuius ars non in hoc posita est, ut nouerimus quibus quaeque syllaba litteris constet (nam id quidem infra grammatici officium est), sed totam, ut mea fert opinio, subtilitatem in dubiis habet: ut longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est, quia plurimae natura ipsa uerbi quod scribitur patent, sed interim necessarium, cum eadem littera alium atque alium intellectum, prout correpta uel producta est, facit: […]  Frigidiora his alia, ut ‘quidquid’ c quartam haberet ne interrogare bis uideremur, et ‘quotidie’ non ‘cotidie’, ut sit quot diebus: uerum haec iam etiam inter ipsas ineptias euanuerunt.”44 “Now that we have discussed which rule applies to speaking, we need to talk about what should be considered writing; this is what the Greeks call ‘orthography’ and what we call ‘correct spelling’. The art of this does not consist of knowing which letters comprise TLL s.v. ineptiae. Catullus, Carmina 1.1-4, ed. by H.  Bardon, Stuttgart, 1973 (BT), p. 1: “Cui dono lepidum nouum libellum/ arida modo pumice expolitum./ Corneli tibi namque tu solebas/ meas esse aliquid putare nugas”; 14a.1-3, p.  18: “si qui forte mearum ineptiarum/ lectores eritis manusque uestras/ non horrebitis admouere nobis”. 44  Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria 1.7.1-2, 5-6, ed. by L.  Radermacher / V. Buchheit, Leipzig, 1971, v.1, p. 47. 42 

43 

264

philip polcar every syllable (since this is a grammarian’s task) but of being precise in dubious cases. For example, to put an apex over long syllables is totally useless, because it is mostly clear by the nature of the word itself one is writing, but sometimes it is necessary, because a different letter, be it long or short, would change the understanding of the word. (…)  Other examples seem worse than these, such as if ‘quidquid’ should have c as the fourth letter, so that we do not seem to ask twice, and if ‘quotidie’ should not be spelled ‘cotidie’ so that it is more like ‘quot dies’. But these issues have already disappeared among the really silly things.”

Quintilian talks about orthography (recte scribendi scientia). In 1.7.2 he considers it to be ineptissimum to mark long syllables with an apex.45 In 1.7.6 he says conclusively that the named ways of orthography already have disappeared, since they are only inep­ tiae. So, ineptia is used here to describe someone’s incompetence in grammatical matters. To sum up, paragraph 5 in Augustine’s letter is guided by Ciceronian suauitas. By writing anything, saying nothing substantial, the two friends are virtually present. Subsequently, what is said does not matter in the first place. It is only important that words be exchanged as a substitute for presence. These can be things that just pop into one’s mouth and have no conversational depth, even insubstantial silliness. Augustine chooses to fill the “unimportant section” of his letter with grammatical questions, but he stages them as an incident that just seems to have happened out of the flow of speech. He uses the word ineptia, which can be understood as highly intellectual frivolities; also, ineptiae can describe mistakes that happen because of the writer’s grammatical incompetence. It cannot be stated with absolute certainty that Augustine had the second use in mind, but the combination of writing playfully to his friend whilst addressing grammatical issues seems like more than a coincidence. 4. The purpose of paragraph 5 So far it has been shown that Augustine discusses real grammatical problems in the last paragraph, that he knows the answers 45  An apex looked very similar to an acute; it was used as an indicator for long vowels, similar to our macron.

a sting in the tail?

265

to the questions he poses his friend, and that the paragraph itself bears signs of artful neglegentia and is not meant very seriously. Now, I  will move on to the question of what Augustine intends with his playful coda. As in other epistolary exchanges between friends, at the end of the letter the wish is expressed that the friend should write back. “Prouocauerim te ad epistulam longiorem; peto ut paulo diutius te legam. Nam non queo tantum dicere, quantum uolupe est legere te.”46 “I should have encouraged you to write a longer letter; I  beg that I may read you a bit longer. For  I cannot express how much I enjoy reading you.”

The next letter sent to Augustine by Nebridius is supposed to be an epistula longior; that could be either a “rather long letter” or a “longer letter”. This ambigious reading is probably here by choice. However, in the latter case, the object of comparison must be Nebridius’ last letter. It was, most probably, too short for Augustine’s taste. Also, the adverb diutius modifies legam, which means that Augustine wishes to read Nebridius’ next letter for a longer time – longer than what? Longer than the last time? This must be a playful reproach. Nebridius’ trigger letter is lost, so any assumptions are limited to the letters we have. When one looks at the three extant letters sent by Nebridius to Augustine, they all have in common that they are not exactly long letters.47 In order to prove that the paragraph 5 in Augustine’s letter to Nebridius is actually a mode of reproach I shall look at other passages where Augustine admonishes a friend to write back. Unfortunately, another example in which Augustine complains to a friend for having written too little is yet to be found. It seems as if Augustine received so many letters from impatient correspondents that he was usually the debtor. However, there are passages that approximate the situation here and can give a good impression of how Augustine might have expressed reproach.

Ep.  3.5.108-110 (CCSL, 31), p. 9. Ep. 5 is about 88 words long, ep. 6 has 263, ep. 8 has 246 words. In comparison, Augustine’s ep.  3 to Nebridius is about 1024 words long. 46  47 

266

philip polcar

There first case to look at is found in Augustine’s second letter to Jerome. Augustine was eager to initiate a bond of amicitia with Jerome and discuss exegetical questions, but the exchange was overshadowed by problems with the delivery of the letters.48 “Audiui peruenisse in manus tuas litteras meas; sed quod adhuc rescripta non merui, nequaquam imputauerim dilectioni tuae; aliquid procul dubio impedimenti fuit. Vnde agnosco a me Dominum potius deprecandum, ut tuae uoluntati det facultatem mittendi quod rescripseris, nam rescribendi iam dedit quia cum uolueris facillime poteris.”49 “I have heard that my letter has come to your hand; but though I have not yet deserved to be replied to, I  do not question your affection: doubtless something has prevented you. Therefore  I understand that I should pray the Lord to put it in your power to send to me what you have written, for he has already given you power to write it, since you can do so easily if you wish to.”

These lines may be reduced to: “You have not yet replied to me. Write!” Augustine knew that Jerome had received his letter. Yet, no answer had come back to Augustine. This was a serious issue: Leaving letters of friendship unanswered was considered so rude that it could break friendships apart or even create enemies.50 Silence meant hate. Thus, Augustine was concerned, but also aware of difficulties one faced when writing letters; there was 48  See A. Fürst, “Einleitung”, in Augustinus – Hieronymus. Epistulae Mutuae. Briefwechsel, Turnhout, 2002, p. 9-93, especially p. 13-26. 49  Ep.  67.1.4-9, ed. by K.D. Daur, Turnhout, 2005 (CCSL, 31a), p. 27. 50  A very good example for this is Jerome’s letter 9, in which Jerome ends a friendship to a monk rudely because he would not send epistulae caritatis, Hieronymus, ep.  9.1, ed. by I.  Hilberg, Vienna, 1996 (CSEL, 54) p. 33-34: “uerum tu, quod natura lynces insitum habent, ne postergum respicientes meminerint priorum et mens perdat, quod oculi uidere desierint, ita nostrae necessitudinis penitus oblitus illam epistulam, quam in corde Christianorum scriptam apostolus refert, non praepeti litura, sed imis, quod aiunt, ceris erasisti.” But you – and that is a natural trait with lynxes, that when they look behind them they forget what they have just seen and their mind loses what their eyes have ceased to see – you are so utterly forgetful of our bond of friendship that you have obliterated, not by a casual erasure, but, as the saying goes, erasing wax and all, that epistle which the Apostle speaks of as written in the hearts of Christians. (Transl. C.C. Mierow)

a sting in the tail?

267

no post service available. Writers were dependent on travelers who would take letters on their journeys.51 Therefore, Augustine wisely assumed – or at least, for the sake of friendship, pretended he would assume – that something had gone wrong (aliquid impe­ dimenti fuit), and that the letter had gone astray. The humble (rescripta non merui) and conciliatory (nequaquam imputauerim dilectioni tuae) tone of these lines shows that Augustine aims at friendship, avoiding anything that could lead to uneasy feelings between the two – and at this point Augustine had not yet experienced Jerome’s problematic character. In another case, Augustine found it necessary to remind the Imperial Commissioner Darius to write back. “Non est multum; sed multum gratum, si pro litteris nostris et his et illis unam nobis epistolam reddas. Saluto et pignus pacis, quod domino deo nostro adiuuante feliciter accepisti, ea dilectione, qua debeo.”52 “It is not much to ask, but much to gain, if for this letter and my works you send us one letter in reply. I  salute with due affection the pledge of peace, which through the help of our Lord and god you have happily received.”

Considering the phrasing of this paragraph, it seems like more than just a standard exhortation to reply. Augustine points out that it is a small thing he asks (non est multum). In contrast, it would be most welcome (multum gratum): The fruits of this small favour are so much more than the deed itself. Also, Augustine constrasts the two words for “letter”: On his own side there is the plural word (litterae), but the desired thing is explicitly just one thing (una epistola). Considering this phrasing, one gets the impression that Augustine saw a need to emphasize the officium epistolare. In another case, Augustine wanted a fast reply. “Onerare itaque epistulam nolui, ut te cito rescribente cetera contexamus.”53 51  See S. Mratschek, “Das Postwesen” in Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und soziale Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Göttingen, 2002, p. 275-301. 52  Ep.  229.2.18-22, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1911 (CSEL, 57), p. 498. 53  Ep.  235.2.16-17 (CSEL, 57), p. 523.

268

philip polcar “Therefore, I  did not want to overload the letter, so that we, should you reply quickly, come up with other things together.”

The core of the statement is found in te cito rescribente, but it is surrounded by expressions that soften the demand. The whole statement is negated by the construction nolui epistulam onerare ut, and even the ut clause focuses on what Augustine and Longinianus could do together (contexamus). A prompt reply is merely the condition for this being able to happen. What can be seen in this example is how cleverly Augustine hides what he really wants from his addressee, precluding any chance of offending him. If we seek a real reproach for a neglected officium epistolare, there is a very revealing example in Augustine’s letter 23 to the Donatist bishop Maximinus. Augustine asks for a reply with rather strict words: “Quid ergo te impediat ad rescribendum non uideo.”54 “I really do not see what keeps you from writing.”

This reproachful demand is uncommonly harsh for Augustine. One can clearly hear the offended tone and the adhortation to answer. But he softens his request later on in the same letter. “Non solum sine trepidatione sed etiam cum gaudio mihi inde rescribe.”55 “Write back to me not only without fear but also with happiness.”

One gets the impression that he himself became aware of his own rudeness and tried to compensate with a friendlier exhortation. In this letter, Augustine seems truly interested in a serious exchange of minds with Maximinus; he does not want this process to be disrupted by a careless offense. Nevertheless, it must be noted that this letter belongs rather to the category of business letters than to those addressed to dear friends. We are not looking at a very personal amicitia here as in the letter to Nebridius. Another case of a rude reproach occurs in a business letter to Nectarius (ep. 104):

54  55 

Ep.  23.3.64-65 (CCSL, 31), p. 63. Ep.  23.5.126-127 (CCSL, 31), p. 65.

a sting in the tail?

269

“Cur ergo ad te tam sero mea scripta peruenerint aut ad me tua, prorsus ignoro, nisi forte modo rescribere prudentiae tuae placuerit, quod facere ante contempseras.”56 “The reason why my letter reached you so late, or yours me, I  do not know. Perhaps your prudence has only now decided to write the reply that your pride formerly scorned.”

But the point in the rest of the letter is clear: Augustine is upset that Nectarius had not read his last letter (ep.  91) closely enough. Still there is reproach concerning Nectarius’ neglect of the officium epistolare, and again, Augustine’s reproach is hidden in his rhetoric. When one compares the way Augustine asks Nebridius for a longer letter and the way he voices demands or reproach to other people in letters, it seems probable that Augustine actually voices discontent with the quantity of Nebridius’ writing here. As in the example of the letter sent to Jerome, Augustine is focused on what he wants to achieve by his writing, only hinting at his discontent. “I want to read you longer, for –” or even “because – I cannot express how much I love reading you.” This reads: It is not Nebridius’ fault when Augustine is unhappy with the length of the epistle, because he burns so much for what his friend writes to him. Augustine says, simplified, “It is my fault, because I long boundlessly to read you”. But Augustine does not simply invite Nebridius to write more. Rather, he provokes or even challenges (prouocauerim) him to a longer letter in which the aforementioned grammatical problems should be discussed. Therefore, it seems that Augustine means: “I have given you material to write more, so I have done my part. Now you do yours.” Also, by the subjunctive prouocauerim some insecurity is added, perhaps out of politeness. All of this adds up to the following. Augustine could have been unhappy that Nebridius had written too short a letter, and Nebridius could have used the excuse “there is nothing to write about.” In his response, Augustine decided to reproach his friend very politely by invoking his own desire to read him and by adding a note that this time there is material to discuss if there Nebridius has nothing else to talk about. The grammatical issues provide 56 

Ep.  104.1.9-11 (CSEL, 34,2), p. 582.

270

philip polcar

a topic for discussion, and Augustine did not pick just anything – no, he addressed real problems that were tricky issues. In this light the Ciceronian phrase tu uideris, which is often used by both Cicero and Augustine to give an assignment or say, “this is your problem now”,57 would be an exhortation to Nebridius to produce a lengthy discussion of the 3rd conjugation’s –io verbs. Another possibility is that Nebridius actually wrote the form cupiri in his last letter. In this case Augustine would be making fun of Nebridius, taking on the persona of the confused student, asking his friend for help in these complicated and momentous grammatical matters. The phrase tu uideris in this case would be more than just an exhortation for a discussion: it would be double edged. It could also mean something like, “Are you sure about this? You should look into it again”. These two speculations are not mutually exclusive. They could both be true at the same time. 5. Final remarks I have shown that in the coda of ep.  5 Augustine gently reproaches Nebridius. In fact, he might have been a bit tired of answering his friend’s constant questions, while receiving only short replies. But Augustine was not seriously angry at him. The last paragraph of the letter is full of the artful neglegentia and playful frivolity that befitted a letter of true amicitia. The purpose is not only to hide the reproach, but also to sign off with a smile. It appears that ep.  3 belongs to this category: the author treats a serious topic extensively but then adds a short playful coda. A  good example for this is Avitus of Vienne’s Letter 87, in 57  Cicero, ep. ad fam. 16.23.2, ed. by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, 1988, p. 604: “De Seruilio tu uideris, qui senectutem non contemnis”; Cicero, ep. ad Brut. 1.2a.2.5-8, in Cicero, Epistulae ad Q. Fratrem, ad M. Brutum, Commentariolum petitionis, fragmenta epistularum, ed. by D.R.  Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, 1988, p.  97: “uehementer a te, Brute, dissentio; nec cle­ mentiae tuae concedo, sed salutaris seueritas uincit inanem speciem clementiae. quod si clementes esse volumus, numquam deerunt bella ciuilia. sed de hoc tu uideris”, et  al.; Augustinus, ep.  26(1).1.6-8 (CCSL, 31), p. 76: “Quae autem petisti ut peterem, curaui per epistulam, quantum promendum uidebatur; sed quid effecerim, tu uideris”; ep.  87.10.219-221 (CCSL, 31a), p. 138: “tu uideris, quid illi respondeas, cuius nunc laudanda patientia, in fine uero timenda sententia est”, et  al.

a sting in the tail?

271

which he talks about a signet-ring, about gold and gems.58 He closes his letter with a joke: “In fine autem epistulae luteo operi, sine quo tamen non transigetur, faeculentus sermo deposcit, ut artificem figulum breui tenendum e uestigio dirigatis, qui nobis qualibus strui mensuris cribrati cenaculum furni  […] instituat.”59 “Finally, at the end of the letter, for that work – muddy, yes, but without which, however the task will not be brought to completion – my dreg-ridden speech requests that you immediately send a craftsman potter to me on a short retainer. He is to teach us the right measurements for the sieve-likeupper section of kiln  […]”60

After having discussed the art of precious materials and ornaments, Avitus moves to the least worthless material – mud. He “jokes about the language one needs to hire a craftsman who works with mud, ‛the jargon of the trade’”.61 One last thought. Jokes and frivolities have been and are welcomed by most readers, even when the main topic is a serious one – also in research papers. Of course, an important matter should not be stultified by silliness. But funereal Ernsthaftigkeit does not serve to heighten the interest of the reader – rather, it only diminishes it.62 Augustine was well aware of that. Scholars nowadays should be too.

I wish to thank Danuta Shanzer for this reference. Avitus, Ep.  87.97.12-16 (MGH AA, 6.2), p. 97. 60  Translation: D. Shanzer, I. Wood, Avitus of Vienne. Letters and Selected Prose, Liverpool, 2002, p. 253-256. 61  Ibidem, p. 255. 62  A footnote in G. Kreuz, “Εἶα, πρεσβῦτι! κρατερῶς ἀνήβα! Anton Josef Steins Beitrag zum Wiener Philhellenismus zur Zeit des Kongresses”, Wiener Humanistische Blätter, 52 (2010) p. 52-53 comes clean on the endemic tristesse of scholarly work in the German-speaking world. 58  59 

Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead: Questions and Answers in Augustine, Epp. 158-159* Danuta Shanzer (Wien) “Non enim paruus est fructus, si aliqua obscura et incerta, quae conprehendere non ualemus, clarum saltem certumque sit nobis non esse quaerenda, et quod unusquisque uult discere putans prodesse si sciat, discat non obesse, si nesciat.”1

1. Documenting ghosts in Late Antiquity Late Antiquity (in contrast to the classical period) has preserved accounts of ghosts written by historical first-person narrators. In 414/15 bishop Evodius of Uzalis wrote to Augustine about various encounters with the dead in his immediate community. This striking case study is transmitted in documents (however literary), not in hagiographical (or other) fiction, namely ep.  158 from Evodius and ep.  159, Augustine’s answer. The following paper will concentrate on epp. 158 and 159 as well as on other relevant letters in the Evodius dossier to explore both the events recounted and Augustine’s own views on the relations between the living and the dead.

* 

My warm gratitude to Przemek Nehring and the team at Scrinium Augustini for giving me the chance to write this paper and to present it at Torun before such an engaged audience of experts on Augustine and his letters. Beat Näf and Kurt Smolak generously helped with dreams and with textual criticism. I  have benefitted, as always, from discussing some of the philosophical problems here with Charles Brittain and Richard Sorabji, to whom likewise, as always, thanks! 1  Augustinus, cura mort. 17.21, ed. J.  Zycha, Vienna, 1900 (CSEL, 41), p. 658. Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 273-304 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113894

274

danuta shanzer

2. Setting the stage a. Evodius Evodius was Augustine’s old friend and companion from Thagaste, an imperial spy (agens in rebus)2 who had been at Monnica’s deathbed in Ostia to sing Ps. 100 (conf. 9.31). 3 He shared Augustine’s monastic vocation in Hippo,4 and eventually became bishop of Uzalis (395/7-401)5 and custodian and promoter of the translated relics of Stephen (418/425).6 He had documented interests in the soul: Augustine staged him as his interlocutor in De quantitate animae (Rome 387/388).7 Four letters from Evodius to Augustine (epp.  158, 160, 161, 163) are extant and 4 replies from Augustine (epp.  159, 162, 164, and 169).8 b.  Letter 158 content summary Ep. 158 falls into several parts in which narrative and philosophical speculation are layered. First Evodius narrates the exemplary death of his young notary (ep.  158.2), the son of a priest called Armenius of Memblona. The lingering good death9 of the boy is described in detail. He spoke of scripture almost the whole time; near the end he sang psalms. This is a deathbed observed with love and concern. Evodius then recounts the dream of a widow Urbica (ep.  158.3), who saw a deacon who had died four years pre-

Augustinus, conf. 9.17. For basics, see André Mandouze, “Evodius 1”, in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, t. 1 Afrique (303-533), Paris, 1982, p. 366-373, and Wolfgang Hübner, “Evodius”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 2002, p. 1158-1161. 4  Mandouze, “Evodius 1”, p. 368. 5  Ibidem. 6  Ibidem, p. 371. 7  Also in De libero arbitrio. 8  Content summaries in Mandouze, “Evodius 1”, p. 370; Johannes Divjak, “Epistulae” in Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 2001, p. 943 clarifies how ep.  158 elicits ep.  159; ep. 160 is answered by ep.  162. Then Evodius wrote ep.  163 before he received Aug.  ep 162. A  letter of Evodius’ written at the same time as 158 was lost. Also Hübner, “Evodius”, p. 1159-1160. 9  Rightly V. Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore. Discussioni sulle apparizioni dei morti in epoca agostiniana, Firenze, 1990, p. 114. 2  3 

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

275

viously. He told Urbica how a heavenly palace was being prepared for the dead youth. In addition, she witnessed the assumption of the dead boy’s body. Evodius then posed a series of urgent questions about the post mortem condition of the human soul, triggered by his recent experiences. These concentrate on whether the soul has an airy body after death, and whether such a body could be made of fire (158.4-8). He then turns to waking sightings of ghosts (158.8) and dream-dialogues with the dead (158.9-10) exemplified in recent prodromes and consequences of his notary’s death. He concluded by arguing for a body of some sort for the souls of the dead and with a coda comprising yet more questions about Wisdom itself. c. Previous scholarship The letter has attracted some attention. Initially from a philosopher: In 1986 Matthias Baltes put together an excellent summary of Evodius’ philosophical questions.10 He suggested that Evodius, even if he did not use the term, was talking about the vehicle of the soul.11 Baltes then assembled a wide-ranging collection of Platonic testimonia referring to the doctrine and clarifying its relevance, e.g. the soul’s need of a body for post mortem punishment or its use of the body for spectral appearances.12 He had no interest, however, in the first part of the letter or in Augustine’s reply. Ep.  158 was for him a document in the history of Platonic philosophy, a series of (slightly disembodied) testimonia. In 1973 Martine Dulaey discussed the widow’s dream,13 providing fine insights into its sources. Her main purpose, however, was to argue that it was an authentic oneiric document written in Urbica’s own words. Gerard O’Daly discussed philosophical sections of the letter in 1987.14 Vincenza Zàngara followed with an

10  M.  Baltes, “Platonisches Gedankengut im Brief des Evodius an Augustinus (Ep. 158)”, Vigiliae Christianae, 40 (1986), p. 251-253. 11  Ibidem, p. 253. 12  Ibidem, p. 255. 13  M. Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie et la pensée de saint Augustin, Paris, 1973 (Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 50), p. 210-224. 14  G.J.P.  O’Daly, Augustine’s Philosophy of the Mind, London, 1987, p. 76-79.

276

danuta shanzer

article on the letter in 198915 and then a 198-page monograph in 1990.16 Hers is the fullest treatment to date, though without text, translation, or commentary. It is an exhaustive walk-through that contextualizes many themes and problems in the text, above all with reference to the Augustinian corpus.17 She saw Origen as the indirect source for Evodius’ soul-vehicle. Jean-Claude Schmitt, who had no interest in Platonism, devoted a few pages to recounting Evodius’ ghost stories and the rituals of his “micro-society”.18 W.V.  Harris did little with the letter in his book on dreams and mistook Augustine for its author.19 d. Picking and choosing The layered structure of the letter has encouraged scholars (with the exception of Zàngara) to discuss either philosophy or visions or ghosts. And the organic Gestalt of the whole has been lost in the process. Scholarship has in effect turned one letter into two or even three. My interests are literary, religious-historical, and intellectual-historical. 3. My reading My approach will be tripartite. I  will begin from Evodius, and his experiences of the boy, his philosophical questions, and his ghost-sightings. His letter is a deeply personal document with traces of superstition and also of popular religion. It attests various parapsychological phenomena that have not been noticed or recognized as such and might well be characterized as “strange encounters.” Although Evodius was in dialogue with a great theo15  V.  Zangara, “Il ‘vehiculum animae’ e le apparizioni dei morti nell’ Ep.  158 di Evodio ad Agostino”, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 25, 2 (1989), p. 234-258. 16  Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore. Discussioni sulle apparizioni dei morti in epoca agostiniana. 17  Zangara’s indices of Augustinian parallels (5 pages) vs. those from other ancient authors (1.5 pages) show the emphasis clearly. 18  J.-C.  Schmitt, Ghosts in the Middle Ages: The Living and the Dead in Medieval Society, transl. by T.L. Fagan, Chicago, 1998, p. 17-20. 19  W.V.  Harris, Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, Mass., 2009, p. 73.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

277

logian, he exhibits a mind less theological than philosophical. His intellectual pendulum swings between what seem to be “souls” (there) but “ghosts” (here). Indeed, this English terminology exemplifies the split between scholarly disciplines, between philosophy with its ψυχαί and history-cum-theology with its εἴδωλα. I  will then move over to Augustine’s responses to Evodius. The paper will conclude with a broader perspective from outside on the debate about ghosts, on Augustine’s aversion to them, and on Evodius’ place in intellectual history. The latter question, since it is in part distinct from Evodius’ views about ghosts, will be treated in an Appendix. 4. Evodius letter a. “Inperite ac rustice scripsi”: structure, style, and documentation 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.20 At its very end Evodius apologized for his style.21 With reason – for he wrote in a jerky and disjointed fashion that makes his arguments and transitions difficult to follow. One might wonder what his dispatches had been like in his previous career as a government agent! He employed a strictly “need to know” narrative economy, for Augustine was unacquainted with the principals involved: most have no names. But there is some circumstantial detail (dates and places) to boost the visionary authority and considerable information about relative chronology.22 This all may foreshadow later documentation of the miracles of Stephen at Uzalis, when Augustine and Evodius would once again engage in discussion and documentation of (different) supernatural phenomena.23 20  F. Van der Meer, Saint Augustin, pasteur d’âmes, vol. 2., Colmar, 1959 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes: Hors série, 7), p.  382 can still call it “une jolie lettre.” 21  Ep.  158.12, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1904 (CSEL, 44), p. 497: “inperite et rustice scripsi”. 22  Schmitt, Ghosts in the Middle Ages, p.  19 delineates the sequence of events. See Appendix 1 for my reconstruction of the relative time-line. 23  For the miracles, see J. Meyers, Les miracles de saint Étienne: recherches sur le recueil pseudo-augustinien (BHL 7860-7861) avec Édition critique, tra-

278

danuta shanzer

b. Metapoetics To begin with – an overarching literary point. Even though Evodius had acknowledged weaknesses as a writer, his letter is susceptible of a sophisticated reading, one of which he may not himself have been aware. It is highly self-reflexive and in some sense is about the soul’s own ability to know, about reading, about questioning, and – at the very end (ep.  158.12) about Wisdom itself. These questions all arise in connection with the series of interconnected deaths and visions. Questions first! c. Questions and understanding The curious youth questions Evodius Evodius wrote in abstracto about the state of the human soul after death, but at a fundamental level he was worried about his young notarius. The boy’s curiosity could never be satisfied until he had truly understood the meaning of a text. He would read aloud to Evodius at night, when all was quiet, and he was unwilling to forgo the lectio till he had understood. He came back for a third or fourth time, and would not let Evodius go before what he was seeking had become clear to him. “Erat autem strenuus in notis et in scribendo bene laboriosus, studiosus quoque esse coeperat lectionis, ut ipse meam tarditatem causa legendi nocturnis horis exhortaretur; nam aliquanto tempore nocte mihi ipse legebat, cum omnia siluissent, nec uolebat praeterire lectionem, nisi intellexisset, et tertio et quarto repetebat et nec dimittebat, nisi sibi apparuisset, quod quaerebat.” 24 “He was diligent in transcribing in shorthand and very painstak­ ing in writing fair copy. He had begun to be so enthusiastic for our reading that he urged me on, slow and reluctant as I was, to read during the hours of the night. For, for a certain time at night he read to me himself, when all was quiet, and he was unwilling to skip ahead in the reading until he had understood, and he kept asking a third and a fourth time, and he didn’t let [me] go, until what he sought was manifest to him.” 25 duction et commentaire, Hagiologia, Turnhout, 2006; Van der Meer, Saint Augustin, pasteur d’âmes, p. 295-296 and ibidem, p. 393. 24  Ep. 158.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 489. 25  All the English translations in this paper are by the author, unless otherwise noted.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

279

In this nocturnal idyll à deux a window opens onto Late Antique studiosiores.26 Inhabitation? But then comes an unremarked oddity. In ep.  158.2 Evodius describes a strange surge of joy after the boy’s death. “Mihi tantum gaudium adcreuit, ut arbitrer, quod dimisso proprio corpore in meum animum ingressus sit et ibi mihi quandam luciditatem praesentiae suae praestet.” 27 “Such joy increased in me that I think that after letting his own body go, he entered my spirit and there provides me with a certain brilliance from his presence.”

All who have loved and mourned will understand what Evodius meant when he said that he felt that he was inhabited by the dead boy’s spirit (ep.  158.2).28 The passage could merely be a version of the classical topos about the friend who is half of one’s soul, dimi­ dium animae meae, so that in life one soul is divided between two bodies.29 If this were the case, Evodius, who knew the Confessions, could additionally be seen as conjuring up the mourning Augustine of conf. 4.11: “Mirabar enim ceteros mortales uiuere, quia ille, quem quasi non moriturum dilexeram, mortuus erat, et me magis, quia ille alter eram, uiuere illo mortuo mirabar. Bene quidam dixit de amico suo dimidium animae suae. Nam ego sensi animam meam et animam Note the repetitions of ep.  158.4 (CSEL, 44), p. 491: “cum in corpore sumus, est nobis sensus interior sollers pro agilitate studii nostri et tanto uigi­lantior et feruentior, quanto fuerimus studiosiores”. 27  Ep. 158.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 489-490. 28  See D.F. Corrigan, Helen Waddell: A Biography, London, 1986, p. 268, for Helen Waddell’s response to George Saintsbury’s death. “I hadn’t realized how absolutely he was part of my brain; but just because he was bone of my bone I believe it will make less difference to me, his being dead”. “All the same, if you’ve been as much enriched by a man’s mind as I was, you can bear to let him go, for a part of him goes on living in your mind, continuing that endless entretien.” F.H.  Burnett, The Secret Garden, Centenary Edition, UK, 2009, Ch.25 “‘You are so like her now,’ said Mary, ‘that sometimes I think perhaps you are her ghost made into a boy’”. 29  See Augustinus, conf. 4.11, where he had cited Horace, Carmina 1.3.8, but would subsequently criticize himself in retract. 2.32 for having indulged in declamatio levis rather than gravis confessio. 26 

280

danuta shanzer illius unam fuisse animam in duobus corporibus, et ideo mihi horrori erat uita, quia nolebam dimidius uiuere, et ideo forte mori metuebam, ne totus ille moreretur, quem multum amaueram.”30 “I was astonished that other mortals continued to live since he whom I had loved as if he wouldn’t die was dead, and instead I was astonished that I, because I was another him, continued to live after he had died. Rightly did a certain person say about his friend that he was a half of his soul. For I sensed that my soul and his had been one soul in two bodies, and my life was loathsome to me, because I was unwilling to live halved, and perhaps this is why I feared to die, lest he whom I had loved so much, might die totally.”

Evodius’ response might accordingly be read as a literary Kontrastimitation of Augustine’s misery. But Evodius described interiorizing a loved one as a sort of transmigration of the boy into his own soul, an inhabitation by a ghost. So, not one soul divided between two bodies, but two souls in one body. The idea is difficult to parallel in antiquity, even if one regards it as related to poetic inspiration. 31 Instead, it resembles a positive version of the 16th C.  Jewish Dybbuk-legend. The latter is a tragedy of love and death, where a young Talmud scholar’s ghost possesses his beloved, thereby preventing her marriage to another man. 32 But are there classical Greco-Roman parallels to what Evodius described? There are, but they are complicated by being seen as demonic possessions, a term that is not neutral as was the “inhabitation” settled for above. There is an example in Philostratus’ VApollonii 3.38. δὲ τῶν λόγων τούτων ἐφίσταται τοῖς σοφοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος Ἰνδοὺς ἄγων σωτηρίας δεομένους. καὶ παρῆγε γύναιον ἱκετεῦον ὑπὲρ παιδός, ὃν ἔφασκε μὲν ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γεγονέναι, δαιμονᾶν δὲ δύο ἔτη, τὸ δὲ ἦθος τοῦ δαίμονος εἴρωνα εἶναι καὶ ψεύστην. ἐρομένου 30  Augustinus, conf. 4.11, ed. by L. Verheijen, Turnhout, 1981 (CCSL, 27), p. 45-46. 31  Beat Näf kindly suggested this option to me citing Ennius’ dream of Homer in Annales 1, Frr. i-iv. But what Evodius experienced, although it involves a ghost, is neither a reincarnation nor a transmigration. For Augustine’s views on the latter see O’Daly, Augustine’s Philosophy of the Mind, p. 70. 32  The central theme in S.  Ansky, The Dybbuk, or Between Two Worlds, 1913/16.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

281

δέ τινος τῶν σοφῶν, ὁπόθεν λέγοι ταῦτα, “τοῦ παιδὸς τούτου” ἔφη “τὴν ὄψιν εὐπρεπεστέρου ὄντος ὁ δαίμων ἐρᾷ καὶ οὐ ξυγχωρεῖ αὐτῷ νοῦν ἔχειν, οὐδὲ ἐς διδασκάλου βαδίσαι ἐᾷ ἢ τοξότου, οὐδὲ οἴκοι εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἐς τὰ ἔρημα τῶν χωρίων ἐκτρέπει, καὶ οὐδὲ τὴν φωνὴν ὁ παῖς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἔχει, ἀλλὰ βαρὺ φθέγγεται καὶ κοῖλον, ὥσπερ οἱ ἄνδρες, βλέπει δὲ ἑτέροις ὀφθαλμοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ. κἀγὼ μὲν ἐπὶ τούτοις κλάω τε καὶ ἐμαυτὴν δρύπτω καὶ νουθετῶ τὸν υἱόν, ὁπόσα εἰκός, ὁ δὲ οὐκ οἶδέ με. διανοουμένης δέ μου τὴν ἐνταῦθα ὁδόν, τουτὶ δὲ πέρυσι διενοήθην, ἐξηγόρευσεν ὁ δαίμων ἑαυτὸν ὑποκριτῇ χρώμενος τῷ παιδί, καὶ δῆτα ἔλεγεν εἶναι μὲν εἴδωλον ἀνδρός, ὃς πολέμῳ ποτὲ ἀπέθανεν, ἀποθανεῖν δὲ ἐρῶν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικός, ἐπεὶ δὲ ἡ γυνὴ περὶ τὴν εὐνὴν ὕβρισε τριταίου κειμένου γαμηθεῖσα ἑτέρῳ, μισῆσαι μὲν ἐκ τούτου τὸ γυναικῶν ἐρᾶν, μεταρρυῆναι δὲ ἐς τὸν παῖδα τοῦτον. ὑπισχνεῖτο δέ, εἰ μὴ διαβάλλοιμι αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δώσειν τῷ παιδὶ πολλὰ ἐσθλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά. ἐγὼ μὲν δὴ ἔπαθόν τι πρὸς ταῦτα, ὁ δὲ διάγει με πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν οἶκον ἔχει μόνος οὐδὲν μέτριον οὐδὲ ἀληθὲς φρονῶν.” ἤρετο οὖν ὁ σοφὸς πάλιν, εἰ πλησίον εἴη ὁ παῖς, ἡ δὲ οὐκ ἔφη, πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀφικέσθαι αὐτὸν πρᾶξαι “ὁ δ’ ἀπειλεῖ κρημνοὺς καὶ βάραθρα καὶ ἀποκτενεῖν μοι τὸν υἱόν, εἰ δικαζοίμην αὐτῷ δεῦρο.” “θάρσει,” ἔφη ὁ σοφός “οὐ γὰρ ἀποκτενεῖ αὐτὸν ἀναγνοὺς ταῦτα” καί τινα ἐπιστολὴν ἀνασπάσας τοῦ κόλπου ἔδωκε τῇ γυναικί, ἐπέσταλτο δὲ ἄρα ἡ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸ εἴδωλον ξὺν ἀπειλῇ καὶ ἐκπλήξει. 33

The pericope is set in India, where a mother had sought Apollonius’ help for her son. This handsome but troubled 16-year old had been possessed for two years by a homosexual demon that induced anti-social behavior such as skipping school and archery-practice. It eventually proved to be the ghost of a disappointed heterosexual who had died in battle enamored of his wife, but changed orientation (in a fit of misogyny) when she remarried three days after his death. The demon had been negotiating with the boy’s mother both by bribing and then blackmailing her, till she came to Apollonius in desperation. And what did the consummate Magus do? He sent the demon-ghost some sort of philosophical cease-anddesist letter!

33  Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, ed. by. C.L. Kayser, Leipzig, 1870 (BT), p. 114-115.

282

danuta shanzer

The story seems clearly parodic, spoofing both the Protesilaos legend and Christian healings. 34 The dialogue with Christianity is even clearer in VApollonii 4.25, where an amorous heterosexual flesh-eating lamia is forced to declare her identity. δακρύοντι ἐῴκει τὸ φάσμα καὶ ἐδεῖτο μὴ βασανίζειν αὐτό, μηδὲ ἀναγκάζειν ὁμολογεῖν, ὅ τι εἴη, ἐπικειμένου δὲ καὶ μὴ ἀνιέντος ἔμπουσά τε εἶναι ἔφη καὶ πιαίνειν ἡδοναῖς τὸν Μένιππον ἐς βρῶσιν τοῦ σώματος. 35

Even though she is not inside her beloved Menippus, she is nonetheless scripted like a possessing demon and subject to exorcism and confession. 36 For the moment, we should take note of the erotic context in both stories. 37 More research leads back to the second century, when there are a few testimonia for possessions of human beings by ghosts, 38 Jus-

34  Arborius’ daughter was healed by a letter of Martin’s in Sulpicius Severus, VMartini 19.1. Jacques Fontaine, Sulpice Sévère: Vie de Saint Martin, vol. 2., Paris, 1968 (SChr, 134), p. 876 cites Dial. 1.20.2 an Egyptian holy man: “Quidam ergo sanctus  […] absens quoque interdum cilicii sui fimbiis aut epistulis missis corpora obsessa curabat”, an even better parallel, where the letter is written to heal. Hieronymus, VHilarionis 12 features a comic exorcism of a nun who suffers from a complicated erotic possession (but by a demon, not a ghost). Love-possession may not have been taken very seriously. 35  Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, p. 145. 36  Contrast Clark Ashton Smith’s, “The End of the Story”, 1930, which is a Christianized version of Philostratus’ tale, set in 1789 in France. 37  And how E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets, Oxford/New York, 1993, p.  75-76 rightly notes that the split soul (“half of my soul”) is converted to a runaway slave (“escaped soul”) in an amatory context in Lutatius Catulus’ translation of Callimachus, Ep.  41. But the soul there is a living one, as is Sosipatra’s in Eunapius Vitae 6.84. Plutarch, Amatorius 759C cites Cato on the indwelling in life of the lover’s soul in that of the beloved, Plutarchus, Moralia, ed. by G.N. Bernardakis, Leipzig, 1892 (BT), p. 426: ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ῥωμαῖος Κάτων ἔλεγε τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἐρῶντος ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι τῇ τοῦ ἐρωμένου. 38  E.  R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine, Wiles lectures 1963, Cambridge, 1965, p.  54: “In antiquity the intruder normally claimed to be a god or daemon; only in exceptional cases did it profess to be a deceased human being.”; Fn. 3 “Usually the earthbound soul of a biaiothanatos”.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

283

tin saw ghosts behind possession and madness. 39 But Tertullian took care to explain that these were not real ghosts, but demons masquerading as ghosts.40 Augustine would mention this theory mediated by Porphyry.41 The ghost in the Indian teenager seems clearly parodic, but it attests possession by a ghostly homosexual indweller. This perhaps popular cultural oddity has escaped the notice of those who study the Seelenlehre of the letter.42 Evodius interiorized the curious boy in a script whose precedents are erotic. Channeling voices: a community of questioners? But what do such ghosts do once they have taken up residence inside one? In Philostratus it hijacked the boy’s body and spoke in its own (deep) voice. To Evodius it brought subjective joy. But in ep.  158.4-9 there also follow five pages of persistent questions about matters he does not (yet) understand. Evodius may also be (consciously or unconsciously) “channeling” or ventriloquizing the dead boy’s relentless curiosity in his persistence in questioning Augustine. And behind this behaviour may lie the interrogative culture of Augustine’s philosophical circle.43 Augustine’s friend Nebridius, the questioner par excellence,44 was already dead, but remembered and recalled and hence textually present. Evodius explicitly quoted Augustine’s obit for him in

Justinus, Apologia 1.18.4: καὶ οἱ ψυχαῖς ἀποθανόντων λαμβανόμενοι καὶ ῥιπτούμενοι ἄνθρωποι, οὓς δαιμονιολήπτους καὶ μαινομένους καλοῦσι πάντες. 40  Tertullianus, De Anima 57.2  ff. As Jacqueline Amat, Songes et visions: l’au-delà dans la littérature latine tardive, Paris, 1985, P. 273 notes, his theory does not explain apparitions of martyrs. 41  Augustinus, De ciuitat Dei. 10.11, ed. by B.  Dombart, A.  Kalb, Turnhout, 1955 (CCSL, 47), p.  284: “unde dicit alios opinari esse quoddam genus, cui exaudire sit proprium, natura fallax, omniforme, multimodum, simulans deos et daemones et animas defunctorum [emphasis D.S.], et hoc esse quod efficiat haec omnia quae uidentur bona esse uel praua”. 42  Even Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p.  122 merely paraphrases the content. 43  Mandouze, “Evodius 1,” 367 for Evodius’ questions from the dialogues. 44  Nebridius’ question in conf. 7.3; conf. 9.6 (CCSL, 27), p.  136: “inquisitor ardentissimus ueritatis  […] unde me multa interrogabat homuncionem inexpertum”. In ep.  12 Augustine explicitly discusses how many of Nebridius’ questions he responded to. 39 

284

danuta shanzer

conf. 9.6.45 Evodius could be seen here as “channeling” both some of Nebridius’ intellectual interests 46 and his role as questioner. He does this so effectively as to annoy Augustine, who in ep.  159.1 says that to answer his ingentes quaestiones is operosissimum and in ep.  162.1 will complain: “Multa quaeris ab homine multum occupato!”.47 This letter creates a community of dead questioners (Nebridius and the boy) who are represented by the live questioner, Evodius, who has been handed the baton in the philosophical relay, as it were. Commendatio: recommendation and in manus tuas Augustine, the recipient, understood some of Evodius’ latent anxieties and what the letter was about. “altera uero, quae inuenta est, habet commendationem suauissimam serui dei boni et casti [emphasis D.S.] adulescentis, quo modo ex hac uita migrauerit et quibus uisionum fraternarum adtestationibus meritum eius uobis insinuari potuerit.”48 “The other letter, which I managed to find contains a most pleasing recommendation of a good servant of god and of a chaste youth, how he departed from this life and by what affidavits about the monks’ visions his merit was able to be conveyed to you.”

This commendatio suauissima of the good youth49 was both a recommendation and an entrusting of the dead boy’s spirit

45  Ep. 158.11. Noted already in Goldbacher’s apparatus fontium (CSEL, 44), p. 496: “nam intellectum eam pasci et ponere os spiritale ad fontem uitae”. On the epitaphic discourse, see D.  Shanzer, “‘Incessu humilem, successu excelsam’: Augustine, Sermo Humilis, and Scriptural ὕψος”, in Magnificence and the Sublime in Medieval Aesthetics: Art, Architecture, Literature, Music, ed. by C.S. Jaeger, New York, 2010, p. 67-69. 46  Augustine has in fact had part of this conversation about the soul already with Nebridius, who had asked him in ep.  8 how the divine powers make us see visions in dreams. He alluded to the possibility of inner eyes that are activated when one sleeps. Augustine responded in Ep.  13.2-4. 47  See S. Lancel, Saint Augustin, Paris, 1999, p.  656 for Evodius as “le questionneur infatigable et un peu brouillon qui harcelait l’évêque d’ Hippone avec ses lettres un peu naïves”. 48  Ep.  159.1 (CSEL, 44), p. 498. 49  Without however, as Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p. 121 rightly points out, explicitly assenting to Evodius’ evaluation of his merit.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

285

to a blessed afterlife.50 The ghost stories were in part defensive, designed to defend the reputation of the deceased youth (ep. 159.1: “meritum eius insinuari potuerit”). To understand what the problem was we must return to the boy’s deathbed. Sexual anxieties The boy had already been “drowning in the world” (in saeculo mergentem) before being rescued by Evodius and becoming his very sweet and dear friend. Here is the moment of his death. Immediately before, the boy had intoned Ps. 22.5 “Inpinguasti in oleo caput meum et poculum tuum inebrians quam praeclarum est”! “deinde cum solui coepisset, signare se coepit in fronte, ita ut sic descenderet manus ad os, quod sibi cupiebat signare, cum iam interior homo et bene renouatus de die in diem domum luteam dimisisset.”51 “Then when he had begun to be released, he began to make the sign of the cross on his forehead so that thus his hand could descend to his mouth which he wished also to cross for himself, even though the inner man who had been well renewed from day to day had already dismissed his house of clay (i.e. the body).”

The Psalm invoked both head (caput) and mouth (poculum inebrians). It seems that while the boy signed his head (fronte), he did not succeed in making the sign of the cross on his mouth before dying.52 Evodius may have read this failure as an evil omen. He remained uneasy about the state of the boy’s soul and expressed his anxieties using a strange transition, a false-start sentence that 50  The recommendation components (his qualities as a secretary) are clear. There are also elements of the laus funebris. The boy’s own dismissal of his body and (implicitly) commendation of his own spirit are described in ep.  158.2. Later in cura mort. 1.3,  4.6, and 5.7 Augustine would explore the function of commendatio for intercessory prayer. 51  Ep.  158.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 489. 52  What would have been the expected deathbed praxis? Just the forehead? Jürgen Hammerstaedt, “Crux”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 1996, p.  147-150 mentions the forehead alone and doesn’t discuss deathbed rites. Forehead and mouth? Forehead and breast as in Prudentius, Cath. 6.129-132? Or forehead and mouth and breast as in Gaudentius, Tract. 8.18? In Hieronymus, ep.  108.21.4 Paula signs her mouth and breast (stomachus) [Blaise compares Aug. ord. 1.2.5.] at the deathbeds of her husband and daughters.

286

danuta shanzer

provides an opening for his worry, about his friend’s sexual purity: “Quia liberatione et securitate illius nimis gaudeo, dici non potest”. “That  I [am able] to rejoice completely in his liberation and freedom from care – cannot be said.” Evodius had (formally) inquired whether the boy had been defiled by contact with a woman, and received the following answer, conveyed to readers in oratio obliqua: “liberum se esse testatus est, magis ut nostrum gaudium cumularetur”. The ut could signify result (as it is normally taken): “He bore witness that he was free [sc. of such contamination] with the result that my joy was the more complete” or could indicate purpose: “He bore witness that he was free [sc. of such contamination] rather (or ‘the more’) to complete my joy”.53 Thus Evodius may have thought the boy had told him what he wanted to hear. Underlying concerns about his chastity and his meritum remained and had to be allayed for Evodius through Urbica’s dream. There a mansion was prepared for the boy in heaven, and rosae uirgines (“virgin-roses” = rose-buds) sprang from his empty tomb. The worry was one that Augustine had addressed himself – albeit euphemistically – when his own son Adeodatus died, as we can see from conf. 9.6.14: “cito de terra abstulisti uitam eius, et securior eum recordor non timens quidquam pueritiae nec adulescentiae nec omnino homini illi”.54 5. Augustine’s response – ep. 159 Augustine’s response in ep.  159 was clearly annoyed and can be read as subversive. He dismissed Evodius55 and ignored almost The second translation takes better account of the position of magis. Ep.  151.9 (CSEL 44), p. 389, evinces similar interest in extremis in the sexual histories of Apringius and Marcellinus, with the latter giving what is virtually a deathbed assurance to Augustine: “cum de hoc ipso, ut sunt humana, sollicitus solus cum solo agerem iam in eadem custodia constituto, ne quid esset, unde maiore et insigniore paenitentia deum sibi placare deberet, ille, ut erat uerecundiae singularis, cum ipsam licet falsam meam suspicionem erubesceret, sed admonitionem gratissime acciperet, modeste graui­ terque subridens et utraque manu meam dexteram adprehendens: testor, inquit, sacramenta, quae per hanc offeruntur manum, me nullum expertum esse concubitum praeter uxorem nec ante nec postea.” 55  By saying that we don’t even understand the visions seen by those who are alive, both when they are awake and when asleep. This is an argument a 53 

54 

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

287

all his arguments.56 “No!” (nullo modo) was the short answer. The soul has no vehicle.57 The living soul’s powers of imagination and dreaming render unnecessary the hypothesis of any sort of body for the soul in interim time. Augustine had of course already engaged in this discussion (aporetically) with Nebridius in ep. 13.58 a. Ghosts Augustine responded in a subliminally subversive way to two components of Evodius’ letter: ghost stories and questions. Augustine had a profound dislike of ghostly encounters,59 particularly those that took the form of visitations: he was reluctant even to dignify the latter with a name.60 Ep.  159 is a masterpiece of evasion and passive aggression. In response to Evodius’ many ghost stories, a “magma incandescente di racconti”,61 Augustine in ep. 159.5 counters with one strange encounter of his own, or rather (note the distancing or outsourcing!) of the skeptical physician Gennadius, who had dared not to believe in the afterlife. b. Questions that teach Gennadius’ inset dream is a competitive story. Not a ghost, but a possibly angelic dream-iuuenis, who appears on consecutive nights. Its form and content are far too good to be true.62 The minore for not concerning oneself with the dead soul’s power to see or be seen. 56  Especially all the theological ones at ep. 158.6-7. 57  Ep.  159.1. 58  O’Daly, Augustine’s Philosophy of the Mind, p. 75; also Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie, p. 79-84. In ep.  13.2 Augustine designated the existence of a soul-vehicle a quaestiuncula from which one ought to take a break. 59  Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p.  179 shows how he reduces Evodius’ multiple phenomena to one, the better to refute him. See Claude Carozzi, Le voyage de l’âme dans l’au-delà, d’après la littérature latine: Ve-XIIIe siècle, Roma; Paris, 1994, (Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome, 189), p.  28 for his denial of travel to the hereafter in the vision of Curma. 60  Augustinus, cura mort. 10.12 (CSEL, 41), p. 639: “in somnis uel alio quocumque modo”. 61  Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p. 173. 62  Harris, Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity, p. 117 rightly sees a “consummate example of the Latin rhetorician’s art”. Augustine probably made it up or fathered it on Gennadius. But why didn’t he use it in the Gn. litt.? There is similar ultra-clever Verschachtelung (“nesting”) in Gn. litt. 12.2.3, which is narrated autobiographically. Augustine tries to explain to a

288

danuta shanzer

young man teaches Gennadius using a dialogic method involving questions.63 This could well be a naughty response to ep.  158.12 multa requiro. These questions however are not Evodius’ passionate barrage, but a structured Socratic inquisition.64 The essential point of the vision is that Gennadius, even though he is asleep, is able to take in visual perceptions. He is aware that he is asleep, and that his bodily eyes are closed. So there must be some other eyes with which he is seeing. And these other eyes will analogously be able to function when the body is dead, not just asleep. c. A possible third naughtiness? Questions of sexuality and chastity (as regards women) had hovered over the life and also the death of the boy. But was that all? In ep.  159.3 Augustine characterizes Gennadius’ dream visitor as a “conspicuus iuuenis et dignus intendi”. Well and good, but why is Evodius told that, after he awoke, Gennadius thought “as much about the young man as about the dream” (“tantumque de illo quantum de somnio cogitauit”)? A  curious detail… Can there be any other answer than that Gennadius found the youth fascinating or somehow attractive and “well and truly recognized him”. Could there be questions of latent homosexuality involved? Was Augustine sending a tactful message to Evodius about the latter’s (latent) feelings for his dead boy? Qui aures audiendi habet, audiat! Even though the rosebud is nearly always associated with female virginity,65 in Urbica’s vision it was exceptionally applied

friend in a dream that they are seeing not corpora, but imagines, and that the friend himself is an image! The friend was seeing something else in his dream at the same time that Augustine cannot access. And by imagining the friend in the dream Augustine was creating the friend’s image. 63  Ep.  159.4 (CSEL, 44), p.  491, mentions “quod his interrogationibus docere moliebatur aperuit”. Also Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p. 181, n. 14 “dialogo”, who does not however distinguish Evodius’ approach from Augustine’s. At 181 she sees both as using “arma dialettica”. 64  Ep.  159.4: “his interrogationibus docere moliebatur”. The questions are heuristic and didactic. 65  Texts like Columella 10.258: “uirgineas adaperta genas rosa praestet honores” and Pervigilium Veneris 22: “ipsa iussit mane ut udae uirgines nubant rosae” make the point obvious.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

289

to a young man. Rosae uirgines (a term that required glossing) 66 were the maidens of the Pervigilium Veneris!67 This youth was gendered female. One could push this idea slightly, remembering Augustine’s need to keep one soul from another on the right side of the “luminous borderline of friendship”:68 “sed non tenebatur modus ab animo usque ad animum, quatenus est luminosus limes amicitiae, sed exhalabantur nebulae de limosa concupiscentia carnis et scatebra pubertatis et obnubilabant atque obfuscabant cor meum, ut non discerneretur serenitas dilectionis a caligine libidinis. Utrumque in confuso aestuabat et rapiebat imbecillam aetatem per abrupta cupiditatum atque mersabat gurgite flagitiorum.”69

One could also revisit conf. 4.11, which explicitly mentions immunditia in the relationships of men: “who can cleanse me from the uncleanliness of such affections”. “Ecce cor meum, deus meus, ecce intus; uide, quia memini, spes mea, qui me mundas a talium affectionum immunditia, dirigens oculos meos ad te et euellens de laqueo pedes meos. Mirabar enim ceteros mortales uiuere, quia ille, quem quasi non moriturum dilexeram, mortuus erat, et me magis, quia ille alter eram, uiuere illo mortuo mirabar. Bene quidam dixit de amico suo dimidium animae suae. Nam ego sensi animam meam et animam illius unam fuisse animam in duobus corporibus, et ideo mihi horrori erat uita, quia nolebam dimidius uiuere, et ideo forte mori metuebam, ne totus ille moreretur, quem multum amaueram.”70

66  But whose is the parenthesis, sic enim clausae appellari solent? Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie, p.  222-223 thinks it the authentic voice of the widow retained from the procès-verbal, for chastity would have mattered to a nun. It could also be Evodius’ gloss on an (African?) poeticism for Augustine, for it is external to the oratio obliqua, or even possibly a later reader’s gloss. 67  Pervigilium Veneris 22: “ipsa iussit mane ut udae uirgines nubant rosae”. 68  Which  I am taking as a discreet reference to homosexuality. Would amicitia be used of a woman? Elsewhere he is explicit about heterosexual relations. There is also the ambivalent conf. 4.9 (in the context of friendship between males) “si non amauerit redamantem aut si amantem non redamauerit, nihil quaerens ex eius corpore praeter indica beneuolentiae”. 69  Augustinus, conf. 2.2 (CCSL, 27), p. 18. 70  Augustinus, conf. 4.11 (CCSL, 27), p. 45-46.

290

danuta shanzer

Inappropriate male friendships were not a topic Augustine discussed openly.71 So it is possible that the suspicion of homosexuality may underlie the natural homosociality of the monastery at Uzalis. 6. The bigger picture a. De Genesi ad litteram Letters reflect an author’s intellectual life and transactions. And Augustine had been thinking about and also documenting visions for some time.72 Epp.  158 and 159 cannot be read without reference to the De Genesi ad litteram 12 (Gn. litt.).73 Ep.  159.2 provides a point of entry. “Hoc interim habeas ut ab occupato et festinante dictatum. In duodecimo autem libro eorum, quos de Genesi scripsi, uersatur haec quaestio uehementer et multis exemplis rerum expertarum atque credibiliter auditarum disputatio illa siluescit. Quid in ea potuerimus uel effecerimus, cum legeris, iudicabis, si tamen dominus donare dignatur, ut eos mihi libros, quantum possum, congruenter emendatos iam liceat edere et multorum fratrum expectationem non iam longa disputatione suspendere.”74 “Take this in the meantime as written by one who is busy and also in a hurry, In the 12 th book of my commentary on Genesis this question is treated intensively, and my discussion there bris­ tles with many examples of phenomena that were experienced and authenticated credibly from hearsay. What  I managed to achieve, you will judge when you have read them, if god deigns to grant to me that I may now be permitted to publish these books, edited to the extent I can, and not frustrate the longing of many brothers with a discussion that has already been going on a long time.”

Evodius with his queries and his ghost stories had frustrated Augustine’s attempt to finish Gn. litt. 12. The latter contains sev71  See D. Shanzer, “Augustine’s Epp.  77-78 (A Scandal in Hippo): Microhistory and Ordeal-by-Oath”, Reading Medieval Studies, 40 (2014), p. 11-33, for the most notable example from his corpus. 72  Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie, p. 73 dates his collecting of material to 386 in Milan at the latest. 73  Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p. 35-39. 74  Ep. 159.2 (CSEL, 44), p. 499-500.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

291

eral supernatural stories75 related from autopsy or via reliable witnesses, hence Augustine’s somewhat defensive siluescit (“bristles”)76 = “I have done this work already!” Cum legeris and its context suggest that Gn. litt. will be available in the future after emendation: Evodius is being fobbed off.77 But in the Gn. litt. Augustine does not relate ghostly visitations, i.e. hauntings, but only dream visions and prophesies.78 He was reluctant to discuss hauntings (uisitationes) and refused to engage Evodius on that ground.79 He had flattened him with a fast “no!” to an interim body for the dead soul and reduced the ghosts to rarissima uisa or things that hadn’t been experienced (ep.  159.2 and 5 “rarissimis aut inexpertis”). b. Imagining the afterworld in the Gn. litt. The structure of the Gn. litt. was adventitious. “Viresque adquisiuit eundo”. It is not a pure commentary on Genesis. Gn. litt. 10 is a treatise on the origin of souls.80 Gn. litt. 12 is a digression stemming from 2 Cor. 12.2-4: it was to have been about Paradise, but ended up being devoted to visions.81 From the outset Augustine had been assembling testimonia on contemporary visions to include in Gn. litt. 12.82 The coincidence with Evodius’ inquisitio in ep.  158.9 is thus striking. The trigger letter for ep.  158 was lost, 75  Gn. litt. 12.17.35 the possessed man who acts like a global positioning system for the priest; 12.17.37-38 the boy with diseased genitals and his afterlife vision. 76  See ciu. 21.8 in a similarly somewhat impatient context (CCSL, 48), p.  773: “unde illorum quoque miraculorum multitudo siluescit, quae monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur; quae recolere et commemorare si uelim, huius operis quis erit finis?”. 77  Note the same irritation emanating from ep. 162.2. 78  Much the same will be true of the cura mort. where he will confine himself to dream visions. 79  See Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie, p. 78 and also Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p. 179 on his refusal to discuss a physical soul-vehicle with Evodius. 80  P.  Agaësse, A. Solignac, La Genèse au sens littéral en douze livres (I-VII), 2 vols, vol. 1, Bibliothèque Augustinienne (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2000), p. 29. 81  For the adventitious character of 10 and 12 see Ibidem, p. 21. 82  Starting from Gn. litt. 12.2.4., cura mort. 10.12: “narrantur uisa quaedam” could perhaps come from Augustine’s running store of narratives. “Confirmant sibi accidisse” suggests debriefing of witnesses.

292

danuta shanzer

as was Evodius’ first response to it,83 but if Evodius knew about Augustine’s project for Gn. litt. 12, he might have thought he was collaborating on it. After all, the two would eventually join forces to promote the cult of Stephen’s relics and exchange information about miracles at Hippo and Uzalis. The conversation about visions of the dead would continue in the accounts transmitted in the second half of cura mort. (10.12-fin).84 Such stories could become Augustine’s “table-talk”.85 Augustine had almost finished Gn. litt. when he received ep.  158 and wrote ep.  159, but still hadn’t finished it when he wrote ep.  162.2. The final section of his commentary (Gn. litt. 12.32.60) plunges into the fate of the soul after death, Evodius’ preoccupation: “Sin autem quaeritur, cum anima de corpore exierit utrum ad aliqua loca corporalia feratur  […] cito quidem responderim…”.86 Had this really been written before ep.  158?87 Or was Augustine responding to Evodius? A  topic for the future.88 But one fact remains: Augustine failed to deal with hauntings in the Gn. litt. Completely – even when he could have faced the question head-on in the exegesis of Dives and Lazarus.89 Why? c. Augustine cornered by Evodius? Ep.  158.8 has the air of a miffed response. We are entering upon an argument in mediis rebus. Consider the rebarbative “Quid est et illud …?” “And what about that phenomenon ?” Evodius must have raised these issues in his earlier letter, the one Augustine lost and asked to be resent.90 Various niceties that emphasize accurate testimony need to be noted. Visi Ep.  159.1: “non potuit reperiri”. Augustinus, cura mort. 10.12: “narrantur uisa quaedam”. 85  Ibidem, 12.15 “in conuiuio meo”. 86  Gn. litt. 12.32.60, (CSEL, 28,1), p. 426. 87  Maybe. At the least one can say that the corporeal position was known to Augustine and mentioned by him in Gn. litt. 8.5.9. He claims at that point not to dare to argue about such a great question. Discussion was postponed. 88  Likewise of interest is its relationship with ep.  164. Augustine touches on the Harrowing of Hell at Gn. litt. 12.33.63 and Gn. litt. 12.34.66. 89  See Gn. litt. 8.5.9 and 12.33.63. Lc 16.27-31 explicitly raised the issue of Lazarus being sent as a ghost-messenger. In cura mort. 17 he finally returned to Dives and Lazarus. 90  Ep.  162.9. 83 

84 

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

293

sunt means “were observed,” not “seemed.” The phenomena were not observed only once, nor by one witness alone.91 They occurred at a specific watch of the night.92 The ghosts of Uzalis were visible with shining (or transparent) bodies (corporibus lucidis). There were also audible manifestations, tumultus and orationes.93 In his somewhat incoherent way Evodius was trying to push Augustine into a corner by asking about hauntings attested by two waking witnesses, a problem for Augustine’s theory about individual phantasia.94 How could such phenomena independently and simultaneously be created at two points of reception? Augustine was clearly pondering the problem. Charles Brittain had kindly has suggested to me two possible mechanisms Augustine could have invoked, both involving angelic or demonic intervention: either a phantasia induced within witnesses’ minds95 or else by “temporary creation of a quasi-object” that could be simultaneously witnessed.96 In cura mort. 11.13 his own unwitting and unintended dream-appearance to Favonius Eulogius proved that a dream visitation need not imply cura by the visitor. But, while the story does indeed serve that purpose, it may concede a damaging point in relation to the genesis of such visitations. If Favonius manufactured the dream for himself using his own phantasia, how did the dream-Augustine teach Favonius some-

Ep.  158.8, (CSEL, 44), p. 494: “Non hoc semel […] non enim ab uno”. Ibidem: “in quadam particula”. 93  Their prayer is an odd phenomenon from a theological point of view. The dead in hell could not pray (Ps. 6.6: “In inferno quis confitebitur tibi?”), but what of the virtuous dead revisiting earth? 94  Ep. 158.8, (CSEL, 44), p. 494: “a uigilantibus ab ambulantibus, non hoc semel audiui … non enim ab uno hoc audisse me memini”. Also notable is ep.  158.10 (CSEL, 44), p.  495: “paene uigilanti”, “almost awake,” not “half asleep!” 95  Was this what he would have said happened in the simultaneous translation-reception miracle of Pentecost in Acts 2:8, a passage that is virtually never discussed in Latin patristics? 96  Personal communication: Brittain compares the Vision of Balthasar, discussed in Gn. litt. 12.11.23, which is designated a (temporary) res corporalis. Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie, p. 122 must intend this by the angel who “montre des images”. 91 

92 

294

danuta shanzer

thing Favonius himself didn’t already know? 97 Instead, here Augustine conceded that his imago did the teaching, but admits that he didn’t understand the mechanism. By this time he seems prepared to admit that such dreams need not be produced by the dreamer or seer. Such phenomena were, at the least, exceptions, perhaps even miracles.98 d. Literary host-jumping My second literary point concerns how epp.  158 and 159 can illustrate the way in which literary features can host-jump. They show how the philosophical dialogue with eschatological myth resurfaces, attached to a new host – Christian epistolography. Three Platonic dialogues culminated in narrative myths about the afterworld: Phaedo 89d-114d, Gorgias 523a-527a, and Republic 614b-621c. The myths followed the philosophical dialectic and were intended to transcend the problems of witnessing the afterlife. In contrast to the Phaedo, ep.  158’s good death and its aftermath initiate the philosophical questions Περὶ Ψυχῆς. Evodius clearly delineates the modality of his discourse by a framing-device (ep.  159.1 narrem and 159.4 narraui). The ghost stories are providing narrative witnesses to the afterworld. Augustine, as we saw above, echoed Evodius’ narrative frame with his own narrative,99 but one that encapsulated and out-sourced the dialectic to Gennadius’ dream-youth. The Platonic myths directly engaged issues of probability, credibility, and factual accuracy.100 Augustine issues a similar invitation at ep.  159.5: “cum his uerbis credere uel non 97  Maurice Testard, Saint Augustin et Cicéron, t.  1, Paris, 1958, (Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 5), p.  48-49 believes that Eulogius remembered, though there is no hint of Platonic reminiscence or language of reminding. 98  See the exceptions in the cura mort. 16.18 and 16.19: the ghosts of prophets and martyrs. Dulaey, Le rêve dans la vie, p. 116. Lancel, Saint Augustin, p.  654 elegantly emphasizes the slippage from exception to the domain of miracle. 99  Augustine’s tale of Gennadius began with the words narrabo at ep. 159.3 and ended at ep. 159.5 in ring composition with ista narratione. 100  Phaedo 114d on the probability of the narrative not its factual accuracy, its use for inspiration. Gorgias 523a on the fiction that Socrates regards as fact and 527a on whether the myth is an old wife’s tale. Gorgias 522e εἰ δὲ βούλει, σοὶ ἐγώ, ὡς τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, ἐθέλω λόγον λέξαι.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

295

credere liberum cuique sit”.101 One was free to believe or not. But his own narratives in the Gn. litt. made some claim to authority/ probability.102 A Christian philosopher had argument and exegesis in his quiver, but not myth. For the latter he had to substitute witnesses to the other world – sometimes holding his nose. e. Interpermeability of life and death and memory The years 415/421, which saw the composition of epp.  158-159, the Gn. litt., and the cura mort., were an important crossroads for relations between the living and the dead. Evodius, as I hope to have shown, reflects both popular religion and the theology of sentiment103 and higher philosophical currents that are attested in paganism. His views about the soul’s vehicle and its retention of identity in the afterlife can be paralleled in Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic.104 He needs to be positioned as a thinker in his own right.105 f. The dead’s knowledge and memory of, and care for, the living When Augustine wrote the Confessions he still believed that the dead could remember the living: Nebridius could not be so intoxicated by drinking from the fount of life as to forget Augustine.106 Evodius in ep.  158.7 agreed.107 Ep.  158’s careful structure, Ep.  159.5 (CSEL, 44), p. 502. Ibidem, 2 (CSEL, 44), p. 499: “exemplis rerum expertarum atque credibiliter auditarum” refers to those cited in Gn. litt. 12. 103  As, for example, the sensus humanus of Augustine, ep.  164.4 that he contrasts with the iustitia creatoris. 104  Proclus, In Platonis Rempublicam commentarii, 164.7-167.23, ed. by W. Kroll, Berlin, 1901. (Translated in A.J. Festugière, Proclus, Commentaire sur la République. Tome III Dissertations XV-VII (Rép. X), 3 vols, vol. 3, Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques, Paris: Vrin, 1970, p.  108-112. Andrew Smith, Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study of Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, The Hague, 1974, p. 67 speaks of “the integral irrational personality as vested in the irrational soul” having greater significance in Iamblichus. 105  For some preliminary observations, see Appendix 2. 106  Augustinus, conf. 9.6, (CCSL, 27), p. 136: “nec eum sic arbitror inebriari ex ea, ut obliuiscatur mei, cum tu, domine, quem potat ille, nostri sis memor”. It might occur by a sort of sharing. 107  Ep. 158.7, (CSEL, 44), p.  493: “quo deposito magis quasi abstersa nube totus serenus effectus et in tranquillitate sine temptatione positus uideat, 101 

102 

296

danuta shanzer

psychopomps108 and all, also bespeaks the memory and cura of the dead for the living. Evodius’ mental furniture included a permeable border and the memory of the soul. His dead crossed the boundary, indwelled, and cared for the living – without however causing horror or fear. They sent for the living without being perceived as haunting or stalking them, so no sense of the Unheimliches or uncanny. By the time Augustine came to write the De Cura pro mortuis his thought had changed. An intriguing sentence in cura mort. 13.16 seems intended as a drop-dead argument. If the dead were concerned with the affairs of the living and themselves addressed us in dreams, then Augustine’s insatiable mother Monnica, who had followed him over land and sea, would surely have communicated with her son. The life of the blessed cannot have rendered her uncaring! The tone of this sentence is difficult to read, and Augustine explicitly invited his readers to take it as they saw fit.109 On some days it can sound like an ironic or even a bitter joke. But the blackout kept him invisible to, and hence safe from, even Monnica.110 Augustine did however soften his rigor when consoling others. When Sapida lost her brother Timotheus, he consoled her (ep.  263.2) with the following: “neque enim, quia ista, quae tibi maeres esse subtracta, suo temporali cursu praeterierunt, ideo periit illa caritas, qua Timotheus Sapidam dilexit et diligit; manet illa seruata in thesauro suo et abscondita est cum Christo in Domino”. One notes that logically obfuscating (and illogical)

quod desiderauit, amplexetur, quod amauit, recordetur quoque et amicorum et quos iam praemiserat agnoscat et quos post se dimisit”. 108  Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p.  150 does not use this term, but must intend it: the dead are assigned the task of accompanying the newly dead across the river. 109  Augustinus, cura mort. 13.16, (CSEL, 41), p.  647: “Ut uolet accipiat quisque quod dicam”. Paula Johanna Rose, A commentary on Augustine’s De cura pro mortuis gerenda: Rhetoric in Practice, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, Leiden u.a., 2013, p.  423 construes the remark regressively, but I cannot see how that is possible. It introduces the point about Monnica. Dicam is future. 110  Augustinus, cura mort. 13.16, (CSEL, 41), p. 647: “me ipsum pia mater nulla nocte desereret. Absit enim ut facta sit uita feliciore crudelis”.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

297

“diligit,” which nonetheless somehow envisages the dead Timotheus loving his living sister in heaven. 7. Conclusion Christianity exercised considerable social control in compelling believers to come to terms with their fear of death and the dead. Revalorizing was one method: one learnt to love, or at least become accustomed to, the painful or horrible, so that it lost its impact. Intellectual control was another: “You cannot possibly have seen a ghost; our eschatology does not function that way!” The latter was Augustine’s initial strategy. To feel the uncanny we need accounts from subjects who experience it or who project it onto their characters. And all fantastic narratives share uncertainties about, and discrepancies between, the writer’s world, the characters’ world, and the reader’s world. Evodius gives us remarkable access to his experienced world, which included ghost-possession and belief in others’ visions and hauntings. Augustine’s experienced world did not include ghosts, and his intellectual world excluded them.111 To abuse a famous quip, his dogma was trying to run over the hapless Evodius’ karma. A  monastery like the community at Uzalis could be the scene of waves of visitations without responding in panic.112 That permeable barrier between the living and the dead was a promise of hope to them. Their dead were not lost to their community. Augustine argued against concrete effects from burial ad sanctos and ultimately rejected this theology of sentiment.113 But the Middle Ages would side with Evodius. 111  He seems to be weaseling slightly about rarissima uisa,  etc. There is also the intriguing question of when an appearance of a ghost counts as a miracle. For during this same period, Augustine was gradually getting used to miracles, and could be seen as being converted to them by Evodius, viz. the development of the cult of Stephen. Maybe the “angelic operation” of cura mort. 16 was doing that work? 112  The only hint of the need to control the situation is in ep.  158.10, p.  495.25  ff. where Theasius tries to spare Armenius the news that his son has been sent to fetch him. The word used is “perturbaretur.” 113  See Lancel, Saint Augustin, p.  652 on the difficulties of fighting against such popular beliefs (in this case burial ad sanctos). Y. Duval, Auprès

298

danuta shanzer

Appendix 1 - The relative chronology of the concatenated deaths in ep.  158 The information here was extracted from ep.  158, It shows the community of the living and the dead in Uzalis as well as the degree of “semiotic arousal” about connections between events. Evodius was not always the most coherent witness, but a spectrum of different phenomena is attested, Deacon (4 years earlier) (0-4 years) Boy 1 (8 months earlier) (0-8 months ep.  158.10) Boy 2 (notarius) at home after 16 days of illness: Day 0. Funeral of Boy 2 (Day 0?) Assumptio into heaven of Boy 2 (Day 0 + 1 day) Three days of hymns Mass at grave (Day 0 +3 days) Priest Armenius of Memblona 2 (7 days after his son; 4 days after his son’s dream-appearance: post dies forte quattuor [ep.  158.10]) Waking Sightings (ueniunt et uisitant et uidentur exceptis somniis) The dead are seen by people who are awake and are walking (ep.  158.8) Priest anonymous (ep.  158.8) To an old man, barely awake (ep. 158.10) a man with a laurel in his hand and a text (scriptum). Dream Visions Deacon appears to widow Urbica (Day 0 + 2 days) Boy 1 appears to an anonymous person (probably a monk) (ep.  158.10) (around the time Boy 2 died) Boy 2 appears to a brother (ep.  158.10) (three days after his own death) des saints. Corps et âme: l’inhumation ‘ad sanctos’ dans la chrétienté d’Orient et d’Occident du IIIe au VIIe siècle, Paris, 1988 (Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 121), p.  204 and 12 details some of the philosophically aberrant views that suggest that the corpse retained some trace of life and could function as a “vector of help” for the deceased.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

299

Profuturus and Privatus and Servilius appeared to Evodius and prophesied events that came to pass (ep.  158.9) Monk Servilius appears to Evodius (Date unspecified) (ep.  158.11) Appendix 2 – Evodius’ thought The following Appendix contains a necessarily miscellaneous series of observations and Lesefrüchte that have emerged from my work on Evodius’ letter. Many are hints, possible evidence. They are not necessarily directly relevant to the problem of ghosts, but from them a few interesting features can be discerned that suggest Evodius may have had connections in Alexandria and further East. His horizons were not identical to Augustine’s. Evodius’ sources cannot be determined with precision. “Non liquet,” said Baltes.114 Yet, given the patchy state of transmission of most Neoplatonists, it seems imprudent simply to dismiss parallels that are attested only in later sources, as did Zàngara in her criticism of Baltes.115 A later source can easily draw on a lost earlier one: Platonic traditions are like a great underground river. Better to note parallels and hope to detect patterns. Evodius’ non-standard Latin and avoidance of established philosophical vocabulary make it harder to establish terminological “fingerprints”.116 He discussed the soul’s vehicle without ever using the term.117 And various lexical items that look like terminology prove not to be, e.g. nodos malitiae (ep.  158.4), and one odd phrase, agile peccatum (ep.  158.4), occurs only in Augustine’s en. Ps. 37.25.25, where it refers to paying back a good deed with a bad one.118

Baltes, “Platonisches Gedankengut im Brief des Evodius”, p. 256. Zangara, Exeuntes de corpore, p. 152. 116  Baltes, “Platonisches Gedankengut im Brief des Evodius”, p.  256 speaks of “charakteristische Merkmale.” 117  Contrast Augustine’s use in ep. 13.2 “quod a nonnullis etiam dici uehiculum recordaris”. 118  Seems to mean “easy sin.” (TLL 1.0.1325.16 cites pronus, facilis as synonyms when used de rebus incorporeis). 114 

115 

300

danuta shanzer

This said, several points deserve more attention, for the light they can shed on Evodius’ intellectual furniture and geographical connections. a. The astral body of the post mortem soul in tempus interim            composed of the hot element, which alone abandons the corpse O’Daly discussed Evodius’ soul vehicle, suggesting that his thought represented the theory, as it was current in Augustine’s circle.119 Augustine’s knowledge of the vehicle may have come from Porphyry, whose De Antro Nympharum 11 describes the souls that develop more humid pneumata that make them visible, presumably as ghosts.120 His Sententiae 29 likewise describe the post mortem vehicle. But Porphyrian fingerprints (such as humidity)121 are lacking in Augustine and Evodius.122 Baltes points to parallels for the heat in Damascius, Aristides Quintilianus, and Plotinus.123 But there are other possible avenues. Proclus, In Tim. 3.234 attributes a post mortem vehicle to Iamblichus.124 Hierocles’ Commentary on the Golden Verses mentions the luminous bodies of heroes and the inseparable immortal bodies of men.125 And Synesius, De Insomniis 7.137D states that the pneuma can become a god, a daimon, or a O’Daly, Augustine’s Philosophy of the Mind, p. 77. Porphyrius, De Antro nympharum 11, in Idem, Opuscula selecta, ed. A. Nauck, Leipzig, 1886, p.  64: διὸ καὶ χολῆς καὶ αἵματος ἐκχύσει προτρέπεσθαι τὰς τῶν τεθνηκότων, καὶ τάς γε φιλοσωμάτους ὑγρὸν τὸ πνεῦμα ἐφελκομένας παχύνειν τοῦτο ὡς νέφος· ὑγρὸν γὰρ ἐν ἀέρι παχυνθὲν νέφος συνίσταται· παχυνθέντος δ’ ἐν αὐταῖς τοῦ πνεύματος ὑγροῦ πλεονασμῷ ὁρατὰς γίνεσθαι. καὶ ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων αἳ συναντῶσί τισι κατὰ φαντασίαν χρώζουσαι τὸ πνεῦμα εἰδώλων ἐμφάσεις, αἱ μέντοι καθαραὶ γενέσεως ἀπότροποι. αὐτὸς δέ φησιν Ἡράκλειτος ‘ξηρὰ ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη’. διὸ κἀνταῦθα κατὰ τὰς τῆς μίξεως ἐπιθυμίας δίυγρον καὶ νοτερώτερον γίνεσθαι τὸ πνεῦμα, ἀτμὸν ἐφελκομένης δίυγρον τῆς (12.)  ψυχῆς ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν νεύσεως. 121  Passim in Sent. 29. 122  O’Daly, Augustine’s Philosophy of the Mind, p. 77-78. 123  Baltes, “Platonisches Gedankengut im Brief des Evodius”, p. 254. 124  Smith, Porphyry’s Place, p. 66. 125  Hierocles, In Aureum Carmen 26.2: καὶ ἔστιν ἕκαστος ἥρως ψυχὴ λογικὴ μετὰ φωτεινοῦ σώματος καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁμοίως ψυχὴ λογικὴ μετὰ συμφυοῦς ἀθανάτου σώματος. For Hierocles’ vehicle, see Noël Aujoulat, Le néo-platonisme alexandrin. Hiéroclès d’Alexandrie, Philosophia Antiqua, Leiden, 1986, p. 256-272. 119 

120 

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

301

ghost. So one might also consider possible connections to fifth-century Alexandria. b. The soul’s retention of two senses, hearing and sight, in the afterlife: “Illud etiam quaero, si corpus habere fuerit indagatus, utrum et aliquo sensu non careat. certe, si non odorandi necessitas ei, ut puto, ingeri potest neque gustandi sed nec tangendi, dubito remanere uidendi et audiendi. Nam quid est, quod audire dicuntur daemones non 126 in hominibus, quos uexant - nam et in his quaestio est - sed etiam cum apparent in corporibus suis? de uisu autem, quo modo transeunt de loco in locum, si corpus habent, si sensu uisibili duce careat? putas, non ita sunt animae humanae, cum dc corporibus egrediuntur, ut et corpus aliquod habeant et sensu aliquo non careant?”127 “I ask this too: if it be found to have a body, whether it doesn’t also require some sense or other. For, to be sure, if the need to smell cannot be attributed to it, as I think, nor to taste nor to touch, I  hesitate [about whether the need] to see and to hear remain. For what about the fact that demons are said to hear not in the human beings whom they harass – for in these too an interrogation takes place128 – but also when they appear in their own bodies?”

Evodius’ Latin was not entirely successful: He formulated a polite, negatively expressed question of this sort: “I ask this too  […] whether it doesn’t require/need some sense-perception?” (Expected answer = “yes”).129 But he used carere somewhat anomalously in the sense of “require” or “need”,130 as if it were indiSuppl. Shanzer and Smolak. Ep. 158,8 (CSEL, 44), p. 494. 128  The in (as opposed to de) leads me to interpret the quaestio as the torture of the exorcist who forces the demon to confess rather than as a question about demons in men. Roland J. Teske, Letters 155-210, WSA 2.3, p. 44 translates “For why is it that demons are said to hear not only in all (hominibus, not omnibus) whom they torment—for there is a question even about (in not de) these—but also when they appear in bodies of their own.” 129  And this is how ibidem, 43. translates it, “I also ask this: If the soul will be found to have a body, will it be without any sense?” 130  The second time he repeated the phrase below careo’s semantics were more regular. Ep.  158.8, (CSEL, 44), p.  494: “non ita sunt animae humanae, cum de corporibus egrediuntur, ut et corpus aliquod habent et sensu aliquo non careant?” “Aren’t human souls such that when they depart from 126  127 

302

danuta shanzer

gent.131 This seems to have thrown Teske off, who missed the rhetorical nuance when translating, “will it be without any sense?”132 The certe si that follows is obviously concessive and requires “even if”.133 Dubito cannot logically express real doubt, because Evodius was actually arguing for the retention of hearing and sight. Should a be supplied right before it? The passage would then be translated thus: “I ask this too: if it be found to have a body, whether it doesn’t also require some sense or other. For to be sure, even if the need to smell cannot be attributed to it, as I think, nor to taste nor to touch, I  hesitate [about whether the need] to see and to hear remain. For what about the fact that demons are said to hear not in the human beings whom they harass – for in these too an interrogation takes place134 – but also when they appear in their own bodies?”

c. The corporeality of the soul Evodius’ views resemble those of Irenaeus in his exegesis of Dives and Lazarus.135 But Evodius also needs to be factored into the discussion about Faustus of Riez and Claudianus Mamertus.136

their bodies they both have some sort of body and do not lack some sort of sense-perception?” 131  For careo = indigeo, see TLL 3 s.v. ‘careo,’ 455.27 132  Letters 155-210, WSA 2.3, p. 43. 133  Ibidem, p.  43-44. Translates without a concessive, “Surely, if the need for smelling cannot be attributed to it, nor of tasting or touching, I  wonder whether there remains the need for seeing and hearing.” 134  I am interpreting the quaestio as the torture of the exorcist rather than as a question about demons in men, because of in. Ibidem, p.  44 however translates “For why is it that demons are said to hear not only in all (hominibus, not omnibus) whom they torment—for there is a question even about (in not de) these—but also when they appear in bodies of their own.” 135  Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 2.34.1, ed. by A. Rousseau, L. Doutrelau, Paris, 1982 (SChr, 294), p.  354: “Plenissime autem Dominus docuit non solum perseuerare non de corpore in corpus transgredientes animas, sed et characterem corporis in quo etiam adaptantur custodire eundem, et meminisse eas operum quae egerunt hic et a quibus cessauerunt […]”. 136  He is not mentioned by E.  L. Fortin, Christianisme et culture philosophique au cinquième siècle: La querelle de l’âme humaine en Occident, Paris, 1959.

evodius’ strange encounters with the dead

303

And he has a parallel in the local African Vincentius Victor.137 In 419/21 Augustine took more time with the young Victor than he had with Evodius to explain that when one sees oneself in dreams, one sees not bodies, but images of bodies.138 He also discussed how souls could recognize one another’s true natures in the afterlife, be it in the images (similitudinibus) of their bodies of in the affections of their minds.139 These images of bodies are not corporeal soulvehicles, but are doing similar work.140 d. The Sleep of the Soul “Satis autem me perturbat, si soporem quendam accipit animus ipse, ut talis sit, qualis cum dormit in corpore constitutus quasi sepultus et in spe tantum uiuens, ceterum nil agens, nihil sciens, maxime si somnio nullo pulsetur. Quae res uehementer terret et quasi extinctum indicat animum.”141 “It disturbs me considerably if the soul itself is overcome by some sort of sleep, so that it exists in a state like that in which it sleeps as it did when it was in the body, as if buried and living only in anticipation, doing nothing else, knowing nothing, above all if it isn’t struck by any dreams. This situation truly terrifies [me] and indicates that the soul was, as it were, extinguished.”

This interesting passage has received little comment. This particular doctrine, the “Sleep of the Soul,” had been brought to Evodius’ attention and rendered him so alarmed that he felt compelled to mention it. His psychological revulsion is notable, rather like that of a claustrophobe who imagines himself confined in a car-trunk by terrorists. The indefinite expression, soporem quendam, is reminiscent of Martianus Capella’s “Neoplatonic quidam”, used to refer to known esoteric doctrines.142 And this might be See Lancel, Saint Augustin, 508-512. Augustinus, De natura et origine animae 4.17.25. 139  Ibidem, 4.19.30. 140  See Proclus, In RP 614E ff, p.  165,  22-166.10K. 141  Ep. 158.7, (CSEL, 44), p. 493. 142  R.  Turcan, “Martianus Capella et Jamblique”, Revue des Études Latines, 36 (1958), p. 253; L. Lenaz, Martianus Capella: De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii liber secundus. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Padova, 1975, p. 19, n. 47; D. Shanzer, A  Philosophical and Literary Commentary on Martianus Capella’s de nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, Classical Studies, Berkeley, 1986, p. 28. 137 

138 

304

danuta shanzer

fitting, for the doctrine is at home in the Syriac and Eastern Churches.143 Evodius’ access is an oddity in a Western context, an interesting piece of mental furniture that suggests contacts with the Eastern Empire.

143  F. Gavin, “The Sleep of the Soul in the Early Syriac Church”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 40 (1920), p. 103-120, discusses Aphraat (late third century) and Ephraem and locates the doctrine in the Persian, Syrian, and Nestorian churches; N.  Constas, “‘To Sleep, Perchance to Dream’: The Middle State of Souls in Patristic and Byzantine Literature”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 55  (2001), p.  91-124. Note however that Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 5.31.2 spoke of even the souls of the disciples waiting in an invisible place till the Resurrection. He did not use the word “sleep” however: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.31.2, ed. by A.  Rousseau, F.  Sagnard, L.  Doutreleau, Paris, 1969 (SChr, 152), p. 394: “Cum enim Dominus in medio umbrae mortis abierit, ubi animae mortuorum erant, post deinde corporaliter resurrexit et post resurrectionem assumptus est, manifestum est quia et discipulorum eius propter quos et haec operatus est Dominus animae abibunt in inuisibilem locum definitum eis a Deo et ibi usque ad resurrectionem commorabuntur sustinentes resurrectionem; post recipientes corpora et perfecte resurgentes, hoc est corporaliter, quemadmodum et Dominus resurrexit, sic uenient ad conspectum Dei”.

From Ivory Tablets to Honeybees. Deciphering Augustine’s Letter to Romanianus (Ep. 15) Angela Zielinski Kinney (Vienna) 1. Introduction Ep.  15, a missive written by Augustine to Romanianus, his patron and friend from childhood, is among the shortest letters Augustine wrote. Dated to 390 ce, it contains a potpourri of realia, literary allusions, and philosophical exhortation. The letter has attracted the interest of scholars seeking specific historical details and traces of Ciceronian influence, but a more comprehensive study has not yet appeared. The time has come for such a study. The advent of digital databases, such as the Library of Latin Texts and the epistolographical Scrinium Augustini, has made it easier for scholars to connect themes in Augustine’s correspondence across his vast corpus. Search engines like Google Books and Google Scholar (in combination with physical books, of course!) have not only enabled scholars to find work in unexpected places – they also make it possible to trace the thread of scholarship on a topic, observing its development and embellishment in various types of publications. Ep.  15, because of its brevity and eclectic content, is a prime candidate for such sleuthing expeditions. This contribution, like Augustine’s letter itself, has multiple goals. The first is to give a philological interpretation of the letter’s opening paragraph and to examine a trail of previous scholarship that has used ep.  15 in the debate regarding late antique letter-writing materials. Secondly, the article will examine Augustine’s literary quotations and allusions in the context of Romanianus’ personal career, with some speculation as to the content Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters, edited by P.  Nehring, M.  Stróżyński & R. Toczko, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediae­ valia, 76), p. 305-330 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.113895

306

angela zielinski kinney

of the trigger letter prompting ep.  15. Finally, a source will be suggested for the aphoristic bee story at the end of the letter. 2. The addressee Before proceeding to the text of the letter, the prosopography of the addressee must be discussed. Romanianus, kinsman of Alypius,1 was born in Thagaste. He grew up with Augustine and the two were very close friends.2 A rich man of high status, he was a leading curialis of Thagaste and owned property there as well as in Carthage. His wealth and magnanimity were manifest in the number of public feasts and spectacular games he sponsored. 3 Augustine mentions him by name in the Confessiones;4 indeed, he himself was the force behind Romanianus’ conversion to Mani­ cheism5. The work Contra Academicos includes two personal dedicatory letters to him in addition to featuring his son, Licentius, as an interlocutor.6 The style of these letters can only be described as emotional and intimate. In them, Augustine acknowledges Romanianus’ financial support and encouragement of his childhood education,7 attributes to him the inspiration to pursue philosophy,8 and urges him to once again apply himself to philosophical matters.9 A fragmentary inscription honoring a certain “Cornelius Romanianus” as the benefactor of a major building has been discovered in Thagaste;10 Romanianus or one of his relatives may have been the dedicatee.11 On the basis of the Thagaste inscription Ep. 27. Conf. 6.14.24 and acad. 1.1.1. 3  Acad. 1.1.2. 4  Conf. 6.14.24. 5  Acad. 1.1.3. 6  Licentius is first mentioned as Romanianus’ son in acad. 1.1.4. See also “Licentius 1”, in PLRE 2, p. 682. 7  Acad. 2.2.3; cf. conf. 2.3.5. 8  Acad. 2.2.4; cf. conf. 6.14.24, where Augustine describes Romanianus’ willingness to contribute to a philosophical commune of sorts. 9  Acad. 2.2.3. 10  CIL VIII 17226. 11  The name Romanianus was rare in the late antique period, as noted by Incerti Auctoris de Ratione Dicendi ad C. Herennium Lib. IV, ed. by F. Marx, 1  2 

from ivory tablets to honeybees

307

and clues in ep. 259 (written by Augustine to a certain Cornelius), Aimé Gabillon argued persuasively that Romanianus was also the addressee of ep.  259.12 Ep.  15, however, is the only extant letter indisputably addressed to him. 3. The letter as physical object The structure of ep.  15 is bipartite, containing only two short paragraphs. The first paragraph tackles practical matters. Augustine first apologizes for the material upon which the letter is written and gives an explanation of why it was not possible to write on anything else. He requests that Romanianus send any spare writing tablets back to him. Augustine then states that he has written a work on the Catholic religion (De uera religione) and that he would like to send it to Romanianus before he returns (presumably to Thagaste); however, this is only possible if he has enough papyrus, and his friend must excuse the work of a scriptorium run by a certain Maiorinus. The paragraph ends with a note pertaining to borrowing books: aside from De oratore, Augustine admits that he has forgotten about the books his friend wanted, but since he is not there at the moment, Romanianus should simply help himself to whatever he wants. The many realia in this paragraph raise a number of questions – among them, why does Augustine talk so much about the physical form of the letter, and what, exactly, is he apologizing for? The very first sentence presents the reader immediately with punctuation and textual problems: “Non haec epistola sic inopiam chartae indicat, ut membranas saltem abundare testetur.”13 Leipzig, 1894, p.  2. Augustine reports that Romanianus was honored with public inscriptions in acad. 1.1.2, in Augustinus, Contra Academicos, ed. by W.M. Green, K.D.  Daur, Turnhout, 1970 (CCSL, 29), p. 4: “si municipales tabulae te non solum ciuium, sed etiam uicinorum patronum aere signarent […]”. 12  A.  Gabillon, “Romanianus, alias Cornelius: Du nouveau sur le bienfateur et l’ami de saint Augustin,” Revue des études augustiniennes, 24 (1978), p. 58-70. 13  Ep. 15.1, in Augustinus, Epistulae, ed. by A. Goldbacher, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 35.

308

angela zielinski kinney

How should one understand and translate this sentence? Published translations fall into one of two camps: one group interprets the sentence as communicating that Augustine lacks papyrus but has a good supply of parchment, the other interprets it as stating that Augustine has neither papyrus nor much parchment. This small, seemingly insignificant detail and assumptions based upon it have not merely affected interpretations of ep.  15, but have also left a mark upon the broader history of late antique letter-writing. Aloysius  L. Goldbacher, the editor of the 1895 CSEL edition of Augustine’s epistles,14 reads non with the sense of nonne and punctuates the sentence with a question mark. Two published translations of ep.  15 follow Goldbacher and translate it as a rhetorical question: James Houston Baxter: “Does this letter not show that, if we are short of papyrus, we have at least abundance of parchment?”15 Wilfred Parsons: “This letter points to a scarcity of paper, but does it not at least show that there is plenty of parchment?”16

The translations deriving from this punctuation portray Augustine as lacking papyrus but with plenty of parchment at hand. Other translators disregard Goldbacher’s punctuation, yet translate the sentence with the same meaning: Hercule Géraud: “Si ma lettre prouve la disette de papier, elle montre aussi que nous avons du parchemin en abondance.”17 Roland Teske: “This letter does not indicate so much my lack of paper as it bears witness to my abundance of parchment.”18

Géraud’s rendering translates neither the non in the main clause nor saltem in the dependent clause. Teske likewise omits saltem but sticks closer to the Latin. Another group of scholars translate the first sentence in such a way that the meaning is entirely different. In these translations, Augustine indicates that he lacks both papyrus and parchment: Ibidem. J.H. Baxter, Augustine: Select Letters, Cambridge (Ma), 2003, p. 12-14. 16  W. Parsons, Letters, Volume 1 (1-82), Washington, DC, 2010, p. 36 (originally published in 1951). 17  H.  Géraud, “Des libelli et des lettres,” Bulletin du bibliophile, 3 (1838), p. 877. 18  R. Teske, Letters 1-99, WSA 2.1, Hyde Park, 2001, p. 44. 14 

15 

from ivory tablets to honeybees

309

Jean-Joseph-François Poujouat: “Cette lettre, en vous prouvant que je manqué de papier, ne doit pas vous donner à penser que je sois plus riche en parchemin.”19 J.G.  Cunningham: “This letter indicates a scarcity of paper, but not so as to testify that parchment is plentiful here.” 20 José O’Callaghan: “Esta carta, al indicar mi falta de papel, ni, de mucho, pretende expresar mi abundancia de pergaminos.” 21 Terenzio Alimonti and Luigi Carrozzi: “Questa lettera non denuncia la mia povertà di carta in modo da provare, se non altro, che mi abbonda la pergamena.” 22 Serge Lancel: “Si cette lettre montre que je manque de papier, elle ne témoigne pas pour autant que je suis riche en parchemin!” 23

Although none of these translators comment on the syntax, it is clear that they read the opening line of ep.  15 as a special type of consecutive clause – a clause that E.C.  Woodcock describes as having an “idiomatic twist,” in that it expresses “not a natural result, but something unexpected or contradictory.”24 Such a clause is not easy to translate accurately without sounding stilted. The syntactical nuances of the initial sentence are not insignificant, as the meaning of the paragraph turns upon this point of grammar. Does Augustine lack both papyrus and parchment, or only papyrus? Context must guide the interpretation. Indeed, the next lines suggest that parchment was not in great supply:

19  J.-J.-F.  Poujoulat, Lettres de Saint Augustin, vol.  I, Lille – Paris: Librairie de S. J. Lefort, 1858, p. 41. 20  J.G.  Cunningham, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, ed. by Philip Schaff, Buffalo, NY, 1887, (revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102015.htm). 21  J.  O’Callaghan, El Papiro en Los Padres Grecolatinos, Barcelona, 1967, p. 28. 22  Le Lettere di Sant’ Agostino, Opere di Sant’ Agostino 21, ed. by M. Pellegrino, T. Alimonti, and L. Carrozzi, Rome, 1969. 23  S.  Lancel, Lettres 1-30, Oeuvres de saint Augustin 6e série, vol.  40A, Paris, 2011, p. 308-309. 24  E.C.  Woodcock, A  New Latin Syntax §167: “An idiomatic twist is often given to a consecutive ut-clause by expressing in it, not a natural result, but something unexpected or contradictory. […]  Finally, a consecutive ut-clause was occasionally used to state the limiting conditions under which something holds true. […] In such contexts ita … ut appears to mean ‘on condition that,’ ‘provided that,’ or ‘if.’”

310

angela zielinski kinney “tabellas eburneas quas habeo auunculo tuo cum litteris misi. Tu enim huic pelliculae facilius ignosces, quia differri non potuit quod ei scripsi, et tibi non scribere etiam ineptissimum existimaui.” 25 “I sent the ivory tablets I have to your uncle with a letter. You’ll more easily excuse this bit of skin, because what I have written to him could not be delayed, and I thought that not writing to you would be quite tactless.”

Augustine explains here his specific exigency: he would have rather written on an alternative material – tabellas eburneas (ivory tablets) – but he had to use them to send Romanianus’ uncle an urgent letter. He thus asks his friend to forgive the pellicula upon which the letter is written; it was, essentially, the only writing material available. The use of the diminutive pellicula (“a bit of skin”) to refer to a piece of parchment is rare; according to the TLL, only Philippus (d.  455/6 ce) and Augustine use the word in this sense.26 If the opening sentence admits a paucity of both chartae and membranae, the diminutive pellicula is almost certainly deprecatory. The letter must have been written on a sorry scrap of parchment indeed. In light of this, this first line may be read as a kind of joke – something akin to: “This letter is evidence of how much papyrus and parchment I have on hand – that is, not much! Ha!” In any case, the apology here seems to be for the quality of the letter’s parchment, which can hardly be called membrana. The shabbiness or size of the parchment may even account for the brevity of the letter. a. Letter-writing materials in Late Antiquity Why do these details about Augustine’s writing material matter? Problematic readings of ep. 15 have contributed to a scholarly debate stretching back at least to the 19th century about the use of parchment for late antique correspondence. This debate centers on the questions of when parchment came to be used and for what purpose. Evidence and clues are few and far-between; it is no wonder that letters such as ep.  15 are considered tiny goldmines in the scholarship on this subject. Nevertheless, it is remarkable how often this epistle is cited as authoritative proof for broad-rang25  26 

Ep.  15.1 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 35. TLL s.v. pellicula § I A 2d.

from ivory tablets to honeybees

311

ing statements regarding letter-writing materials in late antiquity. Ep.  15 is sometimes cited together with a passage from Jerome’s seventh epistle, which is worth briefly examining before proceeding to the scholarship making use of both Augustine’s letter and Jerome’s. In Ep.  7, Jerome first expresses deep love for the addressees (Chromatius, Jovinus, and Eusebius) and describes how he “converses” with their letter, which has the power to unite friends across distances.27 He then uses an anecdote pertaining to writing materials (in conjunction with rhetorical questions) in order to complain that their letter was too short: “Quibus hoc primum queror: cur tot interiacentibus spatiis maris atque terrarum tam paruam epistulam miseretis, nisi quod ita merui, qui uobis, ut scribitis, ante non scripsi. Chartam defuisse non puto Aegypto ministrante commercia. Et si aliqui Ptolomaeus maria clausisset, tamen rex Attalus membranas e Pergamo miserat, ut penuria chartae pellibus pensaretur; unde pergamenarum nomen ad hanc usque diem tradente sibi inuicem posteritate seruatum est.” 28 “First I want to complain about one thing: why have you sent such a short letter, when such a great expanse of sea and land separates us? It must be that I deserved this, since I (as you have written) did not write to you first. I  do not think that there could be a lack of papyrus, since Egypt continues to drive the market. And even if some Ptolemy had closed the seas, King Attalus would still have sent parchment from Pergamum so that the papyrus shortage would have been offset through the skins – on account of this incident the name pergamena (‘parchment’) has been handed down through the ages and preserved to this very day.”

Jerome’s mild chastisement includes a description of the ancient aetiology of parchment. The earliest record of the story is by Varro (quoted by Pliny): on account of rivalry between his own library and that of Eumenes, Ptolemy suppressed the export of 27  Ep.  7.2, in Hieronymus, Epistulae, ed. I. Hilberg, Vienna, 1910 (CSEL, 54), p. 27: “Nunc cum uestris litteris fabulor, illas amplexor, illae mecum loquuntur, illae hic tantum Latine sciunt. […]  Quotiensque carissimos mihi uultus notae manus referunt inpressa uestigia, totiens aut ego hic non sum aut uos his estis. Credite amori uera dicenti: et cum has scriberem, uos uidebam.” 28  Ibidem.

312

angela zielinski kinney

papyrus; in response, parchment was discovered at Pergamum.29 To interpret this anecdote as anything other than part of an epistolographic topos (that of the eagerly yearned-for letter, which is ideally lengthy) seems unwise. Jerome mentions papyrus as the quasi-default writing material primarily because the anecdote describes the reason for the advent of parchment. There is no indication that Jerome necessarily believed that letters should be written on papyrus and that parchment was somehow the “second choice” or extremely uncommon. Nevertheless, Jerome’s Ep. 7 is often used as “evidence” that parchment letters were rare in late antiquity. The nineteenth-century scholar Theodor Birt, a pioneer in the history of the ancient book, was perhaps the first to use ep.  15 (paired with Jerome, Ep.  7) in a discussion about ancient parchment: “Erst beim Hieronymus finden wir die Angabe, dass man zum Briefe Membrane nimmt, und zwar ‘wenn es an Charta fehlt’. […]  Und Augustin schreibt: Non haec epistola sic inopiam chartae indicat  […]”. 30 Birt merely mentions the two letters as evidence. He does not attempt to analyze the texts in depth or establish a broader generalization on the basis of these two citations. Later scholars, however, cite these two letters in wide-ranging arguments about writing materials in late antiquity. Karl Hulley’s investigation of palaeographical references in Jerome provides one example. Concerning Jerome, Ep. 7.2, he writes: “[I]t is reasonable to infer that Jerome and the friends whom he is addressing regarded papyrus as the material on which letters were customarily written. Parchment, however, is suggested as something which might be used as a substitute, especially for some good reason, such, for example, as the one he himself mentions – a shortage of papyrus.”

He then cites Augustine, ep.  15 as a comparison and analyzes it in a curious way:

29  Pliny, Historia naturalis 13.70. See subsequent sources for this story and a discussion of historical points in Richard  R. Johnson, “Ancient and Medieval Accounts of the ‘Invention’ of Parchment,” California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 3 (1970), p. 115-122. 30  T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin, 1882, p. 62.

from ivory tablets to honeybees

313

“Here it will be observed that Augustine was not faced with a shortage of papyrus; rather, he was using parchment pretty much as a matter of choice. Yet it is significant that he apologizes for his choice - his only excuse is that his wax tablets were not at hand – and that he realizes his correspondent will take it for granted that he did not have papyrus available. 31 [paired with Jerome, ep. 7]”

Hulley seems to contradict himself here, stating both that Augustine was not faced with a shortage of papyrus(!), 32 but also that his reader would have assumed he lacked papyrus. In this interpretation, Augustine deliberately chooses to write on parchment and apologizes for it – apparently because parchment was still a less desirable and less common material for letters. 33 Subsequent discussions of ancient and late antique writing materials follow Hulley’s lead and describe Augustine as apologizing for using parchment: William Brashear: “Augustine once apologized for writing on vellum instead of papyrus – or his personal ivory tablets.”34 Carlo Bertelli: “Saint Augustine  […] asks his correspondent to excuse him for using parchment instead of papyrus.”35

These statements imply that parchment is by nature inappropriate or unexpected. Subsequent scholarship builds upon this general-

31  K.K.  Hulley, “Light Cast by St  Jerome on Certain Palaeographical Points,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 54 (1943), p. 84. 32  Augustine actually mentions his lack of papyrus twice in ep. 15.1, using the phrases “inopiam chartae” and “si charta interim non desit”. But perhaps Hulley meant that there is no record of a widespread papyrus shortage in 390 ce. 33  Hulley, “Light Cast by St Jerome”, p. 84-85, although he immediately qualifies this interpretation: “It would seem, therefore, that the testimony of Jerome may be regarded as showing that a letter written on parchment was an exception to ordinary usage and perhaps to good form even at a time when parchment was widely used for various forms of writing. Jerome’s remarks, however, do not prove that the use of parchment for letter-writing was an utter novelty in his day.” 34  W. Brashear, “Egyptian Papyrus Then, Chinese Paper Today,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 3 (1997), p. 118. 35  C. Bertelli, “The Production and Distribution of Books in Antiquity,” in The Sixth Century: Production, Distribution, and Demand, ed. by Richard Hodges and William Bowden, Leiden, 1998, p. 43.

314

angela zielinski kinney

ization, citing ep.  15 as “proof” for the assertion that parchment was rarely used for writing letters during late antiquity: Francesc Navarro Coma: “El material usado generalmente para las cartas era el papiro y en menor medida se usaba el pergamino. En la ep. 15 Agustín se excusa por el uso de pergamino alegando que en aquel momento no tenía papiro.”36 Anne Marie Luijendijk: “The fact that Augustine apologized for his use of parchment in itself proves how seldom this occurred as writing material for letters.”37 [paired with Jerome ep. 7] Lincoln Blumell: “Augustine  […] similarly remark[ed] that papyrus was still the most common medium for letter writing.”38

These analyses presume that Augustine’s pellicula is equivalent to a membrana. But if, as argued later, the diminutive pellicula is meant as a pejorative comment on the quality of the specific parchment used, then these generalizations simply cannot stand. Assuming that all membranae are pelliculae is a bit like saying all pieces of paper are scraps from the rubbish bin. Some scholars add emotional timbre to the text of ep.15. Here, Augustine is depicted as complaining that he is forced to write on any material that is not papyrus: Patricia Rosenmeyer: “Augustine grumbles that the shortage of papyrus forces him to use his highly valuable ivory tablets as well as the less desirable (but still fairly high-grade) parchment for his correspondence.”39

F. Navarro Coma, “Romaniano y Agustín: Amistad e intereses entre un curial rico y un curial pobre,” POLIS: Revista de ideas y formas políticas de la Antigüedad Clásica 10 (1998), p. 265, n. 107. 37  A.M.  Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Harvard, 2008, p. 146. 38  L.H.  Blumell, “The Message and the Medium: Some Observations on Epistolary Communication in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 10 (2014), p. 27-28. 39  P.A.  Rosenmeyer, Ancient Epistolary Fictions: the Letter in Greek Literature, Cambridge, 2001, p.  23. Note also the following remark: “His letter also reveals that, in a lapse in an exchange, tablets might stop circulating in the addressee’s house, rather than being returned empty [!] to their owners. He requests the return of any tablets stored at his friend’s house. We may also read between the lines of this request a gentle reprimand to a friend who has not written back.” Since Augustine is responding to specific requests Romanianus made, it seems unlikely that Romanianus owes him a letter 36 

from ivory tablets to honeybees

315

It is not clear from the text that Augustine would have preferred papyrus in place of his ivory tablets or parchment – perhaps he would have been content writing on a nicely prepared membrana. It must be noted again that if Augustine is indeed writing on “high-grade parchment,” pellicula is an odd term for it. Peter Brown, who examines ep.  15 through the lens of wealth, adds both emotional and economical coloring to what Augustine has written: “In a letter he wrote to Romanianus at this time, Augustine spoke of the material costs of such work [i.e., writing]. He had already loaned Romanianus [sic!] his ivory writing tablets for perusal. He wrote to Romanianus that he must be content with cheap and durable sheets of parchment (taken, perhaps, from local herds) rather than with the more elegant format of imported papyri.”40

There is one major error here: in Brown’s reading, the exchange of ivory tablets with Romanianus’ uncle is mistaken for a “loan” to Romanianus himself. A  great amount of fervor is read into the letter. The opening line is recast as a quasi-rebuke about finances – to the rich Romanianus, no less! – instead of as a (possibly self-deprecatory) remark about the letter’s material substance. Augustine is transformed into a pioneer for sustainable, locally grown writing materials and takes a valiant stand against expensive imported wares. Brown infers a remarkable number of things from this short letter, the text of which bears no obvious signs of financial anxiety on Augustine’s part. Furthermore, the characterization of papyrus as an imported luxury (and therefore a writing material more expensive than parchment) is not true, especially given Augustine’s location in Africa. The myth that papyrus was costly and parchment cheap has been convincingly disproven by scholars such as Naphtali Lewis and Theodore Skeat, who have shown that the cost of papyrus was not outrageously high for anyone of moderate social status in antiquity.41 One can observe, however, how this myth continues to propagate. at this point in the exchange. An outline of the letter exchange is given in F. Navarro Coma, “Romaniano y Agustín,” p. 263-66. 40  P.  Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 ad, Princeton, 2012, p. 170. 41  N.  Lewis, Papyrus in Classical Antiquity, Oxford, 1974, p.  129-134; cf.  Theodore  C. Skeat, “Was Papyrus Regarded as ‘Cheap’ or ‘Expensive’ in the Ancient World?”, Aegyptus, 75 (1995), p. 74-93.

316

angela zielinski kinney

This brief history of scholarship demonstrates how the details about papyrus and parchment preserved in ep. 15 are, at the very least, of great interest to scholars who study ancient writing materials. But the analysis offered earlier in this paper suggests that none of the quoted scholars treat the letter with the nuance it deserves. The desire to see parchment as an “undesirable” writing material is present in all of the citations given. Augustine’s actual words and their possible meaning are lost in the framework imposed upon them. b. Tabellae nostrae The third writing material mentioned in ep.  15 – tabellas eburneas – must also be considered. What significance does these tablets have in the larger context of the paragraph? “tabellas eburneas quas habeo, auunculo tuo cum litteris misi. […]  sed tabellas, si quae ibi nostrae sunt, propter huius modi necessitates mittas peto.”42 “I sent the ivory tablets I have to your uncle with a letter. […] But if you have any of our tablets there, I  ask that you send them on account of circumstances like these.”

This reference may give subtle clues as to how Augustine and Romanianus were accustomed to communicate. In this context, tabellas eburneas must signify ivory wax tablets.43 Wax tablets were a common method of exchanging letters in antiquity, but such tablets were normally made of wood. 44 Ivory tablets were, in fact, a luxury item – an item Augustine might have conceivably received from his friend and patron as a gift. Given that it is clear (even just from this letter!) that Augustine corresponded regularly with Romanianus and yet this is the only extant letter unmistakably addressed to him, one is tempted to ask whether the two

Ep.  15.1 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 35. The interpretation that the tablets constituted a case for transporting letters does not make sense in the context of this letter. In ep. 15.1, Augustine is focused on the letter as a physical object; if the ivory tablets were merely a case, parchment or papyrus would still be required in order to write. 44  D. Božič and M. Feugère, “Les instruments de l’écriture,” Gallia 61 (2004), p. 22. 42 

43 

from ivory tablets to honeybees

317

friends corresponded almost exclusively by means of wax tablets – perhaps fancy ivory tablets originally supplied by Romanianus. The sequence of events may have looked something like this: Romanianus, presumed to be in Thagaste at the time, writes to Augustine on ivory wax tablets. Augustine sends the tablets to Romanianus’ uncle (also presumably in Thagaste). After doing so, Augustine doesn’t have any more tablets. While traveling,45 he writes Romanianus on a shabby piece of parchment, because he lacks any other suitable writing material. He begins his missive with some explanation for the material of the letter, because Romanianus would have expected the precious tablets back. In his message, Augustine asks Romanianus to send any “stranded tablets” to him, presumably because he is having trouble finding adequate writing materials. And although it is not uncommon for the first person plural to denote the author, perhaps this time, when Augustine writes nostrae, he actually does mean “our tablets,” that is, “the tablets that you and I are accustomed to pass back and forth.” 4. Literary and philosophical allusions In the letter’s second paragraph, Augustine addresses some good news Romanianus must have relayed to him; one can see his reaction to this news reflected in literary and philosophical allusions. Augustine thanks Romanianus for an invitation to share in the “joy of [his] household,”46 but declines by quoting Aeneid 5.848-849. Rather, Augustine urges his friend to use this newfound peace for contemplation. He then proceeds to philosophize about the nature of success and wealth. He quotes Lk 16:12, part of the parable of the unjust steward. Finally, Romanianus is urged to rise above mutable things and seek that which is unchanging. Augustine concludes with a quasi-aphoristic statement about the danger of bees drowning in an excess of honey.

45 

nio”. 46 

Ep.  15.1 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  36: “absens enim quid plus faciam, non inueEp. 15.2 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 36: “domestici tui gaudii”.

318

angela zielinski kinney

a. The Good Fortune of Romanianus The first question posed by this section of the text concerns Romanianus’ invitation, which Augustine acknowledges thus: “gratissimum mihi est, quod in ultima epistula me participem domestici tui gaudii facere uoluisti. Sed  […]”47 “I was extremely pleased to read in your last letter that you wanted me to be a participant in the joy of your household. But  […]”

What exactly has been offered? The invitation to which Augustine alludes has been interpreted as a proposal that he come live with Romanianus,48 a highly probable theory, given his friend’s hospitality in the past. The phrase “domestici tui gaudii” calls to mind the description of Romanianus’ hospitality and generosity in acad. 2.2.3: “tu me adulescentulum pauperem ad studia pergentem et domo et sumptu et, quod plus est, animo excepisti; tu patre orbatum amicitia consolatus es, hortatione animasti, ope adiuuisti; tu in nostro ipso municipio fauore familiaritate communicatione domus tuae paene tecum clarum primatemque fecisti.” 49 “You received me – a poor young man eagerly pursuing his studies – into both your home and your riches, and what’s more, your spirit. You consoled me with friendship when I lost my father; you encouraged me with your exhortation; you helped me with your resources. Through your favor, friendship, and hospitality, you almost made me famous and noble just like yourself.”

Romanianus’ home and resources are at the center of this reminiscence. The “domestici tui gaudii” in ep.  15.2 may simply be another way of rendering “communicatio domus tuae” – an invitation to once again share in Romanianus’ household. The rest of the paragraph may give further clues about the reason behind this invitation and its relationship to Romanianus’ worldly successes. Ibidem. E.g. J.  Divjak, “Epistulae,” in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2, ed. by C.  Mayer, Basel, 2001, col.  927 (Ep. 15): “Im Hauptteil des Briefes bedankt sich A. für die Einladung, bei Romanianus zu leben, lehnt das Angebot indes ab.” 49  Acad. 2.2.3 (CCSL, 29), p. 19. 47 

48 

from ivory tablets to honeybees

319

Augustine’s response to this invitation comes in the form of a literary quotation followed by philosophical advice. Words meaning “peace” are used throughout ep. 15.2, but the characterization of the concept in general is mutable. Augustine begins by quoting Aeneid 5.848-849, which depicts an ominous and deceptive stillness: “Mene salis placidi uultum fluctusque quietos ignorare iubes?” “Do you ask me to ignore the sea’s tranquil veneer and calm waves?”

The context of these verses in the Aeneid is rather dark. The god Somnus appears in the form of Phorbas before Palinurus, the helmsman of Aeneas’ ship. In this guise, the god attempts to convince Palinurus to sleep and relinquish control of the ship to the sea. The quotation above is part of the sailor’s refusal to abandon his post. But his words are in vain: in the subsequent lines, Somnus uses Lethe’s soporific dew to drug the helmsman before throwing him overboard. Upon learning of his death, Aeneas erroneously assumes Palinurus had been overconfident and too trusting of the calm waters.50 The lines are thus imbued with a warning about deceptive calm and the danger of sleepy inattentiveness. Why has Augustine responded to Romanianus with an admonition about dangerous stillness? Jean Doignon examines this quotation briefly in the wider context of Augustine’s philosophizing about the management of earthly affairs. He interprets it as a reference to the opening image of De beata uita: the turbulent sea of life and the temptation of the “fallacissima serenitas uoluptatum honorumque”. 51 This connection is no doubt important, not least because there is a Virgilian allusion in the relevant section of De beata uita as well.52 However, there is another possible reason for Virgil, Aeneid 5.867-871. Beata u. 1.2. See the analysis in J. Doignon, “Thèmes de l’éthique politique de Cicéron dans la lettre 15 d’Augustin sur la gestion des affaires de ce monde,” Orpheus, 6 (1985), p. 36-37. 52  Augustine’s “labentia in Oceanum astra suspexi” alludes to Aeneid 3.515 (“sidera cuncta notat tacito labentia caelo”), as noted by R.A.  Brown, S. Aureli Augustini De beata vita: A Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, Patristic Studies 72, Washington, DC, 1944, p. 124. 50  51 

320

angela zielinski kinney

the citation of Aeneid 5.848-849 in ep. 15.2. It may be intended to remind Romanianus of another time when Augustine appealed to him to “wake up”:53 “[…] illud ipsum  […] quod in te diuinum, nescio quo, uitae huius somno ueternoque sopitum est, uariis illis durisque iactationibus secreta prouidentia excitare decreuit. Euigila, euigila, oro te!”54 “[…] that divine element in you (whatever it may be), which has been lulled to sleep by the lethargic slumber of this life, mysterious Providence has resolved to rouse through the hard knocks you have suffered. Wake up, wake up, I  beg you!”

The first dedicatory letter of acad. uses the dichotomy of sleepiness and wakefulness to argue that misfortunes (“iactationes”) have a providential purpose. Euigilare does occur once in the opening to beata u.,55 but there is no accompanying image of sleep, while the passage in acad. uses three different words (one of which is rare and poetic) to emphasize Romanianus’ dangerous slumber.56 The word iactationes is repeated in the second dedicatory letter in the same context: Romanianus’ woes.57 Although the nature of these iactationes is not made explicit, some hints in acad. suggest that the word may refer to legal troubles concerning property: he is described as drowning in riches, only to be swept away by unfavorable winds of fortune;58 Romanianus’ experience with the 53  The verb euigilare has strong associations with conversion in Augustine’s work. See R.J. O’Connell, Images of Conversion in St Augustine’s Confessions, New York, 1996, p.  280-281. For the Manichaean, Neoplatonic, and biblical trope of the “wake-up call,” see A.  Wlosok, Laktanz und die philosophische Gnosis, Heidelberg, 1960, p.  138, n.  69; U.  Duchrow, Sprachverständnis und biblisches Hören bei Augustin, Tübingen, 1965, p. 188; and W. Schmid, “Philo­ sophisches und Medizinisches in der Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius,” in Römische Philosophie, ed. by G. Maurach, Darmstadt, 1976, p. 361-366. 54  Acad. 1.1.3 (CCSL, 29), p. 4. 55  Beata u. 1.2 (CCSL, 29), p. 65: “in ipso quodam modo portu (scil. philosophiae) euigilant”. 56  See K.  Schlapbach, Augustin: Contra Academicos Buch 1, Berlin – New York, 2003, p. 52. Veternus is the rare poetic word; it occurs in a similar context in Virgil, Georgics 1.124. 57  Acad. 2.2.4 (CCSL, 29), p. 18: “sed quia siue uitae huius multis uariisque iactationibus, Romaniane, ut in eodem te probas […]” 58  Acad. 1.1.1.

from ivory tablets to honeybees

321

fragile, fleeting, and ruinous nature of worldly goods can serve as an example and warning for others;59 his mind is likened to a thunderbolt that is surrounded by the clouds of domestic matters;60 and there is a curious discussion of his “adversary,” which may refer to his opponent in court. Augustine also recounts his friend’s visit to Milan, when Romanianus lamented that he was bound by “the chains of troublesome lawsuits.”61 It is reasonable to infer from these clues that he had lost an important legal case immediately before Augustine penned acad. Augustine recasts this loss as a providential impetus rousing his friend from torpor. If the iactationes in acad. signify that Romanianus had lost a large lawsuit, could the dangerous calm alluded to in ep.  15 indicate that he has this time won a lawsuit? Clearly something good has happened to provoke this letter. One explanation for the Aeneid quotation is that Romanianus is no longer provoked by this “providential impetus”: that is, he is not currently experiencing upheavals of fortune. Augustine has thus become concerned about Romanianus falling back asleep – relaxing again into the comfort of a luxurious life – hence the decision to quote a portion of the Aeneid dealing with the treachery of sleep. In the subsequent lines, Augustine reassures him that neither of the two friends are duped by the calm waters of the sea. But Romanianus is urged to use the divine gift of peace – quies – wisely.62 Quies (the opposite of iactationes) may be read here as the peace associated with the end of legal troubles. Perhaps Romanianus is finally free from the troublesome lawsuits that bound and hindered him a few years earlier. Significantly, Augustine exhorts his friend to use this newfound tranquility for contemplation – and not (perhaps) for new

Acad. 1.1.2 (CCSL, 29), p. 4: “Non enim tibi alienis exemplis persuadendum est, quam fluxa et fragilia et plena calamitatum sint omnia, quae bona mortales putant, cum ita ex aliqua parte bene expertus sis, ut ex te caeteris persuadere possimus.” 60  Acad. 2.1.2 61  Acad. 2.2.4 (CCSL, 29), p. 20: “tam magno es elatus gaudio, tam sancto huius uitae inflammatus ardore, ut te diceres, si tu ab illarum inportunarum litium uinculis aliquo modo eximereris, omnia mea uincula etiam patrimonii tui mecum participatione rupturum”. 62  Ep.  15.2 (CSEL, 34,1), p.  36: “quare si ad melius cogitandum quies aliqua data est, utere diuino beneficio”. 59 

322

angela zielinski kinney

business ventures or frivolous pursuits. The obligatory otium, a requirement for doing philosophy, is certainly implied.63 Peace, which in the Aeneid quotation is dangerous and not to be trusted, is now a neutral state – a benefit that can be used productively for serious reflection. Augustine continues with his philosophical exhortation, this time focusing on the proper management of worldly resources – yet another indication that Romanianus may have shared news of a successful outcome at court: “Nec enim debemus nobis, cum ista proueniunt, sed illis per quos proueniunt, gratulari, quoniam iusta et officiosa et pro suo genere pacatior atque tranquillior rerum temporalium administratio recipiendorum aeternorum meritum gignit, si non teneat, cum tenetur, non implicet, cum multiplicatur, si non, cum putatur, inuoluat.”64 “For we ought not to congratulate ourselves, when such things happen, but those through whom they happen, since stewardship of temporal affairs that is just and kind and – in accordance with its nature – rather peaceful and tranquil merits the acquisition of eternal things, if when [wealth] is held, it does not take hold; if when it is multiplied, it does not entangle; if when it is reckoned up, it does not enmesh.”

Augustine seems to suggest that Romanianus has expressed pride in his own accomplishments. The identification of the illis per quos (“the little people”) remains unclear. If he is implying that God has not received due credit for Romanianus’ good fortune, one would expect a singular pronoun. The sentence continues with a philosophical reflection on proper administration of one’s resources.65 63  In acad. 2.2.4, Augustine contrasts the otium he sought (and ultimately found at Cassiciacum – cf. acad. 1.1.3) with his own mundane burdens as well as with Romanianus’ exhausting lawsuits. For a discussion of the context of Augustine’s otium and his ideas about wealth in the Cassiciacum dialogues, see D.E.  Trout, “Augustine at Cassiciacum: Otium honestum and the Social Dimensions of Conversion,” Vigiliae Christianae, 42, 2 (1988), p. 132-146. 64  Ep. 15.2 (CSEL, 34,1), p. 36. There is a textual problem at the end of the sentence. Goldbacher restores putatur from the manuscripts in place of the Maurists’ puzzling emendation (pacatur). He also postulates a lacuna before putatur. 65  Parallels to Cicero’s political ethics have been pointed out by Doignon, “Thèmes de l’éthique”, p. 36-43.

from ivory tablets to honeybees

323

Augustine states here that stewardship of earthly affairs should be conducted in a way fitting to its nature, that is, pacatior and tranquillior.66 The characterization of “rerum temporalium administratio” as an activity that is by nature (“pro suo genere”) peaceful and serene seems odd – but this is obviously an ideal picture of how business should be conducted. Could this a subtle commentary on Romanianus’ troubled legal past, which up until now was anything but peaceful? At this point in the letter, the notion of peace has been redeemed – indeed, managing worldly affairs peacefully and calmly merits eternal rewards, provided the manager is not consumed by such affairs. The mutable characterization of peace in ep.  15 shows how Augustine works to fit Romanianus’ good fortune into a new rhetorical framework meant to urge him toward conversion. Whereas in acad., the misfortunes of legal troubles became elements by which the spark of divinity in his friend could be awakened, in this letter the situation has changed, and Augustine must take a different tack. He portrays the gift of peace as likewise providential (diuino beneficio) and gives instructions on how it can be used productively and not wasted. During Romanianus’ legal troubles a few years earlier, Augustine had attempted to persuade him to abandon worldly ambitions.67 In ep.  15, he seems to propose a compromise of sorts: earthly affairs can be stewarded well, but that stewardship should be peaceful and quiet, not life-consuming. Augustine follows up this depiction of the ideal household administration with disclaimers focused on the intrinsic dangers of money. Namely, he warns that those dealing with money risk getting “stuck” or entangled in it – a theme that will reappear at

66  Doignon points out that “pacatior atque tranquillior” is a iunctura found in Cicero, De oratore 1.30 (“in pacatis tranquillisque ciuitatibus”) and Pro Cluentio 94 (“tempus hoc tranquillum atque pacatum”). Incidentally, in ep.  15, De oratore is one of the books Romanianus had requested (and the only book mentioned by name). Cf. sol. 1.10.17, in Augustinus, Soliloquia, De inmortalitate animae, De quantitate animae, ed. by W. Hörmann, Turnhout, 1986 (CSEL, 89), p. 26: “Prorsus mihi unus Ciceronis liber facillime persuasit nullo modo appetendas esse diuitias, sed si prouenerint, sapientissime atque cautissime administrandas”. 67  E.g., acad. 1.1.3, 2.2.6, 2.3.7.

324

angela zielinski kinney

the end of ep. 15.68 Like peace, wealth is a mixed blessing: it is not a malum in se, but there are potential dangers; one must handle and use it wisely. a. Biblical quotation The letter next quotes Luke 16:12, a verse that, on its own, seems out of place in this context: “Et si in alieno fideles non fuistis, quod vestrum est, quis dabit uobis?” “And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?”69

Lancel has already suggested that this verse is quoted to evoke the next verse (Luke 16:13), which is much harsher:70 “Nemo seruus potest duobus dominis seruire: aut enim unum odiet, et alterum diliget: aut uni adhaerebit, et alterum contemnet. Non potestis Deo seruire et mamonae.” “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.”

This is surely a self-explanatory warning about the dangers of wealth – the very topic discussed prior to the biblical quotation in. By quoting the previous, less hostile verse, Augustine can allude to a harsher admonition indirectly (and thus, more gently); this rhetorical strategy saves the letter from sounding overly condemnatory. Augustine has also been careful to talk about money only obliquely in ep.  15. Given that Lk 16:13 contains an extremely pejorative word for riches (mamonae) – a word that had already been associated with greed, evil, and the devil71 – it is unlikely that Augustine would have desired to put this verse in writing, so to speak. But perhaps he meant to trigger not just one, but a 68  The subject of the verbs after gignit is suppressed, but it must be wealth – nothing else makes sense in context. 69  All biblical translations are from Richard Challoner’s 1750 revision of the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate. 70  Lancel, Lettres 1-30, p. 608. 71  See K.  Preisendanz, “Mamonas,” in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband V, Stuttgart, 1995, p. 649.

from ivory tablets to honeybees

325

cluster of verses in Lk 16 by quoting Lk 16:12. Given the previous sentence of ep. 15, in which the stewardship of earthly affairs can potentially merit eternal rewards, Lk 16:9-11 are likewise relevant in this context: “Et ego uobis dico: facite uobis amicos de mamona iniquitatis, ut cum defeceritis, recipiant uos in aeterna tabernacula. Qui fidelis est in minimo, et in maiori fidelis est, et qui in modico iniquus est, et in maiori iniquus est. Si ergo in iniquo mamona fideles non fuistis, quod uerum est quis credet uobis?” “And  I say to you: Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in that which is greater, and he that is unjust in that which is little is unjust also in that which is greater. If then you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon, who will trust you with that which is the true?”

Augustine certainly implies that Romanianus could be rewarded for careful management of his estate and encourages him to govern it in a particular way before adding a disclaimer about the dangers of money. Lk 16:9-11 support Augustine’s instructions regarding the prudent administration of one’s resources and the rewards one could merit thereby, while Lk 16:13 enhances the warning about being ruled by wealth. In fact, one could say that the only verse in this passage irrelevant for Romanianus is the trigger verse itself. Additionally, practical concerns may have played a role in the verse Augustine chose to cite. If, as discussed earlier, his scrap of parchment was indeed very small, he may have picked the shortest verse within the passage he wished to evoke (Lk 16:9-13) – in this case, Luke 16:12. c. A curious aphorism The penultimate sentence of ep.  15 exhorts Romanianus to let go of temporal cares, to soar above earthly matters, and to seek what is unchanging and eternal. This exhortation (and the entire letter) ends with a flourish that sounds very much like an aphorism: “Nam et in mellis copia, non frustra pennas habet apicula; necat enim haerentem.” “For even amidst an abundance of honey, it is not without reason that the bee has its wings, for honey kills the one who remains stuck in it.”

326

angela zielinski kinney

Doignon suggests a connection between the bee image and Augustine’s Soliloquies, where sticky birdlime (uiscum) – a Platonic symbol for sensual pleasures – threatens to snag the wings of the soul.72 He believes Augustine was influenced by the literary trope of the “honey trap,” which dates back at least to Ovid.73 The Platonic resonance seems fitting here, but the literary trope is slightly off. In Augustine’s image, the honey itself is the problem; there is nothing hidden underneath it, no poison or snare. Furthermore, the bees – the very creators of the honey – are the ones who succumb. It is thus worth exploring what other sources may lie behind the bee aphorism. Certain features of the sentence suggest that the bee story may have originated in a fable. The story is a “fictitious, metaphorical narrative.”74 An animal is the subject, and a moral aetiology is suggested for its physiology. The Vulgar Latin diminutive apicula is used in place of apis, the standard term in Classical Latin, which may indicate an oral origin.75 The pithiness of the sentence and the final enim call to mind the moralizing epimythia found in fables. Among the various collections of Greek and Latin fables, one bears numerous similarities to Augustine’s apologue: the fable entitled Μυῖαι (“Flies”), P 80 in Perry’s Aesopica: 72  Sol. 1.14.24 (CSEL, 89), p. 37: “Penitus esse ista sensibilia fugienda, cauendumque magnopere, dum hoc corpus agimus, ne quo eorum uisco pennae nostrae impediantur, quibus integris perfectisque opus est, ut ad illam lucem ab his tenebris euolemus, quae se ne ostendere quidem dignatur in hac cauea inclusis, nisi tales fuerint ut ista uel effracta uel dissoluta possint in auras suas euadere.” See Doignon, “Thèmes de l’éthique”, p. 41. 73  Ovid, Amores 1.8.104: “sub dulci melle uenena latent”; Jerome, Ep.  15.4.5: “uenenum sub melle latet”; In Hieremiam 3.1.2: “subdolo melle”; Augustinus, Io. eu. tr. 7.6, in Tractatus in euangelium Ioannis, ed. by R. Willems, Turnhout, 1954 (CCSL, 36), p.  70-71: “quia iam non possunt seducere christianos, ut dent uenenum, addunt mellis aliquid, ut per id quod dulce est lateat quod amarum est et bibatur ad perniciem.” 74  A basic definition of a fable given by G.-J. van Dijk, Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek Literature, Leiden – New York – Cologne, 1997, p. 113. 75  When Augustine is not quoting or referencing a quotation, he uses the word apis slightly less often than apicula, a sign that the diminutive may have already become the semantic equivalent of apis. Apicula is the word from which the Romance words for “bee” are derived (Fr. abeille, Sp. abeja, Port. abelha, It. pecchia).

from ivory tablets to honeybees

327

Ἔν τινι ταμιείῳ μέλιτος ἐπεκχυθέντος, μυῖαι προσπτᾶσαι κατήσθιον· διὰ δὲ τὴν γλυκύτητα τοῦ καρποῦ οὐκ ἀφίσταντο. Ἐμπαγέντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῶν ποδῶν, ὡς οὐκ ἐδύναντο ἀναπτῆναι, ἀποπνιγόμεναι ἔφασαν· Ἄθλιαι ἡμεῖς, αἳ διὰ βραχεῖαν ἡδονὴν ἀπολλύμεθα.76 “A pot of honey was spilled in a certain storeroom. Some flies flew to it and were eating it up. But because of the sweetness of their spoils, they did not depart. Their feet, however, were stuck, so that they could not fly away. As they were being drowned, they cried, ‘Woe are we, who for the sake of a fleeting pleasure have lost our lives’.”

This fable is categorized by Francisco Rodríguez Adrados as a situation fable on the Cynic theme of those who die while seeking pleasure. The fable first appears in written Latin at a very late date: it is found in the Opusculum fabularum, a medieval collection of Aesopian fables translated into Latin prose,77 and among the fables quoted by Conrad von Halberstadt in his Tripartitus moralium (completed 1342-1344). Several elements of P 80 match Augustine’s aphorism. A  winged insect is the subject; honey is the temptation. Both stories depict the danger of being stuck in something sweet and unable to fly away in time – “trapped by pleasure,” so to speak. Finally, death is the outcome. However, there are also obvious differences – the most important being that the insects in ep. 15 are bees, not flies. This leads to a further distinction between the two narratives: the bees have presumably collected and produced their honey, whereas the flies are characterized as opportunists who find something another has packed away. The flies in P 80 may be stealing honey; at the very least, they are taking advantage of someone else’s misfortune. But on account of the bee’s role in making honey, Augustine’s version legitimizes the bees’ possession of the honey: one naturally assumes they have a basic right to amass and keep the fruits of their labors. The

Aesopica, ed. by B.E.  Perry, vol.  I, Urbana, IL, 1952, p.  352-353. The fable is numbered H. 82 and described briefly with bibliography in F. Rodríguez Adrados, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable III: Inventory and Documentation of the Graeco-Latin Fable, Leiden – Boston, 2003, p. 109-110. 77  Only one complete manuscript of the Opusculum fabularum has survived: Berlin, Theol. lat. fol. 142 (dated to 1460). 76 

328

angela zielinski kinney

bees are not described as eating the honey, but the flies are – the epimythium for P 80 pertains to gluttony.78 But if Augustine wished to allude to the fable of the flies, why didn’t he reference it more obviously? One possible reason is that the original story is simply too negative for the intended purpose and addressee (a dear friend); the fable includes connotations of theft and greed – connotations that might have offended Romanianus and do not fit Augustine’s characterization of him. The fly is also a problematic Cynic symbol – a creature that lives only for pleasure.79 In order to use the fable, Augustine had to customize it to fit his intentions and audience. By changing the insects to bees, he can acknowledge that Romanianus earned his hard-won wealth; moreover, the many positive characteristics associated with bees in Latin literature are drawn into the narrative. Bees in antiquity were praised as communal creatures that lived in peaceful hierarchical colonies. They were model citizens, selfless, industrious, virtuous, chaste – all characteristics Augustine used to describe Romanianus himself.80 The bee in the fable symbolizes his struggles too: it is surrounded by riches, but risks drowning in them, just as Augustine describes Romanianus in acad. 1.1.1. The sticky honey represents the aforementioned dangers associated with wealth. It can take hold and never let go. The moral of Augustine’s fable is sobering: clinging to earthly resources can be fatal. One must not abide too long in them, and it is imperative to escape in time. If the bee aphorism in ep.  15 can be explained as an Augustinian riff on the Greek fable P 80 – a fable that left no written trace in Latin literature until the late middle ages – its presence in this letter is a nice example of the oral transmission of such folklore. Furthermore, it may reveal something about the culture Romanianus and Augustine shared from childhood. It is clear Augustine was familiar with fables; he mentions Aesop by name in three different works.81 In acad. 2.3.7, he constructs an allegorical and Οὕτω πολλοῖς ἡ λιχνεία πολλῶν αἰτία κακῶν γίνεται. Adrados, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable, p. 110. 80  For a comprehensive overview of bees and their characterization in antiquity, see D.  Magerstedt, “Biene,” in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Band III.1, Stuttgart, 1897, p. 431-450. 81  Acad. 2.3.7, cons. eu. 1.7.12, c. mend. 13.28. 78 

79 

from ivory tablets to honeybees

329

moralizing narrative about Philocaly and Philosophy directed specifically at Romanianus, and then exclaims that he has “become an Aesop”: “Quam totam fabulam – nam subito Aesopus factus sum! – Licentius tibi carmine suauius indicabit; poeta est enim paene perfectus.”82 “In his poem, Licentius will relate to you this whole fable – for I’ve suddenly become an Aesop! – in more delightful way; for he is close to becoming an accomplished poet.”

Fables and allegory have always been a part of philosophical dialogues; it is hardly surprising to see one in acad.83 But perhaps it is significant that Romanianus is the recipient of both the bee fable and the fable about Philocaly and Philosophia. Fables may have been a fundamental part of the education these two men received and the common culture they shared. 5. Conclusion This brief letter, written on what may have been a small scrap of parchment, nevertheless provides valuable pieces of information – not merely references to realia for historians or parallels for philosophers. There is history and philosophy and rhetoric here, but art and affection too. The opening paragraph shows some of the mechanics and difficulties associated with letter exchange in late antiquity. Through analysis of ep.  15 and previous scholarship incorporating this letter, a new interpretation of Augustine’s apology was proposed: namely, that he apologizes for one specific parchment’s quality (described with a derogatory diminutive, pellicula) and not for all parchment everywhere. The future bishop’s special relationship with Romanianus can be seen even in this “practical” section of the letter: treasured tabellas eburneas may have been the prime way these two friends communicated. A careful analysis of the second half of ep.  15 gives us vital clues about Acad. 2.3.7 (CCSL, 29), p. 22. In retr. 1.1.3, Augustine calls his fable “inepta  […] et insulsa” (Augustinus, Retractationes, ed. by A. Mutzenbecher, Turnhout, 1984 (CCSL, 57), p. 9). 82 

83 

330

angela zielinski kinney

Romanianus’ career in 390 ce, as well as showing how Augustine adapts his rhetoric to his friend’s situation. The repetition of words meaning “peace” sharply contrasts with the repetition of iactationes and other words signifying “legal troubles” in acad., suggesting that Romanianus has succeeded at court. In just a few sentences, Augustine establishes both earthly peace and wealth as things that are inherently risky, but if managed well, can bring great rewards. He closes the letter with an aphorism that seems to be his own adaptation of a Greek fable (P 80, “Flies”) with no extant Latin transmission prior to the late medieval period. This new bite-size fable, like honey itself, sweetens the otherwise pointed exhortation to Romanianus by likening him to a productive bee and yet urging him to avoid getting mired in legal hell again. Augustine has packed quite a lot into this pellicula, which, despite its small size, interacts meaningfully with Augustine’s vast, sophisticated oeuvre.

Abstracts Stanisław A damiak, Asking for Human Mercy. Augustine’s Intercessions with the Men in Power Augustine of Hippo appears in many of his letters as a towering figure teaching, encouraging, and quite often correcting others. However, there are occasions when Augustine is forced to take a much more humble approach. This happens when he writes to men in power, imperial and municipal officials, or simply rich people exercising their will over others. Never does the bishop of Hippo ask for anything for himself, but several times he makes requests in the name of the others, usually those who are threatened with various punishments, including the death penalty. Augustine sometimes asks for mercy for people who are innocent, sometimes for those whose guilt is beyond doubt. Augustine’s correspondence shows us the down to earth details of the everyday life of the Roman Africa of the early fifth century. We learn about people who get into trouble with the law owing to their poverty, low social standing, or others’ dishonesty; we observe those who seek asylum in churches. The paper makes reference to the general attitude of Augustine towards civil justice, presents several case studies of his intercession on behalf of others, and tries to assess the efficacy of such intercession. Gillian Clark, Letters and the City of God Augustine’s letter 1A* to Firmus, first published in 1939, accompanied the complete copy of De ciuitate Dei which Firmus had requested. Augustine advises on binding the 22 libri into codices which correspond to the structure of ciu.; he asks Firmus to allow further copying and distribution by fratres at Carthage; he hopes Firmus will lend the books to other Christians and to non-Christians; he urges Firmus to read and re-read them, and he encourages further exchange of letters. Ep. 1A* prompts reflection on the circulation of books and letters, and on Augustine’s letter-collection in relation to others from late antiquity. The collection, though relatively small, includes an unusual number and range of correspondents. But only a fraction of Augustine’s letters survive, and he did not have time to catalogue them, whether by

332

abstracts

chronological order as in his Retractationes, or by topic as in the Indiculus, or in dossiers. Ep.  1*A illustrates the gaps and uncertainties. Firmus was taken to be the fellow-priest, known from other letters, who sometimes carried letters for Augustine and who was asked to supply ciu. 1-10 to fratres at Carthage. But the letters discovered by Johannes Divjak, published in 1981, include a second letter which shows that Firmus was a catechumen, married to a baptized Christian but reluctant to make his own commitment. So ep.  1A* also shows how Augustine uses letters, and his books, to build a community of readers who will be citizens of the city of God. David G. Hunter, Family Matters: Augustine’s Letters as a Source for his Views on Marriage and Family Life Augustine’s letters provide the modern reader with a unique opportunity to see him applying the principles of his moral theology in pastoral practice. This paper will present an overview of Augustine’s discussions of marriage and familial relations as they are found in his correspondence. Special attention will be given to his letters to Proba (130), Hilary (157), Boniface (220 et  al.), and Ecdicia (262). While Augustine is perhaps better known for his insistence on the pernicious effects of concupiscentia carnis on sexual relations, Augustine’s letters show him to be equally concerned with marriage and family life as institutions that provide for social stability, the education of children, and growth in holiness. Mathijs L amberigts, Was Innocent Familiar with the Content of the Pelagian Controversy? A  Study of his Answers to the Letters sent by the African Episcopacy This paper focuses first on the way in which the African bishops address themselves to the bishop of Rome and the way in which Innocent considers himself as the successor of the two apostles in his replies. Later it argues that Innocent was not really familiar with or aware of the details of the African positions on original sin and the issue of the baptism of children. I  thus suggest that Innocent supported the African condemnations for opportunistic reasons, and that his own positions on the fall of Adam and its consequences cannot be described as identical to those of Augustine c.s.: Innocent acts as a self-confident man who likes to be

abstracts

333

praised and respected, but who is not very much aware of the consequences of the doctrine of original sin. Innocent’s support of the African position in a sense can also be interpreted as an implicit or explicit support his own position as leader of Western Latin Christianity. Elia M arinova, “What Good Are Books?” Knowledge and Will in Augustine’s Letter to Firmus (Ep.  2*) Letter 2* to the Carthaginian catechumen Firmus reveals some interesting aspects of Augustine’s way of using his correspondence to enhance the persuasive effect of his major works. When Augustine sent in the year 426 a copy of the City of God to Firmus, he hoped to give him assistance for receiving the sacrament of rebirth. The change of mind of his addressee, who referred to the anteriority of divine grace to human free will as an excuse for delaying baptism, made Augustine raise the question of what real fruits he expected to be attained through careful and repeated reading. Correspondingly, a starting point of our study is the way in which Augustine built the structure of his answer around the notions of knowledge and free will, and pictured the members of Firmus’ family so as to exemplify different attitudes to reading and acting. Another issue to be discussed is the presence of the anti-Pelagian argumentation of Augustine’s last works which can be traced in ep.  2* along with the central themes of De ciuitate Dei. Sigrid M ratschek, The Unwritten Letters of Augustine of Hippo Augustine seems to have been a politically marginal figure until 412. But the evidence derived from the bishop’s own writings provides a picture that is incomplete, because he often remained silent about politics, before he had made friends with Marcellinus and Macedonius. If we see him in this way, it is not surprising that some of his letters are polished diplomatic notes and salutations. But together with prosopographic findings from other collections of correspondence, records of African synods and imperial constitutions, they take on a life of their own. Augustine’s strategy for dealing with borderline situations by touching on them only in cautious allusions or remaining silent about them illustrates the energy with which he pursued his goals and the carefully chosen

334

abstracts

style in which he wrote his letters. Thus, paradoxically, it is precisely the ‘unwritten letters’ of Augustine, to a far greater degree than the multitude of ordinary letters intended for the public, that reveal the broad spectrum of personal scandals, legal and religious conflicts within the local clergy, and the merciless power struggle as schisms and political crises continued. They give us a clear picture of the mechanisms of communication and conflict-solving between Church and state in the west of the Roman Empire and show us Augustine in a different light – meeting us day by day, as a successful arbitrator and politician. Przemysław Nehring, Misbehaviour of Clergy in the Light of Augustine’s Letters The corpus of Augustine’s correspondence includes several letters which demonstrate that clergy of all ranks were not always able to meet the stringent moral requirements. Their transgressions noted by Augustine usually fall into the following three categories: sexual misconduct, pecuniary matters, or violence. This article discusses each of these categories as they are evidenced in the letters, and focuses on the various types of offences allegedly committed by members of the clergy of all ranks, and the disciplinary procedures instituted or advised by Augustine. The analysis of several case studies contributes to the study of episcopal authority in North Africa in the time of Augustine (exercised by the bishops for just or wicked purposes) and the problems which occurred at the interface of the secular and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Philip Polcar, A Sting in the Tail? Augustine’s Send-Off to Nebridius in Ep. 3 Augustine’s first extant epistle to Nebridius (ep. 3) is one of 9 letters that bear witness to the warmhearted intellectual relationship of the two men. At first glance the letter appears to be in line with the other surviving letters in the dossier: Nebridius usually sent either a thesis or multiple questions, which Augustine willingly discussed. At a closer look, one notices that the last paragraph of this epistle is odd. Augustine’s playful tone in his discussion of the normative infinitive of several simple verbs seems to suggest that the former professor of rhetoric was not too serious about his subject matter. Although the grammatical content has

abstracts

335

already been discussed by scholars, this paragraph still deserves further attention. This paper provides a new reading suggesting that Augustine’s linguistic digression is in fact a playful reproach of Nebridius. Danuta Shanzer, Evodius’ Strange Encounters with the Dead: Questions and Answers in Augustine, Epp.  158-159 This article provides a close reading of Augustine's ep.  158 (414/415 ce) a letter of Evodius’, Thagastan, former agens in rebus, Augustine’s interlocutor on the soul, his co-monastic, and eventually bishop of Uzalis, and custodian and promoter of the translated relics of Stephen. The letter stands first in an Evodian dossier that includes 4 letters to Augustine and 4 replies from him. A  short summary of the content and structure of ep.  158 is provided and Augustine’s reply, ep.  159 is taken into consideration. Layered and even “zerstreut” this letter, whose very form reflects its author’s agitation and mental excitement, points in multiple directions. Usually read as a philosophical, it is primarily concerned with the supernatural – ghosts – and has been studied (somewhat superficially) through that lens by Schmitt. After a brief survey of the scholarship, I pursue various perhaps eccentric, neo-Doddsian, lines of interpretation. These include: the intellectual culture of the question, what happens to questioning when death’s boundary intervenes, loss, love, spiritual channeling, anxiety about sexuality, and homosociality. The latter discussion will concentrate on a very unusual, and hitherto unremarked, passage where Evodius described how he felt inhabited or possessed by his dead secretary’s’ soul. This phenomenon, somewhat similar to the much latter Dybbuk possession of Ashkenazi Judaism, is hard to parallel in antiquity, but Philostratus’ VApollonii 3.38 (a boy possessed by the soul of an amorous soldier) comes interestingly close. The interiorisation of a dead person may be a tellingly erotic model. And further examination of the letter confirms the impression that Evodius was defending the boy’s chastity. But Evodius’ philosophical problem involved a physical vehicle for the human soul post mortem. Augustine’s response was impatient and intolerant, and unwilling to come to terms even with hauntings visible to more than one witness. It sent Evodius and his readers to the De Genesi ad litteram, where much of Augustine’s thinking on visions and contact with the afterworld is to be found. Epp.  158

336

abstracts

and 159 can also be seen as examples of literary host-jumping (from dialogue to epistolography). Here a series of narrated deaths followed by urgent discussion and questioning invert the structure of a Platonic Περὶ Ψυχῆς. Visions and witnesses to the afterlife replace the Platonic eschatological mythos. The second decade of the 5th C. proved an important cross-roads for the intellectual history of relations between the living and the dead. Epp.  158-159, the De Genesi ad litteram, and the De cura pro mortuis stand at the heart of the debate that pitted Evodius’ corporeal theories about the post mortem soul and many peoples’ theology of sentiment against Augustine’s more austere ideas that excluded apparitions and hauntings. The Middle Ages however, would vindicate Evodius. Mateusz Stróżyński, Neoplatonism in Augustine’s Letters In Confessions 7 Augustine described his encounter with libri Platonicorum (Plotinus and, perhaps, Porphyry) as a crucial step in his conversion, and his first works written in Cassiciacum were heavily focused on Plotinus’ ideas. One of the long debates among students of Augustine concerns the place of Neoplatonism in his thought. Some tend to see Neoplatonism as an early phase in Augustine’s development, something he grew out of later on; others argue that he held Neoplatonic views also in his later works, even against mainstream Catholic beliefs. This paper is an attempt to give a general view on the place of Neoplatonic ideas in Augustine’s letters throughout his life. In this brief outline, I  will present three thematic areas in the letters, in which Augustine uses Neoplatonic ideas and arguments: first, the relationship between Christianity and philosophy in general, second, the difference between the spiritual and the material, and third, the nature and origins of the human soul. It seems that those ideas appear in two phases: in the early letters, written before his ordination as a priest (386-391), and in the letters written at some time between 410 and 420. Interestingly, philosophical issues are almost entirely absent between those two phases and in the last decade of Augustine’s life. The comparison of the role played by Neoplatonism in early and later letters may be a invaluable contribution to the wider discussion about Augustine’s Neoplatonism.

abstracts

337

Rafał Toczko, Debating through the Letters vs. Live Discussions. The Patterns of ars disputandi in Augustine’s Correspondence In my paper I put under scrutiny the questions of the peculiarity of letter writing and of using letters as a medium of thought exchange as they are reflected in the correspondence of Augustine of Hippo. Putting the Augustinian stance in the context of the ancient epistolary theories and practices, in the first part I highlight the characteristic features of his thinking on the letter as a genre, its in-between position, public dimension, and advantages and disadvantages for a Christian writer. In the second part, I  present a systematic analysis of all the important passages in the corpus epistularum Augustini touching upon the reflective remarks on the process of writing and reading letters. The major part of my paper is dedicated to the discussion of those passages and drawing conclusions based on them. The differences between oral, live debates, discussions through letters and written treatises are of special interest here. The shifting preferences of Augustine are presented and explained. The outcome of this study is to present a full picture of Augustine’s thinking on the epistolary genre as a medium of debates and discussions with different groups of addressees. Angela Zielinski Kinney, From Ivory Tablets to Honeybees. Deciphering Augustine’s Letter to Romanianus (Ep. 15) Augustine’s fifteenth epistle is a short missive written to Romanianus, his patron and friend from childhood. The letter is essentially bipartite. The first half concerns realia, especially the material upon which the letter itself is written. The second half of the letter is an exhortation to contemplation, including direct quotation from the Aeneid. Romanianus must have shared some good news with his friend, as Augustine encourages him to consider the value and dangers of his earthly success in a paragraph containing Christian, philosophical, and pagan reminiscences. The threat of death looms over this section of the letter, which ends with a curious line about the risk of bees drowning in their own honey. This article offers a philological interpretation of the letter’s first paragraph and examines previous scholarship that has used ep.  15 in arguments about late antique letter-writing materials. Augustine’s literary quotations and allusions in the second half of

338

abstracts

the letter will be analyzed in the context of Romanianus’ personal career, with some speculation as to the content of the trigger letter that prompted Augustine to write ep. 15. Finally, a source will be suggested for the aphoristic bee story that serves as the letter’s closing image.

Notes on Contributors Stanisław A damiak was born in Toruń (Poland) in 1980 and was ordained a priest for the diocese of Toruń in 2004. He continued his studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University, in the Faculty of History and Cultural Heritage of the Church, where he defended his PhD thesis in 2011. Afterwards, he lectured at the Gregorian University and at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. Currently, he works at the University of Warsaw Institute of History. He has participated in various research projects including “Scrinium Augustini. The World of Augustine’s Letters” and the “Presbyters in the Late Antique West”. Gillian Clark is Professor Emerita of Ancient History at the University of Bristol (UK), and a Fellow of the British Academy. Her undergraduate and graduate studies were at Oxford (Somerville College). She works on the interaction of Christianity and classical culture in late antiquity, with a special interest in Augustine City of God.  Recent publications include Late Antiquity: a very short introduction (OUP 2011); papers on Augustine in Body and Gender, Soul and Reason in Late Antiquity (Variorum 2011); and Monica: an ordinary saint (OUP 2015). She co-edits Oxford Early Christian Studies / Texts (Oxford University Press) and Translated Texts for Historians 300-800 (Liverpool University Press). David G. Hunter holds the Cottrill-Rolfes Chair of Catholic Studies at the University of Kentucky. He has published several books and numerous articles on Greek and Latin writers of the early Church, among them Augustine, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and John Chrysostom. His most recent book, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy (Oxford University Press, 2007), studies the phenomenon of resistance to asceticism in early Christianity. Co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (2008), Hunter is currently director of the Fathers of the Church, a series of translations published by The Catholic University of America Press, and a general editor of the forthcoming Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. He is active on the editorial boards of several jour-

340

notes on contributors

nals, among them Vigiliae Christianae, the Journal of Early Christian Studies, the Journal of Late Antiquity, Augustinian Studies, and Augustiniana. Mathijs L amberigts (Kessenich, 1955) is Professor at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, and member of the Research Unit History of Church and Theology. In the past he was academic librarian (1989-2000). At present he is Dean of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, a position he already held in the past (2000-2008). He is a.o. a member of the working group of the Fonds national de la recherche scientifique (FNRS), President of the Curatorium Chair Augustinian Studies (Catholic Theological University of Utrecht), member and chair (since 2009) of the International Advisory Committee for the Excellenz Finanzierung (University of Freiburg), and member of the Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium. In the past he was a.o. a member of the C4 Committee of the Research Foundation – Flanders (1995-2005), of the Research Council of the KU Leuven (1995-2000), and of the evaluation committee DFG for the Zentrum für Augustinusforschung (University of Würzburg). He is a member of the editorial staff of a.o. Augustiniana, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Louvain Studies, Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales, Revue d’Histoire ecclésiastique, and Tijdschrift voor Theologie. Elia M arinova is Associate Professor of Classics at the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. A  specialist in Neo-Latin Studies, she has held fellowships at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. Her publications include Germanus Audebertus. “Roma”. Edition und Kommentar (Hamburg, 2000), and various articles on Latin literature as well as the medieval and Renaissance reception of classical texts. Her interests and publications include late antique epistolography and commentaries on classical authors. She is currently working on a book about Renaissance commentaries on Hesiod’s Works and Days, while also doing research on Ambrose’s letters. Sigrid M ratschek is Professor of Ancient History at the University of Rostock (Germany), Member of the Council of the International Association of Patristic Studies and Consulting Edi-

notes on contributors

341

tor of the Journal of Late Antiquity. As a Classicist and historian she aims to form a bridge con­necting history and politics to the soft skills that help decode the rhetorical, social and visual culture of the Roman Empire and Christianity. Her book, Divites et praepotentes. Reichtum und soziale Stellung in der Literatur der Prinzipatszeit (1993) was awarded the Bruno Heck Prize. She is also the author of a monograph on Paulinus of Nola (2002) and the networks of Christian intellectuals created by his correspondence. Since beginning her Visiting Fellow­ship at All Souls College (Oxford), her research has focused on Sidonius Apolli­naris’ social world, his art of memory and his poetics of allusion. Her recent publications include history (Nero, Ammianus), pagan and Christian epistolography (Augustine, Ausonius, Paulinus) and literary interactions (between Martial and Pliny, Sidonius and the Classics). Przemysław Nehring is Associate Professor of Classics at the Faculty of Languages, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland) where he received his PhD (1998) in Classics and his Habilitation (2006) in Classics and Patristics. His research interests include Latin monastic literature, with a particular focus on hagiography, ancient rhetoric and St  Augustine. Nehring has published several books in Polish and numerous articles in both German and English covering a variety of topics concerning his areas of research. He is also the head of the Scrinium Augustini Project. Philip Polcar works as an Universitätsassistent at the Institute for Classical Philology, Medieval- and Neo Latin in Vienna. He studied Classical Philology, History and English Literature at the University of Konstanz. His research interests focus on Jerome and other Latin Church fathers, epistolography, and wealth and power in the late Roman world. His dissertation, a commentary on Jerome’s letter 79 (ad Salvinam) will be published in 2017. Danuta Shanzer is University Professor of Late Antique and Medieval Latin Philology at the University of Vienna, Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America and wirkliches Mitglied of the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Educated at the Brearley School, Bryn Mawr College, and Oxford University, she has taught in the UK (Oxford, Manchester), and the US (Berkeley, Harvard, Cornell, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

342

notes on contributors

before finding a new home in Central Europe. She specializes in the Latin Literature of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages with particular interests in epistolography, hagiography, textual criticism, non-standard Latin, the barbarian kingdoms, and religious and social history. In the interstices of editing the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library’s Latin Series she contemplates the afterlife (a favourite topic) and struggles with Augustine (a favourite author). Mateusz Stróżyński, born in 1979, is Associate Professor in the Department of Classical Philology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland. He graduated from classical philology and philosophy in 2002. In 2007 he finished his doctoral thesis, which was published in English as Mystical Experience and Philosophical Discourse in Plotinus (2008). His research interests focus mainly on spiritual exercises, contemplation and mysticism. The fruit of his study of ancient spiritual exercises is his book Philosophy as Therapy in the Works of Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, and Augustine (2014, published in Polish) as well as numerous articles, published both in English and Polish. He also graduated from psychology and completed a course in psychodynamic psychotherapy. His interest in psychoanalysis and literary criticism expressed itself in articles concerning a wide range of authors (Euripides, Seneca, Apuleius, Augustine, St Angela of Foligno). As a therapist, he conducts a private practice in Poznań, where he lives with his wife and children. Rafał Toczko (Elbląg, 1981) is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Languages, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland), where he received MA’s in Philosophy (2005) and Classics (2007). He also went on to pursue his doctorate studies in Classics at his alma mater as well as the Instituto Patristico Augustinianum in Rome, where he spent one semester. He defended his thesis concerning the image of Pelagius in the writing of Augustine in 2010. His scholarly efforts are dedicated to literary, philosophical and (rarely) theological aspects of the Augustinian corpus, translations of late antique literature into Polish and active promotion of Latin teaching in Polish schools (without great success). Rafał is the main contributor in the Scrinium Augustini Project.

notes on contributors

343

A ngela Zielinski Kinney is currently a PhD candidate in Classical Philology and Universitätsassistentin at the University of Vienna’s Institut für Klassische Philologie, Mittel- und Neulatein. She earned a BA in Classical Studies and English Literature at the University of Chicago (2003) and an MA in Classics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2007). From 20102012, she worked as a research associate under Jan Ziolkowski at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection in Washington, DC. Her scholarly interests include the personification of rumor in late antique texts, the history and reception of the Vulgate Bible, epistolography, hagiography, and palaeography.

Bibliography Sources Aesopica, ed. by B.E.  Perry, vol.  I, Urbana, IL, 1952. Agostino, Le Lettere di Sant’ Agostino, Opere di Sant’ Agostino 21, ed. by M. Pellegrino, T. Alimonti, and L. Carrozzi, Rome, 1969. Ambrosius, Epistulae, ed. by O.  Faller, M. Zelzer, Vienna, 1990 (CSEL 82,2). Augustin, Contra Academicos vel De Academicis, Buch 1, ed. and comm. by K. Schlappbach, Patristische Texte und Studien 58, BerlinNew York, 2003. ———,  Contra Academicos vel De Academicis, Bücher 2 und 3, Patristische Texte und Studien 46, ed. and comm. by T. Fuhrer, Berlin-New York, 1997. ———,  Lettres 1-30, trad. S. Lancel, Oeuvres de saint Augustin 6e série, vol.  40A, Paris, 2011. ———,  Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, cinquième série, La Cité de Dieu livres 1-5. Introduction générale et notes par G.  Bardy. Paris, 1959 (BA, 33). ———,  Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, sixième série, Lettres 1* - 29*. Nouvelle édition du texte critique et introduction par J.  Divjak; traduction et commentaire par divers auteurs, Paris, 1987 (BA 46B). ———,  Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, ed. by F. Dolbeau, Paris, 1996 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 147). Augustine, Letters, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, ed. by P.  Schaff, transl. by J.G. Cunningham, Buffalo, NY, 1887, (revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102015.htm). ———,  Letters, vol. 1 (1-82), transl. by W. Parsons, Washington, DC, 2010 (originally published in 1951). ———,  Letters 1-99, transl. by R. Teske, Hyde Park, 2001 (WSA, 2,1). ———,  Letters 100-155, transl. by R. Teske, Hyde Park, 2003 (WSA, 2,2). ———,  Letters 156-210, transl. by R. Teske, Hyde Park, 2004 (WSA, 2,3). ———,  Letters 211-270, 1*-29*, transl. by R. Teske, Hyde Park, 2005 (WSA 2.4).

346

bibliography

———,  Select Letters, transl. by J.H. Baxter, Cambridge (Ma), 2003. Augustinus, Contra academicos, De beata vita, De ordine, De magistro, De libero arbitrio, ed. by W.M. Green, K.D.  Daur, Turnhout, 1970 (CCSL, 29). ———,  De bono coniugali, ed. by J.  Zycha, Vienna, 1900 (CSEL, 41), p. 187-230. ———,  De sancta uirginitate, ed. by J.  Zycha, Vienna, 1900 (CSEL, 41), p.  235-302; English translation: De bono coniugali; De sancta uirginitate, transl. by P.G.  Walsh, Oxford, 2001 (Oxford Early Christian Texts). ———,  Confessiones, ed. by L. Verheijen, Turnhout, 1981 (CCSL, 27). ———,  Contra Cresconium, ed. by M. Petschenig, Vienna, 1909 (CSEL, 52,2), p. 325-582. ———,  Contra Petilianum, ed. by M. Petschenig, Vienna, 1909 (CSEL, 52,2), p. 3-227. ———,  De catechizandis rudibus, ed. by M.P.J.  van Hout et al., Turnhout, 1969 (CCSL, 46). ———,  De civitate Dei. Libri I-X, ed. by B.  Dombart, A.  Kalb, Turnhout, 1955 (CCSL, 47). ———,  De civitate Dei. Libri XI-XXII, ed. by B.  Dombart, A.  Kalb, Turnhout, 1955 (CCSL, 48). ———,  De correptione et gratia, ed. by G. Folliet, Turnhout, 2000 (CSEL, 92). ———,  De doctrina christiana, ed. by M. Simonetti, Verona, 1994. ———,  De gestis Pelagii, ed. by C.F.  Urba, J.  Zycha, Vienna, 1902 (CSEL, 42). ———,  De opere monachorum, ed. by J.  Zycha, Vienna, 1900 (CSEL, 41), p. 586-587. ———,  De trinitate, ed. by W.J.  Mountain, Turnhout, 2001 (CCSL, 50). ———,  Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. by J.  Divjak, Vienna, 1981 (CSEL, 88). ———,  Epistulae, ed. by A.  Goldbacher, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 34,1); 1898 (CSEL, 34,2); 1904 (CSEL, 44), 1911 (CSEL, 57). ———,  Epistulae, ed. by K.D.  Daur, Turnhout, 2004 (CCSL, 31); 2005 (CCSL, 31a); Turnhout, 2009 (CCSL, 31b). ———,  Retractationes, ed. by A. Mutzenbecher, Turnhout, 1984 (CCSL, 57).

bibliography

347

———,  Sermones selecti duodeviginti, ed. by C. Lambot, Utrecht, 1950 (SPM 1). ———,  Sermones, ed. by G. Morin, Rome, 1930 (MiAg, 1). ———, Soliloquia, De immortalitate animae, De quantitate animae, ed. by W. Hörmann, Turnhout, 1986 (CSEL, 89). ———, Tractatus in euangelium Ioannis, ed. by R. Willems, Turnhout, 1954 (CCSL, 36). Augustinus – Hieronymus. Epistulae Mutuae. Briefwechsel, transl. A.  Fürst, vol.  1-2, Turnhout, 2002 (Fontes Christiani, 41,1-2). Basilius Caesariensis, Epistulae, (LCL, 270, IV), 1961. Caesarius Arelatensis, Sermones, ed. G. Morin, Turnhout, 1953 (CCSL, 104) Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, ed. by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, 1987, v. 1-2. ———,  Epistulae ad familiares ed. by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, 1988. ———,  Epistulae ad Q. Fratrem, ad M. Brutum, Commentariolum petitionis, fragmenta epistularum, ed. by D.R.  Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, 1988. Codex Theodosianus (CTh), ed. by T. Mommsen, P.  Krüger, Berlin, 1905, repr. Hildesheim, 1990. Collectio Avellana, ed. by O.  Günther, Vienna, 1895 (CSEL, 35,1), Concilia Africae a.345–a.525, ed. by C.  Munier, Turnhout, 1974 (CCSL, 149). Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), ed. by T. Mommsen, Berlin, 1883. Epistulae imperatorum aliorum 357-553, ed. by O.  Günther, Prague, Vienna, Leipzig, 1995 (CSEL, 35). Gregorius Nyssenus, Epistulae, ed. by P.  Maraval (SChr, 363). English translation: Gregory of Nyssa, The Letters, transl. by A. Silvas, Leiden, 2007. Hieronymus, Commentarii in epistulam ad Galatas, (PL, 26). ———,  Commentarii in Isaiam, ed. by M. Adriaen, Turnhout, 1963 (CCSL, 73). ———,  Epistulae, ed. by I. Hilberg, Vienna, 1910 (CSEL, 54). ———,  In Hieremiam prophetam libri VI, ed. by S. Reiter, Turnhout, 1960 (CCSL, 73).

348

bibliography

Incerti Auctoris de Ratione Dicendi ad C. Herennium Lib. IV, ed. by F. Marx, Leipzig, 1894. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS), ed by Dessau, repr. Berlin, 1962. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, ed. by A. Rousseau, F. Sagnard, L. Doutreleau, vol.  1, Paris, 1969 (SChr, 152). Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, ed. by A. Rousseau, L. Doutrelau, vol. 2, Paris, 1982 (SChr, 293-294). Iulius Victor, Ars rhetorica: De epistolis, ed. by R. Giomini, M.S. Celentano, Leipzig, 1980. Isidorus Hispalensis, Sententiae, ed. by P.  Cazier, Turnhout, 1998 (CCSL, 111). Libanius, Autobiography and Selected Letters, ed. and transl. by A.F.  Norman, London, 1992 (LCL, 478, v.1). Martianus Capella, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii liber secundus. Introduzione, traduzione e commento L.  Lenaz, Padova, 1975. Optatus Milevitanus, Contra Parmenianum Donatistam, ed. by C. Ziwsa, Vienna, 1893 (CSEL, 26). English translation: Optatus, Against the Donatists, transl. by M. Edwards, Liverpool, 1997 (TTH 27). Paulinus Mediolanensis, Vita s. Ambrosii, ed. by A.A.R.  Bastiaensen, Milano, 1981 (Vite dei Santi, 3), p. 51-125. Paulinus Nolanus, Carmina, ed. by W. von Hartel, M.  Kamptner, Vienna, 1999 (CSEL, 30) ———,  Epistulae, ed. by W. von Hartel, M.  Kamptner, Vienna, 1999 (CSEL, 29). Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, ed. by. C.L. Kayser, Leipzig, 1870 (BT). Plutarchus, Moralia, ed. by G.N. Bernardakis, Leipzig, 1892 (BT). Possidius, Vita Augustini, ed. by A.A.R.  Bastiaensen, Milano, 1981 (Vite dei Santi, 3), p.  127-241. English translations: Possidius, The Life of Saint Augustine, trans. H.T. Weiskotten, Princeton, 1919; Possidius, The Life of Saint Augustine, trans. by M. O’Connell, Villanova, 1988 ———,  Operum S.Augustini Elenchus a Possidio eiusdem discipulo Calamensi episcopo digestus: post Maurinorum labores novis curis editus critico apparatu numeris tabellis instructus, ed. by A. Wilmart, in Miscellanea Agostiniana, Rome, 1931, p. 149-233. Proclus, In Platonis Rempublicam commentarii, ed. by W. Kroll, Berlin, 1901. French translation in: Proclus, Commentaire sur la République. Tome III Dissertations XV-VII (Rép. X), ed. by A.J. Festugière, (Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques), Paris, 1970.

bibliography

349

Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria, ed. by M.  Winterbottom, Oxford, 1970 Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria, ed. by L.  Radermacher / V.  Buchheit, Leipzig, 1971. Rufinus, Expositio symboli, ed. by M.  Simonetti, Turnhout, 1961 (CCSL, 20) Seneca, Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, ed. by O.  Hense, Leipzig, 1938 (BT). Sulpice Sévère, Vie de Saint Martin, ed. by J. Fontaine, Paris, 1968 (SChr, 134). Symmachus, Epistulae, ed. by O.  Seeck, 2nd ed. Berlin, 1961 (MGH, AA, 6,1). Taurentius, Epistula “Litterae sanctitatis”, ed. by R. Demeulenaere, 1985 (CCSL, 64); English translation: R.W.  Mathisen, Ruricius of Limoges and Friends: A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Gaul, Liverpool, 1999 (TTH, 30). Uranius, Epistula de obitu, (PL, 53), coll. 860-861. Secondary Literature Adams, J., The Populus of Augustine and Jerome: A Study in the Patristic Sense of Community, New Haven, 1971. Agaësse, P., Solignac, A., La Genèse au sens littéral en douze livres (I-VII), 2 vols, vol. 1, Bibliothèque Augustinienne, Paris, 2000. Alfaric, P., L’évolution intellectuelle de saint Augustin, Paris, 1918. Allen, P.  Neil, B., Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410-590 ce): A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Leiden, Boston, 2013. Allen, P., “It’s in the Post: Techniques and Difficulties of Letter-Writing in Antiquity with Regard to Augustine of Hippo”, in The Australian Academy of the Humanities Proceedings 2005, Canberra, 2006, p. 111-129. ———,  “Rationales for episcopal letter-collections in late antiquity”, in Collecting Early Christian Letters: from the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. by B.  Neil, P.  Allen, Cambridge, 2015, p. 18-34. Annas, J., “Ethics in Stoic Philosophy”, Phronesis, 52,1 (2007), p. 58-87. Arns, P.E., La technique du livre d’apres Saint Jerome, Paris, 1953. Assmann, A., Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, 3rd ed. Munich, 2006.

350

bibliography

Bacchi, L.F., The Theology of Ordained Ministry in the Letters of Augustine of Hippo, San Francisco, London, Bethesda, 1998. Bagnall, R.S., Early Christian Books in Egypt, Princeton, N.J., 2009. Baltes, M., “Platonisches Gedankengut im Brief des Evodius an Augustinus (Ep.  158)”, Vigiliae Christianae, 40 (1986), p. 251-260. Beatrice, P.F., “Quosdam Platonicorum Libros: The Platonic Readings of Augustine in Milan”, Vigiliae Christianae, 43,3 (1989), p. 248-281. Berrouard, M.F., “Un tournant dans la vie de l’Église d’Afrique: les deux missions d’Alypius en Italie à la lumière des Lettres 10*, 15*, 16*, 22* et 23*A de saint Augustin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 31 (1985), p. 46-70. Bertelli, C., “The Production and Distribution of Books in Anti­ quity”, in The Sixth Century: Production, Distribution, and Demand, ed. by R. Hodges, W. Bowden, Leiden, 1998. Birt, T., Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin, 1882. Blumell, L.H., “The Message and the Medium: Some Observations on Epistolary Communication in Late Antiquity”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 10 (2014), p. 24-67. Bonner, G., “Predestination and Free Will”, in Augustine. Other Latin Writers. Papers presented at the Fourteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2003 (Studia Patristica, 43), ed. by F.  Young, M.  Edwards, P.  Parvis, Louvain, 2006, p. 15-18. ———,  St Augustine of Hippo: life and controversies, Norwich, 1997,  3rd ed., 2002. Booth, E., “St  Augustine’s ‘notitia sui’ related to Aristotle and the early neo-Platonists”, Augustiniana, 27 (1977), p.  70-132, 364401, Augustiniana, 28 (1978), p. 183-221, Augustiniana, 29 (1979), p. 97-124. Bouhot, J.-P., Une lettre d’Augustin d’Hippone à Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Epist. 4*), in Les lettres de Saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C. Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p.  147-154. Božič, D., Feugère, M., “Les instruments de l’écriture”, Gallia, 61 (2004), p. 21-41. Brachtendorf, J., “…prius esse cogitare quam credere. A Natural Understanding of ‘Trinity’ in St Augustine?”, Augustinian Studies, 29,2 (1998), p. 35-45. Brashear, W., “Egyptian Papyrus Then, Chinese Paper Today”, in: Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses I (Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 3), Stuttgart, Leipzig, 1997, p.  113-131.

bibliography

351

Brent, A., Cyprian and Roman Carthage, Cambridge, 2010. Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo, a biography, expanded new edition, London, 1967. ———,  “The patrons of Pelagius: The Roman Aristocracy between East and West”, in Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, ed. by P.  Brown, London, 1972, p. 208-226. ———,  “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man”, Journal of Roman Studies, 61 (1971), p. 80-101. ———,  Through the Eye of a Needle. Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 ad, Princeton, 2012. ———,  “St Augustine’s Attitude to Religious Coercion”, Journal of Roman Studies, 54 (1964), p. 107-116. Burczak, K., Prawo azylu w ustawodawstwie synodów galijskich V-VII wieku, Lublin 2005. Byers, S.C., Perception, Sensibility, and Moral Motivation in Augustine. A Stoic-Platonic Synthesis, Cambridge, 2013. Cain, A., The Letters of Jerome. Asceticism, biblical exegesis, and the construction of Christian authority in late antiquity, Oxford, 2009. ———,  Jerome and the Monastic Clergy: A Commentary on Letter 52 to Nepotian, with an Introduction, Text, and Translation, Leiden,Boston, 2013. Caltabiano, M., “Lettura e lettori in Agostino”, Antiquite Tardive, 18 (2010), p. 151-161. Cameron, A., “Were Pagans Afraid to Speak Their Mind in a Christian World? The Correspondence of Symmachus”, in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, and Coexistence in the Fourth Century, ed. by M.  Salzman, M.  Sághy, R.  Lizzi Testa, Cambridge, New York, 2015, p.  64-112. Carefoote, P.J., Augustine, the Pelagians and the Papacy: an Examination of the Political and Theological Implications of Papal Involvement in the Pelagian Controversy, Faculty Theology, KU Leuven, Leuven, 1995 (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carozzi, C., Le voyage de l’âme dans l’au-delà, d’après la littérature latine: Ve-XIIIe siècle, Roma, Paris, 1994 (Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome, 189). Cary, P., Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self. The Legacy of a Christian Platonist, New York, 2000. Castritius, H., “Seid weder den Juden noch den Heiden noch der Gemeinde Gottes ein Aegernis”: Zur sozialen und rechtlichen Stellung der Juden im Spätroemischen Nordafrica”, in Antisemi-

352

bibliography tismus und jüdische Geschichte, ed. R. Erb und M. Schidt, Berlin, 1987, p. 47-67.

Catarinella, F.M., “Confutazioni epistolari: il caso Firmus (Aug.  Ep.  2*) o della conversione differita”, in Africa Cristiana. Storia, religione, letteratura, ed. by M. Marin, C. Moreschini, Brescia, 2002. Cavadini, J., “The Structure and Intention of Augustine’s De Trinitate”, Augustinian Studies, 23 (1992), p. 103-123. Cavallo, G., “Libri, lettura e biblioteche nella tarda antichità: Un Panorama e qualche riflessione”, Antiquité Tardive, 18 (2010), p. 9-19. ———,  “Tra volumen e codex. Lettura nel mondo Romano, in Storia della lettura nel mondo occidentale”, ed. by G.  Cavallo, R.  Chartier, Roma, Bari, 1995, p.  37-69. Cayré, F., Initiation à la philosophie de saint Augustin, Paris, 1947. Chadwick, H., “The New Letters of Saint Augustine”, Journal of Theological Studies, 34,2 (1983), p. 425-452. Cimma, M.R., L’episcopalis audientia nelle costituzioni imperiali da Costantino a Giustiniano, Torino, 1989. Clark, E.A., “‘Adam’s Only Companion’: Augustine and the Early Christian Debate on Marriage”, Recherches Augustiniennes, 21 (1986), p. 139-162. ———,  “Heresy, Asceticism, Adam and Eve: Interpretations of Gen 1-3 in the Later Latin Fathers”, in Ascetic Piety and Women’s Faith, ed. by E.A.  Clark, Lewiston, 1986, p.  353-385. Clark, G., “Can we talk? Augustine and the possibility of dialogue”, in The End of Dialogue in Antiquity, ed. by S.  Goldhill, Cambridge, 2008, p. 117-134. ———,  “Fragile Brilliance – Augustine, decadence, and ‘other anti­ quity’”, in Décadence: ‘Decline and fall’ or ‘Other antiquity’?, ed. by T. Fuhrer, M.  Formisano, Heidelberg, 2014, p. 35-52. ———,  “Praising the Wax Candle: Augustine the Poet”, in The Poetics of Late Latin Literature, ed. by J.  Elsner, J.  Hernández Lobato, Oxford, 2016 (forthcoming). Colish, M., The Stoic Tradition From Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, vol. II. Stoicism in Christian Latin Thought through the Sixth Century, Leiden, 1985. Constas, N., ““To Sleep, Perchance to Dream”: The Middle State of Souls in Patristic and Byzantine Literature”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 55 (2001), p. 91-124.

bibliography

353

Conybeare, C., The Irrational Augustine, Oxford 2006 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). ———,  Paulinus Noster: Self and Symbols in the Letters of Paulinus of Nola, Oxford-New York, 2000 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). ———,  “Spaces between letters: Augustine’s correspondence with women”, in Voices in Dialogue: Reading Women in the Middle Ages, ed. by L. Olson, K. Kerby-Ulton, Notre Dame, 2005, p. 55-72. ———,  “The City of Augustine: On the Interpretation of Civitas”, in Being Christian in Late Antiquity. A Festschrift for Gillian Clark, ed. by C. Harrison, C. Humfress, and I. Sandwell, Oxford, 2014, p. 138-155. ———,  The Irrational Augustine, Oxford, 2006 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). Cooper, K., “Insinuations of Womanly Influence: An Aspect of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy”, Journal of Roman Studies, 82 (1992), p. 150-164. Corrigan, D.F., Helen Waddell: A Biography, London, 1986. Courcelle, P., Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin, Paris, 1968. Courtney, E., The Fragmentary Latin Poets, Oxford, New York, 1993. Coyle, J.K., “In Praise of Monica: a Note on the Ostia Experience of Confessions  IX”, Augustinian Studies, 13 (1982), p. 87-96. Crisci, E., “Note sulla più antica produzione di libri cristiani nell’oriente Greco”, in Segno e Testo, 3 (2005), p. 93-145. Crouse, R., “Paucis mutatis verbis: St  Augustine’s Platonism”, in Augustine and His Critics: Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner, ed. by R.  Dodaro, G.  Lawless, London, New York, 2000, p.  37-50. Cugusi, P., “L’epistola ciceroniana. Strumento di communicazione quotidiana e modello letterario”, Ciceroniana, 10 (1998), p. 163-189. Cunningham, M., Allen, P., Preacher and Audience. Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, Leiden, 1998. Dalmon, L., Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien: la correspondance entre l’Afrique et Rome à propos de l’affaire pélagienne (416-418), (Studia Patristica. Supplement 3), Leuven-Paris-Bristol, 2015. Dickey, E., Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius, Oxford, 2002. Demandt, A., Die Spätantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284-565 n. Chr., 2nd ed., Munich, 2007. Demougeot, E., “À propos des interventions du pape Innocent 1er dans la politique séculière”, Revue Historique 212 (1954), p. 23-38.

354

bibliography

Delaroche, B., La question de l’origine des âmes et de leur mode d’implication dans la condition pécheresse (I,22,31; I,38,69; II,36,59), in Œuvres de saint Augustin (BA, 20A), Premières réactions antipélagiennes I. Salaire et pardon des péchés. Peccatorum meritis et remissione, Paris, 2013, p.  469-474. Divjak, J., “Augustins erster Brief an Firmus und die revidierte Ausgabe der Civitas Dei”, in Latinität und Alte Kirche (Festschrift für R. Hanslik zum 70 Geburtstag), Wien, Köln, Graz, 1977, p.  56-70. ———,  “Epistulae”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2, ed. by C. Mayer, Basel, 2001, p.  893-1057. ———,  “Firmus”, in Augustinus-Lexikon vol. 3, ed. by C.  Mayer, Basel, 2004, p. 30-32. Djuth, M., “Augustine, Monica, and the Love of Wisdom”, Augustinian Studies, 40,2 (2009), p. 217-232. Dobell, B., Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion: the Journey from Platonism to Christianity, Cambridge, 2009. Dodds, E.R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine, Wiles lectures 1963, Cambridge, 1965. Doignon, J., “Thèmes de l’éthique politique de Cicéron dans la lettre 15 d’Augustin sur la gestion des affaires de ce monde”, Orpheus, 6 (1985), p. 36-43. Dossey, L., Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, Berkeley, 2010. Doyle, D., The Bishop as Disciplinarian in the Letters of St Augustine, New York, 2002. Drobner, H.R., “Studying Augustine. An overview of recent research”, in Augustine and His Critics. Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner, ed. by R. Dodaro, G.  Lawless, London-New York, 2000, p. 17-33. Duchrow, U., Sprachverständnis und biblisches Hören bei Augustin, Tübingen, 1965. Ducloux, A., Ad ecclesiam confugere. Naissance du droit d’asile dans les églises (IVe-milieu du Ve s.), Paris, 1994. Dulaey, M., Le rêve dans la vie et la pensée de saint Augustin, Paris, 1973 (Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 50). Duval, Y., Auprès des saints. Corps et âme: l’inhumation ‘ad sanctos’ dans la chrétienté d’Orient et d’Occident du IIIe au VIIe siècle, Paris, 1988 (Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 121). Ebbeler, J., Disciplining Christians. Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters, Oxford, 2012.

bibliography

355

———,  “The Letter Collection of Augustine of Hippo”, in Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide, ed. by C. Sogno, B.K. Storin, E.J. Watts, Oakland, California, 2016, p. 239-253. ———,  “Mixed messages: The play of epistolary codes in two late antique Latin correspondences”, in Ancient Letters. Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, ed. by R. Morello, A.D. Morrison, Oxford, 2007, p.  301-323. Eno, R., “Epistulae”, in Augustine Through the Ages. An encyclopedia, ed. by A.  Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 298-310. Escribano Paño, M.V., “Bishops, Judges and Emperors: CTh 16.2.31/ CTh 16.5.46/Sirm. 14 (409)”, in The Role of the Bishop in Late Antiquity: Conflict and Compromise, ed. by A.  Fear, J.  Fernándes Urbiña, M.  Marcos, London, 2013, p. 105-126. Feissel, D., Gascou, J., (ed.), La pétition à Byzance, Paris, 2004. Fitzgerald A., (ed.), Augustine Through the Ages. An Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids, 1999. Fitzgerald, A. D., “Circumcellions”, in Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia, ed. by A. D. Fitzgerald, Cambridge, 1999, p. 193194. Folliet, G., “Deificari in otio. Augustin, Epistula 10,  2”, Recherches augustiniennes, 2 (1962), p. 225-236. ———,  “La correspondance entre Augustin et Nébridius”, in L’opera letteraria di Agostino tra Cassiciacum e Milano. Agostino nelle terre di Ambrogio, ed. by G.  Reale, Palermo, 1987, p.  191-215. ———, “In penetralibus mentis adorare Deum (Augustin, Epistula, 10,  3)”, Sacris erudiri, 33 (1992-1993), p. 125-133. Fortin, E.L., Christianisme et culture philosophique au cinquième: La querelle de l’âme humaine en Occident, Paris, 1959. Fredriksen, P., Augustine and the Jews. A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism, New York, 2008. Frend, W.H.C., Orosius, Paulus, in Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia, ed. by A.D. Fitzgerald et al., Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 615-617. ———,  “Fussala, Augustine’s crisis of credibility (Epist. 20*)”, in Les lettres des saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C.  Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p.  251-265. ———,  “The Divjak Letters: new light on St Augustine’s problems, 416-428”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 34 (1983), p. 497-513.

356

bibliography

———,  The Donatist Church. A movement of protest in Roman North Africa, Oxford, 1952 (2nd ed. Oxford, 1971). Frohnhofen, H., “Anmerkungen zum Brief 2* des heiligen Augustinus”, Vigiliae Christianae, 38 (1984), p. 385-392. Fuhrer, T., “Autor-Figurationen: Literatur als Ort der Inszenierung von Kompetenz”, in Performanz von Wissen. Strategien der Wissensvermittlung in der Vormoderne, ed. by Fuhrer, T., Renger, A.B., Heidelberg, 2012, p.  129-147. ———,  Augustinus, Darmstadt, 2004. Fürst, A., Augustinus Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus, Münster, 1999. Gaarder, J., Vita brevis, English translation by A.  Born, London, 1997. Gabillon, A., “Romanianus, alias Cornelius: Du nouveau sur le bienfateur et l’ami de saint Augustin,” Revue des études augustiniennes, 24 (1978), p. 58-70. Garzya, A., “L’epistolografia letteraria tardoantica”, in Le trasformazioni della cultura nella tarda antichità: atti del Convegno tenuto a Catania, Università degli Studi, 27 sett.-2 ott. 1982, ed. by C. Giuffrida, M.  Mazza, Roma, p. 220-244. Gaumer, M., Dupont, A., “Understanding Augustine’s Changing Justification for State-Sponsored Religious Coercion and its Context within Donatist North Africa”, Augustinus, 54 (2009), p. 345-371. Gavigan, J.J., De vita monastica in Africa septentrionali inde a temporibus S. Augustini usque ad invasiones Arabum, Torino, 1962. Gavin, F., “The Sleep of the Soul in the Early Syriac Church”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 40 (1920), p. 103-120. Geerlings, W., “Die Belehrung eines Heiden: Augustins Brief über Christus an Volusianus”, Augustiniana, 40-41 (1990-1991), p. 451468. Géraud, H., “Des libelli et des lettres”, Bulletin du bibliophile, 3 (1838), p. 871-884. Gibson, R., “On the nature of ancient letter collections”, Journal of Roman Studies, 102 (2012), p. 56-78. Goffman, E., The presentation of self in everyday life, New York, 1959. Gonzague de, M., “Un correspondant de saint Augustin: Nebridius”, in Augustinus Magister, vol.  1, Paris, 1954, p.  93-99. Gross, J., Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbsündendogmas. Von der Bibel bis Augustinus (Geschichte des Erbsündendogmas, B. 1), München-Basel, 1960.

bibliography

357

Hall, R.G., Oberhelman, S.M., “Rhythmical Clausulae in the Letters of Saint-Augustine”, Augustiniana, 37 (1987), p. 258-278. Hammerstaedt, J., “Crux”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2, ed. by C.  Mayer, Basel, 1996, p.  143-151. Harmless, W., Augustine and the Catechumenate, Collegeville, 1995. Harries, J., Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, 1999. Harris, W.V., Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, 2009. Hennings, R., Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2, 11-14, Leiden, 1994. Hermanowicz, E.T., Possidius of Calama. A study of the North African episcopate at the time of Augustine, Oxford, 2008. Holtz, L., “Les mots latins désignant le livre au temps d’Augustin”, in Les débuts du codex, ed. by A.  Blanchard, Turnhout, 1989, p. 103-115. Hombert, P.-M.,  Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augustinienne, Paris, 2000. Hulley, K.K., “Light Cast by St  Jerome on Certain Palaeographical Points,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 54 (1943), p. 83-92. Humfress, C., “Bishops and Law Courts in Late Antiquity: How (Not) to Make Sense of the Legal Evidence”, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19,3 (2011), p. 375-400. Hunter, D.  G., “Augustine, Sermon 354 A: Its Place in his Thought on Marriage and Sexuality”, Augustinian Studies, 33 (2002), p. 39-60. Hübner, W., “Euodius”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2, ed. by C.  Mayer, Basel, 2002, p.  1158-1162. Ierodiakonou, K., “The Stoic Division of Philosophy”, Phronesis, 38,1 (1993), p. 57-74. Johnson, R.R., “Ancient and Medieval Accounts of the ‘Invention’ of Parchment,” California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 3 (1970), p. 115-122. Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, vol.  2, Oxford,1964. Kelly, C., Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge (Ma.), 2004. Kenney, J.P., Contemplation and Classical Christianity. A Study in Augustine, Oxford, 2013. Kevane, E., “Christian Philosophy: the Intellectual Side of Augustine’s Conversion”, Augustinian Studies, 17 (1986), p. 49-83.

358

bibliography

Kock, C., “Augustine’s Letter to Ecdicia: A  New Reading”, Augustinian Studies, 31 (2000), p. 173-180. Knox, B.M.W., ‘Silent Reading in Antiquity’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 9 (1968), p. 421-435. Kreuz, G., “Εἶα, πρεσβῦτι! κρατερῶσ ἀνήβα! Anton Josef Steins Beitrag zum Wiener Philhellenismus zur Zeit des Kongresses”, Wiener Humanistische Blätter, 52 (2010) p. 51-98. Kuhn, E.M., “Justice Applied by the Episcopal Arbitrator: Augustine and the Implementation of Divine Justice”, Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 9,2 (2007), p. 71-104. Lamberigts, M., “Augustine on Marriage: A Comparison of De bono coniugali and De nuptiis et concupiscentia”, Louvain Studies, 35 (2011), p. 32-52. ———,  “Augustine’s Use of Tradition in the Controversy with Julian of Aeclanum”, Augustiniana 60 (2010), p. 11-61. ———,  Innocentius episcopus Romanus, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 3,34, Basel, 2006,  613-619. ———, “A Critical Evaluation of Critiques of Augustine’s View of Sexuality”, in Augustine and his Critics: Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner, ed. by R. Dodaro, G.  Lawless, London, New York, 2000, p. 176-197 Lambot, C., “Lettre inédite de s. Augustin relative au De civitate Dei”, Revue Bénédictine, 51 (1939), p. 109-121. Lamoraux, J., “Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity”, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 3,2 (1995), p. 143-167. Lancel, S., Saint Augustin, Paris, 1999. ———,  “L’affaire d’Antoninus de Fussala: pays, choses et gens de la Numidie d’Hippone saisis dans la durée d’une procedure d’enquête épiscopale”, in Les lettres des saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C.  Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p.  267-285. Lane Fox, R., Augustine: Conversions to Confessions, New York, 2015. Laurence, P., “Artemia, Ecdicia, et Celantia: Trois lettres sur continence conjugale chrétienne”, in Epistulae antiquae II. Actes du IIe colloque international “Le Genre Épitolaire Antique et Ses Prolongements Européens”, ed. by L.  Najdo, Louvain, 2002, p. 333-354. Lawless, G., Augustine of Hippo and his Monastic Rule, Oxford, 1987. Lenski, N.E., “Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine”, in Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. R.  W. Mathisen, Oxford, 2001, p.  83-97.

bibliography

359

Lewis, N., Papyrus in Classical Antiquity, Oxford, 1974. Leyser, C., Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great, Oxford, 2000. Liebeschuetz, W., Ambrose of Milan: political letters and speeches, Liverpool, 2005 (TTH, 43). Lienhard, J.T., “Patristic Sermons on Eusebius of Vercelli and Their Relation to His Monasticism,”, Revue Bénédictine, 87 (1977), p. 164-172. Lim, R., “Manichaeans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity”, in Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World, 300-1500, ed. by A.  Cameron, R. Hoyland, Farnham, 2011 (The Worlds of Eastern Christianity), p.  29-42. Lössl, J., Julian von Aeclanum. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinem Werk, seiner Lehre und seiner Überlieferung, Leiden, Boston, Cologne, 2001 (Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements, 60). Luijendijk, A.-M., Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Harvard, 2008. Madec, G., “Du nouveau dans la correspondance augustinienne”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 27 (1981), p. 56-66. ———,  “Pour l’amour de l’intelligence (Augustin, Lettre 120, à Consentius). Foi – Raison – Intelligence”, in Augustinus Afer. Actes du colloque international Alger-Annaba, 1-7 avril 2001. Saint Augustin: africanité et universalité, ed. by P.-Y.  Fux, J.-M.  Roessli, O.  Wermelinger (Paradosis, 45, 1-2), Fribourg, 2003, p. 237241. Magerstedt, D., “Biene,” in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Band  III.1, Stuttgart, 1897, p.  431-450. Maier, J.-L., Le dossier du donatisme, vol. II: De Julien L’Apostat à Saint Jean Damascène, 361-750, Berlin, 1989. Malherbe, A.J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Atlanta, Ga., 1988. Mandouze, A., Saint Augustin, l’aventure de la raison et de la grâce, Paris, 1968. ———,  Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, t.  1 Afrique (303533), Paris, 1982. Marrou, H.-I., Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, Paris, 1938 (2nd ed. Paris, 1949.;3rd ed. Paris, 1958). Martindale, J.R. (ed.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, A.D. 395-527, Cambridge, 1980.

360

bibliography

Matthews, J.F., “The Letters of Symmachus”, in Political Life and Culture in the Late Roman Society, ed. by J.F. Matthews, London, 1985, p. 58-99. McConnell, T.C., “Augustine on Torturing and Punishing An Innocent Person”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 17 (1979), p. 481-492. McLynn, N., “Augustine’s Roman Empire”, in History, Apocalypse, and the Secular Imagination: new essays on Augustine’s City of God, ed. by M. Vessey, K.  Pollmann, and A. Fitzgerald, Bowling Green, 1999, p. 29-44. ———,  “Augustine’s Black Sheep: The Case of Antoninus of Fussala”, in Istituzioni, carismi ed esercizio del potere, IV-VI secolo, ed. by G.  Bonamente, R.L.  Testa, Bari, 2010. ———,  “Administrator: Augustine in His Diocese”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. M.  Vessey, Malden, Oxford, 2012, p.  310-322. Merdinger, J.  E., Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine, New Haven, London, 1997. Meyers, J., Les miracles de saint Étienne: recherches sur le recueil pseudo-augustinien (BHL 7860-7861) avec Édition critique, traduction et commentaire, Hagiologia, Turnhout, 2006. Miles, R., “Let’s (not) talk about it: Augustine and the control of epistolary dialogue”, in The End of Dialogue in Antiquity, ed. by S. Goldhill, Cambridge, 2008, p. 135-148. Monceaux, P., “La formule. Qui mecum sunt fratres dans la correspondance de saint Augustin”, in Mélanges Paul Thomas. Recueil de memoires concernant la philologie classique, dédié à Paul Thomas, Bruges, 1930. Morello, R., Morrison, A.D., Ancient Letters. Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, Oxford, 2007. Morgenstern, F., Die Briefpartner des Augustinus von Hippo: prosopographische, sozial- und ideologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Bochum, 1993. Mratschek, S., Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und soziale Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Göttingen, 2002 (Hypomnemata, 134). ———,  “A living relic for the Vicar of Rome: Strategies of Visualization in a Civil Case”, in Literature and Society in the Fourth Century A.D. Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self, ed. by L.  Van Hoof, P.  Van Nuffelen, Leiden, Boston, 2015, p. 134-156.

bibliography

361

———,  “Augustine, Paulinus, and the Question of Moving the Monastery: Dispute between Theologians or between Actors of History?”, in Inter cives necnon peregrinos: Essays in honour of Boudewijn Sirks, ed. by J. Hallebeek, M.  Schermaier et al., Göttingen, 2014, p. 545-561. ———,  “Friends, Friendship”, in Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, ed. by H.J. Klauck, V.  Leppin et  al., Berlin-Boston, 2014, p. 723-727. ———, “Te velimus…consilii participem. Augustine of Hippo and Olympius - a case study of religious-political cooperation in the fifth century”, Studia Patristica, 38 (2001), p. 224-232. ———, “Die ungeschriebenen Briefe des Augustinus von Hippo”, in ‘In Search of Truth. Augustine, Manichaeism & Gnosticism. Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty’, ed. by J.A. van den Berg, A.  Kotzé, T. Nicklas, M. Scopello, Leiden, Boston, 2011, p. 109-122. Navarro Coma, F., “Romaniano y Agustín: Amistad e intereses entre un curial rico y un curial pobre,” POLIS: Revista de ideas y formas políticas de la Antigüedad Clásica 10 (1998), p. 247-267. Nehring, P., “Disposal of Private Property - Theory and Practice in the Earliest Augustinian Monastic Communities”, La vie quotidienne des moines en Orient et en Occident (IVe-Xe siècle), vol. I: L’état des sources, ed. by O.  Delouis, M.  Mossakowska-Gaubert, École Française d’Athènes, (forthcoming). ———,  “Literary Sources for Everyday Life of the Early Monastic communities in North Africa”, in La vie quotidienne des moines en Orient et en Occident (IVe-Xe siècle), vol. I: L’état des sources, ed. by O. Delouis, M. Mossakowska-Gaubert, École Française d’Athènes, 2015, p.  325-335. Neil, B., “Continuities and changes in the practice of letter-collecting from Cicero to late antiquity”, in Collecting Early Christian Letters from the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. by B.  Neil, P.  Allen, Cambridge, New York, 2015, p.  3-17. Nguyen, N.L., “Roman Rape: An overview of Roman rape laws from the republican period to Justinian’s reign”, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 13 (2006), p. 75-112. O’Callaghan, J., El Papiro en Los Padres Grecolatinos, Barcelona, 1967. O’Connell, R.J., Images of Conversion in St Augustine’s Confessions, New York, 1996,. ———, “Ennead  VI, 4 and 5 in the Works of Saint Augustine”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 9 (1963), p. 1-39.

362

bibliography

———,  “The Enneads and St Augustine’s Image of Happiness”, Vigiliae Christianae, 17,3 (1963), p. 129-164. ———,  St  Augustine’s Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391, Cambridge (Ma.), 1968. ———,  St Augustine’s Confessions. The Odyssey of Soul, New York, 2003 (1st ed. Cambridge (Ma.), 1969). ———,  “Pre-existence in Augustine’s Seventh Letter”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 15 (1969), p. 67-73. ———, “The Origin of the Soul in Saint Augustine’s Letter 143”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 28 (1982), p. 239-252. ———,  The Origin of the Soul in St Augustine’s Later Works, New York, 1987. ———, “Where the Difference Still Lies”, Augustinian Studies, 21 (1990), p. 139-152. O’Daly, G., Augustine’s City of God: a Reader’s Guide, Oxford, 1999. ———,  Augustine’s Philosophy of the Mind, London, 1987. O’Donnell, J.J., Augustine: A New Biography, New York, 2005. O’Meara, J.J., The Young Augustine. The Growth of St Augustine’s Mind up to his Conversion, London, 1954. ———,  “Augustine and Neoplatonism”, Recherches augustiniennes, 1 (1958), p. 91-111. Paffenroth, K., “Tears of Grief and Joy. Confessions Book 9: Chronological Sequence and Structure”, Augustinian Studies, 28,1 (1997), p. 141-154. Parkes, M., “Leggere, scrivere, interpretare il testo: pratiche monastiche nell’ Alto Medioevo”, in Storia della lettura nel mondo occidentale, ed. by G.  Cavallo, R.  Chartier, Roma-Bari, 1995, p. 71-90. Penascovic, R., “The Fall of the Soul in Saint Augustine: a Quaestio Disputata”, Augustinian Studies, 17 (1986), p. 135-145. Pietri, Ch., “Le Lettres nouvelles et leurs témoignages sur l’histoire de l’Église romaine et de ses relations avec l’Afrique”, in Les lettres des saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C.  Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p.  343-354. Pietri, L., Heijmans, M. (eds), Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne (314-614), (Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, 4), Paris, 2013. Plinval de, G., De gestis Pelagii. Introduction, in La crise pélagienne I (BA, 21), Paris, 1994.

bibliography

363

Preisendanz, K., “Mamonas,” in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband V, Stuttgart, 1995. Primmer, A., “Nachlese zur Textgestaltung der neugefundenen Augustinusbriefe”, in Les lettres des saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C.  Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p.  43-82. Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley, 2005. Rebillard, É., Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa 200-450 ce, Cornell, 2012. ———,  “Religious Sociology: Being Christian in the time of Augustine”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. by M. Vessey, Malden, Oxford, 2012, p.  40-53. Rist, J.M., Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, Cambridge, 1994. ———, “Faith and reason”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. by E.  Stump, N. Kretzmann, Cambridge, 2005, p. 26-39. Roda, S., “Polifunzionalità della Lettera Com­mendaticia”, in Colloque Genevois sur Symmaque, ed. by F. Paschoud, Paris, 1986, p.  177207. Rodríguez Adrados, F.,  History of the Graeco-Latin Fable III: Inventory and Documentation of the Graeco-Latin Fable, Leiden-Boston, 2003. Rombs, R.J., Saint Augustine and the Fall of Soul: beyond O’Connell and his Critics, Washington, 2006. Rose, P.J., A  Commentary on Augustine’s ‘De cura pro mortuis gerenda’: Rhetoric in Practice, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, Leiden, 2013. Rosenmeyer, P.A., Ancient Epistolary Fictions: the Letter in Greek Literature, Cambridge, 2001. Ross, D.L., “Time, the Heaven of Heavens, and Memory in Augustine’s Confessions”, Augustinian Studies, 22 (1991), p. 191-205. Rosenberg, S.P., “Beside Books: Approaching Augustine’s Sermons in the Oral and Textual Cultures of Late Antiquity”, in Tractatio Scripturarum. Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons, ed. by A.  Dupont, G.  Partoens, M.  Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2012, (IPM, 65), p. 405-442. Rougé, J., “Escroquerie et brigandage en Afrique romaine au temps de saint Augustin (Epist. 8* et 9*)”, in Les lettres des saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au

364

bibliography colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982, ed. by C.  Lepelley, Paris, 1983, p. 177-188.

Saenger, P., “Silent Reading: Its Impact on Late Medieval Script and Society”, Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 13 (1982), p. 367-414. Schmitt, J.-C., Ghosts in the Middle Ages: The Living and the Dead in Medieval Society, Transl. by T.  L. Fagan, Chicago, 1998. Schäublin, C., “Zwei Bemerkungen über Literatur in den neuen Augustin-Briefen”, Museum Helveticum, 41 (1984), p. 54-61. Schmid, W., “Philosophisches und Medizinisches in der Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius,” in Römische Philosophie, ed. by G.  Maurach, Darmstadt, 1976. Schöllgen, G., Ecclesia sordida? Zur Frage der sozialen Schichtung frühchristlicher Gemeinden am Beispiel Karthagos zur Zeit Tertullians, Münster, 1985 (JbAC Erg.  Bd. 12). Schwitter, R., Umbrosa Lux. Obscuritas in der lateinischen Epistolographie der Spätantike, Stuttgart, 2015. Shanzer, D., A  Philosophical and Literary Commentary on Martianus Capella’s de nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, Berkeley, 1986 (University of California Publications: Classical Studies, 32). ———,  “Arcanum Varronis iter: Licentius’ verse epistle to Augustine”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 37 (1991), p. 110-143. ———,  “Some Treatments of Sexual Scandal in (Primarily) Later Latin Epistolography”, in In pursuit of Wissenschaft: Festschrift für William M. Calder III zum 75. Geburtstag. Spudasmata, Bd. 119. Hildesheim-New York, 2008, ed. by S.  Heilen, p. 393-414. ———,  “‘Incessu humilem, successu excelsam’: Augustine, Sermo Humilis, and Scriptural ὕψος”, in Magnificence and the Sublime in Medieval Aesthetics: Art, Architecture, Literature, Music, ed. by C.S.  Jaeger, New York, 2010, p.  51-77. ———,  “Augustine’s Epp. 77-78 (A Scandal in Hippo): Microhistory and Ordeal-by-Oath”, Reading Medieval Studies, 40 (2014), p. 11-33. Shaw, B.D., “Augustine and Men of Imperial Power”, Journal of Late Antiquity, 8 (2015), p. 32-61. ———,  Sacred Violence. African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine, Cambridge, 2011. ———,  “The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine”, Past and Present, 115 (1987), p. 3-51. Silvas, A., “The Letters of Basil of Caesarea and the Role of Letter-Collections in their Transmission”, in Collecting Early Christian

bibliography

365

Letters: from the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. by B.  Neil, P.  Allen, Cambridge, 2015, p. 113-128. Sieben, H.J., “Augustinus als Orakel. Briefliche Anfragen an den Bischof von Hippo”, in Studien zu Werk und Wirkungs­geschichte, ed. by H.J. Sieben, Münster, 2013 (Frankfurter Theologische Studien 69), p. 43-92. Sirks, A.J.B., “The episcopalis audientia in Late Antiquity”, Droit et cultures, 65/1  (2013), http://droitcultures.revues.org/3005 (access 27.01.2016). Sitek, B., “Raptores virginum vel viduarum vel diaconissarum. Studio sul rapimento delle donne votate a Dio nelle costituzioni degli imperatori romani”, Diritto Storia, 5  (2006), http://www.dirittoestoria.it/5/Tradizione-Romana/Sitek-Raptores-virginum.htm#_ ftnref15 (access 21.05.2015). Skeat, T.C., “Was Papyrus Regarded as ‘Cheap’ or ‘Expensive’ in the Ancient World?”, Aegyptus, 75 (1995), p. 75-93. Smither, E.L., Augustine as Mentor: A Model for Preparing Spiritual Leaders, Nashville, 2008. Sogno, C., Storin, B.K. Watts, E.J. (eds), Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide, ed. by C. Sogno, B.K. Storin, E. Watts, Oakland, California, 2016. Sotinel, C., “Augustine’s Information Circuits”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. by M.  Vessey, Malden, Oxford, 2012, p.  125-137. Standage, T., Writing on the Wall: Social Media - the First 2,000 Years, New York, 2013. Starnes, C., Augustine’s Conversion: A Guide to the Argument of Confessions  I-IX, Waterloo, 1990. Starnes, C., “The Ninth Book of the Confessions”, in Augustine: from Rhetor to Theologian, ed. by J.  McWilliam, Waterloo, 1992. Stead, C., Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, Cambridge, 1994. Stock, B., Augustine the Reader, Cambridge (Ma.), 1996. Stroumsa, G., On the status of books in Early Christianity, in Being Christian in Late Antiquity: A Festschrift for Gillian Clark, ed. by C.  Harrison, C.  Humfress, I.  Sandwell, Oxford, 2014, p. 57-73. Stróżyński, M., “There is No Searching for the Self: Self-Knowledge in Book Ten of Augustine’s De Trinitate”, Phronesis, 58 (2013), p. 280-300. ———,  “Voice of the Bridegroom: Allegorical Exegesis as Spiritual Exercise in Book Eleven of Augustine’s Confessions”, Augustiniana, 65, 3-4 (2015), p. 141-167.

366

bibliography

———,  “The Fall of the Soul in Book Two of Augustine’s Confessions”, Vigiliae Christianae, 70,1 (2016), p. 77-100. Svenbro, J., La Graecia arcaica e classica: l’invenzione della letura silenziosa, in Storia della lettura, ed. by G.  Cavallo, R.  Chartier, Roma–Bari, 1995, p.  3-36. Śrutwa, J., “Praktyka azylu kościelnego w ujęciu św. Augustyna”, in Chrześcijanie a życie publiczne w Cesarstwie Rzymskim III-IV w., ed. by J.  Śrutwa, Lublin, 1998, p. 199-211. Teske, R.J., “Augustine’s Epistula  X: Another Look at deificari in otio”, Augustinianum, 32 (1992), p. 289-299. ———,  “Saint Augustine on the Incorporeality of the Soul in Letter 166”, The Modern Schoolman, 60 (1983), p. 170-183. ———,  To Know God and the Soul: Essays on the Thought of Saint Augustine, Washington, 2008. Testard, M., Saint Augustin et Cicéron, vol.  1, Paris, 1958, (Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 5). Theiler, W., “Porphyrios und Augustin”, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 10), Berlin, 1966. Torchia, J., “St Augustine’s Treatment of Superbia and Its Plotinian Affinities”, Augustinian Studies, 18 (1987), p. 66-80. Tornau, C., Zwischen Rhetorik und Philosophie: Augustinus Argumentationstechnik in De civitate Dei und ihr bildungsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund, Berlin, 2006. Trout, D.E., Paulinus of Nola. Life, Letters, and Poems, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1999. ———,  “The Dates of the Ordination of Paulinus of Bordeaux and of his Departure for Nola”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 37 (1991), p. 237-260. ———,  “Augustine at Cassiciacum: Otium honestum and the Social Dimensions of Conversion”, Vigiliae Christianae, 42,2 (1988), p. 132-146. Turcan, R., “Martianus Capella et Jamblique”, Revue des Études Latines, 36 (1958), p. 235-254. Van der Meer, F., Saint Augustin, pasteur d’âmes, vol. 2., Colmar, 1959 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes: Hors série, 7). Van Dijk, G.-J., Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek Literature, Leiden, New York, Cologne, 1997.

bibliography

367

van Egmond, P.J., “A Confession without Pretence”. Text and Context of Pelagius’ Defence of 417 ad, Amsterdam, 2013 (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Van Fleteren, F., “A Reply to Robert O’Connell”, Augustinian Studies, 21 (1990), p. 127-137. ———,  “Augustine and Philosophy”, Augustinian Studies 41,1 (2010), p. 255-274. Van Hoof, L. (ed.), Libanius: a Critical Introduction, Cambridge, 2014. Van Nuffelen, P., Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, Oxford, 2012 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). Van Oort, J., Jerusalem and Babylon. A Study into Augustine’s City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 14), Leiden, Boston, 1991. ———,  “Letters 1A* and 2* to Firmus and the Purpose of De Civitate Dei”, in Cappadocian Fathers, Greek Authors after Nicaea, Augustine, Donatism and Pelagianism: papers presented at the eleventh International conference on patristic studies held in Oxford 1991 (Studia patristica 27), ed. by E.  Livingstone, Oxford, Leuven, 1993, p. 417-423. Van Oort, J., Wermelinger, O., Wurst, G. (eds), Augustine and the Manicheism in the Latin West, Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the International Associa­tion of Manichaean Studies (IAMS), Leiden, Boston, Cologne, 2001. Verheijen, L., La Règle de saint Augustin, vol. 1, Tradition manuscrite, Paris, 1967. Vismara, G., La giurisdizione civile dei vescovi (Secoli I-IX), Milano, 1995. Watson, G., “Crime and Punishment in Augustine and the Philosophical Tradition”, The Maynooth Review, 8 (1983), p. 32-42. Wermelinger, O., Rom und Pelagius. Die theologische Position der römischen Bischöfe im Pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411-432, Stuttgart, 1975 (Päpste und Papsttum, 7) Williams, M.S., “Augustine as a Reader of His Christian Con­ temporaries”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. M.  Vessey, Malden, Oxford, 2012, p. 227-239. Wlosok, A., Laktanz und die philosophische Gnosis, Heidelberg, 1960. Woodcock, E.C., A  New Latin Syntax, Cambridge (Ma.), 1959. Zangara, V., Exeuntes de corpore. Discussioni sulle apparizioni dei morti in epoca agostiniana, Firenze, 1990.

368

bibliography

———,  “Il ‘vehiculum animae’ e le apparizioni dei morti nell’ Ep.  158 di Evodio ad Agostino”, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, 25,2 (1989), p. 234-258. Zelzer, M., “Die Briefliteratur. Kommunikation durch Briefe: Ein Gespräch mit Abwesenden”, in Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft 4, Spätantike, ed. by L.J. Engels, H. Hofmann, Wiesbaden, 1997, p. 321-353. Zieliński, T., Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden, Grundzüge einer oratorischen Rhythmik, Leipzig, 1904. Zumkeller, A., Augustine’s Ideal of the Religious Life, New York, 1986.

Index of Ancient and Medieval Persons Abelard, Peter  203 Abraham, monk  190, 195 Abundantius, presbyter of Strabonia   86-87, 90 Adeodatus, son of Augustine  286 Agilis, letter carrier  63, 166-167 Alaric I, king of the Visigoths  68, 208 Alypius, bishop of Thagaste  31, 3334, 69-70, 72, 108-110, 191, 207-208, 306 Ambrose, bishop of Milan  41, 58, 80, 115, 130, 152, 154, 160, 187-188, 194, 399-340 Ambrosiaster  339 Amerbach, Johannes, book printer   189 Ammianus Marcellinus 341 Anaximenes  122 Anaxagoras  122 Antoninus, bishop of Fussala  32, 88, 96-107, 130 Apollonius of Tyana  281 Apollodorus, proconsul of Africa  40 Apuleius of Madauros  192, 253 Apringius, proconsul of Africa   26, 38-39, 55, 286 Aristides Quintilianus  300 Armenius, presbyter of Memblona   274, 297-298 Audax, young Catholic rhetorician  75 Aurelius, bishop of Carthage  59, 80, 101, 166, 188, 191, 207-208 Ausonius (Decimius Magnus Ausonius), poet, rhetor  341 Avitus, Alcimus Ecdicius, bishop of Vienne  270-271 Basil, bishop of Caesarea  156, 186188 Benenatus, bishop of Tugutiana  42 Boniface (Bonifatius) I, pope  101

Boniface (Bonifatius), bishop of Cata­ qua  28, 91-92, 118 Boniface (Bonifatius), bishop who carried a letter to Macedonius  199 Boniface (Bonifatius), comes of Africa  25, 42, 53-55, 332 Boniface (Bonifatius), presbyter  85 Caecilian, comes of Africa  38-39, 55 Caelestius, Pelagian  49, 169, 204-205, 207-209, 213-216, 220, 222-223 Caesarius, bishop of Arles  75 Callimachus  282 Cato, Marcus Porcius (the Elder)  240, 252, 283 Catulus, Quintus Lutatius, consul   282 Catullus, Gaius Valerius  263 Celestine I, pope  31-32, 105, 126 Chrisimus, African Catholic layman    31 Cicero, Marcus Tullius  58, 64, 122, 136, 152-154, 156-158, 161, 235, 240, 246, 252, 259-262, 264, 270, 305, 322-323 Classician (Classicianus), imperial offi­cial  37-38 Claudianus, Ecdidius Mamertus  302 Columella, Lucius Iunius Moderatus   288 Commodian (Commodianus), presbyter  88 Consentius, layman of Balearic Islands  123, 127, 129, 130, 136, 159, 162, 178, 191 Constantine I, emperor  32, 83, 109 Constantius II, emperor  32, 109 Constantius III, emperor  28 Crispinus, Donatist bishop of Calama  27, 169, 171 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage  59

370

index of ancient and medieval persons

Cyprian (Cyprianus), presbyter 191192, 195 Cyril, bishop of Alexandria  206 Damascius  300 Dardanus, praetorian prefect of Gaul  52, 129 Darius, imperial official, Catholic Christian  158-159, 236-237, 267 Demetrias, virgin (addressee of Pelagius’ letter)  203 Democritus  122 Dioscorus, physician  117, 122-123, 235, 239 Donatus, proconsul of Africa  25 Dorotheus, landowner of Thagaste  34 Dulcitius, tribune  26 Duns Scotus, John  203 Ecdicia, Catholic laywoman  45-48, 53-55, 61, 332 Elpidius, Arian from North Africa   142 Emeritus, Donatist bishop of Caesarea  172 Erasmus of Rotterdam  189 Eunapius, author of Vitae sophistarum  282 Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea  196 Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli  80 Eusebius, monk (addressee of Jerome’s letter)  311 Evodius, bishop of Uzalis  13, 71-73, 76, 126, 133, 134, 137, 142-143, 153, 160, 199, 207, 273-280, 283304, 335-336 Fabiola, Roman aristocrat  97, 105, 133 Faustus, bishop of Riez  302 Faventius, farmer of Parati  35-36, 40 Favonius Eulogius, rhetor of Carthage  293-294 Felicia, consecrated virgin  111 Felix, bishop  24 Felix, Catholic layman  42 Felix, decurion  39 Felix, saint presbyter of Nola  65, 67, 73, 86

Firmus, presbyter   54-55, 159, 181184, 186, 188-196, 198-200, 202, 225-232, 235, 237-248, 331-333 Florentinus, Roman official  35-36 Fortunatian (Fortunatianus), bishop of Sicca  129, 142 Fortunatus, bishop of Cirtha  36 Gaius, Catholic layman in Africa  138, 164-165, 173 Galen  225 Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia  285 Gaudentius, Donatist bishop of Thamugadi  26 Generosus, the governor of Numidia  36 Gennadius, physician  287-288, 294 Gildo, comes of Africa  68 Gitta, deacon  85-86 Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus  157, 186 Gregory, bishop of Nyssa  155-156 Heraclian (Heraclianus), usurper  37, 55 Heros, Gallic bishop  205-206, 208 Hesychius, bishop of Salona  49, 185 Hierocles of Alexandria  300 Hilary, bishop of Narbonne  49 Hilary, bishop of Poitiers  253 Himerius, bishop of Tarragona  99 Hincmar, bishop of Reims  203 Honoratus, Donatist bishop  128, 131, 139, 169-170 Honorius, emperor   25, 32, 35, 55, 70-71, 93 Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus)   253, 279 Iamblichus  295, 300 Innocent I, pope   13, 204, 208-223, 332-333 Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon  302, 304 Isidore, bishop of Seville  160 Italica, widow from Rome  127, 140, 191 Januarius, Catholic layman  134, 145, 185 Januarius, Donatist bishop of Hippo   27

index of ancient and medieval persons Januarius, presbyter  89-90, 104-105 Jerome of Stridon  12, 55, 62, 80-81, 116-117, 130, 132, 134, 143, 153, 155, 187-188, 190-191, 196-197, 204-206, 253, 266-267, 269, 311314, 326, 339, 341 John Chrysostom  187, 221, 339 John, bishop of Jerusalem  62, 204, 206, 339 Jovian, emperor  32, 109 Julian, bishop of Eclanum  52, 184, 199, 207, 221, 223 Juliana, daughter-in-law of Proba   197 Justin (Justinus) Martyr  283 Laetus, former monk  45-46, 48 Laurentius, bishop of Mauretania Caesariensis  107 Lazarus, Gallic bishop  205-206, 208 Libanius  155-156, 187 Licentius, son of Romanianus 67, 96, 200-202, 306, 329 Licinius, Jew  92-97, 106 Livy (Titus Livius)  253 Lombard, Peter  203 Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus) 252-253 Macedonius, vicar of Africa   20-23, 40, 59, 125, 130, 198-199, 227, 333 Macrobius, Donatist bishop in Hippo  45, 66-67 Maiorinus, scriptorium owner  307 Marcellinus, tribune and notarius  26, 38-40, 42, 55, 59, 118, 124, 127, 129, 132, 142, 155, 188, 193, 286, 333 Marinus, comes of Africa  38 Martial (Marcus Valerius Martialis)   259, 341 Martianus Capella  303 Mascezel, brother of Claudius Claudianus  68-69 Maximus, letter carrier  66 Maximinus, Donatist bishop  44, 169, 268 Melania the Younger  89 Mentelin, Johannes, book printer  189

371

Monica, mother of Augustine  124, 189, 296 Nectarius, official of Calama 74, 268269 Nebridius   117-118, 121, 126, 132, 134-137, 140, 161, 163-164, 249250, 254, 262, 265, 268-270, 283284, 295, 334-335 Nero, emperor  341 Novatus, bishop  30, 35 Olympius, magister officiorum   2829, 91 Optatus, Donatist bishop of Thamugadi  68 Optatus, bishop of Milevis  132, 144, 151 Origen  143-144, 225, 276 Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso)  252253, 326 Pammachius, Roman senator  155, 167 Pancarius, property owner in Nu­midia  111 Pascentius, Arian comes  135, 173, 175 Paul, bishop of Cataqua  28, 91-92, 96, 106 Paul, the Apostle  19, 50, 125, 141, 145, 203, 222 Paul Orosius  61, 143, 204-205 Paula, friend of Jerome  191, 285 Paulina, wife of Armentarius  137, 185 Paulinus of Milan, secretary to Ambrose  152 Paulinus, bishop of Nola  59-60, 6273, 76, 151, 166-167, 194, 198, 200201, 341 Pelagius, heresiarch  49, 69-71, 169, 197, 203-210, 212-217, 220, 222223, 342 Peregrinus, tribune  35 Peter (Petrus), monk  190, 195 Philostratus (Lucius Flavius Philostratus)  280-283, 335 Pinianus, husband of Melania the Younger  89

372

index of ancient and medieval persons

Plato  121-122, 130, 134, 136-138, 149, 175-176, 294, 336 Plautus, Titus Maccius  252-253 Pliny the Younger (Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus)  64, 158, 187, 311312, 341 Plotinus  120-122, 127-129, 131-133, 134-135, 138, 146-147, 300, 336 Plutarch (Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus)  225, 282 Ponticanus, tax-collector  29 Porphyry  120-121, 134, 137, 147, 283, 300, 336 Possidius, bishop of Calama  19-20, 27, 40-42, 72-74, 80-81, 83, 90, 173, 175, 185-186, 192, 199, 207 Primus, subdeacon of Spana  83-84, 87 Proculeian, Donatist bishop of Hippo  27, 44-45, 168-169 Priscian (Priscianus) Caesariensis   253-254 Priscus, bishop of Quiza  107 Proba, the widow of Sextus Petronius Probus  49, 141, 332 Proclus 295, 300, 303 Prudentius, Aurelius Clemens  285 Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius  263-264 Quintus, decurion  39 Quodvultdeus, deacon  9 Romanianus of Thagaste  65, 200-201, 305-307, 310, 314-323, 325, 328-330 Romanus, letter carrier  63, 166-167 Romulus, convert  24 Rufinus of Aquileia  152, 253 Rusticus, presbyter  84 Rusticus, Pagan African  42 Sapida, sister of Timothy, deacon  296 Secundinus, presbyter  111 Seneca (Lucius Annaeus) the Younger  123, 154, 157, 253, 259 Sidonius Apollinaris  341 Sixtus III, pope  185, 191 Siricius, pope  99 Socrates  163, 176, 294 Spes, monk of Hippo  85

Stephen, martyr  274, 277, 292, 297, 335 Sulpicius Severus  253, 282 Sulpicius Apollinaris, Gaius  253 Stilicho, magister militum  28-29, 68, 92 Symmachus, Quintus Aurelius  24, 39, 40, 67, 156, 158, 187, 261 Synesius of Cyrene  186, 300 Tacitus, Publius Cornelius  253 Taurentius, writer  152 Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens)  59, 132, 144, 283 Timothy (Timotheus), deacon, brother of Sapida  296-297 Theasius, bishop  71-73, 297 Themistius, philosopher  156 Themistocles, Athenian politician  158 Theodore (Theodorus), letter carrier   66 Theodosius I, emperor  71, 76, 93 Therasia, wife of Paulinus of Nola   151, 167 Thomas Aquinas  203 Urbica, widow of Figentes  274-275, 286, 288, 298 Valentinianus, the Catholic bishop of Baiana, primate of Numidia  168 Valentine (Valentinus), abbot at Hadrumentum  245 Valerius, imperial official  23-24, 54, 191-193 Valerius, bishop of Hippo  79-80 Valerius Maximus  253 Vergil (Publius Vergilius Maro)  256 Vetustinus, letter carrier  65, 67 Vincentius Victor, bishop of Mauretania Caesariensis  303 Victor, bishop  92-97, 107 Victor, author of the two books on the nature of the soul  199 Victor, Gaius Iulius, rhetor  58 Victorinus, layman of Hippo  30, 35 Vindemialis, bishop  24 Vitalis, layman of Carthage  145

index of ancient and medieval persons Volusianus, Roman official  117, 124, 128, 155, 157, 175-176, 193-194, 201-202, 231 William of Ockham  203 Xanthippus, bishop of Thagura  86

373

Zenobius, layman from Milan  121 Zosimus, historian  28 Zosimus, bishop of Rome  70, 204, 209, 223

Index of Modern Authors Adamiak S.  119 Adams J.  195 Agaësse P.  291 Alfaric P.  115 Alimonti T.  28, 309 Allen P.  58, 77, 112, 150, 154, 156, 186-187, 198 Amat J.  283 Annas J.  125 Ansky S.  280 Assmann A.  60 Aujoulat N.  300 Babcock W.  43 Bacchi L.F.  89 Bagnall R.S.  151 Bardon H.  263 Bardy G.  190 Baltes M.  275, 299-300 Bastiaensen A.A.R.  80 Baxter J.H.  308 Beatrice P.F.  121 Bermon E.  251-252 Bernardakis G.N.  282 Berrouard M.F.  34 Bertelli C.  313 Birt T.  312 Blanchard A.  182 Blumell L.H.  314 Bonamente G.  98 Bonner G.  53, 59, 77, 115, 226, 247 Booth E.  133 Bouhot J.-P.  206 Bowden W.  313 Bowersock G.W.  65 Božič D.  316 Brachtendorf J.  133 Brashear W.  313 Braun R.  227, 243 Brittain Ch.  273, 293 Brown P.  25, 61, 64, 66, 68, 70-71, 103-104, 226, 315

Brown R.A.  319 Buchheit V.  263 Burczak K.  36 Burnett F.H.  279 Byers S.C.  120 Cain A.  81, 154, 186, 188, 197 Caltabiano M.  159 Cameron A.  76, 156 Carefoote P.J.  203 Carozzi C.  287 Carozzi L.  28 Cary P.  118, 127, 134, 136, 139, 146 Castritius H.  93, 95 Catarinella F.M.  225, 227, 231 Cavadini J.  133 Cavallo G.  151, 160 Cayré F.  114 Cazier P.  160 Celentano M.S.   58 Chadwick H.  84 Challoner R.  324 Chartier R.  160 Cimma M.R  82, 94 Clark E.A.  43 Clark G.  59, 60, 77, 160, 200, 202 Colish M.  120 Coma F.N.  314-315 Conybeare C.  59, 63, 73, 76-77, 158, 197 Cooper K.  46 Corrigan D.F.  279 Courcelle P.  115-116 Courtney E.  282 Coyle J.K.  124 Crisci E.  151 Crouse R.  115 Cunningham J.G.  309 Cunningham M.  58 Daur K.D.  249, 266, 307 Delouis O.  64, 90

index of modern authors Dalmon L.  12, 162, 184,191-192, 205, 212-214 De Plinval G.  205-205 Delaroche B.  205, 220 Demeulenaere R.  152 Demougeot E.  209 Dickey E.  192 Divjak J.  10-11, 13, 21, 30-31, 34, 40, 59, 84, 88, 92, 98, 162,182-183, 185186, 191-192,206-207, 225-229, 237, 243, 274, 318, 332 Djuth M.  124 Dobell B.  118, 121, 124, 141, 146-147 Dodaro R.  53, 77, 115 Dodds E.R.  282, 335 Doignon J.  319, 322-323, 326 Dolbeau F.  149 Dombart B.  43, 59, 181, 283 Dorfbauer L.J.  256 Dossey L.  111 Doyle D.E.  11, 21, 33, 80 Doutrelau L.  302 Drecoll V.  216 Duchrow U.  320 Ducloux A.  36-37 Dulaey M.  137, 275, 287, 289, 290291, 293-294 Dupont A.  25, 149 Duval Y.  297 Edwards M.  151, 226 Elsner J.  200 Engels L.J.  58 Eno R.B.  113, 186, 231, 247 Erb R.  93 Escribano Paño M.V.  29 Fagan T.L.  276 Faller O.  58 Fear A.  29 Feissel D.  27 Fernándes Urbiña J.  29 Festugière A.J.  295 Feugère M.  316 Fitzgerald A.D.  59, 110, 113, 186, 193, 205 Folliet G.  119, 121, 126, 134, 140, 245, 251 Fontaine J.  282

375

Formisano M.  59 Fortin E.L.  302 Fredriksen P.  96 Frend W.  26, 66, 98, 104, 185, 205 Frohnhofen H.  226-227 Fuhrer T.  59, 65, 76, 251 Fürst A.  155, 205, 266 Fux P.-Y.  115 Gaarder J.  57 Gabillon A.  307 Garzya A.  156 Gascou J.  27 Gaumer M.  25 Gavigan J.J.  81 Geerlings W.  176 Géraud H.  308 Gibson R.  184, 198 Giomini R.  58 Giuffrida C.  156 Goldbacher A.  20, 24-25, 44, 46,49, 5961, 69, 82, 88-89, 122, 125-126, 150, 152, 166, 182, 189, 206, 235-236, 267, 277, 284, 307-308, 322 Goldhill S.  197, 202 Gonzague M. de  119 Green W.M.  59, 193, 254, 307 Gross J.  223 Günther O.  70, 204 Hall R.G.  161-162 Hallebeek J.  60 Hammerstaedt J.  285 Harmless W.  194 Harries J.  27 Harris W.V.  276, 287 Harrison C.  60, 160 Heilen S.  10, 84 Heijmans M.  205 Hermanowicz E.  72, 74, 185, 192 Hernández Lobato J.  200 Hertz M.  253 Hilberg I.  76, 266, 311 Hodges R.  313 Hofmann H.  58 Holtz L.  182 Hombert P.-M.  189 Hörmann W.  323 Hübner W.  274

376

index of modern authors

Hulley K.K.  312-313 Humfress C.  60, 82,160 Hunter D.G.  53, 61 Ierodiakonou K.  125 Jaeger C.S.  284 John S.  251 Johnson R.R.  312 Jones A.H.M.  89 Kalb A.  43, 59 Kamptner M.  181, 283 Kayser C.L.  281 Keil H.  253 Kelly C.  27 Kenney J.P.  120, 141 Kerby-Ulton K.  147 Kevane E.  115 Klauck H.J.  62 Knox B.M.W.  160 Kock C.  46 Kretzmann N.  114 Kreuz G.  271 Kroll W.  295 Krüger P.  72,74 Kuhn E.M.  22, 82, 92-94,110 Lamberigts M.  52, 149, 207-208, 212 Lambot C.  77, 80, 181,183, 188-191, 203 Lamoraux J.  82 Lancel S.  98, 103, 284, 294, 297, 303, 309, 324 Lane Fox R.  59-60, 76-77 Laurence P.  46 Lawless G.  53, 77, 116, 186 Lenaz L.  303 Lenski N.E.  33, 82, 88 Lepelley C.  10, 11, 34, 88, 206, 237 Leppin V.  62 Lewis N.  43, 315 Liebeschuetz W.  187 Lienhard J.T.  80 Livingstone E.  195, 225 Lizzi Testa R.  98, 156 Luijendijk A.M.  314 Madec G.  88, 92, 114-115, 123, 190 Magerstedt D.  328 Maier J.-L.  71, 74 Malherbe A.J.  154, 157

Mandouze A.  66, 107, 114, 274, 283 Maraval P.  156 Marciniak B.  119 Marcos M.  29 Marin M.  225 Marinova E.  194 Marrou H.-I.  114, 146, 181, 252 Martin J.  252 Martindale J.R.  20, 24, 28, 38 Marx F.  306 Mathisen R.W.  33, 82, 152, 158 Maurach G.  320 Mayer C.  11, 186, 192, 207, 274, 285, 318 Mazza M.  156 McConnel T.C.  22 McLynn N.  57, 98, 103-104,193 McWilliam J.  116 Mommsen T.  68, 72, 74 Moreschini C.  225 Merdinger J.E.  98, 103 Meyers J.  277 Mierow C.C.  266 Miles R.  197 Monceaux P.  87 Morello R.  63, 76 Morrison A.D.  63, 76 Mossakowska-Gaubert M.  64, 90 Mratschek S.  28, 60, 62, 65-67, 71-74, 76-77, 92, 167, 186, 267 Mullett M.  154 Munier C.  71, 80 Mutzenbecher A.  185, 329 Näf B.  273, 280 Najdo L.  47 Nehring P.  57, 64, 90, 105, 119, 273 Neil B.  58, 60, 112, 154, 156, 187, 198 Nguyen N.L.  32 Norman A.F.  156 Oberhelman S.M.  161-162 O’Callaghan J.  309 O’Connell R.J.  51, 116-117, 119, 121122, 124, 127-128,134, 142-144, 320 O’Daly G.J.P.  181, 183, 190, 275, 280, 287, 300 O’Donnell J.J.  197

index of modern authors Olson L.  197 O’Meara J.J.  121 Paffenroth K.  124 Parkes M.  160 Parsons W.  308 Partoens G.  149 Parvis P.  226 Pellegrino M.  251, 309 Penascovic R.  134 Perry B.E.  326-327 Pietri Ch.  88 Pietri L.  205 Pollmann K.  59, 193 Poujoulat J.-J.-F.  309 Preisendanz K.  324 Primmer A.  88, 108, 237, 247 Radermacher L.  263 Rapp C.  77, 81 Reale G.  119 Rebillard E.  74, 194, 201 Rist J.M.  114, 117-118,137-138 Rodríguez Adrados F.  327-328 Roessli J.-M.  115 Rombs R.J.  134 Rose P.J.  296 Rosenberg S.P.  149, 177 Rosenmeyer P.A.  313-314 Ross D.L.  136 Rotelle E.  251 Rougé J.  92-93 Rousseau A.  302-304 Saenger P.  152-153, 162 Sághy M.  156 Sagnard F.  304 Salzman M.  156 Sandwell I.  60, 160 Shackleton Bailey D.R.  259-260, 270 Schaff Ph.  235, 309 Schäublin Chr.  225, 228, 233-234 Schermaier M.  60 Schidt M.  93 Schlappbach K.  65 Schmid W.  320 Schmitt J.-C.  276-277, 335 Schöllgen G.  59 Schwitter R.  258, 261

377

Shanzer D.  9, 72, 84, 86, 88, 153, 200, 271, 284, 290, 301, 303 Shaw B.  26, 43-44, 193 Shaw J.F.  234 Silvas A.  155-156, 187 Sirks A.J.B.  60, 83 Sitek B.  32 Skeat T.C.  315 Smith A.  295, 300 Smith C.A.  282 Smither E.L.  91 Smolak K.  273, 301 Sogno C.  58, 187 Solignac A.  291 Sorabji R.  273 Sotinel C.  62, 67, 187 Standage T.  154 Starnes C.  115-116, 124, 146-147 Stead C.  114 Stock B.  160, 162-163, 165 Storin B.  58, 187 Stroumsa G.  160 Stróżyński M.  119, 129, 133-134, 176 Stump E.  114 Śrutwa J.  37 Teske R.  24, 26-19, 34-35, 39, 45-46, 49,114, 119, 121-122, 126, 132, 135, 140, 161, 166, 227, 235, 301-302, 308 Testard M.  294 Theiler W.  121 Toczko R.  119, 193 Torchia J.  120 Tornau C.  57 Trout D.E.  64-65, 71, 73, 322 Turcan R.  303 Urba C.F.  206 Van der Meer F.  277-278 Van Dijk G.-J.  326 Van Egmond P.  203-204 Van Hoof L.  65, 187 Van Hout M.P.J.  230 Van Nuffelen P.  61, 65 Van Oort J.  57, 76, 195 Van Fleteren F.  225-226, 231, 233 Verheijen L.  72, 77, 87, 280 Vessey M.  59, 62, 98, 163, 187, 193

378

index of modern authors

Vismara G.  82, 93-94 Vogel F.  41 Von Hartel W.  60, 62 Walsh P.G.  43 Watson G.  22 Watts E.  58, 187 Weiskotten H.T.  20 Wermelinger O.  70, 76, 115, 205, 207-209, 212, 216, 219-221 Willems R.  326 Williams M.S.  77 Wilmart A.  185

Wlosok A.  320 Wood I.  271, 309 Woodcock E.C.  309 Young, F.  226 Zangara V.  274-276, 283-284, 287288, 290-291, 296, 299 Zelzer M.  58, 60, 77 Zieliński T.  161 Zieliński Kinney A.  150-151 Zumkeller A.  81 Zycha J.  83, 206, 273

Index of Augustine’s Works Confessiones, conf.  57, 72, 76-77, 84, 118, 121, 124, 126, 128, 129, 133, 134, 140, 141, 158, 160, 165, 194, 197, 229, 236, 244, 274, 279, 280, 283, 284, 286, 289, 295, 306, 336 Contra Academicos, acad.   65, 117, 121, 189, 195, 202, 238, 306, 307, 318, 320, 321, 323, 328, 329, 330 Contra Faustum, c. Faust.  151 Contra Iulianum, c. Iul.  206, 207 De bono coniugali, b. coniug.  43 De catechizandis rudibus, cat. rud.  195, 229, 230, 248 De ciuitate Dei, ciu.  59, 152, 181-185, 188-190, 193, 195, 196, 198, 199, 225-227, 229, 231-233, 238, 244247, 291, 331, 333 De correptione et gratia, corrept.  245, 246 De cura pro mortuis gerenda, cura mort.  273, 285, 287, 291, 292-297, 336 De doctrina Christiana, doctr. chr.  163, 233, 234, 252, 255 De Genesi ad litteram, gn. litt.  136, 287, 290-293, 295, 335, 336 De gestis Pelagii, gest. Pel.  206, 214, 216 De gratia et libero arbitrio, gr. et lib. arb.  245, 246 De libero arbitrio, lib. arb.  142, 143, 274 De musica, mus.  118, 200, 256, 257 De nuptiis et concupiscentia, nupt. et conc.  24, 54, 246 De opere monachorum, op. mon.  83 De ordine, ord.  52, 254 De sancta uirginitate, uirg.  43 De uita beata, Beata u.  249, 319, 320 Epistulae ep. 2  178

 ep. 3    7, 12, 118, 132, 137 249, 259,      262, 265, 270, 334  ep. 4  126, 140  ep. 5   265, 270  ep. 6  121, 135, 161, 265  ep. 7  116-117, 136-138  ep. 8  136, 265, 284  ep. 9  163-164, 178 ep. 10  121, 140 ep. 12  283 ep. 13  134, 284, 287, 299 ep. 15    8, 13, 150, 152, 305-329, 337      338 ep. 18  116, 126-127, 132 ep. 19  138, 150, 164, 178 ep. 20  130 ep. 21  79-80 ep. 22  60, 79-80, 166, 178 ep. 23  44, 169, 178, 268 ep. 24  150-151 ep. 26  200-201, 270 ep. 27  201, 306 ep. 30  64 ep. 31  63, 65, 77, 150, 166, 178 ep. 33  44, 168-169, 178 ep. 35  83-84 ep. 40  155, 178 ep. 42  62 ep. 45  62, 69 ep. 49  167, 169-170, 178 ep. 51  157, 169, 171, 178 ep. 64  145 ep. 55  134, 145 ep. 57  178 ep. 58  167 ep. 60  82 ep. 65  86, 90 ep. 67  266 ep. 77  85 ep. 78  68, 85 ep. 80  60, 71-73, 76  

380

index of augustine’s works

 ep. 81  191  ep. 82  191  ep. 85  91  ep. 87  172, 178, 270  ep. 88  27, 72  ep. 91  27, 74, 117, 269  ep. 92  127, 140  ep. 92A  189, 191  ep. 93  25, 191  ep. 95  59, 73  ep. 96  28, 91-92, 96  ep. 97  28-29  ep. 98  118 ep. 100  25 ep. 101  118 ep. 104  74, 268-269 ep. 105  27 ep. 107  66-67 ep. 108  45 ep. 113  36 ep. 114  36 ep. 115  35-36 ep. 116  36 ep. 117  122 ep. 118     117, 122-124, 235, 239          240 ep. 120     114, 116, 123-124, 127,            130, 136, 138, 140-141 ep. 125  89 ep. 126  89 ep. 128  193 ep. 129  193 ep. 130  49, 117, 141 ep. 132  175, 178, 193, 202 ep. 133  26 ep. 134  26 ep. 135  176, 193, 202, 231 ep. 136  155 ep. 137 116-118, 124-125, 128, 132          133, 157, 176, 178, 194, 202,          230 ep. 138  75, 127, 129 ep. 139  26 ep. 140 49, 117, 128-132, 134, 139,          141, 157 ep. 143  116, 118, 132, 142-143 ep. 144  138

ep. 147  137-139, 141, 157, 185 ep. 148  129, 142 ep. 149  66, 71 125, 167, 178 ep. 151  36-37, 39, 55, 286 ep. 152  20-21, 199 ep. 153  21-22, 40, 130-131, 199 ep. 154  23, 199, 227 ep. 155  23, 125, 199 ep. 157  42, 49-51, 117 ep. 158  13, 160-161, 273-275, 277          279, 283-285, 287-288, 291          295, 297-299, 301, 303, 335          336 ep. 159  13, 134, 137, 273-274, 284          288, 290-292, 294-295, 335          336 (abstract) ep. 160          274 ep.  161          274 ep.  162          60, 76, 150, 134, 137, 139,          150, 153, 155, 274, 284, 291,          292 ep. 163  274 ep. 164  116-117, 143, 274, 292, 295 ep. 166  61-62, 116, 130, 132-135,          138, 143 ep. 167  62 ep. 169  126-127, 133, 139, 142, 199,          274 ep. 171          150 ep. 172          191 ep. 173          25 ep. 173A  189 ep. 174          188 ep. 175          207-210, 214-216, 218-221 ep. 176          207-208, 210, 214-216, 221 ep. 177          207-208, 210-211, 213, 216          219, 221-222 ep. 178          207 ep. 179          62, 206 ep. 181          211-215, 217-222 ep. 182          211-215, 217-222 ep. 183          211, 213-218 ep. 184          208 ep. 184A  189-190 ep. 185          25 ep. 185A  189 ep. 186          62, 70-71

index of augustine’s works ep. 187  52, 129, 157 ep. 188  197 ep. 189  54 ep. 190  70, 116, 118, 132, 144 ep. 191  191 ep. 194  118, 125-126, 191 ep. 199  49 ep. 200  24­­­, 54, 191, 193 ep. 202A  144-145, 189 ep. 204  26 ep. 206  24 ep. 208  25, 111 ep. 209 32, 88, 97-98, 100, 102,                          107 ep. 214  185 ep. 215A  189 ep. 217  118, 145 ep. 220  53-54 ep. 224  9, 184, 199 ep. 229  158, 236, 267 ep. 230  158 ep. 231  158 ep. 235  267 ep. 238  135, 152, 173-174, 178 ep. 239  152-153 ep. 241  152, 178 ep. 242  142 ep. 243  45-46 ep. 244  31 ep. 247  24, 29 ep. 250  37-38 ep. 250A  37 ep. 251  111 ep. 252  42 ep. 253  42 ep. 254  42 ep. 255  42 ep. 259  307 ep. 260  75 ep. 261  75 ep. 262  45-48, 53, 61 ep. 263  296  

381

ep. 266  138 ep. 267  133, 145 ep. 268  30, 40 ep. 1A*       181-182, 191-192, 196, 227          229, 238, 245, 331-332          (abstract) ep. 2*              7, 13, 183, 191-192, 194          196, 200, 225-248, 333 ep. 4*             206 ep. 5*             168, 178 ep. 8*             92, 94-97, 107 ep. 9*             31, 88. 108-111 ep. 10*         33-34 ep. 12*         162 ep. 13*         84, 86 ep. 14*         34 ep. 15*         34, 36 ep. 16*         36 ep. 18*         84-85 ep. 20*         96-100, 102, 106 ep. 23A*     36, 199 ep. 28*          30, 35 Ordo monasterii  87 Praeceptum  87 Retractationes, retr.  9, 184-185, 188190, 279, 329, 332 Sermones s. 10                232 s. 27                232 s. 59A                232 s. 148                232 s. 162C                149, 177 s. 179                232 ss. 184-196  128 s. 212                232 s. 302                37 s. 339                232, 75 s. 340                22 s. 340A               75 s. 355                23, 80, 104 s. 356                104