Studia Patristica. Vol. XXII - Cappadocian Fathers, Chrysostom and his Greek Contemporaries, Augustine, Donatism and Pelagianism

Table of contents :
Front Cover
CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS
John P EGAN, S J , Toronto
Graham E GOULD, Oxford
Verna E F HARRISON, Berkeley, California
A MEREDITH, S J , Oxford
John J O'KEEFE, Arlington, Virginia
F G PARMENTIER, Hilversum
A SYKES, Oxford
CHRYSOSTOM AND HIS GREEK CONTEMPORARIES
Paule BAUDOIN, Lyons
Marie-Ange CALVET-SEBASTI, Lyons
DATEMA, Amsterdam
Dolores Lee GREELEY, R S M , St Louis,
David G HUNTER, St Paul, Minn
Judit KECSKEMÉTI, Paris
E LAWRENZ, III, Milwaukee, Wisc
Anne-Marie MALINGREY, Paris
Duncan H RAYNOR, Birmingham
Rodrigue BÉLANGER, Rimouski
89
Ugo BIANCHI, Rome
Pamela BRIGHT, Chicago, Illinois
J Patout BURNS, Gainesville, Florida
CROUSE, Halifax, Nova Scotia
FERRARI, Fredricton, New Brunswick
W H C FREND, Barnwell
B HARBERT, Brighton
Bernard KRIEGBAUM, S J , Rome
S LONGOSZ, Lublin
Catherine OSBORNE, Oxford
Alfred SCHINDLER, Bern
Brigitta STOLL, Bern
J VAN DER LOF, Soest
J VAN OORT, Utrecht

Citation preview

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible.

https://books.google.com

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LIBRARY

X001759494

UNIVERSITY/OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE

LIBRARIES

STUDIA

PATRISTICA

VOL . XXII

Papers presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987

Cappadocian Fathers, Chrysostom and his Greek Contemporaries, Augustine, Do

and Pelagianism

CUST

LABELS HORIZONTAL VERTICAL FRONT O

24

4

209

OA NB

USE LIBRARY

.,INC BINDERT HECKMAN THE

PATTERN TYPE SLOT OR START SIZE

BU

24

CALL IMPRINT PANEL LINES

24

COLLATE USE NOERY

B

SPECIAL ..

NU

FILL

TAPE STUB GUM

NUMBER VOLS . 15

0741

THIS TITLE

2/13/91

CUST. PAT. NO.

STUDIA PATRISTICA

VOL. XXII

Papers presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987

Cappadocian Fathers, Chrysostom and his Greek Contemporaries, Augustine, Donatism and Pelagianism

Edited by ELIZABETH A. LIVINGSTONE

Index Patrum and Index Auctorum in Vol. XXIII

P

PEETERS PRESS LEUVEN 1989

ISBN 90-6831-228-6 D. 1990/0602/46

STUDIA PATRISTICA

VOL. XXII

STUDIA

PATRISTICA

VOL. XXII

Papers presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987

Cappadocian Fathers, Chrysostom and his Greek Contemporaries, Augustine, Donatism and Pelagianism

Edited by ELIZABETH A. LIVINGSTONE

Index Patrum and Index Auctorum in Vol. XXIII

PEETERS PRESS LEUVEN 1989

BR

41

.58

v.22

1987

Table of Contents

Part XXII

XIV . CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS Bernard R.R. COULIE, Louvain L'édition de la version arménienne des Discours de saint Grégoire de Nazianze . État des recherches John P. EGAN, S.J. , Toronto The Deceit of the Devil according to Gregory Nazianzen Graham E. GOULD, Oxford Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa on the Beatitudes Verna E.F. HARRISON, Berkeley, California Receptacle Imagery in St. Gregory of Nyssa's Anthropology . Lawrence R. HENNESSEY, Silver Springs , Md. Gregory of Nyssa's Doctrine of the Resurrected Body · A. MEREDITH, S.J. , Oxford The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa and the Neoplatonists John J. O'KEEFE, Arlington, Virginia Sin, àлálɛια, and Freedom of the Will in Gregory of Nyssa M.F.G. PARMENTIER , Hilversum Syriac Translations of Gregory of Nyssa Édouard ROUILLARD , O.S.B. , St. Omer, Wisques Basile de Césarée a-t-il corrigé lui-même un premier état de texte de ses homélies? D.A. SYKES, Oxford Gregory Nazianzen, Poet of the Moral Life

69

Raymond WINLING, Strasbourg La résurrection du Christ comme principe explicatif et comme élément structurant dans le Discours catéchétique de Grégoire de Nysse .

74

3 8 14

23 28

35 52 60

65

XV . CHRYSOSTOM AND HIS GREEK CONTEMPORARIES

83

8888888

Michel AUBINEAU, Paris Publication des Undecim novae homiliae de saint Jean Chrysostome (PG 63,461-530) : édition critique, comblement des lacunes, addition de deux inédits • Paule BAUDOIN, Lyons Makрolvμía dans saint Jean Chrysostome . Marie-Ange CALVET-SEBASTI, Lyons Les lettres modèles de Firmus de Césarée

89

98

VIII

Table of Contents

C. DATEMA, Amsterdam Severian of Gabala : A Modest Man? Barry GORDON, Newcastle, NSW The Problem of Scarcity and the Christian Fathers : John Chrysostom and some Contemporaries Dolores Lee GREELEY, R.S.M. , St. Louis, Mo. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood. A Model for Service David G. HUNTER, St. Paul, Minn. Libanius and John Chrysostom : New Thoughts on an Old Problem Judit KECSKEMÉTI, Paris Exégèse Chrysostomienne et Exégèse Engagée . M.E. LAWRENZ, III , Milwaukee, Wisc. The Christology of John Chrysostom Anne-Marie MALINGREY, Paris Prolégomènes à une édition des homélies de Jean Chrysostome, Contra Anomoeos . J.C.B. PETROPOULOS, Oxford The Church Father as Social Informant : St. John Chrysostom on folksongs Duncan H. RAYNOR, Birmingham The Faith of the Simpliciores : A Patriarch's Dilemma A.M. RITTER, Heidelberg Between "Theocracy" and " Simple Life" : Dio Chrysostom, John Chrysostom and the Problem of Humanizing Society

104

108 121 129

136 148

154

159 165

170

XVII . AUGUSTINE, DONATISM , AND PELAGIANISM

Rodrigue BÉLANGER, Rimouski Propos d'Augustin sur l'inévitable souillure de l'Église ici-bas Joseph BENTIVEGNA, S.J. , Messina The Witness of St. Augustine on the Action of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the Praxis of Charismata in his Times Ugo BIANCHI, Rome Augustine on Concupiscence Pamela BRIGHT, Chicago, Illinois "The Spiritual World , which is the Church" : Hermeneutical Theory in the Book of Rules of Tyconius J. Patout BURNS, Gainesville, Florida St. Augustine: The Original Condition of Humanity Donald X. BURT, O.S.A. , Villanova, Pa. Augustine on the Authentic Approach to Death : An Overview Robert D. CROUSE, Halifax, Nova Scotia The Meaning of Creation in Augustine and Eriugena Leo C. FERRARI, Fredricton , New Brunswick Saint Augustine's Conversion Scene : The End of a Modern Debate? · W.H.C. FREND, Barnwell Pythagoreanism and Hermetism in Augustine's "Hidden Years"

183

188 202

213 219

223 229

235

251

Table of Contents

B. HARBERT, Brighton Romans 5,12 : Old Latin and Vulgate in the Pelagian Controversy Michael G.St.A. JACKSON, Dublin Faith, Hope and Charity and Prayer in St. Augustine N.W. JAMES, St. Albans Who were the Pelagians found in Venetia during the 440s? Bernard KRIEGBAUM, S.J., Rome Ein neuer Lösungsvorschlag für ein altes Problem: die sogenannten preces der Donatisten (Opt. I, 22) B. DALSGAARD LARSEN, Aarhus . Saint Augustine on Christ as principium in De ciuitate Dei 10,23-24 S. LONGOSZ, Lublin Augustins "Theatricum Carmen" Jane E. MERDINGER, Oregon Optatus Reconsidered . José OROZ RETA, O.A.R. , Salamanca Vocation divine et conversion humaine d'après saint Augustin Catherine OSBORNE, Oxford The nexus amoris in Augustine's Trinity . J.F. PROCOPÉ, Cambridge Initium omnis peccati superbia . Roger D. RAY, Toledo, Ohio Christian Conscience and Pagan Rhetoric : Augustine's Treatises on Lying Alfred SCHINDLER, Bern Augustine and the History of the Roman Empire Carl P.E. SPRINGER, Normal, Illinois Augustine on Vergil : The Poet as Medax Vates Brigitta STOLL, Bern Einige Beobachtungen zur Vita Augustini des Possidius . Roland J. TESKE, S.J. , Milwaukee Homo spiritualis in St. Augustine's De Genesi contra Manichaeos N. Joseph TORCHIA, Emmitsburg, Md. The Commune/Proprium Distinction in St. Augustine's Early Moral Theology . L.J. VAN DER LOF, Soest Augustine's "Fatherland according to the Flesh" . Marie-Anne VANNIER, Vouziers Le rôle de l'hexaéméron dans l'interprétation augustinienne de la création J. VAN OORT, Utrecht Augustine on Sexual Concupiscence and Original Sin

IX

261 265 271

277 283 290

294 300

309 315 321 326 337 344 351

356 364 372

382

XIV .

CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS Bernard R.R. COULIE John P. EGAN, S.J. Graham E. GOULD Verna E.F. HARRISON

Lawrence R. HENNESSEY A. MEREDITH, S.J. John J. O'KEEFE M.F.G. PARMENTIER Édouard ROUILLARD , O.S.B. D.A. SYKES Raymond WINLING

L'édition de la version arménienne des Discours de saint Grégoire de Nazianze. État des recherches

Bernard R.R. COULIE, Louvain

Les Discours de saint Grégoire de Nazianze (c. 330-390) furent traduits du grec en arménien aux Ve-VIe s. de notre ère et connurent un succès considérable auprès des savants et des clercs de l'Arménie. Trois faits en témoignent : tout d'abord, l'importance de la tradition manuscrite directe, représentée par environ 150 témoins ayant résisté aux outrages du temps ; ensuite , l'abondance de la tradition indirecte , c'est-à-dire des citations et des commentaires dont les Discours ont fait l'objet au cours des siècles dans la littérature arménienne ; enfin, l'autorité que les Arméniens ont reconnue au saint de Cappadoce et qui ont fait passer sous son nom des œuvres apocryphes, connues ou inconnues par ailleurs . L'ouvrage publié en 1983 par Monsieur le Professeur G. Lafontaine et moi-même, dans le Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, a fait le point sur ces trois aspects¹ . L'étude de la tradition indirecte complètera utilement la lecture des témoins directs. L'heuristique de ces derniers est aujourd'hui terminée. Une première analyse a permis de préciser le type de langue utilisé par les traducteurs ; elle a révélé également les structures du corpus arménien de Grégoire de Nazianze. Les Discours se répartissent en quatre collections ; à l'intérieur de celles-ci, plusieurs acolouthies sont similaires aux séries grecques. Par ailleurs, la version arménienne attribue à Grégoire une dizaine de textes, assez brefs, et inédits ; leur édition est actuellement en préparation . Ces textes sont originaux et leur présence dans certains manuscrits peut être un critère externe de classement. C'est pourquoi l'édition de ces œuvres, appelées pour la commodité « < apocryphes » , est une des étapes préalables à l'édition des Discours ; elle peut contribuer également à révéler l'histoire du corpus arménien de Grégoire durant les siècles qui séparent sa rédaction par le Théologien et les témoignages manuscrits conservés. La présente communication a pour but de donner un aperçu des progrès accomplis dans ces trois domaines par les éditeurs et, par là, de certains problèmes méthodologiques et philologiques qui peuvent se poser.

1 G. Lafontaine et B. Coulie, La version arménienne des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze. Tradition manuscrite et histoire du texte (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 446; Subsidia, 67 ; Louvain, 1983).

4

B.R.R. COULIE

Le propre de la recherche scientifique est que les résultats obtenus soient toujours perfectibles . Cette règle se vérifie dans le secteur des langues orientales, où elle est renforcée par la carence des instruments de travail. Il est possible aujourd'hui d'apporter des compléments et des précisions à la connaissance de la version arménienne des œuvres de Grégoire de Nazianze , et cela dans les trois domaines de la tradition directe, de la tradition indirecte et des apocryphes .

1. L'heuristique des témoins de la tradition directe s'enrichit de deux manières. a) D'une part, le répertoire publié n'a pris en considération que les œuvres en prose de Grégoire de Nazianze, qui constituent l'objet principal du programme d'édition poursuivi par l'équipe de l'Institut Orientaliste de l'Université Catholique de Louvain . Certains manuscrits conservent cependant des pièces en vers ou des hymnes , appelés šarakank ' ( ¿wpw4wůp). Il s'agit généralement d'hymnaires comprenant les canons des Patriarches avec des hymnes, p.ex .: cod. Paris . B.N. arm. 120 (olim 47) ² ; — cod. or. oct. 2068 , DSB , Berlin ³ ; cod. or. oct. 1925, WdtB, Marbourg4 ; cod . orient. 8° Nr. 67, LB, Stuttgart 5 ; cod. arm. 23, BSB, Munich ". Des prescriptions canoniques, au nombre de 22, sont attribuées à Grégoire de Nazianze dans le recueil canonique du cod . Vatic. Borgianus arm. 607. Un manuscrit du même fonds, le cod. Vatic. Borgianus arm. 31 , conserve un Testimonium de fide sancti Gregorii Theologi8. b) D'autre part, la publication progressive des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens révèle de nouveaux témoins de Grégoire de Nazianze . C'est le cas du catalogue récent , paru en 1985, des manuscrits arméniens de la collection du catholicosat arménien de Cilicie . Sur les 223 manuscrits recensés et

2 F. Macler, « Notices de manuscrits arméniens vus dans quelques bibliothèques de l'Europe centrale», dans Journal Asiatique, 11 S., 2 ( 1913) , p. 660. 3 J. Assfalg et J. Molitor, Armenische Handschriften (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Bd IV ; Wiesbaden, 1962), p. 44. 4 Ibid., p. 51. s Ibid., P. 55. • Ibid. , p. 130. 7 E. Tisserant, Codices armeni bybliothecae Vaticanae... (Rome, 1927), p . 88. 8 Ibid., p. 52. 9 ⁹ A.V. Tanielian, Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Collection of the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Library ; Antelias, 1984), et le C.R. dans Le Muséon, 100 ( 1987) , p. 437-438.

Grégoire de Nazianze arménien

5

décrits, 22 comprennent des œuvres de Grégoire de Nazianze ou qui lui sont attribuées. Il s'agit principalement des textes suivants : des extraits du Discours 27, premier discours théologique ; un extrait du Discours 40, sur le baptême ;

un extrait du Discours 44 qui concerne le martyr Mamas ; - trois occurrences de la pièce apocryphe intitulée In Mortem Maximiani condiscipuli eius; un hymne ; des prescriptions canoniques ; les Questions et Réponses entre Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de Nazianze ; quelques textes acéphales et non identifiés, attribués à Grégoire de Nazianze. L'inventaire des manuscrits privés ou inaccessibles jusqu'à présent permettra, sans nul doute, de compléter définitivement la liste des témoins arméniens de Grégoire de Nazianze . Ces compléments seront publiés par les éditeurs .

2. En ce qui concerne la tradition indirecte, deux aspects méritent d'être soulignés. a) Le premier a pour objet les citations de Grégoire de Nazianze dans les œuvres littéraires arméniennes . En l'absence d'une concordance de Grégoire en arménien ou d'un thesaurus exhaustif de la littérature arménienne, chaque nouvelle édition critique et chaque étude littéraire sont susceptibles de permettre l'identification de nouvelles citations de Grégoire. Qu'il suffise d'en donner deux exemples . - Le traité sur la Pâque attribué à Anania de Širak , édité à Erevan en 1944, a été récemment analysé par August Strobel pour son apport à l'histoire de la liturgie chrétienne primitive ¹º . Le texte contient deux citations, importantes par leur contenu , du Discours 45 de Grégoire de Nazianze¹¹ . Dans la première, par exemple, Anania de Širak attribue au Théologien une proposition suivie d'une citation du Deuteronome absentes du texte grec . La manière dont Moïse de Khoren utilise l'œuvre de Grégoire de Nazianze, en le citant ou en l'imitant, est connue ¹¹ . L'analyse de ces passages dépasse toutefois le problème de l'édition de Grégoire. Ainsi, une citation que fait Moïse de Khoren du prophète Jérémie est incorrecte au regard de la vulgate arménienne parce qu'il copie la citation du même passage chez Grégoire de Nazianze, fidèle au texte de la Septante. Le prophète avait 10 A. Strobel, Texte zur Geschichte des frühchristlichen Osterkalenders (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 64 ; Münster, 1984), p. 124-144. 11 Or. 45, 10 (PG 36, col. 636 C 5-9) ; Strobel, Texte, p . 128 ; F.C. Conybeare, "Ananias of Shirak (A.D. 600-650 c.)" , dans B.Z. , 6 ( 1897), p. 577 ; Or. 45, 2 (PG 36, col . 624 B 14-C 1 ) ; Strobel, Texte, p. 133 ; Conybeare, p. 581.

6

B.R.R. COULIE

déclaré : « L'Éthiopien peut-il changer sa peau? Un léopard peut-il effacer les taches de sa robe ? » 12 , tandis que la vulgate arménienne parle non d'un Éthiopien, mais d'un Indien . Les éditeurs de Grégoire de Nazianze se trouvent ici confrontés aux problèmes de l'établissement critique du texte de la Bible en arménien.

b) Le second aspect de la tradition indirecte où des progrès se réalisent régulièrement est celui des chaînes exégétiques . Aux extraits de Grégoire de Nazianze repérés dans le Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques de Grégoire de Narek, dans la chaîne sur le Lévitique, dans les Commentaires sur Isaïe et le Commentaire sur les Actes des Apôtres de Georges de Skevra, dans le Commentaire sur la Genèse du Vardapet Vardan et dans le Commentaire sur les Actes des Apôtres de Nersès Šnorhali, il faut ajouter maintenant les citations de Grégoire dans la chaîne sur le Pentateuque de Vardan Arewelc'i (1200-1271 ) , conservée notamment dans le manuscrit Galata 6613. Le manuscrit 54 du même fonds , à la Bibliothèque du Patriarcat arménien d'Istanboul , est un florilège patristique composé de 19 sections , dont les sections 5 et 18 comprennent des extraits de Grégoire de Nazianze . Ce florilège est une compilation arménienne originale remontant aux Ve- VIe s.14 , c'est-à-dire à une époque antérieure aux plus anciens témoins directs conservés . C'est dire l'importance qu'il faut accorder à la tradition indirecte.

3. Outre la tradition directe

où les collations sont en cours -

et la

tradition indirecte, l'édition des « apocryphes » est également en préparation. Il s'agit d'une douzaine de textes, inédits , que la version arménienne attribue à Grégoire de Nazianze et qui ne figurent dans son œuvre ni en grec ni dans les autres versions orientales . L'un de ces textes, intitulé Testimonium fidei (44wjwpw&mßpiù (wiwwnj) présente un intérêt particulier. Il s'agit d'un extrait de la Lettre 102 de Grégoire, seconde des Lettres théologiques véhiculée par le corpus des Discours, dans lequel l'auteur définit la foi de Nicée à laquelle il est attaché, et suivi d'un texte inconnu en grec et qui développe la citation . Cette pièce a donc l'aspect d'un commentaire précédé d'un lemme, à cette différence près que rien, dans les manuscrits, ne distingue les deux parties du texte . Certains témoins y ajoutent encore un épisode de la légende de Jacques de Nisibe propre au cycle oriental . Le Testimonium fidei confronte ainsi les éditeurs au vaste problème des commentaires de Grégoire de Nazianze, nombreux dans la

12 Jér. 13,23 ; Greg. Naz., Or. 4, 62 (PG 35, col. 584 C 3-5) ; M.K. , II , 88. 13 Cfr. C. Renoux, La chaîne arménienne sur les Épîtres catholiques, I. La chaîne sur l'Épître de Jacques (P.O., 43, 1 , nº 193 ; Turnhout, 1985), p. 11 et n. 2 . 14 C. Renoux, Irénée de Lyon, nouveau fragments arméniens de l'Adversus Haereses et de l'Epideixis, introduction, traduction latine et notes (P.O. , 39 , 1 , nº 178 ; Turnhout, 1978) , p. 13-18 .

Grégoire de Nazianze arménien

7

littérature byzantine et dont l'histoire et la composition sont souvent plus complexes qu'il n'y paraît.

Compléter l'heuristique des témoins de la tradition directe et poursuivre leur collation, enrichir notre connaissance de la tradition indirecte, éditer les pièces apocryphes sont les trois objectifs poursuivis actuellement par les éditeurs .

The Deceit of the Devil according to Gregory Nazianzen

John P. EGAN, S.J., Toronto

In this communication , I shall consider Gregory's use of the notion of the deceit of the Devil in the light of his reaction to the ransom theory of salvation. In his study of Gregory's doctrine of salvation , Winslow treats Gregory's use of the deceit of the Devil and his use of ransom language separately¹ . Althaus and Norris, in their studies on the same topic, assume a connection between the deceit and the ransom² . One reason for expecting a connection between these two features in Nazianzen is that they are found together in Origen, who provides the first developed treatment of either notion 3. Now although Gregory never explicitly links these two features, I shall suggest that his use of the deceit of the Devil represents his closest approach to an acceptance of the ransom theory which he finally rejects in 3834. I hope to return on another occasion to a study of this rejection . In a previous study of Gregory's use of ransom vocabulary from 362 to 3815 , I have concluded , in agreement with Norris , that Gregory uses ransom vocabulary as a means of asserting the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, but not as a way of explaining how salvation takes place. My purpose in this communication is to analyze Gregory's Oration 39.13 , ¹ Donald F. Winslow, The Dynamics of Salvation : A Study in Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), pp . 107-108 . 2 Heinz Althaus, Die Heilslehre des heiligen Gregor von Nazianz (Münster, 1972), pp. 133-134 ; Frederick W. Norris, "Gregory Nazianzen's Doctrine of Jesus Christ", Diss. Yale 1970, p . 135. 3 Origen writes as follows in his Commentary on Matthew 16.8 (GCS 40, p . 498) : “But to whom did Christ give his soul for ransom? Surely not to God . Could it then be to the Evil One? For he had us in his power until the ransom for us should be given to him, even the life of Christ. The Evil One had been deceived and led to suppose that he was capable of mastering the soul and did not see that to hold him involved a trial of strength greater than he could successfully undertake" . Translation by H.E.W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption : A Study ofthe Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London, 1952) , p. 55. 4 • Gregory writes as follows in his Oration 45.22 (P.G. 36.653 AB) : “If ransom belongs not to someone else but to him who holds in bondage, I ask you, to whom was this paid, and for what reason? Ifto the Evil One, O, what an outrage ! ... If to the Father, first I ask, how can that be? For we were not being detained by him ; and second, why would he be delighted by the Blood of his Only begotten Son?" Translation by William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, II (Collegeville, Minn., 1979), p . 38. 5 John P. Egan, "Gregory Nazianzen's Earlier Use of Ransom Vocabulary", Canadian Society of Patristic Studies Conference, Hamilton , Ontario, June 2, 1987. " Norris, pp. 62-64 and 150-156.

Gregory's Use of the Deceit of the Devil

9

one of the few texts where he introduces the notion of the deceit of the Devil. My objective is to see how the deceit of the Devil serves Gregory as a means of explaining how salvation takes place. After presenting Gregory's text, I shall review the answers given to this question by Norris, Winslow and the eleventh century Scholiast Nicetas of Heraclea. Norris remarks that Gregory describes the incarnation in terms of God's cheating the Devil ' . Winslow relates the deceit of the Devil to the cross of Christ . Nicetas focuses on Christ's risen flesh . I shall end up agreeing with Winslow's position, but only because of the texts of Gregory cited by Althaus, who concludes from those texts that the cross represents for Gregory the turning point in Christ's struggle against sin, death and the Devil10.

I. Or. 39.13

Or. 39, "On the Holy Lights ", was delivered in Constantinople on January 6, 381¹¹ . In §13 Gregory turns to the creation of Adam, the incarnation and the defeat of the Devil by deception . After describing the incarnation in a series of antitheses , Gregory relates the deceit of the Devil to the incarnation by referring to the Devil's being deceived by the screen of the flesh. Gregory next describes the divine purpose behind the Devil's being deceived, namely, that when the Devil attacks Adam, he should meet with God, that thus the new Adam should rescue the old , and that the condemnation of the flesh should be abolished, when death has been put to death by the flesh . Gregory writes as follows : For when that cheat thought that he was unconquerable in his wickedness, after he had deceived us with the hope of becoming gods, he was himself deceived by the screen [лроẞλńμati] of the flesh, in order that, as if attacking Adam, he might meet with God, that thus the new Adam might rescue the old, and that the condemnation of the flesh might be abolished, when death has been put to death by the flesh ¹².

II. SOME COMMENTS ON TWO EXPRESSIONS IN THIS TEXT

The first expression is : " the screen of the flesh" . The Greek for "screen" is лроẞλńμаτι , but Browne and Swallow translate it as " assumption”, as if the Greek were лроoλńµµati¹³ . The second expression is : "when death has been

7 Norris, p. 135. 8 Winslow, pp. 107-108. ⁹ Nicetas, Expositio in orationem XXIX S. Gregorii Nazianzeni, Latin translation by Jacques de Billy (P.G. 127. 1235 AB) . 10 Althaus, p. 126. 11 Jean Bernardi, La Prédication des pères cappadociens (Paris, 1968), p. 206. 12 Or. 39.13 (P.G. 36. 349 B). 13 C.G. Browne and J.E. Swallow, trans., Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen (A

10

J.P. EGAN

put to death by the flesh" . Nicetas will take "flesh" in this expression to refer to the risen flesh of Christ.

III. A REVIEW OF SOME CURRENT AND ANCIENT COMMENTS ON Or. 39.13

Norris' remark that Gregory describes the incarnation in terms of God's cheating the Devil is justified by Gregory's description of the incarnation in Or. 39.13 and by Browne and Swallow's questionable translation of лρоBańμati as "assumption". Winslow relates the defeat of the Devil by deception to the cross of Christ, but he underestimates the attention which Gregory pays to the concept of the cross as an instrument by which the Devil was overcome. Winslow cites Or. 39.2 and 13 as the only passages where Gregory refers to the defeat of Satan at the hands of the crucified Christ, but in fact the cross is not mentioned explicitly in either passage. Althaus cites other texts where Gregory explicitly makes the connection between the cross and Christ's victory over the Devil 14. The first text is verses 162-166 from Gregory's poem entitled "In Praise of Virginity" , probably written in the same period as was most of his poetry, i.e. between 381 and 39015. After describing the original condition of Adam, Gregory describes Christ's victory over the Devil in terms relating exclusively to the cross. He writes as follows : Remodeling Adam , God came to human nature in order to bring Adam back to life and to glory, having contended with the murderer and won a complete victory over death, having overcome taste by gall, lawless hands by nails, the tree by the cross and earth by exaltation 16. It is from this text that Althaus concludes that the cross represents the turning point in Christ's struggle against the powers of destruction. He strengthens this conclusion by referring to Gregory's poem entitled "A Lament on the Passions of His Soul", written in 383, according to the Bendictine edition reproduced by Migne . In verses 183-186, Gregory pictures Christ as nailing his creature's sin and the Devil's power to the cross in order to achieve that creature's rebirth, bodily resurrection and exaltation with Christ. Gregory writes as follows : We also contrive against Christ's sufferings by which he drew me from troublesome

Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume VII ; New York, 1894), p. 357. 14 Althaus, pp. 126-127. 15 Bernhard Wyss, "Gregor II (Gregor von Nazianz)", Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, XII ( 1983), 796. 16 Carm. 1.2.1 , 162-166 (P.G. 37. 535 A).

Gregory's Use of the Deceit of the Devil

11

passions by assuming flesh, by being nailed to the cross and by nailing to the cross the dark offence of the creature he had fashioned and the power of Beliar in order that, reborn and springing from the grave, we may be glorified with the mighty Christ above17. Althaus rightly remarks, on the basis of verses 185-186, that the crucifixion may not be isolated from the resurrection , which completes and consolidates the victory over sin, death and the Devil, and that the resurrection is the goal of Christ's suffering as well as the goal of his entire saving activity 18. The texts of Nazianzen which Althaus cites and the comments which he makes on them provide the basis both for Winslow's assertion that Gregory relates the deceit of the Devil to the cross of Christ and for Nicetas' linking of Christ's victory over the Devil with Christ's resurrection and with ours.

IV . NICETAS

In his scholium on Or. 39.13, Nicetas elaborates on Gregory's expression of the goal of Christ's victory . Gregory expresses this goal as the abolition of the condemnation of the flesh . Nicetas adds the following elements not found in Nazianzen's Or. 39.13 : 1 ) that the flesh of Adam after the fall is sinful ; 2 ) that Christ's flesh is sinless ; 3) that it is Christ's risen flesh which abolishes death ; and 4) that Christ's resurrection is the source of immortality for the human race. Nicetas writes as follows : Christ concealed his divine power with flesh... in order that the life sentence pronounced against Adam's flesh bound by sin may be abrogated by Christ's flesh untainted by any stain of sin , and that death may be abolished by the resurrection of the flesh. For it [the flesh of the risen Christ] is the source of renewed life and immortality for the human race 19. Re points 1 and 2. That Gregory teaches the sinfulness of the flesh after the fall and the sinlessness of Christ's flesh may be deduced from his poem entitled "On the Incarnation, against Apollinaris". This poem was probably composed after the summer of 382, since it seems to be a summary of his first letter to Cledonius written at that time 20. In verses 62-64 Gregory asks what part the divine nature and the flesh played in the deification of Christ's humanity. He answers that the divine nature was joined to the flesh and that the flesh shared in our passions, except for sin. He writes as follows : What, then, did each of the two elements experience? In my opinion, the one [the

17 Carm. 2.1.45, 181-186 (P.G. 37. 1366 A) . 18 Althaus, p. 127. 19 Nicetas, Expositio in orationem XXXIX S. Gregorii Nazianzeni (P.G. 127. 1235 AB). 20 Paul Gallay, ed. and trans., in collaboration with Maurice Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres Théologiques (Sources Chrétiennes, 208 ; Paris, 1974), p . 26 .

12

J.P. EGAN

divine nature] was joined to materiality, and the material element [ rάxoç] shared in my passions except for sin 21. This text serves as a reminder that the sinless flesh of which Nicetas speaks , refers, according to Gregory, not to the risen flesh of Christ , but to the flesh which the Word assumed . Re. point 3. Nicetas' assertion that, according to Gregory, it is Christ's risen flesh which abolishes death , conflicts with a point which Gregory makes in Or . 40.45, where Gregory states that Christ at the second coming will no longer be flesh, nor yet be without a body. Or. 40, entitled "On Holy Baptism " , was delivered in Constantinople on January 6, 38122. Gregory makes the above remark in the course of a brief exposition on the Nicene Creed 23. He writes as follows : Believe that he will come again with his glorious presence to judge the living and the dead, no longer flesh, nor yet without a body, according to the conditions, which he alone knows, of a more godlike body, that he may be seen by those who pierced him and that he may remain as God, free from materiality [лaxúτηti] 24. Althaus suggests that when Gregory says that Christ will no longer be in the flesh, he refers to the absence of fleshly passions . Althaus makes this suggestion on the basis of Or. 30.1425 . Or. 30, the Fourth Theological Oration, entitled "On the Son", was delivered in Constantinople along with the other four Theological Orations, between July and November 38026. In § 14 Gregory cites Hebr. 7.25 : "since he [Jesus] forever lives to make intercession for us". This text is one of the scriptural passages which the Eunomians made use of to achieve their goals. In part of his reply to the Eunomians, Gregory cites 1 Tim. 2.5 and asserts that in his ongoing intercession for us Christ is no longer known after the flesh, i.e. , the passions of the flesh which are the same as ours, except for sin. Gregory writes as follows : For "there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus". For he still pleads even now as man for my salvation ; for he continues to wear the body which he assumed , until he make me God by the power of his incarnation ; although he is no longer known after the flesh — I mean, the passions of the flesh the same, except sin, as ours 27. 21 Carm. 1.1.10, 62-64 (P.G. 37. 469-470 A). 22 Bernardi, p. 209. 23 Bernardi, p. 215. 24 Or. 40.45 (P.G. 36. 424 C). Translation (altered) by Browne and Swallow, Select Orations, p. 352. 25 Althaus, p . 208. 26 Paul Gallay, ed . and trans., in collaboration with Maurice Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 27-31 (Sources Chrétiennes, 250 ; Paris, 1978), p . 14. 27 Or. 30.14 (Sources Chrétiennes 250, p . 256) . Translation by Browne and Swallow, Gregory of Nazianzus, The Theological Orations, Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy, repr. in Christology of the Later Fathers, ed. E.R. Hardy (The Library of Christian Classics, 3 ; Philadelphia, 1954) , p. 187.

Gregory's Use of the Deceit of the Devil

1333

Mason makes the helpful remark that Gregory in this passage is not concerned with our knowledge of Christ, but only with Christ's condition 28. I suggest that Gregory's omission of Christ's resurrection in Or. 39.13, his statement in Or. 40.45 that the glorified Christ is no longer in the flesh and his equation of "flesh" with "the passions of the flesh" in Or. 30.14 militate against Nicetas ' position that the flesh which slays death in Nazianzen's Or. 39.13 refers to the risen flesh of Christ . Given Gregory's emphasis on the cross as the instrument by which the Devil was overcome, it seems much more likely that the flesh which slays death is the flesh of the crucified Christ, the material element which shared in my passions except for sin. Nonetheless , Nicetas' fourth and final point, his emphasis on the resurrection as the source of immortality for the human race, is in keeping with Gregory's teaching.

V. CONCLUSION

My agreement with Althaus that Gregory emphasizes the cross as the instrument by which the Devil was overcome, convinces me of the importance of Gregory's use of the deceit of the Devil as a means of explaining how salvation was achieved . This conviction makes me wonder whether Althaus is correct when he suggests that Gregory implicitly rejects the deceit of the Devil in his explicit rejection of the ransom theory in Or. 45.2229 . Now Althaus assumes that Gregory linked the notions of deceit and ransom. But it is conceivable, as Winslow suggests, that Gregory regarded deceit and ransom as distinct ways of explaining how salvation was achieved . If that was the case, he might well have ultimately rejected the ransom theory while retaining the notion of deceit as a means of the Father's overcoming the tyrant by force. This overcoming of the tyrant is one of the goals of the Father's plan of redemption, as Gregory describes that plan in Or . 45.22, after rejecting the ransom theory: Surely it is evident, however, that the Father did receive [the sacrifice of his Son], though neither asking nor demanding it, but because of his plan of redemption and because it was necessary that man be sanctified by the Humanity of God ; so that he himself might free us, that he might overcome the tyrant by force, and that he might lead us back to himself through the mediation of his Son 30.

28 A.J. Mason, ed . The Five Theological Orations ofGregory ofNazianzus (Cambridge, 1899), p. 131. 29 Althaus, p. 134. 30 Or. 45.22 (P.G. 36. 653 B).

Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa on the Beatitudes

Graham E. GOULD, Oxford

Although Basil of Caesarea did not write an exegetical work on the beatitudes, he offers interpretations of these verses in a number of answers in his Shorter Rules¹ , and it is these passages which I intend to discuss, Gregory of Nyssa, by contrast, preached a series of homilies on the beatitudes which naturally offer much more detailed expositions than Basil was able to provide in his answers. The interpretations given by the two brothers are the subject of this paper.

Mt 5 : 3 Blessed are the Poor in Spirit

Question 205 of the Shorter Rules asks "Who are the poor in Spirit ?" ³ . Basil's answer is typical of the exegetical method which he pursues in the rules, based on bringing together a number of related texts or passages and using them to interpret the passage in hand : The Lord once said, "The words which I speak to you are spirit and life"; and on another occasion, "The Holy Spirit will teach you all things, and remind you of the things which I said to you" , to which he added : "For he will not speak of himself, but will say whatever he hears from me"4. In view of this the poor in spirit are those who have become poor for no other reason than the teaching of the Lord who said, “Go, sell all you have and give to the poor”. The answer is an attempt to explain the meaning of the word "spirit" in the beatitude. By quoting texts in which "spirit" is associated with the commands of Christ (because it is Christ's words of which the Holy Spirit reminds us) Basil interprets "poor in spirit" as "poor in accord with the command of Christ". The poverty which is blessed is poverty as a result of voluntary obedience, not poverty as a result of circumstances. Basil adds a qualification : "But if someone accepts poverty however it has come, and directs it to the will of God , like Lazarus, he will not be excluded from the blessing" .

1 2 3 4 5

PG 31 , cols. 1080-1305. PG 44, cols. 1193-1301 . Shorter Rules (SR) 205, cols. 1217C-D. John 6:63 ; 14:26 ; 16:24. On directing poverty in accord with the will of God see SR 262, col. 1260C.

Basil and Gregory on the Beatitudes

15

In his homily on the first beatitude ", Gregory discusses the meanings of poverty and wealth: We learn from the Scriptures that there are two kinds of wealth, one highly desirable, the other condemned . Wealth in virtues is desired , but material and earthly wealth is rejected, because the one is gain to the soul, but the other is likely to deceive the senses (πρὸς τὴν τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἀπάτην). Therefore the Lord forbids laying up treasure of this ". By analogy poverty is two-fold. Poverty in virtues such as temperance, justice, wisdom and reflection (opóvηoic) is pitiable and wretched, but someone who is πάντων τῶν κατὰ κακίαν νοουμένων ἑκουσίως πτωχεύων "lays up the treasure of poverty in evil, and is in the state of blessed poverty described by the Word , whose fruit is the Kingdom of Heaven" . Although Gregory is concerned with the rejection of material wealth, he passes quickly to a discussion of wealth and poverty in spiritual qualities and virtues , especially humility and the problem of pride : "it seems to me that the Word calls voluntary humility (έkoúσɩov tarɛivoppoσúvηv) poverty of Spirit" . At the end of the sermon he returns to the question of material wealth and introduces a theme which will recur : matter is an impediment to spiritual progress which imposes a downward drag on the Christian as he attempts to higher things ; but we have the example of Christ to teach us the reward of poverty: "he who became poor for our sakes rules over all creation, so if you become poor with the one who is poor, you will reign with the one who reigns " 10.

Mt 5 : 5 Blessed are the Meek 11

For Basil, meekness is not as might be expected a man-directed but a Goddirected quality or virtue. "Who is meek ?" 12 "He who is unalterable in deciding for those things which are zealously done to please God". In this answer, for once, no scriptural support is given for the interpretation offered . Shortly afterwards 13 Basil quotes Christ's words "I am humble and meek" in a discussion of humility. Humility is however a man-directed virtue 14 , learnt

• Cols. 1193-1208. ‫ י‬.1200A 8 1200B. 9 1200D. 10 1208C. 11 Gregory deals with meekness in his second homily ( 1208-17) and mourning in his third (1220-32), an order which follows a well-represented variant of the biblical text. 12 SR 191 , col. 1212A. 13 SR 198, col. 1213B-C. 14 "To consider all superior to oneself according to the rule (öpoç) of the apostle" (i.e. Philippians 2: 3).

16

G.E. GOULD

by observing the example of Christ who said "learn of me" and frequently demonstrated his humility . There is no further discussion of meekness. Gregory begins his homily on meekness with a discussion of the meaning of "inherit the earth". Given that Gregory holds the view that the beatitudes map out successive stages of ascent to spiritual perfection, he has to face the objection that "it is impossible that the inheritance of the earth should be received after the Kingdom of Heaven". He answers that "earth" is a wordly term used to describe realities which are beyond the human senses (aïo@nois) and knowledge (yvõσiç) 15 . In this respect the words "earth" and "kingdom" are in fact similar, and the order in which they appear in the beatitudes does not contradict the scheme which Gregory wishes to impose . He then turns to the meaning of meekness. In one sense it is bad for a Christian : the apostle Paul does not command us to be meek but to be good fighters 16. Meekness in the required sense is defined as resistance to the downward drag inherent in human nature¹7 . So " meekness (лрäóτηç) is the habit ( iç) which is moved by these impulses of nature only slowly and with difficulty" 18. This definition introduces a short discussion of the passions (лά0η) which are seen as inevitably associated with human material existence 19. Consequently "the Lord does not bless those who live entirely free from passion", because such a state is contrary to man's material nature. Rather "he calls meekness a standard (öpoç) of virtue attainable in fleshly life, and says that meekness is sufficient for beatitude" 20. What is required then is resistance to the passions which inevitably arise from our nature, but which lead to condemnation only when purposefully (èк лроνоías) consented to. Gregory's discussion is much more sophisticated than Basil's, a reflection not only of the more relaxed and expansive style of Gregory's exegetical sermons compared with Basil's answers, but also of the younger brother's greater interest in the nature of the human soul and of virtue. Both brothers see meekness as steadfastness, resistance to distraction from the proper activity of the human person . In Basil's case this means proper and voluntary obedience to the commandments of God , as also in the case of poverty. In discussing both beatitudes Gregory considers the virtues which are proper to the human soul and assist it on its upward ascent, and comments on the difference between the positive and negative sense of poverty and meekness . He is also concerned with something that is notably absent in Basil, a consideration of the reward promised by each beatitude.

15 16 17 18 19 20

1209D. 1212D- 13A. 1213Β : πολλὴ πρὸς τὴν κακίαν ἐστιν ἡ εὐκολία , καὶ ὀξύρροπον ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἡ φύσις. 1213C. 1213D. 1216A.

Basil and Gregory on the Beatitudes

17

Mt 5 : 4 Blessed are those who mourn

Basil's use of this beatitude in his rules must be considered alongside his use of the parallel in Luke and its antithesis, "woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep" 21 . Basil comments, " Since the Lord condemned those who laugh now, it is clear that there is never a time of laughter for the believer (ñíστoç), especially given the existence of such a multitude who dishonour God by transgression of the law and are dying in sin, for whom (úлèρ ov) it is necessary to mourn and grieve" 22. What kind of mourning is it which is called blessed? He answers, ' when we mourn for sins either because of the dishonour ( àtiµía ) done to God (because it is through transgression of the law that someone dishonours God) or because of those who are in danger because of their sin . " For the soul which sins shall die". Then we are imitating (μμоúμɛvoi) him who said, "I mourn for many who have sinned before"" 23. This mourning because of neglect of the commandments of God Basil identifies with the кaτà 0ɛòν λúлη of 2 Cor 7 : 1024. The opposite attitude , joy in the Lord, is an act of: rejoicing at things that are done in accord with the command of the Lord to the glory of God. When we obey the commands of the Lord or suffer because of his name, we ought to rejoice and congratulate one another (χαίρειν καὶ συγχαίρειν) 25 . There is a self-congratulatory air about this answer which draws our attention to the fact that Basil speaks to his addressees as themselves free of sin ; it is other people's , sin which is to be lamented 26. His perspective is different from Gregory's in his third oration, for whom everyone mourns for his own sins and even the perfect must mourn because in the fall man lost the supreme good which he once possessed , that is all the attributes which pertain to God and to a being made in his image27 . Again Basil's interpretation is geared towards the exaction of perfect obedience to the commandments of God within the ascetic community ; mourning when the commandments of God are broken is itself a part of the obedient man's duty. Gregory continues to chart the progress of the soul to higher things , but under the shadow of a profound awareness of the distressing effects of human ignorance and incapacity.

21 Luke 6: 25b. In Longer Rules 17 (PG 31 , cols. 961-5) Basil rejects laughter as inappropriate for a Christian and not to be confused with joy. Laughter conflicts with the maintainence of selfcontrol (ἐγκράτεια). 22 SR 31 , col . 1104B. Basil's verbs (åðvµɛïv kai otέvɛɩv) are not however those of the NT text which has лɛveɛīv (Mt 5 : 4, Lk 6 : 25b), kλaiɛiv (Lk 6 : 21b) and xλaúɛiv (Lk 6 : 25b) . 23 SR 194, col. 1212B-C, "Mourning" in the question is néveоs. 24 SR 192, col . 1212A. 25 SR 193, col. 1212B. 26 See SR 296-7, cols. 1289C- 1293A for a further discussion of attitudes to sin. 27 Cols. 1225D-27A.

18

G.E. GOULD

Mt 5 : 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness When the search for piety makes fasting necessary (χρεία γένηται νηστείας πρός τι τῶν εἰς θεοσέβιαν ἐπιζητουμένων) how is it desirable to fast, by compulsion or voluntarily 28 ? Basil replies to this question : Since the Lord says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" , everything which contributes to piety is dangerous if it is not done with desire and zeal (ἐπιθυμία καὶ σπουδή) . So it is not without danger for someone to fast unwillingly (μὴ лроúμшç) . But it is compulsory to fast at the appropriate time, since along with other useful things the Apostle also gave us the teaching "in frequent fastings" (2 Cor 11:27) . Basil interprets the beatitude by taking “ hunger and thirst" as a metaphor for his "desire and zeal" . To pronounce blessed those who are zealous for righteousness is to say that all righteousness, or as Basil says, things which contribute to piety, is to be pursued with willing zeal . But Basil continues to demand, on the word of the Apostle, that fasting is compulsory. Voluntary obedience means submission of the will to what God actually requires . For Gregory 29 hunger is a spiritual quality which may be directed towards good or bad things, and since it is hunger for righteousness which is pronounced blessed , righteousness must be defined 30: IfJesus was hungry, our hunger is blessed when it corresponds to his. If then we knew what it was for which the Lord hungered, we would completely know the value (dúvaμic) of the beatitude which stands before us. What then is this food which Jesus is not ashamed to desire? He says to his disciples after the conversation with the Samaritan woman, " My food is to do the will of my Father" . And the Father's will is clear: he wishes all men to be saved and to come into knowledge of the truth ... We should then hunger for our own salvation, and thirst for the will of God, which is for us to be saved 31. This includes hunger after every virtue, and despising the vices and pleasures of the world which provide no satisfaction for our hunger32 . Gregory's sermon is a highly-crafted , passionate and lucid combination of exegesis with a further statement of his views of the poverty of the material world to satisfy the true nature of man. He appeals to those who live in the world to see their life in true perspective and to be concerned with ultimate and not transitory things, to cultivate true virtues and not the deceitful objects of our desires provided by the world . There is again in discussing this beatitude a marked contrast between Gregory's approach and the clipped

28 29 30 31 32

(ȧvaукаÇóμɛνov † µɛtà пpolvµías), SR 130, col . 1169B-C. Oration 4, cols. 1232-48. Cols. 1233B-40C. Col. 1240C -D . Col. 1241C .

19

Basil and Gregory on the Beatitudes

19

phrases of Basil, a man intent on making crystal-clear rules to promote obedience to the commandments of God within the ascetic community. For Basil we have to obey the commandments voluntarily because this itself is one of the commandments !

Mt 5 : 7 Blessed are the Merciful

Basil does not answer a question about this beatitude in the Shorter Rules. In his sermon 33 , Gregory pursues a number of favourite themes . The designation " merciful" is particularly appropriate to God and frequently used of him in the Scriptures. To call human beings merciful is therefore to liken them to God and to deem them worthy of divine beatitude 34. After a warning about the difficulty of judging what is truly good and worthy of human aspirations he proceeds to a discussion of mercifulness as sympathy and charity arising from the inequalities of human existence 35. Gregory naturally assumes however that the beatitude has a further meaning. A wise man will be more concerned to pity the deficiences of his own spiritual life than the problems of human material life. The loss of paradise and subjection to the mastery of the passions which is man's present state are the proper objects of pity. If we do not pity ourselves it is because of our insensitivity to the state we are in 36. Following this attempt to align his interpretation of the beatitude with his beliefs about the nature and destiny of man, Gregory returns at the end of the sermon 37 to a further discussion of the necessity of charity and the futility of storing up wealth for oneself in view of the coming judgement .

Mt 5 : 8 Blessed are the Pure in Heart

In view of the interpretations which we have already outlined Basil's answer to the question, "Who is the pure in heart?" occasions no surprise : "He who does not have to blame himself for setting aside the commandment of God, or for failure or carelessness " 38. Basil's emphasis on attaining perfect obedience is again evident, as is the contrast between his interpretation and that of his brother, for Basil again makes no reference to the reward of obedience, whereas in Gregory's sermon the nature of the vision of God which is promised in this beatitude is very much to the fore 39. Gregory 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Oration 5, cols. 1248-64. Col. 1249B . Cols. 1249C-53C. Cols. 1257B-60B. Cols. 1260Cff. SR 280, col. 1280A-B. Oration 6, cols . 1264-77.

20

G.E. GOULD

begins by pointing out that the beatitude appears to promise something impossible, both because the vision of God is so far beyond human capacity that simply thinking about it results in intellectual vertigo , and because the condition, purity of heart, appears impossible to achieve given the human state of fallenness40 . Gregory's answer to this problem appears a little later, after a discussion of how God may be said to be seen in his works. Gregory does not think this is the real meaning of the beatitude : The Lord does not say that it is blessed to know something about God, but to possess God in youself... I do not think that a direct vision of God in the eye of the soul is promised to the pure one, but that this excellent saying perhaps suggests what the Word presented more clearly to others when he said, “The Kingdom of God is within you". By this we learn that he who has purified his heart from every creaturely and passionate distraction (πάση τῆς κτίσεως καὶ ἐμπαθῆς διάθεσις) will see the image (εikov) of the divine nature in his own beauty (xáλλoç) ... He who made you at the same time gave your nature this great good, for God imprinted on you representations (μunuaτa) of the qualities (ayalà) of his own nature¹¹ . The problem is of course, that this divine quality of human nature is obscured by sin, and purity is difficult to obtain , but here Gregory offers a perhaps more Basilian appeal to the teachings of Christ in the Gospel as providing both the motivation for our striving after purity and the methods by which it may be attained : But if zeal for good things seems to you like hard work (èлíлovоç) , compare it with the opposite lifestyle, and you will find how much more burdensome evil is, provided 42 you don't look to the present, but to the future ...4 The fear of hell remains an important motivation even within Gregory's sublime scheme.

Mt 5 : 9 Blessed are the Peacemakers

The peacemaker, in Basil's answer on the subject is : He who works with (ovvɛpy@v) the Lord, as the Apostle said, "We are ambassadors for Christ, as if God was speaking through us. We beseech you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God". And again, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God". The Lord negated other kinds of peace when he said, " My peace I leave with you, not as the world gives do I give you" 43 . A true peacemaker is someone who makes peace between man and God, someone that is with a properly religious function . Gregory as always offers a

40 41 42 43

Cols. 1264B-65D . Cols. 1269C-72A. Col. 1276B-C. SR 215, col. 1225A.

21

Basil and Gregory on the Beatitudes

21

wider discussion including several possible meanings of the term : peace in a wordly sense and peace as the opposite of anger, envy and hypocrisy44 . Someone who helps to eliminate these vices from human life is doing a work of divine power and is an imitator of God's love of men, and for this reason he is called a son of God45 , although (and on this note Gregory ends his sermon) his peacemaking is as much directed towards the discords which exist in his own nature as it is towards other people.

Mt 5 : 10-12 Blessed are those who are Persecuted for Righteousness

This beatitude is quoted twice in SR, and the use made of it is the same in each case: even the Greeks love their friends and those who do good to them. Christians must also love their enemies, " not only because of the commandment"46 or because we should be imitators of Christ, who died for us while we were still sinners 47 , but because a reward in heaven is promised for those who are reviled and hated for the sake of righteousness . We ought then to love our enemies who are responsible for our receiving a benefit greater than that conferred on us by our friends . Basil's emphasis on the aspect of reward rather than obedience owed to God differentiates his use of this beatitude from the other interpretations we have observed. In Gregory's scheme of things, this text represents the eighth and final step on the ascent to true beatitude 48, and obviously has to be given an interpretation worthy of this position. Persecution and suffering serve in fact to detach us from worldly pleasures and concentrate our minds on the higher good which we seek. Our attachment to the pleasant things of this life makes this difficult to believe, but "the living and active Word , which is sharper than any two-edged sword" , will cut away the constrictions of habit and free us from the desire for worldly things 49. The reward of this painful yet desired process of withdrawal from the world is the Kingdom of heaven - in fact the presence and possession of the Lord himself 50. Gregory's emphasis on reward, on the cultivation of virtue and detachment from possessions and wordly distractions, is maintained consistently throughout his sermons . As we have seen repeatedly, this approach, with its possibilities for exhortation and lyricism, contrasts sharply with the severely practical teaching of Basil with its unswerving aim of cultivating true obedience to the commandments of Christ as he sees them expressed in the Beatitudes . The

44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Oration 7, cols. 1277-92. Col. 1289A-B. SR 163, cols. 1188C-89A. SR 176, cols . 1200A-C. Oration 8, cols. 1292-1301. Col. 1297B . Col. 1301 .

22

G.E. GOULD

message of Gregory has more to say to those who look for intellectual and mystical content to their faith ; whether this fact represents a genuine difference in temperament between the two brothers is not a question that can be fully answered here.

Receptacle Imagery in St. Gregory of Nyssa's Anthropology

Verna E.F. HARRISON, Berkeley, California

St. Gregory of Nyssa understands the divine image and likeness in the human person as a participation in all of God's attributes, which include every kind of goodness and virtue but also things like intelligence, wisdom, freedom , power, immortality and incorruption¹ . In the De Opificio Hominis, he says that the έлι0εшроúμɛνа of the divine and human natures are the same while their Úлокɛίμɛνа differ in that one is uncreated while the other is created 2. Because the similarities between these two natures are so extraordinary, it is important to understand the exact character of their differences. It is recognized that for Gregory one of God's most important characteristics is his infinity3 , whereas the human, like all created beings, is finite. The bishop of Nyssa frequently describes this human finitude in terms of a receptacle, and this concept emerges as central to his anthropology. The receptacle concept has a long philosophical history. Plato understands the unorganized matter into which the forms are imprinted as a kind of receptacle . In Middle and Neo-Platonism, the image/archetype relationship ¹ The theme of the image of God in humanity is very important in Gregory's thought, and it has been studied extensively. See J.B. Schoemann, "Gregors von Nyssa theologische Anthropologie als Bildtheologie", Scholastik 18 ( 1943) 31-53 , 175-200 ; Jean Daniélou , Platonisme et théologie mystique (2nd edition, Paris, 1954) , pp. 48-60 ; J.T. Muckle, "The Doctrine of St. Gregory of Nyssa on Man as the Image of God ", Mediaeval Studies 7 ( 1945) 55-84; A.H. Armstrong, "The Nature of Man in St. Gregory of Nyssa", Eastern Churches Quarterly 8 (1949) 2-9; Idem, “Platonic Elements in Gregory of Nyssa's Doctrine of Man”, Dominican Studies 1 (1948) 113-126 ; R. Leys, L'image de Dieu chez saint Grégoire de Nysse (Paris, 1951 ) ; H. Merki, 'OMOINEIE OEN (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1952) ; G.B. Ladner, “The Philosophical Anthropology of Saint Gregory of Nyssa”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 ( 1958 ) 58-94 ; and Idem., The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. , 1959), pp. 90-107. 2 PG 44.184D. 3 Gregory's concept of divine infinity has been interpreted to mean ( 1 ) an absence of the measurable structures and boundaries which occur in created beings, (2) an inexhaustible fullness of positive perfections, and (3) an infinite horizon toward which intelligible creatures move in eternal growth. For these three views, see Everett Ferguson, "God's Infinity and Man's Mutability; Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa”, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 ( 1973) 59-78 ; J.E. Hennessy, "The Background and Meaning of Divine Infinity in St. Gregory of Nyssa" (Dissertation, Fordham University, 1963) ; and Ekkehard Mühlenberg, Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa (Göttingen, 1966) respectively. In my own dissertation, "Grace and Human Freedom according to St. Gregory of Nyssa" (Graduate Theological Union , Berkeley, 1986), pp. 26-42, I have argued that there is textual evidence in support of all of these interpretations, and that Gregory regards God as infinite in all three of these ways. • Timaeus 48E-49A.

24 24

V.E.F. HARRISON

is said to link different ranks of intelligible beings with each other as well as connecting the intelligible with the material world . This development surely lies behind Gregory's characterization of the human, who is both an intelligible and a material being, as a kind of receptacle . The key text for our purposes occurs in the dialogue On the Soul and the Resurrection, one of Gregory's most philosophical works. As in many other passages, the discussion starts by considering why God created humanity : The intelligible (λoyiêǹ) nature came into being for this purpose, that the wealth of divine goods might not be idle . Living receptacles with the faculty of choice (îpoɑiρɛτικὰ τῶν ψυχῶν δοχεῖα) were constructed like vases by the wisdom that sustains all things in order that there would be some place capable of receiving these goods (χώρημα δεκτικὸν ἀγαθῶν), a place that always becomes larger because of what is additionally poured into it. For participation (μɛtovσía) in the divine good is such that it makes larger and more receptive that in which it exists " . The text goes on to speak of the necessary role of human freedom in accepting these divine goods and explains how eternal growth results as this process continues . The gift of divine goodness which fills the receptacle to capacity at the same time expands that capacity so that it can receive more. This further gift enables a further expansion, which in turn leads to another, and so on. As Daniélou has aptly remarked , human souls become " universes of grace in infinite expansion " . The text shows how eternal growth results from an interaction between the finite and the infinite. The human soul, though finite at each particular time, is capable of unlimited growth because the divine life which it can receive is infinite, so more is always available. The walls of the receptacle represent the boundaries enclosing the limited volume of the human capacity. As this capacity is increased by grace , the walls continually expand . Thus the container as an image of finitude has a very significant place in Gregory's anthropology and spirituality. It delineates the frontier circumscribing the

5 See John Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London, 1977), pp. 45-48 and passim, and A.H. Armstrong, The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus (Amsterdam, 1967) , pp. 49-61 . • In the Commentary on the Song of Songs, Gregory portrays the divine attributes as a perfume some small part of which is imprinted in the creation, which is described as a jar (Werner Jaeger (ed . ), Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Leiden, 1960-, vol . 6, pp. 37-38 ; henceforth cited as "GNO"). In this text, the whole created universe is understood as imaging the divine Archetype and functioning as a receptacle which contains as much of his participated presence as its finite space can hold. The Platonic background of this concept is evident. 7 PG 46.105A. 8 On the idea of eternal growth which plays such a central role in Gregory's theology, see Daniélou, Platonisme , pp. 291-307 ; Mühlenberg, Unendlichkeit, pp. 151-158 ; Ferguson, " God's Infinity" ; and C. McGrath, "Gregory of Nyssa's Doctrine on Knowledge of God" (Dissertation, Fordham University, 1964) , ch. VIII . ⁹ Daniélou, Platonisme , p. 295.

Gregory of Nyssa's receptacle imagery

25

created realm and distinguishing it from the boundlessness of the uncreated . It is the borderline across which God and the human person always interact . Besides employing receptacle imagery to show how the intelligible soul participates in divine life, Gregory uses it in relation to almost every level of existence within the human composite. In the discourse On the Dead, the life of the body is portrayed as fundamentally a process of filling and emptying through eating, drinking and elimination and through breathing in and out. This condition is represented as a kind of unstable equilibrium that eventually breaks down when the body dies. The text goes on to contrast it with the blessed life to come, which is a contemplation of the divine nature, a condition of being eternally filled but never circumscribed by satiety 10. A similar contrast occurs in the fourth homily on the Beatitudes , which says that if the body retained all the food it ate instead of eliminating it, it would grow to great height ; yet something analogous to this happens to the soul that feeds on divine virtue¹¹ . This bizarre picture of bodily growth parallels the image of the continually expanding container in De Anima et Resurrectione. If the body naturally functions as a receptacle which is ever in a process of being filled and emptied, such a process is unnatural to the soul . When a person's life is governed by the irrational part of the soul in its quest for pleasures, a similar pattern of filling and emptying occurs but with disasterous results. Gregory's best known depiction of this condition appears in the Life of Moses when he describes the brick molds used by the Hebrew slaves in Egypt . The text says that just as the mold is emptied again and again and always has to be refilled , the irrational desire is never satisfied by one pleasure but always has to look for another. Thus though it labors like a slave, the soul is continually being filled yet is never full 12. Two other texts make a similar point by comparing the pleasure-seeking soul to a " cask full of holes" (tεtpηµέvоç лíðоç) ¹³ , a broken container which cannot effectively hold what is poured into it. The soul's receptacle is created to contain divine virtue, not sensual pleasure. When it is not used for its intended purpose, it fails to function properly. Other texts describe the intelligible soul as a receptacle receiving and containing the divine. The treatise On Perfection makes the point that the àлálɛia in the pure soul is the same as that of Christ, just as the water in a spring is the same as that carried away from it in a jar 14. This is a good 10 GNO 9.31-36. The absence of satiety in eternal growth is of course part of Gregory's reply to Origen. 11 PG 44.1248B-C. 12 GNO 7.1.50. 13 De Beat. 4, PG 44.1244B and De Mort. , GNO 9.59. Gregory clearly regards this phrase as a quotation from Scripture, but its source is unclear. G. Heil, the editor of the critical text of De Mort., refers to Prov. 23.17, "For a harlot is a deep pit ; an adventuress is a narrow well" . This seems to be a rather different image from the cask full of holes. 14 GNO 8.1.212.

26

V.E.F. HARRISON

illustration of how the divine and the human have the same attributes but different substrates . But perhaps the most striking of these texts is a passage in the Commentary on the Song of Songs describing the bride as a well of living water. Like her Creator, she is a fountain of life which flows outward to others around her, but as a creature she receives this life from God just as water flows into a well underground 15. This picture complements the image of the expanding container in De An . et Res. There, the soul receives more divine goodness by continuing to turn toward the Source. Here, the bride makes room to receive more life in herself by giving life to others . Thus, love for God and love for the neighbor both enable the reception of additional grace 16. It is clear that for Gregory the human person functions as a receptacle as it participates in every level of existence from the material to the divine. While this concept certainly does not exhaust the bishop of Nyssa's understanding of the human, it remains central to his anthropology¹7 . Several important conclusions can be drawn from this. First, it clarifies what he understands by participation. For him, human participation in God is not only a causal dependence but also, as the Greek words μɛtéxɛiv and µɛtovoiɑ suggest, a "having together", a derived possession of the same life 18. The same water is in the spring and in the jar. On a related point, the much-discussed concept of seeing the divine light in the mirror of one's own soul can also be understood through its parallels with receptacle imagery. Souls are described in De An. et Res. as лроαιρɛτiкà

15 GNO 6.293. 16 For related anthropological uses of receptacle imagery, see De Virg. , GNO 8.1.298-299 ; De Inf., PG 46.173B- 176A, In Cant. , GNO 6.67-68, 298, 441 . 17 Contrast the image ofthe mind as a fountain or stream flowing outward in De Virg. , GNO 8.1.280-281 and In Cant. , GNO 6.275-276 . Given his emphasis on free choice, Gregory cannot be said to regard the human person primarily as something passive. The receptacle chooses what its contents will be. 18 For a good treatment of Gregory's concept of participation, see David L. Balas, METOYEIA EOY (Rome, 1966). On pp. 121-122, he describes the concept as follows : "The English words ' participation' , 'partaking', ' sharing', seem to suggest first of all the opposition of a part to the whole. Although ... the idea of a limited possession is one of the important connotations of participation as understood by Gregory, he explicitly excludes any material understanding of participation as ' partition' . The Greek terms (μɛtovoía, µɛtéxɛiv, µɛtaλaµßávεiv) themselves would rather imply the idea of ‘having together'. This meaning too - connected with the problem of ' the one and the many' — is present in Gregory's writings ; in the case of participation in the divine perfections, however, it does not seem to be the primary sense. The terms µɛτovσía, μετέχειν, μεταλαμβάνειν and their parallels, when used in a technical manner to express the relation between the (intellectual) creatures and God , indicate first of all a derived , secondary possession of a quality or perfection, i.e. the fact that the subject does not own that perfection in virtue of its nature, is not that perfection itself, but has received it from a higher source". We would only differ from this excellent analysis in our belief that the union between the divine and the human expressed in the idea of "having together" is as important for Gregory as the derived, secondary character of the possession. We must remember that grace is indeed a gift, but we must not forget that it is God giving himself.

Gregory of Nyssa's receptacle imagery

27

τῶν ψυχῶν δοχεία , and in In Cant. 15 the soul is called τὸ προαιρετικόν τε kai čμчνxoν káτолτроν, a living mirror possessing free choice 19. This parallel suggests that Gregory regards the mirror as a kind of receptacle holding light. If this is correst, the " luminous àлavyάoµata of the divine nature" which the pure soul sees in itself as in a mirror according to the 6th homily on the Beatitudes 20 are actually effulgences and not merely reflections. That is , radiance flows from the divine Sun into the mirror just as water flows from the spring into the jar. This means that the knowledge of God involved is direct, not only indirect 21 . Receptacle imagery is also important for interpreting the relationship between light and darkness in Gregory's mystical theology 22. The container measures the soul's finitude, so it circumscribes the divine life in which it can participate at any given moment. Thus what is inside the receptacle appears to it as light and what is outside as darkness. As one text explains , although the bride is filled to capacity with the divine light, she is moved by love to seek God beyond the boundary of what she can know of him , so she goes out of herself into darkness . This movement enables her capacity to be expanded through grace so that she can be filled with more light than before 23. This explains the mechanism, so to speak, of eternal growth. The experiences of light and darkness are not separate stages but two essential moments of the dialectic by which the soul moves further and further into God. They correspond to an alternating focus of attention inside and outside the soul's receptacle as the person goes out in love toward God and receives God's love in return 24.

19 GNO 6.440. 20 PG 44.1272C. 21 For a detailed argument in favor of this interpretation, see Harrison, “Grace and Human Freedom", pp. 101-144. For the view that this knowledge of God is only indirect, see Muckle , “Image of God”, and R. Leys, “ La théologie spirituelle de Grégoire de Nysse” , in K. Aland and F.L. Cross (eds . ) , Studia Patristica 2 (Texte und Untersuchungen 64, Berlin, 1957), pp. 495-511 . 22 The literature on Gregory's spirituality is extensive . In addition to Daniélou, Platonisme, see Aloysius Lieske, “ Die Theologie der Christus- Mystik Gregors von Nyssa”, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie ( 1948 ) , pp. 1-45, 129-168 , 315-340 ; Walther Völker, Gregor von Nyssa als Mystiker (Wiesbaden, 1955) ; R. Leys, "Théologie spirituelle" ; and Mariette Canévet, “La perception de la présence de Dieu à propos d'une expression de la XIème homélie sur le Cantique des Cantiques", in J. Fontaine and C. Kannengiesser (eds. ), Epektasis (Paris, 1972), pp. 443-454. 23 See In Cant. , GNO 6.179-183. 24 For a detailed exposition of this view on the basis of some of Gregory's best known mystical texts, see Harrison, "Grace and Human Freedom ", ch. 2.

Gregory of Nyssa's Doctrine of the Resurrected Body

Lawrence R. HENNESSEY, Silver Springs, Md.

The purpose of this short paper is an attempt to clarify the influence of Origen's theology on Gregory of Nyssa's theology of the resurrected body. Both authors faced the same problem first raised by St. Paul in his discussion of the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians 15 : the mystery of the relationship between the earthly body and the resurrected one, or in the Apostle's terms , the physical body and the spiritual one (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44) . In discussing the question, both Origen and Gregory use Paul's analogy of the relationship between the seed and the plant ; both of them cast their respective discussions in terms of identity and difference.

I

Before examining Gregory's ideas, a brief summary of Origen's discussion of the resurrected body is a necessary prelude. The background to Origen's treatment of the resurrected body is his exegesis of three key passages from the Creation and Fall account of Genesis 1-3 . The passages are : Gn . 1:27 , the creation of the human being according to the image of God (κat'ɛikóva) ; Gn. 2 : 7, the creation of the human being out of the dust of the ground ; and Gn. 3:21 , where God makes some leather garments (xitovas depμatívovs) and clothes our first parents after the Fall. Origen's exegesis of these passages can be summarized as follows¹ : 1. Gn. 1:27 : The creation of the human being "according to the image” (Kατ' εikóvα) refers to the creation of the soul, the spiritual element, which possesses "a kind of blood -relationship with God" (consanguineitatem quandam ad Deum, De princ. IV, 4, 10) ² . 2. Gn . 2 : 7 : The creation of the human being from the dust refers to the

¹ Because of the loss of his Commentary on Genesis, combined with the notorious problems involved in the textual transmission of his other works, the reconstruction and evaluation of Origen's exegesis in these passages must remain speculative. The present writer accepts the conclusions of M. Simonetti, "Alcune osservazioni sull' interpretazione origeniana di Genesi 2,7 e 3,21 ", Aevum 36 ( 1962) : 370-81 as being justified by a careful reading of the texts. 2 De princ. IV, 4, 10 : GCS V, 363, 29 ; SC 268, 428, 403.

Gregory of Nyssa's : the Resurrected Body

29

subtle, luminous, material body, which from the beginning was furnished to a rational creature . The dust refers to an inferior element related to the one with which the human being was created in the image of God . The two creations occur at the same moment ; that they are reported separately simply emphasizes the distinction between the spiritual element (the human being according to the image of God) and the material element (the human being of dust) . Origen calls the subtle , luminous, material body the oxñμa , the "vehicle of the soul",9 an idea borrowed from Middle Platonism³. 3. Gn . 3:21 : The making of the leather garments with which God clothes Adam and Eve after the Fall symbolizes the creation of the dense, heavy body made of flesh and bones ; they symbolize the transformation of the subtle, luminous, material body into a dense, heavy body. This is the passage of the body from a state of incorruptibility to one of corruptibilityª . This exegesis of the passages in Genesis helps Origen clarify a critical problem in his theology of the resurrected body : there must be a real continuity between the earthly and the glorified body. The mystery of the relationship between the two bodies is one of identity and difference . Origen thus supposes that after death, the soul reclothes itself with a certain corporeality, which is, of course, the subtle, luminous, material body of the second creation (Gn . 2 : 7), which is transformed because of sin, into the dense, heavy body of flesh and blood . Physical death is essentially the loss of this earthly and carnal quality of the body, symbolized by the leather garments of Gn . 3:21 . Origen conceives of the luminous body which the soul received at its creation - as the resurrected body and the " vehicle of the soul", all the while considering the soul incorporeal in itself in its first creation (Gn. 1:27). That is how Origen deals with the problem of identity and difference in his own theology of the resurrected body".

II.

It seems that Origen's ideas are not only an important, but even an indispensable resource for Gregory of Nyssa's treatment of these same themes in his own writings . Gregory deals with these themes from moral, spiritual , and anthropological perspectives ; however, because of the limits imposed here, the present discussion will be confined to the anthropological perspective . The most important early example of this perspective is found in Gregory's sermon De mortuis , written prior to the death of his sister Macrina , which 3 M. Simonetti, "Alcune osservazioni ... ", p. 380. + Ibid. " H. Crouzel, "La doctrine origénienne du corps ressuscité", Bulletin de litérature ecclésiastique 81 ( 1980) , p. 176. • H. Crouzel, "Mort et immortalité selon Origène”, BLE 79 ( 1978), pp. 26-27.

HENNESSEY

L.R.

390

occured near the end of 3797. This work is difficult to interpret : the first part of the sermon presents arguments which make defense of the bodily resurrection almost impossible , and which are more radical than anything found in Origen. In fact, the arguments can fairly be called origenist in the negative, polemical sense of that word . In the second part of the work , Gregory backs away from his attack on the body, and develops an argument under the more obvious influence of Origen's own ideas. Gregory sets up his approach this way : First of all, it is not entirely clear whether Gregory identifies the leather garments of Gn 3:21 entirely with the human body or not ; Origen's critics accused him of doing that , and the origenists in fact do it . In any event, Gregory says that humanity would not need the leather garments if it had stayed as it was in the beginning . Instead, we willingly took the step towards the bestial and the irrational . Because this has happened, some think that God should force us back to our original condition. God, however, knew that force would destroy our greatest gift, our free will⁹. To protect our freedom, God designed another way to save us. He decided : To allow the human being to be among the things he wanted, so that having tasted the evils he craved , and having learned from experience what he exchanged for them , he will return again by his own free desire to his original beatitude... (De mortuis : Jaeger IX, p. 54, 12)10. Being clothed with the leather garments represents for a human being the possibility of moral choice : And so the gentle and good Father of our nature ... seeing that the human being preferred material pleasure, had the idea of apparently contributing to his attraction with the leather garment with which he clothed him ... and thus our rational nature was clothed with the garment of irrational animals ... Being material, this leather garment, which carries in itself all the qualities of the irrational nature - pleasure, anger, gluttony, greed, and things like that gives to human freedom the choice of an inclination either towards virtue or towards vice¹¹ . In this perspective, the leather garments are an effect of God's mercy; they signify a divine economy which has humanity's good in view. For a human being, participation in animal life is not so much a punishment for sin, as the first step of humanity's recovery 12. Gregory had great faith in the outcome of the human choice thus established : 7 J. Danielou, "Les tuniques de peau chez Grégoire de Nysse", in G. Müller and W. Zeller, eds. , Glaube Geist Geschichte : Festschrift für .Ernst Benz (Leiden, 1967), p. 359. 8 T.J. Dennis, "St. Gregory of Nyssa's Defence of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body” , Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος 60 ( 1978), p. 585. 9 De mortuis: W. Jaeger et al., Gregorii Nysseni Opera vol. IX, 1 : Sermones, pars I (Leiden, 1967), p . 53 ; hereafter, Jaeger ... 10 De mortuis: Jaeger IX, 1 , p. 54, 12. 11 De mortuis: Jaeger IX, 1 , p. 55 , 5 . 12 J. Daniélou, "Les tuniques ... ", p. 359.

Gregory of Nyssa's : the Resurrected Body

31

The desire for things alien to our nature does not remain forever (De mortuis : Jaeger IX , 57, 2 )13. Gregory is indebted to Origen for many elements in this perspective set out in the De mortuis, beginning with the basic pedagogical orientation . But more specific themes are also found in Origen : God's unwillingness to constrain human freedom (Hom . Jer. XIX , 2) ; God's action towards a sinner is not so much a punishment, but his way of saving (Hom. Lv. XIV, 4 ; Com . Mt. XIII , 17 ; XV , 15 ; Com. Rm. VI , 6) ; the experience of sin which causes bitterness and subsequent return (De princ. III , 1 , 13) ; the passions can be a help to good (i.e., a death to sin) , or a help to evil (i.e. , a death because of sin) ; and finally, the positive assessment of the final outcome (i.e. , the άлокаtάotαoig) (De princ. III, 5, 5). Gregory also followed Origen in describing the body that will rise from this condition. Gregory maintained that the body will be transformed (µɛταστοιχειωθέντι) into a more divine state by the resurrection (παλιγγενεσίας) . This transformation will consist in a purification of whatever would be useless for the enjoyment of the future life, e.g. , the leather garments 14. This transformation will be quite definitive : If, then, in those (bodies) which are changed, the weight of the body no longer remains, but if they walk on high with incorporeal nature, it is evident that the other properties of the body - color, form, dimension, and each and every property --— will 15 likewise be changed into something more divine ¹5. Within the parameters of identity and difference on this discussion of the resurrected body, in the De mortuis , Gregory clearly stressed difference . Gregory wrote the De mortuis sometime in the 370's . His next major works to deal with those themes are the De hominis opificio and the De anima et resurrectione, the first closely preceding the second ; the first written in late 379 or early 380, the second in the course of 38016. After writing the De mortuis, but before writing the De hominis and the De anima, Gregory apparently became influenced by the anti -origenist movement in general , and by Methodius of Olympus in particular. An explicit critique of Origen and the origenists appears in these two later works ; it is interesting to see to what extent the critique affects Gregory's discussion of the resurrected body and its attendant themes. Methodius refuted Origen's doctrine of pre-existent souls. Gregory, while perhaps toying with that idea in the De mortuis ¹7 , explicitly rejects the idea of pre-existent souls in the later works. Methodius also reproached Origen for

13 14 15 16 17

De mortuis : Jaeger IX, 1 , p. 57, 2. De mortuis: Jaeger IX, 1 , p . 59, 23. De mortuis : Jaeger IX, 1 , p. 62, 24. T.J. Dennis, "St. Gregory of Nyssa's Defence...", pp. 623-24. Ibid. Cf. De mortuis : Jaeger IX, 1 , p. 43, 1-2 ; 11-12.

32

L.R. HENNESSEY

interpreting the leather garments of Gn 3:21 as the human body which God provided for Adam and Eve. Origen, in fact, advanced this interpretation , although he was aware of its inherent difficulties ; specifically, Adam and Eve already had bodies before the Fall18 . Whatever his interpretation of the leather garments in the De mortuis, Gregory follows Methodius' critique of Origen's identification of the leather garments understood as our mortal bodies. Like Methodius, Gregory in the De anima et resurrectione identified the leather garments, not with the body, but with its irrational, animal nature : Just as one who is wearing a torn garment takes it off and no longer connects the ugliness of what he has discarded with himself, so we shall be when we have put off that dead and ugly garment made of the skins of irrationality. I here equate the word "skin" with the aspects of the animal nature with which we clothe ourselves when we become accustomed to sin 19. It should be remembered , however, that the identification of the leather garments with the body was not Origen's only interpretation of, or final position on Gn. 3:21 . In fact, once Origen introduces his interpretation of Gn. 2 : 7 (the creation from dust) as the subtle, luminous, material body, i.e. , the öxnua , the " vehicle of the soul " , which contains the image of Gn . 1:27, and which, after the Fall, is covered with the leather garments of Gn . 3:21 , it is hard to see that Gregory's and Origen's positions really differ. Methodius accused Origen of denying any identity between our earthly bodies and our resurrected ones ; that is the core of his objection to Origen's own theology of the resurrection 20. Doubtless, some passages from Origen seem to support Methodius' objections. But when Origen himself attempts to address the he problem of identity - a question of which he was very much aware expresses the identity this way: When the just will rise in glory in the second coming of Christ, they will not have sensible garments, but they will be clothed in luminous envelopes . Just as their form (εldoç) was not different at the Transfiguration (cf. Lk . 9 ; 29) , in the same way, in the resurrection, the form of the saints will be much more glorious than what they had in this life, but it will not be different 21 . In other words, the form of the subtle, luminous, material body, covered over by the sensible garments of mortality, will not be replaced, but will be restored to its luminous condition. In the De hominis opificio, Gregory takes up this same question of the 18 Com. Gn. apud Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim: PG 80, 140 = PG 12, 101 . 19 De anima et resurrectione : PG 46, 148C- 149A; translation by V. Callahan, St. Gregory of Nyssa: Ascetical Works (Fathers of the Church vol . 58 : Washington, 1967) , p. 266. 20 On this question, see H. Crouzel, "Corps ressuscité ..." and " Les critiques adressées par Méthode et ses contemporains à la doctrine origénienne du corps ressuscité" , Gregorianum 53 (1972): 679-716. 21 Frag. Lc. 140 : GCS IX² , 283, 13.

Gregory of Nyssa's : the Resurrected Body

33

identity of our earthly body with our resurrected one. His stress on identity almost reverses his previous stress on difference in the De mortuis : By virtue of a natural relationship and affection the soul has for the body with which it has lived, there remain certain marks (onμɛĩa) that denote the undisturbed relationship existing between body and soul ; and there is nothing that will hinder the divine power from allowing the elements of the body to come together when the soul draws back to itself its kindred 22. Origen's and Gregory's positions on identity are worth comparing. In Origen's treatment of the questions, identity is carried by the ɛldoç, form , which is corporeal and more or less equivalent with the material ovoía and the Middle Stoic λόγος σπερματικός. This εἶδος is mortal by nature; it can easily be confounded with the notion of oxñua , external appearance, if one is not careful23 . (In fact, that is precisely what Methodius does ; if εldoc is only external appearance, the earthly and resurrected bodies are completely different, and only similar in their external aspects. ) 24 Origen's corporeal ε{doc may be defined as the principle of unity, development, existence , and individuation of the body. It shows externally in the traits by which a person is recognized, without being confused with the external appearance, which is changing as all the elements succeed one another in the organism. It uses their qualities, changing them into its own qualities and by imprinting on them its own characteristics. In this, it is the same as the λóyoç or ratio, which perhaps better expresses its dynamism. This corporeal ɛldoç will rise at the resurrection, and it will assure substantial identity between the luminous resurrected body and the dense, earthly one, since it informs them both 25 . When Gregory discusses the same question, he uses similar ideas. In the passage just cited, the "marks" (onμɛia) function like the corporeal εldos ; they denote "the undisturbed relationship existing between body and soul" . In fact, although the body changes by growth and decrease, says Gregory, its form (εldoc) remains the same as it was when first received . Lazarus, for example, had a bodily kind of identification (yvópioµa owµatos) on his soul, as did the rich man when they met in the world beyond 26. This identification obviously assures substantial identity with their earthly bodies, which was one point Gregory strongly wanted to express. One final example of Gregory's approach from the De anima is worth noting; he has this to say: But even if you have become accustomed to your body and the separation from what

22 De hominis opificio : PG 44, 225BC. 23 H. Crouzel, "Corps ressuscité...", pp. 253-54. 24 H. Crouzel, "Les critiques...", p . 711 . 25 H. Crouzel, “Corps ressuscité ... ” , pp. 255-56. 26 J.P. Cavarnos, "The Relation of Body and Soul in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa" , in H. Dörrie et al. , Gregor von Nyssa und die Philosophie (Leiden, 1976), pp. 76-77.

34

L.R. HENNESSEY

you love grieves you, do not be without hope. You will see this bodily garment which is now dissolved by death woven again of the same elements, not according to its present crass and heavy construction , but with the thread resewn into something more fine and delicate, so that what you love will be present to you and restored to you with a greater and more lovable beauty 27 . The description of the resurrected body as transformed from its " crass and heavy construction" into " something more fine and delicate" is , I think , a clear echo of Origen's use of the öxnua - the subtle, luminous, material body to express the same idea. From this I would suggest that while Gregory certainly does not want to be an origenist, he does willingly pick up the threads of Origen's own interpretation, whenever these ideas can help him express with accuracy his faith in the resurrection of the body.

27 De anima et resurrectione : PG 46, 105D- 108A; translation, V. Callahan, p. 245 .

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa and the Neoplatonists

A. MEREDITH, S.J. , Oxford

It is worth noting at the outset two small points connected with the title of this paper. 1) I have used the word "mind" in the title rather than the perhaps more appropriate word "soul" . For Gregory, as we shall see, the words "mind" and "soul" are for all practical purposes interchangeable ; for Plotinus this is not the case. For him "mind" and " soul" refer to two quite distinct realites , which, despite his belief in the continuity of the spiritual world, he is always eager, as at Ennead II.9.1 , to keep sharply distinct. 2) The use of "Neoplatonists" requires some light qualification and apology. Although it has been argued by P. Courcelle ' , that Porphyry's influence on Gregory can be detected , and by J. Daniélou² , that the theory of language adopted by Gregory's opponent, Eunomius, owes something to Iamblichus, I shall not be here concerned with either of them but only with Plotinus . The discussion of the sources of Gregory of Nyssa's psychology and above all of its dependence on Plato and Platonism goes back as far at least as 1934 with the appearance of an article in Classical Philology by Harold Frederick Cherniss with the title : "The Platonism of Gregory of Nyssa". His interest in writing was primarily classical, a fact illustrated by the appearance about ten years ago in the Loeb Classical Library of his leaned translation and commentary on those parts of Plutarch's Moralia which deal with Stoicism. Cherniss argued in the article that in practically every area of his writing Gregory was a tributary of Plato and he came to the sombre conclusion on page 62 that : "But for some few orthodox doctrines he could not circumvent, Gregory has merely applied Christian names to Plato's doctrines and called it Christian theology" . A not dissimilar conclusion was arrived at more recently in a more elaborate study of the psychology of Gregory by a young Greek scholar from Heidelberg, Charalambos Apostolopoulos. The title of the book, Phaedo Christianus, which appeared in 1986 is a good guide to its contents . In the section on the soul in his article Cherniss was primarily, though not

¹ P. Courcelle, "Gregoire de Nysse lecteur de Porphyre" , in R.E.G. 80 ( 1967) , pp. 402-406. 2 J. Danielou, "Gregoire de Nysse et le Néoplatonisme de l'école d'Athenes" , in R.E.G. 80 (1967), pp. 395-401 .

36

A. MEREDITH

solely, concerned to illustrate Gregory's Platonism by comparing him with Plato himself. So, for example, he argues that Gregory's preference at AR 46.49cff. for a simple idea of the soul is a result of his dependence upon two passages in Plato, Rep. 611c and Phaedo 80b and not, as Gregory's sister, Macrina, insists, because of the words of scripture . On the other hand Cherniss holds that in his discussion of the omnipresence of the soul in the body at de Hominis Opificio 44.161 Gregory's language and argument echo the words of Plotinus at Ennead IV.3.8 and IV.8.1. In what follows my primary concern will not be to establish any actual dependence of Gregory on particular texts of the Enneads. That such a direct dependency should exist seems to me prima facie unlikely, especially when it is remembered that with the possible exception of Ennead IV.83 , the only other text which it seems possible to assert that Gregory certainly knew is Ennead 1.6, which hardly contains a worked out psychology. Rather am I interested in exploring some of the ways in which two thinkers standing within a common Platonic tradition handled the same sort of questions . For, whereas, as A.D. Nock has well observed , the purely dogmatic controversies which exercised the church in the ecumenical councils of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries would have had small interest for the Hellenic world, both Christians and pagans shared a common and inherited attachment to the problems of the soul . On the pagan side this goes back as far as the Phaedo and Phaedrus of Plato, the de Anima of Aristotle, the fourth Ennead of Plotinus in its entirety and several of Porphyry's writings, such as the Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes and the de Regressu Animae. The Judaeo- Christian tradition also furnished evidence of this preoccupation in the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo's tractate de Hominis Opificio, II Corinthians, the de Resurrectione of Athenagoras and de Anima of Tertullian, in parts of Origen's de Principiis, above all I.4 and II.8 . But it is only really with the serious attempt at the exegesis of Genesis i.26, 27 ; 2.7 and 3.7-11 that a scientific and coherent Christian anthropology begin to emerge . Unfortunately Origen's Commentary on Genesis survives only in fragments collected at PG 12.45 and his Homilies, which do come down to us in a latin translation , discuss Gen. 1.26 only cursorily and without much attention to anthropological issues . It is only with the two homilies of Basil, de Origine Hominis, whose attribution and relationship to Basil's in Hexaemeron and Gregory's de Hominis Opificio have been exhaustively discussed elsewhere , that we arrive at something more substantial . Of Gregory's own two treatises, with which

3 For the doubts about influence cf. especially Staats in his edition of Epistola Magna (Göttingen, 1984) , p. 87, note . 4 * A.D. Nock, in Collected Papers edited by Zeph Stewart (Oxford , 1972), vol. II , p. 679. 5 Origen, Hom in Gen. 1.13, " man was made secundum imaginem Dei, non intelligens corporalem" and for further similar, ideas cf. Philo, de opificio mundi, 134. 6 Basil of Cacasarea, de origine hominis ( = S.C. 160) , cf. esp. Introd. pp. 13ff.

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

37

we shall have to do, the de Hominis Opificio (= HO) starts from Basil and starts from Gen. 1.26, 27 , the de Anima et Resurrectione ( = AR) or Macrinia, bears its formal tribute to Plato in its setting and title, though how deep the Platonic influence really went I intend to explore. It is worthwhile noting at the outset the extraordinary formal degree of similarity that exists between the written authorities appealed to by Plotinus and Gregory respectively, above all Plato and the Bible. It is of course true that the pagan world possessed no living authority in the shape of bishops or councils, though Julian tried to rectify this defect in the course of his short reign. It is also true that the ancient world possessed no concept of heresy, though even here it was possible, as Plotinus himself implies at Ennead IV.8.8.1 , to swim against a majority view. Even so Plato was for Plotinus a sacred text . At Ennead II.9.6 . he protests, somewhat disingenuously, it must be admitted, against the Gnostics who either deliberately misrepresented or carelessly misunderstood the words of Plato . On the other hand on at least two occasions he half admits that his own version of Plato was open to a like criticism . Ennead IV.8 " On the descent of the soul" is a discussion of the nature of the soul conducted in an atmosphere dominated by texts drawn from three of Plato's dialogues, Phaedo, Phaedrus and Timaeus. Plotinus' attempt to harmonize the discordant accounts there offered leads him to adopt a solution which he freely admits runs against the majority of the other interpreters . At Enn . IV.8.8.1-3 he writes : "And if one ought to dare to express one's own view more clearly, contradicting the opinion of others, even our soul does not altogether come down, but there is always something of it in the intelligible " (Armstrong's translation , my italics) . On another occasions at Ennead V.1.8 Plotinus seems aware of the possibility of a charge of novelty being levelled against him. He writes : "These statements of ours do not belong to the present time, but were made long ago, not explicitly ... and we rely on Plato that these views are ancient" . Here the important word is μǹ ȧvалɛлτаμέvшs and suggests an awareness on Plotinus' part that he himself could be charged with innovation, even as he had charged the Gnostics . As Professor Armstrong observes in his note on this passage : "The belief that the true doctrines are present , but often not explicit, in the writings regarded as traditionally authoritative is, for obvious reasons, essential for pagan and Christian traditionalists of the first centuries A.D .... cp . Origen de Principiis 1.3". In harmony with what has been said about Plotinus and Origen it is hardly surprising to discover with Gregory also a similar concern to preserve as far as possible the language, though not necessarily the meaning of the tradition . A large part of the HO is simply a protacted exegesis of Gen. 1.26, and although the general setting of AR is meant to remind the reader of the death of Socrates rather than of any specifically Christian setting, the authority of scripture is clearly invoked on certain vital issues at for example PG 46. 49c ;

38

A. MEREDITH

52c; 64b. etc. In general, therefore, there seems to be little to distinguish the appeals made by their various followers to the writings of Plato and the Bible. To the forefront of what follows stands the following question . Does Gregory's Christianity make any appeciable difference, or indeed any difference at all, to his understanding of the nature of the soul , of its destiny and above all of its relationship to the body? To rephrase the question slightly differently, would Gregory's solution of these problems differ in any way from the solutions offered above all by Plotinus ? I am aware, I hope, that even if the answer to this question is positive, and it turns out that Gregory and Plotinus are suggestively different, that it could still be argued that the difference is due to some already existent amalgam of Plato and Aristotle, rather than to anything particularly Christian in Gregory's approach . A solution of such a type would no doubt be favoured by W. Jaeger ' ; nor is it possible to sustain or refute such a position a priori. Let us wait and see. There are three parts to the following treatment. A) The soul/mind as image and likeness of God . B) The nature of the soul and its relation to the senses ; C) The passionlessness and destiny of the soul.

PART A. THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS

1. The contrast with Origen and Basil Basil's discussion of the meaning of Gen 1.26. occurs at Hom. 1.6 and owes a good deal to Origen . First of all he rules out the possibility that the image of God in man is to be located at all in the body, which is made of matter and grows old, neither of which propositions is true of God . At 1.7 the image is identified with the inner man of 2 Cor 4.16 and is the equivalent of the soul, conceived both as vital principle and as reason. Much of this can be found in Origen, above all as the S.C. edition notes, Hom in Gen. 1.13 . In a second respect Basil follows in the footseps of Origen. Both make a clear distinction between image and likeness. That this is consistent practice of Origen may be reasonably inferred from several passages in his writings. At de Principiis III.6.1 , for example, he writes : "Hoc ergo quod dixit ; ' ad imaginem dei fecit eum ' et de similitudine siluit , non aliud indicat nisi quod imaginis dignitatem in prima conditione percepit, similitudinis vero ei perfectio in consummatione servata est" . A like passage occurs in a later work of Origen, the Contra Celsum IV.30 . As with Irenaeus at adv. Haereses V.6.1 , so too with Origen, increase in knowledge of and likeness to God is intimately linked to the gift of the Holy Spirit. For Basil also, likeness to God is quite distinct from image, the latter being

7 W. Jaeger, Two Rediscovered Works (Leiden, 1954), p . 80 note.

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

39

the unalienable gift of created humanity, the former the perfection resulting from the joint action of the Holy Spirit and human free choice, in a form of synergism. Three elements above all stand out in the picture drawn by Basil of the final, desiderated likeness. The first is moral excellence, which is described at Hom. 1.17 in terms that are reminiscent of Theaetetus 176b, Colossians 3.12 and Galatians 3.27 . To this must be added the factor of intellectual enlightenment, on which at Contra Eunomium III.2 and in many other places Basil lays so much stress. Finally comes the element of divinization, whose relationship to the moral and intellectual elements is not too clear, but whose Neoplatonist overtones, especially at de Spiritu Sancto IX.23 seem to me quite inescapable, and more pronounced than anything in either Origen or Gregory of Nyssa.

2. Image and Likeness in Gregory The picture offered by Gregory of Nyssa is modestly but suggestively different. In HO 4, where the living image of God within us is under discussion, Gregory maintains that this living image čuvvxoç εikóν contains essentially within it and not simply through moral effort, “ virtue, immortality and justice", which define its likeness to God . With the exception of immortality these factors are all moral. But whereas in Basil they constitute the perfection of the soul in its acquired likeness to God, in Gregory they constitute the very stuff of the soul and are part of the image. Chapter 5 offers a fuller account of the image of God within, and again it is the life of virtue which is part of the same image. At PG 44.137bff Gregory offers a list of such qualities ; " purity, passionlessness blessedness, through which the likeness to the divine is formed within us, then mind, reason , understanding and love", moral and natural qualities together . All are supported by scriptural quotations. If any element is missing then the divine character of the image is impaired . Here is well illustrated the juxtaposition of intellectual spiritual and moral elements which together make up the divine image within us. To fail to display love is as fatal to our claim to be in the image of God as to be devoid of reason. The impression generated by HO 4 and 5 is reinforced at chapters 11 and 12. At 156a in answer to the question of how the divine simplicity can be reflected in the manifold variety of human nature, Gregory replies that provided the image lacks none of the qualities of the archetype it is truly the image ; in so far as it falls away it is no longer the image. The true nature of the soul is to reflect perfectly the divine character. The intimate connexion between these two ideas is well illustrated by a passage at the end of HO 12 (= PG 44.161c- 164b) : God is the loveliest and best of all things . All that are able, turn towards him and in turning towards him become like him and share in him. All have or display an eqɛσiç towards him, and in the exercise of that eager outreach display the form of that which they strive towards. The

40

A. MEREDITH

likeness and loveliness we possess in being made according to the image seems to be intimately connected with and barely if at all separable from the conscious έισtρooń ( 164b) we exercise towards God . We become and are truly ourselves as spiritual beings with real image/likeness to God in so far as we practise this ἔφεσις towards him. ἔφεσις, μόρφωσις, ὁμοίωσις, εἰκών all go together. Again and again Gregory will insist, as at HO 15, that the godliness which constitutes us as human beings is not some static unalienable rationality, but consists in the free exercise of virtue . And lest it be thought that this stress on the importance of freedom and virtue as instrinsic to the image of God in us be a peculiarity of HO, it is worthwhile referring to a passage in Oratio Catechetica 5 (cf. esp . Srawley pp . 26, 27) , where the same collection of ideas occurs together. 3. The double meaning of μɛτovoía in Gregory, the coincidence of nature and grace. The point made in part ii is well illustrated by the ambiguity over the meaning of participation in Gregory. Mɛtovoia can refer either to the fact of ontological dependence of the creature upon the creator or to a relationship acquired by moral and intellectual seriousness. A good example of this (? intentional) double meaning occurs at HO 12 (PG 44.161c), where Gregory writes that the mind/spirit remains in the beautiful "as long as it participates in likeness to the archetype". Here the reference seems to be to the excellence acquired through the moral struggle. In HO 16, however ( = PG 44.184c) God is said not to be miserly in the participation in his nature that he imparts to man ; his perfect goodness is displayed both in his creation of us out of nothing and in his endowment of us with all good things by which rich endowment is meant all that is κat'ɛiκóva within us . It is a conception which is in some ways a piece of Platonism , above all in the near identification of being and value which it implies. A further example of Gregory's use of the concept of participation may be found at AR (PG 46.105bff) “ Such" , he writes, is the μɛtovoia tov lɛiov ȧyalou that it makes the one in whom it occurs even greater and capable of receiving further good - δεκτικώτερος. SEKTIKÓτEρoç. We shall never be finished in our sharing of the goods that spring from the divine nature. In this vision sharing and growth go together. The more we by virtue share in the divine nature, the greater is our growth in being. Again it is not as though we moved from a statically and absolutely possessed image to an optional and non-essential likeness. Rather does participation embrace both terms, which cannot really be separated. Human nature and especially the soul/mind within us is in a state of dynamic tension, directed towards or away from the ultimate source of its being, in this respect, as we shall see presently, like the soul and mind in the Plotinian system.

8 D. Balas, Mɛtovoia Oɛov . Man's participation in God's perfections according to St. Gregory ofNyssa (Rome, 1966).

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

41

The de Infantibus, also , presents us with a similar tension in the matter of participation. There we learn that " to look at God is the life of the soul" and that this same life consists in the participation in the good and that to be without such knowledge is to be a soul τοῦ θεοῦ μὴ μετέχουσα” (PG 45.176a) . Shortly after this we learn that participation in God is the life of the soul. In these texts participation is used to refer to conscious attention to God, rather than to the very existence of the soul . A little earlier, however, ( 173c) the clarity which would identify μɛτovoía solely with perfection disappears, where it is stated that participation in the really real preserves the participant ev to εivai. Gregory seems to be saying that the discipline of the good life is not simply the condition of eternal life, but actually necessary for life itself. A similar position , without he language of participation , however, is held by St. Athanasius in de Incarnatione 4 and 5 . 4. Conversion and formation I have laboured the above point for two reasons. a) It can seen as a good example of the resolute refusal of Gregory to draw any sharp distinction between the natural life and the life of excellence and grace. There are, of course, two important qualifications written into this general identification of being and value ; however bad we become we never cease to exist and however good we become we never turn into God . But given those two limits and exceptions there is a strong identity between " being" and "goodness" . b) The system as it stands with the refusal to draw a sharp line between image and likeness, the insistence on the need for conversion and for ëqɛσis, and finally the to me intentional ambiguity surrounding the meaning of participation bears a strong likeness to the dynamic system of Plotinus . It is one of his constant themes that with the exception of the One at the summit of the great chain of being and the matter/evil/not-being at the other end, all else is in a state of tension caught between πρόοδος and ἐπιστροφή . Neither νοῦς nor wuxń is a static being, possessing itself without any consciousness of direction beyond itself. So , writing of the soul at Ennead III.4.1 he says that it was begotten in a state of formlessness, but became formed when it turned is very ɛσic and µóp¶wo towards what gave it birth . The link between clear. It is also verified for the mind of which we read at Enn. V.3.11 that in order to be itself it must learn to transcend itself. But in its upward striving it is as yet merely έQɛσis, a faculty of vision not yet seeing. It is in this apparent conflict between being and need, possession and acquisition , that, as Arnou observes, the nerve centre of the Plotinian system resides . It must be έêɛ̃ɩ in order to strive upwards, but its striving upwards indicated that it is still somehow imperfect . It is always stretching out, always attaining ảɛì ỏiέµovos έi τvyxάwν (Ennead III.8.11.23) . Or again : "So this Intellect had an immediate apprehension of the One, but by grasping it became intellect,

42

A. MEREDITH

perpetually in need of the One and having become at once Intellect and substance and intellection, when it thought" (Enn . V.3.11.13ff). The similarity between the two modes of thought is sufficiently striking. It need not, however, imply that Gregory knew the Enneads where Plotinus expresses these thoughts; in fact it seems highly unlikely that this was the case . The verbal parallels are entirely lacking. Both were convinced for partially different reasons that a truly human relation could not exclude a dynamic reference beyond itself to the Creator and the One.

PART B. THE NATURE OF THE SOUL AND ITS RELATION TO THE SENSES 1. The soul as intellectual Although Gregory refused to locate the image of God in man exclusively in the intellectual elements of the soul, but instead rather in the important part to be played by the freedom of the will and the life of virtue, nevertheless the intellectual element is always prominent and integral to the picture . Indeed when at AR 29b Gregory asks Macrina for a definition of soul she provides here and later endorses at 48c a definition which is not unlike that offered by "Plato" at Alcibiades 129e/130a and referred to at Ennead VI.7.4.10 . According to Macrina the soul is " a created, living, rational being , transmitting from itself to an organized and sentient body the power of living and of grasping the objects of sense". We must add to this the clear fact that in this work at any rate Gregory wishes to exclude from the idea of soul anything like the tripartite division of soul which we find in Plato at Republic IV.439e and Phaedrus 246a. At 49c ff the Platonic tripartition is definitely rejected by means of an appeal to scripture Gen 1.26 " For whatever is foreign to God cannot be included in the definition of soul" (52a) . The strongly intellectual character of the soul is asserted, if anything with greater vigour, later on in the Macrinia. So at 57b,c the natural or proper power of the soul resides in its godlike nature, which is θεωρητική, διακριτική , τῶν ὄντων ἐποπτική . HO comes to a similar conclusion though by a slightly different route . At chapter 8 (= PG 44.144d) he appeals as at AR 49c to the superior authority and clear sightedness of Moses. The question here discussed is the different types of soul to be found in vegetable beings, sentient creatures and human beings. The perfect soul is one that is to be found in rational beings and partakes of reason . What is not clear in this account is whether the intellectual soul includes the previous two types of soul or takes their place entirely. Indeed the relationship of the intellectual to the vegetable and sensory elements is a matter of perpetual perplexity in Gregory — a perplexity which he shares with Plotinus . If the soul is purely and solely intellectual how can it at the same time act as the energizing principle of the body? At HO 177a he writes that only the rational soul is kupiwę wuxń , the other life principles are

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

43

so only kataxpηotikãs. This would seem to lead to the conclusion that on Gregory's definition plants and animals were soulless, a view with which Plotinus with his idiosyncratic understanding of contemplation at Ennead III.8 and of Happiness at I.4 would disagree. 2. The relationship of the soul to the body But how is the body related to the soul, which is neither itself body, nor intimately connected with it as form to matter? On the former point, that the soul is not to be thought of as body, Gregory is quite clear and goes out of his way to counter certain popular conceptions on this front. At AR 37b Macrina begins her enquiry into the nature of the soul by insisting that the mind vous in man is something quite distinct from the visible reality. Later, at 40c we learn that it is lacking in all that sense could grasp, colour, shape , weight, division. To her brother's question about the possibility of existence for such spiritual beings, Macrina replies that to question the possibility of the existence of such raises a question mark beside the existence of God himself. Indeed for Gregory here the soul and God are so close to each other that the only thing that distinguishes the former from the latter is that the former is the copy, the latter the original, the former is created , the latter uncreated (41c ; 44a) ; and just as the divine nature is in no way constricted by the world that it made, so neither is the soul in any way circumscribed by the bodily parts which it informs (44c) . The total independence of the soul from the body is further evolved at 45c, where the qualities of diffusion (diaσtoλǹ) and contraction (σvotoλń) , which are proper to bodies are denied of the soul . HO treats of the independence and omnipresence of the soul in chapters 12 and 14. In the former passage he argues that the mind/soul does not exist in any bodily organ, for example ( 156c) the brain or the heart. On the contrary “ô vous dɩ öλov tou opɣávov" ( 161b) ; again the mind is equally honoured in each of the parts of the body according to some marvellous ȧváκpασic (160d) . Chapter 14 is headed "ôti oỏê ¿v µépɛi tov σáµatos & vous” . The mind is not so constricted but touches all parts equally. It may indeed appear that the soul is a slave of the passions ; but it is only verified in the case of the ἀνθρωπωδέστεροι. In the case of the more perfect the passions are subjected to the control of mind. 3. The relationship of the mind to the senses From what has been so far argued it emerges that Gregory, despite his lofty description of the godlike character of the soul, is by no means always either clear or consistent in his account of the way the soul and body relate to each other. Having emphatically rejected the Origenist notion of preexistence as a prime source of knowledge in the soul (cf. esp. AR 112c) , Gregory found himself in some difficulty in explaining the provenance of knowledge in the

44

A. MEREDITH

soul. Neither Platonic preexistence, nor, except perhaps at de Virginitate 12 (= GNO VIII.I.300.13ff), Plotinian introversion and a doctrine of the immanence of the effect in the cause was there to help him. It is hardly surprising, therefore, as Apostolopoulos has noted , that much of Gregory's account of knowledge has an Aristotelian complexion about it. At AR 32a Macrina quotes with appoval a hackneyed saying of Epicharmus that the whole of the mind sees and hears. The spiritual element, in other words uses the senses in order to know. Again at 33b we read that the soul sees by means of the senses and with their help passes through what is seen to what cannot be seen, language which is perhaps meant to recall the words of St. Paul at Romans 1.20 . Whatever the source, it is instructively different from the suggestion of Plato at Phaedo 84a that it is only once the senses have been put to sleep that the mind may begin to perceive. The dependence of mind upon sense for perception and for self- expression may also be gathered from HO 9 and 10. Here Gregory argues that because the mind/soul is “ νοερόν τι χρῆμα καὶ ἀσώματον” it must remain silent unless it has the assistance of the organs of speech with which to express its varied treasures of thought and discovery. The need for owμatikai aiolńoɛis ( 1498) is further elaborated in chapter 10 which bears the title "óti di'aioθήσεων ὁ νοῦς ἐνεργεῖ” which as the sequel shows refers not only to expression but also to the acquisition of information . Indeed he writes at 152c "through their means (sc. the senses) the mind grasps things that are outside the body and inscribes кataypάoɛ the shapes of things seen within itself" . Even so, Gregory insists in chapter 11 despite the mind's need for senses as the means of knowledge and the vehicle of expression , it is not identical with them, stands in judgment upon them and is itself in the image of God ( 156a) . 4. Plotinus on the ubiquitous, intellectual character of the soul This account of the ubiquitous, quasi-divine, intellectual character of the soul is not without its parallels in Plotinus. In the beginning of this paper I noted some difficulty about applying the words mind and soul ; for whereas in -Gregory the two words not infrequently refer to the same reality so the title of AR speaks of the soul, yet the definition of soul offered at 29b , 32a and 336 uses the word "mind" or gives a very intellectual description . A like insouciance can be seen in HO 15 which uses the word wuxǹ and chapter 14 which states οὐκ ἐν μέρει τοῦ ὠματος ὀνοῦς. Plotinus, on the other hand, uses the two expressions to refer to two quite distinct realities, which to some extent are defined by their relationship to each other. In what follows I shall be referring primarily to the Plotinian soul , whose inamissibly intellectual character is frequently insisted upon by Plotinus 10.

⁹ C. Apostolopoulos, Phaedo Christianus (Frankfurt, 1986), pp. 201ff. 10 For the unfallenness of the upper soul cf. esp. Ennead. IV.1.13 ; IV.8.8.1-3 ; III.2.19-22.

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

45

Plotinus' difficulties in dealing with the nature of the soul arise from grounds not dissimilar to those of Gregory. He is convinced on the one hand that the soul is the real self and is radically intellectual ; but on the other that it is also responsible for all the activities of the human compositum. At Ennead 2.9.2 he seems to divide the soul into three parts, though not quite Platonically. The upmost part is directed upwards and is always лрòс EKɛivo . Then there is the lowest part which is concerned with things here and in between comes a middle or joining section. In this passage he leaves it unclear whether the lowest part has fallen to where it is through some sin or whether it is as part of spontaneous outgoing called forth by the needs of the material universe. Nevertheless despite the only too obvious difficulties on the moral and empirical front to which his views lead and despite his awareness , expressed at Ennead IV.8.8.1-3 , that in his teaching on the unfallen soul he was running flat contrary to tradition and it might be added to later Platonism¹¹ , he held to his opinion. For him the uninterrupted, though not always conscious, possession of intellectual vision by the soul was the very condition of the possibility of existence and form in the world below. For Plotinus the soul is only loosely united to the body and can hardly be said to indwell it at all. That it is in no sense circumscribed by the body is clear from a passage in Ennead IV.3.20 ; " Now we must say in general that neither any of the parts of the soul nor the whole soul are in body as in a place . For place is something encompassing, and encompassing body... but soul is not a body, and is no more encompassed than encompassing. It is certainly not in the body as in a receptacle ǎyyɛɩov either" (Armstrong's translation) 12. This sentence predates in substance, if not in form , the ideas expressed by Gregory at HO 14 and at AR 33b. Plotinus makes a similar claim for the soul at Enn. IV.9.4.25 as being both without a body and an ousia. Plotinus ' belief in the non circumscription and omnipresence of the soul in and to the body received a classic and influential formulation , where he writes of the pure, unfallen soul " it is divisible in that it is in all the parts in which it is , but indivisible in that it is present in all the parts of it as a whole and in any one part as a whole " (Enn . IV.1.1.65ff) . öλŋ έv nãoi kai ¿v óτoovv öλŋ . This way of writing about the soul was very influential and found its way, through Augustine's de Trinitate, into the Summa Theologiae 13. Plotinus does not restrict ubiquity to the soul, as is clear from a passage in Ennead V.1.2.35ff, where he writes, referring probably here to the world soul rather than to the individual soul ; " But the soul is not like this (sc.

11 Proclus, The Elements of Theology, ed. E.R. Dodds (Oxford, 1932), prop . 211 , "Every particular soul, when it descends into temporal process, descends entire : there is no part of it which remains above and a part that descends". Cf. Dodds' note ad loc. 12 For references to the bucket or container imagery cf. AR 105b; OC 10. 13 Augustine, de Trinitate VI.6 : “anima in toto tota est et in qualiber parte eius tota est" ; and for St. Thomas, Summa Theologica 1.76.8.

46

A. MEREDITH

the body) and it is not by being cut up that it gives life, by a part of itself for each individual thing, but all things live by the whole, and all soul is present everywhere, made like to the father who begat it (sc. the Mind) in its unity and universality". Like the other two "ousiai ", the One and the Mind, the Soul belongs "there" and is also and strangely by that very token everywhere 14. In the matter of the acquisition of knowledge Plotinus is a more throughgoing intellectualist than is Gregory, and in this respect he shows himself a more consistent disciple of Plato . To begin with for Plotinus, as for Plato, knowledge is not sensory; but neither is it discursive either. Discursive reason or diavola which forms for Plato the third part of the celebrated divided line of Republic VI is sharply distinguished from the intuitive grasp described at Ennead V.5.1 and elsewhere¹5 . Plotinus regards any attempt to derive from or assimilate knowledge to sense perception with grave disfavour. This is partly because such an assimilation would be open to the objections made by the Sceptics to the very possibility of knowledge and discussed at V.5.1 . But it is also because he is averse to the idea that the soul can in any way be treated as a sort of wax tablet or tabula rasa upon which impressions are inscribed . So he begins the short Ennead IV.6 with an attack on the idea that there can be sense impressions or seal stamps túлwσiç in the soul ___ a clear attack upon the sensist or Stoic account of knowledge. For Plotinus to treat the soul as the Stoics before or Locke afterwards were to do was to make it essentially passive ― a view with which Plotinus and his teaching on the essential activity of the upper world could have no sympathy . The knowledge possessed by spiritual beings was essentially identical with the knowing subject and like it nálоç feeling or passivity could have no part in such a view of things 16. Such an austerely intellectualist account of the nature of knowledge and of the way the soul comes to know must provoke two questions . What role does Plotinus assign to sense knowledge and how does the soul arrive at knowledge if not through the senses? On the first point Plotinus is at pains to point out both at V.5.1.17-18 and IV.6.1.30 that there is an important difference between the sense perception where we only perceive the image of the thing and intellectual intuition , which is immediate. Sense perception, rather in the manner of Plato's analogy of the cave, provides us with a shadow of the shadows of this world . His answer to the second question comes by way of contrast with his answer to the first at IV.6.2.20 , " But the knowledge of intelligible objects is much freer from affections and impressions àлα0ηç кαi άτúлшτоç ; sense objects are observed from the outside, but the intelligibles in reverse come out, one can say, from within cowlɛv" . This contains briefly the answer to the all important question about the source of intellectual, true 14 For Plotinus all three hypostasis are said to be uniquitous ; the One at Enn. VI.5.4.19 and Vi.9.4.21 ; Mind on Spirit at V.5.8.20 and Soul at III.8.3.1 . 15 For the voug/diάvoia distinction , cf. Enn . V.3.3.28-35. 16 Ennead IV.4.19.27 ; IV.6.2.16.

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

47

knowledge . Even in his most Platonic passages, where for example at Enn. V.9.2 he reproduces the way of ascent of Symposium 210bff, he insists in an unplatonic manner that "knowledge is not something imported from outside έлaкτóν, if it thinks anything it thinks it from itself and if it has anything it has it from itself" (Ennead V.9.5.5-8) . The way to true knowledge is for Plotinus through introversion , curtly expressed as “ñávta ɛiow” (III.8.6.40) . But introversion by itself is aided by a process of abstraction , again briefly and epigrammatically expressed at V.3.17 "açɛλɛ пáντа". It is not at all clear to me how these two processes complement one another, or even how the process of introversion is supposed to begin . It is interesting to note that apart from the passage from the de Virginitate 12 the only other text where Gregory makes use of the idea of introversion is in the sixth homily On the Beatitudes. There Gregory proposes two ways of knowing God, the first by means of inference from the activities of God revealed to the senses ; the second through introspection indeed , but this leads to the statement that we have God within us by our reflection of his goodness in our own virtuous lives, rather than through any face to face vision ȧvτɩлрóownov (PG 44.1269c). As we have already seen Gregory is far more interested in assimilation to God through virtue than is Plotinus 17. He is himself, also, far more interested in the effect upon a life of the acquisition of the knowledge of God than in the simple intellectual possession of knowledge. The foregoing account of the two systems has brought out not only some very obvious similarities, but also at least two suggestive differences between Gregory and Plotinus. First of all Gregory is prepared, despite hesitations and difficulties, to allow more importance to the senses in his account of human knowing. Second his system lays more stress on the acquisition through free effort of assimilation to God through virtue than on simply knowledge of him or indeed union with him .

PART C. THE SOUL AND THE PASSIONS

In a sense there is no sharp distinction between senses and passions ; the distinction if it exists at all lies between the intellectual and moral sphere and in this final section I am concerned with the moral structure of the soul in Gregory and Plotinus.

1. The passions in Gregory a) De Hominis Opificio and Oratio Catechetica All the ascetic treatises of Gregory, especially the In Canticum Canticorum and the de Virginitate raise in an acute form the nature of human perfection

17 Compare Vita Moysis I.1-7 and Ennead I.2.3.

48

A. MEREDITH

and describe it not infrequently as passionless, anа0ńç18, without, however , entering into any profound or extended discussion of the anthropological implications of this idea. It is in the OC with its emphasis on the soul as the image of a passionless God that the problems begin to appear. If it be conceded, and Gregory is in no doubt that it will be, that "àлаlεç тò Оεioν" (OC 16 = Srawley 67.2) , and further that we are in the image of God (OC 6 = S. 36.7), then Gregory is faced with the need to account for the fact that to all appearance the image is not realised in human nature . The assumption underlying the argument is that we are our truest selves when we are like God and therefore passionless. God has no body and therefore no passions ; we are in his image and therefore are either without passions or ought to be. Our passionate nature arises from the jealousy of the devil and from our own sin. At HO 16 Gregory proposes a solution which is distinctly reminiscent in its talk of a dual creation of the dual creation of Symposium 190cff. For Gregory at PG 44.181b the initial creation though bodily, and in that respect different from Origen's primal souls, was also intellectual and rational only and therefore like the divine. The second post lapsarian creation introduced the notion of sexual differentiation , which is therefore seen as a consequence rather than prime cause of sin, and which, in conformity with certain New Testament sayings 19 and certain Gnostic writings, would disappear at the apocatastasis. The warrant for the idea of a dual creation is found in Gen. I.26 ; 27 where we read : "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him ; male and female he created them". The central difference between the image and the archetype in the first creation is that the former is created and mutable, the latter is neither. The radical mutability, which in human beings is the source of their freedom, is also the cause of their fall from a godlike, passionless state into a passionate one. It is hard to be clear about the way in which Gregory wishes us to envisage the primal creation. In some indeterminate fashion the whole of mankind was contained in it ; but since God foresaw the abuse by man of his freedom and his refusal of the angelic life (HO 17 ; = PG 44.189c) he provided us with the animal and irrational elements of the body as a means of continuance and punishment . In this text Gregory's view seems to be that the spiritual body without passion is in the image of God, and not simply the soul by itself a modification, however hard to understand , of Platonism and induced both by a desire to take the body seriously as part of God's original intention and also in resurrection part of his final plan. Here as in the OC passionlessness is a quality which is able to be found not only in totally bodiless beings, like God and the angels, but also in the prefall and post- resurrection bodies of the

18 Gregory, In Cant. Cant . I.27.12 ; de Virginitate V (277.7ff). 19 For the disappearance of sex in the future and indeed the present life, or at least of sexual distinctions cf. Matthew 22.30 ; Gal. 3.28 ; Saying 114 of the Coptic Gospel ofThomas.

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

49

human race . Perhaps we have another case here of modification of Platonism brought out by reverence for the received tradition of the church 20, b) The passions in AR Macrina's definition of the soul at AR 29c and its reiteration and expansion at 41cff have already been noticed . When at 48b she states that the soul being intellectual and in no sense extended cannot receive passions oŮK ȧvadέxɛtai, her brother objects that so austere an expression hardly does justice to the facts of experience. Macrina's reply is to reject the claim of experience to be the sole arbiter of the nature of the soul and cites Gen 1.26/ 27 to prove that the soul is essentially intellectual and is without the principles of anger and desire. These latter, which belong to the Platonic chariot are stated at 52d not to be consubstantial σvvovoiоúμɛvа with the soul. These elements in no sense enter into the definition of the soul , but exist around it , are described in a colourful and unusual expression as warts on the - τοῦ διανοητικοῦ μέρους intellective element of the soul οἷον μυρμηκίαι — (56b; c). To Gregory's objection that passions are necessary for the very existence of virtue, his sister replies that only in the mind is man godlike, all else can be used for good or evil. Clearly the precise place of the passions and senses in relation to the soul and body is something of an embarrassment to Gregory and remains an unresolved problem 21. They do not enter into the definition of the soul and exist on the borderlines between soul and body (57c) . Yet, on the other hand he asserts that it is impossible to have a true conception of human nature without them. On somewhat similar lines we are told at 61b that the passions are in themselves indifferent elements in our make up, through the correct or wrong use of which we become virtuous or vicious a view which would seem to make virtue essential to a true soul—. At 68a, however, the picture is decidely more sombre and the passions are seen as a direct result of the slide towards what is worse. Gregory, however, or his mouthpiece, do not in the end leave us in any ambiguity, because as the dialogue progresses, the more sombre view takes over, as is made abundantly clear when Macrina replies to Gregory's question about the possibility of love of God once all passion has been eliminated (89b), that the removal of earthly desire is necessary if the soul is to be free to respond appropriately to the attraction of the beautiful to γὰρ καλὸν ἑλκτικόν πως (89b). The assumption must be that there exists within the soul a non-sensory striving of the soul towards God conceived under the idea of loveliness. A root difficulty in Gregory's treatment of the place and value of the passions in human life is that the words apɛtη and άлà0ɛiα though used of both God and man, are employed in an analogous

20 Cf. note 5 and also Origen, Hom . Jeremiah 1.10 ; de Principiis , 1.2.6. 21 Cf. also Harder in Plotins Schriften IIb, p. 445.

50

A. MEREDITH

sense . God's virtue implies neither body nor conflict, human virtue implies both.

2. The passions in Plotinus Plotinus insistence upon the unfallen character of the upper soul and its natural apatheia leave him with problems not unlike those faced by Gregory at AR 57aff, for if the soul is by its natural character άлαońç it is hardly a moral virtue and there should be no room for moral striving. This particular problem is dealt with by Plotinus at Ennead III.6.5.1-3 and on it Armstrong notes in his translation at this point : "This sentence clearly shows how conscious Plotinus was of the central moral problem presented by his philosophical anthropology - a problem not raised for the Stoics or for Plato himself" . Plotinus argues that nάo is not to be thought of as a disturbance of the soul properly so called , but arises in the lower soul through mental pictures, which are not present to the upper soul and for whose presence the upper soul is not and cannot be responsible. Plotinus' solution to the problem, therefore takes place by two stages ; i) he first locates passion in the lower soul only; ii) he identifies the ла0ńμata with ópáμata coming from the outside (Enn . III.6.5.11-13) . In his endeavour to do justice both to his own conviction that the soul was essentially pure and to his empirical awareness that psychological disturbance and moral waywardness were both real possibilities, he was compelled to take the drastic step of dividing the soul in half. That this was a fairly constant tendency of Plotinus is clear from an earlier Ennead IV.7.13.1-13 , where in answer to this question about the way the soul, though separate, still comes to be in the body, he replies that the intellectual part always stays έкɛƖŋ and remains à뤤ýç but “ that which acquires desire, which follows immediately on that intellect... and desiring to impart order and beauty according to the pattern it sees in the intellect ... is eager to make and constructs the world" (Armstrong's translation). Unfortunately, what Plotinus neither here nor elsewhere explains is how öpɛğıç arises in the first place, and what sort of unity there exists between the two parts of the soul. In this he is very like Gregory. He is also like him in insisting on the one hand that there is no desire in the upper, true soul, while admitting at Ennead V.5.12.35 that in the presence of Mind the soul experiences a variety of strong emotions, listed as θάμβος, ἔκπληξις, ἡδονή .

CONCLUSION

The foregoing discussion especially on the subject of the passions has uncovered some important areas of similarity, if not of dependence between Gregory and Plotinus . The AR presents most obvious points of contact and this is perhaps not surprising given the Platonic feel of the dialogue. It is there above all that we meet a rigidly intellectual conception of the nature of the

The Concept of Mind in Gregory of Nyssa

51

soul, which goes beyond what is found in HO and OC. Indeed where the AR offers an ideal of contemplation of the beautiful as the ultimate end of life, the other two works are more concerned to stress the life of virtue and apatheia as the ultimate desideratum. Whether virtue, in the sense of the four cardinal virtues , would have been possible without the body is hard to say ; but in the case of the AR the virtues have a lowly place . The attitude adopted in the AR much more closely approximates to that which we find in the Enneads than does the attitude found in other works of Gregory, though even here Gregory does not go as far as Plotinus. For AR and Ennead I.2.1.5-7 ; 1.2.5.1-3 virtue is a step towards perfection rather than the summit. It is true that for Gregory contemplation is the end, for Plotinus becoming God. Elsewhere in Gregory the priority of virtue is brought home by the fact that God himself is virtue ; for Plotinus he is above virtue 22. Furthermore, even in the most Platonic of Gregory's writing Gregory is unable to forget that he is a Christian and consistently supports his contentions with scriptural authority. In one other important respect a greater sympathy for the body and its value and just demands is brought home by Gregory. The final third of the treatise (108a- 160c) is devoted to an examination of the way in which the resurrection of the body can be made relevant to the highly Platonic picture of the soul . The understanding of the resurrection is essential to the treatise . In this respect comparison with Plotinus' rejection of the resurrection of the body at Enn. III.6.7.72 is both instructive and suggestive. The direct creation of the body by God , not as an afterthought but by primary intention, the importance of the body both as the cradle of the virtues and as destined to resurrection, the need of the senses as the primary source of knowledge, all these factors distinguish Gregory's vision from that of his great neoplatonist predecessor. These differences seem to be less due to the particular brand of Platonism that Gregory inherited than to the Christian faith remoulding, modestly but suggestively a received and loved tool.

22 God is virtuous, at least by implication, in Plato, Theaetetus 176b. In Philo he is beyond virtue, in de Opificio Mundi 8, and in Plotinus, Ennead 1.2.1.31 ; in Gregory God IS virtue at Eccl. Hom. VII (407.1 ) ; In Cant. Cant. III (90.1 ) and de Virginitate XVII (314.26).

Sin, àлáðɛɩɑ and Freedom of the Will in Gregory of Nyssa

John J. O'KEEFE, Arlington, Virginia

Most often Gregory of Nyssa's doctrine of åлáoɛɩα is discussed in connection with his mystical theology . From this perspective, the achievement of a state of impassibility represents a first step in the soul's mystical ascent toward perfection in the life of virtue . The problem with this interpretation is that it tends merely to describe the function of impassibility in Gregory's theology and spirituality. Such descriptions do accurately capture the positive role impassibility plays in Gregory's thought, but they do not give enough attention to the difficult theological problems associated with this spiritual ideal. Too often it goes unnoticed that, lurking behind Gregory's seemingly straightforward spiritual ideal of freedom from the passions, it is possible to find one of the most serious unresolved problems of Gregorian anthropology: Gregory never adequately articulated a plausible explanation for sin. Through a careful analysis of the problems created by Gregory's emphasis on the achievement of åлálɛɩα it will be possible to see that at least part of his inability to account for sin lies in a failure to articulate a doctrine of human moral culpability residing in an independent and autonomous free will. Much of the difficulty experienced by Gregory as he tried to account for the origins of human sin and the recovery of a state of virtue can be explained in terms of a problem common to Greek thought in general . There is evidence which suggests that the Greek language had no specific word to denote what contemporary westerners mean by "will" . For the Greeks, the idea of volition was always linked to cognition. That is, "will" is not a separate, independently acting, psychological reality which human beings use, for good or for ill, in their daily moral decision making. Because they perceived the world as fundamentally knowable through reason, and because they saw this world as conforming to certain predictable standards (even the gods were subject to the law of the universe, to a point), the Greeks naturally concluded that proper moral behavior was the natural product of correct knowing. Conversely, error and failure had little to do with a failure of the will, but a great deal to do with ignorance of the good and the true. The Socratic maxim , οὐδείς ἑκὼν ἁμαρτάνει (no one fails on purpose) illustrates clearly how deep this conception was imbedded in the Greek philosophical tradi-

¹ Albrecht Dihle, The Theory ofWill in Classical Antiquity (Los Angeles, 1982) . Many of the ideas which follow concerning the "will" were influenced by this work.

ἀπάθεια in Gregory of Nyssa

53

tion2 . Clearly, as can be seen in the following lines from the Life of Moses, this concept was operative in the thought of Gregory of Nyssa as well : While the good angel by rational demonstration [toïç λoyiσµoîç] shows the benefits of virtue which are seen in hope by those who live aright, his opponent shows the material pleasures in which there is no hope of future benefits, but which are present, visible, can be partaken of, and enslave the senses of those who do not exercise their intellect [τῶν ἀνοήτων] . This intellectualist theory presented a great many difficulties for Christian thinkers when the Greek tradition encountered the Scriptures . In the biblical world, reality is not primarily understood as rational and accessible to humans through observation of the world . Reality, rather, depends upon the will of God. God is completely free to create or to destroy. Since God is the author of all reality, all things are contingent upon the divine will . Individuals living in such a cosmological system gain access to the ethical norms and the functioning of the world in a way vastly different from those operating under the Greek model . Right acting can only be understood in terms of obedience to the will of God as it is revealed in the law. Stability is guaranteed, it is true, but by God's promise and not by any natural necessity. These two fundamentally different understandings of how the world works formed, in part, a background to the developing Christian theology of sin and salvation. In order to make sense of the ideas inherent in the biblical message - that God is free to do whatever he wishes and that human beings must make a response, not through "knowing" but in the obedience of faith - Christian theology had need of a clearly defined theory of will. It was just such a theory which Greek theology had an enormously difficult time creating. The dilemma became particularly acute in reference to the problem of sin and evil. Classically, the Greeks had tried to deal with the reality of error in terms of passions (лáloç) which hinder the intellect from knowing the good4 . Since these passions were often closely associated with materiality, human physicality often became a convenient explanation of the problem of evil . This view presented serious problems for early Greek-Christian writers because it is in fundamental contradiction with the biblical witness of Genesis that God , having created the world "good ", was pleased

2 Dihle, 33. 3 De Vita Moysis: ed. Herbert Musurillo, Gregorii Nysseni Opera [ = GNO] (Leiden, 1964) VII, 1. 46.8-12 (cf. 73, f.) . Translation : Abraham Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, Gregory of Nyssa: The life ofMoses (New York, 1978), 64 [emphasis added] . On philosophy as a therapy for passions: De Virginitate, M. Aubineau ed ., Sources Chrétiennes [ = SC] 119 (Paris, 1966), xxiii,2,28-29. See Jérome Gaïth, La Conception de la Liberté chez Grégoire de Nysse (Paris, 1953), 106. * For the role of impassibility in Stoic philosophy see A.A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy (New York, 1974), 178, 206, 215, 219 ; John Dillon, The Middle Platonists (Ithaca, 1977) , 77, 151. For an excellent summary of the history of thought on impassibility see : Antonin de Tirlemont, "Apatheia", Dictionnaire de Spiritualité (Paris, 1937) 727-746.

54

J.J. O'KEEFE

with it . Furthermore, not only was the world fundamentally good , but God had become a part of it in the man Jesus . If human sinfulness is blamed on the physical creation, and if God created physicality, then somehow God becomes responsible for evil . For example, Origen's speculations about a precosmic fall, perhaps the result of "satiation" , and subsequent punitive (or at least educational) embodiment lent themselves to interpretations contrary to the revelation of Genesis. Although ultimately unacceptable, his system did at least offer a consistent explanation of evils . But when Origen's system was rightly challenged and reworked (especially by the Cappadocians) in order to remove the problematic notions of a cosmic fall and a merely didactic creation, some glaring problems remained . The most obvious for the Cappadocians was that they "deprived themselves of any explanation of sin" . With these observations as background, the problem of impassibility in Gregory takes on new meaning. His stress on the necessity for Christians to achieve impassibility is a logical necessity in a world where sin is conceived in terms of ignorance . Without impassibility, correct choices would be perpetually prevented by a mist of ignorance and the achievement of virtue would not be possible . On the other hand , in response to Origen , he is forced to claim that human beings, before the fall, enjoyed impassibility . Hence Gregory found himself with a very great problem indeed . How could human beings in a state of ȧлálɛiα choose to do an evil act ? In order more fully to understand the depth of Gregory's dilemma, an examination of his understanding of the fall is in order. Humans were formed in a mold of impassibility and perfection . At some point, through the devious trickery of the devil and through their own free choice, our first parents fell from that original pristine state into this problematic reality filled with passions. On the one hand, the source of the sin which inaugurated humanity's current predicament is attributed to the antecedent fall of Satan . As Gregory says in the Catechetical Oration:

5 Preexistent souls could fall . There was nothing in their nature to prevent it. This made the origin of sin and evil comprehensible but, if these passible souls could fall once, there was nothing to prevent another fall or indeed an infinite series of falls . Thus, this theory, revived by Evagrius and his followers, became unacceptable to the Cappadocians who recognized that the salvation brought by Christ was a unique historical event. Cf. Brooks Otis, " Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian Conception of Time", Studia Patristica 14 ( 1976) ; Antoine Guillaumont, Les "Kephalaia Gnostica " d'Evagre le Pontique (Paris, 1962). Brooks Otis, "Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System", Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (1958), 113. 7 Passions keep us irrational like beasts - virtue is a function of the rational life, Cf. De Hominis Opificio, PG 44.192A f. 8 James H. Srawley ed. , The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa, 6 ( = Srawley) (Cambridge, 1903) , 36.2-10 ; De Virginitate, SC 119.xii, 2,4-28 . Spiritual Man as image of God seems to include (before the Fall) impassibility: De Hominis Opificio, PG 44.177D- 196B. Humans in this life are certainly not in a state of impassibility : De Hominis Opificio, PG 44.180B12- D1 .

ἀπάθεια in Gregory of Nyssa

55

Now that angelic power who begot envy in himself by turning from the good developed an inclination toward evil. When this had once happened, he was like a rock breaking off from a mountain ridge and hurled headlong by its own weight. Divorced from his natural affinity with the good , he became prone to evil ; and as if by a weight he was spontaneously impelled and carried to the final limit of iniquity... Cunningly he cheats and deceives man by persuading him to become his own murderer and assassin' . This itself is problematic since Gregory would like to say that angelic life is immune from the possibility of sin ¹º. On the other hand, Gregory attributes the fault of that first sin to the free choice of Adam and Eve. Once again, he does not explain how this quasiangelic impassible being could have knowingly chosen the wrong thing, especially since "the life which is above is impassible and pure [and] established in the good will of God" ¹¹ . If human "free will" is truly responsible for sin it is necessary to assume some form of knowing disobedience . But Gregory, in keeping with the Greek model outlined above, could not conceive of the possibility of any intelligent being knowingly making an evil choice . On numerous occasions, as the following example from the De Hominis Opificio clearly shows, he attributes sin to poor choices erroneously made because of the passions or the deceit of Satan but not to knowing disobedience. Because of this the Serpent points out the evil fruit of sin , not showing the evil plainly according to its nature (for a human being would not have been deceived by manifest evil)... 12 In other words, Gregory is making two claims. On the one hand we sin through choice, but, on the other hand those evil choices are never per se intentional. Because this is clearly a contradiction , the only possible conclusion is that Gregory did not, in the final analysis, believe in deliberate sin. Indeed, the very human weakness which makes succumbing to the temptations of Satan even possible is itself a passion and not a diseased will . As Gregory writes : ... but because he adorned the thing displayed with a certain elegance and, charming into the taste a certain [spell] of sensual pleasure, he appeared to the woman persuasive..." 13

• Catechetical Oration 6, Srawley. 35,9-36,2 ; Trans. Edward Hardy, The Christology of the Later Fathers, (Philadelphia, 1954) , 280. 10 This point is particularly well argued by Otis, "Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System ", 112. Though, in the Catechetical Oration Gregory clearly believes that angels, as created beings, are mutable, (Catechetical Oration 6, Srawley. 33,15f). He recognizes the difficulty of his position and attempts an explanation . But his explanation is more descriptive than explicatory: see Catechetical Oration 6, Srawley. 32,12-33,2. 11 De Oratione Dominica , PG 44.1168B 1-6. 12 De Hominis Opificio, PG 44.200C,8-12. 13 De Hominis Opificio , PG 44.200C, 12-D, 1 .

56

J.J. O'KEEFE

It seems clear, therefore, since pleasure is a passion 14 that somehow passions were part of the human problem right from the beginning. Gregory's efforts to exonerate the human person from responsibility for sin despite his claim that sin was entered into freely- are frequent enough that one is forced to conclude that he stopped short of a completely developed idea of human moral culpability. Obviously this exoneration leaves Gregory with no plausible explanation for that first human choice for sin other than лά0оç, which was supposed to be non-existent before the fall . He attributes the cause of sin to the very reality which is properly the result of sin. In De Hominis Opificio Gregory informs us that our current enslavement to the passions is the result of God forseeing the first sin. Because God saw this, strictly spiritual plans for the creation of humanity were altered in favor of the physical creation 15. But, as we have seen, that first sin could not have occurred in a strictly spiritual creation where passions are excluded . So, humanity is punished not only for a sin which has not yet occurred, but for one which is , in a passionless context, impossible. The simplest solution to his dilemma - positing a willing and intentional rebellion against God was a step Gregory was unwilling to take. Again, such an intentional sin was not really conceivable for him . The spiritual idealization of impassibility as a prerequisite for the perfect life reveals that the passions are intimately related to sin. Indeed , it is almost possible to substitute the word лáðоç for sin in much of Gregory's writing 16. The implication is clearly that if we eliminate the passions we will deliver, in the same stroke, a serious blow to the entire problem of sin ¹7 . Achievement of åлáɛια lies within our own power, says Gregory 18. Hence, in some sense, sinlessness belongs to our own choice. But such a conception of freedom relates more to proper knowing than to the will as such. That is, the passions (and thus sin itself) interfere with our intellect but remain fundamentally outside our subjectivity 19. Thus, although Gregory claims that a freely chosen sin caused humanity to enter into a state governed by the passions, he

14 De Virginitate, SC 119. iv, 5 , 33-35 . Note how envy is personified as a passion deceiving Eve, De Vita Moysis, GNO VII, I.122,4f. 15 In other words, God made a "generic" human being in his image and sharing the spiritual and angelic life. In this state there was no male or female . The distinction of sex was introduced later because God saw that humans would sin. The existence of male and female was not a punishment per se, but was a necessary compromise for the preservation of the race, now mixed inextricably with the irrational and animal modes of reality. Cf. De Hominis Opificio, PG 44.177D- 185D, esp. 185D. 16 De Virginitate, SC 119.iv,2,11f; iv,4,56f; De Vita Moysis, GNO VII , I.71,3f; 130,1f. Infancy knows no evil because it is not capable of passion, De Vita Moysis, GNO VII , I.60,13f. 17 Cf. De Virginitate, SC 119.iv.3,1f. Cf. De Oratione Dominica , PG 44.1168D . Yet Moses, having achieved perfect impassibility, is presented as free from sin, De Vita Moysis, GNO VII, 1.123,14f. 18 De Vita Moysis, GNO VII , 1.137,20-138,6. 19 See note 25 below.

ἀπάθεια in Gregory of Nyssa

57

speaks of salvation more in terms of being set free from the grip of the passions (άлά0ɛia) than in terms of healing the will. Logically, if the will were originally defective causing the first sin — then it is the will which would be in need of repair. Yet Gregory never says that the human will is in need of healing Grace 20. Gregory's doctrine of grace gives another insight into the problem of the culpability of the will . It must be admitted , despite the anachronism of such a term , that the Gregorian understanding of grace resembles what came to be classified as Semipelagian 21. An excellent example of this tendency can be found in De Instituto Christiano . The growth of the soul depends, unlike that of the body, upon man's own free will ; the Spirit grants it according to the σrovdη of him who receives it ; the farther we extend the efforts of our works the more the soul grows through our efforts 22. In such a schema, it cannot be assumed that what Gregory means when he speaks of "free will" is the autonomous introspective psychological reality which is so much a part of the Latin heritage. Indeed, it is likely that he was thinking of something quite different. His notion of free will , as it is expressed primarily in the terms προαίρεσις and αὐτεξούσιον 23 , means the freedom to choose when presented with an option. As such they are morally neutral . Thus, failure to choose the good is not a problem with the will itself but a problem endemic to this life where passions interfere with proper decision making. This message is very clear in the Catechetical Oration : "What takes hold of the will (лроαiρɛσiç) and twists it toward evil and away from virtue is, in reality, лά0o5" 24. Gregory's understanding of free will , therefore, does not necessarily carry with it the weight of moral culpability. Even though he states that humans choose sin freely, Gregory feels compelled to place most of the blame for sin either on the deceptive practices of Satan or on personal ignorance of the good . Grace, then, is not a gratuitous healing of our wills because there is nothing wrong with them - they are not really to blame 25. Grace is rather, a kind of reward for effort in the struggle to achieve

20 For a possible exception see De Oratione Dominica, PG 44.1164D- 1165A. Gregory's awareness, in this passage, of the reality of sin does not necessarily mean that he had a philosophical model to assist in understanding it. 21 Werner Jaeger, Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature : Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius (Leiden, 1965) , 89. 22 Jaeger, 93. 23 Clearly Gregory speaks often of the responsibility of the “ free will” . Yet he never does so in the context of an introspective awareness of sin, or with any sense that the will is powerless . The "will" he presents is God's gift and our likeness to the divine. It operates correctly if it has the proper information. See Catechetical Oration 30, Srawley. 112,9f; De Vita Moysis, GNO VII ,I.58,20-59,29 ; M. Aubineau SC 119.403 (note 1 ) , 405 (note 6) ; cf. Dihle, 119f. 24 Catechetical Oration 16, Srawley. 67,5-8 . 25 As I see it, Gregory is not even thinking of a separate reality; will, for him is more afaculty than it is a psychological principle.

58

J.J. O'KEEFE

άлálɛια 26. This understanding of grace is vastly different from the later formulation of Augustine, where grace is seen fundamentally as a healing and empowerment of a will radically damaged by a sin that is voluntarily and irrationally undertaken . And it is precisely in this unwillingness to posit a sin of wanton disobedience that he can ultimately make sense neither of the Fall nor of sin. Gregory never found a solution to the problem lurking behind his doctrine of impassibility. For this he needed a notion of an intentional and deliberate sin entered into through an act of volition separate from cognition . The development of such a notion was, in part, prevented because his strong emphasis on ȧлά¤ɛια as a spiritual goal focused responsibility for sin on the passions and not on something wrong within the human reality. Among Latin thinkers however, where "la doctrine de l'impassibilité était d'avance at least it did not carry vouée à l'insuccès " 27 , this obstacle did not exist the same force . After all "les Latins sont en général des moralistes trop avertis pour croire que l'homme puisse arriver à détruire en lui les passions" 28 It is then, nor surprising that Augustine, a Latin Christian armed with a "healthy" introspective consciousness of sin and a sense of being radically touched by a free gift of healing grace, was really the first to articulate plainly the moral culpability of the human will . Although he too found the reality of Adam's sin inexplicable in a world "where no passions resist the will" 29, he nonetheless fixes blame clearly on that same human will . An example from The City of God makes this clear. Our first parents, then, must already have fallen before they could do the evil deed... For such bad fruit could come only from a bad tree. That the tree became bad was contrary to its nature, because such a condition could come about only by a defection of the will... 30. Augustine is, as Gregory is not, willing to account for sin as an essentially irrational act of pure volition . Indeed, the very concept of grace, as the western tradition after Augustine would understand it, was only possible in a context where an experience of sin as intentional, volitional and irrational was operative. It was the human subject itself which was in need of repair by God. The Augustinian solution assists a great deal, not only in the explana-

26 See note 22 above. Cf. Catechetical Oration 5, Srawley. 26,13f; De Vita Moysis, GNO VII,I.45,13-19. 27 Tirlemont, "Apatheia", 734. 28 Tirlemont, "Apatheia", 734. The word averti is a bit too forceful. In this context it would be important to consider cultural forces operative on the Latins which made them more sensitive to Pelagian ideas. Cf. Dihle, 132f; Otis, “ Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System", 123. 29 De Civitate Dei, xiv, 12 : Corpus Christianorum : Series Latina, [ = CCL] 48.434,19-20. 30 De Civitate Dei, xiv, 13 : CCL 48.434,18-23 ; Trans. ed. Vernon J. Bourke, The City ofGod (Garden City, 1958) , 309.

ἀπάθεια in Gregory of Nyssa

59

tion of human evil, but also in relieving human physicality from responsibility for sin. Clearly then, the implications of Gregory's notion of åлá0ɛia extend well beyond his mystical theology to the very heart of his anthropology and theology of grace . This is not meant to criticize Gregory's insight in this area, but simply to point out that his failure to develop an adequate solution to the problem of sin was more a result of cultural assumptions than lack of intellectual acumen . Indeed , the fact that άлá¤ɛɩα is “ un de ces mots qu'on trouve partout à une époque et qui, à cause de cela, sont susceptibles d'une infinité de nuances" 31 , makes it all the more unlikely that Gregory would have challenged it at all . There is certainly a great deal more to be discovered - came to about how the human choice for sin indeed the free will itself — be understood in essentially psychological terms. This brief look at the " back side" of åлáðɛια in the theology of Gregory of Nyssa, is but a first step in that endeavor.

31 Jean Daniélou, Platonism et Théologie Mystique (Paris, 1944), 99.

Syriac Translations of Gregory of Nyssa

M.F.G. PARMENTIER, Hilversum

In 1922, Anton Baumstark listed in his Geschichte der syrischen Literatur¹ a number of works by Gregory of Nyssa which are either completely or partially known in a Syriac translation . For this, he referred to the Nestorian authors' catalogue of Abdisho Bar Berika and the Chronicle of Seert on the one hand² and on the other hand to the surviving texts, which are practically all found in Monophysite manuscripts . In fact, it seems doubtful whether there ever was extensive Nestorian interest in Gregory of Nyssa . Of the three quotations in the Synodicon Orientale allegedly taken from Gregory of Nyssa, two are unidentifiable and they look suspiciously anti-Monophysite³ . Apart from one line in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heracleides , only two quotations from his works survive in the Nestorian context of the florilegium edited by Abramowski and Goodman4 . The only other evidence of Nestorian interest in Gregory of Nyssa also points towards a dearth of manuscripts of his works on the Nestorian side : it is from a letter of the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I to his friend Sergius , the Metropolitan of Ela , whom he requests to try and obtain a copy of the Life of Macrina from the Monophysite monastery of Beth Mattai 5. In 1965 , Ortiz de Urbina claimed in his Patrologia Syriaca that in antiquity, nearly all of Gregory of Nyssa's works had been translated into Syriac. This seems an exaggeration, in view of the lists in the Nestorian catalogues and the surviving Monophysite manuscript material . Actually, traces of no more than about half of Gregory's works remain in Syriac translation . This situation forms a striking contrast to Syrian interest in Gregory of Nazianzus. According to De Halleux, Gregory of Nazianzus is second after Theodore of Mopsuestia with the Nestorians and to Severus of Antioch with the Jacobites ' . Therefore one may wonder whether perhaps

1 P. 79. 2 Cp . J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis III , 1 , p. 21-22 and A. Scher, PO V,2, p . 270 [ 158]271 [159] . 3 P. 577 (text) and 595 (translation) . Cp. O. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados (Wien, 1900) , p. 327. 4 A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts (Cambridge, 1972) , vol . I, fol. 131 & 145 = vol. II, p. 77 & 86. Letter 39, CSCO 74, p. 279. 6 P. 235. 7 "La version syriaque des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze" , in : J. Mossay, II. Symposium Nazianzenum Vol . II (Paderborn, 1983) , p. 75.

Gregory of Nyssa in Syriac

61

Gregory of Nyssa's theology or at least phraseology was found to be more suitable to defend the Monophysite position than the Nestorian. Otherwise we must assume that all Nestorian material was lost without leaving a trace. In my research, I have concentrated on quotations from and fragments of works by Gregory of Nyssa as they are listed in the catalogues of Syriac manuscripts and in the printed editions. Since Wright's catalogue of a large part of the collection of Syriac manuscripts in the British Library is the most detailed of all catalogues, most fragments were found there . They vary considerably in length, from one sentence to several pages. Some fragments only occur in one manuscript only, others in five or more. Sometimes the fragments are in fact parts of a translation which has been lost (or still exists) in its entirety, at other times we are dealing with deliberate quotations which must serve to prove the Monophysite cause. There obviously were dossiers of patristic quotations in circulation, which served as proof texts in a similar way as the earlier anti-Jewish Testimonia . This becomes most visible in the case of the interrelated patristic florilegia Add . 12155, 14532, 14533 , 14538 , 17194 and Mingana 69, the earliest of which was written in the 8th century. Here we find a variety of dogmatic propositions which are supported by a number of quotations from several, mostly Greek fathers . It seems, in as far as the quotations from Gregory of Nyssa are concerned , that several have in fact been taken from authors quoting Gregory, such as Severus of Antioch and Timothy Aelurus. Some scholars have suggested that these florilegia were translated directly from the Greek. If this is true, then certainly this only applies to the archetype or archetypes of the manuscripts we possess now. While they have a large number of quotations in common, even quotations which occur twice, the compiler of each manuscript has also created its own private collection of quotations. In any case, the last word on their provenance cannot be spoken until all quotations from all fathers have been identified and compared with existing complete translations into Syriac of the works of the authors in question . In the case of Gregory of Nyssa, there remain a number of such complete translations in sixth century manuscripts. The works found in them are Ad Theophilum adversus Apollinaristas , fragments of the Oratio catechetica, De opificio hominis, a nearly complete translation of In Canticum canticorum, De Oratione Dominica, De Beatitudinibus and De vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi8 . At the present moment I have not yet studied them all, but I can already draw some conclusions for De Oratione Dominica and De Beatitudinibus. Here, there are indeed no correspondances with the interrelated florilegia, but the individual material of each manuscript does seem to show such correspondances. Therefore we may wonder whether these florilegia were perhaps made up of Greek florilegia translated directly together with other material which quotes from existing Syriac translations. Further research will decide this question . In Vat. Syr. 106, BL Add . 14550 and Add. 14597.

62

M.F.G. PARMENTIER

How old are the translations? Using the criteria provided by Sebastian Brock, we must look for the shift from a more expositional type of translation to a mirror type of translation . We do find different types of translations , one or two fragments show a rather more free translation , many others are neither very free nor very precise, and the texts in the florilegia mentioned above seem to be among the most literal. And there are a few examples of revisions in the translations. So perhaps we may conclude that most of the complete translations of Gregory of Nyssa are from the period in which translations were neither very free, nor very precise, which would be the sixth century. For the manuscript of In Canticum canticorum, a date between the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century has even been suggested 10. This would mean that the works listed above which are found in sixth century manuscripts , are original or close to original copies . Of the translators , we know very little. All we know is that they must have been Monophysite Christians. According to Michael the Syrian 11 , there once was a commentary to Gregory of Nyssa's works by Dionysius Bar Salîbî which might have told us more, but this has been lost . What have these Syriac translations to offer to Gregorian studies? Their most obvious value is for textual criticism . The manuscripts of the Syriac translations are usually centuries older than the surviving Greek ones . For works not yet published in the Leiden edition, these old translations may witness to important variants. Works already published in that edition could also be studied further by reconstructing the Greek original of the Syriac translation and classifying it within the stemma of witnesses. A first example of an interesting observation on a work already published is the work which its editor called De deitate adversus Evagrium, a work which vulgo is called In suam ordinationem and which was the subject of a discussion in the late nineteen sixties . Two short fragments from this work have turned up in a single manuscript . They do bear the title In suam ordinationem. The manuscript is from the eighth or ninth century and therefore antedates all Greek manuscripts of this work. So Ritter's suggestion 12 becomes more likely that In suam ordinationem is an early misreading of a title In ordinationem Gregorii (that is Gregory of Nazianzus , not Gregory of Nyssa himself) . Another example of interest is formed by the chapter headings indicated with the quotations from Contra Eunomium I. We possess a list of the chapter headings, but we do not know how to divide the text. At the last Gregory of 9 "Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique", in : III Symposium Syriacum 1980, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221 (Roma, 1983) , esp . p. 4-5 and 11-12. 10 Cp. C. van den Eynde, La version syriaque du commentaire de Grégoire de Nysse sur le Cantique des Cantiques (Bibliothèque du Muséon , vol. 10 ; Louvain, 1939), p. 64. 11 J.B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien (Paris, 1899-1924), Vol . IV, p. 699 = Vol. III , p. 344, cp . Baumstark, op. cit. , p. 296. 12 "Gregor von Nyssa : ' In suam ordinationem' . Eine Quelle für die Geschichte des Konzils von Konstantinopel 381 ?” , ZKG 79 ( 1968) , p . 308-328.

Gregory of Nyssa in Syriac

63

Nyssa colloquium (Pamplona, 1986) S.G. Hall proposed chapter divisions based on literary analysis. The Syriac fragments confirm all his suggestions. A third example is indirect. There is not a single trace of the much disputed work De instituto christiano. Yet there are no less than 14 manuscripts of a Syriac version of the so-called Great Letter of Pseudo- Macarius, after which the De instituto has been composed . The oldest of these manuscripts is dated A.D. 53413. How to explain this silence? Did a translation of De instituto get lost? Was it not translated because of its proximity to the Great Letter ? Or did the Syrians suppose that De instituto was not by Gregory? A most fascinating find to me was the text of an anonymous commentary on Contra Eunomium Book III, which has come to us in a very fragmentary

state in Add. 17196. A small portion of this commentary is also found in Add. 12155 , attached to a fragment of the text of the passage itself. This means that the terminus ante quem of the commentary must be the eighth century, since this is the date of Add . 12155. Due to the telegraphic style and the bad state of the manuscript, the text is hard to read , but the following can be said about it . There must have been several different translations of Contra Eunomium , for the commentary refers to variant readings . Another curious feature is the amount of Greek loan words. The surviving fragments of Contra Eunomium III which correspond to these parts of the commentary, do not have so many loan words. So do these words stem from particularly hellenized translations of Contra Eunomium which are otherwise lost, or do they suggest one should read the Syriac translation together with the Greek original? There are some obvious mistranslations, and the commentary once or twice refers to what the Greeks say, so it must be an original Syriac composition itself. At the end of the text is a notice from Severus of Antioch concerning the composition of the books Contra Eunomium: he knows of four parts, corresponding to Contra Eunomium I , II , III and the Refutatio. This is further confirmation that Jaeger's reconstruction of the books is correct 14. Of the works ascribed to Gregory which are definitely not by him, it is worth mentioning a quotation from the De Virginitate by Basil of Ancyra, and especially a homily On Poverty which may well be the same as the equally Pseudo-Gregorian " De renunciatione" or "Ueber die Entsagung" once contained in a Louvain manuscript acquired from Hiersemann in Leipzig, which was burned in 194015. 13 Cp . the edition by W. Strothmann, Die syrische Ueberlieferung der Schriften des Makarios (Göttinger Orientforschungen, Band 21 ; Wiesbaden, 1981 ) , vol. I , p. 2-34 (text) and II , p. 3-21 (translation) . 14 M.F.G. Parmentier, "A Syriac Commentary on Gregory of Nyssa's Contra Eunomium", Bijdragen, International Journal in Philosophy and Theology, 49 ( 1988), p. 2-17. 15 Cp. Katalog Hiersemann no . 487 p. 66 (" De renunciatione") and no . 500 p. 5 (" Rede über die Entsagung, in syrischer Uebersetzung sonst nie vorliegend und anscheinend auch im Original nicht nachweisbar" ) ; also B. Outtier, "Le sort des manuscrits du ' Katalog Hiersemann 500””,

64

M.F.G. PARMENTIER

Theologically speaking, it would be a very interesting enterprise to study the wirkungsgeschichte of especially the quotations in the context of 6th century Monophysitism . They serve to prove points which Gregory never faced in the same way, such as the Tritheist controversy. Therefore it would be most interesting to compare Gregory's own theological intentions to those of his Monophysite users and see whether the latter developed their insights in line with Gregory's own thinking, or whether they turned him into a ventriloquist. And of course the same goes for all the other authors quoted in the florilegia. For Syriac studies , the value of the translations lies on the one hand in that they provide further material to study the history of Syrian translation technique . Lexicologically speaking, there is another benefit . Sometimes words are used which are not in the existing dictionaries, especially a number of adjectives . In the formation of later Syriac theology, the role of the Greek Church fathers is a vital one. Therefore it is important to locate Gregory of Nyssa and his theology in that tradition. I intend to publish first all fragments which I have found, together with a list of existing complete translations 16, the pseudonymous material will follow later.

Analecta Bollandiana 93 ( 1975), p. 377-380 . The Syriac title of the work in BL Add. 17192, fol. 268-278' is: Khaoins des which would be the equivalent of a Greek : Aóyos περὶ τῆς πτωχείας / ἀρνήσεως / κενώσεως, but I have been unable to discover a Greek original. Moreover, the Bible quotations correspond to the text of the Peshitta. 16 In Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica . The material from Contra Eunomium has been published in: L.F. Mateo-Seco, J.L. Bastero, El " Contra Eunomium I” en la production literaria de Gregorio de Nisa. VI. Coloquio International sobre Gregorio de Nisa, Pamplona , 1988, p. 421-430 .

Basile de Césarée a-t-il corrigé lui-même un premier état de texte de ses homélies?

Édouard ROUILLARD, St. Omer, Wisques

Les communications que j'ai présentées ici même, en 1959¹ et 1963² , ont été suivies, en 1979, d'un exposé plus ample au cours duquel Marie- Louise Guillaumin³ a défini l'objectif qu'ensemble nous nous sommes fixé : donner à la collection « Sources Chrétiennes », en suivant l'ordre le plus ancien, les quarante Homélies morales de Basile de Césarée que nous considérons comme authentiques : ainsi trouvera-t-on les quinze Homélies sur les Psaumes+ disséminées parmi les vingt-cinq Homélies diverses . Après collation, totale ou partielle, de plus de quatre-vingts manuscrits, dont une trentaine remontent aux VIII , IXe et Xe siècles , j'ai pu constituer une douzaine de familles relativement stables, les regrouper en quatre branches , AΣ г, puis montrer comment ces quatre branches se rattachent elles-mêmes à deux ancêtres, N¹ et Ω 2 . Quels sont les rapports de ces deux ancêtres? Dépendent-ils au même titre d'un archetype, , ou sont-ils les témoins de deux états de texte successifs , ¹ étant antérieur à 2? Pour répondre à cette question, nous partirons d'une homélie bien déterminée . Dirigée contre les riches, elle commente ce verset de l'Évangile selon saint Luc : « Je détruirai mes greniers, et j'en construirai de plus grands ». Si le texte ¹ nous est connu seulement par ▲, en revanche nous avons accès à N² par Σ et г, auquel se rattache . Entre N¹ et N² , ou plus précisément entre ▲ et N² , nous avons relevé quarante-trois divergences . Tandis que ▲ nous apparaît comme très proche de la prédication de Basile, Q2 témoigne d'un patient travail de révision . Le cas des citations scripturaires nous semble typique. Lorsqu'on trouve en concurrence diɛvoɛîto et diɛλoγίζετο, ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ et ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ, ἀπαιτοῦσι παρὰ σοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν

1 > ( 13,3) . b) Quelquefois Grégoire de Nysse relève des similitudes . Nous avons déjà vu que la mort signifie dissociation entre l'âme et le corps : le Christ qui a pleinement accepté la condition humaine a aussi accepté cette dissociation : par la résurrection il a de nouveau réuni ce qui avait été séparé . Ce qui s'est passé pour le Christ se produira aussi pour les hommes en vertu d'une intervention divine . « Dans l'humanité qu'il avait revêtue, l'âme est retournée au corps et c'est là pour ainsi dire le point de départ d'un mouvement qui étend en puissance à toute la nature humaine également l'union de ce qui avait été séparé. Et voilà le mystère du dessein de Dieu touchant la mort et la résurrection d'entre les morts : si Dieu n'a pas empêché la mort de séparer l'âme et le corps selon l'ordre inévitable de la nature, il les a de nouveau réunis l'un à l'autre par la résurrection, afin d'être lui-même le point de rencontre de la mort et de la vie, en arrêtant en lui la dissociation produite par la mort et en devenant lui-même un principe de réunion pour les éléments séparés » ( 16,9). D. L'efficience salvifique du baptême et de l'Eucharistie s'explique aussi à partir de la résurrection du Christ . a) Le baptême nous fait participer au mystère de la mort et de la résurrection du Christ : sous ce rapport, Grégoire de Nysse est un témoin de l'influence paulinienne. Le baptême est censé opérer un passage de la mort à la vie-mouvement proprement pascal- et provoquer, à travers une nouvelle

La résurrection du Christ

77 17

naissance, l'accès à une vie nouvelle , qui est participation à la vie même de Dieu. De cette façon, ce sacrement prélude à la grâce de la résurrection «< Le privilège si grand de la résurrection ... tire d'ici ses origines et ses causes , car il est impossible que ce résultat se produise , s'il n'a été précédé de cette préparation » (35,12) . b) Quand à l'Eucharistie, elle agit à sa façon . Si le baptême marque le début d'une nouvelle vie , tout n'est pas acquis par là. L'homme étant composé d'une âme et d'un corps , doit rester en contact, par l'un et l'autre, < le guide qui les conduit vers la vie » (37,1 ) . L'âme, une fois mêlée à lui avec « par la foi, y trouve le point de départ du salut . « En effet l'union avec la vie implique la participation à la vie » ( 37,1 ) . Pour ce qui est du corps , il se mêle au Sauveur d'une autre manière : comme le poison pénètre dans les organes vitaux en provoquant finalement la dissolution, de même l'antidote pénètre dans les organes vitaux , mais annule l'effet funeste du poison . Or le poison de « du corps glorieux qui s'est la mort est combattu efficacement par l'antidote < montré plus fort que la mort et qui est devenu pour nous source de vie >> (37,3) et « cette union avec le corps immortel permet à l'homme de participer lui aussi à l'incorruptibilité » (37,12) .

II. LA RÉSURRECTION DU CHRIST COMME ÉLÉMENT STRUCTURANT DU DISCOURS CATÉCHÉTIQUE A. Comment les passages sur la résurrection du Christ sont-ils intégrés dans le traité? D'après ce qui précède on aura compris que le Discours catéchétique n'offre pas d'exposé suivi sur la résurrection du Christ, mais que l'auteur revient à plusieurs reprises à cette question. Les passages qui s'y rapportent sont répartis dans les différents chapitres consacrés à la création de l'homme, à l'Incarnation , à la mort sur la croix , aux sacrements. Cependant, à y regarder de plus près, on constate que ces passages jalonnent l'exposé de Grégoire de Nysse sur l'œuvre de création et l'œuvre de restauration. Certes l'auteur rappelle les grandes étapes de l'histoire du salut, mais il s'attache à montrer que cette histoire tire sa cohérence du fait que Dieu poursuit un dessein précis. Quel est ce dessein ? Quel est ce « skopos » ? Après avoir déclaré que le Logos » *, signifie dans cette langue si concrète « < long de narine » ou « < de souffle », c'està-dire « < qui est patient » . L'adjectif « µакpółυμоç » est appliqué pour la première fois dans « l'Exode » au Dieu d'Israël, à un des moments décisifs de son histoire, au Sinaï. Le Seigneur se révèle à Moïse comme « < le Seigneur Dieu, plein de compassion et de pitié, lent à la colère (µакрółνµоç), et riche en miséricorde», face à l'idolâtrie du Veau d'or, au cours de laquelle le peuple fait tour à tour l'expérience du péché et du salut, de la « μакpoйvμía » et de la justice divine. Celles-ci jalonnent toute l'histoire d'Israël, à travers différents livres de l'Ancien Testament qui reprennent la révélation de Moïse comme un «< leitmotiv». Un passage des « Nombres » montre le renouvellement possible de la 1 > 4 . Dans le quatrième exemple c'est Pierre que Chrysostome fait parler pour rendre plus explicite sa parole scripturaire : Il vient donc à Simon-Pierre, qui lui dit « Seigneur, toi, me laver les pieds? » (Jean 13,6) . « < Avec ces mains-là - dit-il- avec lesquelles tu as rendu la vue, purifié les lépreux et ressuscité les morts?» > 5.

II. L'EXÉGÈSE ENGAGÉE

En complétant les citations par des phrases fictives, Chrysostome n'entendait que rendre plus clair le sens du texte, mettre en relief les émotions qui animaient les personnages. Mais d'autres interprètes n'hésitaient pas à ajouter de nouvelles dimensions au drame que contient la scène de l'Évangile qu'ils commentent. En voici quelques exemples: le Jean- Baptiste mis en scène dans une homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne adresse à Jésus des reproches plus graves que ceux que contiennent les phrases scripturaires : C'est moi qui ai besoin d'être baptisé par toi, et c'est toi qui viens à moi? Que fais-tu Maître? Pourquoi me livres-tu à la foule, à la mort? Maintenant la foule me lapidera 1 Le terme » 11. iii) Car s'il (sc. Jésus) avait dit (sc. à Marthe qui lui demande de prier Dieu, cf. Jean 11 , 22) « O femme, pourquoi regardes-tu encore ce qui est en bas ? Je n'ai pas besoin d'aide extérieure je fais tout moi-même » cela aurait été fort désagréable, et il aurait choqué la femme ¹². 10 CPG 4424, PG 57,203 , 1. 13-15. 11 CPG 4325, PG 48,805. 12 CPG 4425, PG 59,345.

140

J. KECSKEMÉTI

iv) Quand il ne crut pas les Apôtres qui lui disaient : « Nous avions vu le Seigneur (Jean 20, 25), ce n'est pas tant qu'il ne les croyait pas eux, mais il tenait pour impossible la chose elle-même, c'est-à-dire la résurrection d'entre les morts . En effet, il n'a pas dit «Je ne vous crois pas», mais : Si je n'enfonce pas ma main je ne croirai pas¹³¸ Les discours fictifs tendus et exaspérés propres aux auteurs pseudo-chrysostomiens et ceux de Chrysostome exprimant l'obéissance, ne diffèrent que par un simple signe de négation . Préoccupés par le même conflit, réel pour certains , irréels pour Chrysostome, mais également hantés par l'insoumission à l'égard de Jésus, les «< pseudo-chrysostomes » voulaient mettre en évidence un drame sous-jacent à l'Évangile que Chrysostome n'admettait pas . Les premiers s'écartaient du texte, Chrysostome, grâce à ce signe de négation , y restait fidèle . Autrement dit : les exégètes autre que Chrysostome exacerbaient ou créaient des conflits opposant Jésus à son entourage, Chrysostome s'attachait à démontrer qu'il ne pouvait y avoir conflit.

IV . LA DIATRIBE

En complétant le discours A par le discours B, l'interprète pseudo-chrysostomien ne niait pas la validité du discours A. Même s'il fallait traduire ou approfondir le discours A par le discours B, censé être plus véridique , ce dernier ne désavouait pas le premier . Les textes que nous venons de citer interprétaient les paroles des proches de Jésus et non de Jésus lui-même . Ils exprimaient la tension que suscitaient les disputes théologiques de l'époque chez l'interprète . Ces versets scripturaires ne comportaient rien de déroutant pour l'exégète . Mais quand le verset à commenter est une parole de Jésus, l'exégète devait ressentir une tension beaucoup plus vive . Cette tension transparaît dans les nombreux discours attribués à Jésus qui prolongent les paroles scripturaires dans le sens du prédicateur. Par exemple, dans l'homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne Il illud, Ignem veni mittere in terram le prédicateur reproche à Jésus que les deux phrases Je ne suis pas venu apporter la paix (Matthieu 10,34) et Je suis venu apporter la feu (Luc 12,49) sont en contradiction avec son message de paix : (Le Prédicateur :) Seigneur, incline les cieux et descends (Psaume 143,5) . Et après avoir incliné les cieux et être descendu pour sauver l'espèce humaine dans la paix , tu dis « Je ne suis pas venu apporter la paix mais le glaive » (Matthieu 10,34)? Pourquoi appréciestu: heureux les artisans de la paix car ils seront appelés fils de Dieu (Matthieu 5,9)? Pourquoi donc, enseignant aux autres à être artisan de paix, dis- tu lorsqu'il s'agit de toi-même : « Je ne suis pas venu apporter la paix mais le glaive » ( ...) Nous avions besoin d'un médiateur pour dissiper la haine qui régnait entre nous, et pour nous accorder la paix si douce (...) et après être venu pour être notre médiateur et dissiper 13 CPG 4425, PG 59,473 , 1. 10-14.

Exégèse chrysostomienne

141

la haine, tu dis le contraire : « Je ne suis pas venu apporter la paix mais le glaive » . Sur qui fonderons-nous notre espoir de paix? (Jésus :) Mais oui, je suis venu apporter le feu sur la terre (Luc 12,49) non pas sur la terre foulée par vos pieds, mais sur celle que j'ai formée moi-même de mes propres mains 14. Parmi toutes les paroles de Jésus , les plus troublantes pour l'interprète sont celles qui ont trait au rapport Fils- Père. Elles sont au centre des controverses christologiques, puisque leur message semble contredire la doctrine orthodoxe. Dans les commentaires, le discours attribué à Jésus ne traduira pas, ne complétera pas les paroles scripturaires : il en rejettera partiellement ou entièrement le contenu. Souvent, l'interprète introduira dans l'Évangile un adversaire (le diable ou l'hérétique) absent du texte scripturaire et fera préciser par Jésus que ses paroles étaient adressées à cet adversaire, et non à la personne qui figure dans l'Évangile. Ce discours B démentant le discours A sera placé à l'intérieur d'une diatribe, genre particulièrement bien adapté à la polémique. Cette forme permet à l'interprète de polémiquer à la fois avec l'hérétique et avec Jésus (en endossant le rôle de l'hérétique) , mettant ainsi l'hérétique et Jésus face à face. La diatribe permet à l'exégète, plus que les autres formes dialoguées des commentaires bibliques, d'exprimer son embarras devant les paroles de Jésus qui sont en contradiction apparente avec l'orthodoxie. Il s'ensuit que contrairement au processus d'identification simple (le prédicateur, auteur du discours B s'identifie au personnage prononçant le discours A) , dans les discours fictifs bâtis autour des paroles de Jésus , le commentateur s'identifie tour à tour avec l'adversaire extrascripturaire de Jésus et avec Jésus lui-même. Le discours B de Jésus prolongeant ses propres paroles n'ont pas la même fonction que les discours B de ses proches. Si ces derniers étaient destinés à expliquer ou compléter les pensées des différents personnages bibliques par celles de leur interprète , les discours de Jésus dans la diatribe doivent justifier ses phrases scripturaires . En effet, exploitées par les païens ou les hérétiques, elles demandent davantage à être justifiées qu'à être expliquées. Jésus peut «< légitimer » ses paroles au sujet de son rapport à Dieu-Père de plusieurs façons : 1. En limitant son message : en affirmant que ce qu'il avait dit ne concernait qu'une de ses deux natures . 2. En invoquant un objectif extrabiblique, par exemple : il voulait faire taire les hérétiques à venir.

3. En se rétractant : il n'avait dit ce qu'il avait dit que par ironie. 4. En ramenant la portée de ses dires à une situation précise. Nous allons illustrer ces différentes sortes « d'excuses » de Jésus par des extraits venant des homélies d'Amphiloque d'Iconium, probablement le premier à avoir donné à ses prédications la forme d'une diatribe . 14 CPG 4669, PG 62,741.

142

J. KECSKEMÉTI

1. L'homélie, In illud, Quia Pater maior me est , (Jean 14,28) fait partie du premier groupe . (Le Prédicateur :) Dis-moi , (ô hérétique), sur quel raisonnement te fondes-tu pour affirmer que le Père est plus grand que le Fils? (L'Hérétique:) Ce n'est pas moi (...) qui l'affirme, mais je crois celui qui le dit, car c'est lui qui dit : « Le Père qui m'a envoyé » (Jean 5,37 ; 8,16 ; 17,3) « est plus grand que moi» (Jean 14,28). (Le Prédicateur :) Si tu crois celui qui parle, cesse de quereller, et moi aussi je vais tenir ma langue et permettons au Fils d'expliquer sa propre parole. Dis, Maître, pour quelle raison dis-tu tantôt « Le Père et moi, nous sommes un» (Jean 10,30) et tantôt « Le Père qui m'a envoyé est plus grand que moi » . S'il est plus grand, comment est-il égal? S'il est égal, comment est-il plus grand? (Jésus:) Je dis les deux choses à la fois car il est plus grand que moi et il est égal. Quant à la divinité il est égal, quant à l'Economie il est plus grand que mois puisque je suis né de la vierge 15 . 2. Dans l'homélie Pater si possible est (Matthieu 26,39) le Prédicateur adresse un long et pathétique discours à Jésus . Jésus lui répond en disant qu'il voulait faire taire Apollinaire. (Le Prédicateur:) Allons, comme ceux qui sont incapables d'expliquer des paroles, nous invoquerons le Verbe-même de Dieu, afin que ce soit lui qui, devenu interprète de ses propres paroles, dénonce la sottise de ceux-ci et fortifie notre raisonnement (...) Dis, Maître, pourquoi arrivé au supplice pries-tu de ne pas subir le supplice, pourquoi crains-tu la menace des Juifs, toi qui as ordonné de ne point craindre ceux qui tuent le corps? En un mot, si tu crains la mort, pourquoi ne repousses-tu pas la mort? Car s'il est en ton pouvoir de subir et de ne pas subir le supplice, inutile de dire : « s'il est possible que cette coupe s'éloigne (...) » Mais c'est toi la vie et la résurrection . Pourquoi effrayes-tu mon âme, pourquoi affaiblis-tu la force de mon esprit avec ces paroles de lâcheté? N'était-ce qu'une illusion ce qui est arrivé à Lazare? (cf. Jean 11,44) N'était-ce qu'un rêve, l'histoire de la fille de Jaïre? (cf. Marc 5,42) . N'était-ce qu'un fantasme l'affaire du fils de la veuve? (cf. Luc 7,15) Mais ils étaient vrais ces événements ! (...) Car celui qui peut ressusciter les autres ramènera à plus forte raison à la vie son propre corps ! Ou bien explique-moi clairement les paroles, Maître, ou bien cesse de parler ainsi et ne jette pas le doute dans mon âme, autrement tu feras chanceler ma raison (...) Maintenant, en effet, Eunome se réjouit, maintenant Arius jubile, ils se hâtent de saisir cette parole pour en faire un blasphème (...) (Jésus:) En effet, je suis effrayé afin de fournir la preuve du caractère non imaginaire de l'Incarnation, je dis mon âme est troublée afin que vous compreniez que ce n'est pas un corps sans âme que j'ai pris, comme le veut l'erreur d'Apollinaire. N'attribue point les souffrances de la chair au Verbe impassible, car je suis Dieu et homme, hérétique 16.

15 CPG 3241 , C. Datema, Amphilochii opera, p . 227-228. 16 CPG 3237, C. Datema, Amphilochii opera, p . 140-143 et 150 .

Exégèse chrysostomienne

143

3. Dans la version pseudo-chrysostomienne de l'homélie citée en dernier lieu, Jésus prétexte qu'il recourait à l'ironie afin de confondre le Diable. Père, s'il est possible que cette coupe s'éloigne. S'il savait comment est cette coupe que par feinte je prie de passer loin de moi , c'est lui qui prierait d'être loin, car cette coupe est une arme contre lui et le salut pour les miens (… ) Père, s'il est possible que cette coupe s'éloigne . Que ces paroles prononcées selon une sagesse ne vous scandalisent pas. Acceptez-les et vous verrez le résultat de mes discours et alors vous admirerez la sagesse de mes paroles (...) Il se réjouit maintenant de m'entendre prononcer de telles paroles, « Père s'il est possible que cette coupe s'éloigne» (...) Je cache ma dignité divine sous les paroles humaines, je dis : Non pas comme je veux, mais comme tu veux (Matthieu 26,39) ¹7 . 4. L'homélie, In illud, Non potest Filius a se facere (Jean 5,19) appartient au quatrième groupe. (Le Prédicateur :) (... ) Maître, pourquoi dis-tu : « Le fils ne peut faire de lui-même rien qu'il ne voit faire au Père?» (Jésus :) Pour anéantir la folie des Juifs qui croient que je veux instituer des lois contre celles du Père. Puisqu'ils m'accusent de rompre le sabbat je dis : « Mon Père jusqu'à présent est à l'œuvre et moi aussi je suis à l'œuvre » (Jean 5,17) , pour leur montrer que la fonction est la même des deux côtés. Mais croyant que j'oppose mes œuvres aux siennes ces gens, tout à fait insensés , sont devenus hostiles. Ainsi, afin de corriger leurs idées, j'ai dit : « Le Fils ne peut faire de lui-même rien qu'il ne voit faire au Père». Au lieu de : < « Pourquoi me faites-vous grief de rompre le sabbat, vous avec vos spéculations déplacées, je ne m'oppose en rien au Père, il ne faut pas croire que lui veuille faire respecter le sabbat et que moi , je veuille le rompre » 18 . Lorsqu'il s'agissait de défendre la divinité de Jésus, Chrysostome pouvait recourir, lui aussi , à la forme de la diatribe. Voici un extrait de son homélie, In illud, Filius ex se nihil facit , traitant du même sujet que le texte qui vient d'être cité. (L'Hérétique :) Tu vois comment (... ) le Fils de Dieu a démoli cette égalité supposée? Puisque les Juifs, (... ) soupçonnaient qu'il se considérait comme égal à Dieu, il leur rétorquait en disant : Le Fils ne peut faire de lui-même rien. (Le Prédicateur :) Ai-je dit en vain que ces paroles peuvent vous pertuber et troubler, au premier abord , l'auditeur? Mais attendez seulement et vous verrez qu'ils seront abattus par leurs propres armes (...) Même de moi, qui suis pourtant insignifiant et simple et fait de la terre, on ne peut dire chose pareille, que je ne puis rien faire de moi-même, et on ne peut le dire de toi, ni d'aucun autre homme (...) Si vous voulez, étant débarrassés des hérétiques, nous vous présentons, maintenant la solution de ce qui a été dit. Nous vous apprenons d'abord , que le « ne peut pas » , s'il s'applique à Dieu, ne signifie pas faiblesse mais, au contraire, puissance. Ce que nous disons peut vous paraître étrange, mais nous vous le démontrerons d'une manière claire . Si je vous

17 CPG 4654, PG 61,754-755. 18 CPG 3245, C. Datema, Amphilochii opera, p . 177.

144

J. KECSKEMÉTI

dis que Dieu ne peut commettre de péchés, je ne l'accuse point de faiblesse mais, au contraire, j'atteste sa plus grande puissance . Si je dis que Dieu ne peut mentir, je démontre la même chose 19. Contrairement aux auteurs cités plus haut, Chrysostome se garde de mettre en scène Jésus. Il ne lui cède pas la parole, il entend lui-même confondre l'hérétique . Il argumente autrement que les auteurs des diatribes citées plus haut. Il ne dit pas que Jésus avait dit ce qu'il avait dit par ruse, par ironie ou pour désarçonner les hérétiques à venir . Il ne légitime pas les paroles de Jésus , il se propose de les expliquer. Ne mettant pas Jésus en scène dans la diatribe, Chrysostome ne se fait pas le porte-parole des pensées hérétiques. Il évite cette confusion des rôles qui caractérisaient les textes des autres auteurs . Prédicateur orthodoxe, sûr de sa doctrine, il préfère ne pas troubler l'auditeur en l'exposant aux idées hérétiques.

IV. L'ÉTHOPÉE CHRÉTIENNE

En fait , les auteurs, autres que Chrysostome, imitaient si bien leurs adversaires, qu'ils donnaient l'impression de se prendre au jeu . Le personnage orthodoxe qu'ils mettent en scène est ou bien désespéré (« Sur qui fonderonsnous notre espoir de paix ? ») ou bien il péche par excès de rationalisme (« < S'il est plus grand, comment est-il égal? S'il est égal, comment est-il plus grand ? ») ou bien encore il est la proie du doute (« cesse de parler ainsi et ne jette pas le doute dans mon âme ... >>). L'extrait suivant de l'homélie de Sévérien In illud, Pater transeat a me calix iste montre bien cette identification du prédicateur à l'adversaire. (Le Prédicateur :) Tu avais accusé, ô Seigneur, Pierre qui voulait que la croix te fût épargnée, et maintenant tu fais ce dont tu l'avais accusé? Cela est indigne, non seulement de Dieu, cela ne convient pas à un homme posé 20 . En fait ici, Sévérien prend à son compte le reproche que les païens et les hérétiques adressaient à Jésus, le même qu'avait formulé Porphyre : En effet, ces paroles ne sont pas dignes du Fils de Dieu, ni d'un sage, d'ailleurs, qui méprise la mort 21 . Il est curieux de noter qu'en faisant remarquer l'incongruité du comportement de Jésus vis-à-vis de Pierre, Basile de Séleucie semble, lui aussi, s'inspirer d'un raisonnement de Porphyre. Voice le texte de Basile :

19 CPG 4421 , PG 56,248, 249 et 254. 20 J. Zellinger, Studien zu Severian von Gabala (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 8 ; Münster i . W., 1926), p. 10. 21 A. Harnack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts (Texte u. Untersuchungen 37,4; Leipzig, 1911 ), p. 32.

Exégèse chrysostomienne

145

(Jésus :) Derrière moi, Satan ! Tu me fais obstacle, car tes pensées ne sont pas celles de Dieu, mais celles des hommes (Matthieu 16,23 ) . (Le Prédicateur :) Mais pourquoi ces paroles dures, ô Maître! Pourquoi ces terribles invectives contre Pierre? Tout récemment il a entendu dire : « Tu es heureux Simon, fils de Jonas» (Matthieu 16,17) , et maintenant tu nommes l'apôtre Satan? Tout récemment tu as dit > . Au-delà de cette constatation portant sur une technique particulière de la prédication dans une période donnée , nous devons nous interroger sur ce que devait ressentir le prédicateur en commettant l'acte dangereusement téméraire de mêler ses propres paroles à celles de la Bible. L'émotion d'Origène s'interdisant de « deviner » les pensées du patriarche

22 CPG 6656 (31 ), PG 85,348. 23 Cité d'après P. de Labriolle, La réaction païenne . Étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du le au VIe s. (Paris, 1934), p. 258.

146

J. KECSKEMÉTI

Abraham sommé de sacrifier son fils, montre la résistance intérieure que l'on devait vaincre avant d'oser mêler sa voix à celles des personnages bibliques. Qu'en dis-tu Abraham? Quelles sortes de pensées s'agitent dans ton cœur? La voix de Dieu s'est fait entendre pour secouer et éprouver ta foi. Qu'en dis-tu? Qu'en pensestu? Est-ce que tu résistes ? Est-ce que tu rumines et calcules ainsi dans ton cœur : « Si c'est en Isaac que la promesse m'a été faite et que je l'offre en holocauste, je n'ai plus de promesse à attendre? » Ne tiens-tu pas plutôt cet autre raisonnement et ne te dis-tu pas que celui qui t'a fait la promesse ne peut mentir et quoi qu'il arrive, la promesse demeurera? A la véritié, moi parce que je suis le plus petit (cf. I. Corinthiens 15,9) je ne puis sonder les pensées d'un si grand patriarche, ni savoir quelle réflexion fit naître en lui, quels sentiments provoqua la voix de Dieu qui était venue l'éprouver en lui donnant l'ordre d'égorger son fils unique 24. Chez Chrysostome nous croyons déceler une retenue semblable à celle d'Origène. Même s'il lui arrivait d'inclure des monologues ou des dialogues dans son exégèse, il s'était gardé d'attribuer des pensées < « extrabibliques >> aux personnages néotestamentaires . Il ne devait probablement pas se priver de montrer son aversion pour les éthopées fantaisistes. En effet, une homélie de Sévérien, In incarnationem domini, répond à ceux qui blâment le procédé d'enseigner la foi au moyen de tels discours fictifs. Chrysostome , était- il parmi les adversaires visés par Sévérien ? Les libertés que prenait Sévérien, comme d'autres prédicateurs de l'époque, en récrivant la Bible, étaient- t - elles parmi les raisons qui ont amené Chrysostome à se tourner contre Sévérien? Il y a lieu de croire que Sévérien reproduit avec loyauté et fidèlement les blâmes adressés au prédicateur qui ne répugnait pas à recourir à cette méthode bizarre. Sévérien se voit reprocher non seulement de mettre en scène Dieu, mais aussi de lui faire dire des sottises . Permettez-moi de mettre en scène Dieu en pleine conversation , d'employer une sorte d'éthopée, de le faire parler à son Fils . Et que personne ne croie que ce sont des phrases forcées (...). (Dieu :) Tu dois, ô mon Fils Unique, Fils qui est le Verbe, ô éclat de ma gloire, tu dois, si tu te soucies de notre créature que nous avons formée ensemble, revêtir l'homme corrompu, tu dois prendre des apôtres, et comme le Diable qui utilisait le serpent comme serviteur et instrument pour tromper, toi aussi, tu utiliseras to créature comme serviteur, mais pour faire le bien, et tu renouvelleras l'humanité déchue . Mais il y en aura dit-il beaucoup d'inventeurs de blasphèmes. Car elle va surgir, l'erreur impie d'Epicure, elle va surgir l'hérésie qui dit qu'il n'y a point de providence, elle va surgir une autre hérésie, celle qui va vénérer l'objet comme Dieu. Il y aura beaucoup de gens pour enseigner des erreurs, qui supprimera toutes ces perversités? (…..). Bien que prêchant au milieu des amis de la piété, je sais qu'il y a aussi parfois des

24 In Genesim homilia VIII . CPG 1411 , H. de Lubac - L. Doutreleau, Origène, Homélies sur la Genèse (SC 7bis ; Paris, 1976) , p. 214-215.

Exégèse chrysostomienne

147

espions, qui ne se soucient pas de l'utilité de la prédication. Ils ne pensent qu'à une chose: comment attaquer l'orateur. Je ne déteste pas leurs habitudes, je les plains plutôt, ces gens-là (...). Il se peut donc que l'adversaire dise en sortant : « Quelle magnifique théologie . Il met en scène Dieu qui est en train de méditer et de dire : ' Puisqu'il y aura beaucoup de gens pour enseigner des erreurs, que va-t-il se passer?' et le Père qui parle au Fils, comme si le Fils doutait, et le Père lui enseignait tout cela » 25 .

CONCLUSION L'exégète est naturellement tenté de s'identifier aux personnages bibliques dont il commente les paroles . Il existe une autre tentation exégétique, non moins forte, c'est celle de faire représenter ses idées par le personnage sacré , de transformer le commentaire en paroles apparemment bibliques. Le discours fictif engagé résulte du désir de l'exégète d'authentifier sa pensée en l'attribuant à des personnages par définition crédibles, parce que bibliques . Nous avons constaté que de nombreux auteurs des IV -VIe siècles, autres que Chrysostome, avaient recours à ce procédé, alors que Chrysostome s'y refusait. En effet , Chrysostome ne composait que des discours fictifs objectifs (c'est-à-dire purement explicatifs) , et des discours fictifs «négatifs » (c'est- àdire des paroles ouvertement fictives, oblitérées par un signe de négation) . Plus le texte commenté est générateur de tension , plus l'interprète est amené à le récrire. La tension que provoquent certaines paroles de Jésus , permettent des interprétations contradictoires, pousse quelques exégètes à jouer le rôle de l'hérétique et à interroger Jésus au nom de celui-ci . Contrairement à ces exégètes, Chrysostome ne met en scène que le prédicateur et l'hérétique, son adversaire. Il ne demande pas des comptes à Jésus, il ne le transforme pas en son propre exégète en le faisant revenir sur ses paroles attestées par l'Écriture. En rendant les personnages néotestamentaires plus emportés qu'ils ne le sont dans le texte, les exégètes engagés dans les débats christologiques intégraient dans l'Évangile, au moyen de discours fictifs, les polémiques de leur propre temps . Chrysostome qui, se tenant à l'écart de ces controverses christologiques apollinaristes n'ajoutait rien aux conflits qui figurent dans le Nouveau Testament, il n'assumait pas non plus le rôle de l'hérétique dans la diatribe destinée à éclairer les paroles de Jésus.

25 CPG 4204, PG 59,693-4. sur ce passage.

Je remercie Monsieur C. Datema d'avoir attiré mon attention

The Christology of John Chrysostom

M.E. LAWRENZ, III , Milwaukee, Wisc.

John Chrysostom lived, wrote, and preached in the trough, as it were, between two waves of theological controversy. No theologian living in the late fourth century should have been surprised that the responses made to the Arians and later the Neo-Arians would not be the last theological debate concerning the person of Christ, yet we will not blame them for concentrating more on the wave that had passed than on the potential for others to come along. Of course, it may be argued that there was hardly a trough at all . Arius' assertions about the distinctions between the Son and the Father when answered by an extreme defender of Nicea like Apollinaris, simply raised the subsequent theological issue : whether Christ should be conceived as genuinely and fully human. Just before Meletius of Antioch left for Constantinople in 381 to preside over the council that would address both the fading Neo-Arian movement and the new and worrisome ideas of Apollinaris , he ordained John Chrysostom a deacon . As a writer and preacher, beginning five years later with his ordination to the priesthood, Chrysostom's favorite theological theme was the defense of what he considered an orthodox trinitarian and christological position in the face of continued controversy with the Neo- Arians who evidently debated both with Chrysostom's constituencies in Antioch and Constantinople and with Chrysostom himself. Out of pastoral concern for the theological purity of his congregations he preached extended series of sermons on the gospels of Matthew and John, and a shorter series, Against the Anomoeans, on the incomprehensible nature of God. While Chrysostom is more often noted for rhetorical accomplishment than theological speculation we would note with Johannes Quasten that the doctrinal content of his homilies and homiletic commentaries should not be underestimated . His "lack of inclination for systematic presentation does not exclude a deep understanding of difficult theological questions" ¹ . Traditionally, Chrysostom has been depicted as a classic representative of the so-called "Antiochene" school along with his teacher, Diodore of Tarsus, his fellow-student Theodore of Mopsuestia, and eventually Nestorius, one of his successors in the bishopric of Constantinople² . It is natural that the ¹ Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3 (Westminster, MD, 1964), p. 474. 2 J.H. Juzek, Die Christologie des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus : Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Dogmatik der Antiochener (Breslau, 1912) ; L.R. Barnard, "Christology and Soteriology in the Preaching ofJohn Chrysostom " (dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974).

Christology of John Chrysostom

149

comparison would be made because Chrysostom, like them, most often preferred a more literal and historical interpretation of the biblical text . Consequently the content and style of his homilies are greatly different from those of various Alexandrians. Another similarity between Chrysostom and his fellow-Antiochenes is the moralism that pervades the great majority of his homilies. The Christology of some of the Antiochenes has been characterized as moralistic , with an emphasis on Christ as the great exemplar and the way of salvation as that of imitation . It should not be assumed , however, that Chrysostom's ethical concern is necessarily accompanied by the same christological understanding as Diodore, Theodore, and the like. The undeniable moralistic strain in his homilies is the consequence of his temperament and his role as pastor and preacher more than of his fundamental theology. Alois Grillmeier in his Christ in Christian Tradition has observed : The typically Antiochene difficulties in the interpretation of the unity in Christ do not exist for Chrysostom . ... This Antiochene, so persecuted by the Alexandrians, is far more Alexandrian than Antiochene in his Christology a new indication of the care with which we must use a word like ' school' . Only with Theodore of Mopsuestia ... does 'Antiochene ' Christology properly begin³. Such a view is, in fact, borne out when one considers first, the descriptions Chrysostom uses for the human activities of Christ particularly in his homilies on the gospels of Matthew and John ; and second, his explicit definitions of the relationships between the human and divine in Christ . Chrysostom is compelled to explain various human functions emotional, intellectual, and volitional as they occur in Christ's experience in the gospels . Two incidents in particular raise the issue of emotional experience. The grief displayed at the tomb of Lazarus shows that Christ truly had a human nature, yet Chrysostom is most anxious to point out that Christ curbed his лά005, and that when he did let it show through in his weeping, it was a calculated act designed to attract the attention of his listeners . Of more concern, however, is the agony in the garden, an incident which he explains at length in several different homilies . That Christ would say "Now my soul is troubled", and "Father, save me from this hour", indicates his true humanity. This was the weakness [τà åσ0ɛvýμata] of the human nature... This very effectually shows that he was human and that the nature did not wish to suffer death, but was clinging to the present life, and it proves that he was not without human feelings [oŮK ἔξω τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων παθῶν ἦν] . Just as the fact that he suffered hunger was not held against him, or that he slept, so the fact that he dreaded [epicolai ] the separation 3 Alois Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition : From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) , vol. 1 , rev. ed. , trans. J. Bowden (Atlanta, 1975) , p. 421. Grillmeier bases his evaluation on the article by Camillus Hay, "St. John Chrysostom and the Integrity of the Human Nature of Christ", Franciscan Studies 19 ( 1959) , 298-317 .

150

M.E. LAWRENZ

from this present life ought not to be held against him, either. Christ's body [σãµɑ] was, to be sure, altogether free from sin, but it was not without physical needs [QUσik@ν ȧvayк@v], otherwise, it would not have been a real body* . Here as elsewhere Chrysostom compares the fear and agony of death that Christ experienced with other purely physical characteristics. The flesh protects itself, fears its own destruction , and thus the agony in the garden disproves any docetic notion of the incarnation. As Chrysostom says elsewhere : If the flesh does not wish to die, it should not be condemned... For it is a mark of the flesh that it fears death, shrinks back from it, and struggles against it . The humanity thereby attested to is that in its most basic sense : real corporeality . Another function that would presumably be evident in any full and complete human nature is intellect. Yet Chrysostom never posits intellectual activity or ability in Christ that is distinctly human. The homilies on the gospels present Chrysostom with many passages in which human knowing, or rather, lack of knowing, would be a reasonable explanation for Christ's seeming ignorance . Such is not Chrysostom's explanation, however, for the Son's not knowing the day or the hour of the end of the age or that the fig tree he approached had no figs . Neither does the phrase in the Gethsemane prayer "if it be possible, let this cup pass" mean that Christ had less than perfect knowledge of what was about to take place. Similarly, Chrysostom does not describe full human volition as a characteristic of the human functions of Christ . Despite the fact that Chrysostom was used in support of the two wills doctrine by St. Maximus the Confessor and in the sixth ecumenical council in 681 , he uses the phrase "two wills" only in a highly qualified way when explaining the prayer of Gethsemane - " not my will, but thine be done" . The "struggle ... [of] two wills opposed to each other" is a contrast of the will of the Father with the resisting flesh of the Son, which, again, is simply the aversion to death natural to all physical beings. Chrysostom's ordinary emphasis is on Scriptures that indicate oneness of will between the Father and the Son from which he draws two conclusions : first, that the Nicene homoousion is affirmed against the Arians, and second, that a model for Christian behavior is provided . Unlike later Antiochene Christology, however, Chrysostom's Christology does not envision the convergence of the will of the Son and the Father as the moral accomplishment of the humanity of the Son. Christ is a picture of, but not an experiment in , conformity of will with God.

4 Hom. in Jn. 67,1-2 (PG 59,371 ) , trans . T.A. Goggin, FC, vol. 41 (New York, 1960). " De Incomprehensibili 7,6 (PG 48,766), trans. Paul W. Harkins, FC, vol . 73 (Washington, D.C. , 1985). • Hom. in Matt . 77,1 (PG 58,703) ; Hom. in Matt . 67,1 (PG 58,633), trans. NPNF, 1st ser., vol. 10.

Christology of John Chrysostom

151

And so Chrysostom holds two potentially contradictory theological suppositions : that Christ was an exemplar of human experience and obedience, and that his essential person is the divine which predominates the more passive human vessel, the flesh . Chrysostom avoids the contradiction through his frequently used notion of σvyкaτáẞaσiç, condescension , which he defines in this way: "God condescends whenever he is not seen as he is, but in the way one incapable of beholding him is able to look upon him" . There is thus a distinction between what Christ demonstrated and what he was. Virtually any expression of contingency, change, or dependence in the Son is a condescension with a specific didactic purpose, but without ontological consequence . Regarding specific christological definitions, we note first that he only once directly responds to the condemned theory of Apollinaris. Commenting on the Philippians hymn, and specifically the reference to Christ "being made in the likeness of men", Chrysostom says : He [Paul] means then, that he was not a mere man . On account of this he says, "in the likeness of men ". For we indeed are soul and body, but he was God, and soul and body [ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμά ἐσμεν· ἐκεῖνος δὲ θεὸς, καὶ ψυχή, καὶ σῶμα]. On account of this, he says, "in the likeness". For lest when you hear that he emptied himself [ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν], you should think that some change [μεταβολὴν] , and degeneracy [μɛτártwσiv], and loss [apavioµóv] is here ; he says, while he remained what he was, he took that which he was not , and being made flesh he remained God, in that he was the Word [μένων, φησὶν, ὃ ἦν, ἔλαβεν ὃ οὐκ ἦν, καὶ σὰρξ γενόμενος ¤µɛve Dɛòs λóyoç öv] . In this then he was like man, and for this cause Paul says, “and in fashion [oxńμati]". Not that his nature degenerated [uɛтέлεσεν] , nor that any confusion [oúyxvoic] arose, but he became man in fashion . There is one brief reference later to " those who deny that he [Christ] took a soul". While this text clearly shows that Chrysostom acknowledged that the divine nature does not displace the human soul in Christ, he does not here or elsewhere identify how it functions or what its soteriological significance is. His relative lack of concern over the ideas of Apollinaris indicates either that he considered the issue sufficiently dealt with by the synods of Rome and Alexandria and the council of Constantinople which addressed Apollinaris, or that the theory itself was not all that threatening, at least not in comparison with Arianism, or both. It seems that , although he realized the necessity of acknowledging a human soul, Chrysostom conceived of it as, at best, a benign characteristic, and did not attach any particular theological significance to it. Chrysostom then appears to hold not all that different a position from Alexandrians like Athanasius and Cyril. What does concern Chrysostom is that the genuineness of the incarnation should not be seen as compromising the immutable divine nature of the Son.

↑ De Incomprehensibili 3,160-73 (Malingrey, Sources Chrétiennes , vol . 28, 2nd ed . , p. 200) . 8 Hom. in Phil. 8 (Field 5,40), trans. NPNF, 1st ser. , vol. 13.

152

M.E. LAWRENZ

In his eleventh homily on John, Chrysostom gives a definition which is quoted at Chalcedon in which he describes the union in the incarnation as Ένωσις and συνάφεια but not σύγχυσις : That which dwells cannot be the same thing as its dwelling, but must be something different [Etεpov] . One thing dwells in another ; otherwise the latter would not be a dwelling, for nothing dwells in itself. However, by "different" I mean different in substance [ovoiav]. By their union [Evάoɛ ] and conjoining [ovvaqɛia] , God, the Word, and the flesh are one, not as a result of commingling [σvyxúσews] or disappearance of substances [ovoi@v ], but by some ineffable and inexplicable union [έvóσɛ@ç] . But do not seek the how ; it " was made" in a way which he himself knows " . This is as far as Chrysostom will venture. How deity and flesh experience Evoσic is a mystery. Or as he says, again in reference to the Philippians hymn. Here concerning his divinity [πɛрi tñs Dɛótηtos] , we no loner find " he became", "he took", but "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" ; here concerning his humanity [лepi tñç ȧv0pwróτηtos] we find "he took, he became". He became [èyέvɛto] the latter, he took [ λaßɛv] the latter ; he was [úлйруɛ] the former. Let us not then confound [σvyz霵ɛv] nor divide [diïotõµεv]. There is one God, there is one Christ, the Son of God . When I say "one", I mean a union [έvwσiv], not a confusion [σúyxvoiv] ; the one nature did not degenerate [μεtaлεσovσns ] into the other, but was united [nvouέvns] with it 10. Finally, we note that there are numerous times when Chrysostom contrasts two different views of Christ : that "according to divinity" with that “ according to the economy" or "according to the humanity". In this way he explains aspects of Christ's identification with human experience, most especially suffering, and certain mediatorial roles like his high priesthood . Yet these do not represent a developed dyophysite understanding, but rather the logical distinction between Christ before the incarnation and after. Chrysostom thus shows an awareness of the christological questions to be raised to a higher level of controversy in the subsequent generation . He searches for appropriate terms to describe both the union of the incarnation and the integrity of the divine nature before and after the incarnation . Yet he does not have, as would later Antiochenes, a theological interest in maintaining the full rational humanity of Christ in order to center the soteriological efficacy of the incarnation in the fact of his obedience. For him, as for most Alexandrian thinkers, the fruit of the incarnation lies in the permanent union of divinity and flesh . As Chrysostom himself puts it: He became the Son of Man, though he was the Son of God , in order that he might make the sons of men children of God. In truth, to mingle the high with the low

9 Hom. in Jn. 11,2 (PG 59,80) , trans. T.A. Goggin, FC, vol. 33 (New York, 1957). 10 Hom. in Phil. 8 (Field 5,41 ).

Christology of John Chrysostom

153

works no harm to the honor of the high, but raises the lowly up from its very humble estate. Accordingly, this is also true in the case of Christ. He in no wise lowered his own nature [idiav qúoiv] by this descent, but elevated us, who had always been in a state of ignominy and darkness , to ineffable glory¹¹ .

11 Hom. in Jn. 11,1 (PG 59,79).

Prolégomènes à une édition des homélies de Jean Chrysostome, Contra Anomoeos

Anne-Marie MALINGREY, Paris

Il y a vingt ans, lors de la cinquième conférence internationale de patristique en 1967, j'attirais l'attention sur les difficultés que rencontre l'éditeur des homélies de Jean Chrysostome groupées sous le titre De Incomprehensibili, Sur l'Incompréhensible¹ . J'ai expliqué autrefois combien la recherche de ces textes dans les catalogues est longue (car les manuscrits sont nombreux) et menacée de multiples erreurs (car les homélies sont désignées par des titres divers). Malgré les épreuves qui attendaient l'éditeur , un premier volume a paru dans la collection Sources chrétiennes en 1970 sous le numéro 28bis contenant les cinq premières homélies prononcées par Jean à Antioche et portant comme titre Sur l'incompréhensibilité de Dieu. En me remettant cette année au travail pour l'édition du second volume qui doit contenir les six dernières homélies, je me suis aperçue que j'avais mangé mon pain blanc le premier, comme on dit chez nous. L'édition du premier tome m'apparaît, avec le recul du temps (et maintenant qu'elle est faite ! ) , comme un travail aisé et sans problèmes . Au contraire, l'édition des homélies qui formeront le second tome s'annonce pleine d'embûches : le nombre instable des homélies dans les différents manuscrits, les titres donnés à ces homélies, telles sont les causes des difficultés dont je prends de plus en plus conscience et auxquelles il faut faire face. Parlons d'abord du nombre instable des homélies dans les mss. Si le groupement des cinq premières pour constituer le premier tome se justifie , même de l'extérieur, par le fait qu'elles forment dans les mss un ensemble parfaitement stable et très rarement dissocié² , il n'en est pas de même pour les homélies suivantes. On se trouve, en effet, devant deux sortes de groupements : I-VI, I -VIII . Comment expliquer le choix de ceux qui, les premiers, ont opéré ces groupements ? En bonne arithmétique, après 5 vient 6. Mais que trouve-t-on à cet endroit? Une homélie invariablement affectée de l'épisèmon, qui représente le chiffre 6 , incipit : Míav úµîv dɩɛλéx0ŋv ǹµépav . Or, nous

1« >. Je compte exposer en détail dans l'introduction du tome II les raisons qui peuvent justifier le rapprochement de ces termes. 10 PG 48,783-784.

À propos des homélies Contra Anomoeos

157

notice, je voudrais commenter trois éléments . 1 ) La formule Sur les prières du Christ a une grande importance . Elle annonce la réponse à une objection formulée par les Anoméens : Si le Christ était égal au Père, il n'aurait pas eu besoin de le prier avant d'accomplir ses miracles. Malheureusement , le titre Sur les prières du Christ se rencontre à la fois devant les homélies IX et X où, de fait, il est question des prières adressées par le Christ à son Père. Cette identité de titres, qui correspond à l'identité du sujet traité, plonge le chercheur dans un grand embarras. Quand on rencontre De Christi precibus dans les catalogues, s'agit-il de l'homélie IX ou de l'homélie X? Seul l'incipit est susceptible de renseigner. C'est pourquoi les Codices Chrysostomici ont eu raison de distinguer les homélies IX et X en leur attribuant des titres différents : à l'homélie IX, In quatriduanum Lazarum et à l'homélie X , De Christi precibus. Je compte rester fidèle à cette distinction dans la prochaine édition. 2) Quant au membre de phrase suivant ; « Sur la puissance avec laquelle il faisait toutes choses » , c'est une affirmation de ce que les Anoméens mettaient en doute: « Le pouvoir du Fils est égal en tous points à celui du Père » . Cette affirmation est appuyée sur certaines paroles du Christ que les Anoméens détournaient du sens véritable qu'elles ont dans l'Évangile. 3) Enfin, le membre de phrase : « que l'Incarnation ne diminue en rien l'égalité du Père et du Fils, mais la met davantage en valeur », annonce une réfutation de ce que niaient les Anoméens : « Le fait de revêtir la chair n'a pas altéré la nature de la divinité ». Cette longue notice annonce donc trois réfutations de l'hérésie anoméenne envisagée sous trois aspects différents . Quelle est l'homélie qui fait suite à la Xe? La XI , me direz-vous . Pas du tout. On cherche en vain une homélie XI dans les mss . C'est grâce à Montfaucon que la sixième homélie des mss occupe désormais la place de la XI , comme le savent tous les usagers de catalogues de mss . Mais Montfaucon, ne voulant pas laisser vide la place de l'homélie VI devenue l'homélie XI, a introduit à cet endroit l'éloge de saint Philogone dont la fête avait interrompu les homélies De incomprehensibili. Sur ce point , je n'ai pas l'intention de suivre Montfaucon. Il est indispensable de garder la cohésion qui existe entre ces homélies . C'est pourquoi, dans le second tome, il ne faudra pas chercher d'homélie VI . On lira simplement les homélies VII à XII. Ainsi, l'ordre chronologique sera définitivement rétabli. Avec l'homélie XI qui, je le rappelle, porte le sigle du chiffre six dans les mss, on entre dans le groupe des homélies prononcées à Constantinople. Nous avons vu, au début de cet exposé, les termes de son intitulé : Sur l'incompréhensible, contre les Anoméens . Il n'est pas déplacé du tout ici , puisqu'il répond aux objections de ces derniers en faisant appel aux textes de l'A. et du N. Testament qui peuvent servir à réfuter l'hérésie anoméenne. Reste la notice de l'homélie XII qui clôt la série des onze homélies. La voici : « < Sur le paralytique qui gisait depuis trente huit ans dans son infirmité »> et sur cette parole : « Mon Père agit toujours et moi j'agis de même » . Qui ne

158

A.-M. MALINGREY

reconnaîtrait que cette dernière phrase annonce un développement sur l'égalité du Père et du Fils niée par les Anoméens ? Il existe donc entre toutes ces homélies un lien étroit. Mais alors , comment expliquer la distinction si nette établie par Jean dans le passage de l'homélie VII , que j'ai cité au début, entre les homélies I à V et VII à XII ? En fait, il s'agit d'une même réalité envisagée selon deux méthodes différentes, l'une, celle de la théologie apophatique, qui reconnaît ce que l'homme ne peut dire de Dieu ; l'autre, celle de la théologie positive, qui enseigne ce que l'homme peut dire des rapports du Père et du Fils , dans la mesure où la foi le lui a révélé. Et maintenant l'éditeur que je suis doit avouer son embarras . Pour souligner l'orientation différente des deux tomes, leur titre devrait être différent. Malheureusement, la collection « Sources chrétiennes » a eu l'imprudence d'imprimer comme titre Sur l'incompréhensibilité de Dieu avec, en dessous , I en chiffre romain, ce qui fait attendre un tome II avec le même titre, bien entendu. Or, nous avons vu que ce titre ne correspondait pas, à proprement parler, au sujet traité dans le tome II . Si l'on veut indiquer ceux auxquels il s'adresse, on pourrait imprimer Contre les Anoméens, mais alors, où est le tome I du Contre les Anoméens ? Les lecteurs au courant des problèmes théologiques comprendront qu'il s'agit d'une suite et achèteront le volume. Mais combien seront-ils? Commercialement, c'est compromettre la vente du tome II. Pour sauvegarder l'unité organique de ces onze homélies, ne faudrait-il pas, lors de la réédition du tome I et pour l'édition du tome II , donner aux deux tomes un titre commun Contre les Anoméens avec un sous-titre, pour le tome I Sur l'incompréhensibilité de Dieu et pour le tome II Sur l'égalité du Père et du Fils? Ce serait, me semble-t-il, indiquer loyalement le contenu de chacun de ces deux tomes et rester fidèle, du moins je l'espère, aux intentions de Jean.

The Church Father as Social Informant : St. John Chrysostom on folk-songs

J.C.B. PETROPOULOS , Oxford

In the course of a theological argument or a pastoral parainesis a Church Father may provide information, often couched as an obiter dictum, which directly concerns the social anthropologist, the folklorist and the cultural historian alike . Combining the interests of a classicist with those of a student of popular culture, I propose to discuss certain passages in St. John Chrysostom from which we can cull or infer certain data pertaining mainly to the folk-songs of his time ¹ª . It is remarkable that even where Chrysostom is outstanding from a stylistic or rhetorical point of view, as at PG 55.155-67, his έpuηveía of Ps . 41.22 , he may include material which also betrays the eye - and ear of an astute informant . Some of Chrysostom's testimonia, be it noted, are of considerable interest to the social anthropologist and ethnographer because they constitute a first-hand report from the field, as it were ; in a great many cases he provides independent evidence which may help the specialist in reassembling a picture of popular life in late antiquity. Far from dealing with social customs and other phenomena en passant, 1 I wish to express my gratitude to the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, for granting me a Scholarship for the academic years 1985-86 and 1987-88. I am also grateful to Sir Kenneth Dover for supervising my doctoral research and to Professor Donald Russell, Dr. Ian Rutherford and especially Mr. Christopher Veniamin for commenting on an earlier version of this paper. 1a The ethnographic approach to the writings of Chrysostom and the Church Fathers in general was admirably exemplified by Anton Nägele's article ' Über Arbeitslieder bei Johannes Chrysostomos-Patristisch - Literarisches zu K. Büchers "Arbeit und Rhythmus' , in Berichte ... der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig LVII.3 ( 1905), 101-42 . Nikolaos Polites and his school also quarried the Church Fathers for ethnographic data : cf. esp. N. Polites, Λαογραφικαί Ἐνδείξεις ἐν τῷ (Α') καὶ Β΄ Κατηχητικῷ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, Laographia VIII ( 1921 ) , 5-12 ; Stilpon Kyriakides, " Iwάvvns ó Xpuσóσtoµos ós Aαoypáчos', op. cit., XI ( 1934), 634-41 ; Demetrius Loukatos, ' Ааоураçıкαi nepi teλevtηs έvdɛitɛis лapȧ 'Iwávvn τ@ Xpvooστóµœ', Epet. Laogr. Archeiou II ( 1940), 30-177 ; and most recently, D.A. Krekukias, “ Αγνωστες λαογραφικὲς εἰδήσεις στὸ ἔργο τοῦ Μεγάλου Βασιλείου : Ὁμιλίαι εἰς 'Eğanμɛpov', JOEByz XXXII.3 ( 1982), 423-26. 2 Chrysostom preached at Antioch in 387 on the opening verses of Ps . 41 ; whether he actually delivered the other homilies on a total of 58 selected Psalms is doubtful : see J. Quasten, Patrology (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1960), iii.434. On Chrysostom's social and cultural milieu, consult A.J. Festugière, Antioche païenne et chrétienne, Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie (Paris, 1959), and G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale, Constantinople et ses institutions de 300 à 451 (Paris, 1974).

160

J.C.B. PETROPOULOS

- say, Chrysostom sometimes concentrates on a complex of phenomena traditional wedding practices giving us a detailed account and drawing certain theoretical conclusions . A good example of his ' anthropological' stance and methodology is his twelfth homily on Cor. I (PG 61.95f. = Field ii.132f.3). Here 3a he juxtaposes the divine precepts (oɛμvà лроστάуμаτα) regulating the honourable (tíμiov) event of marriage on the one hand , and popular usage (ή συνήθεια) on the other. Within the sphere of the δῆμος 4a ('folk') or the лоλλоí4ª the two terms are interchangeable in Chrysostom there arises τ☎ν лоλλ☎ν dóza, i.e. a widely diffused cultural world view which supports custom . In turn popular usage, which according to Chrysostom is inherently unreasonable or even irrational (cf. ἄτοπα, καταγέλαστα, παραλoyitóμɛvoi, etc .: today one might say ' primitive' or ' savage') and so deeply ingrained as to comprise traditional practices or ' laws' (лаλαιοí vóμоι), diapoɛípɛi i.e. effectively ' contaminates' , the early Church's regulation of the wedding. Having postulated the existence of the ' folk' , a cultural world view and folk customs, our informant now describes in fuller detail the nuptial and other pagan customs which he considers diabolical (ibid. , 143f.) 5 . The early Church viewed secular music suspiciously because it detected therein pagan and especially cultic or even erotic associations. In common with Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (or. 5, contra Julianum, PG 35.708Cf. ) , Chrysostom adopted the Pauline approach to 7 musical entertainment and generally considered pagan song and dance as subversive influences . Except for certain types of work song, which will be reviewed in a moment, he condemned secular songs outright, especially convivial songs and generally all songs stemming from the repertory of

3 Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistolarum Paulinarum (Oxford , 1847) . The anthropological implications of this homily were first noted by Kyriakides, op. cit. in n. la . 3a Field, op. cit., 142-43. 4 "E0oç ("custom, habit' : cf. Lampe s.v.) is also frequently used in Chrysostom . In connection with nuptial practices, he implies at PG 62.145 ( = Field iv.315) that the exemplary weddings of Isaac and Rebecca and Jacob and Rachel represent the truly лaλαιòv έ005 ; here the notion of 'custom' is sublimated into an (ecclesiastical) ideal. By contrast, the unruly proceedings of the present-day wedding are rather tendentiously called a кαivoτoµíα (loc. cit.). 4a Field ii.140-41. 5 Examined in my forthcoming D. Phil. thesis, ' Continuity of erotic motifs and imagery in ancient medieval and modern Greek popular poetry'. 6 Paed., II.iv, pp. 181f. , 184 (Stählin), discussed by Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (2nd ed . , Oxford , 1961 ), 92-93. ¹ Eph. 5 : 19-20, Col. 3 : 16-17 . 8 The moral and paedagogical problems created by the various forms of pagan entertainment in Chrysostom's day are detailed by Ottorino Pasquato, Gli Spettacoli in S. Giovanni Crisostomo (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 201 , 1976), 211-49 . On the ideological problems connected with the persistence of pagan practices, consult Gerhart Ladner, The Idea of Reform , Its impact on Christian thought and action in the age of the Fathers (Cambridge, Mass. , 1959) . 9 The early Patristic evidence for sympotic songs is adduced by Phaedon Koukoules, Bulavτivov Bios kai Пoλitiσµòç (Athens, 1948- ), i.2.27 ; ii . 1.8 ; iv.1.144; v.189, 192-94, esp. 193 n. 4.

The Church Father as Social Informant

161

mimes 10. Such ' indecent' songs were unquestionably diabolical (Staẞoλiká, σatavikȧ ǎoμata) and therefore proscribed , whilst even the most innocuous of everyday songs, namely occupational songs, however pleasing aesthetically, were still seen as less than worthwhile, because they were less immediately constructive from a spiritual point of view. We may compare his programmatic utterance on non-religious songs as a whole : ᾿Απὸ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἔξωθεν ᾀσμάτων βλάβη , καὶ ὄλεθρος... τὰ γὰρ ἀσελγέστερα καὶ παρανομώτερα τῶν ᾀσμάτων τούτων ... ἀσθενεστέραν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν ψυχήν) καὶ μαλακωτέραν ποιοῦσιν ( PG 157A). Chrysostom's comments are in perfect accord with St. Paul's pronouncements : the thanksgiving of God and, by explicit corollary, mutual edification at common worship and in the home, are the sole objects of song ; and the only permissible songs, in the strict sense, are devotional songs or hymns, drawn primarily from the Old Testament Psalter and other books of the Scriptures. Chrysostom, like St. Paul at Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, does not intend any sharp typological distinction between μέλη πνευματικά , μελωδία πνευματική , ψαλμῳδία, ψαλμός and ευχαριστήριοι ὕμνοι per se, but rather uses the terms to denote the genus of religious songs 11. In Chrysostom's view such songs when performed are beneficial at all levels of man's being, since soul, mind and body alike receive the joy of sanctification through the Holy Spirit . Who is attracted by proper singing : Οὐδὲν γὰρ, οὐδὲν οὕτως ἀνίστησι ψυχὴν, καὶ πτεροῖ καὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπαλλάττει, καὶ τῶν τοῦ σώματος ἀπολύει δεσμῶν, καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν ποιεῖ, καὶ πάντων καταγελῶν τῶν βιωτικῶν, ὡς ... θεῖον ᾆσμα... τους ψαλμούς επετείχισεν ὁ Θεός, ὥστε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἡδονὴν τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ ὠφέλειαν εἶναι... πολὺς δὲ ὁ ἁγιασμός, ... τῶν τε ῥημάτων τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκκαθαιρόντων, τοῦ τε ἁγίου Πνεύματος τῇ τὰ τοιαῦτα ψαλλούσῃ ταχέως ἐφιπταμένον ψυχῇ (ibid. , 156-157A). Chrysostom implies, moreover, that religious songs are also the spiritual analogues of work songs . As such psalms and hymns should , a fortiori, be sung at least as often as secular occupational songs, eventually replacing the latter 12. He realises that such a shift in the popular repertory would involve a gradual process of cultural readjustment. He notes later in his sermon (ibid., 158) that a new ' habit' ( 0oç) , which presumably will also affect occupational songs, will first need to be established on a wide scale : ' Eav eis τaútηv 10 The mine and its repertory of songs, termed лорνiкà by Chrysostom, are reviewed in Pasquato, op. cit., 97-131 . For the most recent and most critical treatment of the sources relating to popular ' theatre' up to the late sixth century, see Cyril Mango, ' Daily life in Byzantium', JOEByz xxxi.1 ( 1981 ) , 337-53 ; ‘ Addendum to the report on everyday life', op. cit. , xxxii.1 ( 1982), 252-57. 11 Cf. F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon , and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids, 1984), 158f. 12 Cf. op. cit., 158, where Chrysostom urges that workers should hum (váλλɛiv kαtà Stávolav) sacred songs to themselves . Also cf. PG 49.237, catech. 2.

162

J.C.B. PETROPOULOS

ἑαυτοὺς καταστήσωμεν τὴν συνήθειαν (sc. the habit of singing religious songs and hymns in lieu of secular songs, esp . sympotic songs), OỦdÈ ÉKÓVTES, οὐδὲ ῥᾳθυμοῦντές ποτε προησόμεθα τὴν καλὴν ταύτην λειτουργίαν, τοῦ ἔθους καὶ ἄκοντας ἡμᾶς ἀναγκάζοντος καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν τὴν καλὴν ταύτην ἐπιτελεῖν λατρείαν. Before engaging in his exhortation proper to spiritual song, Chrysostom inserts a digression in order to illustrate the intrinsic human aptitude for song (cf. οὕτω γοῦν ἡμῶν ἡ φύσις πρὸς τὰ ᾄσματα ἡδέως ἔχει καὶ οἰκείως ... ibid. , 156A) . Thanks to this μakpoλoyia we possess a representative list of popular songs performed in conjunction with a specialised activity (ibid. , 156A- 57A) : i) άσμаτа лαιdikά, or lullabies , sung by wet-nurses to infants : The earliest mention of a lullaby occurs in Socr. , Ep. 25 (A.D. 1st to 2nd century) 12 : cf. LSJ s.v. ẞavкáλпµa . But cf. Theoc . 24.7-9, which may be described, on stylistic grounds , as a plausible version of a lullaby (see K.J. Dover, Theocritus , Select Poems (London, 1971 ) , xlviii f.) ; also Gal. de sanit. tuend., 18,20-26 (CMG V.4.2) ; S.E. M. 6.32 (Mutschmann and Mau) ; Athen . 14.618E for further testimonia . ii) Songs sung by wayfarers (ôdoɩóрoɩ) at high noon as they drive their mules: We are deprived of any versions of these songs in Greek ; an ancient Egyptian muleteers' song 13 has been preserved . Cf. Athen . 14.619E, Kai tõv µ100@tõv δέ τις ᾠδὴ τῶν εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς φοιτώντων, and the report by Philostorgius 14 that Arius fitted his heretical views into ódoорɩкά which were specially composed for the common folk. iii) Songs performed by farmers (уηлóνoι) during the gathering of grapes (tpʊy@vtεs) , during the treading of grapes in the wine-press (λnvoẞatovvτες) , and during the pruning of vines (ἀμπέλους θεραπεύοντες) : In antiquity proper agricultural songs are known to have existed, although only one is quoted . The lovλos, a fragment of which is preserved at Athen. 14.618E ( = PMG, carm. pop. 849 (Page)) , passes for a work song and is probably a harvest song : cf. testimonia in Page, loc. cit14a. Further, the Aitvέpons, a genre of harvest songs, is also attested : cf. A.S.F. Gow, Theocritus (2nd ed. , Cambridge, 1952), ii . 204 n. ad Theoc. 10.41 and Dover, op. cit., 171 n. ad loc. (The song quoted in Theoc. 10.42-55 purports to be a harvest song ; but its Hesiodic character and its hexameter discredit it as a

12a The abbreviations used for ancient authors are those found in Liddell and Scott's A Greek- English Lexicon (Oxford, 1968). 13 Cited in Nägele, op. cit.in n. la above, 109. 14 PG 65.465C = J. Bidez and F. Winkelmann, Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte (GCS, Berlin, 1981 ), 13.7. 14ª See also J.W. Fitton, 'The ouλog/iovλog song, Carm. pop . 3 ( = no. 849) PMG Page', Glotta LIII 3-4 ( 1975) , 222-38.

The Church Father as Social Informant

163

convincing example of a farmer's song: see Dover, op. cit. , n. ad vv. 42-55) . Also cf. the winnowing songs sung by women : Athen. 14.619A, κai Tăv πτισσουσῶν ἄλλη τις (sc. ᾠδή). As regards work songs connected specifically with the vintage, cf. Callix. 2 (fl . c. 155 BC) , who mentions a song performed at the wine-press (µéλoç έniλńviov), and the Hebrew and Latin parallels listed by Nägele, op. cit. , 110. iv) Songs sung by sailors (vautai kwrηλatoũvteg) : The boatswain's cry (кέλɛvσµα) most probably set the rhythm for certain types of rowing songs 15. The cries repeated at Ar . Pax 459f. and 486f. , & ɛla , etc., recall the exchange between the boatswain and the crew of a warship¹6 ; a related version of the cry (heia viri, etc. ) occurs in an undated Latin rowing song¹7 . Also cf.: a) the two sailors ' ditties from the Hellenistic period which are printed in J.U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford, 1924), 195f. , lyrica adespota nos . 32-33 ; b) Philostorgius, loc. cit. v) Songs sung by women at their looms (yvvaîkes iσtovpyoñoɑi) : As can be surmised from Homer and other authors, weaving songs existed in antiquity: e.g. Il. 3.125f. , Od. 5.61 , 10.221 , 227. Theoc . 24.76f. refers directly to this song genre. Chrysostom analyses the function of the Psalms and other religious songs in terms which are clearly meant to apply to the ensuing discussion of work songs. With the help of his account of religious songs, it is possible to reconstruct his view of the motivation and function of the work songs current in his day. First, work songs make up a functionally generated tradition in as much as their existence is entirely dependent on a particular activity. Second, work songs are intended to have an encouraging or even soothing effect 18 , psychologically speaking, on labourers, naturally prone to idleness, boredom or fatigue 19. Third , the distinctive feature of work songs, and the key to their efficacy, is their rhythm 20. That the foregoing analysis is not at odds with anthropological findings can be realised by comparing Roderick Beaton's interpretation of modern Greek work songs , which is based on cross-cultural data 21. In keeping with the modern data, Chrysostom presents work songs of

15 Time was normally kept by the boatswain's cries, as can be inferred from (e.g. ) X. HG 5.1.8. 16 Cf. Alan Sommerstein, Peace (Warminster, 1985) , 154 , n . ad 459-72. 17 Printed in D.R. Shackleton Bailey (ed .), Anthologia Latina (Stuttgart, 1982) , I.i, no . 384. 18 PG 156A, ποθεινότερον ποιῆσαι τὸν πόνον βουλόμενος, καὶ τοῦ καμάτου τὴν αἴσθησιν ὑποτεμέσθαι . Cf. op. cit., 157A, ποιοῦσι δὲ τοῦτο καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ ὁδοιπόροι ... , τῷ ᾄσματι τὸν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων πόνον παραμυθήσασθαι σπεύδοντες, ὡς τῆς ψυχῆς, εἰ μέλους ἀκούσειε... , ῥᾷον ἅπαντα ἐνεγκεῖν δυναμένης τὰ ὀχληρὰ καὶ ἐπίπονα . 19 Op. cit., 156A, κατιδὼν ὁ θεὸς ῥαθυμοτέρους ὄντας, καί... δυσχερῶς ἔχοντας. 20 Ibid. , τῷ ῥυθμῷ τοῦ μέλους ψυχαγωγούμενοι... ῥυθμῷ συγκείμενον θεῖον ᾄσμα. 21 Folk Poetry of Modern Greece (Cambridge, 1980), 146-47.

164

J.C.B. PETROPOULOS

his day as being essentially group performances 22 and even allows that songs may be sung at the loom by individual weavers (πολλάκις μὲν καὶ καθ᾿ ἑαυTηv έkάotη). It is unfortunate that he does not quote any of these songs, but on the basis of his qualifying statement that a number of secular songs (¤¿wƉεv äoμata) may contain ' indecent' elements 23 , we may suppose that certain occupational songs probably had an amatory content. It may be objected here that a Churchman who condemns secular songs as being generically лорνɩкà (ibid. , 157B) and goes so far as to propose that the Psalms should be sung on all occasions, is not always a reliable source for the content of certain types of folk- song . None the less , although it may strike us elementary or obvious , Chrysostom's analysis of the formal characteristics and function of work songs is entirely valid from an anthropological point of view.

22 Ibid., μέλος συμφωνίας (of religious songs) . Cf. op. cit. , 157A, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ συμφώνως ἅπασαι, μίαν τινὰ μελῳδίαν ᾄδουσι (of women at the loom) . 23 Op. cit. , 157A.

The Faith of the Simpliciores : A Patriarch's Dilemma

Duncan H. RAYNOR, Birmingham

Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 , was categorised by Gibbon as "the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue, a bold , bad man , whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood" . Quasten, in his Patrology, regards this as an exaggeration , but nevertheless represents Theophilus as "a sorry figure of a bishop", concerned mainly with the consolidation and increase of his own power and fortune2 , often by unscrupulous means ; and this kind of judgement is found many times in modern accounts of the events of his patriarchate³ . This opinion is founded mainly on the writings of his enemies, notably Palladius + , whose resentment of Theophilus' role in the downfall of John Chrysostom led him to embark upon a systematic exercise in character-assassination . Yet there are writers of the patristic age who regard Theophilus, like the modern Copts and Syrians , as a benefactor, Father of the Church, and even as a saint . Theophilus appears too in a kindly and generous light in the correspondence of the scholarbishop Synesius , whose involvement with the Patriarch post-dates Theophilus' notorious volte-face in relation to Origenism . These contrary indications should lead us to look beyond the commonly accepted view of Theophilus solely as an unscrupulous power- seeker. It is not my aim to whitewash Theophilus in this communication ; but it is my aim to suggest that much of his policy and action as Patriarch can be explained in terms of a proper concern for the effective running of his diocese and for the spiritual welfare of those Christian souls under his care. It is my contention that the latter concern in particular led Theophilus into an extremely difficult dilemma, as this sophisticated and theologically skilled patriarch was forced to act with sensitivity to the needs of the simple, unsophisticated, and unlettered majority among the Christians of his diocese. The accepted schema of Theophilus' life shows him as beginning his episcopate in 385 in good odour, showing much promise, and working hard

1 Decline and Fall, 1,103f. 2 Patrology, III , 100. 3 For example, J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome (London, 1975), 243f; Chadwick, John Cassian (Cambridge, 1950), 34ff; and , with a greater degree ofcaution, F.M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (London, 1983), 142ff. * Dialogus de Vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi. 5 For example, Theodoret (Ep 170 ; E.H. v.22) ; Vigilius of Thapsus (C. Eut. i.15) ; Arnobius the Younger (Conflictus ii.18).

166

D.H. RAYNOR

for the good both of his own city and diocese, and of the Church at large. In Alexandria his leadership is robust and aggressive in character, and he attaches much importance to church-building. These are wise policies ; highprofile leadership is a necessity in the midst of the intellectual and religious ferment of fourth-century Alexandria, and the expansionist building policy provides both a visible sign of the ascendancy of Christianity, and a number of aids to devotion among the simpler and less literate, who might respond to a building or a picture rather than to books or words . Theophilus gains much assistance in the running of his diocese from Isidore and other monks of Nitria, with whom he is clearly on excellent terms. He plays a sound part too in the wider life of the Church throughout the '90s , showing good judgement in councils and arbitrations, and taking upon himself the role of a peacemaker in the disputes at Jerusalem involving Jerome, Rufinus, and John. But at this time two factors were emerging which were to blight his future career and bring serious discredit upon him. His attitude to Origenism gives rise to a friendly warning from Jerome ' , who informs Theophilus that his authority is being questioned on the grounds that his theology might be unsound . He has aroused the displeasure of many holy men by his patience and mildness towards the Origenists . Here is a strong hint for Theophilus that his theology can affect his credibility as Patriarch . At this point too his rivalry with Constantinople — a see whose precedence 8 dated only from 381 , and whose precise status was still questionable — was exacerbated after the consecration of John Chrysostom in 398. This natural, if not particularly creditable, concern for the high status of the see of Alexandria was to have unfortunate consequences ; yet it is in itself no reason for over-eager condemnation of Theophilus, who is the inheritor of a longstanding rivalry, and much influenced by the attitudes of his predecessors . The question of his theological credibility came to a head in 399, with his famous paschal letter condemning anthropomorphism. He is generally regarded as motivated by the desire to gain control over the desert by increasing the influence of the Origenist group, who were in sympathy with him . His motivation could , however, equally be a natural episcopal desire to see orthodoxy (however defined) prevail ; or a concern for the spiritual state of those in grave error, coupled with a compassionate desire to correct the ignorant. Whatever his true motivation, the matter blew up in a way that

• For instance, we may cite the council at Capua in 391/2, which entrusted Theophilus with the task of judging between Flavian and Evagrius, rival claimants to the see of Antioch ; and the good judgement shown by Theophilus over the disputed see of Bostra in 394 at Constantinople. 7 Ep. 63 (dated most probably to 399 ; v. Kelly, op. cit., 244). 8 V. Young, op. cit. , 145. ⁹ E.g. Chadwick, op. cit., 34 ; Kelly, op. cit. , 243. Ancient sources give no account of Theophilus' motivation at this point in the narrative.

Theophilus : A Patriarch's dilemma

167

must have been much worse then he expected , and Theophilus found himself faced with a major crisis. He had run up against a strong, flourishing, and satisfying spiritual tradition among the uneducated Egyptian Copts, who interpreted literally language about the hand, eye, and vision of God, and could most naturally grasp divine ideas in material terms ― reasonably enough, given their background, and the literalist flavour of the pagan religion with which many will have been familiar 10. They needed a clear mental image in prayer ; and the exclusion of corporeal notions of God would seem to leave a mental blank where there should have been a divine presence. John Cassian tells the sad story of the monk Sarapion, who says "They have taken away my God ; and now I have none to whom I may cling, and I know not whom to adore or to worship" 11 . The adherents of this tradition were not going to take Theophilus ' condemnation lying down. The resulting backlash forced Theophilus to think quickly and carefully, and led to his famous change of public attitude . Again, the question of his motivation admits many answers. It could be argued that this was the only course open to him, when faced with a menacing mob of militant monks who could deal with an Archbishop as easily as they had dealt with the Serapeum eight years earlier. His enemies maintained that he could see which way the wind was blowing, and aimed by changing sides to retain his influence over the desert , while conveniently satisfying his growing animosity against Isidore and the Tall Brothers 12. It could, however, be argued, with equal force and more sympathy, that the outcry revealed to him the strength and value of the anthropomorphite tradition of spirituality, and that his action arose from a desire to remedy his misjudgement and acknowledge its value, for the sake of such Christians as Cassian's Sarapion. It cannot of course be denied that Theophilus evidently did have a serious grudge against Isidore and the Tall Brothers, and that he pursued it in a fairly vindictive manner. The facts of this matter are well obscured in our sources by polemic and innuendo ; but even from the information we do have, it is arguable that Theophilus was at least as much sinned against as sinning. It is undesirable for a bishop to be censured for pursuing policies which are carefully thought out and pastorally desirable 13 ; nor is it entirely satisfactory for one of his officials to spend diocesan money behind his back - if that is what Isidore did 14. It cannot be denied either that Theophilus later pursued a 10 Cf. the moving mechanical statues of Theodoret, E.H. v.22, indicating the literalist tendencies of at least some popular Alexandrian paganism. 11 Coll. x.3.5. 12 Socrates vi.7; Sozomen viii. 11. Palladius chooses not to mention this part of the business at all. 13 Socrates vi.7. 14 Palladius, Dial. vi ; Sozomen viii. 12. Sozomen recounts various other theories also, as does Socrates vi.9.

168

D.H. RAYNOR

vindictive vendetta against John Chrysostom. But one can understand his resentment at Chrysostom appearing to protect and support those who Theophilus feels have grievously injured both himself and his diocese especially when this is set against the background of his constant Alexandrian resentment of the claims of Constantinople. We find, then, that up to and including the affair of Isidore and the Tall Brothers, the actions and policies of Theophilus can sustain explanation in a different vein from the usual thesis that he was an unscrupulous powerseeker, concerned only to maintain and consolidate his own position , regardless of his effect on the Church or of his own theological credibility. His actions can also be explained in terms of a concern for the spiritual welfare of the simpliciores, and a proper if somewhat over-zealous concern for the unity and right running of his diocese . There still remains his Alexandrian chauvinism ; but that is understandable, if by our standards somewhat reprehensible. At this point, these rival views of Theophilus seem to stand as alternatives . It is when we consider the evidence relating to Theophilus' attitude to Synesius that we find the balance tipping in favour of the more sympathetic view. It is clear that the two enjoyed good relations well before there was any question of Synesius becoming a bishop ; the fact that Synesius ' marriage is blessed by Theophilus indicates a fairly close relationship between the patriarch and the pagan philosopher ¹5 . Nor does the patriarch refuse to consecrate the philosopher as Bishop of Ptolemais despite the outspoken sentiments of the open Letter 105, which is never rescinded . Evidently Theophilus, a decade after his public condemnation of the Origenist tradition of philosophical Christianity, can tolerate a philosopher as a bishop — · even one who thinks of the doctrinal heritage of Christianity as a kind of "kaλóv wεudos" for the edification of the common herd 16. The understanding appears to be that Synesius keeps his opinions to himself, or at least within a limited circle of intimate and like-minded friends, while conforming outwardly to the declared doctrines and policies of the Church . As long as he behaves himself, and plays the part of the bishop satisfactorily, he can believe in whatever fashion he chooses. And indeed, in Synesius' correspondence, we find him an exemplary bishop . He is a shrewd and sensible arbiter in matters of ecclesiastical dispute, and is sufficiently trustworthy to act as an official representative of Theophilus ; his preaching and teaching are entirely unobjectionable ; he can use Scripture to very good effect . Despite his own theological elasticity, he is vehement against the Eunomians and other schismatics, presumably for the pastoral reason that they injure the unity of the Church 17. Behaving like this , he can believe his abstruse philosophy, and still meet with the approval of

15 Ep. 105 (p. 199 Fitzgerald) . 16 Ep. 105 (p. 200 Fitzgerald). 17 E.g. Ep. 5 against the Eunomians.

Theophilus : A Patriarch's dilemma

169

Theophilus. The point seems to be that he does not rock the boat ; he does not endanger the faith of the simpliciores . On the contrary, he ensures that they have a faith that they can grasp and believe, and a strong and stable structure to belong to. The position of the trusted Bishop Synesius, then, gives us an important insight into the attitude of Theophilus himself. It indicates that Theophilus was prepared to allow the intellectual Churchman a considerable amount of flexibility in the matter of his own private beliefs, as long as those beliefs did not have the effect of weakening either the faith of the simpler members of the Church, or the structures and stability on which the simpler members depended . This makes sense of his expedient public condemnation of Origen, while continuing privately, and consistently, to value much of his teaching 18. It seems therefore that Theophilus is far from the ogre that his enemies. have made him out to be. He seems as Patriarch to have reached the understanding that in doing theology and especially in publicly preaching theology it is necessary to take account of the exact position of those whom the theology will affect. The spiritual needs of the anthropomorphites are very real to him, and he is concerned they should not be shaken from their faith. He and Synesius and their like can enjoy the fruits of the intellect, so long as they do not thereby become a stumbling-block to their simpler brethren. The inescapable problem is that they do thereby become a stumblingblock to those who wish to promulgate a more sophisticated and intellectual faith ; and from this problem derives much unhappiness and even tragedy for the Church. That is the horn of the Patriarch's dilemma on which Theophilus ended up impaling himself, from motives rooted in the proper pastoral and spiritual concern of a bishop for his flock. However sad the consequences of that dilemma, it could not be avoided ; and the man who faced it deserves at least a measure of our sympathy.

18 Socrates vi. 17.

Between "Theocracy" and "Simple Life" : Dio Chrysostom, John Chrysostom and the Problem

of Humanizing Society*

Adolf Martin RITTER, Heidelberg

In memory of Hans v. Campenhausen ( 16.12.1903 - 6.1.1989)

1 ) If I am not mistaken, there is widespread agreement among contemporary New Testament exegetes that, contrary to the classical Marxist theory of the proletarian origin and the revolutionary character of early Christianity, neither Jesus ' "gospel of the poor", nor the Pauline or Johannine preaching, nor even the "piety of the poor" which has shaped the Lukan Literature and the letter of St. James respectively (though in different ways and with a different intensity), none of these contain a socio-revolutionary program . It is practically impossible to maintain that they did so, in the light of the expectation of an imminent parousia (an expectation enhanced by foreign rule, social grievances and other distresses) . This, however, is the setting and milieu in which Jesus and the primitive Church live and think . The measure is full ; the "time is fulfilled , and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mk 1,15). Jesus does not seek to propagate any program . But he encourages others to discover and try out new possibilities for common action appropriate to the situation (one need only think of Mt 5-7 with parallels) . These proposals appear to be impossible or even absurd , unless one is willing to disregard for a moment one's previous experiences of life . But possibly, they are suited to breaking up the mechanism of hate and retaliation! And in preaching the God who comes near to "the poor" to those who are hungry and unfortunate and who seek their rights in vain, Jesus tries to make credible the idea that this God does not give up in the face of man's failure, but rather desires that this failure be no longer inevitable nor irremediable. And Jesus' confidence in God's "obligingness" and indefatigability does not invite inaction, but rather it seeks to liberate the one who ventures to be involved with it, in the face of enormous opposition and many failures and constraints, and as well, helps to protect him from a fatal self conceit. Jesus therefore says that the kingdom of God comes, and it comes on its own initiative (avtoµátη ) , inconspicuously and in a way which is very * An expanded German version of this paper, with notes and a full bibliography, will be published in the next volume of the “Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum” (Münster).

Between "Theocracy” and “Simple Life"

171

different from what is expected (Mk 4,26-29) . And the person who takes this into account is , in Jesus' view, protected against burdening himself with the superhuman task of executing divine judgement in an unjust world. In place of these things, he can then concentrate his - in any case restricted ability, on expressing the hope of the coming kingdom of God in a practical, political sphere. The Pauline point of view is similarly unprogrammatic, similarly “ dialectic" . In St. Paul's concept and view of the world , belief in the creation is not, in the end, a key element. What is fundamental is belief in the cosmic turningpoint resulting from the "Christ-event" ; the beginning of a "new creation" into which the believer is already incorporated through baptism (2 Cor 5,17). In other words , кtioιç means for Paul, above all, "unredeemed creation" which can only, in Christ, again become a world that is to be recognized as God's creation. It is not a " neutral" system, but an " epoch" and sphere of secularity: it is a time and a place when believers are subjected to the "powers" and elements of the "world " , or at least , when they are tempted by them . This complex view entails , among other things, the idea that the ethics of St. Paul, like that of the New Testament as a whole, has "primarily an ecclesiological character". That is to say, directions for the behavior of the individual (in the Church and the world) "are tailor-made especially for believing men" (G. Strecker) . It should be remembered however, that for Paul, the Church is understood , not as civitas Platonica, beyond time and space, but as the sphere of the world in which the kingship of Christ is already recognized, proclaimed and attested in the obedience of belief. Thus "conservative" and "revolutionary" impulses intertwine in a very distinctive way, for Jesus, as much as for Paul . These " revolutionary" impulses are also suited to breaking the self-established limits of New Testament ethics and to indicating the way to go beyond the material-ethical judgements (for example in relation to slavery) that were made at that time. 2) If one turns from St. Paul to John Chrysostom, it is, in my view, apparent that, instead of the impulse to adapt or accommodate oneself to the oxñμa of "this world " (Rom. 12,2) , i.e. in this case to the living conditions of late-antique society with its, to some extent, striking grievances and its mass distress, the impulse to change has been intensified rather than weakened . But this view is, as most of you will know, strongly disputed in the literature relevant to our subject . And precisely for this reason I should like to propose it for discussion this afternoon, at the beginning of our Master-Theme. Chrysostom's position is, to my mind , largely similar to Basil's, in that a deeper insight into his nature and work can be achieved only when one tries to do justice to the fact that he made the journey from monasticism to church ministry, without abandoning the monastic ideal intellectually, or even generally calling in question the raison d'être of monasticism. It seems therefore to

172

A.M. RITTER

be necessary to outline his concept of monasticism in relation to Church, before one turns to his ideas of humanizing society. What is fundamental is Chrysostom's insight into the " social" nature of Christianity. For it is for him, whose expertise in the ethical sphere cannot be disputed, the final “criterion of a perfect Christianity" , its exact definition and highest realization , to be surpassed by nothing : to seek what is conducive to the welfare of the community (in ep I ad Cor, h 25 [MG 61,208] ; cf. ibid. , h 36 [ 311 ]) , and to know that one's own well being is, for better or worse, linked with that of one's neighbour (ibid. , h 25 [ 211s . ]) . Or, to speak (with R. Bultmann) in the sense of St. Paul (connecting the "imperative " with the "indicative" of bestowed salvation), Christianity is really no longer a matter of "individual perfection" (лроколη) , but a matter of "edifying" (oikodoμń). And this is so, because one who is set on a new foundation through “ (the evidences of) God's mercy” (dià tõv oiktipµõv toυ lɛoυ [ Rom. 12,1 ] ) , is able to, and ought to, make his neighbour's request for help the final motive and criterion of his own behaviour . Chrysostom also seeks to integrate into this Pauline frame monasticism with its special calling, its special gifts and its special possibilities : “ all" has to contribute "to the common benefit" (лάντа лрòç τò σvμqέρov [I Cor 12,7]) . As he was himself far too active to find full and constant satisfaction in an unadulterated ascetic perfection (H. v. Campenhausen), so he wishes and labours that all monks should put last their endeavour for their own peace of mind (novxía) and their own overcoming of "this aeon", compared with the salvation of their neighbour (de sacerd. VI , 10) . Chrysostom tries, with other words, to persuade the monks not to flee to the solitudes of mountains and deserts, but rather to establish nurseries of "virtue" within towns and villages or, at least, in their neighbourhood, i.e. within that sphere where everyday life is lived and the chance to fulfil the divine will, as well as the " reason" of the Christian hope" (I Peter 3,15), is called in question again and again (cf. inter alia de paen 6,3 ; hom . 67 in Genes, h 43,1 ; in ev Mt, h 43 als 44,5 ; h 72 al 73,4 ; in ep I ad Cor, h 6 [MG 61,53s. ] ; in ep ad Rom, h 27 al 26 [60,643s . ] ; in ep ad Eph , h 6 [ 62,47s . ] ) . Only so would their ascetical ȧyóv be in harmony with Jesus' instruction : " Let your light ... shine before men" (Mt 5,16) , not before mountains, as Chrysostom adds, not in the deserts or inaccessible places (in ep ad Rom, h 27 als 26 [ MG 60,644]) . If it would be apt to ascribe to him on this account (with B. Lohse, A. Stötzel and others) a more and more " reserved attitude towards monasticism " , I dare to doubt. All his life, even as bishop of Constantinople, amidst the courtly bustle and splendour, he adhered not only to an austere, ascetic way of life , but made also no bones about his opinion as regards the positive role and lasting relevance of monasticism. Summarizing this opinion, one could say: for him amidst a Christianity constantly threatened by the danger of secularization, constantly making compromises, constantly coming to terms with the (supposed or really existing) "realities” —, the monks are,

Between "Theocracy" and " Simple Life"

173

simply by very existence, a factor of "beneficial irritation" and a "sign", a living memento of the provisional nature of all that fascinates the "world" and keeps it on edge or that depresses and torments it ; they are a constant reminder that Christians are " strangers" on earth, and an incessant exhortation to a "perfection" which is required of all. And as their example teaches, this perfection is no sheer utopia! When Chrysostom makes critical remarks directed at the monks, he generally has in his mind that monasticism should not remain "dead capital" in the church's " budget", but should be used, as far as possible, for the benefit of the Church's spiritual renewal. This works, however, only on condition that the dangers and symptoms of decadence within monasticism itself are recognized and attacked, that the right priorities within the hierarchy of monastic values and goals are guaranteed , i.e. that they are consequently aligned to the οἰκοδομή of the Church as σῶμα Χριστοῦ . It works, in other words, only if the service to the welfare of the whole community is included in the motives of asceticism itself and ranks there together with the undivided devotion to God's will or, rather, as its supreme expression before all others (cf. inter alia in ev Mt h 77 al 78,5.6; in ep I ad Cor, h 25 [MG 61,209-212] ; in ep ad Tit, h 6 [62,698] ( ; as to the relation between amor dei and amor proximi cf. e.g. in ev Mt, h 16,9 ; 27 al 28,4 ; 71 al 72,1 ; 77 al 78,6; in ev Joh, h 88 al 87,1 ; in ep ad Rom, h 1 vulgo argumentum [ 60,394] ; h 16 al 15 [ 546s . ] ; h 30 al 29 [657-660]). Monasticism can, however, only be provided with such a role, if, as Chrysostom is convinced, there is no " double standard of morals", no different ethics for monks and wordlings, for " perfect" and average Christians. On the contrary, he assures : "Whoever lives in the world, shall have no other advantage over a monk than the allowance to live together with a wife. In this respect he can reckon with indulgence (σvyyvóµn ) ; as to the rest, he has the same obligations as the monk . In the same way are Jesus' Benedictions addressed not only to the monks. Otherwise, the whole world would perish, and we had to charge God , the founder of matrimony, with cruelty". No, "it is possible, quite possible, to pursue a virtuous life even in a married state, if only we want . And how? If those who have wives, be as though they had none...; if we use this world, as not abusing it" (I Cor 7,29-31 ) . "Lead only your marriage adequately (μɛτà σvμμεтpíaç) , so you will be the first in the kingdom of Heaven and enjoy all goods" (in ep ad Hebr, h 7 [MG 63,67s . ] ; cf. also ibid. , h 28 [ 201s .] ; h 30 [210] ; in ep II ad Cor, h 23 [61,553s . ] ; in ev Mt, h 7,7 ; in ep ad Eph, h 1 [62,9s . ]) . 3) Christian "perfection" is, on the other hand, for Chrysostom closely connected with social justice ! The monasteries are, in his view, exemplary not least in that there the societas perfecta can be seen : private property and domination of man over men are unknown , and only mutual subordination and spontaneous service are accepted (cf. only in ev Mt, h 69.70.72 ; A.J.

174

A.M. RITTER

Festugière, Antioche paienne et chrétienne (Paris , 1959) , chapt. XI ) . It is a natural consequence , therefore, when we see social problems occupying a central place in his homilies, in Antioch as well as in Constantinople. From the beginning, in this connection he recommends doing without private property and giving the poor all one possesses . For any property belongs to God and therefore to them, even if it has been legitimately earned or if it has been acquired by inheritance (in ev Mt, h 77 al 78, 4.5 ; cf. h 45 als 46, 3 etc.) . Such a renunciation cannot be enforced, as Chrysostom is quite aware. He knows too well that he is normally faced with people who believe they are doing much when giving alms, however unimportant this may be. His recommendations are therefore, as he can occasionally say, intended " only for the perfect ones", whereas the " less perfect" are implored to use their possessions in order to benefit the poor (in ep I ad Cor, h 15,6). Nevertheless, "perfection" continues to be the goal, and that for all (cf. in ev Mt, h 21,4), because monastic and Christian ethics are for Chrysostom (as for Basil) basically identical. If the western distinction between consilia and praecepta has any starting point at all in the Chrysostomian corpus, the only consilium evangelicum - beyond the commandments, obligatory for all —, which I can detect there, is, if I am right, the "counsel" of voluntary celibacy "for the kingdom od Heaven's sake" (Mt 19,12 [ vide supra]) . Hence, "perfection " continues to be the common goal. This becomes evident, e.g. when we read Chrysostom's homily on Psalm 48,17 (" On the word of the prophet David and on hospitality" [MG 55,512-518 ]) . According to the Bible text to be explained (" Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, when the glory of his house is increased"), the preacher aims primarily at demonstrating that there is, as a matter of fact, no reason for being afraid of another's riches. In this connection, Chrysostom really proves to be a "people's man" who knows, well enough, the ordinary man's feelings. And he takes the liberty to express it frankly (e.g. in the following passage : "These magnificent residential palaces are implacable accusers, raising, still, their accusing voices, when the owner has died long ago ... Each passer-by, seeing the height and the large dimensions of the building, will ask himself or his neighbour: How many tears the erection of this house has cost ? How many orphans have been ransacked ? How many widows have been wronged? How many workmen have been tricked out of their full pay? ... " [§ 3]) . But, what is more essential for us, is to see how the preacher, although this is not necessarily to be expected for the subject of the whole , after all, lets the cat out of the bag ! Chrysostom gives us to understand clearly enough, how, in his view, the problem of poverty and wealth could be solved . His ideas concentrate on the "equality of rights" (iσovoµía). This is, as you know , a central term of Plato's social utopia and means, when Chrysostom adopts it : the "proportionate distribution" of temporal goods, just as the " nature ", heaven, sun, moon and stars, air and sea, fire and water, life, growth, age and illness etc., but also the " spiritual things", the Lord's Supper, baptism as

Between "Theocracy" and " Simple Life"

175

washing of regeneration and promise of God's kingdom, justice, sanctification and redemption together with the "unspeakable" eschatological goods that " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard" (I Cor 2,9) , are common to all (§4) . This is the goal, but not the point to start with. Chrysostom is determined to work for this goal, using all the means he possesses, including those of accommodation and repetition as the most effective means of propaganda. In the school of Libanius he had learned to employ them, to perfection ! It is especially impressing to see him making himself, again and again, an advocate and petitioner of the "poor Christ" (cf. especially Mt 25,31-45) , in order to rouse and keep alive among his listeners a sense of their responsibility towards those who are socially degraded ; so , too, in our homily on Psalm 48,17 ($ 2). It may be a first step, he declares, e.g. when explaining the famous passage on the "rich young man" (Mt 19,16-22) in his homilies on the gospel according to St. Matthew, if one begins by freeing oneself from superfluity (in ev Mt, h 66 al 57,3 ; cf. 45 al 46,2 ; 66,3.4 etc. ) . It may be a first step, if one learns, at least , to distinguish between riches that are obviously earned in an illegitimate way (and/or egoistically misused) and riches one has earned without offending God, unless they are stained with innocent blood, and one continues to use according to God's will. Such a distinction seems to him to be indispensable, if only one thinks of the biblical paradigms of Abraham, Jacob and Job (in ep I ad Cor, h 34,6). In this connection, Chrysostom uses, it is true, pretty often - phrases that are, at first sight, contradictory and open to misunderstanding. Small wonder that they have hitherto caused great confusion in articles or even books. As I see it, things become fairly clear, if one takes Chrysostom's understanding of Christian " perfection" as a starting point and guide and, at the same time, duly takes into consideration the fact that he was unable and unwilling to deny that in his youth he had the benefit of Libanius' training. Though he never in his homilies or writings makes a show of his rhetorical skill, he always remains true to his initia, in that he likes to accentuate the idea he is working out, and that, not infrequently, he fears that his audience might misunderstand him by interpreting his words as sheer hyperbole (de compunct 1,2) . It is only necessary to keep in mind, to whom Chrysostom is speaking and what he is seeking to achieve ; then the danger of making wrong deductions from rhetorical questions and exaggerations can be overcome. It is especially the 34th of his homilies on I Cor , that has proved, again and again, to be a source of misunderstandings. In this homily, an exegesis of I Cor 13,8-13 , Chrysostom begins by investigating the meaning of the Pauline text, understood as " praise of love", and adds then, as in most cases, a practical application to his homiletical exegesis . In this case a bridge illustrate the idea that we all are bound together, by thousands of links , and need one another. So the poor are in need of the rich and vice versa. He illustrates this by the image of two towns : the town of the rich and the town of the poor.

176

A.M. RITTER

But, what is meant in this case by "poor" and "rich"? The poor (лéνητεç) are here equated with workmen, artisans, people belonging to the dñμoç . This means that in this passage, strictly speaking, it is not a question of the contrast between richness and poverty in our sense, but of the relation between capital and labour. Chrysostom's line of reasoning remotely reminds one of those K. Marx and F. Engels followed in the "Communist Manifesto" (Those who labour in the bourgois society, don't earn, and those who earn , don't labour) or of the opening sentence in the "Gotha-Program" of the German social democracy, dating from 1875 (" Labour is the source of richness and all culture"). Nevertheless one has to admit that Chrysostom never draws the conclusion that it is labour, as unique producer of the rich's richness, that must have its product under exclusive control . For all that, Chrysostom attemps at least three times, in public, to strike at the root of poverty : the first time in Antioch, the second and third in Constantinople. In the 66th of his homilies on the gospel according to St. Matthew he examines the pecuniary circumstances in Antioch . One tenth of the Antiochene citizenship may, according to this, pass for rich, another for poor without any possessions, the rest be positioned somewhere in between . The Church has, as we are additionally informed , "only the profit of a rich and a medium property at its disposal" (in form of pious donations, of course). These means, following the official register, suffice to feed every day nearly 3000 widows and virgins, not counting the prisoners in the goals , the sick in the hospitals, newcomers, cripples, mendicants at the doors of the churches etc. Chrysostom comes to the conclusion that if only ten rich Antiochenes could be motivated to expend as much as the Church, then poverty would be banished from the city (in ev Mt , h 66 al 67,3) . Chrysostom seems, according to this text, to expect the solution of the social problem from " distributing" the poor, down to the last man and woman, and attaching them to certain rich people, so that a kind of parochial poor relief, an "institution" of a purely honorary and individualistic character, would be called into existence . Later on, it is true, he pushes forward by projecting a more radical social utopia . His homilies on the Acts of the Apostles e.g. testify to this development . In these homilies, preached in Constantinople about 400 , we see him toying very much with the idea of a community of goods, an idea practised already by the first Christian community of Jerusalem, at least if one follows Luke (in act apost, h 11,3) . Undoubtedly, the episcopal preacher is quite serious about this idea and the proposals he derives from it, although he compares his reflections, in the beginning, with a casually dropped theory. For at the end he exhorts his audience to give the daring enterprise a trial . If this would be done, one would see that it is no sheer utopia, with proof furnished by monasteries and extended families long ago! If this result should be valid, how is it to be explained? The most convincing and consistent explanation is, in my eyes, that Chrysostom was

Between "Theocracy" and " Simple Life"

177

provided with an extraordinary perceptivity to social realities and therefore noticed that the misery in Constantinople — in spite of the imperial gifts of bread was even more oppressively felt . This together with his understanding of Christian "perfection" as involving, in a significant way, social justice, led him in the end to the insight that one could scarcely cope with conditions of grinding poverty only by means of a system of private almsgiving. On the contrary, other solutions to the problem should be looked for in all seriousness ! For the same reason, I think, we see him now using more aggressive language as regards the value of richness ; so e.g. in the 12th homily on the first letter to Timothy. In the course of his exegesis of the text (I Tim 4,1-10) Chrysostom brings up the question, in what respect wealth is a good thing (§4), as " every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused , if it be received with thanksgiving" (I Tim 4,4) . He answers : this does not depend only on how it is acquired, but far more on the way it is used ; it depends on the fact that nobody wishes to possess alone, what belongs to the Lord, or seeks to enjoy alone, what is the common good of all. There is no contradicting the principle that all property belongs to God and consequently to our fellow servants, because "what belongs to the Lord, is, without exception , the common good of all” (Τὰ γὰρ τοῦ Δεσπότου πάντα κοινά) ! In a Christian perspective, in the light of the doctrine of creation, community of goods is, thus, a more adequate form of communal life than private property. What is more, community of goods would not only in a Christian perspective be the best solution, but it is, Chrysostom is convinced, simply " natural" and solely reasonable. For, why does nobody lay claim to the market-place and bring this issue into court ? The reason is that the market-place "is the common good of all" , whereas "as to houses or money we see endless law- suits" (ibid.). 4) One, certainly, can differ in opinion on the question whether community of goods really is the most reasonable and effective form of using the available resources . Aristotle e.g. , as everybody knows, had his serious doubts in this respect or, to tell the truth , he was convinced that it is not (cf. Pol II, 1261b 33/38 ; 1263a11 ) ! But what matters at the moment is Chrysostom's view. It is, I think, practically impossible to deny that, for him, this concept was no pium desiderium, no fondled pet idea, the " unrealizability" of which he intellectually considered as decided . And although he constantly rejects any idea that pressure be used in this connection, and that quite uncompromisingly (cf. e.g. in ev Mt, h 22,5 ; 55 al 56,1 ), and although, astonishingly enough, he does not mention by a single word that a "Christian" empire and a state church already exist, nevertheless it hardly does justice to the peculiar character of his " practical" solutions to poverty to say that these solutions remain within the province of individual charity, and that in this respect Chrysostom's advice for daily living is not seasoned with much utopian salt. It is always the question of which standards one uses !

178

A.M. RITTER

Other examples (as e.g. attitudes towards slavery or the "feminist" problem) would lead us to similar conclusions as to how Chrysostom envisages a humanization of society, provided we chose a methodical approach similar to the one we have just made use of when discussing the problem of property, instead of isolating single sentences from their context. But I have to renounce the idea of furnishing further evidence . For it is high time to pass over to that man whom later generations saw John of Constantinople in such a close relation to that they attributed to him the former's nickname : Dio of Prusa in Bithynia. - Who was this man? And what is it exactly that links the one Chrysostom up to the other? Dio of Prusa, born about 40 A.D. and descended from a noble family (like John), devoted himself, originally, to rhetorical studies . He acted, according to the usual terminology of that time, as a σopioτns. But one gets the impression that, already during his " sophistic" period , he had leanings towards philosophy. In 82 banishment (from Bithynia and Italy) caused a veritable " conversion" to philosophy; his friendship with a relative of the emperor Domitian, being suspected, was the reason (or pretext) for this action. For years Dio led now a vagrant life, absent from his fellow citizens who hardly expected , much less longed for, his return , and earning his living not infrequently by fairly humble services. How he, in doing so , became a "philosopher", he has described in his 13th oration (entitled "In Athens . on exile") . Those who met him called him sometimes a vagabond, sometimes a beggar ; but a few regarded him as a philosopher and asked him about good and evil. This motivated him to reflections and statements on this basic question of ethics. So he became a curer of souls or a preacher, a Cynic, seeking to improve the public circumstances, just as his philosophical ideal demanded it, i.e. to rally round himself young and old, "until they would have become wise and lovers of justice ", until "they had learned to despise gold and silver", also a rich meal, sweet-scended ointments and sexual love ; for, then they lived " as masters of themselves and , at last, also as masters of others" (or 13,33). His main subjects are the praise of poverty (or 7 ; 12 etc. ) which is, in truth , "a holy and unimpeachable thing" (or 7,9 ; cf. 46,11 ) ; and the praise of virtue, being the key to real happiness, so that everybody is the architect of his own future (or 3,1 ; 23 ; 25,1 ; 31,68 ; 65 ; 69) . Dio emphasizes that the reward for virtue is that unlimited inner freedom which never will admit that the virtuous man finds himself compelled to bring charges against his fortune (or 65) , instead of counting himself happy, even in slavery (or 14,9ss .) . For the only slavery worth speaking of, lies in the ignorance as to "what is permitted (or possible) and what is not” (â ¤¿ɛoti kai â µý : or 14,18 ; 15 ; 80,7ss .) . Another favourite theme of Dio's diarpiẞaí is the praise of the "simple", natural "life", prefigured (for the benefit of civilized man) especially in the life of animals (or prehistoric men), in the customs of barbarians or of country- folk, untouched by urban sophistication (or 1,51 ; 30,25) . The great

Between "Theocracy" and "Simple Life"

179

advantages of this " simple life" Dio described in classical style in the famous "village history" of the 7th oration (entitled : "The Euboian oration or The hunter"). Often enough, scholars have seen also in John Chrysostom only the "moralist" in the traces of Cynico-Stoic diatribe - and, as the thesis, submitted for the certificate of habilitation, by A. Stötzel (published Münster 1984) indicates, they continue to do so . This is not surprising, for is not the audience under his pulpit roughly the same as the audience of pagan philosophers such as Dio (Stötzel) ? In fact, in reading Chrysostom's sermons , one easily gains the impression that their prevalent interest is to scourge vices and to praise virtues (cf. in ev Joh , h 23 al 22,1 ) . And the praise of "primitive life ", the praise of virtue and inner freedom as its reward are frequently echoed within these sermons as well as the complaint about the uneffectiveness of all that moralizing (cf. Dio Chr. , or 72, with John Chr. , Ad pop antioch, h 16,2, etc.)! On closer examination, however, this impression is found, as I hope to have shown, to be too superficial, not least because, for example with his allusion to the " social" character of Christianity, Chrysostom knows too well, how to draw limits to the popular philosophy, if not to the ethics of Graeco- Roman antiquity as a whole. The principle návτa rρòç tò ovµæέρov (I Cor 12,7) , certainly, is not the unique insight of St. Paul, but it is to be found commonly enough in Greek and Roman (and , of course, especially Jewish) sources, as every useful commentary on I Cor testifies . This, however, does not alter the fact that, for the Greeks as well as the Romans, every social ethic, "however far reaching in its demands...", is derived “from an absolute respect for the individual" and his ɛvdaμovía (A. Dihle) . This is to be seen most clearly in the Stoa with its oikɛiwoię doctrine, according to which all ethical postulates gradually result from the first instinct of self-preservation and self-development (A. Dihle) . Moreover, it is remarkable and requires explanation, that, of the manifold socio -ethical approaches which emerged from the soil of the intensive political life of Greek лóλɛiç during classical times, many increasingly disappeared in the course of the imperial period . One of the causes for this seems to be that by now, the Hellenistic philosophy "which perhaps with good reason - could rely upon Socrates in its onesided individual ethical orientation " (A. Dihle) had virtually outstripped these manifold approaches. If it now appears, as I am convinced, that Chrysostom has a somewhat

different view, he cannot any longer be content with liberating the individual from his greed, without talking about the way that he uses possessions . And , as we have seen, he did not, but raised the matter again and again! But let us, for a last time, look back from John to Dio Chrysostom . For him the Cynic ideal was of outstanding importance, as it seems, exclusively during his exile . Afterwards we see political subjects again prevaling. For that, however, Stoicism was far more suited to supply a positive theory than

180

A.M. RITTER

Cynicism , so that, in the sequel, Stoic reflections find their rich expression in Dio's texts. Immediately after his return he makes grandiose plans to embellish his home-town, an activity not easily to be brought in harmony with his Cynic principles ; in addition, in the long run it earned him so much unpleasantness on the part of his fellow citizens, that he finally threw up the sponge and left Prusa once more, this time spontaneously and definitely. Even so, Dio's orations now contain the message that it is "natural" for man to work for the community, to interfere in politics, to revere his country or home-town respectively (or 47,2ss. ) , or, what is more, that the philosopher's real life-task lies in causing harmony in the rяóλɛiç (or 48,14) and in preparing for a ruler's career (or 49,3ss .) . What is quite unusual in this period, is the distinct Greek patriotism of Dio , in contrast to the familiar cosmopolitism of Stoics and Cynics . For all this one finds not the slightest equivalent in John Chrysostom's sermons ! One finds there no allusion to the pride or even the arrogance of a Greek, no discourse Пɛpi ẞaoiλɛías, no vision of a philosopher-king, no panegyric on an emperor. Although a townsman, he was also without sense of urban life and civilization . If he had dreams in this respect, he dreamt of the towns becoming monasteries ! In any case, John Chrysostom may, if my analysis is sound , be called to witness that the ethics and eschatology of Jesus and St. Paul have still not lost their critical power, despite Jesus' and Paul's pronounced expectation of an imminent лаρоvoía ; nor have they allowed the complete surrender of the "reasonable service” (λoyɩêǹ λatpɛía) of Christians to the established system . Perhaps one can even go a step further and say that what I suggested at the beginning will prove true : that the " revolutionary" impulses of New Testament ethics and eschatology which proceed from the distinction between the ultimate and the penultimate and, even more, from a radically interpreted άуάлη, tend to bring about the break-down of the self-made barriers and to go beyond the ethical decisions and judgements which were made at the beginning. He likewise may serve as a hint that there is an important "Christian" chapter in the historiography of Utopia : a chapter to which not only all kinds of marginal figures (people such as the Gnostic infant prodigy Epiphanes, for instance) belong, but also a St. Paul and a John Chrysostom. Therefore, we ought to be reflecting now, among other things, on a Christian rehabilitation of utopian thinking . But this would certainly lead us too far astray — at least at the moment!

XVII .

AUGUSTINE , DONATISM , PELAGIANISM

Rodrigue BÉLANGER Joseph BENTIVEGNA , S.J. Ugo BIANCHI , Pamela BRIGHT J. Patout BURNS Donald X. BURT Robert D. CROUSE Leo C. FERRARI W.H.C. FREND B. HARBERT Michael G.St.A. JACKSON N.W. JAMES Bernard KRIEGBAUM, S.J. B. DALSGAARD LARSEN

S. LONGOSZ Jane E. MERDINGER José OROZ RETA Catherine OSBORNE J.F. PROCOPÉ Roger D. RAY Alfred SCHINDLER Carl P.E. SPRINGER Brigitta STOLL Roland J. TESKE, S.J.

N. Joseph TORCHIA L.J. VAN DER LOF Marie-Anne VANNIER J. VAN OORT

Propos d'Augustin sur l'inévitable souillure de l'Église ici-bas

Rodrigue BÉLANGER, Rimourski

La hantise d'une Église « < sans tache ni ride » a habité douloureusement toute la tradition théologique de l'ère patristique. D'une part, l'Église n'a jamais voulu perdre de vue cet idéal de perfection hérité de saint Paul¹ ; on sait aussi que d'autre part, le même idéal a été périodiquement exacerbé dans des controverses aigües qui ont menacé l'unité même de l'Église. On reconnaît bien ici les enjeux qu'ont soulevés les multiples débats sur la discipline pénitentielle et qui ont refait insidieusement surface au cœur même de la crise donatiste 2. A côté de la vision inflexible d'un Hippolyte qui ne pouvait voir dans l'Église que « < la sainte assemblée de ceux qui vivent dans la justice ³ », plusieurs Pères ont dû faire valoir une approche plus pastorale du mystère ecclésial, inspirée de l'attitude miséricordieuse du Sauveur à l'endroit des pécheurs. La grande crise qui a secoué l'Église après la persécution de Dèce a forcé l'ouverture en ce sens puisqu'elle s'est soldée par l'amnistie de la faiblesse humaine et la réintégration des pécheurs repentants dans la communion ecclésiale. G. Bardy s'est fait fort de bien marquer ce gain pour l'histoire de l'ecclésiologie : < On sait, depuis le temps de saint Cyprien, non seulement par la pratique de la vie « mais par les solennelles décisions des conciles, par l'accord de tout l'épiscopat, que l'Église est ici- bas une société mélangée de justes et de pécheurs et que les justes, ou ceux qui se croient tels, n'ont pas le droit de rejeter d'une manière définitive leurs frères pécheurs et repentants, même s'il se sont rendus coupables des plus grands crimes * ». A une époque plus tardive, l'image de l'Église comme « société mélangée » (corpus permixtum) de bons et de méchants est défendue par Augustin qui se voit contraint de nuancer ses propres opinions en réplique aux prétentions séraphiques des pélagiens et des donatistes ". ¹ Cf. Eph. 5 : 25-27. 2 Pour une vue panoramique des aspects majeurs de cette question, on consultera avec profit : G. Bardy, La théologie de l'Église de saint Clément de Rome à saint Irénée (Paris, 1945) ; du même auteur et plus révélateur : La théologie de l'Église de saint Irénée au concile de Nicée (Paris, 1947) . Mentionnons enfin l'ouvrage classique de P. Galtier, L'Église et la rémission des péchés aux premiers siècles (Paris, 1932). 3 In Daniel 1,17. * G. Bardy, La théologie de l'Église de saint Irénée au concile de Nicée (Paris, 1947) , 191 . 5 De Doct. Christ. 3, 32, 45 éd . Vogels, Fl. Patr. 24,65 ; cf. Enarr. in Ps . 99,9-13 (PL 37,12761280) et Serm. 181,1-7 (PL 38,979-983).

184

R. BÉLANGER

Évitant d'entrer dans les méandres de cette double controverse , nous étudierons plutôt ici un texte tout à fait serein de l'évêque d'Hippone, le commentaire sur le lavement des pieds , où se trouve affirmée l'idée d'une inévitable souillure de l'Église ici-bas. Paradoxalement, ce texte qui présente des éléments d'intérêt majeur pour l'ecclésiologie augustinienne ne semble pas avoir retenu l'attention des chercheurs " . Le sujet des modes et degrés d'appartenance à l'Église dans la pensée d'Augustin a fait l'objet de recherches méticuleuses et approfondies . Qu'il me soit permis de m'en remettre sur ce point aux conclusions richement nuancées d'E. Lamirande qui a défié à son tour cet épineux problème avec une rare maîtrise. S'il n'est pas facile de trouver chez Augustin un principe rigoureux d'inclusion des pécheurs dans l'Église « sans tache ni ride » , il devient tout aussi malaisé de vouloir restreindre l'Église terrestre à la seule société des > suivante : Si on affirmait simplement qu'au sein de l'Église catholique, où justes et pécheurs se trouvent mêlés, on peut distinguer un groupe de justes et que c'est à cause de lui que l'Église est appelée Épouse du Christ et communion de saints, on ne serait peut-être pas très éloigné du véritable sentiment de saint Augustin. Si on conteste, cependant, à l'ensemble de l'Église ces caractères pour les réserver au groupe des justes, il nous paraît qu'on dépasse les affirmations de notre docteur . Ce retour synthétique aux vues ecclésiologiques d'Augustin suffira pour

6 Tract. in Jo. 55-58 (CCL 36,463-475). ' Un relevé informatique des recherches augustiniennes, mené sur l'appel de multiples descripteurs ecclésiologiques dans l'œuvre d'Augustin, n'a produit aucune mention de ce texte sur un ensemble de 16,106 documents. Nous savons gré à M. R. Michel Roberge, responsable à l'Université Laval de la Banque Informatisée de Bibliographie patristique, d'avoir effectué cette vérification pour nous . Par ailleurs, à l'occasion de la dixième Conférence d'Oxford ( 1987) le prof. F. Beatrice m'informait qu'il a étudié ce texte d'Augustin sous l'angle liturgique dans son ouvrage récent : La lavanda dei piede (Roma, 1983). 8 A côté de recours plutôt ambigus à cette image ( Serm. 341,13 ; De bapt. 1 , 17, 26 ; 3 , 18, 23 ; 4, 3 , 5 ; 7, 10, 19), Augustin nuance souvent sa réflexion dans d'autres passages de son œuvre, notamment dans le Serm. 181,1-7, où, s'en prenant avec fougue aux « hérétiques pélagiens ou célestiens », il compare le sang versé du Christ au bain purificateur qui efface les taches de l'Église et la croix à l'étendoir qui enlève les rides et il ajoute: « La suppression des taches et des rides, c'est pour ici-bas. La présentation, c'est pour l'au-delà » (Serm. 181,7) . On sait qu'Augustin a finalement clarifié son opinion sur ce point dans deux passages des Rétractationes (1,19,9 et II , 18 ) où il affirme que l'Église ne sera vraiment > dans « < le repos des saintes études » et dans l'âme de ses membres élus de Dieu 25. Mais tel n'est pas son privilège ici-bas et elle manquerait ainsi gravement à sa mission ; il lui incombe plutôt d'affronter les défis de l'évangélisation avec le concours de ses «ministres qui, tant bien que mal , peuvent prêcher, convertir et gouverner les peuples pour ainsi ouvrir au Christ », même s'ils «< craignent de pécher dans un ministère aussi difficile 26» . Il convient donc que par la bouche de ces mêmes ministres, elle adresse son humble supplique au Seigneur : « Lave donc nos pieds qui ont déjà été purifiés

21 Tract. 56,5 : Proinde ecclesia quam mundat Christo lauacro aquae in uerbo, non solum in illis est sine macula et ruga, qui post lauacrum regenerationis continuo ex huius uitae contagione tolluntur, nec calcant terram ut opus habeant pedes lauare, uerum etiam in iis quibus istam misericordiam praebens Dominus, fecit eos de saeculo isto lotis etiam pedibus emigrare . In his autem qui hic demorantur, etiamsi munda sit, quoniam iuste uiuunt ; opus tamen habent pedes lauare, quoniam sine peccato utique non sunt (CCL 36,468). 22 Cant. 5 : 3. 23 Tract. 56,5 : Dicit enim hoc cum cogitur ad Christum uenire, et terram calcare cum uenit (CCL 36,469). 24 Tract. 57 passim et surtout no 6 (CCL 36,469-472) . 25 Tract. 57,3-5 (CCL 36,470-472). 26 Tract. 57,6 : Deinde respiciens ad eos qui praedicare, et populos adquirere ac regere, ac sic Christo aperire utcumque possunt, sed in his difficultatibus actionum peccare metuunt (CCL 36,472).

Sur l'inévitable souillure de l'Église

187

mais qui se sont souillés quand nous avons marché sur la terre pour aller t'ouvrir 27>>. On aura remarqué qu'Augustin maintient un parallélisme strict entre la condition concrète du chrétien et la condition terrestre de l'Église . Le Baptême lave l'homme tout entier en le purifiant de ses fautes ; par ailleurs, la fragilité humaine ne peut surmonter tous les risques de péché qui surgissent en ce monde où l'iniquité sévit toujours ; pourtant, les fautes qui en résultent ne souillent pas la robe baptismale d'une manière irrémédiable puisque la miséricorde du Seigneur l'emporte sur les forces du mal. Le geste du lavement des pieds n'est ici que le symbole de son pardon efficace . De la même façon, l'Église-Épouse a été conquise, aimée et purifiée dans le sang de l'Époux versé sur la croix ; mais elle ne peut se contenter de «< dormir >> et de se complaire dans le souvenir de l'Époux : l'action missionnaire la force de marcher à sa rencontre pour engendrer avec lui une multitude de fils . Elle ne peut donc le faire que dans la poussière du monde qui entache continuellement sa robe nuptiale. Seul le pardon répété de l'Epoux peut la parer à nouveau dans ses atours d'Epouse « < sans tache ni ride >>. Remarquons en terminant que si ce texte d'Augustin sur le lavement des pieds n'est pas unique dans sa teneur ecclésiologique, on ne peut le comparer par la clarté du propos qu'au Sermon 181 où l'évêque d'Hippone lève toute ambiguïté sur la condition de l'Église « < sans tache ni ride » ici-bas. Ces deux textes qui gagneraient tout leur poids dans une étude comparative approfondie se révèlent infiniment plus éloquents sur ce problème que les deux notes réduites qu'Augustin a inscrites au passage dans l'œuvre des Retractationes28.

27 Tract. 57,6: Laua pedes nostros ante mundatos, sed cum ad aperiendum tibi per terram pergimus, inquinatos (CCL 36,472). 28 Retract. 1,19,9 ; II, 18.

The Witness of St. Augustine on the Action of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the Praxis of Charismata in his Times

Joseph BENTIVEGNA, S.J., Messina

The basic principle under whose guidance charismata were practised in the Church of St. Augustine was the perennial presence of Pentecost in the life of the Christian believers through the baptism in the Spirit. After a short treatment of these two themes we will be more equipped to understand the importance that Augustine attached to charismatic activity both in his particular Church and in the Church at large . We will try to do all this by just paraphrasing what the great doctor has to teach on these subjects in his numerous writings.

I. THE PERENNIAL EXPERIENCE OF PENTECOST IN THE CHURCH

The coming of the holy Spirit upon the 120 disciples who were gathered in the upper room must be considered as a turning point in the history of our redemption, for then we entered into the fullness of life, then "we got the birth of the Spirit among us"¹. From that moment a new mission of the holy Spirit begins. The holy Spirit, who had been given only to some people in the Old Testament , has now been poured out in a wholly new way, which can be defined by just one word : "abundance" of spiritual grace2. Abundance of grace, i.e. of holy Spirit, means for each member of the body of Christ a large dispensation enabling him to strive for the realization of every aspect of Christian perfection . We are helped to achieve this aim not only by precepts, sacraments and good examples, but also directly by a special outpouring of the holy Spirit and by a universal and most rich distribution of his own free gifts³ . "Baptism with the holy Spirit" or "baptism of fire " are the expressions used by our Lord to signify the outpouring of the holy Spirit, that should have been, as he had promised, the characteristic of the new times, of the times of the Church +.

1 2 3 4

Sermo 8,17 ; In Psalmum 90,8. De trinitate 4,20 ; cf. De diversis quaestionibus 62 ; In Joannis Evangelium 52,8. De perfectione hominis 20,43 ; cf. De trinitate 15,19,34 ; Sermo 267,2. Cf. Epistola 265,3 ; In Joannis Evangelium 99,7 ; Sermo 67,3.

St. Augustine on the Holy Spirit and Charismata

189

The mystery of this mission of the divine Spirit is described in the Scriptures by a variety of words, such as " inundation , communion, anointing, oil, living water" etc. But whichever word is used, one thing is certain : the outpouring of the pentecostal Spirit in the Church " remains always an act of mercy and grace " . It is an act of mercy because it presupposes that those upon whom it flows " have already received the forgiveness of their sins" . It is an act of grace because it has no relationship with the assessment of man's merits .

II. THE BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT The "Baptism with the Spirit" which proves the persistent presence of Pentecost in the Church can be described as follows: "An extraordinary and irresistible intervention of the supreme might of the holy Spirit, that makes us able to profess and practise in a plenary and perfect manner the divine lordship of Jesus Christ" . This intervention of the holy Spirit is not a sacrament . It is over and above the baptism with water and any other sacramental action of the Church . So it was with the apostles and the disciples who had been baptized with water, as Augustine is firmly convinced, before the ascension of our Lord . So it was normally and still is for all the Christians who are baptized with the Spirit. "We must not think that those who have received a valid baptism have also automatically (continuo) received the holy Spirit" . The pentecostal outpouring of the holy Spirit can be received only by those who, like the first believers, through prayer and spiritual longing have previously become new wineskins in order to receive the new wine " . When that preparation has been carried out, the outpouring of the pentecostal Spirit may be prayed for. At this point it is very useful to note some doctrinal points that according to Augustine must be borne in mind when we pray for a renewed outpouring of the holy Spirit . 1. Neither the apostles nor anyone in the Church is able by any human power to give the holy Spirit. The pentecostal Spirit that "still is given" and "even now comes on the Christians " is a pure divine action ; and such it remains even when we are taught that very often the Spirit is given in connection with our prayer and with the laying on of our hands on those who ask for it 10.

5 De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2,26,42 ; cf. Sermo 32,6 ; Sermo 71,17,28 ; Sermo 143,2,2 ; De trinitate 15,26,46 ; In Psalmum 108,26. • Sermo 144,1,1 ; cf. Sermo 270,6. 7 Cf. De diversis quaestionibus 62 ; Sermo 269,2 ; Sermo 272/B, 1.7 : PLS 2,523.527. 8 Sermo 269,2 ; cf. Epistola 265,3-4 ; Sermo 266,4 . 9 Sermo 267,1 ; cf. Sermo 266,6 ; Sermo 272/b, 1 : PLS 2,523 ; In Psalmum 102,5 ; Epistola 186,10,34. 10 In Joannis Evangelium 6,18 ; cf. Sermo 99,10-12 ; Sermo 269,2.

190

J. BENTIVEGNA

2. The outpouring of the holy Spirit, which was promised by Christ, is beneficial not only for those "who still do not have the Spirit, but also for those who already have the Spirit. This Spirit is given to those who do not have him so that they may begin to possess him, He is given to those who already have him so that they may possess the same Spirit more abundantly" according to their own holiness 11. 3. The laying on of hands by which the pentecostal Spirit is often given is not like the baptism of water, which may not be repeated ; for "it is nothing else but a prayer on a man" 12. 4. The pentecostal Spirit is sometimes given when somebody is preaching. This happened long ago to St. Paul, and the same thing may happen to any preacher. While he is preaching, Augustine asserts, the same thing may happen, provided his hearers have really become new wineskins ¹³ . 5. The pentecostal outpouring of the holy Spirit introduces the believer into the ranks of spiritual men . We are raised up from a tenuous faith in the crucified Jesus, mostly based on material and terrestrial signs, towards a corroborated faith , which gives us the capacity to understand heavenly things, so that we may say that "we speak wisdom among the perfected ones " 14. We must not forget however that our condition on earth, even after we have received the baptism in the Spirit, is still both "carnal and spiritual". That is why we never cease receiving the baptism of the Spirit until we reach our full maturity in heaven 15. 6. The outpouring of the holy Spirit enriches us with a personal and a communal experience of heaven . Such an experience, more than a pledge, is a real foretaste, a partial anticipation of what will be completed in the day when we will share with Christ the fulness of victory over death 16. 7. A most elevating blessing which is given to us through the pentecostal outpouring of the holy Spirit is our singing with jubilation . We sing in jubilation when " God himself gives us the tone of the melody that we must sing". Augustine repeatedly encouraged his congregation to surrender to spiritual jubilation . But he concludes his exhortation by a statement about three other kinds of jubilation . The first might be called "natural jubilation" and it takes place, for instance, " during harvest or vintage or some other ardent work" ; when the people who sing leave off the syllables of words and go into the sound of jubilation 17. Another might be called a " confused jubilation" and this happens when our voice sings in jubilation but our heart,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

In Joannis Evangelium 74,2 ; cf. Epistola 187,2,17 ; Epistola 194,4,18. De baptismo contra Donatistas 3,16,21 . Cf. Sermo 272/B, 1 : PLS 2,523. In Psalmum 73,19 ; cf. In Psalmum 77,17 ; Sermo 71,18,30. Sermo 154,5,7 ; cf. Sermo 128,7,9 : Sermo 136,7,8 ; Sermo 154,6,8 ; Confessiones 13,7,8 . Sermo 156,15,16. In Psalmum 32,ii,s . 1,8.

St. Augustine on the Holy Spirit and Charismata

191

being weak in its faith, does not accept the fulness of this new singing. Augustine warns that people who sing in this way can be jubilant, but only "in confusion" 18. The third kind of jubilation is typical of those who sing all sorts of ungodly and dishonest songs . Spiritual jubilation is never like this . It implies a new heart and a new mind19 ; it is the song of those who while singing are full of heavenly desires . Sometimes they sing in sorrow, sometimes they sing in joy, but always they sing in hope 20.

III. THE CONSTANT PRESENCE OF CHARISMATA IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

The pentecostal outpouring of the holy Spirit implies, as a connatural consequence, what Augustine likes to call " free manifestations of the holy Spirit". Some of these free operations of the Spirit are those listed in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians ( 1 Cor . 12) 21 . The free manifestations of the Spirit are always present in the history of the Church. In his Retractationes Augustine rejects very strongly a distorted interpretation that perhaps had been given to some expressions he had written on these matters 22. Apart from the gift of speaking foreign languages which in the Church of the beginning was given to anyone who received properly the baptism in the Spirit, apart from a very spectacular manner which in those days accompanied the performance of miracles, "nobody, Augustine writes, is entitled to say that our Lord Jesus Christ does not perform such marvels even nowadays" 23. Consequently the earliest times of the Church in this respect do not have any privilege over our present times . Regarding this aspect, even now the Spirit is at work in the whole variety of his free manifestations 24. Augustine does not pay any heed to the problem of terminology. The expression varietas charismatum was used in a letter written to him by Paulinus of Nola . But Augustine's Latin apparently prevents him from using this greek word in his reply 25. When he speaks of the gratuitous gifts, which are freely and diversely distributed by the holy Spirit, he employs a great variety of words, such as munera , gratiae, dona, mirabilia, signa, miracula, virtutes. He then lets the reader guess which sense must be given to the term used in each particular case 26.

18 In Psalmum 99,3. 19 In Psalmum 99,3. 20 In Psalmum 123,12. 21 In Joannis Evangelium 32,8. 22 Retractationes 1,13,7 ; 1,14,5 ; cf. De utilitate credendi ad Honoratum 16,34) . 23 Sermo 88,2,2 . 24 Sermo 267,4. 25 Epistola 94,7; cf. Epistola 149. 26 Cf. Confessiones 13,7,8 ; 13,34,49 ; Epistola 120,1,5 ; De Genesi ad litteram 12,34,65 ; In Psalmum 32,ii,2,21 ; In Psalmum 35,18 ; In Psalmum 67,17 ; In Psalmum 143,3 ; Sermo 285,3 ; De cura pro mortuis gerenda 16,19 ; De Civitate Dei 18,50.

192

J. BENTIVEGNA

Whoever tries to explain the charismata must not forget that they are part of the mystery of our salvation and that they are an exalted and divine reality 27. Charismata are signs that show the difference between the order of creation and the order of the new creation 28. They are like the moon and the stars, which through their variety are necessary to illumine the desolate night of our present time . They are like weapons by which the members of the body of Christ are well equipped to fight against whatever in this world falls under the oppressing rule of Satan29. Although the Spirit is always one and undivided , the free manifestations of the same Spirit are distributed differently. This difference in the life of the Church depends on times, persons and places of worship 30. Each time has its own special needs, each saint his personal function , each place its particular importance. Each age in the Church is characterized by a particular intervention of the holy Spirit. A clear example of this fact can be found , as Augustine frequently stresses, in the gift of tongues. After the times of the primordial Church, those who receive the Spirit do not speak all languages any more as they did in the first Christian communities. The Church is governed by the same pentecostal Spirit, but the action of the Spirit no longer operates in this particular kind of genera linguarum (cfr 1 Cor 12,10) ³¹ . The variety in the distribution of charismata applies according to St. Augustine to different saints and places, so that we may speak both of personal and local charismata . Indeed it is true that the Lord apportions his charismata to each saint as he wants, and it is true as well that not all the graves or sanctuaries of the martyrs have the same kind of miracles 32. That is why in some places of worship like Ancona and Uzalis all “feel the presence of a great divine power" 33. That is why the intercession of St. Stephen "obtains many things , but not everything" 34 ; and even what is obtained in one shrine is not equally obtained in another 35. The prayers of blessed Felix of Nola, when they are requested at his grave in Nola have a particular power: they bind one whose conscience is not clear and sound to confess his faults either through punishment or through fear of punishment. This was so certain that Augustine sent there two men of his diocese who accused each other about some misdeed 36. 27 Contra Faustum Manichaeum 21,8. 28 De cura pro mortuis gerenda 16,19 ; cf. Epistola 95,8 ; De Genesi ad litteram 12,13,28 ; 12,22,48 ; De anima et eius origine 4,21,35. 29 De Genesi ad litteram 11,24,31 ; 11,25,32 ; cf. In Psalmum 135,8 ; In Psalmum 143,3 ; Confessiones 13,18,23 . 30 Sermo 269,1-2 . 31 In Joannis Evangelium 32,7 ; cf. Sermo 267,2-3. 32 Epistola 78,3. 33 Sermo 323,3. 34 Sermo 119,6,6. 35 Sermo 323,2,2. 36 Epistola 78,3.

St. Augustine on the Holy Spirit and Charismata

193

IV. THE FIRMament of Charismata

Charismata are the innumerable free gifts by which Christ after his ascent into heaven fills with beauty the earthly house of the people where he dwells . By his ascension into heaven Jesus Christ has opened, as it were, the cataracts of his gifts, whose inventory cannot possibly be made 37. We shall try to mention only some charismata which are particularly dear to Augustine, because either directly or indirectly they have been experienced by him in the Church of his times. 1. Dreams and visions. Augustine admits that there are visions and dreams which are part of the Christian experience of the action of the pentecostal Spirit in our life. He gives a description of such phenomena by saying that "they are cases in which our soul is assumed by the Spirit, who presents to us in a divine manner the things that he wants to be seen by us " 38. The writings of St. Augustine report many episodes where a dream is mostly used by God as a channel of a divine manifestation. "They are so many, he says, that I have not enough time to record all the cases of this experience" 39. Here is a list of some examples. Gennadius during a dream has the vision of a young man who lets him hear the hymns of the saints ; and so all his doubts about the after life are fully banished40. Paul and his sister Palladia go to Hippo in order to be healed from the consequences of the curse of their mother ; they do this because through dream-visions they have been guided to the town by a bishop seen in a dream and this was St. Augustine himself4¹ . Innocentia, a most pious woman from the town of Carthage, was told in a dream-vision that God wanted to heal her from a breast cancer by the sign of the cross made over the afflicted area by a newly baptized woman. Following this advice she was happily healed from that terrible disease42 . In the year 386 Bishop Ambrose was told in a dream-vision the exact spot where the relics of the martyrs Gervase and Protase had been buried 43. In the year 415 the relics of St. Stephen were discovered in a similar way44. It was precisely by means of dream-visions that St. Monica had come to know about the future conversion of her son45 . Finally it was in obedience to a dream-vision that 37 In Psalmum 67,16 ; cf. Confessiones 13,13,14 ; In Psalmum 67,16. 38 De Genesi ad litteram 12,21,44. 39 Epistola 159,5. 40 Epistola 159,3. 41 Sermo 322,3. 42 De Civitate Dei 22,8,3. 43 Confessiones 9,7,16 ; cf. De Civitate Dei 22,8,14 . Sermo 286,5,4. 44 Sermo 319,6,6. 45 Cf. De Genesi ad litteram 12,21,44 ; De anima et eius origine 4,17,25 ; Confessiones 3,11,19 ; 6,1,13 ; 5,9,17.

194

J. BENTIVEGNA

Augustine, who was already in his death-bed , agreed to lay his hands on a sick man and suddenly cured him46 . St. Augustine does not withold his respect for any vision or dream where it is clear that they are due to a divine operation, when it is evident that they are used by the Most High to make known his revelations. Nevertheless he knows quite well that a clear distinction must be made between what happens through a divine intervention and those phenomena that are connected perhaps either with some unknown powers of our own nature or with some occult insinuations of Satanic nature47. 2. Miracles Miracles are signs of God's omnipotence, which are not against nature but rather against our knowledge . In his work De utilitate credendi Augustine gives us a short definition of these signs : "I call miracle whatever proves to be arduous and uncommon and above the expectation (spem) and capacity of those who admire it". Such miracles, he continues, are very frequent in our times and they happen normally in three ways : when we administer the sacraments, when we pray for a particular favour and when we entreat God at the memoriae of his saints and of his martyrs 48. Very few people get to know the numerous miracles that happen in many places especially when a town is too large. In addition people who do not experience them directly find it difficult to accept them, although such miracles are reported by some Christians to other fellow believers 49. In the "City of God" Augustine gives us an account of a large number of miracles that happened in his days . He remarks that these miracles are so many that any attempt to make a full record of them would be unrealistic 50. These numerous accounts of miracles apparently were possible because Augustine around the year 424 had introduced in his diocese the custom of the so called libelli or written testimonies of the miracles of God ; a custom which was later also introduced in the neighbouring communities. The libelli were read in front of the liturgical assembly in the Church "to give due glory and honour to the Lord" ¹ . A complete example of one of these libelli was included in a sermon delivered by St. Augustine at Easter 425 52. As for dreams and visions Augustine also suggests some very important

pastoral instructions concerning miracles .

46 Possidius, Vita Augustini 29. 47 De Genesi ad litteram 12,19,41 ; cf. De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum 2,3,1 ; De cura pro mortuis gerenda 11,13. 48 De utilitate credendi 16,34. 49 De Civitate Dei 22,8,1. so De Civitate Dei 22,8,1-7 ; cf. Sermo 323,2,2 ; Sermo 324. 51 Sermo 319,8,7 ; cf. Sermo 320. 52 Sermo 322.

St. Augustine on the Holy Spirit and Charismata

195

a) Those who are enabled to perform miracles could be either good Christians or bad Christians or even magicians. Anyone however who perform miracles without having God in his heart is not a true miracle worker, because he is not part of the living temple of God . He is only a stranger who, through the omnipresent influence of God or the ministry of his angels, helps to spread the name of Christ 53. b) Any believer who thinks that he cannot be a good Christian unless he performs some miracle is simply one who tempts the Lord our God. "Many have gone wrong just because of their desire to do prodigious things” 54. c) The main purpose of the miracles that have been wrought by our Lord and those that are still performed in his name is not to be found in this transitory life. Their aim is to confirm our faith in the resurrection of Christ and in the resurrection of our body and to aid us to attain eternity 55 .

3. Casting out devils Among the charismatic operations of the Spirit Augustine includes also casting out devils. This charisma , he says , is normally exercised by those who preside over Church congregations. Bishops and presbyters fulfill their office when they lay their hands on or exorcise people who are afflicted by demons. Their prayers, their earnest appeals, their supplications are the most efficacious means to cast out devils and heal the effects of their maleficent influence 56. Augustine gives us a selection of deliverances by which this doctrine is confirmed. A girl at Hippo was suddenly delivered from the devil as soon as she anointed herself with some oil in which a priest had mingled his tears when praying for her. A boy received the same relief as soon as a bishop without seeing him had finished praying for him 57. The house of Experius, a tribune, was suffering from the attacks of evil spirits, who tormented both his servants and his animals. He asked the help of a priest who went there and offered the sacrifice of the body of Christ and prayed as hard as he could for that molestation to cease : the devils were suddenly expelled 58. Augustine teaches that any disturbance received either from a wicked man or from any evil angel may be cast out through the prayers and religious singing of every Christian especially when such actions are joined with a profession of faith 59. Thus was the case of a youngster who, while washing his horse became possessed by a demon and fell down half dead. This demon

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

De diversis quaestionibus 79,3-4 ; cf. Epistola 187,13,36. In Psalmum 90,7 ; cf. In Psalmum 130,6. Cf. De diversis quaestionibus 79,3-4 ; Ep. 187,12,36 ; De Civitate Dei 22,9. Cf. Sermo 71,16,26; De beata vita 3,18 ; Confessiones 9,7,16. De Civitate Dei 22,8,8 ; cf. Possidius, Vita Augustini 29,4. De Civitate Dei 22,8,7. In Psalmum 117,4.

196

J. BENTIVEGNA

was powerfully affected by the prayers of some nuns and women who had come to say their evening prayers in a chapel dedicated to the saints Gervase and Protase in that area; the devil after reacting violently left the young man free. The possession left a blemish in one eye of the young man ; but he was quite healed from that touble also after seven days of earnest prayers in the "memoria" of the two saints, where many other sick people had already been cured 60. A powerful antidote to any diabolical influence was the recourse to the shrines of the saints, especially where relics of the martyrs were venerated . The demons themselves acknowledged how powerful was this charisma of the saints 61 The practice of the charisma of casting out devils gave Augustine the opportunity to enunciate valuable doctrines together with some pastoral directions about the use of this spiritual gift. a) Satan together with his angels and with those who have apostatized from Christ and the Church and with all those who are under the dominion of the evil spirits form what can be called " the body of the devil" 62 . b) Neither the devil nor any human and spiritual being has the power to cause evil to men , unless this has been granted to them by the supreme authority of God . The devil in fact has only the will to tempt men, but he has no power whatsoever either regarding the object or the manner of the temptation 63. c) The domination of the devil can only be exercised on those who surrender to his deceits and give some consent to him ; but never on those who really resist him 64. d) Those who are full of cupidity for things that are ephemeral and consequently live full of fear of temporal misfortunes are unfortunately unguarded against diabolical attack, because through such passions they themselves bear a resemblance to the devils 65 . e) Those whose perfection is in full progress and consequently have their hearts governed by the Spirit of God are well shielded by the powerful help that comes from on High. No real harm can be inflicted by the body of the devil on those who have become light in the Lord especially when they lift up their hearts and praise our God . 4. Ecstasy and resting in the Spirit Ecstasy is a mental movement which happens when the human soul is 60 De Civitate Dei 22,8,7 ; De Genesi ad litteram 12,17,35. 61 Epistola 78,3. 62 De Genesi ad litteram 11,24,31 ; cf. De beata vita 3,16 ; In Psalmum 76,7 ; In Psalmum 100,12 ; In Psalmum 117,4 ; In Psalmum 136,8 ; In Psalmum 139,4. 63 Cf. In Psalmum 103,3,2,2 ; De Genesi ad litteram 11,22,34. 64 Sermo 32,11. 65 Sermo 32,13. 66 In Psalmum 117,4 ; cf. In Psalmum 91,6 ; De Civitate Dei 22,8,7.

St. Augustine on the Holy Spirit and Charismata

197

totally diverted and withdrawn from the bodily senses 67. When this excessus mentis is produced by divine intervention , then we call this a spiritual ecstasy, by which God pervades the human spirit with a view to some revelation168 68,. That was, for instance, the case of a very pious peasant with whom Augustine was well acquainted . The Saint writes : "About ecstasy I had the opportunity to listen to a man, just a peasant who was hardly able to express his feelings. He knew that he was awake and that he saw something without using the eyes of his body. To use his words, as far as I remember, he said : My soul saw it, but my eyes did not. He did not know whether it was a body or the image of a body. He was able to discern these things, but his faith was so simple that, while I was listening to what he said he had seen, I got the impression that I myself was seeing what he described" 69. Augustine goes on explaining : This is a case where our mind "by virtue of an intense love towards celestial things goes beyond itself to the point where it loses the memory of worldly things. This is the ecstasy experienced by the saints, when they received the revelation of the divine mysteries that surpass this world" 70. Referring to this same kind of spiritual experience he says : "In this state, even if one has open eyes , none of the bodies present is seen and no voice at all is heard . The insight of the soul is totally concentrated either on some bodily images (this is the case of a spiritual vision) or on things that are incorporeal (and this is the case of an intellectual vision) " 71 . These two kinds of divine operation are part of the channels through which the Spirit of prophecy discloses his revelations either to an individual or to a community 72. Augustine considers as a case of ecstasy the state of some people who, as a divine operation comes, because of a deep fear pervading their mind lose the full use of their consciousness and have no more memory of terrestrial things. The fear that gives rise to this excessus mentis is the fear of the just man under affliction who appeals to God's mercy to be delivered , the fear of those who, in spite of a deep apprehension of being cast away from God's sight, are still confident that the voice of their prayer will be heard 73. One could easily compare this type of ecstasy with the phenomenon known as being "slain in the Spirit" 74. This comparison can be confirmed, for instance , by some

67 De Genesi ad litteram 12,12,25. 68 De Anima et eius origine 4,17,25 ; cf. In Psalmum 30,1,1 . 69 De Genesi ad litteram 12,2,14. 70 In Psalmum 30,ii,2 ; cf. In Psalmum 67,36. 71 De Genesi ad litteram 12,12,25. 72 De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum 2,1 ; cf. In Psalmum 30,1,1 ; De Genesi ad litteram 12,5,14. 73 In Psalmum 30,1,2 ; cf. In Psalmum 30,2,1 ; In Psalmum 30,2,2. 74 Cf. F.A. Sullivan S.J. , Charisms and Charismatic Renewal (Servant Book ; Michigan, 1982), p. 158.

J. BENTIVEGNA

198

details contained in the description of the healing of Paul and Palladia we have mentioned above. "On Easter morning (it was the year 425) a large congregation gathered in the Church. The young Paul was praying by the grating where the relic of the martyr was kept . Suddenly Paul fell to the ground like one who is asleep . The tremor he usually had even when asleep stopped . The spectators were stupefied, so to speak. Some were frightened , others were moved by pity for him. Some wanted to lift him up, but were prevented by others who said that it was better to see the end of it all . But suddenly the young man stood up by himself. He was no longer trembling, for he had been healed and stood there safe and sound looking at those who looked at him... On the third day after Easter Sunday... after the reading of the libellus was over... Palladia went up to pray by the cella of the martyr . As soon as she touched the grating, she fell to the ground as though she was asleep and stood up thoroughly cured " 75 .

5. Prophecy Prophecy for Augustine is a free manifestation of the holy Spirit by which some people receive a communicable intelligence of truths connected with our salvation but impervious to any natural understanding 76. a) The reception of these truths implies a state of rapture whereby our intelligence is put in contact with spiritual visions and is enabled to see the things of our salvation with the sharp perception that will be given to everybody only in heaven " . b) These spiritual visions relate either to the past or to present or to the future. c) These events are made known to the prophets in ways and to the extent chosen by God's providence . It is God who on each occasion decides which things concealed should be made manifest to a prophet 78. d) All revelations are communicated to others at a time when it is necessary that they should be known 79. Indeed such revelations are necessary to make our knowledge of salvation less confused ; for "we see now through a glass in a dark manner" (1 Cor. 13,12) . "So long as our knowledge is imperfect the eternal light of the evident truth is made known to us through the many and diverse forms of prophecy" 80. e) A prophecy could be uttered in tongues . When this happens the prophecy remains in a state of mere sign and it will not be understandable unless God loosens the tongue . For only then a person is enabled to express

75 76 77 78 79 80

De Civitate Dei 22,8,22. Sermo 243,6,5. Cf. Sermo 243,6,5. De cura pro mortuis gerenda 15,18 . Cf. De Genesi ad litteram 12,19,41 ; De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum 2,1 . De Spiritu et littera 24,41.

St. Augustine on the Holy Spirit and Charismata

199

content of the prophecy with words that are intelligible. When that happens, then we receive a clear understanding of the things that God wants to communicate to us in each particular case. This will be called revelation or knowledge or foretelling or teaching, as the case may beº¹ . The praxis of prophecy is admitted without doubt in the writings of St. Augustine. It was through prophetic warning that many miracles happened 82. It was through the charisma of prophecy that the monk John informed Theodosius the Great about the result of a civil war. The prophetic power of the monk John is also proved by an episode of bilocation that took place when he had promised to appear during the night to a pious woman he could not receive and instruct in his hermitage 83 . We may conclude the teaching of Augustine on prophecy by collecting some valuable pastoral guidance that he left for those who deal with prophecies at all times. 1) The true prophet has no need to proclaim that he is a prophet . For he has no doubt of any kind ; in this regard "he judges all things and he himself is judged of no man" (1 Cor. 2,15) 84. 2) A false prophet is a man "who does count upon being a prophet, but just for this very reason he is by no means a prophet". He pretends to speak in the name of the Lord , but actually he does not know what he says 85. None the less "no contact with (human) souls can stain the Spirit of prophecy". The Lord, in his power and providence, can use even a false prophet and let him utter prophecies that help to spread the knowledge of Christ. 3) It is the Lord's command that the Church should ignore any false prophet as Christ himself did and does (cf. Mt. 7,22) . Most of the tumults and disorders in the Church are produced by those who believe that they are in the Church something which in fact they are not. 4) The charisma of prophecy is very often a transitory gift . Therefore "nobody who for once was used by God to utter prophecies may presume that he has received a sort of perpetual habit and a special title to be reckoned among the prophets" 86. 5) Prophecies remain always a fact of great moment and always preserve their true worth, even though sometimes those who have this charisma do not receive any advantage from it because of their iniquity and lack of charity87.

81 De Genesi ad litteram 12,8,19. 82 De Civitate Dei 22,8,14 ; cf. Sermo 323,2,2. 83 De cura pro mortuis gerenda 17,21 . 84 Epistola 169,2. 85 Ibid., cf. Epistola 187,12,36 ; Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum 2,9,15. 86 De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum 2,1,2. 87 Sermo 90,6.

200

J. BENTIVEGNA

6. Discernment of spirits. Discernment is a spiritual gift through which the believer is enlightened by the holy Spirit so as to be able to express a sure judgement about things that are too profound for our intelligence to be naturally assessed . This enlightment of the holy Spirit is necessary especially in the following cases : a) When things, besides being superior to our human knowledge, are not naturally conceivable because they are part of the prodigious interventions of God's might 88. b) When it is difficult to know the evil that is concealed under the appearance of good . "It is not a great thing to recognize as an evildoer one whose actions are openly against morals and the rule of faith ; in such a case there are many who are able to discern . One who has the charisma of discernment, over and above this, is able to notice quite swiftly if one, who at first sight looks still good , is, in fact, an evildoer instead❞89. c) Especially when one has been so cunningly seduced and attracted by the evil spirit that he takes for true and advantageous what instead is harmful and false 9º.

V. THE GREAT GIFT OF PENTECOSTAL CHARITY

The free and gratuitous gifts of the holy Spirit are holy things and must be treated with holiness¹ . The ideal field where such spiritual things flourish is constituted by those believers, whose life is permeated by charity stemming from a pure heart and a good conscience and an unfeigned faith 92. The summit of charity to which unfeigned faith leads is the new love that has been poured out abundantly all over the earth with the pentecostal coming of the holy Spirit. This pentecostal charity, as we may call it, cannot be shared , Augustine asserts, except by those who live in the unity of the catholic Church 93. "All those who are away and distant from the way of truth - be they pagans, Jews, heretics or bad christians are perhaps in possession of many gifts, but cannot have charity" 94. Being sensual men who are always looking for quarrels they separate themselves from the unity that only the spirituales enjoy, they do not have the Spirit 95. There is no Spirit in those who are not able to bear one another's burden with love and with all humility

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

De cura pro mortuis gerenda 16,20. De Genesi ad litteram 12,14,28 ; 12,14,30. De Genesi ad litteram 12,13,28. In Psalmum 103,1,9. De baptismo contra Donatistas 3,16,21 . Sermo 265,9,11. In Psalmum 103,1,9 ; In Joannis Evangelium 13,17. Sermo 269,3.

St. Augustine on the Holy Spirit and Charismata

201

and meekness⁹% . Even virginity and continence and giving alms do not produce any advantage in those who are proud and haughty and reduce to pieces the unity, that is the tunic of charity97 . The pentecostal charity is the greatest among the gifts that the holy Spirit pours into the hearts of those who receive him as living members of the unique body of Christ, that is the Church . "Outside this body the holy Spirit does not give life to anybody. For, as the Apostle says : 'The charity of God is poured forth into our hearts by the holy Spirit who is given to us' ( Rom . 5,5) . No one, then, who is enemy of unity is able to participate in divine charity" that is experienced by those who have love for the Church 98. Hence we think that the best conclusion Augustine would suggest for this paper on the action of the holy Spirit in the Church is a passage of his 32nd Treatise on the Gospel of John : "We too receive the holy Spirit, if we love the Church, if we are held together through charity, if we both by name and by faith deserve to be called catholic . Be sure , you faithful, that to the extent that one loves the Church so in the same degree one has the Spirit" 99.

96 97 98 99

Sermo 270,6. In Joannis Evangelium 13,15. Epistola 185,11,50 ; In Joannis Evangelium 32,7. In Joannis Evangelium 32,8.

Augustine on Concupiscence

Ugo BIANCHI , Rome

In memory ofFr. Agostino Trapè O.S.A. Excessit a tempore, accessit ad aevum.

In this presentation we will not discuss Augustine's notion of concupiscence within the field of morals. I will also abstain from drawing a systematic typology of concupiscence according to Augustinee.g., fleshly against rational concupiscence, inordinate and infra-lapsarian against pre-lapsarian concupiscence, sexual concupiscence as a sub-type of carnal concupiscence, etc. Our special aim is a discussion of the nature and the role of concupiscence as a constituent element of infra-lapsarian anthropology according to Augustine . We will also discuss - still from this outlook the relationship between sexual concupiscence and the propagation of original sin . It is well known that it is precisely in the context of the act of procreation that concupiscence is given, according to Augustine , the decisive and compulsory role of tradux peccati. On this basis, we will pose the question as to whether we are entitled to speak of an ontological aspect of sexual concupiscence within the general framework of Augustine's infra-lapsarian anthropology. In this context, we will pose the question whether the latter includes in itself Bibliographical note. The references implicit in the first part of this presentation are explicit in the following works. U. Bianchi (ed. ) , La “ doppia creazione ” dell'uomo negli Alessandrini, nei Cappadoci e nella gnosi (Roma, 1978) ; U. Bianchi (ed. ) , Archè e telos. L'antropologia di Origene e di Gregorio di Nissa (Studia Patristica Mediolanensia vol. XII ; Milano, 1981 ) ; P. Pisi, Genesis e phthorà. Le motivazioni protologiche della verginità in Gregorio di Nissa e nella tradizione dell'enkrateia (Roma, 1981 ) ; G. Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia. Le motivazioni protologiche della continenza e della verginità nel cristianesimo dei primi secoli e nello gnosticismo (Studia ephemer. Augustinianum vol . 20 ; Roma, 1984) ; Ead., Origene. Studi di antropologia e di storia della tradizione (Roma, 1984) ; Ead . , Gnostica et Hermetica. Saggi sullo gnosticismo e sull'ermetismo (Roma, 1982) ; U. Bianchi, Prometeo , Orfeo, Adamo. Tematiche religiose sul destino, il male, la salvezza (Roma, 1976) ; Id . (ed .), La tradizione dell'enkrateia. Motivazioni ontologiche e protologiche (Atti delle Colloquio di Milano, 1982) (Roma, 1985). See also the articles Protologia, by U. Bianchi and G. Sfameni Gasparro, Doppia creazione e Dualismo, by G. Sfameni Gasparro, in the Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane (Roma, 1983-4). As for Augustine, see G. Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia, already quoted , pp. 300322, and Ead., "Il tema della concupiscentia in Agostino e la tradizione dell'enkrateia” , in Miscellanea di studi agostiniani in onore di P. Agostino Trapè OSA (Augustinianum 25, 1985) , pp. 155-183, and the contribution of the present writer, "Aspetti ontologici della transmissione del peccato in Agostimo. Osservazioni preliminari", in the Proceedings of the Augustinian Congress, Rome, 1986, "Studia Ephem . Augustinianum” 24, 1987, I, pp. 451-464.

Augustine on Concupiscence

203

some remnants or survivals of dualistic thought, so widespread, in different forms, in Late Antiquity. This position, at any rate, is not to be confused with Augustine's case against Manichaeism and its theory of (üλn as) evil substance ; but at the same time it is an issue irreducible to such vague notions as "Platonic influence" or "ethical dualism". Treating the issue of fleshly concupiscence as a constituent element of infra-lapsarian corporeity and as a tradux peccati, we also intend to draw attention to some research activity carried on in various Italian universities (Messina, Bologna, Rome, and the Catholic University of Milan) , as well as in international symposia held in these towns on the subject matter of "protology" in the religions and the philosophical systems of Late Antiquity. By "protology" we mean a notion which is complementary to "eschatology" ; that is, a doctrine of the first origins and the primordial events concerning man and the world . In this general sense, protology, as well as eschatology, is a constituent element of any Christian and Jewish theological system . For our research, however, we have chosen those protological doctrines which are of specific interest for the study of dualism , particularly anthropological dualism in Late Antiquity. Doing so, we are confident of not falling into a "hermeneutical circle", or worse into petitio principii, since our setting is comparative- historical . Before discussing some Augustinian texts concerning our theme, I would like to introduce a few preliminary notions well represented in the thought of the Fathers prior to Augustine, concerning protology. 1 ) The correspondence between ȧpxń , "beginning", and tέλoç, "consummation". This correspondence is prominent in Origen and the Origenian Fathers. Inter alia it is also intended for a description of the pre-lapsarian condition of man, drawn up on the basis of man's eschatological condition , following resurrection . One of the corollaries of this correspondence (even if not conceived as perfectly symmetrical) was that marriage and sexual procreation were excluded from the pre-lapsarian condition of man : a notion , mostly a legacy of Origenian speculation, which had been transmitted to the if only as a West, inter alia, via Ambrose, and accepted by Augustine hypothesis among others

in his earlier speculation on marriage and

sexuality. 2) The notion of a "double creation" , that is, and more properly, a first creation (Ktioιs), putting into existence man as an image of God, with a light or ethereal corporeity, and a second creation (more properly a "constitution", kaτασkɛuń) consisting in the physiological and, more specifically, sexual constitution of man : a second creation which is mostly infra-lapsarian, motivated by a primordial fall of man, or, in Origen, of soul (properly: of vous) from a heavenly, paradisiac and nearly angelic condition of existence. The case of Gregory of Nyssa should be sub-distinguished : he excludes for theological reasons a diachrony between the two creations, both of them

204

U. BIANCHI

being an act of God, but he also posits an axiological and ontological divarication between them. According to him God created already in the beginning the physiological corporeity of Adam having foreseen the sin he would commit in Paradise. This way, the prescience of God anticipates the effect of Adam's sin ; whereas in the Origenian tradition, as we have seen, that sin motivates God's creation of man's physiological corporeity, in which God acts both as a giver of retribution and a pedagogical healer. For this reason we are entitled to speak of a "second creation" also for Gregory. 3) Further, and connected with point 2, the issue of a dualistic anthropology, the radical formulation of which belongs to Greek mysteriosophical tradition (Orphism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism , with their gnostic and docetic derivations), but is also found, in more or less Christianized (and at any rate radically modified) forms, in the " Platonic" Fathers . This anthropology is dualistic for the converging reasons that it resorts to the theory of double creation (One creator God , two "creations") and it excludes sex and physiology (but not corporeity) from the inner (and primordial) essence of man, or posits them as teleologically incompatible with the essence of soul . Such a doctrine, proper to Origen and, with adaptations and various emphases, to the Origenian Fathers, clashes obviously with the gnostic notion of лνεйμµа , σãµɑ and ʊλŋ , as well as with the Manichaean notion of body and matter as evil substance. 4) The question of έyкpάτɛια (alimentary and, more frequently, sexual continence) as specifically motivated by protological reasons , that is, conceived as a return to a virginal, pre- lapsarian condition of man ; - a motivation different from others (as e.g. those in Paul's I Cor. ) and connected with the already discussed notion of "double creation"). 5) and finally : the distinction, indeed opposition , between two only partially overlapping notions : that is, " original sin" , on one side, and " previous sin" on the other. The difference is clear. By "original sin" (not necessarily understood, for our present purpose, in all its internal, theological and dogmatic articulations - Augustinian , Tridentine or other) we mean the sin of a protoplast whose offspring, already present in him or represented by him , inherit his fallen condition . By " previous sin" (or else " previous fault" in the sense of the effect of an inborn deficiency like that of the non-divine souls of the Phaedrus) we mean a sin or a fault, by whomsoever committed or experienced (whether a deity or a heavenly being, or even a preexistent soul) , which causes the existence of man or at least man's bio-psychical condition of life, a notion, at any rate, clearly connected with the notion of "double creation" discussed above . Of course, in order to appreciate fully the difference between original sin and previous sin or fault, it is necessary to refer to the position of the author under consideration : whether man is for him (as in the Platonic, and already Orphic tradition) his own soul, conceived as teleologically separable from,

Augustine on Concupiscence.

205

and incompatible with, its corporeal " vehicle " (öxnua), or instrument, or custody (according to the sense of the Platonic word opovpá), or prison , or tomb, quite a series of terms some of which are found also in Christian Platonists, but with attenuated intensity of meaning, and in the context of a notion of double creation , according to which God is the creator of the body, - or, alternatively, whether man, consisting essentially of body and soul (animal rationale , an expression found also in Origen) , is a teleologically irreducible totality expressing itself in the notion of resurrection , and also a nature susceptible of becoming the non-docetically understood "flesh of Christ". Of course, in the case of the "Platonic Fathers " (as well as, mutatis mutandis, in the case of Philo) it is difficult to appreciate fully, from the point of view of metaphysical ontology, their objective position as regards that alternative . Their notion of double creation was double acting : it permitted them to avoid docetism and to be fair to the reality of resurrection (quite a primary concern for them) and at the same time permitted them to allow an (attenuated) Platonic pre-comprehension of man, which appeared to them foreshadowed by some particulars of the Biblical account of Paradise, as it was understood also in some non- Platonic interpretations of encratic flavour, already in the second century A.D. In this sense, the Pauline лνενμаτιкоV σ μa of the resurrected gave to them (as well as also to Christian orthodoxy in general) a space, but not an unlimited one, for guessing and interpretation, whilst gnostic and non-gnostic docetism was beyond the mark, notwithstanding some sophisticated speculations such as those of the (gnostic) Epistle to Rheginos. So much for the clarification of some basic notions of the present discussion. It seems to me that the synergy of such notions as " second creation", "previous sin or fault", as well as the notion of an infra-lapsarian anthropology, that is , of an infra-lapsarian constitution of man, may identify a kind of ontologia minor, infra-lapsarian in character, motivated by protological reasons, and not unconnected with a form of anthropological dualism : - a dualism positing the incompatibility of physiological, particularly sexual activity with the primordial essence and existence of man ; a dualism not separable from its Platonic and already Orphic and Pythagorean matrix , notwithstanding the qualifications introduced for the sake of coherence with the irreducible Christian nondocetic notion of corporeity. Moreover, an anthropological dualism not devoid of implications on the realm of theodicy, in the sense that a life caught in "heavy" corporeity, that is, in a physiological and sexuated body susceptible of being vexed by passions, is considered as a punishment and as a self-evident consequence of a primordial fall, — a notion which, within quite a different theological and ideological schema, and coordinated with the notion of μɛtevowμάtwois, was also proper to the

206

U. BIANCHI

Orphic and Platonic idea of this bodily existence being a "punishment for some ancient faults" ; and this partial affinity did not escape Augustine's attention in the context of his discussion with Julian ' , as we shall see, notwithstanding the very different Augustinian outlook, at that time, concerning corporeity, sexuated corporeity, marriage, and man as a psycho- physical totality. For the sake of comparison between the Origenian and the Augustinian lines of reasoning concerning these matters, we would like to make two points, quite superfluous for this audience . 1 ) The Origenian conception of a second creation does not exclude at all the goodness of (human) marriage, and does not imply a wild or unqualified devaluation of actual/corporeity. As for the passions, it is known that they are also given a positive evaluation by Gregory of Nyssa , qua connected (to use Augustine's terminology) with vis sentiendi, something different from (bad) concupiscence. Such passions, in fact, when not-inordinate, promote for Gregory human life and progress, in the course of a creative diάoτηua . On the other hand, the notion that Adam's fall inaugurated for man the submission to passion, infirmity and death, is common to any Christian understanding of life . 2) At the same time, it is to be remarked that Augustine did not immediately transcend the Origenian (but not only Origenian) notion of the infra-lapsarian character of marriage and sexual procreation . In de bono coniugali chapter 2 he poses the question of interpreting the Biblical text crescite et multiplicamini, an expression interpreted metaphorically by those not prepared to admit the pre-lapsarian character of marriage . On these premises Augustine, in the de bono , allows space for the old infra-lapsarian interpretation , as a possible hypothesis : cum mortis condicionem corpora eorum peccando meruerint, nec esse concubitus nisi mortalium corporum possit ..., a sentence to which he adds the known hypothesis of Gregory of Nyssa concerning the theorical possibility of a multiplication of mankind taking place by means other than sexual . But it is important to note that Augustine adds another, more original and articulated explanation of the Biblical phrase. He poses the question whether the divine invitation crescite et multiplicamini may have been addressed to a couple of human beings mortal but destined to immortality. This anticipates in a sense the final, Augustinian position, according to which marriage and the sexual intercourse implicit in it could have been in existence in Paradise, without concupiscence or as an effect of a concupiscence motivated and directed by reason. On the other hand, it is precisely in this text of the de bono that we find the Augustinian conception (found already in Philo, on different theological bases) of libido as an unavoidable and preoccupying component of the sexual act in the present condition of life : ut ex malo libidinis aliquid boni faciat copulatio coniugalis (chapter 3) . The fundamental difference in regard

1 C. Iul. V 15,78, PL 44,778.

Augustine on Concupiscence

207

to Philo is that for Augustine this libido is infra-lapsarian, whilst Philo's ǹdový ("pleasure" ) is in the context of Adam's fall and a pernicious consequence of his nuptial encounter with Eve².

Before coming to a discussion of the mature position of Augustine on concupiscence and infra-lapsarian anthropology we intend to point out three texts, interesting for the setting in life of those controversies in the course of which those positions were formulated or developed. First of all the already quoted passage of Contra Iulianum³ where Augustine reproaches his contradictor for not being able to understand the notion of the sinfulness of natural man and its penal consequences . He quotes a passage of Cicero's Hortensius , perhaps a passage which could have facilitated his sympathy for Manichaeism after his conversion to the love of wisdom : Videntur autem non frustra Christianae fidei propinquasse qui vitam istam fallaciae miseriaeque plenissimam non opinati sunt nisi divino iudicio contigisse... And then the words of Cicero , quite a profession of Orphic religiosity: Ex quibus humanae... vitae erroribus et aerumnis fit ut interdum veteres illi, sive vates, sive in sacris initiisque tradendis divinae mentis interpretes, qui nos ob aliqua scelera suscepta in vita superiore, poenarum luendarum causa natos esse dixerunt... As it is clear, Augustine reduces here the difference between original sin and previous sin, but he can do so on the basis of that partial (and exterior) overlapping between the two notions we mentioned above. The second text is a fragment of the gnostic Basilides on the motivations of suffering. According to Basilides it was a privilege of the martyrs to have paid in an honourable way their previous faults. "If anyone who has not sinned at all comes to suffer, such a case is rare ; and he will not suffer from the plotting of power. He will suffer as the infant suffered who seems not to have sinned . The infant has not previously or actively sinned at all, but within himself he has the potentiality of sinning. When he is subjected to suffering he is benefitted even though he reaps many unpleasant results. Just so, even if a perfect man has not sinned in act or by chance but suffers, his suffering corresponds to that of the infant. For within himself he has the capacity for sin (άμaρtηtikóv) , even though, since he did not accept the opportunity to sin, he did not sin . Therefore his not sinning is no credit to him. The man who wants to commit adultery is an adulterer even if he does not happen to commit adultery...". As it appears from these last words, two different lines of reasoning intermingle in this argumentation , and the underlying doctrinal motivations are quite far from Augustine's . But the reference to the appa-

2 De opif. mundi 152 , 161ff. 3 See n. 1. Apud Clem. Al. , Strom . IV 81,3 and 82,1 , as translated by R.M. Grant, Gnosticism. A Source Book... (New York, 1961 ) , p. 136f.

208

U. BIANCHI

rently unmotivated suffering, to the case of the suffering infant, and to the άμaptηtɩkóν is at any rate interesting . They are theological loci promoting and at the same time supporting theological argumentation in the difficult field of theodicy . The third text is a passage of the Manichaean Letter to Menoch quoted by Julian of Aeclanum in the course of his polemic against Augustine and his alleged compliance with Manichaeism, and reproduced by Augustine in his response . The reasoning of the Manichaean author is as follows : Si peccatum naturale non est, quare baptizantur infantes , quos nihil per se mali egisse constat? And again : Si omne malum actuale est, antequam malum quispiam agat, quare accipit purificationem aquae , cum nullum malum egerit per se? (Of course, this argumentation is ad hominem ; as it is shown by the Cologne Mani Codex, Manichaeism characterizes itself through the rejection of a purification coming, so to speak, ab extra , which can do nothing against an evil coming from the very nature of body) . At any rate, as regards the Letter to Menoch and Augustine, the difference is immense. Already in his contra epist. Pelagianor . II , 2,2 Augustine criticises the Manichaeans, who carnis concupiscentiam non tamquam accidens vitium , sed tamquam naturam ab aeternitate malam vituperant. But on the formal and terminological plane the distinction of the Manichaean writer between actuale and naturale is also interesting, with the fundamental difference that the distinction (malum) actuale --- (malum) naturale does not concern for Augustine what is absolutely natural, that is, ab aeternitate, as the Manichaeans posited it with their theory of evil substance, or at any rate from the very beginning of Adam's existence, but only the malum naturale (cf. retr. 1,9,9-10) or nature's vitium of the infra-lapsarian condition . In other words, the basic opposition naturale/ actuale functions in both systems, but made subservient to two opposed ontologies : the coeternal or, alternatively, the infra-lapsarian presence of evil . And this will be also interesting for us, when discussing that kind of "ontologia minor" or infra-lapsarian ontology which materializes at the moment in which concupiscence is given not only the status of a mark of, or a penalty for, sin, implying infirmitates, mortality and sinfulness needing salvation, but also an active, so to speak, and "concrete" (in a way: material) status and function of a tradux peccati. We will return to this . I would only add that in the same context of Opus imperf. , some invective expressions of the Manichaean writer would not, materially, be out of tune with Augustine, though inserted in the context of very Manichaean and not in the least Augustinian tenets and vocabulary : Hi autem qui concupiscentiam istam contra evangelicos et apostolicos libros... bonum ausi sunt dicere ... Errant glomerati nubilo concupiscentiae ... Age tu, defensor concupiscentiae ..., videsne concupiscentiam mali esse originem , per quam miserae animae libidini serviunt, non sponte... (III , 187) . Two very different healers can win this concupiscence : 5 C. Iul. imp. III , 172-178 , PL 45,1318-1328 , CSEL 85,1 , 473-490.

Augustine on Concupiscence

209

vous for the Manichaean gnosticism, gratia for the Christian faith . Pelagius' impeccantia (as well as gnostic libertinism) are definitely excluded . We come now to the systematic and concluding section of this presentation. Its specific subject matter is not the general Augustinian doctrine of peccatum originale (originans and originatum), but only the function Augustine attributes to concupiscence in the transmission of sin to the offspring of the protoplast, as well as, per implicitum , the nature of this concupiscence . We will inquire whether this concupiscence and the infra-lapsarian anthropology to which it is related may be connected, as regards one aspect, with some of the notions we discussed in the opening section of this presentation (double creation, previous sin, anthropological dualism, etc. ) . We will inquire whether Augustine's notion of infra-lapsarian concupiscence may be given an ontological dimension. True, this concupiscence may be defined as an " affective condition of bad quality" ; but at the same time we are not allowed to ignore that it is conceived by Augustine as concomitant with human nature in the present condition of life and as wounding it in its self-reproducing process, on the basis of, and as an effect of, the unavoidably inordinate, even if sinless , concupiscent modality of the act of procreation . The problem does exist also from the theological point of view. We quote Portalić (DThC 1,2396 s. , s.v. "Augustin") : "Il est cependant incontestable que, pour expliquer la transmission du péché originel, les formules d'Augustin exagèrent le rôle de la concupiscence . Parce que, ordinairement, elle intervient dans la génération humaine, il semble dire que la jouissance des sens est la condition nécessaire de transmission de la souillure originelle qui affecterait la chair, avant même d'infecter l'âme . Cette conception trop matérielle...". And again : "Les grands docteurs, p.ex. St. Thomas ..., et leurs successeurs, ont entrevu que le seul fait de naître fils d'Adam par la génération naturelle rend la personne humaine responsable...". Let us resume the problem " . Augustine's final position (and this is a great novelty) is far from the notion of a fundamental incongruence of sexual procreation with the essence of man as imago Dei , as it was proclaimed by the Fathers who admitted the notion of a double creation . Augustine concentrates on concupiscence (έлiovµía , conceived of as an effect of Adam's fall or a cause of the fall of the " sons of God " already in Judaic and Judeo- Christian literature ; respectively , in the Apocalypse of Moses and the Book of Enoch). Now Augustine understands this epithymia as an unavoidable modality of the act of procreation in the infra-lapsarian condition of man , namely, as concupiscentia carnis (specifically sexual in this case), or concupiscentia qualis nunc est, different from a (hypothetical) Paradisiac concupiscence, guided by reason and will . Moreover, this negative modality, which affects both the soul and the body of the generating individual and (with a different effect) of the 6 Already anticipated in de nuptiis et concup.

210

U. BIANCHI

generated one, is for Augustine the basis of his notion of the vehicle of transmission of original sin (tradux peccati, producing, in our terminology, peccatum originatum) . Now it seems to us that this concupiscentia carnis, which is mala but also a malum, though not a substance as the Manichaeans pretended ([malum] non substantiam , sed substantiae vitium : c. Iul. II ,4,9 etc.; already Ambrose : malitia as boni indigentia, so that ex bonis mala orta sunt: apud Aug., c. Iul. I ,9,44) does not lack an ontological dimension. This is so, inasmuch as concupiscence is conceived as an inevitable (even if acquired) and concomitant modality, in this condition of existence , of a specific, natural human function , sexual function , and this also in the legitimate use of the same. It is a modality which has risen to the status of a vitium naturae ; but to Augustine this vitium is not only an effect, a negative effect of an act of the protoplast, an effect propagated through the chain of the generations, but also as we have already seen - the effect of an actual behaviour, even if involuntary and not sinful, but inevitably inordinate, affecting, in this infralapsarian condition , every act of procreation. Namely, concupiscence, according to this view, is acknowledged not only as a mark and an effect of original sin, but also the specific cause and the specific vehicle of the propagation of original sin. In other words, it is a concupiscentia carnis understood as a malum affecting nature, that is, a naturale (in the relative, infra-lapsarian sense, of something like a second nature ; cf. Ambrose as quoted by Augustine c. Iul. II , 5,10 cfr . 11 : dissensio [ of caro and anima] per praevaricationem primi hominis in naturam [or : se in naturam ] verterit) , but also a malum , we would add, "actuale", as the human nature (represented in every human being) is "actuale" in the very act of incessantly reproducing itself; —- and this also in the sense that this malum, this inordinate (not necessarily sinful) modality of the coniugum operatio (which is in itself a bonum), is recognized also as a (promotional) impulse to the generating act, which in the present condition of existence is anticipated or followed by inordinate concupiscence : quia bene utitur libidinis malo, per quod generantur homines bonum opus Dei (c . Iul. III , 7,15 ; cf. also de bono, quoted above). It is well known that Augustine, notwithstanding his abandonment of the theory of the infra-lapsarian character of marriage, refers willingly to the authority of Ambrose in his polemic against Julian , given also the fact that Julian had appealed to the authority of the bishop of Milan . Now, Ambrose, though maintaining that the creation of women had been intended for the sake of generation , that is, the multiplication of mankind, was also familiar with the notion of the original integrity understood as angelic life, with the related notion of the infra-lapsarian character of marriage and physical generation : an antinomy to be explained perhaps as an oscillation between the notion of the infra-lapsarian character of marriage and the notion of the character of infra - lapsarian marriage. Now, it is to be remarked that it is

Augustine on Concupiscence

211

precisely Ambrose, with his peculiar sensitiveness in the face of corporea conventio, which is commixture and passionateness, and of its consequences on the offspring at any rate an infra-lapsarian reality , who provides Augustine with an argument intended to interpret the Pauline distinction . between the time of conjugal cohabitation and the time for prayer as an opposition and an incompatibility between conjugal libidinis voluptas (a venial fault) and tempora orandi (c . Iul. II , 7,20), an opposition which reminds us of an Origenian topos, though not coinciding with it. It is true that in this passage Augustine argues specifically against conjugal incontinence (he quotes the strong expression of Ambrose against a husband being adulterous against his wife in case of intemperance) ; but it is also true that Augustine opens chap. 20 with the words : An tu dicturus es, quod ( Ambrosius) nuptiis ingerat crimen, quia et inde quod nascitur concupiscentiae voluptate concretum, dicit subire contagium delictorum ? This must be explained , on the basis also of other texts, in the sense that concupiscence infects every nuptial intercourse, and that any conceived offspring of such intercourse inherits sinfulness . On this basis we are entitled to say that the specific notion of concupiscence as the active and causating principle of the transmission of sin was to Augustine an Ambrosian legacy, a legacy from a writer still involved , to some extent, and in other contexts, in the theory of the infra-lapsarian character of nuptial sexual intercourse ; a conclusion which does not diminish the originality of Augustine concerning other articulations of his notion of original sin . We may add a corollary. Ambrose, quoted by Augustine (c. Iul. II , 5,11 etc. ) , gives an evidently reductive and selective motivation of the radical sanctity of the Redeemer, that is, His virginal conception : Dominum Christum propterea fuisse sine peccato , quo natus ex virgine vinculis obnoxiae generationis naturaeque communis minime teneretur. Of course, the notion of the virginal conception of Christ is a fundamental Christian notion ; but the propterea of the quoted text should be inverted (and it is interesting that Origen, pressed by the same problem, solved it the opposite way, speaking of the sordes (not the sinfulness) of the corporeity of Christ) .

CONCLUSIONS "To make good use of the evil of libido" : this Augustinian expression, anticipated in the de bono and repeated in c. Iul., resembles a sort of дžúμорoν or of "short circuit", consisting in the paradoxical and violent association of the adverb bene and the substantive (be it only in the grammatical , not the ontological sense) malum . It may have put into action a partially uncontrolled dialectic process between anthropology and hamartiology. Interpreting pudor, rubor and ardor as totally motivated by a sexuality in statu lapso, Augustine gave perhaps a selective interpretation of the psychology of human love ; he sought a kind of experimental demonstration of concupiscence as a modality and an instrument of the transmission of sin.

212

U. BIANCHI

On the other hand, his distinction between infra-lapsarian concupiscence and vis sentiendi does justice to the profundity of his exploration of the mystery of the human soul . As for Julian's notion of concupiscence as a bonum and its affinity with the Aristotelian concupiscibile, we may say that it was not translatable in Augustinian terms, given the negative implication of the term έл0νμíα within and outside Christian vocabulary. As for Augustine, his aim went far beyond a question of sexual morality. The discussion on concupiscence as an active and causal element for the transmission of sin was to him a means (not so inevitable, as the history of theology has demonstrated) for the motivation, against the Pelagian platitude , of the doctrine of grace and regeneration (c. Iul. II,4,8 , ep. 187,9, c. Iul. imp. II ,45) .

"The Spiritual World , which is the Church" : Hermeneutical Theory in the Book of Rules of Tyconius

Pamela BRIGHT, Chicago

The title of the paper, "The Spiritual World, which is the Church", is a quotation from the Liber Regularum (L.R. ) ¹ of the African Donatist theologian and exegete, Tyconius. Citing John 5:17 , Tyconius claims that just as the Father laboured over "this world" for six days , so he labours over "the spiritual world, which is the church" for six thousand years (L.R. 36 : 21-3) . The Book of Rules of Tyconius holds a special place in the history of Christian hermeneutics . This small compact work, consisting of a short prologue and an exposition of what the author terms, seven " rules" for the interpretation of "the whole of scripture", was written in the second half of the fourth century. It was the first systematic treatment of Christian exegetical theory in the Latin West . The third book of Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana contains a summary of the seven rules of Tyconius, and so introduced the thought of the Donatist theologian into the Western church2. The purpose of the paper is to examine one aspect of Tyconius's hermeneu— tical theory what is meant by spiritual interpretation in the Book of Rules.

SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION IN TYCONIAN HERMENEUTICS

Gennadius³ , in his survey of Christian writers, De Viris Inlustribus , notes that spiritual interpretation is a feature of Tyconian hermeneutics . Gennadius makes only a brief mention of the Book of Rules, but remarks that in Tyconius's Commentary on the Apocalypse. He also expounded the apocalypse of John entire, regarding nothing in a carnal sense , but all in a spiritual sense *. In the Book of Rules, we note the same insistence on the spiritual interpretation of scripture . In the prophecies against the city of Tyre (Isaiah

1 A critical edition of the Liber was published by F.C. Burkitt in the late nineteenth century (Cambridge, 1894). 2 De Doctrina Christiana III :42-65. 3 Gennadius, De Viris Inlustribus 18. * Gennadius, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd ed . P. Schaf and H. Wace (Grand Rapids, MI , 1952), 389.

214

P. BRIGHT

23, 24) Tyconius concludes that even if some things have already happened, yet "all things are spiritual", tamen omnia spiritalia sunt (L.R. 48 : 2). Again, in the interpretation of the prophetic denunciation against Babylon (Isaiah 13,14), “all things are to be considered spiritually" , omnia spiritaliter (L.R. 52 :4). Granted that spiritual interpretation is characteristic of Tyconian hermeneutics, it is important to note that the North African was not the first among his Latin contemporaries to advocate such a method . In the fifties and sixties of the fourth century, Hilary of Poitiers was employing spiritual interpretation in his biblical commentaries, and twenty years later, Augustine was impressed by the spiritual interpretation of scripture of Ambrose of Milan. However the question that needs to be addressed is what did Hilary, Ambrose and Tyconius mean by "spiritual" interpretation 5 . The present study seeks to examine what Tyconius means by spiritual interpretation by noting the occurrence and the context of the adverb, spiritaliter, in the Book of Rules.

SPIRITALITER IN THE BOOK OF RULES

It is not until the second half of Rule IV, Concerning Species and Genus, that Tyconius introduces the term, spiritaliter. Commenting on the prophecy of Ezekiel 21 : 1-8, directed against Jerusalem and its sanctuary, Tyconius explains that both city and temple are to be " cast down, demolished and spiritually consumed ", demolita atque spiritaliter exusta (L.R. 41:18) . The term , spiritaliter, is used eight times in the Book of Rules, always in the context of prophetic denunciation . It is used six times in Rule IV and twice in Rule V. The concentration of usage in Rule IV is of particular significance when one recognizes the centrality of Rule IV in the literary structure as well as in the exposition of the hermeneutical theory in the Book of Rules as a whole

SPIRITALITER IN RULE IV

1) Rule IV L.R. 41:18 spiritaliter exusta (Ez . 21 : 1-8) , Jerusalem is consumed spiritually.

s Hilary's Commentary on Matthew is the first extant Latin commentary. His Tractatus in Psalmos and Liber Mysteriorum reflect his contact with the hermeneutical methods of the Alexandrian church. Hilary's vocabulary differs from that of the Book of Rules. Where Tyconius uses spiritaliter, Hilary speaks of the coelestis significantia. Augustine refers to Ambrose's spiritual interpretation in the Confessions 6.4.6. • The literary structure of the Book of Rules is analysed in my The Book of Rules of Tyconius: Its Purpose and Inner Logic (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 2 ; Notre Dame, 1988).

The Spiritual World, which is the Church

215

2) Rule IV L.R. 48 : 6 spiritaliter mortuos (Is. 24 : 6) . The citizens of Tyre are spiritually dead . 3) Rule IV L.R. 48:22 spiritaliter cruciatibus (Zech. 14 : 11-16) . Those in Jerusalem are killed spiritually by torments. 4) Rule IV L.R. 50 : 8 Quae vocatur spiritaliter Sodoma et Aegyptus (Rev. 11 : 8) , ... that which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt. 5) Rule IV L.R. 51 : 6 ex quo spiritaliter interficitur mundus ( Is. 13 : 2-18 ) , (the Day of the Lord) in which the world is killed spiritually . 6) Rule IV L.R. 52 : 4 omnia spiritaliter (Ps. 137 : 9) . The dashing of "little ones" against the rock is to be interpreted spiritually. All six occurrences of spiritaliter in Rule IV are in the context of the prophetic denunciation of evildoers, whether they are in Jerusalem or in the "nations". It is important for the understanding of Tyconian ecclesiology that Jerusalem is not a type of the purified church of the end-times nor is it a type of the invisible church of the elect within the present "mixed " society of the church . For Tyconius, the mystery of the church which is revealed in prophetic promise and prophetic denunciation is that the very nature of the church is "bipartite". The introduction to Rule II of the Book of Rules underlines the importance of this mystery for the interpretation of scripture. The rule about the bipartite body of the Lord is of the utmost necessity. We must investigate it all the more carefully and keep it constantly before our eyes when reading scripture (L.R. 8 : 5-7) " . The Jerusalem of the prophetic books is " bipartite", as are Tyre and Egypt and Nineveh . Jerusalem is a type of the church here and now with its mixture of good and evil membership . Because of the evil membership in the church, because of its "bipartite" nature, the destruction, the deaths, the torments threatened by the prophetic books are a spiritual reality now in the church . In the same way, because of its " bipartite" nature, the church already rejoices in the spiritual life (L.R. 51:25) of the "first resurrection" of the baptized. In his commentary on Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, Tyconius explains that the prophecy does not refer to the final resurrection but to the "first resurrection " which is present now invisibly in the growth of the church in new membership through baptism (L.R. 4 : 22,23) . The prophecies reveal a simultaneous spiritual life and spiritual death within the "bipartite" church . This revelation of the double nature of the church through the Spirit, the

' K. Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Philadelphia, 1984), 110. • Jerusalem is "bipartite" 63 : 2 ; Egypt is "bipartite" 43 : 1 ; Nineveh is "bipartite" 41:22 ; Tyre is "bipartite" 46:13.

216

P. BRIGHT

Author of the scriptures, is the central theme of Tyconius's ecclesiology and of his hermeneutical theory.

SPIRITALITER IN AUGUSTINE'S SUMMARY OF RULE IV

Augustine's inclusion of a summary and commentary of Tyconius's " rules" in the De Doctrina Christiana ensured the reception of the Donatist's work in catholic circles early in the fifth century and then on through the medieval church. However Augustine's summary of the Book of Rules differs from the thought of Tyconius in a number of ways. One of the points of difference concerns the context of “spiritual " in Rule IV of the Book of Rules and in Augustine's summary of Rule IV in the De Doctrina Christiana. In summarizing the Tyconian Rule IV, Augustine introduces the opposition, spiritualis/carnalis and spiritualiter/carnaliter. This spiritual Israel, therefore, is distinguished from the carnal Israel, which is of one nation by newness of grace... Augustine continues with a commentary of Ez. 36 : 23-29, ... and you shall dwell in the land I gave to your fathers... For the church without spot or wrinkle , gathered out of all the nations and destined to reign forever with Christ, is itself the land of the blest, the land of the living... (Eph 5:27; Ps. 26:13) ⁹. By introducing the distinction, "spiritual/carnal", Augustine has blurred the thought of Tyconius. The church , the " spiritual Israel" is certainly not "without spot of wrinkle" in the interpretation of Tyconius . It will be "without spot or wrinkle" only when it is reigning with Christ. The doubleness of the spiritual reality of the "bipartite" church, that mixed field of wheat and weeds 10 , on which Tyconius laid so much stress, has been blurred if not lost . With this blurring, there is the consequent distortion of both Tyconius's hermeneutics as well as his ecclesiology.

SPIRITALITER IN RULE V

Spiritaliter occurs twice in Rule V, Concerning Times. 1 ) Rule V L.R. 64:20 Quod nunc spiritaliter geritur (Ex 10:23 ) , (the darkness) which is now produced spiritually. 2) Rule V L.R. 65 : 12,13 Quo tempore invalescit carnaliter eodem deficit spiritaliter (Gen. 7 and 8), (the flood) an increase carnally, a decrease spiritually.

9 De Doctrina Christiana III :49. 10 Matt. 13 : 24-30.

The Spiritual World, which is the Church

217

Here we notice for the first time in the Book of Rules the juxtaposition of spiritualter/carnaliter. However the context is the elaboration of Tyconius's theory of the double time¹¹ . For example, the seven years of fruitfulness and the seven years of famine are separate in the scriptural account (Gen 46 : 26ff.) but they occur simultaneously in the bipartite church . In this way, the rising and the disappearing of the waters (life and death) are experienced at the one time in the bipartite church.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYCONIAN SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION

The brief analysis of the use of the term spiritaliter in the Book of Rules helps us to appreciate what characterizes spiritual interpretation of scripture in Tyconian theory. First, Tyconian hermeneutics make no mention of the kind of differing levels of scriptural interpretation (carnal, psychic, and spiritual) which characterize the Alexandrian exegesis of Origen with its distinctive anthropological and cosmological thought frame. In Tyconian exegesis there is no suggestion of the " spiritual" interpretation being apprehended by the “spiritual" , those furtherest advanced in the spiritual life while the less spiritually gifted understand at a lower level. In the Book of Rules, the interpretation of scripture is no less a gift of the Spirit, but it is not a matter of levels of understanding. The path to understanding is either open or shut. In the Book of Rules the interpreter is led to the spiritual meaning of the text in following the guidance of the "logic", ratio, of the "mystical rules " , regulae mysticae, by which the scriptures have been framed by the Spirit, the Author of scripture. For there are certain mystical rules which govern the depth of the entire law and hide the treasures of truth from the sight of some people . If the logic of these rules is accepted without prejudice as we set it down here, every closed door will be opened and light will be shed on every obscurity. Guided as it were by these rules in paths of light, a person walking through the immense forest of prophecy may well be defended from error 12 (L.R. 1 : 5-9). A further distinguishing mark of Tyconian exegesis is that unlike the earlier exegesis of Cyprian, Tyconian typology is not christological 13. Consistently in the Book of Rules, the spiritual meaning of scripture concerns not the

11 L.R. 64:8 ; 64:16. 12 Froehlich, 104. 13 In his study of Cyprian's interpretation of scripture, Michael Fahey notes that Cyprian's "most striking procedure, although not original to him, is an essentially christological reading of the OT, a book which in his view was pregnant with allusions and prophecies about Christ. His Christologizing or Christianizing of the OT reflects a continuing preoccupation with Marcion, which was perhaps his principal legacy from Tertullian", M. Fahey, Cyprian and the Bible : A Study in Third Century Exegesis (Tübingen, 1971).

218

P. BRIGHT

Head, but the Body, the church. The "spiritual" interpretation of scripture, according to the Book of Rules, is the reception of the word of prophecy as addressed to the church by the Spirit, the Author of the scriptures . It is nothing new to draw attention to the ecclesiological focus of the Book of Rules, but I would argue that an analysis of Tyconius's use of the term , spiritaliter, throws light on the special character of Tyconian ecclesiology and of Tyconian hermeneutics. Central to his teaching on the church is its "bipartite" nature - its invisible glory, its invisible wounds, both of which will be fully manifest on the Day of the Lord's Coming in visible glory as Head. On that Day, the church will no longer be bipartite, but the "right" and "left" separated, each part to its final destiny. The prophecies , the promises and admonitions of scripture , so often couched in obscure language, are illuminated by this revelation of the mystery of the double nature of the church . Through words of consolation and encouragement to those united in love to Christ, through words of admonition and calls to conversion to sinners, the Spirit speaks a paradoxical double word of life and of death to the " spiritual world which is the church" .

St. Augustine : The Original Condition of Humanity

J. Patout BURNS, Gainesville, Florida

This study has been provoked by the work of Robert O'Connell in a series of articles and books on Augustine's theory of human origins. O'Connell maintains that Augustine attempted a Plotinian understanding of Christianity, in which he held that the human soul descends into an earthly body as a consequence of a sin committed in an earlier, higher form of existence . This interpretation has sparked and will continue to sustain a controversy. My own reading of de Genesi contra Manichaeos and de libero arbitrio supports the general outlines of O'Connell's thesis about the original human condition . I shall report today on the first of these. The de Genesi contra Manichaeos deals with the stories of the creation and fall in two books, one for each of the two accounts in the first three chapters of Genesis. The first book goes through Genesis 2 : 3 ; the second carries through 3:24. At the beginning of Book One, Augustine signaled a limited objective . He intended to explain the text so that the Manichean error would be refuted in a way which even the unlearned can understand¹ . The exposition proceeds through the literal, historical meaning of the first five days of the creation narrative . This literal exposition of the history was abandoned when he came to the sixth day. There he began to distance the creation of humanity from the formation of the world of plants and animals. The sexual differentiation of humanity and the blessing of its fecundity, for example, were explained as allegories. Augustine interpreted the male as the mind , the female as the sense appetite and their offspring as the bodily operation of individual humans2 . The fecundity which God blessed was understood as spiritual rather than carnal. By animating and ruling the body, the union of mind and sense was to fill the earth with intelligible and immortal joy. He argued for this interpretation by comparing the original human state to the final condition in the resurrection, which is free of carnal generation³ . The primordial human being was further separated from the earthly realm by Augustine's interpretation of humanity's domination over the beasts . He

¹ Gen. c. Man., 1.1.1 . 2 He alluded to this interpretation in Gen. c. Man. , 1.19.30 . In 1.25.43 he developed it . 3 Ibid., 1.19.30.

220

J.P. BURNS

noted that the beasts given into humanity's rule (Genesis 1:29) , are assigned plants for their food ; yet many of the animals whose creation was described on the fifth day (Genesis 1.20-25) , are meat-eaters. He concluded that the beasts of the sixth day are symbols of the movements and affections of the soul itself . Augustine's exposition allows the human body to be understood as a part of the higher creation, made of a different form of matter and greater in dignity than the most beautiful of the visible bodies, the firmament of heaven 5. In the second book of de Genesi contra Manichaeos, Augustine pursued a figurative interpretation of the second narrative of Genesis as an allegory of the happy life of the soul, its relation to God and to bodily nature, its sin of pride, and the consequences and punishments of that sin . Following the pattern of the first book, he presented humanity as part of the realm of earthly bodies only in its fallen condition . Though he occasionally admitted a literal interpretation he preferred allegories. Some of the allegories are fairly straighforward . While allowing that God could have made an incorruptible body from the mud of this earth and then ensouled it, he proposed another meaning of the text as more likely. The molding of Adam from mud indicates that the soul unifies the body as water gives cohesion to earth . The divine breathing upon the formed mud actually refers to the giving of the sense faculty, the power symbolized by the woman . Paradise itself is not a place on earth but the happy condition of the soul. The two trees in the middle of the paradise symbolize the median state of the soul between God above and the whole of bodily nature below; the various fruit trees symbolize spiritual delights ; the four rivers indicate the virtues of the soul ; the couple's nudity refers to the simplicity and chastity of the paradisal soul ". In some instances, however, Augustine worked against a fairly obvious literal meaning which would have involved humanity in the realm of earthly bodies prior to the punishment of mortality. The green things of the field symbolize the spiritual and invisible realm ; the soul was not " on earth" before it was stained by earthly desires . The fountain in paradise refers to the interior illumination of the soul by divine Wisdom before its fall . The parade of the animals before the man signifies the giving of the knowledge

4 Ibid., 1.20.31 . 5 The only element in the entire exposition of Book One which contradicts this is his identification of the visible with the corporeal and the invisible with the incorporeal : Gen. c. Man. , 1.11.17. In de libero arbitrio 3.5.14 , he entertained the existence of angelic, invisible bodies. • Gen. c. Man. , 2.7.8-2.8.10. 7 Ibid., 2.9.12-2.10.13, 2.13.19. 8 Ibid., 2.3.4-5. 9 Ibid., 2.4.5-2.5.6.

St. Augustine : Humanity's Original State

221

that the human mind excels and should rule the animal part, the sense appetite 10. Augustine's desire to separate primordial humanity from earthly bodies is especially clear in the foci of the second book : the formation of woman, the temptation, and the sin with its consequences and punishment . The narrative of the formation of the female from the side of the male finds its meaning in the relation between mind and sense within the human soul . The sleep cast upon Adam was understood as a deep contemplation of the relation between mind and sense within the soul¹¹ . The mind should guide its spouse, the sense appetite, with love rather than harshly contemning it ¹² . The common flesh and bone refer to the virtues of courage and temperance which are shared by mind and sense ¹³ . The temptation and fall are explained through the notion that the soul occupied a middle position, below God and above the realm of bodies. The devil, who had already sinned, planted a suggestion of self-determination and autonomy in the sense appetite, where it aroused a delight which the mind should have rejected and suppressed . Instead, the mind abandoned the interior light of divine wisdom, loved its own power to distinguish good and evil, and attempted to exercise a divine autonomy. One notes that the body was assigned no role in either the temptation or the sin¹4. Augustine referred to the soul alone in explaining the consequences of the sin. The embarrassment in nudity and making of the garments of fig leaves indicate the loss of simplicity, the cunning of pride and the desire to appear other than one is 15. The evening twilight symbolizes the loss of the illumination of divine Truth . The sinners' hiding in the middle of the garden portrays the soul's turn from God to self16. The punishments which God meted out to the three sinners reflect the earthly life of humanity more closely. The enmity between the snake and woman, as well as the pains of childbirth and her submission to the rule of her husband, symbolize the ascetic struggle by which the soul overcomes perverse suggestions and establishes good habits 17. The mind sweats over thorny questions as it labors for the bread of truth through the senses 18. All

10 Ibid. , 2.11.16. 11 Ibid., 2.12.16. 12 Ibid., 2.12 :16-17. 13 Ibid., 2.13.18. 14 Ibid., 2.14.20-2.15.22 . 15 Ibid. , 2.15.23-2.16.24 . 16 Ibid. , 2.16.24. 17 Ibid., 2.18.28 , 2.19.29, 2.21.31 . The serpent's head refers to the beginning of an evil attraction ; the woman's heel to a fall into illicit desire. Augustine discounts the literal reading by observing that women who have borne children glory in the title of mother and are usually less submissive to their husbands . 18 This point was discussed more fully at the beginning of the exposition, 2.4.5-2.5.6. Augustine recalls it in 2.20.30.

222

J.P. BURNS

these troubles are consequences of the sin and precede the sending of humanity from paradise. Only the garments of skin were given an interpretation which directly involves the body. God changed the human body into flesh which shares the mortality of the beasts . Since this flesh can hide a lying heart, it is better suited to a soul which has refused the light of truth and delights in false appearances 19. The pain of childbirth might be taken literally as well, as a portion or consequence of the punishment of mortality20. A number of things are clear from this analysis of de Genesi contra Manichaeos. Humanity was created as a composite of mind, sense appetite and body. The body was heavenly, like that of the resurrected saints . Humanity was free of corruption , sexual differentiation and internal conflict. Humanity was not an original part of the earthly portion of creation, the realm of plants and beasts . Neither the human nor any other body had a role in the temptation and sin . The consequences and punishment of the sin were also, for the most part, situated in the soul. I suggest that Augustine's exposition of the true meaning of the two narratives of the creation and the story of the fall of humanity is fully compatible with a view that the soul fell, by sinning, into the earthly realm. That view is advanced , I believe, in his subsequent treatise de libero arbitrio. Augustine did not explain whether the consequence of the fall was a change in the heavenly body or the passage of the soul into a new, earthly body.

19 Ibid. , 2.21.32 . The reference is to the replacement of the garments of fig leaves by those of skins. Augustine observes that those who refuse to lie in these bodies earn a return , in the resurrection, to the original angelic form. 20 Ibid. , 2.19.29, 2.21.32 . The true meaning is the symbolic one of the difficulty which the soul has in resisting bad customs and generating good ones.

Augustine on the Authentic Approach To Death : An Overview

Donald X. BURT, Villanova, Pa.

INTRODUCTION

The pages that follow are a summary of a much larger study recently completed. The purpose of this research was to examine St. Augustine's view on the nature of an authentically human response to death and how this should be affected by belief in Christianity. In this discussion the phrase "authentic response " shall mean a response

that is generated by the existential condition of the one making the response. An authentic response is therefore a realistic response because it flows from the essential and relevant accidental characteristics that go to set the individual in her/his place in the actual world . Augustine holds that there are three facts at the core of an authentic response for a believer : 1. the fact that every human is a being of body and soul ; 2. the fact that every human is a social being ; 3. the fact that this particular human believes in the Christian faith . This study is in three parts : ( 1 ) response to "my death" ; (2) response to the "death of others" ; (3) the effect of Christian belief on such responses . In each part there will be a statement of the facts affecting the response and the response that follows logically from those facts. PART 1 : "MY DEATH" A. Augustine's Factual Assumptions : The first relevant fact about the human condition is that the nature of the human being is to be a composite of body and soul. Thus Augustine says : "The human is, as the philosophers of old defined , a rational corporeal animal... man is a rational substance, consisting of soul and body" . The human is a being of spirit and body, and both elements are good . A second fact flows from the human's nature as spirit . It is the fact that humans are meant to understand their condition. A third fact is that since humans are composite they have the possibility of

1 De trinitate, 15, 7, 11.

224

D.X. BURT

falling apart. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body caused by the corruption of the body. "Death comes to the body when the soul leaves" 2. Since death is the separation of that composite which constitutes the human being, the result is an imperfect state both for body and soul . A fourth fact is that death is inevitable. The attempt to escape it is in vain. "Humans fearing death weep and moan and plead and curse but all they accomplish is to die a bit later ... They cannot stop their dying" 3.

B. Authentic Response: Based on the core facts that human beings are composite beings who are meant to be conscious of their condition, Augustine holds that an authentic response to "my inevitable death" is ( 1 ) to accept the fact and (2) to fear its coming. 1. Acceptance : Augustine holds that the mark of the truly wise human being is to recognize the fact that this life is not forever and to make plans accordingly . Of course too much thinking about death can be unauthentic too . The fact that we shall someday die should not make us forget that we are alive right now. Part of our authentic approach to death is to recognize the fact ; but an equally important part is to then get on with this life. 2. Aversion To "My Death": If I am constituted as " me" by the union of my body and soul , it is only natural that I should shrink from the separation that comes at death . Aversion to or fear of "my death" is thus an understandable and authentically human response to the prospect of "my death " . Augustine puts it this way: " Death is not able to be loved , only tolerated ... By nature not only humans but indeed every living thing abhors death and fears it" . PART 2 : THE DEATH OF "OTHERS" The fact that I am a composite being with a need to " understand" may explain why I care about my own death but it does not explain why I care about the death of others. Augustine maintains that there are other facts about the human being which account for such care. A. Augustine's Factual Assumptions : The central relevant fact affecting our reactions to the death of others is the 2 3 4 5

De civitate dei, 13, 2. Sermo 161 , 7. Epistola 10 , 2. Sermo 299, 8.

Augustine on Death

225

fact that humans are social animals . Just as it is "natural" for a human to be composed of body and soul and "natural" for a human being to enjoy and exercise conscious life, so too it is " natural" for a human being to live in society with other humans . Augustine asserts that "The life of the wise man both on earth and in heaven is social" . Indeed , he goes so far as to say that in this life only two things are absolutely essential for the human being qua human being : life and friendship ' . A human without love is a human who is lifeless and miserable. A second fact is that true friendship is difficult to achieve . This is so because perfect friendship demands complete openness with the other and such openness depends on perfect trust and faith in the other and an ability to communicate the secrets of one's innermost life. In this life such openness and perfect communication is impossible. A third fact about human relationships is that they are transitory. We want friends and we need friends but we have no way to control their ebb and flow in our lives. Even as we enjoy them we fear their loss. A fourth fact about human relationships is that they are not purely spiritual. The total fulfillment of human friendship involves both mind and body. It seeks for physical presence as well as union of spirits . Seeing and hearing our loved one is not essential to our love (since true love should be able to exist even in separation), but happiness in love becomes complete only when the loved one is present to us ... body and soul.

B. Authentic Response : If humans are meant to be so bonded to each other in friendship and love that their happiness depends upon it, it is natural that the prospect of the loss of a friend causes fear and that their actual loss causes sorrow. If we are not meant to be alone and have in fact experienced the goodness of the presence of a loved one in our lives, it is only natural that when that loved one leaves we should feel lonely. These then are the authentic human responses to the death of "the other" : fear, sorrow, and loneliness. Because we are conscious, composite, social beings we can be aware that someday we shall be separated from our loves and that awareness can cause a nagging fear even amidst the joy of their present presence. As Augustine says : "No one can be free from worry until they come to that country whence no friend departs"8. When such separation occurs in fact, it is natural that the fear should turn to sorrow. If we rejoice in union with a love, we must weep when that union ceases. As Augustine says :

6 De civitate dei, 19, 5. 7 Sermo 299D (Denis 16), § 1 , in Miscellanea Agostiniana , I , p. 75. 8 Ennarationes in psalmos 68/1 , 1 .

226

D.X. BURT

"Of necessity we must be sorrowful when those whom we love leave us in death. Although we know that they have not left us behind forever but only gone ahead of us, still when death seizes our loved ones, our loving hearts are saddened by death itself⁹. But, if it is authentically human to be lonely and weep after the death of a loved one, it is not authentically human to allow that death to paralyze us so that we are unable to continue living our own lives. Thus, "Getting On With Life" is also part of a human's authentic response to the death of others. PART 3 : THE EFFECT OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF Augustine spent the last half of his life as a believing Christian and it is from this perspective that he writes about death. The facts that he came to believe in had an important effect on his views about authentic response to death .

A. Augustine's Assumptions ofFact: The first fact revealed by Christian faith is that God exists and he is a God of love . A second fact is that the body will someday rise from the grave and rejoin the soul. The human being who is split apart at death will someday be made whole again and will remain so forever 10. A third fact is that human beings have the possibility of living a truly happy life after death. In this happy state all natural desires will be satisfied . Humans will possess all their loves : God above all, and then all the Blessed , especially those they loved in this life. A fourth fact is the somber possibility that eternity will not be happy, that we if we so choose, will rise to suffer a "second death" 11 . Just as " first death" comes about when the soul separates from the body, so "second death" occurs when God separates from the soul . A fifth fact known by faith is that God is with us even in this life. In this life all our human friends and loves may leave us, but God never leaves us. We are never alone. A sixth fact is that this life has an eternal importance. This present moment has infinite significance because it is at this moment and all successive moments that I am able to work to maintain the presence of God in my life, to avoid that final " second death" , and to insure my happy reunion with all of those good friends who have gone before me in death. A seventh fact known from faith is that life after death for the Blessed will indeed be a better life.

9 Sermo 172, 1 . 10 Sermo 361 , 2. 11 Sermo 344, 4.

Augustine on Death

227

An eighth fact is that in our present life all humans are in a wounded condition. We are beings of mind who are sometimes confused, sometimes intellectually lazy, and sometimes just plain dumb. We are free beings able to choose but who find it hard to choose goods that entail some personal sacrifice.

B. Authentic response : Believing in the facts outlined above, a Christian's reactions to death . should be modified as follows : First, the natural fear of one's own death should be softened by hope. Believing in the good life that awaits after death, the Christian should look forward to that life and hope for it. However this hope will not usually take away completely the natural aversion to death coming from human nature 12 . A second effect of faith is that the sorrow felt upon the death of others should likewise be eased by hope . Believing in Christianity, we hope that our dead loved ones are enjoying eternal life now and that someday we shall join them . With such hopes, our sorrow will be lessened and shortened . Usually it will not be prevented altogether. That it is not prevented is understandable. If our happiness depended at least partially on the presence of loved ones, it is only logical that we should be less than perfectly happy now that they are gone. Faith does not prevent loneliness, but it can give two special modes of consolation to the bereaved . In the first place, it will tell them that no human being is totally alone in this life. Jesus Christ is with every human at every moment of their earthly life¹³ . Secondly, the presence of the Christian Community should help the mourner to bridge the gap left by the absence of the dead loved one. Unfortunately these consolations which can and should be present to us during our time of sorrow, may be less than perfect because all humans are less than perfect. A third effect of belief will be to instill a therapeutic fear of second death. A fourth effect will be to make the believer very serious about this world. The believer will know that earthly life has eternal significance . Knowing this , the believer will live this life seriously but also with joy, knowing that they are rushing to a death which is but a way to eternal resurrection . They will not be held back by nostalgia for the past. Indeed, faced with a choice between beginning this life over again or dying, they will always choose to continue towards death 14. In extraordinary cases this wish for eternity may even overcome a human's natural antipathy towards death . As Augustine remarks, when we get old and

12 Sermo 280, 3. 13 Epistola 92, 1 . 14 De civitate dei, 21, 14.

228

tired we may just want to go to sleep and die, so that we can become young again and begin a life where we shall never again become tired 15 .

CONCLUSION

Augustine's conclusions on the authentic approach to death may be summarized as follows : It is natural for the human to fear his own death but this fear should be eased by hope in what lies beyond death. In extraordinary situations, the believer may even desire death as a way to a better life and a way to escape a painful life here without meaning or love . The believing Christian faced with the prospect of eternity should have a new fear, the fear of a " second death" . This is the fear of choosing against God in this life and having that disastrous choice made irrevocable by dying in that state of separation. Since humans are social beings , it is natural that we feel the pain of loss when a loved one dies. However this sorrow should be lessened by the hope that the loved one is even now enjoying the rest that is proper to the just. We, the survivors, should be encouraged by the conviction that someday we shall be physically present to each other again. Until that final resurrection, we should be consoled by our belief that we are connected spiritually with the dead in our continuing love and concern for each other, that we are in fact members of one body which reaches from this life into the next. In that one body and in the Christ who is the head, we who still exist here are never completely alone. The believer should face death with hope and humility. Because of our human weakness we shall never react to the trial of death in a perfect way, but with God's grace we shall survive it . In the meantime we need to live now as fully as possible, striving to increase our life by increasing the life of God in us, exercising that life by lives of service and concern for others, and joyfully spending time with our God who waits for our prayers deep inside us . Soon after the fall of Rome, when western civilization seemed to be crumbling, Augustine had occasion to speak to the people of Hippo about their true destiny. His words make an appropriate final statement for our study : We who now believe in the resurrection and proclaim it by the words of the prophets and the preaching of Christ and the Apostle, we hope that we shall not fail, that we shall triumph over death, and not be burdened in heart with drunkenness and debauchery. But, girding our loins, with candles burning, we await with vigilance the coming of the Lord . Let us fast and pray, not because tomorrow we die, but so that we may die free from all care 16.

15 Sermo 40, 6. 16 Sermo 361 , 22, 21.

The Meaning of Creation in Augustine and Eriugena

Robert D. CROUSE, Halifax, Nova Scotia

The connection of Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy has been discussed and debated, from various standpoints, all down the centuries : sometimes with the animus of a Tertullian, discerning in that connection the genesis of heresy, and a monstrous confusion of Jerusalem with Athens ; sometimes with the more positive assessment of a Justin Martyr or a Clement of Alexandria, for whom the tradition of Greek speculation manifests, in some measure, the truth of the eternal Logos, and Plato is somehow Plato christianus¹. However the effects of that connection may be evaluated, it is at least clear that there can be no intelligible interpretation of the formation and development of Christian doctrine which does not take into account the doctrines of the contemporary pagan philosophical schools, which share with Jews and Christians all the essential problems of theology, ontology and anthropology : problems of divine unity and finite multiplicity, problems of divine revelation and human reasoning, problems of the distinction of divine and human natures, problems of divine and human mediation , and problems of the origin and destiny of finite beings . All those problems are present, and more or less explicit, in the history of Greek and Roman religion and philosophy, from the earliest of the Greek poets to the latest of the pagan Neoplatonic schools , and are not peculiar to Christianity 2 . Because the problems of pagan and Christian theologies are essentially the same problems, and are recognised as such by the ancient Christian doctors, the doctrines of the pagan schools are of great relevance in the history of the development of Christian doctrine, whether by way of espousal, adaptation, or rejection ; and one will not make sense of that development, in its orthodox or heretical forms, without reference to the general intellectual context within which particular points of doctrine are developed and elaborated . But pagan theology, as well as Christian , has a history of development ; most notably, of course, in the long tradition of Platonism. In recent decades, ¹ Cf. E. von Ivánka , Plato christianus ( Einsiedeln, 1964) ; R.D. Crouse, "The Hellenization of Christianity: A Historiographical Study", Canadian Journal of Theology, 8 ( 1962 ), 22-33 ; E.P. Meijering, Die Hellenisierung Christentums im Urteil Adolf von Harnacks (Amsterdam, Oxford, New York, 1985). 2 Cf. C.J. de Vogel, " Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common Ground", Vigiliae Christianae, 39 ( 1985) , 1-62 .

230

R.D. CROUSE

much useful scholarly work has been done in that area, particularly in the history of the development of Neoplatonic doctrine, from Plotinus, through Porphyry and Iamblichus, to Proclus³ . And the more complete understanding of that history, afforded by such studies, of interest in itself, is also of great importance for the interpretation of Patristic thought in late antiquity, and for our understanding of the early history of medieval philosophy and theology * . Indeed, at many points quite radical revision of some conventional interpretations seems now to be required . For instance, the clarification of the Porphyrian doctrine of God as Ipsum esse has vast implications for the interpretation of Augustine's Christian Platonism, and of the whole history of early medieval thought, which can hardly any longer be regarded (in Gilsonian fashion) as a succession of " essentialisms " finally interrupted by the supposed "existentialism " of Thomas Aquinas. And, while it has been usual to interpret Augustine rather directly in relation to Plotinian Platonism , the more we know of Porphyry, the more we are inclined to wonder, as Hilary Armstrong has recently remarked , " whether both Platonism and the understanding of what Platonism is in the West, from Augustine to our own times , have had a stronger and more distinctive Porphyrian colour than we have realized" . But obviously such general questions are far too vast to be the subject of so brief a communication as this must be, and I must confine myself, rather, to one specific issue in Augustinian Platonism, with reference to the history of Neoplatonic theology, and also with a few remarks about the interpretation of it in early medieval theology, by John Scottus Eriugena. In a succession of commentaries on the text of Genesis, the most important of which are the concluding books of the Confessions, the De Genesi ad litteram, and Books XI and XII of De civitate Dei, Augustine considers the doctrine of creation ' , on the basis of the authoritative Scripture, and in relation to Platonic speculation on the subject, with reference to Plato's 3 A very useful survey, with extensive bibliography, "The Course of Plotinian Scholarship from 1971 to 1986", by K. Corrigan and P. O'Clerigh, is soon to appear in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Cf. also the comments of J.M. Dillon , in his general introduction to Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides, tr. G.R. Morrow and J.M. Dillon (Princeton, 1987), pp. xiv-xxiv . * Cf. my paper, "Augustinian Platonism in Early Medieval Theology", forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Toronto Augustinian Conference, May, 1987. 5 Cf. P. Hadot, "Fragments d'un commentaire de Porphyry sur le Parménide", Revue des Études Grecques, 74 ( 1961 ), 410-438 ; " Dieu comme acte d'être dans le néoplatonisme" , in Dieu et l'Être. Exégèse d'Exode 3,14 et de Coran 20,11-24 (Paris, Études Augustinienes, 1978), pp. 57-63. On Hadot's attribution of the Anonymous Turin Commentary on the Parmenides to Porphyry, see the recent discussion by Dillon, op. cit. , pp. xxvii-xxx. " A.H. Armstrong, Expectations ofImmortality in Late Antiquity (The Aquinas Lecture, 1987, Milwaukee, 1987). 7 On the development of doctrine between the Confessions and De civitate Dei, see A. Solignac, "Exégèse et Métaphysique. Genèse 1,1-3 chez saint Augustin", in In Principio. Interprétations des premiers versets de la Genèse (Paris, Études Augustiniennes, 1973), pp. 153-175.

Creation in Augustine and Eriugena

231

Timaeus, Plotinus , Porphyry, and other Platonici, as well as to the positions of the Manichees. The simple (Platonic) conclusion of his long and complex argument, expressed most directly in De civitate Dei, is that the only reason of creation is that a good God makes good things : "ut a bono Deo bona opera fierent" . But that conclusion, though certainly simple, has, in Augustine's argument, certain crucial Christian presuppositions with regard to the divine nature, and important implications with regard to the creation of matter, the problem of evil, and the soul's relation to the sensible. It involves, first of all, the consideration that the divine principle is not the absolutely transcendent One, from which descend subordinate hypostases of thought and life — as it were , lower levels of divinity - but rather, the unity in Trinity of equal divine hypostases of being, life and thought, who creates all things by his efficient will. Indeed , creation belongs within the unity of the triune divine activity, for, in the divine art, to think and to create do not differ; and no existent thing not even that prope nihil which is matter can fall outside that unity. Matter is divinely created , and therefore good . The implications of that conclusion are evident especially in De civitate Dei, in the exuberant celebration there of the universitas rerum as the res publica of God ' , in which there is no dark nor doubtful element, and all things in harmonious order reveal the transcendent good which is their principle. The temporal and sensible are vehicles of revelation, and through a scientia which understands them rightly, under the guidance of the Word externally and sensibly proclaimed, the creator of them may be known. Undoubtedly, in his working out of his Trinitarian metaphysic of Genesis, Augustine's relation to pagan Neoplatonism is complex, and sometimes ambiguous 10. Of his doctrine of the Trinity, he finds adumbrations in Porphyry's revision of Plotinian hypostastic doctrine, although, in his view, Porphyry falls short of an understanding of the perfect unity of the Trinity, which is essential to the doctrine. "You call them three gods", he says : "appelas tres deos" . His whole argument about the conversio and formation of creatures follows closely the Neoplatonic doctrine of έлotpaoń ¹² . In the notion of matter as divine creation (and therefore unambiguously good),

8 De civ. Dei, XI , 21 (BA, 35, p. 94) . Augustine attributes the doctrine to Plato (cf. Timaeus, 28A), and goes on to speculate about the coincidence of Platonic doctrine with that of Scripture. ⁹ Cf. De civ. Dei, XI, 22 (BA, 35, pp. 96-100) ; XII, 4 (BA, 35, pp. 158-162). 10 Cf. R.D. Crouse, “St. Augustine's De Trinitate : Philosophical Method” , in E.A. Livingstone, ed., Studia Patristica, Vol . XVI (Berlin, 1985), pp . 501-510 , and "The Conversion of Philosophy in St. Augustine's Confessions", forthcoming in Dionysius , 11 ( 1987) . 11 De civ. Dei, X, 29 (BA, 34, p. 528) . O. du Roy's assertion that Augustine attributes to Porphyry "une véritable connaissance de la Trinité" (L'intelligence de la foi en la trinité selon saint Augustin (Paris, 1966), p . 103) is an unfortunate exaggeration. 12 Cf. E. Zum Brunn, “L'exégèse augustinienne de ' ego sum qui sum ' et la métaphysique de l'Exode", in Dieu et l'Être (op. cit. , n. 5), pp . 141-164.

232

R.D. CROUSE

his doctrine seems to parallel the development of later Neoplatonism, as that appears, for instance, in Proclus ' De malorum subsistentia¹³ ; and , in general, the enhanced regard for the revelatory significance of the sensible, especially in De civitate Dei , seems strikingly consistent with the Procline view of the essential role of the sensible in the soul's way of return to God. Here one does not, of course, speak of influence, in one direction or the other - of which we have no evidence ; but, rather, of parallel tendencies of thought in the logical resolution of dilemmas common to both Christian and pagan forms of Platonism . All of this amounts to a suggestion that the Christian Platonism of Augustine, particularly with reference to his doctrine of creation, in its most mature form, points logically beyond the pagan Platonism he knew from Plotinus and Porphyry, and that those later authors, such as Boethius and Eriugena, who apparently found Augustine at certain crucial points consistent with the Platonism of Proclus, were not simply mistaken. And if that is so, it has important implications, not only for our understanding of Augustine, but also for our interpretation of the Augustinian tradition in later centuries 14. Aimé Solignac, in a valuable recent article, speaks of “La double tradition augustinienne"; "une tradition lumineuse", significant especially in certain later developments of the philosophy of nature, and “une tradition ombreuse", according to which Augustine is the source of a pessimistic view of man and nature15 . Our argument here is really to say that what Solignac calls "la tradition lumineuse" is firmly based in Augustine's most mature development of the doctrine of creation , especially in De Genesi ad litteram and De civitate Dei. There is, after all, a development in the thought of Augustine himself, and what one regards as authentically Augustinian must depend very much upon what texts one has in mind . So far as the later tradition is concerned, no doubt the most controversial case in point is that of John Scottus Eriugena, who, in the Periphyseon, drawing heavily upon precisely those texts of Augustine we have mentioned, finds Augustine in basic accord with the Christianly revised Procline Neoplatonism of Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor. He takes note, of course, of differences between Augustine and the Greeks, but he claims that they are differences of words, and not of meanings : "Nec inter se dissonant", he says, "nisi in significationibus vocabulorum" 16. 13 For the appropriate Procline texts, and comment on them, see R. Padellaro de Angelis, L'influenza del pensiero neoplatonica sulla metafisica di S. Tommaso d'Aquino ( Rome, 1981 ), pp. 139-145. 14 Cf. R.D. Crouse, "Anselm of Canterbury and Medieval Augustinianisms", Toronto Journal of Theology, 3 (1987) , 60-68 ; “A Twelfth Century Augustinian : Honorius Augustodunensis” , forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Congresso Internazional Agostiniano (Rome, 1986). 15 A. Solignac, "La double tradition augustinienne. Anthropologie et humanisme", Les Cahiers de Fontenay, 1985, pp. 67-77. 16 De div. nat., V, 31 (PL, 122,942A).

Creation in Augustine and Eriugena

233

His interpretation of Augustine has been much discussed, and variously assessed, in recent scholarship¹7 . Certainly, the elaborate and systematic philosophy of nature which constitutes the Periphyseon is not simply from Augustine ; but neither is it simply from Pseudo -Dionysius and other Greek Fathers . In the meeting and conflation of those authorities, each is modified in certain ways. But I think it would be true to say that those modifications are logical developments of tendencies genuinely present in the original positions, rather than fundamental distortions of those positions. In regard to the doctrine of creation , Eriugena's fundamental argument is that it must be understood as a timeless moment within the triune divine activity. At once, "simul", the Father begot his Wisdom, and in that Wisdom made all things . All creation , in all its hierarchies, in its descent and its return, is essentially and eternally contained within the divine thinking and willing of it. Thus, Eriugena insists, the divisions of "nature", created and uncreated, must be coherently understood according to a Trinitarian (and not just triadic) logic of unity in multiplicity ; and therefore, throughout the second book of Periphyseon , his doctrine of creation is elaborated with continual reference to its ground in the doctrine of the Trinity. All of this is surely Augustinian in substance, though it is more thoroughly systematic in its presentation, and in its systematic character no doubt reflects, by way of Dionysius, the tradition of Iamblichus and Proclus . But if the basic argument here is Augustinian, it is not, for all that, inconsistent with the implications of the Christian Trinitarian conversion of Procline triadic metaphysics by Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus . And if, in other respects for instance, in his regard for creation as the theophanic way of the soul's return to God - Eriugena seems to follow Dionysius and Maximus, rather than Augustine, still, the inclination to see creation as revelatory is not alien to the argument of De civitate Dei. And if we find Eriugena emphasising, in characteristic Dionysian fashion, the incomprehensibility of the divine nature by finite minds, let us remember that for Augustine, too, the divine nature is uncircumscribable, the measure, and not the measured. Indeed , it may well be that the apophatic aspect of Eriugena's theology, for all it owes to Dionysius in language, is in substance closer to Augustine's sense of the limitations of finite knowledge than it is to the lingering Procline inclination of Dionysius to think of the One as unknowable above and beyond the distinctions of the divine Persons 18. 17 See especially the essays by S. Gersch, G. Madec, B. Stock, and J. O'Meara, in W. Beierwaltes, ed., Eriugena. Studien zu seinen Quellen (Heidelberg, 1980) ; J. O'Meara, "Eriugena's Use of Augustine", Augustinian Studies, 11 ( 1980), 21-34 ; R. Roques, " Explication du ' De divisione naturae' IV de Jean Scot" , École pratique des Hautes Études, section V, Sciences religieuses, Annuaire, 89 ( 1980-81 ) , 485-496 ; C. Steel, " Nobis ratio sequenda est. Réflections sur la rationalisme de Jean Scot Érigène" , in W. Lourdaux and D. Verhelst (eds.) , Medievalia Lovaniensia, XI (Louvain, 1983) , 173-189. 18 On this problem in Pseudo-Dionysius, see M. Ninci, L'universo e il non-essere, I. Transcen-

234

R.D. CROUSE

In the "physiology" of the Periphyseon, Augustinian and Dionysian themes and emphases interpenetrate and complement each other in a synthesis ; and it is chiefly in that synthetic form that the influence of late Neoplatonism and of Greek Patristic thought first come to the Western Middle Ages. Later on, of course, especially from the twelfth century on, there are other channels ; but it is important that, in the beginning, those positions are understood to be in accord with Augustine. Thus, the conventional distinctions between Augustinian (usually thought of as Plotinian) Platonism, and Dionysian (Procline) Platonism , which have provided a paradigm for so much of the interpretation of the history of medieval theology and spirituality, seem far from satisfactory 19. In fact , in the great revival of interest in the doctrine of creation in the twelfth century schools , those who most enthusiastically espouse Dionysian- Eriugenist interpretations, such as Hugh of St. Victor and Honorius Augustodunensis, are at the same time most ardent disciples of St. Augustine, and most earnest students of his comments on the text of Genesis. And surely it is just such a concordist standpoint which underlies the eager acceptance by scholastics and mystics in the following medieval centuries all of whom would regard themselves as Augustinian ― of the doctrine of the Liber de causis and other late Neoplatonic influences 20.

denza di Dio e molteplicita del reale nel monismo dionysiano ( Rome, 1980), esp . pp. 143-225. On the analogous problem in Iamblichus and Proclus, see the remarks of Dillon, op. cit., pp . xvi-xxiv. 19 See, for instance, the introductory essays by J. Pelikan and J. Leclerq, in C. Laibhéid and P. Rorem (eds.), Pseudo-Dionysius . The Complete Works (New York and Mahwah, N.J., 1987) . 20 On the Thomistic appropriation of Neoplatonic doctrine, see the recent work by W.J. Hankey, God in Himself. Aquinas ' Doctrine of God as Expounded in the Summa Theologiae (Oxford, 1987) , "Introduction".

Saint Augustine's Conversion Scene: The End of a Modern Debate?

Leo C. FERRARI, Fredricton , New Brunswick

Sixteen hundred years ago, in the spring of 387 , Aurelius Augustinus was baptized and received into the Catholic Church of his times . It is commonly believed that the conversion which preceded that baptism is described in detail by Augustine himself in the eighth book of his autobiographical Confessions . That conversion scene is so vividly described that it seems possessed of an innate realism , so that its historical veracity would be beyond question. Consequently, it has, like the conversion of saint Paul acquired the stature of being one of the principal paradigms of western Christianity¹ . However, in modern times, the historical realism of Augustine's conversion scene has been questioned by a small number of skeptics2 . In particular, the closing decades of the nineteenth century witnessed the beginnings of the now well- known conversion scene quarrel . Its founders can be regarded as having been the widely respected German scholar, Adolf von Harnack and the Frenchman, Gaston Boissier. Both published treatises in 18883 which questioned the historical realism of the events described in the conversion scene of the eighth book of the Confessions. Their reservations were founded on the seeming impossibility of reconciling the Augustine of the conversion scene with the Augustine of the Cassiciacum dialogues (hereafter referred to simply as the dialogues) . The incongruencies resulting from comparisons of both self-portrayals were heightened by the apparent fact that they were descriptions of the same personality on occasions separated by a matter of mere weeks. Thumbnail sketches of both portrayals bring out the incongruencies.

¹ This statement is made by Eugene Kevane on the first page of his “ Philosophy, Education and the Controversy on Saint Augustine's Conversion ”, in Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, vol . 2 ( 1963) , 61-103 . For an interesting comparison of the two conversions, see: Paula Fredriksen, “ Paul and Augustine : Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions, and the Retrospective Self” , in Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 37 , Pt . 1 , April 1986, 3-34. 2 For notes on the earlier of these skeptics, see the beginning of Ubaldo Mannucci's “ La conversione di S. Agostino e la critica recente", Miscellanea Agostiniana (Roma, 1931 ) , vol . 2 , 2347. 3 Adolf von Harnack, Monasticism : Its Ideals and History and the Confessions ofSt. Augustine (London & Oxford, 1901 ) , (being a translation of the German edition of 1888), 141 , 165-166. Gaston Boissier, "La conversion de saint Augustin", Revue des deux mondes,. 85 ( 1888), 43-69. This article was also reproduced in his La fin du paganisme : étude sur les luttes dernières religieuses en occident au quatrième siècle (Paris, 1891 ) , tome I, 339-379.

236

L.C. FERRARI

In the first place, the Augustine of the conversion scene has undergone a devastating encounter with divine grace. This experience has crushed all his selfwill and irrevocably subordinated his future life to the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures which (in the writings of Paul) have just effected his complete conversion. By contrast, no evident traces of this momentous transformation are to be found in the Augustine of the slightly later dialogues . Moreover, they seemingly portray an unhumbled Augustine, far more interested in philosophy than in searching out the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures . Such, in essence, are the two apparently incompatible self- portrayals bequeathed to posterity by Augustine. The problem of reconciling them can be justly entitled the problem of the two Augustines. For the past one hundred years, subsequent to its definitive formulation by Harnack and Boissier in 1888, it has constituted the crux of a seemingly unending debate between the historicists on the one hand, and the fictionalists on the other4. Members of the former and far larger mainstream group have maintained the historical veracity of all events, and sometimes even details, in both the Confessions and in the dialogues . On the other hand, members of the latter group of the fictionalists have argued that those same works contain large elements of fiction . The summary which follows will be concerned with the more important representatives of both groups. In 1918 , Prosper Alfaric seemed to have won the battle for the fictionalists with the publication of his massive volume on Augustine's intellectual evolution . Besides pointing out what seemed like many internal inconsistencies in both the conversion scene and in the dialogues, Alfaric made the thenoutrageous claim that Augustine was initially converted, not to Christianity, but to Neoplatonism " . However, Alfaric's claims were soon rebutted in depth and detail by the thorough study of Charles Boyer7 . At the same time, Boyer deflated the controversy somewhat by pointing out that the modern assumed incompatibility between Neoplatonism and Christianity was not recognized by Augustine himself . With this thorough study, the final victory seemed to go to the embattled historicists, who have not lacked advocates down to the present times . The Great Depression and the Second World War seem to have effected a temporary respite in the literary altercation and perhaps also to have given it an entirely new direction . The latter was accomplished by Pierre Courcelle's

* For a brief summary of the debate, see Eugene Kevane, art. cit., 61-78. 5 L'évolution intellectuelle de saint Augustin , tome I (Paris, 1918) . The two projected succeeding volumes were never published . • Op. cit., 391-399. 7 Christianisme et Néoplatonisme dans la formation de saint Augustin (Paris, 1920). 8 Boyer, op. cit., 193-194. 9 Cf. Kevane, op. cit.

Augustine's Conversion Scene Debate?

237

Recherches sur les Confessions de Saint Augustin, which appeared in 1950¹º. Courcelle expressly renounced any intention of contributing to the old quarrel between the historicists and the fictionalists¹¹ . Nevertheless, his disavowal of theological preoccupations did not endear him to the historicists who saw themselves defending one of the principal paradigms of western Christianity. Courcelle's main concern was to bring his immense knowledge of ancient literature to bear upon the biographical ingredients of Augustine's Confessions. The resulting revelations of Augustine's indebtedness to classical literature and its permeation of his ideas and language, gave a whole new appreciation of the Confessions, and so altered also the perspective of the problem of the two Augustines . For one thing, the dialogues seemed to lose some attention which, in the face of Courcelle's revelations, became even more preoccupied with preserving the historicity of the Confessions and particularly of the conversion scene. These new preoccupations found full expression in Franco Bolgiani's book of 1956, which was entirely devoted to the eighth book of the Confessions ¹². As a former student of Courcelle, Bolgiani also brought an extensive knowledge of ancient literature to bear upon his subject, with the express purpose of demonstrating the historical veracity of the conversion scene . As a result of Courcelle's work, Bolgiani and other confirmed historicists had good reason to be concerned with defending the historical accuracy of each detail in that scene. Courcelle's literary analysis of it, rather than confirming its historical reality, had shown it to be a carefully constructed tableau with some of the elements derived from identifiable sources in the literature of antiquity 13. In particular, Courcelle saw the fig tree beneath which Augustine casts himself down as having a symbolic reality only 14. It was seen as the fig tree of John 1 , 48-50 , beneath which Christ saw Nathanael. As for the voice of the famous "tolle lege" episode, Courcelle conceded it only a reality interior to Augustine's consciousness 15. In summary then, Courcelle saw Augustine's conversion as deriving neither from a voice heard , nor from verses read, but from long interior debates prior to the tableau 16. Courcelle therefore affirmed the reality of Augustine's conversion while denying that the details of the conversion scene were a

10 The second edition appeared in 1968 with minor changes in the text, mainly as additions to footnotes. 11 Op. cit., 12. 12 La conversione di S. Agostino e l'VIII libro delle Confessioni (Torino, 1956). 13 Op. cit., 190-202. 14 Op. cit. , 193. 15 Op. cit., 194-196. 16 Op. cit. , 201 .

238

L.C. FERRARI

faithful recount of real events . His conclusion met with little support and much anger¹7. By way of rejoinder, Bolgiani drew attention to the extensive symbolism of the fig tree in the earlier Fathers of the Church, as also in Augustine 18, but saw this as in no way implying or legitimizing Courcelle's symbolic interpretation of the fig tree in the conversion scene 19. Besides, as Bolgiani argued , if the fig tree there had possessed a symbolic value then Augustine, with his love of biblical exgesis, would certainly not have missed the opportunity to draw explicit attention to that symbolism and bring forth its spiritual meaning 20. Likewise, through an examination of the "tolle lege" formulation in antiquity, Bolgiani concluded that it was indeed a divine command to Augustine 21. This confrontation between the two formidable literary experts, with each arriving at opposite conclusions about the historicity of the conversion scene, found an arbitrator in the person of Henri- Irenée Marrou . His article of 1958, devoted to the quarrel about the "tolle lege " episode, while expressing admiration for Courcelle's enormous erudition , nevertheless found his claims sometimes excessive, and so concluded in favour of Bolgiani 22. However, ten years later, an article by the German scholar, Vinzenz Buchheit, was devoted entirely to the subject of Augustine under the fig tree 23 and attempted to demonstrate just how relevant this detail was , not just to the conversion scene, but to the entire eighth book of the Confessions. Going even farther than Bolgiani, Buchheit explained the reputation of the fig tree, not merely in the Fathers of the Church, but also in the entire ancient world . It represented sexual concupiscence and , as Augustine himself points out at the beginning of the eighth book, what is to follow is precisely a recount of the breaking of his bonds of sexual lust 24. Buchheit therefore concluded that the obtrusive presence of the fig tree at the climax of the eighth book, in the conversion scene, is no mere accident. Moreover, according to the same author, so notorious was the reputation of the fig tree in the ancient world that anyone in Augustine's milieu would have immediately known what was implied by its presence in the conversion scene. Buchheit's study was therefore firmly supportive of Courcelle's claim for the symbolic character of the fig tree in the conversion scene, and so, by implication, of the fictional character of that scene. 17 Henri-Irenée Marrou, “La querelle autour du ‘Tolle lege' ” , Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 53 ( 1958), 47-57 . See pp. 48 and 54. 18 Bolgiani, op. cit. , 104-109.

19 20 21 22 23 24

Op. cit., 109-110. Op. cit., 110. Op. cit., 110-120. Marrou, art. cit., 56-57. "Augustinus unter dem Feigenbaum", Vigiliae Christianae, 22 ( 1968), 257-271 . Conf. 8, 1 , 1 & 2. Cf. 9, 1 , 1 .

Augustine's Conversion Scene Debate?

239

In 1969, Wilhelm Schmidt-Dengler of Vienna published an article on the rhetorical analysis of the eighth book of the Confessions 25. At the outset of his study, he maintained the historicity of the work in general , and of the conversion scene in particular. Regarding the latter, he points out that as Augustine comes to this point in his autobiography, the memory of the stark realism of the traumatic event causes the shedding of rhetorical artifice and the spontaneous shift from the narrative past to the present tense, with the now famous words : "ecce audio vocem de vicina domo" 26 . I shall later return to this significant tense change. Meanwhile, in the late 1970s, an idea occurred to me for a completely new approach to the problem of the historicity of the conversion scene. That idea grew out of the text of Rom. 13,13-14 which when read effects Augustine's conversion (Conf. 8,12,29) . That particular textual citation is but one of the thousands in what I shall describe as Augustine's paratextual world of biblical references (where " references" includes both citations and allusions) . This world has of course been explored somewhat in the past by scholars, but not to the extent made possible more recently by computers. My first step was to create a file of all the biblical references in Augustine's writings 27, beginning with the earliest works and proceeding up to, and including, the works of 401 , when Augustine completed the Confessions. The file of close to ten thousand records was then sorted into alphabetical order ofbooks ofthe Bible, and then within each book, by chapters and verses . The product was to be used to find answers to questions about Augustine's conversion, beginning with the text of Rom. 13,13-14. My hypothesis was that if the devastating drama of the conversion scene were a faithful recount of a real event, then the divinely directed reading from Rom. 13,13-14 must have deeply impressed Augustine . Inevitably therefore , these verses must have been quoted , or alluded to , beginning especially with the works of the year of his conversion in 386, through to the Confessions which was completed in 401 . Considering that Augustine's works in this period contain references to over eight hundred verses from Romans alone, Rom. 13,13-14 should therefore be well represented . However, a search of the file had the astonishing result of producing absolutely nothing on the verses in question ! A singularly significant exception was the Expositio of 394/5 which he wrote on certain propositions from Romans. Rom. 13,13-14 is all but ignored, except for the concluding words "make no provision for the flesh in its appetites" . These

25 "Der rhetorische Aufbau des achten Buches der Konfessionen des heiligen Augustinus" , Revue des Études Augustiniennes 15 ( 1969), 195-208. 26 See my article : "'ecce audio vocem de vicina domo ' (Conf. 8, 12, 29) ”, Augustiniana 33 (1983), 232-245. 27 References were gathered from the Gaume edition of the Opera Omnia (Paris, 1936-39) . As has been noted in the text, a reference is either a quote or an allusion.

240

L.C. FERRARI

words merit a brief treatment on the distinction between necessities and luxuries, with the latter being seen as things of the flesh and therefore to be condemned (loc. cit. , 77) . This exegesis betrays but the remotest of connections with the Augustine of the conversion scene and could well have been written by another person altogether. Such, in brief, were the findings of an article which I published in the Augustinian Studies of 198028. The inevitable conclusion was that Rom . 13,13-14 was not of any particular significance to Augustine in the years 386 through 401 and therefore that the momentous reading of those verses did not occur as described in the conversion scene. Again, while working on the above study I was struck by the similarities between Augustine's conversion and that of his beloved apostle Paul. Both contain a falling to the ground, an affecting of the eyes (tears in Augustine's case and temporary blindness in the case of Paul) and the hearing of a mysterious voice . Furthermore, the messages received each contain repeated words which are close to rhyming, as appears upon comparing "tolle lege, tolle lege" with " Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris ?". These various similarities suggested another approach to the questioned

historicity of the conversion scene . If Augustine had been converted in a manner remarkably similar to the conversion of Paul, then he must have been deeply impressed with that similarity. Consequently, the resemblance must have been at least a constant peripheral preoccupation with him and therefore would have manifested its mental presence by references to the conversion of Paul as described in Acts 29. Subsequently, in 1982 , I published my findings in an article entitled “ Saint Augustine on the Road to Damascus " 30, which showed a complete absence of such references from all writings prior to 396, or the year before he began working on the Confessions. The conversion of Paul was therefore not of particular interest to Augustine in that earlier period . Therefore, it would appear that he had not himself undergone a remarkably similar experience in 386. Moreover, by contrast, there is a highly significant cluster of some fourteen references to Paul's conversion during the same years that Augustine was working on the Confessions. The reason seems clear. He was then preoccupied with that other conversion as source of inspiration , while writing the account of his own. In finished form this account featured Paul's conversion as paradigm for its well-known climax - whence the famous conversion scene of the eighth book of the Confessions. Finally, it is also significant that after

28 "Paul at the Conversion of Augustine, (Conf. VIII , 12, 29-30)", Augustinian Studies 11 (1980), 5-20. 29 Acts ofthe Apostles 9 , 1-18 ; 22 , 6-15 ; 26, 12-18. 30 Augustinian Studies 13 ( 1982), 151-170.

Augustine's Conversion Scene Debate?

241

401 , references to Paul's conversion occur but rarely in Augustine's firmly dated works . In summary then, the first of the above studies eliminated the historical reality of the divinely directed reading from Rom. 13,13-14 . The second study went even further and abolished the historicity of the justly famous conversion scene of the Confessions. The conclusion to these discoveries seems irrefutable at least if one is to be guided by the evidence while there can be no doubting the historical reality and the deep sincerity of Augustine's conversion, it did not occur as described in the well known conversion scene of the Confessions. This rude conclusion calls for some further explanatory considerations. However, before proceeding to the more obvious of these, I would like to point up some external corroborations of certain episodes in the Confessions as relevant to the conversion scene. P.H. Merki has well observed 31 that, unlike the reading from Paul in the conversion scene, there can be no doubting the historical reality of Augustine's reading of Cicero's Hortensius (Conf. 3 , 4, 7-8), since it is referred to in several places in Augustine's other works 32. The same can be said of the discovery of certain books of the " Platonists" 33, as also of the eager seizing upon Paul's writings 34 which occurs towards the end of the seventh book of the Confessions (Conf. 7 , 21 , 27) . Moreover, it is important to observe that by reason of both context and content, this last episode is not to be identified with the seizing upon Paul's book in the conversion scene 35, though the former may well have been the source of inspiration for the latter. In contrast to the above episodes, whose historical reality is externally corroborated, there are two "mystical" experiences for which no such external confirmation can be found . Nor is either of these capital events of the Confessions mentioned by Augustine's biographer, Possidius, who knew him intimately over a period of some forty years 36. One of these experiences is the famous vision at Ostia (Conf. 9 , 10, 23-26) which, as Paul Henry has well demonstrated, is substantially derived from the first and fifth Enneads of Plotinus 37. The other experience is the conversion scene, which as shown 31 " Tolle, lege !' Interpretation zu Augustinus, Confessiones VIII , 5-12", Zeitschrift für die Höhere Schule (München) 13 ( 1967) , 168-183 . See especially p. 179ff. 32 Conf. 8, 7, 17 ; De beata vita 1 , 4 & 10 ; C. acad. 1 , 1 , 4 ; 3, 14 , 31 ; Sol. 1 , 10 , 17. 33 Conf. 7, 9, 13-15 ; 7 , 11 , 13-15 ; 7, 20, 26 ; C. acad. 2, 2, 5 ; De beata vita 1 , 4. 34 See my " Augustine's ' Discovery' of Paul's Writings", Augustinian Studies (in press). 35 This identification was attempted by J.J. O'Meara in his “Arripui, aperui et legi", Augustinus Magister, vol . 1 ( 1954) , 59-65. See however my article of n. 28, especially pp. 17-19. 36 Vita sancti Augustini, chapters 1 and 2. 37 Paul Henry, The Path to Transcendence ; from Philosophy to Mysticism in Saint Augustine (Trans . Francis F. Burch) , (Pittsburgh, 1981 ), chapters 1 to 3 especially. This book was originally published in 1938 as: La vision d'Ostie ; sa place dans la vie et l'œuvre de Saint Augustin . J.J. O'Meara, following Theiler, sees Porphyry as having more influence on Augustine than did Plotinus. See his The Young Augustine ; the Growth ofhis Mind up to his Conversion (U.S.A. 1965), especially 134ff and 143ff.

242

L.C. FERRARI

above, is indebted to the description of Paul's conversion as found in Acts . Both of these "mystical" experiences would therefore seem to derive from a certain romanticizing of reality and therefore to be largely fictional in character. In this regard, Portalié has claimed , on behalf of the historicists, that such a conclusion would mean that the material facts of the Confessions would have to have been falsified with unashamed brazenness 38. I believe, and I hope to show, in a convincing manner, that this extreme conclusion arose from a complete misunderstanding of the true context, and therefore of the real nature, of Augustine's Confessions . Neither have the fictionalists, in ignoring that context, fared much better in their attempts to disprove the historicity of the conversion scene. In my opinion, the polemics of the last hundred years have been more a war of words and battles of prejudices than investigations of the realities. As Eugene Kevane has well observed , some hidden factor has been missing 39. While I can agree with that observation , I cannot agree with his identification of the nature of that missing factor40 . For a beginning, I would maintain that there are two missing factors, which I would describe as vital considerations to the understanding of the context and therefore the true nature of the Confessions. In the first place, it is understandable that the scholars of the last hundred years should have assumed that Augustine wrote the Confessions for readers like themselves . Consequently, they have all made the fatal assumption that the work was written to be silently read and analyzed in the solitude of a book-lined study. I maintain that this initial assumption locked them into a viewpoint from which all seemed to make sense, but with a deceptive clarity which has spawned one hundred years of futile polemics . Therefore, the first of the vital considerations to which I wish to draw attention is that the Confessions was written about a thousand years before the Gutenberg galaxy appeared on the horizon of history. This epochal event of the invention of printing separates the present age of mass literacy from the earlier oral cultures. This may be a fact of common knowledge, but far more difficult is a realization of some of the obvious implications, which could have been enlightening to the present controversy. On the subject of that realization, Walter J. Ong writes :

38 Eugène Portalié, A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine (Chicago, 1960), 10-19. 39 Art. cit., 40. 40 Kevane maintains that scholars have not realized that in the dialogues Augustine was intent upon elaborating a Christian philosophy for the education of youth ; a philosophy which he maintained to the end of his life. Kevane bases this extensive claim upon three textual references which do not support his claim (p . 87). It would appear that Kevane's claim is based, not on the writings of Augustine, but on the works of romantic writers on Augustine.

Augustine's Conversion Scene Debate?

243

We have not yet come to full terms with the fact that from antiquity well through the eighteenth century, many literary texts, even when composed in writing, were commonly for public recitation4¹ . That this was originally true of Augustine's Confessions is evident, not merely from the general statement of Ong, but also from known facts about the work and its author. In the first place, Augustine was by profession an orator (which many students of him have too easily forgotten), and therefore wrote primarily as a prelude to declamation . Secondly, there is the well known episode of Ambrose reading in silence and the amazement that this caused in Augustine and others who came to witness that marvellous spectacle (Conf. 6, 3, 3) . Thirdly, as I have shown elsewhere42 , the Confessions is rich in oral and aural verbs of communication, including talking, hearing, laughing and even shouting. Finally, there is the fact that Augustine himself informs the reader several times in the tenth book of the work that it was to be read before an audience 43 . The work is therefore best understood as a script for a dramatic reading of a kind not far removed from stage acting and for which kind reading, Augustine had been well prepared by his training in rhetoric43a. Realization of this intention straightway explains the intrusion of the present tense in the sentence : "ecce audio vocem de vicina domo" (Conf. 8, 12 , 29) , already mentioned above. This departure from the narrative past tense does not prove the historical reality of the event, which Schmidt- Dengler claims, but is for maximizing the dramatic impact of that climactic event upon the audience, as a vocal reading of the episode will readily demonstrate. Secondly, realization of the vocally dramatic character of the Confessions also invalidates Bolgiani's argument from above, that if the fig tree had a symbolic character then Augustine would surely have explained it . Obviously, no surer way could be found to destroy the climax of the dramatic reading at the conversion scene than by indulging in such pedantry . It would therefore have been a quite unthinkable aberration for a professional orator, particularly one of Augustine's stature. Thirdly, acceptance of the theatrical nature of the Confessions reveals the extremism of Portalié's above conclusion that if the work is not entirely a record of historical facts, then its ingredients must have been falsified with

41 Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy; the Technologizing ofthe Word (London & New York, 1982), 157. 42 See article of n. 26, especially 236. 43 "For the confessions of my past sins... when they are read and heard, stir up the heart..." (10, 3 , 4) ; “What then have I to do with men that they should hear my confessions ….. ” ( 10, 3, 3) ; "That I may confess this not before Thee only... but in the ears of the believing sons of men... (10, 4, 6). 43 S.F. Bonner, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and and Early Empire (Liverpool, 1949), 21 & 62 ; M.L. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome ; A Historical Survey (London, 1953) , 96-97.

244

L.C. FERRARI

unashamed brazenness . This verdict makes absolutely no allowances for the theatrical exigencies of the work. As script for a dramatic reading, to be successful, the Confessions had to conform to the canons for prose narration. According to the Cicero once so much admired by Augustine44, narrational history (including autobiography) served veritas and utilitas, but delectatio was also most important if the reading were to grip the audience's attention . The problem was then preserving veritas, but also providing delectatio. In this regard, the grammarian , Asclepiades of Myrlea, whose work may, or may not, have been known to Augustine, distinguishes three categories with respect to veritas45 . First was alethes historia, or literally true history. On the other extreme was pseudes historia , or history which was wholly imaginary and so quite false . In between both extremes was the category of plasma, which dealt with true history, but with a certain theatrical embroidering of the truth, for increased audience appeal . From what has been seen, it would seem that Augustine's Confessions would fit into this category. While it may be possible to classify the work on the basis of the previous considerations, this raises a problem in view of the Latin Fathers' objections to making any compromise with literally true history46. Significant in this regard is Augustine's preoccupation with the truth of the Confessions (Conf. 10, 3, 3-4 & 6) . While he does not insist that every detail and event in the work is historically true, he does point out that it is not addressed to the merely curious (Conf. 10, 3, 3) , but to those whose ears are opened to him by charity. Again, since the principal aim of the work is to stir the audience's hearts to a greater love of God's mercy and grace (Conf. 10, 3, 4) , the fostering of delectatio in the audience becomes thereby justified 47. But this raises the larger question about what could possibly have given Augustine the licence to make a compromise with the absolute truth about the real, unadorned events of his life. As I shall soon argue, this was justified by the second vital consideration which has been ignored by scholars of the past one hundred years. Meanwhile, there is another important complementary aspect to the orality of Augustine's Confessions; an aspect which is also difficult for modern readers to appreciate. In general, auditory character of literature of printing, people came quite literally Marshall McLuhan, with his usual

this aspect concerns the aurality, that age . With the dissemination to see literature in a different way, gnomic insightfulness, put it when

or of as he

observed that print gave the modern person " an eye for an ear" 48 . This

44 45 46 47 48

Moses Hadas, Ancilla to Classical Reading (New York, 1954), 45-47. Hadas , loc. cit. Hadas, loc. cit. De ord. 2, 13, 38 ; De doct. christ. 4, 12, 27f; 4, 17, 34. The Gutenberg Galaxy (Toronto, 1962), 18-21 ; 26-28.

Augustine's Conversion Scene Debate?

245

means that the change from manuscript to mechanically printed pages produced also an epochal shift from auditory to visual dominance. Realization of this change gives a new appreciation of Augustine's numerous references in the Confessions to aural experiences, such as hearing the voice of God, or of the Scriptures 49. In such a perspective too, the famous voice of the conversion scene becomes far less bizarre than it does to modern print-dominated readers. In fact, one can ask why the mysterious voice did not simply chant the verses of Rom . 13,13-14 , instead of referring to the book of Paul. The reason for Augustine's choice of the book would seem to be that it made for better drama for the audience than the voice alone and this for two principal reasons. First, to the illiterate, reading was in itself a marvellous act whereby the magical power of the reader released the words from their imprisonment in the ink marks on the parchment 50. Secondly, in the case of the conversion scene, there was the then-new wonder of random accessing a text, an accomplishment made possible by the book-form (codex) of Paul's writings ("ibi enim posueram codicem apostoli ", Conf. 8, 12 , 29) . The codex form had been generally and almost exclusively adopted by the Christians in the very same century that the Confessions was written 51. Random accessing would not have been possible with the traditional pagan scroll which, by its structure, permitted only sequential access. Finally, on the drama of the reading in the conversion scene, it is noteworthy that Augustine's reaction to the divine command is a theatrical, rather than a really spontaneous one . His whole past training would have made for a reading aloud from the book. Instead, he reads in silence : "legi in silentio" (Conf. 8, 12 , 29) . One is reminded of the amazement caused by Ambrose's silent reading (Conf. 6, 3 , 3). Ong points up another tendency fostered by a visually dominant print culture : A sound-dominated verbal economy is consonant with aggregative (harmonizing) tendencies rather than with analytic, dissecting tendencies (which would come with the inscribed, visualized word : vision is a dissecting sense) 52 . As Harold Innis has pointed out 53 , printing has encountered many obstacles to its universal dissemination. Nevertheless, its gradual spread has had a powerful influence on the growth of the analytical mentality . As regards the Confessions, printing has been one of the important factors which has

49 See article of n. 26, especially p. 236. 50 See the striking extract of Prince Modupe at the opening of chapter 9 in Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media. 51 Hadas, op. cit., 11. 52 Ong, op. cit., 73-74. 53 Empire and Communication (Toronto, 1972) chapter 7.

246

L.C. FERRARI

favoured analysis of the work over its author's original intention of religious edification, whence the growth of the " critica recente" decried by Mannucci 54. The second vital consideration for understanding the context of Augustine's Confessions and which has been lacking from the polemics of the last hundred years concerns the real genesis of the work. Scholars have been so captivated by Augustine's brilliant description of the conversion scene that it seemed self-evident that it was that particular transformation which moved him to write the Confessions. If this were indeed so , then one can well ask why Augustine waited some ten years before embarking on the description. Surely it would have been better written as soon as possible after the event. Furthermore, the above assumption has obscured the real motives which produced the work. It has also imposed a false perspective which has produced the famous problem of reconciling the two Augustines . On the other hand, if, as has been demonstrated above, the conversion scene never occurred in real life, then there is no need to impute to the young Augustine of 386 the transformed personality of that powerful scene . Rather does that transformation derive from a momentous event just prior to the writing of the Confessions, which event caused this writing, together with its dramatic embellishments, including the conversion scene. This postponement of the transformation to some ten years later than the traditional date, not only disposes of the problem of the two Augustines, but it also has the advantage of showing an evolutionary conversion more in accord with the sequence of events in the Vita of Augustine's biographer, Possidius 55. For this however, he has been criticized by the eminent Courcelle, who for all his inventiveness seemed still under the spell of the powerful conversion scene 56. Breaking the spell of the justly famous conversion scene both eliminates the problem of the two Augustines and also makes good sense out of an otherwise inconsistent statement repeatedly made by Augustine and ignored, to their peril, by the historicists . This is the insistent statement that the earlier works (including the dialogues) were written too much under the influence of the pride of the schools 57. In general, such works were written before the momentous transformation which caused the writing of the Confessions. In this regard, it is important to realize that Augustine underwent, not one, but a series of conversions, as I have explained in my book, The Conversions

54 See n. 2. 55 See n. 36. 56 "Possidius et les Confessions de saint Augustin”, Mélanges Jules Lebreton in Recherches de science religieuse 39 ( 1951-52) , 428-442, especially p. 434. The influence of the spell on Courcelle is evident on pp. 432-3 where he imagines that he sees references to the conversion scene in the text of Possidius . In my opinion , this is an example of carrying too far his otherwise excellent technique of parallel texts. See Marrou's article, n. 17. 57 Conf. 9, 4, 7 (written 397-401 ) ; De doct. christ. 2, 13, 20 (of 396) ; ibid. , 4, 7, 14 (written 427).

Augustine's Conversion Scene Debate?

247

of Saint Augustine 58. Maria Peters, in 192159 , saw Augustine's first conversion as consisting in the Hortensius episode (Conf. 3 , 4, 7-8) and the incredible ardour for philosophia that that discovery produced in the young Augustine of nineteen years. The importance of this experience for Augustine has been much under-rated . It dominated some twenty years of his life and was often referred to by him 60. First it led him into a fruitless investigation of the Bible (Conf. 3, 4, 9), then with the terrifying appearance of Halley's Comet in 374, into the "trap" of the light-worshiping Manichees¹ . From this he was eventually freed by his dedication to the natural philosophy of celestial phenomena 62. Finally, the discovery of the books of the "Platonists" was of vital importance to his first conversion to the Catholic Church of his times 63 , ten years prior to his final conversion. However, only the beginning and the end of that lengthy search for philosophia are found included in the story of the Confessions . The reason for this restriction would seem to be that a fuller treatment of that search would have drastically altered the nature of the book, which was principally concerned , not with philosophy, but with religious edification (Conf. 10, 3, 4) . Furthermore, by the time that he came to writing the Confessions, Augustine's attitude to philosophy had been drastically altered , due to what I have called his final conversion to Catholicism 64, as will be explained. As Augustine tells us quite clearly, when he was about to receive baptism in Milan, he was convinced that union with the divine in the present life was attainable through study of the liberal arts 65. For this reason he planned and began writing a series of books on the liberal arts, which included grammar, music, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic and philosophy66 . Clearly, he was then very much under the influence of Neoplatonism in accord with the account in the Confessions 67. However, this ambitious scheme was not to be completed , due to his final conversion which revealed the futility of the entire venture . As a result of this epochal transformation, the Augustine of the Confessions saw union with the divine as quite unattainable by human efforts , no matter how studious and sustained . It was as newly appointed Bishop of Hippo Regius, ten years after his first 58 The Saint Augustine Lecture 1982, Villanova, 1984. 59 "Augustins erste Bekehrung", in Harnack-Ehrung : Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte (Leipzig, 1921), 195-211. 60 Conf. 8, 7, 17 ; De beata vita 1 , 4 & 10 ; C. acad. 1 , 1 , 4 & 3 , 14, 31 ; Sol. 1 , 10, 17. 61 See my " Halley's Comet of 374 ; New Light upon Augustine's Conversion to Manicheism", Augustiniana 27 ( 1977), 139-150 . 62 See my "Astronomy and Augustine's Break with the Manichees", Revue des Études Augustiniennes 19 ( 1973) , 263-276. 63 Conf. 7, 9, 13-15 ; 7 , 11 , 13-15 ; 7, 20, 26. See O'Meara's book of n. 37, chapter IX onwards. 64 See my book of n. 58, p. 77ff. 65 Retract. 1 , 5, 3. 66 Ibid. 67 See n. 33.

248

L.C. FERRARI

conversion to Catholicism, that Augustine underwent what I have called his final conversion. This tremendous transformation has been largely ignored by scholars, but is the secret source of the Confessions. The epochal event occurred in 396 as Augustine was struggling to answer some exegetical problems which included Rom . 9,10-29 . By something exceeding mere coincidence, these problems had been directed to his attention by the same Simplicianus who, some ten years previously, had helped the inquiring Augustine put his foot on the path which led to eternal salvation (Conf. 8, 1 , 1 ; 8, 2 , 3ff. ) . The problem of interest here, as posed by Rom. 9 , 10-29 , concerned God's rejection of Esau the first-born and the election of his brother, Jacob the deceiver. As William Babcock has well demonstrated 68 , Augustine's position on this problem had changed over the preceding years. However, the answer which now came to him, surprised even Augustine himself, and for the good reason that, as he maintained, it came not from himself, but by a direct revelation from God , for as Augustine says : "This, God revealed to me, as I sought to solve this question, when I was writing, as I said, to the Bishop Simplicianus" 69. Nevertheless, it was a conclusion which Augustine had resisted to the limits of his abilities . For this reason , even years later, he described the experience as a struggle of the human will against the grace of God, but in the end, God's grace prevailed 7º. As a result of that revelation, Augustine came to see the case of Esau and Jacob as a divine paradigm for all humanity. In essence, it meant that God's election, or rejection of every person, derived , not from any merits or faults (whether actual or potential) in the various individuals, but entirely from an imponderable choice on the part of God . Therefore , in terms of the imagery used by Paul, each individual is related to God as the clay to the potter, to be shaped for election or rejection as God sees fit (Rom. 9 , 21 ) . Thus was born into the world what became known as Augustine's doctrine of divine predestination and which was increasingly to influence all his subsequent writings, not to mention the western Christian tradition. Peter Brown, with his usual perceptiveness, has observed that Augustine's reply to Simplicianus became the charter for the Confessions¹¹ . I would further add, that in its turn, this work became the charter for Augustine's doctrine of divine predestination . Consequently, not only did he see the vanity and pride at the source of his previous philosophical aspirations towards union with the divine by self-purification in the present life, but, as the Confessions repeatedly reminds its audience , its author, despite his great

68 "Augustine's Interpretation of Romans (AD 394-396)” , Augustinian Studies 10 ( 1979) , 5574, especially 65-67. 69 De pread. sanct., 4, 8. 70 Ibid.; Retract. 2, 1 , 9. 11 Augustine of Hippo ; A Biography ( 1969) , 170.

Augustine's Conversion Scene Debate?

249

sinfulness, is being relentlessly drawn towards God . The great lesson is clear : "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" (John 15, 16) . The tremendous revelation which Augustine considered that he had received also explains why he dismissed his earlier works as written under the excessive influence of the pride of the schools . The Augustine writing the Confessions was as far removed from the author of the earlier works as Paul's spiritual man was from the man of nature 72. Realization of this difference also manifests the futility of trying to reconcile the two Augustines and hence the reason for the lack of a successful outcome to that enterprise of the last hundred years. As history has well testified , and as the politically astute Augustine well anticipated, the world did not take kindly to his revolutionary doctrine of divine predestination , with its separation of humanity into the small coterie of the Elect on the one hand, and the great massa perditionis on the other73 . Indeed, he soon became embroiled in the famous Pelagian controversy which was to engage his energies for the rest of his life74 . However, he had been so politically astute that in later years he was able to boast that he had begun cutting down the Pelagian heresy long before it had appeared on the scene 75 . As privileged recipient of the divine revelation concerning God's manner of salvation, it was incumbent upon Augustine to do all in his power to assure that the divine truth prevailed . The most effective medium was obviously the theatre which had so captivated him in his wicked youth (Conf. 3, 2 , 2-4) . Further, the particular aim dictated an exquisitely crafted narratio which would show divine grace at work in an incomparable manner and so would brook no imitations, let alone disputations. This, I postulate, is the reason which led Augustine to choose the plasma category of prose narration, as noted above. Further, the work was to have as leitmotif the parable of the prodigal son , with the climax of the work modeled upon the conversion of Augustine's beloved apostle , Paul . Finally, there was the masterstroke of having Augustine himself as subject with pertinent events of his past sinful life as subject matter for the story. This bold innovation had several obvious advantages . First and foremost, as he saw it, the divine revelation had been made to Augustine, therefore he had to defend it with his life, which was precisely what he did . Secondly, it

72 I Cor. 15, 45-49. 73 For the impact of Augustine's doctrine of predestination and the Confessions, see: Alberto Pincherle, "Intorno alla genesi delle Confessioni di S. Agostini" , Augustinian Studies 5 ( 1974), 167-176. 74 G. Martinetto, “Les premières réactions antiaugustiniennes de Pélage", Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 17 ( 1971 ) , 83-117 . See also : H. Rondet, S.J., " La prédestination augustinienne ; Genèse d'une doctrine", Sciences ecclésiastiques 18 ( 1966) , 229-261 , especially 231ff. 75 De dono persev. 20, 52. 76 See my "The Theme of the Prodigal Son in Augustine's Confessions", Recherches Augustiniennes, 12 ( 1977) , 105-118.

250

L.C. FERRARI

gave the work an intensely appealing realism, being concerned as it was , with a living person known to all. Thirdly, by publicly exposing the author's past sinfulness, it not only deprived his enemies of the deadly weapons of slander, but indelibly underlined the central thesis of a divine predilection which operated independently of personal sinfulness . Lastly, it also prepared for the coming Pelagian controversy by providing, in a manner reminiscent of Thomas S. Kuhn's explanations 77 , a paradigm both rooted in the Bible and also exemplifying the divine revelation which Augustine believed that he had received. By its great popularity, this paradigm produced social cohesiveness among those whose ears were opened to him by charity and a paradigm which the Pelagians could not imitate. In conclusion then, this paper has attempted to summarize a completely new approach to the problem of the historicity of Augustine's conversion scene in the Confessions. It is claimed that this approach demonstrates decisively that that famous scene did not in fact really occur. Further , the paper has tried to explain how the debate over the historical reality of that scene has arisen because of a universal lack of understanding both of the Confessions as a script for a dramatic narration and also of the causes which required its writing. It would be overly optimistic to expect that these explanations would end all further debate about the historical reality of the conversion scene . However, it is hoped that the above explanations will win more scholars over to the interpretations presented and so to an appreciation of the futility of the debate of the last one hundred years.

77 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Pythagoreanism and Hermetism in Augustine's "Hidden Years "

W.H.C. FREND, Barnwell

The "hidden years" of the great, especially of those who have influenced decisively the religious and moral ideas of their fellows for generations , will always fascinate and challenge . What were the early influences on Mahomet or John the Baptist ? What finally caused Jesus to follow his future disciples Peter and Andrew and seek baptism from his cousin on the banks of the Jordan? Regarding Mani we are now better informed , thanks to the autobiographical Köln papyrus which reveals his gradual alienation from the Jewish-Christian Elchaisite baptist sect in which he had been brought up, leading to his decision in 240 at the age of 24 to embark on his own vastly ambitious mission of religious reform ' . The Christian background to his teaching was however proved, and the reasons for its acceptance by some Christians, including Augustine and his friends, can be better understood . The centrality of Christ and Paul as his interpreter in North African Manichaean writings was not merely a western gloss to an otherwise Zoroastrian dualist faith 2. Augustine was a Manichaean "Hearer" for nine years, 373-382, and in that time an active missionary for the sect . For two further years , 382-384, he maintained his links with it, though as an increasingly critical associate³ . This period covers the whole decade of his twenties , a period which for many is the most formative of adult life. Many ideas and attitudes acquired then retain their influence throughout life . Julian of Eclanum was not wholly mistaken when he taxed Augustine in his final years with still being at heart a Manichee+. ¹ See the articles by A. Henrichs and L. Koenen, "Ein griechischer Mani-Codex ", in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 5.2 ( 1970) 97-216 , 19 ( 1975) , 1-85 32 ( 1978 ) 78-199 . 2 Most evident in Fortunatus' remarks in Augustine, Contra Fortunatum, where Paul is always quoted simply as "Apostolus ", and Fortunatus takes his own allegiance to Christ for granted . Also, Faustus of Milevis, quoted by Augustine Contra Faustum xx.2. 3 That his ties with the Manichaeans lasted longer than nine years is admitted by Augustine in his account of his acceptance of the Chair of Rhetoric at Milan thanks to the recommendation of a Manichaean friend in Rome in 384 (Conf. , v. 13.23). The possibility of Augustine using "nine years" as a deliberate piece of number-symbolism, "nine" being a number reflecting imperfection, is suggested by L.C. Ferrari, “Augustine's ' Nine years' as a Manichee”, Augustiniana 25 ( 1975), 208-215 . Interest in numerology could in its turn be derived from an interest in Pythagoreanism. * Thus, in Julian cited by Augustine in Contra Julianum, Opus Imperfectum, iv.42, "Si mutabit Aethiops pellem suam aut pardus varietatem, ita et tu a Manichaeorum mysteriis elueris" . Compare 1.115 and 123.

252

W.H.C. FREND

Yet what Augustine relates about this part of his life, as well as his spiritual journey from and back to Catholic orthodoxy, remains tantalisingly incomplete . To Bks. iii-vii of the Confessions , one may add the De Utilitate Credendi, Sermo 51 , some parts of De Civitate Dei ii, (e.g. ii.4) , a passage in Letter 54 concerning Monica in Milan ( 54,2.3) , and hints and reminiscences elsewhere, as the overt record of his career and beliefs down to the beginning of 3865. Much is left out, to be filled in from casual remarks let slip, aided by Augustine's unexpected use of authors whose works would not normally find their way to the library of a North African Catholic bishop. Augustine's recollection of his long Manichaean period was strictly selective, in keeping with his newly acquired status as Catholic bishop of Hippo less than two years before he wrote the Confessions in 397. He is unwilling to remember even the name of the emperor before whom he recited a panegyric at Milan in 385, or that of the author or authors of the Neo- Platonist works that finally freed him from Manichaeism. On a more personal level he does not tell us the name of his friend whose baptism during a terminal illness he mocked, and he is silent about even that of his faithful mistress. Nothing was, it appears, worthy of record that in retrospect did not contribute to his deliverance from his past and acceptance of the authority of Catholic orthodoxy. The spiritual journey is also foreshortened . Augustine's quest after true wisdom moves in the Confessions from his first exuberant contact with philosophy from Cicero's Hortensius, to his conversion to Manichaeism ; thence, after a brief flirtation with the scepticism of the Academics , to NeoPlatonism and finally, to an ascetic life and a return to Catholic orthodoxy. There are obviously gaps . It is hard to think that in the twelve years 373-385 Augustine, otherwise so zestful in his pursuits, would have been occupying his life only in preparing lectures in the Latin Classics for his students, or discussing Manichaean objections to the Old Testament, and the theories of the sect regarding the problem of evil and the power of Fate . That significant and perhaps intentional gaps exist, is suggested by Augustine's handling of an incident recorded in Bk 6 of Confessions. Late in 385 he supported enthusiastically a plan conceived by his friend and still dedicated Manichee, Romanianus . Romanianus had the idea of a sort of secular monastery or commune, in which Augustine and nine friends would share a common life devoted to the pursuit of wisdom, pooling their resources. They would live in leisure freed from the "turbulent eddies" of secular life. The plan had gone a long way forward, including the search for "magistrates" who would administer the shared resources of the group, when it was vetoed by its members' wives (and concubines) ". 5 Particularly in the Contra Epist. Fundamenti and scattered in the Cassiciacum dialogues. See P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de Saint Augustin (Paris, 1950) , Ch . ii. • Confessions vi.14.24 . See P. Courcelle, Les Confessions de Saint Augustin dans la tradition littéraire (Paris, Études augustiniennes, 1963), 21-23. 7 Confessions, ibid.

Augustine and Pythagoreanism and Hermetism

253

Monasticism in Italy was still in its infancy and often associated in the public mind with Manichaeism . There is no hint of orthodox Christian inspiration in Augustine's account, surprising perhaps when we learn in Bk. 8 of the existence of a monastery in Milan " full of good brethren" , to which Romanianus' commune might have been compared . Nor is there any reference to orthodox Christian ascetics who shared the group's distaste for worldly pressures, individuals such as Ponticianus whose experiences are described in Bk. 8, and influenced Augustine towards final decisions in August 38610. It was Pierre Courcelle who suggested that the inspiration came primarily from Pythagoreanism . The Pythagoreans , he pointed out, were continuing in the fourth century to preach the ideal of friends sharing all things in common (amicorum omnia communia) in a male society aimed at liberation from worldly pressures and the pursuit of wisdom 11. The detail of the selection of "magistrates" to administer the possession of the participants is significant, for these officers and their role are referred to by Iamblichus c. 320 in his Life of Pythagoras 12. The Pythagoreans are not mentioned either in the Confessions or the De Utilitate, but within a year of the proposal Augustine himself provides evidence for his debt to them. The scene is Cassiciacum in December 386. The long and exhausting discussion concerning how to understand order in God's creation and to reconcile reason and authority is drawing to its close. Unexpectedly, Alypius mentions the precepts of Pythagoras as an example of the best of moral systems . He says to Augustine, "What then? Surely that venerable and almost divine teaching of Pythagoras, tested by law and custom has been revealed to us to-day by you, as it were before our very eyes " 13. Pythagoras' teaching was worthy of the highest respect , pointing not only towards the goals of moral excellence, but reflecting the " plains and watery depths" (ipsos campos ac liquida aequora) of truth . His precepts were "the shrine of truth" , and Augustine had briefly and fully expounded them 14. Augustine rose to the bait, as he regretted when he came to write his Retractations 14a. He endorsed Alypius' praises fully. Pythagoras ' teaching (disciplinam) awoke his almost daily admiration, particularly in regard to the conduct of public life 15. Indeed , he was "almost divine" on account of his 8 Thus, Jerome, Ep. 22.13 . " When they (ordinary folk) see a woman with a pale face they call her, "miserable Manichaean nun". 9 Confessions, viii.6.15 and De Moribus Eccles. Cath. , 33. 10 Confessions, viii.6.14. 11 Courcelle, Les Confessions, 24-25 (cites texts). 12 Iamblichus, De Vita Pythag. (ed . L. Deubner), xxxiii,229 and see also xxx, 168 and xviii.72. 13 De Ordine (ed. P. Knoll, CSEL 63), xx.53. 14 Ibid. , xx.53 “sacrarium veritatis”. 14a Retract., 1.4. 15 De ordine xx.54. regendae rei publicae disciplinam suis auditoribus ultimam tradebat (Pythagoras). Did Augustine intend this on his own model in 384-5?

254

W.H.C. FREND

teaching, the inspirer of distinguished pupils, a rock of wisdom against whom the waves of uncertainty beat in vain. High praise, and not isolated, for earlier, in the Contra Academicos iii.17 , Augustine had referred with approval to the spiritual and contemplative aspect of Pythagoras' teaching. In particular, he had praised his concept of the immortality of the soul, opposing the views of the sceptical Academics, and affirmed that Plato himself had been influenced by him 16. One can perhaps see a link in Augustine's mind between Pythagorean and Platonist teaching which would be leading him away from Manichaeism and its starkly dualist view of reality. The discovery of the truths of Neo-Platonism, so much emphasised in Bk. vii of the Confessions may not have been so sudden as the author would have his readers believe . May one go further, and point out another " missing link " in Augustine's evolution from Manichaeism to Neo-Platonist Christianity? This influence may have been more profound and longer-standing than Pythagoreanism to which it was allied . There has always been a problem of how Augustine was able to convince himself that he was a Christian , though rejecting vehemently and with contempt the Old Testament 16, and caring little for the specifically North African Christian customs which his mother brought with her to Milan 18. A clue towards finding an answer may be discovered perhaps in the views strongly expressed by Faustus of Milevis, whom Augustine knew and respected as the Manichaean "bishop" and leader in North Africa. It was however, against Faustus' writings that he compiled in c. 400 the longest of all his controversial works (thirty-three books Contra Faustum) . As one of his main arguments against Catholicism Faustus challenged the relevance and usefulness of the Old Testament to the Christian. For him as for Augustine, Christ was the principle of Wisdom, "the virtue and wisdom of God", the Christ "who enlightened humans and led them to a true knowledge of themselves" 19. The way towards accepting Christ led , however, not through the Hebrew prophets nor Moses's writings, but through the prophecies of the Sibyls and "those of Hermes whom they call Trismegistus, or Orpheus or of other pagan seers" 20. These he claimed were more helpful to the pagan enquirer than the Old Testament. As for "the testimonies of the Hebrews to us", he added, these "even if true, were useless before conversion, and superfluous afterwards, as we believe without them" 21 . The Christianity of a 16 Contra Acad. iii.17.37. Augustine associates Pythagoras and Plato, with Pythagoras being the latter's teacher (also n. 23). 17 At Carthage, he says, he used to attend the Easter services, Contra Epist, Fundamenti, viii.9. For his rejection of the Old Testament, see Confessions lii.5.9 and 10.18. 18 Letter 54.2.3 (CSEL 34.2 , p. 160), concerning fasting on the Sabbath. Ambrose dissuaded Monica from following this North African custom (derived from Judaism?) on the basis of his authority alone, Augustine's attitude at the time was, “Tunc ego talia non curabam”. 19 Augustine, Contra Faustum xx.2, relying on 1. Cor. 124 to support his view. For Augustines' view, see P.R.L. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, a Biography (London, 1967), Ch . iv. 20 Ibid., xiii.i. 21 Ibid.

Augustine and Pythagoreanism and Hermetism

255

"well instructed mind" led quite easily from a proper study of these prophecies of pagan mystics 22. The bridge from paganism to Christianity by-passed the Old Testament and the whole apparatus of the arguments of Christ as Messaiah and Son of God derived from the prophets . Manichaeism was a rational creed , not one enforced from an unsound basis by authority. Was this the way that Augustine had been taking since his conversion to Manichaeism in c. 373? An interest in Hermetism could contribute towards an answer. First, the religious ideas embodied in the Hermetic writings had been known to pagans and Christians in North Africa from Latin translations since the 3rd century23 . Among early evidence for their attraction is an inscription preserved on a mosaic from the tomb of a wealthy young woman, Cornelia Urbanilla, who died at Lambiridi in central Numida at the age of 28 sometime in the middle years of the third century 24. The mosaic shows an emaciated bust of a " male" Urbanilla attended by a seated rubicond figure of a physician, probably Aesculapius, while an inscription in Greek reads , "Cornelia Urbanilla lies here, saved from great danger, having lived 28 years, 10 months, 12 days and 9 hours. Tiberius Claudius Vitalis to his wife", to which was added the acclamation “Eu ter pius”, a curious mixture of Greek and Latin, a reference it has been suggested to Urbanilla as a follower of the Thrice-great Hermes . Carcopino, who studied the mosaic, argued, to my mind convincingly, that the " great danger" from which Urbanilla was saved was the power of Fate, represented by the exactness with which her life-span was measured even down to its final hour. Her salvation, however, was assured by Hermes who guided souls to immortality and whose healing power overcame that of Fate itself25 . Carcopino also believed that Arnobius writing some forty years later (c. 296-297) had been a Hermetist before becoming a Christian26. In his tract against the pagans he simply transferred to Christ the power to heal and save humans that he had previously attributed to Hermes and Asclepius 27. Christ he regards as the revealer of God, in a manner to be compared with the revelations of the Sibyl 28. While he directs much of his venom against "the followers of Mercury (Hermes Trismegistus), Plato, and Pythagoras " , all of whom he regards as expressing the same beliefs 29 , his own understanding of

22 Ibid., xx.3. "Vivum vivae majestatis simulacrum Christum Filium ejus accipio ; aram, mentem bonis artibus et disciplinis imbutam". 23 Tertullian considered Hermes Trismegistus as the " greatest of the philosophers and Plato's teacher", Adv. Valentin . 15, and also De Anima 2. Hermetism was known in Africa therefore c. 200. 24 Discussed in detail by J. Carcopino, "L'Hermetisme africain" = Ch. 5 of Aspects mystiques de la Rome paienne (Paris, 1942) . 25 Carcopino, op. cit. , p. 259-266. 26 Op. cit., 293-300 . 27 Op. cit. , 300. 28 Arnobius, Contra Gentes, 1. 62. 29 Ibid., ii.13. His admiration, however, for Plato, see ii.36.

256

W.H.C. FREND

the infinite nature of God , the irrelevance of rituals , and God's creation of a demiurge who made the universe and subordinate deities seems to owe more to Hermetic ideas than orthodox Christianity. The Old Testament Arnobius dismisses as "Jewish writings" 30. A decade later in c. 307, Arnobius' pupil Lactantius treats both the Sibyls and Hermes as allies and uses them as witnesses against paganism . Like Augustine, Lactantius' religious quest was for wisdom and he believed he had found it in Christianity. "Here is that", he writes, "for which all philosophers have sought throughout their life, but never once been able to track down, embrace and hold firm " . "He who would be wise and happy (let him ) hear the voice of God , learn righteousness and understand the mystery of his birth" ... 31 . In this quest Hermes and the Sibyl shared with the Hebrew prophets the credit for "overthrowing false religion , magic, and idolatry that stood in the way of piety" 32. In Bk . i of the Divine Institutes , he introduces Hermes Trismegistus as, "the most ancient of mortals and most learned in every form of teaching 33. Like Urbanilla and her husband, he sees Hermetic teaching as guaranteeing the individual from the power of demons and of Fate. He quotes a saying attributed to Hermes, that, "those who have known God are not only safe from attack by demons but they are not even bound by Fate" 34 . Lactantius was obsessed by Hermetism, and had a blind faith in Hermetic prophecies . He uses these to support Biblical texts, especially those relating to knowledge of God . Hermes he claims, " is a fitting witness who agrees with us, that is with the prophets whom we follow, as much in fact, as in words " 35. He spoke " many things respecting God the Son which are contained in the divine secrets" 36. While he uses the Sibylline prophesies to support prophetic statements about some of the actual events of Christ's life 37 , Hermes witnesses to the nature of "God whose Name cannot be uttered" 338 and to the revelation of God through the " second God" whom He had created, namely Christ 39. He sustains Lactantius' concept of true piety. Augustine's Manichaean period was three quarters of a century later than Lactantius' philosophic apologia . There is however, one piece of evidence that proves that the Logos teleios of Hermes continued to retain its credibility 30 Ibid., iii.12 . See P. Monceaux, Hist. littéraire de l'Afrique Chrétienne (Paris, 1905), Vol. iii, p. 253. 31 Lactantius, Div Inst. (ed. S. Brandt, CSEL xix), iii.30, and compare 1.1. 32 Ibid., ii.16. 33 Ibid., 1. 6.3 . Lactantius here quoted Hermes as teaching the Oneness and Fatherhood of God. 34 Ibid., ii.16. 35 Ibid., vi.25.10. 36 Ibid., iv.27. 37 E.g. Ibid. , iv.15-19 (even details of miracles, such as the feeding of the 5000 were foretold) . 38 Ibid., 1. 6 and iv.7. 39 Ibid., iv.6, 7 and 13. Compare Hermetica (ed . Nock and Festugière, Paris, 1945 ), v. 1 .

Augustine and Pythagoreanism and Hermetism

257

among Catholics as well as Manichaeans. An anonymous pseudo- Augustinian tract directed "Against the Five Heresies" , c. 400, quotes the Logos teleios as a key witness against both paganism and Sabellianism 40. In particular, the Hermetic text that had served Arnobius and Lactantius so well, that " God had created a second God", was brought into play against the pagans and combined with an armoury of other passages to prove the falsity of polytheism . Hermetic texts were used just as Faustus the Manichee indicated. Lactantius of course, used the Sibyls and Hermetic writings to support traditional orthodox argument from prophecy. However, in less Biblicallyoriented hands the Sibylline and Hermetic statements could stand on their own as means of approach to Christianity. This is how the Manichaeans used them . They provided general guidance on the right way to understand God. Their proof of Christianity was uncluttered by the Old Testament with its discreditable stories about the patriarchs and kings of Israel , and prophecies whose relevance to events in the life of Christ could be challenged 4¹ . During the fourth century they came to form part of a theology that opposed the intensely Biblical ideas of the majority of North Africans in the Donatist Church. To those outside the latter's ranks , such as Faustus of Milevis who regarded the cult of martyrs as no better than paganism42 , or Augustine himself who found the Old Testament abhorrent 43 , they offered an alternative route to a Christianity which had an adequate place for secular learning. Catholics and Manichees often found themselves associated in this theology. It was North African like that of their Donatist opponents but derived from quite different roots. This factor may perhaps have contributed also to their survival through the fourth century in face of the predominance of the Donatist Church . Augustine never mentions the Hermetic writings in the Confessions or in the Cassiciacum dialogues . How can one be convinced of their influence on him in his Manichaean period ? The first piece of evidence is circumstantial. In Bk. viii.23 and 24 of the De Civitate Dei , Augustine quotes most of three chapters 23,24 and 37 of the Asclepius. He uses the texts against his pagan opponents, citing Hermes' statement that "our forefathers invented the art of making gods because they were ignorant of the true teaching about the gods , and were incredulous and unconcerned about divine worship and religion” 44 . The interest however, lies not so much in the passage itself which Augustine quotes 10 times but that its rendering is too exact to have been quoted from 40 Ps.-Augustine, Tractatus adv. Quinque Haereses, iii.4 (PL, 42, col. 1102). 41 Contra Faustum , xii. 1. 42 Ibid., xx.4, "Sacrificia vero eorum (i.e. the pagans) vertistis in agapes, idola in martyres, quos votis similibus colitis". 43 Confessions , iii.7.13 and 14. 44 De Civitate Dei, viii.23 and 24. See H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics (Gothoburg, 1967), p. 688.

258

W.H.C. FREND

memory. It has been argued convincingly that Augustine must have kept a book of Hermetic writings by him, just as he kept the Hortensius, available for use when needed . Given his dedication to the Bible after his consecration as bishop, it is reasonable to conclude that the Asclepius like Hortensius formed part of his pre-conversion reading45 . One can, however, go further. Readers of the Confessions have often been impressed by the lyrical style, especially of the opening sections of the first Book. Some of the more poetic passages came from the Psalms46, but one is left with a number for whom another source must be found . Sixty years ago Wilhelm Theiler compared a series of passages from the opening chapters of the Confessions with passages from the fifth book of the Hermetica47 . These deal with the nature of God, described as " hidden from sight yet always manifest", not brought into being yet supreme Governor of the universe who set bounds to the oceans and constructed mankind in all his marvellous detail giving him his godlike and harmonious image. This God deserved continuous heartfelt praise, for who the Hermetist asks, "can speak of Thee and tell Thy praises ?" 48 . Augustine does not quote the Hermetica verbatim, but the arrangement and wording of the first twelve sections of the Confessions bear close affinities to it. He begins (1. ii.2) by asking, " how shall I call upon my God, who made the sky and sea". The Hermetist is instructed to think on the maker of the air and sea, the Maker and Master of all these ($ 4). Do Heaven and earth contain Thee, asks Augustine, since Thou fillest them (1. iii.3) ? The Hermetist proclaims (para 10), “for thou art the place in which all things are contained ; there is no other place besides Thee ; all things are in Thee". Augustine asks how man is made with such symmetry, " Shall any be his own artificer" ? (1. vi.10) , he asks . The Hermetist is instructed to "learn what craftsman fashioned this fair and godlike image (of man)" (para . 6) . To both, God is worthy of eternal praise, and both use the same language of prayer. Augustine writes, "Who has aught that is not thine ; thou forgivest debts , owing nothing, thou givest gifts, yet losing nothing" (1. iv.4) , and the Hermetist, "All things are from Thee ; thou givest all and receivest nothing, for thou hast all and there is nothing that Thou hast not" , (§ 10b) . And therefore Augustine proclaims, "Thee would man praise, man but a particle of Thy creation" (1. 1.1 ) and the Hermetist, "And for what shall I praise Thee? Am I my own, or have I anything of my own" 49 . The concidences are not complete . They suggest however, that the writer of the Confessions had read and been influenced by the Hermetica sufficiently to

45 H. Hagendahl, pp . 702ff. “From a psychological point of view there is not the remotest possibility of Augustine quoting from memory" (p. 709). 46 E.g., Pss. 92 and 144. 47 W. Theiler, "Die hermetische Vorlage Augustinus" , Problemata (Berlin, 1930), 128-134. 48 Hermet., v. 10b. 49 Ibid., 11.

Augustine and Pythagoreanism and Hermetism

259

open his great prayer to God with phrases inspired by these recollections. Two other references in the Confessions point in the same direction . First, there is the phrase used twice by Augustine, referring to his worldly situation as “a dying life". "I know not whence I came into this dying life (shall I call it?) or living death" (1. vi.7) , and in v. viii.14 criticising the allurements of life at Rome in 383-84 that were offered to him "by men in love with a dying life". Augustine liked jingles ("Tolle lege, tolle lege" is the best known) but it is interesting to find the same phrase used in Hermetica vii.2b. (Scott, p. 172) to describe the body, "this living death, this conscious corpse, this tomb you carry about with you ". The phrase would appeal to the dualist in Augustine singling out the body as the prime hinderance to any advance toward knowledge of God. For the Hermetist, as for Lactantius and Augustine ignorance of God was the greatest evil that could befall humans . Secondly, in c. 382 Augustine says he wrote his " on the Beautiful and the Fitting" (De Apto et Pulchro), described with studied vagueness as "in two or three books " 50. In this work, he seems to have discussed the abstract ideal of beauty as applied to bodies, and compared this with the more mundane consideration of how various parts of the body fitted together and complemented each other to form a perfect whole. As he says (Conf. iv.15.24). " Beautiful', I defined and distinguished what is so in itself, and 'fitting' whose correspondence is to some other thing ; and this I supported by corporeal examples" . It is a curious aim and an odd title, but Augustine's purpose becomes clearer when one reads in Hermetica (v. 7) how after describing the parts of the human body, the Hermetist proclaims the beauty and harmony of the final result. "See how many crafts have been employed on one material and how many works of art are enclosed within one compass. All are beautiful ; all are true to measure, yet all are diverse from one another" 51. The inspiration seems clear. Previously the Hermetist is told that in order to apprehend God "you must apprehend the Beautiful and the Good" 51a . A man on the road to piety could be called "beautiful and good" . The road that led to the Beautiful was “piety joined to knowledge of God" 52 , which was always Augustine's aim. One asks finally, how this mystical approach to the Infinite through " the Beautiful and the Good", could be reconciled with Manichaeism . The answer is that at its heart the Hermetic system was explicitly dualist . The Good was God alone (Herm. vi, 3b) , the supreme architect of creation from sun and moon to the individual veins and sinews of mortal man. But outside the world of ideas of the Beautiful and Good, the created order was evil. The Kosmos was defined as "a mass of evil even as God is one mass of good" 53.

50 Confessions, iv.13.20. 51 Scott's translation (Hermetica 1. 171 ) is used here. 51a Herm. vi,4b, Comfare Conf. , 1.4.4. 52 Ibid., vi.5 (Scott). 53 Ibid., vi.4a.

260

W.H.C. FREND

In man himself only the name of God was present . He was hindered by his material body from apprehending God. The "evil of ignorance" could be regarded in the same material terms as the Manichaean understood evil. Augustine used the same term for God as did the Hermetists, Monad, contrasting with imperfect Duality 54. Thus, would have found the Hermetic approach congenial to him. He would have found also in Hermetism knowledge of God as the ideal to whose attainment material conditions, not least his body with its sexual desires was a permanent hinderance. The ultimate dualistic approach towards understanding reality would appear vindicated. He could remain a Manichee. The ideal perfection in chastity was "not yet". Nonetheless he would soon have become aware of contradictions in the system . How, for instance, can one assert the evil of the world and affirm at the same time that its maker is God? It was to this question that NeoPlatonism, by denying the objective reality of evil, gave him the most convincing answer, and provided him thereby with a further vital step along his spiritual journey. These brief suggestions may help to fill in some of the gaps in Augustine's account of his Manichaean period . One can place it more convincingly in the framend of what is known about North African religious thought of the latter part of the fourth century . In this period Christianity was making headway amidst a literate populace among whom, however, astrology, number-symbolism and various forms of prophylactic magic were accepted as a matter of course. Sacrifices and the more literal forms of paganism might be rejected, but in this society the Old Testament also made little appeal . This is where Manichaeism found its support. Those who refused to accept either the Biblicism of the Donatists or the authoritative claims of the North African Catholics turned to a third tradition of North African Christianity represented by Manichaeism that had a place for other sources of wisdom derived from the Latin Classics and mystical and esoteric literature of the past . This included the oracles attributed to the Sibyl and the teaching of the Hermetists that had attracted the Christian apologists Arnobius and Lactantius at the end of the 3rd century 55. If North African Manichaeism may be placed within this tradition , it may throw light on the absorbing question, how for more than a decade the Manichees could claim Augustine as one of their most distinguished younger followers .

54 Thus in Hermet . , iv.10 “ (0ɛò5) ǹ yàp Movác ..., the root and source of all being. 55 Interestingly, Hermetic literature found its place in the Gnostic Library of Nag Hammadi whose concealment dates c. 360 (Codex vi.8) . The Sibyl was also regarded in the east as an ally of Christianity though too recondite to help many. See Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. (ed . Bidez/Hansen ; Berlin, 1960), l. 1.7.

Romans 5,12 : Old Latin and Vulgate in the Pelagian Controversy

B. HARBERT, Brighton

Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit , in quo omnes peccauerunt (Romans 5,12 : Vulgate)

Augustine regarded this as the most important verse in scripture for the Pelagian controversy, the text in quo omnis ista causa consistit . His use of this verse has been much studied , attention focussing in particular on his interpretation of its final clause, in quo omnes peccauerunt. In this paper I wish to focus rather on the penultimate clause. The Vulgate reading is now universally regarded as representing the authentic form of Saint Paul's words, but Augustine had an Old Latin version based on the Western Greek text, which read et ita in omnes homines pertransiit. Whereas in the Vulgate the subject of pertransiit is mors, in Augustine's text it is unexpressed , and so can be understood to be either mors or peccatum. Augustine regularly takes it to be peccatum so that for him the clause means "and so sin passed to all men". So interpreted, the clause plays a major role in the development of his doctrine of original sin. In Enchiridion 45,13, to take one example among many, he speaks of the sin which entered the world through one man and passed on to all men. One ofthe earliest writers to use the Vulgate was Pelagius. In Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum IV 4,7 Augustine recognises that his opponents take mors to be the subject of pertransiit , and accuses them of twisting Saint Paul's meaning, but it does not seem to occur to him that they may be using a different text. In De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione I 8,8 he attacks those who interpret mors in et per peccatum mors as referring, not to physical death , but to the death of the soul, and so deny that physical death is the result of Adam's sin. A similar figurative interpretation of mors , also from the early fifth century, is found in Rufinus' version of Origen's commentary on Romans (of which the Greek does not survive in this section) where et per peccatum mors is glossed illa sine dubio mors de qua et propheta dicit (Ez 18,4) "anima quae peccat ipsa morietur ", cuius mortis hanc corporalem mortem umbram merito quis dixerit. A little further on the same commentary says Absoluta sententia proniuntiauit Apostolus, in omnes homines mortem pertransisse peccati. This is probably from the pen of Rufinus, being a comment on

262

B. HARBERT

the Vulgate, since Origen regularly exhibits the Western text of Romans in his commentary on that Epistle. Julian of Eclanum certainly had the Vulgate text of this verse. Migne and the Maurists are unreliable when Julian quotes Romans 5,12, giving him sometimes the Vulgate and sometimes the same text as Augustine, and this error may be traceable to scribes who did not appreciate the crucial difference between the two versions, but Julian's words only make sense if he has the Vulgate. He points out the difference between his text and Augustine's in a passage reproduced by Augustine in the Opus Imperfectum (II ,63) : Constat autem non esse apostolicorum uerborum eum ordinem, quam inimicus noster putauit... In hoc ergo mentitur, quod affirmat beatum Paulum pronuntiasse quia per unum hominem peccatum intrauerit in mundum, atque ita in omnes homines pertransierit: hoc, inquam, in Magistri Gentium sermonibus non tenetur. For Julian, this shows that Paul did not hold Augustine's doctrine of original sin: Iam nominauerat mortem atque peccatum. Quid fuit necesse ut in eo quod pertransisse dicebat, mortem a peccati communione separaret? Ut signanter ostenderet in hunc quidem mundum per unum hominem intrasse peccatum, et per peccatum mortem, in omnes uero homines non peccatum transisse sed mortem. Augustine's reply shows that he still has in mind the Old Latin, where the subject of pertransiit is unspecified . He is ready to acknowledge that mors may be the subject : utrum peccatum, an mors, an utrumque per omnes homines pertransisse dictum sit, uidetur ambiguum (cf. II , 50 ; 195) . Augustine seems shaken, and abandons the attempt to prove the existence of original sin from the clause in question, appealing instead to the experience of sinfulness described by Paul in Romans 7,23 to argue that Romans 5,12 must be about the universality of sinfulness as well as the universality of death : sed quid horum sit, res tam aperta demonstrat. Nam si peccatum non pertransisset, non omnis homo cum lege peccati, quae in membris est, nasceretur. Augustine is in a corner : throughout Book II of the Opus Imperfectum he has accused Julian of ignoring and misinterpreting Romans 5,12, but here Julian forces him to admit an ambiguity in his text and to turn to experience to help him out. In the next section Julian expresses the matter as clearly as possible : Ille pronuntiat, in primo homine et peccatum et mortem fuisse, ad posteros uero solam transisse mortem : tu contra asseris, et peccatum ad omnes et interitum cucurrisse. Augustine's reply is hasty, dismissive and untrue : Iam responsum est : relegant qui uolunt quae supra diximus, ne superfluo eadem iterum iterumque repetamus .

Romans 5,12 and the Pelagian Controversy

263

Augustine does from time to time in the Opus Imperfectum acknowledge that Paul may have said that both sin and death passed from Adam to all men, but never death alone. Towards the end of Book II ( 195) , in reply to Julian's direct quotation of the Vulgate et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit Augustine asks Quid est " ita pertransiit " nisi quomodo intrauit, id est, cum peccato, siue per peccatum ? But Augustine never faces directly the difference between their texts to which Julian has tried to draw his attention . The coexistence of Old Latin and Vulgate versions of this crucial text was to complicate the debate on original sin until the sixth century . The Pelagian anthropology had more in common with the outlook of the Greek Fathers, with their optimistic and positive view of human nature, than with that of the more pessimistic Latins . The textual history of Romans 5,12 shows that the Pelagian controversy was in part the product of a meeting, not only between Eastern and Western minds, but between Eastern and Western texts of Scripture. Prosper, who defended Augustine's views after his death, usually exhibits an Old Latin text of Saint Paul while his opponent Cassian uses the Vulgate, though neither cites Romans 5,12 directly enough for us to be sure of his text. Faustus of Riez, like Cassian a monk of southern Gaul and a continuer of his tradition, cites Romans 5,12 in the Vulgate, but in one instance in De Gratia Dei ( 1,2), when reproducing an argument of Augustine's for the doctrine of original sin he writes as if he understands peccatum to be the subject of pertransiit. Perhaps Faustus knew both texts. Early in the sixth century Faustus' writings caused a fresh stir among some Scythian monks who had come with their leader Maxentius to Rome to recommend to the Pope the Theopaschite formula unus ex Trinitate carne passus est. Maxentius wrote a Libellus Fidei concerned partly with Christology and partly with sin and grace. Quoting Romans 5,12 in the Vulgate text, he says that it was not only death that passed to all men, but the sting of death, which is sin. Here there is a clear attempt to reconcile the Vulgate with Augustine's interpretation of Romans 5,12 by making " death" in some sense mean " sin" (L.F. 31) . Around the same time, Fulgentius of Ruspe also attempted to reconcile the Vulgate text of Romans 5,12 with the Augustinian teaching on original sin by stretching the sense of "death", but more ingeniously and audaciously than Maxentius. He distinguishes two kinds of death, mors criminis (that is sin, the death of the soul) and mors ultionis (bodily death, which is the punishment of sin), both of which passed to all men. This is a reappearance of the figurative interpretation of mors found in the early Pelagians and Rufinus . It is ironical to find Fulgentius using in support of Augustine's theology an interpretation of mors that Augustine himself had rejected (De Ver. Praed. I.4) . The second Canon of the second Council of Orange, which met in 529, also adopts the figurative interpretation of mors :

264

Si quis soli Adae praeuaricationem suam, non et eius propagini asserit nocuisse, aut certe mortem tantum corporis quae poena peccati est, non autem peccatum, quod est mors animae, per unum hominem in omne genus humanum transiisse testatur, iniustitiam Deo dabit contradicens Apostolo dicenti : "Per unum hominem….. etc. ”. Maxentius and his companion monks had come to Rome to attempt a reconciliation between opposing parties in Christology. Fulgentius and his fellow African bishops expressed approval of their views in this matter. This rapprochement between East and West bore fruit also in the debate on original sin, which had been exacerbated by the difference between Eastern and Western texts of Scripture. Both groups saw the need to reconcile Augustinian theology with the Vulgate and contributed to the development of an interpretation of Romans 5,12 which found its way into the Canons of the Second Council of Orange. Thus a group of Scythian monks and a group of African bishops assisted in the resolution of the Semi-Pelagian controversy, which in its early phase had been seen as a confrontation between the views of an originally Scythian monk, John Cassian, and an African bishop, Augustine. How the Western theology of original sin might have developed if Augustine had known the Vulgate is a fascinating subject for speculation.

Faith, Hope and Charity and Prayer in St. Augustine

M.G.St.A. JACKSON , Dublin

In the early de quantitate animae Augustine examines in detail the idea of a spiritual ladder of ascent through the created order and reaching to God the Creator¹ . Of the seven stages of ascent, four, five and six are the most germane to a study of prayer. Stage four represents a realization by the soul of its superiority to the whole bodily creation and an abstraction and purification from the baseness of the physical proportionate to its increasing delight in itself² . Stage five represents for the soul a result of such purification, a finding of tranquillity and happiness in itself³ and stage six represents an arousal of the desire to understand things beyond the soul itself . The pattern is that of a movement from without within and thence above. The transition from contingent plurality to an intermediate rest in internal contemplation in turn leads to a rekindling of the emotions with a view to a higher goods . The decisive shift is that of stage six . Purged of its misdirected affection in seeking fulfilment in the created order in which it is itself included, the soul's emotions are re-kindled to the source of beauty rather than to physical and material manifestations of beauty " . This desire for contemplation of the source of reality, in stage seven, enables the soul to combine love and understanding in the way envisaged by Augustine as perfect . The Neoplatonic background is clear to see. Although the idea of spiritual ascent through a series of stages underwent

1 Dated 387/388 A.D. 2 De quantitate animae XXXIII.73. 3 De quantitate animae XXXIII.74. * De quantitate animae XXXIII.75. The essentials of this scheme of spiritual development through and out of the material world are to be discerned in the considerably later de trinitate XII.xv.25. In de trinitate X.i.2 he argues that one's reaction to a sign is the expression of an emotion still craving fulfilment. One in such a state cannot be described as sine amore even though his love is incomplete. 5 De quantitate animae XXXIII.75. The seven stages are summarized ibid. XXXV.79, stages four, five and six as follows : 4: virtus: ad seipsam : pulcher ad pulchrem. 5 : tranquillitas : in seipsa : pulchre in pulchro. 6: ingressio: ad Deum : pulchre ad pulchritudinem. • De sermone Domini in monte II.xi.38 is a later use of this theme (394/395). The seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer are interpreted with reference to the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit in Isaiah.

266

M.G.St.A. JACKSON

adaptation in Augustine's maturity, one should be careful not to think that language of gradated ascent was totally eclipsed by the later understanding . The Ennarationes on the psalms of ascent are dated to late in 412. Ennaratio in psalmum LXXXV.6 of September-December 412 gives an extended hierarchy of spiritual endeavour in terms of grades of prayer, on the theme that one must understand the jubilation of the whole earth if one is to express jubilation for the Lord . An initial looking at the whole creation leads to reflection and purification which in turn leads to an awakening of the spiritual sensation of rejoicing but accompanied by renewal of lamentation as man is aware more acutely of the limitations of being on earthly pilgrimage. The scheme outlined above well illustrates, however, the difference of emphasis within the same mould of expression . Augustine stresses more the limitations of spiritual experience on this side of the temporal divide and the rôle of prayer in preparing the soul for a yet greater vision . In writing de trinitate IX-XIV Augustine's self-confessed intention was to correct, by concentrating attention on finding God in and through the created order, an impression that it is possible already to realize in the temporal dispensation the vision of God ' . As part of this re-direction of the mind to the importance of the physical, material world in the spiritual odyssey, Augustine makes clear his understanding of the relationship between desire and love . Appetitus is defined as amor studentium so that desire is preparatory of love, understood as fruition, but both appetitus and amor are of the same genus . The soul's self- understanding gained at the stage of selfcontemplation fires the spiritual enthusiasm for the continuing search to find God 10. This growth is a two -stage process¹¹ in which the same affection exists but in the one case as concerning something yet to be realized, in the other something already realized 12. The stage of gaping admiration is external and prior to knowledge which is gained only by internal discernment ¹³ . In expressing the transition from desire to love Augustine uses two images of emotional relationship which express the realization of the fruition of love. The union of thing sought and seeker is likened to the uniting of child and parent 14 and is expressed likewise in language with strong sexual overtones 15 . 7 De trinitate, XV.vi. 10. See O'Donovan O.T.M. , The Problem of self-love in St. Augustine ( 1980), pp. 77ff. 8 De trinitate X.i.I : id est, non iam scientium, sed adhuc scire cupientium quamque doctrinam. 9 De trinitate IX.xii. 18. 10 De trinitate XV.ii.2. 11 De trinitate IX.i.I : sic ergo quaeramus tanquam inventuri ; et sic inveniamus tanquam quaesituri. 12 This is expressed by use in the former case of the gerundive, in the latter of the perfect participle passive, de trinitate IX.i.I. 13 Compare de trinitate IX.i.I and de trinitate X.i.I: et inest intrinsecus unde approbetur, cui forinsecus inhiatur. 14 De trinitate IX.xii. 18. 15 Ibid., nisi quod quaeritur inventum quaerenti copuletur . In de baptismo V.xxiii.33 he uses the phrase : propter charitatis autem copulationem, quod est maximum donum Spiritus sancti.

Faith, Hope, Charity, Prayer

267

As prayer is the language of interior communication of the soul with God, so it is the language in which the soul expresses desire (desiderium) . By prayer man directs his desire God-ward 16. The exhortation to pray without ceasing is fulfilled if a man has ceaseless desire¹7 , expressed within the inner man 18 and silently 19. External silence is not necessarily the counterpart of an internal silence ; a brightly-burning charity constitutes the shouting of the heart20 The most striking shift from his early to mature expressions of the spiritual odyssey of the soul is the transition from a seven-stage ladder of ascent with roots in Neoplatonic spirituality to a scheme which takes account of the triad : faith, hope and charity. The process of spiritual reform is thus represented as an analogy of the divine Trinity 21. The triad is both analogical and progressive. The soul contains the triad in that faith is the ground of hope which is a preparation for loving communion with God 22. The early de beata vita contains the idea that one attains to the blessed life, knowledge of the divine Trinity, via its analogy in the trinity of spiritual virtues 23. Further 24 he assigns an important rôle to faith, hope and charity in conjunction with reason in purifying the mind to make it capable of seeing and orienting itself on God and sustaining itself in its work of enquiry 25 . As prayer expresses the aspiration of the human soul, it also manifests

these three aspects of love 26. By praying in faith, hope and charity one is able to overcome the negative influences of the world 27. Faith concerns man's use, while on pilgrimage in the temporal, of the material. It corresponds to the exercise of the will in the realm of what is used (utilia) . There is faith in things good and bad, and in things past, present and future 28 ; it refers to what is one's own and to what is another's 29. A correct and progressively developing

16 De perfectione justitiae hominis 18. 17 Enarratio in psalmum XXXVII.14. 18 Ibid., est alia interior sine intermissione oratio, quae est desiderium. 19 Sermo LXXX.7. 20 Enarratio in psalmum XXXVII.14. 21 De trinitate VIII.iv.6. These three are described as the basis of the spiritual scaffolding of scripture in the mind which believes as the basis of its hope and love. 22 Enchiridion viii . Augustine argues that the Creed and the Lord's Prayer exemplify the three general graces of faith, hope and charity. As hope and love pray but neither can exist without faith, so faith can also be said to pray. 23 De beata vita 35. 24 Soliloquia I.vi. 12-vii. 14. 25 These two early discussions witness to an early awareness of the rôle of faith, hope and charity in spiritual reform in St. Augustine's thought. 26 Epistola CXXX.18 : in ipsa ergo fide et spe et charitate continuo desiderio semper oramus. Also ibid., 24. 27 Epistola CXXX.29. 28 Enchiridion VIII . 29 Ibid.

268

M.G.St.A. JACKSON

faith 30 is the beginning of a knowledge culminating in the vision of God 31 , a preparation for this vision because it enables the believer to discern the spiritual in the material creation . Faith is the instrument rather than the content of belief 32 and , unless it forms the first stage of the spiritual triad , is inefficacious to secure the blessed life . Demons believe and fear, but because they do not hope and love, they look forward with fear rather than joyous expectation to the second coming 33 . Hope concerns only good things and only future things when properly exercised 34, but is built on a groundwork of faith 35. It is, furthermore, the antidote of despair, which stems from lack of faith 32. Both faith and hope are frequently spoken of together since one can only hope for the spiritual in the future by exercising faith correctly in relation to the present material creation 37. Augustine seems to have formulated his understanding of the contrast between hope and reality about 398 38 , but by the time of Enarratio in psalmum CXXIII.2 and CXXV.4 it was concerned not only with the eschatological tension in the problem of mortality and weakness but with that of continued sinning 39. By finding in the visible, material realm something in which to believe, one is prepared and enabled to believe in something which one does not see 40. The link between hope and love differs from that between faith and hope in that in the future world the content of hope will be realized in love whereas the rôle of faith will be superseded by the actuality of contemplation of the Divine¹¹ . Faith purges the wayward soul and prepares it for future contemplation and blessedness, enabling it to discern the spiritual through the physical. Discussing Romans 5.5 Augustine explains why arrha is a more correct term than is pignus to describe God's pledge . Lead can be a pignus of gold but only gold can be an arrha of gold . It represents continuity between what has been given and what is still to be given in very substance42,

30 De civitate dei XI.ii : ipsa mens... donec de die in diem renovata atque sanata fiat tantae felicitatis capax, fide primum fuerat imbuenda atque purganda. 31 Sermo CXXVI.I Fides is described as gradus intelligendi, intellectus as meritum fidei. See also sermo CXLIX.I and de trinitate XV.II.2. 32 De trinitate XIV.viii.II. 33 Enchiridion VIII , sermo CLVIII.6. 34 Enchiridion VIII , sermo CV.7. 35 Sermo CXXVI.3 : fides est sperantium substantia, convictio rerum quae non videntur. 36 Sermo LIII.II. 37 Epistola LV.17, enchiridion VIII . 38 Contra Faustum Manichaeum XI.7. 39 See E. te Selle, Augustine the theologian ( 1970) , p. 260, considering Romans 8 : 24,25, a central text in this question. 40 Sermo CXXVI.3, sermo LXXXVII.4. 41 Epistola CXXX.5, de civitate dei XIX.xxvii. 42 Sermo XXIII.9 : Ergo melius arrha quam pignus ... quod sit complendum, non quod auferendum .

Faith, Hope, Charity, Prayer

269

according with the way he understands love 43 and the relationship between appetitus and amor. To be motivated by faith, hope and charity in a God-ward direction gives the Christian a perspective quite different from that of his pagan counterpart. As with the will, the end envisaged in exercising faith, hope and charity determines their goodness or badness 44. All three, like the will , are possessed by all men45 , whether put to good or bad use46. The citizens of Jerusalem above are able physically to live among the citizens of Babylon while retaining a spiritually distinct goal of their aspirations 47. The pagan believes in demons who call themselves gods, hopes in the vain things of the present world and loves the created world as the goal of his striving48 . His Christian counterpart believes in the one true God, hopes for eternal life with Christ and loves the creator and designer of the world . For a Christian to be motivated by faith, hope and charity is a sign of his having God as centre of his spiritual striving and of the exercise of his will. This triad enables Augustine to present a scheme of spiritual ascent which gives a more positive interpretation to the created order than his earlier seven-fold ladder. In the latter, the soul moves progressively out of the material realm , in the former its spiritual activity is the work of all three aspects of divine love during the peregrinatio, as faith remains the ground of hope and both prepare the soul for contemplation of the love of God. They enable it to interpret the material as a sacrament of the spiritual and feed its desire for fruition of God by enabling it to discern God and communicate with him via his creation . The necessity of such a corrective is explicitly accepted by Augustine in de trinitate XV.vi. 10. Prayer is firmly grounded in the realm of faith . Faith is the foundation of prayer and prayer brings about the solidity of faith 49. Without it prayer is impossible 50. Prayer expresses one's consciousness of sin but the yielding to temptation is the dominant characteristic of the spiritual life of the peregrinatio 51. This expression of desire and lamentation will no longer be relevant in the world where there is no temptation 52 and no lack. Lamentation will have modulated into praise as the yearning for God will have modulated into

43 Ibid., si invenio dilectorem, habet arrham, et ex arrha desiderat plenitudinem. 44 Sermo CXCVIII.2. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. congregaris de Gentibus, segregaris, hoc est separaris de Gentibus. Nec te terreat commixtio corporalis in tanta separatione mentis. 48 This contrast between aeterna sapere and terrena sapere is in a general way the theme of de civitate dei. 49 Sermo CXV.I. 50 Sermo CLXVIII.5. 51 De civitate dei XIX.xxvii, sermo CLIX.I , epistola CXXX.5. 52 Epistola CXXX.5 : Porro si nulla tentatio, iam nulla oratio.

270

M.G.St.A. JACKSON

loving possession 53. Unlike faith, prayer as an expression of hope has a continuing rôle as confession of praise in the realm of solid joys and lasting treasure known only to Zion's children 54.

53 Sermo CLIX.I. 54 Tractatus in Iohannis evangelium LXVIII.3 : ... desiderium dilectionis praeparatio est mansionis.

Who were the Pelagians found in Venetia during the 440s?

N.W. JAMES, St. Albans

The campaigns mounted by Leo the Great against Manichaeism and Eutychianism have received a good deal of scholarly attention , unlike his less well-documented struggle against Pelagianism in the 440s. This has to be reconstructed from the pope's three letters to Venetia warning against the precipitate reconciliation of those implicated in this heresy, together with a few brief references from other sources . Of these three letters, (Epp. I , II and XVIII) ' , the dates of the first two , directed towards the bishops of Aquileia and Altinum respectively, are lost. They must however predate the struggle against the Manichees in late 443, if they are to fit the chronology established by Photius and the author of the Liber de Promissionibus2 . The other, written to Januarius of Aquileia in 447, congratulates him for being on his guard, but again insists on a full recantation by heretics and schismatics who desire reconciliation³. Prosper of Aquitaine, the pope's foremost ally in opposing Pelagianism , says nothing about these Pelagians of Venetia. He notes the failure of Julian of Eclanum's dissimulation in seeking rehabilitation from Xystus III in 4394 , but he is silent about his own part in writing pamphlets against the Pelagians in Leo's pontificate as related by Photius ' . The sixth century source which Photius apparently used hints at a major struggle against them since they received support in Rome itself , and this attack was not confined to the Urbs as our other sources show. Leo's own subordinate bishops ensured that the Pelagian Florus was expelled from Campania " . Several question arise therefore as to who these Pelagians in Venetia were, where they came from, and how the measures against them fitted into the wider campaign to counter their heresy. It is almost certain that the pope was concerned about native Italian heretics. Before 440, the heresy had taken root

1 PL 54, cols. 593-598, 706-709. 2 For the date see the note of the Ballerini, PL 54, cols. 589-94. 3 Ep. XVIII. * Chronicon (ed. Mommsen, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi, IX, p . 478) . The suggestion that Xystus acted against Julian “ex hortatu Leoni" is not found in the best manuscripts of this work. 5 Biẞλιoońкn, cap. 54 (ed. R. Henry, as Bibliothèque, Paris, 1959, I, 44). • Ibid., Photius' source was a compilation of anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian documents from the fifth century, drawn up after Gelasius' pontificate. 7 Quodvultdeus, Liber Promissionum et Praedictorum Dei, Dimidium Temporis, vi, 12 (CCSL 60, p. 198).

272

N.W. JAMES

in only three areas : Italy, Gaul and Britain . In Gaul there is no hint of its existence after Sulpicius Severus's involvement and the imperial edict against Pelagianism and other heresies despatched to Patroclus of Arles in 42510. Nor is there any firm evidence of Pelagians from Britain or Gaul moving to Italy apart from Pelagius himself¹¹ . Leo mentions the foreign links of other heterodox groups which he dealt with , the Manichees 12 and Egyptian monophysites in Rome 13. Since he had received a formal relatio from Septimus of Altinum , he was well informed about the situation in Venetia 14. It is unlikely that he would have failed to note if the Pelagians there were of non- Italian origin. Three possibilities remain open. The Pelagians reported by Septimus may have originated from Italia Suburbicaria and then removed to Venetia to escape the attentions of Leo. Alternatively, the Pelagians of Regio X may have been natives of the area who had never left it. Finally, they may have come either from northern or southern Italy, suffered exile with Julian of Eclanum and then returned to north-eastern Italy. What makes it particularly difficult to decide between these solutions are the strong bonds of sympathy between those who accompanied Julian of Eclanum into exile after 418 and many orthodox Italian Christians who remained behind , such as Paulinus of Nola. He was never an adherent of Pelagianism , but Pelagius had been a member of his circle 15. He had also admitted two Pelagian bishops to communion on his deathbed in 43116. The Praedestinatus, a work clearly sympathising with Pelagian ideas, albeit in heavily disguised form, tries to capitalize on this fund of sympathy for the rebel churchmen who followed Julian 17. Written in Rome or its metropolitan province in the 430s 18 , it cunningly condemns Pelagius himself as a heretic to establish the author's orthodoxy, but then condemns the adherents of Augustine's more extreme predestinarian views as heretics who have corrupted his true teaching 19. Julian had obviously relied upon this anti-predestinarian feeling appealed to in the Praedestinatus when he sought rehabilitation at

8 For the geographical distribution, C. Pietri, Roma Christiana, 2 vols (Rome, 1976), pp. 93748, 950-54, 1038-40. 9 Gennadius, De Viris Illustribus 19 (ed . Richardson, TU XIV, p. 69). 10 C. Sirm. 6 (ed . Mommsen and Meyer, I, 911-12). 11 The existence of a " Sicilian Briton" posited by J. Morris, "Pelagian Literature", JTS 16 (1965), 35, 58-59 remains unproven. 12 Tract. XVI , 5 (ed . Chavasse, p. 65) : “ quod aliarum regionum... crebriores". 13 Tract. 96,1 (ed . Chavasse, p. 593), " quosdam Aegyptos". 14 Ep. I, I (PL 54, col. 593), “ Relatione ... nostri Septimi". 15 P. Brown, Religion and Society in the age of St. Augustine (London, 1972), pp. 211-12. 16 Uranius, De obitu sancti Paulini (PL 53, col. 859) . 17 PL 53, cols. 587-672 . On the Pelagian elements in this work, M. Abel, " Le ' Praedestinatus' et le pélagianisme" , Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale, 35 ( 1968), 5-25 . 18 On the provenance, É. Amann, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XII , col . 2778. 19 PL 53, cols. 587-672.

Pelagians in Venetia during the 440s

273

Rome in 43920. Whether or not he was himself the author of that work 21 , he may have relied upon similar tactics, if Prosper's angry charges against him of lying and dissimulation are more than merely conventional 22. Photius also tells us that under Leo some at Rome spoke up for the Pelagians, the implication being that they were Catholic sympathisers not heretics 23 . It is hard to know therefore, whether Julian and his followers who sought to return were the only Pelagians at large in Italy in the 440s, or whether others had survived the purges after 418 and had stayed behind , protected by those who had remained within the Catholic fold. This is compounded by the refusal of the Pelagians to set up a separate ecclesiastical organization, as other heretics had done after their expulsion . They sought recognition of their views, and reconciliation with the catholic church, not separation from it, as the author of the Praedestinatus makes clear 24. The surviving evidence however, gives little support to the possibility that the heretics in Venetia were refugees from Leo's zeal against them in his own province. There is no hint in the pope's letters that he was dealing with heretics who had fled before him and the well informed Septimus of Altinum would hardly have failed to notify Leo of such a fact. While reference was made to the Pelagians moving about from place to place, the context of this statement in Ep. I suggests movement only within the province of Aquileia 25 . It is true that Pelagianism's chief strength had apparently lain in Rome, Campania and Sicily before 418 , but this could equally well support the idea that the heretics in Venetia were exiles from further south, who had left before the purges by Leo. The chance that the heretics in question were natives of the Venetian hinterland who had never left it, deserves greater attention . At least some of them originated from the region . Leo mentions those in the province " in quibus clericatum aut acceperant aut receperant" 26. Since it was contrary to contemporary custom for clergy to be ordained from outside the ranks of the local church members , those who were received back into the local clergy were almost certainly natives 27. They are also clearly identified with those who had refused to accept Zosimus's blanket condemnation of Pelagian teachings in 418. Leo must have been referring to this time when he said that the heretics in Venetia "ad catholicam fidem , quam jam pridem amiserant rursum reverti ambiunt" 28 . It is just possible that these individuals had 20 Prosper, Chronicon , s.a. 439, (ed. Mommsen, p. 477) . 21 For echoes of Julian's style (and differences from it), Abel, op. cit. , 15 seq. 22 Chronicon, s.a. 439 (ed . Mommsen, p. 477). 23 Biẞλι00ηкη, cap. 54 (ed . R. Henry, I , 44). 24 Lib. III, Prologus (PL 53 , cols . 627-28) . 25 PL 54, col. 593 : “Pelagiana sive Coelestiana, haeresis... implicatos... in vestra provincia". 26 Ep . I. 27 C. Vogel, "Titre d'ordination et lien du presbytère à la communauté locale dans l'église ancienne", La Maison Dieu 115 ( 1973) , 70-85. 28 Ep. XVIII.

274

N.W. JAMES

remained in the area since that period . But such a hypothesis presumes that they survived severe bouts of imperial persecution in 418 and 425 , and that they were able to escape detection by civil and ecclesiastical authority for all that time between 418 and the 440s. Furthermore, the pope's statement in Ep. I that the heresy was one which had long ago been uprooted and which must not be allowed to spring up again does not suggest a continuous tradition of Pelagianism in Venetia 29. A much more probable explanation is that the Pelagians of Epp. I , II and XVIII were exiles who had returned to Italy, including at least some local figures. The chief danger came from clerics and it was a clerical party who followed Julian into exile after the events of 41830. Although the supposition that Venetia was a centre of the revolt against Zosimus's Epistola Tractoria because local bishops appealed to a certain Augustine bishop of Aquileia is based on a misreading of the manuscript sources 31 , at least one of Julian of Eclanum's fellow exiles was from north- eastern Italy. The deacon Anianus of Celeda has been identified as originating from Ceneda in the foothills of the Alps 32. The link remains a tentative one as Celeda is not recorded as a place name and Ceneda is the closest form to it 33. If the identification of Anianus is correct, it does strengthen considerably the possibility that returning exiles were responsible for the outbreak of heresy in Venetia. While the connection cannot be proved , it fits in well with what happened elsewhere in Italy. There had been a steady flow of Pelagian exiles back there ever since the events of 418-419 . One of Julian's supporters, the bishop Turbantius, soon gave up the struggle and submitted 34. Others sought to return without recanting their errors in full. Caelestius was back in Rome, it seems, between 423-425 and was subsequently expelled from Italy35 . The Pelagian bishops admitted to communion by Paulinus of Nola in 431 are not recorded as having made any recantation 36. Finally, the return of Julian in 439 and of Florus to Campania in the early 440s occurred in circumstances which closely parallel those in Leo's letters to the metropolitan sphere of Aquileia. There was an attempt by Julian to hide his true opinions and to obtain reconciliation by dissimulation 37. The fear that such tactics will be successful is the chief feature of the pope's letters against Pelagianism in the north-east 38. His objection to

29 PL 54, col. 596. 30 For the identification of Julian's followers see Pietri, Roma Christiana, pp. 947, note 3 ; 948, note 1. 31. Pietri, p. 943, n. 2. 32 Ibid. , p. 945, n. 4. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., p. 952 and n. 1 . 35 Prosper, Chronicon , s.a. 425 (ed . Mommsen, p. 471 ). 36 Uranius, De Obitu (PL 53, cols . 860-61 ). 37 Prosper, Chronicon , s.a. 439 (ed . Mommsen, p. 477). 38 Epp. I , II and XVIII.

Pelagians in Venetia during the 440s

275

Pelagian clergy there wandering from place to place is also reminiscent of the itinerant preaching ministry which Florus appears to have adopted in Campania at this time 39. Hence the charges made by Leo against the heretical clergy in Venetia seem to be more than general ones constantly levelled against the Pelagians and to indicate that the kind of tactics employed by Julian were being used to effect by his followers elsewhere. It remains to explain why the Pelagian heresy should ever have taken root in Venetia at all . The known centres of Pelagianism in the years before 41840 were located in southern Italy, especially Campania and Sicily, and in Rome itself. One probable reason for this is apparent. Pelagian ideas and attitudes throve in aristocratic circles and Rome, Campania and Sicily were areas in which residences of the senatorial classes were concentrated41 . Thus the known distribution of those sympathetic to Pelagius corresponds closely with those regions to which the aristocracy resorted , either in their palatial residences at Rome or their holiday villas in Campania and Sicily. By analogy, Venetia is exactly the kind of country which would have provided a climate favourable to Pelagians . The region was renowned for its aristocratic villas scattered around the head of the Adriatic42 . Leo's first warning about the presence of heretics in the locality came from Septimus bishop of Altinum 43 , a notable resort of the nobility among this belt of villas. Martial had compared the city with Baiae, the famous resort in Campania 44. Cassiodorus mourned its lost glory after the sack by the Huns in 45245. The whole Venetian littoral had the same social tone and ethos as the aristocratic holiday coasts further south . As such it may well have provided a potentially favourable breeding ground for the tenets of Pelagius . It is most satisfactory therefore, to see the spread of Pelagian ideas in the province of Aquileia as the work of former exiles , itinerant clergy who had managed to conceal their true beliefs behind a cloak of ambiguity and who were received back into the church without a full recantation of error. What is also evident, is that Leo's real problem in that area was not in combatting the Pelagians directly, but in breaking down the tolerant attitude within the local church towards the returning exiles 46. It was this which allowed Pelagianism to survive. Once Leo had the active co-operation of a new bishop of Aquileia, Januarius, in 447, the outbreak of heresy was apparently brought

Liber Promissionum, Dim. Temp., vi, 12 ( CCSL 60, p . 198). P. Brown, Religion and Society, p. 185 seq. Ibid. S.I. Oost, Galla Placidia Augusta : A Biographical Essay (Chicago, 1968), p. 238 . Ep. II. ** Martial, Epigrammata, lib. 4, 25 v. 1 , ed . L. Friedlander (Leipzig, 1886), p. 348 . 45 Variae, lib. 12, 22 and 24 (MGH , XII, 378-79, 379-80) . 46 See Ep. I. 39 40 41 42 43

276

N.W. JAMES

under control47 . Nothing more is heard of the Pelagians in Venetia, although the re-emergence of Pelagianism further down the Adriatic in Picenum and possibly Dalmatia under Gelasius suggests that their influence may have lived on 48

47 Ep. XVIII . Nothing more is heard of the Pelagians in Venetia. 48 Gelasius, Epp. 4-6 and Tract. V (ed . A. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, I, 321-35, 571-98).

Ein neuer Lösungsvorschlag für ein altes Problem : die sogenannten preces der Donatisten (Opt. I 22)

Bernhard KRIEGBAUM, SJ, Rome

Als Kaiser Konstantin im Frühjahr 313 die Anhänger Caecilians von Karthago privilegierte (und damit Partei im innerkirchlichen Konflikt ergriff) , protestierten dessen Gegner, die man später ,,Donatisten" nannte, gegen die Begünstigung eines Mannes, den nach ihrer Ansicht ein afrikanisches Konzil ordnungsgemäß seines Amtes enthoben und exkommuniziert hatte¹ . Ihre Vertreter erhoben beim Prokonsul Anullinus Beschwerde und überreichten ihm je eine versiegelte und eine offene Klageschrift (libellus) gegen Caecilian mit der Bitte, diese Dokumente an den Kaiserhof weiterzuleiten² . Von dem Begleitschreiben , einem Bericht (relatio) über die damaligen Ereignisse, welchen Anullinus den Urkunden beifügte, sollte Augustinus ein Jahrhundert später eine Kopie im prokonsularischen Archiv³ finden ; von da an diente ihm die relatio des Anullinus als Beweis für seine Behauptung, trotz ihrer späteren Proteste gegen die Einmischung des Staates in die kirchlichen Streitigkeiten seien es gerade die Donatisten gewesen, die als erste eine solche Intervention verlangt hätten . Diese Auffassung hatte der Bischof von Hippo nun freilich bereits seit den Anfängen seiner antidonatistischen Polemik vertreten ; bis zur Auffindung der relatio hatte er sich aber auf einen Bericht verlassen müssen, welchen der erste uns namentlich bekannte Apologet der katholischen Sache im Donatismusstreit, Optatus von Mileve, in seinem Werk gegen den schismatischen Bischof Parmenian über die Entstehung der afrikanischen Kirchenspaltung gegeben hatte . Im ersten Buch dieser Schrift überlieferte Optatus ein Dokument, welches er für den Wortlaut der Supplik (preces) hielt, mit welcher sich die Väter des Schismas angeblich an Kaiser Konstantin gewandt und von ihm die Entsendung gallischer Richter erbeten haben sollten ". 1 ¹ Zur Entstehung des Schismas vgl . B. Kriegbaum, Kirche der Traditoren oder Kirche der Martyrer? (Innsbruck, 1986), 96-129 ; anders : W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church (Oxford², 1971), 141-147. 2 Vgl. Augustinus, ep. 88,2 (CSEL 34/2, 408). 3 Vgl. Augustinus, brev. coll. Carth. III 7,8 (CChrSL 149/A, 276) ; dazu die capitulatio der Gesta coll. Carth. III 219f (ebd ., 29) . 4 Vgl. Augustinus, c. Cresc. III 61,67 (CSEL 52, 473) ; de un. bapt . 16,28 (CSEL 53, 29) ; sermo Denys 19,8 (PL 46,893) ; epp. 89,3 ; 93,4 ; 105,2,8 (CSEL 34/2, 42f; 457f; 600f) ; 128,2 ; 129,4 ; 141,8 (CSEL 44,31 ; 36f; 241f). 5 Vgl. Optatus I 22 (CSEL 26,25) : „ Nam maiores uestri ... imperatorem Constantinum... his precibus rogauerunt, quarum exemplum infra scriptum est : Rogamus te, Constantine optime

278

B. KRIEGBAUM

Gerade die Echtheit dieses Dokuments ist nun in der modernen Forschung immer wieder mit scheinbar guten Gründen bezweifelt worden. Der auffälligste, keineswegs aber einzige Stein des Anstoßes findet sich in der Subskription der Eingabe ; während die relatio des Prokonsuls, deren Authentizität keinem vernünftigen Zweifel unterliegen kann, die Unterschrift der "pars Maiorini" trägt, sind die angeblichen preces von der "pars Donati" unterzeichnet . Läßt sich dies vielleicht auch noch als anachronistischer Irrtum eines Kopisten abtun, so sprechen doch auch ekklesiologische und stilistische Erwägungen dagegen, diese Urkunde als eine an den Kaiser gerichtete Eingabe anzusehen . Was aber ist sie dann? Es ist unter diesen Umständen verständlich, wenn manche Autoren zur 7 Frage der Authentizität der preces entweder keine klare Stellung beziehen oder sie überhaupt in Abrede stellen . Und obwohl sich unter den Verteidigern der Echtheit durchaus Namen von Rang befinden , so ist doch nicht zu verkennen, daß sie mit der Erklärung offensichtlicher Ungereimtheiten einen schweren Stand haben. Doch führt die Diskussion, ob und wie weit die Authentizität der preces zu sichern ist, deshalb nicht weiter, weil sie sich bisher darin erschöpfte, stets die gleichen Argumente zu wiederholen. Hilfreicher sind da schon die Feststellungen , welche hin und wieder bezüglich des abbreviatorisch-zusammenfassenden Charakters dieses Dokuments getroffen wurden . So gelangte H. Kraft zu der Annahme, der uns vorliegende

imperator quoniam de genere iusto es, cuius pater inter ceteros imperatores persecutionem non exercuit et ab hoc facinore immunis est Gallia, nam in Africa inter nos et ceteros episcopos contentiones sunt — petimus, ut de Gallia nobis iudices dari praecipiat pietas tua. datae a Luciano, Bei Augustinus findet sich Digno, Nasutio, Capitone, Fidentio et ceteris episcopis partis Donati“ . die Abhängigkeit von Optatus seit dem Beginn seiner antidonatistischen Polemik ; vgl. bereits den ps. c. partem Don. 101f (Bibl. Aug. 28,64) : ,,Nam Donatus tunc uolebat Africam totam obtinere, | tunc iudices transmarinos petiit ab imperatore ... " ; ebenso in den späteren (aber noch vor ep . 88 zu datierenden) Schriften : c. ep. Parm . I 11,15 ; ep. ad cath. 18,46 (CSEL 51 , 35f; 291 ) ; c. litt. Pet. II 92,203 (CSEL 52,126f) ; enarr . in ps. 36, sermo II 22 (CChrSL 38,367f) ; epp. , 43,2,4f. 5,14 ; 53,2,5 ; 76,2 (CSEL 34/2, 87 ; 96 ; 155 ; 327) . ⚫ Die Donatisten standen seit ihren Anfängen auf dem Boden cyprianischer Ekklesiologie und Sakramententheologie. Daher bestritten sie Caecilian und dessen Anhang Recht und Möglichkeit der Ausübung bischöflicher Vollmacht. Vgl. B. Kriegbaum, Kirche der Martyrer 48-51 sowie 114118. 7 So P. Batiffol, La paix Constantinienne et le catholicisme (Paris , 1929) 268f; sowie G. Roethe,,,Zur Geschichte der römischen Synoden im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert" in E. Seeberg u.a. (Hg.), Geistige Grundlagen römischer Kirchenpolitik (Stuttgart, 1937) 55f. 8 Vgl . D. Voelter, Der Ursprung des Donatismus (Freiburg, 1883) , 138-143 ; O. Seeck,,, Quellen und Urkunden über die Anfänge des Donatismus“ in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 10 ( 1889) 551f; Ders . ,,,Urkundenfälschungen des 4. Jahrhunderts" in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 30 ( 1909) , 214216; K. Girardet, Kaisergericht und Bischofsgericht (Bonn, 1975), 20-23. 9 Dazu gehören vor allem L. Duchesne, "Le dossier du Donatisme" in Mél. d'archéol. et d'hist. 10 (1890), 608-610 ; P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne IV (Paris, 1912), 206f.; W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church 147 ; H.U. Instinsky, Bischofsstuhl und Kaiserthron (München, 1955) , 68-70.

Die preces der Donatisten (Opt. I , 22)

279

Text sei wahrscheinlich der " Registraturvermerk eines Sammlers, vielleicht dessen, der die von Optatus benutzten Urkunden zusammengestellt hat " 10 ; dagegen will E.L. Grasmück in ihm ein nach dem Gedächtnis verfertigtes Resümee des Originaltextes erkennen 11. Indes erscheinen mir beide Vorschläge wenig akzeptabel, da einerseits eine Registraturnotiz kaum in persönlicher Anrede abgefaßt sein dürfte, anderseits aber der gedrängte, manches im unklaren lassende Stil der preces sich sonst bei Optatus so nicht findet (welches sind die "ceteri episcopi" , welches die "contentiones" ?) . Doch bleibt es unstrittig das Verdienst der beiden Autoren, auf das Flüchtig- Summarische des Stils aufmerksam gemacht zu haben . Tatsächlich erwecken die preces den Eindruck, als ob sie zusammenfassend und, ohne auf stilistische Feinheiten zu achten, in aller Eile niedergeschrieben worden seien . Am ehesten ließe sich zur Erklärung ihrer stilistischen Eigenart daher wohl an das Protokoll eines der Stenographie unkundigen Schreibers denken. Auf diesen Gedanken werden wir am Schluß unserer Ausführungen noch einmal zurückkommen, doch wollen wir uns zunächst der Frage nach der chronologischen Situierung der preces zuwenden. Bisher hat man sie wie selbstverständlich in den Kontext eingepaßt, der sich aus der relatio des Anullinus ergibt, und man hat von daher ihren Quellenwert beurteilt . Obschon dies die Darstellung des Optatus zwingend erfordert, möchte ich hier eine andere Hypothese vortragen, welche diese Urkunde in einem ganz neuen Licht erscheinen läßt und unsere Kenntnis von der Frühgeschichte des afrikanischen Schismas nicht unwesentlich modifiziert. Bekanntlich weiß Optatus nichts von der Synode von Arles (314) ; darüber hinaus zitiert er nach den preces und wenig später noch einmal nach dem römischen Urteilsspruch -- das eine Mal freier, das andere Mal beinahe wörtlich das Schreiben " Aeterna et religiosa" Kaiser Konstantins an die Arleser Synodalen 12 , und zwar so, als ob der Brief eine Reaktion des Kaisers auf die Ereignisse des Jahres 313 (sic ! ) darstellte . Dieser offensichtliche Irrtum des Optatus rechtfertigt, wie mir scheint, die Arbeitshypothese, derzufolge wenigstens der Bischof von Mileve, wenn nicht gar schon die ihm vorausliegende Urkundensammlung den Text der wirklichen Supplik nicht kannte, mit welcher sich die Schismatiker an den Kaiser gewandt hatten. Dagegen war das Faktum selbst weithin bekannt, daß nämlich das staatliche Eingreifen in die afrikanischen Zwistigkeiten ursprünglich von den Donatisten selbst veranlaßt worden war. Optatus hat , so läßt sich vermuten, nun irrtümlich die Appellation der i.J. 313 Unterlegenen gegen ihre Richter und deren Urteil für jene preces gehalten, mit denen ein Jahr zuvor die kaiserliche Gerichtsbarkeit

10 H. Kraft, Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung (Tübingen, 1955) , 33, Anm. 2 . 11 E.L. Grasmück, Coercitio (Bonn, 1964), 33, Anm. 107. 12 Vgl. Optatus I 23 bzw. 25 (CSEL 26, 26 bzw. 27). Der Brief des Kaisers findet sich im Anhang der Optatus-Edition von C. Ziwsa als Appendix V (CSEL 26 , 208-210).

280

B. KRIEGBAUM

überhaupt erst in den Kirchenstreit hineingezogen worden war. Für diesen Irrtum sind offenbar zwei verschiedene Ursachen verantwortlich gewesen : Zunächst war es die völlige Unkenntnis des Optatus hinsichtlich der Synode von Arles, welche die fehlerhafte Zuordnung der preces überhaupt erst ermöglichte ; zum anderen lag es aber auch an den vagen Formulierungen , in welchen die vermeintlichen preces abgefaßt sind, sowie daran, daß an der römischen Synode tatsächlich drei gallische Bischöfe beteiligt gewesen waren, daß weder Optatus noch seine Leser auf das Versehen aufmerksam wurden. Daß die Schismatiker sich im Frühjahr 313 noch nicht als "pars Donati" bezeichnen konnten , hat vielleicht Augustinus erkannt, nachdem er im prokonsularischen Archiv von Karthago die Abschrift der relatio des Anullinus gefunden hatte ; jedenfalls hört damit seine Berufung auf Optatus und die von ihm überlieferten preces auf¹³ . Eine jede Hypothese weist ihre Wahrscheinlichkeit in dem Maße nach, in welchem sie Probleme löst, die sich andernfalls stellen . Fragen wir deshalb danach, welche Probleme und Schwierigkeiten die hier vorgetragenen Vermutungen aus dem Wege räumen. Sicherlich entfällt auf diese Weise jeder Anstoß in der Subskription . Um die Mitte des Jahres 313 scheint Maiorinus gestorben und umgehend durch Donatus ersetzt worden zu sein ; jedenfalls trat dieser Ende September desselben Jahres auf der römischen Synode als Wortführer seiner Partei auf. Da er sich nach der für ihn unglücklich verlaufenen ersten Sitzung seinen Richtern vermutlich deshalb entzogen hatte, weil er meinte, in seiner Abwesenheit werde man nicht wagen, ihn zu verurteilen 14 , ist es nicht weiter erstaunlich, daß gerade seine Unterschrift unter die Appellation gegen das römische Verdikt fehlt . Offenbar hatte er Rom schleunigst verlassen und konnte daher nicht persönlich unterschreiben. Die Abfassung des Berufungsschreibens war somit Angelegenheit derjenigen Bischöfe, welche schon zuvor den ,,denuntationis libellus" gegen Caecilian vorgelegt hatten, nachdem Donatus sich geweigert hatte, nachmals auf der Synode zu erscheinen 15. Diese waren - wenigsten zunächst von dem Urteil des Bischofsgerichts noch nicht unmittelbar betroffen. Da Protest und Berufung keinen Aufschub duldeten, unterzeichneten sie ihre Appellation außer im eigenen Namen auch im Namen all ihrer in Afrika befindlichen

13 Vgl. O. Seeck,,, Quellen und Urkunden“, 196-198 ; K. Girardet, Kaisergericht 23-25. Beide Autoren nehmen an, Augustinus habe schließlich die preces als Fälschung erkannt und sie deshalb stillschweigend aus seiner Urkundensammlung gestrichen. Warum er freilich keinen entsprechenden Hinweis in seinen Retractationes gegeben hat, bleibt aber unerörtert. Mir erscheint es dagegen viel wahrscheinlicher, daß Augustinus einfach einer amtlichen, noch im Staatsarchiv befindlichen Urkunde wegen ihrer höheren Beweiskraft den Vorzug vor der Zitation der preces gegeben hat. 14 Vgl. Augustinus, ep. 43,5,15 (CSEL 34/2, 97) ; E.L. Grasmück , Coercitio 43. 15 Vgl . Augustinus, ep. 43,5,15 (CSEL 34/2, 97) . -- Zum Verlauf der römischen Synode vgl. G. Roethe, Zur Geschichte der römischen Synoden 64-79.

Die preces der Donatisten (Opt. I, 22)

281

bischöflichen Gesinnungsgenossen, deren persönliche Unterschrift sogleich einzuholen ja unmöglich war. Sie unterschrieben dabei völlig korrekt für ihre abwesenden Kollegen als ,,ceteri episcopi partis Donati“ ; selbstverständlich bringt „ pars“ dabei keineswegs das ekklesiologische Selbstbewußtsein der Schismatiker zum Ausdruck, sondern kennzeichnet deren Eigenschaft als Partei in einem gerichtlichen Streitfall . Auch ein anderes Problem könnte so seine Klärung finden . Würde nämlich die Urkunde, wie Optatus glaubte, wirklich vor die Synode des Jahres 313 gehören, so wäre nicht recht verständlich, warum die Donatisten später nie mehr bemängelten, daß man ihrer Bitte um gallische Richter nur in so unzureichender Weise entsprochen hatte, wie dies in Rom der Fall gewesen war 16. Trifft hingegen unsere Annahme zu und beziehen sich die angeblichen preces in Wirklichkeit auf die Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens, so würde deutlich, in welchem Ausmaß Konstantin im Jahre 314 der Beschwerde der Schismatiker Rechnung trug. Durch die Auswahl der nach Arles geladenen Synodalen sorgte er tatsächlich dafür , daß die aus dem ehemaligen Reichsteil seines Vaters Constantius Chlorus stammenden Bischöfe das Konzil zahlenmäßig eindeutig dominierten 17. Darüber hinaus verrät dann auch die Wahl des Tagungsortes (und indirekt damit die des Vorsitzenden , da diese Position normalerweise dem Ortsbischof zustand) ein besonderes Entgegenkommen des Kaisers, das sich wohl vor allem aus seinem Wunsch erklärt , den afrikanischen Querelen möglichst schnell ein Ende zu setzen. Vielleicht könnte man noch weitergehen und vermuten, daß die drei in Rom anwesenden gallischen Bischöfe sich vielleicht den Vorstellungen der Schismatiker - wenigstens in Verfahrensfragen — zugänglicher gezeigt hatten als ihre italienischen Kollegen ; dies mag bei Caecilians Gegnern den (irrigen) Eindruck erweckt haben, beim gallischen Episkopat auch in der Sache selbst auf größeres Verständnis als in Rom zu stoßen. Auf die Bitte um gallische Richter würde dies ebenso zusätzliches Licht werfen wie auf den Verlauf der römischen Synode. An zwei Stellen scheint das Synodalschreiben der Arleser Bischofssversammlung an Papst Silvester solche Vermutungen zu stützen : Zum einen wird darin die Ansicht geäußert, das Urteil der Synode wäre härter ausgefallen, wenn der Bischof von Rom persönlich an ihr teilgenommen

16 Erst um die Wende vom 4. zum 5. Jahrhundert hören wir von donatistischen Klagen über eine angebliche traditio des Miltiades ; doch selbst dann wird nie behauptet, man habe diesen traditor anstatt erbetener Gallier zum Richter erhalten. 17 Außer einer einzigen, offensichtlich verstümmelten Subskriptionsliste weist die gesamte Handschriftenüberlieferung nach Abzug der afrikanischen Unterschriften bei allen Abweichungen im Detail eine deutliche Mehrheit von Synodalen aus dem Reichsteil des ehemaligen Caesars Constantius Chlorus auf; bei den Beratungen über die afrikanischen Angelegenheiten aber waren Caecilian und die Seinen noch Angeklagte, nicht Synodenmitglieder. Zu den verschiedenen Subskriptionslisten vgl. die Edition von Ch. Munier, Concilia Galliae A. 314 — A. 506 (CChrSL 148, 14-22) .

282

B. KRIEGBAUM

hätte 18 ; zum anderen klingt es wie eine indirekte Bestätigung der donatistischen Klagen, in Rom sei ihre Sache nicht vollständig untersucht worden 19, wenn die Synodalen dem Papst mitteilen, jetzt bestehe wirklich kein Grund zur Klage mehr und keine weitere Möglichkeit für eine neue Beweiserhebung 20 . Die hier vorgetragenen Überlegungen müssen notwendigerweise skizzenhaft bleiben 21. Doch sei so viel noch einmal zusammenfassend gesagt : Die bei Opt. I 22 zitierten angeblichen preces stellen mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit die Appellation der Schismatiker gegen den Urteilsspruch der römischen Synode von 313 dar, freilich in Form einer hastig verfertigten Mitschrift ; dies legt den Gedanken nahe, daß sie bei ihrer Verlesung zu Beginn der Arleser Synode von einem der Anwesenden, vermutlich einem Katholiken 22 , auf das Wesentliche reduziert zu Papier gebracht wurden und später ihren Weg in das Dokumentendossier des Optatus gefunden haben. Infolge der Lückenhaftigkeit seines Materials ist dieser dem Irrtum erlegen, sie für jene Supplik zu halten, mit welcher die Donatisten ein Jahr zuvor die Maschinerie der Staatsund Kirchengerichtsbarkeit in Gang setzten und von welcher die relatio des Anullinus berichtet.

18 Vgl. Optatus, App . IV (CSEL, 26,207) . 19 Vgl. Optatus, App. III (CSEL 26,205) . 20 Vgl. Optatus, App. IV (CSEL 26,207). 21 Voraussichtlich wird eine ausführliche Darlegung der erstmals hier vorgetragenen Ansicht demnächst im Arch. Hist. Pont. erscheinen. 22 Dies legt jedenfalls die Bezeichnung „ episcopi“ für die Gegner der Unterzeichner nahe ; s.o. Anm . 6.

Saint Augustine on Christ as principium in De ciuitate Dei 10,23-24

B. DALSGAARD LARSEN, Aarhus

In the De ciuitate Dei, 10,23-24 Saint Augustine draws the well- known and important line of demarcation between neoplatonism and the Christian faith. Although Porphyry rightly rejects the mystic rites of pagan gods as means of purification and supposes the need of more fundamental principles , we know, Augustine says, what as a Platonist he means by principles, namely the three neoplatonic hypostaseis. And although it is true that man can be purified only by a principle, i.e. not by himself, but by what is prior to him, a principium, it is by no means by several principia, but by one principium that man is saved . Next, Porphyry has not been willing to understand that Christ is this principium, by whose incarnation we are purified . So there are two fundamental points of difference : One ontological and theological : non dicimus duo uel tria principia, cum de Deo loquimur, the other personal and christological : Dominum Christum esse principium, cuius incarnatione purgamur. As we know, Christ as principium is an important theme in Saint Augustine, especially in connection with his exegesis of Genesis 1,1 : In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. As the creation of the universe is the basis for Augustine's exposition of the history of the two ciuitates in the second half, i.e. in the main part, of De ciuitate Dei, and Augustine here again refers to the exegesis of Genesis 1,1 , it seems justified to be especially attentive to what he says in 10,23-24 about Christ as principium. It is the object of this paper to contribute to the interpretation of Augustine's statements in these two chapters on the background of his doctrine of Christ as principium in general and with reference to their significance for the interpretation of De ciuitate Dei as a whole. Behind Saint Augustine's interpretation of Genesis 1,1 stands Origen's exegesis in the first homily on Genesis¹ . In principio, Origen says in the translation of Rufinus, does not mean in time, but in uerbo, i.e. in Salvatore, for what is the principium of all things if not Dominus noster et Saluator omnium: Iesus Christus primogenitus omnis creaturae ? In direct continuation of and close connection with what is said in the New Testament on the ¹ As pointed out among others by Altaner, Kleine patr. Schriften (Berlin, 1967) (TU 83) , p. 234ff. The exegesis of Gen 1,1 in Hilary ( trin. 12,40), Basil (hex. 1,5-6) and Ambrose (hex. 1,2,5 ; 1,4,12-16) has a different structure, as Altaner rightly remarks. The analysis of the different meanings of the word principium in Ambrose is evidently based on the analysis of άpxη in Basil.

284

B. DALSGAARD LARSEN

preexistent Christ and the Word that was in the beginning, this interpretation gives the Christian answer to the question posed by Greek philosophy as to the ontological foundation of the universe² . The philosophical concept of ȧpyn as the origin and constituent principle of being has here been accepted as a valid way of presenting the problem³ . A dialogue on ontology and metaphysics has been made possible. But the Christian faith provides a decisive correction to Greek philosophy and brings new insight: The basis of the universe is not in the universe itself, but is the Word of the transcendent God, and this Word has revealed itself as a person in Jesus Christ as proclaimed by John in the prologue to the gospel. Saint Augustine fully accepts this approach to the problem and presents a similar argument in his interpretations . In his three Genesis commentaries the metaphysical questions are in focus : In principio does not mean in principio temporis, for time begins with the creation, in principio means in Christo as the Verbum was with the Father (John 1,1), and in principio means in sapientia Dei . In the Imperfect Book special attention is paid to the distinction between principium sine principio and principium cum alio principio. Principium sine principio is only the Father, and ideo , Augustine says , ex uno principio esse omnia credimus. Here the Father is seen as the one principium . The Son ita principium est, ut de patre sit " . This reflects the discussions in the Arian conflict".

2 For the early history of the exegesis of Gen 1,1 cf. P. Nautin, "Genèse 1,1-2 de Justin à Origène", in: In principio (Paris, 1973) (Étud. Aug.) , p . 61-93 . Nautin points out, p. 72-73, the influence of New Testament statements about the preexistent Christ (cf. John 1,1 ; Col. 1,15-18 ; Rev 3,14) on the early Christian interpretation of Gen. 1,1 and thinks that ȧpyn in Gen. 1,1 is first interpreted as referring to the Word by Theophilus of Antioch . This interpretation again has its background in the earlier, Jewish interpretation of ȧpyn/principium as the wisdom of God, cf. Psalm 103,24 (Vulg.), also interpreted as the ȧpxń/principium of his ways in Prov. 8,22. — For the Latin tradition cf. Tertullian, Herm. 19. ³ On ȧpxń in Origen's commentary on John see E. Früchtel, 'Apyn und das erste Buch der Johanneskommentars des Origenes ' , in: Studia Patristica XIV (TU, 117 ; Berlin, 1976), p. 122-144. 4 The five most important passages of Augustine's interpretation of Gen. 1,1 are : gen. c. Manich. 1,2,3 ; gen. ad litt. imperf. 3,6; gen. ad litt. 1,1,2ff; cf. ibid. , 6,12 ; conf. 11,8,10-14 ; ciu. 11,4 ; 11,6; 11,32 ; cf. Altaner, op. cit., p. 234. These texts have been analysed by G. Pelland in : Cinq Études d'Augustin sur le debut de la Genèse (Montréal-Tournai, 1972). I regret not to have been able to consult the work of M.C. Bernardi, In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram in San Agostino e le sue fonti (Torino , 1960). Augustine had already interpreted principium as uerbum in gen. c. Manich. and gen. ad litt. imperf. And although Altaner advances the date of Rufinus' translation of Origen's Genesis homilies to the 390's (cf. Altaner, op. cit. , p. 236), it is not likely that Augustine had the opportunity to use the translation as early as the time of composition of his first two Genesis commentaries. However, Ambrose also has the interpretation of Christ as principium in Gen. 1,1 (Ambrose says initium), as rightly mentioned by Solignac, "Exégèse et Métaphysique”, in : In principio (cit.), p. 155 , cf. Ambrose, Ex. , 1,4,15 (CSEL, 32¹ , 13). 5 On Augustine's doctrine of principium in the early works (until 391 ) see especially O. Roy, L'intelligence de la Foi en la Trinité (Paris, 1966) (Étud. Aug.) . " Gen. ad litt. imperf. 3 (CSEL, 28¹ ,461f) . With reference to 1 Cor 11,3 Saint Augustine even

Saint Augustine on Christ as principium

285

In the Confessiones Augustine sums up the interpretation of Genesis 1,1 in this way: in hoc principio, Deus, fecisti caelum et terram in Verbo tuo, in filio tuo, in uirtute tua, in sapientia tua, in ueritate tua miro modo dicens et miro modo faciens, and he cites the words of Psalm 103,24 : Omne in sapientia fecisti ? Now it is a characteristic feature of Augustine's interpretation of Genesis 1,1 that in all the three commentaries, in the Confessiones and in other places he incorporates John 8,25 in his interpretation of the Word as principium 8. This is only possible in the West, as it is founded on the misleading literal Latin translation . Here the answer of Jesus to the question of the Jews: Who are you? is rendered : principium quia et loquor uobis . If this text is seen as Christ's own testimony of himself as principium, because he speaks to men (quia et loquor uobis) , it implies a close connection between the Verbum as principium in the creation and the incarnation of the Verbum including Christ's historical speaking to men . What is already implicit in the interpretation of Genesis 1,1 in connection with John 1,1 thus becomes even more concrete and personal. Saint Ambrose also gives an interpretation of the Latin translation of John 8,25, and we may suppose that Ambrose has inspired Augustine to further reflection on the text 10. Ambrose himself sees in this text a confirmation of the principium of Christ in the incarnation , but he interprets principium as reign (principatus) and finds in John 8,25 Christ's own testimony that he has won sovereignty by his victory over death¹¹ . This interpretation can be seen speaks of a gradatio : Deus-Christus- uir-mulier, interpreting caput as principium (op. cit. , p. 462,5-9) . As to the Greek background of this discussion, cf. especially Greg. Naz . , or. 42,15 (PG 36,476b) and Greg. Nys., c. Eun . 1,1,468 ( 1,162 Jaeger) . On the discussions of principle in the Arian conflict the work of Th . de Regnon, Études de Théologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinité I-IV (Paris, 1892-1898) is still worth reading, see especially III, p. 162ff and 259ff. 7 Conf. 11,9,11 ; cf. ibid. , 11,8,10 ; 12,20,29 ; 13,2,2. 8 So in fid. et symb. 18 (CSEL 41,21,6f) ; trin . 5,13,14 (CCL 50,220f) ; ciu. 11,32 (CCL, 48,351f); c. adu. leg. 3,4 (CCL 49,38). According to the Biblia Patristica John 8,25 is not used at all before Origen. 9 ⁹ Cf. C.H. Milne, A Reconstruction of the Old-Latin Text or Texts of the Gospels used by Saint Augustine (Cambridge, 1926), especially p . 135 , and M. Comeau, Saint Augustin exégète du quatrième Evangile (Paris, 1930), especially p. 63-64. The Jerome Vulgate has quia, whereas the African Vetus Latina has quod (or qui). In Augustine's renderings we can follow his shift to the use ofJerome's translation (cf. Milne, op. cit. , p. Ix) : In gen ad litt. imperf. and in the early part of trin. (1,24) Augustine has quod, whereas in conf. 11,8,10 and 12,28,39 he has quia, which he also uses in trin. 5,14 (and not qui, as supposed by C.H. Milne, op. cit. , p. 135 and M. Comeau, op. cit., p. 53 note 1 ) . According to Migne, however, Augustine has quia in gen . c. Manich. 1,2,3 (PL 34,174) . The Clementine edition of the Vulgate has qui, which presupposes an öc in the Greek text, cf. Col. 1,18. 10 Ambr. in Luc. 10,112 (CSEL 324,497,21 ) ; fid. 7,46ff (CSEL 78,124ff) ; cf. ibid. , 5,9,118 (CSEL 78,260,19 ) and 5,10,121 (CSEL 78,262) . 11 In Luc. loc. laud. Ambrose refers to Isaiah 9,2 Principium super umeros eius and the title on the cross Rex Iudaeorum : diuinae potestatis est regnum quod habet Christus. The words in Prov. 8,22, Dominus creauit me principium uiarum suarum in opera sua, must refer, Ambrose says in fid. 7,46ff, to the incarnation, in which Christ has won imperium mortis and so has become ecclesiae caput. Ibid., 5,9,118 Ambrose refers to Christ's reign ad dexteram Patris.

286

B. DALSGAARD LARSEN

in the line of exegesis which we find in Eusebius of Caesarea , for whom the preexistent Word, the Son of God, is the foundation of the existence of the creatures, and the incarnation is the revelation of the invisible Father and Christ's accession to the Throne, beginning with his baptism and fulfilled by the mysterium paschale 12. Augustine, however, differs in interpreting the principium as ontological principle without involving the concept of the reign of Christ 13. Saint Augustine finds it confirmed by Christ himself in John 8,25 that Christ is principle in his incarnation and in his historical words : sic in Evangelio per carnem ait, Augustine says in the Confessiones 14. Also in the in gen. ad litt. the aeterna sapientia is seen as principium for the creatura intellectualis as uox Dei with reference to John 8,2515 . This whole interpretation means that Saint Augustine focuses on Christ as one principium in his origin (with the Father) , in the creation (as the Wisdom and Word of God) , in his incarnation (the Word was made flesh) and in his words on earth . This Augustinian interpretation of Christ as principium in connection with John 8,25 we also find in his ex professo interpretation in the Tractatus in Ioannis euangelium XXXVIII, and here we are chronologically close to the composition of our text in De ciuitate Dei¹6 . In this tract Augustine first makes it clear that principium is the ontological foundation of that for which it is principle. Jesus answers the question Quis es? by the single word Principium. Ecce quod est esse, Augustine comments and proceeds : Principium mutari non potest ; principium in se manet, et innouat omnia ¹7 . But after the word principium, Christ adds : quia et loquor uobis, i.e. , Augustine says, quia humilis propter uos factus, ad ista uerba descendi. For if the Word had stayed with the Father and had not been incarnated in the form of a servant and had not spoken to men, how could they believe in him, their

12 Cf. A. Weber, APXH , Ein Beitrag zur Christologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Grottaferrata di Roma, 1965) . See especially p. 118ff and p. 169 . 13 This interpretation of John 8,25 we find in the Latin Arian literature, from which Augustine may know the ontological combination of John 8,25 with Genesis 1,1 . So especially Maximin., c. Ambr. (PLS 1,698) and Aponius (PLS 1,901 ) . Cf. Monumenta Ariana (PLS 1,332) ; Anon. Priscill ., trin. fid. cath. (PLS 2,1499) ; Vincent of Lérins, excerpta (PLS 3,31 ) . — Also the interpretation of Prov. 8,22 principium uiarum suarum plays a great part in the Arian controversy, cf. M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo (Roma, 1975) , p . 262-278. 14 Conf. 11,8,10. 15 Gen. ad litt. 1,2ff (CSEL 28¹ ,6ff). 16 On the publication of De ciuitate Dei books 1-10 in 417 see Zarp, Chronologia Operum S. Augustini (Romae, 1934), p. 63. Departing from previously accepted dating Zarp places the first 54 tracts of in euang. Ioh . in the year 413 (tract 38 Saturday 4th of October, tract 39 the following day, Sunday 5th, cf. Zarp, op. cit ., p . 57) and is followed in this dating by the CCL-edition . Cf. however, A.-M. La Bonnardière, Recherches de chronologie augustinienne (Paris, 1965) (Étud. Aug.), p. 63ff. M.-F. Berrouard places tracts 17-19 and 23-54 as a whole in the year 414, in "La date des Tractatus I-LIV in Iohannis Evangelium de saint Augustin", in : RecAug 7 ( 1971 ) , 105168. 17 In euang. Ioh. 38,11 (CCL 36,344).

Saint Augustine on Christ as principium

287

hearts being too weak to hear his word without physically audible voice ? So we have the sequence : The Word is with the Father and has been made flesh and speaks to men in audible words. As Augustine says : quia, ut credatis, non solum sum , sed et loquor uobis 18 . Turning to reconsider De ciuitate Dei 10,23-24, we find the same doctrine of Christ as principium, but elaborated in a new way. The context here is the refutation in books 6 to 10 of claims in the philosophy of the ancient world to be able to confer eternal life through its own doctrine and through interpretation of pagan religion. Even in the eighth book we find a comprehensive treatment of the problem of the principium of the universe 19. In 10,23 discussion centres on the neoplatonic conception of the world as one commanding particularly serious attention, and it is thus in express opposition to the ancient search for the ȧpxn of the universe that Augustine emphasizes that Christ is principium. The question is one of ontology and metaphysics, a question of reality, but for Augustine it also concerns the substantial foundation and principle of the universe, as is also evidenced in his own translation in 10,23 of the title of Ennead 5,1 : De principalibus substantiis. Augustine rejects three substantial principles and is explicit in his statements on the unity of principle as well as on the Trinity of persons in the Christian faith. There is only one principium 20 Augustine emphasizes that Christ is this one principium and refers immediately to the incarnation : cuius incarnatione purgamur . Now this point is elaborated : Christ has become man in order to be sacrificium nostrae purgationis, this is the magnum sacramentum . As we know, book 10 as a whole has as its theme the true worship of God, and in chapter 20 Saint Augustine focuses on the true and supreme sacrifice which the Mediator between God and man became in forma serui . As expressed in 10,24 : soluere potuit moriendo peccata . Christ is principium in his sacrifice on the cross. But we also know that Augustine in the tenth book of the De ciuitate Dei considers the sacrifice of Christ in intimate connection with the sacrifice of his

18 Ibid. (CCL 36,345). 19 Ciu. 8,2 : aqua as rerum principium (Thales) ; propria principia for the single things (Anaxagoras) ; 8,5 : corporalia naturae principia (Epicurus) : 8,6 : rerum principium (Platonism). Nearest to the Christian faith, Augustine says in 8,9, is that philosophy which recognizes the one true and most high God and is convinced that we have from him " et principium naturae et ueritas doctrinae et felicitas uitae". 20 Cf. the emphasizing of the one principium in Psalm. 109,13 (CCL 40,1614) . An elaborate treatment is found in trin. 5,13,14 (CCL 50,220f). In the translations of ciu. 10,23-24 principium generally is rendered by principle (so Wiesen : principle, Combès : principe, Gentili : principio). Perl renders principium by "Urgrund", which is very much to the point here where it is used in opposition to the neoplatonic hypostasis, sub-stantia as basis and foundation. Cf. 8,10 (CCL 47,227) : (Deus) principium nostrum, lumen nostrum, bonum nostrum . This point of view is not without connection with the theme of Christ as "Lebensgrund" in more recent theology, cf. M.J. Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums (Freiburg, 1958), p. 261ff.

288

B. DALSGAARD LARSEN

body, the Church . For Christ chose that his sacrifice " should be symbolized in the sacrament of the Church's daily sacrifice, for the Church of Christ, being the body of which he is the head, is taught to offer itself through him " 21 . Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum : multi unum corpus in Christo , Augustine says 22. So Christ is principium through the eucharistic sacrifice. Clearly this has consequences for the interpretation of De ciuitate Dei as a whole. For it has been asserted in an earlier chapter that " this redeemed city, which is to say the assembly and fellowship of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice through the High Priest who in his passion offered even himself for us in the shape of a slave that we might be the body of so great a head" 23. The sacramental character of Christ as principium is underlined . Augustine has pointed out that the core of the visible sacrifice is that it is a symbol of "the invisible sacrifice of Christ we ourselves ought to be in our hearts " 24. Moreover it is crucial to our understanding of the incarnation that it is not the flesh as such or the soul as such that is principium. It is the Verbum per quod omnia facta sunt that is principium . It is this principium that purifies : principium ergo suscepta anima et carne et animam credentium mundat et carnem 25. This is essential to the interpretation of the De ciuitate Dei as a whole : The ciuitas Dei has this sacramental character and can never be reduced to an empirical phenomenon . Finally in this same chapter Saint Augustine makes it clear that the purification in the sacrifice of Christ is a purification of the natura humana , because the natura humana of Christ himself was iusta. In opposition to Manichean dualism Saint Augustine again underlines that the problem is sin, and not the nature of man . Purification is therefore a restoration of the whole man. Again we see the ontological and realistic point of view in Augustine's doctrine of Christ as principium in salvation . Christ is principium both for the nature of man in the creation and for man's personal liberation from sin in salvation. Haec est mediatio , qua manus lapsis iacentibusque porrecta est, Augustine says 26 . 21 Ciu. 10,20 (CCL 47,294) : Per hoc et sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio. Cuius rei sacramentum cotidianum esse uoluit ecclesiae sacrificium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit, se ipsam per ipsum discit offerre. The translation given here and in the following is that of Wiesen (Loeb). 22 Ciu. 10,6 (CCL 47,279) . We may see this context suggested also in the example used by Augustine in 10,24 (CCL 47,297,35ff) . 23 Ciu. 10,6 (CCL 47,279) : profecto efficitur (viz. by the mercy of God), ut tota ipsa redempta ciuitas, hoc est congregatio societasque sanctorum, uniuersale sacrificium offeratur Deo per sacerdotem magnum, qui etiam se ipsum obtulit in passione pro nobis, ut tanti capitis corpus essemus, secundum formam serui . 24 Ciu. 10,19 (CCL 47,293) : sacrificantes non alteri uisibile sacrificium offerendum esse nouerimus quam illi, cuius in cordibus nostris inuisibile sacrificium nos ipsi esse debemus. 25 Ciu. 10,24 (CCL 47,298). 26 Ibid. (CCL 47,298 ).

Saint Augustine on Christ as principium

289

This truth the Platonists have failed to see, because they have rejected the incarnation of Christ, the way to understand Christ as principium (cf. 10,29). He is the universal way to liberation, for liberation is given only by his grace (cf. 10,32). He is the conditor sanctae ciuitatis, de qua disputare instituimus, Augustine says in the last chapter of book 1027. In his treatment of Christ as principium in 10,23-24 and the tenth book as a whole Augustine prepares for the exposition of the history of two ciuitates in the second half of his magnum opus. And there he again begins with the point on which his whole argument depends : In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, i.e. in sapientia Dei 28 and in Verbo 29, in the very source of the ciuitas Dei, which is not the uerbum sonabile et temporale, but the uerbum intelligibile et sempiternum of God 30. For this Verbum Dei is according to Scripture and according to Christ himself principium 31.

27 Ciu. 10,32 (CCL 47,314). 28 Cf. ciu. 11,4 (CCL 48,323). 29 Cf. ciu. 11,33 (CCL 48,354). 30 Ciu. 11,8 (CCL 48,327f) : dixit et facta sunt uerbo intellegibili et sempiterno, non sonabili et temporali. 31 Ciu. 11,32 (CCL 48,351f) : quia omnia in sapientia fecit, quod est Verbum eius et ipsum scriptura principium nominauit (sicut ipse in euangelio Iudaeis quaerentibus quis esset respondit se esse principium).

Augustins ,,Theatricum Carmen "

S. LONGOSZ, Lublin

In der reichhaltigen und schon vielfach untersuchten Vita des heiligen Augustins lohnt es sich auch, auf die selten bermerkte Einzelheit hinzuweisen, dass er auch der Autor eines noch vor seiner Bekehrung geschriebenen, uns nicht näher bekannten Theaterstückes war. Dieses Detail aus seinem Leben ist besonders bemerkenswert, weil es ein sehr seltenes, ganz und gar unanfechtbares Zeugnis von einer zeitgenössischen dramatischen Dichtung der Kirchenväter ist. Augustin war zwar kein Dichter, aber seine Seele war poetisch, und in seinen Schriften verriet er oft dichterische Fähigkeiten . Über seine jugendlichen dichterischen Versuche und Verlegenheiten mit dem Metrum schrieb er in den ,, Confessiones" . Später erfahren wir, dass er als Priester in den Jahren 394-395 das polemische Poem abecedarius ,,Psalmus contra partem Donati"2 geschaffen hat. Anstatt der Vokallänge, die bisher in der antiken Poesie verwandt wurde, benutzte er in diesem Poem zum ersten Mal ein anderes konstitutives Element, den Akzent des Wortes , und verwendete eine volkstümliche Sonderform des trochäischen Oktonars. Dadurch wurde er zum Vater der bis heute existierenden rhythmischen Dichtung³. Nach der Beendigung der rhetorischen Studien wollte Augustin grössere Aufmerksamkeit erregen und Beziehungen zu den höheren kulturellen Kreisen von Karthago anknüpfen . Deshalb beteiligte er sich als junger Rhetor um das Jahr 376 an einem lokalen dramatischen Agon mit einem dichterischen Versuch. Wir besitzen keine genauen Nachrichten, um was für einen Wettbewerb es sich damals handelte , und ob dabei neben den gymnastischen und

1 Confessiones III 7,14 , CSEL 33,56 : „ Et cantabam carmina et non mihi licebat ponere pedem quemlibet et ubilibet, sed in alio atque alio metro aliter atque aliter et in uno aliquo versu non omnibus locis eundem pedem ; et ars ipsa, qua canebam, non habebat aliud alibi, sed omnia simul". 2 PL 43,23-32, CSEL 51,3-51 ; cfr Rectractationes I 20, PL 32,617 ; F. Ermini, Il ,,Psalmus contra partem Donati", in : Miscellanea Agostiniana , II (Romae, 1931 ), 341-352 ; H. Vroom, Le psaume abécédaire de saint Augustin et la poésie latine rhythmique (Nijmegen, 1933) ; E. Tréhorel, ,,Le psaume abécédaire de saint Augustin“, Revue des études latines 17 ( 1939), 309-329. 3 Cfr. H. Vroom, Le psaume, op. cit., 49 : „ Mais, malgré le langage peu poétique du Psaume, nous avons tout le droit de considérer saint Augustin, à cause de la technique de ses vers et de la négligence voulue et absolue du principe quantitatif, comme le père de la poésie rhythmique“ ; F. Ermini , Il ,,Psalmus", op. cit., 352. * P. Brown, Augustinus von Hippo (Frankfurt, 1973), 56.

Augustins "Theatricum Carmen"

291

hippischen Wettkämpfen auch die zum kulturellen Leben Karthagos gehörenden musischen Wettspiele in epischer, lyrischer und dramatischer Dichtung stattfanden. In der Kaiserzeit gab es viele solcher Agons : Actia, Agon Neroneus, Agon Capitolinus, Agon Albanus, Agon Minervae, Agon Solis, Agon Herculeus usw. 5. Nach F. Friedländer handelte es sich hier um einen karthagischen Wettbewerb, der nach dem Vorbild des pythischen Agons abgehalten wurde . Von der Einführung eines solchen pythischen Agons in Karthago sprach schon Tertullian, ohne jedoch anzugeben, ob zu diesem Agon auch dramatische Wettkämpfe gehörten . Auch über den Ablauf eines solchen musischen Agon der späteren Kaiserzeit liegen nur spärliche Nachrichten vor. Über seine Teilnahme an diesem Agon lieferte uns Augustin in den ,,Confessiones" sehr knappe Informationen : ,,Per idem tempus annorum novem ab undevicesimo anno aetatis meae usque ad duodetricensimum, seducebamur et seducebamus falsi atque fallentes in variis cupiditatibus /.../ hic superbi, ibi superstitiosi, ubique vani, hac popularis gloriae sectantes inanitatem usque ad theatricos plausus et contentiosa carmina et agonem coronarum faenearum et spectaculorum nugas /.../. Recolo etiam cum mihi theatrici carminis certamen inire placuisset, mandasse mihi nescio quem haruspicem, quid ei dare vellem mercedis, ut vincerem, me autem foeda illa sacramenta detestatum et abominatum respondisse, nec si corona illa ita esset immortaliter aurea, muscam pro victoria mea necari sinere /.../. Erat eo tempore vir sagax, medicinae artis peritissimus atque in ea nobilissimus, qui proconsul manu sua coronam illam agonisticam imposuerat non sano capiti meo, sed non ut medicus“ 10. 5 Von den „,Agones" , cfr. P.J. Meier,,,Agones", in : Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, I 1, 836-867; O.W.R. , „ Agones" , Kleine Pauly Lexikon der Antike (Stuttgart, 1964), I 135-139 ; F. Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms ( 10. Aufl.; Leipzig, 1922), II 149-154; IV 276-280; Augustinus, De agone Christiano, CSEL 41 , 101-138. • F. Friedländer, Darstellungen, op. cit., 280 und 233 ; H. Jürgens, Pompa diaboli. Die lateinischen Kirchenväter und das antike Theater (Stuttgart, 1972) , 331 n. 3 ; W. Weismann, Kirche und Schauspiele. Die Schauspiele im Urteil der lateinischen Kirchenväter unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Augustin (Würzburg, 1972), 129. 7 Scorpiace 6,2-3, CCL 2,1079 : ,,Agonas istos, contentosa solemnia et superstitiosa certamina Graecorum et religionum et voluptatum, quanta gratia saeculum celebret, iam et Africae licuit. Adhuc Carthaginem singulae civitates gratulando inquietant donatam Pythico agone post stadii senectutem. Ita ab aevo dignissimum creditum est studiorum experimentum committere , artes corporum et vocum de praestantia expendere, praemio indice, spectaculo judice, sententia voluptate". Von einem Wettkampf in den „,artes musicae et Minervales et Apollinares " bei den Agonen spricht Tertullian noch in ,,De spectaculis“ 11 , 1-3 CCL 1,237-238 : ,,Proinde tituli : Olympia Jovi, quae sunt Romae Capitolina, item Herculi Nemaea, Neptuno Isthmia, caeteri mortuorum varii agones. Quid ergo mirum, si et apparatus agonem idololatria conspurcat de coronis profanis /.../ Ut de loco suppleam , ut de loco communi pro collegio artium musicarum et Minervalium et Apollinarium, etiam Martialium, per duellum, per tubam, stadio circum aemulantur" ; Ad nationes II 5,9, CCL 1,49 : ,,Nam in voluptatibus quoque non tibiae aut citharae coronam ad praemium adiudicatis, sed artifici qui tibiam et citharam suavitatis temperet vi“ . 8 Confessiones IV 1,1 , CSEL 33,63. 9 Ibidem 2,3, CSEL 33,65. 10 Ibidem 2,5, CSEL 33,66.

292

S. LONGOSZ

Daraus ergibt sich, dass Augustin in seiner Jugend ein ,,theatricum carmen" verfasste , damit Erfolg hatte und vom Proconsul Vindicianus, der auch ein weiser Mann und hochberühmter Arzt war, als Sieger mit der ,,corona faenea" ausgezeichnet wurde. Der abwertende Ausdruck ,,corona faenea" weist auf einen Ährenkranz als Siegespreis hin, wie er auch bei den seit Augustus' Zeit in Neapel durchgeführten Wettkämpfen vergeben wurde¹¹ . Zum Thema seines dramatischen Versuches hat er nach Weismann und Jürgens 12 wahrscheinlich, wenn man eine andere Notiz in den ,,Confessiones" hierauf beziehen darf, den dankbaren Stoff der Medea gewählt, die sich mit einem Drachenwagen in die Lüfte erhebt 13. Er spielte hier zweifellos auf die Medea des Pacuvius an, die er in den ,, Soliloquia“ zitierte 14. Tatsächlich scheint ein sprachlicher Zusammenhang zu bestehen zwischen allen folgenden Ausdrücken der ,, Confessiones ", der ,,Epistola VII " und der „ Soliloquia" : ,,theatrici carminis ", ,,cantabam /verfasste/ carmina " ,,,versus et carmen et Medea volans /.../ volantem autem Medeam etsi cantabam ", ,,fabulosa componimus“ ,,,dicitur iunctis alitibus anguibus Medeam volasse". Man darf deshalb vermuten , wie Jürgens erzählt, dass Augustins ,,theatricum carmen" den Titel ,, Medea volans" trug und dass es möglicherweise nach dem Vorbild des pacuvianischen Dramas gearbeitet war. Der Medeastoff wurde nämlich in der antiken Dichtung gern und häufig behandelt 15 , und deshalb besteht kein zwingender Grund für die Annahme, Augustin habe sich in seinem ,, carmen theatricum" direkt an die Medea des Euripides angelehnt 16. Die Auszeichnung, die Augustin verliehen wurde, lässt auch vermuten, dass das Werk nicht ohne dichterisches und dramatisches gespür angefertigt war . Bestimmt war sein ,,carmen theatricum" für den Vortrag des tragischen Sängers oder den Chorgesang beim Pantomimus. Es konnte natürlich auch

11 Nach Augustins sermo 343,10 (PL 39,1511 ) war die „,corona faenea" auch der Siegespreis für den erfolgreichen „,athleta“ : ,,non sic te Deus exspectat certantem, ut agonista exspectat athletam : coronam feneam parat" ; cfr auch Ambrosius, Hexameron VI 1,1-2, CSEL 32/ 1,204 ; Statius, Silvae V 3,225-227, ed . Loeb I 322 ; F. Friedländer, Darstellungen, op. cit., II ,230-231 . 12 W. Weismann, Kirche und Schauspiele, op. cit. , 129 ; H. Jürgens, Pompa diaboli, op. cit., 45 n. 3. 13 Confessiones III 6,11 , CSEL 33,53,2-4 : ,,Nam versum et carnem etiam ad vera pulmenta transfero ; volantem autem Medeam etsi cantabam, non asserebam, etsi cantari audiebam, non credebam"; Epistola 7,2,4, CSEL 34/ 1,15,17 : ,, Ego enim mihi, ut libet atque ut occurrit animo , Aeneae faciem fingo, ego Medeae cum suis anguibus alitibus iunctis iugo“. 14 Soliloquia II 29,5, PL 32,898 : ,, Non enim cum dicitur, junctis alitibus anguibus Medeam volasse". Quelle ist Cicero, De republica III , 14. 15 Cfr. De consensu evangelistarum III 53, PL 34,1191 : ,,Sed quia et pagani solent calumniari Evangelio, videant quemadmodum locuti sint auctores eorum, Phaedras, Medeas, et Clytemnestras, cum singulae fuerint“ . Contra Secundinum 26, CSEL 25/2,945 : „,etiam ipsae antiquorum vel fabulae vel historiae pauciores habent Medeas et Phaedras" ; Neben Euripides eine Medeatragödie schrieben auch Pacuvius, Ennius, Ovidius und Seneca. Den Medeastoff behandelte auch Ovidius in ,,Metamorphoses VII 391-401 ; Manilius, Astronomica V 468 sq. 16 H. Funke,,,Euripides“, JACh 8/9, 1965-1966, 275.

Augustins "Theatricum Carmen"

293

im Odeon vorgetragen worden sein, das man zur Zeit Tertullians für musikalische Aufführungen erbaut hatte . Doch war es nur eine Schuldeklamierung des jungen Rhetoren . Es ist unsicher, ob Augustin, dessen Deklamierung den gewünschten Erfolg hatte, weitere dramatische Dichtungen versucht hätte, wenn die Atmosphäre nicht so theaterfeindlich gewesen wäre. Vielleicht würde das antike Christentum in seiner Person dann seinen eigenen Dramaturgen besitzen . Durch sein Verfassen des ,,carmen theatricum" war Augustin nicht ganz

originell, weil sein junger Freund Licentius ebenfalls ähnliche dichterische jugendliche Versuche unternahm. Er trug in Cassiciacum mit seiner wohltuenden Stimme (bene canorus) Verse vor (verba cantare) 17. Auch in der Ostkirche versuchte, wie Socrates 18 und Sozomenos 19 berichten, in fast derselben Zeit Apollinaris von Laodicea ( + 390) nach dem Dekret des Julian Apostata gegen die Christen (362) nach dem Vorbild der euripidischen Tragödien und menandrischen Komödien Dramen zu schaffen .

17 Contra academicos III 4,7 , CCL 29,38-39 : ,, Et cum redissemus, invenimus Licentium /.../ excogitandis versibus inhiantem /.../ Cui ego , opto quidem, inquam, tibi ut istam poeticam, quam concupisti, complectaris aliquando : non quod me nimis delectat ista perfectio, sed quod video te tantum exarsisse, ut nisi fastidio evadere ab hoc amore non possis ; quod evenire post perfectionem facile solet . Deinde cum sis bene canorus, malim auribus nostris inculces tuos versus quam ut in illis Graecis tragoediis, more avicularum, quas in caveis inclusas videmus, verba quae non intelligis cantes". 18 Historia ecclesiastica III 16, PG 67,420A : καὶ τῷ τῆς τραγωδίας τύπῳ δραματικῶς ἐξειργάζετο . 19 Historia ecclesiastica V 18, PG 67,1269C : „ Eлрayμatɛvoɑto dέ kai toig Mɛvávdpov δράμασιν εἰκασμένας κωμωδίας καὶ τὴν Εὐροπίδου τραγωδίαν ... ἐμιμήσατο .

Optatus reconsidered

Jane E. MERDINGER , Oregon

For generations, Optatus has been regarded as a fervent supporter of the papacy, a man who unquestioningly defended Roman supremacy of the Church. In my paper today, however, I propose to reexamine his de Schismate Donatistarum and demonstrate that his stance is not as blindly propapal as scholars have generally assumed . I first became interested in the problem while doing research on Augustine's relationship with Rome ; how much had the bishop of Hippo been influenced by Optatus's "ultramontane" views? In endeavoring to answer that question, I discovered that most modern scholars have not taken the time to acquaint themselves closely with Optatus's work. Optatus wrote the first draft of de Schismate Donatistarum during the 370's, when the Donatist Church was clearly the dominant ecclesiastical party in Africa. He addressed it to Parmenian , Donatist bishop of Carthage and a contemporary of his . The schism had already been in existence for 60 years, and bloodshed and violence had been perpetrated on both sides. It is his heartfelt conviction, as a witness to the divisiveness gripping his homeland, that Donatism has sundered the unity of the Church . Time and again, he lambastes his opponents for having inflicted schism on a church that was once one and undivided¹ . In his eyes , schism is the most heinous sin that can possibly be committed . It is the "summum malum" 2 . A century earlier, Cyprian had been confronted by schism and had combatted it strenously. In major treatises and letters he had fulminated against such wickedness, calling it "a capital offense", "an evil even worse than apostasy" 3 . To engage in schism, said Cyprian, is to tear to pieces Christ's seamless robe4 ; it is against love itself to separate oneself from one's brethren . Fundamentally, he argued , "Unity is preserved at the source " 1 Optatus, de Schismate Donatistarum , Book 1 , ch. 15. For all Latin citations of Optatus's de Schismate Donatistarum in this paper, I have used C. Ziwsa's edition in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol . 26 (Vienna, 1893) . English translations of Optatus are from O.R. Vassell-Phillips, Optatus: On the Schism of the Donatists (London, 1917) . Henceforth in these notes, I shall simply cite Optatus's name and the book and chapter from which the quotation is taken. 2 Optatus, Book 1 , ch. 21 . 3 Cyprian, de Unitate Ecclesiae , ch. 19.5-6. 4 Cyprian, de Unitate Ecclesiae , ch . 7. › Cyprian, de Unitate Ecclesiae, ch. 14.15.

Optatus Reconsidered

295

unitas servatur in origine " . Every Christian must be in agreement with the duly elected local bishop , the source of dominical authority. Had not YHWH split open the earth and swallowed up alive Kore, Dathan, and Abiram , when they dared to erect a rival altar to Moses's ?? Such striking statements were not lost on Optatus when he took up the cudgels against Donatism 100 years later. In many repects, we will see that he wholeheartedly adopted Cyprian's ecclesiology and made it his own. It is when Optatus discusses the nature of the Church that we become acquainted with his views on Peter and the See at Rome. Borrowing an idea first conceived by Parmenian , Optatus insists that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, has been blessed with certain "endowments", - certain " dotes", chief of which is the episcopal cathedra. For Optatus, the concept of cathedra is rooted in Peter's Chair, established by the apostle when he headed the Roman Church. "You cannot deny" , he says to Parmenian , that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra, on which sat Peter, the head of all the apostles... that in this one cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other apostles might claim - each for himself separate cathedras, so that he who should set up a second cathedra against the unique cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner . There is much to be found in this brief statement. For Optatus , Peter's significance is three-fold : 1 ) chronologically, he was the first bishop of Rome 2) he was the chief (caput) of all the apostles and 3) he, as an individual, symbolizes the single, indivisible nature - i.e., the unity of the Church. Anyone acquainted with Cyprian's writings will surely recognize familiar themes here . Closely linked to the concept of cathedra in Optatus's scheme is the idea of origoi.e., "source". A cathedra, says Optatus, must have a proper origo ; otherwise, it is a false seat . This becomes obvious when he inveighs against Majorinus, the man who started the Donatist movement in 312 by refusing to recognize Bishop Caecilian : For it was not Caecilian who went forth from Majorinus, ... but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian ; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter, or from the Chair of Cyprian - but Majorinus, on whose chair you sit a chair which had no source (originem) before Majorinus himself” .

❝ Cyprian, de Unitate Ecclesiae, ch. 5.17. 7 Cyprian, de Unitate Ecclesiae, ch. 18. • Optatus, Book 2, ch . 2. “ Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo cathedram episcopalem esse conlatam, in qua sederit omnium apostolorum caput Petrus, unde et Cephas est appellatus, in qua una cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur ne ceteri apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut iam schismaticus et peccator esset, qui contra singularem cathedram alteram conlocaret". 9 Optatus, Book I, ch . 10. “Non enim Caecilianus exivit a Maiorino avo tuo sed Maiorinus a Caeciliano; nec Caecilianus recessit a cathedra Petri vel Cypriani sed Maiorinus, cuius tu cathedram sedes, quae ante ipsum Maiorinum originem non habet".

296

J.E. MERDINGER

In Optatus's eyes, the Donatists can produce no legitimate claim for being a true church precisely because they cannot demonstrate that they have sprung from a legitimate source . However, Optatus can and does enumerate the succession of bishops who have held the Chair of Peter at Rome, commencing with Peter himself. "Therefore", he states, "Peter first sat on the one cathedra, which is the first of the (Church's) endowments ; Linus succeeded him ; Clement succeeded Linus ..." Optatus stops with Siricius, at that time the current bishop of Rome. He then turns the tables on his opponents and demands that they account for their origo. "Divulge the source of your seat" , he challenges them (... vestrae cathedrae vos originem reddite) 10 . The apostolicity of Peter's cathedra at Rome is obvious enough , but what about the cathedra at Carthage? For Optatus, it is clear that the legitimate bishop of Carthage will be the one who does not desert (recessit) the cathedra Petri, as the Donatists have done. Optatus is also quick to point out that it is Peter who was endowed with the keys to the kingdom of heaven . They have been granted to Peter alone¹¹ , he insists, and through Peter to the other apostles. No heretic can possibly possess them . Like the cathedra Petri, the keys are a guarantee of the unity of the Church . "For the sake of unity", Optatus maintains in Book 7, "blessed Peter... both deserved to be placed over all the apostles and alone received the keys to the kingdom which he communicated to the rest... " 12. The keys, of course, signify the power to bind and loose ; their bestowal on Peter, and in turn, his bestowal of them upon his fellow apostles guarantees their sharing in common - guarantees their unity in - the power of forgiveness. Rome is significant to Optatus for yet another reason. It is home to the shrines the memoriae — of the two greatest apostles , Peter and Paul¹³ . The shrines are symbolic of nothing other than the perfect love which those apostles expressed when they laid down their lives for their faith . And it is love, after all, that binds the Church in an indivisible unity 14. Understandably, Optatus feels a strong inclination to remain in touch with the Church of Rome because of its preeminence in love. I would argue that there seems to be no question here of any authority as such emanating from the shrines ; they are symbolic, not coercive, in nature. How do the Donatists regard the shrines of Peter and Paul? From 10 Optatus, Book 2 , Ch. 3. "Ergo cathedram unicam, quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus, cui successit Linus, Lino successit Clemens….. Damaso Siricius, hodie qui noster est socius... vestrae cathedrae vos originem reddite, qui vobis vultis sanctam ecclesiam vindicare". 11 Optatus, Book I , ch. 10. 12 Optatus, Book 7, ch. 3. "Tamen bono unitatis beatus Petrus, cui satis erat, si post quod negavit, solam veniam consequeretur, et praeferri apostolis omnibus meruit et claves regni caelorum communicandas ceteris solus accepit...". 13 Optatus mentions the "memoriae apostolorum" several times in his book. See Book 2, ch. 14 and Book 3, ch. 5. 14 These sentiments of Optatus can be pieced together by reading his remarks on martyrdom in Book 3, ch. 8.

Optatus Reconsidered

297

Optatus's remarks, it is clear that they pay scant attention to the sites. In Book 3, the bishop of Milevis accuses the Donatists of refusing to " communicate" with the memoriae apostolorum 15. They apparently jeer at their Catholic opponents who do hold the shrines in esteem . It is Optatus who has the last laugh here, though : how could the Donatists ever acknowledge the shrines of the greatest martyrs in the West, when they themselves lack all understanding of martyrdom? At the core of martyrdom stands love, and that is the one quality that the Donatists are severely lacking . As far as Optatus is concerned , they have deserted love by fomenting schism. They are caritatis desertores 16. What is of vital importance to the Donatists is that they maintain episcopal links with Rome. The concept of cathedra at Rome had sunk such deep roots into their consciousness that very early on they determined to maintain a bishop there of their own persuasion . Victor of Garba became the first to have the honor¹7, and he was followed by a long succession of like-minded compatriots. A list was carefully kept of these Donatist popes, and Optatus clearly knows of it . He is able to rattle off the names in quick succession . Claudian succeeded Lucian, Lucian succeeded Macrobius, Macrobius succeeded Encolpius, Encolpius succeeded Boniface, and Boniface succeeded Victor of Garba 18. Nonetheless , Optatus has no time for such Donatist rubbish . Their episcopate at Rome is bogus ; it proves nothing that they can publish a list extending as far back as Victor of Garba. The fact of the matter is , if pressed to go back beyond Victor, they cannot . Victor cannot claim an apostolic origo. He is his own origo; he founded his own seat at Rome ! Optatus presses home his point with these words : Victor was there (at Rome) as a son without a father, as a beginner without a master, as a disciple without a teacher, as a follower without a predecessor, as a lodger without a home, as a guest without a guesthouse , as a shepherd without a flock, as a bishop without a people 19. In one final resounding blast, Optatus pillories Victor for his illegitimate posturing and points instead to the legitimacy of Peter's claims : Victor would not have been able, had he been asked where he sat, to show that anyone had been there before him , nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any Cathedra save the Cathedra of pestilence, for pestilence sends down its victims ...

15 Optatus, Book 3, ch. 5. 16 Optatus, Book 3, ch. 8. 17 Optatus, Book 2, ch. 4. " Sed quia quibusdam Afris urbica placuerat commoratio et hinc a vobis profecti videbantur - ipsi petierunt, ut aliquis hinc, qui illos conligeret, mitteretur. Missis est igitur Victor... 18 Optatus, Book 2, ch. 4. 19 Optatus, Book 2, ch . 4.

298

J.E. MERDINGER

to the regions of Hell which are known to have their gates gates against which ... Peter received the saving keys - Peter, that is to say, the first of our line (principem scilicet nostrum) to whom it was said by Christ, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven ..." How is it then that you strive to usurp for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who with your arguments and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter 20? Obviously, Peter holds a special place in Optatus's understanding of the Roman Church because he was the head of the apostles, was granted the keys, and guarantees unity. For all that, would it not also be fair to say that in an attempt to emphasize the importance of the legitimacy of a see, Optatus promotes Peter as forcefully as he can, in order to discredit Victor's illegitimate see? After all, the example of Peter as an apostolic origo is too good to pass up. Not only was Peter an apostle, he was the head of the apostles ; he was the first to be granted the power of binding and loosing. He obviously enjoyed some sort of precedence over his fellow apostles . What better example to cite as proof of the apostolicity of a see ? To Optatus's mind, the very see which Victor was threatening -— the Roman one was preeminently and unquestionably apostolic and legitimate due to the very special “credentials" of Peter. Optatus stresses the man in an effort to legitimate the office ; the single office he will then use as a symbol of the unity of the Church.

CONCLUSION

For centuries now, Optatus has been regarded as a fervid exponent of the papacy, an extraordinarily early supporter of Rome's great claims. I would suggest, however, that such a view is less than accurate and does an injustice to Optatus's work. Optatus is not mesmerized by the papacy and by whatever grandeur it may have attained by his time. Rather, his concern lies with reestablishing peace and unity in an African Church torn and bleeding with dissent and schism . The way to repair the Church is by pointing out to the Donatists the error of their ways, not only in their theology but also in their discipline . Their theology is wrong because they attribute all to the minister, and not to the office ; their discipline is wrong because they have started up a church ex nihilo. They cannot trace their roots back to an apostolic origo : at Carthage they can only go back to Majorinus and at Rome, they go even less far back, to Victor of Garba. Peter is so important to Optatus precisely because he is the finest example (in the West) of the legitimate apostolicity of a see. That Peter had also been acknowledged the chief of the apostles lent 20 Optatus, Book 2 , ch . 4 : “ ... contra quas portas claves salutares accepisse legimus Petrum, principem scilicet nostrum, cui a Christo dictum est : tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et portae inferorum non vincent eas... unde est ergo, quod claves regni caelorum vobis usurpare contenditis, qui contra cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus et audaci sacrilegio militatis...” (partial quotation) .

Optatus Reconsidered

299

simply more weight to Optatus's argument. A close look at Optatus's Latin simply confirms this thesis. When he discusses the leaders of the Donatist party, he consistently refers to them as principes vestri. If he can use such terminology for Donatists, is it any wonder that he does not hesitate to employ such terms for his own Catholic party? When he refers to Peter as princeps noster 21 , he does so, not in an autocratic, blindly zealous sense but to state who indeed the initial head of the Catholic Church was in the oldest see in the West . "Show us your principes" , he is saying to the Donatists, "and I can prove to you that our princeps existed earlier and was an apostle to boot". In light of such findings, I suggest that Optatus be regarded not as a zealous papalist but rather as a traditional African, concerned with the unity of the Church and steeped in the writings of Cyprian . “Unitas servatur in origine" ; Optatus never forgot the lesson of the great bishop of Carthage. If he promotes Peter's see, it is as a beacon of that unity which ought to typify the Church . After years of being misunderstood , Optatus must be replaced within his own African context for his message to be assessed properly. It is the least that we scholars can do.

21 Optatus, Book 2, ch . 4.

Vocation divine et conversion humaine d'après saint Augustin

José OROZ RETA, O.A.R. , Salamanca

La prédestination est un acte propre et exclusif de Dieu , réalisé au plus profond de son conseil éternel . A ce sujet affirme saint Augustin : « La prédestination n'a pas été faite par nous, mais dans le secret de Dieu, en sa prescience . Mais la vocation, la justification et la glorification se réalisent en nous . Nous sommes appelés par la prédication de la pénitence. C'est ainsi que notre Seigneur commença d'évangeliser : ' Faites pénitence, parce que le royaume de Dieu est proche de vous ' . Nous sommes justifiés grâce à la vocation de la miséricorde et la crainte du jugement. Il ne craint nullement d'être jugé celui qui a été sauvé avant le jugement par la miséricorde . Une fois appelés, nous renonçons à Satan par la pénitence, afin de ne pas perséverer sous son joug; une fois justifiés, nous recevons le salut sans crainte d'être jugés . A nouveau, avec la justification nous passons de cette vie mortelle à la vie éternelle, où nous louerons notre Dieu et sauveur sans cesse » ¹ . Tel est le procédé temporel de la conversion humaine avec ses trois étapes. Il faut noter que saint Augustin justement fait allusion au triduum dominical de la rédemption par le Christ : la passion, la mort et la résurrection. Le converti passe à travers ces journées : le cœur contrit à cause de ses fautes ; la mort au péché; et la vie nouvelle en Dieu et pour Dieu. Avec la vocation Dieu a formé son Église, dont le nom inclu l'idée de convocation - conuocatio rationalium — opposée à la synagogue ou réunion grégaire des hommes . Saint Augustin fait une très précise à notre avis, pas trop exacte distinction : Conuocari magis hominibus congruit, congregari magis pecoribus . L'Église, en effet, n'est pas formée d'une façon grégaire, mais personnelle. Chaque personne reçoit un appel , qui procède toujours de la miséricorde divine. Cela ne veut pas dire que l'appel ou vocation ne puissent pas être faits d'une façon générale aux peuples ou nations tout entières, mais Dieu appelle toujours d'une manière personnelle et particulière. Beaucoup sont appelés, qui ne viennent pas ; mais personne ne peut entrer dans l'Église sans être d'abord appelé³ . Il y a donc un appel universel, gratuit, qui est arrivé à toute la terre, fait au

¹ En. in ps. 150 , 3 ; PL 37,1962-63 . 2 Epist. ad Rom . inch. expos. 2; PL 35,2089. 3 Expos. propos. ex Ep. ad Rom. 55 ; PL 35,2076-77.

Vocation divine et conversion humaine

301

nom de la sainte Trinité, comme indique saint Augustin : «A ces quatre parties du monde le Verbe fut envoyé afin que tous fussent appelés au nom de la Trinité » . Le monde entier restera ennobli par cette vocation divine " . Le monde fut invité à se lever de sa prostration, de son abaissement moral pour devenir fils de Dieu avec une destinée à la gloire éternelle. Dans le monde fut repeté, sur les quatres coins de l'horizon , le fiat lux des temps chaotiques de la création . La vocation divine est créatrice de lumière et d'un monde nouveau . > 8. • En. in ps. 59,2 ; PL 36,715 : « Ad omnes istas quatuor partes missum est Verbum , ut in Trinitate omnes uocarentur ». 5 En. in ps. 59,2 ; PL 36,715 : « Iam totus mundus uocatione eleuatus est ». • S. Guelferb. 23,3 ; MA 1,518 . " De Gen. ad lit. 1,5,10 ; PL 34,250 : « Principium quippe creaturae intellectualis est aeterna sapientia; quod principium manens in se incommutabiliter, nullo modo cessat occulta inspiratione uocationis loqui ei creaturae cui principium est, tu conuertatur ad id ex quo est, quod aliter formata et perfecta esse non possit. Ideoque interrogatus quis esset, respondit : Principium , quia et loquor uobis (Jn 8,25) » . 8 Ibid., « Inest enim Deo benignitas summa, et sancta et iusta ; et quidem non ex indigentia, sed ex beneficentia ueniens amor in opera sua ».

302

J. OROZ RETA

Voici l'origine ultime et secrète de toutes les paroles divines que les esprits reçoivent afin de se convertir et retourner à leur principe, où se trouve le repos vrai et définitif de l'âme. Dans l'origine de toutes les vocations et de toutes les conversions il y a la benignité et l'amour de Dieu éternel . « Le Dieu très haut fit retentir sa voix afin que nous l'entendions et qu'au profond des choses humaines nous écoutions la parole des êtres célestes » . Mais qu'est-ce que le profond des choses humaines où sont immergés les hommes ? et de quoi parlent-ils ? C'est de la mortalité humaine, ce fleuve immense, brouillant, qui nous entraîne tous à parler de manger, de boir, de s'amuser, de gagner de l'argent , de jouir des plaisirs terrestres pour oublier la crainte de la mort. Ainsi la parole de Dieu vint parmi nous et s'est faite homme, pour changer les conversations humaines, afin que les hommes aient connaissance des choses célestes et puissent en parler . Il était nécessaire de former une conscience nouvelle dans l'humanité, qui auparavant était faite d'une masse d'ignorances, de futilités et de mensonges. Le Verbe de Dieu vint parmi nous et réunit les hommes et les instruisit de la connaissance d'en haut . Le Christ signifie l'appel universel à une vie nouvelle et céleste . L'avènement du Christ dans le monde est le commencement de la resonnance universelle de la parole de Dieu aux hommes. Comme l'écrit saint Augustin, «

» 10 . A cette invitation du Verbe divin « < appartenaient tous les dociles à Dieu, parmi lesquels personne ne peut dire : 'J'ai cru afin d'être appelé par Dieu' , étant donné que la miséricorde de Dieu arriva avant lui et ensuite il fut appelé pour pouvoir croire . Tous ceux qui sont dociles à Dieu viennent du Fils, parce qu'ils entendirent et crûrent au Pére par son Fils, qui dit clairement : 'Tous ceux qui entendent le Père et l'ecoutent, viennent à moi' » ¹¹ . Saint Augustin discute avec les Pélagiens et sémipélagiens, qui considèrent 9 En. in ps. 17,14; PL 36,150 : « Altissimus dedit uocem suam, ut haberemus eam et in profundo rerum humanarum audiremus caelestia >> . 10 En. in ps. 6,2 ; PL 36,91 : « Ab aduentu autem Domini ... facta uocatio est, ut secundum animam uiueretur, id est secundum interiorem hominem, qui etiam nouus homo propter regenerationem dicitur morumque spiritualium innouationem » . Cf. En. in ps . 84,8 ; PL 37,1073 : > 19 . Ainsi dans le régime ou gouvernement des âmes, la sagesse divine cherche les convenances les plus délicates et douces, les occasions les plus opportunes, les lieux les mieux adéquats, et les moyens les plus convaicants . Étant donné que le Père a donné au Christ le privilège du premier moteur ou instrument dans l'inspiration et l'appel à la foi, il faut lui accorder aussi la suprématie dans la catégorie des congruences avec lesquelles Dieu attire les hommes. Et saint Augustin, à cette occasion, se fait écho de sa connaissance de Virgile : «Si le poète latin a pu dire : Trahit sua quemque uoluptas, chacun est attiré par son propre plaisir, non pas la violence mais le plaisir, non pas la force mais le goût, avec une force et une logique et une justice plus grandes nous pouvons affirmer que celui qui est attiré vers le Christ est celui qui se plaît dans la vérité, qui se rejouit dans la justice, qui prend son bonheur dans la vie éternelle , c'est-à-dire, dans les objets qui se trouvent dans le Christ . Le corps a ses propres plaisirs, pourquoi l'âme n'aurait-elle pas aussi les siens ? En effet, qu'est ce que je désire plus fortement que la vérité? » 20. 18 De sp. et lit. 33,58 ; PL 44,238 : « Vult autem Deus omnes homines saluos fieri, et in agnitionem ueritatis uenire ; non sic tamen ut eis adimat liberum arbitrium, quo uel bene uel male utentes iustissime iudicentur». 19 Epist. 102,11 ; PL 33,374 : « pro congruentia temporum locorumque » . 20 In Io. eu. tract. 26,5 ; PL 35,1608-09 . Cf. Virg. Egl. 2,65.

306

J. OROZ RETA

Le Christ, en tant que Dieu et homme, est la somme des congruences, des harmonies, des plaisirs qui peuvent plus fortement attirer les hommes . Avec l'humanité assumée dans l'incarnation , le Fils de Dieu se fit avec les hommes la somme des congruences parce qu'en s'adaptant aux choses temporelles il nous adapta aux choses éternelles ; parce que les médicaments ne sont pas bons pour guerir le malade, ils ne peuvent pas redonner la santé. Comme vérité, comme lumière, comme bonum summum, le Christ se conforme avec l'essence profonde de l'esprit humain, qui aime la vérité, cherche le bien et se complaît dans la beauté, bien que parfois il est trompé par les apparences. Le Christ s'associe à la maladie humaine pour la guérir, comme médecin, comme maître, comme Sauveur, et nous trouvons en lui la source de toutes les grâces efficaces qui agissent dans les conversions . Le Christ réussit et obtient que les appels soient efficaces, c'est-à-dire, qu'ils produisent la bonne volonté de l'homme pour s'adhérer à la foi21 . C'est pour cela que toute la conversion sincère et vraie se fonde, comme cause méritoire, dans le Christ qui appelle ceux qu'il veut d'une façon convenable afin qu'ils suivent la vocation, comme fut le cas de l'appel des apôtres . L'habilité de Dieu connaît innombrables et merveilleux moyens pour

s'adapter aux dispositions personnelles de chacun afin qu'il suive son appel. Le converti est attiré d'une manière admirable par celui qui sait agir intérieurement dans les cœurs humains afin qu'ils veuillent croire, non qu'ils croient sans le vouloir, chose d'ailleurs impossible, mais afin qu'étant rétifs ils deviennent désireux de croire 22. Le changement de la volonté c'est l'effet de la vocation congrue . Quand le fils prodigue se leva et dit : « Je me léverai et irai vers mon père » , au plus profond de sa décision il était animé par l'appel et l'inspiration secrète de celui qui vivifie et anime tout. De cette façon Augustin propose et affirme la doctrine contraire à celle qu'il avait défendue ou exposée quelque temps auparavant, quand il croyait qu'il suffisait du désir naturel d'adhérer à l'Évangile et d'accepter le message du Christ 23. Ce phénomène de la vocation congrue a une importance spéciale dans les Confessiones, où l'auteur parle très souvent des appels divins, non seulement dans les antécédents immédiats à sa conversion, mais aussi tout au long de la vie augustinienne. Beaucoup d'experiences dans ce domaine sont condensées dans ces admirables paroles : Vocasti et clamasti et rupisti surditatem meam, c'est-à-dire : « Tu crias et appelas et fis disparaître ma surdité » 24. La provi21 De diu. quaest. ad Simpl. 1,2,13 ; PL 40,118 : « Sed si uocatio ista ita est effectrix bonae uoluntatis, ut omnis eam uocatus sequatur, quomodo uerum erit : Multi uocati, pauci electi?». 22 C. duas ep. pelag. 1,19,37 ; PL 44,568 : cf. En . in ps. 77,24; PL 36,999 : «Occulta itaque uocatione et inspiratione etiam ipse quaesitus est et resuscitatus, nonnisi ab illo qui uiuificat omnia ». 23 Cf. V. Capánaga, Los dos libros sobre las diversas cuestiones a Simpliciano , en Obras de san Agustín vol. 9 (Madrid, 1964), « Introducción ». 24 Conf. 10,27,38.

Vocation divine et conversion humaine

307

dence de Dieu cria souvent, très souvent avec ses appels insistants afin de se faire entendre et pouvoir vaincre ensuite Augustin . Dans les temps les plus troubles d'éloignement de Dieu, la miséricorde divine survolait Augustin : » 29. Tout cela répond à la psychologie augustinienne de la vocation congrue , et saint Augustin reconnut toutes les formes de cette vocation dans les itinéraires vers Dieu. Avec des voix internes et externes, la volonté d'Augustin fut préparée pour pouvoir prendre la décision définitive et marcher vers la foi. Lui-même reconnaissait et remerciait Dieu dans les Confessiones : < « Maintenant n'abandonne pas celui qui t'invoque, toi qui avant d'être invoqué étais pressé d'insister, multipliant tes voix multiformes pour que je les entende de loin, me convertisse et me dirige vers toi qui m'appelais si aimablement » 30 .

25 Conf. 3,3,5. 26 Conf. 3,4,5. 27 Conf. 7,9-12, 13-18. 28 Conf. 8,12,29. 29 De uocatione gentium 9. 30 Conf. 13,1,1 : « Nunc inuocantem te non deseras, qui priusquam inuocarem praeuenisti et instititsti crebrescens multimodis uocibus, ut audirem de longinquo et conuerterer et uocantem

308

J. OROZ RETA

Dans tout ce qui a une référence au sujet de la vocation, saint Augustin met toujours en relief le Dieu de la miséricorde, qui comme chasseur spirituel, et bon connaisseur des âmes se promène parmi les hommes afin de les attirer vers son piège et les prendre pour la vie éternelle. « Qui est aussi miséricordieux que notre Dieu? Les hommes ne cessent pas leurs crimes et leurs mauvaises actions, et lui ne cesse de les appeler à la conversion » , écrit saint Augustin 31 . L'ingratitude et la malice des hommes ne detournent pas le bras de Dieu qui veut toujours les sauver. Cette miséricorde est celle qui s'étende pendant des siècles des siècles, chantée dans la Bible si souvent pour nous attirer vers sa connaissance et son exaltation . Saint Augustin apparaît au sujet de la miséricorde divine envers les hommes pécheurs comme un maître exceptionnel. L'évêque d'Hippone change la vocation en invocation, parce que celle -ci est fruit de la première. « Tu nous appela, et nous t'invoquions ; nous avons entendu celui qui nous appela . Écoute donc ceux qui t'invoquent, réalise tes promesses, finis ce que tu as commencé . N'abandonne pas ton œuvre, ne délaisse pas le champ de ta proprieté . Que tes fruits entrent et remplissent tes greniers »32 Et après ces réflexions , nous arrivons toujours à la conclusion suivante : La vocation est surnaturelle. La vocation divine n'est pas un fruit des mérites humains, mais de la grâce de Dieu, parce que tous les hommes ont péché et ont besoin de la grâce de Dieu . Seule la vocation divine est capable de la conversion humaine, c'est-à-dire : la conversion ou la réponse de l'homme supossent toujours un appel au vocation , c'est-à-dire une invitation amoureuse de la part de Dieu.

me inuocarem te » . Toutes les créatures sont au service de Dieu pour obtenir les effets du salut : «Cum uero ubique sit praesens , qui multis modis per creaturam sibi Domino seruientem auersum uocet, doceat credentem, consoletur sperantem, diligentem adhortetur, conantem adiuuet, exaudiat deprecantem » , De lib. arb. 3,19,53 ; PL 32,1297. 31 S. Denis 9,2 ; MA 1,40 ; « Quid est tam misericors quam Deus noster ? Perseuerant homines in flagitiis et facinoribus suis, et eos ille ad conuersionem uocare non cessat >>. 32 In Io. eu. tract. 40,10 ; PL 35,1691 .

The nexus amoris in Augustine's Trinity

Catherine OSBORNE, Oxford

The purpose of this paper is first to deny that there was a nexus amoris in Augustine's Trinity, and secondly to suggest why we should notice that there was not.

1. It is sometimes said that Augustine, in the De Trinitate, identified the Holy Spirit as the bond of love (nexus, or vinculum, amoris) between Father and Son¹ . Strictly speaking this is clearly incorrect, since Augustine does not use either vinculum or nexus amoris . He consistently enumerates three elements, lover, beloved and love2 , and the Holy Spirit is occasionally identified as the third of these, love³ . Love is not said to be a bond . Augustine does not identify the Holy Spirit as a bond of love in so many words . Nor indeed does Anselm, who takes up the idea of the Spirit as Love in chapters 49-57 of the Monologion , but does not elaborate on what love is4. Peter Lombard, likewise, follows Augustine for the most part . But Aquinas has much to say about what love is, and though he also uses Augustine as his basis he differs from his predecessors in introducing the notion of bond into the analysis of love. Nexus amoris and vinculum occur occasionally and nexus Patris et filii is a common phrase " ; and the claim that love is a bond is 1 The phrase "bond of love", nexus amoris or vinculum amoris is used to describe Augustine's theory by, e.g., L. Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London, 1943), pp. 68 , 110, 226; K.E. Kirk in Rawlinson, Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation (London, 1928) , p . 224 ; F.W. Green , in the same volume p. 298 n. 2 where the phrase is apparently attributed to W. Sanday (who does not use it) ; L. Dewar, The Holy Spirit and modern thought (London, 1959), p. 120 ; A.I.C. Heron, The Holy Spirit (London, 1983), p . 89 ; R.P.C. Hanson, "The Filioque clause" in Studies in Christian Antiquity (Edinburgh, 1985), pp . 290-1 , where the phrase is attributed to Karl Barth (who does not use it). 2 E.g. De Trinitate 8,10,14 (PL 42,960) ; 9,2,2 (961-2) ; 15,6,10 ( 1064) ; cf. 6,5,7 (PL 42,928). 3 amor, caritas or dilectio . Especially De Trinitate 9,12,17 ( PL 42,970) ; 15,17,27-19,37 ( 108087). The terms caritas and dilectio are interchangeable (De Trin . 15,18,32) . Caritas is a species of amor (Enarr. in Ps. 31,2,5). The spirit is said to be a communio of Father and Son (Monolog. 57, p. 69). Love is identified as the substance of the summus spiritus (Monolog. 53 , p . 66) . 5 E.g. Peter Lombard , Sent . I, dist. 10-14 and 17 ; but in I 31,6 he claims that the Holy Spirit is said to be connexio. • Nexus amoris, In I Sent. 31.3.1 ; Super Ev. Ioann. 1,2 . Vinculum, In I Sent. 10,1,3, 31,3,2, 32,1,1. 7 E.g. In I Sent. 10,1,3 ; Summa Theol. I 37,1 ; 39,8 ; I II 105,2 ; II, II 1,8 ; III 3,5.

310

C. OSBORNE

attributed to Augustine's De Trinitate, inaccurate though this attribution is . However St. Thomas notices that there are problems with applying this to the Spirit, and the definition of love as a bond is introduced as a difficulty⁹ . In Quaestio 37 of the first part of the Summa Theologica the third objection to love as a proper name for the Spirit is that Love has to be a nexus or medium, according to Pseudo Dionysius 10. St Thomas recognises that this fits ill with the Holy Spirit as an entity that proceeds. His reply is odd, since having distinguished between the love produced¹¹ by the principle who loves, on the one hand, and the relationship between lover and beloved on the other hand, he still concludes that the Holy Spirit is the love of Father and Son in both senses, as a mere medium and connection and also as a " person" proceeding from them. We are left to conclude that the Spirit is a nexus and not a nexus. Aquinas perhaps reached this conclusion through thinking that both Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite had claimed that love, and hence the Holy Spirit, was a bond between the things it joined . But was Aquinas right to think that ? The evidence needs to be examined , first Dionysius and then Augustine ; and finally we must examine whether the theory itself is viable ¹².

2. Dionysius the Areopagite, De Divinis Nominibus 4.12 and 15. Justifying the claim that love is a nexus Aquinas refers to chapter 4 of the Divine Names 13 where love is twice said to be a unifying force (vis unitiva). Is there any reason why we should take Dionysius ' "unifying force" to be a bond? Dionysius uses the word dúvaμiç 14 ; St. Thomas translates it virtus in his commentary on the Divine Names, and sometimes vis, sometimes virtus , in his other works 15. Nothing in the text of the Divine Names requires that it be taken to mean "bond " ; it is said to be a " binding power" as well as a unifying and combining power 16, but we might still take this to be the cause of any bonds rather than the bond itself. To find the basis of St. Thomas' interpretation we can turn to his own

8 Summa Theol. I , II 26,2 ; cf. also 28,1 . But elsewhere Aquinas refers to Ps . Dionysius rather than Augustine, e.g. , Summa Theol . I 37,1 ; In I Sentent . 10,1,3. 9 Summa Theol. I 37,1 ; In I Sentent. 10,1,3. 10 De Divinis nominibus 4,12 (709c) and 4,15 (713b). 11 "Spirated", Summa Th . I 27,4. 12 The only serious candidate is the theory that love is the bond itself. It would be implausible to suggest that the Holy Spirit was a bond of love, when love itself was something other than the bond . 13 Summa Th. I 37,1 . He also refers to the phrase on fifteen other occasions. 14 709c δυνάμεως ἑνοποιοῦ καὶ συνδετικῆς καὶ διαφερόντως συγκρατικῆς. 713b ἑνωτικήν τινα καὶ συγκρατικὴν... δύναμιν . 15 vis unitiva in Quaest. Disp. De carit. 9,7a ; De spe 1,11a ; Summa Th . I 20,1 ; 37,1 ; I.II 25,2 ; II.II 29,3 . virtus unitiva in Summa C.G. 1 91,758 ; Summa Th . I 60,3 ; I.II 26,2 ; 28,1 ; II.II 25,4. 16 συνδετικῆς, 709 .

Nexus amoris

311

commentary on the second of the two passages of Dionysius. There he argues that the phrase "unifying and combining power" is merely a circumlocution for the simple “unification ” (unitio). “ Power” here cannot signify an act or passion since love is not an act or passion ; hence we are not to take "unifying power" as meaning power to produce unification or bonds, but as itself the unification or bond that joins the objects. Hence we are to read Dionysius' phrase "virtus unitiva" as if it read “unitio” and our surprise at this phrase being support for the notion that love is a bond may be resolved . Nevertheless it is not evident that St Thomas is correct to interpret Dionysius thus. As far as the text goes nothing can prove him wrong, since the phrase occurs in passing and is not elaborated except in so far as it is repeated on the two occasions in different words. The definition is hardly important in Dionysius, though it assumes considerable importance in Aquinas. All the same it seems possible that St Thomas is conflating cause and effect . He says that a binding force can be either a process bringing about bonds between two things or the bond itself that joins them. Rejecting the idea that love is a process he concludes that it is the bond itself. But perhaps there should be a third option that sees the binding force as causally related to the bonds but not identical to the bonds that result. Take for example my love of cats. This is something that causes me to form bonds of attachment to most of the cats I come across. There are times, however, when I have no close contact with any individual cat and then I have no bond with any cat. For my love of cats is not a bond between me and some abstract notion " cat", but an open-ended causal scheme responsible for the various bonds between me and individual cats I love ; if there is no beloved there is no bond, but I still have a love of cats . The same goes for God's love of humankind . Surely the bonds of God's love are formed with individuals and not with some abstract form of humanity. But the love which God has for mankind in general, which is responsible for the individual relationships, is not any one bond, nor is it exhausted by the sum of the bonds he is involved in ; it is something greater than any set of relations with finite individuals . To be fair to Aquinas the position is less clear when we are dealing with love within the Trinity, since the Father only has one son to love and hence only one bond to form ; and moreover the beloved son is not transient or subject to loss. It seems that it is fundamentally impossible for the Father to have a love for his Son and not have the bond of love that is caused by that love. Hence it might seem unclear whether his love is anything other than the resultant bond 17.

17 The position changes if we are entitled to envisage the Father, per impossibile, at a time before the generation of the Son " desiring to beget" because of his love . This depends upon supposing love prior to the Son (logically) on which more would need to be said.

312

C. OSBORNE

3. Augustine De Trinitate 8.10.14. Aquinas suggests that Augustine called love a union or bond (unio vel nexus) in De Trinitate VIII 18. If we examine the definition of love at De Trinitate 8.10.14 it appears that again St Thomas has brought some interpretation to bear upon the text. Love, says Augustine, is "a certain life linking two individuals or seeking to link them, namely the lover and the beloved". No doubt Aquinas picked up the term copulans which I translated "linking" and took it as the work of a bond . He explains Augustine's disjunction "either linking or seeking to link" as referring to two sorts of union 19 : " linking" (copulans) refers to the emotional bond or union between lover and beloved, which is essential to love ; "seeking to link" (copulare appetens) refers to the real union which love desires to bring about, the goal towards which it works. Thus on Aquinas' theory of love an emotional bond (at least) between two individuals is the sine qua non of love , and (apparently in virtue of being sine qua non) in fact constitutes love itself. Arguably this reading may be acceptable . But it is equally possible to take "linking" and "seeking to link" as referring to the same type of relationship, the emotional bond. Augustine would be assuming that love could exist even where there is no actual link between lover and the individual beloved but only the desire for such a link . Aquinas excluded this when he made an emotional bond a necessary condition of love, but if we return to my love of cats it seems that it could be expressed in Augustine's terms. If I love cats not only in virtue of particular bonds with individual cats but also in virtue of desiring to meet cats, then it is true to say that my love links me to cats and also seeks to link me to cats. Augustine's disjunctive ( vel) would allow that I had a love of cats even when I had only the desire and no actual tie with a particular cat . If this is correct we can distinguish three types of love : a) where there is one or a limited number of actual ties and no desire to form further ties 20: b) where there are both actual ties with individuals and a desire for further ties 21 ; c) where there is only a desire to form a tie with an individual 22 . 18 Summa Th . I.II 26,2 and cf. 28,1 . Neither unio nor nexus is actually used of love in the De Trinitate. 19 Summa Th. I.II 28,1. 20 E.g. my love of my husband does not include a desire for further husbands ; my love of God does not include a desire for further Gods. 21 My love of friends and neighbours for example. My love of my children could be of this nature if I also desire to have more children. 22 Plausible examples are hard to come by, other than love of cats, children, pop-stars or saints. The lover needs to have some knowledge of individual examples of the class . We often use "love" in cases where bonds of affection are not really in question, e.g. my love of ice-cream,

Nexus amoris

313

Moving above the level of cats we may not be ready to decide where love in the Trinity belongs, but this should suffice to indicate that the love which causes bonds of affection can be distinguished from the bonds that result . On this reading of Augustine Aquinas is wrong to identify love as unio vel nexus. Nevertheless his reading remains a possibility. We have said nothing of Augustine's claim that love is a vita, because it is far from clear what it means or whether it makes any difference . It is perhaps important that he did not say that love is a bond that links lover to beloved, but a life.

4. Love and bonds of Love in the Trinity.

Whether or not Aquinas was fair to Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite, it remains to question whether his definition of love should be applied to the Trinity. Even if it is inappropriate to describe the Holy Spirit as a bond it need not follow that we must reject Augustine's claim that the Holy Spirit is Love. We may prefer to conclude that Aquinas' interpretation was incorrect ; or that the definition at De Trinitate 8.10.14 (which is not specifically applied to the Holy Spirit) does not and should not apply to the Holy Spirit ; or that Augustine did define the Spirit in the way Aquinas suggests but that since his understanding of love was defective we may still retain his insight that relationships within the Trinity can be defined as love, providing love is correctly understood . We can consider one issue now : how many spirits must we posit ? If love is the bond uniting lover to beloved , such a bond will be formed if God the Father loves God the Son. But if God the Son loves God the Father there will be another bond between lover and beloved in which the Son is lover and the Father beloved . It is hard to see how we could define the two bonds as the same. For a bond to exist it is sufficient that there be a lover and a beloved, and there is no requirement that the love be mutual. Thus although the bond idea may look attractive to supporters of the filioque in fact it seems in danger of resulting in two spirits 23 . If on the other hand love is not the individual bond but the cause of such bonds there is nothing to prevent a plurality of different bonds from resulting from one love. Nevertheless this too may be problematic ; while it is reasonable to suppose that a love that proceeds from the Father can cause bonds between the Father as lover and the objects he loves, it is less clear that the Father's love can cause bonds in which the Son is lover ; if our model is ordinary individuals this will be impossible, but as Augustine was aware the

which will not qualify as an example since the goal is consumption rather than lasting union or the benefit of the beloved. 23 On this issue see Augustine, De Trinitate 6,5,7 (PL 42,927-8).

314

C. OSBORNE

model for God's love of his Son is not love between independent individuals but self-love24 . If the persons of the Trinity are not substantially independent it may make sense to say that the love originated by the Father also directly causes the bonds of affection into which the Son enters as lover. Two things govern Aquinas' interpretation of Augustine on love ; one is his Aristotelian approach which is reluctant to see love hypostasised as external to the relationship between lover and beloved ; the second is his dogmatic acceptance of the procession of the Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father, and the Spirit's place as logically third in the Trinity . Of course Augustine was also moved to make the Spirit derivative, at least from the Father and in some sense from the Son too25 , but his open-mindedness about what precisely was meant by procession 26 means that he is less inclined to allow procession to govern his analysis of love in the Trinity, but rather the reverse.

24 We should not, of course, reject this analysis of God's love on the grounds that self-love is, in our experience, bad. Its badness derives from the fact that it is not love of God. Cf. De Doctrina Chr. 1,22,21. 25 De Trinitate 15,17,29; C. Max. Ar. II 14,1. 26 See for example Tract. in Joh. 99,4 ; C. Max. Ar. II 14,1.

Initium omnis peccati superbia

J.F. PROCOPÉ, Cambridge

By the time of Augustine, pride had come to rank as the first and deadliest of sins. It owed its preeminence partly to scriptural authority : initium omnis peccati est superbia, “pride is the beginning of sin" ¹ . This oft quoted text — Augustine cites it some twenty times2 ― occurs in a striking, if textually troubled, passage of Ecclesiasticus ( 10,6-18) : "walk not in the way of pride (ga 'on). Pride (ga ' avah) is hateful to Lord and men ... (6f. ) . How should he a man that is dust and ashes vaunt himself (9) ? ... The beginning of pride becomes bold, and from his Maker turns his heart ( 12). For the pool (miqveh) of presumption (zadon) is sin , and its source gushes forth depravity ( 13) " . The LXX translates " pool" abstractly with ȧpxý : "the beginning of pride is sin", ἀρχὴ ὑπερηφανίας ἁμαρτία. A variant reading, to be found in later MSS and followed by John Chrysostom³ , transposed the case-endings : άpxǹ åµaptías Влɛρηavíɑ . And this was the version translated into Latin and established in the West: initium omnis peccati est superbia, "the beginning of sin is pride" 4. Ecclesiasticus "How should he that is dust and ashes vaunt himself?" echoes the words of Abraham in Genesis ( 18,27) . The teaching of the Bible and of traditions derived from the Bible is that no creature, compared with

1 "Initium omnis peccati superbia, Augustine on Pride as the First Sin" is the title of a useful monograph by W.M. Green (U.Cal. Publ . in Class. Phil. 13,13 ( 1949) , pp. 407-32), concerned with Augustine's teachings on pride in general, on their antecedents and motivation. The focus ofthe present, briefer communication is more specifically on Augustine's development of the biblical text itself. 2 lib. arb. 3,76; mus. 6,40 ; exp. ep. Rom. 4 (on R.1,21 ) ; serm. Dom. mont. 1,3 ; ep. 140,61 , 68 ; enn. ps. 7,4, 18,2,15, 73,16 , 139,13 (cf. 112,1 ) ; serm. 123,1 , 162,4 ; gen. lit. 11,15 ; cd. 12,6, 14,13 ; in ep. Jo. 8,6 (3 × cf. tr. ev. Jo. 25,15) ; nat. grat. 33 (3 × ). 3 In Jo. Hom. 9,2 (PG 59,72), In II Thess. 1,2 (PG 62,470) . This is also the reading in the Syriac tradition . See R.H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913), ad loc. * Both versions of the text can be justified . The author is speaking of sin and sin, as the Bible saw it, is a matter of disobedience to God's will, of " turning from " God . If pride, according to v. 12, begins when a man " turns his heart from his Maker", sin is indeed its beginning, and v. 13 is simply echoing its predecessor. But the stronger interpretation is also possible . The metaphor in Hebrew is that of a “pool” ; and a “pool" is not only where water comes from - it is where water collects . The implication could be that pride accumulates into an overflowing volume of sin. Starting in sinful apostasy, pride is itself the beginning of further sin — initium omnis peccati superbia — in roughly the same way that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Pr. 9,10) . Augustine (serm. Dom. mont. 1,3) noted the parallel .

316

J.F. PROCOPÉ

the Creator, is ever more than " dust and ashes". Anything of which you might boast - riches, power or wisdom, moral attainment of spiritual perfection is simply an unmerited gift of God . "Quid habes quod non accepists? What have you that you have not received ? Then why boast as though it were not a gift?" (I Cor. 4,7). To boast is to forget that you are only a recipient, and so to fall into the mistaken self-confidence of the Pharisee in the parable (Lk . 18,9-14) . And this self-confidence will lead you to ignore God, to act without God or even against God in short, to sin. The danger of pride is greatest for those who, like the Pharisee, have real merits to be weighed . Hence the doctrine , which goes back to Origen (In Gen. 5,6), that pride is the final sin , a special temptation to the nearly perfect , undoing all the good which they have achieved . To give yourself, and not God , the credit for your good works ranked as the supreme "spiritual" pride, compared with which mere arrogance towards other people was a minor “ carnal" variant " . Monastic literature is full of what happens to the spiritually proud . God has a way of " abandoning" them to their own disastrous devices . David had boasted that " no iniquity had been found in him" , whereupon God's protection was withdrawn and he succumbed to the charms of Bathsheba . Pride is a denial of God , which leads to abandonment by God . Augustine placed this highly theological concept of pride and its consequences in a framework of Neoplatonist metaphysics. Already in the de libero arbitrio (3,76) and the de musica (6,40), he interprets initium omnis peccati est superbia in terms of the dissipation, the diminution , which the self-satisfied soul unavoidably suffers, if it seeks to enjoy its own power in perverse imitation of God 10. His fullest development of the theme comes in the " City of God" when he discusses the fall of Satan ( 12,6f. ) and then of Adam ( 14,13). Here he explains that the overt disobedience of Adam and Eve was preceded by an inner evil will, a mala voluntas which itself started with pride . Initium enim omnis peccati superbia est , "And what is pride except a longing for perverse exaltation? For it is perverse exaltation to abandon the basis on which the mind should be firmly fixed and to become, as it were, based on oneself" ¹¹. 5 E.g. John Chrysostom, in illud vidi Dom. 3,2, 4,4 ; Augustine, enn.ps. , 7,4 ; etc. E.g. John Chrysostom, in Gen. 5,6 ; Hilary Pict. , in ps CXVIII 3,5 ; Ambrose, in ps. CXVIII 3,35. All three writers cite the Pharisee as an example. 7 See Cassian, inst. 12,2 ; Evagrius, pract. 13; Dorotheus, doct. 2,31 ; Maximus Conf., car. 2,38 ; etc. 8 Cassian, inst. 12,4,3 ; Palladius, hist. Laus. 47 ; Nilus, ep. 2,272 ; etc. This doctrine also goes back to Origen (in Ezek. 9,5) as does the technical term "abandonment” — ¿yкkatáλɛiyig (princ. 3,1,13). 9 Origen's example (in Ezek . 9,5). 10 Lib. arb. 3,76 : Si autem (sc. animus ) tamquam obvius sibi placet sibi ad perverse imitandum Deum ut potestate sua frui velit, tanto fit minor quanto se cupit esse maiorem. Et hoc est Initium omnis peccati superbia. 11 Cf. 14,13 : Non enim ad malum opus perveniretur, nisi praecessisset voluntas mala . Porro

Initium omnis peccati superbia

317

The soul which prefers itself to the Creator, which rejoices in itself as its own ultimate good and seeks to be the principle of its own existence, has succumbed to pride¹² , to a longing for " perverse exaltation" - perverse because no creature, created as it has been from nothing, can exist in the same immutable manner as God . In turning to itself from him who supremely is to something of lesser reality, a "conversion" which can only be called "pride" 13 , the creature is going against the order of nature, it is acting contra ordinem naturarum (cd. 12,8) . To be proud is to reject one's place in the ontological order — and, in consequence, to lose one's place in that order, "to become less than one might be, and therefore miserable" (cd. 12,6) . Implicit in this doctrine are metaphysical notions which Augustine derived from Plotinian Neoplatonism. Plotinus had also believed in an ordo naturarum, envisaging it as a set of "hypostases" or "realities" beginning with the One, descending through Mind and Soul, to end with undifferentiated, utterly negative matter . Each hypostasis derives form, power and vitality through "contemplating" that above it, and is diminished by turning from it 14. Augustine evokes this principle when he writes that "to abandon God and exist in oneself, that is to please oneself, is ... to come nearer to nothingness" 15. To turn from God is to turn towards something less than God , to subject oneself to it and seek sustenance from it. Augustine's hierarchy differs from those of pagan Neoplatonism in its all- important division between Creator and creation . But he is as firm as any contemporary Platonist on the differences of rank within the created order : man is superior to beasts, soul to body, reason to the passions . At all levels of the order, the original and proper relation of inferior to superior is that of dependence 16 , so much so that the sole virtue of a rational creature under God is obedience, the token of which for Adam was the command against eating from the tree of knowledge (Gen. lit. 8,12) . Pride shows itself in disobedience, in rebellion against that order, and leads to its disruption . Having disobeyed God's command, Adam lost the power to command himself: "he who in his pride had pleased himself was by God's justice handed over to himself" (cd. 14,15) , but no longer with access to the power which enabled him to control himself. In other words, God " abandoned" him 17 ; and the punishment for Adam's malae voluntatis initium quae potuit esse nisi superbia? Initium enim omnis peccati superbia est. Quid est autem superbia nisi perversae celsitudinis appetitus? Perversa enim est celsitudo deserto eo, cui debet animus inhaerere, principio sibi quodam modo fieri atque esse principium. 12 Ep. 118,15 : cum seipso quasi suo bono animus gaudet, superbus est. 13 Cd. 12,6 : cum vero causa miseriae malorum angelorum quaeritur, ea merito occurrit, quod ab illo, qui summe est , aversi ad se ipsos conversi sunt, qui non summe sunt ; et hoc vitium quid aliud quam superbia nuncupetur? initium quippe omnis peccati superbia. 14 Plotinus, Ennead III 8 , V 2,1 . 15 Cd. 14,13 : Relicto itaque Deo esse in semet ipso, hoc est sibi placere, non iam nihil esse est, sed nihilo propinquare . 16 See P. Brown, Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine (London, 1972), p. 35f. 17 Moreover this abandonment was good and salutary : Et audeo dicere, superbis esse utile cadere in aliquod apertum manifestumque peccatum, unde sibi displiceant, qui iam sibi placendo

318

J.F. PROCOPÉ

original sin was, and remains for his descendants, that the corruption of the body should weigh down the soul18. Pride, on the Augustinian story, accounts for the irrationality of the world, for the obvious if baffling fact that, in a universe ordered by divine reason, some things are all too disordered . The divine order has been upset by the pride first of the devil and then of man, an irreducibly irrational motive. Their mala voluntas, that is, had no rationally explicable causa efficiens , it was simply a deficiency, a failure, a gap¹9. It led to a historical act of disobedience from which all other evils have sprung. When Pelagius interpreted initium omnis peccati superbia to mean that pride, in some timeless sense, is the essence of sin : "omne peccatum ... Dei contemptus est ; et omnis Dei contemptus superbia est. ... Omne ergo peccatum et superbia est" 20, Augustine replied that much sin is committed for motives other than pride, such as weakness or ignorance ; that pride follows upon good deeds rather than sins, and that the biblical text referred to the fall of Satan and Adam (nat. grat. 33) . To use an Aristotelian distinction , where Pelagius saw the formal cause of sin, Augustine sought the efficient cause, laying the emphasis on pride as the motive for man's first disobedience, as the original and fundamental sin for which carnal concupiscence and intellectual weakness are the punishment . To take pride in this way as the universal basis or " root" of sin was still, however, to run the risk of placing it, as Pelagius might seem to be doing, in an altogether different category from that of ordinary specific sins . Some writers, who would certainly not have regarded themselves as Pelagians , were to offer accounts of pride remarkably like Pelagius' . Julian Pomerius, with his Augustinian conviction that "pride is the beginning and concupiscence the punishment of sin" (vit. contempl. 3,1 ; PL 59,478), interpreted initium omnis peccati superbia to mean that pride is the cause of sin, the sine qua non , in that sin is simply contempt for God, shown by trampling His commandments underfoot, which pride encourages 21. Fulgentius of Ruspe listed four kinds of pride : that shown by fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc. who "raise their proud necks against God" and that of hypocrites who do the same but in ceciderant (cd. 14,13 ) . This too was classic monastic doctrine, deriving ultimately from St. Paul (II Cor. 12,7). 18 Cd. 14,3 (refuting Vergil, aen. 6,739-4) : Nam corruptio corporis, quae adgravat animam, non peccati primi est causa , sed poena ; nec caro corruptibilis animam peccatricem, sed anima peccatrix fecit esse corruptibilem carnem. 19 Cd. 12,7 : Nemo igitur quaerat efficientem causam malae voluntatis ; non enim est efficiens, sed deficiens, quia nec illa effectio sed defectio . ... Causas porro defectionum istarum ... velle invenire, tale est ac si quisquam velit videre tenebras vel audire silentium. 20 Pelagius, quoted by Augustine at nat. grat. 33 . 21 Vit. contempl. 2,1 (PL 59,476) : Initium, inquit, omnis peccati est superbia: ut evidenter ostenderet quod ipsa sit peccatorum omnium causa : quoniam non solum peccatum est ipsa, sed etiam nullum peccatum fieri potuit, potest, aut poterit sine ipsa. Siquidem nihil omne peccatum, nisi Dei contemptus est, quo eius praecepta calcantur. Quem contemptum Dei nulla res alia persuadet hominibus nisi superbia.

Initium omnis peccati superbia

319

secret (ep. III ad Probam 26 ; CC 91,223 ) , as well as two more poisonous kinds of pride "tinged with righteousness", that of despising the life of others, as the Pharisee did in the parable, and that of ascribing one's good works to one's own human powers (op. cit. , 28 ) . Only the last two of these would count specifically as "pride" . Pomerius and Augustine himself were to be cited as authorities for the claim that pride is not a " specific sin" at all22 . Such scholastic niceties would not have worried Augustine unduly. Pride he saw as "the origin of all sin" in more senses than one. If our susceptibility to lusts of the flesh is the continuing consequence of Adam's pride, there are other sins which are directly generated from " the desire for perverse excellence". In language like that of Gregory the Great, Augustine speaks of "this vice which is the head of all vices, because the other vices are born from it" 23. The aggressive, competitive sins are a prime example . As a love of one's own excellence (cd. 14,13) , a direction of the will ad proprium bonum (lib. arb. 2,53), pride entails a desire to exclude others, since the one attraction of one's own self over God, the infinitely greater commune bonum, is that it belongs to no one else and can be possessed exclusively. As the most perverse sort of self-love, sheer selfishness in contrast to a morally neutral desire for selfpreservation, pride is tantamount to avarice in the "general" sense of " seeking something more than one should, for the sake of one's own pre-eminence and through a certain love of personal possession" 24. There is thus no contradiction between the initium omnis peccati superbia of Ecclesiasticus and St. Paul's radix omnium malorum est avaritia (I Tim . 6,10) 25 . Such love results in a diminishment, not an enlargement of the self (gen. lit. 11,19) , since the partial good which it seeks is incomparably less than the Universal Good which it has abandoned. Its consequence is an ever worsening cycle of dissatisfaction and of discord . The only pre-eminence that a creature can hope to attain is one over other creatures. Pride here leads to a host of competitive sins — to a craving for praise (ep. 22,7) , to avarice in its special sense of "love of money" , since men think themselves the more excellent the richer they are (gen. lit. 11,19), and to envy of any who appear to be more excellent 26. But the most fatal offspring of self-seeking pride is a "lust to dominate", a libido dominandi. In the divine order, the original and proper relation was one of dependence ; the symptom of creatures in a corrupted world , all out for their 22 See Aquinas, S.Th. II 2,162.2 (“ utrum superbia sit speciale peccatum" ) . 1 , where the opponent invokes Pelagian thesis of nat. grat. 33 as though it were Augustine's own and quotes Pomerius, loc. cit., as " Prosper" . 23 Enn.ps. 18,2,15 : ab hoc vitio, quod est caput omnium vitiorum, quia inde cetera vitia nata sunt... Cf. Greg. Mag., mor. 31,87, 34,47f. 24 Gen. lit. 11,19 : avaritiam generalem ... qua quisque appetit aliquid amplius quam oportet, propter excellentiam suam, et quemdam propriae rei amorem. 25 Gen. lit., 11,19 ; tr. ep. Jo. 8,6. 26 Which means, incidentally, that envy was not, as one widely held tradition maintained, the primal sin of the devil (gen. lit. 11,18) ; it is only the daughter, not the mother, of pride (serm. 354,5).

320

J.F. PROCOPÉ

own pre-eminence, is the need of each to secure the dependence of others, since only thus can its own pre-eminence be guaranteed 27. Hence the urge to dominate others, in perverse imitiation of God (cd. 19.12) . Human history is largely the story of attempts at domination by one empire after another. Pride is the beginning of history as well as of sin. For Augustine, the text initium omnis peccati est superbia not only explained the disorder of human lives ; it showed the way to correct them. If pride is the beginning of all sin , the " foundation " of godliness can only be humility 28. Carnal concupiscence and the other failings which stem from pride cannot be eradicated, till pride itself has been rooted out. As he had found for himself (conf. 7,11 ), you cannot presume to subdue the lusts of the flesh de spiritu tuo, through your own strength of mind ; if you try, the story will be one of pride resisted, not of grace granted to the humble 29. Fallen human nature is so corrupt that nothing can be done for it without God's grace . The effect of pride is to exclude that grace . In a memorable passage (ep. 118,22) , Augustine claimed that the precepts of the Christian religion amount to one thing only - humility.

27 Cf. Brown, op. cit ., p. 36. 28. Serm. 69,2 . Cf. 118,17 . See the excellent article by P. Adnès, "L'Humilité à l'école de Saint Augustin", RAM 31 ( 1955) , pp. 28-46. 29 Serm . 146,10 ; enn. ps. 34, Ia, 15 . Cf. serm. Denis 25.

Christian Conscience and Pagan Rhetoric : Augustine's Treatises on Lying

Roger D. RAY, Toledo, Ohio

Augustine wrote two short works about lying, De mendacio in 394-95 , just before his episcopal consecration, and Contra mendacium about twenty- five years later¹ . The second tract was originally intended to replace the first. In fact, when Augustine gathered his writings in preparation for the Retractationes, he was surprised to find that the De mendacio even existed . Apparently long before, he had concluded that the work was needlessly hard to read, and had ordered that it be destroyed . Nothing came of the order, and the treatise turned up in the great inventory of the late 420's . At that point Augustine had a change of heart about it, corrected it, and put it among his books , explaining that it was at least a test for the mind and at most a worthy supplement to Contra mendacium² . Both works have the same theme : that lying is always a sin , however small or great³ . Both develop this theme mainly by arguing that no circumstance, not even the threat of death or the advance of heresy, permits a just man to tell a benign strategic lie. The first smacks of the schools ; in it Augustine is the painstaking scholar, considering a general question in all its complications. The second is more practical and circumstantial ; in this case Augustine is the erudite pastor, advising the addressant, a remarkable Minorcan layman named Consentius, not to endorse a covert mission to root out Priscillianists , since the interests of truth are best served by open debate, not by the secrecy and deceit of an undercover operation *. In the Retractationes Augustine explains that the struggle with the Priscil-

1 All citations of these works are from CSEL lxi. The most recent English translation is St Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects, in The Fathers of the Church xvi (Washington, DC, 1952) . There is a fine Latin and French edition in Bibliothèque Augustinienne ii (Paris, 1948). 2 Retr. I. xxvi. CSEL xxxvi. 129-130. 3 On these treatises see L. Godefroy, "Mensonge", in Dict. de Théol. Cath. x ( 1 ) , 555-569. For recent studies, B. Ramsey, O.P., "Two Traditions on Lying and Deception in the Ancient Church", The Thomist xlviiii ( 1985), 504-533 , which is particularly helpful ; and A. Brinton, "St Augustine and the Problem of Deception in Religious Persuasion", Religious Studies xviii (1983), 437-450. 4 For the identity of Consentius see now J. Wankenne, "La correspondance de Consentius avec Augustin", in Les Lettres de Saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak, being the proceedings of a colloquium on the "Divjak letters" held at Paris, 20-21 September 1982 (Paris, 1983), 225-242, at 225-228.

322

R.D. RAY

lianists had touched off the later treatise, but he says nothing in particular about the occasion for the earlier . Its first words are, "Magna quaestio est de mendacio" . The great question about lying is, may one ever justifiably tell one ? In Augustine's recent reading this issue had been powerfully raised by Jerome's exegesis of Galatians 2 : 11-21 , in which it is argued that Paul's account of his clash with Peter at Antioch is a tactical fiction of the sort permitted to orators . This interpretation stirred a long and well known quarrel between Augustine and Jerome. In 394-95 Augustine wrote to Jerome the first of thee stern letters about the matter, and in it he challenged Jerome to set forth the rules which govern Christian uses of the discretionary lie ' . The letter never reached Jerome. At any rate it was Augustine who would in those same years write about lying, not to defend its pious uses but to proscribe it entirely. Twice in the De mendacio , once in the early part and then, as if to hedge his bets, again at the very end , Augustine sharply rejected Jerome's exposition of Galatians 2 , but without naming him . In the Contra mendacium Augustine dispatched this exegesis a further time . I do not dispute the prevailing view that the bitter debate with Jerome was the catalyst of the first treatise and at least a dark spectre in the second . What I wish to suggest is that this opinion stops short of something else at stake both in the quarrel with Jerome over Galatians 2 and in the two treatises on lying. Beyond the foreground of strictly theological controversy there is, I believe, a conflict between Christian conscience and the utilitarian ethic of the pagan rhetorical schools. I might begin to show this by offering a reinterpretation of the battle between Augustine and Jerome 10. It is clear that in the exegesis of Galatians 2 the basic issue for Jerome was the unity of the Church¹¹ . Pagan critics, especially the Neoplatonist Porphyry, had charged that the clash between Paul and Peter at Antioch was evidence of division among the Apostles. In his comment on Galatians 2 Jerome follows , as he indicates in Letter 112, several Greek commentators , mainly Origen 12. He argues that Paul's narrative of the Antiochene interlude, in which the Apostle claims to have rebuked

5 Retr. I xxvi (as above n. 2). • De mend. 1 : "Magna quaestio est de mendacio, quae nos in ipsis cotidianis actibus nostris saepe conturbat, ne aut temere accusemus mendacium , quod non est mendacium, aut arbitremur aliquando esse mentiendum honesto quodam et officioso ac misericordi mendacio". CSEL xli 413. 7 Ep. 28. CSEL xxxiv ( 1 ) , 103-113. 8 De mend. 8 and 43. CSEL xli 422-424, 465-466. 9 Contra mend. 26. CSEL xli 504-507. 10 For another view see J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome, His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1975), pp. 217-220, 263-272. 11 Jerome, Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. , PL 26,363-367 . Cf. his Ep. 112, PL 22,918 . Ep. 75,4-6 in the Augustinian corpus, CSEL xxxiv (2), 285-290. 12 See n. 11 above.

Christian Conscience and Pagan Rhetoric

323

Peter for having compromised with the circumcision party, is an artifice, contrived for the sake of the Gospel affirmations which follow. Peter's momentary concession to the judaizers and Paul's public upbraiding of him, were pious theater, and Paul wrote of them as if they were actual fact, for a strategic purpose : to create an occasion for the preaching of the Gospel . Thus the scene at Antioch and Paul's narrative of it mask the truth that Paul and Peter were perfectly at one on the matter of Law and Grace. Having addressed in this way the likes of Porphyry, Jerome then anticipates other critics who might now charge that Paul is a liar, since he is said to have written for true what in fact was not. Jerome points to the routine attitudes and practices of the rhetorical schools. There, he says, the boys often develop their declamations through the use of fictive events, and no one imputes it to them for lying. How much more is the Apostle free of taint if he employs the traditional license 13. Underlying this exegesis is the sheer pragmatism of Greco- Roman rhetorical theory. Inherent probability, not objective truth, was the final test of the rhetorical narratio 14. And the subjective opinion of the audience , not the critical judgment of the orator, was the final judge of this inherent probability. The rhetors straighforwardly tell their readers that there is no use telling the truth if the audience will not believe it 15. It is better to say what one knows to be false if that is all that judge and jury will accept as true. Quintilian, without blinking, teaches that if the facts of the case, the narratio, do not tell for one's brief, then one must imagine an alternative to them . This fictitious narrative he calls color, not mendacium 16. The great rhetors teach that wisdom must guide the use of eloquence, but in various ways they tell the wise man that in the rough and tumble of public speaking simply anything goes, if it works to some desired end . In Paul's narrative of the events at Antioch, Jerome saw a rhetorical color set down in the highest of causes by a wise man indeed . In Jerome's exegesis Augustine saw no less than the potential collapse of biblical authority and thus of the Gospel itself. For if, Augustine asks , Paul wrote what was false in Galatians 2, where did he write what was true¹7 ? In no part of the Bible can there be anything of what Augustine calls "the artifices of intentional deceit", else the entire edifice of revealed truth will come into doubt 18. In his view the Holy Spirit assured miraculously that all 13 Comm. in Ep. ad Gal., PL 26,365. 14 For what follows here I am indebted to the discussion of rhetorical pragmatism in T.P. Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics : Three Studies in Greco- Roman Literature (Leicester, 1979), pp. 3-53. Cf. my "The Triumph of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Assumptions in Pre-Carolingian Historiography" , in C.J. Holdsworth and T.P. Wiseman (eds .), The Inheritance of Historiography, A.D. 300-900 (Exeter, 1986) , pp. 68-84, at 68-70. 15 E.g., Ad Herr. I ix, 16. 16 Inst. or. IV ii, 88-100 and II xvii, 26-27. 17 Ep. 40,3 . CSEL xxxiv (2) , 69-81 , at 71-73. 18 Ibid. There is more of the same in Ep. 82, CSEL xxxiv (2) , 351-387, the third of Augustine's letters about this whole matter.

324

R.D. RAY

the sacred writers would rise above the limitations of merely human discourse, to inscribe everywhere the very truth . However much the dispute over Galatians 2 spurred Augustine to write about lying, it was a broader problem that he addressed in his two books on the subject. As he says in the exordium to the first, lying is a great question "which often vexes us in daily affairs". He was not talking about continual discussion of Jerome's commentary on Galatians. He was referring instead to the world of thought and values of which Jerome's exegesis was but one kind of evidence. He had specifically in mind the incidents of daily discourse among the Christian elite, like the sophisticated layman Consentius, who in the schoolroom controversiae had been formally trained to win their way in society partly through convincing illusions 19. In the Confessiones Augustine relates how, after his conversion , he eventually decided to relinquish his post as rhetor in Milan because he could no longer conscience the supervision of "mad lies and forensic fights " among the young 20. These hot words are a clear reference to the routine declamations, the practical exercise in which students learned the theory of invention . This theory - the rules for finding contents for effective speech was not designed to discover the truth, but to seek out, mainly through imaginative artifices, the means of persuasion wherever they might lie, whether in truth or not. In the declamations the philosopher's truth competed unevenly with the orator's drive to succeed . No doubt for this reason Augustine laments, in the Confessiones, that after his conversion he sat for even one moment in what he calls "the chair of lies" 21. For the graduate of the rhetorical school benign deception would have seemed almost a duty in public life. Augustine's two treatises on lying are enough to suggest that for a significant number of educated Christians the tactical falsification was at least a live option . Some of them may have known that a small tradition of Greek Christian writers had authorized it22 . But all would have known that Cicero and the other Latin rhetors had set their seal on it . Once one looks beyond Jerome's exegesis of Galatians 2 to the widespread rhetorical doctrines underlying it, then one comes to see that lying was a great question for Augustine partly, perhaps mainly, because it was institutionalized in the only available higher education. Of course it was Jerome, not Augustine, who tried to repudiate pagan eloquence. In the locus classicus of his views on rhetoric, Book 4 of the De doctrina christiana , Augustine not only called for a constrained study of eloquence but also took for granted that youths would learn the rules in the traditional schools . We may be sure, however, that he would not have sanctioned the no-holds-barred practice of the inventional theory and its 19 On the impressive Latin culture of Consentius see Wankenne, “La correspondance de Consentius avec Augustin" , cited above n. 4, at 228-242. 20 Conf. IX ii ,2 . CSEL xxxiii , 197. 21 Ibid., IX ii,4. CSEL xxxiii, 199 . 22 On this tradition see Ramsey, art. cit., above n. 3.

Christian Conscience and Pagan Rhetoric

325

articulate pragmatism , for roughly at the time at which he was at work on the fourth book of the De doctrina christiana he authorized the publication of the De mendacio. Whoever took to heart this treatise, together with its companion, the Contra mendacium, would have been at least a selective advocate of rhetorical declamations. Christian conscience conceded nothing to rhetorical utilitarianism even at the moment at which Augustine made it his purpose to salvage the rest of Roman eloquence for the Church.

Augustine and the History of the Roman Empire

Alfred SCHINDLER, Bern

Each time one reads Augustine's De Civitate Dei, one makes new observations and is stirred to new questions. I want at the beginning of my considerations to pose two such questions which have presented themselves to me on my re-reading of books I to V. As is well - known , Augustine with his huge work answered the following pagan reproach : the spectacular capture of Rome by Alaric is a sign and result of the inability of Christianity or of the Christians to uphold the ancient greatness of Rome, or, put it the other way about : the neglect of the ancient gods, to whom Rome owed her greatness and whose cult had been forbidden as a result of the advance of Christianity, had led to the imminent decay of Rome, as that catastrophe of the year 410 had shown. After rereading the first books, the following questions to Augustine seem to me unavoidable : he ought properly to answer the above-mentioned reproach of the pagans with some reference to the roughly one hundred years of Christian Empire, which preceded the event and which could hardly be characterized as an era of decline . In comparison , the third century as a time of still dominant paganism with its severe crises and upsets is no recommendation for the gods and the greatness Rome supposedly owes to them. Of course, this objection to Augustine's quite different kind of argument is a modern demand, which proceeds somewhat naively from our modern picture of the third and fourth centuries and does not allow for the difficulties that Augustine had actually to deal with. Nevertheless it would have been possible for him, from his own knowledge of the Imperial period , to draw up many arguments in order to achieve his goal : that is, not to demonstrate the political success of Christianity, but rather to show that success and lack of success is found mixed both under pagan and Christian control of the Empire. If Augustine had approached the Imperial period in this way, then he would have given a fairly precise answer to the fairly precise criticism of the pagans. In reality Augustine deals at great length with the period of the Republic and touches only marginally even the period of Augustus . Except very briefly in book XVIII and equally briefly in book V the period of the Emperors forms no part of his apologetic. In comparison he proves to be a tireless accuser of the Republic and , especially in Books II to IV, accumulates so much material that he wearies the reader who has grasped his intention ,

Augustine and the Roman Empire

327

rather than instructs him. My question can therefore be put : Why, within his historical apology, does Augustine deal so little with the period of the Emperors and so extensively with the period of the Roman Republic? To this first question, which results from the content, I would add a second, which corresponds more to the detailed formulations . Augustine himself describes in the Retractationes, what the content and the purpose of the first five books of De Civitate Dei were¹ : The first five books refute those whose interest in the welfare of mankind is bound up with the belief that this depends on the worship of many gods whom the pagans were wont to worship, and who maintain that the misfortunes in question owe their existence and magnitude to the prohibition of that worship. In reading the work itself one is only really introduced to this way of putting the question at the end of the first book, which, as is well known, does not yet enter into this theme 2 , and at the beginning of the second book. If one takes the wording of these remarks seriously, then it is really a matter of external evils, the defeats and other kinds of catastrophes, that are charged to the Christian religion. It is wholly in keeping with this understanding that the detailed account is introduced in chapter 3 of Book II , posing the rhetorical question whether the heathen gods had permitted all possible calamitates et mala. In the first two chapters of Book IV there is a summary of the preceding books, which sketches a similar picture : in Books II and III as Augustine says, he dealt with what he now calls the clades and the mala ; in the summary too the morally reprehensible activity of the gods is recalled , and the double meaning of mala is expressly mentioned , according to which it is said that Book II deals with moral evils and Book III with the external evils of misfortune 3. The difference between the remarks in the Retractationes and the summary at the beginning of Book IV is not accidental, for in reading Book II one is unexpectedly confronted at the beginning of chapter 4 with a question which thenceforth governs the whole book but is not properly announced : that is , Primo ipsos mores ne pessimos haberent, quare dii eorum curare noluerunt ? From this point on the theme of mores pessimi occupies the whole of the second book. But even in the course of Book II one notices from time to time that Augustine changes to and fro between mala in the moral sense and mala in the sense of the blows of misfortune. Similar equivocations can be observed in the group of words perire, perdere. Moral decadence and chance misfortu1 Cf. Retract. II.43 (translation : Loeb Classical Library). 2 Book I deals with the laments of pagans and Christians over the sufferings in the sack of Rome itself. 3 Cf. de civ. Dei IV.2 : ... in secundo agentes de malis morum ..., in tertio autem de his malis, quae stulti sola perpeti exhorrent, corporis videlicet externarumque rerum ...

328

A. SCHINDLER

nes of all kinds are certainly distinguished from one another in the sequence of thought of individual sentences, but the broader continuity of the argumentation presses on Augustine time and again a strange mixture or at least a parallellism of the two kinds of malaª . I believe there is a similar difficulty if one wants to know which event is decisive for Augustine's apologetic : the coming of Christ into the world, or the prohibition of sacrifice, and therefore the triumph of Christianity under Theodosius I. One could say bluntly and with some exaggeration : Augustine wards off the reproach that the blows of misfortune of recent years are to be attributed to the removal of pagan worship with the argument that all moral evils were already in existence before the birth of Christ. This inconsequentiality is hidden by the double meaning of malum or mala and by the frequently scarcely noticeable alternation between " ante Christi adventum", on the one hand , and formulations such as "religio nostra qua diis suis sacrificare prohibentur" , on the other. My second question therefore comes to this : Why does Augustine talk in such detail of the moral mala before the birth of Christ, when the real theme of his argument with the pagans is the mala of misfortune of more than four centuries later?

It will have been observed that the two questions belong together and both involve the fact that the period of the Empire, apart from its very last phase, plays an astonishingly narrow role in his historical apologetic . Those familiar with Augustine would give to these questions a historical and theological answer concerned with the content of what Augustine says , and a more formal answer concerned with his sources. My question is only whether these answers are sufficient. The theological answer reads : it was never his intention to write a world-history. To do this and so to complement Augustine's work was, as is well-known, the task of Orosius. From the beginning Augustine wanted only to write a history - origo , procursus et finis — of the civitas Dei, something he carried out in Books 11 to 22. The preceding books 1 to 10 are explicitly apologetic and not historical, and thus it was legitimate to prefer what was apologetically most effective . But what was most effective apologetically was certainly the heroic, earlier period of Rome, which - quite apart from its heroic character - had indisputably taken place free from any Christian influence . If it could only be shown that it was at least as bad as Augustine's own time, or even worse, then that would dispense with

In de civ. Dei II.18 and 19 the change between the moral sense of mala and the sense referring to misfortune is particularly clear ; similarly in II.25 the double sense of perire and perdere. 5 Similarly in II.2, and again in retrospect in IV.2 (prohibition of sacrifice) , while otherwise in Books II and III it is mainly a matter of events ante adventum Christi. The Constantinian turningpoint plays no role in this connexion. IV.2 is typical : quae omnia (scil . mala) procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam vel illis clareret nostra religio vel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet.

Augustine and the Roman Empire

329

any further argument . In particular it excluded the argument beloved since the time of Tertullian and still relevant for Augustine : If the Tiber rises, or if the Nile does not, the cry is at once, "The Christians to the lion!" ". With this point of view, concerned with the content, the condition of the sources is in complete agreement . Among the classical writers, whom Augustine had known from his youth, there was no-one so suitable for his purposes as Sallust. No other historical writer was read in school . The severity of his moral judgment of the decisive phases of Roman history, his picture of decadence and his irreproachable stature as a classic allowed an historical attack on the Roman past, just as Cicero's political writings allowed him to attack the ugly reality of the Roman res publica which stood in such stark contrast to Cicero's ideal . Certainly Augustine used many other sources for Roman history and Roman religion, but he read them in the light of Sallust's model of decay, and therefore it is this historian who is the principal witness for his view of the sorry state of affairs . From this perspective it is easy to understand why the moral mala of the Republican period , as depicted by Sallust, stand at the centre of his polemic and not the misfortuness of the recent past. I would not have recited these answers to my two questions if I held them to be false . But do they really make it possible for us to understand Augustine's procedure? Would anyone today argue in this way in a dispute about the true reasons for the decline of a present-day world-power? He could scarcely hope for an echo , if he called on events and cited authors that belonged to half-a-millenium earlier. I cannot discuss the problems of Switzerland today by referring to William Tell, and a dispute about the problems of Great Britain at the end of the second millenium would not , I suppose, get anywhere, if one made citations from Shakespeare the centre of the argument . But something, at any rate, of this comparison with the present does not apply, for Augustine's work was not felt to be a curiosity from the pen of a historian remote from the present, or a garrulous rhetor, but a real frontal attack on the still vital paganism of his own time. Let me dwell for a moment on William Tell and Shakespeare . It seems to me that Augustine could argue as he did , because his non-Christian opponents thought the same. They understood themselves not simply against the background of their own time, they were not simply modern men of the year 410 and following ; their self-understanding rather was strongly stamped by the models of the classical pagan past . The pagans Augustine was addressing

6 Cf. de civ. Dei II.3 : Pluvia defit, causa Christiani sunt, also En. in Ps. 80.1 . The well-known citation from Tertullian, Apol. 10.1f. , is not quoted by Augustine word for word. 7 Cf. Henri-Irénée Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique (Paris, ed . 4, 1958), pp. 19f. , 115f. On Augustine and Sallust, cf. Harald Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, XX/ 1 and 2, 1967), pp. 225-44 and 631-49 . On this esp., de civ. Dei II.21 and XIX.21 , 24.

330

A. SCHINDLER

were not historians, nor was he, nor did he wish to be, but his opponents were on their side apologists for the Roman past. We do not recover their convictions from the historical writers, or only to a small extent, but rather from the poets and orators of that time. Symmachus, Claudian, Rutilius Namatianus, the Panegyrists - these are the representatives of Romanitas as traditionally understood , who were close to the real and supposed opponents of Augustine . These authors treasured Sallust at least as much as the historians did, but not primarily Sallust as reporter of the events of the past, but Sallust as proclaimer of ancient Roman values 10. And there Augustine touches his opponents, for they both have a moral and an ideological interest in Sallust, only in a precisely opposite sense. Even on the contorniates , those good-luck or festal medallions, the imagery on which can be interpreted as the programme and ideology of the pagan upper-classes, - even on the contorniates, Sallust is the only historical writer to be found, alongside emperors, amongst whom even Nero figures 11. One rightly speaks of a Sallust-Renaissance at that time. In any case interest in Sallust was considerable on the pagan as well as on the Christian side, and it must be asked why the same author could be understood in such different ways. It seems to me that as far as Augustine is concerned it is precisely the limited role played by the gods in Sallust that is useful to his own theological interpretation of Roman history : for Sallust the real actors in history are obviously men. But for the most part men are driven by their desires, and with only a few does virtue determine their actions. But above all stands Fortune, conceived of not all that differently from blind Fate 12. Augustine's theological view of events, which he connects almost imperceptibly with that of Sallust, now amounts to saying that he sees this state of possession by the instincts on man's part as determined or provoked by the gods. The gods are, at root, superhuman egoists, who lead their followers to deeds of shame and care scarcely at all for their external well-being, and nothing at all for their moral well-being. Therefore it is legitimate too to connect moral mala closely with the blows of fortune, and especially with those that men are guilty of. In natural catastrophes Augustine has little interest 13. In spite ofthe devastating power of the gods , which according to Augustine are in reality evil demons,

9 Cf. François Paschoud, Roma Aeterna. Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l'occident latin à l'époque des grandes invasions (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana ; Rome, 1967), on Symmachus: pp. 71-109, on Claudian : pp. 133-55, on Rutilius Namatianus : pp . 156-67. 10 On this esp . Ezio Bolaffi, Sallustio e la sua fortuna nei secoli (Roma, 1949) . 11 Cf. Andreas Alföldi, Die Kontorniaten. Ein verkanntes Propagandamittel der stadtrömischen heidnischen Aristokratie in ihrem Kampfe gegen das christliche Kaisertum (Budapest, 1943), on Sallust esp. pp. 72, 89. 12 Cf. Sallust, Catilina 10.1 : saevire fortuna ac miscere omnia coepit . This must be understood against the background of his general conviction : 8.1 : sed profecto fortuna in omni re dominatur; ea res cunctas ex lubidine magis quam ex vero celebrat obscuratque. 13 On natural catastrophes and such-like : de civ. Dei III.31 and IV.2.

Augustine and the Roman Empire

331

the Providence of God holds sway over all, and permits even the Roman state to become great, not indeed because of, but rather in spite of, the worship of the gods by the Romans, as a worldly reward for their equally worldly virtues. So far as I know, there is no surviving interpretation of Sallust which would correspond to a precisely opposite world-view, but it requires no great flight of fantasy to imagine just as religious an understanding of Sallust as that of Augustine, but with the signs reversed : Gloria as the highest moral value is bound together with Fortuna, and the worship of the gods fits in harmoniously with this happy connexion, which will, though, be massively disturbed by human vices. The history of the Eternal City, the hereditary religion and the moral values of the ancient Romans could thus be conceived of as a unity and be found in Sallust too, although he mainly describes the decay of this ideal unity. The pagan readers of Sallust must have understood him in such or similar ways. Even independently of Sallust, the period of the Republic played a preeminent role with the opponents whom Augustine had in mind . The heros, who are mentioned from time to time in the panegyrists or in Claudian, are regularly models from the early period, and the increasing popularity in Late Antiquity of the collection of examples from the first century put together by Valerius Maximus points in the same direction . If an example is wanted of great virtues or great personalities, preference is shown for a Cato or Scipio, not Augustus or Trajan . Why we find about 400 such a strong inclination by both pagans and Christians to prefer these heros as figures with whom to identify, or the period of the Republic as the epoch for identification, is hard to explain. But it seems clear to me that Augustine is here following a trend which he shares with his non-Christian contemporaries and which, in spite of and because of these shared values, makes possible too the polemic. The preference for the Republican period and in particular for Sallust means that Augustine's polemic is not an evasive action on a battleground to the side, but an offensive in the centre of the ideological front . But how does it stand now with the period of the Empire? Is its absence in Augustine's apologetic not still a severe defect? That it is an external defect of information which could well have found a place in Augustine's work is, I suppose, clear to the modern reader. Whether it is an inner defect in view of the purpose of De Civitate Dei is still to be clarified . First we must ask what sources for the Imperial period as a whole Augustine had at his disposal . There was the Chronicle of Eusebius, or Jerome, which has, of course, a Christian slant, but otherwise depicts the Imperial period with no obvious bias, simply enumerating rulers and important events. We can ignore the historians who wrote in Greek, such as Cassius Dio, because Augustine could hardly have read them in the original, and in fact had not read them. On the other hand, he could have known

332

A. SCHINDLER

Tacitus and Suetonius, and it is not to be excluded that both works were available in Hippo . Orosius, who spent some time in Hippo and used the library there, seems to know them both . Whether Augustine did not want to consult them or could not, and whether Orosius, for his part, found them elsewhere, or in the event knew them only from florilegia , we do not know. At any rate Hagendahl in his indispensable book on Augustine and the Latin Classics comes to the conclusion that they were unknown to Augustine ; just as little was the historical work of Ammianus Marcellinus known to him ¹4 . There is only one work that was demonstrably available to Augustine and which dealt with the Imperial period up to shortly before Theodosius, and that was Eutropius ' Breviarium ab urbe condita . It is, to be sure, a matter of a poor compendium , far removed from the narrative detail of the works of the great historians . It is a question , then, why Augustine did not at least use it in Book XVIII , and for excursus and appendices in Books II to V. In spite ofits pagan slant, its account would have fundamentally appealed to him. Thus the classical persecutors of the Christians like Nero and Domitian are depicted negatively, in spite of his Christianity Constantine comes quite well out of it; and Diocletian is blamed for his religiously-tinged despotism . But of all these possibilities Augustine makes no use at all. In this way he could, without great difficulties, have continued his account of the sorry state of affairs of the Republican period into the Imperial period . In contrast to Orosius he was under no constraint to paint the period after the birth of Christ more positively, still less was he under any constraint to paint it even darker at any price. Even the scanty sources that he had at his disposal would have sufficed to present the centuries since the birth of Christ on the model of books II and III : as a chronique scandaleuse and at the same time as an historia calamitatum , with the purpose of pointing out the catastrophes even before the prohibition of sacrifices, and proving the wickedness or powerlessness of the gods. The only example of the Imperial period drawn from Eutropius is indeed used in this sense . That Hadrian in the Far East surrendered some provinces conquered by Trajan proves that it is not the god Terminus , but the emperor, as a man, and of course his enemies, who determine the frontiers of the Empire15 . This passage proves that the kind of reasoning that we know from its use in regard to the Republic could have been used for the Imperial period too, if Augustine had felt it necessary and if he had at his disposal sources that lent themselves to this purpose . Both need to be taken into account : the insufficiency of the sources or of his knowledge of them as well as his conviction as to the sufficiency of the proofs from the period of the Republic, that is from the well-known classics . As with Augustine's use of Sallust we need to ask here again , what role the 14 Hagendahl, op. cit. , II, pp . 667ff. 15 Cf. de civ. Dei IV.29 (CCSL 47, p. 123, 11. 26-9) and Eutropius, Breviarium ab urbe condita VIII.6.2 (ed . Ruehl, p. 56, 11. 12-15) .

Augustine and the Roman Empire

333

emperors actually played for Augustine's opponents. The historians just mentioned, particularly Eutropius, show already how we must judge the situation: around the year 400 the historiography of the Imperial period is exceedingly uncommunicative, either taking the form of a compendium, as with Eutropius and Aurelius Victor, or in the Corpus Aurelianum, or, refraining from provocative assertions and passionate partisanship and contenting itself with detailed description , as is the case with Ammianus Marcellinus. From the contemporary historians of the Imperial period, Augustine could not have directly taken over a chronique scandaleuse or a historia calamitatum¹16 as he could with Sallust. But he could easily have constructed one. If we inquire about the Imperial period in the committed literature of that time, and not therefore in the historiographers, then we again come across the fact already mentioned, that the Republic plays an infinitely more important role and the Imperial period is more or less excluded . The poem of Rutilius Namatianus, which in many respects stands close to Augustine's De Civitate Dei, proceeds, in so far as it concerns us here, in precisely such a way: the author jumps from the time of the Republic into the immediate present and back again . The empire is only touched on, quite marginally, in the form of the then Emperor ; Nero appears once, suffering punishment in Tartarus ; otherwise the goddess Rome, her worldwide mission and the Senate occupy the central role ¹7 . With the keyword "Senate" we have perhaps touched on that political-ideological complex that was decisive for Augustine's opponents . Neither the contemporary emperors , who had regrettably become are Christians, nor the pagan emperors since Augustus still less so really figures with whom they can identify. The empire is indeed taken for granted, but good emperors are only such as work together with the Senate, and all autocracy, whether pagan or Christian, is to be rejected . Of course, the fact that the pagan opposition still remained strong in the senatorial circles of that time contributed to this position 18. Therefore it holds : Augustine had not encountered an apologetic for paganism that had included the imperial centuries in the historical argument. There was therefore no occasion to deal with the emperors as an argument either pro or contra . It is only the Christian emperors, Constantine above all and particularly Theodosius , that Augustine has to defend, and that he has done in book V. It can therefore be said with only slight exaggeration that for Augustine's

16 Cf. Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D." in idem (ed . ), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), pp. 79-99, esp. p. 98 : " ... St. Augustine ... was not worried by contemporary pagan historians in the Latin tongue, such as Ammianus Marcellinus" . 17 On Nero cf. 2.27, for the rest the detailed introduction in : Rutilius Namatianus , ed. , with introduction and commentary, by Ernst Doblhofer (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1972 and 1977) . 18 Cf. A.H.M. Jones, "The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century" in op. cit. (note 16) , pp. 17-37.

334

A. SCHINDLER

historical consciousness and for his religious and political self-understanding, as well as for that of his pagan opponents, the four centuries since Augustus were of virtually no consequence. Already by that time the state had attained an enormous expansion and the essential religious and political ideas had already by then been developed ; the imperial period was fundamentally only a sequel (Nachspiel) to the republican era. That this feeling for the period - to us rather remarkable - held sway also in Augustine's North African environment is proved by the thorough studies of North African inscriptions. Thanks above all to the labours of Claude Lepelley we can today form a much better picture of this world than formerly, and we know that not only pagans, but also Christians, evinced a need for representations and an activity in building, that show a feeling of unbroken continuity with the classical centuries 19. From this it follows that culture and political reality were not so perceived as if they were centuries removed from Sallust and Cicero . Even if chronology in the sense of numbers of years was known , the consciousness of time was not at all determined by any feeling such as is suggested to us by the concept of "Late Antiquity" . If these observations are right, then it puts a characteristic of Augustine's political convictions in a somewhat different light : as is well-known, he does not defend the idea of a Christian Empire, nor does he represent a view of history, according to which Constantine or Theodosius marks a providential high-point. Augustine's theology of history has often been contrasted with the outlines of a Eusebius , or even of an Orosius, and developed from his doctrine of the two civitates. That is certainly right ; equally, however, at this point Augustine engages with his pagan contemporaries : the empire, scil . the time of the Emperors, has no religious meaning of its own, only the state has that: that is, Rome, or the dea Roma, has a religious meaning, for the pagans positively, for Augustine negatively 20 . In this connexion it has long been noticed that Augustine does not go along with the Christians' positive judgment of Augustus. Certainly he knows the synchronism between the birth of Christ and the reign of Augustus , but only in the sense of a date, not a providential parallellism ; and he scarcely mentions the Pax Augusta, and when he does, he immediately adds that it was attained at the cost of freedom. This criticism of Augustus has a long tradition and is found just as much with Augustine's pagan contemporaries . I

19 This is revealed by the comprehensive researches of Claude Lepelley, recorded esp. in his work, Les cités de l'Afrique romaine au Bas- Empire (2 vols, Paris, 1979 and 1981 ) . I base myself here on a still unpublished lecture by the author. 20 This goes for Rutilius Namatianus (v . supra) and many others. Cf. Ulrich Knoche : "Das letzte grosse Symbol, das der Adel der Hauptstadt am Ende des Altertums, wohl in den letzten Lebensjahren des Ambrosius, dem bereits herrschenden Kreuzessymbol herausfordernd entgegenstellte, war die Göttin Roma”, in Vom Selbstverständnis der Römer, Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. F. Bömer and J. Mette (Heildelberg, 1962) , p . 145.

Augustine and the Roman Empire

335

think now of an almost identical passage in the Historia Augusta, which indeed originated not far from Augustine's lifetime and area of influence 21 . With the term Historia Augusta I have now broached a topic that, in the context of my questioning, cannot be passed over. For it is the only largescale work of Latin literature of the period , in which the history of the emperors is depicted at length from a non-Christian standpoint. Is not its very existence and approach something of a counter-argument to the view of things I have just put forward? And, to add yet another question : How did the acknowledgment of Christianity by the State affect Augustine's view of the Emperors? Is it not precisely over against the Donatists that time and again he praises the procedure of the Emperor Constantine and the anti-heretical measures of the emperors of his own time? Neither of these two questions that about the Historia Augusta and that about the meaning for Augustine of the tempora Christiana — can I deal with thoroughly here. So I will propose two theses as my conclusion, which indicate the direction of my answers. In Augustine's understanding of history the Constantinian epoch plays no role, and the Theodosian epoch only a very limited one. In view of the fulfilment of biblical promises and above all in view of Donatism, the recognition of Christianity and the compulsory Christianization of the State is certainly important, but the basic elements of history are the Roman state and the civitas dei, and both elements have existed since primordial times, even if both have experienced a change, the incomparably more deeply one under Caesar and Augustus, the other with the Incarnation of the Son of God . The assault of the Gauls four centuries before Christ and the sack of Rome by the Goths four centuries after Christ belong together and belong to one side of history which is always much the same in itself. The developments on the other side in the civitas dei since the coming of Christ are, from the point of view of theological history, of quite secondary importance 22 . The Historia Augusta, which is so interested in the emperors, represents no fundamentally different view of history. Perhaps one should not see it as representative and ascribe to it no serious view of history. But if one does , the Historia Augusta refers to a pagan prophecy, that the ideal emperor will subdue the whole world and then give back the power to the Senate and himself live according to the old laws 23. The co-operation of the emperor 21 Cf. de civ. Dei III.21 (about Augustus and freedom), and Hist. Aug. Car. 3.1 . Cf. Jean Béranger, " L'idéologie impériale dans l'Histoire Auguste”, in Historia Augusta Colloquium 1972| 4 (Bonn, 1976), pp. 29-44, esp . p. 33. 22 In spite of everything that the tempora Christiana have to show by way of fulfilment, the extremely brief treatment of Church history in de civ. Dei (XVIII.49-53) is striking . On the tempora Christiana cf. Goulven Madec in Scientia Augustiniana. Festschrift Zumkeller, ed . C.P. Mayer and W. Eckermann (Würzburg, 1975) , pp. 112-36, partly against Robert A. Markus, Saeculum. History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine (Cambridge, 1970), esp. chapter 2. 23 Cf. Hist. Aug. Tac. 15.2.

336

A. SCHINDLER

with the Senate, indeed his authorization by the Senate, plays such a large role in the Historia Augusta that at the very least it offers no counter-proof to the observation we have made : the period of the emperors is a sequel to the Republican period and takes its legitimacy from there, except in so far as the many bad emperors demonstrate their own illegitimacy. Augustine and his pagan contemporaries lived in Late Antiquity . This is our own way of thinking about it. But they had no such consciousness . They felt themselves threatened , certainly; they feared that they were approaching the end of the civilized world ; but this civilized world itself was not experienced as an expiring period of history, but rather as a continuing unity. Augustine did not seek to revise this consciousness of history ; but from the perspective of the civitas Dei taught a fundamental duality within history, which would accommodate both the continuance and the collapse of the Roman Empire . Whereas his view was open to the future, that of his opponents was almost completely backward -looking. For both, however, the history of the emperors over four centuries was of no fundamental significance 24.

24 A similar essay to mine appears under the title "Augustin und die römischen Historiker" in the volume, Augustine in Recent Research, ed . Johannes van Oort and Jan den Boeft (Études Augustiniennes ; Paris, 1988) . For the English translation I would like to thank the Reverend Andrew Louth.

Augustine on Virgil : The Poet as Mendax Vates

Carl P.E. SPRINGER, Normal , Illinois

I.

This paper reexamines a familiar subject : Augustine as a reader or literary critic, if you will, of Virgil's Aeneid. I will concentrate on one critical passage from Augustine's writings, Sermo 105.7 , which has not been paid sufficient attention in previous discussions of this topic and which may help us to view the problem from a different perspective than usual. It is a difficult and complex matter, of course, to pin down Augustine's attitude toward Virgil, which I can only touch on briefly here¹ . On the one hand, we should observe that Augustine quotes extensively from Virgil - among the Latin classical authors, he was more profoundly influenced only by Cicero² and praises Virgil more than once as a most exalted (nobilissimus) and illustrious poet (poeta clarissimus) [De civitate Dei 4.11 ; 10.27 ; 8.19] . Even in the great literary product of his late career, The City of God, Augustine could still refer to Virgil as "a great poet, the most splendid and excellent of all poets" (poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus atque optimus) [De civitate Dei 1.3] . In De civitate Dei 1.3, Augustine praises the author of the Aeneid as a "thinking man", who in more than one instance, uttered "what the truth extorted" from him³. Augustine's respect for Virgil is not surprising . The Aeneid played a fundamental role in Augustine's schoolling, as it did for other schoolboys in the fourth century, Christian or pagan, and even after his conversion, Augustine continued to read Virgil . At Cassiciacum, as we are told in the De ordine (1. 26) , Augustine read half a book before supper with his young friends . Like many early Christians, the bishop of Hippo also believed that 1 ¹ The two fundamental studies on the subject in the last fifty years are : K.H. Schelkle, Virgil in der Deutung Augustins (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 32 ; Stuttgart- Berlin, 1939) and H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics (Stockholm, 1967) , pp. 316-75 and 384463. For an extensive review of the latter, see V.D. Connerty, Augustinian Studies 1 ( 1970), 223235. Still worth consulting are also : Hans Becker, Augustin . Studien zu seiner geistigen Entwicklung (Leipzig, 1908) , pp . 63-73, and Josef Vasold , Augustinus quae hauserit ex Vergilio I-II (Progr. Munich, 1907-8) . 2 On Augustine's indebtedness to Cicero, see Hagendahl, pp . 479-588. 3 Non itaque, cum de diis victis illa conscriberentur atque canerentur, poetas libebat mentiri, sed cordatos homines cogebat veritas confiteri. 4 * On Virgil's attraction for Augustine, see the suggestive article by John O'Meara, “ Augustine

338

C.P.E. SPRINGER

Virgil's fourth Eclogue with its prediction of a new golden age was in some sense prophetic of the birth of Christ. In his unfinished commentary on Romans written around 394 (Expos. epist . Rom. 3) Augustine declares that the Hebrew prophets were not alone in foretelling the coming of Christ and cites Virgil's fourth Eclogue as proof: For there were also those who were not prophets of Christ himself but in whose writings some things are found which they heard and sang about Christ. This is also said to be true of the Sibyl . I would not readily believe this except that a certain man, the most exalted of poets, preceded a prophecy about a new age with a verse which seems to agree and correspond quite nicely with the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ: "The last age of the Cumaean song now arrives" . Although Augustine evidently did not believe that Virgil himself had prophesied the coming of Christ in Epist. 104.3.11 he describes Eclogue 4 as a carmen adulatorium addressed to nescio cui nobili he did believe that the pagan poet had retold accurately the truthful prophecy of the Sibyl" . On the other hand , Augustine also could speak quite harshly of Virgil, expressing criticism especially of the fictional subject matter of the Aeneid, filled as it is with reference to the pagan gods . In a famous passage in the Confessions (1.13.20-22) , he refers to the content of Virgil's epic as poetica figmenta and in his great doctrinal work on the Trinity ( 14. 11. 14) Augustine includes the Aeneid among "the secular works of literature which are more concerned with good style than with veracity" (saeculares litterarae, ubi maioris fuit curae verborum integritas quam veritas rerum). As a Christian, especially, Augustine could not help but feel somewhat distant from the chief proponent of a religion so contrary to his own. Harald Hagendahl, whose study of the problem is exhaustive, concludes from his research that Augustine's interest in Virgil declined after 3917. Not surprisingly, after he became occupied with his duties as a priest and later bishop of

the Artist and the Aeneid' , in Mélanges offerts à Mademoiselle Christine Mohrmann (Utrecht/ Anvers, 1963) , pp. 252-261 . 5 I use the text provided in Hagendahl, p . 443. Fuerunt enim et prophetae non ipsius, in quibus etiam aliqua inveniuntur, quae de Christo audita cecinerunt, sicut etiam de Sibylla dicitur. Quod non facile crederem , nisi quod poetarum quidam in Romana lingua nobilissimus antequam diceret ea de innovatione saeculi, quae in Domini nostri Iesu Christi regnum satis concinere et convenire videantur, praeposuit versum dicens : Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas. Cumaeum autem carmen Sibyllinum esse nemo dubitaverit . • Other passages where Augustine discusses the eclogue include : Epistula 137.12, Epistula 258.3, and De civitate Dei 10.27 . For discussions of these passages and Augustine's understanding of the fourth Eclogue in general, see Schelkle, pp . 16ff. , Hagendahl, pp. 442ff., and Stephen Benko, "Virgil's Fourth Eclogue in Christian Interpretation", ANRW 31.1 (Berlin and New York, 1980), pp. 674-7. 7 Hagendahl, pp. 714ff. See also Max Wundt, "Ein Wendepunkt in Augustins Entwicklung", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 21 ( 1921 ), 53-64.

Augustine on the Aeneid

339

Hippo, Augustine no longer had enough time (and perhaps interest) to read the Aeneid and weep for Dido , as he once had done as a schoolboy (Conf. 1. 13.21).

II.

The usual scholarly consensus is that there is a fundamental ambivalence on the part of Augustine toward Virgil . Karl Schelkle describes Augustine's attitude toward Virgil as one characterized by "ambiguity" (Zwiespalt) and concludes that " Augustine's exegesis of Virgil is divided of necessity between the highest respect and unconditional rejection" . Hagendahl points out that "Virgil is treated with chilly criticism " by Augustine, but quickly adds that the Augustan poet is also " at the same time praised emphatically" 10. There is no doubt a great deal of truth in this assessment . Augustine's feelings towards Virgil do seem to run either hot or cold. If the bishop recalls an expression or thought in Virgil's poetry which offers something resembling the truth, or which he can use with profit in his own line of argumentation, Augustine praises the poet and embraces him as "poeta noster" (Contr. acad. 3.4.9). Virgil is a prophet of sorts. If, however, Augustine is thinking of Virgil as a spokesman for traditional Roman religious symbols and values , the pagan poet suddenly becomes Vergilius tuus (Epist. 17) and cannot be trusted (see Cons. evang. 1.13.32) . There is one passage in Augustine's body of writings, however, in which this tension is resolved . In Sermo 105, preached shortly after the sack of Rome in 410, Augustine ponders aloud the lesson of the recent events. All regna terrena, including Rome, he observes to his congregation, are perishable : Those who promised this eternality in the case of earthly kingdoms were prompted not by the truth, but they lied for the sake of flattery. A certain poet of theirs imagined Jove saying of the Romans : " I assign them no boundaries of time or place. I have given them empire without end" ¹¹ . This passage from the Aeneid (1. 278-9) is clearly not true , Augustine

• Hagendahl, whose command of idiomatic English leaves something to be desired , claims to see in Augustine the " same duplicity [sic] as many other Christian writers, vacillating between admiration and dislike" (p. 458). 9 Schelke, p. 198 : "zwischen höchster Verehrung und unbedingter Ablehnung ist Augustins Virgilexegese notwendig geteilt". 10 Hagendahl, p. 457. 11 Qui hoc terrenis regnis promiserunt, non veritate ducti sunt, sed adulatione mentiti sunt. Poeta illorum quidam induxit Iovem loquentem et ait de Romanis : His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono: imperium sine fine dedi.

340

C.P.E. SPRINGER

continues: non plane ita respondet veritas. According to the Scriptures, earth and heaven will perish, with no exceptions. Why did Virgil write this falsehood, then? Augustine puts an answer into the poet's mouth : Well , I know that it's not true. But what did I do , I, the poet who sold words to the Romans, except set forward something that was false for the sake of flattery? And yet I was careful, too, since when I said “ I have given [the Romans] empire without end, I pretended that it was Jove who was saying it . I didn't utter the falsehood myself. As the god was false, so was his prophet a liar. Do you want to know how I knew this to be false? In another place, when I did not pretend that Jove was speaking but could speak for myself, I said : "Not the Roman cause and kingdoms on the brink of ruin" . You see I did say "kingdoms on the brink of ruin" . I was not silent 12. According to Augustine, Virgil appears to have known the truth after all . The poet did write that the Romans would have empire without end, but the careful reader might have noticed that he put the words into the mouth of Jove, a false god, and that elsewhere, in the Georgics, Virgil did speak of Rome as a kingdom that would perish (peritura). The poet knew the truth, he assures us, but did not tell it because he wished to please and flatter his Roman patrons 13. With this explanation , Augustine comes close to resolving the traditional tension in early Christian attitudes toward Virgil as either prophet or liar. The poet is not simply one or the other. He is, as Augustine calls him in this sermon, a mendax vates, a lying prophet . In other words, he knows the truth, but for the sake of expediency refuses to express it explicitly . To be sure, Augustine's interpretation of Virgil's motivation does not exactly exonerate him . The Virgil of Sermo 105 comes across as something of an unscrupulous, self-serving flatterer. But Augustine's explanation does solve the problem of why and how Virgil could sometimes appear to tell the truth and sometimes lie 14.

12 Et ego scio; sed quid facerem, qui Romanis verba vendebam, nisi hac adulatione aliquid promitterem, quod falsum erat? Et tamen et in hoc cautus fui ; quando dixi : Imperium sine fine dedi, Iovem ipsorum induxi, qui hoc diceret. Non ex persona mea dixi rem falsam, sed lovi imposui falsitatis personam : sicut deus falsus , ita mendax vates erat. Nam vultis nosse, quia ista noveram? Alio loco, quando non lovem Lapidem induxi loquentem , sed ex persona mea locutus sum, dixi (Georg. 2.498) : Non res Romanae perituraque regna . Videte quia dixi "peritura regna” , non tacui. 13 See also Cons. evang. 1. 13.32 and Epist. 104.3.11 on Virgil's relationship with his patrons. 14 Hagendahl (p. 417) really overreacts to what he calls Augustine's " malevolent caricature" of Virgil. According to Hagendahl's interpretation , Augustine has been “ carried away by his eagerness for combatting the belief in Rome's eternity" and "lapses into the bad habits of antique rhetors and tries to depreciate the opposite view by throwing doubt on the sincere intentions of the opponent". Augustine wants to convict Virgil " of self-contradiction and of calumniating his patriotic belief” . Actually, Augustine's explanation gives his favorite poet a chance to put some distance between himself and the doomed empire for which he was the ambivalent spokesman. At the very least, Augustine grants that Virgil was not altogether untruthful in his poetry. Despite

Augustine on the Aeneid

341

III.

Early Christians tended to extremes in their reactions to Virgil. Jerome, as is well known, simply dismissed as ludicrous the idea that Virgil's fourth Eclogue was prophetic of the Messiah (see his comments in Ep. 53.7.3) . Virgil had nothing to do with the Gospels and, like other classical authors, represented a serious distraction for earnest believers. This , at least, was Jerome's attitude on principle. In practice, as it turned out, he found it more difficult to shake off the influence of authors like Cicero and Virgil 15. On the other hand, other early and influential Christians such as Constantine and Eusebius saw Virgil as a highly significant pagan figure who was nearly Christian and whose fourth Eclogue exemplified his prophetic powers 16 . Augustine's views on Virgil as prophet or liar are, therefore, typical of the usual views of his day and mirror the early Christian ambivalence towards Virgil in general . But, Augustine's combination of prophet and liar in his description of Virgil in Sermo 105 is unique, so far as I am able to discover, in early Christian thought. The idea that Virgil knew the truth, but did not always choose to tell the truth, solves a problem that may have occurred to more than one Christian interpreter of Virgil, namely, the presence of both truth and falsehood in the pagan poet's writings. What is perhaps even more noteworthy about Augustine's description of Virgil as mendax vates is that, in a remarkable way, it anticipates 20th-century theories about the author and audience of the Aeneid. Most recent critical

the summary way in which Hagendhal dismisses the passage in the Georgics which Augustine's Virgil uses to defend himself as a "misinterpretation", it should be observed that some ancient grammarians agreed with Augustine's interpretation and that a recent critical discussion of the Georgics does, too. In his Virgil's Poem of the Earth: Studies in the Georgics (Princeton, 1979), pp. 152-3, Michael Putnam remarks : There is a superficial distinction extending through the lines between the native Roman populace, with the emblems of might it whimsically bestows, and the purple of foreign kings. Fraternal civil strife would then contrast with the conspiring Dacian and the estate of Rome with perishing principates. But kings and kingdoms are uncomfortable neighbors to Roman politics . The juxtaposition forces notice, first, that the accouterments of dominion are universal, second, that Discordia lavishes her divisive attentions on Rome from inside and out. With initial distinctions obscured, we are minded to seek similarities between the politics of Rome and regal rule, perhaps even between Roman " matters" and the perishability of kingdoms. The alliteration that permeates the lines forces the reader to hear not the distinction but the conjunction ofpopuli and purpura, Discordia and descendens Dacus , and most prominently, of res Romanae and regna. 15 See the still definitive discussion of Jerome's attitude to pagan literature by A.S. Pease in TAPA 50 ( 1919) , 150-67. On Virgil's influence, in particular, upon Jerome, see H.C. Coffin, " The Influence of Virgil on St. Jerome and on St. Augustine" , CW 17 ( 1924), 170-74 . 16 See Constantine's oration (Oratio ad coetum sanctorum) preserved by Eusebius, HE I.19-21 . Edition : GCS 7 , Eusebius 1 , 1902, pp. 149-192 by I.A. Heikel, On the authenticity of the sermon, see Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Utrecht and Antwerp, 1966) 3 , p . 325. Augustine himself may have been thinking of Virgil when he wrote in Ep. 164.2.4 that Christ freed some oratores and poetas, who were just men and who died before his coming, from hell.

342

C.P.E. SPRINGER

interpretations of Virgil's epic suggest that the poet was not wholeheartedly enthusiastic about Augustus, his patron, or his new empire . As Adam Parry puts it: "We hear two distinct voices in the Aeneid, a public voice of triumph and a private voice of regret" 17. Despite the fact that Virgil speaks highly of Rome and its new leader, many Virgilian critics today argue on the basis of passages such as Aeneas' ambiguous exit (through the gate of false dreams) from the underworld , or his rather caddish behavior towards the sympathetically portrayed Dido , or his slaughter of Turnus in the last lines of the poem, that Virgil was at best luke-warm about the inexorable progress of the res Romanae. Charles Segal sees in the Aeneid "a pessimism about the cost of history, an acute sensitivity to the suffering of the individuals who participate in it" 18. Wendell Clausen suggests that Virgil perceives " Roman history as a long Pyrrhic victory of the human spirit" 19. This school of criticism departs radically from the traditional interpretation of the poet as a spokesman for Augustus whose poem verges on outright propaganda in its celebration of empire in general and Rome in particular. Augustine, too, did not believe that the benefits of a world empire necessarily outweighed its disadvantages. Rome is the terrena civitas, a city like the one Cain built, founded on fratricide, according to De civitate Dei 15.5, and the Pax Romana is a parody of real peace 20. The rise of Rome to power was, as the bishop of Hippo explains, due to injustice : aggression, plunder, and unjust wars 21. We should remember that Augustine himself came from the provinces, not far distant from Carthage, the traditional foe of the Romans during the Republican period 22. It is not without significance, therefore, that the young man described in the Confessions found himself cheering for Dido , the queen of Carthage, instead of Aeneas , the supposedly pious Roman 23. Like Virgil's modern exegetes Augustine also maintained 17 Adam Parry, "The Two Voices of Virgil's Aeneid' , Arion 2, no. 4 ( 1963) , 79. 18 Charles Segal, " Aeternum per saecula nomen. The Golden Bough and the Tragedy of History", Arion 4, no. 4 ( 1965), 618. 19 Wendell Clausen, "An Interpretation of the Aeneid' , Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 68 (1964), 145-7. 20 Concupiscit enim terrenam quandam pro rebus infimis pacem; ad eam namque desiderat pervenire bellando, quoniam, si vicerit et qui resistant non fuerit, pax erit, quam non habebant partes in vicem adversantes et pro his rebus quas simul habere non poterant infelici egestate certantes. Hanc pacem requirunt laboriosa bella, hanc adipiscitur quae putatur gloriosa victoria. (DCD 15.4). 21 See De civitate Dei 4.3 . On this explanation for Rome's history, see also J.N. Figgis, The Political Ideas of St. Augustine (New York, 1921 ) , p. 53 and N.H. Baynes, "The Political Ideas of the De civitate Dei" . Historical Association Pamphlet No. 104 (London, 1936). 22 For Augustine's strong feelings about his native Africa, see the discussion in W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church : A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa, 3rd impression (Oxford, 1985), p. 231 . 23 On connections between the Confessions and the Aeneid see John O'Meara, “Virgil and Saint Augustine : the Roman Background to Christian Sexuality", Augustinus 13 ( 1968), 307-26 and Eugene Vance, "Augustine's Confessions and the Grammar of Selfhood ", Genre 6, no. 1 (1973), 1-28.

Augustine on the Aeneid

343

that Virgil did not believe everything he wrote in praise of the Roman empire, but that in order to satisfy his patrons he did not express all of his truest feelings in his poem. According to Augustine, then, the author of the Aeneid is neither simply a prophet, who just blurts out the truth regardless of consequences, or a liar, who includes nothing of the truth in what he says, but a lying prophet, mendax vates, in whose veiled and profound words it is possible for the discerning reader to discover Virgil's true feelings. That so many modern critics, who argue that Virgil's glorification of the Roman empire in the Aeneid is not so sincerely meant as the poet's " private voice", a voice of dissent and regret in which his profoundest feelings may be detected , should have unconsciously, I fear -― returned to Augustine's interpretative methods, is not only one of the most exquisite ironies of literary history , but also suggests that in its depth of sophistication and insight, Augustine's hermeneutical approach to the Aeneid may, indeed , be a classic.

22 For Augustine's strong feelings about his native Africa, see the discussion in W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church : A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa, 3rd impression (Oxford, 1985) , p. 231. 23 On connections between the Confessions and the Aeneid see John O'Meara, "Virgil and Saint Augustine : the Roman Background to Christian Sexuality", Augustinus 13 (1968), 307-26 and Eugene Vance, " Augustine's Confessions and the Grammar of Selfhood", Genre 6, no. 1 (1973), 1-28.

Einige Beobachtungen zur Vita Augustini des Possidius

Brigitta STOLL, Bern

Das Werk, von dem die Rede sein soll, ist fraglos am geläufigen Schema spätantiker Biografien orientiert : ,, De ... venerabilis viri et exortu et procursu et debito fine “ und „, de vita et moribus ... Augustini“ ¹ will Possidius berichten . Die Gliederung entspricht dem Stereotyp : ein chronologisch geordneter Rahmen schildert die vita bis 418 (Kap. 1-18 ) und das Lebensende (Kap. 27-31 ) . Ein beschreibender, nicht chronologischer Mittelteil behandelt - als Einschub zwischen beiden Rahmenteilen — die Tätigkeitsbereiche, Charakterzüge und Lebensgewohnheiten Augustins in der Reihenfolge vita publica (Kap . 19-21 ) und vita privata (Kap . 22-26) ² . Die Abhängigkeit dieser Grundstruktur vom Genus der spätantiken Biografien bewirkte, dass der Einfluss anderer Traditionen von der Forschung lange unterschätzt wurde³ . Im Zuge der traditionsgeschichtlichen und literarischen Neubeurteilung altkirchlicher Hagiografie begann sich die Forschung allerdings auch mit den hagiografischen Komponenten der Augustinvita zu befassen. Die Zugehörigkeit des Textes zu den einschlägigen formalen und inhaltlichen Traditionen liegt tatsächlich auf der Hand : in der Praefatio nennt Possidius vom heiligen Geist inspirierte christliche Hagiografen als seine Vorgänger , als Ziel der Vita bezeichnet er die aedificatio der Kirche ;

1 Zum selben Schema in De civitate Dei vgl. den Kommentar von Bastiaensen in der Ausgabe der Vita Augustini (Vite dei Santi, Bd . 3 ; 2. Aufl. 1981 ) , 341 Zum Vergleich von antiker Biografie und altkirchlicher Hagiografie vgl . G. Luck,,,Die Form der suetonischen Biographie und die frühen Heiligenviten", in : Mullus. Festschrift Th . Klauser (JAC. E 1 ; 1964), 230ff.; zur Vita Augustini bes. 239f. sowie vor allem P. Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity. A Quest for the Holy Man (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage V ; Berkeley, 1983), bes. 12ff. (Sueton). 2 W. Berschin (Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter I Von der Passio Perpetuae zu den Dialogi Gregors des Grossen, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters Bd. VII ; 1986) urteilt zu einseitig, wenn er die Vita Augustini als „ ein Leben per species gegliedert“ (233) bezeichnet. 3 Ein ähnliches Phänomen ist im Fall der Forschungsgeschichte zur Cyprianvita zu beobachten. Vgl . dazu Mohrmann in der Einführung zur Vita Antonii (Vite dei Santi Bd . 1 ; 1974), XXII. 4 Vgl. etwa die Arbeiten von A. de Vogüé zu den Dialogen Gregors des Grossen, bes. Dialogues, t. 1 (SC 251 , 1978) (mit Lit. angaben) und diejenigen von J. Fontaine zur Vita Martini des Sulpicius Severus, bes . Vie de Saint Martin, t. 1 (Sc 133 , 1967) (mit Lit. angaben) oder M. van Uytfanghe,,,L'empreinte biblique sur la plus ancienne hagiographie occidentale", in: Le monde latin antique et la Bible, hg. J. Fontaine - Ch. Piétri (Bible de tous les temps 2 ; 1985) , 565ff. 5 Praef. 2. -- Ausgehend von der Widmung der Ambrosiusvita ( 1,1 ) wird man an Athanasius, Hieronymus, Pontius, Sulpicius Severus und Paulinus denken dürfen.

Beobachtungen zur Vita Augustini

345

Augustin soll Typus der aemulatio und imitatio sein, sein Leben Anstoss zum Lobpreis der Werke Gottes (Praef. 1.4.7; c. 31,11 ) . Epitheta Augustins sind homo Dei (c. 4,3 ; 6,8), sanctus homo (c. 13,5), vir sanctus (c. 2,2), famulus Dei (c. 12,1 ) . All dies weist auf hagiografische Einflüsse, zu denen sich vor allem Pellegrino, Mohrmann und neustens Grégoire geäussert haben . Zahlreiche Einzelproblem sind allerdings bis heute nur unbefriedigend gelöst. Umstritten ist vor allem die Struktur des ersten Teils (Kap. 1-18) . Sie gilt als willkürlich und mangelhaft " , weil der Erzählablauf mehrfach durch — scheinbar sinnlose eingeschobene Bemerkungen über den Erfolg der antihäretischen Bemühungen Augustins unterbrochen wird . Mohrmann hat daraus geschlossen, Possidius sei an seiner Aufgabe gescheitert ; das unerreichbare Vorbild der Confessiones und die erdrückende Stofffülle im Bereich der antihäretischen Thematik hätten dazu geführt, dass er die ursprünglich geplante Gliederung gemäss dem antiken Muster nicht konsequent durchhalten konnte . Hier setzen meine Beobachtungen ein. Ich meine, im alten monastischen Thema der vita apostolica und in gewissen formalen und inhaltlichen Merkmalen der Apostelgeschichte einen Schlüssel zur literarischen Gestaltung des ersten Teils gefunden zu haben. Ich setze mit einigen Bemerkungen zum umstrittensten Teil der Vita, der Darstellung von Taufe und Bekehrung, ein ( 1. ) und äussere mich anschliessend zu Aufbau und Gestaltung der Kapitel 3-18 (2. ) .

I. TAUFE UND BEKEHRUNG

Das ,,Vorleben" des Heiligen , die Zeit vor Taufe und Bekehrung, ist in mehreren altkirchlichen Viten Gegenstand sorgfältiger Stilisierung . Die Cypriansvita setzt beispielsweise erst mit der nativitas caelestis und dem principium fidei ein. Alles zeitlich Vorgängige interessiert nicht, da es nur weltliche Belange betraf¹º. ,, Siquidem hominis Dei facta non debent aliunde numerari nisi ex quo Deo natus est “ (c . 2,1 ) . Der erste Teil der Martinsvita ist, wie Fontaine¹¹ nachgewiesen hat, in seinem Aufbau stark durch apologe-

6 • R. Grégoire, „ Riflessioni sulla tipologia agiografica della ‚Vita Augustini' di Possidio“, Miscellanea di Studi Agostiniani in onore di P. Trapè (Augustinianum XXV ; 1985), 21ff.; M. Pellegrino, Introduzione zu : Possidio, Vita di Agostino ( 1955), 9ff. und ders. ,,,Sull'antica Biografia Cristiana : Problemi e Orientamenti", in : Studi in onore di G. Funaioli ( 1955), 354ff. Vgl . auch M. Puzicha,,,Vita Iusti (Dial. 2,2) . Grundstrukturen altkirchlicher Hagiographie bei Gregor dem Grossen" , in: Pietas. Festschrift B. Kötting (JAC Erg . bd . 8 ; 1980), 284ff. 7 Vgl. dazu Ch. Mohrmann , Introduzione... Bd. 3, XLIVf. 8 Vgl. a.a.O. , XLVI. - Vgl . auch A. Bastiaensen,,,The inaccuracies in the Vita Augustini of Possidius", Studia Patristica 16, Teil 2 (TU 129 ; Berlin, 1985), 480ff. 9 Vgl. dazu F. Lotter, Severinus von Noricum. Legende und Wirklichkeit (MGM 12 ; 1976), 60ff. 10 99... nondum enim ad utilitatem nisi saeculi pertinebant...“ (c. 2,2). 11 Ders., Vie de Saint Martin, t . II (SC 134 ; 1968 ), 428ff. , und ders.,,,Vérité et fiction dans la chronologie de la Vita Martini", in : Saint Martin et son temps. Mémorial du XVIe centenaire des débuts du monachisme en Gaule 361-1961 (Studia Anselmiana 46 ; Rom, 1961 ) , 189-236.

346

B. STOLL

tische Gesichtspunkte geprägt. Die unterschiedlichen Darstellungsarten lassen jedenfalls das Dilemma, vor dem die Autoren standen, deutlich werden. Es ist das Dilemma von biografischen Fakten und idealtypischer Darstellung, die die Grundlagen zur imitatio des Heiligen legen soll . Imitatio aber ist an die gottgefällige und vorbildhafte Lebensführung des Nachzuahmenden gebunden. Im Falle Augustins waren eine erfolgreiche Karriere als Rhetor und vor allem die verschiedenen Stadien seiner Beschäftigung mit häretischen Philosophien und Glaubenslehren darzustellen. Possidius fasst sich seiner Absichtserklärung in der Praefatio entsprechend kurz. Dem Abschnitt vor der Taufe, mithin mehr als dreissig Lebensjahren Augustins , ist gerade ein Kapitel der Vita gewidmet. Zielstrebig steuert Possidius auf die Taufe zu . Bis in die Sprache zeigt sich der vorwärtsdrängende Charakter der Erzählung : „ Et provenit Dei liberatoris clementia ... protinusque in fide catholica confirmatus, proficiendi in religione... propinquantibus diebus sanctis paschae salutis aquam perciperet" 12. Die Szene ist zum Modell der nachfolgenden Häretikerdisputationen stilisiert. Im Zentrum steht die Konfrontation von doctrina salutaris und Irrlehre. Der Kreis der handelnden Personen ist auf Augustin und Ambrosius beschränkt. Ambrosius, der Vertreter der vera fides , ist Typus für die spätere antihäretische Wirksamkeit Augustins. Augustin selber nimmt die Rolle ein, die die Vertreter verschiedener von ihm bekämpfter Irrlehren einnehmen werden. Er verkörpert den ,,error Manichaeorum". Das Fazit dieser Begegnung nimmt fast wörtlich das Ergebnis der ersten erfolgreichen Häretikerdisputation vorweg: 99... paulatim haeresis illa miseratione divina eius ex animo pulsa est... in fide catholica confirmatus" (c. 1,5) . Der Entlarvung des Manichäismus als error und haeresis entspricht die Bestätigung der catholica fides . Der in den Confessiones als komplexer Prozess beschriebene Vorgang der Bekehrung wird reduziert auf eine dramatische Episode mit zwei Handlungsträgern . Sie bildet den Hintergrund, vor dem sich nach der Darstellung der Kapitel sechs bis achtzehn Augustins siegreicher Kampf gegen die unterschiedlichen Häresien wirkungsvoll abhebt. Der erste Häretiker, den Augustin nach der Darstellung des Possidius zum christlichen Glauben bekehren kann, ist wohl kaum zufällig ein Manichäer, Fortunatus. Possidius vermerkt ausdrücklich, die beiden Gegner hätten sich bereits während Augustins manichäischer Phase in Karthago gekannt (c. 6,4) . Hier wie anlässlich der Taufe Augustins entsprechen sich Niederlage der Irrlehre, beziehungsweise ihres Vertreters und der Sieg der catholica religio¹³ . Der

12 c. 1,5 Zur Vorliebe des Possidius für das Stilmittel der Paronomasie vgl. Berschin, a.a.O. , 233. 13 99... error ille ablatus, catholica est intimata ac retenta sincera religio“ (c. 6,8 , vgl. auch - Zusätzlich zu den beiden Disputanten erwähnt Possidius an dieser Stelle Zeugen des c. 16,4). — Sieges, die ins Geschehen nicht aktiv eingreifen, sondern es gleichsam aus den Kulissen heraus stumm verfolgen. Solche Zeugen treten auch anlässlich weiterer Disputationen auf (z.B. c. 14,4; 16,4). Mindestens teilweise scheint dabei Stilisierung vorzuliegen . Vgl. A. Bastiaensen,,,The Inaccuracies...", 481f.

Beobachtungen zur Vita Augustini

347

Entschluss Augustins, seine weltliche Karriere zugunsten des asketischmonastischen Deo servire 14 einzutauschen, schliesst sich der Taufe durch Ambrosius an. Die Umkehrung der in den Confessiones festgehaltenen Reihenfolge ist Possidius immer wieder zum Vorwurf gemacht worden¹5 . Es ist aber weder Willkür noch Missgeschick , was ihn zur Abweichung von seiner Quelle veranlasste, sondern bewusste Gestaltung. Augustin ist im Rahmen der Vita nicht ein psychologisch zu durchleuchtendes Individuum, sondern Typus des homo Dei . Die einzelnen Stufen seines Weges sind vorgegeben und ihre Reihenfolge steht fest 16 : Askese ist erst dem fortgeschrittenen Christen, nicht dem Anfänger zuzumuten . In der Cypriansvita hält Pontius fest, Cyprian habe gleichsam gegen die Gesetze der Natur bereits vor seiner Taufe als Asket gelebt : ,,In illo omnia incredibiliter cucurrerunt ; ... res enim fidem non capit... praevenit ... tritura sementem, vindemia palmitem, poma radicem" (c. 2,10). Umgekehrt schildert der entsprechende Abschnitt der Martinsvita, Martin habe sich mit zehn Jahren gegen den Willen seiner Eltern zum Katechumenat entschlossen, als Zwölfjähriger ,,totus in Dei opere conversus" habe ihn nur sein jugendliches Alter vom Vorsatz abgehalten , in die Wüste zu gehen. Taufe und Bekehrung Augustins markieren den zentralen Einschnitt innerhalb seiner Biografie . In der Praefatio hatte Possidius die Zeit ,,ante perceptam gratiam“ von jener ,,iam sumpta gratia“ unterschieden (Praef. 5) . Zu Beginn von Kapitel drei nimmt er den Ausdruck ,, iam percepta gratia" wieder auf und leitet zur eigentlich christlichen Biografie über. Die vier nächsten Kapitel (c. 3-6) beschreiben die Anfänge der kirchlichen Tätigkeit Augustins . Presbyterweihe (c . 4) und Predigterlaubnis (c. 5) legitimieren ihn als Vertreter jener vera fides , zu der ihn Ambrosius bekehrt hatte.

14 Zur Bedeutung von ,,Deo servire" und verwandten Begriffen vgl. L.Th.A. Lorié, Spiritual terminology in the latin translations of the Vita Antonii (LCP 11 ; 1955) und Grégoire,,,Riflessioni...", 25f. 15 Vgl. dazu Bastiaensen,,,The inaccuracies...“, 481ff. mit den nötigen Angaben zu Courcelle und Diesner. 16 Ich halte es für falsch, die genannte Stufung abzumildern, indem der Satz ,,proficiendi in religione eidem amoris ardor innatus est“ (c. 1,5) auf die asketische conversio statt auf die Taufe bezogen wird (vgl . Ch . Mohrmann, Introduzione... Bd . 3,XLIX) . „,Religio“ steht an dieser Stelle ebenso wie in c. 6,8 ; 13,2 parallel zu doctrina (c. 11,5) und fides (c. 17,1 ; 18,5 ; 21,1 ) . Da sich Possidius an den genannten Stellen vorwiegend an Schriften Augustins hält, wird auch der Ausdruck ,,religio" im Sinne Augustins zu verstehen sein, mithin gerade nicht als asketischer terminus technicus. Vgl . dazu E. Feil, Religio. Die Geschichte eines neuzeitlichen Grundbegriffs vom Frühchristentum bis zur Reformation (FKDG 36; Göttingen, 1986), 68ff. und L.Th.A. Lorié, Spiritual terminology….. (vgl. Anm. 14) . In späteren Vitensammlungen wie etwa der Legenda aurea (Die Legenda aurea des Jacobus de Voragine. Aus dem Lateinischen übersetzt von R. Benz (Heidelberg 9. Aufl. , 1979) , 636f. entsprechen Bekehrung und Taufe Augustins im übrigen wieder der Reihenfolge der Confessiones; ein Grund mehr, im Falle der Vita Augustini des Possidius bewusste literarische Gestaltung anzunehmen.

348

B. STOLL

Gerahmt werden die beiden ,,Karrierestufen" durch zwei Begegnungen Augustins. Kapitel drei behandelt den erfolglosen Versuch, einen nicht näher genannten agens in rebus zur asketischen Lebensweise zu überzeugen . Der scheinbare Misserfolg ist indes nur retardierendes Moment. Die göttliche providentia hat Augustin als ,,reines Gefäss" ( Röm . 9,21 ) zum Dienst ausersehen (c. 3,5) . Presbyterweihe und Predigterlaubnis wirken wie eine Bestätigung darauf. Vollends bestätigt es die bereits erwähnte, in Kapitel sechs beschriebene Disputation mit Fortunatus. Damit können erste Ergebnisse formuliert werden : 1. Die beiden ersten Kapitel der Vita Augustini stellen die Periode ,,ante perceptam gratiam" als eine Art Vorgeschichte zur christlichen Biografie Augustins dar 17. 2. Die Bekehrung Augustins wird aufgespalten in die Taufe durch Ambrosius, stilisiert als Bekehrung eines Manichäers zur vera fides , und den Entschluss des getauften Christen, sein Weltleben mit dem Dienst an Gott zu vertauschen. Die beiden Schritte sind in dieser Reihenfolge Stationen des Weges, den Augustin als Typus des homo Dei zu gehen hat . 3. Possidius gliedert seine Darstellung in kurze, dramatische Einzelepisoden mit einer beschränkten Anzahl von Handlungsträgern 18. Die einzelnen Episoden sind durch gleiche oder ähnliche Zitatkombinationen untereinander verbunden. Die Funktion solcher Bemerkungen besteht darin, das konkret und anschaulich Geschilderte zu typisieren und seine Bedeutung innerhalb der Vita deutlich zu machen. Die Kombination beider stilistischer Elemente, dramatischer Einzelepisoden und summarischer Bemerkungen , ist typisch für den Stil der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte . Dibelius nannte das ,,aus Geschichten Geschichte machen" 19. Genau dasselbe Verfahren hat Possidius auch für den ersten Teil der Augustinvita gewählt . Noch deutlicher als die bereits erwähnten Kapitel eins bis sechs machen dies die im folgenden zu besprechenden Kapitel sieben bis achtzehn .

II. DIE VITA APOSTOLICA Als literariscHER SCHLÜSSEL DES ERSTEN TEILS

Die alte monastische Vorstellung der vita apostolica bildet gleichsam den Rahmen, in den hinein Possidius das Leben Augustins stellt. Als homo Dei ist Augustin Asket und monastisches Vorbild mit grosser Ausstrahlung. Was er zuerst allein vorlebt - etwa die Besitzlosigkeit - wird unverzüglich von

17 Damit scheint sich Pellegrinos Feststellung zu bestätigen, wonach höchstens die Kap. 1-2 als Vorgeschichte zu bezeichnen seien, keinesfalls aber die Kapitel 1-6. Vgl. Pellegrino, Introduzione... 22, Anm. 4. 18 Zu entsprechenden Beobachtungen Berschins in der Vita Ambrosii, vgl . W. Berschin, Biographie..., 222f. 19 M. Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte, ed . H. Greeven , Göttingen 2. Aufl . 1953, 113 .

Beobachtungen zur Vita Augustini

349

vielen nachgeahmt (c. 5,1 ) . Die monastisch- asketische Seite von Augustins Wirksamkeit ist Possidius offensichtlich sehr wichtig. Er verbindet wichtige ,, Karrierestufen " Augustins mit entsprechenden asketischen Schritten : Taufe und Rückzug aus der Welt sind wie Presbyterweihe und Klostergründung in Hippo eng aufeinander bezogen 20 ; der Aufstieg über die Stufen der kirchlichen Hierarchie läuft parallel zum Stufenweg des Asketen . Die aus dem monasterium in Hippo hervorgegangenen Kleriker und die von Augustin gegründeten Frauen- und Männerklöster gelten ,,una cum bibliothecis libros et tractatus" als Vermächtnis des Heiligen an die Kirche (c. 31,8). Als Asket und als Vertreter der kirchlichen Hierarchie ist Augustin Initiator eines Prozesses , den er zusammen mit seinen Nachfolgern und Schülern realisiert. Das Programm dieses Prozesses ist die vita apostolica, sein Ziel lautet Friede und Einheit. Einen erfolgreichen Abschluss findet er mit der offiziellen Verdammung des Pelagianismus durch Zosimus und Honorius 418 (c. 18 ) . Die Kapitel sieben bis achtzehn führen aus, wie das Idealbild der vita apostolica in der Kirche Nordafrikas realisiert wird. Kapitel 7 deutet programmatisch die Richtung an ; Augustin predigt und lehrt einer erstarkenden und ständig wachsenden Kirche . Die hier erstmals verwendete Zitatekombination aus Apg. 4,29f.; 5,42 steht in unterschiedlicher Zusammensetzung bis Kapitel achtzehn häufiger 20. Stichworte sind etwa ,,verbum salutis praedicare “, „,pax et unitas" ,,,pullulans et crescens ecclesia ",,,augmentum ecclesiae",,,crescit bzw. crevit ecclesia“ . Kapitel 7,1 stellt der ersten Teil eines Rahmens dar, der die Kapitel sieben bis achtzehn zusammenhält. Der zweite Teil folgt in Kapitel 18,7 . Augustins Verkündigung richtet sich gegen die afrikanischen Häretiker. Der erste Teil des Rahmens nennt Donatisten, Manichäer und Heiden, der zweite Teil ergänzt die Reihe durch die Pelagianer. Wie im Rahmenteil angekündigt , folgen nacheinander einzelne Begegnungen mit Vertretern der Donatisten (c. 9-14) , Manichäer (c. 15-16) , Arianer (c. 17) und der nova haeresis der Pelagianer (c . 18) 21 . Die als Irrtum entlarvten Häresien bilden den dunklen Hintergrund für das durch die summarischen Bemerkungen stark akzentuierte Wachstum der Kirche und die Stärkung der reinen Lehre . Bereits zu Lebzeiten Augustins entspricht die nordafrikanische Kirche nach der Darstellung des Possidius dem Idealbild der Urkirche : Frieden und Einheit herrschen, die Häretiker sind offiziell verurteilt und der ecclesia Dei eingegliedert . Die in Kapitel acht dargestellte Wahl Augustins zum Bischof stellt , obwohl höchste Karrierestufe, qualitativ keinen besonderen Einschnitt dar ; einzig

20 Gemeint sind vor allem die folgenden Stellen : c . 6,3 ; 7,1.2 ; 9,1.3 ; 10,3/5 ; 11,2 ; 12,4/9; 13,1 ; 18,7 . Es handelt sich dabei um Zitate und Anspielungen aus Apg. 2,47 ; 4,29.31 ; 6,1.7 ; 12,24 ; 13,26 etc. 21 Possidius mischt in seiner Beschreibung der Häretikerkämpfe Elemente der chronologischen mit solchen der rubrizierenden Darstellung. Vgl . dazu Pellegrino, Possidius ... 22ff.

350

B. STOLL

sein Wirkungsradius und seine Autorität vergrössern sich. Durch die Kombination der Karrierestufen im hierarchischen Schema der Kirche mit den Stufen der asketischen Entwicklung 22 und der fortschreitenden Realisierung des Programmes der vita apostolica in der Kirche Nordafrikas entsteht der Eindruck einer fortlaufenden Entwicklung : Augustins ,,persönliche" Biografie und die Geschichte der nordafrikanischen Kirche lassen sich dabei kaum trennen .

So lässt sich über das oben Gesagte hinaus zusammenfassend folgendes feststellen : 1. Der erste Teil der Vita Augustini ist formal und inhaltlich wesentlich durch das Thema der vita apostolica geprägt . Augustin formt die nordafrikanische Kirche nach dem Ideal der Urkirche zu pax et unitas, besiegt die Häresie und verteidigt den wahren Glauben der Kirche. 2. Wichtige Elemente der literarischen Gestaltung sind summarische Bemerkungen, die die einzelnen Episoden gegen vorne und hinten verbinden . Die Quelle dieser Bemerkungen ist in der Mehrzahl der Fälle die Apostelgeschichte. 3. Der Aufbau der Vita ist keineswegs willkürlich und mangelhaft, sondern bis in die Sprache und den Stil bewusst nach dem biblischen Vorbild der Apostelgeschichte geformt.

22 Vgl. oben Anm. 20.

Homo spiritualis in St. Augustine's De Genesi contra Manichaeos

Roland J. TESKE, S.J., Milwaukee

In a recent article, I proposed an hypothesis with regard to what Augustine meant in his earlier writings when he spoke of " spiritual men" and of interpreting Scripture " spiritually" . I claimed that a spiritual man, as opposed to carnal or animal man , was one who was able to come to an intellectual grasp of incorporeal realities and that to interpret a passage of Scripture spiritually meant to understand terms signifying corporeal realities with reference to incorporeal or spiritual realities. In a paper for the Toronto Augustine Conference last May I added further evidence and maintained that there were two necessary conditions for one's being a spiritual in Augustine's sense. First, one has to be within the Church, and second one must have what was for Augustine the central insight of Neoplatonism, namely, an intellectual grasp of incorporeal or spiritual realities. I concluded that for Augustine it was men such as Ambrose, Simplicianus, Theodorus and Victorinus who exemplified "the man of good intellect and, as Scripture says, the spiritual man"2. Aside from the texts from Augustine there are two factors that support my hypothesis. First, as is commonly recognized , it was Augustine's inability to conceive a spiritual substance that kept him away from the Catholica for over a dozen years³ . Second, as is much less commonly recognized, prior to Augustine there was in the whole Western Church no concept of a spiritual reality in the technical sense save in that Neoplatonic circle in the Church of Milan where Augustine heard the sermons of Ambrose, conversed with Theodorus and Simplicianus, and read the libri Platonicorum . There were, of course, the terms "spirit" and "spiritual" in the Scriptures and the language of the Church, but it was not until the time of Augustine that there was in the West a concept of a spiritual reality as

1 "Spirituals and Spiritual Interpretation in Saint Augustine", Augustinian Studies 15 ( 1984) 65-81. 2 De duobus animabus 9. Before completing this paper I was unable to consult Cornelius Mayer's "Augustins Lehre vom ' homo spiritalis"" in Homo Spiritalis : Festgabe für Luc Verheijen OSA zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Würzburg : Augustinus-Verlag, 1987) ; yet his conclusions do not seem incompatible with my hypothesis. 3 Cf. Confessiones V, 10,19-20 and 14,25 ; cf. also De utilitate credendi 18,36. 4 On this point, cf. Gerard Verbeke, L'évolution de la doctrine du pneuma du stoicisme à saint Augustin (Paris and Louvain, 1945) and François Masai, "Les conversions de Saint Augustin et les débuts du spiritualisme en Occident" , Moyen Age 67 (1961 ), 1-40.

352

R.J. TESKE

something incorporeal that is whole wherever it is, not having a larger part in a larger place and a smaller part in a smaller places . In the rest of this paper I will examine this hypothesis by focusing upon a single work, De Genesi contra Manichaeos. I will examine the identity of the " spirituals" along with their opposites, the little ones (parvuli) or the animal or carnal men (animales or carnales, St. Paul's psychikoi or sarkikoi)". In the opening lines Augustine expresses his satisfaction with the admonition he received from "certain truly Christian men" who warned him not to abandon the common manner of speaking if he intended to uproot the Manichean error from the minds of the unlearned . These men were themselves educated in the liberal arts but realized that the unlearned either failed completely, or managed only with difficulty, to understand Augustine's other books against the Manichees who, by their attacks on the Old Testament, were leading astray many of "our weak and little ones" . Hence, Augustine proposes to write so that the unlearned , the little ones, can understand . Who then are these little ones for whose sake Augustine is going to write in the "familiar and simple language" that all understand ? Augustine tells us that Genesis 1 : 1 calls the whole of creation by the names of visible things, "on account of the little ones who are less suited for grasping invisible things" (I, 5, 9) . So , too , he tells us that Scripture used many names for unformed matter to convey something unknown to the unlearned (I , 7, 12) . For, if only one name were used , they might think that Scripture intended the usual meaning of that term . Here the invisible reality signified is unformed matter, but Augustine later argues that "the green of the field" signifies “an invisible creature, such as the soul", that is, " a spiritual and invisible creature" (II , 3, 4) . Hence , there are two sorts of invisible creatures : matter which is invisible because of a lack of form and soul which is invisible because it is incorporeal . Augustine came to know each of these as a result of his contact with the Neoplatonists of Milan, but the little ones are such precisely because they lack or are incapable of this knowledge " . Augustine later says that, in presenting God to the little ones, Scripture speaks of God's members, that is, his eyes, ears, hands and feet (I , 17, 27) . Thus the Son is said to be seated at the right hand of the Father, and Jesus called heaven God's throne and the earth his footstool (Mt 5 : 34-35) and cast out demons by the finger of God (Lk 11 : 2) . Augustine points out, 5 For Augustine's use of the Pauline vocabulary, cf. T. Van Bavel's, " L'humanité du Christ comme lac parvulorum et comme via dans la spiritualité de saint Augustin", Augustiniana 7 (1957), 245-281. It is tempting to think that, as a result of this admonition, Augustine temporarily stopped work on the highly philosophical De libero arbitrio he began in 388, but finished perhaps as late as 395. 7 His claim that the Church taught him that God is incorporeal (De util. cred. 18,36) does not contradict this, since he learned it from Ambrose and the other Neoplatonists in the Church of Milan (cf. De beata vita I , 4) . For his conception of matter, cf. A. Solignac's " note complémentaire" in the BA edition of the Confessions (Paris, 1962) , vol. 14, pp. 599-603.

Homo spiritualis in De Gen. C. Man.

353

All who understand the Scripture spiritually have learned to understand by these terms not bodily members, but spiritual powers. So too man's power over the animals shows that he was " made to the image of God, not on account of his body, but on account of that power by which he surpasses the animals", that is, on account of his intellect. Augustine later points out that "spirit" is the scriptural term for this “ rational part of man's soul" (II , 8 , 11 ) . Against the Manichees he insists, that the spiritual believers in the Catholic discipline do not believe that God is limited by a corporeal form and that man is said to have been made in the image of God according to the interior man, where reason and intellect reside (I , 17 , 28) º . Even the erect human body signifies that our mind ought to be stretched up to the things above, to eternal and spiritual things. In the final chapters of Book One Augustine draws an elaborate parallel between the six days of creation followed by God's rest and the six ages of the human race followed by man's rest in God . The sixth age begins with the preaching of Jesus Christ and is marked by the old age of the old man and the birth of the new man who now lives spiritually . For on the sixth day the earth brings forth the living soul . The reptiles of living souls from the fifth day are bodies , for the people of Israel was still serving the Law with bodily circumcision and sacrifices, that is, carnally. But this life is called a living soul because it begins to desire eternal things. As on the sixth day man was made to the image and likeness of God , so in the sixth age our Lord is born in the flesh. As on the sixth day man was made male and female, so in this age there is Christ and the Church . As on that day man was set over the animals , so in this age Christ rules souls obedient to him who have come to his Church . As on that day man and the animals fed on the grasses and fruit, so in this age the spiritual and the carnal man have the same food the Scriptures and the divine Law. The spiritual man is " whoever is a good minister of Christ (Rm 15:16) and imitates him as much as he can" . The carnal man, on the other hand, is " the little one in Christ, like God's cattle (pecus Dei)”. Augustine is clear that the spiritual and the carnal man in the Church are prefigured by man and the animals in the Genesis account . Though the spiritual man is the minister and imitator of Christ, both the spiritual man and the carnal man have the same food , the Scripture and the Law. However, the spiritual man is fed " so that he understands many things", whereas the little one in Christ is fed " so that he believes many things that he cannot yet understand". There are not two doctrines : one for the spirituals and another for the carnals . The difference is not in the food, but in the intellectual capacity of those who feed upon it 10. 8 Cf. also Contra epistolam fundamenti 23, 25. 9 Cf. De vera religione 26, 49 and 28, 51 . 10 Cf. In Joannis evangelium, tyr. 98,6.

354

R.J. TESKE

In the beginning of Book II Augustine warns that the whole narrative is figurative and meant to exercise the minds of those who seek the truth and to call them from carnal negotia to spiritual negotium ( II , 1 , 1 ) . Thus we find that before "the green of the field ", that is, the soul, was on earth, that is, before the soul sinned and had to toil upon the earth , there was no rain, because God watered the soul by the interior spring of Truth, that is, he spoke to its intellect (II , 4, 5) . The soul had no need of the rain from the clouds of human words, as it now needs the rain of such words to receive the water of Truth. Our Lord has donned the cloud of our flesh and pours out the rain of the Gospel to help us back to the interior " spring of water springing up unto eternal life " (Jn 4:14) , with which paradise had been watered (II, 5, 6). Augustine says that man, who was made into a living soul, was not yet spiritual, but was still animal (II , 8 , 10) . Man was made spiritual when he was set in paradise, that is, in the happy life, and was made perfect by receiving the command of God¹¹ . Paradise is perhaps not a bodily place where Adam and Eve dwelled corporeally, but even if it was, the serpent made his approach not corporeally, but spiritually (II , 14, 20) . Man sinned by withdrawing from God's command and was dismissed from paradise in the state of being animal . And we born after him bear the animal man until we attain Christ, the spiritual Adam . Recreated and revived by him, we will be restored to paradise. The happy life in paradise contains spiritual delights and joys. The trees beautiful for the gaze of the intelligence and good for the food that does not corrupt signify the divine ideas, upon which the soul feeds 12. The wisdom set in Eden, that is, in immortal and intelligible delights, is signified by the trees that rise above the earth . The tree of life signifies the soul's wisdom by which it understands its order in the mid-rank of reality with all corporeal things below and subject to itself and with God alone above it (9,12) ¹³ . Here the contrast between the animal and the spiritual man is cast in terms of our bearing the Old or the New Adam, but one does not become a spiritual simply by being a new man 14. One becomes spiritual when he is restored to paradise and feeds on the divine ideas and is watered by the spring of Truth welling up within and without the rain of human words. It might sound as though a person could become spiritual only after this life. However, Augustine clearly thought of the spirituals as being such in this life.

11 Cf. 1 Co 15 : 44-46, as well as Retractationes I, 10, 3. 12 Cf. De diversis quaestionibus 83, qu. 46. 13 Cf. "La situation médiane de l'âme" , pp. 476-478, in Olivier Du Roi, L'intelligence de lafoi en la trinité selon saint Augustin : Genèse de sa théologie trinitaire jusqu'en 391 (Paris, 1966), as well as Robert O'Connell, St. Augustine's Early Theory of Man. A.D. 386-391 (Cambridge, Ma., 1968), 155-166 and 193-196. 14 Cf. De vera religione 26, 49.

Homo spiritualis in De Gen. C. Man.

355

It was, we must bear in mind, just two years before that he spoke of " that knowledge to which few can come in this life, but beyond which no one can go even after this life" 15. Those few are opposed to the many "content with authority alone" who, despite their good life, "place slight value on or are incapable of being trained in liberal and excellent disciplines ". They cannot, as far as Augustine can see, be called happy now, though presumably the few who have attained this knowledge enjoy even now the happy life of paradise.

15 De ordine II, 9, 26.

The Commune/Proprium Distinction in St. Augustine's Early Moral Theology

N. Joseph TORCHIA, Emmitsburg, Maryland

The distinction between the commune and the proprium provides the basis of a key motif in St. Augustine's early moral deliberations . As employed in those writings composed before 400 A.D. , the distinction serves as a means of delineating the causes of iniquity or primal evil and the dynamics of the soul's estrangement from God. At the outset, a few remarks must be made concerning Augustine's metaphysical outlook , since the commune/proprium distinction presupposes a specific vision of reality. This vision proceeds from an adaptation of the Neoplatonic notion of an ontological continuum, moving from " highest" to "lowest" in being and goodness. In this scheme, God occupies the highest position infinite, immutable, and supremely perfect. Human souls assume a mid-rank that requires their submission to God, who is above them , and their governance of corporeal realities, which are below them in the hierarchy of creation¹ . While creation as a whole is fundammentally good , creatures are finite, contingent, and subject to change . The disparity between the goodness of the Omnia and the deficiency of its parts opens the possibility of evil in an ordered universe. As Augustine asserts, " every part that is not in harmony with its whole is a deformed thing"2 . Evil is equated with that which is not, a privation or lack of stable, enduring being. Any movement from God is a defective movement toward inferior reality or non-being. In moral terms, evil is rooted in the will's aversion or turning away from an immutable Good common to all and its corresponding gravitation toward temporal , mutable goods proper to oneself alone³.

All references to the Latin text of St. Augustine's works are based upon the Patrologiae Cursus Completus (Augustini Opera), edited by J.P. Migne (Paris, 1841 , ff.) and Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Vols. XXVII , XXIX (Turnholti, 1970 , 1981 ) . 1 Augustine's Ordo image dictates that the " lower" be subject to that which is "higher” in reality, truth, and goodness. Cf. De libero arbitrio I, 8 ( 18) : “Non enim ordo rectus aut ordo appellandus omnino est, ubi deterioribus meliora subiciuntur". De Civitate Dei XIX, 13 : “Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sua cuique loca tribuens dispositio”. 2 Confessiones III , 8( 15) : “Turpis enim omnis pars universo suo non congruens". 3 De libero arbitrio II , 19,53 : “... malum sit aversio eius ab incommutabili bono et conversio ad mutabilia bona...".

The Commune/ Proprium Distinction

357

The tension between a communal participation in an all-embracing Good and a personal appropriation of limited goods assumes a special prominence in the second book of the De libero arbitrio, where Augustine undertakes his most thoroughgoing discussion of iniquity prior to the Confessiones * . This paper will concern itself chiefly with that discussion, which serves as the touchstone for my analysis of the common/proper, whole/part polarities in Augustine's moral theory. The problem under scrutiny emerges against the background of Augustine's eudaemonism. From that standpoint, happiness, the good life, is the ultimate object of human striving. While individuals differ as to what constitutes happiness, they can at least agree as to the commonality of their ends . The crucial factor, however, in its possession lies in what Augustine terms the "steadfast will", that use of the will which directs the agent toward God, the changeless Good " . Therein lies the soul's true freedom, since it is only by loving God that one is liberated from an interminable striving after goods that can be lost involuntarily . Because this supreme Good has no defect of any kind, and lacks nothing, it is available to all . It is not the exclusive possession of any single individual, but possesses a fullness that can be universally shared . This feature of the Summum Bonum is highlighted in the context of a discussion concerning different types of sense experience . Some senses, such as taste and smell, involve the possession of sense objects by the perceiver . Our sensations are private ones, experienced by us on an individual basis . Although we both inhale the same air or taste the same food, I experience one part, and you , another . Augustine applies a similar analysis to the sense of touch : both of us can touch something at the same time, but "only in different parts and only the same part at different times " . In contrast , the colors that we see and the sounds that we hear are shared in common as public objects of perception. While we possess our own individual senses of sight and hearing, it is possible for us to see or to hear

* De libero arbitrio II , 7-19. Throughout this paper, I rely upon the Rev. Robert P. Russell's translation of the De libero arbitrio (Fathers of the Church, Washington, D.C. , 1968). 5 De libero arbitrio II, 9,26. 6 • De libero arbitrio II, 14,38 : "At illa veritatis et sapientiae pulchritudo, tantum adsit perseverans voluntas fruendi... ”. ↑ De libero arbitrio II , 13,37 : “Haec est libertas nostra, cum subdimur veritati... Nulla enim re fruitur anima cum libertate nisi qua fruitur cum securitate". Cf. De libero arbitrio II , 14,37 : "Nemo autem securus est in his bonis quae potest invitus amittere. Veritatem autem atque sapientiam nemo amittit invitus ". De libero arbitrio II , 20,54 : “Quid ergo securius quam esse in ea vita ubi non possit tibi evenire quod nan vis?". 8 De libero arbitrio II , 7,17 : “….. etsi unum aerem naribus ambo trahimus aut unum cibum gustando capimus, non tamen eam partem aeris duco quam tu nec eandem partem cibi sumo quam tu, sed aliam ego aliam tu” . • De libero arbitrio II, 7,18 : " ... tangere autem possumus quidem totum aliquid ambo uno tempore, sed partibus singulis, eandem autem partem non nisi temporibus singulis ; nam nulli parti quam tactu capis possum meum tactum admovere nisi tu removeris tuum".

358

N.J. TORCHIA

the same thing simultaneously and completely 10. But Augustine adds another insight : what we perceive individually but not in common somehow becomes a part of us : our appropriation of it involves a corresponding change and transformation of the thing's nature¹¹ . In the case of food and drink, for example, different portions must pass into each of us 12. While we may eat the same food, we cannot each consume it in its entirety, in the way that we mutually hear a whole word or see the same sight 13. In this respect, one's proprium, that is, that which pertains exclusively to oneself, refers to one's property, personal possession, or private interest 14. The commune, that is, the common and public, refers to that which is experienced by all who perceive something, without any deterioration or change in the thing¹5 . The foregoing analysis of sensation reveals an intriguing recasting of Plotinian ideas. In Ennead VI.4, Plotinus used the same images of sight and sound in his treatment of Soul's omnipresence, "indwelling in totality at every point throughout the All" 16. In this context, visual and auditory experience provides the ideal analogue for a relationship in which individuals participate in a unified, undivided whole. In adapting these Plotinian insights , Augustine analogizes the objects of vision and hearing with Truth itself, the proper object of the intellect 17. Because the objects of vision and hearing can be perceived as "wholes", they more closely resemble Truth than the "private" objects of taste or smell 18 .

10 De libero arbitrio II, 7,16 . Cf. De libero arbitrio II, 7( 18) : "... quod simul, id est uno tempore, et videre aliquid unum totum ambo possumus et audire...". 11 De libero arbitrio II, 7,19 : "Sed oportet te etiam illud videre : cum horum omnium quae sentimus alia sint quae ambo alia quae singuli sentiamus, ipsos vero sensus nostros suos quisque singuli sentiamus, ut neque ego sentiam sensum tuum neque tu meum, quid de his rebus quae sentiuntur a nobis per corporis sensus, id est quid de corporalibus rebus non possumus sentire ambo, sed singuli, nisi quod ita fit nostrum ut hoc in now vertere et commutare possimus?" . 12 De libero arbitrio II, 7,17 : "Et cibus quam vis unus et totus ab utroque absumatur, non tamen et a me totus et a te totus absumi potest, quomodo verbum et ego totum audio et tu totum simul et speciem quamlibet quantam ego video tantam et tu simul ; sed cibi vel potionis alia pars in me alia in te transeat necesse est". 13 De libero arbitrio II, 7,18. 14 Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982), pp. 1495-1496. 15 Ibid. , pp . 369-370 . Cf. De libero arbitrio II , 7,19 : "Proprium ergo et quasi privatum intellegendum est quod unus quisque nostrum sibi est et quod in se solus sentit quod ad suam naturam proprie pertinet ; commune autem et quasi publicum, quod ab omnibus sentientibus nulla sui corruptione atque commutatione sentitur” . 16 Plotinus, Ennead VI . 4,22.12, trans . Stephen MacKenna and revised by B.S. Page, 4th edition (New York, 1969 ; London, 1969) . See R.J. O'Connell, S.J. , St. Augustine's Early Theory ofMan, A.D. 386-391 A.D. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968), pp. 52-57, for an examination of the affinities between Plotinus's imagery in the treatises on Omnipresence (Enneads VI, 4-5) and Augustine's applications of the commune/proprium distinction in the De libero arbitrio II. 17 De libero arbitrio II , 14,37 : "Habemus igitur qua fruamur omnes aequaliter atque communiter; nullae sunt angustiae, nullus in ea defectus" . 18 De libero arbitrio II , 14,38 : "Minus ergo ea quae tangimus vel quae gustemus vel quae olfacimus huic sunt veritati similia, sed magis ea quae audimus et cernimus, quia et omne verbum

The Commune/Proprium Distinction

359

Augustine now identifies Truth with the common Good, a Good whose plenitude makes it available to all. It is, in his words, "food never divided into portions", no part of which ever becomes the exclusive possession of any one man or of a few, but is common to all at the same time in its entirety" 19. In effect, Truth belongs to all because it is the personal possession or proprium of no one . This thesis undergirds Augustine's ethics, a moral approach which reflects the same peoccupation with apodictic certitude that one finds in his epistemology. In a manner consistent with the Platonic and Neoplatonic traditions, Augustine upholds the existence of eternal, necessary truths which are the common possession of everyone capable of reasoning 20. Numbers, for example, as well as mathematical laws, can be grasped by the intellect independently of sense experience, because, Augustine explains, “Whenever I go over in my mind the unchanging truth of number... I am far removed from the body" 21. In Augustinian terms , such principles derive their necessity from a higher Truth which embraces all things that are immutably true 22 . The theory of Divine Illumination is operative here : when the mind knows truths with certainty, it touches Truth itself23. But this Illumination extends into the moral sphere as well : just as minds can grasp unalterable numerical laws common to all who reason, they also have access to universal rules of

a quibus auditur totum auditur ab omnibus et simul a singulis totum , et species omnis quae oculis adiacet, quanta videtur ab uno, tanta et ab alio simul" . 19 De libero arbitrio II , 14,37 : "Cibus eius nulla ex parte discerpitur; nihil de ipsa bibis quod ego non possim. Non enim ab eius communione in privatum tuum mutas aliquid , sed quod tu de illa capis et mihi integrum manet. Quod te inspirat non expecto, ut reddatur abs te et sic ego inspirer ex eo ; non enim aliquid eius aliquendo fit cuiusquam unius at quorundam proprium, sed simul omnibus tota est communis". 20 De libero arbitrio II, 12,34 : “Et judicamus haec secundum illas interiores regulas veritatis quas communiter cernimus, de ipsis vero nullo modo quis judicat. Cum enim quis dixerit aeterna temporalibus esse potiora aut septem et tria decem esse, nemo dicit esse debuisse, sed tantum ita esse cognoscens non examinator corrigit, sed tantum laetatur inventor". Cf. De libero arbitrio II , 10,28 : "Hoc ergo verum potest quisque suum proprium dicere, cum incommutabiliter contemplandum adsit omnibus qui hoc contemplari valent?". 21 De libero arbitrio II , 11,30 : “Num cum incommutabilem veritatem numerorum mecum ipse considero et eius quasi cubile ac penetrale vel regionem quandam vel si quod aliud nomen aptum inveniri potest quo nominemus quasi habitaculum quoddam sedemque numerorum, longe removeor a corpore?" . 22 De libero arbitrio II , 12,33 : “Quapropter nullo modo negaveris esse incommutabilem veritatem, haec omnia quae incommutabiliter vero sunt continentem, quam non possis dicere tuam vel meam vel cuiusquam hominis, sed omnibus incommutabilia vera cermentibus tamquam miris modis secretum et publicum lumen praesto esse ac se praebere communiter". 66 23 De libero arbitrio II , 13,36 : “ ….. sic fortes acies mentis et vegeta, cum multa veravera et incommutabilia certa ratione conspexerit, diriget in ipsam veritatem qua cuncta monstrantur, eique inherens tamquam obliviscitur cetera et in illa simul omnibus fruitur. Quidquid enim jocundum est in ceteris veris, ipsa utrique veritate jocundum est” . Cf. De libero arbitrio II, 14,38 : "Ac per hoc eam manifestum est mentibus nostris, quae ab ipsa una fiunt singulae sapientes et non de ipsa, sed per ipsam de ceteris judices, sine dubitatione esse potiorem".

360

N.J. TORCHIA

Wisdom guiding human conduct 24. Augustine, in fact , closely aligns Wisdom and number, since he views all things as rationally ordered according to numerical determinants of unity, form, and beauty 25. For him, it is axiomatic that this ordering Wisdom provides the means to eternal Truth, the soul's highest Good and the foundation of human happiness 26. In this respect, the happy life demands both an intellectual and a moral ascent, whereby the soul detaches itself from a changing world , focuses upon universal norms of rational action, and conforms itself to the virtues, the "beacons” or practical principles governing the good and upright life27 . If the soul's proper order proceeds from turning within, its disorder proceeds from an entanglement in transitory temporal and corporeal images 28. Metaphysically speaking, this outward turning constitutes an aversion ofthe will toward that which is not ; morally, it provides the basis of evil or annihilation for the soul 29. In analyzing the sources of moral error , Augustine tightly coordinates the commune/proprium distinction with a triadic interpretation of iniquity in terms of pride (superbia), curiosity (curiositas), and carnal concupiscence 24 De libero arbitrio II, 10,29 : "Quam ergo verae atque incommutabiles sunt regulae numerorum, quorum rationem atque veritatem incommutabiliter atque communiter omnibus eam cernentibus praesto esse dixisti, tam sunt verae atque incommutabiles regulae sapientiae...". De libero arbitrio II, 16,41 : "Quoquo enim te verteris, vestigiis quibusdam quae operibus suis impressit loquitur tibi et te in exteriora relabentem ipsis exteriorum formis intro revocat...". An in-depth analysis of the relationship between intellectual, physical, and moral illumination in Augustinism is provided by Étienne Gilson in his The Christian Philosophy of St. Augustine (New York, 1960) , pp. 127-132. 25 De libero arbitrio II, 11,31 : “ Sed quia dedit numeros omnibus rebus etiam infimis et in fine rerum locatis et corpora enim omnia, quamavis in rebus extrema sint, habent numeros suos...". 26 De libero arbitrio II , 13,36 : "Immo vero quoniam in veritate cognoscitur et tenetur summum bonum eaque veritas sapientia est, cernamus in ea teneamusque summum bonum eoque perfruamur. Beatus est quippe qui fruitur summo bono". 27 De libero arbitrio II, 10,29 : "Manifestissimum est igitur omnes has quas regulas diximus et lumina virtutum ad sapientiam pertinere, quandoquidem quanto magis quisque ad agendam vitam eis utitur et secundum haec agit vitam, tanto magis vivit facitque sapienter ; omne autem sapienter fit non potest recte dici a sapientia esse separatum". De libero arbitrio II , 19,52 : quod 66 "... sed coaptando animum illis incommutabilibus regulis luminibusque virtutum quae incorruptibiliter vivunt in ipsa veritate sapientiaque communi, quibus et ille coaptavit et fixit animum quem virtutibus praeditum sibi ad imitandum proposuit". 28 De libero arbitrio I , 10,20 : "Quare necesse arbitror esse, ut plus possit mens quam cupiditas, eo ipso quo cupiditati recte justeque dominatur" . De libero arbitrio I, 8,18 : “Ratio ista ergo vel mens vel spiritus cum inrationales animi motus regit, id scilicet dominatur in homine, cui dominatio lege debetur ea, quam aeternam esse comperimus". De libero arbitrio II , 16,41 : “Quid igitur aliud agimus cum studemus esse sapientes, nisi ut quanta possumus alacritate ad id quod mente contingimus totam animam nostram quodam modo colligamus et ponamus ibi atque stabiliter infigamus, ut non jam privato suo gaudeat quod implicavit rebus transeuntibus, sed exuta omnibus temporum et locurum adfectionibus adprehendat id quod unum atque idem semper est? Sicut enim tota vita corporis anima est, sic beata vita animae deus est". 29 De libero arbitrio II, 20,54 : "Motus ergo ille aversionis, quod fatemur esse peccatum quoniam defectivus motus est, omnis autem defectus ex nihilo est...".

The Commune/Proprium Distinction

361

(concupiscentia carnis) . In the De Musica and the De Vera Religione , he explicitly related that moral triad of vices to the "triple lust" of St. John's first epistle (2:15, 16) and its warning against an inordinate love of worldly goods : "... because", quoting John, "all things in the world are lust of the flesh , lust of the eyes, and secular ambition " 30. The De libero arbitrio amplifies this triadic interpretation, giving it a new application in the context of Augustine's volitional theory. Accordingly, sin proceeds from a proud appropriation of goods for oneself, from a curious fascination with external goods, and from an excessive attachment to lower, corporeal goods ³¹ . Pride manifests itself in the will's aversion to a good of its own, "whenever it wants to be its own master" 32. As the source of iniquity, pride constitutes a disordered love of self which inspires a refusal to exist "under God" , that is, as subordinate to God 33. The proud soul desires to exist for and through itself (ad seipsam ; per seipsam) and to imitate Divine power through a "deformed liberty" 34. The De Genesi contra Manichaeos sheds further light upon this particular theme, depicting the proud soul as arrogating to itself that which is not proper to it, mistakenly believing that what belongs to God and to itself are of one nature 35. As Augustine states, properly ordered souls " neither claim that which is not", that is, the non-being of lesser things, "nor condemn that which is", that is, God, the highest reality 36. Pride thus erodes the soul's relationship with both God and creatures . First and foremost, it precipitates an apostasy or "standing apart" from God which pits the soul against Divine authority 37. In the language of the De Musica, pride initiates the soul's " lapse" into " certain actions of its own power" , whereby it preoccupies itself with the commission of private actions, in disobedience to universal law38. Once estranged from God, the proud soul

30 De Musica VI, 14,18 ; De Vera Religione 38,69. 31 De libero arbitrio II, 19,53 : “Voluntas autem aversa ab incommutabili et communi bono et conversa ad proprium bonum aut ad exterius aut ad inferius, peccat. Ad proprium convertitur, cum suae potestatis vult esse, ad exterius, cum aliorum propria vel quaecumque ad se non pertinent cognoscere studet, ad inferius cum voluptatem corporis diligit. Atque ita homo superbus et curiosus et lascivus effectus excipitur ab alia vita, quae in comparatione superioris vitae mors est...". 32 De libero arbitrio II, 19,53. 33 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II , 15,22. 34 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II , 9,12 ; De Musica VI , 13,40 . Confessiones II , 6,14 : "An libuit facere contra legem saltem fallacia, quia potentatu non poteram, ut mancam libertatem captivus imitarer faciendo impune quod non liceret tenebrosa omnipotentiae similitudine?” . 35 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, 26,40 : "... qui sibi arrogantes quod non sunt cito credunt quod summi Dei et animae humanae una eademque .natura sit ...". 36 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, 9,12. 37 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, 5,6 : "Initium enim superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo". Cf. De Musica VI, 16,53 ; Confessiones II, 6,14 : "Perverse te imitantur omnes, qui longe se a te faciunt et extollunt se adversum te". 38 De Musica VI, 16,53 (trans. R.C. Taliaferro, Fathers of the Church, Washington, D.C., 1947).

362

N.J. TORCHIA

becomes its own end, using creatures for the sake of personal gain . In so doing, it fails to recognize itself and other things as components in an ordered whole whose proper end is God. Secular ambition, the yearning for popular acclaim , the desire for vain glory, and the avarice to possess and dominate are outgrowths of a pride which elevates one's own good over that of the totality. Curiosity and carnality, the lusts of "eyes" and " flesh" respectively, also entail an option for the part over the whole . The will driven by curiosity turns to an external good, "when it is eager to know the personal affairs of others or whatever does not concern it" 39. In this formulation, curiosity designates an intellectual cupidity, prompting either an encroachment upon the proprium of others or a preoccupation with matters outside of one's proper range of interest. Elsewhere, Augustine directly related curiosity to scientific endeavors or those activities which attempt to penetrate " nature's secrets", those things "beyond our end ", not out of a sense of the common good, but for the experience of the novel, extraordinary, or even grotesque 40. From a Christian Neoplatonic standpoint, such knowledge, based upon the changing images of reality, is a pretense to a higher knowledge based upon the contemplation of eternal truths . Like curiosity, carnal lust or sensuality (lascivia) restricts the soul to a limited portion of the universal good . But while the " lust of the eyes" motivates one to seek empirical knowledge through the mediation of the bodily senses, the " lust of the flesh" turns one to a lower good, "when it loves the pleasures of the body" 4¹ . Although Augustine frequently discusses carnal lust in a sexual context, it refers to any inordinate desire for the gratification of the sense appetites 42. By treating corporeal goods as ends in themselves, one fails to assign them their proper place and use, falling under the sway of that which one should order and govern43. As interpreted by Augustine, then, moral error is rooted in the will's misuse of created goods . Sin entails a narrowing of one's vision to a circumscribed sphere of private concerns. The will itself is designated as an " intermediate" good, because it can either embrace or defect from the immutable Good common to all44 . Will, however, is an expression of love, an affective movement of one's entire being toward an object of desire. In effect, the objects ofthe soul's love establish the moral framework within which it exists.

39 De libero arbitrio II , 19,53. 40 Confessiones X, 35,55 : " Hinc ad perscrutanda naturae, quae praeter nos est, operta proceditur, quae scire nihil prodest et nihil aliud quam scire homines cupiunt". 41 De libero arbitrio II, 19,53. 42 Confessiones X, 31. 43 De libero arbitrio I , 15,33 ; De Musica VI, 14,46. 44 De libero arbitrio II , 19,52 ; 19,53.

The Commune/Proprium Distinction

363

The evil use of the will coincides with a disordered love which elevates the good of the part over that of the whole in one's esteem . This insight lies at the very core of Augustine's moral outlook , an ethic which presupposes an aesthetic appreciation of cosmic harmony and an innate sense of the good , the true, and the beautiful . For Augustine, the defect of the part in no way diminishes the goodness of the whole . In this regard, even the sinner is part of a universal order, since free will is exercised within a scheme established by a supremely good God 45 . But did Augustine's interpretation of the dynamics of moral error completely serve his purposes as a Christian philosopher? In formulating it, he accepted the metaphysical presupposition that the temporal world is an inferior image of authentic being. Such a dualistic model, which distinguishes between "higher" and " lower" levels of reality (or superior and inferior modes of being) , creates some tensions for a thinker committed to the belief that the universe as a whole is very good . It is interesting to observe that the Johannine text from which Augustine derived that key triad of vices begins with the directive "Love not the world ..." Must, or should, a Christian moral approach proceed from a renunciation of the world and its accompanying goods? In Augustinian terms, the virtuous life necessitates a detachment from the temporal environment. This contemplative bent, coupled with a distrust of sense experience and a devaluation of bodily life, seems inconsistent with the dynamic character of Christianity and its social emphasis. A greater flexibility in Augustine's choice of dialectical instruments might well have resulted in a more optimistic attitude regarding the relationship of the soul to world and body.

45 De Musica Vi, 11,30 ; De Ordine I, 1,2.

Augustine's "Fatherland according to the Flesh"

L.J. VAN DER LOF, Soest

One school of patristic studies ties Augustine firmly to North Africa, regarding it his fatherland . Many French scholars belong to this school . They place great emphasis on Augustine's anti-Roman bias. Elferink cites three prominent French scholars who adhere to this view¹. The first of those is Prosper Alfaric : "Cependant rien ne montre dans ses nombreux écrits qu'il se rattache particulièrement aux vieux Romains . Il ne parlait jamais d'eux qu'avec le plus parfait détachement , et il rappelle avec une complaisance marquée la résistance acharnée que leur ont jadis opposée les Carthaginois et les Numides" 2 . Louis Bertrand expresses himself more strongly. He prefers to connect Augustine's preference for Carthage with the disappointments which he experienced at his first arrival in Rome, the difficulty he had in getting pupils , his sickness, etc.: " Il paraît bien qu'il ne s'y est jamais plu, et jusqu'à la fin de sa vie il lui a gardé rancune de son mauvais accueil. Dans toute la masse de ses écrits il est impossible de découvrir un mot d'éloge pour la beauté de la Ville Eternelle, tandis qu'au contraire à travers ses invectives contre les vices de Carthage on sent percer sa complaisance secrète pour la Rome africaine. La vieille rivalité entre les deux villes n'était pas éteinte après tant de siècles . Au fond Augustin en bon Carthaginois et parce qu'il était Carthaginois — il n'aimait pas Rome" ³ . In a similar vein Gaston Boissier says of the Romans " Ce sont les petits-fils des vaincus qui ont le parole" . Finally the English scholar Ernest Barker, follows the same line : "St Augustine was thus an ' African ' ; and he shows in The City of God some traces of the nationalism which, in Africa as well as elsewhere, but perhaps more than elsewhere, emerged from the decline and fall of Rome... and when he speaks, in The City of God, of the Punic Wars, he betrays a sympathy with the victa causa of Carthage" . All these works cited by Elferink date from the first half of the twentieth century. Their trend is continued in the second half of the century in the

1 ¹ L.J. Elferink, Het Oordeel van den Kerkvader Augustinus over de Romeinsche Oudheid. Bijdragen tot een commentaar op de eerste vijfboeken van " De Civitate Dei " (Pretoria, 1942), p . 92. 2 P. Alfaric, L'Évolution intellectuelle de St. Augustin I (Paris, 1918) , p. 6. 3 L. Bertrand, Saint Augustin (Paris, 1913), p. 174. 4 G. Boissier, La fin du paganisme (Paris, 1903* ), II , p. 315 . " E. Barker in John Healey's translation of the City of God (London , 1931 ) , p. vi .

Augustine's Fatherland

365

works of a number of North African authors . Lamirande has devoted an article to this phenomenon . M. Gaid, for example, says about the Roman- Berber civilisation romanised Berbers : "Ceux-ci, par leur naissance, leur savoir ou donnèrent des hommes illustres à l'empire romain et au christianisme. reur Septime Sévère, Saint Augustin, Saint Donat étaient d'origine

and the leur foi L'empeberbère.

Ils demeurèrent berbères malgré leurs hautes fonctions et leurs croyances , comme le peuple le demeurera en dépit des invasions et des civilisations qui se sont superposées ; et qui fait dire à Salluste : le berbère assimile toutes les civilisations et n'est assimilé par aucune " . M. Kaddache regards Augustine as a Berber and " insiste sur le fait que l'Afrique, avec tout ce que cela représente comme attaches matérielles, affectives et spirituelles, qu'il lui doit, son tempérament chaud et impulsifs . K. Belkhodja sees Augustine as being of African stock, a Berber ; Augustine, a contemporary of the decline and fall of the Empire, was the last to give lustre to African Roman culture as well as to the great Latin culture in the West . A. Benachenhou praises Augustine as "a Christian Berber of great erudition " 10 and M. Gaid sees him as the " son of Romanised Berbers" 11. These and other authors , such as R. Pottier in Saint Augustin le Berbère (Paris, 1945) , show how Augustine is regarded as an African. Africa, it is consciously or unconsciously assumed , is his fatherland . This is understandable, for Augustine was a North African. But Northern Africa is not his fatherland. That is seeing him too much in twentieth-century terms. Van Oort puts the status quaestionis in 1986 as follows : Though nothing is known¹¹ with certainty about any Berber descent, his African origin must be emphasised 12. And what about the Roman element ? "Augustine does not refer to the sack of Rome in De spiritu et littera. How does one explain this curious omission? First, Augustine regarded himself first and foremost as an African. In this regard he was deeply influenced by the Berber background of his upbringing. During this stage of his life at least, Augustine repudiated the Roman Empire as a political ideal" 13. Augustine does speak of the sack of Rome as a tragedy, but, on a deeper level, he sided with those Christian

❝ E. Lamirande, "Nord-Africains en quête de leur passé . Coups d'œil sur la période romaine et chrétienne", Revue de l'Université d'Ottawa 46 ( 1976), pp. 5-23. M. Gaid, Aquellids et Romains en Berbérie (Alger, 1972), pp. 56, 119. 8 M. Kaddache, L'Algérie dans l'Antiquité (Alger, 1972), p. 18sq . 9 K. Belkhodja, Histoire de la Tunisie. L'Antiquité (Tunis, s.d. ) , pp. 308-312. 10 A. Benachenhou , Connaissance du Maghreb. Notion d'ethnographie d'histoire et de sociologie (Alger, 1971 ), pp. 58-60 ; 223. 11 Gaid, p. 15sq . 12 J. van Oort, Jeruzalem en Babylon . Een onderzoek van Augustinus ' De stad van God en de bronnen van zijn leer der twee steden (rijken) ('s Gravenhage, 1986), p . 301 . 13 R. Penascovic, “Two Classical Western Theologians : Augustine and Newman”, Augustinian Studies 13 ( 1982), p. 68.

366

L.J. VAN DER LOF

apologists in Africa who attributed Rome's supremacy to aggressive wars and social injustice 14 . Augustine refers to the fall of Rome in five of his writings : viz. in Sermones 81 and 105 and the Sermo de excidio urbis, all three from the year 410 ; in Sermo 296 of 29th June 411 , and in the first books of De civitate Dei¹5 . In all these instances it is clear that Augustine is averse to any myth concerning Rome, without being prepared to make any concessions. This holds good of Christian as well as pagan inspired myths 16. His ascetic disposition makes these writings ascetic rather than historically specific . Alaric is not mentioned in De excidio, and the barbaric atrocities are hinted at rather than recorded . Some letters of this time show more of Augustine's concern (Ep. 111 ) ¹7 . De civitate dei shows evidence that his African origin is one of the factors which made him speak frequently about Rome in a negative sense. Rome is the terrestrial city which ever proves to him to be essentially Babylon 18. The fall of Rome put an end to the dream of Prudentius that a rejuvenated Rome would continue until the return of Christ. Augustine showed the way out of the problem that political theology then had to solve . He placed the imperium Romanum as a transient civitas terrena over against the true, undying civitas Dei, not identical with any terrestrial state ¹º. One should not be deceived by Augustine's laudatory words about the exempla of Roman civic virtue. Appreciating Regulus and Scipio is simply the stock-in-trade of a rhetor 20. Moreover, as Peter Brown says, "Augustine had become more cautious. In his letters around 410 the need to reassure Roman officials such as Marcellinus had led him to make the facile claim that the existing Christian Empire was the best possible state; for the Christian churches in the Empire were acting as a school of citizenship , as 'holy lecture halls ' ; their teachings of honesty and brotherly love could turn out men as austere and as public-spirited as the ancient Romans, with the benefit of eternal life thrown in . The example of the ancient Romans could never be 'brought up to date' through Christian teaching ; they had been used by God only to encourage the numbers of a ' City of God' established in another world, not to bring about some magical moral renewal of the present Roman Empire" 21. 14 W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1971 ), p. 231 . 15 O. Zwierlein, "Der Fall Roms im Spiegel der Kirchenväter", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 32 ( 1978) , p. 58. 16 Zwierlein, p. 63. 17 H.J. Diesner, "Augustinus und die Barbaren der Völkerwanderung", Revue des études augustiniennes XXIII , 1-2 ( 1977) , p . 84. 18 Van Oort, p. 301 . 19 R. Klein, " Das spätantike Romverständnis vor Augustinus", Bonner Jahrbücher 1985,

p. 142. 20 Elferink , p. 94. 21 P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London, 1975³) , p. 338.

Augustine's Fatherland

367

Thus, when Brown states that Augustine's " patriotism meant loyalty to an absolute, idealized monarch" 22, this is interpreting Augustine in twentiethcentury terms. Rome was not Augustine's fatherland . He was loyal because he bowed before the Christian imperial authority. The emperor Honorius will be presented as a model Christian prince (De civ. Dei V.26) . Picard , in his excellent La Carthage de Saint Augustin , makes the same error, when he says : "La grande habileté de Constantin a été d'offrir une voie moyenne entre l'excessive centralisation de Dioclétien et la rupture de l'unité Mediterranéenne, il a pu ainsi maintenir pour un siècle encore l'Afrique dans le cadre de l'Empire et faire renaître à Carthage au moins un patriotisme romain qui résistera à une longue et dure occupation étrangère" 23 . Augustine was an African . Even his African accent was noticeable in Milan (De ord. II.xvii.45) 24 . In Ep. 17.2 Augustine told a correspondent, sharply, that he should remember how he was “ an African, writing for Africans, both of us living in Africa" . The reminder is equally applicable to Augustine 25 . And in Ep. 138.19 Augustine deals especially with Apuleius “who , as an African, is better known to us Africans ” : qui nobis Afris Afer est notior . Peter Brown describes the atmosphere in Africa very well in connexion with the Donatists : "The basic Donatist idea was of a Chosen People that had preserved its identity without compromise with the ' impure' world ... like Nonconformity in Wales the Donatist Church had won over a provincial society, isolated, self-respecting, suspicious of the outside world , to its form of Christianity" 26. In relation to other parts of the Roman Empire a feeling had undoubtedly arisen of "us, north-Africans". In the Church too - the Donatists confirm this there was this feeling : "we, north-Africans ". However, there was no north-African patriotism then, any more than there is now. Such a patriotism would presuppose an awareness of common descent, traditions and cult. But there is no evidence of any political or military unity of the numerous Moorish and Numidian tribes in the days of Hannibal and Iugurtha , when the Romans conquered Africa. The introduction of Roman cults, which soon came about, did not meet with any opposition, and these cults were at once amalgamated with the local cults 27 . What the native tribes had in common was their mutual disunity and quarrelling. North-African inscriptions show that the native population was just as keen to be taken for Romans, and to change their Punic names for Roman

22 Brown, p. 291. 23 G.C. Picard, La Carthage de saint Augustin (Paris, 1965), p. 58. 24 Me enim ipsum, cui magna necessitas fuit ista perdiscere, adhuc in multis verborum sonis Itali exagitant. The same is valid for the emperor Septimius Severus (Spartianus, Vita Severi 19,9). 25 Brown, p . 134. 26 Brown, p. 219. 27 Elferink, p. 93.

368

L.J. VAN DER LOF

names, as the Egyptians in Alexandria were to pass for Greeks. Papyri show that they had fine-sounding Greek names 28. Augustine and his concubine called their son Adeodatus, "given by God". This is the Latin form of the Punic Iatanbaal ; with its religious associations, it was a popular name among Carthaginian Christians 29. Neither is there any evidence of north-African patriotism in the actions of the princes Gildo and Mascarel , who had no qualms about now marching with their fellow-tribesmen against the Romans, now again marching with the Romans against their fellow- tribesmen 30. In the autumn of 397 Gildo had risen against the Romans, but he was defeated by his brother Mascarel, taken prisoner, and put to death . In 372 Firmus had already risen against the Roman power. It is typical that Gildo did not attempt to accept Donatism as the state religion in his independent realm, in order thereby to marshal the north-African forces. Frend regards it as possible that Gildo may have aimed at this 31 , but Diesner thinks that there was no more than an alliance of convenience, which gave the Donatists and their circumcelliones a certain freedom of action , but did not make them effective partners in Gildo's rising 32. And Tengström points out that Optatus of Thamugadi was the only Donatist bishop who joined Gildo 33 , quoting Augustine's words, quia unus collega vester familiarissimus amicus eius fuit (C. litt. Petoliani II , lxxxiii , 184)34. In short , it concerned groups of soldiers and an incidental Donatist bishop, but not a wholesale religious, cultural , military and political gathering of all north-African forces against Rome. The representatives of the imperial government were able to promote the obedience of the population by playing off the native leaders one against the other 35. The divisions among the people remained conspicuous until the end of the Roman period . During the later part of the Vandal occupation the Moors and Romans of the western part of the Aures including a part of the limes, formed an independent kingdom and fought against nomads from beyond the Hodna as well as mountaineers from the centre of the Aures 36. However, the decisive evidence that Augustine did not regard North Africa

28 Ibid . 29 Brown, p. 63. I. Kajanto , “ Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Rome and Carthage", Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae II , 1 ( 1963), p . 102 and 115. 30 Elferink, p. 93 ; J. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire I (London, 1923), p. 121 . 31 W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1952) , p. 210. 32 H.J. Diesner, “Gildos Herrschaft und die Niederlage bei Theveste (Tebessa)”, Klio, Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte (Berlin, 40, 1962), pp. 178-186. 33 E. Tengström, Donatisten und Katholiken (Göteborg, 1964), pp. 84-90. 34 A.C. de Veer, Traités Anti-Donatistes, Vol. IX (B.A. 31 , Paris, 1968), p. 782 . 35 Picard, p. 139. 36 B.H. Warmington , The North African Provinces from Diocletian to the Vandal Conquest (Cambridge, 1954), p. 26.

Augustine's Fatherland

369

as his fatherland, but considered his native town to be his fatherland , can be found in his own words. He refers to a person from Hippo as a person whose patria is Hippo. Non solum in civitate Romana, sed etiam in patria sua, nec solum in patria sua, sed etiam in domo sua (C. litt. Pet. II , lxxxiii , 184) . That which is here called civitas Romana is referred to in De civitate Dei, XXII. viii . 12, as Hipponiensis colonia. Apuleius has Madaura for his fatherland : honesto patriae suae loco natus (Ep. 138,19) . Augustine's patria is his birth-place Thagaste. It is now called Souk-Ahras, "which is situated in Algeria on the confines of Tunisia. Then it was situated in Numidia on the confines of Africa proconsularis. In Roman times Numidia and the whole of what is now North Africa generally enjoyed a degree of agricultural wealth and prosperity which seems scarcely credible to one who looks upon the relative barrenness of that land to-day" 37 . This town was a municipium, and had self-government under Roman patronage. Here Augustine made friends with many people who remained his friends for life 38. The double setback of a friend's death and his receiving Catholic baptism quite unmanned Augustine . He fled his home-town 39. Et tamen fugi de patria, minus enim eum quaerebant oculi mei ubi videre non solebant, atque a Thagastensi oppido veni Carthaginem (Conf. IV,vii, 12) . Et erat mihi patria supplicium et paterna domus mira infelicitas (Conf. IV, iv ,9) . We note in passing how Augustine here regards Carthage the capital of the region where he lived as non-patria. The produce of Africa's agriculture filled the pockets of the ship- owners, merchants and large landowners, who lived in Carthage. Consequently the economic life in the city was flourishing during the second half of the second and the first half of the third century 40. I suspect that we can sense the strain between Carthage and the hinterland, when Augustine calls Hannibal crudellissimus (De civ. Dei III , 19) and perfidus (III , 20) . De civitate Dei is not the work of a Carthaginian patriot but of a man who lives in the age-old tensions between Carthage and the surrounding country. One senses this tension also in the pun Carthagosartago in Veni Carthaginem , et circumstrepebat me undique sartago flagitiosorum amorum (Conf. III,i, 1 ) . Augustine's father is a citizen of Thagaste : patris, municipis Thagastensis admodum tenuis (Conf. II ,iii , 5) . Romanianus is a compatriot, a fellowtownsman : cum videremur nobis esse posse decem ferme homines in eadem societate essentque inter nos praedivites, Romanianus maxime communiceps

37 J.J. O'Meara, The Young Augustine . The Growth of St. Augustine's Mind up to his Conversion (London-New York-Toronto, 1954), p. 22. 38 A. Sizoo, Augustinus. Leven en werken (Kampen, 1957), p. 39. 39 Brown, p. 64. 40 G. Schöllgen, "Ecclesia sordida? Zur Frage der socialen Schichtung frühchristlicher Gemeinden", Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 12 (Münster i. Westfalen, 1984), p. 98.

370

L.J. VAN DER LOF

noster (Conf. VI , xiv, 24). "My dearest friend and fellow-townsman” (dulcissimus concivis), Augustine writes to a fellow bishop who also came from Thagaste (Ep. 84,1 ) . There is no evidence that, as he followed the Mejerda valley to Carthage, he ever made the detour into the mountains, to visit again his fatherland according to the flesh, Thagaste : simul etiam fruerer carnalis patriae meae tam spiritale felicitate (Ep. 124,1 ) ; neque in hoc inviderunt ecclesiae Thagastensi, quae carnalis patria mea est (Ep. 126,7). It is remarkable that one is generally inclined to regard Augustine as a north-African, and to regard north-Africa as his fatherland . He himself, being a child of his time, lived in a world of much smaller communities . Thagaste was his fatherland, that is to say, his native town. This more limited sense of the notion of patria hangs together with the administration of the Roman Empire. Inscriptions often refer to the territory of a city as a respublica, which, to all intents and purposes, means a "republic". The whole Empire had the structure of a collection, if not a federation, of small republics mutually connected by international legal agreements 41. The African cities continued to be governed in the old Phoenician manner. They chose first magistrates, assisted by a council of leading citizens 42. The Punic cities had an organisation similar to that of the Roman municipia. The popular assembly was in both the source of sovereignty. This assembly met in the open air43 . In the case of a Roman colony there was on the forum a statue of the she-wolf suckling the twins . This statue is placed on a cruciform base, and symbolises the patria Rome. Such statues have been found in Gighti and Mactar 44. We may conclude that Punic cities did not have such statues on their fora. A Punic city was itself a patria. And in the Punic cities one who is a benefactor of his city can earn such titles as "friend of the patria”, “friend of the citizens", "ornament of the patria" 45 . G. Levi Della Vida46 has demonstrated the Punic origin of such titles, which one meets in Lapcis, Sabratha, Mactar, Altava . Both in the colonies and in the municipia the offices were fashioned on the model of the Roman Republic47 .

CONCLUSION

In the ocean of literature on the question of how Augustine's patriotism

41 G.C. Picard, La civilisation, p. 20. 42 Picard, p. 23. 43 Picard, p. 27. 44 Ibid. 45 Picard , p. 32. 46 Picard refers to G. Levi Della Vida, Africa Italiana VI ( 1935) , p . 105, Rendiconti Acc. Lincei, IV ( 1949), p. 405sqq .; H. Reynolds and J.B. Ward Perkins, Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania (Rome-London, 1952), p. 80. 47 Picard, p. 32.

Augustine's Fatherland

371

functioned, there is a striking absence of references to his own utterances, which are quite unmistakable . Thagaste is Augustine's patria . Augustine feels himself to be north-African only because he is a man of Thagaste. And he is also a subject of the Roman Emperor. By Africa it is as well to be clear about this - Augustine usually means the whole of the African territories held by Rome. Occasionally he writes

provincia Africa, in which cases he means the province of Africa procunsularis 48. To Augustine therefore "Africa" is a geographic notion . His sentiments regarding this part of the world we can gather from the following two quotations: sunt enim apud nos, hoc est Africa (Ep. 199,46) . He points to the African origo of Apuleius, as one does in the case of an object of national pride: in utraque autem lingua , id est et Graeca et Latina, Apuleius Afer extitit Platonicus nobilis (De civ. Dei VIII , 12) . In short, Africa is the geographic area of his origin, but not his patria. "Native town" is the best translation of the word patria as used by Augustine . This is also the correct translation of patria, when Tertullian speaks of his Carthage. This is two centuries earlier. Similarly Sulpicius Severus regards the territory of Toulouse as his patria49 .

48 S. Lancel, Augustinus Lexicon (Stuttgart, 1986), col. 164 sq. 49 Ego enim Tolosae positus , tu Treveris constituta et tam longe a patria (Sulpicius Severus, Ep. 3,3).

Le rôle de l'hexaéméron dans l'interprétation augustinienne de la création

Marie-Anne VANNIER, Vouziers

A la différence des auteurs médiévaux , Augustin n'a pas écrit de Somme Théologique, ni de Traité de la création . Au IVe siècle, la pensée théologique était encore en voie d'élaboration et recourait souvent à des genres littéraires déjà codifiés¹ . Augustin a opté pour le modèle de l'hexaéméron : c'est à partir de ses commentaires de Genèse I qu'on peut dégager sa pensée sur la création. Il utilise alors un élément de la tradition mais, loin de s'en faire seulement l'écho , il la constitue, en devient lui-même un chaînon vivant . D'ailleurs, sa réflexion sur la création ne relève pas plus du hasard que d'un quelconque conformisme car, sur le chemin même de la conversion, alors qu'il a abandonné le manichéisme² et commencé à relativiser l'apport néoplatonicien³ , il saisit l'importance de la création . Dans le même temps , peu avant son baptême , il découvre, par l'intermédiaire de la prédication d'Ambroise, le rôle de l'hexaéméron . Son interprétation de la création , dans son contenu, aussi bien que dans sa forme , résulte donc de son expérience personnelle , à tel point qu'on peut parler ici de dialectique entre la vie et la pensée d'Augustin. On comprend dès lors pourquoi, à la différence de Basile par exemple, il ne retient pas principalement l'aspect cosmologique de la création . Il s'attache surtout à mettre en évidence son enjeu existentiel, à montrer, comme il l'a aperçu au cours de l'expérience intérieure de sa conversion³ , que la création est essentiellement «< relation » . C'est ainsi qu'il met en place le schème conversio-creatio-formatio . Sans doute, les commentateurs de la Genèse ontils insisté sur le lien entre création et rédemption, mais dans la phase finale de sa conversion, puis dans la polémique anti-manichéenne , Augustin a vu que l'accomplissement de la création est possible dans notre existence même, ce

¹ L'Apologie, l'Adversus, ... Cf. J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik (München, 1974). 2 La conversion d'Augustin s'est démultipliée en autant de figures que d'expériences, cf. J.M. Le Blond, Les conversions de saint Augustin (Paris, 1950). 3 Les «< Libri Platonicorum » ont joué un grand rôle dans l'itinéraire d'Augustin (Conf. VIIVIII), mais il les a réinterprétés dans une perspective chrétienne. * Certainement pendant le Carême 386, cf. P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de S. Augustin (Paris, 1950), p . 101-102. 5 Cf. F. Letizia, « San Agustin, filósofo de la interioridad » (Revista del Instituto di Filosofia 44; 1983) , p. 61-71 . • Celle-ci fut assez proche dans le temps . Elle date des années 388-389.

Le rôle de l'hexaéméron

373

qui l'a amené à parler de «formatio » et non de rédemption et à placer la conversion comme condition de possibilité de cette réalisation de l'être. Finalement, le principe essentiel de l'interprétation augustienne tient à ce que < «